MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108984832 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaa278.229

173 Greenhouse gas emissions and land use associated with the removal of growth-enhancing technologies from backgrounding and finishing cattle in Canada: A case study

2020· article· en· W3108984832 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emily Boonstra, Tim A. McAllister, Gabriel O Ribeiro, Marcos R. C. Cordeiro, Aklilu W. Alemu, G. H. Crow, Kim Ominski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPharmacological Effects and Assays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceGreenhouse gasBeef cattleEnvironmental scienceBody weightChemistryBiologyEndocrinologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Greenhouse gas emissions from backgrounding and finishing cattle with and without the use of growth-enhancing technologies (GET) were estimated using a whole-farm model, Holos (www.agr.gc.ca/holos-ghg). Model inputs were obtained from a four-year performance study using heifers (H) and steers (S) with six treatments (n = 40 hd treatment-1 yr-1): 1) H control (HCon); 2) H implanted (HTBA); 3) H melengestrol acetate (HMGA); 4) S control (SCon); 5) S implanted (STBA); and 6) S implanted + ractopamine hydrochloride (SRAC; conducted in the last two years). All cattle were finished to achieve a consistent number of days on feed (DOF; n = 233 ± 8). Lighter finish weights were observed for HCon and SCon. As a result, DOF were adjusted (-1 to 65 d) to achieve the same final weight as GET-treated cattle. Total emissions (kg CO2e head-1) were greater for Hcon_AdjHTBA (2967 ± 183) and HCon_AdjHMGA (2766 ± 84), than HTBA (2897 ± 184) and HMGA (2730 ± 81). Similarly, total emissions (kg CO2e head-1) for SCon_AdjSTBA (3169 ± 192) and SCon_AdjSRAC (3252 ± 202) were greater than STBA (2998 ± 153) and SRAC (3097 ± 185), respectively. On an intensity basis, (kg CO2e kg slaughter weight-1), emissions from GET-treated cattle [HTBA (4.49 ± 0.19), HMGA (4.39 ± 0.13), STBA (4.28 ± 0.17), and SRAC (4.31 ± 0.25)] were lower than HCon_AdjHTBA (4.60 ± 0.21), HCon_AdjHMGA (4.45 ± 0.18), SCon_AdjSTBA (4.52 ± 0.23), and SCon_AdjSRAC (4.52 ± 0.28), respectively. Furthermore, land-use (ha 100 kg slaughter weight-1) was reduced for GET-treated cattle (HTBA (0.068 ± 0.001), HMGA (0.067 ± 0.001), STBA (0.066 ± 0.001), and SRAC (0.067 ± 0.000)) compared to HCon_AdjTBA (0.071 ± 0.001), HCon_AdjMGA (0.069 ± 0.002), SCon_AdjTBA (0.072 ± 0.002), and SCon_AdjRAC (0.0073 ± 0.001), respectively. This study demonstrates that GETs can reduce the environmental footprint of beef cattle.

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)0.001
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicPharmacological Effects and AssaysFrench-language works237,207