A Qualitative Assessment of the Benefits and Costs of On-Farm Food Safety and Environmental Farm Plans in the Pork Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This series of six reports entitled: "On-Farm Food Safety and Environmental Farm Plans: Identifying and Classifying Benefits and Costs" was initiated soon after the launch of the Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) in 2002. The APF recognized the importance of food safety and environmental concerns for the future growth of the agriculture and Agri-food sector. For this reason, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) commissioned this series of reports to develop a conceptual framework to strengthen our understanding of the potential benefit and cost implications of On-farm Food Safety (OFFS) and Environmental Farm Plans (EFP) that were key components of the APF. The reports were prepared by a group of academics with extensive knowledge of the agriculture and Agri-food sector and issues related to food safety, traceability and the environment. The first report presents a summary of the findings in the five main reports in the series. The second report presents the conceptual framework that was developed to help identify qualitatively the potential benefits and costs that the various players in the agriculture and agri-food supply chain would face in implementing OFFS and EFP programs. The third report applies this framework to pork, the fourth, to beef, the fifth, to grains and the sixth, to dairy. In general, benefits and costs are divided into both demand and supply side effects. In addition, both public and private costs and benefits are considered, especially since they help indicate where a role for government might be required and where markets are not working as well as they might. Based on these preliminary qualitative assessments, the beef and pork sector have more to gain from HACCP-based OFFS and EFP initiatives, due to their ability to gain market share from marketing their products internationally, while the grains sector already benefits internationally from its high quality reputation and the dairy sector is restricted to produce only for the domestic market. However, more work is required in these areas to validate and quantify costs and benefits.
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 | 0.027 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".