Example of Animal Production Science format
Recent searches

Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
Look Inside
Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format Example of Animal Production Science format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
open access Open Access ISSN: 18360939 e-ISSN: 18365787

Animal Production Science — Template for authors

Publisher: CSIRO Publishing
Categories Rank Trend in last 3 yrs
Animal Science and Zoology #113 of 416 down down by 23 ranks
Food Science #133 of 310 down down by 38 ranks
journal-quality-icon Journal quality:
Good
calendar-icon Last 4 years overview: 1070 Published Papers | 3045 Citations
indexed-in-icon Indexed in: Scopus
last-updated-icon Last updated: 01/06/2020
Insights & related journals
General info
Top papers
Popular templates
Get started guide
Why choose from SciSpace
FAQ

Journal Performance & Insights

  • Impact Factor
  • CiteRatio
  • SJR
  • SNIP

Impact factor determines the importance of a journal by taking a measure of frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year.

1.215

5% from 2018

Impact factor for Animal Production Science from 2016 - 2019
Year Value
2019 1.215
2018 1.275
2017 1.371
2016 1.371
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • Impact factor of this journal has decreased by 5% in last year.
  • This journal’s impact factor is in the top 10 percentile category.

CiteRatio is a measure of average citations received per peer-reviewed paper published in the journal.

2.8

CiteRatio for Animal Production Science from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 2.8
2019 2.8
2018 2.5
2017 2.6
2016 2.5
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • This journal’s CiteRatio is in the top 10 percentile category.

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) measures weighted citations received by the journal. Citation weighting depends on the categories and prestige of the citing journal.

0.529

6% from 2019

SJR for Animal Production Science from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 0.529
2019 0.562
2018 0.631
2017 0.637
2016 0.627
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • SJR of this journal has decreased by 6% in last years.
  • This journal’s SJR is in the top 10 percentile category.

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) measures actual citations received relative to citations expected for the journal's category.

0.887

2% from 2019

SNIP for Animal Production Science from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 0.887
2019 0.908
2018 0.978
2017 0.914
2016 0.861
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • SNIP of this journal has decreased by 2% in last years.
  • This journal’s SNIP is in the top 10 percentile category.

Related Journals

open access Open Access ISSN: 16749782 e-ISSN: 20491891
recommended Recommended

Springer

CiteRatio: 7.5 | SJR: 1.387 | SNIP: 1.887
open access Open Access ISSN: 220302 e-ISSN: 15253198
recommended Recommended

Elsevier

CiteRatio: 6.2 | SJR: 1.483 | SNIP: 1.832
open access Open Access ISSN: 15735214
recommended Recommended

Elsevier

CiteRatio: 5.5 | SJR: 1.023 | SNIP: 1.583
open access Open Access ISSN: 7424477 e-ISSN: 15206297

Wiley

CiteRatio: 2.9 | SJR: 0.57 | SNIP: 1.066
Animal Production Science

Guideline source: View

All company, product and service names used in this website are for identification purposes only. All product names, trademarks and registered trademarks are property of their respective owners.

Use of these names, trademarks and brands does not imply endorsement or affiliation. Disclaimer Notice

CSIRO Publishing

Animal Production Science

Approved by publishing and review experts on SciSpace, this template is built as per for Animal Production Science formatting guidelines as mentioned in CSIRO Publishing author instructions. The current version was created on 01 Jun 2020 and has been used by 524 authors to write and format their manuscripts to this journal.

Animal Science and Zoology

Food Science

Agricultural and Biological Sciences

i
Last updated on
01 Jun 2020
i
ISSN
1836-0939
i
Impact Factor
Medium - 0.872
i
Open Access
No
i
Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy
Green faq
i
Plagiarism Check
Available via Turnitin
i
Endnote Style
Download Available
i
Bibliography Name
CSIRO Custom Citation
i
Citation Type
Author Year
(Blonder et al., 1982)
i
Bibliography Example
Blonder, G. E., Tinkham, M. and Klapwijk, T. M. (1982). Transition from metallic to tunneling regimes in superconducting microconstrictions: Excess current, charge im-balance, and supercurrent conversion, Phys. Rev. B 25(7), 4515–4532. URL: 10.1103/PhysRevB.25.4515

Top papers written in this journal

Journal Article DOI: 10.1071/AN10163
Ruminant enteric methane mitigation: a review
David Cottle1, John Nolan1, S. G. Wiedemann

Abstract:

In Australia, agriculture is responsible for ~17% of total greenhouse gas emissions with ruminants being the largest single source. However, agriculture is likely to be shielded from the full impact of any future price on carbon. In this review, strategies for reducing ruminant methane output are considered in relation to rum... In Australia, agriculture is responsible for ~17% of total greenhouse gas emissions with ruminants being the largest single source. However, agriculture is likely to be shielded from the full impact of any future price on carbon. In this review, strategies for reducing ruminant methane output are considered in relation to rumen ecology and biochemistry, animal breeding and management options at an animal, farm, or national level. Nutritional management strategies have the greatest short-term impact. Methanogenic microorganisms remove H2 produced during fermentation of organic matter in the rumen and hind gut. Cost-effective ways to change the microbial ecology to reduce H2 production, to re-partition H2 into products other than methane, or to promote methanotrophic microbes with the ability to oxidise methane still need to be found. Methods of inhibiting methanogens include: use of antibiotics; promoting viruses/bacteriophages; use of feed additives such as fats and oils, or nitrate salts, or dicarboxylic acids; defaunation; and vaccination against methanogens. Methods of enhancing alternative H2 using microbial species include: inoculating with acetogenic species; feeding highly digestible feed components favouring ‘propionate fermentations’; and modifying rumen conditions. Conditions that sustain acetogen populations in kangaroos and termites, for example, are poorly understood but might be extended to ruminants. Mitigation strategies are not in common use in extensive grazing systems but dietary management or use of growth promotants can reduce methane output per unit of product. New, natural compounds that reduce rumen methane output may yet be found. Smaller but more permanent benefits are possible using genetic approaches. The indirect selection criterion, residual feed intake, when measured on ad libitum grain diets, has limited relevance for grazing cattle. There are few published estimates of genetic parameters for feed intake and methane production. Methane-related single nucleotide polymorphisms have yet to be used commercially. As a breeding objective, the use of methane/kg product rather than methane/head is recommended. Indirect selection via feed intake may be more cost-effective than via direct measurement of methane emissions. Life cycle analyses indicate that intensification is likely to reduce total greenhouse gas output but emissions and sequestration from vegetation and soil need to be addressed. Bio-economic modelling suggests most mitigation options are currently not cost-effective. read more read less

Topics:

Rumen (51%)51% related to the paper, Residual feed intake (50%)50% related to the paper
267 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1071/EA02220
Biological basis for variation in residual feed intake in beef cattle 1: Review of potential mechanisms
R. M. Herd, V. H. Oddy, E. C. Richardson

Abstract:

There is a growing body of evidence that there is genetic variation in beef cattle feed intake relative to their liveweight and weight gain Difference in feed intake, above and below that expected or predicted on the basis of size and growth, is measured as residual feed intake Variation in residual feed intake must be underp... There is a growing body of evidence that there is genetic variation in beef cattle feed intake relative to their liveweight and weight gain Difference in feed intake, above and below that expected or predicted on the basis of size and growth, is measured as residual feed intake Variation in residual feed intake must be underpinned by measurable differences in biological processes This paper summarises some plausible mechanisms by which variation in efficiency of nutrient use may occur and presents several testable hypotheses for such variation A  companion paper [Richardson and Herd (2004) Aust J Exp Ag 44, 431–441] presents results from experiments on cattle following divergent selection for residual feed intake There were at least 5 major processes identified by which variation in efficiency can arise These are associated with variation in intake of feed, digestion of feed, metabolism (anabolism and catabolism associated with and including variation in body composition), activity and thermoregulation The percentage contribution of different mechanisms, to variation in residual feed intake, was: 9% for differences in heat increment of feeding; 14% for differences in digestion; 5% for differences in body composition; and 5% for differences in activity Together, these mechanisms may be responsible for about one-third of the variation in residual feed intake The remaining two-thirds were likely to be associated with heat loss due to variation in other processes, such as protein turnover and ion transport There is no shortage of candidate mechanisms that, singularly or in combination, might contribute to genetic variation in energy utilisation in ruminants Further research in beef cattle, to better define these mechanisms and enable their incorporation into breeding programmes, may lead not only to cattle which eat less for the same performance, but are superior in other traits as well read more read less

Topics:

Residual feed intake (72%)72% related to the paper, Beef cattle (54%)54% related to the paper
235 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1071/EA06225
The Happy Seeder enables direct drilling of wheat into rice stubble

Abstract:

Lack of suitable machinery is a major constraint to direct drilling into combine-harvested rice residues due to the heavy straw load, and the presence of loose tough straw deposited by the harvester. Therefore, most rice stubbles are burnt in the mechanised rice–wheat systems of south Asia and Australia, as this is a rapid an... Lack of suitable machinery is a major constraint to direct drilling into combine-harvested rice residues due to the heavy straw load, and the presence of loose tough straw deposited by the harvester. Therefore, most rice stubbles are burnt in the mechanised rice–wheat systems of south Asia and Australia, as this is a rapid and cheap option, and allows for quick turn around between crops. As well as loss of organic matter and nutrients, rice stubble burning causes very serious and widespread air pollution in the north-west Indo-Gangetic Plains, where rice–wheat systems predominate. A novel approach with much promise is the Happy Seeder, which combines the stubble mulching and seed drilling functions in the one machine. The stubble is cut and picked up in front of the sowing tynes, which engage bare soil, and deposited behind the seed drill as mulch. Evaluation of the technology over 3 years in replicated experiments and farmers’ fields in Punjab, India, showed that establishment of wheat sown into rice residues with the Happy Seeder was comparable with establishment using conventional methods (straw burnt followed by direct drilling or cultivation before sowing) for sowings around the optimum time into stubbles up to 7.5 t/ha. For late sowings, plant density declined significantly at straw loads above 5 t/ha. The mulch also reduced weed biomass by ~60%, and reduced soil evaporation. Yield of wheat sown around the optimum time into rice residues, using the Happy Seeder, was comparable with or higher than yield after straw removal or burning, in replicated experiments and farmers’ fields, for straw loads up to 9 t/ha. In farmers’ fields there was an average yield increase of 9 and 11% in 2004–05 and 2005–06, respectively, compared with farmer practice. For sowings after the optimum time, yield declined significantly at straw loads greater than 7.5 t/ha. The Happy Seeder offers the means of drilling wheat into rice stubble without burning, eliminating air pollution and loss of nutrients and organic carbon due to burning, at the same time as maintaining or increasing yield. read more read less

Topics:

Stubble-mulching (56%)56% related to the paper, Seeder (56%)56% related to the paper, Straw (52%)52% related to the paper, Sowing (51%)51% related to the paper, Mulch (51%)51% related to the paper
153 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1071/EA02219
Metabolic differences in Angus steers divergently selected for residual feed intake

Abstract:

Residual feed intake measures variation in feed intake independent of liveweight and liveweight gain First generation steer progeny (n = 33) of parents previously selected for low or high post-weaning residual feed intake were examined to determine metabolic processes contributing to variation in residual feed intake Blood sa... Residual feed intake measures variation in feed intake independent of liveweight and liveweight gain First generation steer progeny (n = 33) of parents previously selected for low or high post-weaning residual feed intake were examined to determine metabolic processes contributing to variation in residual feed intake Blood samples were taken from the steers from weaning through to slaughter These samples were analysed for key metabolites and hormones Total urine and total faecal collections were taken from the steers in an animal-house experiment to estimate dry matter digestibility, microbial protein production and protein turnover At weaning, there were phenotypic correlations between concentrations in plasma of β-hydroxy butyrate (r = 055, P 005) Neither the ratio of 3-methyl histidine : creatinine in urine, as a measure of rate of muscle breakdown, nor the dry matter digestibility measured in the animal house were correlated with residual feed intake in the animal house (r = 004, P>005), or residual feed intake over the whole experiment (r = –022, P>005), and neither were associated with genetic variation in residual feed intake It is hypothesised that high-RFI (low-efficiency) steers have higher tissue energy requirements, are more susceptible to stress and utilise different tissue substrates (partly as a consequence of differences in body composition) to generate energy required in response to exposure to a stressful stimulus read more read less

Topics:

Residual feed intake (69%)69% related to the paper, Dry matter (50%)50% related to the paper
150 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1071/EA07177
Evolution of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) beef grading system
Rod Polkinghorne, John Mitchell Thompson1, Ray Watson2, Adrian P. Gee, M Porter

Abstract:

The Australian Beef Industry identified variable eating quality as a major contributor to declining beef consumption in the early 1990s and committed research funding to address the problem. The major issue was the ability to predict the eating quality of cooked beef before consumption. The Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prog... The Australian Beef Industry identified variable eating quality as a major contributor to declining beef consumption in the early 1990s and committed research funding to address the problem. The major issue was the ability to predict the eating quality of cooked beef before consumption. The Meat Standards Australia (MSA) program developed a consumer testing protocol, which led to MSA grading standards being defined by consumer score outcomes. Traditional carcass grading parameters proved to be of little value in predicting consumer outcomes. Instead a broader combination of factors forms the basis of an interactive prediction model that performs well. The grading model has evolved from a fixed parameter ‘Pathway’ approach, to a computer model that predicts consumer scores for 135 ‘cut by cooking method’ combinations for each graded carcass. The body of research work conducted in evaluating critical control points and in developing the model predictions and interactions has involved several Australian research groups with strong support and involvement from the industry. read more read less

Topics:

Product testing (51%)51% related to the paper
141 Citations
Author Pic

SciSpace is a very innovative solution to the formatting problem and existing providers, such as Mendeley or Word did not really evolve in recent years.

- Andreas Frutiger, Researcher, ETH Zurich, Institute for Biomedical Engineering

Get MS-Word and LaTeX output to any Journal within seconds
1
Choose a template
Select a template from a library of 40,000+ templates
2
Import a MS-Word file or start fresh
It takes only few seconds to import
3
View and edit your final output
SciSpace will automatically format your output to meet journal guidelines
4
Submit directly or Download
Submit to journal directly or Download in PDF, MS Word or LaTeX

(Before submission check for plagiarism via Turnitin)

clock Less than 3 minutes

What to expect from SciSpace?

Speed and accuracy over MS Word

''

With SciSpace, you do not need a word template for Animal Production Science.

It automatically formats your research paper to CSIRO Publishing formatting guidelines and citation style.

You can download a submission ready research paper in pdf, LaTeX and docx formats.

Time comparison

Time taken to format a paper and Compliance with guidelines

Plagiarism Reports via Turnitin

SciSpace has partnered with Turnitin, the leading provider of Plagiarism Check software.

Using this service, researchers can compare submissions against more than 170 million scholarly articles, a database of 70+ billion current and archived web pages. How Turnitin Integration works?

Turnitin Stats
Publisher Logos

Freedom from formatting guidelines

One editor, 100K journal formats – world's largest collection of journal templates

With such a huge verified library, what you need is already there.

publisher-logos

Easy support from all your favorite tools

Animal Production Science format uses CSIRO Custom Citation citation style.

Automatically format and order your citations and bibliography in a click.

SciSpace allows imports from all reference managers like Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote, Google Scholar etc.

Frequently asked questions

Absolutely not! With our tool, you can freely write without having to focus on LaTeX. You can write your entire paper as per the Animal Production Science guidelines and autoformat it.

Yes. The template is fully compliant as per the guidelines of this journal. Our experts at SciSpace ensure that. Also, if there's any update in the journal format guidelines, we take care of it and include that in our algorithm.

Sure. We support all the top citation styles like APA style, MLA style, Vancouver style, Harvard style, Chicago style, etc. For example, in case of this journal, when you write your paper and hit autoformat, it will automatically update your article as per the Animal Production Science citation style.

You can avail our Free Trial for 7 days. I'm sure you'll find our features very helpful. Plus, it's quite inexpensive.

Yup. You can choose the right template, copy-paste the contents from the word doc and click on auto-format. You'll have a publish-ready paper that you can download at the end.

A matter of seconds. Besides that, our intuitive editor saves a load of your time in writing and formating your manuscript.

One little Google search can get you the Word template for any journal. However, why do you need a Word template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace, autoformat it as per Animal Production Science's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Try us out!.

Absolutely! You can do it using our intuitive editor. It's very easy. If you need help, you can always contact our support team.

SciSpace is an online tool for now. We'll soon release a desktop version. You can also request (or upvote) any feature that you think might be helpful for you and the research community in the feature request section once you sign-up with us.

Sure. You can request any template and we'll have it up and running within a matter of 3 working days. You can find the request box in the Journal Gallery on the right sidebar under the heading, "Couldn't find the format you were looking for?".

After you have written and autoformatted your paper, you can download it in multiple formats, viz., PDF, Docx and LaTeX.

To be honest, the answer is NO. The impact factor is one of the many elements that determine the quality of a journal. Few of those factors the review board, rejection rates, frequency of inclusion in indexes, Eigenfactor, etc. You must assess all the factors and then take the final call.

SHERPA/RoMEO Database

We have extracted this data from Sherpa Romeo to help our researchers understand the access level of this journal. The following table indicates the level of access a journal has as per Sherpa Romeo Archiving Policy.

RoMEO Colour Archiving policy
Green Can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
Blue Can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) or publisher's version/PDF
Yellow Can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing)
White Archiving not formally supported
FYI:
  1. Pre-prints as being the version of the paper before peer review and
  2. Post-prints as being the version of the paper after peer-review, with revisions having been made.

The 5 most common citation types in order of usage are:.

S. No. Citation Style Type
1. Author Year
2. Numbered
3. Numbered (Superscripted)
4. Author Year (Cited Pages)
5. Footnote

Our journal submission experts are skilled in submitting papers to various international journals.

After uploading your paper on SciSpace, you would see a button to request a journal submission service for Animal Production Science.

Each submission service is completed within 4 - 5 working days.

Yes. SciSpace provides this functionality.

After signing up, you would need to import your existing references from Word or .bib file.

SciSpace would allow download of your references in Animal Production Science Endnote style, according to csiro-publishing guidelines.

Fast and reliable,
built for complaince.

Instant formatting to 100% publisher guidelines on - SciSpace.

Available only on desktops 🖥

No word template required

Typset automatically formats your research paper to Animal Production Science formatting guidelines and citation style.

Verifed journal formats

One editor, 100K journal formats.
With the largest collection of verified journal formats, what you need is already there.

Trusted by academicians

I spent hours with MS word for reformatting. It was frustrating - plain and simple. With SciSpace, I can draft my manuscripts and once it is finished I can just submit. In case, I have to submit to another journal it is really just a button click instead of an afternoon of reformatting.

Andreas Frutiger
Researcher & Ex MS Word user
Use this template