Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:27:26.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modelling the effects of thermal environment and dietary composition on pig performance: model logic and concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

I.J. Wellock ,
G.C. Emmans  and
I. Kyriazakis
I.J. Wellock*
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Health Department, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
G.C. Emmans
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Health Department, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
I. Kyriazakis
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Health Department, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
† Address for correspondence: Animal Nutrition and Health Department, Scottish Agricultural College, Bush Estate, Penicuik, EH26 0PH. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A deterministic, dynamic pig growth model is described that predicts the effects of genotype and the thermal and nutritional environments on food intake, growth and body composition of growing pigs. From the daily potential for protein gain, as determined by pig genotype and current state, the potential gains of the other chemical components, including ‘desired’ lipid gain, are calculated. Unconstrained voluntary food intake is predicted from the current protein and lipid contents of the pig, and the composition of the food, as that which is needed to permit potential growth to be achieved. The model allows compensatory lipid gain. The composition of the food is described in terms of its digestible energy content (DEC), ideal digestible crude protein content (IDCPC) and bulkiness. Both energy and protein can be limiting resources and the bulk of the food may constrain intake. The animal’s capacity for bulk is a function of its size. The thermal environment is described by the ambient temperature, wind speed, floor type and humidity and sets the maximum (HLmax) and minimum (HLmin) values possible for heat loss. A comparison with heat production (HP) determines whether the environment is hot (HP > HLmax), cold (HP < HLmin) or thermoneutral (HLmin < HP < HLmax). A constraint on intake operates in hot environments, while in cold environments, there is an extra thermal demand. If conditions are thermoneutral no further action is taken. Daily gains of each of the chemical components are calculated by partitioning energy intake between protein and lipid gains according only to the energy to protein ratio of the food. The model builds on the work of others in the literature as it allows predictions on how changes in: (i) the kind of pig; (ii) the animal’s current state, which is particularly relevant in cases of compensatory growth; (iii) the dietary composition, and; (iv) the climatic environment, affect food intake and growth, whilst maintaining simplicity and flexibility.

Keywords

food intakegrowthmathematical modelspigstemperature
Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 77 , Issue 2 , October 2003 , pp. 255 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agricultural Research Council. 1981. The nutrient requirement of pigs. Technical review by an agricultural research working party. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, UK.Google Scholar
Bikker, P. 1994. Protein and lipid accretion in body components of growing pigs. Ph. D. thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Birkett, S. and Lange, K.de. 2001a. A computational framework for a nutrient flow representation of energy utilization by growing monogastric animals. British Journal of Nutrition 86: 661–674.Google Scholar
Birkett, S. and Lange, K.de. 2001b. Calibration of a nutrient flow model of energy utilization by growing pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 86: 675–689.Google Scholar
Black, J. L., Bray, H. J. and Giles, L. R. 1999. The thermal and infectious environment. In A quantitative biology of the pig (ed. Kyriazakis, I.), pp. 71–97. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Black, J. L., Campbell, R. G., Williams, I. H., James, K. J. and Davies, G. T. 1986. Simulation of energy and amino acid utilisation in the pig. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 121–145.Google Scholar
Borland, ®. 1999. Delphi™ 5 for Windows 98, Windows 95, and Windows NT. Inprise Corporation, CA.Google Scholar
Bridges, T. C., Turner, L. W., Stahly, T. S., Usry, J. L. and Loewer, O. J. 1992a. Modelling the physiological growth of swine. I. Model logic and growth concepts. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 35: 1019–1028.Google Scholar
Bridges, T. C., Turner, L. W., Stahly, T. S., Usry, J. L. and Loewer, O. J. 1992b. Modelling the physiological growth of swine. II. Validation of model logic and growth concepts. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 35: 1029–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, J. M. and Clark, J. J. 1979. Models of heat production and critical temperature for growing pigs. Animal Production 28: 353–369.Google Scholar
