Cost economics of pet food incorporated with rabbit offal’s

Introduction

Rabbits are considered promising food-producing animals because of their rapid growth rate, short reproductive cycle, high prolificacy, efficient feed utilization, and relatively low space requirements. These characteristics make rabbit production suitable for both small-scale and commercial farming systems. Rabbits can also be efficiently reared and transported for meat production. However, rabbit meat consumption remains comparatively low, with global per capita consumption reported to be only 0.242 kg in 2012 (Dalle Zotte, 2014) [5] . Limited consumer awareness regarding its nutritional benefits is considered one of the important factors contributing to its low consumption (Mancini et al., 2020) [9] . Rabbit production was introduced in India through the Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute (CSWRI), Avikanagar, Rajasthan, and subsequently expanded through its North Temperate Regional Station at Garsa, Himachal Pradesh. Several breeds have been used for rabbit production in India, including Soviet Chinchilla, New Zealand White, Black Brown, Grey Giant, White Giant, Flemish Giant, and Silver Fox. A female rabbit has considerable reproductive potential and can produce a substantial quantity of meat through its progeny within a year. Rabbit meat is recognized for its desirable nutritional and dietary characteristics. It is a good source of high-quality protein and generally contains relatively low levels of intramuscular fat and cholesterol, along with a favourable polyunsaturated fatty acid profile (Wang et al., 2020) [12] . These characteristics make rabbit meat an attractive option for health-conscious consumers. Rabbit meat is generally more expensive than poultry meat (Kallas & Gil, 2012) [7] , and its characteristic flavour may not be acceptable to all consumers (Hoffman et al., 2004) [6] . These factors, together with limited consumer awareness and inadequate market development, have contributed to low consumption in several regions (Cullere & Dalle Zotte, 2018) [4] . Development of value-added products such as frozen, smoked, roasted, canned, cured, dried, pickled, and sausage-type products may improve consumer acceptance and increase the utilization of rabbit meat (Alekseeva et al., 2018) [1] . Processing may also help to modify or mask the characteristic flavour of rabbit meat, thereby improving its acceptability (Hoffman et al., 2004) [6] . Several studies have investigated the influence of genetic, age, environmental, nutritional, management, and pre-and post-slaughter factors on carcass characteristics, nutritional composition, and meat quality of rabbits (Apata et al., 2012; Cullere et al., 2018) [2,3,4] . In addition to edible meat, slaughtering generates considerable quantities of animal by-products or offal. Proper utilization of these materials is important from both nutritional and environmental perspectives. Offal may contain approximately 15-20% protein and provides valuable amino acids, minerals, vitamins, and fatty acids (Liu, 2002) [8] . Rabbit liver is a nutrient-dense organ and is a good source of protein, vitamin A, riboflavin, iron, and selenium. Rabbit heart and kidney also provide valuable proteins and micronutrients. Intestinal tissues may contain protein and beneficial microbial populations and have been considered as potential ingredients in animal diets. Therefore, the utilization of rabbit offals in pet food may provide an opportunity to convert potentially underutilized slaughter by-products into nutritionally valuable products while reducing disposal-related environmental problems. The increasing humanization of pets has also encouraged owners to seek nutritionally balanced, safe, palatable, and convenient pet foods. The shift from household scraps and homemade diets towards commercially manufactured pet foods has been associated with greater awareness of animal nutrition. Homemade diets may sometimes be nutritionally unbalanced and deficient in protein, energy, calcium, phosphorus, vitamins, and trace minerals, potentially affecting the health and performance of companion animals (Pattanaik, 2011) [11] . Consequently, incorporation of nutrient-rich animal by-products into appropriately formulated pet foods may offer a practical approach to improving nutritional value while promoting sustainable utilization of slaughterhouse resources. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to develop and standardize pet biscuits incorporating rabbit offals, namely liver, kidney, and heart, along with intestine, and to evaluate their physicochemical and microbiological characteristics and shelf-life stability during storage. The study aims to explore the potential of rabbit slaughter by-products as functional and economical ingredients for the development of value-added pet food products.

