↓ Skip to main content

Technological aspects of horse meat products – A review

Overview of attention for article published in Food Research International, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Technological aspects of horse meat products – A review
Published in
Food Research International, September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.09.094
Pubmed ID
Authors

José M. Lorenzo, Paulo E.S. Munekata, Paulo Cezar Bastianello Campagnol, Zhenzhou Zhu, Hami Alpas, Francisco J. Barba, Igor Tomasevic

Abstract

Horse meat and its products can be considered as a food with a high nutritional value. However, due to cases of economically motivated food adulteration by the intentional addition of horse meat beef products in recent years, horse meat has become a controversial issue. Consumer confidence in meat products and the meat industry has diminished, although consumers consider the differences between the food content and the label as the major issue rather than the safety and nutritional characteristics of horse meat. The elaboration of meat products from horse meat (e.g. "cecina", dry-cured loin, salami, bressaola and pâté) is also an interesting alternative to other traditional meat products such as dry-cured pork hams, pork sausages and liver pâtés. In this review, the technological aspects, safety and storage stability of meat products elaborated from horse meat will be addressed by highlighting the nutritional and sensory aspects of these meat products. We aim to improve the existing knowledge about horse meat in the view of recent scandals.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 28%
Engineering 6 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 27 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 July 2018.
All research outputs
#8,537,346
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Food Research International
#1,233
of 4,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,680
of 330,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Food Research International
#28
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 330,567 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.