Printer Friendly

Effect of Feeding Hatchery Waste Meal Processed by Different Techniques on Egg Quality and Production Performance of Laying Hens.

Byline: Athar Mahmud, Saima, Makhdoom Abdul Jabbar, Abdul Waheed Sahota, Zafar Hayat and Muhammad Zafar Ullah Khan

Abstract

Three hundred White Leghorn hens were randomly divided into 10 groups. One group was fed control diet prepared without hatchery waste meal (HWM), while nine groups were fed on experimental diets containing 4, 8 or 12 % of cooked, autoclaved or extruded HWM, respectively. Results showed that maximum egg production was achieved with 4% HWM processed by autoclaving. Processing of hatchery waste (HW) with extrusion significantly reduced egg production and more pronounced decrease was found with 12 % of extruded HWM. Egg mass and feed conversion followed the same trend observed for egg production. Average egg weight due to different treatments fell within very narrow range and showed no difference (Pgreater than 0.05) among them. Shell, yolk and albumen weights, as a percentage of egg weight, were not significantly affected with the use of different levels and processing of HWM. Maximum value of albumen height as well as Haugh units were obtained with the feeding of 4 % autoclaved HWM.

Other egg quality parameters like shell thickness, yolk index and color were independent of the dietary treatments. The findings of this study suggest that autoclaving of hatchery waste is better than extrusion and cooking techniques and 4 % of autoclaved HWM may be included in layers ration for improve production than diets without HWM. Nevertheless, layer diets up to 8 % HWM could be used to feed the laying hens to maintain reasonably good production without detrimental effects on egg quality.

Key words: Egg quality, hatchery wastes, production performance of layers.

INTRODUCTION

Tremendous growth of the poultry industry is accompanied by the production of large quantities of by-products particularly hatchery wastes (Das et al., 2002). Hatchery waste (HW) consists of infertile whole eggs, dead chicks, broken egg shells and low grade unsalable chicks (Hamm and Whitehead, 1982). HW in its natural state contains about 44.3% crude protein, 30.0% ether extract, 1.90% crude fiber, 14.0% ash, 4572 Kcal/Kg gross energy and 3600 Kcal/Kg metabolizable energy (Rasool et al., 1999). It is rich in calcium but low in phosphorus contents (Dufloth et al., 1987). Calcium level depends on the presence of shell moiety and hatch percentage.

The disposal of hatchery waste is of serious concern for the poultry industry (Deshmukh and Patterson, 1997). Traditional methods of HW disposal include landlls, land application, rendering, composting and incineration (Miller, 1984; Blake and Donald, 1992; Carr at al., 1992; Das et al., 2002). Fresh HW has high moisture content (67%) making it highly perishable which requires frequent hauling due to poor storage facilities at the hatchery. Therefore, disposal of HW is very costly to the producers and unsafe for the environment in general (Deshmukh and Patterson, 1997; Shahriar et al., 2008). A very efficient and cost-effective method for the disposal of HW is to recycle it to produce a hatchery waste meal (HWM) for inclusion in poultry rations, provided this feed component does not negatively affect the productive performance of birds. Raw HW contains a number of viable bacteria, so before inclusion in poultry feeds it should be properly processed to reduce the microbial count.

Researchers have explored various methods for processing HW. These methods include cooking, autoclaving and extrusion. Considering the quantity of HW available and its chemical composition, it can be used as a source of protein and calcium for all classes of poultry (Blake, 1998). However, feeding HWM to layers is not well documented. Not much information regarding the maximum inclusion level of HWM in the layer diets is available. The present study was aimed at investigating the effects of feeding HWM processed by different techniques on the egg quality and production performance of laying hens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Processing of hatchery waste

For different processing techniques, hatchery waste was procured from a local hatchery. The raw HW as well as processed HWM (simple cooking, autoclaving and extrusion cooking was subjected to chemical analysis.

Simple cooking

The HW was processed by simple cooking in water in such a way that there was double the amount of HW to water (2:1) (Khan and Bhatti, 2001). The moisture percentage of HW before adding water was 67%. The simple cooking process continued for about three hours at 100oC in an open container with regular stirring till extra moisture was evaporated. Then this dehydrated product was placed in an oven for drying at 60C till constant weight and ground through a laboratory mill for further analysis.

