Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36978555›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

Influence of the Slaughter Method on the Hygienic Quality of Beef Cattle Meat and Animal Welfare Biomarkers.

Said Bouzraa, Estrella I Agüera, Francisco Requena, Inmaculada Rodríguez, Salud Serrano

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Said BouzraaFood Science and Technology Department, Faculty of Veterinary, University of Córdoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain.
Estrella I AgüeraCellular Biology, Physiology, and Immunology Department, Faculty of Veterinary, University of Córdoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain.
Francisco RequenaCellular Biology, Physiology, and Immunology Department, Faculty of Veterinary, University of Córdoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7890-2635
Inmaculada RodríguezFood Science and Technology Department, Faculty of Veterinary, University of Córdoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain.
Salud SerranoFood Science and Technology Department, Faculty of Veterinary, University of Córdoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5637-9430

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The main objective of this research was to carry out a comparative study between different types of slaughter in beef cattle with and without stunning. In addition, the hygienic quality of the obtained meat was determined through microbiological analysis and the animal welfare at the time of slaughtering was assessed by means of physiological parameters. A total of 52 blood samples collected at the slaughterhouse during slaughter (10 for each type of slaughter: regular, halal, and halal with stunning; 10 at the time of resting; and 12 from rotating box slaughter) were analysed for physiological parameters indicating animal welfare status, namely, glucose, cortisol, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and creatine kinase (CK). In addition, the meat from 30 of the above animals was analysed for aerobic mesophilic bacteria, enterobacteria and coliforms. Moreover, a radiological study of the possible skull damage due to the non-penetrative captive bolt used at the time of stunning in the halal rite slaughter was carried out. A significance difference (

Indexed as

bovine meatCKcortisolglucosehalalLDHmicrobiologystunning

Identifiers

PMID36978555
PMCPMC10044570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read17
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.