Modification of composting process of chicken manure using natural and mg-modified zeolite to generate a value-added product with sufficient nutrient content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research was aimed at developing a composting process of organic waste using natural and modified zeolites by ascertaining how effective they were in retaining phosphorus (P) after 60 days. The experiments included compost (C) containing natural (N) and modified (M) zeolite (Z) treatments (applied at 10% and 15% on a weight basis of the total waste): CNZ10, CNZ15, CMZ10, CMZ15 and C (which is the control treatment with no zeolite addition). The second objective was to compare the barley shoot biomass and nutrient concentration of the various compost treatments mixed with soil and control treatment (just soil) after 45 days of planting in the greenhouse. In general, the benefits of co-addition of compost and zeolite on sandy soil were tested in a completely randomized experimental design. The results indicated that the treatments with the highest zeolite treatments (CNZ15 and CMZ15) proved most effective at retaining P by the end of the composting process (2.8mg and 2.9mg respectively) compared to the lower zeolite ratios and the control treatment; CNZ10 (2.0mg), CMZ10 (1.9mg) and C (0.7mg). The barley shoot biomass results indicated that the treatments that had a combination of soil (S) and modified zeolite (SCMZ10 and SCMZ15) had biomass of 7.67g and 7.24g respectively, followed by the natural zeolite and compost treatments (SCNZ10, SCNZ15 and SC) having 6.19g, 6.38g and 5.99g respectively and were significantly different from the control treatment (S) which had the lowest biomass of 0.48g. With respect to the plant nutrient concentration, N and P were significantly higher in the control treatment (S) compared to the other treatments while K concentration was significantly highest in the compost and some of the zeolite treatments (SC, SCNZ15 and SCMZ15) compared to other treatments. These results were in line with some previous findings where zeolite was used as a soil amendment in agriculture.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".