MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742820231 · doi:10.2527/asasann.2017.492

492 Water use intensity of Canadian beef production in 1981 as compared to 2011

2017· article· en· W2742820231 on OpenAlexaffabout
Getahun Legesse, Marcos R. C. Cordeiro, Kim Ominski, K. A. Beauchemin, Roland Kröbel, E. J. McGeough, Sarah J. Pogue, Tim A. McAllister

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicOdor and Emission Control Technologies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPastureBeef cattleEnvironmental scienceWater useAnimal scienceAgronomyWater consumptionDry matterBiologyEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The amount of beef produced per animal in Canada has increased significantly from 1981 to 2011 as a result of changes in production efficiency and increases in carcass weight, leading to a decrease in greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions per kilogram beef. This study examined the impact of improvements in production efficiency on water use intensity during the same time frame. The study employed a cradle-to-farm gate life cycle analysis taking into account temporal and regional differences in cattle categories, water use for drinking and feed production, feeding systems, average daily gains, and carcass weight. Water use intensity was defined as the amount of water required to produce one unit of beef. Water use coefficients for each feed crop and pasture type were employed to estimate water consumption associated with feed production for beef cattle. Harvest and feeding losses were also included in the analysis. Estimates of drinking water consumed by a given class of cattle accounted for physiological status, body weight and dry matter intake as well as ambient temperature. Approximately 70% of the drinking water in both years was consumed by the breeding herd (cows, bulls, replacement heifers and calves). In both years, drinking water accounted for less than 1% of total water use when precipitation for feed crop and pasture production were included in the analysis. When precipitation (i.e., green water) was excluded from the analysis, drinking water accounted for up to a 25% of total water use for Canadian beef production. The estimated intensity of blue water use (surface and groundwater) per kilogram of beef at the farm gate was 467 L in 1981 and 395 L in 2011, representing a 15% decline. The observed reduction in water use intensity over the past 3 decades may be attributed to an increase in average daily gain and slaughter weight, improved reproductive efficiency and reduced time to slaughter. Given that feed production accounts for a significant portion of water used in beef production, further improvements can be achieved by increasing feeding efficiencies and reducing water use per unit feed crop and pasture production.

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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicOdor and Emission Control TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207