Nitrogen availability from dairy cow dung and urine applied to forage grasses in eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bélanger, G., Rochette, P., Chantigny, M., Ziadi, N., Angers, D., Charbonneau, E., Pellerin, D. and Liang, C. 2015. Nitrogen availability from dairy cow dung and urine applied to forage grasses in eastern Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 55-65. Nitrogen availability from dung and urine excreted by dairy cows has been studied extensively but few studies have been conducted in areas with short growing seasons and cold winters. We assessed N availability from dairy cow urine and dung applied to forage grasses under the cool conditions of eastern Canada, with a focus on soil- and plant-based indicators. The experiment was conducted with timothy (Phleum pratense L.)-dominated swards on two soil types (clay, sandy loam) with three periods of application (mid-September, early June, early July) and four treatments: Control, Dung (1.75 kg fresh weight m-2), Diluted urine (U-50; 50 g N m-2), and Urine (U-100; 100 g N m-2) from lactating cows. Dry matter (DM) yield and N concentration were measured from several successive clippings. Ion exchange membranes (IEM) and crop N nutrition index (NNI) were used, respectively, as soil-based and plant-based indicators of N availability. Relative cumulative DM yields, calculated as cumulative DM yield over all clippings for a given treatment divided by maximum cumulative DM yield among the four treatments, increased from Control (clay: 31 - 69%; sandy loam: 21-63%) to Dung (clay: 39-84%; sandy loam: 46-86%) and U-50 (clay: 81-83%; sandy loam: 78-100%). Relative values of cumulative N uptake were close to those of DM yields. The percentage of applied N taken up by the crop from all clippings was greater with urine (8-28%) than with dung (3-12%) on both soil types. Nitrogen from dung and urine was available to timothy at all periods of application, but urine N availability was greater than that of dung N. Nitrogen exposure, calculated as cumulative mineral N on IEMs, and NNI were both related to relative DM yield (R2>0.61; P<0.001), confirming their capacity to assess N availability to forage grasses receiving dung and urine excreted by dairy cows.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".