Table 7.

Meta-regression estimates for the association of length of time that beef was aged before evaluation, length of time that cattle were fed, use of multiple HGP implants (yes or no), treatment comparisons using TBA (yes or no), breed of cattle, sex of cattle, and electrical stimulation of the carcass on juiciness responses

Variable	SMD	SE	95% CI	P-value	R 2	I 2, %	τ2
Aging of the beef, d	0.013	0.009	−0.006 to 0.031	0.179	6.2	65.7	0.096
Length of feeding, d	0.001	0.0006	−0.0003 to 0.002	0.135	100.0	50.7	0.001
Multiple implants, % of studies	0.348	0.126	0.096 to 0.600	0.008	54.5	61.2	0.044
TBA, % of studies	0.134	0.185	−0.237 to 0.504	0.473	2.58	66.7	0.099
Breed (reference British, British cross, European, and Holstein)
Brahman and Brahman crosses	−0.065	0.127	−0.321 to 0.190	0.611	73.5	54.8	0.027
Crossbred (undescribed)	0.513	0.132	0.248 to 0.778	0.001
Not stated	−0.455	0.355	−1.167 to 0.257	0.206
Sex (reference steers)
Bull	0.425	0.502	−0.580 to 1.430	0.400	8.89	64.3	0.093
Heifer	−0.178	0.293	−0.765 to 0.409	0.546
Mixed	−0.351	0.294	−0.941 to 0.308	0.239
Stimulation (reference not stimulated)
Stimulated	−0.117	0.168	−0.454 to 0.238	0.487	58.6	62.3	0.042
Not stated	0.325	0.143	0.012 to 0.039	0.027

The estimates are based on Knapp–Hartung methods and provide a SMD, SE, and 95% CI of the ES, significance (P-value), model fit (R²), and measures of heterogeneity I² and τ². There were 55 treatment comparisons and 12 experiments.