MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Market and Regulatory Changes on Livestock Manure Management in Southern Alberta

2006· article· en· W2092166309 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Elwin G. Smith, Gordon Card, Douglas L. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAlberta Environment and Protected AreasAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManureManure managementAgricultural scienceCompostSubsidyPhosphorusEnvironmental scienceLivestockAgricultural economicsBusinessAgronomyEconomicsForestryGeographyBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A spatial model of intensive livestock production for a region in southern Alberta was used to evaluate the impact of economic factors and regulation on regional returns and optimal manure management. Under current conditions, profit maximizing application of manure met nitrogen requirements but phosphorus application was about three times the crop requirements. Higher commercial nitrogen prices did not significantly alter the optimal manure application, but reduced regional returns. With a phosphorus limit regulation, it was less costly to compost about half of the beef cattle manure to remove it from the region than to truck manure long distances to meet the regulation. A $0.91/t reduction in the costs of composting, or a subsidy to reduce costs, was required to meet the phosphorus regulation. The net costs of the subsidy were slightly less than that ofphosphorus regulation. Future research needs to explore the economic market and limitations of composting for manure management before any composting policy is initiated. Nous avons utilisé un modèle spatial de la production animale intensive dans une région du sud de l'Alberta pour évaluer l'impact de la réglementation et de facteurs économiques sur les rendements économiques régionaux et la gestion optimale du fumier. Dans les conditions actuelles, l'épandage de fumier effectué en vue de maximiser les profits a respecté les exigences en azote, tandis que la quantité de phosphore était trois fois supérieure aux besoins des cultures. Le prix élevé de l'azote commercial n'a pas modifié de manière significative l'épandage optimal de fumier, mais a diminué les rendements économiques dans la région. En raison de la réglementation sur le taux d'application limite du phosphore, il a été moins coûteux de composter environ la moitié du fumier de bovins pour l'éliminer de la région que de le transporter par camion sur de longues distances. Pour respecter la réglementation sur le phosphore, il faudrait diminuer le coût du compostage de 0,91 $/tonne ou offrir une subvention équivalente pour diminuer les coûts. Les coûts nets de la subvention étaient légèrement inférieurs à ceux de la réglementation sur le phosphore. Des recherches ultérieures devront être effectuées pour explorer le marchééconomique et les limites du compostage dans le cadre de la gestion du fumier avant d'élaborer toute politique sur le compostage.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.126
Teacher spread0.122 · 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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomieSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207