Open Access

Current status of cow dung as a bioresource for sustainable development

  • Kartikey Kumar Gupta1Email author,
  • Kamal Rai Aneja2 and
  • Deepanshu Rana1
Bioresources and Bioprocessing20163:28

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40643-016-0105-9

Received: 22 October 2015

Accepted: 23 May 2016

Published: 1 June 2016

Abstract

Cow dung, an excreta of bovine animal, is a cheap and easily available bioresource on our planet. Many traditional uses of cow dung such as burning as fuel, mosquito repellent and as cleansing agent are already known in India. Cow dung harbours a diverse group of microorganisms that may be beneficial to humans due to their ability to produce a range of metabolites. Along with the production of novel chemicals, many cow dung microorganisms have shown natural ability to increase soil fertility through phosphate solubilisation. Nowadays, there is an increasing research interest in developing the applications of cow dung microorganisms for biofuel production and management of environmental pollutants. This review focuses on recent findings being made on cow dung that could be harnessed for usage in different areas such as medicine, agriculture and industry.

Keywords

Cow dungBiogasBioremediationEnzymesAntibioticsAntimicrobial

Background

Cow dung can be defined as the undigested residue of consumed food material being excreted by herbivorous bovine animal species. Being a mixture of faeces and urine in the ratio of 3:1, it mainly consists of lignin, cellulose and hemicelluloses. It also contains 24 different minerals like nitrogen, potassium, along with trace amount of sulphur, iron, magnesium, copper, cobalt and manganese. The indigenous Indian cow also contain higher amount of calcium, phosphorus, zinc and copper than the cross-breed cow (Garg and Mudgal 2007; Randhawa and Kullar 2011). Cow dung harbours a rich microbial diversity, containing different species of bacteria (Bacillus spp., Corynebacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp.), protozoa and yeast (Saccharomyces and Candida) (Nene 1999; Randhawa and Kullar 2011). Sawant et al. (2007) have isolated many different bacterial genera such as Citrobacter koseri, Enterobacter aerogenes, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella oxytoca, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Kluyvera spp., Morgarella morganii, Pasteurella spp., Providencia alcaligenes, Providencia stuartii and Pseudomonas spp. from cow dung.

In India, 69.9 % population resides in rural areas (The Hindu 2011), where cow (Bos indicus) is major cattle and generates 9–15 kg dung/day (Werner et al. 1989; Brown 2003). Waste is generally meant for discarding because it may act as a source of pollution (Pongrácz and Pohjola 2004). However, if it is used in some other process such as feedstock it may be considered as co-product (Brown 2003). People in Indian villages use cow dung for cooking purpose by direct burning. It is also used in plastering of walls and floor in rural houses for providing insulation during winter and summer. Application of smoke generated from the burnt cow dung as mosquito repellent and subsequent ash as cleaning agent for kitchen utensils is an age old practice. Accordingly, different usage of cow dung by village peoples reflect the native knowledge associated with it. It also depict that cow plays an important role in village economy and has high socio-economic value (Dhama et al. 2005a).

Cow dung in India is also used as a co-product in agriculture, such as manure, biofertiliser, biopesticides, pestrepellent and as a source of energy (Dhama et al. 2005a). As per ayurveda, it can also act as a purifier for all the wastes in the nature (Randhwa and Khullar 2011). Therefore in India, Cow (B. indicus) is not only just milk-producing animal but also truly considered as Gomata (mother of all) and Kamdhenu (Dhama et al. 2005a; Jarald et al. 2008). Detailed study of cow dung is gaining interest around the world and few attempts have been made for utilising its potential in the field of energy production, pharmaceutical products. The review intends to highlight the possible applications of cow dung particularly in the area ranging from energy, agriculture and environment to medicine for human welfare.

Source of energy

Dependence of mankind on non-renewable source of energy such as coal, oil and gases is increasing worldwide. In India, the main source of energy is coal, which accounts for 44 % of total energy consumption. Our country is now facing the shortage of coal supplies despite being the third largest coal producer in the world. According to energy information administration (EIA), our dependency on imported fossil fuels has risen to 38 % (USEIA 2014). Because of the limited availability of coal, an easily available, economical as well as environment friendly renewable source of energy is required. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the animal waste on this planet produces around 55–65 % methane, which upon release in the atmosphere can affect global warming 21 times higher than the rate CO2 does. Biogas, a mixture of different gases produced by anaerobic fermentation of organic matter from methanogenic bacteria, mainly constitutes methane (50–65 %) and CO2 (25–45 %) (Sharma 2011). One kilogram of cow manure can produce 35–40 l of biogas when mixed with equal amount of water with hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 55–60 days maintained at an ambient temperature of 24–26 °C (Kalia and Singh 2004). Li et al. (2009) reported 67 ml/g methane yield from anaerobic digestion of cow manure, whose total and volatile solids were 23.4 and 13.8 g/l, respectively. Green bacteria such as Pseudomonas sp., Azotobacter sp. and other purple sulphur or purple non-sulphur bacteria are known to produce maximum amount of methane gas in comparison to other photosynthetic bacteria present in cow dung (Rana et al. 2014). The optimum production of biogas depends upon mesophilic (32–38 °C) and thermophilic (50–55 °C) temperature range (Kashyap et al. 2003). The inability of mesophilic microorganisms to survive in psychrophilic temperature range results in 70 % reduced production of biogas during winters in hilly areas (Kanwar and Guleri 1994). This may be due to the collapse of cell energy, outflow of intracellular substances or cell lysis of mesophiles at lower temperature (Gounot 1986). But many researchers reported a fare amount of biogas production under psychrophilic range of temperature using some modifications (Safley and Westerman 1990; Kanwar and Guleri 1994).

Cow dung is the major source of biogas or gobar gas production in India. The total population of female cows in India is 190.90 million out of which 151 million are indigenous whilst 39 million are crossbreed (Livestock Census 2012). Cow dung generated from 3–5 cattle/day can run a simple 8–10 m3 biogas plant which is able to produce 1.5–2 m3 biogas per day which is sufficient for the family 6–8 persons, can cook meal for 2 or 3 times or may light two lamps for 3 h or run a refrigerator for all day and can also operate a 3-KW motor generator for 1 h (Werner et al. 1989). A 1-m3 biogas plant has produced 28.78 l/kg (0.028 m3) and 32.76 l/kg (0.032 m3) of biogas respectively when daily feed with 22 kg of dung/m3 which is mixed with equal amount of water with 9–10 % of total solids. The maximum production of biogas from that plant is 39.00 l/kg (0.039 m3) and 40.04 l/kg (0.04 m3) respectively when operated at the temperature of 23.5 °C (Kalia and Singh 2004). On the other hand, farmer also gains 13.87 metric tons of organic fertiliser per year from the biogas plant. This co-production of biofertiliser also allow farmer to recover the initial investment for setting up of a biogas plant (Sharma 2011).

Though cow dung is solely used as the prime source for biogas production, but research continues to verify the potential of other sources for instance, addition of pig dung was found to have an enhanced effect. Mixture of cow and pig dung (60:40) showed 10 % increase in methane production as investigated by Li et al. (2014). Use of potato pulp and cow manure in the ratio of 20:80 also produced fair amount of methane in comparison to pure cow dung (Sanaei-Moghadam et al. 2014). Besides this, there are reports on comparative studies for biogas production where various feedstocks such as kitchen waste, corn waste and spent tea waste have been used along with cow dung in a ratio of 1:1 producing less average biogas after 25–30 days; however, cow dung alone produced approximately 50 % more biogas than these mixtures (Munda et al. 2012), thereby suggesting that other organic sources may produce biogas but cow dung still remains a potential source. In the light of above-discussed facts, biogas production can also be considered as an effective way of treating organic waste which may produce green house gases if remain untreated.

