Summary Report 3 ‘Livestock Systems’ Submit an electronic copy (as a Word document) via LMS For this assessment, you need to take the information and write a summary report in your own words. The writing phase of the summary report is an independent piece of work – not a group project. Report, in your own words, the key findings and your interpretations as related to animal production in the agricultural system that you have been researching. Summarize the current information, make a table of inputs, costs and expected income (and therefore approximate profit), identify key constraints, and gap(s) in knowledge regarding the production system (or components). Are current research activities targeted to improve aspects of animal productivity in the system? If so, summarize them. If not, then describe a research process for assessing the potential for integration of animal production (costs, income, environmental impacts). The length of text Maximum 500 words, excluding the reference list, Figures and Tables. We suggest single-spaced, Times New Roman Font, 12 point. If you exceed the 500-word limit, a penalty will apply.: for each 1 per cent in excess of the word limit, 1 per cent of the total mark will be subtracted. Figures and Tables You can use tables of lists/dot-points in a user-friendly format as an efficient way to summarize information clearly and thus avoid long text. Tables and figures should be attached after the text and are permitted in addition to the 500-word limit. Moreover, words in captions are not included in the word limit. An explanatory caption is essential – good captions means allow each figure and table to be read and understood without having to read all the other text. The main body of the assignment (the 500 words) must refer to each table and figure and lead the reader through the information presented. Make sure that your tables and figures also provide the references used within the tables and figures. Marking Rubric for Summary Report 4 ‘Livestock Systems’ CriteriaPerfectHigh DistinctionDistinctionCreditPassPartial failComplete failTitle (5%)Outstanding title that is directly relevant to the topic, makes sense, is concise and in active voice, PLUS clever. 5Excellent title that is directly relevant to the topic, makes sense, is concise and in active voice. 4Very good title that is relevant to the topic, makes sense, is concise, but in passive voice. 3.5Good title that is relevant to the topic, mostly makes sense, but is in passive voice or is too long. 3Satisfactory title that is relevant to the topic, mostly makes sense, but is in passive voice AND is too long. 2.5Unsatisfactory title that is irrelevant or nonsensical. 1.5No title provided. 0Introduction (10%)Provides outstanding context (e.g., industry size, lists production system and products, states location) that is directly relevant and complete. Concludes with report aims. Outstanding clarity and logical flow of ideas. Statements fully referenced. 10Provides excellent context (e.g., industry size, lists production system and products, states location) that is relevant and complete. Concludes with report aims. Excellent clarity, with only minor issues in logical flow of ideas. Statements fully referenced. 8Provides very good context (e.g., industry size, lists production system and products, states location) that is mostly relevant and complete. Concludes with report aims. Very good clarity, but with some issues in logical flow of ideas. Statements referenced, but 1 or 2 omissions. 7Provides good context (e.g., industry size, lists production system and products, states location) that is mostly relevant, but incomplete. Concludes with report aims. Good clarity, but with some issues in logical flow of ideas. Statements referenced, with more than 2 omissions. 6Provides satisfactory context (e.g., industry size, lists production system and products, states location) that is mostly relevant, but incomplete. Concludes without report aims. Satisfactory clarity, but with several issues in logical flow of ideas that impedes readability. Serious reference omissions and/or includes irrelevant references. 5Unsatisfactory context (e.g., industry size, lists production system and products, states location) that is irrelevant. Concludes without report aims. Poor clarity, with many issues in logical flow of ideas that impedes readability. No relevant references provided. 3No Introduction and aims provided. 0Description of system: 1) Brief summary of soils, climate, plants, workforce; 2) How your animal component fits into the system. (20%)Outstanding description of agricultural system and how animal component fits into it; description is relevant and complete. Explains inputs and their costs, production and its income value. Supported using relevant data in text, tables or figures. Outstanding clarity and logical flow of ideas. Statements fully referenced. 20Excellent description of agricultural system and how animal component fits into it; description is relevant and complete. Explain inputs and their costs, production and its income value. Supported using relevant data in text, tables or figures. Excellent clarity, with only minor issues in logical flow of ideas. Statements fully referenced. 16Very good description of agricultural system and how animal component fits into it; description is mostly relevant and complete. Explain inputs and their costs, production and its income value, with only minor omissions. Generally well supported using relevant data in text, tables or figures, with some minor omissions. Very good clarity, but with some issues in logical flow of ideas. Statements referenced, but 1 or 2 omissions. 14Good description of agricultural system and how animal component fits into it; description is mostly relevant, but incomplete. Explain inputs and their costs, production and its income value, with only minor omissions. Not fully supported using relevant data in text, tables or figures. Good clarity, but with some issues in logical flow of ideas. Statements referenced, but with more than 2 omissions. 12Satisfactory description of agricultural system and how animal component fits into it; description is mostly relevant, but incomplete. Explain inputs and their costs, production and its income value, but with major omissions. Not fully supported using relevant data in text, tables or figures. Satisfactory clarity, but with several issues in logical flow of ideas that impedes readability. Serious reference omissions and/or includes irrelevant references. 10Unsatisfactory description of agricultural system and how animal component fits into it; irrelevant information. Does not explain inputs and their costs, production and its income value. Not supported using relevant data in text, tables or figures. Poor clarity, with many issues in logical flow of ideas that impedes readability. No relevant references provided. 6No description of agricultural system and how animal component fits into it. 0Current constraints to production (30%)Outstanding description of main bio-physical constraints to how the animal component fits into the system (e.g., climate, feed resources, disease risks, infrastructure, skills, welfareExcellent description of main bio-physical constraints to how the animal component fits into the system (e.g., climate, feed resources, disease risks, infrastructure, skills, welfare and ethics);Very good description of description of main bio- physical constraints to how the animal component fits into the system (e.g., climate, feed resources, disease risks, infrastructure,Good description of main bio-physical constraints to how the animal component fits into the system (e.g., climate, feed resources, disease risks, infrastructure, skills, welfare and ethics);Satisfactory description of main bio-physical constraints to how the animal component fits into the system (e.g., climate, feed resources, disease risks, infrastructure, skills, welfareUnsatisfactory description of main bio-physical constraints to how the animal component fits into the system (e.g., climate, feed resources, disease risks, infrastructure, skills, welfareNo description provided of main bio-physical constraints to how the animal component fits into the system. 0 and ethics); description is justified and complete. Outstanding explanation of magnitude or likely order of importance of the constraints provided. Supported using relevant data in text, tables or figures. Outstanding clarity and logical flow of ideas. Statements fully referenced. 30description is justified and complete. Excellent explanation of magnitude or likely order of importance of the constraints provided. Supported using relevant data in text, tables or figures. Excellent clarity, with only minor issues in logical flow of ideas. Statements fully referenced. 24skills, welfare and ethics); description is mostly justified and complete. Very good explanation of magnitude or likely order of importance of the constraints provided, with only minor omissions. Generally well supported using relevant data in text, tables or figures, with some minor omissions. Very good clarity, but with some issues in logical flow of ideas. Statements referenced, but 1 or 2 omissions. 21description is mostly justified, but incomplete. Good explanation of magnitude or likely order of importance of the constraints provided, with only minor omissions. Not fully supported using relevant data in text, tables or figures. Good clarity, but with some issues in logical flow of ideas. Statements referenced, but with more than 2 omissions. 18and ethics); description is mostly justified, but incomplete. Explains magnitude or likely order of importance of the constraints, but with major omissions. Not fully supported using relevant data in text, tables or figures. Satisfactory clarity, but with several issues in logical flow of ideas that impedes readability. Serious reference omissions and/or includes irrelevant references. 15and ethics); largely irrelevant. Does not explain magnitude or likely order of importance of the constraints. Not supported using relevant data in text, tables or figures. Poor clarity, with many issues in logical flow of ideas that impedes readability. No relevant references provided. 9 Current and future research (15%)Outstanding table listing relevant research and development projects for the animal component of the agricultural system, that also clearly identifies those projects that address the constraints identified above. Outstanding justification in the text of the most important research and development projects identified in the table. Outstanding identification and explanation of future (additional) research needs, with full justification. Outstanding clarity and logical flow of ideas. Statements fully referenced. 15Excellent table listing relevant research and development projects for the animal component of the agricultural system, that also clearly identifies those projects that address the constraints identified above. Excellent justification in the text of the most important research and development projects identified in the table. Excellent identification and explanation of future (additional) research needs, with full justification. Excellent clarity, but with only minor issues in logical flow of ideas. Statements fully referenced. 12Very good table listing relevant research and development projects for the animal component of the agricultural system, that mostly identifies those projects that address the constraints identified above. Very good justification in the text of the most important research and development projects identified in the table, with only minor omissions. Very good identification and explanation of future (additional) research needs that are mostly justified. Very good clarity, but with some issues in logical flow of ideas. Statements referenced, but 1 or 2 omissions. 10.5Good table listing relevant research and development projects for the animal component of the agricultural system, that does not identify all projects that address the constraints identified above. Good justification in the text of the most important research and development projects identified in the table, with only minor omissions. Good identification and explanation of future (additional) research needs that are mostly justified. Good clarity, but with some issues in logical flow of ideas. Statements referenced, but with more than 2 omissions. 