Progress 01/15/21 to 01/14/24
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience included students, practitioners, stakeholders, and researchers in the animal and crop sciences industries who found interest in this work. The information has been shared at both regional and national meetings for animal production. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Two MS graduate students (S. Hanson and G. Lemon) in Animal Science at SDSU and UNL directly worked on this project. The students learned skills in data management and fieldwork. The students also worked on projects related to corn feeding in cattle to compliment the survey and field work, and have learned methods of diet formulation, mixed-models statistical packages, and proximate analysis of feedstuffs. Five graduate students in Animal Science have received advanced training in beef cattle production and nutrition through this project. E. Gubbels, F. Francis, T. Norman, T. Ribiero, T. Hamilton, C. Ross, and B. Grimes are all developing skills related sample inventory management and best management practices for handling samples collected from multiple collaborator farm sites. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results from this project have been shared at the Sioux County (IA) cattle feeder forum, the Driftless Region Beef Conference, and to a special Uruguayan Delegation in Nebraska. As well as the plains nutrition council spring conference and the Silage for beef Conference (summer 2024). What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
During this project, we successfully initiated objectives 1 (100% accomplished), 2 (100% accomplished), 3 (100% accomplished), 4 (100% accomplished), and 5 (100% accomplished). We enrolled producers in IA (n = 8), MN (n = 2), ND (n = 12), and SD (n = 5) during year one and NE (n = 5 producers) in year 3. To better understand how agronomic practices and on-farm management factors influence the composition of corn harvested as high-moisture corn, samples of high moisture corn (HMC; n = 111) and high moisture ear corn (HMEC; n = 137) were collected in 2020/2021. A minimum of two samples were collected post-ensiling at each location. Samples were collected at the time of opening the ensiled mass and during the subsequent feed-out phase. Samples were submitted to a commercial laboratory for analyses that included: dry matter, crude protein, ash, neutral and acid detergent fiber content, starch, as well as short-chain fatty acid analysis. All samples were also subjected to in-vitro gas production. Objective 1: Measure the sources and degree of variability in harvesting, processing, and storing of corn as HMC/HMEC. (100% Accomplished) To assess the sources and degrees of variability in the composition of HMC and HMEC because of harvesting, processing, and storing method, we analyzed samples at opening of the ensiled mass and during the subsequent feed-out phase. Dry matter starch content of HMC was 71.6 ± 1.2% and for HMEC was 59.2 ± 3.9%, averaged across all locations from samples collected after ensiling and during the feed-out phase. Thus, the grain content of HMEC was 82.7% (59.2/0.716). Objective 2: Determine how various processing and preservation techniques for HMC/HMEC alter stability during feeding. (100% Accomplished) Apparent digestibility of starch Total tract starch digestibility (TSD) was determined from pens (n = 10) of feedlot steers and heifers from participants that were enrolled in the survey and feed ingredient sampling. Selected pens were required to have a finishing diet for a minimum of 4 weeks prior to diet and fecal sampling. Diets were concentrate-based and consisted of HMC, HMEC, corn milling co-products and mineral supplement. Fecal starch (FS) was a predictable function of mean grain particle size (PS) where (FS, % = 0.0054PS - 1.1951; R2 = 0.50;). Additionally, TSD was a predictable function of FS (TSD, % = -0.6604FS + 101.82; R2 = 0.92;). Particle size can be used as a measure of starch digestibility in the total tract of steers fed a high-moisture corn-based finishing diet. As DM of the ensiled material increases, the production of lactic acid decreases. Data gleaned from this trial indicates that as ensiled DM approached 75% (as-is basis) there is little to no production of lactic acid indicating incomplete fermentation and poorer aerobic stability. This data indicates that care should be taken to ensure that the ensiled material is of the appropriate moisture content prior to harvest. Objective 3: Quantify the mean and variability for the level of inclusion of HMC/HMEC in diets, the ratio of HMC/HMEC to other corn grain ingredients (i.e. whole-shelled or dry-rolled corn), and differences in starch digestibility for finishing diets fed to feedlot cattle in the Upper Midwest. (100% Accomplished) Nutrient composition High-moisture corn (HMC) All feed samples were