Occurrence of ceftriaxone-resistant commensal bacteria on a dairy farm and a poultry farm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 40 samples of animal feces, drinking water, feed, bedding, pine wood shavings, compost, and manure slurry were collected from two animal research farms (one dairy and one poultry) and analyzed for ceftriaxone-resistant bacteria. Our study revealed that the total percentage of aerobic bacteria with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone (minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) > or = 16 micro g/mL) ranged from 0.9% to 10.8% in dairy feces and from 0.05% to 3.93% in chicken feces. The percentages of ceftriaxone-resistant bacteria (MIC > or = 64 micro g/mL) were in the range of 0.01% - 2.3% in dairy feces and 0.01% - 0.79% in chicken feces. Environmental samples contained a wide range of ceftriaxone-resistant bacterial populations. Among those environmental samples, fresh pine wood shavings used as chicken bedding contained the highest percentages (41.5%) of ceftriaxone-resistant bacteria, as determined by a plating method. A total of 105 ceftriaxone-resistant (MIC > or = 128 micro g/mL) bacterial isolates were isolated from the above samples and tested for resistance to nine antibiotics: ampicillin, ceftriaxone, streptomycin, kanamycin, gentamicin, chloramphenicol, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, and nalidixic acid. The most prevalent resistance pattern (34.3%) among isolates included resistance to all nine antibiotics. Results from this study suggest that ceftriaxone-resistant bacteria exist in farm environments, and the ceftriaxone resistance was frequently associated with resistance to multiple antibiotics. Environmental sources such as pine wood shavings used as bedding can be a potential reservoir for transmitting the multidrug-resistant bacteria.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".