9Satisfactory table listing relevant research and development projects for the animal component of the agricultural system, but does not identify all projects that address the constraints identified above. Satisfactory justification in the text of the most important research and development projects identified in the table, but with major omissions. No identification and explanation of future (additional) research needs, or research needs not justified. Satisfactory clarity, but with several issues in logical flow of ideas that impedes readability. Serious reference omissions and/or includes irrelevant references. 7.5Satisfactory table that lists irrelevant research and development projects for the animal component of the agricultural system. Unsatisfactory justification in the text of the most important research and development projects. No identification and explanation of future (additional) research needs, or research needs not justified. Poor clarity, with many issues in logical flow of ideas that impedes readability. No relevant references provided. 4.5No table provided that lists relevant research and development projects for the animal component of the agricultural system. 0Conclusion (s) (5%)Outstanding conclusion(s), based on the content of the report, and that are well- aligned with the aims outlined in the Introduction. Outstanding clarity and logical flow of ideas. 5Excellent conclusion(s) based on the content of the report, and well-aligned with report aims outlined in the Introduction. Excellent clarity, but with only minorVery good conclusion(s), mostly based on the content of the report, and mostly aligned with report aims outlined in the Introduction. Very good clarity, but withGood conclusion(s), mostly based on the content of the report, but not aligned with report aims outlined in the Introduction. Good clarity, but with some issues in logical flow of ideas. 3Satisfactory conclusion(s) that are not based on the content of the report, or not aligned with report aims outlined in the Introduction. Satisfactory clarity, but with several issues in logical flowUnsatisfactory conclusion(s) that are not based on the content of the report and not aligned with report aims outlined in the Introduction. Poor clarity, with manyNo conclusion (s) provided. 0 issues in logical flow of ideas. 4some issues in logical flow of ideas. 3.5 of ideas that impedes readability. 2.5issues in logical flow of ideas that impedes readability. 1.5 Tables/Figures (10%)Outstanding presentation of supporting data in figures and/or tables. All figures and tables are referred to in the text, and have descriptive (and numbered) captions that are self-explanatory (stand alone from the text). Tables/figures constructed by the author (not cut-and- paste) using a consistent format throughout. Tables/figures constructed by the team are identified, and the contribution of team members acknowledged. 10Excellent presentation of supporting data in figures and/or tables, with minor issues in clarity. All tables and figures referred to in the text, and have descriptive (and numbered) captions that are self-explanatory (stand alone from the text). Tables/figures constructed by the author (not cut-and- paste) using a consistent format throughout. Tables/figures constructed by the team are identified, and the contribution of team members acknowledged. 8Very good presentation of supporting data in figures and/or tables, with minor issues in clarity. All tables and figures referred to in the text, and have descriptive (and numbered) captions that are mostly self- explanatory (stand alone from the text). Tables/figures constructed by the author (not cut-and- paste) using a mostly consistent format throughout. Tables/figures constructed by the team are identified, and the contribution of team members acknowledged. 7Good presentation of supporting data in figures and/or tables, with one or two major issues clarity. All tables and figures referred to in the text, and have descriptive (and numbered) captions that are mostly self- explanatory (stand alone from the text). Tables/figures constructed by the author (not cut-and- paste) using a mostly consistent format throughout. Tables/figures constructed by the team are identified, and the contribution of team members acknowledged. 6Satisfactory presentation of supporting data in figures and/or tables, with one or two major issues clarity. Tables and figures mostly referred to in the text, and have descriptive (and numbered) captions, but they are not self-explanatory (stand alone from the text). Tables/figures mostly constructed by the author (not cut-and-paste) using a mostly consistent format throughout. Tables/figures constructed by the team are mostly identified, and the contribution of team members acknowledged. 5Unsatisfactory presentation of supporting data in figures and/or tables due to lack of clarity. Tables and Figures not referred to in the text, do not include descriptive (and numbered) captions. Tables/figures mostly not constructed by the author (cut-and-paste from other sources). Tables/figures constructed by the team are not identified. 3No Tables/Figures provided. 0Presentation (5%)Outstanding written language that is completely free of spelling and grammatical errors. Consistent referencing style (which is NOT numerical) used throughout. 5Excellent written language that only includes one or two spelling and grammatical errors. Consistent referencing style (which is NOT numerical) used throughout. 4Very good written language, that includes more than two spelling and grammatical errors. Consistent referencing style (which is NOT numerical) mainly used throughout. 3.5Good written language, that includes more than two spelling and grammatical errors that impedes readability in parts. Minor inconsistencies in referencing style (which is NOT numerical). 3Satisfactory written language, however spelling and grammatical consistently impedes readability. Minor inconsistencies in referencing style or a numerical style used. 2.5Unsatisfactory written language. Major inconsistencies in referencing style, and a numerical style used. 1.5Incomprehensible written language. Major inconsistencies in referencing style, and a numerical style used. 0
