Phosphorus Fractions in Solid and Liquid Separates of Swine Slurry Separated Using Different Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solid-liquid separation is a manure management option whereby P-rich solid is separated from N-rich liquid, allowing the separated liquid to be used as a fertilizer without oversupplying P. Little information is available on how the different P fractions in manures are partitioned to solid and liquid during separation. We examined the distribution of various P fractions in liquid and solid separates of swine manure, separated using different techniques, to gain information useful for making choices regarding the optimum use of manure separates. Samples of raw manure (RM) and their separated solid (SS) and liquid (SL) were obtained using three different separation techniques: (i) centrifugation without flocculant (CNF), (ii) centrifugation with a flocculant (CFL), and (iii) rotary press with a flocculant (RFL). These were subsequently analyzed for P using a modified Hedley fractionation scheme. Only a small proportion of RM, ranging from 5 to 12%, was recovered in SS, an advantage if SS is to be transported off-site. Concentrations of molybdate-reactive P and total P in all P fractions were less in SL than in the corresponding RM on a fresh-weight basis. The separation index (percentage partitioned to SS) for total labile P (water-extractable + NaHCO-extractable P) was 63, 81, and 75% for CNF, CFL, and RFL, respectively. The proportion of total P in labile form was significantly lower in SL than in RM. Therefore, using SL as a fertilizer instead of RM may help to avoid excessive buildup of soil test P with manure applications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".