Milk
Marketing
Study
Animal Production
Division
Mahanand Gooljar
(Technical Officer)
07 March 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ........................................................................................................ 3
2.1 National Milk Production ............................................................................................................... 3
3.
PROBLEM STATEMENT .................................................................................................................... 4
4.
OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................... 4
5.
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 5
5.1
The Target Population ............................................................................................................. 5
5.2 The samples ................................................................................................................................... 5
6.
5.3
Survey Method ........................................................................................................................ 5
5.4
Questionnaire Design .............................................................................................................. 6
5.5
Pilot Study ............................................................................................................................... 6
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ........................................................................................ 7
6.1
FARMER SURVEY ...................................................................................................................... 7
6.1.1
Profile of respondents ...................................................................................................... 7
6.1.2
Wastage of Milk ............................................................................................................... 7
6.1.3
Comparison between farmers using vendors and those who do not ................................. 8
6.1.4
Fresh Milk Prices .............................................................................................................. 8
6.1.5
Number of regular customers ........................................................................................... 9
6.1.6
Marketing Problems faced by farmers .............................................................................. 9
6.2
CONSUMER SURVEY ............................................................................................................... 11
6.2.1
Profile of Respondents ................................................................................................... 11
6.2.2
Milk Consumption Patterns ............................................................................................ 13
6.2.3
Awareness of marketing of local milk and its availability to the consumer ...................... 16
6.2.4
Consumer Preferences in the purchase of milk products ................................................ 16
6.2.5 Reasons for not purchasing local milk.................................................................................... 17
7.
Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................................................................. 18
7.1
Main findings ......................................................................................................................... 18
7.2
Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 18
ii
ABSTRACT
It is a widely accepted belief that consumer preferences have shifted from fresh milk to powdered milk.
Locally produced milk is in the fresh form and is therefore inconsistent with the preferences of the
market. There have been reports where farmers have been unable to sell their milk leading to much
wastage and loss. For a smallholder, such losses are unbearable and therefore may constitute a reason
for business failure. Government is however actively encouraging more and more entrepreneurs to get
into the business of milk production. If these start-ups are unable to sell their products, it goes without
saying that they would close down business within a few months, hereby defeating the whole food
security strategy of the government. The aim of this study is to determine the potential of the Mauritian
milk market to absorb the projected increase in local milk production and identify the marketing options
that may be adopted to correct the situation, if required.
Objectives of the study were:
(I)
(II)
(III)
(IV)
To determine whether there is a problem of wastage of fresh milk due to inability of farmers
to sell
To determine the market structure of the sale of milk at the smallholder level
To determine the consumer preferences in milk consumption particularly the percentage of
fresh milk consumed compared to the total amount of milk and milk products consumed.
To propose options for a more efficient marketing of milk produced by the smallholders, if
the need is felt from the results of (I) and (II).
The study consisted of two surveys: a farmer survey (155 respondents in 450 farmers contacted) and a
consumer survey of 400 respondents from all over the island. The study began in March 2011 and was
completed in August 2012.
The main findings were as follows:
This farmer survey has established that:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Wastage of milk is currently not an issue given the low production of milk.
Farmers that have access to a marketing channel have greater production levels than those
who do not. However, only 12% of local farmers make use of marketing intermediaries to
sell their product.
The marketing of local milk is highly ineffective
Farmers are unable to reduce their prices to reflect current demand because of high
production costs.
The most important marketing hurdle faced by farmers is the lack of consumer interest in
fresh milk. Consumers reportedly find fresh milk too expensive, of poor quality or taste or
simply prefer powdered milk.
The consumer survey has found that:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
The milk consumption pattern of Mauritians is biased towards imported products with fresh
milk consisting of 2-4% of milk consumption.
Powdered milk has become the main milk product of Mauritians.
The price factor is an important consideration in milk consumption. Since local milk is more
expensive than imported milk, it is at a severe disadvantage.
Local milk also faces some consumer biases as regards perception of taste and quality.
The main recommendation is to set up a Milk Certification and Promotion Project in order to address
the main issues highlighted in this study: (I) lack of consumer confidence in fresh milk (II) Absence of a
marketing channel for milk.
