MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158983674 · doi:10.4141/cjas06034

Estimates of enteric methane emissions from cattle in Canada using the IPCC Tier-2 methodology

2007· article· en· W2158983674 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kim Ominski, D. A. Boadi, K. M. Wittenberg, Deanne L. Fulawka, J. A. Basarab

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeef cattleHerdAnimal scienceMethane emissionsDairy cattlePopulationEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasAgricultural scienceGeographyBiologyEcologyEnvironmental healthMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to estimate enteric methane (CH 4 ) emissions of the Canadian cattle population using the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier-2 methodology. Estimates were then compared with IPCC Tier-1 methodology and data from Canadian research studies (CRS). Animal inventory data for the Canadian beef and dairy cattle herd was obtained from Statistics Canada. Information on cattle performance and feeding practices were obtained from provincial cattle specialists via a survey, as well as various published reports. Methane emissions from dairy and beef cattle in Canada for 2001 were 173 030 t yr -1 or 3.6 Mt CO 2 eq. and 763 852 t yr -1 or 16.0 Mt CO 2 eq., respectively, using Tier-2 methodology. Emissions for dairy cattle ranged from 708 t yr -1 in Newfoundland to 62 184 t yr -1 in Ontario. Emissions for beef cattle ranged from 191 t yr -1 in Newfoundland to 356 345 t yr -1 in Alberta. The national emission factors (kg CH 4 yr -1 ) using IPCC Tier-2 were 73, 126, 90, 94, 40, 75, 63 and 56 for dairy heifers, dairy cows, beef cows, bulls, calves < 1yr, beef heifer replacements, heifers > 1 yr, and steers > 1yr, respectively. Emission factors (kg CH 4 yr -1 ) for the above classes of cattle using IPCC Tier-1 were 56, 118, 72, 75, 47, 56, 47 and 47, respectively. The values were 15.1% higher to 25.3% lower than those obtained using IPCC Tier-2 methodology. When IPCC Tier-2 emission factors were compared with CRS, they were 12.3% lower to 32.6% higher than those obtained using the Tier-2 methodology. In conclusion, national estimates of enteric emissions from the Canadian cattle industry using Tier-1 and Tier-2 methodologies, as well as CRS, differ depending on the methodology used. Tier-2 methodology does allow for the inclusion of information other than population data, including feeding strategies, as well as duration of time in a given production environment. Additional research is required to establish the extent to which feed energy is converted to methane for those production scenarios for which there is no published data. Key words: IPCC Tier-2, IPCC Tier-1, enteric fermentation, cattle, methane, emission factor, methane conversion rate

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations38
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207