MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220809422 · doi:10.3168/jds.2021-21182

Comparison of feed evaluation models on predictions of milk protein yield on Québec commercial dairy farms

2022· article· en· W4220809422 on OpenAlexaffabout
Simon Binggeli, H. Lapierre, Sophie Lemosquet, D.R. Ouellet, D. Pellerin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)HerdMathematicsStatisticsAnimal scienceBiotechnologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feed evaluation models (FEM) are a core part in dairy cow feeding. As these models are developed using different biological and mathematical approaches mainly tested in a research context, their abilities to predict production in commercial farms need to be validated, even more so when they are used outside the context of their development. Four FEM-National Research Council, 2001 (NRC_2001); Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System, 2015 (CNCPS); NorFor, 2011; and INRA, 2018 (INRA_2018)-were evaluated on their abilities to predict daily milk protein yield (MPY) of 541 cows from 23 dairy herds in the province of Québec, Canada. The effects of cow and diet characteristics were tested on the residuals of MPY. Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses were then performed to evaluate the influence of the uncertainty of the main characteristics of cows and feed ingredients measured on the farm and used in the 4 FEM on the predictions of metabolizable protein (MP) supply and MPY. The 4 models had acceptable predictions of MPY, with concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) ranging from 0.75 to 0.82 and total bias ranging from 12.8% to 19.3% of the observed mean. The Scandinavian model NorFor had the best predictions with a CCC of 0.82, whereas the 3 other models had similar CCC at 0.75 to 0.76. The INRA_2018 and NRC_2001 models presented strong central tendency biases. Removing herd effect put the 4 FEM at the same level of performance, with 11.9 to 12.4% error. Analyzing model behavior within a herd seems to partly negate the effect of using predicted dry matter intake (DMI) in the comparison of models. Diet energy density, days in milk, and MPY estimated breeding value were related to the residual in the 4 models, and Lys and Met (as percent of MP) only in NRC_2001 and NorFor. This suggests that inclusion of these factors in these models would improve MPY predictions. From the sensitivity analysis, for the 4 FEM, DMI and factors affecting its prediction had the greatest influence on the predictions of MP supply and MPY. Of the feed ingredients, forage composition had the greatest effect on these predictions, including a strong effect of legume proportion with NorFor. Diet acid detergent fiber concentration had a very strong effect on MP supply and MPY predictions only in INRA_2018, because of its effect on organic matter digestibility estimation. The range of predictions of MP supply and MPY when combining all these potential uncertainties varied depending on the models. The INRA_2018 model presented the lowest standard deviation (SD) and NorFor the highest SD for the predictions of both MP supply and MPY. Overall, despite the fact that FEM were developed in a research context, their use in a commercial context yields acceptable predictions, with NorFor yielding the best predictions overall, although within-herd responses varied similarly for the 4 tested models.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy Science→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→