MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602245940 · doi:10.2134/agronj2016.12.0719

Anaerobically Digested Cattle Manure Supplied More Nitrogen with Less Phosphorus Accumulation than Undigested Manure

2017· article· en· W2602245940 on OpenAlexafffund
Ben W. Thomas, Xiaomei Li, Virginia Nelson, Xiying Hao

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhosphorus and nutrient management
Canadian institutionsCarbon Engineering (Canada)Alberta Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Innovates Bio SolutionsAlberta Agriculture and Forestry
KeywordsDigestateManureAgronomyAnaerobic digestionHordeum vulgareTotal dissolved solidsChemistryPelletsForageBiogasSilagePhosphorusNutrientAnimal scienceEnvironmental scienceMethaneBiologyPoaceaeEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Core Ideas Barley recovered 19% of N applied by anaerobically digested cattle manure over 4 yr. Barley recovered 10% of N applied by undigested cattle manure over 4 yr. Separated solids and cattle manure supplied similar amounts of N and P to barley. Pelletized separated solids released N too slowly for a barley yield benefit. Separated solids posed a greater risk of P accumulation than cattle manure. Solid beef cattle manure is a good anaerobic digestion feedstock for methane production, but more research is needed to determine how co‐products of the anaerobically digested manure may be used in crop production, while limiting the risk of nutrient loss to the environment. Over four growing seasons, we measured the N and P supplied to barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.) forage test crops from (i) anaerobically digested solid beef cattle manure (digestate), (ii) separated solids from the digestate (separated solids), (iii) pelletized separated solids (pellets), and (iv) undigested solid beef cattle manure (manure) that were applied to target 1× (260 kg N ha −1 ) and 2× (520 kg N ha −1 ) the recommended N rates. Non‐amended soil was the control. Digestate led to 31 to 50% greater barley forage yield than the other amendments. The apparent N recovery from digestate (19%) was much greater than pellets (2%) and about double that of the separated solids (9%) and cattle manure (10%). The barley N uptake derived from digestate was 41%, which was significantly greater than manure (22%), separated solids (17%), and pellets (2%). Digestate increased P uptake, while significantly reducing soil‐test P accumulation compared with the other co‐products and cattle manure when applied at N‐based rates. Our results confirmed that management practices for solid beef cattle feedlot manure may be used for separated solids, but not digestate. Pelletized separated solids may be an effective slow release fertilizer, while also supplying C, but determination of its nutrient release patterns is required.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations26
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomy JournalSame topicPhosphorus and nutrient managementFrench-language works237,207