Modelling the lactation curve of dairy cows using the differentials of growth functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Descriptions of entire lactations were investigated using six mathematical equations, comprising the differentials of four growth functions (logistic, Gompertz, Schumacher and Morgan) and two other equations (Wood and Dijkstra). The data contained monthly milk yield records from 70 first, 70 second and 75 third parity Iranian Holstein cows. Indicators of fit were model behaviour, statistical evaluation and biologically meaningful parameter estimates and lactation features. Analysis of variance with equation, parity and their interaction as factors and with cows as replicates was performed to compare goodness of fit of the equations. The interaction of equation and parity was not significant for any statistics, which showed that there was no tendency for one equation to fit a given parity better than other equations. Although model behaviour analysis showed better performance of growth functions than the Wood and Dijkstra equations in fitting the individual lactation curves, statistical evaluation revealed that there was no significant difference between the goodness of fit of the different equations. Evaluation of lactation features showed that the Dijkstra equation was able to estimate the initial milk yield and peak yield more accurately than the other equations. Overall evaluation of the different equations demonstrated the potential of the differentials of simple empirical growth functions used in the current study as equations for fitting monthly milk records of Holstein dairy cattle.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".