Trends in Food Science & Technology 54 (2016) 94e102

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Trends in Food Science & Technology

journal homepage: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/trends-in-food-science-
and-technology

Environmental impacts of the meat chain e Current status and future

perspectives
Ilija Djekic a, *, Igor Tomasevic b
a
Department of Food Safety and Quality Management, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia
b
Department of Animal Origin Products Technology, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Background: The meat chain sector is recognized as one of the leading polluters in the food industry.
Received 29 January 2016 Research on environmental performance in the meat industry has been analyzed in terms of the meat
Received in revised form product(s), the manufacturing processes and environmental practices in which the meat companies
27 May 2016
operate.
Accepted 3 June 2016
Available online 6 June 2016
Scope and approach: A literature review was performed by analyzing published scientific papers in the
domains of environmental impacts in the meat chain. The selection criteria were focused on different
environmental approaches applied in the meat chain and on the perspectives of future research.
Keywords:
Meat chain
Key findings and conclusions: This review revealed that the focus of product based approach performed
Environmental impact through life-cycle assessments were mainly farms. Scientific papers covered calculations of global
Life-cycle warming, acidification and eutrophication potentials. On the contrary, process based approaches
Environmental practices investigated on-site environmental impacts of meat production. They were focused on discharge of
waste water and solid waste and consumption of water and energy. Finally, environmental systems in the
meat chain were the least investigated stream and they analyzed level of practices in respect to the size
of the meat companies, their role in the meat chain and certification status. Future research should focus
on the development of new dimensions of environmental improvements in the meat chain to enable
benchmarking and comparing various meat technologies. Also, analysis of environmental practices
throughout the meat chain could be of added value in the exploration of environmental improvement
techniques on-site.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction attributes and cultural habits worldwide (Font-i-Furnols &

World's consumption of meat shows two significant increases e
increase of the overall consumption as a result of growth of world's
population and increase of the consumption of meat per capita
(Henchion, McCarthy, Resconi, & Troy, 2014). Reasons for expected
increase of meat consumption are economic such as trade liber-
alization and globalization of food systems (Delgado, 2003), de-
mographic such as urbanization and population projections
(Allievi, Vinnari, & Luukkanen, 2015) and nutritional in respect to
‘nutritional transition’ of dietary patterns and consumption of
foods with higher content in animal protein (Hawkesworth et al.,
2010; Mathijs, 2015). Last but not least important are consumer
preferences towards meat products in terms of their sensory
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: idjekic@agrif.bg.ac.rs (I. Djekic).
Guerrero, 2014). The meat production and consumption affect the
three pillars of sustainability e economy, society and environment
(Allievi et al., 2015).
Meat is considered as the food product with the greatest envi-
ronmental impact throughout the food chain whereas the greatest
impacts arise from livestock farms (Ro €o
€s, Sundberg, Tidåker, Strid,
& Hansson, 2013). The livestock sector's environmental impact is
in the need for natural resources (land, water and energy) resulting
in severe emissions on air, water and soil (de Vries & de Boer, 2010).
Similar to the farms, manufacturing processes such as slaughtering
and meat processing have environmental impacts either from
emissions into the environment or from the consumption of re-
sources (Lopez-Ridaura, Werf, Paillat, & Le Bris, 2009). Refrigeration
of refrigerated or frozen foods/meats within the cold chain is a food
safety issue responsible for ozone depletion and global warming
(Coulomb, 2008). Finally, consumers participate in global warming
since the cooking stage releases a great deal of greenhouse gases,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.06.001
0924-2244/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 I. Djekic, I. Tomasevic / Trends in Food Science & Technology 54 (2016) 94e102
joint with energy consumption (Xu, Sun, Zhang, & Zhu, 2015). The
meat chain consists of farm(er)s, slaughterhouses, meat processors,
customers (horeca, supermarkets, butcheries, retailers) and con-
sumers (Bickerstaffe, Gately, Jay, Ridgway, & Morton, 2009;
Borrisser-Pairo et al., 2016). Many review papers were only
focused on the environmental impacts of livestock production
(Davis et al., 2015; McAuliffe, Chapman, & Sage, 2016; Reckmann,
Traulsen, & Krieter, 2012; Thornton, 2010; de Vries & de Boer,
2010). On the contrary, research papers mainly investigated envi-
ronmental impacts of other participants in the meat chain.
A literature review was performed by analyzing published sci-
entific papers and the major sources of information were the
scholarly databases such as Web of Science, EBSCO and Science-
Direct. This research identified relevant articles, both review and
research papers, published in the domains of environmental im-
pacts in the meat chain. There were no geographical restrictions
applied. The selection criteria chosen to identify the relevant arti-
cles were related to the objectives of this paper: (1) focus on the
specific environmental approach applied in the meat chain; (2)
focus on the potential for future research.
The outcome of articles assessing the environmental impacts of
meat chain depends not only on the systems studied, but also on
the environmental methodologies and evaluation methods used
(Reckmann et al., 2012). As mentioned, the majority of research
highlighted the environmental impacts that arise at farms as a
result of livestock production. However, the entire meat chain has
not been in focus of such research, and so this was identified as a
research gap by the authors of this paper. Three environmental
research perspectives recognized in the meat chain are meat
products, the manufacturing processes and the environmental
systems in which the companies operate, Fig. 1 (Djekic, 2015). The
objective of this review paper was to present three main research
streams for analyzing meat chain's environmental performance
and identify future research perspectives.
2. Meat product-based perspective e current status
The meat product-based perspective considers calculation of
various environmental indicators in relation to the product. Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) is the most applied environmental tool
used to assess the potential environmental impacts and con-
sumption of resources throughout a meat's life cycle (Lopez-
Fig. 1. Environmental research perspectives in the meat chain.
95
Ridaura et al., 2009). As a scientific method it includes the
following steps: mapping the process, setting scope and bound-
aries, collecting data, calculating and evaluating the results (ISO,
2006).
Mapping the process and setting the scope and boundaries are
important in order to clarify parts of the meat chain analyzed from
the “farm to the fork” perspective (Djekic, 2015). The system
boundaries cover five subsystems. Subsystem 1 e ‘Farm’ includes
all livestock activities which take place in a farm. It may include
contribution of feed production and waste/manure management.
