| |
|
|
| Registros recuperados : 247 | |
| 134. |  | PALHARES, J. C. P.; CHARLÓN, V.; SPERBERG, F. S.; HERRERO, M. A.; LA MANNA, A. Indicators of dairy waste in sSouth American countries to stimulate the circular economy. In: INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON AGRICULTURAL AND AGROINDUSTRIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, 8., 2023, Caxias do Sul. Proceedings... Concórdia, SC: Sbera; Embrapa Suínos e Aves, 2023. p. 24.| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste. |
|    |
| 135. | | PALHARES, J. C. P.; PRADO, R. B.; VIGNA, B. B. Z.; SOUSA, S. M. de. Gestão eficiente dos recursos naturais. In: PALHARES, J. C. P.; OLIVEIRA, V. B.V. de; FREIRE JUNIOR, M.; CERDEIRA, L. A.; PRADO, H. A. (Ed.). Consumo e produção responsáveis: contribuições da Embrapa. Brasília, DF: Embrapa, 2018. Cap. 3 (Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável, 12) E-book.| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Milho e Sorgo; Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste; Embrapa Solos. |
| |
| 137. | | PALHARES, J. C. P.; PRADO, R. B.; ARAUJO, G. P. de. Environmental realities and sustainable consumption. In: PALHARES, J. C. P.; OLIVEIRA, V. B. V.; FREIRE JUNIOR, M.; CERDEIRA, A. L.; PRADO, H. A. do (Ed.). Responsible consumption and production: contributions of Embrapa. Brasília, DF: Embrapa, 2020. cap. 1, p. 11-15. (Sustainable development goals, 12).| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste; Embrapa Solos. |
| |
| 139. | | NOVELLI, T. I.; MORELLI, M.; PALHARES, J. C. P.; ALVES, T. C.; NOVO, A. L. M. Manipulação do teor de proteína do concentrado e impacto no balanço de nutriente de um sistema de produção de leite. In: SIMPÓSIO INTERNACIONAL SOBRE GERENCIAMENTO DE RESÍDUOS AGROPECUÁRIOS E AGROINDUSTRIAIS, 5., 2017, Foz do Iguaçu, PR. Anais... Concórdia, SC: Sbera; Embrapa Suínos e Aves, 2017. p. 487-490. Comissão organizadora: Marcelo Bortoli, Julio Cesar Pascale Palhares, Caio Inácio de Teves, Valéria Reginatto Spiller, Ariel A. Szogi, Marina Celant De Prá, Ricardo L. R. Steinmetz , Andre Cestonaro do Amaral.| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste. |
| |
| 140. | | PALHARES, J. C. P.; MULLER, S.; MATTEI, R. M.; KICH, J. D.; SIGUA, G. C. Microbiological water quality assessment of watershed associated with swine production in Santa Catarina, Brazil. In: INTERNATIONAL ANNUAL MEETINGS, 2007, New Orleans. A century of integrating crops, soils and environment: abstracts. News Orleans: ASA / CSSA / SSSA, 2007. 1 CD-ROM. Projeto n. 03.06.52.000-03.| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Suínos e Aves. |
| |
| Registros recuperados : 247 | |
|
|
|
 | 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: |
01/09/2017 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
05/12/2017 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Circulação/Nível: |
A - 1 |
|
Autoria: |
PALHARES, J. C. P.; MORELLI, M.; COSTA JUNIOR, C. |
|
Afiliação: |
JULIO CESAR PASCALE PALHARES, CPPSE; Marcela Morelli, FMVZ/USP; Ciniro Costa Junior, Instituto de Manejo e Certificação Florestal e Agrícola. |
|
Título: |
Impact of roughage-concentrate ratio on the water footprints of beef feedlots. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2017 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Agricultural Systems, v. 155, p. 126-135, 2017. |
|
ISSN: |
0308-521X |
|
DOI: |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.04.009 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
The aim of this study was to determine the water footprint of beef feedlots up to the farm gate and evaluate the impact of roughage-concentrate ratio on the green water footprint. The study purpose was to provide strategic insights about nutritional management and water used that have a positive impact reducing water demand and increasing water efficiency. A regional bottom-up approach of the beef feedlot production was applied and water footprint methodology was used as the primary method. We included green and blue volumetric water footprint. Sensitivity assessment was done to explore differences in agricultural performance. Total water footprint ranged from 1935 to 9673 m3 kg− 1 of meat. The results are demonstrating the variability in water footprint that can exist from farm to farm. Green water represented on average 84.5% and blue water 15.4% of the footprint value. The farms with larger amounts of concentrate in the diet had high footprint values and the differences in feed composition have a significant effect on the water footprint. The average water footprint of the current crop yield was 5814 L kg− 1 of meat. With a reduction of 25% in the current crop yields, it was 7.416 L kg− 1 of meat and with an increase of 25% in the current crop yields, 4677 L kg− 1 of meat. These results show that increasing agricultural