Elena Diaz Vicuna1
Karthika Srikanthithasan1
Rosangela Odore1
Stefano Massaglia2
Valentina Maria Merlino2
Andrea Giorgino1
Laura Ozella1
Achille Schiavone1
Francesca Romana Massacci3
Jatziri Mota-Gutierrez1*
Claudio Forte1- 1Dipartimento di Scienze Veterinarie, Università di Torino, Turin, Italy
- 2Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali e Alimentari, Università di Torino, Turin, Italy
- 3Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Umbria e delle Marche “Togo Rosati”, Perugia, Italy
Background: Veterinarians play an essential role in improving animal care, as they are often viewed as trusted advisors, particularly in relation to disease control and management; however, little is known about veterinarians’ perceptions and attitudes toward alternative feeds. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of age, gender, and willingness to adopt on the attitudes of livestock veterinarians toward the use of alternative feeds in farm animals.
Methods: A total of 136 active veterinarians completed the online survey, distributed through the main veterinary associations in Italy. The questionnaire contained items on dietary recommendation, awareness, benefit and safety perceptions, and a willingness to adopt former foodstuffs (FFs), complemented with socio-demographic questions.
Results: Almost 90% of the population reported a willingness to adopt FFs as feed. Men and women did not share the same perceptions of the nutritional composition of FFs, while the importance of product availability was found to be a key factor driving the age difference. Participants willing to adopt FFs as feed linked positive attitudes to attributes such as digestibility, energy intake, and positive social implications.
Conclusion: Our findings provide a basic background on the current use of the FFs in Italy and suggest the need for the development of educational programs and marketing strategies to enhance the acceptability of FFs in farm animals to ultimately promote the transition toward more sustainable animal production. This study has limitations, including the number of recorded responses and reliance on national estimates. Future research is needed to investigate the perceptions of farmers and animal nutritionist from different countries. This could provide a more detailed picture of the current situation in Europe about the potential of using FFs in farm animals’ feed, thus further contributing toward a greener and safer livestock production sector.
1 Introduction
Animal feed plays a crucial role in determining the sustainability performance of animal production systems. The choice of diet affects the animal production chain downstream on, for example, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, animal productivity, animal health, and product safety and quality (1). In this regard, the Food and Agriculture Organization seeks to assess and minimize the negative effects of animal diets on sustainability by informing changes in practices among farmers, farmer organizations, and the feed industry (2). The FAO (2) report showed that sustainability indicators influenced actors in the animal production chain on dimensions like the planet (water pollution, deforestation), people (affordability, competition with human food), and profit (socio-environmental costs, benefit–cost ratio).
Incorporating alternative ingredients into animal diets represents an effective strategy benefitting both the environment and the animal sector in shaping sustainable feed solutions (3). Currently, innovative raw materials for animal feed are being explored; among the most promising findings, agro-industrial co-products and by-products, food leftovers, and former foodstuffs (FFs) are gaining more and more attention (4–9). FFs are defined by the Commission Regulation (EU) 1104/2022 (10) as “foodstuffs, […] manufactured for human consumption in full compliance with the EU food law, but which are no longer intended for human consumption […] and which do not present any health risks when used as feed.” The integration of FFs into farm animal rations can reduce the farmers’ reliance on cereal grains, oils, and sugars while improving nutritional efficiency, thus contributing to a more sustainable food chain by minimizing waste and promoting the use of circular ingredients in feed (11).
From the nutritional point of view, existing literature indicates that FFs are rich in carbohydrates and fats, with varying levels based on their origin. They are therefore characterized by a highly energetic content, valuable for animal feed (7). According to Giromini et al. (5), FFs share a nutritional composition similar to wheat grain but with a higher energy content, primarily contributed by fats and starch, and also exhibit high digestibility. Raising FFs’ awareness in animal feed can bring numerous benefits such as economic, ecological, and ethical considerations (11). From the economic point of view, this alternative feed material can lead to a cost-effective replacement to traditional ingredients while diversifying the farmers’ feed sources, thus reducing their reliance on ingredients often subjected to price fluctuations due to the current market’s high volatility (12, 13). FFs also provide significant ecological advantages that play a crucial role in fostering a sustainable and ethical food system. These benefits encompass the reduction of food waste, enhanced resource efficiency and lowered GHG emissions (4).
From a legislative perspective, feed ingredients approved for use in food-producing livestock are regularly updated by the European Commission in the Catalogue of feed materials (14). FFs were introduced to this list with Reg. UE 68/2013 (15) after critical safety evaluations to minimize main hazards related to their employment in animal nutrition (7, 16). However, to foster the acceptance and integration of FFs in animal feed, it is imperative to actively challenge the prevailing perception that views FFs as mere garbage (9).
