text:
Volume 14 // Number 1 // Article 1
Economic Benefits of Genetically-modified Herbicide-tolerant Canola for Producers
Michael Gusta, Stuart J. Smyth, Kenneth Belcher, and Peter W.B. Phillips
University of Saskatchewan, University of Ottawa
David Castle
University of Edinburgh
Genetically-modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) canola was introduced in Western Canada in 1995. In 2007, a producer survey elicited answers to 80 questions regarding their experiences, including production practices, tillage and herbicide use, control of volunteer canola, and weed-control practices. The survey revealed that the new technology generated between $1.063 billion CAD and $1.192 billion annual net direct and indirect benefits for producers from 2005-2007; this is partly attributed to lower input costs and partly attributed to better weed control. One major concern in the early years following introduction was the potential for HT traits to outcross with weedy relatives or for GMHT canola to become a pervasive and uncontrollable volunteer in non-canola crops, either of which would offset some producer gains. The survey largely discounts that concern. More than 94% of respondents reported that weed control was the same or had improved, less than one-quarter expressed any concern about herbicide resistance in weed populations, 62% reported no difference in controlling for volunteer GM canola than for regular canola, and only 8% indicated that they viewed volunteer GM canola to be one of the top five weeds they need to control.
Key words: genetically modified, herbicide tolerant, canola, economic impact, land management, herbicide use, benefits.Introduction
Innovation is pervasive in agriculture, but few single innovations have generated the impacts or controversy of genetic modification. Advocates and critics alike have argued and debated the economic impacts from producer adoption of genetically modified (GM) crop varieties, with a disturbing lack of empirical data. The paucity of direct producer data has had a knock-on effect on diffusion of the technology, as other nations have been unconvinced of the costs and benefits of approving and adopting the technology to their markets.
Herbicide-tolerant (HT) canola has been produced in Western Canada since 1995, which provides the opportunity to undertake an extensive analysis of adoption practices and impacts. HT canola was initially introduced in 1995 through an identity-preserved production and marketing system (Smyth & Phillips, 2001), with unrestricted commercial production beginning in 1997. The subsequent adoption was relatively rapid, reaching 25% in the initial year, 84% by 2002, and 98% by 2007. There are currently three HT systems available to producers—two developed through genetic modification (GMHT) and one through mutagenic breeding. AgrEvo's (now Bayer CropScience) Liberty Link™ and Monsanto's Roundup Ready™ varieties are commonly referred to as GMHT varieties. Pioneer Hybrid's imidazolinone-tolerant Clearfield® system was developed by mutagenesis. These technologies all allow for in-crop spraying of broad-spectrum herbicides, with little or no damage to the HT crop.
This article examines the economic benefits of GMHT canola adoption reported by Western Canadian producers in a survey undertaken in 2007. The next section reviews the previous efforts to document the economic benefits of GMHT canola. Then, we describe the methodological framework for the survey and present the results and analysis of the survey. The article closes with a discussion of the impacts from GMHT canola and some concluding thoughts.
Eighty-one percent of the cultivated land in Canada lies in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, and virtually all of the canola is produced there. Western Canadian farms are relatively large, averaging 1,400 acres. The top three crops from 2002-2007 in terms of seeded acreage were spring wheat, canola, and barley. Total canola acreage significantly increased after the adoption of GMHT varieties in 1995, rising 31% to an average of 13.9 million from 2003-2008, up from an average of 10.5 million acres from 1991-1995 (Statistics Canada, n.d.).
A series of studies have examined the impact of innovation on returns to canola producers. A number of studies between 1977 and 1998 modeled the canola sector to estimate the economic impact of the transition from rapeseed to canola (Nagy & Furtan, 1978; Ulrich & Furtan, 1985; Ulrich, Furtan, & Downey, 1984) and to provide a range of ex-ante estimates of the impact of GMHT on producers, consumers, and the environment (Aulie, 1996; Malla & Gray, 1999; Mayer & Furtan, 1999). All estimated significant returns from those changes, with internal rates of return estimated to be as high as 101%. All of the ex-ante forecasts, however, raised the possibility that the technology could be somewhat self-limiting if the HT traits outcrossed to weedy relatives or if GMHT canola persisted and became an unwelcome volunteer in subsequent crops.
Beginning close to 2000, a number of scholars and practitioners attempted to assess the early prospects for future returns to producers. The bulk of the producer data that was used for these studies was gathered between 1999 and 2002; one study gathered data as late as 2004. The earlier data was gathered at the peak transition period between conventional canola and GMHT canola, and the observances from these studies provide an excellent point of reference for the results of our survey.
Phillips (2003) undertook a four-year retrospective analysis of the economic impact of the introduction of GMHT canola. Using 1995-2000 data, Phillips estimated the broad economic impacts of GMHT canola on the global industry and economy, as well as the direct and indirect effects on producers. Phillips identified the effect of higher seed costs, lower herbicide costs, fewer herbicide applications, lower dockage, and earlier seeding (adjusted for the yield drag in early varieties) as roughly $11.141/acre by 2000. While this generated an estimated $103 million gross producer gain in 2000, farmers did not net the full amount, as lower prices due to increasing supply eliminated $32 million of this figure. Producers were estimated to net $70 million in 2000.
The Canola Council of Canada (CCC, 2001) published a report based on data collected in 1999 that quantified the agronomic and economic impacts associated with GMHT canola. Adoption of GMHT canola by 2001 reached 80%, which allowed for in-field comparisons of transgenic and conventional varieties. The study identified the key producer impacts as improved yield, slightly increased fertilizer usage, increased seed costs, decreased tillage use, improved soil moisture conservation, decreased summer fallow, improved rotation flexibility, lower dockage, and decreased herbicide inputs. Overall, the study reported that direct producer benefits per acre of GMHT canola averaged $10.62 in 2000, yielding a net gain of about $66 million for producers.
Fulton and Keyowski (1999) noted that the adoption of an innovation depends upon the perceived usefulness and ease of use to adopters; later adopters depend on the opinions and experiences of early adopters. Mauro and McLachlan (2008) conducted a survey in 2003 to assess producer knowledge and perceptions of GM crops and the associated risks. A mixed methodology approach was applied, with 15 producer interviews being used to develop a questionnaire. Mauro and McLachlan found in their survey that 77% of GMHT canola producers were satisfied with the results of GMHT canola. They found that the decision to adopt and to continue to use was not solely an economic decision, as only 47% of producers identified GMHT canola was more profitable than conventional varieties, and only 21% indicated that GMHT canola offered higher yields. Moreover, they found that producers viewed the benefits of GMHT to be decreasing, at least partly due to the 38% of producers who had experienced GMHT volunteer canola on their land. About 80% of these producers concluded the volunteers came mainly from their own production, while 8% reported finding volunteer canola that they suspected originated elsewhere. The authors' concluded that the earlier estimates of the benefits of GMHT canola were suspect, as they did not account for the increasing cost of managing this volunteer canola for producers and their neighbors.
The CCC (2005) released a second report that compiled the results from three different weed surveys conducted between 2001 and 2003, as well as the results from a 2004 producer survey that examined the management of volunteer GMHT canola in subsequent crops. This report provided a comprehensive review of the impact of volunteer canola as a weed and assessed the differences between the various GMHT canola systems. The study discovered little difference between canola systems in regards to management of volunteer canola in subsequent crops. Conventional canola producers were found to make slightly fewer pre-seed passes to apply herbicides yet tilled more than GMHT systems.
Studies by Phillips (2003), the CCC (2005), Beckie et al. (2006) and Kleter et al. (2007) found correlations between adoption of GMHT varieties and adoption of zero-tillage systems. The CCC (2005) also that found 60% of GMHT adopters experienced a carry-over benefit of improved weed control, which was judged to be equivalent to the cost of one herbicide application. Volunteer canola was found to be the fourth most common weed targeted by herbicide; while it was not the sole target of herbicide applications, the estimated cost of controlling for volunteer canola was determined to be around $2.00/acre. Overall, the study found the benefits of growing GMHT varieties to be greater than that of conventional varieties.
The data gathered and reported in the majority of these reports and surveys come from the early part of the 21st Century. Since then, the level of adoption has increased substantially and the number of acres seeded to canola has doubled. The results of the two CCC reports and the Phillips paper provide a solid research base on which to build; the survey used in this study was developed from these three pieces of research. Where possible, these results are compared to our own findings.
Theoretical Framework
Measuring the economic value or impact of an innovation is challenging. The myriad of criterion make any modeling efforts of limited value due to the inability of any model to capture all of the relevant economic attributes related to an innovation. In conjunction with this is how much of a specific impact can be directly correlated to the innovation, and how much is an indirect impact, which therefore has to be discounted at some specific rate. So, while modeling the economic impact of innovation is not a simple, nor a perfect process, models do exist that provide us with the best assessment presently available.
Past waves of technological change in the agri-food sector have delivered a relatively straightforward distribution of benefits and costs (see Alston, Wyatt, Pardey, Marra, & Chan-Kang, 2000). As is demonstrated above, past assessments have shown a high rate of return for canola research. In 1970, 83% of research spending was public investment. By 1997, the private sector's share had grown to 80% of the total (Malla, Gray, & Phillips, 2004). This funding shift is evident in the registration of new varieties. Prior to 1973, all varieties were public; in the 1990-98 period, 86% of the varieties were private. This large shift in emphasis from public to private research is due to the large increase in private-sector investment rather than a reduction in public research.
