MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Growth models and their application in precision feeding of monogastric farm animals

2020· article· en· W3098850598 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Veronika Halas

Bibliographic record

VenueActa fytotechnica et zootechnica/Acta fytotechnica et zootechnica · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivestockProduction (economics)Animal productionComputer sciencePrecision agriculturePopulationAgricultureRisk analysis (engineering)BiotechnologyBusinessBiologyEcologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Submitted 2020-07-20 | Accepted 2020-08-31 | Available 2020-12-01 https://doi.org/10.15414/afz.2020.23.mi-fpap.258-264 The dichotomy between developed and developing countries was observed not only in asymmetric human population growth, but also in increasing demand for animal products revolving around poultry and pigs in developing World. Modern livestock industry has adopted innovative technologies to improve the biological efficiency of animal production and feeding, and for this purpose different mathematical models have been applied. In this review, the authors summarize the growth models, briefly introduce the principles of precision feeding and provide evidence that models are key elements of these systems. Modelling is an excellent tool to help in understanding and to predict the animal’s response to different farm conditions. Models comprise of equations set describing nutrient flows and animal response. They are essential elements of precision livestock farming system being the basis of the decision support tool since, from yesterday’s data, they provide today what happens tomorrow. Precision farming adopts real-time monitoring systems collecting serial data about individual or group of animals. However, without a well-defined goal-oriented data process, data by itself are not useful to farmers. Available and newly recorded data can be converted to valuable information for management purposes through models applied in farming systems. Nutritional models are integrated part of those systems; therefore, growth modelling is a key tool to improve the efficiency and sustainability of livestock production systems. Keywords: precision feeding, mathematical models, pig, broiler, production efficiency References Baldwin, R. L. and Gill, M. (1987). Metabolism of the lactating cow: I. Animal elements of a mechanistic model. Journal of Dairy Research, 54, 77-105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002202990002522X Banhazi, T. M. et al. (2012). Precision Livestock Farming: Precision feeding technologies and sustainable livestock production. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 5(4), 54-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.3965/j.ijabe.20120504.006 Berckmans, D. (2015). Precision livestock farming technologies for welfare management in intensive livestock systems. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics), 33(1),189-196. Retrieved August 15, 2020 from https://tice.agrocampus-ouest.fr/pluginfile.php/55014/mod_resource/content/17/res/u324_Berckmans_RevSciTechOffIntEpiz.PDF Berger, Q. et al. (2019). Using high throughput phenotyping of growth and feed intake to improve adaptation of chickens to sustainable diets. 11th European Symposium on Poultry Genetics, 23–25 October 2019, Prague, Czech Republic. Retrieved August 15, 2020 from https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02737886 Black, J. L. (2014). Brief history and future of animal simulation models for science and application. Animal Production Science, 54, 1883-1895. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AN14650 Black, J. L. et al. (1986). Simulation of energy and amino acid utilisation in the pig. Research and Development in Agriculture, 3, 121-145. Retrieved August 15, 2020 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273524971_Simulation_of_energy_and_amino_acid_utilisation_in_pigs. Coles, L. T. et al. (2013). A model to predict the ATP equivalents of macronutrients absorbed from food. Food & Function, 4, 432-442. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2FO30239J de Lange, C. F. M. and Schreurs, H. (1995). Principles of model applications. In P. J. Moughan, M. W. A. Verstegen and M. I. Visser-Reyneveld (Eds.), Modelling growth in the pig. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, (pp. 187-208). de Lange, C. F. M. et al. (2001). Application of pig growth models in commercial pork production. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 81, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.4141/A00-006 Dukhta, G. et al. (2019). Use of a dynamic mechanistic broiler model to reduce environmental footprint. 26th International Conference KRMIVA 2019, 5-7 June 2019, Opatija, Croatia. Retrieved August 15, 2020 from https://www.feed-a-gene.eu/sites/default/files/documents/dukhta_2019_KRMIVA_broiler_model_powerpoint.pdf Dumas, A. et al. (2008). Mathematical modelling in animal nutrition: a centenary review. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 146(2), 123-142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859608007703 Dusart, L. and Meda, B. (2017). Responsable alimentation des volailles et durabilité des systemes. In L’Alimentation de Precision en Poulet de Chair. 12èmes JRA-JRFG, France, Tours, April 2017. Emmans, G. C. (1981). A model of the growth and feed intake of ad libitum fed animals, particularly poultry. In: Hillyer, G.M. et al. (Eds) Computers in Animal Production. Thames Ditton, UK: Occasional Publication No 5., British Society of Animal Production, pp. 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263967X00003761 Emmans, G. C. and Fisher, C. (1986). Problems in nutritional theory. In Fisher, C. and Boorman, K.N. (Eds.) Nutrient Requirements of Poultry and Nutritional Research. Oxford, UK: Butterworths, 9-39. Emmans, G. C. (1989). The growth of turkeys. Recent advances in turkey science. France, J. et al. (1987). A model of nutrient utilization and body composition in beef cattle. Animal Production, 44, 371-385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100012307 France, J. and Thornley, J. H. (2007). Mathematical models in agriculture: quantitative methods for the plant, animal and ecological sciences. Wallingford, UK: CABI. Gerrits, W. J. J. et al. (1997). Description of a model integrating protein and energy metabolism in preruminant calves. Journal of Nutrition, 127, 1229-1242. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/127.6.1229 Gill, M. et al. (1984). Simulation of the metabolism of absorbed energy-yielding nutrients in young sheep. British Journal of Nutrition, 52, 621-649. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/117.1.105 Halas, V. et al. (2004). Modelling of nutrient partitioning in growing pigs to predict their anatomical body composition. 1. Model description. British Journal of Nutrition, 92: 707-723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/BJN20041237 Halas, V. et al. (2017). Preliminary model to predict P-requirement of growing pigs. In EAAP, scientific committee (Ed) Book of Abstracts of the 68th Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science, Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, (pp. 320-320). https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-859-9 Halas, V. et al. (2018). Models of feed utilization and growth for monogastric animals. In: P. J. Moughan et al. (Eds.) Feed Evaluation Science, Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, (pp. 423-456). Hauschild, L. et al. (2010). Systematic comparison of the empirical and factorial methods used to estimate the nutrient requirements of growing pigs. Animal, 4(5), 714–723. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109991546 Johnston, S. A. and Gous, R. (2006). Modelling egg production in laying hens. In Johnston S.A. et al. (Eds.) Mechanistic Modelling in Pig and Poultry Production, Wallingford, UK: CAB International, (pp. 229-259). Kebreab, E. et al. (2009). Development and evaluation of a dynamic model of calcium and phosphorus flows in layers. Poultry Science, 88(3), 680-689. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00157 NRC. (2012). Nutrient Requirements of Swine. Eleventh Revised Edition. National Academic Press, Washington, D.C. 20418 USA. Meda, B. et al. (2015). INAVI: a practical tool to study the influence of nutritional and environmental factors on broiler performance. In Sakomura, N. K. et al. (Eds.), Nutritional Modelling for Pigs and Poultry, Raleigh, NC, USA: CAB International, (pp. 106-124). https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780644110.0106 Morris, T. R. (2006). An introduction to modelling in the animal sciences. Mechanistic Modelling in Pig and Poultry Production, 1-5. Moughan, P. J. et al. (1987). Description and validation of a model simulating growth in the pig (20-90 kg liveweight). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 30, 481-489. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1987.10417960 Lizardo, R. et al. (2002). A nutritional model of fatty acid composition in the growing-finishing pig. Livestock Production Science, 75, 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(01)00312-8 OECD-FAO. (2017). "Meat", in OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2017-2026, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2017-10-en. Oviedo-Rondón, E. O. (2015). Model Applications in Poultry Production and Nutrition. In Sakomura, N. K. et al. (Eds.), Nutritional Modelling for Pigs and Poultry, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA, CAB International, (pp. 125-140). https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780644110.0125 Pomar, C. et al. (2009). Applying precision feeding techniques in growing-finishing pig operations. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 38, 226-237. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982009001300023 Pomar, C. et al. (2011). Precision feeding can significantly reduce feeding cost and nutrient excretion in growing animals. In D. Sauvant, J. Van Milgen, P. Faverdin and N. Friggens (Eds.), Modelling Nutrient Digestion and Utilisation in Farm Animals. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands. Pomar, C. and Remus, A. (2019). Precision pig feeding: a breakthrough toward sustainability. Animal Frontiers, 9(2), 52-59. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfz006 Pomar, C. et al. (2019). 18: Precision livestock feeding, principle and practice. In W. H. Hendriks, M. W. A. Verstegen and L. Babinszky (Eds.), Poultry and pig nutrition: Challenges of the 21st century. Wageningen Academic Publishers, (pp. 89-95). https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-884-1_18 Sauvant, D. (1994). Modelling homeostatic and homeorhetic regulations in lactating animals. Livestock Production Science, 39(1), 105-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(94)90162-7 Sifri, M. 1997. Precision Nutrition for Poultry. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 6(4), 461. https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/6.4.461 Schulz, A. R. (1978). Simulation of energy metabolism in the simple-stomached animal. British Journal of Nutrition, 39, 235-254. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19780034 van Milgen, J. (2002). Modeling biochemical aspects of energy metabolism in mammals. Journal of Nutrition, 132, 3195-3202. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/131.10.3195 van Milgen, J. et al. (2008). InraPorc: A model and decision support tool for the nutrition of growing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 143, 387-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.05.020 Whittemore, C. T. (1987). Simulation modelling: the prediction of growth response to nutrient supply. In: C. T. Whittemore (Ed.), Elements of Pig Science. Harlow, England, UK: Longmann Scientific & Technical, pp. 140-175. Whittemore, C. T. and Fawcett, R. H. (1974). Model responses of the growing pig to the dietary intake of energy and protein. Animal Production, 19, 221-231. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100022789 Whittemore, C. T. and Fawcett, R. H. (1976). Theoretical aspects of a flexible model to simulate protein and lipid growth in pigs. Animal Production, 22, 87-96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100035455 Zuidhof, M. J. et al. (2018). Precision feeding of broiler breeders. Zootechnika International. Retrieved July 15, 2020 from https://zootecnicainternational.com/featured/precision-feeding-broiler-breeders/ Zuidhof, M. J. (2020). Precision livestock feeding: matching nutrient supply with nutrient requirements of individual animals. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 29(1), 11-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japr.2019.12.009

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa fytotechnica et zootechnica/Acta fytotechnica et zootechnicaSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207