Veterinary Antimicrobials in Feedlot Manure: Dissipation during Composting and Effects on Composting Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Composting of manure may lead to the degradation of veterinary antimicrobials, but it is largely unknown if the presence of antimicrobials affects the composting process. Open-air windrow composting of manure from beef cattle (Bos taurus) administered chlortetracycline, sulfamethazine, and tylosin was investigated in a 2-yr study. At windrow construction, chlortetracycline had extensively isomerized to iso-chlortetracycline. Sulfamethazine, tylosin, and iso-chlortetracycline dissipated by first-order kinetics, whereas the dissipation of enol/keto-chlortetracycline was better described by exponential equations. At the end of the composting period, proportions of antimicrobials remaining were as follows: iso-chlortetracycline (< 1%), chlortetracycline (1 to 4.5%), tylosin (6.3%), and sulfamethazine (6.8% [2005], 41% [2006]). Times for 50% dissipation (DT50) decreased in the order: tylosin (20.3 to 43.5 d) > iso-chlortetracycline (13.5 to 26.5 d) > enol/keto-chlortetracycline (5.5 to 9.8 d). The DT50 values for sulfamethazine varied from 26.8 d in 2005 to 237 d in 2006. Treatments with chlortetracycline showed significantly reduced temperature rises (10.1 to 11.0 degrees C) between Days 21 to 28 in 2006 compared with rises of 26.6 to 31.0 degrees C for control and tylosin treatments, suggesting an inhibition of microbial activity. During composting in 2005, manure from cattle administered chlortetracycline at 44 mg kg(-1) of feed lost significantly less dry matter, carbon, and nitrogen than manure from cattle fed 11 mg chlortetracycline kg(-1) of feed, implying that the higher level of chlortetracycline inhibited microbial decomposition of organic matter. The study shows that while composting leads to dissipation of antimicrobials, the microbially driven composting process may be inhibited by their presence.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".