Effects of feeding different levels of conjugated linoleic acid and total oil to pigs on subsequent pork quality and palatability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to compare pork quality, composition and palatability of pigs fed different levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and total oil (TO). A 3 × 2 factorial design was used feeding three levels of CLA (0, 0.25, and 0. 5%) and two levels of TO (2 and 5% made up with canola oil). Thirty-six pigs were allotted per diet and diets were fed from 35 to 115 kg liveweight. TO had no effect on longissimus thoracis (LT) moisture or intramuscular fat contents, but feeding CLA decreased LT moisture (P = 0.04) and increased LT intramuscular fat (P = 0.04). CLA and TO had no effect on LT subjective color, structure or marbling scores. Post-mortem LT temperature was also unaffected by feeding CLA or TO. Pigs fed 0.5% CLA had a marginally higher muscle pH (P = 0.01), a tendency toward lower post-mortem lactate levels (P = 0.06) and had higher glycogen concentrations (P = 0.03) at 30 min post mortem. Feeding CLA may thus offer limited protection against rapid post-mortem pH decline. Adding CLA to the diet increased subcutaneous fat hardness (P = 0.01), which was related to increased saturated (P = 0.01) and reduced monounsaturated fatty acid levels (P = 0.01). Increasing TO had an opposite effect resulting in softer fat with lower saturated and higher mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acid levels (P = 0.01). Supplementing diets with CLA in combination with canola oil did not have any detrimental effect on pork quality, composition or palatability. Feeding CLA does, however, have the potential to improve pork quality by increasing intramuscular fat levels, reducing post-mortem glycogen utilization rates and increasing subcutaneous fat hardness. Key words: Conjugated linoleic acid, canola oil, pork quality, palatability, marbling, fat composition
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".