Babesia (B) spp. are apicomplexan parasites that cause Babesiosis and can be transovarial transmitted by different kinds of Ixodes ticks. The disease can affect many mammals, including cattle, horses, sheep, goats, swine, cats, and dogs, and can also be fatal to humans (2). Babesiosis is considered as the second most important blood-borne parasitic disease of animals of veterinary importance, only behind Trypanosomiasis (3). Babesia sp. are transovarially transmitted parasites with a complex life cycle involving intracellular stages in at least two types of hosts, vertebrates, and tick vectors. Importantly, Babesia parasites undergo sexual reproduction in the gut of their definitive tick host, where they are also able to invade distinct types of cells (such as gut epithelial, ovary, and salivary gland cells), but they are only able to invade the erythrocytes of their vertebrate hosts, which can aid the parasites by providing adequate nutrition and a relatively protected environment for parasite expansion though asexual reproduction. Babesia comprises more than 100 species that infect erythrocytes in many vertebrates (4). Babesiosis can affect different livestock in tropical and semitropical regions worldwide, including ovine and caprine, but globally effective and fully safe vaccines against these species remain unavailable. Importantly, Babesia parasites have a life cycle that includes sexual reproduction in the midgut of their ixodid tick vectors, which eventually leads to transovarial transmission and the expansion of the parasites in the tick vectors. In this review we will focus mainly on Babesia species that infect cattle, equids, and dogs, since they have received more attention for vaccine development.

Bovine babesiosis can be caused by different Babesia spp. such as B. bovis, B. bigemina, B. divergens, B. orientalis, and B. major. In addition, B. divergens, which is prevalent in Europe, occasionally can also infect humans (5). However, B. bovis is considered as the most virulent Babesia spp. responsible for bovine babesiosis (6). This acute and persistent disease poses a significant global challenge for cattle production. Clinical signs range from mild to severe, depending on animal age, impacting animal health and productivity (7), and may include anemia, fever, ataxia, cerebral signs, abortions, anorexia and kidney damage, among others. Young calves ranging from 6–8 months old show some sort of increased resistance likely because they can generate more efficient innate immune responses against the parasites that prevent the devastating effects of acute infections. In contrast, infected adult cattle are more prone to display clinical signs of acute babesiosis, which are presented mainly as fever, anemia, loss of appetite, and weight loss (8). In severe cases of infection by B. bovis, animals suffer from neurological manifestations, due to parasite sequestration in the brain blood vessels, which may eventually lead to animal death (7, 8). Babesia species can also infect dogs and/or cats, as well as many wild animals, but none of them are known to be of zoonotic importance (9). Canine babesiosis is also a significant tick-borne disease caused by various species of the protozoan genus Babesia (10). Large and small forms of Babesia species (B. gibsoni, B. canis, B. vogeli, and B. microti-like isolates also referred to as “B. vulpes,” “Spanish dog isolate,” “Babesia cf. microti” and “Theileria annae”) can infect dogs with different levels of clinical signs (11, 12). Although canine babesiosis is mostly transmitted by tick vectors, it can also be transmitted to healthy hosts directly by blood transfusion, vertically (13), and by direct contact, as in case of fighting dogs, through wounds, saliva, or blood ingestion (14, 15). Equids also can be infected by Babesia spp., B. caballi, as one of etiological agents of equine piroplasmosis (EP) which is considered as an economically important disease of equids (16). In addition, EP can be caused by the Babesia-related Theileria equi parasites, as it will be discussed below, and vaccines remain needed for controlling this disease (16, 17). The small ruminant industry is a very significant component of livestock production especially in developing countries and in poor rural communities worldwide. B. ovis is the main causative agent of ovine babesiosis which has major economic impact on small ruminant (sheep and goat) industry in tropical and subtropical areas. Ovine babesiosis is transmitted by Rhipicephalus ticks, in particular R. bursa (18) and it could result in mortality if animals remain untreated (19, 20).

Theileria (T.) spp. are tick-borne apicomplexan parasites responsible for theileriosis, an important disease that affects cattle, equids and other animals worldwide with variable clinical signs. Theileria parasites are piroplasmid parasites which are closely related to Babesia that can also be transmitted by ixodid ticks. However, there are two key differences among these two parasites: one is the ability of Theileria parasites to infect more than a single type of cells in their vertebrate hosts, and another one is their transstadial, rather than transovarial, mode of transmission by ticks. Theileria parasites also have complex life cycles, and similar to Babesia parasites, they also develop sexual stages, kinetes and sporozoites inside its tick vectors. However, after the infection through the tick bite, Theileria parasites develop schizonts and piroplasms once established in their vertebrate hosts (21, 22). In the infected animals, schizonts form merozoites, which in turn parasitize the erythrocytes, which then develop into piroplasms. The piroplasms undergo sexual reproduction after being acquired by ticks during feeding on an infected host. Infected ticks can later infect another host with Theileria sporozoite stage parasites by transstadial transmission, regardless of their status of naïve or infected (21). T. annulata, T. parva and T. orientalis are cattle parasites (23) while T. equi and T. haneyi infect equines (16). T. lestoquardi and T. ovis can infect small ruminants (24). Theileria parva, T. annulata, and T. orientalis are the major causes of East Coast fever (ECF), tropical theileriosis, and oriental theileriosis, respectively (23). Based on their ability to infect leukocytes, Theileria parasites can be classified as host-cell transforming and non-transforming species. Thus, in the case of T. annulata, and T. parva infective sporozoites infect leukocytes, to develop into macro-schizonts causing uncontrolled leukocyte proliferation (25, 26). Eventually, these parasites produce merozoites that invade erythrocytes. In contrast, T. equi and T. orientalis do not induce uncontrolled leukocyte proliferation in horses and cattle, respectively (27). However, T. orientalis merozoites invade the host red blood cells, leading to anemia which is associated with the clinical signs of acute oriental theileriosis (28).

Anaplasma (A) spp. is a vector-transmitted rickettsia, that resides in blood cells of its vertebrate hosts, leading to the disease anaplasmosis in tropical and semitropical areas (29). Anaplasmosis can be transmitted among animals by mechanical and/or biological vector transmission. Mechanical transmission may occur at least via two ways, either through contaminated surgical equipment (fomites) carrying the infected blood cells, or by mouthparts of biting flies who carry an Anaplasma species (30). Biological vector transmission mainly occurs by the bite of ticks (many different tick species) infected with the blood parasite. Inside the ticks, Anaplasma can survive and multiply, or it can stay dormant for months till transmission to another animal through a tick bite (31).

The clinical manifestations of anaplasmosis caused by A. marginale and A. centrale can be variable and similar to those caused by Babesia parasites. Depending on several factors, the intensity of disease can range from mild, lacking clinical signs, to severe, with elevated morbidity and mortality in affected ruminants. However, the infected animals become lifelong carriers that may become reservoirs for the pathogen (32). In addition, A. ovis can infect sheep, goats and some wild ruminants causing anaplasmosis (33, 34). Infections by A. phagocytophilum (transmitted by Ixodes ricinus) in dogs have been described mainly in northern and central Europe while infection with A. platys (transmitted by Rhipicephalus sanguineus) was identified in dogs from Mediterranean basin Romania, Turkey, Greece, Italy, France, Spain and Portugal (35). Both A. phagocytophilum and A. platys can infect other animals in addition to dogs, such as cats, sheep, goats, cows, equines, rodents, roe deer, deer, as well as other wild mammals, and even birds, as in case of A. phagocytophilum (36, 37). In general, it’s difficult to control anaplasmosis efficiently using vaccination approaches because of the ability of the responsible organisms for undergoing antigenic variation and their genetic variability. Also, the occurrence of multiple hosts and arthropod vectors, as well as the different mechanisms of transmission (biological, mechanical, and transplacental) may also impose important challenges for efficient control (38, 39).

Trypanosoma (T) spp. is also an important blood parasite causing trypanosomiasis in animals and humans. These parasites are kinetoplastids, a monophyletic group of unicellular parasitic flagellate protozoa. Trypanosomiasis is a disease geographically constrained due to the nature of its arthropod vectors with strict requirements in terms of climate and environment. It is known as Surra diseases in South and Central America, Northern Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Indonesia, and Philippines, but it is also known as African animal trypanosomiasis in Central and Southern Africa (40). This disease is considered endemic in at least 37 of 54 countries in Africa (41). It can be transmitted biologically and mechanically by hematophagous insects by biting. The vectors involved in transmission include Stomoxys, Tabanids, and Hippoboscids. However, the parasite can also be sexually transmitted as in equine species infected with T. equiperdum. The signs of disease ranged from acute, with high mortalities, to chronic forms, which are frequently concomitant with reduction in body weight, anemia, and infertility. Also, the T. evansi’s may cause immunosuppression, usually accompanied with secondary infections, which makes clinical identification more difficult (42). It affects horses, camels, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and humans. Wild animals also can be infected with Trypanosoma parasites, but they rarely suffer from the disease, and can act as infection reservoirs for domestic animals.

In Africa, T. congolense, T. vivax, and T. brucei brucei are the most important trypanosome species affecting domestic livestock in cattle, sheep, and goats, while T. simiae can infect pigs, and T. evansi infects camels. In South America, T. vivax also has an impact on cattle production. While T. evansi affects camels in Asia and horses, cattle, and domestic buffalo in South America, India, and Southeast Asia (43). It is interesting to note that T. evansi is more common in camels, in contrast to dogs, donkeys, and horses. This may be due to the chronic nature of trypanosomiasis in camels. While infected camels may become weaker and emaciated as the disease progresses, the infection manifests acutely and is usually fatal in dogs and equines (44, 45). Interestingly, although camels as well as donkeys, dogs and horses are similarly exposed to vector challenges, those animals are less prone to be infected by trypanosomes. These may be due to feeding preference of vectors for camels, or the greater ability of those animals to put away the flies through head movements, skin rippling, and other behavioral avoidance mechanisms (46).

In Egypt, T. brucei evansi (T. b. evansi) is an enzootic organism found in Egyptian camels, which is genetically classified into types A and B (47). T. evansi can cause high parasitemia, especially in camels, horses, and dogs (sometimes cattle and buffaloes), and might act both as blood and tissue parasite, because of its ability to invade the nervous system not only in horses and dogs, but also in cattle, buffaloes, and pigs (48, 49). Data on the presence of T. evans has been reported in many regions of Upper and Lower Egypt, however, its epidemiological significance in Egypt remains scarce (50).

Current measures aimed at the control of bovine babesiosis include individual or combined use of at least three approaches: tick vector control, animal therapeutic treatments, and vaccinations. However, each of these measures has its own pitfalls and limitations. Tick control using acaricidal drugs is a major approach to control babesiosis, but its intensive use invariably leads to the emergence of acaricide-resistant tick strains (51). In addition, this method of control may cause environmental hazards, and the introduction of dangerous chemical residues in the food chain (52). Babesicidal drugs currently used for the treatment of Babesia infected cattle, such as imidocarb, may also lead to the surge of drug-resistant parasites, especially when used in suboptimal doses, and worrisomely, the generation of drug residues or metabolites in milk and meat, This features make drug treatments expensive and inefficient as a disease-preventive tool in extensive production systems. Due at least in part, to these limitations, imidocarb is not licensed for use in some European countries (51).

Currently, live vaccines based on attenuated Babesia parasites are not available or allowed in many endemic countries. However, some countries with large cattle populations at risk, like South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Australia opted for producing and using such attenuated vaccines. An important limitation of live attenuated vaccines is their safety, since that they can be potentially virulent, mainly for adult animals, and thus, these vaccines are in use for less than one-year-old calves (53). Moreover, some countries, including Australia and Argentina, use a trivalent vaccine which contain not only attenuated strains of B. bovis and B. bigemina, but also A. centrale, an organism of low virulence originally identified in South Africa (54), that can elicit partial protective responses against A. marginale. Trials involving live Babesia vaccines are discussed in detail below.

There are also a few vaccine options that are commercially available to prevent canine babesiosis in different countries. The Pirodog® (Merial) vaccine, currently available in the European market is based on soluble parasite antigens obtained from culture media supernatants (55, 56). This vaccine induces partial protection and can reduce severe clinical signs but does not prevent infections. The vaccine is recommended for administration into 5 months of age dogs, with annual booster doses (57, 58). It is worth mentioning that chemoprophylactic approaches are also used as alternatives to vaccination in dogs. For instance, the carbanilide derivative Imidocarb dipropionate has been shown to be effective against B. canis infection. The application of a single subcutaneous dose (6 mg/kg) of this drug demonstrated protection for two weeks (59). Doxycycline (5 mg/kg/day) also reduces the severity of disease in dogs that experimentally infected with an extremely pathogenic isolate of B. canis (60).

The following sections describe recent efforts toward developing vaccines against Babesia parasites using different approaches, including subunit, whole parasite, and culture supernatant vaccines (Figure 1).

The main strategies currently used to control theileriosis are based on the use of anti-theilerial drugs. Also, in the case of bovines, improved control includes the use of indigenous and cross breeds of cattle that are known to be more resistant to the parasites and its vectors, such as Bos indicus (21). Historically, vaccines based on attenuated macro-schizont cell lines were successfully used in case of T. annulata. However, since these are attenuated parasite lines, there is a concern of spreading infections in the field (81). Table 6 shows different antigens used in subunit, or combined subunit-live vaccine trials against Theileria parasites.

Because of the current lack of commercial vaccines to control animal theileriosis, the variable therapeutics effectiveness (82), and the results derived from unsuccessful previous vaccination attempts, the main current control strategies against T. parva, T. annulata, and T. orientalis, in cattle, and T. equi in equines, still rely mainly on the control of their tick vectors. Ideally tick control should be done using environmentally friendly acaricidal drugs or tick vaccines, which can be complemented by parasite control using anti-theileria drugs. However, none of these options are currently available and more research in these fields is required.

Although the current use of ITM and cell line vaccines to control ECF and tropical theileriosis, respectively, are relatively effective, the procedure still has drawbacks. This includes the need for a cold chain for distribution, high costs, and the potential risk of tick transmission of Theileria parasites (83). Since ITM depends mainly on the use of oxytetracycline, there is also the concern of developing and expanding antibiotic resistances through food and milk contamination (84). The most widely used vaccines against T. annulata are attenuated schizont cell culture. The methodology of production and its safety evaluation had been evaluated (85, 86). This kind of vaccine is used in different countries such as Israel, Iran, Turkey, Spain, India, northern Africa, central Asia and the People’s Republic of China (87). A recent study in Egypt reported a vaccination trial in cattle using culture-attenuated schizont-infected cell lines isolated from Egypt. The vaccinated groups were inoculated with 4 mL (1 × 10⁶ cells/ml) of the attenuated cell line. Three weeks after vaccination, calves of vaccinated and control non vaccinated groups were transported to the New Valley Governorate (Egyptian oasis), where they were kept under field conditions and exposed to natural Theileria annulata challenge. All animals in the control unvaccinated group showed severe clinical signs and died despite treatment with buparvaquone. In contrast, animals in the vaccinated group became seropositive without developing severe clinical signs other than transient fever. These findings indicate that the Egyptian attenuated cell line was successful in protecting against tropical theileriosis under field conditions (88). Although, cell culture vaccine against T. annulata has been recognized for more than three decades and has proven to be effective in the field, it still has limitations (87), and each country developed the vaccine from local isolates (89). Because of the continuous attenuation, some of the attenuated lines lost the ability to differentiate to erythrocytic merozoites (piroplasms) when inoculated to cattle, one example of that when Hyalomma nymphs fed on vaccinated cattle did not become infected (90). This pitfall, in addition to the problem in standardization of the antigenic composition of the cultured parasites and the need of a cold chain for distribution of the vaccine to the field are limiting factors in commercialization of this vaccine (89).

T. equi and B. caballi are both responsible for equine piroplasmosis, a disease that limits horse movement worldwide and seriously affects the development of horse industries and equestrian sports. Equine theileriosis caused by T. equi is mainly prevented in non-endemic areas worldwide by regulating the movement of horses from endemic countries. Also, for some countries, animals must be tested negative for T. equi serologically, as an obligatory procedure in animals’ importation (91). Thus, in order to generate potent vaccines, research should be focused ideally on targeting different parasite developmental stages, such as blood and sexual stages, and avoiding, if possible, antigens that may interfere with the current mandatory tests required for exportation of horses. Also, advances in reverse vaccinology should be applied. The similarities among different species of Theileria parasites genomes should be considered during vaccine approach. Importantly, identification of host immune correlates which are associated with protection against the parasite infection, would be of high value for vaccine design. Using effective adjuvants and innovative and practical vaccine delivery systems should also be considered as crucial aspects of vaccine development.

