Caricamento
Trova il tuo prossimo book preferito
Abbonati oggi e leggi gratis per 30 giorniInizia la tua prova gratuita di 30 giorniInformazioni sul libro
Sustainable Meat Production and Processing
Azioni libro
Inizia a leggereLunghezza: 894 pagine20 ore
- Editore:
- Academic Press
- Pubblicato:
- Oct 29, 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780128156889
- Formato:
- Libro
Descrizione
Sustainable Meat Production and Processing presents current solutions to promote industrial sustainability and best practices in meat production, from postharvest to consumption. The book acts as a guide for meat and animal scientists, technologists, engineers, professionals and producers. The 12 most trending topics of sustainable meat processing and meat by-products management are included, as are advances in ingredient and processing systems for meat products, techno-functional ingredients for meat products, protein recovery from meat processing by-products, applications of blood proteins, artificial meat production, possible uses of processed slaughter co-products, and environmental considerations.
Finally, the book covers the preferred technologies for sustainable meat production, natural antioxidants as additives in meat products, and facilitators and barriers for foods containing meat co-products.
Analyzes the role of novel technologies for sustainable meat processing Covers how to maintain sustainability and achieve high levels of meat quality and safety Presents solutions to improve productivity and environmental sustainability Takes a proteomic approach to characterize the biochemistry of meat quality defectsInformazioni sul libro
Sustainable Meat Production and Processing
Lunghezza: 894 pagine20 ore
Descrizione
Sustainable Meat Production and Processing presents current solutions to promote industrial sustainability and best practices in meat production, from postharvest to consumption. The book acts as a guide for meat and animal scientists, technologists, engineers, professionals and producers. The 12 most trending topics of sustainable meat processing and meat by-products management are included, as are advances in ingredient and processing systems for meat products, techno-functional ingredients for meat products, protein recovery from meat processing by-products, applications of blood proteins, artificial meat production, possible uses of processed slaughter co-products, and environmental considerations.
Finally, the book covers the preferred technologies for sustainable meat production, natural antioxidants as additives in meat products, and facilitators and barriers for foods containing meat co-products.
Analyzes the role of novel technologies for sustainable meat processing Covers how to maintain sustainability and achieve high levels of meat quality and safety Presents solutions to improve productivity and environmental sustainability Takes a proteomic approach to characterize the biochemistry of meat quality defects- Editore:
- Academic Press
- Pubblicato:
- Oct 29, 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780128156889
- Formato:
- Libro
Correlati a Sustainable Meat Production and Processing
Anteprima del libro
Sustainable Meat Production and Processing
Sustainable Meat Production and Processing
Editor
Charis M. Galanakis
Table of Contents
Cover image
Title page
Other works by Editor Charis M. Galanakis
Copyright
Contributors
Preface
Chapter 1. Principles for Commercial Supply Chain Managers of Livestock and Poultry
1.1. Introduction: Definition of Sustainability
1.2. Developing Commercial Supply Chain Systems
1.3. Livestock and Poultry Welfare Basics for Sustainability
1.4. Welfare Categories
1.5. Religious Slaughter Issues
1.6. Guidelines for Monitoring Animal Welfare in the Supply Chain
1.7. Developing Welfare Guidelines for Your Supply Chain
1.8. Clearly Written Guidelines and Comments by Auditors Are Essential
1.9. Further Questions
1.10. Do Not Confuse Issues About GMOs
1.11. Why People Fear GMOs
1.12. Cannot Always Predict Future Effects
1.13. Look at Conventional Breeding to Put GMOs and CRISPR in Perspective
1.14. Conclusions
Chapter 2. Production Strategies and Processing Systems of Meat: Current Status and Future Outlook for Innovation – A Global Perspective
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Red Meat Consumption Around the Globe
2.3. Overview of Nutritional Composition
2.4. Future Outlook and Scope for Innovation
2.5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Chapter 3. Technofunctional Ingredients for Meat Products: Current Challenges
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Sodium Chloride
3.3. Phosphates
3.4. Carbonates and Citrates
3.5. Starches
3.6. Vegetable Proteins
3.7. Hydrocolloids (Gums) and Vegetable Fibers
3.8. Animal Proteins
3.9. Conclusions
Chapter 4. Proteins Recovery From Meat Processing Coproducts
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Meat Processing Coproducts and Compounds
4.3. Pretreatment Technologies
4.4. Conversion Technologies: Protein Recovery and Extraction
4.5. Downstream Processing Technologies
4.6. Concluding Remarks
Chapter 5. Blood Proteins as Functional Ingredients
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Blood Production and Current Uses
5.3. Main Protein Components of Blood and Relevant Fractions
5.4. Techno-functional Properties of Blood Proteins
5.5. Effect of Processing on Functional Properties
5.6. Potential Applications as Food Ingredient
5.7. Commercial Uses of Blood Proteins: Products and Patents
5.8. Challenges and Future Perspectives
5.9. Conclusions
Chapter 6. Plant-Based Meat Analogues
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Composition of Meat Analogues
6.3. Production Process for Plant-Based Meat Analogues
6.4. Postproduction: Shelf Life and Packaging
6.5. Nutritional and Health Aspects
6.6. Environmental Benefits
6.7. Market Prospects
6.8. Major Constrains and Future Challenges
Chapter 7. Membrane Technology for the Recovery of High-Added Value Compounds From Meat Processing Coproducts
