A two-year prospective study of small poultry flocks in Ontario, Canada, part 1: prevalence of viral and bacterial pathogens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ontario, within the past few years, there has been a marked increase in the number of non-commercial poultry flocks (referred to as "small flocks"). Small poultry flocks may act as a reservoir of avian and zoonotic pathogens, given the flocks' limited access to veterinary services, inadequate biosecurity practices, and increased risk of contact with wild birds. Despite these potential risks, there is a scarcity of data concerning the prevalence of poultry and zoonotic pathogens among these flocks. To assess the baseline prevalence of bacterial and viral infectious pathogens, prospective surveillance of small flock postmortem submissions to the Animal Health Laboratory was conducted over a 2-y period. With the owner's consent, a postmortem examination and pre-set tests for infectious agents were conducted. A total of 160 submissions, mainly chickens (84%), were received. Among bacterial pathogens, Brachyspira spp., Mycoplasma synoviae, Campylobacter spp., Mycoplasma gallisepticum, and Salmonella spp. were detected in 37%, 36%, 35%, 23%, and 3% of tested submissions, respectively. Among viral pathogens, infectious bronchitis virus, fowl adenovirus, infectious laryngotracheitis virus, avian reovirus, and infectious bursal disease virus were detected in 39%, 35%, 15%, 4%, and 1% of submissions, respectively. We detected non-virulent avian avulavirus 1 from two chickens in a single submission, and low-pathogenic H10N8 influenza A virus from a single turkey submission. Our study provides baseline prevalence of viral and bacterial pathogens circulating in Ontario small flocks and may help animal and human health professionals to educate small flock owners about disease prevention.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".