Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39943876›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2025

Predicting dry matter intake in cattle at scale using gradient boosting regression techniques and Gaussian process boosting regression with Shapley additive explanation explainable artificial intelligence, MLflow, and its containerization.

K E ArunKumar, Nathan E Blake, Matthew Walker, Tylor J Yost, Domingo Mata-Padrino, Ida Holásková, Jarred W Yates, Joseph Hatton, Matthew E Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Smarter ways to predict rabbit body weight across multiple breeds.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2025
    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

9 authors.

K E ArunKumarSchool of Agriculture and Food Systems, Davis College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Nathan E BlakeSchool of Agriculture and Food Systems, Davis College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Matthew WalkerWest Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Tylor J YostSchool of Agriculture and Food Systems, Davis College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Domingo Mata-PadrinoSchool of Agriculture and Food Systems, Davis College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Ida HoláskováWest Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Jarred W YatesWest Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Joseph HattonWest Virginia Department of Agriculture, Charleston, WV, USA.
Matthew E WilsonSchool of Agriculture and Food Systems, Davis College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7419-6358

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dry matter intake (DMI) is a measure critical to managing and evaluating livestock. Methods exist for quantifying individual DMI in dry lot settings that employ expensive intake systems. No methods exist to accurately measure individual DMI of grazing cattle. Accurate prediction of DMI using machine learning (ML) promotes improved production and management efficiency. It also opens the door to empowering producers to validate and verify intakes in order to participate in incentive programs for delivering ecosystem service credits. We explored gradient boosting-based approaches to predict DMI in beef cattle using actual animal intake and climate datasets of 12,056 daily records from 178 cattle fed at West Virginia University from 2019 to 2020. The tested and developed methods include gradient boosting regression (GBR), Light boosting regression (LGB), extreme GBR (XGB), and Gaussian process boosting (GPBoost) models and 2 baseline models: 1. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle Equation 1 & 2. mixed linear model regression (MLM). The GPBoost models were developed considering the random effects associated with animal ID and date. Moreover, we developed an end-to-end ML operations (MLOps) pipeline to streamline the ML steps using crucial components, such as MLflow and Dockerization. The best-performing model was determined by comparing the common evaluation metrics such as root mean squared error (RMSE), mean squared error (MSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and mean absolute percentage error. The RMSE values on the test data of the optimized models ranged from 1.18 to 1.54 kg. The focus was developing a generalized algorithm that models covariates associated with animal ID and date that would generalize well on unseen data. The GPBoost models exhibited the best bias and variance compared to the other models (MLM, GBR, LGB, XGB). The R2 of the GPBoost on the training and test datasets were 0.58 and 0.55, respectively. The GPBoost model generalized well on the test dataset and train dataset with MAE values of 0.92 and 0.90 kg, respectively. We implemented an end-to-end MLOps pipeline with MLflow and Docker, enabling experiment tracking, model registry, reproducibility, scalability (to deploy on multiple computers), and seamless deployment. This approach offers a reliable and scalable solution for accurate DMI prediction, enhancing livestock management, and facilitating participation in ecosystem service credits.

Indexed as

Animal FeedAnimal HusbandryEatingMachine LearningAnimalsArtificial IntelligenceCattleDietRegression Analysisbeef dry matter intakeGaussian process boostingMLflowShapley additive explanationwater intake

Identifiers

PMID39943876
PMCPMC12019962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.