Next Article in Journal
An Alternative Carbon Source from Cassava Residue Saccharification Liquid for In-Situ Fabrication of Polysaccharide Macromolecule/Bacterial Cellulose Composite Hydrogel: A Comparative Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Allotment Garden Products as Contribution to Sustainable and Resilient Cities: An Analysis in Leipzig, Germany
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Brand Experience: The Case of The Witcher Brand in the Eyes of Polish Customers
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Disciplinary Categorization of the Cattle Supply Chain—A Review and Bibliometric Analysis

by
Hernando Barreto Riaño
1,
John Willmer Escobar
2,*,
Rodrigo Linfati
3 and
Virna Ortiz-Araya
4
1
Escuela de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad del Valle, Cali 76001, Colombia
2
Departamento de Contabilidad y Finanzas, Universidad del Valle, Cali 760000, Colombia
3
Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad del Bio-Bio, Concepción 3780000, Chile
4
Departamento de Gestión Empresarial, Universidad del Bio-Bio, Chillán 3800708, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(21), 14275; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114275
Submission received: 21 April 2022 / Revised: 29 August 2022 / Accepted: 27 October 2022 / Published: 1 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food, Supply Chains, and Sustainable Development)

Abstract

:
Global warming is a problem that threatens humanity, with livestock being one of the causes. A systematic literature review was carried out by using some appropriate elements of the PRISMA statement to identify disciplines that work to mitigate the effects of the livestock industry by organizing them according to their approach to addressing this problem. The main objective is to find information and classify the disciplines, papers, literature review methodologies, research gaps, authors, and journals developing the management of the cattle supply chain. This paper could analyze and mitigate the adverse effects on society and the environment generated by the industry, organizing them according to their approach. Twenty databases were consulted between March and May 2020, from which 146 review documents were chosen. The papers reviewed were published between 2003 and 2020. The eligibility criteria for selection were open access to the full text, publication in an indexed journal, and a focus on any discipline related to cattle. The unselected papers did not have DOIs or duplicates, and those focused on other types of meat and book chapters. Subsequently, the information in the selected papers was described and consolidated, and these papers had 602 authors and were from 99 journals. Next, a discipline categorization was proposed. The results were organized, showing that among all the analysis criteria, the category of veterinary medicine had the best results in terms of indicators; therefore, additional research is needed on the other disciplines, especially in culture, technology, management, quality control, tanneries, and transportation, as there was less research within these disciplines. It is recommended that research on a mix of the different proposed disciplines be conducted. The proposed categorization’s main contribution is to identify and group the cattle supply chain’s different disciplines and the definition of research gaps organized under a structure organizational management model. Finally, a multicriteria selection methodology must be used that prioritizes the discipline categories proposed in this review to guide future research.

1. Introduction

Livestock impacts on the environment and its contribution to the increase in the generation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) through its production systems and each echelon of the supply chain are problematic and concerning to academic entities and social, environmental, governmental, and non-governmental organizations that are working to identify alternatives to mitigate the adverse effects of this economic sector worldwide [1,2,3]. This systematic literature review focuses on identifying the different disciplines relating to the cattle supply chain.
This categorization seeks to understand the important interests of the actors involved in managing livestock, identify in detail new and established areas of knowledge and research, jointly develop synergistic scenarios, and achieve the sustainable development objectives established by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, 2030 Agenda [4,5]. One objective is conducting water management while recognizing water as a finite vital resource for all ecosystems on Earth and as a right for all living organisms, even if all do not have that right. Approximately 1.5 million children die each year due to a lack of clean water. Water reserves are threatened due to increased demand from industries, agricultural production systems, urban waste, contamination of waterways, and mining; there is no equilibrium in water use, and water supply is less than water consumption; as a result, 47% of the world’s population will live with water scarcity by 2030 [6,7,8,9,10].
Similarly, government representatives at the FAO World Food Summit rejected that 800 million people in the world cannot meet their food needs, which implies establishing sustainable action plans defined in conjunction with world leaders focused on identifying these communities and offering food and nutritional security [11,12,13]. In addition, mitigating climate change is a priority. The conclusions presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggest that source control in production systems should be conducted, all significant events should be tracked, and critical indicators should be removed. According to the projections for the next five years, the temperature will continue to increase, and it is expected that the goal of maintaining global warming below 2 °C will be achieved [14]. Finally, the population is expected to increase to 9800 million by 2050 and 11,200 million by 2100 [15].
This scenario could increase meat consumption by 73% by 2050 and, consequently, some goals for improving environmental conditions could be affected [16]. The projected world production for the current year of beef cattle is 70,707 kilotons, and consumption is 70,430 kilotons. The production projection for the year 2030 is 74,713 kilotons, and consumption is 74,421. The data indicates that the demand must be fully satisfied [17]. Meat consumption provides nutritional benefits such as proteins, fats, minerals, and vitamins with a high supply of bioavailability and micronutrients for humans [16,18]. The low or non-consumption of beef could affect the health of the human being, especially in the absence of iron content that the body needs. Anemia problems could affect intellectual development, amenorrhea, and fertility impairment [19]. Based on the previously described overview, the objective of this systematic literature review was to identify disciplines related to the livestock industry and categorize them by analyzing and organizing the related information found in each scientific article on technical approaches and then produce an interdisciplinary guide that promotes mixing, experimenting with, and identifying new methodologies to address the problems generated by livestock. As an additional objective, we sought to identify and analyze information from papers, authors, and journals in detail.
Previous research has contributed to the scientific progress related to livestock and has identified cultural diversity for and against the permanence of the sector in the economy from different disciplines. However, no contributions have grouped them and identified the same concerns regarding animal welfare and the environment. This document, unlike previous works, collects all those disciplines around livestock and identifies gaps allowing future researchers to be interested in the same concerns. Likewise, it encourages the industry to find common paths from different positions to focus efforts on maintaining the works and transforming practices that are harmful to the environment and turning them into competitive advantages for the sector, where the opponents are future friends and tend toward common goals.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

A systematic literature review was conducted of reviews performed on the cattle supply chain, following the guidelines of the proposal to improve the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses guideline report (PRISMA) (Please see Appendix A Section). About 60,000 published papers have used the PRISMA guideline report for systematic review until August 2020, ensuring the reliability and suitability of the findings [20]. These published papers have demonstrated the PRISMA’s effectiveness as a methodology for conducting systematic literature reviews. A total of 20 databases were consulted between March and May 2020, and 10 identical keywords were used for each search, yielding 2060 references (Table 1), with the number of papers per database in Table 2.
The papers reviewed were published between 2003 and 2020. A PRISMA flowchart was made to present all the steps of the literature search and final selection (Figure 1). The inclusion criteria of the papers were as follows: (i) open access to the full text; (ii) publication in indexed journals; and (iii) a focus on any discipline related to cattle. Unselected papers were those without DOIs/duplicates/focus on other livestock/and book chapters.
Of the documents that did not have open access, three were identified that were considered necessary to include; thus, the authors were contacted, and the provision of the complete texts was facilitated through ResearchGate. Finally, the number of papers per database selected for the final review is presented in Table 3.

2.2. Data Analysis

The information obtained from each article was consolidated in a spreadsheet and included a summary, keywords, objectives, results, conclusions, recommendations, research gaps, weighted impacts in the field, number of citations in Scopus, and literature review methodologies. Subsequently, information on each review was collected and consolidated. This information consisted of the following: affiliations, thematic areas, country of origin, number of papers, total citations, and H index, yielding a total of 602 authors based on Scopus. Finally, from 99 journals, the following data were obtained: the Journal Citation Report (JCR), Scimago Journal and Country Rank (SJR), H index, rejection rates, percentile of prominence and CiteScore from Scopus, and publisher, editor(s), original language, frequency, cost of publication, and country, from Scopus and Web of Science.

3. Data Analysis

The supply chain integrates functions from suppliers that offer goods and services to customers. The supply function includes the participation of different stakeholders directly or indirectly fulfilling the demand [21]. These activities are repeated several times for the flow supply channel [22]. The beef supply echelons are suppliers, plant production, transportation modes, and final distribution. The main objective of the supply chain is to integrate activities that allow managing the supply chain in real-time to simplify activities [23]. Likewise, supply chains add value to stakeholders and create competitive advantages [24].
Similarly, it is necessary to manage its operations to improve profitability and competitiveness [25]. Subsequently, organizations use concepts of green supply chains and collaborative strategic alliances to turn them into tools and reduce the unfavorable environmental, social, and economic impact of their industrial operations; including awareness of the importance of sustainability [26,27,28,29,30,31]. Finally, supply chain management plans and controls forward and backward goods, services, and information from origin to destination for the fulfilling needs of all stakeholders [32].
The cattle supply chain begins with the production or raising of the cattle, and its objective is to wean, raise and fatten the cattle. Once the animals meet weight expectations, they are sent through carriers to marketing centers called beaches, fairs, or livestock auctions. The price is negotiated according to the value per kilogram, and the product is sold. Another alternative is when the buyer finds the cattle to negotiate it for a tentative value, evaluating the price probabilistically based on their experience, or buying it by the weight of the carcass placed. Subsequently, the cattle are loaded onto trucks or trailers and sent to processing plants or refrigerators, where the cattle are slaughtered and prepared in quarters or eighths of the carcass to be sent to refrigeration rooms. Next, they are distributed in equipped vehicles with refrigeration to small meat outlets or industrial companies. Consecutively, companies and small businesses ship fresh or processed products to customers. The customer also could go to buy their products personally. Finally, some companies have integrated the entire supply chain, produce, transport, benefit, and have their industrial plants; sometimes, the same producers take the cattle from their farms to these plants [33].
The results obtained in the review literature and the proposal to categorize the cattle supply chain are presented Figure 2.

3.1. Categorization

Table 4 presents the suggested discipline categories and approaches and the number of publications covering the cattle supply chain. The discipline’s organization was performed according to the objectives of each area of interest in scientific papers. Based on the review, researchers are increasing their research in veterinary medicine, and 33% of the total number of papers were on veterinary medicine. Similarly, the category of culture and transport accounted for the lowest percentage of the total number of review papers at 2.96%. This analysis highlighted the need to increase research in this disciplinary area in the scientific community.
Finally, this organization has been performed based on the analysis of the relationship between the objectives of each paper. We have separated each category as appropriate to the echelons of the entire cattle supply chain. Indeed, the proposed structure allows generating the cross-cutting nature of the disciplines as they interfere and relate to each other in all the echelons of the meat supply network.

3.2. Papers

Figure 3 indicates the increase in researcher interest in the livestock industry from the first publication to efforts to obtain a sample of papers to develop this document. Table 5 shows the different methodologies that the researchers used to carry out their scientific reviews. It is observed that 74% of the authors did not use a formal guide; however, we found that 12.59% used PRISMA reporting guideline as an approach for conducting their systematic literature reviews. In addition, there is interest from other authors in offering guidelines for conducting a literature review. Table 6 lists the publications that used the right parts of the PRISMA reporting guideline. Besides, Table 7 specifies which publications misnamed their work that PRISMA is a method when it is evident that it is a reporting guideline. It identifies the publications attached to the diagram and the PRISMA checklist. Table 8 shows that the impact and number of citations of agricultural sector disciplines related to the cattle supply chain accounted for higher proportions of the review papers at 35.22% and 33.99%, respectively. Similarly, veterinary medicine identified the highest number of research gaps, at 32.68%; these gaps were extracted from those suggested by the authors and not from the documents they reference in their papers.

3.3. Authors

Table 9 shows that the highest number of researchers, papers, and H-indexes were in the discipline category of veterinary medicine, and the lowest number of researchers, papers, and H-indexes were in the discipline categories of culture tanneries and transport. However, the highest number of citations corresponds to the general agriculture sector at 44.09%.

3.4. Journals

Table 10 indicates that England has the most significant number of cattle production-related journals at 29.54%. Table 11 consolidates the number of publications for each journal, where the journal with the cleanest methods of production had the highest number of publications at 7.4%. Similarly, in comparison to JCR, SJR had 39 more papers in category Q1 based on Table 1. This comparison of a single component showed that each journal’s impact factor and scientific relevance were different in the JCRs than in the SCR, although they were the same in some of the components. Table 12, Table 13, Table 14, Table 15 and Table 16 present information on Publisher, ISSN, publication cost, badge, submission to first decision review—acceptance time, post time, acceptance rate, post frequency, and electronic address.

4. Literature Review and Discussion

4.1. Category 1—Global Warming

4.1.1. Climate Change

The climatic impact of livestock production increases every day due to the increase in productive units, especially in developing countries. Evaluating the environmental impacts generated by livestock production in terms of each supply chain echelon is important for identifying the magnitude of the effects so that controls can be implemented to mitigate the negative consequences on the environment [34].

4.1.2. Meat Consumption

Nutrition in Western society is based on beef consumption. There are small groups of people aware of this economic sector’s impact on the environment. Initiatives to reduce or simplify processes in the livestock supply chain are hampered by consumer beliefs, personal behaviors, social and family pressures, health, and preferred tastes. Vegans and vegetarians are aware of meat consumption’s harm to the environment [35]. Generally, young people and women limit their meat consumption, especially in Europe, Asia, and the United States of America [36].
The introduction of other food sources, such as insects and cultivated meat, are alternatives that can reduce meat consumption [37]. Studies conducted on the impact of livestock on the environment generally support the concept that reducing beef consumption and promoting the intake of vegetables and fruits are beneficial [38]. A reduction in meat consumption could mitigate the emissions of GHGs and the burden of diseases on humans [39]. Consumer awareness of environmental sustainability and animal welfare are expressed concerning producers of beef and dairy products; thus, the demand by consumers for high-quality meat products has increased as consumer awareness has increased. Several studies seek to identify a consumer’s willingness to pay for these quality attributes, and the results showed that there are differences in consumers’ perceptions; therefore, it was difficult to standardize the estimates of the attributes [40].

4.1.3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Manure is considered a waste that generates environmental impacts, and it can be reused for the production of fertilizers and biogas. Biogas production involves various processes, including obtaining raw materials, transporting materials, industrializing the production process, implementing a technology structure, and establishing a plant in an area that has a drinking water supply, energy, and supplies. The environmental impacts of each of these processes that produce biogas must be evaluated to establish sustainable production strategies [41]. Farmer awareness of the importance of protecting the environment increases, and they are adopting sustainable strategies for nutrient management and manure treatment [42]. GHG emissions should not supersede the other impacts generated by the meat industry, whether negative or positive; thus, it is necessary to identify, characterize, and analyze each impact. Emission reports can omit details in the data, preventing their reliability and credibility.
Debates around the definition of carbon dioxide equivalence metrics should consider each impact individually to improve the evaluation of GHG emissions from the agricultural sector, thus benefiting research efforts [43]. Policy-makers focusing on reducing GHGs focus on animal nutrition and manure management through anaerobic digestion [44]. There are differences between globally modeled GHG estimates and those obtained in the field, where higher emission factors [45]. It is necessary to standardize GHG measurement methods and instruments and the presentation of the reports integrating the data [46]. The GHG emission factors of beef cattle are the highest compared to those of other types of meat when analyzing the production processes from birth to the cooking process [47]. In terms of ammonia emission rates, farm type, air temperature, and crude protein content in the diet are considered important factors; similarly, for methane emission rates, energy intake and feed digestibility are important factors. Enteric food efficiency and increased productivity mitigate the emissions of these two GHGs [48].

