Sustainability of beef production from brigalow lands after cultivation and mining. 2. Acland Grazing Trial pasture and cattle performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Agricultural land used for open-cut coal mining in Queensland is required by law to be returned to a safe, stable and self-sustaining state for agriculture. Aims The aim of this research was to identify whether rehabilitated pastures on post-mine soil at a site near Acland could viably support cattle production. Methods Five years of field data from Botanal pasture assessments, pasture quality, cattle liveweights and faecal observations, plus supplementary cattle liver data, were used to compare pasture and cattle performance from mined and unmined previously cultivated brigalow land. Subtropical pasture species were sown in 2007 (Rehab1, 22 ha), 2010 (Rehab 2, 32 ha) and 2012 (Rehab3, 22 ha) in three rehabilitated paddocks and in 2012 in an unmined (Control, 21 ha) paddock. The paddocks were grazed for 117–190 days of each year by Angus cattle. Key results Mean total standing dry matter in grazed pasture over the five trial years was consistently higher in Rehab 2 (5656 kg/ha) than in the other paddocks. Rehab 1 (3965 kg/ha) and Rehab 3 (3609 kg/ha) performed at an intermediate level and the Control paddock produced less pasture (2871 kg/ha). Grass leaf crude protein was higher in Rehab 2 than in the other paddocks and declined significantly (P < 0.001) across all paddocks as pasture aged. Pasture species remained perennial, palatable and productive in all paddocks; however, pasture yield, quality and composition trends over time suggested that pasture rundown occurred across all paddocks. The mean liveweight gain (LWG) per head when grazing the trial paddocks (trial LWG) was higher (P < 0.05) in the Rehab 2 cohort than the other paddock cohorts in Years 3 and 5, and trial LWG in the Control cohort was not significantly (P > 0.05) different from one or more of the rehabilitated paddock cohorts each year. Cattle production per hectare during the trial grazing periods was also consistently highest in Rehab 2 (5-year mean trial LWG 131 kg/ha) compared with the other paddocks (67–80 kg/ha). Conclusion The rehabilitated pastures in use by the mine were considered at least as productive as the surrounding unmined brigalow landscape. Implications The Acland rehabilitation process was considered successful in establishing pastures that were able to viably support cattle 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".