MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2189353226

Effects of sunflower seed inclusion in finishing diets for steers on performance, carcass characteristics, muscle and adipose fatty acid composition and meat quality

2006· article· en· W2189353226 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. A. Shah, P. S. Mir, J.L. Aalhus, J. A. Basarab, E. K. Okine

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConjugated linoleic acidSilageHayLinoleic acidSunflowerFood scienceDry matterFatty acidComposition (language)CrossbreedChemistryAdipose tissueBiologyAnimal scienceAgronomyBiochemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shah, M. A., Mir, P. S., Aalhus, J. L., Basarab, J. and Okine, E. K. 2006. Effects of sunflower seed inclusion in finishing diets for steers on performance, carcass characteristics, muscle and adipose fatty acid composition and meat quality. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 86: 37‐48. The effectiveness of dietary sunflower seeds (SFS) in finishing diets composed of different components for beef cattle on increasing conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) isomers in beef was evaluated in a completely randomized design experiment with non-implanted, crossbred steers. Steers were individually fed six finishing diets (n = 12 per diet), to determine the effects of SFS inclusion, at 15% of diet dry matter (DM), on production performance, carcass characteristics, fatty acid (FA) profile of subcutaneous fat from the brisket and fat from the pars costalis diaphragmatis (PCD) muscle, and meat quality. On a DM basis, the control diet (1) contained 84% rolled barley and 15% barley silage, in diet 2 the barley silage was replaced with SFS, in diets 3, 4 and 5 the silage was linearly replaced from 15 to 7.5 to 0% with chopped alfalfa hay, and they all contained 15% SFS. Diets 5 and 6 were identical in composition, but the hay and SFS were included as a pellet. The higher fat and weight percent of linoleic acid (66% of total FA) of SFS supplemented diets over the control diet (51%), resulted in increased fat, energy and linoleic acid intake. Body weights at the initiation (434.2 ± 5.1kg) and end (596.2 ± 7.8 kg) of the trial were similar for steers fed all treatment diets. Dietary inclusion of SFS reduced dry matter intake (DMI) (P = 0.005) and ADG (P = 0.02) of steers to 8.9 and 1.0 kg d ‐1 compared with steers fed the control diet (10.2 and 1.2 kg d ‐1 , respectively), but the feed conversion efficiency was unaffected. Back fat depth of steers fed SFS-containing diets was reduced (P = 0.02) to 13.8 from 17.0 mm for steers fed diet 1. Dietary supplementation with SFS increased weight percent both CLA isomers (CLA cis-9, trans-11 and CLA trans-10, cis-12) in fat from the PCD muscle (0.43 versus 0.22%; P = 0.001) and brisket fat (0.74 versus 0.44%; P = 0.0004), with the increase being greatest in steers fed the silage-free diets. Increase in weight percent of vaccenic acid was highest in tissues of steers fed hay along with SFS (11.7%) or barley and SFS (11.8%) relative to those fed the control diet (2.12%). Meat from steers fed the treatment diets was observed to have a higher (P = 0.02) juiciness scores, while initial tenderness (P = 0.1) and overall tenderness (P = 0.08) tended to be higher compared with beef from control steers. The steaks from the SFS-fed steers appeared to have a darker colour relative to steaks from control steers on day‐7 (P < 0.0001). Feeding SFS in finishing diets of steers had little influence on meat discoloration, retail acceptance and Thio-barbituric acid reactive substances. Supplementation of finishing diets for steers with SFS increased content of CLA isomers and vaccenic acid in tissues, without affecting feed conversion efficiency or meat quality, especially when incorporated into silage-free diets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207