Agricultural Reviews

  • Chief EditorPradeep K. Sharma

  • Print ISSN 0253-1496

  • Online ISSN 0976-0741

  • NAAS Rating 4.84

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October & December)
Indexing Services :
AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Review Article

Integrating Feed Efficiency and Waste Management for Climate-resilient Farming: A Review

Syed Rizwan Ali Shah1,*, Zafar Hayat1
1Department of Animal Sciences, College of Agriculture, University of Sargodha, Sargodha-40100, Pakistan.

ABSTRACT

Livestock production plays a pivotal role in global food security, providing essential protein and vitamins to billions of people. However, conventional intensive farming practices have come under scrutiny due to their significant environmental consequences. The role of cattle production in global warming is a complex and multifaceted issue, subject to ongoing scientific research and robust public discussion. The three primary environmental challenges associated with animal husbandry are land degradation, water pollution and the release of greenhouse gases (GHG). To ensure the sustainability of future food chains, a transition to more environmentally friendly practices is imperative. Reducing excess phosphorus and nitrogen is crucial for optimal animal health and environmental well-being. This review underscores the significance of dietary alterations as a key strategy to mitigate these issues. By optimizing nutrient utilization, lowering enteric methane (CH4) emissions and minimizing waste excretion, dietary changes can contribute to a more sustainable cattle industry. Additionally, effective waste management is essential for reducing gaseous emissions.

INTRODUCTION

As the world’s population expands, the requirement for livestock-based goods such as milk, eggs and meat and their by-products are likely to increase dramatically. However, conventional livestock production practices frequently provide significant environmental issues, such as high emissions of GHG, a depletion of water and soil resources and degradation of biodiversity (Henchion et al., 2021). Integrating feed efficiency and waste management is crucial for building climate-resilient livestock production systems. By optimizing feed utilization, we minimize resource inputs like land and water, reducing the sector’s environmental footprint. Simultaneously, effective waste management strategies, such as anaerobic digestion or composting, transform animal waste into valuable resources like biogas or fertilizer, mitigating GHG emissions and enhancing soil fertility. This integrated approach not only promotes sustainable practices but also enhances the resilience of livestock systems to climate change impacts, ensuring food security and economic stability for both producers and consumers (Alary et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022). The rapid increase of GHG emissions triggered global awareness over the last decade to climate change and how important it is for all human beings.. Specific to the list of GHG, CH4 and nitrous oxide (N2O) have been mostly produced by dairy industry and industries have had a significant impact releasing climate-warming gases by their many large-scale livestock operations, feeds production and trucking prior to stores. The dairy industry is under growing scrutiny around the world as it tries to become more environmentally friendly due to climate change (Muetzel et al., 2024). Moreover, the pursuit of higher efficiency in milk production has led to a remarkable global expansion of modern dairy farming practices. This growth has been driven by technological advancements and improved management techniques, aiming to increase milk yields while minimizing production costs. In response to these concerns, there has been a coordinated effort worldwide to develop and implement more sustainable dairy production systems that reduce the sector’s carbon footprints (Abdelbagi et al., 2023).
       
At the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held in Glasgow, a significant milestone was achieved. Over 120 countries pledged to reach net-zero emissions by mid-century, with target dates ranging from 2050 to 2070. This ambitious commitment represents a major step forward in the global effort to combat climate change and limit global warming to 1.5oC (Soliman et al., 2023). Between 1980 and 2018, GHG emissions from the agriculture sector experienced a concerning 34% increase. This trend is projected to continue, with estimates indicating a further 33% rise in emissions by 2060. The growing demand for food, coupled with the expansion of intensive agricultural practices, are major drivers of this upward trajectory (UNEP, 2021). In 2020, China made a bold declaration of its intention to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. This ambitious goal signifies a significant commitment from the world’s largest emitter of GHG to transition to a low-carbon economy. By setting this target, China aims to play a leading role in addressing the global climate crisis and promoting sustainable development (Chen et al., 2022). It has been discovered that epidemics exacerbate the effects of GHG emissions by reducing efficiency and productivity and by increasing the amount of resources required to treat the illness (Ezenwa et al., 2020). The raising of livestock is the foundation of the world’s food systems, giving billions of people access to essential micronutrients and protein.
       
Despite the advancements in modern dairy farming, the environmental impact of livestock production remains a significant concern. The industry’s reliance on natural resources, such as land, water and feed, can contribute to deforestation, water pollution and biodiversity loss. These negative effects highlight the need for sustainable practices that minimize the industry’s footprint and ensure the long-term health of our planet (Van-Heurck et al., 2020). Feed management, which includes acquiring, arranging and distributing feed to animals, is an essential component of livestock production. The sustainability of the environment can be impacted by the feed category, nutritional value and feed conversion efficiency. For instance, animal production’s ecological footprint can be lowered by using more sustainably obtained feed components, such as indigenous fodder or food processing wastes (Beldman et al., 2021). Globally, countries like Brazil, India and China are leading emitters due to large livestock populations and extensive agricultural practices. Developed nations, despite smaller livestock populations, contribute significantly due to high per capita meat consumption. On a global scale, cattle are the largest contributors to livestock-related GHG emissions, primarily driven by beef production. Pigs follow as the second-largest contributors, mainly from manure management. Poultry, while having relatively low per-animal emissions, contribute significantly due to their massive global populations (Shi et al., 2022). Beef production stands out as a major driver of livestock-related GHG emissions. The combination of factors such as the CH4 produced by ruminant animals, the land and water resources required for feed cultivation and the energy-intensive processes involved in beef production contribute to its significant carbon footprint (Rotz, 2020). Addressing the environmental impact of livestock production requires a multi-pronged approach. This includes reducing global meat consumption, particularly beef, improving feed efficiency and reducing enteric fermentation in livestock, adopting sustainable manure management practices and implementing regulations and incentives to promote sustainable livestock production. By understanding the magnitude and sources of livestock-related GHG emissions, we can work towards more sustainable and environmentally friendly food systems (Wanapat et al., 2024). In response to this, some have suggested that replacing beef with chicken could be a more sustainable option. The industrial nature of chicken production often involves higher efficiency and lower emissions per unit of meat compared to beef. However, it’s important to note that the overall environmental impact of chicken production also depends on factors such as feed sources, transportation and waste management (Yan et al., 2024). This review aims to account significant variables such as feed management and waste disposal strategies to support the development of healthy and sustainable livestock. It seeks to give a thorough summary of recent studies and cutting-edge tactics that might lessen livestock farming’s negative environmental effects while enhancing animal welfare and output.
 
Enhancing feed efficiency
 
The efficiency with which animals convert feed into meat, milk, or eggs can significantly influence the environmental impact of livestock production. Variations in feed efficiency can affect productivity levels, resource utilization and the rate at which GHG are released from animal products. For example, animals that are more efficient at converting feed into meat or milk will require less feed to produce the same amount of product, reducing the overall land and water resources needed. Additionally, more efficient animals may produce less methane, a potent GHG, per unit of output (Herrero et al., 2013). To minimize emissions and the overall consumption of resources, livestock producers often select animals with a higher feed conversion ratio (FCR). This means that these animals are more efficient at converting feed into meat, milk, or eggs. By choosing animals with superior feed conversion, producers can reduce the amount of feed required to produce a given quantity of product, thereby decreasing the demand for land, water and other resources. Additionally, higher FCR can lead to lower emissions of GHG, such as methane, which is produced by ruminant animals (Prakash et al., 2020). Rapid changes in food production, preservation and distribution, driven by scientific and technological advancements, are significantly impacting livestock production systems, particularly in developing regions. These changes, while potentially beneficial, must be carefully managed to ensure sustainability, environmental protection and the well-being of both humans and animals, while considering the unique socio-economic contexts of different regions (Boyazoglu, 1998). N2O, CH4, carbon dioxide (CO2) and ammonia (NH3) are the primary gases emitted by poultry farms. Even though N2O and CH4 are emitted relatively little, they are important gases to research. The impact of CH4 and N2O is 25 and 298 times greater than CO2, respectively (Sugiharto et al., 2023). When compared to other animal production systems, poultry farming methods have the lowest emissions of NH3 and other GHG and the amount of emissions will go down as feed efficiency increases (Ferreira et al., 2019). Animals with higher FCR tend to produce lower emissions of CH4 and N2O. This is primarily due to a reduction in enteric fermentation, the process by which microorganisms in the animals’ digestive systems break down plant material and produce these GHG. When animals are more efficient at converting feed into products, they require less feed, which in turn leads to less enteric fermentation and lower emissions (Wang and Huang, 2005). In addition to reducing GHG emissions from enteric fermentation, higher feed efficiency can also lead to a decrease in waste production. When animals are more efficient at converting feed into products, they produce less waste, such as manure and urine. This reduction in waste can lower emissions of GHG associated with waste decomposition and storage (Hill and Azain, 2009). In a study conducted by De Verdal et al., (2010), a broiler strain selected for improved FCR was found to produce significantly lower emissions compared to a control group. The study demonstrated that this strain emitted 67.5% fewer GHG than the control, highlighting the potential of genetic selection to reduce the environmental impact of poultry production.
       