When such subsystems are covered within LCA they enable
comparing different methods of livestock production such as
organic vs. conventional or indoor vs. outdoor animal husbandry
(McAuliffe et al., 2016). Subsystem 2 e ‘Slaughterhouse’ includes
activities such as reception of live animals, livestock handling, an-
imal welfare, slaughtering and chilling (Djekic, Radovic, Luki c,
Stanisic, & Lili
c, 2015). Subsystem 3 e ‘Meat processing plant’
contains all activities from reception of carcasses preparation,
thermal processing, waste handling up to the storage of final meat
products (Djekic et al., 2015). Subsystem 4 e ‘Retail’ comprises of
activities that take place where meat is sold. These sales spots may
be either in supermarkets and grocery shops or may be in
specialized shops selling meat (butcher's shops/meat stores). Sub-
system 5 e ‘Household use’ comprises of refrigeration of food
(Coulomb, 2008), food preparation and cooking (Xu et al., 2015). A
generic model of the meat product's life cycle system boundaries is
presented in Fig. 2.
Depending on the role of the company in the meat chain, the
most commonly used functional units are one kg of livestock
(Basset-Mens & van der Werf, 2005; Dalgaard, Halberg, &
Hermansen, 2007); one kg of carcass (Nguyen, Hermansen, &
Mogensen, 2011; Williams, Audsley, & Sandars, 2006) and one kg
of meat (Cederberg & Flysjo €, 2004).
Raw data obtained from all actors in the meat chain are the main
constituents of the foreground life cycle inventory for the five
subsystems (Djekic et al., 2015). Collecting this information is very
important, since the uncertainty of these data may cause imprecise
calculation of various environmental indicators (Djekic, 2015).
Analysis of inventory requires calculation of environmental impact
categories set out in the goal and scope in order to determine po-
tential environmental pressures (McAuliffe et al., 2016). For the
purpose of conversion from the ‘whole of subsystem basis’ to a
‘functional unit basis’, allocation of inputs and outputs should be
applied. There are three main allocation methods: economic allo-
cation, physical allocation and system expansions (de Vries & de
Boer, 2010). Interpretation of the results is in direct correlation
with the boundaries and the quality of the data. A LCA study in the
meat chain enables identifying mitigation strategies that can focus
on the primary sources of environmental impact, interpreted in
relation to the functional unit and subsystem(s) (Djekic, 2015).
In line with the defined system boundaries of the meat prod-
uct's life cycle, Table 1 gives an overview of the meat chain LCA
studies (emphasizing environmental impacts in each of the system
boundaries). Analysis of 20 LCA studies showed that the range of
GWP per kg of bone-free meat (subsystems 1 and 2) is from 3.6 to
8.9 kg CO2 eq. (Cherubini, Zanghelini, Alvarenga, Franco, & Soares,
2015; Ro €o
€s et al., 2013). These studies covered developed coun-
tries and different production systems (organic, conventional, high
and low profit). In the EU average GWP of pork production is from
2.6 to 6.3 kg CO2 eq per kg of pork (Reckmann et al., 2012). Due to
large differences in model assumptions, system boundaries, func-
tional units, data collection methods and software calculations,
numeric results may vary. These methods consider different impact
categories, emission factors, normalization methods and weighting
factors which make comparisons difficult (Carvalho, Mimoso,
96 I. Djekic, I. Tomasevic / Trends in Food Science & Technology 54 (2016) 94e102

Fig. 2. Generic system boundaries of the meat product's life cycle. Dark gray subsystem boxes are based on collected data on the field. Light gray subsystem boxes are based on
database(s).

Table 1
Summary of studies linking environmental impacts of the meat chain.

Authors Sample Research focus System boundaries Environmental impact

1 2 3 4 5

(McAuliffe et al., 2016)
(Gerber et al., 2015)
(de Vries & de Boer, 2010)
(Basset-Mens & van
der Werf, 2005)
(Biswas, Graham,
Kelly, & John, 2010)
(Nguyen et al., 2012)
(Reckmann et al., 2012)
(Djekic, Radoviæ, Lukiæ,
Stanisiæ, & Liliæ, 2015)
(Fiala, 2008)
(Roy et al., 2012)
(Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998)
(Xu et al., 2015)
Review paper LCA of pig production X GWP, AP, EP
(14 LCA studies)
Review paper Environmental impact of X LC, WC, GWP, BI
beef production (global perspective)
Review paper LCA of livestock products X GWP, AP, EP, LC, EC
(16 LCA studies)
Three farming scenarios LCA pig production X EP, GWP, AP, TEP, EC, LC
in France
Agricultural production in Australia LCA of wheat, meat and wool X GWP
EU pork production LCA of pork production X HT, TED, FEP, GWP, AP EP,
Review paper (6 LCA studies) LCA of pork production X X GWP, EP, AP, OLD, CED, EC, LC, POFP,
Pork production in Serbia LCA of pork production X X X GWP, EP, AP, OLD, HT, POFP,
Meat production An estimation of potential X GWP
future greenhouse gas emissions
Japanese meat production LCA of meats (pork, beef, chicken) X X X X GWP
Four meals with/without meat LCA of food consumption X X X X X GWP, EC
Review Simplified LCA of cooking methods X GWP, EC

Subsystem 1 e Farm; Subsystem 2 e Slaughterhouse; Subsystem 3 e Meat processing plant; Subsystem 4 e Retail; Subsystem 5 e Household use.
Life cycle assessment (LCA); global warming potential (GWP); acidification potential (AP); eutrophication potential (EP), ozone layer depletion (OLD), photochemical smog
(PS); human toxicity (HT); abiotic depletion potential (ADP); land competition/use (LC); photochemical oxidants formation (POFP); energy consumption (EC); water con-
sumption (WC); cumulative non-renewable fossil and nuclear energy demand (CED), terrestrial ecotoxicity (TEP), freshwater depletion (FD), fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity
(FEP), biodiversity (BI).

Mendes, & Matos, 2014; Pennington et al., 2004).
It is obvious that the majority of research was focused on sub-
system 1, with a limited number of studies covering other sub-
systems. The common potentials explored in subsystems 1, 2 and 3
were global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP),
eutrophication potential (EP) while for subsystems 4 and 5 they
were GWP and energy consumption.
LCA in livestock production (considered as subsystem 1 and
deployed as feed production, whole-farms and manure manage-
ment) recognized the three most important environmental impacts
as GWP, AP and EP (McAuliffe et al., 2016). Out of more than ten
different environmental indicators developed in another LCA of
subsystem 1, the main impacts were GWP, AP, EP and use of re-
sources (Thu Lan T. Nguyen, Hermansen, & Mogensen, 2012).
Livestock systems occupy about 30 percent of the planet's ice-
free terrestrial surface area (Steinfeld et al., 2006). In the future,
 I. Djekic, I. Tomasevic / Trends in Food Science & Technology 54 (2016) 94e102
livestock production will be characterized by differences between
developed and developing countries, and between highly intensive
production systems on the one hand and smallholder systems on
the other (Thornton, 2010). The pig sector is the biggest contributor
to global meat production, with over 37 percent and it is expected
that global demand for pig meat will grow by over 35 percent until
2030 (MacLeod et al., 2013). According to the same study, feed
production contributes around 60 percent of the emissions arising
from global pig supply chains, and manure storage/processing 27
percent. The remaining 13 percent arises from a combination of
postfarm processing and transport of meat (6 percent), direct and
indirect energy use in livestock production (3 percent) and enteric
fermentation (3 percent).
Livestock contributes to GWP either directly (enteric fermen-
tation and manure management) or indirectly (feed production)
(Gerber, Mottet, Opio, Falcucci, & Teillard, 2015; Ro €o
€ s et al., 2013).
Emissions of methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide from
manure are the most significant environmental issues, together
with AP and EP, and use of natural resources, namely water and
energy (Dalgaard et al., 2007; Reckmann et al., 2012). The most
harmful substances from manure/slurry are nitrous oxide
(contributing to GWP), nitrate (contributing to EP) and ammonia
(contributing to EP and AP) (Dalgaard et al., 2007). Liquid manure
handling systems emit less ammonia than solid manure handling
but liquid/slurry storage stimulates CH4 production, due to anaer-
obic conditions (IPCC, 2006; Ro€o
€s et al., 2013). Refrigeration in meat
production and processing facilities is important since maintaining
the cold chain by keeping products at low temperatures inhibits
growth of potentially harmful microorganisms (Sofos, 2014). Sub-
systems 2 and 3 are affected by the cold chain requirements with
their impact on ozone layer depletion due to the use of refrigerants
in the processes of chilling/freezing of meat (Djekic et al., 2015).
2.1. Meat product-based perspective e future perspectives
Some authors indicate that changing diets by eating less or no
livestock products, such as meat, is a possible solution to reduce the
environmental impact of the livestock sector (Baroni, Cenci,
Tettamanti, & Berati, 2006; Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998; Pimentel &
Pimentel, 2003). On the other side, eating meat is not only a
nutritional need. It is determined by taste, odor, and texture, as well
as by geographical area, culture, ethics, religion beliefs and wealth
(Font-i-Furnols & Guerrero, 2014; Richardson, Shepherd, & Elliman,
1993). Although the planet resources are challenged with popula-
tion growth, environmental improvements in terms of sustainable
food industry should pay greater attention on modeling environ-
mental and technological improvements in the meat chain rather
than discussing nutritional needs of the growing population. The
US Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental
improvement as lessening of pollution and bettering of the envi-
ronment and its performance.
There are two main improvement streams regarding GWP and
AP in meat production (1) manure management and (2) feeding
strategy (Djekic et al., 2015). As a result of reviewing 14 publica-
tions, Gerber et al suggest feed ration balancing, feed supplemen-
tation and animal health improvements in subsystem 1 (Gerber
et al., 2015). Some authors believe that seaweed (Laminaria dig-
itata) should be added to pig feed to increase antioxidants in pig
meat and improve quality of pork meat (Moroney, O'Grady,
O'Doherty, & Kerry, 2012). As a result of such an approach, McAu-
liffe et al. suggest LCA of this developing technology in pig pro-
duction in terms of utilizing manure as a source of biogas through
anaerobic digestion (McAuliffe et al., 2016). Manure management
should be based on improving on-site practices and/or manure
quality (Djekic et al., 2015). High correlations were confirmed
97
between GWP and EP based on manure handling techniques which
reduce nitrogen losses (Ro €o
€s et al., 2013).
Besides manure management, some authors suggest improve-
ments in (environmental) management on the farms by fostering
best practices and narrowing environmental performance gaps
(Gerber et al., 2015). Similar conclusion was shown in another
research highlighting that vast differences in the levels of imple-
mentation of environmental practice exits in the meat sector, both
in slaughterhouses (subsystem 2) and in meat processing plants
(subsystem 3) (Djekic et al., 2016). Besides (environmental) prac-
tices on-site, further development is expected in phase out of re-
frigerants with high GWP and promotion of natural refrigerants
throughout the cold chain (Xu et al., 2015).
Dietary choices depict that the level of GWP is directly affected
by these choices (Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998; Millward & Garnett,
2010). Cooking is an everyday activity in every household
whereas cooking methods (microwaving, toasting, use of electric
ovens) consume energy and affect GWP (Xu et al., 2015). Im-
provements in promotion of environmental friendly food prepa-
ration are expected.
Simple choosing or avoiding meat from an environmental and/
or animal welfare point of view misses the goal due to the
complexity of meat production systems from an environmental
point of view compared to other food systems (Ro €o
€ s, Ekelund, &
€rnemo, 2014). Complexity of livestock interaction with the
Tja
environment is overseen in the use of land and water resources,
nutrition cycle, biodiversity and GWP (Gerber et al., 2015). An
interesting research of GWP in relation to dietary change in line
with prevailing guidelines for a healthy meat intake was performed
in Sweden (Hallstro € m, Ro€o
€ s, & Bo €rjesson, 2014). This research
confirmed that reduction of meat intake may have a positive effect
on public health due to reduced intake of saturated fat and reduces
GWP change. On the contrary restriction in meat consumption is
most critical for the intake of iron and zinc. Because of the
favourable balance of indispensable amino acids, very high di-
gestibility, and high bioavailability of amino acids, meat proteins
have a high biological value. Meat can be considered as a source of
rapidly digested proteins (Sante -Lhoutellier, 2014).
Variations in meat production systems and uncertainties in the
calculation methodologies affect the results and conclusions in
relation to environmental impacts. Since eating meat is a bio-
cultural activity and has co-evolved with human development
(Leroy & Praet, 2015), it elicits more than any other food strong
emotional responses. This probably also explains why the debate
on the nutritional benefits versus the possible adverse health
(environmental) effects of meat consumption is often polarized and
irrational (De Smet & Vossen, 2016). Latest report of World Re-
sources Institute promotes a consumption-based solution of sus-
tainable food future deployed in terms of reduction of
overconsumption of calories, reduction of overconsumption of
animal origin food proteins and reduction of beef consumption
(Ranganathan et al., 2016). On the other side, authors believe that
on-site improvements in the meat chain have a greater potential in
enhancing superior environmental performance than promotion of
‘environmental driven’ diet changes.
3. Process-based perspective e current status
The process-based perspective is related to analyzing specific
environmental impacts connected with the processes in the meat
chain that occur on site during meat production/processing (Djekic,
2015). Compared with the livestock production phase, impacts of
meat production phases (slaughtering and meat processing)
although lower, are still of importance for research (Peters et al.,
2010). Meat production is a combination of subsystems 2 and 3,
98 I. Djekic, I. Tomasevic / Trends in Food Science & Technology 54 (2016) 94e102
Fig. 3, and major environmental aspects are discharge of waste
water and solid waste and consumption of water and energy (IFC,
2007; IPPC, 2006; UNEP, 2000). In order to better understand this
perspective, it is necessary to focus on the technological and sup-
port processes in meat production. Accordingly, basic environ-
mental performance indicators are: meat yield (share of lean meat
in live animal and/or in carcass), solid output (manure and per-
centage of by-product such as offal, bones, fat and skin), waste
water discharge (including quality of waste water), electric and
thermal energy consumption and water consumption (Djekic et al.,
2015; IPPC, 2006; UNEP, 2000).
