Стратегічне управління як основа фінансової стійкості аграрних підприємств

Метою роботи є формування комплексного стратегічного підходу до управління фінансовою стійкістю аграрних підприємств на основі всебічного аналізу їх діяльності, конкретизації поточних цілей та індикаторів стану, а також розробці системи заходів для досягнення стратегічної мети, в залежності від етапу планування

Absolute body and relative organ weights of low (LBW) and normal birth weight (NBW) pigs derived from allopurinol treated and control sows at the age of 5 and 5.5 months.

<p>Panel A: body weight, panels B–D: relative organ weights. Ratios are calculated by dividing the organ weight through the end body weight per animal.</p

Behavior of four different treatment groups in a spatial holeboard task.

<p><i>Groups</i>: low birth weight (LBW) and normal birth weight (NBW) piglets, prenatally treated with allopurinol and untreated controls. Means and SEM for the ten trial blocks of the training phase (1–10) and six trial blocks of the reversal phase (11–16) are shown for (A) WM (stippled lines) and RM (solid lines), (B) trial duration and (C) IVI.</p

Performance of ALLO-treated and untreated LBW and NBW pigs in the cognitive pig holeboard task.

<p>The transition from the originally learned pattern of baited holes to a new pattern (reversal) was taken as index for response flexibility. Strategies are reflected by the measure choice correspondence and have been analyzed across block of trials without considering through which pigs entered the holeboard arena (block differences), and also per door. n/a: not applicable.</p><p>Differences between 4 treatment groups: Performance of LBW and NBW piglets born from allopurinol treated sows (n = 6) and controls (n = 4).</p

Timeline of holeboard training.

<p>Timeline of holeboard training.</p

Effect of birth weight, ALLO treatment and their interaction on slaughter weight, and relative hippocampal and spleen weight (for means and SEMs see Table 6).

<p>Effect of birth weight, ALLO treatment and their interaction on slaughter weight, and relative hippocampal and spleen weight (for means and SEMs see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0086396#pone-0086396-t006" target="_blank">Table 6</a>).</p

Effects of Allopurinol treatment on piglet birth measures.

<p>Degrees of freedom, F-values, associated probabilities, mean, SEMs and Ns op the ALLO-treated and untreated control piglets are listed.</p><p>Differences in birth measures between piglets from the six sows treated with allopurinol and four control sows. Note that the data of two sows of the control condition (no ALLO treatment) were not used because they did not give birth to LBW piglets (see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0086396#pone-0086396-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a> for details). Full body length (cm) = snout to tail base; snout length (cm) = snout to end of skull; ponderal index = weight/length3.</p

Correlation between placental measures and birth weight.

<p>Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficients (rPM), the associated probabilities (two tailed), and the number of measurements (Ns) are listed. Correlation coefficients with associated probabilities <0.05 are printed bold, whereas coefficients with 0.1 ><i>P</i> >0.05 are printed in italics.</p

Overview of the sows and piglets used.

<p>Sows 1 to 6 were from the first batch, sows 7 to 12 were from the second batch. All animals were (Terra × Finnish landrace) × Duroc mix. ALLO sows were treated with 15 mg allopurinol per kg body weight, once daily.</p>*<p>No LBW piglets were born in these litters, and consequently, no LBW piglets could be selected for the open field test and the holeboard test.</p>1<p>Number of piglets for placental measures;</p>2<p>Number of piglets for blood gas measures.</p