MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214858805 · doi:10.3168/jds.2021-20464

Simulation model of quarter milk flowrates to estimate quarter and cow milking duration and automated milking system's box duration

2022· article· en· W4214858805 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pablo Silva Boloña, John Upton, Víctor E. Cabrera, Tedward Erker, Douglas J. Reinemann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTeagasc
KeywordsMilkingAutomatic milkingQuarter (Canadian coin)HerdAnimal scienceMathematicsUdderBiologyIce calvingLactationMastitisGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aims of this research were (1) to develop a model to simulate a herd of cows and quarter milk flowrates for a milking and derive quarter and udder milking durations and box duration (i.e., the time a cow spends inside the robot) for a group of cows milked with an automatic milking system (AMS); (2) to validate the simulation by comparing the model outcomes with empirical data from a commercial AMS dairy farm; and (3) to apply teatcup removal settings to the simulation to predict their effect on quarter and cow milking duration and box duration in an AMS. For model development, a data set from an AMS farm with 32 robots milking over 1,500 cows was used to fit the parameters to the variables days in milk, parity, and milking interval, which were subsequently used to create a herd of cows. A second data set from 2019 from an AMS farm with 1 robot milking 60 cows that contained quarter milk flowrates (at 2-s intervals) was used to extract the parameters necessary to simulate quarter milk flowrates for a milking. We simulated a herd of cows, and each was assigned a parity, days in milk, milking interval, and milk production rate. We also simulated milk flowrates every 1 s for each quarter of each cow. We estimated quarter milking duration as the total time that flowrate was greater than 0.1 kg/min after a minimum of 1 min of milk flow. We incorporated a randomly sampled attachment time for each quarter and calculated cow milking duration as the time from the first quarter attached to the last quarter detached. We included a randomly sampled preparation time which, added to cow milking duration, represented box duration. For simulation application, we tested the effect of quarter teatcup removal settings on quarter and cow milking duration. The settings were based on absolute flowrate (0.2, 0.4, and 0.6 kg/min) or a percentage of the quarter's 30-s rolling average milk flowrate (20, 30, and 50%). We simulated over 84,000 quarter milkings and found that quarter milking duration (average 212 s) had a mean absolute percent error (MAPE) of 7.5% when compared with actual data. Simulated cow milking duration (average 415 s) had a MAPE of 8%, and box duration (average 510 s) had a MAPE of 12%. From simulation application, we determined that quarter milking duration and box duration were reduced by 19% (209 vs. 170 s) and 6.5% (512 vs. 479 s), respectively, when increasing the teatcup removal flowrate from 0.2 to 0.6 kg/min. Quarter milking duration and box duration were 7% (259 vs. 241 s) and 3% (590 vs. 573 s) longer respectively by using a teatcup removal setting of 20% of the quarter's rolling average milk flowrate, compared with 30%. Both results agree with previous research. This simulation model is useful for predicting quarter and cow milking and box duration in a group of cows and to analyze the effect of milking management practices on milking efficiency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy CowsFrench-language works237,207