Meat Quality in Katahdin Lamb Terminal Crosses Treated with Zilpaterol Hydrochloride
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of Zilpaterol hydrochloride (ZH) supplementation (0 vs. 0.15 mg/kg live weight) on the meat quality was evaluated in Katahdin x Charollais (32 KCh) and Katahdin x Dorper (28 KD) crosses. Lambs were fed a totally mixed ration with 14% crude protein (CP) and 2.9 Mcal EM/kg DM. Data were analyzed using a completely randomized 2 x 2 factorial design: 2 genotypes (KCh and KD) and 2 ZH levels (0 and 0.15 mg/kg live weight). No interaction was found between ZH and the genotypes. The breed of the sire (BS) did not affect most of the meat traits, only KCh crosses had higher color values (L* = 34.0±0.6 vs. 35.6±0.6; a* = 13.4±0.3 vs. 14.9±0.4; b* = 5.6±0.3 vs. 6.6±0.4; h* = 20.8±0.9 vs. 23.0±0.09; C* = 14.7±0.4 vs. 16.4±0.5), more fat (11.2±0.5 vs. 11.9±0.5) and less protein (21.3±0.1 vs. 21.8±0.0) than KD. ZH meat had lower values (P < 0.001) than meat from the control animals: L* (31.9±0.6 vs. 37.7±0.6), a* (12.9±0.4 vs. 15.5±0.4), h* (15.1±0.9 vs. 28.6±0.9) and C* (13.5±0.5 vs. 17.7±0.8). ZH increased shear force on meat (5.4±0.2 vs. 3.7±0.2 kgf), and produced less fat (9.7±0.5 vs. 12.5±0.5%) and bone (23.2±0.3 vs. 24.6±0.2%), but more muscle (65.8±0.5 vs. 61.2±0.4%). Zilpaterol hydrochloride use in lamb production caused leaner yield and more protein retention, at the expense of reducing meat sensory qualities.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".