Effect of different intermediate amendments on pH and ammonia emissions of composted poultry mortalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of ammonia emissions from composting poultry mortalities has been a topic of interest due to concerns about air quality effects from agricultural facilities. In previous poultry mortality composting research, it was reported that ammonia emissions are strongly affected by increasing the pH of the compost pile above 8. To verify these findings, a project was initiated to examine composting poultry mortalities while using different amendments within the pile and observing the effects on the gaseous emissions. Each pile was constructed using 2 layers of spent hen carcasses, with one layer below and one layer above the intermediate amendment. Each pile design was constructed in triplicate to assist in data verification and statistical analysis. All piles were constructed using fresh woodchips for the base and cap material. The intermediate amendments were chosen based on their availability, applicability for mortality composting, and pH buffering. The control pile had woodchips as the intermediate amendment, as it had a pH closest to neutral (7.4). The 2 additional pile designs consisted of intermediate amendment layers with either poultry compost, a lower pH material of 5.5, or poultry litter, a slightly higher pH material of 7.5. Air samples were collected using a dynamic flux chamber drawing fresh air across the pile face at a known volumetric flow rate of approximately 370 m3/h. Based on the results of this experiment, using poultry litter for composting may not be an appropriate best management practice if the objective is to minimize ammonia emissions.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".