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.
Twitter Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Bleeding Efficiency, Microbiological Quality and Oxidative Stability of Meat from Goats Subjected to Slaughter without Stunning in Comparison with Different Methods of Pre-Slaughter Electrical Stunning
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0152661 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Azad Behnan Sabow, Idrus Zulkifli, Yong Meng Goh, Mohd Zainal Abidin Ab Kadir, Ubedullah Kaka, Jurhamid Columbres Imlan, Ahmed Abubakar Abubakar, Kazeem Dauda Adeyemi, Awis Qurni Sazili |
| Abstract |
The influence of pre-slaughter electrical stunning techniques and slaughter without stunning on bleeding efficiency and shelf life of chevon during a 14 d postmortem aging were assessed. Thirty two Boer crossbred bucks were randomly assigned to four slaughtering techniques viz slaughter without stunning (SWS), low frequency head-only electrical stunning (LFHO; 1 A for 3 s at a frequency of 50 Hz), low frequency head-to-back electrical stunning (LFHB; 1 A for 3 s at a frequency of 50 Hz) and high frequency head-to-back electrical stunning (HFHB; 1 A for 3 s at a frequency of 850 Hz). The SWS, LFHO and HFHB goats had higher (p<0.05) blood loss and lower residual hemoglobin in muscle compared to LFHB. The LFHB meat had higher (p<0.05) TBARS value than other treatments on d 7 and 14 d postmortem. Slaughtering methods had no effect on protein oxidation. Higher bacterial counts were observed in LFHB meat compared to those from SWS, LFHO and HFHB after 3 d postmortem. Results indicate that the low bleed-out in LFHB lowered the lipid oxidative stability and microbiological quality of chevon during aging. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 15% |
| Researcher | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 28% |
| Unknown | 9 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 38% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 11 | 18% |
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 02 April 2016.
All research outputs
#21,622,327
of 24,133,587 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#186,613
of 207,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,668
of 304,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,752
of 5,285 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,133,587 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 207,394 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. 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 304,731 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 5,285 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.