An Economic Comparison of Rotational Grazing Systems to Eight Crop Alternatives and the CRP Option for Highly Erodible Land in Southwest Iowa

Economic comparisons of income on highly erodible land (HEL) in Adams County were made utilizing five years of grazing data collected from a 13- paddock intensive-rotational grazing system and a four-paddock rotational-grazing system and four years of data collected from an 18-paddock intensive-rotational grazing system, all at the Adams County CRP Research and Demonstration Farm near Corning. Net income from the average grazing weight-gain of Angus-sired calves nursing crossbred cows was compared to the net income from grazing yearling steers, to the net income of eight NRCS-recommended crop rotations, and to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) option. Results of these comparisons show the 13-paddock intensive rotational grazing system with cow-calf pairs to be the most profitable alternative, with a net return of $19.86 per acre per year. The second most profitable alternative is the CRP option, with a net return of $13.09 per acre, and the third most profitable option is the fourpaddock rotation with cows and calves with a net return of $12.53 per acre. An 18-paddock system returned a net income of $2.47 per acre per year with cows and calves in 1993, but lost an average of $107.69 per acre each year in 1994 and 1995 with yearling steers. Each year, the steers were purchased high and sold low, contributing to the large loss per acre. The following recommended crop rotations all show net losses on these 9-14 % slope, Adair-Shelby Complex soils (ApD3): continuous corn; corn-soybean rotation; corn-soybean rotation with a farm program deficiency payment; corn-corn-corn-oats-meadow-meadow rotation with grass headlands; continuous corn to “T” with grass headlands and buffer strips; continuous corn to “T” with grass headlands, buffer strips, and a deficiency payment; corn-corn-oats-meadow rotation to “T”; and corn-soybeans-oats-meadow-meadow-meadow-meadow rotation to “T”. Per-acre yield assumptions of 90 bushels for corn, 30 bushels for soybeans, 45 bushels for oats, and four tons for alfalfa were used, with per-bushel prices of $2.40 on corn, $5.50 on soybeans, and $1.50 on oats. Alfalfa hay was priced at $40.00 per ton and grass hay at $33.33 per ton. The calf weight-gain in the cow/ calf systems was valued at $.90 per pound. All crop expenses except land costs were calculated from ISU publication Fm 1712, “Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 1995.” Land costs were determined by using an opportunity cost and actual property tax figures for the land at the grazing site. In preparation for the end of the CRP beginning in 1996, further economic comparisons will be made after additional grazing seasons and data collection. This project is an interagency cooperative effort sponsored by the Southern Iowa Forage and Livestock Committee which has special permission from the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) to use CRP land for research and demonstration.

In vitro drug causality assessment in Stevens-Johnson syndrome - alternatives for lymphocyte transformation test

BACKGROUND Patients with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) or toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are often exposed simultaneously to a few potentially culprit drugs. However, both the standard lymphocyte transformation tests (LTT) with proliferation as the assay end-point as well as skin tests, if done, are often negative. OBJECTIVE As provocation tests are considered too dangerous, there is an urgent need to identify the relevant drug in SJS/TEN and to improve sensitivity of tests able to identify the causative drug. METHODS Fifteen patients with SJS/TEN with the ALDEN score ≥ 6 and 18 drug-exposed controls were included. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were isolated and cultured under defined conditions with drugs. LTT was compared to the following end-points: cytokine levels in cell culture supernatant, number of granzyme B secreting cells by ELISpot and intracellular staining for granulysin and IFNγ in CD3(+) CD4(+), CD3(+) CD8(+) and NKp46(+) cells. To further enhance sensitivity, the effect of IL-7/IL-15 pre-incubation of PBMC was evaluated. RESULTS Lymphocyte transformation tests was positive in only 4/15 patients (sensitivity 27%, CI: 8-55%). Similarly, with granzyme B-ELISpot culprit drugs were positive in 5/15 patients (sensitivity 33%, CI: 12-62%). The expression of granulysin was significantly induced in NKp46(+) and CD3(+) CD4(+) cells (sensitivity 40%, CI: 16-68% and 53%, CI: 27-79% respectively). Cytokine production could be demonstrated in 38%, CI: 14-68% and 43%, CI: 18-71% of patients for IL-2 and IL-5, respectively, and in 55%, CI: 23-83% for IFNγ. Pre-incubation with IL-7/IL-15 enhanced drug-specific response only in a few patients. Specificities of tested assays were in the range of 95 (CI: 80-99%)-100% (CI: 90-100%). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Granulysin expression in CD3(+) CD4(+) , Granzyme B-ELISpot and IFNγ production considered together provided a sensitivity of 80% (CI: 52-96%) and specificity of 95% (80-99%). Thus, this study demonstrated that combining different assays may be a feasible approach to identify the causative drug of SJS/TEN reactions; however, confirmation on another group of patients is necessary.

Avant-garde or supplement? Advisory bodies of transnational associations as alternatives to the League’s Minority Protection System, 1919-1939

This exegesis focuses on the work of minority committees of transnational associations in the interwar period. Most of their members considered the League system to be inefficient and supported the establishment of non-state alternatives, which included private investigations on the spot, publicity for specific problems of minorities, and attempts to reconcile representatives of ethnic minorities with those of the majority. Members of non-involved states were pre-destined especially to act as neutral moderators. Only those in close contact with League officials avoided being misused by political forces that did not seek reconciliation but border revision. They learnt that the League rules looked inadequate from the outside but turned out to be useful in coming to applicable solutions once they started their own alternative methods. Their publications and investigative journeys turned out to deepen the problems, whilst their reconciliation work became an appreciated supplement of the League system.

Are land sparing and land sharing real alternatives for European agricultural landscapes?

There is a lively debate on whether biodiversity conservation and agricultural production could be better reconciled by land sparing (strictly separating production fields and conservation areas) or by land sharing (combining both, agricultural production and biodiversity conservation on the same land). The debate originates from tropical countries, where agricultural land use continues to increase at the expense of natural ecosystems. But is it also relevant for Europe, where agriculture is withdrawing from marginal regions whilst farming of fertile lands continues to be intensified? Based on recent research on farmland biodiversity we conclude that the land sharing – land sparing dichotomy is too simplistic for Europe. Instead we differentiate between productive and marginal farmland. On productive farmland, semi-natural habitats are required to yield ecosystem services relevant for agriculture, to promote endangered farmland species which society wants to conserve even in intensively farmed regions, and to allow migration of non-farmland species through the agricultural matrix. On marginal farmland, high-nature value farming is a traditional way of land sharing, yielding high quality agricultural products and conserving specialized species. To conserve highly disturbance-sensitive species, there is a need for nature reserves. In conclusion, land sparing is not a viable olution for Europe in both productive and marginal farmland but because of different reasons in each type of farmland.

Sexuelles in Bibel und Talmud

von J. Preuss

Writing theatre history – The mainstream approach and alternatives

Main questions: 1. How to deal with the beginnings of theatre? 2. Do we have to consider a “second birth of theatre” in the Middle Ages? 3. What influences do media have on writing theatre histories?