1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences
  4. Volume 8, 2020
  5. Article

Annual Review of Animal Biosciences

Volume 8, 2020

Use of Mechanistic Nutrition Models to Identify Sustainable Food Animal Production

Abstract

To feed people in the coming decades, an increase in sustainable animal food production is required. The efficiency of the global food production system is dependent on the knowledge and improvement of its submodels, such as food animal production. Scientists use statistical models to interpret their data, but models are also used to understand systems and to integrate their components. However, empirical models cannot explain systems. Mechanistic models yield insight into the mechanism and provide guidance regarding the exploration of the system. This review offers an overview of models, from simple empirical to more mechanistic models. We demonstrate their applications to amino acid transport, mass balance, whole-tissue metabolism, digestion and absorption, growth curves, lactation, and nutrient excretion. These mechanistic models need to be integrated into a full model using big data from sensors, which represents a new challenge. Soon, training in quantitative and computer science skills will be required to develop, test, and maintain advanced food system models.

Keyword(s): food production, integrated nutrition systems, mechanistic modeling, model application
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-animal-021419-083913
2020-02-15
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/animal/8/1/annurev-animal-021419-083913.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-animal-021419-083913&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Hartung J. 2013. A short history of livestock production. Livestock Housing: Modern Management to Ensure Optimal Health and Welfare of Farm Animals A Aland, T Banhazi 21–34 Wageningen, Neth.: Wageningen Acad. Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Vasey D. 1992. An Ecological History of Agriculture: 10,000 B.C.–A.D. 10,000 West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Univ. Press
  3. 3. 
    Godfray HCJ, Garnett T. 2014. Food security and sustainable intensification. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 369:1–10
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Ford ND, Patel SA, Narayan KMV 2017. Obesity in low- and middle-income countries: burden, drivers, and emerging challenges. Annu. Rev. Public Health 38:145–64
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Ayana G, Hailu T, Kuche D, Abera A, Eshetu S et al. 2017. Linkages between health and agriculture sectors in Ethiopia: a formative research study exploring barriers, facilitators and opportunities for local level coordination to deliver nutritional programmes and services. BMC Nutr 3:69
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Elmadfa I, Meyer AL. 2017. Animal proteins as important contributors to a healthy human diet. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 5:111–31
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Finley JW, Marshall E, Dimick D, Nelson GC, Mein JR, Gustafson DI 2017. Nutritional sustainability: aligning priorities in nutrition and public health with agricultural production. Adv. Nutr. 8:780–88
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Food Agric. Organ 2019. FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Rome, Italy: Food Agric. Organ.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Food Agric. Organ 2016. Trees, Forests and Land Use in Drylands: The First Global Assessment Rome: Food Agric. Organ.
  10. 10. 
    Walpole SC, Prieto-Merino D, Edwards P, Cleland J, Stevens G, Roberts I 2012. The weight of nations: an estimation of adult human biomass. BMC Public Health 12:439
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Niemann H, Kuhla B, Flachowsky G 2011. Perspectives for feed-efficient animal production. J. Anim. Sci. 89:4344–63
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Chung TK, Baker DH. 1992. Ideal amino acid pattern for 10-kilogram pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 70:3102–11
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Wessels RH, Titgemeyer EC. 1997. Protein requirements of growing steers limit-fed corn-based diets. J. Anim. Sci. 75:3278–86
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Dougherty HC, Kebreab E, Evered M, Little BA, Ingham AB et al. 2017. The AusBeef model for beef production: I. Description and evaluation. J. Agric. Sci. 155:1442–58
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Black JL. 2014. Brief history and future of animal simulation models for science and application. Anim. Prod. Sci. 54:1883–95
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Natl. Acad. Sci 2019. Animal agriculture. Science Breakthroughs to Advance Food and Agricultural Research by 2030 157–82 Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Inst. Med., Natl. Res. Counc 2015. A Framework for Assessing Effects of the Food System Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  18. 18. 
