Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 430

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Manipulating meat quality and composition

Open access
Wood, J. D., Enser, M., Fisher, A. V., Nute, G. R., Richardson, R. I., Sheard, P. R.·1999·Proceedings of the Nutrition Society

Abstract

Meat quality describes the attractiveness of meat to consumers. The present paper focuses on two major aspects of meat quality, tenderness and flavour. Both aspects of quality can be influenced by nutrition, principally through its effects on the amount and type of fat in meat. In several countries, high levels of intramuscular fat (marbling fat), i.e. above 30 g/kg muscle weight in longissimus, are deemed necessary for optimum tenderness, although poor relationships between fat content and tenderness have generally been found in European studies, where fat levels are often very low, e.g. below 10 g/kg in UK pigs. Muscle lipid may be a marker for red oxidative (type 1) muscle fibres which are found at higher concentrations in tender muscles and carcasses. Nutritional treatment can be used to manipulate the fatty acid content of muscle to improve nutritional balance, i.e. increase the polyunsaturated (PUFA) : saturated fatty acid value and reduce the n−6 :n−3 PUFA value. Increasing PUFA levels may also change flavour because of their greater susceptibility to oxidative breakdown and the generation of abnormal volatile compounds during cooking. This situation particularly applies to the n−3 PUFA which are the most unsaturated meat lipids. In pigs, a concentration of 3 mg α-linolenic acid (18 : 3)/100 mg in muscle and fat tissue fatty acids can easily be achieved by including whole linseed in the diet. This level has led to abnormal odours and flavours in some studies, but not in others. In cattle and sheep, feeding whole linseed raised 18 : 3 concentrations in muscle fatty acids from about 0.7 mg/100 mg to > 1 mg/100 mg. As with pigs, this diet also increased levels of long-chain n−3 PUFA formed from 18 : 3, including eicosapentaenoic acid (20 : 5). Although this increase led to greater oxidative breakdown of lipids during storage and the generation of large quantities of lipid-derived volatile compounds during cooking, there were no deleterious effects on odour or flavour. When 18 : 3 levels are raised in lamb and beef because of grass feeding, the intensity of the flavours increases in comparison with grain-fed animals which consume and deposit relatively more linoleic acid (18 : 2). In ruminants, very high levels of 18 : 2 produced by feeding protected oil supplements cause the cooked beef to be described as oily, bland or pork-like.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0029665199000488

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 430

Metadata

Authors
Wood, J. D., Enser, M., Fisher, A. V., Nute, G. R., Richardson, R. I., & Sheard, P. R.
Venue
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
Published
1999-05
Volume
58
Issue
2
Pages
363-370
ISSN
  • 0029-6651 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2719
OpenAlex
W2132821892
Cited by
430
References
0
FWCI
16.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Manipulating meat quality and composition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0029665199000488
The paper
Wood, J. D., Enser, M., Fisher, A. V., Nute, G. R., Richardson, R. I., & Sheard, P. R. (1999). Manipulating meat quality and composition. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0029665199000488

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.