Scientia Agricultura Sinica ›› 2019, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (2): 359-366.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2019.02.014

• ANIMAL SCIENCE·VETERINARY SCIENCE·RESOURCE INSECT • Previous Articles     Next Articles

The Safety Evaluation of Cefalonium Intramammary Infusion (Dry Cow)

HUA WeiYi1,LIU YiMing1,XU Fei1,LU YongQiang2,KONG Mei3,WANG HaiTing3,HUANG HuiLi1,WANG HongLei1,WU LianYong3(),LI XiuBo1()   

  1. 1 National Feed Drug Reference Laboratories, Key Laboratory of Feed Biological Technology of Ministry of Agriculture, Feed Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081
    2 Beijing Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Station, Beijing 100012
    3 Qilu Animal Health Products Co Ltd, Jinan 250100
  • Received:2017-12-08 Accepted:2018-02-22 Online:2019-01-16 Published:2019-01-21
  • Contact: LianYong WU,XiuBo LI E-mail:Lianyong.wu@qilu-pharma.com;lixiubo@caas.cn

RichHTML

10

PDF

204

Abstract:

【Objective】 The purpose of this paper was to investigate the safety of cefalonium intramammary infusion(dry cow) for target animals. 【Method】 Six primiparous and six multiparous healthy dairy cows were selected, which have not been treated with any antibiotics by systemic or intramammary administration 30 days before. Their daily milk yield was 15-35 kg. At day 1 and day 0 prior to administration of the tested drug, the daily milk production and body temperature of the tested animals were recorded, and their milk samples were collected for somatic cell count analysis. For milk sampling,the udder was rinsed with clean water and the nipples and the close skin were disinfected with 75% ethanol. Milk samples were collected in sterilized test tubes (milking by hand and discarding the first three times of milking). The collected sample were stored at low temperature (4℃) and sent to laboratory for testing within 6 h. For drug infusion, each quarter of udder was cleaned with a disinfected towel and the teats were soaked for 30 seconds with disinfectant. The drug was slowly inject into the quarter so that it could be evenly distributed. Each quarter was injected with a single dose of cefalonium (Dry Cow) (250 mg). Samples of each quarter were collected at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 days after the drug administration. Individual milk production, quantitative somatic cell count (SCC) and body temperature were recorded. Day 0 and day 10 milk samples were cultivated with selective medium to isolate bacteria. The isolated strains were identified according to their colony morphology, staining and biochemical characteristics. The main pathogens analyzed were Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus (Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus uberis), Escherichia coli. 【Result】 During the whole test period, there was no clinical symptoms such as swelling, erythema, pain, or heat. On day 1, 0 prior to and 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10 day after administration of the drug, somatic cell count was 250-400 thousand per milliliter. The mean somatic cells count for the seven time points were 332.6, 327.4, 327.0, 316.3, 312.4, 306.2, 300.4 thousand per milliliter respectively, but there is no significant difference (P>0.05) among them by analysis of repeated measures anova. Daily milk yield was 23-33 kg. The average daily milk yield for the seven time points was 27.30, 27.35, 27.25, 27.40, 27.64, 27.83, 28.00 kg, respectively. It had no significant difference (P>0.05) by repeated measures anova. The rectal temperature of all tested cows before and after administration was within the normal range. The mean values of rectal temperature were 38.79, 38.82, 38.83, 38.77, 38.71, 38.71 and 38.69 ℃ respectively, and there was no significant difference (P>0.05). Therefore, according to the recommended dose of a single administration, it had no significant effect on somatic cell count, daily milk yield and rectal temperature of the tested animals. The results for bacteria isolation showed that there were 2, 3 and 4 strains of Streptococcus, Staphylococcus and Escherichia coli, respectively on day 0 of the administration of the drug, and there were 1, 1 and 0 strains of Streptococcus, Staphylococcus and Escherichia coli on day 10 after administration, respectively. The number of pathogens was significantly decreased through the treatment of the drug. 【Conclusion】 The recommended dose of cofalonium had no adverse effect on rectal temperature, milk yield and somatic cell counts for dairy cows after mammary administration. It is safe for the drug to be used in dairy cows by intramammary infusion (Dry Cow).