Resource management should focus on consumptions of water
and energy. Water is of great importance in all meat production
activities starting with live animals entering the slaughterhouse
and finishing at the last step, where meat products leave the meat
processing plant (IPPC, 2006; Kupusovic, Midzic, Silajdzic, &
Bjelavac, 2007). Energy is used for machines and equipment, for
controlling temperature regimes, either heat treatments (boiling,
cooking, pasteurization, sterilization, drying and smoking) of
refrigeration (chilling and freezing) and for transportation purposes
(Djekic, 2015; IPPC, 2006).
The meat industry generates two types of waste e inedible
products, mostly bones, fat, heads, legs, skins, hair and offal and
various packaging materials (Kupusovic et al., 2007). Consumers in
developed markets mostly prefer lean meat resulting in huge
amounts of wastes remaining in slaughterhouses/meat processing
plants containing bones, hides, lungs, etc. (Rahman, Sahar, & Khan,
2014). These markets, like the EU, regulate environmental sound
use of animal by-products (EC, 2009). One of the main reasons are
the health-threats from using by-products so, under certain occa-
sions they are diverted to non-food utilizations such as pet food,
animal feed, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals (Rivera, Sebranek,
Rust, & Tabatabai, 2000). These types of wastes may include
different types of toxic substances, organic compounds and non-
biodegradable material (Rahman et al., 2014). Due to the avail-
ability of compounds easily metabolized by indigenous microbial
flora, meat by-products decompose faster than skeletal muscle.
Viscera of animals have a very high microbial load including
pathogenic bacteria (Barkocy-Gallagher et al., 2003). Microbial
contamination of viscera is higher than in other meats due to either
the food origin or the poor hygienic and chilling conditions (Sofos,
Belk, & Smith, 1999). Disposal of these wastes require special care
due to off-odor and leaching problems (Rahman et al., 2014).
Waste water is an output of several cleaning and sanitation
Fig. 3. Generic model of meat production.
activities including washing of livestock, carcasses and offal,
cleaning and sanitation of equipment and work environment and
workers' personal hygiene (Kupusovic et al., 2007). Water used at
slaughterhouses ultimately becomes effluent containing high levels
of organic matter due to the presence of manure, blood and fat
(UNEP, 2000) as well as undigested stomach contents, meat and
meat extracts, dirt and cleaning agents (Djekic et al., 2016). The
organic load in wastewater binds oxygen and reduces its avail-
ability causing death of aquatic animals while eutrophication may
occur due to macronutrients (N, P) so excessive growth of algae
may results in mortality of aquatic residents (Rahman et al., 2014).
Inefficient management of liquid wastes and uncontrolled spillage
leads to changes in the biocenosis affecting the species distribution,
and threatening the aquatic ecosystems (Cuadros, Lo pez-
Rodríguez, Ruiz-Celma, Rubiales, & Gonza lez-Gonzalez, 2011).
Slaughterhouses with a low level of good hygiene practice
usually don't have controlled discharge of blood and wastewater
where blood coagulates in the drains causing off-odor and envi-
ronmental impacts. Wastewater indicators are the amounts of
waste water discharged and the generated pollutant load. Both
depend on the type of meat and meat products being manufactured
and on the technological environment (Djekic, 2015).
3.1. Process-based perspective e future perspectives
In respect to water savings, improvement opportunities can be
identified in two main directions: optimization of flow water and
potential reuse of wastewater (Djekic et al., 2015). Such improve-
ments include fine tuning of water flow rate, setting high water
pressure rather than high volume, use of automatic control systems
to operate the flow of water in hand-wash stations and knife
sterilizers, reuse of water from cooling systems for certain cleaning
activities and reuse of the final rinse from cleaning operations for
the initial rinse on the following day (UNEP, 2000). Optimization of
cleaning processes comprise of undertaking dry washing before
using water, optimizing floor washing in terms of washing angles
and spray nozzles and installing pressure reducers and shut off
valves to reduce and optimize water consumption (Kupusovic et al.,
2007).
Wastewater from the meat chain in an untreated manner may
cause chemical hazards such as increases in biochemical oxygen
demand, suspended solids, nitrate, pH and phosphate concentra-
tions and microbiological hazards (Gregory, Alam, Rahman, Jabbar,
& Uddin, 2011). Improving the quality of wastewater should be
 I. Djekic, I. Tomasevic / Trends in Food Science & Technology 54 (2016) 94e102
considered as a high priority task by focussing on the reduction of
organic load (Djekic et al., 2015). In developed and wealthy coun-
tries, meat chain's wastewater is usually treated on-site in order to
reduce its pollution load (Gregory et al., 2011).
Meat industry wastes, both solid and liquid, have a complex
composition. Their further characterization in terms of biode-
gradability and degradation kinetic are essential in order to opti-
mize biological treatment solutions (Buendía, Ferna ndez,
Villasen~ or, & Rodríguez, 2008). Waste management techniques
are based on physical, chemical and biological processes mainly
through anaerobic digestion offering two advantages: production
of biogas suitable for energy use and obtaining odor free effluent
sludge suitable as soil amendments (Cuadros et al., 2011) The
anaerobic digestion of meat wastes can be used as an energy source
since the main by-product generated is biogas containing methane
and carbon dioxide (Buendía et al., 2008).
Meat by-products are rich in essential nutrients including amino
acids, vitamins and minerals where offal (brain, hearts, lungs, liver,
kidney) have polyunsaturated fatty acids (Liu, 2002). However, it is
still necessary to employ up-to-date tools in analyzing the nutri-
tional profile of these products and identify key active compounds
in order to develop new and innovative technologies towards
advanced value-added meat by-products (Toldra , Aristoy, Mora, &
Reig, 2012). Meat by-products (skin, bones, feet, fat, blood) and
intestinal content represent 68% of lambs, 52% of pigs and 66% of
cattle (Jayathilakan, Sultana, Radhakrishna, & Bawa, 2011). Meat
by-products considered as waste initiated developing new markets
such as feed industry, fertilizing industry and cosmetic industry
(Rahman et al., 2014). Blood is another important meat by-product
rich in protein and iron and is used as a functional ingredient in
human consumption (Silva & Silvestre, 2003). Examples are various
blood sausages, biscuits and blood cakes (Hsieh & Ofori, 2011; Silva
& Silvestre, 2003). Finally, animal hides are used for leather bags,
shoes, athletic equipment, cosmetics glue and edible gelatine
(Bhaskar, Modi, Govindaraju, Radha, & Lalitha, 2007). In line with
the abovementioned, “zero waste” concept is becoming an envi-
ronmental objective in food companies since this leads to a sus-
tainable society and economy, where the entire quantity of wastes
are used as a raw material for new products and applications
(Mirabella, Castellani, & Sala, 2014). Although main food waste
problem in poor/developing countries occur in the production
phase, in the developed countries this problem became important
at the final stage of the chain. Up to 30 percent of household food is
discarded due to several factors such as cultural norms that pre-
scribe offering plenty of food to guests, misperceptions about food
safety and exaggerated disgust (Aschemann-Witzel, 2016). Belief
that throwing food is ethically/religiously wrong gives a potential
for consumers being engaged in sustainability.
