Bacterial Populations on Teat Ends of Dairy Cows Housed in Free Stalls and Bedded with Either Sand or Sawdust
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objectives of the experiment were: 1) to compare bacterial populations of mastitis-causing organisms on the teats of lactating dairy cattle housed on sand and sawdust bedding and, 2) to examine the relationship between bacterial counts present in the 2 bedding types with those on teat ends. Sixteen lactating Holstein cows were housed on either sand or sawdust-bedded free stalls using a crossover design with 3 wk per bedding type. Bedding samples were collected on d 0 (prior to animals lying on the bedding), 1, 2, and 6. Teat ends were sampled prior to the morning milking on d 1, 2, and 6. All samples were analyzed to determine coliform, Klebsiella spp., and Streptococcus spp. populations. There were 2 times more coliforms and 6 times more Klebsiella bacteria on teat ends of cows housed on sawdust compared with those housed on sand. In contrast, there were 10 times more Streptococcus spp. bacteria on teat ends of cows when housed on sand compared with sawdust. In both sawdust and sand bedding, coliforms, Klebsiella and Streptococcus counts increased over each experimental week, although patterns varied with bedding and bacteria type. Bacterial counts on teat ends were correlated with bacterial counts in sawdust (r = 0.47, 0.69, and 0.60 for coliforms, Klebsiella spp., and streptococci, respectively) and in sand (r = 0.35 for coliforms and r = 0.40 for Klebsiella spp.). In conclusion, coliforms and Klebsiella spp. on teat ends were more numerous when cows were housed on sawdust bedding, but Streptococcus spp. were more numerous on teat ends of cows housed on sand.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it