Предлагаем ознакомиться с тематической подборкой статей, посвященной агропромышленной выставке «Белагро — 2021», которая пройдет 1-5 июня в парке «Великий камень».
Фрагмент статьи
…. Honeybees living in large colonies are prone to the rapid spreading of pathogens among individuals due to high population density and high contact rates. Trophallaxis (mouth-to-mouth food sharing) is considered a routine behavior that facilitates pathogen transmission [[12]]. For example, trophallaxis may be the predominant mechanism of horizontal viral transmission. Nurse bees infected with viruses can transmit them to the larvae via trophallaxis since they rely heavily on nurses’ tending and feeding. The transmission route is supported by the detection of viruses, such as deformed wing virus (DWV) [[14]], sacbrood virus (SBV) [[15]], and Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV) [[16]], in larval food. In addition, the detection of viruses in the hypopharyngeal gland of infected worker bees was demonstrated for acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV) [[17]], SBV [[18]], and IAPV [[16]], implying a possible foodborne transmission route driven by trophallaxis….
Фрагмент статьи
It should be noted that independent from bee health wax adulteration is not acceptable due to the quality of bee products and responsibility for consumer. The quality of the wax foundation should be the focus of special attention of beekeepers, as they resettle colonies only on frames with a wax foundation or on combs built on a wax foundation in the honey super. Particular attention to the quality of wax should also be paid by beekeepers rearing queens in beeswax cups. Our investigations show that stearin-adulterated wax is not suitable for rearing bee queens. Therefore, in case of any doubt about the quality of wax, the use of artificial cups seems to be the best solution.
It is puzzling why larvae developed in some STCombs cells but died in adjacent ones. This may be related to the uneven mixing of wax and stearin, although replacement of adulterated wax with pure wax by bees seems more probable.
Фрагмент статьи
…. Marked differences were noted in feed intake and, ultimately, in growth between the females and castrates despite ad libitum feed access. Ruiz-Ascacibar et al. (2017) observed similar differences in feed intake between the two sexes under the same experimental conditions. Those authors hypothesised that the cause of the reduced feed intake might be the dominance of castrates over the females when sharing group pens equipped with single-space feeders. The feeding behaviour data confirmed this hypothesis, as the females displayed shorter feeder visits and smaller feed intakes per visit when compared with the castrates. This difference was more evident in the finisher than in the grower period and reinforced the fact that dominance issues became more evident with increasing BW….
Compared to the grower phase, females spent, on average, 4.6 min less time in ingesting the greater amount of feed, whereas the castrates spent a similar amount (+ 0.1 min) of time at the feeder and their number of feeder visits was 34% lower, on average. To compensate, the castrated pigs stayed 1.5 times as long and ingested 2.6 times more feed per visit, whereas the rate of feed intake increased at a similar rate in females (1.9-fold) and in castrates (1.7-fold). The greater meal size per visit for the castrates might explain the greater between-meal intervals in the finisher than in the grower period.
Фрагмент статьи
….In the Southern hemisphere, government extension agents and crop advisors unaffiliated with the pesticide industry are seen to have low status because of their comparatively limited operational funds (Teoh and Ooi 1986). For many of these actors, sectoral bureaucracies further impede their work (Untung 1995). These are part of the human or institutional mechanisms that keep pesticide use locked into pest management routines (Spangenberg et al. 2015). Finally, the institutional reconfiguration of universities and the accompanying decline in public interest science should be of concern to all (Warner et al. 2011). Since its heydays in the 1960s, biological control science (as a key constituent of IPM) has been removed from core curricula in the University of California (UC) system while favouring more “fancy,” prestigious disciplines such as transgenic engineering. Conversely, many countries in the Southern hemisphere continue to lag behind their northern counterparts in building the necessary institutional capacity on public interest science domains that underpin IPM and agroecology….
Фрагмент статьи
…. The different longevity metrics can be classified as stayability metrics or lifetime metrics. Stayability metrics have a binary nature and indicate if a dairy cow is alive at a given moment in time [32] and can be updated as the animal grows. An example would be if the cows reach the third or greater lactation [25–27]. Even though such metrics do not provide a complete picture of cow longevity, one of their advantages is that they can be measured at any time [32]. On the other hand, lifetime metrics take into account the completed life stages of the animals [32]. For example, the life of a dairy cow can be split into early life (non-productive) and productive stages (Figure 2) from a production perspective. Based on that, longevity can be measured as the length of the productive life of a dairy cow [29,30]. Since lifetime metrics take into account the entire stage of life, they can only be calculated when such a stage is completed, which is one of the main limitations of such metrics. Most lifetime metrics of dairy cow longevity do not specifically account for the early life stage (Figure 2), since they typically have first calving as the starting point. The longevity index (Table 1) is a proposed metric that overcomes such limitation by taking into account both the length of life of an animal and the length of time spent on producing milk [28]; therefore, accounting for the entire non-productive period of life (early life stage) and days dry of a dairy animal….
Фрагмент статьи
…. Spraying low-volume agrichemicals using UAVs at low flight altitude differs from both conventional manned aerial applications and ground equipment-based applications[8] . The rotation of the rotor and the interaction of the air provide the necessary lift for the airframe, and they produce downward airflow that can assist the movement of spray droplets into the crop canopy, which can enhance deposition and reduce drift[29-31] . A strong eddy current field is therefore generated in the rotor flow field, and it presents a cone-like vortex[32,33] (Figure 2). However, vortices that are generated by the rotor tips can cause pesticide droplets to be lifted above the aircraft, increasing the potential for drift. These effects have been the focus of numerous studies about the downwash flow field through the use of spatial quality balance, numerical analysis and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations, a few of which are discussed in the following section….