49ers rookie punter Mitch Wishnowsky pockets NFC award

first_imgSANTA CLARA — Mitch Wishnowsky’s busiest workload of his rookie season has paid dividends, first with yet another 49ers victory and now with his first NFL award.Wishnowsky won NFC Special Teams Player of the Week honors Wednesday, the first 49ers rookie to do so since Doug Brien in 1994, their last Super Bowl-winning season.KANSAS CITY, MO – AUGUST 24: Punter Mitch Wishnowsky #6 of the San Francisco 49ers looks on during pre-game warm ups, prior to a preseason game against the Kansas City …last_img read more

Science Reporters Don’t Even Try to Be Politically Neutral

first_imgMore evidence that when politics and ethics are in the news, science reporters will inevitably gravitate to the far-left position.AbortionScientists for barbarism: What could be more outrageous in recent news than Planned Parenthood’s selling baby body parts for profit? The videos from the Center for Medical Progress (five so far) have shocked the nation, prompting many Congresspersons (not just Republicans) to call for immediate defunding of the nation’s leading abortion provider. In the latest video (see Townhall.com), Holly O’Donnell recounts how she was forced to harvest baby parts, even without consent forms, and was encouraged to pressure women to get abortions.One might think that science reporters would be very cautious in their coverage, avoiding any appearance of support for Planned Parenthood. The reality is far from it. Medical Xpress printed a headline, “Scientists say fetal tissue essential for medical research.” The article attempts to rationalize the practice by touting alleged progress with vaccines and studies that “eventually will provide a benefit to society,” but makes no attempt to explore whether alternatives exist, or explain how medicine progressed before abortions became legal. It’s not just the reporter. Leading scientists from MIT, Stanford and the NIH are quoted arguing for continuance of fetal tissue availability.At The Conversation, Simon Woods at least calls for more openness on the practice. “There ought to be a wider and more informed debate about the use of all human tissue in research, because a lack of transparency will only stand in the way of proper ethical reflection on the practices that underpin such important aims as medical research,” he says. But this is after his laundry list of benefits coming from fetal tissue research. In an astonishing lack of understanding, he equates babies with their parts: “But human tissue is already involved in many commercial transactions of one kind or another, such as sale of blood and tissue products to healthcare services.” Doesn’t he know that he himself is more than his liver? Woods treats the scandal as just the latest tempest in a teapot over a history of uproars among anti-abortionists.The leftist slant is clear also on another Medical Xpress article about the videos. Who is upset? It’s only “anti-abortion activists” and “the religious right.” Hillary Clinton could hardly have phrased it differently. Elizabeth Warren is given a prominent quote after conservatives are pictured unflatteringly. Attempting to look objective, the article mentions prominent Republicans and Democrats, but portrays the controversy only as a “revived debate” and the latest “storm” that will likely pass.Iran NukesTo many, the most critical international decision of our time is the deal with Iran about nuclear weapons development. Conservatives have been outspoken over the momentous negative consequences of this deal (e.g., Dennis Prager’s video #1 and video #2), likening it to the 1930’s appeasement of Hitler, if not worse—paving a path for another holocaust. You would never know that if all you read was Science Magazine‘s exclusive interview with Iran’s atomic czar, Ali Akbar Salehi. Interviewer Richard Stone asks softball questions, allowing Salehi to portray the deal as pro-science, all congeniality and destined to promote world peace. It would be hard to imagine Science Magazine giving Christian theology good press, but here’s how Stone ends the interview, with no hard follow-up whatsoever:Q: AEOI went through some very dark days a few years ago, when five nuclear scientists were assassinated.A: Let me tell you about one, Masoud Alimohammadi. Twenty-five years ago, when I was president of Sharif University [of Technology], we started the first Ph.D. program in Iran, in physics. Alimohammadi was the first Ph.D. student.Q: Do their deaths cast a shadow on international collaboration? I mean, will your scientists feel nervous about working with counterparts from overseas?A: No. We have a very peculiar characteristic of our nation. Being Muslims, we are ready for any kind of destiny because we do not look upon it like you have lost your life. OK, but you have gained martyrdom and we believe in eternity.For our people, it’s easy to absorb such things. I mean, this did not really turn into an impediment to our nuclear activities. In fact, it gave an impetus to the field, in the sense that after [the assassinations], many students who were studying in other fields changed to nuclear science.Q: The assassinations were inspiring?A: Yes. They thought they would terrorize the scientific community in Iran. By threatening us, we will step back from that path—but we did not.Q: What do you want