Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37649648›Full record

ArticleTranslational animal science2023

A comparison of carcass characteristics, carcass cutting yields, and meat quality of barrows and gilts.

Benjamin M Bohrer, Justice B Dorleku, Cheryl P Campbell, Marcio S Duarte, Ira B Mandell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational animal science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Benjamin M BohrerDepartment of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
Justice B DorlekuDepartment of Food Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, CanadaN1G 2W1.
Cheryl P CampbellDepartment of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, CanadaN1G 2W1.
Marcio S DuarteDepartment of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, CanadaN1G 2W1.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5795-6420
Ira B MandellDepartment of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, CanadaN1G 2W1.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives of this research were to compare carcass characteristics, carcass cutting yields, and meat quality for market barrows and market gilts. Commercially-sourced carcasses from 168 market barrows and 175 market gilts weighing an average of 107.44 ± 7.37 kg were selected from 17 different slaughter groups representing approximately 3,950 carcasses. Each group was sorted into percentiles based on hot carcass weight with an equal number of barrows and gilts selected from each quartile so that weight minimally confounded parameters of interest. Carcass lean yield was determined for carcasses following fabrication (i.e. dissection of lean, fat, and bone tissue components) and meat quality measurements were evaluated at the time of fabrication (24 to 72 h postmortem) and following 14-d of postmortem storage. Data were analyzed as a randomized complete block design with carcass serving as the experimental unit, sex (barrow or gilt), the three hot carcass weight quantiles (light [<104 kg]; average [104 to 110 kg]; heavy [>110 kg]), and the interaction between sex and hot carcass weight quantile serving as fixed effects, and producer nested within slaughter event serving as a random effect. Results from the study demonstrated that gilt carcasses were leaner (3 mm less backfat thickness; 3.5 cm

Indexed as

lean yieldpork carcasspork qualityprimal pass rate

Identifiers

PMID37649648
PMCPMC10464715

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.