<i>Giardia</i> and <i>Cryptosporidium</i> on Dairy Farms and the Role these Farms May Play in Contaminating Water Sources in Prince Edward Island, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cattle represent a reservoir for Giardia and Cryptosporidium and may contaminate water sources. OBJECTIVES: To determine the distribution of Cryptosporidium and Giardia on dairy farms and in water bodies near the farms. FARMS AND WATER SOURCES: Twenty dairy farms and 20 wells and 13 surface water samples associated with dairy farms. METHODS: Proportions of samples positive for Cryptosporidium or Giardia were determined by a direct immunofluorescence assay. Fecal and water samples were taken at different times. RESULTS: Thirty-two (95% CI: 29-35%) and 14% (95% CI: 12-17%) of fecal samples, and 100 (95% CI: 96-100) and 55% (95% CI: 32-77%) of herds, were positive for Giardia and Cryptosporidium, respectively. Giardia duodenalis assemblage E was detected in high proportions (90%) of fecal samples. Cryptosporidium bovis predominated (51%) in all cattle. C. andersoni predominated in adult cattle (53%), whereas the predominant species in animals < 2 months and 2-6 months was C. bovis, respectively. Only calves < 2 months of age were positive for C. parvum. In 46% (95% CI: 19-75%) and 85% (95% CI: 55-98%) of surface water, concentrations of Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts were higher in downstream, than in upstream, locations of farms, whereas only 1 groundwater sample was positive for Cryptosporidium. CONCLUSIONS: This sample of dairy cattle was predominantly infected with nonzoonotic species and genotypes of Cryptosporidium, Giardia, or both. More studies are needed to determine if the presence of Giardia or Cryptosporidium in surface water was associated with shedding in animals from nearby farms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".