Succession of the microbial communities and metabolic functions in composting or deep burial processing of dead chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. This study examined the effects of composting and deep burial techniques on degradation efficiency of dead chickens. Different raw materials (crushed branches or rape straws) and disinfectants (quicklime or bleaching powder) were applied in composting and deep burial process, respectively. The whole process lasted for 90 d in both summer and winter.2. High throughput sequencing displayed that Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria and Deinococcus-Thermus were the most dominant bacterial phyla during the experiment. The relative abundance of Firmicutes dwindled gradually with prolonged composting duration, while Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Deinococcus-Thermous increased gradually over time.3. The bacterial functions identified from the KEGG pathway showed that amino acid and carbohydrate metabolism were the major microbial metabolic pathways that determined final degradation efficiency. At the end of the trial, the decomposition status of chicken carcases and faecal coliforms were measured.4. The results demonstrated that the optimum decomposition effect was obtained in composting compared with other treatment groups. Low ambient temperature reduced degradation efficiency, due to restricted microbial activity. In addition, faecal coliforms were not completely removed by the deep burial process of dead chickens in winter.5. These findings provide a theoretical basis for the feasibility of composting chicken carcases instead of deep burial.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".