Enhanced comment feature has been enabled for all readers including those not logged in. Click on the Discussion tab (top left) to add or reply to discussions.
Talk:Methane: Difference between revisions
From BIF Guidelines Wiki
Latest comment: Monday at 19:53 by Bgolden in topic Review of draft
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
We probably should add that to the Feed Intake page too. Matt? Others? | We probably should add that to the Feed Intake page too. Matt? Others? | ||
=====Re: Re: Re: Review of draft -- [[User:Edressler|Edressler]] ([[User talk:Edressler|talk]]) 17:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)===== | |||
::: Hi Bruce, thanks for the clarification. I've added a recommendations subsection and statement. I discussed your first question with Dr. Rolf and there are a few options for economic weightings in the absence of an established carbon market in the U.S. We could look at other countries which have a more established carbon market, a sliding scale of pricing selected by the producer (similar to igendec), or just utilize it's impacts on other traits (probably not an ideal approach). Others may have additional ideas. For now, this may have to be approached ad hoc, with attention first focused on phenotype collection and understanding the trait and it's impact on other ERTs. Do we feel this discussion point should be added to the trait guidelines? | |||
Your second question: I don't have an issue with including this trait in the management/convenience section. I think that makes the most sense between the current categories. | |||
Revision as of 17:44, 19 November 2024
Review of draft
To do's:
- Add links to things mentioned like RFI
- References use the ref tag
- Recommendation statement
Question: Without any carbon tax/penalty/incentive, how would you develop an economic weight for a selection index?
Question: Should this be in the Management/Convenience traits?
Bruce L. Golden (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Re: Review of draft -- Edressler (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Bruce. Thanks for the feedback. I have added links to other relevant pages like feed intake and efficiency. I also added references using ref tag. In regards to your last comment for a recommendation statement, is that referencing the "Usage" subheading?
Re: Re: Review of draft -- Bruce L. Golden (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the adds! In many articles with a strong recommendation, we add a Recommendations subsection, usually at the end. You've recommended that RMP not be used (I agree). This recommendation probably should be repeated in its own subsection. The convention is to put it in italics. See the Possible Change article as an example: https://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Possible_Change
We probably should add that to the Feed Intake page too. Matt? Others?
Re: Re: Re: Review of draft -- Edressler (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Bruce, thanks for the clarification. I've added a recommendations subsection and statement. I discussed your first question with Dr. Rolf and there are a few options for economic weightings in the absence of an established carbon market in the U.S. We could look at other countries which have a more established carbon market, a sliding scale of pricing selected by the producer (similar to igendec), or just utilize it's impacts on other traits (probably not an ideal approach). Others may have additional ideas. For now, this may have to be approached ad hoc, with attention first focused on phenotype collection and understanding the trait and it's impact on other ERTs. Do we feel this discussion point should be added to the trait guidelines?
Your second question: I don't have an issue with including this trait in the management/convenience section. I think that makes the most sense between the current categories.
