<i>Campylobacter, Salmonella</i> and <i>Escherichia coli</i> Food Contamination Risk in Free-Range Poultry Production System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Livestock such as poultry is consumed as food worldwide and it constitutes one of the main protein sources for diners, as well as an important source of revenue generation for farmers. Poultry meat production chain identifies a significant role of the farm to folk. Most often, the systems used in poultry production can result in a higher prevalence of Campylobacter, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli contamination, leading to adverse health effects with detrimental consequences. The method of poultry keeping plays a significant role in the poultry meats’ outcome and its food safety standards. Farmers attempt to develop new poultry operations, however, there are two main possibilities; to operate within the present vertically integrated system which is incredibly good for disease prevention and to develop independently, or a smaller operation that is more animal friendly. This article reviews the available research on the impact of free-range poultry production systems on food safety, most importantly the prevalence and control of Campylobacter, Salmonella and Escherichia coli in free-range production systems. The results suggest a conflicting view when bacterial loads of poultry meat from conventional and free-range systems are compared. Studies have shown increased bacterial loads in a free-range production system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".