Fungi and Oomycetes

### **Chapter 6**

## Fungi and Oomycetes–Allies in Eliminating Environmental Pathogens

*Iasmina Luca*

### **Abstract**

Fungi and oomycetes are the subjects of numerous current research studies. These are natural agents that can control parasitic populations, and arthropod populations with a role in the transmission of various diseases but can also eliminate various pollutants that are found in the external environment. Therefore, their conservation and exploitation are a global necessity, due to the benefits they confer on the quality of life of animals, but also of humans. Science must be aimed at finding a balance between the different constituents of the ecosystem and establishing coexistence relationships that are beneficial to all. Thus, research should be directed at investigating the potential actions of fungi and oomycetes against the various agents with which they coexist naturally in the external environment. This chapter provides information regarding the mechanism of action of these natural constituents and updates information on the species of fungi and oomycetes that have been studied so far. Thus, readers can have a base in this field and can further exploit what they have discovered to continue to improve the welfare of animals, addressing an ecological and healthy vision.

**Keywords:** ecological action, fungi, oomycetes, cleaning

### **1. Introduction**

Plants and animals coexist in a certain balance within the ecosystem, together with fungi, oomycetes, bacteria, viruses, and parasites.

Currently, about 75.000 species of fungi have been described, many of which are still unclassified [1]. Also, in the category of fungi, oomycetes have been included in the past. Detailed studies have highlighted their morphological and functional differences, the oomycetes being now included in the phylum *Oomycota* [2]. Both fungi and oomycetes are found in various symbiotic relationships and can be saprophytes or parasites [3]. These relationships can be exploited in creating ideal habitats for animals.

Many bacteria, viruses, and single-celled parasites can be carried by arthropods (insects, mites) or other vectors (amoebas) and can be sources of infection, causing many diseases in animals. Fungi and oomycetes can use different mechanisms by which they can eliminate these vectors. They can also be involved in the detoxification of the environment from numerous pollutants and can be considered important agents in the biocontrol of some animal parasites. In removing amoebae, fungi use hyphae that function as "sticky extensions" that capture "prey" or can parasitize internally, causing amoebae death by sporulation [4]. Sprayed in the form of a solution on the body of insects, more precisely on the body of mosquitoes, the fungi attach themselves through the conidia to their cuticle. Then begins the germination and dispersal of spores in the hemocoel. At this level, the evolutionary cycle of fungi continues with the multiplication of hyphae, which gradually kill the host by colonizing the trachea and producing toxins, after which the fungi leave their body [5, 6]. In eliminating the larval forms of some insects, the fungi also through the conidia block the siphon region and thus determine the death by asphyxiation of the hosts [6]. The same mechanisms have been reported in the elimination of evolutionary stages of ticks. An important role in the fixation and adhesion of conidia at the cuticular level is played by hydrophobins and adhesins, as proteins, but also lipase and esterase, as enzymes [7–9].

Certain pollutants, such as pesticides, can be battered by various fungi through numerous chemical processes (deoxygenation, hydroxylation, esterification, or dehydrogenation) [10]. Certain heavy metals in the environment can be inactivated by organic acids and siderophores (metabolites) of fungi [11]. Enzymes also play an important role in bioremediation, among them can be mentioned: cellulase, lipase, protease, peroxidase, amylase, chitinase, catalase, laccase, xylanase, etc. [12].

In the management of parasitic populations, especially nematode populations found in animals, fungi use complex mechanisms to eliminate these pathogens. The first stage is the recognition between the fungus and the nematode. Fungi adhere to the body of nematodes through lecithin that binds to carbohydrate receptors located in the cuticle of the parasite [13, 14]. Adhesion is facilitated by fungal spores and protein fibrils that form nematode-trapping traps. The fibrils are arranged in a network or perpendicular to the external surface of the nematodes, after which they easily penetrate their body. The penetration step involves the release of hydrolytic enzymes and the application of progressive pressure on the parasite's cuticle [15]. After complete penetration of the cuticle, the formation and multiplication of hyphae begin. Gradually the fungi digest the nematodes internally. Nutrients are captured in the hyphae in lipid droplets or are fixed and carried by lecithin [16]. The same steps are observed in the case of oomycetes. They adhere to the surface of parasite eggs or larvae, through hyphae, after which they penetrate the egg wall or larval cuticle, releasing various enzymes (various exoglycosidases, kinases, endo-β-1,3-glucanases, and cellulases). Gradually, they digest and destroy the internal contents through hyphae and zoospores that form continuously [17].

Another method of removing nematodes is using adhesive nets, hyphae, or knobs forming constricting rings together. Through the movements and body heat, the nematodes trigger the complete tightening of the rings around them and the exteriorization of a penetrating tube where the internal multiplication of the hyphae begins [18]. Certain fungi can spread to the surface of the body of nematodes or larvae, including the wall of nematode eggs. Gradually the sporulation takes place internally, having an ovicidal, larvicidal, or adulticidal effect [19, 20]. An ovicidal effect can be exerted by fungi also through hyphae, more precisely through oppressors, secondary metabolites, and the toxins they contain [19]. The same toxins can cause paralysis of adult nematodes [19].

The following subchapters contain information related to fungal species, but also oomycetes that can be used successfully in the elimination of various animal pathogens.

### **2. Elimination of vectors involved in the transmission of various diseases to animals**

### **2.1 Amoebae**

Amoebae are protozoa that can live freely in very different environments or can be parasitic, surviving in different hosts. Free amoebae are present in the external environment in soil, water, and air, but are also used in various medical fields, such as dialysis centers and dentistry [21]. Parasitic amoebae (*Entamoeba* spp. and *Balantidium* spp.) are found in animals' intestines [22].

In veterinary medicine, only four classes of free amoebae have pathogenic potential: *Acanthamoeba*, *Naegleria*, *Balamuthia,* and *Sappinia* [23]. Each class determines certain clinical manifestations of amoebiasis. *Acanthamoeba* enters the animal body by respiration or skin and through the circulation reaches the central nervous system, causing amoebic granulomatous encephalitis (GAE) [21, 24, 25]. The evolution of the disease is slow, and long-lasting [26]. Certain species of the genus *Balamuthia* (*Balamuthia mandrillaris*) cause similar lesions, respectively: granulomatous *Balamuthia encephalitis* (BAE) [27]. The route of infection is predominantly cutaneous [28]. *Sappiniae* amoebic encephalitis (SAE) is caused by two species, *Sappinia diploidea* and *Sappinia pedata* [29]. From the *Naegleria* class, *Naegleria fowleri* is important. It is found in water and can be accidentally inhaled by animals while swimming [30]. The location is also in the brain, but the migration route is a nerve (olfactory nerve pathway) [18]. The characteristic lesion caused by this class of amoebas is meningoencephalitis, which develops with diffuse cerebral edema [30].

An important role in the circulation of certain pathogens has the amoebas of the *Acanthamoeba* class. Among the pathogens are bacteria (*Listeria monocytogenes*, *Pseudomonas aeruginosa*, *Rickettsia*-like, *Salmonella enterica*, *S. thyphimurium*, *Yersinia enterocolitica*, *Campylobacter jejuni*, *M. avium*, *M. bovis*, *Bacillus anthracis*, *Escherichia coli* O157, *Helicobacter pylori*, *Chlamydia pneumoniae*, *Coxiella burnetii*, *Francisella tularensis*) [31–42], fungi (*Cryptosporidium parvum*, *Cryptococcus neoformans*) [43–45] and a limited number of viruses (*Adenoviridae*) [46].

Numerous researchers aim to use amoebophagous fungi in the elimination of vectors and in the prevention of many diseases that can be transmitted to animals. They can act as parasites or predators. Among the fungi with the role of parasites, which invade and multiply inside the amoebae, are found *C. neoformans*, *Blastomyces dermatitidis*, *Sporothrix schenckii*, *Histoplasma capsulatum*, *Aspergillus* spp., *Penicillium* spp. and *Fusarium* spp. [23, 43, 47–50]. There are species of fungi that multiply in the nucleus (*Nucleophaga* sp.) [51] or others that multiply in the cytoplasm of amoebas (*Sphaerita*, *Pseudosphaerita*) [4]. Species such as *Paramicrosporidium* can cause degeneration and changes in the nuclear and plasma membranes of amoebae [52, 53]. Amoeba trophozoites can be parasitized by *Cochlonema* species [54–57] or can be captured by hyphae of fungi, such as *Stylopage* [58] and *Acaulopage* [59, 60]. Mycotoxins produced by fungi also have a role in the degeneration and decomposition of trophozoite or cyst forms of amoebae [61]. Thus, ameobophagous fungi can be used in the elimination of pathogens carried by amoebae, by applying and cultivating them in soils and waters.

### **2.2 Insects**

Globally, insects can be found in many habitats [62]. They have an important role in all terrestrial ecosystems, intervening in soil fertilization by circulating nutrients and seeds, but also in plant pollination. Thus, they are essential for maintaining

optimal qualities in the development of agriculture [63]. Another role with a major impact on the quality of life of animals is the fact that insects are a nutritional basis for them [64]. The larval and adult stages are the most frequently consumed by animals.

In veterinary medicine, the role of insects is very important. Like amoebae, they can transmit various diseases from one animal to another. *Diptera*, insects, flies, and mosquitoes have a major impact on animal health. Culicoids can carry viruses such as BTV (bluetongue virus), AHSV (African horse sickness virus), EHDV (Epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus), and Akabane virus [65]. Newcastle disease [66], certain bacterial agents (*E. coli*, *Salmonella*, *Shigella* spp., *S. aureus*, *Campylobacter*) and parasites (*E. vermicularis*, *S. stercoralis*, *T. canis*, *Trichomona*s, *Diphyllobothrium*, *Taenia*, *Dipylidium*, *Entamoeba histolytica*, *Giardia lamblia*) can be mechanically carried by flies, especially the domestic fly [67–69]. Mosquitoes, in turn, can carry many pathogens, such as West Nile virus, Rift Valley fever virus, Wesselsbron virus, Middelburg virus, Israel Turkey encephalitis virus, Usutu virus, Batai virus, Sindbis virus, Japanese encephalitis virus, St. Louis encephalitis virus, Eastern equine encephalitis virus, Western equine encephalitis virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, Tembusu virus, *Wuchereria bancrofti*, *Plasmodium relictum* (avian malaria), *T. corvi* (avian trypanosomiasis), *Chandlerella quiscali* (avian filarial worms), *Dirofilaria repens* and *Dirofilaria immitis* [70–79].

The use of pyrethroids as insecticides is the most widely used method of control. However, recent research aims to apply fungi, in various forms, as an ecological method of controlling insect populations [80]. Ansari et al. [81] used the conidia of several species of fungi against culicid adults. The species chosen were *Metarhizium anisopliae* V275, *Isaria fumosorosea* PFR 97, *Isaria fumosorosea* CLO 55, *Beauveria bassiana* BG and *Lecanicillium longisporum*. Conidia were applied in the form of dry conidia and wet conidia, the first variant being the most effective, causing the death of all individuals after 5 days. The most virulent strain of the fungus was *Metarhizium anisopliae* V275 [81]. The same fungus was effective against larval forms of culicids, houseflies, horn flies, and mosquitoes [82–86]. Other authors have reported a larvicidal potential of *Culicinomyces clavisporus* against culicids [87]. Fly larvae, mosquitoes, and culicids have also been eliminated by *Beauveria bassiana*, with many studies reporting this [83–86]. This fungus has led to the death of culicid larvae of the species *Culex tarsalis*, *Culex pipiens*, *Anopheles albimanus*, *Ochlerotatus sierrensis*, *Ochlerotatus nigromaculis,* and *Aedes aegypti* [88]. Ong'wen et al. [89] tested the simultaneous action of dragonfly nymphs *Pantala favescens* and *B. bassiana* spores against *Anopheles gambiae* mosquitoes. They observed that the larvae exposed to the action of nymphs (predatory role) were much more vulnerable, in the adult stage, to the action of *B. bassiana* spores [89]. Ishii et al. [90] demonstrated the adulticidal action of *B. bassiana* conidia against *An. stephensi* mosquitoes*.* Seven days after exposure, the insect's body was completely invaded by hyphae [90]. Oomycetes *Lagenidium giganteum*, *Aphanomyces laevis*, *Couchia* spp., *Crypticola* spp., *Leptolegnia caudata* and *Pythium* spp. can kill mosquito larvae through mycelium and oospores [91, 92].

### **2.3 Ticks**

Ticks are parasitic mites, which require, for the complete development and completion of the biological cycle, a blood-feed on the vertebrates involved. The tick population is extremely numerous in the warm season, being an important agent

*Fungi and Oomycetes–Allies in Eliminating Environmental Pathogens DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106498*

for transmitting contagious diseases to animals, but also humans. They can carry bacteria (*Borrelia*, *Ehrlichia*, *Anaplasma*, *Coxiella*, *Brucella*, *Francisella tulacobacteria*, *Rickettsia* spp.) [93–95], piroplasmas (*Babesia*, *Theileria*), but also protozoa (*Cytauxzoon*, *Hepatozoon*) [76].

Biological control of ticks can be achieved by using entomopathogenic fungi. Currently, many fungi are known with a high potential to eliminate various evolutionary forms of ticks. Among them are: *Beauveria bassiana*, *Beauveria brognardi*, *Metarhizium anisopliae*, *Metarhizium robertsii*, *Metarhizium brunneum*, *Fusarium* sp., *Aspergillus fumigatus*, *Aspergillus ochraceus*, *Aspergillus flavus*, *Aspergillus niger*, *Aspergillus parasiticus*, *Isaria fumosorosea*, *Scopulariopsis brevicaulis*, *Paecilomyces lilacinus*, *Paecilomyces farinosus*, *Paecilomyces fumosoroseus*, *Penicillium insectivorum*, *Conidiobolus coronatus*, *Trichothecium roseum*, *Verticillium aranearum*, *Verticillium lecanii*, *Isaria fumosorosea*, *Isaria farinose*, *Curvularia lunata*, *Rhizopus thailandensis*, and *Rhizopus arrhizus* [96–114].

Depending on the evolutionary stage, the action of certain fungi is different. Eggs are the most sensitive and nymphs are the most resistant [115, 116]. A high ovicidal action against *Boophilus microplus* eggs were observed in *Verticillium lecanii* (strains LBV-2 and LBV-1) and lower in *Beauveria bassiana* [117]. A decrease in hatching capacity and indirectly the number of larvae formed have been reported by some authors regarding the action of *I. fumosorosea* [112]. The same effect was indicated for *Isaria farinosa* and *Purpureocillium lilacinum* [112]. *Metarhizium anisopliae* Ma-z4 has larvicidal action on the same species of ticks mentioned above [118]. In the case of adult females of *B. microplus*, the isolates E9 and AM of *Metarhizium anisopliae*, applied to the body of animals through spores in a concentration of 7.5 × 108 conidia/ ml, determined high mortality and negatively influenced the number of eggs laid by females [119]. A pronounced acaricidal effect on adult females of *Dermanyssus gallinae* was noted in *B. bassiana* CD1123 conidia, applied at a concentration of 109 /ml [120]. An ovicidal, larvicidal, and adulticidal effect against *Argas reflexus* ticks has been reported in V245, 685, and 715C of *Metarhizium anisopliae*, the first strain being the most pathogenic [121]. High mortality, observed starting one week after application, was also recorded in females of *Rhipicephalus annulatus* exposed to the action of *Metarhizium anisopliae* [122].

*Varroa destructor* mites are important in veterinary medicine as a consequence of the devastating effects induced in bee populations. Honey is an intense natural product used in various diseases in animals. It helps to heal wounds [123, 124], to treat gastric ulcers, and can be used as an adjunct in the treatment of diabetes, certain bacterial or parasitic infections, and in stopping the growth of tumors [125]. So, protecting bees is undoubtedly fundamental. The scientific research has brought favorable results regarding the use of the following fungi against *V. destructor* mites: *Beauveria bassiana*, *Hirsutella* spp., *Metarhizium* spp., *Paecilomyces* spp., *Tolypocladium* spp., *Verticillium lecanii*, *Clonostachys rosea* and *Lecanicillium lecanii* [126–133].

### **3. Environmental detoxification**

Currently, our planet is going through continuous degradation due to the numerous pollutants accumulated in soils, waters, and air. Many of them are difficult to decompose. The current trend in research concerns the concept of bioremediation. It refers to the use of certain microbes in various habitats to metabolize various pollutants [134, 135]. Fungi have been intensively studied, their potential to cleanse

the planet being recognized by many researchers. Detoxified soils are more fertile, ensuring rapid growth of plants, their nutritional qualities being better preserved. Indirectly, fungi provide animals with adequate food. The same is true of detoxifying water and air: it improves the quality of life of animals.

### **3.1 Heavy metals in the soil**

Animals exposed for a long time to the action of heavy metals have developed developmental problems, spermatogenesis, neurological, renal, and liver problems [136]. Their carcinogenic potential has also been reported [137].

The action of fungi on heavy metals in the soil (Pb, Cd, Cu, Zn, Cr, Ni, Ag) is mediated by external temperature, but also by pH, the whole detoxification process being explained by the phenomena of bioabsorption, bioconcentration, and biotransformation [138]. Among the effective fungi are *Beauveria bassiana*, *Aspergillus* sp., *Fusarium* sp., *Penicillium chrysogenum*, *Rhizopus* sp., and *Absidia* [139–143].

### **3.2 Pesticides in wastewater**

Wastewater is subject to filtration and treatment, as it can be an important source of pesticides, with harmful effects on the environment and animals. Currently, certain fungi capable of eliminating these pollutants have been identified. Hultberg and Bodin [144] used experimentally a combination of *Chlorella vulgaris* (algae) and *Aspergillus niger* and observed a significant reduction in the concentration of pesticides present in water. Piazides based on triazines, dicarboximides, and organophosphates can be successfully degraded by *Verticillium* sp. (H5) and *Metacordyceps* sp. (H12) [145].

Certain residual insecticides, such as endosulfan, can be deteriorated by *Penicillium chrysogenum*, *Bacillus subtilis*, *Aspergillus terreus*, *Aspergillus flavus*, *Aspergillus niger*, *Fusarium ventricosum,* and *Cladosporium oxysporum* [146–148]. Mohammed and Badawy [149] indicate the use of *A. terreus* YESM3 in the elimination of the insecticide imidacloprid.

### **3.3 Various pollutants from soil, water, and air**

Xenobiotic compounds are chemicals that enter the animal body in numerous ways (digestive, respiratory, parenteral) and are various. Reproductive problems (infertility, abortion) have been reported in animals following exposure [150]. Many plant constituents, various pesticides, medicinal products, feed additives, or industrial chemicals, are considered xenobiotics [151]. They have been successfully degraded by species of white-rot fungi (*Pleurotus* spp., *Agaricus bisporus*, *Bjerkandera adusta*, *Phanerochaete chrysosporium*, *Irpex lacteus*, *Lentinula edodes*, *Trametes versicolor*) [152].

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are found in the form of aerosol particles and can enter the body through the respiratory tract. Prolonged exposure to these constituents has devastating effects on the body. They can adversely affect the endocrine, reproductive, immune, and nervous systems. It also has a carcinogenic and teratogenic action [153]. *Polyporus* sp. S133, *Hypocrea,* and *Fusarium* can decompose polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [10]. Recent studies show that the *Pythium aphanidermatum* oomycete intensifies the action of *Mycobacterium gilvum* VM552 and *Pseudomonas putida* G7 against the pollutants mentioned [154].

