| |
|
|
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Semiárido. |
|
Data corrente: |
21/02/2017 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
21/02/2017 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Autoria: |
SILVA, C. M. da; ARAUJO, G. G. L. de; OLIVEIRA, B. Y. S. de; AZEVÊDO, J. A. G. de; FURTADO, D. A. |
|
Afiliação: |
CLAUDETE MARIA DA SILVA, Profª da Universidade Estadual Vale do Acaraú, UVA, Sobral, CE; GHERMAN GARCIA LEAL DE ARAUJO, CPATSA; BRUNA YASNAIA SOUZA DE OLIVEIRA, UFBA; JOSÉ AUGUSTO GOMES DE AZEVÊDO, Prof. da Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, UESC, Ilhéus, BA; DERMEVAL ARAÚJO FURTADO, Prof. da Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, UFCG, Campina Grande, PB. |
|
Título: |
Performance and economic viability of feedlot sheep fed different levels of roughage, concentrate, and water. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2016 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 37, n. 3, p. 1595-1606, maio/jun. 2016. |
|
DOI: |
10.5433/1679-0359.2016v37n3p1595 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
The aim of this study was to evaluate performance and economic viability of producing sheep fed different levels of roughage, concentrate, and water. Forty Santa Inês crossbred sheep with an average initial weight of 18.85 ± 2.80 kg and an average age of 5.0 ± 2.0 months were distributed in a completely randomized design with a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement composed of two proportions of roughage and concentrate (30:70 and 70:30) and two levels of water supply (ad libitum, and 50% restriction), with 10 replicates. Water restriction had a negative effect (P<0.05) on the intakes of dry matter and nutrients and total and daily weight gains, regardless of the proportions of roughage and concentrate. Water restriction did not affect (P>0.05) feed conversion or feed conversion. Total weight gain, average daily gain, feed conversion, and feed efficiency were influenced by the proportions of roughage and concentrate. In conclusion, the diet with 70% roughage, associated with a water restriction of 50%, reduced the uptake of energy and protein, compromising the animal performance. The combination of the diet plus concentrate and water restricted to 50% of the free consumption provides a better cost-benefit ratio. |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Animal produciton; Consumo de água; Consumo de alimento; Restrição de água; Water intake; Water restriction. |
|
Thesagro: |
Ganho de Peso; Ovino; Produção animal. |
|
Thesaurus Nal: |
Feed intake; Weight gain. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
L Ciência Animal e Produtos de Origem Animal |
|
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/156217/1/Gherman-2.pdf
|
|
Marc: |
LEADER 02210naa a2200313 a 4500
001 2064880
005 2017-02-21
008 2016 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
024 7 $a10.5433/1679-0359.2016v37n3p1595$2DOI
100 1 $aSILVA, C. M. da
245 $aPerformance and economic viability of feedlot sheep fed different levels of roughage, concentrate, and water.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2016
520 $aThe aim of this study was to evaluate performance and economic viability of producing sheep fed different levels of roughage, concentrate, and water. Forty Santa Inês crossbred sheep with an average initial weight of 18.85 ± 2.80 kg and an average age of 5.0 ± 2.0 months were distributed in a completely randomized design with a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement composed of two proportions of roughage and concentrate (30:70 and 70:30) and two levels of water supply (ad libitum, and 50% restriction), with 10 replicates. Water restriction had a negative effect (P<0.05) on the intakes of dry matter and nutrients and total and daily weight gains, regardless of the proportions of roughage and concentrate. Water restriction did not affect (P>0.05) feed conversion or feed conversion. Total weight gain, average daily gain, feed conversion, and feed efficiency were influenced by the proportions of roughage and concentrate. In conclusion, the diet with 70% roughage, associated with a water restriction of 50%, reduced the uptake of energy and protein, compromising the animal performance. The combination of the diet plus concentrate and water restricted to 50% of the free consumption provides a better cost-benefit ratio.
