Airborne dust and bioaerosols in Canadian conventional and alternative houses for laying hens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Awareness about laying hen welfare has led to the phase-out of conventional battery cages in favor of the adoption of alternative housing systems for egg production in many countries. However, the greater freedom of movement for animals and the presence of manure and litter (sawdust, straw, feathers, etc.) on the floor in some alternative housing systems may be suitable conditions for dusts, bacteria, and fungi to be aerosolized, raising concerns about indoor air quality and respiratory health of workers. The present project aimed at assessing and comparing indoor air quality and bioaerosols in conventional and alternative houses for laying hens. Six were conventional houses (with battery cages), six were enriched colonies, and six were aviary (multi-level cage-free houses) visited in Eastern Canada from 2020–2022. Higher airborne concentrations of particulate matter (PM) from all size fractions (PM1, PM2.5, PM4, PM10, and total dust), culturable bacteria, total endotoxins, and Clostridium perfringens were found in aviaries compared to houses for laying hens in conventional and enriched colonies. Total endotoxin and Clostridium perfringens concentrations were higher in enriched colonies than in conventional laying-hen housing systems. Campylobacter coli, Campylobacter jejuni, and Salmonella sp. were detected in few hen houses. This study highlights possible markers for indoor air quality evaluation inside laying hen houses. These airborne contaminants could be targeted by mitigation strategies to improve indoor air quality in alternative housing systems for laying hens.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".