| |
|
|
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Caprinos e Ovinos. |
|
Data corrente: |
19/09/2017 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
19/09/2017 |
|
Autoria: |
CLANTON, D. C.; HARRIS, L. E.; BUTCHER, J. E. |
|
Título: |
Effect of nutrition on the productivity of range sheep. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
1959 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Journal of Animal Science, v. 18, n. 4, p. 1416-1429, Nov. 1959. |
|
ISBN: |
10.2527/jas1959.1841416x |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
Four hundred and fifty range ewes from each of two owners consisting of six age groups were maintained on desert-type winter range during the winter of 1954?55. Ten treatments including range forage only, and supplemental feeds of energy, protein and phosphorus during three seasons, November to April, January to April, and January to March were used. Body condition changes are introduced as a measure of response. They help define body weight and they show that ewe gains in the spring are not necessarily due to increased flesh on the ewe. Comparison of treated animals to nontreated animals did indicate definite improvement in maintenance of body weight and condition during the winter, in wool production and in lamb birth weights but not weaning weights. Differential feed treatments indicated no difference in lamb production among kinds of supplement and season. The midwinter fed groups produced more wool than those fed during other seasons. Kind of supplement had no effect on wool production. Protein feed and all-winter feeding maintained body weight and condition better than other combinations of feeding. Three-year-old ewes followed by 4-year-olds produced the most pounds of lamb. Yearlings, 2-year olds and 3-year-olds had nearly the same wool production. When combining lamb and wool production the 3- and 4-year-olds were the best producers. The yearling ewes maintained weight and condition better than the other age groups. Large ownership differences were observed. Owner 1's ewes lost more body weight and condition, produced more pounds of lamb and less wool than the ewes from Owner 2. These ownership differences, apparently due to previous genetic and environmental influences, emphasize another problem in the interpretation of nutrition experiments. MenosFour hundred and fifty range ewes from each of two owners consisting of six age groups were maintained on desert-type winter range during the winter of 1954?55. Ten treatments including range forage only, and supplemental feeds of energy, protein and phosphorus during three seasons, November to April, January to April, and January to March were used. Body condition changes are introduced as a measure of response. They help define body weight and they show that ewe gains in the spring are not necessarily due to increased flesh on the ewe. Comparison of treated animals to nontreated animals did indicate definite improvement in maintenance of body weight and condition during the winter, in wool production and in lamb birth weights but not weaning weights. Differential feed treatments indicated no difference in lamb production among kinds of supplement and season. The midwinter fed groups produced more wool than those fed during other seasons. Kind of supplement had no effect on wool production. Protein feed and all-winter feeding maintained body weight and condition better than other combinations of feeding. Three-year-old ewes followed by 4-year-olds produced the most pounds of lamb. Yearlings, 2-year olds and 3-year-olds had nearly the same wool production. When combining lamb and wool production the 3- and 4-year-olds were the best producers. The yearling ewes maintained weight and condition better than the other age groups. Large ownership differences were observed. Owner 1... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Productivity. |
|
Thesaurus Nal: |
Animal nutrition; Ewes; Sheep. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
L Ciência Animal e Produtos de Origem Animal |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 02292naa a2200193 a 4500
001 2075899
005 2017-09-19
008 1959 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
100 1 $aCLANTON, D. C.
245 $aEffect of nutrition on the productivity of range sheep.
260 $c1959
520 $aFour hundred and fifty range ewes from each of two owners consisting of six age groups were maintained on desert-type winter range during the winter of 1954?55. Ten treatments including range forage only, and supplemental feeds of energy, protein and phosphorus during three seasons, November to April, January to April, and January to March were used. Body condition changes are introduced as a measure of response. They help define body weight and they show that ewe gains in the spring are not necessarily due to increased flesh on the ewe. Comparison of treated animals to nontreated animals did indicate definite improvement in maintenance of body weight and condition during the winter, in wool production and in lamb birth weights but not weaning weights. Differential feed treatments indicated no difference in lamb production among kinds of supplement and season. The midwinter fed groups produced more wool than those fed during other seasons. Kind of supplement had no effect on wool production. Protein feed and all-winter feeding maintained body weight and condition better than other combinations of feeding. Three-year-old ewes followed by 4-year-olds produced the most pounds of lamb. Yearlings, 2-year olds and 3-year-olds had nearly the same wool production. When combining lamb and wool production the 3- and 4-year-olds were the best producers. The yearling ewes maintained weight and condition better than the other age groups. Large ownership differences were observed. Owner 1's ewes lost more body weight and condition, produced more pounds of lamb and less wool than the ewes from Owner 2. These ownership differences, apparently due to previous genetic and environmental influences, emphasize another problem in the interpretation of nutrition experiments.
650 $aAnimal nutrition
650 $aEwes
650 $aSheep
653 $aProductivity
700 1 $aHARRIS, L. E.
700 1 $aBUTCHER, J. E.
773 $tJournal of Animal Science$gv. 18, n. 4, p. 1416-1429, Nov. 1959.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Caprinos e Ovinos (CNPC) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
Registro Completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Uva e Vinho. |
|
Data corrente: |
21/01/2008 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
22/10/2019 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Resumo em Anais de Congresso |
|
Autoria: |
CUNHA JÚNIOR, L. C.; MATIUZ, B. H.; MARTINS, R. N.; NACHTIGAL, J. C.; SANTOS, L. O. |
|
Afiliação: |
L. C. Cunha Júnior, UNESP/FCAV; B. H. Matiuz, UNESP-FCAV; R. N. MARTINS, UNESP-FCAV; JAIR COSTA NACHTIGAL, CNPUV; L.O. Santos, UNESP/FCAV. |
|
Título: |
Uso de diferentes tipos de embalagens em uvas apirências minimamente processadas, cv. Clara. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2007 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
In: WORKSHOP INTERNACIONAL DE PÓS-COLHEITA DE FRUTAS, 2.; WORKSHOP INTERNACIONAL DE PÓS-COLHEITA DE CITROS, 3., 2007, Campinas, SP. Resumos... Campinas: IAC, 2007. 1 CD-ROM. |
|
Páginas: |
Não paginado. |
|
Idioma: |
Português |
|
Notas: |
Resumo. |
|
Conteúdo: |
Este trabalho avaliou diferentes tipos de embalagem para consevação de produtos minimamente processados (PMP) de uva sem semenete cv. Clara. |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Clara; Minimamente processado. |
|
Thesagro: |
Armazenamento; Embalagem; Pós-Colheita; Uva; Variedade; Viticultura. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
-- |
|
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/203291/1/9379-2007.pdf
|
|
Marc: |
LEADER 01049nam a2200277 a 4500
001 1542340
005 2019-10-22
008 2007 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
100 1 $aCUNHA JÚNIOR, L. C.
245 $aUso de diferentes tipos de embalagens em uvas apirências minimamente processadas, cv. Clara.$h[electronic resource]
260 $aIn: WORKSHOP INTERNACIONAL DE PÓS-COLHEITA DE FRUTAS, 2.; WORKSHOP INTERNACIONAL DE PÓS-COLHEITA DE CITROS, 3., 2007, Campinas, SP. Resumos... Campinas: IAC, 2007. 1 CD-ROM.$c2007
300 $aNão paginado.
500 $aResumo.
520 $aEste trabalho avaliou diferentes tipos de embalagem para consevação de produtos minimamente processados (PMP) de uva sem semenete cv. Clara.
650 $aArmazenamento
650 $aEmbalagem
650 $aPós-Colheita
650 $aUva
650 $aVariedade
650 $aViticultura
653 $aClara
653 $aMinimamente processado
700 1 $aMATIUZ, B. H.
700 1 $aMARTINS, R. N.
700 1 $aNACHTIGAL, J. C.
700 1 $aSANTOS, L. O.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Uva e Vinho (CNPUV) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
| Nenhum registro encontrado para a expressão de busca informada. |
|
|
