Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering

ISSN 2095-7505

ISSN 2095-977X(Online)

CN 10-1204/S

Postal Subscription Code 80-906

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.    2021, Vol. 8 Issue (1) : 58-71    https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2020371
RESEARCH ARTICLE
NUTRIENT USE EFFICIENCY AND LOSSES OF INDUSTRIAL FARMS AND MIXED SMALLHOLDINGS: LESSONS FROM THE NORTH CHINA PLAIN
Yifei MA1,2, Ling ZHANG1, Zhaohai BAI2, Rongfeng JIANG1, Yong HOU1(), Lin MA2
1. College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, National Academy of Agriculture Green Development, Key Laboratory of Plant-Soil Interactions (Ministry of Education), China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.
2. Key Laboratory of Agricultural Water Resources, Center for Agricultural Resources Research, Hebei Key Laboratory of Water-Saving Agriculture, Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shijiazhuang 050021, China.
 Download: PDF(646 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

• Degree of integration of crop and livestock was insufficient on mixed smallholdings.

• Liquid manure discharges on industrial farms hamper the closing of nutrient loops.

• Coupling with local crop farms is encouraged to achieve integration of crop-livestock systems.

The proportion of industrial livestock in China has increased over the past 30 years, which increases animal performance but causes the decoupling of crop and livestock production. Here, we aimed to quantify nutrient flows, nutrient use efficiency, and nutrient losses in different livestock systems in the North China Plain based on the NUFER-farm model. Activity data were collected by face-to-face surveys on pig and dairy (41 livestock farms) during 2016–2018. The two systems included industrial farms and mixed smallholdings. In mixed smallholdings, 4.0% and 9.6% of pig and dairy feed dry matter (DM) were derived from household farmland, but 4.8% and 9.3% of manure DM recycled to household farmland. Nutrient use efficiency in industrial farms was higher than in mixed smallholdings at animal level, herd level, and system level. To produce 1 kg N and P in animal products, nutrient losses in industrial pig farms (2.0 kg N and 1.3 kg P) were lower than in mixed pig smallholdings, nutrient losses in industrial dairy farms (2.7 kg N and 2.2 kg P) were slightly higher than in mixed dairy smallholdings. Liquid manure discharge in industrial farms was the main losses pathway in contrast to mixed smallholdings. This study suggests that feed localization can reduce nutrient surpluses at the district level. It is necessary to improve manure management and increase the degree of integrated crop-livestock in smallholdings. In industrial farms, it is desirable to increase the liquid manure recycling ratio through cooperating livestock and crop production at the district level.
Keywords industrial farms      mixed smallholdings      pig      dairy      nutrient management     
Corresponding Author(s): Yong HOU   
Just Accepted Date: 27 November 2020   Online First Date: 08 January 2021    Issue Date: 29 March 2021
 Cite this article:   
Yifei MA,Ling ZHANG,Zhaohai BAI, et al. NUTRIENT USE EFFICIENCY AND LOSSES OF INDUSTRIAL FARMS AND MIXED SMALLHOLDINGS: LESSONS FROM THE NORTH CHINA PLAIN[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2021, 8(1): 58-71.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/10.15302/J-FASE-2020371
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/Y2021/V8/I1/58
Characteristic Industrial pig farms Mixed pig smallholdings Industrial dairy farms Mixed dairy smallholding
Number of farms 24 8 4 5
Cultivated crop area/ha 0 0.52 0 15
Number of animals/LUa 275 (slaughtered) 136 (slaughtered) 1400 (stock) 114 (stock)
FPCM/(kg·LU−1·yr−1)b – – 7288 6276
Feed/meat ratio/(kg·kg−1) 2.8 3.5 – –
Housing floor type/%c
Solid cement floor 96 100 75 60
Slatted cement floor 4 0 25 0
Soil 0 0 0 40
Collection frequency/%
Twice per day 92 54 75 0
Less than twice per day 8 46 25 100
Manure storage/%
Solid manure
Aboveground covered 0 40 50 0
Aboveground uncovered 0 60 50 100
Slurry or liquid manure
Underground covered 0 0 0 0
Underground uncovered 0 100 0 100
Manure treatment/%
Slurry or liquid manure
Anaerobic digestion 20 0 25 0
Oxidation pond 80 0 75 0
Solid manure
Composting 100 0 0 0
Manure return to household cropland
N/(kg·ha−1) 0 370 0 230
P/(kg·ha−1) 0 71 0 25
Land use of sold and discharge manure/had 17 7 247 31
Tab.1  Characteristics of different livestock production systems based on survey data (adapted from Ma[15])
Fig.1  Research system boundary and nutrient flow of crop-livestock systems at different levels: (a) animal level, (b) herd level, and (c) system level (adapted from Ma[15]).