4.1.4. Industrial Processes

Industrial plants that process the different components of livestock produce products and byproducts that add value to the supply chain economically, environmentally, and socially. The leather industry uses raw materials for the leather goods sector; tallow is used for butter, soaps, cosmetics, paints, and other animal products. The industry has made technological advances in software and hardware, which are expected in product quality [49].

4.1.5. Water Resources

The production, transformation of products and byproducts, and generation of inputs for the livestock sector require a supply of water, generating a water footprint. Therefore, it is necessary to identify alternatives that allow water use optimization. There are different metrics for quantifying water consumption; however, the results are isolated from the important objectives that need to be measured, such as environmental impact, water quality problems, water sources, and how they are measured and presented results [50].

4.1.6. Waste

Reusing the waste generated in meat processing plants provides an energy source for the biorefinery industry. This alternative use makes it possible to progressively change the current practices of disposal and incineration in landfills, which are incompatible with improving the environment. Research has been conducted to identify the different technologies that enable the conversion of biomass [51]. Wastewater from livestock processing plants and milk industrialization require treatment to reduce environmental impacts; technologies such as electrocoagulation are alternative options that achieve these environmental objectives [52]. Pretreatment processes for wastewater anaerobic digestion in livestock processing plants are other alternatives that can mitigate environmental impacts, and the related important variables to evaluate are costs and energy balance [53].

4.1.7. Soils and Plants

Livestock grazing has negative, positive, and neutral effects on natural ecosystems, especially concerning forest conservation [54]. The production of animal protein involves using nonrenewable resources and intense land use; the yields of these livestock species, in terms of gain per kilogram in cattle, are higher in dairy cattle than in beef cattle [55].

4.2. Category 2—Culture

4.2.1. Spirituality

Judaism, Islam, and Christianity have rules related to the production, distribution, and consumption of meat products, and the objective of these rules is to guarantee food security so that needs are met at nutritional and spiritual levels. Halal and kosher products must certify the quality of the production processes across the supply chain of different types of livestock [56].

4.2.2. Origin and Evolution

Young people and women are influenced to try to dissociate meat consumption and its origins [57]. Identifying pregnant female cattle prior to slaughter is essential to mitigate the pain generated in the process [58]. The supply of nicotinamide to humans from consuming large amounts of meat improves health, longevity, and intelligence, although the impacts on fertility are moderate; in contrast, if meat consumption is low, then fertility is high, and diseases can occur [59].

4.3. Category 3—Tanneries

4.3.1. Occupational Health

Working in tanneries can affect the skin, lymph nodes, joints and bones, and eyes and lung parenchyma, mainly from the effects caused by sarcoidosis, a disease that can occur in environmental and work environments [60]. Worker exposure to the nano papers emitted in the production process generates health damage, cardiac arrest, skin and eye allergies, cancer, DNA damage, and platelet alterations [61].

4.3.2. Conservation

The use of inorganic, natural, organic, and other chemical antiseptics; sodium chloride preservation; and physical preservation are leather curing methods that could reduce the environmental impacts of tanneries and improve the effectiveness of these efforts [62].

4.4. Category 4—General Agricultural Sector

4.4.1. Strategic Alliances

Coordination and stability, continuous improvement, power, commitment, trust, adaptation, collaboration value, and exchange activities are key factors for stakeholder cooperation in an agri-food supply chain [63].

4.4.2. Foods

Governance of the soybean value chain, public and private initiatives, consequences and potential barriers, and economic, social, and environmental challenges are the themes that define the proposed conceptual framework for managing the global supply chain of soybean [64]. The consumption of phosphorus fertilizers for food production will increase in the coming years, phosphate rock reserves are being depleted, and there are geopolitical limitations on the production and supply of P chemical fertilizers, which will lead to an increase in their prices could affect farmers. There is evidence of waste and loss of P to water bodies at different geographical scales, which will affect fish and cause algal blooms [65].
In comparison to the production of ruminant livestock, the production of fruits and vegetables, available products, dairy products, and nonruminant livestock have a lower impact on GHG emissions [66]. Strategic alliances, the definition of structural and naming guidelines, communication, and joint efforts among academia, the state, and business organizations are strategies that need to be implemented to reduce corruption in food supply chains [67].
The production of legumes contributes to increasing socioeconomic levels and protecting the environment by reducing GHG emissions. The fixation of atmospheric nitrogen, the release of high-quality organic matter to the soil, water retention, and the facilitation of nutrient circulation to the soil are some of the positive characteristics that make legumes necessary for agri-food systems in the future [68]. Knowledge about nutrition and food choice suggests that nutritional education and the provision of information through labels are the most common strategies used to alter processes related to the selection and purchase of food products [69].
Designing appropriate architecture and tracking and quality monitoring of food products involves the Internet of Things in the supply chain to ensure food safety. Temperature, humidity, and location are monitored by sensors, radiofrequency identification, and wireless sensor networks [70]. Managing, monitoring, and controlling the temperature in cold chains reduce food waste. The greatest consumption and abuse of energy are recorded in developed countries, for which there is not much information. Inappropriate practices by operators, poor location of products in storage areas, and poor refrigeration equipment designs are the main problems in the cold chain [71].
The agri-food chains that generate waste and loss are vegetables and fruits; however, in comparison to livestock production, fruit and vegetable production creates less environmental impacts and a smaller water footprint [72]. The development of efficient technologies and strategies for the reprocessing of environmentally friendly waste and public acceptance prevent the transformation of food waste into added value [73]. Physicochemical and biological treatment, including anaerobic and membrane treatment technologies, are techniques used to treat waste generated in food industries [74]. Children’s cognitive development is altered by exposure to pesticides used in the production of food products, and antibiotics are used in livestock production.
Benefits to human health can be found in consuming organic products that could reduce the diseases associated with being overweight and obese and the risk of acquiring allergic diseases [75]. Approaches for modeling using operations research for sustainable risk management in the food supply involve the following concepts: consumer preference, the global sustainable food supply chain, the sustainable regional food supply chain taking into account food centers, sustainable distribution with controlled temperatures, nonprofit supply chains to alleviate food insecurity, farmer welfare, animal welfare, food supply chains based on traceability, sustainable agriculture, new modeling approaches and solution methods, application in developing countries, application of digital technologies and data analysis, and sustainable risk management [76]. The primary research has addressed the safety and food quality of perishable products, application of information technologies to logistics, optimization of losses generated in the industrialization of different foods, and climate change management; for the five actors in the supply chain: farmers, processors, retailers and final consumers [77]. Reduction of waste among farmers, wholesalers, and retailers, together with the support of government entities that design policies and consumer awareness, are vital axes to reduce hunger and malnutrition. Designing an integrated transportation system and road infrastructure improvement will allow optimization of the value chain. Adjusting demand and supply through prediction will reduce waste, disaggregating and studying all types of products [78].

4.4.3. Diets

A vegan diet has less environmental impact than vegetarian and omnivorous diets [79]. Greater consumption of animal-derived food products has a more significant estimated impact on the environment than consuming plant-derived products with a lower estimated environmental impact [80]. However, eliminating the consumption of meat and dairy products results in a decrease in the supply of micronutrients necessary for a healthy diet [81]. A cost model has been structured to minimize the diet cost, use linear programming, and meet nutritional requirements, including for those with low incomes [82]. The adoption of sustainable dietary standards allows for reducing GHG emissions and optimizing land and water use, ensuring. Western countries are aware of the changes they can make in their diets and the benefits they would have on the environment [83]. A strategy to encourage the consumption of plant products has been to highlight their benefits in reducing environmental impacts, benefiting human health, and reducing types of cancer and cardiovascular diseases [84].

4.4.4. Inputs

Emerging technologies will allow effective management of the supply of inputs to fields with high precision [85]. Soil and plants benefit from biofertilizers that improve soil’s physical, chemical, and biological characteristics, crop quality; mineral and physiological nutrition; and phytosanitary control [86]. For example, water hyacinth has been used as a substrate for the production of compost and biogas, and fodder for different types of livestock, improving the yields of the different productive units [87].

4.4.5. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation

Minimization of food waste, support between countries to eliminate deforestation, incentivizing sustainable production in consumption patterns, anaerobic digestion of waste, and optimization of grazing practices are challenges to mitigating the generation of GHGs [88]. Redesigning production systems of goods and services, managing waste, and obtaining commitments from environmental and institutional leaders are requirements for achieving environmental sustainability. In addition, GHGs, water, energy, ecosystems, phosphorus, nitrogen, terrestrial footprints, and biodiversity are proposed as factors to consider in environmental footprints [89].

4.4.6. Industrial Processes

Eliminating uncertainties and introducing ecological and lean practices, safety, quality, collaboration, and innovation are strategies that allow agri-food supply chains to improve their economic indicators [90]. Industrial wastewater treatment involves hybrid and constructed wetlands that integrate surface, horizontal, and vertical flows and subsoil to mitigate environmental impacts [91]. Statistics, data mining, machine learning, and optimization are techniques through which big data can be analyzed and applied in the management of green supply chains, ecological purchases, green strategic alliances with consumers, and the management of the entire supply chain and internal environment [92]. Analysis of the food value chain, deployment of the quality function, and value chain mapping is lean tools used to analyze the agri-food supply chain to identify and reduce waste in each process [93]. The impact of greenhouse gas emissions, production, distribution, traceability, standards, and safety are the main axes to manage in the supply chain of the agricultural food industry, especially in small and medium-sized companies [94].

4.4.7. Prospective

The use of different plant species will positively impact soil and plant conditions, which will allow an increase in plant productivity and stress tolerance and, consequently, will have a positive contribution to climate change [95]. Ecosystem services related to pastures consist of erosion control, carbon sequestration, and forage production, and their evaluation is carried out through field experiments, statistical modeling based on processes, and field surveys [96].

4.4.8. Water Resources

Consequently, various barriers in agri-food supply chains and water management related to the classification of the water resource management have been studied, which favors the integral management of water in sustainable agricultural supply chains [97]. The agri-food sector is the leading consumer of water, with livestock and wine production being the main consumers of primary freshwater generators of pollution. A framework for strategic, tactical, and operational decisions has been established that allows agro-industrial food production organizations to manage water consumption correctly [98].

4.5. Category 5—Quality Management and Control

4.5.1. Consumer

Tenderness, juiciness, and flavor are traditionally three of the most critical indicators when evaluating the quality of meat; however, it is necessary to expand the evaluation of the concept of quality to reduce subjectivity in evaluating beef palatability [99]. Consumers of beef are willing to pay an increased price, given it is guaranteed that the production processes have been respectful in terms of the management and welfare of the animals, that information that can be found on the product labels, and that rearing cattle in pastures is a priority [100,101]. Cancer of the esophagus, endometrium, breast and bladder, oral cavity and oropharynx, glioma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, lung and stomach, and colon have been considered. Besides, diabetes, obesity, and cerebrovascular accidents are diseases generated by consuming fresh and processed red meats [102]. Low-income consumers are limited in purchasing organic meat products due to high prices. Public policies of some European countries in different social contexts promote green contracting to democratize the consumption of organic products [103].

4.5.2. Safety

Meat color, external or intramuscular fat, brand, and information on a label are the main attributes that define the safety of meat; however, price is the main attribute that consumers consider when deciding to purchase meat [104]. Focusing on fruits and vegetables, reducing diseases and pollution, developing technologies for traceability systems, and conducting risk management are topics of working groups for safety in agri-food supply chains [105]. Implementing Good Manufacturing Practices and HACCP principles are essential to reducing Salmonella bacteria in fresh or processed meat products. There are microorganism controls approved during benefit and processing and others validated in the laboratory or pilot plants that require field validation [106].

4.5.3. Temperature

Monitoring and tracking temperature are parameters that need to be managed throughout the agri-food supply chain to reduce waste, improve quality, and control the organoleptic characteristics of food products in real-time. Emerging technologies such as radiofrequency and data management obtained from control and surveillance allow variable food behaviors to be predicted in real-time [107].

4.6. Category 6—Veterinary Medicine

4.6.1. Cattle Welfare

Meat quality, behavior, physiology, and morphometry are categories in which animal welfare indicators are classified from their departure from breeding areas to their arrival and internal management at processing plants [108]. Body temperature, respiration rate, feeding, and resting behavior are heat indicators that help estimate and project the sensitivity of animals [109]. The mathematical modeling of animal welfare allows data processing to project parameter scenarios, which help decision-makers; however, interdisciplinary work with researchers on sustainability and food safety is necessary [110].
Human responsibility, technological development in terms of the relationship between animals and humans, emotions and abilities, noninvasive evaluations, and improvements in the animal welfare process are necessary issues to be addressed to achieve animal welfare [111]. Reducing the number of animals, improving health and longevity, and managing land, food, and manure can be implemented to balance the environmental impact generated by livestock production systems and improve animal welfare [112]. Trailer design, the population in feedlots, water supply limitation during transport, understanding the risk factors for the primary livestock diseases, and the impact of the technologies used for the fattening process are topics that are of great importance to consider in the future, especially for the creation of new animal welfare indicators [113].
There is no animal welfare protocol within the processing plants that everyone accepts; however, small plants have designed and implemented practices that respect animal welfare, complemented by practices and methods that evaluate welfare within the production process that could provide benefits for this process if there is published scientific support [114]. The mortality rate of calves increases due to climate impacts, farmer care, poor nutrition planning, high herd numbers, and lack of vaccination against diseases [115]. Intensive calf rearing occurs in these production systems, where a lack of space, state of the infrastructure, and insufficient hydration units harm the well-being of calves and fatten cattle [116]. The free and thyroid hormones of cattle are sensitive to environmental conditions and transportation stress. Iodothyronines contribute positively to stress reduction; their evaluation ensures better production yields and energy homeostasis, providing well-being to cattle [117]. Weaning calves and providing nutrition with hand and confined feeding improve growth rates and morbidity in feedlots and adaptation during slaughterhouse transport. Mixing cattle before slaughter creates stress for cattle and negatively affects meat quality [118].

4.6.2. Disease

Low cattle production for meat and milk typically occurred due to the increased mortality of calves in the perinatal and neonatal stages and slaughtered cows due to diseases [119]. Dairy cow lameness is one of the primary diseases for which they have to be slaughtered, and this impacts the economy of farmers and animal production [120]. The identification, control, and management of zoonosis disease are essential within the livestock supply chain; however, farmers in Africa lack support to address this problem, and they do not have sufficient information to fight diseases [121].
Research on animal health and production yields is becoming increasingly important in the scientific community due to the impact on environmental sustainability. Researchers are formalizing reviews, presenting results, and all research methods related to the livestock supply chain [122]. Influenza D, the evolution of influenza A, spread throughout the world, generating uncertainty for farmers regarding its identification and control, mainly due to the costs generated [123].
The lack of definition of temperature control limits, contamination during the production process, and nondairy ingredients affect the birth and proliferation of the bacterium Clostridium botulinum, present in packaged dairy products and fresh dairy products, and packaged meat [124]. Modeling Johne’s disease has allowed the study of the interaction between the infection and livestock, the definition of guidelines, and the identification of the animals that will be the subject of the experimentation process [125].
The surveillance and control of zoonotic tuberculosis during production, transport, processing and delivery to the final consumer are actions needed to eliminate the causes of its spread throughout the supply chain [126]. The defined methodologies for vaccinating against pinkeye lack information to validate the results’ quality [127]. Workers in livestock processing plants and farmers are exposed to bovine tuberculosis through direct contact with livestock; similarly, approximately 1% of cattle across all Caribbean and Latin American regions are infected [128]. Eliminating the tapeworm Taenia saginata is difficult, even in countries with high control standards and strict and recognized quality management standards; there is also not enough data to establish identification and surveillance protocols [129].
Paratuberculosis represents a risk to human health and cattle; there is no evidence of zoonotic potential, and it is suggested that it be identified and controlled in the dairy sector [130]. Some data allow an analysis of indicators for the presence of bovine cysticercosis; however, they are not consolidated and must be obtained from different sources, which do not allow for the integration of the information; an objective is to consolidate a single health system, which will help manage the presence of the disease [131].
Weight reduction, cirrhosis, a decrease in the price of leather, low milk production and fertility periods, diagnosis and treatment costs, mortality, and abortions are impacts of diseases caused by parasites that generate economic losses in the livestock sector [132]. Joint work between the private and public sectors is essential to establish programs that optimize the costs associated with the entire supply chain of cattle to evaluate the impact on the economic and financial system generated by bovine diarrhea [133]. Managing livestock in the field, during transport, and in processing plants generates risks to those who have contact with the animals, thus generating minor and severe accidents that sometimes lead to human death [134]. Cattle fever caused by the parasite Theileria Parva has been identified in different parts of Africa. There is a method to combat the infection and prevent its expansion through vaccination with live viruses. However, logistical and quality control difficulties prevent its diversification [135].

