Energy productivity and greenhouse gas emission intensity in Dutch dairy farms: A Hicks–Moorsteen by‐production approach under non‐convexity and convexity with equivalence results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The agricultural sector is currently confronted with the challenge to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, whilst maintaining or increasing production. Energy‐saving technologies are often proposed as a partial solution, but the evidence on their ability to reduce GHG emissions remains mixed. Production economics provides methodological tools to analyse the nexus of agricultural production, energy use and GHG emissions. Convexity is predominantly maintained in agricultural production economics, despite various theoretical and empirical reasons to question it. Employing non‐convex and convex frontier frameworks, this contribution evaluates energy productivity change (the ratio of aggregate output change to energy use change) and GHG emission intensity change (the ratio of GHG emission change to polluting input change) using Hicks‐Moorsteen productivity formulations. We consider GHG emissions as by‐products of the production process by using a multi‐equation model. Given our empirical specification, non‐convex and convex Hicks‐Moorsteen indices can coincide under certain circumstances, which leads to a series of theoretical equivalence results. The empirical application focuses on 1,510 observations of Dutch dairy farms for the period of 2010–2019. The results show a positive association between energy productivity change and GHG emission intensity change, which calls into question the potential of on‐farm, energy‐efficiency‐increasing measures to reduce GHG emission intensity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".