MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1539793127 · doi:10.2527/2000.783495x

Health and environmental implications of using composted household and yard waste bedding in a cattle feedlot.

2000· article· en· W1539793127 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetallurgy and Material Science
Canadian institutionsGenome Prairie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeedlotAnimal scienceManureBeddingCompostBarnFecesChemistryBiologyAgronomyBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it