Next Article in Journal
Biologically Active Compounds from Probiotic Microorganisms and Plant Extracts Used as Biopreservatives
Next Article in Special Issue
Interaction of Naturally Occurring Phytoplankton with the Biogeochemical Cycling of Mercury in Aquatic Environments and Its Effects on Global Hg Pollution and Public Health
Previous Article in Journal
Microbiological Analysis of Surgeons’ Hands in a Public Hospital in São Luis, Maranhão State, Brazil: A Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Phylogenetic Revisit to a Review on Predatory Bacteria
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 11
Issue 8
10.3390/microorganisms11081897
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Microbial Risks Caused by Livestock Excrement: Current Research Status and Prospects

by
Rashidin Abdugheni
1,
Li Li
1,2,
Zhen-Ni Yang
4,
Yin Huang
1,2,
Bao-Zhu Fang
1,
Vyacheslav Shurigin
1,
Osama Abdalla Abdelshafy Mohamad
1,
Yong-Hong Liu
1 and
Wen-Jun Li
1,3,*
1
State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Ürümqi 830011, China
2
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
3
State Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Plant Resources, School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
4
Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(8), 1897; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11081897
Submission received: 5 June 2023 / Revised: 21 July 2023 / Accepted: 25 July 2023 / Published: 27 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Latest Review Papers in Environmental Microbiology 2023)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Livestock excrement is a major pollutant yielded from husbandry and it has been constantly imported into various related environments. Livestock excrement comprises a variety of microorganisms including certain units with health risks and these microorganisms are transferred synchronically during the management and utilization processes of livestock excrement. The livestock excrement microbiome is extensively affecting the microbiome of humans and the relevant environments and it could be altered by related environmental factors as well. The zoonotic microorganisms, extremely zoonotic pathogens, and antibiotic-resistant microorganisms are posing threats to human health and environmental safety. In this review, we highlight the main feature of the microbiome of livestock excrement and elucidate the composition and structure of the repertoire of microbes, how these microbes transfer from different spots, and they then affect the microbiomes of related habitants as a whole. Overall, the environmental problems caused by the microbiome of livestock excrement and the potential risks it may cause are summarized from the microbial perspective and the strategies for prediction, prevention, and management are discussed so as to provide a reference for further studies regarding potential microbial risks of livestock excrement microbes.

1. Introduction

Livestock excrement is a major source of environmental pollution and poses significant risks to the environment and public health. As the livestock industries have been increasing rapidly [1], unsurprisingly, the amount of livestock excrement has been increasing accordingly. Reports showed that the annual production of livestock excrement in Finland, the EU-27, China, the UK, Indonesia, the USA, and Iran reached 1.60 × 1010 (wet weight, in 2011) [2], 1.50 × 109 tons (dry weight, in 2014) [3], 6.90 × 106 tons (dry weight, in 2015) [4], 8.34 × 1010 tons (dry weight, in 2016) [5], 7.00 × 1010 tons (dry weight, in 2016) [6], 3.50 × 1010 tons (dry weight, in 2016) [2], and 2.00 × 109 tons (dry weight, in 2017) [7], respectively. The enormous amounts of livestock excrement cause various environmental and health problems due to the diverse pollutants it contains.
Livestock excrement includes non-biological and biological pollutants. Non-biological pollutants may cause environmental problems including odor emission and a contribution to the greenhouse effect [8], fine particles or particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 μm (PM 2.5) [9], enrichment of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) in related water sites [10], transmission and enrichment of heavy metals, and pesticides in related soil and water [11]. Due to the extensive expansion of livestock production, these environmental problems caused by livestock excrement pollutants have been increasing dramatically [12,13].
Biological pollutants in livestock excrement mainly pertain to the microorganisms and insects residing in the livestock excrement and their pathogenic/toxic products [14,15]. There are generally trillions of diverse microorganisms residing in the animal intestinal and oral tract [16,17]; these microorganisms are introduced into the livestock excrement and will further enter the relevant environment along with husbandry-related activities [18]. Undoubtedly, the health and environmental problems caused by these issues, in turn, cause significant economic losses, hence, special attention needs to be paid to the risks caused by livestock excrement.
Reports showed that cattle and poultry manures include a wide range of pathogenic microorganisms and parasite eggs which may contribute to the spread of human and animal infectious illnesses [19,20]. Pathogenic strains of certain members of E. coli, Salmonella, Bacillus anthracis, Shigella, and Clostridium botulinum are frequently found in cattle and poultry manures and may directly or indirectly endanger human health [21]. Those pathogens residing in livestock excrement generally cause health risks due to their spread by direct contact, droplet infection, or consumption of food and water contaminated by livestock excrement-related pathogens [22].
Livestock excrement has been used as a fertilizer and even an agent to produce biofuel. Owing to the related human activities, the microbiome of the livestock excrement has been affected and changed accordingly and has also been affecting human health as well. In addition, the distribution of pathogens, such as Bacillus anthracis [23], Francisella tularensis [24], Yersinia pestis [25], Coxiella burnetii [26], and Burkholderia pseudomallei [27], may cause various infectious diseases in livestock excrement-related samples raised concerns globally [28,29,30]. Therefore, it is urgent to characterize the main features, driving forces, and fate of the the microbiome of livestock excrement so as to predict and prevent any related risks that may occur in the long run.
For the past decades, due to the rapid development of bioinformatics tools, we have gained the general composition and function of animal microbiomes. Nevertheless, there are a limited number of comprehensive reports on the microbial risks that may be caused by livestock excrement. In this review, we highlight the main feature of the microbiome of livestock excrement and elucidate the microbial repertoire and what risks it may cause in humans, animals, and the environment. In summary, this review provides a microbial perspective on the environmental issues arising from the microbiome of livestock excrement and highlights the potential risks associated with it. Furthermore, it explores the prospects of predicting and managing these risks, thereby offering valuable insights for future research in the field of livestock excrement microbial hazards.

2. Features of the Microbiome of Livestock Excrement and Microbiome Cycling

The microorganisms observed in livestock excrements include viruses, prokaryotes, and eukaryotes. Being the majority in terms of the total number of species and microorganisms, prokaryotic microorganisms including bacteria and archaea accounting for over 95% of the residing microorganisms, among which archaea comprise only 0.3% to 3% [31,32], while eukaryotes include protozoa and fungi only account for less than 5% [33].
It is well-documented that the major prokaryotic phyla in livestock excrement generally include Bacillota, Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria [34,35,36], while the major fungi phyla include Ascomycota, Basidiomycota, and Mucoromycota [35,37,38]. And there also certain protozoa that reside in livestock manure, including Cryptosporidia and Giardia [39,40,41], that cause infections in various hosts including humans. The proportion of the major microbial components of livestock excrement are presented in Figure 1. These microorganisms will sustain, transfer, and alter during the related processes of livestock excrement management; it could be regarded as a microbial-cycling process.
The cycling process of livestock microorganisms includes the input, output, and forward and reverse transfer of microorganisms across related environments (they will be detailed in the following sections). Moreover, the influencing factors and drivers of the corresponding microbial cycling include human and animal activity and the surrounding environment, which is a complex process with multiple factors. The key processes and factors included are remarked as below (Figure 2).

2.1. Input of the Livestock Excrement Microbiome

The input of the livestock excrement microbiome mainly includes the microbiome intruded by the host intestinal microbiome, the microbes from the hosts, and the related both living and non-living environmental components.
The major contents of the livestock microbiome are from the animal intestinal microbiome [35]. In addition, human activity, such as general farm management, medical treatment of farm animals, and the inclusion of human-related food residuals and food waste as animal feed, also introduces human-related microbiomes into the livestock excrement microbiome [42,43]. Food, water, and insects related to the livestock environment are the second major contributors to the microbiome in livestock excrement [44]. A variety of microorganisms are present in animal feed, including some anaerobic prokaryotic and fungal taxa. On the one hand, along the food chain, these microorganisms are ingested by domestic animals and reside in the intestinal tract and later enter the livestock excrement [45]. On the other hand, feed residues directly become part of livestock excrement. It is noteworthy that the activities of insects associated with domestic animals (such as mosquitoes, flies, fleas, etc.), wild animals (such as mice, Marmota bobak, etc.), and birds (such as sparrows, etc.) that live with domestic animals also continuously import microorganisms from the environment and other sources into the livestock living environment, eventually allowing these microorganisms to enter the livestock excrement [46,47,48,49]. In addition, free-range livestock may introduce microorganisms carried by wild animals, especially potential pathogens (such as zoonotic viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites) [50,51,52], into livestock niches and in the long run introduce these microorganisms into the livestock excrement, resulting in the movement and enrichment of microorganisms with certain health risks into the closely related environment of domestic animals and humans, which eventually pose a threat to animal and human health.

2.2. Output of Livestock Excrement Microbiome

The output pathways of microorganisms in livestock excrement are diverse. Microorganisms use excrement as the medium to survive and transmit, hence their fate is majorly according to the movement of the excrement. For example, the excrement produced by free-range livestock enters the natural environment directly so the relevant microorganisms are also transferred to the natural environment [53,54]. In addition, the excrement produced by livestock in semi-free-range and captivity models are often used as organic fertilizer directly for agricultural production or composted and then used as an organic fertilizer [55]. In recent years, livestock excrement has also been used as a base for biogas digesters and fermentation to produce biogas, such as hydrogen and methane [56,57,58,59]. The composition and structure of microorganisms in treated livestock excrement change during the treatment process. In composting and biogas production, some functional microbial taxa are enriched while the abundance of others decreases. In these processes, some microorganisms are introduced to the surrounding environment by air, related instruments, etc., as the transmission media [60,61]. There are also some spore-producing bacteria and fungi that remain and exist in the processing sites for a long time and may enter the surrounding environment with human activities [62,63,64]. Therefore, if livestock waste is not properly treated and managed, it is likely to cause the rapid spread and enrichment of microorganisms, extremely these disease-causing microorganisms.

2.3. Factors Affecting Livestock Excrement Microbiome

Many factors affect the microbial composition of livestock excrement, the main factors of which are the physiology of host animals, the type of feed, human activities, medical interventions, and environmental factors such as the climate [65,66,67]. Different animals have different microbiomes of different taxonomic richness and abundances of each taxon and food plays an important role as the main driver of the animal gut microbe composition in addition to host physiology. Human activities and medical interventions, such as antibiotics, insecticides, fungicides, and other drug treatments, also cause changes in the livestock microbiome and also promote changes in the microbiome of livestock excrement [68,69,70]. The activities of livestock-related wildlife can bring microorganisms from other environments into the microbial niche of livestock waste. Therefore, the need to control and manage the livestock microbiome requires the consideration of all relevant factors. Chemical agents also affect the microbiome composition of livestock excrement, including veterinary drugs in livestock and poultry excrement [71,72]. Antibiotics, pesticides, insecticides, and fungicides are often used to control animal diseases by killing pathogens including parasites, mosquitoes, and flies. Many of these chemical agents remain to be completely metabolized and in the long run will alert the composition of the livestock excrement microbiome [73,74].

