Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance among <i>Escherichia coli</i> and <i>Salmonella</i> in Ontario smallholder chicken flocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surveillance is an important component of an overall strategy to address antimicrobial resistant bacteria in food animals and the food chain. The poultry market has many points of entry into the Canadian food chain, and some production practices are underrepresented in terms of surveillance. For example, pathogen carriage and antimicrobial resistance surveillance data are limited in smallholder chicken flocks raised for slaughter at provincially inspected abattoirs. In Canada, antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli and Salmonella isolated from commercial broiler chicken flocks, slaughtered at federally inspected abattoirs, is monitored by the Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS). The objective of this study was to establish baseline information of antimicrobial resistance presence in E. coli and Salmonella isolated from smallholder flocks in Ontario, utilizing CIPARS collection and isolation methodologies, and to compare findings with CIPARS federally inspected abattoir data from Ontario, Canada. Five chickens per flock were sampled from 205 smallholder flocks. Of 1,025 samples, the E. coli prevalence was 99% (1,022/1,025), and 47% (483/1,022) of positive E. coli isolates were resistant to one or more of the 14 antimicrobials. Furthermore, as compared to results reported for the CIPARS commercial flocks, E. coli isolates from smallholder flocks had significantly lower resistance prevalence to six of 14 individual antimicrobials. Recovery of E. coli did not differ between federally inspected and provincially inspected flocks. Salmonella prevalence at the bird level in smallholder flocks was 0.3% (3/1,025), significantly lower (p ≪ 0.0001, 95% CI 0.080%-0.86%) than federally inspected commercial flocks. The overall differences found between the commercial and smallholder flocks may be explained by differences in poultry husbandry practices and hatchery sources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".