MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981356991

An Economic Analysis of High-Intensity, Short-Duration Grazing Systems in South Dakota and Nebraska

2015· article· en· W6981356991 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen PRAIRIE (South Dakota State University) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrazingLivestockStockingEconomic analysisAcreEconomic riskProfitability indexQuarter (Canadian coin)Risk aversion (psychology)Stocking rate
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four different grazing systems: two rotational, a continuous, and a high-intensity, short-duration (mob) system, replicated twice, were evaluated from an economic perspective. Mob grazing is defined as a system having very high stocking rates for a small amount of time. Livestock are forced to eat or trample the vegetation. Stocking rates and average daily gains (ADG) were collected from the UNL Barta Brothers ranch near Rose, Nebraska. The study started in 2011 and lasted until 2014. Using the performance data and other cost data relevant to South Dakota and Nebraska, budgets were set up for each system and extrapolated to a quarter section (160) of rangeland. Profitability of each system, which was measured as returns to labor and management, was found for each replication. Next, Simetar© was used to determine the risk in each system and rank the systems according to risk preferences. These risk preferences were used to find a risk premium, the amount a producer would need to be indifferent between two systems. Finally, a sensitivity analysis ranked each system against a baseline when the system experiences decreases in cattle performance. Some important results are as follows: 1) the rotational grazing system in which cattle pass through each paddock twice (4-PR-2) had the highest returns to labor and management, 2) the mob grazing system was the least preferred system per acre when risk was not considered, 3) when risk aversion increases, mob grazing becomes the third xiii preferred system per acre, 4) a risk neutral producer would need a risk premium of $22.92-$79.84 per animal or $32.43-$132.96 an acre to switch to mob grazing, 5) if ADG decreases by 5% from the baseline system (4-PR-2) the continuous system is the most preferred system per animal and per acre. An implication of this study is that even though mob grazing was the least profitable system the potential for profitability was present. The system 4-PR-2, which had the next highest number of moves, had the greatest returns to labor and management. Therefore, a mob system could be profitable with adjustments to maintain animal performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueOpen PRAIRIE (South Dakota State University)Same topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207