Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Pathogenic Bacteria in Chicken and Guinea Fowl
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to compare the presence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Campylobacter, Salmonella spp., and other enteric bacteria between chickens and guinea fowls. Birds were reared on enclosed concrete floor housing covered with pine wood shavings litter material. Chicken (n = 40) and guinea fowl (n = 40) carcasses, drinking water (10 mL; n = 40), and litter (10 g; n = 40) were aseptically collected randomly from a poultry farm and analyzed within 1 h of collection. Individual pens served as experimental units and were replicated twice. Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp., and other enterobactericeae were isolated and identified using standard selective media and biochemical tests. Isolates were tested for sensitivity to tetracycline, ampicillin, streptomycin, kanamycin, nalidixic acid, gentamicin, erythromycin, ciprofloxacin, cefoxitin, and colistin using the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion test. Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella spp. were isolated from 28 and 35% of whole carcass rinses of chickens and from 18 and 23% of whole carcass rinses of guinea fowl, respectively. Although only Salmonella spp. were recovered from drinking water, both Salmonella and Campylobacter spp. were recovered from litter material. Campylobacter upsaliensis was recovered only in the guinea fowl, whereas Klebsiella oxytoca and Enterobacter sakazakii were recovered only in chickens. Although no antibiotic resistance was determined in Campylobacter upsaliensis, most Campylobacter, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli isolates from both chickens and guinea fowl were resistant to antibiotics such as ampicillin, kanamycin, erythromycin, and nalidixic acid.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".