New insights in improving sustainability in meat production: opportunities and challenges

References

• Abbott, D. W., I. M. Aasen, K. A. Beauchemin, F. Grondahl, R. Gruninger, M. Hayes, S. Huws, D. A. Kenny, S. J. Krizsan, S. F. Kirwan, et al. 2020. Seaweed and seaweed bioactives for mitigation of enteric methane: Challenges and opportunities. Animals 10 (12):2432. doi: 10.3390/ani10122432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abubakar, A. A., I. Zulkifli, Y. M. Goh, U. Kaka, A. B. Sabow, E. A. Awad, J. C. Imlan, A. H. Othman, R. Raghazli, H. Mitin, et al. 2021. The effects of stocking density and distances on electroencephalographic changes and cortisol as welfare indicators in Brahman crossbred cattle. Animals 11 (10):2895. doi: 10.3390/ani11102895.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adesogan, A. T., K. G. Arriola, Y. Jiang, A. Oyebade, E. M. Paula, A. A. Pech-Cervantes, J. J. Romero, L. F. Ferraretto, and D. Vyas. 2019. Technologies for improving fiber utilization. Journal of Dairy Science 102 (6):5726–55. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-15334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aguilera, E., C. Díaz-Gaona, R. García-Laureano, C. Reyes-Palomo, G. I. Guzmán, L. Ortolani, M. Sánchez-Rodríguez, and V. Rodríguez-Estévez. 2020. Agroecology for adaptation to climate change and resource depletion in the Mediterranean region. A review. Agricultural Systems 181:102809. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102809.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akuma, P., O. D. Okagu, and C. C. Udenigwe. 2019. Naturally occurring exosome vesicles as potential delivery vehicle for bioactive compounds. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 3:23. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00023.
   Google Scholar
• Alexandratos, N, and J. Bruinsma. 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 revision. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/288998/.
   Google Scholar
• Ali, A. J., and K. R. Jones. 2020. Nutritive value and physical properties of neo-tropical rodent meat-with emphasis on the capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris). Animals 10 (11):2134. doi: 10.3390/ani10112134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alliance Environment. 2019. Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, biodiversity. doi: 10.2762/818843.
   Google Scholar
• Awad, A. M., P. Kumar, M. R. Ismail-Fitry, S. Jusoh, M. F. Ab Aziz, and A. Q. Sazili. 2021. Green extraction of bioactive compounds from plant biomass and their application in meat as natural antioxidant. Antioxidants 10 (9):1465. doi: 10.3390/antiox10091465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Awad, A. M., P. Kumar, M. R. Ismail-Fitry, S. Jusoh, M. F. Ab Aziz, and A. Q. Sazili. 2022. Overview of plant extracts as natural preservatives in meat. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 2022:e16796. doi: 10.1111/jfpp.16796.
   Google Scholar
• Bacanlı, M., and N. Başaran. 2019. Importance of antibiotic residues in animal food. Food and Chemical Toxicology 125:462–6. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2019.01.033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Backes, A., A. Aulinger, J. Bieser, V. Matthias, and M. Quante. 2016. Ammonia emissions in Europe, part I: Development of a dynamical ammonia emission inventory. Atmospheric Environment 131:55–66. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.01.041.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey, D. W., M. G. Trotter, C. W. Knight, and M. G. Thomas. 2018. Use of GPS tracking collars and accelerometers for rangeland livestock production research1. Translational Animal Science 2 (1):81–8. doi: 10.1093/tas/txx006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barriuso, A., G. Villarrubia González, J. de Paz, Á. Lozano, and J. Bajo. 2018. Combination of multi-agent systems and wireless sensor networks for the monitoring of cattle. Sensors 18 (2):108. doi: 10.3390/s18010108.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Basarab, J. A., J. J. Crowley, M. K. Abo-Ismail, G. M. Manafiazar, E. C. Akanno, V. S. Baron, and G. Plastow. 2018. Genomic retained heterosis effects on fertility and lifetime productivity in beef heifers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 98 (4):642–55. doi: 10.1139/cjas-2017-0192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bazán, L., C. Laimes, G. Palomino, and F. Babilon. 2014. Estudio de mercado para cuyes de carne y reproductores, en el ámbito urbano de la provincia de Satipo. Prospectiva Universitaria 11 (1):26–36.
   Google Scholar
• Beausoleil, N., and D. Mellor. 2015. Advantages and limitations of the Five Domains model for assessing welfare impacts associated with vertebrate pest control. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63 (1):37–43. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2014.956832.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belanche, A., A. H. Kingston-Smith, G. W. Griffith, and C. J. Newbold. 2019. A Multi-kingdom study reveals the plasticity of the rumen microbiota in response to a shift from non-grazing to grazing diets in sheep. Frontiers in Microbiology 10:122. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belaunzaran, X., P. Lavín, L. J. R. Barron, A. R. Mantecón, J. K. G. Kramer, and N. Aldai. 2017. An assessment of the fatty acid composition of horse-meat available at the retail level in northern Spain. Meat Science 124:39–47. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.10.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belaunzaran, X., R. J. B. Bessa, P. Lavín, A. R. Mantecón, J. K. G. Kramer, and N. Aldai. 2015. Horse-meat for human consumption-Current research and future opportunities. Meat Science 108:74–81. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.05.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beltran, I. E., P. Gregorini, J. Daza, O. A. Balocchi, A. Morales, and R. G. Pulido. 2019. Diurnal concentration of urinary nitrogen and rumen ammonia are modified by timing and mass of herbage allocation. Animals 9 (11):961. doi: 10.3390/ani9110961.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben, Y., C. Fu, M. Hu, L. Liu, M. H. Wong, and C. Zheng. 2019. Human health risk assessment of antibiotic resistance associated with antibiotic residues in the environment: A review. Environmental Research 169:483–93. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.11.040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry, D. P., and J. J. Crowley. 2013. Cell biology symposium: Genetics of feed efficiency in dairy and beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 91 (4):1594–613. doi: 10.2527/jas.2012-5862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhatta, R., P. K. Malik, C. S. Prasad, and R. Bhatta. 2015. Enteric methane emission: Status, mitigation and future challenges: An Indian perspective. Livestock Production and Climate Change 6:229–44.
   Google Scholar
• Bird-Gardiner, T., K. Donoghue, P. Arthur, R. Herd, and R. Hegarty. 2015. Divergent selection for methane yield in beef cattle. Conference: 21st Biennial Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 122–5.
   Google Scholar
• Boyle, L., M. Conneely, E. Kennedy, N. O’Connell, K. O’Driscoll, and B. Earley. 2022. Animal welfare research-progress to date and future prospects. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 2022:1–22. doi: 10.15212/ijafr-2020-0151.
