Hygiene management practices and adenosine triphosphate luminometry of feeding equipment in preweaning calves on dairy farms in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to describe the cleaning practices currently used for preweaning calves on dairy farms in Quebec, Canada. In addition, contamination of feeding equipment for preweaning calves was described using ATP (expressed as relative light units, RLU), visual assessment, and bacteriological analysis. A questionnaire was administered on 50 commercial dairy farms in Quebec, Canada, regarding the self-reported cleaning protocol used for feeding equipment of preweaning calves. During the visit, a visual score was given to the feeding equipment available at the farm. Afterward, ATP luminometry measurements were obtained using Hygiene UltraSnap and MicroSnap swabs (Hygiene, Camarillo, CA), and the liquid rinsing technique for buckets, nipples, bottles, esophageal tube feeders (ET), the tube of automatic milk feeders (AMF), water samples, and milk replacer. An additional direct swabbing technique was performed on buckets and nipples. The fluid retrieved from the liquid rinsing technique was also used to determine the total bacterial count (TBC) and total coliform count. Based on the bacteriological analysis, optimal RLU cutoff values to determine contamination were obtained. The median (interquartile range) luminometer measurements using the UltraSnap and direct technique for buckets and nipples were 2,082 (348-7,410) and 3,462 (462-7,518) RLU, respectively; and, using the liquid technique for bottles, ET, AMF, water, and milk replacer were 43 (4-974), 15 (4-121), 301 (137-1,323), 190 (71-358), and 94 (38-218) RLU, respectively. Overall, for all equipment and both techniques used, higher RLU values were seen in UltraSnap samples compared with MicroSnap samples. Additionally, for buckets and nipples, higher RLU values were obtained for the direct swabbing method compared with the liquid sampling method for both swabs used. No differences in the level of contamination were seen between the different feeding equipment used within a farm. Overall, a higher correlation with bacteriological results was noticed for ATP luminometry compared with the visual score, with a high correlation for nipples and bottles using the UltraSnap and liquid technique. Based on the classification of "contaminated" (TBC ≥100,000 cfu/mL) or "not contaminated" (TBC <100,000 cfu/mL), optimal ATP luminometer cutoff values for buckets, nipples, bottles, AMF, water, and milk replacer were 798, 388, 469, 282, 1,432, and 93 RLU, respectively. No clear association was found between ATP measurements and the self-reported cleaning protocol. This study gave new insights into the current cleaning procedures and contamination of feeding equipment for preweaning calves on dairy farms in Quebec. In addition, ATP luminometry cutoff values could help benchmark farms regarding cleaning practices and provide customized advice, improving the overall hygiene management, and thus the health, of preweaning calves on dairy farms.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".