A Path to Resolution Regarding the Show Lamb Tail Docking Controversy

Short dock length in show lambs increases health risks and creates animal welfare concerns. The study reported here was conducted to 1) describe a population of lambs that were docked at the distal end of the caudal fold in terms of a linear measurement, and 2) determine the changes in tail length between docking, weaning, and market. A total of 782 lambs docked at the distal end of the caudal fold, comprised the population of lambs in the study. The results provide descriptive statistics to help guide industry leaders and Extension professionals concerned with docking standards at shows and sales

Interview with Ken Carpenter (Class of 1958), Deborah Jenson (Class of 1983), and Jim Jenson (Class of 1982) by Ben Bousquet

In this oral history, Ken Carpenter (Class of 1958), Deborah Carpenter Jenson (Class of 1983), and Jim Jenson (Class of 1982) reflect on their respective experiences at Bowdoin. Ken speaks of his background as an “orphan” (his father had died and his mother could not afford to raise him) attending Girard College for Boys, his transition to Bowdoin life as a first-generation student, and his involvement with the Delta Sigma fraternity. He also explores how the research skills that he gained at Bowdoin influenced his career as a cataloger, librarian, and author. Ken and his daughter, Deborah, go on to explain that, during his time at Bowdoin, Ken met his future wife, Mary Carpenter, at a boarding house in Brunswick run by Mary’s mother, Elizabeth Wilson. They later explain that Mary Carpenter had also lost her father and that Mary’s subsequent career in academia influenced Deborah’s career path. Deborah also recounts the factors that affected her decision to attend Bowdoin, as well as a hazing story from her early days at Delta Kappa Epsilon. Jim tells of his decision to enroll at the College, his transition from California to Maine, and his experience in the Theta Delta Chi fraternity. The three also discuss their thoughts on Bowdoin’s decision to eliminate fraternities

Maternal Black Race and Persistent Wheezing Illness in Former Extremely Low Gestational Age Newborns: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the relationship between maternal self-reported race/ethnicity and persistent wheezing illness in former high-risk, extremely low gestational age newborns, and to quantify the contribution of socioeconomic, environmental, and biological factors on this relationship.Study designWe assessed persistent wheezing illness determined at 18-24 months corrected (for prematurity) age in survivors of a randomized trial. Parents/caregivers were surveyed for wheeze and inhaled asthma medication use quarterly to 12 months, and at 18 and 24 months. We used multivariable analysis to evaluate the relationship of maternal race to persistent wheezing illness, and identified mediators for this relationship via formal mediation analysis.ResultsOf 420 infants (25.2 ± 1.2 weeks of gestation and 714 ± 166 g at birth, 57% male, 34% maternal black race), 189 (45%) had persistent wheezing illness. After adjustment for gestational age, birth weight, and sex, infants of black mothers had increased odds of persistent wheeze compared with infants of nonblack mothers (OR = 2.9, 95% CI 1.9, 4.5). Only bronchopulmonary dysplasia, breast milk diet, and public insurance status were identified as mediators. In this model, the direct effect of race accounted for 69% of the relationship between maternal race and persistent wheeze, whereas breast milk diet, public insurance status, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia accounted for 8%, 12%, and 10%, respectively.ConclusionsAmong former high-risk extremely low gestational age newborns, infants of black mothers have increased odds of developing persistent wheeze. A substantial proportion of this effect is directly accounted for by race, which may reflect unmeasured environmental influences, and acquired and innate biological differences.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01022580

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health