18 research outputs found

    Identifying challenges and opportunities for improved nutrient management through U.S.D.A's Dairy Agroecosystem Working Group

    Get PDF
    Nutrient management is a priority of U.S. dairy farms, although specific concerns vary across regions and management systems. To elucidate challenges and opportunities to improving nutrient use efficiencies, the USDA’s Dairy Agroecosystems Working Group investigated 10 case studies of confinement (including open lots and free stall housing) and grazing operations in the seven major U.S. dairy producing states. Simulation modeling was carried out using the Integrated Farm Systems Model over 25 years of historic weather data. Dairies with a preference for importing feed and exporting manure, common for simulated dry lot dairies of the arid west, had lower nutrient use efficiencies at the farm gate than freestall and tie-stall dairies in humid climates. Phosphorus (P) use efficiencies ranged from 33 to 82% of imported P, while N use efficiencies were 25 to 50% of imported N. When viewed from a P budgeting perspective, environmental losses of P were generally negligible, especially from dry lot dairies. Opportunities for greater P use efficiency reside primarily in increasing on-farm feed production and reducing excess P in diets. In contrast with P, environmental losses of nitrogen (N) were 50 to 75% of annual farm N inputs. For dry lot dairies, the greatest potential for N conservation is associated with ammonia (NH3) control from housing, whereas for freestall and tie-stall operations, N conservation opportunities vary with soil and manure management system. Given that fertilizer expenses are equivalent to 2 to 6% of annual farm profits, cost incentives do exist to improve nutrient use efficiencies. However, augmenting on-farm feed production represents an even greater opportunity, especially on large operations with high animal unit densities

    Association of Type and Location of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations With Risk of Breast and Ovarian Cancer (vol 313, pg 1347, 2015)

    Get PDF
    Heli Nevanlinna ja Kristiina Aittomäki ovat CIMBA Consortium -työryhmän jäseniä.IMPORTANCE Limited information about the relationship between specific mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) and cancer risk exists. OBJECTIVE To identify mutation-specific cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1/2. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Observational study of women who were ascertained between 1937 and 2011 (median, 1999) and found to carry disease-associated BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The international sample comprised 19 581 carriers of BRCA1 mutations and 11 900 carriers of BRCA2 mutations from 55 centers in 33 countries on 6 continents. We estimated hazard ratios for breast and ovarian cancer based on mutation type, function, and nucleotide position. We also estimated RHR, the ratio of breast vs ovarian cancer hazard ratios. A value of RHR greater than 1 indicated elevated breast cancer risk; a value of RHR less than 1 indicated elevated ovarian cancer risk. EXPOSURES Mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Breast and ovarian cancer risks. RESULTS Among BRCA1 mutation carriers, 9052 women (46%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 2317(12%) with ovarian cancer, 1041 (5%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 7171 (37%) without cancer. Among BRCA2 mutation carriers, 6180 women (52%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 682(6%) with ovarian cancer, 272(2%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 4766 (40%) without cancer. In BRCA1, we identified 3 breast cancer cluster regions (BCCRs) located at c.179 to c.505 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.46; 95% Cl, 1.22-1.74; P = 2 x 10(-6)), c.4328 to c.4945 (BCCR2; RH R = 1.34; 95% Cl, 1.01-1.78; P =.04), and c. 5261 to c.5563 (BCCR2', RHR = 1.38; 95% Cl, 1.22-1.55; P = 6 x 10(-9)). We also identified an ovarian cancer cluster region (OCCR) from c.1380 to c.4062 (approximately exon 11) with RHR = 0.62 (95% Cl, 0.56-0.70; P = 9 x 10(-17)). In BRCA2, we observed multiple BCCRs spanning c.1 to c.596 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.71; 95% Cl, 1.06-2.78; P =.03), c.772 to c.1806 (BCCRI; RHR = 1.63; 95% Cl, 1.10-2.40; P =.01), and c.7394 to c.8904 (BCCR2; RHR = 2.31; 95% Cl, 1.69-3.16; P =.00002). We also identified 3 OCCRs: the first (OCCR1) spanned c.3249 to c.5681 that was adjacent to c.5946delT (6174delT; RHR = 0.51; 95% Cl, 0.44-0.60; P = 6 x 10(-17)). The second OCCR spanned c.6645 to c.7471 (OCCR2; RHR = 0.57; 95% Cl, 0.41-0.80; P =.001). Mutations conferring nonsense-mediated decay were associated with differential breast or ovarian cancer risks and an earlier age of breast cancer diagnosis for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Breast and ovarian cancer risks varied by type and location of BRCA1/2 mutations. With appropriate validation, these data may have implications for risk assessment and cancer prevention decision making for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.Peer reviewe

    Common Breast Cancer Susceptibility Alleles and the Risk of Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: Implications for Risk Prediction

    Get PDF
    The known breast cancer (BC) susceptibility polymorphisms in FGFR2, TNRC9/TOX3, MAP3K1,LSP1 and 2q35 confer increased risks of BC for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. We evaluated the associations of three additional SNPs, rs4973768 in SLC4A7/NEK10, rs6504950 in STXBP4/COX11 and rs10941679 at 5p12 and reanalyzed the previous associations using additional carriers in a sample of 12,525 BRCA1 and 7,409 BRCA2 carriers. Additionally, we investigated potential interactions between SNPs and assessed the implications for risk prediction. The minor alleles of rs4973768 and rs10941679 were associated with increased BC risk for BRCA2 carriers (per-allele Hazard Ratio (HR)=1.10, 95%CI:1.03-1.18, p=0.006 and HR=1.09, 95%CI:1.01-1.19, p=0.03, respectively). Neither SNP was associated with BC risk for BRCA1 carriers and rs6504950 was not associated with BC for either BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers. Of the nine polymorphisms investigated, seven were associated with BC for BRCA2 carriers (FGFR2, TOX3, MAP3K1, LSP1, 2q35, SLC4A7, 5p12, p-values:7×10−11-0.03), but only TOX3 and 2q35 were associated with the risk for BRCA1 carriers (p=0.0049, 0.03 respectively). All risk associated polymorphisms appear to interact multiplicatively on BC risk for mutation carriers. Based on the joint genotype distribution of the seven risk associated SNPs in BRCA2 mutation carriers, the 5% of BRCA2 carriers at highest risk (i.e. between 95th and 100th percentiles) were predicted to have a probability between 80% and 96% of developing BC by age 80, compared with 42-50% for the 5% of carriers at lowest risk. Our findings indicated that these risk differences may be sufficient to influence the clinical management of mutation carriers

    Marketing your hogs in a lean value based program

    No full text
    1 sheet: ill.; 28 cm

    An introduction to swine growth enhancers: porcine somatotropin and beta-agonists

    No full text
    4 p.; 28 cm

    How much is this boar worth?

    No full text
    1 sheet; 28 cm

    Marketing cooperatives: a new twist on an old idea

    No full text
    1 sheet: ill.; 28 cm

    Swine enterprise records: a tool for pork producers

    No full text
    4 p.: ill.; 28 cm

    Improve pork quality: reduce PSE and other defects

    No full text
    3 p.; 28 cm
    corecore