4.5 Article

A comparative evaluation of functions for the analysis of growth in male broilers

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
Volume 140, Issue -, Pages 451-459

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0021859603003149

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Data from six studies with male broilers fed diets covering a wide range of energy and protein were used in the current two analyses. In the first analysis, five models, specifically re-parameterized for analysing energy balance data, were evaluated for their ability to determine metabolizable energy intake at maintenance and efficiency of utilization of metabolizable energy intake for producing gain. In addition to the straight line, two types of functional form were used. They were forms describing (i) diminishing returns behaviour (monomolecular and rectangular hyperbola) and (ii) sigmoidal behaviour with a fixed point of inflection (Gompertz and logistic). These models determined metabolizable energy requirement for maintenance to be in the range 437-573 kJ/kg of body weight/day depending on the model. The values determined for average net energy requirement for body weight gain varied from 7(.)9 to 11(.)2 kJ/g of body weight. These values show good agreement with previous studies. In the second analysis, three types of function were assessed as candidates for describing the relationship between body weight and cumulative metabolizable energy intake. The functions used were: (a) monomolecular (diminishing returns behaviour), (b) Gompertz (smooth sigmoidal behaviour with a fixed point of inflection) and (c) Lopez, France and Richards (diminishing returns and sigmoidal behaviour with a variable point of inflection). The results of this analysis demonstrated that equations capable of mimicking the law of diminishing returns describe accurately the relationship between body weight and cumulative metabolizable energy intake in broilers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available