Survey for Bacteria and Antimicrobial Resistance in Wild Turkeys (<i>Meleagris gallopavo</i>) in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since being successfully reintroduced into Ontario, Canada, wild turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo) populations have undergone robust growth and range expansion. This, along with increases in land use changes from human population growth and subsequent developments in agriculture and livestock production, has heightened opportunities for interactions between wild turkeys, domestic poultry, and humans. As conspecifics, wild and domestic turkeys are susceptible to infection and disease from many of the same pathogens. Thus, transmission by direct or indirect contact is a potential health threat to both groups, particularly with the overlapping range of wild turkeys in Ontario with numerous commercial and backyard poultry operations. However, these threats are difficult to assess due to knowledge gaps in the prevalence and geographic distribution of potential pathogens circulating among wild turkeys. We assessed for potentially pathogenic bacteria in free-ranging, hunter-harvested wild turkeys in Ontario ( n = 152) by cloacal swab culture for Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp., and Escherichia coli and culture of lung and spleen for Pasteurella multocida, Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale, and Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae. Antimicrobial resistance testing was also performed on E. coli isolates. Generic E. coli isolates were recovered from 69.1% (105/152) of wild turkeys tested, and two (1.9%) of these isolates exhibited resistance to azithromycin and one (1.0%) to ampicillin. Intermediate susceptibility to chloramphenicol was observed in one (1.0%) isolate. One (0.7%) wild turkey swab tested positive for C. jejuni, but no samples were positive for P. multocida, Salmonella spp., O. rhinotracheale, or E. rhusiopathiae. To our knowledge, this is the first survey of these bacteria and assessment for antimicrobial resistance among wild turkeys in Ontario.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".