Predicting dry matter intake in Canadian Holstein dairy cattle using milk mid-infrared reflectance spectroscopy and other commonly available predictors via artificial neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dry matter intake (DMI) is a fundamental component of the animal's feed efficiency, but measuring DMI of individual cows is expensive. Mid-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (MIRS) on milk samples could be an inexpensive alternative to predict DMI. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess if milk MIRS data could improve DMI predictions of Canadian Holstein cows using artificial neural networks (ANN); (2) to investigate the ability of different ANN architectures to predict unobserved DMI; and (3) to validate the robustness of developed prediction models. A total of 7,398 milk samples from 509 dairy cows distributed over Canada, Denmark, and the United States were analyzed. Data from Denmark and the United States were used to increase the training data size and variability to improve the generalization of the prediction models over the lactation. For each milk spectra record, the corresponding weekly average DMI (kg/d), test-day milk yield (MY, kg/d), fat yield (FY, g/d), and protein yield (PY, g/d), metabolic body weight (MBW), age at calving, year of calving, season of calving, days in milk, lactation number, country, and herd were available. The weekly average DMI was predicted with various ANN architectures using 7 predictor sets, which were created by different combinations MY, FY, PY, MBW, and MIRS data. All predictor sets also included age of calving and days in milk. In addition, the classification effects of season of calving, country, and lactation number were included in all models. The explored ANN architectures consisted of 3 training algorithms (Bayesian regularization, Levenberg-Marquardt, and scaled conjugate gradient), 2 types of activation functions (hyperbolic tangent and linear), and from 1 to 10 neurons in hidden layers). In addition, partial least squares regression was also applied to predict the DMI. Models were compared using cross-validation based on leaving out 10% of records (validation A) and leaving out 10% of cows (validation B). Superior fitting statistics of models comprising MIRS information compared with the models fitting milk, fat and protein yields suggest that other unknown milk components may help explain variation in weekly average DMI. For instance, using MY, FY, PY, and MBW as predictor variables produced a predictive accuracy (r) ranging from 0.510 to 0.652 across ANN models and validation sets. Using MIRS together with MY, FY, PY, and MBW as predictors resulted in improved fitting (r = 0.679-0.777). Including MIRS data improved the weekly average DMI prediction of Canadian Holstein cows, but it seems that MIRS predicts DMI mostly through its association with milk production traits and its utility to estimate a measure of feed efficiency that accounts for the level of production, such as residual feed intake, might be limited and needs further investigation. The better predictive ability of nonlinear ANN compared with linear ANN and partial least squares regression indicated possible nonlinear relationships between weekly average DMI and the predictor variables. In general, ANN using Bayesian regularization and scaled conjugate gradient training algorithms yielded slightly better weekly average DMI predictions compared with ANN using the Levenberg-Marquardt training algorithm.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".