MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558534380 · doi:10.2136/sssaj2016.05.0132

Agronomic Values of Anaerobically Digested Cattle Manure and the Separated Solids for Barley Forage Production

2016· article· en· W2558534380 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiying Hao, Ben W. Thomas, Virginia Nelson, Xiaomei Li

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Science Society of America Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCarbon Engineering (Canada)Alberta Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAlberta Innovates Bio Solutions
KeywordsManureAgronomyHordeum vulgareDigestateFeedlotForageAmendmentAnaerobic digestionBeef cattleAnimal scienceBiogasFodderChemistryBiologyPoaceaeMethane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Core Ideas Agronomic values of anaerobically digested solid cattle manure are poorly defined. Separated solids of anaerobically digested cattle manure supplied N similar to cattle manure. Anaerobically digested cattle manure had high NH 4 –N/total N ratio. Anaerobically digested cattle manure had less P buildup than cattle manure. Digestate separated solids can be managed similar to cattle manure. As biogas production expands, digestates from that industry are increasingly available as potential nutrient sources for crop production, but their agronomic value is poorly understood. Thus, a 5‐yr field experiment was conducted to determine the agronomic values of anaerobically digested solid beef cattle feedlot manure (ADM) and the separated solids (SS) from ADM under a semiarid reduced‐tillage dryland barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.) forage cropping system. Three organic amendments, ADM, SS, and undigested solid beef cattle feedlot manure (CM), were applied annually at 200 or 400 kg total N ha −1 for 4 yr, while the residual effect was examined in the fifth year. The higher N and P availability in ADM translated into greater barley forage yields, total N uptake, amendment‐derived N uptake, and apparent N recovery (ANR) from ADM‐amended soil than SS‐ and CM‐amended soils, while there were no significant differences between soils receiving SS or CM. The ANR was 22% for ADM but only 12% for CM and 9% for SS. In contrast, P uptake, the fraction of amendment‐derived P uptake, and apparent P recovery were similar among all amendments. Similar yields, ANR, post‐harvest soil NH 4 , NO 3 , and Olsen‐P concentrations between SS‐ and CM‐amended soils suggest that they have a comparable agronomic value. Less residual Olsen‐P in soil receiving ADM than SS or CM suggests that ADM is a lower risk for P accumulation when applied at N‐based rates. We recommend that current agronomic values for cattle feedlot manure could be applied to SS but not ADM.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoil Science Society of America JournalSame topicSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsFrench-language works237,207