Different Coefficients and Exponents for Metabolic Body Weight in a Model to Estimate Individual Feed Intake for Growing-finishing Pigs

  • Lee, S.A. (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Konkuk University) ;
  • Kong, C. (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Konkuk University) ;
  • Adeola, O. (Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University) ;
  • Kim, B.G. (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Konkuk University)
  • Received : 2016.06.01
  • Accepted : 2016.08.11
  • Published : 2016.12.01


Estimation of feed intake (FI) for individual animals within a pen is needed in situations where more than one animal share a feeder during feeding trials. A partitioning method (PM) was previously published as a model to estimate the individual FI (IFI). Briefly, the IFI of a pig within the pen was calculated by partitioning IFI into IFI for maintenance ($IFI_m$) and IFI for growth. In the PM, $IFI_m$ is determined based on the metabolic body weight (BW), which is calculated using the coefficient of 106 and exponent of 0.75. Two simulation studies were conducted to test the hypothesis that the use of different coefficients and exponents for metabolic BW to calculate $IFI_m$ improves the accuracy of the estimates of IFI for pigs, and that PM is applied to pigs fed in group-housing systems. The accuracy of prediction represented by difference between actual and estimated IFI was compared using PM, ratio (RM), or averaging method (AM). In simulation studies 1 and 2, the PM estimated IFI better than the AM and RM during most of the periods (p<0.05). The use of 0.60 as the exponent and the coefficient of 197 to calculate metabolic BW did not improve the accuracy of the IFI estimates in both simulation studies 1 and 2. The results imply that the use of $197kcal{\times}kg\;BW^{0.60}$ as metabolizable energy for maintenance in PM does not improve the accuracy of IFI estimations compared with the use of $106kcal{\times}kg\;BW^{0.75}$ and that the PM estimates the IFI of pigs with greater accuracy compared with the averaging or ratio methods in group-housing systems.


Supported by : Rural Development Administration


  1. Baker, D. H. 1986. Problems and pitfalls in animal experiments designed to establish dietary requirements for essential nutrients. J. Nutr. 116:2339-2349.
  2. Harris, A. J., J. F. Patience, S. M. Lonergan, C. J. M. Dekkers, and N. K. Gabler. 2012. Improved nutrient digestibility and retention partially explains feed efficiency gains in pigs selected for low residual feed intake. J. Anim. Sci. 90:164-166.
  3. Kil, D. Y., B. G. Kim, and H. H. Stein. 2013. Invited review: Feed energy evaluation for growing pigs. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 26:1205-1217.
  4. Kim, B. G. and M. D. Lindemann. 2007. A new spreadsheet method for experimental animal allotment. J. Anim. Sci. 85(Suppl. 2):112.
  5. Kim, B. G., M. D. Lindemann, G. L. Cromwell, A. Balfagon, and J. H. Agudelo. 2007. The correlation between passage rate of digesta and dry matter digestibility in various stages of swine. Livest. Sci. 109:81-84.
  6. Lindemann, M. D. and B. G. Kim. 2007. Technical note: A model to estimate individual feed intake of swine in group feeding. J. Anim. Sci. 85:972-975.
  7. Noblet, J., C. Karege, S. Dubois, and J. van Milgen. 1999. Metabolic utilization of energy and maintenance requirements in growing pigs: effects of sex and genotype. J. Anim. Sci. 77:1208-1216.
  8. NRC (National Research Council). 1998. Nutrient Requirements of Swine, 10th rev. edn. Natl. Acad. Press. Washington, DC, USA.
  9. NRC (National Research Council). 2012. Nutrient Requirements of Swine, 11th rev. edn. Natl. Acad. Press. Washington, DC, USA.
  10. Turner, S. P., D. J. Allcroft, and S. A. Edwards. 2003. Housing pigs in large social groups: a review of implications for performance and other economic traits. Livest. Prod. Sci. 82:39-51.