Intl. J. of Mol. Evol. and Biodivers. 2012, Vol. 2, No.2, 8-12
http://ijmeb.sophiapublisher.com
11
Table 2 Frequency distribution of non-demographic responses
S/N
Variables
Percentage (%)
1
Reason for purchase
Nutritional value
17.0
Medicinal purpose
34.0
Delicious
14.5
For consumption
32.0
No response
2.5
Total
100.0
2
Often do you eat
Occasionally
77.5
Frequently
6.0
Rarely
13.0
No response
3.5
Total
100.0
3
Preference
Yes
58.0
No
42.0
Total
100.0
4
Availability
Yes
98.5
No
1.5
Total
100.0
5
Safe for human consumption
Yes
96.0
No
4.0
Total
100.0
6
Implication
Yes
48.0
No
52.0
Total
100.0
7
Willingness if more nutritious
Never
12.0
Not willing
2.5
Not very willing
2.5
Neutral
15.5
Willing
38.5
Very willing
29.0
Total
100.0
8
Willingness if more delicious
Never
8.5
Not willing
2.0
Not very willing
4.5
Neutral
23.5
Willing
56.0
Very willing
5.5
Total
100.0
6.0%
consume frequently, close to 13% consume
rarely and about 6% of the respondents had no
response. Owing to the taste of the meat, 58% of the
consumers have a taste preference for a particular
species. As shown in Table 2, about 96% of the
respondents reported that wild birds and reptiles are
safe for human consumption. This reveals that
majority of the people have no safety constraint in
consumption of wild birds and reptiles. However,
38.5%
and 29% are willing and very willing
respectively to stick solely to the consumption of wild
birds or reptiles if either of them is found to have a
nutritional advantage over other bush meat species.
This corroborate the findings of Oduntan et al (2012),
where 85.7% of respondents with family size of seven
and above were very willing to accept Edible Frog for
regular consumption, if it is proved comparatively
more nutritious than other sources of animal protein.
Since the more number of people in a family, the more
likely the challenge and pressure to meet up with
nutritional demands. This findings further emphasis
that that wildlife exploitation in Nigeria are not
activities in which people engage in for the purpose of
deriving leisure, rather it is an activity associated with
the upliftment of living standard and wellbeing of
people (Akinyemi and Oduntan, 2004).
Result (Table 3) also shows that Age (p<0.05; t=2.564) is
the only socio factor that contribute significantly to the
consumption of wild birds and reptiles in the study area.
From the result, it may be inferred that the older the
respondent the more the preference for wild birds and
reptiles meat. This can be traced to the comparative
advantage of low fat (cholesterol) and other nutritional
advantages that characterizes most bush meat when
compared with conventional meats as reported by several
scholars including (Abulude, 2007; Oduntan et al., 2012).
Although income of respondents in the study area does
not have significant contribution (p<0.05; t = -2.117) to
the consumption of wild birds and reptiles; however a
negative t-value for income indicates that the lower the
income of respondents, the more the choice of wild birds
and reptiles (bush meat) consumption. This corroborate
the findings of Nuwer (2012,
http://green.blogs.
nytimes.com/2011/12/27/could-chicken-be-the-new-mon
key-someday) who described that the wealthier a family,
the higher its odd of consuming bush meat among
Gabonese residents.