Key words: cofalonium intramammary infusion, dry cow, safety, milk yield, somatic cell counts

Table 1

SCC of 12 cows before and after treatment(10 000·mL-1)"

牛号
Cow ID		 给药前 Pre-dosing 给药后 After dosing
1 天 Day 1 0 天 Day 0 1 天 Day 1 3 天 Day 3 5 天 Day 5 7 天 Day 7 10 天 Day 10
1 28.92±6.52 28.40±7.34 28.7±7.98 28.3±8.55 29.41±7.78 30.43±5.75 27.88±7.32
2 30.00±3.07 29.40±3.44 30.93±3.45 29.8±2.30 30.53±2.28 29.35±1.36 28.75±1.92
3 32.56±2.28 32.48±3.52 34.11±2.86 32.26±4.73 31.85±4.57 31.77±4.16 29.83±2.90
4 30.95±1.28 31.31±1.73 31.55±1.46 30.63±0.90 29.39±1.35 28.67±0.56 28.42±1.60
5 27.36±4.25 27.16±5.14 25.52±5.17 25.53±4.56 23.66±4.63 22.77±5.14 22.22±4.33
6 31.57±2.72 30.81±3.61 30.52±3.54 28.90±1.72 27.73±2.23 27.85±4.28 27.87±3.74
7 35.86±4.31 35.23±4.17 34.86±5.25 33.40±4.78 32.86±4.55 33.43±4.84 32.63±5.57
8 35.18±6.22 34.26±4.56 34.37±4.24 34.60±5.32 33.78±5.00 31.39±4.37 30.91±3.86
9 34.95±1.49 33.34±2.24 30.97±2.57 31.42±2.86 30.84±2.78 29.65±2.62 29.70±2.73
10 36.33±6.09 37.40±8.14 37.72±6.18 36.03±6.43 35.40±7.26 34.71±6.36 34.64±5.87
11 37.47±7.50 35.23±7.75 35.55±8.28 32.99±8.61 35.39±6.61 34.92±5.14 34.89±6.15
12 38.95±4.22 37.87±4.76 37.83±5.26 35.65±5.31 34.00±4.00 32.53±4.24 32.73±5.36
平均值 Mean 33.26±5.38 32.74±5.57 32.70±5.70 31.63±5.51 31.24±5.37 30.62±5.04 30.04±5.27

Table 2

Milk production of 12 dairy cows at each time point (kg·d-1)"

牛号
Cow ID		 给药前 Pre-dosing 给药后 After dosing
1 天 Day 1 0 天 Day 0 1 天 Day 1 3 天 Day 3 5 天 Day 5 7 天 Day 7 10 天 Day 10
1 31.14 31.56 30.88 30.52 31.28 31.86 32.14
2 30.05 29.46 30.21 30.36 30.54 30.51 30.62
3 28.43 28.52 28.47 27.94 28.33 28.87 29.11
4 28.54 28.25 28.33 28.48 28.69 28.84 28.94
5 29.32 29.43 29.24 29.68 29.53 29.87 30.12
6 27.43 27.95 27.05 27.14 27.64 27.25 27.68
7 26.86 26.57 26.93 27.14 27.05 27.25 27.66
8 28.66 28.85 28.44 28.58 28.94 30.02 29.25
9 25.23 25.35 25.04 25.38 25.84 25.43 25.67
10 23.31 23.64 23.52 24.11 24.03 23.87 23.97
11 24.16 24.05 24.25 24.57 24.55 24.77 24.93
12 24.46 24.51 24.63 24.94 25.26 25.38 25.96
平均值 Mean 27.30±2.51 27.35±2.50 27.25±2.43 27.40±2.25 27.64±2.34 27.83±2.56 28.00±2.48

