20 research outputs found

    Status of udder health performance indicators and implementation of on farm monitoring on German dairy cow farms: results from a large scale cross-sectional study

    Get PDF
    Regional benchmarking data enables farmers to compare their animal health situation to that of other herds and identify areas with improvement potential. For the udder health status of German dairy cow farms, such data were incomplete. Therefore, the aim of this study was (1) to describe the incidence of clinical mastitis (CM), (2) to describe cell count based udder health indicators [annual mean test day average of the proportion of animals without indication of mastitis (aWIM), new infection risk during lactation (aNIR), and proportion of cows with low chance of cure (aLCC); heifer mastitis rate (HM)] and their seasonal variation, and (3) to evaluate the level of implementation of selected measures of mastitis monitoring. Herds in three German regions (North: n = 253; East: n = 252, South: n = 260) with different production conditions were visited. Data on CM incidence and measures of mastitis monitoring were collected via structured questionnaire-based interviews. Additionally, dairy herd improvement (DHI) test day data from the 365 days preceding the interview were obtained. The median (Q0.1, Q0.9) farmer reported incidence of mild CM was 14.8% (3.5, 30.8%) in North, 16.2% (1.9, 50.4%) in East, and 11.8% (0.0, 30.7%) in South. For severe CM the reported incidence was 4.0% (0.0, 12.2%), 2.0% (0.0, 10.8%), and 2.6% (0.0, 11.0%) for North, East, and South, respectively. The median aWIM was 60.7% (53.4, 68.1%), 59.0% (49.7, 65.4%), and 60.2% (51.5, 67.8%), whereas the median aNIR was 17.1% (13.6, 21.6%), 19.9% (16.2, 24.9%), and 18.3% (14.4, 22.0%) in North, East, and South, respectively with large seasonal variations. Median aLCC was ≤1.1% (≤ 0.7%, ≤ 1.8%) in all regions and HM was 28.4% (19.7, 37.2%), 35.7% (26.7, 44.2%), and 23.5% (13.1, 35.9%), in North, East and South, respectively. Participation in a DHI testing program (N: 95.7%, E: 98.8%, S: 89.2%) and premilking (N: 91.1%, E: 93.7%, S: 90.2%) were widely used. Several aspects of udder health monitoring, including exact documentation of CM cases, regular microbiological analysis of milk samples and the use of a veterinary herd health consultancy service were not applied on many farms. The results of this study can be used by dairy farmers and their advisors as benchmarks for the assessment of the udder health situation in their herds

    The nuclear star cluster of the Milky Way

    Get PDF
    The nuclear star cluster of the Milky Way is a unique target in the Universe. Contrary to extragalactic nuclear star clusters, using current technology it can be resolved into tens of thousands of individual stars. This allows us to study in detail its spatial and velocity structure as well as the different stellar populations that make up the cluster. Moreover, the Milky Way is one of the very few cases where we have firm evidence for the co-existence of a nuclear star cluster with a central supermassive black hole, Sagittarius A*. The number density of stars in the Galactic center nuclear star cluster can be well described, at distances 1\gtrsim1 pc from Sagittarius A*, by a power-law of the form ρ(r)rγ\rho(r)\propto r^{-\gamma} with an index of γ1.8\gamma\approx1.8. In the central parsec the index of the power-law becomes much flatter and decreases to γ1.2\gamma\approx1.2. We present proper motions for more than 6000 stars within 1 pc in projection from the central black hole. The cluster appears isotropic at projected distances 0.5\gtrsim0.5 pc from Sagittarius A*. Outside of 0.5 pc and out to 1.0 pc the velocity dispersion appears to stay constant. A robust result of our Jeans modeling of the data is the required presence of 0.52.0×106M0.5-2.0\times10^{6} M_{\odot} of extended (stellar) mass in the central parsec of the Galaxy.Comment: To appear in the proceedings of "The Universe under the Microscope - Astrophysics at High Angular Resolution", Journal of Physics:Conference Series (IOP; http://www.iop.org/EJ/conf) This version has been slightly modified (e.g. double-log plot in right hand panel of Figure 5

    Status of udder health performance indicators and implementation of on farm monitoring on German dairy cow farms: results from a large scale cross-sectional study

    Get PDF
    Regional benchmarking data enables farmers to compare their animal health situation to that of other herds and identify areas with improvement potential. For the udder health status of German dairy cow farms, such data were incomplete. Therefore, the aim of this study was (1) to describe the incidence of clinical mastitis (CM), (2) to describe cell count based udder health indicators [annual mean test day average of the proportion of animals without indication of mastitis (aWIM), new infection risk during lactation (aNIR), and proportion of cows with low chance of cure (aLCC); heifer mastitis rate (HM)] and their seasonal variation, and (3) to evaluate the level of implementation of selected measures of mastitis monitoring. Herds in three German regions (North: n = 253; East: n = 252, South: n = 260) with different production conditions were visited. Data on CM incidence and measures of mastitis monitoring were collected via structured questionnaire-based interviews. Additionally, dairy herd improvement (DHI) test day data from the 365 days preceding the interview were obtained. The median (Q0.1, Q0.9) farmer reported incidence of mild CM was 14.8% (3.5, 30.8%) in North, 16.2% (1.9, 50.4%) in East, and 11.8% (0.0, 30.7%) in South. For severe CM the reported incidence was 4.0% (0.0, 12.2%), 2.0% (0.0, 10.8%), and 2.6% (0.0, 11.0%) for North, East, and South, respectively. The median aWIM was 60.7% (53.4, 68.1%), 59.0% (49.7, 65.4%), and 60.2% (51.5, 67.8%), whereas the median aNIR was 17.1% (13.6, 21.6%), 19.9% (16.2, 24.9%), and 18.3% (14.4, 22.0%) in North, East, and South, respectively with large seasonal variations. Median aLCC was ≤1.1% (≤ 0.7%, ≤ 1.8%) in all regions and HM was 28.4% (19.7, 37.2%), 35.7% (26.7, 44.2%), and 23.5% (13.1, 35.9%), in North, East and South, respectively. Participation in a DHI testing program (N: 95.7%, E: 98.8%, S: 89.2%) and premilking (N: 91.1%, E: 93.7%, S: 90.2%) were widely used. Several aspects of udder health monitoring, including exact documentation of CM cases, regular microbiological analysis of milk samples and the use of a veterinary herd health consultancy service were not applied on many farms. The results of this study can be used by dairy farmers and their advisors as benchmarks for the assessment of the udder health situation in their herds

    Treatment Extension of Pegylated Interferon Alpha and Ribavirin Does Not Improve SVR in Patients with Genotypes 2/3 without Rapid Virological Response (OPTEX Trial): A Prospective, Randomized, Two-Arm, Multicentre Phase IV Clinical Trial

    No full text
    Although sofosbuvir has been approved for patients with genotypes 2/3 (G2/3), many parts of the world still consider pegylated Interferon alpha (P) and ribavirin (R) as standard of care for G2/3. Patients with rapid virological response (RVR) show response rates >80%. However, SVR (sustained virological response) in non-RVR patients is not satisfactory. Longer treatment duration may be required but evidence from prospective trials are lacking. A total of 1006 chronic HCV genotype 2/3 patients treated with P/R were recruited into a German HepNet multicenter screening registry. Of those, only 226 patients were still HCV RNA positive at week 4 (non-RVR). Non-RVR patients with ongoing response after 24 weeks P-2b/R qualified for OPTEX, a randomized trial investigating treatment extension of additional 24 weeks (total 48 weeks, Group A) or additional 12 weeks (total 36 weeks, group B) of 1.5 μ\mug/kg P-2b and 800-1400 mg R. Due to the low number of patients without RVR, the number of 150 anticipated study patients was not met and only 99 non-RVR patients (n=50 Group A, n=49 Group B) could be enrolled into the OPTEX trial. Baseline factors did not differ between groups. Sixteen patients had G2 and 83 patients G3. Based on the ITT (intention-to-treat) analysis, 68% [55%; 81%] in Group A and 57% [43%; 71%] in Group B achieved SVR (p=0.31). The primary endpoint of better SVR rates in Group A compared to a historical control group (SVR 70%) was not met. In conclusion, approximately 23% of G2/3 patients did not achieve RVR in a real world setting. However, subsequent recruitment in a treatment-extension study was difficult. Prolonged therapy beyond 24 weeks did not result in higher SVR compared to a historical control group
    corecore