Development of mathematical models to predict volume and nutrient composition of fresh manure from lactating Holstein cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organic compounds in dairy manure undergo a series of reactions producing pollutants such as ammonia and methane. Because various organic compounds have different reaction rates, the emissions could be accurately determined if amounts and concentrations of individual nutrients in manure are known. A set of empirical models were developed for predicting faecal and urinary water, carbon (C), nitrogen (N), acid detergent fibre and neutral detergent fibre output (kg/day) from lactating Holstein cows. Dietary nutrient contents, milk yield and composition, bodyweight, age and days in milk were used with or without dry matter intake (DMI) as potential predictor variables. Multi-collinearity, goodness of fit, model complexity, and random study and animal effects were taken into account during model development, which used 742 measured faecal or urinary nutrient output observations (kg/day). The models were evaluated with an independent dataset (n = 364). When DMI was used as a predictor variable, the models predicted faecal and urinary nutrient outputs successfully with root mean square prediction error as a percentage of average observed values (RMSPE%) ranging from 9.1% to 20.7%. All the predictions except urine output had RMSPE% ranging from 18.3% to 24.6% when DMI was not used. The nutrient output predictions were in reasonable agreement with observed values throughout the data range (systematic bias <14% of total bias). Fresh manure C : N ratio predictions were acceptable (RMSPE% = 14.3–15.2%) although the systematic bias were notable (17.1–20.7% of total bias). The models could be integrated successfully with process-based manure or soil models to assess nutrient transformation in dairy production systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".