### **4. Biocontrol of animal parasitosis**

Parasites are pathogens that can survive in the body of animals for long periods, significantly affecting their quality of life. Depending on the class they belong to (Protozoa, Trematodes, Cestodes, Nematodes), they can be diagnosed in different age categories of the hosts [155]. There are many ways to infest animals, with a major impact on the digestive tract. In this way, the hosts can ingest from the external environment eggs or larvae of parasites. Adult forms usually survive in various animal organs. In stopping the evolutionary cycle of parasites, the veterinarian must take several preventive measures. These are undoubtedly necessary, due to the zoonotic potential of certain parasites. To eliminate and kill the adult forms, but also certain larval stages of the parasites, it is well known that various medicinal substances with the antiparasitic role are used. Of the four parasitic classes, nematodes are the most developed, and the main classes of drugs used against them are benzimidazoles, nicotinic receptor agonists, and macrocyclic lactones (avermectins, milbemycins) [156]. Cestodes are sensitive to isoquinolines (praziquantel) and trematodes to thiabendazole (benzimidazole) [157]. We mention only the helminths because they are pentiful in the animal population and the intermediate evolutionary forms resist the most in the external environment. One aspect that must be taken into account when administering the anthelmintics mentioned above is the one related to their use in farm animals. The possibility of eliminating them through milk (ruminants) must be known and indirectly, their remanence in certain secondary products must be mentioned. Macrocyclic lactones also have a long residue in the body of animals [158]. Analyzing this desideratum we can consider the elimination and the complete degradation of parasitic elements from the external environment as the main stage in stopping the biological cycle of parasites. This stage was a basis for current research in the field of biomedical sciences. Disinfectants have been tested and analyzed in numerous studies. Among those discovered so far as having a potential effect on the intermediate elements of nematodes, are those based on alcohols (ethanol, propanol), pentapotassium, and quaternary ammonium compounds [159, 160]. Alcohol-based disinfectants and more can have a corrosive effect if applied to different surfaces and instruments. Also, not enough details are known about the effect they can have on the skin of animals. Here we refer to those kept in paddocks or cages. Considering these aspects, the current research investigates the application of some fungi or oomycetes in the control of the evolutionary cycle of parasites, being an ecological and environmentally friendly method.

Ruminants are frequently parasitized with trichostrongyls. Of these, *Haemonchus* sp. is very important due to the severe anemias, but also to the elaborate clinical symptoms that it can give. Many studies have reported the nematicidal action of some *Pleurotus* species against larval forms (L1, L3, L4), but also of adult *Haemonchus* sp. [161]. This action is due to chemical compounds contained in hyphae (fatty acids, alkaloids, quinones, peptides, polyphenols, and terpenoids) [162]. Vieira et al. [163] associated two fungi (*Pochonia chlamydosporia* VC4 isolate and *Arthrobotrys cladodes* var. macroides CG719 isolate) against the larvae of *Haemonchus* sp. but also of *Cooperia* sp. and *Oesophagostomum* sp. The results were promising, the two fungi potentiating each other's action [163]. Besides the larvicidal action, *P. chlamydosporia* also has an ovicidal action against some helminth eggs [164]. Other researchers have observed that *A. cladodes* used alone against the larvae of *Haemonchus* sp. resulted in high mortality, between 68.7% and 81.73% [165–167]. Silva et al. [168] do not recommend the associations between the following fungi, in combating the larval

forms of *Haemonchus* sp.: *Duddingtonia flagrans*, *Clonostachys rosea*, *Arthrobotrys musiformis,* and *Trichoderma esau*. Other authors propose the use of the following fungi, frequently isolated from the external environment, in the control of gastrointestinal helminthiases of small ruminants: *Arthrobotrys oligospora*, *Candelabrella musiformis*, *Arundo conoides*, *Andropogon dactyloides*, *Trichoderma*, *Beauveria*, *Clonostachys* and *Lecanicillium* [169]. Cai et al. [170] investigated the action of two species of *Arthrobotrys* (*Arthrobotrys musiformis* and *Arthrobotrys robusta*) against the larval forms of trichostrongyls from sheep and goats. The percentages obtained were remarkable, between 97.71% and 99.98% [170]. Similar results regarding the larvicidal action of *Arthrobotrys musiformis* (90.4%) were reported by Silva et al. [171] and much lower percentages of 50% were obtained by Acevedo-Ramírez et al. [172]. The same authors observed a reduction in the number of *Haemonchus* sp. larvae, over 60% in the case of *Trichoderma esau* and *Clonostachys rosea* and 85.7% in the case of *Duddingtonia flagrans* [171]. A larval reduction of over 90% was identified by Chandrawathani et al. after administering *in vivo* to small ruminants *D. flagrans* at a dose of 1 × 106 spores/animal/day for 6 days [173].

Other researchers have investigated the action of fungi (*Arthrobotrys* sp. E1; *A. cladodes* CG719; *A. conoides* I40; *A. musiformis* A1, A2, A3; *A. oligospora* C1, C2; *A. robusta* B1, I31; *Duddingtonia flagrans* CG722, CG768; *Monacrosporium appendiculatum* CGI; *Methanocorpusculum sinense* SF53, SF139; *M. thaumasium* NF34A; *Nematoctonus robustus* D1) on infesting larvae of *Strongyloides papillosus* isolated from cattle. The results were satisfactory, causing a larval reduction between 65.4 and 100% [174]. *D. flagrans* can destroy *Strongyloides* larvae in 2 weeks, and *V. chlamidosporium* (PTCC 5179) in 3 weeks, as reported by Zarrin et al. [175]. The same authors indicate the use of *F. solani* (PTCC 5284) and *T. harzianum* (IBRC-M 30059) in the control of strongyloidiasis in domestic animals [175].

In horses, Araujo et al. [176] investigated the larvicidal action of 3 fungi (*Duddingtonia flagrans* AC001, *Monacrosporium thaumasium* NF34, *Arthrobotrys robusta* I-31) against *Strongyloides westeri*. The results showed a reduction in the larval population between 67.9% and 80.4% [176]. Also in horses, effective against the larvae of *Strongylus equinus*, it is *Arthrobotrys oligospora* [177]. *P. chlamydosporia* is a fungus used in numerous researches against several species of parasites, against which it has shown significant negative effects. Among the species of parasites that have proved sensitive to its action, are found: *Ascaridia galli* [178, 179], *Heterakis gallinarum* [178, 179], *Oxyuris equi* [180], *Ascaris suum* [181], and *Toxocara canis* [182].

A satisfactory larvicidal potential against the gastrointestinal nematode *Ancylostoma caninum*, found in canids, had the fungus *Arthrobotrys oligospora* [177] and the oomycete *Pythium oligandrum* [183]. The same oomycete has an ovicidal action against *Toxocara canis* and *Toxocara cati* eggs, found in dogs and cats [17]. Other authors recommend the use of *Paecilomyces lilacinus*, *Trichoderma virens,* and *Fusarium pallidoroseum* in the biocontrol of ascariasis in dogs [184–186].

Biocontrol in animal trematodes is still at the beginning of the research, until now the ovicidal effect of *Paecilomyces lilacinus* and *P. variety* against *Fasciola gigantica* [187], but also *P. chlamydosporia* against *Fasciola hepatica* eggs [188] are known.

### **5. Conclusions**

Fungi and oomycetes are important agents in the control of animal diseases, which can seriously alter their health. Through the actions they present (insecticide, amoebicide, antiparasitic - ovicidal, larvicidal, nematicidal, and anti-pollution) according to those deduced from the scientific literature, they are key elements in ensuring the welfare of animals and improving their quality of life.

### **Conflict of interest**

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

### **Notes/Thanks/Other declarations**

Thanks go to Banat's University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine "'King Michael I of Romania", for helping the author with the costs of publishing this book chapter.

### **Author details**

Iasmina Luca Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Banat's University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine "King Michael I of Romania", Timişoara, Romania

\*Address all correspondence to: iasmina.luca@usab-tm.ro

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Volk TJ. Fungi. In: Levin SA, editor. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Second ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press; 2013. pp. 624-640. DOI: 10.1016/ B978-0-12-384719-5.00062-9

[2] Barr DJS. Evolution and kingdoms of organisms from the perspective of a mycologist. Mycologia. 1992;**84**:1-11

[3] Phillips AJ, Anderson VL, Robertson EJ, Secombes CJ, van West P. New insights into animal pathogenic oomycetes. Trends in Microbiology. 2007;**16**:13-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.tim.2007.10.013

[4] Sparrow FK. Aquatic Phycomycetes Exclusive of the *Saprolegniaceae* and Pythium. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1943

[5] Roberts DW. Toxins of entomopathogenic fungi. In: Burges HD, editor. Microbial Control of Pests and Plant Diseases. 1970-1980. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1981. pp. 441-464

[6] Clark TB, Kellen WR, Fukuda T, Lindegren JE. Field and laboratory studies on the pathogenicity of the fungus *Beauveria bassiana* to three genera of mosquitoes. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 1968;**11**(1):1-7. DOI: 10.1016/0022-2011(68)90047-5

[7] Beys da Silva WO, Santi L, Corrêa AP, Silva LA, Bresciani FR, Schrank A, et al. The entomopathogen *Metarhizium anisopliae* can modulate the secretion of lipolytic enzymes in response to different substrates including components of arthropod cuticle. Fungal Biology. 2010;**114**(11-12):911-916. DOI: 10.1016/j. funbio.2010.08.007

[8] Ortiz-Urquiza A, Keyhani NO. Action on the surface: Entomopathogenic

fungi versus the insect cuticle. Insects. 2013;**4**:357-374. DOI: 10.3390/ insects4030357

[9] Skinner M, Parker BL, Kim JS. Role of entomopathogenic fungi in integrated pest management. Journal of Integrated Pest Management. 2014;**10**:169-191. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-398529-3.00011-7

[10] Deshmukh R, Khardenavis AA, Purohit HJ. Diverse metabolic capacities of Fungi for bioremediation. Indian Journal of Microbiology. 2016;**56**(3):247- 264. DOI: 10.1007/s12088-016-0584-6

[11] Minney SF, Quirk AV. Growth and adaptation of *Saccharomyces cerevisiae* at different cadmium concentrations. Microbios. 1985;**42**(167):37-44

[12] Betancor L, Johnson GR, Luckarift HR. Stabilized laccases as heterogeneous bioelectrocatalysts. ChemCatChem. 2013;**5**(1):46-60

[13] Ahman J, Ek B, Rask L, Tunlid A. Sequence analysis and regulation of a gene encoding a cuticle-degrading serine protease from the nematophagous fungus *Arthrobotrys oligospora*. Microbiology (Reading). 1996;**142**(7):1605-1616. DOI: 10.1099/13500872-142-7-1605

[14] Bonants PJ, Fitters PF, Thijs H, den Belder E, Waalwijk C, Henfling JW. A basic serine protease from *Paecilomyces lilacinus* with biological activity against *Meloidogyne hapla* eggs. Microbiology (Reading). 1995;**141**(4):775-784. DOI: 10.1099/13500872-141-4-775

[15] Ahman J, Johansson T, Olsson M, Punt PJ, van den Hondel CA, Tunlid A. Improving the pathogenicity of a nematode-trapping fungus by genetic engineering of a subtilisin

*Fungi and Oomycetes–Allies in Eliminating Environmental Pathogens DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106498*

with nematotoxic activity. Applied Environmental Microbiology. 2002;**68**(7):3408-3415. DOI: 10.1128/ AEM.68.7.3408-3415.2002

[16] Rosén S, Sjollema K, Veenhuis M, Tunlid A. A cytoplasmic lectin produced by the fungus *Arthrobotrys oligospora* functions as a storage protein during saprophytic and parasitic growth. Microbiology (Reading). 1997;**143**(8):2593-2604. DOI: 10.1099/00221287-143-8-2593

[17] Luca I, Ilie MS, Florea T, Olariu-Jurca A, Stancu A, Dărăbuş G. The use of *Pythium oligandrum* in the biological control of roundworm infection in dogs and cats. Pathogens. 2022;**11**(3):367. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens11030367

[18] Chen TH, Hsu CS, Tsai PJ, Ho YF, Lin NS. Heterotrimeric G-protein and signal transduction in the nematodetrapping fungus *Arthrobotrys dactyloides*. Planta. 2001;**212**(5-6):858-863. DOI: 10.1007/s004250000451

[19] Nordbring-Hertz B, Jansson HB, Tunlid A. Nematophagous fungi. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2006. pp. 145-179

[20] Zhang Y, Li GH, Zhang KQ. A review on the research of nematophagous fungal species. Mycosystema. 2011;**30**:836-884

[21] Trabelsi H, Dendana F, Sellami A, Sellami H, Cheikhrouhou F, Neji S, et al. Pathogenic free-living amoebae: Epidemiology and clinical review. Pathologie Biologie (Paris). 2012;**60**(6):399-405. DOI: 10.1016/j. patbio.2012.03.002

[22] Ravdin JI. Pathogenesis of disease caused by *Entamoeba histolytica*: Studies of adherence, secreted toxins, and contact-dependent cytolysis. Research and Reviews of Infectious Diseases.

1986;**8**(2):247-260. DOI: 10.1093/ clinids/8.2.247

[23] Balczun C, Scheid PL. Free-living amoebae as hosts for and vectors of intracellular microorganisms with public health significance. Viruses. 2017;**9**(4):65. DOI: 10.3390/v9040065

[24] Qvarnstrom Y, Nerad TA, Visvesvara GS. Characterization of a new pathogenic *Acanthamoeba* species, *A. byersi* n. sp., isolated from a human with fatal amoebic encephalitis. The Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology. 2013;**60**(6):626-633. DOI: 10.1111/ jeu.12069

[25] Walochnik J, Aspöck H. Die Diagnostik von Infektionen mit freilebenden Amöben (FLA). Laboratoriums Medizin. 2005;**29**:446-456

[26] Butt CG. Primary amebic meningoencephalitis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1966;**274**(26):1473-1476. DOI: 10.1056/ NEJM196606302742605

[27] Scheid P. Balamuthiose. In: Hofmann F, editor. Handbuch der Infektionskrankheiten. Hamburg, Germany: ecomed Verlag; 2012

[28] Siddiqui R, Khan NA. Balamuthia amoebic encephalitis: An emerging disease with fatal consequences. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2008;**44**(2):89- 97. DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2007.06.008

[29] Qvarnstrom Y, da Silva AJ, Schuster FL, Gelman BB, Visvesvara GS. Molecular confirmation of *Sappinia pedata* as a causative agent of amoebic encephalitis. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2009;**199**(8):1139-1142. DOI: 10.1086/597473

[30] Marciano-Cabral F, Cabral GA. The immune response to *Naegleria fowleri*

amebae and pathogenesis of infection. FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology. 2007;**51**(2):243-259. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2007.00332.x

[31] Akya A, Pointon A, Thomas C. Mechanism involved in phagocytosis and killing of *listeria monocytogenes* by *Acanthamoeba polyphaga*. Parasitology Research. 2009;**105**(5):1375-1383. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-009-1565-z

[32] Cirillo JD, Falkow S, Tompkins LS, Bermudez LE. Interaction of *Mycobacterium avium* with environmental amoebae enhances virulence. Infection and Immunity. 1997;**65**(9):3759-3767. DOI: 10.1128/ iai.65.9.3759-3767.1997

[33] Samba-Louaka A, Robino E, Cochard T, Branger M, Delafont V, Aucher W, et al. Environmental *Mycobacterium avium* subsp. *paratuberculosis* hosted by free-living amoebae. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2018;**8**:28. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00028

[34] Michel R. Freilebende Amöben als Wirte und Vehikel von Mikroorganismen. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Tropenmedizin und Parasitologie. 1997;**19**:11-20

[35] Fritsche TR, Sobek D, Gautom RK. Enhancement of in vitro cytopathogenicity by *Acanthamoeba* spp. following acquisition of bacterial endosymbionts. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 1998;**166**(2):231-236. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1998.tb13895.x

[36] Gaze WH, Burroughs N, Gallagher MP, Wellington EM. Interactions between *Salmonella typhimurium* and *Acanthamoeba polyphaga*, and observation of a new mode of intracellular growth within contractile vacuoles. Microbial Ecology.

2003;**46**(3):358-369. DOI: 10.1007/ s00248-003-1001-3

[37] Snelling WJ, McKenna JP, Lecky DM, Dooley JS. Survival of *Campylobacter jejuni* in waterborne protozoa. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2005;**71**(9):5560-5571. DOI: 10.1128/ AEM.71.9.5560-5571.2005

[38] Steinert M, Birkness K, White E, Fields B, Quinn F. *Mycobacterium avium* bacilli grow saprozoically in coculture with *Acanthamoeba polyphaga* and survive within cyst walls. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1998;**64**(6):2256-2261. DOI: 10.1128/ AEM.64.6.2256-2261.1998

[39] Dey R, Hoffman PS, Glomski IJ. Germination and amplification of anthrax spores by soil-dwelling amoebas. Applied and Environmental Microbiology Journal. 2012;**78**:8075-8081

[40] Winiecka-Krusnell J, Wreiber K, von Euler A, Engstrand L, Linder E. Free-living amoebae promote growth and survival of *helicobacter pylori*. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2002;**34**(4):253-256. DOI: 10.1080/00365540110080052

[41] La Scola B, Raoult D. Survival of *Coxiella burnetii* within freeliving amoeba *Acanthamoeba castellanii*. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2001;**7**(2):75-79. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0691.2001.00193.x

[42] Abd H, Johansson T, Golovliov I, Sandström G, Forsman M. Survival and growth of *Francisella tularensis* in *Acanthamoeba castellanii*. Applied and Environmental Microbiology Journal. 2003;**69**(1):600-606. DOI: 10.1128/ AEM.69.1.600-606.2003

[43] Steenbergen JN, Shuman HA, Casadevall A. *Cryptococcus neoformans* *Fungi and Oomycetes–Allies in Eliminating Environmental Pathogens DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106498*

interactions with amoebae suggest an explanation for its virulence and intracellular pathogenic strategy in macrophages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2001;**98**(26):15245-15250. DOI: 10.1073/ pnas.261418798

[44] Scheid PL, Schwarzenberger R. Free-living amoebae as vectors of cryptosporidia. Parasitology Research. 2011;**109**(2):499-504. DOI: 10.1007/ s00436-011-2287-6

[45] Ryan U, Zahedi A, Paparini A. *Cryptosporidium* in humans and animals-a one health approach to prophylaxis. Parasite Immunology. 2016;**38**(9):535-457. DOI: 10.1111/ pim.12350

[46] Lorenzo-Morales J, Coronado-Alvarez N, Martinez-Carretero E, Maciver SK, Valladares B. Detection of four adenovirus serotypes within waterisolated strains of *Acanthamoeba* in the Canary Islands, Spain. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2007;**77**:753-756

[47] Van Waeyenberghe L, Baré J, Pasmans F, Claeys M, Bert W, Haesebrouck F, et al. Interaction of *aspergillus fumigatus* conidia with *Acanthamoeba castellanii* parallels macrophage-fungus interactions. Environmental Microbiology Reports. 2013;**5**(6):819-824. DOI: 10.1111/1758-2229.12082

[48] Hillmann F, Novohradská S, Mattern DJ, Forberger T, Heinekamp T, Westermann M, et al. Virulence determinants of the human pathogenic fungus *aspergillus fumigatus* protect against soil amoeba predation. Environmental Microbiology. 2015;**17**(8):2858-2869. DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920

[49] Nunes T, Brazil N, Fuentefria A, Rott M. *Acanthamoeba* and *fusarium* interactions: A possible problem in keratitis. Acta Tropica. 2016;**157**:102-107. DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2016.02.001

[50] Bullock JD, Warwar RE. Contact lens solution-associated *Acanthamoeba* and *fusarium keratitis*. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2010;**16**(9):1501-1502. DOI: 10.3201/eid1609.091381

[51] Sassuchin D. Hyperparasitism in Protozoa. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 1934;**9**(2):215-224. DOI: 10.1086/394461

[52] Scheid P. Mechanism of intrusion of a microspordian-like organism into the nucleus of host amoebae (*Vannella* sp.) isolated from a keratitis patient. Parasitology Research. 2007;**101**:1097- 1102. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-007-0590-z

[53] Kurek R, Scheid P, Michel R. Darstellung von pilzartigen Endoparasiten bei freilebenden Amöben nach spezifischer Fluoreszenzanfärbung. Mikrokosmos. 2010;**99**:327-330

[54] Drechsler C. Five new Zoopagaceae destructive to Rhizopods and nematodes. Mycologia. 1939;**31**(4):388-415. DOI: 10.1080/00275514.1939.12017354

[55] Drechsler C. Three new *Zoopagaceae* subsisting on soil amoebae. Mycologia. 1946;**38**(2):120-143

[56] Saikawa M, Sato H. Ultrastructure of *Cochlonema odontosperma*, an endoparasite in amoebae. Mycologia. 1991;**83**(4):403-408. DOI: 10.1080/00275514.1991.12026029

[57] Koehsler M, Michel R, Lugauer J, Wylezisch C. Molecular identification and classification of *Cochlonema euryblastum*, a zoopagalean parasite of *Thecamoeba quadrilineata*.