650 $aFeed intake
650 $aWeight gain
650 $aGanho de Peso
650 $aOvino
650 $aProdução animal
653 $aAnimal produciton
653 $aConsumo de água
653 $aConsumo de alimento
653 $aRestrição de água
653 $aWater intake
653 $aWater restriction
700 1 $aARAUJO, G. G. L. de
700 1 $aOLIVEIRA, B. Y. S. de
700 1 $aAZEVÊDO, J. A. G. de
700 1 $aFURTADO, D. A.
773 $tSemina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina$gv. 37, n. 3, p. 1595-1606, maio/jun. 2016.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Semiárido (CPATSA) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
Registro Completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Gado de Leite; Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste. |
|
Data corrente: |
15/06/2021 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
17/06/2021 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Circulação/Nível: |
A - 1 |
|
Autoria: |
CONGIO, G. F. DE. S.; BANNINK, A.; MAYORGA MOGOLLÓN, O. L.; JAURENA, G.; GONDA, H.; GERE, J. I.; CERÓN-CUCCHI, M. E.; ORTIZ-CHURA, A.; TIERI, M. P.; HERNÁNDEZ, O.; RICCI, P.; JULIARENA, M. P.; LOMBARDI, B.; ABDALLA, A. L.; ABDALLA-FILHO, A. L.; BERNDT, A.; OLIVEIRA, P. P. A.; HENRIQUE, F. L.; MONTEIRO, A. L. G.; BORGES, L. I.; RIBEIRO-FILHO, H. M. N.; PEREIRA, L. G. R.; TOMICH, T. R.; CAMPOS, M. M.; MACHADO, F. S.; MARCONDES, M. I.; MERCADANTE, M. E. Z.; SAKAMOTO, L. S.; ALBUQUERQUE, L. G.; CARVALHO, P. C. DE. F.; ROSSETTO, J.; SAVIAN, J. V.; RODRIGUES, P. H. M.; PERNA JÚNIOR, F.; MOREIRA, T. S.; MAURÍCIO, R. M.; RODRIGUES, J. P. P.; BORGES, A. L. DA C. C.; SILVA, R. R. E.; LAGE, H. F.; REIS, R. A.; RUGGIERI, A. C.; CARDOSO, A. DA. S.; SILVA, S. C. DA; CHIAVEGATO, M. B.; VALADARES-FILHO, S. DE. C.; SILVA, F. A. DE. S.; ZANETTI, D.; BERCHIELLI, T. T.; MESSANA, J. D.; MUÑOZ, C.; ARIZA-NIETO, C. J.; SIERRA-ALARCÓN, A. M.; GUALDRÓN-DUARTE, L. B.; MESTRA-VARGAS, L. I.; MOLINA-BOTERO, I. C.; BARAHONA-ROSALES, R.; ARANGO, J.; GAVIRIA-URIBE, X.; VALDERRAMA, L. A. G.; ROSERO-NOGUERA, J. R.; POSADA-OCHOA, S. L.; ABARCA-MONGE, S.; SOTO-BLANCO, R.; KU-VERA, J. C.; JIMÉNEZ-OCAMPO, R.; FLORES-SANTIAGO, E. DEL. J.; CASTELÁN-ORTEGA, O. A.; VÁZQUEZ-CARRILLO, M. F.; BENAOUDA, M.; GÓMEZ-BRAVO, C. A.; BOLOVICH, V. I. A.; CÉSPEDES, M. A. D.; ASTIGARRAGA, L.; HRISTOV, A. N. |
|
Afiliação: |
GUILHERMO FRANCKLIN DE SOUZA CONGIO, USP; ANDRÉ BANNINK, Wageningen University & Research; OLGA LUCÍA MAYORGA MOGOLLÓN, AGROSAVIA; GUSTAVO JAURENA, Universidade de Buenos Aires; HORACIO GONDA, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; JOSÉ IGNACIO GERE, National Technological University, Argentina / National Scientific and Technical Research Council; MARÍA ESPERANZA CERÓN-CUCCHI, National Institute of Agricultural Technology; ABIMAEL ORTIZ-CHURA, National Institute of Agricultural Technology; MARÍA PAZ TIERI, Dairy Value Chain Research Institute / National Technological University, Argentina; OLEGARIO HERNÁNDEZ, INTA; PATRICIA RICCI, National Scientific and Technical Research Council / INTA; MARÍA PAULA JULIARENA, National Scientific and Technical Research Council / National University of the Centre of the Buenos Aires Province; BANIRA LOMBARDI, National Scientific and Technical Research Council / National University of the Centre of the Buenos Aires Province; ADIBE LUIZ ABDALLA, USP; ADIBE LUIZ ABDALLA-FILHO, USP; ALEXANDRE BERNDT, CPPSE; PATRÍCIA PERONDI ANCHÃO OLIVEIRA, CPPSE; FÁBIO LUIS HENRIQUE, FAZU; ALDA LÚCIA GOMES MONTEIRO, UFPR; LUIZA ILHA BORGES, UFPR; HENRIQUE MENDONÇA NUNES RIBEIRO-FILHO, UDESC; LUIZ GUSTAVO RIBEIRO PEREIRA, CNPGL; THIERRY RIBEIRO TOMICH, CNPGL; MARIANA MAGALHÃES CAMPOS, CNPGL; FERNANDA SAMARINI MACHADO, CNPGL; MARCOS INÁCIO MARCONDES, UFV; MARIA EUGÊNIA ZERLOTTI MERCADANTE, APTA; LEANDRO SANNOMIYA SAKAMOTO, APTA; LUCIA GALVÃO ALBUQUERQUE, UNESP; PAULO CÉSAR DE FACCIO CARVALHO, UFRGS; JUSIANE ROSSETTO, UFRGS; JEAN VÍCTOR SAVIAN, UFRGS / Instituto Nacional de Pesquisa Agropecuária do Uruguai; PAULO HENRIQUE MAZZA RODRIGUES, USP; FLÁVIO PERNA JÚNIOR, USP; TAINÁ SILVESTRE MOREIRA, Universidade Estadual da Pensilvânia / USP; ROGÉRIO MARTINS MAURÍCIO, UFSJ; JOÃO PAULO PACHECO RODRIGUES, UNIFESSPA; ANA LUIZA DA COSTA CRUZ BORGES, UFMG; RICARDO REIS E SILVA, UFMG; HELENA FERREIRA LAGE, Universidade Newton Paiva; RICARDO ANDRADE REIS, UNESP; ANA CLÁUDIA RUGGIERI, UNESP; ABMAEL DA SILVA CARDOSO, UNESP; SILA CARNEIRO DA SILVA, USP; MARÍLIA BARBOSA CHIAVEGATO, Universidade Estadual de Ohio; SEBASTIÃO DE CAMPOS VALADARES-FILHO, UFV; FLÁVIA ADRIANE DE SALES SILVA, UFV; DIEGO ZANETTI, IFSULDEMINAS; TELMA TERESINHA BERCHIELLI, UNESP; JULIANA DUARTE MESSANA, UNESP; CAMILA MUÑOZ, INIA Remehue; CLAUDIA JANETH ARIZA-NIETO, AGROSAVIA; ANDREA MILENA SIERRA-ALARCÓN, AGROSAVIA; LAURA BIBIANA GUALDRÓN-DUARTE, AGROSAVIA; LORENA INÉS MESTRA-VARGAS, AGROSAVIA; ISABEL CRISTINA MOLINA-BOTERO, Universidade Nacional Agrária La Molina; ROLANDO BARAHONA-ROSALES, Universidade Nacional da Colômbia; JACOBO ARANGO, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT); XIOMARA GAVIRIA-URIBE, Universidade Nacional da Colombia / Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT); LUIS ALFONSO GIRALDO VALDERRAMA, Universidade Nacional da Colombia; JAIME RICARDO ROSERO-NOGUERA, Universidade de Antioquia; SANDRA LUCÍA POSADA-OCHOA, Universidade de Antioquia; SERGIO ABARCA-MONGE, INTA; ROBERTO SOTO-BLANCO, INTA; JUAN CARLOS KU-VERA, Universidade de Yucatán; RAFAEL JIMÉNEZ-OCAMPO, Universidade de Yucatán / Instituto Nacional de Investigação Florestal, Agrícola e Pecuária (INIFAP); EVER DEL JESUS FLORES-SANTIAGO, Universidade de Yucatán / Universidade Autónoma de Chapingo; OCTAVIO ALONSO CASTELÁN-ORTEGA, Universidade Autónoma do Estado do México; MARÍA FERNANDA VÁZQUEZ-CARRILLO, Universidade Autónoma do Estado do México; MOHAMMED BENAOUDA, French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE) / AgroSup Dijon; CARLOS ALFREDO GÓMEZ-BRAVO, Universidade Nacional Agrária La Molina; VÍCTOR ILICH ALVARADO BOLOVICH, Universidade Nacional Agrária La Molina; MEDARDO ANTONIO DÍAZ CÉSPEDES, Universidade Nacional Agrária La Molina; LAURA ASTIGARRAGA, Universidade da República do Uruguai; ALEXANDER NIKOLOV HRISTOV, Universidade Estadual da Pensilvânia. |
|
Título: |
Enteric methane mitigation strategies for ruminant livestock systems in the Latin America and Caribbean region: a meta-analysis. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2021 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Journal of Cleaner Production, v.312, 127693, 2021 |
|
Páginas: |
13 p. |
|
ISSN: |
0959-6526 |
|
DOI: |
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127693 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) is a developing region characterized for its importance for global food security, producing 23 and 11% of the global beef and milk production, respectively. The region?s ruminant livestock sector however, is under scrutiny on environmental grounds due to its large contribution to enteric methane (CH4) emissions and influence on global climate change. Thus, the identification of effective CH4 mitigation strategies which do not compromise animal performance is urgently needed, especially in context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) defined in the Paris Agreement of the United Nations. Therefore, the objectives of the current study were to: 1) collate a database of individual sheep, beef and dairy cattle records from enteric CH4 emission studies conducted in the LAC region, and 2) perform a meta-analysis to identify feasible enteric CH4 mitigation strategies, which do not compromise animal performance. After outlier?s removal, 2745 animal records (65% of the original data) from 103 studies were retained (from 2011 to 2021) in the LAC database. Potential mitigation strategies were classified into three main categories (i.e., animal breeding, dietary, and rumen manipulation) and up to three subcategories, totaling 34 evaluated strategies. A random effects model weighted by inverse variance was used (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V3.3.070). Six strategies decreased at least one enteric CH4 metric and simultaneously increased milk yield (MY; dairy cattle) or average daily gain (ADG; beef cattle and sheep). The breed composition F1 Holstein × Gyr decreased CH4 emission per MY (CH4IMilk) while increasing MY by 99%. Adequate strategies of grazing management under continuous and rotational stocking decreased CH4 emission per ADG (CH4IGain) by 22 and 35%, while increasing ADG by 22 and 71%, respectively. Increased dietary protein concentration, and increased concentrate level through cottonseed meal inclusion, decreased CH4IMilk and CH4IGain by 10 and 20% and increased MY and ADG by 12 and 31%, respectively. Lastly, increased feeding level decreased CH4IGain by 37%, while increasing ADG by 171%. The identified effective mitigation strategies can be adopted by livestock producers according to their specific needs and aid LAC countries in achieving SDG as defined in the Paris Agreement. MenosLatin America and Caribbean (LAC) is a developing region characterized for its importance for global food security, producing 23 and 11% of the global beef and milk production, respectively. The region?s ruminant livestock sector however, is under scrutiny on environmental grounds due to its large contribution to enteric methane (CH4) emissions and influence on global climate change. Thus, the identification of effective CH4 mitigation strategies which do not compromise animal performance is urgently needed, especially in context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) defined in the Paris Agreement of the United Nations. Therefore, the objectives of the current study were to: 1) collate a database of individual sheep, beef and dairy cattle records from enteric CH4 emission studies conducted in the LAC region, and 2) perform a meta-analysis to identify feasible enteric CH4 mitigation strategies, which do not compromise animal performance. After outlier?s removal, 2745 animal records (65% of the original data) from 103 studies were retained (from 2011 to 2021) in the LAC database. Potential mitigation strategies were classified into three main categories (i.e., animal breeding, dietary, and rumen manipulation) and up to three subcategories, totaling 34 evaluated strategies. A random effects model weighted by inverse variance was used (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V3.3.070). Six strategies decreased at least one enteric CH4 metric and simultaneously increased milk yield (MY;... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Aquecimento global; Emissões de gases com efeito de estufa; Enteric methane; Metano entérico; Mitigação; Mitigation. |
|
Thesagro: |
Bovino; Efeito Estufa; Metano; Ovelha. |
|
Thesaurus NAL: |
Cattle; Global warming; Greenhouse gas emissions; Methane; Sheep. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
L Ciência Animal e Produtos de Origem Animal |
|
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/223799/1/Enteric-Methane-Mitigation.pdf
|
|
Marc: |
LEADER 05822naa a2201225 a 4500
001 2132310
005 2021-06-17
008 2021 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
022 $a0959-6526
024 7 $adoi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127693$2DOI
100 1 $aCONGIO, G. F. DE. S.
245 $aEnteric methane mitigation strategies for ruminant livestock systems in the Latin America and Caribbean region$ba meta-analysis.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2021
300 $a13 p.
520 $aLatin America and Caribbean (LAC) is a developing region characterized for its importance for global food security, producing 23 and 11% of the global beef and milk production, respectively. The region?s ruminant livestock sector however, is under scrutiny on environmental grounds due to its large contribution to enteric methane (CH4) emissions and influence on global climate change. Thus, the identification of effective CH4 mitigation strategies which do not compromise animal performance is urgently needed, especially in context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) defined in the Paris Agreement of the United Nations. Therefore, the objectives of the current study were to: 1) collate a database of individual sheep, beef and dairy cattle records from enteric CH4 emission studies conducted in the LAC region, and 2) perform a meta-analysis to identify feasible enteric CH4 mitigation strategies, which do not compromise animal performance. After outlier?s removal, 2745 animal records (65% of the original data) from 103 studies were retained (from 2011 to 2021) in the LAC database. Potential mitigation strategies were classified into three main categories (i.e., animal breeding, dietary, and rumen manipulation) and up to three subcategories, totaling 34 evaluated strategies. A random effects model weighted by inverse variance was used (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V3.3.070). Six strategies decreased at least one enteric CH4 metric and simultaneously increased milk yield (MY; dairy cattle) or average daily gain (ADG; beef cattle and sheep). The breed composition F1 Holstein × Gyr decreased CH4 emission per MY (CH4IMilk) while increasing MY by 99%. Adequate strategies of grazing management under continuous and rotational stocking decreased CH4 emission per ADG (CH4IGain) by 22 and 35%, while increasing ADG by 22 and 71%, respectively. Increased dietary protein concentration, and increased concentrate level through cottonseed meal inclusion, decreased CH4IMilk and CH4IGain by 10 and 20% and increased MY and ADG by 12 and 31%, respectively. Lastly, increased feeding level decreased CH4IGain by 37%, while increasing ADG by 171%. The identified effective mitigation strategies can be adopted by livestock producers according to their specific needs and aid LAC countries in achieving SDG as defined in the Paris Agreement.
650 $aCattle
650 $aGlobal warming
650 $aGreenhouse gas emissions
650 $aMethane
650 $aSheep
650 $aBovino
650 $aEfeito Estufa
650 $aMetano
650 $aOvelha
653 $aAquecimento global
653 $aEmissões de gases com efeito de estufa
653 $aEnteric methane
653 $aMetano entérico
653 $aMitigação
653 $aMitigation
700 1 $aBANNINK, A.
700 1 $aMAYORGA MOGOLLÓN, O. L.
700 1 $aJAURENA, G.
700 1 $aGONDA, H.
700 1 $aGERE, J. I.
700 1 $aCERÓN-CUCCHI, M. E.
700 1 $aORTIZ-CHURA, A.
700 1 $aTIERI, M. P.
700 1 $aHERNÁNDEZ, O.
700 1 $aRICCI, P.
700 1 $aJULIARENA, M. P.
700 1 $aLOMBARDI, B.
700 1 $aABDALLA, A. L.
700 1 $aABDALLA-FILHO, A. L.
700 1 $aBERNDT, A.
700 1 $aOLIVEIRA, P. P. A.
700 1 $aHENRIQUE, F. L.
700 1 $aMONTEIRO, A. L. G.
700 1 $aBORGES, L. I.
700 1 $aRIBEIRO-FILHO, H. M. N.
700 1 $aPEREIRA, L. G. R.
700 1 $aTOMICH, T. R.
700 1 $aCAMPOS, M. M.
700 1 $aMACHADO, F. S.
700 1 $aMARCONDES, M. I.
700 1 $aMERCADANTE, M. E. Z.
700 1 $aSAKAMOTO, L. S.
700 1 $aALBUQUERQUE, L. G.
700 1 $aCARVALHO, P. C. DE. F.
700 1 $aROSSETTO, J.
700 1 $aSAVIAN, J. V.
700 1 $aRODRIGUES, P. H. M.
700 1 $aPERNA JÚNIOR, F.
700 1 $aMOREIRA, T. S.
700 1 $aMAURÍCIO, R. M.
700 1 $aRODRIGUES, J. P. P.
700 1 $aBORGES, A. L. DA C. C.
700 1 $aSILVA, R. R. E.
700 1 $aLAGE, H. F.
700 1 $aREIS, R. A.
700 1 $aRUGGIERI, A. C.
700 1 $aCARDOSO, A. DA. S.
700 1 $aSILVA, S. C. DA
700 1 $aCHIAVEGATO, M. B.
700 1 $aVALADARES-FILHO, S. DE. C.
700 1 $aSILVA, F. A. DE. S.
700 1 $aZANETTI, D.
700 1 $aBERCHIELLI, T. T.
700 1 $aMESSANA, J. D.
700 1 $aMUÑOZ, C.
700 1 $aARIZA-NIETO, C. J.
700 1 $aSIERRA-ALARCÓN, A. M.
700 1 $aGUALDRÓN-DUARTE, L. B.
700 1 $aMESTRA-VARGAS, L. I.
700 1 $aMOLINA-BOTERO, I. C.
700 1 $aBARAHONA-ROSALES, R.
700 1 $aARANGO, J.
700 1 $aGAVIRIA-URIBE, X.
700 1 $aVALDERRAMA, L. A. G.
700 1 $aROSERO-NOGUERA, J. R.
700 1 $aPOSADA-OCHOA, S. L.
700 1 $aABARCA-MONGE, S.
700 1 $aSOTO-BLANCO, R.
700 1 $aKU-VERA, J. C.
700 1 $aJIMÉNEZ-OCAMPO, R.
700 1 $aFLORES-SANTIAGO, E. DEL. J.
700 1 $aCASTELÁN-ORTEGA, O. A.
700 1 $aVÁZQUEZ-CARRILLO, M. F.
700 1 $aBENAOUDA, M.
700 1 $aGÓMEZ-BRAVO, C. A.
700 1 $aBOLOVICH, V. I. A.
700 1 $aCÉSPEDES, M. A. D.
700 1 $aASTIGARRAGA, L.
700 1 $aHRISTOV, A. N.
773 $tJournal of Cleaner Production$gv.312, 127693, 2021
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!!! |
|
|
