MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Compost Layering Effects on Poultry Litter Leaching: A Column Study

2008· article· en· W1979169598 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Erica Elaine Milligan, A. A. Bomke, W. D. Temple

Bibliographic record

VenueCompost Science & Utilization · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicComposting and Vermicomposting Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver FoundationU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsLeachateLeaching (pedology)Poultry litterNutrientEnvironmental scienceManureCompostChemistryAgronomyAnimal scienceEnvironmental chemistrySoil waterSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incorporation of poultry litter (PL) into the nutrient management strategy of crop producers in South-western British Columbia is an important end-use for this agricultural waste product. Environmental and ecological concerns associated with leaching of nutrients by over-winter field storage of PL need to be addressed. To mitigate some of these concerns, some farmers store the manure on a base pad of City of Vancouver yard trimmings compost (YTC), with an additional covering layer of YTC. An outdoor column leaching study was designed to observe the effects of the YTC base pad and covering on the quality of leachate emanating from the PL, as well as to determine the maximum leachability of nutrients from these materials over the storage period. The YTC cover increased (P<0.05) the leaching of nitrogen (N), copper (Cu), and zinc (Zn) from the PL below. The YTC base pad under the PL decreased (P<0.05) the cumulative Cu, Zn and P leached as compared to the PL alone by 50%, 54% and 30%, but had little ability to retain N or soluble salts. Concentrations in the first flush of leachate out of the PL were reduced by the YTC base pad from 25 to 1.3 mg Cu L−1, 11 to 0.95 mg Zn L−1, and 430 to 40 mg P L−1. The high calcium content and cation exchange capacity of the YTC are credited with much of this retention. We recommend that farmers continue to store PL on a base pad of YTC with some improvements, and that the YTC cover is used to isolate the PL from wildlife.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCompost Science & UtilizationSame topicComposting and Vermicomposting TechniquesFrench-language works237,207