Materials and Methods

The present investigation was undertaken to standardize the procedure for the development of pet food incorporating rabbit offals (intestine, heart, liver, and kidney) and to evaluate the shelf life of the developed product. The study was conducted in three phases. In the first phase, rabbit intestine and visceral offals were collected during slaughter at the Livestock Products Technology Section, ICAR-CSWRI, Avikanagar. The small intestine was thoroughly washed with potable water to remove ingesta, followed by removal of the mucosal lining. The intestine was then cut into pieces of approximately 1.5-2.5 cm in length, packed in low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bags, and stored under frozen conditions at -18 ± 1 °C until further use. Similarly, liver, kidney, and heart were trimmed to remove adhering connective tissue and separable fat, cut into small pieces, packed in LDPE bags, and stored at -18 ± 1 °C until further processing. Before processing, the frozen offals were thawed overnight at 4 ± 1 °C in a refrigerator. In the second phase, pet food formulations were standardized according to the nutrient requirements specified by the National Research Council (NRC), and the most suitable formulation was selected based on the incorporation of an optimum level of rabbit offal meat. In the third phase, the standardized pet food was appropriately packaged and stored under ambient conditions (32 ± 1 °C) for evaluation of its shelf life based on physicochemical and microbiological characteristics. Freshly rendered sheep fat was procured from the local market at Avikanagar on the day of use. Other ingredients, including soybean meal, refined wheat flour, and dicalcium phosphate, were procured from the local market at Avikanagar. Analytical-grade chemicals, reagents, and microbiological media required for various analyses were procured from standard commercial suppliers, including Ranbaxy, Polypharm, Qualigens, CDH, and HiMedia.

Formulas used for estimation of economics of the products

Results and Discussion

The fixed expenditure required for establishment of the pet food processing unit is presented in Table 1. The major equipment included a meat mincer, steam cooker, freezer, weighing balance, furniture, grinder, oven, packaging machine, and other miscellaneous items. The total fixed expenditure was estimated at Rs. 2,37,500. Considering an annual depreciation rate of 10%, the annual depreciation was calculated as Rs. 23,750. Based on 300 working days per year, the depreciation cost was estimated at Rs. 79.17 per working day. In addition to depreciation, the daily production expenses included building rent, labour, electricity, maintenance, water, and packaging costs. The estimated labour cost was Rs. 1,350 per day, comprising Rs. 600 for trained labour and Rs. 750 for untrained labour. Electricity expenditure was estimated at Rs. 360 per day, while rent, maintenance, and water charges were Rs. 140, Rs. 100, and Rs. 30 per day, respectively. The packaging expenditure was estimated at Rs. 500 per day. These costs represent the major fixed and operational components influencing the overall economics of pet food production. The formulation-wise production cost for 100 kg of pet food is presented in Table 2. The control formulation consisted mainly of refined wheat flour, fat, egg, soybean flour, dicalcium phosphate, baking soda, and salt. The total raw material cost of the control formulation was Rs. 8,362 per 100 kg. For T 1 , 40 kg of rabbit liver, kidney, and heart meal was incorporated at a cost of Rs. 750/kg, resulting in an additional ingredient cost of Rs. 30,000. In T 2 , 40 kg of rabbit intestine meal was incorporated at a cost of Rs. 400/kg, contributing Rs. 16,000 to the formulation cost. Thus, the raw material cost of T 2 was lower than that of T 1 but substantially higher than that of the control formulation. Considering a profit margin of 35%, the reported selling prices or maximum retail prices were Rs. 172.11/kg for the control, Rs. 613.49/kg for T 1 , and Rs. 401.34/kg for T 2 . The substantially higher selling price calculated for T 1 reflects its higher production cost. However, market acceptance of a higher-priced product would depend on the nutritional benefits, palatability, quality, consumer perception, and willingness of pet owners to pay for value-added rabbit offal-based pet food. The reported income and profit values are presented in Table 3. The reported income per kilogram was Rs. 45 for the control, Rs. 159 for T 1 , and Rs. 104 for T 2 . On the basis of the reported calculations, T 1 generated the highest gross income, followed by T 2 and the control. The higher income associated with T 1 was primarily due to its higher selling price. However, the economic advantage should be interpreted in relation to both production cost and actual quantity of finished product obtained. 4). The higher project cost for T 1 was again attributable to the comparatively high cost of the offal ingredient. The total project cost was lowest for the control because no additional rabbit offal meal was incorporated, while T 2 occupied an intermediate position. 5). According to these reported figures, T 1 provided the highest daily net return, followed by T 2 and the control. Break-even analysis is an important indicator of the financial feasibility of a production enterprise because it indicates the level of sales or investment at which total revenue equals total cost. As reported in Table 6, the breakeven values were Rs. 6,49,875.43 for the control, Rs. 6,71,203.92 for T 1 , and Rs. 6,57,692.00 for T 2 . T 1 showed the highest break-even value, indicating that a comparatively greater level of sales would be required to recover the investment under the assumptions used. The control showed the lowest break-even value, while T 2 occupied an intermediate position.

