MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6959634309 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2014-158

Beef cattle husbandry practices across Ecoregions of Canada in 2011

2015· article· en· W6959634309 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioactive natural compounds
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeef cattleGrazingAnimal husbandryManureForageFeedlotPastureAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Sheppard, S. C., Bittman, S., Donohoe, G., Flaten, D., Wittenberg, K. M., Small, J. A., Berthiaume, R., McAllister, T. A., Beauchemin, K. A., McKinnon, J., Amiro, B. D., MacDonald, D., Mattos, F. and Ominski, K. H. 2015. Beef cattle husbandry practices across Ecoregions of Canada in 2011. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 95: 305-321. Beef production in Canada is diverse in many dimensions with numbers of cattle per operation ranging over 10 000-fold, pasture usage from nil to 100%, and types of operations from solely cow-calf to exclusively feedlot finishing. This study summarizes management information obtained from a survey conducted in 2012 (about 2011) on 1009 beef operations in Canada. Many of the results clearly differentiate the practices in the Prairies from those in Ontario and Quebec. Compared to eastern Canada, the Prairies had earlier and shorter calving seasons, higher weaning weights, utilized more winter grazing with a variety of strategies, grew and fed more barley than corn, used more seasonal feeding areas and feedlots (and hence fewer barns), and more commonly spread manure in the fall. Many of the management practices used by cow-calf operations would have low environmental impact, including extensive use of grazing even in winter, low fertilizer inputs and feeding perennial forages with a high content of legumes. Some practices such as not covering forages or manure storage structures were common and could be changed to improve forage quality and reduce manure emissions. Most forage was harvested 3-7 d after full bloom. Earlier harvest has the potential to improve forage quality, which could reduce dependence on arable crops. Finishing operations used more housing, fed more arable-land crops and less perennial forages, and practiced little grazing. Rationale regarding the adoption of many of the management strategies was reported by the producers. For example, winter grazing was adopted primarily to reduce costs and labour, but for some it was also linked to a late calving season. Preferred sources of technical information included their own experience, farm print media, producer organisations and demonstrations at field days. The survey also identified several areas in which the industry may realize improved sustainability.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.314
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.017 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioOne Complete (BioOne)Same topicBioactive natural compoundsFrench-language works237,207