MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212795679 · doi:10.1016/j.animal.2022.100469

Predicting enteric methane emission in lactating Holsteins based on reference methane data collected by the GreenFeed system

2022· article· en· W4212795679 on OpenAlexaff
Ruiyan Liu, Dagnachew Hailemariam, Tong Yang, F. Miglior, Flávio S. Schenkel, Z. Wang, Paul Stothard, Sheng Zhang, Graham Plastow

Bibliographic record

Venueanimal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEffects of Environmental Stressors on Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethaneMethane emissionsChemistryPartial least squares regressionAnimal scienceCoefficient of determinationEmission intensityEnvironmental scienceStatisticsMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methane emission is not included in the current breeding goals for dairy cattle mainly due to the expense and difficulty in obtaining sufficient data to generate accurate estimates of the relevant traits. While several models have been developed to predict methane emission from milk spectra using reference methane data obtained by the respiration chamber, SF6 and sniffer methods, the prediction of methane emission from milk mid-infrared (MIR) spectra using reference methane data collected by the GreenFeed system has not yet been explored. Methane emission was monitored for 151 cows using the GreenFeed system. Prediction models were developed for daily and average (for the trial period of 12 or 14 days) methane production (g/d), yield (g/kg DM intake (DMI)) and intensity (g/kg of fat- and protein-corrected milk) using partial least squares regression. The predictions were evaluated in 100 repeated validation cycles, where animals were randomly partitioned into training (80%) and testing (20%) populations for each cycle. The best performing model was observed for average methane intensity using MIR, parity and DMI with validation coefficient of determination (R2val) and RMSE of prediction of 0.66 and 4.7 g/kg of fat- and protein-corrected milk, respectively. The accuracy of the best models for average methane production and average methane yield were poor (R2val = 0.28 and 0.12, respectively). A lower accuracy of prediction was observed for methane intensity and production (R2val = 0.42 and 0.17) when daily records were used while prediction for methane yield was comparable to that for average methane yield (R2val = 0.16). Our results suggest the potential to predict methane intensity with moderate accuracy. In this case, prediction models for average methane values were generally better than for daily measures when using the GreenFeed system to obtain reference methane emission measurements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueanimalSame topicEffects of Environmental Stressors on LivestockFrench-language works237,207