Supercapacitors are the in-between arrangement in electrochemical batteries which can store a large amount of energy that can be delivered with high power for few milliseconds (Gamby et al. 2001). They have high power density (103–104 W/kg), long cycle life (>106 cycles), pulse power supply, low maintenance cost, simplicity and better safety compared to secondary batteries. The use of porous carbon as electrode material is widespread in supercapacitors. This porous carbon is synthesised by many different methods such as using silica or surfactant, aerogels, organometallic compounds, chemical activation and physical activation. All these processes are costly and consume expensive precursors and time (Lee et al. 2006; Fang et al. 2009; Kim et al. 2012; Yang et al. 2012; Bhattacharjya et al. 2013; Inamdar et al. 2013; Bhattacharjya and Sung 2014; Yang et al. 2014). Now focus is shifting towards natural biomass as a potential source for carbon precursors. Several natural biomasses have been explored for production of activated carbon (Demiral and Demiral 2008; Hu et al. 2010; Li et al. 2010, 2011; Wei et al. 2011; Xu et al. 2012; Biswal et al. 2013; Falco et al. 2013; Huang et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2013; Bhattacharjya and Sung 2014). Activated carbon has recently been synthesised from cow dung by a modified chemical activation method, in which partially carbonised cow dung was treated with potassium hydroxide in the ratio of 2:1. The synthesised activated carbon when tested as supercapacitor electrodes in practical showed specific capacitance of 124 F/g at 0.1 A/g and retained up to 117 F/g at 1.0 A/g current density. It is also durable for long-term operations (Yang et al. 2012). The synthesis of activated carbon having high surface area along with optimum micropore and mesopore volume reflects excellent electrochemical application of cow dung for supercapacitors. The literature also suggest that biological waste like cow dung can be converted into a electrode material for other energy storage and conversion systems such as Li-ion batteries and fuel cells.

Agriculture management

Human population is increasing worldwide giving rise to intensive farming system and unsuitable cropland management that ultimately results in reduced soil fertility (Onwudike 2010; Bedada et al. 2014). Extensive use of chemical fertilisers is suggested for replenishment of nutritional deficiencies to increase crop yield. Many disadvantages of widespread use of chemical fertilisers include increase in soil acidity, mineral imbalance and soil degradation (Kang and Juo 1980; Ayoola and Makinde 2008) and even farmers nowadays do not prefer chemical fertilisers (Bedada et al. 2014). In composting, microorganisms decompose organic substrate aerobically into carbon dioxide, water, minerals and stabilised organic matter (Bernal et al. 2009; Kala et al. 2009; Vakili et al. 2015). Compost is added into the soil to improve nutrients and water-holding capacity (Arslan et al. 2008; Vakili et al. 2015). Recently, researchers observed that addition of cow dung to biomass generated from palm oil industries improves the physical and chemical properties including nutritional composition of compost. Palm oil biomass mixed with cow dung in the ratio of 1:3 significantly improved the compost quality with respect to various parameters such as pH, electrical conductivity and C:N ratio (Vakili et al. 2015). Thus, cow dung may not only act as a substitute for chemical fertilisers because it supplements organic matter, but also as a conditioner for soil (Garg and Kaushik 2005; Yadav et al. 2013; Be´langer et al. 2014). Slurry from biogas plant is also a nutrient-rich source but it cannot be used at large scale because of its drawbacks such as eutrophication and leaching of the soil nutrients (Garg et al. 2005; Wachendorf et al. 2005; Islam et al. 2010; Lu et al. 2012; Guo et al. 2014).

Organic amendments alone may not offer sufficient nutrient supply to meet the demand (Palm et al. 1997; Gentile et al. 2011; Bedada et al. 2014). One way to counter this soil fertility problem is ISFM, i.e., Integrated Soil Fertility Management, a technique that makes use of both organic and inorganic resources resulting in greater yield response and better nutrient storage (Bedada et al. 2014; Ewusi-Mensah et al. 2015). For example, combination of cow dung with NPK (15:15:15) in the concentration of 3 t/ha and 100 kg/ha, respectively, showed marked increase of 8.9 t/ha in the yield of potato tuber in comparison to control that yielded only 1.8 t/ha. The organic carbon of the soil after treatment with this combination was found to be significantly increased from 1.33 to 3.21 %. The combination also improved soil organic matter, phosphate availability, exchangeable ions, effective cation exchange capacity and pH in comparison to untreated soil (Onwudike 2010). The same combination has also been reported to increase the yield of maize (Ayoola and Makinde 2008; Bedada et al. 2014).

Mineral soil phosphorus, a key nutrient limiting plant growth, is divided into three categories as per availability to plants, i.e., phosphorous soluble in the soil solution and available for plant uptake, labile phosphorous in the solid phase ready to be solubilised in soil solution and insoluble or fixed phosphorous in the solid phase (Kuhad et al. 2011; Swain et al. 2012). High amount of inorganic phosphates is added to soil but phosphorus ions are very reactive and most of the inorganic phosphorous is converted into insoluble phosphorous by immobilisation and chelation with metal ligands present in the soil, thereby becoming unavailable for plant uptake (Macias et al. 2003; Barroso et al. 2006; Kuhad et al. 2011; Swain et al. 2012). One of the methods for making insoluble phosphorous available to the plants is solubilisation through microorganisms (Arcand and Schneider 2006; Reyes et al. 2006; Swain et al. 2012). The recent areas where cow dung microorganisms are being used are in promoting soil fertility to improve crop yield. In this study by Swain et al. (2012), thermotolerant Bacillus subtilis strains have been recovered from cow dung with great potential in phosphate solubilisation. These Bacillus strains also possessed antagonistic activities against plant pathogens along with production of growth regulators. The findings are significant as isolated bacterial strains being thermotolerant may possibly be used as bio-inoculant in agriculture of tropics where temperature during summer rises up to 42–45 °C (Swain et al. 2012).

Many biodynamic preparations obtained from cow dung have shown antagonistic effect against plant pathogens such as Rhizoctonia bataticola (Rupela et al. 2003; Somasundaram et al. 2007; Radha and Rao 2014). An investigation by Mary et al. (1986) revealed cow dung extract to be more effective than antibiotics like Penicillin, Paushamycin and Streptomycin in controlling bacterial blight of rice. B. subtilis strains are the most predominant isolates from culturable cow dung microflora. A few reports have shown the antagonistic properties of these B. subtilis strains against plant pathogens such as Fusarium soalni, Fusarium oxysporum and S. Sclerotiorum (Basak and Lee 2002; Swain et al. 2006; Stalin et al. 2010; Swain et al. 2012). Plant pathogenic nematodes are one of the important pathogens of crops. Recently, a work by Lu et al. (2014) investigated 219 bacterial strains from cow dung for nematicidal activity against model nematode Caenorhabditis elegans and out of these, 17 strains killed more than 90 % of the tested nematode within 1 h. The strains identified included Alcaligenes faecalis, Bacillus cereus, Proteus penneri, Providencia rettgeri, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomonas otitidis, Staphylococcus sciuri, Staphylococcus xylosus, Microbacterium aerolatum and Pseudomonas beteli. Out of these 14 strains also inhibited another nematode Meloidogyne incognita. This was for the first time that strains in the genera Proteus, Providencia and Staphylococcus from cow dung displayed nematicidal activity. Cow dung is conventionally applied in Indian subcontinental agriculture to enhance soil fertility. It not only improves the different properties of soil but also acts as a source of microorganisms producing biological nematicidal agents with no negative effect on environment. Therefore, use of cow dung should be promoted in the field of agriculture.

Bioremediation of environment pollutants

Toxic chemicals find their way into the human body, plant tissue and animals through absorption (Adams et al. 2014). Active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) serve as a blend of various drugs that are well known to pollute the aquatic environment (Kessler 2010). Agriculture run-off also contributes towards the pollution of water bodies through which water is supplied for human consumption. Presently, in India only 10 % of total waste water is treated and rest is discharged untreated (Singh and Kohli 2012). In industrial treatment plant in Patancheru, near Hyderabad (India), 0.9 mg ciprofloxacin per gram organic matter was found downstream from common contaminated river sediment (Kristiansson et al. 2011; Larsson 2014). This condition is not only in India but also in China, U.S. and European countries as discharge of pharmaceuticals is also reported from these regions (Babic et al. 2007; Thomas et al. 2007; Fick et al. 2009; Kristiansson et al. 2011; Phillips et al. 2010; Larsson 2014). These practices are adversely affecting the environment quality which is directly related to the quality of life on earth. Discharge of these toxic compounds imparts negative effect on human health hence rejuvenation of environment is today’s utmost need (Dhami et al. 2013; Adams et al. 2014).

