↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of bleeding efficiency, microbiological quality and lipid oxidation in goats subjected to conscious halal slaughter and slaughter following minimal anesthesia

Overview of attention for article published in Meat Science, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
A comparison of bleeding efficiency, microbiological quality and lipid oxidation in goats subjected to conscious halal slaughter and slaughter following minimal anesthesia
Published in
Meat Science, June 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.02.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

A.B. Sabow, A.Q. Sazili, I. Zulkifli, Y.M. Goh, M.Z.A. Ab Kadir, N.R. Abdulla, K. Nakyinsige, U. Kaka, K.D. Adeyemi

Abstract

The study assessed the effect of conscious halal slaughter and slaughter following minimal anesthesia on bleeding efficiency of goats and keeping quality of goat meat. Ten Boer cross bucks were divided into two groups and subjected to either halal slaughter without stunning (HS) or minimal anesthesia prior to slaughter (AS). The blood lost during exsanguination was measured. Residual blood was further quantified by determination of hemoglobin and myoglobin content in longissimus lumborum muscle. Storage stability of the meat was evaluated by microbiological analysis and lipid oxidation. Blood loss at exsanguination, residual hemoglobin and lipid oxidation were not significantly different (p>0.05) between HS and AS. Lactic acid bacteria was the only microbe that was significantly elevated after 24h of storage at 4°C in the AS group. In conclusion, slaughtering goats under minimal anesthesia or fully conscious did not affect bleeding efficiency and keeping quality of goat meat.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 57 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 22%
Student > Master 11 19%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Unspecified 4 7%
Other 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 36%
Engineering 9 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 10%
Unspecified 5 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 8%
Other 13 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 March 2015.
All research outputs
#10,900,037
of 12,300,260 outputs
Outputs from Meat Science
#810
of 951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,797
of 224,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Meat Science
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,300,260 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 951 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 224,062 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.