PA01.02. Effect of Shodhana Karma in early Psoriasis‑ A case study presentation

Sawant, Umesh; Sawant, Shreya

doi:10.4103/0257-7941.123858

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Vacuum or modified atmospheric packaging methods, with or without special film, are also being explored. 92,[98][99][100][101][102][103] To minimize biomass and nutrient losses in frozen fish over extended frozen storage (9-12 months), using fortified glazing combined with protective-film vacuum or tight packaging may be the best "hurdle system". 5,6 If such precautions are taken, frozen storage at À20 C may be equally effective as at À30 C. Thus, reducing energy demands.…”

Section: Freezing-based Preservation and Packagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A list of the most common additives used to improve freezing or frozen storage efficacy is reviewed in Jia et al 6 Before freezing, quick ‘glazing’ techniques by water (fortified with additives), chitosan or plant extracts (e.g., seaweed extracts and essential oils) are particularly effective. Vacuum or modified atmospheric packaging methods, with or without special film, are also being explored 92,98–103 . To minimize biomass and nutrient losses in frozen fish over extended frozen storage (9–12 months), using fortified glazing combined with protective‐film vacuum or tight packaging may be the best “hurdle system” 5,6 .…”

Section: Losses Under Different Preservation and Freezing Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biomass losses and circularity along local farm‐to‐fork: A review of industrial efforts with locally farmed freshwater fish in land‐locked Central Europe

Mráz

Jia

Roy

2022

Reviews in Aquaculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomass losses and circularity of aquaculture farm-to-fork are reviewed in this article, taking the example of an economically developed but land-locked territory in Central Europe. We found that some waste valorization channels of locally farmed and slaughtered fish biomass are already functioning in the region (mostly for pet food, hunting bait). There is neither control nor information on how much local aquaculture farm-to-fork losses are upcycled to the local human food chain. Despite most of them qualify in 'category-3' animal by-products (useable for aquafeed) or preventable losses. Factors to improve farm-to-fork resource use efficiency 'locally' include:(a) 'at farm' (supplementary feeding, captive culture conditions, fat content, breed, rested harvest techniques, harvesting season); (b) 'towards fork' (purging duration, acclimatization before slaughtering, stunning efficacy, bleeding and filleting relative to rigour mortis, additive-based cleaning, pre-cooling, boned or deboned, grinding or baadering); (c) 'at fork' (coating-or GRAS additives-based preservation, packaging, modern hurdle systems, freezing rate, interferences of freezing apparatus or packaging on freezing, storage temperature). From farm-to-fork, it is essential to understand that most fish processing by-products can be made edible or valuable by other means. Better utilization strategies exist via low-cost value-added fish products, innovative dishes or utility products (e.g., feedstuff, fertilizers, industrial products, luxury items). Although upcycling to human food chain is priority, technological hurdles (prone to spoilage, bones in product, taste, safety) are associated with edible products but are solvable. More difficult things to overcome are at the fork (culinary industry, communication with society, future generations). Those are reviewed.aquaculture, aquaculture post-harvest, aquaculture product quality, biomass use efficiency, circular bioeconomy, fish | INTRODUCTIONApproximately one-third of all food produced for human consumption is presently lost or wasted, equivalent to $8% of all global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by humans. 1,2 Food losses also highlight the inequity of our current food system. For example, while 88 million tonnes of food are wasted yearly in the European Union (EU), in 2017, 112 million people in the EU had limited access to suitable food and healthy diets. Food waste comprises up to 16% of Europe's total emissions impact (various categories) on the entire food supply chain.A recent estimate shows that 186 Mt CO 2 -eq (global warming potential), 1.7 Mt SO 2 -eq (acidification potential), and 0.7 Mt PO 4 -eq

show abstract