Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Carla Viegas
 -- 1615 2023-04-19 17:08:43 |
2 format
Jason Zhu
 Meta information modification 1615 2023-04-20 03:21:39 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Gomes, B.; Dias, M.; Cervantes, R.; Pena, P.; Santos, J.; Vasconcelos Pinto, M.; Viegas, C. One Health Approach. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/43250 (accessed on 05 July 2024).
Gomes B, Dias M, Cervantes R, Pena P, Santos J, Vasconcelos Pinto M, et al. One Health Approach. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/43250. Accessed July 05, 2024.
Gomes, Bianca, Marta Dias, Renata Cervantes, Pedro Pena, Joana Santos, Marta Vasconcelos Pinto, Carla Viegas. "One Health Approach" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/43250 (accessed July 05, 2024).
Gomes, B., Dias, M., Cervantes, R., Pena, P., Santos, J., Vasconcelos Pinto, M., & Viegas, C. (2023, April 19). One Health Approach. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/43250
Gomes, Bianca, et al. "One Health Approach." Encyclopedia. Web. 19 April, 2023.
One Health Approach
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/toxics11040374
The One Health approach incorporates human, animal, and plant health, as well as the health of their shared environment, for supporting a multidisciplinary and holistic approach that integrates monitoring, planning, and evaluation to optimize co-benefits and public health outcomes. In addition, the One Health approach supports global health by fostering coordination, collaboration, and communication among different sectors at the human–animal–environment interface to address common health threats such as antimicrobial resistance (AMR), food safety, zoonotic diseases, and several others.
One Health approach exposure assessment microbial contamination poultries

1. Introduction

The One Health approach incorporates human, animal, and plant health, as well as the health of their shared environment, for supporting a multidisciplinary and holistic approach that integrates monitoring, planning, and evaluation to optimize co-benefits and public health outcomes [1][2]. In addition, the One Health approach supports global health by fostering coordination, collaboration, and communication among different sectors at the human–animal–environment interface to address common health threats such as antimicrobial resistance (AMR), food safety, zoonotic diseases, and several others [2][3].
The industrialization of the poultry sector poses a considerable negative impact on air, soil, and water. The increase in waste management problems can be considered as one of the major drivers fostering harmful effects on environmental health [4]. Indeed, pathogens can be disseminated by unrecognized pathways, for example, on airborne dust and animal wastes utilized in agriculture and, consequently, water and soil quality may be impacted [5].
Poultry production intensification needs increases in livestock numbers and densities, the use of particular feed to raise conversion ratios, and shorter production cycles [4][6]. Consequently, such changes may potentially alter transmission patterns and the evolutionary conditions of dominant pathogens, leading to emergence of zoonotic diseases [4][7]. The environment of animal husbandry, such as humidity level, number of animals, ventilation type, and hygiene measures may influence microbial development [8]. In fact, intensive animal production is also considered as one of the causes for biodiversity loss and potentially for upcoming pandemics [2][9].
Agricultural expansion and intensification bring wildlife, livestock, and people into closer contact, allowing animal microbes to spill over into people and causing infections, sometimes outbreaks, and less frequently epidemics and pandemics [1][2]. Production intensification of livestock raises concerns about the feasibility of the One Health model for animal production regarding the protection of the health of animals, workers, and consumers [10]. Thus, intensive poultry farming not only poses a significant risk to workers [11][12] but can also act as a potential public health menace [1][4].
Human and animal well-being is also in the scope of a One Health approach. Animal diseases threaten human health, food safety, and security, driven by the transmission of zoonotic diseases or by the loss of animal productivity. Adequate hygiene management is therefore critical to avoiding the negative human health and economic repercussions of foodborne diseases [13].

