GREENHOUSE GAS AND ODOR EMISSIONS FROM LIQUID SWINE MANURE STORAGE FACILITIES IN SASKATCHEWAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greenhouse gas (GHG) and odor emissions from manure storage facilities at four different commercialfarrow-to-finish swine operations under liquid manure management located in Saskatchewan, Canada were experimentallydetermined during the spring to fall period between 2001 and 2003. These operations featured three types of manurestorage facilities: 1. uncovered concrete tank; 2. uncovered earthen manure basin (EMB), and 3. covered (blown choppedstraw) EMB. Both GHG and odor emission rates were expressed in terms of unit mass of animal producing the storedmanure. On average, methane and carbon dioxide emission rates were respectively 2.41 g CO2 equivalent day-1 kg-1 and0.94 g CO2 equivalent day-1 kg-1, while nitrous oxide emission rates were negligible; the total average GHG emission ratemeasured in this study was 3.35 g CO2 equivalent day-1 kg-1. On average, GHG emissions from the uncovered tank werethe largest while those from the covered EMB were the lowest; emissions were maximum during the summer and at theirlowest during the spring, and nighttime emissions were larger than daytime emissions. The average unit mass odoremission rate from manure storage facilities measured during this study was 2,949 O.U. day-1 kg-1. On average, odoremission rates from the uncovered concrete tank were also the largest and those from the covered EMB were the lowest.However, odor emission rates were found to reach their maximum during the spring and they were at their lowest duringthe summer. Estimations based on the results of this study indicate that the addition of a blown chopped straw cover on anEMB can yield reductions in CO2 and CH4 emissions of 34 and 382 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year respectively foreach 1,000-sow increment. In addition, the presence of the cover on the EMB would also result in a reduction in odoremissions of 194.3 x 109 odor units per year from the manure storage facility.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".