Comparison of microbiota of recycled manure solids and straw bedding used in dairy farms in eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recycled manure solids (RMS) bedding is an alternative bedding option that is growing in popularity on Canadian dairy farms. However, the microbiological characteristics and production of RMS bedding are poorly documented under on-farm conditions in eastern Canada. This bedding could support the presence of pathogens and could have an effect on cow and human health. The aim of this study was to describe the RMS microbiota when used under dairy cows and compare it with straw bedding. Unused and used bedding from 27 RMS and 61 straw-bedded dairy farms were collected and compared using 16S amplicon sequencing, bacterial counts, and Salmonella spp. and Listeria monocytogenes detection. Microbiota composition of unused RMS and unused straw were different. After use, both bedding microbiota were similar in their bacterial composition, structure, and diversity. Unused RMS generally contained higher bacterial counts than did unused straw, except for Klebsiella spp. counts. Salmonella spp. and L. monocytogenes were more frequently detected in unused RMS (Salmonella spp.: 11%; L. monocytogenes: 30%), than in unused straw (Salmonella spp.: 0%; L. monocytogenes: 11%). Finally, 2 RMS production systems (extraction of the liquid fraction followed by maturation in an opened or enclosed container vs. in a heap) did not influence the microbiota richness and bacteria distribution (α-diversity), but did influence the microbiota structure (β-diversity). In conclusion, animal and human pathogens were found in greater numbers and more frequently in unused RMS than unused straw, and this could eventually affect dairy cow or human health.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".