2. One Health Approach

Industrialization has led to increased animal density in enclosed production buildings, resulting in high concentrations of viable and non-viable bacteria and fungi, as well as metabolites in bioaerosols [14]. The poultry industry has been found to pose a significant global health risk due to microbiological contamination [15]. Farm facilities housing multiple animals promote complex mixtures of microorganisms in bioaerosols, including dust-containing feathers, skin fragments, feces, feed particles, microorganisms, and chemicals [16]. Long shifts in manufacturing plants have become common, resulting in workers inhaling complex bioaerosols, which can pose several health hazards in agricultural environments [14]. This situation has prompted increased studies on occupational health. Bioaerosols from farms can also pose health risks to nearby residents [16][17], highlighting the importance of research on human health, environmental impact, and the One Health approach to address these concerns. Broilers and laying hens are susceptible to bacterial and viral infections of the upper respiratory tract, as indicated by several studies [18][19][20][21]. The transmission of pathogens can occur through inhalation, close contact with infected animals, feces, litter, or contaminated objects, and inadequate biosecurity controls can result in significant economic losses [16]. As international trade expands, food safety concerns regarding the rapid spread of foodborne pathogens through the global food chain are increasing [15].
Moreover, environmental health concerns arise from the utilization of animal by-products, such as poultry manure and litter, in agriculture. Repeated use of these by-products as manure can lead to the accumulation of contaminants in agricultural soils, potentially increasing their bioavailability and toxicity in the environment [16]. Air sampling has been widely used to characterize occupational exposure to fungi, but it is important to consider the appropriate sampling period and the influence of variables such as ventilation and building features. Passive sampling methods, such as settled dust assessment, have been shown to be more reliable for collecting contamination over a longer period of time. Broiler manure and animal bedding have been identified as the primary sources of indoor air microbial contamination in the poultry industry [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29].
It is recommended to use a multiapproach sampling protocol for a more comprehensive understanding of microbial contamination. While culture-based methods have been primarily used for microbial characterization, culture-independent methods such as cloning approaches and quantitative real-time PCR have shown to be suitable for various bioaerosol measurements. Molecular tools, such as whole-genome sequencing, could provide more information on the biodiversity of microorganisms in these environments. Overall, these findings highlight the importance of considering various sampling methods and assays in the assessment of indoor microbial contamination in the poultry industry [30][31]. Studies on bioaerosols in poultry production are limited and identifying all organisms, both viable and non-culturable, is important for characterizing bioaerosols in these facilities [30]. Inhalation exposure to non-viable microorganism components such as endotoxins and mycotoxins may cause health hazards, so evaluating non-viable components may be useful for assessing pulmonary disease risk. Microbial assessment of poultry farms shows the presence of numerous microbes, including zoonotic pathogens, which can act as transport agents of airborne diseases [31][32]. Despite the growing threat of fungal infections to human health, there are fewer studies conducted on fungi (and also viruses) compared to bacteria, and this lack of attention and resources makes it challenging to determine the precise burden of fungal infections and to encourage policy and programmatic action [33].
Due to the extensive use of antibiotics in the livestock industry, these facilities are significant sources of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs). Therefore, multidrug-resistant bacterial pathogens may be transmitted through the inhalation of bioaerosols [34]. This explains the frequent screening for bacterial antimicrobial susceptibility by several studies [17][23][32][33][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42].
Several potentially pathogenic bacteria have been identified [23][33][43][44]. The potential dispersal pattern and distance of airborne bacteria and ARGs from these animal sources remain unknown [17]. However, it is important to note that clinically significant multidrug-resistant bacteria Staphylococcus sp. [17][33], E. coli [35], Campylobacter jejuni [41], among others, belonging to the WHO priority pathogens list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (2017), were isolated from poultry farms.
Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the first fungal priority pathogens list [25], listing 19 groups of human fungal pathogens associated with a high risk of mortality or morbidity. This formal recognition by the WHO highlights an important group of infections, which has been perennially neglected in terms of the awareness and research funding needed [26].
Regarding fungal assessment, despite the low number of studies (14 out of 58, 24%), several fungi comprising the critical priority group of the WHO list (2022), namely, A. fumigatus, were frequent in indoor air samples [45][46][47], along with Candida albicans [45]. Regarding the high-priority group, Fusarium sp. [18][45][47], the order Mucorales [47][48], and Candida tropicalis [46] were also some of the ones reported.
Concerning microbial components, endotoxin, a major component of the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria, poses a serious health risk [49]. Endotoxins found in airborne organic dust have been linked to respiratory disease in both humans and animals [49].
Regarding mycotoxins, some of the literature already evidenced occupational exposure in animal production facilities [48]. In fact, fungal species recognized as mycotoxin producers were reported in some of the selected studies [24][45][46][50]. Even though only one of the selected studies performed mycotoxin assessment, the obtained results are enough to hypothesize that workers in these settings may be at a higher risk of Aspergillus mycotoxicosis. Indeed, elevated concentrations of A. flavus and A. versicolor were recovered through environmental sampling. Additionally, through human biomonitoring, analysis of mycotoxins and/or their metabolites in blood and urine evidence detectable levels of the carcinogenic mycotoxin AFB1 [48].
Briefly, to mitigate and decrease such pollutants it is crucial to establish international standards for what constitutes good microbiological indicators from environmental samples, which could be used to guide risk reduction decisions and create effective incentives for people to follow such guidance, which have already been suggested [27].
Globally, temperature rises due to climate change have various impacts on ecosystems, human health, animal health, and food production, which also affect AMR [27].
The emergence of resistant fungal strains in occupational exposure scenarios has already been demonstrated [28][29]. Indeed, temperature increases may influence the susceptibility of pathogens (bacteria, fungi, and parasites) in chicken environments [51]. Thus, as in the case of bacteria, antifungal resistance should be addressed in further research [52][53]. Additionally, it is crucial to investigate the effects of heat stress on poultry production to formulate various effective mitigation strategies to reduce significant production losses [51].
The prevalent airborne microorganisms in animal production buildings are not well characterized in terms of quantity, composition, and risk group. Identification and quantification would be useful for determining the causative agents and performing risk assessments [54].
The poultry industry must be sustainable, and it needs to produce more with less, while benefiting all [55]. The sector must improve human, animal, and environmental health and welfare. Implementing a comprehensive and coordinated One Health approach that incorporates exposure assessment can help tackle threats to health and ecosystems [27], ensuring priority areas for action in order to mitigate microbial exposure, promoting a safe environment for workers and animals in poultry facilities, along with less environmental impact.
Overall, these findings highlight the need for improved biosecurity measures and environmental management practices to ensure animal health, food safety, and environmental sustainability in the poultry industry.

References

  1. IPBES. Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES); IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2020.
  2. Viegas, C.; Moniz, G.; Pargana, J.; Marques, S.; Resende, C.; Martins, C.; Arez, A.P.; Ceratto, N.; Viegas, S. Biodiversity and health: Investing in biodiversity protection towards health gains. In From Life Molecules to Global Health; Principia Editora: Parede, Portugal, 2021; Available online: https://principia.pt/livro/from-life-molecules-to-global-health/ (accessed on 23 January 2023).
  3. Sinclair, J.R. Importance of a One Health approach in advancing global health security and the Sustainable Development Goals. Rev. Sci. Tech. l’OIE 2019, 38, 145.
  4. Kumar, A.; Patyal, A. Impacts of intensive poultry farming on “one health” in developing countries: Challenges and remedies. Explor. Anim. Med. Res. 2020, 10, 100–111.
  5. Smit, L.A.M.; Heederik, D. Impacts of Intensive Livestock Production on Human Health in Densely Populated Regions. GeoHealth 2017, 1, 272–277.
  6. Gilbert, M.; Xiao, X.; Robinson, T.P. Intensifying poultry production systems and the emergence of avian influenza in China: A ‘One Health/Ecohealth’ epitome. Arch. Public Health 2017, 75, 48.
  7. Alizon, S.; Hurford, A.; Mideo, N.; Van Baalen, M. Virulence evolution and the trade-off hypothesis: History, current state of affairs and the future. J. Evol. Biol. 2009, 22, 245–259.
  8. Cruciani, D.; Crotti, S.; Maresca, C.; Pecorelli, I.; Verdini, E.; Rodolfi, M.; Scoccia, E.; Spina, S.; Valentini, A.; Agnetti, F. Preliminary Investigation about Aspergillus spp. Spread in Umbrian Avian Farms. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 1213.
  9. Layton, D.S.; Choudhary, A.; Bean, A.G.D. Breaking the chain of zoonoses through biosecurity in livestock. Vaccine 2017, 35, 5967–5973.
  10. Douphrate, D.I. Animal Agriculture and the One Health Approach. J. Agromed. 2021, 26, 85–87.
  11. FAO. Industrial Livestock Production and Global Health Risks: Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative: A Living from Livestock; Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative (PPLPI) Research Report; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2007.
  12. Sabino, R.; Faísca, V.M.; Carolino, E.; Veríssimo, C.; Viegas, C. Occupational exposure to Aspergillus by swine and poultry farm workers in Portugal. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A 2012, 75, 1381–1391.
  13. Codex Alimentarius Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) System and Guidelines for Its Application. 2003. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/y1579e/y1579e03.htm (accessed on 23 January 2023).
  14. Brauner, P.; Klug, K.; Jäckel, U. Eggshells as a source for occupational exposure to airborne bacteria in hatcheries. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2016, 13, 950–959.
  15. Awad, A.H.A.; Elmorsy, T.H.; Tarwater, P.M.; Green, C.F.; Gibbs, S.G. Air biocontamination in a variety of agricultural industry environments in Egypt: A pilot study. Aerobiologia 2010, 26, 223–232.
  16. Younis, F.; Salem, E.; Salem, E. Respiratory health disorders associated with occupational exposure to bioaerosols among workers in poultry breeding farms. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2020, 27, 19869–19876.
  17. Bai, H.; He, L.-Y.; Wu, D.-L.; Gao, F.-Z.; Zhang, M.; Zou, H.-Y.; Yao, M.-S.; Ying, G.-G. Spread of airborne antibiotic resistance from animal farms to the environment: Dispersal pattern and exposure risk. Environ. Int. 2022, 158, 106927.
  18. Viegas, C.; Carolino, E.; Malta-Vacas, J.; Sabino, R.; Viegas, S.; Veríssimo, C. Fungal Contamination of Poultry Litter: A Public Health Problem. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A 2012, 75, 1341–1350.
  19. Luiken, R.E.C.; Van Gompel, L.; Bossers, A.; Munk, P.; Joosten, P.; Hansen, R.B.; Knudsen, B.E.; García-Cobos, S.; Dewulf, J.; Aarestrup, F.M.; et al. Farm dust resistomes and bacterial microbiomes in European poultry and pig farms. Environ. Int. 2020, 143, 105971.
  20. Omeira, N.; Barbour, E.K.; Nehme, P.A.; Hamadeh, S.K.; Zurayk, R.; Bashour, I. Microbiological and chemical properties of litter from different chicken types and production systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 367, 156–162.
  21. Just, N.; Kirychuk, S.; Gilbert, Y.; Létourneau, V.; Veillette, M.; Singh, B.; Duchaine, C. Bacterial diversity characterization of bioaerosols from cage-housed and floor-housed poultry operations. Environ. Res. 2011, 111, 492–498.
  22. van Gerwe, T.; Miflin, J.K.; Templeton, J.M.; Bouma, A.; Wagenaar, J.A.; Jacobs-Reitsma, W.F.; Stegeman, A.; Klinkenberg, D. Quantifying Transmission of Campylobacter jejuni in Commercial Broiler Flocks. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 625–628.
  23. Banerjee, A.; Bardhan, R.; Chowdhury, M.; Joardar, S.N.; Isore, D.P.; Batabyal, K.; Dey, S.; Sar, T.K.; Bandyopadhyay, S.; Dutta, T.K.; et al. Characterization of beta-lactamase and biofilm producing Enterobacteriaceae isolated from organized and backyard farm ducks. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 69, 110–115.
  24. Chen, G.; Ma, D.; Huang, Q.; Tang, W.; Wei, M.; Li, Y.; Jiang, L.; Zhu, H.; Yu, X.; Zheng, W.; et al. Aerosol Concentrations and Fungal Communities Within Broiler Houses in Different Broiler Growth Stages in Summer. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 775502.
  25. WHO. WHO Fungal Priority Pathogens List to Guide Research, Development and Public Health Action. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240060241 (accessed on 22 February 2023).
  26. Fisher, M.C.; Denning, D.W. The WHO fungal priority pathogens list as a game-changer. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2023, 21, 1–2.
  27. UNEP Bracing for Superbugs: Strengthening Environmental Action in the One Health Response to Antimicrobial Resistance. Available online: http://www.unep.org/resources/superbugs/environmental-action (accessed on 27 February 2023).
  28. Viegas, C.; Cervantes, R.; Dias, M.; Gomes, B.; Pena, P.; Carolino, E.; Twarużek, M.; Kosicki, R.; Soszczyńska, E.; Viegas, S.; et al. Unveiling the Occupational Exposure to Microbial Contamination in Conservation-Restoration Settings. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1595.
  29. Viegas, C.; Gomes, B.; Dias, M.; Carolino, E.; Aranha Caetano, L. Aspergillus Section Fumigati in Firefighter Headquarters. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2112.
  30. Lee, S.-J.; Kim, K.-Y. On-Site Investigation of Airborne Bacteria and Fungi According to Type of Poultry Houses in South Korea. Processes 2021, 9, 1534.
  31. Roque, K.; Lim, G.-D.; Jo, J.-H.; Shin, K.-M.; Song, E.-S.; Gautam, R.; Kim, C.-Y.; Lee, K.; Shin, S.; Yoo, H.-S.; et al. Epizootiological characteristics of viable bacteria and fungi in indoor air from porcine, chicken, or bovine husbandry confinement buildings. J. Vet. Sci. 2016, 17, 531–538.
  32. Heuer, O.E.; Pedersen, K.; Andersen, J.S.; Madsen, M. Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci (VRE) in Broiler Flocks 5 Years after the Avoparcin Ban. Microb. Drug Resist. 2002, 8, 133–138.
  33. Bertolatti, D.; O’Brien, F.; Grubb, W. Characterization of drug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from poultry processing plants in Western Australia. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2003, 13, 43–54.
  34. Li, Z.; Zheng, W.; Wang, Y.; Li, B.; Wang, Y. Spatiotemporal variations in the association between particulate matter and airborne bacteria based on the size-resolved respiratory tract deposition in concentrated layer feeding operations. Environ. Int. 2021, 150, 106413.
  35. Savin, M.; Bierbaum, G.; Kreyenschmidt, J.; Schmithausen, R.; Sib, E.; Schmoger, S.; Käsbohrer, A.; Hammerl, J. Clinically Relevant Escherichia coli Isolates from Process Waters and Wastewater of Poultry and Pig Slaughterhouses in Germany. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 698.
  36. Amador, P.; Duarte, I.M.; Roberto da Costa, R.P.; Fernandes, R.; Prudêncio, C. Characterization of Antibiotic Resistance in Enterobacteriaceae From Agricultural Manure and Soil in Portugal. Soil Sci. 2017, 182, 292–301.
  37. Patuzzi, I.; Orsini, M.; Cibin, V.; Petrin, S.; Mastrorilli, E.; Tiengo, A.; Gobbo, F.; Catania, S.; Barco, L.; Ricci, A.; et al. The Interplay between Campylobacter and the Caecal Microbial Community of Commercial Broiler Chickens over Time. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 221.
  38. Doménech, E.; Jiménez-Belenguer, A.; Pérez, R.; Ferrús, M.A.; Escriche, I. Risk characterization of antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella in meat products. Food Control 2015, 57, 18–23.
  39. Moniri, R.; Dastehgoli, K. Fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli isolated from healthy broilers with previous exposure to fluoroquinolones: Is there a link? Microb. Ecol. Health Dis. 2005, 17, 69–74.
