羚羊通道结构对牲畜限制的有效性

Bryan D. Gross, J. Holechek, D. Hallford, R. Pieper
{"title":"羚羊通道结构对牲畜限制的有效性","authors":"Bryan D. Gross, J. Holechek, D. Hallford, R. Pieper","doi":"10.2307/3897974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A study was conducted to test the restrictive efficiency of 5 antelope pass structures upon cattle and sheep. Cattle and sheep were placed under 3 stress situations, female water, female young, and male-female, to test fence restrictive ability of individual antelope pass structures. No single structure restricted all classes and types of livestock. Depending upon livestock class and type, proper selection and use of antelope pass structure will restrict livestock movement without severely restricting antelope movement. An 81.3-cm (32 in) net-wire fence most effectively restricted sheep, but cattle were most effectively restricted by a 2.4-m X 1.5-m (8 ft X 5 ft) horizontal grill. It appears that a horizontal grill within a fence line with certain modifications and placement constraints will effectively restrict sheep and cattle but permit antelope passage. Fencing has been a standard livestock management practice since cattle and sheep were first introduced on western ranges. The use of fences to divide rangelands into manageable areas can achieve important livestock management objectives. May (1968) summarized a number of key advantages of fencing western ranges. These include more uniform distribution of animals, protection of overgrazed or treated areas, segregation of livestock classes or types, increased forage production and reduction in handling of livestock. Certain fence designs, however, have the important disadvantage of restricting movement of some wild ungulate species. Wildlife managers recognize fencing as a major management problem associated with the pronghorn antelope. Certain fences can restrict pronghorn movements to obtain food and/ or water, or to escape harsh weather (Yoakum 1978, 1980). Russell (1951) included net-wire fences as an important factor contributing to reductions in pronghorn numbers throughout the West. Newman (1966) found that Wyoming antelope numbers decreased substantially when animals were restricted by livestock fences. Antelope that were not allowed free movement over a largearea were in poor condition and showed signs of starvation. Other studies noted similar results (Mapston 1972, Russell 1951). A variety of structures are presently employed on western ranges depending upon the operation, livestock type, and class. Sheep operators prefer net-wire fencing; operations involving cattle may require use of barbed wire for restrictive purposes. Mapston (1972) suggested that both net-wire and certain barbed wire fences can cause serious problems for antelope by restricting both movement and feed selection, Bear ( 1969) found that sheep fences, I. 1 m (44 in) in height will restrict nearly all antelope, while net-wire structures 8 I .3 cm (32 in) high will restrict only fawns. On cattle ranges where barbed-wire fences are common, antelope were less restricted but often injured during passage, which resulted in permanent crippling or death (Spillett 1965). In all cases it appears that standard livestock fences Authors are graduate research assistant, assistant professor. associate professor, and arofessor. Deoartment of Animaland Range Sciences. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces 8’8003. This report is Journal Article 836, Agricultural Experiment Station, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces. Funding for this research was provided by the Bureau of Land Management. Manuscript received April 27, 1981. 