MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212840597 · doi:10.21065/advfoodnutrisci.5.1

DETECTION OF SALMONELLA IN YOUNG CHICKS WITH CLOACAL SWABS

2020· article· en· W3212840597 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B.L. McLendon, N.A. Cox, D.E. Cosby, Enrique Montiel, Scott Russell, Charles L. Hofacre, M.E. Berrang, J.L. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Food and Nutritional Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmonellaCloacaAgarBiologyBroilerHatcheryNalidixic acidVeterinary medicineIsolation (microbiology)MicrobiologyFood scienceAnatomyFisheryBacteriaFish <Actinopterygii>AntibioticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: A non-destructive method such as a cloacal swab is very important to the poultry industry because it allows the breeder companies to determine if Salmonella is present in the valuable breeder chicks without the necessity of sacrificing any birds.Objective: To evaluate a nondestructive procedure to detect the presence of Salmonella in valuable breeder chicks.Methodology: Day-of-age broiler chicks from a commercial hatchery were orally gavaged with a marker strain of Salmonella Typhimurium (ST), and then placed in isolation units with drinkers, mesh flooring and feeders. At 7 and 14 days, 10 birds were cloacally swabbed (shallow and deep). Swabs were inserted 1 cm (shallow) into the cloaca and 2 cm deep (into the colon). Each swab was immersed in 5.0 ml of buffered peptone water (BPW), then streaked onto brilliant green sulfa agar plates with 200 ppm nalidixic acid (BGSN). Tubes and plates were incubated 24 h at 370C. When plates were negative, the pre-enriched tubes were vortexed and once again plated onto BGSN. The procedure for the frozen swabs was the same, except that 15% glycerol was added to the BPW and then frozen at -20C for 14 days. They were then thawed and analyzed as above. After swabbing, the chicks were sacrificed. The ceca was removed, placed in a stomacher bag, and macerated with a rubber mallet. Enumeration of the marker strain followed.Results: When the level of the marker ST was greater than 106 CFU/g of ceca and cecal contents, detection with either shallow or deep swab was the same 94% (47/50). When the level of ST was less than 106 CFU/g, detection with either method fell to 63.3% (38/60). After 14 days freezing the swabs at -20C, the shallow method detected 50% (32/64), and the deep swab detected 64% (41/64).Conclusion: Regardless of the level of ST in the ceca, there was no difference in the detection rate between the shallow or the deep swab. Even when using low inoculum levels, a high rate of ST colonization in the ceca was reached, allowing both the shallow and deep swabs to almost all be positive at 7 days of age. Since the poultry companies may not be able to analyze the swab results on the same day as collection, we decided to evaluate if freezing the swabs for as long as 14 days would have any adverse effect on the recovery of ST. Freezing did not seem to make a difference in sensitivity. For frozen swabs the deep colonal swab yielded better results than the shallow swab. So you can freeze if you must, but doing the analysis the same day as the swabbing (unfrozen) techniques seems to be slightly more reliable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced Food and Nutritional SciencesSame topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207