Academic literature on the topic 'Council of Bari (1098)'

Context: Recent reports of media have brought great attention to the problem of formalin used by whole sellers and venders in preserving fish. It is evident from several studies that fish items in different markets in Bangladesh are treated with formalin for preservation which is highly hazardous and carcinogenic chemical. Objectives: The study was undertaken to determine the presence of formalin in fishes collected from various wet markets of Tangail and Tongi town. Materials and Methods: From 12 selected wet markets, various species of fishes were collected and presence of formalin was detected using the “formalin detection kit in fish” developed by Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (BCSIR). Results: It was found that 16 fishes were formalin contaminated out of 192 fish samples in which 0% in Santosh bazar, 11.11% in Soi ani bazar, 13.33% in Park bazar, 14.81% in Old bus stand bazar, 0% in Chara bari bazar and 12.82% in New bus stand bazar of Tangail town. On the other hand, 33 formalin contaminated fish out of 171 were obtained in which 0% in Coto bazar, 20% in Gazipura bus stand bazar, 37.5% in Chourasta bazar, 0% in Boro bari bazar, 36.36% in CheragAli bazar and 20% in Tongi bazar of Tongi town. The study indicates that almost 8.33% of fish samples in Tangail town and 19.29% of fish samples in Tongi town were formalin contaminated. Conclusion: The present study revealed that in Tangail town 75% imported fish and 25% local fishes were formalin contaminated whereas in Tongi town, 82% imported fishes and 18% local fishes were formalin contaminated. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/jbs.v21i0.22518 J. bio-sci. 21: 43-49, 2013

Journal of Food Research wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Their help and contributions in maintaining the quality of the journal are greatly appreciated.Journal of Food Research is recruiting reviewers for the journal. If you are interested in becoming a reviewer, we welcome you to join us. Please find the application form and details at http://recruitment.ccsenet.org and e-mail the completed application form to jfr@ccsenet.org.Reviewers for Volume 6, Number 1Ancuta Elena Prisacaru, Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, RomaniaCheryl Rosita Rock, California State University, United StatesCodina Georgiana Gabriela, Stefan cel Mare University Suceava, RomaniaDiego A. Moreno-Fernández, CEBAS-CSIC, SpainEganathan Palanisami, M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, IndiaElke Rauscher-Gabernig, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, AustriaEstela de Rezende Queiroz, Universidade Federal de Lavras, BrazilHamid El Bilali, CIHEAM-Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Bari (IAMB), ItalyIlkin Yucel Sengun, Ege University, TurkeyJelena Vulic, University of Novi Sad, SerbiaJintana Wiboonsirikul, Phetchaburi Rajabhat University, ThailandJose M. Camina, National University of La Pampa and National Council of Scientific and Technical Researches (CONICET), ArgentinaLenka Kourimska, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Czech RepublicLuis Patarata, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, PortugalLupu Mirabela Ioana, Transilvania University Brasov, RomaniaMagdalena Polak-Berecka, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, PolandMarco Iammarino, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Puglia e della Basilicata, ItalyMarwa Ibrahim Abd El Hamid, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Zagazig University, EgyptMassimiliano Renna, Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, University of Bari Aldo Moro, ItalyNingning Zhao, Oregon Health & Science University, , United StatesPalak Gupta, University of South Florida, United StatesQinlu Lin, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, ChinaRenata Dobrucka, Poznan University of Economics, PolandRigane Ghayth, Organic Chemistry-Physics Laboratory, University of Sfax., TunisiaSuresh Kumar, Hanyang University, KoreaVasudha Bansal, Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research-Central Scientific Instruments Organisation (AcSIR-CSIO), India

Journal of Agricultural Studies (JAS) would like to acknowledge the following reviewers for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Many authors, regardless of whether JAS publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers. Their comments and suggestions were of great help to the authors in improving the quality of their papers. Each of the reviewers listed below returned at least one review for this issue. Reviewers for Volume 10, Number 4Ai-Ping Wu, Hunan Agricultural University, ChinaAlessandra M. Lima Naoe, Federal University of Tocantins, BrazilAlexandru Ioan Apahidean, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, RomaniaAnca-Luiza Stanila, National Research Institute for Soil Science, RomaniaAngel Ramon Sanchez Delgado, Universidade federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, BrazilArnaud Z. Dragicevic, IRSTEA, FranceAzwimbavhi Reckson Mulidzi, Agricultural Research Council, South AfricaBenard Kiplangat Rop, University of Nairobi, KenyaCleber Duarte, University of Guararapes, BrazilDarwin Pangaribuan, University of Lampung, IndonesiaEben von Well, Agricultural Research Council, South AfricaEliana Mariela Werbin, National University of Cordoba, ArgentinianEric Krawczyk, University of Michigan, USAFernando Rodrigues de Amorim, State University of Paulista (UNESP), BrazilHabu Saleh Hamisu, National Horticultural Research Institute, NigeriaJorge A. López, University Tiradentes, BrazilLuh Suriati, Warmadewa University, IndonesiaMahyar Gerami, Sana Institute of Higher Education, IranMaría Elena Estrada Martínez, Universidad Metropolitana, EcuadorMaría Francisca Perera, ITANOA, EEAOC-CONICET, ArgentinaMohammed Jamal Uddin, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), BangladeshOlga Mykhailenko, National University of Pharmacy, UkraineOscar Mitsuo Yamashita, Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, BrazilSybelle Mesquita Silva, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, BrazilToncho Gospodinov Penev, Trakia University, BulgariaZakaria Fouad Abdallah, National Research Centre, Egypt Richard WilliamsEditorial AssistantJournal of Agricultural Studies--------------------------------------Macrothink Institute5348 Vegas Dr.#825Las Vegas, Nevada 89108United StatesPhone: 1-702-953-1852 ext.521Email 1: jas@macrothink.orgEmail 2: jas@macrothink.comURL: http://jas.macrothink.org

Akha biochar has the potential to exploit by farmer in Bangladesh. This study was undertaken to assess the perception of Akha biochar to utilize for wheat cultivation in the several farmer’s field of Bangladesh. This study aims to assess farmer’s adaptability on akha biochar for enhancing wheat production in Bangladesh. The utilization of Akha biochar as a source of nutrients supply for wheat production was investigated in this study. Akha Chula produced biochar was used as a Akha biochar source and the BARI Gom 28 was used as a testing plant. Five treatments like control (nothing was added), BARC (Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council) recommended fertilizer for wheat production, 5 kg/decimal biochar only, BARC recommended fertilizer plus 2.5 kg/decimal biochar and BARC recommended fertilizer plus 5 kg/decimal biochar. Same treatment was applied in three separate farmer’s field namely Mansur, Latif and Nayan. Among three farmers, Latif farmer field was highly fertile that resulted highest wheat productivity in several treatments. Result also showed that the BARC recommended dose with 2.5 kg biochar/ decimal produced highest wheat yield among the other treatments in all farmer’s field. These findings suggested that optimum level of Akha biochar amendments have potential benefits to improve soil fertility. The use of Akha biochar in addition to the chemical fertilizers in wheat production systems is an economically feasible and practical nutrient management practice. Our findings urged that reduction of chemical fertilizer application is possible with supplementation of Akha biochar. This study concluded that Akha biochar has the potential to improve soil fertility and productivity of wheat in Bangladesh.

The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the relationship between journey duration, deck level and activation patterns of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis (HPA) and sympathetic adrenal medullary system (SAM) in pigs. A total of 90 pigs were examined. The animals came from three different Italian farms associated with the same slaughterhouse located in Bari (Apulia region-Italy). A group of thirty animals was transported from Pordenone (11 h journey); a second group was transported from Terni (6.5 h journey); a third group was transported from Benevento (3 h journey). The animals were transported in the same vehicle, which complied with the structural characteristics indicated in the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005. The truck was composed of a lorry and a trailer, each one divided into three decks. Only the animals transported in the trailer were tested for the study. Before transportation, blood samples were collected on each farm, at 6:00 a.m., from 30 pigs randomly selected out of 135 pigs ready to be transported. Blood samples were also collected during slaughter to evaluate plasma cortisol, epinephrine and norepinephrine, around 6:00 a.m. A journey duration of 11 h was associated with significantly higher plasma concentrations of stress hormones compared with shorter journeys. This increase was proportional to the journey duration, with the pigs travelling for 6.5 h displaying intermediate concentrations between those noticed after 3 h and 11 h journeys. The interaction between deck and journey distance was not significant on epinephrine, norepinephrine or cortisol levels collected at arrival. There was a significant effect of deck level on norepinephrine levels (p < 0.0001), a tendency to influence epinephrine levels (p = 0.073) but no effect on cortisol levels (p = 0.945). Overall, we observed that an 11 h-long journey seemed to impact negatively on pigs’ HPA-SAM activity, likely requiring the animals to spend more time in the lairage facilities to recover.

