text:
The Knot-a-Collar from Ruffwear is reflective, low-profile and adjustable.
Inspired by climbing rope, this collar is strong and comfortable.
Sliding fisherman knots are adjustable for a custom fit and the Ruffwear-designed, single-piece aluminum hardware is ultra-secure.
The Knot a Collar additionally has integrated reflectivity that provides low-light visibility.
Key Features
Measure around the dogs neck where the collar would comfortably lay.
Intended Use


text:
Parenting.com asked me to write about the reaction to my motherhood. You can read the whole essay here. Here is a sample:
"What is a woman's place? Why are we so eager to judge mothers, and ourselves, based on a belief that self-sacrifice equals love? Why is the well-being of children paramount, while the well-being of the mother is not important at all?"

subset: commoncrawl


text:
$ 3.25
INSIDE: May the road ahead be smooth and full of wonderful adventures. Congratulations!
...and be married! Congratulations
$ 3.25
INSIDE: ...and be married! Congratulations
View full product details
I hope your special day goes without a hitch!
INSIDE: I hope your special day goes without a hitch!
Fight naked!
INSIDE: Fight naked!
Best wishes on your wedding day!
INSIDE: Best wishes on your wedding day!
Subscribe to our newsletter and always be the first to hear about what is happening.
© 2020 Snafu Cards.
2019 All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Shopify


text:
Wpromote created new off-site content initiatives ranging from infographics to guest blogs. Wine.com's name was woven into the online conversation through organic outreach and link building efforts that also built the brand's credibility with the search engines. Existing on-site content was analyzed for optimization and improvement.
The brand's PPC advertising was ramped up through a few key strategies. We lengthened keyword lists, optimized bids and spending, performed ongoing A/B ad testing, and used our position as a trusted Google partner to opt Wine.com's campaigns into Google AdWords beta tests.
"Our paid search revenues had stagnated and our original agency couldn't drive growth without sacrificing the bottom line. We were amazed when Wpromote was able to grow our revenues and actually lower our ad spend for every dollar we made."
Wpromote's integrated campaign was a monster success for Wine.com. The brand achieved and maintained a staggering ROI with only slight increases in spend. Paid search brought in over $1 million in additional sales during the holidays, and Wine.com moved from ranking #8 to #2 in the search results pages for the keyword "champagne," and saw a resulting lift in clicks.
We increased profitable spend during peak holiday seasons by 352%.
474% increased share of clicks for "champagne."
ROI over 1,000% while spend increased by only 142%.


text:
Local reports say the audience of about 20 people, mostly children, thought the shooting was part of the show before realizing both men had been killed.Last year, a prominent circus clown, known as Pepe, was also shot dead by a unknown assailant in Cúcuta.The motive for the latest killing remains unclear, police said. Local media reports suggest two attackers may have been involved.One clown was shot in the head as he performed on stage, about an hour into the Circo del Sol's evening show.The second, named as 18-year-old Franklin Leal, from Cúcuta, was then shot as he stood by the ticket booth, according to the newspaper La Opinion.The traveling circus had set up in a suburb of Cúcuta, capital of Norte de Santander province near the Venezuelan border, about 10 days earlier, the paper says.
The future of Colombia Reports relies on your support. Please become a patron and support independent reporting from Colombia.


text:
Showing Collections: 1 - 10 of 15
Bumper Stickers
00-1985-23-1, 2
Collection — Box: 1
Identifier: 00-1985-23-1, 2
Scope and Contents Two Bumper Stickers, 1985-23-1-2, one is red, white and blue and reads, "LIKE WHAT WE'VE DONE?/YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHIN' YET!/JOIN US . . . THE REPUBLICANS." The oher is white and red and reads, "BALDWIN/HIGH SHERIFF."
Dates: Other: Majority of material found in 1985; Other: Date acquired: 11/30/1984
Carol Bramley collection of Litchfield Historic District papers
Identifier: 2003-54-0
Scope and Contents The Malcolm and Carol Bramley collection of Litchfield Historic District papers includes the final National Historic Landmark nomination form, 1986; National Historic Landmark draft nomination forms, 1986; National Register of Historic Places final nomination form, 1976; "The Historical Archeology of Culture and Society in the Center Village of Litchfield, Connecticut," by Russell G. Handsman, 1984; "Another City Upon a Hill: Litchfield, Connecticut, and the Colonial Revival," by William J. H....
Dates: Created: 1976-1986; Other: Date acquired: 03/10/2003
Collection — Box: 1
Identifier: 00-1992-25-1
Scope and Contents Handbill, 1992-25-1, is a white rectangular piece of paper printed in black ink with the following, "BE A BOROUGH/PAY THROUGH/THE ASS."
Dates: Created: 1992; Other: Date acquired: 11/30/1991
Janet Flynn collection
Identifier: 2005-15-0
Scope and Contents The Janet Flynn collection contains papers related to the Litchfield Charter Commission, 1967-1971, and includes working papers, research materials and charters of other towns, drafts, memoranda, agreements, notes, newsletters, minutes, and miscellaneous documents.
Dates: Created: 1967-1971; Other: Date acquired: 10/07/2006
Litchfield Borough record v. II
Collection — Box: 1
Identifier: 2002-68-0
Scope and Contents Official record of the Board of Burgesses of the Borough of Litchfield.
Dates: Created: 1880-1888; Other: Date acquired: 01/12/2002
Litchfield (Conn.). Town records
Identifier: 2011-22-0
Scope and Contents Series 1 is records (2011-22-0, .42 linear feet) that consist of orders signed by the selectmen of Litchfield, Conn., naming an administrator, or overseer, who was typically a responsible town resident, to direct and oversee the affairs of a potentially indigent town resident. The collection also includes bills submitted to the town for expenses rendered by overseers, merchants, and institutions caring for the poor, insane, and indigent.
Dates: Other: Date acquired: 03/04/2012
Phineas Baldwin and Reuben Webster journal
Identifier: 00-2010-110-0
Scope and Contents The journal of Phineas Baldwin (abt. 1847-1817) and Reuben Webster (1757-1833) documents the activites of two men in Litchfield, Conn. Baldwin traded in a variety of commodities and services with Litchfield residents, such as wood, veal, rice, tobacco, butter, and carting. His sections of the book run from 1784 to 1806. Another person, perhaps Reuben Webster, also used the book. In these sections, dating from 1817 through 1829, are several entries regarding Baldwin's estate, several regarding...
Dates: Created: 1784-1829; Other: Date acquired: 09/04/2011
Political Campaign Sticker
Collection — Box: 1
Identifier: 00-2004-52-5
Scope and Contents Political Campaign Sticker, 2004-52-5, for Ernie Bunnell as Selectman for the Town of Litchfield. He was elected to the Board in 2003.
Dates: Other: Date acquired: 12/09/2003
Returns concerning jails for the county of Litchfield
Identifier: 2015-11-0
Content Description Returns concerning jails for the county of Litchfield (2015-11-0). Yearly tally for people jailed and why in Litchfield, March 31, 1865. List counts how many people were jailed during 1865 broken into category types such as age, race and gender. The lists also counts those discharged and why. On a yearly basis every county commissioner was to send the information to the Secetary of State who would then send the information on to the legislature. The form is signed by the secretary of state,...
Dates: 1865-03-31
Robert Doyle collection
Identifier: 2003-48-0
Scope and Contents The Robert Doyle collection contains papers regarding Crutch & MacDonald, a Litchfield, Conn., drug store; other Litchfield businesses; and activities of the Borough of Litchfield government. The papers include druggists catalogues and literature, late 1800s; a letter written by Robert Doyle regarding the sale of Crutch & MacDonald, 1994; bills and receipts, early twentieth century; documents relating to the sale and lease of Crutch & MacDonald and its antecedent iterations,...
Dates: Created: 1870-1994; Other: Date acquired: 02/07/2005
Filtered By
- Subject: Litchfield (Conn.) -- Politics and government X
Filter Results
Additional filters:
- Names
- Litchfield (Conn.) 2
- Litchfield (Conn.). Borough 2
- Baldwin, Phineas 1
- Bramley, Carol 1
- Bramley, Malcolm 1
- Commissioner 1
- Crutch & MacDonald 1
- Doyle, Robert 1
- Hogan, Thomas F. 1
- Litchfield Charter Commission 1
- Litchfield Historic District 1
- Litchfield Schools Planning Committee 1
- Miller, William 1
- National Historic Landmarks Program (U.S.) 1
- National Register of Historic Places 1
- Seymour, Moses, 1774-1826 1
- Smith family 1
- Stone, James 1
- Webster, Reuben 1 ∧ less
∨ more


text:
Call For Order01929220022
Delivery Charge: Inside Dhaka - 50 Tk. / Outside Dhaka - 100 Tk.
৳ 2,050.00
Brand : Kemei
Model : KM-1991
Powerful long motor
Patented cute rotating blade
Attentive and digitalized Smart enrgy display for reminder
One internal eco-friendly lithium cobaltate (licoo2) battery for 3 hours charge
Patented cute-angled moving blade, sharp and durable
Available for 2 hours after full charge
Double-purposed ower supply technology
Intelligent chip management and power protection
Embroidery Cross Package list:
1 car
1 Charger
4 limit the comb (3.6, 10.13 mm)
1 bottle of oil
1 Hair brush
1 Nailclipper
1 Nail file for nails
1 Instruction (in English)


text:
You may well have paid for pills on the Internet that did nothing to fix your problem, despite the promises.
You may have listened to your friend who told you to think of grim images to stop you ejaculating too fast. But this only works for some people. Like your friend.
Different treatment for different men
The fact is that the premature ejaculation treatment or tips that work for someone else or for your friend aren't necessarily the same ones that work for you.
After all, the male libido is commonly misunderstood and more complex than most of us realize. Each treatment or technique should be different for each person.
There's no "one magic pill cures all" when it comes to premature ejaculation. It's just not like that.
Several techniques simultaneously
The best is to combine several P.E. techniques. Fitness, exercises, breathing techniques and taking supplements all help.
But if you want really fast results, you might want a magic bullet type solution to your problem.
Guides to cure P.E.
Reliable techniques that have been reviewed properly are the ones you can count on.
Boosting male libido
Download this free guide to help you to improve male libido.
Rather than you trawling through the net reading articles, this free guide contains all the advice you need in one clear ebook.
I put it together to save some time for you and to get you feeling better faster.
And it's completely free.
Go here for the guide on how to boost male libido
How To Improve Ejaculation Resistance
Going for longer in bed is about mastering a number of techniques.
You need to be calm, relaxed and confident that you will last long. Nervousness is a major cause of ejaculating too early.
Your body needs to be perfectly balanced and ready for keeping an erection for longer. Your penile and sexual health needs to be optimal in order for you to resist ejaculating and stay hard for over 30 minutes.
You need to be able to choose when you ejaculate. This is done by training control, edging and optimizing ejaculation frequency.
I learned these techniques and more by simply following and applying the methods that Ejaculation Trainer taught me.
If I can learn them, you can too.
Making The Treatment Work For You
Finding a premature ejaculation treatment that works is tough for you but absolutely possible.
P.E. is embarrassing, it knocks your confidence and your energy, and most importantly, your wife or lover isn't happy or satisfied with you.
I know because I've been there and I still cringe when I think about those moments.
I overcame P.E. because I persevered, trained myself and practiced religiously.
You'll have a bit of work to do, but in a few months time you'll be looking back and smiling at how your persistence helped you regain ejaculation control again.


