Similar(60)
In the standard rodent stock feed-fed reference group, estimated daily Si intake was 18.51 ± 0.65 mg/kg body weight.
Comparison of urinary concentrations indicated that Si uptake into the circulation was effective in the Si-supplemented group and comparable to that of the standard rodent stock feed-fed reference group (Fig. 1 B).
Despite increasing dietary Si intakes by 24-fold throughout the study, there was no incorporation into bone above that achieved in the baseline Si-deprived group (Fig. 1 C), and concentrations were five fold lower than those of the standard rodent stock feed-fed reference group.
Urine samples were successfully collected from eight rats in the Si-deprived group, five in the Si-supplemented group and seven in the standard rodent stock feed-fed reference group and were stored in Eppendorf tubes at − 70 °C until later analysis of Si concentrations and bone resorption markers.
Finally, when examining the values (means ± SD) for some measures of bone quality in the standard rodent stock feed-fed reference group, it was apparent that, without formal analyses, some would differ markedly from those of animals receiving the formulated diet (e.g., iPTH, bone formation rate, trabecular separation and BMD).
In the restricted-fed treatments growth of fish fed the reference diet was highest, but not significantly better than lupin-H.
Dogs fed the reference and the SPI diets presented harder faeces and higher faecal pH (P<0.001).
Intestinal gas production was evaluated by radiography of 16 dogs fed the reference diet and diets containing 300 g SBM, SPC700, or SPI/kg.
Feed efficiency and protein efficiency ratio did not differ among the treatments (Table 2), indicating that the fish fed the reference diet consumed the most feed.
There were no differences (p > 0.05) in FI, PER, FCR, PI between fish fed the reference diet and the diets with shrimp head meal, golden apple snail meal, groundnut cake, cassava leaf meal, sweet potato leaf meal and soybean meal (Table 4).
The control group continued to be fed the reference diet 5001.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com