4.1 Article

Ecoregion and farm-size differences in feed and manure nitrogen management: 1. Survey methods and results for poultry

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
卷 89, 期 1, 页码 1-19

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.4141/CJAS08054

关键词

Manure; best management practices; emissions; odor

资金

  1. National Agri-Environmental Health Analysis and Reporting Program - NAHARP
  2. National Agri-Environmental Standards Initiative - NAESI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sheppard, S.C., Bittman, S., Beaulieu, M. and Sheppard, M.I. 2009. Ecoregion and farm-size differences in feed and manure nitrogen management: 1. Survey methods and results for poultry. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 89; 1-19. Environmental issues related to agriculture, and especially to animal production are prominent in the regulatory agenda and are an area where the general public expects improvements. Many of the issues can be mitigated with changes in farm management practices. There is considerable potential for improvement, but before actions are recommended or mandated, it is important to document what are the current management practices and how they vary across the country and with farm size. This is the first of a series of papers that describes a large-scale livestock farm practices survey (LFPS) conducted across livestock farms in Canada, emphasizing manure nitrogen (N) management as it affects ammonia (NH3) emissions to the atmosphere. However, the survey results have much broader applicability. In this paper, the development of the survey and sampling strategy is described along with the results for the three main poultry sectors in Canada; broiler, layer and turkey. Husbandry in each poultry sector is generally uniform, but there were statistically significant regional differences in feeding practices and feed conversion efficiencies, and these imply differences in N excretion rates. Farm size was seldom significant as a covariate, suggesting that both small and large poultry farms have adopted similar husbandry and feeding practices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据