| Literature DB >> 36187968 |
Luminita Gabriela Marutescu1,2, Mihaela Jaga1, Carmen Postolache2, Florica Barbuceanu2,3,4, Nicoleta Manuela Milita2,3,4, Luminita Maria Romascu2,3,4, Heike Schmitt5, Ana Maria de Roda Husman5, Paria Sefeedpari6, Stefanie Glaeser7, Peter Kämpfer7, Patrick Boerlin8, Edward Topp8,9, Gratiela Gradisteanu Pircalabioru1,2,10, Mariana Carmen Chifiriuc1,2,10,11, Marcela Popa1,2.
Abstract
The intensive use of antibiotics in the veterinary sector, linked to the application of manure-derived amendments in agriculture, translates into increased environmental levels of chemical residues, AR bacteria (ARB) and antibiotic resistance genes (ARG). The aim of this review was to evaluate the current evidence regarding the impact of animal farming and manure application on the antibiotic resistance pool in the environment. Several studies reported correlations between the prevalence of clinically relevant ARB and the amount and classes of antibiotics used in animal farming (high resistance rates being reported for medically important antibiotics such as penicillins, tetracyclines, sulfonamides and fluoroquinolones). However, the results are difficult to compare, due to the diversity of the used antimicrobials quantification techniques and to the different amounts and types of antibiotics, exhibiting various degradation times, given in animal feed in different countries. The soils fertilized with manure-derived products harbor a higher and chronic abundance of ARB, multiple ARG and an enriched associated mobilome, which is also sometimes seen in the crops grown on the amended soils. Different manure processing techniques have various efficiencies in the removal of antibiotic residues, ARB and ARGs, but there is only a small amount of data from commercial farms. The efficiency of sludge anaerobic digestion appears to be dependent on the microbial communities composition, the ARB/ARG and operating temperature (mesophilic vs. thermophilic conditions). Composting seems to reduce or eliminate most of antibiotics residues, enteric bacteria, ARB and different representative ARG in manure more rapidly and effectively than lagoon storage. Our review highlights that despite the body of research accumulated in the last years, there are still important knowledge gaps regarding the contribution of manure to the AMR emergence, accumulation, spread and risk of human exposure in countries with high clinical resistance rates. Land microbiome before and after manure application, efficiency of different manure treatment techniques in decreasing the AMR levels in the natural environments and along the food chain must be investigated in depth, covering different geographical regions and countries and using harmonized methodologies. The support of stakeholders is required for the development of specific best practices for prudent - cautious use of antibiotics on farm animals. The use of human reserve antibiotics in veterinary medicine and of unprescribed animal antimicrobials should be stopped and the use of antibiotics on farms must be limited. This integrated approach is needed to determine the optimal conditions for the removal of antibiotic residues, ARB and ARG, to formulate specific recommendations for livestock manure treatment, storage and handling procedures and to translate them into practical on-farm management decisions, to ultimately prevent exposure of human population.Entities:
Keywords: anaerobic digestion; antibiotic residues; antibiotic resistance genes; antibiotic resistant bacteria; antimicrobial resistance; manure
Year: 2022 PMID: 36187968 PMCID: PMC9522911 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.965132
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Figure 1Reported sales of veterinary antimicrobials by country in 2017 (Tiseo et al., 2020). The figure is created using Biorender.com.
Figure 2Major classes of antibiotics and representatives used in livestock production. The figure is created using Biorender.com.
The amount of antibiotics detected in poultry, swine and cattle manure in different countries.
| Animal manure | Classes of antibiotics (antibiotics) | Concentration (mg/kg) | Country | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poultry | Quinolones | 0–1,421 | China | |
| Sulfonamides | 0–6 | Austria |
| |
| Sulfonamides | 0-51 | China |
| |
| Tetracyclines | 0-66 | US |
| |
| Diaminopyrimidines | 0–17 | Austria |
| |
| Swine | Quinolones | 0.006–0.033 | Belgium |
|
| Sulfonamides | 0–100 | US | ||
| Sulfonamides | 0.02-3 | Belgium |
| |
| Polymyxins | 0.6–48.6 | Belgium |
| |
| Tetracyclines | 0.6–66 | Germany | ||
| Tetracyclines | 0.011–3.8 | Belgium, Spain | ||
| Tetracyclines | 0.013-0.058 | Belgium | ||
| Tetracyclines | 0.4 – 22 | Belgium | ||
| Cattle | Quinolones | 0.4–46 | China | |
| Sulfonamides | 0–0.4 | US | ||
| Tetracyclines | 0–1.2 | US | ||
| Tetracyclines | 0-20 | Italy | ||
| Tetracyclines | 0-0.1 | US | ||
| Tetracyclines | 0-0.02 | Germany, Spain |
Figure 3Graphic representation of the highest concentrations of antibiotics detected in animal manure (cattle, poultry, swine), reported in different studies. The figure is created using Biorender.com.
Figure 4Contribution of manure to the flux of antibiotics from livestock to the natural environment. The figure is created using Biorender.com.
ARB found in manure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poultry manure |
| TET, SXT, CHL, AMC | MDR (71%) | Portugal |
|
| Pig manure |
| TET, SXT, CHL, AMC, ATM, CTX | MDR (79%) | Portugal |
|
| Cattle manure |
| AMC, TET, CHL, SXT MEM | MDR (69%) | Portugal |
|
| Pig manure |
| CHL, SXT, DOX, S, AK, CS, IMP, NN | ESBL (1.6%) | Germany |
|
| Pig manure |
| DOX, ERY, RIF, IMP, LZD | MDR (76.2%) | Germany |
|
| Pig manure |
| RIF, ERY, DA, DOX, EFX, FOS, MOX, S | MDR (87.9%) | Germany |
|
| Mixed manure of livestock husbandry |
| ESBL | Germany |
| |
| Pig manure |
| S, SXZ, TET, CTF, CRO, FOX | MDR (58.73%) | US |
|
| Poultry manure |
| VAN, TET, SXT, CIP, ERY, BA | VRE (14.4%) | Greece |
|
| Poultry manure |
| QD, ERY, CIP, DA, GEN | US |
| |
| Poultry manure |
| DA, GEN, ERY, TET | US |
| |
| Poultry manure |
| ERY, SG, TET | US |
| |
| Chicken and pig manure |
| AMC, CTX, GEN, KAN, TE, CIP, ERY, SXT, CHL, VAN | China |
| |
| Cattle manure |
| AMP, AZT, CTX, CAZ, CHL, CIP, GEN, NA, SXT, TET, TMP | Belgium |
| |
| Faecal samples of broilers, pigs, dairy cows, calves |
| AMP, AMC, CTX, CRO, TET, SXT, TMP, CHL, GEN | ESBL/AmpC (32.6% in broilers) | Netherlands |
|
| Fecal specimen of broiler pigs and dairy cattle |
| ESBL | Germany |
|
TET, tetracycline; DOX, doxycycline; S, sulphonamides; TMP, trimethoprim; SXT, cotrimoxazole; CHL, chloramphenicol; AMC, amoxicillin + clavulanic acid; ATM, aztreonam; MEM, meropenem; IMP, imipenem; CTX, cefotaxime; CTF, ceftiofur; CRO, ceftriaxone; FOX, cefoxitin; AK, amikacin; NN, tobramycin; GEN, gentamicin; KAN, kanamycin; CS, colistin sulfate; ERY, erythromycin; DA, clindamycin; RIF, rifampicin; LZD, linezolid; FOS, fosfomycin; NA, nalidixic acid; EFX, enrofloxacin; MOX, moxifloxacin; CIP, ciprofloxacin; VAN, vancomycin; BA, boronic acid; QD, quinupristin-dalfopristin; SG, streptogramin.
The ARGs detected in animal manure.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Pig and chicken |
|
|
| Pig and chicken |
|
|
| Dairy |
| |
| Dairy and pig |
| |
| Pig |
|
|
| Dairy | ||
| Pig and chicken | ||
| Dairy |
| |
| Dairy and pig |
| |
| Dairy cattle and swine |
| |
| Dairy manure |
| |
| Pig and chicken |
|
|
| Pig and chicken |
|
|
| Pig and chicken |
| |
| Dairy | ||
| Pig and chicken |
|
|
| Dairy cattle and swine farms |
|
|
| Cattle, swine, poultry, and pork |
|
|
| Cattle |
|
|
| Cattle |
|
|
| Pig |
|
|
| Pig |
|
|
| Dairy cattle, chickens and swine manure |
|
|
Figure 5Effects of manure treatment on ABs and ARB, ARGs. The figure is created using Biorender.com.
Figure 6Comparative representation of the DT50 of different antibiotics during AD and composting of different types of manure (poultry, swine, cattle, turkey), reported in different studies (Osman et al., 2006; Dolliver et al., 2008; Alvarez et al., 2010; Hu et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2012; Selvam et al., 2012; Ray et al., 2017; Kasumba et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2020). The figure is created using Biorender.com.