Comparative analyses of enteric methane emissions, dry matter intake, and milk somatic cell count in different residual feed intake categories of dairy cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the different residual feed intake (RFI) categories of lactating Holsteins with respect to methane (CH4) emissions, dry matter intake (DMI, kg), milk somatic cell count (SCC, 103∙mL−1), and β-hydroxybutyrate (BHB, mmol∙L−1). The RFI was calculated in 131 lactating Holstein cows that were then categorized into −RFI (RFI < 0) vs. +RFI (RFI > 0) and low- [RFI < −0.5 standard deviation (SD)] vs. high-RFI (RFI > 0.5 SD) groups. Milk traits were recorded in 131 cows, whereas CH4 and carbon dioxide were measured in 83. Comparisons of −RFI vs. +RFI and low- vs. high-RFI showed 7.9% (22.3 ± 0.40 vs. 24.2 ± 0.39) and 12.8% (21.1 ± 0.40 vs. 24.2 ± 0.45) decrease (P < 0.05) in DMI of −RFI and low-RFI groups, respectively. Similarly, −RFI and low-RFI cows had lower (P < 0.05) CH4 (g∙d−1) by 9.7% (343.5 ± 11.1 vs. 380.4 ± 10.9) and 15.5% (332.5 ± 12.9 vs. 393.5 ± 12.6), respectively. Milk yield was not different (P > 0.05) in −RFI vs. +RFI and low vs. high comparisons. The −RFI and low-RFI cows had lower (P < 0.05) SCC in −RFI vs. +RFI and low-RFI vs. high-RFI comparisons. The BHB was lower (P < 0.05) in low-RFI compared with the high-RFI group. Low-RFI dairy cows consumed less feed, emitted less CH4 (g∙d−1), and had lower milk SCC and BHB without differing in milk yield.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".