This document analyzes patterns and drivers of animal source food (ASF) consumption in Ethiopia using household survey data from 1995-2011. It finds that while ASF consumption and budget share have increased over time, per capita consumption remains low. Expenditure and prices are significant drivers of demand for ASF. The study concludes that policies to raise incomes as well as direct support mechanisms like subsidies and school feeding programs could help increase ASF consumption, which remains important for nutrition.

1. Photo Credit Goes Here
Animal Source Food (ASF) Consumption in Ethiopia:
Patterns, Changes and Drivers
Getachew Ahmed, Mekdim Dereje, Bart Minten, Ibrahim Worku
Presenter: Getachew Ahmed

2. MOTIVATION
Low but increasing ASF Consumption in Ethiopia
• Global trend in ASF cons. increasing in recent
decades (FAO, 2016)
• With a modest growth, per capita consumption is
still low in Ethiopia (Hassen et al 2016, Tafere and
Worku 2012)
• Given the country’s endowment of livestock
resources, its surprising to see low level of ASF
consumption compared to other African countries

3. MOTIVATION
Factors that explain for this low level of ASF
consumption include
• Low effective demand due to high prices that in turn
is caused by high transaction costs (Tefera et al.
2010)
• Shortage of ASF, particularly milk in urban areas
(Tegegne et al. 2013; Gordon, Demissie, and Tadesse
2007).

4. MOTIVATION
 Why Worry?
• Health and nutrition outcomes of ASF in Ethiopia and elsewhere
(Speedy 2003; Zhang, Goldsmith, and Winter-Nelson 2016).
 Quality and micronutrient enhancement of the diet, preventing
many micronutrient deficiencies(Neumann, Harris, and Rogers
2002; Hoddinott, Headey, and Dereje 2015).
 Positive impact on household dietary diversity (Workicho et al. 2016)
 Low dietary diversity and low consumption of ASF are factors related to
malnutrition (Herrador et al. 2015).

5. MOTIVATION
 Our Objectives
1) Look at the national ASF consumption patterns across
different groups of consumers and changes over time.
2) Factors that shape these existing patterns and
dynamics of ASF consumption.

6. DATA
• Household Income, Consumption Surveys
(HICES) from CSA
• Extends from 1995/96-2010/11
• Includes all regions
• Except some zones (in Afar, Somali) in some
years
• No data collected in 2004/05 in Gambella
• Also used WMS and retail prices of 2010/11
from CSA for demand estimation

7. Changes and Patterns

8. PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE (ETB) AND SHARE (PERCENT) OF
MAJOR FOOD GROUPS
Food groups 1995/96 1999/00 2004/05 2010/11
value of per
capita (ETB)
ASF 56.5 61.9 73.5 91.8
Grains 67.5 72.2 69.5 69.3
Vegetable & fruits 78.3 148.1 102.6 166.4
Other foods 175.9 126.1 200.8 255.8
Budget Share
(percent)
ASF 7.9 8.0 9.3 9.9
Grains 56.6 56.3 52.5 44.7
Vegetable & fruits 10.9 19.3 12.9 17.9
Other foods 24.6 16.4 25.3 27.5

9. CONSUMPTION (PER ADULT EQUIVALENT) EXPENDITURE (ETB) OF ASFS
17.1
5.0
2.6
0.2 0.4
29.2
1.2
0.4
23.4
10.5
2.1
0.2 0.4
21.5
3.4
0.3
27.2
10.6
3.8
0.1 0.3
29.7
1.3 1.3
34.3
13.9
5.0
0.0 0.6
34.6
2.2
1.3
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Beef Mutton &
Goat Meat
Chicken Camel,
pork, croc
Fish
Products
Dairy
Products
Eggs Honey
1996
2000
2005
2011

10. BUDGET SHARE (PERCENT) OF ASFS
-
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Beef Mutton &
Goat Meat
Chicken Camel,
pork, croc
Fish
Products
Dairy
Products
Eggs Honey
1996
2000
2005
2011

11. PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE (ETB) OF ASFS BY
QUINTILES OF CONSUMPTION
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
1996 2000 2005 2011
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Linear (Q3)
Linear (Q4)
Linear (Q5)

12. CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE (ETB), AND SHARE (PERCENT)
OF ASF BY RESIDENCE
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
Urban Rural Urban Rural
Per capita (kg) share (percent)
1996
2000
2005
2011

13. PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE (ETB) OF ASFS BY
REGION
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
1996
2000
2005
2011

14. FOOD BUDGET SHARE (PERCENT) OF ASFS BY REGION
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1996
2000
2005
2011

