Ammonia volatilization trends following liquid hog manure application to forage land
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent changes in the livestock industry of western Canada have included the increased establishment of intensive hog operations in semiarid regions where the availability of cultivated land for manure disposal is limited. Instead, permanent forage lands, including both tame pasture and native rangeland, are being considered for manure application. Given the inability of manure to be incorporated on these areas with cultivation, this study tested and successfully utilized static sorber traps as a relatively easy and inexpensive method to assess ammonia (NH3) losses on forage lands following different rates and methods of liquid hog manure application. Comparisons among treatments indicated ammonia loss increased with rate of manure application, with relatively greater losses on tame pasture than native rangeland. Coulter injection resulted in less ammonia loss compared to surface banding, with the greatest benefit on tame pastures, presumably due to the lack of surface litter and associated abundance of bare soil, factors that would increase ammonia volatilization. We conclude that the use of injection is beneficial in reducing ammonia loss on forage lands, particularly tame pastures at greater rates of manure application, but concede the economic benefits based on the amount of nitrogen conserved may be limited.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".