Mycologia. 2007;**99**:215-221. DOI: 10.1080/15572536.2007.11832580

[58] Drechsler C. Some noncatenulate conidial phycomycetes preying on terriculous amoebae. Mycologia. 1935;**27**:176-205. DOI: 10.1080/00275514.1935.12017070

[59] Michel R, Walochnik J, Scheid P. Isolation and characterisation of various amoebophagous fungi and evaluation of their spectrum. Experimental Parasitology. 2014;**145**:131-136. DOI: 10.1016/j.exppara.2014.10.005

[60] Saikawa M, Kadowaki T. Sudies on Acaulopage dichotoma and A. tetraceros (Zoopagales, Zygomycota) capturing amoebae. Nova Hedwigia. 2002;**74**:365-371. DOI: 10.1127/0029-5035/2002/0074-0365

[61] Michel R, Scheid P, Köhsler M, Walochnik J. Acaulopage tetraceros DRECHSLER 1935 (Zoopagales): Cultivation, prey pattern and molecular characterization. Endocytobiosis and Cell Research. 2015;**26**:76-82

[62] Grimaldi D, Engel MS. Evolution of the Insects. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 755

[63] Cock MJW, Biesmeijer JC, Cannon RJC, Gerard PJ, Gillespie D, Jiménez JJ, et al. The positive contribution of invertebrates to sustainable agriculture and food security. CAB Reviews. 2012;**7**:1-27

[64] Carpenter GH. The Biology of Insects. London: Sidgwick and Jackson; 1928. p. 473

[65] Mellor PS, Boorman J, Baylis M. Culicoides biting midges: Their role as arbovirus vectors. Annual Review of Entomology. 2000;**45**:307-340. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.307

[66] Barin A, Arabkhazaeli F, Rahbari S, Madani SA. The housefly, *Musca domestica*, as a possible mechanical vector of Newcastle disease virus in the laboratory and field. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 2010;**24**(1):88-90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2009.00859.x

[67] Goraichuk IV, Arefiev V, Stegniy BT, Gerilovych AP. Zoonotic and reverse zoonotic transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2. Virus Research. 2021;**302**:198473. DOI: 10.1016/j.virusres.2021.198473

[68] Shane SM, Montrose MS, Harrington KS. Transmission of *Campylobacter jejuni* by the housefly (*Musca domestica*). Avian Diseases. 1985;**29**(2):384-391

[69] Barreiro C, Albano H, Silva J, Teixeira P. Role of flies as vectors of foodborne pathogens in rural areas. International Scholarly Research Notices. 2013;**2013**:718780. DOI: 10.1155/2013/718780

[70] Bamou R, Mayi MPA, Djiappi-Tchamen B, Nana-Ndjangwo SM, Nchoutpouen E, Cornel AJ, et al. An update on the mosquito fauna and mosquito-borne diseases distribution in Cameroon. Parasites Vectors**.** 2021;**14**:527. DOI: 10.1186/s13071-021-04950-9

[71] Komarov A, Kalmar E. A hitherto undescribed disease–Turkey meningoencephalitis. Veterinary Record. 1960;**72**:257-621

[72] Rijks JM, Kik ML, Slaterus R, Foppen RPB, Stroo A, IJzer J, et al. Widespread Usutu virus outbreak in birds in the Netherlands, 2016. Euro Surveillance. 2016;**21**(45):30391. DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2016.21.45.30391

[73] Huhtamo E, Lambert AJ, Costantino S, Servino L, Krizmancic L, *Fungi and Oomycetes–Allies in Eliminating Environmental Pathogens DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106498*

Boldorini R, et al. Isolation and full genomic characterization of Batai virus from mosquitoes, Italy 2009. Journal of General Virology. 2013;**94**(6):1242-1248. DOI: 10.1099/vir.0.051359-0

[74] Eiden M, Ziegler U, Keller M, Müller K, Granzow H, Jöst H, et al. Isolation of sindbis virus from a hooded crow in Germany. Vector Borne Zoonotic Diseases. 2014;**14**(3):220-222. DOI: 10.1089/vbz.2013.1354

[75] Genchi C, Kramer L. Subcutaneous dirofilariosis (*Dirofilaria repens*): An infection spreading throughout the old world. Parasitology & Vectors. 2017;**10**(2):517. DOI: 10.1186/ s13071-017-2434-8

[76] Lytra I, Emmanouel N. Study of *Culex tritaeniorhynchus* and species composition of mosquitoes in a rice field in Greece. Acta Tropica. 2014;**134**:66-71. DOI: 10.1016/j. actatropica.2014.02.018

[77] Kopp A, Gillespie TR, Hobelsberger D, Estrada A, Harper JM, Miller RA, et al. Provenance and geographic spread of St. Louis encephalitis virus. MBio. 2013;**4**(3): e00322-13. DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00322-13

[78] Folly AJ, Dorey-Robinson D, Hernández-Triana LM, Phipps LP, Johnson N. Emerging threats to animals in the United Kingdom by arthropodborne diseases. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2020;**7**:20. DOI: 10.3389/ fvets.2020.00020

[79] Kono Y, Tsukamoto K, Abd Hamid M, Darus A, Lian TC, Sam LS, et al. Encephalitis and retarded growth of chicks caused by Sitiawan virus, a new isolate belonging to the genus Flavivirus. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2000;**63**(1-2):94-101. DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.2000.63.94

[80] Papadopoulos E, Bartram D, Carpenter S, Mellor P, Wall R. Efficacy of alphacypermethrin applied to cattle and sheep against the biting midge *Culicoides nubeculosus*. Veterinary Parasitology. 2009;**163**(1-2):110-114. DOI: 10.1016/j. vetpar.2009.03.041

[81] Ansari MA, Pope EC, Carpenter S, Scholte EJ, Butt TM. Entomopathogenic fungus as a biological control for an important vector of livestock disease: The *Culicoides* biting midge. PLoS One. 2011;**6**(1):e16108. DOI: 10.1371/journal. pone.0016108

[82] Ansari MA, Carpenter S, Butt TM. Susceptibility of *Culicoides* biting midges larvae to the entomopathogenic fungus, *Metarhizium anisopliae*: Prospects for bluetongue vector control. Acta Tropica. 2010;**113**:1-6

[83] Mishra S, Kumar P, Malik A, Satya S. Adulticidal and larvicidal activity of *Beauveria bassiana* and *Metarhizium anisopliae* against housefly, *Musca domestica* (Diptera: *Muscidae*), in laboratory and simulated field bioassays. Parasitology Research. 2011;**108**(6):1483-1492. DOI: 10.1007/ s00436-010-2203-5

[84] Sharififard M, Mossadegh MS, Vazirianzadeh B, Mahmoudabadi AZ. Laboratory evaluation of pathogenecity of entomopathogenic fungi *Beauveria bassiana* (Bals) and *Metarhizium anisopliae* (Metech) Sorok to larvae and adults of the housefly, *Musca domestica* L (Diptera: *Muscidae*). Asian Journal of Biological Sciences. 2011;**4**(2):128-137

[85] Mwamburi LA, Laing MD, Miller RM. Laboratory screening of insecticidal activities of *Beauveria bassiana* and *Paecilomyces lilacinus* against larval and adult house fly (*Musca domestica* L.). African Entomology. 2010;**18**:38-46

[86] Lohmeyer KH, Miller JA. Pathogenicity of three formulations of entomopathogenic fungi for control of adult *Haematobia irritans* (Diptera: *Muscidae*). Journal of Economic Entomology. 2006;**99**(6):1943-1947. DOI: 10.1603/0022-0493-99.6.1943

[87] Unkles SE, Marriott C, Kinghorn JR, Panter C, Blackwell A. Efficacy of the entomopathogenic fungus, *Culicinomyces clavisporus* against larvae of the biting midges, *Culicoides nubeculosus* (*Diptera*: *Ceratopogonidae*). Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2004;**14**:397-401

[88] Narladkar BW, Shivpuje PR, Harke PC. Fungal biological control agents for integrated management of *Culicoides* spp. (*Diptera*: *Ceratopogonidae*) of livestock. Veterinary World. 2015;**8**(2):156-163. DOI: 10.14202/ vetworld.2015.156-163

[89] Ong'wen F, Onyango PO, Bukhari T. Direct and indirect effects of predation and parasitism on the *Anopheles gambiae* mosquito. Parasites Vectors. 2020;**13**:43. DOI: 10.1186/s13071-020-3915-8

[90] Ishii M, Kanuka H, Badolo A, Sagnon NF, Guelbeogo WM, Koike M, et al. Proboscis infection route of *Beauveria bassiana* triggers early death of *Anopheles* mosquito. Scientific Reports. 2017;**7**:3476. DOI: 10.1038/ s41598-017-03720-x

[91] Kerwin JL. Oomycetes: *Lagenidium giganteum*. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association. 2007;**23**(2):50-57. DOI: 10.2987/8756-971X (2007)23[50,OLG]2.0.CO;2

[92] Kaczmarek A, Boguś MI. Fungi of entomopathogenic potential in *Chytridiomycota* and *Blastocladiomycota*, and in fungal allies of the *Oomycota* and *microsporidia*. IMA Fungus. 2021;**12**:29. DOI: 10.1186/s43008-021-00074-y

[93] Wang Q, Zhao S, Wureli H, Xie S, Chen C, Wei Q, et al. *Brucella melitensis* and *B. abortus* in eggs, larvae and engorged females of *Dermacentor marginatus*. Ticks and Tick Borne Diseases. 2018;**9**(4):1045-1048. DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.03.021

[94] Li S, Wang Y, Qv G, Sun C, Yang L, Lin C, et al. Epidemiological investigation of *Francisella tularensis* transmitted by rabbits and ticks in some provinces of China. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine. 2020;**47**:4069-4075

[95] Fang LQ, Liu K, Li XL, Liang S, Yang Y, Yao HW, et al. Emerging tickborne infections in mainland China: An increasing public health threat. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2015;**15**(12):1467-1479. DOI: 10.1016/ S1473-3099(15)00177-2

[96] Cradock KR, Needham GR. *Beauveria bassiana* (*Ascomycota*: *Hypocreales*) as a management agent for free-living *Amblyomma americanum* (Acari: *Ixodidae*) in Ohio. Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2011;**53**(1):57-62. DOI: 10.1007/ s10493-010-9381-9

[97] Garcia MV, Rodrigues VDS, Monteiro AC, Simi LD, Higa LDOS, Martins MM, et al. In vitro efficacy of *Metarhizium anisopliae* sensu lato against unfed *Amblyomma parvum* (Acari: *Ixodidae*). Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2018;**76**:507-512

[98] Kaaya GP, Mwangi EN, Ouna EA. Prospects for biological control of livestock ticks, *Rhipicephalus appendiculatus* and *Amblyomma variegatum*, using the entomogenous fungi *Beauveria bassiana* and *Metarhizium anisopliae*. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 1996;**67**(1):15- 20. DOI: 10.1006/jipa.1996.0003

*Fungi and Oomycetes–Allies in Eliminating Environmental Pathogens DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106498*

[99] Sullivan CF, Parker BL, Davari A, Lee MR, Kim JS, Skinner M. Evaluation of spray applications of *Metarhizium anisopliae*, *Metarhizium brunneum* and *Beauveria bassiana* against larval winter ticks, *Dermacentor albipictus*. Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2020;**82**(4):559-570. DOI: 10.1007/ s10493-020-00547-6

[100] Maranga RO, Kaaya GP, Mueke JM, Hassanali A. Effects of combining the fungi *Beauveria bassiana* and *Metarhiziumanisopliae* on the mortality of the tick *Amblyomma variegatum* (ixodidae) in relation to seasonal changes. Mycopathologia. 2005;**159**:527-532

[101] Frazzon AP, da Silva Vaz Junior I, Masuda A, Schrank A, Vainstein MH. In vitro assessment of *Metarhizium anisopliae* isolates to control the cattle tick *Boophilus microplus*. Veterinary Parasitology. 2000;**94**(1-2):117-125. DOI: 10.1016/s0304-4017(00)00368-x

[102] Szczepańska A, Kiewra D, Plewa-Tutaj K, Dyczko D, Guz-Regner K. Sensitivity of *Ixodes ricinus* (L., 1758) and *Dermacentor reticulatus* (Fabr., 1794) ticks to entomopathogenic fungi isolates: Preliminary study. Parasitology Research. 2020;**119**(11):3857-3861. DOI: 10.1007/ s00436-020-06805-1

[103] Samsináková A, Kálalová S, Daniel M, Dusbábek F, Honzáková E, Cerný V. Entomogenous fungi associated with the tick *Ixodes ricinus* (L.). Folia Parasitologica (Praha). 1974;**21**(1):39-48

[104] Kirkland BH, Westwood GS, Keyhani NO. Pathogenicity of entomopathogenic fungi *Beauveria bassiana* and *Metarhizium anisopliae* to *Ixodidae* tick species *Dermacentor variabilis*, *Rhipicephalus sanguineus*, and *Ixodes scapularis*. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2004;**41**(4):705-711. DOI: 10.1603/0022-2585-41.4.705

[105] Yoder JA, Rodell BM, Klever LA, Dobrotka CJ, Pekins PJ. Vertical transmission of the entomopathogenic soil fungus *Scopulariopsis brevicaulis* as a contaminant of eggs in the winter tick, *Dermacentor albipictus*, collected from calf moose (New Hampshire, USA). Mycology. 2019;**10**(3):174-181. DOI: 10.1080/21501203.2019.1600062

[106] Zhendong H, Guangfu Y, Zhong Z, Ruiling Z. Phylogenetic relationships and effectiveness of four *Beauveria bassiana* sensu lato strains for control of *Haemaphysalis longicornis* (Acari: *Ixodidae*). Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2019;**77**(1):83-92. DOI: 10.1007/ s10493-018-0329-9

[107] Ren Q, Chen Z, Luo J, Liu G, Guan G, Liu Z, et al. Laboratory evaluation of *Beauveria bassiana* and *Metarhizium anisopliae* in the control of *Haemaphysalis qinghaiensis* in China. Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2016;**69**(2):233-238. DOI: 10.1007/ s10493-016-0033-6

[108] Lipa JJ. Microbial control of mites and ticks. In: Burges HD, Hussey NW, editors. Microbial Control of Insects and Mites. London, UK: Academic Press; 1971. pp. 357-373

[109] Kaay GP, Hassan S. Entomogenous fungi as promising biopesticides for tick control. Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2000;**24**(12): 913-926. DOI: 10.1023/a:1010722914299

[110] Campos RA, Boldo JT, Pimentel IC, Dalfovo V, Araújo WL, Azevedo JL, et al. Endophytic and entomopathogenic strains of *Beauveria* sp to control the bovine tick *Rhipicephalus* (*Boophilus*) *microplus*. Genetics and Molecular Research. 2010;**9**(3):1421-1430. DOI: 10.4238/ vol9-3gmr884

### [111] Fernández-Salas A,

Alonso-Díaz MA, Alonso-Morales RA, Lezama-Gutiérrez R, Rodríguez-Rodríguez JC, Cervantes-Chávez JA. Acaricidal activity of *Metarhizium anisopliae* isolated from paddocks in the Mexican tropics against two populations of the cattle tick *Rhipicephalus microplus*. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 2017;**31**(1):36- 43. DOI: 10.1111/mve.12203

[112] Angelo IC, Fernandes ÉK, Bahiense TC, Perinotto WM, Golo PS, Moraes AP, et al. Virulence of *Isaria* sp. and *Purpureocillium lilacinum* to *Rhipicephalus microplus* tick under laboratory conditions. Parasitology Research. 2012;**111**(4):1473-1480. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-012-2982-y

[113] Casasolas-Oliver A, Estrada-Pena A, Gonzalez-Cabo J. Activity of *Rhizopus thailandensis*, *Rhizopus arrhizus* and *Curvularia lunata* on reproductive efficacy of *Rhipicephalus sanguineus* (*Ixodidae*). In: Dusbadek E, Bukva V, editors. Modern Acaralogy. Prague, Czech Republic: Academia Prague and SPB Academic Publishing BV; 1991. pp. 633-637

[114] Samish M, Gindin G, Alekseev E, Glazer I. Pathogenicity of entomopathogenic fungi to different developmental stages of *Rhipicephalus sanguineus* (Acari: *Ixodidae*). The Journal of Parasitology. 2001;**87**(6):1355-1359. DOI: 10.1645/0022-3395(2001)087[1355,POEF TD]2.0.CO;2 PMID: 11780821

[115] Fernandes ÉK, Bittencourt VR, Roberts DW. Perspectives on the potential of entomopathogenic fungi in biological control of ticks. Experimental Parasitology. 2012;**130**(3):300-305. DOI: 10.1016/j.exppara.2011.11.004

[116] Aboelhadid SM, Ibrahium SM, Arafa WM, Maahrous LN,

Abdel-Baki AAS, Wahba AA. In vitro efficacy of *Verticillium lecanii* and *Beauveria bassiana* of commercial source against cattle tick, *Rhipicephalus* (*Boophilus*) *annulatus*. Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences. 2018;**6**(3):139-147

[117] Abdigoudarzi M, Esmaeilnia K, Shariat N. Laboratory study on biological control of ticks (Acari: *Ixodidae*) by Entomopathogenic indigenous Fungi (*Beauveria bassiana*). Iranian Journal of Arthropod-Borne Diseases. 2009;**3**(2):36-43

[118] da Costa GL, Sarquis MI, de Moraes AM, Bittencourt VR. Isolation of *Beauveria bassiana* and *Metarhizium anisopliae* var. anisopliae from *Boophilus microplus* tick (Canestrini, 1887), in Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. Mycopathologia. 2002;**154**(4):207-209. DOI: 10.1023/a:1016388618842

[119] do Carmo Barcelos Correia A, Fiorin AC, Monteiro AC, Veríssimo CJ. Effects of *Metarhizium anisopliae* on the tick *Boophilus microplus* (Acari: *Ixodidae*) in stabled cattle. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 1998;**71**(2):189-191. DOI: 10.1006/jipa.1997.4719 PMID: 9500942

[120] Immediato D, Camarda A, Iatta R, Puttilli MR, Ramos RA, Di Paola G, et al. Laboratory evaluation of a native strain of *Beauveria bassiana* for controlling *Dermanyssus gallinae* (De Geer, 1778) (Acari: *Dermanyssidae*). Veterinary Parasitology. 2015;**212**(3-4):478-482. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.07.004

[121] Tavassoli M, Pourseyed SH, Ownagh A, Bernousi I, Mardani K. Biocontrol of pigeon tick *Argas reflexus* (Acari: *Argasidae*) by entomopathogenic fungus *Metarhizium anisopliae* (*Ascomycota*: *Hypocreales*). Brazilian Journal of Microbiology. 2011;**42**(4):1445-1452. DOI: 10.1590/S1517-838220110004000030

*Fungi and Oomycetes–Allies in Eliminating Environmental Pathogens DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106498*

[122] Pirali-Kheirabadi K, Haddadzadeh H, Razzaghi-Abyaneh M, Bokaie S, Zare R, Ghazavi M, et al. Biological control of *Rhipicephalu*s (*Boophilus*) *annulatus* by different strains of *Metarhizium anisopliae*, *Beauveria bassiana* and *Lecanicillium psalliotae* fungi. Parasitology Research. 2007;**100**(6):1297- 1302. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-006-0410-x

[123] Molan PC. Potential of honey in the treatment of wounds and burns. American Journal of Clinical Dermatology. 2001;**2**:13-19. DOI: 10.2165/00128071-200102010-00003

[124] Ahmed S, Othman NH. Honey as a potential natural anticancer agent: A review of its mechanisms. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2013;**2013**:829070. DOI: 10.1155/2013/829070

[125] Vogt NA, Vriezen E, Nwosu A, Sargeant JM. A scoping review of the evidence for the medicinal use of natural honey in animals. Frontiers in Veterinary Sciences. 2021;**7**:618301. DOI: 10.3389/ fvets.2020.618301

[126] Shaw KE, Davidson G, Clark SJ, Bal BV, Pell JK, Chandler D, et al. Laboratory bioassays to assess the pathogenicity of mitosporic fungi to *Varroa destructor* (Acari: *Mesostigmata*), an ectoparasitic mite of the honeybee, *Apis mellifera*. Biological Control. 2002;**24**:266-276

