Produção Nacional
Revisado por pares
Corrigendum to “Application of a nonlinear optimization tool to balance diets with constant metabolizability” [Livest. Sci. 158 (1–3) (2013) 106–117]
2015; Elsevier BV; Volume: 173; Linguagem: Inglês
10.1016/j.livsci.2015.01.004
ISSN1878-0490
AutoresJúlia Gazzoni Jardim, Ricardo Augusto Mendonça Vieira, Alberto Magno Fernandes, Raphael Pavesi Araújo, Leonardo Siqueira Glória, Nardele Moreno Rohem Júnior, Norberto Silva Rocha, Matheus Lima Corrêa Abreu,
Tópico(s)Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
ResumoThe basic problemwith the approach we adopted in the paper of Jardim et al. (2013) is that we found the denominator of the reported ratio Eq. (17)/Eq. (18) by assuming Lc 1⁄4ME=Mm, Mm 1⁄4 ðFHPþAÞ=km, and km 1⁄4 0:35ME=GEþ0:503. Nonetheless, the metabolizability of the diet (q1⁄4ME=GE) is lower than the metabolizability of the diet at maintenance, namely qm, 8 Lc41 (Blaxter and Boyne, 1978). We maintained terms and units here accordingly. In the paper of Jardim et al. (2013), we assumed the gross energy intake as GE1⁄4 18:8F (MJ/day). Therefore, our km values were biased because our qm values were also biased to some extent. By definition, qm is measured at maintenance (Blaxter and Boyne, 1978): qm 1⁄4MEm=GEm. MEm and GEm are the respective metabolizable and gross energy intake rates at maintenance, and MEm meets Mm, i.e., MEm=Mm 1⁄4 1. Nonetheless, let us define the dry matter intake measured at maintenance as Fm (kg/day), consequently, GEm 1⁄4 18:8Fm. If Mm 1⁄4ME=Lc, Mm 1⁄4 ðFHPþAÞ=km, km 1⁄4 0:35MEm=GEmþ0:503, and Mm 1⁄4MEm, then after algebraically isolating ME and taking only its positive root and simplifying constants, we have a new Eq. (18) based on the correct definition of qm: ME1⁄4 26:9Fmð 0:503Lcþð0:253Lc þ1:4Lc ðFHPþAÞ=ð18:8FmÞÞÞ: ð18Þ
Referência(s)