3. Microbial Risks of Livestock Excrement

The risks caused by microorganisms in livestock excreta are diverse, including direct risks caused by microorganisms themselves and indirect risks caused by secondary contamination generated by microbial processes. Therefore, limited exposure of humans and domestic animals and the surrounding environment to livestock excrement may be an effective strategy in avoiding the occurrence of associated microbial risks. An overall portrait of the microbial risks of livestock excrement is remarked below.

3.1. Pathogens Residing in Livestock Excrement

Many pathogens capable of infecting humans can be found in animal feces yet the feces from these animals pose a currently unquantified though likely substantial risk to human health. The insufficient separation of animal feces from human domestic environments can lead to the fecal–oral transmission of zoonotic pathogens through direct contact with animal feces or soil or fecal contamination of fomites, food, or water sources (Table 1).
There are some zoonotic viruses, including rotavirus, that were detected in livestock excrement samples [134]. Rotavirus infection is a common gastrointestinal illness caused by the rotavirus. It primarily causes diarrhea, vomiting, fever, and abdominal pain [135]. Rotavirus is highly contagious and spreads through the fecal–oral route, often through contaminated food, water, or surfaces [136]. And generally, the lack of good hygiene practices of livestock excrement accelerates the spread of rotavirus.
Being common opportunistic zoonotic pathogens, Isospora, Cyclospora, and Microsporidia were also reported to be found in livestock excrement, which causes infection and diarrhea in both humans and animals [137,138,139,140]. It was reported that sources of microsporidia species, such as Enterocytozoon bieneusi, that infect humans included major domestic animals such as horses [141], camels [142], goats [143], pigs [144], cows [144], rabbits [145], chickens [146], and donkeys [144] and the microsporidia species were mostly found in the faces of these animals; the vertical or transplacental transmission of microsporidiosis could occur in related animals and humans through the distribution of livestock excrement or related samples [147].

3.2. Transmission of Antibiotic-Resistant Genes

Antibiotic resistance is one of the serious threats to public health and food safety globally. Being a modern pollutant, antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) are determined to be widely distributed in animal farms [148]. Antibiotic resistance bacteria and antibiotic-resistance genes enter the environment along with animal excrement, accelerating the spread of ARGs in the environment [149,150,151]. In the long run, antibiotic-resistant bacteria could be transmitted to humans through the food chain, water, or air, posing a great threat to public health.
Although it is very hard to obtain antibiotic use data in animal husbandry, these estimates are conservative as they were based on the baseline values of the global average annual consumption of antimicrobials per kilogram of animal produced. Every year 1.0 × 104 to 2.0 × 105 tons of antibiotics are used worldwide [4] of which their consumption in agriculture, especially the animal industries, occupies a significant fraction. And common antibiotic-resistant genes generally detected in livestock excrement were summarized in Table 2.

3.3. Toxic Chemicals Produced by Livestock Excrement Microbiome

Microorganisms in livestock excrement ferment substrates and produce numerous compounds. It has been reported that microorganisms in excrement ferment amino acids to produce toxic volatile substances such as indole, scatole, and a variety of alcohols and aldehydes [162,163,164]. Bacteria produce highly potent neurotoxins and resistant endospores [165,166] and these chemicals cause diseases in humans when exposed.
Candida albicans were generally detected in livestock excrement; strains of this taxon could produce toxins such as candidalysin [167,168]. Candidalysin directly damages epithelial membranes, triggers a danger response signaling pathway, and activates epithelial immunity [169]. Candidalysin is also reported to promote alcohol-associated liver disease [170]. Pathogens like Candida albicans are prevalent in livestock excrements and during the manufacturing of the excrements these pathogens may enter the human and animal bodies as the food chain enters the human and animal bodies, causing related disease including infections (Table 3).

4. Strategies to Predict, Prevent the Microbial Risks of Livestock Excrement, and Beyond

4.1. Prediction of Livestock Excrement Microbial Risks

Effective prediction is a key strategy to prevent risks caused by microorganisms. Thanks to the rapid development of bioinformatics tools, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology which includes 16S rRNA gene sequencing, shotgun metagenomic sequencing, and RNA sequencing, it has advanced our understanding of the microbiome by allowing for the discovery and characterization of microbes with the prediction of their function [189] which as a whole aided the development of predictive microbiology as well [190]. Notably, even though the microbial content of different environments is not static, there may exist certain patterns of each and these patterns could be explored by focusing on the risk-related node microbes of the microbiome of the system to further predict any potential microbial risks. Therefore, the relative microbial risk in animal excrement can be quickly estimated by these bioinformatics tools by focusing on well-documented pathogens and those taxa which contain any genes that code proteins with determined pathogenic potential, ideally by using metagenomic sequencing of all microorganisms (viruses, prokaryotes, and eukaryotes), amplicon sequencing to determine bacteria, and ITS sequencing to determine fungi [191].
Moreover, target-specific primers can be designed for any well-documented pathogenic microorganisms and the absolute abundances of target pathogenic microorganisms (including viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites) can be quantified by the quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Reports showed that by using qPCR, Brucella melitensis and Brucella abortus in different samples, including raw milk and cheese, could be determined accurately so as to predict the potential health adversity of the corresponding samples [192,193,194]. And zoonotic parasites including Toxoplasma gondii were also determined using qPCR so as to prevent any potential risks that might be caused [195].
In addition, certain novel tools could be applied to predict the microbial risks that could be caused by livestock excrements. Artificial intelligence tools including machine learning and deep learning were generally considered useful aids to predict microbial pandemic cases and the spread patterns of the microbes [196]. Reports find that machine learning algorithms can be used to predict the host of the influenza virus and the identification of influenza virus host range and zoonotic transmissible sequences [197,198]. Therefore, these modern tools could also be applied to predict the threats that might be caused by the microbiome of livestock excrement and the probable fate of the related risky microbes.

4.2. Prevention and Management of Livestock Excrement Microbial Risks

Pathogens in livestock excrement cause diseases if they are not properly managed. Therefore, preventing and managing microbial risks associated with livestock excrement are essential for maintaining food safety and protecting public health.
To prevent microbial risks, the livestock and poultry environments should be frequently and sufficiently sanitized and livestock should receive necessary vaccinations to avoid the transmission of risky microorganisms [199]. When any unfortunate microbial risk occurs, blocking the route of transmission is the most effective strategy for control [200]. An important part of this is protecting humans during farming activities. In addition, free-range breeding of livestock can easily cause the rapid spread of risky microorganisms, thereby increasing the risk of microorganisms. Therefore, captivity should be promoted vigorously when grazing.
Secondly, appropriate disposal measures should be established for risks caused by different microbial taxa. In the case of viral microbial risks, causative viruses should be eradicated by sanitizing with agents in livestock excreta and related environments. Risks posed by pathogenic bacteria and fungal microorganisms can be eradicated through the use of bactericides and fungicides which should be conducted under the supervision of qualified veterinarians after a solid diagnosis regarding the occurring issue to determine the severity of the event and design an efficient strategy or protocol. A series of N-aryl-pyridine-4-one derivatives were reported to show fungicidal/bactericidal activities and their fungicidal activities action against Colletotrichum were investigated [201]. The application of these anti-pathogenic agents after careful selection and usage could aid the prevention of the microbial threats that could be caused by livestock excrement microbes. Parasitic pathogens can be sterilized through treatment with pesticides such as dihydroartemisinin and piperaquine [202]; bactericides and fungicides such as chlorhexidine and hydrogen peroxide can also be used to kill pathogenic bacteria and fungi [203,204,205].
However, it should be kept in mind that the application of these anti-pathogenic agents, pesticides and insecticides mentioned above should be considered carefully to prevent potential secondary pollution. While these agents can be effective in combating various pathogens and preventing infections, there are important factors to take into account. The potential side effects and risks associated with the use of these agents should be carefully evaluated. Some agents, including dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) [206], organophosphate insecticides, carbamates, and pyrethroid insecticides [207] have adverse effects on human health or the environment. Ultimately, a comprehensive risk-benefit analysis should guide the decision-making process when considering the application of these agents. Hence, certain well-documented safer agents, including plant-extracted anti-insect agents (such as neem oil and canola oil) [208,209] and microbial pesticides (such as the mosquitocidal agents from Bacillus sphaericus) [210] should be considered in livestock excrement treatment.
Moreover, it is essential to sterilize the closely related components, such as water, by chlorination for controlling harmful pathogens [211]. And the farming environments where pathogenic bacteria occur could be sterilized by using high-concentration acid and alkali treatments and high temperatures (such as burning). In addition, to prevent the spread of pathogenic bacteria, safer and more effective disposal measures still need to be developed. Moreover, insecticides should be used to prevent mosquito-borne or mosquito-transmitted diseases [212,213] so as to significantly prevent the spread of pathogens and parasites.

5. Limitations of the Current Microbial Research of Livestock Excrement

Even though current microbial research on livestock excrement has already shown a crucial role in understanding the ecological impact and their potential risks, microbial research in livestock excrement faces several limitations, including the complexity and diversity of microbial communities, spatial and temporal heterogeneity, the lack of standardization, and limited longitudinal studies.
One significant limitation is the sheer complexity and diversity of microbial communities present in livestock excrement. The excrement microbiome is composed of a vast array of microorganisms; studying these diverse communities and understanding their interactions and functions is a challenging task due to technological and methodological constraints. Generally, culture-dependent techniques may only capture a fraction of the microbial diversity, leading to an incomplete understanding of the overall ecosystem [214]. Furthermore, sampling and spatial heterogeneity pose additional challenges in microbial research [215]. Livestock excrement is inherently variable, with microbial communities varying across animal species, diets, management practices, and environmental conditions. Obtaining representative samples that accurately reflect the entire excrement microbial population can be difficult, especially when considering the large-scale production systems commonly found in the livestock industry. Additionally, temporal dynamics must be accounted for as microbial populations can change over time, impacting our ability to form a comprehensive understanding.
Another limitation is the lack of standardization in experimental design and methodologies across studies regarding the microbiome of livestock excrement. Inconsistent sampling and analysis protocols lead to the comparability and reproducibility of the corresponding results [216,217]. This variability makes it challenging to draw meaningful conclusions and make accurate comparisons between different research studies. Hence, standardization efforts and collaborations among researchers are needed to establish the best practices and to enhance the reliability and validity of microbial research in livestock excrement. Moreover, there is a need for more longitudinal studies which can provide valuable insights into the effects of management practices, interventions, and seasonal variations to better understand the dynamic nature of microbial communities in livestock excrement [218]. Many studies focus on short-term assessments, providing only a snapshot of the microbial composition at a particular moment.
In conclusion, addressing these limitations through improved methodologies, standardization efforts, and collaborative research endeavors can enhance our understanding of the microbial ecology of livestock excrement and help in developing effective management strategies that minimize the environmental impact and mitigate associated risks.