[127] Kanga LH, James RR, Boucias DG. *Hirsutella thompsonii* and *Metarhizium anisopliae* as potential microbial control agents of *Varroa destructor*, a honey bee parasite. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2002;**81**(3):175-184. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-2011(02)00177-5

[128] Steenberg T, Kryger P, Holst N. A scientific note on the fungus *Beauveria bassiana* infecting *Varroa destructor* in

worker brood cells in honey bee hives. Apidologie. 2010;**41**:127-128. DOI: 10.1051/apido/2009057

[129] Peng CY, Zhou X, Kaya HK. Virulence and site of infection of the fungus, *Hirsutella thompsonii*, to the honey bee ectoparasitic mite, Varroa destructor. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2002;**81**(3):185-195. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-2011(02)00188-x

[130] García-Fernández P, Santiago-Álvarez C, Quesada-Moraga E. Pathogenicity and thermal biology of mitosporic fungi as potential microbial control agents of *Varroa destructor* (Acari: *Mesostigmata*), an ectoparasitic mite of honey bee, *Apis mellifera* (Hymenoptera: *Apidae*). Apidologie. 2008;**39**:662-673. DOI: 10.1051/apido:2008049

[131] Hamiduzzaman MM, Sinia A, Guzman-Novoa E, Goodwin PH. Entomopathogenic fungi as potential biocontrol agents of the ecto-parasitic mite, *Varroa destructor*, and their effect on the immune response of honey bees (*Apis mellifera* L.). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2012;**111**(3):237- 243. DOI: 10.1016/j.jip.2012.09.001

[132] Ahmed AA, Abd-Elhady HK. Efficacy of two fungus-based biopesticide against the honeybee ectoparasitic mite, *Varroa destructor*. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 2013;**16**(16):819-825. DOI: 10.3923/ pjbs.2013.819.825

[133] Voigt K, Rademacher E. Effect of the Propolis components, Cinnamic acid and pinocembrin, on *Apis Mellifera* and *Ascosphaera Apis*. Journal of Apicultural Science. 2015;**59**(1):89-95. DOI: 10.1515/ jas-2015-0010

[134] Gillespie IMM, Philip JC. Bioremediation, an environmental remediation technology for the

bioeconomy. Trends in Biotechnology. 2013;**31**:329-332. DOI: 10.1016/j. tibtech.2013.01.015

[135] Mishra A, Malik A. Novel fungal consortium for bioremediation of metals and dyes from mixed waste stream. Bioresource Technology. 2014;**171**:217- 226. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014. 08.047

[136] Chałabis-Mazurek A, Valverde Piedra JL, Muszyński S, Tomaszewska E, Szymańczyk S, Kowalik S, et al. The concentration of selected heavy metals in muscles, liver and kidneys of pigs fed standard diets and diets containing 60% of new Rye varieties. Animals. 2021;**11**(5):1377. DOI: 10.3390/ ani11051377

[137] Hejna M, Gottardo D, Baldi A, Dell'Orto V, Cheli F, Zaninelli M, et al. Review: Nutritional ecology of heavy metals. Animal. 2018;**12**(10):2156-2170. DOI: 10.1017/S175173111700355X

[138] Liu SH, Zeng GM, Niu QY, Liu Y, Zhou L, Jiang LH, et al. Bioremediation mechanisms of combined pollution of PAHs and heavy metals by bacteria and fungi: A mini review. Bioresource Technology. 2017;**224**:25-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.11.095

[139] Gola D, Dey P, Bhattacharya A, Mishra A, Malik A, Namburath M. Shaikh Ziauddin Ahammad. Multiple heavy metal removal using an entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana. Bioresource Technology. 2016;**218**:388-396. DOI: 10.1016/j. biortech.2016.06.096

[140] Iram S, Zaman A, Iqbal Z, Shabbir R. Heavy metal tolerance of fungus isolated from the soil contaminated with sewage and industrial waste- water. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies. 2013;**22**:691-697

[141] Volesky B. Advances in biosorption of metals: Selection of biomass types. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 1994;**14**(4):291-302. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574- 6976.1994.tb00102.x

[142] Maheswari S, Murugesan AG. Removal of arsenic (III) ions from aqueous solution using *aspergillus favus* isolated from arsenic contaminated site. Indian Journal of Chemical Technology. 2011;**18**:45-52

[143] Park D, Yun YS, Park JM. Use of dead fungal biomass for the detoxifcation of hexavalent chromium: Screening and kinetics. Process Biochemistry. 2015;**40**:2559-2565. DOI: 10.1016/j. procbio.2004.12.002

[144] Hultberg M, Bodin H. Effects of fungal-assisted algal harvesting through biopellet formation on pesticides in water. Biodegradation. 2018;**29**:557-565. DOI: 10.1007/s10532-018-9852-y

[145] Levio-Raiman M, Briceño G, Leiva B, López S, Schalchli H, Lamilla C, et al. Treatment of pesticidecontaminated water using a selected fungal consortium: Study in a batch and packed-bed bioreactor. Agronomy. 2021;**11**(4):743. DOI: 10.3390/ agronomy11040743

[146] Ahmad KS. Remedial potential of bacterial and fungal strains (*Bacillus subtilis*, *aspergillus Niger*, *aspergillus flavus* and *Penicillium chrysogenum*) against organochlorine insecticide Endosulfan. Folia Microbiologica (Praha). 2020;**65**(5):801-810. DOI: 10.1007/ s12223-020-00792-7

[147] Supreeth M, Raju NS. Biotransformation of chlorpyrifos and endosulfan by bacteria and fungi. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2017;**101**(15):5961-5971. DOI: 10.1007/s00253-017-8401-7

*Fungi and Oomycetes–Allies in Eliminating Environmental Pathogens DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106498*

[148] Siddique T, Okeke BC, Arshad M, Frankenberger WT Jr. Biodegradation kinetics of endosulfan by *fusarium ventricosum* and a *Pandoraea* species. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2003;**51**(27):8015-8019. DOI: 10.1021/jf030503z

[149] Mohammed YMM, Badawy MEI. Biodegradation of imidacloprid in liquid media by an isolated wastewater fungus *aspergillus terreus* YESM3. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. 2017;**52**(10):752-761. DOI: 10.1080/03601234.2017

[150] Panter KE, Stegelmeier BL. Effects of xenobiotics and phytotoxins on reproduction in food animals. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. 2011;**27**(2):429-446. DOI: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2011.02.010

[151] Idle JR, Gonzalez FJ. Metabolomics. Cell Metabolism. 2007;**6**(5):348-351. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmet.2007.10.005

[152] Adenipekun CO, Lawal R. Uses of mushrooms in bioremediation: A review. Biotechnology and Molecular Biology Review. 2012;**7**(3):62-68

[153] Sun K, Song Y, He F, Jing M, Tang J, Liu R. A review of human and animals exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Health risk and adverse effects, photo-induced toxicity and regulating effect of microplastics. Science of the Total Environment. 2021;**773**:145403. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv. 2021.145403

[154] Sungthong R, van West P, Heyman F, Funck Jensen D, Ortega-Calvo JJ. Mobilization of pollutant-degrading Bacteria by eukaryotic zoospores. Environmental Science & Technology. 2016;**50**(14):7633- 7640. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00994

[155] Dhaliwal BBS, Juyal PD. Parasitic Zoonoses. New Delhi: Springer; 2013. pp. 1-14. DOI: 10.1007/978-81-322-1551-6\_1

[156] Romero-Gonzalez R, Garrido Frenich A, Martınez Vida JL. Anthelmintics. In: Motarjemi Y, Moy G, Todd E, editors. Encyclopedia of Food Safety. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press; 2013. pp. 45-54

[157] Chai JY. Praziquantel treatment in trematode and cestode infections: An update. Infection & Chemotherapy. 2013;**45**(1):32-43. DOI: 10.3947/ ic.2013.45.1.32

[158] Moreno L, Lanusse C. Chapter 24 - specific veterinary drug residues of concern in meat production. In: Purslow PP, editor. Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, New Aspects of Meat Quality. Sawston, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Series; 2017. pp. 605-627. DOI: 10.1016/ B978-0-08-100593-4.00025-4

[159] Luca I, Oprescu I, Morariu S, Mederle N, Ilie MS, Dărăbuș G. Effects of some disinfectants on *Toxocara* spp. eggs viability of dogs and cats. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences. 2020;**44**(3):734-739. DOI: 10.3906/ vet-1905-92

[160] Luca I, Iancu TG, Oprescu I, Dărăbuș G. The in vitro effect of 1% pentapotassium solution on *Toxocara canis* eggs. Scientia Parasitologica. 2018;**19**(1-2):66-69

[161] Cuevas-Padilla EJ, Aguilar-Marcelino L, Sánchez JE, González-Cortázar M, Zamilpa-Álvarez A, Huicochea-Medina M, et al. A *Pleurotus* spp. hydroalcoholic fraction possess a potent in vitro ovicidal activity against the sheep parasitic nematode *Haemonchus contortus*. In: Sánchez JE, Mata G, Royse DJ, editors. Updates on

Tropical Mushrooms. Basic and Applied Research. 1st. ed. San Cristóbal de las Casas, Mexico: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristóbal de Las Casas; 2018. pp. 193-211

[162] Li S, Shah NP. Antioxidant and antibacterial activities of sulphated polysaccharides from *Pleurotus eryngii* and *Streptococcus thermophilus* ASCC 1275. Food Chemistry. 2014;**165**:262-270. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.05.110

[163] Vieira ÍS, Oliveira IC, Campos AK, Araújo JV. Association and predatory capacity of fungi *Pochonia chlamydosporia* and *Arthrobotrys cladodes* in the biological control of parasitic helminths of bovines. Parasitology. 2019;**146**(10):1347-1351. DOI: 10.1017/S003118201900060X

[164] Araújo JV, Braga FR, Silva AR, Araujo JM, Tavela AO. In vitro evaluation of the effect of the nematophagous fungi *Duddingtonia flagrans*, *Monacrosporium sinense*, and *Pochonia chlamydosporia* on *Ascaris suum* eggs. Parasitology Research. 2008;**102**(4):787-790. DOI: 10.1007/ s00436-007-0852-9

[165] Ranjbar-Bahadori S, Rhazzagi-Abyaneh M, Baya M, Eslami A, Pirali K, Shams-Ghahfarokhi M, et al. Studies on the effect of temperature, incubation time and in vivo gut passage on survival and Nematophagous activity *Arthrobotrys oligospora* var. *oligospora* and *A. cladodes* var. *macroides*. Global Veterinaria. 2010;**4**:112-117

[166] Braga FR, Araújo JV, Tavela Ade O, Vilela VL, Soares FE, Araujo JM, et al. First report of interaction of nematophagous fungi on *Libyostrongylus douglassii* (Nematoda: *Trichostrongylidae*). Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinaria. 2013;**22**(1):147-151. DOI: 10.1590/s1984-29612013000100027

[167] de Castro OI, de Carvalho LM, Vieira ÍS, Campos AK, Freitas SG,

de Araujo JM, et al. Using the fungus *Arthrobotrys cladodes* var. *macroides* as a sustainable strategy to reduce numbers of infective larvae of bovine gastrointestinal parasitic nematodes. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2018;**158**:46-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jip.2018.09.004

[168] Silva ME, Braga FR, de Gives PM, Millán-Orozco J, Uriostegui MA, Marcelino LA, et al. Fungal antagonism assessment of predatory species and producers metabolites and their effectiveness on *Haemonchus contortus* infective larvae. Biomed Research International. 2015;**2015**:241582. DOI: 10.1155/2015/241582

[169] Soto-Barrientos N, de Oliveira J, Vega-Obando R, Montero-Caballero D, Vargas B, Hernández-Gamboa J, et al. In-vitro predatory activity of nematophagous fungi from Costa Rica with potential use for controlling sheep and goat parasitic nematodes. Revista de Biologia Tropical. 2011;**59**(1):37-52. DOI: 10.15517/rbt.v59i1.3177

[170] Cai KZ, Wang BB, Xu Q, Liu JL, Wang KY, Xue YJ, et al. In vitro and in vivo studies of nematophagous fungi *Arthrobotrys musiformis* and *Arthrobotrys robusta* against the larvae of the trichostrongylides. Acta Parasitologica. 2017;**62**(3):666-674. DOI: 10.1515/ ap-2017-0080

[171] Silva ME, Uriostegui MA, Millán-Orozco J, Gives PM, Hernández EL, Braga FR, et al. Predatory activity of *Butlerius* nematodes and nematophagous fungi against *Haemonchus contortus* infective larvae. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinaria. 2017;**26**(1):92-95. DOI: 10.1590/S1984-29612016091

[172] Acevedo-Ramírez PMC, Quiroz-Romero H, Valero-Coss RO, Mendozade-Gives P, Gómez JL.

*Fungi and Oomycetes–Allies in Eliminating Environmental Pathogens DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106498*

Nematophagous fungi from Mexico with activity against the sheep nematode *Haemonchus contortus*. Revista Ibero-Latinoamericana de Parasitologia. 2011;**70**(1):101-108

[173] Chandrawathani P, Jamnah O, Waller PJ, Höglund J, Larsen M, Zahari WM. Nematophagous fungi as a biological control agent for nematode parasites of small ruminants in Malaysia: A special emphasis on *Duddingtonia flagrans*. Veterinary Research. 2002;**33**(6):685-696. DOI: 10.1051/ vetres:2002049

[174] Kanadani Campos A, Caixeta Valadão M, de Carvalho LM, de Araújo JV, Pezzi GM. In vitro nematophagous activity of predatory fungi on infective larvae of *Strongyloides papillosus*. Acta Veterinaria Brasilica. 2017;**11**(4):213-218. DOI: 10.21708/ avb.2017.11.4.7261

[175] Zarrin M, Rahdar M, Poormohamadi F, Rezaei-Matehkolaei A. *In vitro* Nematophagous activity of predatory Fungi on infective nematodes larval stage of *Strongyloidae* family. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2017;**5**(3):281-284. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2017.064

[176] Araujo JM, Araújo JV, Braga FR, Carvalho RO. In vitro predatory activity of nematophagous fungi and after passing through gastrointestinal tract of equine on infective larvae of *Strongyloides westeri*. Parasitology Research. 2010;**107**(1):103-108. DOI: 10.1007/ s00436-010-1841-y

[177] Zhong W, Chen Y, Gong S, Qiao J, Meng Q, Zhang X, et al. Enzymological properties and nematode-degrading activity of recombinant chitinase AO-379 of *Arthrobotrys oligospora*. Kafkas Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi. 2019;**25**:435-444

[178] Lozano J, Almeida C, Oliveira M, Paz-Silva A, Madeira de Carvalho L. Biocontrol of avian gastrointestinal parasites using predatory Fungi: Current status, challenges, and opportunities. Parasitologia. 2022;**2**(1):37-44. DOI: 10.3390/ parasitologia2010004

[179] Thapa S, Thamsborg SM, Wang R, Meyling NV, Dalgaard TS, Petersen HH, et al. Effect of the nematophagous fungus *Pochonia chlamydosporia* on soil content of ascarid eggs and infection levels in exposed hens. Parasites & Vectors. 2018;**11**:319. DOI: 10.1186/ s13071-018-2898-1

[180] Braga FR, Araújo JV, Silva AR, Carvalho RO, Araujo JM, Ferreira SR, et al. Viability of the nematophagous fungus *Pochonia chlamydosporia* after passage through the gastrointestinal tract of horses. Veterinary Parasitology. 2010;**168**(3-4):264-268. DOI: 10.1016/j. vetpar.2009.11.020

[181] Ferreira SR, de Araújo JV, Braga FR, Araujo JM, Frassy LN, Ferreira AS. Biological control of *Ascaris suum* eggs by *Pochonia chlamydosporia* fungus. Veterinary Research Communications. 2011;**35**(8):553-558. DOI: 10.1007/ s11259-011-9494-6

[182] Araujo JM, Araújo JV, Braga FR, Ferreira SR, Tavela AO. Predatory activity of chlamydospores of the fungus *Pochonia chlamydosporia* on *Toxocara canis* eggs under laboratory conditions. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinaria. 2013;**22**(1):171-174. DOI: 10.1590/s1984-29612013000100033

[183] Luca I, Imre M, Ilie MS, Oprescu I, Dărăbuş G. The biological potential of a product containing *Pythium oligandrum* against *Uncinaria stenocephala* (Railliet, 1884) larvae. Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society.

2022;**73**(1):3651-3656. DOI: 10.12681/ jhvms.25380

[184] de Souza Maia Filho F, da Silva Fonseca AO, Persici BM, de Souza SJ, Braga CQ, Pötter L, et al. *Trichoderma virens* as a biocontrol of *Toxocara canis*: In vivo evaluation. Revista Iberoamericana de Micologia. 2017;**34**(1):32-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.riam.2016.06.004

[185] Carvalho RO, Araújo JV, Braga FR, Araujo JM, Alves CD. Ovicidal activity of *Pochonia chlamydosporia* and *Paecilomyces lilacinus* on *Toxocara canis* eggs. Veterinary Parasitology. 2010;**169**(1-2):123-127. DOI: 10.1016/j. vetpar.2009.12.037

[186] Ciarmela ML, Minvielle MC, Lori G, Basualdo JA. Biological interaction between soil fungi and *Toxocara canis* eggs. Veterinary Parasitology. 2002;**103**(3):251-257. DOI: 10.1016/ s0304-4017(01)00598-2

[187] Manzanilla-López RH, Esteves I, Finetti-Sialer MM, Hirsch PR, Ward E, Devonshire J, et al. *Pochonia chlamydosporia*: Advances and challenges to improve its performance as a biological control agent of sedentary Endo-parasitic nematodes. Journal of Nematology. 2013;**45**(1):1-7

[188] Dias AS, Araújo JV, Braga FR, Araujo JM, Puppin AC, Fernandes FM, et al. Biological control of *Fasciola hepatica* eggs with the *Pochonia chlamydosporia* fungus after passing through the cattle gastrointestinal tract. Parasitology Research. 2012;**110**(2):663- 667. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-011-2538-6

Section 7 Cattle

### **Chapter 7**

## Aiming to Improve Dairy Cattle Welfare by Using Precision Technology to Track Lameness, Mastitis, Somatic Cell Count and Body Condition Score

*Dinesh Chandra Rai and Vinod Bhateshwar*

### **Abstract**

Specific animal-based indicators that may be used to predict animal welfare have been at the basis of techniques for monitoring farm animal welfare, such as those developed by the Welfare Quality project. In addition, the use of technical instruments to accurately and immediately measure farm animal welfare is obvious. Precision livestock farming (PLF) has enhanced production, economic viability, and animal welfare in dairy farms by using technology instruments. Despite the fact that PLF was only recently adopted, the need for technical assistance on farms is getting more and more attention and has resulted in substantial scientific contributions in a wide range of fields within the dairy sector, with a focus on the health and welfare of cows. Among the most important animal-based indicators of dairy cow welfare are lameness, mastitis, somatic cell count and body condition, and this chapter aims to highlight the most recent advances in PLF in this area. Finally, a discussion is presented on the possibility of integrating the information obtained by PLF into a welfare assessment framework.

**Keywords:** animal welfare, behaviour, body condition score, dairy cattle, infrared thermography, lameness, mastitis, precision livestock farming, somatic cell count

### **1. Introduction**

Animal welfare with several legislative initiatives from the late 1980s to the present day has long been considered a high priority within the European Union (EU) [1]. In addition, as part of a policy-oriented strategy to find methods to enhance animals' lives, the EU has made major investments in research into the welfare of farm animals [2, 3]. For the improving the standard of animal welfare the important part is an animal observation. In this regard, attempts have been undertaken to investigate science-based welfare indicators as assessment methods [4, 5]. For example, the Welfare Quality® project contributed with protocols to assess animal welfare in

cattle, pigs, and poultry [6, 7]. A few years later, the AWIN® project developed indicators for animals not included in Welfare Quality®, including horses, donkeys, turkeys, sheep, and goats [8]. However, there are several practical problems in implementing these protocols, preventing them from having the greatest influence on farm animals' quality of life [9–11]. However, the advancements made in precision livestock farming (PLF) during the past 20 years, with strong cooperation between engineering and livestock sector experts, have led to a considerable change in how animal welfare is assessed. PLF has developed rapidly in recent years, and animal welfare can be objectively assessed in real-time using a wide variety of indicators [12]. This analysis of welfare indicators is already achievable, and it is anticipated to make significant advancements for cattle production in the near future. Applying the most recent advancements in information, communication, and sensor technologies will be necessary to achieve this [13]. Through data from image, sound, and movement sensors coupled with algorithms, it is possible to monitor the welfare of cows, their production, and management techniques [14, 15]. At the moment, there is strong evidence pointing to the feasibility of automatically monitoring and evaluating welfare with outputs that can be included into welfare protocols [12, 16, 17]. Furthermore, a suitable data presentation is required so that farmers embrace and use the technology in PLF solutions effectively [18]. This chapter will examine PLF current work in assessing lameness, mastitis, and body condition, all of which are considered welfare indicators for dairy cows. This chapter also aimed to identify future opportunities for PLF solutions, such as automatically incorporating animal-based indicators into a dairy farm welfare framework, enabling for the establishment of superior welfare for the animals and value for the farmer.

### **2. Welfare of dairy cows and precision livestock farming**

There are presently three methods for evaluating the welfare of dairy cattle, farmers ensuring responsible management in USA [19], the code in New Zealand [20], and welfare quality in Europe [21]. The latter approach has received significant criticism in a number of studies [22–24], which offered a number of recommendations for lowering the number of assessed parameters to get around the timeconsuming observations, which is a limitation that prevents its normal deployment in dairy farms. Along with limiting the assessment processes, the scoring methodology was also altered and made more flexible so that measures may be modified or added as considered appropriate [23]. According to Krueger et al. [25], another welfare evaluation system under development is the integrated diagnostic welfare system (IDWS). Because it uses technology to assist farms in evaluating animal welfare and identifying any reasons of poor welfare, this method may alleviate some of the problems of the other three systems. However, a significant quantity of data and records are required to document animal behaviour, health, and welfare conditions; and the use of sensors and technology can assist in this situation (**Figure 1**) [26]. According to Knight [27], study on dairy cattle sensors has been very dynamic for detecting lameness, mastitis, and body condition, which will be the target of this work. Moreover, sensors are being used for a wide range of different purposes, including fertility (e.g., oestrus cycle and parturition), nutrition, health, and general management of dairy animals. As a result, the primary monitoring systems in dairy farms give complete information in several areas and demonstrate their appropriateness and practicality for dairy farm implementation [26].

*Aiming to Improve Dairy Cattle Welfare by Using Precision Technology to Track Lameness… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106847*

**Figure 1.** *Collars in dairy cows provide relevant data, save time, and give proper needed information.*

### **2.1 Lameness**

After mastitis and reproductive problems, lameness is the third leading cause of economic losses on dairy farms. Mastitis, metabolic problems, and decreased fertility are more common in lame cows [28]. Lameness in dairy cows can vary significantly in incidence and can appear weeks or even months after a metabolic disorder, making it difficult to determine the cause of the lameness [29]. Lameness is typically diagnosed at an advanced stage of the disease, when it is most seriously and expensively treated. An animal in such conditions may require several weeks to recover, costing dairy farmers a lot of time and money in the form of calls to the veterinarian, medication, and therapeutic interventions [30]. The dairy farmer's time constraints are one element that contributes to the under-detection of lameness issues. Therefore, behaviour of the cows must thus be recorded using flexible and reasonably priced sensor-based devices in order to detect the beginning of lameness [31]. Treatment and prevention are important parts of lameness management. Improvements in walking surfaces, diet, and genetics are only a few of the factors that are connected to lameness and may be managed through prevention. The farmer must first identify a cow as lame before treating it. There are typically three ways that this occurs. The first is performing a systematic evaluation of the herd using a locomotion scoring system [32]. The second is regular trimming of the hoofs. Legs are lifted here to be examined and, if necessary, treated [33]. The third and most typical method is casual observation while performing other operations, including herding. Unfortunately, mild and even moderate lameness cannot be detected through ad hoc detection. Automated lameness identification has the potential to fill in information gaps regarding the cow and herd, for cows that are mildly to moderately lame. The period from the onset of lameness to treatment might be shortened with earlier detection and automated

drafting, avoiding instances from becoming severe, hastening recovery, boosting productivity, and enhancing welfare [34]. In addition, lame cows tend to spend less time eating, with shorter bouts, and eat less during the day [35, 36]. Depending on the technology, the expenses of automated lameness identification may be too expensive. However, in order to improve the sensor detection performance and further improve the system for various physiological states like oestrus, illness, calving, or body condition score (BCS), it is required to go forward with the downscaling of the present systems [37]. A single accelerometer per cow is a particularly cost-effective technique, but there are still a number of barriers to overcome before this technology is widely used on farms. Schlageter-Tello et al. [38] state that most automated locomotion scoring devices measure and analyse cows' movement and behaviour parameters using sensors and mathematical algorithms in an attempt to mimic human observers. The employed technologies can be divided into three categories: kinetic (ground reaction force systems, force-scale weighing platforms, and kinetic variations of accelerometers); kinematic (pressure plate/load cell solutions, image processing techniques, and activity-based techniques); and indirect methods, which primarily include behaviour technologies and individual cow milk production measuring technologies. **Table 1** summarises scientific efforts for detecting lameness in dairy cows using kinematic and kinetic techniques.

### **2.2 Mastitis**

Mastitis is one of the most important disease affecting dairy cows. It leads to pain in contaminated animals and has been shown to be harmful to their welfare and the profitability of dairy farms on a worldwide scale [54, 55]. Since the adoption of robotic milking systems (**Figure 2**), dairy farmers have been concerned with developing adequate mastitis control strategies in their herds. The creation and application of control strategies that includes pre and post-milking teat immersion, proper milking practices, and the limited use of antibiotics in drying only in affected cows has led in a considerable drop in infectious microorganisms. However, when mastitis pathogens occurred, researchers tried to limit the use of antimicrobial drugs while protecting animal welfare and adhering to uniform standards for unnecessary usage. Thus, despite significant improvements in mastitis management over the previous decade, mastitis will continue to be a major focus of future studies [56].

Cost - effective monitoring of mastitis by automated technologies gives an ideal chance to carry out early therapeutic interventions and reduce antibiotic misuse, so boosting cow health and welfare, reducing discomfort and pain, improving recovery rates, and enhancing farm economic sustainability [57, 58]. Effective diagnostic techniques can speed up and improve the management of mastitis and encourage the proper use of antimicrobials [59]. It is also important to be able to properly evaluate the severity of clinical mastitis in terms of addressing treatment success [60] and adopt treatment safety protocols as needed.

### **2.3 Somatic cell count (SCC)**

Health management is necessary for sustaining economical and sustainable dairy farming. The most common udder health indicator for dairy cows is somatic cell


*Aiming to Improve Dairy Cattle Welfare by Using Precision Technology to Track Lameness… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106847*

*LS, locomotion score; n, number of cows; SE, sensitivity = True Positive/(True Positive+False Negative) × 100; SP, Specificity = True Negative/(True Negative + False Positive) × 100; AUC, area under the curve.*

### **Table 1.**

*Summary of research findings for detecting lameness in dairy cows using kinematic and kinetic techniques.*

**Figure 2.** *A schematic of a robotic milking facility in which dairy cows can decide the time and frequency of milking.*

count (SCC), which is tested at the quarter, cow, and bulk tank levels. In automatic milking systems (AMS), completely automatic online analysis devices are available to monitor SCC at the farm during each milking [61]. Moreover, from the results of the online SCC, a number of additional cows and quarter level factors important for udder health are recorded in these systems [62]. The SCC may be used to monitor intramammary infection to some extent, and the industry has progressed toward inventing novel sensors that are specifically developed for udder health monitoring. This provides a considerable increase in the quantity of data available for udder health management, for example, which may also use as phenotypes for breeding programmes. In addition to SCC measurements taken on a regular basis, a number of additional cow level and quarterly parameters judged important for udder health are recorded in the AMS at each milking [63].

### **2.4 Infrared thermography**

Infrared thermography (IRT) is a non-invasive method that permits reliable temperature assessment from a distance and has several applications in animal science [64, 65]. Early mastitis detection in dairy production has been achieved with the use of IRT. Despite its demonstrated ability to diagnose mastitis, manual animal analysis has limits because it is time-consuming and needed a trained examiner [66]. In order to discriminate between cows with normal and increased SCC, Zaninelli et al. [67] applied software that detected the udder thermogram pixel with the highest temperature. When compared to the current gold standard of manual evaluation, the findings of automatic analysis of the thermograms of bovine udders that had suffered intramammary *E. coli* exposure indicated encouraging signs of clinical mastitis. We assume that the high temperatures seen with manual analysis occurred because warmer areas, including the udder-thigh cleft, were included, whereas these regions are omitted by automatic segmentation [68]. This technique may also be used to identify changes in

internal body temperature, such as fever. However, infrared thermography should not take the place of an individual animal examination and is only intended to be used as a tool for automated health surveillance [69].

### **2.5 Body condition scoring**

Body condition is an important factor for herd management and welfare. The dairy cow's body condition is highly correlated with their health, metabolic activity, and the composition of the milk during lactation [70]. Assessment of body condition is an indirect measure of the level of body reserves, and deviations from show the overall variation in the energy balance [71, 72]. Regular measures of body condition are based on visual observation and palpation of particular body parts to provide a score that evaluates the adipose tissue and muscle mass deposits [73]. This evaluation method, commonly referred to as the body condition score (BCS), has captured attention as a useful technique for managing dairy herds [74].

BCS observations can be done by visually or using a combination of visual signs with bone structure palpation, and the amount of subcutaneous fat. The backbone, pins, tail head, long ribs, short ribs, hips, and rump are the key segments for BCS assessment [75]. Different scoring scales have been developed all around the world throughout the years. In the United States, for example, a five-point scale method was mostly used, proposed by Windman et al. [76]. Ferguson et al. [77] suggested a scale of 0 to 5, subdivided into 0.25 centesimal intervals, to measure body condition, namely the adipose tissue of the cow's lumbar and pelvic parts. Despite widespread agreement among dairy farmers, nutritionists, and herd management regarding the benefits of BCS assessment, various reasons restrict its adoption [78], subjectivity in judgement can result in different scores for the same cow, and on-farm technician training is difficult and time-consuming [79]. Furthermore, in order to obtain useful data, cow measurements must be recorded every 30 days across the lactation period [80], increasing the extra cost and difficulty of obtaining BCS data. To address these limitations, different alternatives solutions have been developed within the approach of the PLF, with extremely promising outcomes. The most innovative options use image capture and recording as vision-based body condition score systems, which resemble traditional BCS assessments in some ways. Ultrasound is another imaging technique that has been used to determine body and carcass composition [81]. This approach is commonly used to monitor body condition in small ruminants [82, 83], swine [84], and cattle [85]. Recent studies [86, 87] demonstrated the utility of applying ultrasound to examine the body reserves of cows by scanning the body areas associated with the BCS assessment, such as the ribs, pin, tail-head, and lumbar spine. Despite its excellent accuracy for BCS prediction, the cows must be individually confined to obtain the ultrasound pictures, making this technology less ideal for evaluating large numbers of animals over time. Therefore, larger farms with hundreds of animals should not use this method. In order to achieve a BCS evaluation of animals in motion, the ultrasonic technique is only used for timely analyses or the validation of other approaches, such as those supported by cameras [88, 89].

### *2.5.1 Vision-based body condition scoring systems*

Currently, many vision-based BSC monitoring systems, including thermal imaging [90], 2D imaging [91], and 3D imaging technology [92, 93], have been developed and tested. With examples like Fourier transformation [94] and machine learning


*n, number of cows; ToF, time of flight; BCS, body condition score; R, correlation coefficient; R2, coefficient of determination; MAPE, mean absolute percentage error.*

### **Table 2.**

*Summary of study measuring cow body condition score with 2D and 3D sensors.*

[95], data analysis techniques have been used to track the development of sensors, which boost the capability of working systems. There are still limitations to completely automated systems, despite the advancements that have previously been made. However, with the advancement of cameras and software, we are getting closer to an automated and objective BCS. The guesswork and errors associated with conventional scoring are eliminated by vision-based approaches, while the efficiency may be significantly increased. These factors clearly act as the foundation for developing machinery that producers consider to be effective [96]. The study on measuring cow body condition score using 2D and 3D sensors is summarised in **Table 2**.

The Welfare Quality standards now incorporate BCS as an animal-based indicator connected to livestock feed [102]. Similarly to what is currently being done with other species (e.g., Eye Namic for Poultry and Swine [17]), by continuously monitoring

*Aiming to Improve Dairy Cattle Welfare by Using Precision Technology to Track Lameness… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106847*

health and welfare in real time, PLF technologies have shown to be a step forward in the individual assessment of cows [14, 103].

### **3. The potential of PLF for assessing welfare animal-based indicators of dairy cattle**

Because welfare is a complicated multi-dimensional phenomena, assessing the welfare of dairy cows and other farm animal species usually involves time-consuming and costly audits [102]. On the other hand, with recent advances in sensor technology, the sole purpose of PLF, which is continuous real-time on-farm monitoring of individual animals to enhance production/breeding, health and welfare, and environmental sustainability, is already being approached in different aspects of dairy cattle production [103]. As with the Welfare Quality® protocol, the implementation of dairy cow welfare evaluation has considerable constraints, as it is time-consuming [23] and lacks interaction with trained users on the value of various welfare criteria [104]. In addition to shortening the evaluation period, many researchers proposed changes to the calculations, such as the one described by Van Eerdenburg et al. [22] for drinking water. Furthermore, the welfare calculations required more adjustable techniques, mainly for the total score [23, 104]. As a result, the ability to use PLF solutions to assess the animal-based indicators of lameness, mastitis, and body condition presented in this review could well be much appreciated. Because of the recent development and validation of different PLF solutions, as shown by the discussed advances, it is now possible to address the three animal-based indicators listed by commercial PLF technologies. In addition, a recent review [13] noted that in order to properly use the continuous measurement and individual monitoring of cows, some of the protocol criteria would need to be modified. This modification can rely on animal-based welfare measures, such as those examined in this paper and others, as explained by Tuyttens et al. [23], who reviewed the Welfare Quality Protocol and discovered a more user-friendly, time-efficient approach in assessing dairy cattle welfare with the inclusion of only six animal-based indicators. Various farm animal welfare frameworks, such the five domains model [101], will also have room. Researchers studying farm animal welfare are becoming more interested in the five domains model, and they are also discussing about the possibility of using the PLF with this model. With the advancement of PLF technologies, it is now unquestionably possible to monitor cow welfare in real time with the use of animal-based indicators. Therefore, based on recent scientific research and technological advancements (e.g., Stygar et al. [14]), significant PLF developments are assumed to occur soon, opening the window of opportunity for monitoring and improving the welfare of dairy cows.

### **4. Challenges for the future**

Precision livestock farming is recognised as key for future dairy producers since it allows for regular monitoring of animal health and welfare during production. The advancement of applying technology for monitoring lameness, mastitis, and body condition in dairy cows is highlighted in this chapter. Accurate continuous monitoring systems that eliminate false alarms are required for farmers to accept and implement these technologies for these challenges, which have been identified as animal-based indicators. Therefore, a detailed early warning system is required to monitor the

health of dairy cows in order to prevent the development of more serious diseases and welfare issues. Finally, research into dairy cow welfare technologies has provided various indications that might be automatically monitored and integrated into an evaluation framework.

### **5. Conclusion**

Farm animal welfare is an increasing problem all over the world. There is a considerable need in milk production to analyses the welfare of dairy cows. The Welfare Quality project's procedures have been used in one of the most sound assessment initiatives. These methods primarily assist in the examination of cow welfare using animal-based indicators. However, analysing these indications takes time and money, thus adopting precision livestock farming (PLF) technologies is a viable option that is becoming a reality in the dairy sector. This chapter discusses advancements in PLF solutions, generally in the previous 5 years, along with animal-based indicators of lameness, mastitis, and body condition in dairy cattle farming.

### **Conflicts of interest**

The authors disclose that they have no conflicting interests.

### **Author details**

Dinesh Chandra Rai\* and Vinod Bhateshwar Department of Dairy Science and Food Technology, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

\*Address all correspondence to: dcrai@bhu.ac.in

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Aiming to Improve Dairy Cattle Welfare by Using Precision Technology to Track Lameness… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106847*

### **References**

[1] Broom DM. EU regulations and the current position of animal welfare. In: Ahmad BV, Moran D, D'Eath RB, editors. The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Rome, Italy: CAB; 2020

[2] Buller H, Blokhuis H, Jensen P, Keeling L. Towards farm animal welfare and sustainability. Animals. 2018;**8**:81. DOI: 10.3390/ani8060081

[3] Phillips CJC, Molento CFM. Animal welfare centres: Are they useful for the improvement of animal welfare? Animals. 2020;**10**:877. DOI: 10.3390/ ani10050877

[4] Fraser D, Duncan IJ, Edwards S, Grandin T, Gregory NG, Guyonnet V, et al. General principles for the welfare of animals in production systems: The underlying science and its application. Veterinary Journal. 2013;**198**:19-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.06.028

[5] Blokhuis HJ, Veissier I, Miele M, Jones BC. The welfare quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science. 2010;**60**:129-140. DOI: 10.1080/09064702.2010.523480

[6] Blokhuis HJ, Miele M, Veissier I, Jones B. Improving Farm Animal Welfare: Science and Society Working Together: The Welfare Quality Approach. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; 2013. pp. 71-89

[7] Zanella A. AWIN - Animal health and welfare - FP7 project. Impact. 2016:15-17. DOI: 10.21820/23987073.2016.1.15

[8] Czycholl I, Kniese C, Schrader L, Krieter J. Assessment of the multi-criteria evaluation system of the welfare quality® protocol for growing pigs. Animals. 2017;**11**:1573-1580. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731117000210

[9] De Graaf S, Ampe B, Buijs S, Andreasen S, Roches ADBD, Van Eerdenburg F, et al. Sensitivity of the integrated welfare quality® scores to changing values of individual dairy cattle welfare measures. Animal Welfare. 2018;**27**:157-166. DOI: 10.7120/09627286. 27.2.157

[10] Rios HV, Waquil PD, De Carvalho PS, Norton T. How are information technologies addressing broiler welfare? A systematic review based on the welfare quality® assessment. Sustainability. 2020;**12**:1413. DOI: 10.3390/su12041413

[11] Larsen M, Wang M, Norton T. Information technologies for welfare monitoring in pigs and their relation to welfare quality®. Sustainability. 2021;**13**:692. DOI: 10.3390/su13020692

[12] Molina FM, Marin CCP, Moreno LM, Buendia EIA, Marin DCP. Welfare quality® for dairy cows: Towards a sensor-based assessment. Journal of Dairy Research. 2020;**87**:28-33. DOI: 10.1017/S002202992000045X

[13] Stygar AH, Gomez Y, Berteselli GV, Costa ED, Canali E, Niemi JK, et al. A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2021;**8**:177. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.634338

[14] Qiao Y, Kong H, Clark C, Lomax S, Su D, Eiffert S, et al. Intelligent perception for cattle monitoring: A review for cattle identification, body

condition score evaluation, and weight estimation. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2021;**185**:106143. DOI: 10.1016/j.compag.2021.106143

[15] Berckmans D, Hemeryck M, Berckmans D, Vranken E, van Waterschoot T. Animal sound talks! Realtime sound analysis for health monitoring in livestock. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Animal Environment & Welfare, Chongqing, China. Beijing, China: China Agriculture Press; 23-26 Oct 2015. pp. 215-222

[16] Buller H, Blokhuis H, Lokhorst K, Silberberg M, Veissier I. Animal welfare management in a digital world. Animals. 2020;**10**:1779. DOI: 10.3390/ani10101779

[17] Van Hertem T, Rooijakkers L, Berckmans D, Fernández AP, Norton T, Vranken E. Appropriate data visualisation is key to precision livestock farming acceptance. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2017;**138**:1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.compag.2017.04.003

[18] FARM. Animal care reference manual version 4. National dairy FARM program. Available from: https:// nationaldairyfarm.com/wp-content/ uploads/2020/02/Animal-Care-V4-Manual-Print-Friendly.pdf [Accessed: June 17, 2021]

[19] New Zealand national animal welfare advisory committee. Code of Welfare: Dairy Cattle. 2019. 57. Available from: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/ dmsdocument/37542/direct [Accessed: June 17, 2021]

