Potential For Cattle Grazing on Sheep Range in Southwest Utah

A study was conducted on pastures grazed by sheep in late winter at the Desert Experimental Range in southwest Utah. Estimates of plant cover and herbage production were obtained in 1977 and used to examine longterm trends in the vegetation. The nutritional value of the six most important species of the area was assessed by chemical analysis. In addition, a management strategy was developed for obtaining some utilization of the range during the spring and summer months without affecting the traditional winter use by sheep. Long-term records (since 1937) in cover suggest a modest increase in grasses and a decrease in shrub cover. But there are insufficient data to infer range condition and trend. Long-term herbage production data (since 1938) show a substantial increase in annual species over the last twenty years. The year-to-year variability is very high, apparently depending on the prevailing climate conditions. Grass production was less variable than shrub production. No significant difference (P Based on the nutritional analysis of forage and long-term records of climate and plant production, a management strategy was devised to make more efficient use of the salt-desert shrub vegetation. Climatic conditions will favor good forage production about four years out of ten. Perennial grasses, annuals, and winterfat (Ceratoides lanata) showed better response to favorable climatic conditions than the other species. It is proposed in this study that, in these years of high production, the range could be used by cattle in the spring or summer, and thereby al low occasional resting of mountain summer pastures. Such opportunistic summer grazing on the desert should not be detrimental to winter sheep grazing, but the plan would need to be field-tested on an experimental or trial basis to evaluate ecological responses to increased livestock use

Ciencias Sociales: Economía y Humanidades HANDBOOK T-I

Se presenta un breve examen de la producción y comercialización de rosa en México; un estudio en México sobre el ingreso mínimo de las familias que identifica la línea de pobreza alimentaria en el área rural del sur de México, 2012; un pequeño estudio donde hablará sobre el análisis comparado del Sector Gubernamental y la Economía Mexicana desde la perspectiva de los eslabonamientos productivos Hirshman-Rasmuss; un estudio sobre los canales de comercialización de limón persa en el municipio de Martínez de la Torre, Veracruz; una análisis del comercio estratégico en el TLCAN: El Estado en la política agrícola de biocombustibles; también se expresan acerca de la importancia de la comercialización del café en México; un diagnóstico, retos del comercio electrónico en el Sector Agroindustrial Mexicano; trabajo nos muestra y habla sobre la inversión extranjera directa y su impacto en crecimiento de México, un análisis en prospectiva: 1999-2010; un estudio acerca sobre la importancia de la Banca en México; un trabajo acerca de la competitividad de la producción agrícola en México, un análisis regional; se analizan todo acerca de el SIAL productor de quesos en Poxtla, competividad y territorio; se habla acerca de la intermediación financiera al servicio de la comunidad indígena: el fondo regional indígena Tarhiata Keri; ademas un estudio acerca de la demanda de Importaciones de durazno (Prunus pérsica L. Batsch) en México procedentes de Estados Unidos de América (1982-2011); Loera y Sepúlveda analizan los parámetros de la productividad forestal en la producción de madera en rollo; un análisis de factores sociales, ambientales y económicos del territorio rural cercano a la ciudad de México; un estudio acerca de la crisis económica mundial y su efecto sobre los flujos migratorios de América Latina; Magadán, Hernández y Escalona presentan la tipología de los sujetos sociales que intervienen en el mercado campesino de Ocotlán Oaxaca; la normalización del proceso de compostaje: una opción para desarrollar el mercado de la composta; acerca de la reestructuración del capitalismo y crisis política en México; la rentabilidad de la producción de miel en el municipio de León, Guanjuato; la economía del maíz en la región metropolitana, Chiapas, 2014; análisis de los centros de educación y cultura ambiental, necesidad de profesionalización Pedagógica de facilitadores ambientales; los Costos y competitividad de la producción del limón persa en el municipio de Martínez de la Torre, Veracruz

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Funder: laura and john arnold foundationBACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Additional file 2 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 2. Email invitation

Additional file 7 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 7. Sensitivity analyses: various meta-analytic approaches

Additional file 1 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 1. Search strategy

Additional file 5 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 5. Risk of bias

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care