Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T13:23:21.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sustainability of ruminant agriculture in the new context: feeding strategies and features of animal adaptability into the necessary holistic approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2010

F. Bocquier  and
E. González-García
F. Bocquier*
Affiliation:
Montpellier SupAgro, UMR868 ERRC, Bâtiment 22, Campus SupAgro-INRA, 2 Place Pierre Viala, F-34060 Montpellier, France
E. González-García
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR868 ERRC, F-34060 Montpellier, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

There are numerous recent studies highlighting sustainability problems for the development of ruminant production systems (RPS) while facing increasing human food necessities and global climate change. Despite the complexity of the context, in our view the main objectives of the ruminants’ physiologist should be convergent for both industrialized (IC) and developing countries (DC) in a common and global strategy of advancing knowledge. In DC, this means improving the efficiency of RPS, taking into account the unique possibility of using rangelands. For IC settings, RPS should be revisited in terms of autonomy and environment- friendly feeding and managing practices. Assuming that competition for feed/food use is still a crucial criterion, future ruminant feeding systems (FeSyst) should preferably focus on lignocellulosic sources. According to biome distributions, and the recent increases in volumes of crop residues and their by-products, the annually renewed volumes of these biomasses are considerable. Therefore, we need to redesign our strategies for their efficient utilization at the local level. For this purpose, digestion processes and rumen functioning need to be better understood. The renewed vision of ruminal digestion through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is also a key aspect as it is an environmental demand that cannot be ignored. With regard to other ruminants’ physiological functions, accumulated knowledge could be mobilized into an integrative approach that puts forward the adaptive capacities of animals to face variability in quantity and quality of supplied feeds. Basically, the reduction of inputs that were traditionally used to ensure FeSyst will need more flexible animals. In that sense, the concepts of homeostasis and teleophorhesis need to be updated and adapted to domestic species and breeds that were until now largely excluded from the dominant productive systems. In conclusion, a more holistic approach of research targets is required in which physiological functions and farmers’ practices must converge and respond to each particular situation in an integral, dynamic and flexible conceptual perspective. From a scientific point of view, both for ICs and DCs, a broader range of experimental scenarios should be explored in order to arrive at innovative practices and solutions that respect environmental, ethical and economical issues. The clear challenge is to in evaluate the sustainability of RPSs. This includes, in our opinion, a strong interaction with other disciplines (multi- and trans-disciplinary conception), thus structuring new relevant indicators for the evaluation sustainability.

Keywords

ruminantsustainabilityfeedingadaptive capacityenvironment
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 7: XIth International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology (ISRP), 6–9 September, 2009 Clermont-Ferrand (France) , July 2010 , pp. 1258 - 1273
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agabriel, J, Petit, M 1987. Recommandations alimentaires pour les vaches allaitantes. Bulletin Technique CRZV Theix INRA 70, 153–166.Google Scholar
Akin, DE, Rigsby, LL, Sethuraman, A, Morrison, WH, Gamble, GR, Eriksson, KE 1995. Alterations in structure, chemistry, and biodegradability of grass lignocellulose treated with the white rot fungi Ceriporiopsis subvermispora and Cyathus stercoreus. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61, 1591–1598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ARC (Agricultural Research Council) 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. CAB, Slough, UK, 351pp.Google Scholar
Archimède, H, Boval, M, Alexandre, G, Xandé, A, Aumont, G, Poncet, C 2000. Effect of regrowth age on intake and digestion of Digitaria decumbens consumed by Blackbelly sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 87, 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atti, N, Bocquier, F 1999. Adaptation des brebis Barbarine à l’alternance sous-nutrition-réalimentation: effets sur les tissus adipeux. Annales de Zootechnie 48, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atti, N, Bocquier, F, Khaldi, G 2004. Performance of the fat-tailed barbarine sheep in its environment: adaptive capacity to alternation of underfeeding and re-feeding periods. A review. Animal Research 53, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, A, Huntington, GB, Calsamiglia, S, Stern, MD 2000. Nitrogen metabolism of early lactation cows fed diets with two different levels of protein and different amino acid profiles. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 2585–2595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauman, DE, Currie, WB 1980. Partitioning of nutrients during pregnancy and lactation: a review of mechanisms involving homeostasis and homeorhesis. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 1514–1529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauman, DE, Vernon, RG 1993. Effects of exogenous bovine somatotropin on lactation. Annual Review of Nutrition 13, 437–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchemin, KA, Colombatto, D, Morgavi, DP, Yang, WZ, Rode, LM 2004. Mode of action of exogenous cell wall degrading enzymes for ruminants. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben Salem, H, Smith, T 2008. Feeding strategies to increase small ruminant production in dry environments. Small Ruminant Research 77, 174–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, LL, Fahey, GC, Bourquin, LD, Titgemeyer, EC 1994. Modification of forage quality after harvest. In Forage cell wall structure and digestibility. In forage quality, evaluation, and utilization (ed. GC Fahey), pp. 922–966. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
Blake, JT, Olsen, JD, Walters, L, Lamb, RC 1982. Attaining and measuring physical fitness in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 1544–1555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanc, F, Bocquier, F, Agabriel, J, D’Hour, P, Chilliard, Y 2006. Adaptive abilities of the females and sustainability of ruminant livestock systems. A review. Animal Research 55, 489–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bocquier, F, Guillouet, P, Barillet, F 1995. Alimentation hivernale des brebis laitières: intérêt de la mise en lots. INRA Productions Animales 8, 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bocquier, F, Caja, G, Oregui, LM, Ferret, A, Molina, E, Barillet, F 2002. Nutrition et alimentation des brebis laitières. CIHEAM-Options Méditerranéennes, Série B Etude et recherche 42, 37–55.Google Scholar
Bonnet, M, Leroux, C, Faulconnier, Y, Hocquette, JF, Bocquier, F, Martin, P, Chilliard, Y 2000. Lipoprotein lipase activity and mRNA are up-regulated by refeeding in adipose tissue and cardiac muscle of sheep. Journal of Nutrition 130, 749–756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boval, M, Archimède, H, Cruz, P, Duru, M 2007. Intake and digestibility in heifers grazing a Dichanthium spp. dominated pasture, at 14 and 28 days of regrowth. Animal Feed Science and Technology 134, 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calsamiglia, S, Busquet, M, Cardozo, PW, Castillejos, L, Ferret, A 2007. Invited review: essential oils as modifiers of rumen microbial fermentation. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2580–2595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaucheyras-Durand, F, Walker, ND, Bach, A 2008. Effects of active dry yeasts on the rumen microbial ecosystem: past, present and future. Animal Feed Science and Technology 145, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherney, JH, Cherney, DJR, Akin, DE, Axtell, JD 1991. Potential of brown-midrib, low-lignin mutants to improve forage quality. Advances in Agronomy 46, 157–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilliard, Y 1986. Revue bibliographique: variations quantitatives et métabolisme des lipides dans les tissus adipeux et le foie au cours du cycle gestation-lactation. 1. Chez la ratte, Reproduction Nutrition and Development 26, 1057–1103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chilliard, Y 1992. Physiological constraints to milk production: factors which determine nutrient partitioning, lactation persistency, and mobilization of body reserves. World Revue of Animal Production 27, 19–26.Google Scholar
Chilliard, Y 1993. Dietary fat and adipose tissue metabolism in ruminants, pigs and rodents: a review. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 3897–3931.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chilliard, Y, Bocquier, F, Doreau, M 1998. Digestive and metabolic adaptations of ruminants to undernutrition, and consequences on reproduction. Reproduction Nutrition and Development 38, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coulon, JB, Pradel, P, Cochard, T, Poutrel, B 1998. Extreme walking conditions for dairy cows on milk yield, chemical composition, and somatic cell count. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 994–1003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Haan, C, Steinfeld, H, Blackburn, H 1997. Livestock and the environment. Finding a balance. European Commission Directorate General for Development. Food Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Delavaud, C, Ferlay, A, Faulconnier, Y, Bocquier, F, Kann, G, Chilliard, Y 2002. Plasma leptin concentration in adult cattle: effects of breed, adiposity, feeding level, and meal intake. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1317–1328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delgado, CL, Rosegrant, MW, Steinfeld, H, Ehui, S, Courbois, C 1999. Livestock to 2020; The next food revolution. Vision initiative food, agriculture and the environment discussion. Paper 28. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
Ensminger, ME, Oldfield, JE, Heinemann, WW 1990. Feeds and nutrition, 2nd edition. The Ensminger Publishing Co., Clovis, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Ezanno, P, Ickowicz, A, Bocquier, F 2003. Factors affecting the body condition score of N’Dama cows under extensive range management in Southern Senegal. Animal Research 52, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) 2005. Pastoralism in the new millennium. Retrieved September 11, 2009, from http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2647E/Y2647E00.HTMGoogle Scholar
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) 2007. The state of food and agriculture 2007: paying farmers for environmental services. FAO Agriculture Series no. 38. Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
FAO 2008. Grasslands of the world. Retrieved September 17, 2009, from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/y8344e/y8344e00.pdfGoogle Scholar
FAO 2009a. The state of food insecurity in the world. Retrieved November 17, 2009, from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i0876e/i0876e.pdfGoogle Scholar
FAO 2009b. The state of agricultural commodity markets high food prices and the food crisis –experiences and lessons learned. Retrieved November 21, 2009, from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i0854e/i0854e.pdfGoogle Scholar
FAOSTAT 2009. FAO online database. Time-series and cross sectional data relating to food and agriculture for some 200 countries. Retrieved November 21, 2009, from http://faostat.fao.org/site/573/default.aspxancorGoogle Scholar
Faverdin, P, Bareille, N 1999. Lipostatic regulation of feed intake in ruminants. In Regulation of feed intake (ed. D van der Heide, EA Huisman, E Kanis and JWM Osse), pp. 89–102. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Ford, JA Jr, Park, CS 2001. Nutritionally directed compensatory growth enhances heifer development and lactation potential. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1669–1678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friggens, NC 2003. Body lipid reserves and the reproductive cycle: towards a better understanding. Livestock Production Science 83, 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friggens, NC, Newbold, JR 2007. Towards a biological basis for predicting nutrient partitioning: the dairy cow as an example. Animal 1, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friggens, NC, Disenhaus, C, Petit, HV 2010. Nutritional sub-fertility in the dairy cow: towards improve reproductive management through a better biological understanding. Animal, in press, doi:10.1017/S1751731109991601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González-García, E, Alexandrine, Y, Silou-Etienne, T, Archimède, H 2009a. In situ degradability of conventional and unconventional starch sources for ruminants, and factors determining their washable fraction. Methodological Implications. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 89, 1918–1926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-García, E, Albanell, E, Caja, G, Casals, R 2009b. In vitro fermentative characteristics of ruminant diets supplemented with fibrolytic enzymes and ranges of optimal endo-ß-1,4-glucanase activity. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 94, 250–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-García, E, Debus, N, Chilliard, Y, Bocquier, F 2009c. Plasma leptin, feed intake and body fat reserves. An updated overview. Journal of Animal Science 87 (suppl. 2) and Journal of Dairy Science 92 (suppl. 1), 471.Google Scholar
Hammami, H, Rekik, B, Soyeurt, H, Bastin, C, Stoll, J, Gengler, N 2008. Genotype × environment interaction for milk yield in Holsteins using Luxembourg and Tunisian populations. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3661–3671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, BJ, Bowman, PJ, Chamberlain, AJ, Goddard, ME 2009. Genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 433–443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoch, T, Begon, C, Cassar-Malek, I, Picard, B, Savary-Auzeloux, I 2003. Mécanismes et conséquences de la croissance compensatrice chez les ruminants. INRA Productions Animales 16, 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, J 1990. Grazing management: Science into practice. Longman handbooks in agriculture. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, Essex, UK, 203pp.Google Scholar
Horton, GMJ 1980. Use of feed additives to reduce ruminal methane production and deaminase activity in steers. Journal of Animal Science 50, 1160–1164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
INRA (Institut National de Recherche Agronomique) 1988. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins (ed. R. Jarrige), pp. 471. INRA Editions, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2001. Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the 3rd Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed. RT Watson and the Core Writing Team), pp. 398. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Johnson, DE, Johnson, KA, Ward, GM, Branine, ME 2000. Ruminants and other animals. In Atmospheric methane: its role in the global environment (ed. MAK Khalil), pp. 112–133. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, KA, Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kebreab, E, Dijkstra, J, Bannink, A, France, J 2009. Recent advances in modeling nutrient utilization in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 87 (E. Suppl.), E111–E122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kharrat, M, Bocquier, F 2010. Impact of indoor feeding at late lactation stage on body reserves recovery and reproductive performances of Baladi dairy goats fed on pastoral system. Small Ruminant Research 90, 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, DO, Denman, SE, Mackie, RI, Morrison, M, Rae, AL, Attwood, GT, McSweeney, CS 2003. Opportunities to improve fibre degradation in the rumen: microbiology, ecology, and genomics. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 27, 663–693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kucuk, O, Hess, BW, Rule, DC 2004. Soybean oil supplementation of a high-concentrate diet does not affect site and extent of organic matter, starch, neutral detergent fiber, or nitrogen digestion, but influences both ruminal metabolism and intestinal flow of fatty acids in limit-fed lambs. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2985–2994.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Makkar, HPS 2003. Effects and fate of tannins in ruminant animals, adaptation to tannins, and strategies to overcome detrimental effects of feeding tannin-rich feeds. Small Ruminant Research 49, 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, GB, Milton, JTB, Davidson, RH, Banchero Hunzicker, GE, Lindsay, DR, Blache, D 2004. Natural methods for increasing reproductive efficiency in small ruminants. Animal Reproduction Science 82–83, 231–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maurício, RM, Sousa, LF, Moreira, GR, Reis, GL, Gonçalvez, LC 2008. Silvopastoral systems as a sustainable alternative to animal production in the tropics. Conference at the International Workshop “New Opportunities for Dairy and Dual Purpose Ruminant Systems in Latin America: Resource Management, Product Safety, Quality and Market Access”, Ixtapan de la Sal, Mexico, pp. 187–199.Google Scholar
Mayer, AM, Staples, RC 2002. Laccase: new functions for an old enzyme. Phytochemistry 60, 551–565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAllister, TA, Hristov, AN, Beauchemin, KA, Rode, LM, Cheng, KJ 2001. Enzymes in ruminant diets. In Enzymes in farm animal nutrition (ed. M Bedford and G Partridge), pp. 273–298. CABI Publishing, Oxon, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miglior, F, Muir, BL, Van Doormaal, BJ 2005. Selection indices in Holstein cattle of various countries. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1255–1263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molina-Alcaide, E, Yáñez-Ruiz, DR 2008. Potential use of olive by-products in ruminant feeding: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 147, 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niderkorn, V, Baumont, R 2009. Associative effects between forages on feed intake and digestion in ruminants. Animal 3, 951–960.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NRC (National Research Council) 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
Nussio, LG, Ribeiro, JL 2008. Forage conservation in tropical zones: potential and limitations of grass silages in South America. In Conference on Multifunctional Grasslands in a Changing World, vol. 2, 21st International Grassland Congress and 8th International Rangeland Congress, Hohhot, China, 29 June–5 July. pp. 644–649.Google Scholar
OECD-FAO (Organissation de coopération et de développement économiques – Food Agriculture Organization) 2008. OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2008–2017. Perspectives agricoles de l’OCDE et de la FAO 2008–2017. 73pp.Google Scholar
Orosz, S, Szcsné-Péter, J, Owens, V, Bellus, Z 2008. Recent developments in harvesting and conservation technology for feed and biomass production of perennial forage crops. Conference on Biodiversity and animal feed: future challenges for grassland production. Proceedings of the 22nd General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation (ed. A Hopkins, T Gustafsson, J Bertilsson, G Dalin, N Nilsdotter-Linde and E Spörndly), pp. 529–548. Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Preston, TR 1986. Better utilization of crop residues and by-products in animal feeding: research guidelines. A practical manual for research workers. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Preston, TR 2009. Environmentally sustainable production of food, feed and fuel from natural resources in the tropics. Tropical Animal Health and Production 41, 873–882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, JD 1995. Nutritional toxicology of tannins and related polyphenols in forage legumes. Journal of Animal Science 73, 1516–1528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, JJ, Ashworth, CJ, Rooke, JA, Mitchell, LM, McEvoy, TG 2006. Nutrition and fertility in ruminant livestock. Animal Feed Science and Technology 126, 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sewalt, VJH, Beauchemin, KA, Rode, LM, Acharya, S, Baron, VS 1997. Lignin impact on fiber degradation. IV. Enzymatic saccharification and in vitro digestibility of alfalfa and grasses following selective solvent delignification. Bioresource Technology 61, 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M, de Haan, C 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Somchit, A, Campbell, BK, Khalid, M, Kendall, NR, Scaramuzzi, RJ 2007. The effect of short-term nutritional supplementation of ewes with lupin grain (Lupinus luteus), during the luteal phase of the estrous cycle on the number of ovarian follicles and the concentrations of hormones and glucose in plasma and follicular fluid. Theriogenology 68, 1037–1046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sun, Y, Cheng, J 2002. Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol production: a review. Bioresource Technology 83, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tamminga, S 1996. A review on environmental impacts of nutritional strategies in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 74, 3112–3124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thatcher, WW 1974. Effects of season, climate, and temperature on reproduction and lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 57, 360–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The World Bank 2009. Minding the stock. Bringing public policy to bear on livestock sector development. The World Bank. Report no. 44010-GLB. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
Thorpe, A 2009. Enteric fermentation and ruminant eructation: the role (and control?) of methane in the climate change debate. Climatic Change 93, 407–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tillard, E, Humblot, P, Faye, B, Lecomte, P, Dohoo, I, Bocquier, F 2007. Precalving factors affecting conception risk in Holstein dairy cows in tropical conditions. Theriogenology 68, 567–581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tillard, E, Humblot, P, Faye, B, Lecomte, P, Dohoo, I, Bocquier, F 2008. Postcalving factors affecting conception risk in Holstein dairy cows in tropical and sub-tropical conditions. Theriogenology 69, 443–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tolkamp, BJ, Emmans, GC, Kyriazakis, I 2006. Body fatness affects feed intake of sheep at a given body weight. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1778–1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, SR, Taylor, N, Jones, L 2001. Mutations of the secondary cell wall. Plant Molecular Biology 47, 209–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
UNCCC 2009. The 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) of Copenhagen. Retrieved December 21, 2009, from http://en.cop15.dk/Google Scholar
Varga, GA, Kolver, ES 1997. Microbial and animal limitations to fibre digestion and utilization. The Journal of Nutrition 127, 819S–823S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vasta, V, Nudda, A, Cannas, A, Lanza, M, Priolo, A 2008. Alternative feed resources and their effects on the quality of meat and milk from small ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 147, 223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinolesa, C, Meikle, A, Martin, GB 2009. Short-term nutritional treatments grazing legumes or feeding concentrates increase prolificacy in Corriedale ewes. Animal Reproduction Science 113, 82–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waghorn, GC, Clark, DA 2006. Greenhouse gas mitigation opportunities with immediate application to pastoral grazing for ruminants. International Congress Series 1293, 107–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, JW 2003. Effects of heat-stress on production in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2131–2144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed