Eating quality of pork from pure breeds and DLY studied by focus group research and meat quality analyses

Meat Science ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 304-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lene Meinert ◽  
Sara C. Christiansen ◽  
Lars Kristensen ◽  
Charlotte Bjergegaard ◽  
Margit D. Aaslyng
PsycCRITIQUES ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
No authorship indicated

NASPA Journal ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryann Jacobi

2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 701-709 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Harden ◽  
Ann Schafenacker ◽  
Laurel Northouse ◽  
Darlene Mood ◽  
David Smith ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 92 (5) ◽  
pp. 312-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristin Kline Liu ◽  
Richard Spicuzza ◽  
Ronald Erickson

1972 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-237
Author(s):  
C. E. Hinks ◽  
J. H. D. Prescott

SUMMARYTwo experiments concerning the effects, on the carcass and meat characteristics of 18-months-old Friesian steers, of variation in grazing intensity and the level of barley feeding with silage are reported.Groups of 12 steers were grazed at different intensities over 5-month grazing periods, such that live-weight differences of 38 kg and 16 kg were recorded at housing. No compensatory growth was recorded during the subsequent winter feeding period.Whilst the grazing treatments had little effect on carcass or meat quality, higher levels of barley feeding with silage over the winter period (710 v. 410 kg/steer) had significant effects on live-weight gain, and increased carcass weight by 21 kg at slaughter. The higher yield of carcass weight was reflected in significant differences in carcass composition, joint proportions and retail cut-out value. Sixty per cent of the carcass weight difference was removed as trim fat. Differences in carcass fatness were not associated with any differences in eating quality.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Umer Seid Geletu ◽  
Munera Ahmednur Usmael ◽  
Yesihak Yusuf Mummed ◽  
Abdulmuen Mohammed Ibrahim

Meat is the most valuable livestock product since it is one of the main sources of protein for human consumption. Meat quality can be evaluated according to the following parameters: pH, amount of lactic acid, volatile fatty acids, bounded water, solubility of proteins, color, and tenderness. The meat composition and physical properties of muscles have been characterized for ensuring improved eating quality. Thus, the purpose of this paper was to review the major chemical compositional and physicochemical properties of meat and, at the same time, its quality attributes and factors that affect quality of meat. A number of structural features of meat as connective tissue, muscle fibers, and tendon that attaches the muscle to the bone are visible in joint meat examined through naked eyes. Water is quantitatively the most important component of meat comprising up to 75% of weight. Meat is also composed of amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, and other important ingredients. Quality factors perceived by consumers are related to sensory attributes (e.g., color, tenderness, and flavor), nutritional properties (e.g., calories, vitamins’ content, and fatty acids’ profile), and appearance (e.g., exudation, marbling, and visible amount of fat). However, fresh meat quality can be defined instrumentally including composition, nutrients, color, water-holding capacity, tenderness, functionality, flavors, spoilage, and contamination. Visual inspection based on sensory quality attributes and different chemical methods are used to analyze meat quality. Other methods such as computer vision and imaging spectroscopy, gas chromatographic analysis, near-infrared technology, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and computerized tomography scanning are also used in the meat industry. So, the aim of the present review is to review quality characteristics of cattle meat and its composition constituents.


Author(s):  
Oladokun Omojola

Substantial literature exists to support the growing importance of focus group research, having been around for decades. Its ubiquity under the scholarship radar is not in doubt while the analyses of findings commonly seen are scholarly and significantly sophisticated. However, these analyses have been found to be limited in scope for fresh adopters of the focus group method, non-literate beneficiaries of research findings and business people who are critically averse to lengthy textual statements about outcomes. This article introduces the use of symbols as a means of analyzing responses from small focus group discussions. It attempts to demonstrate that using symbols can substantially assist in the prima facie determination of perceptions from a focus group membership, its patterns of agreement and disagreement, as well as the sequence of its discussions.


1989 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward F. McQuarrie ◽  
Thomas L. Greenbaum ◽  
Jane Farley

2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dave Merryweather

This paper draws upon current research to consider the value of the focus group method for exploring the relationships between youth, risk and social position. Groups comprising young people occupying similar social positions were used to generate talk about aspects of everyday life regarded as risk. Through the processes of conversational interaction facilitated by the focus group method, participants co-produced detailed risk narratives, understood here in Bourdieu's terms as product and producer of the habitus related to social position. Using data from several of the focus groups I illustrate how the method was especially useful in generating narratives indicative of how risks were experienced and understood in different ways according to social positions of class, gender and ethnicity. Such risk narratives also reproduced distinctions between and within different social positions. Consideration is given to certain limitations of the focus group method in respect of this research. Ultimately, however, the ability of the method to generate collaborative narratives reflective of shared social position is viewed as an invaluable means for developing a rich and nuanced account of the relations between youth and risk.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document