Journal articles on the topic 'Cattle bureau'

ANALYSIS OF LAND CARRYING CAPACITY AND ITS POTENCY FOR BEEF CATTLE DEVELOPMENT IN PAKAKAAN MINAHASA REGENCY. This study has been conducted in The PAKAKAAN, Minahasa Regency on February 2nd - April 5th 2014. The study aimed to: identify and calculate the carrying capacity of the land as a source of forage feed. Method of analysis that used in this study was descriptive analysis, where the research locations was selected by purposive sampling method, with consideration that the area is agropolitan region, in which beef cattle as the main commodity. Data collected were included secondary data. Secondary data were from: a) Minahasa Statistics Center Bureau, b) the Department of Agriculture, Livestock and Agriculture Service of Minahasa, c) reading material and results of research published by official agencies. The source of the data that is; a) the stakeholders (farmers / ranchers, merchants, butcher, retailers and consumers of beef) b) experts / specialists (college / Toma) c) SKPD and related agency in Minahasa. The data was then processed and analyzed through the calculation land capacity index. Pakakaan is a region defined by the government Minahasa as an Agropolitan region where its main commodity is beef cattle. This region has an area extent of about ​​356.68 km2, which spread in 10 sub-districts. By 2013 the population in the region were 106.270 inhabitants, the population density per districts amounted to an average 298 people/km2 (Department of Agriculture and Minahasan Livestock and Agriculture Service, 2014). The land area extent in the region was 32.010 hectares, with the total number of agricultural households (HH) were 27.264, the density was 1.77 ha/HH. Cattle population in the year 2013 as many as 10.581 heads, thenumber of cattle farmers were 4.038, which means the averageof cattle ownership was 2.62 heads/farmer, and the beef cattle density was 29.67 heads/km2. The results showed that with a land area of ​​32.010 hectares will be able to produce forage for cattle in the amount of 11.541 tonnes per year, while the roughage can be generated by 123.934 tonnes per year. These means that the average of feed potential availability as much as 135.484 tonnes per year. Based on the livestock unit analysis, the animal unit (AU)of cattle population was 8.040 AU, in which the total capacity of cattle was 118.846AU/year, when it subtracted by the recent total cattle population there, hence the development potential was 108.740 AU per year. It is concluded:1)the land carrying capacity index (CCI) for the development of beef cattle in the Pakakaan region was in the category of "safe" with a value of>2, Keywords : beef cattle, animal unit, capability index.

Samples of h e r , kidney and muscle were collected between 1975 and 1983 from 2797 sheep or cattle at 39 meatworks located in all Australian States and the Northern Territory on behalf of the Australian Bureau of Animal Health. The samples were analysed for copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) at government analytical laboratories. Mean values and proportions falling into various class intervals are presented. Hepatic Cu concentrations tended to be positively skewed with a long tail of observations with high concentrations. About 3% of ovine livers and 9% of bovine livers contained <2 mg Cu/kg freshweight when calculated on a national basis. This concentration was arbitrarily taken as the criterion of a low Cu status, and the proportion within States falling into this class ranged from about 1% in sheep from Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania to about 11% in Victoria. Proportions in cattle were highest in Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales, and were 13.6, 10.5 and 8.9% respectively. Correlations between Cu and Zn concentrations in the different tissues were low. Possible sources of bias in applying the results to predicting the number of Cu-deficient animals in the various States are discussed.

The paper presents data on the cattle industry in the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Serbia. China is the third largest dairy producing country and the third largest beef producing country in the world. In 2011, the dairy cow population in China was 14.4 million. Chinese dairy breed is mainly obtained by grading hybridization from Holstein, Simmental, etc. which were introduced from foreign countries, and local cattle breeds for long time to form the offspring with stable genetic characteristics. Currently, the dairy breeds cultured in China mainly include Chinese Holstein, Chinese Simmental, dairy buffalo, Brown cattle, Sanhe cattle, etc. Chinese Holstein accounts for about 80% of the total dairy cattle. From 2000 to 2007, Chinese beef production has always been in a rapid growth phase, with an increase from 5.054 million tons to 6.134 million tons, reached a historical highest level of 6.355 million tons in 2009, but rapidly declined since 2009, and dropped to 5 million tons in 2011. In addition, the amounts of reproduction cow and beef cattle in stock were also declined. In 2011, there were about 32.7 million beef cattle slaughtered, and the beef cattle population was about 80 million at the end of 2011, the beef carcass yield was about 5.5 million tons, the national average carcass weight was 201.5kg/cow, and the production value of beef cattle was about 200.75 billion Yuan. Currently, the amount of reproduction cow in stock declined sharply; the contradiction between the lack of cattle resource and the continued growth of beef consumption is more and more serious. Chinese dairy farming is mainly concentrated in the North, Northeast and Northwest of China, the dairy cows population in Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Heilongjiang and Hebei account for 60% of the total population in China; the beef cattle is mainly concentrated in rural areas as Henan, Shandong and Hebei provinces, accounting for 80% of the national amount of slaughtered beef cattle. In recent years, the superior regions of beef cattle breeding have been gradually shifted towards north and southwest. The beef cattle industry in Heilongjiang Province, Sichuan Province, Yunnan Province and Guizhou Province has been developed rapidly. The beef cattle breeding in pastoral areas are mainly concentrated in Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and Gansu province. Cattle production is important branch of livestock production in Republic of Serbia. Current situation in cattle production is not satisfactory in regard to the production per head and number of heads which has been constantly decreasing in recent years. Based on official statistical data, current situation in cattle production is considered as unfavourable (Bureau of Statistics of Republic of Serbia). Number of cattle in 2011 was 936.000 heads and constantly decreasing over the last 11 years. In this period, number of cattle is reduced by 18%, and number of cows and pregnant heifers by 14%. Data on number and categories of cattle also indicate considerable reduction, so category of cattle at the age of 1 to 2 years has been reduced by 24.5%, and number of calves by 29.2%. Production of cow milk is relatively steady. In 2011 milk production was 1.434.000liters. This can be explained by increased production of milk per cow. Genetic progress in milk traits was achieved by utilization of progeny tested bulls on milk and increased scope of artificial insemination of cows and heifers. Production of meat is in constant decrease which is consequence of reduction of total number of cattle as well as insufficient number of slaughterhouses with EU certificate. Meat production in 2011 was 81.000 t. Our country, although without developed cattle breeding, has been traditional exporter of beef, meat products and fattening young cattle into many countries, even the most developed ones, for instance Italy and Greece. Export of beef was in expansion prior to Italy (1974) and Greece (1980) entering the EEC. For instance, in year 1974, we exported 50.500 t/annually on Italian market, i.e. in 1980 51.310 t and there were 24 registered slaughterhouses with EEC certificate. Today, there are only a few slaughterhouses with EU certificate, and approved export quota of close to 8.000 t of beef we cannot realize. Total production of milk is 1,434.000 l. Cattle production is expected to provide high quality products for export, primarily beef and quality cheeses with defined origin and quality.

Cadmium (Cd) concentrations in 1663 liver, 1779 kidney and 2526 muscle samples were measured in a residue survey organised by the Australian Bureau of Rural Science at meatworks throughout Australia. Cadmium concentrations in livers and kidneys were also determined in sheep ranging in age from newly born to 112 months of age which had been grazed throughout life at high or low stocking rates on an improved pasture dressed annually with superphosphate. Concentrations of Cd in the residue survey averaged (with median) 0.30 (0.11), 0.96 (0.28) and 0.03 (0.01) mg/kg freshweight in ovine liver, kidney and muscle respectively; the corresponding values in cattle were 0.18 (0.08), 0.65 (0.24) and 0.03 (0.01) mg/kg. Concentrations in liver and kidney were greater in older than in younger animals, at high than at low stocking rates, and in South and Western Australia than in other States. Cadmium concentrations increase with age because ruminants are born with a low Cd burden, and much of the Cd ingested and absorbed thereafter is retained as Cd-metallothionein in the liver and kidney. It is postulated that differences in Cd levels between geographical regions, species and stocking rate are partially due to the consumption of soil that had been fertilised with superphosphate containing Cd. Hepatic and renal Cd concentrations were highly correlated and were assumed to reflect Cd intake; correlations with copper concentrations were generally small. Eight per cent of kidneys exceeded maximum permissible Cd concentrations for human consumption (2.5 mg/kg), but only 2% of liver and 1% of muscle samples exceeded the statutory maxima (1.25 and 0.2 mg/kg respectively).

Ranching in the 1990s involves vivid word pictures with emotions, learning, a bit of humor, and fierce independence, explained Connie, as students and resource specialists sat on hay bales in a small barn on the high desert in central Oregon. Rangeland Resource students listened, a high school English teacher listened, an Extension horticultural specialist listened, and a Bureau of Land Management ecologist listened along with the professor. A wagon wheel stood near a rusty bucket of sagebrush and bunchgrass. Doc contributed short stories, a few facts, and his perspective of the same events. As she continued, Connie looked toward Doc and wondered whether her story was pitched at about the right level of emotion; was she effectively describing their ranching experience in the 1990s? He smiled under a large grey cowboy hat as his boot rested on the wagon wheel. Everyone felt the tension. Inviting environmental advocates to their ranch … was this wise?Many experiences later, Doc says they have regained independence through collaborative learning with urban dwellers and consumers of their beef products. They welcome people with open minds toward learning. Their vision includes cattle, fish, and wildlife; the 7 inches of rain or snow that falls in winter and must be captured to sustain fish and urban dwellers in August; and sharing beliefs and values about the landscape while fish, grass, and ranchers survive.

THE ROLE OF EXTENSIONISTS TO THE DECISION OF FARMERS IN THE ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION FARMS IN SANGKUB SUB-DISTRICT, NORTH BOLAANG MONGONDOW DISTRICT.Extension activities is one of the goverment’s efforts that have an important role in improving knowledge, skills and attitude to livestock. Extension workers have an important role in the development of livestock breeding and improvement of livestock technology adoption process to farmers. The purpose of this study was to examine the role of extension workers in decision making farmers in the adoption of technological innovation farms in District of Sangkub North of Bolaang Mongondow regency. This research was done by survey method. Three villages was selected using purposive method. Thirty respondents then selected from breeder groups, which is done randomly. Data collection was done by interview, observation and documentation. The sources of data taken include primary data in the form of respondent identity, the number of livestock kept, the technology applied and the role of extension workers. Secondary data obtained from agriculture office of north Bolaang Mongondow regency, agricultural and forestry extension agency (BP3K) of Sangkub sub-district and central bureau of statistics Bolaang Mongondow. Data were analyzed by using scoring method and descriptive analysis. Result of the research indicate that the tendency of farmer appraisal to agriculture extension role as motivator, dynamic and facilitator in district of Sangkub Regency of North Bolaang Mongondow was optimal The results showed that the process of adoption of cattle ranchers in Sangkub sub-district North of Bolaang Mongondow regency is varied from respondents who do not know about farming technology, have tried and already apply. And the role of extensionists have and influence on the dicision of farmers in the adoption of farm technology innovation in Sangkub sub-district.Keywords : The role of extensionists, Adoption process, Decision – making

The purpose of this research is to provide information on sustainable livestock strategies with regard to the environment and social of Papua local communities in the process of cattle breeding process. In addition to increasing the productivity of local livestock, it is required the efficiency of the use of feed materials derived from agricultural waste. This policy should be supported with innovation and technology. Data collection method of this research using two types of data that is primary data and secondary data, primary data obtained from interviews of 30 breeders and the determination of respondents is conducted by way of purposive sampling. Secondary data were obtained from the Livestock Service Office of Merauke Regency, Department of Food Crops and Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS). The field survey results show that in addition to the field grass as the main feed, all breeders use agricultural waste as forage for livestock feed and use little palm oil waste. Types of agricultural waste used are rice straw, sweet potato straw, corn stalks and leaves, and groundnut straw. The highest agricultural waste production is corn stalk and leaves and banana waste both based on fresh produce and dry ingredients. In addition to the most common maintenance pattern is extensively and the best livestock development sites are in elikobel. Site selection based on various things such as location of topography, suboptimal land use, integration pattern optimization, developing local livestock such as poultry and pigs. The conclusion of this research is the strategy of development of sustainable livestock in border area can be conducted in elikobel district with various records such as the need of government policy related to environmentally careful livestock integration system, improving feed innovation and technology, livestock breeding, reproduction technology, and animal disease control to increase productivity and production of local livestock.

Leather industry is an export oriented industry in Bangladesh and according to the Export Promotion Bureau, in the fiscal year 2017–2018 leather sector earned US$1.03 billion by exporting leather, leather products, and footwear [1] . But it is a matter of great concern that this industry produces lots of pollution which impacts on our environment immensely. Normally thousands of kg raw cattle hide converts into 200kg finished leather [2]. Leather processing (tanning) is a complex procedure comprising of several technological steps to shield the raw hide/skin against microbiological degradation as well as to stabilize collagen with defined tanning agents which produce a significant amount of waste. Wastes originate from all stages of leather manufacturing, such as tiny particles, residues from various tanning stages and reagents from different waste liquors comprising of cuttings of raw hides and skins , trimmings and shavings, fleshing residues, solid hair debris [3]. In this conversion process the amount of total solid waste produces is about 450-550kg. This work is intended to develop a fat extraction method from the limed flashings for soap production. In leather processing, just after washing, following the liming process, swollen pelts (lime treated hide/skin) have to pass through an operation to remove the remaining fat and flesh from the flesh side in order to improve the diffusion of chemicals into pelt is known as fleshing. Generally, fleshings are kept indiscriminately nearly the industrial area as green, which has an adverse effect on the environment including human health. It contains a considerable amount of fat, which could be great source raw materials for soap. The process could be optimized for large scale production, which would be allowed to produce a new product for the commercial use. The approach could also contribute a significant reduction in the environmental impact of inevitable solid waste and decrease the costs associated with disposal.

The ratification by Ukraine of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1994, the approval of the Interlaken Declaration in 2007, the Global Plan of Action on Farm Animal Genetic Resources and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing, signed in 2012, imposes certain obligations to our country, especially concerning farm animal breed conservation. Indigenous breeds have considerable store of variability, high cultural, aesthetic and ecological value and should therefore be unequivocally preserved. The state of this issue in Ukraine and the place of Zubets Institute of Animal Breeding and Genetics of NAAS in the solution of the issue are covered in this article. The research was conducted using methodological approaches that are consistent with the Global Action Plan on Animal Genetic Resources, EU Directives, the current legislative framework for livestock in Ukraine, programs and plans of breeding of specific breeds and herds of farm animals. The degree of inbreeding was determined using the method of S. Wright in the modification of D. A. Kislovsky. Conservation of farm animal gene pool is a global issue and affair of certain international organizations, in particular FAO. In Ukraine M.V.Zubets Institute of Animal Breeding and Genetics has been actively engaged in the issue of conservation of biodiversity of farm animals during 1996–2017. By the decision of the Bureau of the Presidium of the UAAS on March 11, 2004 (protocol No. 3), the Institute of Animal Breeding and Genetics assigned to be the main institution for the organization and implementation of a new scientific and technical program "Preservation of farm animal gene pool". In 2004 there was prepared a "Report on the Status of Genetic Resources of Livestock in Ukraine: Materials for FAO" (authors: M. V. Zubets, V. P. Burkat, D. O. Melnychuk, O. I. Kostenko, Yu. F. Melnyk, I. V. Guzev, R. M. Schmidt, G. G. Omelyanenko, V. I. Drobot, V. A. Pidzhelkova, A.F. Gordin, M. V. Stompel) with the participation of the Institute of Animal Breeding and Genetics of the NAAS. To fulfill stated tasks, in 2006 the technology and methodology of breeding resources survey holding, breeding resources’ integrated assessment and identification of their economic and genetic specificity were proposed. According to the developed technology, in 2006–2010, 208 breeding herds of cattle, horses, sheep, pigs and poultry were surveyed. In the next year (2007), the Institute held a creative discussion "Problems of farm animal gene pool conservation." In the same year, the Institute workers (I. V. Guzev) took part in the International Scientific Conference "Conservation of Animal Genetic Resources in Poland and Europe" (Krakow, Poland), in 2009 – at the International Congress "On the Traces of Grey Podolic Cattle" (Matera, Italy), 2012 (S. I. Kovtun, N. L. Rieznykova) – in the workshop of the ERFP working group on the conservation ex situ "Legal and institutional arrangements for ex situ conservation at national level" (Zagreb, Croatia), 2016 (N. L. Rieznykova) – in a seminar on the conservation in situ and ex situ (Godöllo, Hungary). M. V. Zubets Institute of Animal Breeding and Genetics of NAAS in 2017 formed the request for the participation in the international project of FAO on the conservation and rational use of the Brown Carpathian cattle gene pool. The monitoring of the status of local small-scale and endangered farm animal breeds of different species on their number and number of breeding farms in Ukraine (2011–2017), according to the State Breeding Registry, revealed a tendency to the annual reduction of both the number of subjects of the breeding business in the relevant livestock sector and the general number of animals in breeds. According to the results of the analysis conducted amongst a large number of small-scale farm animal breeds in Ukraine, the most vulnerable populations were chosen on the basis of the number of females and breeding farms. In Ukraine Grey Ukrainian, Ukrainian Whiteheaded, Brown Carpathian, Lebedyn cattle breeds, Hutsul horse breed, Sokil sheep breed, Mirgorodian, Ukrainian Steppe Black-and-White and Ukrainian Steppe White pig breeds are going to disappear. Taking into account the above mentioned, the Program of conservation of local and endangered breeds of farm animals in Ukraine for 2017–2025, based on the initiative and direct participation of Zubets Institute of Animal Breeding and Genetics, has been developed. It requires the annual budget subsidy at the level of 22.01–42.85 mln. UAH. One of the methods of rational use and conservation of local, small-scale and indigenous farm animal breeds’ gene pool is the establishment of banks for long-term storage of biological material. Inventory of available resources of local cattle sperm was carried out. The bulls' sperm is stored at the Bank of Genetic Resources of Animals at M.V.Zubets Institute of Animal Breeding and Genetics of NAAS and nine enterprises of Ukraine. The level of inbreeding among local and endangered breeds was studied. It was established that the highest level of inbreeding is observed among the bulls of the Brown Carpathian breed. Amonst promising further scientific research directions are the next: expeditionary research on the availability of pure-blood animals in gene pool herds, identification of biological characteristics of indigenous animals’ products, estimation of cultural and aesthetic value, resistance level, adaptive ability, and the search for genetic markers of local, small-scale and disappearing breeds.

This research aims to analyze the development potential of the regions of beef cattle and the factors that influence the development of beef cattle in the Regency of Subang. Research carried out by analyzing the primary data from a breeder and secondary data are sourced from the Department of animal husbandry and animal health District of Subang, food security and animal husbandry Office of West Java province and the Central Bureau of statistics the Regency of Subang. The data are analyzed in a descriptive and statistical. Analysis of the potential of the region using the parameters of location quotient (LQ) and factors development of beef cattle were analyzed by linear regression model, with multiple dependent factor (Y) beef cattle Population and the independent variable (X) from the a row is beef cattle population total population of Subang, County, and sales of beef cattle out of the Kabupaten Subang. Keywords: Potential, Region, Beef Cattle

The characteristics of beef cattle business in West Nusa Tenggara province which are dominated by small-scale farmers by semi-intensive and extensive systems are relatively inefficient. The research objectives were to identify the factors that influenced the level of production and analyze the technical efficiency of beef cattle production in West Nusa Tenggara. The research used cross section data taken from the results of the 2014 Livestock Household Survey (ST2013-STU) conducted by the Indonesia Central Bureau of Statistic. The analytical method used in this study was the stochastic frontier production function. The analysis results of the stochastic frontier production function showed that forage fodder input, concentrates, labour, animal health care and herd size are influential factors on beef cattle production. The average level of technical efficiency of beef cattle farmers in West Nusa Tenggara is 0.705. This shows that the average productivity achieved is 70.5 percent, which means that production can still be increased by 29.5 percent to achieve maximum productivity. The policy to reduce the level of technical inefficiency is by providing facilitation to farmers in order to change their production systems from extensive to intensive or semi-intensive.

Livestock product is one of the essential materials to maintain human body endurance. It is the source of some proteins which are significant for human health. The Indonesian government has also been keeping the growth of livestock productivity because the population growth can influence the consumption of some animal origin products. The objective of this research was to determine the correlation between livestock population and production in Indonesia on 2009-2018. The secondary data from the Indonesia Central Bureau of Statistics 2018, including the population of beef cattle, laying hens, goat, broiler, and the production of beef, eggs, lamb, and chicken meat in 2009 - 2018 was analyzed. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation analysis were used for the statistical analysis. This research concluded that there were correlations between population and the production of goat, laying hens, and broiler (sig. < 0.05). However, there was no correlation between population and the production of beef cattle (sig. > 0.05). The important thing to increase the livestock production is grazing system.Key words: Livestock Populatio; Livestock Production; Statistics Descriptive; Correlation Analysis

Abstract Background This study aimed to describe the changing distribution of human brucellosis between 2004 and 2017 in mainland China and seek scientific evidence of the relationship between socio-economic, environmental, and ecological factors and human brucellosis incidence. Methods The annual numbers of brucellosis cases and incidence rates from 31 provinces in mainland China between 2004 and 2017 were obtained from the Data-Center for China Public Health Science. The number of monthly brucellosis cases in 2018 was obtained from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The electronic map of the People’s Republic of China was downloaded from the National Earth System Science Data Sharing Platform. Human population density, gross domestic product (GDP), and an inventory of cattle and sheep at the end of each year from 2004 to 2017 were obtained from the National Bureau of Statistics of China. Annual rainfall data from 31 provinces in the People’s Republic of China from 2004 to 2017 were collected from the China Meteorological Data Service Center. The risk distribution and changing trends of human brucellosis were mapped with ArcGIS. A cluster analysis was employed to identify geographical areas and periods with statistically significant incidence rates. Multivariate linear regression was used to determine possible factors that were significantly correlated with the presence of human brucellosis cases. Results Human brucellosis cases have spread throughout the whole country. Human brucellosis cases occurred mostly from March to August and were concentrated from April to July. The inventory of sheep, GDP, and climate were significantly correlated with the presence of brucellosis cases in mainland China. Conclusions The geographical expansion of human brucellosis in mainland China was observed, so did the high-incidence clusters between 2004 and 2017. Most of the cases were reported during the early spring to early summer (February–August). Results from the multivariate linear regression suggested that the inventory of sheep, GDP, and climate were significantly associated with the incidence of human brucellosis in mainland China.

Abstract Study question Are there effects of high non-esterified fatty acids exclusively during bovine in vitro fertilization on cell lineage allocation of blastocysts? Summary answer Under the conditions of the present study, high exposure to NEFA during bovine IVF significantly decreases embryo production and alters cell allocation of resultant blastocysts. What is known already Cattle models have shown that a high exposure to non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) such as steric acid (SA), palmitic acid (PA]) and oleic acid (OA) during in vitro oocyte maturation and embryo development can disrupt both embryo formation and quality. However, the fertilization process per se have been less studied, which is needed to identify developmental stages were potential therapies could be develop to ameliorate NEFA toxicity during the periconceptional period Study design, size, duration Day–8 blastocysts were immunostained for CDX2, a transcription factor involved in trophectoderm differentiation, to examine cell allocation of blastocysts derived from oocytes fertilised under high NEFA levels. VF (19 h) was carried with different NEFA levels(4 replicates) representing physiological (Control–1[C1], 28μM SA, 23μM PA, 21μM OA) and pathophysiological (NEFA, 280μM SA, 230μM PA, 210μM OA) relevant concentrations. A second control (C2) group contained solvent. Blastocysts (C1; n = 14, C2; n = 12, NEFA; n = 8) Participants/materials, setting, methods All blastocysts were examined by confocal microscopy and cell counting was done with the Imaris software. Data were analysed by ANOVA (mean±SEM) with percentage data arcsine transformed before analysis. Main results and the role of chance Blastocyst formation was decreased by high NEFA levels (C1=25.6±2.7%, C2=26.0±2.3%, NEFA=9.4±0.4%, P &lt; 0.001) which was associated with a decreased cleavage rate (C1=70.1±6.5%, C2=71.5±3.1%, NEFA=42.5±4.1%, P = 0.006) and an increase in embryo degeneration (C1=47.6±3.5%, C2=47.7±5.8%, NEFA=63.0±4.9%, P = 0.05). A lower total cell (TC) the number was observed in high NEFA-derived blastocyst (C1=125.2±6.6, C2=132.3±8.4, NEFA=67.3±5.6, P &lt; 0.001) associated with a low cell number in both the trophectoderm (CDX2 positive cells, C1=90.2±5.9, C2=96.7±6.4, NEFA=41.3±4.1, P &lt; 0.001) and the inner cell mass (ICM, C1=35.0±2.4, C2=35.7±3.5, NEFA=26.0±2.2, P &lt; 0.001). Furthermore, high NEFA-derived blastocyst showed an increased allocation of cells towards the ICM (ICM/TC proportion, C1=28.2±1.7%, C2=26.9±1.8%, NEFA=39.1±2.2%, P &lt; 0.001) Limitations, reasons for caution It will be better if the number of blastocysts reached increases. Wider implications of the findings: such research can be widely applied to the human model due to the similarities between both specie. Trial registration number Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia Cultural Bureau

Microsatellite markers are now been widely used for the detection and description of micropopulation processes occurring in the populations of domestic animals for the effects of various factors of breeding pressure. Microsatellite loci distributed throughout eukaryotic genomes, making them the preferred genetic marker for high resolution genetic mapping. In recent years, rapid advances have been made in the development of molecular genetic maps. High-density linkage maps are now available for many farm animals, such as cattle, pigs, and goats. In contrast, mapping studies in avian species are much less advanced except in the chicken. According to FAO about 70% of ducks are bred in China. This country is a leader in growing ducks. The Shaoxing breed is one of the three major duck breeds in China. Ducks of this breed are characterized by high performance. According to the Bureau of Product Quality, the age of maturity (the beginning of egg laying) in these birds occurs at 130–140 days. The characteristics of the Shaoxing breed include the fact that the peak period of laying eggs lasts from eight to ten months. On average, one duck in 500 days gives from 290 to 310 eggs, which is one of the highest rates for egg breeds. That is why the purpose of our study was the microsatellite analysis of two populations of Shaoxing breed with 9 locuses was conducted. The selection of birds for the study were carried out on a duck farms in Zhejiang Generation Biological Science and Technology Co., Ltd. and Zhuji Guowei Poultry Development Co, Ltd., and at the laboratory of the Jjejiang Academy of Sciences Institute. Samples collection and DNA preparation: Venous blood samples were collected from 480 ducks (240 ducks of population I and 240 ducks of population II of the Shaoxing breeds) of both populations into 3 ml tubes containing EDTA as anticoagulant agent. In total of 9 investigated loci in the Shaoxing breed population, only one locus was monomorphic (SMO10). The number of different alleles (Na) for each polymorphic locus ranged from 2 (SMO12) to 13 (APL79, CMO11) in population I and from 2 (APL78, SMO12) to 7 (APL79) in population II. On average, one locus had 5.889 alleles in population I and 3.889 of alleles in the population II. The effective number of alleles (Nе) was 1.735 in population I and 1.599 in population II. The number of alleles and the expected heterozygosity (Hexp) values can provide important information for the discrimination of individuals and breeds. The index of expected heterozygosity in population I was 0.336 and 0.307 in population II. The information index (I) was 0,702 in population I and 0,576 in population II. For each population was found private alleles, in population I 6 alleles and in population II just 4 alleles. The results show high level of polymorphism of the studied populations of ducks. The obtained results can be used in the creation of new lines of ducks.

Kangatarianism is the rather inelegant word coined in the first decade of the twenty-first century to describe an omnivorous diet in which the only meat consumed is that of the kangaroo. First published in the media in 2010 (Barone; Zukerman), the term circulated in Australian environmental and academic circles including the Global Animal conference at the University of Wollongong in July 2011 where I first heard it from members of the Think Tank for Kangaroos (THINKK) group. By June 2017, it had gained enough attention to be named the Oxford English Dictionary’s Australian word of the month (following on from May’s “smashed avo,” another Australian food innovation), but it took the Nine Network reality television series Love Island Australia to raise kangatarian to trending status on social media (Oxford UP). During the first episode, aired in late May 2018, Justin, a concreter and fashion model from Melbourne, declared himself to have previously been a kangatarian as he chatted with fellow contestant, Millie. Vet nurse and animal lover Millie appeared to be shocked by his revelation but was tentatively accepting when Justin explained what kangatarian meant, and justified his choice on the grounds that kangaroo are not farmed. In the social media response, it was clear that eating only the meat of kangaroos as an ethical choice was an entirely new concept to many viewers, with one tweet stating “Kangatarian isn’t a thing”, while others variously labelled the diet brutal, intriguing, or quintessentially Australian (see #kangatarian on Twitter).There is a well developed literature around the arguments for and against eating kangaroo, and why settler Australians tend to be so reluctant to do so (see for example, Probyn; Cawthorn and Hoffman). Here, I will concentrate on the role that ethics play in this food choice by examining how the adoption of kangatarianism can be understood as a bargain struck to help to manage grief in the Anthropocene, and the limitations of that bargain. As Lesley Head has argued, we are living in a time of loss and of grieving, when much that has been taken for granted is becoming unstable, and “we must imagine that drastic changes to everyday life are in the offing” (313). Applying the classic (and contested) model of five stages of grief, first proposed by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her book On Death and Dying in 1969, much of the population of the western world seems to be now experiencing denial, her first stage of loss, while those in the most vulnerable environments have moved on to anger with developed countries for destructive actions in the past and inaction in the present. The next stages (or states) of grieving—bargaining, depression, and acceptance—are likely to be manifested, although not in any predictable sequence, as the grief over current and future losses continues (Haslam).The great expansion of food restrictive diets in the Anthropocene can be interpreted as part of this bargaining state of grieving as individuals attempt to respond to the imperative to reduce their environmental impact but also to limit the degree of change to their own diet required to do so. Meat has long been identified as a key component of an individual’s environmental footprint. From Frances Moore Lappé’s 1971 Diet for a Small Planet through the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation’s 2006 report Livestock’s Long Shadow to the 2019 report of the EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems, the advice has been consistent: meat consumption should be minimised in, if not eradicated from, the human diet. The EAT–Lancet Commission Report quantified this to less than 28 grams (just under one ounce) of beef, lamb or pork per day (12, 25). For many this would be keenly felt, in terms of how meals are constructed, the sensory experiences associated with eating meat and perceptions of well-being but meat is offered up as a sacrifice to bring about the return of the beloved healthy planet.Rather than accept the advice to cut out meat entirely, those seeking to bargain with the Anthropocene also find other options. This has given rise to a suite of foodways based around restricting meat intake in volume or type. Reducing the amount of commercially produced beef, lamb and pork eaten is one approach, while substituting a meat the production of which has a smaller environmental footprint, most commonly chicken or fish, is another. For those willing to make deeper changes, the meat of free living animals, especially those which are killed accidentally on the roads or for deliberately for environmental management purposes, is another option. Further along this spectrum are the novel protein sources suggested in the Lancet report, including insects, blue-green algae and laboratory-cultured meats.Kangatarianism is another form of this bargain, and is backed by at least half a century of advocacy. The Australian Conservation Foundation made calls to reduce the numbers of other livestock and begin a sustainable harvest of kangaroo for food in 1970 when the sale of kangaroo meat for human consumption was still illegal across the country (Conservation of Kangaroos). The idea was repeated by biologist Gordon Grigg in the late 1980s (Jackson and Vernes 173), and again in the Garnaut Climate Change Review in 2008 (547–48). Kangaroo meat is high in protein and iron, low in fat, and high in healthy polyunsaturated fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid, and, as these authors showed, has a smaller environmental footprint than beef, lamb, or pork. Kangaroo require less water than cattle, sheep or pigs, and no land is cleared to grow feed for them or give them space to graze. Their paws cause less erosion and compaction of soil than do the hooves of common livestock. They eat less fodder than ruminants and their digestive processes result in lower emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas methane and less solid waste.As Justin of Love Island was aware, kangaroo are not farmed in the sense of being deliberately bred, fed, confined, or treated with hormones, drugs or chemicals, which also adds to their lighter impact on the environment. However, some pastoralists argue that because they cannot prevent kangaroos from accessing the food, water, shelter, and protection from predators they provide for their livestock, they do effectively farm them, although they receive no income from sales of kangaroo meat. This type of light touch farming of kangaroos has a very long history in Australia going back to the continent’s first peopling some 60,000 years ago. Kangaroos were so important to Aboriginal people that a wide range of environments were manipulated to produce their favoured habitats of open grasslands edged by sheltering trees. As Bill Gammage demonstrated, fire was used as a tool to preserve and extend grassy areas, to encourage regrowth which would attract kangaroos and to drive the animals from one patch to another or towards hunters waiting with spears (passim, for example, 58, 72, 76, 93). Gammage and Bruce Pascoe agree that this was a form of animal husbandry in which the kangaroos were drawn to the areas prepared for them for the young grass or, more forcefully, physically directed using nets, brush fences or stone walls. Burnt ground served to contain the animals in place of fencing, and regular harvesting kept numbers from rising to levels which would place pressure on other species (Gammage 79, 281–86; Pascoe 42–43). Contemporary advocates of eating kangaroo have promoted the idea that they should be deliberately co-produced with other livestock instead of being killed to preserve feed and water for sheep and cattle (Ellicott; Wilson 39). Substituting kangaroo for the meat of more environmentally damaging animals would facilitate a reduction in the numbers of cattle and sheep, lessening the harm they do.Most proponents have assumed that their audience is current meat eaters who would substitute kangaroo for the meat of other more environmentally costly animals, but kangatarianism can also emerge from vegetarianism. Wendy Zukerman, who wrote about kangaroo hunting for New Scientist in 2010, was motivated to conduct the research because she was considering becoming an early adopter of kangatarianism as the least environmentally taxing way to counter the longterm anaemia she had developed as a vegetarian. In 2018, George Wilson, honorary professor in the Australian National University’s Fenner School of Environment and Society called for vegetarians to become kangatarians as a means of boosting overall consumption of kangaroo for environmental and economic benefits to rural Australia (39).Given these persuasive environmental arguments, it might be expected that many people would have perceived eating kangaroo instead of other meat as a favourable bargain and taken up the call to become kangatarian. Certainly, there has been widespread interest in trying kangaroo meat. In 1997, only five years after the sale of kangaroo meat for human consumption had been legalised in most states (South Australia did so in 1980), 51% of 500 people surveyed in five capital cities said they had tried kangaroo. However, it had not become a meat of choice with very few found to eat it more than three times a year (Des Purtell and Associates iv). Just over a decade later, a study by Ampt and Owen found an increase to 58% of 1599 Australians surveyed across the country who had tried kangaroo but just 4.7% eating it at least monthly (14). Bryce Appleby, in his study of kangaroo consumption in the home based on interviews with 28 residents of Wollongong in 2010, specifically noted the absence of kangatarians—then a very new concept. A study of 261 Sydney university students in 2014 found that half had tried kangaroo meat and 10% continued to eat it with any regularity. Only two respondents identified themselves as kangatarian (Grant 14–15). Kangaroo meat advocate Michael Archer declared in 2017 that “there’s an awful lot of very, very smart vegetarians [who] have opted for semi vegetarianism and they’re calling themselves ‘kangatarians’, as they’re quite happy to eat kangaroo meat”, but unless there had been a significant change in a few years, the surveys did not bear out his assertion (154).The ethical calculations around eating kangaroo are complicated by factors beyond the strictly environmental. One Tweeter advised Justin: “‘I’m a kangatarian’ isn’t a pickup line, mate”, and certainly the reception of his declaration could have been very cool, especially as it was delivered to a self declared animal warrior (N’Tash Aha). All of the studies of beliefs and practices around the eating of kangaroo have noted a significant minority of Australians who would not consider eating kangaroo based on issues of animal welfare and animal rights. The 1997 study found that 11% were opposed to the idea of eating kangaroo, while in Grant’s 2014 study, 15% were ethically opposed to eating kangaroo meat (Des Purtell and Associates iv; Grant 14–15). Animal ethics complicate the bargains calculated principally on environmental grounds.These ethical concerns work across several registers. One is around the flesh and blood kangaroo as a charismatic native animal unique to Australia and which Australians have an obligation to respect and nurture. Sheep, cattle and pigs have been subject to longterm propaganda campaigns which entrench the idea that they are unattractive and unintelligent, and veil their transition to meat behind euphemistic language and abattoir walls, making it easier to eat them. Kangaroos are still seen as resourceful and graceful animals, and no linguistic tricks shield consumers from the knowledge that it is a roo on their plate. A proposal in 2009 to market a “coat of arms” emu and kangaroo-flavoured potato chip brought complaints to the Advertising Standards Bureau that this was disrespectful to these native animals, although the flavours were to be simulated and the product vegetarian (Black). Coexisting with this high regard to kangaroos is its antithesis. That is, a valuation of them informed by their designation as a pest in the pastoral industry, and the use of the carcasses of those killed to feed dogs and other companion animals. Appleby identified a visceral, disgust response to the idea of eating kangaroo in many of his informants, including both vegetarians who would not consider eating kangaroo because of their commitment to a plant-based diet, and at least one omnivore who would prefer to give up all meat rather than eat kangaroo. While diametrically opposed, the end point of both positions is that kangaroo meat should not be eaten.A second animal ethics stance relates to the imagined kangaroo, a cultural construct which for most urban Australians is much more present in their lives and likely to shape their actions than the living animals. It is behind the rejection of eating an animal which holds such an iconic place in Australian culture: to the dexter on the 1912 national coat of arms; hopping through the Hundred Acre Wood as Kanga and Roo in A.A. Milne’s Winnie-the-Pooh children’s books from the 1920s and the Disney movies later made from them; as a boy’s best friend as Skippy the Bush Kangaroo in a fondly remembered 1970s television series; and high in the sky on QANTAS planes. The anthropomorphising of kangaroos permitted the spectacle of the boxing kangaroo from the late nineteenth century. By framing natural kangaroo behaviours as boxing, these exhibitions encouraged an ambiguous understanding of kangaroos as human-like, moving them further from the category of food (Golder and Kirkby). Australian government bodies used this idea of the kangaroo to support food exports to Britain, with kangaroos as cooks or diners rather than ingredients. The Kangaroo Kookery Book of 1932 (see fig. 1 below) portrayed kangaroos as a nuclear family in a suburban kitchen and another official campaign supporting sales of Australian produce in Britain in the 1950s featured a Disney-inspired kangaroo eating apples and chops washed down with wine (“Kangaroo to Be ‘Food Salesman’”). This imagining of kangaroos as human-like has persisted, leading to the opinion expressed in a 2008 focus group, that consuming kangaroo amounted to “‘eating an icon’ … Although they are pests they are still human nature … these are native animals, people and I believe that is a form of cannibalism!” (Ampt and Owen 26). Figure 1: Rather than promoting the eating of kangaroos, the portrayal of kangaroos as a modern suburban family in the Kangaroo Kookery Book (1932) made it unthinkable. (Source: Kangaroo Kookery Book, Director of Australian Trade Publicity, Australia House, London, 1932.)The third layer of ethical objection on the ground of animal welfare is more specific, being directed to the method of killing the kangaroos which become food. Kangaroos are perhaps the only native animals for which state governments set quotas for commercial harvest, on the grounds that they compete with livestock for pasturage and water. In most jurisdictions, commercially harvested kangaroo carcasses can be processed for human consumption, and they are the ones which ultimately appear in supermarket display cases.Kangaroos are killed by professional shooters at night using swivelling spotlights mounted on their vehicles to locate and daze the animals. While clean head shots are the ideal and regulations state that animals should be killed when at rest and without causing “undue agonal struggle”, this is not always achieved and some animals do suffer prolonged deaths (NSW Code of Practice for Kangaroo Meat for Human Consumption). By regulation, the young of any female kangaroo must be killed along with her. While averting a slow death by neglect, this is considered cruel and wasteful. The hunt has drawn international criticism, including from Greenpeace which organised campaigns against the sale of kangaroo meat in Europe in the 1980s, and Viva! which was successful in securing the withdrawal of kangaroo from sale in British supermarkets (“Kangaroo Meat Sales Criticised”). These arguments circulate and influence opinion within Australia.A final animal ethics issue is that what is actually behind the push for greater use of kangaroo meat is not concern for the environment or animal welfare but the quest to turn a profit from these animals. The Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia, formed in 1970 to represent those who dealt in the marsupials’ meat, fur and skins, has been a vocal advocate of eating kangaroo and a sponsor of market research into how it can be made more appealing to the market. The Association argued in 1971 that commercial harvest was part of the intelligent conservation of the kangaroo. They sought minimum size regulations to prevent overharvesting and protect their livelihoods (“Assn. Backs Kangaroo Conservation”). The Association’s current website makes the claim that wild harvested “Australian kangaroo meat is among the healthiest, tastiest and most sustainable red meats in the world” (Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia). That this is intended to initiate a new and less controlled branch of the meat industry for the benefit of hunters and processors, rather than foster a shift from sheep or cattle to kangaroos which might serve farmers and the environment, is the opinion of Dr. Louise Boronyak, of the Centre for Compassionate Conservation at the University of Technology Sydney (Boyle 19).Concerns such as these have meant that kangaroo is most consumed where it is least familiar, with most of the meat for human consumption recovered from culled animals being exported to Europe and Asia. Russia has been the largest export market. There, kangaroo meat is made less strange by blending it with other meats and traditional spices to make processed meats, avoiding objections to its appearance and uncertainty around preparation. With only a low profile as a novelty animal in Russia, there are fewer sentimental concerns about consuming kangaroo, although the additional food miles undermine its environmental credentials. The variable acceptability of kangaroo in more distant markets speaks to the role of culture in determining how patterns of eating are formed and can be shifted, or, as Elspeth Probyn phrased it “how natural entities are transformed into commodities within a context of globalisation and local communities”, underlining the impossibility of any straightforward ethics of eating kangaroo (33, 35).Kangatarianism is a neologism which makes the eating of kangaroo meat something it has not been in the past, a voluntary restriction based on environmental ethics. These environmental benefits are well founded and eating kangaroo can be understood as an Anthropocenic bargain struck to allow the continuation of the consumption of red meat while reducing one’s environmental footprint. Although superficially attractive, the numbers entering into this bargain remain small because environmental ethics cannot be disentangled from animal ethics. The anthropomorphising of the kangaroo and its use as a national symbol coexist with its categorisation as a pest and use of its meat as food for companion animals. Both understandings of kangaroos made their meat uneatable for many Australians. Paired with concerns over how kangaroos are killed and the commercialisation of a native species, kangaroo meat has a very mixed reception despite decades of advocacy for eating its meat in favour of that of more harmed and more harmful introduced species. Given these constraints, kangatarianism is unlikely to become widespread and indeed it should be viewed as at best a temporary exigency. As the climate warms and rainfall becomes more erratic, even animals which have evolved to suit Australian conditions will come under increasing pressure, and humans will need to reach Kübler-Ross’ final state of grief: acceptance. In this case, this would mean acceptance that our needs cannot be placed ahead of those of other animals.ReferencesAmpt, Peter, and Kate Owen. Consumer Attitudes to Kangaroo Meat Products. Canberra: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, 2008.Appleby, Bryce. “Skippy the ‘Green’ Kangaroo: Identifying Resistances to Eating Kangaroo in the Home in a Context of Climate Change.” BSc Hons, U of Wollongong, 2010 <http://ro.uow.edu.au/thsci/103>.Archer, Michael. “Zoology on the Table: Plenary Session 4.” Australian Zoologist 39, 1 (2017): 154–60.“Assn. Backs Kangaroo Conservation.” The Beverley Times 26 Feb. 1971: 3. 22 Feb. 2019 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article202738733>.Barone, Tayissa. “Kangatarians Jump the Divide.” Sydney Morning Herald 9 Feb. 2010. 13 Apr. 2019 <https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/kangatarians-jump-the-divide-20100209-gdtvd8.html>.Black, Rosemary. “Some Australians Angry over Idea for Kangaroo and Emu-Flavored Potato Chips.” New York Daily News 4 Dec. 2009. 5 Feb. 2019 <https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/eats/australians-angry-idea-kangaroo-emu-flavored-potato-chips-article-1.431865>.Boyle, Rhianna. “Eating Skippy.” Big Issue Australia 578 11-24 Jan. 2019: 16–19.Cawthorn, Donna-Mareè, and Louwrens C. Hoffman. “Controversial Cuisine: A Global Account of the Demand, Supply and Acceptance of ‘Unconventional’ and ‘Exotic’ Meats.” Meat Science 120 (2016): 26–7.Conservation of Kangaroos. Melbourne: Australian Conservation Foundation, 1970.Des Purtell and Associates. Improving Consumer Perceptions of Kangaroo Products: A Survey and Report. Canberra: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, 1997.Ellicott, John. “Little Pay Incentive for Shooters to Join Kangaroo Meat Industry.” The Land 15 Mar. 2018. 28 Mar. 2019 <https://www.theland.com.au/story/5285265/top-roo-shooter-says-harvesting-is-a-low-paid-job/>.Garnaut, Ross. Garnaut Climate Change Review. 2008. 26 Feb. 2019 <http://www.garnautreview.org.au/index.htm>.Gammage, Bill. The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 2012.Golder, Hilary, and Diane Kirkby. “Mrs. Mayne and Her Boxing Kangaroo: A Married Woman Tests Her Property Rights in Colonial New South Wales.” Law and History Review 21.3 (2003): 585–605.Grant, Elisabeth. “Sustainable Kangaroo Harvesting: Perceptions and Consumption of Kangaroo Meat among University Students in New South Wales.” Independent Study Project (ISP). U of NSW, 2014. <https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/1755>.Haslam, Nick. “The Five Stages of Grief Don’t Come in Fixed Steps – Everyone Feels Differently.” The Conversation 22 Oct. 2018. 28 Mar. 2019 <https://theconversation.com/the-five-stages-of-grief-dont-come-in-fixed-steps-everyone-feels-differently-96111>.Head, Lesley. “The Anthropoceans.” Geographical Research 53.3 (2015): 313–20.Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia. Kangaroo Meat. 26 Feb. 2019 <http://www.kangarooindustry.com/products/meat/>.“Kangaroo Meat Sales Criticised.” The Canberra Times 13 Sep. 1984: 14. 22 Feb 2019 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article136915919>.“Kangaroo to Be Food ‘Salesman.’” Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners’ Advocate, 2 Dec. 1954. 22 Feb 2019 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article134089767>.Kübler-Ross, Elisabeth. On Death and Dying: What the Dying Have to Teach Doctors, Nurses, Clergy, and their own Families. New York: Touchstone, 1997.Jackson, Stephen, and Karl Vernes. Kangaroo: Portrait of an Extraordinary Marsupial. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 2010.Lappé, Frances Moore. Diet for a Small Planet. New York: Ballantine Books, 1971.N’Tash Aha (@Nsvasey). “‘I’m a Kangatarian’ isn’t a Pickup Line, Mate. #LoveIslandAU.” Twitter post. 27 May 2018. 5 Apr. 2019 <https://twitter.com/Nsvasey/status/1000697124122644480>.“NSW Code of Practice for Kangaroo Meat for Human Consumption.” Government Gazette of the State of New South Wales 24 Mar. 1993. 22 Feb. 2019 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-page14638033>.Oxford University Press, Australia and New Zealand. Word of the Month. June 2017. <https://www.oup.com.au/dictionaries/word-of-the-month>.Pascoe, Bruce. Dark Emu, Black Seeds: Agriculture or Accident? Broome: Magabala Books, 2014.Probyn, Elspeth. “Eating Roo: Of Things That Become Food.” New Formations 74.1 (2011): 33–45.Steinfeld, Henning, Pierre Gerber, Tom Wassenaar, Vicent Castel, Mauricio Rosales, and Cees d Haan. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, 2006.Trust Nature. Essence of Kangaroo Capsules. 26 Feb. 2019 <http://ncpro.com.au/products/all-products/item/88139-essence-of-kangaroo-35000>.Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Kangaroo Pet Food Trial. 28 Mar. 2019 <https://www.wildlife.vic.gov.au/managing-wildlife/wildlife-management-and-control-authorisations/kangaroo-pet-food-trial>.Willett, Walter, et al. “Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems.” The Lancet 16 Jan. 2019. 26 Feb. 2019 <https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/EAT>.Wilson, George. “Kangaroos Can Be an Asset Rather than a Pest.” Australasian Science 39.1 (2018): 39.Zukerman, Wendy. “Eating Skippy: The Future of Kangaroo Meat.” New Scientist 208.2781 (2010): 42–5.