Use of ATP luminometry to assess the cleanliness of equipment used to collect and feed colostrum on dairy farms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this observational cross-sectional study was to describe the cleanliness of various equipment used for colostrum harvest and calf feeding procedures on dairy farms in Québec, Canada. The study was performed on 42 commercial dairy herds also enrolled in another study aiming to determine the transfer of passive immunity over a 14-mo period. Information on colostrum quality (using Brix value) and cleanliness (total aerobic and total coliform count) were recorded as well as various practices focused on colostrum-feeding equipment and preweaning period using a standard questionnaire. During the study period, colostrum and milk-feeding equipment cleanliness was assessed using direct surface swabbing with Hygiena Ultrasnap swabs. A total of 155 swab samples were obtained from 6 pieces of equipment. Adenosine triphosphate collected from the swabbed surface reacts with the luciferase solution present in the swab by bioluminescence, which is proportional to the quantity of ATP present and quantified as relative light units (RLU). The description of feed equipment cleanliness (defined as the maximal RLU found for a specific herd, dichotomized as <1,000 RLU vs. ≥1,000 RLU) was compared with the herds' descriptive characteristics, focusing on the first 2 components of a multiple correspondence analysis. The median (range) RLU for buckets used for colostrum harvest, bucket or bottle used for feeding, tube feeders, milking colostrum line, and internal surface of the nipples were 41 RLU (3-1,625 RLU), 78 RLU (<1-3,765 RLU), 29 RLU (<1-2,177 RLU), 83 RLU (<1-9,968 RLU), and 1,101 RLU (2-9,546 RLU), respectively. The first 2 components of multiple correspondence analysis explained 24.7% of data variances and were related to the farms' hygiene and health (13.0%) and feeding practices (11.7% of data variance). The maximal dichotomized luminometry value (<1,000 RLU or ≥1,000 RLU) was associated with hygiene and health dimension. This study gave promising results concerning the potential application of ATP luminometry for calf rearing practices assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".