DISCUSSION OF FACTORS AFFECTING STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN AGRICULTURAL SUBSECTORS: IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Industrial Organization,

Temporal Trends in Vertebral Size and Shape from Medieval to Modern-Day

Human lumbar vertebrae support the weight of the upper body. Loads lifted and carried by the upper extremities cause significant loading stress to the vertebral bodies. It is well established that trauma-induced vertebral fractures are common especially among elderly people. The aim of this study was to investigate the morphological factors that could have affected the prevalence of trauma-related vertebral fractures from medieval times to the present day. To determine if morphological differences existed in the size and shape of the vertebral body between medieval times and the present day, the vertebral body size and shape was measured from the 4th lumbar vertebra using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and standard osteometric calipers. The modern samples consisted of modern Finns and the medieval samples were from archaeological collections in Sweden and Britain. The results show that the shape and size of the 4th lumbar vertebra has changed significantly from medieval times in a way that markedly affects the biomechanical characteristics of the lumbar vertebral column. These changes may have influenced the incidence of trauma- induced spinal fractures in modern populations

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Beef Cattle Production Potential of Set-Aside Land

Nearly 1,200 participants in the 1972 set-aside program planned to expand their beef cow herds by a fourth during the next 3 years. If permitted to fully utilize forage on the 58.8 million acres set aside, without reduced payments, they would increase their beef cow herds by 56 percent in the next 3 years. Based on the sample results, the national beef cow herd would increase over the next 3 years by an estimated 6.6 million head, or 16 percent if 1972 set-aside provisions prevailed. Another 4.3 million beef cows would be added within 3 years if full utilization of 58.8 million acres of set-aside land were permitted without a reduction in set-aside payments. Only in the South and the Com Belt-Lake States could cattlemen profitably accept reductions exceeding 10 percent from 1972 set-aside payments in exchange for year-round forage utilization, unless feeder calf prices exceeded $45 per hundredweight. Twenty dollars per ton for hay would compensate for reductions of 10 to 20 percent in set-aside payments in the Corn Belt-Lake States, and the eastern fringe of the Northern Plains

Beef Cattle Raising Systems in the United States

Excerpts from the paper: This report identifies the size distributions of beef cattle herds, major forage grazed, and cattle systems used, as well as other structural characteristics of feeder cattle and nonfed slaughter cattle production in the major cattle raising areas of the United States. More specific objectives are to: 1) Identify subregions of the country that are relatively homogeneous in terms of basic resources, including climate, topography, soils, and vegetation, but also in terms of beef cattle and forage production techniques, management practices, and herd size distributions. 2) Identify the various cattle raising systems used in each area, including those used to produce stockers, feeders, and slaughter cattle. Included in these system identifications are the kinds and amounts of forage grazed, seasons of use, supplemental feeding practices, and timing of production. 3) Determine the proportion of all beef cattle raisers and total beef cattle raised for each system identified