In an earlier study, Smyth and Phillips (2001) estimated that in 2000, the initial two developers—AgrEvo and Monsanto—had recognized a net present value in excess of $100 million. This value was realized five years after the initial commercialization. When economic theory and the literature of returns to research are juxtaposed with the rise of private investment (often for biotechnology-based effort) in the canola sector, Phillips (2002) estimated gains for research to yield an internal rate of return (IRR) between 20% and 95%. This figure may actually be larger for specific biotechnology-based developments because of the reduced cost of the research and the increased array of attributes that can be bred into the seed, which add new value to consumers. Malla et al. (2004) examined the IRR to canola from 1960-1999, concluding that the IRR has declined over time. Their analysis states that early rates of return to the development of canola varieties exceeded 25%, but towards the end of the time period they examined, IRR began to approach rates more consistent with market returns.
Clearly, there are economic benefits from investment in canola variety development, especially the development of HT canola. Numerous accusations have been made against the developers of HT canola, suggesting that the vast majority of these benefits accrue to the developers and that only a limited level of benefits are recognized by producers. In an attempt to assess the distribution of benefits to producers, we build upon the earlier work of Phillips (2003) and have gathered data on the economic benefits at the producer level from the adoption of HT canola in 2006.
The Survey
To gather the data needed for this research project, a four-page, 80-question survey was developed and distributed to agricultural producers. The time required to complete the survey was estimated to be 30-45 minutes. The survey was comprised of six major areas of focus: weed control; volunteer canola control; canola production history; specific weed control measures on canola fields and subsequent crops; crop and liability insurance; and general demographics. Open, closed, and partially open questions were asked in the survey. Space was provided to enable producers to more fully explain changes within the production system in order to facilitate a more complete understanding of producer choices. Where a quantification of producer attitudes was required, a simple three-point scale was used, which allowed for positive, neutral, and negative responses. The University of Saskatchewan's Research Ethics Board approved the survey design (BEH# 06-318).
Forty thousand surveys were distributed across the three Prairie Provinces in March and April 2007. Distribution of the survey was through Canada Post's un-addressed ad-mail service, providing a cluster sampling method. This allowed for a selection of farms as defined by Canada Post within the postal code system. Participant selection was based upon geographic location in five targeted regions separated by provincial boundaries and based on historic canola production levels. A high production and low production region in each of Alberta and Saskatchewan and a high production area in Manitoba were surveyed. The target population was producers having more than 80 acres of cropland. Surveys were randomly distributed through the regions.
A lottery prize was employed to encourage the completion of the survey. The lottery consisted of two draws among eligible survey respondents for consumer electronic goods valued at $250 each. In total, 685 surveys were received, with 571 meeting our population criteria. Outliers within the database were identified and removed utilizing the box plot method as developed by Tukey (1977) and outlined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)/SEMATECH (2006). Extreme outliers, or upper outliers, were identified based on the amount of acres treated by the herbicide. Table 1 outlines the distribution of usable responses across the three Prairie Provinces and between areas of low and high canola production. While the number of respondents relative to the number of surveys distributed indicates a low response rate (1.71%), it is important to note that the Canada Post's un-addressed ad-mail service delivers surveys to all mail addresses within the identified region. There is no way to know how many households received surveys that were not farmers or did not produce canola. Therefore, the actual response rate is unknown and is most certainly greater than what can be calculated here. The important point is that the number of valid responses for a survey of this size provides us with a confidence level of 95%.
Table 1. Distribution of usable survey responses (n=571).
The demographics of the sample population are similar to the source population as reported in the Statistics Canada Farm Census (2006; Table 2). The average age of farmers is 52 in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and 51 in Manitoba. Our survey population has a substantially higher level of post-secondary education, whereas the census data identifies the percentage of producers with a university degree in Manitoba at 8%, Saskatchewan at 8%, and Alberta at 9%.2 Average farm size of the sample population was greater than that of census data, which showed that the average Alberta farm size was 1,055 acres, Saskatchewan was 1,450 acres, and Manitoba was 1,000 acres.
Table 2. Producer demographics.
The respondents to this survey had relatively large operations (1,656 acres), with, on average, more than one-quarter of their operation dedicated to canola (Table 2). The average respondent has farmed for 30 years and belongs to the '45 to 54' age group. These producers reported growing canola for an average 20 years and first adopting GMHT canola in 1999; on average, they reported that they removed conventional canola varieties from their crop rotations by 2000.
For the 2005 and 2006 crop years, farmers reported that 48% of their acreage used Roundup Ready™ varieties, 37% used Liberty Link™, and 10% used Clearfield®. These adoption rates are consistent with the adoption rates provided by the canola industry, which identifies Roundup Ready™ market share at 44%, Liberty Link™ at 40%, and Clearfield® at 11% (C. Anderson [Program Manager, CCC], personal communication, 2008).
Survey Results and Analysis
The survey asked questions that explored three major economic impacts from the adoption of GMHT canola: cost of weed control, control of volunteer canola, and second-year benefits and costs.
Cost of Weed Control
To determine if a change in weed-control practices of Western Canadian producers has occurred, the two methods of weed control—chemical herbicide use and tillage practices—have to be examined.
Producers were asked if they have changed their chemical herbicide use over the past 10 years, and 68% of respondents reported that a change had occurred. Of those reporting a change, 94% found weed control effectiveness to have improved or remained the same (Table 3). More than 60% of respondents reported that previously difficult-to-control weeds—such as wild mustard, stinkweed, and cleavers—can now be more easily controlled. More than one-third of producers reported that control over difficult weeds in canola fields is unchanged from the situation that existed prior to the commercialization of GMHT canola. Just more than 5% of respondents reported that weed control has become less effective. While the majority of those reporting a change in weed control after adopting GMHT varieties attributed the changes to the new technology, about 36% of the changes in weed control were not related to adoption—other agronomic circumstances (both positive and negative) were at work.
Table 3. Attribution of change in weed control after adopting GMHT canola.
The survey found that many producers have moved to minimum or zero-tillage operations,3 with more than half of the respondents indicating that they no longer use tillage operations in their cropping system, with very little difference in adoption rates between the three HT technologies (Table 4). Nevertheless, more than 46% of producers reported that they continue to use a mix of cultivation and harrow as part of their seeding practices.
Table 4. Tillage operations and GMHT canola systems.
Land management practices added some incremental costs. In 2006, 24.7% of farmers preformed harrow operations at least once, conducting an average of 1.2 passes on 88% of their canola crop. The CCC (2001) estimated that harrowing cost $3.50 per acre. Assuming the costs have not changed, the harrow operations on GMHT canola fields would be about $3.724 for each harrowed acre; scaled up to the entire canola production area, this would add $0.92 to the cost of the average acre seeded to canola.5 Continuing cultivation similarly adds costs. The survey revealed that 35.9% of farmers preformed cultivation operations on their canola fields, conducting an average of 1.51 passes on 88% of their canola crop. Using the CCC (2001) estimates of $6.00 per cultivated acre, the cost of these sustained operations would add $7.986 for each cultivated acre; scaled up to the entire canola acreage, the average cost is $2.86 per acre of canola seeded.
Comparing the CCC (2001) survey of farmer practices in 1999 with our survey of farm practices in 2006, it would appear that the total number of tillage operations for transgenic canola dropped from 2.73 passes to 0.74 passes per acre (Table 5). Assuming the cost of tillage operations have remained constant since 1999 (i.e., $6.00 per acre for cultivation and $3.50 for harrowing), the expected cost of all tillage conducted on canola acres would have been reduced by $10.25 per acre, or 73%. Scaled up for the size of the canola crop in 2006, this saving would translate into $153.8 million (assuming tillage on conventional canola has remained the same).
Table 5. Comparison of harrowing and tillage costs: 1999 to 2006.
Tillage is used for both seeding and for weed control. When asked explicitly about weed-control measures conducted on the 2006 canola crop, 77% of producers reported they only used herbicides, while 28% of producers reported they combined the use of herbicides and tillage, and 7% reported they only used tillage for weed control. Use of tillage has markedly decreased since 2000, when 89% of producers reported conducting tillage operations as a form of weed control (CCC, 2000). Perhaps most importantly, weed control had long been one of the main limiting factors in more producers moving both to lower-tillage agriculture and to greater cultivation of canola. The commercialization of GMHT canola and the superior weed control it offers has contributed to the increased utilization of minimum-or zero-tillage operations. The costs of the various weed-control systems are identified in Table 6.
Table 6. Cost of weed control ($CAD).
Table 6 shows that the cost of tillage has declined; however, when a comparison of financial costs is undertaken, tillage remains cheaper than herbicide weed-control options. The reported cost for tillage corresponds to the per-pass custom tillage rate in Saskatchewan (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, 2008). Custom tillage rates vary depending on the size of equipment and hours of annual use. The range of tillage costs in Saskatchewan for 2008-09 was $5.33-$7.79. While the reported cost of one tillage pass in Table 6 is $8.07 (marginally above the provincial range), this cost is for one pass of tillage equipment, and in an average summerfallow year, a field would be tilled 4-6 times. Finally, tillage is typically done by the individual producer who will not have added in a cost for their time to till a field. The reality is that when environmental aspects like moisture conservation and soil erosion are factored in, the cost of tillage increases even further. Table 6 confirms that the producer costs drop the year following production of GMHT canola as respondents identify a reduction in herbicide cost for weed control of 52.7%.
Canola production has increased and producers are growing canola more frequently in their crop rotations. A concern with this increase in frequency of canola—and associated herbicides—in the rotation is the potential for the development of herbicide resistance in weed populations. The survey asked producers about their experiences in the management of herbicide resistance in weeds. Twenty-eight percent of producers reported that management of herbicide resistance in weeds has improved, 47% reported it was unchanged, and 24% reported herbicide resistance in weeds was on the rise. Table 7 identifies present survey findings on the issue of weed populations developing herbicide resistance from GMHT platforms. Producers using Clearfield® and Liberty Link™ canola were more likely to report a rise in herbicide resistance in weed populations; 81% of producers using Roundup Ready™ identified that herbicide resistance was the same or weed control had become easier.
