Italo Messias Ferreira de Souza1
Carlos Eduardo Lima Sousa2
Vanessa Sousa Pinto1Luís Gustavo Paixão Vilela1Alinne da Silva Souza2João Paulo de Sousa Cunha2
Cláudio Vieira de Araújo1
Marina de Nadai Bonin Gomes3Lílian Kátia Ximenes Silva4
Lucietta Guerreiro Martorano5Kedson Alessandri Lobo Neves6
Raimundo Nonato Colares Camargo-Júnior7
Éder Bruno Rebelo da Silva8
Welligton Conceição da Silva1*- 1Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Federal University of Mato Grosso (UFMT), Cuiabá, MT, Brazil
- 2Academics of the Veterinary Medicine Course at the University Center of the Amazon (UNAMA), Santarém, PA, Brazil
- 3Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil
- 4Federal University of Pará (UFPA), Castanhal, Pará, Brazil
- 5Embrapa Eastern Amazon, Santarém, PA, Brazil
- 6Federal University of Western Pará (UFOPA), Santarém, Pará, Brazil
- 7Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Pará (IFPA), Santarém, PA, Brazil
- 8Lutheran University Center of Santarém (ULBRA), Santarém, PA, Brazil
This work consists of a narrative review that addresses the differences between European cattle and Zebu cattle in their resilience to environmental challenges. It was developed based on scientific articles, theses, dissertations, and technical documents available in recognized databases such as Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and PubMed, prioritizing recent studies from 2020 to 2025 that are relevant to the topic. The method used was a narrative review, in which publications addressing the physiological, behavioral, bioclimatic, and adaptive production parameters of each animal group were selected, allowing for a comparative analysis of their main characteristics. The results indicate that European cattle, although highly productive, are less adapted to heat, while zebu cattle stand out for their hardiness, resistance to high temperatures, and lower incidence of diseases. The conclusion is that analyzing these differences is essential to guide breed selection, genetic improvement strategies, and the adoption of more sustainable production systems, favoring greater livestock efficiency and resilience under diverse environmental conditions.
1 Introduction
Cattle welfare is a central issue in modern livestock production, particularly in the context of increasing demands for sustainability, efficiency, and resilience of production systems (1, 2). Among the factors influencing animal welfare, the climatic environment plays a decisive role, directly affecting comfort, health, and productive performance (3). Environmental variables such as air temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, and wind speed, when analyzed in an integrated manner through indices such as the Temperature and Humidity Index (THI), allow a more consistent assessment of thermal conditions experienced by cattle (4).
The evaluation of cattle welfare under climatic conditions is based on physiological, behavioral, productive, and bioclimatic indicators (5). Changes in physiological responses and behavior, as well as variations in productive performance, are widely used to identify heat stress situations and their consequences on animal welfare (6–11). The combined interpretation of these indicators enables the identification of critical thermal stress scenarios that compromise both animal performance and welfare status (12).
Bioclimatic indices have been widely applied to quantify the impact of environmental conditions on cattle thermal comfort, allowing the characterization of heat stress in different production systems (13, 14). Among the most commonly used indices are the Temperature and Humidity Index (THI), Black Globe Temperature and Humidity Index (BGHI), Benezra Thermal Comfort Index (BTCI), Environmental Stress Index (ESI), Equivalent Temperature Index (ETI), Iberian Heat Tolerance Index (IHT), and Thermal Load Index (TLI) (4, 15).
Despite the extensive body of research addressing physiological, behavioral, productive, and bioclimatic responses to heat stress, the available literature remains fragmented, with most studies analyzing these indicators in isolation (6, 16–18). This fragmentation limits a comprehensive understanding of the interactions among indicators and their combined implications for cattle welfare, especially under conditions of climate change and increasing production intensification. In this context, an integrated synthesis of recent scientific evidence is necessary to support decision-making in animal management and thermal stress mitigation strategies (14, 19–22).
The hypothesis is that the integration of physiological, behavioral, and productive indicators allows for a more accurate assessment of the welfare of cattle under heat stress. It is also assumed that bioclimatic indices differ in sensitivity and applicability between environmental conditions and production systems, influencing their efficiency in identifying heat stress. Finally, it is postulated that the incorporation of technological monitoring tools improves the assessment of heat stress and guides more efficient management strategies in climate change scenarios.
Therefore, this manuscript proposes a integrated synthesis of studies published between 2020 and 2025, incorporating technological advances applied to environmental monitoring and thermal management of cattle in tropical and subtropical regions. Thus, the objective of this study was to conduct an integrated analysis of livestock welfare indicators in the face of heat stress: a review in climate change scenarios.
2 Materials and methods
For the elaboration of this review, a bibliographic survey was carried out in the Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and PubMed databases, which are scientific databases capable of storing high-quality articles. The following keywords were used: “animal welfare indicators,” “heat stress in cattle,” “animal bioclimatology,” and “cattle farming and production systems.”
The inclusion criteria were complete texts, written in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, and that presented a discussion on animal welfare indicators related to the climate environment. Articles were excluded when they did not fit the objective of the study. In this study, we chose to carry out a time frame from 2020 to 2025 and not follow a geographical order during the searches.
The studies were separated by title and abstract, after which they were analyzed in quadruplicate by the authors independently, avoiding interference. The variables retrieved and analyzed from the manuscript were the year of publication of the study, title, species, breed, number of animals in the study, experimental design, technologies applied, and country.
Thus, all available literature was considered until the conclusion of the database searches. A total of 158 references were cited in this review. In this study, the data were organized in spreadsheets and then evaluated, being presented in formats of tables and graphs to favor the reader's understanding. The same methodology was used in the studies by Mota-Rojas et al. (23), Rodrigues et al. (24), Ghezzi et al. (25), and Mota-Rojas et al. (26).
Figure 1 shows the countries that have researched animal welfare indicators related to the climate environment. Supplementary Table S1 shows the different experimental studies carried out by adding the year of publication of the study, title of the article, species, breed, number of animals in the study (NA), experimental design and the technologies applied according to Page et al. (27).
Figure 1. Map of the countries found in the database platform searches and used in this review. Authorship (2025).
3 Literature review
3.1 Welfare in cattle farming
Animal welfare is one of the central pillars of contemporary cattle farming, being recognized as a fundamental requirement for the sustainability, productivity, and quality of products of animal origin (28). Its importance transcends ethical aspects, encompassing economic, environmental, and social factors, which determine the competitiveness of the sector in the face of increasingly demanding consumers (29). The World Organization for Animal Health defines welfare as the state in which the animal is healthy, well-nourished, comfortable, capable of expressing its natural behavior and free from pain, fear or suffering, consolidating itself as an international reference parameter (14, 16, 18).
The consumer market attributes increasing value to management practices that promote animal welfare, valuing products from ethical and sustainable systems (30). Such demand encourages the adoption of protocols and certifications, such as Welfare Quality®, which evaluates wellbeing based on objective indicators related to health, nutrition, environment, and behavior (31). In this way, wellbeing becomes not only a moral issue, but also a competitive advantage and a requirement to meet the demands of the consumer market (16, 28, 32).
The assessment involves multiple factors, including nutrition, health, environment, freedom of movement, and emotional states (33). Animals exposed to stress, fear or discomfort present physiological and behavioral changes that compromise productive performance, reproduction and the quality of meat and milk (34, 35). Thus, the promotion of favorable environments and the adoption of adequate management are essential strategies to balance productivity and animal comfort (36).
Nutrition is one of the main points in maintaining wellbeing, since balanced diets ensure adequate physical development, greater resistance to disease, and stress reduction (37). In addition, the available space and the conditions of physical comfort are determinant, overcrowded or inadequate environments increase the incidence of diseases and reduce productive performance, while facilities that offer ventilation, lighting, thermal comfort and access to clean water favor the health and natural behavior of the animals (17, 38, 39).
Production systems in cattle farming can be classified as extensive, semi-intensive, and intensive, according to the technological level and infrastructure employed (3). The extensive system is characterized by natural pastures, low stocking density and less human intervention, with reduced costs, but variations in productivity (40). The semi-intensive integrates grazing and strategic feed supplementation, promoting nutritional stability and greater production regularity (24). Intensive systems, on the other hand, involves confinement and balanced diets, allowing greater control of production, but with possible impacts on wellbeing due to space constraints (30, 32, 41).
Globalization and the demand for ethical standards drive the standardization of handling, transportation, and slaughter protocols, aiming to reduce economic losses and ensure efficiency throughout the production chain (32). At the same time, society demands transparency and ethical responsibility in dealing with animals, reinforcing the importance of practices that respect welfare (42). The Brambell report (43), a historical landmark of the concept, already highlighted basic recommendations such as adequate space, access to water and quality food, principles that remain central to modern livestock.
In the scientific realm, the assessment of wellbeing has evolved from simply preventing negative experiences to valuing positive states and opportunities for behavioral expression (44). According to Barreto et al. (45), Pichlbauer et al. (46), and Singaravadivelan et al. (47), prolonged impairment of wellbeing, as occurs in inadequate facilities, is more harmful than isolated episodes of acute pain. Thus, the current challenge is to develop indicators that measure not only the absence of suffering, but also the presence of positive experiences, consolidating a comprehensive approach (15).
3.2 Influence of the climatic environment
The environment plays a decisive role in the performance and wellbeing of farm animals, especially in tropical and subtropical regions, where temperature, humidity and radiation fluctuations are intense (48). In practice, many producers face an aggravating factor: the removal of native vegetation for the implementation of pastures and forage crops, which drastically reduces the supply of natural shade, exposing the animals to greater thermal loads and reducing behavioral options for heat relief (49). When adaptive capacity is exceeded, heat stress sets in, with negative consequences for health, reproduction, and productivity (50).
The relationship between climate and performance is complex and strained by the economic limitations of the producer (51). High temperatures and high humidity reduce feed intake and alter nutritional requirements, which translates into lower weight gain and production, however, supplementation to compensate for these losses implies additional costs that not all systems can support (52). In many family farms, the difficulty in accessing financial resources for the acquisition of concentrates, storage, and transportation of inputs aggravates productive vulnerability in the face of prolonged heat waves (53).
Behaviorally, cattle resort to responses such as seeking shade, reducing activity, and increasing respiratory rate to dissipate heat, however, these strategies are ineffective when shade is nonexistent or insufficient (54). The construction of sheds, installation of mechanical ventilation, sprinkler systems and other cooling devices require initial investment and operating expenses (energy, maintenance), which limits their adoption, especially in small properties (55). Thus, the socioeconomic conditions of the producer directly influence the ability to mitigate climate impacts (Figure 2) (56).
Figure 2. Behavior of young Nellore and Canchim bulls kept in pasture with full sun or in integrated crop-livestock-forest systems. (A) Time spent resting lying down; (B) Time spent grazing; and (C) Time spent ruminating lying down. Adapted from Moraes et al. (40). Full sun (FS) and integrated crop-livestock-forestry (ICLF).
Given this situation, animal bioclimatology provides valuable tools to identify thermal risks and prioritize interventions, however, implementation must consider technically effective and financially viable alternatives (4, 26). Low-cost and high impact strategies—such as shading by tree corridors, rotational management to preserve forage cover, improvement of drinking points and adjustment of management and feeding schedules—associated with genetic selection by more adapted animals, rural extension programs and financing policies, are practical measures that increase the resilience of production units and promote comfort in real production contexts (14).
3.3 Climate-related animal welfare indicators
Comfort in conditions of heat stress can be evaluated based on indicators that modify climatic factors, such as temperature, humidity, solar radiation, and wind speed, into signals that reflect the actual condition of cattle (57). These indicators allow us to understand how the environment interferes with health, comfort, and productive performance, and are used as practical tools to guide management (58). For greater accuracy, it is important to associate environmental measures with responses observed directly from the animals, ensuring faster diagnoses and effective interventions (59).
The choice of indicators varies according to the objectives of each property and the reality faced by each producer. It can be used with the aim of prevention, using environmental indices as a “risk alert” (60–62). In other situations, the focus is on diagnosis, using physiological or productive signs to assess the severity of the problem (63, 64).
In the daily life of farms, the value of indicators lies in the ability to transform data into practical and accessible decisions (3, 14, 65). The Temperature and Humidity Index (THI), for example, is widely used as a heat risk benchmark, while observing changes in behavior, such as increased shade-seeking or changing rumination pattern, allows for rapid interventions (63, 66). Physiological parameters, such as respiratory rate or body temperature, and productive parameters, such as a drop in food intake and reduced milk production, help to measure the intensity of heat stress (64, 67).
However, many producers face obstacles that make it difficult to apply these indicators in practice. The absence of tree cover in pasture areas, a result of deforestation for the implementation of forage monocultures, drastically reduces the availability of natural shade (68). Likewise, the limitation of financial resources restricts the installation of sheds, ventilation or cooling systems, making it impossible to adopt more advanced technologies in small and medium sized properties (69). This scenario highlights the need to adopt a tiered approach, prioritizing low-cost and higher impact measures (56).
From this perspective, the integration of simple and accessible alternatives, such as the use of trees for shading, rotational management of pastures and adjustments in the times of food supply, which significantly reduce the effects of heat on cattle (68, 70). These practices can be complemented, whenever possible, by more sophisticated technologies, such as thermal monitoring sensors, infrared thermography, or cooling systems, which allow for greater accuracy in diagnosing and controlling discomfort (26, 71). Thus, the balance between economic feasibility and technical effectiveness becomes essential to promote animal welfare and the sustainability of production systems (14, 67).
3.3.1 Physiological and hormonal indicators
Direct measures of cattle response to heat stress are considered, reflecting changes in the respiratory and circulatory systems (59, 72). The most commonly used physiological indicators are heart rate, respiratory rate, rectal temperature, and surface temperature, which increase proportionally to prolonged exposure to high environmental temperatures. In addition, we associated physiological parameters with hormonal indicators, which are Cortisol, insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), T3, T4, Glucose, and non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA), helping to assess the wellbeing of cattle (Table 1) (73, 74).
Table 1. Physiological and hormonal indicators.
Recent research indicates that dairy cattle in hot climate regions have a significant increase in respiratory rate when exposed to direct solar radiation and high humidity (75, 76). This response is a thermoregulation mechanism, but when prolonged, it leads to greater energy expenditure and a drop in productive performance (77, 78). In tropical conditions, this indicator becomes even more relevant due to the intensity and duration of critical periods (79).
New technologies, such as rumen sensors and monitoring collars, have allowed the continuous recording of internal parameters, such as rumen and eyeball temperature (75, 76). These data offer greater accuracy in the early diagnosis of heat stress and enable rapid interventions (80). However, high costs and the need for connectivity limit the application in small farms, where direct observation of clinical signs, such as wheezing and excessive salivation are still prevalent (75, 81).
Obtaining the results of these indicators is essential to understand the impact of heat stress on cattle (57). These parameters provide objective information about the body's adaptation to environmental conditions, and are crucial in tropical regions where temperature and humidity variations are intense (Figure 3) (15, 40).
Figure 3. Impact of heat stress on the physiological and metabolic parameters of cattle. Authorship 2025. NEFA, non-esterified fatty acids; IGFT-1, insulin-like growth factor type 1; T3, triiodothyronine; T4, thyroxine.
Heart rate (HR) ranges between 60 and 80 bpm in adult cattle at rest, values above 90 bpm indicate heat stress, pain, or metabolic disorders (6, 12, 79). The increase in HR represents the intensification of peripheral circulation, aiming to increase heat dissipation (63, 74). Studies in grazing systems show that animals of lower social hierarchy tend to have higher HR in response to heat (82, 83).
HR reflects the activity of the autonomic nervous system and the balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic branches (84). During heat stress situations, HR increases due to activation of the sympathetic system, which promotes peripheral vasodilation and increases cardiac output to dissipate heat (6, 7). Persistently high values indicate continuous effort by the body, which can lead to cardiovascular fatigue, reduced food intake, and a drop in productivity (79).
Respiratory rate (RR) is highly sensitive to thermal changes, cattle in comfort have 24–36 movements/min, while 60–80 movements/min indicate moderate discomfort and >100 movements/min, severe stress (14, 64, 82). The increase in RR results from the need for greater gas exchange to dissipate evaporative heat in the upper airways (72).
The increase in RR is reflected in the direct response to the need for evaporative heat dissipation in the airways, which activates respiratory centers in the medulla oblongata and medulla, raising RR to increase gas exchange and maintain homeothermy (47, 63). Prolonged high frequencies can induce hyperventilation, dehydration, and reduced feed efficiency, negatively impacting reproductive and productive performance (75, 77).
Rectal temperature is the main indicator of core temperature (85). Normal values are between 38.0 °C and 39.3 °C; readings above 39.5 °C suggest hyperthermia, while persistent temperatures above 40 °C reflect intense stress and impaired milk production (58, 72, 75). Studies in the Western Amazon show that prolonged exposure to the sun significantly increases rectal temperature, affecting feed intake and productive efficiency (4, 56).
Being a direct indicator of internal heat load, rectal temperature, at the time when the animal is under heat stress, endogenous thermogenesis increases, while heat dissipation mechanisms (respiration, transpiration, conduction, and radiation) try to compensate (40, 58). Higher-than-normal temperatures indicate that heat exchange capacity is insufficient, affecting metabolism, feed intake, and lactation (14, 67).
Surface temperature can be obtained by infrared thermography or digital surface thermometers, both used to assess thermolysis and identify hot areas related to heat stress, such as the eye, muzzle, and udder. In cattle, normal values range from 34 °C to 36 °C, while temperatures above 38 °C indicate acute stress (47, 63, 86). Infrared thermography, already established as a non-invasive tool, allows mapping of body heat distribution and identification of areas of increased heat without restraining the animal (3, 86), although it is sensitive to environmental interference, such as solar radiation, wind, and humidity, requiring standardization of measurements (87, 88).
The digital surface thermometer, in turn, offers quick and simple measurements in the field and is less sensitive to environmental changes, but it only captures the temperature at the point of contact and can cause minor thermal changes or stress during handling (4, 81, 89). Thus, changes in surface temperature patterns—reflecting peripheral vasodilation during heat—can be detected early (86, 90), and the combination of thermography and surface thermometry provides a more robust assessment of the thermal status and comfort of animals under practical management conditions (91) (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Applicability of infrared field thermography. Measurements of the anatomical regions: SP1 and SP2—head; SP3 and SP4—armpit; SP5 and SP6—flank; and SP7 and SP8—rump.
Hormones, on the other hand, also provide important information about physiological status (92). Serum cortisol has reference values of 1–6 μg/dl, with levels >10 μg/dl are associated with acute stress (93, 94). IGF-1, being a marker of growth and reproduction, has normal levels of 150–300 ng/ml, reducing below 100 ng/ml in prolonged stress (95, 96). It is the thyroid hormones T3 (0.5–2.0 ng/ml) and T4 (45–120 ng/ml) that decrease in chronic stress, reflecting metabolic adaptation (22, 78).
Cortisol is the main glucocorticoid hormone released in response to stress, acting on energy metabolism, promoting gluconeogenesis and mobilization of fat and protein reserves (93, 94). Elevated cortisol levels reflect on the activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and are associated with some behavioral changes, immunosuppression, and reduced production efficiency, constituting a reliable marker of acute and chronic stress (97).
Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) is sensitive to nutritional status and stress load, where situations with high temperatures lead to prolonged stress, liver synthesis, and decreased IGF-1, affecting growth, reproductive efficiency, and milk production (95, 96). Its evaluation allows the identification of subclinical metabolic impacts, often not perceptible by behavioral indicators (98).
The thyroid hormones T3 and T4 regulate basal metabolism and thermogenesis, under heat stress, there is a reduction of these hormones to decrease energy metabolism and reduce endogenous heat production (22, 90). This metabolic adaptation helps with survival, but can compromise growth and milk production in prolonged situations (94).
There is also glucose, a relevant metabolic marker, which in adult cattle has normal values between 45 and 75 mg/dl (99). In conditions of intense excessive heat, levels can vary significantly, due to energy mobilization and hormonal changes, which can be associated with reduced food intake and reproductive changes (14, 70, 100). The combination of glucose with non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) makes it possible to distinguish heat stress from concomitant pathological processes (101).
A metabolic marker sensitive to energy mobilization, glucose, during stress, there is an increase in cortisol and catecholamines, promoting gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis, maintaining blood glucose levels (70, 100). Persistent fluctuations indicate energy imbalance and can interfere with milk production, reproduction, and immunity, reflecting directly on the animal (102). Non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) increase in parallel with glucose, as a consequence of lipolysis to provide alternative energy, high values are indicative of prolonged stress and can predispose to metabolic disorders, such as ketosis, reflecting on health and productivity (103).
In summary, the integrated assessment provides a complete view of the state of the cattle, combining cardiovascular, respiratory, thermal, and hormonal parameters allows for a more accurate and grounded diagnosis to intervene in management, which favors and minimizes the effects of heat stress on health and productivity (37, 67, 77).
3.3.2 Behavioral indicators
These are accessible and easy to interpret, offering a practical tool for producers, among the most observed indicators are the increase in standing time, the reduction of grazing, grouping, the search for shade and the proximity to drinking fountains (104). These responses represent natural heat dissipation strategies, but they reduce feed efficiency and compromise long-term productivity (7, 82).
Studies show that dairy cows exposed to moderate heat decrease forage intake time and increase permanence in shaded areas, when available (57, 78, 94). However, in tropical systems where native vegetation has been removed to form pastures, the lack of natural shade is detrimental, as it limits the main form of behavioral adaptation (22, 93).
Technological tools, such as collars with accelerometers and activity sensors, have been used to identify subtle changes in rumination and locomotion, allowing for early detection of animals that are more sensitive to heat (76, 105). Therefore, in smallholder systems, routine observation remains an effective strategy to identify signs of thermal discomfort (Figure 5) (6, 71).
Figure 5. Behaviors expressed in relation to the environment. Authorship 2025.
Abnormal behavior of cattle is one of the first signs of changes in comfort and thermal balance, reflecting physiological adjustments and monitoring strategies (106). One of the most used parameters is the proportion of time standing and lying down, which in conditions of thermal comfort, remains about 60% of the day lying down and 40% standing (107). The increase in standing time, especially in the hottest hours, indicates discomfort and additional effort to dissipate heat, which can be obtained by direct observation, video cameras or position sensors (71, 82, 108).
The time of rest or idleness, usually 8–12 h/day in adult cattle, is essential for energy recovery and maintenance of rumination, another relevant indicator is the grouping and search for shade (109). Changes in these parameters reflect heat stress, pain, or metabolic discomfort, directly affecting digestive efficiency (6, 70). Rumination, which occurs between 7 and 10 h/day, is another important parameter; significant falls in this time or frequent interruptions indicate environmental or physiological malaise (37).
Changes in eating patterns are also clear indicators of discomfort, in comfort they dedicate 8–10 h/day to grazing, while intake drops significantly when the temperature exceeds the normal zone (64, 110). Reductions of more than 10% in habitual food consumption are characterized as a negative impact on digestion and energy balance (64, 79). In addition, the increased proximity to drinking fountains, usually visited 3–5 times/day, signals greater water demand and the search for body cooling (81, 94).
Other parameters, tail wagging, bowed head posture, floppy ears, excessive movement, and vocalizations showing a subtle increase in signs, may indicate irritation, thermal discomfort, or pain (111). Although these behaviors may seem like mild changes, they are considered early markers of stress (Table 2) (37, 93, 108, 112).
Table 2. Behavioral indicators.
In an integrated way, behavioral analysis provides valuable information about the response of animals to the environment (113, 114). Continuous monitoring, whether by direct observation or by sensor technologies, allows for early detection of uncomfortable situations, subsidizing interventions such as shading, ventilation, adjustment of animal density, and ensuring unrestricted access to water (77, 78, 96).
3.3.3 Productive indicators
Productive indicators make it possible to quantify the economic impact of thermal discomfort, reflecting environmental conditions in results directly linked to production (47, 49, 63, 115). The reduction in dry matter intake is the main observation factor, reflecting in lower weight gain in beef cattle and in reduced milk production and quality in dairy cows (116, 117). These effects intensify in prolonged heat waves, which are common in tropical countries (Table 3) (51, 67).
Table 3. Productive indicators.
In addition to the drop in productivity, high temperature compromises reproductive efficiency, delaying the return to the estrous cycle and reducing conception rates, leading to a result of a longer calving interval and a decrease in the number of lactating cows, directly impacting the sustainability of the production systems (Figure 6) (28, 49). Extreme weather events, such as El Niño, have been associated with significant productivity losses, reinforcing the need for indicators for prevention (3, 4).
Figure 6. Impact of heat stress on the productive performance of dairy cows. Authorship 2025.
In practice, these indicators are valued by producers because they are directly linked to the profitability of the activity (118, 119). The combination of climate indices (such as THI), physiological parameters, and productive results allows for a more accurate assessment of risk and justifies interventions, from management adjustments to investments in cooling infrastructure (72, 74). This integration of measures is essential to strengthen the resilience of systems in the face of climate change (22, 77).
Environmental temperature directly compromises the productive and reproductive performance of cattle, diverting energy from growth and lactation to the maintenance of homeothermy (47, 63). In beef cattle, this is due to lower voluntary feed intake and a drop in conversion efficiency, reflected in a reduction in average daily gain (ADG) and lower muscle and adipose tissue deposition (34, 100). Monitoring should include periodic weighing, consumption records, and assessment of the body condition score, when persistent reductions in GDF and losses of body condition are indicative of warning (120, 121).
In dairy cattle farming, a drop in production is one of the most evident signs of heat stress, studies point to reductions in milk volume during periods of intense heat, especially in tropical systems, in addition to changes in total solids and fat/protein ratio (28, 67, 96). Monitoring should be daily, using individual or tank records, while periodic laboratory analyses evaluate composition and quality (49, 115).
Milk quality is also impacted, decreased fat and protein, and increased somatic cell count are associated with immunosuppression caused by heat, favoring greater susceptibility to mastitis (75, 94). Thus, the evaluation should include monitoring the composition of the milk and the health of the mammary gland, allowing for rapid preventive interventions (122, 123).
Heat stress delays the return to estrus and reduces fertility (124). The main effects are lower heat expression, increased open days, reduced conception rate, and greater number of services per conception (19, 95). Such changes result from hormonal failures, lower oocyte quality, and reduced embryonic viability (125).
Reproductive monitoring should include daily observation of estrus, insemination records, and pregnancy diagnoses (126). A drop in the conception rate by more than 10 percentage points or an increase in open days beyond the farm's goal should be considered warning signs (79, 94). These indicators provide essential information to identify the interference of the environment in the efficiency of the production systems.
Another relevant point is that the impacts of heat can have delayed effects, especially on reproduction. Changes in follicular and uterine circulation, even after the end of hot flashes, have repercussions on fertility for weeks (49, 93). This reinforces the importance of integrating productive and reproductive data into the climate context of each property (127).
Thus, it serves as central tools to assess animal welfare. Constant monitoring of milk production, composition, weight gain, intake, and reproductive parameters allows for early identification of risk situations and support management decisions (47, 63, 64, 110).
3.3.4 Bioclimatic Indicators
Bioclimatic indicators are fundamental tools to analyze the relationship between the environment and the animal, making it possible to measure the degree of comfort or heat stress that cattle may be exposed to (12, 41, 128). These indices cover several climatic variables, such as air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and solar radiation, as well as physiological variables, including rectal temperature, respiratory rate and black globe temperature, providing parameters that facilitate the detection of conditions potentially harmful to animal welfare (Supplementary Table S2).
3.4 Current technologies and their principles in management to optimize wellbeing
Cattle farming relies on the integration between monitoring technologies and appropriate management practices to assess welfare and heat stress (129). Heat stress, amplified by climate change, directly compromises the health, production, and reproduction of animals (130). Given this scenario, different electronic devices have been used to provide real-time data on the physiological and behavioral condition of cattle, helping producers to make decisions (56, 67).
One of the tools that has been gaining ground are rumen biocapsules, devices inserted in the rumen capable of continuously recording variables such as body temperature, pH, and rumen activity (131, 132). These sensors make it possible to identify metabolic and physiological changes resulting from heat stress at an early stage, correlating them with the temperature and humidity index (133). By sending information to software and applications, such technologies enable immediate adjustments in management (75).
Another widely used resource is smart collars used to assess rumination, frequency of food intake and swallowing time, locomotion activity, and time in season, helping to identify variations in behavior, such as increased idleness during heat waves or changes related to heat (6, 71).
Also, electronic devices integrated with cell phone applications and digital platforms allow the producer to monitor the data in real time (134, 135). This communication favors quick decisions, such as activating ventilation systems or transferring animals to shaded areas (112). In addition, artificial intelligence algorithms applied to these applications are able to predict risk scenarios, optimizing preventive management (108).
Infrared thermography, already consolidated in research, is also increasingly accessible in practice, and can be used in portable devices or attached to drones (136). Allowing to map surface body temperature and identify heat stress points in larger batches, reducing the need for individual containment (137). The associated use of thermal cameras and analysis software increases the accuracy in the characterization of the microclimate in facilities and pastures (4, 86).
These technological advances do not replace traditional management, but complement according to Bang et al. (67), Holinger et al. (82), Antanaitis et al. (6), and Nam et al. (75). Strategies such as natural and artificial shading, evaporative cooling, and silvopastoral systems remain key to reducing thermal load and providing greater comfort (3, 4). Innovation, in this sense, should be understood as a tool to support the sustainability of production, integrating science, wellbeing, and productivity (34, 79).
Finally, the role of bioclimatic zoning, associated with digital tools, as a medium and long-term planning strategy is highlighted (78). Climate modeling studies project risk scenarios for each region, allowing the adoption of adaptive practices before the effects of heat compromise the herd (49, 77, 78). Thus, the integration between biotechnologies, electronic devices, mobile applications, and appropriate management practices represents an irreversible trend for modern livestock, which seeks to reconcile animal comfort and production efficiency (81, 94).
3.5 Limitations and challenges
Despite the advances, the methodological difference in the diagnosis of heat stress remains high, from the selection of the index (THI, BGHI, IHT) to the cutoff points and outcomes (milk loss, physiological changes), which hinders and robust comparisons and synthesis in reviews (60, 67, 96). In tropical systems, this variability is critical due to the greater amplitude of humidity and radiation, little captured by models developed in temperate climates (22, 56).
Infrared thermography faces challenges of standardization (emissivity, distance, region of interest, time of day) and environmental interference (wind, dust, humidity), with an impact on repeatability between studies and farms (4, 86). In extreme events, such as El Niño 2023, transferring protocols between full sun and shaded systems requires local calibration to avoid false positives/negatives (3).
Behavioral sensors (rumination, locomotion, ingestion) show equipment and algorithm bias when applied to different and crossbred breeds, which are still underrepresented in validations, which limits accuracy for different biotypes and physiological stages (6, 37, 71). In grazing, noise due to heterogeneity of forage and topography reduces sensitivity to subtle changes in welfare (56, 82).
Rumen biocapsules expand internal monitoring, but the correlation between rumen temperature and external heat load varies with diet, passage rate and hydration; correction curves widely validated by climate/race are still lacking (75, 133). In addition, sensor drift and battery life require maintenance plans rarely described in field studies (6, 131).
AI/deep learning shows potential for prediction and screening (head/ear posture; imaging), but faces challenges of generalization across farms, cameras, and lighting conditions, as well as annotation bias and limited applicability to management decisions (138, 139). Performance reported in experimental data does not always translate into consistent gains in the commercial environment (108, 112).
There are social and hierarchical factors that can confound the effect of thermal interventions: social dominance alters access to shade, water, and trough, modulating physiological and behavioral responses and masking treatment effects (79). Bioclimatic zoning is advancing, but its spatial resolution and dependence on scarce weather stations generate uncertainty for property level decisions (64, 78). Climate projections bring divergent scenarios and require cross-validation with microclimate of silvopastoral facilities and landscapes (34, 77, 100).
In the link between wellbeing and productivity/reproduction, there is a lack of long time series that integrate sanitary and inflammatory events as modulators of heat responses (95). Immune challenged evidence indicates complex interactions between heat stress and inflammation that alter behavior and traditional wellbeing metrics, which are still poorly contemplated in reviews (94, 141–158). Regarding transferability between breeds and categories, Bos indicus and crossbred responses to stressors and mitigation differ from those of Bos taurus, requiring specific risk curves, especially for beef zebu and bulls (3, 93, 100). Calves continue to be studied in humid tropical climates, despite new non-invasive approaches with thermal signature (78, 140).
Adoption barriers persist at small and medium-sized properties: total cost of ownership, connectivity, interoperability between brands, and data governance (ownership, privacy, sharing) (63, 67). Even with access to pasture associated with behavioral benefits, the translation to simple operational metrics (e.g., management “triggers” via app) is still incipient (45, 81). Finally, there are measurement gaps: eye and body surface temperatures do not always reflect internal thermal load; multiple, standardized endpoints (physiological, productive, and behavioral) are required for integrated decisions (4, 81, 96). The combination of multimodal metrics and multicentric validation in real farm conditions is a differentiator for future syntheses.
Despite the advances discussed, this review presents some limitations and challenges that must be acknowledged. From a practical perspective, the applicability of welfare indicators and technological tools is constrained by factors such as high implementation costs, limited access to infrastructure, and the lack of shade and cooling strategies in extensive production systems, particularly in regions marked by socioeconomic inequalities among producers. These constraints may limit the adoption of advanced monitoring technologies, especially in small-scale or low-input systems, reinforcing the need for context-specific welfare assessment approaches.
From a methodological standpoint, this review is subject to limitations inherent to its design, including potential language bias, as only studies published in selected languages were considered, and database selection bias, which may have excluded relevant studies indexed elsewhere. In addition, differences in study designs, indicators assessed, and climatic conditions across regions may affect the comparability of results. These limitations highlight the need for future reviews to adopt broader search strategies and standardized assessment frameworks to strengthen the synthesis of evidence on cattle welfare under heat stress in climate change scenarios.
4 Conclusions
The present study demonstrates that the welfare of cattle is related to environmental conditions, being influenced by physiological, behavioral and productive indicators. The integration of these factors allows for a more accurate diagnosis of heat stress and supports management decisions that promote health, comfort, and productivity. Current technologies, such as sensors (rumen biocapsules, collars and ear tags) and thermography, complement direct observation, offering real-time data and enabling rapid interventions.
There are challenges such as costs, methodological heterogeneity and limitations of application in small systems that highlight the need for strategies adapted to the producer's reality. However, the combination of accessible practices and appropriate technologies represents a viable way to reconcile animal welfare, production efficiency and sustainability in modern cattle farming.
In addition, the evidence highlights the need to explicitly incorporate breed-related differences in thermal tolerance, particularly between European and Zebu cattle, into welfare assessment and management strategies aimed at improving resilience to heat stress. Future research should prioritize comparative and longitudinal studies that integrate genetic, environmental, and management factors, as well as the development of standardized protocols that enhance the applicability and reproducibility of welfare indicators across diverse production systems and climate change scenarios.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
IdS: Conceptualization, Visualization, Software, Writing – review & editing, Resources, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Formal analysis, Validation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Supervision. CS: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. VP: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. LV: Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology. AS: Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology. JC: Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Investigation. CA: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Methodology. MG: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation. LS: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Investigation. KN: Formal analysis, Validation, Methodology, Data curation, Supervision, Project administration, Conceptualization. RC-J: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Investigation. ÉB: Formal analysis, Validation, Methodology, Data curation, Supervision, Project administration, Conceptualization, Software, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Funding acquisition. WS: Software, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Resources, Visualization, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Conceptualization, Supervision, Project administration, Validation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by UFMT.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the research group on Bioclimatology, Animal Welfare, and Nutrition in the Amazon.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2025.1754412/full#supplementary-material
References
1. Lovarelli D, Bacenetti J, Guarino M. A review on dairy cattle farming: is precision livestock farming the compromise for an environmental, economic and social sustainable production? J Clean Prod. (2020) 262:121409. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121409
2. Hernandez A, Galina CS, Geffroy M, Jung J, Westin R, Berg C. Cattle welfare aspects of production systems in the tropics. Anim Prod Sci. (2022) 62:1203–18. doi: 10.1071/AN21230
3. Silva WCD, Silva JARD, Martorano LG, Silva ÉBRD, Sousa CEL, Neves KAL, et al. Thermographic profiles in livestock systems under full sun and shaded pastures during an extreme climate event in the Eastern Amazon, Brazil: El Niño of 2023. Animals. (2024) 14:855. doi: 10.3390/ani14060855
4. Silva WCD, Silva JARD, Silva ÉBRD, Barbosa AVC, Sousa CEL, Carvalho KCD, et al. Characterization of thermal patterns using infrared thermography and thermolytic responses of cattle reared in three different systems during the transition period in the Eastern Amazon, Brazil. Animals. (2023) 13:2735. doi: 10.3390/ani13172735
5. Narayan E, Barreto M, Hantzopoulou GC, Tilbrook A. A retrospective literature evaluation of the integration of stress physiology indices, animal welfare and climate change assessment of livestock. Animals. (2021) 11:1287. doi: 10.3390/ani11051287
6. Antanaitis R, DŽermeikaite K, Bespalovaite A, Ribelyte I, Rutkauskas A, Japertas S, et al. Assessment of ruminating, eating, and locomotion behavior during heat stress in dairy cattle by using advanced technological monitoring. Animals. (2023) 13:2825. doi: 10.3390/ani13182825
7. Idris M, Sullivan M, Gaughan JB, Phillips CJ. Behavioural responses of beef cattle to hot conditions. Animals. (2024) 14:2444. doi: 10.3390/ani14162444
8. Toledo IM, Dahl GE, De-Vries A. Dairy cattle management and housing for warm environments. Livest Sci. (2022) 255:104802. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104802
9. Muzzo BI, Ramsey RD, Villalba JJ. Changes in climate and their implications for cattle nutrition and management. Climate. (2024) 13:1. doi: 10.3390/cli13010001
10. Cheng M, McCarl B, Fei C. Climate change and livestock production: a literature review. Atmosphere. (2022) 13:140. doi: 10.3390/atmos13010140
11. Slayi M, Jaja IF. Strategies for mitigating heat stress and their effects on behavior, physiological indicators, and growth performance in communally managed feedlot cattle. Front Vet Sci. (2025) 12:1513368. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1513368
12. Idris M, Uddin J, Sullivan M, McNeill DM, Phillips CJ. Non-invasive physiological indicators of heat stress in cattle. Animals. (2021) 11:71. doi: 10.3390/ani11010071
13. Volpi D, Alves FV, Arguelho ADS, Vale MMD, Deniz M, Zopollatto M. Environmental variables responsible for Zebu cattle thermal comfort acquisition. Int J Biometeorol. (2021) 65:1695–705. doi: 10.1007/s00484-021-02124-x
14. Silva WCD, Silva JAR, Martorano LG, Silva ÉBRD, Carvalho KC, Sousa CEL, et al. Thermal comfort of Nelore cattle (Bos indicus) managed in silvopastoral and traditional systems associated with rumination in a humid tropical environment in the Eastern Amazon, Brazil. Vet Sci. (2024) 11:236. doi: 10.3390/vetsci11060236
15. Arias RA, Mader TL. Evaluation of four thermal comfort indices and their relationship with physiological variables in feedlot cattle. Animals. (2023) 13:1169. doi: 10.3390/ani13071169
16. Amaral JB. Diagnóstico de bem-estar de bovinos no contexto da medicina veterinária legal: revisão. PUBVET. (2022) 16:1–15.
17. Polsky L, Von-Keyserlingk MAG. Invited review: effects of heat stress on dairy cattle welfare. J Dairy Sci. (2020) 103:6751–70.
18. Fonseca LLM, Moura MMA, Carvalho CCS, Santos KFA, Fonseca SMR, Santos JA, et al. Bem-estar na bovinocultura leiteira: revisão de literatura. Braz J Anim Environ Res. (2024) 7:e74376. doi: 10.34188/bjaerv7n4-053
19. Cartwright SL, Whelan K, Haile-Mariam M, Pryce JE. Impact of heat stress on dairy cattle and selection for thermo-tolerance. Front Anim Sci. (2023) 4:e1200989.
20. Giannone C, Menta S, Santangelo F, Campanile G. Review of the heat stress-induced responses in dairy cattle. Animals. (2023) 13:2284.
21. Scerri TM, Kartberg B, Sanz-Fernandez MV, Collier RJ. Bovine heat stress management: current amelioration and future mitigation strategies. Front Anim Sci. (2023) 4:1279402.
22. Ferreira NCR, Andrade RR, Ferreira LN. Impacts of climate change impacts on livestock in Brazil. Int J Biometeorol. (2024) 68:2693–704. doi: 10.1007/s00484-024-02778-3
23. Mota-Rojas D, Napolitano F, Chay-Canul A, Ghezzi M, Braghieri A, Domínguez-Oliva A, et al. Anatomy and physiology of water buffalo mammary glands: an anatomofunctional comparison with dairy cattle. Animals. (2024) 14:1066. doi: 10.3390/ani14071066
24. Rodrigues LS, Silva JARD, Silva WCD, Silva ÉBRD, Belo TS, Sousa CEL, et al. A review of the nutritional aspects and composition of the meat, liver and fat of buffaloes in the Amazon. Animals. (2024) 14:1618. doi: 10.3390/ani14111618
25. Ghezzi MD, Napolitano F, Casas-Alvarado A, Hernández-Ávalos I, Domínguez-Oliva A, Olmos-Hernández A, et al. Utilization of infrared thermography in assessing thermal responses of farm animals under heat stress. Animals. (2024) 14:616. doi: 10.3390/ani14040616
26. Mota-Rojas D, Ogi A, Villanueva-García D, Hernández-Ávalos I, Casas-Alvarado A, Domínguez-Oliva A, et al. Thermal imaging as a method to indirectly assess peripheral vascular integrity and tissue viability in veterinary medicine: animal models and clinical applications. Animals. (2024) 14:142. doi: 10.3390/ani14010142
27. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. (2021) 372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
28. Silva WCD, Camargo-Junior RNC, Silva ÉBRD, Silva JARD, Picanço MLR, Santos MRPD, et al. Perspectives of economic losses due to condemnation of cattle and buffalo carcasses in the northern region of Brazil. PLoS ONE. (2023) 18:e0285224. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285224
29. Giannone C, Bovo M, Ceccarelli M, Torreggiani D, Tassinari P. Review of the heat stress-induced responses in dairy cattle. Animals. (2023) 13:3451. doi: 10.3390/ani13223451
30. Gomes EM, Muniz JA, Castro SS, Silva WLC. Management and animal welfare in beef cattle farming in Brazil: a literature review. Rev Multidiscip Nordeste Mineiro. (2025) 7:1–23. doi: 10.61164/rmnm.v7i1.3783
31. Linstädt J, Thöne-Reineke C, Merle R. Animal-based welfare indicators for dairy cows and their validity and practicality: a systematic review of the existing literature. Front Vet Sci. (2024) 11:1429097. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1429097
32. Almeida BKCD, Lopes JVSG, Silva-Costa EWD, Oliveira-Prazeres TLD, Lima ARD, Jesus-Oliveira ACD, et al. Bem-estar animal em bovinos de corte: revisão de literatura. Braz J Health Rev. (2024) 7:3642–53. doi: 10.34119/bjhrv7n1-294
33. Martínez-Yáñez R, Mora-Medina P, Albertos-Alpuche PJ. EPI-DOM approach for comprehensive assessment of integral animal welfare. Front Anim Sci. (2025) 6:1495149. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2025.1495149
34. Endris M, Feki E. Review on effect of stress on animal productivity and response of animal to stressors. J Anim Vet Adv. (2021) 20:1–14.
35. Acharya RY, Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ, Kinder JE. The animal-human interface in farm animal production: animal fear, stress, reproduction and welfare. Animals. (2022) 12:487. doi: 10.3390/ani12040487
36. Romero MH, Gallego-Polania SA, Sanchez JA. Natural savannah systems within the “one welfare” approach: part 1—good farmers' perspectives, environmental challenges and opportunities. Animals. (2025) 15:677. doi: 10.3390/ani15050677
37. Silva BP, Coan VM, Santinon NP, Silva MD. Bem-estar animal em sistemas de produção de bovinos. Rev Ibero-Am Hum Ciênc Educ. (2024) 10:1260–75. doi: 10.51891/rease.v10i12.17478
38. Santana RF, Oliveira RL, Silva AM, Ribeiro RDX, Rocha TC, Bezerra LR, et al. Estresse térmico em sistemas de produção de ruminantes em clima tropical. Res Soc Dev. (2022) 11:e361111436306.
39. Arruda TR, Barros JG, Leite LL, Batista YBG, Furtado DA, Farias BJP, et al. Facilities for dairy cattle: an integrative review. Cienc Anim Bras. (2024) 25:78070e. doi: 10.1590/1809-6891v25e-78070e
40. Moraes MJ, Castilho EFD, Balieiro JCDC, Bernardi ACDC, Barreto AND, Pinho LF, et al. Differences in the behavioral parameters of young zebu and composite bulls kept on non-forested or in integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems. Animals. (2024) 14:944. doi: 10.3390/ani14060944
41. Oliveira CP, Sousa FCD, Silva ALD, Schultz ÉB, Valderrama-Londoño RI, Souza PARD. Heat stress in dairy cows: impacts, identification, and mitigation strategies—a review. Animals. (2025) 15:249. doi: 10.3390/ani15020249
42. Almeida JVND, Marques LR, Marques TC, Guimarães KC, Leão KM. Influência do estresse térmico sobre os aspectos produtivos e reprodutivos de bovinos–Revisão. Res Soc Dev. (2020) 9:e230973837. doi: 10.33448/rsd-v9i7.3837
43. Brambell FR. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. London: HMSO (1965). 85 p.
44. Littlewood KE, Heslop MV, Cobb ML. The agency domain and behavioral interactions: assessing positive animal welfare using the Five Domains Model. Front Vet Sci. (2023) 10:1284869. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1284869
45. Barreto A, Junior WB, Pezzopane JRM, Bernardi ACDC, Pedroso ADF, Marcondes CR, et al. Thermal comfort and behavior of beef cattle in pasture-based systems monitored by visual observation and electronic device. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2022) 253:105687. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2022.105687
46. Pichlbauer B, Chapa-Gonzalez JM, Bobal M, Guse C, Iwersen M, Drillich M. Evaluation of different sensor systems for classifying the behavior of dairy cows on pasture. Sensors. (2024) 24:7739. doi: 10.3390/s24237739
47. Singaravadivelan A, Prasad A, Balusami C, Harikumar S, Beena V, Gleeja VL, et al. Assessment of heat tolerance in Murrah buffalo, crossbred and Vechur cattle using the dairy search index. Int J Vet Sci Anim Husb. (2025) 10:292–7. doi: 10.22271/veterinary.2025.v10.i1e.2037
48. Singh SV, Ukey AK. Climate change trends and their impacts on bovine productivity: precision livestock farming for Sustainable Development Goals and One Health. Indian J Anim Health. (2024) 63:20–30. doi: 10.36062/ijah.2024.spl.01024
49. Herbut P, Hoffmann G, Angrecka S, Godyń D, Vieira FMC, Adamczyk K, et al. The effects of heat stress on the behaviour of dairy cows–a review. Ann Anim Sci. (2021) 21:385–402. doi: 10.2478/aoas-2020-0116
50. Sesay AR. Effect of heat stress on dairy cow production, reproduction, health, and potential mitigation strategies. J Appl Adv Res. (2023) 8:13–25. doi: 10.21839/jaar.2023.v8.8371
51. Thornton P, Nelson G, Mayberry D, Herrero M. Impacts of heat stress on global cattle production during the 21st century: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Health. (2022) 6:e192–201. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00002-X
52. Shephard RW, Maloney SK. A review of thermal stress in cattle. Aust Vet J. (2023) 101:417–29. doi: 10.1111/avj.13275
53. Chao K. Family farming in climate change: strategies for resilient and sustainable food systems. Heliyon. (2024) 10:e28599. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28599
54. Santos MMD, Souza-Junior JBF, Dantas MRT, Costa LLDM. An updated review on cattle thermoregulation: physiological responses, biophysical mechanisms, and heat stress alleviation pathways. Environ Sci Pollut Res. (2021) 28:30471–85. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-14077-0
55. Dunlop MW, McAuley J. Direct surface wetting sprinkler system to reduce the use of evaporative cooling pads in meat chicken production: indoor thermal environment, water usage, litter moisture content, live market weights, and mortalities. Poultry Sci. (2021) 100:101078. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2021.101078
56. Oliveira AVD, Reis EMB, Ferraz PFP, Barbari M, Santos GS, Cruz MVR, et al. Effects of thermal environment on dairy cattle under a grazing system in the Western Amazon, Brazil. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec. (2022) 74:1119–26. doi: 10.1590/1678-4162-12743
57. Tresoldi G, Hejazi M, Tucker CB. A comprehensive study of respiration rates in dairy cattle in a Mediterranean climate. J Dairy Sci. (2025) 108:6229–43. doi: 10.3168/jds.2024-26038
58. Bryant JR, Huddart F, Schütz KE. Development of a heat load index for grazing dairy cattle. NZ J Agric Res. (2023) 66:665–79. doi: 10.1080/00288233.2022.2114504
59. Mandal DK, Bhakat C, Dutta TK. Impact of environmental factors on physiological adaptability, thermo-tolerance indices, and productivity in Jersey crossbred cows. Int J Biometeorol. (2021) 65:1999–2009. doi: 10.1007/s00484-021-02157-2
60. Yan G, Li H, Shi Z. Evaluation of thermal indices as the indicators of heat stress in dairy cows in a temperate climate. Animals. (2021) 11:2459. doi: 10.3390/ani11082459
61. Armstrong DV. Heat stress interaction with shade and cooling. J Dairy Sci. (1994) 77:2044–50. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77149-6
62. Islam MA, Lomax S, Doughty A, Islam MR, Jay O, Thomson P, et al. Automated monitoring of cattle heat stress and its mitigation. Front Anim Sci. (2021) 2:737213. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2021.737213
63. Kumar A, Choudhary PK, Maurya PK, Kumar P, Srivastava DP, Singh HK, et al. Study of cattle adoptability in the central plain zone of Uttar Pradesh throughout the spring and summer seasons. Environ Ecol. (2023) 41:897–902.
64. Andrade RG, Garcia LCS, Hott MC, Junior WCPDM, Peixoto MGCD, Costa CN, et al. Zoneamento dos efeitos do estresse térmico em vacas leiteiras no sudeste do Brasil. Rev Contemp. (2023) 3:29977–91. doi: 10.56083/RCV3N12-263
65. Silva ADOL, Costa DAD, Silva GFD, Santos GS, Oliveira AVDD, Souza CLD, et al. Avaliação dos parâmetros fisiológicos de vacas leiteiras mestiças mantidas em clima Amazônico Equatorial na Amazônia Ocidental. Obs Econ Latinoam. (2024) 22:4513–32. doi: 10.55905/oelv22n1-238
66. Monteiro A, Silva FS, Abdalla AL, Eugène M, Barreto-Mendes L, Rodrigues RA, et al. Enteric methane emissions and thermal comfort indexes of Nellore steers in a livestock-forestry system in the Amazon biome. Trop Anim Health Prod. (2025) 57:357. doi: 10.1007/s11250-025-04607-0
67. Bang NN, Gaughan JB, Hayes BJ, Lyons RE, McNeill DM. Application of infrared thermal technology to assess the level of heat stress and milk yield reduction of cows in tropical smallholder dairy farms. J Dairy Sci. (2022) 105:8454–69. doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-21343
68. Oyelami BA, Osikabor B. Adoption of silvopastoral agroforestry system for a sustainable cattle production in Nigeria. J Appl Sci Environ Manag. (2022) 26:1397–402. doi: 10.4314/jasem.v26i8.12
69. Jafri SH, Adnan KM, Baimbill-Johnson S, Talukder AA, Yu M, Osei E. Challenges and solutions for small dairy farms in the US: a review. Agriculture. (2024) 14:2369. doi: 10.3390/agriculture14122369
70. Babola M, Pontes LDS, Moraes AD, Piano TGR, Molento MB, Molento CFM. The influence of the silvopastoral system on physiological, behavior, and health responses of the Purunã breed of cattle. Arch Vet Sci. (2024) 29:1–12. doi: 10.5380/avs.v28i4.92665
71. Ranzato G, Lora I, Aernouts B, Adriaens I, Gottardo F, Cozzi G. Sensor-based behavioral patterns can identify heat-sensitive lactating dairy cows. Int J Biometeorol. (2023) 67:2047–54. doi: 10.1007/s00484-023-02561-w
72. Suhendro I, Noor RR, Jakaria J, Priyanto R, Manalu W. Andersson G. Association of heat-shock protein 701 gene with physiological and physical performance of Bali cattle. Vet World. (2024) 17:17. doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2024.17-25
73. Vaidya MM, Dongre VB, Dhenge SA, Kokate LS, Singh SV. Comparative efficacy of three different heat tolerance indices for thermo-adaptability during heat stress in bovines. Indian J Dairy Sci. (2022) 75:453–7.
74. Yosi F, Prajoga SBK, Natawiria EM. Heat tolerance identification on adult Madura breeds cow according to Rhoad and Benezra coefficient. Ecodevelopment. (2019) 2:73–6. doi: 10.24198/ecodev.v2i2.39107
75. Nam KT, Choi N, Na Y, Choi Y. Effect of the temperature–humidity index on the productivity of dairy cows and the correlation between the temperature–humidity index and rumen temperature using a rumen sensor. Animals. (2024) 14:2848. doi: 10.3390/ani14192848
76. Lamanna M, Bovo M, Cavallini D. Wearable collar technologies for dairy cows: a systematized review of the current applications and future innovations in precision livestock farming. Animals. (2025) 15:458. doi: 10.3390/ani15030458
77. Liu C, Cao Y, Luo Z, Liu Y, Reynolds CK, Humphries D, et al. Heat stress monitoring, modelling, and mitigation in a dairy cattle building in reading, UK: impacts of current and projected heatwaves. Build Environ. (2025) 279:113046. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113046
78. Sousa RVD, Campos JCD, Pagin G, Pereira DF, Conceição AR, Tabile RA, et al. Non-invasive assessment of heat comfort in dairy calves based on thermal signature. Dairy. (2025) 6:38. doi: 10.3390/dairy6040038
79. Guimarães-Yamada KL, Santos GT, Osório JA, Sippert MR, Figueiredo-Paludo M, Silva BG, et al. Influence of different heat-stress-reducing systems on physiological and behavioral responses and social dominance of Holstein and Jersey cows and heifers on pasture. Animals. (2022) 12:2318. doi: 10.3390/ani12182318
80. Sharma R. Wearable biosensors: an aid for cattle well-being. Sensor Rev. (2025) 45:544–62. doi: 10.1108/SR-11-2024-0933
81. Crump A, Jenkins K, Bethell EJ, Ferris CP, Arnott G. Pasture access and eye temperature in dairy cows. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. (2024) 27:234–42. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2022.2063020
82. Holinger M, Bühl V, Helbing M, Pieper L, Kürmann S, Pontiggia A, et al. Behavioural changes to moderate heat load in grazing dairy cows under on-farm conditions. Livest Sci. (2024) 279:105376. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2023.105376
83. Deniz M, Sousa KT, Moro MF, Vale MM, Dittrich JR, Machado-Filho LCP, et al. Social hierarchy influ-ences dairy cows' use of shade in a silvopastoral system under intensive rotational grazing. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2021) 244:105467. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105467
84. Hryshchuk I, Postoi R, Horbay R, Hryshchuk A, Karpovskyi V. Determination of heart rate variability as an indicator of the influence of autonomic nervous system tone in cows. Ukr J Vet Sci. (2023) 14:43–56. doi: 10.31548/veterinary2.2023.43
85. Luo H, Li X, Hu L, Xu W, Chu Q, Liu A, et al. Genomic analyses and biological validation of candidate genes for rectal temperature as an indicator of heat stress in Holstein cattle. J Dairy Sci. (2021) 104:4441–51. doi: 10.3168/jds.2020-18725
86. Mincu M, Nicolae I, Gavojdian D. Infrared thermography as a non-invasive method for evaluating stress in lactating dairy cows during isolation challenges. Front Vet Sci. (2023) 10:1236668. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1236668
87. Mota-Rojas D, Pereira AM, Wang D, Martínez-Burnes J, Ghezzi M, Hernández-Avalos I, et al. Clinical applications and factors involved in validating thermal windows used in infrared thermography in cattle and river buffalo to assess health and productivity. Animals. (2021) 11:2247. doi: 10.3390/ani11082247
88. Riaz U, Idris M, Ahmed M, Ali F, Yang L. Infrared thermography as a potential non-invasive tool for estrus detection in cattle and buffaloes. Animals. (2023) 13:1425. doi: 10.3390/ani13081425
89. Wang FK, Shih JY, Juan PH, Su YC, Wang YC. Non-invasive cattle body 1099 temperature measurement using infrared thermography and auxiliary sensors. Sensors. (2021) 21:2425. doi: 10.3390/s21072425
90. Sousa ACD, Sousa AMD, Corrêa WC, Marques JI, Meneses KCD, Pandorfi H, et al. Bioclimatic zoning and climate change impacts on dairy cattle in Maranhão, Brazil. Animals. (2025) 15:1646. doi: 10.3390/ani15111646
91. Grzeczka A, Wozniak G, Graczyk S, Wyszkowska J, Jaśkowski BM, Gehrke M, et al. Effect of rectal examination on the behavior of multiparous cows (Bos taurus taurus) assessed on the basis of selected stress indicators. Medycyna Wet Vet Med Sci Pract. (2025) 81:108–14. doi: 10.21521/mw.6984
92. Nevard RP, Pant SD, Broster JC, Norman ST, Stephen CP. Maternal behavior in beef cattle: the physiology, assessment and future directions—a review. Vet Sci. (2022) 10:10. doi: 10.3390/vetsci10010010
93. Romero MH, Barrero-Melendro J, Sanchez JA. Study of the feasibility of proposed measures to assess animal welfare for zebu beef farms within pasture-based systems under tropical conditions. Animals. (2023) 13:3659. doi: 10.3390/ani13233659
94. Marins TN, Rivas RO, Chen YC, Melo VHLR, Wang Z, Liu H, et al. Effects of heat stress abatement on behavioral response in lactating dairy cows prior to and following an intramammary lipopolysaccharide infusion. J Dairy Sci. (2025) 108:1882–95. doi: 10.3168/jds.2024-25298
95. Soares SRV, Reis RB, Dias AN. Fatores de influência sobre o desempenho reprodutivo em vacas leiteiras. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec. (2021) 73:451–9. doi: 10.1590/1678-4162-11689
96. Lovarelli D, Minozzi G, Arazi A, Guarino M, Tiezzi F. Effect of extended heat stress in dairy cows on productive and behavioral traits. Animals. (2024) 18:101089. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2024.101089
97. Knezevic E, Nenic K, Milanovic V, Knezevic NN. The role of cortisol in chronic stress, neurodegenerative diseases, and psychological disorders. Cells. (2023) 12:2726. doi: 10.3390/cells12232726
98. Schiffers C, Serbetci I, Mense K, Kassens A, Grothmann H, Sommer M, et al. Association between IGF-1 and IGFBPs in blood and follicular fluid in dairy cows under field conditions. Animals. (2024) 14:2370. doi: 10.3390/ani14162370
99. Azarbayejani R, Mohammadsadegh M. Glucose, insulin, and cortisol concentrations and glucose tolerance test in Holstein cows with inactive ovaries. Trop Anim Health Prod. (2021) 53:41. doi: 10.1007/s11250-020-02448-7
100. Romanello N, Barreto AND, Sousa MAPD, Balieiro JCDC, Brandão FZ, Tonato F, et al. Thermal comfort of Nelore (Bos indicus) and Canchim (Bos taurus × Bos indicus) bulls kept in an integrated crop-livestock-forestry system in a tropical climate. Agric Syst. (2023) 209:103687. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103687
101. Blaga Vizitiu DA, Bratu DG, Lungu BC, Tripon RM, Tulcan C, et al. Fatty acid profiles in blood and milk of cows under heat stress: a comprehensive review. Romanian J Vet Sci. (2025) 58:1. doi: 10.59463/rjvs.2025.1.06
102. Qiao K, Jiang R, Contreras GA, Xie L, Pascottini OB, Opsomer G, et al. The complex interplay of insulin resistance and metabolic inflammation in transition dairy cows. Animals. (2024) 14:832. doi: 10.3390/ani14060832
103. Salimi-Kenari A, Chalmeh A, Pourjafar M, Mohtashamifar MA, Amirian A, Khedri A. Potential relationships between apelin and metabolic-associated indices in transition dairy cows. Trop Anim Health Prod. (2024) 56:209. doi: 10.1007/s11250-024-04043-6
104. Gotsuliak VL, Borshch OO, Lastovska IO, Borshch OV. Cow behavior indicators using various means of mechani-zation and automation of feed distribution and feeding. Ukr J Vet Agric Sci. (2025) 8:95–9. doi: 10.32718/ujvas8-1.14
105. Ding L, Zhang C, Yue Y, Yao C, Li Z, Hu Y, et al. Wearable sensors-based intelligent sensing and application of animal behaviors: a comprehensive review. Sensors. (2025) 25:4515. doi: 10.3390/s25144515
106. Antanaitis R, DŽermeikaite K, Krištolaityte J, Ribelyte I, Bespalovaite A, Bulvičiute D, et al. The impacts of heat stress on rumination, drinking, and locomotory behavior, as registered by innovative technologies, and acid–base balance in fresh multiparous dairy cows. Animals. (2024) 14:1169. doi: 10.3390/ani14081169
107. Zhang W, Wang Y, Guo L, Falzon G, Kwan P, Jin Z, et al. Analysis and comparison of new-born calf standing and lying time based on deep learning. Animals. (2024) 14:1324. doi: 10.3390/ani14091324
108. Kim S. Automated cattle head and ear pose estimation using deep learning for animal welfare research. Vet Sci. (2025) 12:664. doi: 10.3390/vetsci12070664
109. Miller DW, Barnes AL, Collins T, Pannier L, Aleri J, Maloney SK, et al. Welfare and performance benefits of shade provision during summer for feedlot cattle in a temperate climatic zone. J Anim Sci. (2024) 102:skae332. doi: 10.1093/jas/skae332
110. West JW. Effects of heat-stress on production in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. (2003) 86:2131–44. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73803-X
111. Haskell SR, Loghry BL, Finno CJ, Wegner-Fowley K, Barr EM, DeFazio J, et al. Physical exam. Large Anim Med Vet Techn. (2022) 2:67–103. doi: 10.1002/9781119688327.ch4
112. Chapman NH, Chlingaryan A, Thomson PC, Lomax S, Islam MA, Doughty AK, et al. A deep learning model to forecast cattle heat stress. Comput Electron Agric. (2023) 211:107932. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2023.107932
113. Qiao Y, Kong H, Clark C, Lomax S, Su D, Eiffert S, et al. Intelligent perception-based cattle lameness detection and behaviour recognition: a review. Animals. (2021) 11:3033. doi: 10.3390/ani11113033
114. Laurindo GM, Ferraz GAES, Damasceno FA, Nascimento JACD, Santos GHRD, Ferraz PFP. Thermal environment and behavior analysis of confined cows in a compost barn. Animals. (2022) 12:2214. doi: 10.3390/ani12172214
115. Hahn GL. Bioclimatologia e instalações zootécnicas: Aspectos teóricos e aplicados. Jaboticabal: FUNEP (1993). 28 p.
116. Gerlach K, Daniel JLP, Jobim CC, Nussio LG. A data analysis on the effect of acetic acid on dry matter intake in dairy cattle. Anim Feed Sci Technol. (2021) 272:114782. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114782
117. Menegazzi G, Giles PY, Oborsky M, Fast O, Mattiauda DA, Genro TCM, et al. Effect of post-grazing sward height on ingestive behavior, dry matter intake, and milk production of Holstein dairy cows. Front Anim Sci. (2021) 2:742685. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2021.742685
118. Jones A, Takahashi T, Fleming H, Griffith B, Harris P, Lee M. Quantifying the value of on-farm measurements to inform the selection of key performance indicators for livestock production systems. Sci Rep. (2021) 11:16874. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-96336-1
119. Jobirov F, Yuejie Z, Kibona CA. Evaluating profitability of beef cattle farming and its determinants among smallholder beef cattle farmers in the Baljovan District of Khatlon region, Tajikistan. PLoS ONE. (2022) 17:e0274391. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274391
120. Li S, Wei X, Song J, Zhang C, Zhang Y, Sun Y. Evaluation of statistical process control techniques in monitoring weekly body condition scores as an early warning system for predicting subclinical ketosis in dry cows. Animals. (2021) 11:3224. doi: 10.3390/ani11113224
121. Petrovski KR, Cusack P, Malmo J, Cockcroft P. The value of ‘cow signs' in the assessment of the quality of nutrition on dairy farms. Animals. (2022) 12:1352. doi: 10.3390/ani12111352
122. Zigo F, Vasil', M, Ondrašovičová S, Výrostková J, Bujok J, Pecka-Kielb E. Maintaining optimal mammary gland health and prevention of mastitis. Front Vet Sci. (2021) 8:607311. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.607311
123. Neculai-Valeanu AS, Ariton AM. Udder health monitoring for prevention of bovine mastitis and improvement of milk quality. Bioengineering. (2022) 9:608. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering9110608
124. Wrzecińska M, Czerniawska-Piatkowska E, Kowalczyk A. The impact of stress and selected environmental factors on cows' reproduction. J Appl Anim Res. (2021) 49:318–23. doi: 10.1080/09712119.2021.1960842
125. Chawicha TG, Mummed YY. An overview of how heat stress impacts dairy cattle fertility. Multidiscip Rev. (2022) 5:2022014. doi: 10.31893/multirev.2022014
126. Bruinjé TC, Morrison EI, Ribeiro ES, Renaud DL, Serrenho RC, LeBlanc SJ. Postpartum health is associated with detection of estrus by activity monitors and reproductive performance in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. (2023) 106:9451–73. doi: 10.3168/jds.2023-23268
127. Bayssa M, Yigrem S, Betsha S, Tolera A. Production, reproduction and some adaptation characteristics of Boran cattle breed under changing climate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. (2021) 16:e0244836. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244836
128. Neves SF, Silva MC, Miranda JM, Stilwell G, Cortez PP. Predictive models of dairy cow thermal state: a review from a technological perspective. Vet Sci. (2022) 9:416. doi: 10.3390/vetsci9080416
129. DŽermeikaite K, Bačeninaite D, Antanaitis R. Innovations in cattle farming: application of innovative technologies and sensors in the diagnosis of diseases. Animals. (2023) 13:780. doi: 10.3390/ani13050780
130. Gupta S, Sharma A, Joy A, Dunshea FR, Chauhan SS. The impact of heat stress on immune status of dairy cattle and strategies to ameliorate the negative effects. Animals. (2022) 13:107. doi: 10.3390/ani13010107
131. Mohteshamuddin K, Hamdan L, Estrada LM, Nadeem MF, Kim H, Lee S, et al. A pilot study on the hemato-biochemical parameters of cattle administered with advanced healthcare bio-capsules connected through a customized long-range network in the United Arab Emirates. Sens Bio-Sens Res. (2022) 38:100530. doi: 10.1016/j.sbsr.2022.100530
132. Kim D, Kwon WS, Ha J, Moon J, Yi J. Increased accuracy of estrus prediction using ruminoreticular biocapsule sensors in Hanwoo (Bos taurus coreanae) cows. J Anim Sci Technol. (2023) 65:759. doi: 10.5187/jast.2022.e125
133. Merkelyte I, Šiukščius A, Nainiene R. The role of sensor technologies in estrus detection in beef cattle: a review of current applications. Animals. (2025) 15:2313. doi: 10.3390/ani15152313
134. Herlin A, Brunberg E, Hultgren J, Högberg N, Rydberg A, Skarin A. Animal welfare implications of digital tools for monitoring and management of cattle and sheep on pasture. Animals. (2021) 11:829. doi: 10.3390/ani11030829
135. Neethirajan S, Kemp B. Digital livestock farming. Sens Bio-Sens Res. (2021) 32:100408. doi: 10.1016/j.sbsr.2021.100408
136. McManus R, Boden LA, Weir W, Viora L, Barker R, Kim Y, et al. Thermography for disease detection in livestock: a scoping review. Front Vet Sci. (2022) 9:965622. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.965622
137. Alanezi MA, Shahriar MS, Hasan MB, Ahmed S, Sha'aban YA, Bouchekara HR. Livestock management with unmanned aerial vehicles: a review. IEEE Access. (2022) 10:45001–28. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3168295
138. Han X, Lin Z, Clark C, Vucetic B, Lomax S. AI based digital twin model for cattle caring. Sensors. (2022) 22:7118. doi: 10.3390/s22197118
139. Periyanayagi S, Priya GG, Chandrasekar T, Sumathy V, Raja SP. Artificial intelligence and IoT-based biomedical sensors for intelligent cattle husbandry systems. Int J Wavelets Multiresol Inf Process. (2022) 20:2250026. doi: 10.1142/S0219691322500266
140. Sejian V, Shashank CG, Silpa MV, Madhusoodan AP, Devaraj C, Koenig S. Non-invasive methods of quantifying heat stress response in farm animals with special reference to dairy cattle. Atmosphere. (2022) 13:1642. doi: 10.3390/atmos13101642
141. Benezra RMV. A new index for measuring the adaptability of cattle to tropical conditions. J Anim Sci. (1954) 13:1015.
142. Berry IL, Shanklin MD, Johnson HD. Dairy shelter design based on milk production decline as affected by temperature and humidity. Trans ASAE. (1964) 3:329–31.
143. Gaalaas RF. A study of heat tolerance in Jersey cows. J Dairy Sci. (1947) 30:79–85. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(47)92321-7
145. Moran DS, Pandolf KB, Shapiro Y, Heled Y, Shani Y, Mathew WT, et al. An environmental stress index (ESI) as a substitute for the wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT). J Therm Biol. (2001) 26:427–31. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4565(01)00055-9
146. Gaughan JB, Mader TL, Holt SM, Sullivan ML, Hahn GL. Assessing the heat tolerance of 17 beef cattle genotypes. Int J Biometeorol. (2010) 54:617–27. doi: 10.1007/s00484-009-0233-4
147. Wang X, Gao H, Gebremedhin KG, Bjerg BS, Van-Os J, Tucker CB, et al. A predictive model of equivalent temperature index for dairy cattle (ETIC). J Therm Biol. (2018) 76:165–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jtherbio.2018.07.013
148. Silva RG, Maia ASC. Thermal stress indexes. In:McGregor G, , editor. Principles of Animal Biometeorology, Vol. 2. Dordrecht: Springer (2013). p. 207–29. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5733-2_7
149. Buffington DE, Collazo-Arocho A, Canton GH, Pitt D, Thatcher WW, Collier RJ. Black Globe-Humidity Index (BGHI) as comfort equation for dairy cows. Trans ASAE. (1981) 24:711–4. doi: 10.13031/2013.34325
150. Silva RGD, Morais DAEF, Guilhermino MM. Evaluation of thermal stress indexes for dairy cows in tropical regions. Rev Bras Zootec. (2007) 36:1192–8. doi: 10.1590/S1516-35982007000500028
151. Dutta D, Natta D, Mandal S, Ghosh N. MOOnitor: an IoT based multi-sensory intelligent device for cattle activity monitoring. Sensors Actuators A Phys. (2022) 333:113271. doi: 10.1016/j.sna.2021.113271
152. Baêta FDC, Souza CDF. Ambiência em edificações rurais: Conforto animal. Viçosa: UFV (2010). 269 p.
153. Hahn GL, Osburn DD. Feasibility of summer environmental control for dairy cattle based on expected production losses. Trans ASAE. (1969) 12:448–51. doi: 10.13031/2013.38862
154. Thomas CK, Sharma KNS, Georgie GC, Razdan MN. A new heat-tolerance index for cattle. Indian J Anim Sci. (1973) 43:505–10.
155. Esmay ML. Principles of Animal Environment. Westport, CT: AVI Publishing Company (1978). p. ix−458.
156. Thom EC. The discomfort index. Weatherwise. (1959) 12:57–61. doi: 10.1080/00431672.1959.9926960
157. Gaughan JB, Mader TL, Gebremedhin KG. Rethinking heat index tools for livestock. Environ Physiol Livest. (2012) 1:243–65. doi: 10.1002/9781119949091.ch14
Keywords: adaptation, animal, bioclimatology, climate, environment, thermoregulatory mechanisms
Citation: de Souza IMF, Sousa CEL, Pinto VS, Vilela LGP, Souza AdS, Cunha JPS, Araújo CV, Gomes MdNB, Silva LKX, Martorano LG, Neves KAL, Camargo-Júnior RNC, Silva ÉBR and da Silva WC (2026) Welfare indicators in cattle farming in the face of heat stress: a review in climate change scenarios. Front. Vet. Sci. 12:1754412. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1754412
Received: 25 November 2025; Revised: 19 December 2025;
Accepted: 29 December 2025; Published: 11 February 2026.
Edited by:
Daniel Mota-Rojas, Metropolitan Autonomous University, MexicoReviewed by:
Marcelo Ghezzi, Universidad Nacional del Centro de Buenos Aires, ArgentinaArthur Fernandes Bettencourt, Federal University of Santa Maria, Brazil
Copyright © 2026 de Souza, Sousa, Pinto, Vilela, Souza, Cunha, Araújo, Gomes, Silva, Martorano, Neves, Camargo-Júnior, Silva and da Silva. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Welligton Conceição da Silva, d2VsbGlndG9uLm1lZHZldEBnbWFpbC5jb20=