Conventional methods such as dredging, incineration, use of sorbent materials, sinking and dispersion are not only economical but also environmentally unsustainable (Hilyard et al. 2008; Umanu et al. 2013; Adams et al. 2014). Biological methods are based upon application of appropriate microbes that can improve biodegradation in situ and ex situ (Cookson 1995; Freeman and Harris 1995; Umanu et al. 2013). Different methods which are used in removing of hydrocarbons are bioaugmentation, biostimulation, mycoremediation, phytoremediation, biosparging, bioventing and composting (Bahadure et al. 2013). Amongst these, bioremediation is the most common method in use for removal of hydrocarbons since 30 years (Ryan et al. 1991; Bahadure et al. 2013; Umanu et al. 2013). It involves the use of microorganisms with diverse metabolic capabilities to rapidly degrade hazardous organic pollutants to environmental safe level (Orji et al. 2012; Williams et al. 2013; Buvaneswari et al. 2013; Passatore et al. 2014).

Cow dung contains diverse group of microorganisms such as Acinetobacter, Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Serratia and Alcaligenes spp. which makes them suitable for microbial degradation of pollutants (Adebusoye et al. 2007; Akinde and Obire 2008; Umanu et al. 2013). Cow dung slurry maintained in the ratio of 1:10 or 1:25 is able to degrade the rural, urban and hospital wastes, including oil spillage to five basic elements (Randhawa and Kullar 2011). A study by Orji et al. (2012) highlights the importance of cow dung isolates, both bacterial and fungal, for reducing total petroleum hydrocarbons to 0 % in polluted mangrove soil. The bacterial isolates involved in the process belonged to genera Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Citrobacter, Micrococcus, Vibrio, Flavobacterium and Corynebacterium, whilst fungal isolates were the species from Rhizopus, Aspergillus, Penicillium, Fusarium, Saccharomyces and Mucor. The natural ability of cow dung microflora to degrade hydrocarbons in soil contaminated with engine oil is recently being investigated by Adams et al. (2014) where total petroleum hydrocarbon reduced up to 81 % by the metabolic activities of cow dung microorganisms such as Bacillus, Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas, Flaviobacterium, Arthobacter, Enterobacter, Trichoderma, Mucor and Aspergillus spp. Umanu et al. (2013) suggested that the application of cow dung in an appropriate concentration may prove very efficient in biodegradation of water contaminated with motor oil. Some researchers also suggested the metabolic pathway for microbial degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. A Mycobacterium sp. isolated from contaminated soil of gaswork plant has shown the ability to degrade pyrene up to 60 % within 8 days maintained at 20 °C with several degrading products such as Cis-4,5-pyrene dihydrodiol, 4-5-phenanthrene dicarboxylic acid, 1-hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid, 2-carboxybenzaldehyde, phthalic acid and protocatechuic acid were recognised (Rehmann et al. 1998; Haritash and Kaushik 2009). Lignolytic fungi Irpex lacteus has also shown the ability to degrade phenanthrene to phenanthrene-9,10-dihydrodiol (Cajthaml et al. 2002; Haritash and Kaushik 2009). All these findings indicate that cow dung can supply nutrients and energy required for microbial growth thereby resulting in the bioremediation of pollutants.

Incineration is a method of choice for disposal of biomedical waste but it is not environmental friendly due to production of toxic gases giving rise to health complications. Another useful application of cow dung microorganisms is in the treatment of biomedical and pharmaceutical waste (Randhawa and Kullar 2011). Cyathus stercoreus, isolated from aged cow dung, is not only capable of degrading lignocelluloses in vitro (Wicklow et al. 1980; Freer and Detroy 1982; Wicklow 1992) but also an antibiotic enrofloxacin (Randhawa and Kullar 2011). Research by Pandey and Gundevia (2008) showed complete biodegradation of biomedical waste placed in culture medium of a cow dung fungus, Periconiella.

India is the second largest producer of pesticides in Asia with annual production of 90,000 tons out of which 2–3 % is utilised and the rest remain in soil causing environmental problems (WHO 1990; Randhawa and Kullar 2011). Few reports have been published describing the importance of cow dung microbiota in effective disposal of pesticides. Singh and Fulekar (2007) designed a bioreactor for bioremediation of phenol utilising cow dung as a source of biomass. This cow dung microbial consortium that included bacteria, fungi and actinomycetes was found effective in degrading phenol ranging from 100 to 1000 mg/l concentrations. Two bacteria namely Pseudomonas plecoglossicida and Pseudomonas aeruginosa present in microbial consortium have also been detected to completely degrade hazardous chemicals like cypermethrin and chlorpyrifos (Fulekar and Geetha 2008; Boricha and Fulekar 2009; Randhawa and Kullar 2011). Geetha and Fulekhar (2008) utilised cow dung slurry in the ratio of 1:10 for bioremediation of pesticides namely chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, fenvalerate and trichlopyr butoxyethyl ester and found that all these pesticides are degraded into some intermediate or less harmful compounds.

Heavy metals enter into food chain through bioaccumulation from sources such as water, soil and air. These metals destroy the growth and metabolism of cells, disrupt the respiratory tract and accumulate in internal organs such as lever, heart and kidneys. Industrial waste is one of the major sources of heavy metal contamination of environment and involved in destruction of flora and fauna of water (Feng et al. 2004; Lakshmi et al. 2008; Kiaune and Singhasemanon 2011; Madu et al. 2011; Soni and Gupta 2011; Ali et al. 2013; Thajeel et al. 2013; Mohan and Gupta 2014). Remediation of heavy metals is commonly done by electrolytic deposition, electrodialysis, electrochemical, evaporation, precipitation, ion exchange, reduction, reverse osmosis, filtration, adsorption, chemical precipitation and distillation (Mohapatra et al. 2007, 2008; Mohan and Gupta 2014). All these methods are expensive and not environment friendly; hence, there is a need of cleaner and greener methods. Cow dung and its microorganisms have recently been tapped for the remediation of heavy metals like chromium, strontium and arsenic. Arsenic can be detoxified by methylation process. The ability of bacteria to methylate arsenic into volatile products mainly arsine, in the form of dimethylarsine, is already known (Bachofen et al. 1995). Mohapatra et al. (2008) have shown that cow dung can act as a major substrate for bacterial growth during removal of arsenic from arsenic-rich sludge by means of volatilisation. It was detected that methanogenic bacteria at substrate, i.e., cow dung concentration of 25 mg/l, could effectively volatilise around 35 % arsenic. Dry cow dung powder has recently been used as a source of adsorption for the removal of chromium from aqueous solution and achieved 73.8 % removal of chromium (Mohan and Gupta 2014). Another heavy metal, i.e., radiotoxic strontium which is very hazardous due to half-life of 29 years, imitates calcium in the body and increases the risk of bone cancer and leukaemia (Peterson et al. 2007; Barot and Bagla 2012). Barot and Bagla (2012) detected biosorption of a radiotoxic strontium (90Sr) by dry cow dung powder. 350 mg of dry cow dung powder along with certain laboratory conditions such as pH 6, contact time of 10 min and agitation speed of 4000 rpm resulted in 85–90 % adsorption of strontium. Thus, dry cow dung powder may be preferred over other synthetic adsorbents because of their production cost, time and energy requirements. Cow dung is a cheap and economically viable resource which is easily available. According to the above-discussed data, cow dung can be employed with or without pre- or post-treatment as an excellent measure to bioremediate nonbiodegradable and potentially toxic pollutants. Using cow dung for bioremediation is a simple and eco-friendly method as it does not produce any harmful by products. However, much more comprehensive studies are required to be done in this field.

Source of microbial enzymes

Microbial enzymes have got immense application because microbes can easily be cultivated and their enzyme can catalyse wide variety of hydrolytic and synthetic reactions (Illavarasi 2014). Many microbial enzymes have been isolated and studied for their industrial and commercial uses. However, still there is a continuous search for the potential microorganisms that are able to synthesise industrially feasible enzymes and microbial diversity of cow dung makes it a potential source for the said purpose (Dowd et al. 2008). Bacillus spp. from cow dung is capable of producing cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose and cellulase (Das et al. 2010; Sadhu et al. 2013; Illavarasi 2014). In case of poor enzyme production, genetically improved strains can be constructed for enhanced enzyme production. For instance, Sadhu et al. (2014) described that cow dung Bacillus spp. can be mutated with NTG to increase the cellulase production from 9.4 to 16.3 U/mg proteins. Teo and Teoh (2011) detected several cow dung isolates producing enzymes like protease, lipase and esterase lipase. Xylanolytic bacteria are receiving increasing commercial interest in several industries such as enzyme-aided bleaching of paper (Encarna et al. 2004; Viikari et al. 1994), production of ethanol from plant biomass (Lamed et al. 1988), animal feed additives (Annison 1992) and in bread making (Maat et al. 1992). One member of xylanolytic bacteria Paenibacillus favisporus sp., from cow dung, was found to produce wide variety of hydrolytic enzymes such as xylanases, cellulases, amylases, gelatinase, urease and β-galactosidase (Encarna et al. 2004). Not only as a microbial source but cow dung may also serve as good substrate for enzyme production, for example, in production of detergent-stable dehairing protease by alkaliphilic B. subtilis (Vijayaraghavan et al. 2012), alkaline protease by Halomonas spp. (Vijayaraghavan and Vincent 2012) and fibrinolytic enzyme from Pseudoalteromonas sp. (Vijayaraghavan and Vincent 2014).

Human health management

Microbial products or their derivatives can kill or inhibit the growth of susceptible pathogenic microbes (Willey et al. 2008). However, overuse and misuse of these antimicrobial agents have resulted in the development of resistance amongst pathogens (Aly et al. 2012; Sharif et al. 2013). At present, bacterial resistance against the antibiotics is of great concern for clinicians, public health officials and researchers as it results in substantial morbidity, mortality and increased cost of treatment (Naiemi et al. 2006; Abo-state et al. 2012; Aly et al. 2012; Jeyasanta et al. 2012; Ullah et al. 2012; Sharif et al. 2013). The pharmaceutical industries and healthcare systems of the world are continuously fighting multidrug-resistant strains of bacteria the last 50 years. Following this fundamental need to counter antibiotic resistance, one way is to search for new sources having possibilities for antibiotic-producing microorganisms. Soil is the prominent source from where hundreds of antibiotic-producing organisms have been isolated during the last five decades (Khamna et al. 2009; Hossain and Rahman 2014; Amin et al. 2015). Recently workers have started to explore other sources such as oceans (Wu et al. 2014). Bacteria colonising marine invertebrate (e.g., sponges and corals) are considered responsible for the production of antimicrobials (Zhang et al. 2012; Santos et al. 2015)

A relatively limited number of reports exist on the presence of antagonistic activity amongst cow dung microorganisms and antimicrobial activity of cow dung as a whole. Cow dung possesses antiseptic and prophylactic or disease preventive properties. It destroys the microorganism that causes disease and putrefaction. Medicinal properties of five products collectively known as panchgavya obtained from cow namely milk, ghee, curd, dung and urine are supported by their use in the preparation of various herbal medicines (Pathak and Kumar 2003; Jarald et al. 2008). Panchgavya therapy utilises these five products singly or in combination with herbal or mineral drugs for the treatment of many diseases like flu, allergies, colds, cough, asthma, renal disorders, gastrointestinal tract disorders, acidity, ulcer, wound healing, heart diseases, skin infections, tuberculosis, chickenpox, hepatitis, leprosy and several other bacterial and viral infections. Panchgavya also seems to be beneficial even for the diseases such as cancer, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and diabetes. Immunostimulatory, immunomodulatory and antiinflammatory effects of panchagavya are also being mentioned in Ayurveda (Chauhan 2005; Dhama et al. 2005a; Donovan 2008; Jain et al. 2010; Sathasivam et al. 2010; Girija et al. 2013; Dhama et al. 2013). Recently, central nervous system action of panchgavya on spontaneous motor activity, muscle tone and pain has been determined in albino rats (Paliwal et al. 2013).

Cow dung has antifungal substance that inhibits the growth of coprophilous fungi (Dhama et al. 2005b; Joseph and Sankarganesh 2011; Dhama et al. 2013). Eupenicillium bovifimosum present in cow dung produces patulodine-like compounds viz. CK2108A and CK2801B that possess significant antigungal activity (Dorothy and Frisvad 2002; Lehr et al. 2006). Lauková et al. (1998) detected considerable numbers of enterococci in cow dung water with antilisterial effect. One isolated strain Enterococcus faecalis V24 was found to produce a heat stable, largely hydrophobic antimicrobial substance with significant antimicrobial activity against pathogenic Gram-negative bacteria. Possible applications of cow dung microorganisms in pharmaceutical industry has been indicated by Teo and Teoh (2011) and it was shown that isolate K4 possessed antibacterial activity against E. coli. Research has also been conducted on water, ethanol and n-Hexane extract of whole cow dung against Candida, E. coli, Pseudomonas and Staphylococcus aureus by Shrivastava et al. (2014) revealing their antimicrobial properties.

Mycobacterium vaccae, a non-pathogenic bacterium, first isolated from cow dung possesses antidepressant properties. When inhaled, it enhanced the growth of neuron which stimulates the production of serotonin and norepinephrine in the brain (Lowry et al. 2007). Its effects on anxiety and learning power were also tested on the mice and it showed good results when the mice fed with live M. vaccae (Matthews and Jenks 2013). Immunotherapy by killed M. vaccae vaccine has also been found effective in the treatment of asthma, cancer, leprosy and psoriasis (Rook and Stanford 1988; Lehrer et al. 1998). These reports suggest that cow dung may serve as a promising untapped source containing microorganisms, which hopefully may be connected to novel antimicrobial metabolites.

Conclusions

Cow dung host a wide variety of microorganisms varying in individual properties. Exploitation of cow dung microflora can contribute significantly in sustainable agriculture and energy requirements. It is one of the bioresources of this world which is available on large scale and still not fully utilised. The understanding of the mechanisms enabling cow dung microbes to degrade hydrocarbons can promote bioremediation of environmental pollutants. With recent advances in scientific research and techniques for complete genome sequences, the genes responsible for bioremediation can be identified. Another exciting area of research for future studies is developing microbial enzymes and antimicrobials. The production of enzymes by microorganisms from this cheap bioresource can find wide applications in various fields such as agriculture, chemistry and biotechnology. The application of cow dung microflora with considerable antimicrobial potential can result in the promotion of human health; however, comprehensive screening of these microorganisms for the production of antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral metabolites needed to be investigated. It is certainly evident that more detailed studies of cow dung are needed, as there is still a tremendous scope for research and development to reach up to the industrial scale production of antibiotics and enzymes. In this way, cow dung may be considered as an easily available bioresource that holds a great potential for sustainable development in the near future.

Abbreviations

USEIA: 

United States energy information administration

ISFM: 

integrated soil fertility management

NPK: 

nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium

NTG: 

N-methyl-N /-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

KKG and DR contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. KRA contributed to the general advice and improving of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Botany and Microbiology, Gurukula Kangri University
(2)
Department of Microbiology, Kurukshetra University

References

  1. Abo-State MA, Mahdy HM, Ezzat SM, Abd El Shakour EH, El-Bahnasawy MA (2012) Antimicrobial resistance profiles of Enterobacteriaceae isolated from Rosetta Branch of River Nile, Egypt. World Appl Sci J 19:1234–1243Google Scholar
  2. Adams GO, Tawari-Fufeyin P, Ehinomen I (2014) Laboratory scale bioremediation of soils from automobile mechanic workshops using cow dung. J Appl Environ Microbiol 2:128–134Google Scholar
  3. Adebusoye SA, Ilori MO, Amund OO, Teniola OD, Olatope SO (2007) Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in a polluted tropical stream. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 23:1149–1159View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Akinde SB, Obire O (2008) Aerobic heterotrophic bacteria and petroleum-utilizing bacteria from cow dung and poultry manure. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 24:1999–2002View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Ali H, Khan E, Sajad M (2013) Phytoremediation of heavy metals-concepts and applications. Chemosphere 91:869–881View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Aly MEA, Essam TM, Amin MA (2012) Antibiotic resistance profile of Escherichia coli strains isolated from clinical specimens and food samples in Egypt. Int J Microbiol Res 3:176–182Google Scholar
  7. Amin M, Rakhisi Z, Ahmady AZ (2015) Isolation and identification of Bacillus Species from soil and evaluation of their antibacterial properties. Avicenna J Clin Microb Infec 2:e23233View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Annison G (1992) Commercial enzyme supplementation of wheat based diets raises ileal glycanase activities and improves apparent metabolisable energy, starch and pentosan digestibilities in broiler chickens. Anim Feed Sci Technol 38:105–121View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Arcand MM, Schneider KD (2006) Plant and microbial-based mechanisms to improve the agronomic effectiveness of phosphate rock: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 78:791–807View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Arslan EI, Öbek E, Kirba S, Pek U, Topal M (2008) Determination of the effect of compost on soil microorganisms. Int J Sci Technol 3:151–159Google Scholar
  11. Ayoola OT, Makinde EA (2008) Performance of green maize and soil nutrient changes with fortified cow dung. Afr J Plant Sci 2:19–22Google Scholar
  12. Babic S, Mutavdzic D, Asperger D, Horvat AJM, Kaštelan-Macan M (2007) Determination of veterinary pharmaceuticals in production wastewater by HPTLC-video densitometry. Chromatographia 65:105–110View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Bachofen R, Birch L, Buchs U, Ferloni P, Flynn I, Jud G, Tahedel H, Chasteen TG (1995) Volatalization of arsenic compounds by microorganisms. In: Hinchee RE (ed) Bioremediation of inorganics. Batelle Press, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  14. Bahadure S, Kalia R, Chavan R (2013) Comparative study of bioremediation of hydrocarbon fuels. Int J Biotechnol Bioeng Res 4:677–686Google Scholar
  15. Barot NS, Bagla HK (2012) Biosorption of radiotoxic 90Sr by green adsorbent: dry cow dung powder. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 294:81–86View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Barroso CB, Pereira GT, Nahas E (2006) Solubilization of CaHPO4 and AlPO4 by Aspergillus niger in culture media with different carbon and nitrogen sources. Braz J Microbiol 37:434–438View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Basak AB, Lee MW (2002) In vitro inhibitory activity of cow urine and cow dung of Fusarium Solani F Sp. Cucurbitae. Microbiology 30:51–54Google Scholar
  18. Bélanger G, Rochette P, Chantigny M, Ziadi N, Angers D, Charbonneau E, Pellerin D, Liang C (2014) Nitrogen availability from dairy cow dung and urine applied to forage grasses in eastern Canada. Can J Plant Sci 95:55–65View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Bedada W, Karltun E, Lemenih M, Tolera M (2014) Long-term addition of compost and NP fertilizer increases crop yield and improves soil quality in experiments on smallholder farms. Agric Ecosyst Environ 195:193–201View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Bernal MP, Alburquerque JA, Moral R (2009) Composting of animal manures and chemical criteria for compost maturity assessment—review. Bioresour Technol 100:5444–5453View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Bhattacharjya D, Sung YJ (2014) Activated carbon made from cow dung as electrode material for electrochemical double layer capacitor. J Power Sources 262:224–231View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Bhattacharjya D, Park HY, Kim MS, Choi HS, Inamdar SN, Yu JS (2013) Nitrogen-doped carbon nanoparticles by flame synthesis as anode material for rechargeable lithium-ion batteries. Langmuir 30:318–324View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Biswal M, Banerjee A, Deo M, Ogale S (2013) From dead leaves to high energy density supercapacitors. Energy Environ Sci 6:1249–1259View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Boricha H, Fulekar MH (2009) Pseudomonas plecoglossicida as a novel organism for the bioremediation of cypermethrin. Biol Med 1:1–10Google Scholar
  25. Brown RC (ed) (2003) Biorenewable resources—engineering new products from agriculture. Lowa state press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Buvaneswari S, Damodarkumar S, Murugesan S (2013) Bioremediation studies on sugar-mill effluent by selected fungal species. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 2:50–58Google Scholar
  27. Cajthaml T, Möder M, Kačer P, Šašek V, Popp P (2002) Study of fungal degradation products of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons using gas chromatography with ion trap mass spectrometry detection. J Chromatogr A 974:213–222View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Chauhan RS (2005) Cowpathy: a new version of ancient science. Employ News 30:1–2Google Scholar
  29. Cookson JT (ed) (1995) Bioremediation engineering: design and application. Mcgraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Das A, Bhattacharya S, Murali L (2010) Production of cellulose from thermophilic Bacillus sp. isolated from cow dung. Am Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci 8:685–691Google Scholar
  31. Demiral H, Demiral I (2008) Surface properties of activated carbon prepared from wastes. Surf Interface Anal 40:612–615View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Dhama K, Chauhan RS, Singhal L (2005a) Anti-cancer activity of cow urine: current status and future directions. Int J Cow Sci 1:1–25Google Scholar
  33. Dhama K, Rathore R, Chauhan RS, Tomar S (2005b) Panchgavya: an overview. Int J Cow Sci 1:1–15Google Scholar
  34. Dhama K, Chakraborty S, Tiwari R (2013) Panchgavya therapy (Cowpathy) in safeguarding health of animals and humans—a review. Res Opin Anim Vet Sci 3:170–178Google Scholar
  35. Dhami JK, Singh H, Gupta M (2013) Industrialization at the cost of environment degradation—a case of leather and iron and steel industry from Punjab economy. Innov J Bus Manag 2:19–21Google Scholar
  36. Donovan B (2008) Breathe in the cow dung, cockies—it’ll cut your cancer risk. In: The New Zealand Herald. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10489178. Accessed 25 Jul 2015
  37. Dorothy ET, Frisvad JC (2002) Eupenicillium bovifimosum, a new species from dried cow manure in Wyoming. Mycologia 94:240–246View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Dowd SE, Callaway TR, Wolcott RD, Sun Y, McKeehan T, Hagevoort RG, Edrington T (2008) Evaluation of the bacterial diversity in the feces of cattle using 16S rDNA bacterial tag-encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP). BMC Microbiol 8:125View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Encarna VZ, Trinidad DM, Margarita P, Rau R, Ramo´n RM, Toma GV (2004) Paenibacillus favisporus sp. nov., a xylanolytic bacterium isolated from cow faeces. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 54:59–64View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Ewusi-Mensah N, Logah V, Akrasi EJ (2015) Impact of different systems of manure management on the quality of cow dung. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 46:137–147View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Falco C, Sieben JM, Brun N, Sevilla M, Mauelen T, Morallón E, Cazorla-Amorós D, Titirici MM (2013) Hydrothermal carbons from hemicellulose-derived aqueous hydrolysis products as electrode materials for supercapacitors. Chem Sus Chem 6:374–382View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Fang B, Kim JH, Kim M, Yu JS (2009) Ordered hierarchical nanostructured carbon as a highly efficient cathode catalyst support in proton exchange membrane fuel cell. Chem Mater 21:789–796View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Feng Q, Lin Q, Gong F, Sugita S, Shoya M (2004) Adsorption of lead and mercury by rice husk ash. J Colloid Interf Sci 278:1–8View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Fick J, Söderström H, Lindberg RH, Chau DNP, Tysklind M, Larsson DGJ (2009) Contamination of surface, ground, and drinking water from pharmaceutical production. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:2522–2527View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Freeman HM, Harris EF (1995) Hazardous waste remediation: innovation treatment technologies. Technomic Publ Co., Inc., Lancaster, p 342Google Scholar