to be remembered for?A: As a person who did good for mankind. That’s it.ImmigrationScience Daily committed a whopper of a half-truth when it promoted leftist talking points on immigration, using European psychologist Jonas Kunst from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology as its expert voice. Here’s the ending paragraph; what’s missing?To encourage acceptance and support of immigrants, government programs or non-profit organizations could highlight the fact that the United States is a nation of immigrants, Kunst said. People may be less prejudiced against immigrants if they remember that their own ancestors were immigrants as well.The statement is true as given, but it’s missing a key word: “legal”. That word appears nowhere in the article. Omitting that concept gives the impression that anyone who opposes illegal immigration is prejudiced when, in fact, most conservatives are all for legal immigration. It’s the flood of people breaking America’s laws to enter they are against. This article makes no pretense of trying to be objective. Either you welcome everybody in with no controls at all, or you are prejudiced. On top of that, the use of a leftist “expert” puts a false veneer of “science” on one of the pressing issues facing America and the world.ChurchIt’s hard to know how to justify scientifically another piece in Science Daily titled, “High participation in small church groups has its downside, research shows.” This claim comes from academics at Clemson & Louisiana State who “found” that the more people join small church groups, the less they are involved in “civic activities.” But what are civic activities? Isn’t church a civic activity, leading people to pray for one another and help one another? No; “civic activities” are defined in such a way as to bias the conclusion leftward.For instance, look at the contrast drawn by Clemson sociologist Andrew Whitehead: “The dense social networks and strong bonds created within congregations with high overall small-group participation can actually serve to isolate congregants from the needs of those outside the religious group, leading to lower levels of civic engagement.” This sentence creates a false dichotomy. People are people, whether they are inside a group or outside of it; if church people are helping those in their group, they are helping people—period. That’s a form of civic engagement. What are they supposed to do, join ACORN and become community organizers? Why didn’t Whitehead and his peers investigate this “downside” among NGO’s, atheist groups and the Sierra Club?Whitehead seems concerned that church people in small groups tend to donate primarily to their church. But if the church is providing a positive good for a community, why is that distinguished from “civic engagement”? Most churches are welcoming to their communities. Churches and religious organizations arguably perform far more charitable work than secular nonprofits or government programs. Whitehead seems to acknowledge this:Clemson researcher Andrew Whitehead, an assistant professor of sociology, and co-author Samuel Stroope of Louisiana State University, said small-group participants who are active in prayer, discussion or Bible study groups are far more likely to be engaged in civic service activities, volunteering, financial giving and advocacy than their fellow communicants.However, in churches with high levels of group participation, these parishioners are almost two times less likely to donate money to charities other than the church.Why is this a problem? He just said that the devout, Bible-studying small group participants outperform pew packers in civic service activities, such as volunteering, giving and advocacy. Logically, then, it makes sense to support the church where the most good is being done to the most people.To be objective, these sociologists could have concluded that governments should provide more support and encouragement to churches, where the real civic work is getting done—and done better—than in government programs and non-church organizations (although exceptions can always be found). But by characterizing church small groups as “other” than civic, the secular “researchers” (code for objective scientists) create the impression that the good performers—members of small church groups—are not doing their civic duty. To him, this is a “downside” of church involvement. That’s a moral judgment beyond the bounds of science.ObjectivityAn interesting study published by PLoS ONE showed that the more controversial the topic, the more Wikipedia is subject to “information sabotage.” Science Daily explains:Wikipedia reigns. It’s the world’s most popular online encyclopedia, the sixth most visited website in America, and a research source most U.S. students rely on. But, according to a paper published today in the journal PLOS ONE, Wikipedia entries on politically controversial scientific topics can be unreliable due to information sabotage.Cases in point are: global warming, evolution, and acid rain—with evolution being the most pronounced: “While the edit rate of the acid rain article was less than the edit rate of the evolution and global warming articles, it was significantly higher than the non-controversial topics,” the article says. “Across the board, politically controversial scientific topics were edited more heavily and viewed more often.”Applying empirical modesty, the only scientific conclusion to be drawn is that controversial topics get more edits. Period. This should not be surprising; controversial topics generate lots of talk and activity wherever they come up. However, the paper and Science Daily article imply  non-scientific value judgments from the findings: (1) “reliable” information comes from the scientific consensus and Big Science enterprises; (2) edits to what the consensus says constitutes “sabotage” (a loaded word).That sabotage occurs is also not surprising; Wikipedia has algorithms that exclude profanity, for instance. But sabotage can be inflicted by the majority, too. Several proponents of intelligent design have tried repeatedly to correct falsehoods made about them on Wikipedia, but the moment they edit the falsehood, some faceless watchdog puts the lie back in. This creates a situation where a highly-trusted website can damage an honest person’s reputation, allowing him no recourse. Some have complained to Wikipedia but to no avail. There could be cases where a creationist with a PhD in biology tries to correct misinformation about Darwin’s finches or Haeckel’s embryos, but is trumped by a fast dorm student in his underwear who has a personal agenda to protect Darwinism from all appearance of weakness. For controversial topics, therefore, Wikipedia can be a source of misinformation. We can all agree, though, with the authors’ conclusions that Wikipedia is a mixed bag:So what should be done? In the future, it may be possible to automatically identify and flag pages with significant controversy and quantify user reputation, both of which could be made visible to help readers critically evaluate the content of a page. For now, however, these results reinforce the position that Wikipedia should not be used in academic citations without very careful consideration and scrutiny. Wikipedia acknowledges this and reports that, “while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish.” Furthermore, Wikipedia’s policy on academic use is clear that “Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source … any encyclopedia is a starting point for research, not an ending point.” What is needed is a wider appreciation of how to best leverage the vast quantity of information in Wikipedia to take advantage of its strengths (vast coverage and frequent updates) and avoid its weaknesses (potential for errors, conflict between editors, and content stability). Users should be aware that content in Wikipedia can be extremely dynamic; two students could obtain, within seconds, diametrically different information on a controversial scientific topic. Educators should ensure that students understand the limitations and appropriate uses of Wikipedia, especially for controversial scientific issues.Darwinizing the RightThe most egregious example of media bias appears when science reporters portray their political opponents as less evolved. For example, Hanae Armitage used Science Magazine‘s clout to write that “Voting bias taps into ‘caveman’ instincts.” She refers specifically to Republicans following Donald Trump:People with low-pitched voices have higher testosterone levels, which also correlate to bulkier muscles and more aggressive behavior—attractive qualities in prehistoric leaders…. Donald Trump, for one, might not be leading in recent polls because of his off-the-charts testosterone levels and physical prowess, but because he knows how to pump up the bass.Scientifically, that hypothesis should cut both ways: any bass-speaking Democrat should out-compete small females with high-pitched voices in political contests. Not only is this demonstrably false, it undermines the whole basis of democracy, that people should be able to vote on matters of principle, not be pawns of “caveman instincts”. Even some evolutionists deny that instincts that far back have any bearing on human behavior today.Another article on PhysOrg that argues that genes can make us liberal or conservative. The claim is justified on Darwinian grounds: “From an evolutionary standpoint, risk-taking is a complicated business: in some situations, it may enhance one’s chances of success or survival, and in others it may spell doom.” Since this claim also undermines the ability of humans to think rationally, it undermines itself as well. It might serve, though, as a contender for the next BAH! Festival.Science CredIs the Big Science’s political bias undermining its street cred? “The future of science will soon be upon us,” Nature says, urging adoption of “Science 2.0,” a set of goals even scientists were skeptical of last year. It appears to be a program geared to get more political funding. If scientists are perceived as another special-interest group clamoring at the public till, what are taxpayers to think? Distrust is especially worrisome with PhysOrg reporting that “Vanity and predatory academic publishers are corrupting the pursuit of knowledge.” Exploitation, predatory practices, and personal ambition, Michael J. I. Brown says, are wreaking havoc with science’s reputation. Two scientists (Ravetz and Saltelli) wrote Nature this week with the opinion that Big Science is on the verge of collapse, because its institutions are harming the aspirations of honest researchers. Their letter bears repeating:The challenges of maintaining trust in science (see Nature 522, 6; 2015) can be understood in terms of corrupting pressures that make it harder for scientists to do the good work to which many aspire.The sheer scale of science today is destroying colleague communities; it also demands ‘objective’ metrics of quality, which are perverse and corruptible. These effects are compounded by imported commercial pressures. The idealism that motivated ‘little science’ is no longer plausible.Maintaining the public’s trust in science calls for an urgent evaluation of its imperfections and vulnerabilities. We must identify what needs to be unlearned in the prevalent understanding of science: for example, we now know that any science-related policy problem poses more questions and solutions than can be derived from the illusory precision of models and indicators (a factor in the 2008 financial crisis).Social-media channels are starting to teach the public more about new views of science. The growth of ‘DIY science’, which owes only minimal deference to established institutions, will eventually influence science education, and to good effect. In much the same spirit as citizen science has developed in parallel with established science, a movement of scientifically aware citizens could emerge within science. These citizens would develop an understanding of the connection between science’s internal problems, such as morale and quality assurance, and external pressures of the sort we describe.This letter makes it clear that “big science” or “institutional science” is not objective. It is fraught with imperfections and vulnerabilities. It is so off track, they say, that the public needs to “unlearn” its prevalent understanding of what science is and what it is capable of. They seem to cast a wistful eye at the good old days of Boyle, Joule, and Mendel. If the days of ‘little science’ are forever gone, at least “scientifically aware citizens” can educate the public about these internal problems and influence science education.Welcome to Creation-Evolution Headlines. Thanks for the endorsement.We respect and appreciate individual scientists who do their best to advance knowledge. If you are one of them, you need to realize that the institutions that claim to represent “Science” have abandoned the ideals of science. Big Science has followed the downward slide of other institutions from their once noble goals. It has become another leftist power station, like Big Labor, Big Law, Big Hollywood, Big Academia and Big Media. Why? Follow the money. Each of these wants Big Government. That’s a leftist goal. Conservatives stress individual freedom and responsibility, small government, and self-determination. Leftists are also overwhelmingly secular in outlook, depending on Darwin for a pseudo-scientific rationale for their position. Doing science from an “evolutionary standpoint” is self-refuting (a “standpoint” on quicksand). It’s time to call the bluff on these Big Left institutions, including Big Science. With “only minimal deference to established institutions,” it’s time to promote “DIY Science,” “citizen science” and “understanding,” that Ravetz and Saltelli admire.Maybe CEH can be counted among the “Social-media channels [that] are starting to teach the public more about new views of science.” What’s new here, though, is old. It’s the old honest pursuit of the truth, following the evidence where it leads, standing on the solid ground of rationality that proceeds from a Rational origin.(Visited 67 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Jurassic Ark: Mesozoic Fossils that Challenge Evolution

first_img(Visited 42 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Here are recent discoveries of extinct terrestrial and marine reptiles and animals from the Jurassic and Cretaceous.Generic early theropod: A “mini-T. rex” near the coast of Wales is reported in Live Science. Two brothers were hunting for ichthyosaurs when they found a theropod instead, from the early Jurassic. It looks very similar to ones 200 million years older. Why didn’t it evolve? “About 200 million years later, the [newfound] dinosaur looks a little generic, but at the time in the early Jurassic, it was quite new and different,” Steven Vidovic of the University of Portsmouth remarked. “So the reason it might look a bit generic in hindsight is that loads of later dinosaurs repeated the winning formula.” Because later theropods are assumed to have evolved into birds, New Scientist shows an artist’s rendition replete with imaginary protofeathers. What they are not asking is, where is the pre-theropod ancestor? Another interesting aspect is the manner of its burial. The BBC News says “the animal was encased in marine rocks, meaning its body was somehow transported out to sea before settling into sediments.” In fact, sea urchins were found all over it.Marine giant: A pliosaur that “terrorized Russian seas” long before there were Russian people is announced on PhysOrg. Pliosaurs are like short-necked plesiosaurs, often larger; together, they make up the Sauropterygians. Pliosaurs “existed in the oceans from the Triassic right until the end of the Cretaceous, when they went extinct along with the non-avian dinosaurs and other vertebrate groups,” the article states. “This actually makes sauropterygians the longest living group of