Although Babesia parasites are apicomplexan protozoa and Anaplasma marginale is a rickettsia, they were historically linked since they form part of a complex of diseases also known as cattle tick fever or Bovine parasitic sadness (BPS) in several countries, sharing important features: they both infect exclusively erythrocytes in the vertebrate hosts causing a clinically related acute disease, and they are all transmitted by Rhiphicephallus (Boophilus) ticks, often co-occurring in endemic areas.

There are currently no worldwide effective vaccines to prevent canine anaplasmosis, caused by Anaplasma phagocytophilum and A. platys, nor for bovine anaplasmosis caused by A. marginale (92, 93). A. phagocytophilum has zoonotic potential and is responsible for human granulocytic anaplasmosis.

Many vaccine candidates have been evaluated for the control of bovine anaplasmosis, but the antigenic diversity of the pathogen has impaired many efforts to control the disease (92). However, a live heterologous vaccine based on A. centrale have been used since the early 20th century. A. centrale, is an organism isolated in South Africa, which is less virulent for bovines than A. marginale, and provides some degree of cross-protection against this pathogen in naive cattle. In some countries, A. centrale is added to live Babesia spp. vaccines, to make a trivalent vaccine (including B. bovis, B. bigemina, and A. centrale). This trivalent vaccine is in use as a live vaccine in countries such as South Africa, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay (94). Despite the success of this vaccine to some extent, there are few reports indicating A. centrale was the cause of vaccine outbreaks, with fatalities (95). Furthermore, in some cases the vaccine failed to induce immunity against A. marginale challenge (96). Moreover, University Products LLC (Louisiana, USA) currently offers the only inactivated commercial vaccine against bovine anaplasmosis based on A. marginale¹ (97). This vaccine has been field-tested for over 20 years (98). Although this vaccine does not prevent infection with virulent A. marginale, it induces enough protection in cattle against acute anaplasmosis (92). This vaccine requires only two doses in the first year, followed by one annual booster each year, and it is safe to be used in any stage of bovine pregnancy (98). Still this inactivated vaccine is not approved in many countries, but it is approved and established for use in the United States. The following sections provide a glimpse of some vaccine development efforts in the field of Anaplasma (Figure 1).

Currently there is no available vaccine for trypanosomiasis prevention. One of the main challenges to develop a vaccine is the mechanism that Trypanosoma parasites use to evade the host immune system, by constantly varying the structure of their surface coating. The antigenic variation operated by the parasites makes it difficult to identify appropriate candidates for vaccine development, especially for the case of subunit vaccines.

There are limited options to prevent trypanosomiasis within vertebrate hosts. In addition, the increase of resistance toward trypanocidal drugs makes chemotherapy, the major means to control infection, difficult to use. Additionally current drugs have various other shortcomings, including toxicity and limited efficacy (118). The drugs commonly used for the treatment of infected domestic animals with T. evansi are Diminazene aceturate, which causes some toxicity to the host (119) and isometamidium chloride (120). In this scenario, vector control remains a very important step for disease prevention (121). Another important challenge, despite sporadic reports, is the lack of full knowledge on the geographic distribution of the disease and its transmitted vectors, which affects the control initiatives that require reliable information.

To control this disease, different approaches should be addressed, but the main and more practical strategy is just minimizing contact with the vector tsetse flies. The principal control method is targeting the tsetse fly using insecticides, which has environmental drawbacks. These drawbacks led to the development of bait technologies which include traps and insecticide-impregnated targets (122). Another approach is to use naturally trypano-tolerant breeds of livestock, which is considered as an economical addition to the intervention tools (41).

Previous attempts to develop subunit vaccines against African trypanosome infections have highlighted the difficulties in overcoming the immune evasion mechanisms that have been evolved by these parasites for survival (123). Many antigens were chosen as vaccine candidates. Such is the case of the variable surface glycoprotein (VSG) (124), which provided partial protection, but became non-effective after some time (125). Also, vaccine formulations based on invariant surface glycoproteins and subcellular proteins of the cytoskeleton, like actin and tubulin (123) generated unsatisfactory and non-protective immune responses. However, the advancement in the field of bioinformatics, together with the availability of omics data from different organisms is allowing the design of new generation vaccines that may offer better antigenicity and safety profile. The so-called reverse vaccinology approach, which depends mainly on omics data, permits the design of vaccines that can involve many antigens of different expected important functions. Here are some examples of vaccination trials performed against Trypanosoma parasites.

Tick-borne diseases (TBDs), particularly those caused by blood parasites, pose a significant threat to global livestock industries. The widespread distribution of various tick species, combined with climate change and human activities, contributes to the outgoing expansion of tick populations. Anti-tick vaccines (ATVs) offer a promising, safe, and environmentally friendly approach to tick control. These vaccines not only reduce vector infestations on vertebrate hosts but also hinder the transmission of blood parasites, thereby mitigating the economic impact of tick-borne diseases at both herd and regional levels. ATVs also serve as an effective alternative to chemical tick control, as they are cost-efficient and can be applied across different host species (130). By minimizing the need for acaricides, ATVs help to prevent the emergence of acaricide-resistant tick strains, reduce contamination in the food chain, and promote environmental safety.

Two commercial vaccines were developed based on the glycoprotein Bm86 tick midgut protein, TickGARD Plus (131) and Gavac Plus (132) for use in cattle. This protein was derived from the Rhipicephalus microplus ticks, but it is also conserved in other related Rhipicephalus ticks. Those vaccines were developed and tested in Australia and Cuba, respectively (133), and were also used in other countries like Mexico and Venezuela against the cattle ticks R. microplus, R. australis and R. annulatus with different levels of efficacy, ranging between 10 and 89% (134, 135). In Cuba and Colombia, those vaccines were generally effective to reduce tick populations and the number of acaricide treatments, in addition to babesiosis and anaplasmosis infections, respectively (136). The TickGARD Plus vaccine is no longer used since 2021 in Australia because of the need for numerous applications (3–4 booster doses per year) (137). So, currently, the only commercially available anti-tick vaccine is Gavac® (138, 139).

Developing effective vaccines against ticks requires intensive research and costly experimental trials. Current approaches in tick vaccine research are focused on identifying potent candidates playing a critical role in tick biology that are capable of inducing cross-reactive immunity against multiple tick species. This requires the identification of highly conserved and functionally relevant antigens that are also exposed to antibodies in the host. It can be anticipated that recent progress in tick omics in addition to other novel molecular biology approaches, and a better understanding of tick biology, will be helpful for the identification of such antigens.

As it was described in the Babesia parasite vaccines section above, there is also the hope of developing dual anti-tick and anti-babesia vaccines.

To date, there is not a specific vaccine against blood-sucking flies. However, there are several other alternative methods available that can be applied and used in combination to approaches aimed at controlling the blood parasite transmission and its causing diseases, in order to protect livestock. Such methods include the following:

1-Physical barriers: Blood-sucking insects can cause allergic reactions in animals, and can also cause different diseases by transmitting several pathogens that are able to propagate in them. Physical barriers can be designed to prevent direct access of flies to animal skin (140). This approach includes the use of protective gear, typically fly sheets, leg wraps and masks. These methods are considered an easy, affordable, and reliable system to prevent insect bites and stings effectively and may prevent the use of chemicals such as insect repellents or insecticides decreasing the environmental hazard.

2-Insecticides: Insecticides can be applied to animals and their surroundings either to repel or to kill the blood-sucking flies. Application of insecticides should be used with caution and following the recommended doses to avoid the emergence of insect resistance strains and environmental pollution. Repellents can also be used effectively to prevent flies approaching the skin of target animals. Application of pesticides in animal treatments can be done using automatic sprayers, back rubbers and ear tags (141).

3-Biological control: this method, considered as one of the most environmentally friendly approaches, can potentially reduce the current reliance on insecticide-based control. This approach is based on the use of known natural predators or parasites that target blood-sucking flies. Non-insecticide-based strategies have been implemented in different blood sucking as mosquito (142) and ticks by entomopathogenic organisms such as nematodes (143) and protists or mites as biocontrol agents. However, little attention has been given so far to control methods based on biological control, and further exploration studies on the biocontrol of immature and adult stages of blood sucking flies are needed (144).

4-Environmental management: This approach involves adequate waste disposal and maintaining clean surroundings, which in turn discourages fly breeding. More importantly, both negative and positive impacts of insects on human and animal health and on the environment need to be addressed by public health professionals. It is also crucial to balance important aspects and goals in insect management approaches, which include regulating their production, exploiting their potential, and limiting their potential negative effect on animals and humans, and on the environment (145).