text:
The history of 3D Printing has seen massive peaks. From a rather slow start, it has reached milestones which no one had ever dreamed of. The power of this technology is only limited by the imagination of the beholder. Read on to know the glorious history of 3D Printing
Late 1970s to End of 1980s
3D Printing is more ancient than you think. It may seem a fairly new technology but it is not. The birth of 3D printing can be traced back to late 1970s when the first inkjet printer was manufactured. The technology grabbed Eye-balls and Ears, but nothing substantial could be done in the following half-decade. However, in 1981, when Hideo Kodama of Nagoya Municipal Industrial Research Institute published a paper on Rapid Prototyping (RP) system – he imagined a system of printing layers of a model on a platform and building layer above layer to form the final product. He was to subsequently file for a patent but somehow the poor guy could not do so we still could not find any significant breakthrough in this technology. The RP system was in itself a great ideological breakthrough but with no practical use. The end piece of the jigsaw puzzle was still eluding many researchers. And finally, a breakthrough was achieved after three years.
Approximately three years later, Hideo Kodama published his paper, in 1984, Charles Hull, an American Engineer, invented Stereolithography Apparatus (SLA). He patented the technology in 1984 itself. Charles Hull went on to become the Co-Founder of 3D Systems, which is now one of the largest 3D printing organizations. Stereolithography is a technique which lets designers manufacture a product from a 3D model created in any modeling software. So, in short, the digital model could now be converted into an actual, tangible product.
Stereolithography and 3D Printing
Stereolithography is the first 3D printing process which was commercialized. The process involves namely four components:
- A Laser beam – Source of Laser to solidify the resins
- Elevator – For movement of Vat
- Vat – It contains the material for creating the 3D product
- Photopolymer Resins in liquid state – Material for 3D printing
The laser source flashes a Laser beam to solidify the semi-liquid Photopolymer resins. The Laser beam moves in X-Y axis across the surface of the resin. It moves across as per the 3D design of the model from the software. Once a layer of the resin is solidified, the elevator moves down lowering the Vat in the Z direction and now the laser traces the next layer. This process continues until the product is completely traced out. The elevator is now moved up to remove the product from the Vat.
In lay man's language, we can say that the process is used to basically to slice a product into numerous layers and place those thin slices one over the other to form the final product.
The 3D product is created as the layers are formed one above the other. Due to the complex nature of the process, the products sometimes need support structures. These are mainly required for products with undercuts or overhangs. Like every process, this process too requires post-processing for removing the support structures and smoothening the walls. But comparatively the processing is far too less in Stereolithography.
1990's to 2000
Stereolithography was the first 3D printing method which paved the way for the technology to grow and prosper. Although the technology was patented in 1984, it took another 6-8 years to build the first 3D Printer. In 1992, 3D Systems actually built an SLA Machine to present it to the world and let them see the power of 3D printing. By the same time, a start-up, DTM Corp invented the world's first Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) Machine.
These machines were charting unexplored frontiers but still, a lot of years of research had to be put in it to make it commercially viable. These machines were slow to operate and still required some amount of manual intervention. The research went on until the 2000s.
Late 1990's to 2010
Almost 20 years had passed since the first paper was published and technology was patented but still, the technology was in its infancy. This was the time for the technology to grow and showcase its true potential.
In 2000, a new breakthrough was achieved. First 3D printed organ was implanted in a human body. The scientists at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, 3D-printed the synthetic building blocks of human bladders. This newly generated tissue was then implanted in the human body.
This was the decade when the Bio-Printing took center stage and came up with exciting and prospective inventions. Scientists were eager to understand more and more about the technology and use it in the medical field due to its main feature of customization.
This was a golden period in the development of 3D printing in the medical application. Many start-ups started creating medical applications like printing a functional miniature kidney, building prosthetic limbs and other complex parts. Scientists even bio-printed the first blood vessels.
In 2005, the open-source movement took over and Dr. Adrian Bowyer's RepRap Project launched an open-source initiative to manufacture a 3D Printer which could print many basic products. Its 2008 upgrade was a self-replicating printer. Suddenly, people everywhere had access to printers and they could print tangible products from just their ideas. The research was still going on and, in 2006; the first commercially viable SLS printer was manufactured and received widespread acceptance and demand from industries.
The creative innovations were effectively clubbed together by Shapeways, which was a marketplace where designers could display their designs and receive feedback on the same. Another company emerged in this technology boosting environment, MakerBot. They provided Do-It-Yourself open-source printers. This was the time when even regular designers could afford the 3D Printers to test their designs. The Entry barrier was breached and designers everywhere could now get their hands on this technology.
2011 – Present
As the days are passing by, the advances in 3D Printing are only following an upward trend and will continue to do so for the coming decade. 3D printers are available at most affordable rates and the accuracy is getting better with each iteration. This will continue year on year. The applications have crossed all limits which Charles Hull might have dreamt about. From plastic products to body organs, from automobile to aerospace, from manufacturing to jewelry and to the latest being Food Printing. We have also heard of 3D printed offices and 3D Printed cars and aircrafts.
Some Chronologically Important Milestones
1992: First 3D Printer/ Stereolithographic Apparatus (SLA) built in 1992. This machine used laser beams to solidify the photopolymer resins to form the final product
1999: 3D Printed organs are the craze among scientists. Scientists research on the medical applications of this technology
2002: A fully functional 3D Printed miniature kidney which is able to filter blood
2005: Dr. Adrian Bowyer's RepRap Project launched an open-source initiative to manufacture a 3D printer which could print many basic products
2006: The first commercially viable SLS printer was manufactured and received widespread acceptance and demand for industries
2008: Darwin, a relaunch of an upgraded version launched in 2005, a self-replicating printer is manufactured
2008: Shapeways, a marketplace where designers could display their designs and receive feedback on the same. It was an environment of co-creation where artists, animators, architects, etc. joined in the community
2008: For the first time a fully functional 3D printed prosthetic leg is with a socket, foot, knee, etc.
2008: MakerBot, providers of Do-It-Yourself open-source 3D Printers
2011: World's first 3D printed Aircraft is created. This unmanned aircraft was flight tested to be successful
2011: i.materialise 3D prints gold and silver for the first time
2012: Doctors and engineers 3DPrint a prosthetic lower jaw and implant it in an 83-year old woman
2013: 3D Hubs, an online 3D printing service platform is founded
2014: Amazon, the online retail giant launches their 3D printing store
2015: Google acquires Carbon3D, a 3D printer manufacturer which uses a Continuous Liquid Interface Production (CLIP) process.
2016: Local Motors manufactures OLLIE, a self-driving 3D Printed minibus. The Minibus is controlled by IBM Watson that talks to the customer.
2017: The world's first 3D printed bridge developed by BAM Infra opens to cyclists in the Netherlands


text:
For any enquiries, contact the Club Secretary, email@example.com
Membership of the club is open to all current owners of Trakmaster caravans, and to those people who have paid a deposit on a new Trakmaster caravan.
The club year is from 1st November to 31st October.
There is a $20 joining fee plus Annual Subscription per caravan: $45. Total $65
Subscription for new members joining between 1st June and 31st October ($20 joining fee plus 6 mth Subscription per caravan: $25.) Total $45.
How to join
Please fill out a membership application form, and return to us.
Option 1 allows you to enter your details on the screen, into a word document, you can then save the file and email back to the Secretary as an attachment (with payment by Direct Debit as below), or print and post to us, with a cheque.
New Membership Application Option 1
Option 2 is a printable blank document that you can use good old pen and paper and post to us, with payment by Direct Debit as below, or post to us with a cheque....
New Membership Application Option 2
When completed, please return the application with the relevant amount to the Secretary,
Trakmaster Off-Road Caravan Club, PO Box 112, BAYSWATER Vic 3153. Please bear in mind that snail mail may take quite some time to reach the Secretary, who may be travelling.
Payment by accompanying cheque, or alternatively (preferably) by direct debit to the Club bank account.
Account Name: Trakmaster Off-road Caravan Club
BSB: 033 107 Account Number: 261113
Payment Reference: Your Surname & the words "New Subs" (VERY IMPORTANT),


text:
|Siti in lingua inglese
What is Ikebana, Types of Ikebana, Virtual Ikebana, Ikebana equipment.
|Ikebana Arts
Ikebana Arts, Gallery, Demonstration, Archives, Link, Ikebana class, Vases.
|Ikebana International
About Ikebana: What is Ikebana?, History of Ikebana, Styles of Ikebana, Taking Lessons, Ikebana Basics, Schools of Ikebana, Virtual Workshops, Virtual Exhibition.
Ikebana International: Profile, Activities, Publications, Board of Directors, Press Release, Admission Guidance, Contact Information.
Worldwide Chapters: Chapter Locations, Chapter Programs, Chapter Web Sites. Links.
|Nihonkoryu Ikebana School
History of Ikebana, Works of four seasons, Recent exhibition, Links.
|Siti in lingua francese
|Ecole d'Ikebana et d'Art Floral de Toulouse
Ikebana, Styles, Toulouse, Cours, Stages, J'aime, Photos Expos.


