See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250234427

An Adjustable Nutrient Margin of Safety Comparison Using

Linear and Stochastic Programming in an Excel Spreadsheet

Article in The Journal of Applied Poultry Research · December 2007

DOI: 10.3382/japr.2007-00033

CITATIONS READS

17 2,055

3 authors, including:

Joseph Purswell
United States Department of Agriculture
176 PUBLICATIONS 2,252 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Joseph Purswell on 25 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ©2007 Poultry Science Association, Inc.

An Adjustable Nutrient Margin of Safety

Comparison Using Linear and Stochastic
Programming in an Excel Spreadsheet1

W. B. Roush,2 J. Purswell, and S. L. Branton

USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Poultry Research Unit,

Mississippi State University, Mississippi State 39762

Primary Audience: Nutritionists, Production Managers

SUMMARY
A stochastic-linear program Excel workbook was developed that consisted of 2 worksheets
illustrating linear and stochastic program approaches. Both approaches used the Excel Solver add-
in. A published linear program problem served as an example for the ingredients, nutrients, and
costs and as a benchmark in the development of the linear and stochastic programs. Standard
deviations for ME and nutrients were taken or calculated from CV, and from a commercial
publication of sources for amino acids. The Excel spreadsheet was set up so that the calculated
margin of safety (MOS) value, according to the requested probability, was the same for both the
linear and stochastic programs. As an example, the probability for meeting the nutrient value for
protein was compared at 50% (MOS = 0) and 69% (MOS = 0.5) by using both linear and stochastic
programming. Spreadsheet results illustrated the flexibility, accuracy, and precision of the
stochastic program over the linear program in meeting the requested nutrient probability.

Key words: linear program, stochastic program, margin of safety, diet formulation
2007 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 16:514–520
doi:10.3382/japr.2007-00033

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM gramming” is considered equivalent to the

“. . . I work on planning under uncer-
tainty. That’s the big field as far as I’m
concerned; that’s the future. Maybe I’m
the only one who says that.” George Dant-
zig, Father of Linear Programming [1]
Uncertainty and risk are inherent in biological
variability. Stochastic programming is a nonlin-
ear programming approach used to manage un-
certainty and constrain risk when dealing with
nutrient variability. The term “stochastic pro-
terms “nonlinear stochastic programming” and
“chance-constrained programming,” as used in
other feed formulation publications.
The use of a margin of safety (MOS) was
suggested by Nott and Combs [2] as a simple
way to adjust the nutrient matrix to compensate
for nutrient variability. To make the adjust-
ment, they suggested subtracting one-half of a
SD from the mean value of nutrients. This
would increase the probability of meeting an
animal’s requirement from 50% for a linear
program to greater than or equal to 69% for a

1
Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information
and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA.
2
Corresponding author: BRoush@msa-msstate.ars.usda.gov

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/article-abstract/16/4/514/759980

by guest
on 25 May 2018
 ROUSH ET AL.: ADJUSTABLE NUTRIENT MARGIN OF SAFETY
Figure 1. Linear and stochastic program Visual Basic for Applications macros for Excel spreadsheets.
linear program adjusted for an MOS. An MOS
of 0.5 was chosen, most likely for ease of calcu-
lation.
Several papers and presentations have ad-
dressed stochastic programming as a method
of constraining the diet formulation risk of not
meeting the requested nutrient amounts [3, 4,
5]. The philosophy of and assumptions about
linear and stochastic programming are dis-
cussed elsewhere [6, 7, 8, 9, 10].
Pesti and Seila [11] made a breakthrough
in showing how both linear and stochastic pro-
gramming could be formulated in an Excel
spreadsheet program. They used 2 problems
with different scenarios, one showing linear
programming, and the other showing stochas-
tic programming.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/article-abstract/16/4/514/759980
by guest
on 25 May 2018
515
The intent of this paper is to build on their
paper [11] by demonstrating a comparison of
linear and stochastic programming with a single
problem, as proposed in their paper. Our hope
is that nutritionists and others involved in feed
manufacturing and the business of accurately
feeding animals at a least cost will be able
to make their own comparisons based on the
illustrated principles.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A stochastic-linear program Excel work-
book was developed, consisting of 2 work-
sheets. The first worksheet was developed into
a linear program problem, and the second work-
sheet was developed into a stochastic program
problem. Both approaches used the Solver
 516 JAPR: Research Report

