Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35419602›Full record

ReviewJournal of animal science2022

ASAS-NANP symposium: mathematical modeling in animal nutrition: limitations and potential next steps for modeling and modelers in the animal sciences.

Marc Jacobs, Aline Remus, Charlotte Gaillard, Hector M Menendez, Luis O Tedeschi, Suresh Neethirajan, Jennifer L Ellis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of animal science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Big Data and AI-Powered Modeling: A Pathway to Sustainable Precision Animal Nutrition.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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.

Marc JacobsFR Analytics B.V., 7642 AP Wierden, The Netherlands.
Aline RemusSherbrooke Research and Development Centre, Sherbrooke, QC J1M 1Z3, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1177-5680
Charlotte GaillardInstitut Agro, PEGASE, INRAE, 35590 Saint Gilles, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7896-2520
Hector M MenendezDepartment of Animal Science, South Dakota State University, Rapid City, SD 57702, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9092-7237
Luis O TedeschiDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2471, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1883-4911
Suresh NeethirajanFarmworx, Adaptation Physiology, Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University, 6700 AH, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0990-0235
Jennifer L EllisDepartment of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The field of animal science, and especially animal nutrition, relies heavily on modeling to accomplish its day-to-day objectives. New data streams ("big data") and the exponential increase in computing power have allowed the appearance of "new" modeling methodologies, under the umbrella of artificial intelligence (AI). However, many of these modeling methodologies have been around for decades. According to Gartner, technological innovation follows five distinct phases: technology trigger, peak of inflated expectations, trough of disillusionment, slope of enlightenment, and plateau of productivity. The appearance of AI certainly elicited much hype within agriculture leading to overpromised plug-and-play solutions in a field heavily dependent on custom solutions. The threat of failure can become real when advertising a disruptive innovation as sustainable. This does not mean that we need to abandon AI models. What is most necessary is to demystify the field and place a lesser emphasis on the technology and more on business application. As AI becomes increasingly more powerful and applications start to diverge, new research fields are introduced, and opportunities arise to combine "old" and "new" modeling technologies into hybrids. However, sustainable application is still many years away, and companies and universities alike do well to remain at the forefront. This requires investment in hardware, software, and analytical talent. It also requires a strong connection to the outside world to test, that which does, and does not work in practice and a close view of when the field of agriculture is ready to take its next big steps. Other research fields, such as engineering and automotive, have shown that the application power of AI can be far reaching but only if a realistic view of models as whole is maintained. In this review, we share our view on the current and future limitations of modeling and potential next steps for modelers in the animal sciences. First, we discuss the inherent dependencies and limitations of modeling as a human process. Then, we highlight how models, fueled by AI, can play an enhanced sustainable role in the animal sciences ecosystem. Lastly, we provide recommendations for future animal scientists on how to support themselves, the farmers, and their field, considering the opportunities and challenges the technological innovation brings.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEcosystemAgricultureAnimalsModels, Theoreticaldata scienceeducationmodelingprecision livestock farmingsimulationsmart livestock farming

Identifiers

PMID35419602
PMCPMC9171330

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.