Practical dietary levels of canola oil and tallow have differing effects on gilt and barrow performance and carcass composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previously we demonstrated that barrows produced leaner carcasses when fed 5% versus 2% canola oil. The present trial was conducted to determine if the same would be true for gilts or when feeding beef tallow (a source of saturated fatty acids). Four diets were fed (2 or 5% canola oil or digestible energy equivalents of tallow), and 27 gilts and 27 barrows were fed each diet. Experimental diets were fed from 49.4 to 113.5 kg body weight. Barrows fed 2% canola oil had similar average daily gains (ADG) relative to gilts (P > 0.05) fed any diet, but grew slower than barrows fed 5% canola oil (0.99 vs. 1.08 kg d -1 ; P < 0.05) and tended to have lower ADG relative to barrows fed diets containing tallow (P < 0.10). Barrows fed 2% canola oil had poorer feed conversion efficiency (kg feed kg -1 gain) relative to animals fed any other diet (P < 0.05). For barrows, feeding the 2% canola oil resulted in more subcutaneous fat relative to feeding 2.16% tallow (+18 g kg -1 lean cuts; P < 0.05), but the anticipated decrease in barrow subcutaneous fat when feeding 5% canola oil was not significant (-4 g kg -1 lean cuts; P > 0.05). No practical differences in pork quality were noted when feeding any diet, but backfat became more unsaturated when feeding canola oil and led to softer backfat (P < 0.05). When feeding canola oil to barrows, it may therefore be more practical to feed higher levels than lower levels due to improvements in animal performance without changes in body composition, but care must be taken so that fat softness does not become an issue. Key words: Canola oil, tallow, barrow, gilt, carcass composition, average daily gain, feed conversion
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".