[20] Welfare quality. Assessment protocol for cattle. Available from: http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/ network/45848/7/0/ 40 [Accessed: June 17, 2021]

[21] Van Eerdenburg F, Di Giacinto A, Hulsen J, Snel B, Stegeman J. A new,

practical animal welfare assessment for dairy farmers. Animals. 2021;**11**:881. DOI: 10.3390/ani11030881

[22] Tuyttens FAM, de Graaf S, Andreasen SN, Roches ADBD, van Eerdenburg FJCM, Haskell MJ, et al. Using expert elicitation to abridge the welfare quality® protocol for monitoring the most adverse dairy cattle welfare impairments. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2021;**8**:634470. DOI: 10.3389/ fvets.2021.634470

[23] Heath CAE, Browne WJ, Mullan S, Main DC. Navigating the iceberg: Reducing the number of parameters within the welfare quality® assessment protocol for dairy cows. Animal. 2014;**8**:1978-1986. DOI: 10.1017/ S1751731114002018

[24] Krueger A, Cruickshank J, Trevisi E, Bionaz M. Systems for evaluation of welfare on dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Research. 2020;**87**:13-19. DOI: 10.1017/ S0022029920000461

[25] Lovarelli D, Bacenetti J, Guarino M. A review on dairy cattle farming: Is precision livestock farming the compromise for an environmental, economic and social sustainable production? Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;**262**:121409. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121409

[26] Knight CH. Review: Sensor techniques in ruminants: More than fitness trackers. Animal. 2020;**14**:s187-s195. DOI: 10.1017/ S1751731119003276

[27] Heringstad B, Egger-Danner C, Charfeddine N, Pryce J, Stock K, Kofler J, et al. Invited review: Genetics and claw health: Opportunities to enhance claw health by genetic selection. Journal of Dairy Science. 2018;**101**:4801-4821. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2017-13531

*Aiming to Improve Dairy Cattle Welfare by Using Precision Technology to Track Lameness… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106847*

[28] Mineur A, Hammami H, Grelet C, Egger-Danner C, Solkner J, Gengler N. Short communication: Investigation of the temporal relationships between milk mid-infrared predicted biomarkers and lameness events in later lactation. Journal of Dairy Science. 2020;**103**:4475-4482. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2019-16826

[29] Taneja M, Byabazaire J, Jalodia N, Davy A, Olariu C, Malone P. Machine learning based fog computing assisted data-driven approach for early lameness detection in dairy cattle. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2020;**171**:105286. DOI: 10.1016/j. compag.2020.105286

[30] Barker Z, Diosdado JV, Codling E, Bell N, Hodges H, Croft D, et al. Use of novel sensors combining local positioning and acceleration to measure feeding behavior differences associated with lameness in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science. 2018;**101**:6310-6321. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-12172

[31] Van Nuffel A, Zwertvaegher I, Pluym L, Van Weyenberg S, Thorup VM, Pastell M, et al. Lameness detection in dairy cows: Part 1. How to distinguish between non-lame and lame cows based on differences in locomotion or behavior. Animals. 2015;**5**:387. DOI: 10.3390/ ani5030387

[32] Dolecheck K, Bewley J. Animal board invited review: Dairy cow lameness expenditures, losses and total cost. Animals. 2018;**12**:1462-1474. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731118000575

[33] Daros RR, Eriksson HK, Weary DM, Von Keyserlingk MA. The relationship between transition period diseases and lameness, feeding time, and body condition during the dry period. Journal of Dairy Science. 2020;**103**:649-665. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2019-16975

[34] Grimm K, Haidn B, Erhard M, Tremblay M, Dopfer D. New insights into the association between lameness, behavior, and performance in Simmental cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 2019;**102**:2453-2468. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2018-15035

[35] Nechanitzky K, Starke A, Vidondo B, Muller H, Reckardt M, Friedli K, et al. Analysis of behavioral changes in dairy cows associated with claw horn lesions. Journal of Dairy Science. 2016;**99**:2904- 2914. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2015-10109

[36] Van De Gucht T, Saeys W, Van Meensel J, Van Nuffel A, Vangeyte J, Lauwers L. Farm-specific economic value of automatic lameness detection systems in dairy cattle: From concepts to operational simulations. Journal of Dairy Science. 2018;**101**:637-648. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2017-12867

[37] Schlageter-Tello A, Van Hertem T, Bokkers EAM, Viazzi S, Bahr C, Lokhorst K. Performance of human observers and an automatic 3-dimensional computer-visionbased locomotion scoring method to detect lameness and hoof lesions in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 2018;**101**:6322-6335. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2017-13768

[38] Van Nuffel A, Zwertvaegher I, Van Weyenberg S, Pastell M, Thorup VM, Bahr C, et al. Lameness detection in dairy cows: Part 2. Use of sensors to automatically register changes in locomotion or behavior. Animals. 2015;**5**:388. DOI: 10.3390/ani5030388

[39] Maertens W, Vangeyte J, Baert J, Jantuan A, Mertens K, De Campeneere S, et al. Development of a real time cow gait tracking and analysing tool to assess lameness using a pressure sensitive walkway: The GAITWISE system. Biosystems Engineering.

2011;**110**:29-39. DOI: 10.1016/j. biosystemseng.2011.06.003

[40] Van Nuffel A, Vangeyte J, Mertens KC, Pluym L, De Campeneere S, Saeys W, et al. Ex-ploration of measurement variation of gait variables for early lameness detection in cattle using the GAITWISE. Livestock Science. 2013;**156**:88-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.013

[41] Chapinal N, De Passille MA, Pastell M, Hanninen L, Munksgaard L, Rushen J. Measurement of acceleration while walking as an automated method for gait assessment in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science. 2011;**94**:2895-2901. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2010-3882

[42] Bicalho R, Cheong SH, Cramer G, Guard C. Association between a visual and an automated locomotion score in lactating Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 2007;**90**:3294-3300. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2007-0076

[43] Dunthorn J, Dyer RM, Neerchal NK, McHenry JS, Rajkondawar PG, Steingraber G, et al. Predictive models of lameness in dairy cows achieve high sensitivity and specificity with force measurements in three dimensions. Journal of Dairy Research. 2015;**82**:391- 399. DOI: 10.1017/S002202991500028X

[44] Ghotoorlar SM, Ghamsari SM, Nowrouzian I, Ghotoorlar SM, Ghidary SS. Lameness scoring system for dairy cows using force plates and artificial intelligence. Veterinary Record. 2012;**170**:126. DOI: 10.1136/ vr.100429

[45] Liu J, Neerchal N, Tasch U, Dyer R, Rajkondawar P. Enhancing the prediction accuracy of bovine lameness models through transformations of limb movement variables. Journal of

Dairy Scencei. 2009;**92**:2539-2550. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2008-1301

[46] Liu J, Dyer RM, Neerchal NK, Tasch U, Rajkondawar PG. Diversity in the magnitude of hind limb unloading occurs with similar forms of lameness in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research. 2011;**78**:168-177. DOI: 10.1017/ S0022029911000057

[47] Rajkondawar PG, Tasch U, Lefcourt AM, Erez B, Dyer RM, Varner MA. A system for identifying lameness in dairy cattle. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 2002;**18**:87

[48] Chapinal N, De Passille AM, Rushen J, Wagner S. Automated methods for detecting lameness and measuring analgesia in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science. 2010;**93**:2007-2013. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2009-2803

[49] Chapinal N, Tucker C. Validation of an automated method to count steps while cows stand on a weighing platform and its application as a measure to detect lameness. Journal of Dairy Science. 2012;**95**:6523-6528. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2012-5742

[50] Pastell M, Kujala M. A probabilistic neural network model for lameness detection. Journal of Dairy Science. 2007;**90**:2283-2292. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2006-267

[51] Haladjian J, Haug J, Nuske S, Bruegge B. A wearable sensor system for lameness detection in dairy cattle. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction. 2018;**2**:27. DOI: 10.3390/mti2020027

[52] Post C, Rietz C, Buscher W, Muller U. Using sensor data to detect lameness and mastitis treatment events in dairy cows: A comparison of classification models. Sensors. 2020;**20**:3863. DOI: 10.3390/ s20143863

*Aiming to Improve Dairy Cattle Welfare by Using Precision Technology to Track Lameness… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106847*

[53] Rollin E, Dhuyvetter KC, Overton MW. The cost of clinical mastitis in the first 30 days of lactation: An economic modeling tool. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2015;**122**:257-264. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.11.006

[54] Puerto M, Shepley E, Cue R, Warner D, Dubuc J, Vasseur E. The hidden cost of disease: I. impact of the first incidence of mastitis on production and economic indicators of primiparous dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 2021;**104**:7932-7943. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2020-19584

[55] Ruegg PL. A 100-year review: Mastitis detection, management, and prevention. Journal of Dairy Science. 2017;**100**:10381-10397. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2017-13023

[56] Kuipers A, Koops W, Wemmenhove H. Antibiotic use in dairy herds in the Netherlands from 2005 to 2012. Journal of Dairy Science. 2016;**99**:1632-1648. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2014-8428

[57] Stevens M, Piepers S, Supre K, Dewulf J, De Vliegher S. Quantification of antimicrobial consumption in adult cattle on dairy herds in Flanders, Belgium, and associations with udder health, milk quality, and production performance. Journal of Dairy Science. 2016;**99**:2118-2130. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2015-10199

[58] Kromker V, Leimbach S. Mastitis treatment-reduction in antibiotic usage in dairy cows. Reproduction in Domestic Animals. 2017;**52**:21-29. DOI: 10.1111/ rda.13032

[59] Royster E, Wagner S. Treatment of mastitis in cattle. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. 2015;**31**:17-46. DOI: 10.1016/j. cvfa.2014.11.010

[60] Sorensen L, Bjerring M, Lovendahl P. Monitoring individual cow udder health in automated milking systems using online somatic cell counts. Journal of Dairy Science. 2016;**99**:608-620. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2014-8823

[61] Norstebo H, Dalen G, Rachah A, Heringstad B, Whist AC, Nodtvedt A, et al. Factors associated with milking-tomilking variability in somatic cell counts from healthy cows in an automatic milking system. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2019;**172**:104786. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104786

[62] Hogeveen H, Kamphuis C, Steeneveld W, Mollenhorst H. Sensors and clinical mastitis—The quest for the perfect alert. Sensors. 2010;**10**:7991. DOI: 10.3390/s100907991

[63] Cook NJ. Review on the use of infrared thermography to monitor the health of intensively housed livestock. Journal of Animal Sciences and Livestock Production. 2021;**5**:002

[64] Naas IA, Garcia RG, Caldara FR. Infrared thermal image for assessing animal health and welfare. Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology. 2014;**2**:66-72. DOI: 10.14269/2318-1265/ jabb.v2n3p66-72

[65] Watz S, Petzl W, Zerbe H, Rieger A, Glas A, Schroter W, et al. Technical note: Automatic evaluation of infrared thermal images by computerized active shape modeling of bovine udders challenged with Escherichia coli. Journal of Dairy Science. 2019;**102**:4541-4545. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2018-15761

[66] Zaninelli M, Redaelli V, Luzi F, Bronzo V, Mitchell M, Dell'Orto V, et al. First evaluation of infrared thermography as a tool for the monitoring of udder health status

in farms of dairy cows. Sensors. 2018;**18**:862. DOI: 10.3390/s18030862

[67] Shecaira CL, Seino CH, Bombardelli JA, Reis GA, Fusada EJ, Azedo MR, et al. Using thermography as a diagnostic tool for omphalitis on newborn calves. Journal of Thermal Biology. 2018;**71**:209-211. DOI: 10.1016/j. jtherbio.2017.11.014

[68] Huang X, Hu Z, Wang X, Yang X, Zhang J, Shi D. An improved single shot multibox detector method applied in body condition score for dairy cows. Animals. 2019;**9**:470. DOI: 10.3390/ ani9070470

[69] Roche JR, Dillon PG, Stockdale CJ, Baumgard LH, Van Baale MJ. Relationships among international body condition scoring systems. Journal of Dairy Science. 2004;**87**:3076-3079. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73441-4

[70] Mahony NO, Campbell S, Carvalho A, Krpalkova L, Riordan D, Walsh J. 3D vision for precision dairy farming. IFAC- PapersOnLine. 2019;**52**:312-317. DOI: 10.1016/j. ifacol.2019.12.555

[71] Zieltjens P. A comparison of an automated body condition scoring system from de laval with manual, non-automated, method. 2020. Available from: http://dspace.library.uu.nl/ handle/1874/395372 [Accessed: June 26, 2021]

[72] Waltner SS, McNamara JP, Hillers JK. Relationships of body condition score to production variables in high producing Holstein dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science. 1993;**76**:3410-3419. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(93)77679-1

[73] Wildman EE, Jones GM, Wagner PE, Boman RL, Troutt H, Lesch TN. A dairy cow body condition scoring system and

its relationship to selected production characteristics. Journal of Dairy Science. 1982;**65**:495-501. DOI: 10.3168/jds. S0022-0302(82)82223-6

[74] Ferguson JD, Galligan DT, Thomsen N. Principal descriptors of body condition score in Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 1994;**77**:2695-2703. DOI: 10.3168./jds. S0022-0302(94)77212-X

[75] Azzaro G, Caccamo M, Ferguson JD, Battiato S, Farinella GM, Guarnera GC, et al. Objective estimation of body condition score by modeling cow body shape from digital images. Journal of Dairy Science. 2011;**94**:2126-2137. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2010-3467

[76] Hady P, Domecq J, Kaneene J. Frequency and precision of body condition scoring in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science. 1994;**77**:1543-1547. DOI: 10.3168/jds. S0022-0302(94)77095-8

[77] Silva SR, Stouffer JR. Looking under the hide of animals. The history of ultrasound to assess carcass composition and meat quality in farm animals. Historia Cincia Ensino Construindo Interfaces. 2019;**20**:523- 535. DOI: 10.23925/2178-2911.2019v20e spp523-535

[78] McGregor B. Relationships between live weight, body condition, dimensional and ultrasound scanning measurements and carcass attributes in adult Angora goats. Small Ruminant Research. 2017;**147**:8-17. DOI: 10.1016/j. smallrumres.2016.11.014

[79] Afonso J, Guedes CM, Teixeira A, Santos V, Azevedo J, Silva SR. Using realtime ultrasound for in vivo assessment of carcass and internal adipose depots of dairy sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science. 2019;**157**:650-658. DOI: 10.1017/ S0021859620000106

*Aiming to Improve Dairy Cattle Welfare by Using Precision Technology to Track Lameness… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106847*

[80] Knecht D, Srodomn S, Czyz K. Does the degree of fatness and muscularity determined by ultrasound method affect sows' reproductive performance? Animals. 2020;**10**:794. DOI: 10.3390/ ani10050794

[81] Schroder UJ, Staufenbiel R. Invited review: Methods to determine body fat reserves in the dairy cow with special regard to ultrasonographic measurement of backfat thickness. Journal of Dairy Science. 2006;**89**:1-14. DOI: 10.3168/jds. S0022-0302(06)72064-1

[82] Siachos N, Oikonomou G, Panousis N, Banos G, Arsenos G, Valergakis G. Association of body condition score with ultrasound measurements of backfat and longissimus dorsi muscle thickness in periparturient Holstein cows. Animals. 2021;**11**:818. DOI: 10.3390/ani11030818

[83] Bunemann K, Von Soosten D, Frahm J, Kersten S, Meyer U, Hummel J, et al. Effects of body condition and concentrate proportion of the ration on mobilization of fat depots and energetic condition in dairy cows during early lactation based on ultrasonic measurements. Animals. 2019;**9**:131. DOI: 10.3390/ani9040131

[84] Halachmi I, Klopc ic M, Polak P, Roberts DJ, Bewley JM. Automatic assessment of dairy cattle body condition score using thermal imaging. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2013;**99**:35-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.compag.2013.08.012

[85] Zin TT, Tin P, Kobayashi I, Horii Y. An automatic estimation of dairy cow body condition score using analytic geometric image features. In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 7th Global Conference on Consumer Electronics (GCCE), Nara, Japan, 9-12 October 2018. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE); 2018. pp. 775-776

[86] Bercovich A, Edan Y, Alchanatis V, Moallem U, Parmet Y, Honig H, et al. Development of an automatic cow body condition scoring using body shape signature and Fourier descriptors. Journal of Dairy Science. 2013;**96**:8047- 8059. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2013-6568

[87] Martins B, Mendes A, Silva L, Moreira T, Costa J, Rotta P, et al. Estimating body weight, body condition score, and type traits in dairy cows using three dimensional cameras and manual body measurements. Livestock Science. 2020;**236**:104054. DOI: 10.1016/j. livsci.2020.104054

[88] Liu D, He D, Norton T. Automatic estimation of dairy cattle body condition score from depth image using ensemble model. Biosystems Engineering. 2020;**194**:16-27. DOI: 10.1016/j. biosystemseng.2020.03.011

[89] Tedin R, Becerra JA, Duro RJ. Building the "automatic body condition assessment system" (ABiCA), an automatic body condition scoring system using active shape models and machine learning. In: Tweedale J, Jain L, editors. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Vol. 34. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Science and Business Media LLC; 2014. pp. 145-168

[90] Rutten C, Steeneveld W, Lansink AO, Hogeveen H. Delaying investments in sensor technology: The rationality of dairy farmers' investment decisions illustrated within the framework of real options theory. Journal of Dairy Science. 2018;**101**:7650-7660. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2017-13358

[91] Bewley J, Peacock A, Lewis O, Boyce R, Roberts D, Coffey M, et al. Potential for estimation of body condition scores in dairy cattle from digital images. Journal of Dairy Science. 2008;**91**:3439-3453. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2007-0836

[92] Silva SR, Cerqueira JOL, Guedes C, Santos V, Fontes I, Batista ACS, et al. Assessing body fat reserves of dairy cows by digital image analysis. In: Proceedings of the XVI Jornadas Sobre Produccion Animal. Zaragoza, Spain: Asociacion Interprofesional para el Desarrollo Agrario; 19-20 Mar 2015. pp. 111-113

[93] Krukowski M. Automatic determination of body condition score of dairy cows from 3D images. Available from: https://www. semanticscholar.org/paper/Automatic-Determination-of-Body-Condition-Score-of/a9e1bddb0fdc862859b90d0 3e20b34d4cfdf4b93?p2df [Accessed: June 14, 2021]

[94] Salau J, Haas JH, Junge W, Bauer U, Harms J, Bieletzki S. Feasibility of automated body trait determination using the SR4K time-of-flight camera in cow barns. Springerplus. 2014;**3**:1-16. DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-225

[95] Anglart D. Automatic estimation of body weight and body condition score in dairy cows using 3d imaging technique. 2014. Available from: https://stud. epsilon.slu.se/6355/1/anglart\_d\_140114. pdf [Accessed: June 26, 2021]

[96] Fischer A, Luginbuhl T, Delattre L, Delouard J, Faverdin P. Rear shape in 3 dimensions summarized by principal component analysis is a good predictor of body condition score in Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 2015;**98**:4465-4476. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2014-8969

[97] Shelley AN. Incorporating machine vision in precision dairy farming technologies. 2016. Available from: https:// core.ac.uk/ download/pdf/232573054.pdf [Accessed: June 14, 2021]

[98] Alvarez JR, Arroqui M, Mangudo P, Toloza J, Jatip D, Rodríguez JM, et al. Body condition estimation on cows from depth images using convolutional neural networks. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2018;**155**:12-22. DOI: 10.3390/agronomy9020090

[99] Yukun S, Pengju H, Yujie W, Ziqi C, Yang L, Baisheng D, et al. Automatic monitoring system for individual dairy cows based on a deep learning framework that provides identification via body parts and estimation of body condition score. Journal of Dairy Science. 2019;**102**:10140-10151. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2018-16164

[100] Zin TT, Seint PT, Tin P, Horii Y, Kobayashi I. Body condition score estimation based on regression analysis using a 3D camera. Sensors. 2020;**20**:3705. DOI: 10.3390/s20133705

[101] Kooij EVE-VD. Using precision farming to improve animal welfare. Cab reviews: Perspectives in agriculture, veterinary science, nutrition and natural. Resources. 2020;**15**:1-10. DOI: 10.1079/ PAVSNNR202015051

[102] Berckmans D. General introduction to precision livestock farming. Animal Frontiers. 2017;**7**:6-11. DOI: 10.2527/ af.2017.0102

[103] De Graaf S, Ampe B, Winckler C, Radeski M, Mounier L, Kirchner MK, et al. Trained-user opinion about welfare quality measures and integrated scoring of dairy cattle welfare. Journal of Dairy Science. 2017;**100**:6376-6388. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-12255

[104] Schillings J, Bennett R, Rose DC. Exploring the potential of precision livestock farming technologies to help address farm animal welfare. Frontiers in Animal Science. 2021;**2**:639678. DOI: 10.3389/fanim.2021.639678

### **Chapter 8**

## Overview of Animal Welfare Aspects of Bali Cattle with Confined Typology in Sumbawa Regency, NTB, Indonesia

*Sudirman Sudirman, Amrullah Amrullah and Asrul Hamdani*

### **Abstract**

The quality of life of cattle will affect their productivity, where productivity is an indicator of animal welfare. Sumbawa is one of the national cattle source areas in Indonesia, both as a producer of beef cattle and seed cattle. The research has been carried out using a survey method, collecting data through structured interviews using questionnaires, field observations and the Animal Needs Index (ANI) with 40 respondents. The purpose of the study was to determine the level of welfare of Bali cattle with the Confined typology in Sumbawa Regency. The results showed that the total ANI score in the study area was 15.32, which was included in the almost prosperous category. The recommendation is that it is necessary to improve the aspect of being freedom from discomfort (FDC) and the aspect of being freedom to express natural behavior (FENB) to improve animal welfare through increasing awareness and understanding of farmers and there needs to be government policy intervention in the context of implementing animal welfare in Sumbawa Regency as a efforts to increase the productivity of Bali cattle.

