Effect of low extraction temperatures on microbiological quality of rendered chicken fat recovered from skin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ground or finely homogenized skin, inoculated with circa 7 log10 cfu/g of an Acinetobacter sp., Brochothrix thermosphacta, Candida tropicalis, Debaryomyces hansenii, Enterobacter agglomerans, Enterococcus faecalis, a Lactobacillus sp., or Pseudomonas fluorescens, or not inoculated, was heated to 50 or 80 C to release fat from adipocytes, and the released fat was separated by centrifugation. Extraction at 80 C resulted in nearly complete inactivation of indigenous and inoculated flora, resulting in microbiological counts generally below detection level in skin residue and rendered fat. In contrast, large numbers of organisms (3.69 to 7.28 log10 cfu/g) survived the 50 C extraction process. Even though the majority (91.5 to 99.9%) of these organisms remained in the residual skin at the time of fat separation, some organisms were also found occasionally in fat at concentrations of 2.85 to 3.74 log10 cfu/g. Therefore, an additional step such as flash pasteurization is recommended for safety, should extraction temperatures below 80 C be selected.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".