Reproduciendo para la sostenibilidad: cómo las biotecnologías reproductivas pueden ayudar a los criadores de búfalos a combatir el cambio climático
Palabras clave:
metano entérico, eficiencia, fertilidad, tecnología de reproducción asistida
Resumen
La atención mundial sobre la producción de CH 4 entérico en rumiantes requiere una respuesta que implique la colaboración entre investigadores y la industria. Las generaciones futuras de búfalos se caracterizarán por una mayor eficiencia y fertilidad, lo que puede reducir la intensidad de las emisiones de CH 4 . Este objetivo será el resultado de una selección equilibrada de múltiples rasgos y la introducción de un manejo reproductivo y productivo eficiente. Actualmente, las granjas de búfalos cuentan con programas reproductivos eficientes que utilizan tecnologías de reproducción asistida (ART). Nuestro creciente conocimiento sobre la función ovárica durante el ciclo estral de las búfalas ha brindado nuevos enfoques para sincronizar con precisión el desarrollo folicular y la ovulación para aplicar las ART de manera consistente. Los protocolos de sincronización están diseñados para controlar la función lútea y folicular y permitir la IA a tiempo fijo (IATF) con altas tasas de preñez durante las temporadas de reproducción (otoño-invierno) y no reproductiva (primavera-verano). Además, permite el inicio de tratamientos de superestimulación en el momento que usted elija, brindando oportunidades para superestimular a los donantes de búfalas asociados con la recogida de óvulos (OPU) y la producción de embriones in vitro (IVEP). Además, permite la transferencia de embriones a tiempo fijo (TETF) en las receptoras, con alta eficiencia y sin necesidad de detección de estro. Por lo tanto, las ART, como la IA y la ET, se aplican para la multiplicación y dispersión selectiva del búfalo con credenciales ambientales y de producción definidas. Además, la urgencia de pasar a la próxima generación de búfalos aumentará la producción de embriones a partir de novillas prepúberes genómicamente definidas. El uso de estas biotecnologías reducirá el intervalo generacional y acelerará la tasa de mejora genética del búfalo, definida por una mayor eficiencia y fertilidad y una menor emisión de CH 4 . El desafío sigue siendo comunicar la importancia de los búfalos para la seguridad alimentaria y el medio ambiente.
Descargas
La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.
Citas
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results. UN DESA/POP/2022/TR/
FAO. Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). End hunger, achieve food security, and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. 2019. Available: http://tail-news/en/c/424259/NO.3.loesreqtail-news/en/c/424259/
Zhang Y, Colli L, Barker JSF. Asian water buffalo: Domestication, history and genetics. Animal Genetics. 2020; 51(2): 177-191. https://doi.org/10.1111/age.12911
FAO. Crops and livestock products. License: CC BY-NCSA 3.0 IGO. Extracted from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL. Data of Access: 27-09-2023.
Wanapat M, Kang SC. World buffalo production: Challenges in meat and milk production, and mitigation of methane emission. Buffalo Bulletin. 2013, 32(1): 1–21.
Knapp Jr B, Nordskog AW. Heritability of growth and efficiency in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 1946; 5(1): 62-70. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1946.5162
Faverdin P, Guyomard H, Puillet L, Forslund A. Animal board invited review: Specialising and intensifying cattle production for better efficiency and less global warming: contrasting results for milk and meat co-production at different scales. Animal. 2022; 16(1): 100431. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100431
Baruselli PS, Abreu LA, Paula VR, Carvalho B, Gricio EA, Mori FK, Rebeis LM, Albertini S, Souza AH, D’Occhio MJ. Applying assisted reproductive technology and reproductive management to reduce CO2-equivalent emission in dairy and beef cattle: a review. Animal Reproduction. 2023; 20(2): e20230060. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-3143-AR2023-0060
Galyean ML, Hales KE. Feeding management strategies to mitigate methane and improve production efficiency in feedlot cattle. Animals. 2023; 13(4): 758. https://doi. org/10.3390/ani13040758
Chang J, Peng S, Ciais P, Saunois M, Dangal SRS, Herrero M, Havlík P, Tian H, Bousquet P. Revisiting enteric methane emissions from domestic ruminants and their δ13CCH4 source signature. Nature Communications. 2019; 10: 3420. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11066-3
FAO. Reducing enteric methane for improving food security and livelihoods. 2021. Available: http://www.fao.org/in-action/enteric-methane/background/why-is-enteric-methane-important/en/
