ArticleJournal of food science2025
Influence of electrical- and gas-stunned broilers on sensory characteristics and consumer acceptance during chilled storage.
Article in Journal of food science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Influence of electrical- and gas-stunned broilers on sensory characteristics and consumer acceptance during chilled storage.Journal of food science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electrical stunning is the most common method of stunning in the poultry industry worldwide, but with a growing demand for prioritizing animal welfare, gas stunning can be an acceptable alternative. This study investigated the effect of electrical and gas stunning on the sensory characteristics and consumer acceptance of chicken breast meat in addition to the impact of packaging type during chilled storage on the flavor of chicken breasts (6 and 18 days for non-vacuum and vacuum packaged, respectively, at 4°C). On Day 0 postmortem, regular chicken consumers (n = 90) were asked to taste oven-baked (165°F, ∼40 min) electrical- and gas-stunned chicken breasts. On Day 3, regular chicken consumers (n = 93) evaluated electrical- and gas-stunned chicken breast meats in two types of packaging (non-vacuum and vacuum). The consumer panels evaluated overall and attribute liking (appearance, aroma, texture, and flavor) on a nine-point hedonic scale and rated intensities of chicken flavor, aftertaste, and juiciness (only Day 3) on a 15-cm line scale. Along with consumer panels, an electronic-nose (E-Nose) was also used to analyze volatile compounds of raw and cooked chicken samples. On Day 0, no significant differences were found between electrical- and gas-stunned chicken breasts, while on Day 3, the only observed significant difference was in juiciness intensity between non-vacuum-packaged chicken breasts but had no impact on acceptance. E-Nose analysis confirmed no differences in aroma between stunning methods. The results suggest that in terms of sensory evaluation, there is no difference in sensory characteristics between stunning methods. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: This study can help to provide better direction for the production process and quality of chicken products, as well as animal welfare, by determining how the stunning method and packaging type affect consumers' sensory and analyzing the E-nose for aroma profiles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.