Advertisement

Valorization of Proteins from Co- and By-Products from the Fish and Meat Industry

  • Tone Aspevik
  • Åge Oterhals
  • Sissel Beate Rønning
  • Themistoklis Altintzoglou
  • Sileshi Gizachew Wubshet
  • Asbjørn Gildberg
  • Nils Kristian Afseth
  • Ragnhild Dragøy Whitaker
  • Diana LindbergEmail author
Review
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Chemistry and Chemical Technologies in Waste Valorization

Abstract

Large volumes of protein-rich residual raw materials, such as heads, bones, carcasses, blood, skin, viscera, hooves and feathers, are created as a result of processing of animals from fisheries, aquaculture, livestock and poultry sectors. These residuals contain proteins and other essential nutrients with potentially bioactive properties, eligible for recycling and upgrading for higher-value products, e.g. for human, pet food and feed purposes. Here, we aim to cover all the important aspects of achieving optimal utilization of proteins in such residual raw materials, identifying those eligible for human consumption as co-products and for feed applications as by-products. Strict legislation regulates the utilization of various animal-based co- and by-products, representing a major hurdle if not addressed properly. Thorough understanding and optimization of all parts of the production chain, including conservation and processing, are important prerequisites for successful upgrading and industrial implementation of such products. This review includes industrially applied technologies such as freezing/cooling, acid preservation, salting, rendering and protein hydrolysis. In this regard, it is important to achieve stable production and quality through all the steps in the manufacturing chain, preferably supported by at- or online quality control points in the actual processing step. If aiming for the human market, knowledge of consumer trends and awareness are important for production and successful introduction of new products and ingredients.

Keywords

Food and feed applications Enzymatic hydrolysis Downstream processing Bioactivity Analytical chemistry Consumers 

Abbreviations

ABPs

Animal by-products

BAPs

Bioactive peptides

BSE

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy

EU

European Union

FTIR

Fourier-transform infrared

TSE

Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy

Notes

Acknowledgements

Grants 262308 and 262300 from the Norwegian Research Council are acknowledged.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This work is partly funded by Grants 262308 and 262300 from the Norwegian Research Council.

