Accounting for uncertainty in the quantification of the environmental impacts of Canadian pig farming systems1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the study was to develop a life cycle assessment (LCA) for pig farming systems that would account for uncertainty and variability in input data and allow systematic environmental impact comparisons between production systems. The environmental impacts of commercial pig production for 2 regions in Canada (Eastern and Western) were compared using a cradle-to-farm gate LCA. These systems had important contrasting characteristics such as typical feed ingredients used, herd performance, and expected emission factors from manure management. The study used detailed production data supplied by the industry and incorporated uncertainty/variation in all major aspects of the system including life cycle inventory data for feed ingredients, animal performance, energy inputs, and emission factors. The impacts were defined using 5 metrics-global warming potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential (EP), abiotic resource use, and nonrenewable energy use-and were expressed per kilogram carcass weight at farm gate. Eutrophication potential was further separated into marine EP (MEP) and freshwater EP (FEP). Uncertainties in the model inputs were separated into 2 types: uncertainty in the data used to describe the system (α uncertainties) and uncertainty in impact calculations or background data that affects all systems equally (β uncertainties). The impacts of pig production in the 2 regions were systematically compared based on the differences in the systems (α uncertainties). The method of ascribing uncertainty influenced the outcomes. In eastern systems, EP, MEP, and FEP were lower (P < 0.05) when assuming that all uncertainty in the emission factors for leaching from manure application was β. This was mainly due to increased EP resulting from field emissions for typical ingredients in western diets. When uncertainty in these emission factors was assumed to be α, only FEP was lower in eastern systems (P < 0.05). The environmental impacts for the other impact categories were not significantly different between the 2 systems, despite their aforementioned differences. In conclusion, a probabilistic approach was used to develop an LCA that systematically dealt with uncertainty in the data when comparing multiple environmental impacts measures in pig farming systems for the first time. The method was used to identify differences between Canadian pig production systems but can also be applied for comparisons between other agricultural systems that include inherent variation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".