Recycling Soil Nitrate Nitrogen by Amending Agricultural Lands with Oily Food Waste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With current agricultural practices the amounts of fertilizer N applied are frequently more than the amounts removed by the crop. Excessive N application may result in short-term accumulation of nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) in soil, which can easily be leached from the root zone and into the ground water. A management practice suggested for conserving accumulated NO3-N is the application of oily food waste (FOG; fat + oil + greases) to agricultural soils. A two-year field study (1995-1996 and 1996-1997) was conducted at Elora Research Center (43 degrees 38' N, 80 degrees W; 346 m above mean sea level), University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada to determine the effect of FOG application in fall and spring on soil NO3-N contents and apparent N immobilization-mineralization of soil N in the 0- to 60-cm soil layer. The experiment was planned under a randomized complete block design with four replications. An unamended control and a reference treatment [winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cover crop] were included in the experiment to compare the effects of fall and spring treatment of oily food waste on soil NO3-N contents and apparent N immobilization-mineralization. Oily food waste application at 10 Mg ha(-1) in the fall decreased soil NO3-N by immobilization and conserved 47 to 56 kg NO3-N ha(-1), which would otherwise be subject to leaching. Nitrogen immobilized due to FOG application in the fall was subsequently remineralized by the time of fertilizer N sidedress, whereas no net mineralization was observed in spring-amended plots at the same time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".