Autoclaving

In this method, the dried and ground HW was subjected to 125C temperature along with 1.76 Kg/cm2 pressure for 15 minutes. After this, the material was sealed to avoid the growth of microorganisms. This atutoclaved meal was used for further chemical analysis (Lilburn et al., 1997).

Extrusion cooking

In this technique, the dried and ground hatchery waste was passed through dry extruder using a single screw extruder (Model 1000-4 Miltenz Auckland, NZ, frequency, 50 Hz., orifice size, 8-12 mm., screw speed, 536 rpm., feed rate, 750 kg/h). The internal temperature of the extruder barrel was 115 to 126oC at the point of extrusion. The final extruded product was collected on polythene sheet (Haque et al., 1991) and stored for analyses and to be used in the experimental rations.

After drying the representative samples of the HWM prepared from the above mentioned processing techniques were subjected to proximate analysis (AOAC, 2000).

Birds and housing

A feeding trial of twelve weeks was conducted to determine the optimum inclusion level of HWM in layer diets at poultry experiment station of the University. Three hundred Single Comb White Leghorn (SCWL) hens of 21 weeks of age were purchased and divided into 30 experimental groups under Completely Randomized Design (CRD). Ten laying hens were housed in one experimental cage (two tiered providing 470 cm2 per hen) treated as one replicate and were fed as a group. Layers were maintained on a 16h light: 8h dark regimes. Standard norms of husbandry and management practices like ventilation, sanitation, lighting schedule and vaccination were followed uniformly for all experimental groups. This practice continued till the end of 36 weeks.

Experimental diets

The experimental birds were randomly allotted 10 experimental diets having three replicates in each diet. For the first two weeks layer mash was provided, then during 24 to 36 weeks of age, birds were given experimental ration and data were collected. Experimental diets were formulated according to standard prescribed by NRC (1994) for white egg laying hens using HWM processed by different techniques viz. cooking, autoclaving and extrusion (Table I). Treatment A represented control (without inclusion of HW); while treatment B, C, D represented 4, 8, 12 %, HW processed by cooking, respectively E, F, G represented 4, 8, 12 %, HW processed by autoclaving, respectively and H, I, J represented 4, 8, 12 %, HW processed by extrusion, respectively. The diets were prepared at the start of experiment.

Production data

During the whole experimental period, egg production per experimental group was recorded and at the end of each week total eggs per replicate were calculated. Total eggs laid per replicate were

Table I.- Composition of experimental diets.

Ingredients (%)###A###B###C###D###E###F###G###H###I###J

Cooked HW###0###4###8###12###0###0###0###0###0###0

Autoclaved HW###0###0###0###0###4###8###12###0###0###0

Extruded HW###0###0###0###0###0###0###0###4###8###12

Corn###57.06###57.48###52.50###48.10###57.48###52.50###48.10###57.48###52.50###48.10

Soybean meal###26.50###24.66###15.78###10.40###24.66###15.78###10.40###24.66###15.78###10.40

Wheat bran###-###4.34###9.50###16.00###4.34###9.50###16.00###4.34###9.50###16.00

Molasses###4.28###3.50###5.15###5.50###3.50###5.15###5.50###3.50###5.15###5.50

Sunflower oil###1.17###-###-###-###-###-###-###-###-###-

DCP###1.40###1.35###1.30###1.22###1.35###1.30###1.22###1.35###1.30###1.22

Limestone###8.40###7.40###6.40###5.30###7.40###6.40###5.30###7.40###6.40###5.30

Salt###0.10###0.10###0.10###0.12###0.10###0.10###0.12###0.10###0.10###0.12

Premix###1.00###1.00###1.00###1.00###1.00###1.00###1.00###1.00###1.00###1.00

L-Lysine###-###0.09###0.18###0.27###0.09###0.18###0.27###0.09###0.18###0.27

DL-Methionine###0.09###0.085###0.09###0.09###0.085###0.09###0.09###0.085###0.09###0.09

weighed daily and then at the end of each week average egg weight was calculated. The data on egg numbers and average egg weight, thus generated, were used to calculate egg mass/bird/week (weekly egg no. in replicate A- average egg weight).

Egg quality traits

Yolk index

Diameter of yolk was recorded with the help of Vernier Caliper while yolk height was measured with the help of a needle provided with a movable loop which was dipped in the center of the yolk, the lower end of the loop was adjusted and the dipped portion of the needle was measured in centimeters. Yolk index was then calculated using yolk diameter and height with the following formula:

Equation

Measurement of Haugh unit

It is an expression relating to egg weight and albumen height. Higher Haugh units depict better albumen quality of the egg. Albumen height was determined with the help of a sepherometer. These readings were used to calculate Haugh Unit (HU; Haugh, 1957) value by the following formula:

Equation

where H is observed albumen height (mm) and W is weight of the egg (g).

Shell thickness

Shell thickness (mm) was noted using a micrometer screw gauge. Shell membranes were removed manually before the measurements and one reading was taken from end and other from girth of the shell.

Yolk color

Yolk color was determined by comparing yolks with DSM color fan (DSM Nutritional Products Ltd. Switzerland).

Statistical analysis

The data obtained were analyzed by Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) technique under CRD as described by Steel et al. (1997). General linear models procedures of SAS software were used to compare treatment effects and alternatively the processing, level and processing level interaction effects on production performance, egg components and egg quality parameters (SAS, 1999). Duncan's Multiple Range Test was used to separate the means (Duncan, 1955).

Table II.- Proximate analysis of raw hatchery waste and meal processed by different techniques

Nutrient###Raw hatchery###Hatchery waste meal

%###waste###Cooked###Autoclaved###Extruded

Crude Protein###44.63###43.67###45.10###38.64

Crude fat###27.06###27.14###23.75###28.85

Crude fiber###1.05###1.62###1.31###1.47

Total ash###25.88###25.81###26.94###28.90

Nitrogen free extract###1.38###1.76###2.90###2.14

Calcium###17.56###19.02###18.62###18.95

Phosphorus###1.63###1.99###1.44###3.21

Lysine###2.93###2.83###2.80###2.79

Methionine###1.21###1.19###1.19###1.23

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Proximate composition

Proximate composition of HW and HWM processed through different techniques is presented in Table II. Highest crude protein (45.1%) was observed in autoclaved HWM with the minimum percentage of crude fat (23.75%), whereas, maximum fat and ash contents (28.90%) were observed in extruded HWM.

Production performance

The effects of feeding HWM on egg production, average egg weight, egg mass and feed conversion ratio are presented in Table III. Comparison of different experimental diets showed that hen day egg production ranged from 69.5 to 79.6 % with highest on the diet containing 4 % HWM processed by autoclaving and lowest (69.4%) on diet having of 12% extruded HWM. But statistically there was non-significant differences between 8 and 12% of autoclaved HWM with cooked meal at all experimental levels. Although hen day production at 8% level was 2.94% less and that of 12% 4.33% less than that of extruded meal included at 4% level but there was statistically non significant differences in all extruded meals but 4% level of extruded meal also revealed non significant differences control, and all types of cooked meal.

Non significant differences were observed in egg weight. Maximum egg production (55.56 g) was observed with extruded meal at 12% level that was similar to control. Minimum was observed with cooked meal included at 4% level (54.33 g) which was only 1.23 g less than grouped showed maximum production but statistically this difference appeared non significant. As regards egg mass, maximum value was observed in group consuming 4% level of autoclaved meal (43.63g/d) which was 5.06g more than group offered 12% extruded meal. In all other experimental units, egg mass differed non-significantly. Same results were observed in feed conversion ratio. In the current experiment all the eggs laid were weighed and presented a clear picture of average egg weight on daily basis than most of the experiments where eggs are weighed only on the recording day (weekly or fortnightly).

The results of present study are in line with the findings of Kempster (1945) who observed satisfactory growth and feed conversion ratio in White Leghorn chicks when fed dried hatchery waste with 3 and 6% level as a partial dietary substitute for meat scrap or soybean oil meal in an eight week study. Ilian and Salman (1986) in an experiment with broilers, reported increase in body weight gain and feed efficiency of birds fed 2.5 % processed hatchery waste as compared to 0 and 5%. Similarly nutrient dense hatchery by-products were considered equal to or better than a conventional poultry diet with respect to broiler live performance and carcass yield (Deshmukh and Patterson, 1997). However, immediate dehydration or cooking of hatchery waste followed by dehydration to prevent spoilage and the growth of deleterious microorganisms was recommended. In the current

Table III.- Effect of feeding hatchery waste on production parameters.

###Treatment1###Egg production (%)###Av. egg weight (g)###Egg mass (g/d)###Feed conversion (g/g)

###Control###76.55ab###54.56###41.76ab###2.40

###Ck4###74.64ab###54.33###40.56ab###2.47

###Ck8###75.83ab###54.57###41.38ab###2.42

###Ck12###74.06ab###54.67###40.48ab###2.48

###Aut4###79.56a###54.84###43.63a###2.30

###Aut8###72.14b###54.42###39.27ab###2.58

###Aut12###72.24b###54.99###39.69ab###2.54

###Ext4###73.81ab###54.48###40.22ab###2.50

###Ext8###70.87b###55.54###39.39ab###2.55

###Ext12###69.48b###55.56###38.58b###2.60

###Processing of HWM

###Cooking###74.84###54.52###40.81###2.46

###Autoclaving###74.65###54.75###40.86###2.47

###Extrusion###71.39###55.19###39.40###2.55

###Level of HWM

###4%###76.01###54.55###41.47###2.42

###8%###72.95###54.84###40.01###2.52

###12 %###71.93###55.07###39.58###2.54

###SEM###1.022###0.136###0.549###0.036

study, processing of hatchery waste by extrusion proved least effective as far as production performance is concerned. This is contrary to the findings of Deshmukh and Patterson (1997) who demonstrated that extrusion of hatchery waste meal could generate nutrient rich, palatable ingredients that are comparable to traditional ingredients for supporting poultry growth and production. Differences in the composition of raw hatchery waste and storage conditions may explain the disparity between the two studies.

Egg components

Data on the effect of incorporation of HWM in layer diets on egg components are presented in Table IV. Yolk, albumen and shell weights as a percentage of egg weight were not significantly affected with the use of different levels and processing of HWM. Maximum shell weight (12.20%) was noted in group reared on ration formulated with 4% autoclaved meal while minimum was observed in ration consuming meal processed in same manner but included at8% level (11.76%) but this difference was statistically non significant (Pgreater than 0.5). Same was case with albumen and yolk weight. Albumen weight ranged from 63.53% (autoclaved 4%) to 64.57% (Control). Contrasts among the groups made on the basis of different processing and levels also revealed non- significant effects for egg components. These results revealed that egg components are independent of dietary treatments used in the study.

Previous findings of Mazalli et al. (2004) supported the findings of current experiment which also showed non-significant d ifferences in the proportion of yolk or albumen to total egg weight.

Egg quality parameters

Table V represents the effect of experimental diets containing varying levels of HWM processed

Table IV.- Effect of feeding hatchery waste on egg components.

###Shell###Yolk###Albumen

Treatment1###weight###weight###weight

###(%)###(%)###(%)

Control###11.89###23.54###64.57

Ck4###12.00###24.44###63.56

Ck8###12.19###24.11###63.70

Ck12###11.98###24.08###63.93

Aut4###12.20###24.27###63.53

Aut8###11.76###24.30###64.15

Aut12###11.79###24.57###64.10

Ext4###12.22###24.29###63.70

Ext8###11.90###24.26###63.88

Ext12###12.00###24.15###63.84

Processing of

HWM

###Cooking###12.06###24.21###63.73

###Autoclaving###11.92###24.38###63.93

###Extrusion###12.04###24.23###63.81

Level of HWM

###4%###12.14###24.33###63.60

###8%###11.95###24.22###63.91

###12 %###11.92###24.26###63.96

###SEM###0.034###0.061###0.088

through different techniques on egg quality parameters. Maximum value of albumen height, an indicator of internal egg quality, was obtained after inclusion of 4% autoclaved HWM but it was interesting to note that it decreased when 8% autoclaved HWM was used in the diet. Haugh unit which was derived by using albumen height and egg weight also showed the same trend. The reduction in the internal quality of egg with the decrease in HU was also reported by Senkoylu et al. (2005) while using poultry by product meal and feather meal alone or in combination. It was suggested that feather meal or poultry by product meal could be incorporated up to 5% separately or up to 8% in combination in layer diets but with possible detrimental effects on HU.

However, when experimental groups consuming HWM prepared by different processing techniques and levels of HWM with control diet were compared, it showed that albumen height and HU values of eggs obtained by feeding processed Autoclaved 4% HWM were higher (89) than the control diet (85.81). Non-significant differences (p=0.05) were observed among the processing techniques. HU was a little bit higher in groups consuming 4 % level than those fed 8 and 12 % of HWM. This was in agreement with the findings of Mazalli et al. (2004) who reported non-significant differences for HU estimates of eggs by different treatments while investigating the effect of different fat sources on egg quality.

Shell thickness fell within very narrow range (0.341 to 0.350) and showed non-significant effect of individual dietary treatments on this egg quality parameter. Comparison of processing and levels of HWM also demonstrated no effect. Al Harthi et al. (2009) stated that shell quality was improved by addition of this meal in layers diet even added at 8 to 16% level and it also imposed no adverse effects on bird's health. This study supported the finding of Abiola and Onunkwor (2004) who earlier observed that complete replacement of animal protein source like fish meal with HWM in layer diet have no adverse effect on egg quality characteristics. Other egg quality parameters related to yolk, like yolk height, yolk diameter and yolk index were also statistically independent of dietary treatments. Yolk color is usually affected by the change in feed formulation however, the use of different processing and levels of HWM did not (Pgreater than 0.05) effect yolk color.

Results are in line with Odunsi et al. (2013) who stated th at hatchery waste meal can successfully replace fish meal with an enhanced value on egg quality at a reduced cost without any adverse effect on heamatology parameters in laying Japanese quail diets.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that autoclaving of hatchery waste is better than extrusion and cooking techniques and 4% of autoclaved HWM may be included in layers ration to get more production than diets with HW. Nevertheless, in layer diets up to 8% HWM could be used to feed the laying hens to maintain reasonably good production without detrimental effects on egg quality.

Table V.- Effect of feeding hatchery waste on egg quality parameters.

Treatment1###Albumen height###Haugh unit###Shell thickness###Yolk index###Yolk color

Control###7.30bc###85.81bc###0.348###0.477###6.71

Ck4###7.36abc###86.27bc###0.350###0.483###6.58

Ck8###7.68ab###88.47ab###0.348###0.480###6.76

Ck12###7.64ab###88.00abc###0.349###0.478###6.70

Aut4###7.81a###89.00a###0.353###0.486###7.08

Aut8###7.19c###85.33c###0.344###0.474###6.68

Aut12###7.44abc###86.84abc###0.341###0.478###6.68

Ext4###7.65ab###88.39ab###0.348###0.482###6.91

Ext8###7.75ab###88.25ab###0.341###0.482###6.86

Ext12###7.34bc###85.85bc###0.343###0.473###6.81

Processing of HWM

###Cooking###7.56###87.58###0.349###0.480###6.68

###Autoclaving###7.48###87.06###0.346###0.479###6.81

###Extrusion###7.58###87.50###0.344###0.479###6.86

Level of HWM

###4%###7.60###87.89###0.350###0.484###6.86

###8%###7.54###87.35###0.344###0.479###6.77

###12 %###7.47###86.90###0.344###0.476###6.73

###SEM###0.045###0.271###0.001###0.001###0.056

REFERENCES

ABIOLA, S.S. AND ONUNKWOR, E.K., 2004. Replacement values of hatchery waste meal for fishmeal in layer diets. Bioresour. Technol., 95: 103 -106.

AL-HARTHI, M. A., EL-DEEK, A. A., ATTIA, Y. A., BOVERA, F. AND QOTA, E.M., 2009. Effect of different dietary levels of mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa) leaves and spice supplementation on productive performance, egg quality, lipid metabolism and metabolic profiles in laying hens. Brit. Poul. Sci., vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 700-708. DOI: 10.1080/00071660903202948

ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTS, 2000. Official methods of analysis. 17th ed.Washington, DC. USA.

BLAKE, J.P., 1998. Upgrading the value of mortality residues. In: Proceedings 1998 National Poultry Waste Management Symposium. Fayetteville, AR. National Poultry Waste Management Symposium Committee, Auburn University, AL. pp. 50-60.

BLAKE, J.P. AND DONALD, J.O., 1992. Alternatives for the disposal of poultry carcasses. Poult. Sci., 71: 1130 1135.

CARR, E.L., MOORE, R.C. AND JOHNSON, C.A., 1992. Hatchery waste composting. In: Proceedings National Poultry Waste Management Symposium. Auburn University Printing Service, Auburn University, AL. USA, pp. 139144.

DAS, K.C. MINKARA, M.Y., MELEAR, N.D. AND TOLLNER, E.W., 2002. Effect of poultry litter amendment on hatchery waste composting. J. appl. Poult. Res., 11: 282290.

DESHMUKH, A.C. AND PATTERSON, P.H., 1997. Preservation of hatchery waste by lactic acid fermentation. 2. Large scale fermentation and feeding trial to evaluate feeding value. Poult. Sci., 76: 1220 1226.

DUFLOTH, J.H., CIOCCA L.S. AND LEBOUTE, E.M., 1987. Evaluation of the hatchery by product meal as feed stuff for laying hens. Pesquisa- Agropeceasia Brasil, 22: 850-866.

DUNCAN, D.B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11: 1-42.

HAMM, D. AND WHITEHEAD, W.K., 1982. Holding techniques for hatchery wastes. Poult. Sci., 61: 1025 1028.

HAUGH, R.R., 1937. The Haugh unit for measuring egg quality. US Egg Poult. Mag., 43:522555.

ILIAN, M.A. AND SALMAN, A.J., 1986. Feeding processed hatchery wastes to poultry. Agric. Wastes, 15: 178186.

KEMPSTER, H.L., 1945. The use of dried incubator offal in chick rations. Poult. Sci., 24: 396398.

MAZALLI, M.R., FARIA, D.E., SALVADOR, D. AND ITO, D.T., 2004. A comparison of the feeding value of different sources of fats for laying hens: 1. Performance characteristics. J. appl. Poult. Res., 13: 274279.

MILLER, B.F., 1984. Extruding hatchery waste. Poult. Sci., 63: 1284-1286.

NRC NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, 1994. Nutrient requirements of poultry. 9th ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

ODUNSI, A. A., AKINWUMI, A.O. AND FALANA, O., 2013. Replacement value of hatchery waste meal for fish meal in the diet of laying japanese quail (coturnix coturnix japonica). Int. Fd. Res. J., 20: 3107-3110.

RASOOL, S., REHAN, M., HAQ, A. AND ALAM, M.Z., 1999. Preparation and nutritional evaluation of hatchery meal for broilers. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 12: 554- 557.

SAS INSTITUTE, 2003. SAS User's Guide: Version 9.2, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. USA.

SENKOYLU, N., SAMLI, H.E., AKYUREK, H., AGMA, A. AND YASAR, S., 2005. Performance and egg characteristics of laying hens fed diets incorporated with poultry by-product and feather meals. J. appl. Poult. Res., 14: 542547.

SHAHRIAR, H.A., NAZER-ADEL, K., DOOLGARISHARAF, J. AND MONIRIFAR, H., 2008. Effects of dietary different levels of hatchery wastes in broilers. J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 7: 100-105.

STEEL, R.G.D., TORRIE, J.H. AND DICKEY, D.A., 1997. Principles and procedures of statistics: A biometrical approach. 3rd edition. McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc., New York.
COPYRIGHT 2015 Asianet-Pakistan
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Mahmud, Athar; Saima; Jabbar, Makhdoom Abdul; Sahota, Abdul Waheed; Hayat, Zafar; Khan, Muhammad Zaf
Publication:Pakistan Journal of Zoology
Article Type:Report
Date:Aug 31, 2015
Words:4242
Previous Article:Heavy Metals Uptake by Cucurbita maxima Grown in Soil Contaminated with Sewage Water and its Human Health Implications in Peri-urban Areas of...
Next Article:Oedipodinae (Acrididae: Orthoptera) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters