MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555040847 · doi:10.3920/wmj2016.2130

Biological control of aflatoxins in Africa: current status and potential challenges in the face of climate change

2016· article· en· W2555040847 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Mycotoxin Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConsortium of International Agricultural Research CentersUnited States Agency for International DevelopmentDepartment of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian GovernmentDepartment for International DevelopmentGlobal Affairs CanadaBill and Melinda Gates FoundationBundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und EntwicklungU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsAflatoxinBiological pest controlCropBiotechnologyMycotoxinToxicologyBiologyAspergillus flavusFood securityGeographyAgroforestryAgronomyAgricultural scienceAgricultureEcologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aflatoxin contamination of crops is frequent in warm regions across the globe, including large areas in sub-Saharan Africa. Crop contamination with these dangerous toxins transcends health, food security, and trade sectors. It cuts across the value chain, affecting farmers, traders, markets, and finally consumers. Diverse fungi within Aspergillus section Flavi contaminate crops with aflatoxins. Within these Aspergillus communities, several genotypes are not capable of producing aflatoxins (atoxigenic). Carefully selected atoxigenic genotypes in biological control (biocontrol) formulations efficiently reduce aflatoxin contamination of crops when applied prior to flowering in the field. This safe and environmentally friendly, effective technology was pioneered in the US, where well over a million acres of susceptible crops are treated annually. The technology has been improved for use in sub-Saharan Africa, where efforts are under way to develop biocontrol products, under the trade name Aflasafe, for 11 African nations. The number of participating nations is expected to increase. In parallel, state of the art technology has been developed for large-scale inexpensive manufacture of Aflasafe products under the conditions present in many African nations. Results to date indicate that all Aflasafe products, registered and under experimental use, reduce aflatoxin concentrations in treated crops by >80% in comparison to untreated crops in both field and storage conditions. Benefits of aflatoxin biocontrol technologies are discussed along with potential challenges, including climate change, likely to be faced during the scaling-up of Aflasafe products. Lastly, we respond to several apprehensions expressed in the literature about the use of atoxigenic genotypes in biocontrol formulations. These responses relate to the following apprehensions: sorghum as carrier, distribution costs, aflatoxin-conscious markets, efficacy during drought, post-harvest benefits, risk of allergies and/or aspergillosis, influence of Aflasafe on other mycotoxins and on soil microenvironment, dynamics of Aspergillus genotypes, and recombination between atoxigenic and toxigenic genotypes in natural conditions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it