Evaluation of fresh and aged clam processing wastes as potential agricultural liming materials for coastal area vegetable production soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clam canning in New Brunswick generates 1800 t of clam processing wastes (CPW) annually. Thirty-year-old stockpiles of CPW must now be remediated to satisfy environmental regulations. This study examined fresh and aged CPW as potential agricultural liming materials for acidic coastal vegetable production soils. Clam processing wastes were ground to three size fractions (< 0.250 mm, 0.250 to < 1.00 mm, 1.00 to < 2.00 mm) and analyzed for calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE). They were then mixed with two soils of contrasting textures at three rates, in duplicate, and then placed in a control-plus-factorial pot experiment, with commercial agricultural lime of fine texture (< 0.250 mm) as reference. During an 8-wk incubation, soil water pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were monitored biweekly. At 4 and 8 wk, a soil extract germination test was conducted using cress (Lepidium sativum L.) as an indicator plant. CPW of < 1 mm raised soil pH with effectiveness increasing as particle size decreased. Application rates in function of the fineness to induce a given pH change (ΔpH) could be obtained using prediction graphs with high coefficients of determination (r2: 0.84 to 0.97). The average EC in all treatments to the end of the incubation period was < 2 dS m-1, indicating that salt stress is not a risk following CPW application to soil, since even sensitive crops are capable of withstanding such an EC. Seeding could take place between 4 and 8 wk after the CPW application to loamy sand with no adverse effect on germination index. In the loam soil, this period could safely be shortened. Key words: Clam, liming, soil pH, soil EC, cress, germination index
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".