MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2271884002 · doi:10.1071/an15515

The concordance between greenhouse gas emissions, livestock production and profitability of extensive beef farming systems

2016· article· en· W2271884002 on OpenAlex
Matthew Tom Harrison, Brendan Cullen, Nigel Tomkins, Christopher S. McSweeney, Philip Cohn, Richard Eckard

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

VenueAnimal Production Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsCarbon Engineering (Canada)
FundersAustralian GovernmentMeat and Livestock AustraliaAustralian Wool Innovation
KeywordsGross marginGreenhouse gasPastureEnvironmental scienceAgricultureLivestockAgronomyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here we examine the concordance among emissions, production and gross margins of extensive beef farming systems by modelling a range of scenarios for herd management, animal genotype and pasture nutritive quality. We based our simulations on a case-study farm in central Queensland, Australia, and studied the influence of interventions designed for emissions mitigation, increasing productivity, or increasing gross margin. Interventions included replacing urea supplementation with nitrate, finishing cattle on the perennial forage leucaena (L), herd structure optimisation (HO), higher female fecundity (HF), and a leucaena finishing enterprise that had net farm emissions equal to the baseline (leucaena equal emissions; LEE). The HO intervention reduced the ratio of breeding cows relative to steers and unmated heifers, and lowered the ratio of costs to net cattle sales. Gross margin of the baseline, nitrate, L, LEE, HO and HF scenarios were AU$146 000, AU$91 000, AU$153 000, AU$170 000, AU$204 000 and AU$216 000, respectively. Enterprises with early joining of maiden heifers as well as HO and HF further increased gross margin (AU$323 000), while systems incorporating all compatible interventions (HO, HF, early joining, LEE) had a gross margin of AU$315 000. We showed that interventions that increase liveweight turnoff while maintaining net farm emissions resulted in higher gross margins than did interventions that maintained liveweight production and reduced net emissions. A key insight of this work was that the relationship between emissions intensity (emissions per unit liveweight production) or liveweight turnoff with gross margin were negative and positive, respectively, but only when combinations of (compatible) interventions were included in the dataset. For example, herd optimisation by reducing the number of breeding cows and increasing the number of sale animals increased gross margin by 40%, but this intervention had little effect on liveweight turnoff and emissions intensity. However, when herd optimisation was combined with other interventions that increased production, gross margins increased and emissions intensity declined. This is a fortuitous outcome, since it implies that imposing more interventions with the potential to profitably enhance liveweight turnoff allows a greater reduction in emissions intensity, but only when each intervention works synergistically with those already in place.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.232 · 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