Introducing sustainable alternative materials into feed requires the possession of knowledge about these practices by all the main figures working in the zootechnical field, such as farmers, veterinarians, technicians, the feed manufacturing industry, and feed legislation. The adoption of new agricultural technologies by farmers depends on various factors, with their perceptions playing a crucial role (17). Moreover, the role of vets and veterinary technicians is crucial to the progression toward more sustainable livestock farming, although their significance is not widely acknowledged in public perception (18). To maintain their relevance in society, veterinarians must prioritize addressing climate change (19), especially in response to the increasing environmental concerns. Currently, veterinarians are actively promoting sustainability in their communities by tackling waste reduction and exploring sustainable practices in the livestock sector (20). Both veterinary students and professionals are keen to adopt environmentally sustainable practices in their field. To achieve this, accessible and evidence-based sustainability strategies relevant to the veterinary field are essential, with consideration given to staff attitudes and organizational behaviors. Training, education, and personalized environmental goals at individual level prove effective, while group problem-solving is encouraged through collective incentives. By aligning with personal values and emphasizing long-term benefits, veterinary practices can successfully implement sustainable changes, benefiting both the environment and the economy while supporting the wellbeing of veterinarians and clients (19, 21, 22).
Understanding the impact of environmental aspects and demographic factors on perspectives regarding the livestock industry is a significant concern. Recognizing the interactions of these socio-demographic traits with individual convictions and professional backgrounds offers valuable insights into the varied stances of veterinarians on sustainable livestock production (23, 24). Addressing this diversity of viewpoints could enhance sustainability initiatives within the veterinary field. However, it’s worth noting that the potential contribution of veterinarians as stakeholders in various environmentally friendly farming practices, particularly alternative feeding methods like FFs, has not yet been fully recognized.
Therefore, understanding vets’ knowledge and perceptions is essential for excellence and competitive advantage, especially in innovative products like feed alternatives. Recent studies have shown the importance to address the perceptions and attitudes toward feed materials from the main figures involved in livestock farming, such as animal breeders, food and feed processors, and veterinarians, to understand their knowledge and needs (20, 25, 26). Education campaigns focusing in raising awareness about the properties of FFs and their positive environmental impact might help animal professionals to make informed decisions about which industrial feed to use (9). To bridge this gap, the present study aims to investigate the influence of demographic information and willingness to adopt on the perceptions of Italian farm animal veterinarians’ perceptions toward the use of innovative feed raw materials like FFs as promoters of environmentally friendly practices.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Participants and data collection
Farm animal veterinarians were selected to be the main targets of this survey, as they play a crucial role in the farm animal sector. Recruitment was performed by requesting the main veterinary associations in Italy to distribute the web-based questionnaire with request for disclosure to the members. A total of 157 participants completed the survey. The inclusion criteria were: active professional practice in Italy for at least 2 years, direct participation to the diets’ planning (feed composition, origin, and quality of raw materials), and/or involvement in the feed production process (evaluation of the raw materials’ quality, monitoring of the main production phases and check of the final product’s quality) of farm animals. Professionals exclusively working as small animal veterinarians, food safety and inspection veterinarians, or research veterinarians were excluded (n = 21). Responses from veterinarians specialized in small animal, working in public health, or in the research field were removed as the responses were not representative to the larger population. In addition to the best of the author’s knowledge, there is scarce literature studying farm animal vets’ perceptions, contrary to the other types of specialization, small animal veterinarians in particular (27, 28). Only people who agreed to participate by giving their consent for data usage were included.
A survey of active veterinarians was conducted between March and September 2022. Participants filled in the survey anonymously and voluntary and did not receive monetary compensation for their participation. This study follows the ethical standard defined by the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethical Committee of the Department of Veterinary Sciences from the University of Turin, approval n.01698737.
2.2 Questionnaire
The questionnaire was structured into 21 compulsory, close-ended questions, divided into four main sections: (1) socio-demographics, (2) FFs dietary recommendation and awareness, (3) perceptions, and (4) willingness to adopt (WTA). The initial section started with an introductive paragraph structured to allow respondents to contextualize the survey while ensuring not to influence their responses. The text provided the participants with a brief overview of FFs and related legislative framework, the list of inclusion/exclusion criteria for participation, and the aim of the survey (“our intention is to verify on multiple levels the perception and knowledge of a product from the feed industry which is gaining ever greater interest”). Next, participants were asked six questions concerning their demographic profile, including gender, age, geographical location, and number of years of experience in animal management, type of animal species handled (see Supplementary Appendix).
In the second section, participants were asked whether they recommend the use of FF as feed or not through the employment of a multiple-choice question (“Yes/No/Not Sure”). Based on the answers provided, respondents were categorized as pro-FFs, con-FFs, and uncertain, respectively. Next, participants were asked to select what are FFs products among the following options: (a) “Co-product of the agri-food supply chain whose production is impossible to avoid, but which has gained greater economic value (e.g., wheat and bran)” (29); (b) “Food product no longer intended for human consumption due to non-compliance of an aesthetic-commercial nature” (7); (c) “Waste generated during the production process” (7); (d) “By-product unintentionally generated during the production process, characterized by commercial value (bran and distiller)” (30). When participants correctly answered the FFs’ definition, they were grouped as “high awareness,” and when they answered incorrectly, they were grouped as “low awareness.”
In the third section, participants were then asked to express their importance of nine attributes for FFs, namely: (1) economic advantage; (2) feed consistency; (3) environmental sustainability; (4) positive social implications; (5) product availability; (6) antioxidant properties; (7) vitamin content; (8) supply of by-pass protein; and (9) digestibility and energy intake of FFs using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all important to 5 = very important) (31, 32). In addition, participants were asked about their perception of FFs’ safety, considering the three main hazards most typically associated with FFs in literature namely, microbiological risk, toxicological risk, and inaccuracy between actual and declared values reported on the label employing a single, close-ended question (15, 33, 34). Finally, in the last section, participants were asked about their WTA feed products obtained from FFs through a single, close-ended question.