7.1. Introduction
7.2. Meat Processing and Coproducts
7.3. Protein-Based Compounds Recovered From Meat Processing Coproducts Using Conventional Membrane-Based Techniques
7.4. Potential Application of Protein-Related Compounds Recovered From Meat Coproducts
7.5. Chapter Summary
Chapter 8. Possible Uses of Processed Slaughter Byproducts
8.1. Introduction
8.2. Production and Supply of Animal Byproducts
8.3. Types and Nutritional Value of Slaughterhouse Byproducts
8.4. Valorization of Coproducts and Demands From the Food Industry
8.5. Valorization of Inedible Slaughter Byproducts: Chemicals and Energy
8.6. Conclusions
Chapter 9. Packaging Sustainability in the Meat Industry
9.1. Introduction
9.2. Packaging of Fresh Meat Cuts
9.3. Packaging Materials
9.4. Active Packaging
9.5. Conclusion
Chapter 10. Emerging Technologies of Meat Processing
10.1. High-Pressure Processing
10.2. Hydrodynamic Pressure or Shockwave Technology
10.3. Ohmic Heating for Meat Processing
10.4. Implementations of Pulsed Electric Fields for Meat Processing
10.5. Conclusion and Future Trends
Chapter 11. Natural Antioxidants in Fresh and Processed Meat
11.1. Introduction
11.2. Oxidation Processes in Meat and Meat Products
11.3. Application of Natural Antioxidants in the Meat Industry
11.4. Effect of Natural Antioxidants on Reducing Toxic Substances in Muscle Food and in the Human Body
11.5. Conclusions
Chapter 12. Facilitators and Barriers for Foods Containing Meat Coproducts
12.1. Introduction
12.2. What Are Meat Coproducts?
12.3. Drivers for Developing Foods Containing Meat Coproducts
12.4. Consumer Perspectives on Meat Coproducts as Foods and Food Ingredients
12.5. Lessons From Other Novel Food Sources
12.6. Other Barriers
12.7. Final Words
Index
Other works by Editor Charis M. Galanakis
Food Waste Recovery: Processing Technologies and Industrial Techniques, ISBN 9780128003510, Published July 2015
Innovation Strategies in the Food Industry: Tools for Implementation, ISBN 9780128037515, Published June 2016
Olive Mill Waste: Recent Advances for Sustainable Management, ISBN 9780128053140, Published December 2016
Nutraceutical and Functional Food Components: Effects of Innovative Processing Techniques, ISBN 9780128052570, Published January 2017
Handbook of Grape Processing By-Products: Sustainable Solutions, ISBN 9780128098707, Published March 2017
Handbook of Coffee Processing By-Products: Sustainable Applications, ISBN 9780128112908, Published May 2017
Sustainable Food Systems from Agriculture to Industry: Improving Production and Processing, ISBN 9780128119358, Published January 2018
Polyphenols: Properties, Recovery and Applications, ISBN 9780128135723, Published January 2018
Sustainable Recovery and Reutilization of Cereal Processing By-Products, ISBN 9780081021620, Published January 2018
Separation of Functional Molecules in Food by Membrane Technology, ISBN 9780128150566, Published December 2018
Innovations in Traditional Foods, Elsevier-Woodhead Publishing, ISBN 9780128148877, Published January 2019
Copyright
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom
525 B Street, Suite 1650, San Diego, CA 92101, United States
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-0-12-814874-7
For information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals
Publisher: Andre Gerhard Wolff
Acquisition Editor: Patricia Osborn
Editorial Project Manager: Katerina Zaliva
Production Project Manager: Denny Mansingh
Cover Designer: Matthew Limbert
Typeset by TNQ Technologies
Contributors
Kemal Aganovic, German Institute of Food Technologies (DIL e.V.), Quakenbrueck, Germany
Amali U. Alahakoon, Department of Food Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Carlos Álvarez, Department of Food Quality and Sensory Science, Teagasc Food Research Centre Ashtown, Dublin, Ireland
Federica Balestra, Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna, Cesena, Italy
A.E.D. Bekhit, Department of Food Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
H. Bruce, Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Rocío Gómez Cansino, Cátedra CONACyT, Postgraduate Division, Technological University of the Mixteca, Huajuapan de León, Oaxaca, Mexico
Irma Caro, Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Medicine, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain
Roberto Castro-Muñoz
University of Chemistry and Technology Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
Institute on Membrane Technology, ITM-CNR, Rende, Italy
Nanoscience Institute of Aragon (INA), Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
Romain Couture, Department of Food Quality and Sensory Science, Teagasc Food Research Centre Ashtown, Dublin, Ireland
Marco Dalla Rosa, Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna, Cesena, Italy
Birgit Dekkers, Food Process Engineering, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Liana Drummond, Department of Food Quality and Sensory Science, Teagasc Food Research Centre Ashtown, Dublin, Ireland
Edith G. González Mondragón, Institute of Agroindustry, Technological University of the Mixteca, Huajuapan de León, Oaxaca, Mexico
Temple Grandin, Dept. of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States
Volker Heinz, German Institute of Food Technologies (DIL e.V.), Quakenbrueck, Germany
Maeve Henchion, Rural Economy and Development Programme, Teagasc, Ashtown Food Research Centre, Ashtown, Dublin, Ireland
J.L. Jacobs, Animal Production Science, Agriculture Victoria Research, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, Ellinbank, VIC, Australia
Konstantina Kyriakopoulou, Food Process Engineering, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Martha-Yarely Leal Ramos, Faculty of Chemical Sciences, Autonomous University of Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico
Sarah A. Lynch, Department of Food Quality and Sensory Science, Teagasc Food Research Centre Ashtown, Dublin, Ireland
Javier Mateo, Department of Food Hygiene and Food Technology, University of León, León, Spain
Mary McCarthy, Department of Management and Marketing, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Néstor Gutiérrez Mendez, Faculty of Chemical Sciences, Autonomous University of Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico
Leticia Mora, Instituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de Alimentos (CSIC), Paterna, Spain
V. Muchenje, University of Fort Hare, Faculty of Science and Agriculture, Alice, South Africa
Anne Maria Mullen, Department of Food Quality and Sensory Science, Teagasc Food Research Centre Ashtown, Dublin, Ireland
Indrawati Oey
Department of Food Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Riddet Institute, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Massimiliano Petracci, Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna, Cesena, Italy
E.N. Ponnampalam, Animal Production Science, Agriculture Victoria Research, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, Bundoora, VIC, Australia
Milagro Reig, Instituto de Ingeniería de Alimentos para el Desarrollo, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain
René Ruby-Figueroa, Programa Institucional de Fomento a la Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación, Universidad Tecnológica Metropolitana, Santiago, Chile
N.D. Scollan, The Institute for Global Food Security (IGFS), School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, United Kingdom
P. Silva, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka
Sergiy Smetana, German Institute of Food Technologies (DIL e.V.), Quakenbrueck, Germany
Nino Terjung, German Institute of Food Technologies (DIL e.V.), Quakenbrueck, Germany
Fidel Toldrá-Reig, Instituto de Tecnología Química (CSIC-UPV), Valencia, Spain
Mònica Toldrà, Institute for Food and Agricultural Technology, University of Girona, Girona, Spain
Fidel Toldrá, Instituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de Alimentos (CSIC), Paterna, Spain
Atze Jan van der Goot, Food Process Engineering, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Luz H. Villalobos-Delgado, Institute of Agroindustry, Technological University of the Mixteca, Huajuapan de León, Oaxaca, Mexico
Preface
Sustainability is a concept reflecting the principle that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This approach is becoming a major issue for the food industry worldwide for a simple reason: resources have been depleted as demand grows. The meat industry is one of the less environmentally friendly sectors of food production, and therefore, increasing attention toward sustainability have stimulated companies to reconsider their management policy and face problems that have been ignored for many decades. The urgent need for sustainability within the meat industries has turned the interest of research to investigate the handling of their resources with another perspective to adapt more profitable options. Responding to the goals of sustainability requires the maximum utilization of all raw materials produced and integration of activities throughout all the production-to-consumption stages. To maximize the conversion of raw materials into consumer products in the meat industry, efforts begin to improve welfare, then to reduce energy consumption of meat processing, to valorize co- and byproducts as well as to improve packaging. Subsequently, there is a need for a new book addressing the latest demands of the meat industry.
Among other activities (webinars, workshops, e-courses, etc.), Food Waste Recovery Group (www.foodwasterecovery.group) of the ISEKI Food Association has published books over the past four years that deal with different issues of sustainable food systems, innovations in the food industry, food waste recovery, and nonthermal processing. Following the on-time needs of literature, the current book provides a reference covering the most important aspects of sustainable meat production and processing at all relevant stages. The general scope is to support the scientific community, professionals, and companies (big and small enterprises) that aspire to improve their efficiency and sustainability.
The book consists of 12 chapters and numerous topics. Chapter 1 deals with practical agricultural and animal welfare sustainability, as well as with principles for commercial supply-chain managers of livestock and poultry. An effective commercial animal welfare assessment system should have third-party independent audits, internal farm audits by the producer, and audits by the corporate staffs who are buying the animal products. Chapter 2 discusses current trends of meat consumption around the global, as well as sustainable production strategies and processing systems for the future, covering aspects from farm to fork. Chapter 3 covers functional ingredients and additives that are commonly used in processed meat products to retain moisture and modify texture. Mechanisms of action, current market challenges toward sustainability, health, and consumer perception are discussed for each of the main technofunctional ingredients categorized (sodium chloride, phosphates, carbonates and citrates, starches and flours, vegetable proteins, hydrocolloids and vegetable fibers, and dairy and egg proteins).
Chapter 4 reviews the current state of the art of the different technologies that can be applied to recover proteins from meat processing coproducts, and from other secondary processing streams from meat processing for potential food applications. The increasing demand for protein coupled with calls for better use of natural resources have renewed interest on the recovery of value from coproducts and secondary food production streams, providing an opportunity for the meat processing industry to fully explore the potential of these rich materials. At this point, it is important to clarify the difference between the terms byproduct
and coproduct,
particularly in the meat sector. The term byproduct is used in the United States and many other countries to describe parts of the carcass other than dressed meat. In addition, it is widely used for research purposes to describe different materials that have the prospects of being reutilized, recycled, or reused for several purposes (e.g. human nutrition, energy production etc.). On the other hand, the European Union regulations specifically define animal byproducts as any part of the animal carcass or any material of animal origin not intended for human consumption.
This categorically excludes such materials from the human food chain and includes parts of the animal which may present a safety risk, inedible material, or material which the operator has decided to direct to purposes other than human consumption. This decision, once made, shall be irreversible (EC Regulation 1069/2009). Three categories of animal byproducts are defined in the regulations, according to the level of risk presented, category 1 being the highest risk category and including specific risk materials associated with transmissible diseases such as the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Category 2 is also considered high risk and includes materials such as infected or contaminated carcasses; category 3 is considered low risk, and includes, for example, inedible carcass materials, such as hides and skins, free from infection. However, frequently many edible products of the fifth quarter originating from healthy animals and suitable for human consumption are, for operational or commercial reasons, directed into category 3, excluding such items from the food chain. Therefore, for the needs of the current book, the term coproduct
is used to describe only materials that are intended for human consumption whereas the term byproduct
is used for all kind of materials (edible and nonedible) that are under evaluation for research purposes. In Chapter 5, blood, which is one of the main coproducts of the meat industry, is discussed as a potential and sustainable source of technofunctional proteins. Considerations such as the generated volumes, the economic viability of its industrial use, main fractions (e.g. proteins) that can be extracted, most relevant functionalities, and current commercial uses are analyzed.
As the world's population increases, the need for reliable protein sources is growing. Meat is well-considered a good source of high biological value protein, but meat is not sustainable. Following this trend, the market turned to vegetable proteins, such as pulses, wheat gluten, and soy protein, which are processed into meat-like products, also known as meat analogues. Chapter 6 discusses the insights concerning plant-based meat analogues, their production, and future developments. In Chapter 7, the application of membrane technology for recovery purposes is addressed and summarized, displaying a clear prospect for protein separation from meat processing coproducts. Furthermore, an outlook is provided concerning the potential postapplication of the solutes. Chapter 8 presents the valorization of coproducts and demands from the food industry, especially in the development of high added-value compounds like bioactives and nutraceuticals, as well as feed and pet food uses. Other applications of inedible byproducts like chemical, pharmaceutical, and energy applications also are discussed.
Chapter 9 discusses existing and alternative packaging solutions, with a goal of denoting weaknesses and opportunities to improve sustainability efficiency of the meat manufacturing sector. Replacement of conventional energy-intensive meat processes with innovative and nonthermal technologies provides another potential to reduce energy consumption, reduce production costs, and improve the sustainability of meat production. In Chapter 10, four technologies (high pressure processing, shockwave or dynamic high pressure processing, pulsed electric fields and ohmic heating) at different market state of emergence are briefly reviewed, indicating different limitations and highlighting problems solving via improvements of technology readiness levels and further equipment development. The research and potential use of antioxidants (synthetic, nature-identical, and natural) in fresh and processed meat are described in Chapter 11. The most important potentially cytotoxic substances in meat related to meat oxidation are classified, and studies on the effect of the use of natural antioxidants on reducing their levels are reviewed. Finally, Chapter 12 discusses consumer evaluations of food products that incorporate ingredients derived from offals that have been produced through a range of food processing technologies. It highlights that trial by curious consumers is not enough and therefore interventions by different stakeholders will be required to enhance capability and motivation of consumers to change their behavior to incorporate such products into their diets.
Conclusively, the book fills the existing literature gap by providing certain solutions for industrial sustainability despite meat processing, production, and co- and byproducts management. It is a guide for all meat and animal scientists, technologists, researchers, and engineers trying to optimize industrial performance and reduce environmental impact. It concerns all kind of professionals who work in the meat industry and are seeking to improve their by- and coproduct management by actively utilizing respective streams in effective applications. It could be a helpful reference book for producers, larger companies, or companies supplying devices to meat industry. Finally, it could be used as a textbook and ancillary reading in graduate and postgraduate level multidisciplinary courses of meat and animal science, as well as of food, environmental, and bioresource technology.
During this project I had the opportunity to collaborate with so many experts from Australia, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Germany, Mexico, India, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Sri Lanka, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Hereby, I would like to honor and thank all the authors of the book for accepting my invitation, collaborating in this project, and bringing together several topics of sustainable meat systems in one comprehensive textbook. Their dedication to book's concept, as well as their alignment with the editorial guidelines and timeline is much appreciated. I would also like to thank the acquisition editor Patricia Osborn, the book manager Jacklyn Truesdell as well as all colleagues of Elsevier's production team for their help during publishing process. Finally, I have a message for all the readers of this book. Big collaborative book projects may contain errors and gaps as they are developed after thorough scientific discussions of different experts. Thereby, any comments, notifications, or even criticism are and always will be welcome. In that case, please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss any issues of this book.
Charis M. Galanakis email address: foodwasterecoverygroup@gmail.com, email address: cgalanakis@chemlab.gr, ¹Food Waste Recovery Group, ISEKI Food Association, Vienna, Austria, ¹Research and Innovation Department, Galanakis Laboratories, Chania, Greece
Chapter 1
Principles for Commercial Supply Chain Managers of Livestock and Poultry
Temple Grandin Dept. of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States
Abstract
Defining what is sustainable may be difficult. It may be easier to define practices that are not sustainable that should be avoided. Preserving the environment is a major issue. Examples of unsustainable practices are depletion of aquifers and fisheries, and contamination of water supplies with animal waste or chemicals. There are two major types of animal welfare standards that should be followed: basic standards such as the international standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and standards with specific increased requirements for animal housing, or organic for high-value markets. In all programs the first step is to prevent abusive handling of animals and neglected health problems. Numerical animal-based outcome measurements can be used to prevent suffering by assessing bruises, lesions, swellings, dirtiness, lameness, coat/feather condition, body condition, and handling practices. An effective commercial animal welfare assessment system should have three parts: (1) third-party independent audits, (2) internal farm audits by the producer, and (3) audits by the corporate staffs who are buying the animal products. Many welfare issues can be assessed at the abattoir. On-farm visits will be required for evaluating compliance with animal housing specifications, pain relief after surgeries, and environmental enrichment.
Keywords
Animal welfare; Cattle; Chickens; Pigs; Supply chair; Sustainable agriculture
1.1. Introduction: Definition of Sustainability
Looking at sustainable agriculture, there are many definitions of sustainability. Supply chain managers need to understand this because younger consumers are becoming more interested in supporting practices that are sustainable (Economist, 2017). Both scientific papers and major websites on sustainability all agree that preserving the environment is a major component (Tilman et al., 2002; SARE, 2012; SAREP, 2017). People who are raising crops or animals also have to be able to make a living. The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program (the USDA website) emphasizes that profitability must be long-term. The University of California sustainability website is similar to SARE (2012) (SAREP, 2017). The three main sustainability factors are environmental health, economic prosperity and social economic equity.
Animal welfare is not mentioned on these major websites. Some organizations have added it to the social economic equity or quality-of-life section. The Grace Communication Foundation (2017) states that sustainability has four parts:
1. Preserve the environment: Examples of good practices are crop rotation to improve soil health and reduce plant diseases. Pasture based grazing and livestock integrated into a crop rotation system to improve the land (Dobrowolski and Engle, 2016; Lemaire et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2015; Cerri et al., 2014; Papanastasis, 2009). Well managed grazing can improve biodiversity (Marty, 2015).
2. Maintain public health.
3. Vibrant communities: Includes social economic equity and economic prosperity.
4. Animal welfare: Part of social economic equity.
1.2. Developing Commercial Supply Chain Systems
If I am a manager who is developing a sustainability program for my commercial agricultural business, where do I start? The author suggests starting by defining what everybody would agree is not sustainable. If I am responsible for purchasing food and managing a supply chain, I must insure that bad practices are eliminated from my system. There is a baseline that everybody should attain. The outline below would be the bare minimum requirements that all responsible food supply chain managers should follow. Individual companies serving specialized markets may have additional requirements. Below is a list of things that are definitely not sustainable:
1.2.1. Environmental Examples of Unsustainable Practices and Lack of Stewardship That Must Be Avoided
1. Depleting an underground aquifer that is not being replenished by rainfall (Taylor and Nel, 2014; Lai, 2017; Dalin et al., 2017; Aidaya, 2017).
2. Depleting stocks of wild fish in the oceans (Zhu et al., 2012).
3. Chemical fertilizer and manure runoff that causes algae blooms (Patel and Parshna-Kottas, 2017).
4. Dumping animal manure, blood, or slaughter plant waste into a river.
5. Loss of topsoil and depletion of soil nutrients.
6. Overgrazing where a pasture is stripped of vegetation. Well managed grazing can improve land (Dobrowolski and Engle, 2016; Papanastasis, 2009; Marty, 2015).
7. Contamination of drinking water with chemicals, animal manure, or human waste.
8. Cutting down rainforest to raise either livestock or crops. In countries with expanding export markets for both soybeans and meat, integrating cattle grazing with soybean cropping may help improve both biodiversity and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Garrett and Rausch, 2015). Monocultures of intensive farming of single crops is a poor practice.
1.2.2. Quality of Life for People to Provide Social Economic Equity: Examples of Unsustainable Conditions
1. Housing farm workers with a lack of running water and sewage systems.
2. Poor animal antibiotics use that contributes to antibiotic resistance (Zhu et al., 2012; Pruden et al., 2013).
3. Highly dangerous working conditions where workers are getting killed or may lose a limb or an eye (Waldman and Mehrotra, 2018). Supply managers have done a good job improving food safety and animal welfare, but in some cases, the workers who clean the abattoir during the night shift have been neglected.
4. Lack of medical care for farm workers.
5. Exposure of workers to damaging levels of chemicals or particulates (dust) that greatly increase the risk of severe disease.
1.2.3. Quick Short-Term Profit Is Not Sustainable for Local People
There are many situations where bad practices can make a lot of money in the short-term but in the long-term, it is not sustainable. One study showed that farmers who rented farmland were less likely to take good care of it because they had no vested interest in long-term sustainability. These issues are discussed in Reitsma et al. (2005). Other examples of practices that are not sustainable include:
1. Farming that has to be abandoned when an aquifer runs dry.
2. Overgrazing a pasture and wrecking it.
3. A large supply chain for importing food breaks down and people run out of food. This may be due to either war or when water supplies have been depleted and the local people are not able to grow sufficient food.
1.3. Livestock and Poultry Welfare Basics for Sustainability
The first step for a manager of a food supply chain is to ensure that bad practices are not occurring on farms and slaughterhouses where the manager buys from. Most stakeholders can agree that certain practices should be eliminated. Today, everybody has a mobile phone with a video camera. Videos of people beating and kicking animals can instantly go viral and get millions of views. The OIE (2018) World Organization of Animal Health has basic animal welfare guidelines that everybody should follow. The different niche markets, organic agriculture, and other specialized programs may have additional requirements that exceed the minimum standards. The additional requirements are for housing that provides the animals with more freedom to perform natural behaviors. People who care about animals can agree that there are bad conditions that cause poor animal welfare that must be corrected.
The OIE now has basic animal welfare guidelines for slaughter, transport, animal depopulation after a disease outbreak, broiler chickens, dairy cows, and beef cattle (OIE, 2018). There are still no OIE welfare guidelines for laying hens. For an OIE standard to become official, many different countries have to approve it. The reason laying hen guidelines are lacking is due to controversies about animal housing. The issues are individual gestation crates for housing sows and keeping hens in small battery cages. Pregnant sows housed in gestation stalls are not able to turn around for most of their adult lives. In Europe, sow gestation stalls are being phased out by legislation. In the United States, sow stalls are legal, but many large pork buyers are gradually eliminating them from their supply chains. In the egg-layer industry, small battery cages are the main issue. These can be replaced with either cage-free systems or colony cages that provide the hens with amenities such as nest boxes and perches.
1.3.1. Welfare Problems That Must Be Prevented on All Livestock and Poultry Farms to Maintain a Minimum Level of Sustainability
1. Acts of Abuse. The following practices are banned: Beating animals, injury to animals during handling such as breaking tails, use of pointed sticks, dragging conscious downed nonambulatory animals and practices that are forbidden by the OIE such as tendon cutting as a method to restrain cattle or poking out eyes (OIE, 2018).
2. Housing systems that cause high percentages of swollen leg joints or other lesions and injuries. This is a major issue for dairy cows in cubicles (freestalls) and beef cattle housed indoors on concrete (Fulwider et al., 2007; Wagner et al., 2016; Welfare Quality Network, 2009a,b; Von Keyserlingk et al., 2012; Whay et al., 2003).
3. High percentages of lame (difficulty walking) animals can be easily assessed with the following assessment tools (Welfare Quality Network, 2009a,b; NAMI, 2015; Grandin, 2015; Edwards-Callaway, et al., 2017; Von Keyserlingk et al., 2012).
4. Skinny animals with very poor body condition. For beef cattle, use local assessment tools (Grandin, 2015). For sows in intensive systems, she is too thin if you can see vertebrae bumps on her back.
5. Neglected health problems such as a necrotic prolapses or advanced cancer of the eye in cattle. Large hernias in pigs that have become damaged (Welfare Quality Network, 2009a,b).
6. High ammonia levels that damage eyes or lungs. OIE specifies a maximum of 25ppm of ammonia in animal housing (OIE, 2018). For good livestock and poultry welfare, the levels should be much lower.
7. High percentages of filthy, dirty animals are both an animal welfare and a food safety concern (Grandin, 2015).
8. High percentages of broiler chickens or laying hens with breast blisters, hock burn, poor feather condition, or footpad lesions (Saraiva et al., 2016; Mayne, 2005; Dawkins et al., 2004; Ekstrand et al., 1997; Allain et al., 2009; Welfare Quality Network, 2009a,b; Laywel, 2006; Featherwel, 2016).
9. Poor transport and handling practices that cause high percentage of animals to die, become injured or bruised (Strappini et al., 2012; McKeith et al., 2015). Poor handling of poultry during loading will cause high percentages of broken wings.
10. Rough, poor handling practices. Handling of livestock and poultry must be constantly monitored to prevent abusive practices such as deliberately slamming gates on animals or driving animals over the top of other animals. To prevent rough handling problems, procedures should be assessed with numerical scoring. Some of the variables that should be measured during handling for veterinary procedures, truck loading, or slaughter are percentage of animals falling, percentage vocalizing, and percentage moved with an electric goad (Woiwode et al., 2016; Grandin, 1998, 2001; 2010; Simon et al., 2016a,b; Velarde et al., 2014). Numerical scoring makes it possible to determine if practices are either improving or getting worse (Grandin, 2000, 2005, 2010). It has also been effective for improving the percentage of cattle stunned correctly at abattoirs (Grandin, 2000, 2010). There is an extensive review of scoring systems for evaluating preslaughter handling of cattle in (Losada-Espinosa et al., 2018). Video cameras are increasingly being used to monitor animal handling.
1.3.1.1. Abattoir Scoring System
1. The following variables are measured on either 50 to 100 animals.
• Percentage of animals stunned correctly with one application of the stunner.
• Percentage of animals that remain unconscious on the bleedrail.
• Percentage of animals moved with an electric prod.
• Percentage of animals that fall down during handling.
• Percentage of animals that vocalize (moo, bellow, or squeal in the stun box or restrainer).
2. Exposing livestock and poultry to extreme heat or cold. Open mouth breathing in cattle at rest is a sign of severe heat stress (Gaughan et al., 2010; Gaughan and Mader, 2016). Shade will reduce cattle panting (Hayes et al., 2017).
1.4. Welfare Categories
To help large buyers or producers understand animal welfare issues, they can be divided into four categories.
1. Prevent abuse and neglect.
2. Reduce suffering.
3. Take care of basic behavioral needs.
4. Do the animals have positive emotions?
1.4.1. Preventing Abuse or Neglect
Everybody must prevent problems that are not sustainable and must be prevented. Animals must also be provided with clean water and sufficient feed to maintain health and body conditions (Welfare Quality Network, 2009a,b).
1.4.2. Methods to Reduce Suffering
The use of numerical measurements to assess welfare would be in this category. Cutoff points have to be determined for acceptable and not acceptable percentages in each supply chain. Researchers have found that numerical animal based measurements are effective for improving management, handling, and housing (Whay et al., 2003, 2007; Lionch et al., 2015; Grandin, 2015; Chapinal et al., 2014; deVries et al., 2015). Animal-based outcome measurements have been developed for many conditions that compromise welfare and are reviewed in Grandin (2017). There are big differences between the best and worst farms for both lameness and swollen leg joints on dairy cows (Zurbrigg et al., 2005a,b; Whay et al., 2003; Dawkins et al., 2004). Careful cleaning and management of the bedding in cubicles (freestalls) will reduce swollen leg joints on dairy cows (Fulwider et al., 2007). Data should also be collected on the percentage of animals that die during transport. Strappini et al. (2012) contains an excellent bruise scoring tool for assessing the origin and severity of bruises on cattle. A good feature of this scoring system is that it separates bruises on the spine from bruises on other parts of the carcass. When numerical scoring is used, it is impossible for all animals to be perfect. To have a high level of welfare animals with a major problem such as a lameness or swollen joints should be under 5%.
1.4.2.1. Pain Relief After Surgeries
It is common practice to provide no pain relief after surgeries such as dehorning or castration of calves, lambs, or piglets. Numerous studies show the benefits of providing pain relief with a local anesthetic and an inexpensive drug such as meloxicam (Lomax and Windsor, 2013; Coetzee, 2013). Another approach is to use methods where surgeries can be avoided. These could be genetic selection for polled (hornless) cattle, immunizations to prevent boar taint in intact boars (Moore and Mollan, 2017), or genetic selection of pigs that would be less prone to tail biting or fighting (Breuer et al., 2005; Turner et al., 2018). In beef cattle, the Angus breed is already polled. Holstein dairy cattle have a narrower gene pool and breeding polled dairy cows may be more difficult compared to beef. Existing polled Holsteins are more inbred compared to horned (Wingdig et al., 2015).
1.4.3. Providing for Basic Behavioral Needs
Freedom for the animal to perform normal movements such as turning around and being able to stand at its full normal posture is a basic need. Highly motivated natural instinctual behaviors should also be accommodated. Some of them are a secluded nest box for laying pens (Freire et al., 1997; Duncan and Kite, 1989), housing animals in social groups, and providing environmental enrichment. For pigs and chickens that would be litter for chickens to scratch in and fibrous substrates or soft objects for pigs to root or chew (Van de Weerd et al., 2003; Grandin, 1989; Studnitz and Pedersen, 2007). Sow gestation stalls and small battery cages for laying hens do not provide for these basic behavioral needs. It is the author's opinion that these systems should be phased out.
In the supply chain, managing the housing requirements will vary depending on customer or ethical requirements. When a farm is being evaluated, it will either have the housing specified in the guideline or not have it. If group housing for sows is required, then the farm must have it. The housing is either in compliance or not. If the farm still has a forbidden type of housing, it would have to be delisted and removed from the approved supplier list.
1.4.4. Positive Emotions
The first three categories prevent suffering, but the animal may have few positive experiences. Research shows that animals should be able to experience positive emotions (Mellor, 2016). The question would be: Does the animal have a life worth living?
1.5. Religious Slaughter Issues
Religious slaughter is an area of great controversy. To allow religious freedom, European legislators, US legislation, and the OIE all allow slaughter without prior stunning. Halal slaughter is practiced by Muslims and kosher slaughter is practiced by Jews. When this issue is discussed from an animal welfare perspective, it has become highly polarized. Most large food buying companies allow religious slaughter in their supply chains. There are two approaches that can be taken when this issue is debated. The first approach by many people who are concerned about animal welfare is to attempt to ban religious slaughter without stunning. The second approach is to develop methods for improving religious slaughter without stunning. In the United States, religious slaughter is protected and it is exempt from Federal Humane Slaughter regulations (FSIS.usda.gov, 2017). The approach was to develop methods that would improve religious slaughter without stunning. In the United States shackling and hoisting by an animal's rear leg is a legal method of restraint for religious slaughter. In Europe and Canada, this restraint practice is banned, and a restraining chute is required. The OIE (2018) guidelines state the following: Methods of restraint causing avoidable suffering should not be used in conscious animals because they cause severe pain and stress. Suspending or hoisting animals (other than poultry) by the feet or legs.
In previous papers, it has been stated that the issue of restraint must be separated from the issue of the throat cut (Grandin, 1994; Grandin and Regenstein, 1994). In the early 1990s, research was about the development of improved restraining devices to replace shackling and hoisting prior to the throat cut. An upright restraint pen was on the market, but most of the units lacked pressure controls and squeezed the cattle too hard. This would cause many of the cattle to vocalize (moo or bellow) (Grandin, 1998). Cattle vocalizations during handling and restraint are associated with physiological measures of stress (Dunn, 1990; Hemsworth et al., 2011). At that time, beef companies were interested in replacing shackling and hoisting with a modified upright restraint pen (Grandin, 1992). It was designed to limit pressure applied to the animal. This made it possible to observe the bovine's reaction to the throat cut because gently restraining the animal in an upright position caused very little behavioral reaction (Grandin, 1994).
Well-designed and operated cattle restraining devices will have a low percentage of animals that vocalize (moo or bellow). Each animal is scored as either vocalizing or silent (Grandin, 1998). Low levels of 5% or less or can be easily attained in both upright and rotating boxes (Grandin, 2012). Poorly designed or a carelessly operated restrainer will have a high percentage of cattle vocalizing of 32% (Grandin, 1998), 25% (Bourquet et al., 2011), and 47% (Hayes et al., 2015). The plant in the Hayes et al. (2015) study had 100% electric prod use. Another major cause of high percentages of cattle vocalization is excessive pressure from the restraint device (Bourquet et al., 2011; Grandin, 2001). Other causes are pinching and electric prod use to induce cattle to enter the restrainer.
1.5.1. Religious Slaughter With Stunning
In both the Muslim and Jewish religion, the goal is to have the animal die in the act of slaughter by having the throat cut and fully bled out. Many Muslim religious authorities will allow stunning prior to the throat cut (Nakyinsige et al., 2013; Fuseini et al., 2017). The preferred stunning method is head only electrical stunning. This method renders the animal unconscious for a short period of time and is fully reversible. Khalid et al. (2015) found that head only electric stunning increased bleedout. Nonpenetrating captive bolt stunning is also permitted by some Muslim religious authorities. The heart will continue to beat for several minutes after either penetrating or nonpenetrating captive bolt (Vinmini et al., 1983). The strictest Jewish and Muslim slaughter may forbid the use of any type of either preslaughter or postcut stunning. It is the author's opinion that to achieve an excellent level of animal welfare, stunning should be performed before the cut. This is in agreement with other animal welfare specialists.
1.5.2. Slaughter Without Stunning
It is the author's opinion that cattle kosher (Jewish) slaughter without stunning can be greatly improved and brought up to an acceptable level of animal welfare. To achieve this requires greater attention to details of procedure than conventional slaughter with stunning (Grandin, 1994; Regenstein, 2017). For cattle, the special long kosher knife must be used. This knife is long enough to span the width of a cow's neck and prevent the tip from gouging the wound. Another feature of this knife is that it is sharpened on a whetstone that would provide a smoother blade than sharpening on a grinder. When this knife is used correctly, slaughter without stunning caused a smaller behavioral reaction than waving a hand close to the bovine's eye (Grandin, 1994). The author has observed slaughter of cattle, sheep, and veal calves with knives that were either dull or too short. This resulted in the animal struggling during the cut, causing pain.
For smaller animals such as sheep and goats, there may be acceptable knives that can be purchased from regular meat industry suppliers. The knife must be long enough to span the neck (OIE, 2018). It should also pass the paper-cutting test. To perform this test, dangle by one corner a standard sheet of A-4 printer paper by the thumb and forefinger. When the knife is dry, it should easily slice through the edge of the dangling piece of paper. The paper is held in one hand and the knife that slices through the paper is held in the other hand.
1.5.3. Other Welfare Issues With Slaughter Without Stunning
Studies have shown that the position of the knife cut can alter collapse times (loss of posture) in cattle. This would shorten the time for the animal to become unconscious. Cutting the neck close to the C1 (Cervical 1) position will reduce the time interval to collapse (Gregory et al., 2010). A cut close to C1 had an average collapse time of 13.5 s and a cut further back was 19 s. Another issue is aspiration of blood into the respiratory tract (Gregory et al., 2009). It is likely that this may occur while the animal is still conscious.
1.5.4. Species Differences in Religious Slaughter Issues
Animal welfare issues during slaughter without stunning are greater for cattle compared to sheep. This is due to two reasons. Cattle are larger and require expensive restraint equipment to hold them in a low-stress manner. Small animals such as sheep can be easily held by a person. The second factor is blood vessel anatomy. When the throat is cut in a sheep, the entire blood supply to the brain is severed. This is not true in cattle because they have an additional blood supply through the vertebral arteries that are not severed during the throat cut (Baldwin and Bell, 1963a,b). Numerous studies have shown that sheep will lose consciousness more quickly after the throat cut than cattle (Blackmore, 1984; Daly et al., 1988; Newhook and Blackmore, 1982). The average time to loss of posture (ability to stand) is 2–14 s for sheep and 17–83 s for cattle.
1.5.5. Aversiveness of the Throat Cut
Several studies have shown that the knife cut causes pain (Sabow et al., 2016; Gibson et al., 2009a,b). Gibson et al. (2009a,b) used a knife that may have been too short and it was sharpened on a grindstone. A traditional kosher knife is sharpened on a whetstone. This would provide a smoother blade. The second study by Sabow et al. (2016) had no knife description. At the present time, there are no studies where the special kosher knife has been assessed with modern methods using EEG. A study done by Neves et al. (2016) showed that response to a nostril stimulation and a tongue pinch were absent in 90% of the cattle at 20 and 60 s after cutting with the special kosher knife.
In evaluating all types of slaughter, it is important to differentiate between when an animal is definitely conscious and able to feel pain and when it is definitely unconscious and brain dead (Terlouw et al., 2016). Regenstein (2017) says the same thing with different wording, but it is the same principle. There must be a differentiation between loss of the ability to feel pain
and loss of all reflexes in the head.
(Regenstein, 2017). Terlouw et al. (2016) states that animals are definitely conscious if they remain standing, are vocalizing, have natural spontaneous blinking, or respond to the menace/threat test, where a hand is waved in front of the eye without touching. The author recommends that the animal should not be removed from the restraint device until the above reflexes are absent. The corneal reflex and rhythmic breathing must be absent before invasive assessing procedures are started. The animal is definitely brain dead and unconscious when these two signs are absent.
Religious slaughter without stunning definitely causes pain when the wrong knife or poor technique is used. To provide the best possible welfare during slaughter without stunning the following steps are required:
1. Low stress method of restraint – upright preferred. Rotating boxes can also be operated at an acceptable level of welfare. They are much more expensive and it is more difficult to design one that will hold the animal in a low stress manner.
2. The correct long sharp knife
3. Highly skilled person performing the cut.
4. Management that is committed to animal welfare. There are some plants performing religious slaughter that are poorly managed and procedures have become sloppy. This is due to poor management that is either hiding behind the legal exemption or a lack of buyers who will enforce voluntary standards.
1.5.6. Outcome-Based Indicators During Religious Slaughter
To maintain an acceptable level of animal welfare during religious slaughter without stunning, the following outcome-based indicators should be regularly assessed and audited. This will make it possible to determine if procedures such are getting better or are getting worse.
1. Vocalization: The percentage of cattle vocalizing in the restraint box or during entry into it should be 5% or less (Grandin, 2010, 2012). Score each bovine as silent or as a vocalizer. Do not use vocalization scoring for sheep.
2. Electric goad use: For an excellent score, 5% or less of the cattle should be moved with an electric prod. Avoid using electric goads on sheep.
3. Falling: Animals should not fall during handling—should be 1% or less for all species.
4. Collapse time scoring: In upright restraint, record the time in seconds until collapse. Ninety percent or more of the cattle should collapse (loss of posture) within 30s (Grandin, 2010; Gregory et al., 2010). In a rotating box, use time-to-eye rollback. In either type of box, natural eye blinking and menace/threat eye reflex must be absent before the animal is removed from the box.
5. Dressing procedures: All signs of brain activity must be absent before invasive dressing procedures are started. Signs of brain death are: all eye reflexes absent, corneal reflex absent, loss of posture, and rhythmic breathing absent.
1.6. Guidelines for Monitoring Animal Welfare in the Supply Chain
A high-level manager of a food supply chain must ensure that whatever their label says, they are actually doing it. Are their farms and slaughter plants actually doing what the label says? I have worked as a consultant for many retail food restaurant companies. The best supply managers have three parts in their supply chain supervision and auditing programs.
1. Third-partyindependent audits by a professional auditing company or government agency.
2. Each farm or abattoir does internal audits on a weekly or monthly basis.
3. Corporate audits or second-party auditing is done by the food company supply chain managers. Corporate oversight
Hai raggiunto la fine di questa anteprima. Registrati per continuare a leggere!
Pagina 1 di 1
Recensioni
Recensioni
Cosa pensano gli utenti di Sustainable Meat Production and Processing
0Valutazione: 0 su 5 stelle
0 valutazioni / 0 recensioni
Cosa ne pensi?
Valutazione: su 5 stelle