Comparison of amendment with distillers' grain versus urea on crop yield and nutrient uptake in a canola-wheat rotation in southern Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alotaibi, K. D. and Schoenau, J. J. 2014. Comparison of amendment with distillers' grain versus urea on crop yield and nutrient uptake in a canola-wheat rotation in southern Saskatchewan. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 1513-1517. A surplus of distillers' grain resulting from rapid expansion in biofuel production has led to interest in finding alternative uses for this co-product, apart from its traditional use as an animal feed. Land application to agricultural soil in order to recycle the nutrients is one potential use. In this study we evaluated the effect of a single application of wet wheat distillers' grain (WDG) on crop yield and nitrogen and phosphorus uptake in a 3-yr canola-wheat-canola rotation in southern Saskatchewan. The experimental treatments included a single application of WDG at a rate of 100 kg N ha-1 in comparison to urea applied at the same rate of N along with an unfertilized control. In the first year, WDG produced a canola yield of 1266 kg ha-1, which was significantly greater than the urea treatment. The WDG treatment resulted in increased plant N uptake that was 59% greater than the control, but was 20% less than that observed in the urea treatment, indicating that only a portion of the applied N in the WDG was available for recovery. Greater yield of WDG may be due to factors other than N. Both WDG and urea treatments had a significant effect on plant P uptake in the first year. The residual effect of WDG addition on crop parameters in the second and third years was mainly limited to enhancement of plant P uptake in second year. Overall, the WDG applied at the same rate of N was at least as effective as urea for increasing crop yield.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".