    Shannon KL, Kim BF, McKenzie SE, Lawrence RS 2015. Food system policy, public health, and human rights in the United States. Annu. Rev. Public Health 36:151–73
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Natl. Res. Counc 2012. Assessing the Reliability of Complex Models: Mathematical and Statistical Foundations of Verification, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press144
  20. 20. 
    Cirera X, Masset E. 2010. Income distribution trends and future food demand. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365:2821–34
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    France J, Thornley JH. 1984. Mathematical Models in Agriculture London: Butterworths
  22. 22. 
    Dumas A, Dijkstra J, France J 2008. Mathematical modelling in animal nutrition: a centenary review. J. Agric. Sci. 146:123–42
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    France J, Dijkstra J, Dhanoa M 1996. Growth functions and their application in animal science. Ann. Zootech. 45:165–74
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Atwater WO, Bryant AP. 1900. The availability and fuel value of food materials. Agriculture Experiment Station 12th Annual Report73–110 Washington, DC: US Gov. Print. Off.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Natl. Res. Counc 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press , 7th rev. ed..
  26. 26. 
    Natl. Res. Counc 2012. Nutrient Requirements of Swine Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press, 11th rev. ed..
  27. 27. 
    Natl. Res. Counc 2016. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press, 8th rev. ed..
  28. 28. 
    Smith NE. 1970. Quantitative simulation analyses of ruminant metabolic functions: basal; lactation; milk fat depression PhD thesis Univ. Calif Davis:353
  29. 29. 
    Smith NE, Baldwin RL. 1974. Effects of breed, pregnancy, and lactation on weight of organs and tissues in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 57:1055–60
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Koong LJ, Baldwin RL, Ulyatt MJ, Charlesworth TJ 1975. Iterative computation of metabolic flux and stoichiometric parameters for alternate pathways in rumen fermentation. Comput. Programs Biomed. 4:209–13
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Reichl JR, Baldwin RL. 1975. A rumen linear programming model for evaluation of concepts of rumen microbial function. J. Dairy Sci. 59:439–54
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Reichl JR, Baldwin RL. 1975. Rumen modeling: rumen input-output balance models. J. Dairy Sci. 58:879–90
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Smith NE, Ely L, Baldwin RL, Dolkas C, Koong LJ et al. 1975. Models of energy metabolism of intact animals: data tabulations, representation of basal metabolic activities and endocrine effects upon metabolism. Comput. Biol. Med. 5:315–23
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Baldwin RL, Yang YT, Crist K, Grichting G 1976. Theoretical model of ruminant adipose tissue metabolism in relation to the whole animal. Fed. Proc. 35:2314–18
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Baldwin RL, Koong LJ. 1977. Dynamic model of ruminant digestion for evaluation of factors affecting nutritive value. Agric. Syst. 2:255–88
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Murphy MR, Baldwin RL, Koong LJ 1982. Estimation of stoichiometric parameters for rumen fermentation of roughage and concentrate diets. J. Anim. Sci. 55:411–21
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Murphy MR, Baldwin RL, Ulyatt MJ, Koong LJ 1983. A quantitative analysis of rumination patterns. J. Anim. Sci. 56:1236–40
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Waghorn GC, Baldwin RL. 1984. Model of metabolite flux within mammary gland of the lactating cow. J. Dairy Sci. 67:531–44
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Oltjen JW, Bywater AC, Baldwin RL, Garrett WN 1986. Development of a dynamic model of beef cattle growth and composition. J. Anim. Sci. 62:86–97
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Baldwin RL, France J, Beever DE, Gill M, Thornley JH 1987. Metabolism of the lactating cow. III. Properties of mechanistic models suitable for evaluation of energetic relationships and factors involved in the partition of nutrients. J. Dairy Res. 54:133–45
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Baldwin RL, France J, Gill M 1987. Metabolism of the lactating cow. I. Animal elements of a mechanistic model. J. Dairy Res. 54:77–105
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Baldwin RL, Thornley JH, Beever DE 1987. Metabolism of the lactating cow. II. Digestive elements of a mechanistic model. J. Dairy Res. 54:107–31
