2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.06.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prediction of beef eating quality from colour, marbling and wavelet texture features

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
51
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 125 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
51
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Before reviewing the use of ultrasound technology to examine these features, the differences between IMF and marbling should be outlined. IMF refers to the chemically extractable fat in a muscle (Shi-Zheng and Su-Mei, 2009) and is an objective measurement, whereas marbling, assessed visually, refers to the appearance of evenly distributed white flecks or streaks of fatty tissue between bundles of muscle fibres (Tume, 2004) and can be subjectively assessed with grading scores or objectively assessed when image analysis is used (e.g., Faucitano et al ., 2005;Jackman et al ., 2008). Both are relevant for meat quality evaluation and are closely related to each other (correlation coefficients of up to 0.8 in Savell et al ., 1986;Devitt and Wilton, 2001;Kemp et al ., 2002).…”
Section: Using Real-time Ultrasonography To Predict Intramuscular Fatmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Before reviewing the use of ultrasound technology to examine these features, the differences between IMF and marbling should be outlined. IMF refers to the chemically extractable fat in a muscle (Shi-Zheng and Su-Mei, 2009) and is an objective measurement, whereas marbling, assessed visually, refers to the appearance of evenly distributed white flecks or streaks of fatty tissue between bundles of muscle fibres (Tume, 2004) and can be subjectively assessed with grading scores or objectively assessed when image analysis is used (e.g., Faucitano et al ., 2005;Jackman et al ., 2008). Both are relevant for meat quality evaluation and are closely related to each other (correlation coefficients of up to 0.8 in Savell et al ., 1986;Devitt and Wilton, 2001;Kemp et al ., 2002).…”
Section: Using Real-time Ultrasonography To Predict Intramuscular Fatmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Computer vision systems are very popular choices for delivering fast, reliable and robust food classification; since the grading of foodstuffs by human graders has essential weaknesses of subjectivity, inconsistency and unreliability Sun 2004, 2006;Jackman and Sun 2011a, b, c;Jackman et al 2008;. The application of computer vision technology has been highly successful in food classification and quality prediction in the past and it has continued this success in recent times (Jackman and Sun 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…NMR technologies for these purposes are still in the laboratory experiment stage of development, and there is much work to be done before their commercialization is possible. Computer vision technology (Sun and Brosnan 2003;Valous et al 2009;Jackman et al 2008;Sun 2004;Jackman et al 2009;Wang and Sun 2002) may be useful for evaluating external attributes of fruit, but it is not helpful in detecting bruises under the peel, nor can it be used to evaluate the internal quality of fruit (e.g., moisture content (MC), total soluble solid (TSS), and firmness). Therefore, the market still awaits a simple, fast, accurate, and objective method for measuring the quality of fruit.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%