6. Conclusions

Livestock excrement is a major pollutant yield from farming and is constantly imported and transferred into every related environment. The livestock excrement microbiota comprises a variety of microorganisms of viruses, prokaryotes, and eukaryotes and these microorganisms are activated and transferred synchronically during the processes of livestock excrement production, transformation, and utilization. The livestock excrement microbiome is extensively affecting and affected by the microbiome of humans and the relevant environments. The zoonotic microbes, extremely zoonotic pathogens, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria are posing threats to human health and environmental safety.
In this review, we highlighted the main features of the microbiome of livestock excrement and elucidated the composition and structure of the repertoire of microbes, how these microbes transfer from different spots, how they affect the microbiomes of the habitants in any related environments, and what risks they may cause in humans, animals and the environment as a whole. Overall, the environmental problems caused by the microbiome of the livestock excrement and the potential risks it may cause were summarized from the microbial perspective. In addition, the prevalence of antibiotic resistance and virulence genes in major livestock excrement microbes were summarized so as to provide a reference for further studies regarding potential microbial risks of livestock excrement microbes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.-J.L. and R.A.; writing—original draft preparation, R.A.; writing—review and editing, L.L., Z.-N.Y., Y.H., B.-Z.F., V.S., O.A.A.M. and Y.-H.L.; supervision, W.-J.L. and L.L.; project administration, W.-J.L.; funding acquisition, R.A., W.-J.L. and L.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Tianchi Talent Introduction Plan (“TianChi Excellent Award for Young Doctoral Talents”), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2023M733725), and the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region regional coordinated innovation project (Shanghai cooperation organization science and technology partnership program) (No. 2020E01047 and No. 2021E01018).

