Dissipation of Antimicrobials in Feedlot Manure Compost after Oral Administration versus Fortification after Excretion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fortification of manure with antimicrobials is one approach to studying their dissipation. However, fortified antimicrobials may not accurately model dissipation that occurs after antimicrobials have been administered to livestock in feed and excreted in manure. This study examined the dissipation of antimicrobials excreted in manure versus those added directly to manure (fortified). Steers were fed a diet containing (kg feed) (i) 44 mg chlortetracycline, (ii) 44 mg each of chlortetracycline and sulfamethazine, (iii) 11 mg tylosin, and (iv) no antimicrobials (control). Fortified antimicrobial treatments were prepared by adding antimicrobials to control manure. Manure was composted for 30 d, sampled every 2 to 3 d, and analyzed for antimicrobials and compost properties. Antimicrobial dissipation followed first-order kinetics. The dissipation rate constant was significantly greater (based on 95% confidence limit) for excreted (0.29-0.54 d) than for fortified chlortetracycline (0.11-0.13 d). In contrast, dissipation rate constants were significantly greater for fortified sulfamethazine (0.47 d) and tylosin (0.31 d) than when the same antimicrobials were excreted (0.08 and 0.07 d, respectively). On average, 85 to 99% of the initial antimicrobial concentrations in manure were dissipated after 30 d of composting. The degree of dissipation was greater ( < 0.0001) for fortified (99%) than for excreted tylosin (85%). Composting can be used to reduce environmental loading of antimicrobials before field application of beef cattle manure. Dissipation rates of fortified antimicrobials during manure composting may not accurately reflect those of antimicrobials that are consumed and excreted by cattle.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".