MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7038613245

Impact of bread waste inclusion in feedlot diets on the environmental footprint of growing and finishing beef cattle

2024· dissertation· en· W7038613245 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBeef Cattle Research CouncilMitacs
KeywordsFeedlotBeef cattleGreenhouse gasEcological footprintWater useCattle feedingLife-cycle assessmentDry matterFootprintEnvironmental impact assessment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this research was to examine the impact of including bread waste in feedlot diets on the environmental footprint of beef cattle. Existing data including diet composition and animal performance metrics (body weight, average daily gain, dry matter intake, feed:gain ratio) were obtained from two previous feeding trials in which steers were fed bread by-product (BBy) at rates of 40% (growing steers) and 55% DM (finishing steers). Environmental footprint metrics were estimated through modeling approaches and included land use requirements, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, ammonia (NH3) emissions, and water use requirements. Including bread waste in the diets of growing steers resulted in a 45% decrease in land use (ha hd-1) for feed crops, a 14% decrease in GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e hd-1), a 4% decrease in NH3 emission intensity (kg NH3 hd-1), and a 37% decrease in water use intensity (L kg-1 live weight) compared to steers fed a conventional corn-based diet. Finishing steers fed a BBy-based diet had a 63% reduction in land use (ha hd-1) for feed production, a 19% reduction in GHG emission intensity (kg CO2e hd-1), 1% reduction in NH3 emissions (kg NH3 hd-1), and a 61% reduction in water use intensity (L kg-1 live weight). Furthermore, GHG emissions associated with BBy from production to waste management were 24% and 53% lower when diverting BBy from landfill to growing and finishing diets, respectively. Utilizing bread waste in feedlot diets not only reduces the environmental footprint of growing and finishing cattle but makes use of land, water and fertilizer resources that have already been expended. Furthermore, as bread waste is priced lower than conventional feedstuffs, its inclusion in feedlot diets is expected to reduce the cost of production for growing and finishing cattle. Despite the benefits, current challenges that must be considered include availability and proximity of bread waste to feedlots, short shelf life, and regulatory restrictions.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicMarine Biology and Ecology Research→French-language works237,207→