Testing the plastic‐wrapped composting system to dispose of swine mortalities during an animal disease outbreak
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Composting has been used to dispose of animal mortalities and infected materials, such as manure and feed, during major animal disease outbreaks. In this study, we adapted the plastic‐wrapped mortality composting system developed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency during the 2004 highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak to compost swine mortalities. The goals of the study were to evaluate the performance of the plastic‐wrapped composting system to dispose of swine mortalities and to field test its ability to eliminate the spread of airborne pathogens through the aeration ducts. Two cover materials, ground cornstalks and woodchips, were tested using passively and actively aerated composting sheds. The mortalities were inoculated with Salmonella spp. and vaccine strains of Bovine herpesvirus‐1 and Bovine viral diarrhea virus. Air samples collected from the upper aeration duct (air outlet) during the first 10 d of composting were negative for Salmonella and the viruses tested, which indicated that aerosol transmission of the pathogens was limited. The aeration plenum placed under the mortalities helped to keep conditions aerobic, as O2 concentrations of both passively and actively aerated test units were above 11%. Actively aerated cornstalks had the highest degree‐hours (1,462 °C h d−1), which was followed by passively aerated cornstalks (1,312 °C h d−1), actively aerated woodchips (1,303 °C h d−1), and passively aerated woodchips (1,062 °C h d−1). After a 7‐wk composting period, all three pathogens were inactivated based on quantitative polymerase chain reaction test results. The mortalities were not inoculated with the African swine fever virus, but temperature data showed that if they were, the system had the potential to eliminate this virus.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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".