The future of ruminant production in a warming world: climate challenges, smart solutions, and research priorities – A comprehensive review

O futuro da produção de ruminantes em um mundo em aquecimento: desafios climáticos, soluções inteligentes e prioridades de pesquisa – Uma revisão abrangente

Abstract

Climate change is a serious problem facing the world today and will continue to change over the 21^st century. There is still insufficient research regarding the serious effects of rapid climate change on ruminants; thus, there are calls for intensive efforts for sustainable ruminant production. Therefore, the present comprehensive review aimed at addressing the consequences of climate change on ruminants, summarizing the needed climate change adaptations and mitigation strategies, describing the contribution of ruminant production to climate change, and suggesting new insights into ruminant future research under climate change. I reviewed the systematic literature review focused on studies that included information on three major topics, namely, (1) impacts of climate change on ruminants, (2) climate change's adaptation and mitigation strategies for sustainable ruminant production, and (3) the contributions of ruminant production to climate change. Data indicated that climate change reduces the quantity and quality of feed resources, water availability, growth and reproductive performances, fertility, immunity, meat and milk yield, and quality. Further, climate change increased the spread and incidence of ruminant diseases and mortality. In addition, climate change induced serious alterations in protein and hormone levels, the distribution and biodiversity of ruminants, and behavioral and physiological responses. The main adaptation strategies to cope with changing climate on ruminants are discussed in detail, i.e., nutritional management options, integrated crop-ruminant management, animal genetic strategies, herd management, and farmer perception. Similarly, the main strategies to mitigate the effect of ruminants on climate change are well presented, i.e., carbon sequestration, enteric fermentation, manure and fertilizer management, and animal species selection. Furthermore, the contribution of ruminants to greenhouse gas emissions is thoroughly discussed, i.e., land use, feed and animal productions, manure, processing and transport, and emissions by species. More research should be conducted on how to increase the level of knowledge and awareness of ruminant farmers/producers to improve their adaptation and mitigation approaches to climate change in their farms and herds.

Keywords:
climate change; ruminant livestock; climate-smart agriculture; thermal stress; sustainable livestock production

Resumo

As mudanças climáticas representam um dos maiores desafios do século XXI. Ainda há pesquisas insuficientes sobre os efeitos severos das rápidas mudanças climáticas nos ruminantes, o que demanda esforços intensivos para garantir uma produção sustentável de ruminantes. Esta revisão teve como objetivo discutir as consequências das mudanças climáticas para os ruminantes, resumir estratégias de adaptação e mitigação, analisar a contribuição da produção de ruminantes para as mudanças climáticas e propor novas perspectivas de pesquisa. A literature revisada abordou três tópicos principais: (1) impactos das mudanças climáticas nos ruminantes, (2) estratégias de adaptação e mitigação para uma produção sustentável de ruminantes, e (3) contribuições da produção de ruminantes para as mudanças climáticas. Os dados indicaram redução na quantidade e qualidade de recursos alimentares, disponibilidade de água, desempenho reprodutivo e produtivo, fertilidade, imunidade, além da queda na qualidade da carne e do leite. Também foi observada maior propagação de doenças e aumento da mortalidade em ruminantes. Somado a isso, as mudanças climáticas provocaram alterações significativas nos níveis de proteínas e hormônios, na distribuição e biodiversidade dos ruminantes e nas respostas comportamentais e fisiológicas. As principais estratégias de adaptação incluem manejo nutricional, integração lavoura-pecuária, estratégias genéticas animais, manejo do rebanho e a percepção dos produtores. Para mitigação, destacam-se sequestro de carbono, manejo da fermentação entérica, gestão de dejetos e fertilizantes e seleção de espécies animais. Além disso, a contribuição dos ruminantes para emissões de gases de efeito estufa foi discutida em profundidade, incluindo uso da terra, produção de alimentos e animais, dejetos, processamento e transporte, bem como emissões por espécie. Mais pesquisas são necessárias para ampliar o conhecimento e a conscientização dos produtores de ruminantes, visando aprimorar práticas de adaptação e mitigação às mudanças climáticas em suas propriedades e rebanhos.

Palavras-chave:
mudanças climáticas; pecuária de ruminantes; agricultura climaticamente inteligente; estresse térmico; produção pecuária sustentável

1. Introduction

Global warming is a serious threat facing the world today. Long-term changes of climate have already been detected, and there is a wide agreement that the climate will continue to change and get warmer over the 21^st century. The changes in the atmospheric constituent and structure are due to the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mainly carbon dioxide (CO₂), nitrous oxide (N₂O) and methane (CH₄) (Gerber et al., 2013). Trends in global temperature have been showing rapid warming in the past 30 years.

Climate change poses a main threat to the sustainability of ruminant production (Biswal et al., 2021). Climate change affects ruminants through direct effects the growth, production, health, physiology, and behavior of animals (Henry et al., 2018). Adaptation and mitigation approaches are urgently needed to enhance ruminant production to meet the growing global demands for meat milk, and other products and by-products from one hand, and from the other hand to decrease GHG emissions (Henry et al., 2012). Adaptation and mitigation approaches to climate change have therefore the highest priorities of scientific research.

Knowledge of how climate change can adversely affect ruminant production and reproduction performances is very important. Nowadays, there is an immediate need to develop and establish sustainable approaches to enhance the efficiency of ruminant production systems on a global scale. Despite growing recognition of the vulnerability of ruminant production to climate change, significant gaps remain in understanding the complex and interconnected effects of a warming climate on ruminant health, productivity, reproduction, feed resources, and production efficiency. Moreover, the contribution of ruminant production to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane, and the effectiveness, feasibility, and sustainability of emerging mitigation strategies have not yet been comprehensively synthesized. Importantly, there is a need for an integrated assessment that simultaneously considers climate-related production challenges, greenhouse gas mitigation, climate-smart management practices, technological innovations, and future research priorities across different ruminant production systems and climatic regions. Addressing these gaps is essential for developing resilient, low-emission, and sustainable ruminant production systems capable of meeting future global demands under increasingly challenging climatic conditions.

Therefore, this review article aimed at addressing the impacts of climate change on ruminants, summarizing the needed climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies, describing the contributions of ruminant production to climate change, and suggesting new insights into ruminant future research under a changing climate. This review article will be useful for ruminant farmers, researchers, and people who are interested in learning more about the relation between ruminants and climate change on the global scale.

2. Scope of Review

Several ways were used for capturing the literature related to the topic of this review article using databases and internet search engines, i.e. ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Google, Google Scholar, and Scopus Web. The systematic literature review focused on studies that included information on three major topics, namely, (1) impacts of climate change on ruminants, (2) climate change’s adaptation and mitigation strategies for sustainable ruminant production, and (3) the contributions of ruminant production to climate change.

Under the impacts of climate change on the ruminant sector, searches used combinations of the following terms: climate change, global warming, climate change scenarios, ruminants, cattle, sheep, goats, temperature, heat waves, HS, wind, animal feed resources, pasture, rangeland, grazing systems, drought, feed quality and quantity, availability and quality of water resources, and rainfall. Further keywords were also used, such as health, pathogens, disease spread and incidence, growth parameters, feed intake, reproduction, fertility, mortality, immunity, meat and milk quantity and quality, animal migration and distribution, biodiversity loss, proteins, hormones, and behavioral and physiological changes.

Under climate change’ adaptation and mitigation strategies for sustainable ruminant production, searches used combinations of the following terms: Sustainability of ruminant production systems, adaptation strategies, nutritional management options, supplementary feeding, ration modification, feed additives, breeding and genetic strategies, adapted ruminant breeds, heat and disease-tolerant breeds, sustainable breeding programs, animal genetic resources, herd management, ventilation, and grazing strategies. Further terms were also used, such as farmer’s perception, awareness and knowledge, information resources, socio-economic characteristics, mitigation strategies, carbon sequestration, deforestation, enteric fermentation, management of pasture, fertilizers and manure, selection of animal and plant species, and thermo-tolerance genes. Under the contribution of ruminant production to climate change, searches used combinations of the following keywords: GHG emissions, CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, land use, degradation, emission by species, product processing, transport, and energy use. Therefore, by using such databases, I had comprehensive coverage of the literature. I focused on the published work in the peer-reviewed journals of the world. The literature search was conducted during July to September 2024.

This comprehensive review covers four major topics (1) impacts of climate change on ruminants, (2) adaptation strategies to cope with the impacts of climate change on ruminants, (3) strategies for mitigating the impacts of ruminants on climate change, and (4) contribution of ruminants to climate change (GHGs) (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Diagram illustrating the impacts of climate change on ruminants, adaptation and mitigation strategies to cope with climate change and contribution of ruminants to climate change.

3. Impacts of Climate Change on Ruminants

3.1. Pasture and rangelands

One of the major impacts of a changing climate on ruminant productivity is the alteration of animal feed resources. Changes in temperature, drought, rainfall pattern, and CO₂ level affect pasture and rangeland productivity, lower forage quantity, and alter compositions and dynamics of crop species, and thus reduce feed availability for ruminant animals (Thornton and Herrero, 2015). Climate change is likely to lead to more severe drought conditions via greater evapotranspiration, which will exacerbate plant water stress. Drought and postponement in the beginning of rainfall led to poor regeneration of grasses and dry pastureland, resulting in a shortage in quantity and quality of ruminant feed resources (Bekele, 2017). Thus, the nutritional value of forage may decline as crude protein and digestibility decrease. The cost of providing supplemental crude protein to cattle compensating for the decrease in crude protein contents of forage is estimated at many billion USD/year (Craine et al., 2017). Generally, increased CO₂level resulted in decreased leaf nitrogen level, which is a vital nutrient for ruminants. Hence, animals must increase feeding rates on enriched plants to compensate for the decreased nitrogen availability but still exhibit decreased growth and higher mortality rates (Rust and Rust, 2013). Further, under elevated CO₂levels, plants frequently increase the production of toxins and antifeedants that negatively influence ruminant feeding (Nardone et al., 2010). Elevated temperature might increase lignin in plants, which reduces digestibility and degradation rates (Polley et al., 2013), leading to a reduction in nutrient availability for ruminants. Flooding as an extreme climate change event may influence the structure and form of plant roots, alter the rate of leaf growth, and reduce total plant yields. Increased temperature by 2°C will lead to significant negative impacts on pasture in arid and semiarid regions. Further, desertification as a climate event causes a reduction in the carrying capacity of animal feed cultivated areas (Tufekci and Celik, 2021). Other causes of decline in natural pasture areas include conversion of pasturelands to agricultural areas, overgrazing, covering the pasture by plant species with low nutritional values, and decreasing pasture yield level.

