Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32201879›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2020

Forecasting beef production and quality using large-scale integrated data from Brazil.

Vera Cardoso Ferreira Aiken, Arthur Francisco Araújo Fernandes, Tiago Luciano Passafaro, Juliano Sabella Acedo, Fábio Guerra Dias, João Ricardo Rebouças Dórea, Guilherme Jordão de Magalhães Rosa

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vera Cardoso Ferreira AikenDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Arthur Francisco Araújo FernandesDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Tiago Luciano PassafaroDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Juliano Sabella AcedoDSM Produtos Nutricionais Brasil S.A., São Paulo, Brazil.
Fábio Guerra DiasJBS S.A., São Paulo, Brazil.
João Ricardo Rebouças DóreaDepartment of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Guilherme Jordão de Magalhães RosaDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With agriculture rapidly becoming a data-driven field, it is imperative to extract useful information from large data collections to optimize the production systems. We compared the efficacy of regression (linear regression or generalized linear regression [GLR] for continuous or categorical outcomes, respectively), random forests (RF) and multilayer neural networks (NN) to predict beef carcass weight (CW), age when finished (AS), fat deposition (FD), and carcass quality (CQ). The data analyzed contained information on over 4 million beef cattle from 5,204 farms, corresponding to 4.3% of Brazil's national production between 2014 and 2016. Explanatory variables were integrated from different data sources and encompassed animal traits, participation in a technical advising program, nutritional products sold to farms, economic variables related to beef production, month when finished, soil fertility, and climate in the location in which animals were raised. The training set was composed of information collected in 2014 and 2015, while the testing set had information recorded in 2016. After parameter tuning for each algorithm, models were used to predict the testing set. The best model to predict CW and AS was RF (CW: predicted root mean square error = 0.65, R2 = 0.61, and mean absolute error = 0.49; AS: accuracy = 28.7%, Cohen's kappa coefficient [Kappa] = 0.08). While the best approach for FD and CQ was GLR (accuracy = 45.7%, Kappa = 0.05, and accuracy = 58.7%, Kappa = 0.09, respectively). Across all models, there was a tendency for better performance with RF and regression and worse with NN. Animal category, nutritional plan, cattle sales price, participation in a technical advising program, and climate and soil in which animals were raised were deemed important for prediction of meat production and quality with regression and RF. The development of strategies for prediction of livestock production using real-world large-scale data will be core to projecting future trends and optimizing the allocation of resources at all levels of the production chain, rendering animal production more sustainable. Despite beef cattle production being a complex system, this analysis shows that by integrating different sources of data it is possible to forecast meat production and quality at the national level with moderate-high levels of accuracy.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAgricultureAnimalsBrazilCattleClimateCommerceFarmsFemaleLinear ModelsMalePhenotypeRed MeatSoilSoilbeefBrazilforecastinglarge scale datamachine learning

Identifiers

PMID32201879
PMCPMC7183355
OpenAlexW3012795798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.