The Effect of Bacon Pump Retention Levels Following Thermal Processing on Bacon Slice Composition and Sensory Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesThe amount of curing solution permitted to be retained in bellies during bacon production varies from country to country. In the United States, according to 9 CFR 319.107, “the weight of cured pork bellies ready for slicing and labeling as “bacon” shall not exceed the weight of the fresh uncured pork bellies.” While in Canada, according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), “side bacon, Wiltshire bacon, salt beef, and pork jowls are exempted from the minimum protein standard and the percent (%) meat protein label declaration.” Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of belly pump uptake and cook yield during thermal processing on bacon slice composition and sensory attributes.Materials and MethodsForty-four fresh pork rind-on bellies were sourced and obtained from a commercial pork processor. Each belly was skinned and cut into 2 halves at the medial point of the belly. Twenty-two of the paired belly halves were randomly assigned to experiment 1 and the remaining 22 paired belly halves were assigned to experiment 2. The 2 experiments addressed different cooking techniques used by bacon processors– bacon in experiment 1 was cooked to an internal meat temperature of approximately 55°C, and bacon in experiment 2 was cooked to an internal meat temperature of approximately 62°C. Belly halves were assigned to treatment within each experiment so that an equal number of anterior halves (blade ends) and posterior halves (flank ends) would be represented in each treatment. Treatment consisted of target levels of pump uptake. Belly halves targeted at a pump uptake of 15% were assigned to the normal pump uptake treatment (NORM) and belly halves targeted at a pump uptake of 30% were assigned to the high pump uptake treatment (HIGH). Cure ingredients were formulated in accordance with manufacturer instructions (15% pump target = 313 g cure/1 kg water; 30% pump target = 156 g cure/1 kg water). Processing characteristics, bacon slice composition, and trained sensory attributes were evaluated. Treatment means for processing characteristics and bacon slice proximate composition were compared using PROC MIXED of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) with a fixed effect of treatment. Treatment means for sensory characteristics were compared using PROC GLIMMIX of SAS with a fixed effect of treatment and a random effect of panelist, day, and their interaction.ResultsIn experiment 1, cook yields were 107.8% for the HIGH bellies and 101.5% for the NORM bellies. Bacon from the HIGH treatment in experiment 1 had lesser (P = 0.04) protein percentage and tended to have greater saltiness (P = 0.07) when compared with bacon from the NORM treatment in experiment 1. In experiment 2, cook yields were 97.4% for the HIGH bellies and 94.7% for the NORM bellies. Bacon from the HIGH treatment in experiment 2 had greater (P = 0.02) moisture percentage and greater gumminess (P < 0.0001) when compared with bacon from the NORM treatment in experiment 2. All other bacon slice composition and sensory attributes were not different (P > 0.10).ConclusionOverall, bacon slice composition and sensory attributes of bacon from bellies with greater pump retention were largely unaffected, accordingly it was concluded that cook yields ranging in level of pump retention does not affect most attributes of bacon.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".