Influence of Varied Organic Carbon Sources on Cow Dung Compost Quality: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of Indonesian agriculture, governmental endorsement of compost fertilization has been established as a strategy to mitigate agricultural waste and enhance soil properties.The integration of cow dung with organic carbon derived from agricultural residues is postulated to yield compost of a quality that conforms to the Indonesian National Standard (SNI).The objective of this meta-analysis was to ascertain the optimal organic carbon sources for the composting of cow dung by synthesizing data from 30 pertinent studies.The Hedges' effect size was computed utilizing Microsoft Excel 2016, while ANOVA, performed in SPSS version 22, facilitated the assessment of standard error means (SEMs) and the determination of statistical significance (p-values).It was observed that the organic carbon source exerted a significant influence on the compost's pH and nitrogen content, with an alkaline pH correlating with augmented nitrogen levels.The meta-analysis delineated variance in requisite composting durations when cow dung was amalgamated with distinct organic carbon materials, namely rice straw, weeds, vegetable/fruit remnants, rice husks, sawdust, palm oil by-products, and corn stalks.This variance was manifest across a spectrum from short-term to extended composting periods.The discernible impact of organic carbon materials on compost pH and nitrogen content underscores the necessity of strategic selection of these materials to optimize compost quality.By identifying the most efficacious organic carbon sources for cow dung composting, the study's insights can be instrumental in formulating guidelines that not only ensure compliance with SNI standards but also contribute to soil quality amelioration and the reduction of agricultural waste in Indonesia.
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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".