Correlation of Chicken Breast (Pectoralis Major) Quality and Sensory Attributes with Chicken Thigh Quality and Sensory Attributes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesIn other meat commodities, the relationship between quality and eating experience of different cuts within the same carcass has garnered significant attention. While the poultry industry typically prioritizes lean growth and less information is available about the relationship of quality and sensory attributes of different cuts throughout the carcass, it is imperative to commit research efforts to better understand these relationships. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to characterize the relationship between chicken breast (pectoralis major) quality and sensory attributes with chicken thigh quality and sensory attributes.Materials and MethodsChickens of 5 different genetic strains were slaughtered at a common ending point at a commercial processing facility in Southern Ontario and chilled using immersion chilling. Fifty whole chicken carcasses were fabricated into a 9-piece fabricated chicken according to North American Meat Institute specifications. The chicken breast portion was further fabricated into a boneless, skinless breast and the chicken thigh portion was further fabricated into a boneless, skinless thigh. Immediately following fabrication, right side breast and thigh samples were assessed for pH, instrumental color (L*, a*, and b* using a Minolta colorimeter), and prepared for a 48-h drip loss evaluation. Sensory attributes (tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and acceptability) using a trained sensory panel and cooking loss were assessed on the breast and thigh samples from the left side of the carcass. The trained sensory panel had a pool of 12 panelists, 4 of which were used for each sensory session. Eight breast or thigh samples were served at each of the 10 sensory sessions. Correlation coefficients between traits were computed using the CORR procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) and considered significantly different from 0 at P < 0.10. Correlations were considered weak (in absolute value) at r ≤ 0.35, correlations were considered moderate at 0.36 ≤ r ≤ 0.67, and correlations were considered strong at r ≥ 0.68.ResultsOnly the parameters with correlation coefficients that were different from 0 (P < 0.10) were reported. Breast pH was weakly correlated (r = 0.25; P = 0.07) with thigh pH, breast color (L*, a*, and b*) was weakly correlated (r ≤ 0.30; P ≥ 0.04) with thigh color, and breast 48-h drip loss was weakly correlated (r = 0.35; P = 0.01) with thigh 48-h drip loss. Breast sensory tenderness was moderately correlated (r = 0.38; P < 0.01) with thigh sensory tenderness, while all other sensory parameters measured between breast and thigh samples were not significantly correlated (P ≥ 0.24). Breast sensory acceptance was strongly correlated with breast sensory juiciness (r = 0.86; P < 0.01) and moderately correlated with breast sensory tenderness (r = 0.53; P < 0.01) and breast sensory flavor (r = 0.66; P < 0.01). Thigh sensory acceptance was strongly correlated with thigh sensory juiciness (r = 0.80; P < 0.01) and moderately correlated with thigh sensory tenderness (r = 0.52; P < 0.01) and thigh sensory flavor (r = 0.62; P < 0.01).ConclusionBreast quality and sensory attributes were generally weakly correlated with thigh quality and sensory attributes. Further investigation into factors affecting breast and thigh quality parameters (pH, color, drip loss, and cooking loss) and their effect on sensory attributes are warranted.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it