Attock-2019 (11AK011) is an elite high-yielding, disease-tolerant, bunch-type (decumbent-2) groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivar, developed at the Groundnut Research Station, Attock, Punjab, Pakistan. The cultivar resulted from the local crossing between two advanced lines, i.e., 01CG001 and 02CG005. The first cross attempt occurred during the 2005 cropping season at the Groundnut Research Station, Attock, and the selection underwent the pedigree method that continued up to the F6 generation. Attock-2019 underwent evaluation regarding its performance concerning yield, disease resistance, and adaptability to numerous yield trials like preliminary, regular, micro-, and national uniform yield trials, including evaluation at farmer fields and agronomic parameters, during 2012-2018, under the varietal code 11AK011. It out-yielded the check cultivar BARI-2011 in micro-yield trials for two consecutive years in Punjab by producing 19.52% and 17.96% yields higher than the said cultivar. Similarly, at the national level, during the national uniform groundnut yield trials in 2016 and 2017, it surpassed the check cultivars Golden and Pothowar by 30.74% (Golden) and 3.46% (Golden and Pothowar), respectively, in different ecological zones of Pakistan. This genotype is of medium duration, with 20%–25% three-seeded pods per plant. The average number of pods per plant ranged from 85–95. Its shelling percentage is high (70%–72%), with a good 100-seed weight (62-66 g). It also possessed good taste, oil content (40.5%), and protein content (21.6%). The cultivar also showed good performance under drought-stress conditions and tolerance to diseases like the Tikka disease and collar rot of groundnut. Attock-2019 can be sown from 1 April to 15 May under Barani conditions of Punjab, with 30:80:30 NPK kg ha-1 at sowing time and an application of 500 kg ha-1 gypsum at the flowering stage. Attock-2019 gained approval for general cultivation in the Punjab Barani tract during the 2021 in 54th Punjab Seed Council Meeting as the approving authority.


 ‘The doctors of tomorrow will be applying knowledge and deploying skills which are at present unforeseen’. This was written by General Medical Council , UK in “Tomorrow’s Doctor” 1993,(General Medical Council, 1993), but this still holds true. We as health care providers strive to provide the best of care to our patients and perhaps doing a good job. You may object to this “perhaps “as obviously at a glance the health care appears optimal. But we do not know that underneath this poise and calm sea are deadly sharks that gulp and bite our results. Statistically speaking, there is one in eleven million risks of being bitten by a shark. In comparison, the risk of patient death occurring due to a preventable medical accident, while receiving health care, is estimated to be one in three hundred. It is obvious that you are safer in diving in the ocean than receiving treatment at a health care facility. Yet it is preventable. This preventable medical accident is the hidden shark of our clinical practice that bites our results without us even knowing about it. Hippocrates defined patient safety as primum no nocere, or “First, do no harm.” Yet we discovered it quite recently. A television program by the name of ” Deep Sleep “ aired in April 1983 first shocked the public that six thousand patients die due to anesthesia-related deaths. In 1983, the Harvard Medical School and the British Royal Society of Medicine jointly sponsored a symposium on anesthesia, deaths, and injuries. They also agreed to share statistics and to conduct studies for all anesthesia accidents. In 1984, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) had established the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF). The foundation marked the first use of the term “patient safety” in the name of a professional reviewing organization. The Australian Patient Safety Foundation was founded in 1989 for anesthesia error monitoring. Both organizations were soon expanded, as the magnitude of the medical error crisis became known. The studies expanded to all specialties, areas, and actual impact was measured. It is now estimated that that healthcare errors impact one in every ten patients around the world, the World Health Organization calls patient safety an endemic concern. Alarming, isn’t it? Yes, it is quite an alarming situation and it is the time that we all must blow the whistle to this global as well as regional problem. We are at a very initial stage where most of us are not even aware of its serious concerns. The waters are infested with sharks, and we must know and learn how to tackle them. The errors typically include surgical, diagnostic, medication, devices and equipment, and systems failures, infections, falls, and healthcare technology. Wrong or missed diagnosis and side effects of drugs are more common. No area of health care delivery is exempt, but they occur more so in an emergency room and outpatient clinic. (Bari, Khan, & Rathore, 2016) Errors are classified as two types: 1. Errors of omission occur because of actions not taken. Examples are not putting a strap to a patient. 2. Errors of the commission occur because of the wrong action taken. Examples include administering a medication to which a patient has a known allergy. You must be wondering why I chose this in a medical education journal. First and foremost, it is one of the serious international health concerns in the current era. Globally, almost a million patients die each year along with the cost associated with medication errors of about $42 billion USD annually. Secondly, the key to the solution lies with medical educationists. By now, you must be wondering how medical educationists could solve the predicament. Well! The solution lies in developing skills like communication, organization, teamwork, leadership, and decision-making. Not just the skills but also patient safety attitudes have to be adapted along with developing a “safety culture” at the workplace (Ayub & Khan, 2018). Our doctors of future and health care centers will only be safe if the safety is taught and assessed, at every level of learning and teaching. The culture of patient safety is created by identifying errors, developing systems based on newer technologies to recognize and correct errors. A broad range of safety culture properties can be organized into multiple subcultures like leadership, teamwork, evidence-based patient care, communication, learning from errors, identifying systems errors, and providing patient-centered care. Currently, the issue is remotely addressed in learning and teaching at both graduate and postgraduate levels. It is imperative that medical educationist should play their role by not only learning but also teaching all the necessary skills required to develop a safe environment for patients. The waters are full of sharks, and we must take protective measures.
 Stay safe
 References
 Ayub, A., & Khan, R. A. 2018. Learning to cure with care:
 Awareness of faculty and medical students about students’ roles
 related to patient safety. J. Pak. Med. Assoc., 68(9).
 Bari, A., Khan, R. A., & Rathore, A. W. 2016. Medical errors;
 causes, consequences, emotional response and resulting
 behavioral change. Pakistan J. Med. Sci., 32(3) doi:10.12669/
 pjms.323.9701.
 General Medical Council, U.K. (1993). Tomorrow’s doctors:
 Recommendations on undergraduate medical education.
 London.

Journal of Agricultural Studies (JAS) would like to acknowledge the following reviewers for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Many authors, regardless of whether JAS publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers. Their comments and suggestions were of great help to the authors in improving the quality of their papers. Each of the reviewers listed below returned at least one review for this issue.Reviewers for Volume 9, Number 3Ahmad Reza Pirali Zefrehei, Gorgan University, IranAlessandra M. Lima Naoe, Federal University of Tocantins, BrazilAlexandru Ioan Apahidean, Univ. of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, RomaniaAna Daniela Lopes, Universidade Paranaense, BrazilAnca-Luiza Stanila, ICPA, RomaniaAndré Luiz Rodrigues Magalhães, UFAPE, BrazilAngel Ramon Sanchez Delgado, Universidade federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, BrazilArnaud Z. Dragicevic, IRSTEA, FranceBenard Kiplangat Rop, University of Nairobi, KenyaCamilla H. M. Camargos, University of Campinas, BrazilCleber Duarte, University of Guararapes, BrazilDarwin Pangaribuan, University of Lampung, IndonesiaEben von Well, Agricultural Research Council, South AfricaEliana Mariela Werbin, National University of Cordoba, ArgentinianEmmanuel E. Omeje, University of Nigeria, NigeriaEric Krawczyk, University of Michigan, USAEric Owusu Danquah, CSIR-Crops Research Institute, GhanaFernando Rodrigues de Amorim, State University of Paulista (UNESP), BrazilGuitong Li, China Agricultural University, ChinaHabu Saleh Hamisu, National Horticultural Research Institute, NigeriaHedayatollah K. Soureshjani, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, IranJacquelin Teresa Camperos Reyes, São Paulo State University (UNESP), BrazilJorge A. López, University Tiradentes, BrazilJuliana Nneka Ikpe, Akanu Ibiam Federal Polytechnic, NigeriaLuh Suriati, Warmadewa University, IndonesiaMahyar Gerami, Sana Institute of Higher Education, IranMaría Francisca Perera, ITANOA, EEAOC-CONICET, ArgentinaMariana Esteves, Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture University of Sao Paulo, BrazilMohamed Mattar, King Saud University, Saudi ArabiaMohammed El Basuini, Kagoshima University, JapanMohammed Jamal Uddin, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), BangladeshNkemkanma Vivian Agi, Rivers State University Port Harcourt, NigeriaOlga Mykhailenko, National University of Pharmacy, UkraineRadu Liviu Sumalan, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary, RomaniaRaul Pașcalău, Banat's University, RomaniaSaiful Irwan Zubairi, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), MalaysiaSarir Ahmad, Abdul Wali Khan University, PakistanShubha Kumari, ICAR-RCER, IndiaSina Nabaei, Azad University, IranSudu Hakuruge Pushpa Malkanthi, Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, Sri LankaSybelle Mesquita Silva, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, BrazilToncho Gospodinov Penev, Trakia University, BulgariaTugay Ayasan, Osmaniye Korkut Ata University, TurkeyUtkarsh R. Moon, Mahatma Gandhi College of Science, IndiaZakaria Fouad Abdallah, National Research Centre, EgyptZeinab Mohammadi Shad, Iowa State University, USAZhao Chen, Clemson University, USA Richard WilliamsEditorial AssistantJournal of Agricultural Studies--------------------------------------Macrothink Institute5348 Vegas Dr.#825Las Vegas, Nevada 89108United StatesPhone: 1-702-953-1852 ext.521Fax: 1-702-420-2900Email 1: jas@macrothink.orgEmail 2: jas@macrothink.comURL: http://jas.macrothink.org

Background:We developed and validated two continuous interferon-stimulated gene (ISG) expression scores (IFN-Score-A and IFN-Score-B) that predict clinical outcomes in SLE. IFN-Score-A includes ISGs typically present in a global interferon signature while IFN-Score-B includes additional ISGs potentially responsive to multiple IFN subtypes [1].We have previously shown that these scores associate with treatment response following rituximab (RTX) therapy within the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) Biologics Register (BILAG-BR), a UK wide study of patients treated with RTX for active SLE following cyclophosphamide and/ or mycophenolate mofetil treatment failure. Specifically, multivariable analysis showed higher baseline IFN-Score-B independently predicted BILAG response at 6 months post treatment [2].We also showed that response of cutaneous lupus to RTX can be poor even when other organs respond well, and that interferons are enriched in the skin of patients with SLE where dysregulated keratinocytes are a source of IFNк [3]. MASTERPLANS is a consortium aimed at identifying therapeutic biomarkers in SLE.Objectives:To investigate how IFN-Score-A and -B associated with skin disease and response to RTX.Methods:Pre-treatment whole blood samples were collected in TEMPUS tubes from subjects undergoing first RTX treatment within BILAG-BR. IFN-Scores were derived using a custom Taqman array as previously described [1]. Clinical response was defined as improvement in BILAG-2004 disease activity, with a maximum of one domain showing persistent BILAG-2004 grade B disease, and no new BILAG grade A or B disease flares at 6 months. The mucocutaneous domain of BILAG was then analysed separately.Results:147 patients were studied, of whom 90 had follow up data available. Baseline BILAG-2004 grade A/B disease activity predominantly affected the mucocutaneous domain in 74/147 (50.3%), musculoskeletal in 61 /147 (41.5%) and renal domain 66/147 (37.4%).At 6 months 59/90 (65.6%) achieved an overall treatment response. Responders showed significantly higher mean IFN-Score-B compared with non-responders (-1.8 vs -2.4, p = 0.04). Among those with active grade A/B BILAG-2004 mucocutaneous disease at baseline, 38/50 (76%) showed improvement within this domain at 6 months. However, among overall non-responders, 7/31 (22.6%) had new or residual BILAG-A mucocutaneous disease at 6 months post RTX, indicating it to be a substantial component of overall treatment failure. In contrast, persistent grade A musculoskeletal disease was seen in 9.7% of non-responders. BILAG-A mucocutaneous disease is characterised by severe manifestations including extensive rashes covering > 18% of body surface area, severe bullous lupus or panniculitis and disabling deep mucosal ulceration. Neither IFN-Score-A nor IFN-Score-B were significantly associated with the severity of mucocutaneous disease at baseline. However, individuals with persistent or new BILAG-A mucocutaneous disease at six months following RTX displayed significantly lower baseline IFN-Score-B than those with improving or residual less severe disease (-3.0 vs -2.1, p = 0.04) after RTX.Conclusion:Low IFN score-B status identified an endotype of severe mucocutaneous SLE which was resistant to RTX therapy in the BILAG-BR cohort. We previously showed that high IFN-score-B independently predicts overall therapeutic response to rituximab. Further work will aim to refine IFN status as overall and organ specific biomarkers in SLE.References:[1] El-Sherbiny et al., Sci. Rep. 2018; 8: 5793.[2] Alase et al., ARD 2019;78:763-764[3] Psarras et al., Nat Commun. 2020; 11: 6149Acknowledgements:We would like to thank the Medical Research Council, National Institute of Health Research, UK for funding the MASTERPLANS projectDisclosure of Interests:Lucy Marie Carter: None declared, Adewonuola Alase: None declared, Zoe Wigston: None declared, Antonios Psarras: None declared, Agata Burska: None declared, Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof: None declared, Elizabeth Hensor: None declared, John Reynolds: None declared, Miriam Wittmann Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, L’Oreal, Novartis and Pfizer, Ian N. Bruce Speakers bureau: GlaxoSmithKline, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, ILTOO Pharma, MedImmune, Merck Serono, Grant/research support from: Genzyme Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Edward Vital Consultant of: Roche, GSK and AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: Roche, GSK and AstraZeneca

An often quoted passage of Arthur Conan Doyle's story "Silver Blaze" makes the point that the absence of data can be a datum. When the mystery of the purloined racehorse seems insoluble, Police Inspector Gregory asks Sherlock Holmes:… "Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?" "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes…. The dog that does not bark attracts no attention to itself. It takes insight to recognize that a nonhappening can be an alarm. Herman Daly showed a Holmeslike insight when he called attention to the bark that was absent from a would-be authoritative study made by a group of economists reporting to the prestigious National Research Council in 1986 on population growth and economic development. In 108 pages of text there is not a single mention of carrying capacity, a concept that should be central to all discussions of population and environment. It is as though gravity were left out of a treatise on the dynamics of the solar system; or assets and liabilities were left out of a textbook on business accounting. If civilization survives another century, and if there are still economists, a history of what will then be called "modern economics" may well begin with a belittling account of the "premodern" economics of the twentieth century in which carrying capacity plays no role. Nothing shows so well the impermeability of the barriers between academic disciplines as the silence of economists about a concept that dominates discussions of game management, a discipline concerned with population and environment problems as they affect animals other than Homo sapiens. Economists, dealing only with human populations, probably unconsciously embrace the human exemptionist doctrine (Chapter 15), though their commitment is seldom no more than implicit in their statements (Box 20-1). Two serious criticisms can be leveled against most of the authors quoted in the box. First, it is obvious that they desperately yearn for a world without limits. This is particularly evident in the last quotation, by Gro Harlem Brundtland, who chaired the United Nations commission that issued this statement. One can praise the heart of the commission without agreeing with the head.

Chapter 10 explores the changing uses of Byzantine canon law among the Italo-Greeks in the thirteenth century. The Greek churches and monasteries of southern Italy became increasingly integrated into the administration of the Roman church following the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). Nonetheless, as the Salentine Group shows, some Italo-Greeks continued to copy nomocanons as late as the fourteenth century. Chapter 10 argues that the manuscripts retained a value as sources of cultural authority, explaining and justifying Greek religious ritual, even as they lost their value as sources of legal authority. To illustrate this point, the chapter begins with a discussion of Nektarios of Otranto’s Three Chapters, a polemical work of c. 1220–1225 that relies heavily on citations of Byzantine canon law to refute Latin attacks on Greek rites and customs. It then considers who these refutations were aimed at, looking in particular at the abortive attempt of Archbishop Marinus of Bari to outlaw Greek baptism in 1232 as a specific example of Latin criticism. It notes, however, that criticism like this from the official church hierarchy was rare and that controversy was probably more restricted to an unofficial, local level. The chapter concludes by examining evidence that canon-law based defences of Greek religious practice were not just aimed at Latins but also at other Greeks. As many Italo-Greeks began to adopt (consciously or otherwise) Latin rites into their worship, more conservative sections of the community attempted to resist such cultural change by mobilising canon law as polemic.