2
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the basic tenets in any type of business is the principle of marketing which dictates that activities
of a firm (or producer), including planning, operations and policies, should be oriented towards the
consumers. In other words, all the firm's activities should be devoted to determining what the
consumers' wants are and to satisfying these wants while still making a reasonable level of profit. When
this concept is taken at the level of milk, or any other type of basic food, the marketing aspect was
always taken for granted. The demand for milk is supposed to be constant and ever-existent. Yet this has
not been the case for a long time. Consumers have their own preferences in milk also.
In Mauritius, although there has not been any formal study, it is a widely accepted belief that consumer
preferences have shifted from fresh milk to powdered milk. Locally produced milk is in the fresh form
and is therefore inconsistent with the preferences of the market. There have been reports where
farmers have been unable to sell their milk leading to much wastage and loss. For a smallholder, such
losses are unbearable and therefore may constitute a reason for business failure.
In the context of food security, where every effort is being made to improve local milk production, such
wastage and loss is unacceptable. Government is actively encouraging more and more entrepreneurs to
get into the business of milk production. However, if these start-ups are unable to sell their products, it
goes without saying that they would close down business within a few months, hereby defeating the
whole food security strategy of the government. The losses borne by the farmer would be unbearable
on a personal level, leading even to bankruptcy as loans may have been taken to start the business. This
further weakens an already fragile social group, which may have more serious consequences down the
line.
On a national scale, it is therefore imperative to devise the appropriate milk marketing strategy that will
ensure the sustainability of the sector. The aim of this study is to determine the potential of the
Mauritian milk market to absorb the projected increase in local milk production and identify the
marketing options that may be adopted to correct the situation, if required.
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1 National Milk Production
Table 2.1: Number of Dairy Cattle by Region
Region
Number of Dairy Cattle
Riviere du Rempart/Pamplemousses
1287
Black River/Port Louis
850
Grandport Savanne
397
Flacq
737
Moka- Plaine Wilhems
1689
TOTAL
4960
Source: National Livestock Census 2009
3
The table 2.1 above shows that the national herd as at 2009 was 4960 animals. Of these, 1007 were
males and 3953 females. Table 2.2 below shows the age distribution of the female herd.
Table 2.2 Age distribution of female herd
0-3 months
130
< 1 year
430
1-2 years
2-8 years
> 8 years
1219
2127
47
Source: National Livestock Census 2009
TOTAL
3953
At the time of the census, there were 2127 animals of producing age (1182 of whom were lactating).
Another 1219 animals were due to enter the lactating herd. These animals must now be in their first
parity and producing milk. Hence, the milk producing herd would presently stand at 3346 animals.
Assuming that 10% of this herd was culled for any given reason and that 30% is dry, there should be
2007 milk producers at any given time. If we further assume a 10L daily milk production per cow
(notwithstanding differences in breed, age and rearing conditions), our daily production of milk stands
at 20070 L. This is a rough estimate. The amount that reaches the market will be slightly lower due to
inevitable losses.
It should also be noted that the national herd is currently being increased due to significant importations
being undertaken by the private sector. Hence, the milk production is set to increase further in the near
future.
The question that remains to be asked is whether the Mauritian market can soak up this production.
3. PROBLEM STATEMENT
In the face of growing milk production and increasing private investment in the dairy sector, there is a
need to understand the market dynamics of the milk sector. It is particularly important to know whether
the market can accommodate this growth and that there really is a demand for locally-produced fresh
milk.
4.
OBJECTIVES
(I)
(II)
(III)
(IV)
To determine whether there is a problem of wastage of fresh milk due to inability of farmers
to sell
To determine the market structure of the sale of milk at the smallholder level
To determine the consumer preferences in milk consumption particularly the percentage of
fresh milk consumed compared to the total amount of milk and milk products consumed.
To propose options for a more efficient marketing of milk produced by the smallholders, if
the need is felt from the results of (I) and (II).
4
5. METHODOLOGY
Since the objective of the study is to gather data on the milk marketing situation, a quantitative survey
was devised.