**Keywords:** animal welfare, ANI, Bali cattle, confined, productivity

### **1. Introduction**

The definition of animal welfare in the Law of the Republic of Indonesia number 41 of 2014 concerning amendments to Law No. 18 of 2009 concerning Animal Husbandry and Animal Health clause 1 Section 42 is all matters relating to the physical and mental state of animals according to behavioral measures. Natural animal nature needs to be implemented and enforced to protect animals from any person's inappropriate treatment of animals that are used by humans. Animal welfare targets are all animals that interact with humans where human intervention greatly affects the survival of both animals in confinement, livestock and slaughter animals, working animals and pets [1]. The quality of life of animals will affect their productivity, where productivity is an indicator of animal welfare. The application of animal welfare aspects in the livestock industry is recognized as having the potential to increase animal productivity and improve meat quality [2].

Parameters for evaluating animal welfare that have been internationally recognized by classifying are The Five Freedoms [3] as follows: 1. Freedom from hunger and thirst; 2. Freedom from discomfort; 3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease; 4. Freedom to express natural behavior; 5. Freedom from fear and distress. Although aspects of animal welfare are grouped into two of five freedoms, the first four freedoms are to relieve suffering and the second freedom is to express normal behavior [4]. The application of animal welfare in cattle farming can mean placing cows in adequate facilities, protection from pain and protection from environmental extremes, such as air temperatures that are too hot or too cold [5].

Sumbawa Regency, Nusa Tenggara Barat (NTB) is one of the national cattle source areas in eastern Indonesia, both as a producer of beef cattle and seed cattle. Bali cattle population growth in Sumbawa is very dynamic starting at 0.34% in 2017; 4.69% in 2018; 1.36% in 2019; 1.33% in 2020 and − 3.78% in 2021. Meanwhile, growth other than Bali cattle such as Sumbawa cattle and crossbreed cattle was 1.47% in 2017; 19.54% in 2018; 81.14% in 2019; 70.33% in 2020 and −3.78% in 2021 [6].

The Bali cattle production system in Sumbawa, the results of the 2017 research, contained 34 typologies seen from the annual maintenance cycle. All of the typologies mentioned above have three typologies that are the most dominant, namely typology 6/6; tethered typology; and confined typology [7]. Currently, the typology that is increasingly being applied by farmers is the confined typology, the advantages of the confined typology are because there is a cattle insurance program, the ease of accessing people's business credit (PBC) for cattle business development from state-owned banks, while the 6/6 typology and tethered typology stagnant and even tends to decrease due to the change in land function and the existence of regional regulations that prohibit the free release of livestock. Therefore, the quality of life of Bali cattle with confined typology as seen from the knowledge and understanding of farmers in raising livestock which is part of animal welfare has never been reported. Based on the above phenomenon, an animal welfare level study with confined typology has been carried out in Sumbawa Regency.

### **2. Animal welfare view in Indonesia**

In Indonesia, issues of animal welfare and human rights were raised by the Indonesian Veterinary Association and animal rights activists in the 2000s. Various campaigns were launched, including improving the methods of slaughtering animals, sacrificial animals, to comply with animal welfare principles. The campaign was carried out on inter-island cattle transportation that often tortures animals, such as hanging cattle from one leg or throwing cattle from a truck [8].

The lack of information and regulations on animal welfare in cattle farming practices has an impact on the lack of animal welfare practices in the field [9]. Various studies have been conducted that focus on animal welfare, such as in several farms in the Pangkal Pinang area, Bangka Belitung Islands Province using the ANI method with five categories of animal welfare, namely movement, social contact, floor quality, light and air and cage cleanliness. The study shows that beef cattle are generally in a prosperous condition with a total ANI score of 23.8 [10]. The same thing was done by Sulistiawati and Wulandari [5] in the Nganjuk area, East Java Province with the results of the study showing that animal husbandry quite meets animal welfare standards (ANI category score 23) and almost does not meet animal welfare standards (ANI category score 12.8), meets animal welfare value standards if the total score is ANI category 32.

*Overview of Animal Welfare Aspects of Bali Cattle with Confined Typology in Sumbawa… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106654*

Animal welfare research on cattle slaughtered at the Banda Aceh Municipal Slaughterhouse (RPH). The animal welfare parameters observed included three aspects, namely transportation, shelter and slaughter. The three aspects are compared with the recommendations of Meat Livestock Australia (MLA) and the Indonesian National Standard 02–4509-1998. The method used is scoring assessment. Based on the scoring assessment of the shelter aspect and the slaughter aspect, the animal welfare of the slaughtered cattle at the Banda Aceh Municipal RPH is considered good in fulfilling the animal welfare aspect, while the transportation aspect is considered sufficient in meeting the animal welfare of the cattle slaughtered at the Slaughterhouse [11]. The development of the implementation of social welfare policies in the form of proposals through academic reviews as a basis for implementation. The concept of an animal welfare assessment system for sustainable cattle production in Indonesia which is based on protocols, human resources and the government. These three main elements in the animal welfare assessment system will be integrated to build sustainable cattle production through better animal welfare practices [9].

### **3. Welfare measurement techniques for Bali cattle in Sumbawa**

The research was conducted in July–October 2021 with four regions, namely west, east, north and south with 40 respondents. The respondent's criteria are Bali cattle farmers with a confined typology production system that has a cage with a minimum population of 10 Bali cattle with at least 3 years of livestock experience. Primary data were collected through direct interviews and secondary data from government agencies as well as direct observation for measurement (cage, feed, livestock behavior) and documentation. Data analysis used the Animal Needs Index method [12]. The determination of the rating scale was done using a Likert scale of 1–5 (**Table 1**).

### **4. Aspects of animal welfare for Bali cattle in confined typology**

In confined typology, there are limitations for livestock in accessing feed ingredients because everything is regulated. The role of livestock rearing management is of particular concern to livestock because it will support an increase in productivity through the application of animal welfare. Good management occurs when public awareness and knowledge are at a high level so that livestock can be guaranteed in terms of access to feed ingredients, drinking, comfort, health and normal behavior.


### **4.1 Knowledge and understanding of farmers**

The understanding and knowledge of farmers on livestock welfare or animal welfare need to be known as a supporting aspect in the context of deepening the aspects that are the determining variables. There is a positive relationship between humans and animals, especially the adequate knowledge and skills possessed by farmers [13].

**Table 2** shows the knowledge and understanding of farmers (KU1) about animal welfare with an average value of 1.64 (do not know category). This is due to the factor of not getting information about livestock welfare received by farmers independently and through socialization or technical guidance. Handling and productivity of livestock can be increased through training programs aimed at improving the attitudes and behavior of farmers toward their livestock [14, 15]. Specific training and skills can be beneficial [16].

This condition will certainly affect the farmers' understanding of animal welfare itself. The results of the study, in **Table 2**, show that only 1.56 breeders' have a lack of understanding of the KU2 value about animal welfare. Knowledge and understanding of farmers who do not know and understand as a result of the lack of socialization or information received by farmers is KU3 = 1.41 about animal welfare. The results of the research on the level of knowledge and understanding as well as getting information about animal welfare or cattle welfare in the Sumbawa district with a score of 1.54 is in a low category.

Animal welfare status is not always constant due to fluctuations in the factors responsible for good or bad welfare. Therefore, animal welfare status can be good, bad or somewhere in between [17] and varies with time. In general, if the cattle are healthy, comfortable, well nourished, free from pain, fear and distress and able to express their innate behavior, their welfare will be fulfilled [3]. The fulfillment of animal welfare is obtained from good husbandry, including the prevention and treatment of disease, humane handling and slaughter, and the provision of adequate nutrition and shelter [18].

### **4.2 Freedom from hunger and thirst**


The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty Animals [19] states that the level of animal welfare is said to be good if the livestock is free from hunger and

*Source: Primary data, processed 2021.*

*KU1 = know, KU2 = understand, KU3 = get information.*

### **Table 2.**

*Knowledge and understanding of farmers about animal welfare.*

*Overview of Animal Welfare Aspects of Bali Cattle with Confined Typology in Sumbawa… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106654*


*Source: Primary data, processed 2021.*

*FHT1 = provide/feed as needed; FHT2 = provide/give water as needed; FHT3 = type of feed given; FHT4 = amount of feed given; FHT5 = how to feed; FHT6 = signs of cattle not feeling hungry and thirsty; and FHT7 = loss when cattle feel hungry and thirsty.*

### **Table 3.**

*Freedom from hunger and thirst.*

thirst. The aspect of consumption is a concern in animal welfare, this is indicated by the fulfillment of feed and water consumption so that livestock no longer feel hungry and thirsty. Livestock must have access to adequate feed and water according to their age and needs to maintain normal health and productivity and prevent hunger and thirst, malnutrition or prolonged dehydration [13]. The aspect of being free of hunger and thirst is the main measuring tool in assessing the level of animal welfare.

**Table 3** shows that the supply of feed according to needs with a value (FHT1 = 2,92) is still in the fairly good category, which means that the understanding and awareness of farmers in the context of providing feed that is in accordance with needs, has an impact on feed management. In an intensive cattle production system, all cattle are locked up and all rely on farmers for basic needs, such as cages, feed and drinking water [4]. Adequate water supply with a value of FHT2 = 2.68 shows awareness and understanding of the importance of water consumption for livestock and water as a basic need looks quite good. This is indicated by the provision of water ad libitum to livestock, there are also others who provide drinking water to cattle an average of two times a day in the morning and evening.

The provision of water in a confined typology should be ad libitum as the role of water in the body is very important because the largest nutrient in the body composition of livestock is water. The need and consumption of water depend on several factors, such as temperature, humidity, water temperature, production level, pregnancy status, physical activity, growth rate, animal size, type of food, water content of feed, salt content consumed and dry matter consumption [20, 21]. Consideration of good water quality is also given to reduce the incidence of disease and economic losses [22]. Understanding issues of water quality and consumption is critical to cattle nutrition and management [23].

The type of feeding that is suitable for cattle with an average value of FHT3 = 2.68 indicates that the type is quite varied depending on the season. In the rainy season, farmers rely on forage in the form of various types of natural grass, including types of legumes such as wild or cultivated *leucaena*. The limited number of farmers who cultivate superior grasses such as elephant grass, king grass, mott elephant grass and legume cultivation (*leucaena, indigofera, sesbandia glandiflora*) is a limiting factor in providing the varied feed. There is an additional type of feed in the form of concentrate (*rice bran*, *zea mays*) although still a small number of farmers apply this.

However, in the dry season, farmers rely on the remaining agricultural products in the form of rice straw, corn straw, corn cobs, corn husks, zea mays, green bean straw and *leucaena,* which still survive in the dry season. The amount of appropriate feed for cattle is quite good with an average value of FHT4 = 3.03, meaning that farmers have sufficient ability to understand the feed needs of cattle.

Forage quality affects dry matter consumption, so increasing forage quality will be followed by an increase in total digestible nutrients (TDN). The existence of the ability of farmers to assess signs of the adequacy of feed by looking at signs of cattle feeling full, cattle not wanting to eat anymore, and based on the experience of raising livestock for generations. In addition, the understanding of farmers through socialization or technical training on the adequacy of animal feed contributes to a fairly good FHT4 value. The way of feeding the category is quite good with an average value of FHT5 = 3.41 indicating that the awareness of farmers about regularity in the feeding pattern has been carried out quite well. Regular feeding with an average frequency of feeding 2–3 times a day, namely in the morning, afternoon and evening, has become a habit and culture for raising livestock for the Sumbawa people. So that the certainty of cattle feeling full is a target in feeding management, this can be seen from the value of the ability of farmers to recognize signs of livestock feeling hungry and thirsty quite well with an average value of FHT6 = 3.28 with a fairly good category. Understanding of hunger and thirst such as the left side of the cattle's stomach is flat, the cattle will be aggressive when there are people in the cages, the cattle are restless, make noises, do not want to stay still, and always scavenge or lick the feed. The ability to understand the signs of livestock feeling hungry and thirsty is an advantage possessed by farmers in the Sumbawa Regency as a real form of the evaluation process in feeding management. The awareness of farmers about the importance of livestock free from hunger and thirst can be proven by looking at the ability of farmers to assess the impact or loss it causes.

Understanding the mechanism of regulation of consumption/intake and regulation of energy balance in ruminants is very important to increase the production efficiency [24]. Changes in behavior are caused by variations in hunger [25]. The average value of losses when cattle feel hungry and thirsty (FHT7 = 3.00) is quite good, meaning that farmers can assess and ascertain what consequences will occur. Various losses that will be caused in the form of livestock will experience weight loss and are susceptible to disease so that they experience losses in their business, besides that, it takes a long time to maintain a reduction in the cost of treatment and care for disease as well as a reduction in mortality rates and improvements in health will reduce economic losses [2]. Based on the assessment aspects above, in general, the management of feeding and drinking in the Sumbawa district with an average value of 3.10 is still in a fairly good category in terms of being free of hunger and thirst. The feeding schedule for captive cattle is determined by the farmer and the feeding schedule four times a day is categorized as very good [19].

### **4.3 Freedom from discomfort**

The aspect of being free from discomfort in **Table 4** shows that the knowledge of farmers about signs of cattle feeling comfortable in cages can be seen from the average value of FDC1 = 3.16 with a fairly good category. Some signs of cattle feeling comfortable in the cage based on the understanding of the farmer such as cattle are not restless, normal breathing is not gasping for breath, cattle are not rebellious, cattle tend to be silent, do not rebel, want to get out and are calm in the cage by sleeping

*Overview of Animal Welfare Aspects of Bali Cattle with Confined Typology in Sumbawa… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106654*


*Source: Primary data, processed 2021.*

*FDC1 = sign of cattle feeling comfortable in the pen; FDC2 = sign of cattle not feeling comfortable; FDC3 = cage position is suitable for comfort; FDC4 = size/capacity/capacity of the cage; FDC5 = information on how to make a good cage; FDC6 = received information/counseling on cage sanitation; FDC7 = adequate and comfortable cages equipment; FDC8 = cages ventilation; and FDC9 = in the morning sunlight.*

### **Table 4.**

*Freedom from heat and feel comfortable.*

comfortably in the cage. Ways to get the comfort of livestock, it is necessary to protect them from extreme areas, such as heat, rain, and wind [26] as well as the management of housing by farmers, as one of the fulfillment of the basic needs of livestock other than food and water [4]. Farmers have quite good knowledge about the signs of livestock feeling uncomfortable in the cage, this can be seen from the average value of FDC2 = 3.18 with a fairly good category. The standard of livestock comfort is obtained by making the construction of the floor of the cage that is not wet and slippery and easy to clean [26].

A good position and location of the cage is the most important thing that affects the comfort of livestock in the cage. Farmers must prepare a shady place and comfortable rest for their livestock [4]. The knowledge of farmers that the direction of the cage must receive morning sunlight so that the direction of the cage is mostly facing east. This can be seen from the mean value of FDC3 = 3.04 included in the good enough category, meaning that farmers have good knowledge and understanding of building cages. The comfort of livestock in cages can also be influenced by the density of livestock in cages, this can be seen from the mean value of FDC4 = 3.03 with a fairly good category. Knowledge and understanding of farmers about power the livestock capacity is quite good, it can be seen that the planning for the construction of the cage is adjusted to the number of cattle to be kept. The current average livestock capacity is 3 m2 /head. The standard housing [12] equipped with booths is 2.2 m2 /head cattle for beef cattle weighing 350 kg.

There is limited information on how to make suitable cattle cages, the standard for making good cages is that the floor is not slippery and easy to clean [26] and the placement of the cage in a shady position [4] must be considered and should not be ignored. This can be seen from the average value of FDC5 = 1.83 in the less category. Lack of information about building good cages and meeting the requirements for livestock comfort is still not good in the form of socialization and counseling only relying on experience and knowledge passed down from parents. Understanding of cages for livestock cattle is to limit the movement space so that the accumulation of meat and fat occurs quickly and the weight gain of livestock is faster [27].

The cleanliness of the cage is also important to maintain the comfort of the livestock, therefore, the floor of the cage must be easy to clean [26]. Farmers'

knowledge of good sanitation methods is still lacking, this can be seen from the value of FDC6 = 1.88 in the poor category. This is due to the lack of socialization and counseling because many farmers ignore good cage sanitation methods only relying on experience. In addition, the provision of supporting equipment also needs to pay attention to the comfort of livestock, meaning that farmers have sufficient knowledge of the provision of cage equipment that meets the requirements for use in cages and does not endanger livestock. It is the farmer who can choose and plan whatever the livestock needs [28]. This can be seen from the FDC 7 = 3.03 in the fairly good category. By relying on experience and simple manual equipment the provision of equipment used in cages but not harmful to livestock.

Farmers' understanding of ventilation is not needed, this can be seen from the average value of FDC8 = 1.45 in the category not needed because an open cage system can guarantee air circulation in the cage, so it does not require special ventilation. Optimal air quality is obtained from open cages [12]. Open cages provide a minimum of 0.45 m2 / AWU with unrestricted access to open air, with a minimum opening height of 1 m [12]. Knowledge and understanding of farmers about a good position of the cage building can enter the morning sun as seen from the average value of BTN9 = 3.45 with a poor category. The importance of the morning sun entering the cage is mandatory in order to maintain the health of livestock. Based on the above components, the aspect is free from heat and feeling the comfort of livestock is quite good, this can be seen from the average value of FDC = 2.67 with a fairly comfortable category. The shape of the cage is quite open and has good air circulation in the cage so that it makes the cattle comfortable and enough sunlight illuminates the cage [10]. This condition [29] makes the place to lie down is always dry. Sunlight hitting the eyes of animals should be used in research with consideration, the percentage of direct sunlight that enters through the windows is affected by the projection of roofs, trees, buildings blocking the sky [12].

### **4.4 Freedom from pain, injury and disease**

**Table 5** shows that the cattle have experienced illness/injury with an FPID1 = 3.73 category of never. There were incidents of livestock getting injured or injured as a result of the transportation process, when they came out of the cage, they were scratched by the fence while the cattle got sick during the rainy/transient season in the form of scabies, bali zekte, pink eye and intestinal worms. The appearance of illness both physically and physiologically can be caused by stress in animals [30]. Therefore, it is important to raise or tame cattle with gentleness and respect without violence and pain. This is important because in Indonesia, farmers must prepare livestock in a safe, healthy, disease-free, intact condition without defects and halal (good) to be consumed [31]. Therefore, it is also important for farmers (producers) to choose livestock with better disease resistance early in life [32].

The actions taken by most farmers by consulting with livestock health officers have been carried out, this can be seen from the FPID2 = 3.31 value in the category of having done. This is done as a form of farmer awareness to protect and maintain the health of livestock from disease, following the statement that says that farmers must be able to prevent, diagnose and treat livestock if they are exposed to disease [4]. Cattle health needs to be considered when raising cattle, because to get good quality meat, cattle must be healthy [10]. The success of a cattle farming business is largely determined by the health of the livestock itself [33].

Protection and treatment measures are due to the lack of knowledge and skills of farmers in terms of treatment and livestock health, but other efforts are made with


*a burn stamp; FPID7 = separation of calf, cow and bull; FPID8 = separation of sick cattle; FPID9 = satisfied with the current condition of the cage; and FPID10 = needs adjustment.*

### **Table 5.**

*Freedom from pain, injury and disease.*

*Overview of Animal Welfare Aspects of Bali Cattle with Confined Typology in Sumbawa… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106654*

local knowledge using ingredients that are passed down from generation to generation. Other factors that have the opportunity to cause livestock to be injured/injured/ fallen sometimes occur, this can be seen from the mean value of FPID3 = 4.61 for the occasional category. The high FPID3 value was also caused by the condition of the cage floor which was less inclined and fell when the floor was wet and slippery. The floor is very important to provide a good grip to prevent cattle from slipping or falling [12]. In addition, poorly managed floors can cause injury to livestock hooves [12]. Lameness due to injury or disease of the legs is considered a major problem in cattle [34]. Another factor is cattle that are shocked or when the cattle are new and not yet tame when they enter the cage.

The incidence of cattle horning each other has never happened and suffered injuries, this can be seen with the value of FPID4 = 4.53 in the never category. This means that the chances of each other having a low-frequency horn occur because there is a barrier between livestock. The possibility of injury to livestock can also occur due to unsafe equipment during cage sanitation. The understanding and skills of farmers play a very important role, this can be seen with a FPID5 = 4.93 with the category of never occurring because the equipment used is not made of hazardous materials, such as iron or sharp tools, on average, farmers use materials in the form of wood, plastic or rubber so that the possibility of injury to livestock can be avoided.

The awareness of farmers in the maintenance and care of cattle is very good. This can be seen by avoiding things that can cause injury or illness to cattle in line with the opinion [35] that livestock should not be intentionally hurt, by no longer giving a sign in the form of a burn stamp to avoid livestock experience stress due to adverse activities/ management. This can be seen by the average value of FPID6 = 3.71 for the occasional category. This condition occurs because the marking in the form of a burnt stamp is a sign given by the previous owner. In addition, marking is no longer necessary because livestock no longer mixes with other people's livestock. Another reason for farmers is the demand for consumers who prefer livestock without markings, such as qurban cattle and the reason for the economic value that livestock that do not have defects such as burn marks are higher. In efforts to prevent livestock from getting injured due to physical contact in the form of horns, it is necessary to separate the bull from the cow or the calf. This can be seen by the average value of FPID7 = 3.02 category ever.

Knowledge and understanding as well as experience of farmers are good to avoid physical contact that causes livestock to suffer injuries in the cage. In addition, the separation of male, mother and child cattle is also aimed at controlling the disease. This can be seen by the average value of FPID8 = 3.11 in the never category, meaning that when there is an incident of livestock experiencing illness, it must be separated from the group to facilitate handling and treatment. In addition, to avoid the occurrence of disease transmission that can harm the economy. The limitations of farmers with cage management are still limited, this can be seen by the value of FPID9 = 2.66, the category is quite satisfied. This is due to the limited manual and traditional cage equipment and the limited form and construction due to limited cage financing. Limited space and livestock unable to show some of their natural behaviors can lead to disease risk and high feed competition [4]. The existence of additional information through social media as well as an understanding of appropriate and good cage management creates a desire to improve the quality of the cage facilities, this can be seen from the average value of FPID10 = 4.08 categories. It is necessary to adjust and improve the quality of the cage facilities in order to improve

the quality of management maintenance. Based on the overall component aspects of the assessment of being free from illness, injury and disease with a FPID value of 3.77 good category.

### **4.5 Freedom to express natural behavior**

Opportunities for animals to move need to be assessed and express their natural behavior according to their behavioral needs [12]. Animal welfare is best demonstrated by the presence of several natural animal behaviors observed [4]. Freedom to express natural behavior is obtained by providing sufficient space, appropriate facilities and friends of the animal species itself for social interaction [4]. In addition, it is important to facilitate livestock so that they can behave normally when getting up, standing and lying down [12]. Livestock management techniques are important to use the natural behavior of the cattle themselves [35]. Currently, livestock behavior assessment can be assessed scientifically to determine the quality of life of individual animals [28]. Based on **Table 6**, the time the cattle were released outside the cage can be seen from the mean value of FENB1 = 2.69 in the category of never/no time. Farmers really need to prepare an outdoor area of about 3–5 m<sup>2</sup> / AWU [12].

The knowledge of farmers about the importance of livestock being released at any time to express natural behavior, has been carried out by providing time for this. The frequency and duration of livestock access outside the room are important factors, with an average duration of more than or equal to 2 hours [12]. In addition to the availability of time to do body exercises and express natural behavior, the duration of time on a regular basis is important, this can be seen from the average FENB2 = 2.96 categories once a week. The duration of 1 full day once a week or equivalent to 51 days a year has been carried out by farmers regularly. The exercise pattern carried out by farmers is by walking the cattle outside the cage. This can be seen by the average value of FENB3 = 3.11 in the category of being invited for walks outside the cage for fattening efforts. The importance of livestock expressing natural behavior can be seen from the average value of FENB4 = 3.74 in the necessary category. Expressing normal behavior so that livestock can move freely, muscles are not stiff so that livestock do


*Source: Primary data, processed 2021.*

*FENB1 = free time; FENB2 = length of free time; FENB3 = maintenance model to freely express normal behavior; and FENB4 = need cattle to express natural/normal behavior.*

### **Table 6.**

*Freedom to express natural behavior.*

not cramp and suffer muscle injuries. The good health of livestock is influenced by the natural behavior of the animal [36]. Based on all components of the free aspect of expressing natural behavior with an average value of FENB = 3.12, the category is quite good.

### **4.6 Freedom from fear and stress**

Farmers must be able to fulfill their responsibility to provide a well-managed cage environment to prevent stress on animals, including noise which can also cause stress [12]. The behavior of cattle to stress can reduce the productivity and health of livestock [37]. High levels of stress can reduce the response of the immune system and increase the incidence of infectious diseases [36]. **Table 7** shows the average value of FFS1 = 4.49, the category of cattle sometimes experiencing fear and stress from wild animal disturbances. There is protection in the form of care or control, that is always carried out by farmers. The position of the cage that is close to the road and far from the forest can reduce the chance of disturbance by wild animals, but there are some cases for farmers in the form of dog disturbance during the parturition of cattle. In addition to wild animals, other social activities can also have an influence in the form of fear and stress on cattle. This can be seen by the average value of FFS2 = 4.52 categories never, this is due to the location of the cages of most of the farmers far from residential areas so that human social activities do not affect the cattle.

Routine security monitoring and control at all times is so intense that the chances of outside interference are minimal. This is in line with the view of [12] that good housing environment management can prevent stress on livestock. This has an impact on the low handling of livestock experiencing stress, this can be seen with the FFS3 = 1.35 category never. The low number of cases experienced by farmers due to disturbance of wild animals or human activities, even if there are, will immediately be handled so that livestock do not experience stress for a long time and do not suffer economic losses. The low effort of farmers to reduce stress on cattle can be seen by the low average value of FFS4 = 1.15 in the never category. The lack of handling efforts due to preventive efforts or prevention by intensively maintaining livestock safety. This is evidenced by the high average value of FFS5 = 4.68 categories that have experienced fear so that cattle experience stress. The absence of protection to reduce


*Source: Primary data, processed 2021.*

*FFS1 = experienced attack/disruption by wild animals; FFS2 = experiencing stress due to disturbance from wild animals or other activities; FFS3 = experiencing fear to stress; FFS4 = never handle fear; FFS5 = how often do you experience fear; FFS6 = special protection; and FFS7 = stress treatment effort.*

### **Table 7.** *Freedom from fear and stress.*

*Overview of Animal Welfare Aspects of Bali Cattle with Confined Typology in Sumbawa… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106654*


*Source: Primary data, processed 2021.*

*FHT = Freedom from hunger and thirst; FDC = Freedom from discomfort; FPID = Freedom from pain, injury and disease; FENB = Freedom to express natural behavior; FFS = Freedom from fear and stress.*

### **Table 8.**

*Assessment of animal welfare level.*

the fear of livestock to prevent stress can be seen by the low value of FFS6 = 1.28 in the none category. The absence of cases experienced by farmers caused no treatment carried out by farmers, this was seen by the average value of FFS7 = 1.14 in the category of none. Based on all components of the aspect of being free from fear and stress with an average value of FFS = 2.66, the category is quite good.

### **4.7 Comprehensive review of animal welfare level assessment**

Based on the results of **Table 8** analysis for the five aspects of animal welfare in Sumbawa Regency with a total average score of 15.32, is in the almost prosperous category. The lack of welfare of cattle is caused by the level of knowledge and understanding of farmers, who are still lacking as a result of the absence of socialization or information received by farmers about animal welfare, only relying on hereditary experience in the cattle rearing system.

### **5. Conclusion and recommendation**

Based on the results and discussion, it can be concluded that the value of the level of animal welfare or the welfare of Bali cattle with confined typology in Sumbawa Regency with a total ANI score of 15.32 is included in the almost prosperous category. The recommendation is that it is necessary to improve the aspect of being freedom from discomfort (FDC) and the aspect of being the freedom to express natural behavior (FENB) to improve animal welfare through increasing awareness and understanding of farmers and there needs to be government policy intervention in the context of implementing animal welfare in Sumbawa Regency as a efforts to increase the productivity of Bali cattle.

### **Acknowledgements**

We thank you for the collaboration between the Faculty of Animal Science and Fisheries, Samawa University and the Sumbawa Regency Government for funding our research in 2021 on animal welfare in Sumbawa Regency.

### **Conflict of interest**

We declare that there is no conflict of interest with financial, personal or other relationships with other parties or organizations related to the material discussed in this chapter.

### **Author details**

Sudirman Sudirman\*, Amrullah Amrullah and Asrul Hamdani Faculty of Animal Science and Fisheries, Samawa University, Sumbawa Besar, NTB, Indonesia

\*Address all correspondence to: dirman.unsa@gmail.com

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Overview of Animal Welfare Aspects of Bali Cattle with Confined Typology in Sumbawa… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106654*

### **References**

[1] Fraser D. Understanding animal welfare. The Science in its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell: USA. 2008. [Internet]. Available from: https://www. wiley.com/en-us/Understanding+ Animal+Welfare:+The+Science+in+ its+Cultural+Context-p-9781405136952 [Accessed: June 5, 2022]

[2] Sinclair M, Friyer C, Phillips CJC. The benefits of improving animal welfare from the perspective of livestock stakeholders across Asia. Animals. 2019;**9**:123

[3] OIE. Terrestrial Animal Health Code [Internet]. Available from: http://www.oie.int/index. php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=sommaire. htm [Accessed: June 25, 2022]

[4] Madzingira O. Animal welfare considerations in food-producing animals. In: Abubakar M, Manzoor S, editors. Animal Welfare [Internet]. London: IntechOpen; 2018 [cited 2022 Jun 20]. Available from: https:// www.intechopen.com/chapters/62464 DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.78223

[5] Sulistiawati E, Wulandari SA. Study of animal welfare principles on cattle in jetis village nganjuk regency. **24**(1):95-103. Available from: http://jpi. faterna.unand.ac.id/JPI. DOI: 10.25077/ jpi.24.1.95-103.2022

[6] Sumbawa Regency Central Statistics Agency. Sumbawa regency in figures. ISSN 0215-5834. p. 289. Available from: https://sumbawakab. bps.go.id/publication/2022/02/25/ e13ea9e26c3b32e724ec2b85/kabupatensumbawa-dalam-angka-2022.html [Accessed Juni 5, 2022]

[7] Sudirman S, Hartono B, Subagiyo I, Nugroho BA. Analysis of domestic

resources cost based on farm typology of Bali cattle in Plampang Sumbawa Regency, West Nusa Tenggara. Tropical Animal Science Journal. 2018;**4**(3):224- 233. Available from: http://journal.ipb. ac.id/index.php/tasj. DOI: 10.5398/ tasj.2018.41.3.224

[8] Raditya D. Don't forget animal welfare. Available from: https:// chub.fisipol.ugm.ac.id/2020/04/29/ kesejahteraan-hewan-jangan-dilupakan/ opinion April 29, 2020 [Accessed: July 15, 2022]

[9] Faturrahman I, Jamilah IM. Animal welfare assessment system for sustainable cattle production in Indonesia. KnE Life Sciences. 2016;**4**(11):189. DOI: 10.18502/ kls.v4i11.3865 Conference: International Conference of Tropical Agriculture (PDF) Animal Welfare Assessment System for Sustainable Cattle Production in Indonesia (researchgate.net) [Accessed: July 15, 2022]

[10] Nurhayati N, Hidayati NA, dan Afriansyah B. Study of Cattle Welfare in Several Livestocks in Pangkalpinang City. Bangka: Belitung University. 2017: [Internet] Available from: https:// journal.ubb.ac.id/index.php/ekotonia/ issue/view/80 [Accessed: Juni 25, 2022]

[11] Bhaskara Y, Adam M, Nasution I, Lubis TM, Armansyah T, Hasan M. Study of the animal welfare aspect on cattle slaughtered in slaughter house in Banda Aceh. Jurnal Medika Veterinaria. 2015;**9**(2) p-ISSN: 0853-1943 e-ISSN: 2503-1600. [Accessed: July 15, 2022]. [Internet]. Available from: http:// jurnal.unsyiah.ac.id/JMV/article/ view/3806/3442

[12] Bartussek H, Leeb C, Held S. Animal Needs Index for Catle-ANI35L/2000

catle. BAL Gupenstein, Irdning. [Internet] Available from: https:// bartussek.at/wp-content/ uploads/2020/09/anicattle.pdf [Accessed: April 20, 2021]

[13] Fraser D, Ian JH, Duncan SA, Edwards GT, Neville G, et al. Rebecca whay, general principles for the welfare of animals in production systems: The underlying science and its application. The Veterinary Journal. 2013;**198**(1):19-27

[14] Coleman GJ, Hemsworth PH, Hay M, Cox M. Modifying stockperson attitudes and behavior towards pig at a large commercial farm. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2000;**66**(1-2):11-20

[15] Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL. The Effect of Aversively Handling Pig, Individually or in Groups, on their Behavior, Growth and Corticosteroid. Werribee: Animal Research Institute, Department of Agriculture and Rural Affair; 2003 Vic.3030 Australia

[16] Grandin T. Cattle vocalization with handling and equipment problems in slaughter plants. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 2 Mar 2001;**71**(3):191-201. DOI: 10.1016/ S0168-1591(00)00179-9

[17] Brooke. What is Animal Welfare? [Internet]. Available from: https://www. thebrooke.org/our-work/we-workanimals/what-animal-welfare [Accessed: Juni 20, 2022]

[18] Bousfield B, Brown R. Animal welfare. Veterinary Bulletin-Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation. 2010;**1**:1-12

[19] ASPCA. Nutrition Tips for Kittens. 2013. Available from: http://www.aspca. org/petcare/catcare/nutrition-tips-adultcat.aspx [Accessed: Juni 20, 2022]

[20] Arispe S. Water Nutrition and Quality for Beef Cattle. OSU Extention Service. Oregon State University. 2019. [Internet]. Available from: https:// extension.oregonstate.edu/animalslivestock/beef/water-nutrition-qualitybeef-cattle [Accessed: July 2, 2022]

[21] NRC. Nutrients Requirement of Beef Cattle. Update 7th ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000

[22] Parish J. Beef Cattle Requirement and Source Management. Missisippi State University. Publication number P2490. Available from: http://extension.msstate. edu/publications/publications/beefcattle-water-requirements-and-sourcemanagement [Accessed: Juni 20, 2022]

[23] Josh Stroh MS. Water Quality and Concerns for Beef Cattle. Hubbard an Altech Company. Posted April 2021. [Internet]. Available from: https://www. hubbardfeeds.com/blog/water-qualityand-concerns-beef-cattle [Accessed: Juni 27, 2022]

[24] Clipton A. Baile, Mary Anna Dela-Vera. Nature of hunger and satiety control system in ruminant. Journal of Dairy Science. 1981;**64**(6): 1140- 1152. Available from: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0022030281826938 [Accessed: Juni 27, 2022]

[25] Herskin MS, Jensen MB and Skjoth F. Effek of hunger level and tube diameter on the feeding behavior of teat-fed dairy calves. Journal Dairy Science. 2010;**93**(5): 2053-2059 [Internet]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/20412920/ DOI: 10.3168/jds.2009- 2554 [Accessed: Juni 27, 2022]

[26] Sukmawati FM dan Kaharuddin. Practical instructions for cattle cage practical instructions for cattle cage. BPTP NTB. 2010. [Internet] Available *Overview of Animal Welfare Aspects of Bali Cattle with Confined Typology in Sumbawa… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106654*

from: https://docplayer.info/169513691- Petunjuk-praktis-perkandangan-sapi. html [Accessed: Juni 27, 2022]

[27] Susilawati E, Syafrial Z, Yusri A. BEEF Cattle Fattening Management. BPTP Jambi. 2003. [Internet] Available from: http://jambi.litbang.pertanian. go.id/eng/images/PDF/bukletsapi07.pdf [Accessed: April 20, 2021]

[28] Fernandes DRP, de Lurdes Ribeiro Pinto M. Veterinarian's Role in Conservation Medicine and Animal Welfare. 2019. DOI: 10.5772/ intechopen.84173 [Accessed: Juni 25, 2022]

[29] Zakaria M A. Livestock Maintenance Management at PT. Adi Farm and PT. Lembah hijau Multifarm. Article. Faculty of Animal Science, Gadjah Mada University; 2012. [Internet]. Available from: https://text-id.123dok. com/document/zw0g75vy-manajemenpemeliharaan-ternak-di-adi-farm-danlembah-hijau-multifarm.html [Accessed: Juni 25, 2021]

[30] Broom DM. Coping, stress and welfare. In: Coping with Challenge: Welfare in Animals including Humans, Proceedings of Dahlem Conference, DM Broom, editors. Berlin: Dahlem University Press; 2001. pp. 1-9. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/299657903\_Coping\_stress\_ and\_welfare [Accessed: Juni 25, 2022]

[31] Nuraini H. Edit Lesa Aditia and Bram Brahmantiyo. Meat Quality of Indonesian Local Cattle and Buffalo. 2018. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.79904 [Accessed: Juni 25, 2022]

[32] Vukasinovic N, Gonzalez D, Przybyla C, Brooker J, Kulkarni A, Passafaro T, et al. Genetic Control of Wellness in Dairy Cattle. 2022. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.103819 [Accessed: Juni 25 2022]

[33] Agus A, Widi TSM. Current situation and prospect of beef cattle production in Indonesia — A review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2018:1-8. DOI: 10.5713/AJAS.18.0233 pISSN 1011-2367 eISSN 1976-5517 [Accessed: Juni 27, 2022]

[34] Ramanoon SZ, Sadiq MB, Mansor R, Syed-Hussain SS, Mossadeq WMS. The Impact of Lameness on Dairy Cattle Welfare: Growing Need for Objective Methods of Detecting Lame Cows and Assessment of Associated Pain. 2018. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.75917. [Accessed: Juni 27, 2022]

[35] Jayme DG, Oliveira ND, Jayme CG, Gonçalves LC, Glória JR, Martins T, et al. Bovine Natural Taming. 2018. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.77728 [Accessed: Juni 25, 2022]

[36] Capucchio MT, Colombino E, Tarantola M, Biagini D, Alborali LG, Maisano AM, et al. The Disturbed Habitat and its Effects on the Animal Population. 2019. DOI: 10.5772/ intechopen.84872 [Accessed: Juni 27, 2022]

[37] Oltenacu PA, Algers B. Selection for increased production and the welfare of dairy cows: Are new breeding goals needed? Ambio. 2005;**34**:311-315. DOI: 10.1579/0044-7447-34.4.311 [Accessed: Juni 27, 2022]