2.3 Statistical analysis
A comparison of mean scores between the level of importance of FFs perceptions (measured on a 5-point scale as interval variables), and level of knowledge of FFs safety (dummy variable: yes or no) as feed according to age, gender, FFs awareness, dietary recommendation, and willingness to adopt was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Statistical analyses were carried out using generalized linear mixed-effect models (GLMMs). Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) have been formulated to correct the assumptions made in linear mixed models, such as the straight relationship between some known function of the mean of y and the predictors x and random effects z (assumption check: plotting residual plots); constant variance (Levene’s test: p-value less than 0.05) and that random effects follow a normal distribution (Shapiro–Wilk test: p-value greater than 0.05). The assumptions that were met were (1) the observed y are independent, conditional on some predictors x (random sampling); (2) the response y comes from a known distribution from the exponential family, with a known mean variance relationship (residual plots); (3) random effects z are independent of y (random sampling). Mixed models were chosen because of their ability to capture both fixed (Gender: women and men; Age: young adults, middle-aged adults, and older adults; Awareness: high and low; Dietary recommendation: pro-FFs, uncertain, and con-FFs; and WTA: willing and unwilling, Type of species management: ruminants, poultry, swine, and other, were added to the GLMM as covariates) and random effects (number of subjects, n = 136). Power calculations for the sample size was used to ensure a significance level = 0.05 and f values = 0.4, using the “pwr” function (power = 0.98). The p-values were adjusted using Bonferroni’s method, and when the mixed model revealed significant differences (p < 0.05), the least significant difference test was applied. Mixed models were built and evaluated according to Crawley (35) using R version 3.3.2. Potential confounding variables that could influence the results of the present study include the fact that veterinarians willing to adopt former foodstuff may have clients who inquire more about natural foods and products compared with vets unwilling to adopt. Additionally, factors such as educational level, rural or urban upbringing, and country of origin of respondents may also play a role. On the other hand, correlation analysis (Spearman correlation) between the perceptions of the use of FFs in farm animals and willingness to adopt FFs as feed was conducted. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was obtained as a measure of the association between the perceptions toward FFs and willingness to adopt using the “psych” function and plotted through the “corrplot” package of R.
3 Results
The socio-demographic characteristics of the sample are described in Table 1. Briefly, the present survey was completed by 43 women and 93 men aged between 18 and 62 years from different regions of Italy (Table 1). More than 50% of the women population is aged between 31 and 50 years old, while more than 50% of the men population is over 51 years old. The average years of experience in working with animals is 15 years for women and 25 years for men. Almost more than 50% of respondents are aware of the definition of FFs but do not currently recommend it. More than 90% of respondents are willing to adopt FFs as feed as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the surveyed Italian veterinarians.
3.1 Italian farm animal vets’ perceptions of the use of FFs in farm animals according to age, willingness to adopt and dietary recommendation
Overall, all veterinarians did not consider the antioxidant properties, vitamin content, and by-pass protein supply of FFs to be important (perception scores below 3.4, Table 2). In contrast, the general product characteristics, such as economic advantage, feed consistency, environmental sustainability, and product availability were indicated as important aspects of FFs (perception scores higher than 3.4, Table 2).
Table 2. Effect of gender in the perception of the use of former foodstuffs in farm animals among surveyed Italian veterinarians (mean and standard error scores, n = 136).
The analysis of the relationship between the perceptions of using FFs in farm animals and gender, age, willingness to adopt, and dietary recommendation category significantly differentiated the perception of farm animals’ veterinarians. In detail, women considered more important the vitamin content (p = 0.001) and antioxidant properties (p = 0.003) of FFs than men (Table 2). The importance of digestibility and energy intake (p = 0.022) and positive social implications (p = 0.037) was more positive in participants willing to adopt than the unwilling ones (Table 3). Additionally, participants labeled as “uncertain” reported more important the economic advantage (p < 0.0001), environmental sustainability (p = 0.832), positive social implications (p = 0.003), and supply of by-pass protein of FFs (p = 0.043) compared with both pro-FFs and con-FFs (Table 4). Regarding the age effect, young adults reported more important (p = 0.043) the product availability than older adults (Table 5). In contrast, the type of species managed and FFs awareness did not significantly differ in any item.
Table 3. Effect of willingness to adopt former foodstuffs and the perceived effects of their use in fam animals’ nutrition among surveyed Italian veterinarians (mean and standard error scores, n = 136).
Table 4. Dietary recommendation difference in the level of importance of the perceptions of the use of former foodstuffs in farm animals among surveyed Italian veterinarians (mean and standard error scores, n = 136).
Table 5. Age difference in the level of importance of the perceptions of the use of former foodstuffs in farm animals among surveyed Italian veterinarians (mean and standard error scores, n = 136).
No significant differences were found between the knowledge level of the main risks associated with FFs and the various demographic factors (age, gender, willingness to adopt, type of species managed, level awareness or dietary recommendation; data not shown).
