Effects on microbial quality of fresh pork loin during storage from oregano oil and cranberry pulp diet supplementation in pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fortier, M. P., Saucier, L. and Guay, F. 2012. Effects on microbial quality of fresh pork loin during storage from oregano oil and cranberry pulp diet supplementation in pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 92: 465–471. Oregano oil and ground cranberry pulp supplements were added to the diets of finishing pigs to determine their antimicrobial effects on fresh loin during storage at 2±1°C. Two doses of oil (250 and 500 mg kg−1) and three doses of cranberry (5, 10 and 20 g kg−1) were tested according to a factorial experimental design. The control group did not receive any supplements. The meat was vacuum packed and analyzed after 0, 23, 45 and 60 d. Samples were re-packaged under aerobic conditions after 0 or 23 d and analyzed after 4, 8 and 12 d. Microbial analysis was performed periodically throughout the experiment. Initial cell counts were below detection level for total aerobic mesophilic (TAM) (<102 cfu g−1), Pseudomonas spp. (<102 cfu g−1), presumptive lactic acid bacteria (LAB) (<102 cfu g−1), and Escherichia coli and coliform counts (<101 cfu g−1). No significant difference in TAM counts was observed between all of the six different treatments and the control group except for samples packaged at day 0 under aerobic conditions after 12 d of storage where a significant effect of the supplementation was observed (P<0.03). Under anaerobic conditions, LAB were not affected and remained the predominant microflora despite antimicrobial treatments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".