Livestock production technology: Recent advances, challenges and future prospects: A comprehensive review

Introduction

The global livestock sector encompasses cattle, pigs, poultry, sheep, goats, and aquatic species, occupying approximately 70% of agricultural land and employing over 1.3 billion people directly or indirectly (FAO, 2023) [12] . Livestock products supply essential amino acids and micronutrients vitamin B12, zinc, iron, and omega-3 fatty acids critical for child growth and maternal health, particularly in populations with limited dietary diversity (Neumann et al., 2003; https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nutr. 23.011702.073048) [34] . The sector contributes approximately USD 1.4 trillion annually to global agricultural output and serves as the primary capital asset for an estimated 600 million smallholder farmers in LMICs. Unprecedented technological change has characterized the past decade. Genomic tools have compressed the dairy cattle generation interval from over five years to under two. Artificial intelligence (AI) detects lameness and estrus with accuracy exceeding trained human observers. Novel feed additives reduce enteric methane by 20-80%. These constitute transformative, not incremental, change. Simultaneously, the sector confronts escalating systemic pressures: the global spread of African Swine Fever (ASF), AMR as a One Health emergency, intensifying climate impacts, and growing public scrutiny of animal welfare standards. Addressing these concurrently requires integration of biological, digital, and governance innovations within equitable and sustainable frameworks.

1.1 Scope and Objectives: This review covers terrestrial livestock species cattle, pigs, broiler and layer poultry, sheep, and goats with aquaculture crossreferences where relevant, focusing on literature from 2010-2025. Objectives are to: (i) synthesize state-of-the-art advances; (ii) critically evaluate productivity, economic, and sustainability evidence; (iii) identify technology adoption barriers; and (iv) propose a forward-looking research and policy agenda. The global scope explicitly addresses disparities between HICs and LMICs.

Table 1: Approximate global livestock populations by region (FAO, 2023; FAOSTAT) [12] . M = millions; B = billions.

Region

Genetic and Reproductive Technologies

Genetic improvement underpins the extraordinary productivity gains of the past century U.S. dairy cow average milk yield rose from ~2,000 kg/lactation in 1940 to >11,000 kg by 2020 and continues to accelerate through molecular and computational innovations (Norman et al., 2021; https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18580) [35] . [30] demonstrated that genome-wide SNP markers could predict breeding values with high accuracy without prior QTL mapping a conceptual breakthrough transforming dairy, beef, swine, and poultry breeding. Genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) compress the generation interval in dairy cattle from 5-7 years to under two, doubling annual genetic gain in North American and European programs (Wiggans et al., 2017; https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11569) [58] . In dairy cattle, reference populations now exceed 100,000 bulls, yielding prediction accuracies of r = 0.70-0.85. Low-density arrays (~6,000-10,000 SNPs) with imputation reduce per-animal genotyping cost to USD 15-25, enabling commercial-scale deployment. In swine, genomic integration across dam and sire lines has accelerated progress in litter size, feed conversion ratio (FCR), and meat quality. In poultry, proprietary genomic platforms underpin near-complete genetic control of global commercial flocks. Community-based breeding programs (CBBPs) in Ethiopia, Kenya, India, and Tanzania are applying genomic tools in smallholder contexts to capture locally adapted alleles for heat tolerance and disease resistance narrowing the equity gap in the genomic revolution (Mwai et al., 2015; https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.14.0783) [33] .

Genomic Selection

Gene Editing: CRISPR-Cas9 and Successors

CRISPR-Cas9 and refined variants (base editors, prime editors) enable precise, targeted nucleotide modifications indistinguishable from natural mutations a fundamental distinction from transgenesis (Cong et al., 2013; https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231143) [5] . Disease resistance applications include: (i) CD163 knockout in pigs conferring complete resistance to PRRS virus a pathogen costing >USD 2.5 billion globally annually (Whitworth et al., 2016; https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3434); (ii) SLICK locus modification in Holstein cattle introducing Senepol-derived heat tolerance, reducing rectal temperature ~0.5°C and increasing conception rates 20-25% under heat stress (Zou et al., 2019; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821400116) [60] ; and (iii) Celtic polled allele introgression in cattle, eliminating the need for physical dehorning of >80 million calves annually at [42] . Sexed semen technology (>90% accuracy by flow cytometric sorting) produces >10 million straws annually in major dairy countries, generating heifer replacements from elite cows while directing beef genetics to surplus animals (Seidel, 2014; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2014.03.024) [49] . FAO-coordinated gene banks hold cryopreserved material from >190 at-risk breeds across 67 countries, providing essential insurance against ongoing erosion of livestock genetic diversity. [59] . PLF's economic case rests on labor substitution, early disease detection, reproductive efficiency, and feed waste reduction.