4.6.3. Internal Medicine

Diagnosis of diseases, animal health, and identification of biomarkers and bioproducts are some of the applications of metabolomics, and they can be applied to different types of livestock. In addition, there are opportunities to apply this technique to predict the behavior of these parameters at different scales [136].

4.6.4. Nutrition

A life cycle analysis can evaluate the environmental impacts generated by livestock, and the analysis indicates that the category with the most significant impact on the environment is climate change. Climate change impacts biodiversity, and ionizing radiation is another category evaluated to a lesser degree. It is essential to increase interest in these topics on the part of the scientific community, mainly due to the impacts generated by extensive production systems [137]. Between organic and conventional livestock production, there are differences in the indicators when comparing them; if a hybrid between these production systems is achieved, then better results can be achieved; however, more data and consensus between the interested parties are needed to establish a roadmap [138].
Production increases are essential for farmers, so they use feed additives; however, farmers do not know the environmental impact generated by their use; it is possible to reduce these impacts on the environment, especially GHGs and ammonia [139]. In southern Africa, livestock production by small farmers is experiencing problems related to the animal food supply, inequitable marketing, and high rates of diseases and parasites, although regional livestock breeds are resistant to conditions adverse to their welfare. Farmers’ training systems are vital in improving their production systems, as research processes consider integrating and coordinating activities throughout the supply chain [140].
The sedentary lifestyles of some cultures and climatic factors cause land degradation. By planning grazing in the environment where livestock farmers live, livestock may improve the fertility conditions of the land [141]. Improvements in meat quality and feed transformation ratios and increases in animal weight productivity are some of the improvements that occur when cattle are fed pangola grass forage, either as silage or hay; similarly, there is great potential for the use of this type of grass [142]. Despite the controversy regarding the nutrition of recently weaned calves with forage, there is evidence of benefit in improved rumination and fermentation of the feed. This objective is achieved depending on the quality and quantity of milk and concentrate supplied [143].
The indicators of average daily gain, feed efficiency, and dry matter consumption are improved with monensin in the forage of cattle feed, a product used in the different production stages, from the animal’s birth to the benefit stage [144]. The use of plants as plant bioactive improves the health of animals while providing high-quality derivatives thereof, whether meat or dairy. Benefits for human health can be obtained as well [145]. The biosolids obtained from the filtration of household wastewater become fertilizer for pastures for animal production, which reduces economic and environmental costs [146].
Human health can obtain benefits when their diets incorporate products that contain antioxidants and antimicrobial peptides from products and by-products derived from different types of livestock [147]. The industrial production of chestnuts generates several types of by-products and residues, which can be converted into raw material to produce different products, covering economic sectors such as cosmetology, health, food in general, and especially the conservation of meat products. The use of these chestnut by-products improves the health of humans due to their antioxidant and anti-inflammatory characteristics and improves neurological disorders and cardiovascular diseases [148]. The animal feed industry generates large amounts of waste, and reusing this waste benefits the value chain, such as by-product hydrolysates, which are a source of protein for the nutrition of weaned calves and serve as raw material for obtaining other products [149].
When inspecting the milk transported in tank trucks and finding the presence of tetracycline and sulfonamides, it was decided to discard the product. This milk can be used to feed calves to avoid a total loss. However, to neutralize the risk of detecting drugs in them, it is essential to wait twenty days of quarantine so that the residue tests come out negative [150].
The pastoral production system has benefits for sustainability. However, it is necessary to integrate functions with market systems and long-term purchase and sale commercial agreements. Indeed, the entire supply chain benefits, especially the quality of life of the shepherds, given that they are the most important management variable [151].
Increasing sustainable beef production can be achieved by integrating stakeholders from across the value chain, with public institutions defining policies that help small producers [152]. Reducing greenhouse gases, animal health, feed efficiency, meat quality, digestion, and growth of livestock are benefits obtained from using biochar as an aggregate for forage [153]. Air, water, and soil quality, cultural impact, deforestation, and lack of regulation to protect species of fauna and flora are some of the ecosystem services and characteristics affected by livestock production.
Improving production practices increases the well-being of all those involved in the supply chain [154]. Critics of meat production from different types of livestock are based on the negative impacts that this economic sector generates for human health and the environment. However, they are unaware of some nutritional benefits from its consumption and are a primary ranchers’ primary source of life. There are significant advances in improving production systems that allow balancing the balance, both positive and negative [155]. Increasing livestock productivity and reducing the effects on the environment of its operations are objectives of the economic sector. Mathematical models for predicting nitrogen efficiencies are strategies to achieve these environmental and economic commitments [156].

4.7. Category 7—Perspectives

4.7.1. Future and Current Context

The demand for beef cattle in Australia is sustained, especially by the guidelines defined by the economic sector, which consists of uniting the interested parties and working together to develop strategies for technological improvement, marketing, product quality assurance, biosecurity, genetic improvement, strategic planning and efficiency in production systems in each echelon of the supply chain. This approach will make that country continue to be one of the leading meat producers in the world [157]. Although Europe is one of the leading meat producers globally, its export market is not. The challenge is to achieve homogeneity between the countries of the European Union, improving their production systems at a technical, economic level. Social and environmental, to produce beef of high quality and in the necessary quantities [158].
The demand for beef cattle is greater than the supply. Indeed, it is necessary to improve the technologies for cattle breeding, technology transfer, training for farmers, and integration of other types of crops into livestock nutrition to reduce this gap [159]. Japan is recognized worldwide as a producer of one of the highest quality beef cattle. To achieve this position, they assume high costs of importing feed, with risk to food safety due to diseases inherent in this raw material; therefore, its purpose is to increase the national nutrition production and develop metabolic programming and implementation of information and communication technologies [160].
The consumption of beef cattle in Thailand is growing, and its total current production is consumed locally. In order to meet the forecast demand, it has been established to structure a breeding and fatten production system, integrating all the participants from each link in the supply chain [161]. The import of beef cattle in China is greater than the export, for producers it is important to look for strategies to increase the internal production of cattle, given the consumption growth that is expected for the following years; therefore, depending on achieving this supply objective will improve the technological platform, the pregnancy system, and feeding management [162].
The analysis of the process, products, environmental management, waste management, and water and energy consumption are work axes that allow us to offer environmentally friendly industrial practices. For this aspect, it is crucial to involve all the echelons of the supply chain [163]. Compared with the ecological-environmental, socio-anthropological, and neuroeconomics, the technical-biological epistemological aspect, due to its approach to contemplating the three pillars of sustainability, social, environmental, and economic, will allow production systems in livestock to be sustainable, preferably, farm-to-consumer practices are implemented [164].

4.7.2. Innovation and Competitiveness

Developing strategies to promote innovation in the meat product processing industries is essential to achieving competitiveness in the economic sector; some are oriented to managing the organization’s capabilities, consumer management, and developing and implementing new technologies [165].

4.7.3. Developing Countries

Developing countries are challenged to balance urbanization and food security with social needs, especially with low-income people, generating a connection between all participants in the livestock supply chain and not only from production and consumption [166]. South Africa’s low-income countries are struggling to meet sustainability targets. It is necessary to structure sustainable development programs at a technical, technological, and modernization level, defining a general framework for monitoring sustainability goals to ensure that the different production systems of each echelon in the cattle supply chain are friendly to the environment [167].

4.8. Category 8—Technology

4.8.1. Infrared Spectroscopy

Prediction of the quality of carcass fat, product quality, technological parameters, sensory attributes, chemical components, and identification and classification of meat products are some of the applications of near-infrared spectroscopy used to improve the quality control and monitor the process of beef cattle products [168].

4.8.2. Nanotechnology

Vaccine development and dietary supplementation are the two main areas of application of nanotechnology, whose objective is to increase production by improving growth performance and reducing the severity and frequency of animal and zoonotic diseases. The use of nanotechnology in livestock is growing and will guarantee food safety and the commitment of technology to sustainability [169].

4.8.3. Emerging and Innovative Technologies

Smart stretch and Pivac, ultrasound, pulsed electric field, shock waves, and high-pressure processing are technologies used to achieve meat tenderization and increase the shelf life and quality of meat products. Consumers are willing to bear the additional cost of using these technologies [170]. Consumers want to know the traceability of meat products. Radiofrequency identification per animal and DNA fingerprinting per product are two alternatives. These technologies allow managing information from the farm to delivery to the final consumer, helping to guarantee the origin and quality of the products [171]. The anaerobic digestion of livestock and poultry sector waste through biodigesters for biogas production shows positive yields for implementation in farms and industrial plants; likewise, the contribution to the environment is significant by reusing manure as a source of raw material [172].

4.8.4. Artificial Vision and UAV (Unmanned Air Vehicles)

Tracking cattle is one of the goals of artificial vision; in this way, specific animal information would be obtained for proper characterization. Combining different identification and tracking algorithms allows us to reach this objective. Communication and interdisciplinary work, improving the presentation of research reports in articles, and tracing knowledge gaps defined in previous works, will ensure that this area of research has a prosperous future [173]. The processing of images obtained by uncrewed vehicles allows the identification and monitoring of livestock. However, to speed up the process, more tools are required. Autonomous learning is another additional technique to the previous two that increases its technological advance [174].

4.9. Category 9—Transportation

4.9.1. Road

The precedent processes of the land transportation of cattle, such as the conditions in the farms, nutrition, surveillance, monitoring, and mixing with unknown animals, among other factors, are essential concerning animal welfare and are interrelated to the adjacent problems which occur throughout the supply chain [175]. Road transport is a multifactorial problem in which several factors are responsible for animal welfare and meat quality; animals in better conditions suffer less during the transport process [176]. Mortality, physiological analysis, weight loss, fever, behavior, meat quality, distance and time, and climatic factors are structural axes that require analysis and evaluation to mitigate stress to cattle during road transport to processing plants [177].

4.9.2. Sea

The transportation of livestock by sea represents one of the critical problems in animal welfare; they are subjected to climatic conditions not suitable for this export marketing process, heat, humidity, lack of ventilation, and elimination of heat generated by their metabolic processes and population density cause mortality. This fact allows the entire process to be measured, in the sense that from it, economic expectations are generated in the marketing process [178].

4.9.3. Air

Transportation begins from the farm, or pre-export center, to the airport, where the cattle are packed, and ends with unloading at the importing country’s facilities. The information on practices, procedures, and protocols of this means of transport is minimal, especially during the trip, for reception and unloading. Therefore, it is unclear how some factors, such as nutrition, air quality, air turbulence, travel time, cage design, pre-flight and post-flight inspection facilities, influence animal health. Studies conducted on land and sea transport to assess animal welfare have not been conducted for air transport [179].

5. Concluding Remarks

This systematic literature review has been performed to holistically identify different disciplines that investigate cattle supply chain issues, organize them according to their approach to propose categories that would allow classifying different areas of scientific research, and was oriented to identify specific information articles, authors, and journals. Consequently, the referenced articles were described, the disciplinary categorization was carried out, and synthesized findings that allowed specific information of interest to be observed and compared. Additionally, it is evident in all the analysis criteria that the category of veterinary medicine is the one that has the best results in the indicators. Therefore, additional research is required in the other categories, especially in culture, technology, management, and quality control. Tanneries and transport have been less studied. It is encouraged to develop research mixing the different proposed categories.
For future research, proposed gaps were identified and grouped according to the similarity of the proposed categories and the levels of the strategic direction of companies [180]. Generalities of the agricultural sector, perspectives, and culture correspond to a strategic level; according to Worldometers, for the year 2050, the population would amount to 9.73 million [181], creating a projection instrument for the consumption of bovine meat in parallel, would allow generating productive expectations for ranchers. The development of this research gap will allow bovine livestock science to improve cost structure, plan and program its production; state policies would be created to encourage the sector and measure sustainability indicators. Production costs, maximization of cargo capacity, and the emission of greenhouse gases could be optimized by using the results of these projections. For future research, it is suggested to incorporate variables such as informed consumers with intercultural and religious differences, alternative organic inputs, and freshwater management.
Technology and preventive medicine are related to the tactical level, decentralized from strategic managerial functions. An objective could be to know the state of health and well-being of animals by country in real-time. Creating a global cattle entity that captures and manages the data obtained using present and emerging technologies would allow it to control indicators of diseases, nutrition, welfare, and animal production, among others. The linking of all the countries would allow the establishment of common objectives at the environmental level, mitigating adverse effects on the environment, improving the quality of life of the immersed society, and making strategic marketing alliances that improve its economy. It is suggested for consequent research to create new indicators for measuring animal welfare such as the impact of resting time in pens prior to processing in the area near the plant, design new technologies for standing diagnosis, anti-theft, monitoring by state entities such as the police, reuse of waste in real-time to new alternatives for use in different processes of the production system.
Management and quality control, transport, and tanneries belong to the operational level, processes that execute the strategies proposed at the strategic and tactical level, an instrument could be had during transport that allows monitoring the status of the animals. By controlling and managing the risks associated with the transportation of cattle, such as stress, injuries due to fights, suffocation, and dehydration, among others, by the driver or another mechanism, the possibility of improving sustainability indicators is increased. It is recommended in future research to evaluate the driver-animal relationship in the quality of the product and the welfare of the two entities, deepen the analysis of the organoleptic losses of the products and by-products, design trailers with protection under the four seasons of the year and with technologically controlled food supply. It is essential to develop research mixing gaps from the different proposed categories. Finally, it is considered significant to carry out a multicriteria selection methodology prioritizing the categories proposed in this review to guide future research work.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.B.R., J.W.E. and R.L.; methodology, J.W.E. and H.B.R.; software, H.B.R.; validation, J.W.E. and V.O.-A.; formal analysis, H.B.R., R.L., V.O.-A. and J.W.E.; investigation, H.B.R.; resources, R.L. and V.O.-A.; data curation, H.B.R.; writing—original draft preparation, H.B.R. and J.W.E.; writing—review and editing, J.W.E.; visualization, H.B.R.; supervision, J.W.E.; project administration, R.L.; funding acquisition, R.L. and V.O.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by University of Bío-Bío grant number 2260222 IF/R, and 2160277 GI/EF.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank to anonymous referees for their valuable contributions to improve our original version of the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

