MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414831335 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaf300.164

365 Building bridges for sustainable livestock: The 10-year+ learnings from the Global Farm Platform

2025· article· en· W4414831335 on OpenAlexaff
Michael R. F. Lee, José María del Rivero, Gleise da Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityAgricultureEcological footprintResilience (materials science)LivestockCarbon footprintLivelihoodQuality (philosophy)Sustainable development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Global Farm Platform initiative (www.globalfarmplatform.org), established in 2014, is a network of research farms and institute members working collaboratively to enhance the sustainability of ruminant livestock systems through the development of transformational regional solutions to global challenges and promote their adoption. This multidisciplinary international network provides a unique combination of research and practice for diverse ruminant production systems in various cultural, socioeconomic, and climatic zones. Our steps for sustainable livestock include: 1) Feeding animals less human food, focusing on forage-based systems and reducing reliance on supplementary feeds; several research farms (RFs) are exploring sustainable practices, such as the Kenian “Tumbukiza” method and increased plant diversity in grazing systems, to enhance resilience and productivity. 2) Raising regionally appropriate animals adapted to local conditions; RFs are engaged in crossbreeding and selecting animals for resilience to climate change challenges, ensuring they can thrive in specific environments. 3) Keeping animals healthy; RFs employ various approaches, including technology like sensors and video cameras for monitoring animal health, as well as vaccine development to combat specific diseases. 4) Smart supplements; RFs explore options like spontaneous vegetation and innovative legumes to enrich soil quality and provide nutrition. 5) Focusing on quality over quantity in food production; RFs are implementing measures such as CT scanning for carcass confirmation and assessing the nutritional value and carbon footprint of forage-based beef systems. 6) Tailoring practices to local culture; promoting the transfer of research outcomes to stakeholders and farming communities. This includes initiatives to transform agriculture for environmental and economic benefits. 7) Tracking costs and benefits; involves assessing the environmental and economic impacts of sustainable grazing systems, utilising Life Cycle Assessment approaches, and collating databases for comprehensive analysis. 8) Studying best practices; involves the Global Farm Platform initiative’s network of research farms globally. The initiative aims to optimise livestock use in various regions, considering local resources, breeds, and feedstuffs.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.015
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.008

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicAgriculture and Rural Development Research→French-language works237,207→