But in some areas human poop is one of the important food groups - an interesting paper
Anthropogenic Food Subsidy to a Commensal Carnivore: The Value and Supply of Human Faeces in the Diet of Free-Ranging Dogs
James R. A. Butler 1,*, Wendy Y. Brown 2 and Johan T. duToit 3
1 CSIRO Land and Water, GPO Box 2583, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia 2 Canine and Equine Research Group, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia 3 Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, 5230 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-5230, USA
Simple Summary: Free-ranging dog populations are growing worldwide, posing threats to human health and wildlife conservation. Dog population management requires a better understanding of the supply and quality of human-derived food. We studied the diet of free-ranging dogs in a remote area of Zimbabwe to explore the relationships between human waste, dog condition, and fertility, with a focus on the value of human faeces. We found that mammal remains, ‘sadza’ (maize porridge, the human staple) and human faeces were the most important food items, and unlike other items, faeces and sadza were consistently available. Nutritional analysis showed that human faeces was comparatively high in protein and energy content, exceeding that of sadza, and equivalent to mammal remains. Adult female dog condition was good throughout the year, indicating a diet sufficient to maintain fertility, and dogs largely fed alone, suggesting that food was abundant. We conclude that the lack of sanitation allows an important food subsidy to free-ranging dogs, but improved sanitation is unlikely to limit population growth as long as alternative human waste is available. Reproductive control by owners is more likely to reduce fertility rates.
Abstract: As the global population of free-ranging domestic dogs grows, there is increasing concern about impacts on human health and wildlife conservation. Effective management of dog populations requires reliable information on their diet, feeding behavior, and social ecology. Free-ranging dogs are reliant on humans, but anthropogenic food subsidies, particularly human faeces (i.e., coprophagy) have not previously been fully quantified. In this study we assess the contributions of different food types to the diet, and their influences on the social behaviour of free-ranging dogs in communal lands of rural Zimbabwe, with a focus on coprophagy. Free-ranging dog diets, body condition, and sociology were studied amongst 72 dogs over 18 months using scat analysis and direct observations. Human faeces constituted the fourth most common item in scats (56% occurrence) and contributed 21% by mass to the observed diet. Human faeces represented a valuable resource because relative to other food items it was consistently available, and of higher nutritional value than ‘sadza’ (maize porridge, the human staple and primary human-derived food), yielding 18.7% crude protein and 18.7 KJ/kg gross energy, compared to 8.3% and 18.5 KJ/kg for sadza, respectively. Human faeces had protein and energy values equivalent to mammal remains, another important food item. Dog condition was generally good, with 64% of adult females and 74% of adult males in the highest two body condition scores (on a five point scale), suggesting a plentiful and high quality food supply. Dogs largely fed alone, perhaps as a consequence of the small, inert, and spatially dispersed items that comprise their diet, and its abundance. We discuss the relationships between sanitation, human development, the supply of human faeces, female dog fertility, and population control.
a tip of the hat to Sukie who asks if human poop may have been important in the domestication of dogs.
Q: Why was such hollowing out allowed to take place?
A: Well, it's very hard to tell whether the cause is the fact that the president doesn't believe he needs any advice, or whether it's simply the degree of disarray and chaos that has characterized the administration in its first year or whether it is perhaps that the president may have asked some people to serve in these capacities and they've said no because I would speculate that some of the people he might ask would be concerned that if they took the job, he would not be listening because he has not shown any indication that he listens very much and particularly not to relevant facts from science and technology.
He has so far, for example, rejected the advice of his most senior and experienced Cabinet members when it came to whether or not to remain in the Paris accords on climate change. Now, he was advised by James Mattis, his secretary of defense, to stay in. He was advised by Rex Tillerson, his secretary of state, to stay in. He was advised by 600 CEOs of American corporations that it was in the interest of U.S. business that he stay in, and he got out. That sort of outcome would perhaps discourage people who are asked to serve from doing so.
There's the further concern, I think, that a lot of the people who have gone to work for Trump have ended up being tarnished by the experience that he expects complete loyalty. He expects people to lie for him just as he lies himself, and the kind of people who would be competent to serve in OSTP don't want to do that.
The depression during the 1930s brought with it a boom in cycling and protected cycling lanes.. the sort of highway that is considered innovative in the Netherlands and Denmark. Cycling grew to the point where it became a dominate means of personal transport - well above cycling in the Netherlands now. Then it quickly disappeared during the 1950s ... A bit of information from a book and it's Kickstarter project.
Public Support for Gun Violence Prevention Policies Among Gun Owners and Non–Gun Owners in 2017
Colleen L. Barry, PhD, MPP, Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH, Elizabeth Stone, BMus, Cassandra K. Crifasi, PhD, MPH, Jon S. Vernick, JD, MPH, and Emma E. McGinty, PhD, MS
Objectives. To compare public support for 24 different gun policies between gun owners and non–gun owners in 2017.
Methods. We fielded a national public opinion survey in January 2017 using an online panel to measure US adults’ support for 24 gun policies. We compared support among gun owners and non–gun owners.
Results. For 23 of the 24 policies examined, most respondents supported restricting or regulating gun ownership. Only 8 of 24 policies had greater than a 10-point support gap between gun owners and non–gun owners.
Conclusions. Policies with high public support and minimal support gaps by gun ownership status included universal background checks, greater accountability for li- censed gun dealers unable to account for their inventory, higher safety training stan- dards for concealed carry permit holders, improved reporting of records related to mental illness for background checks, gun prohibitions for persons subject to temporary domestic violence restraining orders, and gun violence restraining orders.
Public Health Implications. Although there are important areas where Americans disagree on guns, large majorities of both gun owners and non–gun owners strongly support measures to strengthen US gun laws. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print May 17, 2018: e1–e4. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304432)