Effect of soil amended with thin stillage on growth of canola and soil properties in a controlled environment study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growth chamber study was conducted to evaluate the potential use of thin stillage as a soil \nfertilizer amendment. Seven treatments; control, 3 thin stillage rates (100, 200, and 400 kg N \nha¯¹) and 3 urea rates (100, 200, and 400 kg N ha¯¹) were used in a replicated growth chamber \nstudy conducted in the spring of 2008 at the University of Saskatchewan. Canola (Brassica \nnapus L.) was grown on a nitrogen deficient Brown Chernozemic soil (Haverhill Association). \nDry matter yield and nutrient concentrations in plant tissues were determined after 34 days of \ngrowth. Significant increases in canola dry matter yield and nutrient content were observed due \nto thin stillage application. The thin stillage had a beneficial effect on plant growth by enhancing \nplant biomass production and nutrient uptake. Applications up to 400 kg N ha¯¹ did not have a \nnegative effect on canola biomass production. Land application of the residual thin stillage from \nethanol production, may be an effective method to recycle nutrients to improve and maintain soil \nproductivity, and increase plant nutrient availability and plant growth.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".