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Argyle JL, Baldwin RL. 1988. Modeling of rumen water kinetics and effects of rumen pH changes. J. Dairy Sci. 71:1178–88
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Argyle JL, Baldwin RL. 1989. Effects of amino acids and peptides on rumen microbial growth yields. J. Dairy Sci. 72:2017–27
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Miller PS, Reis BL, Calvert CC, DePeters EJ, Baldwin RL 1991. Patterns of nutrient uptake by the mammary glands of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 74:3791–99
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Knapp JR, Freetly HC, Reis BL, Calvert CC, Baldwin RL 1992. Effects of somatotropin and substrates on patterns of liver metabolism in lactating dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 75:1025–35
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Cant JP, DePeters EJ, Baldwin RL 1993. Mammary amino acid utilization in dairy cows fed fat and its relationship to milk protein depression. J. Dairy Sci. 76:762–74
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Johnson HA, Baldwin RL, France J, Calvert CC 1999. A model of whole-body protein turnover based on leucine kinetics in rodents. J. Nutr. 129:728–39
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Johnson HA, Baldwin RL, France J, Calvert CC 1999. Recycling, channeling and heterogeneous protein turnover estimation using a model of whole-body protein turnover based on leucine kinetics in rodents. J. Nutr. 129:740–50
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Johnson HA, Baldwin RL, Klasing KC, France J, Calvert CC 2000. A rodent model of protein turnover used to design an experiment for measuring the rates of channeling, recycling and protein synthesis. J. Nutr. 130:3097–102
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    Johnson HA, Baldwin RL. 2008. Evaluating model predictions of partitioning nitrogen excretion using the dairy cow model, Molly. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 143:104–26
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Hanigan MD, Calvert CC, Depeters EJ, Reis BL, Baldwin RL 1991. Whole-blood and plasma amino-acid uptakes by lactating bovine mammary-glands. J. Dairy Sci. 74:2484–90
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Hanigan MD, Calvert CC, Depeters EJ, Reis BL, Baldwin RL 1992. Kinetics of amino acid extraction by lactating mammary glands in control and sometribove-treated Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 75:161–73
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Ghimire S, Kohn RA, Gregorini P, White RR, Hanigan MD 2017. Representing interconversions among volatile fatty acids in the Molly cow model. J. Dairy Sci. 100:3658–71
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Gregorini P, Beukes P, Waghorn G, Pacheco D, Hanigan M 2015. Development of an improved representation of rumen digesta outflow in a mechanistic and dynamic model of a dairy cow, Molly. Ecol. Model. 313:293–306
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Gregorini P, Beukes PC, Romera AJ, Levy G, Hanigan MD 2013. A model of diurnal grazing patterns and herbage intake of a dairy cow, MINDY: model description. Ecol. Model. 270:11–29
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Hanigan MD, Palliser CC, Gregorini P 2009. Altering the representation of hormones and adding consideration of gestational metabolism in a metabolic cow model reduced prediction errors. J. Dairy Sci. 92:5043–56
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Hanigan MD, Rius AG, Kolver ES, Palliser CC 2007. A redefinition of the representation of mammary cells and enzyme activities in a lactating dairy cow model. J. Dairy Sci. 90:3816–30
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Hanigan MD, Appuhamy JADRN, Gregorini P 2013. Revised digestive parameter estimates for the Molly cow model. J. Dairy Sci. 96:3867–85
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    Hanigan MD, Crompton LA, Reynolds CK, Wray-Cahen D, Lomax MA, France J 2004. An integrative model of amino acid metabolism in the liver of the lactating dairy cow. J. Theor. Biol. 228:271–89
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Hanigan M, Crompton L, Metcalf J, France J 2001. Modelling mammary metabolism in the dairy cow to predict milk constituent yield, with emphasis on amino acid metabolism and milk protein production: model construction. J. Theor. Biol. 213:223–39
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    van Milgen J. 2002. Modeling biochemical aspects of energy metabolism in mammals. J. Nutr. 132:3195–202
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Crompton LA, France J, Dias RS, Kebreab E, Hanigan MD 2008. Compartmental models of protein turnover to resolve isotope dilution data. Mathematical Modelling in Animal Nutrition, Vol. 1 J France, E Kebreab 254–94 Wallingford, UK: CAB Int.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Crompton LA, France J, Reynolds CK, Mills JAN, Hanigan MD et al. 2014. An isotope dilution model for partitioning phenylalanine and tyrosine uptake by the mammary gland of lactating dairy cows. J. Theor. Biol. 359:54–60
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    France J, Bequette B, Lobley G, Metcalf J, Wray-Cahen D et al. 1995. An isotope dilution model for partitioning leucine uptake by the bovine mammary gland. J. Theor. Biol. 172:369–77
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    France J, Hanigan M, Bequette B, Metcalf J, Beever D et al. 1997. A model for quantifying the contribution of extracellularly-derived peptides to milk protein synthesis in the ruminant mammary gland. J. Theor. Biol. 185:379–88
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    France J, Hanigan M, Reynolds C, Dijkstra J, Crompton L et al. 1999. An isotope dilution model for partitioning leucine uptake by the liver of the lactating dairy cow. J. Theor. Biol. 198:121–33
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    Hanigan MD, France J, Mabjeesh SJ, McNabb WC, Bequette BJ 2009. High rates of mammary tissue protein turnover in lactating goats are energetically costly. J. Nutr. 139:1118–27
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    Hristov AN. 2002. Fractionation of ammonia nitrogen isotopes by ruminal bacteria in vitro. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 100:71–77
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    Hanigan MD, Baldwin RL. 1994. A mechanistic model of mammary gland metabolism in the lactating cow. Agric. Syst. 45:369–419
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    Freetly HC, Knapp JR, Calvert CC, Baldwin RL 1993. Development of a mechanistic model of liver metabolism in the lactating cow. Agric. Syst. 41:157–95
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 72. 
    Forsberg NE, Baldwin RL, Smith NE 1985. Roles of glucose and its interactions with acetate in maintenance and biosynthesis in bovine mammary tissue. J. Dairy Sci. 68:2544–49
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    Forsberg NE, Baldwin RL, Smith NE 1985. Roles of lactate and its interactions with acetate in maintenance and biosynthesis in bovine mammary tissue. J. Dairy Sci. 68:2550–56
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    Natl. Res. Counc 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press, 9th rev. ed..
  75. 75. 
    Natl. Res. Counc 2007. Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  76. 76. 
    Natl. Res. Counc 1996. Rodents Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  77. 77. 
    NRC 1975. Nonhuman Primates: Usage and Availability for Biomedical Programs Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press132
  78. 78. 
    Taghipoor M, Lescoat P, Licois J-R, Georgelin C, Barles G 2012. Mathematical modeling of transport and degradation of feedstuffs in the small intestine. J. Theor. Biol. 294:114–21
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. 
    Taghipoor M, Barles G, Georgelin C, Licois JR, Lescoat P 2014. Digestion modeling in the small intestine: impact of dietary fiber. Math. Biosci. 258:101–12
     [Google Scholar]
  80. 80. 
    Bastianelli D, Sauvant D, Rerat A 1996. Mathematical modeling of digestion and nutrient absorption in pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 74:1873–87
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 81. 
    Dijkstra J, Neal HDSC, Beever DE, France J 1992. Simulation of nutrient digestion, absorption and outflow in the rumen: model description. J. Nutr. 122:2239–56
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    Danfaer A. 1990. A dynamic model of nutrient digestion and metabolism in lactating dairy cows PhD thesis Natl. Inst. Anim. Sci Denmark:511
  83. 83. 
    Baldwin RL, Koong LJ, Ulyatt MJ 1977. A dynamic model of ruminant digestion for evaluation of factors affecting nutritive value. Agric. Syst. 2:255–88
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    Vetharaniam I, Vibart RE, Hanigan MD, Janssen PH, Tavendale MH, Pacheco D 2015. A modified version of the Molly rumen model to quantify methane emissions from sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 93:3551–63
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 85. 
    Baldwin RL. 1995. Modeling Ruminant Digestion and Metabolism London: Chapman & Hall
  86. 86. 
    Bannink A, De Visser H, Klop A, Dijkstra J, France J 1997. Causes of inaccurate prediction of volatile fatty acids by simulation models of rumen function in lactating cows. J. Theor. Biol. 189:353–66
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 87. 
    Bannink A, De Visser H, Van Vuuren AM 1997. Comparison and evaluation of mechanistic rumen models. Br. J. Nutr. 78:563–81
     [Google Scholar]
  88. 88. 
    Li MM, White RR, Hanigan MD 2018. An evaluation of Molly cow model predictions of ruminal metabolism and nutrient digestion for dairy and beef diets. J. Dairy Sci. 101:9747–67
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 89. 
    Parks J. 1970. Growth curves and the physiology of growth. I. Animals. Am. J. Physiol. Legacy Content 219:833–36
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 90. 
    Narinç D, Öksüz Narinç N, Aygün A 2017. Growth curve analyses in poultry science. World's Poult. Sci. J. 73:395–408
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. 
    Topal M, Bolukbasi ŞC. 2008. Comparison of nonlinear growth curve models in broiler chickens. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 34:149–52
     [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. 
    Kaplan S, Gürcan EK. 2018. Comparison of growth curves using non-linear regression function in Japanese quail. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 46:112–17
     [Google Scholar]
  93. 93. 
    Hojjati F, Hossein-Zadeh NG 2018. Comparison of non-linear growth models to describe the growth curve of Mehraban sheep. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 46:499–504
     [Google Scholar]
  94. 94. 
    Berry DP, Horan B, Dillon P 2005. Comparison of growth curves of three strains of female dairy cattle. Anim. Sci. 80:151–60
     [Google Scholar]
  95. 95. 
    Panik MJ. 2014. Growth Curve Modeling: Theory and Applications Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons454
  96. 96. 
    Verhulst PF. 1838. Notice sur la loi que la population suit dans son accroissement. Corresp. Math. Phys. 10:113–21
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 97. 
    Gompertz B. 1825. On the nature of the function expressive of the law of human mortality, and on a new mode of determining the value of life contingencies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 115:513–83
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 98. 
    von Bertalanffy L. 1957. Quantitative laws in metabolism and growth. Q. Rev. Biol. 32:217–31
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 99. 
    Lopez S. 2008. Non-linear functions in animal nutrition. In Mathematical Modelling in Animal Nutrition, Vol. 1 J France, E Kebreab 47–88 Wallingford, UK: CAB Int.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 100. 
    Brody S. 1945. Bioenergetics and Growth: With Special Reference to the Efficiency Complex in Domestic Animals New York: Reinhold Publ.
  101. 101. 
    Fitzhugh HA Jr 1976. Analysis of growth curves and strategies for altering their shape. J. Anim. Sci. 42:1036–51
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 102. 
    Di Marco ON, Baldwin RL, Calvert CC 1989. Simulation of DNA, protein and fat accretion in growing steers. Agric. Syst. 29:21–34
     [Google Scholar]
  103. 103. 
    Di Marco ON, Baldwin RL 1989. Implementation and evaluation of a steer growth model. Agric. Syst. 29:247–65
     [Google Scholar]
  104. 104. 
    Arnold RN, Bennett GL. 1991. Evaluation of four simulation models of cattle growth and body composition: Part II—simulation and comparison with experimental growth data. Agric. Syst. 36:17–41
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 105. 
    Wood PDP. 1967. Algebraic model of the lactation curve in cattle. Nature 216:164–65
     [Google Scholar]
  106. 106. 
    Wood PDP. 2009. The biometry of lactation. J. Agric. Sci. 88:333–39
     [Google Scholar]
  107. 107. 
    Dijkstra J, France J, Dhanoa M, Maas J, Hanigan M et al. 1997. A model to describe growth patterns of the mammary gland during pregnancy and lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 80:2340–54
     [Google Scholar]
  108. 108. 
    Hanigan MD, Palliser CC, Rius AG, France J, Kebreab E 2008. Modelling lactation potential in an animal model. Mathematical Modelling in Animal Nutrition485–506 Wallingford, UK: CAB Int.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 109. 
