IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ajfand/340605.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Acceptability of cereal-cricket composite porridge as influenced by socio-economic factors and breast-feeding status of mothers and care-givers in Siaya county, Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Aboge, DO
  • Orinda, MA
  • Konyole, SO

Abstract

The trajectory for widespread integration of edible insects into the human diet is still confronted by low acceptability especially among communities that traditionally or habitually do not consume insects. While the concern today is how best to present edible insects into food matrices that improve their acceptability, this development should be aligned with consumer intrigues into the choices of insectbased foods. This study determined the influence of socio-economic factors (age, education, marital status, occupation, and income levels), and breastfeeding status of mothers and care givers on acceptability of cricket-based porridges. Four composite porridge flours were developed by blending cricket flour with maize, wheat, and soy flour at four different levels. The reference formula (CP) had 0% cricket inclusion and was a composite of maize, wheat, and defatted soy flour in the ratio of 2:1:1 resembling Famila Baby weaning porridge flour, a common infant formula in Kenya. The other treatment flours were formulated by replacing an equivalent amount of soy flour with cricket flour at 25%, 50% and 75% to allow enrichment of Famila formula with cricket flour, and were coded as CPB1, CPB2 and CPB3, respectively. Porridge prepared from the flours were evaluated for acceptability among forty mothers and care-givers selected in Siaya County, Kenya. Non-cricket porridge was the most accepted across the respondents’ socioeconomic dynamics. Acceptability of cricket-based porridges improved with age and level of education but reduced significantly for both married (p<0.000) and unmarried women (p<0.000). Women engaged in formal employment rated cricketbased porridges significantly higher (p<0.003) than other occupations. Income level generated mixed influences with non-cricket porridge still rated significantly higher (p<0.000) than cricket-based porridges across different income groups. Breastfeeding had insignificant influence on acceptability of the porridges (p=0.06). From this study, age, education, occupation and income showed varied influences on the acceptability of cereal-cricket porridges and should therefore be considered among key factors that shape consumer acceptability. Consequently, promotion strategies should consider the latter socio-economic factors in devising interventions to improve acceptability of edible insects and their products.

Suggested Citation

  • Aboge, DO & Orinda, MA & Konyole, SO, 2024. "Acceptability of cereal-cricket composite porridge as influenced by socio-economic factors and breast-feeding status of mothers and care-givers in Siaya county, Kenya," African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), vol. 24(01), January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ajfand:340605
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.340605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/340605/files/Aboge.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.340605?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & Andrea Bieberstein, 2014. "Consumer Acceptance of New Food Technologies: Causes and Roots of Controversies," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 381-405, October.
    2. Alderman, Harold & Headey, Derek D., 2017. "How Important is Parental Education for Child Nutrition?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 448-464.
    3. Davis, George C. & You, Wen, 2011. "Not enough money or not enough time to satisfy the Thrifty Food Plan? A cost difference approach for estimating a money-time threshold," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 101-107, April.
    4. Nathalie C M Rolland & C Rob Markus & Mark J Post, 2020. "The effect of information content on acceptance of cultured meat in a tasting context," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benjamin Scharadin & Edward C. Jaenicke, 2020. "Time spent on childcare and the household Healthy Eating Index," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 357-386, June.
    2. Derek Headey & David Stifel & Liangzhi You & Zhe Guo, 2018. "Remoteness, urbanization, and child nutrition in sub‐Saharan Africa," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 765-775, November.
    3. Shahida Anusha Siddiqui & Tayyaba Alvi & Aysha Sameen & Sipper Khan & Andrey Vladimirovich Blinov & Andrey Ashotovich Nagdalian & Mohammad Mehdizadeh & Danung Nur Adli & Marleen Onwezen, 2022. "Consumer Acceptance of Alternative Proteins: A Systematic Review of Current Alternative Protein Sources and Interventions Adapted to Increase Their Acceptability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-19, November.
    4. Fiore, M. & Gaviglio, A. & Demartini, E. & La Sala, P., 2018. "Sugarcoating Food Technologies and consumers’ acceptance of long-life fish," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275971, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Rongting Zhou & Dong Wang & Ahmad Nabeel Siddiquei & Muhammad Azfar Anwar & Ali Hammad & Fahad Asmi & Qing Ye & Muhammad Asim Nawaz, 2019. "GMO/GMF on Social Media in China: Jagged Landscape of Information Seeking and Sharing Behavior through a Valence View," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-19, December.
    6. Sukhwinder Singh & Andrew D. Jones & Ruth S. DeFries & Meha Jain, 2020. "The association between crop and income diversity and farmer intra-household dietary diversity in India," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(2), pages 369-390, April.
    7. Scharadin, Benjamin, 2022. "The efficacy of the dependent care deduction at maintaining diet quality," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    8. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    9. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2023. "Eliciting Non-hypothetical Willingness-to-pay for Novel Products: An Application to Cultured Meat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 673-706, August.
    10. Vincent A. Rabl & Frédéric Basso, 2021. "When Bad Becomes Worse: Unethical Corporate Behavior May Hamper Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-18, June.
    11. Manamboba Mitélama BALAKA & Koffi YOVO, 2022. "Changement climatique et nutrition infantile au Togo," Region et Developpement, Region et Developpement, LEAD, Universite du Sud - Toulon Var, vol. 56, pages 111-131.
    12. Bencsik, Panka & Lusher, Lester & Taylor, Rebecca, 2021. "Slow Traffic, Fast Food," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313856, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Shigeru Matsumoto & Thunehiro Otsuki, 2022. "Who changed food consumption behavior after the COVID-19 pandemic? Empirical analysis of Japanese household spending panel data," Working Papers e173, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.
    14. Dolores Garrido & Rosa Karina Gallardo, 2022. "Are improvements in convenience good enough for consumers to prefer new food processing technologies?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(1), pages 73-92, January.
    15. Vesna Miljanovic Damjanovic & Lejla Obradovic Salcin & Natasa Zenic & Nikola Foretic & Silvester Liposek, 2019. "Identifying Predictors of Changes in Physical Activity Level in Adolescence: A Prospective Analysis in Bosnia and Herzegovina," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-14, July.
    16. Moesijanti Y. E. Soekatri & Sandjaja Sandjaja & Ahmad Syauqy, 2020. "Stunting Was Associated with Reported Morbidity, Parental Education and Socioeconomic Status in 0.5–12-Year-Old Indonesian Children," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-9, August.
    17. Rebecca L. C. Taylor, 2022. "It's in the bag? The effect of plastic carryout bag bans on where and what people purchase to eat," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(5), pages 1563-1584, October.
    18. Rabl, Vincent A. & Basso, Frédéric, 2021. "When bad becomes worse: unethical corporate behavior may hamper consumer acceptance of cultured meat," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110789, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Brenna Ellison & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "Examining Household Food Waste Decisions: A Vignette Approach," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 613-631, December.
    20. Garrett M. Broad & Wythe Marschall & Maya Ezzeddine, 2022. "Perceptions of high-tech controlled environment agriculture among local food consumers: using interviews to explore sense-making and connections to good food," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 417-433, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ajfand:340605. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.ajfand.net/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.