By Fikadu, WT (2023).
|
Greener
Journal of Agricultural Sciences ISSN: 2276-7770 Vol. 13(1), pp. 31-36, 2023 Copyright © 2023. the copyright of this article is retained by the
author(s) |
|
Environmental factors influence the lactation
performance of crossbred dairy cattle in Ethiopia: A review
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Holetta Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 2003 Addis
Ababa or 31 Holetta, Ethiopia
|
ARTICLE INFO |
ABSTRACT |
|
Article No.: 022223017 Type: Review |
The effect of environmental factors on the lactation performance of
crossbred dairy cattle in Ethiopia is discussed in this review. The
efficiency of dairy farming systems is largely determined by the herd's
lactation performance. The evaluation of lactation performance of dairy
cattle is critical for the overall development of the dairy industry.
Non-genetic (environmental) factors (parity, calving season, and calving
year) significantly influenced common lactation performance indicators
(daily milk yield (DMY), lactation milk yield (LMY), 305day milk yield
(305DMY), and lactation length (LL)). Improving cow management (such as
feeding, housing, disease control, and seasonal breeding) should be required
to improve the lactation performance of crossbred dairy cattle. |
|
Accepted: 01/03/2023 Published: 13/03/2023 |
|
|
*Corresponding
Author Fikadu Wodajo
Tirfie E-mail: fikadu121084z@ gmial.com Phone: +251919198563 |
|
|
Keywords: |
|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
In Ethiopia, genetic improvement of
indigenous cattle has primarily focused on crossbreeding. For decades,
crossbred cattle, predominantly zebu crosses with Holstein-Friesian cattle,
have been used for milk production (Niraj et al
2017). The efficiency of dairy farming systems is largely determined by the
herd's lactation and reproductive performance. The evaluation of lactation and
reproductive performance of dairy cattle is critical for the success of the
entire dairy industry development (Wondossen, 2018)
Evaluation
of crossbreeding achievement and generation of performance information could
provide valuable documentation for developing a future national breeding
policy. Lactation performance is commonly measured by daily milk yield (DMY),
lactation milk yield (LMY), 305day milk yield (305DMY), and lactation length
(LL). Information on the influence of environmental factors on economic traits
is thought to be very important in developing proper management practices for
trait improvement.
Some
research has been conducted on the lactation performance of some Ethiopian
crossbred dairy cattle. The current review looks at the impact of the
environment on the lactation performance of crossbred dairy cattle in Ethiopia.
Effect of environment on lactation performance of cross
breed dairy cattle in Ethiopia
Animal performance is influenced not only by
genetic merit, but also by nutritional, management, health, and environmental
factors. Milk yield and milk-related traits are influenced by a variety of
factors, including feed quantity and quality, breed, parity, season, milking
intervals, and milking frequency, as well as
diseases (Nitsuh, 2018; Wubshet,
2018).
Dairy cattle
lactation performance is typically measured by total milk yield per lactation
or per year, average daily milk yield, lactation length, milk production
persistency, and milk composition (Zewdu et al 2013).
The milk produced by a dairy animal during a specific period of lactation is
used to judge its lactation performance.
Effect of calving season
According to Haile et al. (2009), the calving
season had no effect on all milk production traits (daily milk yield, lactation
length, lactation milk yield and 305 day milk yield). This finding is
comparable to Destaw's (2018) research at the Alage Agricultural Technical Vocational Educational
Training (ATVET) College dairy farm (Table 1). The effect of management and
weather conditions on daily milk yield varied significantly between seasons.
Cows that calved during the dry and main rain seasons produced more daily milk
yield than cows that calved during the short rain season. The calving season
had a significant impact on daily milk production. The lower daily milk yield
could be attributed to changes in weather and pasture productivity during this
season (Tadesse, 2014).
Season had a
significant effect on the average daily milk yield at Menkorer
Agro Industry Enterprise Dairy Farm (MAIEDF) in Debre
Markos town Nitsuh (2018),
which is higher during the long rainy season. This may be related to the lowest
temperature recorded during the long rainy season in the Ethiopian Highlands,
as well as better forage availability; it may favor high-quality exotic breeds
from temperate regions.
The calving
season had no effect on lactation milk yield (LMY) at the Holleta
bull dam station and the Debre Zeit
genesis dairy farm (Alewya, 2014). Tadesse et al. (2010), Direba
(2012), Abdu (2014), Haile (2014), and Destaw (2014)
all reported the same result (2018). Cows calving during the long rainy season
produced the most milk, due to the low environmental temperature and the
availability of high-quality fodder.
On the other
hand, calving season had an effect on lactation milk yield Niraj
et al (2014) at Gondar, accounting for 1.91% of the total variation in the
trait. Cows calving in July-October (1482.05+68.90 liters) had significantly
higher LMY than cows calving in November-February (1376.39+74.50 liters) and
March-June (1364.23+84.32 liters) (Table 1). According to Tadesse
(2014), the calving season has a significant effect on lactation length. This
was agreed upon by Destaw et al (2016) and Nitsuh (2018) in their reports on Alage
& Ardaita Agricultural Technical Vocational
Educational Training College and Menkorer Agro
Industry Enterprise Dairy Farm (MAIEDF) (Table 1). According to some research,
the calving season had no significant effect on the lactation length of
crossbred dairy cattle (Abdu, 2014; Alewya, 2014; Niraj et al 2014; Destaw, 2018; Kefale, 2018; Wubshet, 2018).
At Holleta and Debre Ziet agricultural research center dairy farm (Haile et al
2009; Yosef, 2006) and Alage
Agricultural Technical Vocational Educational Training (ATVET) College dairy
farm, 305 day milk yield was not significantly affected by season (Destaw, 2018). According to Wubshet
(2018), it had a significant effect on 305 day milk yield at Elfora Cheffa Dairy Farm in Oromia Zone of Amhara Region.
|
Table
1: Effect of calving season on lactation trait
(LMY, LL, 305DMY and DMY) |
|
||||||
|
Traits |
Study Site |
Authors |
|
||||
|
LMY |
LL |
305DMY |
DMY |
|
|||
|
* |
- |
- |
- |
BARC |
(Sisay, 2015). |
|
|
|
NS |
NS |
- |
- |
Holleta and D/Z |
(Alewya,
2014). |
|
|
|
** |
NS |
- |
- |
Gondar |
(Niraj
et al 2014) |
|
|
|
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
Holleta and D/Z |
(Haile et al 2009) |
|
|
|
NS |
- |
- |
- |
Central
high land |
(Tadesse
et al 2010) |
|
|
|
**** |
NS |
- |
* |
HARC |
(Kefale, 2018) |
|
|
|
- |
NS |
* |
- |
Cheffa ELFORA |
(Wubshet, 2018) |
|
|
|
- |
- |
NS |
- |
HARC |
(Yosef,
2006) |
|
|
|
NS |
NS |
- |
- |
Adea’Berega |
(Direba, 2012) |
|
|
|
NS |
NS |
- |
- |
SCBMC |
(Abdu,
2014) |
|
|
|
NS |
NS |
- |
* |
ATVETC |
(Haile,
2014) |
|
|
|
* |
* |
- |
- |
Alage & Ardaita TVETC |
(Destaw et al 2016) |
|
|
|
* |
*** |
- |
*** |
MAIEDF
at D/M |
(Nitsuh, 2018) |
|
|
|
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
ATVETC |
(Destaw,
2018) |
|
|
|
* |
* |
- |
* |
HARC |
(Tadesse, 2014) |
|
|
|
LMY= Lactation Milk Yield, LL=Lactation Length,
305DMY= 305 Day Milk Yield, DMY= Daily Milk Yield, **** = Significant at
p<0.0001, *** = Significant at p< 0.001, ** = Significant at p<
0.01, *=Significant at p<0.05 and NS = Non- Significant or p>0.05, - not available |
||||||
Effect of parity
According to Wondossen
et al (2018), parity had a significant effect on daily milk yield, revealing
that the mean daily milk yield of the herd increased from parity one to parity
three. The increasing trend in DMY could be attributed to the fact that cows
calving in the first parity were not mature enough to produce more milk due to
physiological conditions such as udder development and energy reserve for both
body maintenance and milk production; however, increased production was
observed in later parities with the attainment of maturity. Other researchers
have also reported the significance of parity on daily milk yield with varying
levels of significance (Table 2) (Demeke et al 2003;
Haile et al 2009; Gebregziabher et al., 2014; Haile,
2014; Destaw, 2018; Kefale,
2018 and Nitsuh, 2018).
One of the
non-genetic (environmental) factors that had an effect on the lactation milk
yield of crossbred dairy cattle was parity. Parity was found to have a
significant effect by Wondossen et al (2018), Demeke et al. (2003), Tadesse et
al (2010), and Destaw et al (2016). First lactation
cows produced the least amount of milk, while third parity produced the most.
The primary cause of variation in the given set of genes and their interactions
with non-genetic factors is lactation physiology (Wondossen
et al 2018).
The
significant effect of parity on lactation milk yield may be due to differences
in udder size, feed requirements related to gastro intestinal tract development
and environmental conditions during lactation. In fact, as animal’s age, they
will use feed for maintenance, production, and reproduction rather than growth.
As a result, the feed used for heifer growth will be used for milk production
in older animals (Nitsuh, 2018). Jersey Cattle
Breeding and Multiplication Center at Wolaita Zone,
parity had not a significant impact on lactation performance (Table 2) (Abdu,
2014)
According to
the findings of Kefale (2018), parity had a
significant effect on lactation length. The first parity had the longest
lactation length, while the eighth parity had the shortest lactation length.
Milk yield increased with lactation length, but lactations longer than one year
did not appear to be advantageous. The daily milk yield decreases in the later
stages of lactation, affecting lifetime production. Furthermore, longer
lactations lengthen the calving interval, reducing the number of calves that
can be born during a cow's lifetime (Alewya, 2014).
Lactation
length was significantly influenced by parity due to the increase in efficient
feed utilization by dairy animals as they aged. As animals age, their uterus
recovery time decreases, and they can more efficiently use feed for both milk
production and uterus recovery (Nitsuh, 2018). This
is consistent with studies conducted at HARC by Demeke
et al (2003), Yosef (2006), Kefena
et al (2011), Tadesse (2014), Selamawi
et al (2017), and Kefale (2018).
According to
Haile (2014) on Alage Agricultural Technical
Vocational Educational Training (ATVET) College dairy farm; Destaw
et al (2016) on Alage & Ardaita
TVETC; and Nigusu (2012) on Adama
milk shade /east shewa, the effect of parity has no
effect on lactation length (Table 2). According to Haile et al (2009), Kefena et al (2011), Selamawi et
al (2017), Destaw (2018), and Wubshet
(2018) at HARC and DZARC dairy farms, parity affected the 305 day milk yield
(305DMY) . However, parity had no effect on 305-day milk yield for cross-bred
dairy cattle at the Holleta agricultural research
center herd (Table 2) (Yosef, 2006).
According to
Wubshet (2018) study, milk yield increased from
parity 1-5, then declined due to decline in body
condition and degeneration of the body system over the recurring pregnancies.
It will depend on the cow's ability to keep the condition at a survivable
level. In addition, because the heifers were still growing, the feed that was
given to them was channeled toward their growth. Milk yield increased as the
parities progressed because the feed requirements for growth decreased (Wubshet, 2018).
|
Table 2: Effect of parity on lactation trait (LMY, LL, 305DMY and DMY) |
|||||
|
Traits |
Study Site |
Authors |
|||
|
LMY |
LL |
305DMY |
DMY |
||
|
*** |
** |
- |
** |
Wolkite town |
(Wondossen et al 2018) |
|
** |
* |
- |
- |
Holleta and D/Z |
(Alewya,
2014). |
|
** |
** |
- |
- |
Gondar |
(Niraj
et al 2014) |
|
** |
** |
** |
** |
Holleta and D/Z |
(Haile et al 2009) |
|
*** |
*** |
- |
*** |
Holleta |
(Demeke
et al 2003) |
|
*** |
- |
- |
- |
Central high land |
(Tadesse
et al 2010) |
|
*** |
*** |
*** |
- |
HARC |
(Kefena
et al 2011) |
|
**** |
**** |
- |
**** |
HARC |
(Kefale, 2018) |
|
- |
* |
** |
- |
Cheffa ELFORA |
(Wubshet, 2018) |
|
- |
- |
NS |
- |
HARC |
(Yosef,
2006) |
|
**** |
**** |
- |
- |
Adea’Berega |
(Direba, 2012) |
|
**** |
- |
- |
**** |
BARC & HARC |
(Gebregziabher et al
2014) |
|
NS |
* |
- |
- |
SCBMC |
(Abdu,
2014) |
|
*** |
NS |
- |
*** |
ATVETC |
(Haile,
2014) |
|
*** |
NS |
- |
- |
Alage & Ardaita TVETC |
(Destaw et al 2016) |
|
- |
NS |
- |
*** |
Adama milk shade /east shewa |
(Nigusu, 2012) |
|
*** |
*** |
- |
** |
MAIEDF
at D/M |
(Nitsuh, 2018) |
|
** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
ATVETC |
(Destaw,
2018) |
|
*** |
*** |
*** |
- |
HARC |
(Selamawi et al 2017) |
|
** |
** |
- |
** |
HARC |
(Tadesse, 2014) |
|
LMY= Lactation Milk
Yield, LL=Lactation Length, 305DMY= 305 Day Milk Yield, DMY= Daily Milk
Yield, **** = Significant at p<0.0001, *** = Significant at p< 0.001,
** = Significant at p< 0.01, *=Significant at p<0.05 and NS = Non-
Significant or p>0.05, - not
available |
|||||
Effect of calving
year
The
year of calving had a significant effect on the lactation performance of
crossbred dairy cattle. The daily milk yield varied significantly depending on
the calving year. The variation in milk yield observed over time may be related
to the availability of quantity and quality forage, the feeding system, the
size of the herd, the management system, and environmental conditions such as
temperature, humidity, and disease, which vary from year to year (Nitsuh, 2018). Demeke (2003) and Tadesse (2014) at the Holleta
Agricultural Research Center Dairy Farm (HARC), Haile (2014) and Destaw (2018) at the Alage
Agricultural Technical Vocational Educational Training College (ATVETC), and Nitsuh (2018) at the Menkorer
Agro Industry Enterprise Dairy Farm (MAIEDF) in Debre
Markos town study report found that the year of
calving had a significant effect on daily milk yield (Table 3).
According to Nitsuh
(2018)'s study on MAIEDF at D/M, Calving year had no significant effect on
lactation milk yield (LMY), which could be attributed to adequate supply of
concentrate feed to the cow, high availability and quality of feed resources,
and regular feeding management. According to Demeke
(2003), Tadesse et al (2010), Kefena
et al (2011), Alewya (2014), Haile (2014), and Destaw (2014), the calving year has a significant impact on
the lactation milk yield of cross breed dairy cattle (2018).
According to a study conducted at Cheffa ELFORA by Wubshet (2018),
the calving year had no effect on lactation length (LL). This was not agreed upon
by Selamawi et al (2017) at Holleta
agricultural research center and Nitsuh (2018) at Menkorer Agro Industry Enterprise Dairy Farm Debre Markos (Table 3).
According to a study conducted at the Holleta Agricultural Research Center, the year of calving had
a significant effect on 305 day milk yield (Kefena et
al 2011). A similar report was published for another study conducted at the Alage Agricultural Technical Vocational Educational
Training (ATVET) College dairy farm (Destaw, 2018).
This is consistent with and comparable to research at Cheffa
ELFORA in the Oromia zone of the Amahara
region (Wubshet, 2018). Other researchers in
different agro ecology and sites reported similar findings. There was a
significant difference in the calving year on 305 day milk yield at Holleta and Debre ziet agricultural research center dairy farm (Haile et al
2009; Yosef, 2006; Selamawi
et al 2017).
|
Table
3: Effect of calving year on lactation trait
(LMY, LL, 305DMY and DMY) |
|||||
|
Traits |
Study Site |
Authors |
|||
|
LMY |
LL |
305DMY |
DMY |
||
|
*** |
*** |
- |
- |
Holleta and D/Z |
(Alewya,
2014). |
|
** |
** |
** |
** |
Holleta and D/Z |
(Haile et al 2009) |
|
*** |
*** |
- |
*** |
Holleta |
(Demeke,
2003) |
|
*** |
- |
- |
- |
Central
high land |
(Tadesse
et al
2010) |
|
*** |
*** |
*** |
- |
HARC |
(Kefena
et al 2011) |
|
**** |
**** |
- |
**** |
HARC |
(Kefale, 2018) |
|
- |
NS |
** |
- |
Cheffa ELFORA |
(Wubshet, 2018) |
|
- |
- |
** |
|
HARC |
(Yosef,
2006) |
|
**** |
**** |
- |
|
Adea’Berega |
(Direba, 2012) |
|
* |
* |
- |
|
SCBMC |
(Abdu,
2014) |
|
*** |
*** |
- |
*** |
ATVETC |
(Haile,
2014) |
|
*** |
NS |
- |
- |
Alage & Ardaita TVETC |
(Destaw et al 2016) |
|
NS |
*** |
- |
*** |
MAIEDF
at D/M |
(Nitsuh, 2018) |
|
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
ATVETC |
(Destaw,
2018) |
|
*** |
*** |
*** |
- |
HARC |
(Selamawi et al 2017) |
|
** |
** |
- |
** |
HARC |
(Tadesse, 2014) |
|
Note; LMY= Lactation
Milk Yield, LL=Lactation Length, 305DMY= 305 Day Milk Yield, DMY= Daily Milk
Yield, **** = Significant at p<0.0001, *** = Significant at p< 0.001,
** = Significant at p< 0.01, *=Significant at p<0.05 and NS = Non-
Significant or p>0.05, - not
available |
|||||
CONCLUSION
The effects of non-genetic
(environmental) factors (parity, calving season, and calving year) on lactation
performance (daily milk yield (DMY), lactation milk yield (LMY), 305day milk
yield (305DMY), and lactation length (LL)) were investigated. Non-genetic or
environmental factors such as year of calving, season of calving, and parity
had a significant effect on lactation traits and can be used as a selection
criterion for increased production efficiency in crossbred dairy cattle.
Lactation performance of crossbred cows requires improvement in overall dairy
cow management. Crossbred cows were sensitive to seasonal and periodic changes
in milk production performance. It may be difficult for them to increase and
sustain their production capacity. As a result, improving environmental factors
and cow management are required to mitigate the effects of periodic and
seasonal changes.
Recommendation
To improve lactation
performance of crossbred dairy cattle, cow management (such as feeding, housing
system disease control, and seasonal breeding) should be improved.
REFERENCES
Abdu Esmael 2014
Estimation of phenotypic and genetic parameters for production, reproduction
and survival traits of Jersey cattle at sodo cattle
breeding and multiplication center, Wolaita Zone. Msc Thesis, Haramaya
University.
Alewya Heyredin 2014 Comparative study of reproductive and
productive performance of Holstein Friesian dairy cows at Holetta
bull dam station and genesis Farms. Msc Thesis Addis
Ababa University Bishoftu, Ethiopia
Destaw Worku 2018 Effects of period of calving, season of calving
and parity on milk production performance of Holstein Friesian dairy Cows in Alage ATVET College, Ethiopia. J. Anim. Feed Res., 8(4): 97-104.
Destaw Worku,
Kefyalew Alemayehu and Mussie H. Melekote 2016 Comparative
milk production performance evaluation of Holstein Friesian cattle breeds in
the two different agro ecological systems: The case in Alage
and Ardaita ATVET College dairy farm, Oromia region, Ethiopia. Advances in Biological
Research 10 (5): 295-303.
Direba Hunde 2012 Survival, reproductive and
productive performance of pure Jersey cattle at Adea Berga dairy research center in the central highlands of
Ethiopia. Msc Thesis: A thesis submitted to University
of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna.pp. 90
Gebregziabher Gebreyohannes,
Skorn Koonawootrittriron,
Mauricio Aguirre Elzo and Thanathip
Suwanasopee 2014 Genotype by
environment interaction effect on lactation pattern and milk production traits
in an Ethiopian dairy cattle population. Kasetsart
J. (Nat. Sci.) 48 : 38 – 51.
Haile, A.; Joshi, B. K.;
Ayalew, W.; Tegegne, A. and
Singh, A. 2009 Genetic evaluation of Ethiopian Boran
cattle and their crosses with Holstein Friesian in central Ethiopia: milk
production traits. Animal. 3:4, pp
486–493.
Haile Berihulay 2014 Evaluation of reproductive
performance of Holstein Friesian dairy cows at Alage
Agricultural Technical Vocational Educational Training College dairy farm,
South Western Ethiopia. Msc Thesis Haramaya University
Kefale Getahun 2018 Genetic and non-genetic parameter
estimation for productive and reproductive performances of crossbred dairy cattle
at Holetta Research Center. Msc
Thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya
Kefena Effa, Zewdie Wondatir,
Tadelle Dessie and Aynalem Haile 2011 Genetic
and environmental trends in the long-term dairy cattle genetic improvement programmes in the central tropical highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Cell and Animal Biology Vol. 5(6),
pp. 96-104.
M Tadesse,
J Thiengtham, A Pinyopummin
and S Prasanpanich 2010 Productive and reproductive
performance of Holstein Friesian dairy cows in Ethiopia. Livestock
Research for Rural Development. 22
(2).
Nigusu Fekade
2012 Evaluation of urban and peri-urban dairy
production systems in Adama milk shed, East Shoa zone, Oromia national
regional state, Ethiopia. Msc Thesis, Haramaya University.
Niraj Kumar, Alemayehu Eshetie, Abreha Tesfaye and Hailelule Aleme Yizengaw 2014
Productive performance of indigenous and HF crossbred dairy cows in Gondar,
Ethiopia. Veterinary World 7(3):
177-181.
Niraj Kumar Berihu Gebrekidan,
Nigus Abebeand and Etsay Kebede 2017 Performance of
crossbred dairy cows under farmers’ management in and around Debre Zeit, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of
Veterinary Science and Animal Production (EJVSAP),1(1):
66-72.
Nitsuh Walelign 2018 Productive and
reproductive performance of crossbred dairy cattle at Menkorer
Agro Industry Enterprise Dairy Farm Debre Markos Ethiopia. Msc Thesis .Haramaya
University, Haramaya. Pp.74.
S. Demeke,
F. W. C. Neser and S. J. Schoeman
2003 Estimates of genetic parameters for Boran,
Friesian, and crosses of Friesian and Jersey with the Boran
cattle in the tropical highlands of Ethiopia: milk production traits and cow
weight. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 121 (2004), 163–175
Selamawi V. Thesiger, Amhaisaac Baruch and Berhane Hersi Lencho
2017 Genetic trends for selected crossbred dairy cows produced at Holetta Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia. World Journal of Environmental Biology Research. Vol. 1 (3),
Pp. 015-023.
Sisay Eshetu
2015 Productive and Reproductive Performance of Dairy Cows (Horro,
Horro x Friesian and Horro
x Jersey) at Bako Agricultural Research Center Msc Thesis , Haramaya
University.
Tadesse Birhanu
2014 Estimation of crossbreeding parameters in Holstein Friesian and Ethiopian Boran crosses for milk production and reproduction traits
at Holetta Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia.
MSc Thesis. Haramaya University. pp.83.
Wondossen Ayalew,
Yohannes Besufekad and
Wahid M. Ahmed 2018 Productive and
reproductive performance of crossbred dairy cows in Tropical Highland, South
Western, Ethiopia. Journal of Reproduction
and Infertility 9 (1): 01-08
Wubshet Kassa 2018 Estimation of genetic and non-genetic parameters
for reproduction and production traits of Holstein Friesian dairy herd at
ELFORA Cheffa dairy farm, Oromia
zone of Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Msc
Thesis, Haramaya University, Ethiopia.pp.93
Yosef Tadesse 2006 Genetic
and non-genetic analysis of fertility traits in Holetta
and Ada’a Berga Dairy
Herds. Msc
Thesis, Alemaya University.pp.143.
Zewdu Wondifraw, B. M. Thombre
and D. V. Bainwad 2013 Effect of non-genetic factors
on milk production of Holstein Friesian × Deoni
crossbred cows. International Journal of Livestock Production. Vol. 4(7), pp. 106-112.
|
Cite this Article: Fikadu,
WT (2023). Environmental factors influence the lactation performance of
crossbred dairy cattle in Ethiopia: A review. Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 13(1): 31-36, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7730552.
|