3.2 The influence of Italian farm animal vets’ benefit perceptions and willingness to adopt former foodstuffs in farm animals
A Spearman correlation test was conducted to examine the relationship between the intention to adopt FFs as feed in the future and farm animal veterinarians’ perceptions of the benefits of using FFs in farm animals. The results revealed a positive correlation among feed consistency, environmental sustainability, positive social implications, economic advantage, product availability, and various nutritional aspects (vitamin content, antioxidant properties, supply of by-pass protein, and digestibility and energy intake). These correlations are illustrated in Figure 1, with corresponding rho and p-values reported in Supplementary Table S1. Fewer different correlations were observed in vets unwilling to adopt FFs as feed (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Correlation plot illustrates Spearman’s correlation between the level of importance of the perceptions of the use of former foodstuffs in farm animals and willingness to adopt among surveyed Italian veterinarians. Figures are labeled according to willingness of participants to adopt FFs as feed (A) Willing to adopt and (B) Unwilling to adopt. Only significant associations between perceptions are only shown (p < 0.05). The intensity of the colors represents the degree of correlation between the perceptions, as measured by the Spearman’s correlation, where the blue color represents a positive degree of correlation and the red one a negative correlation.
Moreover, the importance of social implications was found to be positively correlated with the importance of vitamin content, supply of by-pass protein, digestibility and energy intake, product availability, and environmental sustainability of using FFs as feed (rho = 0.31, 0.60, 0.65, 0.53, 0.62, respectively), as shown in Figure 1. The corresponding rho and p-values are reported in Supplementary Table S1.
4 Discussion
The level of knowledge and perceptions regarding the existing feed ingredients, strategies, and systems of different stakeholders are crucial for enhancing feed sustainability (36). Despite the significant role of veterinarians in ensuring balanced, safe, and nutritive diets, to the best of authors’ knowledge, existing literature has not investigated the vets’ perceptions toward the use of FFs in farm animals. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore how socio-demographic factors, WTA, and current dietary recommendations affect the perceptions of Italian farm animal veterinarians regarding the utilization of FFs in farm animals.
The findings of this study suggest that approximately 50% of vets are aware of FFs’ definition but are not currently recommending them. This outcome aligns with Luciano et al. (37), who reported that the utilization of alternative feeds for farm animals in Europe is still in its early stages. However, more than 90% of respondents answered to be willing to adopt FFs, which is in accordance with future expectations predicting an increase in FFs’ use as feed due to their higher economic advantage, environmental sustainability, and ethical benefits compared with traditional feeds (38). The trend toward the utilization of FFs, particularly driven by pro-FFs veterinarians as observed in the present study, supports the assumption that the use of FFs in Europe may increase in the future. However, further research is necessary to identify the technological, economic, institutional, and human-specific factors that specifically contribute to the adoption of alternative feeds.
In relation to the gender effect on the perceptions of FFs’ characteristics, women considered the vitamin content and antioxidant properties of FFs to be more important than men. Studies evaluating the consumers’ perspective when purchasing different types of food products report that this gender-gap can be attributed to the tendency of women to prefer “healthier foods” (39, 40). Regarding the age effect, the present study suggested that product availability was more relevant to “younger” participants than to “older” ones. An explanation to this could be due to the growing attention toward animal nutrition only in recent years, thus leading to a more pronounced interest in younger professionals than their older counterparts (41). However, while many studies evaluating the acceptance of alternative feeds tend to focus on assessing consumers’ opinion on the final product, there is a notable gap in analyzing the perceptions of the stakeholders (42). Therefore, efforts aimed at identifying the key factors driving preferences for alternative feedstuffs among these professionals are crucial for developing appropriate marketing strategies and coherent educational programs.
Farm animal vets unwilling to adopt FFs were characterized by a general lack of knowledge and disinterest toward the economic advantage, environmental sustainability, positive social implications, and supply of by-pass protein characteristics of FFs. Existing literature indicates an overall uninterest in products “uncommon” in agricultural and animal practices (43), variable levels of trust in the reliability of the values reported on the nutritional label (44), and high level of sensitivity toward the composition of alternative feeds (insect meal in aquaculture feeding) (45). The findings of the present study align with existing literature which identifies market availability (42) and economic impact as the limiting factors for the use of alternative feeds (46). In relation to the environmental sustainability, there is limited research on alternative and sustainable feed options in the veterinarian sector (47). The limited existing literature on the matter indicates a high level of interest in environmental sustainability from different stakeholders and highlights the lack of educational programs on the subject at both undergraduate and post-graduate level (22, 48–50).
Although the significance of the “social factor” in the food and feed supply chain is rarely investigated (51, 52), the present study suggests that respondents’ considered important to adopt FFs in farm animals by linking it to an improved social implication. An unveiled ambivalence regarding sustainable management for veterinarians was associated with an economic aspect (53). Research suggests that greater profitability for veterinarians’ clients would have led to the creation of higher income for their practice (53). These findings suggest that the interest showed by the respondents of this study was also driven by the interest to provide their clients with a more economically advantageous product. Veterinarians’ interest in the sustainability factor might be correlated with the economic aspect, as suggested by Kramer et al. (54), who reported the veterinarians’ concerns about climate change, especially in terms of its the economic impacts in relation to the animals. Considering that feed typically represents one of the main costs for the animals’ management, this finding appears applicable for the results of the present study (55). However, it is important to highlight that veterinarians need to engage more in ethical discussions to ensure animal welfare and animal suffering (56). Further investigation into the moral footprint of animal products in the eyes of consumers and stakeholders is imperative due to the significant, yet often undervalued, impact of this element (57).
