Introducing a sinusoidal equation to describe lactation curves for cumulative milk yield and composition in Holstein cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the work reported here was to investigate the appropriateness of a sinusoidal function by applying it to model the cumulative lactation curves for milk yield and composition in primiparous Holstein cows, and to compare it with three conventional growth models (linear, Richards and Morgan). Data used in this study were 911 144 test-day records for milk, fat and protein yields, which were recorded on 834 dairy herds from 2000 to 2011 by the Animal Breeding Centre and Promotion of Animal Products of Iran. Each function was fitted to the test-day production records using appropriate procedures in SAS (PROC REG for the linear model and PROC NLIN for the Richards, Morgan and sinusoidal equations) and the parameters were estimated. The models were tested for goodness of fit using adjusted coefficient of determination $\lpar {R_{{\rm adj}}^2 } \rpar $, root mean square error (RMSE), Akaike's information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). $R_{{\rm adj}}^2 $ values were generally high (>0.999), implying suitable fits to the data, and showed little differences among the models for cumulative yields. The sinusoidal equation provided the lowest values of RMSE, AIC and BIC, and therefore the best fit to the lactation curve for cumulative milk, fat and protein yields. The linear model gave the poorest fit to the cumulative lactation curve for all production traits. The current results show that classical growth functions can be fitted accurately to cumulative lactation curves for production traits, but the new sinusoidal equation introduced herein, by providing best goodness of fit, can be considered a useful alternative to conventional models in dairy research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".