Barley Yield and Nutrient Uptake for Soil Amended with Fresh and Composted Cattle Manure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited research exists on the long‐term effect of fresh (FM) versus composted manure (CM) from beef cattle on barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.) yield and nutrient uptake. Barley was grown (1999–2007) as silage on an irrigated clay loam soil in southern Alberta where organic amendments and fertilizer were annually applied for 9 yr in the fall of 1998 to 2006. The treatments were three rates (13, 39, 77 Mg ha −1 dry wt.) of FM or CM containing either straw or wood‐chip bedding, one inorganic fertilizer treatment, and a nonfertilized control. Nine years of annual application of FM and CM resulted in similar aboveground dry matter yield, and total N and total P uptake compared with inorganic fertilizer. However, apparent nitrogen recovery (ANR) and phosphorus recovery (APR) were significantly lower for FM and CM (5–9%) than inorganic (22–47%). Barley dry matter yield, ANR, and APR were similar for FM and CM. Manure type influenced N and P uptake, but the effects varied with bedding type and year. The N and P uptake were greater for CM with straw than the other three treatments except FM with straw. The DM yield was similar for straw and wood bedding, but ANR was greater for straw (10%) than wood (7%). Bedding influenced N uptake, P uptake, and APR, but the effects varied with manure type, rate, and year. Based on the results of this study, producers converting from FM to CM, or from straw to wood‐chip bedding, should suffer no loss in barley silage production.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".