  46. Freer SN, Detroy RW (1982) Biological delignification of C-labelled lignocelluloses by basidiomycetes: degradation and solubilization of the lignin and cellulose components. Mycologia 74:943–951View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Fulekar MH, Geetha M (2008) Bioremediation of Chlorpyrifos by Pseudomonas aeruginosa using scale up technique. J Appl Biosci 12:657–660Google Scholar
  48. Gamby J, Taberna PL, Simon P, Fauvarque JF, Chesneau M (2001) Studies and characterisations of various activated carbons used for carbon/carbon supercapacitors. J Power Sources 101:109–116View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Garg VK, Kaushik P (2005) Vermistabilization of textile mill sludge spiked with poultry droppings by an epigeic earthworm Eisenia foetida. Bioresour Technol 96:1063–1071View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Garg AK, Mudgal V (2007) Organic and mineral composition of Gomeya (cow dung) from Desi and crossbred cows—a comparative study. Int J Cow Sci 3:1–2Google Scholar
  51. Garg RN, Pathak H, Das DK, Tomar RK (2005) Use of fly ash and biogas slurry for improving wheat yield and physical properties of soil. Environ Monit Assess 107:1–9View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Geetha M, Fulekar MH (2008) Bioremediation of pesticides in surface soil treatment unit using microbial consortia. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 2:36–45Google Scholar
  53. Gentile R, Vanlauwe B, Chivenge P, Six J (2011) Trade-offs between the short- and long-term effects of residue quality on soil C and N dynamics. Plant Soil 338:159–169 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Girija D, Deepa K, Xavier F, Antony I, Shidhi PR (2013) Analysis of cow dung microbiota—a metagenomic approach. Indian J Biotech 12:372–378Google Scholar
  55. Gounot AM (1986) Psychrophilic and psychrotrophic microorganisms. Experimentia 42:1192–1197View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Guo Y, Tang H, Li G, Xie D (2014) Effects of cow dung biochar amendment on adsorption and leaching of nutrient from an acid yellow soil irrigated with biogas slurry. Water Air Soil Pollut 225:1820View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Haritash AK, Kaushik CP (2009) Biodegradation aspects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): a review. J Hazard Mater 169:1–15View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Hilyard EJ, Jones-Meehan JM, Spargo BJ, Hill RT (2008) Enrichment, isolation, and phylogenetic identification of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbondegrading bacteria from Elizabeth river sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:1176–1182View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Hossain MN, Rahman MM (2014) Antagonistic activity of antibiotic producing Streptomyces sp. against fish and human pathogenic bacteria. Braz Arch Biol Technol 57:233–237View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Hu B, Wang K, Wu L, Yu SH, Antonietti M, Titirici MM (2010) Engineering carbon materials from the hydrothermal carbonization process of biomass. Adv Mater 22:813–828View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Huang C, Sun T, Hulicova-Jurcakova D (2013) Wide electrochemical window of supercapacitors from coffee bean derived phosphorus rich carbons. Chem Sus Chem 6:2330–2339View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Illavarasi S (2014) Isolation and identification of cellulase producing bacteria from cow dung. SIRJ-MBT 1Google Scholar
  63. Inamdar S, Choi HS, Wang P, Song MY, Yu JS (2013) Sulfur-containing carbon by flame synthesis as efficient metal-free electrocatalyst for oxygen reduction reaction. Electrochem Commun 30:9–12View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Islam MR, Rahman SME, Rahman MM, Oh DH, Ra CS (2010) The effects of biogas slurry on the production and quality of maize fodder. Turk J Agric For 34:91–99Google Scholar
  65. Jain NK, Gupta VB, Garg R, Silawat N (2010) Efficacy of cow urine therapy on various cancer patients in Mandsaur District, India—a survey. Int J Green Pharm 4:29–35View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Jarald E, Edwin S, Tiwari V, Garg R, Toppo E (2008) Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of cow urine. Global J Pharmacol 2:20–22Google Scholar
  67. Jeyasanta KI, Aiyamperumal V, Patterson J (2012) Prevalence of antibiotic resistant Escherichia coli in sea foods of Tuticorin coast, southeastern India. Adv Biol Res 6:70–77Google Scholar
  68. Joseph B, Sankarganesh P (2011) Antifungal efficacy of panchgavya. Int J Pharm Tech Res 3:585–588Google Scholar
  69. Kala DR, Rosenani AB, Fauziah CI, Thohirah LA (2009) Composting oil palm wastes and sewage sludge for use in potting media of ornamental plants. Malays J Soil Sci 13:77–91Google Scholar
  70. Kalia A, Singh S (2004) Development of a biogas plant. Energy Sources 26:707–714View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Kang BT, Juo ASR (1980) Management of low-activity clay soils in Tropical Africa for food crop production. In: Terry ER, Oduro KA, Caveness F (eds) Tropical root crops: research strategies for the 1980s. IDRC, Ottawa, p 129–133Google Scholar
  72. Kanwar SS, Guleri RL (1994) Performance evaluation of a family size rubber balloon biogas plant under hilly conditions. Biores Technol 50:119–121View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Kashyap DR, Dadhich KS, Sharma SK (2003) Biomethanation under psychrophilic conditions: a review. Bioresour Technol 87:147–153View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Kessler R (2010) Pharmaceutical factories as a source of drugs in water. Environ Health Perspect 118:383View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Khamna S, Yokota A, Lumyong S (2009) Actinomycetes isolated from medicinal plant rhizosphere soils: diversity and screening of antifungal compounds, indole-3-acetic acid and siderophore production. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 25:649–655View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  76. Kiaune L, Singhasemanon N (2011) Pesticidal copper(I)oxide: environmental fate and aquatic toxicity. Rev Environ Contam T 213:1–26Google Scholar
  77. Kim JH, Fang B, Song MY, Yu JS (2012) Topological transformation of thioether-bridged organosilicas into nanostructured functional materials. Chem Mater 24:2256–2264View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. Kristiansson E, Fick J, Janzon A, Grabic R, Rutgersson C, Weijdegård B, Söderström H, Larsson DJ (2011) Pyrosequencing of antibiotic-contaminated river sediments reveals high levels of resistance and gene transfer elements. PLoS One 6:e17038View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Kuhad RC, Singh S, Lata Singh A (2011) Phosphate solubilising microorganisms. In: Singh A, Parmar N, Kuhad RC (eds) Bioaugmentation, biostimulation and biocontrol, soil biology series, vol 28. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 65–84View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  80. Lakshmi SS, Gayathri M, Sudha PN (2008) Study on removal of chromium (VI) from aqueous solution using sulphonated black rice husk ash and sulphonated white rice husk ash. Nat Environ Pollut Technol 7:733–736Google Scholar
  81. Lamed R, Bayer E, Saha BC, Zeikus JG (1988) Biotechnological potential of enzyme from unique thermophiles. In: Durand G, Bobichon L, Florent J (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international biotechnology symposium, Paris, 1988Google Scholar
