Product quality from organic livestock systems

Impressions and discussions at the 54th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Animal Production

Jan Tind Sørensen, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences

Every year, the European Association of Animal Production (EAAP) holds an annual meeting as a forum for researchers to exchange research results. It is an old organisation, which is traditionally based on research in animal nutrition and animal genetics. However, it has been clear for some years that the theme of the meetings need to change if EAAP should still attract European researchers in livestock production. So, the focus is changing and other issues such as product quality, bio-ethics and livestock farming systems are now topics with a high profile at the annual meetings. The dominating theme at the 54th annual meeting of EAAP in Rome in September 2003 was product quality from livestock systems. Three full sessions were devoted to this issue.

The definition of product quality at the meeting was a broad acknowledgement of the complex interpretation of attributes with livestock products. The scientific discussion is therefore not confined to experts in chemistry, food technology and microbiology. There was identified a need for a multidisciplinary effort for analysing problems and suggesting solutions for improving product quality from livestock systems.

Professor Edwards from University of Newcastle gave a presentation on product quality attributes associated with out-door pig production. Prof. Edwards distinguished between primary attributes of meat quality referring to directly and measurable attributes such as: chemical, physical, microbiological and organoleptic measures, and secondary attributes such as: animal welfare, environmental impacts and cultural, socio-economic, trace ability & safety aspects. As an example on the complexity of product quality she referred to a sensory evaluation of pork meat, where free-range pork meat was compared with conventional pork. If the panel was unaware of the origin they rated the free-range meat as less juicy but similar in most other attributes. However, when aware of the origin, the panel rated free-range pork meat as juicier, less blend, less tough, more tender, less dry and more pleasant.

Dr. Brunsøe from The Aarhus School of Business Denmark discussed consumer perception of meat quality and safety. She pointed out the importance of the relationship between consumer expectation and consumer experience. For instance if consumers bye organic meat at a high price they expect an extraordinary good meal. If the experienced quality does not meet the expected the consumer will probably avoid the product in the future. In order to solve such dilemmas, Dr. Brunsøe suggested that the organic products should be differentiated into different qualities.

Dr. Nielsen from Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University Denmark, reported on organic beef production with emphasis on animal welfare, animal health and product quality. She concluded that meat from steers in general had a better eating quality than meat from bulls and that a high amount of roughage in the diet with a high content of bio-active forages seems to improve the meat quality. In Norway, Dr. Ådnøy and colleagues had compared meat quality in lambs grazing either unfertilised mountain pastures or intensive lowland pastures for the last two months prior to slaughter. They found small but significant differences in sensory quality, which may be useful for promoting lamb meat from mountain areas.

It is often said that animal friendly systems have increased risk food hazards such as zoonoses. This hypothesis has been evaluated in Switzerland where Dr. Regula and colleagues have compared risk of zoonotic bacteria’s in products from animal friendly systems and from conventional systems. They have explored systems for dairy cattle, finishing pigs and poultry. For dairy cattle, they have compared tie stall systems with free stall systems with access to out-door areas. For finishing pigs they have compared conventional systems with fully slatted floors with straw-bedding systems. For egg production systems, they have compared traditional floor keeping systems with free range systems. They found no differences in zoonotic risks between the two types of systems for cattle and for pigs. For poultry, however, they found that there was a higher prevalence of Campylobacter on poultry systems with access to out-door areas.

Dr. Van der Zijpp from Wageningen Univerity The Netherlands had aggregated data on animal health and food safety on alternative livestock systems in comparison with conventional systems. She concluded (based on existing scarce knowledge) that pigs in alternative systems had an increased number of liver white spots (parasites) and more lung disorders observed at slaughter and that sows show more lameness. Dairy cows in alternative have more mastitis and a higher level of somatic cell counts, but fewer metabolic diseases. She found no evidence for more Campylobacter or Salmonella from organic than from conventional chicken meat and she found a higher level of antibiotic residues in conventional than in organic chicken meat.