The effects of biotic treatments on degradation of antimicrobials and coccidiostats in broiler litter used as ruminant feed

IF 5.8 3区 环境科学与生态学 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Solomon Efriem, Sameer J. Mabjeesh, Chris Sabastian, Malka Britzi
{"title":"The effects of biotic treatments on degradation of antimicrobials and coccidiostats in broiler litter used as ruminant feed","authors":"Solomon Efriem,&nbsp;Sameer J. Mabjeesh,&nbsp;Chris Sabastian,&nbsp;Malka Britzi","doi":"10.1007/s11356-025-36535-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>While broiler litter (BL) represents a valuable protein source for ruminant feed, the presence of pharmaceutical residues poses significant concerns for food safety and antimicrobial resistance. Previous research has primarily focused on composting and aerobic digestion of BL, leaving a critical knowledge gap regarding the comparative efficacy of economically viable treatment methods. This study presents the first systematic comparison of three cost-effective treatments—stacking, aerobic, and anaerobic processing—specifically analyzing their impacts on pharmaceutical compound degradation in BL intended for ruminant feed. Using LC/MS/MS analysis, we evaluated the degradation patterns of 29 antimicrobials and coccidiostats under controlled conditions, while simultaneously monitoring key parameters including temperature kinetics, pH fluctuations, short-chain volatile fatty acids (SCVFA), and nutritional content. Our findings revealed that stacking treatment demonstrated superior degradation efficiency for most compounds, achieving &gt; 95% degradation for key antimicrobials and 54.9–74.7% for commonly used coccidiostats. Notably, the stacking method maintained optimal crude protein levels (32–34.8%) while reducing moisture content by 29.5–34.6%. Temperature profiles showed distinct patterns: aerobic treatment reached 60 °C within 24 h, while stacking achieved 50 °C over 2 weeks, both significantly outperforming anaerobic treatment (38 °C). This research provides the first comparative evidence for selecting cost-effective BL treatment methods, offering practical guidelines for agricultural operations to minimize pharmaceutical residues while preserving nutritional value for ruminant feed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":545,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science and Pollution Research","volume":"32 24","pages":"14537 - 14549"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12202678/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science and Pollution Research","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-025-36535-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While broiler litter (BL) represents a valuable protein source for ruminant feed, the presence of pharmaceutical residues poses significant concerns for food safety and antimicrobial resistance. Previous research has primarily focused on composting and aerobic digestion of BL, leaving a critical knowledge gap regarding the comparative efficacy of economically viable treatment methods. This study presents the first systematic comparison of three cost-effective treatments—stacking, aerobic, and anaerobic processing—specifically analyzing their impacts on pharmaceutical compound degradation in BL intended for ruminant feed. Using LC/MS/MS analysis, we evaluated the degradation patterns of 29 antimicrobials and coccidiostats under controlled conditions, while simultaneously monitoring key parameters including temperature kinetics, pH fluctuations, short-chain volatile fatty acids (SCVFA), and nutritional content. Our findings revealed that stacking treatment demonstrated superior degradation efficiency for most compounds, achieving > 95% degradation for key antimicrobials and 54.9–74.7% for commonly used coccidiostats. Notably, the stacking method maintained optimal crude protein levels (32–34.8%) while reducing moisture content by 29.5–34.6%. Temperature profiles showed distinct patterns: aerobic treatment reached 60 °C within 24 h, while stacking achieved 50 °C over 2 weeks, both significantly outperforming anaerobic treatment (38 °C). This research provides the first comparative evidence for selecting cost-effective BL treatment methods, offering practical guidelines for agricultural operations to minimize pharmaceutical residues while preserving nutritional value for ruminant feed.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

生物处理对反刍肉鸡窝产仔中抗菌剂和抗球虫药物降解的影响。
虽然肉仔鸡窝(BL)是反刍动物饲料中宝贵的蛋白质来源,但药物残留的存在对食品安全和抗菌素耐药性提出了重大关切。以前的研究主要集中在BL的堆肥和好氧消化上,在经济可行的处理方法的比较效果方面留下了关键的知识空白。本研究首次系统比较了三种具有成本效益的处理方法——堆垛、好氧和厌氧处理——具体分析了它们对反刍动物饲料BL中药物化合物降解的影响。采用液相色谱/质谱/质谱分析,研究了29种抗菌药物和抗球藻药在受控条件下的降解模式,同时监测了温度动力学、pH波动、短链挥发性脂肪酸(SCVFA)和营养成分等关键参数。研究结果表明,堆积处理对大多数化合物的降解效率较高,对关键抗菌素的降解率为95%,对常用抗球虫药的降解率为54.9-74.7%。值得注意的是,堆垛法保持了最佳的粗蛋白质水平(32 ~ 34.8%),同时降低了29.5 ~ 34.6%的水分含量。温度分布显示出不同的模式:好氧处理在24小时内达到60°C,而堆叠在2周内达到50°C,两者都明显优于厌氧处理(38°C)。该研究为选择具有成本效益的BL处理方法提供了第一个比较证据,为农业经营提供了实用指南,以尽量减少药物残留,同时保持反刍动物饲料的营养价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
17.20%
发文量
6549
审稿时长
3.8 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Science and Pollution Research (ESPR) serves the international community in all areas of Environmental Science and related subjects with emphasis on chemical compounds. This includes: - Terrestrial Biology and Ecology - Aquatic Biology and Ecology - Atmospheric Chemistry - Environmental Microbiology/Biobased Energy Sources - Phytoremediation and Ecosystem Restoration - Environmental Analyses and Monitoring - Assessment of Risks and Interactions of Pollutants in the Environment - Conservation Biology and Sustainable Agriculture - Impact of Chemicals/Pollutants on Human and Animal Health It reports from a broad interdisciplinary outlook.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信