  40. Stern, N.J.; Robach, M.C. Enumeration of Campylobacter spp. in Broiler Feces and in Corresponding Processed Carcasses. J. Food Prot. 2003, 66, 1557–1563.
  41. Thibodeau, A.; Fravalo, P.; Laurent-Lewandowski, S.; Guévremont, E.; Quessy, S.; Letellier, A. Presence and characterization of Campylobacter jejuni in organically raised chickens in Quebec. Can. J. Vet. Res. 2011, 75, 298–307.
  42. Ahmed, M.F.E.; Ramadan, H.; Seinige, D.; Kehrenberg, C.; Abd El-Wahab, A.; Volkmann, N.; Kemper, N.; Schulz, J. Occurrence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, microbial loads, and endotoxin levels in dust from laying hen houses in Egypt. BMC Vet. Res. 2020, 16, 301.
  43. Fallschissel, K.; Kampfer, P.; Jäckel, U. Direct Detection of Salmonella Cells in the Air of Livestock Stables by Real-Time PCR. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2009, 53, 859–868.
  44. Bródka, K.; Kozajda, A.; Buczyńska, A.; Szadkowska-Stańczyk, I. The variability of bacterial aerosol in poultry houses depending on selected factors. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 2012, 25, 281–293.
  45. Plewa, K.; Lonc, E. Seasonal biodiversity of pathogenic fungi in farming air area. Case Study Wiad Parazytol. 2011, 57, 118–122.
  46. Sowiak, M.; Bródka, K.; Kozajda, A.; Buczyńska, A.; Szadkowska-Stańczyk, I. Fungal Aerosol in the Process of Poultry Breeding—Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis. Med. Pr. 2012, 63, 1–10.
  47. Lugauskas, A.; Krikstaponis, A.; Sveistyte, L. Airborne fungi in industrial environments--potential agents of respiratory diseases. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2004, 11, 19–25.
  48. Viegas, S.; Veiga, L.; Figueredo, P.; Almeida, A.; Carolino, E.; Sabino, R.; Veríssimo, C.; Viegas, C. Occupational exposure to aflatoxin B1 : The case of poultry and swine production. World Mycotoxin J. 2013, 6, 309–315.
  49. Pomorska, D.; Larsson, L.; Skórska, C.; Sitkowska, J.; Dutkiewicz, J. Levels of Bacterial Endotoxin in Air of Animal Houses Determined with the Use of Gas Chromatography—Mass Spectrometry and Limulus Test. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2007, 14, 291–298.
  50. Paba, E.; Chiominto, A.; Marcelloni, A.M.; Proietto, A.R.; Sisto, R. Exposure to Airborne Culturable Microorganisms and Endotoxin in Two Italian Poultry Slaughterhouses. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2014, 11, 469–478.
  51. Nawab, A.; Ibtisham, F.; Li, G.; Kieser, B.; Wu, J.; Liu, W.; Zhao, Y.; Nawab, Y.; Li, K.; Xiao, M.; et al. Heat stress in poultry production: Mitigation strategies to overcome the future challenges facing the global poultry industry. J. Therm. Biol. 2018, 78, 131–139.
  52. Dias, M.; Gomes, B.; Cervantes, R.; Pena, P.; Viegas, S.; Viegas, C. Microbial Occupational Exposure Assessments in Sawmills—A Review. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 266.
  53. Gomes, B.; Pena, P.; Cervantes, R.; Dias, M.; Viegas, C. Microbial Contamination of Bedding Material: One Health in Poultry Production. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16508.
  54. Martin, E.; Dziurowitz, N.; Jäckel, U.; Schäfer, J. Detection of Airborne Bacteria in a Duck Production Facility with Two Different Personal Air Sampling Devices for an Exposure Assessment. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2015, 12, 77–86.
  55. Mottet, A.; Tempio, G. Global poultry production: Current state and future outlook and challenges. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2017, 73, 245–256.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Bianca Gomes
,
Marta Dias
,
Renata Cervantes
,
Pedro Pena
,
Joana Santos
,
Marta Vasconcelos Pinto
,
Carla Viegas
View Times: 336
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 21 Apr 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback