Fertilization of a mixed forage crop with fresh and composted chicken manure and NPK fertilizer: Effects on soil and tissue Ca, Mg, S, B, Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 3-yr experiment compared the effects of the fertilization of mixed forages with fresh and composted chicken manure and NPK fertilizer. Amendments were applied at three N levels, and an unfertilized treatment was included. The experiment was conducted in two hay fields: a sandy loam and a silty clay loam, near Truro, Nova Scotia. Mehlich 3- extractable Ca, Mg, S and micronutrients were reported for two depths of soil sampled in September 1993. In most cases, the Ca, Mg, S and micronutrient levels in the chicken manure compost and fresh manure were higher than the literature values. The Cu and Zn in both the fresh chicken manure and the compost exceeded the maximum concentrations for Category A (unrestricted use) compost. Compost treatments resulted in higher Ca in the upper horizon at both sites, but few differences among treatments were noted for soil Mg or S. Extractable soil Cu was not higher in the compost and manure plots in spite of the relatively high levels of Cu in the amendments. Compost-treated plots were numerically highest in soil Zn at the silty clay site, while the NPK plots had the highest Mehlich 3-extractable Fe at the same site. Fewer differences in soil levels of micronutrients were detected among treatments at the sandy loam site. Forage tissue Ca, Mg, S and micronutrients were reported for the 1993 season. The high rates of applications, especially for compost treatments, did not always result in higher nutrient levels in the forages; other factors that may have affected nutrient availability are suggested. It is concluded that higher rates of compost and manure could have been used in this experiment without risks of phyto- or ruminant toxicity. Key words: Chicken manure, compost, forage, Mehlich 3-extractable nutrients, micronutrients
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".