J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J. Anim Sci. 2008. 86:500-507. doi:10.2527/jas.2007-0536
© 2008 American Society of Animal Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
jas.2007-0536v1
86/2/500    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vedenov, D.
Right arrow Articles by Pesti, G. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vedenov, D.
Right arrow Articles by Pesti, G. M.

SPECIAL TOPICS

A comparison of methods of fitting several models to nutritional response data

D. Vedenov*,1 and G. M. Pesti{dagger},2

* Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, and {dagger} Department of Poultry Science, The University of Georgia, Athens 30602-2772

2 Corresponding author: gpesti{at}uga.edu

A variety of models have been proposed to fit nutritional input-output response data. The models are typically nonlinear; therefore, fitting the models usually requires sophisticated statistical software and training to use it. An alternative tool for fitting nutritional response models was developed by using widely available and easier-to-use Microsoft Excel software. The tool, implemented as an Excel workbook (NRM.xls), allows simultaneous fitting and side-by-side comparisons of several popular models. This study compared the results produced by the tool we developed and PROC NLIN of SAS. The models compared were the broken line (ascending linear and quadratic segments), saturation kinetics, 4-parameter logistics, sigmoidal, and exponential models. The NRM.xls workbook provided results nearly identical to those of PROC NLIN. Furthermore, the workbook successfully fit several models that failed to converge in PROC NLIN. Two data sets were used as examples to compare fits by the different models. The results suggest that no particular nonlinear model is necessarily best for all nutritional response data.

Key Words: nutritional requirement • mathematical modeling






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Society of Animal Science.