The reported cost-benefit ratios were 0.35 for the control, 0.34 for T 1 , and 0.34 for T 2 . Although these values were expressed as percentages in the original table, a cost-benefit ratio is conventionally expressed as a ratio rather than a percentage. Therefore, the calculation and presentation of this parameter should be standardized before inclusion in the final thesis. The overall cost for the production of 1 kg of pet food incorporated with rabbit offals was 454.44 for T 1 , 297.29 for T 2 , 127.49 Rs for control.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgmentThe authors sincerely acknowledge PGIVER, Jaipur, and ICAR-CSWRI, Avikanagar, for providing the necessary facilities and support for this study.

References

1. Alekseeva LV, Lukyanov AA, Bogdanova OV. Biologically active substance application efficiency for meat rabbit breeding. EurAsian Journal of BioSciences. 2018;12(2):431.
2. Apata ES, Eniolorunda OO, Amao KE, Okubanjo AO. Quality evaluation of rabbit meat as affected by different stunning methods. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2012;2:54.
3. Cullere M, Dalle Zotte A, Tasoniero G, Giaccone V, Szendrő Z, Szín M, et al. Effect of diet and packaging system on the microbial status, pH, color and sensory traits of rabbit meat evaluated during chilled storage. Meat Science. 2018;141:36-43.
4. Cullere M, Dalle Zotte A. Rabbit meat production and consumption: state of knowledge and future perspectives. Meat Science. 2018;143:137-146.
5. Dalle Zotte A. Rabbit farming for meat purposes. Animal Frontiers. 2014;4(4):62-67.
6. Hoffman LC, Nkhabutlane P, Schutte DW, Vosloo C. Factors affecting the purchasing of rabbit meat: a study of ethnic groups in the Western Cape. Journal of Consumer Sciences. 2004;32:26-35.
7. Kallas Z, Gil JM. A dual response choice experiments (DRCE) design to assess rabbit meat preference in Catalonia: a heteroscedastic extreme-value model. British Food Journal. 2012;114(10):1394-1413.
8. Liu DC. Better utilization of by-products from the meat industry. 2002.
9. Mancini S, Mattioli S, Dal Bosco A. Rabbit meat quality with an approach to its processing using spices or specific ingredients as antioxidants. World Rabbit Science. 2025;33(2):93-102.
10. Paci G, Preziuso G, D'Agata M, Russo C, Dalle Zotte A. Effect of stocking density and group size on growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality of outdoorreared rabbits. Meat Science. 2013;93(2):162-166.
11. Pattanaik AK. Evaluation and optimization of the nutritional quality of home-made vegetarian foods for health and well-being of dogs: final report. Izatnagar: Indian Veterinary Research Institute; 2011.
12. Wang Z, He Z, Zhang D, Li H, Wang Z. Using oxidation kinetic models to predict the quality indices of rabbit meat under different storage temperatures. Meat Science. 2020;162:108.