Sentence examples for difference between the feeding from inspiring English sources
To calculate the exergy difference between the feeding and returning district heating water, the enthalpy and entropy differences of the flows or the transferred heat with the corresponding thermodynamic average temperature can be used.
Although the difference between the feeding rhythms of SHR exposed to RF and ad libitum feeding was subtle (i.e., 100% versus 80% food intake during the active period), this small alteration in feeding cycles was sufficient to affect the cardiovascular diurnal rhythm.
The difference between the feeding rate of 0.3 h−1 and the growth rate of 0.28 h−1 can be explained by the fact that glycerol was not only used for growth, but also for cell maintenance.
In fact, in another experiment we found no difference between the feeding propensity of large- and small-brained females (P = 0.176; Fig. 1; also note that the nonsignificant effect is in the opposite direction to that predicted by Healy & Rowe).
There was no difference between the feeding and non-feeding animals in blood glucose, GOT, GPT and alkaline phosphatase activity.
There were no differences between the feeding groups in these lifestyle characteristics.
There were no differences between the feeding groups with respect to education or access to protected water supplies.
In contrast, in females there were no differences between the feeding groups in any skeletal parameters before or after adjusting for confounding factors.
In males there were differences between the feeding groups, even before adjusting for confounding factors, in LS BMC (ANOVA; p = 0.026) and LS bone area (ANOVA; p = 0.003); the Short BF group showing the highest values.
Unfortunately we did not have earlier bone mass measurements for the subjects and it thus remains unknown when the differences between the feeding groups appeared and when they were most pronounced.
Significant differences between the feeding groups were observed in LS BMC, LS bone area, and WB BMD (MANCOVA; p = 0.013, p = 0.025, and p = 0.048, respectively) (Table 2, Figure 1).
