instruction:
In this task, you're given a paragraph and title from the research paper. Your task is to classify whether the given title is suitable or not for the research paper based on the given paragraph. Return "True" if title is proper according to paragraph else "False".
question:
Paragraph: Objectives: Cow and calf performance in a semi-confined cow-calf production system was compared with total confinement using summer-born calves. Material and Methods: The experiment was conducted over 3 yr in eastern Nebraska (ENREC) and 2 yr in western Nebraska (PREC) in a randomized complete block design. Lactating, crossbred beef cows (n = 127 at ENREC; n = 56 at PREC) with summer-born calves were used from November to April. Treatments were (1) drylot feeding or (2) cornstalk grazing with supplementation. Dry-lot pairs were limit fed a crop residue and distillersbased diet to meet energy requirements of a lactating cow. A dried distillers grain-based pellet was supplemented to pairs on cornstalks at a rate of 2.4 kg of DM/pair daily. Dry-lot cow-calf pairs were limit fed 12.1 kg of DM/d throughout the trial. Results and Discussion: At ENREC, cows wintered on cornstalks lost BW and had a 0.46-unit decrease in BCS (P < 0.01), whereas cows in the dry-lot gained BW and had a 0.24-unit increase in BCS. At PREC, BCS increased by 0.03 units for cows wintered in the dry-lot and decreased by 0.26 units for cows wintered on cornstalks (P < 0.04). At both locations, calves fed in a dry-lot had greater ADG and BW per day of age compared with calves offered cornstalk grazing with supplementation (P ≤ 0.03). Implications and Applications: A partial budget suggests that lower winter production inputs compensate for reduced performance of calves when cow-calf pairs are wintered on cornstalks, making residue grazing a viable option in partial confinement systems. 
 Title: Performance of cows and summer-born calves and economics in semi-confined and confined beef systems
answer:
False


question:
Paragraph: Tilapia lake virus (TiLV) is a negative-sense single-stranded RNA (-ssRNA) icosahedral virus classified to be the only member in the family Amnoonviridae. Although TiLV segment-1 shares homology with the influenza C virus PB1 and has four conserved motifs similar to influenza A, B, and C polymerases, it is unknown whether there are other properties shared between TiLV and orthomyxovirus. In the present study, we wanted to determine whether TiLV agglutinated avian and piscine erythrocytes, and whether its replication was inhibited by lysosomotropic agents, such as ammonium chloride (NH 4 Cl), as seen for orthomyxoviruses. Our findings showed that influenza virus strain A/Puerto Rico/8 (PR8) was able to hemagglutinate turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L), and Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) red blood cells (RBCs), while infectious salmon anemia virus (ISAV) only agglutinated Atlantic salmon, but not turkey or tilapia, RBCs. In contrast to PR8 and ISAV, TiLV did not agglutinate turkey, Atlantic salmon, or tilapia RBCs. qRT-PCR analysis showed that 30 mM NH 4 Cl, a basic lysosomotropic agent, neither inhibited nor enhanced TiLV replication in E-11 cells. There was no difference in viral quantities in the infected cells with or without NH 4 Cl treatment during virus adsorption or at 1, 2, and 3 h post-infection. Given that hemagglutinin proteins that bind RBCs also serve as ligands that bind host cells during virus entry leading to endocytosis in orthomyxoviruses, the data presented here suggest that TiLV may use mechanisms that are different from orthomyxoviruses for entry and replication in host cells. Therefore, future studies should seek to elucidate the mechanisms used by TiLV for entry into host cells and to determine its mode of replication in infected cells. 
 Title: Tilapia Lake Virus Does Not Hemagglutinate Avian and Piscine Erythrocytes and NH 4 Cl Does Not Inhibit Viral Replication In Vitro
answer:
True


question:
Paragraph: Mechanistic hypotheses about airborne infectious disease transmission have traditionally emphasized the role of coughing and sneezing, which are dramatic expiratory events that yield both easily visible droplets and large quantities of particles too small to see by eye. Nonetheless, it has long been known that normal speech also yields large quantities of particles that are too small to see by eye, but are large enough to carry a variety of communicable respiratory pathogens. Here we show that the rate of particle emission during normal human speech is positively correlated with the loudness (amplitude) of vocalization, ranging from approximately 1 to 50 particles per second (0.06 to 3 particles per cm 3 ) for low to high amplitudes, regardless of the language spoken (english, spanish, Mandarin, or Arabic). Furthermore, a small fraction of individuals behaves as "speech superemitters," consistently releasing an order of magnitude more particles than their peers. our data demonstrate that the phenomenon of speech superemission cannot be fully explained either by the phonic structures or the amplitude of the speech. these results suggest that other unknown physiological factors, varying dramatically among individuals, could affect the probability of respiratory infectious disease transmission, and also help explain the existence of superspreaders who are disproportionately responsible for outbreaks of airborne infectious disease. It has long been recognized that particles expelled during human expiratory events, such as sneezing, coughing, talking, and breathing, serve as vehicles for respiratory pathogen transmission 1-6 . The relative contribution of each expiratory activity in transmitting infectious microorganisms, however, remains unclear 4 . Much previous research has focused on coughing 7-12 and sneezing 11,13,14 activities that yield relatively large droplets (approximately 50 μm or larger) easily visible to the naked eye. Less noticeable, but arguably more infectious for some diseases, are the smaller particles emitted during sneezing and coughing as well as during breathing 15-17 and talking 16, 18, 19 . These small particles are believed to be generated during breathing and talking from the mucosal layers coating the respiratory tract via a combination of a "fluid-film burst" mechanism within the bronchioles and from vocal folds adduction and vibration within the larynx 6,20,21 . The particles emitted during breathing and typical speech predominantly average only 1 μm in diameter 15-17 and are thus too small to see without specialized equipment; most people outside of the community of bioaerosol researchers are less aware of them. Despite their small size, however, these micron-scale particles are sufficiently large to carry a variety of respiratory pathogens such as measles virus (50-500 nm) 22 , influenza virus (100 nm-1 µm) 23 , and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (1-3 µm) 24 . Indeed, recent work by Yan et al. has confirmed that significant amounts of influenza viral RNA are present in small particles (<5 μm) emitted by influenza-infected individuals during natural breathing, without coughing or sneezing 25 . These small particles are potentially more infectious than larger sneeze-or 
 Title: Aerosol emission and superemission during human speech increase with voice loudness
answer:

False