Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T20:24:56.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of growth curves of two genotypes of dairy goats using nonlinear mixed models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2013

J. G. L. REGADAS FILHO ,
L. O. TEDESCHI ,
M. T. RODRIGUES ,
L. F. BRITO  and
T. S. OLIVEIRA
J. G. L. REGADAS FILHO*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, MG, Brazil
L. O. TEDESCHI
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2471, USA
M. T. RODRIGUES
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, MG, Brazil
L. F. BRITO
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, MG, Brazil
T. S. OLIVEIRA
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, MG, Brazil
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: gilsonagro@yahoo.com.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The objective of the current study was to assess the use of nonlinear mixed model methodology to fit the growth curves (weight v. time) of two dairy goat genotypes (Alpine, +A and Saanen, +S). The nonlinear functions evaluated included Brody, Von Bertalanffy, Richards, Logistic and Gompertz. The growth curve adjustment was performed using two steps. First, random effects u1, u2 and u3 were linked to the asymptotic body weight (β1), constant of integration (β2) and rate constant of growth (β3) parameters, respectively. In addition to a traditional fixed-effects model, four combinations of models were evaluated using random variables: all parameters associated with random effects (u1, u2 and u3), only β1 and β2 (u1 and u2), only β1 and β3 (u1 and u3) and only β1 (u1). Second, the fit of the best adjusted model was refined by using the power variance and modelling the error structure. Residual variance ($\sigma _e^2 $) and the Akaike information criterion were used to evaluate the models. After the best fitting model was chosen, the genotype curve parameters were compared. The residual variance was reduced in all scenarios for which random effects were considered. The Richards (u1 and u3) function had the best fit to the data. This model was reparameterized using two isotropic error structures for unequally spaced data, and the structure known in the literature as SP(MATERN) proved to be a better fit. The growth curve parameters differed between the two genotypes, with the exception of the constant that determines the proportion of the final size at which the inflection point occurs (β4). The nonlinear mixed model methodology is an efficient tool for evaluating growth curve features, and it is advisable to assign biologically significant parameters with random effects. Moreover, evaluating error structure modelling is recommended to account for possible correlated errors that may be present even when using random effects. Different Richard growth curve parameters should be used for the predominantly Alpine and Saanen genotypes because there are differences in their growth patterns.

Type
Modelling Animal Systems Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 152 , Issue 5 , October 2014 , pp. 829 - 842
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Aggrey, S. E. (2009). Logistic nonlinear mixed effects model for estimating growth parameters. Poultry Science 88, 276–280.Google Scholar
Beal, S. L. & Sheiner, L. B. (1982). Estimating population kinetics. CRC Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering 8, 195–222.Google Scholar
Brown, J. E., Fitzhugh, H. A. Jr & Cartwright, T. C. (1976). A comparison of nonlinear models for describing weight-age relationships in cattle. Journal of Animal Science 42, 810–818.Google Scholar
Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Craig, B. A. & Schinckel, A. P. (2001). Nonlinear mixed effects models for swine growth. Professional Animal Scientist 17, 256–260.Google Scholar
Forni, S., Piles, M., Blasco, A., Varona, L., Oliveira, H. N., Lobo, R. B. & Albuquerque, L. G. (2009). Comparison of different nonlinear functions to describe Nelore cattle growth. Journal of Animal Science 87, 496–506.Google Scholar
Guimarães, V. P., Rodrigues, M. T., Sarmento, J. L. R. & Rocha, D. T. D. (2006). Utilização de funções matemáticas no estudo da curva de lactação em caprinos. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 35, 535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., Wolfinger, R. D. & Schabenberger, O. (2006). SAS for Mixed Models, 2nd edn. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Meng, S. X. & Huang, S. (2010). Incorporating correlated error structures into mixed forest growth models: prediction and inference implications. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40, 977–990.Google Scholar
Minasny, B. & McBratney, A. B. (2007). Spatial prediction of soil properties using EBLUP with the Matérn covariance function. Geoderma 140, 324–336.Google Scholar
Peek, M., Russek-Cohen, E., Wait, D. A. & Forseth, I. N. (2002). Physiological response curve analysis using nonlinear mixed models. Oecologia 132, 175–180.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J. C. & Bates, D. M. (1995). Approximations to the log-likelihood function in the nonlinear mixed-effects model. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 4, 12–35.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J. C. & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-Plus. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Pomar, C., Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. & Knap, P. W. (2003). Modeling stochasticity: Dealing with populations rather than individual pigs. Journal of Animal Science 81 (Suppl. 2), E178–E186.Google Scholar
Richards, F. J. (1959). A flexible growth function for empirical use. Journal of Experimental Botany 10, 290–301.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc (2008). SAS/STAT(r) 9.2 User's Guide. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Strathe, A. B., Danfaer, A., Sorensen, H. & Kebreab, E. (2010). A multilevel nonlinear mixed-effects approach to model growth in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 88, 638–649.Google Scholar
Tedeschi, L. O. (2006). Assessment of the adequacy of mathematical models. Agricultural Systems 89, 225–247.Google Scholar
Tedeschi, L. O., Cannas, A. & Fox, D. G. (2010). A nutrition mathematical model to account for dietary supply and requirements of energy and other nutrients for domesticated small ruminants: The development and evaluation of the Small Ruminant Nutrition System. Small Ruminant Research 89, 174–184.Google Scholar
Vieira, R. A. M., Campos, P. R. D. S. S., da Silva, J. F. C., Tedeschi, L. O. & Tamy, W. P. (2012). Heterogeneity of the digestible insoluble fiber of selected forages in situ. Animal Feed Science and Technology 171, 154–166.Google Scholar
Vonesh, E. F. (2012). Generalized Linear and Nonlinear Models for Correlated Data: Theory and Applications Using SAS. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Wang, Z. & Zuidhof, M. (2004). Estimation of growth parameters using a nonlinear mixed Gompertz model. Poultry Science 83, 847–852.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. & Huang, S. (2011). Comparison of different methods for fitting nonlinear mixed forest models and for making predictions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41, 1671–1686.Google Scholar