Energy is an area where improvement can be made depending
on the approach used. One direction is towards enhancing savings
in technological/housekeeping processes while the other is using
meat waste as an energy source. Advanced housekeeping practices
can achieve improvements with limited investments while addi-
tional savings can be made through the use of more energy efficient
equipment and heat recovery systems (Djekic et al., 2015; UNEP,
2000). One of promising approaches of reducing energy con-
sumption and related energy costs is energy management (Schulze,
Nehler, Ottosson, & Thollander, 2016). Some types of organic solid
waste can be classified as biomass and their use instead of disposal
can facilitate energy recovery and lower toxic gas emission
compared to commercial fossil fuels (Virmond et al., 2011). In order
to avoid transfer of potential diseases (such as Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy e BSE) from waste, their combustion becomes a
favourable solution (de Sena et al., 2008). Biomass to energy con-
version can provide both energetic and economic benefits by
99
reducing disposal and process costs (Virmond et al., 2011; Zheng &
Kozin ski, 2000). Deydier et al. characterized physical and chemical
meat waste combustion residues (Deydier, Guilet, Sarda, &
Sharrock, 2005). As mentioned, recovering methane from manure
to supplement fuel supplies was recognized as one stream of en-
ergy improvements (UNEP, 2000). This type of waste can be used as
a secondary fuel by producing thermal energy (Arvanitoyannis &
Ladas, 2008) or as a fuel in cyclonic combustors (Virmond et al.,
2011). The main goals in thermal disposal of wastes are the abil-
ity to convert waste to safe materials, the reduction of weight and
volume of the waste and the ability to recover a certain amount of
heat (Bujak, 2015).
4. System-based perspective e current status
The system-based perspective analyzes environmental man-
agement systems (EMS) and other types of environmental practices
that exist on-site in the meat chain (Djekic, 2015). It is not unusual
that EMS is a part of an integrated management system (Labodova ,
2004). In the food industry, EMS is usually integrated with food
safety and/or quality management systems (Djekic, Rajkovic, Tomic,
Smigic, & Radovanovic, 2014). Most of implemented EMS world-
wide are based on ISO 14001:2004 standard in order to improve the
environmental performance in relation to identified environmental
aspects and legal compliance (ISO, 2004). Latest ISO survey shows
that more than 320,000 certificates were issued in 170 countries,
where the food chain participates with less than 3% (ISO, 2015b).
There is no available data specifically for the meat chain. A growing
number of EMS certificates world-wide joint with the growing
public concern identifies EMS as one of companies' priorities
(Kimitaka, 2010). Depending on the time dimension, EMS research
in the food industry covers: ex ante (prior to implementation of the
EMS), ongoing/mid-term (during implementation) and ex post
(upon implementation) (Djekic, 2015).
Ex ante dimension of research are drivers and motivation in
implementing EMS. Companies striving to fulfill EMS requirements
expect to improve their environmental performance and enhance
better company image (Massoud, Fayad, El-Fadel, & Kamleh, 2010)
or to enter international markets (Zeng, Tam, Tam, & Deng, 2005).
Public concern and pressure from stakeholders are additional
driving forces for implementing an EMS (Kimitaka, 2009, 2010).
Chan and Wong revealed that improved environmental legal
compliance is also considered as an additional driver for imple-
menting EMS (2006).
During EMS implementation, companies mainly report costs
and financial issues (Djekic et al., 2014). Financial cues are related to
certification costs (Babakri, Bennett, & Franchetti, 2003) and
consulting support (Darnall & Edwards, 2006). These reasons are
mostly present in small and medium sized companies that perceive
adoption of environmental practices as costly (To, Lam, & Lai, 2015).
Also, some companies share the belief that environmental man-
agement increases overall costs (Chen, Tang, & Feldmann, 2015).
Ex post dimension of research comprises of benefits and ach-
ieved effects of implemented EMS, regardless of the certification
status (Djekic et al., 2014). An implemented EMS should ensure
better regulatory compliance, effective use of natural resources and
increased sales (Djekic & Smigic, 2013). To develop an EMS and
improve its environmental performance, an organization has to
assess its impacts and set targets to reduce them (Djekic et al.,
2014). However, an implemented EMS is not a guarantee of an
effective system in place. Reported benefits from implemented EMS
in various industry highlight satisfaction related to stakeholders
(Gavronski, Ferrer, & Paiva, 2008; de Oliveira, Serra, & Salgado,
2010; Turk, 2009), and improved legal compliance (Chan &
Wong, 2006). However, regarding environmental performance
100 I. Djekic, I. Tomasevic / Trends in Food Science & Technology 54 (2016) 94e102
some authors confirm improvements (Petroni, 2001; Tan, 2005;
Zutshi & Sohal, 2004) opposed to other authors that report
limited achievements (Barla, 2007; Gomez & Rodriguez, 2011).
Environmental awareness has been recognized as an important
trigger in implementing an EMS since it corresponds to the envi-
ronmental practice in place (Djekic et al., 2014). Depending on the
level of awareness, there are two types of companies, ones that
develop competences to fulfill environmental legal requirements
and the others that consider environmental performances in all
decision-making processes (Gomez & Rodriguez, 2011). Environ-
mental practices have been investigated previously but limited
research was conducted in meat industry (Djekic et al., 2016). Areas
of research were either EMS in certain countries/economies (Chen
et al., 2015) or specific industries such as hospitality (Mensah,
2006). The level of implementation of environmental practices in
slaughterhouses and meat processing plants was investigated in
terms of four environmental impacts: energy usage, water usage,
waste handling and wastewater discharge (Djekic et al., 2016).
Higher levels of environmental practices were found in large
companies as opposed to micro and small sized companies, in
slaughterhouses compared to meat processing plants and in certi-
fied companies than in non-certified companies.
4.1. System-based perspective e future perspectives
Latest revision of ISO 14001 in a proactive manner promotes
deployment of environmental impacts towards sustainable
resource management and climate change mitigation including
life-cycle approach and effective communication with stakeholders
(ISO, 2015a). This change will certainly affect future trends in
improving environmental performance in the meat industry.