  82. Larsson DJ (2014) Antibiotics in the environment. Upsala J Med Sci 119:108–112View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. Lauková A, Czikková S, Vasilková Z, Juris P, Mareková M (1998) Occurrence of bacteriocin production among environmental Enterococci. Lett Appl Microbiol 27:178–182View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  84. Lee J, Kim J, Hyeon T (2006) Recent progress in the synthesis of porous carbon materials. Adv Mater 18:2073–2094View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  85. Lehr NA, Meffert A, Antelo L, Sterner O, Anke H, Weber RWS (2006) Antiamoebins, myrocin B and the basis of antifungal biosis in the coprophilous fungus Stilbella erythrocephala (syn. Stilbella fimetaria). FEMS Microbiol Ecol 55:105–112View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  86. Lehrer A, Bressanelli A, Wachsmann V, Bottasso O, Bay ML, Singh M, Stanford C, Stanford J (1998) Immunotherapy with Mycobacterium vaccae in the treatment of psoriasis. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 21:71–77View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  87. Li R, Chen S, Li X (2009) Anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and cattle manure for methane production. Energy Source Part A Recovery Util Environ Eff 31:1848–1856View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Li X, Han C, Chen X, Shi C (2010) Preparation and performance of straw based activated carbon for supercapacitor in non-aqueous electrolytes. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 131:303–309View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  89. Li X, Xing W, Zhuo S, Zhou J, Li F, Qiao SZ, Lu GQ (2011) Preparation of capacitor’s electrode from sunflower seed shell. Bioresour Technol 102:1118–1123View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  90. Li J, Jha AK, Bajracharya TR (2014) Dry anaerobic co-digestion of cow dung with pig manure for methane production. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 173:1537–1552View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  91. Ministry of Agriculture Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying and Fisheries Krishi Bhawan (2012) Livestock Census—2012 All India Report. Ministry of Agriculture Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying and Fisheries Krishi Bhawan, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  92. Lowry CA, Hollis JH, De Vries A, Pan B, Brunet LR, Hunt JRF, Lightman SL (2007) Identification of an immune-responsive mesolimbocortical serotonergic system: potential role in regulation of emotional behavior. Neuroscience 146:756–772View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  93. Lu J, Jiang L, Chen D, Toyota K, Strong PJ, Wang H, Hirasawa T (2012) Decontamination of anaerobically digested slurry in a paddy field ecosystem in Jiaxing region of China. Agric Ecosyst Environ 146:13–22View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  94. Lu H, Wang X, Zhang K, Xu Y, Zhou L, Li G (2014) Identification and nematicidal activity of bacteria isolated from cow dung. Ann Microbiol 64:407–411View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  95. Maat J, Roza M, Verbakel J, Stam H, Santos de Silva MJ, Bosse M, Hessing JGM, Egmond MR, Hagemans MLD, Gorcom RFM (1992) Xylanases and their application in bakery. In: Visser J, van Someren MAK, Beldman G, Voragen AGJ (eds) Xylans and xylanases. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 349–360Google Scholar
  96. Macias FA, Marin D, Oliveros-Bastidas A, Varela RM, Simonet AM, Carrera C, Molinillo JMG (2003) Allelopathy as a new strategy for sustainable ecosystems development. Biol Sci Space 17:18–23View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  97. Madu PC, Akpaiyo GD, Ikoku P (2011) Biosorption of Cr3+, Pb2+, and Cd2+ ions from aqueous solution using modified and unmodified millet chaff. J Chem Pharm Res 3:467–477Google Scholar
  98. Mary CA, Dav VPS, Karunakaran K, Nair NR (1986) Cow dung extract for controlling bacterial blight. Int Rice res News 11:19Google Scholar
  99. Matthews DM, Jenks SM (2013) Ingestion of Mycobacterium vaccae decreases anxiety-related behavior and improves learning in mice. Behav Process 96:27–35View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  100. Mohan L, Gupta D (2014) Study on removal of chromium from aqueous solution using dry cow dung powder. J Chem Pharm Res 6:1066–1070Google Scholar
  101. Mohapatra D, Mishra D, Rout M, Chaudhury GR (2007) Adsorption kinetics of natural dissolved organic matter and its impact on arsenic(V) leachability from arsenic loaded ferrihydrite and Al-ferrihydrite. J Environ Sci Health Part A 42:81–88View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  102. Mohapatra D, Mishra D, Chaudhury RG, Das RP (2008) Removal of arsenic from arsenic rich sludge by volatilization using anaerobic microorganisms treated with cow dung, soil and sediment contamination. An Int J 17:301–311Google Scholar
  103. Munda US, Pholane L, Kar DD, Meikap BC (2012) Production of bioenergy from composite waste materials made of corn waste, spent tea waste, and kitchen waste co-mixed with cow dung. Int J Green Energy 9:361–375View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  104. Naiemi NA, Heddema ER, Bart A, De Jonge E, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, Savelkoul PH, Duim B (2006) Emergence of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria during selective decontamination of the digestive tract on an intensive care unit. J Antimicrob Chemother 58:853–856View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  105. Nene YL (1999) Utilizing traditional knowledge in agriculture. Traditional knowledge system of India and Sri Lanka, pp 32–38Google Scholar
  106. Onwudike SU (2010) Effectiveness of cow dung and mineral fertilizer on soil properties, nutrient uptake and yield of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) in Southeastern Nigeria. Asian J Agric Res 4:148–154View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  107. Orji FA, Ibiere AA, Dike EN (2012) Laboratory scale bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon polluted mangrove swamp in the Niger Delta using cow dung. Malays J Microbiol 8:219–228Google Scholar
  108. Paliwal R, Sahni YP, Singh SK, Sen S (2013) Effect of panchgavya on central actions in albino rats. Pharma Sci Monit 4:3940–3946Google Scholar
  109. Palm CA, Robert JKM, Stephen MN (1997) Combined use of organic and inorganic nutrient sources for soil fertility maintenance and replenishment. In: Hatfield J, Bigham JM, Krai DM, Viney MK (eds) Replenshing soil fertility in Africa. SSSA, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  110. Pandey A, Gundevia HS (2008) Role of the fungus—Periconiella sp. in destruction of biomedical waste. J Environ Sci Eng 50:239–240Google Scholar
  111. Passatore L, Rossetti S, Juwarkar AA, Massacci A (2014) Phytoremediation and bioremediation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): state of knowledge and research perspectives. J Hazard Mater 278:189–202View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  112. Pathak ML, Kumar A (2003) Cow praising and importance of Panchyagavya as medicine. Sachitra Ayurveda 5:56–59Google Scholar
  113. Peterson J, MacDonell M, Haroun L, Monette F, Hildebrand RD, Taboas A (2007) Radiological and chemical fact sheets to support health risk analyses for contaminated areas. Argonne Natl Lab Environ Sci Division 133Google Scholar
  114. Phillips PJ, Smith SG, Kolpin DW, Zaugg SD, Buxton HT, Furlong ET, Esposito K, Stinson B (2010) Pharmaceutical formulation facilities as sources of opioids and other pharmaceuticals to wastewater treatment plant effluents. Environ Sci Technol 44:4910–4916View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  115. Pongrácz E, Pohjola VJ (2004) Re-defining waste, the concept of ownership and the role of waste management. Resour Conserv Recycl 40:141–153View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  116. Radha TK, Rao DLN (2014) Plant growth promoting bacteria from cow dung based biodynamic preparations. Indian J Microbiol 54:413–418View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  117. Rana G, Mandal T, Mandal NK (2014) Generation of high calorific fuel gas by photosynthetic bacteria isolated from cow dung. Int J Res 1:115–128Google Scholar
  118. Randhawa GK, Kullar JS (2011) Bioremediation of pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and petrochemicals with gomeya/cow dung. ISRN Pharmacol. doi:10.5402/2011/362459 Google Scholar
  119. Rehmann K, Noll HP, Steinberg CE, Kettrup AA (1998) Pyrene degradation by Mycobacterium sp. strain KR2. Chemosphere 36:2977–2992View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  120. Reyes I, Valery A, Valduz Z (2006) Phosphate-solubilizing microorganisms isolated from rhizospheric and bulk soils of colonizer plants at an abandoned rock phosphate mine. Plant Soil 287:69–75View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  121. Rook GAW, Stanford JL (1988) Immunotherapeutic composition of killed cells from mycobacterium vaccae. US patent 4724144. 11 Nov 1988Google Scholar
  122. Rupela OP, Gopalakrishnan S, Krajewski M, Sriveni M (2003) A novel method for the identification and enumeration of microorganisms with potential for suppressing fungal plant pathogens. Biol Fertil Soils 39:131–134View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  123. Ryan JR, Loehr RC, Rucker E (1991) Bioremediation of organic contaminated soils. J Hazard Mater 28:159–169View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  124. Sadhu S, Saha P, Sen SK, Mayilraj S, Maiti TK (2013) Production, purification and characterization of a novel thermotolerant endoglucanase (CMCase) from Bacillus strain isolated from cow dung. Springerplus 2:1–10View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  125. Sadhu S, Ghosh PK, Aditya G, Maiti TK (2014) Optimization and strain improvement by mutation for enhanced cellulase production by Bacillus sp. (MTCC10046) isolated from cow dung. J King Saud Univ Sci 26:323–332View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  126. Safley LM, Westerman PW (1990) Psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of animal manure: proposed design methodology. Biol Wastes 34:133–148View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  127. Sanaei-Moghadam A, Abbaspour-Fard MH, Aghel H, Aghkhani MH, Abedini-Torghabeh J (2014) Enhancement of biogas production by co-digestion of potato pulp with cow manure in a CSTR system. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 173:1858–1869View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  128. Santos OCS, Soares AR, Machado FLS, Romanos MTV, Muricy G, Giambiagi-deMarval M, Laport MS (2015) Investigation of biotechnological potential of sponge-associated bacteria collected in Brazilian coast. Lett Appl Microbiol 60:140–147View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  129. Sathasivam A, Muthuselvam M, Rajendran R (2010) Antimicrobial activities of cow urine distillate against some clinical pathogens. Glob J Pharmacol 4:41–44Google Scholar
