Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Lean meat percentage (LMP) is the criterion for carcass classification and it must be measured on line objectively. The aim of this work was to compare the error of the prediction (RMSEP) of the LMP measured with the following different devices: Fat-O-Meat'er (FOM), UltraFOM (UFOM), AUTOFOM and VCS2000. For this reason the same 99 carcasses were measured using all 4 apparatuses and dissected according to the European Reference Method. Moreover a subsample of the carcasses (n=77) were fully scanned with X-ray Computed Tomography equipment (CT). The RMSEP calculated with cross validation leave-one-out was lower for FOM and AUTOFOM (1.8% and 1.9%, respectively) and higher for UFOM and VCS2000 (2.3% for both devices). The error obtained with CT was the lowest (0.96%) in accordance with previous results, but CT cannot be used on line. It can be concluded that FOM and AUTOFOM had better accuracy than UFOM and VCS2000.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.06.018 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!