Economic constraints to effective livestock waste management and policy implications.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Livestock operations contribute significantly to the agricultural output of many developed and developing nations. Over the past several decades, increased concentration of livestock farms, particularly in the USA, Europe, Canada and Australia, has spurred greater concern over the environmental implications of animal feeding operations. Manure generated as a by-product of livestock production has been linked to water and air pollution problems in many watersheds around the world. Location of confined livestock operations in close proximity to urban areas has also had impacts on nearby residential property values. Practices designed to reduce adverse environmental impacts of manure production and handling show varying degrees of promise. However, the usefulness of these practices is limited in some areas by various economic constraints such as cost to livestock operations, lack of adequate land for crop utilization of manure nutrients, and lack of incentives to promote uses of manure that are beneficial both from an environmental standpoint and from the farmer's point of view. This paper presents a review of the literature with an emphasis on the economic constraints livestock producers face in relation to manure management and how effective policies can be designed to encourage adoption of cost-effective livestock waste handling practices.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it