Estimates of daily oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide and methane emissions, and heat production for beef and dairy cattle using spot gas sampling
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A simulation study was conducted to examine accuracy of estimating daily O 2 consumption, CO 2 and CH 4 emissions, and heat production (HP) using a spot sampling technique and to determine optimal spot sampling frequency (FQ). Data were obtained from 3 experiments where daily O 2 consumption, emissions of CO 2 and CH 4 , and HP were measured using indirect calorimetry (respiration chamber or headbox system). Experiment 1 used 8 beef heifers (ad libitum feeding; gaseous exchanges measured every 30 min over 3 d in respiration chambers); Experiment 2 used 56 lactating Holstein-Friesian cows (restricted feeding; gaseous exchanges measured every 12 min over 3 d in respiration chambers); Experiment 3 used 12 lactating Jersey cows (ad libitum feeding; gaseous exchanges measured every hour for 1 d using headbox style chambers). Within experiment, averages of all measurements (FQALL) and averages of measurements selected at time points with 12, 8, 6, or 4 spot sampling FQ (i.e., sampling every 2, 3, 4, and 6 h in a 24-h cycle, respectively; FQ12, FQ8, FQ6, and FQ4, respectively) were compared. Within study a mixed model was used to compare gaseous exchanges and HP among FQALL, FQ12, FQ8, FQ6, and FQ4, and an interaction of dietary treatment by FQ was examined. A regression model was used to evaluate accuracy of spot sampling within study [i.e., FQALL (observed) vs. FQ12, FQ8, FQ6, or FQ4 (estimated)]. No interaction of diet by FQ was observed for any variables except for CH 4 production in experiment 1. No FQ effect was observed for gaseous exchanges and HP except in experiment 2 where CO 2 production was less (5,411 vs. 5,563 L/d) for FQ4 compared with FQALL, FQ12, and FQ8. A regression analysis between FQALL and each FQ within study showed that slopes and intercepts became farther from 1 and 0, respectively, for almost all variables as FQ decreased. Most variables for FQ12 and FQ8 had root mean square prediction error (RMSPE) less than 10% of the mean and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) greater than 0.80, and RMSPE increased and CCC decreased as FQ decreased. When a regression analysis was conducted with combined data from the 3 experiments (mixed model with study as a random effect), results agreed with those from the analysis for the individual studies. Prediction errors increased and CCC decreased as FQ decreased. Generally, all the estimates from FQ12, FQ8, FQ6, and FQ4 had RMSPE less than 10% of the means and CCC greater than 0.90 except for FQ6 and FQ4 for O 2 consumption and CH 4 production. In conclusion, the spot sampling simulation with 3 indirect calorimetry experiments indicated that FQ of at least 8 samples (every 3 h in a 24-h cycle) was required to estimate daily O 2 consumption, CO 2 and CH 4 production, and HP and to detect changes in those in response to dietary treatments. This sampling FQ may be considered when using techniques that measure spot gas exchanges such as the GreenFeed and face mask systems.
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 | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 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 ».