[Heifer breeding farms as a source for spreading the BVD virus?]

It is well known that, in Switzerland, communal grazing of livestock on alpine pastures plays an important role in the spread of BVD virus. Analogously, we might expect that the communal raising on farms specialising in raising heifers of animals born on different farms would also favour the spread of BVDV. This study investigated whether a persistently infected (PI) breeding heifer kept on this type of farm over a period of 26 months would put the other animals at risk of being infected.The PI-animal was in contact with 75 heifers (here defined as contact animals) on this farm. Thirty-two of the contact animals that were probably pregnant (animals at risk of giving birth to a PI-calf) were moved to 8 different breeding farms (here defined as farms at risk). On these 8 farms, 246 calves were found to be at risk of being infected with BVDV. We examined 78 calves and investigated whether the move of the pregnant animals from their original farm had permitted the virus to spread to these 8 other farms.The contact animals had a seroprevalence of 92% and the animals at risk a seroprevalence of 100%. Only one PI-animal was found on the farms at risk.This BVD infection, however, occurred independently of the PI-breeding animal. Seropositive calves were found only on 2 farms. This study did not provide any proof for a spread of BVDV with the PI-breeding animal as a source; likewise, no persistent infection was proven to exist on the farms at risk. This result is likely to be representative for the endemic situation of BVD in Switzerland. Thus, PI-animals present on heifer raising farms infect calves well before servicing. Hence, no new PI-animals are generated, and the infection becomes self-limiting. When we reconstructed the animal movements between the farms and determined the animals to be examined with the aid of the Swiss national animal traffic database (TVD) we found the data of 37% of the heifers to be incomplete and failed to successfully establish the whereabouts of 3 animals.

The ethnolinguistic identity of the domesticators of Asian rice

Linguistic palaeontology permits the identification of two language families whose linguistic ancestors pose the likeliest candidates for the original domesticators of rice, viz. Hmong-Mien and Austroasiatic. In the 2009 model, the ancient Hmong-Mien was identified as the primary domesticators of Asian rice, and the ancient Austroasiatics as the secondary domesticators. Recent rice genetic research leads to the modification of this model for rice domestication, but falls short of identifying the original locus of rice domestication. At the same time, the precise whereabouts of the Austroasiatic homeland remains disputed. Linguistic evidence unrelated to rice agriculture has been adduced to support a southern homeland for Austroasiatic somewhere within the Bay of Bengal littoral. The implications of new rice genetic research are discussed, the linguistic palaeontological evidence is reassessed, and an enduring problem with the archaeology of rice agriculture is highlighted.