We have performed a bibliometric analysis by using VosViewer 1.6.18 and SciMAT (GPLv3) software using 34 papers from Scopus database. The following figures summarize the obtained results of the bibliometric analysis.
Figure A1, Figure A2, Figure A3 and Figure A4 show that the information provided is clear and valuable. VosViewer manages articles from Scopus, WoS, Pubmed, and Dimensions, while we have considered 16 additional databases. SciMAT performs a complementary descriptive statistical analysis; however, it is elementary, and we have not considered it part of the literature analysis review.
Figure A1. Network visualization of papers. Source: Generated by VosViewer.
Figure A1. Network visualization of papers. Source: Generated by VosViewer.
Sustainability 14 14275 g0a1
Figure A2. Overlay visualization of papers. Source: Generated by VosViewer.
Figure A2. Overlay visualization of papers. Source: Generated by VosViewer.
Sustainability 14 14275 g0a2
Figure A3. Density visualization of papers. Source: Generated by VosViewer.
Figure A3. Density visualization of papers. Source: Generated by VosViewer.
Sustainability 14 14275 g0a3
Figure A4. Word group statistical analysis. Source: Generated by SciMAT.
Figure A4. Word group statistical analysis. Source: Generated by SciMAT.
Sustainability 14 14275 g0a4
We have decided to plan, schedule, and present our document according to the PRISMA methodology.
Table A1. PRISMA 2020 Main Checklist.
Table A1. PRISMA 2020 Main Checklist.
TopicNo.ItemLocation Where Item Is Reported
1Identify the report as a systematic review. 1
Abstract2See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist1
INTRODUCTION
Rationale3Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge. 2
Objectives4Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses.2
METHODS
Eligibility criteria5Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses.3
Information sources6Specify all databases, registers, websites, organizations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted.4–5
Search strategy7Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used.3
Selection process8Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.4
Data collection process9Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. 2–3
Data items10aList and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g., for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect.5
10bList and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g., participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information.5–14
Study risk of bias assessment11Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. 5
Effect measures12Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g., risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.N/A
Synthesis methods13aDescribe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g., tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item 5)).3–4
13bDescribe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions.N/A
13cDescribe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses.N/A
13dDescribe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used.N/A
13eDescribe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g., subgroup analysis, meta-regression).N/A
13fDescribe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results.N/A
Reporting bias assessment14Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).N/A
Certainty assessment15Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome.N/A
RESULTS
Study selection16aDescribe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram.4, Figure 1
16bCite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded.3–4
Study characteristics17Cite each included study and present its characteristics.N/A
Risk of bias in studies18Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.N/A
Results of individual studies19For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.5–14
Results of syntheses20aFor each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies.N/A
20bPresent results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect.N/A
20cPresent results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results.N/A
20dPresent results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results.N/A
Reporting biases21Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed.N/A
Certainty of evidence22Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.N/A
DISCUSSION
Discussion23aProvide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence.14–23
23bDiscuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review.N/A
23cDiscuss any limitations of the review processes used.N/A
23dDiscuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research.23–24
OTHER INFORMATION
Registration and protocol24aProvide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered. N/A
24bIndicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared.N/A
24cDescribe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol.N/A
Support25Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review.24
Competing interests26Declare any competing interests of review authors.24
Availability of data, code and other materials27Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review.N/A
From: Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T.C., Mulrow C.D. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/v7gm2 (accessed on 14 September 2020). For more information, visit: www.prisma-statement.org (accessed on 10 April 2022).

