Next Article in Journal
Does Production of Clarias gariepinus × Heterobranchus longifilis Hybrids Influence Quality Attributes of Fillets?
Previous Article in Journal
Non-Dairy Animal Protein Consumption Is Positively Associated with Overweight and Obesity in Israeli Adolescents
Previous Article in Special Issue
Toxic Metals in Wild Ungulates and Domestic Meat Animals Slaughtered for Food Purposes: A Systemic Review
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Editorial for the Special Issue: Game Meat and Game Meat Products: Safety, Quality and Consumer Perception

by
Raffaella Branciari
* and
David Ranucci
*
Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Perugia, Via San Costanzo 4, 06126 Perugia, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2022, 11(14), 2073; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11142073
Submission received: 5 July 2022 / Accepted: 11 July 2022 / Published: 12 July 2022
Consumer interest in game meat has increased in recent years, mainly due to the growing population of some wild species, the “natural sounding” aspect of game meat and its good nutritional value. Consumer choice is mainly influenced by rational motives more than emotional factors, with quality, expressed as nutritional traits linked with healthcare issues [1] as the most important consideration. Different authors recently confirmed the excellent nutritional value, such as high percentage of protein, low fat, proper proportion of n3–n6 polyunsaturated fatty acids and levels of minerals, of numerous game meat species such as Namibian Red Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus) [2], Brown bear (Ursus arctos) [3], Hare (Pedetes capensis) [4], Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) [5], Fallow Deer (Dama dama) [6] and Impala (Aepyceros melampus) [7]. Moreover, other nutritional factors of game meat should be considered, such as bioactive compounds with antihypertensive properties. In this context, the angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitory activities are higher in the digested game meats (venison and boar meat) than those of livestock meats (beef and pork) [8]. The commercial potential of game meat also prompted studies on proportions of valuable meat cuts of specific and uncommon wild species, such as Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis) [9]. Nonetheless, in many of the species reported, difference in quality traits could be encountered according to age [3], meat cut [2] and season [4]. These factors could be therefore considered during the marketing of game meat concerning the aforementioned species [6]. Sex factors appear to be negligible, especially in species with no sexual dimorphism [7].
Game meat could also be considered for meat preparation and products, in which the peculiar quality traits of the meat could be preserved [10] or even enhanced with a specific ingredient. Taking into consideration that the higher amount of polyunsaturated fatty acid in this meat could negatively affect the oxidative stability of the products, the addition of other fat sources, such as sheep fat in Zebra (Equus burchelli) Droëwors [11] or vegetable oils in deer burger [12], should be considered.
Another relevant issue for consumer perception of game meat is its safety. In a study conducted in Poland, almost all consumers believe that the positive impact of game meat is higher than the safety risk, but some search for information and are convinced to counteract the safety risk only by not eating raw meat [13]. Game meat safety issues must be considered separately from livestock animal meat because of the differences in the environment where the animal lives and differences in the first step of the production chain (transport and slaughtering vs. hunting). Hygiene and safety issues could thus be considered according to several factors present in the pre-harvest and hunting phases that are directly pertinent to hunters, such as the duration of storage before skinning, the environmental temperature during hunting and the time between shooting and evisceration, associated with animal weight (considered in wild boar Sus scropha and roe deer Caperolus capreolus) [14,15]. Thus, in a survey conducted in Italy, the hunter themselves believed that is crucial to improve hunters’ training activities to increase the safety and quality of the final product [16]. If the hunting and post-harvest processes are properly conducted, game meat could follow the same microbiological criteria adopted for slaughtered animals [14]. Under these optimal conditions, the application of decontamination strategies using weak organic acid solution to improve meat shelf-life could be suggested [17]. Indeed, different factors present during hunting could influence either the hygienic level of the meat or its quality traits, affecting its pH, color and other quality characteristics. When game meat of poor quality (e.g., meat with high ultimate pH) is used for meat processing, such as in naturally fermented meat products, microbiological safety risks could occur [18].
The role of hunters must be considered even in terms of the presence of heavy metals in game meat, as Lead (Pb) present in the ammunition used for hunting remains the most significant threat for toxic metals contamination in game meat animals. Monitoring and control of heavy metals in the game meat provided in developing countries must therefore be implemented [19].

