A dark, firm, dry-like condition in breast meat of roaster chickens condemned for ascites, valgus-varus deformity and emaciation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chicken carcasses with dark, firm, dry traits (DFD) are currently condemned in Canada for cyanosis. Reconsideration of the current policy requires tests for distinguishing DFD carcasses from those that are inadequately bled. Birds in other categories such as ascites (AS), emaciation (EM), and valgus-varus deformity (VVD) may also present a dark carcass color. Chickens condemned for DFD and inadequate bleeding (IB), and also for AS, EM and VVD were collected, and visually separated into "light" or "dark" groups. Color (Commission Intern. de l'Eclairage L*a*b*) and pH were measured at slaughter, on four fixed sites of the pectoralis major. pH was highly and negatively correlated with L* for AS (r = –0.57), EM (r = –0.64), and VVD (r = –0.66). The dark classes of EM and VVD were not significantly different (P > 0.05) for pH, L*, and a* from DFD carcasses, but the dark AS class was redder and less acidic than DFD carcasses. Color and pH were not correlated in the inadequately-bled group, which was lighter, less red, and more acidic than the DFD group. Tests based on pH and a*, used to distinguish DFD from inadequately bled carcasses, showed good sensitivity and specificity. The agreement beyond chance between the pH and a* tests was good (Kappa = 0.65). We conclude (1) that a DFD-like condition was present in the dark classes of AS, EM and VVD, and (2) that inadequately bled chickens can be distinguished from those with DFD traits by the use of tests based on pH and a*. Key words: Poultry color, rapid tests, chicken, dark firm dry meat, cyanosis
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".