The effects of method of forage-finishing and cattle breed on growth performance, carcass characteristics, meat quality, and fatty acid composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three methods of forage-finishing (pasture, silage, hay) for beef cattle were used to evaluate growth performance, carcass traits, meat quality, and fatty acid composition relative to grain-finished beef. Two hundred steers (100 Angus, 100 Hereford) were equally allocated (based on size) to 2 locations, evaluating alfalfa or grass forages as alternatives to grain. Growth performance and carcass traits were greater for grain-finished steers. Forage-finishing increased (P < 0.02) concentrations of alpha-linolenic acid and total omega-3 fatty acids vs. grain-finishing. A trained taste panel found no difference (P > 0.05) in tenderness between forage-and grain-finished beef. Beef flavour intensity was greater (P < 0.05) in grain-finished beef. Generally, method of forage-finishing did not affect palatability attributes of beef relative to a grain-finished product but did affect fatty acid composition regardless of whether alfalfa or grass was used for forage-finishing. Angus and Hereford results were similar.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".