Evaluating the Influence of Storage Time, Sample‐handling Method, and Filter Paper on the Measurement of Water‐Extractable Phosphorus in Animal Manures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface-applied manures create a potential phosphorus (P) runoff hazard, especially when unincorporated. In such cases, the concentration of water- extractable P in the manure has been correlated to soluble P concentrations in runoff. This study evaluated the influence of holding time, sample-handling procedure, and filtration method on measurement of the water-extractable P content of manures in a 3 ×3 ×2 factorial arrangement of treatments. A two-way interaction between holding time and sample-handling procedure occurred for most samples. Six samples had waterextractable P concentrations that were less than or equal to dried and dried/ground treatments. Only one sample had higher water-extractable P concentrations for fresh than for dried and dried/ground treatments. When significant differences occurred as a result of the filtration method, results for Whatman No. 40 filters, with a larger pore size than 0.45 μm nitrocellulose membranes, were usually higher. There was no significant difference in the coefficient of variation across sample-handling procedures, suggesting that efforts to dry and/or grind samples were not needed. These results support the adoption of a standardized protocol for measuring water-extractable P in manures that represents the appropriate balance between the ease of implementation and the strength of the correlation to P runoff concentrations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".