MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171137093 · doi:10.1071/ea07199

Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review

2008· review· en· W2171137093 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Experimental Agriculture · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersMinistry of Education, IndiaMinistry of Earth Sciences
KeywordsGreenhouse gasEnvironmental management systemPastureAgronomySustainabilityEnvironmental scienceSilageBiotechnologyBiologyIrrigationEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A variety of nutritional management strategies that reduce enteric methane (CH4) production are discussed. Strategies such as increasing the level of grain in the diet, inclusion of lipids and supplementation with ionophores (>24 ppm) are most likely to be implemented by farmers because there is a high probability that they reduce CH4 emissions in addition to improving production efficiency. Improved pasture management, replacing grass silage with maize silage and using legumes hold some promise for CH4 mitigation but as yet their impact is not sufficiently documented. Several new strategies including dietary supplementation with saponins and tannins, selection of yeast cultures and use of fibre-digesting enzymes may mitigate CH4, but these still require extensive research. Most of the studies on reductions in CH4 from ruminants due to diet management are short-term and focussed only on changes in enteric emissions. Future research must examine long-term sustainability of reductions in CH4 production and impacts on the entire farm greenhouse gas budget.

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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.264 · 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