Viability of <i>Bacillus licheniformis</i> and <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> Spores as a Model for Predicting the Fate of <i>Bacillus anthracis</i> Spores during Composting of Dead Livestock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safe disposal of dead livestock and contaminated manure is essential for the effective control of infectious disease outbreaks. Composting has been shown to be an effective method of disposal, but no information exists on its ability to contain diseases caused by spore-forming bacteria, such as Bacillus anthracis. Duplicate composters (east and west), each containing 16 dead cattle, were constructed (final capacity, 85,000 kg). Spores (10(7) CFU/g manure) of Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus thuringiensis were mixed with autoclaved feedlot manure and placed in either sterile vials or porous nylon bags. Compost temperatures in the west composter were slightly higher than in the east composter. Viable B. thuringiensis spores were reduced to ≤10(2) CFU in all samples after 112 days but were isolated from bags (west composter) at ≤10(2) and at 10(5) CFU (east composter) after 230 days. In contrast, B. licheniformis was at ≤10(2) CFU in vials (west composter) after 112 days but remained at 10(6) CFU after 230 days (east composter). Similarly, B. licheniformis in bags was not detected after 230 days in the west composter but remained at 10(7) CFU in the east composter. Our study suggests that spore viability was reduced in the west composter by exposure to compost and elevated temperatures over time. Different temperature profiles may explain why spores remained viable in the east structure but were largely rendered nonviable in the west structure. Under practical conditions, variation in composting microclimates may preclude the complete inactivation of Bacillus spores, including those of B. anthracis, during composting. However, composting may still have merit as a method of biocontainment, reducing and diluting the transfer of infectious spores into the environment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".