5 Limitations and implications
This study has strengths and weakness. Motives for and against participation could be possible starting points for approaches to overcome recruitment difficulties. Inquiring about the willing to adopt FFs might have caused participants to report higher willingness levels than the effective ones. Additionally, using a “Yes/No/Unsure” answers rather than a Likert scale to investigate on the willingness to adopt FFs as feed could have led to responses bias. However, this format was chosen to enhance clarity (binary responses reduce the risk of confusion or misunderstanding), lower tendency for neutrality (participants have to choose between “yes” and “no,” which could lead to more thoughtful responses and greater clarity about opinions), and lower likelihood of measurement error.
The response of a total of 136 farm animal veterinarians from one country is relatively low and provides only a small representation of the European context. However, our findings represent the voice of key stakeholders influencing sustainable feed ingredients and describe the reality of one of the leading members of the European Union. In addition to the small sample size, the methodology used of this study has potential limitations, such as no exclusion criteria concerning the quality of answers. They are therefore subject to bias. To address this limitation, the use of methodological strategies such as randomized controlled trials, or mixed methods, as well as the use of online survey companies is highly advised to prompt access to a broad audience, wider geographic reach, high response rates, low straight lining, and strengthen the validity of the results.
On the other hand, our inclusion criteria can be considered a strength. The survey was conducted online, allowing participants to respond at their own pace and in a private setting to encourage honest responses. Importantly, there are no similar studies conducted in other European countries targeting professionals working within the animal farming system. In fact, most research evaluates the perception of final consumers of the food production animals fed with alternative feeds, such as microalgae, insects, and biofuel co-products (58–60).
The lack of interest on the use of FFs in farm animals observed in the present study could represent a barrier toward a greener, safer alternative to traditional feeds. Future research is needed to better understand the overall situation of the current situation in Europe about the possibility of using FFs in farm animals’ feeds. In particular, differences based on the type of animal species managed and the perception of other stakeholders involved in the zootechnical field, such as farmers, animal nutritionist, and operators of the feed manufacturing industry, should be investigated. This is crucial due to the highly varied landscape characterizing the sector in Europe (61, 62). Comparing the perceptions of different animal nutrition stakeholders and examining their effects on each other, along with evaluating the perceptions of final consumers, could provide a solid foundation for developing further marketing strategies for FFs. Additionally, raising awareness about the use of alternative feeds and other sustainable solutions in veterinary practice, through both undergraduate and postgraduate programs, could help shift attitudes away from hostility toward new technologies and solutions, toward a more sustainable livestock sector (22, 54, 63). Further research is necessary to assess the effectiveness of food policies and interventions in promoting behavioral change and sustainability, ensuring that policies, programs, projects, and initiatives achieve their intended purpose.
6 Conclusion
Understanding which factors could influence farm animal veterinarians to adopt FFs plays a key role in the prospect of sustainable feed. While the findings of the present study are limited by a reduced participation of veterinarians, it appears that FFs are not widely recommended as feed by the majority of the population studied. However, our results demonstrate that the use of FFs in animal feed in Italy is of interest to the involved veterinarians and could therefore assume a primary role in the sector in future years. The implications of these findings include the need to establish dietary guidelines for the use of FFs as feed ingredients and the development of an official quality certification. This would enable FFs’ producers to offer a more reliable product to stakeholders, who in turn would be more willing to try this product. Additionally, it is imperative to provide theoretical courses related to the sustainability of the livestock sector for all categories of workers involved in this field. This would not only increase the level of general knowledge but also contribute to greater awareness in decision-making. In fact, FFs play a crucial role in advancing sustainability goals in the animal production sector by reducing feed and food competition and food waste, as highlighted by the European Commission Notice 133/02 of 2018 (64). However, a collaborative approach involving policymakers and key stakeholders in the field is essential to promote the use of FFs in farm animals and further reduce the environmental impact of the animal sector. Current trends in animal feed are focused on reducing the environmental impact of raw materials. This increasing sustainability in the animal production industry may therefore provide an encouraging scenario for sustainable animal feeds, including FFs.
Data availability statement
The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because the data belongs to the University of Turin. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by the Ethical Committee of the Department of Veterinary Sciences from the University of Turin, approval n.0169873. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
ED: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft. KS: Writing – Original Draft. RO: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing. SM: Writing – Review & Editing. VM: Writing – Review & Editing. AG: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing. LO: Writing – Review & Editing. AS: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing. FM: Writing – Review & Editing. JM-G: Writing – Review & Editing, Formal analysis, Visualization, Data curation. CF: Funding acquisition, Resources, Project administration, Writing – Review & Editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Federation of Italian Professional Veterinary Associations (ANMVI) and the Italian Federation of Doctors in Animal Production Sciences (FIDSPA), all the Orders of Veterinary Surgeons, the General Confederation of Italian Agricolture (Confagricoltura), the National Association of Zootechnical Food Producers (AssalZoo), the Italian Association of Animal Breeders, all the National Associations of the different animal breeds (ANACLI, ANABIC, ANABORARE, ANABORAVA, ANAFI, ANAGRA, ANAPRI, ANARE, ANARB, ANAVALPADANA, ANAVI, ANJI, ANASB, ANAS, ASSONAPA, ANACR, ANAM, ANACAITPR, ANICA, CREA-AA, ANCI, RARE), Coldiretti, the network of IIZZSS (IZSUM AND IZSPLV in particular) and, ultimately, the numerous colleagues that have participated to this project. Valentina Maria Merlino worked at this paper within the National Research Centre for Agricultural Technologies -AGRITECH” CUP: D13C22001330005 - and received funding from the European Union Next-GenerationEU (PIANO NAZIONALE DI RIPRESA E RESILIENZA (PNRR) – MISSIONE 4 COMPONENTE 2, INVESTIMENTO 1.4 – D.D. 1032 17/06/2022, CN00000022). This manuscript reflects only the authors’ views and opinions, neither the European Union nor the European Commission can be considered responsible for them.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2024.1396807/full#supplementary-material
References
1. Makkar, HP, and Ankers, P. Towards sustainable animal diets: a survey-based study. JAFST. (2014) 198:309–22. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.09.018
2. FAO. Identification of indicators for evaluating of sustainable animal diets, eds. H Freija Holsteijn, Van, de Vries, Marion, and Makkar, Harinder P. S.. (2016). FAO animal production and health working paper, no. 15. Rome.
3. Moorby, JM, and Fraser, MD. New feeds and new feeding systems in intensive and semi-intensive forage-fed ruminant livestock systems. Animal. (2021) 15:100297. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100297
4. Mackenzie, SG, Leinonen, I, Ferguson, N, and Kyriazakis, I. Can the environmental impact of pig systems be reduced by utilising co-products as feed? J Clean Prod. (2016) 115:172–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.074
5. Giromini, C, Ottoboni, M, Tretola, M, Marchis, D, Gottardo, D, Caprarulo, V, et al. Nutritional evaluation of former food products (ex-food) intended for pig nutrition. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. (2017) 34:1436–45. doi: 10.1080/19440049.2017.1306884
6. Karlsson, J, Spörndly, R, Lindberg, M, and Holtenius, K. Replacing human-edible feed ingredients with by-products increases net food production efficiency in dairy cows. JDS. (2018) 101:7146–55. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-14209
7. Pinotti, L, Giromini, C, Ottoboni, M, Tretola, M, and Marchis, D. Insects and former foodstuffs for upgrading food waste biomasses/streams to feed ingredients for farm animals. Animal. (2019) 13:1365–75. doi: 10.1017/S1751731118003622
8. Murugesan, K, Srinivasan, KR, Paramasivam, K, Selvam, A, and Wong, J. Conversion of food waste to animal feeds. Biotechnol Bioeng. (2021) 2:305–24. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-819148-4.00011-7
9. Pinotti, L, Luciano, A, Ottoboni, M, Manoni, M, Ferrari, L, Marchis, D, et al. Recycling food leftovers in feed as opportunity to increase the sustainability of livestock production. J Clean Prod. (2021) 294:126290. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126290
10. European Commission. Commission regulation (EU) 2022/1104 of 1 July 2022 amending regulation. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1104/oj (Accessed April 15, 2023).
11. EFFPA: What are former foodstuffs? (2019). Available at: https://www.effpa.eu/what-are-former-foodstuffs/ (Accessed May 10, 2023).
12. Eurostat. EU self-sufficiency for raw materials. (2023). Available at: https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/pzvf2mahgtze5elnbsmefa?locale=en (Accessed April 15, 2023).
13. Benoit, M, and Mottet, A. Energy scarcity and rising cost: towards a paradigm shift for livestock. Agric Syst. (2023) 205:103585. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103585
14. Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1104 of 1 July 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 68/2013 on the Catalogue of feed materials. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1104/oj (Accessed May 10, 2023).
15. Commission Regulation (EU) No 68/2013 of 16 January 2013 on the Catalogue of feed materials Text with EEA relevance. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/68/oj (Accessed May 10, 2023).
16. Tretola, M, Di Rosa, AR, Tirloni, E, Ottoboni, M, Giromini, C, Leone, F, et al. Former food products safety: microbiological quality and computer vision evaluation of packaging remnants contamination. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. (2017) 34:1427–35. doi: 10.1080/19440049.2017.1325012
17. Mwangi, M, and Kariuki, S. Factors determining adoption of new agricultural technology by smallholder farmers in developing countries. J Econ Sustain Dev. (2015) 6:208–216.
18. Nelke, A, Persson, K, Selter, F, and Weber, T. Proceedings of the 17th EurSafe congress. Edinburgh: Wageningen Academic Publishers (2022).
19. Kiran, D, Sander, WE, and Duncan, C. Empowering veterinarians to be planetary Health stewards through policy and practice. Front Vet Sci. (2022) 9:775411. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.775411
20. FVE Veterinarians commit to sustainable food systems. (2021). Available at: https://fve.org/publications/veterinarians-commit-to-sustainable-food-systems/ (Accessed April 15, 2023).
21. VetSustain. A grassroots view of vets and sustainability in farming (2019). Available at: https://vetsustain.org/work/a-grassroots-view-of-vets-sustainability-in-farming (Accessed November 27, 2023).
22. Koytcheva, MK, Sauerwein, LK, Webb, TL, Baumgarn, SA, Skeels, SA, and Duncan, CG. A systematic review of environmental sustainability in veterinary practice. Top Companion Anim Med. (2021) 44:100550. doi: 10.1016/J.TCAM.2021.100550
23. Blair, KJ, Moran, D, and Alexander, P. Worldviews, values and perspectives towards the future of the livestock sector. Agric Hum Val. (2024) 41:91–108. doi: 10.1007/s10460-023-10469-9
24. Lianou, DT, and Fthenakis, GC. Evaluation of the role of veterinarians for outcomes related to the health and production of dairy small ruminants in Greece. Animals. (2023) 13:3371. doi: 10.3390/ani13213371
25. EFFPA. EFFPA launches brochure about former foodstuff processing (2017). Available at: https://www.effpa.eu/effpa-launches-brochure-about-former-foodstuff-processing/ (Accessed April 15, 2023).
26. Martyniuk, E . Policy effects on the sustainability of animal breeding. Sustain For. (2021) 13:7787. doi: 10.3390/su13147787
27. Mateus, AL, Brodbelt, DC, Barber, N, and Stärk, KD. Qualitative study of factors associated with antimicrobial usage in seven small animal veterinary practices in the UK. Prev Vet Med. (2014) 117:68–78. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.05.007
28. Ruston, A, Shortall, O, Green, M, Brennan, M, Wapenaar, W, and Kaler, J. Challenges facing the farm animal veterinary profession in England: a qualitative study of veterinarians’ perceptions and responses. Prev Vet Med. (2016) 127:84–93. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.03.008
29. Waldron, K . Handbook of waste management and co-product recovery in food processing In: Waste minimization, management and co-product recovery in food processing: an introduction. Ed. WW Keith . Oxford: Woodhead Publishing (2007). 662.
30. Castrica, M, Rebucci, R, Giromini, C, Tretola, M, Cattaneo, D, and Baldi, A. Total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of Agri-food waste and by-products. Ital J Anim Sci. (2019) 18:336–41. doi: 10.1080/1828051X.2018.1529544
31. Sajdakowska, M, Jankowski, P, Gutkowska, K, Guzek, D, Żakowska-Biemans, S, and Ozimek, I. Consumer acceptance of innovations in food: a survey among polish consumers. J Consum Behav. (2018) 17:253–67. doi: 10.1002/cb.1708
32. Bazoche, P, and Poret, S. Acceptability of insects in animal feed: a survey of French consumers. J Consum Behav. (2021) 20:251–70. doi: 10.1002/cb.1845
33. Arosemena, A, Depeters, EJ, and Fadel, JG. Extent of variability in nutrient composition within selected by-product feedstuffs. Anim Feed Sci Technol. (1995) 54:103–20. doi: 10.1016/0377-8401(95)00766-G
34. de Andrade, ML, Rodrigues, RR, Antongiovanni, N, and da Cunha, DT. Knowledge and risk perceptions of foodborne disease by consumers and food handlers at restaurants with different food safety profiles. Food Res Int. (2019) 121:845–53. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.01.006
36. van Bussel, LM, Kuijsten, A, Mars, M, and van ‘t Veer, P. Consumers’ perceptions on food-related sustainability: a systematic review. J Clean Prod. (2022) 341:130904. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130904
37. Luciano, A, Tretola, M, Ottoboni, M, Baldi, A, Cattaneo, D, and Pinotti, L. Potentials and challenges of former food products (food leftover) as alternative feed ingredients. Animals. (2020) 10:125. doi: 10.3390/ani10010125
38. Gasco, L, Acuti, G, Bani, P, Dalle Zotte, A, Danieli, PP, De Angelis, A, et al. Insect and fish by-products as sustainable alternatives to conventional animal proteins in animal nutrition. Ital J Anim Sci. (2020) 19:360–72. doi: 10.1080/1828051X.2020.1743209
39. Scheerens, JC . Phytochemicals and the consumer: factors affecting fruit and vegetable consumption and the potential for increasing small fruit in the diet. HortTechnology. (2001) 11:547–56. doi: 10.21273/HORTTECH.11.4.547
