Global food security: Opportunities with cutting-edge technologies for ecological and healthy animal breeding

Fengna Li; Yehui Duan; Yuhua Fu; Qifeng Li; Qiuping Guo; Xiumin Zhang; Dan Wan; Tianhai Yan; Lu Lu; Lei Zhou; Congjiao Sun; Lingyang Xu; Weimin Wang; Zhiquan Wang; Guosheng Su; Xiaolei Liu; Kui Xu; Feng Zhang; Xiangfang Zeng; Lianqiang Che; Na Dong; Shusong Wu; Lvhui Sun; Xiaoyun Su; Huiying Luo; Yanfen Cheng; Ifen Hung; Chunxue Liu; Sha Wei; Mengmeng Han; Qilong Li; Fubin Yin; Wanqin Zhang; Shunli Wang; Yue Wang; Yunhao Zheng; Hui Wang; Xiaoshuai Wang; Kaiying Wang; Qiumei Yang; Deqin Xiao; Hao Wang; Shunlai Xu; Longshen Liu; Mingzhou Lu; Yu Liu; Ligen Yu; Chaoyuan Wang; Wen Yao; Peipei Yang; Xiao Yang; Zemeng Feng; Xiangdong Sun; Xiaowen Li; Shijie Ding; Xiaonan Sui; Qinhong Wang; Xin Guan; Jinchuang Zhang; Ibeogu Isaiah Henry; Hadiza Bako; Changbo Tang; Jie Wang; Joshua E. Flack; Mark J. Post; Tianwei Wang; Martin Nyachoti; Sung Woo Kim; Guanghong Zhou; Md. Abul Kalam Azad; Xiangfeng Kong; Shuhong Zhao; Min Wang; Hongmin Dong; Liang Yang; Chunbao Li; Yulong Yin

doi:10.59717/j.xinn-life.2026.100226

The Innovation Life > 2026 Vol. 4 > No. 3 > 100226

Next Article Previous Article

REVIEW Open Access

Cite PDF

Global food security: Opportunities with cutting-edge technologies for ecological and healthy animal breeding

1.
Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changsha 410125, China
2.
College of Animal Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China
3.
Research Center of Information Technology, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Beijing 100097, China
4.
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Hillsborough County Down BT26 6DR, UK
5.
Institute of Animal Genetics and Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China
6.
College of Veterinary Medicine, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
7.
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
8.
State Key Laboratory of Animal Biotech Breeding, Institute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China
9.
College of Animal Science and Technology, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China
10.
Livestock Gentec, Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton T6G 2P5, Canada
11.
Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, Aarhus DK-8000, Denmark
12.
State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
13.
Animal Nutrition Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China
14.
The Laboratory of Molecular Nutrition and Immunity, College of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin 150030, China
15.
College of Animal Science and Technology, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha 410128, China
16.
Hubei Hongshan Laboratory, Wuhan 430070, China
17.
State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feeding, Institute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China
18.
National Center for International Research on Animal Gut Nutrition, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
19.
Anyou Biotechnology Group Co., LTD., Taicang 215437, China
20.
Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
21.
College of Biosystems Engineering and Food Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
22.
College of Mathematics and Informatics, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
23.
Chongqing Academy of Animal Sciences, Chongqing 402460, China
24.
College of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210031, China
25.
College of Water Resources and Civil Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
26.
Key Laboratory of Agricultural Engineering in Structure and Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Beijing 100083, China
27.
College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
28.
State Key Laboratory of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
29.
School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, China
30.
China Animal Health & Epidemiology Center, Qingdao 266032, China
31.
New Hope Liuhe Co., Ltd, Chengdu 610023, China
32.
Quality Control for Feed and Products of Livestock and Poultry Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu 610023, China
33.
Nanjing Joes Future Food Technology Co., Ltd, Nanjing 211225, China
34.
College of Food Science, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin150030, China
35.
Tianjin Institute of Industrial Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Science, Tianjin 300308, China
36.
School of Biotechnology, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China
37.
Institute of Food Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China
38.
State Key Laboratory of Meat Quality Control and Cultured Meat Development, MOST, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
39.
Mosa Meat B.V., Maastricht 6229 PM, The Netherlands
40.
State Key Laboratory of Microbial Resources, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
41.
Department of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T2N2, Canada
42.
Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh NC 27695, USA
43.
These authors contributed equally

Show all affliationsShow less

More Information

Corresponding authors: mwang@isa.ac.cn (M.W.); donghongmin@caas.cn (H.M.D.); yangliang@caas.cn (L.Y.); chunbao.li@njau.edu.cn (C.B.L.); yinyulong@isa.ac.cn (Y.L.Y)
Received Date: August 17, 2025

Accepted Date: March 30, 2026

Published Online: April 09, 2026

The Innovation Life 4(3), https://doi.org/10.59717/j.xinn-life.2026.100226 | Cite this article

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

DownLoad: Full size image

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

Food safety has been the concern of the global society, as an important link in the food supply chain, livestock and poultry breeding has a significant impact on it. With global population growth and dietary shifts, food demand is posing challenges in resource use, environmental impact, and disease risks for conventional livestock production. It is necessary to establish and promote the concept of ecological and healthy breeding, and ensure food safety from the perspective of the whole industry chain of livestock and poultry. Therefore, this review focuses on the whole industry chain of livestock and poultry for the first time to elucidate the new technologies of ecological and healthy livestock breeding from six aspects, including new breeding technology, efficient utilization and substitution of nutrition, resource utilization of breeding waste, animal welfare, intelligent diagnosis and future food. While vertical integration enhances efficiency, rigid segmentation creates sustainability disconnects, as upstream innovations often overlook mid/downstream impacts, leaving systemic challenges unaddressed. Therefore, the integration of these technologies fosters multidisciplinary collaboration across them. Future efforts should focus on optimizing these systems, expanding biobanks for alternative proteins, and strengthening global cooperation to balance human health and ecological resilience.

FullText(HTML)

REFERENCES

[1]	Cheng L., Zhang X., Wang C., et al. (2024). Whole-chain intensification of pig and chicken farming could lower emissions with economic and food production benefits. Nat. Food 5:939−950. DOI:10.1038/s43016-024-01067-x View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[2]	Xing J., Song J., Liu C., et al. (2022). Integrated crop-livestock-bioenergy system brings co-benefits and trade-offs in mitigating the environmental impacts of Chinese agriculture. Nat. Food 3:1052−1064. DOI:10.1038/s43016-022-00649-x View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[3]	Liu F., Xin L., Tang H., et al. (2023). Regionalized life-cycle monetization can support the transition to sustainable rural food waste management in China. Nat. Food 4:797−809. DOI:10.1038/s43016-023-00842-6 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[4]	Long W., Zhu X., Weikard H. P., et al. (2025). Rebound effects may undermine the benefits of upcycling food waste and food processing by-products as animal feed in China. Nat. Food 6:881−891. DOI:10.1038/s43016-025-01219-7 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[5]	Georges M., Charlier C. and Hayes B. (2019). Harnessing genomic information for livestock improvement. Nat. Rev. Genet. 20:135−156. DOI:10.1038/s41576-018-0082-2 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[6]	Pryce J. E. and Haile-Mariam M. (2020). Symposium review: Genomic selection for reducing environmental impact and adapting to climate change. J. Dairy Sci. 103:5366−5375. DOI:10.3168/jds.2019-17732 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[7]	López-Buesa P., Burgos C., Galve A., et al. (2014). Joint analysis of additive, dominant and first-order epistatic effects of four genes (IGF2, MC4R, PRKAG3 and LEPR) with known effects on fat content and fat distribution in pigs. Anim. Genet. 45:133−137. DOI:10.1111/age.12091 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[8]	Fujii J., Otsu K., Zorzato F., et al. (1991). Identification of a mutation in porcine ryanodine receptor associated with malignant hyperthermia. Science 253:448−451. DOI:10.1126/science.1862346 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[9]	Yang A. Q., Chen B., Ran M. L., et al. (2020). The application of genomic selection in pig cross breeding. Yi Chuan 42:145−152. DOI:10.16288/j.yczz.19-253 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[10]	Wu P.-x., Zhou J., Wang K., et al. (2021). Identifying SNPs associated with birth weight and days to 100 kg traits in Yorkshire pigs based on genotyping-by-sequencing. J. Integr. Agric. 20:2483−2490. DOI:10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63474-8 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[11]	Cao S., Han J., Wu J., et al. (2014). Specific gene-regulation networks during the pre-implantation development of the pig embryo as revealed by deep sequencing. BMC Genomics 15:4. DOI:10.1186/1471-2164-15-4 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[12]	Tusell L., Gilbert H., Riquet J., et al. (2016). Pedigree and genomic evaluation of pigs using a terminal-cross model. Genet. Sel. Evol. 48:32. DOI:10.1186/s12711-016-0211-3 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[13]	Tang Z., Yin L., Yin D., et al. (2023). Development and application of an efficient genomic mating method to maximize the production performances of three-way crossbred pigs. Brief. Bioinform. 24:bbac587. DOI:10.1093/bib/bbac587 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[14]	Wang Y., Bi D., Qin G., et al. (2020). Cytosine base editor (hA3A-BE3-NG)-mediated multiple gene editing for pyramid breeding in pigs. Front. Genet. 11:592623. DOI:10.3389/fgene.2020.592623 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[15]	Wang L., Jia Z., Xu K., et al. (2024). When will dual-purpose pigs fly. The Innovation 5:100702. DOI:10.1016/j.xinn.2024.100702 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[16]	Pan J.-s., Lin Z.-s., Wen J.-c., et al. (2021). Application of the modified cytosine base-editing in the cultured cells of bama minipig. Biotechnol. Lett. 43:1699−1714. DOI:10.1007/s10529-021-03159-1 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[17]	Van Eenennaam A. L. (2025). Current and future uses of genetic improvement technologies in livestock breeding programs. Anim. Front. 15:80−90. DOI:10.1093/af/vfae042 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[18]	Abd El-Hack M. E., Abdelnour S. A., Swelum A. A., et al. (2018). The application of gene marker-assisted selection and proteomics for the best meat quality criteria and body measurements in Qinchuan cattle breed. Mol. Biol. Rep. 45:1445−1456. DOI:10.1007/s11033-018-4211-y View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[19]	Dong W., Yang J., Zhang Y., et al. (2021). Integrative analysis of genome-wide DNA methylation and gene expression profiles reveals important epigenetic genes related to milk production traits in dairy cattle. J. Anim. Breed Genet. 138:562−573. DOI:10.1111/jbg.12530 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[20]	Wiggans G. R., Cole J. B., Hubbard S. M., et al. (2017). Genomic selection in dairy cattle: The USDA experience. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 5:309−327. DOI:10.1146/annurev-animal-021815-111422 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[21]	de Haas Y., Windig J. J., Calus M. P. L., et al. (2011). Genetic parameters for predicted methane production and potential for reducing enteric emissions through genomic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 94:6122−6134. DOI:10.3168/jds.2011-4439 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[22]	Karaman E., Lund M. S. and Su G. (2020). Multi-trait single-step genomic prediction accounting for heterogeneous (co)variances over the genome. Heredity (Edinb) 124:274−287. DOI:10.1038/s41437-019-0273-4 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[23]	Raymond B., Wientjes Y. C. J., Bouwman A. C., et al. (2020). A deterministic equation to predict the accuracy of multi-population genomic prediction with multiple genomic relationship matrices. Genet. Sel. Evol. 52:21. DOI:10.1186/s12711-020-00540-y View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[24]	Bengtsson C., Stalhammar H., Thomasen J. R., et al. (2022). Mating allocations in Nordic Red Dairy Cattle using genomic information. J. Dairy Sci. 105:1281−1297. DOI:10.3168/jds.2021-20849 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[25]	Clark S. A., Kinghorn B. P., Hickey J. M., et al. (2013). The effect of genomic information on optimal contribution selection in livestock breeding programs. Genet. Sel. Evol. 45:44. DOI:10.1186/1297-9686-45-44 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[26]	Aliloo H., Pryce J. E., Gonzalez-Recio O., et al. (2017). Including nonadditive genetic effects in mating programs to maximize dairy farm profitability. J. Dairy Sci. 100:1203−1222. DOI:10.3168/jds.2016-11261 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[27]	Wiggans G. R. and Carrillo J. A. (2022). Genomic selection in United States dairy cattle. Front. Genet. 13:994466. DOI:10.3389/fgene.2022.994466 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[28]	Gao Y., Wu H., Wang Y., et al. (2017). Single Cas9 nickase induced generation of NRAMP1 knockin cattle with reduced off-target effects. Genome Biol. 18:13. DOI:10.1186/s13059-016-1144-4 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[29]	Shanthalingam S., Tibary A., Beever J. E., et al. (2016). Precise gene editing paves the way for derivation of Mannheimia haemolytica leukotoxin-resistant cattle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113:13186−13190. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1613428113 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[30]	Yu S., Luo J., Song Z., et al. (2011). Highly efficient modification of beta-lactoglobulin (BLG) gene via zinc-finger nucleases in cattle. Cell Res. 21:1638−1640. DOI:10.1038/cr.2011.153 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[31]	Carlson D. F., Lancto C. A., Zang B., et al. (2016). Production of hornless dairy cattle from genome-edited cell lines. Nat. Biotechnol. 34:479−481. DOI:10.1038/nbt.3560 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[32]	Wong G. K. S., Liu B., Wang J., et al. (2004). A genetic variation map for chicken with 2.8 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Nature 432:717-722. DOI:10.1038/nature03156. View in Article Google Scholar
[33]	Shapiro M. D., Kronenberg Z., Li C., et al. (2013). Genomic diversity and evolution of the head crest in the rock pigeon. Science 339:1063−1067. DOI:10.1126/science.1230422 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[34]	Huang Y. H., Li Y. R., Burt D. W., et al. (2013). The duck genome and transcriptome provide insight into an avian influenza virus reservoir species. Nat. Genet. 45:776−783. DOI:10.1038/ng.2657 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[35]	Lu L. Z., Chen Y., Wang Z., et al. (2015). The goose genome sequence leads to insights into the evolution of waterfowl and susceptibility to fatty liver. Genome Biol. 16:89. DOI:10.1186/s13059-015-0652-y View in Article Google Scholar
[36]	Bai H., Sun Y., Liu N., et al. (2018). Genome-wide detection of CNVs associated with beak deformity in chickens using high-density 600K SNP arrays. Anim. Genet. 49:226−236. DOI:10.1111/age.12652 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[37]	Yan Y., Wu G., Liu A., et al. (2018). Genomic prediction in a nuclear population of layers using single-step models. Poult. Sci. 97:397−402. DOI:10.3382/ps/pex320 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[38]	Emamgholi Begli H., Vaez Torshizi R., Masoudi A. A., et al. (2018). Genomic dissection and prediction of feed intake and residual feed intake traits using a longitudinal model in F2 chickens. Animal 12:1792−1798. DOI:10.1017/S1751731117003354 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[39]	Wolc A., Drobik-Czwarno W., Fulton J. E., et al. (2018). Genomic prediction of avian influenza infection outcome in layer chickens. Genet. Sel. Evol. 50:21. DOI:10.1186/s12711-018-0393-y View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[40]	Wang Z., Qu L., Yao J., et al. (2013). An EAV-HP Insertion in 5 ' flanking region of slco1b3 causes blue eggshell in the chicken. PLoS Genet. 9. e1003183. DOI:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003183. View in Article Google Scholar
[41]	Zhao R., Zuo Q., Yuan X., et al. (2021). Production of viable chicken by allogeneic transplantation of primordial germ cells induced from somatic cells. Nat. Commun. 12:2989. DOI:10.1038/s41467-021-23242-5 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[42]	Idoko-Akoh A., Goldhill D. H., Sheppard C. M., et al. (2023). Creating resistance to avian influenza infection through genome editing of the ANP32 gene family. Nat. Commun. 14:6136. DOI:10.1038/s41467-023-41476-3 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[43]	Huang Z., Xu Z., Bai H., et al. (2023). Evolutionary analysis of a complete chicken genome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 120:e2216641120. DOI:10.1073/pnas.2216641120 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[44]	Zhang D.-Y., Zhang X.-X., Li F.-D., et al. (2022). Whole-genome resequencing reveals molecular imprints of anthropogenic and natural selection in wild and domesticated sheep. Zool. Res. 43:695−705. DOI:10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2022.124 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[45]	Jawasreh K. I., Alamareen A. H., Obeidat M. D., et al. (2019). Growth performance and meat characteristics of the first awassi–rambouillet callipyge backcross. Animals 9:517. DOI:10.3390/ani9080517 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[46]	Kalds P., Luo Q., Sun K., et al. (2021). Trends towards revealing the genetic architecture of sheep tail patterning: Promising genes and investigatory pathways. Anim. Genet. 52:799−812. DOI:10.1111/age.13133 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[47]	Zheng Z., Wang X., Li M., et al. (2020). The origin of domestication genes in goats. Sci. Adv. 6:eaaz5216. DOI:10.1126/sciadv.aaz5216 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[48]	Prieur V., Clarke S. M., Brito L. F., et al. (2017). Estimation of linkage disequilibrium and effective population size in New Zealand sheep using three different methods to create genetic maps. BMC Genet. 18:68. DOI:10.1186/s12863-017-0534-2 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[49]	Buisson D., Lagriffoul G., Baloche G., et al. (2014). Genomic breeding schemes in French Lacaune and Manech dairy sheep: Design and expected genetic gain. 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (WCGALP). American Society of Animal Science. https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02743686v1 View in Article Google Scholar
[50]	Brito L. F., Clarke S. M., McEwan J. C., et al. (2017). Prediction of genomic breeding values for growth, carcass and meat quality traits in a multi-breed sheep population using a HD SNP chip. BMC Genet. 18:1−17. DOI:10.1186/s12863-017-0476-8 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[51]	Bolormaa S., Gore K., Van Der Werf J., et al. (2015). Design of a low‐density SNP chip for the main Australian sheep breeds and its effect on imputation and genomic prediction accuracy. Anim. Genet. 46:544−556. DOI:10.1111/age.12340 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[52]	Proudfoot C., Carlson D. F., Huddart R., et al. (2015). Genome edited sheep and cattle. Transgenic Res. 24:147−153. DOI:10.1007/s11248-014-9832-x View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[53]	Allais-Bonnet A., Richard C., André M., et al. (2025). CRISPR/Cas9-editing of PRNP in Alpine goats. Vet. Res. 56:11. DOI:10.1186/s13567-024-01444-1 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[54]	Li X., He S.-G., Li W.-R., et al. (2022). Genomic analyses of wild argali, domestic sheep, and their hybrids provide insights into chromosome evolution, phenotypic variation, and germplasm innovation. Genome Res. 32:1669−1684. DOI:10.1101/gr.276769.122 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[55]	Nakhle F. and Harfouche A. L. (2021). Ready, Steady, Go AI: A practical tutorial on fundamentals of artificial intelligence and its applications in phenomics image analysis. Patterns 2:100323. DOI:10.1016/j.patter.2021.100323 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[56]	Klingström T., Zonabend König E. and Zwane A. A. (2025). Beyond the hype: Using AI, big data, wearable devices, and the internet of things for high-throughput livestock phenotyping. Brief. Funct. Genomics 24:elae032. DOI:10.1093/bfgp/elae032 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[57]	Džermeikaitė K., Šidlauskaitė M., Antanaitis R., et al. (2025). Enhancing genomic selection in dairy cattle through artificial intelligence: Integrating advanced phenotyping and predictive models to advance health, climate resilience, and sustainability. Dairy 6:50. DOI:10.3390/dairy6050050 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[58]	Antognoli V., Presutti L., Bovo M., et al. (2025). Computer vision in dairy farm management: A literature review of current applications and future perspectives. Animals 15:2508. DOI:10.3390/ani15172508 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[59]	Grohmann C. J. and Decker J. E. (2024). From reactive to proactive: impact of artificial intelligence on management and selection of livestock. Anim. Front. 14:64−67. DOI:10.1093/af/vfae029 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[60]	ÁVila S. L. C. d., Oliveira C. O. d., Rodrigues T. A., et al. (2020). Replacement of corn and soybean meal with corn gluten meal on rooster’s diet. Turk. J. Vet Anim. Sci. 44:798−804. DOI:10.3906/vet-1907-63 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[61]	Martins C. F., Ribeiro D. M., Costa M., et al. (2021). Using microalgae as a sustainable feed resource to enhance quality and nutritional value of pork and poultry meat. Foods 10:2933. DOI:10.3390/foods10122933 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[62]	Ahmad A., Sultan A., Naz S., et al. (2024). Growth performance, nutrients digestibility, intestinal microbiota and histology altered in broilers fed maize- or sorghum-based diets. Vet. Q. 44:1−8. DOI:10.1080/01652176.2024.2373295 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[63]	Sun H., Kang X., Tan H., et al. (2023). Progress in fermented unconventional feed application in monogastric animal production in China. Fermentation 9:947. DOI:10.3390/fermentation9110947 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[64]	Filgueira T., Freitas E., Filho I. Q., et al. (2014). Corn replacement by broken rice in meat-type quail diets. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 16:345−350. DOI:10.1590/1516-635X1604345-350 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[65]	Liu L., Wang Z., Wei B., et al. (2024). Replacement of corn with different levels of wheat impacted the growth performance, intestinal development, and cecal microbiota of broilers. Animals 14:1536. DOI:10.3390/ani14111536 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[66]	Ncobela C. N., Kanengoni A. T., Hlatini V. A., et al. (2017). A review of the utility of potato by-products as a feed resource for smallholder pig production. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 227:107−117. DOI:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.02.008 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[67]	F. Apata D. and O. Babalola T. (2012). The use of cassava, sweet potato and cocoyam, and their by-products by non–ruminants. Int J Food Sci Nutr 2:54−62. DOI:10.5923/j.food.20120204.02 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[68]	Sureshkumar S., Balamuralikrishnan B. and Kim I. H. (2022). Supplemental impact of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) hard pellet and residue pellet-based diet as a replacement for corn on the growth performance, total tract digestibility and blood profiles in pigs. J. Anim. Physiol. An. N. 106:792−801. DOI:10.1111/jpn.13618 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[69]	Li Y., Liu Y., Li F., et al. (2018). Effects of dietary ramie powder at various levels on carcass traits and meat quality in finishing pigs. Meat Sci. 143:52−59. DOI:10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.019 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[70]	Liu Y., Li Y., Peng Y., et al. (2019). Dietary mulberry leaf powder affects growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality in finishing pigs. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 103:1934−1945. DOI:10.1111/jpn.13203 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[71]	Long C., Zhou X., Wang Q., et al. (2016). Dietary supplementation of Lonicera macranthoides leaf powder improves amino acid profiles in serum and longissimus thoracis muscle of growing-finishing pigs. Anim. Nutr. 2:271−275. DOI:10.1016/j.aninu.2016.08.006 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[72]	Li H., Duan Y., Yin F., et al. (2022). Dietary addition of fermented sorghum distiller's dried grains with soluble improves carcass traits and meat quality in growing-finishing pigs. Trop. Anim. Health. Prod. 54:97. DOI:10.1007/s11250-022-03089-8 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[73]	Li Z., Zhu Q., Azad M. A. K., et al. (2021). The impacts of dietary fermented mao-tai lees on growth performance, plasma metabolites, and intestinal microbiota and metabolites of weaned piglets. Front. Microbiol. 12:778555. DOI:10.3389/fmicb.2021.778555 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[74]	Li H., Li H., Xie P., et al. (2019). Dietary supplementation with fermented Mao-tai lees beneficially affects gut microbiota structure and function in pigs. AMB Express 9:26. DOI:10.1186/s13568-019-0747-z View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[75]	Cheng H., Liu X., Xiao Q., et al. (2022). Rapeseed meal and its application in pig diet: A review. Agriculture 12:849. DOI:10.3390/agriculture12060849 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[76]	Gu X., Li Z., Wang J., et al. (2021). Fermented cottonseed meal as a partial replacement for soybean meal could improve the growth performance, immunity and antioxidant properties, and nutrient digestibility by altering the gut microbiota profile of weaned piglets. Front. Microbiol. 12:734389. DOI:10.3389/fmicb.2021.734389 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[77]	Jang J. C., Kim K. H., Kim D. H., et al. (2020). Effects of increasing levels of palm kernel meal containing β-mannanase to growing-finishing pig diets on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and pork quality. Livest. Sci. 238:104041. DOI:10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104041 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[78]	Lannuzel C., Smith A., Mary A. L., et al. (2022). Improving fiber utilization from rapeseed and sunflower seed meals to substitute soybean meal in pig and chicken diets: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 285:115213. DOI:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2022.115213 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[79]	Kim S. W., Less J. F., Wang L., et al. (2019). Meeting global feed protein demand: Challenge, opportunity, and strategy. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 7:221−243. DOI:10.1146/annurev-animal-030117-014838 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[80]	Martins C. F., Pestana Assuncao J., Ribeiro Santos D. M., et al. (2021). Effect of dietary inclusion of Spirulina on production performance, nutrient digestibility and meat quality traits in post-weaning piglets. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr 105:247−259. DOI:10.1111/jpn.13470 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[81]	Ma S., Liang X., Chen P., et al. (2022). A new single-cell protein from Clostridium autoethanogenum as a functional protein for largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Anim. Nutr. 10:99−110. DOI:10.1016/j.aninu.2022.04.005 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[82]	Hosseindoust A., Ha S. H., Mun J. Y., et al. (2024). A metanalysis to evaluate the effects of substrate sources on the nutritional performance of black soldier fly larvae: Implications for sustainable poultry feed. Poult. Sci. 103:103299. DOI:10.1016/j.psj.2023.103299 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[83]	Sun H., Jiang Z., Chen Z., et al. (2024). Effects of fermented unconventional protein feed on pig production in China. Front. Vet. Sci. 11:1446233. DOI:10.3389/fvets.2024.1446233 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[84]	Khoshnevisan B., He L., Xu M., et al. (2022). From renewable energy to sustainable protein sources: Advancement, challenges, and future roadmaps. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 157. DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2021.112041 View in Article Google Scholar
[85]	Huang Y., Wang H., Zhu Y., et al. (2022). THP9 enhances seed protein content and nitrogen-use efficiency in maize. Nature 612:292−300. DOI:10.1038/s41586-022-05441-2 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[86]	Parrini S., Aquilani C., Pugliese C., et al. (2023). Soybean replacement by alternative protein sources in pig nutrition and its effect on meat quality. Animals 13. DOI:10.3390/ani13030494. View in Article Google Scholar
[87]	Li Y., Li F., Chen S., et al. (2016). Protein-restricted diets regulates lipid and energy metabolism in skeletal muscle of growing pigs. J. Agric. Food Chem. 64:9412−9420. DOI:10.1021/acs.jafc.6b03959 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[88]	Li Y., Li F., Duan Y., et al. (2017). The protein and energy metabolic response of skeletal muscle to the low-protein diets in growing pigs. J. Agric. Food Chem. 65:8544−8551. DOI:10.1021/acs.jafc.7b02461 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[89]	Li Y., Li F., Wu L., et al. (2016). Effects of dietary protein restriction on muscle fiber characteristics and mTORC1 pathway in the skeletal muscle of growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 7:47. DOI:10.1186/s40104-016-0106-8 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[90]	Li Y. H., Wei H. K., Li F. N., et al. (2016). Regulation in free amino acid profile and protein synthesis pathway of growing pig skeletal muscles by low-protein diets for different time periods. J. Anim. Sci. 94:5192−5205. DOI:10.2527/jas2016-0917 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[91]	Wang Y., Zhou J., Wang G., et al. (2018). Advances in low-protein diets for swine. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 9:60. DOI:10.1186/s40104-018-0276-7 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[92]	de Almeida A. M., Latorre M. A. and Alvarez-Rodriguez J. (2024). Productive, physiological, and environmental implications of reducing crude protein content in swine diets: A review. Animals 14:3081. DOI:10.3390/ani14213081 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[93]	Rocha G. C., Duarte M. E. and Kim S. W. (2022). Advances, implications, and limitations of low-crude-protein diets in pig production. Animals 12:3478. DOI:10.3390/ani12243478 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[94]	Wu S. B., Swick R. A., Noblet J., et al. (2019). Net energy prediction and energy efficiency of feed for broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 98:1222−1234. DOI:10.3382/ps/pey442 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[95]	Wu Y., Zhao J. F., Xu C. C., et al. (2020). Progress towards pig nutrition in the last 27 years. J. Sci. Food Agric. 100:5102−5110. DOI:10.1002/jsfa.9095 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[96]	Zhang G. J., Yi X. W., Chu L. C., et al. (2011). Effects of dietary net energy density and standardized ileal digestible lysine: Net energy ratio on the performance and carcass characteristic of growing-finishing pigs fed low crude protein supplemented with crystalline amino acids diets. Agr. Sci. China 10:602−610. DOI:10.1016/S1671-2927(11)60042-4 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[97]	Nyachoti C. M., Omogbenigun F. O., Rademacher M., et al. (2006). Performance responses and indicators of gastrointestinal health in early-weaned pigs fed low-protein amino acid-supplemented diets. J. Anim. Sci. 84:125−134. DOI:10.2527/2006.841125x View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[98]	Li J. W., Wang X. P., Wang C. Y., et al. (2013). Effects of dietary electrolyte balance on growth performance, nitrogen metabolism and some blood biochemical parameters of growing rabbits. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 26:1726−1731. DOI:10.5713/ajas.2013.13241 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[99]	Wang L., Long K., Yin Y., et al. (2025). Transition in global ecological agriculture: Functional products, intelligent processes, and bridging research and market gaps. The Innovation 6:101036. DOI:10.1016/j.xinn.2025.101036 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[100]	Kidd M. T., Maynard C. W. and Mullenix G. J. (2021). Progress of amino acid nutrition for diet protein reduction in poultry. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 12. DOI:10.1186/s40104-021-00568-0. View in Article Google Scholar
[101]	Wu G. and Li P. (2022). The “ideal protein” concept is not ideal in animal nutrition. Exp. Biol. Med. 247:1191−1201. DOI:10.1177/15353702221082658 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[102]	Sefer M., Petronijevic R. B., Trbovic D., et al. (2021). Amino acids in animal feed: Significance and determination techniques. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci 854:012082. DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/854/1/012082 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[103]	Duan Y. H., Zeng L. M., Li F. N., et al. (2016). Effects of dietary branched-chain amino acid ratio on growth performance and serum amino acid pool of growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 94:129−134. DOI:10.2527/jas2015-9527 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[104]	Zhang L., Li F., Guo Q., et al. (2022). Balanced branched-chain amino acids modulate meat quality via adjusting muscle fiber type conversion and intramuscular fat deposition in finishing pigs. J. Sci. Food Agric. 102:3796−3807. DOI:10.1002/jsfa.11728 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[105]	Zheng C., Wan M., Guo Q., et al. (2025). Glutamate increases the lean percentage and intramuscular fat content and alters gut microbiota in Shaziling pigs. Anim. Nutr. 20:110−119. DOI:10.1016/j.aninu.2024.07.010 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[106]	Tan B., Yin Y., Liu Z., et al. (2009). Dietary L-arginine supplementation increases muscle gain and reduces body fat mass in growing-finishing pigs. Amino Acids 37:169−175. DOI:10.1007/s00726-008-0148-0 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[107]	Wealleans A. L., Bierinckx K. and di Benedetto M. (2021). Fats and oils in pig nutrition: Factors affecting digestion and utilization. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 277:114950. DOI:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.114950 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[108]	Shin T. K., Yi Y. J., Kim J. C., et al. (2017). Reducing the dietary omega-6 to omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid ratio attenuated inflammatory indices and sustained epithelial tight junction integrity in weaner pigs housed in a poor sanitation condition. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 234:312−320. DOI:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.04.022 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[109]	Li F., Duan Y., Li Y., et al. (2015). Effects of dietary n-6:n-3 PUFA ratio on fatty acid composition, free amino acid profile and gene expression of transporters in finishing pigs. Br. J. Nutr. 113:739−748. DOI:10.1017/S0007114514004346 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[110]	Duan Y., Li F., Li L., et al. (2014). n-6:n-3 PUFA ratio is involved in regulating lipid metabolism and inflammation in pigs. Br. J. Nutr. 111:445−451. DOI:10.1017/S0007114513002584 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[111]	Sun H. Y., Yun H. M., Kim I. H., et al. (2020). Effects of dietary n-6/n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids ratio on growth performance, apparent digestibility, blood lipid profiles, fecal microbiota, and meat quality in finishing pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 100:272−281. DOI:10.1139/cjas-2019-0072 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[112]	Attia Y. A., Al-Harthi M. A., Al-Sagan A. A., et al. (2022). Dietary supplementation with different ω-6 to ω-3 fatty acid ratios affects the sustainability of performance, egg quality, fatty acid profile, immunity and egg health indices of laying hens. Agriculture 12:1712. DOI:10.3390/agriculture12101712 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[113]	Wan D., Wu Q., Ni H., et al. (2019). Treatments for iron deficiency (id): Prospective organic iron fortification. Curr. Pharm. Des. 25:325−332. DOI:10.2174/1381612825666190319111437 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[114]	Dong Z., Zhang D., Wu X., et al. (2022). Ferrous bisglycinate supplementation modulates intestinal antioxidant capacity via the ampk/foxo pathway and reconstitutes gut microbiota and bile acid profiles in pigs. J. Agric. Food Chem. 70:4942−4951. DOI:10.1021/acs.jafc.2c00138 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[115]	Abd El-Hack M. E., null n., Alagawany M., et al. (2017). Organic or inorganic zinc in poultry nutrition: A review. World's Poult. Sci. J. 73:904−915. DOI:10.1017/S0043933917000769 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[116]	Rayman M. P. (2012). Selenium and human health. Lancet 379:1256−1268. DOI:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61452-9 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[117]	Zhao L., Sun L. H., Huang J. Q., et al. (2017). A novel organic selenium compound exerts unique regulation of selenium speciation, selenogenome, and selenoproteins in broiler chicks. J. Nutr. 147:789−797. DOI:10.3945/jn.116.247338 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[118]	Zhao L., Chu X. H., Liu S., et al. (2022). Selenium-enriched cardamine violifolia increases selenium and decreases cholesterol concentrations in liver and pectoral muscle of broilers. J. Nutr. 152:2072−2079. DOI:10.1093/jn/nxac141 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[119]	Hu R., He Z., Liu M., et al. (2020). Dietary protocatechuic acid ameliorates inflammation and up-regulates intestinal tight junction proteins by modulating gut microbiota in LPS-challenged piglets. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 11:92. DOI:10.1186/s40104-020-00492-9 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[120]	Hu R., Wu S., Li B., et al. (2022). Dietary ferulic acid and vanillic acid on inflammation, gut barrier function and growth performance in lipopolysaccharide-challenged piglets. Anim. Nutr. 8:144−152. DOI:10.1016/j.aninu.2021.06.009 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[121]	Liu X. Z., Ju Y., Bao N., et al. (2021). Effects of polyphenol-rich Aronia melanocarpa pomace feeding on growth performance, biochemical profile, and meat quality in pigs at weaned and finishing stages. Livest. Sci. 252:104674. DOI:10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104674 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[122]	Zhao Y., Huang Y., Gao K., et al. (2022). Maternal resveratrol regulates the growth performance, antioxidant capacity, and intestinal health of suckling piglets through intestinal microorganisms at high summer temperatures. Front. Nutr. 9:971496. DOI:10.3389/fnut.2022.971496 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[123]	Hu R., Tan J., Li Z., et al. (2022). Effect of dietary resveratrol on placental function and reproductive performance of late pregnancy sows. Front. Nutr. 9:1001031. DOI:10.3389/fnut.2022.1001031 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[124]	Araujo L. R. S., Watanabe P. H., Fernandes D. R., et al. (2021). Dietary ethanol extract of mango increases antioxidant activity of pork. Animal 15:100099. DOI:10.1016/j.animal.2020.100099 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[125]	Zhang H. Z., Chen D. W., He J., et al. (2019). Long-term dietary resveratrol supplementation decreased serum lipids levels, improved intramuscular fat content, and changed the expression of several lipid metabolism-related miRNAs and genes in growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 97:1745−1756. DOI:10.1093/jas/skz057 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[126]	Wang L., Zhang Y., Xu J., et al. (2023). Listening to enteric bacteria from the perspective of antibiotic alternatives in animal husbandry. Innov. Life 1:100022. DOI:10.59717/j.xinn-life.2023.100022 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[127]	Shang L., Zhou J., Tu J., et al. (2022). Evaluation of effectiveness and safety of microcin C7 in weaned piglets. Animals 12:3267. DOI:10.3390/ani12233267 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[128]	Feng J., Wang L., Xie Y., et al. (2020). Effects of antimicrobial peptide cathelicidin-BF on diarrhea controlling, immune responses, intestinal inflammation and intestinal barrier function in piglets with postweaning diarrhea. Int. Immunopharmacol. 85:106658. DOI:10.1016/j.intimp.2020.106658 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[129]	Hu W., Yang Y., Li Z., et al. (2020). Antibacterial, cytotoxicity and mechanism of the antimicrobial peptide KR-32 in weaning piglets. Int. J. Pept. Res. Ther. 26:943−953. DOI:10.1007/s10989-019-09898-0 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[130]	Choi S. C., Ingale S. L., Kim J. S., et al. (2013). Effects of dietary supplementation with an antimicrobial peptide-P5 on growth performance, nutrient retention, excreta and intestinal microflora and intestinal morphology of broilers. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 185:78−84. DOI:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.07.005 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[131]	Yoon J. H., Ingale S. L., Kim J. S., et al. (2012). Effects of dietary supplementation of antimicrobial peptide-A3 on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, intestinal and fecal microflora and intestinal morphology in weanling pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 177:98−107. DOI:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.06.009 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[132]	Yoon J. H., Ingale S. L., Kim J. S., et al. (2014). Effects of dietary supplementation of synthetic antimicrobial peptide-A3 and P5 on growth performance, apparent total tract digestibility of nutrients, fecal and intestinal microflora and intestinal morphology in weanling pigs. Livest. Sci. 159:53−60. DOI:10.1016/j.livsci.2013.10.025 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[133]	Yoon J. H., Ingale S. L., Kim J. S., et al. (2013). Effects of dietary supplementation with antimicrobial peptide-P5 on growth performance, apparent total tract digestibility, faecal and intestinal microflora and intestinal morphology of weanling pigs. J. Sci. Food Agric. 93:587−592. DOI:10.1002/jsfa.5840 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[134]	Huang B., Huang C., Lyu Z., et al. (2018). Available energy and amino acid digestibility of defatted rice bran fed to growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 96:3138−3150. DOI:10.1093/jas/sky191 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[135]	Wang M., Wan D., Xie X., et al. (2024). Crop-livestock integration: Implications for food security, resource efficiency and greenhouse gas mitigation. Innov. Life 2:100103. DOI:10.59717/j.xinn-life.2024.100103 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[136]	Herrero M. and Thornton P. K. (2013). Livestock and global change: emerging issues for sustainable food syst ems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110:20878−20881. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1321844111 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[137]	Bai Z. H., Ma L., Jin S. Q., et al. (2016). Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium flows through the manure management chain in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50:13409−13418. DOI:10.1021/acs.est.6b03348 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[138]	Dangal S. R. S., Tian H., Zhang B., et al. (2017). Methane emission from global livestock sector during 1890-2014: Magnit ude, trends and spatiotemporal patterns. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23:4147−4161. DOI:10.1111/gcb.13709 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[139]	Wei S., Bai Z. H., Chadwick D., et al. (2018). Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions and mitigation options from livestock production in peri-urban agriculture: Beijing-A case study. J. Clean. Prod. 178:515−525. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.257 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[140]	Bai Z., Li X., Lu J., et al. (2017). Livestock housing and manure storage need to be improved in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51:8212−8214. DOI:10.1021/acs.est.7b02672 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[141]	Regan J. T., Marton S., Barrantes O., et al. (2017). Does the recoupling of dairy and crop production via cooperation between farms generate environmental benefits. A case-study approach in Europe. Eur. J. Agron. 82:342−356. DOI:10.1016/j.eja.2016.08.005 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[142]	Wang Y., Li X., Yang J., et al. (2018). Mitigating greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from beef cattle feedlot production: A system meta-analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52:11232−11242. DOI:10.1021/acs.est.8b02475 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[143]	Parajuli R., Dalgaard T. and Birkved M. (2018). Can farmers mitigate environmental impacts through combined production of food, fuel and feed? A consequential life cycle assessment of integrated mixed crop-livestock system with a green biorefinery. Sci. Total Environ. 619-620:127-143. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.082 View in Article Google Scholar
[144]	Du H. L., Cui J. X., Xu Y. A., et al. (2022). Nitrogen footprint of a recycling system integrated with cropland and livestock in the north china plain. Plants 11:842. DOI:10.3390/plants11070842 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[145]	Nicholson F. A., Humphries S., Anthony S. G., et al. (2012). A software tool for estimating the capacity of agricultural land in England and Wales for recycling organic materials (ALOWANCE). Soil Use Manage. 28:307−317. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2012.00410.x View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[146]	Liu X., Duan L., Mo J., et al. (2011). Nitrogen deposition and its ecological impact in China: An overview. Environ. Pollut. 159:2251−2264. DOI:10.1016/j.envpol.2010.08.002 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[147]	Xu W., Luo X. S., Pan Y. P., et al. (2015). Quantifying atmospheric nitrogen deposition through a nationwide monitoring network across China. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15:12345−12360. DOI:10.5194/acp-15-12345-2015 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[148]	Xu W., Liu L., Cheng M., et al. (2018). Spatial-temporal patterns of inorganic nitrogen air concentrations and deposition in eastern China. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18:10931−10954. DOI:10.5194/acp-18-10931-2018 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[149]	Pan Y., Tian S., Zhao Y., et al. (2018). Identifying ammonia hotspots in China using a national observation network. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52:3926−3934. DOI:10.1021/acs.est.7b05235 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[150]	Puchalski M. A., Rogers C. M., Baumgardner R., et al. (2015). A statistical comparison of active and passive ammonia measurements collected at Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) sites. Environ. Sci.: Process. Impacts 17:358−369. DOI:10.1039/c4em00531g View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[151]	Yin F., Dong H., Zhang W., et al. (2022). Antibiotic removal potential for low greenhouse gas emission process of anaerobic digestion (AD) producing volatile fatty acids (VFAs). Bioresour. Technol. 360:127540. DOI:10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127540 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[152]	Yin F., Dong H., Zhang W., et al. (2018). Antibiotic degradation and microbial community structures during acidification and methanogenesis of swine manure containing chlortetracycline or oxytetracycline. Bioresour. Technol. 250:247−255. DOI:10.1016/j.biortech.2017.11.015 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[153]	Wang Y., Sutton N. B., Zheng Y., et al. (2023). Seasonal variation in antibiotic resistance genes and bacterial phenotypes in swine wastewater during three-chamber anaerobic pond treatment. Environ. Res. 216:114495. 114495. DOI:10.1016/j.envres.2022.114495. View in Article Google Scholar
[154]	Wu X., Wei Y., Zheng J., et al. (2011). The behavior of tetracyclines and their degradation products during swine manure composting. Bioresour. Technol. 102:5924−5931. DOI:10.1016/j.biortech.2011.03.007 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[155]	Kleerebezem R., Joosse B., Rozendal R., et al. (2015). Anaerobic digestion without biogas. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 14:787−801. DOI:10.1007/s11157-015-9374-6 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[156]	Bressanin J. M., Sampaio I. L. d. M., Geraldo V. C., et al. (2022). Techno-economic and environmental assessment of polylactic acid production integrated with the sugarcane value chain. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 34:244−256. DOI:10.1016/j.spc.2022.09.009 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[157]	Wu Q., Bao X., Guo W., et al. (2019). Medium chain carboxylic acids production from waste biomass: Current advances and perspectives. Biotechnol. Adv. 37:599−615. DOI:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.03.003 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[158]	López-Garzón C. S., van der Wielen L. A. M. and Straathof A. J. J. (2017). Strong anion exchange recovery of aqueous dicarboxylates: Extraction and sorption equilibrium comparison. Sep. Purif. Technol. 175:9−18. DOI:10.1016/j.seppur.2016.11.018 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[159]	Steinbusch K. J. J., Hamelers H. V. M., Plugge C. M., et al. (2011). Biological formation of caproate and caprylate from acetate: Fuel and chemical production from low grade biomass. Energy Environ. Sci. 4:216−224. DOI:10.1039/c0ee00282h View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[160]	Yin Q., Wen Q., Tan L., et al. (2024). Combining chain elongation and oleogel extraction for the production and recovery of caproate from beef cattle manure wastewater. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 202:107405. DOI:10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107405 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[161]	Zhang W., Wang S., Yin F., et al. (2022). Medium-chain carboxylates production from co-fermentation of swine manure and corn stalk silage via lactic acid: Without external electron donors. Chem. Eng. J. 439:135751. DOI:10.1016/j.cej.2022.135751 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[162]	Xu J., Hao J., Guzman J. J. L., et al. (2018). Temperature-phased conversion of acid whey waste into medium-chain carboxylic acids via lactic acid: No external e-donor. Joule 2:280−295. DOI:10.1016/j.joule.2017.11.008 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[163]	Tan D., Wang Y., Tong Y., et al. (2021). Grand challenges for industrializing polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). Trends Biotechnol. 39:953−963. DOI:10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.11.010 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[164]	Choi J. and Lee S. Y. (1999). Factors affecting the economics of polyhydroxyalkanoate production by bacterial fermentation. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 51:13−21. DOI:10.1007/s002530051357 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[165]	Zheng Y., Chen J.-C., Ma Y.-M., et al. (2020). Engineering biosynthesis of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) for diversity and cost reduction. Metab. Eng. 58:82−93. DOI:10.1016/j.ymben.2019.07.004 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[166]	Guho N. M., Pokhrel D., Abbasi M., et al. (2020). Pilot-scale production of poly-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate from fermented dairy manure: Process performance, polymer characterization, and scale-up implications. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 12:100588. DOI:10.1016/j.biteb.2020.100588 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[167]	Nguyenhuynh T., Yoon L. W., Chow Y. H., et al. (2021). An insight into enrichment strategies for mixed culture in polyhydroxyalkanoate production: Feedstocks, operating conditions and inherent challenges. Chem. Eng. J. 420:130488. DOI:10.1016/j.cej.2021.130488 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[168]	Coats E. R., Watson B. S. and Brinkman C. K. (2016). Polyhydroxyalkanoate synthesis by mixed microbial consortia cultured o n fermented dairy manure: Effect of aeration on process rates/yields a nd the associated microbial ecology. Water Res. 106:26−40. DOI:10.1016/j.watres.2016.09.039 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[169]	Moita R. and Lemos P. C. (2012). Biopolymers production from mixed cultures and pyrolysis by-products. J. Biotechnol. 157:578−583. DOI:10.1016/j.jbiotec.2011.09.021 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[170]	Acedos M. G., Moreno-Cid J., Verdú F., et al. (2022). Exploring the potential of slaughterhouse waste valorization: Development and scale-up of a new bioprocess for medium-chain length polyhydroxyalkanoates production. Chemosphere 287:132401. DOI:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132401 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[171]	Titz M., Kettl K.-H., Shahzad K., et al. (2012). Process optimization for efficient biomediated PHA production from animal-based waste streams. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 14:495−503. DOI:10.1007/s10098-012-0464-7 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[172]	Wu M., Gong X., Liu X., et al. (2023). Comprehensive techno-environmental evaluation of a pilot-scale PHA production from food waste in china. Environ. Sci. Technol. 57:1467−1478. DOI:10.1021/acs.est.2c05976 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[173]	Raksasat R., Lim J. W., Kiatkittipong W., et al. (2020). A review of organic waste enrichment for inducing palatability of black soldier fly larvae: Wastes to valuable resources. Environ. Pollut. 267:115488. DOI:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115488 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[174]	Gligorescu A., Toft S., Hauggaard-Nielsen H., et al. (2018). Development, metabolism and nutrient composition of black soldier fly larvae (Hermetia illucens; Diptera: Stratiomyidae) in relation to temperature and diet. J. Insects Food Feed 4:123−133. DOI:10.3920/jiff2017.0080 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[175]	Zheng S., Li R., Huang Y., et al. (2025). Gut microbiome of black soldier fly larvae for efficient use and purification of organic waste: An environmentally friendly development concept. Innov. Life 3:100134. DOI:10.59717/j.xinn-life.2025.100134 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[176]	Duan Y., Awasthi S. K., Liu T., et al. (2019). Evaluation of integrated biochar with bacterial consortium on gaseous emissions mitigation and nutrients sequestration during pig manure composting. Bioresour. Technol. 291:121880. DOI:10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121880 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[177]	Norgren R., Jonsson A. and Bjorkqvist O. (2023). Original article: Fermented pulp and paper bio-sludge as feed for black soldier fly larvae. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 13:5625−5632. DOI:10.1007/s13399-021-01564-0 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[178]	Chia S. Y., Tanga C. M., Osuga I. M., et al. (2021). Black soldier fly larval meal in feed enhances growth performance, carcass yield and meat quality of finishing pigs. J. Insects Food Feed 7:433−447. DOI:10.3920/jiff2020.0072 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[179]	Purkayastha D. and Sarkar S. (2022). Sustainable waste management using black soldier fly larva: A review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 19:12701−12726. DOI:10.1007/s13762-021-03524-7 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[180]	Miranda C. D., Cammack J. A. and Tomberlin J. K. (2020). Mass production of the black soldier fly, Hermetia illucens (L.), (Diptera: Stratiomyidae) reared on three manure types. Animals 10:1243. DOI:10.3390/ani10071243 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[181]	Pimentel A. C., Montali A., Bruno D., et al. (2017). Metabolic adjustment of the larval fat body in Hermetia illucens to dietary conditions. J. Asia-Pac. Entomol. 20:1307−1313. DOI:10.1016/j.aspen.2017.09.017 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[182]	Surendra K. C., Tomberlin J. K., van Huis A., et al. (2020). Rethinking organic wastes bioconversion: Evaluating the potential of the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens (L.)) (Diptera: Stratiomyidae) (BSF). Waste Manag. 117:58−80. DOI:10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.050 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[183]	Wang F., Harindintwali J. D., Yuan Z., et al. (2021). Technologies and perspectives for achieving carbon neutrality. The Innovation 2:100180. DOI:10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100180 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[184]	Tang Y., Liu X., Zhu S., et al. (2025). New insights into the enteric methane production based on the archaeal genome atlas of ruminant gastrointestinal tract. J. Adv. Res. 74:13−24. DOI:10.1016/j.jare.2024.09.016 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[185]	Wang W., Wei Z., Li Z., et al. (2024). Integrating genome- and transcriptome-wide association studies to uncover the host-microbiome interactions in bovine rumen methanogenesis. iMeta 3:e234. DOI:10.1002/imt2.234 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[186]	Wang Y., Li X. R., Yang J. F., et al. (2018). Mitigating greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from beef cattle feedlot production: A system meta-analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52:11232−11242. DOI:10.1021/acs.est.8b02475 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[187]	Wang Y., Dong H. M., Zhu Z. P., et al. (2017). Mitigating greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from swine manure management: A system analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51:4503−4511. DOI:10.1021/acs.est.6b06430 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[188]	Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2006). Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories agriculture, forestry, and other landuse. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme Geneva. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2006-ipcc View in Article Google Scholar
[189]	Shin S.-R., Im S., Mostafa A., et al. (2019). Effects of pig slurry acidification on methane emissions during storage and subsequent biogas production. Water Res. 152:234−240. DOI:10.1016/j.watres.2019.01.005 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[190]	Prado J., Chieppe J., Raymundo A., et al. (2020). Bio-acidification and enhanced crusting as an alternative to sulphuric acid addition to slurry to mitigate ammonia and greenhouse gases emissions during short term storage. J. Clean. Prod. 263:121443. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121443 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[191]	Wang J., Liu Q., Hou Y., et al. (2018). International trade of animal feed: its relationships with livestock density and N and P balances at country level. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 110:197−211. DOI:10.1007/s10705-017-9885-3 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[192]	Piccardo M. T., Geretto M., Pulliero A., et al. (2022). Odor emissions: A public health concern for health risk perception. Environ. Res. 204:112121. DOI:10.1016/j.envres.2021.112121 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[193]	Jongbloed A. W. (2008). Environmental pollution control in pigs by using nutrition tools. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 37:215−229. DOI:10.1590/S1516-35982008001300026 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[194]	Bjerg B., Zhang G. and Kai P. (2008). CFD investigation of a partly pit ventilation system as method to reduce ammonia emission from pig production units. A.S.A.B.E. 8:57−62. DOI:10.13031/2013.25479 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[195]	Fang C., Yin H., Han L., et al. (2021). Effects of semi-permeable membrane covering coupled with intermittent aeration on gas emissions during aerobic composting from the solid fraction of dairy manure at industrial scale. Waste Manag. 131:1−9. DOI:10.1016/j.wasman.2021.05.030 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[196]	Sun X., Ma S., Han L., et al. (2018). The effect of a semi-permeable membrane-covered composting system on greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions in the Tibetan Plateau. J. Clean. Prod. 204:778−787. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.061 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[197]	Wang Y., Dong H., Zhu Z., et al. (2017). Mitigating greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from swine manure management: A system analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51:4503−4511. DOI:10.1021/acs.est.6b06430 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[198]	Melse R. W. and Ogink N. W. M. (2005). Air scrubbing techniques for ammonia and odor reduction at livestock operations: Review of on-farm research in the Netherlands. Trans. A.S.A.E. 48:2303−2313. DOI:10.13031/2013.20094 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[199]	Agnelli S. and Capua I. (2022). Pandemic or panzootic—A reflection on terminology for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 28:2552. DOI:10.3201/eid2812.220819 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[200]	Pomar C. and Remus A. (2019). Precision pig feeding: A breakthrough toward sustainability. Anim. Front. 9:52−59. DOI:10.1093/af/vfz006 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[201]	van de Weerd H. A. and Day J. E. L. (2009). A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 116:1−20. DOI:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.08.001 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[202]	Hill J. D., McGlone J. J., Fullwood S. D., et al. (1998). Environmental enrichment influences on pig behavior, performance and meat quality. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 57:51−68. DOI:10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00116-0 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[203]	Misra S., Bokkers E. A. M., Upton J., et al. (2021). Effect of environmental enrichment and group size on the water use and waste in grower-finisher pigs. Sci. Rep. 11:16380. DOI:10.1038/s41598-021-95880-0 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[204]	Baxter M., Bailie C. L. and O’Connell N. E. (2019). Play behaviour, fear responses and activity levels in commercial broiler chickens provided with preferred environmental enrichments. Animal 13:171−179. DOI:10.1017/S1751731118001118 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[205]	Li Y., Wang C., Huang S., et al. (2021). Space allowance determination by considering its coeffect with toy pro vision on production performance, behavior and physiology for grouped growing pigs. Livest. Sci. 243:104389. DOI:10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104389 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[206]	Beattie V. E., O’Connell N. E. and Moss B. W. (2000). Influence of environmental enrichment on the behaviour, performance and meat quality of domestic pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci. 65:71−79. DOI:10.1016/s0301-6226(99)00179-7 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[207]	Van de Weerd H. A., Docking C. M., Day J. E. L., et al. (2005). The development of harmful social behaviour in pigs with intact tails and different enrichment backgrounds in two housing systems. Anim. Sci. 80:289−298. DOI:10.1079/ASC40450289 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[208]	Chou J.-Y., D’Eath R. B., Sandercock D. A., et al. (2020). Enrichment use in finishing pigs and its relationship with damaging behaviours: Comparing three wood species and a rubber floor toy. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 224:104944. DOI:10.1016/j.applanim.2020.104944 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[209]	Giuliotti L., Benvenuti M. N., Giannarelli A., et al. (2019). Effect of different environment enrichments on behaviour and social in teractions in growing pigs. Animals 9:101. DOI:10.3390/ani9030101 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[210]	Hwang H.-S., Lee J.-K., Eom T.-K., et al. (2021). Effect of toys on behaviour and body weight of weaned pigs after mixing. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 66:323−330. DOI:10.17221/22/2021-cjas View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[211]	Miranda C. O., Lima M. L. P., Vercesi Filho A. E., et al. (2023). Benefits of tactile stimulation and environmental enrichment for the welfare of crossbred dairy calves. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 51:130−136. DOI:10.1080/09712119.2022.2162531 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[212]	Ujita A., Ribeiro Vicentini R., Pereira Lima M. L., et al. (2020). Improvements in the behaviour of Gir dairy cows after training with brushing. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 48:184−191. DOI:10.1080/09712119.2020.1754217 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[213]	Peeters E. and Geers R. (2006). Influence of provision of toys during transport and lairage on stress responses and meat quality of pigs. Anim. Sci. 82:591−595. DOI:10.1079/ASC200686 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[214]	Ko H. L., López-Vergé S., Chong Q., et al. (2021). Short communication: Preweaning socialization and environmental enrichment affect short-term performance after regrouping in commercially reared pigs. Animal 15:100115. DOI:10.1016/j.animal.2020.100115 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[215]	Kochewad S. A., Gaur G. K., Maurya V. P., et al. (2022). Effect of milking environment enrichment through music on production performance and behaviour in cattle. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 54:219. DOI:10.1007/s11250-022-03217-4 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[216]	Xu B., Wang W., Falzon G., et al. (2020). Automated cattle counting using Mask R-CNN in quadcopter vision system. Comput. Electron. Agric. 171:105300. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2020.105300 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[217]	Cao L., Xiao Z., Liao X., et al. (2021). Automated chicken counting in surveillance camera environments based o n the point supervision algorithm: LC-DenseFCN. Agriculture 11:493. DOI:10.3390/agriculture11060493 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[218]	Xue Y., Shen Y., Ma D., et al. (2025). High-precision counting method of moving sheep flock based on YOLOV8n-MEB+ByteTrack-CD and diversion channel. Comput. Electron. Agric. 237:18. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2025.110677 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[219]	Kim J., Suh Y., Lee J., et al. (2022). EmbeddedPigCount: Pig counting with video object detection and tracking on an embedded board. Sensors 22:2689. DOI:10.3390/s22072689 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[220]	Liu C., Su J., Wang L., et al. (2022). LA-DeepLab V3+: A novel counting network for pigs. Agriculture 12:284. DOI:10.3390/agriculture12020284 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[221]	Lee G., Ogata K., Kawasue K., et al. (2022). Identifying-and-counting based monitoring scheme for pigs by integrating BLE tags and WBLCX antennas. Comput. Electron. Agric. 198:107070. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2022.107070 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[222]	Tan Z., Xiao D., Liu J., et al. (2025). Cascade vision-based weight estimation algorithm for monitoring fattening pig weight. Comput. Electron. Agric. 236:110384. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2025.110384 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[223]	He H., Qiao Y., Li X., et al. (2021). Automatic weight measurement of pigs based on 3D images and regression network. Comput. Electron. Agric. 187:106299. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2021.106299 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[224]	Shahinfar S., Al-Mamun H. A., Park B., et al. (2020). Prediction of marbling score and carcass traits in Korean Hanwoo beef cattle using machine learning methods and synthetic minority oversampling technique. Meat Sci. 161:107997. DOI:10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107997 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[225]	Zhao X., Zhang Z., Wang C., et al. (2025). BSRNet: A novel neural network for broiler chicken sound signal recognition used in health monitoring. Comput. Electron. Agric. 239:111116. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2025.111116 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[226]	Liao J., Li H., Feng A., et al. (2023). Domestic pig sound classification based on TransformerCNN. Appl. Intell. 53:4907−4923. DOI:10.1007/s10489-022-03581-6 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[227]	Jian Z., Xuan L., Wanghong L., et al. (2020). DNN-HMM based acoustic model for continuous pig cough sound recognition. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 13:186−193. DOI:10.25165/j.ijabe.20201303.4530 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[228]	Jung D.-H., Kim N. Y., Moon S. H., et al. (2021). Deep learning-based cattle vocal classification model and real-time livestock monitoring system with noise filtering. Animals 11:357. DOI:10.3390/ani11020357 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[229]	Cuan K., Zhang T., Huang J., et al. (2020). Detection of avian influenza-infected chickens based on a chicken sound convolutional neural network. Comput. Electron. Agric. 178:105688. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2020.105688 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[230]	Yin Y., Tu D., Shen W., et al. (2021). Recognition of sick pig cough sounds based on convolutional neural network in field situations. Inf. Process. Agric. 8:369−379. DOI:10.1016/j.inpa.2020.11.001 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[231]	Neethirajan S. and Kemp B. (2021). Digital phenotyping in livestock farming. Animals 11:2009. DOI:10.3390/ani11072009 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[232]	Yang Q., Chen M., Xiao D., et al. (2024). Long-term video activity monitoring and anomaly alerting of group-housed pigs. Comput. Electron. Agric. 224:18. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2024.109205 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[233]	Zhu Y., Johnston L. J., Reese M. H., et al. (2021). Effects of cooled floor pads combined with chilled drinking water on behavior and performance of lactating sows under heat stress. J. Anim. Sci. 99:skab066. DOI:10.1093/jas/skab066 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[234]	Parois S. P., Cabezon F. A., Schinckel A. P., et al. (2018). Effect of floor cooling on behavior and heart rate of late lactation sows under acute heat stress. Front. Vet. Sci. 5:223. DOI:10.3389/fvets.2018.00223 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[235]	Sartor K., Barbosa A. H., Santos J. V., et al. (2021). Skin temperature of piglets as a biosensor for controlling the heating system in creeps with low power consumption. Biosyst. Eng. 210:104−114. DOI:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2021.08.006 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[236]	Gautam K. R., Rong L., Zhang G., et al. (2020). Temperature distribution in a finisher pig building with hybrid ventilation. Biosyst. Eng. 200:123−137. DOI:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2020.09.006 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[237]	Saha C. K., Zhang G., Kai P., et al. (2010). Effects of a partial pit ventilation system on indoor air quality and ammonia emission from a fattening pig room. Biosyst. Eng. 105:279−287. DOI:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.11.006 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[238]	Rong L. (2020). Effect of partial pit exhaust ventilation system on ammonia removal ratio and mass transfer coefficients from different emission sources in pig houses. Energy Built Environ. 1:343−350. DOI:10.1016/j.enbenv.2020.04.006 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[239]	Costantini M., Bacenetti J., Coppola G., et al. (2020). Improvement of human health and environmental costs in the European Union by air scrubbers in intensive pig farming. J. Clean. Prod. 275:124007. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124007 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[240]	Wei Y., Zheng W., Tong Q., et al. (2022). Effects of blue-green LED lights with two perceived illuminance (human and poultry) on immune performance and skeletal development of layer chickens. Poult. Sci. 101:101855. DOI:10.1016/j.psj.2022.101855 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[241]	Soliman F. N. K. and El-Sabrout K. (2020). Light wavelengths/colors: Future prospects for broiler behavior and production. J. Vet. Behav. 36:34−39. DOI:10.1016/j.jveb.2019.10.014 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[242]	Gauthier R., Largouet C., Bussieres D., et al. (2022). Precision feeding of lactating sows: Implementation and evaluation of a decision support system in farm conditions. J. Anim. Sci. 100:skac222. DOI:10.1093/jas/skac222 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[243]	Gaillard C., Gauthier R. and Dourmad J.-Y. (2021). Integrating mechanistic models with AI for precision feeding of sows. J. Anim. Sci. 99:42−42. DOI:10.1093/jas/skab235.073 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[244]	Gaillard C., Brossard L. and Dourmad J.-Y. (2020). Improvement of feed and nutrient efficiency in pig production through precision feeding. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 268:114611. DOI:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114611 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[245]	Pomar C., Andretta I. and Remus A. (2021). Feeding strategies to reduce nutrient losses and improve the sustainability of growing pigs. Front. Vet. Sci. 8:742220. DOI:10.3389/fvets.2021.742220 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[246]	Pomar C. and Remus A. (2022). The impact of feed formulation and feeding methods on pig and poultry production on the environment. J. Anim. Sci. 100:124−124. DOI:10.1093/jas/skac247.237 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[247]	Gaillard C., Durand M., Largouet C., et al. (2021). Effects of the environment and animal behavior on nutrient requirements for gestating sows: Future improvements in precision feeding. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 279:115034. DOI:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.115034 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[248]	Gaillard C. and Dourmad J.-Y. (2022). Application of a precision feeding strategy for gestating sows. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 287:115280. DOI:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2022.115280 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[249]	Piccioli-Cappelli F., Calegari F., Calamari L., et al. (2019). Application of a NIR device for precision feeding in dairy farms: Effect on metabolic conditions and milk production. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 18:754−765. DOI:10.1080/1828051x.2019.1570829 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[250]	Tylutki T. P., Fox D. G., Durbal V. M., et al. (2008). Cornell net carbohydrate and protein system: A model for precision feeding of dairy cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 143:174−202. DOI:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.05.010 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[251]	Moss A. F., Chrystal P. V., Cadogan D. J., et al. (2021). Precision feeding and precision nutrition: A paradigm shift in broiler feed formulation. Anim. Biosci. 34:354−362. DOI:10.5713/ab.21.0034 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[252]	Ren G., Lin T., Ying Y., et al. (2020). Agricultural robotics research applicable to poultry production: A review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 169:105216. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2020.105216 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[253]	Pavkin D. Y., Shilin D. V., Nikitin E. A., et al. (2021). Designing and simulating the control process of a feed pusher robot us ed on a dairy farm. Appl. Sci. 11:10665. DOI:10.3390/app112210665 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[254]	John A. J., Clark C. E. F., Freeman M. J., et al. (2016). Review: Milking robot utilization, a successful precision livestock farming evolution. Animal 10:1484−1492. DOI:10.1017/S1751731116000495 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[255]	Zhang Y., Sun W., Yang J., et al. (2022). An approach for autonomous feeding robot path planning in poultry smart farm. Animals 12:3089. DOI:10.3390/ani12223089 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[256]	Manteuffel C., Dirksen N. and Hartwig T. (2021). From extra to actor: Facilitating automated conditioning in animal-robot interaction. Comput. Electron. Agric. 191:106496. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2021.106496 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[257]	Zahed Benisi N., Aminian M. and Javadi B. (2020). Blockchain-based decentralized storage networks: A survey. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 162:102656. DOI:10.1016/j.jnca.2020.102656 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[258]	Neethirajan S. and Kemp B. (2021). Digital livestock farming. Sens. Bio-sensing Res. 32:100408. DOI:10.1016/j.sbsr.2021.100408 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[259]	Johnson M., Jain R., Brennan-Tonetta P., et al. (2021). Impact of big data and artificial intelligence on industry: Developing a workforce roadmap for a data driven economy. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 22:197−217. DOI:10.1007/s40171-021-00272-y View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[260]	Astill J., Dara R. A., Fraser E. D. G., et al. (2020). Smart poultry management: Smart sensors, big data, and the internet of things. Comput. Electron. Agric. 170:105291. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2020.105291 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[261]	Dong L., Wei F., Xu K., et al. (2016). Adaptive multi-compositionality for recursive neural network models. IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process. 24:422−431. DOI:10.1109/taslp.2015.2509257 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[262]	Benuwa B. B., Zhan Y. Z., Ghansah B., et al. (2016). A review of deep machine learning. Int. J. Eng. Res. Afr. 24:124−136. DOI:10.4028/www.scientific.net/jera.24.124 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[263]	Ellis J. L., Jacobs M., Dijkstra J., et al. (2020). Review: Synergy between mechanistic modelling and data-driven models for modern animal production systems in the era of big data. Animal 14:s223−s237. DOI:10.1017/S1751731120000312 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[264]	Azzaro G., Caccamo M., Ferguson J. D., et al. (2011). Objective estimation of body condition score by modeling cow body shape from digital images. J. Dairy Sci. 94:2126−2137. DOI:10.3168/jds.2010-3467 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[265]	Zhuang X. and Zhang T. (2019). Detection of sick broilers by digital image processing and deep learning. Biosyst. Eng. 179:106−116. DOI:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2019.01.003 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[266]	Zhuang X., Bi M., Guo J., et al. (2018). Development of an early warning algorithm to detect sick broilers. Comput. Electron. Agric. 144:102−113. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2017.11.032 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[267]	Zheng H., Fang C., Zhang T., et al. (2022). Shank length and circumference measurement algorithm of breeder chickens based on extraction of regional key points. Comput. Electron. Agric. 197:106989. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2022.106989 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[268]	Blömke L., Volkmann N. and Kemper N. (2020). Evaluation of an automated assessment system for ear and tail lesions as animal welfare indicators in pigs at slaughter. Meat Sci. 159:107934. DOI:10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107934 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[269]	Cortivo P. D., Dias E., Jardim Barcellos J. O., et al. (2016). Use of thermographic images to detect external parasite load in cattle. Comput. Electron. Agric. 127:413−417. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2016.07.002 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[270]	Mengyuan C., Yongsheng S., Qian L., et al. (2025). Deep learning-based model to classify mastitis in Holstein dairy cows. Biosyst. Eng. 252:92−104. DOI:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2025.02.013 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[271]	Zhang X., Kang X., Feng N., et al. (2020). Automatic recognition of dairy cow mastitis from thermal images by a deep learning detector. Comput. Electron. Agric. 178:105754. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2020.105754 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[272]	Feighelstein M., Mishael A., Malka T., et al. (2024). AI-based prediction and detection of early-onset of digital dermatitis in dairy cows using infrared thermography. Sci. Rep. 14:29849. DOI:10.1038/s41598-024-80902-4 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[273]	Griffiths B. E., Barden M., Anagnostopoulos A., et al. (2024). A prospective cohort study examining the association of claw anatomy and sole temperature with the development of claw horn disruption lesions in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 107:2483−2498. DOI:10.3168/jds.2023-23965 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[274]	Nasiri A., Yoder J., Zhao Y., et al. (2022). Pose estimation-based lameness recognition in broiler using CNN-LSTM network. Comput. Electron. Agric. 197:106931. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2022.106931 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[275]	Chen C., Zhu W., Liu D., et al. (2019). Detection of aggressive behaviours in pigs using a RealSence depth sensor. Comput. Electron. Agric. 166:105003. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2019.105003 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[276]	Chang A. Z., Fogarty E. S., Moraes L. E., et al. (2022). Detection of rumination in cattle using an accelerometer ear-tag: A comparison of analytical methods and individual animal and generic models. Comput. Electron. Agric. 192:106595. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2021.106595 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[277]	Yang X., Zhao Y., Street G. M., et al. (2021). Classification of broiler behaviours using triaxial accelerometer and machine learning. Animal 15:100269. DOI:10.1016/j.animal.2021.100269 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[278]	Nasirahmadi A., Gonzalez J., Sturm B., et al. (2020). Pecking activity detection in group-housed turkeys using acoustic data and a deep learning technique. Biosyst. Eng. 194:40−48. DOI:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2020.03.015 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[279]	Deniz N. N., Chelotti J. O., Galli J. R., et al. (2017). Embedded system for real-time monitoring of foraging behavior of grazing cattle using acoustic signals. Comput. Electron. Agric. 138:167−174. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2017.04.024 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[280]	Sheng H., Zhang S., Zuo L., et al. (2020). Construction of sheep forage intake estimation models based on sound analysis. Biosyst. Eng. 192:144−158. DOI:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2020.01.024 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[281]	Huang J., Wang W. and Zhang T. (2019). Method for detecting avian influenza disease of chickens based on sound analysis. Biosyst. Eng. 180:16−24. DOI:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2019.01.015 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[282]	Zhao R., Luo J., Ke T., et al. (2024). Ultra-tough, highly stable and self-adhesive goatskin-based intelligent multi-functional organogel e-skin as temperature, humidity, strain, and bioelectric four-mode sensors for health monitoring. Chem. Eng. J. 485:149816. DOI:10.1016/j.cej.2024.149816 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[283]	Yu Y., Shen Y., Liu Y., et al. (2023). Knowledge mapping and trends in research on remote sensing change detection using CiteSpace analysis. Earth Sci. Inform. 16:787−801. DOI:10.1007/s12145-022-00914-4 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[284]	Chung H., Li J., Kim Y., et al. (2020). Using implantable biosensors and wearable scanners to monitor dairy cattle's core body temperature in real-time. Comput. Electron. Agric. 174:105453. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2020.105453 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[285]	Stukelj M., Hajdinjak M. and Pusnik I. (2022). Stress-free measurement of body temperature of pigs by using thermal imaging-Useful fact or wishful thinking. Comput. Electron. Agric. 193:106656. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2021.106656 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[286]	Sun R., Wang Q., Yu C., et al. (2025). A multimodal detection method for caged diseased hens integrating behavioral and thermal features via instance segmentation. Comput. Electron. Agric. 239:110926. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2025.110926 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[287]	Kim N. Y., Kim S. J., Oh M., et al. (2021). Changes in facial surface temperature of laying hens under different thermal conditions. Anim. Biosci. 34:1235−1242. DOI:10.5713/ab.20.0647 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[288]	Wang M., Li X., Larsen M. L. V., et al. (2023). A computer vision-based approach for respiration rate monitoring of group housed pigs. Comput. Electron. Agric. 210:107899. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2023.107899 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[289]	Jorquera-Chavez M., Fuentes S., Dunshea F. R., et al. (2021). Using imagery and computer vision as remote monitoring methods for early detection of respiratory disease in pigs. Comput. Electron. Agric. 187:106283. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2021.106283 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[290]	Vidal M., Assunção A. S., Mesquita-Bastos J., et al. (2026). Optical technologies for multiparametric heart failure management beyond the hospital. Talanta 297:128640. DOI:10.1016/j.talanta.2025.128640 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[291]	Ding J., Shen M., Liu L., et al. (2020). Automatic recognition of diarrhea in weaned piglets based on machine vision. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. 43:968−978. DOI:10.7685/jnau.201908003 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[292]	Wang J., Shen M., Liu L., et al. (2019). Recognition and classification of broiler droppings based on deep convolutional neural network. J. Sens. 2019:3823515. DOI:10.1155/2019/3823515 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[293]	Borgonovo F., Ferrante V., Grilli G., et al. (2020). A data-driven prediction method for an early warning of coccidiosis in intensive livestock systems: A preliminary study. Animals 10:747. DOI:10.3390/ani10040747 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[294]	Grilli G., Borgonovo F., Tullo E., et al. (2018). A pilot study to detect coccidiosis in poultry farms at early stage from air analysis. Biosyst. Eng. 173:64−70. DOI:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2018.02.004 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[295]	Ribbens S., Dewulf J., Koenen F., et al. (2004). Transmission of classical swine fever. A review. Vet. Q. 26:146−155. DOI:10.1080/01652176.2004.9695177 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[296]	Tadesse B., Molla W., Mengsitu A., et al. (2019). Transmission dynamics of foot and mouth disease in selected outbreak areas of northwest Ethiopia. Epidemiol. Infect. 147:e189. DOI:10.1017/s0950268819000803 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[297]	Han B. and Jiang D. (2025). Coexistence and extinction for a stochastic sheep brucellosis model motivated by Black–Karasinski process. J. Math. Phys. 66:012701. DOI:10.1063/5.0200093 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[298]	Wang L., Wang K., Jiang D., et al. (2018). Nontrivial periodic solution for a stochastic brucellosis model with application to Xinjiang, China. Physica A Stat. Mech. Appl. 510:522−537. DOI:10.1016/j.physa.2018.06.061 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[299]	Barongo M. B., Bishop R. P., Fevre E. M., et al. (2016). A mathematical model that simulates control options for African Swine Fever Virus (ASFV). PLoS One 11:e0158658. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158658 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[300]	Fay R., Gamelon M., Baubet E., et al. (2025). The time of infection matters: Seasonal interplay between host and pathogen drives epidemic dynamics. Oikos 2025:e10750. DOI:10.1111/oik.10750 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[301]	Yang J. Y., Xu R. and Sun H. Q. (2021). Dynamics of a seasonal brucellosis disease model with nonlocal transmission and spatial diffusion. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 94:105551. DOI:10.1016/j.cnsns.2020.105551 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[302]	Huang D., Li R. D., Qiu J., et al. (2018). Geographical environment factors and risk mapping of human cystic Echinococcosis in Western China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15:1729. DOI:10.3390/ijerph15081729 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[303]	Wu X. X., Yin J., Li C. L., et al. (2021). Natural and human environment interactively drive spread pattern of COVID-19: A city-level modeling study in China. Sci. Total Environ. 756:143343. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143343 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[304]	Fischer C., Frühauf A., Inchauste L., et al. (2025). The spatiotemporal ecology of Oropouche virus across Latin America: A multidisciplinary, laboratory-based, modelling study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 25:1020−1032. DOI:10.1016/s1473-3099(25)00110-0 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[305]	Asmare K., Sibhat B., Abera M., et al. (2016). Systematic review and meta-analysis of metacestodes prevalence in small ruminants in Ethiopia. Prev. Vet. Med. 129:99−107. DOI:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.05.006 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[306]	Wang F. J., Liu X., Bergquist R., et al. (2021). Bayesian maximum entropy-based prediction of the spatiotemporal risk of schistosomiasis in Anhui Province, China. BMC Infect. Dis. 21:1171. DOI:10.1186/s12879-021-06854-6 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[307]	Huang B., Wu B. and Barry M. (2010). Geographically and temporally weighted regression for modeling spatio-temporal variation in house prices. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 24:383−401. DOI:10.1080/13658810802672469 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[308]	Xu J. F., Lv S., Wang Q. Y., et al. (2015). Schistosomiasis japonica: Modelling as a tool to explore transmission patterns. Acta Trop. 141:213−222. DOI:10.1016/j.actatropica.2014.06.014 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[309]	Salim M. F., Satoto T. B. T. and Danardono (2025). Predicting spatio-temporal dynamics of dengue using INLA (integrated nested laplace approximation) in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. BMC Public Health 25:1321. DOI:10.1186/s12889-025-22545-2 View in Article Google Scholar
[310]	Zhuang Y. R., Liu Y., Li Q. F., et al. (2025). An intelligence framework for the early warning of avian influenza in Chinese laying farms. Poult. Sci. 104:105822. DOI:10.1016/j.psj.2025.105822 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[311]	Ben Jebara K., Caceres P., Berlingieri F., et al. (2012). Ten years' work on the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Worldwide Animal Disease Notification System. Prev. Vet. Med. 107:149−159. DOI:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.08.008 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[312]	U.S. Department of Agriculture (2017). United States National Animal Health Surveillance System: 2017 Surveillance Activity Report. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites.default/ files/nahss-annual-report.pdf View in Article Google Scholar
[313]	Cuan K. X., Zhang T. M., Li Z. Y., et al. (2022). Automatic Newcastle disease detection using sound technology and deep learning method. Comput. Electron. Agric. 194:106740. 106740. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2022.106740 View in Article Google Scholar
[314]	Pujara J., Miao H., Getoor L., et al. (2013). Knowledge graph identification. The semantic web –ISWC 2013. ISWC 2013. Lecture notes in computer science (Springer), pp:542-557. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-41335-3_34 View in Article Google Scholar
[315]	Schriml L. M., Arze C., Nadendla S., et al. (2011). Disease ontology: A backbone for disease semantic integration. Nucleic Acids Res. 40:D940−D946. DOI:10.1093/nar/gkr972 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[316]	Kuhn M., Letunic I., Jensen L. J., et al. (2016). The SIDER database of drugs and side effects. Nucleic Acids Res. 44:D1075−D1079. DOI:10.1093/nar/gkv1075 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[317]	Ashburner M., Ball C. A., Blake J. A., et al. (2000). Gene ontology: Tool for the unification of biology. The gene ontology consortium. Nat. Genet. 25:25−29. DOI:10.1038/75556 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[318]	Prakash N., Chen, R., and Cynthia, B. (2001). UMLS concept indexing for production databases: A feasibility study. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 8:80−91. DOI:10.1136/jamia.2001.0080080 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[319]	Mohan V. (2015). Liver disease prediction using SVM and naive bayes algorithms. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. Res. 4:816-820. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:212440071 View in Article Google Scholar
[320]	Baati K., Hamdani T. M. and Alimi A. M. (2013). Diagnosis of lymphatic diseases using a naïve bayes style possibilistic classifier. 2013 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. DOI: 10.1109/SMC.2013.772 View in Article Google Scholar
[321]	Wang J. X., Zheng Y. J., Ma J., et al. (2023). Information bottleneck-based interpretable multitask network for breast cancer classification and segmentation. Med. Image Anal. 83:102687. DOI:10.1016/j.media.2022.102687 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[322]	Yang G., Li Q., Zhao C., et al. (2025). TGFN-SD: A text-guided multimodal fusion network for swine disease diagnosis. Artif. Intell. Agric. 15:266−279. DOI:10.1016/j.aiia.2025.03.002 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[323]	Wang H., Shen W., Zhang Y., et al. (2023). Diagnosis of dairy cow diseases by knowledge-driven deep learning based on the text reports of illness state. Comput. Electron. Agric. 205:107564. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2022.107564 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[324]	Wang X., Cai H., Xuan J., et al. (2025). Bundled measures for China’s food system transformation reveal social and environmental co-benefits. Nat. Food 6:72−84. DOI:10.1038/s43016-024-01100-z View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[325]	Guo M., Lv X., Wang D., et al. (2025). Innovative integration of computer vision, IoT, and digital twin in food quality and safety assessment. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 163:105176. DOI:10.1016/j.tifs.2025.105176 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[326]	Li F., Zhang L., Liu Z., et al. (2023). Multi-frequency representation enhancement with privilege information for video super-resolution. 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. DOI: 10.1109/ICCV51070.2023.01177 View in Article Google Scholar
[327]	Nusai C., Chankeaw W. and Sangkaew B. (2015). Dairy cow-vet: A mobile expert system for disease diagnosis of dairy cow. 2015 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration. DOI: 10.1109/SII.2015.7405063 View in Article Google Scholar
[328]	Ali S. N., Shuvo S. B., Al-Manzo M. I. S., et al. (2023). An end-to-end deep learning framework for real-time denoising of heart sounds for cardiac disease detection in unseen noise. IEEE Access 11:87887−87901. DOI:10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3292551 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[329]	Jerlström J., Berg C., Karlsson A. H., et al. (2022). A formal model for assessing the economic impact of animal welfare improvements at bovine and porcine slaughter. Anim. Welf. 31:361−371. DOI:10.7120/09627286.31.4.004 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[330]	Ng E. T., Singh S., Yap W. S., et al. (2023). Cultured meat-a patentometric analysis. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 63:2738−2748. DOI:10.1080/10408398.2021.1980760 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[331]	Lee J., Dutta S. D., Patil T. V., et al. (2025). Physical stimuli-responsive 3D printable hydrogels for scalable manufacturing of bioengineered meat analogs. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 156:104867. DOI:10.1016/j.tifs.2025.104867 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[332]	Jairath G., Mal G., Gopinath D., et al. (2021). A holistic approach to access the viability of cultured meat: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 110:700−710. DOI:10.1016/j.tifs.2021.02.024 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[333]	Tavan M., Smith N. W., McNabb W. C., et al. (2025). Reassessing the sustainability promise of cultured meat: A critical review with new data perspectives. Crit. Rev. Food. Sci. Nutr. 65:7201−7209. DOI:10.1080/10408398.2025.2461262 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[334]	Li M., Wang D. D., Fang J. H., et al. (2022). An efficient and economical way to obtain porcine muscle stem cells for cultured meat production. Food Res. Int. 162. 112206. DOI:10.1016/j.foodres.2022.112206 View in Article Google Scholar
[335]	Fang J. H., Li M., Zhang G. Q., et al. (2022). Vitamin C enhances the ex vivo proliferation of porcine muscle stem cells for cultured meat production. Food Funct. 13:5089−5101 DOI:10.1039/d1fo04340d View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[336]	Zheng Y. Y., Chen Y., Zhu H. Z., et al. (2022). Production of cultured meat by culturing porcine smooth muscle cells in vitro with food grade peanut wire-drawing protein scaffold. Food Res. Int. 159. 111561. DOI:10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111561 View in Article Google Scholar
[337]	Liu Y., Wang R., Ding S., et al. (2022). Engineered meatballs via scalable skeletal muscle cell expansion and modular micro-tissue assembly using porous gelatin micro-carriers. Biomaterials 287:121615. DOI:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2022.121615 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[338]	Yin Z., Liu F., Zhang Z., et al. (2025). Application of synthetic biology in the cultured meat production. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 165:105363. DOI:10.1016/j.tifs.2025.105363 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[339]	Jung D. Y., Lee H. J., Choi S., et al. (2025). Strategies to improve in vitro muscle differentiation for meat-like properties of cultured meat. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 165:105346. DOI:10.1016/j.tifs.2025.105346 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[340]	Guan X., Sun W., Ma Z., et al. (2025). From lab to industry: Technologies and challenges for scaling up bioprocesses in cell-based food production. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 161:105040. DOI:10.1016/j.tifs.2025.105040 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[341]	Post M. J., Levenberg S., Kaplan D. L., et al. (2020). Scientific, sustainability and regulatory challenges of cultured meat. Nat. Food 1:403−415. DOI:10.1038/s43016-020-0112-z View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[342]	Ben-Arye T., Shandalov Y., Ben-Shaul S., et al. (2020). Textured soy protein scaffolds enable the generation of three-dimensional bovine skeletal muscle tissue for cell-based meat. Nat. Food 1:210−220. DOI:10.1038/s43016-020-0046-5 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[343]	Powell D. J., Li D., Smith B., et al. (2025). Cultivated meat microbiological safety considerations and practices. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 24:e70077. DOI:10.1111/1541-4337.70077 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[344]	Xie Y., Cai L., Ding S., et al. (2025). An overview of recent progress in cultured meat: Focusing on technology, quality properties, safety, industrialization, and public acceptance. J. Nutr. 155:745−755. DOI:10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.01.010 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[345]	Sui X. N., Zhang T. Y. and Jiang L. Z. (2021). Soy protein: Molecular structure revisited and recent advances in processing technologies. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 12:119−147. DOI:10.1146/annurev-food-062220-104405 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[346]	Zhao Y., Zhao X., Sun P., et al. (2023). Effects of adding other protein products on textural properties of soy protein concentrate-based meat analogs. J. Texture Stud. 54:410−419. DOI:10.1111/jtxs.12721 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[347]	Kuijpers S. A., Garina E. D., Gobes M. I., et al. (2025). Impact of pH-shifting on multiscale structural anisotropy of high-moisture extrudates of soy proteins. Food Hydrocoll. 168:111456. DOI:10.1016/j.foodhyd.2025.111456 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[348]	Dou W., Zhang X., Zhao Y., et al. (2022). High moisture extrusion cooking on soy proteins: Importance influence of gums on promoting the fiber formation. Food Res. Int. 156:111189. DOI:10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111189 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[349]	Zhang K., Li D., Chiu I., et al. (2025). Mechanistic insights into curdlan-induced fibrous structure formation in soybean protein and wheat gluten extrudates via dead-stop operation and rheological characterization. Food Hydrocoll. 162:110998. DOI:10.1016/j.foodhyd.2024.110998 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[350]	Choi H. W., Hahn J., Kim H.-S., et al. (2025). Thermorheological properties and structural characteristics of soy and pumpkin seed protein blends for high-moisture meat analogs. Food Chem. 464:141768. DOI:10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.141768 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[351]	Othmeni I., Blecker C. and Karoui R. (2025). Comprehensive review of emerging analytical methods for pea protein structure analysis: Advances and implications for food science over the last five years. Food Chem. 478:143745. DOI:10.1016/j.foodchem.2025.143745 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[352]	Singh R., Guerrero M., Garcia Y. R., et al. (2025). Modulating texturized pea protein characteristics through extrusion process parameters for application in hybrid and vegan burger patties. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 251:925−941. DOI:10.1007/s00217-025-04667-4 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[353]	Zhang J. C., Liu L., Jiang Y. R., et al. (2020). A new insight into the high-moisture extrusion process of peanut protein: From the aspect of the orders and amount of energy input. J. Food Eng. 264. 109668. DOI:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2019.07.015 View in Article Google Scholar
[354]	Schreuders F. K. G., Dekkers B. L., Bodnar I., et al. (2019). Comparing structuring potential of pea and soy protein with gluten for meat analogue preparation. J. Food Eng. 261:32−39. DOI:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2019.04.022 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[355]	Luise L., Torres Gomez A. M., Maria A., et al. (2025). Valorizing press cakes as ingredients in textured vegetable proteins: processing, structure, and texture. J. Food Sci. 90:e70471. DOI:10.1111/1750-3841.70471 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[356]	Brishti F. H., Chay S. Y., Muhammad K., et al. (2021). Texturized mung bean protein as a sustainable food source: Effects of extrusion on its physical, textural and protein quality. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 67. 102591. DOI:10.1016/j.ifset.2020.102591 View in Article Google Scholar
[357]	Pori P., Nisov A. and Nordlund E. (2022). Enzymatic modification of oat protein concentrate with trans- and protein-glutaminase for increased fibrous structure formation during high-moisture extrusion processing. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 156:113035. DOI:10.1016/j.lwt.2021.113035 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[358]	Choi H. W., Hahn J., Kim H. S., et al. (2025). Microstructural and textural characteristics of blend gels and high-moisture meat analogs of soy protein isolate and faba bean protein concentrate. Food Chem. 467:142184. DOI:10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.142184 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[359]	See X. Y., Chiang J. H., Law L. M., et al. (2025). High moisture extrusion of plant proteins: advances, challenges, and opportunities. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 65:143−164. DOI:10.1080/10408398.2023.2268736 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[360]	Cho S. Y. and Ryu G. H. (2022). Effects of oyster mushroom addition on quality characteristics of full fat soy-based analog burger patty by extrusion process. J. Food Process Eng. 46:e14128. DOI:10.1111/jfpe.14128 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[361]	Caporgno M. P., Bocker L., Mussner C., et al. (2020). Extruded meat analogues based on yellow, heterotrophically cultivated Auxenochlorella protothecoides microalgae. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 59:102275. DOI:10.1016/j.ifset.2020.102319 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[362]	Rubio N. R., Xiang N. and Kaplan D. L. (2020). Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production. Nat. Commun. 11:6276. DOI:10.1038/s41467-020-20061-y View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[363]	Zhang J. C., Liu L., Liu H. Z., et al. (2019). Changes in conformation and quality of vegetable protein during texturization process by extrusion. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 59:3267−3280. DOI:10.1080/10408398.2018.1487383 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[364]	Guyony V., Fayolle F. and Jury V. (2022). High moisture extrusion of vegetable proteins for making fibrous meat analogs: A review. Food Rev. Int. 39:4262−4287. DOI:10.1080/87559129.2021.2023816 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[365]	Zhang J. C., Chen Q. L., Kaplan D. L., et al. (2022). High-moisture extruded protein fiber formation toward plant-based meat substitutes applications: Science, technology, and prospect. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 128:202−216. DOI:10.1016/j.tifs.2022.08.008 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[366]	Mosibo O. K., Ferrentino G., Alam M. R., et al. (2022). Extrusion cooking of protein-based products: Potentials and challenges. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 62:2526−2547. DOI:10.1080/10408398.2020.1854674 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[367]	Zhang J. C., Liu L., Jiang Y. R., et al. (2019). Converting peanut protein biomass waste into "Double Green" meat substitutes using a high-moisture extrusion process: A multiscale method to explore a process for forming a meat-like fibrous structure. J. Agric. Food Chem. 67:10713−10725. DOI:10.1021/acs.jafc.9b02711 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[368]	Xia S., Song J., Ma C., et al. (2025). Binding and distribution regularity of water molecules in high-moisture textured Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) meat. Food Chem. 462:141028. DOI:10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.141028 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[369]	Wen Y., Chao C., Che Q. T., et al. (2023). Development of plant-based meat analogs using 3D printing: Status and opportunities. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 132:76−92. DOI:10.1016/j.tifs.2022.12.010 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[370]	Zhao Y., Zhang M., Bhandari B., et al. (2025). Development of special nutritional balanced food 3D printing products based on the mixing of animals/plants materials: Research progress, applications, and trends. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 65:6985−7009. DOI:10.1080/10408398.2025.2457420 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[371]	Dick A., Bhandari B. and Prakash S. (2019). 3D printing of meat. Meat Sci. 153:35−44. DOI:10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.03.005 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[372]	Zhang L., Hu Y., Badar I. H., et al. (2021). Prospects of artificial meat: Opportunities and challenges around consumer acceptance. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 116:434−444. DOI:10.1016/j.tifs.2021.07.010 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[373]	Ren Y. Q., Huang L., Zhang Y. X., et al. (2022). Application of emulsion gels as fat substitutes in meat products. Foods 11:1950. DOI:10.3390/foods11131950 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[374]	Wen J. Y., Zhang Y., Jin H. N., et al. (2020). Deciphering the structural network that confers stability to high internal phase pickering emulsions by cross-linked soy protein microgels and their in vitro digestion profiles. J. Agric. Food Chem. 68:9796−9803. DOI:10.1021/acs.jafc.0c03586 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[375]	Khanashyam A. C., Mundanat A. S., Sajith Babu K., et al. (2025). Emerging alternative food protein sources: Production process, quality parameters, and safety point of view. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 45:1−22. DOI:10.1080/07388551.2024.2341902 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[376]	Banach J. L., van der Berg J. P., Kleter G., et al. (2023). Alternative proteins for meat and dairy replacers: Food safety and future trends. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 63:11063−11080. DOI:10.1080/10408398.2022.2089625 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[377]	Zhou P., Gao C., Song W., et al. (2024). Engineering status of protein for improving microbial cell factories. Biotechnol. Adv. 70:108282. DOI:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2023.108282 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar

Cited by

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

Cite this article:

Li F., Duan Y., Fu Y., et al. (2026). Global food security: Opportunities with cutting-edge technologies for ecological and healthy animal breeding. The Innovation Life 4:100226. https://doi.org/10.59717/j.xinn-life.2026.100226

Li F., Duan Y., Fu Y., et al. (2026). Global food security: Opportunities with cutting-edge technologies for ecological and healthy animal breeding. The Innovation Life 4:100226. https://doi.org/10.59717/j.xinn-life.2026.100226

Welcome!

To request copyright permission to republish or share portions of our works, please visit Copyright Clearance Center's (CCC) Marketplace website at marketplace.copyright.com.

PDF

Figures(6)

Article Metrics

Article views(4067) PDF downloads(3376)

Global food security: Opportunities with cutting-edge technologies for ecological and healthy animal breeding

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

REFERENCES

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

Cite this article:

Welcome!

Share

Article Metrics

Relative Articles

Cited by

Catalog

{{newsColumn.name}}

Official Account

{{newsColumn.name}}

Stay connected

{{newsColumn.name}}

Global food security: Opportunities with cutting-edge technologies for ecological and healthy animal breeding

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

REFERENCES

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

Cite this article:

Welcome!

Share

Article Metrics

Relative Articles

Cited by

Catalog

Export File

Citation

Format

Content

{{newsColumn.name}}

Official Account

{{newsColumn.name}}

Stay connected

{{newsColumn.name}}