Sustainability of beef production from brigalow lands after cultivation and mining. 2. Acland Grazing Trial pasture and cattle performance
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Context Agricultural land used for open-cut coal mining in Queensland is required by law to be returned to a safe, stable and self-sustaining state for agriculture. Aims The aim of this research was to identify whether rehabilitated pastures on post-mine soil at a site near Acland could viably support cattle production. Methods Five years of field data from Botanal pasture assessments, pasture quality, cattle liveweights and faecal observations, plus supplementary cattle liver data, were used to compare pasture and cattle performance from mined and unmined previously cultivated brigalow land. Subtropical pasture species were sown in 2007 (Rehab1, 22 ha), 2010 (Rehab 2, 32 ha) and 2012 (Rehab3, 22 ha) in three rehabilitated paddocks and in 2012 in an unmined (Control, 21 ha) paddock. The paddocks were grazed for 117–190 days of each year by Angus cattle. Key results Mean total standing dry matter in grazed pasture over the five trial years was consistently higher in Rehab 2 (5656 kg/ha) than in the other paddocks. Rehab 1 (3965 kg/ha) and Rehab 3 (3609 kg/ha) performed at an intermediate level and the Control paddock produced less pasture (2871 kg/ha). Grass leaf crude protein was higher in Rehab 2 than in the other paddocks and declined significantly (P < 0.001) across all paddocks as pasture aged. Pasture species remained perennial, palatable and productive in all paddocks; however, pasture yield, quality and composition trends over time suggested that pasture rundown occurred across all paddocks. The mean liveweight gain (LWG) per head when grazing the trial paddocks (trial LWG) was higher (P < 0.05) in the Rehab 2 cohort than the other paddock cohorts in Years 3 and 5, and trial LWG in the Control cohort was not significantly (P > 0.05) different from one or more of the rehabilitated paddock cohorts each year. Cattle production per hectare during the trial grazing periods was also consistently highest in Rehab 2 (5-year mean trial LWG 131 kg/ha) compared with the other paddocks (67–80 kg/ha). Conclusion The rehabilitated pastures in use by the mine were considered at least as productive as the surrounding unmined brigalow landscape. Implications The Acland rehabilitation process was considered successful in establishing pastures that were able to viably support cattle production.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».