Wool and Hair Waste as Nutrient Source for High-value Crops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One small-plotfield and five container experiments were conducted to evaluate sheep wool-wastes and human hair-wastes as soil amendments and nutrient sources for high-value crops. Overall, the wool-waste or hair-waste addition to soil: 1) increased yields from basil, garden sage, peppermint, valerian, thorn apple, marigold, foxglove, and swiss chard; 2) increased the amount of secondary metabolites (such as essential oils and alkaloids); 3) increased NH 4 -N and NO 3 -N in soil; 4) increased total N (and protein) content in plant tissue; 5) did not affect soil microbial biomass; and 6) decreased mycorrhizae colonization of plant roots. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) analyses indicated that some of the wool and hair in soil from the container and field experiments (after two field seasons and several harvests) retained its original structure, retained a significant amount of S and some N, and was not fully decomposed. Our results indicate that single addition of wool or hair-waste of 0.33% by weight to soil would support two to five harvests or crops, without addition of other fertilizers, and may improve soil biological and chemical characteristics.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".