3.2. Water

Climate change significantly affects water resources and rainfall patterns, thereby reducing water availability for ruminants (Al-Bakri et al., 2013). Climate change scenarios indicated a decrease in rainfall and an increase in air temperature have negatively influenced water resources. The drought influenced ruminants by drying water resources and decreasing availability of water for animal drinking, feed crop irrigation, and product processes (Bekele, 2017). Nonetheless, the ruminant sector forms about 8% of global human water uses, and an increase in temperature may increase animal water consumption by 2-3 folds (Nardone et al., 2010). Thus, there is an urgent need to produce feed crops to raise ruminant animals that demand less water. Water is fundamental for growth, body-temperature adjustment, heat balance, reproduction, lactation mechanism, digestion patterns, and waste product excretions of goats and sheep (Ben Salem, 2010). Water required by small ruminants is regulated by temperature, loss of water from the body, dry matter intake, milk, feces, and urine. Ruminants may encounter moderate or severe water restrictions during drought periods, transportation and grazing in pasture far from water sources, and their water requirements in dry areas are increased due to high temperatures and sun radiation load (Ben Salem, 2010). Generally, goats and sheep have a relative tolerance to drought, and goats conserve water more than sheep, and might be due to their browse diets (Silanikove and Koluman Darcan, 2015). Saline water could influence the metabolism, digestion, and fertility of ruminants. Chemical contaminants and heavy metals due to saline water could impair excretory, cardiovascular, respiratory, and nervous systems and decline the quality of ruminant production (Nardone et al., 2010). Further, water requirements may differ greatly depending on the animal’s species, breed, physiological state, level of activity, weight, type of diet, water quality, and temperature (Al-Bakri et al., 2013). Water stress results in lower feed intake rate, body weight loss, and performance in various goat breeds (Alamer, 2009). Cows required 13% more water for a 2.7°C increase in temperature in the subtropics, and goats exposed to HS doubled their water consumption (Caulfield et al., 2014).

3.3. Health and diseases

Climatic events can directly affect ruminant health, increasing the risk of illness and mortality. The duration, severity, and degree of HS cause immune suppression, oxidative stress, metabolic disorder, and animal death (Bett et al., 2017). On the global scale, ruminant diseases reduced productivity by 25%. Every year, many scientific reports from governments and industry sectors show the alarming incidence of infectious and noninfectious diseases as well as health problems in ruminants (Henry et al., 2012). Alterations in temperature and rainfall regimes influence the spread, outbreak, abundance, and distribution of diseases caused by pathogens, parasites, and arthropod vector- and food-borne diseases, or introduce new diseases that ruminants are not exposed to before (Nwobodo et al., 2022). The increased migration of ruminant animals because of warmer and drier climatic conditions has resulted in the infection with diseases such as brucellosis and Asiatic red water appearing in many regions where they were previously unknown. Further, Wittmann et al. (2001) predicted that the midge, Culicoides imicola, which is the main vector of the bluetongue virus in sheep, goats, and cattle, would spread rapidly with a 2°C increase in global average temperature. Further, climate change could enhance pathogens’ replications and virulence, which can adversely influence ruminant health, thus leading to an increase in the geographical distribution of the vectors that transmit bluetongue disease in India (Rao et al., 2016). The mosquito vector facilitated the transmission and spread of dengue fever, bluetongue, and Rift Valley fever in response to the spatio-temporal distribution of rainy season and high temperature (Van de Steeg et al., 2009). However, a changing climate change has played a role in the emergence of major ruminant diseases in many parts of the world such as bluetongue in Europe and west Nile virus in the USA due to the rapid distribution of vector-borne diseases (Dorjee et al., 2008). The development of high-performance vaccines against diseases adapted to local conditions seems essential for the future of sustainable ruminant production.

3.4. Growth parameters

Thermal stress declines feed consumption and feed conversion efficiency in ruminants (Thornton et al., 2009). There is a decrease of 3-5% in feed intake of goats and sheep with every 1°C increase in temperature above 30°C (Tufekci and Celik, 2021). Reduction in feed consumption leads to a negative energy balance and decreases cow weight gain (Henry et al., 2012). However, exposing small ruminants to higher temperatures reduced feed intake, increased energy demands, and disturbed protein metabolisms, leading to development and growth reductions (Biswal et al., 2021). Finocchiaro et al. (2005) stated that HS results in decreasing growth rate, despite the fact that the sheep breed originates from hot environmental conditions. Further, the impacts of climate change on ruminants include reduced animal weight gain, and lower feed conversion rates in hot regions (Aydinalp and Cresser, 2008). Reductions in feed intake, daily weight gain and body weight have been reported in sheep (Kandemir et al., 2013) and goats (Salama et al., 2014) under HS conditions. Goats declined dry matter by 30% under HS. Al-Dawood (2017a) reported a reduction of 10.3% vs. 2.7% in body weight of goats subjected to HS vs. the control group, respectively. Helal et al. (2010) reported that exposure to solar radiation for 4 days decreases body weight by 3% in Baladi goats. Reduction in appetite, feed and dry matter intakes, and metabolic rate resulting in nutrient deficiency; thus, it is difficult for ruminants to cope with HS (Alam et al., 2011).

3.5. Reproduction and fertility

High temperatures associated with HS can impair fertility and reproductive performance in ruminants (Bekele, 2017). In cows, HS impairs embryo development, oocyte growth and quality, and pregnancy rates (Nardone et al., 2010). The evens of climate change, i.e., increase in temperature and intensity of radiant heat load, affect reproductive rhythm via the hypothalamo-hypophyseal-ovarian axis. Further, HS influences reproductive performance by changing blood flows and productions of different hormones, with reductions of 20%-30% in conception rates in Friesian cows during hot periods (King et al., 2006). The HS could influence both male and female reproductive functions in ruminants. In females, HS reduces the length of the estrus cycle, embryonic survival, conception rate, ovulation, fertility and fetal development (Hansen, 2009). Furthermore, in males, HS seriously influences fertility and decreases sexual desire, and activity by decreasing testosterone levels, production, and motility of sperm, thus influencing semen quality. Semen characteristics (spermatic motility and concentrations, ejaculate volume, sperm abnormalities, and semen pH) of bucks and rams are severely influenced within a couple of days of exposure to HS. The HS impairs the development of follicular oocytes by changing luteinizing, progesterone, and secretion and dynamics of follicle-stimulating hormone during the estrus cycle in goats (Ozawa et al., 2005). Further, exposure of bulls to HS showed an increase in the proportion of abnormal sperms and a reduction in motility rate (Malama et al., 2017).

3.6. Immunity and mortality

The HS might have serious effects on the ruminant immune system. Long-term exposure to HS was found to reduce colostrum immunoglobulin in cows, which impairs immunity and the function of neutrophils that are important defenses against diseases as well as reduces in lymphocyte function that hampers vaccination efficacy (Lecchi et al., 2016). The immune suppression accelerates ruminant disease infections, resulting in an increase in the use of antimicrobials. A high prevalence of bacterial resistance has been reported to most antibiotics; thus, antimicrobial resistance is ranked as one of the current and future global challenges (Ahmed et al., 2019). Suppression of immunity during the summer seasons increased the incidence of mastitis in dairy heifers (Vitali et al., 2016). The HS suppresses immune function and increases disease susceptibility in calves (Yun et al., 2014).

Studies indicated an increase in ruminant mortality during extreme temperatures. Howden et al. (2008)stated that increases in temperature between 1°C and 5°C might induce high mortality in grazing ruminants. Sirohi and Michaelowa (2007)linked ruminant mortality to several heat waves in the USA and northern Europe. According to Morignat et al. (2014), mortality of cattle during two severe heat waves increased by 24% and 12% in 2003 and 2006 in France, respectively. Acute HS can lead to mortality in ruminants, thus lead to greater economic loss (Henry et al., 2018). Nonetheless, there is an increase in ruminant mortality due to HS in tropical and subtropical regions of Australia, North America, Europe, and Africa (Renaudeau et al., 2012).

3.7. Meat production

Climate change reduced carcass weight and body size in cattle (Mitloehner et al., 2001). Further, HS affects carcass characteristics, yield, and quality of meat in goats and sheep (Al-Dawood, 2017c). Climate change decreased ruminant population, which has further affected meat production (Bekele, 2017). Rana et al. (2014) stated that the quality of meat might be hindered by HS, leading to darker meat and high pH in sheep. Sheep and goats slaughtered at a temperature of ~35°C showed a higher myofibrillar fragmentation index in muscles and higher pH level, as well as expressed less juice than animals slaughtered at 21°C, which indicated that high temperature is the main cause of differences in meat quality. The impact of high temperature poses a reduction in carcass weight of ruminants in Asia, Africa, and Europe (Nardone et al., 2010).

3.8. Milk production

Climate change adversely influences the quality and yield of milk in goats, including reductions in milk yield, coagulating ability, total protein, milk fat and casein contents, and oleic, rumenic, and linoleic acids (Salama et al., 2014). Finocchiaro et al. (2005) stated a negative correlation between milk yield and temperature in Mediterranean dairy sheep. Sheep exposed to heat-stressed conditions showed significant reductions of protein and fat contents in milk, thus negatively affecting the production of high-quality cheese (Sevi and Caroprese, 2012). The HS decline in the milk yield of ruminants and 50% of milk yield reduction is due to decreased feed intake of goats (Hamzaoui et al., 2013). Wind speeds of ≥2.5 m/s in winter and 4 m/s in spring were detrimental to milk yield in dairy goats (Yamani and Koluman Darcan, 2020). Exposing Saanen goats to severe hot temperatures (35°C) for 4 days showed a reduction in milk yields by 13% as compared to thermos-neutral conditions of 20°C (Hirayama et al., 2004). Heat-stressed goats showed a reduction in the levels of protein by 12.5% and casein by 11.5% in milk compared to the thermo-neutral animals (Hamzaoui et al., 2013). Furthermore, goats kept under HS in a climatic chamber reduced their milk yield by 3-10% (Salama et al., 2014). Dairy cows exposed to HS conditions showed a reduction of 10-14% in milk yield (Rust and Rust, 2013).

