| |
|
|
|
Registro completo
|
|
Biblioteca (s) : |
INIA Las Brujas. |
|
Fecha : |
18/03/2022 |
|
Actualizado : |
18/03/2022 |
|
Tipo de producción científica : |
Capítulo en Libro Técnico-Científico |
|
Autor : |
CIGANDA, V.; GONZÁLEZ, I.; RODRÍGUEZ, P.; SIMÓN, C. |
|
Afiliación : |
VERONICA SOLANGE CIGANDA BRASCA, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; IBRAHIM MARTÍN GONZÁLEZ LOZANO, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; PAULA RODRÍGUEZ, Proyecto REDD+ Uruguay, MGAP-MA.; CLAUDIA SIMÓN, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay. |
|
Título : |
Bosque nativo y ganadería pastoril: percepción del sector productivo y posibilidades de integración. |
|
Fecha de publicación : |
2022 |
|
Fuente / Imprenta : |
In: Paruelo, J.; Ciganda, V.; Gasparri, I.; Paniiza, A. (eds.técnicos). Oportunidades y desafíos del uso de los bosques nativos integrados a la producción ganadera de Uruguay. Montevideo (UY): INIA, 2022. p.80-92. |
|
Serie : |
(INIA Serie Técnica; 261). |
|
ISBN : |
e-ISBN: 978-9974-38-470-5 |
|
ISSN : |
1688-9266 |
|
Idioma : |
Español |
|
Contenido : |
En Uruguay la utilización de áreas de bosque nativo (BN) en los sistemas de producción ganadera es una práctica común. Sin embargo, la zona geográfica y la proporción de la superficie que ocupa en los predios, así como el rubro principal de producción del sistema y el perfil del productor, pueden afectar la valoración de la importancia relativa que el BN representa para el productor y su sistema de producción. En este estudio los objetivos fueron (i) conocer los criterios de los productores ganaderos en cuanto a la definición o concepto de bosque nativo; (ii) identificar los principales usos del bosque nativo según lo expresado por los productores o responsables de los predios ganaderos; (iii) caracterizar los criterios de decisión y manejo sobre el bosque nativo; y (iv) conocer y describir la vinculación y utilización del marco regulatorio respecto al BN por el productor. |
|
Palabras claves : |
BOSQUE NATIVO; Percepción; PRODUCTOR. |
|
Thesagro : |
ENCUESTA; GANADERIA; MANEJO. |
|
Asunto categoría : |
A50 Investigación agraria |
|
URL : |
http://www.ainfo.inia.uy/digital/bitstream/item/16326/1/st-261-2022-p80-92.pdf
|
|
Marc : |
LEADER 01781naa a2200253 a 4500
001 1062867
005 2022-03-18
008 2022 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
022 $a1688-9266
100 1 $aCIGANDA, V.
245 $aBosque nativo y ganadería pastoril$bpercepción del sector productivo y posibilidades de integración.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2022
490 $a(INIA Serie Técnica; 261).
520 $aEn Uruguay la utilización de áreas de bosque nativo (BN) en los sistemas de producción ganadera es una práctica común. Sin embargo, la zona geográfica y la proporción de la superficie que ocupa en los predios, así como el rubro principal de producción del sistema y el perfil del productor, pueden afectar la valoración de la importancia relativa que el BN representa para el productor y su sistema de producción. En este estudio los objetivos fueron (i) conocer los criterios de los productores ganaderos en cuanto a la definición o concepto de bosque nativo; (ii) identificar los principales usos del bosque nativo según lo expresado por los productores o responsables de los predios ganaderos; (iii) caracterizar los criterios de decisión y manejo sobre el bosque nativo; y (iv) conocer y describir la vinculación y utilización del marco regulatorio respecto al BN por el productor.
650 $aENCUESTA
650 $aGANADERIA
650 $aMANEJO
653 $aBOSQUE NATIVO
653 $aPercepción
653 $aPRODUCTOR
700 1 $aGONZÁLEZ, I.
700 1 $aRODRÍGUEZ, P.
700 1 $aSIMÓN, C.
773 $tIn: Paruelo, J.; Ciganda, V.; Gasparri, I.; Paniiza, A. (eds.técnicos). Oportunidades y desafíos del uso de los bosques nativos integrados a la producción ganadera de Uruguay. Montevideo (UY): INIA, 2022. p.80-92.
