Effect of management strategy on growth performance, carcass characteristics, fatty acid composition, and palatability attributes in crossbred steers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crossbred steers (n = 136) were used to evaluate the effect of management strategy on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and fatty acid composition and palatability attributes of beef. Management strategies included: (1) high grain (75% high moisture corn) finishing (HG), or (2) backgrounding with restricted feeding of an alfalfa silage ration for 112 d, followed by HG until slaughter (BKG). Steers were slaughtered at 8–10 mm ultrasound backfat. Backgrounding increased (P < 0.001) days on feed and decreased (P < 0.01) days on grain, average daily gain and longissimus muscle area compared with the HG regime. Slaughter weight, intramuscular fat content, and marbling score were unaffected (P > 0.10) by management strategy. Longissimus muscle palatability attributes and shear force did not differ (P > 0.10) between management strategies, whereas BKG increased (P < 0.03) softness, overall tenderness, chewiness, and rate of breakdown scores, and decreased (P < 0.09) juiciness scores in semitendinosus muscle. Backgrounding increased (P < 0.05) conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), total monounsaturated fatty acids, and 1193 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA), and decreased (P < 0.05) total saturated fatty acids (SFA), and 1196 PUFA content of beef. While the change in quantitative and qualitative fatty acid composition of beef is in line with current dietary recommendations for humans, the magnitude of these changes was minimal. Key words: Beef cattle, diets, carcass composition, fatty acids, longissimus muscle, palatability attributes
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".