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. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 17% |
Researcher | 10 | 15% |
Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
Other | 17 | 26% |
Unknown | 9 | 14% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 39% |
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 6 | 9% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
Other | 13 | 20% |
Unknown | 12 | 18% |