Development of the mineralisation of individual bones and bone regions in replacement gilts according to dietary calcium and phosphorus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skeleton bones, distinguished by trabecular and cortical bone tissue content, exhibit varied growth and composition, in response to modified dietary calcium and phosphorus levels. The study investigated how gilts adapt their individual bone and bone region mineralisation kinetics in response to changing intake of Ca and P. A total of 24 gilts were fed according to a two-phase (Depletion (D) 60-95 and Repletion (R) 95-140 kg BW, respectively). During the D phase, gilts were fed either 60% (D60) or 100% (D100) of the estimated P requirement. Subsequently, during the R phase, half of the gilts from each D diet were fed either 100% (R100) or 160% (R160) of the estimated P requirement according to a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement. Bone mineral content (BMC) was assessed in the whole body, individual bones (femur and lumbar spine L2-L4), and bone regions (head, front legs, trunk, pelvis, femur, and hind legs) every 2 weeks using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). At 95 kg BW, gilts fed D60 showed reduced BMC and BMC/BW ratio in all studied sites compared to those fed D100 (P < 0.001). During the depletion phase, the allometric BW-dependent regressions slopes for BMC of D100 gilts remained close to 1 for all sites and did not differ from each other. In contrast, the slopes were lower in D60 gilts (P < 0.05), with an 18% reduction in the whole body, except for the front and hind legs, femur, and pelvis, which exhibited higher reductions (P < 0.05). At 140 kg BW, BMC and BMC/BW ratio of all studied sites were similar in gilts previously fed D60 and D100, but higher in R160 than in R100 gilts (P < 0.05), except for front and hind legs. During the repletion phase, the allometric BW dependent regressions slopes for BMC were lower (P < 0.05) in R100 than in R160 gilts (for whole body -10%; P < 0.01) except for front and hind legs, femur, and pelvis. In conclusion, bone demineralisation and recovery followed similar trends for all measured body sites. However, the lumbar spine region was most sensitive whereas the hind legs were least sensitive. These data suggest that using bone regions such as the head and forelegs that can be collected easily at the slaughterhouse may be a viable alternative to whole body DXA measurement.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".