94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
A. H. Strickland1
S. A. Murray2
J. Vinasco2
B. W. Auvermann3K. J. Bush3
J. E. Sawyer4
H. M. Scott2
K. N. Norman1*- 1Department of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States
- 2Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States
- 3Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Amarillo, Amarillo, TX, United States
- 4Department of Animal Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States
by Strickland, A. H., Murray, S. A., Vinasco, J., Auvermann, B. W., Bush, K. J., Sawyer, J. E., Scott, H. M., and Norman, K. N. (2024). Front. Microbiol. 15:1348171. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1348171
In the published article, there was an error in the Funding statement. The authors did not include the NIH T32 project number (T32 OD011083) with the original version of the NIH T32 acknowledgement. The correct Funding statement appears below.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The project described in this publication was funded by USDA-NIFAAFRI (grant number: 2016-68003-24607) entitled “Voluntary compliance in antimicrobial stewardship programs: a critical factor for effective intervention.” Additionally, National Institutes of Health (NIH) CVM T32 award (T32 OD011083) provided funding and support of AS. The findings, interpretations, and recommendations stated in this publication do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the USDA or NIH.
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Keywords: environmental microbiome, fecal microbiome, particulate matter, antibiotic alternatives, antimicrobial resistance (AMR)
Citation: Strickland AH, Murray SA, Vinasco J, Auvermann BW, Bush KJ, Sawyer JE, Scott HM and Norman KN (2024) Corrigendum: Comparative microbiome analysis of beef cattle, the feedyard environment, and airborne particulate matter as a function of probiotic and antibiotic use, and change in pen environment. Front. Microbiol. 15:1422959. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1422959
Received: 25 April 2024; Accepted: 29 April 2024;
Published: 08 May 2024.
Approved by:
Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, SwitzerlandCopyright © 2024 Strickland, Murray, Vinasco, Auvermann, Bush, Sawyer, Scott and Norman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: K. N. Norman, a25vcm1hbkBjdm0udGFtdS5lZHU=