productivity has positive impacts on reducing the water footprint. The results show that the water footprint values of feedlots are determined largely by the type of animal diet and by performance indicators of the animals. The roughage-concentrate ratio and type of roughage are the nutritional aspects that most significantly influence the footprint values. This study supports the recommendation that beef feedlots should place emphasis on maximizing the use of roughage, because this could decrease the pressure on fresh water resources. MenosThe aim of this study was to determine the water footprint of beef feedlots up to the farm gate and evaluate the impact of roughage-concentrate ratio on the green water footprint. The study purpose was to provide strategic insights about nutritional management and water used that have a positive impact reducing water demand and increasing water efficiency. A regional bottom-up approach of the beef feedlot production was applied and water footprint methodology was used as the primary method. We included green and blue volumetric water footprint. Sensitivity assessment was done to explore differences in agricultural performance. Total water footprint ranged from 1935 to 9673 m3 kg− 1 of meat. The results are demonstrating the variability in water footprint that can exist from farm to farm. Green water represented on average 84.5% and blue water 15.4% of the footprint value. The farms with larger amounts of concentrate in the diet had high footprint values and the differences in feed composition have a significant effect on the water footprint. The average water footprint of the current crop yield was 5814 L kg− 1 of meat. With a reduction of 25% in the current crop yields, it was 7.416 L kg− 1 of meat and with an increase of 25% in the current crop yields, 4677 L kg− 1 of meat. These results show that increasing agricultural productivity has positive impacts on reducing the water footprint. The results show that the water footprint values of feedlots ar... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Blue water; Green water. |
|
Thesaurus NAL: |
Nellore. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
L Ciência Animal e Produtos de Origem Animal |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 02517naa a2200205 a 4500
001 2074819
005 2017-12-05
008 2017 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
022 $a0308-521X
024 7 $ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.04.009$2DOI
100 1 $aPALHARES, J. C. P.
245 $aImpact of roughage-concentrate ratio on the water footprints of beef feedlots.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2017
520 $aThe aim of this study was to determine the water footprint of beef feedlots up to the farm gate and evaluate the impact of roughage-concentrate ratio on the green water footprint. The study purpose was to provide strategic insights about nutritional management and water used that have a positive impact reducing water demand and increasing water efficiency. A regional bottom-up approach of the beef feedlot production was applied and water footprint methodology was used as the primary method. We included green and blue volumetric water footprint. Sensitivity assessment was done to explore differences in agricultural performance. Total water footprint ranged from 1935 to 9673 m3 kg− 1 of meat. The results are demonstrating the variability in water footprint that can exist from farm to farm. Green water represented on average 84.5% and blue water 15.4% of the footprint value. The farms with larger amounts of concentrate in the diet had high footprint values and the differences in feed composition have a significant effect on the water footprint. The average water footprint of the current crop yield was 5814 L kg− 1 of meat. With a reduction of 25% in the current crop yields, it was 7.416 L kg− 1 of meat and with an increase of 25% in the current crop yields, 4677 L kg− 1 of meat. These results show that increasing agricultural productivity has positive impacts on reducing the water footprint. The results show that the water footprint values of feedlots are determined largely by the type of animal diet and by performance indicators of the animals. The roughage-concentrate ratio and type of roughage are the nutritional aspects that most significantly influence the footprint values. This study supports the recommendation that beef feedlots should place emphasis on maximizing the use of roughage, because this could decrease the pressure on fresh water resources.
650 $aNellore
653 $aBlue water
653 $aGreen water
700 1 $aMORELLI, M.
700 1 $aCOSTA JUNIOR, C.
773 $tAgricultural Systems$gv. 155, p. 126-135, 2017.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste (CPPSE) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
| Nenhum registro encontrado para a expressão de busca informada. |
|
|
