82 Critical Comparison of Water Buffalo (<i>Bubalus bubalis</i>) and Cattle on Growth Performance and Carcass Traits: a Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The multipurpose water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) has been exploited mostly for dairy purposes while being poorly utilized for meat production. However, in the marketplace, a prejudice exists against Buffalo carcasses due to most of the carcasses coming from animals at the end of their productive life on the dairy farm. Unfortunately, scarce literature establishes comparative biological endpoints between water buffaloes and cattle (Bos indicus or Bos taurus) as meat producers. Furthermore, the literature has not considered the effects of gender (i.e., male castration) for any interspecific comparison. Many unknown answers remain regarding Buffalo growth performance, carcass traits and composition with respect to cattle. Therefore, this review will discuss the pros and cons of water buffalo meat production with respect to cattle, particularly research carried out in tropical conditions, regarding the production traits indicated previously. In a few studies, water buffaloes have proven to be adaptable to tropical grazing conditions and have shown consistently faster body weight gains; but, under confinement conditions, water buffalo have shown a slower growth rate performance than cattle, requiring more days than cattle to reach a comparable body weight. Water buffaloes present heavier carcasses but ldecreased dressing percentages than cattle at different ages which are explained by their significantly greater body proportions of the head, hide and internal organs at the post-weaning ages than cattle. Additionally, under similar grazing or confinement conditions, water buffalo had abundant fat cover distribution and back fat thickness than cattle. Consequently, their carcasses yielded greater percentages of trimmed fat, with a reduced proportion of total cuts. Based on the observed growth and carcass traits, water buffalo offers a promising alternative for meat production, a specialty under tropical grazing conditions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".