MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037134833 · doi:10.2134/jeq2004.1088

Quantity and Quality of Runoff from a Beef Cattle Feedlot in Southern Alberta

2004· article· en· W2037134833 on OpenAlexaffabout
J.J. Miller, Brian P. Handerek, Bruce Beasley, Edith C. S. Olson, L. J. Yanke, Francis J. Larney, Tim A. McAllister, Barry M. Olson, L. Brent Selinger, D. S. Chanasyk, Paul Hasselback

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsChinook Regional HospitalUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of AlbertaAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface runoffEnvironmental scienceFeedlotWater qualityHydrology (agriculture)Beef cattleIrrigationRunoff curve numberStructural basinAnimal scienceAgronomyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Southern Alberta, which has a cold climate dominated by strong chinook winds, has the highest density of feedlot cattle in Canada. However, the quantity and quality of runoff from beef cattle (Bos taurus) feedlots in this unique region has not been investigated. Our objectives were to compare runoff quantity (1998-2002) with catch-basin design criteria; determine concentrations of selected inorganic chemical parameters (1998-2000) in runoff in relation to water quality guidelines and the potential implications of irrigating adjacent crop-land; and determine if total heterotrophs, total coliforms, and Escherichia coli (1998-2000) persisted in the catch-basin water and soil. Runoff (< 0.1 to 42.5 mm) for a 24-h duration that included maximum peak discharge was less than the recommended design criteria of 90 mm based on runoff from 24 h of rainfall with a 30-yr return period. We found that curve numbers between 52 and 96 (mode of 90) were required to match the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service predicted runoff and actual runoff volumes. Total P posed the greatest threat to water quality guidelines, and K posed the greatest threat for exceeding crop fertilizer requirements if catch-basin effluent was used as irrigation water. Water in the catch basin had continually high populations of E. coli throughout the study, with values ranging between log10 2 and log10 8 100 mL(-1). In contrast, soil in the catch basin generally had low populations of E. coli that were < log10 2 g(-1) wet wt., but at times higher populations between log10 2 and log10 6 g(-1) wet wt. were also found.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations56
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207