Alternatives to phosphine fumigation in managing stored grain insect pests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-harvest losses to food grains are reported to be about 9.33%, out of which 6% has been reported during storage. To check the avoidable losses, fumigation is considered to be the best method. Among the various fumigants, phosphine is used worldwide and is the only option to be used in India due to its easy availability, cheap and free of residue. With the continued usage of phosphine, insect pests that target stored grains are gaining resistance, which is a serious limitation. Due to ozone depletion methyl bromide has to be phased out as per montreal protocol though it is a broad-spectrum fumigant. Sulfuryl fluoride, ethyl formate, carbonyl sulphide, carbon disulphide, propylene oxide, hydrogen cyanide, methyl iodide, and ethane dinitrile are some of the other fumigants that have been found to be promising, but cost is still an issue for developing countries like India. Aside from fumigants, a variety of controlled and modified atmosphere (CA and MA) systems have been developed as substitute to the presently accessible fumigation systems to manage insect pests of stored produce for a longer period of time. Ozone as an oxidant offers a wide range of possible applications in the management of stored grain insect pests, but its corrosive nature poses a significant risk to metals. Where cheap sources of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or helium are available, as well as appropriately sealed storage structures, MA technology can be well applied. Furthermore, biogas created from cow manure has shown promising results in the management of stored grain insect pests at the farm level. Till some other competent option available, we have to continue with the use of phosphine as fumigant to manage the stored grain insect-pests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".