Associations of processing level variables with Salmonella prevalence and concentration on broiler chicken carcasses and parts in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A national baseline study was conducted between December 2012 and December 2013 to determine the pre-packaging prevalence and concentration of foodborne pathogens on broiler chicken carcasses and parts at processing; a survey was implemented simultaneously to collect data on the processing practices used to control these pathogens. Thirty federally-registered Canadian poultry processing establishments completed the questionnaire. A total of 2,732 samples of carcasses and parts (breast and thigh pieces) were collected over the study period from these establishments. For Salmonella, the overall proportion positive was 0.22 (95% CI 0.20, 0.23), and the mean concentration was 0.67 (95% CI 0.51, 0.83) MPN/mL of rinse fluid. Multivariable regression models with random intercepts for the establishment and the date of sampling were used to identify associations between Salmonella prevalence and concentration and processing practices. In the final logistic regression model for the prevalence outcome (positive or negative sample), there were three statistically significant variables: product type (carcass or part); chilling method (water or air); and chlorine use in the establishment (chlorine, cetylpyridinium chloride, or neither). The likelihood of testing positive for Salmonella was higher on parts than carcasses (OR 3.03, 95% CI 2.38, 3.86), and higher when cetylpyridinium chloride was used (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.36, 2.95), or when other processing aids were used (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.26, 3.15), than when chlorine was used. Water chilling was negatively associated with testing positive for Salmonella when compared with air chilling (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48, 0.96). In the final linear regression model for the concentration outcome (log10 MPN/mL), there was one statistically significant variable chilling method, where water chilling was associated with a decrease in concentration (β -0.23, 95% CI -0.38, -0.08 log10 MPN/mL). The intraclass correlation coefficients for establishment and date sampling were 0.02 and 0.23 in the linear regression model, and 0.01 and 0.34 in the logistic regression model, respectively. Further studies to explore the methods to reduce microbial contamination during the air chilling and cut-up and boning processes in broiler chicken establishments in Canada are recommended.
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) | 0.000 | 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".