Conflict of interest

Authors Aspevik, T., Oterhals, Å., Rønning, S. B., Altintzoglou, T., Wubshet, S. G, Gildberg, A., Afseth N. K., Whitaker, R. D., and Lindberg, D. declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Boland MJ, Rae AN, Vereijken JM, Muwissen MPM, Fisher ARH, van Boekel MAJS et al (2013) The future supply of animal-derived protein for human consumption. Trends Food Sci Technol 29:62–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    FAO (2017) Fisheries statistical collections. Global production. http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-production/en. Accessed 03 Jan 2017
  3. 3.
    Keheller K (2005) Discards of the world’s marine fisheries. An update. FAO Technical paper 470. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Richardsen R, Nystøyl R, Strandheim G, Marthinussen A (2016) Analyse av marint restråstoff. SINTEF report A27704. SINTEF AS, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gamarro EG, Orawattanamateekul W, Sentina J, Gopal TKS (2013) By-products of tuna processing. In: FAO (ed) GLOBEFISH Research Programme, vol 112. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gustavsson J, Cederberg C, Sonesson U, Emanuelsson A (2013) The methodology of the FAO study: “Global Food Losses and Food Waste - extent, causes and prevention”—FAO, 2011. SIK report No. 857. The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK), Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rønning SB, Pedersen ME, Kirkhus B, Rødbotten R, Lindberg D (2016) Bioaktivitet av peptidfraksjoner fra restråstoff-fremstilling, funksjon og markedsmuligheter. Nofima report 1/2016Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    FAOSTAT (2017) http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/ Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  9. 9.
    Lindberg D, Aaby K, Borge GIA, Haugen J-E, Nilsson A, Rødbotten R, Sahlstrøm S (2016) Kartlegging av restråstoff fra jordbruket. Nofima report 67/2016Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meeker DL, Hamilton CR (2006) An overview of the rendering industry. In: Meeker DL (ed) Essential rendering. National Renderers Association, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Honikel KO (2011) Composition and calories. In: Nollet LML, Toldra F (eds) Handbook of analysis of edible animal by-products. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    EU (2004) European Union Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. Off. J. L 139, 30/4/2004Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    EU (2009) European Union Regulation (EC) No. 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of 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). Off. J. L300,14/11/2009Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    EU (2011) European Union Regulation (EC) No. 142/2011 of 25 February 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No. 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and implementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items exempt from veterinary checks at the border under that Directive. Off. J. L54, 26/02/2011Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    EU (2001) European Union Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Off. J. L147, 31/05/2001Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nygård H (2010) Standard Norwegian fishmeal- and fishoil process. Heat treatment requirements. Nofima report 33/2010Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sohaib M, Anjum FM, Arshad MS, Rahman UU (2016) Postharvest intervention technologies for safety enhancement of meat and meat based products; a critical review. J Food Sci Technol 53:19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brocklehurst TF (2007) The importance of microbiological risk management in the stabilisation of food processing co-product. In: Waldron K (ed) Handbook of waste management and co-product recovery in food processing, 1st edn. Woodhead, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gonçalves AA (2016) Ozone as a safe and environmentally friendly tool for the seafood industry. J Aquat Food Prod Technol 25:210–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Campos CA, Losada V, Rodríguez Ó, Aubourg SP, Barros-Velázquez J (2006) Evaluation of an ozone–slurry ice combined refrigeration system for the storage of farmed turbot (Psetta maxima). Food Chem 97:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sorheim O, Uglem S, Lea P, Claus JR, Egelandsdal B (2006) Functional properties of pre-rigor, pre-salted ground beef chilled with solid carbon dioxide. Meat Sci 73:459–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Theron MM, Lues JFR (2007) Organic acids and meat preservation: a review. Food Rev Int 23:141–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carpenter CE, Broadbent JR (2009) External concentration of organic acid anions and pH: key independent variables for studying how organic acids inhibit growth of bacteria in mildly acidic foods. J Food Sci 74:R12–R15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tatterson IN, Windsor ML (2001) Fish Silage. Torry Advisory Note No. 64, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    De Arruda LF, Borghesi R, Oetterer M (2007) Use of fish waste as silage. A review. Braz Arch Biol Technol 50:879–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raa J, Gildberg A (1982) Fish silage. A review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 16:383–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rathinaraj K, Sakhare PZ, Sachindra NM, Mahendrakar NS (2010) Effect of ensilaging and organic solvent treatment on activity of proteases from chicken intestine. Food Bioprocess Technol 3:783–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thongthai C, Gildberg A (2005) Asian fish sauce as a source of nutrition. In: Shi J, Ho C-T, Shahidi F (eds) Asian Functional Foods. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gildberg A (2004) Digestive enzyme activities in starved pre-slaughter farmed and wild-captured, Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Aquaculture 238:343–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schmidtsdorff W (1995) Fish meal and fish oil—not only by-products. In: Ruiter A (ed) Fish and fishery products: composition, nutritive properties and stability. CAB International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oterhals Å, Vogt G (2013) Impact of extraction, refining and concentration stages on the stability of fish oil. In: Jacobsen C, Nielsen NS, Horn AF, Sørensen ADM (eds) Food enrichment with omega-3 fatty acids, 1st edn. Woodhead, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bimbo AP (2017) Marine Oils. International Fisheries Technology, Virginia http://lipidlibrary.aocs.org/OilsFats/content.cfm?ItemNumber=40332. Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  33. 33.
    Aaslyng MD, Martens M, Poll L, Nielsen PM, Flyge H, Larsen LM (1998) Chemical and sensory characterization of hydrolyzed vegetable protein, a savory flavoring. J Agric Food Chem 46:481–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Manley CH, McCann JS, Swaine RL Jr (1981) The chemical bases of the taste and flavor enhancing properties of hydrolyzed protein. In: Charalambous G (ed) The quality of foods and beverages. Academic, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Friedman M (1978) Inhibition of lysinoalanine synthesis by protein acylation. In: Friedman M (ed) Nutritional improvement of food and feed proteins. Springer, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kristinsson HG, Rasco BA (2000) Fish protein hydrolysates: production, biochemical, and functional properties. Crit Rev Food Sci 40:43–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pasupuleti VK, Braun S (2010) State of the art manufacturing of protein hydrolysates. In: Pasupuleti VK, Demain AL (eds) Protein hydrolysates in biotechnology. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Panyam D, Kilara A (1996) Enhancing the functionality of food proteins by enzymatic modification. Trends Food Sci Technol 7:120–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    O’Meara GM, Munro PA (1984) Effects of reaction variables on the hydrolysis of lean beef tissue by alcalase. Meat Sci 11:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Moreno MCM, Cuadrado VF (1993) Enzymatic hydrolysis of vegetable proteins—mechanism and kinetics. Process Biochem 28:481–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Adler-Nissen J (1986) Enzymatic hydrolysis of food proteins. Elsevier Applied Science, EssexGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hjelmeland K (1983) Proteinase inhibitors in the muscle and serum of cod (Gadhus morhua). Isolation and characterization. Comp Biochem Phys B 76:365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Aspevik T, Egede-Nissen H, Oterhals Å (2016) A systematic approach to the comparison of cost efficiency of endopeptidases for the hydrolysis of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) by-products. Food Technol Biotechnol 54:421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Linder M, Fanni J, Parmentier M, Sergent M, Phantanluu R (1995) Protein recovery from veal bones by enzymatic hydrolysis. J Food Sci 60:949–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rao MB, Tanksale AM, Ghatge MS, Deshpande VV (1998) Molecular and biotechnological aspects of microbial proteases. Microbiol Mol Biol R 62:597–635Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kristinsson HG (2007) Aquatic food protein hydrolysates. In: Shahidi F (ed) Maximising the value of marine by-products. Woodhead, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kunst T (2003) Protein modification to optimize functionality. In: Whitaker JR, Voragen AGJ, Wong DWS (eds) Handbook of food enzymology. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sriperm N, Pesti GM, Tillman PB (2011) Evaluation of the fixed nitrogen-to-protein (N:P) conversion factor (6.25) versus ingredient specific N:P conversion factors in feedstuffs. J Sci Food Agric 91:1182–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Afseth NK, Wold JP, Segtnan VH (2006) The potential of Raman spectroscopy for characterisation of the fatty acid unsaturation of salmon. Anal Chim Acta 572:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wold JP, O’Farrell M, Hoy M, Tschudi J (2011) On-line determination and control of fat content in batches of beef trimmings by NIR imaging spectroscopy. Meat Sci 89:317–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ruckebusch C, Nedjar-Arroume N, Magazzeni S, Huvenne J-P, Legrand P (1999) Hydrolysis of haemoglobin surveyed by infrared spectroscopy: I. solvent effect on the secondary structure of haemoglobin. J Mol Struct 478:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Poulsen NA, Eskildsen CE, Akkerman M, Johansen LB, Hansen MS, Hansen PW, Skov T, Larsen LB (2016) Predicting hydrolysis of whey protein by mid-infrared spectroscopy. Int Dairy J 61:44–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bougatef A, Nedjar-Arroume N, Manni L, Ravallec R, Barkia A, Guillochon D, Nasri M (2010) Purification and identification of novel antioxidant peptides from enzymatic hydrolysates of sardinelle (Sardinella aurita) by-products proteins. Food Chem 118:559–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hewitt C, Nienow AW (2007) The scale-up of microbial batch and fed-batch fermentation processes. Adv Appl Microbiol 62:105–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Neubauer P, Cruz N, Glauche F, Junne S, Knepper A, Raven M (2013) Consistent development of bioprocesses from microliter cultures to the industrial scale. Eng Life Sci 13:224–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hellsmark H, Frishammar J, Söderholm P, Ylinenpää H (2016) The role of pilot and demonstration plants in technology development and innovation policy. Res Policy 45:1743–1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Olsen RL, Toppe J, Karunasagar I (2014) Challenges and realistic opportunities in the use of by-products from processing of fish and shellfish. Trends Food Sci Technol 36:144–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Silva VDM, Silvestre MPC (2003) Functional properties of bovine blood plasma intended for use as a functional ingredient in human food. Lebensm Wiss Technol Food Sci Technol 36:709–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jayathilakan K, Sultana K, Radhakrishna K, Bawa AS (2012) Utilization of byproducts and waste materials from meat, poultry and fish processing industries: a review. J Food Sci Technol 49:278–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    FAO (1991) Guidelines for slaughtering, meat cutting and further processing. FAO Animal Production and Health Papers 91. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Siemensma AD, Weijer WJ, Bak HJ (1993) The importance of peptide lengths in hypoallergenic infant formulas. Trends Food Sci Technol 4:16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Frøkjaer S (1994) Use of hydrolysates for protein supplementation. Food Technol 48:86–88Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Clemente A (2000) Enzymatic protein hydrolysates in human nutrition. Trends Food Sci Technol 11:254–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Neklyudov AD, Ivankin AN, Berdutina AV (2000) Properties and uses of protein hydrolysates. Appl Biochem Microbiol 36:452–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kim H-O, Li-Chan ECY (2006) Quantitative structure–activity relationship study of bitter peptides. J Agric Food Chem 54:10102–10111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Aspevik T, Totland C, Lea P, Oterhals Å (2016) Sensory and surface-active properties of protein hydrolysates based on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) by-products. Process Biochem 51:1006–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Saha BC, Hayashi K (2001) Debittering of protein hydrolyzates. Biotechnol Adv 19:355–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Aspevik T (2016) Fish protein hydrolysates based on Atlantic salmon by-products—enzyme cost-efficiency and characterization of sensory, surface-active and nutritional properties, PhD thesis. University of BergenGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wadhwa M, Bakshi MPS (2016) Application of waste-derived proteins in the animal feed industry. In: Dhillon G (ed) Protein byproducts. Academic, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hendriks WH, Butts CA, Thomas DV, James KAC, Morel PCA, Verstegen MWA (2002) Nutritional quality and variation of meat and bone meal. Asian Australas J Anim Sci 15:1507–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Pérez-Calvo E, Castrillo C, Baucells MD, Guada JA (2010) Effect of rendering on protein and fat quality of animal by-products. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 94:e154–e163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Martínez-Alvarez O, Chamorro S, Brenes A (2015) Protein hydrolysates from animal processing by-products as a source of bioactive molecules with interest in animal feeding: a review. Food Res Int 73:204–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Jedrejek D, Levic J, Wallace J, Oleszek W (2016) Animal by-products for feed: characteristics, European regulatory framework, and potential impacts on human and animal health and the environment. J Anim Feed Sci 25:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ytrestøyl T, Aas TS, Asgard T (2015) Utilisation of feed resources in production of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Norway. Aquaculture 448:365–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Shepherd CJ, Jackson AJ (2013) Global fishmeal and fish-oil supply: inputs, outputs and markets. J Fish Biol 83:1046–1066Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    EU (2012) European commission, Health and Consumer Directorate General. Summary report of the standing committee on the food chain and animal health held in Brussels on 18 July 2012 (Section Biological Safety of the Food Chain). http://ec.europa.eu/food/committees/regulatory/scfcah/biosafety/sum_18072012_en.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2017
