Beef cattle production in established integrated systems.
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2017 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) |
Texto Completo: | http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1080620 |
Resumo: | The aim of the current study is to assess three integrated systems presenting different eucalyptus tree densities due to animal and forage production. The following integrated systems were assessed: croplivestock- forest with 357 eucalyptus trees ha-1 (ICLF1); crop-livestock-forest with 227 eucalyptus trees ha-1 (ICLF2); and crop-livestock with 5 remnant native trees ha-1 (ICL). The randomized block experimental design was applied in a split-plot scheme with four replicates. The Average Daily Gain (ADG, g animal-1day-1) and the live-weight gain per area (LWG, kg ha-1) were applied to analyze animal performance, which was set by weighing the animals every 28 days (the animals previously fasted for 16h). Forage yield was higher in ICL during fall and winter; in summer, it did not differ from ICLF2. There was no forage yield difference between the ICL and ICLF2 systems in any of the assessed seasons; summer was more productive in ILPF1 than other seasons. The highest leaf crude protein contents (CP) in summer was recorded in systems ICLF1 and ICLF2, and the highest value recorded in fall was found in ILPF1; the lowest was found in ILP. On the other hand, the highest leaf NDF contents in summer were found in ILP. The highest ADG were found in summer. The highest LWG values recorded for the ICL and ICLF2 systems were collected in summer and fall; there was no difference in any of the three systems in winter. The LWG was higher in all system in summer. The ICLF2 emerged as the system (with trees) most appropriate for beef cattle production. Despite the shading interference on forage production, such condition is compensated by the best nutritional contents such as CP. The ICLF2 system allowing an annual LWG of 83% in relation to the ICL system during the fifth year of establishment of the systems. |
id |
EMBR_10ef0efa43f63d02f545077b93b0a1ad |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br:doc/1080620 |
network_acronym_str |
EMBR |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) |
repository_id_str |
2154 |
spelling |
Beef cattle production in established integrated systems.Tree densityIntegração lavoura-pecuária-florestaCapim-piatãDensidade de árvoreProdução de forragemEucaliptoEucalyptusForage yieldThe aim of the current study is to assess three integrated systems presenting different eucalyptus tree densities due to animal and forage production. The following integrated systems were assessed: croplivestock- forest with 357 eucalyptus trees ha-1 (ICLF1); crop-livestock-forest with 227 eucalyptus trees ha-1 (ICLF2); and crop-livestock with 5 remnant native trees ha-1 (ICL). The randomized block experimental design was applied in a split-plot scheme with four replicates. The Average Daily Gain (ADG, g animal-1day-1) and the live-weight gain per area (LWG, kg ha-1) were applied to analyze animal performance, which was set by weighing the animals every 28 days (the animals previously fasted for 16h). Forage yield was higher in ICL during fall and winter; in summer, it did not differ from ICLF2. There was no forage yield difference between the ICL and ICLF2 systems in any of the assessed seasons; summer was more productive in ILPF1 than other seasons. The highest leaf crude protein contents (CP) in summer was recorded in systems ICLF1 and ICLF2, and the highest value recorded in fall was found in ILPF1; the lowest was found in ILP. On the other hand, the highest leaf NDF contents in summer were found in ILP. The highest ADG were found in summer. The highest LWG values recorded for the ICL and ICLF2 systems were collected in summer and fall; there was no difference in any of the three systems in winter. The LWG was higher in all system in summer. The ICLF2 emerged as the system (with trees) most appropriate for beef cattle production. Despite the shading interference on forage production, such condition is compensated by the best nutritional contents such as CP. The ICLF2 system allowing an annual LWG of 83% in relation to the ICL system during the fifth year of establishment of the systems.Título em português: Produção de bovinos de corte em sistemas de integração estabelecidos.Érick Lemes Gamarra, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia - FAMEZ/ Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul - UFMSMaria da Graça Morais, Prof., UFMS/FAMEZ, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência AnimalROBERTO GIOLO DE ALMEIDA, CNPGCNatália Aguiar Paludetto, Analista Instrumental/Secretaria Municipal de Meio Ambiente, SEMMAMariana Pereira, FAMEZ/UFMSCaroline Carvalho de Oliveira, Discente de Doutorado em Ciência Animal, FAMEZ/UFMS.GAMARRA, E. L.MORAIS, M. da G.ALMEIDA, R. G. dePALUDETTO, N. A.PEREIRA, M.OLIVEIRA, C. C. de2017-11-23T23:22:58Z2017-11-23T23:22:58Z2017-11-2320172017-11-23T23:22:58Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleSemina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 38, n. 5, p. 3241-3252, set./out. 2017.http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1080620enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice)instname:Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)instacron:EMBRAPA2017-11-23T23:23:05Zoai:www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br:doc/1080620Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttps://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/oai/requestopendoar:21542017-11-23T23:23:05falseRepositório InstitucionalPUBhttps://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/oai/requestcg-riaa@embrapa.bropendoar:21542017-11-23T23:23:05Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Beef cattle production in established integrated systems. |
title |
Beef cattle production in established integrated systems. |
spellingShingle |
Beef cattle production in established integrated systems. GAMARRA, E. L. Tree density Integração lavoura-pecuária-floresta Capim-piatã Densidade de árvore Produção de forragem Eucalipto Eucalyptus Forage yield |
title_short |
Beef cattle production in established integrated systems. |
title_full |
Beef cattle production in established integrated systems. |
title_fullStr |
Beef cattle production in established integrated systems. |
title_full_unstemmed |
Beef cattle production in established integrated systems. |
title_sort |
Beef cattle production in established integrated systems. |
author |
GAMARRA, E. L. |
author_facet |
GAMARRA, E. L. MORAIS, M. da G. ALMEIDA, R. G. de PALUDETTO, N. A. PEREIRA, M. OLIVEIRA, C. C. de |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
MORAIS, M. da G. ALMEIDA, R. G. de PALUDETTO, N. A. PEREIRA, M. OLIVEIRA, C. C. de |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Érick Lemes Gamarra, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia - FAMEZ/ Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul - UFMS Maria da Graça Morais, Prof., UFMS/FAMEZ, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Animal ROBERTO GIOLO DE ALMEIDA, CNPGC Natália Aguiar Paludetto, Analista Instrumental/Secretaria Municipal de Meio Ambiente, SEMMA Mariana Pereira, FAMEZ/UFMS Caroline Carvalho de Oliveira, Discente de Doutorado em Ciência Animal, FAMEZ/UFMS. |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
GAMARRA, E. L. MORAIS, M. da G. ALMEIDA, R. G. de PALUDETTO, N. A. PEREIRA, M. OLIVEIRA, C. C. de |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Tree density Integração lavoura-pecuária-floresta Capim-piatã Densidade de árvore Produção de forragem Eucalipto Eucalyptus Forage yield |
topic |
Tree density Integração lavoura-pecuária-floresta Capim-piatã Densidade de árvore Produção de forragem Eucalipto Eucalyptus Forage yield |
description |
The aim of the current study is to assess three integrated systems presenting different eucalyptus tree densities due to animal and forage production. The following integrated systems were assessed: croplivestock- forest with 357 eucalyptus trees ha-1 (ICLF1); crop-livestock-forest with 227 eucalyptus trees ha-1 (ICLF2); and crop-livestock with 5 remnant native trees ha-1 (ICL). The randomized block experimental design was applied in a split-plot scheme with four replicates. The Average Daily Gain (ADG, g animal-1day-1) and the live-weight gain per area (LWG, kg ha-1) were applied to analyze animal performance, which was set by weighing the animals every 28 days (the animals previously fasted for 16h). Forage yield was higher in ICL during fall and winter; in summer, it did not differ from ICLF2. There was no forage yield difference between the ICL and ICLF2 systems in any of the assessed seasons; summer was more productive in ILPF1 than other seasons. The highest leaf crude protein contents (CP) in summer was recorded in systems ICLF1 and ICLF2, and the highest value recorded in fall was found in ILPF1; the lowest was found in ILP. On the other hand, the highest leaf NDF contents in summer were found in ILP. The highest ADG were found in summer. The highest LWG values recorded for the ICL and ICLF2 systems were collected in summer and fall; there was no difference in any of the three systems in winter. The LWG was higher in all system in summer. The ICLF2 emerged as the system (with trees) most appropriate for beef cattle production. Despite the shading interference on forage production, such condition is compensated by the best nutritional contents such as CP. The ICLF2 system allowing an annual LWG of 83% in relation to the ICL system during the fifth year of establishment of the systems. |
publishDate |
2017 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2017-11-23T23:22:58Z 2017-11-23T23:22:58Z 2017-11-23 2017 2017-11-23T23:22:58Z |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 38, n. 5, p. 3241-3252, set./out. 2017. http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1080620 |
identifier_str_mv |
Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 38, n. 5, p. 3241-3252, set./out. 2017. |
url |
http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1080620 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) instname:Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa) instacron:EMBRAPA |
instname_str |
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa) |
instacron_str |
EMBRAPA |
institution |
EMBRAPA |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
cg-riaa@embrapa.br |
_version_ |
1794503445140471808 |