Precision Livestock Farming and Digital Technologies

IoT Sensors and Wearable Technologies

Commercial sensor systems now include ear-tag accelerometers, rumen pH/temperature boluses, neckmounted jaw-movement sensors, leg pedometers, and subcutaneous RFID transponders, integrated via cloud platforms processing data from hundreds of animals simultaneously. Automated estrus detection achieves sensitivity and specificity of 80-95% vs. 50-60% for visual observation, reducing days open by 10-20 days per cow (de Vries et al., 2020; https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17622) [7] .

Each additional day open costs USD 2-6/cow/day in lost production and elevated culling risk, making this one of the highest-ROI PLF applications. Rumen bolus pH sensors enable early detection of subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA), affecting 20-40% of early-lactation dairy cows, while rumination-time monitoring via jaw sensors detects health events (displaced abomasum, metritis, mastitis) 24 [24] .

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Deep learning architectures CNNs for image/video analysis, LSTM-RNNs for time-series sensor data achieve state-of-theart performance across livestock tasks (LeCun et al., 2015; https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539) [27] . Automated body condition scoring using RGB-D cameras and CNN regression reaches mean absolute errors of 0.10-0.15 BCS units, matching trained veterinary assessors (Rodríguez Alvarez et al., 2018; https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13094) [45] . Automated lameness detection using 3D gait analysis achieves 75-90% sensitivity at >90% specificity for locomotion scores ≥3 (Van Hertem et al., 2013; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.05.004) [53] . In swine, acoustic monitoring detects PRRS-associated cough patterns (sensitivity 80-91%) 3-7 days before clinical diagnosis, enabling targeted intervention (Exadaktylos et al., 2008; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2008.01.003) [10] . In poultry, computer vision monitors flock distribution, activity, and mortality in real time, flagging deviations predictive of welfare deterioration (Dawkins et al., 2017; https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2017.0044) [6] . [22,51] . In-line sensors measure SCC, fat, protein, and conductivity at every milking. UAVs with multispectral/thermal imaging enable automated livestock counting (>95% accuracy), pasture biomass estimation via NDVI-ML models, and heat stress monitoring at landscape scale in extensive systems (Romero et al., 2021; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112344) [46] .

Robotics, Automation, and Remote Sensing

Nutritional Science and Feed Efficiency

Feed represents 60-80% of production costs and is the largest single driver of livestock's environmental footprint. Global average feed conversion ratios (FCRs) are ~2.0-2.1 for broilers, 2.8-3.2 for pigs, and 6-8 for beef cattle, creating large optimization targets (Mottet et al., 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.001) [31] .

Methane-Mitigating Feed Additives

Enteric fermentation in ruminants contributes ~4.6% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions (Beauchemin et al., 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114499) [2] . 3-Nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP; Bovaer®, dsm-firmenich) inhibits methyl-coenzyme M reductase the terminal methanogenic enzyme reducing enteric CH4 by 20-30% in dairy cattle with negligible production effects (Hristov et al., 2015; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504124112) [20] . Approved in the EU (2021), Australia (2022), Brazil and Chile (2022-23), it is now supplemented to >100,000 dairy cows globally. Asparagopsis taxiformis macroalgae (bromoform as active compound) reduces methane 52-80% at 0. [47] , but ozone-depleting potential, regulatory hurdles, and cultivation scaleup remain barriers.

Alternative Protein Sources

Black soldier fly larvae (BSFL; Hermetia illucens) meal contains 40-50% crude protein with a balanced essential amino acid profile and 15-35% fat, produced by valorizing organic waste streams at a fraction of the land and water footprint of fishmeal or soy. EU approval for poultry and aquaculture feed (2017) has catalyzed commercial-scale facilities across Europe, North America, and Southeast Asia (van Huis & Oonincx, 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsectphys.2017.06.008) [54] . Microalgae (Spirulina, Chlorella, 50-70% crude protein) enrich eggs and meat with omega-3 fatty acids; single-cell proteins from gas fermentation (hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria, e.g., Solar Foods' Solein) offer near-zero-carbon protein production pathways under active commercial development (Dineshbabu et al., 2019; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2018.12.030) [8] .

Rumen Microbiome and Precision Feeding

The rumen microbiome (10¹⁰-10¹¹ cells/mL; bacteria, methanogenic archaea, protozoa, fungi) is the central determinant of forage conversion efficiency. Henderson et al.

(2015; https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac5620) [16] identified a core rumen microbiome of 30 bacterial phylotypes conserved across host species and geography. Rumen microbiome composition is moderately heritable (h² = 0.10-0.34 per taxon), creating scope for genetic selection of hostmicrobiome interaction (Sasson et al., 2017; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14337-7) [48] . Precision feeding systems delivering individualized rations through AMS-integrated concentrate dispensers demonstrate feed cost reductions of 5-12% in dairy (Bach et al., 2021; https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18984) [1] . Multi-phase swine feeding (10-20 formulations across the growth curve) reduces nitrogen excretion 20-30% and phosphorus excretion 35-40% vs. two-phase feeding at equivalent performance (Pomar & Remus, 2019; https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-889-4_10) [41] .

Veterinary Biotechnology and Health Management

Animal disease imposes ~20% losses on global livestock production value annually approximately USD 300 billion. Disease burden in LMICs is 2-5× higher than in HICs due to inadequate vaccination coverage, diagnostic infrastructure, and biosecurity (Perry et al., 2013; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060361) [39] .

Next-Generation Vaccines

Reverse vaccinology identifying vaccine candidates from genomic sequences rather than pathogen culture has compressed antigen discovery from decades to years (Pizza et al., 2000; https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1816) [40] . Recombinant subunit, viral vector, and DNA vaccine platforms offer scalable manufacture and DIVA (Differentiating Infected from Vaccinated Animals) compatibility critical for trade. ASF which spread from East Africa through Eastern Europe (2007) and into China (2018), causing the death or culling of an estimated 25% of the global pig population (~250 million animals) has yielded attenuated live vaccine candidates (HLJ/18-7GD; ASFV-G-ΔI177L) demonstrating promising controlled trial efficacy, with commercial vaccines approved in Vietnam (2023) (O'Donnell et al., 2023; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00831-z) [36] . mRNA vaccine platforms proven in COVID-19 vaccination are now under active investigation for FMD, PRRS, BRSV, and avian influenza, offering strain-updated vaccine production within weeks of new variant identification (Pardi et al., 2018; https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2017.243) [38] .

Point-of-Care Diagnostics and Surveillance

Lateral flow assays (LFAs) provide antigen/antibody detection in 10-20 minutes from field samples with sensitivities/specificities of 85-98% for validated livestock disease applications. CRISPR-based diagnostics (Cas12a/Cas13a + isothermal amplification) achieve PCRlevel sensitivity with minimal equipment (Gootenberg et al., 2017; https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9321) [15] , enabling disease confirmation in remote settings. Digital epidemiology integrating official reporting, satellite imagery, livestock movement networks, and computational models provides realtime disease risk mapping. Network analysis identifies highconnectivity nodes (markets, assembly points) disproportionately driving disease spread, enabling targeted surveillance (Rautureau et al., 2011; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019682) [44] .

Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)

AMR currently causes ~700,000 deaths annually, projected to reach 10 million by 2050 under business-as-usual, with a cumulative economic cost of USD 100 trillion (O'Neill, 2016; https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736( 16)00184-9) [37] . Livestock agriculture amplifies AMR through selective pressure in animal guts, environmental spread via manure, and food-chain transmission. The Netherlands achieved a 64% reduction in veterinary antibiotic sales (2009-2020) through mandatory prescriptions, farm benchmarking, and publication of veterinary prescribing data demonstrating large reductions are achievable without productivity loss (Speksnijder et al., 2015; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001773) [50] . Denmark reduced pig antibiotic use 50% while increasing production 47% after banning growth promoters (1999). Alternatives under development include bacteriophage therapy (Loc-Carrillo & Abedon, 2011; https://doi.org/10.4161/bact.1.2.14590) [38] , antimicrobial peptides, organic acids, and medium-chain fatty acids; prophylactic vaccination against Lawsonia intracellularis, Pasteurella multocida, and Salmonella spp. has reduced treatment requirements substantially.

Environmental Sustainability

Livestock contributes 14.5% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions (Gerber et al., 2013) [14] , occupies 77% of global agricultural land while delivering 17% of calories, and is a major driver of freshwater use, reactive nitrogen pollution, and biodiversity loss while simultaneously providing critical ecosystem services in extensive grassland systems (Herrero et al., 2015; https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac0341) [18] .

GHG Mitigation

A meta-analysis of 570 life cycle assessments covering 38,700 farms across 119 countries (Poore & Nemecek, 2018; https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216) [43] found global average emission intensities of 49.9 kg CO₂-eq per 100g protein for beef, vs. ~6 kg for poultry and ~7 kg for pork, with 10× variation between lowest-and highest-impact producers indicating that producer-level efficiency improvement is the highest-leverage mitigation pathway. Enteric methane mitigation through 3-NOP (20-30% reduction), improved pasture quality reducing time to slaughter, and anaerobic digestion of manure capturing methane for biogas (>10,000 agricultural AD plants in Europe, ~32 TWh/yr in Germany alone) represent the largest near-term opportunities. Silvopastoral systems integrating trees into livestock landscapes simultaneously sequester carbon, reduce heat stress, and provide additional forage.

Land, Water Use, and Biodiversity

Approximately 57% of global livestock feed comprises grass, crop residues, and processing byproducts inedible to humans (Mottet et al., 2017) [31] , meaning ruminants on non-arable land uniquely convert otherwise inaccessible biomass to human-available nutrition a critical framing for land use efficiency debates. The global average water footprint of beef is ~15,400 L/kg vs. 3,300 L/kg for chicken and 5,990 L/kg for pork (Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9098-9) [19] , though ~94% is green water (rainfall) not diverted from other uses. Of ~8,800 recognized livestock breeds, 26% are at risk of extinction through displacement by high-productivity commercial lines eroding adaptive genetic diversity essential for future climate and disease resilience (FAO, 2015; https://doi.org/10.18356/cc25e35b-en) [11] .

Animal Welfare

The Five Freedoms framework (FAWC, 1979) remains the dominant welfare policy reference globally; a positive welfare paradigm emphasizing animals' capacity for positive affective states is increasingly articulated in scientific literature (Mellor et al., 2020; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101870) [29] . PLF technologies create welfare benefits through automated early disease detection, estrus identification reducing unnecessary handling, and behavioral monitoring detecting social stress automated lameness detection reduces mean duration of untreated moderate/severe lameness from >10 days to <3 days in well-managed herds (Kofler, 2013; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetj.2013.04.021) [25] . However, extreme selection for production traits creates welfare deficits: commercial broiler strains exhibit 26-35% prevalence of severe leg abnormalities at slaughter weight alongside elevated cardiac failure rates (Bessei, 2006; https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660600753421) [3] , prompting EFSA (2023; https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7790) [9] to recommend breed-specific welfare standards. EU legislation bans barren battery cages (since 2012); the proposed Farm to Fork cage-free ban by 2027 and California Proposition 12 (fully implemented 2024) are driving global supply chain restructuring. Cage-free systems offer improved behavioral opportunity but carry higher mortality (5-6% vs. 2-3% in enriched cages), injurious pecking, and disease risks requiring careful management to translate structural improvements into genuine welfare gains (Lay et al., 2011; https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01780) [26] . [17] . Technology transfer requires: co-development with farming communities; adaptation to local breeds, disease environments, and feed resources; affordable delivery mechanisms; gender-sensitive extension; and enabling policy environments. Mobile platform delivery (Digital Green's video advisory in India; iCow SMS services in Kenya) demonstrates viable alternative channels for reaching resource-limited producers.

Challenges in

Economic, Regulatory, and Data Governance Barriers

Milking robots (€80,000-200,000/unit; 7-12-year payback under favorable conditions), high-density SNP arrays (€50-150/animal), and comprehensive herd health platforms require capital access unavailable to most global producers. Technology-as-a-service business models and cooperative purchasing arrangements partially address this. Regulatory fragmentation for gene-edited livestock (streamlined UK pathway vs. full EU GMO assessment vs. FDA animal drug regulation in the USA) creates market uncertainty deterring innovation investment. Farm data governance data ownership, interoperability, and secondary use protections where large technology companies capture value from farmer-generated sensor data remains legally and contractually underspecified, threatening farmer trust and adoption (Jakku et al., 2019; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.01.008) [23] . Rural broadband infrastructure deficits bind PLF adoption across Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and parts of Latin America. 9. Future Prospects 9.1 Cellular Agriculture: Cultivated meat proliferating animal myosatellite cells in bioreactors without slaughter received its first commercial approvals in Singapore (2020) and the USA (2023). Production costs have declined from USD 325,000/burger (2013) to an estimated USD 10-20/kg for chicken (2024), though commercial parity with conventional chicken (~USD 2-3/kg) requires further bioreactor scale-up, serum-free media development, and scaffold engineering breakthroughs (Tuomisto et al., 2014; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101897) [52] . Precision fermentation producing animal-identical proteins (casein, whey, egg albumin, heme) via microbial hosts offers potentially faster commercial routes and is advancing through regulatory review in multiple jurisdictions.

Multi-omics, Climate Adaptation, and One Health

Multi-omics integration (genomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics, microbiomics) combined with high-throughput PLF phenotyping is enabling genomic selection for traits historically unmeasurable at population scale feed efficiency, behavioral welfare indicators, and immune competence (Bouwman et al., 2018; https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4143) [4] . IPCC Sixth Assessment Report projections (2022; https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940) indicate that without aggressive mitigation, >2°C warming by 2050 will significantly expand heat stress zones, alter disease distributions, and degrade rangeland productivity; genomic selection and gene editing for heat tolerance, drought-adapted forage varieties, and silvopastoral system expansion are priority adaptations. The COVID-19 pandemic, H5N1 HPAI's unprecedented spread into dairy cattle (USA, 2024), ASF's global devastation, and AMR's trajectory collectively make the One Health integration of human, animal, and ecosystem health surveillance sharing data platforms, analytical capacity, and response infrastructure an urgent governance priority (Zinsstag et al., 2011; https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736 (11)60959-3) [59] .

Conclusion

This review documents an extraordinary breadth and pace of technological innovation transforming livestock production. Genomic selection, CRISPR editing, PLF sensor networks, AI-driven decision support, methane-mitigating additives, next-generation vaccines, and integrated One Health surveillance collectively constitute a technological capability set capable of delivering livestock systems that are simultaneously more productive, more efficient, more sustainable, and more humane. These are not distant prospects many are commercially deployed today. Yet the distribution of benefits is profoundly uneven. Technologies designed for intensive, capitalized production systems risk consolidating advantages within alreadyprivileged operations while marginalizing the 600 million smallholder farmers on whom global food security disproportionately depends. Environmental sustainability must be embedded as a co-equal primary objective, not treated as a constraint. Regulatory frameworks for gene editing require urgent international harmonization. The social and governance dimensions of technology transition equity, access, data rights, cultural compatibility require as much investment as the biological and digital science. Research priorities include: genomic improvement programs for locally adapted breeds in LMICs; low-cost PLF tools for smallholder deployment; rigorous welfare and environmental impact evaluations of emerging housing transitions; harmonized regulatory frameworks for precision breeding; and strengthened One Health surveillance infrastructure. The livestock production sector of 2050 will be defined by decisions made today. Whether the outcome serves the full spectrum of human and animal needs across income levels, geographies, and species will depend on the equity, wisdom, and foresight with which these innovations are governed and shared.

References

1. Bach A, Terré M, Vidal M. Advances in nutritional strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions and increase productive efficiency of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science. 2021;104(11):11788-11812. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18984
2. Beauchemin KA, Ungerfeld EM, Abdalla AL, et al. Current enteric methane mitigation options. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2020;166(Suppl 1):S234-S251. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114499
3. Bessei W. Welfare of broilers: A review. World's Poultry Science Journal. 2006;62(3):455-466. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660600753421
4. Bouwman AC, Daetwyler HD, Chamberlain AJ, et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for cattle stature. Nature Genetics. 2018;50(3):362-367. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4143
5. Cong L, Ran FA, Cox D, et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science. 2013;339(6121):819-823. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231143
6. Dawkins MS, Cain R, Roberts SJ. Optical flow, flock behaviour and chicken welfare. Animal Behaviour. 2017;111:225-233. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2017.0044
7. de Vries A, Crane MB, Bartolome JA, et al. Automated detection of estrus and ovulation in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science. 2020;103(3):2380-2398. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17622
8. Dineshbabu G, Goswami G, Kumar R, Sinha A, Das D. Microalgae Nutritious, sustainable aqua-and animal feed source. Journal of Functional Foods. 2019;62:103545. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2018.12.030
9. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. Welfare of chickens on farm. EFSA Journal. 2023;21(2):e07790. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7790
10. Exadaktylos V, Silva M, Aerts JM, Taylor CJ, Berckmans D. Real-time recognition of sick pig cough sounds. Biosystems Engineering. 2008;99(3):436-444. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2008.01.003
11. Food and Agriculture Organization. The Second Report on the State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome: FAO; 2015. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18356/cc25e35b-en
12. Food and Agriculture Organization. FAOSTAT Statistical Database. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2023. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat
13. García-Ruiz A, Cole JB, VanRaden PM, et al. Changes in genetic selection differentials and generation intervals in US Holstein dairy cattle. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2016;113(28):E3995-E4004. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-10803
14. Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, et al. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome: FAO; 2013. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18356/4bcf5d72-en
15. Gootenberg JS, Abudayyeh OO, Lee JW, et al. Nucleic acid detection with CRISPR-Cas13a/C2c2. Science. 2017;356(6336):438-442. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9321
16. Henderson G, Cox F, Ganesh S, et al. Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host. Scientific Reports. 2015;5:14567. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac5620
17. Herrero M, Thornton PK, Notenbaert AM, et al. Smart investments in sustainable food production: Revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems. Science. 2010;327(5967):822-825. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livscipro.2009.11.049
18. Herrero M, Wirsenius S, Henderson B, et al. Livestock and the environment: What have we learned in the past decade? Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2015;40:177-202. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac0341
19. Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK. Water footprints of nations. Water Resources Management. 2007;21(1):3548. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-0069098-9
20. Hristov AN, Oh J, Giallongo F, et al. An inhibitor persistently decreased enteric methane emission from dairy cows. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2015;112(34):10663-10668. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504124112
21. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940
22. Jacobs JA, Siegford JM. The impact of automatic milking systems on dairy cow management, behavior, health, and welfare. Journal of Dairy Science. 2012;95(5):22272247. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.20125468
23. Jakku E, Taylor B, Fleming A, et al. Trust, transparency and benefit-sharing in Smart Farming. NJASWageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 2019;9091:100285. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.01.008
24. Kaufman EI, LeBlanc SJ, McBride BW, Duffield TF, DeVries TJ. Association of rumination time with subclinical ketosis in transition dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science. 2016;99(7):5604-5618. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-10911
25. Kofler J. Use of an accelerometer-based lameness detection system in dairy cows. Veterinary Journal. 2013;198(3):646-651. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetj.2013.04.021
26. Lay DC, Fulton RM, Hester PY, et al. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Science. 2011;90(1):278-294. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01780
27. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learning. Nature. 2015;521(7553):436-444. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539
28. Loc-Carrillo C, Abedon ST. Pros and cons of phage therapy. Bacteriophage. 2011;1(2):111-114. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4161/bact.1.2.14590
29. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, et al. The 2020 Five Domains Model. Animals. 2020;10(10):1870. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101870
30. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics. 2001;157(4):1819-1829. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/157.4.1819
31. Mottet A, de Haan C, Falcucci A, Tempio G, Opio C, Gerber P. Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? Global Environmental Change. 2017;47:84-93. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.001
32. Mueller ML, Cole JB, Sonstegard TS, Van Eenennaam AL. Comparison of gene editing versus conventional breeding to introgress the POLLED allele. Journal of Dairy Science. 2019;102(5):4215-4226. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0193-6
33. Mwai O, Hanotte O, Kwon YJ, Cho S. African indigenous cattle: Unique genetic resources. AsianAustralasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2015;28(7):911-921. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.14.0783
34. Neumann CG, Gewa C, Bwibo NO. Child nutrition in developing countries. Pediatrics. 2003;112(Suppl 3):1588. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nutr.23.011702.073048
35. Norman HD, Cole JB, Misztal I, Kuhn MT. Genetic change in longevity, fertility, and wellness traits in US Holstein cattle. Journal of Dairy Science. 2021;104(8):8921-8935. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18580
36. O'Donnell V, Rowlands RJ, Hicks H, et al. African swine fever: Gaps and opportunities. Emerging Microbes & Infections. 2023;12(1):2180464. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00831-z
37. O'Neill J. Tackling Drug-Resistant Infections Globally. The Review on Antimicrobial Resistance. London: HM Government and Wellcome Trust; 2016. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00184-9
38. Pardi N, Hogan MJ, Porter FW, Weissman D. mRNA vaccines A new era in vaccinology. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2018;17(4):261-279. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2017.243
39. Perry BD, Randolph TF, McDermott JJ, Sones KR, Thornton PK. Investing in animal health research to alleviate poverty. Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute; 2013. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060361
40. Pizza M, Scarlato V, Masignani V, et al. Identification of vaccine candidates against serogroup B meningococcus. Science. 2000;287(5459):1816-1820. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1816
41. Pomar C, Remus A. Precision pig nutrition and feeding. In: Precision Nutrition in Pigs. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers; 2019. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-889-4_10
42. Pontes JHF, Melo Sterza FA, Basso AC, et al. Ovum pick up, in vitro embryo production, and pregnancy rates from Nelore cattle donors. Theriogenology. 2011;75(9):1640-1646. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.08.031
43. Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. 2018;360(6392):987-992. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
44. Rautureau S, Dufour B, Durand B. Vulnerability of animal trade networks to infectious diseases. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2011;58(2):121128. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019682
45. Rodríguez Alvarez J, Arroqui M, Mangudo P, et al. Body condition estimation on cows using CNNs. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2018;155:12-22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13094
46. Romero DA, Franceschini EA, Giangaré DL, Caviglia OP. Pasture biomass estimation combining hyperspectral remote sensing and UAV imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2021;260:112344. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112344
47. Roque BM, Venegas M, Kinley RD, et al. Red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) reduces enteric methane by over 80 percent in beef steers. PLOS ONE. 2021;16(3):e0247820. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247820
48. Sasson G, Ben-Shabat SK, Seroussi E, et al. Heritable bovine rumen bacteria are phylogenetically related and correlated with energy harvesting capacity. mBio. 2017;8(4):e00703-17. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14337-7
49. Seidel GE. Update on sexed semen technology in cattle. Animal. 2014;8(Suppl 1):160-164. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2014.03.024
50. Speksnijder DC, Mevius DJ, Bruschke CJM, Wagenaar JA. Reduction of veterinary antimicrobial use in the Netherlands. Zoonoses and Public Health. 2015;62(Suppl 1):79-87. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001773
51. Steeneveld W, Hogeveen H. Characterization of Dutch dairy farms using automatic milking systems. Journal of Dairy Science. 2015;98(9):6512-6521. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9477
52. Tuomisto HL, Ellis MJ, Haastrup P. Environmental impacts of cultured meat: Alternative production scenarios. In: Proceedings of the 9th International LCA Agri-Food Conference; 2014. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101897
53. Van Hertem T, Maltz E, Antler A, et al. Lameness detection based on multivariate continuous sensing. Journal of Dairy Science. 2013;96(7):4286-4298. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.05.004
54. van Huis A, Oonincx DGAB. The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2017;37(5):43. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsectphys.2017.06.008
55. Wathes CM, Kristensen HH, Aerts JM, Berckmans D. Is precision livestock farming an engineer's daydream or nightmare? Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2008;64(1):2-10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2008.06.004
56. Whitworth KM, Rowland RRR, Ewen CL, et al. Geneedited pigs are protected from porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. Nature Biotechnology. 2016;34(1):20-22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3434
57. World Health Organization. Critically Important Antimicrobials for Human Medicine. 6th revision. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019.
58. Wiggans GR, Cole JB, Hubbard SM, Sonstegard TS. Genomic selection in dairy cattle: The USDA experience. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. 2017;5(1):309327. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.201611569.
59. Zinsstag J, Schelling E, Waltner-Toews D, Tanner M. From 'one medicine' to 'one health'. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2011;101(3-4):148-156. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60959-3
60. Zou Y, Liu Y, Liu Z, et al. SLICK locus modification in Holstein cattle confers heat tolerance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2019;116(32):16019-16024. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821400116