MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255816849 · doi:10.22175/rmc2016.101

Evaluation of Total Lean and Saleable Meat Yield Prediction Equations and Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry for a Rapid, Non-Invasive Yield Prediction in Beef

2017· article· en· W4255816849 on OpenAlex
Ó. López-Campos, I. L. Larsen, N. Prieto, M. Juárez, M. E. R. Dugan, J. L. Aalhus

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMeat and Muscle Biology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoinLean meatYield (engineering)Lean tissueDual energyAnimal scienceMathematicsCarcass weightDual-energy X-ray absorptiometryBody weightBiologyMaterials scienceBone mineralComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate the beef yield equations currently used in North America and the potential use of the Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) technology to predict either total or saleable yield of beef carcasses.Materials and MethodsA total of 316 left carcass sides over a wide range of weight (192 to 453 kg) and backfat thickness (1 to 29 mm) were fabricated into primal and retail cuts. Carcass break points were identified following Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications (IMPS) for Fresh Beef Products, Series 100. The primals collected from the left fabricated carcass side were the chuck (IMPS #113), rib (IMPS #103), brisket (IMPS #118), flank (IMPS #193, non-trimmed), foreshank (IMPS #117), loin (IMPS #172A), round (IMPS #158A) and plate (IMPS #121) primal cuts. All the cuts were scanned with an iDXA unit (GE Lunar Prodigy Advance, General Electric, Madison, WI) and then for the chuck, rib, loin and round, broken into closely trimmed retail cuts. Cuts were then fully dissected into fat [subcutaneous (SQ), intermuscular (IM) and body cavity (BC)], lean and bone and weighed.ResultsRegressing total lean meat yield predicted using the Canadian grade ruler versus dissected total lean meat yield resulted in an R2 of 0.56 (i.e., the equation predicted 56% of the variation). Regressing USDA calculated meat yield estimation (saleable yield) versus actual saleable yield of the boneless, closely trimmed round, loin, rib and chuck retail cuts resulted in an R2 of 0.34. Regressing total lean meat yield versus saleable meat yield yielded a moderate R2 (0.63). DXA was able to accurately predict total lean and total fat content in the carcass (R2 = 0.98) using partial least squares regression (PLSR). Predictions of saleable yield for each of the four major primals, using DXA technology were slightly lower (R2 ranged from 0.70 to 0.87) than those for total carcass lean and fat estimations.ConclusionAccurate prediction of beef yield is required to provide fair settlements for producers, and to help guide genetic improvements. This database provides important knowledge regarding the prediction accuracy and relationships between total lean meat yield and saleable meat yield necessary to support North American grade harmonization. In addition, DEXA technology may have the potential to estimate beef carcass traits such as total or saleable yield performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it