Summary

THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL STRUCTURES ON CONSUMPTION OF BEEF

IN INDONESIA

Indra Sugiharto
17/418925/PPT/00982

DEPARTMENT LIVESTOCK SOCIAL ECONOMICS

FACULTY OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA
YOGYAKART

A 2019
 Approval of Thesis Summary

THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL STRUCTURES ON CONSUMPTION OF BEEF

IN INDONESIA

Indra Sugiharto
17/418925/PPT00982

Approved by:

Primary Supervisor

Ir. R. Ahmad Romadhoni Surya Putra., S.Pt., M.Sc., Ph.D., IPM., ASEAN Eng.

Secondary Supervisor

Ir. Mujtahidah Anggriani Ummul Muzayyanah, S.Pt., M.P., Ph.D., IPM.

 SUMMARY

This study aims to measure the influence of social structure, namely length of
education, employment status, income, gender, residence, regional, ethnic, social capital,
and religion on beef consumption in Indonesia. The data used in this study is the 2014
Indonesia Family Life Survey (IFLS) data. The subject of this study is focused on
individuals in households older than 15 years. The IFLS data used in this study is the
2014 IFLS-released in May 2016. The linear regression model uses robust regression.
Regression analysis is used to estimate the effect of social structure on meat consumption.
In this study, the social structure is divided into two namely stratification and social
differentiation. Income, social capital, age, and length of education in the study included
social stratification, while gender, urban, region, employment status, religion, ethnicity in
the study included social differentiation. The analysis shows that beef consumption in
Indonesia is influenced by income, gender, social capital, and entrepreneurship and
residence.

(Keywords: Beef Consumption, Social Structure, IFLS)

Introduction

Consumption is the act or activity of using goods and services. The action is based
on the subjective meaning, rationality, emotions and certain motives of individuals to be
understood and understood by others. Consumption is not only seen to fulfill human
physical and biological needs, but it is also related to social and cultural aspects.
Consumption is related to a matter of taste, identity, or lifestyle. According to
Hardinsyah (2007), Food consumption at the household level includes nutrition
knowledge, food purchasing power, and time available for mothers to manage food, food
preferences, and food availability. Each of these factors is likely determined by various
social demographic factors, economic factors, and other factors. With the existence of a
social structure, the consumption needs of food products, especially meat, are different
also, depending on the
groups and sub-groups contained in the social structure in Indonesia. Family members
influence meat-eating behavior. In a family, each family member has a different meat
consumption behavior because each family member has different habits in meat
consumption. Also, the reason is because of the habit of consuming meat on certain days.
Repetition of meat-eating behavior continuously which will eventually become a
permanent behavior or become a habit (Firmansyah and Farhan, 2014).
Consumption of animal protein from livestock is expected to be as much as 6
grams/capita/day is still not reached because daily consumption of protein per capita for
meat is only 4.20 grams (6.75 percent) (DITJENPKH, 2018). Meanwhile, the
recommended animal protein intake is 15 grams / capita / day consisting of 9 grams /
capita / day from fishery commodities and 6 grams / capita / day or equivalent to 10.3 kg
of meat / capita / year from livestock commodities. This shows that the consumption of
meat by the Indonesian people is still very low. Animal food needs in the form of meat,
especially beef for people or families who live in environments that have a variety of
cultures such as in Indonesia, need to develop meat consumption based on the social
structure of local socio-cultural diversity and community habits. This phenomenon is very
interesting to study, especially regarding the factors that cause changes in meat
consumption patterns to occur, because the consumption of meat in Indonesia is very
volatile.
This study aims to measure the influence of social structure factors in the form of a
length of education, employment status, income, gender, residence, region, ethnicity,
social capital, religion on beef consumption. It is hoped that the results of this study can
provide an overview of beef consumption to be the basis for strategies to increase animal
protein consumption in Indonesia.

Materials and methods

The data used in this study are secondary data from the Indonesia Family Life
Survey. This survey is an illustration of 83% of Indonesia's population represented by 13
selected provinces out of 26 provinces. Samples were selected using the stratified
sampling scheme method based on provinces and areas (rural- urban areas), and from
each stratum selected smaller regions (districts/municipalities, sub-districts and villages
at random). The selection of
provinces as samples is based on maximizing population representation that reflects the
socio-economic conditions of the Indonesian people in addition to the goal of cost-
efficiency. The subjects in this study were individuals in households aged 15 years or
older who were individuals in the Indonesia Family Life Survey (IFLS) study in 24
provinces in Indonesia. This study uses IFLS-5 data in 2014 with the number of sample
households that have been surveyed by IFLS amounted to 15,900 with a total number of
individuals of 50,000. The IFLS survey began in 1993 as a baseline, continued in 1997,
2000, 2007 and finally in 2014 covering 24 provinces in Indonesia except for the eastern
part of Indonesia. Data collection in this study uses documentation techniques. This study
uses data obtained from the Indonesia Family Life Survey (IFLS) related to the research
topic by recording directly in the form of longitudinal data in the 2014 IFLS-5 data. The
collection of variables needed in this study is contained in IFLS-5 in the HH book
(household) in 2014. The selection of the HH book is based on the component variables
according to research related topics contained in this book which are subsequently used to
form both dependent and independent variables. The analytical model used in this study
uses Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression which is the most commonly used method
of estimating regression functions. Robust regression is a regression method used when
the distribution of errors is not normal and/or some outliers affect the model.

Results and Discussion

The income of the head of the household in the 2014 IFLS household starts from
the lowest income of Rp. 0 up to the highest income, Rp. 1,000,000,000 in one year.
Revenues have an average of Rp. 21,400,000, with a standard deviation of Rp.
35,400,000. Revenue Range between Rp. 0 to Rp. 30,000,000 per year, constituting the
majority range of household head income, reaching 1313 heads of households or 73.68%.
Head of household with income between Rp. 180,000,000 to Rp. 210,000,000 became the
smallest range of 0.12% or 2 heads of households in the 2014 IFLS household. Ages 29 -
35 years had the most frequency, 418 families consuming beef or 23.24%, while age with
the lowest frequency low 15- 15 year’s as many as 105 families who consume beef or
5.83%. The age variable has an average of 34,741 or 35 years with a standard deviation
of 12, 916 or 12
years. The youngest individual age in this 2014 IFLS household is 16 years old and the
oldest is 64 years old. The highest education level of respondents who consumed beef
was at the high school level of 728 households or 40.47%, while those who had the
smallest value in consuming beef were not attending school with only 1 household or
0.06%. The average length of individual education in the 2014 IFLS household is 9,705
or 10 years, which is the level of junior high school (SMP) to senior high school (SMA).
The standard deviation in length of education is 3,712 or 4 years. The lowest length of
education is 0 years (no school) and the highest is 18 years (S2 level).
The number of families consuming beef based on the most social capital was 232
families or 12.9% with a total of 7 times formal participation, while the lowest frequency
was in 13 families or 0.67% with a total of 13 times participation. The sex of household
heads in the largest consumption of beef is male at 1613 heads of households or 89.66%.
Female household heads are the smallest group, 186 head of households or 10.34%.
Gender has a standard deviation of 0.483 and has an average value of 0.897. Most of the
sample households that consumed beef were Non-Javanese at 1309 households or
72.76%. Javanese are smaller, namely
490 households or 27.24%. The Javanese have an average of 0.272 with a standard
deviation of 0.483. Religion has an average of 0.589 with a standard deviation of 0.492.
The highest number of respondents who consumed Islamic beef was 1,441 households or
80.10%, while respondents who were non-Muslim were 358 households or 19.90%.
Employment status, in this case, is divided into three categories, namely
entrepreneurship, employees, and casual workers. Entrepreneurs have an average of
0.012 with a standard deviation of
0.110. The labor variable has an average of 0.010 with a standard deviation of
0.099. Free workers have an average of 0.005 with a standard deviation of
0.070. Entrepreneurship became the most work status that consumed beef, namely 677
households or 37.67%, while employees amounted to 595 households or 33.07%, and
finally, free workers had the smallest frequency of 527 households or 29.30%. Regions
are classified as urban and non-urban. Regions have an average of 0.595 with a standard
deviation of 0.491. Most beef consumption in urban areas is 1070 households or 59.48%,
while Non-urban areas are 729 households or 40.52%.
 This study uses OLS regression aimed to determine the effect of social structure on
meat consumption in IFLS households in 2014. There are omitted variables
automatically when constructing the model, namely the free worker variable because the
free worker variable becomes a comparison variable on other job status variables. OLS
regression results can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1. OLS Regression

Variable Coefficient Robust Std. Error

Income 6,38 1,80***
The region 0,06 0,09
Gender 0,43 0,10***
Suku -0,04 0,09
Social Capital 0,03 0,01***
Age 0,00 0,00
Entrepreneur 0,34 0,11***
Employee 0,14 0,15
Free worker 0 (omitted)
Education 0,01 0,01
Religion 0,25 0,14
Urban -0,38 0,11***
F value 9,87***
R square 0,19
Adj -R squared 0,16
*** Shows a very significant difference (P <0.01)
Source: Data processing results, Stata 14.

