Effect of Co-Composting Cattle Manure with Construction and Demolition Waste on the Archaeal, Bacterial, and Fungal Microbiota, and on Antimicrobial Resistance Determinants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agricultural operations generate large quantities of manure which must be eliminated in a manner that is consistent with public health guidelines. Meanwhile, construction and demolition waste makes up about 25% of total solid municipal waste. Co-composting of manure with construction and demolition waste offers a potential means to make manure safe for soil amendment and also divert construction and demolition waste from municipal landfills. Therefore, the archaeal, bacterial, and fungal microbiota of two different types of composted cattle manure and one co-composted with construction and demolition waste, were assessed over a 99-day composting period. The microbiota of the three compost mixtures did not differ, but significant changes over time and by sampling depth were observed. Bacillus and Halocella, however, were more relatively abundant in composted manure from cattle fed dried distillers' grains and solubles. Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes were enriched at day 0 and Firmicutes at day 99. The fungal genus Kernia was the most relatively abundant overall and was enriched at day 0. The concentration of 12 antimicrobial resistance determinants in the compost mixtures was also determined, and 10 of these determinants decreased significantly from days 0 to 99. The addition of construction and demolition waste did not affect the persistence of antimicrobial resistance genes or community structure of the compost microbiota and therefore co-composting construction and demolition waste with cattle manure offers a safe, viable way to divert this waste from landfills.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".