ASAS–NANP Symposium: Mathematical Modeling in Animal Nutrition: Opportunities and challenges of confined and extensive precision livestock production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern animal scientists, industry, and managers have never faced a more complex world. Precision livestock technologies have altered management in confined operations to meet production, environmental, and consumer goals. Applications of precision technologies have been limited in extensive systems such as rangelands due to lack of infrastructure, electrical power, communication, and durability. However, advancements in technology have helped to overcome many of these challenges. Investment in precision technologies is growing within the livestock sector, requiring the need to assess opportunities and challenges associated with implementation to enhance livestock production systems. In this review, precision livestock farming and digital livestock farming are explained in the context of a logical and iterative five-step process to successfully integrate precision livestock measurement and management tools, emphasizing the need for precision system models (PSMs). This five-step process acts as a guide to realize anticipated benefits from precision technologies and avoid unintended consequences. Consequently, the synthesis of precision livestock and modeling examples and key case studies help highlight past challenges and current opportunities within confined and extensive systems. Successfully developing PSM requires appropriate model(s) selection that aligns with desired management goals and precision technology capabilities. Therefore, it is imperative to consider the entire system to ensure that precision technology integration achieves desired goals while remaining economically and managerially sustainable. Achieving long-term success using precision technology requires the next generation of animal scientists to obtain additional skills to keep up with the rapid pace of technology innovation. Building workforce capacity and synergistic relationships between research, industry, and managers will be critical. As the process of precision technology adoption continues in more challenging and harsh, extensive systems, it is likely that confined operations will benefit from required advances in precision technology and PSMs, ultimately strengthening the benefits from precision technology to achieve short- and long-term goals.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".