Evaluation of potential carryover effects associated with limit feeding of gravid Holstein heifers.

Ninety-six Holstein heifers (400±6kg, 15.2±0.1 mo), including 9 with ruminal cannulas, were offered 1 of 3 diets for 180±8 d in a randomized replicated pen design. Dietary treatments included a control diet (C100) and 2 independent limit-fed (LF) diets. The LF diets included one offered at 85% of C100 intake (L85) without an ionophore, and a second containing an ionophore (325 mg/head per day of lasalocid) that was offered at 80% of C100 intake (L80+I). Heifers were evaluated for growth, rumen digesta volume, nutrient excretion, and subsequent lactation performance. Limit-fed heifers consumed less dry matter and neutral detergent fiber, and had greater respective average daily gains (0.96 or 0.89 vs. 0.81 kg/d), and lower feed:gain ratios (9.1 or 9.3 vs. 13.0 kg/kg) compared with heifers offered the C100 diet. No differences in rumen pH, NH(3)-N, or volatile fatty acid concentrations were observed between C100 and LF heifers. Rumen digesta volume, density, and weight were unaffected by LF, and feeding L85 or L80+I did not result in carryover effects for rumen digesta volume when these heifers were offered a common high-fiber diet immediately after the 180-d growth trial. At parturition, no differences were observed for dystocia index, calf body weight, or 7-d postpartum body weight between cows offered LF or C100 diets as heifers. Lactation body weight, dry matter intake, and feed efficiency of cows did not differ between treatments at 45 or 90 d in milk. Milk yield and milk components also were not different between cows that were offered C100 or LF diets as gravid heifers. At 45 d in milk, rumen digesta volume was greater (99.1 vs. 66.1L) for cows offered L85 compared with cows offered L80+I as gravid heifers, but this effect was not observed at 90 d in milk. Limit feeding of gravid Holstein heifers for 180 d did not result in any carryover effects during their first lactation for rumen digesta volume, dry matter intake, or milk yield.

Building a practice with a computer.

It should be emphasized that the primary function of the computer is information-handling and communication. It remembers who and when and why, organizes the information, and then communicates by reminders, letters, labels, word processing, and statements. The computer becomes a faithful employee, not altogether immune from physical illness but generally ready to work at the flip of a switch. Best of all, the computer never asks for overtime or a percentage of the profits.

Identifying potential family practice social work opportunities.

The results of a survey of private primary care family physicians relative to their interest in having social workers associated with their practices are reported. There are several family physician and practice setting variables associated with a positive response to the question of whether family physicians have or would like to have a social worker associated with their practice. These findings should be beneficial to social workers interested in becoming established in family practice. Implications of these factors are discussed.

Family practice social work: a new area of specialization.

Many physical problems presented to family physicians by their patients often involve psychosocial variables with stress being a major one. Though family medicine advocates a biopsychosocial focus, one that is compatible with social work, the psychosocial aspects of health are often ignored. The involvement of social workers in the private practices of family physicians to deal with such problems is discussed in this paper as a new area of specialization. Issues such as the medicine-social work gap and the financing of social work services in private family medical practice are also addressed. It is concluded that this should be considered a new area of specialization. However, social workers must take the initiative in its development.

Social work in family practice: what are the prospects?

In a study by Frangos and Chase of thirty-nine family practice residents, it was found that the majority had positive attitudes toward having a social worker associated with their future medical practice. Their findings, however, could have been positively skewed since their sample was small and from residents in only one program. This paper reports the findings of 159 board certified family practitioners surveyed in a national sample. This study also yielded positive findings but much less than those in Frangos and Chase's study. These and other findings related to family practitioners' attitudes and practices regarding social work involvement in their practices are reported and discussed.