Bowen JM, Cormican P, Lister SJ, McCabe MS, Duthie CA, Roehe R, Dewhurst RJ. Links between the rumen microbiota, methane emissions and feed efficiency of finishing steers offered dietary lipid and nitrate supplementation. PLoS One. 2020; 15(4): e0231759. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231759
Ross EM, Moate PJ, Marett L, Cocks BG, Hayes BJ. Investigating the effect of two methanemitigating diets on the rumen microbiome using massively parallel sequencing. Journal of Dairy Science. 2013; 96(9): 6030-6046. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-6766
Knapp JR, Laur GL, Vadas PA, Weiss WP, Tricarico JM. Invited review: Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: Quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. Journal of Dairy Science. 2014; 97(6): 3231-3261. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7234
Roehe R, Dewhurst RJ, Duthie CA, Rooke JA, McKain N, Ross DW, Hyslop JJ, Waterhouse A, Freeman TC, Watson M, Wallace RJ. 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. 2016; 12(2): e1005846. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005846
Baruselli PS, Carvalho NAT, Gasparrini B, Campanile G, D’Occhio MJ. Review: Development, adoption, and impact of assisted reproduction in domestic buffaloes. Animal. 2023; 17(S1): 100764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. animal.2023.100764
Malik PK, Trivedi S, Mohapatra A, Kolte AP, Sejian V, Bhatta R, Rahman H. Comparison of enteric methane yield and diversity of ruminal methanogens in cattle and buffaloes fed on the same diet. PLoS ONE. 2021; 16(8): e0256048. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256048
Baruselli, PS, Carvalho JGS, Elliff FM, Da Silva JCB, Chello D, Carvalho NAT. Embryo transfer in buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). Theriogenology. 2020; 150: 221-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2020.01.037
Hegarty RS, McEwan JC. Genetic opportunities to reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminant livestock. In ‘Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production’; 2010; Leipzig, Germany. Leipzig: German Society for Animal Science. 2010. pp 181-186.
Baruselli PS, Carvalho NAT, Gimenes LU, Crepaldi GA. Fixed-time artificial insemination in buffalo. Italian Journal of Animal Science. 2007; 6(S2): 107-118. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2007.s2.107
Zicarelli L. Reproductive seasonality in buffalo. Bubalus Bubalis. 1997; 4(29): 52–54.
D’Occhio MJ, Ghuman SS, Neglia G, Della Valle G, Baruselli PS, Zicarelli L, Visintin JA, Sarkar M, Campanile G. Exogenous and endogenous factors in seasonality of reproduction in buffalo: A review. Theriogenology. 2020; 150: 186-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2020.01.044
Zicarelli L. Can we consider buffalo a non precocious and hypofertile species? Italian Journal of Animal Science. 2007; 6(S2): 143-154. https:
Carvalho NAT, Soares JG, Porto Filho RM, Gimenes LU, Souza DC, Nichi M, Sales JS, Baruselli PS. Equine chorionic gonadotropin improves the efficacy of a timed artificial insemination protocol in buffalo during the non-breeding season. Theriogenology. 2013; 79(3): 423-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2012.10.013
Monteiro BM, Souza DC, Vasconcellos GSFM, Carvalho NAT, Baruselli PS. Effect of season on dairy buffalo reproductive performance when using P4/E2/eCG-based fixed-time artificial insemination management. Theriogenology. 2018; 119: 275-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2018.07.004
Baruselli PS, Madureira EH, Barnabe VH, Barnabe RC, Berber RCA. Evaluation of synchronization of ovulation for fixed timed insemination in buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Reaserch and Animal Science. 2003; 40(6): 431-442. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-95962003000600007
Sá Filho MF, Carvalho NAT, Gimenes LU, Torres-Júnior JR, Nasser LFT, Tonhati H, Garcia JM, Gasparrini B, Zicarelli L, Baruselli, PS. Effect of recombinant bovine somatotropin (bST) on follicular population and on in vitro buffalo embryo production. Animal Reproduction Science. 2009; 113(1-4): 51-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anire-prosci.2008.06.008
Carvalho JGS, Carvalho NAT, Bayeux BM, Watanabe YF, Watanabe OY, Mingoti RD, Baruselli PS. Superstimulation prior to the ovum pick-up improves the in vitro embryo production in nulliparous, primiparous and multiparous buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) donors. Theriogenology. 2019; 138: 164-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.07.003
Silva JCB, Rezende RG, Colli MHA, Bayeux, BM, Mingoti RD, Ojeda-Rojas OA, Basso AC, Naves JR, Baruselli PS. In vitro embryo production in buffalo: Comparison between calves, prepubertal heifers and lactating cows. Animal Reproduction. 2017; 14(3): 766.
Baldassarre H, Bordignon V. Laparoscopic ovum pick-up for in vitro embryo production from dairy bovine and buffalo calves. Animal Reproduction. 2018; 15(3): 191-196. https://doi.org/10.21451/1984-3143-AR2018-0057
Baruselli PS, Soares JG, Bayeux BM, Da Silva JCB, Mingoti RD, Carvalho NAT. Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in water buffaloes. Animal Reproduction. 2018; 15(1): 971-983. http://dx.doi.org/10.21451/1984-3143-AR2018-0043
Currin L, Baldassarre H, Bordignon V. In vitro production of embryos from prepubertal Holstein cattle and Mediterranean water buffalo: Problems, progress and potential. Animals. 2021; 11(8): 2275. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ani11082275
Baruselli PS, Rodrigues CA, Ferreira RM, Sales JNS, Elliff FM, Silva LG, Viziack MP, Factor L, D’Occhio MJ. Impact of oocyte donor age and breed on in vitro embryo production in cattle, and relationship of dairy and beef embryo recipients on pregnancy and the subsequent performance of offspring: A review. Reproduction, Fertility and Development. 2021; 34(2): 36-51. https://doi. org/10.1071/RD21285
Cammack KM, Austin KJ, Lamberson WR, Conant GC, Cunningham HC. Ruminnat Nutrition Symposium: Tiny but mighty: The role of the rumen microbes in livestock production. Journal of Animal Science. 2018; 96(2): 752-770. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skx053
Johnson DE, Ward GM. Estimates of animal methane emissions. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 1996; 42: 133-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00394046
Arthur PF, Herd RM. Efficiency of feed utilisation by livestock Implications and benefits of genetic improvement. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 2005; 85(3): 281-290. https://doi.org/10.4141/A04-062.
Berry DP, Crowley JJ. Cell Biology Symposium: Genetics of feed efficiency in dairy and beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 2013; 91(4): 1594-1613. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas2012-5862
Gonzalez-Recio O, Pryce JE, Haile-Mariam M, Hayes BJ. Incorporating heifer feed efficiency in the Australian selection index using genomic selection. Journal of Dairy Science. 2014; 97(6): 3883-3893. https://doi. org/10.3168/jds.2013-7515
Sypniewski M, Strabel T, Pszczola M. Genetic variability of methane production and concentration measured in the breath of Polish Holstein-Friesian cattle. Animals. 2021; 11(11): 3175. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113175
Perera BMAO. Reproductive cycles of buffalo. Animal Reproduction Science. 2011; 124(3-4): 194-199. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.08.022
Khan FA, Das GK, Pande M, Sarkar M, Mahapatra RK, Shankar U. Alterations in follicular fluid estradiol, progesterone and insulin concentrations during ovarian acyclicity in water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). Animal Reproduction Science. 2012; 130(1-2): 27-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2011.12.020
Abdoon AS, Gabler C, Holder C, Kandil OM, Einspanier R. Seasonal variations in developmental competence and relative abundance of gene transcripts in buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) oocytes. Theriogenology. 2014; 82(8): 1055-1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2014.07.008
Phogat JB, Pandey AK, Singh I. Seasonality in buffaloes reproduction. International Journal of Plant and Animal Sciences. 2016; 6(2): 46-54.
Sabia E, Napolitano F, Claps S, Braghieri A, Piazzolla, N, Pacelli C. Feeding, nutrition and sustainability in dairy enterprises: the case of Mediterranean buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis). In: Vastola, A. (Ed.), The Sustainability of Agro-food and Natural Resource Systems in the Mediterranean Basin. 2015. Springer Open, pp. 57–64. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16357-4_5
Sabia E, Claps S, Napolitano F, Annicchiarico G, Bruno A, Francaviglia R, Sepe L, Aleandri R. In vivo digestibility of two different forage species inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhiza in Mediterranean red goats. Small Ruminant Research. 2015; 123: 83-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. smallrumres.2014.10.008
Sabia E, Napolitano F, Salvatore C, De Rosa G, Barile VL, Braghieri A, Pacelli C. Environmental impact of dairy buffalo heifers kept on pasture or in confinement. Agricultural Systems. 2018; 159: 42-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.10.010
Sabia E, Napolitano F, De Rosa G, Terzano GM, Barile VL, Braghieri A, Pacelli C. Efficiency to reach age of puberty and behaviour of buffalo heifers (Bubalus bubalis) kept on pasture or in confinement. Animal. 2014; 8(11): 1907-1916. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114001876
Borghese A. Buffalo Production and Research. Technical Series 67. 2005. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Baruselli OS, Barnabe VH, Barnabe RC, Visintin JA, Molero-Filho JR, Porto R. Effect of body condition score at calving on postpartum reproductive performance in buffalo. Buffalo Journal. 2001; 1: 53-65.
Usmani RH, Dailey RA, Inskeep EK. Effects of limited suckling and varying prepartum nutrition on postpartum reproductive traits of milked buffaloes. Journal of Dairy Science. 1990; 73(6): 1564-1570. https://doi.org/10.3168/ jds.S0022-0302(90)78826-1
Nanda AS, Brar PS, Prabhakar S. Enhancing reproductive performance in dairy buffalo: Major constraints and achievements. Reproduction Supplement. 2003; 61: 27-36.
Perera BMAO, de Silva LNA, Kuruwita VY, Karunaratne AM. Postpartum ovarian activity, uterine involution and fertility in indigenous buffaloes at a selected village location in Sri Lanka. Animal Reproduction Science. 1987; 14(2): 115-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4320(87)90091-1
Mohan V, Kuruwita VY, Perera BMAO, Abeygunawardena H. Effects of suckling on the resumption of post-partum ovarian activity in buffaloes. Tropical Agricultural Re-search. 1990; 2: 306-315.
Singh AK, Brar PS, Nanda AS, Prakash BS. Effect of suckling on basal and GnRH-induced LH release in post-partum dairy buffaloes. Animal Reproduction Science. 2006; 95(3-4): 244-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2005.10.004
Perera BMAO, Abeygunawardena H, Vale WG, Chantalakhana C. Buffalo. In: Livestock and Wealth Creation– Improving the Husbandry of Animals Kept by Poor People in Developing Countries. Livestock Production Programme. Natural Resources International Limited. UK. 2005; pp 451–471.
Pirlo G, Caré S, Fantin V, Falconi F, Buttol P, Terzano GM, Masoni P, Pacelli C. Factors affecting life cycle assessment of milk produced on 6 Mediterranean buffalo farms. Journal of Dairy Science. 2014; 97(10): 6583-6593. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8007
O’Brien D, Shalloo L, Patton J, Buckley F, Grainger C, Wallace M. A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms. Agricultural Systems. 2012; 107: 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.11.004
Chirone R, Paulillo A, Salatino P, Salzano A, Cristofaro B, Cristiano T, Campanile G, Neglia G. Life cycle assessment of buffalo milk: A case study of three farms in southern Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022; 365: 132816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132816
Campanile G, Baruselli PS, Vecchio D, Prandi A, Neglia G, Carvalho NAT, Sales JNS, Gasparrini B, D’Occhio MJ. Growth, metabolic status and ovarian function in buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) heifers fed a low energy or high energy diet. Animal Reproduction Science. 2010; 22(1-2): 74-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.07.005
De Vivo R, Zicarelli L, Napolano R, Zicarelli F. Calculation method of the carbon footprint of products of animal origin integrated with the physiological absorption of carbon dioxide: Calculation example of the CFP of mozzarella di Bufala Campana DPO. Advances in Environmental and Engineering Research. 2023; 4(3): 044. https://doi. org/10.21926/aeer.2303044
Ibidhi R, Calsamiglia S. Carbon footprint assessment of Spanish dairy cattle farms: Effectiveness of dietary and farm management practices as a mitigation strategy. Animals. 2020; 10(11): 2083. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10112083
ISO 14040. Environmental management life cycle assessment-principles and framework. 2006. Reference number ISO 14040:2006(E).
ISO 14044. Environmental management - life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelines. 2006. Reference number ISO 14044:2006(E).
de Vries M, van Middlelaar CE, de Boer IJM. Comparing environmental impacts of beef production systems: A review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science. 2015; 178: 279-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livs-ci.2015.06.020
Kyttä V, Roitto M, Astaptsev A, Saarinen M, Tuomisto HL. Review and expert survey of allocation methods used in life cycle assessment of milk and beef. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2022; 27: 191-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-02019-4
Ijaz M, Goheer MA. Emission profile of Pakistan’s agriculture: past trends and future projections. Environment,
Development and Sustainability. 2021; 23: 1668-1687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00645-w
Romano E, De Palo P, Tidona F, Maggiolino A, Bragaglio A. Dairy buffalo Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) affected by a management choice: The production of wheat crop. Sustainability. 2021; 13(19): 11108. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911108
Correddu F, Lunesu MF, Caratzu MF, Pulina G. Recalculating the global warming impact of italian livestock methane emissions with new metrics. Italian Journal of Animal Science. 2023; 22(1): 125-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2023.2167616
Yusuf RO, Noor ZZ, Abba AH, Abu Hassan MA, Mohd Din MF. Greenhouse gas emissions: Quantifying methane emissions from livestock. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 2012; 5(1): 1-8. https:// doi.org/10.3844/ajeassp.2012.1.8
FAO. Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). End hunger, achieve food security, and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. 2019. Available: http://tail-news/en/c/424259/NO.3.loesreqtail-news/en/c/424259/
Zhang Y, Colli L, Barker JSF. Asian water buffalo: Domestication, history and genetics. Animal Genetics. 2020; 51(2): 177-191. https://doi.org/10.1111/age.12911
FAO. Crops and livestock products. License: CC BY-NCSA 3.0 IGO. Extracted from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL. Data of Access: 27-09-2023.
Wanapat M, Kang SC. World buffalo production: Challenges in meat and milk production, and mitigation of methane emission. Buffalo Bulletin. 2013, 32(1): 1–21.
Knapp Jr B, Nordskog AW. Heritability of growth and efficiency in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 1946; 5(1): 62-70. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1946.5162
Faverdin P, Guyomard H, Puillet L, Forslund A. Animal board invited review: Specialising and intensifying cattle production for better efficiency and less global warming: contrasting results for milk and meat co-production at different scales. Animal. 2022; 16(1): 100431. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100431
Baruselli PS, Abreu LA, Paula VR, Carvalho B, Gricio EA, Mori FK, Rebeis LM, Albertini S, Souza AH, D’Occhio MJ. Applying assisted reproductive technology and reproductive management to reduce CO2-equivalent emission in dairy and beef cattle: a review. Animal Reproduction. 2023; 20(2): e20230060. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-3143-AR2023-0060
Galyean ML, Hales KE. Feeding management strategies to mitigate methane and improve production efficiency in feedlot cattle. Animals. 2023; 13(4): 758. https://doi. org/10.3390/ani13040758
Chang J, Peng S, Ciais P, Saunois M, Dangal SRS, Herrero M, Havlík P, Tian H, Bousquet P. Revisiting enteric methane emissions from domestic ruminants and their δ13CCH4 source signature. Nature Communications. 2019; 10: 3420. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11066-3
FAO. Reducing enteric methane for improving food security and livelihoods. 2021. Available: http://www.fao.org/in-action/enteric-methane/background/why-is-enteric-methane-important/en/
Bowen JM, Cormican P, Lister SJ, McCabe MS, Duthie CA, Roehe R, Dewhurst RJ. Links between the rumen microbiota, methane emissions and feed efficiency of finishing steers offered dietary lipid and nitrate supplementation. PLoS One. 2020; 15(4): e0231759. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231759
Ross EM, Moate PJ, Marett L, Cocks BG, Hayes BJ. Investigating the effect of two methanemitigating diets on the rumen microbiome using massively parallel sequencing. Journal of Dairy Science. 2013; 96(9): 6030-6046. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-6766
Knapp JR, Laur GL, Vadas PA, Weiss WP, Tricarico JM. Invited review: Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: Quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. Journal of Dairy Science. 2014; 97(6): 3231-3261. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7234
Roehe R, Dewhurst RJ, Duthie CA, Rooke JA, McKain N, Ross DW, Hyslop JJ, Waterhouse A, Freeman TC, Watson M, Wallace RJ. 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. 2016; 12(2): e1005846. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005846
Baruselli PS, Carvalho NAT, Gasparrini B, Campanile G, D’Occhio MJ. Review: Development, adoption, and impact of assisted reproduction in domestic buffaloes. Animal. 2023; 17(S1): 100764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. animal.2023.100764
Malik PK, Trivedi S, Mohapatra A, Kolte AP, Sejian V, Bhatta R, Rahman H. Comparison of enteric methane yield and diversity of ruminal methanogens in cattle and buffaloes fed on the same diet. PLoS ONE. 2021; 16(8): e0256048. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256048
Baruselli, PS, Carvalho JGS, Elliff FM, Da Silva JCB, Chello D, Carvalho NAT. Embryo transfer in buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). Theriogenology. 2020; 150: 221-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2020.01.037
Hegarty RS, McEwan JC. Genetic opportunities to reduce enteric methane emissions from ruminant livestock. In ‘Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production’; 2010; Leipzig, Germany. Leipzig: German Society for Animal Science. 2010. pp 181-186.
Baruselli PS, Carvalho NAT, Gimenes LU, Crepaldi GA. Fixed-time artificial insemination in buffalo. Italian Journal of Animal Science. 2007; 6(S2): 107-118. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2007.s2.107
Zicarelli L. Reproductive seasonality in buffalo. Bubalus Bubalis. 1997; 4(29): 52–54.
D’Occhio MJ, Ghuman SS, Neglia G, Della Valle G, Baruselli PS, Zicarelli L, Visintin JA, Sarkar M, Campanile G. Exogenous and endogenous factors in seasonality of reproduction in buffalo: A review. Theriogenology. 2020; 150: 186-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2020.01.044
Zicarelli L. Can we consider buffalo a non precocious and hypofertile species? Italian Journal of Animal Science. 2007; 6(S2): 143-154. https:
Carvalho NAT, Soares JG, Porto Filho RM, Gimenes LU, Souza DC, Nichi M, Sales JS, Baruselli PS. Equine chorionic gonadotropin improves the efficacy of a timed artificial insemination protocol in buffalo during the non-breeding season. Theriogenology. 2013; 79(3): 423-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2012.10.013
Monteiro BM, Souza DC, Vasconcellos GSFM, Carvalho NAT, Baruselli PS. Effect of season on dairy buffalo reproductive performance when using P4/E2/eCG-based fixed-time artificial insemination management. Theriogenology. 2018; 119: 275-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2018.07.004
Baruselli PS, Madureira EH, Barnabe VH, Barnabe RC, Berber RCA. Evaluation of synchronization of ovulation for fixed timed insemination in buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Reaserch and Animal Science. 2003; 40(6): 431-442. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-95962003000600007
Sá Filho MF, Carvalho NAT, Gimenes LU, Torres-Júnior JR, Nasser LFT, Tonhati H, Garcia JM, Gasparrini B, Zicarelli L, Baruselli, PS. Effect of recombinant bovine somatotropin (bST) on follicular population and on in vitro buffalo embryo production. Animal Reproduction Science. 2009; 113(1-4): 51-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anire-prosci.2008.06.008
Carvalho JGS, Carvalho NAT, Bayeux BM, Watanabe YF, Watanabe OY, Mingoti RD, Baruselli PS. Superstimulation prior to the ovum pick-up improves the in vitro embryo production in nulliparous, primiparous and multiparous buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) donors. Theriogenology. 2019; 138: 164-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.07.003
Silva JCB, Rezende RG, Colli MHA, Bayeux, BM, Mingoti RD, Ojeda-Rojas OA, Basso AC, Naves JR, Baruselli PS. In vitro embryo production in buffalo: Comparison between calves, prepubertal heifers and lactating cows. Animal Reproduction. 2017; 14(3): 766.
Baldassarre H, Bordignon V. Laparoscopic ovum pick-up for in vitro embryo production from dairy bovine and buffalo calves. Animal Reproduction. 2018; 15(3): 191-196. https://doi.org/10.21451/1984-3143-AR2018-0057
Baruselli PS, Soares JG, Bayeux BM, Da Silva JCB, Mingoti RD, Carvalho NAT. Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in water buffaloes. Animal Reproduction. 2018; 15(1): 971-983. http://dx.doi.org/10.21451/1984-3143-AR2018-0043
Currin L, Baldassarre H, Bordignon V. In vitro production of embryos from prepubertal Holstein cattle and Mediterranean water buffalo: Problems, progress and potential. Animals. 2021; 11(8): 2275. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ani11082275
Baruselli PS, Rodrigues CA, Ferreira RM, Sales JNS, Elliff FM, Silva LG, Viziack MP, Factor L, D’Occhio MJ. Impact of oocyte donor age and breed on in vitro embryo production in cattle, and relationship of dairy and beef embryo recipients on pregnancy and the subsequent performance of offspring: A review. Reproduction, Fertility and Development. 2021; 34(2): 36-51. https://doi. org/10.1071/RD21285
Cammack KM, Austin KJ, Lamberson WR, Conant GC, Cunningham HC. Ruminnat Nutrition Symposium: Tiny but mighty: The role of the rumen microbes in livestock production. Journal of Animal Science. 2018; 96(2): 752-770. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skx053
Johnson DE, Ward GM. Estimates of animal methane emissions. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 1996; 42: 133-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00394046
Arthur PF, Herd RM. Efficiency of feed utilisation by livestock Implications and benefits of genetic improvement. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 2005; 85(3): 281-290. https://doi.org/10.4141/A04-062.
Berry DP, Crowley JJ. Cell Biology Symposium: Genetics of feed efficiency in dairy and beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 2013; 91(4): 1594-1613. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas2012-5862
Gonzalez-Recio O, Pryce JE, Haile-Mariam M, Hayes BJ. Incorporating heifer feed efficiency in the Australian selection index using genomic selection. Journal of Dairy Science. 2014; 97(6): 3883-3893. https://doi. org/10.3168/jds.2013-7515
Sypniewski M, Strabel T, Pszczola M. Genetic variability of methane production and concentration measured in the breath of Polish Holstein-Friesian cattle. Animals. 2021; 11(11): 3175. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113175
Perera BMAO. Reproductive cycles of buffalo. Animal Reproduction Science. 2011; 124(3-4): 194-199. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.08.022
Khan FA, Das GK, Pande M, Sarkar M, Mahapatra RK, Shankar U. Alterations in follicular fluid estradiol, progesterone and insulin concentrations during ovarian acyclicity in water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). Animal Reproduction Science. 2012; 130(1-2): 27-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2011.12.020
Abdoon AS, Gabler C, Holder C, Kandil OM, Einspanier R. Seasonal variations in developmental competence and relative abundance of gene transcripts in buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) oocytes. Theriogenology. 2014; 82(8): 1055-1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2014.07.008
Phogat JB, Pandey AK, Singh I. Seasonality in buffaloes reproduction. International Journal of Plant and Animal Sciences. 2016; 6(2): 46-54.
Sabia E, Napolitano F, Claps S, Braghieri A, Piazzolla, N, Pacelli C. Feeding, nutrition and sustainability in dairy enterprises: the case of Mediterranean buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis). In: Vastola, A. (Ed.), The Sustainability of Agro-food and Natural Resource Systems in the Mediterranean Basin. 2015. Springer Open, pp. 57–64. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16357-4_5
Sabia E, Claps S, Napolitano F, Annicchiarico G, Bruno A, Francaviglia R, Sepe L, Aleandri R. In vivo digestibility of two different forage species inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhiza in Mediterranean red goats. Small Ruminant Research. 2015; 123: 83-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. smallrumres.2014.10.008
Sabia E, Napolitano F, Salvatore C, De Rosa G, Barile VL, Braghieri A, Pacelli C. Environmental impact of dairy buffalo heifers kept on pasture or in confinement. Agricultural Systems. 2018; 159: 42-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.10.010
Sabia E, Napolitano F, De Rosa G, Terzano GM, Barile VL, Braghieri A, Pacelli C. Efficiency to reach age of puberty and behaviour of buffalo heifers (Bubalus bubalis) kept on pasture or in confinement. Animal. 2014; 8(11): 1907-1916. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114001876
Borghese A. Buffalo Production and Research. Technical Series 67. 2005. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Baruselli OS, Barnabe VH, Barnabe RC, Visintin JA, Molero-Filho JR, Porto R. Effect of body condition score at calving on postpartum reproductive performance in buffalo. Buffalo Journal. 2001; 1: 53-65.
Usmani RH, Dailey RA, Inskeep EK. Effects of limited suckling and varying prepartum nutrition on postpartum reproductive traits of milked buffaloes. Journal of Dairy Science. 1990; 73(6): 1564-1570. https://doi.org/10.3168/ jds.S0022-0302(90)78826-1
Nanda AS, Brar PS, Prabhakar S. Enhancing reproductive performance in dairy buffalo: Major constraints and achievements. Reproduction Supplement. 2003; 61: 27-36.
Perera BMAO, de Silva LNA, Kuruwita VY, Karunaratne AM. Postpartum ovarian activity, uterine involution and fertility in indigenous buffaloes at a selected village location in Sri Lanka. Animal Reproduction Science. 1987; 14(2): 115-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4320(87)90091-1
Mohan V, Kuruwita VY, Perera BMAO, Abeygunawardena H. Effects of suckling on the resumption of post-partum ovarian activity in buffaloes. Tropical Agricultural Re-search. 1990; 2: 306-315.
Singh AK, Brar PS, Nanda AS, Prakash BS. Effect of suckling on basal and GnRH-induced LH release in post-partum dairy buffaloes. Animal Reproduction Science. 2006; 95(3-4): 244-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2005.10.004
Perera BMAO, Abeygunawardena H, Vale WG, Chantalakhana C. Buffalo. In: Livestock and Wealth Creation– Improving the Husbandry of Animals Kept by Poor People in Developing Countries. Livestock Production Programme. Natural Resources International Limited. UK. 2005; pp 451–471.
Pirlo G, Caré S, Fantin V, Falconi F, Buttol P, Terzano GM, Masoni P, Pacelli C. Factors affecting life cycle assessment of milk produced on 6 Mediterranean buffalo farms. Journal of Dairy Science. 2014; 97(10): 6583-6593. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8007
O’Brien D, Shalloo L, Patton J, Buckley F, Grainger C, Wallace M. A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms. Agricultural Systems. 2012; 107: 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.11.004
Chirone R, Paulillo A, Salatino P, Salzano A, Cristofaro B, Cristiano T, Campanile G, Neglia G. Life cycle assessment of buffalo milk: A case study of three farms in southern Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022; 365: 132816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132816
Campanile G, Baruselli PS, Vecchio D, Prandi A, Neglia G, Carvalho NAT, Sales JNS, Gasparrini B, D’Occhio MJ. Growth, metabolic status and ovarian function in buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) heifers fed a low energy or high energy diet. Animal Reproduction Science. 2010; 22(1-2): 74-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.07.005
De Vivo R, Zicarelli L, Napolano R, Zicarelli F. Calculation method of the carbon footprint of products of animal origin integrated with the physiological absorption of carbon dioxide: Calculation example of the CFP of mozzarella di Bufala Campana DPO. Advances in Environmental and Engineering Research. 2023; 4(3): 044. https://doi. org/10.21926/aeer.2303044
Ibidhi R, Calsamiglia S. Carbon footprint assessment of Spanish dairy cattle farms: Effectiveness of dietary and farm management practices as a mitigation strategy. Animals. 2020; 10(11): 2083. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10112083
ISO 14040. Environmental management life cycle assessment-principles and framework. 2006. Reference number ISO 14040:2006(E).
ISO 14044. Environmental management - life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelines. 2006. Reference number ISO 14044:2006(E).
de Vries M, van Middlelaar CE, de Boer IJM. Comparing environmental impacts of beef production systems: A review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science. 2015; 178: 279-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livs-ci.2015.06.020
Kyttä V, Roitto M, Astaptsev A, Saarinen M, Tuomisto HL. Review and expert survey of allocation methods used in life cycle assessment of milk and beef. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2022; 27: 191-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-02019-4
Ijaz M, Goheer MA. Emission profile of Pakistan’s agriculture: past trends and future projections. Environment,
Development and Sustainability. 2021; 23: 1668-1687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00645-w
Romano E, De Palo P, Tidona F, Maggiolino A, Bragaglio A. Dairy buffalo Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) affected by a management choice: The production of wheat crop. Sustainability. 2021; 13(19): 11108. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911108
Correddu F, Lunesu MF, Caratzu MF, Pulina G. Recalculating the global warming impact of italian livestock methane emissions with new metrics. Italian Journal of Animal Science. 2023; 22(1): 125-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2023.2167616
Yusuf RO, Noor ZZ, Abba AH, Abu Hassan MA, Mohd Din MF. Greenhouse gas emissions: Quantifying methane emissions from livestock. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 2012; 5(1): 1-8. https:// doi.org/10.3844/ajeassp.2012.1.8
Publicado
2023-11-21
Cómo citar
1.
Baruselli PS, de Abreu L Ângelo, Romário de Paula V, Albertini S, Ferreira dos Santos GF, Mattos Rebeis L, Almeida Gricio E, de Carvalho NA, Bernardes O. Reproduciendo para la sostenibilidad: cómo las biotecnologías reproductivas pueden ayudar a los criadores de búfalos a combatir el cambio climático. Rev. Cient. FCV-LUZ [Internet]. 21 de noviembre de 2023 [citado 7 de febrero de 2025];33(Suplemento):82-1. Disponible en: https://produccioncientificaluz.org/index.php/cientifica/article/view/43292
Sección
Conferencias