    Capuco AV, Wood DL, Baldwin R, McLeod K, Paape MJ 2001. Mammary cell number, proliferation, and apoptosis during a bovine lactation: relation to milk production and effect of bST. J. Dairy Sci. 84:2177–87
     [Google Scholar]
  110. 110. 
    Vetharaniam I, Davis SR, Soboleva TK, Shorten PR, Wake GC 2003. Modeling the interaction of milking frequency and nutrition on mammary gland growth and lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 86:1987–96
     [Google Scholar]
  111. 111. 
    Hanigan M, Crompton L, Bequette B, Mills J, France J 2002. Modelling mammary metabolism in the dairy cow to predict milk constituent yield, with emphasis on amino acid metabolism and milk protein production: model evaluation. J. Theor. Biol. 217:311–30
     [Google Scholar]
  112. 112. 
    Hanigan MD, France J, Crompton LA, Bequette BJ 2000. Evaluation of a representation of the limiting amino acid theory for milk synthesis protein. Modelling Nutrient Utilization in Farm Animals JP MacNamara, J France, DE Beever 127–44 Wallingford: CAB Int.
     [Google Scholar]
  113. 113. 
    Castro JJ, Arriola Apelo SI, Appuhamy JADRN, Hanigan MD 2016. Development of a model describing regulation of casein synthesis by the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling pathway in response to insulin, amino acids, and acetate. J. Dairy Sci. 99:6714–36
     [Google Scholar]
  114. 114. 
    Appuhamy JADRN, Wagner-Riddle C, Casper DP, France J, Kebreab E 2014. Quantifying body water kinetics and fecal and urinary water output from lactating Holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 97:6177–95
     [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. 
    Wang S, Zhao L, Wang X, Manuzon R, Darr M et al. 2014. Estimation of ammonia emission from manure belt poultry layer houses using an alternative mass balance method. Trans. ASABE 57:937–47
     [Google Scholar]
  116. 116. 
    Hansen AV, Strathe AB, Theil PK, Kebreab E 2014. Energy and nutrient deposition and excretion in the reproducing sow: model development and evaluation. J. Anim. Sci. 92:2458–72
     [Google Scholar]
  117. 117. 
    Giabbanelli PJ, Mago VK. 2016. Teaching computational modeling in the data science era. Procedia Comput. Sci. 80:1968–77
     [Google Scholar]
  118. 118. 
    Calsamiglia S, Ferret A, Reynolds CK, Kristensen NB, van Vuuren AM 2010. Strategies for optimizing nitrogen use by ruminants. Animal 4:1184–96
     [Google Scholar]
  119. 119. 
    Ma L, Cole JB, Da Y, VanRaden PM 2019. Symposium review: genetics, genome-wide association study, and genetic improvement of dairy fertility traits. J. Dairy Sci. 102:3735–43
     [Google Scholar]
  120. 120. 
    Gonzalez-Redin J, Polhill JG, Dawson TP, Hill R, Gordon IJ 2018. It's not the ‘what’, but the ‘how’: exploring the role of debt in natural resource (un)sustainability. PLOS ONE 13:1–19
     [Google Scholar]
  121. 121. 
    LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G 2015. Deep learning. Nature 521:436–44
     [Google Scholar]
  122. 122. 
    Baker Ruth E, Peña J-M, Jayamohan J, Jérusalem A 2018. Mechanistic models versus machine learning, a fight worth fighting for the biological community?. Biol. Lett. 14:20170660
     [Google Scholar]
  123. 123. 
    Charlesworth MJ. 1956. Aristotle's razor. Philos. Stud. 6:105–12
     [Google Scholar]
  124. 124. 
    US Dep. Agric 2019. The Integrated Farm System Model Washington, DC: US Dep. Agric.
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-animal-021419-083913
Loading
Use of Mechanistic Nutrition Models to Identify Sustainable Food Animal Production
Annual Review of Animal Biosciences 8, 355 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-021419-083913
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-animal-021419-083913
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-animal-021419-083913
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error