It has been reported that artisan baker Paul Hollywood is to feature in the next series of BBC One’s Strictly Come Dancing.Shooting to household fame as a judge alongside Mary Berry on the Great British Bake Off, Hollywood may be ditching his baking gloves in favour of a sparkly leotard, if reports are to be believed.According to The Sun, an inside source, said: “The hope is that millions of fans who love to watch him and Mary deliver their baking verdicts will also tune in to watch him hit the dance floor. He has a reputation for being a tough cookie and it will be interesting to see how he copes once he is out of his comfort zone.”Hollywood launched his latest book, How to Bake, last month.
Share:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) JAMESTOWN – A Jamestown man is charged following an investigation into a domestic violence incident Thursday, according to the Jamestown Police Department. Police say they were dispatched to attempt to locate a gray Toyota sedan that was involved in a domestic violence incident in the Town of Ellicott. The vehicle was reportedly located on Maple Street near Arnold Street, with a female with blood on her face who fled the vehicle.Police determined the driver, Benjamin J. Ernewein, 37, of Jamestown, was allegedly intoxicated. Officers located the female, and they say they determined Ernewein allegedly assaulted the female.Ernewein was taken to Jamestown City Jail. He is charged with second-degree unlawful imprisonment, third-degree assault, fourth-degree criminal mischief, open container, DWI and DWI per se.
– Advertisement – Goodtimer acts as a behavior chart reinvented for modern families. It encourages kids to do their best using positive reinforcement, tangible incentives, and family participation. An interactive and friendly clock-like companion that glows with soothing green lights and encouraging sounds, Goodtimer is a fun game where kids earn Good Time© when they make good choices. What’s Good Time? Unlike time-outs that punish bad behavior, Goodtimer encourages your kids when they follow your family’s house rules. With Goodtimer, it’s totally up to your family. Kids LOVE feeling celebrated for their accomplishments when they earn Goodtimer tokens they can save and exchange for fun incentives. And parents LOVE that their kids are finally listening without the need for nagging, yelling, and time-outs. Best of all, with Goodtimer’s patented approach and adjustable difficulty settings, it grows with your child, encouraging them to form healthy habits for years to come.
China said Monday unrest in the United States highlighted its severe problems of racism and police violence, and exposed Washington’s double standards in supporting Hong Kong’s protesters.”Black people’s lives are also lives. Their human rights must also be guaranteed,” foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian told reporters in Beijing, referring to the death in custody of an unarmed black man in Minneapolis.”Racism against ethnic minorities in the US is a chronic disease of American society,” Zhao added. “The current situation reflects once more the severity of the problems of racism and police violence in the US.”Chinese diplomats and state media have seized on the violent unrest sparked by the death of George Floyd to accuse the US of hypocrisy and compare American protesters with pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong.Beijing has long been infuriated by criticism from Western capitals, especially Washington, over its handling of the protests that shook Hong Kong last year.Zhao on Monday said the US government’s response to protests at home was a “textbook example of its world-famous double standards.” “Why does the US lionize the so-called Hong Kong independence and black violence elements as heroes and activists, while calling people who protest against racism ‘rioters’?” Zhao asked.China has insisted that “foreign forces” are to blame for the turmoil in Hong Kong, where pro-democracy protesters — described by Beijing as rioters — have marched in the millions since June last year and often clashed with the police.Beijing sparked outrage and concern earlier this month with a plan to impose a national security law on Hong Kong that it said was needed to curb “terrorism”. It was condemned by pro-democracy activists and Western nations as another attempt to chip away at the semi-autonomous city’s freedoms.Foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying also took aim at Washington.”I can’t breathe,” she said on Twitter, with a screenshot of a tweet by US State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus that had criticised China’s policy in Hong Kong.Hua was quoting the words Floyd was heard saying repeatedly before his death — after a police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes.Topics :
However, when drawing up the voluntary disclosure framework, the PRI also urged the task force to acknowledge the need to tailor all frameworks to specific sectors and allow any such frameworks to be flexible.“Preparers need to articulate clearly the links between transition, company strategy and climate-related risks and opportunities,” the PRI added, calling for the use of historical and forward-looking metrics within any such reports.It also called for any proposed standard to apply across all G20 nations and beyond, arguing that a widespread uptake would reflect the “global nature” of investments.For data to be of “high enough quality” for asset owners, third parties should audit disclosures, the PRI said. The TCFD, chaired by Michael Bloomberg, said in a preliminary report last month that it would look at climate-related disclosures for a range of unlisted assets, including real estate and infrastructure.The report said it would examine the role played by institutions, including pension funds, to ensure every area of the credit and investment chain were covered by its recommendations. Extractive companies should disclose the estimated carbon footprint of any unexploited reserves, as well as the asset price used to justify future projects, the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) has told a task force on climate-related disclosures (TCFD).In a submission to the task-force, convened by the Financial Stability Board, the PRI suggested any climate-related disclosure framework drawn up should consider the international goal of keeping temperature increases below 2° C above pre-industrial averages.The PRI also noted the new information large oil companies would disclose following the ‘Aiming for A’ campaign led by institutional investors.It said that, in addition to some of the disclosures proposed as part of the shareholder resolutions – such as the value of oil reserves under a number of low-carbon scenarios – companies should disclose their break-even price, as well as the prices used during the planning of future projects.
The Carbon Trust has announced Wind Farm Control Trials (WFCT), a new project designed to demonstrate how effective implementation of control strategies can reduce the cost of offshore wind.The WFCT, a part of the Offshore Wind Accelerator (OWA) programme, will investigate the impact of focusing on strategies that aim to improve energy generation across an entire wind farm rather than individual turbines.The EUR 2.3 million project is supported by EnBW, E.ON, innogy, Statoil and Vattenfall incorporating know-how from DTU, ECN, Frazer-Nash Consultancy and Windar Photonics.According to The Carbon Trust, optimising control strategies to reduce wake effects will lower the levelised cost of energy (LCoE) by increasing the total wind energy yield and reducing fatigue, thus saving operational and maintenance costs. Additionally, the introduction of control strategies can also increase availability and extend the lifetime of existing and future assets.During the project, different methods of control will be used to optimise power production for the whole wind farm rather than maximising production of individual turbines, while the turbine control will be altered by adjusting the blade angle of attack (pitch) and rotation of the nacelle (yaw).The WFCT study will be the largest and most comprehensive real-life demonstration of the impact of Wind Farm Control (WFC) strategies on the overall performance of a wind farm, The Carbon Trust said. The project aims to build on previous simulation-based studies, expecting that adopting blade pitch or yaw-based WFC strategies would result in increase in energy yield of between 0.5 and 3.5 percent. It is also expected to possibly enable load reductions of up to 50 percent for some wind turbine components meaning increased component life therefore reduced operation and maintenance costs.The project will seek to verify and validate these theories by implementing WFC strategies at an operational wind farm. The first stage involves analysis to determine the most suitable wind farm test site for the trials and an optimisation of the control strategies. The selected wind farm will have extensive measurement equipment installed as part of the validation process for the simulations, including eight nacelle mounted Windar Photonics LiDARs, a scanning LiDAR and load measurements installed on individual turbines, The Carbon Trust said.The Carbon Trust emphasises that despite evidence showing the potential benefits of this technology exists, technical and economic risks pose a challenge for bringing it to market. The OWA WFCT project has been set up with the aim to demonstrate the effectiveness of WFC strategies in an operational setting, and once proven, the concept can be rolled out to operational offshore wind farms across the wider industry.The trials are expected to be undertaken in 2018, with full results expected in 2019.
RelatedPosts Tyson Fury to Anthony Joshua: Don’t risk fighting Usyk Anthony Joshua, Okolie plot world title double Anthony Joshua wants Tyson Fury, Wilder fight Heavyweight contender Jarrell Miller believes that he would have crushed unified world champion Anthony Joshua – had the two of them collided in the ring back in June of 2019.The fight was scheduled to take place at New York’s Madison Square Garden – but Miller was pulled from the fight after testing positive for several performance enhancing drugs. With only five weeks to go, Miller was replaced by Andy Ruiz, who pulled off one of the biggest upsets in heavyweight history when he dropped Joshua four times and stopped him in the seventh round.Earlier this year, Miller signed a co-promotional deal with Top Rank, who also co-promotes WBC heavyweight champion Tyson Fury.Miller has no doubt that he would have bumped off Joshua in even more spectacular fashion than Ruiz did.“I would have put Anthony Joshua in a casket. I would have put a hurting on Joshua so bad that he’d never look in my direction again. So I had his number. A lot of people don’t know that Andy Ruiz asked me to come out for sparring,” Miller told Behind The Gloves.“I was going to have Andy Ruiz on my training team. A lot of people said: ‘Why are you going to have Andy Ruiz on your training team? He’s short, chubby. He’s a different fighting style. He’s a fighting man, and he’s a good inside fighter. He throws combinations and has fast hands. He’s not a great outside fighter.’ “Joshua tried to mix it up with Andy, and he cracked his behind. If he [Joshua] had fought me, I would have put way more hurt on him. He would have been a sitting duck. And he doesn’t have better legs than me, and he doesn’t have better hand-eye coordination than me. He doesn’t come forward like me. I’m a bull.”Joshua has a tentative date of July 25 to face mandatory challenger Kubrat Pulev at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in London.But the fight is likely going to get pushed back for the second time, due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.Tags: Anthony JoshuaJarrell MillerMadison Square
See also:United hit back after Duff’s early openerFollow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook A selection of images from Manchester United’s victory at Old Trafford, where Sir Alex Ferguson’s men came back to win 3-2 after Fulham took an early lead. (Click on an image to begin slideshow)
Darwinism is useful in one demonstrable way: it keeps thousands of biologists employed in the business of evidence-free storytelling.Continuing the previous entry, we look at actual scientific research to see if Darwin’s idea about life improving through mutations and natural selection leads to scientific understanding of nature. To evaluate the theory honestly, we have to exclude theory rescue devices, such as ‘convergent evolution’ or ‘evo-devo’ or ‘warp-speed evolution’ which merely coin phrases to escape troubling evidence. How often do Darwinians find actual, incontrovertible evidence that mutations and natural selection lead to new complex features? How often does Darwinism exclude all other explanations for observed traits? Is biological science better off since the Darwinians took over and expelled all their critics?Darwin was wrong: evolution moves at warp speed. Look at what Nature News just said: “How warp-speed evolution is transforming ecology: Darwin thought evolution was too slow to change the environment on observable timescales. Ecologists are discovering that he was wrong.” This shock headline deserves some elaboration, because surely Nature is not about to give up on Darwin and cede biological science to creationism. What do they mean? Rachel Lallensack begins with an example of stick insects. Do green ones and striped ones confirm ‘warp-speed evolution’ by mutation and natural selection? Does the evidence go beyond mere variation in color, which creationists would not dispute? The scientists put striped stick insects on plants where they didn’t blend in, and ditto for green ones. They found that birds, finding these glaring out-of-place insects, flocked to the bushes and picked them off, then stuck around and cleaned the bushes of other unlucky insects caught in the crossfire. It’s a bit like parking a Mercedes in a crime-ridden neighborhood; which car is likely to be stolen or vandalized? Interesting result, to be sure, but what to make of it? Did anything actually evolve?The article proceeds to argue that evolution can happen quickly (especially when biologists interfere, as in this case). But the evolution illustrated is “in reverse,” they say. It’s really about population dynamics, when creatures wind up outside their normal habitat. Put a dairy cow in the Serengetic and watch what happens. Is that “evolution”? Has Darwinism been confirmed in cases of a “force for local extinction”? Do these observations justify the claim that “ecologists must take evolution into consideration”? All the field evidence cited deals with which existing animals with existing traits survive in altered conditions. Nowhere does the reader find anything about the origin of a new species or complex trait. Given this notion of evolution, we would have to conclude that Yazidis underwent ‘warp-speed evolution’ when ISIS drove them out of their homes into refugee camps and killed many others.Horse evolution revisited. Just when you thought horse evolution was an established icon of evolution, Science Daily poses a ‘revolutionary theory on horse evolution‘. Time to rewrite the textbooks again? A researcher at New York Institute of Technology claims to have found evidence that modern horses’ hooves still have remnants of their ancestors’ five toes; “they believe that all five digits have merged to form the compacted forelimbs with hooves that we know today.” As evidence, they find a “greater number of arteries and nerves than would be expected in a single digit.” They also cite hoofprints from Laetoli, Africa from the 3-toed Mesohippus, an extinct equine, suggesting evolution was proceeding from five toes to one over time. This seems odd as an example of evolution. One can always invent a just-so story, such as theirs: “As horses evolved to live on open grassland their anatomy required a more compact design to enable movement across the hard plains.” But if that were a law of nature, all the other animals on the hard plains would be one-toed, including early humans. Imagine that. Even if humans had ‘evolved’ to lose their toes, would that confirm Darwinism? Actually, a horse’s legs show incredible design, with pogo-stick-like tendons and muscles with dampers to reduce shock. How did those traits evolve? By focusing on changes in toe numbers, are evolutionists distracting attention from far more interesting questions?The evolution of the scenario: Darwin speaks with forked tongue. The University of Helsinki puts its headline in big, bold type: “The origin of snakes – new evolutionary scenario presented.” Whenever a salesman announces something as new and improved, it implies the old product was not so hot. OK, so what do these researchers have in mind? Do the Finnish finish the job? “The early evolution of snakes happened from surface-terrestrial to burrowing in the lizard-snake transition suggests a research group at the University of Helsinki,” the press release begins. “The group’s new findings redirect the debate on evolution towards a new underexplored evolutionary scenario. Thus, the study adds another dimension to the investigation of snake origins.” At first glance, the ‘scenario’ (fancy word for just-so story) looks Lamarckian: once upon a time, a snake burrowed into the ground, and all its children lost their limbs. At second glance, we wonder why rodents and other burrowing animals didn’t read the script of this scenario. The only evidence presented is about skull shape, which seems to have little to do with burrowing. We read in the article that “snake evolution and diversification was not a straightforward process but rather an interplay between natural selection and developmental processes.” This seems to force Darwin to share the award stage, but leads to a follow-up question of how creative ‘developmental processes’ can be outside of natural selection. Adding one blind process to another doesn’t seem particularly helpful. And for anyone who thinks Darwinism has led to understanding about snake evolution since 1859, we also read that “Three major competing hypotheses for the habitat of early snakes – burrowing i.e. worm-like, aquatic, or terrestrial – have been debated for more than a century by biologists and palaeontologists” (italics theirs).Too much fitness. Dinosaurs were too successful for their own good, say evolutionists from the University of Reading on Phys.org. The authors of this scenario must believe in ‘extinction of the fittest.’ According to them, “The inability of the dinosaurs to adapt rapidly enough as the Earth became full may explain why they were in decline prior to the asteroid strike, and why they were so susceptible to almost total extinction when it hit.” Does this make any sense? The storytellers had just told us that dinosaurs had diversified extensively, so as to fill every niche. Now they’re saying they couldn’t diversify because they filled the earth. But the earth is a very big place. Surely some of them could have survived, but not a single species remains. Butterflies and butterworts did just fine.On the origin of termites by negative natural selection. Evolutionists from the University of North Carolina pretend to tell how termites evolved from cockroaches (Phys.org). First, they establish their turf by asserting evolution with gusto: They [termites] evolved. Ants and wasps evolved. Termites evolved a broad range of immune mechanisms. Cockroaches have evolved many mechanisms to resist the broad array of offensive chemicals they encounter in their environment, including insecticides. Sufficiently indoctrinated via repetition, the unwary reader is unprepared for the only empirical evidence offered: specialization of diverse chemosensory genes in cockroaches for the social habitats of termites. It’s another story of evolution by subtraction masquerading as scientific explanation: “The far more specialized but evolutionarily related termite experienced considerable losses of smell and taste genes, commensurate with the more specialized chemistry of its ecological habitat.” Just as a blind cave fish can survive in its specialized environment, a termite with fewer tools can do quite well in its colony, compared to its better equipped relative, la cucuracha. “The German cockroach now holds the world record for the diversity of its chemosensory