5.1 The Target Population
The study involves two populations: consumers of milk products and farmers. The consumers of milk
products are the people who purchase milk and milk products. This is a very large and indefinite group
of people, since it can be safely assumed that all the inhabitants of Mauritius are consumers of milk (i.e.
a total population of 1200000). As regards the farmers, there is a definite list available in the preliminary
report of the Livestock Census 2010. This list constitutes the population of farmers for this study,
numbering 735 farmers.
5.2 The samples
For this study, a confidence interval of 5 and a confidence level of 95% are being targeted.
For the consumer survey, at such confidence interval and level, a sample of 384 is required, rounded to
400. Since, the consumers of milk products are not identifiable as such; they can only be contacted at
the site of purchase, that is, supermarkets and other sales points.
For the farmer survey, a sample of 253 is needed to give a fair view of the population. A random sample
of 253 farmers was taken from the list of farmers available using a random number generator. However,
a feeble response rate was obtained so that there was need to extend the survey beyond the sample
that was initially chosen. Even so, there were only 155 respondents.
5.3 Survey Method
For both the consumer and the farmer survey, the personal interview method was preferred. A personal
interview is when the Interviewer asks the questions face-to-face with the Interviewee. For the
consumer survey, face-to-face interviews cannot be avoided since there is no other way to identify the
target sample. Officers were required to interview customers of supermarkets at various sites across the
island. The choice of the supermarkets was made so as to cover both rural and urban areas and to cover
all the regions of the island (north, centre, south, west and east). The following interview sites were
chosen:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Winners’ St Pierre
Winners’ Triolet
Centre Commerciale Phoenix (Jumbo)
London Way (Vacoas)
Smart (Flacq)
Winners’ (Bambous)
Winners’ (Rose Belle)
5
For the farmer survey, phone interviews were preferred as they were the most economic recourse.
5.4 Questionnaire Design
In the design phase of the questionnaire, all efforts were made to keep the questions simple and the
questionnaire short. For the consumer survey, the following information would be sought:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Average monthly income
Number of persons in family
Age of interviewee
Gender
Type and amount of milk products consumed per month
Reasons for not buying local milk
The type of questions would be either multiple choice or numeric open-ended.
For the farmers, the following information would be sought:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
Number of cows
Number of lactating cows
Amount of milk produced per cow
Total amount of milk produced per day
Total amount of milk sold per day and to whom
Price per litre of milk
Type of customer
Difficulties in milk marketing
The type of questions was mostly numeric and text open-ended.
The questionnaires are at Annex II.
5.5 Pilot Study
A pilot test of both set of questionnaires was undertaken to ascertain the reliability of the survey
questionnaire to achieve the aims of the study. Five questionnaires from each set was filled and
analyzed to generate the required information. The results were satisfactory and no amendments to the
questionnaire were made.
6
6. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
6.1
FARMER SURVEY
6.1.1
Profile of respondents
Number of Heads
1 to 5
Number of farmers
118
6 to 10
22
11 to 15
9
16-20
More than 20
4
2
TOTAL
155
The average herd size of the responding farmers was 4.8 while the average number of lactating cows
was 2.1. More than 76% of the sample owned less than 5 animals and only two farmers owned more
than 20 heads. Thus, the sample concerns essentially smallholder dairy farmers. On average, only 53% of
the herd was lactating at the time of the survey. The benchmark percentage of non-lactating animals in
any dairy herd is 30%. This gives an indication of the low level of professionalism of the farmers being
studied. The average milk production per cow is 10.4 litres, which is reasonable in the Mauritian context.
6.1.2
Wastage of Milk
Remainder
(waste)
7%
Personal
Consumption
per day(L)
9%
Quantity of milk
sold
84%
Figure 6.1: Fate of milk produced
The above figure illustrates the fate of milk produced. According to data obtained, only 7% of milk
produced by farmers are unsold and are discarded. Since, the farmers possess mostly less than five
animals, it seems that they have set their production level to fit the amount of milk they can sell.
Consequently, in a scenario where the current production level is maintained, the question of wasting
milk does not arise. However, government objectives are to increase milk production drastically. In this
scenario of increasing production, there is a need to investigate whether the Mauritian market would be
able to soak up the additional production.
