Pesticide Free Production of Field Crops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing strategies for pesticide use reduction in the northern Great Plains have suffered from limited adoption. A novel approach, Pesticide Free Production (PFP), was recently developed in Manitoba, Canada. A participatory, on‐farm study was conducted to assess the potential of PFP to be implemented on typical farms and the level of success farmers experienced with PFP. Pesticide Free Production prohibits the use of in‐crop pesticide and seed treatments during one crop year as well as prior use of residual pesticides. Synthetic fertilizer use is permitted, as are pre‐emergent applications of nonresidual pesticides. A total of 71 farmers, representing 120 fields and 11 crops, participated in the study. Fields and farmers were grouped based on whether or not fields (i) achieved PFP certification and (ii) were in transition to organic production. Certification was achieved for 83% of the participating area. Spring cereals were the most likely crops to achieve PFP certification. Yields in all groups were slightly lower than conventional averages in Manitoba but were not significantly different among groups. Weed densities were higher ( P = 0.065) in noncertifiable fields than in certifiable fields. Most farmers reported manageable weed densities in the year following PFP. Soil conservation practices were used on a high proportion of PFP fields. Management practices associated with PFP included the use of delayed seeding, forages in rotation, and increased seeding rates. Agronomic and demographic characteristics of participating fields and farmers were typical for Manitoba. Pesticide Free Production demonstrates considerable potential to be successfully adopted by mainstream farmers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".