Standardization and validation of ATP luminometry as a diagnostic tool to assess the cleanliness of feeding equipment in preweaning calves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this cross-sectional study was to standardize a reliable and repeatable swabbing technique using ATP luminometry (light emission proportional to the amount of ATP with result provided in relative light units [RLU]) to describe the cleanliness of various feeding equipment used for preweaning calves in dairy farms. A total of 7 Québec commercial dairy herds were selected conveniently. Following visual hygiene scoring, the cleanliness of every available piece of feeding equipment was assessed using direct surface swabbing for buckets and nipples with Hygiena UltraSnap swabs. A liquid rinsing technique was used for esophageal feeders, bottles, and automatic milk feeders (AMF) with UltraSnap, AquaSnap, and MicroSnap swabs. To validate direct swabbing technique of buckets, a stage within and between operators was realized, as well as a conventional bacterial culture. A total of 519 swab samples were obtained from 201 pieces of equipment. The median (interquartile range) contamination in RLU for a bottle, esophageal feeder, AMF, bucket and nipple was 2 (1;6), 2 (0;12), 52 (19;269), 886 (128;7,230) and 899 (142;6,928), respectively. The direct swabbing technique, which consists in swabbing directly the surface of an equipment, showed excellent correlation for intrarater reliability (intraclass correlation (ICC) = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.88–0.96). The interoperator (2 sessions with 3 different operators) reliability also showed high correlation (ICC = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.78–0.94 for the first session, and ICC=0.89; 95% CI: 0.79–0.95 for the second session). Luminometer values were positively associated with the visual score of esophageal feeders, AMF and buckets. A positive correlation between bacterial culture and direct swabbing of buckets was also found for the UltraSnap (r s = 0.653; 95% CI: 0.283–0.873; P = 0.0003) and MicroSnap (r s = 0.569, 95% CI: 0.309–0.765; P = 0.002). This study describes a standardized and practical on-farm swabbing technique for assessing the hygienic status of feeding equipment by luminometry, which can be integrated in the investigation of preweaning dairy calves problems.
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 | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".