Recovery of Bacteria from Broiler Carcasses Rinsed Zero and Twenty-Four Hours After Immersion Chilling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microbiological sampling of processed broiler carcasses often relies on the technique of whole-carcass rinsing; however, the rinse sampling is sometimes done immediately after immersion chilling and sometimes as long as 24 h after immersion chilling. To test whether carcass rinses done immediately after chilling can be compared with rinses 24 h after chilling, 20 whole broiler carcasses exiting the chiller of a broiler processing plant were sampled on each of 3 d. All carcasses were bagged aseptically and rinsed for 1 min in 400 mL of sterile water. Recovered rinse liquid was poured into a sterile container, and rinsed carcasses were placed in clean plastic bags; all materials were held overnight at 4 degrees C. On the following day, all carcasses were rinsed again in 400 mL of sterile water as before, and all rinse samples were cultured by standard methods to enumerate coliforms, Escherichia coli, and Campylobacter and to determine incidence of Salmonella. Statistical analysis used paired comparisons between the same carcasses rinsed at 0 and 24 h after chilling; numbers of bacteria were expressed as log cfu/mL of rinse. In 2 of 3 replications, significantly higher numbers of coliforms and E. coli were found in the rinse samples taken immediately after chilling vs. rinse samples done at 24 h. There were no differences in numbers of Campylobacter or incidence of Salmonella between rinses taken at 0 and 24 h. More study is required to determine whether whole-carcass rinse samples performed at 0 and 24 h after chilling are microbiologically equivalent.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".