Data Availability Statement

There is no data created in this manuscript, and for any cited datasets, we have already provided the corresponding references, for Figures and Tables.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sakawi, Z.; Ismail, L. Managing odour pollution from livestock sources in Malaysia: Issues and challenges. Geografia 2015, 11, 96–103. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zhu, L.-D.; Hiltunen, E. Application of livestock waste compost to cultivate microalgae for bioproducts production: A feasible framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 1285–1290. [Google Scholar]
  3. Choi, H.L.; Sudiarto, S.I.; Renggaman, A. Prediction of livestock manure and mixture higher heating value based on fundamental analysis. Fuel 2014, 116, 772–780. [Google Scholar]
  4. Noorollahi, Y.; Kheirrouz, M.; Asl, H.F.; Yousefi, H.; Hajinezhad, A. Biogas production potential from livestock manure in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 50, 748–754. [Google Scholar]
  5. Smith, K.A.; Williams, A.G. Production and management of cattle manure in the UK and implications for land application practice. Soil Use Manag. 2016, 32, 73–82. [Google Scholar]
  6. Khalil, M.; Berawi, M.A.; Heryanto, R.; Rizalie, A. Waste to energy technology: The potential of sustainable biogas production from animal waste in Indonesia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 105, 323–331. [Google Scholar]
  7. Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J.; Lin, J.-G.; Zhang, N.; Cao, W. Biogas energy generated from livestock manure in China: Current situation and future trends. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 297, 113324. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chmielowiec-Korzeniowska, A.; Tymczyna, L.; Wlazło, Ł.; Trawińska, B.; Ossowski, M. Emissions of Gaseous Pollutants from Pig Farms and Methods for their Reduction—A Review. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2022, 22, 89–107. [Google Scholar]
  9. Shih, J.-S.; Burtraw, D.; Palmer, K.; Siikamäki, J. Air Emissions of Ammonia and Methane from Livestock Operations: Valuation and Policy Options. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2008, 58, 1117–1129. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wongsaroj, L.; Chanabun, R.; Tunsakul, N.; Prombutara, P.; Panha, S.; Somboonna, N. First reported quantitative microbiota in different livestock manures used as organic fertilizers in the Northeast of Thailand. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 102. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cao, Y.; Zhao, J.; Wang, Q.; Bai, S.; Yang, Q.; Wei, Y.; Wang, R. Industrial aerobic composting and the addition of microbial agents largely reduce the risks of heavy metal and ARG transfer through livestock manure. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022, 239, 113964. [Google Scholar]
  12. Wei, S.; Zhu, Z.; Zhao, J.; Chadwick, D.R.; Dong, H. Policies and Regulations for Promoting Manure Management for Sustainable Livestock Production in China: A Review. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 2021, 8, 45. [Google Scholar]
  13. Yang, Q.; Tian, H.; Li, X.; Ren, W.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, X.; Wolf, J. Spatiotemporal patterns of livestock manure nutrient production in the conterminous United States from 1930 to 2012. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 541, 1592–1602. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  14. Cambra-López, M.; Aarnink, A.J.A.; Zhao, Y.; Calvet, S.; Torres, A.G. Airborne particulate matter from livestock production systems: A review of an air pollution problem. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  15. Borlée, F.; Yzermans, C.J.; van Dijk, C.E.; Heederik, D.; Smit, L.A. Increased respiratory symptoms in COPD patients living in the vicinity of livestock farms. Eur. Respir. J. 2015, 46, 1605–1614. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Li, F.; Li, C.; Chen, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhang, C.; Irving, B.; Fitzsimmons, C.; Plastow, G.; Guan, L.L. Host genetics influence the rumen microbiota and heritable rumen microbial features associate with feed efficiency in cattle. Microbiome 2019, 7, 92. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cholewińska, P.; Wołoszyńska, M.; Michalak, M.; Czyż, K.; Rant, W.; Smoliński, J.; Wyrostek, A.; Wojnarowski, K. Influence of selected factors on the Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes phyla and the Lactobacillaceae family in the digestive tract of sheep. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 23801. [Google Scholar]
  18. Pitta, D.W.; Indugu, N.; Toth, J.D.; Bender, J.S.; Baker, L.D.; Hennessy, M.L.; Vecchiarelli, B.; Aceto, H.; Dou, Z. The distribution of microbiomes and resistomes across farm environments in conventional and organic dairy herds in Pennsylvania. Environ. Microbiome 2020, 15, 21. [Google Scholar]
  19. Griffith, G.; Ozkose, E.; Theodorou, M.; Davies, D. Diversity of anaerobic fungal populations in cattle revealed by selective enrichment culture using different carbon sources. Fungal Ecol. 2009, 2, 87–97. [Google Scholar]
  20. Wang, Y.; Gong, J.; Li, J.; Xin, Y.; Hao, Z.; Chen, C.; Li, H.; Wang, B.; Ding, M.; Li, W.; et al. Insights into bacterial diversity in compost: Core microbiome and prevalence of potential pathogenic bacteria. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 718, 137304. [Google Scholar]
  21. Silva, J.; Leite, D.; Fernandes, M.; Mena, C.; Gibbs, P.A.; Teixeira, P. Campylobacter spp. as a Foodborne Pathogen: A Review. Front. Microbiol. 2011, 2, 200. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Li, Y. Basic routes of transmission of respiratory pathogens—A new proposal for transmission categorization based on respiratory spray, inhalation, and touch. Indoor Air 2021, 31, 3–6. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Pohanka, M. Bacillus anthracis as a biological warfare agent: Infection, diagnosis and countermeasures. Bratisl Lek Listy 2020, 121, 175–181. [Google Scholar]
  24. Janse, I.; van der Plaats, R.Q.J.; de Roda Husman, A.M.; van Passel, M.W.J. Environmental Surveillance of Zoonotic Francisella tularensis in the Netherlands. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2018, 8, 140. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  25. Yang, R.; Cui, Y.; Bi, Y. Perspectives on Yersinia pestis: A Model for Studying Zoonotic Pathogens. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2016, 918, 377–391. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Ohlopkova, O.V.; Yakovlev, S.A.; Emmanuel, K.; Kabanov, A.A.; Odnoshevsky, D.A.; Kartashov, M.Y.; Moshkin, A.D.; Tuchkov, I.V.; Nosov, N.Y.; Kritsky, A.A.; et al. Epidemiology of Zoonotic Coxiella burnetii in The Republic of Guinea. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1433. [Google Scholar]
  27. Burtnick, M.N.; Brett, P.J.; Nair, V.; Warawa, J.M.; Woods, D.E.; Gherardini, F.C. Burkholderia pseudomallei type III secretion system mutants exhibit delayed vacuolar escape phenotypes in RAW 264.7 murine macrophages. Infect. Immun. 2008, 76, 2991–3000. [Google Scholar]
  28. Carlson, C.J.; Kracalik, I.T.; Ross, N.; Alexander, K.A.; Hugh-Jones, M.E.; Fegan, M.; Elkin, B.T.; Epp, T.; Shury, T.K.; Zhang, W.; et al. The global distribution of Bacillus anthracis and associated anthrax risk to humans, livestock and wildlife. Nat. Microbiol. 2019, 4, 1337–1343. [Google Scholar]
  29. Muturi, M.; Gachohi, J.; Mwatondo, A.; Lekolool, I.; Gakuya, F.; Bett, A.; Osoro, E.; Bitek, A.; Thumbi, S.M.; Munyua, P.; et al. Recurrent Anthrax Outbreaks in Humans, Livestock, and Wildlife in the Same Locality, Kenya, 2014–2017. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2018, 99, 833–839. [Google Scholar]
  30. Abdullahi, I.N.; Lozano, C.; Saidenberg, A.B.S.; Latorre-Fernández, J.; Zarazaga, M.; Torres, C. Comparative review of the nasal carriage and genetic characteristics of Staphylococcus aureus in healthy livestock: Insight into zoonotic and anthroponotic clones. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2023, 109, 105408. [Google Scholar]
  31. Janssen, P.H.; Kirs, M. Structure of the Archaeal Community of the Rumen. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 3619–3625. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhan, Y.; Chang, Y.; Tao, Y.; Zhang, H.; Lin, Y.; Deng, J.; Ma, T.; Ding, G.; Wei, Y.; Li, J. Insight into the dynamic microbial community and core bacteria in composting from different sources by advanced bioinformatics methods. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 8956–8966. [Google Scholar]
  33. Miao, Y.; Li, J.; Li, Y.; Niu, Y.; He, T.; Liu, D.; Ding, W. Long-Term Compost Amendment Spurs Cellulose Decomposition by Driving Shifts in Fungal Community Composition and Promoting Fungal Diversity and Phylogenetic Relatedness. mBio 2022, 13, e0032322. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Sasaki, H.; Nonaka, J.; Otawa, K.; Kitazume, O.; Asano, R.; Sasaki, T.; Nakai, Y. Analysis of the Structure of the Bacterial Community in the Livestock Manure-based Composting Process. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 22, 113–118. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wan, J.; Wang, X.; Yang, T.; Wei, Z.; Banerjee, S.; Friman, V.-P.; Mei, X.; Xu, Y.; Shen, Q. Livestock Manure Type Affects Microbial Community Composition and Assembly During Composting. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 621126. [Google Scholar]
  36. Xu, X.; Ma, W.; Zhou, K.; An, B.; Huo, M.; Lin, X.; Wang, L.; Wang, H.; Liu, Z.; Cheng, G.; et al. Effects of composting on the fate of doxycycline, microbial community, and antibiotic resistance genes in swine manure and broiler manure. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 832, 155039. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lin, W.-R.; Li, H.-Y.; Lin, L.-C.; Hsieh, S.-Y. Dynamics of Microbial Community during the Co-Composting of Swine and Poultry Manure with Spent Mushroom Substrates at an Industrial Scale. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2064. [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhou, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Awasthi, M.K. Exploring the impact of biochar supplement on the dynamics of antibiotic resistant fungi during pig manure composting. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 314, 120325. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tsilipounidaki, K.; Florou, Z.; Lianou, D.T.; Michael, C.K.; Katsarou, E.I.; Skoulakis, A.; Fthenakis, G.C.; Petinaki, E. Detection of Zoonotic Gastrointestinal Pathogens in Dairy Sheep and Goats by Using FilmArray® Multiplex-PCR Technology. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 714. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  40. Li, S.; Zou, Y.; Zhang, X.-L.; Wang, P.; Chen, X.-Q.; Zhu, X.-Q. Prevalence and Multilocus Genotyping of Giardia lamblia in Cattle in Jiangxi Province, China: Novel Assemblage E Subtypes Identified. Korean J. Parasitol. 2020, 58, 681–687. [Google Scholar]
  41. Elwin, K.; Hadfield, S.J.; Robinson, G.; Chalmers, R.M. The epidemiology of sporadic human infections with unusual cryptosporidia detected during routine typing in England and Wales, 2000–2008. Epidemiol. Infect. 2012, 140, 673–683. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  42. Kraemer, J.G.; Ramette, A.; Aebi, S.; Oppliger, A.; Hilty, M. Influence of Pig Farming on the Human Nasal Microbiota: Key Role of Airborne Microbial Communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 84, e02470-17. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Sudatip, D.; Mostacci, N.; Thamlikitkul, V.; Oppliger, A.; Hilty, M. Influence of occupational exposure to pigs or chickens on human gut microbiota composition in Thailand. One Health 2022, 15, 100463. [Google Scholar]
  44. Zhang, Y.; Xiao, X.; Elhag, O.; Cai, M.; Zheng, L.; Huang, F.; Jordan, H.R.; Tomberlin, J.K.; Sze, S.H.; Yu, Z.; et al. Hermetia illucens L. larvae-associated intestinal microbes reduce the transmission risk of zoonotic pathogens in pig manure. Microb. Biotechnol. 2022, 15, 2631–2644. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  45. Xu, Y.; Lei, B.; Zhang, Q.; Lei, Y.; Li, C.; Li, X.; Yao, R.; Hu, R.; Liu, K.; Wang, Y.; et al. ADDAGMA: A database for domestic animal gut microbiome atlas. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2022, 20, 891–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Thomson, J.L.; Cernicchiaro, N.; Zurek, L.; Nayduch, D. Cantaloupe Facilitates Salmonella Typhimurium Survival Within and Transmission Among Adult House Flies (Musca domestica L.). Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2021, 18, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  47. von Salviati, C.; Laube, H.; Guerra, B.; Roesler, U.; Friese, A. Emission of ESBL/AmpC-producing Escherichia coli from pig fattening farms to surrounding areas. Vet. Microbiol. 2015, 175, 77–84. [Google Scholar]
  48. Boukraa, S.; de La Grandiere, M.A.; Bawin, T.; Raharimalala, F.N.; Zimmer, J.-Y.; Haubruge, E.; Thiry, E.; Francis, F. Diversity and ecology survey of mosquitoes potential vectors in Belgian equestrian farms: A threat prevention of mosquito-borne equine arboviruses. Prev. Veter. Med. 2016, 124, 58–68. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hu, Y.; Cheng, H.; Tao, S. Environmental and human health challenges of industrial livestock and poultry farming in China and their mitigation. Environ. Int. 2017, 107, 111–130. [Google Scholar]
  50. Givens, C.E.; Kolpin, D.W.; Borchardt, M.A.; Duris, J.W.; Moorman, T.B.; Spencer, S.K. Detection of hepatitis E virus and other livestock-related pathogens in Iowa streams. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 566–567, 1042–1051. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hickman, R.A.; Agarwal, V.; Sjöström, K.; Emanuelson, U.; Fall, N.; Sternberg-Lewerin, S.; Järhult, J.D. Dissemination of Resistant Escherichia coli Among Wild Birds, Rodents, Flies, and Calves on Dairy Farms. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 838339. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  52. Ziemer, C.J.; Bonner, J.M.; Cole, D.; Vinjé, J.; Constantini, V.; Goyal, S.; Gramer, M.; Mackie, R.; Meng, X.J.; Myers, G.; et al. Fate and transport of zoonotic, bacterial, viral, and parasitic pathogens during swine manure treatment, storage, and land application. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 88 (Suppl. S13), E84–E94. [Google Scholar]
  53. Spencer, J.L.; Guan, J. Public Health Implications Related to Spread of Pathogens in Manure From Livestock and Poultry Operations. Methods Mol. Biol. 2004, 268, 503–516. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  54. Hutchison, M.L.; Walters, L.D.; Moore, T.; Thomas, D.J.I.; Avery, S.M. Fate of Pathogens Present in Livestock Wastes Spread onto Fescue Plots. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 691–696. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Soto-Herranz, M.; Sánchez-Báscones, M.; Antolín-Rodríguez, J.M.; Martín-Ramos, P. Pilot Plant for the Capture of Ammonia from the Atmosphere of Pig and Poultry Farms Using Gas-Permeable Membrane Technology. Membranes 2021, 11, 859. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  56. Ulusoy, Y.; Ulukardesler, A.H.; Arslan, R.; Tekin, Y. Energy and emission benefits of chicken manure biogas production: A case study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 12351–12356. [Google Scholar]
  57. Sohail, M.; Khan, A.; Badshah, M.; Degen, A.; Yang, G.; Liu, H.; Zhou, J.; Long, R. Yak rumen fluid inoculum increases biogas production from sheep manure substrate. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 362, 127801. [Google Scholar]
  58. Mazzone, P.; Corneli, S.; Di Paolo, A.; Maresca, C.; Felici, A.; Biagetti, M.; Ciullo, M.; Sebastiani, C.; Pezzotti, G.; Leo, S.; et al. Survival of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in the intermediate and final digestion products of biogas plants. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2018, 125, 36–44. [Google Scholar]
  59. Olsen, J.E.; Jørgensen, J.B.; Nansen, P. On the reduction of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis in bovine slurry subjected to batch mesophilic or thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Agric. Wastes 1985, 13, 273–280. [Google Scholar]
  60. Thiel, N.; Münch, S.; Behrens, W.; Junker, V.; Faust, M.; Biniasch, O.; Kabelitz, T.; Siller, P.; Boedeker, C.; Schumann, P.; et al. Airborne bacterial emission fluxes from manure-fertilized agricultural soil. Microb. Biotechnol. 2020, 13, 1631–1647. [Google Scholar]
  61. Cao, Y.; Chang, Z.; Wang, J.; Ma, Y.; Fu, G. The fate of antagonistic microorganisms and antimicrobial substances during anaerobic digestion of pig and dairy manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 136, 664–671. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  62. Bagge, E.; Persson, M.; Johansson, K.-E. Diversity of spore-forming bacteria in cattle manure, slaughterhouse waste and samples from biogas plants. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 109, 1549–1565. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  63. Awasthi, M.K.; Chen, H.; Duan, Y.; Liu, T.; Awasthi, S.K.; Wang, Q.; Pandey, A.; Zhang, Z. An assessment of the persistence of pathogenic bacteria removal in chicken manure compost employing clay as additive via meta-genomic analysis. J. Hazard Mater. 2019, 366, 184–191. [Google Scholar]
  64. Lin, M.; Wang, A.; Ren, L.; Qiao, W.; Wandera, S.M.; Dong, R. Challenges of pathogen inactivation in animal manure through anaerobic digestion: A short review. Bioengineered 2022, 13, 1149–1161. [Google Scholar]
  65. Meng, L.; Xu, C.; Wu, F. Huhe Microbial co-occurrence networks driven by low-abundance microbial taxa during composting dominate lignocellulose degradation. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 845, 157197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yu, X.; Li, X.; Ren, C.; Wang, J.; Wang, C.; Zou, Y.; Wang, X.; Li, G.; Li, Q. Co-composting with cow dung and subsequent vermicomposting improve compost quality of spent mushroom. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 358, 127386. [Google Scholar]
  67. Lkhagva, E.; Chung, H.-J.; Ahn, J.-S.; Hong, S.-T. Host Factors Affect the Gut Microbiome More Significantly than Diet Shift. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Deng, W.; Zhang, A.; Chen, S.; He, X.; Jin, L.; Yu, X.; Yang, S.; Li, B.; Fan, L.; Ji, L.; et al. Heavy metals, antibiotics and nutrients affect the bacterial community and resistance genes in chicken manure composting and fertilized soil. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 257, 109980. [Google Scholar]
  69. Hotchkiss, M.Z.; Poulain, A.J.; Forrest, J.R.K. Pesticide-induced disturbances of bee gut microbiotas. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2022, 46, fuab056. [Google Scholar]
  70. Fernández-Gómez, M.J.; Nogales, R.; Insam, H.; Romero, E.; Goberna, M. Role of vermicompost chemical composition, microbial functional diversity, and fungal community structure in their microbial respiratory response to three pesticides. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 9638–9645. [Google Scholar]
  71. Wang, J.; Xu, J.; Ji, X.; Wu, H.; Yang, H.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, X.; Li, Z.; Ni, X.; Qian, M. Determination of veterinary drug/pesticide residues in livestock and poultry excrement using selective accelerated solvent extraction and magnetic material purification combined with ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2020, 1617, 460808. [Google Scholar]
  72. Mei, L.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Liu, Z.; Wang, M.; Wu, X.; Chen, X.; Huang, Q.; Huang, R. Sustained Drug Treatment Alters the Gut Microbiota in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 704089. [Google Scholar]
  73. Ong, S.-Q.; Ab Majid, A.H.; Ahmad, H. Insecticide Residues on Poultry Manures: Field Efficacy Test on Selected Insecticides in Managing Musca Domestica Population. Trop. Life Sci. Res. 2017, 28, 45–55. [Google Scholar]
  74. Ong, S.-Q.; Ahmad, H.; Jaal, Z.; Rus, A.C. Comparative Effectiveness of Insecticides for Use Against the House Fly (Diptera: Muscidae): Determination of Resistance Levels on a Malaysian Poultry Farm. J. Econ. Èntomol. 2016, 109, 352–359. [Google Scholar]
  75. Timurkan, M.; Alkan, F. Identification of rotavirus A strains in small ruminants: First detection of G8P[1] genotypes in sheep in Turkey. Arch. Virol. 2020, 165, 425–431. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  76. Alkan, F.; Gulyaz, V.; Timurkan, M.O.; Iyisan, S.; Ozdemir, S.; Turan, N.; Buonavoglia, C.; Martella, V. A large outbreak of enteritis in goat flocks in Marmara, Turkey, by G8P[1] group A rotaviruses. Arch. Virol. 2012, 157, 1183–1187. [Google Scholar]
  77. Miranda, A.R.M.; Mendes, G.d.S.; Santos, N. Rotaviruses A and C in dairy cattle in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2022, 53, 1657–1663. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  78. Otto, P.H.; Rosenhain, S.; Elschner, M.C.; Hotzel, H.; Machnowska, P.; Trojnar, E.; Hoffmann, K.; Johne, R. Detection of rotavirus species A, B and C in domestic mammalian animals with diarrhoea and genotyping of bovine species A rotavirus strains. Veter. Microbiol. 2015, 179, 168–176. [Google Scholar]
  79. Eckert, J.; Thompson, R.C.A.; Michael, S.A.; Kumaratilake, L.M.; El-Sawah, H.M. Echinococcus granulosus of camel origin: Development in dogs and parasite morphology. Parasitol. Res. 1989, 75, 536–544. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  80. Jiao, W.; Chai, J.; Osman, I.; Qu, Q. Characteristics of development and morphology of Echinococcus granulosus of camel origin in north Xinjiang. Zhongguo Ji Sheng Chong Xue Yu Ji Sheng Chong Bing Za Zhi Chin. J. Parasitol. Parasit. Dis. 1998, 16, 204–208. [Google Scholar]
  81. Wilson, B.A.; Ho, M. Pasteurella multocida: From Zoonosis to Cellular Microbiology. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2013, 26, 631–655. [Google Scholar]
  82. Kielstein, P. On the Occurrence of Toxin-Producing Pasteurella-multocida-Strains in Atrophic Rhinitis and in Pneumonias of Swine and Cattle. J. Veter. Med. Ser. B 1986, 33, 418–424. [Google Scholar]
  83. Guillet, C.; Join-Lambert, O.; Carbonnelle, E.; Ferroni, A.; Vaché, A. Pasteurella multocida Sepsis and Meningitis in 2-Month-Old Twin Infants after Household Exposure to a Slaughtered Sheep. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2007, 45, e80–e81. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  84. Spadafora, R.; Pomero, G.; Delogu, A.; Gozzoli, L.; Gancia, P. A rare case of neonatal sepsis/meningitis caused by Pasteurella multocida complicated with status epilepticus and focal cerebritis. La Pediatr. Medica e Chir. 2011, 33, 199–202. [Google Scholar]
  85. Ahmed, M.O.; Elmeshri, S.E.; Abuzweda, A.R.; Blauo, M.; Abouzeed, Y.M.; Ibrahim, A.; Salem, H.; Alzwam, F.; Abid, S.; Elfahem, A.; et al. Seroprevalence of brucellosis in animals and human populations in the western mountains region in Libya, December 2006–January 2008. Eurosurveillance 2010, 15, 19625. [Google Scholar]
  86. Gwida, M.; El-Gohary, A.; Melzer, F.; Khan, I.; Rösler, U.; Neubauer, H. Brucellosis in camels. Res. Vet. Sci. 2012, 92, 351–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Oliveira, M.S.; Dorneles, E.M.S.; Soares, P.M.F.; Fonseca, A.A.; Orzil, L.; de Souza, P.G.; Lage, A.P. Molecular epidemiology of Brucella abortus isolated from cattle in Brazil, 2009–2013. Acta Trop. 2017, 166, 106–113. [Google Scholar]
  88. Elahi, S.; Thompson, D.R.; Strom, S.; O’Connor, B.; Babiuk, L.A.; Gerdts, V. Infection with Bordetella parapertussis but not Bordetella pertussis causes pertussis-like disease in older pigs. J. Infect. Dis. 2008, 198, 384–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Ngom, A.; Boulanger, D.; Ndiaye, T.; Mboup, S.; Bada-Alambedji, R.; Simondon, F.; Ayih-Akakpo, A.J. Domestic Animals as Carriers ofBordetellaSpecies in Senegal. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2006, 6, 179–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Shokri, H.; Khosravi, A. An epidemiological study of animals dermatomycoses in Iran. J. Med. Mycol. 2016, 26, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Dorjee, S.; Heuer, C.; Jackson, R.; West, D.; Collins-Emerson, J.; Midwinter, A.; Ridler, A. Prevalence of pathogenic Leptospira spp. in sheep in a sheep-only abattoir in New Zealand. N. Z. Veter J. 2008, 56, 164–170. [Google Scholar]
  92. Guedes, I.B.; de Souza, G.O.; Rocha, K.D.S.; Cavalini, M.B.; Neto, M.S.D.; Castro, J.F.D.P.; Filho, A.F.D.S.; Negrão, M.P.; Cortez, A.; de Moraes, C.C.G.; et al. Leptospira strains isolated from cattle in the Amazon region, Brazil, evidence of a variety of species and serogroups with a high frequency of the Sejroe serogroup. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2021, 74, 101579. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  93. Chaorattanakawee, S.; Wofford, R.N.; Takhampunya, R.; Poole-Smith, B.K.; Boldbaatar, B.; Lkhagvatseren, S.; Altantogtokh, D.; Musih, E.; Nymadawa, P.; Davidson, S.; et al. Tracking tick-borne diseases in Mongolian livestock using next generation sequencing (NGS). Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2022, 13, 101845. [Google Scholar]
  94. Mannering, S.; West, D.; Fenwick, S.; Marchant, R.; Oconnell, K. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of Campylobacter jejuni sheep abortion isolates. Veter. Microbiol. 2006, 115, 237–242. [Google Scholar]
