Prediction of intake and average daily gain by different feeding systems for goats

• Autor(a) principal: Molina de Almeida Teixeira, Izabelle Auxiliadora [UNESP]
• Data de Publicação: 2011
• Outros Autores: St-Pierre, Normand, Resende, Kleber Tomás de [UNESP], Cannas, Antonello
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
• DOI: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2011.03.024
• Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2011.03.024; http://hdl.handle.net/11449/4955
• topic: average daily gain; dry matter intake; Goat kids; Nutrition models; nutritional requirements

A main purpose of a mathematical nutrition model (a.k.a., feeding systems) is to provide a mathematical approach for determining the amount and composition of the diet necessary for a certain level of animal productive performance. Therefore, feeding systems should be able to predict voluntary feed intake and to partition nutrients into different productive functions and performances. In the last decades, several feeding systems for goats have been developed. The objective of this paper is to compare and evaluate the main goat feeding systems (AFRC, CSIRO, NRC, and SRNS), using data of individual growing goat kids from seven studies conducted in Brazil. The feeding systems were evaluated by regressing the residuals (observed minus predicted) on the predicted values centered on their means. The comparisons showed that these systems differ in their approach for estimating dry matter intake (DMI) and energy requirements for growing goats. The AFRC system was the most accurate for predicting DMI (mean bias = 91 g/d, P < 0.001; linear bias 0.874). The average ADG accounted for a large part of the bias in the prediction of DMI by CSIRO, NRC, and, mainly, AFRC systems. The CSIRO model gave the most accurate predictions of ADG when observed DMI was used as input in the models (mean bias 12 g/d, P < 0.001; linear bias -0.229). while the AFRC was the most accurate when predicted DMI was used (mean bias 8g/d. P > 0.1; linear bias -0.347). (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.