Demographic Characteristics and Husbandry and Biosecurity Practices of Small Poultry Flocks in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a 2 yr disease surveillance project of small poultry flocks, owners of birds submitted for postmortem examination to the Animal Health Laboratory were asked to complete a questionnaire designed to gather information on the characteristics of the flock and its environment, how the flock was managed, and biosecurity measures used. A total of 153 unique questionnaires were received. Personal consumption of meat or eggs was the most common reason for owning a small flock (69.3%). Almost all owners (97.4%) reported having chickens on their property, while 21.6% had waterfowl, 15.7% had turkeys, and 15.7% had game birds. Nearly 70% (69.9%) of the flocks had some degree of outdoor access. For those with indoor access, the most common bedding material provided was soft wood shavings (70.2%). Kitchen waste or leftovers were offered to 65.3% of flocks, and well water was the most common source of drinking water (80.6%). For flocks with indoor access, dedicated shoes and clothes were used when entering or cleaning the coop by fewer than half of owners, and shoes were rarely disinfected before or after contact with the flock. Most owners (93.8%) reported washing their hands after contact with their birds, although only 48.3% reported washing their hands before contact. Among owners who sourced birds from a hatchery, only 36.8% indicated that the birds had been vaccinated, and 21.1% were unsure if vaccines had been administered. Among owners using medication (60.5%), the use of antibiotics was common (60.9%). Overall, questionnaire responses describe a wide range of husbandry and biosecurity practices, often suboptimal, and point out the need for educational material for Ontario small flock owners.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".