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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".