English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Samples of beef cattle feedlot waste (FLW), runoff from the pens, and water from a large drainage ditch at the feedlot were examined forEnterobacteriaceae . The drainage ditch receives the runoff but contains primarily subsurface drainage from fields on which FLW is spread for disposal. Planting and enrichment techniques with seven different media were used to isolate 553 cultures of enterobacteria. FLW contains about 50 million enterobacteria/g dry weight. More than 90% of these wereEscherichia coli , none of which were enteropathogenic types as determined with multivalent sera.Citrobacter andEnterobacter cloacae were other organisms present in moderate numbers. Application of enrichment techniques broadened the spectrum of enterobacteria isolates to include the fourProteus spp., bothProvidencia spp.,Klebsiella, Enterobacter aerogenes, Arizona , and a single isolate ofSalmonella (serological group C2 ).Shigella was not isolated. The wide spectrum of enterobacteria in FLW may be a hazard if unsterilized waste is refed. Fewer enterobacteria occurred in the runoff and in the drainage ditch; the most numerous species in FLW also were most numerous at these sites. However, neitherSalmonella norArizona was isolated from runoff or drainage-ditch waters.

Enterobacteria in Feedlot Waste and Runoff