Grease trap waste (griddle grease) as a feed ingredient for finishing lambs: growth performance, dietary energetics, and carcass characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forty-eight (37.7 ± 3.4 kg, initial shrunk live weight) lambs were used in a 61 d experiment to evaluate the energy value of grease trap waste (GT) at four levels of supplementation (0%, 2%, 4%, and 6%). Supplemental GT replaced cracked corn in the basal diet. The GT contained 6.4% moisture, 3.1% impurities, and 79.8% total fatty acids (FA). Increasing GT level in diets did not affect dry matter intake and daily weight gain but linearly increased gain efficiency and estimated dietary net energy (NE). However, the ratio of observed-to-expected diet NE decreased with increased levels of GT. The estimated NE values for GT based on FA intake were in close agreement (98% and 102% of predicted, respectively) with those NE values determined by replacement technique for 2% and 4% supplementation level. However, the observed NE value for GT supplemented at the 6% level was 9% lower than predicted. Kidney–pelvic–heart fat increased as level of GT supplementation increased; otherwise, carcass characteristics and shoulder composition were not affected. We conclude that GT is a suitable alternative to conventional feed fats in diets for finishing lambs. The estimated NE of GT is 93% the energy value assigned by current standards for tallow and yellow grease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".