Comparative effects of food processing liquid slurry and inorganic fertilizers on tanner grass (<i>Brachiaria arrecta</i>) pasture: grass yield, crude protein and P levels and residual soil N and P
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This small‐plot field study evaluated food processing liquid slurry ( FPLS ) as a potential fertilizer for tanner grass ( Brachiaria arrecta ) production on an acidic loam soil. The treatments, arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replicates, consisted of an unfertilized control, inorganic fertilizer applied at 50 and 200 kg nitrogen (N) ha −1 with and without phosphorus (P) at 50 kg P ha −1 , and FPLS applied at 50 and 200 kg N ha −1 . Compared to the unfertilized control, the FPLS applied at 200 kg N ha −1 significantly increased grass dry‐matter yield ( DMY ), herbage crude protein ( CP ) and P content, and N and P uptake in the second of two trials and P uptake in both trials. However, DMY and contents, of CP and P were generally lower for the FPLS treatments compared to the inorganic fertilizers. Apparent N recovery was higher for the inorganic fertilizer treatments than FPLS treatments in trial 1, while apparent P recovery was similar among all treatments in both trials. The FPLS treatments did not significantly increase soil NO 3 ‐N and P concentrations, but increased NH 4 ‐N in the 0–15 cm layer. The results suggest that application of FPLS to tanner grass pastures is an alternative to its disposal in landfill.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it