A Comparison of Side‐dressed Liquid Hog Manure to Urea Ammonium Nitrate in Corn
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liquid hog manure is frequently spring‐applied prior to corn planting, but concern regarding compaction, planting delays, and nitrogen losses have increased corn producer interest in side dressing. The objective of this study was to compare available nitrogen in side‐dressed liquid hog manure versus 28% urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) in terms of fertilizer nitrogen equivalent, yield response, grain protein, soil compaction, and end of season soil nitrates. Field experiments were conducted at three sites in southwestern Ontario from 2003 to 2005. Three rates of liquid hog manure (zero, low, and high) and five rates of UAN (0, 53, 106, 159, 220 lb of N per acre) were applied at side‐dress timing in corn. Available nitrogen in side‐dress applications of liquid hog manure was equally effective as UAN in supplying corn nitrogen requirements based on comparisons of yield and grain protein concentration. Drier conditions at side‐dress timing reduced soil compaction risks and yield reductions arising from possible root pruning were not observed. Side‐dressed liquid hog manure should be applied at rates of available nitrogen that correspond to crop nitrogen demand, since like UAN, excess applied nitrogen will be susceptible to late season losses.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it