MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2462648883 · doi:10.1071/an15850

Grazing winter and spring wheat crops improves the profitability of prime lamb production in mixed farming systems of Western Australia

2016· article· en· W2462648883 on OpenAlexaff
Ethar Hussein, D. Thomas, Lindsay W. Bell, Dominique Blache

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Production Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPasture and Agricultural Systems
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrazingAgronomyPastureLivestockEnvironmental scienceAgricultureCropCroppingStockingGross marginIrrigationGeographyAgroforestryBiologyEcologyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grazing immature cereal crops, particularly different varieties of wheat, has become widely adopted in the high rainfall areas of southern Australia. Recently, there has been growing interest in applying this technology in drier parts of the mixed farming zones of Western Australia. A modelling study was conducted to examine farm business returns with or without the grazing of immature wheat (winter and spring varieties) in different locations of Western Australia (Merredin, Wickepin and Kojonup), representing the low to high rainfall (319–528 mm) cropping regions, respectively. A combination of APSIM (crop simulation model) and GrassGro (pasture and livestock simulation model), were used to evaluate the changes in farm gross margins with the grazing of cereal crops at three locations of Western Australia. The results of the study showed that grazing the two wheat varieties (dual-purpose winter and spring) at the high rainfall location increased the profitability of the livestock enterprise by 2.5 times more than grazing crops at both low rainfall locations (P < 0.05). Across all years and sites, the average supplementary feeding costs were reduced by the inclusion of grazed winter (12%) and spring (2%) wheat crops in the lamb production system. The comparative reduction in the cost of supplementary feeding varied between locations and by crop variety within locations, due to both the frequency and average duration of the grazing of wheat crops in these regions, and the farm-stocking rate that was chosen. Both wheat varieties were grazed frequently at the lowest rainfall site (68% and 30% of years for winter and spring wheat varieties respectively), whereas grazing spring wheat was less frequent at the higher rainfall location and averaged 16% of years due to a greater difference in the relative availability of wheat crops versus pasture for grazing among regions. The grazing model assumed that there were abundant productive mixed ryegrass and subterranean clover pasture in the farming system. Overall, this study suggests that both winter and spring wheat crops are likely to supply green feed during the winter feed shortage (April–July) and reduce supplementary feed requirements for a short period of time in some seasons. The value of grazing crops is likely to be higher on farms with poorer soils and less productive pastures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal Production ScienceSame topicPasture and Agricultural SystemsFrench-language works237,207