| |
|
|
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Agrobiologia; Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental; Embrapa Hortaliças; Embrapa Meio Norte / UEP-Parnaíba; Embrapa Meio-Norte; Embrapa Roraima; Embrapa Unidades Centrais. |
|
Data corrente: |
30/10/1995 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
19/07/2002 |
|
Autoria: |
FONSECA, A. F. A. da; ANGELETTI, M. da P. |
|
Título: |
Recomendações técnicas para o cultivo do pimentão (Capsicum annuum L.) em Rondônia. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
1986 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Porto Velho: EMBRAPA-UEPAE de Porto Velho, 1986. |
|
Páginas: |
16 p. |
|
Série: |
(EMBRAPA-UEPAE de Porto Velho. Circular Técnica, 9). |
|
Idioma: |
Português |
|
Conteúdo: |
Introdução; Escolha da área; Épocas de plantio; Cultivares recomendados; Preparo do solo; Produção de mudas; Calagem; Adubação; Transplantio; Tratos culturais; Capinas; Irrigação; Tratos fitossanitários; Práticas culturais úteis para prevenção de doenças e pragas; Tutoramento; Cobertura morta; Amontoa; Colheita, classificação e embalagem; Insumos e serviços necessários para o cultivo de hectare de pimentão; Literatura consultada. |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Brasil; Cultivo; Pimento; Recomendação técnica; Recomendacoes; Rondonia; Sweet pepper. |
|
Thesagro: |
Capsicum Annuum; Olericultura; Pimentão; Sistema de Produção. |
|
Thesaurus Nal: |
Brazil; cropping systems; farming systems; paprika. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
--
X Pesquisa, Tecnologia e Engenharia |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 01360nam a2200325 a 4500
001 1771912
005 2002-07-19
008 1986 bl uuuu u0uu1 u #d
100 1 $aFONSECA, A. F. A. da
245 $aRecomendações técnicas para o cultivo do pimentão (Capsicum annuum L.) em Rondônia.
260 $aPorto Velho: EMBRAPA-UEPAE de Porto Velho$c1986
300 $a16 p.
490 $a(EMBRAPA-UEPAE de Porto Velho. Circular Técnica, 9).
520 $aIntrodução; Escolha da área; Épocas de plantio; Cultivares recomendados; Preparo do solo; Produção de mudas; Calagem; Adubação; Transplantio; Tratos culturais; Capinas; Irrigação; Tratos fitossanitários; Práticas culturais úteis para prevenção de doenças e pragas; Tutoramento; Cobertura morta; Amontoa; Colheita, classificação e embalagem; Insumos e serviços necessários para o cultivo de hectare de pimentão; Literatura consultada.
650 $aBrazil
650 $acropping systems
650 $afarming systems
650 $apaprika
650 $aCapsicum Annuum
650 $aOlericultura
650 $aPimentão
650 $aSistema de Produção
653 $aBrasil
653 $aCultivo
653 $aPimento
653 $aRecomendação técnica
653 $aRecomendacoes
653 $aRondonia
653 $aSweet pepper
700 1 $aANGELETTI, M. da P.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Hortaliças (CNPH) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
 | Acesso ao texto completo restrito à biblioteca da Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste. Para informações adicionais entre em contato com cppse.biblioteca@embrapa.br. |
Registro Completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste. |
|
Data corrente: |
13/12/2021 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
13/12/2021 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Circulação/Nível: |
A - 1 |
|
Autoria: |
PALHARES, J. C. P.; MORELLI, M.; NOVELLI, T. I. |
|
Afiliação: |
JULIO CESAR PASCALE PALHARES, CPPSE; MARCELA MORELLI, USP; TAISLA INARA NOVELLI, USP. |
|
Título: |
Water footprint of a tropical beef cattle production system: the impact of individual-animal and feed management. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2021 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Advances in Water Resources, v.149, mar. 2021, 103853. |
|
Páginas: |
9 p. |
|
DOI: |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2021.103853 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
Beef cattle production systems hide an enormous variability of productive and management aspects that impact the water footprint value. To have a greater precision in decision making based on water footprint we should consider animal-individuality and propose managements solutions. The aims of this study were to calculate the water footprint for a tropical cattle production system and to evaluated the influence of each individual-animal performance and type of diet. This study calculated the volumetric water footprint (WF) in its three dimensions: green, blue, and grey. The reference units were: L kg LW-1 (liters per kg of live weight) and L kg CW-1 (liters per kg of carcass weight). This study used a population of 52 Nelore bulls (Bos taurus indicus). In the feedlot phase, cattle were divided into two subgroups by weight. Each subgroup was further divided into nutritional treatment groups: Co-product Feed Light Animals (COP_L) and Heavy (COP_H) and Conventional Feed Light Animals (CON_L) and Heavy (CON_H). Co-product diet consisted of corn silage + corn germ + citrus pulp + peanut meal. Conventional diet consisted of corn silage + maize + soybean meal. The type of diet did not significant affect carcass weight and live weight (p < 0.05). The individual-animal WF varied from 32,569 L - 29,923 L kg CW-1 and from 18,279 - 16,803 L kg LW-1. The weight of animals did not significantly affect performance indicators and water footprints for conventional diet (p < 0.05), but the green and total water footprints were significantly affected for co-product diets (p < 0.05). This information could be used to support improvements in policies and good practices for farmers and policy makers to enhance the beef water efficiency. The study also contributed to produce data that are still scarce in science about the use of water along beef chain and benchmark water footprint. The generation of information about meat water footprint and practices that can make the product more water efficient will have immediate value for decision making about present and future beef meat sustainability. MenosBeef cattle production systems hide an enormous variability of productive and management aspects that impact the water footprint value. To have a greater precision in decision making based on water footprint we should consider animal-individuality and propose managements solutions. The aims of this study were to calculate the water footprint for a tropical cattle production system and to evaluated the influence of each individual-animal performance and type of diet. This study calculated the volumetric water footprint (WF) in its three dimensions: green, blue, and grey. The reference units were: L kg LW-1 (liters per kg of live weight) and L kg CW-1 (liters per kg of carcass weight). This study used a population of 52 Nelore bulls (Bos taurus indicus). In the feedlot phase, cattle were divided into two subgroups by weight. Each subgroup was further divided into nutritional treatment groups: Co-product Feed Light Animals (COP_L) and Heavy (COP_H) and Conventional Feed Light Animals (CON_L) and Heavy (CON_H). Co-product diet consisted of corn silage + corn germ + citrus pulp + peanut meal. Conventional diet consisted of corn silage + maize + soybean meal. The type of diet did not significant affect carcass weight and live weight (p < 0.05). The individual-animal WF varied from 32,569 L - 29,923 L kg CW-1 and from 18,279 - 16,803 L kg LW-1. The weight of animals did not significantly affect performance indicators and water footprints for conventional diet (p < 0.05), but the gr... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Blue; Co product; Green. |
|
Thesaurus NAL: |
Diet; Feedlots; Pastures. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
P Recursos Naturais, Ciências Ambientais e da Terra |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 02821naa a2200241 a 4500
001 2137667
005 2021-12-13
008 2021 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
024 7 $ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2021.103853$2DOI
100 1 $aPALHARES, J. C. P.
245 $aWater footprint of a tropical beef cattle production system$bthe impact of individual-animal and feed management.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2021
300 $a9 p.
520 $aBeef cattle production systems hide an enormous variability of productive and management aspects that impact the water footprint value. To have a greater precision in decision making based on water footprint we should consider animal-individuality and propose managements solutions. The aims of this study were to calculate the water footprint for a tropical cattle production system and to evaluated the influence of each individual-animal performance and type of diet. This study calculated the volumetric water footprint (WF) in its three dimensions: green, blue, and grey. The reference units were: L kg LW-1 (liters per kg of live weight) and L kg CW-1 (liters per kg of carcass weight). This study used a population of 52 Nelore bulls (Bos taurus indicus). In the feedlot phase, cattle were divided into two subgroups by weight. Each subgroup was further divided into nutritional treatment groups: Co-product Feed Light Animals (COP_L) and Heavy (COP_H) and Conventional Feed Light Animals (CON_L) and Heavy (CON_H). Co-product diet consisted of corn silage + corn germ + citrus pulp + peanut meal. Conventional diet consisted of corn silage + maize + soybean meal. The type of diet did not significant affect carcass weight and live weight (p < 0.05). The individual-animal WF varied from 32,569 L - 29,923 L kg CW-1 and from 18,279 - 16,803 L kg LW-1. The weight of animals did not significantly affect performance indicators and water footprints for conventional diet (p < 0.05), but the green and total water footprints were significantly affected for co-product diets (p < 0.05). This information could be used to support improvements in policies and good practices for farmers and policy makers to enhance the beef water efficiency. The study also contributed to produce data that are still scarce in science about the use of water along beef chain and benchmark water footprint. The generation of information about meat water footprint and practices that can make the product more water efficient will have immediate value for decision making about present and future beef meat sustainability.
650 $aDiet
650 $aFeedlots
650 $aPastures
653 $aBlue
653 $aCo product
653 $aGreen
700 1 $aMORELLI, M.
700 1 $aNOVELLI, T. I.
773 $tAdvances in Water Resources$gv.149, mar. 2021, 103853.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste (CPPSE) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
| Expressão de busca inválida. Verifique!!! |
|
|
