Physicochemical and Microbiological Properties and Humic Substances of Composts Produced with Food Residues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The consolidation of a wide and effective management system of solid residues, especially biodegradable ones, is one of the great challenges of current society. Composting was evaluated as an option of organic fertilization for soil enrichment, using raw food residues in substitution to bovine manure. The compost piles were built with 30% of biodegradable residues mixed with 70% of ground tree pruning material. The effects of different proportions of food residues (FR) and bovine manure (BM) as source of carbon were tested in 5 treatments (T1 = 15%BM + 15%FR, T2 = 20%BM + 10%FR, T3 = 10%BM + 20%FR, T4 = 30%BM and T5 = control, 30%FR), in randomized blocks, under open field conditions for 90 days. The pH, temperature and moisture content of the compost were measured weekly. The aged compost was evaluated for physicochemical and microbiological properties and carbon contents in the humic substances. The analyses of the results indicated that all studied composts reached the maturation stage with satisfactory contents of humic substances, macronutrients, and micronutrients, indicating that food residues can be used as a source of carbon in compost piles to produce organic fertilizers. The contents of the evaluated chemical contaminants were much lower than those established in the main legislation and current normative instructions and, in terms of contamination by pathogens, there was the absence of total coliforms, thermo tolerant coliforms, and Salmonellas.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".