Impact of calving seasons and feeding systems in western Canada. II. Meat composition and organoleptic quality of steaks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Durunna, O. N., Block, H. C., Iwaasa, A. D., Scott, S. L., Robins, C., Khakbazan, M., Dugan, M. E. R., Aalhus, J. L., Aliani, M. and Lardner, H. A. 2014. Impact of calving seasons and feeding systems in western Canada. II. Meat composition and organoleptic quality of steaks. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 94: 583–593. Fatty acid profiling, meat and organoleptic quality assessments were conducted on 160 carcasses of crossbred steers born into one of two calving systems and later assigned to one of two postweaning feeding systems. The steers were weaned from either an early calving or late calving system and later assigned to either a rapid-gain feeding (RF) or a slow-gain feeding (SF) system. The RF steers received a silage–hay diet during the backgrounding period prior to finishing, while the SF steers received a hay diet at backgrounding and then grazed alfalfa–meadow bromegrass pasture and annual cereal swaths prior to finishing. All treatment groups received a conventional diet during finishing until the steers attained a target backfat thickness or body weight. Fatty acid analyses were conducted on longissimus dorsi muscle (LDM) and subcutaneous fat samples. Other analyses included LDM composition, tenderness and taste panel evaluations. Total saturated fatty acid was greater (P<0.02) in samples from RF steers, while total monounsaturated fatty acid was greater (P<0.01) in SF steers. The SF steers had greater (P<0.01) conjugated linoleic acid concentration. There was no main or interaction effect (P>0.05) on beef aroma, flavour and tenderness but the SF steaks had lower (P=0.02) cooking losses than RF steaks. The SF strategy has the potential to create a value chain that would lead to finished steers with higher backfat omega-3, conjugated linoleic acid and trans vaccenic acid and less cooking moisture losses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".