Energy and Protein Metabolism and Nutrition in Sustainable Animal Production 2013
DOI: 10.3920/978-90-8686-781-3_107
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fasting heat production and metabolic body size in non-ruminant growing farm animals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It should also be pointed out that the basal metabolic rate of animals depends on the feed intake before fasting (Labussière et al, 2011). Our result (0.70) obtained on a large BW range (0.6 to 2.8 kg) of fast-growing broilers and also in fast-growing turkeys (Rivera-Torres et al, 2010;Noblet et al, 2013) can be considered as a reliable basis for expressing the MBW of present and near future broilers and also turkeys. As for growing pigs (0.60; Noblet et al, 1999), growing veal calves (0.85, Labussière et al, 2009) or growing turkeys (0.70; Rivera-Torres et al, 2010), this study indicates that the most appropriate exponent for MBW in broilers differs from the conventional 0.75 value.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 52%
“…It should also be pointed out that the basal metabolic rate of animals depends on the feed intake before fasting (Labussière et al, 2011). Our result (0.70) obtained on a large BW range (0.6 to 2.8 kg) of fast-growing broilers and also in fast-growing turkeys (Rivera-Torres et al, 2010;Noblet et al, 2013) can be considered as a reliable basis for expressing the MBW of present and near future broilers and also turkeys. As for growing pigs (0.60; Noblet et al, 1999), growing veal calves (0.85, Labussière et al, 2009) or growing turkeys (0.70; Rivera-Torres et al, 2010), this study indicates that the most appropriate exponent for MBW in broilers differs from the conventional 0.75 value.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 52%
“…When ranges of confidence or credible intervals determined by a given model include estimates outside the realm of possibility, such as seen here, serious consideration must be given to exploration of alternative models. Irreproducibility of parameter estimates between data sets and the variable nature of maintenance indicate that the functional form of BW 0.75 (Old and Rossow, 2014), is biologically relevant (Baldwin, 1968;Kennedy and Calvert, 2014) Cruz et al (2010) indicates that, for the average animal, ME was used as fuel for functions comprising maintenance and biomass synthesis (gain) consistent with theoretical estimates of efficiency (Baldwin, 1968;Noblet et al, 2013). The same cannot be said of the solutions to MARC data, because b 1 × BW 0.75 represents 98% of ADFI and is unlikely to represent maintenance, as all animals, including growing cattle, must use ME consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…For the same type of data, Lofgreen and Garrett (1968) reported a discrete estimate of 0.131 × BW 0.75 . Noblet et al (2013) found that, for animals fed near AL, d(fasting heat production)/dMEI was 0.13 in turkeys, 0.14 in pigs, and 0.23 in calves, whereas Labussière et al (2011) demonstrated that increased energy intake increased maintenance energy requirements in both pigs and calves. These latter data indicate that, unlike the assumption of a fixed maintenance in Model [1] and Lofgreen and Garrett (1968) and NRC (1984), maintenance is variable.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…During fasting, pigs mobilize body reserves resulting in a negative energy balance and, during a short duration of fasting, the fasting heat production may be related to the maintenance energy expenditure in the fed state [ 3 , 4 ]. Therefore, the fasting metabolism may, to some extent reflect, the metabolic components of maintenance in pigs [ 5 ]. A comparison between the fed and the fasted state will contribute to identify specific metabolic indicator of maintenance in pigs [ 6 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%