MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104096824 · doi:10.2527/jas.2008-0960

Model for estimating enteric methane emissions from United States dairy and feedlot cattle1

2008· article· en· W2104096824 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCanadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethaneConcordance correlation coefficientGreenhouse gasMethane emissionsEnvironmental scienceCorrelation coefficientBeef cattleDairy cattleFeedlotCoefficient of determinationMean squared errorStatisticsMathematicsEmpirical modellingRoot mean squareAtmospheric sciencesAnimal scienceBiologyEcologyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methane production from enteric fermentation in cattle is one of the major sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission in the United States and worldwide. National estimates of methane emissions rely on mathematical models such as the one recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). Models used for prediction of methane emissions from cattle range from empirical to mechanistic with varying input requirements. Two empirical and 2 mechanistic models (COWPOLL and MOLLY) were evaluated for their prediction ability using individual cattle measurements. Model selection was based on mean square prediction error (MSPE), concordance correlation coefficient, and residuals vs. predicted values analyses. In dairy cattle, COWPOLL had the lowest root MSPE and greatest accuracy and precision of predicting methane emissions (correlation coefficient estimate = 0.75). The model simulated differences in diet more accurately than the other models, and the residuals vs. predicted value analysis showed no mean bias (P = 0.71). In feedlot cattle, MOLLY had the lowest root MSPE with almost all errors from random sources (correlation coefficient estimate = 0.69). The IPCC model also had good agreement with observed values, and no significant mean (P = 0.74) or linear bias (P = 0.11) was detected when residuals were plotted against predicted values. A fixed methane conversion factor (Ym) might be an easier alternative to diet-dependent variable Ym. Based on the results, the 2 mechanistic models were used to simulate methane emissions from representative US diets and were compared with the IPCC model. The average Ym in dairy cows was 5.63% of GE (range 3.78 to 7.43%) compared with 6.5% +/- 1% recommended by IPCC. In feedlot cattle, the average Ym was 3.88% (range 3.36 to 4.56%) compared with 3% +/- 1% recommended by IPCC. Based on our simulations, using IPCC values can result in an overestimate of about 12.5% and underestimate of emissions by about 9.8% for dairy and feedlot cattle, respectively. In addition to providing improved estimates of emissions based on diets, mechanistic models can be used to assess mitigation options such as changing source of carbohydrate or addition of fat to decrease methane, which is not possible with empirical models. We recommend national inventories use diet-specific Ym values predicted by mechanistic models to estimate methane emissions from 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it