As mentioned above, meat industry has not been in the focus of
environmental management research. Djekic et al. indicated sig-
nificant differences in the levels of implementation of environ-
mental practice with respect to the size of the companies,
certification status and meat sector e slaughterhouse or meat
processing plant (Djekic et al., 2016). Application of similar
methods to the meat chain in other regions could offer a better
insight into practices within the meat chain globally, including on-
site measurements of environmental impacts and analyzing tech-
nological levels of meat companies.
5. Conclusion
The entire meat chain sector is recognized as one of the leading
polluters in the food supply chain. It is indicative that regardless of
the research perspective, environmental impacts influence climate
change in respect to the GWP, AP and EP; consumption of water and
energy and polluting the environment with waste and waste water
discharge.
This review has revealed several areas of further research.
Calculation of various environmental footprints deployed in the
meat chain can be of help in benchmarking and comparing various
meat technologies worldwide, regardless of the research approach
e product-based, process-based or system-based. Bottom-up
approach in analyzing environmental practices on-site throughout
the meat chain (from the farm to the fork) could be of added value
in the exploration of improvement techniques regarding reduction
of the GWP mainly on the farm, and achieving savings in con-
sumption of waste and energy, improving quality of waste water
and striving towards “zero” waste within meat processing plants.
Given the great technological differences, eating habits and
cultural diversity within the meat chain, promotion of environ-
mentally friendly solutions is the utmost challenge.
References
Allievi, F., Vinnari, M., & Luukkanen, J. (2015). Meat consumption and production e
Analysis of efficiency, sufficiency and consistency of global trends. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 92, 142e151.
Arvanitoyannis, I. S., & Ladas, D. (2008). Meat waste treatment methods and po-
tential uses. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 43, 543e559.
Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2016). Waste not, want not, emit less. Science, 352, 408e409.
Babakri, K. A., Bennett, R. A., & Franchetti, M. (2003). Critical factors for imple-
menting ISO 14001 standard in United States industrial companies. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 11, 749e752.
Barkocy-Gallagher, G. A., Arthur, T. M., Rivera-Betancourt, M., Nou, X.,
Shackelford, S. D., Wheeler, T. L., et al. (2003). Seasonal prevalence of Shiga
toxin-producing Escherichia coli, including O157:H7 and non-O157 serotypes,
and Salmonella in commercial beef processing plants. Journal of Food Protection,
66, 1978e1986.
Barla, P. (2007). ISO 14001 certification and environmental performance in Quebec's
pulp and paper industry. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
53, 291e306.
Baroni, L., Cenci, L., Tettamanti, M., & Berati, M. (2006). Evaluating the environ-
mental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food pro-
duction systems. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61, 279e286.
Basset-Mens, C., & van der Werf, H. M. G. (2005). Scenario-based environmental
assessment of farming systems: The case of pig production in France. Agricul-
ture Ecosystems & Environment, 105, 127e144.
Bhaskar, N., Modi, V. K., Govindaraju, K., Radha, C., & Lalitha, R. G. (2007). Utilization
of meat industry by products: Protein hydrolysate from sheep visceral mass.
Bioresource Technology, 98, 388e394.
Bickerstaffe, R., Gately, K., Jay, N., Ridgway, M., & Morton, J. D. (2009). The rela-
tionship between the subjective eating quality ranking and objective mea-
surements of lamb leg meat cuts in a national competition. In ICoMST 2009,
55th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology. Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Biswas, W. K., Graham, J., Kelly, K., & John, M. B. (2010). Global warming contri-
butions from wheat, sheep meat and wool production in Victoria, Australia e A
life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 1386e1392.
Borrisser-Pairo , F., Kallas, Z., Panella-Riera, N., Avena, M., Ib ~ ez, M., Olivares, A.,
an
et al. (2016). Towards entire male pigs in Europe: A perspective from the
Spanish supply chain. Research in Veterinary Science, 107, 20e29.
Buendía, I. M., Fern ~ or, J., & Rodríguez, L. (2008). Biodegradability
andez, F. J., Villasen
of meat industry wastes under anaerobic and aerobic conditions. Water
Research, 42, 3767e3774.
Bujak, J. W. (2015). New insights into waste management e Meat industry.
Renewable Energy, 83, 1174e1186.
Carlsson-Kanyama, A. (1998). Climate change and dietary choices d How can
emissions of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced? Food Policy,
23, 277e293.
Carvalho, A., Mimoso, A. F., Mendes, A. N., & Matos, H. A. (2014). From a literature
review to a framework for environmental process impact assessment index.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, 36e62.
Cederberg, C., & Flysjo €, A. (2004). Environmental assessment of future pig farming
systems e Quantifications of three scenarios from the food 21 Synthesis work.
In The Swedish Institute for food and agriculture.
Chan, E. S. W., & Wong, S. C. K. (2006). Motivations for ISO 14001 in the hotel in-
dustry. Tourism Management, 27, 481e492.
Chen, L., Tang, O., & Feldmann, A. (2015). Applying GRI reports for the investigation
of environmental management practices and company performance in Sweden,
China and India. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 36e46.
Cherubini, E., Zanghelini, G. M., Alvarenga, R. A. F., Franco, D., & Soares, S. R. (2015).
Life cycle assessment of swine production in Brazil: A comparison of four
manure management systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 87, 68e77.
Coulomb, D. (2008). Refrigeration and cold chain serving the global food industry
and creating a better future: Two key IIR challenges for improved health and
environment. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19, 413e417.
Cuadros, F., Lo  pez-Rodríguez, F., Ruiz-Celma, A., Rubiales, F., & Gonz alez-
Gonz alez, A. (2011). Recycling, reuse and energetic valuation of meat industry
wastes in Extremadura (Spain). Resources Conservation and Recycling, 55,
393e399.
Dalgaard, R., Halberg, N., & Hermansen, J. E. (2007). Danish pork production e An
environmental assessment. In DJF animal science (Vol. 82)University of Aarhus -
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences.
Darnall, N., & Edwards, D. (2006). Predicting the cost of environmental manage-
ment system adoption: The role of capabilities, resources and ownership
structure. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 301e320.
Davis, K. F., Yu, K., Herrero, M., Havlik, P., Carr, J. A., & D'Odorico, P. (2015). Historical
trade-offs of livestock's environmental impacts. Environmental Research Letters,
10, 125013.
De Smet, S., & Vossen, E. (2016). Meat: The balance between nutrition and health. A
review. Meat Science. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.008.
Delgado, C. L. (2003). Rising consumption of meat and milk in developing countries
has created a new food revolution. The Journal of Nutrition, 133, 3907Se3910S.
