Predicting dry matter intake in Canadian Holstein dairy cattle using milk mid-infrared reflectance spectroscopy and other commonly available predictors via artificial neural networks
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dry matter intake (DMI) is a fundamental component of the animal's feed efficiency, but measuring DMI of individual cows is expensive. Mid-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (MIRS) on milk samples could be an inexpensive alternative to predict DMI. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess if milk MIRS data could improve DMI predictions of Canadian Holstein cows using artificial neural networks (ANN); (2) to investigate the ability of different ANN architectures to predict unobserved DMI; and (3) to validate the robustness of developed prediction models. A total of 7,398 milk samples from 509 dairy cows distributed over Canada, Denmark, and the United States were analyzed. Data from Denmark and the United States were used to increase the training data size and variability to improve the generalization of the prediction models over the lactation. For each milk spectra record, the corresponding weekly average DMI (kg/d), test-day milk yield (MY, kg/d), fat yield (FY, g/d), and protein yield (PY, g/d), metabolic body weight (MBW), age at calving, year of calving, season of calving, days in milk, lactation number, country, and herd were available. The weekly average DMI was predicted with various ANN architectures using 7 predictor sets, which were created by different combinations MY, FY, PY, MBW, and MIRS data. All predictor sets also included age of calving and days in milk. In addition, the classification effects of season of calving, country, and lactation number were included in all models. The explored ANN architectures consisted of 3 training algorithms (Bayesian regularization, Levenberg-Marquardt, and scaled conjugate gradient), 2 types of activation functions (hyperbolic tangent and linear), and from 1 to 10 neurons in hidden layers). In addition, partial least squares regression was also applied to predict the DMI. Models were compared using cross-validation based on leaving out 10% of records (validation A) and leaving out 10% of cows (validation B). Superior fitting statistics of models comprising MIRS information compared with the models fitting milk, fat and protein yields suggest that other unknown milk components may help explain variation in weekly average DMI. For instance, using MY, FY, PY, and MBW as predictor variables produced a predictive accuracy (r) ranging from 0.510 to 0.652 across ANN models and validation sets. Using MIRS together with MY, FY, PY, and MBW as predictors resulted in improved fitting (r = 0.679-0.777). Including MIRS data improved the weekly average DMI prediction of Canadian Holstein cows, but it seems that MIRS predicts DMI mostly through its association with milk production traits and its utility to estimate a measure of feed efficiency that accounts for the level of production, such as residual feed intake, might be limited and needs further investigation. The better predictive ability of nonlinear ANN compared with linear ANN and partial least squares regression indicated possible nonlinear relationships between weekly average DMI and the predictor variables. In general, ANN using Bayesian regularization and scaled conjugate gradient training algorithms yielded slightly better weekly average DMI predictions compared with ANN using the Levenberg-Marquardt training algorithm.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».