MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385637242 · doi:10.1007/s11367-023-02199-1

Regionalized life cycle inventory data collection and calculation for perennial forage production in Canada: methodological best practices and limitations

2023· article· en· W4385637242 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sarah J. Pogue, Nicole Bamber, Hugues Imbeault‐Tétreault, Adeline Baudoin, Aaron McPherson, Steven Kega, Madavine Tom, Roland Kröbel, Kim Ominski, K. A. Beauchemin, Brenna Grant, Tim A. McAllister

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaBeef Cattle Research CouncilUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsEnvironmental sciencePerennial plantForageTonneAgronomyFertilizerIrrigationLeaching (pedology)Soil carbonAgricultureNutrientAgroforestryGeographySoil waterBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose In Canada, 95–99% of produced forages are consumed domestically each year, mainly by beef cattle. Despite their importance, their contribution to the Canadian livestock industry and associated ecosystem services has not been investigated. This study developed a life cycle inventory (LCI) of perennial forage production in Canada averaged from 2009 to 2018. Methods LCI data were sourced or calculated from up-to-date, regionally resolved sources and models. Inputs to perennial forage production included the following: concrete, steel, and plastic usage; machinery fuel consumption; electricity, natural gas, and water use for irrigation; and synthetic and organic fertilizer, lime, and herbicide use. Assessed emissions included ammonia and nitrous oxide (N2O); carbon dioxide from energy use; herbicide, nitrate, and phosphate losses; and soil carbon accumulation. Results were expressed per metric tonne of harvested perennial forage dry matter at provincial and regional scales—Western Canada [British Columbia (BC), Alberta (AB), Saskatchewan (SK), Manitoba (MB)] and Eastern Canada [Ontario (ON), Québec (QC)]. Results and discussion Rates of inputs varied, with generally lower nutrient but higher herbicide application in West vs. East. Irrigation was highest in BC, followed by AB and SK; energy consumption was highest in BC and lowest in QC. Higher N2O losses and nutrient losses via leaching and runoff in the East were partially due to greater soil moisture. Although total harvested perennial forage area declined from 6.43 to 5.23 million hectares from 2009 to 2018, these lands continued to accumulate soil carbon. The time period used to calculate average yields affected LCI estimates, as prairie yields were lower 1994–2003/1999–2008 due to drought. Furthermore, soil carbon sequestration estimates were affected by the annual change coefficients employed, underscoring the need for careful interpretation of LCI outputs. Results were compared to other studies and highlighted the importance of the choice of data and methods in creating LCI, and the need for transparency. Conclusions This first national LCI of perennial forage production in Canada provides a baseline for LCI inputs and outputs associated with this sector, highlighting provincial and regional differences. Outputs can be used to conduct future life cycle assessments to assess the environmental impacts of forage production and generate recommendations to improve sustainability, and for education and marketing purposes. This study demonstrates methodological best practices for LCI data mining and calculations, within available data and model limitations, thereby identifying gaps and providing a roadmap for other countries or sectors to develop detailed forage LCI.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.016
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Life Cycle AssessmentSame topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207