  77. 77.
    Hatlen B, Jakobsen JV, Crampton V, Alm M, Langmyhr E, Espe M, Hevrøy EM, Torstensen BE, Liland NS, Waagbø R (2015) Growth, feed utilization and endocrine responses in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) fed diets added poultry by-product meal and blood meal in combination with poultry oil. Aquac Nutr 21:714–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Liland NS, Hatlen B, Takle H, Venegas C, Espe M, Torstensen BE, Waagbo R (2015) Including processed poultry and porcine by-products in diets high in plant ingredients reduced liver TAG in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Aquac Nutr 21:655–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Sola-Oriol D, Roura E, Torrallardona D (2011) Feed preference in pigs: effect of selected protein, fat, and fiber sources at different inclusion rates. J Anim Sci 89:3219–3227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Swanson KS, Carter RA, Yount TP, Aretz J, Buff PR (2013) Nutritional sustainability of pet foods. Adv Nutr 4:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Barbut S (2015) The science of poultry and meat processing. Creative commons. http://www.poultryandmeatprocessing.com/. Accessed 12 Jan 2017
  82. 82.
    Aldrich G (2006) Rendered products in pet food. In: Meeker DL (ed) Essential rendering. National Renderers Association, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Folador JF, Karr-Lilienthal LK, Parsons CM, Bauer LL, Utterback PL, Schasteen CS, Bechtel PJ, Fahey GC Jr (2006) Fish meals, fish components, and fish protein hydrolysates as potential ingredients in pet foods. J Anim Sci 84:2752–2765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Nagodawithana TW, Nelles L, Trivedi NB (2010) Protein hydrolysates as hypoallergenic, flavors and palatants for companion animals. In: Pasupuleti VK, Demain AL (eds) Protein hydrolysates in biotechnology. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Fitzgerald RJ, Murray BA (2006) Bioactive peptides and lactic fermentations. Int J Dairy Technol 59:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    da Rosa Zavareze E, Telles AC, Mello El Halal SL, da Rocha M, Colussi R, Marques de Assis L, Suita de Castro LA, Guerra Dias AR, Prentice-Hernández C (2014) Production and characterization of encapsulated antioxidative protein hydrolysates from Whitemouth croaker (Micropogonias furnieri) muscle and byproduct. Food Sci Technol 59:841–848Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Harnedy PA, FitzGerald RJ (2012) Bioactive peptides from marine processing waste and shellfish: a review. J Funct Foods 4:6–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Lafarga T, Hayes M (2014) Bioactive peptides from meat muscle and by-products: generation, functionality and application as functional ingredients. Meat Sci 98:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Liaset B, Madsen L, Hao Q, Criales G, Mellgren G, Marschall HU, Hallenborg P, Espe M, Froyland L, Kristiansen K (2009) Fish protein hydrolysate elevates plasma bile acids and reduces visceral adipose tissue mass in rats. Biochim Biophys Acta 1791:254–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Zdzieblik D, Oesser S, Baumstark MW, Gollhofer A, Konig D (2015) Collagen peptide supplementation in combination with resistance training improves body composition and increases muscle strength in elderly sarcopenic men: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Nutr 114:1237–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Husein El Hadmed H, Castillo RF (2016) Cosmeceuticals: peptides, proteins, and growth factors. J Cosmet Dermatol 15:514–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Raghavan S, Kristinsson HG (2009) ACE-inhibitory activity of tilapia protein hydrolysates. Food Chem 117:582–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Di Bernardini R, Harnedy P, Bolton D, Kerry J, O’Neill E, Mullen AM, Hayes M (2011) Antioxidant and antimicrobial peptidic hydrolysates from muscle protein sources and by-products. Food Chem 124:1296–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Je J-Y, Park P-J, Kim S-K (2005) Antioxidant activity of a peptide isolated from Alaska pollack (Theragra chalcogramma) frame protein hydrolysate. Food Res Int 38:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Onuh JO, Girgih AT, Aluko RE, Aliani M (2014) In vitro antioxidant properties of chicken skin enzymatic protein hydrolysates and membrane fractions. Food Chem 150:366–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Pasupuleti VK (2010) Applications of protein hydrolysates in biotechnology. In: Pasupuleti VK, Demain AL (eds) Protein hydrolysates in biotechnology. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Bah CS, Bekhit Ael D, Carne A, McConnell MA (2016) Composition and biological activities of slaughterhouse blood from red deer, sheep, pig and cattle. J Sci Food Agric 96:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Reddy N (2015) Non-food industrial applications of poultry feathers. Waste Manag 45:91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Woodgate SL (2006) What would a world without rendering look like? In: Meeker DL (ed) Essential rendering. National Renderers Association, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Troy DJ, Kerry JP (2010) Consumer perception and the role of science in the meat industry. Meat Sci 86:214–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Djekic I, Tomasevic I (2016) Environmental impacts of the meat chain—current status and future perspectives. Trends Food Sci Technol 54:94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Penven A, Perez-Galvez R, Berge J-P (2013) By-products from fish processing: focus on French industry. In: Perez-Galvez R, Berge J-P (eds) Utilization of fish waste, CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–25. ISBN: 9781466585799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Smith ST, Metzger L, Drake MA (2016) Evaluation of whey, milk, and delactosed permeates as salt substitutes. J Dairy Sci 99:8687–8698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Chardigny J-M, Walrand S (2016) Plant protein for food: opportunities and bottlenecks. OCL 23:D404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Nunes MA, Pimentel FB, Costa ASG, Alves RC, Oliveira MBPP (2016) Olive by-products for functional and food applications: challenging opportunities to face environmental constraints. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 35:139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Dijksterhuis G (2016) New product failure: five potential sources discussed. Trends Food Sci Technol 50:243–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Young W, Hwang K, McDonald S, Oates CJ (2010) Sustainable consumption: green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustain Dev 18:20–31Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Amofa-Diatuo T, Anang DM, Barba FJ, Tiwari BK J. Development of new apple beverages rich in isothiocyanates by using extracts obtained from ultrasound-treated cauliflower by-products: Evaluation of physical properties and consumer acceptance. Food Compos Anal. doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2016.10.001
  109. 109.
    Childs JL, Drake M (2010) Consumer perception of astringency in clear acidic whey protein beverages. J Food Sci 75:S513–S521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Verbeke W (2005) Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. Eur Rev Agric Econ 32:347–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Dickinson A, MacKay D, Wong A (2015) Consumer attitudes about the role of multivitamins and other dietary supplements: report of a survey. Nutr J 14:66–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Bornkessel S, Bröring S, Omta SO, van Trijp H (2014) What determines ingredient awareness of consumers? A study on ten functional food ingredients. Food Qual Prefer 32:330–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Van Rijswijk W, Frewer LJ (2012) Consumer needs and requirements for food and ingredient traceability information. Int J Consum Stud 36:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Shepherd CJ, Monroig O, Tocher DR (2017) Future availability of raw materials for salmon feeds and supply chain implications: the case of Scottish farmed salmon. Aquaculture 467:49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Abarike ED, Obodai EA, Attipoe FYK (2016) Effects of feeding different agro-industrial by-products on carcass composition and sensory attributes of Oreochromis niloticus. Int J Fish Aquat Stud 4:168–172Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Aschemann-Witzel J (2015) Consumer perception and trends about health and sustainability: trade-offs and synergies of two pivotal issues. Curr Opin Food Sci 3:6–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Helkar PB, Sahoo AK, Patil NJ (2016) Review: food industry by-products used as a functional food ingredients. Int J Waste Resources 6:248–253Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Pinotti L, Krogdahl A, Givens I, Knight C, Baldi A, Baeten V, Van Raamsdonk L, Woodgate S, Marin DP, Luten J (2014) The role of animal nutrition in designing optimal foods of animal origin as reviewed by the COST Action Feed for Health (FA0802). Biotechnol Agron Soc 18:471–479Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Mintel (2014) Protein fever. http://www.mintel.com/en/pdf/Protein-whitepaper-Mintel.pdf Accessed 12 Jan 2017
  120. 120.
    Mintel (2016) Consumer trends 2017. http://www.mintel.com/european-consumer-trends. Accessed 12 Jan 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tone Aspevik
    • 1
  • Åge Oterhals
    • 1
  • Sissel Beate Rønning
    • 2
  • Themistoklis Altintzoglou
    • 3
  • Sileshi Gizachew Wubshet
    • 2
  • Asbjørn Gildberg
    • 3
    • 4
  • Nils Kristian Afseth
    • 2
  • Ragnhild Dragøy Whitaker
    • 3
  • Diana Lindberg
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Nofima ASBergenNorway
  2. 2.Nofima ASÅsNorway
  3. 3.Nofima ASTromsøNorway
  4. 4.TromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations