↓ Skip to main content

Slaughter Methods and Quality of Chevon

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Science Journal, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 659)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Slaughter Methods and Quality of Chevon
Published in
Animal Science Journal, July 2015
DOI 10.1111/asj.12385
Pubmed ID
Authors

Azad Behnan Sabow, Awis Qurni Sazili, Idrus Zulkifli, Yong Meng Goh, Mohd Zainal Abidin Ab Kadir, Kazeem Dauda Adeyemi

Abstract

This study assessed the effect of halal slaughter and anesthesia pre-slaughter followed by bleeding on meat quality characteristics of goats. Eleven male Boer cross goats were divided into two groups and subjected to either halal slaughter (HS) or anesthesia with halothane and propofol pre-slaughter (AS). At pre-rigor, HS had significantly lower (P < 0.05) muscle pH and glycogen than AS. However, no significant difference was observed in the pH and glycogen content between the treatments on 1, 3 and 7 days post mortem. The drip loss of HS was significantly lower (P < 0.05) than that of AS at all aging periods. Treatment had no effect on sarcomere length, myofibrillar fragmentation index and shear force values, loss of thiol groups and degradation of major myofibrillar proteins. It can be concluded that HS did not have deleterious effect on meat quality traits of goat when compared to AS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Lecturer 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 33%
Engineering 5 9%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 16 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 December 2023.
All research outputs
#3,669,896
of 25,011,749 outputs
Outputs from Animal Science Journal
#26
of 659 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,861
of 268,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Science Journal
#2
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,011,749 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 659 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.