Deydier, E., Guilet, R., Sarda, S., & Sharrock, P. (2005). Physical and chemical char-
acterisation of crude meat and bone meal combustion residue: “waste or raw
material?”. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 121, 141e148.
 I. Djekic, I. Tomasevic / Trends in Food Science & Technology 54 (2016) 94e102
Djekic, I. (2015). Environmental impact of meat industry e Current status and
future perspectives. Procedia Food Science, 5, 61e64.
Djekic, I., Blagojevic, B., Antic, D., Cegar, S., Tomasevic, I., & Smigic, N. (2016).
Assessment of environmental practices in Serbian meat companies. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 112(Part 4), 2495e2504.
Djekic, I., Radovi  Luki
c, C., c, M., Stanisi
c, N., & Lili
c, S. (2015). Environmental life-
cycle assessment in production of pork products. Meso, XVII, 345e351.
Djekic, I., Rajkovic, A., Tomic, N., Smigic, N., & Radovanovic, R. (2014). Environmental
management effects in certified Serbian food companies. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 76, 196e199.
Djekic, I., & Smigic, N. (2013). Environmental issues revealed in certified bottling
companies in the Republic of Serbia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 41, 263e269.
EC. (2009). Commission Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament
and the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal
by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and
repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation). In
L 273, 10 October 2002 (pp. 1e95). Brussels, Belgium: Official Journal of the
European Union.
Fiala, N. (2008). Meeting the demand: An estimation of potential future greenhouse
gas emissions from meat production. Ecological Economics, 67, 412e419.
Font-i-Furnols, M., & Guerrero, L. (2014). Consumer preference, behavior and
perception about meat and meat products: An overview. Meat Science, 98,
361e371.
Gavronski, I., Ferrer, G., & Paiva, E. L. (2008). ISO 14001 certification in Brazil:
Motivations and benefits. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 87e94.
Gerber, P. J., Mottet, A., Opio, C. I., Falcucci, A., & Teillard, F. (2015). Environmental
impacts of beef production: Review of challenges and perspectives for dura-
bility. Meat Science, 109, 2e12.
Gomez, A., & Rodriguez, M. A. (2011). The effect of ISO 14001 certification on toxic
emissions: An analysis of industrial facilities in the north of Spain. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 19, 1091e1095.
Gregory, N. G., Alam, M. R., Rahman, M. M., Jabbar, M. A., & Uddin, M. S. (2011).
A note on water quality associated with slaughter premises in Bangladesh. Meat
Science, 88, 791e793.
Hallstro€ m, E., Ro€o
€ s, E., & Bo€rjesson, P. (2014). Sustainable meat consumption: A
quantitative analysis of nutritional intake, greenhouse gas emissions and land
use from a Swedish perspective. Food Policy, 47, 81e90.
Hawkesworth, S., Dangour, A. D., Johnston, D., Lock, K., Poole, N., Rushton, J., et al.
(2010). Feeding the world healthily: The challenge of measuring the effects of
agriculture on health. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B
Biological Sciences, 365, 3083e3097.
Henchion, M., McCarthy, M., Resconi, V. C., & Troy, D. (2014). Meat consumption:
Trends and quality matters. Meat Science, 98, 561e568.
Hsieh, Y.-H. P., & Ofori, J. A. (2011). Blood-derived products for human consumption.
Revelation and Science, 1.
IFC. (2007). In W. B. G.-I. F. Corporation (Ed.), Meat processing environmental, health
and safety guidelines. Washington DC, USA: World Bank Group.
IPCC. (2006). IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Hayama,
Kanagawa, Japan: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
IPPC. (2006). Integrated pollution prevention and control. In Reference document on
best available techniques in the food, drink and milk industries. Seville, Spain:
European Commission.
ISO. (2004). ISO 14001:2004 environmental management systems e Requirements
with guidance for use. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for
Standardization.
ISO. (2006). ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management d Life cycle assessment d
Principles and framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for
Standardization.
ISO. (2015a). ISO 14001:2004 environmental management systems e Requirements
with guidance for use. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for
Standardization.
ISO. (2015b). The ISO survey of certifications 2014. Geneva, Switzerland.
Jayathilakan, K., Sultana, K., Radhakrishna, K., & Bawa, A. S. (2011). Utilization of
byproducts and waste materials from meat, poultry and fish processing in-
dustries: A review. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 49, 278e293.
Kimitaka, N. (2009). An empirical study of the initial adoption of ISO 14001 in
Japanese manufacturing firms. Ecological Economics, 68, 669e679.
Kimitaka, N. (2010). Demand for ISO 14001 adoption in the global supply chain: An
empirical analysis focusing on environmentally conscious markets. Resource
and Energy Economics, 32, 395e407.
Kupusovic, T., Midzic, S., Silajdzic, I., & Bjelavac, J. (2007). Cleaner production
measures in small-scale slaughterhouse industry e Case study in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 378e383.
Labodov a, A. (2004). Implementing integrated management systems using a risk
analysis based approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 571e580.
Leroy, F., & Praet, I. (2015). Meat traditions. The co-evolution of humans and meat.
Appetite, 90, 200e211.
Liu, D.-C. (2002). Better utilization of by-products from the meat industry: Food and
fertilizer technology center.
Lopez-Ridaura, S., Werf, H., Paillat, J. M., & Le Bris, B. (2009). Environmental eval-
uation of transfer and treatment of excess pig slurry by life cycle assessment.
Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1296e1304.
MacLeod, M., Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Tempio, G., Falcucci, A., Opio, C., et al. (2013).
Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply chains e A global life cycle
assessment. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
101
Massoud, M. A., Fayad, R., El-Fadel, M., & Kamleh, R. (2010). Drivers, barriers and
incentives to implementing environmental management systems in the food
industry: A case of Lebanon. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 200e209.
Mathijs, E. (2015). Exploring future patterns of meat consumption. Meat Science,
109, 112e116.
McAuliffe, G. A., Chapman, D. V., & Sage, C. L. (2016). A thematic review of life cycle
assessment (LCA) applied to pig production. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 56, 12e22.
Mensah, I. (2006). Environmental management practices among hotels in the
greater Accra region. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25,
414e431.
Millward, D. J., & Garnett, T. (2010). Plenary lecture 3: Food and the planet:
Nutritional dilemmas of greenhouse gas emission reductions through reduced
intakes of meat and dairy foods. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 69,
103e118.
Mirabella, N., Castellani, V., & Sala, S. (2014). Current options for the valorization of
food manufacturing waste: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 28e41.
Moroney, N. C., O'Grady, M. N., O'Doherty, J. V., & Kerry, J. P. (2012). Addition of
seaweed (Laminaria digitata) extracts containing laminarin and fucoidan to
porcine diets: Influence on the quality and shelf-life of fresh pork. Meat Science,
92, 423e429.
Nguyen, T. L. T., Hermansen, J. E., & Mogensen, L. (2011). Environmental assessment of
Danish pork. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University.
Nguyen, T. L. T., Hermansen, J. E., & Mogensen, L. (2012). Environmental costs of
meat production: The case of typical EU pork production. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 28, 168e176.
de Oliveira, O. J., Serra, J. R., & Salgado, M. H. (2010). Does ISO 14001 work in Brazil?
Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 1797e1806.
Pennington, D. W., Potting, J., Finnveden, G., Lindeijer, E., Jolliet, O., Rydberg, T., et al.
(2004). Life cycle assessment Part 2: Current impact assessment practice.
Environment International, 30, 721e739.
Peters, G. M., Rowley, H. V., Wiedemann, S., Tucker, R., Short, M. D., & Schulz, M.
(2010). Red meat production in Australia: Life cycle assessment and comparison
with overseas studies. Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 1327e1332.
Petroni, A. (2001). Developing a methodology for analysis of benefits and short-
comings of ISO 14001 registration: Lessons from experience of a large ma-
chinery manufacturer. Journal of Cleaner Production, 9, 351e364.
Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (2003). Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based
diets and the environment. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78,
660Se663S.
Rahman, U. U., Sahar, A., & Khan, M. A. (2014). Recovery and utilization of effluents
from meat processing industries. Food Research International, 65(Part C),
322e328.
Ranganathan, J., Vennard, D., Waite, R., Dumas, P., Lipinski, B., & Searchinger, T.
(2016). Shifting diets for a sustainable food future. In Working paper, installment
11 of creating a sustainable food future. Washington, DC, USA: World Resources
Institute.
Reckmann, K., Traulsen, I., & Krieter, J. (2012). Environmental impact assessment e
Methodology with special emphasis on European pork production. Journal of
Environmental Management, 107, 102e109.
Richardson, N. J., Shepherd, R., & Elliman, N. A. (1993). Current attitudes and future
influences on meat consumption in the U.K. Appetite, 21, 41e51.
Rivera, J. A., Sebranek, J. G., Rust, R. E., & Tabatabai, L. B. (2000). Composition and
protein fractions of different meat by-products used for petfood compared with
mechanically separated chicken (MSC). Meat Science, 55, 53e59.
€o
Ro €s, E., Ekelund, L., & Tja €rnemo, H. (2014). Communicating the environmental
impact of meat production: Challenges in the development of a Swedish meat
guide. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73, 154e164.
€o
Ro €s, E., Sundberg, C., Tidåker, P., Strid, I., & Hansson, P.-A. (2013). Can carbon
footprint serve as an indicator of the environmental impact of meat produc-
tion? Ecological Indicators, 24, 573e581.
Roy, P., Orikasa, T., Thammawong, M., Nakamura, N., Xu, Q., & Shiina, T. (2012). Life
cycle of meats: An opportunity to abate the greenhouse gas emission from meat
industry in Japan. Journal of Environmental Management, 93, 218e224.
Sante-Lhoutellier, V. (2016). Human nutrition/meat and human diet: facts and
myths. In Encyclopedia of meat sciences (2nd ed., pp. 118e123). Oxford:
Academic Press.
Schulze, M., Nehler, H., Ottosson, M., & Thollander, P. (2016). Energy management in
industry e A systematic review of previous findings and an integrative con-
ceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112(Part 5), 3692e3708.
de Sena, R. F., Claudino, A., Moretti, K., Bonfanti, I. C. P., Moreira, R. F. P. M., &
Jose, H. J. (2008). Biofuel application of biomass obtained from a meat industry
wastewater plant through the flotation processdA case study. Resources Con-
servation and Recycling, 52, 557e569.
Silva, V. D. M., & Silvestre, M. P. C. (2003). Functional properties of bovine blood
plasma intended for use as a functional ingredient in human food. LWT e Food
Science and Technology, 36, 709e718.
Sofos, J. N. (2014). Chapter 6-Meat and meat products. In Y. M. Lelieveld (Ed.), Food
safety management (pp. 119e162). San Diego: Academic Press.
Sofos, J. N., Belk, K. E., & Smith, G. C. (1999). Processes to reduce contamination with
pathogenic microorganisms in meat. In 45th International Congress of Meat
Science and Technology (Vol. 45, pp. 596e605). Yokohama, Japan.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006).
Livestock's long shadow. Environmental issues and options. Rome, Italy: FAO -
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
102 I. Djekic, I. Tomasevic / Trends in Food Science & Technology 54 (2016) 94e102
Tan, L. P. (2005). Implementing ISO 14001: Is it beneficial for firms in newly
industrialized Malaysia? Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, 397e404.
Thornton, P. K. (2010). Livestock production: Recent trends, future prospects. Phil-
osophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences, 365,
2853e2867.
To, W. M., Lam, K. H., & Lai, T. M. (2015). Importance-performance ratings for
environmental practices among Hong Kong professional-level employees.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 108(Part A), 699e706.
, F., Aristoy, M. C., Mora, L., & Reig, M. (2012). Innovations in value-addition of
Toldra
edible meat by-products. Meat Science, 92, 290e296.
Turk, A. M. (2009). The benefits associated with ISO 14001 certification for con-
struction firms: Turkish case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 559e569.
UNEP. (2000). Cleaner production assessment in meat processing. Paris, France:
United Nations Environment Programme Division of Technology, Industry and
Economics.
Virmond, E., Schacker, R. L., Albrecht, W., Althoff, C. A., de Souza, M., Moreira, R. F.,
et al. (2011). Organic solid waste originating from the meat processing industry
as an alternative energy source. Energy, 36, 3897e3906.
de Vries, M., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2010). Comparing environmental impacts for live-
stock products: A review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science, 128, 1e11.
Williams, A. G., Audsley, E., & Sandars, D. L. (2006). Determining the environmental
burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural
commodities. In Main report. Defra Research Project IS0205. Bedford: Cranfield
University and Defra.
Xu, Z., Sun, D.-W., Zhang, Z., & Zhu, Z. (2015). Research developments in methods to
reduce carbon footprint of cooking operations: A review. Trends in Food Science
& Technology, 44, 49e57.
Zeng, S. X., Tam, C. M., Tam, V. W. Y., & Deng, Z. M. (2005). Towards implementation
of ISO 14001 environmental management systems in selected industries in
China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, 645e656.
Zheng, G., & Kozin ski, J. A. (2000). Thermal events occurring during the combustion
of biomass residue. Fuel, 79, 181e192.
Zutshi, A., & Sohal, A. (2004). Environmental management system adoption by
Australasian organisations: Part 1: Reasons, benefits and impediments. Tech-
novation, 24, 335e357.