Estimates of daily oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide and methane emissions, and heat production for beef and dairy cattle using spot gas sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A simulation study was conducted to examine accuracy of estimating daily O 2 consumption, CO 2 and CH 4 emissions, and heat production (HP) using a spot sampling technique and to determine optimal spot sampling frequency (FQ). Data were obtained from 3 experiments where daily O 2 consumption, emissions of CO 2 and CH 4 , and HP were measured using indirect calorimetry (respiration chamber or headbox system). Experiment 1 used 8 beef heifers (ad libitum feeding; gaseous exchanges measured every 30 min over 3 d in respiration chambers); Experiment 2 used 56 lactating Holstein-Friesian cows (restricted feeding; gaseous exchanges measured every 12 min over 3 d in respiration chambers); Experiment 3 used 12 lactating Jersey cows (ad libitum feeding; gaseous exchanges measured every hour for 1 d using headbox style chambers). Within experiment, averages of all measurements (FQALL) and averages of measurements selected at time points with 12, 8, 6, or 4 spot sampling FQ (i.e., sampling every 2, 3, 4, and 6 h in a 24-h cycle, respectively; FQ12, FQ8, FQ6, and FQ4, respectively) were compared. Within study a mixed model was used to compare gaseous exchanges and HP among FQALL, FQ12, FQ8, FQ6, and FQ4, and an interaction of dietary treatment by FQ was examined. A regression model was used to evaluate accuracy of spot sampling within study [i.e., FQALL (observed) vs. FQ12, FQ8, FQ6, or FQ4 (estimated)]. No interaction of diet by FQ was observed for any variables except for CH 4 production in experiment 1. No FQ effect was observed for gaseous exchanges and HP except in experiment 2 where CO 2 production was less (5,411 vs. 5,563 L/d) for FQ4 compared with FQALL, FQ12, and FQ8. A regression analysis between FQALL and each FQ within study showed that slopes and intercepts became farther from 1 and 0, respectively, for almost all variables as FQ decreased. Most variables for FQ12 and FQ8 had root mean square prediction error (RMSPE) less than 10% of the mean and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) greater than 0.80, and RMSPE increased and CCC decreased as FQ decreased. When a regression analysis was conducted with combined data from the 3 experiments (mixed model with study as a random effect), results agreed with those from the analysis for the individual studies. Prediction errors increased and CCC decreased as FQ decreased. Generally, all the estimates from FQ12, FQ8, FQ6, and FQ4 had RMSPE less than 10% of the means and CCC greater than 0.90 except for FQ6 and FQ4 for O 2 consumption and CH 4 production. In conclusion, the spot sampling simulation with 3 indirect calorimetry experiments indicated that FQ of at least 8 samples (every 3 h in a 24-h cycle) was required to estimate daily O 2 consumption, CO 2 and CH 4 production, and HP and to detect changes in those in response to dietary treatments. This sampling FQ may be considered when using techniques that measure spot gas exchanges such as the GreenFeed and face mask systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".