Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31010986›Full record

ArticleAsian-Australasian journal of animal sciences2019

Quality characteristics and flavor compounds of pork meat as a function of carcass quality grade

Van Ba Hoa, Pil-Nam Seong, Soo-Hyun Cho, Sun-Moon Kang, Yun-Seok Kim, Sung-Sil Moon, Yong-Min Choi, Jin-Hyoung Kim, Kuk-Hwan Seol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Effect of Concentration of Flaxseed (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

9 authors.

Van Ba HoaNational Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8725-1504
Pil-Nam SeongNational Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2915-1059
Soo-Hyun ChoNational Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-8073-8771
Sun-Moon KangNational Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-3947-4337
Yun-Seok KimNational Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-4186-7877
Sung-Sil MoonSunjin Meat Research Center, Ansung 17532, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2734-8931
Yong-Min ChoiNational Institute of Agricultural Sciences, RDA, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-8633-4671
Jin-Hyoung KimNational Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-7387-9613
Kuk-Hwan SeolNational Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-0907-882X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The present work aimed at evaluating the effects of carcass quality grade on the quality characteristics of pork meat according to Korean carcass quality grade system. Method: Pork carcasses with varying in quality grades (QG): 1+ (QG1+, n=10), 1 (QG1, n=10) and 2 (QG2, n=10), were used to evaluate the relationship between carcass quality grade and meat quality. The meat quality traits, fatty acid profiles, flavor compounds and sensory qualities were measured on the longissimus dorsi muscle samples of these carcasses. Results: Pork meat of higher quality grade (GQ1+) presented significantly higher fat content (5.43%), C18:2n-6 level (19.03%) and total unsaturated fatty acids (UFA) content (62.72%). Also, the QG1+ meat was significantly higher in levels of classes of flavor compounds such as aldehydes, alcohols and hydrocarbons in comparison to those of the meat samples from the lower GQ groups. The sensory evaluation results (flavor, juiciness, tenderness and acceptability scores) of QG1+ meat was significantly higher than the QG1 and QG2 meats. The pork with lower QG (i.e., QG2) was found positively correlated to redness (r=0.987), C18:1n-9 level (r=1.000) but negatively correlated to the fat content (r=-0.949), and flavor (r=-0.870), juiciness (r=-0.861), tenderness (r=-0.862) and acceptability (r=-0.815) scores. Conclusion: The pork with higher quality grade had higher fat content, total unsaturated fatty acids and better eating quality, thus producing pork with higher quality grades should be considered in order to satisfy the consumer's expectation.

Indexed as

Fatty AcidFlavor CompoundMeat QualityQuality GradeSensory Quality

Identifiers

PMID31010986
PMCPMC6722317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.