Journals / Uludağ Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi / 2011 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 2

The damages and control methods of predator in small ruminant husbandry

Küçükbaş hayvan yetiştiriciliğinde yabani hayvan zararları ve mücadele yöntemleri

Pages
121–134
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These programs, however, sheep and goat farms in order to protect the sustainability of the extensive agricultural and livestock support programs may be an important part.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Sheep and goat breeders in the production process to make production profitable growing wild animals must be used as effective methods to minimize damages.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Sheep and goats against the danger of predator protection integrated control of predator.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These programs, however, sheep and goat farms in order to protect the sustainability of the extensive agricultural and livestock support programs may be an important part.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Sheep and goat breeders in the production process to make production profitable growing wild animals must be used as effective methods to minimize damages. Varies according to country or region and sorted by wolves, foxes, wild dogs and hog, jackals and wild animal populations, such as lynx, is continuously increasing. These facts, sheep-goat allows trainers to come face to face with problems. Sheep and goats against the danger of predator protection integrated control of predator. Sheep and goat breeders, herds of wild animals to reduce their losses, and at least one of the methods that are appropriate for their business should apply. These so-called active and passive methods, taken together, herds of wild animals to control damage will greatly reduce the potential drawbacks. However, predator damages, control of economic, biological and moral debate about the effectiveness does not appear to be resolved in the near future due. These programs, however, sheep and goat farms in order to protect the sustainability of the extensive agricultural and livestock support programs may be an important part.

Özet

Koyun ve keçi yetiştiricilerinin karlı bir üretim yapabilmeleri için üretim sürecinde artan yabani hayvanların verdiği zararları en aza indirecek yöntemlerin etkili bir şekilde uygulanması gerekmektedir. Ülkelere ve bölgelere göre sıralaması değişmekle birlikte kurt, tilki, yaban köpeği ve domuzu, çakal ve vaşak gibi yaban hayvan populasyonları, sürekli olarak artmaktadır. Bu gerçekler, koyun-keçi yetiştiricilerini bunlardan kaynaklanan sorunlar ile yüz yüze gelmesini kaçınılmaz hale getirmektedir. Koyun-keçileri yabani hayvan tehlikesine karşı korumada anahtar kelime, yabani hayvanların entegre kontrolüdür. Koyun-keçi yetiştiricileri, yabani hayvanların sürülerine verdikleri zararı azaltan ve işletmesi için uygun olan yöntemlerden en azından bir tanesini uygulamalıdır. Aktif ve pasif olarak adlandırılan bu yöntemlerin birlikte ele alınması, sürülerde yabani hayvan zararlarını kontrol etmede olası olumsuzlukları büyük ölçüde azaltacaktır. Ancak yabani hayvanların kontrolü ekonomik, biyolojik ve ahlak etkinliği ile ilgili tartışmalar nedeniyle yakın bir gelecekte çözülecek gibi görünmemektedir. Bu programlar, ancak, koyun-keçi işletmelerinin sürdürülebilirliğini korumak adına kapsamlı tarımsal ve hayvansal destekleme programlarının önemli bir parçası olabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TAŞKIN, T., BARDAKCIOĞLU, H. E., YILMAZ, M., YILMAZ, O., KOYUNCU, M. (2011). The damages and control methods of predator in small ruminant husbandry. Uludağ Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 2, 121–134. https://ajindex.com/articles/326199

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Andelt, W.F. 1995.
  2. Livestock Guard Dogs, Llamas, and Donkeys. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. (23 October, 2006). http://goatconnection.com/articles/ Anonim, 2004. Predation Control with M-44s and Livestock Protection Collars http://controlpredators.com/pdfs/Predation_Control_with_M-44s_and_LPCs.pdfwww.sheepusa.org Anonim, 2005a. Using Guard Dogs as Predator Control. (23 October, 2006). http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/sheep/ Purdue University. Anonim, 2005b. Sheep and Goats Predator Loss. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Washington D.C. (5 January, 2006). http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/. Anonim 2005c.
  3. Purdue University, Using Guard Dogs as Predator Control. (23 October, 2006). http://ag.ansc. purdue.edu/sheep/ Anonim, 2010. Rancher’ Guide to Predator Attacks on Livestock. http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishingHuntingTrapping/Default.aspx.
  4. Baer, A. 2010. Wolf Survey in the Coast Mountains, 2009. Yukon Fish and Wildlife Branch Report TR-10-01,
  5. Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. Last accessed Sept. 30, 2010. http://environmentyukon.gov.yk.ca/mapspublications/documents/coastmtn_survey_2009.pdf.
  6. Berger, K. M. 2006. "Carnivore-Livestock Conflicts: Effects of Subsidized Predator Control and Economic Correlates on the Sheep Industry." Conservation Biology 20(3): 751-761.
  7. Browns, J. E. and D.A.,Wade, 1997. ―Procedures for Evaluating Predation on Livestock and Wildlife‖.Texas A&M University. _____http://texnat.tamu.edu/ranchref/predator/pred.htm>
  8. Clubb, R. and G. J., Mason, 2004. Pacing Polar Bears and Stoical Sheep: Testing Ecological and Evolutionary Hypotheses about Animal Welfare. Animal Welfare.13, 33-40.
  9. Connover, M. and K.K., Kessler, 1994. Diminished Producer Participation in an Aversive Conditioning Program to Reduce Coyote Predation on Sheep. Wilg. Soc. Bull. 22:229-233.
  10. Frezard, A. and G., Le Pape, 2003. Contribution to the Welfare of Captive Wolves (Canis lupus lupus): A Behavioural Comparison of Six Wolf Packs. Zoo Biology.22, 33-44.
  11. Gegner, L. E. 2002. ―Predation Control for Sustainable and Organic Livestock Production‖. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA): National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service. Gilsdorf, J.M., Hygnstorm, S.E. and K.C., Ver Cauteren, 2002. Use of Frightening Devices in Wild Damage Management. Integrated Pest Management Reviews, 7:29-45.
  12. Hygnstrom, S. E., Timm, R. M. and G.E., Larson, 1994. Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. University of N