Figure 2. Database spreadsheets for linear programming, including Microsoft Excel cell formulas (bottom spread-
sheet). Only protein is shown with its accompanying SD and margin of safety (MOS). The requested level of
probability for meeting the protein requirement was 69%. The resulting formulated probability was 77.26%.

function, an Excel add-in for optimization. The
Visual Basic for Applications macros for Solver
associated with the linear and stochastic prob-
lems are shown in Figure 1. Solver is not always
installed with Excel and must be installed as
an add-in. Instructions for installation can be
found at the Web site http://support.microsoft.
com/kb/843304 [12].
The spreadsheet data for the problems are
shown in Figures 2 and 3 for solving the linear
and stochastic programs, respectively. For both
sheets, the data include the ingredients, cost
per ton, amount (to be solved for), ingredient
restrictions, and cost ($) per ingredient, as well
as the nutrient data. In this example, only the
nutrient data for protein and the associated SD
are shown. The calculated values, SD, re-
quested levels, and final MOS levels for sto-
chastic and linear programming are shown. The
requested probability, the z-value, and the cal-
culated probability for the diet are shown. The
spreadsheet below the data shows the formulas
associated with the data values.
Figures 4 and 5 show the inputs and results
for the linear and stochastic programs, respec-
tively. Inputs to be entered included the re-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/article-abstract/16/4/514/759980

by guest
on 25 May 2018
 ROUSH ET AL.: ADJUSTABLE NUTRIENT MARGIN OF SAFETY 517

Figure 3. Database spreadsheets for stochastic programming, including Microsoft Excel cell formulas (bottom
spreadsheet). Only protein is shown with its accompanying SD. The requested level of probability for meeting the
protein requirement was 69%. The resulting formulated probability was 69%, as requested.

quested nutrient, requested probability, and re-
strictions. The ingredient amounts, calculated
nutrients, calculated probabilities, and cost of
the diet were calculated after the linear or sto-
chastic macros were activated.
The linear program problem proposed by
Pesti and Seila [11] served as an example for
the ingredients, nutrients, and costs and as a
benchmark in the development of the linear and
stochastic programs. Standard deviations for
energy and nutrients were taken or calculated
from CV published by Zhang [13] and from a
commercial publication of sources for amino
acids [14], respectively. The Excel spreadsheet
was configured so that the calculated MOS
value, according to the requested probability,
was the same for both the linear and stochastic
programs. As an example, the probability for
meeting the nutrient value for protein was com-
pared at 50% (MOS = 0) and 69% (MOS = 0.5)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/article-abstract/16/4/514/759980

by guest
on 25 May 2018
 518 JAPR: Research Report

Figure 4. Input spreadsheets for linear programming, including Microsoft Excel cell formulas (bottom spreadsheet).
The requested probability for protein was set at 69%. The result was an overformulated probability of 77.26%.

by using both linear and stochastic program-
ming. Sensitivity analysis was not addressed at
this stage of program development.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the objective (minimization
of cost), diet composition, and nutrient alloca-
tions for the linear and stochastic programs in
the Excel spreadsheet were identical when the
MOS values were set equal to zero (not shown).
This was expected because multiplication of
the MOS at a value of zero cancels out the
variance of the nutrients, and the nutrient mean
values remain as a linear program problem.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/article-abstract/16/4/514/759980

by guest
on 25 May 2018
 ROUSH ET AL.: ADJUSTABLE NUTRIENT MARGIN OF SAFETY 519

Figure 5. Input spreadsheets for stochastic programming, including Microsoft Excel cell formulas (bottom spread-
sheet). The requested probability for protein was set at 69%. The formulated result was 69%.

