Evaluation of enteric methane prediction equations for dairy cows used in whole farm models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The importance of evaluating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from dairy cows within the whole farm setting is being realized as more important than evaluating these emissions in isolation. Current whole farm models aimed at evaluating GHG emissions make use of simple regression equations to predict enteric methane (CH4) production. The objective of the current paper is to evaluate the performance of nine CH4 prediction equations that are currently being used in whole farm GHG models. Data used to evaluate the prediction equations came from a collection of individual (IND) and treatment averaged (TRT) data. Equations were compared based on mean square prediction error (MSPE) and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) analysis. In general, predictions were poor, with root MSPE (as a percentage of observed mean) values ranging from 20.2 to 52.5 for the IND database and from 24.0 to 38.2 for the TRT database and CCC values ranging from 0.009 to 0.493 for the IND database and from 0.000 to 0.271 for the TRT database. Overall, the equations of Moe & Tyrrell and IPCC Tier II performed best on the IND dataset, and the equations of Moe & Tyrrell and Kirchgeßner et al., performed best on the TRT dataset. Results show that the simple more generalized equations performed worse than those that attempted to represent important aspects of diet composition, but in general significant amounts of bias and deviation of the regression slope from unity existed for all equations. The low prediction accuracy of CH4 equations in whole farm models may introduce substantial error into inventories of GHG emissions and lead to incorrect mitigation recommendations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".