40. Batyk, IM, Gujska, E, and Dabrowska, AZ. The effect of gender on the perception. JGC. (2015) 1:5–7.
41. Mancini, S, Sogari, G, Espinosa Diaz, S, Menozzi, D, Paci, G, and Moruzzo, R. Exploring the future of edible insects in Europe. Food Secur. (2022) 11:455. doi: 10.3390/foods11030455
42. Sogari, G, Oddon, SB, Gasco, L, van Huis, A, Spranghers, T, and Mancini, S. Recent advances in insect-based feeds: from animal farming to the acceptance of consumers and stakeholders. Animal. (2023) 17:100904. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2023.100904
43. Kondoh, K, and Jussaume, RA. Contextualizing farmers’ attitudes towards genetically modified crops. Agric Hum Val. (2006) 23:341–52. doi: 10.1007/s10460-006-9004-6
44. Murta, T, Steven, RT, Nikula, CJ, Thomas, SA, Zeiger, LB, Dexter, A, et al. Implications of peak selection in the interpretation of unsupervised mass spectrometry imaging data analyses. Anal Chem. (2021) 93:2309–16. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c04179
45. Mulazzani, L, Madau, FA, Pulina, P, and Malorgio, G. Acceptance of insect meal in aquaculture feeding: a stakeholder analysis for the Italian supply chains of trout and seabass. JWAS. (2021) 52:378–94. doi: 10.1111/jwas.12766
46. Vandeweerd, JM, Clegg, P, and Buczinski, S. How can veterinarians base their medical decisions on the best available scientific evidence? Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. (2012) 28:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2011.12.001
47. Marcombes, L . An illustrated look at brachycephalic dogs. Vet Sustain Med Writ. (2022) 31:75–9. doi: 10.56012/vyuz6450
48. Mair, TS, Janska, S, and Higham, LE. Sustainability in equine veterinary practice: a survey of opinions and practices amongst veterinary teams in the United Kingdom. EVE. (2021) 33:445–8. doi: 10.1111/eve.13565
49. Schiavone, SC, Smith, SM, Mazariegos, I, Salomon, M, Webb, TL, Carpenter, MJ, et al. Environmental sustainability in veterinary medicine: an opportunity for teaching hospitals. JVME. (2022) 49:260–6. doi: 10.3138/jvme-2020-0125
50. Palacios-Díaz, MDP, and Mendoza-Grimón, V. Environment in veterinary education. Vet Sci. (2023) 10:146. doi: 10.3390/vetsci10020146
51. Eizenberg, E, and Jabareen, Y. Social sustainability: a new conceptual framework. Sustain For. (2017) 9:68. doi: 10.3390/su9010068
52. Desiderio, E, García-Herrero, L, Hall, D, Segrè, A, and Vittuari, M. Social sustainability tools and indicators for the food supply chain: a systematic literature review. Sustain Prod Consum. (2022) 30:527–40. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.12.015
53. Brocket, JJ, Fishbourne, E, Smith, RF, and Higgins, HM. Motivations and barriers for veterinarians when facilitating fertility management on UK dairy farms. Front Vet Sci. (2021) 8:709336. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.709336
54. Kramer, CG, McCaw, KA, Zarestky, J, and Duncan, CG. Veterinarians in a changing global climate: educational disconnect and a path forward. Front Vet Sci. (2020) 7:613620. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.613620
55. Sarica, D, Demircan, V, Naziroglu, A, Aydin, O, and Koknaroglu, H. The cost and profitability analysis of different dairy farm sizes. Trop Anim Health Prod. (2022) 54:320. doi: 10.1007/s11250-022-03321-5
56. Hernandez, E, Llonch, P, and Turner, PV. Applied animal ethics in industrial food animal production: exploring the role of the veterinarian. Animals. (2022) 12:678. doi: 10.3390/ani12060678
57. Henchion, M, Hayes, M, Mullen, AM, Fenelon, M, and Tiwari, B. Future protein supply and demand: strategies and factors influencing a sustainable equilibrium. Food Secur. (2017) 6:53. doi: 10.3390/foods6070053
58. De Marco, M, Martínez, S, Hernandez, F, Madrid, J, Gai, F, Rotolo, L, et al. Nutritional value of two insect larval meals (Tenebrio molitor and Hermetia illucens) for broiler chickens: apparent nutrient digestibility, apparent ileal amino acid digestibility and apparent metabolizable energy. JAFST. (2015) 209:211–8. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.08.006
59. Shurson, GC . The role of biofuels coproducts in feeding the world sustainably. Annu Rev Anim Biosci. (2017) 5:229–54. doi: 10.1146/annurev-animal-022516-022907
60. Fawcett, CA, Senhorinho, GN, Laamanen, CA, and Scott, JA. Microalgae as an alternative to oil crops for edible oils and animal feed. Algal Res. (2022) 64:102663. doi: 10.1016/j.algal.2022.102663
61. García-Nieto, AP, Quintas-Soriano, C, García-Llorente, M, Palomo, I, Montes, C, and Martín-López, B. Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: the role of stakeholders′ profiles. Ecosyst Serv. (2015) 13:141–52. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.006
62. Garrett, RD, Niles, MT, Gil, JD, Gaudin, A, Chaplin-Kramer, R, Assmann, A, et al. Social and ecological analysis of commercial integrated crop livestock systems: current knowledge and remaining uncertainty. Agric Syst. (2017) 155:136–46. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.05.003
Keywords: safety perceptions, feedstuffs, alternative feed, circular economy, sustainability
Citation: Diaz Vicuna E, Srikanthithasan K, Odore R, Massaglia S, Merlino VM, Giorgino A, Ozella L, Schiavone A, Massacci FR, Mota-Gutierrez J and Forte C (2024) Influence of age, gender, and willingness to adopt former foodstuffs on the perception of Italian farm animal veterinarians. Front. Vet. Sci. 11:1396807. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1396807
Edited by:
Francesco Gai, National Research Council (CNR), ItalyReviewed by:
Sihem Dabbou, University of Trento, ItalyClara Mehlhose, University of Goettingen, Germany
Copyright © 2024 Diaz Vicuna, Srikanthithasan, Odore, Massaglia, Merlino, Giorgino, Ozella, Schiavone, Massacci, Mota-Gutierrez and Forte. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jatziri Mota-Gutierrez, jatziri.motagutierrez@unito.it