7
6.1.3
Comparison between farmers using vendors and those who do not
This comparison was made in order to determine the impact on having some form of marketing
intermediary in the marketing of milk in Mauritius. The role of the marketing intermediaries is to relieve
the producers of the effort required to sell their product, hence helping to focus all their resources on
the production activity.
VENDORS
No
VENDORS
Milk per Total
Personal
Quantity of Quantity
Herd Lactating cow per
milk per Consumption milk sold to sold to
Wastage
Size
Cow
day(L)
day(L)
per day(L)
public (L)
vendors (L) (L)
7.1
3.6
8.9
27.2
1.8
3.7
20.9
0.75
4.5
1.9
8.9
14.3
1.4
11.8
0
1.11
Only 12% of the sample used vendors to sell their milk. As the above table shows, there is a marked
difference in several parameters between the farmers that use vendors and those that do not. For
example, farmers with vendors tend to have a higher herd size (7.1 heads as opposed to 4.5 heads for
farmers without vendors). They also tend to have more lactating cows in their herd (3.6 heads as
opposed to 1.9). While milk production per cow is the same, the total milk production tends to be
higher. Wastage (i.e. unsold milk) is significantly less with the vendor group.
This data shows that the farmers using vendors tend to produce and sell more milk than the farmers
who sell directly to consumers. The vendors are a form of marketing channel. The above comparison
shows that the presence of a marketing channel improves production by increasing sales.
However, it must be noted that only 12% of the farmers have access to a marketing channel. The vast
majority of the farmers sell directly and thus there is inefficient marketing of their product.
6.1.4
Fresh Milk Prices
North
East
South
Centre
West
Islandwide
Average Prices
27.15
26.36
27.53
26.14
27.18
26.87
The above table shows that there is not much difference in the price of milk between different regions
of the country. However, one can be surprised that fresh milk commands a relatively high price, given
the low demand for the product. This indicates that milk prices are more dictated by production costs
rather than demand. Farmers are unable to price lower because their costs simply do not allow it.
8
6.1.5
Number of regular customers
North
South
East
West
Centre
TOTAL
Number of regular customers per farmer
0-5
6--10
11--15
16-20
>20
19
11
5
2
1
12
10
4
0
0
22
21
3
3
1
9
5
0
0
0
13
7
4
3
0
75
54
16
8
2
The number of regular customers that a farmer has is perhaps one of the best yardsticks for the
effectiveness of his marketing. As the above table shows, the vast majority of Mauritian dairy
smallholder farmers (83%) have between 0 and 10 regular customers. Around 18% of the whole sample
had no regular customers. It can therefore be assumed that there is a deficiency in the marketing of
local milk. Smallholder farmers are not able to market their milk effectively.
6.1.6
Marketing Problems faced by farmers
Figure 2 below illustrates the relative importance of marketing problems in the management of
smallholder dairy farms. Thus, marketing represents 34% of the problems reported during the survey.
Most of the other problems relate to production difficulties such as expensive inputs, unavailability of
feeds, inadequate veterinary services…etc. While the proportion of marketing problems seem to be less
significant than production problems, they are by no means any less important. In the broader view of
milk production in Mauritius, the inability of farmers to market their milk is a serious constraint that
must be addressed.
Figure 3 breaks down this percentage further to give an idea of the precise nature of marketing
problems faced by farmers. Three of the marketing problems noted by the farmers relate to customer
preferences (i.e. the customer chooses not to consume the product for various reasons). If we bulk
these together, they would constitute 34% of the sample. These corroborate the findings of the
consumer survey (section 6.2).
Marketing
Problems
34%
No particular
problems/nonmarketing
problems
66%
Figure 6.2: Relative importance of marketing problems for farmers
9
Transport to
market difficult
9%
Not enough
production
9%
Others
18%
Customers find
fresh milk too
expensive
9%
Customers do not
like fresh milk (too
fat/poor
quality/poor
taste) Customers prefer
11% powdered milk
No regular
customer
30%
14%
Figure 6.3: Nature of marketing problems
The absence of regular customers is more the result of poor marketing rather than a marketing problem
in itself. Nevertheless, it is worthy to note that 30% of the sample complained of the lack of a regular
customer base. This indicates further that the population as a whole does not consume fresh milk on a
regular basis. Equally noteworthy is the logistic problem of transporting milk from the site of production
to the consumer. Nine per cent of the sample highlighted this difficulty. The underlying problem is
certainly that of poor packaging and inadequate transport facilities. This further compounds the
marketing problem as consumers do not regard products that are carried in such a way as safe.
