Feeding extruded linseed or soybean and hay free-choice to Rubia Gallega young heifers does not substantially alter health-enhancing fatty acids in meat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context A common strategy to try and improve the fatty acid (FA) composition of meat and fat from cattle has been to feed protected oil or oilseeds. Aims Concentrate containing 4.5% fat from vegetable oil, extruded linseed or extruded soybean were fed free-choice with hay to Rubia Gallega heifers to examine the effects on meat (Longissimus thoracis (LT)) and subcutaneous fat (SCF) FAcompositions, and effects on meat and carcass quality. A secondary aim was to assess treatment effects on levels of specific desirable FAs in meat and fat. Methods Twenty-four 7-month-old Rubia Gallega heifers were assigned to three experimental diets: control concentrate (with palm oil) or concentrates containing either extruded linseed (LS) or extruded soybeans. Concentrates and hay were fed for 90 days before slaughter at an average age and weight of 300 days and 350 kg, respectively. Key results Minor treatment effects on animal performance, carcass traits and meat quality were noted. Relative to the control concentrate diet, feeding the linseed diet led to a slight increase in a-linolenic acid (18:3n-3) in SCF (P < 0.001), no change in 18:3n-3 in LT, reduced n-6/n-3 ratios in both LT and SCF (LT, P < 0.01; SCF, P < 0.001), and avoided ?(t6- to t10-)18:1 accumulation in either tissue (LT, P = 0.017; SCF, P < 0.05). Conclusions Although FA improvements when feeding linseed could be viewed as positive for human health, quantitatively, feeding extruded oilseeds and hay free-choice were ineffective at creating rumen conditions needed to substantially enrich n-3 polyunsaturated FAs (PUFA) or desirable biohydrogenation intermediates in LT. Implications To produce high-quality Rubia Gallega meat with meaningful and consistent enrichments of polyunsaturated FAs and beneficial biohydrogenation products will require more efficient methods for ruminal protection of PUFA, and further investigations into the timing and amounts of PUFA-enriched concentrate feeding.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".