Prediction of Methane Production from Dairy and Beef Cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methane (CH4) is one of the major greenhouse gases being targeted for reduction by the Kyoto protocol. The focus of recent research in animal science has thus been to develop or improve existing CH4 prediction models to evaluate mitigation strategies to reduce overall CH4 emissions. Eighty-three beef and 89 dairy data sets were collected and used to develop statistical models of CH4 production using dietary variables. Dry matter intake (DMI), metabolizable energy intake, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber, ether extract, lignin, and forage proportion were considered in the development of models to predict CH4 emissions. Extant models relevant to the study were also evaluated. For the beef database, the equation CH4 (MJ/d) = 2.94 (+/- 1.16) + 0.059 (+/- 0.0201) x metabolizable energy intake (MJ/d) + 1.44 (+/- 0.331) x acid detergent fiber (kg/d) - 4.16 (+/- 1.93) x lignin (kg/d) resulted in the lowest root mean square prediction error (RMSPE) value (14.4%), 88% of which was random error. For the dairy database, the equation CH4 (MJ/d) = 8.56 (+/- 2.63) + 0.14 (+/- 0.056) x forage (%) resulted in the lowest RMSPE value (20.6%) and 57% of error from random sources. An equation based on DMI also performed well for the dairy database: CH4 (MJ/d) = 3.23 (+/- 1.12) + 0.81 (+/- 0.086) x DMI (kg/d), with a RMSPE of 25.6% and 91% of error from random sources. When the dairy and beef databases were combined, the equation CH4 (MJ/d) = 3.27 (+/- 0.79) + 0.74 (+/- 0.074) x DMI (kg/d) resulted in the lowest RMSPE value (28.2%) and 83% of error from random sources. Two of the 9 extant equations evaluated predicted CH4 production adequately. However, the new models based on more commonly determined values showed an improvement in predictions over extant equations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".