Difference between revisions of "Recipe/Example/Rillets de Mans"

From Open Food Facts wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "== Product == [https://nl.openfoodfacts.org/product/3024720022422/rillettes-du-mans-la-veritable-bordeau-chesnel Link] Nutritional values: (40.5, 15.2, 0.4 0.2, 16.2, 1.13)...")
 
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
  
 
Nutritional values:
 
Nutritional values:
  (40.5, 15.2, 0.4 0.2, 16.2, 1.13) no fiber listed
+
  (40.5, 15.2, 0.4, 0.2, 16.2, 1.13) no fiber listed
  
 
Ingredients
 
Ingredients
Line 15: Line 15:
 
  Sel / Salt, white (sea, igneous or rock), no enrichment (11017) (0,0,0,0,0,97.8)
 
  Sel / Salt, white (sea, igneous or rock), no enrichment (11017) (0,0,0,0,0,97.8)
  
  Poivre / Black pepper, powder (11015) (7.5, 2.9, 39.5, 0.64 13.3, 0.036) fiber=25.7
+
  Poivre / Black pepper, powder (11015) (7.5, 2.9, 39.5, 0.64, 13.3, 0.036) fiber=25.7
 +
 
 +
== Results ==
 +
=== NNLS with forced order ===
 +
Deviance: 38.9 (very large) Mainly due to the proteins mismatch (residual of 5.9). As this product is mainly one ingredient, there seems to be an ingredient variability.
 +
 
 +
[[File:RillettesPredictionNutritionalValues.png|400px|thumb|center|Rillettes nutritional values prediction]]
 +
 
 +
=== John fit ===
 +
In this case the estimator assumes a higher level of pork fat (second ingredient) is needed to meet the nutrient targets. It would appear that the default Ciqual pork used (28205) has a lower fat content than the pork used by the producer. A similar recipe is estimated if "Pork, jowl, rindless, raw" (28471) is used. This shows the variability of some ingredients.
 +
A side-effect of this is that we could potentially help identify the variant / quality of an ingredient based on the stated percentage.
 +
Note that for this estimate the last ingredient (pepper) is higher than the previous one (salt) and the optimiser reports "Inequality constraints incompatible" which requires further investigation. Switching from LinearConstraint to a function based constraint seems to resolve this although the optimisation takes about 3 times longer (from 0.1s to 0.27s)

Latest revision as of 18:17, 12 February 2025

Product

Link

Nutritional values:

(40.5, 15.2, 0.4, 0.2, 16.2, 1.13) no fiber listed

Ingredients

Viande de porc (96%), gras de porc, sel, poivre

Ciqual

Viande de porc / Pork, jowl, rindless, raw (28471) (47.4, 16, 0.14, 0.14, 11.6, 0.17)
Gras de porc / Pork fat, raw (16530) (88.7, 32.2, 0, 0, 2.92, 0.028)
Sel / Salt, white (sea, igneous or rock), no enrichment (11017) (0,0,0,0,0,97.8)
Poivre / Black pepper, powder (11015) (7.5, 2.9, 39.5, 0.64, 13.3, 0.036) fiber=25.7

Results

NNLS with forced order

Deviance: 38.9 (very large) Mainly due to the proteins mismatch (residual of 5.9). As this product is mainly one ingredient, there seems to be an ingredient variability.

Rillettes nutritional values prediction

John fit

In this case the estimator assumes a higher level of pork fat (second ingredient) is needed to meet the nutrient targets. It would appear that the default Ciqual pork used (28205) has a lower fat content than the pork used by the producer. A similar recipe is estimated if "Pork, jowl, rindless, raw" (28471) is used. This shows the variability of some ingredients. A side-effect of this is that we could potentially help identify the variant / quality of an ingredient based on the stated percentage. Note that for this estimate the last ingredient (pepper) is higher than the previous one (salt) and the optimiser reports "Inequality constraints incompatible" which requires further investigation. Switching from LinearConstraint to a function based constraint seems to resolve this although the optimisation takes about 3 times longer (from 0.1s to 0.27s)