3.9. Proteins and hormones

The HS causes a significant decrease in protein concentrations in ruminants. Goats exposed to HS showed reductions in total plasma protein, globulin, and albumin concentrations (Helal et al., 2010), and this might be due to the increase in the volume of plasma under HS conditions. The acute phase proteins (APPs) in ruminants include haptoglobin (Hp), serum amyloid A (SAA) and C-reactive protein that increase in concentrations (positive APPs), and albumin and transferrin that decrease in concentrations (negative APPs) when animals are subjected to HS (Jain et al., 2011). APPs are recognized as promising tools to evaluate the performance and health of ruminants (Cannizzo et al., 2012). The HS significantly affected Hp and SAA concentrations in cows and goats (Giannetto et al., 2011; Al-Dawood, 2017a); thus, APPs could be used as potential indicators and sensitive markers in detecting HS in ruminants.

The HS causes hormonal changes in ruminants. Hormones (i.e., leptin, adiponectin, glucocorticoids, triiodothyroxine (T3), thyroxine (T4), prolactin, antidiuretic, and catecholamines) are involved in heat adaptation of animals and can play an important role in assessments of HS in ruminants (Sivakumar et al., 2010). High body temperature during exposure to HS is associated with lower levels of thyroid hormone. The decline in thyroid hormone concentrations during HS represents an adaptive physiological response in ruminants, reducing metabolic activity and, consequently, endogenous heat production, thereby contributing to the maintenance of body temperature homeostasis (West, 2003). Helal et al. (2010) showed a decrease in T3 and T4 levels in goats. However, both T3 and T4 hormones could be utilized as markers of metabolic adaptation to HS in ruminants. Glucocorticoid hormones have actions on reproductive, behavioral, cardiovascular, and immune systems, and these hormones are measured in ruminant animals to assess the responses of animals to environmental changes (Sapolsky et al., 2000). The concentrations of leptin and adiponectin were significantly higher in the HS-goats than the control group (Al-Dawood, 2017b). These alterations in leptin and adiponectin concentrations may reflect metabolic adaptations in ruminants exposed to HS, contributing to reduced heat production and enhanced heat dissipation.

3.10. Animal distribution, migration and biodiversity

Climate factors, i.e., rainfall and temperature, are the main keys to analyzing and predicting density distribution of ruminants (Anya et al., 2013). There is great evidence that changing climate has already altered the overall spatial distribution and abundance of ruminant animals (Van Dijk et al., 2010). Climate change might decrease the goats and sheep distribution (Zhang et al., 2021). Rainfall affects sheep husbandry dynamics at a global scale (Castillo et al., 2021). Rainfall directly influences pasture availability and feed supplies, potentially explaining this effect (Derbile and Kasei, 2012). Thus, there might be a huge demand for fodder in response to the alteration in density distribution of ruminants under climate change.

Animals use various predictable environmental cues to determine the navigation and time of migration. Changes in these cues will influence the extent and phenology of animal migration (Seebacher and Post, 2015). Temperature influences physiological processes in ruminants, with optimal physiological functioning typically occurring within a relatively narrow temperature range (Tattersall et al., 2012). Hence, changing temperature due to global warming impacts migration via the thermal sensitivity of physiological processes. It showed that alterations in migratory behavior change the incidences of infection and transmission of animal diseases. Changes in ruminant migration due to habitat modifications and a changing climate may thus change the lifetime fitness of individuals and ecosystem processes globally (Cockrem, 2022). Seasonal migration of ruminants helps farmers avoid climate risks such as drought, diseases, and floods and store animal feed. Similarly, higher temperature will directly influence ruminant production by changing animal migration patterns (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017).

Climate change is a direct driver of biodiversity loss in ruminants. It is stated that an increase of 2-3°C above the pre-industrial level might result in biodiversity loss of 20-30% in plants and animal species (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017). About 16% of ruminant breeds (cattle, goats, and sheep) were lost due to a changing climate (Thornton et al., 2009). Further, it has shown that from 7,616 ruminant breeds reported, one-fifth is at risk, and about one breed per month is being extinguished, in which cattle had the highest number of extinct breeds of all animal species evaluated. According to Thornton et al. (2009) the biodiversity losses are mainly due to the different practices used in ruminant production that emphasize yields and economic returns as well as other considerations due to climate change. Overgrazing reduces the populations of native plant species and enhances desertification, leading to further biodiversity loss.

3.11. Behavioral and physiological changes

Ruminant indicators to HS include physiological changes (rates of respiration, heart and sweat as well as metabolic heat production) and behavioral changes (feeding, drinking, grazing and resting) (Galan et al., 2018). Over the past 20 years, climate change has already resulted in increased physiological indicator rates by 20%, and it is predicted to further increase under a changing climate in the future (Seebacher et al., 2015). The increased frequency of heat waves influences ruminant physiology. Changes in physiological parameters, i.e., respiration rate and body temperature, give information regarding short-term responses to hot weather conditions, while impacts of climate change on animal behavior are obvious after a longer period of heat exposure. Further, HS induces other behavioral alterations, i.e., reduction in animal activity and feed intake and increased water intake, lying and self-grooming (Al-Dawood, 2017c). Similarly, HS caused an increase in respiratory, sweating and pulse rates, rectal temperature and water drinking frequency (Al-Dawood, 2017b). Increasing body temperature, heart and respiration rates are the main indicators of HS in animals (Alam et al., 2011; Das et al., 2016). Animals can persist in a changing climate by altering their physiological and behavioral responses, i.e. starting to feed at a different time of the day or increasing their evaporative heat loss in hot climatic conditions. Increased respiration rates reflect an adaptive response in ruminants to maintain body temperature by enhancing heat dissipation (Hamzaoui et al., 2013).

4. Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies

Adaptation addresses the impacts of climate change, whereas mitigation targets its underlying causes. Climate adaptation and mitigation strategies are not alternatives to each other, but rather they are considered as a combined set of actions within a comprehensive strategy to decrease GHG emissions and cope with the negative impacts of climate change on ruminants.

4.1. Adaptation strategies

Adaptation to a changing climate refers to adjustments in human or natural systems in response to actual or expected climate change and its associated impacts. These adjustments aim to reduce vulnerability, minimize adverse effects, and take advantage of potential opportunities arising from changing climatic conditions. Global warming demands adaptation options and strategies to minimize risks to ruminants. This section examines the main adaptation strategies for helping ruminants cope with the impacts of climate change.

4.1.1. Nutritional management options

Improving feeding options as an adaptation strategy could enhance the efficiency of ruminant production. Some of the suggested feeding practices include modification of diet compositions, incorporating agroforestry species in ruminant diets, and changing feeding frequency and time (Renaudeau et al., 2012). These practices can reduce the risk from climate change by promoting higher feed intakes or compensating for low feed consumption, reducing excessive heat load, ruminant mortality, and feed insecurity during dry seasons (Thornton, 2010). Tibbo et al. (2008) described the development of low-cost feed blocks that contain rich nutrients and are made from inexpensive, easily available agro-industrial by-products, i.e., cakes of crude olive, sesame, and sunflower, pulps of citrus and tomato; and mulberry leaves. Ration modifications helped greatly in decreasing the adverse impact of HS (Biswal et al., 2021). Increased feeding frequency could help minimize the diurnal fluctuations in ruminal metabolites and improve the efficiency of feed utilization in the rumen of the animals (Sejian, 2013). Zimbelman et al. (2010) indicated that Holstein cows fed rumen-protected vitamin niacin had lower vaginal and rectal temperatures under moderate heat load. Wang et al. (2010) stated that feeding with supplemental saturated fatty acids during HS reduced body temperature during the hottest time of the day and improved milk yield in cows. Nonetheless, ration modifications include feeding at cool hours, grazing time, feeding intervals, using high-quality fiber forage and dietary fiber adjustment, supplementing with protected fat, sodium bicarbonate, niacin, antioxidants, and yeast culture (Al-Dawood, 2017c). Supplementations with C, E, and A vitamins; selenium and zinc trace minerals; and electrolytes could help in boosting immunity and relieving oxidative stress (Das et al., 2016).

4.1.2. Integrated crop-ruminant management

Ruminant feed security is a main limitation to the ruminant industry. Rangeland and pasture resources are often insufficient to meet current demands, particularly as total feed availability declines due to overgrazing and soil erosion (Ben Salem and Smith, 2008). Currently, there is a reduction in the contribution of rangelands to ruminant diets. The overgrazing and severe cutting of trees are replaced by the valuable plant species with less valuable ones unsuitable for ruminants feeding (Tibbo et al., 2008). Further, higher temperature increases water stress through increased potential evapotranspiration. Consequently, the ruminants in hot and dry regions of the world are facing significant nutrient shortages. Climate change directly influences forage quantity and quality across many regions of the world. High temperatures can increase the lignification of plant tissues, thereby reducing forage digestibility. Improved pasture management (e.g., reducing soil erosion and biomass losses resulting from oovergrazing and restoring soil organic matter) has positive environmental impacts such as improving biodiversity and soil carbon sequestration; thus, ruminant production will be improved (Van de Steeg et al., 2009). Ben Salem and Smith (2008) have proved the use of fodder trees, shrubs, and cactus as feed resources for ruminants. Crop diversification, integration of the ruminant system with crop production and forestry and altering the locations and timing of ruminant farm operations are considered adaptation strategies of ruminants to cope with climate change (Smith et al., 2012). Changes in mixed crop-ruminant systems are considered an adaptation approach that may enhance ruminant feeds. Alterations in mixed crop-ruminant systems can enhance efficiency by producing more feed crops on less land using fewer resources such as water (Herrero et al., 2010). Other adaptive strategies may also include adjusting crop rotations and altering the time of planting, spraying, and irrigating. These measures could be adapted to change the heat waves, duration of growing season, and rainfall variability. Many drought-tolerant plant species have been introduced and grown in some regions of the world (Tibbo et al., 2008).