Table 3

12 dairy cows’ rectal temperature at each time point(° C)"

牛号
Cow ID		 给药前 Pre-dosing 给药后 After dosing
1天 Day 1 0天 Day 0 1 天 Day 1 3 天 Day 3 5 天 Day 5 7 天 Day 7 10 天 Day 10
1 38.6 38.5 38.7 38.6 38.6 38.5 38.6
2 38.7 38.7 38.8 38.8 38.6 38.7 38.7
3 38.7 38.8 38.9 38.9 38.7 38.7 38.7
4 38.6 38.8 38.7 38.7 38.8 38.6 38.6
5 38.9 38.8 38.9 38.9 38.8 38.8 38.8
6 38.5 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.4 38.5 38.5
7 38.8 38.9 38.9 38.7 38.8 38.8 38.8
8 38.7 38.7 38.8 38.8 38.7 38.7 38.6
9 39.1 39.2 39.1 38.9 38.8 38.9 38.9
10 39.2 39.2 39.1 38.8 38.8 38.9 38.8
11 38.9 38.9 38.8 38.8 38.9 38.8 38.7
12 38.8 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.6 38.6 38.6
平均值 Mean 38.79±0.21 38.82±0.21 38.83±0.16 38.77±0.11 38.71±0.14 38.71±0.14 38.69±0.12

Table 4

Pathogens of milk in different udder region at different time points"

牛号
Cow ID		 给药前 Pre-dosing 给药后 After dosing
大肠杆菌
Escherichia coli		 链球菌
Streptococcus		 葡萄球菌
Staphylococcus		 大肠杆菌
Escherichia coli		 链球菌
Streptococcus		 葡萄球菌
Staphylococcus
1
2
3 √
4 √
5 √
6
7 √ √
8 √
9
10 √
11 √ √ √
12 √
[1] DE OLIVEIRA A P, WATTS J L, SALMON S A, AARESTRUP F M . Antimicrobial susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine mastitis in Europe and the United States. Journal of Dairy Science, 2000,83(4):855-862.
doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)74949-6
[2] KIBEBEW K . Bovine Mastitis: A review of causes and epidemiological point of view. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 2017,7(2):1-14.
[3] GOMES F, HENRIQUES M . Control of bovine mastitis: old and recent therapeutic approaches. Current Microbiology, 2016,72(4):377-382.
doi: 10.1007/s00284-015-0958-8
[4] KUMAR A, RAHAL A, DWIVEDI S K, GUPTA M K . Bacterial prevalence and antibiotic resistance profile from bovine mastitis in Mathura, India. Egyptian Journal of Dairy Science, 2010,38(1):31-34.
[5] ZHANG L L, LI Y C, BAO H D, WEI R C, ZHOU Y, ZHANG H, WANG R . Population structure and antimicrobial profile of Staphylococcus aureus strains associated with bovine mastitis in China. Microbial Pathogenesis, 2016,97:103-109.
doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2016.06.005
[6] ZHAO F, GAO X, TANG Z X, LUO X, WU M M, XU J C, FU X T . Development of a simple multi-residue determination method of 80 veterinary drugs in Oplegnathus punctatus by liquid chromatography coupled to quadrupole Orbitrap mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography B, 2017, 1065-1066:20-28.
[7] WOOLFORD M W, WILLIAMSON J H, DAY A M, COPEMAN P J . The prophylactic effect of a teat sealer on bovine mastitis during the dry period and the following lactation. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 1998,46(1):12-19.
doi: 10.1080/00480169.1998.36044
[8] RABIEE A R, LEAN I J . The effect of internal teat sealant products (Teatseal and Orbeseal) on intramammary infection, clinical mastitis, and somatic cell counts in lactating dairy cows: a meta-analysis. Journal of Dairy Science, 2013,96(11):6915-6931.
doi: 10.3168/jds.2013-6544
[9] GRUET P, MAINCENT P, BERTHELOT X, KALTSATOS V . Bovine mastitis and intramammary drug delivery: review and perspectives. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 2001,50(3):245-259.
doi: 10.1016/S0169-409X(01)00160-0
[10] ROYSTER E, WAGNER S . Treatment of mastitis in cattle. Veterinary Clinics of North America Food Animal Practice, 2015,31(1):17-46.
doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2014.11.010
[11] NICKERSON S C . Control of heifer mastitis: antimicrobial treatment-an overview. Veterinary Microbiology, 2009,134(1-2):128-135.
doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.09.019
[12] KANG J H, JIN J H, KONDO F . False-positive outcome and drug residue in milk samples over withdrawal times. Journal of Dairy Science, 2005,88(3):908-913.
doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72757-0
[13] Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products. Cefalonium—Summary report(2)[R]. 2002.
[14] 李帅鹏, 郭春娜, 孟蕾, 黄显会 . 高效液相色谱-串联质谱法检测牛奶中头孢洛宁残留. 色谱, 2014,32(5):519-523.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1123.2013.12028
LI S P, GUO C N, MENG L, HUANG X H . Determination of cefalonium residue in milk by high performance liquid chromatography- tandem mass spectrometry. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2014, 32(5):519-523. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1123.2013.12028
[15] 华伟毅, 刘义明, 徐飞, 李秀波 . 头孢洛宁的药理作用及其在奶牛乳房炎防治中应用的研究进展. 中国畜牧兽医, 2016,43(10):2742-2747.
doi: 10.16431/j.cnki.1671-7236.2016.10.034
HUA W Y, LIU Y M, XU F, LI X B . Research progress on pharmacological action of cephalonium and its application in prevention and treatment of mastitis in dairy cow. Chinese Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2016,43(10):2742-2747. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.16431/j.cnki.1671-7236.2016.10.034
[16] MORONI P, VELLERE F, ANTONINI M, PISONI G , RUFFO G, CARLI S .Antibiotic susceptibility of coagulase-negative staphylococci isolated from goats' milk. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 2004, 23(6):637-640.
[17] MORONI P, PISONI G, ANTONINI M, RUFFO G, CARLI S, VARISCO G, BOETTCHER P . Subclinical mastitis and antimicrobial susceptibility of Staphylococcus caprae and Staphylococcus epidermidis isolated from two Italian goat herds. Journal of Dairy Science, 2005,88(5):1694-1704.
doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72841-1
[18] MORONI P, PISONI G, ANTONINI M, VILLA R, BOETTCHER P, CARLI S . Short communication: antimicrobial drug susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus from subclinical bovine mastitis in Italy. Journal of Dairy Science, 2006,89(8):2973-2976.
doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72569-3
[19] 李维静 . 头孢洛宁乳房注入剂防治干乳期奶牛乳腺炎的药效学及残留消除研究[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2014.
LI W J . Studies on the efficacy and residue elimination of Cephalonium intramammary infusion for the treatment of bovine mastitis during the drying off period[D]. Yangzhou: Yangzhou University 2014. ( in Chinese)
[20] OWENS W E, NICKERSON S C, BODDIE R L, TOMITA G M, RAY C H . Prevalence of mastitis in dairy heifers and effectiveness of antibiotic therapy. Journal of Dairy Science, 2001,84(4):814-817.
doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74538-9
[21] BRADLEY A J, BREEN J E, PAYNE B, WILLIAMS P, GREEN M J . The use of a cephalonium containing dry cow therapy and an internal teat sealant, both alone and in combination. Journal of Dairy Science, 2010,93(4):1566-1577.
doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2725
[22] SHEPHARD R W, BURMAN S, MARCUN P . A comparative field trial of cephalonium and cloxacillin for dry cow therapy for mastitis in Australian dairy cows. Australian Veterinary Journal, 2004,82(10):624-629.
doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2004.tb12610.x
[23] NEWTON H T, GREEN M J, BENCHAOUI H, CRACKNELL V, ROWAN T, BRADLEY A J . Comparison of the efficacy of cloxacillin alone and cloxacillin combined with an internal teat sealant for dry-cow therapy. Veterinary Record, 2008,162(21):678-684.
doi: 10.1136/vr.162.21.678
[24] WENTE N, ZOCHE-GOLOB V, BEHR M, KROMKER V . Susceptibility to cephalosporins of bacteria causing intramammary infections in dairy cows with a high somatic cell count in Germany. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 2016,131:146-151.
doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.06.010
[25] SCHOFIELD J S . Animal-health pharmaceuticals: research responsibilities and efforts in target animal safety and laboratory animal welfare. Future Medicinal Chemistry, 2011,3(7):851-854.
doi: 10.4155/fmc.11.35
[26] U. S . Food and drug administration CVM GFI #49. Target Animal Safety And Drug Effectiveness Studies for Anti-Microbial Bovine Mastitis Products (Lactating and Non-Lactating Cow Products)[S] Revised April 4, 1996 ( Revises the February 1, 1993 Guideline)
[27] 萧惠来 . VICH兽药靶动物安全性研究指导原则概述. 中国兽药杂志, 2009,43(12):33-37.
XIAO H L . Overview of VICH guideline of target animal safety for veterinary pharmaceutical product. Chinese Journal of Veterinary, 2016, 43(12):33-37. (in Chinese)
[28] 周绪正, 张继瑜, 李金善, 李冰, 李剑勇, 魏小娟, 牛建荣, 杨亚军, 刘希望 . 赛拉菌素溶液对靶动物犬的安全性研究. 黑龙江畜牧兽医,2013(5):120-122.
ZHOU X Z, ZHANG J Y, LI J S, LI B, LI J Y, WEI X J, NIU J R, YANG Y J, LIU X W . Target animal safety study of selamectin solution in dogs.Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine,2013(5):120-122. (in Chinese)
[29] 冯言言, 郑莉, 林红, 孟芳, 孔梅, 吴连勇, 曹兴元 . 盐酸头孢噻呋注射液对奶牛的安全性研究. 中国兽药杂志, 2016,50(12):34-39.
FENG Y Y, ZHENG L, LIN H, MENG F, KONG M, WU L Y, CAO X Y . Study on safety of ceftiofur hydrochloride sterile suspension in dairy cows. Chinese Journal of Veterinary, 2016, 50(12):34-39. (in Chinese)
[30] 闫星, 刘义明, 路永强, 张道康, 刘茂林, 张宁, 王天坤, 郭江鹏, 李秀波 . 硫酸头孢喹肟乳房注入剂对泌乳期奶牛的安全性研究. 中国畜牧兽医, 2014,41(11):278-282.
YAN X, LIU Y M, LU Y Q, ZHANG D K, LIU M L, ZHANG N, WANG T K, GUO J P, LI X B . Safety study on cefquinome sulfate intramammary infusion of lactating cows. Chinese Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2014,41(11):278-282. (in Chinese)
[31] 瞿红颖, 魏丽娟, 刘欣, 魏占勇, 宋婷婷, 贾兴, 耿智霞, 吴聪明, 张越 . 硫酸头孢喹肟子宫注入剂对泌乳期奶牛的安全性研究. 中国畜牧兽医, 2016,43(1):227-234.
doi: 10.16431/j.cnki.1671-7236.2016.01.033
QU H Y, WEI L J, LIU X, WEI Z Y, SONG T T, JIA X, GENG Z X, WU C M, ZHANG Y . Safety study on cequinome sulfate intrauterine infusion for lactating cows. Chinese Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2016,43(1):227-234. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.16431/j.cnki.1671-7236.2016.01.033
[1] DONG MingMing,ZHAO FanFan,GE JianJun,ZHAO JunLiang,WANG Dan,XU Lei,ZHANG MengHua,ZHONG LiWei,HUANG XiXia,WANG YaChun. Heritability Estimation and Correlation Analysis of Longevity and Milk Yield of Holstein Cattle in Xinjiang Region [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(21): 4294-4303.
[2] ZENG XiaoShan,TANG GuoHua,XIE HongJun,ZHU MingDong,AO HeJun,CHEN Bo,LI FangTing,HAO Ming,XIAO Yan,FU HuiRong,ZHANG Jian,YU YingHong. Selection of PMS Rice Varieties and Application in Flooding Irrigation for Cadmium Reduction [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(17): 3561-3572.
[3] HUI YuanYuan,PENG HaiShuai,WANG BiNi,ZHANG FuXin,LIU YuFang,JIA Rong,REN Rong. Research Progress of Food-Borne Pathogen Detection Based on Electrochemical and Optical Aptasensors [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(11): 2419-2433.
[4] WANG XiaoBin, YAN Xiang, LI XiuYing. Environmental Safety Risk for Application of Anaerobic Fermentation Biogas Slurry from Livestock Manure in Agricultural Land in China [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(1): 110-139.
[5] HuiLin YU,Fang JIA,ZongHua QUAN,HaiLan CUI,XiangJu LI. Effects of Glyphosate on Weed Control, Soybean Safety and Weed Occurrence in Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Soybean [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(6): 1166-1177.
[6] WANG Yi,LI Miao,LI YongFeng,SUN Yuan,QIU HuaJi. Identification and Properties of Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Wild Boar Feces [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(14): 2964-2973.
[7] Jing LIU,Chao LI,JinXiong LIU,Rui HE,YanRong SUN. The Role of High-Level Biosafety Laboratories in Biosafety and Consideration About Their Development [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(1): 74-80.
[8] ZHAO Man, TANG JinRong, NIU LinLin, CHEN Lin, LIANG GeMei. Ecological Safety Evaluation of Different Bt Proteins on the Predator Chrysopa pallens [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(9): 1541-1552.
[9] WANG XiaoBin,YAN Xiang,LI XiuYing,JI HongJie. Environmental Risks for Application of Phosphogysum in Agricultural Soils in China [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(2): 293-311.
[10] YAN ChaoQun,LI ShuaiPeng,ZHANG Shen,XIE Shun,WEI KaiYun,HUANG XianHui. Residue Depletion Study and Withdrawal Period for Cefalonium Intramammary Infusion (Dry cow) in Bovine Milk [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(2): 367-375.
[11] WANG XiaoBin, YAN Xiang, LI XiuYing, CAI DianXiong, LEI Mei. Environment Risk for Application of Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum in Soils in China [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2018, 51(5): 926-939.
[12] JIA ShiRong. Risk Assessment and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Crops: History and Reformation [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2018, 51(4): 601-612.
[13] LONG DingPei, HAO ZhanZhang, XIANG ZhongHuai, ZHAO AiChun. Current Status of Transgenic Technologies for Safety Consideration in Silkworm (Bombyx mori) and Future Perspectives [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2018, 51(2): 363-373.
[14] SHEN Ping, ZHANG QiuYan, YANG LiTao, ZHANG Li, LI WenLong, LIANG JinGang, LI XiaYing, WANG HaoQian, SHEN XiaoLing, SONG GuiWen. The Safety Management of Genome Editing Technology [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2017, 50(8): 1361-1369.
[15] REN XiaoLi, LIU AoXing, LI Xiang, ZHANG Xu, WANG YaChun, SHAO HuaiFeng, QIN ChunHua, WANG Yu, WEN Wan, ZHANG ShengLi. Genetic Parameters Estimation of Test Day Milk Yield in Holstein Heifers in Ningxia Using a Random Regression Test-Day Model [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2017, 50(10): 1885-1892.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
京ICP备09089781号-30
Copyright 2018 © Editorial office of Scientia Agricultura Sinica
Tel: 86-010-82106279    E-mail: zgnykx@mail.caas.net.cn
Supported by Beijing Magtech Co.Ltd