MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053295176 · doi:10.4141/s06-053

Ammonia emissions from land-applied beef cattle manure

2007· article· en· W2053295176 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. M. McGinn, Sven G. Sommer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManureEnvironmental scienceFeedlotVolatilisationAmmoniaAgronomyLivestockCompostAmmonia volatilization from ureaManure managementTillageBeef cattleChemistryAnimal scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ammonia (NH 3 ) is emitted in vast quantities from exposed livestock manure. The volatilisation of NH 3 from livestock manure is a loss in valuable nitrogen in land-applied manure that could otherwise be used for crop production. Ammonia loss to air is also affiliated with environmental problems when it is deposited to the surrounding landscape. The goal o f this study was to quantify the effect of managing beef cattle manure on NH 3 emissions of land-applied manure. Three trials were conducted where beef feedlot manure was applied. The NH 3 losses were measured from field plots (90 or 160 m 2 ) using acid traps (passive flux samplers). Immediately after applying manure, irrigating with 6 mm of water reduced NH 3 loss by 21–52% while tillage (to 15 cm depth) reduced the loss by 76–85% compared with leaving the manure spread on the soil surface. Piled manure that was applied to the land lost 27% less NH 3 than did manure taken directly from the pen. There was little NH 3 lost from compost that was applied to land since the applied available-N was very low relative to the pen and piled manure. Our study shows that management of livestock manure has a direct impact on NH 3 loss to air. It follows that significant reduction in NH 3 volatilisation can benefit agriculture and reduce agriculture’s impact on the environment. Key words: Ammonia, manure, tillage, irrigation, compost, feedlot

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 score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations41
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207