Therefore, the objective result ($163.28)
matched the benchmark linear programming re-
sult of the spreadsheet program described by
Pesti and Seila [11].
However, when insurance was incorporated
in the formulation problem, such as a 69%
chance of meeting the nutrient requirement of
the animal, there was a difference in the an-
swers obtained by linear and stochastic pro-
gramming. As shown in Figures 4 and 5, results
for the objective equations (cost/ton) were
$165.776 for the linear program and $165.344
for the stochastic program. Examination of the
requested and calculated probabilities revealed
that the linear program overformulated at a
probability of 77.26%, whereas the stochastic

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/article-abstract/16/4/514/759980

by guest
on 25 May 2018
 520 JAPR: Research Report

program produced the requested probability
of 69%.
However, should the formulator decide that
77.26% is more appropriate for a particular nu-
trient, then the stochastic program would more
accurately provide that probability. The linear
program with an MOS would again overformu-
late at a higher than requested level of probabil-
ity. Stochastic programming provides more
flexibility, accuracy, and precision in meeting
the requested probability levels.
This study was designed to show the advan-
tage of stochastic programming in controlling
nutrient variation. However, we also illustrate
the accessibility of linear and nonlinear algo-
rithms through commonly available computer
spreadsheets, which allow application of these
formulation methods by companies in devel-
oping areas that do not have sophisticated soft-
ware and have numerous ingredients that vary
in quantity and quality.

CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS

1. An Excel spreadsheet, with Solver as an add-in, was effectively developed to compare formula-
tion of a poultry diet with linear programming with an MOS and with stochastic programming.
2. The developed program allows the formulator to determine the level of probability for requested
nutrient specifications.
3. Results showed that at a requested probability level of 50%, both the linear program and the
stochastic program produced the same diet.
4. The linear program with an MOS was shown to overformulate the requested probability,
resulting in 77.26%, whereas the stochastic program formulated the requested probability
of 69%.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. Horner, P. 2005. George Bernard Dantzig (1914–2005):
Operations research loses a pillar of the profession. OR/MS Today
32:24–32.
2. Nott, H., and G. F. Combs. 1967. Data processing feed
ingredient composition data. Feedstuffs 39:21–22.
3. Van de Panne, C., and W. Popp. 1963. Minimum cost cattle
feed under probabilistic protein constraints. Manage. Sci. 9:405–
430.
4. St. Pierre, N. R., and W. R. Harvey. 1986. Incorporation
of uncertainty in composition of feed into least cost ration models.
1. Single chance constrained programming, and 2. Joint chance
constrained programming. J. Dairy Sci. 69:3051–3073.
5. St. Pierre, N. R. 1991. Ration balancing: From costs to
profits. Pages 73–80 in Proc. 1991 Maryland Nutr. Conf. Feed
Manuf., College Park, MD. Univ. Maryland, College Park.
6. D’Alfonso, T. H., W. B. Roush, and J. A. Ventura. 1992.
Least cost poultry rations with nutrient variability: A comparison
of linear programming with a margin of safety and stochastic pro-
gramming models. Poult. Sci. 71:255–262.
7. Cravener, T. L., W. B. Roush, and T. H. D’Alfonso. 1994.
Laying hen production responses to least cost rations formulated
with stochastic programming or linear programming with a margin
of safety. Poult. Sci. 73:1290–1295.
8. Roush, W. B., R. L. Stock, T. L. Cravener, and T. H.
D’Alfonso. 1994. Using chance constrained-programming for ani-
mal feed formulation at Agway. Operations Research Society/The
Institute of Management Sciences. Interfaces 24:53–58.
9. Roush, W. B., T. L. Cravener, and F. Zhang. 1996. Com-
puter formulation observations and caveats. J. Appl. Poult. Res.
5:116–125.
10. Roush, W. B. 2001. Stochastic programming has implica-
tions for precision feeding. Feedstuffs 73:14, 15.
11. Pesti, G. M., and A. F. Seila. 1999. The use of an electronic
spreadsheet to solve linear and non-linear “stochastic” feed formula-
tion problems. J. Appl. Poultry Res. 8:110–121.
12. Microsoft. 2006. How to create Visual Basic macros by
using Excel Solver in Excel 97. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/
843304 Accessed Feb. 28, 2007.
13. Zhang, F. 1999. Stochastic models and software design for
feed formulation. PhD Diss. Penn State Univ., University Park, PA.
14. Degussa. 2001. The Amino Acid Composition of Feed-
stuffs. 5th rev. ed. Degussa Corp., Feed Addit., Kennesaw, GA.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/article-abstract/16/4/514/759980

by guest
on 25 May 2018
View publication stats