REDUCTION OF CAMPYLOBACTER ON POULTRY THIGHS USING SEQUENTIAL TREATMENTS OF ANTIMICROBIALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Campylobacter is a major concern for poultry processors, as USDA performance standards have become stricter. This study evaluated CMS PoultrypHresh™, a low pH processing aid, and peracetic acid using consecutive and sequential dip treatments to reduce Campylobacter in thighs. Thighs (n=3/treatment group) were inoculated with a C. coli marker strain (108) and each dipped into bags containing 1 L of treatment 1 for 6 s. Thighs were allowed 5 s to drip, placed onto foil for 60 s, and dipped into treatment 2 for 6 s. After 5 s drip time, each was placed in a bag with 150 mL buffered peptone water and hand shaken for 60 s; controls same procedure, no treatment. Rinsates were serially diluted, plated onto Campy Cefex agar with 200 ppm gentamicin and incubated microaerobically for 48 h at 42°C. Procedures were replicated 5 times. Significant reductions compared to untreated using consecutive dips of PoultrypHresh™ and PAA were 98.2% and 99.3%, respectively. Treatments of PoultrypHresh™ then peracetic acid reduced Campylobacter 99.2% from untreated thighs. Peracetic acid then PoultrypHresh™ showed significant reductions compared to all other treatments (99.9% from untreated). Treating with this sequence may allow processors to meet the strict performance standards on Campylobacter in broiler parts.
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".