Descargar
Esconder MarcPresentar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original : |
INIA Las Brujas (LB) |
|
|
Biblioteca
|
Identificación
|
Origen
|
Tipo / Formato
|
Clasificación
|
Cutter
|
Registro
|
Volumen
|
Estado
|
Volver
|
|
|
 | Acceso al texto completo restringido a Biblioteca INIA Treinta y Tres. Por información adicional contacte bibliott@inia.org.uy. |
|
Registro completo
|
|
Biblioteca (s) : |
INIA Treinta y Tres. |
|
Fecha actual : |
14/09/2017 |
|
Actualizado : |
13/09/2018 |
|
Tipo de producción científica : |
Artículos en Revistas Indexadas Internacionales |
|
Circulación / Nivel : |
A - A |
|
Autor : |
VIKRAM, A.; ROVIRA, P.J.; AGGA, G.E.; ARTHUR, T.M.; BOSILEVAC, J.M.; WHEELER, T.L.; MORLEY, P.S.; BELK, K.E.; SCHMIDT, J.W. |
|
Afiliación : |
AMIT VIKRAM, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, NE.; PABLO JUAN ROVIRA SANZ, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay. Department of Animal Sciences Colorado State University, CO, US.; GETHYM E. AGGA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, NE.; TERRANCE M. ARTHUR, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, NE.; JOSEPH M. BOSILEVAC, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, NE.; TOMMY L. WHEELER, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, NE.; PAUL S. MORLEY, Department of Animal Sciences Colorado State University, CO, US. Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Colorado State University, CO, US.; KEITH E. BELK, Department of Animal Sciences Colorado State University, CO, US.; JOHN W. SCHMIDT, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, NE. Department of Animal Sciences Colorado State University, CO, US. |
|
Título : |
Impact of "Raised Without Antibiotics" beef cattle production practices on occurrences of antimicrobial resistance. |
|
Fecha de publicación : |
2017 |
|
Fuente / Imprenta : |
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2017, v. 83, no. 22, e01682-17. |
|
DOI : |
10.1128/AEM.01682-17 |
|
Idioma : |
Inglés |
|
Notas : |
Article history: Accepted manuscript posted online 8 September 2017// published in november 2017. |
|
Contenido : |
The specific antimicrobial resistance (AMR) decreases that can be expected from reducing antimicrobial (AM) use in United States (US) beef production have not been defined. To address this data gap, feces were recovered from 36 lots of ?raised without antibiotics? (RWA) and 36 lots of ?conventional? (CONV) beef cattle. Samples (N = 719) were collected during harvest and distributed over a year. AMR was assessed by: i) culture of six AM-resistant bacteria (ARB); ii) qPCR for 10 AMR genes (ARGs); iii) an qPCR array of 84 ARGs; and iv) metagenomic sequencing. Generally, AMR levels were similar, but some were higher in CONV. The prevalence of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant (3GCr) Escherichia coli was marginally different between production systems (47.5 % CONV, 34.8% RWA, P = 0.04), but the seasonal effect (92.8% summer, 48.3% winter, P < 0.01) was greater. Erythromycin-resistant (ERYr) Enterococcus spp. concentrations significantly differed between production systems (CONV = 1.91 log10 CFU/g, RWA = 0.73 log10 CFU/g, P < 0.01). Levels of aadA1, ant(6)-I, blaACI, erm(A), erm(B), erm(C), erm(F), erm(Q), tet(A), tet(B), tet(M), and tet(X) ARGs were higher (P < 0.05) in CONV. Aggregate abundances of all 43 ARGs detected by metagenomic sequencing and the aggregate abundances of ARGs in the aminoglycoside, ?-lactam, macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B (MLSB), and tetracycline AM classes did not differ (log2 fold change < 1.0) between CONV and RWA. These results suggest that further reductions of AM use in US beef cattle production may not yield significant AMR reductions beyond MLSB and tetracycline resistance. MenosThe specific antimicrobial resistance (AMR) decreases that can be expected from reducing antimicrobial (AM) use in United States (US) beef production have not been defined. To address this data gap, feces were recovered from 36 lots of ?raised without antibiotics? (RWA) and 36 lots of ?conventional? (CONV) beef cattle. Samples (N = 719) were collected during harvest and distributed over a year. AMR was assessed by: i) culture of six AM-resistant bacteria (ARB); ii) qPCR for 10 AMR genes (ARGs); iii) an qPCR array of 84 ARGs; and iv) metagenomic sequencing. Generally, AMR levels were similar, but some were higher in CONV. The prevalence of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant (3GCr) Escherichia coli was marginally different between production systems (47.5 % CONV, 34.8% RWA, P = 0.04), but the seasonal effect (92.8% summer, 48.3% winter, P < 0.01) was greater. Erythromycin-resistant (ERYr) Enterococcus spp. concentrations significantly differed between production systems (CONV = 1.91 log10 CFU/g, RWA = 0.73 log10 CFU/g, P < 0.01). Levels of aadA1, ant(6)-I, blaACI, erm(A), erm(B), erm(C), erm(F), erm(Q), tet(A), tet(B), tet(M), and tet(X) ARGs were higher (P < 0.05) in CONV. Aggregate abundances of all 43 ARGs detected by metagenomic sequencing and the aggregate abundances of ARGs in the aminoglycoside, ?-lactam, macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B (MLSB), and tetracycline AM classes did not differ (log2 fold change < 1.0) between CONV and RWA. These results suggest tha... Presentar Todo |
|
Palabras claves : |
ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE; BACTERIAL CULTURE; BEEF CATTLE PRODUCTION; METAGENOMICS; RAISED WITHOUT ANTIBIOTICS. |
|
Asunto categoría : |
L73 Enfermedades de los animales |
|
Marc : |
LEADER 02646naa a2200301 a 4500
001 1057565
005 2018-09-13
008 2017 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
024 7 $a10.1128/AEM.01682-17$2DOI
100 1 $aVIKRAM, A.
245 $aImpact of "Raised Without Antibiotics" beef cattle production practices on occurrences of antimicrobial resistance.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2017
500 $aArticle history: Accepted manuscript posted online 8 September 2017// published in november 2017.
520 $aThe specific antimicrobial resistance (AMR) decreases that can be expected from reducing antimicrobial (AM) use in United States (US) beef production have not been defined. To address this data gap, feces were recovered from 36 lots of ?raised without antibiotics? (RWA) and 36 lots of ?conventional? (CONV) beef cattle. Samples (N = 719) were collected during harvest and distributed over a year. AMR was assessed by: i) culture of six AM-resistant bacteria (ARB); ii) qPCR for 10 AMR genes (ARGs); iii) an qPCR array of 84 ARGs; and iv) metagenomic sequencing. Generally, AMR levels were similar, but some were higher in CONV. The prevalence of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant (3GCr) Escherichia coli was marginally different between production systems (47.5 % CONV, 34.8% RWA, P = 0.04), but the seasonal effect (92.8% summer, 48.3% winter, P < 0.01) was greater. Erythromycin-resistant (ERYr) Enterococcus spp. concentrations significantly differed between production systems (CONV = 1.91 log10 CFU/g, RWA = 0.73 log10 CFU/g, P < 0.01). Levels of aadA1, ant(6)-I, blaACI, erm(A), erm(B), erm(C), erm(F), erm(Q), tet(A), tet(B), tet(M), and tet(X) ARGs were higher (P < 0.05) in CONV. Aggregate abundances of all 43 ARGs detected by metagenomic sequencing and the aggregate abundances of ARGs in the aminoglycoside, ?-lactam, macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B (MLSB), and tetracycline AM classes did not differ (log2 fold change < 1.0) between CONV and RWA. These results suggest that further reductions of AM use in US beef cattle production may not yield significant AMR reductions beyond MLSB and tetracycline resistance.
653 $aANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE
653 $aBACTERIAL CULTURE
653 $aBEEF CATTLE PRODUCTION
653 $aMETAGENOMICS
653 $aRAISED WITHOUT ANTIBIOTICS
700 1 $aROVIRA, P.J.
700 1 $aAGGA, G.E.
700 1 $aARTHUR, T.M.
700 1 $aBOSILEVAC, J.M.
700 1 $aWHEELER, T.L.
700 1 $aMORLEY, P.S.
700 1 $aBELK, K.E.
700 1 $aSCHMIDT, J.W.
773 $tApplied and Environmental Microbiology, 2017$gv. 83, no. 22, e01682-17.
Descargar
Esconder MarcPresentar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original : |
INIA Treinta y Tres (TT) |
|
|
Biblioteca
|
Identificación
|
Origen
|
Tipo / Formato
|
Clasificación
|
Cutter
|
Registro
|
Volumen
|
Estado
|
Volver
|
| Expresión de búsqueda válido. Check! |
|
|