Burnham, D., Emmans, G. C. and Gous, R. M. 1992. Isoleucine requirements of the chicken- the effects of excess leucine and valine on the response to isoleucine. British Journal of Poultry Science 33: 71–87.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1988. Growth, body composition and feed intake. World’s Poultry Science Journal 43: 208–227.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1994. Effective energy: a concept of energy utilization applied across species. British Journal of Nutrition 71: 801–821.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1997. A method to predict the feed intake of domestic animals form birth to maturity as a function of time. Journal of Theoretical Biology 186: 189–199.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. and Fisher, C. 1986. Problems of nutritional theory. In Nutritional requirements and nutritional theory (ed. Fisher, C. and Boorman, K. N.), pp. 9–57. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. and Kyriazakis, I. 1995. A general method for predicting the weight of water in the empty bodies of pigs. Animal Science 61: 103–108.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. and Kyriazakis, I. 1997. Models of pig growth: problems and proposed solutions. Livestock Production Science 51: 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmans, G. C. and Kyriazakis, I. 1999. Growth and body composition. In A quantitative biology of the pig (ed. Kyriazakis, I.), pp. 181–197. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. and Kyriazakis, I. 2001. Consequences of genetic change in farm animals on feed intake and feeding behaviour. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 60: 115–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, N. S. 1998. Nutrition 5 environmental interactions: predicting performance of young pigs. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C. and Wiseman, J.), pp. 169–187. Nottingham University Press, UK.Google Scholar
Ferguson, N. S., Arnold, G. A., Lavers, G. and Gous, R. M. 2000a. The response of growing pigs to amino acids as influenced by environmental temperature. 1. Threonine. Animal Science 70: 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, N. S., Arnold, G. A., Lavers, G. and Gous, R. M. 2000b. The response of growing pigs to amino acids as influenced by environmental temperature. 2. Lysine. Animal Science 70: 299–306.Google Scholar
Ferguson, N. S., Gous, R. M. and Emmans, G. G. 1994. Preferred components for the construction of a new simulation model of growth, feed intake and nutrient requirements of growing pigs. South African Journal of Animal Science 24: 10–17.Google Scholar
Greef, K. H.de. 1992. Prediction of production. Nutrition induced partitioning in growing pigs. Ph. D. thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Greef, K. H.de and Verstegen, M. W. A. 1995. Evaluation of a concept of energy partitioning in growing pigs. In Modelling growth in the pig (ed. Moughan, P.J., Verstegen, M. W. A. and Visser-Reyneveld, M. I.), EAAP publiction no. 78, pp. 137–150. Wageningen Pers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Grommers, F. J., Christison, G. I. and Curtis, S.E. 1970. Estimating animal-floor contact areas. Journal of Animal Science 30: 552–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, K. W., Curtis, S.E., Marzan, G. T., Karara, H. M. and Anderson, C. R. 1973. Body surface area of female swine. Journal of Animal Science 36: 927–930.Google Scholar
Knap, P. W. 1999. Simulation of growth in pigs: evaluation of a model to relate thermoregulation to body protein and lipid content and deposition. Animal Science 68: 655–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knap, P. W., Roehe, R., Kolstad, K., Pomar, C. and Luiting, P. 2002. Characterization of pig gentoypes. Journal of Animal Science 80: (suppl. 1) 174 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Kotarbinska, M. 1969. An investigation into the transformation of energy in growing pigs. Institut Zootechniki, Wydewinctiva Walsne, nr. 238, Wroclaw.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Dotas, D. and Emmans, G. C. 1994. The effect of breed on the relationship between food composition and the efficiency of protein utilisation in pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 71: 849–859.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1991. Diet selection in pigs: dietary choices made by growing pigs following a period of underfeeding with protein. Animal Production 52: 337–346.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1992a. The effects of varying protein and energy intakes on growth and body composition of pigs. 1. The effects of energy intake at constant, high protein intake. British Journal of Nutrition 68: 603–613.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1992b. The effects of varying protein and energy intakes on growth and body composition of pigs. 2. The effects of varying both energy and protein intake. British Journal of Nutrition 68: 615–625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1992c. The selection of a diet by growing pigs given choices between feeds differing in their contents of protein and rapeseed meal. Appetite 19: 121–132.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1992d. The growth of mammals following a period of nutritional limitation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 156: 485–498.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1995. The voluntary feed intake of pigs given feeds based on wheatbran, dried citrus pulp and grass meal in relation to measurements of feed bulk. British Journal of Nutrition 73: 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. and Anderson, D. H. 1995. Do breeds of pig differ in the efficiency with which they use a limiting protein supply. British Journal of Nutrition 74: 183–195.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. and Whittemore, C. T. 1991a. The ability of pigs to control their protein intake when fed in three different ways. Physiology and Behavior 50: 1197–1203.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Stamataris, C., Emmans, G. C. and Whittemore, C. T. 1991b. The effects of food protein content on the performance of pigs previously given foods with low or moderate protein contents. Animal Production 52: 165–173.Google Scholar
Milgen, J.van, Bernier, J. F., Lecozler, Y., Dubois, S. and Noblet, J. 1998. Major determinants of fasting heat production and energetic cost of activity in growing pigs of different body weight and breed/castration combinations. British Journal of Nutrition 79: 1–9.Google Scholar
Milgen, J.van, Quiniou, N. and Noblet, J. 2000. Modelling the relation between energy intake and protein and lipid deposition in growing pigs. Animal Science 71: 119–130.Google Scholar
Moughan, P. J. and Smith, W. C. 1984. Prediction of dietary protein quality based on a model of the digestion and metabolism of nitrogen in the growing pig. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 27: 501–507.Google Scholar
Moughan, P. J., Smith, W. C. and Pearson, G. 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.Google Scholar
Napolitano, G. E. and Ackman, R. G. 1992. Anatomical distributions and temporal variations of lipid classes in sea scallops Placopecten magellanicus (Gmelin) from Georges Bank (Nova-Scotia). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 103: 645–650.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1998. Nutrient requirements of swine, 10th edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C. 1983. A biological basis for the design of space in livestock housing. In Farm animal housing and welfare (ed. Baxter, S.H., Baxter, M.R. and MacCormack, J.A.C.), pp. 103–120. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Lancaster.Google Scholar
Pomar, C., Harris, D. L. and Minvielle, F. 1991. Computer simulation model of swine production systems. 1. Modelling the growth of young swine. Journal of Animal Science 69: 1468–1488.Google Scholar
Pomar, C., Knap, P. W., Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 2003. Modeling stochasticity: dealing with populations rather than individual pigs. Journal of Animal Science. In press.Google Scholar
Rivest, J., Jean dit Bailleul, P. and Pomar, C. 1996. Incorporation of a net energy system into a dynamic pig growth model. Journal of Animal Science 74: (suppl. 1) 196 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Schinckel, A. P. 1999. Describing the pig. In A quantitative biology of the pig (ed. Kyriazakis, I.), pp. 9–38. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Schinckel, A. P. and Lange, C. F. M.de. 1996. Characterization of growth parameters needed as inputs for pig growth models. Journal of Animal Science 74: 2012–2036.Google Scholar
Skiba, G., Fandrejewski, H., Raj, S. and Weremko, D. 2001. The performance and body composition of growing pigs during protein or energy deficiency and subsequent realimentation. Journal of Animal Feed Science 10: 633–637.Google Scholar
Stamataris, C., Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1991. The performance and body composition of young pigs following a period of growth retardation by food restriction. Animal Production 53: 373–381.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. 1986. Calculus. Belmont Inc., Wandsworth, UK.Google Scholar
Stombaugh, D. P. and Roller, W. L. 1977. Temperature regulation in young pigs during mild cold and severe heat stress. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 20: 1110–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Technisch Model Varkensvoeding Werkgroep. 1994. Informatiemodel TMV. Report P1. 117. Research Institute for Pig Husbandry, Rosmalen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Tsaras, L. N., Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1998. The prediction of the voluntary food intake of pigs on poor quality foods. Animal Science 66: 713–723.Google Scholar
Wang, T. C. and Fuller, M. F. 1989. The optimal dietary amino acid pattern for growing pigs. 1. Experiments by amino acid deletion. British Journal of Nutrition 62: 77–89.Google Scholar
Wellock, I. J., Emmans, G. C. and Kyriazakis, I. 2003. Modelling the effects of thermal environment and dietary composition on pig performance: model testing and evaluation. Animal Science 77: 267–276.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T. 1983. Development of recommended energy and protein allowances for growing pigs. Agricultural Systems 11: 159–186.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Whittemore, C. T., Green, D. M. and Knap, P. W. 2001b. Technical review of the energy and protein requirements of growing pigs: food intake. Animal Science 73: 3–17.Google Scholar
Whittemore, E. C., Emmans, G. C. and Kyriazakis, I. 2003. The relationship between live weight and the intake of bulky foods in pigs. Animal Science 76: 89–100.Google Scholar
Whittemore, E. C., Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. and Tolkamp, B. J. 2001a. Tests of two theories of food intake using growing pigs. 1. The effect of ambient temperature on the intake of foods of differing bulk content. Animal Science 72: 351–360.Google Scholar
Wilhelm, L. R. 1976. Numerical calculation of psychometric properties in SI units. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 19: 318–325.Google Scholar