MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949648751 · doi:10.1080/10962247.2019.1629359

Intermittent agitation of liquid manure: effects on methane, microbial activity, and temperature in a farm-scale study

2019· article· en· W2949648751 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew VanderZaag, Hambaliou Baldé, Jemaneh Habtewold, Etienne Le Riche, Stephen Burtt, Kari E. Dunfield, Robert J. Gordon, Earl Jenson, Ray Desjardins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphWilfrid Laurier UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsLiquid manureEnvironmental scienceMethaneManureWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringScale (ratio)Environmental chemistryChemistryPulp and paper industryAgronomyEngineeringBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liquid manure storages are a significant source of methane (CH4) emissions. Farmers commonly agitate (stir) liquid manure prior to field application to homogenize nutrients and solids. During agitation, manure undergoes mechanical stress and is exposed to the air, disrupting anaerobic conditions. This on-farm study aimed to better understand the effects of agitation on CH4 emissions, and explore the potential for intentional agitation (three times) to disrupt the exponential increase of CH4 emissions in spring and summer. Results showed that agitation substantially increased manure temperature in the study year compared to the previous year, particularly at upper- and mid-depths of the stored manure. The temporal pattern of CH4 emissions was altered by reduced emissions over the subsequent week, followed by an increase during the second week. Microbial analysis indicated that the activity of archaea and methanogens increased after each agitation event, but there was little change in the populations of methanogens, archaea, and bacteria. Overall, CH4 emissions were higher than any of the previous three years, likely due to warmer manure temperatures that were higher than the previous years (despite similar air temperatures). Therefore, intermittent manure agitation with the frequency, duration, and intensity used in this study is not recommended as a CH4 emission mitigation practice.Implications: The potential to mitigate methane emissions from liquid manure storages by strategically timed agitation was evaluated in a detailed farm-scale study. Agitation was conducted with readily-available farm equipment, and targeted at the early summer to disrupt methanogenic communities when CH4 emissions increase exponentially. Methane emissions were reduced for about one week after agitation. However, agitation led to increased manure temperature, and was associated with increased activity of methanogens. Overall, agitation was associated with similar or higher methane emissions. Therefore, agitation is not recommended as a mitigation strategy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Air & Waste Management AssociationSame topicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionFrench-language works237,207