Beef heifer growth and reproductive performance following two levels of pasture allowance during the fall grazing period.

The objective of this study was to compare heifer growth and reproductive performance following 2 levels of stockpiled fall forage allowance of orchardgrass (30.5%) and tall fescue (14.1%). Spring-born heifers (n = 203 and BW = 246 ± 28.9 kg) of primarily Angus background were allocated to 2 grazing treatments during the fall period (November 12 to December 17 in yr 1, November 7 to January 4 in yr 2, and November 7 to January 14 in yr 3) each replicated 3 times per year for 3 yr. Treatments consisted of daily pasture DM allowance of 3.5% of BW (LO) or daily pasture DM allowance of 7.0% of BW (HI) under strip-grazing management. Throughout the winter feeding period, mixed grass-legume haylage and soybean hulls were fed. Heifers were grazed as 1 group under continuous stocking after the winter period. Heifers in the LO group gained less than heifers in the HI group during the fall grazing period (0.12 vs. 0.40 kg/d; P < 0.0001). For each 1 10 g increase in NDF/kg fall pasture (DM basis), fall ADG decreased 0.14 kg (P = 0.01). During winter feeding, ADG was 0.30 and 0.39 kg/d for LO vs. HI heifers, respectively (P = 0.0008). During the spring grazing period (April 16 to May 24 in yr 1, April 22 to May 26 in yr 2, and April 5 to May 16 in yr 3), LO heifers had numerically greater ADG than HI heifers (1.38 vs. 1.30 kg/d; P = 0.64). Hip height (122.7 vs. 121.4 cm; P = 0.0055), BCS (5.8 vs. 5.6; P = 0.0057), and BW (356 vs. 335 kg; P < 0.0001) at the end of spring grazing was greater for HI than LO heifers. Heifers in the LO group compensated with greater summer ADG than heifers in the HI group (0.74 vs. 0.66 kg/d; P = 0.03). Total ADG from treatment initiation (November) through pregnancy diagnosis (August) was greater for HI than LO heifers (0.61 vs. 0.55 kg/d; P < 0.001) as was BW at pregnancy diagnosis (415 vs. 402 kg; P = 0.0055). Percentage of heifers reaching puberty by the time of AI was 34% for both groups (P = 0.93). Percentage of heifers becoming pregnant to AI tended (P = 0.13) to be greater for HI (44%) than for LO heifers (32%). Fall ADG across treatment groups affected the probability of a heifer becoming pregnant by AI (P = 0.01). Percentage pregnant by natural service (61% for LO vs. 59% for HI; P = 0.80) and final pregnancy rate (74% for LO vs. 77% for HI; P = 0.61) was not different for the 2 groups. These results indicate that altering fall forage allowance may delay the majority of BW gain until late in heifer development without negatively affecting overall pregnancy rates.

Urinalysis predictive of urine culture results.

BACKGROUND: Most clinicians treat patients for presumptive urinary tract infections based on urinalysis findings. Which of these findings is the best predictor of infection? METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study of 202 serial subjects of all ages was conducted over 8 months in a typical family medicine setting. Urinalysis and culture were performed concurrently. RESULTS: The best predictors for significant bacteriuria (defined as a culture with more than 50,000 colony-forming units) were > or = 2+ bacteriuria (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.80), or > or = 10 white blood cells per high-power field (sensitivity, 0.816; specificity, 0.651), or a positive nitrite test (sensitivity, 0.395; specificity, 0.929). The optimal combination of any two of the three predictor variables also was determined. CONCLUSIONS: Standard urinalysis results can be highly predictive of infection in typical family practice patients.

Malpractice and periodontal disease.

The treatment of periodontal disease is, at the present time, the focus of a large percentage of all dental malpractice cases. Consequently, dentists may find it helpful to be aware of the somewhat unique nature of litigation arising out of professional services provided with respect to periodontal disease. The operation of the statute of limitations in this context, whereby a dentist--at least in many states--can be sued several years after treatment of a patient terminates, makes caution, in terms of the maintenance of records and the purchase of insurance, an absolute essential.

Cooperativity among calmodulin's drug binding sites.

The binding of felodipine, a dihydropyridine Ca2+ antagonist, to calmodulin has been studied by equilibrium dialysis and fluorescence techniques. Analysis using the Hill equation gives a Hill coefficient of 2. A plot of bound [felodipine] vs. free [felodipine]2 gives a Bmax of 1.9 mol/mol and a K0.5 of 22 microM. Two calmodulin antagonists, prenylamine and R24571, which have previously been shown to potentiate the fluorescent enhancement observed when felodipine binds to calmodulin [Johnson, J. D. (1983) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 112, 787], produce a reduction in Hill coefficient to 0.7 and 1.0, respectively, and account for the observed potentiation of felodipine binding. Titrations of felodipine with calmodulin in the absence and presence of prenylamine and R24571 suggest that these drugs decrease the K0.5 of calmodulin for felodipine by 25-fold. Thus, potentiating drugs (prenylamine and R24571) bind to either of the two felodipine binding sites and, through an allosteric mechanism, result in felodipine binding to the remaining site with greatly enhanced affinity. Two types of potentiating drugs are observed. Prenylamine exhibits a Hill coefficient of 0.8 whereas felodipine, R24571, and diltiazem exhibit Hill coefficients of 2 in their potentiation of felodipine binding. Titrations of felodipine and calmodulin with Ca2+ exhibit cooperativity with a Hill coefficient of 4. Half-maximal binding occurs near pCa 6.0. In the presence of R24571, the calcium dependence of felodipine binding is biphasic, now exhibiting a much higher affinity (pCa 7.6) component. A model is presented to explain the relationship of these various allosterically regulated conformers of calmodulin and their interactions and activation with its target proteins.

Informed consent in dentistry.

This article discusses the doctrine of informed consent and its impact on the practice of dentistry. It summarizes relevant case and statutes, and stresses the uncertainty that prevails in this area of the law. A procedure is set forth for dentists to follow on an everyday basis that will assist them in the event that they become involved in litigation based on allegations of uninformed consent.