   Google Scholar
• Brameld, J. M., and T. Parr. 2016. Improving efficiency in meat production. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 75 (3):242–6. doi: 10.1017/S0029665116000161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brosh, A., Z. Henkin, E. D. Ungar, A. Dolev, A. Orlov, Y. Yehuda, and Y. Aharoni. 2006. Energy cost of cows’ grazing activity: Use of the heart rate method and the Global Positioning System for direct field estimation1. Journal of Animal Science 84 (7):1951–67. doi: 10.2527/jas.2005-315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, K., R. R. E. Uwiera, M. L. Kalmokoff, S. P. J. Brooks, and G. D. Inglis. 2017. Antimicrobial growth promoter use in livestock: A requirement to understand their modes of action to develop effective alternatives. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 49 (1):12–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2016.08.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckwell, A. A. Matthews, D. Baldock, and E. Mathijs. 2017. CAP-thinking out of the box: Further modernisation of the CAP–why, what and how? https://lirias.kuleuven.be/1742627?limo=0
   Google Scholar
• Buckwell, A, and E. Nadeu. 2018. What is the safe operating space for EU livestock? https://risefoundation.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2018_RISE_Livestock_Full.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cabezas-Garcia, E. H., S. J. Krizsan, K. J. Shingfield, and P. Huhtanen. 2017. Between-cow variation in digestion and rumen fermentation variables associated with methane production. Journal of Dairy Science 100 (6):4409–24. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-12206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, D. F., C. A. Lancto, B. Zang, E.-S. Kim, M. Walton, D. Oldeschulte, C. Seabury, T. S. Sonstegard, and S. C. Fahrenkrug. 2016. Production of hornless dairy cattle from genome-edited cell lines. Nature Biotechnology 34 (5):479–81. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3560.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cawthorn, D. M., and L. C. Hoffman. 2016. Controversial cuisine: A global account of the demand, supply and acceptance of “unconventional” and “exotic” meats. Meat Science 120:19–36. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceballos, M. C., A. C. Sant’Anna, X. Boivin, F. de, O. Costa, M. V. de, L. Carvalhal, and M. J. R. Paranhos da Costa. 2018. Impact of good practices of handling training on beef cattle welfare and stockpeople attitudes and behaviors. Livestock Science 216:24–31. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2018.06.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cesari, V., M. Zucali, L. Bava, G. Gislon, A. Tamburini, and I. Toschi. 2018. Environmental impact of rabbit meat: The effect of production efficiency. Meat Science 145:447–54. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.07.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadwick, D. R., L. M. Cardenas, M. S. Dhanoa, N. Donovan, T. Misselbrook, J. R. Williams, R. E. Thorman, K. L. McGeough, C. J. Watson, M. Bell, et al. 2018. The contribution of cattle urine and dung to nitrous oxide emissions: Quantification of country specific emission factors and implications for national inventories. Science of the Total Environment 635:607–17. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiles, R. M., and A. J. Fitzgerald. 2018. Why is meat so important in Western history and culture? A genealogical critique of biophysical and political-economic explanations. Agriculture and Human Values 35 (1):1–17. doi: 10.1007/s10460-017-9787-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chriki, S., M.-P. Ellies-Oury, and J.-F. Hocquette. 2022. Is “cultured meat” a viable alternative to slaughtering animals and a good comprise between animal welfare and human expectations? Animal Frontiers: The Review Magazine of Animal Agriculture 12 (1):35–42. doi: 10.1093/af/vfac002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalle Zotte, A. 2014. Rabbit farming for meat purposes. Animal Frontiers 4 (4):62–7. doi: 10.2527/af.2014-0035.
   Google Scholar
• Dalle Zotte, A., and Z. Szendro. 2011. The role of rabbit meat as functional food. Meat Science 88 (3):319–31. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.02.017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Haas, Y., R. F. Veerkamp, G. de Jong, and M. N. Aldridge. 2021. Selective breeding as a mitigation tool for methane emissions from dairy cattle. Animal 15:100294. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Palo, P., A. Tateo, A. Maggiolino, R. Marino, E. Ceci, A. Nisi, and J. M. Lorenzo. 2017. Martina Franca donkey meat quality: Influence of slaughter age and suckling technique. Meat Science 134:128–34. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.07.025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Souza Filho, W., P. A. de, A. Nunes, R. S. Barro, T. R. Kunrath, G. M. de Almeida, T. C. M. Genro, C. Bayer, and P. C. de Faccio Carvalho. 2019. Mitigation of enteric methane emissions through pasture management in integrated crop-livestock systems: Trade-offs between animal performance and environmental impacts. Journal of Cleaner Production 213:968–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Difford, G. J. Lassen, and P. Lovendahl. 2016. Genes and microbes, the next step in dairy cattle breeding. Book of Abstracts of the 67th Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science, 285–6.
   Google Scholar
• Doeschl-Wilson, A., P. W. Knap, T. Opriessnig, and S. J. More. 2021. Review: Livestock disease resilience: From individual to herd level. Animal 15:100286. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domingo, J. L. 2019. Intake of red and processed meat on the incidence of cancer: Are the risks really relevant? Food and Chemical Toxicology 134:110884. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2019.110884.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumont, B., J. C. J. Groot, and M. Tichit. 2018. Review: Make ruminants green again – How can sustainable intensification and agroecology converge for a better future? Animal 12 (s2):s210–s219. doi: 10.1017/S1751731118001350.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dumont, B., J. Ryschawy, M. Duru, M. Benoit, V. Chatellier, L. Delaby, C. Donnars, P. Dupraz, S. Lemauviel-Lavenant, B. Méda, et al. 2019. Review: Associations among goods, impacts and ecosystem services provided by livestock farming. Animal 13 (8):1773–84. doi: 10.1017/S1751731118002586.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Deek, A., and K. El-Sabrout. 2019. Behaviour and meat quality of chicken under different housing systems. World’s Poultry Science Journal 75 (1):105–14. doi: 10.1017/S0043933918000946.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elolimy, A. A., E. Abdel-Hamied, L. Hu, J. C. McCann, D. W. Shike, and J. J. Loor. 2019. Residual feed intake in beef cattle is associated with differences in protein turnover and nutrient transporters in ruminal epithelium. Journal of Animal Science 97 (5):2181–7. doi: 10.1093/jas/skz080.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enríquez, D. H., R. Ungerfeld, G. Quintans, A. L. Guidoni, and M. J. Hötzel. 2010. The effects of alternative weaning methods on behaviour in beef calves. Livestock Science 128 (1–3):20–7. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2009.10.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2020a. A farm to fork strategy—For a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2020b. EU biodiversity strategy for 2030—Bringing nature back into our lives.
   Google Scholar
• European Environment Agency. 2019. Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2017 and inventory report 2019. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-union-greenhouse-gas-inventory-2019.
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat. 2010. Europe in figures-Eurostat year book-2010. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-statistical-books/-/ks-cd-10-220.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. 2019. Measuring and modelling soil carbon stocks and stock changes in livestock production systems – A scoping analysis for the LEAP work stream on soil carbon stock changes. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/CA2933EN/.
   Google Scholar
• Flay, H. E., B. Kuhn-Sherlock, K. A. Macdonald, M. Camara, N. Lopez-Villalobos, D. J. Donaghy, and J. R. Roche. 2019. Selecting cattle for low residual feed intake did not affect daily methane production but increased methane yield. Journal of Dairy Science 102 (3):2708–13. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-15234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fodor, N., A. Foskolos, C. F. E. Topp, J. M. Moorby, L. Pásztor, and C. H. Foyer. 2018. Spatially explicit estimation of heat stress-related impacts of climate change on the milk production of dairy cows in the United Kingdom. PLoS One 13 (5):e0197076. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franco, M., T. Hurme, E. Winquist, and M. Rinne. 2019. Grass silage for biorefinery—A meta-analysis of silage factors affecting liquid–solid separation. Grass and Forage Science 74 (2):218–30. doi: 10.1111/gfs.12421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franz, R., C. Soliva, M. Kreuzer, P. Steuer, J. Hummel, and M. Clauss. 2010. Methane production in relation to body mass of ruminants and equids. Evolutionary Ecology Research 12:727–38. doi: 10.5167/uzh-41217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freitas-de-Melo, A., A. Orihuela, M. J. Hötzel, and R. Ungerfeld. 2022. What do we know and need to know about weaning in sheep? An overview of weaning practises, stress and welfare. Frontiers in Animal Science 3:823188. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2022.823188.
   Google Scholar
• Fröberg, S., E. Gratte, K. Svennersten-Sjaunja, I. Olsson, C. Berg, A. Orihuela, C. S. Galina, B. García, and L. Lidfors. 2008. Effect of suckling (‘restricted suckling’) on dairy cows’ udder health and milk let-down and their calves’ weight gain, feed intake and behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (1–3):1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallus, S., and C. Bosetti. 2016. Meat consumption is not tobacco smoking. International Journal of Cancer 138 (10):2539–40. doi: 10.1002/ijc.30010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaughan, J. B., V. Sejian, T. L. Mader, and F. R. Dunshea. 2019. Adaptation strategies: Ruminants. Animal Frontiers: The Review Magazine of Animal Agriculture 9 (1):47–53. doi: 10.1093/af/vfy029.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geesink, G. H., A. van den Heuvel, and W. Hunt. 2017. Meat quality attributes of Agile Wallabies. Meat Science 133:173–9. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.06.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genho, L. 2019. The next generation of genetic tools. Proc. Presentation and Audio. Beef Improvement Federation. http://www.bifconference.com/bif2019/documents/2019BIFSymposium-JohnGenho.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Gerber, P. J. H. Steinfeld, B. Henderson, A. Mottet, C. Opio, J. Dijkman, A. Falcucci, and G. Tempio. 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. FAO, Rome, Italy. www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gill, C. O. 2007. Microbiological conditions of meats from large game animals and birds. Meat Science 77 (2):149–60. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.03.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gill, M., P. C. Garnsworthy, and J. M. Wilkinson. 2021. Review: More effective linkages between science and policy are needed to minimize the negative environmental impacts of livestock production. Animal 15:100291. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giro, A., J. R. M. Pezzopane, W. Barioni Junior, A. d F. Pedroso, A. P. Lemes, D. Botta, N. Romanello, A. do, N. Barreto, and A. R. Garcia. 2019. Behavior and body surface temperature of beef cattle in integrated crop-livestock systems with or without tree shading. Science of the Total Environment 684:587–96. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Göncü, S., Ö. Anitaş, and G. Gökçe. 2017. Futuristic applications for profitable beef production systems. Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering A 6 (12):625–34. doi: 10.17265/2162-5298/2017.12.005.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzalez Ronquillo, M., and J. C. Angeles Hernandez. 2017. Antibiotic and synthetic growth promoters in animal diets: Review of impact and analytical methods. Food Control 72:255–67. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.03.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González, N., M. Marquès, M. Nadal, and J. L. Domingo. 2020. Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010–2020) evidences. Food Research International (Ottawa, Ont.) 137:109341. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González-Recio, O., J. López-Paredes, L. Ouatahar, N. Charfeddine, E. Ugarte, R. Alenda, and J. A. Jiménez-Montero. 2020. Mitigation of greenhouse gases in dairy cattle via genetic selection: 2. Incorporating methane emissions into the breeding goal. Journal of Dairy Science 103 (8):7210–21. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-17598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goopy, J. P., A. Donaldson, R. Hegarty, P. E. Vercoe, F. Haynes, M. Barnett, and V. H. Oddy. 2014. Low-methane yield sheep have smaller rumens and shorter rumen retention time. British Journal of Nutrition 111 (4):578–85. doi: 10.1017/S0007114513002936.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grandin, T. 2021. Cattle and pigs are easy to move and handle will have less preslaughter stress. Foods 10 (11):2583. doi: 10.3390/foods10112583.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwood, P. L., D. R. Paull, J. McNally, T. Kalinowski, D. Ebert, B. Little, D. v. Smith, A. Rahman, P. Valencia, A. B. Ingham, et al. 2017. Use of sensor-determined behaviours to develop algorithms for pasture intake by individual grazing cattle. Crop and Pasture Science 68 (12):1091. doi: 10.1071/CP16383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greger, M. 2011. The welfare of transgenic farm animals. In Biotechnology – Molecular studies and novel applications for improved quality of human life, ed. R. Sammour. London, UK: IntechOpen. doi: 10.5772/29260.
   Google Scholar
• Guyomard, H., Z. Bouamra-Mechemache, V. Chatellier, L. Delaby, C. Détang-Dessendre, J.-L. Peyraud, and V. Réquillart. 2021. Why and how to regulate animal production and consumption: The case of the European Union. Animal 15:100283. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halmemies-Beauchet-Filleau, A., M. Rinne, M. Lamminen, C. Mapato, T. Ampapon, M. Wanapat, and A. Vanhatalo. 2018. Alternative and novel feeds for ruminants: Nutritive value, product quality and environmental aspects. Animal 12 (s2):S295–S309. doi: 10.1017/S1751731118002252.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hammond, K. J., J. L. Burke, J. P. Koolaard, S. Muetzel, C. S. Pinares-Patiño, and G. C. Waghorn. 2013. Effects of feed intake on enteric methane emissions from sheep fed fresh white clover (Trifolium repens) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) forages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 179 (1–4):121–32. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.11.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han, M. A., D. Zeraatkar, G. H. Guyatt, R. W. M. Vernooij, R. El Dib, Y. Zhang, A. Algarni, G. Leung, D. Storman, C. Valli, et al. 2019. Reduction of red and processed meat intake and cancer mortality and incidence. Annals of Internal Medicine 171 (10):711–20. and . doi: 10.7326/M19-0699.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hao, L., X. Yang, Y. Huang, J.-F. Hocquette, R. H. Bryant, W. Xun, J. Niu, L. Sun, S. Chai, L. Ding, et al. 2018. Yak Etinin Coğrafi Kökenini Doğrulamak Amacıyla Mineral Elementlerin Kullanılması. Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi 25:93–98. doi: 10.9775/kvfd.2018.20366.
   Google Scholar
• Herrero, M., B. Henderson, P. Havlík, P. K. Thornton, R. T. Conant, P. Smith, S. Wirsenius, A. N. Hristov, P. Gerber, M. Gill, et al. 2016. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nature Climate Change 6 (5):452–61. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2925.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrero, M., P. Havlík, H. Valin, A. Notenbaert, M. C. Rufino, P. K. Thornton, M. Blümmel, F. Weiss, D. Grace, and M. Obersteiner. 2013. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110 (52):20888–93. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308149110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilborn, R., J. Banobi, S. J. Hall, T. Pucylowski, and T. E. Walsworth. 2018. The environmental cost of animal source foods. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16 (6):329–35. doi: 10.1002/fee.1822.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, L. C, and C. Devine. 2014. Meat, animal, poultry and fish production and management: Exotic and other species. In Encyclopedia of meat sciences, eds. C. Devine and M. Dikeman, 2nd ed., 190–8. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-384731-7.00029-5.
   Google Scholar
• Holly, M. A., P. J. Kleinman, R. B. Bryant, D. L. Bjorneberg, C. A. Rotz, J. M. Baker, M. V. Boggess, D. K. Brauer, R. Chintala, G. W. Feyereisen, et al. 2018. Identifying challenges and opportunities for improved nutrient management through the USDA’s Dairy Agroecosystem Working Group. Journal of Dairy Science 101 (7):6632–41. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hultgren, J., K. Arvidsson Segerkvist, C. Berg, A. H. Karlsson, and B. Algers. 2020. Animal handling and stress-related behaviour at mobile slaughter of cattle. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 177:104959. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.104959.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hundal, J., M. Wadhwa, and M. Bakshi. 2021. Effects of three herbal feed additives on in vitro fermentation pattern and methane production. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology 21 (2):383–95. doi: 10.5958/0974-181X.2021.00032.9.
