The evolution and evaluation of dairy cattle models for predicting milk production: an agricultural model intercomparison and improvement project (AgMIP) for livestock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contemporary concern about anthropogenic release of greenhouse gas (GHG) into the environment and the contribution of livestock to this phenomenon have sparked animal scientists’ interest in predicting methane (CH4) emissions by ruminants. We contend that improving the adequacy of mathematical nutrition model estimates of production of meat and milk is a sine qua non condition to reliably determine ruminants’ worldwide contribution to GHG. Focusing on milk production, we address six basic nutrition models or feeding standards (mostly empirical systems) and five complex nutrition models (mostly mechanistic systems), describe their key characteristics, and highlight their similarities and differences. We also present derivative systems. We compiled a database of milk production information from 37 published studies from six regions of the world, totalling 173 data points: 19 for Africa, 45 for Asia, 16 for Europe, 12 for Latin America, 44 for North America and 37 for Oceania. Four models were used to predict milk production in lactating dairy cows, and the adequacy of their predictions was measured against the observed milk production from our database. Even though these mathematical nutrition models shared similar assumptions and calculations, they have different conceptual and structural foundations inherent to their intended purposes. A direct comparison among these models was further complicated by the different models requiring unique inputs that are very often not available, and the low reliability of the inputs prevents an unbiased assessment of the model predictions. Very few studies have collected the necessary information to run more mechanistic systems, and users have to rely on standard information to populate many model inputs. Study effect was a critical source of variation that limited our ability to conclusively evaluate the models’ applicability under different scenarios of production around the world. Only after study variation was removed from the database did the adequacy of the model predictions of milk production improved, but deficiencies still existed. On the basis of these analyses, we conclude that not all models were suitable for predicting milk production and that simpler systems might be more resilient to variations in studies and production conditions around the world. Improving the predictability of milk production by mathematical nutrition models is a prerequisite to further development of systems that can effectively and correctly estimate the contribution of ruminants to GHG emissions and their true share of the global warming event.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".