Effect of ISPAD Anaerobic Digestion on Ammonia Volatilization from Soil Applied Swine Manure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Swine manure subjected to in-storage psychrophilic anaerobic digestion (ISPAD) undergoes proteins degradation but limited NH3volatilization, producing an effluent rich in plant-available nitrogen. Accordingly, ISPAD effluent can offer a higher fertilizer value during land application, as compared to manure of similar age stored in an open tank. However, this additional nitrogen can also be lost by volatilization during land application. The objective of this study was therefore to measure NH3volatilization from both ISPAD and open tank swine manures when applied to 5 different soils, namely, washed sand, a Ste Rosalie clay, an Upland sandy loam, a St Bernard loam, and an Ormstown loam. This research was conducted using laboratory wind tunnels simulating land application. The five experimental soils offered similar pH values but different water holding capacity, cation exchange capacity, cation saturation, and organic matter. After 47 h of wind tunnel monitoring, the % of total available nitrogen (TAN or NH4 + and NH3) volatilized varied with both manure and soil type. For all soil types, the ISPAD manure consistently lost less NH3as compared to the open tank manure, averaging 53% less. Lower volatile solids content improving manure infiltration into the soil and a more complex ionic solution explain the effect of the ISPAD manure advantages. This was reinforced by the St Bernard sandy loam losing the same nitrogen mass for both manures, because of its higher pH and buffer pH coupled with an intermediate CEC resulting in more soil solution NH3. Within each manure type, % TAN volatilized was highest for washed sand and lowest for the clay soil. As a result, ISPAD manure can offer up to 21% more plant-available nitrogen fertilizer especially when the manure is not incorporated into the soil following its application.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".