  95. Damene, H.; Tahir, D.; Diels, M.; Berber, A.; Sahraoui, N.; Rigouts, L. Broad diversity of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex strains isolated from humans and cattle in Northern Algeria suggests a zoonotic transmission cycle. PLoS Neglect. Trop. Dis. 2020, 14, e0008894. [Google Scholar]
  96. Infantes-Lorenzo, J.A.; Gortázar, C.; Domínguez, L.; Muñoz-Mendoza, M.; Domínguez, M.; Balseiro, A. Serological technique for detecting tuberculosis prevalence in sheep in Atlantic Spain. Res. Veter. Sci. 2020, 129, 96–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Rahmdel, S.; Shekarforoush, S.S.; Hosseinzadeh, S.; Torriani, S.; Gatto, V. Antimicrobial spectrum activity of bacteriocinogenic Staphylococcus strains isolated from goat and sheep milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 2928–2940. [Google Scholar]
  98. Pilla, R.; Bonura, C.; Malvisi, M.; Snel, G.G.M.; Piccinini, R.; Dvm, R.P.; Bonura, C.; Malvisi, M.; Dvm, G.G.M.S.; Piccinini, R. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius as causative agent of dairy cow mastitis. Veter. Rec. 2013, 173, 19. [Google Scholar]
  99. Dharmasena, M.; Jiang, X. Isolation of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile from Animal Manure and Composts Being Used as Biological Soil Amendments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 84, e00738-18. [Google Scholar]
  100. Yang, H.; Mi, R.; Cheng, L.; Huang, Y.; An, R.; Zhang, Y.; Jia, H.; Zhang, X.; Wang, X.; Han, X.; et al. Prevalence and genetic diversity of Enterocytozoon bieneusi in sheep in China. Parasites Vectors 2018, 11, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Li, W.-C.; Wang, K.; Gu, Y.-F. Detection and Genotyping Study of Enterocytozoon bieneusi in Sheep and Goats in East-central China. Acta Parasitol. 2019, 64, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Fayer, R.; Santín, M.; Trout, J.M. Enterocytozoon bieneusi in mature dairy cattle on farms in the eastern United States. Parasitol. Res. 2007, 102, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Li, W.; Tao, W.; Jiang, Y.; Diao, R.; Yang, J.; Xiao, L. Genotypic Distribution and Phylogenetic Characterization of Enterocytozoon bieneusi in Diarrheic Chickens and Pigs in Multiple Cities, China: Potential Zoonotic Transmission. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e108279. [Google Scholar]
  104. Zhang, Q.; Cai, J.; Li, P.; Wang, L.; Guo, Y.; Li, C.; Lei, M.; Feng, Y.; Xiao, L. Enterocytozoon bieneusi genotypes in Tibetan sheep and yaks. Parasitol. Res. 2018, 117, 721–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Fiuza, V.R.d.S.; Lopes, C.W.G.; Cosendey, R.I.J.; de Oliveira, F.C.R.; Fayer, R.; Santín, M. Zoonotic Enterocytozoon bieneusi genotypes found in brazilian sheep. Res. Veter. Sci. 2016, 107, 196–201. [Google Scholar]
  106. Qi, M.; Li, J.; Zhao, A.; Cui, Z.; Wei, Z.; Jing, B.; Zhang, L. Host specificity of Enterocytozoon bieneusi genotypes in Bactrian camels (Camelus bactrianus) in China. Parasites Vectors 2018, 11, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Lee, H.; Lee, S.-H.; Lee, Y.-R.; Kim, H.-Y.; Moon, B.-Y.; Han, J.E.; Rhee, M.H.; Kwon, O.-D.; Kwak, D. Enterocytozoon bieneusi Genotypes and Infections in the Horses in Korea. Korean J. Parasitol. 2021, 59, 639–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Zhang, X.X.; Jiang, J.; Cai, Y.N.; Wang, C.F.; Xu, P.; Yang, G.L.; Zhao, Q. Molecular Characterization of Enterocytozoon bieneusi in Domestic Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in Northeastern China. Korean J. Parasitol. 2016, 54, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Bulterys, P.L.; Mharakurwa, S.; Thuma, P.E. Cattle, other domestic animal ownership, and distance between dwelling structures are associated with reduced risk of recurrent Plasmodium falciparum infection in southern Zambia. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2009, 14, 522–528. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  110. Meng, X.-Z.; Kang, C.; Wei, J.; Ma, H.; Liu, G.; Zhao, J.-P.; Zhang, H.-S.; Yang, X.-B.; Wang, X.-Y.; Yang, L.-H.; et al. Meta-Analysis of the Prevalence of Giardia duodenalis in Cattle in China. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2023, 20, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Heyworth, M.F. Giardia duodenalis genetic assemblages and hosts. Parasite 2016, 23, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Liu, A.; Yang, F.; Shen, Y.; Zhang, W.; Wang, R.; Zhao, W.; Zhang, L.; Ling, H.; Cao, J. Genetic Analysis of the Gdh and Bg Genes of Animal-Derived Giardia duodenalis Isolates in Northeastern China and Evaluation of Zoonotic Transmission Potential. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e95291. [Google Scholar]
  113. Traversa, D.; Otranto, D.; Milillo, P.; Latrofa, M.S.; Giangaspero, A.; Di Cesare, A.; Paoletti, B. Giardia duodenalis sub-Assemblage of animal and human origin in horses. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2012, 12, 1642–1646. [Google Scholar]
  114. Farzan, A.; Parrington, L.; Coklin, T.; Cook, A.; Pintar, K.; Pollari, F.; Friendship, R.; Farber, J.; Dixon, B. Detection and characterization of Giardia duodenalis and Cryptosporidium spp. on swine farms in Ontario, Canada. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2011, 8, 1207–1213. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  115. Lebbad, M.; Mattsson, J.G.; Christensson, B.; Ljungström, B.; Backhans, A.; Andersson, J.O.; Svärd, S.G. From mouse to moose: Multilocus genotyping of Giardia isolates from various animal species. Vet. Parasitol. 2010, 168, 231–239. [Google Scholar]
  116. Berrilli, F.; D’alfonso, R.; Giangaspero, A.; Marangi, M.; Brandonisio, O.; Kaboré, Y.; Glé, C.; Cianfanelli, C.; Lauro, R.; Di Cave, D. Giardia duodenalis genotypes and Cryptosporidium species in humans and domestic animals in Côte d’Ivoire: Occurrence and evidence for environmental contamination. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2012, 106, 191–195. [Google Scholar]
  117. Parker, A.M.; Mohler, V.L.; Gunn, A.A.; House, J.K. Development of a qPCR for the detection and quantification of Salmonella spp. in sheep feces and tissues. J. Vet. Diagn Investig. 2020, 32, 835–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Bonifait, L.; Thépault, A.; Baugé, L.; Rouxel, S.; Le Gall, F.; Chemaly, M. Occurrence of Salmonella in the Cattle Production in France. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Ramatla, T.A.; Mphuthi, N.; Ramaili, T.; Taioe, M.O.; Thekisoe, O.M.; Syakalima, M. Molecular detection of virulence genes in Salmonella spp. isolated from chicken faeces in Mafikeng, South Africa. J. S. Afr. Veter Assoc. 2020, 91, e1–e7. [Google Scholar]
  120. Fielding, C.L.; Meier, C.A.; Magdesian, K.G.; Pusterla, N. Salmonella spp. fecal shedding detected by real-time PCR in competing endurance horses. Veter. J. 2013, 197, 876–877. [Google Scholar]
  121. Joutsen, S.; Eklund, K.M.; Laukkanen-Ninios, R.; Stephan, R.; Fredriksson-Ahomaa, M. Sheep carrying pathogenic Yersinia enterocolitica bioserotypes 2/O:9 and 5/O:3 in the feces at slaughter. Vet. Microbiol. 2016, 197, 78–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. McNally, A.; Cheasty, T.; Fearnley, C.; Dalziel, R.; Paiba, G.; Manning, G.; Newell, D. Comparison of the biotypes of Yersinia enterocolitica isolated from pigs, cattle and sheep at slaughter and from humans with yersiniosis in Great Britain during 1999-2000. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2004, 39, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Donovan, S. Listeriosis: A Rare but Deadly Disease. Clin. Microbiol. Newsl. 2015, 37, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Evans, K.; Smith, M.; McDonough, P.; Wiedmann, M. Eye Infections due to Listeria Monocytogenes in Three Cows and One Horse. J. Veter. Diagn. Investig. 2004, 16, 464–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Iannetti, L.; Schirone, M.; Neri, D.; Visciano, P.; Acciari, V.A.; Centorotola, G.; Mangieri, M.S.; Torresi, M.; Santarelli, G.A.; Di Marzio, V.; et al. Listeria monocytogenes in poultry: Detection and strain characterization along an integrated production chain in Italy. Food Microbiol. 2020, 91, 103533. [Google Scholar]
  126. Chlebicz, A.; Śliżewska, K. Campylobacteriosis, Salmonellosis, Yersiniosis, and Listeriosis as Zoonotic Foodborne Diseases: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 863. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  127. Mao, Y.; Akdeniz, N.; Nguyen, T.H. Quantification of pathogens and antibiotic resistance genes in backyard and commercial composts. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 797, 149197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Dhaouadi, S.; Soufi, L.; Campanile, F.; Dhaouadi, F.; Sociale, M.; Lazzaro, L.; Cherif, A.; Stefani, S.; Elandoulsi, R.B. Prevalence of meticillin-resistant and -susceptible coagulase-negative staphylococci with the first detection of the mecC gene among cows, humans and manure in Tunisia. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2020, 55, 105826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Fusco, W.G.; Afonina, G.; Nepluev, I.; Cholon, D.M.; Choudhary, N.; Routh, P.A.; Almond, G.W.; Orndorff, P.E.; Staats, H.; Hobbs, M.M.; et al. Immunization with the Haemophilus ducreyi Hemoglobin Receptor HgbA with Adjuvant Monophosphoryl Lipid A Protects Swine from a Homologous but Not a Heterologous Challenge. Infect. Immun. 2010, 78, 3763–3772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Hill, D.; Dubey, J.P. Toxoplasma gondii: Transmission, diagnosis and prevention. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2002, 8, 634–640. [Google Scholar]
  131. Bessi, C.; Ercole, M.; Fariña, F.; Ribicich, M.; Montalvo, F.; Acerbo, M.; Krivokapich, S.; Pasqualetti, M. Study of Trichinella patagoniensis in wild boars. Veter. Parasitol. 2021, 297, 109166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Wang, Z.; Cui, J.; Shen, L. The epidemiology of animal trichinellosis in China. Veter J. 2007, 173, 391–398. [Google Scholar]
  133. Sofronic-Milosavljevic, L.; Pozio, E.; Patrascu, I.V.; Skerovic, N.; Morales, M.G.; Gamble, H.R. Immunodiagnosis of Trichinella infection in the horse. Parasite 2001, 8 (Suppl. 2), S260–S262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Flores, P.S.; Costa, F.B.; Amorim, A.R.; Mendes, G.S.; Rojas, M.; Santos, N. Rotavirus A, C, and H in Brazilian pigs: Potential for zoonotic transmission of RVA. J. Veter. Diagn. Investig. 2021, 33, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Anderson, E.J.; Weber, S.G. Rotavirus infection in adults. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2004, 4, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Ye, Q.; Fu, J.-F.; Mao, J.-H.; Shen, H.-Q.; Chen, X.-J.; Shao, W.-X.; Shang, S.-Q.; Wu, Y.-F. Haze is an important medium for the spread of rotavirus. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 216, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Curry, A.; Smith, H.V. Emerging pathogens: Isospora, Cyclospora and microsporidia. Parasitology 1998, 117, S143–S159. [Google Scholar]
  138. Deng, L.; Chai, Y.; Xiang, L.; Wang, W.; Zhou, Z.; Liu, H.; Zhong, Z.; Fu, H.; Peng, G. First identification and genotyping of Enterocytozoon bieneusi and Encephalitozoon spp. in pet rabbits in China. BMC Veter. Res. 2020, 16, 212. [Google Scholar]
  139. Didier, E.S.; Stovall, M.E.; Green, L.C.; Brindley, P.J.; Sestak, K.; Didier, P.J. Epidemiology of microsporidiosis: Sources and modes of transmission. Vet. Parasitol. 2004, 126, 145–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Didier, E.S. Microsporidiosis: An emerging and opportunistic infection in humans and animals. Acta Trop. 2005, 94, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  141. Patterson-Kane, J.C.; Caplazi, P.; Rurangirwa, F.; Tramontin, R.R.; Wolfsdorf, K. Encephalitozoon Cuniculi Placentitis and Abortion in a Quarterhorse Mare. J. Veter. Diagn. Investig. 2003, 15, 57–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  142. Marková, J.; Machačová, T.; Bártová, E.; Sedlák, K.; Budíková, M.; Silvestre, P.; Laricchiuta, P.; Russo, M.; Veneziano, V. Toxoplasma gondii, Neospora caninum and Encephalitozoon cuniculi in Animals from Captivity (Zoo and Circus Animals). J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2019, 66, 442–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Cisláková, L.; Literák, I.; Bálent, P.; Hipíková, V.; Levkutová, M.; Trávnicek, M.; Novotná, A. Prevalence of antibodies to Encephalitozoon cuniculi (microsporidia) in angora goats—A potential risk of infection for breeders. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2001, 8, 289–291. [Google Scholar]
  144. Bornay-Llinares, F.J.; da Silva, A.J.; Moura, H.; Schwartz, D.A.; Visvesvara, G.S.; Pieniazek, N.J.; Cruz-López, A.; Hernández-Jaúregui, P.; Guerrero, J.; Enriquez, F.J. Immunologic, microscopic, and molecular evidence of Encephalitozoon intestinalis (Septata intestinalis) infection in mammals other than humans. J. Infect. Dis. 1998, 178, 820–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Del Aguila, C.; Izquierdo, F.; Navajas, R.; Pieniazek, N.J.; Miró, G.; Alonso, A.I.; Da Silva, A.J.; Fenoy, S. Enterocytozoon bieneusi in animals: Rabbits and dogs as new hosts. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 1999, 46, 8S–9S. [Google Scholar]
  146. Reetz, J.; Rinder, H.; Thomschke, A.; Manke, H.; Schwebs, M.; Bruderek, A. First detection of the microsporidium Enterocytozoon bieneusi in non-mammalian hosts (chickens). Int. J. Parasitol. 2002, 32, 785–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. McInnes, E.F.; Stewart, C.G. The pathology of subclinical infection of encephalitozoon cuniculi in canine dams producing pups with overt encephalitozoonosis. J. S. Afr. Veter. Assoc. 1991, 62, 51–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Zalewska, M.; Błażejewska, A.; Czapko, A.; Popowska, M. Antibiotics and Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Animal Manure—Consequences of Its Application in Agriculture. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 610656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Kyselkovã¡, M.; Jirout, J.; Vrchotovã¡, N.; Schmitt, H.; Elhottovã¡, D. Spread of tetracycline resistance genes at a conventional dairy farm. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Liu, C.; Li, G.; Qin, X.; Xu, Y.; Wang, J.; Wu, G.; Feng, H.; Ye, J.; Zhu, C.; Li, X.; et al. Profiles of antibiotic- and heavy metal-related resistance genes in animal manure revealed using a metagenomic analysis. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022, 239, 113655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Chen, Z.; Wang, Y.; Wen, Q. Effects of chlortetracycline on the fate of multi-antibiotic resistance genes and the microbial community during swine manure composting. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 237, 977–987. [Google Scholar]
  152. Pu, C.; Liu, H.; Ding, G.; Sun, Y.; Yu, X.; Chen, J.; Ren, J.; Gong, X. Impact of direct application of biogas slurry and residue in fields: In situ analysis of antibiotic resistance genes from pig manure to fields. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 344, 441–449. [Google Scholar]
  153. Zhang, M.; He, L.-Y.; Liu, Y.-S.; Zhao, J.-L.; Zhang, J.-N.; Chen, J.; Zhang, Q.-Q.; Ying, G.-G. Variation of antibiotic resistome during commercial livestock manure composting. Environ. Int. 2020, 136, 105458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Tien, Y.-C.; Li, B.; Zhang, T.; Scott, A.; Murray, R.; Sabourin, L.; Marti, R.; Topp, E. Impact of dairy manure pre-application treatment on manure composition, soil dynamics of antibiotic resistance genes, and abundance of antibiotic-resistance genes on vegetables at harvest. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 581–582, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Zhu, Y.-G.; Johnson, T.A.; Su, J.-Q.; Qiao, M.; Guo, G.-X.; Stedtfeld, R.D.; Hashsham, S.A.; Tiedje, J.M. Diverse and abundant antibiotic resistance genes in Chinese swine farms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 3435–3440. [Google Scholar]
  156. Tao, C.-W.; Hsu, B.-M.; Ji, W.-T.; Hsu, T.-K.; Kao, P.-M.; Hsu, C.-P.; Shen, S.-M.; Shen, T.-Y.; Wan, T.-J.; Huang, Y.-L. Evaluation of five antibiotic resistance genes in wastewater treatment systems of swine farms by real-time PCR. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 496, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Zhang, H.; Wang, P.-L.; Yang, Q.-X.; Yu, N. Distribution of Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria and Antibiotic-Resistant Genes in Livestock Manures. Huan Jing Ke Xue Huanjing Kexue 2018, 39, 460–466. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  158. Gou, M.; Hu, H.-W.; Zhang, Y.-J.; Wang, J.-T.; Hayden, H.; Tang, Y.-Q.; He, J.-Z. Aerobic composting reduces antibiotic resistance genes in cattle manure and the resistome dissemination in agricultural soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 612, 1300–1310. [Google Scholar]
  159. Fang, H.; Han, L.; Zhang, H.; Long, Z.; Cai, L.; Yu, Y. Dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes and human pathogenic bacteria from a pig feedlot to the surrounding stream and agricultural soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 357, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Qian, X.; Gu, J.; Sun, W.; Wang, X.-J.; Su, J.-Q.; Stedfeld, R. Diversity, abundance, and persistence of antibiotic resistance genes in various types of animal manure following industrial composting. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 344, 716–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Luiken, R.E.; Heederik, D.J.; Scherpenisse, P.; Van Gompel, L.; van Heijnsbergen, E.; Greve, G.D.; Jongerius-Gortemaker, B.G.; Tersteeg-Zijderveld, M.H.; Fischer, J.; Juraschek, K.; et al. Determinants for antimicrobial resistance genes in farm dust on 333 poultry and pig farms in nine European countries. Environ. Res. 2022, 208, 112715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Kong, Y.; Wang, G.; Chen, W.; Yang, Y.; Ma, R.; Li, D.; Shen, Y.; Li, G.; Yuan, J. Phytotoxicity of farm livestock manures in facultative heap composting using the seed germination index as indicator. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022, 247, 114251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Cai, G.; Li, J.; Zhou, M.; Zhu, G.; Li, Y.; Lv, N.; Wang, R.; Li, C.; Pan, X. Compost-derived indole-3-acetic-acid-producing bacteria and their effects on enhancing the secondary fermentation of a swine manure-corn stalk composting. Chemosphere 2022, 291 Pt 1, 132750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Trabue, S.; Kerr, B.; Scoggin, K. Swine diets impact manure characteristics and gas emissions: Part I sulfur level. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 687, 800–807. [Google Scholar]
  165. Pernu, N.; Keto-Timonen, R.; Lindström, M.; Korkeala, H. High prevalence of Clostridium botulinum in vegetarian sausages. Food Microbiol. 2020, 91, 103512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Notermans, S.; Dufrenne, J.; Oosterom, J. Persistence of Clostridium botulinum type B on a cattle farm after an outbreak of botulism. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1981, 41, 179–183. [Google Scholar]
  167. Parthasarathi, K.; Ranganathan, L.S.; Anandi, V.; Zeyer, J. Diversity of microflora in the gut and casts of tropical composting earthworms reared on different substrates. J. Environ. Biol. 2007, 28, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  168. Naglik, J.R.; Gaffen, S.L.; Hube, B. Candidalysin: Discovery and function in Candida albicans infections. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2019, 52, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Moyes, D.L.; Wilson, D.; Richardson, J.P.; Mogavero, S.; Tang, S.X.; Wernecke, J.; Höfs, S.; Gratacap, R.L.; Robbins, J.; Runglall, M.; et al. Candidalysin is a fungal peptide toxin critical for mucosal infection. Nature 2016, 532, 64–68. [Google Scholar]
  170. Chu, H.; Duan, Y.; Lang, S.; Jiang, L.; Wang, Y.; Llorente, C.; Liu, J.; Mogavero, S.; Bosques-Padilla, F.; Abraldes, J.G.; et al. The Candida albicans exotoxin candidalysin promotes alcohol-associated liver disease. J. Hepatol. 2020, 72, 391–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Ni, J.-Q.; Robarge, W.P.; Xiao, C.; Heber, A.J. Volatile organic compounds at swine facilities: A critical review. Chemosphere 2012, 89, 769–788. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  172. Williams, A. Indicators of piggery slurry odour offensiveness. Agric. Wastes 1984, 10, 15–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Liao, C.; Liang, H.; Singh, S. Swine manure cleanup criteria calculation for odor causing volatile organic compounds based on manure-to-ventilation air exposure pathway. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B 1997, 32, 449–468. [Google Scholar]
  174. White, E.P.; Sewell, O.K.; Bassett, E.G. Identification of p-Cresol as a Toxin in Œstrogen Concentrates from Sheep Urine. Nature 1950, 166, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Spoelstra, S.F. Simple phenols and indoles in anaerobically stored piggery wastes. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1977, 28, 415–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Dehnhard, M.; Bernal-Barragan, H.; Claus, R. Rapid and accurate high-performance liquid chromatographic method for the determination of 3-methylindole (skatole) in faeces of various species. J. Chromatogr. B Biomed. Sci. Appl. 1991, 566, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Yang, G.; Zhang, P.; Liu, H.; Zhu, X.; Dong, W. Spatial variations in intestinal skatole production and microbial composition in broilers. Anim. Sci. J. 2019, 90, 412–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Sánchez-Monedero, M.; Sánchez-García, M.; Alburquerque, J.; Cayuela, M. Biochar reduces volatile organic compounds generated during chicken manure composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 288, 121584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Blunden, J.; Aneja, V.P.; Overton, J.H. Modeling hydrogen sulfide emissions across the gas–liquid interface of an anaerobic swine waste treatment storage system. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 5602–5611. [Google Scholar]
  180. Li, Y.; Ma, J.; Yong, X.; Luo, L.; Wong, J.W.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, H.; Zhou, J. Effect of biochar combined with a biotrickling filter on deodorization, nitrogen retention, and microbial community succession during chicken manure composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 343, 126137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Weaver, K.H.; Harper, L.A.; De Visscher, A.; van Cleemput, O. The effect of biogas ebullition on ammonia emissions from animal manure–processing lagoons. J. Environ. Qual. 2022, 51, 632–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Havlikova, M.; Kroeze, C.; Huijbregts, M. Environmental and health impact by dairy cattle livestock and manure management in the Czech Republic. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 396, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Matsumura, Y.; Suganuma, Y.; Ichikawa, T.; Kim, W.; Nakashimada, Y.; Nishida, K. Reaction Rate of Hydrothermal Ammonia Production from Chicken Manure. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 23442–23446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Wang, J.; Hu, Z.; Xu, X.; Jiang, X.; Zheng, B.; Liu, X.; Pan, X.; Kardol, P. Emissions of ammonia and greenhouse gases during combined pre-composting and vermicomposting of duck manure. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 1546–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Cheng, Y.; Luo, L.; Lv, J.; Li, G.; Wen, B.; Ma, Y.; Huang, R. Copper Speciation Evolution in Swine Manure Induced by Pyrolysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 9008–9014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Gao, R.; Xiang, L.; Hu, H.; Fu, Q.; Zhu, J.; Liu, Y.; Huang, G. High-efficiency removal capacities and quantitative sorption mechanisms of Pb by oxidized rape straw biochars. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 699, 134262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Kumar, A.S.K.; Jiang, S.-J.; Tseng, W.-L. Facile synthesis and characterization of thiol-functionalized graphene oxide as effective adsorbent for Hg(II). J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2016, 4, 2052–2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Hashmi, M.Z.; Kanwal, A.; Murtaza, R.; Siddique, S.; Su, X.; Tang, X.; Afzaal, M. Arsenic in Untreated and Treated Manure: Sources, Biotransformation, and Environmental Risk in Application on Soils: A Review. Environ. Pollut. Paddy Soils 2018, 53, 179–195. [Google Scholar]
  189. Wensel, C.R.; Pluznick, J.L.; Salzberg, S.L.; Sears, C.L. Next-generation sequencing: Insights to advance clinical investigations of the microbiome. J. Clin. Investig. 2022, 132, e154944. [Google Scholar]
  190. Ross, T.; McMeekin, T.A. Predictive microbiology. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1994, 23, 241–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Oliver, D.M.; Heathwaite, A.L.; Hodgson, C.J.; Chadwick, D.R. Mitigation and Current Management Attempts to Limit Pathogen Survival and Movement Within Farmed Grassland. In Advances in Agronomy; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007; pp. 95–152. [Google Scholar]
  192. Kılıç, S.; Çelebi, B.; Turan, M. Brucella melitensis and Brucella abortus genotyping via real-time PCR targeting 21 variable genome loci. J. Microbiol. Methods 2021, 180, 106125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Marouf, A.S.; Hanifian, S.; Shayegh, J. Prevalence of Brucella spp. in raw milk and artisanal cheese tested via real-time qPCR and culture assay. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2021, 347, 109192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Che, L.H.; Qi, C.; Bao, W.G.; Ji, X.F.; Liu, J.; Du, N.; Gao, L.; Zhang, K.Y.; Li, Y.X. Monitoring the course of Brucella infection with qPCR-based detection. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2019, 89, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  195. Salinas, M.J.G.; Campos, C.E.; Peris, M.P.P.; Kassab, N.H. Prevalence of Toxoplasma gondii in retail fresh meat products from free-range chickens in Spain. J. Veter Res. 2021, 65, 457–461. [Google Scholar]
  196. Mesgarpour, M.; Abad, J.M.N.; Alizadeh, R.; Wongwises, S.; Doranehgard, M.H.; Ghaderi, S.; Karimi, N. Prediction of the spread of Corona-virus carrying droplets in a bus—A computational based artificial intelligence approach. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 413, 125358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Xu, Y.; Wojtczak, D. Dive into machine learning algorithms for influenza virus host prediction with hemagglutinin sequences. Biosystems 2022, 220, 104740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Kargarfard, F.; Sami, A.; Mohammadi-Dehcheshmeh, M.; Ebrahimie, E. Novel approach for identification of influenza virus host range and zoonotic transmissible sequences by determination of host-related associative positions in viral genome segments. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  199. Klous, G.; Huss, A.; Heederik, D.J.J.; Coutinho, R.A. Human-livestock contacts and their relationship to transmission of zoonotic pathogens, a systematic review of literature. One Health 2016, 2, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  200. Rowan, A. Blocking the route to infection. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2005, 4, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Yu, X.; Zhu, X.; Zhou, Y.; Li, Q.; Hu, Z.; Li, T.; Tao, J.; Dou, M.; Zhang, M.; Shao, Y.; et al. Discovery of N-Aryl-pyridine-4-ones as Novel Potential Agrochemical Fungicides and Bactericides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 13904–13913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Patel, K.; Batty, K.T.; Moore, B.R.; Gibbons, P.L.; Kirkpatrick, C.M. Predicting the parasite killing effect of artemisinin combination therapy in a murine malaria model. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2014, 69, 2155–2163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  203. Alqarni, H.; Jamleh, A.; Chamber, M.S. Chlorhexidine as a Disinfectant in the Prosthodontic Practice: A Comprehensive Review. Cureus 2022, 14, e30566. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  204. Zheng, X.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, B.; Liu, S.; Chen, W.; Chen, L.; Zhang, Y.; Liao, W.; Zeng, W.; Wu, Q.; et al. Clinical characteristics, tolerance mechanisms, and molecular epidemiology of reduced susceptibility to chlorhexidine among Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from a teaching hospital in China. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2022, 60, 106605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Juravel, E.; Polacheck, I.; Isaacson, B.; Dagan, A.; Korem, M. The Distinction between Dematiaceous Molds and Non-Dematiaceous Fungi in Clinical and Spiked Samples Treated with Hydrogen Peroxide Using Direct Fluorescence Microscopy. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Osunkentan, A.; Evans, D. Chronic adverse effects of long-term exposure of children to dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) through indoor residual spraying: A systematic review. Rural. Remote. Health 2015, 15, 2889. [Google Scholar]
  207. Bjørling-Poulsen, M.; Andersen, H.R.; Grandjean, P. Potential developmental neurotoxicity of pesticides used in Europe. Environ. Health 2008, 7, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  208. Kedia, A.; Prakash, B.; Mishra, P.K.; Singh, P.; Dubey, N.K. Botanicals as eco friendly biorational alternatives of synthetic pesticides against Callosobruchus spp. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)—A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 1239–1257. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  209. Chatterjee, S.; Bag, S.; Biswal, D.; Paria, D.S.; Bandyopadhyay, R.; Sarkar, B.; Mandal, A.; Dangar, T.K. Neem-based products as potential eco-friendly mosquito control agents over conventional eco-toxic chemical pesticides-A review. Acta Trop. 2023, 240, 106858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  210. Park, H.-W.; Bideshi, D.K.; Federici, B.A. Properties and applied use of the mosquitocidal bacterium, Bacillus sphaericus. J. Asia-Pac. Èntomol. 2010, 13, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  211. Shahi, N.K.; Maeng, M.; Dockko, S. Models for predicting carbonaceous disinfection by-products formation in drinking water treatment plants: A case study of South Korea. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 24594–24603. [Google Scholar]
  212. Ruiz-Castillo, P.; Rist, C.; Rabinovich, R.; Chaccour, C. Insecticide-treated livestock: A potential One Health approach to malaria control in Africa. Trends Parasitol. 2022, 38, 112–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Clements, J.S., II; Islam, R.; Sun, B.; Tong, F.; Gross, A.D.; Bloomquist, J.R.; Carlier, P.R. N’-mono- and N, N’-diacyl derivatives of benzyl and arylhydrazines as contact insecticides against adult Anopheles gambiae. Pestic Biochem. Physiol. 2017, 143, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Dickson, R.P.; Erb-Downward, J.R.; Prescott, H.C.; Martinez, F.J.; Curtis, J.L.; Lama, V.N.; Huffnagle, G.B. Analysis of culture-dependent versus culture-independent techniques for identification of bacteria in clinically obtained bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2014, 52, 3605–3613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  215. Liu, Q.; He, M.; Zeng, Z.; Huang, X.; Fang, S.; Zhao, Y.; Ke, S.; Wu, J.; Zhou, Y.; Xiong, X.; et al. Extensive identification of serum metabolites related to microbes in different gut locations and evaluating their associations with porcine fatness. Microb. Biotechnol. 2023, 16, 1293–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Epstein, H.E.; Hernandez-Agreda, A.; Starko, S.; Baum, J.K.; Thurber, R.V. Inconsistent Patterns of Microbial Diversity and Composition Between Highly Similar Sequencing Protocols: A Case Study With Reef-Building Corals. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 740932. [Google Scholar]
  217. Peng, Z.; Zhu, X.; Wang, Z.; Yan, X.; Wang, G.; Tang, M.; Jiang, A.; Kristiansen, K. Comparative Analysis of Sample Extraction and Library Construction for Shotgun Metagenomics. Bioinform. Biol. Insights 2020, 14, 1177932220915459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Zhai, J.; Knox, K.; Twigg, H.L., 3rd; Zhou, H.; Zhou, J.J. Exact variance component tests for longitudinal microbiome studies. Genet. Epidemiol. 2019, 43, 250–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Microorganisms 11 01897 g001 550
Figure 1. The major representative microbial components of the livestock excrement [33,34,35,36,37,38].
Figure 1. The major representative microbial components of the livestock excrement [33,34,35,36,37,38].
Microorganisms 11 01897 g001
Microorganisms 11 01897 g002 550
Figure 2. The key processes of livestock microorganisms and included factors. Major factors involved in the livestock excrement microbiome cycling included: (1) contributors of microbiome input: humans, livestock, both domestic and wild animals and insects, and other media of microbes such as feedstock and (2) pathways of microbiome output: composting, livestock activity, airflow, and the activity of humans, animals, and insects.
Figure 2. The key processes of livestock microorganisms and included factors. Major factors involved in the livestock excrement microbiome cycling included: (1) contributors of microbiome input: humans, livestock, both domestic and wild animals and insects, and other media of microbes such as feedstock and (2) pathways of microbiome output: composting, livestock activity, airflow, and the activity of humans, animals, and insects.
Microorganisms 11 01897 g002
Table
Table 1. Common zoonotic pathogens detected in livestock excrement.
Table 1. Common zoonotic pathogens detected in livestock excrement.
PathogenHost of Livestock ExcrementDisease CausedReferences
RotavirusSheep, goat, cattle, pigDiarrhea, vomiting, fever, abdominal pain[75,76,77,78]
Echinococcus granulosusCamel, horse, sheep, pigHydatidosis[79,80]
Pasteurella multocidaSheep, goat, deer, pig, cattle, chickenFowl cholera[81,82,83,84]
Brucella melitensisGoat, sheep, cattle, camelBrucellosis[85]
Brucella abortusCamel, cattleBrucellosis[86,87]
Bordetella bronchisepticaSheep, pig, goatWhooping cough[88,89]
Malassezia pachydermatisHorses, camel, cattle, poultry, sheep, goat, rabbitDermosis[90]
Leptospira sp.Sheep, cattle, goat, horse, Reproductive failures and infertility[91,92,93]
Campylobacter sp.Sheep, chickenInfection, abortion[94]
Mycobacterium tuberculosisSheep, cattleTuberculosis[95,96]
Staphylococcus pseudintermediusSheep, goatDermatological disease, cow mastitis[97,98]
Clostridium difficileCattle, sheep, horse, and goat, poultryClostridium difficile infection[99]
Enterocytozoon bieneusiSheep, goat, cattle, camel, pig, yak, chicken, horse, rabbitDiarrhea[100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108]
Plasmodium falciparumCattle, goat, pig, poultryMalaria[109]
Giardia lambliaSheep, goat, cattleGiardiasis[39,40]
Giardia duodenalisCattle, deer, pig, goat, horse, sheep, chicken, yakGiardiasis[110,111,112,113,114,115,116]
Salmonella spp.Sheep, cattle, chicken, horseDiarrhea, loss of appetite, fever, depressed mentation, mortality[117,118,119,120]
Yersinia enterocoliticaSheep, cattle, pigYersiniosis; Enteritis[39,121,122]
Listeria monocytogenesSheep, cattle, horse, chickenListeriosis[123,124,125,126]
Legionella pneumophilaPigLegionnaires’ disease[127]
Staphylococcus saprophyticusCattleUrinary tract infection[128]
Haemophilus ducreyiPigChancroid[129]
Toxoplasma gondiiSheep, goat, pig, chickenToxoplasmosis[130]
TrichinellaCattle, sheep, horseTrichinellosis [131,132,133]
Table
Table 2. Antibiotic-resistant genes are generally detected in livestock excrement.
Table 2. Antibiotic-resistant genes are generally detected in livestock excrement.
GeneResistant AntibioticRelated Excrement SamplesReferences
tetTetracycline resistanceSwine, cattle, poultry manure[152,153]
sulSulfonamide resistanceSwine manure[154]
ermErythromycin resistanceSwine wastewater[155]
fcaFluoroquinolone, quinolone, florfenicol, chloramphenicol, and amphenicol (FCA) resistanceCattle manure, swine manure[156,157]
blaβ-lactamase resistancePoultry manure[158]
mdrAminoglycosides resistanceSwine manure[159]
vanVancomycin resistancePoultry manure, swine manure, cattle manure[158,160,161]
Table
Table 3. Toxic chemicals produced by livestock excrement microbiome.
Table 3. Toxic chemicals produced by livestock excrement microbiome.
ChemicalsHealth RiskRelated SamplesReferences
IndoleColorectal cancer, bipolar disorderSwine waste[171,172]
p-CresolKidney and liver damageSwine waste, sheep manure[173,174]
SkatoleRespiratory distressSwine waste, goat, sheep and cattle manure, poultry manure[175,176,177]
PhenolsSkin irritation, respiratory disorderSwine waste, poultry manure[172,178]
Hydrogen sulfideRespiratory disorderSwine manure, poultry manure[179,180]
AmmoniaSkin and eye irritation, respiratory disorderSwine manure, cattle manure, poultry manure[181,182,183,184]
Heavy metals (Cu, Pb, Hg, Cd, As)Liver and kidney damageSwine manure, cattle manure[185,186,187,188]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abdugheni, R.; Li, L.; Yang, Z.-N.; Huang, Y.; Fang, B.-Z.; Shurigin, V.; Mohamad, O.A.A.; Liu, Y.-H.; Li, W.-J. Microbial Risks Caused by Livestock Excrement: Current Research Status and Prospects. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1897. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11081897

AMA Style

Abdugheni R, Li L, Yang Z-N, Huang Y, Fang B-Z, Shurigin V, Mohamad OAA, Liu Y-H, Li W-J. Microbial Risks Caused by Livestock Excrement: Current Research Status and Prospects. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(8):1897. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11081897

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abdugheni, Rashidin, Li Li, Zhen-Ni Yang, Yin Huang, Bao-Zhu Fang, Vyacheslav Shurigin, Osama Abdalla Abdelshafy Mohamad, Yong-Hong Liu, and Wen-Jun Li. 2023. "Microbial Risks Caused by Livestock Excrement: Current Research Status and Prospects" Microorganisms 11, no. 8: 1897. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11081897

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop