This review attempted to collate and synthesize information on goat welfare and production constraints during heat stress exposure. Among the farm animals, goats arguably are considered the best-suited animals to survive in tropical climates. Heat stress was found to negatively influence growth, milk and meat production and compromised the immune response, thereby significantly reducing goats’ welfare under extensive conditions and transportation. Although considered extremely adapted to tropical climates, their production can be compromised to cope with heat stress. Therefore, information on goat adaptation and production performance during heat exposure could help assess their welfare. Such information would be valuable as the farming communities are often struggling in their efforts to assess animal welfare, especially in tropical regions. Broadly three aspects must be considered to ensure appropriate welfare in goats, and these include (i) housing and environment; (ii) breeding and genetics and (iii) handling and transport. Apart from these, there are a few other negative welfare factors in goat rearing, which differ across the production system being followed. Such negative practices are predominant in extensive systems and include nutritional stress, limited supply of good quality water, climatic extremes, parasitic infestation and lameness, culminating in low production, reproduction and high mortality rates. Broadly two types of methodologies are available to assess welfare in goats in these systems: (i) animal-based measures include behavioral measurements, health and production records and disease symptoms; (ii) resources based and management-based measures include stocking density, manpower, housing conditions and health plans. Goat welfare could be assessed based on several indicators covering behavioral, physical, physiological and productive responses. The important indicators of goat welfare include agonistic behavior, vocalization, skin temperature, body condition score (BCS), hair coat conditions, rectal temperature, respiration rate, heart rate, sweating, reduced growth, reduced milk production and reduced reproductive efficiency. There are also different approaches available by which the welfare of goats could be assessed, such as naturalistic, functional and subjective approaches. Thus, assessing welfare in goats at every production stage is a prerequisite for ensuring appropriate production in this all-important species to guarantee optimum returns to the marginal and subsistence farmers.

Mammals in drylands are facing not only increasing heat loads but also reduced water and food availability as a result of climate change. Insufficient water results in suppression of evaporative cooling and therefore increases in body core temperature on hot days, while lack of food reduces the capacity to maintain body core temperature on cold nights. Both food and water shortage will narrow the prescriptive zone, the ambient temperature range over which body core temperature is held relatively constant, which will lead to increased risk of physiological malfunction and death. Behavioural modifications, such as shifting activity between night and day or seeking thermally buffered microclimates, may allow individuals to remain within the prescriptive zone, but can incur costs, such as reduced foraging or increased competition or predation, with consequences for fitness. Body size will play a major role in predicting response patterns, but identifying all the factors that will contribute to how well dryland mammals facing water and food shortage will cope with increasing heat loads requires a better understanding of the sensitivities and responses of mammals exposed to the direct and indirect effects of climate change.

As the world warms, it will be tempting to relate the biological responses of terrestrial animals to air temperature. But air temperature typically plays a lesser role in the heat exchange of those animals than does radiant heat. Under radiant load, animals can gain heat even when body surface temperature exceeds air temperature. However, animals can buffer the impacts of radiant heat exposure: burrows and other refuges may block solar radiant heat fully, but trees and agricultural shelters provide only partial relief. For animals that can do so effectively, evaporative cooling will be used to dissipate body heat. Evaporative cooling is dependent directly on the water vapour pressure difference between the body surface and immediate surroundings, but only indirectly on relative humidity. High relative humidity at high air temperature implies a high water vapour pressure, but evaporation into air with 100% relative humidity is not impossible. Evaporation is enhanced by wind, but the wind speed reported by meteorological services is not that experienced by animals; instead, the wind, air temperature, humidity and radiation experienced is that of the animal's microclimate. In this Commentary, we discuss how microclimate should be quantified to ensure accurate assessment of an animal's thermal environment. We propose that the microclimate metric of dry heat load to which the biological responses of animals should be related is black-globe temperature measured on or near the animal, and not air temperature. Finally, when analysing those responses, the metric of humidity should be water vapour pressure, not relative humidity.

Animal Agrivoltaics combines electric energy generation, animal thermal comfort, and sustainable production at the same time. This model of production can foster the sustainable intensification of dairy production in tropical areas where solar irradiance is high and nearly constant throughout the year. In this study, we propose Animal Agrivoltaics as an alternative practice to reduce the heat load and eCH₄ emissions from dairy heifers in tropical areas. To attest this hypothesis, (1) the meteorological data and the behavioral and physiological responses of the animals were integrated in order to determine the benefits provided by the shade from the solar panels on the thermoregulation of the dairy heifers, and (2) measurements of the enteric methane emissions were taken to determine the potential of the solar panels to offset the GHG. Seven crossbred Holstein heifers (7/8, Holstein × Gyr) with a mean body weight of 242 kg (SD = 53.5) were evaluated in a paddock shaded with ten modules of solar panels. Miniature temperature loggers were used to record the body surface, skin and vaginal temperatures of the heifers every five minutes. The respiratory rate and the shade-use behavior were also monitored by two observers. These measurements were taken from 08:00 to 17:00 h for 18 consecutive days. After completing the field study, the heifers underwent for assessments of the daily oscillations of eCH₄ emission using a flow-through respirometry system. The use of shade by the heifers was progressively increased (p < 0.01) with an increasing level of solar irradiance. Lying and ruminating were more likely (p < 0.01) to occur when the heifers were in the shade, especially when the solar irradiance exceeded 500 W m⁻². Between 10:00 and 14:00 h, the heifers benefited from the shade produced by the solar panels, with a reduction of 40% in the radiant heat load. With an increasing intensity of solar irradiance, body surface temperature, skin temperature and respiratory rate of the heifers in the shade were lower (p < 0.01) compared to when they were exposed to the sun. The heifers had a daily methane emission total of 63.5 g per animal⁻¹ or 1.7 kg of CO_2-eq. Based on this emission rate and the amount of CO_2-eq that was not emitted to the atmosphere due to the electricity generated by solar panels, 4.1 m² of panels per animal (nominal power = 335 W) would be expected to obtain a net-zero eCH₄ emission. Over a period of one year (from September 2018 to August 2019), a set of ten photovoltaic panels used in the study produced 4869.4 kWh of electricity, thereby saving US $970.00 or US $48.00 per m² of solar panel. Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that use of Animal Agrivoltaics, in addition to producing electricity, has significant potential benefit in providing better thermal comfort to cattle, as well as offsetting the enteric methane emissions released into the environment. In addition, the system would provide extra income to farmers, as well as a potential source of energy micro-generation.