Energy requirements of puppies of two different breeds for ideal growth from weaning to 28 weeks of age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To ensure an optimal growth is crucial in raising healthy dogs, especially in large and giant breeds. Dogs with a moderate growth velocity tend to have lesser problems with developmental orthopaedic diseases than those with forced or maximum weight gain. In this study, the energy needs of growing dogs from two different breeds (Beagles as a medium-size breed and Foxhound crossbreds as a large-size breed) to ensure a growth development as recommended by the National Research Council (NRC) were determined at the age of 6-28 weeks. After weaning at the age of 6 weeks, the food rations sufficient to meet the energy requirements of each individual puppy were adjusted every other day according to growth level, guaranteeing a development consistent with the recommended weight curve for the respective breed size. The food and therefore energy intake of the puppies was registered daily; it ranged from 0.72 to 2.34 times the maintenance requirements with little effect of age. During the whole period, however, there was a consistent breed difference: Foxhound-Boxer-Ingelheim Labrador crossbreds (FBIs) had higher energy intakes expressed as multiples of maintenance than Beagles, suggesting that during the major period of growth, the energy requirement is not a function of age. Adult Beagles and FBIs showed similar differences in energy requirements as already during growth as shown in this study. This indicates that breed differences in energy requirements have already to be taken into account during growth. On the other hand, the results showed clearly lower energy needs for growth in these two different breeds than recommended in the NRC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".