MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157856571 · doi:10.1186/2049-1891-5-54

Improving beef hamburger quality and fatty acid profiles through dietary manipulation and exploitation of fat depot heterogeneity

2014· article· en· W2157856571 on OpenAlexafffund
Cletos Mapiye, J.L. Aalhus, Payam Vahmani, D. C. Rolland, Tim A. McAllister, H. C. Block, B. Uttaro, Spencer D. Proctor, M.E.R. Dugan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science and Biotechnology/Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of AlbertaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDepotFood scienceDietary fatFatty acidQuality (philosophy)BiotechnologyChemistryBiologyBiochemistryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hamburger is the most consumed beef product in North America, but lacks in nutritional appeal due to its high fat content and high proportion of saturated fatty acids (SFA). Objectives of the present study were to improve the FA profiles of hamburgers made with perirenal fat (PRF) and subcutaneous fat (SCF) when feeding steers different diets along with examining differences in sensory attributes and oxidative stability. Diets included a control diet containing 70:30 red clover silage: barley based concentrate, a diet containing sunflower-seed (SS) substituted for barley, and diets containing SS with 15% wheat dried distillers' grain with solubles (DDGS-15) or 30% DDGS (DDGS-30). Hamburgers were made from triceps brachii and either PRF or SCF (80:20 w/w). RESULTS: Perirenal fat versus SCF hamburgers FA had 14.3% more (P <0.05) 18:0, 11.8% less cis (c)9-18:1 (P <0.05), and 1.82% more total trans (t)-18:1 mainly in the form of t11-18:1. During sensory evaluation, PRF versus SCF hamburgers had greater (P <0.05) mouth coating, but the difference was less than one panel unit. Examining effects of steer diet within PRF hamburgers, feeding the SS compared to the control diet increased (P <0.05) t-18:1 by 2.89% mainly in the form of t11-18:1, feeding DGGS-15 diet led to no further changes (P >0.05), but feeding DDGS-30 diet reduced the proportions of (P <0.05) of t-18:1 chiefly t11-18:1. Feeding SS and DDGS diets had small but significant (P <0.05) effects on hamburger sensory attributes and oxidative stability. CONCLUSIONS: Feeding high-forage diets including SS and 15% DDGS, and taking advantage of the FA heterogeneity between fat depots offers an opportunity to differentially enhance beef hamburgers with 18:2n-6 biohydrogenation products (i.e., t11-18:1) with potential human health benefits without compromising their sensory attributes and oxidative stability during retail display.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science and Biotechnology/Journal of animal science and biotechnologySame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207