Another 9% of the sample complained that their production levels do not match the quantity of milk
that they can sell. This is quite intriguing as this does not match with the other findings discussed above.
However, this minority is perhaps indicative of a budding demand that seeks out fresh milk as opposed
to processed powder milk. Further investigation is required.
10
6.2
CONSUMER SURVEY
Through the consumer survey, it is hoped to compare the profile of the consumers against essentially
three variables: whether they consume fresh milk, type of milk products consumed, and factors which
influence the choice of type of milk products. This will help in understanding consumer preferences in
matters of milk consumption and thus address the flaws in the marketing of locally-produced milk.
6.2.1
Profile of Respondents
6.2.1.1 Age
Table 6.1: Average Age of Respondents by Region
Region
Ebene (Centre, Urban)
Phoenix (Centre, Urban)
Vacoas (Centre, Urban)
St Pierre (Centre, Rural)
Triolet (North, Rural)
Bambous (West Rural)
Rose Belle (South Rural)
Flacq (East, Rural)
Average age of whole
sample
Average Age
38
41
51
41
40
44
50
42
43.5
6.2.1.2 Gender
Table 6.2: Gender of Respondents by Region
Region
Ebene (Centre, Urban)
Phoenix (Centre, Urban)
Vacoas (Centre, Urban)
St Pierre (Centre, Rural)
Triolet (North, Rural)
Bambous (West Rural)
Rose Belle (South Rural)
Flacq (East, Rural)
TOTAL
Male
27
30
25
19
27
20
25
17
190
Female
23
23
26
24
24
33
25
34
212
11
6.2.1.3 Geographical location (Urban versus rural)
Urban, 144
Rural,
257
Figure 6.4: Proportion of respondents residing rural and urban localities
6.2.1.4 Average family size
The family size of the respondent is an important indicator as it will provide insight into the per capita
consumption of the family.
all
flacq
rose belle
bambous
ebene
phoenix
triolet
vacoas
st pierre
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
Figure 6.2: Average number of persons/family
6.1.2.5 Average Income
20
15
10
Urban
5
Rural
0
<10000 10000 - 20000 - >30000
20000 30000
Figure 6.6: Average Income
12
6.2.2 Milk Consumption Patterns
6.2.2.1 Average amount of milk products consumed per household
One major information that can be gleaned from the data obtained is the marked difference between
the consumption of milk products of urban households as opposed to rural ones. The average
consumption of urban households amount to 10.8 kg/month while for the rural households it is only
7.25 kg/month. The average for all respondents was 8.59 kg/month.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 6.7: Average monthly milk consumption per household in kg by region
6.2.2.2 Type of Milk Products Consumed
Urban
Processed
liquid milk
7%
Dairy
Products
40%
FRESH
4%
Powdered
49%
Processed
liquid milk
3%
Rural
FRESH
2%
Dairy
Products
38%
Powdered
57%
Figure 6.8: Relative proportion of milk products consumed by urban and rural residents
13
The salient feature to be noticed in the above two figures is the meager consumption of locally
produced fresh milk. Urban consumers consume a little above 0.22kg of fresh milk per month
representing less than 4% of their total milk product consumption. Rural consumers have even less,
0.13kg/month that is about 2% of their total milk product consumption. For urban and rural consumers,
the most consumed milk product is powdered milk which is imported.
6.2.2.3 Milk Consumption and Income
The question of income was put to the respondents in order to determine whether income has any
effect on the milk consumption patterns of Mauritians. Four income categories were specified in the
questionnaire: less than Rs 10000, Rs 10000 to 20000, Rs 20000 to Rs 30000 and more than Rs 30000.
The milk consumption pattern of each category was analyzed and is summarized in figure 6.6 below.
There are apparently no major differences in milk consumption between the four income classes. The
lower classes (less than Rs 10000 and between Rs 10000 and Rs 20000) consume significantly less fresh
milk than the upper classes (20000-30000 and more than Rs 30000).