In the context of dairy cows, residual feed intake (RFI) is also known as net feed efficiency. This parameter was first introduced by Koch et al., (1963) as a way to evaluate the efficiency with which an animal utilizes feed. RFI is calculated by subtracting an animal’s expected feed intake, based on its growth, weight gain and production, from its actual feed intake. A negative RFI indicates that the animal is consuming less feed than expected for its level of performance, suggesting that it is more efficient in utilizing its feed resources (Rius et al., 2012). Animals with a low RFI  are those that require less feed to maintain a similar body condition score and growth rate compared to animals with a higher RFI. This suggests that these animals have a lower maintenance energy requirement and are therefore more efficient in utilizing their feed. Studies have shown that cattle with a low RFI emit 15-25% less gastric methane than those with a higher RFI. This reduction in CH4 emissions is directly linked to the lower dry matter intake of animals with a low RFI. Since CH4 production is influenced by the amount of feed consumed, animals that eat less will naturally produce less CH4 (Basarab et al., 2013). According to a study by Aboagye et al., (2022), three widely used feed additives i.e. tylosin, monensin and beta-adrenergic agonists (βAA) can enhance animal performance and reduce the environmental impact of beef production. However, restricting the use of these additives could lead to a larger environmental footprint for beef produced both domestically and for export markets. This is because these additives can improve feed efficiency, reduce CH4 emissions and enhance animal growth, ultimately contributing to a more sustainable beef production system.

Some of the strategies for enhancing feed efficiency and reduction in GHG are explained in Table 1.

Table 1: Strategies for enhancing feed efficiency and reduction in GHG.



Livestock waste management
 
Enhancing animal manure management practices is essential for addressing multiple environmental challenges. By improving the handling, storage and utilization of manure, we can significantly reduce air pollution, mitigate the effects of global warming and promote sustainable agriculture. This involves implementing strategies such as proper storage to minimize odor emissions, anaerobic digestion to produce biogas and reduce GHG and the use of manure as a nutrient-rich fertilizer to enhance soil health and reduce reliance on synthetic inputs (Grassauer et al., 2023).
       
By implementing a range of mitigation strategies at different stages of the manure management cycle, it’s possible to significantly reduce the harmful effects of GHG emissions and air pollutants associated with livestock production. These strategies can include proper storage and handling practices to minimize odor and emissions, anaerobic digestion to convert manure into biogas and biofertilizers and the use of manure as a nutrient-rich soil amendment to reduce reliance on synthetic fertilizers.
       
A study conducted in the Ampara district of Sri Lanka revealed that cattle farmers primarily utilize farm waste as fertilizer, highlighting the potential for sustainable manure management practices. However, the study also emphasized the critical need for government support to further enhance the efficiency and sustainability of these practices (Dissanayakaa et al., 2022).
       
By adopting a comprehensive approach to manure management, we can contribute to a more sustainable and environmentally friendly livestock industry (Ershadi et al., 2020). To achieve agricultural sustainability and protect the environment, it is imperative to reduce GHG emissions from the livestock sector. Effective manure management practices can play a crucial role in achieving this goal. By implementing strategies such as regular manure removal, manure covering and manure composting at various stages of the manure management process, GHG emissions can be significantly reduced (Yan et al., 2024).

Calcium cyanamide (CaCN2) has good potential to reduce the pH of the manure and it reduces the release of  NH3. A study by Holtkamp et al., (2023) found that applying 300 mg/kg of CaCN2 to livestock manure significantly inhibited the microbial degradation of volatile fatty acids (VFAs). This reduction in VFAs degradation led to an accumulation of VFAs in the sludge, which in turn lowered the pH. The decrease in pH had the unintended effect of reducing the release of NH3, a potent GHG.
       
The partially permeable membrane-covered composting method has gained widespread popularity worldwide as a sustainable and efficient approach for the aerobic processing of biological waste. This innovative technique offers several advantages, including its superior responsiveness to environmental conditions, ease of operation and low environmental impact. By utilizing partially permeable membranes, this method effectively controls the exchange of gases and moisture within the composting process, optimizing the breakdown of organic matter and reducing odor emissions (Soto-Herranz et al., 2021).
               
Acidification has emerged as a promising technology for reducing CH4 emissions from sludge storage. By lowering the pH of the sludge to 5.5, acidification can significantly inhibit the activity of methanogenic microorganisms, which are responsible for producing CH4. Studies have demonstrated that this approach can reduce CH4 emissions in stored cattle slurry by an impressive 65-99%, making it a highly effective mitigation strategy. As a result, acidification to pH 5.5 has become a widely accepted standard for minimizing CH4 emissions from sludge storage facilities. Some of the strategies for manure management and reduction in GHG are explained in Table 2.

Table 2: Strategies for manure management and reduction in GHG.

CONCLUSION

Addressing the environmental challenges posed by livestock production is a critical imperative. By prioritizing feed efficiency and waste management, we can significantly reduce the industry’s negative impacts on the environment. Sustainable livestock production requires optimizing FCR through precision feeding, feed additives and breeding for efficiency, while effective waste management methods like anaerobic digestion and composting can mitigate climate change impacts and create a more sustainable agricultural system. Enhancing feed efficiency not only lowers GHG emissions but also conserves land and water resources, promoting a more sustainable production system. Simultaneously, effective waste management practices mitigate pollution and recover valuable nutrients, fostering a more circular and environmentally friendly agricultural model. By synergistically implementing these strategies, cattle farming can achieve a holistic reduction in its environmental footprint, aligning with global sustainability goals and ensuring the industry’s long-term viability. Continued research, innovation and widespread adoption of these approaches are essential for fostering a more resilient and sustainable food system. This will ultimately help strike a delicate balance between agricultural productivity and environmental stewardship.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest with perspective to the research, authorship and publication of this article.

REFERENCES


  1. Abdelbagi, M., Ridwan, R., Fitri, A., Jayanegara, A. (2023). Performance, methane emission, nutrient utilization and the nitrate toxicity of ruminants with dietary nitrate addition: A meta- analysis from in vivo trials. Tropical Animal Science Journal. 46(1): 74-84.

  2. Aboagye, I.A., Cordeiro, M.R., McAllister, T.A., May, M.L., Hannon, S.J., Booker, C.W., Parr, S.L., Schunicht, O.C., Burciaga-Robles, L.O., Grimson, T.M., Boonstra, E. (2022). Environmental performance of commercial beef production systems utilizing conventional productivity-enhancing technologies. Translational Animal Science. 6(3): p.txac074. 

  3. Aderibigbe, A.S., Wise, T.L., Davis, J.D., Naranjo, V.D., Hess, V., Dozier III, W.A.  (2024). Effects of reduced crude protein diets while maintaining essential amino acid concentrations on growth performance, nitrogen output, ammonia production and meat yield. Poultry Science. 103: 103572.

  4. Aguirre-Villegas, H.A., Besson, C., Larson, R.A. (2024). Modeling ammonia emissions from manure in conventional, organic and grazing dairy systems and practices to mitigate emissions. Journal of Dairy Science. 107(1): 359-382. doi:10.3168/jds.2023- 23782.

  5. Ahammad, G.S., Lim, C.B., Kim, I.H. (2024). Dietary inclusion of almond hull on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, faecal microbiome, faecal score and noxious gas emissions in weaning pigs. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences. 33(3): 295-301.

  6. Alary, V., Lasseur, J., Frija, A., Gautier, D. (2022). Assessing the sustainability of livestock socio-ecosystems in the drylands through a set of indicators. Agricultural Systems. 198: 103389.

  7. Ambrose, H.W., Dalby, F.R., Feilberg, A., Kofoed, M.V. (2023). Additives and methods for the mitigation of methane emission from stored liquid manure. Biosystems Engineering. 229: 209-245.

  8. Asediya, V.S., Sorathiya, K.K., Shekh, M.A., Pandya, P.R. (2024). Exploring the efficacy of direct-fed microbials on in-vitro digestibility and methane emissions in kankrej calves: Implications for Ruminant Health and Environmental Sustainability. 16(3): 45-49.

  9. Basarab, J.A., Beauchemin, K.A., Baron, V.S., Ominski, K.H., Guan, L.L., Miller, S.P., Crowley, J.J. (2013). Reducing GHG emissions through genetic improvement for feed efficiency: Effects on economically important traits and enteric methane production. Animal. 7(s2): 303-315.

  10. Beldman, A., Pishgar-Komleh, S.H., Termeer, E. (2021). Mitigation options to reduce GHG emissions at dairy and beef farms: Results from a literature review and survey on mitigation options currently being used within the network of the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform (SAI Platform) (No. 2021-099). Wageningen Economic Research.

  11. Boyazoglu, J. (1998). Livestock farming as a factor of environmental, social and economic stability with special reference to research. Livestock Production Science. 57(1): 1-14.

  12. Carnell, E.J., Misselbrook, T., Tomlinson, S.J., Dragosits, U. (2021). Analysis of the impact to ammonia emissions of covers on slurry/ digestate stores near nitrogen-sensitive protected habitats in England. UK Center of Ecology and Hydrology. 

  13. Cruz, A., Pineda, C., Moreno, G. (2024). Essential oils as modifiers of rumen metabolism and reducers of methane gas production. Veterinarska Stanica. 55(4).

  14. Chen, M., Cui, Y., Jiang, S., Forsell, N. (2022). Toward carbon neutrality before 2060: Trajectory and technical mitigation potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from Chinese agriculture. Journal of Cleaner Production. 368: 133186.

  15. Chozhavendhan, S., Karthigadevi, G., Bharathiraja, B., Kumar, R.P., Abo, L.D., Prabhu, S.V., Balachandar, R., Jayakumar, M. (2023). Current and prognostic overview on the strategic exploitation of anaerobic digestion and digestate: A review. Environmental Research. 216: 114526. 

  16. De Verdal, H., Mignon-Grasteau, S., Jeulin, C., Le Bihan-Duval, E., Leconte, M., Mallet, S., Martin, C., Narcy, A. (2010). Digestive tract measurements and histological adaptation in broiler lines divergently selected for digestive efficiency. Poultry Science. 89(9): 1955-1961.

  17. Dissanayakaa, D.M.S.U.K., Thariqa, M.M., Rifatha, M.R.A. (2022). Investigation of disposal methods of cattle farming waste in Ampara district. Journal of Science-FAS-SEUSL. 3(01): 01-09.

  18. Ershadi, S.Z., Dias, G., Heidari, M.D., Pelletier, N. (2020) Improving nitrogen use efficiency in crop-livestock systems: A review of mitigation technologies and management strategies and their potential applicability for egg supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production. 265: 121671. 

  19. Ezenwa, V.O., Civitello, D.J., Barton, B.T., Becker, D.J., Brenn-White, M., Classen, A.T., Deem, S.L., Johnson, Z.E., Kutz, S., Malishev, M., Penczykowski, R.M. (2020). Infectious diseases, livestock and climate: A vicious cycle? Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 35(11): 959-962.

  20. Fangueiro, D., Merino, P., Pantelopoulos, A., Pereira, J.L., Amon, B., Chadwick, D.R. (2023). The implications of animal manure management on ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions. In Technology for Environmentally Friendly Livestock Production, Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 99-136. 

  21. Ferreira, V., Domingos, I., Esteves, B., Cruz-Lopes, L. (2019). The contribution of a portion of meat, fish and eggs for climate change. Millenium Journal of Education Technologies and Health. 2(6): 21-27.

  22. Giagnoni, G., Lund, P., Johansen, M., Hellwing, A.L.F., Noel, S.J., Thomsen, J.P., Poulsen, N.A., Weisbjerg, M.R. (2024). Effect of carbohydrate type in silages and concentrates on feed intake, enteric methane and milk yield from dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 107(10): 7851-7866. doi:10. 3168/jds.2024-24642.

  23. Götze, H., Saul, M., Jiang, Y., Pacholski, A. (2023). Effect of incorporation techniques and soil properties on NH3 and N20 emissions after urea application. Agronomy. 13(10): 2632.

  24. Grassauer, F., Arulnathan, V., Pelletier, N. (2023). Towards a net- zero greenhouse gas emission egg industry: A review of relevant mitigation technologies and strategies, current emission reduction potential and future research needs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 181: 113322.

  25. Henchion, M., Moloney, A.P., Hyland, J., Zimmermann, J., McCarthy, S. (2021). Review: Trends for meat, milk and egg consumption for the next decades and the role played by livestock systems in the global production of proteins. Animal. 15: 100287. 

  26. Holtkamp, F., Clemens, J., Trimborn, M. (2023). Calcium cyanamide reduces methane and other trace gases during long- term storage of dairy cattle and fattening pig slurry. Waste Management 161: 61-71. 

  27. Herrero, M., Havlík, P., Valin, H., Notenbaert, A., Rufino, M.C., Thornton, P.K., Blümmel, M., Weiss, F., Grace, D., Obersteiner, M. (2013). Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 110(52): 20888-20893.

  28. Hill, R.A. and Azain, M. (2009). Growth and development symposium: The molecular basis for feed efficiency. Journal of Animal Science. 87(14): 39-40.  

  29. Hoyos-Seba, J.J., Arias, N.P., Salcedo-Mendoza, J., Aristizabal- Marulanda, V. (2024). Animal manure in the context of renewable energy and value-added products: A review. Chemical Engineering and Processing-process Intensifi- cation. 96: 109660 

  30. Iqbal, A., Qudoos, A.Q., Çetingül, İ.S., Shah, S.R.A., Bayram, I. (2019). Insects as alternative feed materials for poultry nutrition. Journal of animal science and products. 2(1): 30-37.

  31. Koch, R.M., Swiger, L.A., Chambers, D., Gregory, K.E. (1963). Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 22(2): 486-494.

  32. Liu, M., Geng, S., Wang, Q., Mi, J., Zhao, L., Zhang, J., Ji, C., Wang, H., Ma, Q., Huang, S. (2024). Using low-protein diet in egg production for win-win of productivity and environmental benefits should be prudent: Evidence from pilot test. Science of The Total Environment. 912: 169148.

  33. Liu, Y., Xiao, Y., Ma, T., Diao, Q., Tu, Y. (2023). Candida tropicalis as a novel dietary additive to reduce methane emissions and nitrogen excretion in sheep. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 30: 82661-82671. 

  34. Muetzel, S., Hannaford, R., Jonker, A. (2024). Effect of animal and diet parameters on methane emissions for pasture-fed cattle. Animal Production Science. 64(3). doi:10.1071/AN 23049.

  35. Orzuna-orzuna, J.F., Dorantes-iturbide, G., Lara-bueno, A., Mendoza- martínez, G.D., Miranda-romero, L.A., Hernández-garcía, P.A. (2021). Effects of dietary tannins’ supplementation on growth performance, rumen fermentation and enteric methane emissions in beef cattle: A meta-analysis. Sustainability (Switzerland). 13(13): 7410.

  36. Paya, H., Giannenas, I., Taghizadeh, A., Hosseinkhani, A., Palangi, V., Hasanpur, K., Ayasan, T., Montazerharzand, M., Shirmoh- amnradi, S., Elmi, N. (2024). Impact of inulin supplementation on mitigating ruminal emissions of methane. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery. 14: 8493-8501. 

  37. Phesatcha, B., Phesatcha, K., Matra, M., Wanapat, M. (2023). Cricket (Gryllus bimaculatus) meal pellets as a protein supplement to improve feed efficiency, ruminal fermentation and microbial protein synthesis in Thai native beef cattle. Animal Bioscience. 36(9):1384.

  38. Prakash, A., Saxena, V.K., Singh, M.K. (2020). Genetic analysis of residual feed intake, feed conversion ratio and related growth parameters in broiler chicken: A review. World’s Poultry Science Journal. 6(2): 304-317.

  39. Rius, A.G., Kittelmann, S., Macdonald, K.A., Waghorn, G.C., Janssen, P.H., Sikkema, E. (2012). Nitrogen metabolism and rumen microbial enumeration in lactating cows with divergent residual feed intake fed high-digestibility pasture. Journal of Dairy Science. 95(9): 5024-5034. 

  40. Rotz, A. and Rotz, C.A. (2020). Environmental sustainability of livestock production. Meat and Muscle Biology. 4(2). 

  41. Shah, S.R.A. and Çetingül, I.S. (2022). Nutritive value of black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) as economical and alternative feedstuff for poultry diet. Journal of World’s Poultry Research. 12(1):1-7.

  42. Shi R., Irfan M., Liu G., Yang X., Su X. (2022). Analysis of the impact of livestock structure on carbon emissions of animal husbandry: A sustainable way to improving public health and green environment. Frontiers in Public Health. 10: 835210. 

  43. Singh, J., Singh, V., Kaur, S. (2020). Precision nitrogen management improves grain yield, nitrogen use efficiency and reduces nitrous oxide emission from soil in spring maize. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 43(15):.2311-2321.

  44. Soliman, T., Barnes, A., Helgesen, I.S. (2023). The hidden carbon impact of animal disease. PLoS One. 18(10): e0292659. 

  45. Soto-Herranz, M., Sánchez-Báscones, M., Antolín-Rodríguez, J.M., Martín-Ramos, P. (2021). Reduction of ammonia emissions from laying hen manure in a closed composting process using gas-permeable membrane technology. Agronomy. 11(12): 2384.

  46. Su L., Ren K., Zhang Y., Zhang L. (2024). Research on the composting technology of cattle and sheep manure based on intelligent and efficient composting equipment and the evaluation standard of decomposition degree. Fermentation. 10(7): 328.

  47. Sugiharto, S., Agusetyaningsih, I., Widiastuti, E., Wahyuni, H.I., Yudiarti, T., Sartono, T.A. (2023). Dietary supplementation of enzymes: An approach to mitigate ammonia emission during broiler production. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science. 13: 615-625.

  48. UNEP, 2021. Emissions Gap Report 2021: The Heat Is On-A World of Climate Promises Not Yet Delivered. UN.

  49. Van-Heurck, M., Alegre, J., Solis, R., Del Castillo, D., Pérez, L., Lavelle, P. and Quintero, M. (2020). Measuring sustaina- bility of smallholder livestock farming in Yurimaguas, Peruvian Amazon. Food and Energy Security. 9(4): e242.

  50. Verma, S., Akpensuen, T.T., Wolffram, S., Salminen, J.P., Taube, F., Blank, R., Kluß, C., Malisch, C.S. (2024). Investigating the efficacy of purified tannin extracts from underutilized temperate forages in reducing enteric methane emissions in vitro. Scientific Reports. 14: 1-12. 89(9): 1955-61.

  51. Wanapat, M., Prachumchai, R., Dagaew, G., Matra, M., Phupaboon, S., Sommai, S. and Suriyapha, C., (2024). Potential use of seaweed as a dietary supplement to mitigate enteric methane emission in ruminants. Science of The Total Environment. 931: 173015.

  52. Wang, S.Y. and Huang, D.J., (2005). Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from poultry enteric fermentation. Asian- Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 18(6): 873-878.

  53. Yan, X., Ying, Y., Li, K., Zhang, Q., Wang, K. (2024). A review of mitigation technologies and management strategies for greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions in livestock production. Journal of Environmental Management. 352: 120028.

  54. Zhang, Y., Bai, W., Xu, J., Wang, W., Wu, G., Zhan, X., Hu, Z.H. (2024a). Evaluation of solid-liquid separation of dairy manure with different separator screen sizes on the resource recovery and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Journal of Cleaner Production. 448: 141680

  55. Zhang, Z., Chen, G., Yu, X., Liang, D., Xu, C., Ji, C., Wang, L., Ma, H., Wang, J. (2024b). A slow-release fertilizer containing cyhalofop-butyl reduces N2O emissions by slowly releasing nitrogen and down-regulating the relative abundance of nirk. Science of the Total Environment. 906: 167493. 
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)