Models for predicting enteric methane emissions from dairy cows in North America, Europe, and Australia and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are several models in the literature for predicting enteric methane (CH4 ) emissions. These models were often developed on region or country-specific data and may not be able to predict the emissions successfully in every region. The majority of extant models require dry matter intake (DMI) of individual animals, which is not routinely measured. The objectives of this study were to (i) evaluate performance of extant models in predicting enteric CH4 emissions from dairy cows in North America (NA), Europe (EU), and Australia and New Zealand (AUNZ) and (ii) explore the performance using estimated DMI. Forty extant models were challenged on 55, 105, and 52 enteric CH4 measurements (g per lactating cow per day) from NA, EU, and AUNZ, respectively. The models were ranked using root mean square prediction error as a percentage of the average observed value (RMSPE) and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). A modified model of Nielsen et al. (Acta Agriculturae Scand Section A, 63, 2013 and 126) using DMI, and dietary digestible neutral detergent fiber and fatty acid contents as predictor variables, were ranked highest in NA (RMSPE = 13.1% and CCC = 0.78). The gross energy intake-based model of Yan et al. (Livestock Production Science, 64, 2000 and 253) and the updated IPCC Tier 2 model were ranked highest in EU (RMSPE = 11.0% and CCC = 0.66) and AUNZ (RMSPE = 15.6% and CCC = 0.75), respectively. DMI of cows in NA and EU was estimated satisfactorily with body weight and fat-corrected milk yield data (RMSPE < 12.0% and CCC > 0.60). Using estimated DMI, the Nielsen et al. (2013) (RMSPE = 12.7 and CCC = 0.79) and Yan et al. (2000) (RMSPE = 13.7 and CCC = 0.50) models still predicted emissions in respective regions well. Enteric CH4 emissions from dairy cows can be predicted successfully (i.e., RMSPE < 15%), if DMI can be estimated with reasonable accuracy (i.e., RMSPE < 10%).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".