Examination of <i>Salmonella</i> and <i>Escherichia coli</i> Translocation from Hog Manure to Forage, Soil, and Cattle Grazed on the Hog Manure‐treated Pasture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Use of hog (Sus scrofa) manure as a fertilizer is a practical solution for waste re-utilization, however, it may serve as a vehicle for environmental and domestic animal contamination. Work was conducted to determine whether pathogens, naturally present in hog manure could be detected in cattle (Bos taurus) grazed on the manure-treated pasture, and whether forage contamination occurred. During two 3 mo summer trials manure was applied to yield < or = 124 kg available N per hectare in a single spring or split spring and fall application. Samples of hog manure, forage, soil, and cattle feces were analyzed for naturally occurring Salmonella, Yersinia enterocolitica, and Escherichia coli. To follow movement of Salmonella in the environment isolates were identified to serovar and serotyped. Transfer of E. coli from hog manure to soil and cattle was examined by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis of >600 E. coli isolates. While Y. enterocolitica was absent from all samples, in both years S. enterica Derby and S. enterica Krefeld were found in most hog manure samples, but were only on forage samples in the second year. Salmonella enterica Typhimurium, absent from hog manure was present on some forage in the first year. Cattle feces and soil samples were consistently Salmonella negative. These contaminations could not be traced to manure application. During this study, Salmonella and E. coli found in hog manure had different RAPD genomic profiles from those found in the feces of cattle grazing on manure-treated pasture.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".