Comparison of pathogenic bacteria in the upper and lower respiratory tracts of cattle either directly transported to a feedlot or co-mingled at auction markets prior to feedlot placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Bacterial bronchopneumonia (BP) has been associated with purchasing cattle through auction markets. However, whether auction markets are a source of BP-associated bacterial pathogens is unknown. This study evaluated prevalence, antimicrobial susceptibility, and genetic relatedness (using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, PFGE) of Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida , and Histophilus somni isolated from cattle either transported to an auction market prior to feedlot placement (AUC), or directly to a feedlot from a farm (RANC). Methods Two groups of cattle were enrolled (N = 30 per group) from two separate farms with 15 animals from an individual farm designated as AUC or RANC. Deep nasal swab (DNS) and trans-tracheal aspirates (TTA) were collected on day 0 at weaning (T0) and on day 2 at on-arrival processing at the feedlot (T1). The DNS were also collected on day 9 (T2) and day 30 (T3) after arrival at the feedlot. Results and discussion In both TTA and DNS, prevalence of bacteria did not differ between AUC and RANC groups ( P > 0.05). None of the bacteria isolated at T0 were resistant to antimicrobials and diversity of all bacteria was greatest at T0 and T1. In Group 1 cattle, 100% of P. multocida isolated at T2 and T3 were multi-drug resistant. These isolates were highly related (>90%) according to PFGE, with most being clones. Though limited in size, results for animals evaluated in this study suggested that auction markets were not a major source of resistant BP pathogens, however, horizontal transmission of a multi-resistant strain of P. multocida occurred in a feedlot. Spread of resistant P. multocida was likely due to the selective pressures imposed by feedlot antimicrobial use and encoded resistance by the bacteria.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".