Processe
d liquid
milk
10%
< Rs 10000
FRESH
1%
Dairy
Products
36%
Powdere
d
53%
RsProcesse
20000-30000
d liquid
milk
10%
Dairy
Products
36%
FRESH
5%
Powdere
d
49%
Rs 10000-20000
Processe
d liquid
milk
12%
FRESH
2%
Dairy
Products
33%
Powdere
d
53%
>Rs 30000
Processe
d liquid
milk
14%
Dairy
Products
34%
FRESH
3%
Powdere
d
49%
Figure 6.9: Milk Consumption patterns by income category
14
While the relative proportions of the types of milk products are more or less similar across the income
classes, some differences are noted when the absolute amounts of the products are studied.
Powdered
Fresh Milk
4
0,35
3,5
0,3
3
0,25
2,5
0,2
2
0,15
1,5
0,1
1
0,05
0,5
0
0
<Rs 10000
Rs 1000020000
Rs 2000030000
<Rs 10000
>Rs 30000
Dairy Products
Rs 1000020000
Rs 2000030000
>Rs 30000
Processed liquid milk
3
1,2
2,5
1
2
0,8
1,5
0,6
1
0,4
0,5
0,2
0
0
<Rs 10000
Rs 1000020000
Rs 2000030000
>Rs 30000
<Rs 10000
Rs 1000020000
Rs 2000030000
>Rs 30000
Figure 6.10: Quantity of milk products consumed (in Kg) by income category
Figure 6.6 shows that the consumption of all milk products tends to increase with income. The
differences between the classes are most flagrant in the consumption of fresh milk, where the
consumption of higher classes is more than the double of that of the lower classes. The price factor
therefore seems to be a major consideration in the consumption of local milk. One litre of local milk
comes to Rs 36 while one litre of reconstituted powdered milk would cost only Rs 12.50.
15
Correspondingly, the price factor does not seem to be important when it comes to consumption of
powdered milk as differences between the classes are less pronounced. This may be because powdered
milk is the main milk product consumed by Mauritians. In other words, powdered milk is now
considered as a product of necessity. Hence, whatever the price, Mauritians will always consume
powdered milk.
6.2.3
Awareness of marketing of local milk and its availability to the consumer
This question was put to determine the effectiveness of marketing of local milk by operators in the
sector. If a person is aware of where he can obtain local milk then this indicates that he can potentially
have access to it. Thus, the question of whether he consumes local milk, or not, is not a function of
marketing inefficiency but more that of personal choice. A second question was put to determine
whether the consumer had immediate access (in his area) to local milk.
The results show that 58.5% of the whole sample was unaware that local milk was being marketed (56%
for urban and 60% for rural citizens). In marketing, awareness of a product is generally the first step
towards its eventual consumption. Hence, the very fact that the consumer is unaware of the marketing
of local milk ends all chances of it being purchased and consumed.
Of the people that were aware of the marketing of local milk, 71.5% claimed that local milk was
available to them for purchase (70% for urban; 72% for rural). Hence, the problem is not that of
unavailability of the product but more an issue of awareness.
6.2.4
Consumer Preferences in the purchase of milk products
Number of Responses
Consumer preferences refer to those attributes of a product which the consumers like. Consumers
choose a particular product based on its perceived performance on these attributes. Knowledge of
consumer preferences is critical to successfully market a product. Hence, the question was put to the
consumers on what factors they consider important when making the purchase of milk products.
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
177
142
80
68
68
16
Brand
Country of Packaging
Fat
Cost
origin
Content
Factors affecting consumer choice
OTHER
Figure 6.11: Consumer preferences in milk consumption
16
As the above figure shows, cost is a most important factor affecting consumer choice. Hence the price of
the milk product is a very important consideration for most Mauritians. The second most important
factor is the brand of the product. Evidently, consumers are equating the brand with quality. Hence,
price and quality are the most important factors for the success of any milk product.
The question of fat content was put in order to determine whether consumers had any preference for
low-fat milk products (which would therefore exclude fresh milk which normally quite high in fat). It is
found here that the health consciousness aspect is far lower than price and quality considerations and
does not seem to be a preponderant issue. Similarly, the question of packaging was put in order to
determine whether attractive packaging influenced consumer choice. According to the findings, this
does not seem to be the case.
6.2.5 Reasons for not purchasing local milk
Reasons for not purchasing local fresh milk
250
200
150
100
50
0
Not
Expensive Difficult to
available
prepare
Poor
quality
Taste
Inadequate High fat Used to
packaging content powdered
milk
Other
Figure 6.12: Reasons for not purchasing local milk
The majority of the respondents (49.7%) affirmed that local fresh milk was not available for purchase
and hence was not consumed. About 19% of the respondents did not like the taste of local fresh milk
while some 11% considered it to be of poor quality.
This is consistent with the findings at section 6.2.3 where it was shown that the consumer is largely
unaware of where to obtain local milk. Thus, there is clearly a deficiency in the marketing of local milk
that is preventing the product from reaching the consumer.
17
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1
Main findings
This farmer survey has established that:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Wastage of milk is currently not an issue given the low production of milk. However, it may
become a problem as the low demand of local milk will prevent further increase in
production, thereby thwarting the food security strategy of government.
Farmers that have access to a marketing channel have greater production levels than those
who do not. However, only 12% of local farmers make use of marketing intermediaries to
sell their product.
The marketing of local milk is highly ineffective as shown by the low number of regular
customers per farmer.
Farmers are unable to reduce their prices to reflect current demand because of high
production costs.
The most important marketing hurdle faced by farmers is the lack of consumer interest in
fresh milk. Consumers reportedly find fresh milk too expensive, of poor quality or taste or
simply prefer powdered milk.
The consumer survey has found that:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
The milk consumption pattern of Mauritians is biased towards imported products with fresh
milk consisting of 2-4% of milk consumption.
Powdered milk has become the main milk product of Mauritians.
The price factor is an important consideration in milk consumption. Since local milk is more
expensive than imported milk, it is at a severe disadvantage.
Local milk also faces some consumer biases as regards perception of taste and quality.
Given the above findings, the marketing challenge before the dairy farmers of Mauritius seems to be
enormous. On one hand there is a local product of which the consumer is largely unaware and on the
other there is an imported product which is more economical and which has become a basic food
product.
7.2
Recommendations
Fresh local milk suffers from two main problems, as shown by the results of this study:
(i)
(ii)
A customer bias against it, especially regarding quality and safety
The existence of an alternative which is considered to be safe, economical and of good
quality.
Both of these problems can be addressed through a marketing strategy. For a smallholder, the level of
sophistication required for effectively marketing a product such as fresh milk is unattainable. Therefore,
18
government should promote local milk by devising a strategy that increases consumer confidence in the
product.
In this context, the setting up of a Milk Certification and Promotion Project must be envisaged. This
project would have the following goals:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Encouraging farmers to regroup into regional associations. The Ministry will then sign an
MoU with these associations to provide aid for packaging, storing and distributing certified
milk;
Enable farmers to have their milk tested on a regular basis through the associations and to
have a certifying body grade their milk;
Aggressive promotion of the benefits of fresh certified milk on all types of media to increase
sales of local milk.
The Ministry has already helped associations set up milk pasteurization units in several regions of the
country. The Milk Certification and Promotion Project will strengthen these associations to provide safer
milk which the consumer will not hesitate in buying. The Project will also provide a channel for fresh
milk, hereby releasing farmers from the hassle that marketing represents.
Milk is one of the most easily digested and assimilated foods, containing ample amounts of substances
required for the growth of tissues and organs and the repair of worn-out cells. It is a perfect food and
totally complete. Milk is full of nourishing proteins. It has digestive enzymes to help heal the digestive
system and assimilate nutrients. It is full of powerful anti-oxidants. These merits must be aggressively
promoted to the general public in order to attract demand towards fresh milk.
Figure 7.1 provides suggestions in the way the collection system would function. The Government,
through the Milk Certification and Promotion Project, would provide grants to milk collection
associations for:
(i)
(ii)
Procurement of milk cans, food transport vehicles, milk testing equipment and milk packing
equipment;
Training/recruitment of personnel
In addition, the Project will devise advertising programmes for the fresh milk products in order to make
consumers aware of its benefits.
19