22 have some negative effect upon antelope. After reviewing several studies Yoakum (1978, 1980) suggested measures to be taken to reduce mortality from fencing. These included minimizing construction of net-wire fences, using barbed wire fences with a smooth bottom strand at least 41 cm (16 in) above the ground and no stays between posts, providing special pass structures such as lay-down panels or antelope jumps along heavily traveled pathways and/ or migration routes, and maintaining large areas. The development of a structure to solve the antelope/fence problem has become an important research objective but no definite answer has been found. Spillett et al. (1967) concluded from field observations and experiments that maximum height for any vertical structure intended for antelope passage should be no greater than 8 I .3 cm (32 in). Kerr ( 1968) documented frequent use of 8 I .3-cm passes in net-wire fences and areas where woven-wire was replaced by barbed wire. Spillett et al. (1967) recommended that where vertical structures are required for livestock restriction only smooth wire be used to reduce injuries to antelope. Several studies have shown antelope passage is more frequent on horizontal modified cattleguards (Bear 1969, Spillett 1965, Pate 1969, Mapston 1970). Observations of antelope utilizing cattleguards as a means of passage are numerous (Mapston et al. 1970, Spillett and Zobell 1967, Pate 1969, Spillett 1965, Zobell 1%8a, 1968b). These observations indicate that antelope commonly leap 1.8-m and 2.1-m (6 and 7 ft) cattleguards when the width of the structure is no less than 1.8 m (6 ft). Mapston (1968) and Pate (1969) found that these horizontal devices worked effectively even to the extent of allowing passage of l-month-old fawns. Studies by Bear (1969) Newman (1966), and Mapston (1968) have verified movement of antelope in and out of pastures with net-wire perimeter fences when experimental horizontal passes were present. These studies indicated that problems associated with antelope restriction by livestock fences can be solved by use of low vertical passes or, preferably, horizontal cattleguard devices. Since research and observation have shown that antelope can negotiate passage, the effectiveness of such pass structures in restricting livestock movement becomes a concern. A limited number of studies have dealt with this matter (Cole 1956, Spillett et al. 1967) but results were not conclusive. Bear (1969) found that, although several vertical structures adequately restricted livestock, these structures were different than recommended for antelope passage. Mapston et al. (1970) concluded that a I .8-m (6 ft) horizontal grill would serve to restrict most livestock movement without restricting antelope. Sheep were not always effectively restricted by any structure, however. The problem of developing structures which will restrict livestock, but not antelope, needs further investigation. The objective of this study was to test the restrictive efficiency of 5 antelope passes on sheep and cattle. Materials and Methods Four vertical panel structures (Fig. I) and one horizontal grill (Fig. 2) were selected for tests involving livestock. An 81.3~cm (32 in) vertical net-wire fence was used as a control. This structure is commonly used as a standard livestock fence for sheep. Two JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 36(l), January 1983","PeriodicalId":16918,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Range Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of Antelope Pass Structures in Restriction of Livestock\",\"authors\":\"Bryan D. Gross, J. Holechek, D. Hallford, R. Pieper\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/3897974\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A study was conducted to test the restrictive efficiency of 5 antelope pass structures upon cattle and sheep. Cattle and sheep were placed under 3 stress situations, female water, female young, and male-female, to test fence restrictive ability of individual antelope pass structures. No single structure restricted all classes and types of livestock. Depending upon livestock class and type, proper selection and use of antelope pass structure will restrict livestock movement without severely restricting antelope movement. An 81.3-cm (32 in) net-wire fence most effectively restricted sheep, but cattle were most effectively restricted by a 2.4-m X 1.5-m (8 ft X 5 ft) horizontal grill. It appears that a horizontal grill within a fence line with certain modifications and placement constraints will effectively restrict sheep and cattle but permit antelope passage. Fencing has been a standard livestock management practice since cattle and sheep were first introduced on western ranges. The use of fences to divide rangelands into manageable areas can achieve important livestock management objectives. May (1968) summarized a number of key advantages of fencing western ranges. These include more uniform distribution of animals, protection of overgrazed or treated areas, segregation of livestock classes or types, increased forage production and reduction in handling of livestock. Certain fence designs, however, have the important disadvantage of restricting movement of some wild ungulate species. Wildlife managers recognize fencing as a major management problem associated with the pronghorn antelope. Certain fences can restrict pronghorn movements to obtain food and/ or water, or to escape harsh weather (Yoakum 1978, 1980). Russell (1951) included net-wire fences as an important factor contributing to reductions in pronghorn numbers throughout the West. Newman (1966) found that Wyoming antelope numbers decreased substantially when animals were restricted by livestock fences. Antelope that were not allowed free movement over a largearea were in poor condition and showed signs of starvation. Other studies noted similar results (Mapston 1972, Russell 1951). A variety of structures are presently employed on western ranges depending upon the operation, livestock type, and class. Sheep operators prefer net-wire fencing; operations involving cattle may require use of barbed wire for restrictive purposes. Mapston (1972) suggested that both net-wire and certain barbed wire fences can cause serious problems for antelope by restricting both movement and feed selection, Bear ( 1969) found that sheep fences, I. 1 m (44 in) in height will restrict nearly all antelope, while net-wire structures 8 I .3 cm (32 in) high will restrict only fawns. On cattle ranges where barbed-wire fences are common, antelope were less restricted but often injured during passage, which resulted in permanent crippling or death (Spillett 1965). In all cases it appears that standard livestock fences Authors are graduate research assistant, assistant professor. associate professor, and arofessor. Deoartment of Animaland Range Sciences. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces 8’8003. This report is Journal Article 836, Agricultural Experiment Station, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces. Funding for this research was provided by the Bureau of Land Management. Manuscript received April 27, 1981. 22 have some negative effect upon antelope. After reviewing several studies Yoakum (1978, 1980) suggested measures to be taken to reduce mortality from fencing. These included minimizing construction of net-wire fences, using barbed wire fences with a smooth bottom strand at least 41 cm (16 in) above the ground and no stays between posts, providing special pass structures such as lay-down panels or antelope jumps along heavily traveled pathways and/ or migration routes, and maintaining large areas. The development of a structure to solve the antelope/fence problem has become an important research objective but no definite answer has been found. Spillett et al. (1967) concluded from field observations and experiments that maximum height for any vertical structure intended for antelope passage should be no greater than 8 I .3 cm (32 in). Kerr ( 1968) documented frequent use of 8 I .3-cm passes in net-wire fences and areas where woven-wire was replaced by barbed wire. Spillett et al. (1967) recommended that where vertical structures are required for livestock restriction only smooth wire be used to reduce injuries to antelope. Several studies have shown antelope passage is more frequent on horizontal modified cattleguards (Bear 1969, Spillett 1965, Pate 1969, Mapston 1970). Observations of antelope utilizing cattleguards as a means of passage are numerous (Mapston et al. 1970, Spillett and Zobell 1967, Pate 1969, Spillett 1965, Zobell 1%8a, 1968b). These observations indicate that antelope commonly leap 1.8-m and 2.1-m (6 and 7 ft) cattleguards when the width of the structure is no less than 1.8 m (6 ft). Mapston (1968) and Pate (1969) found that these horizontal devices worked effectively even to the extent of allowing passage of l-month-old fawns. Studies by Bear (1969) Newman (1966), and Mapston (1968) have verified movement of antelope in and out of pastures with net-wire perimeter fences when experimental horizontal passes were present. These studies indicated that problems associated with antelope restriction by livestock fences can be solved by use of low vertical passes or, preferably, horizontal cattleguard devices. Since research and observation have shown that antelope can negotiate passage, the effectiveness of such pass structures in restricting livestock movement becomes a concern. A limited number of studies have dealt with this matter (Cole 1956, Spillett et al. 1967) but results were not conclusive. Bear (1969) found that, although several vertical structures adequately restricted livestock, these structures were different than recommended for antelope passage. Mapston et al. (1970) concluded that a I .8-m (6 ft) horizontal grill would serve to restrict most livestock movement without restricting antelope. Sheep were not always effectively restricted by any structure, however. The problem of developing structures which will restrict livestock, but not antelope, needs further investigation. The objective of this study was to test the restrictive efficiency of 5 antelope passes on sheep and cattle. Materials and Methods Four vertical panel structures (Fig. I) and one horizontal grill (Fig. 2) were selected for tests involving livestock. An 81.3~cm (32 in) vertical net-wire fence was used as a control. This structure is commonly used as a standard livestock fence for sheep. Two JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 36(l), January 1983\",\"PeriodicalId\":16918,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Range Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Range Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/3897974\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Range Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3897974","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

研究了5种羚羊通道结构对牛羊的限制效率。将牛羊分别置于母水、母幼和公母3种应激情境下,测试羚羊个体通道结构的围栏限制能力。没有单一的结构限制所有类别和类型的牲畜。根据牲畜的类别和类型,正确选择和使用羚羊通道结构,可以限制牲畜的活动,但不会严重限制羚羊的活动。81.3厘米(32英寸)的铁丝网最有效地限制了羊,但牛最有效地限制在2.4米× 1.5米(8英尺× 5英尺)的水平格栅上。在围栏线内设置水平格栅,经过一定的修改和放置限制,将有效地限制牛羊,但允许羚羊通过。自从牛羊首次被引入西部牧场以来,围栏一直是标准的牲畜管理实践。使用围栏将牧场划分为可管理的区域可以实现重要的牲畜管理目标。May(1968)总结了西部牧场围栏的一些关键优势。这些措施包括更均匀地分布动物、保护过度放牧或处理过的地区、隔离牲畜类别或类型、增加饲料产量和减少处理牲畜。然而,某些围栏设计具有限制某些野生有蹄类动物活动的重要缺点。野生动物管理人员认识到围栏是与叉角羚相关的一个主要管理问题。某些栅栏可以限制叉角羚获取食物和/或水或躲避恶劣天气的活动(Yoakum 1978, 1980)。Russell(1951)认为,铁丝网围栏是导致整个西部叉角羚数量减少的一个重要因素。Newman(1966)发现,当动物被牲畜围栏限制时,怀俄明羚羊的数量大幅减少。不允许在大范围内自由活动的羚羊状况不佳,并显示出饥饿的迹象。其他研究也指出了类似的结果(Mapston 1972, Russell 1951)。目前在西部牧场,根据操作、牲畜类型和等级,采用了多种结构。牧羊人更喜欢铁丝网围栏;涉及牛的操作可能需要使用带刺铁丝用于限制性目的。Mapston(1972)认为,铁丝网和某些有刺铁丝网的栅栏都可能对羚羊造成严重的问题,因为它们限制了羚羊的活动和饲料选择。Bear(1969)发现,1米(44英寸)高的羊围栏几乎限制了所有的羚羊,而8厘米(32英寸)高的铁丝网结构只限制了小鹿。在有带刺铁丝围栏的牧区,羚羊受到的限制较少,但在迁徙过程中经常受伤,导致永久性残疾或死亡(Spillett 1965)。在所有情况下,似乎标准的牲畜围栏作者是研究生研究助理,助理教授。副教授和教授。动物与牧场科学系。新墨西哥州立大学,拉斯克鲁塞斯88003。本报告发表于拉斯克鲁塞斯新墨西哥州立大学农业实验站期刊第836篇。这项研究的资金由土地管理局提供。1981年4月27日收稿。22对羚羊有一些负面影响。在回顾了几项研究后,Yoakum(1978, 1980)建议采取措施减少围栏造成的死亡率。这些措施包括尽量减少建造铁丝网围栏,使用底部光滑的铁丝网围栏,至少高出地面41厘米(16英寸),柱子之间没有停留物,提供特殊的通道结构,如铺设板或羚羊跳跃,沿着人迹罕至的道路和/或迁徙路线,并保持大面积。开发一种结构来解决羚羊/围栏问题已经成为一个重要的研究目标,但没有找到明确的答案。Spillett等人(1967)从实地观察和实验中得出结论,任何用于羚羊通道的垂直结构的最大高度不应超过8.3厘米(32英寸)。Kerr(1968)记录了在铁丝网围栏和编织铁丝网被倒刺铁丝网取代的地区频繁使用8 - 0.3厘米的通道。Spillett等人(1967)建议,在需要垂直结构来限制牲畜的地方,只使用光滑的金属丝来减少对羚羊的伤害。几项研究表明,羚羊在水平改良的围栏上通行更为频繁(Bear 1969, Spillett 1965, Pate 1969, Mapston 1970)。对羚羊利用看守作为通行手段的观察有很多(Mapston et al. 1970, Spillett and Zobell 1967, Pate 1969, Spillett 1965, Zobell 1968b)。这些观察结果表明,羚羊通常跳跃1.8米和2米。 当结构宽度不小于1.8米(6英尺)时,1米(6英尺和7英尺)的护牛栏。Mapston(1968)和Pate(1969)发现,这些水平装置甚至在允许1个月大的小鹿通过的程度上有效。Bear(1969年)、Newman(1966年)和Mapston(1968年)的研究已经证实,当实验水平通道存在时,羚羊在有铁丝网围篱的牧场内外的运动。这些研究表明,牲畜围栏限制羚羊的相关问题可以通过使用低垂直通道或最好是水平围栏装置来解决。由于研究和观察表明羚羊可以通过通道,这种通道结构在限制牲畜运动方面的有效性成为一个问题。有限数量的研究处理了这个问题(Cole 1956, Spillett et al. 1967),但结果不是结论性的。Bear(1969)发现,尽管一些垂直结构充分限制了牲畜,但这些结构与羚羊通道的推荐结构不同。Mapston等人(1970)得出结论,1.8米(6英尺)的水平格栅将有助于限制大多数牲畜的活动,而不会限制羚羊。然而,绵羊并不总是受到任何结构的有效限制。开发限制牲畜(但不包括羚羊)的结构的问题需要进一步调查。本研究的目的是测试5种羚羊对绵羊和牛的限制性效率。材料与方法选择4个垂直面板结构(图1)和1个水平格栅结构(图2)进行家畜试验。采用81.3~cm (32 in)的垂直网丝围栏作为对照。这种结构通常被用作绵羊的标准牲畜围栏。《牧场管理杂志》第36期,1983年1月
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effectiveness of Antelope Pass Structures in Restriction of Livestock
A study was conducted to test the restrictive efficiency of 5 antelope pass structures upon cattle and sheep. Cattle and sheep were placed under 3 stress situations, female water, female young, and male-female, to test fence restrictive ability of individual antelope pass structures. No single structure restricted all classes and types of livestock. Depending upon livestock class and type, proper selection and use of antelope pass structure will restrict livestock movement without severely restricting antelope movement. An 81.3-cm (32 in) net-wire fence most effectively restricted sheep, but cattle were most effectively restricted by a 2.4-m X 1.5-m (8 ft X 5 ft) horizontal grill. It appears that a horizontal grill within a fence line with certain modifications and placement constraints will effectively restrict sheep and cattle but permit antelope passage. Fencing has been a standard livestock management practice since cattle and sheep were first introduced on western ranges. The use of fences to divide rangelands into manageable areas can achieve important livestock management objectives. May (1968) summarized a number of key advantages of fencing western ranges. These include more uniform distribution of animals, protection of overgrazed or treated areas, segregation of livestock classes or types, increased forage production and reduction in handling of livestock. Certain fence designs, however, have the important disadvantage of restricting movement of some wild ungulate species. Wildlife managers recognize fencing as a major management problem associated with the pronghorn antelope. Certain fences can restrict pronghorn movements to obtain food and/ or water, or to escape harsh weather (Yoakum 1978, 1980). Russell (1951) included net-wire fences as an important factor contributing to reductions in pronghorn numbers throughout the West. Newman (1966) found that Wyoming antelope numbers decreased substantially when animals were restricted by livestock fences. Antelope that were not allowed free movement over a largearea were in poor condition and showed signs of starvation. Other studies noted similar results (Mapston 1972, Russell 1951). A variety of structures are presently employed on western ranges depending upon the operation, livestock type, and class. Sheep operators prefer net-wire fencing; operations involving cattle may require use of barbed wire for restrictive purposes. Mapston (1972) suggested that both net-wire and certain barbed wire fences can cause serious problems for antelope by restricting both movement and feed selection, Bear ( 1969) found that sheep fences, I. 1 m (44 in) in height will restrict nearly all antelope, while net-wire structures 8 I .3 cm (32 in) high will restrict only fawns. On cattle ranges where barbed-wire fences are common, antelope were less restricted but often injured during passage, which resulted in permanent crippling or death (Spillett 1965). In all cases it appears that standard livestock fences Authors are graduate research assistant, assistant professor. associate professor, and arofessor. Deoartment of Animaland Range Sciences. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces 8’8003. This report is Journal Article 836, Agricultural Experiment Station, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces. Funding for this research was provided by the Bureau of Land Management. Manuscript received April 27, 1981. 22 have some negative effect upon antelope. After reviewing several studies Yoakum (1978, 1980) suggested measures to be taken to reduce mortality from fencing. These included minimizing construction of net-wire fences, using barbed wire fences with a smooth bottom strand at least 41 cm (16 in) above the ground and no stays between posts, providing special pass structures such as lay-down panels or antelope jumps along heavily traveled pathways and/ or migration routes, and maintaining large areas. The development of a structure to solve the antelope/fence problem has become an important research objective but no definite answer has been found. Spillett et al. (1967) concluded from field observations and experiments that maximum height for any vertical structure intended for antelope passage should be no greater than 8 I .3 cm (32 in). Kerr ( 1968) documented frequent use of 8 I .3-cm passes in net-wire fences and areas where woven-wire was replaced by barbed wire. Spillett et al. (1967) recommended that where vertical structures are required for livestock restriction only smooth wire be used to reduce injuries to antelope. Several studies have shown antelope passage is more frequent on horizontal modified cattleguards (Bear 1969, Spillett 1965, Pate 1969, Mapston 1970). Observations of antelope utilizing cattleguards as a means of passage are numerous (Mapston et al. 1970, Spillett and Zobell 1967, Pate 1969, Spillett 1965, Zobell 1%8a, 1968b). These observations indicate that antelope commonly leap 1.8-m and 2.1-m (6 and 7 ft) cattleguards when the width of the structure is no less than 1.8 m (6 ft). Mapston (1968) and Pate (1969) found that these horizontal devices worked effectively even to the extent of allowing passage of l-month-old fawns. Studies by Bear (1969) Newman (1966), and Mapston (1968) have verified movement of antelope in and out of pastures with net-wire perimeter fences when experimental horizontal passes were present. These studies indicated that problems associated with antelope restriction by livestock fences can be solved by use of low vertical passes or, preferably, horizontal cattleguard devices. Since research and observation have shown that antelope can negotiate passage, the effectiveness of such pass structures in restricting livestock movement becomes a concern. A limited number of studies have dealt with this matter (Cole 1956, Spillett et al. 1967) but results were not conclusive. Bear (1969) found that, although several vertical structures adequately restricted livestock, these structures were different than recommended for antelope passage. Mapston et al. (1970) concluded that a I .8-m (6 ft) horizontal grill would serve to restrict most livestock movement without restricting antelope. Sheep were not always effectively restricted by any structure, however. The problem of developing structures which will restrict livestock, but not antelope, needs further investigation. The objective of this study was to test the restrictive efficiency of 5 antelope passes on sheep and cattle. Materials and Methods Four vertical panel structures (Fig. I) and one horizontal grill (Fig. 2) were selected for tests involving livestock. An 81.3~cm (32 in) vertical net-wire fence was used as a control. This structure is commonly used as a standard livestock fence for sheep. Two JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 36(l), January 1983
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Grasses and Grassland Farming The Study of Plant Communities: An Introduction to Plant Ecology Research observation: Daily movement patterns of hill climbing and bottom dwelling cowsfull access The rangelands of the Sahel. Estimating Cattle Gains from Consumption of Digestible Forage on Ponderosa Pine Range (La Estimacion de Ganancias del Ganado Bovino por el Consumo de Forraje Digestible)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1