MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2585502692 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.41.4.995a

Wool and Hair Waste as Nutrient Source for High-value Crops

2006· article· en· W2585502692 on OpenAlexaff
Valtcho D. Zheljazkov, Ekaterina A. Jeliazkova, N. Nedkov

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoolNutrientAmendmentSawdustBiomass (ecology)AgronomyEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryHorticultureChemistryBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Container and field experiments were conducted to evaluate sheep wool wastes and human hair wastes as soil amendments and nutrient sources for high-value crops. Overall, wool-waste or hair-waste additions to soil increased yields from basil, garden sage, peppermint, valerian, thorn apple, marigold, foxglove, and swiss chard; increased the amount of secondary metabolites (such as essential oils and alkaloids); increased NH 4 -N and NO 3 -N in the soil; and increased total N (and protein) content in plant tissue. The wool-waste or hair-waste additions did not affect soil microbial biomass, but decreased mycorrhizae colonization of plant roots. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and Energy Dispersive X-ray (EDX) analyses indicated that some of the wool and hair in soil from the container and field experiments (after two field seasons and several harvests) retained its original structure, a significant amount of S, some N, and was not fully decomposed. Results from this study suggest that wool and hair wastes can be used as soil amendment and nutrient source for high-value container or field crops.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207