subjected to NIR analysis at a commercial feed laboratory. Samples (n = 111) for HMC were collected from 25 sites in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Average DM, CP, NDF, uNDF240, starch, fat, ash, and particle size was 71.5 ± 4.24 %, 8.4 ± 0.57, 7.8 ± 1.22%, 0.52 ± 0.50%, 71.4 ± 1.94, 3.9 ± 0.24, 1.6 ± 0.20%, and 2474 ± 1030 μm. High-moisture ear corn (HMEC) Samples (n = 137) for HMEC were collected from 24 sites in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Average DM, CP, NDF, uNDF240, starch, fat, ash, and particle size was 63.9 ± 6.30 %, 7.9 ± 0.66, 17.2 ± 3.04%, 3.85 ± 1.03%, 59.4 ± 4.09, 3.5 ± 0.28, 2.1 ± 0.28%, and 2210 ± 24.3 μm. Survey High-moisture corn (HMC) Participants (n = 7) from Iowa and South Dakota were included. Average one time yard capacity was 1780 ± 1841 hd (range 499 to 5000 hd). Average inclusion of HMC in finishing diets on a dry matter (DM) basis was 35 ± 12% (range 25 to 54%). The HMC product had been fed on average for 27 ± 13 y and harvest efficiency (acres/h) was 6 ± 5 acres/h. Custom harvesting services were used by 14.3% of respondents compared to personal equipment (85.7%) for HMC. All HMC was processed prior to ensiling. A hammer-mill was used by 77.8% of those surveyed and a roller-mill was used by 22.2%. All HMC piles were covered. All HMC samples were stored in a bunker. Tires were the only covering weight used. Sidewalls were used by 33.3% of participants, whole tires by 50.0% and a combination of both was used by 16.7%. Inoculant application was done by 28.6% of those surveyedHeating of ensiled mass was only noted by 33.3% of participants. High-moisture ear corn (HMEC) Participants (n = 9) from Iowa and South Dakota were included. Average one time feedlot capacity was 1754 ± 1605 hd (range 499 to 5000 hd). Average inclusion of HMEC in finishing diets on a dry matter (DM) basis was 38 ± 23% (range 22 to 75%). The HMEC product had been fed on average for 20 ± 16 y and harvest efficiency (acres/h) was 10 ± 7 acres/h. Custom harvesting services were used by 66.7% of respondents compared to personal harvesting equipment (33.3%) for HMEC. Kernel processing was used by 88.9% of respondents. All HMEC piles were covered. A total of 77.8% of survey participants stored HMEC in a bunker and 22.2% of participants stored HMEC in a silage bag. Tires were the covering weight used. Sidewalls were used 28.5% of participants, whole tires by 43.0% and a combination of both was used by 28.5% of those surveyed. Inoculant application was done by 44.4% of those surveyed compared to those that do not (33.4%) or did not respond (22.2%). Heating of the ensiled mass was noted by 22.2% of participants compared to those that did not (66.7%) or did not respond (11.1%). Objective 4: Develop and deliver educational programming to provide cattle feeders with information to make more informed decisions surrounding HMC/HMEC harvest and feeding practices using the data and knowledge generated from this project. (100% Accomplished) Results from this project have been shared at the Sioux County (IA) cattle feeder forum, the Driftless Region Beef Conference, and to a special Uruguayan Delegation in Nebraska. These results will be shared at the Joint UNL and Lallemand Silage for beef conference in the summer of 2024. Stakeholders from the region and industry will be present. Objective 5: To create decision support tools to help producers understand the impact of when conditions deviate from ideal. (100% Accomplished) . In year 2, we developed a beef-per acre from HMEC or HMC calculator based upon the information gleaned from the previous year. It is currently in the Beta Testing phase and is being evaluated internally before being deployed to stakeholders. In year 3 we were able to launch this support tool to selected stakeholders and the tool seems to be working as anticipated. Further refinement will occur as users provide real-time feedback on its usefulness.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2024
Citation:
2024 Spring Meeting Update: Plains Nutrition Council (San Antonio, April 11, 2024)
|
Progress 01/15/22 to 01/14/23
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience includes students, practitioners, stakeholders, and researchers in the animal and crop sciences who will find particular interest in this work. Within the next reporting year the newly gleaned information will be shared at both regional and national meetings for animal production. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Currently, one MS graduate student (S. Hanson) in Animal Science is directly working on this project. The student is learning skills in data management and fieldwork. The student is also working on projects related to corn feeding in cattle to compliment the survey work, and has learned methods of diet formulation, mixed-models statistical packages, and proximate analysis of feedstuffs At least five graduate students in Animal Science are receiving advanced training in beef cattle production and nutrition through this project. E. Gubbels, F. Francis, T. Norman, T. Ribiero, T. Hamilton, C. Ross, and B. Grimes are all developing skills related sample inventory management and best management practices for handling samples collected from multiple collaborator farm sites. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results from this project have been shared at the Sioux County (IA) cattle feeder forum, the Driftless Region Beef Conference, and to a special Uruguayan Delegation in Nebraska. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Objective 1: Measure the sources and degree of variability in harvesting, processing, and storing of corn as HMC/HMEC. Final laboratory and statistical analyses are on-going for the NE samples. New work will include sharing this data at the Driftless Region Beef Conference in Eastern Iowa, and to use this data to create decision support tools. Data summarized from Objective 1 will be used in the delivery of educational programming geared towards producers (Objective 4) and to be used in the decision support tool (Objective 5). Objective 2: Determine how various processing and preservation techniques for HMC/HMEC alter stability during feeding. Laboratory and statistical analyses are on-going for the NE samples. During the next reporting period we aim to summarize these data for dissemination. Data summarized from Objective 2 will be used to aid in the delivery of educational programming geared towards producers (Objective 4) and to be used in the decision support tool (Objective 5). Objective 3: Quantify the mean and variability for the level of inclusion of HMC/HMEC in diets, the ratio of HMC/HMEC to other corn grain ingredients (i.e. whole-shelled or dry-rolled corn), and differences in starch digestibility for finishing diets fed to feedlot cattle in the Upper Midwest. Laboratory and statistical analyses are on-going for the NE samples. Data summarized from Objective 3 will be used to aid in the delivery of educational programming geared towards producers (Objective 4) and to be used in the decision support tool (Objective 5). Objective 4: Develop and deliver educational programming to provide cattle feeders with information to make more informed decisions surrounding HMC/HMEC harvest and feeding practices using the data and knowledge generated from this project Data gleaned from Objective 1, 2, and 3 will be used to aid in the delivery of educational programming geared towards producers. Objective 5: To create decision support tools to help producers understand the impact of when conditions deviate Data gleaned from Objective 1, 2, and 3 will be used to develop the decision support tool for producers.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
In this reporting period, we successfully initiated objectives 1 (75% accomplished), 2 (15% accomplished), and 3 (15% accomplished). We enrolled producers in IA (n = 8), MN (n = 2), ND (n = 12), and SD (n = 5) during year one. Work related to objectives 4 and 5 will begin during the next reporting period when field level work commences. To better understand how agronomic practices and on-farm management factors influence the composition of corn harvested as high-moisture corn, samples of high moisture corn (HMC; n = 111) and high moisture ear corn (HMEC; n = 137) were collected in 2020/2021. A minimum of two samples were collected post-ensiling at each location. Samples were collected at the time of opening the ensiled mass and during the subsequent feed-out phase. Samples were submitted to a commercial laboratory for analyses that included: dry matter, crude protein, ash, neutral and acid detergent fiber content, starch, as well as short-chain fatty acid analysis. All samples were also subjected to in-vitro gas production. Objective 1: Measure the sources and degree of variability in harvesting, processing, and storing of corn as HMC/HMEC. (7575% Accomplished) To assess the sources and degrees of variability in the composition of HMC and HMEC as a result of the harvesting, processing, and storing method, we analyzed samples at the time of opening the ensiled mass and during the subsequent feed-out phase. Dry matter starch content of HMC was 71.6 ± 1.2% and for HMEC was 59.2 ± 3.9%, averaged across all locations from samples collected after ensiling and during the feed-out phase. Thus the grain content of HMEC was 82.7% (59.2/0.716). Objective 2: Determine how various processing and preservation techniques for HMC/HMEC alter stability during feeding. (15% Accomplished) Apparent digestibility of starch Total tract starch digestibility (TSD) was determined from pens (n = 10) of feedlot steers and heifers from participants that were enrolled in the survey and feed ingredient sampling. Selected pens were required to have been on a finishing diet for a minimum of 4 weeks prior to diet and fecal sampling. Diets were concentrate-based and consisted of HMC, HMEC, corn milling co-products and mineral supplement. Fecal starch (FS) was a predictable function of mean grain particle size (PS) where (FS, % = 0.0054PS - 1.1951; R2 = 0.50; Figure 1). Additionally, TSD was a predictable function of FS (TSD, % = -0.6604FS + 101.82; R2 = 0.92; Figure 2). Hence, particle size can be used as a measure of starch digestibility in the total tract of steers fed a high-moisture corn based finishing diet. Objective 3: Quantify the mean and variability for the level of inclusion of HMC/HMEC in diets, the ratio of HMC/HMEC to other corn grain ingredients (i.e. whole-shelled or dry-rolled corn), and differences in starch digestibility for finishing diets fed to feedlot cattle in the Upper Midwest. (85% Accomplished) Nutrient composition High-moisture corn (HMC) All feed samples were subjected to NIR analysis at a commercial feed laboratory. Samples (n = 111) for HMC were collected from 25 sites in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Average DM, CP, NDF, uNDF240, starch, fat, ash, and particle size was 71.5 ± 4.24 %, 8.4 ± 0.57, 7.8 ± 1.22%, 0.52 ± 0.50%, 71.4 ± 1.94, 3.9 ± 0.24, 1.6 ± 0.20%, and 2474 ± 1030 μm. High-moisture ear corn (HMEC) Samples (n = 137) for HMEC were collected from 24 sites in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Average DM, CP, NDF, uNDF240, starch, fat, ash, and particle size was 63.9 ± 6.30 %, 7.9 ± 0.66, 17.2 ± 3.04%, 3.85 ± 1.03%, 59.4 ± 4.09, 3.5 ± 0.28, 2.1 ± 0.28%, and 2210 ± 24.3 μm. Survey High-moisture corn (HMC) Participants (n = 7) from Iowa and South Dakota were included. Average one time yard capacity was 1780 ± 1841 hd (range 499 to 5000 hd). Average inclusion of HMC in finishing diets on a dry matter (DM) basis was 35 ± 12% (range 25 to 54%). The HMC product had been fed on average for 27 ± 13 y and harvest efficiency (acres/h) was 6 ± 5 acres/h. Custom harvesting services were used by 14.3% of respondents compared to personal equipment (85.7%) for HMC. All HMC was processed prior to ensiling. A hammer-mill was used by 77.8% of those surveyed and a roller-mill was used by 22.2% of respondents. All HMC piles were covered. All HMC sampled was stored in a bunker. Tires were the only covering weight used. Sidewalls were used by 33.3% of participants, whole tires by 50.0% and a combination of both was used by 16.7% of those surveyed. Inoculant application was done by 28.6% of those surveyed. Finally, heating of the ensiled mass was only noted by 33.3% of participants. High-moisture ear corn (HMEC) Participants (n = 9) from Iowa and South Dakota were included. Average one time feedlot capacity was 1754 ± 1605 hd (range 499 to 5000 hd). Average inclusion of HMEC in finishing diets on a dry matter (DM) basis was 38 ± 23% (range 22 to 75%). The HMEC product had been fed on average for 20 ± 16 y and harvest efficiency (acres/h) was 10 ± 7 acres/h. Custom harvesting services were used by 66.7% of respondents compared to personal harvesting equipment (33.3%) for HMEC. Kernel processing was used by 88.9% of respondents. All HMEC piles were covered. A total of 77.8% of survey participants stored HMEC in a bunker and 22.2% of participants stored HMEC in an silage bag. Tires were the only covering weight used. Sidewalls were used 28.5% of participants, whole tires by 43.0% and a combination of both was used by 28.5% of those surveyed. Inoculant application was done by 44.4% of those surveyed compared to those that do not (33.4%) or did not respond (22.2%). Finally, heating of the ensiled mass was only noted by 22.2% of participants compared to those that did not (66.7%) note heating or did not respond (11.1%). Objective 4: Develop and deliver educational programming to provide cattle feeders with information to make more informed decisions surrounding HMC/HMEC harvest and feeding practices using the data and knowledge generated from this project. (70% Accomplished) We are still working through information related to Objective 4, but should make progress on these aspects during the next reporting period. Results from this project have been shared at the Sioux County (IA) cattle feeder forum, the Driftless Region Beef Conference, and to a special Uruguayan Delegation in Nebraska. Objective 5: To create decision support tools to help producers understand the impact of when conditions deviate from ideal. (50% Accomplished) We are still working through information related to Objective 5, but should make progress on these aspects during the next reporting period. In year 2, we developed a beef-per acre from HMEC or HMC calculator based upon the information gleaned from the previous year. It is currently in the Beta Testing phase and is being evaluated internally before being deployed to stakeholders.
Publications
|
Progress 01/15/21 to 01/14/22
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience includes students, practitioners, and researchers in the animal and crop sciences who will find particular interest in this work. Within the next reporting year the newly gleaned information will be shared at both regional and national meetings for animal production. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Currently, one MS graduate student (S. Hanson) in Animal Science is directly working on this project. The student is learning skills in data management and fieldwork. The student is also working on projects related to corn feeding in cattle to compliment the survey work, and has learned methods of diet formulation, mixed-models statistical packages, and proximate analysis of feedstuffs At least five graduate students in Animal Science are receiving advanced training in beef cattle production and nutrition through this project. E. Gubbels, F. Francis, T. Norman, T. Ribiero, and T. Hamilton are all developing skills related sample inventory management and best management practices for handling samples collected from multiple collaborator farm sites. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?
Nothing Reported
What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Objective 1: Measure the sources and degree of variability in harvesting, processing, and storing of corn as HMC/HMEC. Final laboratory and statistical analyses are on-going. New work will include sharing this data at the Driftless Region Beef Conference in Eastern Iowa, and to use this data to create decision support tools. Data summarized from Objective 1 will be used in the delivery of educational programming geared towards producers (Objective 4) and to be used in the decision support tool (Objective 5). Objective 2: Determine how various processing and preservation techniques for HMC/HMEC alter stability during feeding. Laboratory and statistical analyses are on-going. During the next reporting period we aim to summarize these data for dissemination. Data summarized from Objective 2 will be used to aid in the delivery of educational programming geared towards producers (Objective 4) and to be used in the decision support tool (Objective 5). Objective 3: Quantify the mean and variability for the level of inclusion of HMC/HMEC in diets, the ratio of HMC/HMEC to other corn grain ingredients (i.e. whole-shelled or dry-rolled corn), and differences in starch digestibility for finishing diets fed to feedlot cattle in the Upper Midwest. Laboratory and statistical analyses are on-going. Data summarized from Objective 3 will be used to aid in the delivery of educational programming geared towards producers (Objective 4) and to be used in the decision support tool (Objective 5). Objective 4: Develop and deliver educational programming to provide cattle feeders with information to make more informed decisions surrounding HMC/HMEC harvest and feeding practices using the data and knowledge generated from this project Data gleaned from Objective 1, 2, and 3 will be used to aid in the delivery of educational programming geared towards producers. Objective 5: To create decision support tools to help producers understand the impact of when conditions deviate Data gleaned from Objective 1, 2, and 3 will be used to develop the decision support tool for producers.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
In this reporting period, we successfully initiated objectives 1 (75% accomplished), 2 (15% accomplished), and 3 (15% accomplished). We enrolled producers in IA (n = 8), MN (n = 2), ND (n = 12), and SD (n = 5) during year one. Work related to objectives 4 and 5 will begin during the next reporting period when field level work commences. To better understand how agronomic practices and on-farm management factors influence the composition of corn harvested as high-moisture corn, samples of high moisture corn (HMC; n = 111) and high moisture ear corn (HMEC; n = 137) were collected in 2020/2021. A minimum of two samples were collected post-ensiling at each location. Samples were collected at the time of opening the ensiled mass and during the subsequent feed-out phase. Samples were submitted to a commercial laboratory for analyses that included: dry matter, crude protein, ash, neutral and acid detergent fiber content, starch, as well as short-chain fatty acid analysis. All samples were also subjected to in-vitro gas production. Of most interest was an in-vitro gas production (IVGP) procedure, where rumen fluid is collected from a cow and then a specific amount of rumen fluid is blended with a specific amount of feedstuff in a sealed vessel and incubated for 48 h under appropriate conditions, while continuously measuring gas production. By correlating feedstock digestibility with gas production, the IVGP method determines 7 h starch digestibility, 24 h starch digestibility, and 48 h neutral detergent fiber (NDF, or lignocellulose) digestibility. The combined assay and statistical modelling is robust over a wide range of starch and NDF concentrations and fermentation kinetics in feeds. Due to increased data points, fermentation lag times and rate of degradation of the feedstuff can be more accurately and precisely calculated from IVGP than can be in other in-vitro procedures with a limited number of time points (only 7, 24, or 48 h). Objective 1: Measure the sources and degree of variability in harvesting, processing, and storing of corn as HMC/HMEC. (75% Accomplished) To assess the sources and degrees of variability in the composition of HMC and HMEC as a result of the harvesting, processing, and storing method, we analyzed samples at the time of opening the ensiled mass and during the subsequent feed-out phase. Dry matter starch content of HMC was 71.6 ± 1.2% and for HMEC was 59.2 ± 3.9%, averaged across all locations from samples collected after ensiling and during the feed-out phase. Thus the grain content of HMEC was 82.7% (59.2/0.716). Ammonia crude protein, moisture, and lactic acid were all positively correlated with the rate of initiation of fermentation (7 h starch digestibility; r = 0.51, 0.52, and 0.58, respectively) from samples collected after ensiling and during the feed-out phase. The benefit of the high-correlation between the aforementioned variables is the potential for prediction equations that might allow the end-user (cattle feeder and nutritionist) to more readily determine rate and extent of grain breakdown with an easily measured lab assay. Additionally, acetic acid was correlated to 1, 2 propanediol (r = 0.63). The presence of acetic acid and 1,2-propanediol provide evidence of heterolactic fermentation and possible use of L. buchneri inoculants, but data entry for the survey is ongoing and relationships have yet to be identified. Objective 2: Determine how various processing and preservation techniques for HMC/HMEC alter stability during feeding. (15% Accomplished) To assess compositional changes of HMC vs HMEC once the ensiled mass is opened and then throughout the feed-out phase, we have deployed temperature sensors into the ensiled mass to monitor changes. Additionally, we have collected both pre- and post-ensiling samples to determine if measures evaluated in objective 1 can be used to correlate temperature changes throughout the ensiled mass to potential changes in composition. Work related to Objective 2 is currently on-going, and will provide useful information to producers in relation to management of their ensiled HMC or HMEC with respect to feed-out phase stability. Objective 3: Quantify the mean and variability for the level of inclusion of HMC/HMEC in diets, the ratio of HMC/HMEC to other corn grain ingredients (i.e. whole-shelled or dry-rolled corn), and differences in starch digestibility for finishing diets fed to feedlot cattle in the Upper Midwest. (15% Accomplished) Work related to Objective 3 is currently initiated and includes summarizing data generated from the survey instrument to determine the mean inclusion level of each product and to determine the range of inclusion levels and ratios of dry-to-wet corn included in finishing diets fed in the upper Midwest. Objective 4: Develop and deliver educational programming to provide cattle feeders with information to make more informed decisions surrounding HMC/HMEC harvest and feeding practices using the data and knowledge generated from this project. (0% Accomplished) We are still working through information related to Objective 4, but should make progress on these aspects during the next reporting period. Objective 5: To create decision support tools to help producers understand the impact of when conditions deviate from ideal. (0% Accomplished) We are still working through information related to Objective 5, but should make progress on these aspects during the next reporting period.
Publications
|
|