skip to main content
10.1145/2905055.2905286acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesictcsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Impact of variable probability level and nutrient concentration on animal diet formulation

Authors Info & Claims
Published:04 March 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, nutrient variability inclusion at different probability levels for animal feed formulation is discussed. Mathematical model is formulated by stochastic programming and diets are formulated at five probability levels. Objective functions are set for cost minimization and shelf life maximization of the feed mix. This paper discusses impact of allowed probability of nutrient concentration and variability of nutrient components for 40 models.

References

  1. Church D. C., Brown W. G., and Ralston A. T. 1963. Evaluation of Cattle Fattening Rations Formulated with Linear Programming Techniques. Journal of Animal Science, 22, 898--903.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Cravener T. L., Roush W. B., and D'Alfonso T. H. 1994. Laying hen production responses to least cost rations formulated with stochastic programming or linear programming with a margin of safety. Poultry Science, 73, 1290--1295.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Crosson P., Kiely P. O., and F. P. O. 2006. Mara, Wallace M. The development of a mathematical model to investigate Irish beef production systems. Agricultural Systems, 89, 349--370.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. D'Alfonso T. H, Roush W. B., and Ventura J. A. 1992. Least cost poultry rations with nutrient variability: A comparison of linear programming with a margin of safety and stochastic programming models. Poulry Science, 71, 2, 255--262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. F.V. Waugh. 1951. The minimum cost dairy feed. Journal of Farm Economics, 33, 299--310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. National Research Council, 1989. Nutrient requirements of Dairy Cattle. 6th Rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Pratiksha Saxena and Neha Khanna. 2015. Optimization of Dairy Cattle Feed by Nonlinear Programming, IEEE EXPLORER, Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom), 1579--1584.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Pratiksha Saxena, and Neha Khanna. 2014. Animal feed formulation: mathematical programming techniques, CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 9, 35, 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Pratiksha Saxena, Neha Khanna. 2015. Computation of Cattle Feed Mix by Using Priority Function: Weighted Goal Programming, IEEE EXPLORER, Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom),1595--1600.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Pratiksha Saxena, Vinay Pathak, Vinod Kumar. 2013. Algorithm for Animal Diet Formulation, Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology, 13, 139--146.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Pratiksha Saxena, Vinay Pathak, Vinod Kumar. 2012. Programming Technique for Animal Diet Formulation: A Non-linear Approach, International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Engineering, 2, 5, 85--88. DOI: 10.5923/j.food.20120205.03Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Rahman S. A., and Bender F. E. 1971. Linear programming approximation of least-cost feed mixes with probability restrictions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53, 4, 612--618.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Roush W. B., Cravener T. L., and Fushan Zhang. 1996. Computer formulation observations and caveats. Applied Poultry Science, 5, 116--125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. St. Pierre N. R., and Harvey W. R. 1986. Incorporation of uncertainty in composition of feeds into least-cost ration models: Single-chance constrained programming. Journal of Dairy Science,69, 12, 3051--3062.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. St. Pierre N. R., and Harvey W. R. 1986. Incorporation of uncertainty in composition of feeds into least-cost ration models: Joint-chance constrained programming. Journal of Dairy Science, 69, 12, 3063--3073.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Tozer P. R. 2000. Least-cost ration formulations for Holstein dairy heifers by using linear and stochastic programming. Journal of Dairy Science, 83, 443--451.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Udo I. U., Ndome C. B. and Asuquo P. E. 2011. Use of Stochastic Programming in Least-cost Feed Formulation for African Catfish(Clarias gariepinus) in Semi-intensive Culture System in Nigeria. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 6, 447--455.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Vere D.T. 1972. Maintaining sheep during draught with computer formulated rations. Review of marketing and agricultural economics, 40, 3, 111--122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Impact of variable probability level and nutrient concentration on animal diet formulation

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        ICTCS '16: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Competitive Strategies
        March 2016
        843 pages
        ISBN:9781450339629
        DOI:10.1145/2905055

        Copyright © 2016 ACM

        © 2016 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 4 March 2016

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate97of270submissions,36%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader