Search Results (3)

Global human population growth requires the consumption of more meat such as beef to meet human needs for protein intake. Cattle parasites are a constant and serious threat to the development of the beef cattle industry. Studies have shown that parasites not only reduce the performance of beef cattle, but also negatively affect the profitability of beef agriculture and have many other impacts, including contributing to the production of greenhouse gases. In addition, some zoonotic parasitic diseases may also threaten human health. Therefore, ongoing cattle parasite research is crucial for continual parasite control and the development of the beef cattle industry. Parasitism challenges profitable beef production by reducing feed efficiency, immune function, reproductive efficiency, liveweight, milk yield, calf yield and carcass weight, and leads to liver condemnations and disease transmission. Globally, beef cattle producers incur billions (US$) in losses due to parasitism annually, with gastrointestinal nematodes (GIN) and cattle ticks causing the greatest economic impact. The enormity of losses justifies parasitic control measures to protect profits and improve animal welfare. Geographical differences in production environment, management practices, climate, cattle age and genotype, parasite epidemiology and susceptibility to chemotherapies necessitate control methods customized for each farm. Appropriate use of anthelmintics, endectocides and acaricides have widely been shown to result in net positive return on investment. Implementing strategic parasite control measures, with thorough knowledge of parasite risk, prevalence, parasiticide resistance profiles and prices can result in positive economic returns for beef cattle farmers in all sectors. Full article

The morbidity and mortality experiences of people who are unhoused have been well-described, but much less is known about the overall well-being of these individuals. In this mixed methods study, housed and unhoused participants completed a multi-faceted 10 domain measure of well-being (the Stanford WELL Survey), and a subset of unhoused participants shared their experiences during qualitative interviews. Using propensity score matching, unhoused participants (n = 51) were matched at a ratio of 1:5 with housed participants (n = 255). The mean overall well-being score of the unhoused participants was significantly lower than that of the matched housed participants (B = −5.022, p = 0.013). Additionally, the two groups differed on some of the constituent domains of well-being, with unhoused participants reporting statistically significantly lower mean scores on social connectedness (B = −1.086, p = 0.000), lifestyle and daily practices (B = −1.219, p = 0.000), stress and resilience (B = −0.493, p = 0.023), experience of emotions (B = −0.632, p = 0.009), physical health (B = −0.944, p = 0.0001), and finances (B = −3.099, p = 0.000). The unhoused participants had a statistically significantly higher mean score for spirituality and religiosity (B = 2.401, p = 0.000) than their matched housed counterparts. The qualitative interviews further highlighted spirituality and religion as a coping mechanism for the unhoused. The results of this study highlight both unexpected strengths exhibited by the unhoused individuals and areas of challenge. Full article

Recently Veugelers and Ekwaru published data [1] indicating that, in its dietary reference intakes for calcium and vitamin D, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) had made a serious calculation error [2]. Using the same data set as had the IOM panel, these investigators showed that the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D had been underestimated by an order of magnitude. Veugelers and Ekwaru, using the IOM’s data, calculated an RDA of 8895 IU per day. They noted that there was some uncertainty in that estimate, inasmuch as this value required an extrapolation from the available data, which did not include individuals receiving daily vitamin D inputs above 2400 IU/day.[...] Full article