Talk:LCA of Pig Farming

From Appropedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments on Livestock LCA: David Shoenhair April 29, 2010

  • A great strength of this wiki is its organization and format, it is very clear and easy to read.
  • One important aspect of this LCA that should be revised is the explanation of units in figures and tables; for example, in tables with feed rates g/kg and kg/harvest, are these rates daily, monthly, annually? It is difficult to find this critical information.
  • Additional subheadings after the initial description of the sections and summaries at the end of each section would help the reader navigate more easily to relevant information. Add more headings, be specific.
  • The opening sentences (introductions) are very concise, but follow them up with more detailed elaboration on the topics introduced
  • All figures have captions and are numbered clearly, and are usually describe sufficiently with some exceptions (as noted earlier).
  • There are sufficient references present. Proper formatting is used.
  • Tables were inserted using the table making methods of the wiki, therefore increasing the “search” utility of the LCA, allowing people searching for information to find the table more easily.
  • While the LCA is neither too short nor long, more detailed description of waste associated with slaughter of the animals seems pertinent as well.
  • There is one blaring question/comment on the title of this LCA; is this LCA on Livestock generally, a very broad topic, or just on pigs? The content suggests the latter, but the title indicates the former. Perhaps edit the title.

Edits by Alexis Mills

  1. What is the most important strength of this document? The document is well-organized overall.
  2. What is the most important aspect to change? Some units are confusing. For example, one table contains units of kg/harvest, but nowhere does the wiki define what exactly a “harvest” is. Also, the wiki should generally be edited for tone, choppy sentences, clarity, and concision. For instance, the following sentence should be changed; “Waste management can be a major issue for pig farms. Whether it is meeting governmental regulations or preventing contaminations leading to illnesses.”
  3. How could the navigation of the document be improved? Navigation is generally good.
  4. Do you have suggestions for improving the headings used in the document? You may want to include additional heading (see below). Also, the main headings have no text beneath them.
  5. Are there any topic sentences that should be improved? The Energy Inputs and Impacts topic sentence should be rewritten to reflect the paragraph more accurately.
  6. Do all figures have captions, figure numbers and are they referred to in the text? All figures have captions and are numbered clearly. Citation for source of information for tables should be included in the captions. Figures and tables could be discussed more thoroughly within the text.
  7. Is there at least one reference per author? Are the references cited properly and do they use the format described here? There is one reference per author, and footnotes are hyperlinked correctly.
  8. Are tables included as text whenever possible? (Appropedia can search text in tables – so Lonny prefers tables to be text rather than images). This page contains information on how to make tables Tables are included as text.
  9. Should the document be shortened or lengthened? If so, what suggestions do you have. The document could be lengthened to include more livestock. Otherwise, you might consider changing the title of the page. Also, LCA implies tracking the product from cradle to grave, however there is little or no inclusion of slaughtering and transportation of final product. How far does the meat travel, etc.?
  10. Any other questions or comments for the authors? Defining the purpose of the page at the forefront is probably unnecessary in the context of a wiki article. Table 1 can be edited to include units, and, if you are going to separate sow, I would use boar instead of pig