117
________________________Revista Cientíca, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXIII, Supl. Esp., 117 - 123, 2023, https://doi.org/10.52973/rcfcv-wbc018
SUSTAINABILITY AND LIVESTOCK: A DOABLE COMBINATION
Sostenibilidad y ganadería: una combinación factible
Antonella Chiariotti
Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA) – Research Center for Animal Production and Aquaculture, Rome, Italy
*Corresponding e-mail: Chiariotti, Antonella (antonella.chiariotti@crea.gov.it).
play a strategic role due to its peculiar characteristics: the high
ability to convert ber into energy, the longevity, and the adap-
tation in extreme areas with cold or hot-humid climate where
other ruminants cannot thrive. Moreover, it contributes to the
sustenance of many people living in rural areas. A multidisci-
plinary approach considering the environment, animal health
and welfare, and social and economic contexts is requested to
increase the sustainability of livestock.
Keywords: sustainability, bu󰀨alo, climate change, mitigation
strategies.
RESUMEN
El desarrollo sostenible signica satisfacer las necesidades del
presente y al mismo tiempo garantizar que las generaciones
futuras puedan satisfacer sus propias necesidades (Comisión
Europea). La rápida urbanización, el aumento del poder ad-
quisitivo y los cambios en la dieta impulsan la demanda de
dietas más ricas y proteínas de origen animal, lo que deja a
más de 868 millones de ciudadanos desnutridos en todo el
mundo y a 850 millones viviendo en países en desarrollo. Se
podría garantizar la seguridad alimentaria a grandes poblacio-
nes reduciendo el desperdicio de alimentos, que representa
1.300 millones de toneladas al año, o implementando la gana-
dería y promoviendo una demanda alimentaria sostenible. Con
el progreso económico y la creciente población mundial, que
se estima alcanzará los 9 mil millones de personas en 2050,
las proteínas animales aumentarán a medida que la demanda
de carne y leche. Sin embargo, los rumiantes producen meta-
no, que representa la mayor parte de las emisiones del sector
agrícola (5,8% del total antropogénico), lo que genera preocu-
pación sobre su producción. Si aumenta el ganado rumiante,
aumenta la producción de metano, acelerando inevitablemen-
te el calentamiento global. Dependiendo de la calidad de los
recursos, los factores ambientales y los contextos sociales y
económicos, la sostenibilidad de varios tipos de sistemas de
producción ganadera puede variar considerablemente. Estos
sistemas ganaderos incluyen pastizales extensivos, sistemas
ABSTRACT
Sustainable development means meeting the needs of the
present while ensuring future generations can meet their own
needs (European Commission). Rapid urbanization, increased
purchasing power, and dietary change drive demand for richer
diets and animal-origin proteins, leaving more than 868 million
undernourished citizens worldwide and 850 million living in de-
veloping countries. Food security could be granted to large pop-
ulations by reducing food waste, which accounts for 1.3 billion
tons per year, or implementing livestock farming and promot-
ing a sustainable food demand. With economic progress and
the world’s growing population, estimated to reach more than
9 billion people in 2050, animal proteins will increase as meat
and milk demand. Nevertheless, ruminants produce methane,
which accounts for most of the agricultural sector emissions
(5.8% of the total anthropogenic), raising concerns about their
production. If ruminant livestock increase, methane production
increases, accelerating global warming inevitably. Depending
on resource quality, environmental factors, and social and eco-
nomic contexts, various types of livestock production systems
may vary considerably in sustainability. These livestock sys-
tems include extensive grassland, intensive landless, mixed,
and family farming systems. Massive worldwide research has
investigated the e󰀨ect of various mitigation strategies. None-
theless, the under-representation of certain strategies, geo-
graphic regions, the calculation’s robustness, and long-term
studies are the main limitations in providing an accurate quan-
titative estimation of the respective mitigation potential under
diverse animal production systems. Ruminant livestock is im-
portant not only for producing nutrient-dense meat and milk for
human diets but also for providing hides, ber, manure, and
animal power for farming and transportation in many countries
and contributing to biodiversity. To obtain this, they eat grass
and legume plants that would be inedible to humans or live
on land unsuitable for cultivation. Livestock also contributes to
much-needed income for family farmers in developing coun-
tries. The bu󰀨alo (Bubalus bubalis), represented by a total of
204 million head (3.9 % increase in the last ten years), could
118
13th World Bu󰀨alo Congress ~ 13er Congreso Mundial de Búfalos / Lectures / Sustainability & Socioeconomics _______________________
de agricultura intensiva sin tierra, mixtos y familiares. Una in-
vestigación masiva a nivel mundial ha investigado el efecto de
varias estrategias de mitigación. No obstante, la subrepresen-
tación de ciertas estrategias, regiones geográcas, la solidez
de los cálculos y los estudios a largo plazo son las principales
limitaciones para proporcionar una estimación cuantitativa pre-
cisa del potencial de mitigación respectivo en diversos siste-
mas de producción animal. El ganado rumiante es importante
no sólo por producir carne y leche ricas en nutrientes para la
dieta humana, sino también por proporcionar pieles, bras, es-
tiércol y energía animal para la agricultura y el transporte en
muchos países y contribuir a la biodiversidad. Para obtenerlo,
comen pastos y leguminosas que no serían comestibles para
los humanos o viven en tierras no aptas para el cultivo. La ga-
nadería también contribuye a unos ingresos muy necesarios
para los agricultores familiares de los países en desarrollo. El
búfalo (Bubalus bubalis), representado por un total de 204 mi-
llones de cabezas (un aumento del 3,9 % en los últimos diez
años), podría desempeñar un papel estratégico por sus pecu-
liares características: la alta capacidad de convertir la bra en
energía, la longevidad y la adaptación en zonas extremas con
clima frío o cálido-húmedo donde otros rumiantes no pueden
prosperar. Además, contribuye al sustento de muchas perso-
nas que viven en zonas rurales. Se requiere un enfoque mul-
tidisciplinario que considere el medio ambiente, la salud y el
bienestar animal y los contextos sociales y económicos para
aumentar la sostenibilidad de la ganadería.
Palabras clave: sostenibilidad, búfalo, cambio climático, es-
trategias de mitigación.
INTRODUCTION
The Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock (GASL) de-
nes sustainable livestock as follows: “To be sustainable, live-
stock sector growth needs to simultaneously address key en-
vironmental, social, and economic challenges: growing natural
resources scarcity, climate change, widespread poverty, food
insecurity and global threats to animal and human health and
animal welfare”. Sustainable livestock solutions are driven by
two signicant elements: the sector’s diversity and the demand
for livestock commodities [1].
According to FAO estimates, the livestock sector ac-
counts for 40% of the agricultural gross domestic product in a
signicant part of South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, occupy-
ing 33% of the world’s land and supporting more than 1 billion
people who depend on pastoralism for food and livelihood and
providing more than 25% of the world’s protein intake [2].
The world’s growing population will reach more than 9
billion people in 2050, and an improved standard of living will
inevitably increase demands for animal proteins (meat and
milk). Nevertheless, ruminants produce methane, which ac-
counts for most of the agricultural sector emissions (5.8% of the
total anthropogenic), raising concerns about their production.
If ruminant livestock increase, methane production increases,
accelerating global warming in the process.
To obtain a vast range of food and services, livestock use
vegetable resources that would be inedible to humans and/or
live on land unsuitable for cultivation. Moreover, rearing live-
stock also o󰀨ers much-needed income for small-scale farmers
in developing nations. Ruminants, especially when fed with
feedstu󰀨 produced on land unsuitable for primary cropping or
by-products from agro-industrial, can be a net contributor to
procuring human edible food [3]. Moreover, they maintain and
enhance protein and essential micronutrient supply (Zinc, cal-
cium, Vit.B12, and riboavin), often challenging to obtain from
vegetable crops [4, 5].
The livestock sector faces numerous challenges, such
as climate change, water depletion, desertication, and land
erosion. Even though it may have contributed to enhancing
some of these issues, it can contribute to the solution, oper-
ating within an agroecological and environmental framework
while protecting biodiversity [6]. The livestock sector relates
also to the importance of di󰀨erent ecosystem types, manage-
ment methods, and local needs and traditions. In fact, live-
stock products and production systems are di󰀨erent, and they
span from intensive to extensive, from cold to tropical, and
from highly technological to local traditional. The most suitable
approaches depend on the context and cannot be integrated
into one global model [7].
Among ruminants, with a total of 204 million head (a 3.9
% increase in the last ten years), bu󰀨alo (Bubalus bubalis)
could contribute to sustainability for its specie-specic char-
acteristics: its high ability to convert row ber into energy, its
rusticity, its ability to adapt to di󰀨erent climatic environments
(cold, tropical, or swampy), and its longevity, which is always
higher than cattle.
CONCERNS ABOUT LIVESTOCK
There is a growing concern that the demand for animal
products, associated with population growth, prolonged lifes-
pan, and improved economic welfare, particularly in developing
countries, will put an unsustainable call on the environment [8].
It also must be considered that animal production yields
highly heterogeneous categories of foods (i.e., dairy, meats,
eggs), each produced di󰀨erently, displaying its own biochemi-
cal and nutritional properties, produced in regions with di󰀨erent
ecological contexts, and consumed by populations with specif-
ic nutritional, economic, and cultural needs. So, animal-source
food intake substantially di󰀨ers between geographical regions
and socioeconomic categories.
In the general debate, the complexity of the food system
is often neglected and reduced to three interconnected claims
that consumption of animal-source foods causes harm to hu-
man health, to the planet, and the animal itself related to health
119
______________________________________________________ Revista Cientíca, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXIII, Supl. Esp., 117 - 123, 2023
hazards, climate change, and animal welfare [5], forgetting
that livestock sustains the livelihood of millions of people in the
world (up to 12%), both in developing and developed countries.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Methane is a greenhouse gas (GHG) far less abundant
than CO2 but with a global warming potential 28 times more po-
tent on a 100-year scale [9]. Methane derives from the balance
between sources and sinks. Sources are biogenic (i.e., wet-
lands, agriculture, waste/landll, permafrost), thermogenic (i.e.,
fossil fuel), pyrogenic (biomass and biofuel burning), or mixed
sources, while the sink is mainly methane oxidation in soil [10].
Agriculture contributes with a percentage varying from 8
to 18% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions. Feed produc-
tion, land use change, energy (not only as farm inputs and feed,
but other activities such as animal housing and ventilation), and
product processing are included in most global estimates. Live-
stock mainly contributes by enteric fermentation, manure as
methane and nitrous oxide, and di󰀨erent manure management
systems generate di󰀨erent emissions levels. Among rumi-
nants-related direct emissions, cattle are responsible for 65%
and bu󰀨aloes for 8% [11].
Climate change can increase extreme weather condi-
tions that directly and indirectly a󰀨ect livestock productivity (TA-
BLE I). Due to the increase in temperatures, livestock produc-
tion is experiencing reduced growth and reproductive e󰀩ciency,
reduced milk and meat production, and animal health, making
them vulnerable to new diseases. Fodder and water supplies
are also a󰀨ected by climate extremes and seasonal variations.
Global food security is threatened by climate change and
its adverse impact on livestock production.
HOW TO COPE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE
For a livestock production “climate-smart”, the two possi-
ble approaches are adapting to climatic changes and mitigating
GHG [12]. Integrating these two aspects can exploit synergies
and minimize trade-o󰀨s between mitigation and adaptation.
Adaptation approaches might include promoting resilient
livestock production, modifying production and management
systems, scientic and technological improvements, gover-
nance and policy changes, and changing farmers’ perceptions
and adaptive capacity [13]. Adaptation measures should in-
corporate agroecological principles (e.g., improved circularity)
while limiting feed-food competition. However, they should also
remain respectful of the diversity of ecosystem contexts, the
availability of resources, and the various social and economic
needs of local populations [6].
Feed sources with increased drought-tolerant produc-
ing more biomass and being more resilient to environmental
extremes, could be more sustainable. Moreover, genetic im-
provement can select livestock with greater heat tolerance and
less energy requirements, which might help ensure their per-
formances so production is less a󰀨ected [14]. There are more
than 40 species of farmed animal species and more than 8,800
FIGURE 1. Graphical abstract
120
13th World Bu󰀨alo Congress ~ 13er Congreso Mundial de Búfalos / Lectures / Sustainability & Socioeconomics _______________________
local breeds adapted to specic contexts [15], and due to their
greater ability to thrive in a stressful environment, indigenous
breeds display higher resilience than exotic breeds.
MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Microbial fermentations in the rumen play an essential
role in the ability of ruminants to utilize lignocellulosic materials
to produce volatile fatty acids (VFAs) and to convert non-protein
nitrogen into microbial protein, which is an essential source of
energy and protein for the host. In contrast, the rumen provides
the microbes with a suitable environment to thrive and grow
[16]. Nevertheless, microbes also have potential environmental
detrimental e󰀨ects through methane emission and excessive
nitrogen excretions in feces and urine. Rumen methane pro-
duction also represents energy loss (from 2 to 12% of gross
energy intake) for animal growth and production [17].
A massive worldwide research e󰀨ort has been devoted
to nding successful mitigation strategies that can be summa-
rized into three categories (TABLE II): changes in animal and
feed management, diet formulation, and rumen manipulation
[18,19,20,21,22].
All of them potentially involve changes in the rumen mi-
crobiome [23], thus lowering methane emissions, which would
benet the environment and, eventually, the livestock produc-
tion e󰀩ciency. Nevertheless, according to Arndt et al. (2022),
methane yield is not the only relevant measure; other methane
emissions and animal performance metrics should be consid-
ered to estimate the feasibility of mitigation strategies.
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT
Well-managed livestock are an integral and productive
part of agriculture. Among other ecological services, they can
convert non-edible biomass from pasture systems and produce
human food, recycle plant nutrients back into the soil, improve
soil health, and sequester carbon [6].
Integrating crop and livestock farming is an e󰀨ective
strategy to reduce emissions associated with animal produc-
tion [24]. Agroforestry systems (i.e., silvopastoral), where trees
and meadows are combined, can reward farmers nancially
while improving yields and reducing the environmental burden.
In addition, research has shown that pasture-based production
systems are better for animal welfare and enhance biodiversity,
as these systems allow for more natural animal behavior.
Grazing management and soil management practices
include rotational grazing, cover cropping, and conservation
tillage. Rotational grazing involves altering grazing patterns
to ensure that the plants are not overgrazed and have time
to regrow. In contrast, cover cropping involves the planting of
specic species of crops after harvesting to add fertility to the
soil while conserving soil moisture and reducing erosion. Con-
TABLE I
CLIMATIC CHANGE IMPACT ON LIVESTOCK
PRODUCTION
Impact Observed Impact Causes
Direct
- Feed intake
+ Temperature
(heat stress)
- Milk and meat production
- Reproductive
performance
- Immune functions
+ Mortality
Indirect
- Crop yield
> CO2 concentrations
Change in pasture
composition
Change in forage quality + Temperature
> CO2 concentrations
Seasonal changes
in resource supply
> Frequent extreme
weather events
- Water availability
+ Water consumption + Temperature
+ Diseases, pests,
and stress
+ Temperature
change in rainfall
frequency
Modied Cheng et al., 2022
TABLE II
MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR THE REDUCTION OF
METHANE IN RUMINANTS
Mitigation strategies
Animal and feed
management
Diet
formulation
Rumen
manipulation
Genomic selection Forage quality Vaccination
Rational grazing Lipids Defaunation
Agroforestry Sea weeds Direct-fed microbial
Animal health Additives
Manure management
servation tillage involves minimal mechanical disturbance of
the soil. It helps retain a large portion of the crop residues on
the soil surface to be used as organic matter for soil nutrition.
Practices such as rotational grazing and fodder banking can
also increase the production e󰀩ciency of smallholder farms
and prevent land degradation. These methods reduce methane
emissions from the soil, along with reducing erosion and wa-
ter pollution [25]. Nevertheless, adopting the best sustainable
farming systems is often complex as they could result in di󰀨er-
ent outcomes, favoring, in some cases, biodiversity conserva-
tion and carbon sequestration or, in some others, privileging
121
______________________________________________________ Revista Cientíca, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXIII, Supl. Esp., 117 - 123, 2023
production [26]. For example, systems based on grazing may
show higher environmental performances because of the lower
inputs needed for production, albeit requiring more land.
Swapping traditional animal feeds with more car-
bon-friendly ones could help [27]. For instance, soybean meal
and maize are incredibly carbon-intensive due to the large
amounts of inputs needed to produce them. Alternatives such
as barley, alfalfa, or sorghum are more sustainable. Further-
more, some livestock farms are now using by-products from
agro-industrial residues that could help reduce waste and their
disposal costs.
Knowledge about management and information sharing
among farmers are also substantial interventions for sustain-
able livestock production. Access to accurate and timely infor-
mation can increase farmers’ capacity to manage their resourc-
es, leading to improved yields and reduced emissions [28].
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Research and governance have been exploring recent
innovations in sustainable livestock production to respond to
climate challenges, maintaining the environment and an e󰀩-
cient food system. Innovations in di󰀨erent elds can open new
solutions, such as smart farming, genetics, robotics, environ-
mental monitoring, and developing new business models [29].
Advances in informatics allowed the advancement of cameras,
sensors, and environmental technologies. Moreover, network-
ing and farm management software allow farmers to improve
animal management on individual needs to make informed de-
cisions. Through these techniques, for example, farmers can
monitor soil fertility and reduce the input of fertilizers to main-
tain soil health.
Sustainable livestock production can utilize renewable
energy sources to reduce carbon emissions and produce green
energy for the farm, thus reducing reliance on fossil fuel sourc-
es [30]. Some farms are now utilizing solar power, wind tur-
bines, and biogas digesters to power their operations to save
on operational costs, thus reducing the emissions associated
with farming [31].
BUFFALO IS A TOOL FOR SUSTAINABILITY
The bu󰀨alo (Bubalus bubalis), a species represented
by more than 204 million heads worldwide, plays a strategic
role in the world economy and society. One characteristic that
makes the bu󰀨alo so widely used is its ability to convert -
ber into energy. Numerous studies indicate the superiority of
bu󰀨alo over cattle in food conversion and using fodder and
agricultural by-products with low nutrient content [32]. In addi-
tion, from a recent molecular study, bu󰀨alo rumen, compared
to bovine rumen, appears to have a greater potential for ber
degradation and less potential for gastroenteric methane pro-
duction [33]. Other important characteristics of the bu󰀨alo are
its rusticity, ability to adapt to di󰀨erent climatic environments
(from hot-humid to very cold), and longevity, which is always
higher than that of the bovine. Bu󰀨alo is suitable for work in
plantations or wetlands due to its broad articulation in the
hoofs, especially during the rainy period, when the muddy soil
causes di󰀩cult mobility for other species. For this character-
istic, the bu󰀨alo became many countries’ best draught power
animal option.
It should be emphasized that this goes hand in hand with
bu󰀨alo products of high quality. Bu󰀨alo meat has a lower calo-
rie content, lower cholesterol, an unsaturated fatty acid/saturat-
ed fatty acid ratio >1, a higher protein level, and a higher iron
content (>1.5mg/100g) compared to beef [34]. Bu󰀨alo milk also
plays a vital role in human nutrition, especially in developing
countries. It is richer than cow’s milk in all major constituents,
such as fat (6.6-8.8%), lactose (4.5-5.2%), protein (3.8-4.5%),
casein, and ash [35]. These chemical characteristics also al-
low for a cheese yield twice as high as that usually obtained
with cow’s milk. Furthermore, the presence of the A2 versus A1
variant of β-casein makes this milk more like human breast milk
and, therefore, probably easier to digest [36].
CONCLUSIONS
A multidisciplinary approach embracing the more com-
prehensive and varied aspects of nutrition, landscapes, and
culture considering the environment, livestock management,
animal health and welfare, and social factors is requested to
deal with the environmental issues of livestock. There is a con-
siderable margin for correcting and improving livestock produc-
tion that can substantially decrease the environmental burden
and advances in animal welfare. The optimal quantity of ani-
mal-source foods in the diet of di󰀨erent populations will depend
on health, environmental, and social factors as well as man-
agement methods that vary considerably and are challenging
to bring down to simple metrics. In conclusion, when livestock
production is done well, respecting local ecosystems and so-
cial contexts, it could improve public health and environmental
resilience.
REFERENCES
[1] Schneider F, Tarawali S. Sustainable Development
Goals and livestock systems. Revue Scientique et Te-
chnique (International O󰀩ce of Epizootics). 2021 Aug
1;40(2):585-95.
[2] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO). Livestock and Landscapes: Sustainability Pa-
thways. Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United
Nations. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/
ar591e.pdf (accessed in November 2023.
[3] Van Zanten HH, Herrero M, Van Hal O, Röös E, Muller
A, Garnett T, Gerber PJ, Schader C, De Boer IJ. Dening
122
13th World Bu󰀨alo Congress ~ 13er Congreso Mundial de Búfalos / Lectures / Sustainability & Socioeconomics _______________________
a land boundary for sustainable livestock consumption.
Global change biology. 2018 Sep;24(9):4185-94.
[4] Scollan ND, Hocquette JF, Richardson RI, Kim EJ. Rai-
sing the nutritional value of beef and beef products to add
value in beef production. Nutrition and climate change:
major issues confronting the meat industry (ed. JD Wood
and C Rowlings). 2011 Apr 1:79-104.
[5] Leroy F, Smith NW, Adesogan AT, Beal T, Iannotti L, Mou-
ghan PJ, Mann N. The role of meat in the human diet:
evolutionary aspects and nutritional value. Animal Fron-
tiers. 2023 Apr 1;13(2):11-8.
[6] Thompson L, Rowntree J, Windisch W, Waters SM, Sha-
lloo L, Manzano P. Ecosystem management using lives-
tock: embracing diversity and respecting ecological prin-
ciples. Animal Frontiers. 2023 Apr 1;13(2):28-34
[7] Leroy F, Beal T, Gregorini P, McAuli󰀨e GA, van Vliet S.
Nutritionism in a food policy context: the case of ‘ani-
mal protein’. Animal Production Science. 2022 Feb
21;62(8):712-20.
[8] Salter AM. Improving the sustainability of global meat
and milk production. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society.
2017 Feb;76(1):22-7.
[9] Jackson RB, Saunois M, Bousquet P, Canadell JG, Poul-
ter B, Stavert AR, Bergamaschi P, Niwa Y, Segers A,
Tsuruta A. Increasing anthropogenic methane emissions
arise equally from agricultural and fossil fuel sources. En-
vironmental Research Letters. 2020 Jul 15;15(7):071002.
[10] Saunois M, Jackson RB, Bousquet P, Poulter B, Canadell
JG. The growing role of methane in anthropogenic clima-
te change. Environmental Research Letters. 2016 Dec
12;11(12):120207.
[11] Steinfeld H, Opio C, Chara J, Davis KF, Tomlin P, Gunter
S. Overview paper: Livestock, Climate and Natural Re-
source Use. https://www.livestockdialogue.org/leadmin/
templates/res_livestock/docs/2019_Sept_Kansas/4_Cli-
mate_and_Natural_Resource_Use_-_Online_consulta-
tion.pdf
[12] Rojas-Downing MM, Nejadhashemi AP, Harrigan T, Woz-
nicki SA. Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adapta-
tion, and mitigation. Climate risk management. 2017 Jan
1;16:145-63.
[13] IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development)
https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/40864504/
CAR_2018_web.pdf/c88b3b3b-92a4-4a48-9536-ded3c-
83fed87
[14] Brito LF, Bedere N, Douhard F, Oliveira HR, Arnal M, Pe-
ñagaricano F, Schinckel AP, Baes CF, Miglior F. Genetic
selection of high-yielding dairy cattle toward sustainable
farming systems in a rapidly changing world. Animal.
2021 Dec 1;15:100292.
[15] FAO. Animal Genetics. http://www.fao.org/animal-gene-
tics/background/why-is-ag-important/en/ [accessed No-
vember 2023].
[16] Cammack KM, Austin KJ, Lamberson WR, Conant GC,
Cunningham HC. Ruminant nutrition symposium: Tiny but
mighty: The role of the rumen microbes in livestock pro-
duction. Journal of animal science. 2018 Feb;96(2):752-
70.
[17] Johnson KA, Johnson DE. Methane emissions from catt-
le. Journal of animal science. 1995 Aug 1;73(8):2483-92.
[18] Arndt C, Hristov AN, Price WJ, McClelland SC, Pelaez
AM, Cueva SF, Oh J, Dijkstra J, Bannink A, Bayat AR,
Crompton LA. Full adoption of the most e󰀨ective stra-
tegies to mitigate methane emissions by ruminants can
help meet the 1.5 C target by 2030 but not 2050. Proce-
edings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2022 May
17;119(20):e2111294119.
[19] Hristov AN, Oh J, Firkins JL, Dijkstra J, Kebreab E, Wa-
ghorn G, Makkar HP, Adesogan AT, Yang W, Lee C,
Gerber PJ. Special topics—Mitigation of methane and ni-
trous oxide emissions from animal operations: I. A review
of enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of animal
science. 2013 Nov 1;91(11):5045-69.
[20] Veneman JB, Saetnan ER, Clare AJ, Newbold CJ. MitiGa-
te; an online meta-analysis database for quantication of
mitigation strategies for enteric methane emissions. Scien-
ce of the Total Environment. 2016 Dec 1;572:1166-74.
[21] Tseten T, Sanjorjo RA, Kwon M, Kim SW. Strategies to
mitigate enteric methane emissions from ruminant ani-
mals. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022 32(3):269-277.
[22] Chiariotti A. Rumen environmental and nutritional strate-
gies to mitigate emissions from livestock. Cuban Journal
of Agricultural Science. 2023 Oct 16;57.
[23] Tapio I, Snelling TJ, Strozzi F, Wallace RJ. The ruminal
microbiome associated with methane emissions from ru-
minant livestock. Journal of animal science and biotech-
nology. 2017 Dec;8(1):1-1.
[24] Thornton PK, van de Steeg J, Notenbaert A, Herrero M.
The impacts of climate change on livestock and livestock
systems in developing countries: A review of what we
know and what we need to know. Agricultural systems.
2009 Jul 1;101(3):113-27.
[25] Cheng M, McCarl B, Fei C. Climate change and livestock
production: a literature review. Atmosphere. 2022 Jan
15;13(1):140.
[26] 26. Sabia E, Napolitano F, Claps S, De Rosa G, Barile VL,
Braghieri A, et al. Environmental impact of dairy bu󰀨alo
heifers kept on pasture or in connement. Elsevier Agri-
cultural System. 2018;159(c):42-49. https://doi.10.1016/j.
agsy.2017.10.010.
123
______________________________________________________ Revista Cientíca, FCV-LUZ / Vol. XXXIII, Supl. Esp., 117 - 123, 2023
[27] Grossi G, Goglio P, Vitali A, Williams AG. Livestock and
climate change: impact of livestock on climate and miti-
gation strategies. Animal Frontiers. 2019 Jan;9(1):69-76.
[28] 28 Monteiro A, Santos S, Gonçalves P. Precision agri-
culture for crop and livestock farming—Brief review. Ani-
mals. 2021 Aug 9;11(8):2345.
[29] Tilman, D. and Clark, M., 2014. Global diets link envi-
ronmental sustainability and human health. Nature,
515(7528), pp.518-522.
[30] Twine, R., 2021. Emissions from animal agricultu-
re—16.5% is the new minimum gure. Sustainability,
13(11), p.6276.
[31] Hou D, Bolan NS, Tsang DC, Kirkham MB, O’Connor D.
Sustainable soil use and management: An interdiscipli-
nary and systematic approach. Science of the Total Envi-
ronment. 2020 Aug 10;729:138961.
[32] Terramoccia S, Bartocci S, Taticchi A, Di Giovanni S,
Pauselli M, Mourvaki E, Urbani S, Servili M. Use of dried
stoned olive pomace in the feeding of lactating bu󰀨aloes:
E󰀨ect on the quantity and quality of the milk produced.
Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences. 2013
Jul;26(7):971.
[33] Tong F, Wang T, Gao NL, Liu Z, Cui K, Duan Y, Wu S,
Luo Y, Li Z, Yang C, Xu Y. The microbiome of the bu-
󰀨alo digestive tract. Nature Communications. 2022 Feb
10;13(1):823.
[34] Contò M, Cifuni GF, Iacurto M, Failla S. E󰀨ect of pasture
and intensive feeding systems on the carcass and meat
quality of bu󰀨alo. Animal Bioscience. 2022 Jan;35(1):105.
[35] Abd El-Salam MH, El-Shibiny S. A comprehensive review
on the composition and properties of bu󰀨alo milk. Dairy
science & technology. 2011 Nov;91:663-99.
[36] de Oliveira LS, Alves JS, Bastos MS, da Cruz VA, Pinto
LF, Tonhati H, Costa RB, de Camargo GM. Water bu󰀨a-
loes (Bubalus bubalis) only have A2A2 genotype for be-
ta-casein. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2021
Mar;53:1-4.