The determination of livestock growth patterns is important for meat or milk production systems, and nonlinear models are used to summarize and interpret the information. The aim of this study was to more accurately estimate growth curve parameters in buffalo cows by evaluating and selecting nonlinear mixed models that employ different types of residuals and include or not contemporary groups (CG) as a covariate. Weight records from 720 animals obtained over a period of 60 months were used. The growth curves were fit using nonlinear mixed-effects models. The Bertalanffy, Gompertz and Logistic models were evaluated. Modelling residuals using four structures (constant, combined, exponential and proportional) and the inclusion or not of CG in the models were also evaluated. The Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were used to select the model. In addition to estimating the parameters of the nonlinear growth models and their correlations, the instantaneous growth rate and inflection point were obtained. The Bertalanffy model with a combined residual structure and CG exhibited the lowest AIC and BIC values. Asymptotic weight (A) estimates ranged from 621.8 to 742.1 kg, and the maturity rate (k) ranged from 0.068 to 0.115 kg/month. The correlation between A and k ranged from −0.32 to −0.82 among the models evaluated. The selection criteria indicated that the Bertalanffy model was the most suitable for growth curve analysis in buffaloes.

The aim of this work was to fit and compare three non-linear models (Wood, Milkbot and diphasic) to model lactation curves from two approaches: with and without cow random effect. Knowing the behaviour of lactation curves is critical for decision-making in a dairy farm. Knowledge of the model of milk production progress along each lactation is necessary not only at the mean population level (dairy farm), but also at individual level (cow-lactation). The fits were made in a group of high production and reproduction dairy farms; in first and third lactations in cool seasons. A total of 2167 complete lactations were involved, of which 984 were first-lactations and the remaining ones, third lactations (19 382 milk yield tests). PROC NLMIXED in SAS was used to make the fits and estimate the model parameters. The diphasic model resulted to be computationally complex and barely practical. Regarding the classical Wood and MilkBot models, although the information criteria suggest the selection of MilkBot, the differences in the estimation of production indicators did not show a significant improvement. The Wood model was found to be a good option for fitting the expected value of lactation curves. Furthermore, the three models fitted better when the subject (cow) random effect was considered, which is related to magnitude of production. The random effect improved the predictive potential of the models, but it did not have a significant effect on the production indicators derived from the lactation curves, such as milk yield and days in milk to peak.

The replication of experiments over multiple environments such as locations and years is a common practice in field research. A major reason for the practice is to estimate the effects of treatments over a variety of environments. Environments are frequently classed as random effects in the model for statistical analysis, while treatments are almost always classed as fixed effects. Where environments are random and treatments are fixed, it is not always necessary to include all possible interactions between treatments and environments as random effects in the model. The rationale for decisions about the inclusion or exclusion of fixed by random effects in a mixed model is presented. Where the effects of treatments over broad populations of environments are to be estimated, it is often most appropriate to include only those fixed by random effects that reference experimental units.