Search

Necrotic enteritis is an important disease of poultry that causes economic loss to the broiler industry. Clostridium perfringens is an important bacterium that is responsible for causing necrotic enteritis. Antibiotics are mainly used to control C. perfringens but due to resistance antibiotics are banned in many countries like Canada, Hong Kong, and the European Union. Many alternatives such as probiotics, essential oils, and postbiotics have been developed to control C. perfringens. Among them, probiotics are very important because they can increase beneficial bacteria in the intestine, create a competitive environment in the gut region, and prevent the adhesion and colonization of pathogenic bacteria such as C. perfringens. Probiotics cause immune system modulation, reducing inflammatory markers such as cytokines. Lactobacillus based probiotics also cause weight gain, improve feed conversion ratio, and decrease mortality in poultry which in turn increase profit margin. Several studies have reported that when poultry populations were challenged with C. perfringens then these probiotics prevented intestinal lesions, provided anti-inflammatory effects to the intestine, prevented damage to the villi, and did not allow C. perfringens to form its colony in the intestine. The main aim of this review paper is to explain the updated information on necrotic enteritis, the damages caused to the gut, and the mechanism of actions through which Lactobacilli work against C. perfringens.

The One Health framework has emerged as a central paradigm for addressing emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) by recognizing the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health. Despite increasing global adoption, the ethical dimensions of One Health remain conceptually fragmented and inconsistently operationalized across research, governance, and policy. This descriptive review synthesizes ethical challenges associated with One Health approaches to EIDs across six interrelated domains: animal ethics and welfare, public health ethics, environmental and planetary ethics, governance and policy, research ethics in outbreak settings, and emerging ethical frameworks. Drawing on peer-reviewed literature, policy documents, and conceptual scholarship, the review identifies four major cross-cutting ethical tensions. First, anthropocentric priorities continue to dominate One Health implementation, subordinating animal welfare and ecological integrity to human-centered outcomes. Second, tensions between collective welfare and individual rights become acute during outbreaks, imposing disproportionate burdens on marginalized populations. Third, persistent distributive, procedural, and epistemic injustices shape global and local responses, especially affecting low- and middle-income countries, indigenous communities, and non-human populations. Fourth, a substantial implementation gap exists between the articulation of ethical principles and their translation into enforceable institutional practice. The review further incorporates emerging ethical challenges related to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) within One Health contexts, empirical evidence from major outbreaks including COVID-19, Ebola, and avian influenza, and perspectives from Global South scholarship to address equity dimensions. Emerging frameworks, including One Health Ethics, Planetary Health Ethics, ethics of care, indigenous relational ethics, and epistemic justice approaches, offer promising foundations for more inclusive governance, yet remain insufficiently integrated into operational decision-making. The review argues that One Health ethics must evolve into a rigorous interdisciplinary field supported by practical governance tools, equitable research frameworks, transparent accountability mechanisms, and inclusive policymaking. Without such developments, the transformative potential of One Health will remain ethically and institutionally constrained.