   Google Scholar
• Hundal, J., M. Wadhwa, M. Bakshi, and M. K. Chatli. 2020. Effect of herbal feed additive containing saponins on the performance of goat kids. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 90:229–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huzzey, J. M., D. M. Veira, D. M. Weary, and M. A. G. von Keyserlingk. 2007. Prepartum behavior and dry matter intake identify dairy cows at risk for metritis. Journal of Dairy Science 90 (7):3220–33. doi: 10.3168/jds.2006-807.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ignacio, E. O., J. M. Dos Santos, S. E. D. J. Santos, C. V. B. Souza, and A. C. d S. Barretto. 2020. Effect of the addition of rabbit meat on the technological and sensory properties of fermented sausage. Food Science and Technology 40 (suppl 1):197–204. doi: 10.1590/fst.02019.
   Google Scholar
• Iwobi, A., D. Sebah, G. Spielmann, M. Maggipinto, M. Schrempp, I. Kraemer, L. Gerdes, U. Busch, and I. Huber. 2017. A multiplex real-time PCR method for the quantitative determination of equine (horse) fractions in meat products. Food Control 74:89–97. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.11.035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwu, C. D., L. Korsten, and A. I. Okoh. 2020. The incidence of antibiotic resistance within and beyond the agricultural ecosystem: A concern for public health. MicrobiologyOpen 9 (9):e1035. doi: 10.1002/mbo3.1035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen, P. H. 2010. Influence of hydrogen on rumen methane formation and fermentation balances through microbial growth kinetics and fermentation thermodynamics. Animal Feed Science and Technology 160 (1–2):1–22. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.07.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayanegara, A., K. A. Sarwono, M. Kondo, H. Matsui, M. Ridla, and E. B. Laconi. 2018. Use of 3-nitrooxypropanol as feed additive for mitigating enteric methane emissions from ruminants: A meta-analysis. Italian Journal of Animal Science 17 (3):650–6. doi: 10.1080/1828051X.2017.1404945.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayet, P.-A., A. Isbasoiu, and S. de Cara. 2020. Slaughter cattle to secure food calories and reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions? Some prospective estimates for France. Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies 101 (1):67–90. doi: 10.1007/s41130-020-00117-9.
   Google Scholar
• Jonker, A., S. Hickey, C. Pinares-Patiño, J. McEwan, S. Olinga, A. Díaz, G. Molano, S. MacLean, E. Sandoval, R. Harland, et al. 2017. Sheep from low-methane-yield selection lines created on alfalfa pellets also have lower methane yield under pastoral farming conditions. Journal of Animal Science 95 (9):3905. doi: 10.2527/jas2017.1709.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kadim, I. T., O. Mahgoub, and M. Mbaga. 2014. Potential of camel meat as a non-traditional high quality source of protein for human consumption. Animal Frontiers 4 (4):13–7. doi: 10.2527/af.2014-0028.
   Google Scholar
• Kadim, I. T., O. Mahgoub, W. Al-Marzooqi, S. K. Khalaf, and G. Raiymbek. 2013. Composition, quality and health aspects of the Dromedary (Camelus dromedarius) and Bactrian (Camelus bacterianus) camel meats: A review. Journal of Agricultural and Marine Sciences: JAMS 18:7. doi: 10.24200/jams.vol18iss0pp7-24.
   Google Scholar
• Kandel, P., S. Vanderick, M.-L. Vanrobays, H. Soyeurt, and N. Gengler. 2018. Consequences of genetic selection for environmental impact traits on economically important traits in dairy cows. Animal Production Science 58 (10):1779. doi: 10.1071/AN16592.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenny, D. A., C. Fitzsimons, S. M. Waters, and M. McGee. 2018. Improving feed efficiency of beef cattle – The current state of the art and future challenges. Animal 12 (9):1815–26. doi: 10.1017/S1751731118000976.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knapp, J. R., G. L. Laur, P. A. Vadas, W. P. Weiss, and J. M. Tricarico. 2014. Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: Quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. Journal of Dairy Science 97 (6):3231–61. doi: 10.3168/jds.2013-7234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Komarnytsky, S., S. Retchin, C. I. Vong, and M. A. Lila. 2022. Gains and losses of agricultural food production: Implications for the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology 13 (1):239–61. doi: 10.1146/annurev-food-082421-114831.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kouakou, N. D. V., J.-F. Grongnet, N. E. Assidjo, E. Thys, P.-G. Marnet, D. Catheline, P. Legrand, and M. Kouba. 2013. Effect of a supplementation of Euphorbia heterophylla on nutritional meat quality of Guinea pig (Cavia porcellus L.). Meat Science 93 (4):821–6. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.11.036.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraemer, S. A., A. Ramachandran, and G. G. Perron. 2019. Antibiotic pollution in the environment: From microbial ecology to public policy. Microorganisms 7 (6):180. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms7060180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kronberg, S. L., F. D. Provenza, S. van Vliet, and S. N. Young. 2021. Closing nutrient cycles for animal production – Current and future agroecological and socio-economic issues. Animal 15:100285. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar, D., A. K. Verma, M. K. Chatli, R. Singh, P. Kumar, N. Mehta, and O. P. Malav. 2016. Camel milk: Alternative milk for human consumption and its health benefits. Nutrition & Food Science 46 (2):217–27. doi: 10.1108/NFS-07-2015-0085.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, P. A. K. Verma, P. Umaraw, N. Mehta, and O. P. Malav. 2020. Plant phenolics as natural preservatives in food system. In Plant phenolics in sustainable agriculture, eds. K. A. Lone, and R. Shuab, 367–406. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4890-1_16.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, P., A. K. Verma, P. Umaraw, N. Mehta, and R. Ranjan. 2020. Natural extracts are very promising: They are a novel green alternative to synthetic preservatives for the meat industry. Fleischwirtschaft International 3:48–57.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, P. A. K. Verma, P. Umaraw, N. Mehta, and A. Q. Sazili. 2021. Processing and preparation of slaughtered poultry. In Postharvest and postmortem processing of raw food material, ed. S. M. Jafri, vol. 2, 281–314. New York, NY: Elsevier Inc. 10.1016/B978-0-12-818572.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, P., M. K. Chatli, N. Mehta, P. Singh, O. P. Malav, and A. K. Verma. 2017. Meat analogues: Health promising sustainable meat substitutes. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 57 (5):923–32. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2014.939739.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar, P., M. Sharma, A. A. Abubakar, M. Nizam bin Hayat, M. A. Ahmed, U. Kaka, and A. Q. Sazili. 2023. Soybean: Sustainability issues. In Reference module in food science. New York, NY: Elsevier Inc. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-823960-5.00021-4.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, P. N. Mehta, O. P. Malav, A. K. Verma, P. Umraw, and M. K. Kanth. 2019. The structure of meat analogs. In Encyclopedia of food chemistry, eds. P. Melton, L. Shahidi, and F. Varelis, vol. 3, 105–9. New York, NY: Elsevier Inc. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.21705-8.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, P., N. Sharma, S. Sharma, N. Mehta, A. K. Verma, S. Chemmalarand, and A. Q. Sazili. 2021. In-vitro meat: A promising solution for sustainability of meat sector. Journal of Animal Science and Technology 63 (4):693–724. doi: 10.5187/jast.2021.e85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwong, K. H., T.-T. Wu, H. G. Goh, K. Sasloglou, B. Stephen, I. Glover, C. Shen, W. Du, C. Michie, and I. Andonovic. 2012. Practical considerations for wireless sensor networks in cattle monitoring applications. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 81:33–44. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2011.10.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen, M. L. v., M. Wang, and T. Norton. 2021. Information technologies for welfare monitoring in pigs and their relation to welfare quality®. Sustainability 13 (2):692. doi: 10.3390/su13020692.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence, A. B., B. Vigors, and P. Sandøe. 2019. What is so positive about positive animal welfare? A critical review of the literature. Animals 9 (10):783. doi: 10.3390/ani9100783.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leip, A., G. Billen, J. Garnier, B. Grizzetti, L. Lassaletta, S. Reis, D. Simpson, M. A. Sutton, W. de Vries, F. Weiss, et al. 2015. Impacts of European livestock production: Nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus and greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, water eutrophication and biodiversity. Environmental Research Letters 10 (11):115004. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/115004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, S., W. Zeng, R. Li, L. C. Hoffman, Z. He, Q. Sun, and H. Li. 2018. Rabbit meat production and processing in China. Meat Science 145:320–8. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.06.037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lima, E., T. Hopkins, E. Gurney, O. Shortall, F. Lovatt, P. Davies, G. Williamson, and J. Kaler. 2018. Drivers for precision livestock technology adoption: A study of factors associated with adoption of electronic identification technology by commercial sheep farmers in England and Wales. PLoS One 13 (1):e0190489. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, X., D. Pang, T. Yuan, Z. Li, Z. Li, M. Zhang, W. Ren, H. Ouyang, and X. Tang. 2016. N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids attenuates triglyceride and inflammatory factors level in h fat-1 transgenic pigs. Lipids in Health and Disease 15 (1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/s12944-016-0259-7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lorenzo, J. M., M. V. Sarriés, A. Tateo, P. Polidori, D. Franco, and M. Lanza. 2014. Carcass characteristics, meat quality and nutritional value of horsemeat: A review. Meat Science 96 (4):1478–88. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.12.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenzo, J. M., P. E. S. Munekata, P. C. B. Campagnol, Z. Zhu, H. Alpas, F. J. Barba, and I. Tomasevic. 2017. Technological aspects of horse meat products – A review. Food Research International (Ottawa, Ont.) 102:176–83. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.09.094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Løvendahl, P., G. F. Difford, B. Li, M. G. G. Chagunda, P. Huhtanen, M. H. Lidauer, J. Lassen, and P. Lund. 2018. Selecting for improved feed efficiency and reduced methane emissions in dairy cattle. Animal 12 (s2):S336–S49. doi: 10.1017/S1751731118002276.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Luo, C., L. Sun, J. Ma, J. Wang, H. Qu, and D. Shu. 2015. Association of single nucleotide polymorphisms in the microRNA miR-1596 locus with residual feed intake in chickens. Animal Genetics 46 (3):265–71. doi: 10.1111/age.12284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch, R., M. Henchion, J. J. Hyland, and J. A. Gutiérrez. 2022. Creating a rainbow for sustainability: The case of sustainable beef. Sustainability 14 (8):4446. doi: 10.3390/su14084446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma, J. L., L. H. Zhao, D. D. Sun, J. Zhang, Y. P. Guo, Z. Q. Zhang, Q. G. Ma, C. Ji, and L. H. Zhao. 2020. Effects of dietary supplementation of recombinant plectasin on growth performance, intestinal health and innate immunity response in broilers. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins 12 (1):214–23. doi: 10.1007/s12602-019-9515-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma, Y., Y. Yuan, X. Bi, L. Zhang, Y. Xing, and Z. Che. 2019. Tenderization of yak meat by the combination of papain and high-pressure processing treatments. Food and Bioprocess Technology 12 (4):681–93. doi: 10.1007/s11947-019-2245-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Machado, L., M. Magnusson, N. A. Paul, R. de Nys, and N. Tomkins. 2014. Effects of marine and freshwater macroalgae on in vitro total gas and methane production. PLoS One 9 (1):e85289. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makinde, A. M. M. Islam, and S. D. Scott. 2019. Opportunities for ACI in PLF. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction, 1–6. doi: 10.1145/3371049.3371055.
   Google Scholar
• Marino, R., M. Albenzio, A. della Malva, A. Muscio, and A. Sevi. 2015. Nutritional properties and consumer evaluation of donkey bresaola and salami: Comparison with conventional products. Meat Science 101:19–24. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.11.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masey O’Neill, H. V., J. A. Smith, and M. R. Bedford. 2014. Multicarbohydrase enzymes for non-ruminants. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 27 (2):290–301. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2013.13261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masset, G., F. Vieux, E. O. Verger, L.-G. Soler, D. Touazi, and N. Darmon. 2014. Reducing energy intake and energy density for a sustainable diet: A study based on self-selected diets in French adults. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 99 (6):1460–9. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.077958.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May, K., S. E. O’Sullivan, J. M. Brameld, H. V. Masey O’Neill, T. Parr, and J. Wiseman. 2015. Xylanase supplementation in feed reduces incretin and PYY levels in piglets. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 74:OCE5. doi: 10.1017/S0029665115003419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCauley, J. I., L. Labeeuw, A. C. Jaramillo-Madrid, L. N. Nguyen, L. D. Nghiem, A. v. Chaves, and P. J. Ralph. 2020. Management of enteric methanogenesis in ruminants by algal-derived feed additives. Current Pollution Reports 6 (3):188–205. doi: 10.1007/s40726-020-00151-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor, D., and N. Beausoleil. 2015. Extending the “five domains” model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Animal Welfare 24 (3):241–53. doi: 10.7120/09627286.24.3.241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendes, A, and S. L. G. Nogueira-Filho. 2013. Feeds and nutrition of farmed capybaras. In Capybara: Biology, use and conservation of an exceptional neotropical species, J. R. Moreira, K. M. P. M. B. Ferraz, E. A. Herrera, and D. W. Macdonald, 261–74. Springer New York. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-4000-0_15.
   Google Scholar
• Mendl, M., and E. S. Paul. 2020. Animal affect and decision-making. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 112:144–63. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.01.025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Migdał, W., and B. Zivkovic. 2007. Meat: From functional food to diseases of modern civilization. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 23 (5-6-1):19–31. doi: 10.2298/BAH0701019M.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, G. A., M. Mitchell, Z. E. Barker, K. Giebel, E. A. Codling, J. R. Amory, C. Michie, C. Davison, C. Tachtatzis, I. Andonovic, et al. 2020. Using animal-mounted sensor technology and machine learning to predict time-to-calving in beef and dairy cows. Animal 14 (6):1304–12. doi: 10.1017/S1751731119003380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, M. D., M. A. Crookenden, K. Vaswani, J. R. Roche, and H. N. Peiris. 2020. The frontiers of biomedical science and its application to animal science in addressing the major challenges facing Australasian dairy farming. Animal Production Science 60 (1):1–9. doi: 10.1071/AN18579.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohammed, R., G. Legall, and G. W. Garcia. 2018. Towards the determination of a “weaning age” for the intensive production of the agouti (Dasyprocta leporina). Livestock Research and Rural Development 30:1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Moorby, J. M., and M. D. Fraser. 2021. New feeds and new feeding systems in intensive and semi-intensive forage-fed ruminant livestock systems. Animal 15:100297. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moorby, J. M., H. R. Fleming, V. J. Theobald, and M. D. Fraser. 2015. Can live weight be used as a proxy for enteric methane emissions from pasture-fed sheep? Scientific Reports 5 (1):17915. doi: 10.1038/srep17915.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moran, D., and K. J. Blair. 2021. Review: Sustainable livestock systems: Anticipating demand-side challenges. Animal 15:100288. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mota-Rojas, D., D. M. Broom, A. Orihuela, A. Velarde, F. Napolitano, and M. Alonso-Spilsbury. 2020. Effects of human-animal relationship on animal productivity and welfare. Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology 8 (3):196–205. doi: 10.31893/jabb.20026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mottet, A., C. de Haan, A. Falcucci, G. Tempio, C. Opio, and P. Gerber. 2017. Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Global Food Security 14:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.001.
   Google Scholar
• Mottet, A., F. Teillard, P. Boettcher, G. De’ Besi, and B. Besbes. 2018. Domestic herbivores and food security: Current contribution, trends and challenges for a sustainable development. Animal 12 (s2):S188–S98. doi: 10.1017/S1751731118002215.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nadeem, S. F., U. F. Gohar, S. F. Tahir, H. Mukhtar, S. Pornpukdeewattana, P. Nukthamna, A. M. M. Ali, S. C. B. Bavisetty, and S. Massa. 2020. Antimicrobial resistance: More than 70 years of war between humans and bacteria. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 46 (5):578–99. doi: 10.1080/1040841X.2020.1813687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nie, J., S. Shao, W. Xia, Z. Liu, C. Yu, R. Li, W. Wang, J. Li, Y. Yuan, and K. M. Rogers. 2020. Stable isotopes verify geographical origin of yak meat from Qinghai-Tibet plateau. Meat Science 165:108113. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemi, P., V. Pihlajaniemi, M. Rinne, and M. Siika-aho. 2017. Production of sugars from grass silage after steam explosion or soaking in aqueous ammonia. Industrial Crops and Products 98:93–9. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.01.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nogueira-Filho, S. L. G., and S. S. da Cunha Nogueira. 2018. Capybara meat: An extraordinary resource for food security in South America. Meat Science 145:329–33. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.07.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norton, T., and D. Berckmans. 2017. Developing precision livestock farming tools for precision dairy farming. Animal Frontiers 7 (1):18–23. doi: 10.2527/af.2017.0104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ojha, B. K. P. K. Singh, and N. Shrivastava. 2018. Enzymes in the animal feed industry. In Enzymes in food biotechnology: Production, applications, and future prospects. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-813280-7.00007-4.
   Google Scholar
• Orihuela, A. 2021. Review: Management of livestock behavior to improve welfare and production. Animal 15:100290. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orihuela, A., and C. S. Galina. 2019. Effects of separation of cows and calves on reproductive performance and animal welfare in tropical beef cattle. Animals 9 (5):223. doi: 10.3390/ani9050223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otte, J., U. Pica-Ciamarra, and S. Morzaria. 2019. A comparative overview of the livestock-environment interactions in asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6:37. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panksepp, J., and J. B. Panksepp. 2013. Toward a cross-species understanding of empathy. Trends in Neurosciences 36 (8):489–96. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2013.04.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel, S. J., M. Wellington, R. M. Shah, and M. J. Ferreira. 2020. Antibiotic stewardship in food-producing animals: Challenges, progress, and opportunities. Clinical Therapeutics 42 (9):1649–58. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.07.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patra, A., T. Park, M. Kim, and Z. Yu. 2017. Rumen methanogens and mitigation of methane emission by anti-methanogenic compounds and substances. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 8 (1):1–18. doi: 10.1186/s40104-017-0145-9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paz, H. A., K. E. Hales, J. E. Wells, L. A. Kuehn, H. C. Freetly, E. D. Berry, M. D. Flythe, M. L. Spangler, and S. C. Fernando. 2018. Rumen bacterial community structure impacts feed efficiency in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 96 (3):1045–58. doi: 10.1093/jas/skx081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedro, D., E. Saldaña, J. M. Lorenzo, M. Pateiro, R. Dominguez, B. A. dos Santos, A. J. Cichoski, and P. C. B. Campagnol. 2021. Low-sodium dry-cured rabbit leg: A novel meat product with healthier properties. Meat Science 173:108372. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pethick, D. W., J.-F. Hocquette, N. D. Scollan, and F. R. Dunshea. 2021. Improving the nutritional, sensory and market value of meat products from sheep and cattle. Animal 15:100356. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petracci, M., F. Soglia, and F. Leroy. 2018. Rabbit meat in need of a hat-trick: From tradition to innovation (and back). Meat Science 146:93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.08.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petracci, M., F. Soglia, G. Baldi, L. Balzani, S. Mudalal, and C. Cavani. 2018. Technical note: Estimation of real rabbit meat consumption in Italy. World Rabbit Science 26 (1):91. doi: 10.4995/wrs.2018.7802.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinares-Patiño, C. S., S. M. Hickey, E. A. Young, K. G. Dodds, S. MacLean, G. Molano, E. Sandoval, H. Kjestrup, R. Harland, C. Hunt, et al. 2013. Heritability estimates of methane emissions from sheep. Animal 7:316–21. doi: 10.1017/S1751731113000864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poeplau, C., and A. Don. 2015. Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops – A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 200:33–41. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.10.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polidori, P., S. Vincenzetti, C. Cavallucci, and D. Beghelli. 2008. Quality of donkey meat and carcass characteristics. Meat Science 80 (4):1222–4. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.05.027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Probst, J. K., A. Spengler Neff, F. Leiber, M. Kreuzer, and E. Hillmann. 2012. Gentle touching in early life reduces avoidance distance and slaughter stress in beef cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 139 (1–2):42–9. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.03.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pulina, G., M. Acciaro, A. S. Atzori, G. Battacone, G. M. Crovetto, M. Mele, G. Pirlo, and S. P. G. Rassu. 2021. Beef for future: Technologies for a sustainable and profitable beef industry. Animal 15 (11):100358. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramaiyulis, R., M. Zain, R. W. S. Ningrat, and L. Warly. 2019. Optimization of rumen microbial protein synthesis by addition of gambier leaf residue to cattle feed supplement. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 18 (1):12–9.
   Google Scholar
• Rebello, S., A. N. Anoopkumar, S. Puthur, R. Sindhu, P. Binod, A. Pandey, and E. M. Aneesh. 2018. Zinc oxide phytase nanocomposites as contributory tools to improved thermostability and shelflife. Bioresource Technology Reports 3:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.biteb.2018.05.007.
   Google Scholar
• Rebello, S. D. Balakrishnan, A. N. Anoopkumar, R. Sindhu, P. A. P. Binod, and E. M. Aneesh. 2019. Industrial enzymes as feed supplements—Advantages to nutrition and global environment. In Green bio-processes, ed. S. Negi, 181–98. Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-3263-0.
   Google Scholar
• Rinne, M., E. Winquist, V. Pihlajaniemi, P. Niemi, A. Seppälä, and M. Siika-Aho. 2020. Fibrolytic enzyme treatment prior to ensiling increased press-juice and crude protein yield from grass silage. Bioresource Technology 299:122572. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risius, A., and U. Hamm. 2017. The effect of information on beef husbandry systems on consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay. Meat Science 124:9–14. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.10.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez Alvarez, J., M. Arroqui, P. Mangudo, J. Toloza, D. Jatip, J. Rodriguez, A. Teyseyre, C. Sanz, A. Zunino, C. Machado, et al. 2019. Estimating body condition score in dairy cows from depth images using convolutional neural networks, transfer learning and model ensembling techniques. Agronomy 9 (2):90. doi: 10.3390/agronomy9020090.
   Google Scholar
• Roehe, R., R. J. Dewhurst, C.-A. Duthie, J. A. Rooke, N. McKain, D. W. Ross, J. J. Hyslop, A. Waterhouse, T. C. Freeman, M. Watson, et al. 2016. Bovine host genetic variation influences rumen microbial methane production with best selection criterion for low methane emitting and efficiently feed converting hosts based on metagenomic gene abundance. PLoS Genetics 12 (2):e1005846. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005846.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohrmann, S, and J. Linseisen. 2016. Processed meat: The real villain? Conference on the future of animal products in the human diet: health and environmental concern. Symposium 1: Meat, health and sustainability. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Conference-on-%E2%80%98The-future-of-animal-products-in-the-RohrmannLinseisen/63ec24217f18612f85d0f60f1198b22bd0bf768e
   Google Scholar
• Röös, E., B. Bajželj, P. Smith, M. Patel, D. Little, and T. Garnett. 2017. Protein futures for Western Europe: Potential land use and climate impacts in 2050. Regional Environmental Change 17 (2):367–77. doi: 10.1007/s10113-016-1013-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roque, B. M., J. K. Salwen, R. Kinley, and E. Kebreab. 2019. Inclusion of Asparagopsis armata in lactating dairy cows’ diet reduces enteric methane emission by over 50 percent. Journal of Cleaner Production 234:132–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sally Ho. 2021. England to slash meat intake by 30% under new food strategy, 1–73. https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org/the-report/.
   Google Scholar
• Sánchez-Macías, D., N. Castro, M. A. Rivero, A. Argüello, and A. Morales-delaNuez. 2016. Proposal for standard methods and procedure for guinea pig carcass evaluation, jointing and tissue separation. Journal of Applied Animal Research 44 (1):65–70. doi: 10.1080/09712119.2015.1006234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savonen, O., M. Franco, T. Stefanski, P. Mäntysaari, K. Kuoppala, and M. Rinne. 2020. Grass silage pulp as a dietary component for high-yielding dairy cows. Animal 14 (7):1472–80. doi: 10.1017/S1751731119002970.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saxena, R., D. B. Dhakan, P. Mittal, P. Waiker, A. Chowdhury, A. Ghatak, and V. K. Sharma. 2017. Metagenomic analysis of hot springs in Central India reveals hydrocarbon degrading thermophiles and pathways essential for survival in extreme environments. Frontiers in Microbiology 7:2123. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.02123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schader, C., A. Muller, N. E.-H. Scialabba, J. Hecht, A. Isensee, K.-H. Erb, P. Smith, H. P. S. Makkar, P. Klocke, F. Leiber, et al. 2015. Impacts of feeding less food-competing feedstuffs to livestock on global food system sustainability. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface 12 (113):20150891. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2015.0891.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schillings, J., R. Bennett, and D. C. Rose. 2021. Exploring the potential of precision livestock farming technologies to help address farm animal welfare. Frontiers in Animal Science 2:639678. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2021.639678.
   Google Scholar
• Simões, J., D. Moran, S. Edwards, C. Bonnet, A. Lopez-Sebastian, and P. Chemineau. 2021. Editorial: Sustainable livestock systems for high-producing animals. Animal 15:100371. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, P., J. S. Hundal, A. K. Patra, M. Wadhwa, and A. Sharma. 2021. Sustainable utilization of Aloe vera waste in the diet of lactating cows for improvement of milk production performance and reduction of carbon footprint. Journal of Cleaner Production 288:125118. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singla, A., J. Hundal, A. Patra, M. Wadhwa, V. Nagaraj, and P. Malhotra. 2021. Effect of dietary supplementation of Emblica officinalis fruit pomace on methane emission, ruminal fermentation, nutrient utilization, and milk production performance in buffaloes. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28 (14):18120–33. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-12008-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stampa, E., C. Schipmann-Schwarze, and U. Hamm. 2020. Consumer perceptions, preferences, and behavior regarding pasture-raised livestock products: A review. Food Quality and Preference 82:103872. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103872.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoll-Kleemann, S., and U. J. Schmidt. 2017. Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: A review of influence factors. Regional Environmental Change 17 (5):1261–77. doi: 10.1007/s10113-016-1057-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stygar, A. H., Y. Gómez, G. v. Berteselli, E. Dalla Costa, E. Canali, J. K. Niemi, P. Llonch, and M. Pastell. 2021. A systematic review on commercially available and validated sensor technologies for welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8:634338. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.634338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson, C., and M. B. Jensen. 2007. Short communication: Identification of diseased calves by use of data from automatic milk feeders. Journal of Dairy Science 90 (2):994–7. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)71584-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tait-Burkard, C., A. Doeschl-Wilson, M. J. McGrew, A. L. Archibald, H. M. Sang, R. D. Houston, C. B. Whitelaw, and M. Watson. 2018. Livestock 2.0–Genome editing for fitter, healthier, and more productive farmed animals. Genome Biology 19 (1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s13059-018-1583-1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Terry, S. A., A. Badhan, Y. Wang, A. V. Chaves, and T. A. McAllister. 2019. Fibre digestion by rumen microbiota—a review of recent metagenomic and metatranscriptomic studies. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 99 (4):678–92. doi: 10.1139/cjas-2019-0024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terry, S. A., J. A. Basarab, L. L. Guan, and T. A. McAllister. 2021. Strategies to improve the efficiency of beef cattle production. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 101 (1):1–19. doi: 10.1139/cjas-2020-0022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terry, S. A. C. Romero, A. Chaves, T. McAllister, and C. Mackie. 2020. Nutritional factors affecting greenhouse gas production from ruminants; implications for enteric and manure emissions. In Improving Rumen Function. Cambridge, UK: Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Tian, J.-C., L. Han, Q.-L. Yu, X.-X. Shi, and W.-T. Wang. 2013. Changes in tenderness and cathepsins activity during post mortem ageing of yak meat. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 93 (3):321–8. doi: 10.4141/cjas2012-102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tirado-González, D. N., L. A. Miranda-Romero, A. Ruíz-Flores, S. E. Medina-Cuéllar, R. Ramírez-Valverde, and G. Tirado-Estrada. 2018. Meta-analysis: Effects of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes in ruminant diets. Journal of Applied Animal Research 46 (1):771–83. doi: 10.1080/09712119.2017.1399135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toldrá, F., and M. Reig. 2016. Growth promoters: Characteristics and determination. In Encyclopedia of food and health, 266–9. New York, NY: Elsevier Inc. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-384947-2.00362-7.
   Google Scholar
• Tonsor, G. T., and L. L. Schulz. 2020. Will an incentive-compatible indemnity policy please stand up? Livestock producer willingness to self-protect. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 67 (6):2713–30. doi: 10.1111/tbed.13626.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2015. Veterinary feed directive. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/development-approval-process/veterinary-feed-directive-vfd.
   Google Scholar
• Umaraw, P., A. K. Verma, P. Kumar, and D. Kumar. 2018. Packaging assures quality. Modified atmosphere packaging in the most commonly packaging method used in poultry marketing. Fleischwirtschaft International 4:30–7.
   Google Scholar
• Umaraw, P., A. K. Verma, V. P. Singh, and P. Kumar. 2019. Natural biopreservatives are trending: The modern preservatives are of microbiological or animal origin and lead to minimal processing. Fleischwirtschaft International 1:44–53.
   Google Scholar
• Umaraw, P., P. E. S. Munekata, A. K. Verma, F. J. Barba, V. P. Singh, P. Kumar, and J. M. Lorenzo. 2020. Edible films/coating with tailored properties for active packaging of meat, fish and derived products. Trends in Food Science & Technology 98:10–24. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2020.01.032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ungerfeld, R., M. J. Hötzel, A. Scarsi, and G. Quintans. 2011. Behavioral and physiological changes in early-weaned multiparous and primiparous beef cows. Animal 5 (8):1270–5. doi: 10.1017/S1751731111000334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Eenennaam, A. L. 2018. Gene editing in livestock: Promise, prospects and policy. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 13:027. doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR201813027.
   Google Scholar
• Van Eenennaam, A. L. 2019. Application of genome editing in farm animals: Cattle. Transgenic Research 28 (Suppl 2):93–100. doi: 10.1007/s11248-019-00141-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verma, A. K., M. K. Chatli, N. Mehta, and P. Kumar. 2022a. Antimicrobial and antioxidant potential of papain liver hydrolysate in meat emulsion model at chilling storage under aerobic packaging condition. Waste and Biomass Valorization 13 (1):417–29. doi: 10.1007/s12649-021-01538-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verma, A. K., M. K. Chatli, P. Kumar, and N. Mehta. 2022b. Assessment of quality attributes of porcine blood and liver hydrolysates incorporated pork loaves stored under aerobic and modified atmospheric packaging. Journal of Food Science and Technology 59 (3):1114–30. doi: 10.1007/s13197-021-05115-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verma, A. K. P. Umaraw, P. Kumar, N. Mehta, and A. Q. Sazili. 2021. Processing of red meat carcasses. In Postharvest and postmortem processing of raw food material, ed. S. M. Jafri, vol. 2, 243–80. New York, NY: Elsevier Inc. 10.1016/B978-0-12-818572.
   Google Scholar
• Vibart, R. E., M. Tavendale, D. Otter, B. H. Schwendel, K. Lowe, P. Gregorini, and D. Pacheco. 2017. Milk production and composition, nitrogen utilization, and grazing behavior of late-lactation dairy cows as affected by time of allocation of a fresh strip of pasture. Journal of Dairy Science 100 (7):5305–18. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-12413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vidovic, N., and S. Vidovic. 2020. Antimicrobial resistance and food animals: Influence of livestock environment on the emergence and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance. Antibiotics 9 (2):52. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics9020052.
   Google Scholar
• Vieco-Saiz, N., Y. Belguesmia, R. Raspoet, E. Auclair, F. Gancel, I. Kempf, and D. Drider. 2019. Benefits and inputs from lactic acid bacteria and their bacteriocins as alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters during food-animal production. Frontiers in Microbiology 10:57. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00057.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wadhwa, M., M. P. Bakshi, and H. P. S. Makkar. 2015. Waste to worth: Fruit wastes and by-products as animal feed. CABI Reviews 10:1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Waiblinger, S., X. Boivin, V. Pedersen, M. V. Tosi, A. M. Janczak, E. K. Visser, and R. B. Jones. 2006. Assessing the human–animal relationship in farmed species: A critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101 (3–4):185–242. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltz, E. 2017. First genetically engineered salmon sold in Canada. Nature 548 (7666):148. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.22116.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang, G., Q. Song, S. Huang, Y. Wang, S. Cai, H. Yu, X. Ding, X. Zeng, and J. Zhang. 2020. Effect of antimicrobial peptide microcin J25 on growth performance, immune regulation, and intestinal microbiota in broiler chickens challenged with Escherichia coli and Salmonella. Animals 10 (2):345. doi: 10.3390/ani10020345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, S., X. Zeng, Q. Yang, and S. Qiao. 2016. Antimicrobial peptides as potential alternatives to antibiotics in food animal industry. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 17 (5):603. doi: 10.3390/ijms17050603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Y., X. Tian, X. Liu, J. Xing, C. Guo, Y. Du, H. Zhang, and W. Wang. 2022. Focusing on intramuscular connective tissue: Effect of cooking time and temperature on physical, textual, and structural properties of yak meat. Meat Science 184:108690. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, S. J., M. Campo, and G. Liste. 2017. The effects of artificial rearing and fostering on the growth, carcass and meat quality of lambs. Small Ruminant Research 149:16–22. doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2017.01.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weary, D. M., J. M. Huzzey, and M. A. G. von Keyserlingk. 2009. Using behavior to predict and identify ill health in animals1. Journal of Animal Science 87 (2):770–7. doi: 10.2527/jas.2008-1297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster, J., K. Schütz, M. Sutherland, M. Stewart, and D. Mellor. 2015. Different animal welfare orientations towards some key research areas of current relevance to pastoral dairy farming in New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63 (1):31–6. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2014.958117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, P. C., J. S. Gerber, P. M. Engstrom, N. D. Mueller, K. A. Brauman, K. M. Carlson, E. S. Cassidy, M. Johnston, G. K. MacDonald, D. K. Ray, et al. 2014. Leverage points for improving global food security and the environment. Science (New York, N.Y.) 345 (6194):325–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1246067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilfart, A., A. Gac, Y. Salaün, J. Aubin, and S. Espagnol. 2021. Allocation in the LCA of meat products: Is agreement possible? Cleaner Environmental Systems 2:100028. doi: 10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100028.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, J. M. 2011. Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. Animal 5 (7):1014–22. doi: 10.1017/S175173111100005X.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winckler, C. 2019. Assessing animal welfare at the farm level: Do we care sufficiently about the individual? Animal Welfare 28 (1):77–82. doi: 10.7120/09627286.28.1.077.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiu, S., and A. Shahbazi. 2015. Development of green biorefinery for biomass utilization: A review. Trends in Renewable Energy 1 (1):4–15. doi: 10.17737/tre.2015.1.1.008.
   Google Scholar
• Yeates, J. W., and D. C. J. Main. 2008. Assessment of positive welfare: A review. Veterinary Journal (London, England: 1997) 175 (3):293–300. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.05.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yigit, N. O., S. B. Koca, B. I. Didinen, and I. Diler. 2018. Effect of protease and phytase supplementation on growth performance and nutrient digestibility of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum) fed soybean meal-based diets. Journal of Applied Animal Research 46 (1):29–32. doi: 10.1080/09712119.2016.1256292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zavattaro, L., L. Bechini, C. Grignani, F. K. van Evert, J. Mallast, H. Spiegel, T. Sandén, A. Pecio, J. V. Giráldez Cervera, G. Guzmán, et al. 2017. Agronomic effects of bovine manure: A review of long-term European field experiments. European Journal of Agronomy 90:127–38. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2017.07.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, J., K. Hayden, R. Jackson, and R. Schutte. 2021. Association of red and processed meat consumption with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in participants with and without obesity: A prospective cohort study. Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) 40 (5):3643–9. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2020.12.030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, X., P. R. Amer, K. Stachowicz, C. Quinton, and J. Crowley. 2021. Herd-level versus animal-level variation in methane emission prediction in grazing dairy cattle. Animal 15 (9):100325. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, Y., A. A. Malzahn, S. Sretenovic, and Y. Qi. 2019. The emerging and uncultivated potential of CRISPR technology in plant science. Nature Plants 5 (8):778–94. doi: 10.1038/s41477-019-0461-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, Y., Y. Mao, K. Li, X. Luo, and D. L. Hopkins. 2019. Effect of carcass chilling on the palatability traits and safety of fresh red meat. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 18 (6):1676–704. doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, M., Y.-J. Peng, Y. Chen, C. M. Klinger, M. Oba, J.-X. Liu, and L. L. Guan. 2018. Assessment of microbiome changes after rumen transfaunation: Implications on improving feed efficiency in beef cattle. Microbiome 6 (1):1–14. doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0447-y.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar