MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Economic‐Environmental Tradeoffs in Swine Finishing Operations

2003· article· en· W2128555457 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Greg W. de Vos, Alfons Weersink, David Stonehouse

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManureEnvironmental scienceAgricultural scienceEnvironmental engineeringForestryMathematicsAgronomyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the cost effectiveness of 81 alternative manure management systems for a swine finishing operation in reducing three pollutants associated with livestock waste: ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorus. The results are presented in terms of the tradeoff between the levels of these pollutants (environmental indicator) and the economic returns to the producer. The levels of the three manure residuals cannot be reduced by more than half from the present levels under the profit‐maximizing system for each farm size. Further reduction would require changes in hog numbers to reduce the volume of manure and consequently residual levels. However, the feasible reductions in residuals can be achieved at relatively low cost. Larger farms tend to have lower abatement costs as the percentage reduction in residuals increase. The attempt to reduce more than one of the residuals simultaneously is complicated by the conflicting effects of alternative manure management systems on ammonia and nitrogen levels. L'étude évalue la rentabilité de 81 systèmes de gestion du fumier pour les élevages de porcs quant à la réduction de la concentration de trois polluants associés aux déchets animaux: l'ammoniaque, l'azote et le phosphore. Les auteurs présentent les résultats sous forme de compromis entre la concentration de polluants (indice environnemental) et le rendement de l'élevage pour le producteur. Quelle que soit la taille de l'exploitation, il est impossible de réduire la concentration des trois résidus du fumier à plus de la moitié de leur concentration actuelle dans un régime de maximisation des bénéfices. Pour réduire leur concentration davantage, il faudrait diminuer la taille du troupeau et le volume de fumier. Atteindre les réductions de concentration réalisables ne coûte cependant pas très cher. Dans les gros élevages, le coût des mesures de lutte contre la pollution a tendance à baisser avec la hausse de la réduction des résidus en pour cent. L'action contraire des différents systèmes de gestion du fumier sur la concentration d'ammoniaque et d'azote complique les efforts déployés pour réduire simultanément la concentration de plusieurs résidus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.155
Teacher spread0.137 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomieSame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207