Comparison of fatty acids in beef tissues from conventional, organic and natural feeding systems in western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Turner, T. D., Jensen, J., Pilfold, J. L., Prema, D., Donkor, K. K., Cinel, B., Thompson, D. J., Dugan, M. E. R. and Church, J. S. 2015. Comparison of fatty acids in beef tissues from conventional, organic and natural feeding systems in western Canada. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 95: 49–58. The effect of production system on intramuscular and associated trim fatty acid (FA) profiles of retail ribeye steaks from conventional and niche market organic and natural (grain- or grass-fed) beef were compared. Meat from organic grain- and grass-fed systems was leaner, containing greater proportions of polyunsaturated FA, i.e., 18:3n-3, 20:5n-3, 22:5n-3, 22:6n-3. Correspondingly, the n-6/n-3 ratios of organic grain- and grass-fed systems were 3:1, while conventional and natural grain systems had ratios of 8:1. High forage-to-grain ratio production systems increased proportions of desirable biohydrogenation intermediates (BI), including t11-18:1 and c9,t11-18:2, whereas conventional and natural grain systems elevated t10-18:1. Trim fat was similarly affected by production system, and was a relatively richer source of BI. Overall, proportions of desirable FAs, including n-3 and BI, were greater for organic grain- and grass-fed systems, emphasizing the importance of a high forage-to-grain ratio to enhance the healthfulness of beef, whereas conventional and natural grain-fed systems were largely equivalent.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".