Author Contributions

R.B. and D.R.; writing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not Applicable This Special Issue collects researches related to different aspect of Game Meat and Game Meat Products. The contributions here gathered constitute a valuable knowledge reservoir for scientists working in the field of Game Meat production chain.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Niewiadomska, K.; Kosicka-Gębska, M.; Gębski, J.; Gutkowska, K.; Jeżewska-Zychowicz, M.; Sułek, M. Game Meat Consumption—Conscious Choice or Just a Game? Foods 2020, 9, 1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hoffman, L.C.; van Schalkwyk, D.L.; Muller, M.; Needham, T.; McMillin, K.W. Carcass Yields and Physical-Chemical Meat Quality Characteristics of Namibian Red Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus) as Influenced by Sex and Muscle. Foods 2021, 10, 2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kelava Ugarković, N.; Konjačić, M.; Malnar, J.; Tomljanović, K.; Šprem, N.; Ugarković, D. Proximate Chemical Composition, Fatty Acid Profile, and Lipid Qualitative Indices of Brown Bear Meat. Foods 2021, 10, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Erasmus, S.W.; Hoffman, L.C. Putting the Spring back into the Hare (Pedetes capensis): Meat Chemical Composition of an Underutilized Protein Source. Foods 2020, 9, 1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Razmaitė, V.; Pileckas, V.; Šiukščius, A.; Juškienė, V. Fatty Acid Composition of Meat and Edible Offal from Free-Living Red Deer (Cervus elaphus). Foods 2020, 9, 923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Cawthorn, D.-M.; Fitzhenry, L.B.; Kotrba, R.; Bureš, D.; Hoffman, L.C. Chemical Composition of Wild Fallow Deer (Dama Dama) Meat from South Africa: A Preliminary Evaluation. Foods 2020, 9, 598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Needham, T.; Engels, R.A.; Bureš, D.; Kotrba, R.; van Rensburg, B.J.; Hoffman, L.C. Carcass Yields and Physiochemical Meat Quality of Semi-extensive and Intensively Farmed Impala (Aepyceros melampus). Foods 2020, 9, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Takeda, S.; Kaneko, S.; Sogawa, K.; Ahhmed, A.M.; Enomoto, H.; Kawarai, S.; Taira, K.; Mizunoya, W.; Minami, M.; Sakata, R. Isolation, Evaluation, and Identification of Angiotensin I-Converting Enzyme Inhibitory Peptides from Game Meat. Foods 2020, 9, 1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Silberbauer, B.L.; Strydom, P.E.; Hoffman, L.C. An Exploratory Study into the Influence of Sex on Body Measurements, Carcass Weights and Meat Yields of Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis). Foods 2021, 10, 2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Hoffman, L.C.; Rudman, M.; Leslie, A.J. Profile of Back Bacon Produced From the Common Warthog. Foods 2020, 9, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Mandela, Z.; Arnaud, E.; Hoffman, L.C. Physico-Chemical Characteristics and Lipid Oxidative Stability of Zebra (Equus Burchelli) Droëwors Made Using Different Levels of Sheep Fat. Foods 2021, 10, 2497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vargas-Ramella, M.; Munekata, P.E.S.; Pateiro, M.; Franco, D.; Campagnol, P.C.B.; Tomasevic, I.; Domínguez, R.; Lorenzo, J.M. Physicochemical Composition and Nutritional Properties of Deer Burger Enhanced with Healthier Oils. Foods 2020, 9, 571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Niewiadomska, K.; Kosicka-Gębska, M.; Gębski, J.; Jeżewska-Zychowicz, M.; Sułek, M. Perception of the Health Threats Related to the Consumption of Wild Animal Meat—Is Eating Game Risky? Foods 2021, 10, 1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Branciari, R.; Onofri, A.; Cambiotti, F.; Ranucci, D. Effects of Animal, Climatic, Hunting and Handling Conditions on the Hygienic Characteristics of Hunted Roe Doer (Caprelous capreolus L.). Foods 2020, 9, 1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ranucci, D.; Roila, R.; Onofri, A.; Cambiotti, F.; Primavilla, S.; Miraglia, D.; Andoni, E.; Di Cerbo, A.; Branciari, R. Improving Hunted Wild Boar Carcass Hygiene: Roles of Different Factors Involved in the Harvest Phase. Foods 2021, 10, 1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Marescotti, M.E.; Demartini, E.; Gibbert, M.; Viganò, R.; Gaviglio, A. Disentangling Individual Phases in the Hunted vs. Farmed Meat Supply Chain: Exploring Hunters’ Perceptions in Italy. Foods 2021, 10, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Nkosi, D.V.; Bekker, J.L.; Hoffman, L.C. The Use of Organic Acids (Lactic and Acetic) as a Microbial Decontaminant during the Slaughter of Meat Animal Species: A Review. Foods 2021, 10, 2293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Charmpi, C.; Van Reckem, E.; Sameli, N.; Van der Veken, D.; De Vuyst, L.; Leroy, F. The Use of Less Conventional Meats or Meat with High pH Can Lead to the Growth of Undesirable Microorganisms during Natural Meat Fermentation. Foods 2020, 9, 1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Nkosi, D.V.; Bekker, J.L.; Hoffman, L.C. Toxic Metals in Wild Ungulates and Domestic Meat Animals Slaughtered for Food Purposes: A Systemic Review. Foods 2021, 10, 2853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Branciari, R.; Ranucci, D. Editorial for the Special Issue: Game Meat and Game Meat Products: Safety, Quality and Consumer Perception. Foods 2022, 11, 2073. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11142073

AMA Style

Branciari R, Ranucci D. Editorial for the Special Issue: Game Meat and Game Meat Products: Safety, Quality and Consumer Perception. Foods. 2022; 11(14):2073. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11142073

Chicago/Turabian Style

Branciari, Raffaella, and David Ranucci. 2022. "Editorial for the Special Issue: Game Meat and Game Meat Products: Safety, Quality and Consumer Perception" Foods 11, no. 14: 2073. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11142073

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop