Influence of Extraction Temperature on Amounts and Quality of Rendered Chicken Fat Recovered from Ground or Homogenized Skin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was undertaken to determine the influence of extraction process on recovery and quality of fat from chicken skin. In order to do so, 20-kg batches of skin were ground (9.5 mm plate) or homogenized in a colloidal mill (0.2-mm knife set), then heated to 50 or 80 C to rupture fat cells. The fat was recovered by centrifugation and was evaluated for composition, appearance, and stability. A maximum amount of fat (89.6% of the fat initially contained in skin) was recovered from homogenized skin heated to 80 C, whereas heating ground skin to 50 C yielded the lowest fat recovery (51.5% of skin fat content). In general, fat composition and appearance were little affected by extraction conditions, with the exception that the fat extracted from homogenized skin contained more (P < or = 0.001) unsaponifiable cell membrane constituents (0.17 to 0.20%), including antioxidant tocopherol fractions (10.3 microg/ml), than the fat extracted from ground skin (0.08% and 7.5 to 8.3 microg/ml, respectively). This difference likely contributed to the greater oxidative stability of the fat extracted from homogenized skin, which was observed in Schaal oven tests.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".