Table 1.

Overview of the datasets with the differences in the sexes and carcass and dietary protein contents

Study	Sex			Sires	Dams	Carcass protein determination	T1	T2	Dietary raw protein (digestible lysine content (g/kg))a
	Castrated male	Female	Entire male						Grower (20–60 kg BW)	Finisher I (60–100 kg BW)	Finisher II (100–140 kg BW)
Kasper et al. [7]b, [28]	92	92	110	17	56	Chemical analysis	Control	Control A	163 (9.72)	140 (7.80)	124 (7.15)
							RPGF	Treatment A	134 (7.88)	115 (6.36)	101 (5.76)
Bee et al.[26]c	24	24	–	3	9	DXA	T95	Control B	184 (11.04)	158 (8.49)	–
							T100	Control B	185 (10.96)	156 (8.71)	–
							T100-CF	Control C	185 (10.45)	156 (8.24)	–
Bee et al. [27]	24	24	–	4	9	DXA	Control	Control A	164 (10.07)	152 (8.13)	–
							RPF	Treatment B	164 (10.07)	121 (6.56)	–
							RPGF	Treatment A	132 (8.13)	121 (6.56)	–
Present study	329	352	–	39	79	DXA	RPGF	Treatment A	128 (7.80)	112 (6.06)	–
Total	469	492	110

T1: name of the treatment group in the original study; RPGF: reduced protein diet in the grower and finisher stages; RPF: reduced protein diet in the finisher stage; T95: 95% of the feed ingredients were of organic origin; T100: 100% of the feed ingredients were of organic origin; T100-CF: 100% of the feed ingredients were of organic origin with 6% higher crude fiber content

T2: assigned name of treatment group in this study based on the quantity of dietary crude protein and crude fiber

^aEnergy content was the same (13.4 MJ) for both the grower and finisher diets and for all experimental treatments

^bRP content in the study of Kasper et al. [7] was averaged over four series

^cFor the study of Bee et al. [26], all treatment groups had approximately the same quantity of crude protein, but T100-CF had a higher crude fiber content, hence, the different treatment group (Control C) assigned to T100-CF