Can the broiler industry rely on results of existing life cycle assessment and environmental assessments studies to inform broilers’ nutritional strategies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this systematic review is to investigate the applicability of the results from existing life cycle analysis (LCA) and environmental assessments studies in informing nutritional strategies for environmentally sustainable poultry meat production. This paper reports on a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) of articles published between 2000 and 2020. The studies reviewed were conducted in developed countries including UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Canada, and USA. All articles were written in English. The REA includes studies on LCA of differing strains of meat poultry and production systems, studies on poultry manure emission and studies on environmental assessments of plant-based feed ingredients. The review covered studies on soil carbon dynamics associated with plant-based ingredients. Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed were used to obtain the 6,142 population articles. The multistage screening process resulted in 29 studies from which 15 studies included LCA while the rest 14 studies analyzed NH3 emission of broilers. All studies based on LCA were descriptive and did not include replications. Only 12 studies assessed the effect of interventions to reduce NH3 emission of broiler litter using replicated layout designs. It is concluded that the broiler industry in UK, EU, and North America cannot rely on results of existing LCA and environmental assessments studies to inform their nutritional strategy and poultry meat production due to a shortage of reliable in vivo data assessing interventions in controlled studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".