Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the latest edition of NRC (2007) the feeding recommendations for Ca and P to growing \nhorses were increased with 35 and 25 %, respectively, based on results from a Canadian study \nshowing that daily endogenous fecal losses of Ca and P were greater than previously \nsuggested. A Ca absorption efficiency of 50 % is used for all horses. However, the true \nabsorption efficiency might be as high as 70 % in young horses. P absorption efficiency is \nassumed to be higher for growing horses because their diets are often supplemented with \ninorganic P. Thus, an efficiency of 45 % is used for growing horses as compared to 35 % for \nmature horses. The aim of this study was to measure the digestibility of Ca and P in some \nSwedish feedstuff in growing horses. An additional aim was to analyze the proportion of \nsoluble P in horse feces. \nFour yearling Standardbred horses from Västerbo Stuteri were used in a cross-over design \nwith two different diets. One diet consisted of roughage alone and one of roughage and oats. \nThe trial started with a ten day adaptation period. Thereafter a collection period of six days \nfollowed when feces were collected 10 hours per day and total feed intake was registered. \nFeed and feces samples were analyzed for Ca and P to calculate digestibility and soluble P. \nThe average apparent Ca and P digestibility did not differ between diets and were 63 ± 4 % \nand 23 ± 7 %, respectively, on the roughage-only diet and 49 ± 4 % and 21 ± 7 %, \nrespectively, on the roughage and oats diet. Using regression analyses, daily endogenous fecal \nCa and P were predicted to be 23 and 9 mg/kg body weight, respectively. The results from this \nstudy cannot confirm that the increase in Ca- and P-recommendations to growing horses \n(NRC, 2007) is justified but agrees with the results on which the previous NRC \nrecommendations were based. The study also indicates that most of the P (92-93 %) in horse \nfeces is soluble which mean that it should be gently handled to avoid environmental damage. \nIt also implies that horse feces are a good P fertilizer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.028 |
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".