Table 8.

Meta-regression estimates for the association of length of time that meat 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 flavor responses

Variable	ES	SE	95% CI	P-value	R 2	I 2, %	τ2
Aging of the beef, d	0.036	0.011	0.013 to 0.059	0.003	51.08	59.11	0.049
Length of feeding, d	−0.0004	0.002	−0.005 to 0.005	0.872	−18.60	55.3	0.277
Multiple implants, % of studies	0.436	0.141	0.151 to 0.722	0.004	45.89	59.79	0.055
TBA, % of studies	−0.023	0.229	−0.485 to 0.439	0.920	−5.28	68.98	0.107
Breed (reference British, British cross, European, and Holstein)
Brahman and Brahman crosses	−0.158	0.114	−0.388 to 0.073	0.175	81.65	37.24	0.019
Crossbred (undescribed)	0.577	0.114	0.348 to 0.807	0.001
Not stated	0.203	0.286	−0.373 to 0.780	0.481
Sex (reference steers)
Bull	0.369	0.495	−0.629 to 1.36	0.460	52.28	57.26	0.048
Heifer	−0.223	0.287	−0.802 to 0.357	0.443
Mixed	−0.651	0.208	−1.070 to −2.233	0.003
Stimulation (reference not stimulated)
Stimulated	−0.344	0.462	−1.274 to 0.585	0.460	45.20	63.09	0.055
Not stated	0.385	0.131	0.121 to 0.649	0.005

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 48 treatment comparisons and 11 experiments.