text:
Get the latest news releases here!
Ottawa….Through its Imagineaction program, the Canadian Teachers' Federation (CTF) is pleased to partner once again with the Canada Council for the Arts, the Canadian Commission for UNESCO (CCU), the Public Lending Right Commission (PLRC) and Indigo Books & Music in the project called Listen, I read – 2nd edition.
Teachers are invited to send in their applications as of today and can do so online at www.imagine-action.ca. Registration is free and open to all Canadian teachers. There are a limited number of opportunities, so please register early.
Listen, I read aims to:
"The initiative was a tremendous success last year involving over 1,000 students from Grades 1 to 12 in 38 schools across Canada reading books and connecting with 18 different authors who are recipients of the highly esteemed Governor General's Literary Awards," says CTF President Paul Taillefer. "We were delighted to read the teachers' positive evaluations in which they claim the initiative provided students with authentic learning."
More information in this short article and video.
Funded by the Canada Council for the Arts, the CTF, the CCU and the J.W. McConnell Family Foundation, the Listen, I read project was originally launched in 2011 to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Public Lending Right Commission, the 75th anniversary of the Governor General's Literary Awards (GGs), the UN International Year of Youth and the UN Literacy Decade.
The CTF Imagineaction program aims to engage young people in social action projects tied to their school and local communities. More information: www.imagine-action.ca
CTF President Paul Taillefer (contact Francine Filion, CTF, 613-688-4314)
Pauline Théoret, Program Officer, Imagineaction, 613-688-4303
613-566-4414, ext. 4557, 1-800-263-5588, ext. 4557


text:
|Informing Disease Models with Temporal and Spatial Contact Structure among GPS-Collared Individuals in Wild Populations.
|Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
|PMID: 24409293 Owner: NLM Status: In-Data-Review
|Contacts between hosts are essential for transmission of many infectious agents. Understanding how contacts, and thus transmission rates, occur in space and time is critical to effectively responding to disease outbreaks in free-ranging animal populations. Contacts between animals in the wild are often difficult to observe or measure directly. Instead, one must infer contacts from metrics such as proximity in space and time. Our objective was to examine how contacts between white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) vary in space and among seasons. We used GPS movement data from 71 deer in central New York State to quantify potential direct contacts between deer and indirect overlap in space use across time and space. Daily probabilities of direct contact decreased from winter (0.05-0.14), to low levels post-parturition through summer (0.00-0.02), and increased during the rut to winter levels. The cumulative distribution for the spatial structure of direct and indirect contact probabilities around a hypothetical point of occurrence increased rapidly with distance for deer pairs separated by 1,000 m - 7,000 m. Ninety-five percent of the probabilities of direct contact occurred among deer pairs within 8,500 m of one another, and 99% within 10,900 m. Probabilities of indirect contact accumulated across greater spatial extents: 95% at 11,900 m and 99% at 49,000 m. Contacts were spatially consistent across seasons, indicating that although contact rates differ seasonally, they occur proportionally across similar landscape extents. Distributions of contact probabilities across space can inform management decisions for assessing risk and allocating resources in response.
|David M Williams; Amy C Dechen Quinn; William F Porter
Related Documents :
|21311683 - The role of the pattern edge in goldfish visual motion detection.
23948333 - Kinematic analysis of step ascent among patients with central visual field loss.
1826723 - Investigation of some antimicrobial procedures on the in vitro development of early mur...
Publication Detail:
|Type: Journal Article Date: 2014-01-07
Journal Detail:
|Title: PloS one Volume: 9 ISSN: 1932-6203 ISO Abbreviation: PLoS ONE Publication Date: 2014
Date Detail:
|Created Date: 2014-01-10 Completed Date: - Revised Date: -
Medline Journal Info:
|Nlm Unique ID: 101285081 Medline TA: PLoS One Country: United States
Other Details:
|Languages: eng Pagination: e84368 Citation Subset: IM
Export Citation:
|APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex
|MeSH Terms
|Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): PLoS One
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): PLoS ONE
Journal ID (publisher-id): plos
Journal ID (pmc): plosone
Publisher: Public Library of Science, San Francisco, USA
Article Information
Download PDF
Copyright: 2014 Williams et al
Received Day: 9 Month: 8 Year: 2013
Accepted Day: 22 Month: 11 Year: 2013
collection publication date: Year: 2014
Electronic publication date: Day: 7 Month: 1 Year: 2014
Volume: 9 Issue: 1
E-location ID: e84368
PubMed Id: 24409293
Publisher Id: PONE-D-13-32956
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084368
|Informing Disease Models with Temporal and Spatial Contact Structure among GPS-Collared Individuals in Wild Populations Alternate Title:Contact Structure among GPS-Collared Individuals
|David M. Williamsaff1*¤a
|Amy C. Dechen Quinnaff1¤b
|William F. Porteraff1¤a
|Petter Holmeedit1
Role: Editor
|Department of Environmental and Forest Biology, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York, United States of America
|Umeå University, Sweden
|Correspondence: * E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
[conflict] Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Contributed by footnote: Conceived and designed the experiments: DMW ACDQ WFP. Performed the experiments: DMW ACDQ. Analyzed the data: DMW. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: WFP. Wrote the paper: DMW ACDQ WFP.
¤aCurrent address: Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America
¤bCurrent address: Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Studies, State University of New York, Cobleskill, New York, United States of America
Understanding the temporal and spatial structure of direct and indirect contacts among individuals or groups within a population is useful for attempting to control or eradicate disease [1], [2], [3]. Here we use white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) tagged with global positioning system (GPS) collars to investigate how the likelihood of putative contacts changes with time and distance between individuals. Our primary motivation is to understand the influence of contact rates on the risk of spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD) among deer in central New York. The approach and findings, however, lend themselves to more general consideration of estimating how contacts vary in time and across space.
Infectious diseases require contacts between hosts, hosts and vectors, or hosts and infectious propagules for transmission. Understanding contacts among individuals or groups within a population is useful for protecting and managing populations threatened by disease and in attempting to control or eradicate disease [1], [2], [4]. When an infectious disease is introduced into an animal population, public officials and scientists must decide whether to respond, and if so, how and where to allocate limited resources in response to points of disease outbreaks. When a disease is detected at a given location, 2 of the most important questions are, how far could it spread within a given period of time or where else might it be? These became key questions in New York State in 2005 when 2 free-ranging deer tested positive for chronic wasting disease (CWD). Without empirical data, the decisions of how and where to respond were based upon the feasibility of management within political units, the dispersion of CWD in established areas outside of New York, and the general biology associated with ranging behavior of white-tailed deer. A containment area was established to serve as a regulatory boundary with the intent of preventing the spread and export of the infection.
Responses to disease outbreaks may be refined by simulation models that explore the range of potential outcomes for disease dynamics, the most influential components of disease spread, and what information is lacking. Central to these models is the transmission parameter, β, the probability of transmission given the disease is encountered. However, the transmission parameter is the most difficult coefficient to empirically estimate [5]. Transmission may be estimated by fitting a given model to temporal prevalence data [6]. This approach depends upon assumptions about the probability of infection given a contact (density or frequency dependent), and contact rate per se is often not distinguished as a separate entity [3]. Emerging infectious diseases where only a few individuals are infected such as CWD in New York lack the prevalence data required for such calculations and require alternative means for estimating the transmission coefficient.
When attempting to inform our understanding of transmission using empirical data, it is useful to consider transmission as a 2-part process: 1) the probability of an infection given a contact and, 2) the rate of appropriate contacts. The first component, the probability of infection given a contact, may be informed by captive control studies where individuals are intentionally exposed to the disease in question. However, the limited understanding of prion infections such as CWD and the protracted incubation period of CWD make such estimates both expensive and difficult. Here, we focus on understanding the second component of transmission, the probability that contact occurs.
One alternative for estimating contact rates in the absence of sufficient prevalence data is to use existing information about host behavior and disease biology [5]. Many animals, even humans, exhibit highly seasonal behaviors. The degree to which contact events change seasonally has important implications for potential spread of disease. Temporal variability of contact rates, particularly within host aggregations, is an important driver of measles, mumps, chicken pox, and influenza dynamics among humans [3]. In their study of mycoplasmal conjunctivitis among house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus), Hosseini et al. [7] concluded that seasonal host behaviors could be of primary importance in understanding wildlife disease dynamics. Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisi) exhibited seasonal variation in incidence of bite injuries [8] and contact structure [9]. Authors concluded that both of these factors likely contributed to the dynamics of devil facial tumor disease. Likewise, the behavior of white-tailed deer varies seasonally with activities such as winter migration, breeding, and parturition. These behaviors lead to different population densities, movement rates, and contacts between individuals [10], [11], [12]. These variations may seasonally alter the transmission of a disease and result in complex disease dynamics [3], [13]. Grassly and Fraser [14] describe potential impacts of seasonal variation in transmission on disease dynamics including a fluctuating basic reproductive number (R0), larger outbreaks, large oscillations in incidence, and reduced persistence. Potential transmission by indirect contact with environmental contaminates (e.g., shed CWD prions) may also vary seasonally and further complicate potential disease dynamics not only as another mode of transmission, but also by introducing time lags.
Contacts between animals have been measured using a number of techniques including direct observation of animals [8], [15], [16], overlap of landscape usage [12], [17], [18], separation distance of telemetry locations [12], [19], [20], [21], and proximity collars [9], [22], [23]. Direct observations are particularly useful because they enable identification of probable contacts for the disease in question, but are limited to short periods of observation and may depend upon unnatural conditions (such as contact around baiting stations). Identifying areas of joint space use is relatively easy provided sufficient animal location data are available. Intuitively, greater overlap in space use would translate into increased potential for contacts, but this assumes that animals move around and contact one another randomly. Proximity collars can record when and how long collars are within a certain distance and come closest to identifying actual direct contact events (i.e., synchronous spatial overlap), but unless coupled with recorded positions through time are unable to inform rates of indirect contact (i.e., asynchronous spatial overlap) between individuals. Battery life may be quickly exhausted in proximity collars if individuals remain in close proximity for extended periods of time [22]. Data from GPS collars are limited to points in time, but locations may be collected frequently and systematically over long periods with little positional error. The widespread availability and use of GPS animal-tracking devices and their potential to identify both direct and indirect contact events make them useful for quantifying contact events in wildlife populations.
CWD among deer is an excellent system to evaluate potential contact events to inform aspects of transmission for several reasons. First, CWD is known to be transmitted directly via physical interactions between conspecifics as well as indirectly when an individual encounters an area of landscape where infectious prions have previously been shed by another individual through saliva, feces, urine, or decomposing carcass [24], [25]. Prions can persist in soil for long periods of time and sites can remain contaminated for years [24]. However, the relative importance of these direct and indirect routes is unknown. Second, white-tailed deer exhibit season specific movements, social structuring, and behaviors allowing for both direct and indirect routes of transmission. These behaviors suggest we should expect contact rates to vary in time and space. Finally, while prevalence data are generally insufficient or too coarse to evaluate variation in contact rates empirically, deer movement can be reasonably described using GPS collars. Deer are readily captured, large enough to accommodate GPS collars with sufficient battery life to monitor for extended periods of time, and move at scales that are large relative to the positional error of those collars.
Previous research has shown variation in deer space use and scales of movement among seasons, sexes, and age classes. We sought to estimate probabilities of direct contact between individuals and indirect contact between an individual and an environment previously occupied by other individuals as functions of space and time. We drew on a large sample of white-tailed deer tagged with GPS collars in central New York. Our objectives were to quantify the rate that the probability of contact diminishes with distance between individuals and identify the seasonal dynamics of contact events. We hypothesized that contacts would be most likely when deer aggregate for feeding and breeding, and so the probabilities of contact would reflect seasonal changes in deer behavior. Specifically we expected contacts to be most frequent during winter when deer migrate to specific habitat cover types in response to snowfall, and contacts to be least frequent during fawning when does isolate themselves. We also predicted that, due to potential social structure among individuals, the probability of deer contacting one another would decrease rapidly with increasing separation distance.
This study utilized data from GPS collared deer which were captured, collared, and monitored according to and with approval by State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry Institutional Animal Care and Use Protocol no. 2005-1.
This study took place on both public and private lands. We received permission from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation and private landowners for all capture locations and collar retrievals on public and private lands respectively. We were not required to obtain permission for lands used by free-ranging collared animals where we were not physically engaged in research activities.
The study area encompassed 8,300 km2 in Onondaga, Cortland, Madison and Oneida Counties of central New York State. Landcover was a mix of forest (44%) and agriculture (34%) with small communities (9% developed). Forests were dominated by hardwoods, notably sugar and red maple (Acer saccharum and A. rubrum), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), white ash (Fraxinus americana) and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Conifer plantations originating in the 1930's were composed of white, red and Scotch pine (Pinus strobus, P. resinosa, and P. sylvestris), and white and red spruce (Picea glauca, P. rubens). Agricultural crops were mostly related to dairy and include corn, winter wheat, oats, alfalfa, and soybeans. A rolling topography occurred throughout those portions of the study area in Onondaga, Cortland and Madison Counties; areas in Oneida County occur on glacial lake plain. Average temperatures were −5.0°C during February and 20.6°C in July (1966–2006). Elevations range from 93 m to 652 m and the region lies to the south and east of Lake Ontario. The combination of the prevailing wind patterns and elevation affects precipitation. Average total annual precipitation was 97.3 cm/year (1966–2006). Winters are variable with heavy snow events and frequent thaws. Snowfall averaged 251 cm/year (1966–2006) and ranged from 241 cm/yr to 336 cm/yr during this study [26]. The deepest snowpack (74 cm) during our study occurred in Oneida County in February of 2007 [26]. Road density in the region was 1.85km/km2; 1.5% of the landscape was >1.6km from a road [27].
We used data from GPS collars (model GPS2000, Advanced Telemetry Systems, Inc.) on 71 white-tailed deer (27 males and 44 females), captured during January-April 2006 and 2007 using modified Clover traps [28], rocket nets, and dart guns (see Dechen Quinn et al. [29] for capture and handling details). Deer were captured and collared individually with the exception of 3 pairs. We never captured more than 2 deer per trapping event. Collars were programmed to take a GPS location every 5 hr. GPS locations were stored on board the collars that were remotely detached from study animals and retrieved after approximately 1 yr ( = 271 days). Positional error associated with GPS locations was <10m in most cases ( = 5.3 m, SD = 5.3 m) [30].
Because GPS collars do not record positions continuously, we could not observe contacts directly. Rather, we assume that animals close in space are likely or at least have the opportunity to come into contact with one another. We used the 5 hr GPS location data to determine probabilities of direct and indirect contact as functions of time and space. We measured the distance between pairs of animals at synchronous locations in a similar manner as Schauber et al. [12]. Not all collars acquired positional fixes on the same schedule so we designated a time window or lag during which to associate points in time. We divided days into six 4-hr periods and locations for a pair of individuals that occurred within the same 4-hr window were considered direct contacts. We assumed that animals within 100 m of one another during a synchronous time period did, or could have, contacted. We then counted the number of contacts between all pairs of collared deer in each interval. We pooled contact events of all deer pairings by day of year to explore the temporal structure of direct and indirect contacts. We calculated daily probabilities of contact by dividing the number of daily contact events by the total number of synchronous locations observed that day. We also evaluated cutoff distances from 25 to 500 m to assess the sensitivity of subsequent analyses to this contact criterion.
We defined indirect contacts as observed locations of a deer that occurred within 100 m of any position previously occupied by another individual. For example, at each of deer A's locations we evaluated whether deer B occupied a location ≤100 m at the same or previous time. If so, deer A's position was recorded as an indirect contact regardless of the number of times deer B previously occupied space within 100 m. Subsequent visits by deer A to that position would be recorded as additional indirect contacts. Our estimate of the probability of indirect contact for each deer pair was calculated by dividing the number of indirect contacts by the total number of observations where previously recorded positions were observed.
We evaluated how contacts change throughout the year by modeling contact probability as a function of day of year. We considered sine functions of varying complexity, including combinations of parameters controlling the amplitude, phase shift, and intercept. We also evaluated piecewise linear threshold models representing 3 and 4 season years (Table 1). We used Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) to select the best model and quantify the degree to which those functions differed from one another and from a null model representing the hypothesis that contact rates do not vary with time (intercept only). Model fitting and evaluation were conducted in R v2.90 [31]. We conducted k-fold cross validation (k = 5) and goodness-of-fit tests (based on 20% quantile bins) to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the best models. Qualitative comparisons were also conducted to verify correspondence between observed contact dynamics and well-documented seasonal deer ecology and behavior.
If deer within small landscape extents are more likely to contact one another than deer separated by large spatial extents, then including pairs of deer separated by large distances would tend to deflate the average estimates of contact probabilities. To ensure that our results were not being influenced by this effect, we repeated the model selection using datasets including pairs of deer separated by distance from 40 km to just 2 km at 1 km intervals.
To determine the rate at which contact probabilities decrease with distance across the landscape, we used contact counts per 4 hr time interval to determine the overall direct contact probability of each pairing of individual deer. Mathematically this is accomplished for each deer pairing by dividing the number of direct contact instances by the total number of synchronous positions. This contact probability represents the probability of the pair contacting one another over a given time period, and is fundamentally different than the estimates of daily contact probabilities above.
Individuals in each deer pairing are separated on the landscape by some distance, and this distance changes with time. Of the multiple ways to define the landscape extent separating 2 animals, we used a conservative one: the maximum distance between the observed locations of individual pairs of deer, irrespective of time. This distance choice was based on the practical need for decision makers to evaluate the appropriate landscape extent for management actions and recognizes that individuals in close proximity during a portion of the year may represent potential spread from much greater distances. We calculated this distance for all possible pairings of individuals and then determined how the probability of contact changed with inter-pair distance across the landscape. We sorted all of the pairs by their maximal distance and then accumulated the probability of contact with increasing distance. We then scaled the sum of the contact probabilities over all animals to unity to obtain a cumulative probability distribution as a function of distance. We evaluated the spatial distribution of contact probabilities within spring/summer (May 1-September 30), fall (October 1-December 31), and winter (January 1-April 30) because we expected differing seasonal behaviors to drive the contact processes. Specifically we expected winter migrations and dispersal events to extend the distance across which contacts might occur. Finally, we evaluated how sensitive this measure of spatial structures of direct and indirect contacts is to the cutoff distance we used to define a contact by varying this distance from 25 m to 500 m in 25 m increments.
Of the 2,485 possible unique pairings of the 71 individual deer, we observed potential direct contacts between 125 pairs (5%) of individual deer and indirect contacts between 257 pairs (10%) of deer. The maximum intra-pair distance across the landscape ranged from 942 m to 81,847 m ( = 39,066 m, SD = 23,730) with good representation of pairs across that range (Figure 1).
Daily direct contact probabilities varied as a function of time (Figure 2). Daily indirect contact probabilities were nearly 3 times greater than daily direct contact probabilities (Figure 3). We observed the highest and most variable contacts during winter. Daily contact probabilities began declining mid-March and continued to low levels in late May/early June. These values were near zero for direct contact probabilities during that time. Variation in daily contact probabilities began to increase in early October accompanied by an increase in values by late-December. Changes in indirect contact probabilities during spring, summer, and fall were less apparent than those observed for direct contact probabilities over the same seasons.
Probability of contact declined as we included individuals from a greater spatial extent and although the intercept and amplitude parameters decreased, the seasonal fluctuations persisted (Figure 4). The best model for the temporal function of direct contact probabilities of deer occurring within 11 km, the distance accounting for 99% of direct contact probabilities, of one another was a sine function:Table 1). The model including an intercept, amplitude, and a phase shift outperformed other models across all examined landscape extents (≤40 km), including the intercept only model. Observed and predicted daily direct contact probabilities were significantly correlated for all folds of the model validation sets (Table 2). Regressions of predicted versus observed contact values for each fold indicated good predictive power for the sine function, with some deviation for the highest observed contact probabilities (Figure 5a). Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that predicted values were not significantly different from observed probabilities for all cross-validation folds except for Fold C (Table 2). The best model for the temporal function of indirect contact probabilities of deer occurring within 11 km of one another was a piecewise linear threshold function:Table 1, blue line). Observed and predicted daily indirect contact probabilities were significantly correlated for all folds of the model validation sets (Table 2). Regressions of predicted versus observed contact values for each fold indicated poor predictive power for the threshold function (Figure 5b). This function frequently underestimated high contact probabilities and overestimated lower contact probabilities resulting in significant differences in goodness-of-fit tests (Table 2). A sine function better predicted indirect contact probabilities based on regression analyses of each fold (Figure 5c). However, the sine function also predicted significantly different bin counts of observed and predicted contact probabilities for all but 1 fold (Table 2).
Non-zero probability of direct contact between paired individuals varied from 0.0006 to 0.86 ( = 0.098, SD = 0.16, n = 128). Pairings with some synchronously recorded positions and no observed contact events numbered 1,625, and 732 pairings had no positions recorded during synchronous time intervals (thus no potential for direct contact).
The cumulative distribution function for the spatial structure of direct contact probabilities increased rapidly with distance from 1,000 m – 7,000 m (Figure 6): 95% of the probabilities of direct contact were accounted for within 8,500 m and 99% within 10,900 m. All probabilities of direct contact were contained within 34,500 m.
The distance at which probabilities of direct contact were accounted for was not greatly influenced by the cutoff distance used to define potential direct contacts (Figure 7). Varying the distance criterion had little influence on percentages of direct contact for probabilities ≤90%. The distance within which 95% of cumulative probabilities of direct contact occurred increased from 7,500 m to 10,000 m with distance criterion (25–125 m), and then declined to 9,500 m at a distance criteria of 175 m where it remained stable at higher distance criterion values.
While there were clear differences in seasonal contact probabilities (Figure 2), the spatial structure of those contacts varied little across seasons (Figure 8). We accounted for 90% of direct contact probabilities within 7,500 m for all seasons. The distance to account for the upper percentages of contact probability differed somewhat. We observed a long tail for the cumulative probability distribution of direct contacts during winter, reflected in the large spatial distance (19,600 m) required to account for 99% of contact probabilities. We observed 99% of direct contact probabilities in the spring/summer and fall to occur within smaller spatial extents (12,400 m and 10,900 m respectively).
Non-zero probability of indirect contact for paired individuals ranged from 0.0003 to 0.97 ( = 0.272, SD = 0.30, n = 257). Pairings with the temporal potential for indirect contact that exhibited no indirect contacts numbered 2,228. Probabilities of indirect contact accumulated rapidly in the range 1,000 m to 7,500 m (Figure 9). 95% of the probabilities of direct contact were accounted for within 11,800 m and 99% of contact probabilities were contained at 49,000 m.
The distance at which probabilities of indirect contact were accounted for was not greatly influenced by the cutoff distance used to define potential indirect contacts (Figure 7). The distance within which 95% and 99% of cumulative probabilities of indirect contact occurred increased slightly with distance criterion (25–75 m).
Our study is among the first to provide quantitative estimates of potential contact probabilities that could be used to parameterize transmission in models of disease such as CWD. Our use of large numbers of GPS collars deployed at various distances across a landscape provided the high-resolution movement data necessary to develop a profile of the temporal and spatial structure of contacts between individuals. Although the separation distance we used to define contact events represents potential, but not actual contacts, the distribution of direct contact probabilities was not greatly affected over a wide range of contact criterion.
The temporal pattern of contacts corresponds to the seasonal changes in social behavior of deer. Probabilities of direct contact vary seasonally and are highest in the winter. This observation corresponds with seasonal migration to areas with greater amounts of forested cover, especially of coniferous species, by deer in this region in response to winter conditions. Such migrations by deer are well documented in northern climates and result in bringing deer populations together from across a broad landscape [10]. The probability of direct contact among individuals peaks in March, decreases rapidly in early spring as individuals return to summer range, and is lowest during late May and early June when females isolate themselves for parturition (Figure 2) [11], [32], [33]. Direct contact probabilities remain low until fall when they increase in association with rut in November and December. These seasonal patterns in contact probability persisted, though at decreasing levels, even when we included individuals separated by great distances (Figure 4). These seasonal dynamics in contacts were reasonably represented by a sine function, although predictions were inaccurate during the winter when observed contact probabilities were high (Figures 2 and 5a).
The importance of documenting this temporal dynamic in direct contact structure is threefold. First, the fact that observed changes in contact probabilities correspond to well-documented changes in seasonal behavior among white-tailed deer suggests that we are defining contacts appropriately and that contact rates scale with density. Second the predictability of the seasonal dynamics of contact is valuable because season-specific probabilities of contact can be reasonably described as a sine function, which is easily integrated into the transmission parameter, β, of disease models. With additional information on the probability of contacts resulting in infection, such models can be used to evaluate the potential number of new infections per time interval. Third, one can estimate how the spatial structure of deer populations influence those contact probabilities and incorporate appropriate functions describing contact probability for a population occupying a certain landscape extent (Figure 4).
Similar to the temporal dynamics of direct contact, the probability of indirect contact was highest during winter, peaking in March (Figure 3). The peak in March is likely a result of individuals that are using different areas of the landscape in the summer and fall but using communal wintering areas. During the rest of the year probability of indirect contact was generally constant at levels comparable to high observed daily values for direct contact of deer within 11 km of one another (0.10 – 0.13). This difference in direct and indirect contact probabilities indicates that while areas of space use among deer overlap, those individuals are not spending proportional amounts of time in direct contact with one another (<100 m). Deer in an area may be using the same locations on the landscape but appear to directly interact less than expected, at least during those periods we could observe with our collars. Because indirect contacts are identifying contact with space previously visited by another individual over a long period of time, probabilities of indirect contact are expected to be greater in value, but fluctuate less than those associated with direct contact. This expectation was supported by the piecewise-linear threshold model providing the best fit to the indirect temporal contact probabilities, where those probabilities varied only slightly during seasons other than winter. These results suggest that indirect contacts may be less variable throughout the year in regions where deer do not use communal areas during winter.
The sine functions we used are symmetrical and constrained by an annual period and we did not attempt to model dynamics of seasonally partitioned contact probabilities. Consequently, we could not identify differences between contact dynamics during only a portion of the year. The potential for differences in amplitudes of fluctuation may be compounded by our binomial classification of indirect contacts (a deer was present at a location or not), which does not account for the number of times a location was previously visited. Our binomial approach may be insufficient to characterize the degree of contamination of a location and thus may have important implications to the probability of disease transmission because repeated visits to a site by infected individuals would increase the quantity of disease agent shed. However, we opted for a parsimonious approach because little is known about infectious doses required for environmental transmission of CWD [24]. If individuals are seasonally visiting locations that were frequently used in the past, then transmission may fluctuate seasonally in ways not identified solely by our indirect contact function.
Quantifying the spatial structure of contacts as a function of distance informs another aspect of disease risk models by providing an explicit probability distribution for disease spread across a landscape. White et al. [34] demonstrated this relationship with rabbits, showing declining interactions between rabbit warrens as a function of distance, although the authors did not then attempt to quantify the percentage of contacts occurring within a certain distance. Our findings show that the risk surface depicting the probability of direct contact drops rapidly with distance from a point of occurrence and that 90% of contact probabilities are likely to occur within 7 km. The cumulative probability of contact reaches 99% within 11 km (Figure 6). These distances are half and three-quarters of the radius that was used to delineate a containment area within New York State (16 km).
The spatial extent of direct contact probabilities is consistent across seasons despite the variation in temporal patterns of contact. This was surprising because deer exhibit season-specific behaviors. It appears that despite seasonal changes in behavior and probabilities of direct contact, the contacts that do occur within each season are distributed proportionally across similar spatial extents (Figure 8). The primary difference between seasons is the long tail for winter revealing that a small percentage of contacts in winter occur between animals separated by large distances during the rest of the year. This tail likely represents seasonal migrations of deer that are widely separated during the summer, but encounter one another within traditional wintering yards. Alternatively, the tail may reflect animals that dispersed during the spring or fall and established new home ranges away from their natal ranges [35], [36].
We used the probabilities of contact between each deer pair to plot the accumulation of direct contacts over space versus the maximum separation distance based on all observed locations between paired individuals irrespective of time (including season). This distance choice was based on the practical need for decision makers to evaluate the appropriate landscape extent for management actions within a season, but recognizes that individuals in close proximity during a portion of the year may represent potential spread from much greater distances. For example, if we neglected to incorporate landscape extents represented throughout the year and only evaluated the spatial structure of contacts in the winter we would likely conclude that a majority of contacts occurred across a very small landscape extent (on the scale of wintering areas).
A much greater spatial extent is required to account for the last few percentage points of the cumulative probability of indirect contact than direct contacts. Like the temporal patterns, this difference in spatial probabilities is driven by the long time interval during which CWD prions may persist in the environment. This interval allows migrating and dispersing animals from multiple generations to encounter infected individuals indirectly. Current research suggests that prions can persist in the soil, especially those with high clay content, for at least 2 years [24], [37]. While the probability of indirect contact is most likely to occur within 12 km, the 99% cumulative probability extends out to 49 km (Figure 9). The more distant events represent a relatively small portion of indirect contacts across space, but models that employ a more conservative criterion for evaluating risk of infection need to be spatially extensive.
Implicit to our analyses are 4 principal assumptions about how we defined direct and indirect contacts pertinent to CWD when using data from GPS collars. First, our temporal analysis assumes that all deer ≤11 km apart have the potential to experience direct or indirect contact daily. The obvious question is how to scale the analysis to include the appropriate geographic extent because the farther apart individuals are from one another the less likely they are to contact one another. This becomes analytically challenging because including contact data on animals separated by great distances adds many zeros and decreases resulting daily contact probabilities. We chose not to include individuals separated by >11 km because this was the distance that accounted for 99% of direct contact probabilities.
Second, our analysis of the spatial structure of direct contact could be dependent on the criterion by which we identified potential contacts among GPS locations. Previous studies have used separation distance between GPS or radio telemetry locations to identify contact between individuals [12], [20], [21]. These distances are generally based upon an understanding of the movement potential within the sampled time intervals for the organism in question and the positional error for location acquisition. When more specific information about the capacity for disease transfer is known (e.g., the distance an aerosol pathogen such as tuberculosis may travel), those distances are more easily defined [16]. We defined contacts as synchronous locations that occurred within 100 m. We evaluated the sensitivity of the spatial structure of direct and indirect contact probabilities to our definition by testing a range of potential distances by which contacts may be defined. We found most percentiles of cumulative contact probability to not be influenced by the contact criterion. This consistency suggests that the separation distance between deer pairs scales proportionally across all pairings for the range evaluated (25 m to 500 m). However, we did find that the distance at which 95% of direct contacts were accounted was sensitive to the contact criterion. This may be important as 95% is a percentile consistently, though arbitrarily, chosen to describe distributions.
Daily contact probabilities are likely to be impacted by changes in contact criterion. We have not formally evaluated the impact of such changes, but have several expectations for the influence of the contact criterion on daily contact probabilities. If the distances separating deer at any point in time are uniformly distributed, we would expect the daily contact probability function to shift upwards or downwards with increasing or decreasing contact criterion distance. For example if we decrease the distance required to identify a contact from 100 m to 50 m, we would expect to identify fewer contact events in the set of observed events. This adjustment would decrease the probability of contact for any given day. Because contact probabilities are bounded on the lower end by zero, we would not only expect changes in the intercept of a function describing contact probabilities over time, but in the amplitude of that function with decreasing contact criterion distances.
Third, using contact events to characterize contact probabilities for the population across time and space assumes our sampling adequately represents the population of contact probabilities across time and space. The question of whether we are accurately representing the probability of contact for individuals in a population based on a sample of paired individuals has been discussed as a limitation to such studies [12]. Arguably the accuracy of these probability-of-contact values depends upon whether the collared animals adequately represented the population of contacts. One possibility is that we collared an insufficient number of individuals to characterize the relationship. The suggestion that collaring more individuals might change the results implies that we have over- or under- represented some important component of the population with respect to contacts. We attempted to sample individuals across many different spatial extents (Figure 1) and our findings suggest that important information may be gathered and contact probabilities quantified using a smaller percentage of the population than has previously been implied.
Finally, the assumption that uninfected individuals will behave, move, and contact one another in manners similar to diseased individuals is an important one. While this assumption is probably valid until late stages of CWD, we were not able to evaluate this potential discrepancy and acknowledge that differences in movement by diseased animals may alter the temporal and spatial contact structures among individuals as quantified in our study.
Our results have direct application for those attempting to model diseases such as CWD among white-tailed deer. The equations describing direct and indirect contact as a function of time substitute directly into the portion of the force of infection describing the probability of contact. Consider the force of infection for direct contact assuming frequency dependence,
Similar substitution applies for indirect contact and the combination of the 2 contact processes. Quantifying seasonal changes in contact probabilities among deer so that they may be incorporated into epidemiological models is an important step towards empirically informing unknown parameters.
While our results have quite specific applications to modeling disease among white-tailed deer, more generally our findings show that contacts vary seasonally in a manner consistent with expectations based upon known behaviors. While behavioral information alone cannot specify the magnitude of contact probabilities, those working with other species and systems may have justification for developing the form of contact functions for modeling purposes. We also suggest that these functions may be determined without monitoring every member of a population.
Our findings also indicate an important shift in how we approach managing risk and assessing feasibility of management actions. There exists an intuitive understanding that the more separated individuals are on the landscape the less likely they are to come into contact with one another. Unfortunately, the specifics of this function are generally unknown and, without empirical data on contacts between individuals across a landscape, cannot be quantified. So, given a point of occurrence, managers must assume a uniform distribution of contacts across some extent. The maximum potential extent of this relationship may be informed by the maximum movement potential of the species in question. However such information typically incorporates extreme or atypical movements. While such movements may be important to disease spread, for large mammals the spatial extent represented by these extremes quickly exceeds a landscape extent that may be feasibly managed. Indeed, we found that the spatial extents (radii) from a point of occurrence required to account for all observed contact events (direct = 48.7 km, indirect = 52.2 km) are likely too great to effectively manage. However, by quantifying the distribution of contact probabilities across space we observed that a large percentage of those contact probabilities occurred at much smaller extents.
Equipped with such a distribution of contacts across space, managers can make decisions such as what landscape extent must be considered in order to account for a certain percentage of contacts, or what percentage of contacts are accounted for given limitations for what landscape extent can be realistically managed. This distribution of contacts may be coupled with other information such as resource selection functions to refine probability surfaces for identifying risk for disease spread. We suggest that describing spatial extents of management actions based upon empirically informed probabilistic surfaces of risk is the logical next step in the approach to disease management. Our distributions of spatial contact structures are a new and important component of those surfaces.
We thank J. Brunner, J. Frair, J. Major, and H. B. Underwood for constructive criticism on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
|Bolker BM (1995) Group report: Spatial dynamics of infectious diseases in natural populations. Pages 384–398 in B. T. G. a. A. P. Dobson, editor. Ecology of Infectious Diseases in Natural Populations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
|Keeling M, (Year: 1999) The effects of local spatial structure on epidemiological invasions. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci266: 859–867
|Altizer S,, Dobson A,, Hosseini P,, Hudson P,, Pascual M,, et al. (Year: 2006) Seasonality and the dynamics of infectious diseases. Ecol Lett9: 467–48416623732
|Swinton J, Woolhouse MEJ, Begon ME, Dobson AP, Ferroglio E, et al. . (2002) Microparasite transmission and persistence. Pages 83–101 in A. R. P.J. Hudson, B.T. Grenfell, H. Heesterbeek & A.P. Dobson editor. The ecology of wildlife diseases. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
|McCallum H,, Barlow N,, Hone J, (Year: 2001) How should pathogen transmission be modelled? Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 295–300
|Finkenstädt B,, Grenfell B, (Year: 2000) Time series modelling of childhood diseases: a dynamical systems approach. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat49: 187–205
|Hosseini PR,, Dhondt AA,, Dobson A, (Year: 2004) Seasonality and wildlife disease: how seasonal birth, aggregation and variation in immunity affect the dynamics of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in house finches. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci271: 2569–2577
|Hamede RK,, McCallum H,, Jones M, (Year: 2008) Seasonal, demographic and density-related patterns of contact between Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii): Implications for transmission of devil facial tumour disease. Austral Ecol33: 614–622
|Hamede R,, Bashford J,, McCallum H,, Jones M, (Year: 2009) Contact networks in a wild Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) population: using social network analysis to reveal seasonal variability in social behaviour and its implications for transmission of devil facial tumour disease. Ecol Lett12: 1147–115719694783
|Tierson W,, Mattfeld G,, Sage R Jr,, Behrend D, (Year: 1985) Seasonal movements and home ranges of white-tailed deer in the Adirondacks. J Wildl Manage49: 760–769
|Aycrigg JL,, Porter WF, (Year: 1997) Sociospatial Dynamics of White-Tailed Deer in the Central Adirondack Mountains, New York. J Mammal78: 468–482
|Schauber EM,, Storm DJ,, Nielsen CK, (Year: 2007) Effects of joint space use and group membership on contact rates among white-tailed deer. J Wildl Manage71: 155–163
|Mossong J,, Hens N,, Jit M,, Beutels P,, Auranen K,, et al. (Year: 2008) Social contacts and mixing patterns relevant to the spread of infectious diseases. Plos Med5: 381–391
|Grassly NC,, Fraser C, (Year: 2006) Seasonal infectious disease epidemiology. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci273: 2541–2550
|Totton SC,, Tinline RR,, Rosatte RC,, Bigler LL, (Year: 2002) Contact rates of raccoons (Procyon lotor) at a communal feeding site in rural eastern Ontario. J Wildl Dis38: 313–31912038131
|Richomme C,, Gauthier D,, Fromont E, (Year: 2006) Contact rates and exposure to inter-species disease transmission in mountain ungulates. Epidemiol Infect134: 21–3016409647
|Jorgensen CD, (Year: 1968) Home range as a measure of probable interactions among populations of small mammals. J Mammal49: 104–112
|Minta SC, (Year: 1992) Tests of Spatial and Temporal Interaction among Animals. Ecol Appl2: 178–188
|White PCL,, Harris S,, Smith GC, (Year: 1995) Fox contact behaviour and rabies spread: A model for the estimation of contact probabilities between urban foxes at different population densities and its implications for rabies control in Britain. J Appl Ecol32: 693–706
|Courtenay O,, Quinnell RJ,, Chalmers WSK, (Year: 2001) Contact rates between wild and domestic canids: no evidence of parvovirus or canine distemper virus in crab-eating foxes. Vet Microbiol81: 9–1911356314
|Kauhala K,, Holmala K, (Year: 2006) Contact rate and risk of rabies spread between medium-sized carnivores in southeast Finland. Ann Zool Fenn43: 348–357
|Ji WH,, White PCL,, Clout MN, (Year: 2005) Contact rates between possums revealed by proximity data loggers. J Appl Ecol42: 595–604
|Prange S,, Jordan T,, Hunter C,, Gehrt SD, (Year: 2006) New radiocollars for the detection of proximity among individuals. Wild Soc Bull34: 1333–1344
|Miller MW,, Williams ES,, Hobbs NT,, Wolfe LL, (Year: 2004) Environmental sources of prion transmission in mule deer. Emerg Infect Dis10: 1003–100615207049
|Tamgüney G,, Miller MW,, Wolfe LL,, Sirochman TM,, Glidden DV,, et al. (Year: 2009) Asymptomatic deer excrete infectious prions in faeces. Nature461: 529–53219741608
|United States Monthly Surface Data. National Climatic Data Center website. Available: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html Accessed 2012 Aug 14.
|NYS Streets-Public. NYGIS Clearinghouse website. Available: http://www.nysgis.state.ny.us/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=932 Accessed 2008 Jan 8.
|Clover MR, (Year: 1954) Single-gate deer trap. Calif Fish Game42: 199–201
|Dechen Quinn AC,, Williams DM,, Porter WF, (Year: 2012) Postcapture movement rates can inform data-censoring protocols for GPS-collared animals. J Mammal93: 456–463
|Williams DM,, Dechen Quinn AC,, Porter WF, (Year: 2012) Impact of Habitat-Specific GPS Positional Error on Detection of Movement Scales by First-Passage Time Analysis. PLoS ONE7(11): e48439 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048439. 23144884
|R Development Core Team (2009) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
|Ozoga JJ,, Verme LJ,, Bienz CS, (Year: 1982) Parturition Behavior and Territoriality in White-Tailed Deer: Impact on Neonatal Mortality. J Wildl Manage46: 1–11
|Bertrand MR,, DeNicola AJ,, Beissinger SR,, Swihart RK, (Year: 1996) Effects of Parturition on Home Ranges and Social Affiliations of Female White-Tailed Deer. J Wildl Manage60: 899–909
|White PCL,, Newton-Cross GA,, Gray M,, Ashford R,, White C,, et al. (Year: 2003) Spatial interactions and habitat use of rabbits on pasture and implications for the spread of rabbit haemorrhagic disease in New South Wales. Wildl Res30: 49–58
|Nelson M,, Mech L, (Year: 1992) Dispersal in female white-tailed deer. J Mammal73: 891–894
|Long E,, Diefenbach D,, Rosenberry C,, Wallingford B, (Year: 2008) Multiple proximate and ultimate causes of natal dispersal in white-tailed deer. Behav Ecol19: 1235–1242
|Johnson C,, Phillips K,, Schramm P,, McKenzie D,, Aiken J,, et al. (Year: 2006) Prions adhere to soil minerals and remain infectious. PLoS Pathog2: 32
Table 1 Model comparisons describing temporal dynamics of daily contact probability among deer pairs separated by <11 km in central New York.
|Breakpoints (YDAY)
|a (SE)
|b (SE)
|c (SE)
|p(contact) ∼a+b * sin((YDAY+c) * (π/182.5))
|0.033 (0.001)
|−130 (2.20)
|threshold - piecewise linear - 4 breakpoints
|87, 147, 311, 356
|threshold - piecewise linear - 3 breakpoints
|116, 311, 365
|p(contact) ∼a+b * sin((YDAY) * (π/182.5))
|0.037 (0.001)
|0.020 (0.002)
|p(contact) ∼a
|0.037 (0.001)
|threshold - piecewise linear - 4 breakpoints
|84, 150, 280, 365
|threshold - piecewise linear - 3 breakpoints
|84, 140,365
|p(contact) ∼a+b * sin((YDAY+c) * (π/182.5))
|0.133 (0.003)
|-0.028 (0.001)
|−140 (3.01)
|p(contact) ∼a+b * sin((YDAY) * (π/182.5))
|0.133 (0.001)
|0.021 (0.002)
|p(contact) ∼a
|0.133 (0.001)
Table 2 Characteristics (rank correlation, regression, and goodness-of-fit) of the accuracy of each fold for 5-fold cross validation of selected models predicting temporal contact probabilities among deer in central New York.
|Rank correlation
|Expected vs. observed-regression
|χ2(df = 4)
|Direct Contact - Temporal
|0.012 (0.003)a
|0.762 (0.064)b
|0.011 (0.003)a
|0.629 (0.059)b
|0.017 (0.002)a
|0.546 (0.045)b
|0.009 (0.003)a
|0.762 (0.060)b
|0.012 (0.002)a
|0.637 (0.052)b
|Indirect Contact - Temporal
|0.070 (0.008)a
|0.497 (0.063)b
|0.069 (0.007)a
|0.452 (0.047)b
|0.073 (0.008)a
|0.458 (0.057)b
|0.054 (0.009)a
|0.606 (0.064)b
|0.056 (0.009)a
|0.573 (0.068)b
|threshold model - 4 breakpoints
|0.092 (0.011)a
|0.339 (0.080)b
|0.075 (0.016)a
|0.489 (0.117)b
|0.099 (0.013)a
|0.328 (0.095)b
|0.079 (0.016)a
|0.490 (0.122)b
|0.110 (0.014)a
|0.210 (0.102)b
nt101a Significantly different from 0.0.
nt102b Significantly different from 1.0.
Significant difference between observed and expected.
Article Categories:
Previous Document: Calcium binding-mediated sustained release of minocycline from hydrophilic multilayer coatings targe...
Next Document: A New Standardized Stimulus Set for Studying Need-of-Help Recognition (NeoHelp).


text:
At birth, baby is not afraid of the dark! He needs your help to distinguish the day of the night and set his pace on yours. This is done quickly for the lucky ones. Sometimes it's a little longer! When your child is a little taller, it is often at night that the fears of separation resurface. And around 2-3 years old, it's the nightmares and the night terrors that keep him from sleeping peacefully (and we too at the same time). Ensuring that he does not face complete darkness can help allay his fears … Here are some bright tips (we could not help it), tested and approved.
1. A night light purchased commercially
Warning, you will be spoiled for choice! There are all shapes, sizes and prices. To make your choice, here are some criteria: safety of course but also practicality; better a night light that recharges and can stay on at night without connection.Also prefer a model that your child can turn off and turn on alone (because you too would like to sleep!). There are even night lights that your baby will be able to cuddle while waiting for the sandman.
2.A night light homemade
Alternative to the nightlight purchased commercially …. the night light homemade obviously! For that, you can imagine a lot of varied and very simple models like a led or a light garland deposited in a glass jar with some figurines. Your child, if tall enough, will be able to participate in the production. This will also give you an opportunity to put words on his fears with him, with a little lightness and detachment …
3. A bedside lamp
In a child's room, it is better to multiply the points of light.This allows to offer variations in brightness depending on the time of day. Like a landmark, the light will be different at the time of play, work and falling asleep. To reassure your child while empowering him, you can bet, for bedtime, on the bedside light, placed right next to his bed. You will sleep on your two ears while he, more autonomous and serene, will be able to light his room when he wants.
4. A light garland
You prefer it with stars, balls, flamingos, hearts, pandas? You will be spoiled for choice! The light garland is a real decorative element that has the advantage of transmitting a diffused and subdued light while providing a warm atmosphere.
5.Dawn Simulator
Already know the principle? Your children will love! Based on the principle of light therapy, the dawn simulator will play on the variety of luminous intensity emitted in the bedroom to prepare, facilitate and improve the conditions of falling asleep and waking. A gadget that could enlighten your parents life!
6. A door ajar
What reassures your child is as much your presence as a dim light. Thus, if you have the possibility, you can keep ajar door that overlooks a lighted corridor for example, at least the time of falling asleep.
7. Small fluorescent elements
Fluorescent stars can be easily found on the market and can be glued to the wall or ceiling of your room. Even more original, there are bright stickers on the same principle or even fluorescent paint! We recommend using it with Cloud or Star stencil for example.


text:
Explainer videos are all the rage. And rightfully so! They spark the interest and start the conversation with your soon-to-be customers.
Explainer videos help you communicate better and help your visitors retain more valuable information and motivate prospects to make a purchase. But don't take our word for it:
- Viewers retain 40% more information through watching an explainer videos that reading plain text
- Visitors will remain on a website for an average of 2 minutes longer when there is video to watch
- 64% of online shoppers are more likely to make a purchase after watching a video.
It's hard to argue with numbers like these! We at AHA Factory believe online explainer videos are so important for you future success that we have a dedicated team and product for just that – AHA!Videos. What are you waiting for? Start seeing serious online results and simultaneously give your potential buyers the information they need that accommodates their busy lifestyles.


text:
2 tablespoons butter
2 tablespoons brown sugar
2 cloves garlic, minced
1 tablespoon lemon juice
2 teaspoons soy sauce
½ teaspoon ground black pepper
1 pound halibut steak
Preheat grill for medium-high heat. Place butter, brown sugar, garlic, lemon juice, soy sauce, black pepper in a small saucepan. Warm over medium heat, stirring occasionally, until sugar is completely dissolved.
Lightly oil grill grate to prevent sticking. Brush fish with brown sugar sauce, place on grill. Cook for 5 minutes per side, or until fish can be easily flaked with a fork, basting with sauce. Basting sauce can be heated to serve with the fish. Discard what isn't used.
Serves 2
From prep to table 30 minutes


text:
To create a patient claim, you can begin from two main areas; The Patient's Profile or from their Appointment.
From the Patient Profile
Search for your patient under the Patient tab.
Go into their Billing > Claims and click New Claim
From the Appointment:
Click on the Appointment on the Schedule
On the Appointment pane, scroll down to the Insurance Info area
Click on "Add Claim/ Policy" and then "Add New Claim/ Policy"
Regardless of which way you start, the process from here is the same.
- Choose an insurer. If you need to create a new insurer see Creating an Insurer
- Give the claim a name – this is internal and should be useful in identifying the claim.
The only mandatory information is the Claim Number. For insurers who don't use claim numbers, you can use the patient PHN or another identifier.
Enter any other information you'd like to record or track on the claim. You can always return to this later to fill in more details.
You can enter default billing codes here, if appropriate. For claims where you bill more than one item or area of treatment, you can see under all the codes you've added "Add Additional Billing Codes." This allows you to add on as many billing items as you're needing. And you can also "Add Diagnosis" and "Add Modifier."
All of these will automatically load to an appointment when you add this as the first claim.
Then click Save and you're all set. The claim will now show up under the patient's Claims area.
- Or on the Appointment pane
Further Reading:
Submitting Invoices through a Portal
Hope this helps!


text:
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Small Company Luthiers' started by ricoh, Apr 30, 2005.
Was the wait worth it? Was the guitar as nice as you hoped for
and are you completely satisfied?
YES! My Detemple is my favorite guitar out of everything I have owned. Which includes 50's, 60's strats, and a lot of modern syle strats. Think of it this way, the longer you wait, the more attention your guitar received. I was fortunate to live close to his shop, and was able to see the progress about once a month. Detemple is fanatical about the finishes, and it shows. BE PATIENT!
My wait is coming close to 2yrs he is making a Strat and a Tele for me at the moment, but I'm sure that the length of time I have waited will be worth it.
I've been through hundreds of guitars and this is the best strat I've owned period. It's just a cut above all of the others. I loved my Lentz but sold it vs. the DeTemple. Michael is a class guy who wants you happy. I just sent mine to him to put jumbo frets on and he did it for me in a couple of weeks just to make me happy (even though I picked the small vintage frets myself). I'd nvever hesitate to buy another. I was one of the early purchasers when he just started advertising in VG. I took a chance and it was the best and only custom ordered guitar that ever exceeded my expectations.
DeTemple guitars are very nice indeed!
I just couldn't wait 2 years for a guitar I would like to play now. What does Lentz and DeTemple offer that Suhr, Tyler, Anderson or Grosh do not? I'm certain John Suhr can build you a guitar to your exact specs much faster. Or is it the concensus that Lentz and DeTemple build better guitars than the alternatives?
I am NOT saying that DeTemple guitars are not worth the money or the wait! What I am asking is what does he offer that a shop like Suhr's could not create? What is the justification for such a long wait?
for me, the reason i started looking at lentz was what he and others were talking about. fit, finsh,feel, tone and other than the hardware, the guitar is handmade inc the pick ups.
no frills, fancy tops, nothing other than one would expect for a killer classic fender.
now that i have 3 of these wonderful guitars, i can't think of
a reason to sell them. now, if lentz's keep going through the
roof. a Detemple will be something i will look at.
i have talked to michael on his creations before. i would love to play one of his guitars. (i have his titanium block and saddles on
another guitar)
all of the other copy makers used something other than what scott did on his stuff. either slight style changes, or hardware,
or for me, the pick ups. i think scott hit on something that people were looking for. i'm sure all of the others make fantastic guitars,
lentz just had everything i was looking for.
hey, i got slightly off topic sorry, could not help it
scott talked to me about matching neck and body woods, alot.
michael doubled that, if not more.
i have talked to a few others, one even told me this was nonsense.
i didn't know what to think about that till i got my 1st lentz.
now i'm a believer! anyway, Detemples seem to have quite a following. i would have no problem ordering one.
forgot to mention. you might consider scotts new stuff.
an interesting twist on what he was doing.
btw, his P90's sound killer
A friend of mine, Jeff Snider, traded one of his amps to DeTemple for one of his Strats. I played it and it DOES have a cool mojo about it...extremely resonanant and light...impressive guitar. I would wait...but I've got two Grosh's that I impulsively bought...no waiting!
Hey Detemple owners! Do you have any pictures of your guitars?
I ordered mine about 1 year ago, and I am still waiting. But I am hoping to visit Michael in his shop this summer to talk about my guitars.
Up in the thread, someone implied that the wait for a Lentz was on the same order as the wait for a DeTemple. That certainly was not my experience. My first Lentz was completed in three months. The second took five months. Just my experience...
I'd like to know if there really is any difference between these and a Suhr classic, and if the difference is worth the price and wait. I'm of the opinion that there is a ceiling on how "good" a strat style guitar can be. Vintage strats aside, a well made strat like a Suhr seems as good as it gets. Especially one that is made to your specifications.
There's nothing real magical about a strat provided that one starts with quality wood.
The Suhr is a mighty fine instrument, but it does not have a nitro-cellulose lacquer finish. This is a significant part of the vintage tone equation.
The wait and cost of a DeTemple is discouraging.
I'm sure it is a stellar guitar, though.
Check out D'Pergo and Morgaine, too.
D'Pergo... yes!
DeTemple and Lentz are fine instruments and I can understand that these guitars have a certain "mojo".
For me, life is too short. 1-2 years is a long time to wait, and I personally would rather be playing than waiting.
Just my opinion.
Well, I got 2 years and counting on my DeTemple strat and tele. A little frustrating to wait for a guitar but I guess no point in moaning about it. Heck, I waited 28 months for a Callaham, which turned out to be a great guitar.
2 years wait time on a guitar? I didn't wait that long for both of my kids combined.
"The Suhr is a mighty fine instrument, but it does not have a nitro-cellulose lacquer finish. This is a significant part of the vintage tone equation."
That is one difference! I'm not so sure that nitro finishes are that important, as I've heard arguments on both sides of the equation. Usually the person finishing in nitro argues for it, and the person arguing against it finishes in poly.
Even if there is a discernable difference, it is worth the extra $2K?
I still go back to my point that the Vintage strat is a reatively simple instrument. At some point, spending more money on a strat will yield seriously diminishing returns. Hell, the only reason I can justify my Suhr is that it has certain things that you do not find on a low dollar Fender (compound radius, jumbo frets, Buzz Fietein, better pickups).
I'm admittedly not a collector of guitars. If I was, the extra money to get a dead on 50's strat may be worth it.
I don't know how you could compare the Suhr with the Detemple if you haven't played a Detemple. I have owned both, to me there is a difference. Suhr makes an excellent guitar. I would never say this guitar is better than that one, blah, blah, blah. Sure, the law of diminishing returns comes into play. The difference to me was in the personal detail that went into the Detemple. It may not be what people are looking for in a strat style guitar. Just because it's a "bolt on" guitar, doesnt mean the same amount of craftmanship can't be put in, like a LP/335/etc. I look at luthiers like artists. Each has their own personal touch. Detemple puts out 2-3 guitars a month, Suhr puts out a lot more. There different. Obviously with a two year wait, enough people think they are worth it.
I have seen D'pergo's web site and it looks nice. Do you have any direct or indirect experience with these guitars? I am curious.
There are other builders besides John Suhr who use alternative finishes. Terry McInturff uses what he calls nitrothane. I think the most important aspects of the finish are how thin it is and how hard it gets. My DeTemple has a pink streak from a red shirt I wore during a gig a month after I received the guitar. It was a hot night and I was sweating like a steer and the color came off of my polyester shirt into the nitro. Now it is like having a super custom paint job. Mike DeTemple made a Strat for me with "my" neck. At the time neither Suhr or Grosh would make a neck that big. Don actually said he wouldn't make a neck that big because it would look freakish. I ordered my DeTemple in January of '03 and received it in March of '04. The wait killed me, but I think less and less of that now and more and more about how wonderful my DeTemple '56 Spirit is. I wouldn't do it again, but I'm happy I did. I get the tone of a great Strat in a beautiful lightweight package. I've gigged with it since receiving it and have never had a problem I couldn't fix easily. The waiting period is because Mike picks out the wood with weight, tone and color in mind and the neck wood ususally is highly figured stuff. My fencepost neck is flamed front and back the length of the neck. Wood like he uses isn't always hanging around waiting for someone to come buy it. My strat weighs 7lbs. 6oz. with a huge neck on it. It is balanced and sounds loud unplugged and has all the strat you want when plugged. I'm blowing Mike's horn here because he made my neck for me when others wouldn't. Definitely worth the wait.
John, it was you. I am not knocking anyone or any brand here. Just stating that Mike agreed to do my neck. I own one of your Teles and love it. I do not use it for entire sets (my band ususally does long sets to keep people up drinking and dancing) because my hand cramps. In late 2002 we had contacted you about doing an ash Strat with a big (really big) maple neck any you didn't want to do the neck and seemed to want to build an alder guitar for me. Not a big deal to me now, although I do believe in the law of diminishing returns and would have liked to have saved a buck at the time. My neck depth is 1.125" at the first fret (not including wire) and 1.25" at the 12th with a uniform 12" radius and a slight "V" on the first 5 - 6 frets transitioning to a nice big "C". I guess I wanted a Suhr a little too early on. LOL. It is nice to know that I have options open to me when I order my alder Strat. It was a frustrating time for me. I went through a lot of guitars and loved some of them, but couldn't get comfortable with them. Seems the older I got the crampier my hand got. Even had a Lentz which was another great Strat, but the 1 5/8" nut made me sound even sloppier than usual. Again, I'm just stating that Mike D. was happy to make my neck for me, those dimensions with a 1 11/16" nut. It's a big piece of maple, but it hasn't moved in the 14 - 15 months I've owned it. I'm very happy with the road that got me to it.


text:
Rabo OmniKassa for RSForm Pro and HikaShop
Geschreven door Arun
maandag 27 augustus 2012
ccOmniKassa, our implementation extension for Rabo OmniKassa now supports RSForm Pro and HikaShop. So with just one extension, Rabo OmniKassa can now be implemtented in 4 Joomla! extensions. The update is fully tested and the documentation is already online.


text:
Engineering cycle
Authorization / Accreditation: CNESER of 28/06/2013
The Engineering Cycle is a multi-disciplinary program, lasting three years, and is characterized by strong technical, scientific and socio-economic content. It is based on diversified educational activities leading engineering students to:
- Understand and master a certain number of scientific fields using knowledge and theoretical tools. To carry out various projects in teams and to practice through the integrated industrial internships, during the personal work of their option executed on an 'industrial facility' and under the supervision of the teaching staff.
- Evolve in a constantly changing economic world, widely open to international exchanges and operate in an ever-changing and multicultural environment.
- Consider real-life complex problems.
Prendre en compte les problèmes réels complexes.