gene repertoire.” If a decathlete decides to compete in the pentathlon, has he evolved?Evo-Devo or evil devil? Another case of adding ‘developmental processes’ to the scenario of evolution is found in Current Biology, which writes about “Evo–Devo: The Double Identity of Insect Wings.” The subtitle could be confused with Grimm’s Fairy Tales: “Sometime [i.e., once upon a time] in the Devonian, perhaps about 400 million years ago, insects became the first clade to conquer the sky. Recent evo-devo studies have begun to unravel the mysterious origin of the flight structure that made insects into extraordinary six-legged fliers.” Inquiring minds want to know: did they “conquer the sky” by intelligent design? If not, does adding one blind process (evo-devo) to another (classical natural selection) open the eyes of science to understanding? Have the storytellers listed all the requirements for a heavier-than-air animal to conquer the sky, overcoming gravity with powered flight? Current Biology readily admits that insects are “extraordinary six-legged fliers,” but the origin of any flight is “mysterious” only when it is attributed to blind, unguided processes. It’s not so mysterious when intelligent minds bring it about, like the designers at Boeing or Lockheed.Compounding the problems. If the evolutionary origin of flight once is miraculous enough, how about twice? PNAS shamelessly writes about “Dual evolutionary origin of insect wings” as if this is not a problem for Darwinism. The authors admit that the origin of flight is a profound challenge: “The origin of insect wings is still a highly debated mystery in biology, despite the importance of this evolutionary innovation.” Using evolution-assuming words like ‘acquisition’ and ’emergence’ does not seem particularly convincing for those of us hunting for evidence of understanding on the question. For someone not already assuming Darwinism, how much understanding is evident in the Abstract?Acquisition of morphologically novel structures can facilitate successful radiation during evolution. The emergence of wings in hexapods represents a profound moment in eukaryotic evolution, making insects one of the most successful groups. However, the tissue that gave rise to this novel and evolutionarily crucial structure, and the mechanism that facilitated its evolution, are still under intense debate. By studying various wing-related tissues in beetles, we demonstrated that two distinct lineages of wing-related tissues are present even outside the appendage-bearing segments. This outcome supports a dual evolutionary origin of insect wings, and shows that novelty can emerge through two previously unassociated tissues collaborating to form a new structure.As stated, “wing-related tissues” represent only a piece of the puzzle. Wings are useless unless attached to muscles that are controlled by nerves responding to a program in the brain. Not only that, the entire body plan of the animal needs adjusting to life on the wing. But even giving these Darwinians the time of day, they should realize that similar wing-related tissues in two lineages does not provide sufficient evidence to attribute wings to Darwinian evolution. We see similar materials used in unrelated man-made inventions. Why must the reader accept the presumption that Darwin did it?Convergence is a word, not an explanation. We’ve seen Darwinians many times misleading the public with the word ‘convergence’ when similar traits appear in unrelated organisms. According to Darwin’s tree, similarities should only appear on the same branches, but often, similarities appear on different branches. How does that happen? Convergence is a word, not an explanation. It assumes the similar traits both evolved by Darwinian processes, when actually, neither one has been demonstrated. Here’s a recent example from Science Daily: “Convergent evolution of gene regulation in humans and mice.” The opening paragraph is simply an assertion, not a demonstration:Organisms that aren’t closely related may evolve similar traits as they adapt to similar challenges. It’s called convergent evolution, and familiar examples include the wings of birds, bats, and insects, and echolocation in bats and dolphins. Now, molecular biologists have found evidence of convergent evolution in an important mechanism of gene regulation in humans and mice.What is the evidence in this case? Evolutionists “described a complex system that regulates the same genes in the same way in both species, yet evolved independently in the two lineages.” None of the details presented have anything to do with mutation and selection. Those words don’t even appear in the article. Instead, the authors simply assume that the similarities evolved, even though “In the case of human and mouse, their lineages diverged about 90 million years ago.”Outing the endosymbiont theory. For decades, evolutionists have told us that a prokaryote merged with a free-living mitochondrion and became a eukaryote. Yet PNAS still admits that “The origin of mitochondria is a challenging and intensely debated issue.” So how did it happen? They don’t know that, either: “It is unknown whether mitochondria were acquired early or late, and whether it was captured via phagocytosis or syntrophic integration.” So many things would have had to change for this to work, it baffles the ability of Darwin’s theory to account for it. It should also be noted that the story is inherently Lamarckian (inheritance of acquired characteristics). The latest spin in this paper uses the analogy of farming: the host farmed out some of its metabolic work to the new tenants, “like humans farm pigs.” Well, then, did the hosts do this by intelligent design? Analogies can be useful for teaching, but can be misleading in scientific explanation. We expect better from scientists.Mixing unlike processes. Another PNAS paper tries to apply Darwinian theory to very different things: biological inheritance and learning. In “Evolution of vertical and oblique transmission under fluctuating selection,” they apply Darwinism where it doesn’t belong: “The evolution and maintenance of social learning, in competition with individual learning, under fluctuating selection have been well-studied in the theory of cultural evolution,” they say. But when teachers teach, are students ‘evolving’? When a caveman shows his son how to make a flintstone axe, is the son evolving? It sounds ridiculous, and it is: it completely ignores the role of intelligence as a cause, as opposed to genetic mutations and blind natural selection. This should be obvious, but the authors point to previous literature as a bandwagon argument to validate their foray into “cultural evolution” as if it is another dimension of biological evolution. Even so, they have to introduce a new concept of “fluctuating selection” to explain the differences. CEH has long argued that natural selection reduces to the Stuff Happens Law. Now, we learn that Stuff Happens at different rates. How that improves scientific understanding is left as an exercise.Evolutionary explanations are deductions, not findings of science. “It evolved, therefore.” Better yet, “Stuff happens, therefore.” We’re sure you understand biology better now. Aren’t you glad you have the accumulated wisdom of 158 years of Charlie D’s Authentic Stuff Happens Snake Oil to shed light on the living world? My, what would we do without the Darwinians to heal all of our intellectual maladies? It’s so relaxing not to have to think any more. Stuff Happens; that’s all you need to know.(Visited 441 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest Agricultural producers rented and farmed 353.8 million acres of farmland, according to the results of the 2014 Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agricultural Land (TOTAL) survey results released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Of these acres, 80% are owned by non-farming landlords.According to the survey results, rented farmland acres, combined with buildings on this land, are valued at more than $1.1 trillion. TOTAL counted approximately 2.1 million landlords with various ownership arrangements. In 2014, all of the landlords combined received $31.2 billion in rental income while incurring $9.2 billion in total expenses.A tenth of the 911 million U.S. farmland acres outside of Alaska and Hawaii, or about 91.5 million acres, is slated for ownership transfer in the next five years, not including farmland that is in or is expected to be put into wills. Landlords expect to keep or put nearly 48% of these acres in trusts. Only 21 million acres of land are expected to be sold to a non-relative, while 26 million acres are expected to be sold to a relative or given as a gift. This means that only a small percentage of farmland will be available for new entrants into the farming sector.“Farmland has always been a valuable resource, but what we see in the most recent TOTAL results is the emergence of farmland as a future investment,” said Joseph T. Reilly, NASS Administrator. “More families are creating trust ownerships to make sure land remains in their family for farming or as an investment.”In addition to looking at farmland, TOTAL also provides a glimpse into demographic information for 1.4 million non-farming individuals and principals in partnerships arrangements, also known as principal landlords. According to the findings, the average age of these landlords is 66.5 years old. This age exceeds that of the average farmer, who is 58.3 years old, according to the most recent Census of Agriculture. Only 18% of all principal landlords were under 55 years old. Nearly 45% of all of the principal landlords have never farmed.TOTAL, which NASS conducted in cooperation with USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), surveyed farmland ownership in 48 contiguous states. It is the only NASS survey that collects agricultural landlord data. The survey is expected to greatly contribute to research and policy analysis. Farmland ownership and decisions stemming from ownership arrangements are key issues for which ERS serves as a primary source of information.“Access to land is one of the biggest challenges facing agricultural producers, particularly beginning farmers,” said Mary Bohman, ERS Administrator. “TOTAL gives us a chance to demonstrate the extent of the land access issue and provide realistic projections of future land availability for purchase or for rent.”To access the complete 2014 TOTAL results, in addition to key data highlights, methodology, and Frequently Asked Questions, visit http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/TOTAL/ or the Quick Stats database at http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov.