1
|
Manenti I, Viola I, Ala U, Cornale P, Macchi E, Toschi P, Martignani E, Baratta M, Miretti S. Adaptation Response in Sheep: Ewes in Different Cortisol Clusters Reveal Changes in the Expression of Salivary miRNAs. Animals (Basel) 2023; 13:3273. [PMID: 37893997 PMCID: PMC10603754 DOI: 10.3390/ani13203273] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2023] [Revised: 10/17/2023] [Accepted: 10/18/2023] [Indexed: 10/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Farm procedures have an impact on animal welfare by activating the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis that induces a wide array of physiological responses. This adaptive system guarantees that the animal copes with environmental variations and it induces metabolic and molecular changes that can be quantified. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) play a key role in the regulation of homeostasis and emerging evidence has identified circulating miRNAs as promising biomarkers of stress-related disorders in animals. Based on a clustering analysis of salivary cortisol trends and levels, 20 ewes were classified into two different clusters. The introduction of a ram in the flock was identified as a common farm practice and reference time point to collect saliva samples. Sixteen miRNAs related to the adaptation response were selected. Among them, miR-16b, miR-21, miR-24, miR-26a, miR-27a, miR-99a, and miR-223 were amplified in saliva samples. Cluster 1 was characterized by a lower expression of miR-16b and miR-21 compared with Cluster 2 (p < 0.05). This study identified for the first time several miRNAs expressed in sheep saliva, pointing out significant differences in the expression patterns between the cortisol clusters. In addition, the trend analyses of these miRNAs resulted in clusters (p = 0.017), suggesting the possible cooperation of miR-16b and -21 in the integrated stress responses, as already demonstrated in other species as well. Other research to define the role of these miRNAs is needed, but the evaluation of the salivary miRNAs could support the selection of ewes for different profiles of response to sources of stressors common in the farm scenario.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Isabella Manenti
- Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Torino, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy; (I.M.); (I.V.); (U.A.); (E.M.); (P.T.); (E.M.)
| | - Irene Viola
- Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Torino, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy; (I.M.); (I.V.); (U.A.); (E.M.); (P.T.); (E.M.)
| | - Ugo Ala
- Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Torino, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy; (I.M.); (I.V.); (U.A.); (E.M.); (P.T.); (E.M.)
| | - Paolo Cornale
- Department of Agricultural, Forestry and Food Sciences (DISAFA), Animal Production Unit, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy;
| | - Elisabetta Macchi
- Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Torino, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy; (I.M.); (I.V.); (U.A.); (E.M.); (P.T.); (E.M.)
| | - Paola Toschi
- Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Torino, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy; (I.M.); (I.V.); (U.A.); (E.M.); (P.T.); (E.M.)
| | - Eugenio Martignani
- Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Torino, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy; (I.M.); (I.V.); (U.A.); (E.M.); (P.T.); (E.M.)
| | - Mario Baratta
- Department of Chemistry, Life Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 11a, 43124 Parma, Italy;
| | - Silvia Miretti
- Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Torino, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy; (I.M.); (I.V.); (U.A.); (E.M.); (P.T.); (E.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lanzoni L, Whatford L, Atzori AS, Chincarini M, Giammarco M, Fusaro I, Vignola G. Review: The challenge to integrate Animal Welfare indicators into the Life Cycle Assessment. Animal 2023; 17:100794. [PMID: 37121159 DOI: 10.1016/j.animal.2023.100794] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2022] [Revised: 03/19/2023] [Accepted: 03/21/2023] [Indexed: 03/31/2023] Open
Abstract
The transition to a more sustainable livestock sector represents one of the major challenges of our time. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is recognised as the gold standard methodology for assessing the environmental impact of farming systems. Simultaneously, animal welfare is a key component of livestock production and is intrinsically related to human and environmental well-being. To perform an overall on-farm sustainability assessment, it would be desirable to consider both the environmental impact and the welfare of the animals. The present work aimed to summarise and describe the methodologies adopted in peer-reviewed papers published to date, that combine animal welfare evaluation with LCA. Citations, retrieved from four bibliographical databases, were systematically evaluated in a multi-stage approach following the JBI and PRISMA scoping review guidelines. The searches identified 1 460 studies, of which only 24 were compliant with the inclusion criteria. The results highlighted how the environmental LCA was undertaken with a much more homogenous and standardised method than animal welfare assessment. When studies were grouped based on the type of animal welfare assessment performed: 16.7% used single welfare indicators, 45.8% multiple indicators, 8.3% applied existing validated protocols (i.e., TGI-200 and TGI-35L), 16.7% used non-validated protocols and 12.5% employed other methods. The papers were further classified with respect to the "5 Animal Welfare Domains Model": the most assessed domain was "environment" (90.5% of the papers%), followed by "health" (52.4%), "nutrition" (33.3%), "behavioural interactions" (28.6%) and "mental state" (9.5%). None of the studies assessed all the domains simultaneously. In addition, 66.7% of papers (n = 16) aggregated the animal welfare indicators into a final score. Within these, only four papers proposed to associate the animal welfare scores with the LCA functional unit. An overall sustainability score, calculated with several different approaches to summarise the information, was provided by 46% of the papers. In summary, despite the topic's relevance, to date, there is neither a consensus on the animal welfare assessment approach to be carried out (indicators selection and their aggregation) nor on the standardisation of an integrated animal welfare-LCA evaluation. The present review provides a basis for the development of common future guidelines to carry out a comprehensive, true-to-life and robust farm sustainability assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Lanzoni
- Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Teramo, Loc. Piano d'Accio, 64100 Teramo, Italy.
| | - L Whatford
- Veterinary Epidemiology, Economics and Public Health Group, Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield AL97TA, UK
| | - A S Atzori
- Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Sassari, 07100 Sassari, Italy
| | - M Chincarini
- Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Teramo, Loc. Piano d'Accio, 64100 Teramo, Italy
| | - M Giammarco
- Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Teramo, Loc. Piano d'Accio, 64100 Teramo, Italy
| | - I Fusaro
- Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Teramo, Loc. Piano d'Accio, 64100 Teramo, Italy
| | - G Vignola
- Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Teramo, Loc. Piano d'Accio, 64100 Teramo, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Geß A, Hazar Kalonya D. Sustainable Husbandry?-A Comparative LCA of Three Lamb Breeding Systems in Turkey. CIRCULAR ECONOMY AND SUSTAINABILITY 2023; 3:1-23. [PMID: 36685986 PMCID: PMC9834030 DOI: 10.1007/s43615-023-00249-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2022] [Accepted: 12/31/2022] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
The agricultural sector has historically been the forefront economic sector in Turkey and is crucial for the rural sustainability and the pastures that are critical for biodiversity. However, inadequate policies and factors such as climate change and malpractices result in brittle pastures, rural-urban migration, and a declining agricultural sector. Also, pastures have been left without function and appropriated to other land uses such as quarries, energy power plants, and mines. Although the husbandry sector produces significant greenhouse gas emissions, pastures have a significant capacity of CO2 sequestration. In this study, Life cycle assessment (LCA) is applied to quantify the advantages and disadvantages of the transition between extensive and intensive production. The methodology presents a holistic analysis of the several impact categories and amounts of relevant products, services, and resource emissions along their life cycles. In order to assess the environmental effects of the lamb meat production, three sheep breeding systems in Turkey are evaluated. The study aims to promote a sustainable use of natural resources/assets without compromising the quality, competitiveness, or animal welfare and obtain recommendations for the future husbandry systems and rural development in Turkey. As an overall result, it can be stated that the intensification of sheep farming can lead to a decrease of greenhouse gas emissions per kg of meat. However, extensive sheep farming shows less impacts on soil acidification or eutrophication and can even be beneficial for erosion resistance or biodiversity if properly managed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andreas Geß
- Department of Life Cycle Assessment, IABP, University of Stuttgart, Wankelstrasse 5, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany
| | - Dalya Hazar Kalonya
- Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ogun S, Viola I, Obertino M, Manenti I, Ala U, Brugiapaglia A, Battaglini L, Perona G, Baratta M. Using sensors to detect individual responses of lambs during transport and pre-slaughter handling and their relationship with meat quality. Anim Welf 2022. [DOI: 10.7120/09627286.31.4.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
Rapid analysis of animal welfare is a crucial component of the assessment of the meat quality supply chain, ensuring management procedures confer optimum standards of welfare. Further, there is increasing interest in monitoring the welfare state of each individual animal. This study
looked at transport and pre-slaughter management in terms of meat quality evaluated in two breeds (Biellese and Sambucana) across two different farming systems. Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) technologies were implemented, including accelerometer and rumination activity ear-tag sensors,
as potential welfare indicators during transportation and pre-slaughter. Significant correlations were found between sensors' parameters, such as total activity and rumination and physical and chemical meat quality characteristics such as drip loss. Lambs with lower rumination and/or lower
total activity were found to have lower drip loss indicating reduced meat quality. Sensors have the potential to help detect those animals particularly sensitive to stressors during transport and pre-slaughter handling and may allow real-time measurement of the impact of transport and handling
in abattoirs, enabling better animal management via specific customised strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Ogun
- Department of Veterinary Science, University of Turin, Grugliasco (TO), Italy
| | - I Viola
- Department of Veterinary Science, University of Turin, Grugliasco (TO), Italy
| | - M Obertino
- Department of Veterinary Science, University of Turin, Grugliasco (TO), Italy
| | - I Manenti
- Department of Veterinary Science, University of Turin, Grugliasco (TO), Italy
| | - U Ala
- Department of Veterinary Science, University of Turin, Grugliasco (TO), Italy
| | | | - L Battaglini
- DISAFA, University of Turin, Grugliasco (TO), Italy
| | - G Perona
- ;Department of Veterinary Science, University of Turin, Grugliasco (TO), Italy
| | - M Baratta
- Department of Veterinary Science, University of Turin, Grugliasco (TO), Italy
| |
Collapse
|