The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of forage vs grain feeding on carcass characteristics, fatty acid composition, and beef quality in Limousin-cross steers when time on feed is controlled.
Abstract
Limousin-cross steers (n=135; 258+/-26 kg) were used to compare forage vs grain feeding on carcass composition and palatability attributes of beef when time on feed was controlled. Diets included a 95% alfalfa silage ration (AS) or a 68% high-moisture corn, 25% alfalfa silage ration (HMC). These were incorporated into six treatments to allow comparisons of end points based on similar days on feed or backfat finish. Dietary treatments included 1) HMC (4 mm), or cattle allowed ad libitum intake of HMC until slaughter at 4 mm ultrasound backfat; 2) AS (HMC-4), or cattle allowed ad libitum intake of AS until slaughter, regardless of finish, when HMC (4 mm) cattle were slaughtered; 3) AS (4 mm), or cattle allowed ad libitum intake of AS until slaughter at 4 mm backfat; 4) HMC (AS-4), or cattle allowed ad libitum intake of HMC until slaughter, regardless of finish, when AS (4 mm) cattle achieved 4 mm backfat; 5) HMC (RES), or cattle fed HMC at restricted intakes until slaughter at 4 mm backfat with feed offered at 75% of intake achieved by HMC (4 mm) and HMC (AS-4) cattle; and 6) AS (8 mm) or cattle allowed ad libitum intake of AS ration until slaughter at 8 mm backfat. Grain feeding generally increased (P < .01) ADG, carcass weight, grade fat, and intramuscular fat content when compared with forage feeding at similar times on feed. Palatability attributes of ribeye roasts and ground beef were generally unaffected (P > .10) by diet with the exception of slightly less beef flavor and more off-flavor in forage-fed vs grain-fed beef. Higher (P < .01) concentrations of linolenic acid and lower (P < .10) concentrations of oleic acid in forage-fed beef may be partially responsible for diet differences in flavor.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A RAPID METHOD OF TOTAL LIPID EXTRACTION AND PURIFICATION
Bligh, E. G., & Dyer, W. J. (1959) · Canadian Journal of Biochemistry and Physiology · doi:10.1139/o59-099 · Cited by 54,751
Cited by
Fetal programming of skeletal muscle development in ruminant animals1
Du, M., Tong, J., Zhao, J., Underwood, K. R., Zhu, M., Ford, S. P., & Nathanielsz, P. W. (2010) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/jas.2009-2311 · Cited by 553
Fatty acid composition of goat muscles and fat depots: a review
Banskalieva, V., Sahlu, T., & Goetsch, A. L. (2000) · Small Ruminant Research · doi:10.1016/s0921-4488(00)00128-0 · Cited by 373
Dashdorj, D., Amna, T., & Hwang, I. (2015) · European Food Research and Technology · doi:10.1007/s00217-015-2449-3 · Cited by 351
Potential of Forages to Diversify Cropping Systems in the Northern Great Plains
Entz, M. H., Baron, V. S., Carr, P. M., Meyer, D. W., Smith, S. R., & McCaughey, W. P. (2002) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.2134/agronj2002.0240 · Cited by 257
Metadata
- Authors
- Mandell, I. B., Buchanan-Smith, J. G., & Campbell, C. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Science
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1998
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2619
- ISSN
- 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1601580823
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of forage vs grain feeding on carcass characteristics, fatty acid composition, and beef quality in Limousin-cross steers when time on feed is controlled. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2527/1998.76102619x
- The paper
- Mandell, I. B., Buchanan-Smith, J. G., & Campbell, C. P. (1998). Effects of forage vs grain feeding on carcass characteristics, fatty acid composition, and beef quality in Limousin-cross steers when time on feed is controlled. Journal of Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.76102619x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.