Potato processing waste in beef finishing diets; effects on performance, carcass and meat quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Potato by-products are frequently fed to cattle in many parts of the World. This paper considered the effect of feeding very high proportions of potato processing waste (PPW) to finishing beef cattle. One-hundred crossbred steers (Continental × British) were assigned to one of five finishing diets where rolled barley was replaced by PPW to give diets containing 0%, 20%, 40%, 60% or 80% PPW in the dry matter. Diets were fed ad libitum for 79, 107 or 135 days before steers were slaughtered and assessed for carcass and meat quality characteristics. Increasing the proportion of PPW in the diet resulted in a positive quadratic response in liveweight gain (P = 0.027). Inclusion level of PPW had no effect on carcass traits, although carcass weights declined linearly from 327 to 312 kg as PPW level in the diet increased (P = 0.016). Overall, effects of increasing the level of PPW on physical and sensory characteristics of meat were small and considered unlikely to affect consumer acceptance. Potentially due to inherent genetic variation in the cattle, some grew more slowly and were on feed for longer. Thus there was a linear decline in liveweight gain (P = 0.001) and a linear increase in grade fat (P = 0.039) as days to finish increased. Steers finished after 107 days had smaller loin eye area and lean meat yield, which resulted in negative quadratic effects for these characteristics (P = 0.014 and 0.024, respectively). We conclude that PPW can fully substitute for rolled barley in finishing diets without any negative implications for growth performance or meat quality and that the effect of days to finish were more important than the effect of the proportion of PPW in the diet.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".