Influence of sire line and halothane genotype on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality in pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Progeny of three commercial sire lines mated to the same halothane negative crossbreed dam line were compared for growth, carcass and meat quality characteristics. Sire line A (halothane reactor) produced halothane carrier progeny; line C was halothane negative and produced negative progeny; line B (a cross between lines A and C) was a halothane carrier line that produced both carrier (BNn) and negative (BNN) progeny within the same litter. Line A pigs grew more slowly (P ≤ 0.05) and consumed less feed (P ≤ 0.05) than the progeny of the other lines (885, 1049, 1057 and 1082 g d −1 and 2.37, 2.82, 2.72 and 2.79 kg d −1 for lines a, BNN, BNn and C respectively). However, gain:feed was similar for all lines. Dressing percentage was similar for lines A, BNn and BNN (77.42, 77.62 and 77.00% respectively) but lower for line C (75.31%: P ≤ 0.05). Line differences for linear carcass measurements, lean cut yield and fat-free lean content were relatively small. Line A had higher shear force than the others (4.32, 3.21, 3.57, and 3.30 kg for A, BNN, BNn and C, respectively; P ≤ 0.05) and lines A and BNn had reduced taste panel tenderness and juiciness (P ≤ 0.05) compared with lines BNN and C. This study highlights commercially important differences between sire lines for pork quality traits. the variation in pork quality within this study resulted from the halothane gene and, potentially, other single genes that affect meat quality parameters. Key words: halothane gene, meat quality, sire line, pigs, carcass quality
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".