Terve loom ja tervislik toit

42 43
Consumer Perceptions
In a recent report (Blokhuis, 2005) European consumers’
understanding of welfare were discussed, and it was concluded
that consumers commonly conflate the terms animal welfare and
food quality. If scientists, and indeed producers, separate these
two concepts then we are doing consumers a disservice. It may
be considered that consumers are muddling two entirely separate
concepts, but it is hoped that this paper may provide some evidence
that the consumer is not altogether wrong in this regard.
This association of food quality with animal welfare by consumers
is reported to be particularly strong in France, although there is
evidence that consumers also make this connection in the UK (at
least for milk (Ellis et al., 2009)). Labelling on food products was
identified by Blokhuis as typifying this association, with such phrases
as “Respect for taste and nature“ and “characteristics contributing
to superior quality: free-range reared in the open-air…” identified
on packaging in France. Furthermore, Blokhuis (2005) proposed
that, in France and Italy, consumers are largely only interested in
animal welfare if it is explicitly linked with food quality.
Animal Welfare and Taste.
If it is understood that the term food quality also includes the taste
and the pleasure derived from a food product, what then are the
impacts that the welfare of food animals has on the taste of the
food produced by them Aside from any effects on the chemical or
physical attributes of an animal food product, knowing the welfare
provenance of a food item can affect consumers’ perception of
the taste of that product. In blind taste tests of beef, organically
produced beef scored higher than conventionally produced beef,
but this difference was less than when testers knew the origin of the
beef (Napolitano et al., 2009). Altzintzoglou et al. (2010) remarked
on the different perceptions by consumers of the taste of products
depending solely on the history of the welfare quality of the lives of
the animals. The same product, different history, different tastes.
This is not as surprising as might at first sight be expected. Taste
is not only a matter of receptors on the tongue or the feel of food
in the mouth, but a complex perception involving past experience
and expectations (Troy and Kerry, 2010). It is therefore normal and
understandable that consumers experience the taste of an animal
welfare-friendly product differently from one that they understand
to be of a more intensive production system. The food taste better
from an animal that has been raised in conditions of good welfare
not just for any intrinsic or causal reason, but simply because the
consumer expects it to, or maybe wants it to.
Mechanical damage to the carcase
During the lifetime of livestock animals, and perhaps especially
during their transport and slaughter (Bornett-Gauci et al., 2006),
if welfare is poor, this can lead to damage to the carcase, and a
consequent impairment of meat quality. This can be through
bruising or injuries arising from poorly designed or checked housing,
or from agonistic acts (biting, kicking, butting) from conspecifics
or unsympathetic handling by stockmen. Broken bones, although
found, are reported to occur infrequently, but the incidence of
subcutaneous and muscular haemorrhaging is frequent (Mirandade
La Lama et al., 2009) and such bruising of the muscle tissue
impacts adversely on carcase quality assessment.
At slaughter there are problems affecting welfare and
carcase quality at stunning, particularly in poultry. If the current
is too low the birds will not be effectively stunned but carcase
quality will not be affected, but if it is too high all the birds will
be stunned but the carcases may well be damaged, and the meat
quality reduced. The problem is that individual chickens have a
wide variation of impedance (Wotton and Wilkins, 2004) and so
some chickens are invariably not stunned and some carcases are
invariably damaged.