Profitability of Organic Vegetable Production via Sod Based Rotation and Conventional Versus Strip Tillage in the Southern Coastal Plain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are little economic data concerning the profitability of organic vegetable crops in the Southern Coastal Plain, especially in reference to sod-based rotation and tillage alternatives. A three-year experiment was conducted at the North Florida Research and Education Center-Quincy involving a crop rotation sequence of oats and rye (winter), bush beans (spring), soybean (summer) and broccoli (fall). Bush beans and broccoli were the cash crops. This paper presents analyses of the riskiness of organic production utilizing years in bahiagrass prior to initiating the crop rotation sequence and conventional tillage (CT) versus strip tillage (ST). Methods of “Risk-rated enterprise budget” and “Analyses of Variance-Covariance Matrix (ANOVA)” were utilized for determining relative profitability, and coefficient of variation was applied for measuring riskiness of each treatment. Three years of bahiagrass prior to initiating the crop rotation sequence, in combination with conventional tillage, had the highest profitability and ranked as the least risky scenario. The second most profitable treatment was conventional tillage with four years of bahiagrass. Focusing on strip tillage, four years of bahiagrass with strip-tillage ranked third in term of profitability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".