Stability and Maturity of Different Poultry Manures and Potential Utilization for Horticultural Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated stability, maturity and the efficacy of different poultry litter for possible use in container plant production. Three types of poultry manure- Battery cage (BC), Deep litter (DL) and Free range (FR) were used, with Kraal manure (KM) as a comparison. The experiment was set up as a Split- split design with 6 replications. Composting period was main plot, poultry manure type the split plot and mixing ratio as the split- split plot. The litter was mixed with garden soil in 2 ratios (3:1 and 1:1 soil: manure ratio) and tested for up to 12 weeks. Rape (Brassica napus) was used as a bioassay for maturity, which was determined at 1 month, 2 months and 3 months. The pH declined slightly from 7 to about 6 for all treatments except for the kraal manure. Respiration trends were similar to electrical conductivity. Within 2 weeks of curing the respiration rate for all manures declined to below 4 mg CO2- C/ kg. At the end of 12 weeks curing Battery cage had highest total nitrogen (2.32 %), followed by Free range (1.25 %), Deep litter (0.73 %) and Kraal manure was lowest at 0.35 %). Maturity (rape survival) increased with compositing time. After 3 months of curing Kraal manure had highest survivability of rape. The DL at 1:1 ratio had the lowest survival of 67%. At 12 weeks except for BC at 3:1 all treatments had 100 % survival. The results showed that nitrogen rich manures (DL and BC) needed longer curing in order for them to reach maturity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".