Survey of the fatty acid composition of Canadian beef: Backfat and longissimus lumborum muscle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey of Canadian retail beef was undertaken with emphasis on the trans fatty acid (TFA) and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) isomers, and compared with current health recommendations. Thirty striploin steaks were collected in the winter and summer from major grocery stores in Calgary (Alberta, Canada). Steak fatty acid compositions (backfat and longissimus lumborum muscle analysed separately) showed minor seasonal differences with lower total saturates (P < 0.05) and higher total monounsaturates (P < 0.01) in winter, but no differences in total polyunsaturated fatty acids. The ratio of n-6 and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid in longissimus lumborum averaged 5.8. The average TFA content in longissimus lumborum was 0.128 g 100 g-1 serving size, and 10t-18:1 was found to be the predominant isomer (32% of total trans), while vaccenic acid was second most abundant (15% of total trans). The CLA content in longissimus lumborum was similar to that of backfat, ranging from 0.43 to 0.60% and rumenic acid represented 60% of total isomers. Overall, there is still room for improvement in the saturated, mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acid composition of Canadian beef to meet general dietary guidelines for human consumption and additional targets should include reducing 10t-18:1 while increasing both rumenic and vaccenic acids.Key words: Survey, beef, conjugated linoleic acid, survey, trans fatty acids, vaccenic acid
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".