Based on the results of the results in Table 1. From Robust regression, the results
show that meat consumption is influenced by income, gender, social capital,
entrepreneurship, and urban variables. Revenue has a significant and positive effect
on beef consumption in Indonesia with a p-value of 0,000. Gender significant
and positive effect with a p-value of 0,000. Social capital has a significant and positive
effect on beef consumption in Indonesia with a p-value of 0.002. The entrepreneurial
variable has a significant and positive effect on beef consumption in Indonesia, the p-
value is 0.002. While the variable has a significant and negative effect on beef
2
consumption in Indonesia, the p-value is 0,000. Rated R contained in Table 15 of 0,
1903 showed that the model equations in this study could explain amounting to 19.03
percent of the factors which affect the consumption of meat in Indonesia. The
Likelihood Ratio (LR) or in the linear regression test is called the F-statistic test in the
table
above shown from the pro> chi2 value of 0, 0000, illustrating that together with the
independent variables significantly influence the consumption of beef in Indonesia in the
2014 IFLS.

Effect of Income Variables on Beef Consumption

Estimation results show that the income regression coefficient shows a

positive value. Thus, the more income, the more air- added beef consumption. It is
suspected in increased revenues impacted purchases beef increasing due to affect an
increasing number of requests and needs of the community will be a food that has a high
protein value. Besides the people's purchasing power on beef is influenced by the price of
beef which is quite high compared to other types of meat, with the increasing income it
also increases the standard of living of the community. People with high incomes are
thought to be more concerned with the quality and nutritional needs of their families
because from an economic standpoint they can buy beef. This is following the opinion of
Amir et al (2006) which states that changes in the level of income will affect the amount
of meat consumed and even often found with an increase in income so people tend to
consume goods of better quality. Increased income is one of the factors that drive people
to change consumption patterns with changes in better nutritional quality. Increased
public awareness about the need to consume foods that have sufficient nutritional value,
also contributes to an increase in the number of requests and the needs of people for foods
that have high protein values, such as meat, milk, and eggs (Osak et al., 2014). The
higher level of income will increase the ability of households to buy protein needs to be
greater and there is a tendency to meet the needs of higher quality (Rahayu et al., 2018).
Households will be more responsive in consuming commodities when there is an increase
in income, whereas, for households in the HDI (Human Development index) area, the
increase in income will be more allocated to meeting basic food needs first. (Mayasari et
al., 2018). The effect of the level of income on the level of consumption has a
close relationship, as Rinawati, Yantu and Rauf (2014) stated that income influences the
level of consumption, so it can be concluded that variations in income can affect
variations in consumption. Suggestions can be given that the tendency to consume is
equal to the level of income so that they can save.
Effect of Gender Variables on Meat Consumption

Estimation results show that gender has a positive effect on beef consumption in
Indonesia, which means that men tend to consume more beef. This is presumably because
men are more physical activity and thus require more energy and protein than women,
except that women are more concerned about the consumption of mainly meat because
women tend to keep in shape by way of diet, regulate eating and choose the type of
eating certain low fat so that his body image is maintained. This is consistent with the
opinion of Brown (2005) men need more energy and protein than women. This is because
men do more physical activity than women, therefore men need more calories than
women, so men consume more food. Also, many women pay attention to their body
image, so many of them postpone eating even reducing the portion of food as needed to
have the perfect body portion. Hardinsyah (2007) adds that differences in food
consumption are related to gender. Age and sex groups are determinants of diversity in
food consumption after being controlled by food costs. The results of this study are not in
line with the opinion of Junaedi, (2008) which states that male and female consumers
have in common, except for female consumers individualistic value orientation influences
the desire to pay for organic food at premium prices.

Effect of Social Capital Variables on Beef Consumption

The results showed higher social capital, then it will increase the consumption of
beef in Indonesia. This is thought to be closely related to the government's efforts to
realize beef self-sufficiency, one of which is to improve the quality of community food.
The government has carried out many counseling and coaching programs for the
community related to the beef self-sufficiency program. With effective social capital can
help the process of disseminating information to the community so that it can reduce the
imbalance of information about the importance of animal protein from livestock. This is
following the opinion of Setyastuti (2014) which states that effective social capital can
help the process of disseminating information among members of the community to
reduce the information spillover People with higher social capital will experience shocks
in spending lower and have a higher ability to do consumption smoothing. With
higher social capital, people can maintain their consumption expenditure and in the long
run, the increase in consumption expenditure can be maintained. Increased changes in
the participation of formal activities in community activities, will increase
chances in public per capita spending that have an impact on consumption.

Effect of Entrepreneurship Variables on Beef Consumption

Entrepreneurship has a positive effect on meat consumption in Indonesia. This

is alleged because of the allocation of working time to the type of entrepreneurial work
that is not bound to allow greater decision making in terms of food to be purchased for
consumption. The types of work, including entrepreneurship and so on, are also aimed
primarily at increasing economic prosperity, ultimately to meet primary, secondary and
tertiary needs related to consumption. Following the opinion of Alma Buchari (2012),
which states that in carrying out entrepreneurship economic prosperity is the main goal of
every person to fulfill primary, secondary and tertiary needs related to one's consumption
behavior. Diana & Dewi (2015) added that heads of households with jobs that are
generally low-income families tend to choose to meet their daily food needs. Unlike the
head of the household owning the job and being able to buy other needs such as
secondary and tertiary needs. Related to the allocation of work time, entrepreneurs have
more free working time than other jobs, it is suspected that health awareness among
respondents with the type of entrepreneurial work is more paid attention to compared to
the types of work that require intensive time allocation, because most types of work are
bound by time, one of them is less pay attention to parenting and nutritional awareness, so
rarely buy fresh meat for self- consumption and tend to choose to buy finished food
because it has limited time to do food processing on its own. This is consistent with the
opinion there is a significant relationship between work and health care patterns with
nutritional status, income per capita with nutritional status, and a month's disease history
with nutritional status (Wulandari & Narmaditya, 2015). Also, research related by Al-
Shookri et al. (2011) adds that there is an inverse relationship between work level and
some healthy eating attitudes.
Effect of Urban Variables on Beef Consumption

Urban variables negatively affect meat consumption in Indonesia, which means

that non-urban areas tend to consume more beef than urban areas. This is alleged because
in rural areas are still very upholding the customs and habits of beef consumption at
certain events or activities, for example, there are still many cattle slaughtering activities
to celebrate something like a celebration and others, whereas in urban areas habits the
habit tends to fade. In urban areas, people tend to consume more choices not only beef but
other types of processed food meat products. This is consistent with the opinion
(Wahyuni et al (2016) which states that there are differences in the proportion of
expenditure for beef between households in rural and urban areas. There is a difference in
meat consumption preferences between households in rural and urban areas. Household
preferences in regions urban areas tend to be fish and beef products, whereas for
households in rural areas tend to choose beef, another case with Soedjana (2013) which
states that culturally and economic conditions of rural households, the phenomenon of
diversification of animal protein food sources has been going on from generation to
generation so that it is not easy to make beef as a normal goods requirement
Ariningsih (2004) adds that the difference and the magnitude of consumption of animal
foods such as eggs, meat between urban and rural areas gives a conclusion, namely there
are differences in household expenditure patterns for egg commodities, meat, fish, where
the consumption of these commodities for urban areas is much higher than in rural areas.
Many factors affect differences in beef consumption in rural and urban communities as
explained by Zulkarnain et al (2017) which states that urban household beef consumption
is influenced by the level of education of household heads, beef prices significantly. Beef
consumption of rural households is only influenced by income, education of household
heads and the price of beef. Beef prices in urban and rural areas determine the amount of
beef consumption. Beef price elasticity is elastic. An increase in beef prices will
reduce beef consumption by urban and rural communities, and vice versa.
 Conclusions and Suggestions

Conclusion
Income variable, gender, social capital, entrepreneurship, urban influence on beef
consumption in Indonesia. With the increase in income, it also increases the standard of
living of the community so that it affects an increase in the purchasing power of beef.
Men more physical activity and thus require more energy and protein than women, except
that women are more concerned about the consumption of meat, especially because
women tend to keep in shape by way of diet, regulate eating and choose certain types of
meals. With effective social capital can help the process of disseminating information to
the community so that it can reduce the imbalance of information about the importance of
animal protein from livestock. Allocation of work time on the type of entrepreneurial
work that is not bound to allow greater decision making in terms of food to be purchased
for consumption, especially beef. In rural areas still, uphold the customs and habits of
beef consumption at certain events or activities, for example, there are still many cattle
slaughtering activities to celebrate something like celebration and others, whereas in
urban areas these habits tend to fade.

Suggestion

There is a need for further and in-depth research on social structure variables and
their periodic interactions (time series) that occur in Indonesian society so that they can
provide an overview of beef consumption from year to year which can be the basis of the
government's strategy to increase the fulfillment of consumption of animal protein from
livestock in Indonesia.

Bibliography

Al-Shookri, A., Al-Shukaily, L., Hassan, F., Al-Sheraji, S. & Al-Tobi, S. 2011. Effect of
mothers nutritional knowledge and attitudes on Omani children’s dietary intake.
Oman Medical Journal, 26(4): 253–257.
Alma Buchari 2012. Manajemen Pemasaran dan Pemasaran Jasa. Revisi ed.
Bandung: Alfabeta.

Amir, A., Sri-Widodo & Hardyastuti, S. 2006. Analisis Konsumsi Daging Sapi pada
Tingkat Rumah Tangga di Provinsi Aceh. AGROSAINS, 19(1): 435–449.

Ariningsih, E. 2004. Analisis Perilaku Konsumsi Pangan Sumber Protein Hewani

dan Nabati Pada Masa Krisis Ekonomi di Jawa. Icaserd Working Paper,
Bogor, Indonesia.

Brown, J.E. 2005. Nutrition through the Life Cycle Second Edition. USA: Thomson
Wadsworth.

Diana, Y. & Dewi, P. 2015. Studi Pola Konsumsi Makanan Pokok pada Penduduk Desa
Pagendingan Kecamatan Galis Kabupaten Pamekasan Madura. e- Journal Boga,
4: 108–110.

DITJENPKH 2018. Statistik Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan 2018/ Livestock and
Animal Health Statistics 2018. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Peternakan dan
Kesehatan Hewan Kementerian Pertanian RI.

Firmansyah & Farhan, M. 2014. Analisis Pola Konsumsi Daging Sapi Pada Masyarakat
Pesisir Di Kabupaten Tanjung Jabung Timur. Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Peternakan,
17(2): 62–69.

Hardinsyah 2007. Review Faktor Determinan Keragaman Konsumsi Pangan.

Jurnal Gizi dan Pangan, 2(2): 55–74.

Junaedi, M.F.S. 2008. Pengaruh Gender Sebagai Pemoderasi Pengembangan Model

Perilaku Konsumen Hijau Di Indonesia. Kinerja, 12(1): 27–30.

Mayasari, D., Satria, D. & Noor, I. 2018. Analisis Pola Konsumsi Pangan Berdasarkan
Status IPM di Jawa Timur. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Pembangunan Indonesia,
18(2): 191–213.

Osak, R.A.F., Panelewen, V.V.., Pandey, J. & Lumenta, I.D.. 2014. Pengaruh Pendapatan
Rumah Tangga Terhadap Konsumsi Daging (Sapi, Babi Dan Ayam ) Di Desa
Sea I Kecamatan Pineleng. Zootec, 34(2): 10.
Rahayu, E.T., Dewanti, R. & Long, M.A. 2018. Faktor – Faktor yang Berpengaruh
Terhadap Keputusan Pemilihan Daging Ayam Broiler Sebagai Konsumsi Rumah
Tangga di Surakarta (Studi Kasus di Kelurahan Tegalharjo Kecamatan Jebres).
Sains Peternakan, 16(1): 11–18.

Rinawati, R., Yantu, M.. & Rauf, R.A. 2014. Pengaruh Pendapatan Terhadap Konsumsi
Masyarakat Tani Padi Sawah Di Desa Karawana, Kecamatan Dolo Kabupaten
Sigi. Jurnal Agrotekbis, 2(6): 652–659.

Setyastuti, R. 2014. Peranan Modal Sosial Dalam Meningkatkan Pengeluaran Konsumsi

Per Kapita Rumah Tangga. Economics & Business Research Festival, 3:
1049–1066.

Soedjana, T.D. 2013. Partisipasi Konsumsi Sebagai Alat Ukur Status Ketahanan Pangan
Daging. Wartazoa, 23(4): 166–175.

Wahyuni, D., Purnastuti, L. & Mustofa, M. 2016. Analisis Elastisitas Tiga Bahan Pangan
Sumber Protein Hewani Di Indonesia. Jurnal Economia, 12(1): 43.

Wulandari, D. & Narmaditya, B.S. 2015. Pengaruh Pendidikan Ekonomi Keluarga

Terhadap Perilaku Konsumsi Mahasiswa. Prosiding Seminar Nasional.
Malang: Universitas Negeri Malang, hal.785–788.

Zulkarnain, Asmawati & Sofyan 2017. Analisis Konsumsi Daging Sapi pada Tingkat
Rumah Tangga di Provinsi Aceh. agrisep, 18(1): 1–12.