Pig and Goat Blood as Substitutes for Sheep Blood in Blood-Supplemented Agar Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many developing countries sheep and horse blood, the recommended blood supplements in bacteriological media, are not readily available, whereas pig and goat blood are. Therefore, this study examined the use of pig and goat blood as potential substitutes for sheep blood in blood-supplemented bacteriologic media commonly used in clinical microbiology laboratories. In general, the growth characteristics and colony morphologies of a wide range of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria and Candida albicans were similar on media containing pig, goat, and sheep blood, although differences were found. Enterococcus sp. uniformly produced alpha-hemolysis when incubated in CO(2), but in anaerobic conditions the hemolysis varied. In contrast, beta-hemolytic streptococci produced identical hemolytic reactions on all three media. Synergistic hemolysis was not observed on pig blood agar in the CAMP test nor on goat blood agar in the reverse CAMP test. The preparation of chocolate agar (heated) with pig blood required heating to a higher temperature than with sheep or goat blood to yield suitable growth of Haemophilus species. In general, we conclude that pig and goat blood are suitable alternatives to sheep blood for use in bacteriological media in settings where sheep and horse blood are not readily available.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".