References

  1. Food an Agricultural of the United Nations. The Impact of Natural Hazards and Disasters on Agriculture. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i5128e/i5128e.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  2. Greenpeace Colombia. Available online: https://www.greenpeace.org/colombia/ (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  3. Inicio|Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura. Available online: https://www.fao.org/home/es (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  4. Food and Agriculture-Key to Achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/d569c955-8237-42bf-813e-5adf0c4241b9/ (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  5. Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible|Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura. Available online: https://www.fao.org/sustainable-development-goals/es/ (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  6. Alliance for Water Stewardship Standard-Setting System Report, 2016. Available online: http://www.allianceforwaterstewardship.org/become-a-water-steward.html#aws-standard (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  7. Home—Alliance for Water Stewardship. Available online: https://a4ws.org/ (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  8. United Nations. UN-Water|Coordinating the UN’s Work on Water and Sanitation, 2020. Available online: https://www.unwater.org/ (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  9. Las Naciones Unidas, Agua|Naciones Unidas. Available online: https://www.un.org/es/global-issues/water (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  10. Connor, R.K.E. The United Nations World Water Development Report 3; United Nations: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  11. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). Rome Declaration and Plan of Action. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/w3613e/w3613e00.htm (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  12. Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity. Directions and Solutions for Policy, Research and Action. Available online: https://www.cgiar.org/ (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  13. FAO. FIDA, and PMA. In El Estado de la Inseguridad Alimentaria en el Mundo 2013. Las Múltiples Dimensiones de la Seguridad Alimentaria; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  14. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013; p. 1492.
  15. UN DESA. World Population Projected to Reach 9.8 Billion in 2050, and 11.2 Billion in 2100|UN DESA|United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2017. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html (accessed on 26 November 2021).
  16. FAO. News Article: Major Gains in Efficiency of Livestock Systems Needed. Available online: https://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/116937/icode/ (accessed on 12 May 2021).
  17. World Meat Projections. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/cbc9005c-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/cbc9005c-en (accessed on 16 May 2021).
  18. FAO—División de Producción y Sanidad Animal. Available online: https://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/es/meat/home.html (accessed on 16 May 2021).
  19. Al Evitar la Carne Podrías Arriesgar tu Salud|UNAM Global. Available online: https://unamglobal.unam.mx/al-evitar-la-carne-podrias-arriesgar-tu-salud/ (accessed on 16 May 2021).
  20. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Cynthia, D.M.; Mulrow, D.; Shamseer, L.; Jennifer, M.T.; Akl, E.A.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Chopra, S. Administración de la Cadena de Suministro. Available online: http://up-rid2.up.ac.pa:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/1340/Administraci%C3%B3n%20de%20la%20cadena%20de%20suministro.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 16 May 2021).
  22. Allou, R.H.B. Administración de la Cadena de Suministro; Pearson Educación: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  23. Akkerman, R.; Farahani, P.; Grunow, M. Quality, safety and sustainability in food distribution: A review of quantitative operations management approaches and challenges. OR Spectr. 2010, 32, 863–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Porter, M. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance; Harvard Business School: Boston, MA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gaither, N.; Frazier, G. Administración de Producción y Operaciones. Available online: https://clea.edu.mx/biblioteca/files/original/2f63e2eb5f8d66b336d65b3947975b33.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2021).
  26. Bautista-Santos, H.; Martínez-Flores, J.L.; Fernández-Lambert, G.; Bernabé-Loranca, M.B.; Sánchez-Galván, F. Integration model of collaborative supply chain. DYNA 2015, 82, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Organization, T.I.T.T. Cadenas de Suministro Sostenibles|ITTO|The International Tropical Timber Organization. Available online: https://www.itto.int/es/economic_market/supply_chains/ (accessed on 17 May 2021).
  28. Dialnet, Cadenas de Suministro Verdes, una Respuesta al Desempeño Ambiental-Dialnet. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4733838 (accessed on 17 May 2021).
  29. Logística, B. La Importancia de una Cadena de Suministro Verde.-Blog de CC de Transporte y Logística. Available online: https://blogs.ucjc.edu/cc-transporte-logistica/2020/01/la-importancia-de-una-cadena-de-suministro-verde/ (accessed on 17 May 2021).
  30. Zonalogística, La Planificación Colaborativa en la Cadena de Suministros-Zonalogística. Available online: https://zonalogistica.com/la-planificacion-colaborativa-en-la-cadena-de-suministros/ (accessed on 17 May 2021).
  31. Sertrans, La Importancia de las Cadenas de Suministro Colaborativas|Sertrans. Available online: https://www.sertrans.es/noticias/la-importancia-cadenas-suministro-colaborativas/ (accessed on 17 May 2021).
  32. C. M. Professionals Definiciones de SCM y Glosario de Términos. Available online: https://cscmp.org/CSCMP/Academia/SCM_Definitions_and_Glossary_of_Terms/CSCMP/Educate/SCM_Definitions_and_Glossary_of_Terms.aspx?hkey=60879588-f65f-4ab5-8c4b-6878815ef921 (accessed on 17 May 2021).
  33. Dane. 2 Boletín Mensual Insumos Y Factores Asociados A La Producción Agropecuaria; Dane: Bogotá, Colombia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  34. Escarcha, J.; Lassa, J.; Zander, K. Livestock Under Climate Change: A Systematic Review of Impacts and Adaptation. Climate 2018, 6, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Sanchez-Sabate, R.; Badilla-Briones, Y.; Sabaté, J. Understanding Attitudes towards Reducing Meat Consumption for Environmental Reasons. A Qualitative Synthesis Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Sanchez-Sabate, R.; Sabaté, J. Consumer Attitudes Towards Environmental Concerns of Meat Consumption: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 61, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Reynolds, C.; Buckley, J.; Weinstein, P.; Boland, J. Are the Dietary Guidelines for Meat, Fat, Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Appropriate for Environmental Sustainability? A Review of the Literature. Nutrients 2014, 6, 2251–2265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Yip, C.S.C.; Crane, G.; Karnon, J. Systematic review of reducing population meat consumption to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and obtain health benefits: Effectiveness and models assessments. Int. J. Public Health 2013, 58, 683–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yang, W.; Renwick, A. Consumer Willingness to Pay Price Premiums for Credence Attributes of Livestock Products–A Meta-Analysis. J. Agric. Econ. 2019, 70, 618–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Esteves, E.M.M.; Herrera, A.M.N.; Esteves, V.P.P.; do Morgado, C.R.V. Life cycle assessment of manure biogas production: A review. J. Clean Prod. 2019, 219, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Niles, M.T.; Horner, C.; Chintala, R.; Tricarico, J. A review of determinants for dairy farmer decision making on manure management strategies in high-income countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 053004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Lynch, J. Availability of disaggregated greenhouse gas emissions from beef cattle production: A systematic review. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2019, 76, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. York, L.; Heffernan, C.; Rymer, C. A systematic review of policy approaches to dairy sector greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 2216–2224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Owen, J.J.; Silver, W.L. Greenhouse gas emissions from dairy manure management: A review of field-based studies. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 550–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Kebreab, E.; Clark, K.; Wagner-Riddle, C.; France, J. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from Canadian animal agriculture: A review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 86, 135–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yip, C.S.C.; Fielding, R. Cradle-to-cooked-edible-meat analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2018, 112, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Murphy, J.; Maghirang, R. Ammonia and Methane Emission Factors from Cattle Operations Expressed as Losses of Dietary Nutrients or Energy. Agriculture 2017, 7, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. MacDonald, J.M. Beef and pork packing industries. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2003, 19, 419–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Legesse, G.; Ominski, K.H.; Beauchemin, K.A.; Pfister, S.; Martel, M.; McGeough, E.J.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Kroebel, R.; Cordeiro, M.R.C.; McAllister, T.A. BOARD-INVITED REVIEW: Quantifying water use in ruminant production. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 95, 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Okoro, O.V.; Sun, Z.; Birch, J. Meat processing waste as a potential feedstock for biochemicals and biofuels–A review of possible conversion technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 1583–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Reilly, M.; Cooley, A.P.; Tito, D.; Tassou, S.A.; Theodorou, M.K. Electrocoagulation treatment of dairy processing and slaughterhouse wastewaters. Energy Procedia 2019, 161, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Harris, P.W.; McCabe, B.K. Review of pre-treatments used in anaerobic digestion and their potential application in high-fat cattle slaughterhouse wastewater. Appl. Energy 2015, 155, 560–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mazzini, F.; Relva, M.A.; Malizia, L.R. Impacts of domestic cattle on forest and woody ecosystems in southern South America. Plant Ecol. 2018, 219, 913–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Flachowsky, G.; Meyer, U.; Südekum, K.-H. Land Use for Edible Protein of Animal Origin—A Review. Animals 2017, 7, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Farouk, M.M.; Regenstein, J.M.; Pirie, M.R.; Najm, R.; Bekhit, A.E.D.; Knowles, S.O. Spiritual aspects of meat and nutritional security: Perspectives and responsibilities of the Abrahamic faiths. Food Res. Int. 2015, 76, 882–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Benningstad, N.C.G.; Kunst, J.R. Dissociating meat from its animal origins: A systematic literature review. Appetite 2020, 147, 104554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fayemi, P.O.; Muchenje, V. Maternal slaughter at abattoirs: History, causes, cases and the meat industry. Springerplus 2013, 2, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Williams, A.C.; Hill, L.J. Meat and Nicotinamide: A Causal Role in Human Evolution, History, and Demographics. Int. J. Tryptophan Res. 2017, 10, 117864691770466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Michalska-Jakubus, M.M.; Zdeb, K.; Rymgayłło-Jankowska, B.; Korolczuk, A.; Żarnowski, T.; Krasowska, D. Occupational exposure as a presumable cause of subcutaneous sarcoidosis in a tannery worker–case report and review of the literature. Adv. Dermatol. Allergol. 2018, 35, 118–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sarwar, F.; Malik, R.N.; Chow, C.W.; Alam, K. Occupational exposure and consequent health impairments due to potential incidental nanoparticles in leather tanneries: An evidential appraisal of south Asian developing countries. Environ. Int. 2018, 117, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Wu, J.; Zhao, L.; Liu, X.; Chen, W.; Gu, H. Recent progress in cleaner preservation of hides and skins. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 148, 158–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Dania, W.A.P.; Xing, K.; Amer, Y. Collaboration behavioural factors for sustainable agri-food supply chains: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 851–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jia, F.; Peng, S.; Green, J.; Koh, L.; Chen, X. Soybean supply chain management and sustainability: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chowdhury, R.B.; Moore, G.A.; Weatherley, A.J.; Arora, M. Key sustainability challenges for the global phosphorus resource, their implications for global food security, and options for mitigation. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 945–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Clune, S.; Crossin, E.; Verghese, K. Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 766–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Fassam, L.; Dani, S. A conceptual understanding of criminality and integrity challenges in food supply chains. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 67–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Stagnari, F.; Maggio, A.; Galieni, A.; Pisante, M. Multiple benefits of legumes for agriculture sustainability: An overview. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2017, 4, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Perez-Cueto. An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews on Food Choice and Nutrition Published between 2017 and-2019. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Bouzembrak, Y.; Klüche, M.; Gavai, A.; Marvin, H.J.P. Internet of Things in food safety: Literature review and a bibliometric analysis. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 94, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ndraha, N.; Hsiao, H.-I.; Vlajic, J.; Yang, M.-F.; Lin, H.-T.V. Time-temperature abuse in the food cold chain: Review of issues, challenges, and recommendations. Food Control 2018, 89, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. de Moraes, C.C.; de Souza, T.A. Panorama Mundial do Desperdício e Perda de Alimentos no Contexto de Cadeias de Suprimentos Agroalimentares. Rev. Agronegócio Meio Ambient. 2018, 11, 901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ghosh, P.R.; Fawcett, D.; Sharma, S.B.; Poinern, G.E.J. Progress towards Sustainable Utilisation and Management of Food Wastes in the Global Economy. Int. J. Food Sci. 2016, 2016, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Frenkel, V.S.; Cummings, G.; Maillacheruvu, K.Y.; Tang, W.Z. Food-Processing Wastes. Water Environ. Res. 2013, 85, 1501–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mie, A.; Andersen, H.R.; Gunnarsson, S.; Kahl, J.; Kesse-Guyot, E.; Rembiałkowska, E.; Quaglio, G.; Grandjean, P. Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: A comprehensive review. Environ. Health 2017, 16, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Zhu, Z.; Chu, F.; Dolgui, A.; Chu, C.; Zhou, W.; Piramuthu, S. Recent advances and opportunities in sustainable food supply chain: A model-oriented review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 5700–5722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Routroy, S.; Behera, A. Agriculture supply chain. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2017, 7, 275–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Shukla, M.; Jharkharia, S. Agri-fresh produce supply chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2013, 33, 114–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Chai, B.C.; van der Voort, J.R.; Grofelnik, K.; Eliasdottir, H.G.; Klöss, I.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A. Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Nelson, M.E.; Hamm, M.W.; Hu, F.B.; Abrams, S.A.; Griffin, T.S. Alignment of Healthy Dietary Patterns and Environmental Sustainability: A Systematic Review. Adv. Nutr. An Int. Rev. J. 2016, 7, 1005–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. González-García, S.; Esteve-Llorens, X.; Moreira, M.T.; Feijoo, G. Carbon footprint and nutritional quality of different human dietary choices. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 644, 77–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. McFarlane, I. The Goal of Adequate Nutrition: Can It Be Made Affordable, Sustainable, and Universal? Foods 2016, 5, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Aleksandrowicz, L.; Green, R.; Joy, E.J.M.; Smith, P.; Haines, A. The Impacts of Dietary Change on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use, Water Use, and Health: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0165797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Joyce, A.; Dixon, S.; Comfort, J.; Hallett, J. Reducing the Environmental Impact of Dietary Choice: Perspectives from a Behavioural and Social Change Approach. J. Environ. Public Health 2012, 2012, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Weekley, J.; Gabbard, J.; Nowak, J. Micro-Level Management of Agricultural Inputs: Emerging Approaches. Agronomy 2012, 2, 321–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Cavalcante, L.F.; Bezerra, F.T.C.; de Souto, A.G.; Bezerra, M.A.F.; de Lima, G.S.; Gheyi, H.R.; Pereira, J.F.d.; Beckmann-Cavalcante, M.Z. Biofertilizers in horticultural crops. Comun. Sci. 2019, 10, 415–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Gunnarsson, C.C.; Petersen, C.M. Water hyacinths as a resource in agriculture and energy production: A literature review. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 117–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Bellarby, J.; Tirado, R.; Leip, A.; Weiss, F.; Lesschen, J.P.; Smith, P. Livestock greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential in Europe. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Čuček, L.; Klemeš, J.J.; Varbanov, P.S.; Kravanja, Z. Significance of environmental footprints for evaluating sustainability and security of development. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2015, 17, 2125–2141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mor, R.S.; Singh, S.; Bhardwaj, A.; Singh, L.P. Technological Implications of Supply Chain Practices in Agri-Food Sector-A. Int. J. Supply Oper. Manag. 2015, 2, 720–747. Available online: www.ijsom.com (accessed on 27 May 2021).