marine-adapted tetrapods (animals with four limbs), which is quite an impressive feat!” No doubt. But if they are tetrapods, didn’t they have to evolve from land creatures into obligate sea creatures, like whales presumably did? (see Living Waters film). Why, yes. Are there any fossils documenting such a “great transformation”? As with all ichthyosaurs (“fish-lizards”), “Clear transitional forms with land-dwelling vertebrate groups have not yet been found, the earliest known species of the ichthyosaur lineage being already fully aquatic.”Update 1/23/16: Oxford scientists had a “wow” moment when they discovered a long-necked plesiosaur, a “fantastic fossil” with almost all its bones in a quarry. They named their sea monster “Eve,” the BBC News reports. Plesiosaurs have 76 neck vertebrae, compared to a giraffe’s 7. Like pliosaurs, these creatures were fully aquatic but have no known terrestrial ancestors, even though according to evolution, they must have evolved from land tetrapods. All four limbs are flippers adapted for swimming. This one they claim is 165 million years old. A paleontologist remarked that Eve has “some anatomical features only seen in Picrocleidus, a plesiosaur about half the size of this new skeleton.” The neck alone is 8 feet long.Big eyed arthropod: Dollocaris is an extinct Jurassic crustacean with twin eyes so big, they amounted to one quarter of its whole body length. PhysOrg has a picture of the critter that was announced in Nature Communications. One amazing aspect is the exceptional preservation, allowing scientists to count individual ommatidia (segments) of its compound eyes. They estimate this creature had 18,000 ommatidia in each eye—a huge number for arthropods, only exceeded by some dragonflies that have 30,000. Such large eyes with so many segments gave these creatures panoramic vision. The authors understand that Cambrian arthropods already had complex eyes 550 million years ago in the evolutionary scheme, and this one is much later, but they note: “Although apposition eyes most certainly evolved much earlier than the Jurassic, we present direct evidence here that the internal organization of the most common modern eye type already existed 160 million years ago.” Even so, if they “evolved much earlier,” they did so without any ancestors, since all the arthropods of the Cambrian explosion appear abruptly, eyes and all. Live Science says they had “incredibly complex sight” and “acute vision”.Big guys: Another Titanosaur fossil was found in South America, PhysOrg reports. This one “likely shook the ground with each step in what is now modern-day Argentina,” it states. The behemoth was “82 to 92 feet and up to 66 tons – 132,000 pounds.” They are the largest land animals that ever lived, comparable to humpback whales in size. In a related article, PhysOrg shows a picture of the new titanosaur exhibit in New York. All the titanosaurs found come from South America and Patagonia.Love is a frilling thing: Science Daily is making the claim that those large bony frills on ceratopsids are proof of sexual selection. The “first demonstration of sexual selection in dinosaurs” has been identified, they say, because the frills are “likely to have been used in sexual displays and to assert social dominance.” How can they know that? Well, scientists at Queen Mary University argue that the frills grew as the animals matured, therefore they must have been for sex. One of the profs shares his ideas on The Conversation, even speculating on what colors would have put a female Protoceratops in the mood for love. None of this is more than inference based on evolutionary assumptions. Meanwhile, in Canada, Phil Currie is excited about a different ceratopsid named Chasmosaurus and how its frill changed shape as it grew. This Science Daily article, by contrast, contains no speculation about the frill being used for sexual selection.Dinosaur bones are real, and so were the creatures that left the remains. What’s unreal are the stories told about them. Evolutionists pick up the bones and, like shamans around the campfire, wave them about as they dream up worlds out of their imagination. Dinosaurs morphed from mythical pre-dinosaurs, they say, and then morphed into new shapes over vast periods of unobserved time. Nonsense. They appear without ancestors in the fossil record, and they went extinct. The facts of these articles challenge the evolutionary view and support rapid burial in flood conditions.last_img read more

Five alternative energy initiatives in Africa

first_img26 October 2016The renewable energy industry is a two-fold opportunity: it offers cost- effective, environmentally friendly energy to consumers in Africa and it provides a new avenue of business for entrepreneurs. Five companies are at the forefront of making alternative energy viable on the continent.Solynta EnergySolynta Engineering Team in action! #solar#nigeria#lagos# pic.twitter.com/vcoDDeKIpo— Solynta Energy (@SolyntaEnergy) October 6, 2015Founded by Lagos entrepreneur Uvie Ugono in Nigeria in 2013, Solynta provides solar panel installations to Nigeria, Ghana and South Africa. Operating with little corporate support, the company focuses on installing systems onto schools, healthcare facilities and small businesses. The company also operates a number of solar “filling stations” around Nigeria that offers consumer education, repairs and pre-loaded solar panels.Off Grid ElectricOur customers rely on their mobile devices to make payments https://t.co/3SxVFpiE6c pic.twitter.com/K8YcDs2j7t— Off Grid Electric (@OffGridE) August 18, 2016This Tanzanian small-scale power supplier uses the M-Pesa mobile money service to provide solar power systems, including LED lighting systems, to rural areas. The self-sustaining solar system complete with panels and lithium battery can be installed for as little as US$6 (about R82). It has installed over 10 000 systems in rural Tanzania and Rwanda. The company raised over $25-million (about R344-million) in 2015 that goes towards providing systems, maintenance support and technical training.Ugesi GoldUgesi Gold and EnergyNet’s off-grid energy solution starts generating power at SA school https://t.co/T4tJXNVYIA pic.twitter.com/QHrR3u8jKf— Damilola Ade (@aadedamilola) February 17, 2016A South African energy start-up, Ugesi Gold provides solar battery charging stations, called SolarTurtles, in rural areas where users can charge solar battery packs which are then carried home. In February 2014 the project was proclaimed as a Climate Solver by the World Wildlife Fund that highlights the best technologies in reducing carbon emissions and support energy access while creating awareness of the value of innovation as a tool to tackle climate change.JuabarAnother great concept for #solar mobile phone charging kiosks in rural areas – this one Juabar from Tanzania #tech4D pic.twitter.com/mpOc6zurpO— Anna Lowe (@annawillcreate) January 29, 2016Juabars, Swahili for ‘sun bar’, are becoming a common sight in Tanzania in small towns and urban areas alike. Started in 2013, Juabar travelling solar-powered phone charging kiosks use 50W solar-PV systems to charge up to 20 mobile phones or small electronic appliances at once. The company charges $600 (about R8 200) for start-up equipment and aftersales technical support to entrepreneurs who want to offer charging services to the approximately 30-million mobile users in the country. The stations are also used as mini-hubs for the community “to interact with, learn about, and create their own solar energy solutions.”SolarKiosk@solarkiosk empowers the sustainable economic development of BoP communities through clean energy services and products. #CleanSolcution pic.twitter.com/6D9AGbt4MF— GoodFestival 2016 (@GoodPowWow) October 22, 2016Operating in Kenya and Ethiopia, SolarKiosk converts traditional kiosk-stores with solar panels, enabling it to run on its own power and provide additional services to consumers, including battery charging, refrigeration and internet access. The converted kiosks provide a vital connection for rural communities to the rest of the world. The concept has been featured at the global ideas hub Tedx and won several international innovation awards.Source: AFKInsiderSouthAfrica.info reporterWould you like to use this article in your publication or on your website? See: Using SouthAfrica.info materiallast_img read more

A manageable pest

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Dusty Sonnenberg, CCA, Ohio Field LeaderAnytime the words “invasive species” are used to describe a new pest, people take notice. That is the hope when it comes to the brown marmorated stink bug. Kelley Tilmon, Ohio State University Extension entomologist, hopes farmers will take advantage of the new Stink Bugs pocket guide and quick reference card. The new pocket guide and quick reference cards were produced with funding from the North Central Soybean Research Program and the Ohio Soybean Council and the soybean checkoff. Stink bugs are pests that may decrease soybean yields and quality significantly without proper management. “The good news it this is a manageable pest,” Tilmon said. “Most of our pyrethroid insecticides are effective against stink bugs. The use of organophosphates is not generally recommended.” Stink bugs attack soybeans by inserting their piercing and sucking mouthparts directly into the pod and developing seed. “In essence, they feed on the good stuff that the seed needs to develop,” Tilmon said. “In fields where stink bug infestations are severe, yield losses above 20 bushels per acre have been realized. There has been over a 50% loss in seed quality in those same fields.” From a quality standpoint, pods impacted will appear to be flat where the seeds were fed on. As the pod matures and dries down, those affected seeds will appear shriveled and discolored. Depending on the stage of the soybean at the time of feeding, they may even be aborted. Another concern when it comes to yield is the potential for green stem syndrome. Green stem syndrome occurs when soybean plants stay green at the time when the leaves should be maturing (turning yellow) and dropping to the ground. This results in delayed maturity. The predominant thought is that green stem syndrome is caused by disease, insect feeding (such as stink bugs), and environmental stress during the reproductive stages of the plant. “Awareness of the pest is the first step. You will not typically notice damage by simply walking the field. Scouting involves the use of a sweep net,” Tilmon said. The economic threshold is an average of four stinkbugs in 10 sweeps for commodity soybeans. That threshold drops to an average of two stinkbugs per 10 sweeps if the beans are for seed production. Tilmon recommends scouting when soybeans are at the R3 stage of development to create a baseline. Scouting should continue throughout the remainder of the growing season. There are a variety of problematic stink bugs found in Ohio. “While the brown marmorated stink bug is the invasive species, other common species include the green stink bug, redshouldered stink bug, brown stink bug, dusky stink bug, and onespotted stink bug. All these can cause damage to soybeans,” Tilmon said. Tilmon reminds growers that if a treatment is warranted for stink bugs, to keep in mind that the later we get in the season, pre-harvest intervals could come into play. “Applicators should be sure to check the product label for the respective pre-harvest interval that must be followed,” Tilmon said.There are also beneficial stink bugs in Ohio. The two-spotted stink bug and spined shouldered bug are predatory species. These are the good bugs,” Tilmon said. Currently a good deal of stink bug and general entomology research is being conducted in Ohio and the surrounding states. The North Central Soybean Research Program is funding studies of the various beneficial insects that exist. Parasitoid wasps attach the eggs of stink bugs and ladybugs will feed on the stink bug eggs. Entomologists are investigating the release of beneficial insects found in Asia where the brown marmorated stink bug is native. There is also research being conducted investigating potential soybean variety susceptibility and traits.Ohio Field Leader is a project of the Ohio Soybean Council. For more, visit ohiofieldleader.com.last_img read more

Tweeting Often and on Weekends is More Effective, Suggests Data

first_imgTop Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting Tags:#biz#tips john paul titlow Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai…center_img 8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market How often should you post updates to Twitter for maximum impact? Is there a time of day that works best? What about a day of the week?These are the types of questions that Dan Zarrella is constantly trying to answer. Instead of relying on intuition and hearsay, however, the self-described “social media scientist” prefers to take a look a look at things more objectively, using data. Zarrella, who works for HubSpot and has authored such delightfully nerdy reports as “The Science of ReTweets”, recently hosted a webinar titled “The Science of Timing” that took a close look at how the timing of social media activity impacts its effectiveness. The hugely popular webinar had a number of interesting takeaways, some of which were surprising. For example: Tweeting later in the day and later in the week results in more retweets.The click-through-rate on tweeted links appears to spike in the late morning and then again around 5pm.The click-through rate on links tends to decline as more links are tweeted per hour. After about six links per hour, click-throughs essentially drop off. Still, tweeting more frequently leads to more followers, but Facebook is a different story: Too many posts on Facebook can more easily alienate people.Weekends are an ideal time for sharing on Facebook.More people tend to open marketing emails in the early morning than any other time during the day. Weekends also appear to be effective for emails.Check out the slides below for more data-backed social media pointers. The Science of Timing View more presentations from HubSpot Internet Marketing Related Posts last_img read more

Tendulkar and Dravid move up in ICC Test rankings

first_imgSenior batsmen Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid gained a place each in the latest ICC player rankings for Test batsmen, which is being headed by South Africa all-rounder Jacques Kallis.While Tendulkar improved from fifth to fourth, Dravid rose a rung to ninth from tenth position.Among Indian bowlers, pace spearhead Zaheer Khan gained a place to be at sixth despite being ruled out of the recently concluded four-match Test series between India and England after sustaining hamstring injury on the very first day of the opening match at the Lord’s.As England claimed the title of number-one Test side in the world with a 4-0 series victory, four of their batsmen made it to the top-10, with Ian Bell being the most notable.Bell and Alastair Cook have jointly claimed the second position after Sri Lanka’s Kumar Sangakkara slipped three places to fifth after scoring only 10 and 17 in the recently completed Test against Australia.Kevin Pietersen and Jonathan Trott are other batsmen in the top-10. England now boast of four bowlers and equal number of batsmen in the top 10.Australia’s Shane Watson and Ryan Harris, Rangana Herath of Sri Lanka and Pakistan’s Mohammad Hafeez and Misbah-ul-Haq have achieved career-best rankings in the latest list, which was released after the completion of the Galle Test between Sri Lanka and Australia and the one-off Test between Pakistan and Zimbabwe in Bulawayo.The player rankings will now be updated after the second Test between Sri Lanka and Australia, which starts on Thursday in Pallekele, while the Test Championship table will be updated after the conclusion of the third and final Test between the two sides which starts in Colombo on 16 September.advertisementlast_img read more