  130. Sawant AA, Hegde NV, Straley BA, Donaldson SC, Love BC, Knabel SJ, Jayarao BM (2007) Antimicrobial-resistant enteric bacteria from dairy cattle. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:156–163View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  131. Sharif MR, Alizargar J, Sharif A (2013) Antimicrobial resistance among Gram-negative bacteria isolated from different samples of patients admitted to a University hospital in Kashan, Iran. Adv Biol Res 7:199–202Google Scholar
  132. Sharma CK (2011). Biogas—a boon for India. Biofuels 2–3Google Scholar
  133. Shrivastava S, Mishra A, Pal A (2014) Cow dung—a boon for antimicrobial activity. Lifesci Leafl 55:60–63Google Scholar
  134. Singh D, Fulekar MH (2007) Bioremediation of phenol using microbial consortium in bioreactor. Innov Rom Food Biotechnol 1:31–36Google Scholar
  135. Singh A, Kohli JS (2012) Effect of pollution on common man in India: a legal perspective. Adv Life Sci Technol 4:35–41Google Scholar
  136. Somasundaram E, Amanullah MM, Vaiyapuri K, Thirukkumaran K, Sathyamoorthi K (2007) Influence of organic sources of nutrients on the yield and economics of crops under maize based cropping system. J Appl Sci Res 3:1774–1777Google Scholar
  137. Soni R, Gupta A (2011) Batch biosorption studies of Cr(VI) by using Zygnema (Green Algae). J Chem Pharm Res 3:950–960Google Scholar
  138. Stalin V, Perumal K, Stanley Abraham L, Kalaichelvan PT (2010) Screening and production of subtilin from Bacillus subtilis isolated from nutrient-rich organic and biodynamic manures. IUP J Life Sci 4:34–44Google Scholar
  139. Swain MC, Kar S, Padmaja G, Ray RC (2006) Partial characterisation and optimisation of production of extracellular α-amylase from Bacillus subtilis isolated from culturable cow dung microflora. Pol J Microbiol 55:289–296Google Scholar
  140. Swain MR, Laxminarayana K, Ray RC (2012) Phosphorus solubilization by thermotolerant Bacillus subtilis isolated from cow dung microflora. Agric Res 1:273–279View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  141. Teo KC, Teoh SM (2011) Preliminary biological screening of microbes isolated from cow dung in Kampar. Afr J Biotechnol 10:1640–1645Google Scholar
  142. Thajeel AS, Al-Faize MM, Raheem AZ (2013) Adsorption of Pb+2 and Zn+2 ions from oil wells onto activated carbon produced from rice husk in batch adsorption process. J Chem Pharm Res 5:240–250Google Scholar
  143. The Hindu (2011) About 70 per cent Indians live in rural areas: Census report. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/about70percentindiansliveinruralareascensusreport/article2230211.ece. Accessed 24 Jul 2015
  144. Thomas KV, Dye C, Schlabach M, Langford KH (2007) Source to sink tracking of selected human pharmaceuticals from two Oslo city hospitals and a wastewater treatment works. J Environ Monit 9:1410–1418View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  145. Ullah A, Durrani R, Ullah I, Rafiq M (2012) Antibiotic resistance profile of clinical gram negative bacteria. J Biol Food Sci Res 1:23–25Google Scholar
  146. Umanu G, Nwachukwu SCU, Olasode OK (2013) Effects of cow dung on microbial degradation of motor oil in lagoon water. GJBB 2:542–548Google Scholar
  147. USEIA (2014) Today in India—India is increasingly dependent on imported fossil fuels as demand continues to rise. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/deatils.cfm?id=17551. Accessed 07 Apr 2015
  148. Vakili M, Zwain HM, Rafatullah M, Gholami Z, Mohammadpour R (2015) Potentiality of palm oil biomass with cow dung for compost production. KSCE J Civil Eng 19:1994–1999View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  149. Viikari L, Kantelinen A, Sundquist J, Linko M (1994) Xylanases in bleaching: from an idea to the industry. FEMS Microbiol Rev 13:335–350View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  150. Vijayaraghavan P, Vincent SGP (2012) Cow dung as a novel, inexpensive substrate for the production of a halo-tolerant alkaline protease by Halomonas sp. PV1 for eco-friendly applications. Biochem Eng J 69:57–60View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  151. Vijayaraghavan P, Vincent SGP (2014) Statistical optimization of fibrinolytic enzyme production by Pseudoalteromonas sp. IND11 using cow dung substrate by response surface methodology. Springerplus 3:1–10View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  152. Vijayaraghavan P, Vijayan A, Arun A, Jenisha J, Vincent SGP (2012) Cow dung: a potential biomass substrate for the production of detergent-stable dehairing protease by alkaliphilic Bacillus subtilis strain VV. Springerplus 1:76View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  153. Wachendorf C, Taube F, Wachendorf M (2005) Nitrogen leaching from N-15 labelled cow urine and dung applied to grassland on a sandy soil. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 73:89–100View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  154. Wang L, Mu G, Tian C, Sun L, Zhou W, Yu P, Yin J, Fu H (2013) Porous graphitic carbon nanosheets derived from cornstalk biomass for advanced supercapacitors. Chem Sus Chem 6:880–889View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  155. Wei L, Sevilla M, Fuertes AB, Mokaya R, Yushin G (2011) Hydrothermal carbonization of abundant renewable natural organic chemicals for high-performance supercapacitor electrodes. Adv Energy Mater 1:356–361View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  156. Werner U, Stöhr U, Hees N (1989) Biogas plants in animal husbandry. Deutsches Zentrum für Entwicklungstechnologien-GATEGoogle Scholar
  157. Wicklow DT (1992) The coprophilous fungal community: and experimental system. In Carrol GC, Wicklow DT (eds) The fungal community. Its organisation and role in the ecosystem, 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  158. Wicklow DT, Detroy RW, Jessee BA (1980) Decomposition of lignocellulose by Cyathus stercoreus (Schw.) de Toni NRRL 6473, a “white rot” fungus from cattle dung. Appl Environ Microbiol 40:169–170Google Scholar
  159. Willey MJ, Sherwood ML, Woolverton JC (2008) Prescott, Harley, and Klein’s Microbiology. The McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  160. Williams KH, Bargar JR, Lloyd JR, Lovley DR (2013) Bioremediation of uranium-contaminated groundwater: a systems approach to subsurface biogeochemistry. Curr Opin Biotechnol 24:489–497View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  161. World Health Organization. Report on TBEE. Environmental Health Criteria. International program on chemical safety, 1990Google Scholar
  162. Wu B, Oesker V, Wiese J, Schmaljohann R, Imhoff JF (2014) Two new antibiotic pyridones produced by a marine fungus, Trichoderma sp. strain mf106. Mar drugs 12:1208–1219View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  163. Xu B, Hou S, Cao G, Wu F, Yang Y (2012) Sustainable nitrogen-doped porous carbon with high surface areas prepared from gelatin for supercapacitors. J Mater Chem 22:19088–19093View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  164. Yadav A, Gupta R, Garg VK (2013) Organic manure production from cow dung and biogas plant slurry by vermicomposting under field conditions. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 2:21View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  165. Yang DS, Bhattacharjya D, Inamdar S, Park J, Yu JS (2012) Phosphorus-doped ordered mesoporous carbons with different lengths as efficient metal-free electrocatalysts for oxygen reduction reaction in alkaline media. Am Chem Soc 134:16127–16130View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  166. Yang DS, Bhattacharjya D, Song MY, Yu JS (2014) Highly efficient metal-free phosphorus-doped platelet ordered mesoporous carbon for electrocatalytic oxygen reduction. Carbon 67:736–743View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  167. Zhang X, Sun Y, Bao J, He F, Xu X, Qi S (2012) Phylogenetic survey and antimicrobial activity of culturable microorganisms associated with the South China Sea black coral Antipathes dichotoma. FEMS Microbiol Lett 33:122–130View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2016