MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009237147 · doi:10.6000/1929-7092.2014.03.20

Benchmarking Cost of Milk Production in 46 Countries

2014· article· en· W2009237147 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Torsten Hemme, Mohammad Mohı Uddın

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reviews on Global Economics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmarkingProduction (economics)Milk productionBusinessAgricultural economicsEconomicsAnimal scienceMicroeconomicsMarketingBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global dairy industry is facing challenges due to the extremely volatile milk price and a substantial increase of feed prices. The goal of this study, therefore, was to compare and benchmark the cost of milk production in 46 countries representing 87% of the world's total milk production, using a standard method developed by the International Farm Comparison Network (IFCN). Two typical farms were selected per country; one average-sized and one larger farm. The cost of milk production in 2010 ranged from 16.91US-$/100kg Energy Corrected Milk (ECM) in Armenia to 97.27 US-$/100kg ECM in Switzerland, with cost differences mainly driven by the diversity in farming and feeding systems. Based on costs, world regions were categorized into four levels: 40-50 US-$ in the EU, Middle East and China; 30-40 US-$ in the USA, Brazil, CEEC and Oceania; <30 US-$ in Africa, Asia, South America; >60 US-$ in Austria, Norway, Switzerland and Canada. The major drivers for this variation were ranked as; purchased feed cost (the highest) followed by labor, land and machinery costs. Regression analyzes showed that costs were highly correlated milk yield and milk price but not to herd size.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations82
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reviews on Global EconomicsSame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207