A Comparison of the Composition of Beef Bacon Products Sold in Southern Ontario, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ObjectivesUnlike pork bacon, beef bacon has no standard product identity. Identifying a product using the word “bacon” can imply a certain likeness to pork bacon; however, without a standard identity, this is not necessarily the case. Beef bacon can be produced using a variety of different processing techniques and still currently be labeled “beef bacon”. The potential result is poor product recognition among consumers, a paucity of scientific literature surrounding beef bacon, and ultimately, low process and profit optimization for meat processors. The objective of this study was to examine the composition of commercial beef bacon products sold in southern Ontario, Canada and further investigate the sources of variation. It was hypothesized that due to the lack of standard product identity, there would be a great degree of variability in the appearance and composition of products labeled as “beef bacon”. Materials and MethodsBeef bacon was purchased at the retail level from 6 different meat processors in southern Ontario, Canada. Products were analyzed for moisture, protein, and lipid content, along with a visual lean to fat ratio comparison. Moisture, protein, and lipid content were analyzed from a master batch that was created by mincing 2 strips of beef bacon from 3 different packages of the same brand (6 strips in total per master batch). From the master batch produced from each brand, protein was determined by Dumas, moisture was determined by oven drying at 100°C for 24 h, lipid was then successively tested via Soxhlet, and other components were determined by difference. The lean to fat ratio was determined by analyzing the proportion of black to white in high contrast black (lean) and white (fat) beef bacon renderings through ImageJ. Statistical analysis included determining descriptive statistics with the MEANS procedure of SAS and determining the fixed effect of brand using the MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). ResultsDifferent brands of beef bacon ranged significantly in moisture content (45.6 to 66.6%; SEM = 0.4; P < 0.0001), lipid content (5.0 to 36.6%; SEM = 1.0; P < 0.0001), protein content (11.5 to 25.8%; SEM = 0.3; P < 0.0001, and other components (1.4 to 7.8%; SEM = 0.9; P = 0.01). Total slice area among different brands of beef bacon ranged (P < 0.0001) from 38.5 to 130.4 cm² with a SEM of 14.3 cm². Slice lean percentage among different brands of beef bacon ranged (P < 0.0001) from 51.1 to 94.8% with a SEM of 2.0%. Lean:fat among different brands of beef bacon ranged (P < 0.0001) from 0.9 to 26.8 with a SEM of 1.7. ConclusionThe macronutrient composition and appearance of products that were labeled as “beef bacon” in southern Ontario, Canada, was highly variable. The variability was believed to be due to meat processors utilizing different value-added cuts of beef for the production of beef bacon. Further research is necessary to determine the utilization of different beef cuts for the production of beef bacon and the associated effects on processing parameters, storage capabilities, product composition, and sensory characteristics.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».