Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27433110›Full record

ArticleKorean journal for food science of animal resources2016

Carcass Performance, Muscle Fiber, Meat Quality, and Sensory Quality Characteristics of Crossbred Pigs with Different Live Weights.

Young Min Choi, Hee Kyung Oh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Korean journal for food science of animal resources, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Effects of various pre-slaughter weights on the physico-chemical qualities of pig meat.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Young Min ChoiDepartment of Animal Sciences, Kyungpook National University, Sangju 37224, Korea.
Hee Kyung OhDepartment of Food and Nutrition, Jangan University, Hwaseong 18331, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In order to attain heavier live weight without impairing pork or sensory quality characteristics, carcass performance, muscle fiber, pork quality, and sensory quality characteristics were compared among the heavy weight (HW, average live weight of 130.5 kg), medium weight (MW, average weight of 111.1 kg), and light weight (LW, average weight of 96.3 kg) pigs at time of slaughter. The loin eye area was 1.47 times greater in the HW group compared to the LW group (64.0 and 43.5 cm(2), p<0.001), while carcass percent was similar between the HW and MW groups (p>0.05). This greater performance by the HW group compared to the LW group can be explained by a greater total number (1,436 vs. 1,188, ×10(3), p<0.001) and larger area (4,452 vs. 3,716 μm(2), p<0.001) of muscle fibers. No significant differences were observed in muscle pH45 min, lightness, drip loss, and shear force among the groups (p>0.05), and higher live weights did not influence sensory quality attributes, including tenderness, juiciness, and flavor. Therefore, these findings indicate that increased live weights in this study did not influence the technological and sensory quality characteristics. Moreover, muscles with a higher number of medium or large size fibers tend to exhibit good carcass performance without impairing meat and sensory quality characteristics.

Indexed as

carcass performancelive weightmeat qualitymuscle fibersensory quality

Identifiers

PMID27433110
PMCPMC4942554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.