15. PER CAPITA QUANTITY OF FOOD CONSUMPTION (ADULT EQUIVALENT)
OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS (KG)
2004/05 2010/11
Beef 2.5 3.2
Mutton & Goat Meat 1.3 1.3
Chicken 0.5 0.5
Camel, pork., croc 0.0 0.0
Fish Products 0.1 0.2
Dairy products 14.2 14.2
Eggs 0.0 0.3
Honey 0.4 0.5
Total ASF 19.0 20.3

16. PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF BEEF, POULTRY AND SHEEP
MEAT (IN KG), 1995-2010
2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4
6.8 6.7 6.6 6.6
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3
15.9 16.1 15.8
14.9
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
1995
1999
2004
2010
1995
1999
2004
2010
1995
1999
2004
2010
1995
1999
2004
2010
1995
1999
2004
2010
ETH WLD SSA OECD BRICS
beef poultry mutton

17. Drivers

18. DRIVERS-ESTIMATION STRATEGY
• Same estimation framework as Tafere and
Worku (2012)
• Almost Ideal Demand System (AIDS), proposed
by Deaton and Meullbauer (1980) is most
widely used for demand analysis
• Satisfies a number of desirable properties and
allows linear approximation of estimation
• Model: budget shares as dependent vars. and
log of prices and real expenditures/income as
repressors

19. DRIVERS-ESTIMATION STRATEGY
• However, various Engel curve studies some
studies suggested that further terms in income
may be required to achieve reliable estimations.
• As a result the original model was extended to
allow for non-linear Engel curves.
• The resulting model is Quadratic Almost Ideal
Demand System (QUAIDS)

20. DRIVERS-ESTIMATION STRATEGY

21. DRIVERS-ESTIMATION STRATEGY
• Estimation issues
1) Zero expenditure
2) Endogeneity of total expenditures: total
expenditure=f(exog. + factors influencing
expend); residual is used in QUAIDS (Blundell
and Robin(1999)
3) Spatial variation: national, rural and urban

22. EXPENDITURE ELASTICITIES ESTIMATED USING UNIT VALUES
Expenditure Elasticity National Urban Rural
Beef 0.523*** 0.803*** 0.812***
[0.0249] [0.0217] [0.0741]
Mutton & Goat meat 2.1*** 1.688*** 4.093***
[0.2724] [0.1829] [0.6772]
Other meat & animal products 0.584*** 0.535*** -0.899***
[0.1414] [0.147] [0.31]
Dairy products 0.493*** 0.294*** 0.669***
[0.0285] [0.0163] [0.0341]

23. Compensated price
elasticity
Beef Mutton &
Goat meat
Other meat &
animal
products
Dairy
products
Beef National -0.707*** 0.102*** 0.253*** 0.353***
[0.0377] [0.0301] [0.028] [0.0281]
Urban 0.062 -0.288* 0.13*** 0.096*
[0.1717] [0.1493] [0.0414] [0.0543]
Rural -0.681 -0.289* 0.45*** 0.52*
[0.1403] [0.1809] [0.1455] [0.0894]
Mutton & Goat
meat
National -1.329*** -0.444* 0.381** 1.392***
[0.1506] [0.2624] [0.1657] [0.2301]
Urban -2.97*** 0.671 0.48** 1.82***
[0.6717] [0.7529] [0.2653] [0.4184]
Rural -2.668*** 1.611 -1.158** 2.214***
[0.7604] [1.4537] [1.0975] [0.6773]
Other meat &
animal products
National 1.388*** 0.386*** -1.92*** -0.064
[0.1046] [0.1303] [0.1237] [0.1999]
Urban 0.817*** 0.509*** -1.43*** 0.027
[0.1544] [0.2123] [0.1485] [0.2233]
Rural 1.241*** 1.83*** -1.383*** -1.652
[0.4619] [0.7471] [0.5736] [0.3148]
Dairy products National 0.774*** -0.141 0.272*** -1.04***
[0.0506] [0.078] [0.0527] [0.0612]
Urban 0.485*** -0.017 0.219*** -0.69***

24. CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
 Although cons. of ASFs (and their food budget
share) increased during 1995-2012, levels of
per capita consumption still low
 These changes are by major ASFs, expenditure
(income) groups, major regions, rural-urban
 There is rural-urban divide in consumption and
budget shares, due to low total food expenditure
and low income

25. CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
• There is a considerable expenditure and price
responses for ASF in Ethiopia.
• There were also strong substitution effects
• All these imply that policy efforts at raising household
incomes can have huge responses to boost cons of
ASF.
• Direct support systems (taxes and subsidies),, intro.to
school feeding programs., making accessible ASFs
through subsidized prices is also an important
mechanism to increase cons. of ASF