  91. Vymazal, J. Constructed wetlands for treatment of industrial wastewaters: A review. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 73, 724–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Liu, J.; Chen, M.; Liu, H. The role of big data analytics in enabling green supply chain management: A literature review. J. Data Inf. Manag. 2020, 2, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Cuer, L.; Bernardo, C.; Scalco, A. Abordagem Lean na cadeia agroalimentar: Uma revisão bibliográfica sistemática. Rev. Gestão Proj. 2019, 10, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Jose, A.; Shanmugam, P. Supply chain issues in SME food sector: A systematic review. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2019, 17, 19–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Pagano, M.; Correa, E.; Duarte, N.; Yelikbayev, B.; O’Donovan, A.; Gupta, V. Advances in Eco-Efficient Agriculture: The Plant-Soil Mycobiome. Agriculture 2017, 7, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Zhao, Y.; Liu, Z.; Wu, J. Grassland ecosystem services: A systematic review of research advances and future directions. Landsc. Ecol. 2020, 35, 793–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Jia, F.; Hubbard, M.; Zhang, T.; Chen, L. Water stewardship in agricultural supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 1170–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Aivazidou, E.; Tsolakis, N.; Iakovou, E.; Vlachos, D. The emerging role of water footprint in supply chain management: A critical literature synthesis and a hierarchical decision-making framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 1018–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Gonzalez, J.M.; Phelps, K.J. United States beef quality as chronicled by the National Beef Quality Audits, Beef Consumer Satisfaction Projects, and National Beef Tenderness Surveys—A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 1036–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Janssen, M.; Rödiger, M.; Hamm, U. Labels for Animal Husbandry Systems Meet Consumer Preferences: Results from a Meta-analysis of Consumer Studies. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2016, 29, 1071–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Stampa, E.; Schipmann-Schwarze, C.; Hamm, U. Consumer perceptions, preferences, and behavior regarding pasture-raised livestock products: A review. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 82, 103872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Yip, C.S.C.; Lam, W.; Fielding, R. A summary of meat intakes and health burdens. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 72, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Zielke, S. Can’t Buy Me Green? A Review of Consumer Perceptions of and Behavior Toward the Price of Organic Food. J. Consum. Aff. 2017, 51, 211–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Henchion, M.M.; McCarthy, M.; Resconi, V.C. Beef quality attributes: A systematic review of consumer perspectives. Meat Sci. 2017, 128, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  105. Wahyuni, H.; Vanany, I.; Ciptomulyono, U. Food safety and halal food in the supply chain: Review and bibliometric analysis. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2019, 12, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Young, I.; Wilhelm, B.J.; Cahill, S.; Nakagawa, R.; Desmarchelier, P.; Rajić, A. A Rapid Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Slaughter and Processing Interventions to Control Nontyphoidal Salmonella in Beef and Pork. J. Food Prot. 2016, 79, 2196–2210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Raab, V.; Petersen, B.; Kreyenschmidt, J. Temperature monitoring in meat supply chains. Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 1267–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Losada-Espinosa, N.; Villarroel, M.; María, G.A.; Miranda-de la Lama, G.C. Pre-slaughter cattle welfare indicators for use in commercial abattoirs with voluntary monitoring systems: A systematic review. Meat Sci. 2018, 138, 34–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Galán, E.; Llonch, P.; Villagrá, A.; Levit, H.; Pinto, S.; del Prado, A. A systematic review of non-productivity-related animal-based indicators of heat stress resilience in dairy cattle. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0206520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Collins, L.; Part, C. Modelling Farm Animal Welfare. Animals 2013, 3, 416–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Adamczyk, K. Dairy cattle welfare as a result of human-animal relationship–A review. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2018, 18, 601–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Shields, S.; Orme-Evans, G. The Impacts of Climate Change Mitigation Strategies on Animal Welfare. Animals 2015, 5, 361–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Tucker, C.B.; Coetzee, J.F.; Stookey, J.M.; Thomson, D.U.; Grandin, T.; Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S. Beef cattle welfare in the USA: Identification of priorities for future research. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2015, 6, 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Wigham, E.E.; Butterworth, A.; Wotton, S. Assessing cattle welfare at slaughter–Why is it important and what challenges are faced? Meat Sci. 2018, 145, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  115. Uetake, K. Newborn calf welfare: A review focusing on mortality rates. Anim. Sci. J. 2013, 84, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Cozzi, G.; Brscic, M.; Gottardo, F. Main critical factors affecting the welfare of beef cattle and veal calves raised under intensive rearing systems in Italy: A review. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 8, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Ferlazzo, A.; Cravana, C.; Fazio, E.; Medica, P. The contribution of total and free iodothyronines to welfare maintenance and management stress coping in Ruminants and Equines: Physiological ranges and reference values. Res. Vet. Sci. 2018, 118, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Colditz, I.G.; Watson, D.L.; Kilgour, R.; Ferguson, D.M.; Prideaux, C.; Ruby, J.; Kirkland, P.D.; Sullivan, K. Impact of animal health and welfare research within the CRC for Cattle and Beef Quality on Australian beef production. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2006, 46, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Compton, C.W.R.; Heuer, C.; Thomsen, P.T.; Carpenter, T.E.; Phyn, C.V.C.; McDougall, S. Invited review: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of mortality and culling in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Oehm, A.W.; Knubben-Schweizer, G.; Rieger, A.; Stoll, A.; Hartnack, S. A systematic review and meta-analyses of risk factors associated with lameness in dairy cows. BMC Vet. Res. 2019, 15, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Alonso, S.; Lindahl, J.; Roesel, K.; Traore, S.G.; Yobouet, B.A.; Ndour, A.P.N.; Carron, M.; Grace, D. Where literature is scarce: Observations and lessons learnt from four systematic reviews of zoonoses in African countries. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2016, 17, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Vriezen, R.; Sargeant, J.M.; Vriezen, E.; Reist, M.; Winder, C.B.; O’Connor, A.M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in animal health, performance, and on-farm food safety: A scoping review. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2019, 20, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Sreenivasan, C.C.; Thomas, M.; Kaushik, R.S.; Wang, D.; Li, F. Influenza A in Bovine Species: A Narrative Literature Review. Viruses 2019, 11, 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Lindström, M.; Myllykoski, J.; Sivelä, S.; Korkeala, H. Clostridium botulinum in Cattle and Dairy Products. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2010, 50, 281–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Alonso, S.; Lindahl, J.; Roesel, K.; Traore, S.G.; Yobouet, B.A.; Ndour, A.P.N.; Carron, M.; Grace, D. Experimental challenge models for Johne’s disease: A review and proposed international guidelines. Vet. Microbiol. 2007, 122, 197–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Luciano, S.A.; Roess, A. Human zoonotic tuberculosis and livestock exposure in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review identifying challenges in laboratory diagnosis. Zoonoses Public Health 2020, 67, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Burns, M.J.; O’Connor, A.M. Assessment of methodological quality and sources of variation in the magnitude of vaccine efficacy: A systematic review of studies from 1960 to 2005 reporting immunization with Moraxella bovis vaccines in young cattle. Vaccine 2008, 26, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. de Kantor, I.N.; Ritacco, V. An update on bovine tuberculosis programmes in Latin American and Caribbean countries. Vet. Microbiol. 2006, 112, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Saratsis, A.; Sotiraki, S.; Braae, U.C.; Devleesschauwer, B.; Dermauw, V.; Eichenberger, R.M.; Thomas, L.F.; Bobić, B.; Dorny, P.; Gabriël, S.; et al. Epidemiology of Taenia saginata taeniosis/cysticercosis: A systematic review of the distribution in the Americas. Parasit. Vectors 2018, 11, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Waddell, L.A.; Rajić, A.; Sargeant, J.; Harris, J.; Amezcua, R.; Downey, L.; Read, S.; McEwen, S.A. The Zoonotic Potential of Mycobacterium avium spp. Paratuberculosis. Can. J. Public Health 2008, 99, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Rossi, G.A.M.; van Damme, I.; Gabriël, S. Systematic review and meta-analysis of bovine cysticercosis in Brazil: Current knowledge and way forward. Parasit. Vectors 2020, 13, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Rashid, M.; Rashid, M.I.; Akbar, H.; Ahmad, L.; Hassan, M.A.; Ashraf, K.; Saeed, K.; Gharbi, M. A systematic review on modelling approaches for economic losses studies caused by parasites and their associated diseases in cattle. Parasitology 2019, 146, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Pinior, B.; Firth, C.L.; Richter, V.; Lebl, K.; Trauffler, M.; Dzieciol, M.; Hutter, S.E.; Burgstaller, J.; Obritzhauser, W.; Winter, P.; et al. A systematic review of financial and economic assessments of bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) prevention and mitigation activities worldwide. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017, 137, 77–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Watts, M.; Meisel, E.M.; Densie, I.K. Cattle-related trauma, injuries and deaths. Trauma 2014, 16, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Bishop, R.P.; Odongo, D.; Ahmed, J.; Mwamuye, M.; Fry, L.M.; Knowles, D.P.; Nanteza, A.; Lubega, G.; Gwakisa, P.; Clausen, P.H. A review of recent research on Theileria parva: Implications for the infection and treatment vaccination method for control of East Coast fever. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2020, 67, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Goldansaz, S.A.; Guo, A.C.; Sajed, T.; Steele, M.A.; Plastow, G.S.; Wishart, D.S. Livestock metabolomics and the livestock metabolome: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0177675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. McClelland, S.C.; Arndt, C.; Gordon, D.R.; Thoma, G. Type and number of environmental impact categories used in livestock life cycle assessment: A systematic review. Livest. Sci. 2018, 209, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. van Wagenberg, C.P.A.; de Haas, Y.; Hogeveen, H.; van Krimpen, M.M.; Meuwissen, M.P.M.; van Middelaar, C.E.; Rodenburg, T.B. Animal Board Invited Review: Comparing conventional and organic livestock production systems on different aspects of sustainability. Animal 2017, 11, 1839–1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Lewis, K.A.; Tzilivakis, J.; Green, A.; Warner, D.J. Potential of feed additives to improve the environmental impact of European livestock farming: A multi-issue analysis. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2015, 13, 55–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Nyamushamba, G.B.; Mapiye, C.; Tada, O.; Halimani, T.E.; Muchenje, V. Conservation of indigenous cattle genetic resources in Southern Africa’s smallholder areas: Turning threats into opportunities—A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 30, 603–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Weber, K.T.; Horst, S. Desertification and livestock grazing: The roles of sedentarization, mobility and rest. Pastor. Res. Policy Pract. 2011, 1, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Tikam, K.; Phatsara, C.; Mikled, C.; Vearasilp, T.; Phunphiphat, W.; Chobtang, J.; Cherdthong, A.; Südekum, K.H. Pangola grass as forage for ruminant animals: A review. Springerplus 2013, 2, 604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  143. Xiao, J.; Alugongo, G.M.; Li, J.; Wang, Y.; Li, S.; Cao, Z. Review: How Forage Feeding Early in Life Influences the Growth Rate, Ruminal Environment, and the Establishment of Feeding Behavior in Pre-Weaned Calves. Animals 2020, 10, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  144. Duffield, T.F.; Merrill, J.K.; Bagg, R.N. Meta-analysis of the effects of monensin in beef cattle on feed efficiency, body weight gain, and dry matter intake1. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 90, 4583–4592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Rochfort, S.; Parker, A.J.; Dunshea, F.R. Plant bioactives for ruminant health and productivity. Phytochemistry 2008, 69, 299–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  146. Sigua, G.C. Recycling biosolids and lake-dredged materials to pasture-based animal agriculture: Alternative nutrient sources for forage productivity and sustainability. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 29, 143–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. di Bernardini, R.; Harnedy, P.; Bolton, D.; Kerry, J.; O’Neill, E.; Mullen, A.M.; Hayes, M. Antioxidant and antimicrobial peptidic hydrolysates from muscle protein sources and by-products. Food Chem. 2011, 124, 1296–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Echegaray, N.; Gómez, B.; Barba, F.J.; Franco, D.; Estévez, M.; Carballo, J.; Marszałek, K.; Lorenzo, J.M. Chestnuts and by-products as source of natural antioxidants in meat and meat products: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 82, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Martínez-Alvarez, O.; Chamorro, S.; Brenes, A. Protein hydrolysates from animal processing by-products as a source of bioactive molecules with interest in animal feeding: A review. Food Res. Int. 2015, 73, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. DeDonder, K.D.; Gehring, R.; Tell, L.A.; Riviere, J.E. Protocol for diversion of confirmed positive bulk raw milk tankers to calf ranches—A review of the Pharmacokinetics of tetracyclines and sulfonamides in veal calves. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2016, 17, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Tessema, W.K.; Ingenbleek, P.T.M.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Pastoralism, sustainability, and marketing. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 75–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Crowley, M.A.; Shannon, K.E.; Leslie, I.S.; Jilling, A.; McIntire, C.D.; Kyker-Snowman, E. Sustainable beef production in New England: Policy and value-chain challenges and opportunities. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 43, 274–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Schmidt, H.-P.; Hagemann, N.; Draper, K.; Kammann, C. The use of biochar in animal feeding. PeerJ 2019, 7, e7373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  154. Pogue, S.J.; Kröbel, R.; Janzen, H.H.; Beauchemin, K.A.; Legesse, G.; Souza, D.M.; Iravani, M.; Selin, C.; Byrne, J.; Allister, T.A.M. Beef production and ecosystem services in Canada’s prairie provinces: A review. Agric. Syst. 2018, 166, 152–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Mlambo, V.; Mnisi, C.M. Optimizing ruminant production systems for sustainable intensification, human health, food security and environmental stewardship. Outlook Agric. 2019, 48, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Reed, K.F.; Casper, D.P.; France, J.; Kebreab, E. Prediction of nitrogen efficiency in dairy cattle: A review. CABI Rev. 2015, 2015, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Greenwood, P.L.; Gardner, G.E.; Ferguson, D.M. Current situation and future prospects for the Australian beef industry—A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 992–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Hocquette, J.-F.; Ellies-Oury, M.-P.; Lherm, M.; Pineau, C.; Deblitz, C.; Farmer, L. Current situation and future prospects for beef production in Europe—A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 1017–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. Agus, A.; Widi, T.S.M. Current situation and future prospects for beef cattle production in Indonesia—A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 976–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  160. Gotoh, T.; Nishimura, T.; Kuchida, K.; Mannen, H. The Japanese Wagyu beef industry: Current situation and future prospects—A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 933–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Bunmee, T.; Chaiwang, N.; Kaewkot, C.; Jaturasitha, S. Current situation and future prospects for beef production in Thailand—A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 968–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Li, X.Z.; Yan, C.G.; Zan, L.S. Current situation and future prospects for beef production in China—A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 984–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Djekic, I.; Tomasevic, I. Environmental impacts of the meat chain–Current status and future perspectives. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 54, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Cisneros-Saguilán, P.; Gallardo-López, F.; López-Ortíz, S.; Rosado, O.R.; Herrera-Haro, J.G.; Hernández-Castro, E. Current Epistemological Perceptions of Sustainability and Its Application in the Study and Practice of Cattle Production: A Review. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2015, 39, 885–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Fernandes, A.M.; Teixeira, O.; Rios, H.V.; Canozzi, M.E.A.; Schultz, G.; Barcellos, J.O.J. Insights of innovation and competitiveness in meat supply chains. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2019, 22, 413–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Hatab, A.A.; Cavinato, M.E.R.; Lagerkvist, C.J. Urbanization, livestock systems and food security in developing countries: A systematic review of the literature. Food Secur. 2019, 11, 279–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  167. Marandure, T.; Bennett, J.; Dzama, K.; Makombe, G.; Gwiriri, L.; Mapiye, C. Advancing a holistic systems approach for sustainable cattle development programmes in South Africa: Insights from sustainability assessments. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 44, 827–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Prieto, N.; Pawluczyk, O.; Dugan, M.E.R.; Aalhus, J.L. A Review of the Principles and Applications of Near-Infrared Spectroscopy to Characterize Meat, Fat, and Meat Products. Appl. Spectrosc. 2017, 71, 1403–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Belluco, S.; Gallocchio, F.; Losasso, C.; Ricci, A. State of art of nanotechnology applications in the meat chain: A qualitative synthesis. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 58, 1084–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Warner, R.D.; McDonnell, C.K.; Bekhit, A.E.D.; Claus, J.; Vaskoska, R.; Sikes, A.; Dunshea, F.R.; Ha, M. Systematic review of emerging and innovative technologies for meat tenderization. Meat Sci. 2017, 132, 72–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Zhao, J.; Li, A.; Jin, X.; Pan, L. Technologies in individual animal identification and meat products traceability. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2020, 34, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Sakar, S.; Yetilmezsoy, K.; Kocak, E. Anaerobic digestion technology in poultry and livestock waste treatment—A literature review. Waste Manag. Res. J. Sustain. Circ. Econ. 2009, 27, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Wurtz, K.; Camerlink, I.; D’Eath, R.B.; Fernández, A.P.; Norton, T.; Steibel, J.; Siegford, J. Recording behaviour of indoor-housed farm animals automatically using machine vision technology: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0226669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  174. de Lima Weber, F.; Cagnin, M.I.; Paiva, D.M.B.; de Moraes Weber, V.A.; de Medeiros, S.R.; da Costa Gomes, R.; Pistori, H. Use of computational vision and UAVs in livestock: A Literature review. In Proceedings of the 2019 14th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Coimbra, Portugal, 19–22 June 2019; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Šímová, V.; Večerek, V.; Passantino, A.; Voslářová, E. Pre-transport factors affecting the welfare of cattle during road transport for slaughter—A review. Acta Vet. Brno 2016, 85, 303–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  176. Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S.; Faucitano, L.; Dadgar, S.; Shand, P.; González, L.A.; Crowe, T.G. Road transport of cattle, swine and poultry in North America and its impact on animal welfare, carcass and meat quality: A review. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 227–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Knowles, G. A review of the road transport of cattle. Vet. Rec. 1999, 144, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Collins, T.; Hampton, J.; Barnes, A. A Systematic Review of Heat Load in Australian Livestock Transported by Sea. Animals 2018, 8, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  179. Collins, T.; Stockman, C.; Hampton, J.; Barnes, A. Identifying animal welfare impacts of livestock air transport. Aust. Vet. J. 2020, 98, 197–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Ronda, A. The Integration of Strategic, Tactical and Operational Levels in Strategic Management. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2004, 53, 27–57. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/206/20605204.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2022).
  181. Worldometers. Current World Population. Available online: https://www.worldometers.info/es/poblacion-mundial/#table-forecast (accessed on 10 January 2022).
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of the bibliographic search and text selection process.
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of the bibliographic search and text selection process.
Sustainability 14 14275 g001
Figure 2. Echelons of livestock supply chain.
Figure 2. Echelons of livestock supply chain.
Sustainability 14 14275 g002
Figure 3. Number of publications per year.
Figure 3. Number of publications per year.
Sustainability 14 14275 g003
Table 1. Search terms and equations in databases.
Table 1. Search terms and equations in databases.
IDSearch TermsEquation
#1meat supply chain review systematic of literatureTITLE-ABS-KEY (meat AND supply AND chain AND review AND systematic AND of AND literature)
#2systematic review of literature sustainable development and search within results cattle(TITLE-ABS-KEY (systematic AND review AND of AND literature AND sustainable AND development) AND (cattle)
#3review systematic of supply chain meatTITLE-ABS-KEY (review AND systematic AND of AND supply AND chain AND meat)
#4review systematic of meat sustainabilityTITLE-ABS-KEY (review AND systematic AND of AND meat AND sustainability)
#5review systematic of meat transportTITLE-ABS-KEY (review AND systematic AND of AND meat AND transport)
#6review systematic of meat cattleTITLE-ABS-KEY (review AND systematic AND of AND meat AND cattle)
#7review of literature sustainability assessment of beef cattleTITLE-ABS-KEY (review AND of AND literature AND sustainability AND assessment AND of AND beef AND cattle)
#8review systematic sustainability beef cattleTITLE-ABS-KEY (review AND systematic AND sustainability AND beef AND cattle)
#9review systematic gas emissions greenhouse and cattle(TITLE-ABS-KEY (review AND systematic AND gas AND emissions AND greenhouse) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (cattle)
#10review systematic gas emissions greenhouse and fresh food(TITLE-ABS-KEY (review AND systematic AND gas AND emissions AND greenhouse) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (fresh AND food)
Table 2. Number of papers obtained from the databases.
Table 2. Number of papers obtained from the databases.
Search Terms ID Scopus/Science DirectGale Onfile/AgricultureWiley Online LibraryProquestAgecon SearchAgrisAmbientalexUsdaEbscohostIEEESpringerOxford UniversityTaylor y FrancisWoS, Kjd, Rsci, ScieloSageMDPI
#14231101000104028060942788180
#213240300001014400150
#31110900001600011570
#412304010031011002081
#58609000060150018110
#652908100091081012111100
#72001100003140022720
#840071000402000640
#9602850000909001000
#101000000000000000
Total1134559663100265160060935196651
Table 3. Number of papers selected for absolute review.
Table 3. Number of papers selected for absolute review.
DatabaseQuantity of Items
Ambientalex0
Ebscohost35
Gale Onfile/Agriculture9
IEEE1
Proquest27
Agecon search0
Agris0
Sage5
Scopus/Science direct44
Springer5
Taylor & Francis7
USDA0
Wiley online library2
WOS, KID, RSCI, Scielo11
MDPI0
Total146
Table 4. List of proposed categories and approaches.
Table 4. List of proposed categories and approaches.
CategoryPublicationsFocusPublications
Global warming25Climate change1
Meat consumption6
Emissions of greenhouse gases8
Nutrition3
Industrial processes1
Hydric resource1
Waste3
Soils and plants2
Culture4Spirituality1
Origin and evolution3
Tanneries3Conservation1
Occupational health2
General agricultural sector36Strategic alliances1
Food15
Subsistence allowance6
Supplies3
Greenhouse gas mitigation2
Industrial processes5
Prospective2
Hydric resource2
Quality management and control8Consumer4
Safety3
Temperature1
Veterinary medicine49Cattle welfare11
Illness17
Internal Medicine1
Nutrition20
Perspectives9Current and future context7
Innovation and competitiveness1
Developing countries1
Technology7Infrared spectroscopy1
Nanotechnology1
Emerging and innovative technologies3
Artificial vision and UAV2
Transport5Aerial1
Maritime1
Land3
Table 5. Methodologies used by the publications to carry out the reviews.
Table 5. Methodologies used by the publications to carry out the reviews.
Methodologies—Report GuidelinesNumber of
Papers
(Carroll et al., 2011) 1
(Gurwick et al., 2013)1
(Pullin y Gavin 2006; Lortie 2014)1
(Webster and Watson, 2002)1
(Chapman et al., 2017)1
(Creswell, 1998) 1
(Fahimnia et al., 2015; Wamba and Mishra, 2017)1
(Mallett et al., 2012)1
Cochrane3
(Kitchenham et al., 2004)1
Joanna Briggs Institute Methodology—Report Guide Cochrane1
(Llonch et al., 2015)1
(Khan, Kunz, Kleijnen and Antes, 2003)2
Without Specific Method107
Report Guide PRISMA17
(Conforto, Amaral y Silva, 2011) 1
Report Guide Cochrane-PRISMA2
(Tranfield et al., 2003)1
(O’Connor et al., 2014; Sargeant and O’Connor, 2014a) 1
(Mayring, 2003)1
Table 6. Number of publications, citations, citation impact and gaps using Scopus data.
Table 6. Number of publications, citations, citation impact and gaps using Scopus data.
PublicationsNumber of Papers
(Escarcha, Lassa and Zander, 2018)1
(Chai et al., 2019)1
(Sánchez and Sabaté, 2019)1
(Lynch, 2019)1
(York, Heffernan and Rymer, 2018)1
(Clune, Crossin and Verghese, 2017)1
(Andreas et al., 2019)1
(Galán et al., 2018)1
(Wurtz et al., 2019)1
(Collins et al., 2018)1
(Lukasz et al., 2016)1
(Pérez and Federico, 2019)1
(Rachael et al., 2019)1
(Anne and Roess, 2020)1
(Uffe et al., 2018)1
(Marques et al., 2020)1
(Goldansaz et al., 2017)1
Total17
Table 7. Publications including PRISMA diagram.
Table 7. Publications including PRISMA diagram.
PublicationsNumber of PapersIncluding Prisma Diagram?Including a Copy of Reporting Guidelines?Correctly Stated
(Escarcha, Lassa y Zander, 2018)1NoNoX
(Chai et al., 2019)1YesNoX
(Sánchez y Sabaté, 2019)1NoNoX
(Lynch, 2019)1YesNoX
(York, Heffernan y Rymer, 2018)1NoNoX
(Clune, Crossin y Verghese, 2017)1YesNoX
(Andreas et al., 2019)1YesNoX
(Galán et al., 2018)1YesYesX
(Wurtz et al., 2019)1YesYesX
(Collins et al., 2018)1YesYesX
(Lukasz et al., 2016)1YesYesX
(Pérez y Federico, 2019)1YesNoX
(Rachael et al., 2019)1YesNoX
(Anne y Roess, 2020)1YesNoX
(Uffe et al., 2018)1YesYesX
(Marques et al., 2020)1YesNoX
(Goldansaz et al., 2017)1YesNoX
Total17
Table 8. Number of publications, citations, citation impact and gaps using Scopus data.
Table 8. Number of publications, citations, citation impact and gaps using Scopus data.
CategoryPublicationsCitationsCitation ImpactGaps
Global warming2575952.4755
Culture4324.045
Tanneries3170.946
General agricultural sector36171182.3488
Quality management and control83084.8210
Veterinary Medicine49117868.54117
perspectives96611.3917
Technology72449.4843
Transport53158.1717
Total1464630242.19358
Table 9. Number of Authors, articles, total citations and H index by category.
Table 9. Number of Authors, articles, total citations and H index by category.
CategoryPublicationsAuthorsArticlesTotal CitationsIndex h
Global warming257776520,78967
Culture412104519,166191
Tanneries31589011,872160
General agricultural sector361349657439,0222213.18
Quality management and control8255147401137
Veterinary Medicine4925125,336420,4813580
perspectives933168423,174350
Technology737209238,898445
Transport51899414,759257
Total14660242,977995,5627400.18
Table 10. Number of journals by country.
Table 10. Number of journals by country.
CountryNumber of Journals
Germany3
Brazil2
Canada1
South Korea1
United States16
Egypt2
Scotland1
Spain1
France1
England26
Italy1
Japan1
New Zealand1
Netherlands13
Poland2
Czech Republic1
Swiss10
United Kingdom9
not indexed7
Total99
Table 11. Number of publications, SJR, H-Index, Journal category and CiteScore impact indicator.
Table 11. Number of publications, SJR, H-Index, Journal category and CiteScore impact indicator.
JournalNumber of PostsSJRH-IndexQ1Q2Q3Q4No IndexingCiteScore
Acta Veterinaria Brno10.22036 1 0.8
Agriculture20.4248 1 2.04
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems30.54035 3 1.41
Agronomy10.771141 2.59
Agronomy for Sustainable Development21.806812 5.91
Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 80.638458 1.58
Annals of Animal Science10.510141 S/A
Animal10.791611 2.04
Animals50.669235 2.21
Appetite11.4521201 3.97
Advances in Dermatology and Allergology10.44519 1 1.32
Advances in Nutrition12.678691 6.62
BMC Veterinary Research10.848461 2.06
Food Quality and Preference11.1401001 4.57
Global Change Biology24.3162172 9.14
Environmental Research Letters12.710971 6.1
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems11.060871 2.98
Meat Science51.3971425 3.58
Science of The Total Environment13.0724102 5.92
Livestock Science10.666991 1.61
Comunicata Scientiae10.2608 1 S/A
Climate10.54413 1 1.95
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice10.55660 1 1.34
Foods10.000 1S/A
Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI)1 1S/A
Food Control11.4501031 4.45
British Food Journal20.485692 2.08
Journal of Animal Science20.8711382 1.62
Journal of Cleaner Production101.62015010 7.32
Landscape Ecology11.8211151 4.41
Plant Ecology10.864921 2.06
Applied Energy13.4551621 9.54
Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment10.39424 1 1.58
Applied Spectroscopy10.5021011 1.99
Phytochemistry10.9261571 3.42
Waste Management & Research10.527661 2.11
Waste Management11.5231271 6.15
Ecological Engineering11.1041091 3.73
Food Research International21.3281342 4.18
Water Environment Research10.286641 0.96
Preventive Veterinary Medicine11.102841 2.55
Environment International12.6931571 8.58
Veterinary Microbiology21.1661142 2.78
Nutrients21.493752 4.51
Parasitology10.9891021 2.23
Parasites & Vectors21.565642 3.22
Pastoralism10.53016 1 1.32
PeerJ11.03745 12.5
Outlook on Agriculture10.35826 10.98
PLoS ONE41.1002684 2.97
Energy Procedia10.468 11.3
Food Chemistry11.768 15.8
Environmental Impact Assessment Review11.424801 4.32
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 10.39730 1 1.36
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition21.7091352 6.44
Animal Health Research Reviews40.861494 2.39
Canadian Journal of Animal Science10.46152 1 0.9
Canadian Journal of Public Health10.580651 S/A
Animal Science Journal10.610301 1.41
Journal of Dairy Science11.3401661 3.11
Journal of Data, Information and Management10.000 1S/A
Journal of Agricultural of Economics11.100521 2.59
Revista Gestão e Projetos10.000 11.55
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics10.451411 S/A
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management10.35122 1 1.6
Journal of Environmental and Public Health10.61027 1 2.07
International Journal of Food Science10.48712 1 2.11
International Journal of Supply and Operations Management10.000 1S/A
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health10.81878 1 2.81
International Journal of Production Research11.5851151 4.34
International Journal of Tryptophan Research11.546161 4.68
International Journal of Public Health11.02449 12.26
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability10.928321 2.6
Italian Journal of Animal Science10.47027 1 S/A
Revista Em Agronegócio e Meio Ambiente-RAMA10.1105 1 0.1
Australian Veterinary Journal 10.423551 2.2
Environmental Health11.433731 4.55
Food Security11.247341 2.91
Agricultural System11.355951 4.33
SpringerPlus20.431332 1.76
Sustainability20.54953 2 3.01
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy45.11620622 7.2
Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture10.62813 1 2.44
Trends in Food Science & Technology12.5581621 8.78
Trauma10.17414 1 0.36
Vaccine11.7591641 3.18
Viruses11.812591 4.03
Zoonoses and Public Health 11.010571 2.48
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases10.95701 8.6
Journal of Advances in Management Research10.6124 1 4.7
Research in Veterinary Science10.58791 3.9
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition11.081651 7.9
Journal of Consumer Affairs10.61651 3
Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies10.5118 1 3.4
Journal of Food Protection10.54144 1 3.8
CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources10.334 1 2.3
International Journal of Operations and Production Management12.291461 11.1
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture100 10
Veterinary Record10.4104 1 1.9
Total14674.6525512105236111
Table 12. Data from JCR, H-Index and Journal Category.
Table 12. Data from JCR, H-Index and Journal Category.
JournalNumber of PostsJCRH-índexQ1Q2Q3Q4No Indexing
Acta Veterinaria Brno10.56635 1
Agriculture22.259192
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems31.38121 3
Agronomy12.259201
Agronomy for Sustainable Development24.263842
Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 81.22752 8
Annals of Animal Science11.51518 1
Animal12.026721
Animals51.654215
Appetite13.5011271
Advances in Dermatology and Allergology11.75723 1
Advances in Nutrition17.24821
BMC Veterinary Research11.792511
Food Quality and Preference13.6841061
Global Change Biology28.882162
Environmental Research Letters16.1921091
Ciclos de nutrientes en agroecosistemasNutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems12.84885 1
Meat Science53.4831495
Science of The Total Environment15.589381
Livestock Science11.37669 1
Comunicata Scientiae10 1
Climate11.14317 1
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice11.53961 1
Foods13.01125 1
Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI)1 1
Food Control14.2481141
British Food Journal21.71753 2
Journal of Animal Science21.69748 2
Journal of Cleaner Production106.3958710
Landscape Ecology14.3491191
Plant Ecology11.78991 1
Applied Energy18.4261091
Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment11.09729 1
Applied Spectroscopy12.06490 1
Phytochemistry12.905162 1
Waste Management & Research12.015122 1
Waste Management15.4311431
Ecological Engineering13.406122 1
Food Research International23.5791412
Water Environment Research11.2460 1
Preventive Veterinary Medicine12.302841
Environment International17.9431701
Veterinary Microbiology22.791123 2
Nutrients24.171982
Parasitology12.456100 1
Parasites & Vectors23.031742
Pastoralism1010 1
PeerJ12.35358 1
Outlook on Agriculture11.04327 1
PLoS ONE42.7762 4
Energy Procedia10 1
Food Chemistry1 1
Environmental Impact Assessment Review13.749711
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 10.93723 1
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition213.4082462
Animal Health Research Reviews42.034174
Canadian Journal of Animal Science10.8551 1
Canadian Journal of Public Health11.24853 1
Animal Science Journal11.30129 1
Journal of Dairy Science13.082871
Journal of Data, Information and Management10 1
Journal of Agricultural of Economics12.506391
Revista Gestão e Projetos103 1
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics11.39832 1
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management1011 1
Journal of Environmental and Public Health1012 1
International Journal of Food Science10 1
International Journal of Supply and Operations Management10 1
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health12.46814 1
International Journal of Production Research13.199106 1
International Journal of Tryptophan Research1011 1
International Journal of Public Health12.37349 1
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability12.243311
Italian Journal of Animal Science11.26529 1
Revista Em Agronegócio e Meio Ambiente-RAMA10 1
Australian Veterinary Journal 11.14548 1
Environmental Health14.43751
Food Security12.15343 1
Agricultural System14.131951
SpringerPlus2045 2
Sustainability25.18430 2
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy410.7461982 2
Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture1014 1
Trends in Food Science & Technology18.5191531
Trauma106 1
Vaccine13.26987 1
Viruses13.81173 1
Zoonoses and Public Health 12.16444 1
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases14.52166 1
Journal of Advances in Management Research1016 1
Research in Veterinary Science12.554741
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition14.884151 1
Journal of Consumer Affairs12.60359 1
Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies1014 1
Journal of Food Protection12.755127 1
CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources100 1
International Journal of Operations and Production Management19.361221
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture11.621681
Veterinary Record12.5601
Total146118.4712522654513518
Table 13. Data from publisher, ISSN (NP: No publication).
Table 13. Data from publisher, ISSN (NP: No publication).
JournalNumber of PostsPublisherISSN
Acta Veterinaria Brno1Universidad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Farmacéuticas1801-7576
Agriculture2MPDI2077-0472
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems3Taylor y Francis Ltd.2168-3573
Agronomy1MPDI2073-4395
Agronomy for Sustainable Development2Springer1773-0155
Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 8Asociación Asiática-Australasia de Sociedades de Producción Animal1011-2367
Annals of Animal Science1De Gruyter Poland1642-3402
Animal1Elsevier Ltd.1751-7311
Animals5MPDI2076-2615
Appetite1Elsevier Ltd.0195-6663
Advances in Dermatology and Allergology1Termedia Publishing House Ltd.1642-395X
Advances in Nutrition1American Society for Nutrition2161-8313
BMC Veterinary Research1BioMed Central Ltd.1746-6148
Food Quality and Preference1Elsevier Ltd.0950-3293
Global Change Biology2Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.1365-2486
Environmental Research Letters1IOP Publishing Ltd.1748-9326
Ciclos de nutrientes en agroecosistemasNutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems1Springer1385-1314
Meat Science5Elsevier Ltd.0309-1740
Science of The Total Environment1Elsevier Ltd.0048-9697
Livestock Science1Elsevier Ltd.1871-1413
Comunicata Scientiae1Federal University of Piaui2176-9079
Climate1MPDI2225-1154
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice1Elsevier Ltd.0749-0720
Foods1MPDI2304-8158
Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI)1NP2166-0727
Food Control1Elsevier Ltd.0956-7135
British Food Journal2Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.0007-070X
Journal of Animal Science2American Society of Animal Science1525-3163
Journal of Cleaner Production10Elsevier Ltd.0959-6526
Landscape Ecology1Springer1572-9761
Plant Ecology1Springer1573-5052
Applied Energy1Elsevier Ltd.0306-2619
Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment1Taylor y Francis Ltd.1314-3530
Applied Spectroscopy1SAGE Publications Inc.1943-3530
Phytochemistry1Elsevier Ltd.0031-9422
Waste Management & Research1SAGE Publications Inc.1096-3669
Waste Management1Elsevier Ltd.0956-053X
Ecological Engineering1Elsevier Ltd.0925-8574
Food Research International2Elsevier Ltd.0963-9969
Water Environment Research1Water Environment Federation1554-7531
Preventive Veterinary Medicine1Elsevier Ltd.0167-5877
Environment International1Elsevier Ltd.0160-4120
Veterinary Microbiology2Elsevier Ltd.0378-1135
Nutrients2MPDI2072-6643
Parasitology1Cambridge University Press1469-8161
Parasites & Vectors2Springer1756-3305
Pastoralism1Springer2041-7136
PeerJ1PeerJ Inc.2167-8359
Outlook on Agriculture1SAGE Publicaciones Inc.0030-7270
PLoS ONE4Biblioteca Pública de Ciencias19326203
Energy Procedia1Elsevier Ltd.1876-6102
Food Chemistry1Elsevier Ltd.0308-8146
Environmental Impact Assessment Review1Elsevier Ltd.0195-9255
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 1International Food and Agribusiness Management Association1559-2448
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition2Taylor y Francis Ltd.15497852
Animal Health Research Reviews4Cambridge University Press1466-2523
Canadian Journal of Animal Science1Instituto Agrícola de Canadá0008-3984
Canadian Journal of Public Health1Springer1920-7476
Animal Science Journal1Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.1740-0929
Journal of Dairy Science1Elsevier Ltd.0022-0302
Journal of Data, Information and Management1Springer2524-6364
Journal of Agricultural of Economics1Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.1477-9552
Revista Gestão e Projetos1UNIV NOVE JULHO2236-0972
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics1Springer1187-7863
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management1OmniaScience2013-0953
Journal of Environmental and Public Health1Hindawi Limited1687-9805
International Journal of Food Science1Hindawi Limited2314-5765
International Journal of Supply and Operations Management1Kharazmi University2383-2525
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health1MPDI1660-4601
International Journal of Production Research1Taylor y Francis Ltd.1366-588X
International Journal of Tryptophan Research1SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD1178-6469
International Journal of Public Health1Springer1661-8564
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability1Taylor y Francis Ltd.1747-762X
Italian Journal of Animal Science1Taylor y Francis Ltd.1594-4077
Revista Em Agronegócio e Meio Ambiente-RAMA1University Centre of Maringa-CESUMAR2176-9168
Australian Veterinary Journal 1Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.1751-0813
Environmental Health1BioMed Central Ltd.1476-069X
Food Security1Springer1876-4525
Agricultural System1Elsevier Ltd.0308-521X
SpringerPlus2Springer2193-1801
Sustainability2MPDI2071-1050
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy4Springer1618-954X
Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture1Springer2196-5641
Trends in Food Science & Technology1Elsevier Ltd.0924-2244
Trauma1SAGE Publications Ltd.1477-0350
Vaccine1Elsevier Ltd.0264-410X
Viruses1MPDI1999-4915
Zoonoses and Public Health 1Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.1863-2378
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases1Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.1865-1674
Journal of Advances in Management Research1Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.0972-7981
Research in Veterinary Science1Elsevier Ltd.0034-5288
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition1Nature Publishing Group0954-3007
Journal of Consumer Affairs1Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.0022-0078
Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies1Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.2044-0839
Journal of Food Protection1International Association for Food Protection0362-028X
CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources1CAB International1749-8848
International Journal of Operations and Production Management1Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.0144-3577
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture1CSIRO PUBLISHING0816-1089
Veterinary Record1Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.0042-4900
Total146
Source: Owner.
Table 14. Data from publication cost, fee, submission to first decision and review—acceptance time (NP: No publication).
Table 14. Data from publication cost, fee, submission to first decision and review—acceptance time (NP: No publication).
JournalNumber of PostsPublication CostFeeSubmission to First DecisionTime UnitReview/Acceptance TimeTime Unit
Acta Veterinaria Brno1362.22USD0NP0NP
Agriculture21958.08USD16.6Days3.3Days
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems30Free0Days175Days
Agronomy12175.64USD17.2Days2.9Days
Agronomy for Sustainable Development22807.24USD0NP0NP
Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 8197.5USD0NP0NP
Annals of Animal Science10NP0NP0NP
Animal11811.12USD0NP0NP
Animals51958.08USD15.6Days3.4Days
Appetite13380USD0NP58.8Days
Advances in Dermatology and Allergology11528.13USD0NP14Days
Advances in Nutrition15500USD0NP0NP
BMC Veterinary Research12478.97USD68Days133Days
Food Quality and Preference14350USD19.6Days43.4Days
Global Change Biology20Free0NP60Days
Environmental Research Letters12201.64USD4Days51Days
Ciclos de nutrientes en agroecosistemasNutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems12931.75USD36Days0NP
Meat Science54010USD0NP56Days
Science of The Total Environment13400USD16,1Days28.7Days
Livestock Science12600USD0NP55.3Days
Comunicata Scientiae170.48USD0NP0NP
Climate11740.52USD11.8Days2.9Days
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice10NP0NP0NP
Foods12393.21USD16Days3.5Days
Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI)10NP0NP0NP
Food Control14300USD26.6Days33.6Days
British Food Journal23260.02USD60Days0NP
Journal of Animal Science23728USD0NP0NP
Journal of Cleaner Production103740USD0NP60.9Days
Landscape Ecology13463.77USD52Days0NP
Plant Ecology12931.75USD42Days0NP
Applied Energy14020USD26.6Days33.6Days
Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment11545USD16Days29Days
Applied Spectroscopy10Free0NP0NP
Phytochemistry13910USD25.9Days44.1Days
Waste Management & Research13000USD0NP0NP
Waste Management13880USD0NP41.3Days
Ecological Engineering13400USD0NP54.6Days
Food Research International23800USD0NP43.4Days
Water Environment Research10Free0NP0NP
Preventive Veterinary Medicine13450USD0NP59.5Days
Environment International13500USD17.5Days30.8Days
Veterinary Microbiology23220USD23.8Days34.3Days
Nutrients22828.34USD18.1Days2.9Days
Parasitology12839USD0NP0NP
Parasites & Vectors22478.97USD48Days86Days
Pastoralism11250.8USD81Days21Days
PeerJ11195USD35Days0NP
Outlook on Agriculture10NP0NP0NP
PLoS ONE41749USD48Days90Days
Energy Procedia10NP0NP0NP
Food Chemistry13790USD0NP0NP
Environmental Impact Assessment Review13300USD23.8Days45.5Days
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 11471.54USD0NP0NP
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition20Free13Days47Days
Animal Health Research Reviews42839USD0NP0NP
Canadian Journal of Animal Science11000USD0NP0NP
Canadian Journal of Public Health12478.97USD0NP0NP
Animal Science Journal10NP0NP0NP
Journal of Dairy Science10Free0NP0NP
Journal of Data, Information and Management12478.97USD61Days0NP
Journal of Agricultural of Economics10Free0NP0NP
Revista Gestão e Projetos10Free0NP0NP
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics12478.97USD78Days0NP
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management1560.32USD58Days0NP
Journal of Environmental and Public Health11400USD0NP32Days
International Journal of Food Science1775USD0NP52Days
International Journal of Supply and Operations Management10Free2Days355Days
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health12719.55USD17.8Days3.6Days
International Journal of Production Research10Free9Days64Days
International Journal of Tryptophan Research1750USD0NP0NP
International Journal of Public Health13463.77USD0NP171Days
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability10Free16Days52Days
Italian Journal of Animal Science11030.07USD33Days49Days
Revista Em Agronegócio e Meio Ambiente-RAMA144.05USD0NP0NP
Australian Veterinary Journal 13150USD0NP0NP
Environmental Health12592.17USD77Days75Días
Food Security12931.75USD62Days0NP
Agricultural System13710USD0NP44.8Days
SpringerPlus20NP0NP0NP
Sustainability22175.64USD15.4Days3.9Days
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy42931.75USD24Days0NP
Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture12139.39USD36Days58Days
Trends in Food Science & Technology15410.72USD0NP65.1Days
Trauma10NP0NP0NP
Vaccine13250USD49Days79.1Days
Viruses12610.77USD15.5Days3.3Days
Zoonoses and Public Health 14300USD0NP0NP
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases14900USD0NP0NP
Journal of Advances in Management Research13370USD60Days0NP
Research in Veterinary Science12830USD49Days69.3Days
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition14480USD9Days0NP
Journal of Consumer Affairs12950USD0NP0NP
Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies13370USD60Days0NP
Journal of Food Protection13000USD0NP0NP
CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources10NP0NP0NP
International Journal of Operations and Production Management13370USD60Days0NP
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture12700USD0NP0NP
Veterinary Record13500USD0NP0NP
Total146
Table 15. Data from post time, acceptance rate and post frequency (NP: No publication).
Table 15. Data from post time, acceptance rate and post frequency (NP: No publication).
JournalNumber of PostsPost TimeTime UnitAcceptance RatePost FrequencyTime Unit
Acta Veterinaria Brno10NP0%4Times a year
Agriculture20NP70%12Times a year
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems314Days11%10Times a year
Agronomy10NP52%12Times a year
Agronomy for Sustainable Development20NP0%1Once a year
Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 80NP0%12Times a year
Annals of Animal Science10NP0%2Times a year
Animal10NP0%12Times a year
Animals50NP49%12Times a year
Appetite17.7Days19%12Times a year
Advances in Dermatology and Allergology114Days0%6Times a year
Advances in Nutrition130.4167Days0%6Times a year
BMC Veterinary Research114Days0%1Once a year
Food Quality and Preference15.6Days20%8Times a year
Global Change Biology230Days0%12Times a year
Environmental Research Letters1108Days47%12Times a year
Ciclos de nutrientes en agroecosistemasNutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems10NP0%9Times a year
Meat Science54.9Days0%12Times a year
Science of The Total Environment17.7Days25%24Times a year
Livestock Science16.3Days20%12Times a year
Comunicata Scientiae10NP0%0NP
Climate10NP62%12Times a year
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice10NP0%3Times a year
Foods10NP59%12Times a year
Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI)10NP0%0NP
Food Control15.6Days0%12Times a year
British Food Journal20NP0%11Times a year
Journal of Animal Science20NP0%12Times a year
Journal of Cleaner Production1010.5Days0%30Times a year
Landscape Ecology10NP0%10Times a year
Plant Ecology10NP0%12Times a year
Applied Energy10NP0%24Times a year
Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment114Days41%6Times a year
Applied Spectroscopy10NP0%12Times a year
Phytochemistry10NP22%18Times a year
Waste Management & Research10NP0%12Times a year
Waste Management116.8Days0%12Times a year
Ecological Engineering10NP0%12Times a year
Food Research International20.9NP0%12Times a year
Water Environment Research10NP0%12Times a year
Preventive Veterinary Medicine17Days25%13Times a year
Environment International10NP0%12Times a year
Veterinary Microbiology27Days21%12Times a year
Nutrients20NP51%12Times a year
Parasitology10NP0%14Times a year
Parasites & Vectors214Days0%1Once a year
Pastoralism168Days0%1Once a year
PeerJ10NP0%0NP
Outlook on Agriculture10NP0%4Times a year
PLoS ONE4170Days22.30%NPNP
Energy Procedia10NP0%0NP
Food Chemistry14.9Days0%24Times a year
Environmental Impact Assessment Review10NP0%6Times a year
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 10NP0%4Times a year
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition218Days27%12Times a year
Animal Health Research Reviews40NP0%2Times a year
Canadian Journal of Animal Science10NP0%4Times a year
Canadian Journal of Public Health10NP0%6Times a year
Animal Science Journal10NP0%1Once a year
Journal of Dairy Science142.7Days0%12Times a year
Journal of Data, Information and Management10NP0%0NP
Journal of Agricultural of Economics10NP0%3Times a year
Revista Gestão e Projetos10NP0%4Times a year
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics10NP0%6Times a year
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management10Days91%5Times a year
Journal of Environmental and Public Health173Days22%1Once a year
International Journal of Food Science10Days21%NPNP
International Journal of Supply and Operations Management196Days0%4Times a year
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health10NP54%24Times a year
International Journal of Production Research120Days16%24Times a year
International Journal of Tryptophan Research130Days0%1Once a year
International Journal of Public Health121Days89%1Once a year
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability119Days8%4Times a year
Italian Journal of Animal Science120Days33%4Times a year
Revista Em Agronegócio e Meio Ambiente-RAMA10NP0%0NP
Australian Veterinary Journal 10NP0%12Times a year
Environmental Health122Days0%1Once a year
Food Security10NP0%6Times a year
Agricultural System10NP0%9Times a year
SpringerPlus20NP0%0NP
Sustainability20NP61%24Times a year
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy40NP0%4Times a year
Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture1123Days0%1Once a year
Trends in Food Science & Technology19.1Days0%12Times a year
Trauma10NP0%4Times a year
Vaccine118.2Days43%52Times a year
Viruses10NP51%12Times a year
Zoonoses and Public Health 10NP0%8Times a year
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases10NP0%6Times a year
Journal of Advances in Management Research10NP0%3Times a year
Research in Veterinary Science14.2Days20%6Times a year
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition10NP0%12Times a year
Journal of Consumer Affairs10NP0%3Times a year
Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies10NP0%5Times a year
Journal of Food Protection10NP0%12Times a year
CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources10NP0%0NP
International Journal of Operations and Production Management10NP0%12Times a year
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture10NP0%12Times a year
Veterinary Record10NP0%50Times a year
Total146
Table 16. Data from electronic address.
Table 16. Data from electronic address.
JournalNumber of PostsElectronic Address
Acta Veterinaria Brno1https://actavet.vfu.cz/ (accessed on 24 January 2021)
Agriculture2https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture
(accessed on 24 January 2021)
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems3https://www-tandfonline-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/toc/wjsa21/current (accessed on 24 January 2021)
Agronomy1https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy
(accessed on 12 March 2021)
Agronomy for Sustainable Development2https://www.springer.com/journal/13593
(accessed on 12 March 2021)
Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 8https://www.ajas.info/index.php (accessed on 12 March 2021)
Annals of Animal Science1https://search-proquest-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/agriculturejournals/publication/publications_1976406?accountid=174776
(accessed on 12 March 2021)
Animal1https://www.journals.elsevier.com/animal
(accessed on 12 March 2021)
Animals5https://www.mdpi.com/journal/animals
(accessed on 20 March 2021)
Appetite1https://www-sciencedirect-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/appetite (accessed on 20 March 2021)
Advances in Dermatology and Allergology1https://www.termedia.pl/Occupational-exposure-as-a-presumable-cause-of-subcutaneous-sarcoidosis-in-a-tannery-worker-case-report-and-review-of-the-literature,7,31645,0,1.html
(accessed on 20 March 2021)
Advances in Nutrition1https://academic-oup-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/advances/issue/7/6 (accessed on 20 March 2021)
BMC Veterinary Research1https://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/ (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Food Quality and Preference1https://www-sciencedirect-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/food-quality-and-preference (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Global Change Biology2https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/13652486 (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Environmental Research Letters1https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1748-9326
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Ciclos de nutrientes en agroecosistemasNutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems1https://www-springer-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/10705
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Meat Science5https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/meat-science
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Science of The Total Environment1https://www-sciencedirect-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/science-of-the-total-environment (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Livestock Science1https://www-sciencedirect-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/livestock-science (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Comunicata Scientiae1https://comunicatascientiae.com.br/comunicata
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Climate1https://www.mdpi.com/journal/climate (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice1https://www-sciencedirect-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/veterinary-clinics-of-north-america-food-animal-practice
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Foods1https://www.mdpi.com/journal/foods (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI)1https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8760955/authors#authors (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Food Control1https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-control
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
British Food Journal2https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal/bfj
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Journal of Animal Science2https://academic.oup.com/jas (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Journal of Cleaner Production10https://www-sciencedirect-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/journal-of-cleaner-production (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Landscape Ecology1https://www-springer-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/10980
(accessed on 13 April 2022)
Plant Ecology1https://www-springer-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/11258
(accessed on 13 April 2022)
Applied Energy1https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/applied-energy
(accessed on 13 April 2022)
Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment1https://www-tandfonline-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/toc/tbeq20/current (accessed on 19 April 2022)
Applied Spectroscopy1https://journals.sagepub.com/home/asp (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Phytochemistry1https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/phytochemistry
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Waste Management & Research1https://journals-sagepub-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/home/wmr
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Waste Management1https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/waste-management
(accessed on 13 April 2022)
Ecological Engineering1https://www-sciencedirect-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/ecological-engineering (accessed on April 2022)
Food Research International2https://www-sciencedirect-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/food-research-international (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Water Environment Research1https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15547531
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Preventive Veterinary Medicine1https://www-sciencedirect-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/preventive-veterinary-medicine (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Environment International1https://www-sciencedirect-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/environment-international (accessed on 19 April 2022)
Veterinary Microbiology2https://www-sciencedirect-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/veterinary-microbiology (accessed on 19 April 2022)
Nutrients2https://www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrients
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Parasitology1https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/parasitology
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Parasites & Vectors2https://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Pastoralism1https://pastoralismjournal.springeropen.com/
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
PeerJ1https://peerj.com/life-environment/ (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Outlook on Agriculture1https://journals-sagepub-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/home/oag
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
PLoS ONE4https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Energy Procedia1https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/energy-procedia
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Food Chemistry1https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-chemistry
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Environmental Impact Assessment Review1https://www-sciencedirect-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/environmental-impact-assessment-review (accessed on 20 April 2022)
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 1https://www.wageningenacademic.com/loi/ifamr
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition2https://www-tandfonline-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/toc/bfsn20/current (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Animal Health Research Reviews4https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-health-research-reviews (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Canadian Journal of Animal Science1https://cdnsciencepub.com/journal/cjas (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Canadian Journal of Public Health1https://www.springer.com/journal/41997
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Animal Science Journal1https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/17400929 (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Journal of Dairy Science1https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Journal of Data, Information and Management1https://www-springer-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/42488
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Journal of Agricultural of Economics1https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/14779552 (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Revista Gestão e Projetos1https://periodicos.uninove.br/index.php?journal=gep&page=index (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics1https://www-springer-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/10806
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management1http://www.jiem.org/index.php/jiem/index
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Journal of Environmental and Public Health1https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
International Journal of Food Science1https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijfs/
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
International Journal of Supply and Operations Management1http://www.ijsom.com/ (accessed on 20 April 2022)
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health1https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph (accessed on 20 April 2022)
International Journal of Production Research1https://www-tandfonline-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/toc/tprs20/current (accessed on 20 April 2022)
International Journal of Tryptophan Research1https://journals-sagepub-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/home/try
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
International Journal of Public Health1https://www-springer-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/38
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability1https://www-tandfonline-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/toc/tags20/current (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Italian Journal of Animal Science1https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/tjas20/current
(accessed on 20 March 2021)
Revista Em Agronegócio e Meio Ambiente-RAMA1https://periodicos.unicesumar.edu.br/index.php/rama
(accessed on 20 March 2021)
Australian Veterinary Journal 1https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/17510813 (accessed on 20 March 2021)
Environmental Health1https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/ (accessed on 20 March 2021)
Food Security1https://www-springer-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/12571
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Agricultural System1https://www-sciencedirect-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/journal/agricultural-systems
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
SpringerPlus2https://springerplus.springeropen.com/
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Sustainability2https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy4https://www.springer.com/journal/10098/
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture1https://chembioagro.springeropen.com/
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Trends in Food Science & Technology1https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/trends-in-food-science-and-technology
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Trauma1https://journals-sagepub-com.bd.univalle.edu.co/home/tra
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Vaccine1https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/vaccine
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Viruses1https://www.mdpi.com/journal/viruses
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Zoonoses and Public Health 1https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/18632378
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases1https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/18651682
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Journal of Advances in Management Research1https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal/jamr
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Research in Veterinary Science1https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/research-in-veterinary-science (accessed on 20 April 2022)
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition1https://www.nature.com/ejcn/ (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Journal of Consumer Affairs1https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/17456606
(accessed on 20 April 2022)
Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies1https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal/jadee?id=JADEE (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Journal of Food Protection1https://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp (accessed on 20 March 2021)
CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources1https://cabidigitallibrary.org/journal/cabir
(accessed on 20 March 2021)
International Journal of Operations and Production Management1https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal/ijopm?id=ijopm (accessed on 20 April 2022)
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture1https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/content
(accessed on 20 March 2021)
Veterinary Record1https://bvajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/20427670
(accessed on 20 March 2021)
Total146
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barreto Riaño, H.; Escobar, J.W.; Linfati, R.; Ortiz-Araya, V. Disciplinary Categorization of the Cattle Supply Chain—A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14275. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114275

AMA Style

Barreto Riaño H, Escobar JW, Linfati R, Ortiz-Araya V. Disciplinary Categorization of the Cattle Supply Chain—A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability. 2022; 14(21):14275. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114275

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barreto Riaño, Hernando, John Willmer Escobar, Rodrigo Linfati, and Virna Ortiz-Araya. 2022. "Disciplinary Categorization of the Cattle Supply Chain—A Review and Bibliometric Analysis" Sustainability 14, no. 21: 14275. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114275

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