Use of indirect calorimetry to evaluate utilization of energy in lactating Jersey dairy cattle consuming common coproducts

The use of coproducts as an alternative feed source is a common practice when formulating dairy rations. A study using 12 multiparous (79 ± 16 d in milk; mean ± standard deviation) lactating Jersey cows was conducted over 5 mo to evaluate the effects of dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) or canola meal on milk and gas production. A replicated 4 × 4 Latin square design was used to compare 4 dietary treatments. Treatments comprised a control (CON) containing no coproducts, a treatment diet containing 10% (dry matter basis) lowfat DDGS (LFDG), a treatment diet containing 10% high-fat DDGS (HFDG), and a 10% canola meal (CM) treatment. The crude fat content of the LFDG, HFDG, and CM treatments was 6.05 ± 0.379, 10.0 ± 0.134, and 3.46 ± 0.085%, respectively. Coproducts were included in partial replacement for corn and soybean meal. Indirect headbox-style calorimeters were used to estimate heat production. Dry matter intake and milk yield were similar between all treatments, averaging 17.4 ± 0.56 kg/d and 24.0 ± 0.80 kg, respectively. Milk urea N was affected by treatment and was highest in CON (20.6 mg/dL; 18.0, 19.9, and 18.1 ± 0.62 mg/dL in LFDG, CM, and HFDG, respectively). Heat production per unit of metabolic body weight tended to be affected by treatment and was lowest for CON, and diets containing coproducts were not different (192, 200, 215, and 204 ± 5.91 kcal/kg of metabolic body weight for CON, LFDG, CM, and HFDG, respectively). The concentration of metabolizable energy was affected by dietary treatment; specifically, HFDG did not differ from CON but was greater than LFDG and CM (2.58, 2.46, 2.29, and 2.27 ± 0.09 Mcal/kg for HFDG, CON, LFDG, and CM, respectively). The concentration of net energy balance (milk plus tissue) tended to be affected by dietary treatment; HFDG did not differ from either CON or LFDG, but it was higher than CM (1.38, 1.36, 1.14, and 1.06 ± 0.11 Mcal/kg for HFDG, CON, LFDG, and CM, respectively). Results of this study indicate that milk production and dry matter intake were not affected by feeding common coproducts and that differences may result in whole-animal energy use; fat content of DDGS is a major factor affecting this

Fragmentation Effects on Soil Aggregate Stability in a Patchy Arid Grassland

Soil aggregate stability (AS) has been promoted as a primary indicator of soil-surface function and a key metric in state-and-transition models. There are few studies, however, that relate indices of AS to the process of grassland degradation. In a Chihuahuan Desert rangeland, we measured variation in AS across vegetated-bare patch boundaries within six plot types reflecting a hypothesized fragmentation/transition sequence. We also examined wetting front depth and pH along this sequence. We found that AS exhibited consistent and interpretable variation across the patch boundaries of the different plot types. Average AS was highest in grass patches adjacent to small to medium-sized (0.5-1.5 m) bare patches and was low in grass patches adjacent to large (> 3 m) bare patches. AS of bare ground was also lowest when bare patches in continuous grassland were large and when bare ground formed an interconnected matrix. Wetting depth after a large storm decreased and pH increased along the fragmentation sequence. The results suggest that AS has interpretable relationships with grassland fragmentation and transitions among states. Careful attention to patchiness within states and stratification, however, is important and simple classifications of strata, such as ‘‘bare interspace’’ and ‘‘plant,’’ may not be sufficient to document variation in soil function.  The Rangeland Ecology & Management archives are made available by the Society for Range Management and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact [email protected] for further information.Migrated from OJS platform August 2020Legacy DOIs that must be preserved: 10.2458/azu_jrm_v59i4_bestelmeye

Use of indirect calorimetry to evaluate utilization of energy in lactating Jersey dairy cattle consuming common coproducts

The use of coproducts as an alternative feed source is a common practice when formulating dairy rations. A study using 12 multiparous (79 ± 16 d in milk; mean ± standard deviation) lactating Jersey cows was conducted over 5 mo to evaluate the effects of dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) or canola meal on milk and gas production. A replicated 4 × 4 Latin square design was used to compare 4 dietary treatments. Treatments comprised a control (CON) containing no coproducts, a treatment diet containing 10% (dry matter basis) lowfat DDGS (LFDG), a treatment diet containing 10% high-fat DDGS (HFDG), and a 10% canola meal (CM) treatment. The crude fat content of the LFDG, HFDG, and CM treatments was 6.05 ± 0.379, 10.0 ± 0.134, and 3.46 ± 0.085%, respectively. Coproducts were included in partial replacement for corn and soybean meal. Indirect headbox-style calorimeters were used to estimate heat production. Dry matter intake and milk yield were similar between all treatments, averaging 17.4 ± 0.56 kg/d and 24.0 ± 0.80 kg, respectively. Milk urea N was affected by treatment and was highest in CON (20.6 mg/dL; 18.0, 19.9, and 18.1 ± 0.62 mg/dL in LFDG, CM, and HFDG, respectively). Heat production per unit of metabolic body weight tended to be affected by treatment and was lowest for CON, and diets containing coproducts were not different (192, 200, 215, and 204 ± 5.91 kcal/kg of metabolic body weight for CON, LFDG, CM, and HFDG, respectively). The concentration of metabolizable energy was affected by dietary treatment; specifically, HFDG did not differ from CON but was greater than LFDG and CM (2.58, 2.46, 2.29, and 2.27 ± 0.09 Mcal/kg for HFDG, CON, LFDG, and CM, respectively). The concentration of net energy balance (milk plus tissue) tended to be affected by dietary treatment; HFDG did not differ from either CON or LFDG, but it was higher than CM (1.38, 1.36, 1.14, and 1.06 ± 0.11 Mcal/kg for HFDG, CON, LFDG, and CM, respectively). Results of this study indicate that milk production and dry matter intake were not affected by feeding common coproducts and that differences may result in whole-animal energy use; fat content of DDGS is a major factor affecting this

Acute Care Neurosurgery by Case Management : Pearls and Pitfalls

Acute Care Neurosurgery by Case Managemen

Effectiveness of a Third Dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines in Preventing COVID-19 Hospitalization Among Immunocompetent and Immunocompromised Adults — United States, August–December 2021

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) provide protection against infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and are highly effective against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among eligible persons who receive 2 doses (1,2). However, vaccine effectiveness (VE) among persons with immunocompromising conditions* is lower than that among immunocompetent persons (2), and VE declines after several months among all persons (3). On August 12, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a third mRNA vaccine dose as part of a primary series ≥28 days after dose 2 for persons aged ≥12 years with immunocompromising conditions, and, on November 19, 2021, as a booster dose for all adults aged ≥18 years at least 6 months after dose 2, changed to ≥5 months after dose 2 on January 3, 2022 (4,5,6). Among 2,952 adults (including 1,385 COVID-19 case-patients and 1,567 COVID-19-negative controls) hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals during August 19-December 15, 2021, effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was compared between adults eligible for but who had not received a third vaccine dose (1,251) and vaccine-eligible adults who received a third dose ≥7 days before illness onset (312). Among 1,875 adults without immunocompromising conditions (including 1,065 [57%] unvaccinated, 679 [36%] 2-dose recipients, and 131 [7%] 3-dose [booster] recipients), VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was higher among those who received a booster dose (97%; 95% CI = 95%-99%) compared with that among 2-dose recipients (82%; 95% CI = 77%-86%) (p <0.001). Among 1,077 adults with immunocompromising conditions (including 324 [30%] unvaccinated, 572 [53%] 2-dose recipients, and 181 [17%] 3-dose recipients), VE was higher among those who received a third dose to complete a primary series (88%; 95% CI = 81%-93%) compared with 2-dose recipients (69%; 95% CI = 57%-78%) (p <0.001). Administration of a third COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose as part of a primary series among immunocompromised adults, or as a booster dose among immunocompetent adults, provides improved protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization

Absolute and Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Primary and Booster Series of COVID-19 Vaccines (mRNA and Adenovirus Vector) Against COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the United States, December 2021–April 2022

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are increasingly reporting relative VE (rVE) comparing a primary series plus booster doses with a primary series only. Interpretation of rVE differs from traditional studies measuring absolute VE (aVE) of a vaccine regimen against an unvaccinated referent group. We estimated aVE and rVE against COVID-19 hospitalization in primary-series plus first-booster recipients of COVID-19 vaccines.MethodsBooster-eligible immunocompetent adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in the United States during December 25, 2021-April 4, 2022 were included. In a test-negative design, logistic regression with case status as the outcome and completion of primary vaccine series or primary series plus 1 booster dose as the predictors, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to estimate aVE and rVE.ResultsA total of 2060 patients were analyzed, including 1104 COVID-19 cases and 956 controls. Relative VE against COVID-19 hospitalization in boosted mRNA vaccine recipients versus primary series only was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-74%); aVE was 81% (95% CI, 75%-86%) for boosted versus 46% (95% CI, 30%-58%) for primary. For boosted Janssen vaccine recipients versus primary series, rVE was 49% (95% CI, -9% to 76%); aVE was 62% (95% CI, 33%-79%) for boosted versus 36% (95% CI, -4% to 60%) for primary.ConclusionsVaccine booster doses increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with a primary series. Comparing rVE measures across studies can lead to flawed interpretations of the added value of a new vaccination regimen, whereas difference in aVE, when available, may be a more useful metric