Energy requirements for growth in the Yorkshire terrier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The 2006 National Research Council (NRC) equation calculating puppy energy requirements does not account for reported breed differences in growth pattern. Energy requirements of toy breed puppies are unknown and it is unclear whether feeding guidelines should differ between breeds. Energy requirements of Yorkshire terrier (YT) puppies were observed over their first year of life and compared with those predicted by the NRC and those previously observed in large (Labrador retriever) and medium (miniature Schnauzer; MS) breed puppies. Twenty-two puppies (from eight litters) were offered complete and balanced diets to maintain ideal body condition score (BCS). Energy intake, body weight and BCS were recorded from 10 to 52 weeks of age. Every 12 weeks, health was monitored by veterinary examination, routine haematology and plasma biochemistry. Puppies remained clinically healthy with normal skeletal development throughout. After analysis by linear mixed models it was observed that the NRC equation overestimates YT energy requirements between 10 and 20 weeks of age by up to 324·3 (95 % CI 390·4, 258·2) kJ/kg0·75. Energy intake was lower (P < 0·05) in YT than Labradors until 29 weeks by up to 376·6 (95 % CI 477·4, 275·3) kJ/kg0·75 and lower than MS between 16 and 25 weeks by up to 216·3 (95 % CI 313·0, 119·7) kJ/kg0·75 (P < 0·05). Data indicate differences in toy, medium and large breed energy requirements for growth. The NRC equation for puppy energy requirements overestimated the requirements of this YT population, suggesting the need for breed-specific feeding guides for growth to avoid overfeeding.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".