4.1.3. Animal genetic strategies and adapted ruminant breeds

Genetic adaptation of ruminants is a long-term approach in ruminants. Heat-tolerant cows are characterized by a greater ability to keep their body temperature constant under a changing climate. When studying heat tolerance traits of cows, i.e., respiration and heart rates and body temperature, they should be measured most effectively under hot stressful conditions. In many regions of the world, statistical models for estimating HS tolerance and breeding values for heat tolerance have already been developed and used (Nguyen et al., 2017). If HS persists, the expression of involved genes changes, resulting in alterations in the physiological state, which leads to an adaptation of animals (Collier et al., 2008). There is a negative correlation between breeding for high yields and higher vulnerability to extreme climate events. Such a negative relation is clear in Zebu and Sanga cattle breeds, which are relatively characterized by low milk yield and reproduction efficiency, but these breeds are more heat-tolerant (Berman, 2011). Genetic differences may reflect variation in animal traits, including the number and morphology of sweat glands and their capacity for water transfer. Changes in breeding methods could help ruminant animals increase their tolerance to both HS and diseases and, at the same time improve their growth and reproduction efficiencies (Henry et al., 2012). Goats characterized by loose skin and floppy ears are more thermal tolerant than other goat breeds and sheep (Jakper and Kojo, 2014). Many ruminant breeds kept by small-scale ruminant keepers in the Near East are local breeds. However, these local breeds may not produce as much as their high-yielding relatives, but under HS conditions they can produce where other breeds cannot produce or even survive. Local breeds are relatively tolerant of HS, diseases, and drought; thus, they represent important sources of genetic diversity that ruminant breeders can use in responding to disease outbreaks and extreme climate events (Van de Steeg et al., 2009). Conservation programs are most needed where valuable genetic resources are in danger of being lost. Many conservation methods are available, including vivo methods and in vitro conservation of genetic materials in liquid nitrogen (Hoffmann, 2010). Some breeds can produce higher amounts of certain heat shock proteins, which could be involved in the mechanism of adaptation to thermal conditions. It is stated that heat shock protein 70 for heat tolerance can be utilized safely as a genetic marker in determining the thermotolerance capacities of goat breeds (Aleena et al., 2018). If climate change is faster than natural selection, the risk of survival and adaptation of the new breed becomes greater. The characteristics aimed at adaptation are sweat gland capacity, skin and hair types, reproductive capacity, resistance to pests, ability to maintain productivity under extreme conditions, and metabolic heat production, which are some important effects that are likely to derive from a changing climate (Koluman Darcan and Silanikove, 2018).

4.1.4. Herd management

Managing herds in intensive and frequent hot periods is highly demanding for ruminant farmers and is coupled with growing challenges. There are many adaptation strategies for herd management such as providing with adequate shade and cooling techniques (Kendall et al., 2007), feeding time alteration, milking and transportation in cooler periods of the day (Al-Dawood, 2017c). Available cooling techniques are sprinklers, misters, fans, and tunnel ventilation. Kendall et al. (2007) stated that sprinklers are significantly more effective than providing shade. There is a positive relation between cooling management and all the ovary functions, fertility, and estrus cycle length of cows under heat stress (Honig et al., 2016). Herd management also includes many other strategies, such as maintenance of female- dominated herds, herd splitting, and herd diversity using multi-species/breed. By keeping more than one species of ruminant, pastoralists could generate many types of ruminant products, generate ruminant products in different growing seasons, use more of the available forage and raise under different environmental niches (Van de Steeg et al., 2009). Dividing ruminant herds into small groups and moving them into different areas are used to prevent overgrazing and maintain the long-term production of pasturelands (Nyariki and Ngugi, 2002). Ruminant movement remains one of the most important adaptation strategies to temporal and spatial variations in rainfall. Providing shade to goats and sheep has been found to improve milk and meat production and reproduction performance (Al-Dawood, 2017c). Proper selection of animal housing sites can play an important role in enhancing heat dissipation and providing long-term protection against heat stress in ruminants (Sejian, 2013). Further, the appropriate site for animal housing, availability of adequate drinking water (Biswal et al., 2021) and grazing strategies (Al-Dawood, 2015) could effectively reduce HS. Thus, adequate space allowance and monitoring of temperature, relative humidity and air quality are main aspects in ruminant houses (Kandemir et al., 2013).

4.1.5. Farmer perception

The socio-economic characters of ruminant farmers have a great impact on their use of sustainable production strategies and practices (Nwobodo et al., 2022). Younger and middle-aged farmers in animal husbandry could help in the adoption of innovations to reduce the negative impact of climate change in the ruminant sector. Long time experience in animal husbandry will guide for better planning horizon by ruminant farmers to put in check the climate change effects for high farm animal productivity (Al-Dawood, 2015). Extension provided for farmers will transfer knowledge from researchers to ruminant farmers, help farmers in their decision-making and simplify their own goals and possibilities, and link ruminant producers to policy makers, aiming to maximize ruminant production under climate change. Education is thought to create a favorable mental attitude for the acceptance of new practices, especially of information- and management-intensive practices (Al-Dawood, 2015). Thus, it is so vital to collect information about ruminant farmer perceptions of adaptation strategies. The best way for information collection regarding farmer perceptions that has already been used for adaptation research is the use of open-ended survey questions for understanding the individual opinions of farmers. By understanding ruminant farmer perceptions and including them in a policy development, there is a higher chance of achieving sustainable ruminant production and conserving the environment (Al-Dawood, 2015). There must be a great role for governmental agencies, research institutions and international agricultural organizations to support the use of sustainable production strategies through programs, trainings, symposiums and funds aimed at increasing the knowledge and financial bases of farmers, thus enhancing their use of adaptation practices (Nwobodo et al., 2022).

4.2. Mitigation strategies

Mitigation refers to human interventions to reduce the sources of GHG emissions. There is a potential to suppress ruminant sector GHG emissions through the adoption of many mitigation approaches. Effective implementation of mitigation strategies requires strong support from both the public and government policies. Ruminant farmers adopted more adaptation strategies, and fewer mitigation approaches due to their low scale of production, which does not encourage investments for long-term strategies that do not yield immediate returns. The main strategies for mitigating the effect of ruminants on climate change are discussed in this section.

4.2.1. Carbon sequestration

Carbon sequestration can be achieved by reducing deforestation rates, reversing deforestation by replanting, improving water and land management and targeting higher-yield crops with better climate change-adapted species (Carvalho et al., 2004). In Brazil, it is estimated a reduction of one-fourth of GHG emissions due to animal grazing and herd managements (Gerber et al., 2013). Soil organic carbon can be restored in soils through reduction of erosion, management of soil acidity, conservation tillage, higher crop residues, mulching and crop rotation. Improving pastureland management can lead to carbon sequestration by improving plant species, introducing earthworms, incorporating trees, growing legumes and applying fertilizers (Conant et al., 2001). Pasture degradation results from the mismatch between ruminant population densities and the pasture’s carrying capacity, leading to vegetation degradation, soil erosion and carbon release from organic matter. Soil carbon sequestration is the mechanism responsible for most of the mitigation potential in the agriculture sector, contributing 89%. Further, crop and soil management strategies that could enhance soil carbon sequestration include zero tillage farming, use of soil amendments, inorganic fertilizers and organic manures, and improve pastures with recommended stocking rate and reforestation (Van de Steeg et al., 2009). Similarly, conversion of rangelands into croplands can have great effects, resulting in 95% and 50% losses of the above- and below-ground carbon, respectively (Thornton and Gerber, 2010).

4.2.2. Enteric fermentation

Ruminant enteric fermentation is the source of CH₄ emission that could be declined by genetic and nutritional improvements of animals. A 1% increase of dietary fat can reduce CH₄ emission by 4-5% (Martin et al., 2010). Provision of animals with high-quality forage results in decreasing CH₄ emission due to an increase in the digestibility (Gerber et al., 2013). Increasing protein contents of animal feed can enhance digestibility and thus reduce CH₄ emission per product unit. Providing feed antibiotics can decrease ruminant enteric fermentation (Boadi et al., 2004). The impact of HS on enteric CH₄ emission and rumen fermentation is due to variation in the population of rumen microbes. Further, it was found that the acetogen feed additive decreases enteric CH₄ production (Malik et al., 2015). Similarly, fat and oil supplements as feed additives reduced the populations of rumen protozoa, thus leading to CH₄reduction (Patra, 2014). Adding 10% encapsulated fumarate to the ruminant diet reduced CH₄production by 75% (Wallace et al., 2006). A meta-analysis using 30 experiments indicated a negative relation between tannin supplement and enteric CH₄production (Jayanegara et al., 2012). Animal breeds are key factors that determine CH₄production (Fraser et al., 2014). Identifying the genetically superior ruminant species/ breeds with less CH₄production per unit feed intake could be considered as a long-term mitigation method to reduce enteric fermentation. This could help ruminant farmers to sustain their production under climate change scenarios. Further, temperature plays a key role that determines CH₄production, since both of digestibility and feed intake differ with temperature. In the Northern Hemisphere, there is an increase in enteric CH₄emission during late summers as compared to early summers. Increased CH₄quantity during animal grazing in late summer season pastures is due to the quality deterioration of the pastures during the summer season (Ulyatt et al., 2005). Similarly, ruminant animals reared in arid and semi-arid regions produce less CH₄production as compared to animals in temperate regions, and this might be due to the variation in the amounts and types of plant feeds consumed in the different regions.

4.2.3. Manure and fertilizer managements

Most CH₄ emission from manure management is due to anaerobic and storage treatments. Deposition of manure on rangelands can produce N₂O emission, thus, the mitigation strategy is so difficult to achieve because the manure is dispersing on pastures and rangelands. Therefore, mitigation strategies to reduce CH₄ emission include shortening storage duration, using anaerobic digesters, covering the storage, changing the animal diets, and using solid separators (Gerber et al., 2008). Anaerobic digesters are tanks that maintain manure under anaerobic conditions to capture biogas and combust it for producing energy or flaring (Gerber et al., 2008). This procedure declines the potential of GHG emission by converting CH₄ into CO₂. Further, other storage and handling practices could reduce GHG emissions such as improving management systems of animal houses and wastes to handle manure and getting rid of bedding from manure using solid separator (Van de Steeg et al., 2009). However, long-term storage of liquid manure at high temperature resulted in high CH₄ emissions. N₂O production requires aerobic conditions, which can be found in solid manure and during liquid manure spreading. Thus, depending on litter management, more CH₄ or more N₂O will be released. Rearing ruminants on pastureland is an effective method to reduce CH₄ emissions from manure because storage is suppressed (Van de Steeg et al., 2009).

Application of fertilizers on animal feed crops increases N₂O emission. Thus, mitigation strategies such as improving nitrogen use efficiency, using organic fertilizers, plant breeding and genetic modifications, growing legumes with grasses in pasture areas and regular soil testing could reduce GHG emissions (Wilkinson and Lee, 2017). Nitrogen use efficiency can be enhanced by the application of the recommended amount and rate that crops will absorb. Soil should be regularly tested as a part of the nutrient management plan, taking into consideration the crop and region. Genetic modifications and plant breeding can reduce fertilizer use by improving nitrogen uptake by feed crops. Converting from the use of synthetic to organic fertilizers can reduce GHG emissions because organic fertilizer does not produce as much N₂O as the synthetic ones (Wilkinson and Lee, 2017).

4.2.4. Species selection in response to climate change

Animal genetic diversity is important for food security and rural development, as it allows farmers to develop new breeds in response to climate change conditions (Hoffmann, 2010). According to Seo and Mendelsohn (2008), the effects of climate change on the ruminant sector may lead to the selection of ruminant species to sustain the viability of farm enterprises. Under future scenarios of climate change, the number of dairy and beef cattle is expected to reduce by 2.3% and 3.2%, respectively. Thus, farmers should be adapted to climate change by selection ruminant species/breed that are most suited to the local climate conditions (Seo et al., 2010). Selection of high-performance animals over the last years to increase ruminant production results in fewer adaptive animals to climate change. The high-performance Holstein dairy cows bred in Europe result in poor production in hot regions of Africa and India (Eisler et al., 2014). The smaller-bodied native Indian cows are economically favored compared to the imported large-bodied breeds despite having less than one-third of milk yield due to tolerance of local high temperatures (Eisler et al., 2014). Adapted ruminant breeds in tropics have a greater capacity to grow and reproduce throughout unfavorable conditions with poor nutrition and higher pest populations than high-performance breeds (Renaudeau et al., 2012). Today, the rate of climate change is faster than the rate of genetic improvements, possibly due to the use of traditional selection approaches. Thus, it is important to use more advanced genetic technologies to speed up the improvement rate of the genetically adapted ruminant breeds to climate change. An example of that is identifying and mapping the specific genes responsible for heat tolerance in zebu cattle and then developing breeding techniques such as marker-assisted selection and transgenic transmission of these tolerance genes from zebu cattle into European cattle breeds aiming at sustainable ruminant production. Goats emitting the least enteric CH₄ compared to all other ruminant animals per unit body weight (Koluman Darcan and Guney, 2008). It can be said that goat breeding will play a key role in mitigating climate change in harsh conditions.

5. Contribution of Ruminants to Climate Change

Globally, the numbers of ruminants will have to increase to meet the demands of the human population growth, which will lead to an increase in GHG emissions from the total production cycle. Thus, the ruminant sector is a key player in mitigating the GHG emissions. Ruminants influence climate in many ways, as discussed below.

5.1. GHG emissions

The ruminants play an important role in climate change contributing with a significant share (~15%) to the total GHG emissions globally (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017). The main ruminant GHG emissions; CH₄, N₂O and CO₂ contributed to GHG emissions with 44%, 29% and 27%, respectively. Enteric fermentation is the major contributor of the ruminant GHG emissions with 39%, followed by manure application, feed production, land use change, post-farmgate and direct and indirect energy with 26%, 21%, 9%, 3% and 2%, respectively (Gerber et al., 2013). Asia produces the highest ruminant GHG emissions, followed by South America, Europe, North America, Africa, and Oceania. The CH₄ is a potent GHG with a global warming potency of more than 20 folds than a similar amount of CO₂, while N₂O emissions, whose primary source is manure management, have more than 300 folds the global warming potential of CO₂. Both N₂O and CH₄ may be formed from manure decompositions in anaerobic conditions, and specific emission levels depend on how manure is collected, spread and stored, as well as the local climatic conditions (Herrero et al., 2009).

5.2. Land use

The increasing demands for ruminant products have significantly changed the natural landscape. Deforestation, land degradation, and cultivated soils due to ruminant production are the major sources of CO₂emission. Land degradation is one of the drivers of land conversion from forests to croplands and pasturelands because ruminant farmers and producers exhaust soil resources, and thus search for other suitable lands (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017). Changes in land use disrupt the natural carbon cycle, resulting in the release of substantial amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and consequently increasing GHG emissions. Forest areas sequester more carbon in their soil and vegetation cover than pasturelands and croplands. Soil and terrestrial vegetation sequester up to two-fifths of global CO₂emissions. Croplands sequester 6% of global carbon, and this is less than what sequesters by pasturelands (27%). Nonetheless, soil sequesters more carbon in the terrestrial carbon cycle than that sequestered by vegetation. However, soil carbon can be released through erosion and changes in land uses and management practices (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017). Latin America has converted the most land from forest to pastureland and croplands, and ruminant husbandry is one of the drivers of this change. In the past 40 years, forested areas in Central America decreased by ~40%, coinciding with an increase of pasturelands for ruminant feed. From total ruminant GHG emissions, land use change, pasture expansion and feed crop expansion shared with 9.2%, 6% and 3.2%, respectively (Gerber et al., 2013). It is estimated that ruminant-induced desertification of pastures and ruminant-related cultivated soils produce around 100 and 28 million tons of CO₂/year, respectively. Thus, effective grazing management practices, including rotational grazing and appropriate stocking rates, are essential for enhancing carbon sequestration (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017).

5.3. Animal and feed productions

Ruminants contribute by 44% of the global anthropogenic CH₄emission through manure management and enteric fermentation (Gerber et al., 2013). Manure and enteric fermentation account for four-fifths of all sources of agriculture emission. Enteric fermentation emits a CH₄by-product by exhalation (Beauchemin et al., 2009). CH₄ emissions differ depending on animal production system, climate conditions and rangelands (Gerber et al., 2013). For example, emission of CH₄ from African cattle, sheep and goats is expected to increase from 7.8 million tons in 2000 to 11.1 million tons by 2030 (Herrero et al., 2010). Animal production increases GHG emissions, thus causing climate change on earth. The manure and synthetic fertilizer use for ruminant feed production are the major contributors of GHG emissions due to ruminant husbandry (Thornton, 2010). By considering the used number of fertilizers, packaging, transportation and application in the ruminant sector, the manufacturing processes of fertilizers contribute with >40 million tons of CO₂annually. Ammonia volatilization loss from synthetic nitrogen fertilizers is an indirect contributor to GHG emissions, and it is estimated that ruminant sector contributes with 3.1 million tons of global ammonia volatilization from mineral fertilizers annually. Further, as growth in manure and fertilizer uses continue, an increase of 35-60% of N₂O emissions is expected by 2030 (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017).

5.4. Manure

Ruminant manure releases both CH₄and N₂O gases. Organic material decomposition found in the ruminants’ manure under anaerobic conditions produces CH₄. Liquid manure inside the holding tanks releases much more CH₄ than that found in dry manure. Air temperature, moisture, animal diet, storage time and pH play a key role in CH₄ emission from manure. Global CH₄ emissions from decomposition of manure are estimated at 17.5 million tonnes/year (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017). An N₂O emission release from stored manure is dependent on climatic conditions, handling system and duration of manure management. Manure should be handled firstly aerobically and then anaerobically to emit N₂O emissions, which occurs in dry waste-handling systems. Stored manure produces 10 million tonnes/year of N₂O emissions (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017). Application of manure to the soil is one of the largest sources of global N₂O emissions. Nitrogen emission from applied manure depends on soil temperature and infiltration, rainfall, pH, rate of crop uptake and organic carbon amount (Mosier et al., 2004). About 1.7 million tonnes of manure soil and N₂O are released yearly (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017).

5.5. Emissions by processing, transport and animal species

Processing of animal products and transportation produces hundreds of millions of tons of CO₂emissions at the global scale (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017). Further, the post-slaughter ruminant processing of each species entails substantial energy consumption. The degradation of unused parts of carcass processing (e.g., intestines) also emits CH₄ (Thornton and Gerber, 2010). Cattle are the biggest GHG contributor, with 65% of the total ruminant GHG emissions. Based on species, beef cattle contribute the most (41%) GHG emissions of the ruminant sector, followed by dairy cattle (20%) and small ruminants (sheep and goats, 6%) (Gerber et al., 2013). It is estimated that enteric fermentation from goats produces annually 5 kg of CH₄/goat compared to 46-58 kg of CH₄/cow (Descheemaeker et al., 2010).

6. Conclusion

Future research on ruminant production under climate change should focus on several key areas. First, greater attention should be given to native and locally adapted ruminant breeds, which may have greater resilience to climate-related stresses. Research should focus on identifying genetic markers associated with heat and disease tolerance to support the development of cattle, sheep, and goats that are better adapted to changing climatic conditions, while also identifying genetically superior animals with lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Second, further research is needed on sustainable rangeland and pasture management, crop genetic improvement, and the development of heat- and disease-tolerant crops and forage species with greater potential for carbon sequestration and GHG mitigation. Third, research should explore modifications to ruminant diets and feeding strategies to enhance animal resilience and productivity under rapidly changing climatic conditions.

Fourth, greater emphasis should be placed on improving farmers’ knowledge and awareness of climate change to facilitate the adoption of effective adaptation and mitigation strategies at the farm and herd levels. Fifth, future studies should investigate the potential spread of livestock pests and diseases into new regions under changing climatic conditions and develop effective control measures using molecular and genomic approaches. Finally, increasing water scarcity requires further research, particularly regarding efficient water management for livestock drinking and the irrigation of feed crops.

Data Availability Statement

All data supporting the findings of this study are fully presented within the manuscript. Additional information can be provided by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

• AHMED, I., RABBI, M.B. and SULTANA, S., 2019. Antibiotic resistance in Bangladesh: A systematic review. International Journal of Infectious Diseases : IJID : Official Publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases, vol. 80, pp. 54-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2018.12.017 PMid:30634043.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2018.12.017
• ALAM, M.M., HASHEM, M.A., RAHMAN, M.M., HOSSAIN, M.M., HAQUE, M.R., SOBHAN, Z. and ISLAM, M.S., 2011. Effect of heat stress on behavior, physiological and blood parameters of goat. Progressive Agriculture, vol. 22, no. 1-2, pp. 37-45. https://doi.org/10.3329/pa.v22i1-2.16465
  » https://doi.org/10.3329/pa.v22i1-2.16465
• ALAMER, M., 2009. Effect of water restriction on lactation performance of Aardi goats under heat stress conditions. Small Ruminant Research, vol. 84, no. 1-3, pp. 76-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2009.06.009
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2009.06.009
• AL-BAKRI, J.T., SALAHAT, M., SULEIMAN, A., SUIFAN, M., HAMDAN, M.R., KHRESAT, S. and KANDAKJI, T., 2013. Impact of climate and land use changes on water and food security in Jordan: implications for transcending “The tragedy of the commons”. Sustainability (Basel), vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 724-748. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5020724
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su5020724
• AL-DAWOOD, A., 2015. Adoption of agricultural innovations: investigating current status and barriers to adoption of heat stress management in small ruminants in Jordan. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, vol. 15, pp. 388-398.
• AL-DAWOOD, A., 2017a. Acute phase proteins as indicators of stress in Baladi goats from Jordan. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica. Section A, Animal Science, vol. 67, no. 1-2, pp. 58-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2017.1363815
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2017.1363815
• AL-DAWOOD, A., 2017b. Effect of heat stress on adipokines and some blood metabolites in goats from Jordan. Animal Science Journal, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 356-363. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12636 PMid:27229661.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12636
• AL-DAWOOD, A., 2017c. Towards heat stress management in small ruminants: A review. Annals of Animal Science, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 59-88. https://doi.org/10.1515/aoas-2016-0068
  » https://doi.org/10.1515/aoas-2016-0068
• ALEENA, J., SEJIAN, V., BAGATH, M., KRISHNAN, G., BEENA, V. and BHATTA, R., 2018. Resilience of three indigenous goat breeds to heat stress based on phenotypic traits and PBMC HSP70 expression. International Journal of Biometeorology, vol. 62, no. 11, pp. 1995-2005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-018-1604-5 PMid:30178111.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-018-1604-5
• ANYA, M.I., AYUK, A.A., UMOREN, E.P. and LIFU, E.O., 2013. Mobile livestock keeping and climate change challenges in Africa. Outlook on Agriculture, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 53-57. https://doi.org/10.5367/oa.2013.0113
  » https://doi.org/10.5367/oa.2013.0113
• AYDINALP, C. and CRESSER, M.S., 2008. The effect of global climate change on agriculture. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 672-676.
• BEAUCHEMIN, K.A., MCALLISTER, T.A. and MCGINN, S.M., 2009. Dietary mitigation of enteric methane from cattle. Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, vol. 4, pp. 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR20094035
  » https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR20094035
• BEKELE, S., 2017. Impacts of climate change on livestock production: A review. Journal of Natural Sciences Research, vol. 7, pp. 53-59.
• BEN SALEM, H., 2010. Nutritional management to improve sheep and goat performances in semiarid regions. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, vol. 39, pp. 337-347. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982010001300037
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982010001300037
• BEN SALEM, H. and SMITH, T., 2008. Feeding strategies to increase small ruminant production in dry environments. Small Ruminant Research, vol. 77, no. 2-3, pp. 174-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2008.03.008
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2008.03.008
• BERMAN, A., 2011. Are adaptations present to support dairy cattle productivity in warm climates? Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 2147-2158. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3962 PMid:21524505.
  » https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3962
• BETT, B.P., KIUNGA, J., GACHOHI, C., SINDATO, C., MBOTHA, D., ROBINSON, T., LINDAHL, J. and GRACE, D., 2017. Effects of climate change on the occurrence and distribution of livestock diseases. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 137, no. Pt B, pp. 119-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.11.019 PMid:28040271.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.11.019
• BISWAL, J., VIJAYALAKSHMY, K. and RAHMAN, H., 2021. Impact of climate change on small ruminants production: A review. Approaches in Poultry. Dairy and Veterinary Sciences, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 751-756. https://doi.org/10.31031/APDV.2021.08.000680
  » https://doi.org/10.31031/APDV.2021.08.000680
• BOADI, D., BENCHAAR, C., CHIQUETTE, J. and MASSE, D., 2004. Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: update review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 319-335. https://doi.org/10.4141/A03-109
  » https://doi.org/10.4141/A03-109
• CANNIZZO, C., GIANESELLA, M., GIUDICE, E., MESSINA, V., PICCIONE, G. and MORGANTE, M., 2012. Serum acute phase proteins in cows with SARA (Subacute Ruminal Acidosis) suspect. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-09352012000100003
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-09352012000100003
• CARVALHO, G., MOUTINHO, P., NEPSTAD, D., MATTOS, L. and SANTILLI, M., 2004. An Amazon perspective on the forest-climate connection: opportunity for climate mitigation, conservation and development? Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 6, no. 1-2, pp. 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ENVI.0000003635.86980.c0
  » https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ENVI.0000003635.86980.c0
• CASTILLO, D.A., GAITA, J.J. and VILLAGRA, E.S., 2021. Direct and indirect effects of climate and vegetation on sheep production across Patagonian rangelands (Argentina). Ecological Indicators, vol. 124, pp. 107417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107417
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107417
• CAULFIELD, M.P., CAMBRIDGE, H., FOSTER, S.F. and MCGREEVY, P.D., 2014. Heat stress: A major contributor to poor animal welfare associated with long-haul live export voyages. The Veterinary Journal, vol. 199, no. 2, pp. 223-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.09.018 PMid:24157340.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.09.018
• COCKREM, J.F., 2022. Individual variation, personality, and the ability of animals to cope with climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 10, pp. 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.897314
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.897314
• COLLIER, R.J., COLLIER, J.L., RHOADS, R.P. and BAUMGARD, L.H., 2008. Invited review: genes involved in the bovine heat stress response. Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 445-454. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0540 PMid:18218730.
  » https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0540
• CONANT, R.T., PAUSTIAN, K. and ELLIOTT, E.T., 2001. Grassland management and conversion into grassland: effects on soil carbon. Ecological Applications : A Publication of the Ecological Society of America, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 343-355. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0343:GMACIG]2.0.CO;2
  » https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0343:GMACIG]2.0.CO;2
• CRAINE, J.M., ELMORE, A.J. and ANGERER, J.P., 2017. Long-term declines in dietary nutritional quality for North American cattle. Environmental Research Letters, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 044019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa67a4
  » https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa67a4
• DAS, R., SAILO, L., VERMA, N., BHARTI, P., SAIKIA, J., IMTIWATI, P. and KUMAR, R., 2016. Impact of heat stress on health and performance of dairy animals: A review. Veterinary World, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 260-268. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2016.260-268 PMid:27057109.
  » https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2016.260-268
• DERBILE, E.K. and KASEI, R.A., 2012. Vulnerability of crop production to heavy precipitation in north-eastern Ghana. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 36-53. https://doi.org/10.1108/17568691211200209
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/17568691211200209
• DESCHEEMAEKER, K., AMEDE, T. and HAILU, A., 2010. Review: improving water productivity in mixed crop-livestock farming systems of Sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Water Management, vol. 97, no. 9, pp. 579-586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.11.012
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.11.012
• DORJEE, S., HEUER, C., JACKSON, R., WEST, D.M., COLLINS-EMERSON, J.M., MIDWINTER, A.C. and RIDLER, A., 2008. Prevalence of pathogenic Leptospira spp. in sheep in a sheep-only abattoir in New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 164-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2008.36829 PMid:18690252.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2008.36829
• EISLER, M.C., LEE, M.R., TARLTON, J.F., MARTIN, G.B., BEDDINGTON, J., DUNGAIT, J.A., GREATHEAD, H., LI, J., MATHEW, S., MILLER, H. and MISSELBROOK, T., 2014. Agriculture: steps to sustainable livestock. Nature, vol. 507, no. 7490, pp. 32-34. https://doi.org/10.1038/507032a PMid:24605375.
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/507032a
• FINOCCHIARO, R., VAN KAAM, J.B.C.H., PORTOLANO, B. and MISZTAL, I., 2005. Effect of heat stress on production of Mediterranean dairy sheep. Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 88, no. 5, pp. 1855-1864. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72860-5 PMid:15829679.
  » https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72860-5
• FRASER, M.D., FLEMING, H.R. and MOORBY, J.M., 2014. Traditional vs Modern: role of breed type in determining enteric methane emissions from cattle grazing as part of contrasting grassland-based systems. PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. e107861. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107861 PMid:25259617.
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107861
• GALAN, E., LLONCH, P., VILLAGRA, A., LEVIT, H., PINTO, S. and DEL PRADO, A., 2018. A systematic review of non-productivity-related animal-based indicators of heat stress resilience in dairy cattle. PLoS One, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. e0206520. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206520 PMid:30383843.
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206520
• GERBER, P.J., CARSJENS, G.J., PAKUTHAI, T. and ROBINSON, T.P., 2008. Decision support for spatially targeted livestock policies: diverse examples from Uganda and Thailand. Agricultural Systems, vol. 96, no. 1-3, pp. 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2007.05.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2007.05.004
• GERBER, P.J., HRISTOV, A.N., HENDERSON, B., MAKKAR, H., OH, J., LEE, C., MEINEN, R., MONTES, F., OTT, T., FIRKINS, J., ROTZ, A., DELL, C., ADESOGAN, A.T., YANG, W.Z., TRICARICO, J.M., KEBREAB, E., WAGHORN, G., DIJKSTRA, J. and OOSTING, S., 2013. Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: A review. Animal, vol. 7, suppl. 2, pp. 220-234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113000876 PMid:23739465.
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113000876
• GIANNETTO, C., GIUDICE, E., CASELLA, S., FAZIO, F., ALBERGHINA, D. and PICCIONE, G., 2011. Thermal stress and acute phase protein blood levels in cows. Large Animal Review, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 3-6.
• HAMZAOUI, S., SALAMA, A.A.K., ALBANE, I.I.E., SUCH, X. and CAJA, G., 2013. Physiological responses and lactational performances of late-lactation dairy goats under heat stress conditions. Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 96, no. 10, pp. 6355-6365. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-6665 PMid:23958010.
  » https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-6665
• HANSEN, P.J., 2009. Effects of heat stress on mammalian reproduction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, vol. 364, no. 1534, pp. 3341-3350. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0131 PMid:19833646.
  » https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0131
• HELAL, A., HASHEM, A.L.S., ABDEL-FATTAH, M.S. and EL-SHAER, H.M., 2010. Effects of heat stress on coat characteristics and physiological responses of Balady and Damascus goats in Sinai, Egypt. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 60-69.
• HENRY, B., ECKARD, R. and BEAUCHEMIN, K., 2018. Review: adaptation of ruminant livestock production systems to climate changes. Animal, vol. 12, pp. s445-456. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118001301
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118001301
• HENRY, B., CHARMLEY, E., ECKARD, R., GAUGHAN, J.B. and HEGARTY, R., 2012. Livestock production in a changing climate: adaptation and mitigation research in Australia. Crop & Pasture Science, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 191-202. https://doi.org/10.1071/CP11169
  » https://doi.org/10.1071/CP11169
• HERRERO, M., THORNTON, P., GERBER, P. and REID, R., 2009. Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: understanding the trade-offs. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 111-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2009.10.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2009.10.003
• HERRERO, M., THORNTON, P.K., NOTENBAERT, A.M., WOOD, S., MSANGI, S., FREEMAN, H.A., BOSSIO, D., DIXON, J., PETERS, M., VAN DE STEEG, J., LYNAM, J., PARTHASARATHY, R.P., MACMILLAN, S., GERARD, B., MCDERMOTT, J., SERE, C. and ROSEGRANT, M., 2010. Smart investments in sustainable food production: revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems. Science, vol. 327, no. 5967, pp. 822-825. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183725 PMid:20150490.
  » https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183725
• HIRAYAMA, T., KATOH, K. and OBARA, Y., 2004. Effects of heat exposure on nutrient digestibility, rumen contraction and hormone secretion in goats. Animal Science Journal, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 237-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2004.00182.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2004.00182.x
• HOFFMANN, I., 2010. Climate change and the characterization, breeding and conservation of animal genetic resources. Animal Genetics, vol. 41, no. s1, suppl. 1, pp. 32-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2052.2010.02043.x PMid:20500754.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2052.2010.02043.x
• HONIG, H., OFER, L., KAIM, M., JACOBI, S., SHINDER, D. and GERSHON, E., 2016. The effect of cooling management on blood flow to the dominant follicle and estrous cycle length at heat stress. Theriogenology, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 626-634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2016.02.017 PMid:27025442.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2016.02.017
• HOWDEN, S.M., CRIMP, S.J. and STOKES, C.J., 2008. Climate change and Australian livestock systems: Impacts, research and policy issues. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 780-788. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA08033
  » https://doi.org/10.1071/EA08033
• JAIN, S., GAUTAM, V. and NASEEM, S., 2011. Acute-phase protein: as diagnostic tool. Journal of Pharmacy & Bioallied Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 118-127. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.76489 PMid:21430962.
  » https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.76489
• JAKPER, N. and KOJO, I.A., 2014. Effect of coat colour, ecotype, location and sex on hair density of West African Dwarf (WAD) goats in Northern Ghana. Sky Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 25-30.
• JAYANEGARA, A., LEIBER, F. and KREUZER, M., 2012. Meta-analysis of the relationship between dietary tannin level and methane formation in ruminants from in vivo and in vitro experiments. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 365-375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2011.01172.x PMid:21635574.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2011.01172.x
• KANDEMIR, C., KOSUM, N. and TASKIN, T., 2013. Effects of heat stress on physiological traits in sheep. Macedonian Journal of Animal Science, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 25-29. https://doi.org/10.54865/mjas1331025k
  » https://doi.org/10.54865/mjas1331025k
• KENDALL, P.E., VERKERK, G.A., WEBSTER, J.R. and TUCKER, C.B., 2007. Sprinklers and shade cool cows and reduce insect-avoidance behavior in pasture-based dairy systems. Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 90, no. 8, pp. 3671-3680. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-766 PMid:17638978.
  » https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-766
• KING, J.M., PARSONS, D.J., TURNPENNY, J.R., NYANGAGA, J., BAKARI, P. and WATHES, C.M., 2006. Modelling energy metabolism of Friesians in Kenya smallholdings shows how heat stress and energy deficit constrain milk yield and cow replacement rate. Animal Science (Penicuik, Scotland), vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 705-716. https://doi.org/10.1079/ASC200689
  » https://doi.org/10.1079/ASC200689
• KOLUMAN DARCAN, N. and GUNEY, O., 2008. Alleviation of climatic stress of dairy goats in Mediterranean climate. Small Ruminant Research, vol. 74, no. 1-3, pp. 212-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2007.02.007
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2007.02.007
• KOLUMAN DARCAN, N. and SILANIKOVE, N., 2018. The advantages of goats for future adaptation to climate change: A conceptual overview. Small Ruminant Research, vol. 163, pp. 34-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2017.04.013
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2017.04.013
• LECCHI, C., ROTA, N., VITALI, A., CECILIANI, F. and LACETERA, N., 2016. In vitro assessment of the effects of temperature on phagocytosis, reactive oxygen species production and apoptosis in bovine polymorphonuclear cells. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology, vol. 182, pp. 89-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2016.10.007 PMid:27863557.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2016.10.007
• MALAMA, E., ZERON, Y., JANETT, F., SIUDA, M., ROTH, Z. and BOLLWEIN, H., 2017. Use of computer-assisted sperm analysis and flow cytometry to detect seasonal variations of bovine semen quality. Theriogenology, vol. 87, pp. 79-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2016.08.002 PMid:27720270.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2016.08.002
• MALIK, P.K., THULASI, A., SOREN, N.M., JOSE, L., PRASAD, K.S. and PRASAD, C.S., 2015. Phylogenic diversity analysis of rumen acetogens in adult sheep fed on conventional roughage diet. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, vol. 85, no. 10, pp. 1104-1107. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v85i10.52414
  » https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v85i10.52414
• MARTIN, C., MORGAVI, D.P. and DOREAU, M., 2010. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 351-365. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109990620 PMid:22443940.
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109990620
• MITLOEHNER, F.M., MORROW, J.L., DAILEY, J.W., WILSON, S.C., GALYEAN, M.L., MILLER, M.F. and MCGLONE, J., 2001. Shade and water misting effects on behaviour, physiology, performance, and carcass traits of heat-stressed feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science, vol. 79, no. 9, pp. 2327-2335. https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.7992327x PMid:11583419.
  » https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.7992327x
• MORIGNAT, E., PERRIN, J.B., GAY, E., VINARD, J.L., CALAVAS, D. and HÉNAUX, V., 2014. Assessment of the impact of the 2003 and 2006 heat waves on cattle mortality in France. PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. e93176. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093176 PMid:24667835.
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093176
• MOSIER, A., WASSMANN, R., VERCHOT, L., KING, J. and PALM, C., 2004. Methane and nitrogen oxide fluxes in tropical agricultural soils: Sources, sinks and mechanisms. Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 6, no. 1-2, pp. 11-49. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ENVI.0000003627.43162.ae
  » https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ENVI.0000003627.43162.ae
• NARDONE, A., RONCHI, A., LACETERA, B., RANIERI, N. and BERNABUCCI, U., 2010. Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems. Livestock Science, vol. 130, no. 1-3, pp. 57-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.011
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.011
• NGUYEN, T.T., BOWMAN, P.J., HAILE-MARIAM, M., NIEUWHOF, G.J., HAYES, B.J. and PRYCE, J.E., 2017. Short communication: implementation of a breeding value for heat tolerance in Australian dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 100, no. 9, pp. 7362-7367. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-12898 PMid:28711268.
  » https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-12898
• NWOBODO, C.E., NWOKOLO, B., IWUCHUKWU, J.C., OHAGWU, V.A. and OZIOKO, R.I., 2022. Determinants of ruminant farmers’ use of sustainable production practices for climate change adaptation and mitigation in Enugu State, Nigeria. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, vol. 9, pp. 735139. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.735139 PMid:35198622.
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.735139
• NYARIKI, D.M. and NGUGI, R.K., 2002. A review of African pastoralists’ production system: approaches to their understanding and development. Journal of Human Ecology (Delhi, India), vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 237-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2002.11905539
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2002.11905539
• OZAWA, M., TABAYASHI, D., LATIEF, T.A., SHIMIZU, T., OSHIMA, I. and KANAI, Y., 2005. Alterations in follicular dynamics and steroidogenic abilities induced by heat stress during follicular recruitment in goats. Reproduction : The Official Journal of the Society for the Study of Fertility, vol. 129, no. 5, pp. 621-630. https://doi.org/10.1530/rep.1.00456 PMid:15855625.
  » https://doi.org/10.1530/rep.1.00456
• PATRA, A.K., 2014. A meta-analysis of the effect of dietary fat on enteric methane production, digestibility and rumen fermentation in sheep, and a comparison of these responses between cattle and sheep. Livestock Science, vol. 162, pp. 97-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.01.007
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.01.007
• POLLEY, H.W., BRISKE, D.D., MORGAN, J.A., WOLTER, K., BAILEY, D.W. and BROWN, J.R., 2013. Climate change and North American rangelands: Trends, projections, and implications. Rangeland Ecology and Management, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 493-511. https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-12-00068.1
  » https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-12-00068.1
• RANA, M.S., HASHEM, M.A., AKHTER, S., HABIBULLAH, M., ISLAM, M.H. and BISWAS, R.C., 2014. Effect of heat stress on carcass and meat quality of indigenous sheep of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 147-153. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjas.v43i2.20717
  » https://doi.org/10.3329/bjas.v43i2.20717
• RAO, P.P., HEGDE, N.R., REDDY, Y.N., KRISHNAJYOTHI, Y., REDDY, Y.V., SUSMITHA, B., GOLLAPALLI, S.R., PUTTY, K. and REDDY, G.H., 2016. Epidemiology of bluetongue in India. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. e151-e164. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12258 PMid:25164573.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12258
• RENAUDEAU, D., COLLIN, A., YAHAV, S., DE BASILIO, V., GOURDINE, J.L. and COLLIER, R.J., 2012. Adaptation to hot climate and strategies to alleviate heat stress in livestock production. Animal, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 707-728. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111002448 PMid:22558920.
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111002448
• ROJAS-DOWNING, M.M., NEJADHASHEMI, A.N., HARRIGAN, T. and WOZNICKI, S.A., 2017. Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Climate Risk Management, vol. 16, pp. 145-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001
• RUST, J.M. and RUST, T., 2013. Climate change and livestock production: A review with emphasis on Africa. South African Journal of Animal Science, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 256-267. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v43i3.3
  » https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v43i3.3
• SALAMA, A.A.K., CAJA, G., HAMZAOUI, S., BADAOUI, B., CASTRO COSTA, A., FACANHA, D.A.E., GUILHERMINO, M.M. and BOZZI, R., 2014. Different levels of response to heat stress in dairy goats. Small Ruminant Research, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 73-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2013.11.021
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2013.11.021
• SAPOLSKY, R.M., ROMERO, L.M. and MUNCK, A.U., 2000. How do glucocorticoids influence stress responses? Integrating permissive, suppressive, stimulatory, and preparative actions. Endocrine Reviews, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 55-89. https://doi.org/10.1210/edrv.21.1.0389 PMid:10696570.
  » https://doi.org/10.1210/edrv.21.1.0389
• SEEBACHER, F. and POST, E., 2015. Climate change impacts on animal migration. Climate Change Responses, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40665-015-0013-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s40665-015-0013-9
• SEEBACHER, F., WHITE, C.R. and FRANKLIN, C.E., 2015. Physiological plasticity increases resilience of ectothermic animals to climate change. Nature Climate Change, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 61-66. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2457
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2457
• SEJIAN, V., 2013. Climate change: Impact on production and reproduction, adaptation mechanisms and mitigation strategies in small ruminants: A review. Indian Journal of Small Ruminants, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1-21.
• SEO, S.N., MCCARL, B.A. and MENDELSOHN, R., 2010. From beef cattle to sheep under global warming? An analysis of adaptation by livestock species choice in South America. Ecological Economics, vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 2486-2494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.025
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.025
• SEO, S.N. and MENDELSOHN, R., 2008. Measuring impacts and adaptations to climate change: A structural Ricardian model of African livestock management. Agricultural Economics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 151-165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00289.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00289.x
• SEVI, A. and CAROPRESE, M., 2012. Impact of heat stress on milk production, immunity and udder health in sheep: A critical review. Small Ruminant Research, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2012.07.012
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2012.07.012
• SILANIKOVE, N. and KOLUMAN DARCAN, N., 2015. Impact of climate change on the dairy industry in temperate zones: predictions on the overall negative impact and on the positive role of dairy goats in adaptation to earth warming. Small Ruminant Research, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2014.11.005
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2014.11.005
• SIROHI, S. and MICHAELOWA, A., 2007. Sufferer and cause: indian livestock and climate change. Climatic Change, vol. 85, no. 3-4, pp. 285-298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9241-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9241-8
• SIVAKUMAR, A.V.N., SINGH, G. and VARSHNEY, V., 2010. Antioxidants supplementation on acid base balance during heat stress in goats. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 1462-1468. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2010.90471
  » https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2010.90471
• SMITH, J.P., PEARCE, B.D. and WOLFE, M.S., 2012. Reconciling productivity with protection of the environment: is temperate agroforestry the answer? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170511000585
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170511000585
• TATTERSALL, G.J., SINCLAIR, B.J., WITHERS, P.C., FIELDS, P.A., SEEBACHER, F., COOPER, C.E. and MALONEY, S.K., 2012. Coping with thermal challenges: physiological adaptations to environmental temperatures. Comprehensive Physiology, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 2151-2202. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2040-4603.2012.tb00455.x PMid:23723035.
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2040-4603.2012.tb00455.x
• THORNTON, P.K., 2010. Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, vol. 365, no. 1554, pp. 2853-2867. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0134 PMid:20713389.
  » https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0134
• THORNTON, P.K. and GERBER, P., 2010. Climate change and the growth of the livestock sector in developing countries. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 169-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-009-9210-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-009-9210-9
• THORNTON, P.K. and HERRERO, M., 2015. Adapting to climate change in the mixed crop and livestock farming systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nature Climate Change, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 830-836. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2754
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2754
• THORNTON, P.K., VAN DE STEEG, J., NOTENBAERT, A. and HERRERO, M., 2009. 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, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 113-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2009.05.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2009.05.002
• TIBBO, M., IÑIGUEZ, L. and RISCHKOWSKY, B., 2008. Livestock research for climate change adaptation. ICARDA Caravan, vol. 25, pp. 40-42.
• TUFEKCI, H. and CELIK, H.T., 2021. Effects of climate change on sheep and goat breeding. Black Sea Journal of Agriculture, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 137-145. https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.954299
  » https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.954299
• ULYATT, M.J., LASSEY, K.R., SHELTON, I.D. and WALKER, C.F., 2005. Methane emission from sheep grazing four pastures in late summer in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 385-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.2005.9513671
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.2005.9513671
• VAN DE STEEG, J., NOTENBAERT, A., HERRERO, M. and THORNTON, P., 2009 [viewed 4 May 2026]. Livestock and climate change. Rural[online], vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 19-21. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/378
  » https://hdl.handle.net/10568/378
• VAN DIJK, J., SARGISON, N.D., KENYON, F. and SKUCE, P.J., 2010. Climate change and infectious disease: helminthological challenges to farmed ruminants in temperate regions. Animal, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 377-392. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109990991 PMid:22443942.
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109990991
• VITALI, A., BERNABUCCI, U., NARDONE, A. and LACETERA, N., 2016. Effect of season, month and temperature humidity index on the occurrence of clinical mastitis in dairy heifers. Advances in Animal Biosciences, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 250-252. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2040470016000315
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S2040470016000315
• WALLACE, R.J., WOOD, T.A., ROWE, A., PRICE, J., YANEZ, D.R., WILLIAMS, S.P. and NEWBOLD, C.J., 2006. Encapsulated fumaric acid as a means of decreasing ruminal methane emissions. International Congress Series, vol. 1293, pp. 148-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2006.02.018
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2006.02.018
• WANG, J.P., BU, D.P., WANG, J.Q., HUO, X.K., GUO, T.J., WEI, H.Y., ZHOU, L.Y., RASTANI, R.R., BAUMGARD, L.H. and LI, F.D., 2010. Effect of saturated fatty acid supplementation on production and metabolism indices in heat-stressed mid-lactation dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 93, no. 9, pp. 4121-4127. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2635 PMid:20723687.
  » https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2635
• WEST, J.W., 2003. Effects of heat-stress on production in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 2131-2144. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73803-X PMid:12836950.
  » https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73803-X
• WILKINSON, J.M. and LEE, M.R.F., 2017. Use of human-edible animal feeds by ruminant livestock. Animal, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1735-1743. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173111700218X PMid:28893333.
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173111700218X
• WITTMANN, E.J., MELLOR, P.S. and BAYLIS, M., 2001. Using climate data to map the potential distribution of Culicoides imicola (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) in Europe. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics), vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 731-740. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.20.3.1306 PMid:11732415.
  » https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.20.3.1306
• YAMANI, H.A. and KOLUMAN DARCAN, N., 2020. Impact change climate on the milk production in the dairy goats. International Journal of Zoology and Animal Biology, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 000228. https://doi.org/10.23880/IZAB-16000228
  » https://doi.org/10.23880/IZAB-16000228
• YUN, C.H., WYNN, P. and JONG, K.H., 2014. Stress, acute phase proteins and immune modulation in calves. Animal Production Science, vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 1561-1568. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN14441
  » https://doi.org/10.1071/AN14441
• ZHANG, Y., WANG, G., ZHANG, Y., ZHAO, S. and HAN, C., 2021. Climate change is likely to alter sheep and goat distributions in Mainland China. Frontiers in Environmental Science, vol. 9, pp. 748734. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.748734
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.748734
• ZIMBELMAN, R.B., BAUMGARD, L.H. and COLLIER, R.J., 2010. Effects of encapsulated niacin on evaporative heat loss and body temperature in moderately heat-stressed lactating Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 93, no. 6, pp. 2387-2394. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2557 PMid:20494147.
  » https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2557

Edited by

• Editor:
  Takako Matsumura Tundisi

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  21 Sept 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  04 May 2026
• Accepted
  17 Aug 2026