No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Welfare and product quality: the need to be humane
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2010
Abstract
In this paper it will be argued that the relationships between welfare and product quality are not commonplace because processes within the animal intervene between substrate and product which reduce farming practices to a common level that is subordinate to the animal's metabolism. Nevertheless there are four ways in which compromised welfare can be linked to product quality: (1) product quality which is influenced by acute stress; (2) ante-mortem trauma occurring in parts of the animal which are edible; (3) disease states which leave lesions or taints in the edible product; and (4) product quality which is dependent on the long-term cumulative effects of exercise, lack of exercise or poor husbandry conditions.
From this classification and the examples to be given in the paper it will become clear that some practices which compromise welfare can lead to poor product quality but there is little evidence to suggest that improved welfare practices benefit product quality. Nevertheless welfare improved products could be of better quality simply because more effort and attention is put into their production. If the same care and expenditure were to be put into systems where welfare was not the main goal, would product quality be any different?
The conclusions that will be drawn from this paper are that: (i) practices which compromise welfare can lead to poor product quality, but there is little evidence that improved welfare benefits product quality; and (ii) modern labelling is suggestive instead of being explicit and as such it does not lend itself to promoting welfare improvements in a cognizant manner.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 17: Safety and Quality of Food from Animals , January 1993 , pp. 51 - 56
- Copyright
- Copyright © British Society of Animal Production 1993
References
Aalhus, J. L., Price, M. A., Shand, P. J. and Hawrysh, Z. J. 1991. Endurance exercised growing sheep. II. Tenderness increase and change in meat quality. Meat Science 29: 57–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambler, A. S. and Wood, J. D. 1990. Changes in consumer perceptions of meat quality. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 7–17. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T. 1986. Good pig handling improves pork quality. Proceedings of the thirty-second European meat research workers meeting, vol. 1, pp. 105–108.Google Scholar
Gregory, N. G. and Austin, S. D. 1992. Causes of trauma in broilers arriving dead at poultry processing plants. Veterinary Record 131: 501–503.Google Scholar
Gregory, N. G., Austin, S. D. and Wilkins, L. J. 1989. The relationship between wing flapping at shackling and red wingtips in chicken carcasses. Veterinary Record 124: 62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, N. G. and Wilkins, L. J. 1992. Skeletal damage and bone defects during catching and processing. Proceedings of the twenty-third poultry science symposium — bone biology and skeletal disorders in poultry. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hughes, B. O., Gilbert, A. B. and Brown, M. F. 1986. Categorisation and causes of abnormal egg shells: relationship with stress. British Poultry Science 27: 325–337.Google Scholar
Kastenschmidt, L. L., Briskey, E. J. and Hoekstra, W. G. 1964. Prevention of pale, soft, exudative porcine muscle through regulation of ante-mortem environmental temperature. Journal of Food Science 29: 210–217.Google Scholar
Pratt, J. H. 1984. Bruising and injection abscesses. In Meat. Proceedings of the Veterinary Public Health Association meeting 1984.Google Scholar
Sains, A. G. 1984. Pre slaughter handling and undesirable meat changes. In Meat. Proceedings of the Veterinary Public Health Association meeting 1984.Google Scholar