MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008049003 · doi:10.2134/jeq2010.0172

The Effect of Biofuel Production on Swine Farm Methane and Ammonia Emissions

2010· article· en· W2008049003 on OpenAlexafffund
Lowry A. Harper, Thomas K. Flesch, Kim H. Weaver, John D. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicOdor and Emission Control Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBiofuelMethanogenesisManureEnvironmental scienceMethaneGreenhouse gasManure managementBioenergyBiogasAnaerobic digestionAmmoniaWaste managementOrganic matterEnvironmental engineeringChemistryPulp and paper industryAgronomyEcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methane (CH) and ammonia (NH3) are emitted to the atmosphere during anaerobic processing of organic matter, and both gases have detrimental environmental effects. Methane conversion to biofuel production has been suggested to reduce CH4 emissions from animal manure processing systems. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the change in CH4 and NH3 emissions in an animal feeding operation due to biofuel production from the animal manure. Gas emissions were measured from swine farms differing only in their manure-management treatment systems (conventional vs. biofuel). By removing organic matter (i.e., carbon) from the biofuel farms' manure-processing lagoons, average annual CH4 emissions were decreased by 47% compared with the conventional farm. This represents a net 44% decrease in global warming potential (CO2 equivalent) by gases emitted from the biofuel farms compared with conventional farms. However, because of the reduction of methanogenesis and its reduced effect on the chemical conversion of ammonium (NH4+) to dinitrogen (N2) gas, NH3 emissions in the biofuel farms increased by 46% over the conventional farms. These studies show that what is considered an environmentally friendly technology had mixed results and that all components of a system should be studied when making changes to existing systems.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations66
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicOdor and Emission Control TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207