Health and environmental implications of using composted household and yard waste bedding in a cattle feedlot.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was conducted to determine the safety and feasibility of using municipal solid waste compost (MSWC) as a bedding material for cattle feedlots. Two pens in an open-front pole barn were bedded with either corn stalks or MSWC in each of two feeding periods (blocks) with two pens (23 x 34 m) per block. Block 1 used 336 heifers (initial BW, 398 kg) during a 104-d period (summer), and Block 2 used 276 steers (initial BW, 412 kg) during a 92-d period (winter). Blood concentrations of regulated elements (Cd, Cu, Mo, Pb, Ni, and Zn), electrolytes, glucose, or liver and kidney enzymes were unaffected (P > .05) by use of either bedding material. Polychlorinated biphenyls in perirenal fat were not detectable (< .5 ppm) in cattle bedded with either material. At slaughter, kidney Cu and kidney and liver Pb concentrations were greater (P < .05) for cattle bedded with MSWC. Despite this, tissue concentrations of these elements were well within those considered normal for healthy cattle. Regulated element concentrations of feed did not differ (P > .05) between diets within period, and neither did DMI or DM digestibility; therefore, cattle bedded with MSWC were likely inhaling additional amounts of these elements and excreting them through feces. More MSWC than corn stalks was required to supply a dry bed per animal daily (P < .05). Soiled bedding (manure as-is) output was similar (P > .05) for both bedding materials. On a DM basis, more manure (P < .05) was removed from the pen bedded with MSWC in Block 2. Total manure N and P removed was similar for both bedding materials. Nitrogen and P concentrations in manure were lower (P < .05) during Block 2, but total manure N removed was greater (P < .05) during Block 2. Total manure P removed from the pens was not affected by season. Under the conditions of this study, MSWC seemed to be a safe and effective bedding material for cattle feedlots.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".