Item Nutrient Pig Dairy cattle
Meat/% N 1.5 2.8
P 0.18 0.17
Bone/% N 1.9 1.8
P 3.3 4.2
Other/% N 2.2 2.2
P 0.07 0.01
FPCM/% N – 0.52
P – 0.09
Tab.2  Nutrient contents of livestock animal products (adapted from Ma[15])
Emission factor Hebei province
Biological nitrogen fixation (kg·ha−1 N) 19
Deposition (kg·ha−1 N) 33
NH3-N of synthetic fertilizer/% 25
N2O-N of synthetic fertilizer/% 1.1
NH3-N of applied manure/% 25
N2O-N of applied manure/% 1.0
Runoff and erosion of total N input/% 4.8
Leaching (NO3−-N) of N surplus/% 19
N2-N of N surplus/% 15
Accumulation of N surplus/% 66
Runoff and erosion of total P input/% 2.6
Leaching of P surplus/% 0.15
Accumulation of P surplus/% 99.8
Tab.3  Emission factors in crop production systems
Manure management stage NH3-N/% N2O-N/% N2-N/%
Pig Dairy cattle Pig Dairy cattle Pig Dairy cattle
Housing Solid cement floor 18 23 0.5 0.5 5.0 5.0
Slatted cement floor 15 15 0.5 0.5 5.0 5.0
Soil 20 26 0.5 0.5 5.0 5.0
Storage Aboveground covered 6 15 0.5 2.0 5.0 10
Aboveground uncovered 30 17 0.5 0.5 5.0 5.0
Underground covered 4 14 0.5 3.0 5.0 15
Underground uncovered 20 17 0.5 0.5 5.0 5.0
Treatment Anaerobic digestion 10 22 0.5 0.5 5.0 5.0
Oxidation pond 20 26 0.5 0.25 5.0 5.0
Composting 30 26 0.5 0.25 5.0 5.0
Tab.4  NH3, N2O, and N2 emission factors of manure storage, storage, and treatment in livestock systems (adapted from Ma[15])
Fig.2  Feed source and manure distribution from (a) pig and (b) dairy production systems (adapted from Ma[15]).
Fig.3  Nutrient use efficiency (a) and nutrient losses (b) in mixed pig smallholdings and industrial pig farms.
Input and output Nutrient flow N (kg N per kg product N) P (kg P per kg product P)
Industrial pig farms Mixed pig smallholdings Industrial pig farms Mixed pig smallholdings
Animal level
Input Feed 3.1±0.31 3.6±0.96 2.5±0.27 2.8±0.35
Output Pork 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Manure excretion 2.1±0.51 2.6±0.79 1.5±0.17 1.8±0.42
Herd level
Input Feed 3.2±0.57 5.6±1.12 2.9±0.38 3.8±1.03
Output Pork 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Manure excretion 2.2±0.65 4.6±0.98 1.9±0.28 2.8±1.01
System level
Input Import feed 3.2±0.57 5.1±1.16 2.9±0.38 3.3±0.82
Synthetic fertilizer 0 0.60±0.08 0 0.30±0.09
Others 0 0.20±0.05 0 0
Output Crop products and residues 0 0.35±0.06 0 0.05±0.01
Pork 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Manure export 2.2±0.65 4.2±0.59 1.9±0.28 2.4±0.31
Crop losses 0 0.25±0.03 0 0.02±0.005
Recycle Household feed 0 0.50±0.08 0 0.50±0.08
Manure recycle 0 0.40±0.05 0 0.40±0.07
Accumulation 0 0.30±0.11 0 0.16±0.09
Tab.5  N and P flows in mixed pig smallholdings and industrial pig farms (mean values±standard deviation for each farm type) (adapted from Ma[15])
Fig.4  Nutrient use efficiency (a) and nutrient losses (b) in mixed dairy smallholdings and industrial dairy farms.
Input and output Nutrient flow N (kg N per kg product N) P (kg P per kg product P)
Industrial dairy farms Mixed dairy smallholdings Industrial dairy farms Mixed dairy smallholdings
Animal level
Input Feed 3.6±0.64 4.5±0.27 3.3±0.56 4.3±0.63
Output Milk 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Manure excretion 2.6±0.24 3.5±0.85 2.3±0.39 3.3±0.76
Herd level
Input Feed 4.3±0.53 6.7±0.44 3.8±0.67 7.1±0.86
Output Milk and meat 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Manure excretion 3.3±0.14 5.7±0.27 2.8±0.71 6.1±1.24
System level
Input Imported feed 4.3±0.53 6.4±0.43 3.8±0.67 6.5±1.65
Synthetic fertilizer 0 0.50±0.09 0 0.60±0.04
Others 0 0.10±0.01 0 0
Output Crop products and residues 0 0.4±0.12 0 0.57±0.05
Milk and meat 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Manure export 3.3±0.14 4.9±0.29 2.8±0.71 5.1±1.08
Crop losses 0 0.20±0.02 0 0.07±0.01
Recycled Household feed 0 0.30±0.04 0 0.61±0.11
Manure recycled 0 0.77±0.11 0 1.0±0.13
Accumulation 0 0.63±0.07 0 0.40±0.10
Tab.6  N and P flows in mixed dairy smallholdings and industrial dairy farms (mean values±standard deviation for each farm type) (adapted from Ma[15])
Fig.5  Impact of changes in emission factor on nitrogen losses in pig and dairy cattle production systems.
1 Z Bai, L Ma, S Jin, W Ma, G L Velthof, O Oenema, L Liu, D Chadwick, F Zhang. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium flows through the manure management chain in China. Environmental Science & Technology, 2016, 50(24): 13409–13418
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b03348 pmid: 27993054
2 Z H Bai, L Ma, W Qin, Q Chen, O Oenema, F S Zhang. Changes in pig production in China and their effects on nitrogen and phosphorus use and losses. Environmental Science & Technology, 2014, 48(21): 12742–12749
https://doi.org/10.1021/es502160v pmid: 25292109
3 Z H Bai, L Ma, O Oenema, Q Chen, F S Zhang. Nitrogen and phosphorus use efficiencies in dairy production in china. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2013, 42(4): 990–1001
https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2012.0464 pmid: 24216351
4 Z Bai, W Ma, L Ma, G L Velthof, Z Wei, P Havlík, O Oenema, M R F Lee, F Zhang. China’s livestock transition: driving forces, impacts, and consequences. Science Advances, 2018, 4(7): eaar8534
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar8534 pmid: 30035221
5 M Strokal, C Kroeze, M Wang, Z Bai, L Ma. The MARINA model (Model to Assess River Inputs of Nutrients to seAs): model description and results for China. Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 562: 869–888
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.071 pmid: 27115624
6 Z Bai, X Li, J Lu, X Wang, G L Velthof, D Chadwick, J Luo, S Ledgard, Z Wu, S Jin, O Oenema, L Ma, C Hu. Livestock housing and manure storage need to be improved in China. Environmental Science & Technology, 2017, 51(15): 8212–8214
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02672 pmid: 28731333
7 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. China Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Yearbook. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2018 (in Chinese)
8 Y S Cheng, C S Hu, S Y Chen, Y P Lei, H J Li. Design and case study of the operational system of precision planting. Nongye Gongcheng Xuebao (Beijing), 2004, 20(6): 149–154 (in Chinese)
9 J J Schröder, H F M Aarts, H F M ten Berge, H van Keulen, J J Neeteson. An evaluation of whole-farm nitrogen balances and related indices for efficient nitrogen use. European Journal of Agronomy, 2003, 20(1–2): 33–44
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(03)00070-4
10 P Tittonell, M T van Wijk, M C Rufino, J A Vrugt, K E Giller. Analysing trade-offs in resource and labour allocation by smallholder farms using inverse modelling techniques: a case-study from Kakamega district, western Kenya. Agricultural Systems, 2007, 95(1–3): 76–95
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2007.04.002
11 G J Hilhorst, J Oenema, H Van Keulen. Nitrogen management on experimental dairy farm ‘De Marke’; farming system, objectives and results. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 2001, 49(2–3): 135–151
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-5214(01)80003-8
12 H F M Aarts, B Habekotté, H van Keulen. Nitrogen (N) management in the ‘De Marke’ dairy farming system. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2000, 56(3): 231–240
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009885419512
13 H F M Aarts. Resource management in a ‘De Marke’ dairy farming system. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen University, 2000
14 Z Q Zhao, Z H Bai, S Wei, W Q Ma, M R Wang, C Kroeze, L Ma. Modeling farm nutrient flows in the North China Plain to reduce nutrient losses. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2017, 108(2): 231–244
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-017-9856-8
15 Y F Ma. Nitrogen and phosphorus flows characteristics in “soil–crop–livestock” system in the typical county in North China Plain. Dissertation for the Master’s Degree. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2015 (in Chinese)
16 E Vida, D E A Tedesco. The carbon footprint of integrated milk production and renewable energy systems—a case study. Science of the Total Environment, 2017, 609: 1286–1294
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.271 pmid: 28793397
17 H J M van Grinsven, H F M ten Berge, T Dalgaard, B Fraters, P Durand, A Hart, G Hofman, B H Jacobsen, S T J Lalor, J P Lesschen, B Osterburg, K G Richards, A K Techen, F Vertès, J Webb, W J Willems. Management, regulation and environmental impacts of nitrogen fertilization in northwestern Europe under the Nitrates Directive; a benchmark study. Biogeosciences, 2012, 9(12): 5143–5160
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-5143-2012
18 L Ma, J H Guo, G L Velthof, G L Velthof, Y M Li, Q Chen, W Q Ma, O Oenema, F S Zhang. Impacts of urban expansion on nitrogen and phosphorus flows in the food system of Beijing from 1978 to 2008. Global Environmental Change, 2014, 28(1): 192–204
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.015
19 L Ma, G L Velthof, F H Wang, W Qin, W F Zhang, Z Liu, Y Zhang, J Wei, J P Lesschen, W Q Ma, O Oenema, F S Zhang. Nitrogen and phosphorus use efficiencies and losses in the food chain in China at regional scales in 1980 and 2005. Science of the Total Environment, 2012, 434(18): 51–61
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.028 pmid: 22542299
20 Y Hou, G L Velthof, O Oenema. Mitigation of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from manure management chains: a meta-analysis and integrated assessment. Global Change Biology, 2015, 21(3): 1293–1312
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12767 pmid: 25330119
21 S Wei, Z H Bai, D Chadwick, Y Hou, W Qin, Z Q Zhao, R F Jiang, L Ma. Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions and mitigation options from livestock production in peri-urban agriculture: Beijing – A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 178: 515–525
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.257
22 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). How to Feed the World in 2050. Available at FAO website on February 20, 2020
23 F Amery, O F Schoumans. Agricultural phosphorus legislation in Europe. Merelbeke, Belgium:Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, ILVO, 2014, 45
24 Z Bai, M R F Lee, L Ma, S Ledgard, O Oenema, G L Velthof, W Ma, M Guo, Z Zhao, S Wei, S Li, X Liu, P Havlík, J Luo, C Hu, F Zhang. Global environmental costs of China’s thirst for milk. Global Change Biology, 2018, 24(5): 2198–2211
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14047 pmid: 29417720
25 Q Li, M Shi, C Shi, D Liu, X Piao, D Li, C Lai. Effect of variety and drying method on the nutritive value of corn for growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 2014, 5(1): 18
https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-1891-5-18 pmid: 24656141
26 O Oenema. Nitrogen budgets and losses in livestock systems. International Congress, 2006, 1293: 262–271
27 H D Poulsen, A W Jongbloed, P Latimier, J A Fernández. Phosphorus consumption, utilisation and losses in pig production in France, The Netherlands and Denmark. Livestock Production Science, 1999, 58(3): 251–259
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00013-5
28 G L Velthof, D Oudendag, H P Witzke, W A H Asman, Z Klimont, O Oenema. Integrated assessment of nitrogen losses from agriculture in EU-27 using MITERRA-EUROPE. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2009, 38(2): 402–417
https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0108 pmid: 19202011
29 H L Wang, W T Long, D Chadwick, G L Velthof, O Oenema, W Q Ma, J J Wang, W Qin, Y Hou, F S Zhang. Can dietary manipulations improve the productivity of pigs with lower environmental and economic cost? A global meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2020, 289: 106748
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106748
30 R D Garrett, J Ryschawy, L W Bell, O Cortner, J Ferreira, A V N Garik, J D B Gil, L Klerkx, M Moraine, C A Peterson, J C dos Reis, J F Valentim. Drivers of decoupling and recoupling of crop and livestock systems at farm and territorial scales. Ecology and Society, 2020, 25(1): art24
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11412-250124
31 S Wei, Z H Bai, D M Wu, R F Jiang, L J Xia, L Ma. Temporal and spatial characteristics of nitrogen and phosphorus cycling and environmental losses in the “soil-feed-dairy” production system in Beijing. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2017, 25(3): 316–327 (in Chinese)
32 J M Powell, M Macleod, T V Vellinga, C Opio, A Falcucci, G Tempio, H Steinfeld, P Gerber. Feed-milk-manure nitrogen relationships in global dairy production systems. Livestock Science, 2013, 152(2–3): 261–272
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.01.001
33 H van Keulen, H F M Aarts, B Habekotté, H G van der Meer, J H J Spiertz. Soil-plant-animal relations in nutrient cycling: the case of dairy farming system ‘De Marke’. European Journal of Agronomy, 2000, 13(2–3): 245–261
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(00)00077-0
34 Z H Bai. The resources requirement, nitrogen and phosphorus use and losses in the main livestock production system in China. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2015 (in Chinese)
35 O Shechtman. The coefficient of variation as a measure of sincerity of effort of grip strength, Part II: sensitivity and specificity. Journal of Hand Therapy, 2001, 14(3): 188–194
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0894-1130(01)80052-1 pmid: 11511013
[1] Alan FRANZLUEBBERS, Derek HUNT, Gary TELFORD, Shabtai BITTMAN, Quirine KETTERINGS. INTEGRATED CROP-LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS: LESSONS FROM NEW YORK, BRITISH COLUMBIA, AND THE SOUTH-EASTERN UNITED STATES[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2021, 8(1): 81-96.
[2] Jiafa LUO, Stewart LEDGARD. NEW ZEALAND DAIRY FARM SYSTEMS AND KEY ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2021, 8(1): 148-158.
[3] Ruigao SONG, Yu WANG, Yanfang WANG, Jianguo ZHAO. Base editing in pigs for precision breeding[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2020, 7(2): 161-170.
[4] Chris PROUDFOOT, Gus MCFARLANE, Bruce WHITELAW, Simon LILLICO. Livestock breeding for the 21st century: the promise of the editing revolution[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2020, 7(2): 129-135.
[5] Ning WANG, Sile WANG, Yaxian WANG, Yuanxing CAI, Fan YANG, Huayan WANG. SALL4 maintains self-renewal of porcine pluripotent stem cells through downregulation of OTX2[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2019, 6(1): 81-92.
[6] Yong JIN, Manling ZHANG, Xinrong JU, Shuang LIANG, Qiang XIONG, Lihua ZHAO, Xiaowei NIE, Daorong HOU, Qiang LIU, Junzheng WANG, Chenyu WANG, Xiaokang LI, Lining ZHANG, Xiaorui LIU, Ying WANG, Haiyuan YANG, Yifan DAI, Rongfeng LI. Factors influencing the somatic cell nuclear transfer efficiency in pigs[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2019, 6(1): 73-80.
[7] Jianwen CHEN, Kaiyuan PAN, Zhen CHEN, Biao DING, Dandan SONG, Wenbin BAO, Yunhai ZHANG. Construction of multiple shRNA vectors targeting PEDV and TGEV and production of transgenic SCNT porcine embryos in vitro[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2019, 6(1): 66-72.
[8] Chengcheng ZHAO, Junsong SHI, Rong ZHOU, Ranbiao MAI, Lvhua LUO, Xiaoyan HE, Hongmei JI, Gengyuan CAI, Dewu LIU, Enqin ZHENG, Zhenfang WU, Zicong LI. Effects of enucleation method on in vitro and in vivo development rate of cloned pig embryos[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2019, 6(1): 61-65.
[9] Zheng AO, Chengfa ZHAO, Yanmin GAN, Xiao WU, Junsong SHI, Enqin ZHENG, Dewu LIU, Gengyuan CAI, Zhenfang WU, Zicong LI. Comparison of birth weight and umbilical and placental characteristics of cloned and artificial insemination-derived piglets[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2019, 6(1): 54-60.
[10] Jianyong HAN, Yi-Liang MIAO, Jinlian HUA, Yan LI, Xue ZHANG, Jilong ZHOU, Na LI, Ying ZHANG, Jinying ZHANG, Zhonghua LIU. Porcine pluripotent stem cells: progress, challenges and prospects[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2019, 6(1): 8-27.
[11] Qijing LEI, Qin PAN, Shuai YU, Na LI, Shulin CHEN, Kuldip SIDHU, Jinlian HUA. Reprogramming of the pig primordial germ cells into pluripotent stem cells: a brief review[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2019, 6(1): 28-32.
[12] Enzhu HU, Pakorn SUTITARNNONTR, Markus TULLER, Scott B. JONES. Modeling temperature and moisture dependent emissions of carbon dioxide and methane from drying dairy cow manure[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2018, 5(2): 280-286.
[13] Lei CHEN, Shilin TIAN, Long JIN, Zongyi GUO, Dan ZHU, Lan JING, Tiandong CHE, Qianzi TANG, Siqing CHEN, Liang ZHANG, Tinghuan ZHANG, Zuohua LIU, Jinyong WANG, Mingzhou LI. Genome-wide analysis reveals selection for Chinese Rongchang pigs[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2017, 4(3): 319-326.
[14] Haiyan WANG, Qiaoxia ZHANG, Lilin YIN, Xiangdong LIU, Shuhong ZHAO, Mengjin ZHU, Changchun LI. Transcriptomic basis of neutrophil ratio variation induced by poly I:C stimulation in porcine peripheral blood[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2017, 4(3): 342-352.
[15] Longchao ZHANG, Jingwei YUE, Xin LIU, Jing LIANG, Kebin ZHAO, Hua YAN, Na LI, Lei PU, Yuebo ZHANG, Huibi SHI, Ligang WANG, Lixian WANG. Genome-wide search for candidate genes determining vertebrae number in pigs[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2017, 4(3): 327-334.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed