Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Animal ; 16 Suppl 1: 100376, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34836809

ABSTRACT

This article critically reviews the current state of knowledge on the quality of animal-source foods according to animal production and food processing conditions, including consumer expectations-behaviours and the effects of consumption of animal-source foods on human health. Quality has been defined through seven core attributes: safety, commercial, sensory, nutritional, technological, convenience, and image. Image covers ethical, cultural and environmental dimensions associated with the origin of the food and the way it is produced and processed. This framework enabled to highlight the priorities given to the different quality attributes. It also helped to identify potential antagonisms and synergies among quality attributes, between production and processing stages, and among stakeholders. Primacy is essentially given to commercial quality attributes, especially for standard commodity animal-source foods. This primacy has strongly influenced genetic selection and farming practices in all livestock commodity chains and enabled substantial quantitative gains, although at the expense of other quality traits. Focal issues are the destructuration of chicken muscle that compromises sensory, nutritional and image quality attributes, and the fate of males in the egg and dairy sectors, which have heavily specialised their animals. Quality can be gained but can also be lost throughout the farm-to-fork continuum. Our review highlights critical factors and periods throughout animal production and food processing routes, such as on-farm practices, notably animal feeding, preslaughter and slaughter phases, food processing techniques, and food formulation. It also reveals on-farm and processing factors that create antagonisms among quality attributes, such as the castration of male pigs, the substitution of marine-source feed by plant-based feed in fish, and the use of sodium nitrite in meat processing. These antagonisms require scientific data to identify trade-offs among quality attributes and/or solutions to help overcome these tensions. However, there are also food products that value synergies between quality attributes and between production and processing phases, particularly Geographical Indications, such as for cheese and dry-cured ham. Human epidemiological studies have found associations between consumption of animal-source foods and increased or decreased risk for chronic non-communicable diseases. These associations have informed public health recommendations. However, they have not yet considered animal production and food processing conditions. A concerted and collaborative effort is needed from scientists working in animal science, food process engineering, consumer science, human nutrition and epidemiology in order to address this research gap. Avenues for research and main options for policy action are discussed.


Subject(s)
Animal Feed , Meat , Animals , Livestock , Male , Nutritional Status , Swine
2.
Animal ; 13(8): 1760-1772, 2019 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30827290

ABSTRACT

Livestock farming is criticized for negatively impacting the environment, concerns about animal welfare and the impact of excessive meat consumption on human health. However, livestock farming provides other underappreciated and poorly communicated benefits to society in terms of employment, product quality, cultural landscapes and carbon storage by grasslands. Few attempts have been made so far to simultaneously consider the services and impacts provided by livestock production. Here, we propose an integrated graphical tool, called the 'barn' to explicitly summarize the synergies and trade-offs between services and impacts provided by livestock farming. It illustrates livestock farming interacting with its physical, economic and social environment along five interfaces: (i) Markets, (ii) Work and employment, (iii) Inputs, (iv) Environment and climate, (v) Social and cultural factors. This graphical tool was then applied by comparing two contrasting livestock production areas (high livestock density v. grassland-based), and the dominant v. a niche system within a crop-livestock area. We showed the barn could be used for cross-comparisons of services and impacts across livestock production areas, and for multi-level analysis of services and impacts of livestock farming within a given area. The barn graphically summarizes the ecological and socio-economic aspects of livestock farming by explicitly representing multiple services and impacts of different systems in a simple yet informative way. Information for the five interfaces relies on available quantitative assessments from the literature or data sets, and on expert-knowledge for more qualitative factors, such as social and cultural ones. The 'barn' can also inform local stakeholders or policy-makers about potential opportunities and threats to the future of livestock farming in specific production areas. It has already been used as a pedagogical tool for teaching the diversity of services and impacts of livestock systems across Europe and is currently developed as a serious game for encouraging knowledge exchange and sharing different viewpoints between stakeholders.


Subject(s)
Animal Husbandry/economics , Environment , Livestock , Animal Welfare , Animals , Conservation of Natural Resources , Humans
3.
Animal ; 13(8): 1773-1784, 2019 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30333070

ABSTRACT

Livestock is a major driver in most rural landscapes and economics, but it also polarises debate over its environmental impacts, animal welfare and human health. Conversely, the various services that livestock farming systems provide to society are often overlooked and have rarely been quantified. The aim of analysing bundles of services is to chart the coexistence and interactions between the various services and impacts provided by livestock farming, and to identify sets of ecosystem services (ES) that appear together repeatedly across sites and through time. We review three types of approaches that analyse associations among impacts and services from local to global scales: (i) detecting ES associations at system or landscape scale, (ii) identifying and mapping bundles of ES and impacts and (iii) exploring potential drivers using prospective scenarios. At a local scale, farming practices interact with landscape heterogeneity in a multi-scale process to shape grassland biodiversity and ES. Production and various ES provided by grasslands to farmers, such as soil fertility, biological regulations and erosion control, benefit to some extent from the functional diversity of grassland species, and length of pasture phase in the crop rotation. Mapping ES from the landscape up to the EU-wide scale reveals a frequent trade-off between livestock production on one side and regulating and cultural services on the other. Maps allow the identification of target areas with higher ecological value or greater sensitivity to risks. Using two key factors (livestock density and the proportion of permanent grassland within utilised agricultural area), we identified six types of European livestock production areas characterised by contrasted bundles of services and impacts. Livestock management also appeared to be a key driver of bundles of services in prospective scenarios. These scenarios simulate a breakaway from current production, legislation (e.g. the use of food waste to fatten pigs) and consumption trends (e.g. halving animal protein consumption across Europe). Overall, strategies that combine a reduction of inputs, of the use of crops from arable land to feed livestock, of food waste and of meat consumption deliver a more sustainable food future. Livestock as part of this sustainable future requires further enhancement, quantification and communication of the services provided by livestock farming to society, which calls for the following: (i) a better targeting of public support, (ii) more precise quantification of bundles of services and (iii) better information to consumers and assessment of their willingness to pay for these services.


Subject(s)
Animal Husbandry/economics , Animal Husbandry/methods , Ecosystem , Livestock , Animals , Conservation of Natural Resources , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...