African climate warming advances spring arrival of the Common Quail Coturnix coturnix

La fecha de la primera llegada de la Codorniz se ha avanzado bruscamente entre 1983 y 2004 en el noreste de España. Estos cambios fenológicos se correlacionaron significativamente con las temperaturas registradas durante los meses previos en la franja subsahariana pero sólo en su parte más occidental. Esto indica que ésta podría ser el área de invernada para algunas poblaciones ibéricas. El fuerte efecto del tiempo atmosférico sobre la fenología de los movimientos migratorios en esta especie beneficia su conservación, ya que la respuesta encontrada es adecuada y coherente con el avance del ciclo de la vegetación en la Península Ibérica

Calidad de la Tithonia diversifolia en una zona del Valle del Cauto

13 páginas, 5 tablas.This experiment was carried out with the objective of determining the nutritive value of Tithonia diversifolia to different bud ages during the two periods of the year. A 0.5 ha field was used, where a standardization cut at 15 cm high from the soil was applied at the beginning of each period. The ages taken into consideration were 60, 120 and 180 days, and the elements evaluated were the RP, the fibrous fractioning, the dry matter In vitro digestibility, the wall cell digestibility and the tanins. To this purpose, a random- block design with three treatments and four repetitions was used through the application of a double classification analysis, and the average results were compared by means of the multiple ranges Duncan test. The statistical program utilized was Statiics version 6.0 for Windows. In the chapter that deals with the analysis of the results, it is evident that the dry matter, NDF, ADF, ADL, Hemicellulous, TF, TCT, CTAF and FTC increased their content (29. 47 %, 50. 51 %, 32. 12 %, 32. 12 %, 18. 39 %, 6.47, 13. 11, 10. 12, and 2. 99 g/kg respectively) at the age of 180 days, whereas the raw protein, the cellulous, the cell content, the In vitro digestibility and the wall cell digestibility decreased with their highest value (28.95, 21.08, 56.34, 78.59 y 76.61 %) at the age of 60 days. As a conclusion, age had a marked effect on the behavior of the evaluated elements, which was stronger during the rainy season, decreasing the nutritive quality.Trabajo realizado con financiación del Programa de Cooperación Interuniversitaria e Investigación Científica de la Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (Proyecto AECID A/023167/09).Peer Reviewe

The usefulness of artificial intelligence techniques to assess subjective quality of products in the food industry

In this paper we advocate the application of Artificial Intelligence techniques to quality assessment of food products. Machine Learning algorithms can help us to: (a) extract operative human knowledge from a set of examples; (b) conclude interpretable rules for classifying samples regardless of the non-linearity of the human behaviour or process; and (c) help us to ascertain the degree of influence of each objective attribute of the assessed food on the final decision of an expert. We illustrate these topics with an example of how it is possible to clone the behaviour of bovine carcass classifiers, leading to possible further industrial application

Parálisis de cuerda vocal unilateral: estudio de la calidad vocal después del tratamiento logopédico

Fundamento. Describir los factores sociodemográficos de pacientes con parálisis de cuerda vocal unilateral (PCVU) a los que se aplica un tratamiento logopédico y analiza el impacto en la calidad vocal tras la terapia. Metodología. Se incluyeron 47 pacientes con PCVU diagnosticada mediante vídeo-laringoscopia. Todos recibieron intervención logopédica repartida en 15 sesiones y estructurada en tres etapas progresivas. Se instruyó al paciente en técnicas vocales, coordinación fono-respiratoria, control del soplo, tonificación glótica e impostación vocal. Los parámetros incluidos en el estudio antes y después de la terapia fueron: cierre glótico, Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) para medir la autopercepción de calidad vocal y escala GRABS para la calidad vocal. Resultados. La edad media fue 51 años (rango 20-80), 60% mujeres. La causa quirúrgica fue la más frecuente (72%). El 40% desempeñaban una profesión relacionada con la voz. El tiempo medio desde el diagnóstico hasta el inicio del tratamiento fue 5 meses (2-12). El cierre glótico completo aumentó de 34 a 80% (p<0,001), la puntuación en VHI-10 descendió de 24,24 a 16,09 puntos (p<0,001) y los valores de GRABS mejoraron en todas las cualidades de la voz (p<0,001). Solo un 8,5% requirió cirugía post-tratamiento. Conclusiones. La terapia de reeducación vocal es eficaz como primera indicación terapéutica en pacientes con PCVU, reservando la medialización con material no reabsorbible o cirugía de tiroplastia a aquéllos con mala evolución. No obstante, es necesario reducir el tiempo que se demora el paciente en llegar a la Unidad de Voz tras el diagnóstico laringoscópico.Background

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 12: Tetracyclines: tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, and doxycycline

[EN] The specific concentrations of tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline and doxycycline in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for these four tetracyclines was estimated. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, whilst for doxycycline no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated with the levels reported were addressed. It was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobialsSIThe specific concentrations of tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline and doxycycline in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for these four tetracyclines was estimated. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, whilst for doxycycline no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated with the levels reported were addressed. It was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobial

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 8: Pleuromutilins: tiamulin and valnemulin

[EN] The specific concentrations of tiamulin and valnemulin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tiamulin, while for valnemulin no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these two antimicrobials.SIThe BIOHAZ Panel, leading Panel in charge of the adoption of the scientific opinion and assessment of Term of Reference 1 (ToR1, antimicrobial resistance) wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW Panel), who supported ToR1 assessments development and endorsement of those sections under their remit (animal production, main use of antimicrobials); EFSA Panel for Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP), in charge of the assessment and endorsement of ToR2, and providing advice and data needed for ToR1 assessments; European Medicines Agency (EMA), who was represented by an external expert and EMA secretariat as members of the Working Group (WG); Valeria Bortolaia, who was member of the WG until 17 April 2020; EFSA staff members: Angelica Amaduzzi, Gina Cioacata, Pilar Garc ıa-Vello, Michaela Hempen, Rita Navarrete, Daniel Plaza and Anita Radovnikovic; EMA staff members: Barbara Freischem, Zoltan Kunsagi, Nicholas Jarrett, Jordi Torren, and Julia Fabrega (currently EFSA staff). The BIOHAZ Panel wishes also to acknowledge the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) and their expert

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 9: Polymyxins: colistin

[EN] The specific concentrations of colistin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of colistin in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobialsSIThe BIOHAZ Panel, leading Panel in charge of the adoption of the scientific opinion and assessment of Term of Reference 1 (ToR1, antimicrobial resistance) wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW Panel), who supported ToR1 assessments development and endorsement of those sections under their remit (animal production, main use of antimicrobials); EFSA Panel for Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP), in charge of the assessment and endorsement of ToR2, and providing advice and data needed for ToR1 assessments; European Medicines Agency (EMA), who was represented by an external expert and EMA secretariat as members of the Working Group (WG); Valeria Bortolaia, who was member of the WG until 17 April 2020; EFSA staff members: Angelica Amaduzzi, Gina Cioacata, Pilar Garc ıa-Vello, Michaela Hempen, Rita Navarrete, Daniel Plaza and Anita Radovnikovic; EMA staff members: Barbara Freischem, Zoltan Kunsagi, Nicholas Jarrett, Jordi Torren, and Julia F abrega (currently EFSA staff). The BIOHAZ Panel wishes also to acknowledge the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) and their expert

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 3: Amprolium

[EN] The specific concentrations of amprolium in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC for amprolium, it was not possible to conclude the assessment. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of amprolium in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. The lack of antibacterial activity at clinically relevant concentrations for amprolium suggests that further studies relating to bacterial resistance are not a priority.SI: The BIOHAZ Panel, leading Panel in charge of the adoption of the scientific opinion and assessment of Term of Reference 1 (ToR1, antimicrobial resistance) wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW Panel), who supported ToR1 assessments development and endorsement of those sections under their remit (animal production, main use of antimicrobials); EFSA Panel for Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP), in charge of the assessment and endorsement of ToR2, and providing advice and data needed for ToR1 assessments; European Medicines Agency (EMA), who was represented by an external expert and EMA secretariat as members of the Working Group (WG); Valeria Bortolaia, who was member of the WG until 17 April 2020; EFSA staff members: Angelica Amaduzzi, Gina Cioacata, Pilar Garc ıa-Vello, Michaela Hempen, Rita Navarrete, Daniel Plaza and Anita Radovnikovic; EMA staff members: Barbara Freischem, Zoltan Kunsagi, Nicholas Jarrett, Jordi Torren, and Julia Fabrega (currently EFSA staff). The BIOHAZ Panel wishes also to acknowledge the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) and their experts

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 11: Sulfonamides

[EN] The specific concentrations of sulfonamides in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data are available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were identified for three sulfonamides: sulfamethazine, sulfathiazole and sulfamerazine. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials.SIThe BIOHAZ Panel, leading Panel in charge of the adoption of the scientificopinion and assessment of Term of Reference 1 (ToR1, antimicrobial resistance) wishes to thank thefollowing for the support provided to this scientific output: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare(AHAW Panel), who supported ToR1 assessments development and endorsement of those sectionsunder their remit (animal production, main use of antimicrobials); EFSA Panel for Additives andProducts or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP), in charge of the assessment and endorsementof ToR2, and providing advice and data needed for ToR1 assessments; European Medicines Agency(EMA), who was represented by an external expert and EMA secretariat as members of the WorkingGroup (WG); Valeria Bortolaia, who was member of the WG until 17 April 2020; EFSA staff members:Angelica Amaduzzi, Gina Cioacata, Pilar Garc ıa-Vello, Michaela Hempen, Rita Navarrete, Daniel Plazaand Anita Radovnikovic; EMA staff members: Barbara Freischem, Zoltan Kunsagi, Nicholas Jarrett, JordiTorren, and Julia F abrega (currently EFSA staff). The BIOHAZ Panel wishes also to acknowledge theEMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) and their experts

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 2: Aminoglycosides/aminocyclitols: apramycin, paromomycin, neomycin and spectinomycin

[EN] The specific concentrations of apramycin, paromomycin, neomycin and spectinomycin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC for these antimicrobials, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for apramycin and neomycin, whilst for paromomycin and spectinomycin, no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these four antimicrobialsSIThe BIOHAZ Panel, leading Panel in charge of the adoption of the scientific opinion and assessment of Term of Reference 1 (ToR1, antimicrobial resistance) wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW Panel), who supported ToR1 assessments development and endorsement of those sections under their remit (animal production, main use of antimicrobials); EFSA Panel for Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP), in charge of the assessment and endorsement of ToR2, and providing advice and data needed for ToR1 assessments; European Medicines Agency (EMA), who was represented by an external expert and EMA secretariat as members of the Working Group (WG); Valeria Bortolaia, who was member of the WG until 17 April 2020; EFSA staff members: Angelica Amaduzzi, Gina Cioacata, Pilar Garc ıa-Vello, Michaela Hempen, Rita Navarrete, Daniel Plaza and Anita Radovnikovic; EMA staff members: Barbara Freischem, Zoltan Kunsagi, Nicholas Jarrett, Jordi Torren, and Julia F abrega (currently EFSA staff). The BIOHAZ Panel wishes also to acknowledge the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) expert