Table 7. Management of herbicide resistance in weed populations.
Producers were specifically asked about weed control measures taken on their 2006 canola crops. The responses to this question closely reflected the responses to the question on the management of herbicide resistance in weeds, with 17% reporting that no measures had been used to control weeds in their canola fields, 47% reported only using herbicides, 7% reported only using tillage, and 27% reported the use of tillage and herbicide. No significant difference was found between the three HT systems. Producers utilizing tillage and herbicide were found to be more likely (53%) to make only one herbicide application than those only utilizing herbicide to control weeds (39%).
When questioned about herbicide applications to 2006 canola crops (Table 8), 43% of respondents reported a single application, 37% made two applications, and 12% reported three or more applications. Producer applications are consistent for in-crop spraying compared to 10 years ago. Data from 1998 (CCC, 2000) indicates that 47% of producers made more than one pass, 37% made two passes, and 14% made three or more passes.
Table 8. Herbicide weed-control measures on 2006 canola crops.
One additional reference check was to compare the absolute and relative costs of the four potential weed-control systems individually and then as they are combined. Table 9 presents the comparative costs of weed control by the four canola systems: conventional, Clearfield®, Liberty Link™, and Roundup Ready™. Each system is reported in three different ways; first, the average reported cost of weed control of each system; second, the average reported cost of weed control for producers that only grew a single system in 2006; and third, the average reported cost of weed control of producers who used more than one system. While the overall and single-use cost of weed control for producers using Roundup Ready™ varieties was lower than that of other systems, producers who reported using Roundup Ready™ with other systems reported their cost of weed control significantly increased. While the relative costs were higher for Clearfield® users, the pattern was the same. In contrast, producers using the Liberty Link™ system reported their costs were higher if the system was uniquely used but dropped if other systems were combined; this may be at least partly because these producers also reported that they faced a harder time managing herbicide resistance in weed populations.
Table 9. Mixtures of canola systems and associated cost of weed control ($CAD).
Control of Volunteer GM Canola
One concern with the increased use of GM agricultural crops—and of GMHT canola in particular—is that volunteer GMHT canola could become a major in-crop weed because those varieties are difficult to control with common broad-spectrum herbicides. Mayer and Furtan (1999) speculated that heavy use of a technology such as GMHT canola could be expected to increase the weedy potential of volunteer canola in the future. Given that producers have demonstrably planted canola with increasing frequency, it would be logical to assume that the challenges of controlling volunteer canola could be increasing. To test this concern, a section of the survey asked producers about the effect of volunteer canola on producer operations and decision-making processes.
When asked an open ended question about the top five weeds targeted by weed-control measures, 92% of producers did not mention volunteer canola; the 8% of producers who did mention volunteer canola listed it as their fourth or fifth most problematic weed. When asked specifically about controlling volunteer canola, 35% responded that it required effort to control. One might conclude from this that volunteer canola is viewed mostly as a nuisance and not a major economic drain on their operations, which coincides with the Canola Council of Canada's 2005 study. These results also support the conclusion by Beckie et al. (2006) that there has been no marked change in volunteer canola as a 'weed' as a result of the transition to GMHT systems.
Advances in control of volunteer canola appear to be keeping pace with the increase in canola acreage. When asked whether they were targeting volunteer canola, 62% of producers identified that they no more focused on volunteer canola than they did 10 years ago. About 74% of respondents reported that they are able to control volunteer canola more easily or about the same as 10 years ago. The 26% that find volunteer canola control to be more difficult than 10 years ago also reported that they are spending more on controlling volunteer canola. Only 9% of producers reported that the loss in yields due to volunteer canola have worsened over the last decade.
The cost of controlling volunteer canola remained constant for 73% of producers over the past decade. Twenty-seven percent of producers reported increased costs, up an average of $4.23/acre. A comparison of responses between ease of control and change in targeting revealed that 77% of those who found volunteer canola more difficult to control were spending more for targeting control measures.
When asked specifically about fields in 2006 that were seeded to canola in 2005, 36% reported that they did not conduct any weed-control measures specifically for volunteer canola. The rest made some investments: 46% sprayed herbicides, 8% conducted tillage operations, and 11% conducted both tillage operations and sprayed herbicide. A range of herbicides were used—58% used a single herbicide application, 29% made two applications, and 13% reported three or more applications. While the average reported cost of these weed-control operations was $12.70/acre, many respondents noted that these weed-control measures were not specifically undertaken to control volunteer canola.
Another concern with the proliferation of GMHT canola is the potential that plants could volunteer on land that was not previously seeded to canola, resulting in a new weed species requiring additional control measures. Twenty-two percent of producers indicated that they had conducted control measures for such occurrences, with 13% spraying herbicide, 5% tilling, and 3% both spraying and tilling. Once again, while the average cost reported was $14.30/acre, many producers indicated that this cost was not solely to control volunteer canola but was directed at a number of weeds, which included volunteer canola.
One option many producers exercise is to take preventative measures to limit the potential for GMHT canola to volunteer in their fields. Fifty-two percent of respondents reported that they had undertaken measures to prevent volunteers—64% of these farmers cleaned machinery between fields and 13% restricted use of GMHT canola on their fields through restrictive rotations or other measures. Some larger farms have, however, adopted the practice of growing canola every year. With three different platforms to choose from and weed and insect management enabled, the likelihood of disease is reduced and volunteers are not an issue.
One common practice in Western Canada to control for disease and volunteers has been to limit canola in the crop rotation. Crop insurance agencies in Western Canada recommend that canola be seeded on a field at most once every four years to minimize insect populations and plant diseases from developing. While one might have assumed that the risk of volunteers might encourage farmers to lengthen their rotations, the CCC studies suggest that practice has remained relatively unchanged since 2000 (CCC, 2000, 2005). Producers generally seed canola on the same field every 3.5 years; in 2005 and in 2006 they seeded an average of 450 acres to canola. The survey identified that 41% of producers grow canola in a rotation of less than four years (Table 10). One reason for producers to ignore the crop insurance recommendations could be that the benefits of GMHT canola production are greater than the risk of having to spray an insecticide later in the crop season to control insects. The adoption of GMHT canola seems to have affected crop rotations in two distinct ways. First, 26% of respondents reported that their crop rotation changed as a result of adoption. Some farmers have removed summerfallow from their rotations, while others are able to grow canola following another crop that previously would not have been an option. Second, in addition to changing rotations, these respondents reported that over the past decade, adoption of GMHT canola directly contributed to an additional 350 acres of their land being seeded to canola.
Table 10. Field rotations with HT canola.
With canola grown in rotations shorter than four years, one must assume that the abiotic losses of the crop are offset by the increased security or profits from the production of GMHT canola. Use of a GMHT system lessens the risk of biotic losses from competition between the crop and weeds, a highly likely event in this crop in Western Canada, whereas abiotic or extreme environmental conditions such as drought, flooding, and frost are less likely events. Given production costs for GMHT canola are higher than for conventional canola (CCC, 2001), the mitigation of biotic risk and associated damage must be less than the risk and associated damage from potentially more serious—but less likely—abiotic stressors.
Multi-year Benefits
Improvements in weed control from GMHT canola can have a spillover effect on the same field from one year to the next. Producers were asked if they experienced any spillover benefits in terms of fewer weeds or easier weed control on fields that had been previously seeded to GMHT canola. Fifty-four percent reported a second-year benefit from the technology, and 63% of those reporting assigned an economic value to this benefit worth an average of $15.05/acre. Table 11 illustrates the range of benefits that accrue across the Prairie region, divided into benefits to producers with lower-than-average (low) and greater-than-average (high) levels of GMHT production. The Alberta low and high, the Saskatchewan low and high, and Manitoba correspond to the previously identified levels of production. The benefits reported by Alberta low and high producers are significantly higher than for the other regions. In Saskatchewan, it is the area identified as low in canola production that realizes the highest level of benefits. This area is along the western and southern areas of the province, areas that had little canola production prior to the commercialization of GMHT canola. Spillover benefits in Manitoba are lower than the other regions on average, but not significantly. These results would tend to suggest that the spillover benefits increase somewhat in the more western regions of the Canadian prairies.
Table 11. Second-year spillover benefits per acre across Western Canada ($CAD).
While more than half (54%) of the producers reported spillover benefits between cropping years, the survey data also revealed a distribution of average spillover benefits according to the size of the benefit (Figure 1). While the most frequently reported (32%) benefits were in the $10-15 per acre range, one-fifth of producers identified spillover benefits that were in excess of $25/acre. Over 75% of the producers reporting spillovers estimated the benefit to be greater than $10/acre.
Figure 1. Estimated spillover benefits per acre.
The particular GMHT canola system used by producers also had an influence on the magnitude of the spillover benefit reported by the producer (Figure 2). Producers using Roundup Ready™ canola reported higher spillover benefits compared with other canola systems, which is consistent with the greater level of adoption.
Figure 2. Incidence of spillover benefits by GMHT system used in 2006.
Summary of Economic Benefits for Producers
Previous surveys (CCC, 2001; Phillips, 2003) put the producer benefit of GMHT canola at $60-70 million in 2000. Neither study, however, attempted to calculate the impact of any spillovers or any increased costs from controlling volunteer canola. With the estimates from this survey, we can now modify those earlier estimates based on more detailed information.
The total producer benefit of GMHT canola can be represented as the direct economic impact of the technology, spillover benefits, and the value of reduced tillage, net of the increased cost for controlling volunteer canola. Phillips (2003) did not include reduced tillage as part of his calculations for direct benefits, hence their inclusion. This survey did not directly estimate the primary economic benefit of the technology to producers, but the data does verify that the benefits likely fall in the range of $10.62 to $11.14 per acre, as calculated by Phillips and the CCC (2001). Using the $11.14/acre benefit as a baseline, we can then consider the potential importance of the spillovers and volunteer control costs.
The direct benefit ($11.14/acre) is applied to the total acres cultivated in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Next, the low and high estimates7 of the spillover benefits were applied to actual acres cultivated. The value of reduced tillage—$153.8M—can be added to each of the years. Finally, the additional cost of volunteer canola control cost8 ($1.12/acre) was deducted from the total. Using the actual canola acreage for 2005-2007, we estimate that the total economic benefit from GMHT canola ranged from $343 million to $422 million per year (Table 12). Over the three year period, the average benefit was in the range of $354 million to $397 million per year.
Table 12. Economic benefit of GMHT canola (2005-07; all figures in million $CAD).
In relative terms, the cost of volunteer canola control has a marginal impact on the technology. The reduction in total benefits is reduced by 4% on average per year. Much more important, however, are the spillover benefits, which account for 19% to 28% of the total net benefits of the new technology.
This study had three objectives: first, to examine weed control in GMHT canola, but more specifically to determine if herbicide resistance was developing; second, to identify if control of volunteer canola had changed following the widespread adoption of GMHT canola; and third, to attempt to quantify any multi-year producer spillover benefits.
Producers have experienced a change in weed pressures following the commercialization of GMHT canola. While not all producers believe that these new weed pressures were due to their adoption of GMHT canola, many did. Of those that believed the changes they faced in weed pressures were due to the adoption of GMHT canola, more than 94% indicated that the ease, cost, and practice of controlling for weeds was either unchanged or had improved. When asked specifically about the management of herbicide resistance in weed populations, a full 76% of respondents indicated that this was either the same or easier following their adoption of GMHT canola.
Nearly two-thirds (62%) of respondents indicated that the measures taken to control volunteer canola are no different than they were prior to the commercialization of GMHT canola. When asked about the difficulty of controlling volunteer canola, almost three-quarters (74%) indicated that this was the same or easier than it was pre-GMHT canola. A mere 8% of respondents indicated that they deemed volunteer canola to be one of the top five weeds that they need to control. Overall, the cost of controlling for volunteers makes only a minor impact on the producer benefits of adoption (i.e., it offsets less than 8% of the benefits of the technology).
The attempt to quantify the reported spillover benefits produced one of the most surprising results. Our survey found that where they are observed, the spillover benefits are actually greater than the direct benefits. The average estimate of spillover benefits was $15 per acre compared to the direct benefit identified by Phillips (2003) of $11 per acre. While some producers did not report any multi-year benefits, the impact of those that did contributed between 19% and 28% of the net benefits to producers in the three years under review.
This under-reported and generally under-valued multi-year benefit may help to explain the reality that GMHT canola was almost fully adopted within six years. Neither the comparative cost of the conventional and GMHT systems nor the estimated direct economic impact of the technology upon adoption could fully explain the unparalleled adoption of this new technology. Producers had to be realizing some substantial economic benefits for which those earlier studies did not fully accounted. This study confirms that substantial economic benefits are recognized at the producer level. In farming, like any other business, operators use technologies that consistently deliver high returns. The sustained rates of adoption and expansion of the canola acreage in Western Canada are strongly correlated to the economic benefits identified by this survey.
1 All monetary figures are expressed in Canadian dollars (CAD).
2 The number of respondents with a university degree is substantially higher in Saskatchewan than is reflected in the census data. A variety of factors contribute to this. The farm size is larger than average and producers are slightly younger than the average, which tend to be correlated with higher levels of education. Moreover, the affiliation of this research with the University of Saskatchewan may have triggered a greater response from graduates than from others.
3 While there has been a strong movement toward reduced-tillage land-management practices in Western Canada over the past 15-20 years, it is not possible to establish a strong correlation between reduced tillage and GMHT canola adoption. These two technologies have co-evolved and can be said to be mutually beneficial, but there is no strong correlation between the two technologies.
4 The cost of $3.72 is determined by: $3.50 harrowing cost × 1.2 passes × 88% of canola acres.
5 While not all canola acres are harrowed or tilled anymore, to be able to make a comparison with the CCC study, we have applied the cost to all acres, thus allowing us to determine what changes have occurred.
6 The cost of $7.98 is determined by: $6.00 tillage cost × 1.51 passes × 88% of canola acres.
7 The range of low/high spillover estimates were calculated from the 54% of producers that realized some benefits, with 33% assigning a value of $15.05/acre, creating a range of spillover benefits when discounting for proportions of $4.97/acre to $8.19/acre.
8 The cost of controlling volunteer canola was reported by 26.6% of producers to average $4.23/acre. Allocating this cost across all cultivated acres results in an average per-acre cost of $1.12 for the entire prairie region.
Alston, J., Wyatt, T.J., Pardey, P.G., Marra, M.C., & Chan-Kang, C. (2000, September). A meta-analysis of the rates of returns to agricultural R&D (Research Report 113). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Aulie, P. (1996). Genetically engineered herbicide tolerant canola: A multiple account evaluation. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Beckie, H.J., Harker, K.N., Hall, L.M., Warwick, S.I., Légère, A., Sikkema, P.H., et al. (2006). A decade of herbicide-resistant crops in Canada. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 86(4), 1243-1264.
Canola Council of Canada (CCC). (2000). Pest management study conducted on behalf of the Canola Council of Canada (Final Report). Winnipeg: Author. Available online at: http://www.canolacouncil.org/contents10.aspx.
CCC. (2001, January). An agronomic and economic assessment of transgenic canola. Winnipeg: Author. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.canola-council.org/gmo_toc.aspx.
CCC. (2005, April). Herbicide tolerant volunteer canola management in subsequent crops. Winnipeg: Author. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.canolacouncil.org/uploads/HT_canola_final.pdf.
Fulton, M., & Keyowski, L. (1999). The producer benefits of herbicide-resistant canola. AgBioForum, 2(2), 85-93. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.
Kleter, G.A., Bhula, R., Bodnaruk, K., Carazo, E., Felsot, A.S., Harris, C.A., et al. (2007). Altered pesticide use on transgenic crops and the associated general impact from an environmental perspective. Pest Management Science, 63(11), 1107-1115.
Malla, S., Gray, R., & Phillips, P.W.B. (2004). Gains to research in the presence of intellectual property rights and research subsidies. Review of Agricultural Economics, 26, 63-81.
Malla, S., & Gray, R. (1999). The effectiveness of research finding in the canola industry (Report prepared for Saskatchewan Agricultural Development Fund). Regina: Saskatchewan Agricultural Development Fund.
Mauro, I.J., & McLachlan, S.M. (2008). Farmer knowledge and risk analysis: Post release evaluation of herbicide-tolerant canola in Western Canada. Risk Analysis, 28(2), 463-476.
Mayer, H., & Furtan, W.H. (1999). Economics of transgenic herbicide-tolerant canola: The case of western Canada. Food Policy, 24(4), 431-442.
Nagy, J.G., & Furtan, W.H. (1978). Economic costs and returns from crop development research: The case of rapeseed breeding in Canada. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 26, 1-14.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) / SEMATECH. (2006). E-handbook of statistical methods. Gaithersburg, MD: Author. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/.
Phillips, P.W.B. (2002). Regional systems of innovation as a modern R&D entrepot: The case of the saskatoon biotechnology cluster. In J. Chrisman, J.A.D. Holbrook, & J.H. Chua (Eds.), Innovation, entrepreneurship, family business and economic development: A Western Canadian perspective (pp. 31-58). Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary Press.
Phillips, P.W.B. (2003). The economic impact of herbicide tolerant canola in Canada. In N. Kalaitzandonakes (Ed.), The economic and environmental impacts of agbiotech: A global perspective (pp. 119-140). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. (2008). Farm machinery custom and rental rate guide: 2008-09. Regina: Government of Saskatchewan, Ministry of Agriculture. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=f4b84942-e058-4b5f-92eb-b4f5435bc9d6.
Smyth, S., & Phillips, P.W.B. (2001). Competitors co-operating: Establishing a supply chain to manage genetically modified canola. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 4, 51-66.
Statistics Canada. (2006). 2006 census of agriculture. Ottawa, Ontario: Queen's Printer.
Statistics Canada. (n.d.). Field crop reporting series. Ottawa, Ontario: Author. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=22-002-XIB&lang=eng.
Tukey, J. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ulrich, A.W., & Furtan, W.H. (1985). An investigation in the rates of return from the Canadian Crop Breeding Program. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan.
Ulrich, A.W., Furtan, W.H., & Downey, K. (1984). Biotechnology and rapeseed breeding: Some economic considerations. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada. Available on the World Wide Web: http://harvestchoice.org/node/9201?t=subject%3A%22Biotechnology%22&path=resources%2Fall.
The authors' research was supported by Genome Canada and the Network of Centres of Excellence for Advanced Foods and Materials (AFMNet).
Suggested citation: Gusta, M., Smyth, S.J., Belcher, K., Phillips, P.W.B., & Castle, D. (2011). Economic benefits of genetically-modified herbicide-tolerant canola for producers. AgBioForum, 14(1), 1-13. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.
In This ArticleTable 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Figure 1
Figure 2
Table 12
About AgBioForumWelcome to ABF
Editorial Board
Privacy Policy
Copyright Policy
Author ServicesSubmission Guidelines
Manuscript FastTrack™
Member ServicesBecome a Member
Membership Benefits
FeedbackContact Us
Comment on ABF
|© 2011 AgBioForum | Design and support provided by Express Academic Services | Contact ABF: firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Nokia Siemens Acquires Motorola's Network Business for $1.2 Billion
Nokia Siemens Networks has agreed to acquire the majority of Motorola's wireless network unit for $1.2 billion in cash, the company announced this morning.
Nokia Siemens Networks expects that this acquisition will strengthen its ties with a number of telecom operators, as well as make it the third largest wireless infrastructure vendor in the U.S., the biggest foreign wireless vendor in Japan and strengthen its current number two position in the global infrastructure segment.
Under the terms of the contract, approximately 7,500 employees will transfer to Nokia Siemens Networks from Motorola's wireless network infrastructure business when the transaction closes. The contract is expected to be completed by the end of 2010, and will therefore not influence Nokia Siemens's financials in 2010.
"I believe the addition of Motorola's Networks business will significantly strengthen our worldwide presence, enhance our scale in the United States, Japan and other priority regions and reinforce our leadership position in the global wireless sector," said Rajeev Suri, chief executive officer of Nokia Siemens Networks.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We can help you find the right scanner or printer to meet the demands of your business. For your warehouse we have scanners to read every barcode type in any environment.
We carry the following handheld scanners for your warehouse:
- Intermec
- Motorola
- Symbol
We also carry the following barcode printing & thermal label printing equipment & supplies:
With our large selection of printers and media, you can print high quality and durable barcode, shipping, packing, laser and inkjet labels. We carry direct thermal, thermal transfer, inkjet and laser printers in all forms including mobile, desktop, and industrial printers.
- Zebra
- Intermec
- Epson
- Brother
Call us at 717.704.1000 for pricing information and for ordering.
You can also contact at firstname.lastname@example.com or at our contact page here.


text:
Assalam Alikoum Brothers & Sisters,
BVMCC will be holding a fund raiser for a new Islamic center today Wednesday June 21st after Isha prayer in shaa Allah. It will be carried live on Facebook to offer an opportunity for all to participate and get an up to the minute updates.
We respectfully ask for your participation and contributions either in person or on Facebook and website. Please spread the word not only locally but across the US for anyone Looking for a great residual Hasanat in these blessed days of Ramadan
This great community of Blossom Valley has been growing expeditiously in the last few years and is in need of an Islamic center. We have outgrown The currently rented center. Our collection currently stands at roughly $765k and hope to reach our goal of 1 Million this Ramadan. With your help and God's will we hope to reach our goal in shaa Allah.
Please take advantage of the last ten days of Ramadan and particularly the night of the 27th and donate generously and spread the word
Any amount will help reach our goal, we ask Allah SBWT to reward you and multiply your wealth.
What: Fundraising event for a new center in San Jose Blossom Valley
When : Today the 27 th of Ramadhan, June 21st
Virtually @ https://www.facebook.com/bvmcc/
Physically @ 5885 Santa Teresa Blvd. #113 San Jose, CA 95123
Donate @
Jazakom Allah Khairan , make Duaa for your extend family @ BVMCC
New Mesjed Chairman Chakib K
Home >


text:
June 9th, 2012
6-9-12 (vs. San Diego)
I got back to Madison at 11:59 pm on Friday night, wrote the blog post about the day, and was in bed by 2:30 am. I got up at 10:00 and Victoria and I were on the road at 11:56. We made it to the Money Lot at 1:34, and I walked around for 30 minutes informing people about my mission and Be The Match. It can be fun and frustrating at the same time. One tailgate will be excited about either the baseball or my story, and then the next will have someone almost laughing at another member in their group as I'm telling them about the donor process and how easy it is to join the registry. I have no idea how I would react if someone came up to a tailgate I was in and explain what they're doing, but I don't think I would be tempted to laugh.
I met Victoria inside Miller Park at 2:20, and we went to section 225 to take game photo number 59. Only 103 games left to go, and it's going by pretty fast.
After getting the picture we decided we wanted food, and we went to the Plaza Pavilion which is the outdoor concession stand near section 110 (first base side of the field level). Victoria got the Milwaukee steak sandwich and I had the brisket smothered bacon dog. Mine consisted of a bacon wrapped hot dog covered in BBQ'd brisket, caramelized onions, diced onions, and cheddar cheese. It's $8.25 but was worth every penny. It deserves its own category but I'll be including it in the hot dog count of the stats at the end.
We ate in the cross aisle below the press box so we could stay out of the sun as long as possible. After finishing we went to our seats, and sat down when it was a 2-2 count on the Padres leadoff hitter in the top of the first. I didn't miss the first four pitches, and I saw them all as we walked under the press box windows to our seats. The Brewers got off to another great start, and took a 1-0 lead on an RBI double by Rickie Weeks in the bottom of the first. When Weeks was on second I got a picture of the contraption that he wears on his left hand. As you can see, it resembles an oven mitt. It's to protect his hand on head first slides, and I think his brother wears one now as well (Jemile Weeks plays for the Oakland A's).
In the top of the third the Padres tied it on an RBI infield single. The Brewers regained the one run advantage in the bottom of the fourth on an RBI single by Maldonado. The Padres came back and scored a run in the fifth, two in the sixth, and another in the seventh. The Brewers failed to score after fourth, and they left a total of 11 on base. Final Score: Padres 5 – Brewers 2.
Victoria and I are staying at her Aunt and Uncle's house in Sussex again, and we were planning on going to a movie but were exhausted after the game. We stopped and got a take and bake pizza from Papa Murphy's and a six pack of 8 ounce Miller Lite's. Victoria had wanted a beer with our Gourmet Vegetarian pizza, but the Pick 'N Save doesn't sell single beers, and she thought the 8 ounce cans were cute. I will admit that I felt like a giant when I was drinking one, which is just what I needed after the tough loss.
It's supposed to be 90 degrees tomorrow, and in the sun the weather guy said it will feel like over 100. For 1:10 start times our seats don't get shade until 3:00 or so. Long story short; Victoria and I aren't going to the game tomorrow. Made you think for a second, didn't I? HA. We might just watch from the concourse for an hour and then go to our seats so we don't fry.
Personal Stats:
If you want to learn more about Be The Match and how you can help, CLICK HERE
6-8-12 (vs. San Diego)
Before the game on Friday was going to be the last time I'm at my parents' house in Fort until after the June 18th game vs. the Blue Jays. For this reason I had some packing to do. I had to make sure I had the game number signs for the three games of the Padres series, the three vs. the Royals, three vs. the Twins, and then the sign for the first game of the Blue Jays series. I didn't *just* need the game number signs, I needed to pack all the essentials as well.
Friday actually started with a 7:00 alarm to get ready for a 8:00 am dentist appointment. We've reached roughly the midpoint of my age 25 year, and I have yet to get a cavity. This might not seem like a big deal, but it's one of my proudest achievements. I was planning on replacing my spark plugs on Friday as well, but an Advance Auto Parts worker didn't understand what I wanted and after the mistake I didn't have enough time. I won't get into it but he sold me the wrong stuff when I clearly told him what I needed.
This is some foreshadowing but during the day I found a couple of these cups in my parents' cupboard. I had forgotten all about them, and must have brought them home from a game back in 2003 or 2004. I can't remember the last time I had a souvenir soda at Miller Park, so I'm not sure what year they are from. I tweeted the picture later in the day saying "Who would've thought that these two would grow up to be such good friends. Pretty good, no? If you're not aware about my sausage preference; Polish is my favorite. Also, it's a fake cookie if you weren't sure.
I packed for the Padres series and the road trip and was on the road to Milwaukee at 3:40. After a major backup due to the 894 interchange I got to the Brewers 1 Lot at 4:54, and made my way to the general lot again. I'm trying to get back there more to hand out cards, and a former co-worker was also having a tailgate. After spending 30 minutes or so visiting with strangers I met up with Laura. Her office is actually right next to Pam's, who joined me for Thursday's game. Laura asked if I wanted to stop by and tell her friend about what I was doing. When I started he chimed in and said he had heard about it, but that someone else was on the quest with me. I disagreed but he was pretty sure. Finally he admitted that maybe it was a dream or something. I had Laura's husband take a picture of the two of us before taking off. I'll be going to the June 20th game with another former co-worker, Steve, and it's nice to see some familiar faces. It's also nice that they don't hate me for quitting on them when the office was about to get hectic with a bunch of work.
I stopped by one more tailgate before making my way in, and I'm glad I did. I think they had about 10 people in their tailgate, and they were all in their early twenties. Like I said before I'm encouraging the younger population to join the registry and the older population to donate money, because Be The Match needs both. I do emphasize that both are equally important.
When I was nearing the bridge over Miller Park Way I came across these guys. I debated asking the Italian to stay out of the picture because I dislike Italian sausages, but decided against it. I also debated doing a thumbs down with my right hand and a thumbs up with my left, to show my disdain and appreciation for the respective sausages. Instead I went with the pistol for some reason (don't ask why, I don't even know).
I got inside Miller Park just before 6:15, and went right to section 226 to get game photo number 58 taken. A nearby fan helped me out, and took three or four pictures, with me instructing him of what I wanted between each one. He did a great job and I thanked him for his efforts.
I had listed my ticket on Twitter again, and a friend from high school met me at the game and agreed to donate $30 to Be The Match. His name is Jason as well, so that means the last three guys that have joined me at games are all named Jason. We actually spotted each other in the concourse before either of us told the other one that we were inside. We stopped by the Ice Man for a minute and Jason bought an MGD for himself and one for me. Thanks Jason! We made it to our seats with time to spare and talked baseball and fantasy baseball (we're in the same league). I'm the commissioner and I really haven't had time for my team this year but somehow I still have a 4-4 record (we do head-to-head).
The game got underway and it began with some fireworks for the Crew, literally. Corey Hart went deep leading off the bottom of the first which set off the fireworks as he rounded the bases. The Padres tied it in the fourth when Carlos Gomez dove for a ball in front of him, and it rolled to the wall. Cabrera had a (gift) inside-the-park home run and didn't even need to slide into home. I still don't know why that can't be considered an error. It wasn't an error because he didn't catch it, but the fact that he let it get all the way to the wall should make it a single and a three base error. Marcum worked out of some trouble in the 4th, despite walking in a run. The bases were loaded with only one out, but the one that he walked in was the only run to score in the inning. In the bottom of the fourth, and right before the Maldonado at bat Jason said that he was going yard. Second pitch of the at bat: It's a Bingo! That's an Inglourious Basterds reference. It almost looks like Maldonado hit Sedar's hand so hard that he dislocated his shoulder.
The Brewers added two more in the fifth, the first on Chart's second homer of the game. He's trails Ryan Braun by one for the team lead and he's coming on strong. A Ramirez ground out scored Aoki, and the Brewers had a 6-2 lead. The Padres got one back in the sixth but in the seventh the Brewers put it out of reach with a three spot. A sacrifice fly by Weeks accounted for the first run and then Taylor Green pinch hit for Kameron Loe with a runner aboard. The result:
I like that you can see the fireworks, and a fan clapping in the foreground. It's either that or she's saying how big the fish was that she caught (I'm not impressed). Green is making his way past Sedar and Ramirez is nearing home plate. Earlier in the game I had tried to get Norichika Aoki doing his at bat routine, but the catcher was returning from the mound and ruined it all. Luckily for me (and you) he came back up in the bottom of the eighth. I've said that he looks like he's doing a sumo routine or something, and that has nothing to do with the fact that he's Japanese. It just looks like it, doesn't it? You could also argue that there's an ant hill next to the plate, and he's debating on if he should let them live, I guess we'll never know.
The Padres added two meaningless runs in the ninth inning, and the Brewers won. Final Score: Brewers 9 – Padres 5. During one of the half innings I had a fan behind me take a picture of me and Jason number three. She has a twenty game pack and I cannot for the life of me think of her name. She reads the blog so now she'll know, but I'm not 100% sure that she's ever told me. I had a great time with Jason and it was cool catching up. Now if only all of his fantasy baseball pitchers could start getting shelled 24/7, it would be a perfect world.
It's 2:24 am as I finish up this post, and I'll be leaving in about eight and a half hours for game number two of the series. I don't know why Saturday's game is at 3:10, but that's the way it worked out.
Personal Stats:
If you want to learn more about Be The Match and how you can help, CLICK HERE


text:
Explore Further
Subject Headings
First published in 1996.
Myron is a wise-cracking detective who is an agent for a rising tennis star. A former star is shot outside a match, and there are suspects among the mob, a former manager, and even the rising star. Complex plot goes back six years to a double murder, and that's where Myron finds the killer. By the time I got tired of the wise cracks, the plot had thickened and kept my interest to the very end.
There are no age suitabilities for this title yet.
There are no notices for this title yet.
There are no quotes for this title yet.


text:
Posted on April 23, 2018 - over 2 years ago
Posted on December 15, 2017 - almost 3 years ago
More than a Hero
"As Star Wars fans around the world eagerly await the release of Episode 8, "The Last Jedi," people continue to analyze the remarkable success of these films dating back to 1977. Frank Pallotta, media reporter for CNNMoney, said that Star Wars connects with many who long for "a new hope and a force of good at a time when the world needs heroes." At the time of Jesus's birth, the people of Israel were oppressed and longing for their long-promised Messiah. Many anticipated a hero to deliver ...
- 0 Comments
Posted on November 08, 2017 - almost 3 years ago
Page (1 of 1)


text:
Fall in love with our Rustic and Country Style Wedding Venue - Perfect for your Ceremony and Reception with Endless Photo Opportunities!
Oakabella Homestead was built in the 1850's and is a licensed heritage farm. For that rustic country feel, you've found the perfect wedding venue! We are located just 35klm north of Geraldton and provide the complete package for your wedding.
Our packages include your Ceremony, Reception, Campsite and endless photo opportunities!


text:
Happy Halloween! So this is the scariest picture we've got
Okay so it wasn't that scary… It's just a solitary keratoacanthoma (KA). A keratoacanthoma represents a proliferation of the squamous layer of the skin. Some doctors believe this to represent a spectrum of squamous carcinoma of the skin. Sun exposure is a risk factor. All patients with the lesion should get a dermatology referral and to rule out underlying squamous carcinoma. This lesion is often surgically removed to both look for skin cancer and improve the cosmetic appearance.
Related Pages
What is skin coining (Gua sha)?
A 46-year-old Vietnamese female with history of Churg-Strauss syndrome was seen for a flare-up and had the above skin changes. Based on the characteristics pattern can you diagnose the cause of this skin rash?…
What is amyopathic dermatomyositis?
37 yr old male with a history of these lesions on his the back of his hands for the past two years. Notes no other medical issues. No weakness, fatigue, fevers or rashes anywhere else on his body. He works as a chiropractor and is concerned about his patients seeing his hands. Use of various over the counter treatments such as topical steroids and moisturizers did not improve the lesions.


text:
Diversity in Teaching
Approximately 20 years ago, the national dialogue on the need for a racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse corps of PK–12 educators was at a high pitch. Policymakers and educators devised programs and policies designed to increase the number of African American, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Island and Native American teachers as an essential component of the PK–12 teaching and learning reform agenda.
NEA commissioned a current review of teacher diversity and ways in which efforts could create parity in our public school system. This background paper provides a basis for discussing how we move forward in creating a teacher workforce that is both reflective of and responsive to our nation's racial, ethnic, and linguistically diverse student learning needs.
We hope this scrutiny is useful in creating a movement that is committed to teacher diversity. We also hope that our efforts in this regard will help us ensure a great public school for every student.
Read the full report here
Teachers in US not as diverse as their students
While the nation's students are growing more diverse, the make-up of teachers in public school classrooms is lagging behind. Find out more
Minority students would benefit from more diverse teachers. 82% of teachers are white, compared to 52% of students


text:
Top Stories
deVere CEO: Crypto is 'undeniably' mainstream as watchdog backs Bitcoin
Cryptocurrencies are now "undeniably part of mainstream finance", affirms the boss of one of the world's largest independent financial services organisations.
The bold statement from the founder and CEO of deVere Group, Nigel Green, comes as the Financial Stability Board (FSB), has released a report that concludes Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies do not currently pose a risk to the global financial system.
It also comes as Bitcoin (BTC), the world's largest and most influential digital currency, climbed the 50-day moving average (MA) on Monday for the first time in nearly two months, hiking its price above $6,700.
Mr Green comments: "Cryptocurrencies are the future of money and they are already undeniably part of mainstream finance.
"This is underscored today by the report by the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the international watchdog, which finds that cryptocurrencies do not pose a material risk to the global financial system – which many traditionalists with vested interests have hitherto argued in order to knock digital currencies."
He continues: "This report comes after the FSB, which is headed by Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, previously wrote a letter to the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors earlier this year stating that Bitcoin does not pose a 'systemic risk' to the global financial system.
"As such, the latest report can be seen as further recommendation of cryptocurrencies from the influential FSB — which has members from all the G20 major economies."
Mr Green goes on to say: "The FSB's conclusion follows more and more global financial institutions, major corporations and household name investors now working with cryptocurrencies and blockchain, the technology that underpins them, and as international regulation is developed further."
In May, deVere revealed findings of a global survey that found 35 per cent of wealthy investors will have exposure to cryptocurrencies by the end of 2018.
At that time, Mr Green said: "The survey's findings demonstrate that high net worth individuals are increasingly unable to ignore the huge potential of cryptocurrencies."
The deVere CEO concludes: "There's now surging awareness of the value, need and demand for digital, global currencies in a digitalised, globalised world.
"The world of money has fundamentally changed – and despite what some crypto cynics want, it can't and will not go backwards. Therefore, the FSB's proactive and positive work in this sector must be championed."
Top Stories
The Future of Software Supply Chain Security: A focus on open source management
By Emile Monette, Director of Value Chain Security at Synopsys
Software Supply Chain Security: change is needed
Attacks on the Software Supply Chain (SSC) have increased exponentially, fueled at least in part by the widespread adoption of open source software, as well as organisations' insufficient knowledge of their software content and resultant limited ability to conduct robust risk management. As a result, the SSC remains an inviting target for would-be attackers. It has become clear that changes in how we collectively secure our supply chains are required to raise the cost, and lower the impact, of attacks on the SSC.
A report by Atlantic Council found that "115 instances, going back a decade, of publicly reported attacks on the SSC or disclosure of high-impact vulnerabilities likely to be exploited" in cyber-attacks were implemented by affecting aspects of the SSC. The report highlights a number of alarming trends in the security of the SSC, including a rise in the hijacking of software updates, attacks by state actors, and open source compromises.
This article explores the use of open source software – a primary foundation of almost all modern software – due to its growing prominence, and more importantly, its associated security risks. Poorly managed open source software exposes the user to a number of security risks as it provides affordable vectors to potential attackers allowing them to launch attacks on a variety of entities—including governments, multinational corporations, and even the small to medium-sized companies that comprise the global technology supply chain, individual consumers, and every other user of technology.
The risks of open source software for supply chain security
The 2020 Open Source Security and Risk Analysis (OSSRA) report states that "If your organisation builds or simply uses software, you can assume that software will contain open source. Whether you are a member of an IT, development, operations, or security team, if you don't have policies in place for identifying and patching known issues with the open source components you're using, you're not doing your job."
Open source code now creates the basic infrastructure of most commercial software which supports enterprise systems and networks, thus providing the foundation of almost every software application used across all industries worldwide. Therefore, the need to identify, track and manage open source code components and libraries has risen tremendously.
License identification, patching vulnerabilities and introducing policies addressing outdated open source packages are now all crucial for responsible open source use. However, the use of open source software itself is not the issue. Because many software engineers 'reuse' code components when they are creating software (this is in fact a widely acknowledged best practice for software engineering), the risk of those components becoming out of date has grown. It is the use of unpatched and otherwise poorly managed open source software that is really what is putting organizations at risk.
The 2020 OSSRA report also reveals a variety of worrying statistics regarding SSC security. For example, according to the report, it takes organisations an unacceptably long time to mitigate known vulnerabilities, with 2020 being the first year that the Heartbleed vulnerability was not found in any commercial software analyzed for the OSSRA report. This is six years after the first public disclosure of Heartbleed – plenty of time for even the least sophisticated attackers to take advantage of the known and publicly reported vulnerability.
The report also found that 91% of the investigated codebases contained components that were over four years out of date or had no developments made in the last two years, putting these components at a higher risk of vulnerabilities. Additionally, vulnerabilities found in the audited codebases had an average age of almost 4 ½ years, with 19% of vulnerabilities being over 10 years old, and the oldest vulnerability being a whopping 22 years old. Therefore, it is clear that open source users are not adequately defending themselves against open source enabled cyberattacks. This is especially concerning as 99% of the codebases analyzed in the OSSRA report contained open source software, with 75% of these containing at least one vulnerability, and 49% containing high-risk vulnerabilities.
Mitigating open source security risks
In order to mitigate security risks when using open source components, one must know what software you're using, and which exploits impact its vulnerabilities. One way to do this is to obtain a comprehensive bill of materials from your suppliers (also known as a "build list" or a "software bill of materials" or "SBOM"). Ideally, the SBOM should contain all the open source components, as well as the versions used, the download locations for all projects and dependencies, the libraries which the code calls to, and the libraries that those dependencies link to.
Creating and communicating policies
Modern applications contain an abundance of open source components with possible security, code quality and licensing issues. Over time, even the best of these open source components will age (and newly discovered vulnerabilities will be identified in the codebase), which will result in them at best losing intended functionality, and at worst exposing the user to cyber exploitation.
Organizations should ensure their policies address updating, licensing, vulnerability management and other risks that the use of open source can create. Clear policies outlining introduction and documentation of new open source components can improve the control of what enters the codebase and that it complies with the policies.
Prioritizing open source security efforts
Organisations should prioritise open source vulnerability mitigation efforts in relation to CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) scores and CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration) information, along with information about the availability of exploits, paying careful attention to the full life cycle of the open source component, instead of only focusing on what happens on "day zero." Patch priorities should also be in-line with the business importance of the asset patched, the risk of exploitation and the criticality of the asset. Similarly, organizations must consider using sources outside of the CVSS and CWE information, many of which provide early notification of vulnerabilities, and in particular, choosing one that delivers technical details, upgrade and patch guidance, as well as security insights. Lastly, it is important for organisations to monitor for new threats for the entire time their applications remain in service.
Top Stories
On the Frontlines of Fraud: Tactics for Merchants to Protect Their Businesses
By Nicole Jass, Senior Vice President of Small Business and Fraud Products at FIS
Fraud isn't new, but the new realities brought by COVID-19 for merchants, and the rising tide of attacks have changed the way we need to approach the fight. Even before the pandemic broke out earlier this year, the transition to digital payments was well underway, which means fighting fraud needs a multilayered, multi-channel approach. Not only do you want to increase approval rates, you want to protect your revenue and stop fraud before it happens.
A great place to start is working with your payment partners to refresh your company's fraud strategies with emerging top three best practices:
- AI-based machine learning fraud solutions helps your business stay ahead of fraud trends. Leveraging data profiles to model both "good" and "bad" behavior helps find and reduce fraud. AI-based machine learning will be increasingly essential to stay ahead of the explosive and sophisticated eCommerce fraud.
- Increasing capabilities around device fingerprinting and behavioral data are essential to detect fraud before it happens. While much of the user-input values can be easily manipulated to look more authentic, device fingerprinting and behavioral data are captured in the background to derive unique details from the user's device and behavior. Bringing in more unique elements into decisioning, can help authenticate the users and determine the validity of the transactions.
- Prioritize user authentication. User authentication is a vital linchpin in any fraud defense and should receive even greater priority today. Setting strong password requirements and implementing multi-factor authentication helps curb fraud attacks from account takeover.
As well as working with your payment partners it's more critical than ever to protect online transactions while not jeopardizing legitimate purchases. Fortunately, there are a few things you can do right now to address these concerns:
- Monitor warning signs
Payment verification is an important part of protecting your business. There are a variety of strategies to employ including implementing technology utilizing artificial intelligence and machine learning to help catch certain patterns. In addition to technology, here are a few other tips that may serve as warning signs. These are not a guarantee fraud is occurring, but they are flags to investigate.
o The shipping address and billing address differ
o Multiple orders of the same item
o Unusually large orders
o Multiple orders to the same address with different cards
o Unexpected international orders
- Require identity verification
Finding a balance between protection and ease of purchase will ultimately help you protect your customers and your business. The following tactics can make it more difficult for fraudsters to be successful:
o For customers that have a login, require a minimum of eight characters as well as the use of special characters in your customers' passwords
o Set up Two-Factor Authentication that requires a One-time Passcode (OTP) via SMS or email
o Use biometric authentication for mobile purchases or logins
- Monitor chargebacks
Keeping good records is essential for eCommerce. If a customer initiates a dispute, your only available recourse is to provide proof that the order was fulfilled. Be prepared to provide all the supporting information about a disputed transaction. Worldpay's Disputes solutions can connect to your CRM and provide you dual-layer protection against friendly fraud, first deflecting them before they arise and then fully managing chargeback defenses on your behalf.
- Monitor declines
Credit card issuers mitigate fraud by automatically declining payments that look suspicious, based on unusual card activity such as drastic changes in spending patterns or uncommon geolocations of spending. You can check your own declined payment history to help spot a potential problem. When volumes increase, the help of a payments fraud management partner is beneficial.
- Protect your own wallet
While you take the steps to protect your business, it's also important to be mindful of your own protection—it's incumbent on all responsible consumers to be vigilant about their data. Whether it's simple awareness of how the fraudsters are operating today, sticking to trusted brands when shopping online, and thinking twice about what data you share and who you share it with, you'll soon see how often you are sharing personal information about yourself.
Top Stories
Using payments to streamline everyday transport
By Venceslas Cartier, Global Head of Transportation & Smart Mobility at Ingenico Enterprise Retail
Once upon a time the only way to get from A to B on public transport was with cash – and likely a pre-paid ticket bought from a physical office. Nowadays, thanks to technological developments, options range from contactless and mobile payments, to in-app tickets and more. As payment methods advance, consumers and merchants are naturally moving towards Mobility as a Service (MaaS) systems, integrating various forms of transport services into a single mobility service, accessible on demand.
This move towards MaaS does not only streamline the consumer experience, it has other positive impacts too. Incentivising public transport use reduces environmental pollution, improves mental wellbeing by reducing travel-related stress, and aids productivity by freeing up time otherwise spent driving. With this in mind, let's take a look at the current trends affecting the transport sector, as well as how payments can optimise transportation for both operators and consumers alike.
Optimising transport with payments
The payment process is integral to any service. A payment service provider (PSP) can provide a range of key benefits to operators by proving a gateway to the transportation open payment ecosystem, and ensuring they meet objectives in 3 key areas.
- Environmentally, by reducing the use of personal cars and alleviating pollution and congestion.
- Societally, making urban mobility more inclusive in terms of improving access to all areas and for all socioeconomic classes.
- Economically, by optimising investment in eco-structure and fostering financial transactions, therefore improving the wealth of the city.
Payments professionals' expertise and technological solutions can make payments easy again for transport operators. They can provide a range of options so that the customer can choose which one is right for them, leveraging the capabilities of the mobility services' infrastructure (contactless, mobile wallets, P2P, closed-loop, QR code, and blockchain).
Furthermore, they can help promote inclusion and sustainable urban development. For example, methods such as prepaid virtual cards, or mobility accounts linked to a prepaid account can reduce the risks of excluding the unbanked. The environmental impact per kilometre can also be reduced, along with the use of vehicles with lower emissions per person per kilometre.
Finally, PSPs can put merchants' minds at ease, providing payment liability, allowing aggregation of all due amounts from all mobility service providers, and collecting payments in one single transaction from users while dispatching revenue between mobility service providers.
Managing coronavirus
COVID-19's disruption to the travel industry cannot be overlooked. In fact, research suggests that public transit ridership is down 70% across the globe since the onset of the virus, longer distance travel has seen reductions of up to 90%, and payment by cash has seen a 60% drop.
Being realistic, these behavioural shifts are unlikely to revert anytime soon, so it's important for merchants to keep this in mind when thinking about payment methods. More than 70% of consumers and travellers say they are likely to avoid the use of cash over the next six months. As a result, more than 40 countries have already raised their contactless payment threshold, further helping consumers to avoid contact with frequently touched pin pads.
However, the pandemic has only accelerated the way things were heading already and highlighted the benefits. Within the context of the pandemic, transportation needs to reinvent itself and adapt its processes to suit the shift in commuter habits that we've already seen and will continue to see in the future.
Other trends to keep an eye on
Contactless has been steadily growing on the transport scene, as have mobile payments and in-app purchases. In fact, the recent move to mobile and online ticketing is the most promising method so far, having seen significant growth in the last few years and having been accelerated by COVID-19 as discussed above. Once consumers move to these easy, convenient, and seamless methods, it's rare that they revert – so it's a good idea for operators to think how they can cater to these preferences.
Speed and convenience are a must for busy travellers – but not at the expense of data security. Finding the right payments partner is therefore crucial so operators can safeguard their customers' personal data, while also keeping on top of other security regulations/features such as P2P encryption, PCI certification, and tokenisation.
Next steps for operators
Public transport is essential for many peoples' everyday lives – COVID-19 or no COVID-19. As such, mobility service providers can make a great difference to their service and operations by implementing the right solutions.
Latest Articles
The Future of Software Supply Chain Security: A focus on open source management
By Emile Monette, Director of Value Chain Security at Synopsys Software Supply Chain Security: change is needed Attacks on the...
Overcoming Barriers That Threaten Your Creative Output
By Charlie Worrall, Digital Marketing Executive, Imaginaire Working in a creative field doesn't happen by chance. Years of study and...
Seven easy ways to maximise online sales by expanding your marketplaces
By Nate Burke, CEO and Founder of Diginius, a UK provider of proprietary software for digital marketing and ecommerce solutions, shares...
The future of offshore banking
By Granville Turner, Director at Turner Little. Despite its misconceptions, the popularity of offshore banking is growing. Not only is...
On the Frontlines of Fraud: Tactics for Merchants to Protect Their Businesses
By Nicole Jass, Senior Vice President of Small Business and Fraud Products at FIS Fraud isn't new, but the new...
Online retailers to accelerate growth plans to combat the COVID-19 crisis
New Paysafe study reveals that despite the impact of COVID-19, businesses are still innovating to maintain plans for future growth...
Online networking is crucial to the future of small business growth
By Trudy Simmons, business and clarity coach We have all had to find a lot of new ways of being...
Hong Kong's First Multi-Cloud Challenger Bank Goes Live with Temenos
WeLab Bank designed, built and launched using cloud-native Temenos Transact in less than 10 months WeLab offers next generational digital...
Reconnecting the retail brain: learning from the octopus
By John Malpass, Retail Consultancy Practice Lead at Teradata An octopus has nine brains: one for each tentacle and plus one at...
How robotic technology will disrupt the manufacturing industry
By Marga Hoek, author of The Trillion Dollar Shift Robotics technology has the potential to disrupt industries across all sectors...


text:
Can the U.S. change its costly court-based way of dealing with medical mistakes?
What would it take to transform the whole country's electric grid–to shut down all of its old power plants, and move to a system that generates electricity exclusively from renewable resources?
Across the industrialized world in places like China and Germany, high-speed railroads and gleaming new airports. And here in the United States? According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, we have infrastructure so outdated that it will take some $2.2 trillion dollars to fix.


text:
Conversion of a Darwinist
Related Articles
- Evolution Five big questions. Russell, Michael; Pomiankowski, Andrew; Turner, George; Rainey, Paul; Dunbar, Robin // New Scientist;6/14/2003, Vol. 178 Issue 2399, p32
In the 144 years since 'On the Origin of Species,' evolutionary theory has come a long way. Modern biology consistently confirms biologist, Charles Darwin's amazing ideas, even though he knew nothing of genetics or molecular biology. This article examines five of the biggest questions related to...
- TIME TRIP. // Current Events;9/14/2001, Vol. 101 Issue 2, p2
Focuses on theory of evolution by Charles Darwin. Basis of Darwin's theory; Evolution of humans from apes; Belief of Darwin on evolution.
- Evolution's Erratic Pace. Gould, Stephen Jay // Natural History;May77, Vol. 86 Issue 5, p12
Discusses how the geologic record seemed to provide as much evidence for cataclysmic as for gradual evolutionary change. Charles Darwin's defense of gradualism as a nearly universal tempo; Extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record; How stasis and sudden appearance are the two...
- IN PLAIN SIGHT. PRIOR, JOHN // Commonweal;2/21/2014, Vol. 141 Issue 4, p4
A letter to the editor is presented in response to Elizabeth A. Johnston's article "Darwin's Tree of Life" in the January 24, 2014 issue.
- Charles Darwin. // History Remembers Scientists of the Past;2000, p14
Profiles Charles Darwin, English biologist. Voyage of the Beagle; Theory of evolution; Impact of theory.
- Darwin Digital Library of Evolution. // Natural History;Feb2006, Vol. 115 Issue 1, p61
This article focuses on the launch of the Darwin Digital Library of Evolution, as of February 2006. Launched in conjunction with the exhibition Darwin, the Darwin Digital Library of Evolution (DDLE), at http://darwinlibrary.amnh.org, is the first Web site dedicated to the intellectual genesis...
- The origin of life. Mellersh, Anthony // Natural History;Jun94, Vol. 103 Issue 6, p10
Describes various steps in the early chemical evolution of life. Concept of primordial soup; Biological catalysts; How amino acids form proteins; Ability of ribonucleic acid (RNA) and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to self replicate; Cellular qualities of algae; Darwinism and the theory of evolution.
- Darwin's dangerous idea. Dennett, Daniel C. // Sciences;May/Jun95, Vol. 35 Issue 3, p34
Focuses on the implications of Charles Darwin's fundamental idea on the evolution of life on earth. Creationist thinkers' opposition to Darwin's published book `The Origin of Species'; Influence of Darwin's ideas on other scientists.
- Getting to Darwin: Obstacles to Accepting Evolution by Natural Selection. Thagard, Paul; Findlay, Scott // Science & Education;Jun2010, Vol. 19 Issue 6-8, p625
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is central to modern biology, but is resisted by many people. This paper discusses the major psychological obstacles to accepting Darwin's theory. Cognitive obstacles to adopting evolution by natural selection include conceptual...


text:
inc. GST
|In Stock
|Register to Buy
All Tuff Stuff alternators are hand built in Cleveland, Ohio and are tested to meet or exceed OEM specifications. All Tuff Stuff alternators are made from 100% new components and carry a one year limited warranty. Tuff Stuff has alternator applications for virtually all muscle cars, hot rods, customs and light trucks in just about every finish imaginable. Many enthusiasts prefer our clean, simple 1-wire alternator option which features a low idle cut-in internal regulator and provides plenty of charging at low RPMs. All alternators are for 12 volt, negative ground systems, except where noted.


text:
News Archives - 2007
Two students selected for German music festival
Meghan Sherer, who graduated in May, and senior Krista Costin will soon be traveling to Germany for a month, with all expenses paid, to join a worldwide group of about 100 selected musicians, from Aug. 17-Sept. 13.
They have been accepted to the Festivalensemble Stuttgart, a choir that is part of the Internationale Bachakademie Stuttgart, founded and directed by conductor and artistic director Helmuth Rilling. This year, the festival will perform Benjamin Britten's War Requiem, and Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 5.
The choir rehearses for two weeks in southern Germany, and then travels for two weeks, performing in various festivals. In addition to the European Music Festival Stuttgart, they will sing in the Rheingau Music Festival, Beethovenfest Bonn, and in Dresden, Halle, and Berlin.
For several years, Augsburg has been one of the 24 audition sites around the world, and this is the first time that any Augsburg students have been accepted.
Sherer performed with Augsburg's Gospel Praise, and was a soloist with the group at the June Commencement. She graduated cum laude in May with a Bachelor of Music degree in music performance.
Costin toured with the Augsburg Choir last year to Germany and the Czech Republic, and was a soloist at their Leipzig concert.
Photo: Meghan Sherer


text:
Spring Outfit Ideas | Julianne Hough and Olivia Munn in LA
Your Weekend Style Agenda, Inspired by Julianne Hough and Olivia Munn
Thanks to Julianne Hough and Olivia Munn, a trip to the nail salon has never looked so good. But more than their collective ability to look amazing en route to a mani-pedi appointment, the well-dressed pair have inspired us to follow suit on their Spring-minded styling, perhaps as soon as this weekend? Hough's soft pastel look — distinguishable by its accents — and Munn's vibrantly printed Lovers + Friends Kitty Cat dress ($206) supply our next round of warm-day dressing with two ways to wear the season's prettiest pieces. See our quick takeaway tips below.
Pastel Play
Julianne Hough's perfectly proportioned combo really came down to a great white-and-mint pairing. To get the same look, try this Vince Sheer Pocket Tee ($195) or a similarly loose-fitting white top that does well by the half-tuck. Then, add a tapered ankle-cut pant (which flatters most body types) in a minty hue à la Aryn K's pant ($79). You can play with your own accessories or play copycat with a pair of nude jute-soled sandals, oversize sunglasses, and a blush-colored snakeskin chain-strap bag.
The Bold Route
Olivia Munn didn't waste any time making an outfit statement, and all she needed to do it was one very bold printed maxi dress. We're currently loving this MinkPink Scorpio Sleeveless Maxi Dress ($99) as an alternative version. To finish with equal parts subtlety and finesse, add your favorite pair of black sunglasses, a neutral-toned tote (like her Botkier Aldyn satchel, $300), and sandals.


text:
Our SXC and AIRCENTER air systems combine rotary screw compressor, refrigeration dryer and air receiver under a single enclosure. Due to their small footprint, these complete systems are the perfect solution for workshops and smaller industrial facilities.
All-in-one on just 0.62 m² with the SXC series – and the best part of it: you can start work immediately!
AIRCENTERS from KAESER for industry and trade – a large selection of premium quality machines
Kaeser Full Service ensures maximum reliability, availability, efficiency and value retention throughout a compressed air system's entire service life.
Learn about our development from a machine shop to one of the world's most successful manufacturers of compressed air systems.
We use cookies to improve the usability of our website. If you choose not to use cookies, website functionality will be limited. We also use third-party tracking cookies to gauge users' preferences. Find out more about cookies.Allow all cookiesUse cookies necessary for technical purposes only