Dail hears questions over design, funding and operation of Mica redress scheme Mixed reaction to cut in septic tank registration fee Dail to vote later on extending emergency Covid powers Twitter Twitter Google+ Facebook Pinterest Facebook Man arrested in Derry on suspicion of drugs and criminal property offences released Pinterest Google+ Man arrested on suspicion of drugs and criminal property offences in Derry WhatsApp Newsx Adverts RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR There’s been mixed reaction to the Environment Minister’s announcement last night that new septic tank charges are to be cut.Phil Hogan has revealed that the registration fee for septic tanks will be reduced to 5-euro, for the first 3 months, down from the proposed 50-euro.The move is an attempt to reward those who register early, from this June.The deadline for registration is March 2013.Opposition parties have accused the Minister of missing the point – saying the inspection fee isn’t the biggest worry for rural dwellers, but the inspection process itself and the possible high cost of repairs.But Irish Farmer’s Association President, John Bryan, has broadly welcomed the announcement…………[podcast]http://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ifa830.mp3[/podcast]Sinn Fein’s two TDs in Donegal are calling on the government to ensure that there are funds available for homeowners who must repair or replace tanks, with fears that problems may be detected in a significant number of tanks in the county.However, Minister Phil Hogan says he doesn’t expect there’ll be a widespread problem of tanks failing inspections.He says if the cost of cleaning up a tank is too steep, he could look at some kind of assistance for householders……………[podcast]http://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/hogan830.mp3[/podcast] Previous articleCouncil confirms it will not levy water charges on private wellsNext article2011 a busy year for RNLI in Donegal with 87 launches from three stations News Highland WhatsApp By News Highland – February 7, 2012 HSE warns of ‘widespread cancellations’ of appointments next week PSNI and Gardai urged to investigate Adams’ claims he sheltered on-the-run suspect in Donegal
Each month we profile a family firm to see how the business has passed down through the generations. Here, Northern Irish firm Irwin’s reveals how it has grown during more than a centuryThe exact date of Irwin’s inception is unknown, but paper trails date it to around 1912. Back then it was a simple grocers in Portadown, Northern Ireland, owned by William David (WD) Irwin and selling, among other things, bread baked by his wife, Ruth, and her sister Florence.“Getting food back then wasn’t a daily trip to the shop like it is now,” notes Brian Irwin, chairman of Irwin’s bakery, and WD’s grandson. “Bread was something you typically made at home, so being able to buy bread was something new.”The grocer’s continued well into the 1980s, but its bakery arm gained prominence as Irwin’s reach expanded outside Portadown over the border into Ireland and hitting the GB mainland in the ’80s.Irish Batch bread has played an important role in Irwin’s history. With its distinctive crust and resilient, open texture, it has gone on to be one of the leading skus in Northern Ireland. “It developed a reputation for quality, flavour, taste and texture,” says Brian, a reputation it still holds today. “While the variety and scope of the bread market has grown enormously, we have found that keeping traditional quality is really important in our home market.”Brian joined the business in 1976, following in the footsteps of his father Kenny, who joined in the 1930s, and his brother Niall in 1969. Niall, having studied at bakery college, joined as a master baker and is now the company’s technical director, while Brian joined on the commercial side.“We have complementary strengths,” says Brian, also highlighting the “excellent and professional management team” at Irwin’s. This team, notes Brian, is integral when servicing the multiples.While gaining new contracts was a highlight in Irwin’s history, “the big standout event was moving the bakery from our premises in which we’d been since 1912 to a modern purpose-built bakery in 1994.”Eight years later, Irwin’s teamed up with Northern Irish chef Paul Rankin to develop a range suitable for the wider UK market. Described as “extremely successful”, the Rankin Selection includes Irish Fruit Soda Bread and Irish Potato Slims. “That changed us from just being an Irish brand for Irish people,” Brian says. “These products were relevant to everyone.”Since then, Niall’s son Ross has joined as the fourth generation and is general manager of Howell’s, Irwin’s cake division. Summing up the company’s journey, Brian concludes: “It’s a really good story of enterprise and energy.” 1912: The earliest date recorded by paper trails of the origins of Irwin’s, as a grocery shop in Portadown, Northern Ireland, owned by William David Irwin1930s: William’s son Kenny joins the company1969: Niall Irwin (above right), William’s grandson, joins the firm1976: Niall’s brother Brian Irwin (above left) joins the business1980s: Irwin’s bakery arm expands into the Republic of Ireland and reaches GB mainland1994: The firm moves to a modern, purpose-built bakery2002: Irwin’s teams up with chef Paul Rankin to launch the Rankin Selection line
Simon Lock wants to change the way you think about the moon.A graduate student in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Lock is the lead author of research that challenges mainstream thought by suggesting that the moon emerged from a massive, doughnut-shaped cloud of vaporized rock called a synestia. The study was published this week in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets. Related Separated after birth Icebreaker Scientists offer a new spin on the origins of Earth’s moon Sarah Stewart-Mukhopadhyay brings out the big gun to explore the behavior of ice in planetary collisions “The commonly accepted theory as to how the moon was formed is that a Mars-size body collided with the proto-Earth and spun material into orbit,” Lock said. “That mass settled into a disk and later accreted to form the moon. The body that was left after the impact was the Earth. This has been the canonical model for about 20 years.”It’s a compelling story, Lock said, but probably wrong.“Getting enough mass into orbit in the canonical scenario is actually very difficult, and there’s a very narrow range of collisions that might be able to do it,” he said. “There’s only a couple-of-degree window of impact angles and a very narrow range of sizes … and even then some impacts still don’t work.”“This new work explains features of the moon that are hard to resolve with current ideas,” said co-author Sarah Stewart, a professor of Earth and planetary sciences at the University of California, Davis. “This is the first model that can match the pattern of the moon’s composition.”Tests have shown that the isotopic “fingerprints” for both the Earth and moon are nearly identical, suggesting that both came from the same source, the researchers noted. But in the canonical story, the moon formed from the remnants of just one of the two colliding bodies.It’s not just similarities between the Earth and moon that raise questions about the conventional wisdom — their differences do as well.Many volatile elements that are relatively common on Earth, such as potassium, sodium, and copper, are far less abundant on the moon.“There hasn’t been a good explanation for this,” Lock said. “People have proposed various hypotheses for how the moon could have wound up with fewer volatiles, but no one has been able to quantitatively match the moon’s composition.”The scenario outlined by Lock and colleagues still begins with a massive collision, but rather than creating a disc of rocky material, the impact creates the synestia.“It’s huge,” Lock said. “It can be 10 times the size of the Earth, and because there’s so much energy in the collision, maybe 10 percent of the rock of Earth is vaporized, and the rest is liquid … so the way you form the moon out of a synestia is very different.”The phenomenon includes a “seed” — a small amount of liquid rock that gathers just off the center of the doughnut-like structure. As the structure cools, vaporized rock condenses and rains down toward the center of the synestia. Some of the rain runs into the moon, causing it to grow.“The rate of rainfall is about 10 times that of a hurricane on Earth,” Lock said. “Over time, the whole structure shrinks, and the moon emerges from the vapor. Eventually, the whole synestia condenses and what’s left is a ball of spinning liquid rock that eventually forms the Earth as we know it today.”The model addresses each of the problems with the canonical model for the moon’s creation, Lock said. Since both the Earth and moon are created from the same cloud of vaporized rock, they naturally share similar isotope fingerprints. The lack of volatile elements on the moon, meanwhile, can be explained by it having formed surrounded by vapor and at 4,000‒6,000 degrees Fahrenheit.“This is a dramatically different way of forming the moon,” Lock said. “You just don’t think of a satellite forming inside another body, but this is what appears to happen.”Lock was quick to note that the work is still taking shape.“This is a basic model,” he said. “We’ve done calculations of each of the processes that go into forming the moon and shown that the model could work, but there are various aspects of our theory that will need more interrogation.“For example, when the moon is in this vapor, what does it do to that vapor? How does it perturb it? How does the vapor flow past the moon? These are all things we need to go back and examine in more detail.”Along with Lock and Stewart, researchers on the study were Matija Ćuk (SETI Institute), Stein Jacobsen (Harvard), Zoë Leinhardt (University of Bristol), Mia Mace (Bristol), and Michail Petaev (Harvard).
A South Florida commissioner shocked his colleagues and others attending an awards ceremony during Wednesday’s commission meeting.Tamarac Mayor Michelle Gomez and the city’s leadership were handing out Officer of the Month awards and posing for photos with the recognized officers.Afterward, Commissioner Mike Gelin took the microphone from Gomez and asked Broward Sheriff’s Deputy Joshua Gallardo to return to the front of the room.Gelin then criticized Gallardo over what he believed was his false arrest by the officer in 2015, stating, “You probably don’t remember me, but you’re the police officer who falsely arrested me four years ago. You lied on the police report. I believe you’re a rogue police officer. You’re a bad police officer, and you don’t deserve to be here.”Gallardo responded by smiling and walking away.Gomez told reporters afterward, “Completely shocked. This was not something we were expecting. It was supposed to be a wonderful morning. We were giving the awards for the BSO deputies of the month. It was supposed to be a feel-good time.”She took the microphone back from Gelin and expressed support for the officers in attendance and all those who protect our region.According to the website LawEnforcementToday.com, Gallardo took Gelin into custody for resisting arrest without violence in 2014, after Gelin refused to stay away from a scene in which a man had been found beaten.The district attorney chose not to move forward with case, and all of the charges were eventually dropped.“When I shared my video with the state attorney’s office to prove that I did nothing wrong, they declined to file charges against me,” Gelin says. “I had a productive conversation with the Sheriff yesterday and I will try to resolve things and move forward.”Gallardo was being honored at the meeting for his role in the April arrest of a gang member who was wanted for murder in El Salvador and was in the U.S. illegally.
England’s Ryan Evans “ripped it” with a final round 66 to come from six shots back and snatch a one-stroke win in the Avondale Amateur Medal in Australia. The victory, on 11-under par, sealed a superb tour Down Under for Evans who, two weeks ago, also won the prestigious Lake Macquarie International at Belmont in New South Wales. His play during the five-week tour of Australia has taken him up to eighth in the world amateur rankings – and that’s before his latest triumph is taken into account. Evans, an England international from Wellingborough in Northamptonshire, was well placed at the halfway stage of the Avondale Medal. He had blitzed the course with a seven-under 64 in the second round – the best score of the tournament – and, adding it to his opening 68, was just two shots off the lead set by Australia’s Harrison Endycott. But in the third round Evans slipped back with a score of 75, which he was later to describe as “terrible” on Twitter. Endycott went round in level par and held a six-shot lead going into the final round. Undaunted, Evans played the final round in five-under 66, telling his Twitter followers: “I ripped it this afternoon.” He drew level with the leader with a birdie on the 17th and fired a great shot into the 18th, to about 12ft from the pin. Endycott’s approach finished at the front of the green, with the pin at the back, and he three-putted from long range for a bogey and a closing two-over par 73. Evans two-putted for par and grabbed the title, watched by a crowd of spectators. There was more good news for England when Harry Casey, from Enfield in Middlesex, swept up the leaderboard into a share of third place. He was three-over and lying 27th after two rounds but completed the tournament with scores of 66, 67 to finish on six-under par. Both Casey and Evans were members of England’s winning team at the 2013 Home internationals. The last English winner of the Avondale Medal was Matthew Cryer of Coventry, who was successful in 2008, when the event was played over 36 holes. Click here for the final scores 8 Feb 2014 Evans Ôrips it’ to snatch second Australian win
Derby fans had plenty to be hoarse about as they staggered out of the Rossland Arena on Sept. 11 after narrowly winning what was arguably the fiercest and closest derby bout the West Kootenay Women’s Roller Derby League has ever seen. Hometown Gnarlie’s Angels fans were out in force in rock star red and with fire in the belly, but they were almost outdone by a massive contingent of true blue supporters chanting feverishly for Salmo’s Babes of Brutality. When the old foes faced off, the structural integrity of the arena’s new roof was distinctly threatened by cowbells and hoopla. “The place was nuts,” said Coach Vegas of the Angels. “I’ve never seen that much excitement in one place in Rossland. We were pretty lucky it all went our way right at the end. We were pretty lit up.” Luck may have played a role, but steely nerves, cunning strategy, and the blood, sweat, and tears of three two-hour practices a week all season long greased the wheels for the searing season finale between the top Kootenay teams. From the outset, the Angels were trailing the Babes. “Eighty per cent of the game, we were feeling pretty demoralized,” Coach Vegas recalled. Part of the problem was the penalty box packed with Angels. Blockers in particular were under the scrutiny of a very experienced crew of refs brought in especially for the game, most of them from Edmonton. “I got a little upset a few times, but then simmered down when I saw the rationale and thought about it,” Vegas said. “They don’t miss a lot; they’re pretty on it.” Derby teams depend on blockers to stop the opposing jammer and let through their own. The more times a jammer circles the pack of blockers, the more points the team earns, but both blockers and jammers can get penalties. At first the Angels were caught blocking too far from the pack or while facing in the wrong direction. Short blockers on the track, the Babes managed to ring up hefty leads, particularly under the jammership of the indomitable Beretta Lynch, who took a number of key lead jams. In the final seconds of the first period, the Angels’ captain, Canuck Norris, managed to snag the lead jam and kept rolling up points during the overtime allowed by the two minute lead jam limit. Although Norris’s sprint roughly tied the teams in the 80s, the second period was marked by super-pumped Salmo exuberance as the Babes bumped up over 100, leaving the Angels in their dust. With 15 seconds left on the clock, and trailing well behind the Babes, Coach Vegas had to yell, jump, and wildly wave his hands to get the referees’ attention to call a time out. He was finally noticed and the Angels came together for a final pep talk. Back on the track, Canuck Norris blitzed through pack to take lead jam status. Moments later, Babe jammer Beretta Lynch was sent to the box for a back block. “That changed history,” Coach Vegas recalled. “That changed the whole game.” Unable to accumulate points with their jammer in the box, the clock ran out on the Babes and Norris kept cycling the pack, racking up points in her two minute jam until the game was won. Please check out this gallery for action-packed shots of the evening’s bone-crunching festivities.
Rafael Benitez continued to insist Chelsea are progressing under his management despite them letting a two-goal lead slip against Reading.The Blues were cruising at 2-0 with three minutes to play until late strikes from Adam Le Fondre rescued an extraordinary 2-2 draw for the Royals.It was the second time Chelsea have surrendered a two-goal lead under Benitez, having recently done the same at home to Southampton.But the under-fire interim manager said: “We are progressing in the right way.“You can see the mentality of the team, they were concentrating, and they were working hard. The players like the training sessions and like the things we are trying to do.“We were controlling the game for 85 minutes, but we made one or two mistakes and we paid for them.“At this level we need to be more clinical. We have to take responsibility. We win together and we draw together.”See also:Reading v Chelsea player ratingsChelsea stunned by late Royals 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 Follow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
James Valentine, an authority on early fossils, has just published a new 600-page book on the Cambrian explosion with the Darwinesque title, On the Origin of Phyla (U. of Chicago Press, 2004). Stefan Bengtson (Swedish Museum of Natural History) reviewed it in the July 29 issue of Nature.1 He points out that “Darwin wisely called his best-known work On The Origin of Species; the origin of phyla is an even stickier problem, and Valentine deserves credit for tackling it at such breadth.”. He is not sure, however, that Valentine succeeded in explaining “one of the most significant revolutions in the history of life, the Cambrian explosion.” One complaint is that in all those pages Valentine said little about the ecology or physical environment in which the “explosion of body plans” took place. Also, Bengtson is not convinced that the usual explanation is meaningful that a phylum is simply a clade (category) of all animals that diverged from a common ancestor when two body plans diverged in the remote past; “This avoids the question of how body plans arise and whether there may be others not represented by living forms,” he chides. Worse, Valentine fell into a logical trap, he feels:Defining a body plan isn’t easy, however. Valentine’s definition, for example, is dangerously circular: “an assemblage of morphological features shared among members of a phylum-level group”. What does that mean, except that when we define a phylum we also define its body plan, or vice versa? Valentine proposes to define the origin of a phylum by the acquisition of a key apomorphy – a unique derived trait. This may be more subjective and less convenient than letting the total (stem and crown) group or the crown group define the phylum, but it gives due priority to biological significance over methodological convenience. After all, we want to know how different kinds of organism evolve by natural selection, and how they interact with each other and with the environment. They do that with their phenotypes, not their pedigrees.Bengtson also considers the suggestion that body plans represented “more or less the total number of possible solutions to the problem of being an animal, or whether there were numerous other possibilities that came into being but became extinct because of bad luck or bad design.” (The evidence shows a decrease in body plans after the explosion due to extinction, not a gradual rise in diversity.) But is this just explaining away the evidence?The pattern of diminishing evolutionary novelty subsequent to this event, he says, may have been due less to developmental constraints than to a saturation effect (candidates for new adaptive radiations were already available among existing body plans). He also believes that the Cambrian explosion produced a lot more homoplasies (similar characters with independent origins) than most phylogenetic analyses suggest – in my view an extremely important point that calls for much more careful character evaluation than is commonly done. He is clearly not impressed, then, by some recent attempts to use fossils to bridge gaps between phyla.If the reader is left wondering how the body plans arose in the first place, the final paragraph of this book review may not be all that satisfying. How could environmental changes generate the information necessary to produce fins, eyes, jointed limbs, propulsion mechanisms, and so much more that is evidenced in the Cambrian fossils?Valentine seems most happy with intrinsic biological mechanisms for the rapid appearance of phyla. Large parts of the book deal with developmental prerequisites (such as cell-type numbers and gene regulation) for the event. Ecological interactions, such as predation, are given more cursory treatment. As for the physical environment, he merely concludes, somewhat apologetically, that although physical environmental factors were “supremely important”, he does not see any evidence that extraordinary environmental events were causally connected with the Cambrian explosion. Given that extraordinary environmental events did indeed occur shortly before the explosion, I would give the jury just a little more time to ponder the question. But first I would make sure they had read this magnificent book.So how did the body plans arise in a geological blink of an eye? This question was apparently not on the agenda. Next day in Science,2 R. Andrew Cameron also reviewed Valentine’s book. This review praised and criticized different things. Cameron first dismisses the analogy “explosion,” primarily because he claims that molecular studies put the origin of the phyla farther back into the precambrian; consequently, he claims, it was “neither an explosion nor did it happen in the Cambrian,” although he does agree that the Chengjian fossils display “representatives of almost all major groups of animals” (see 07/20/2004 headline). He mentions the possibility that ancestors were soft-bodied and small, resulting in a poor fossil record; “Perhaps the conditions of the Cambrian environment allowed the rapid appearance of hard skeletal parts, greatly favored fossilization, or both.” But then he mentions the discovery of “fossil pre-Cambrian embryos from the Doushantuo Formation of southwest China, estimated to be 40 to 55 million years older than the base of the Cambrian,” so being soft and small did not hinder these specimens from becoming fossilized. Cameron understands the problem of the Cambrian explosion, and claims it is more of a problem now than in Darwin’s day:The question of when and how higher taxonomic groups like phyla evolved differs markedly from the one Darwin addressed 145 years ago in The Origin of Species. It is not simply different in scale but also in quality. Although it is somewhat easier to see how changes in single genes can lead to differences among species that render some more capable of surviving in particular environments, it is more difficult to account for the many changes that lead to entirely different bodyplans as a simple accumulation of single-gene effects. For example, marine stickleback fishes possess bony plates and spines that presumably prevent predation, while their freshwater relatives show a loss of this armor through changes that can be attributed to a single gene [see 06/18/2004 headline]. However, entire organ systems or embryonic germ layers, features that distinguish higher taxa, can be explained in terms of the gene regulatory networks whose architecture is hardwired into the genome.So the question for the origin of phyla is how did these hardwired gene regulatory networks arise? Cameron claims that Valentine “does not incorporate a molecular model in his final synthesis,” so he offers one himself: major changes might arise through changes in regulatory genes like transcription factors. Can he give us an example? “For instance, a morphogenetic program may evolve with relatively minimal changes to establish a new spatial domain of expression for a cell-differentiation program, and the resultant animal has a new body part.” He does not elaborate. Cameron praises the first two sections of the book that discuss the origins of the phyla, descriptions of the phyla, and the fossil record. The third section grapples with the evolution of the phyla. This section is lacking, the reviewer thinks: “The pictures he delineates here reveal correlations uniting different levels of biological organization, but absent are firm statements about causal mechanisms from which predictions could be made.” Cameron leaves us with one more concern. “In view of the volatility of the ideas and the controversy that still exist in this particular area of evolutionary biology, one might argue that it is too early to explain the causes of the origin of phyla. But as Valentine aptly points out, the time will never be exactly right: there are always more information to incorporate and more ideas to organize.” Incidentally, Nature also reported discovery of an arthropod fossil that pushes its group, the Euthycarcinoids, back 50 million years into the Cambrian. “Despite its antiquity and marine occurrence,” they admit with surprise, “the Cambrian species demonstrates that morphological details were conserved in the transition to fresh water.”1Stefan Bengtson, “The body-plan explosion,” Nature 430, 506 (29 July 2004); doi:10.1038/430506a.2R. Andrew Cameron, “Evolution: Hunting for Origins,” Science, Vol 305, Issue 5684, 613-614, 30 July 2004, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1100684].3Vaccari et al., “Cambrian origins and affinities of an enigmatic fossil group of arthropods,” Nature 430, 554 – 557 (29 July 2004); doi:10.1038/nature02705.Satisfied? Apparently in 600 pages, Valentine did not answer the most basic and fundamental question, how did all this biological complexity emerge in a short time? Pounding the earth with meteors and tidal waves and volcanoes won’t do it. Invoking a new predator won’t create an elaborate escape mechanism in the prey; it might just mean the predator will eat everything and then starve. Cameron’s folklore is simplistic: a regulatory gene mutates and presto! A new body part! Can duplicating some protuberance generate an eye? Come on. Let’s parse Cameron’s carefully-worded closing lines. He said, “In view of the volatility of the ideas and the controversy that still exist in this particular area of evolutionary biology, one might argue that it is too early to explain the causes of the origin of phyla.” Cameron, like Valentine is well aware of the pounding the Darwin Party is getting from the Intelligent Design Movement with the Cambrian Explosion hammer (see The Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang by Meyer, Ross, Nelson and Chien (12/01/2003) available online at the Discovery Institute). The Cambrian Explosion is only controversial because the Darwinians have no answer, and the creationists and ID proponents know it. So he’s worried that Valentine’s new book is going to provide even more ammo to the enemy. His coded message to the Darwin Party can be translated, “What do you think you are doing, Jim, letting the creationists know we’re up a creek? Better to say nothing than to advertise our weaknesses!” Does anyone see in either of these reviews any real, logical explanation for the explosive appearance of trilobites, worms, jellyfish, corals, and vertebrates, with any evidence to back it up? Each of these organisms is composed of irreducibly complex cells, and organs made up of irreducibly complex parts. When they first appear in the fossil record, they are already fully formed and operating. If the world’s expert can’t explain this after 30 years of thinking about it, then maybe there isn’t an explanation – from a Darwinian viewpoint. This requires some fresh blood from thinkers not wedded to a dying, outmoded, falsified model that is on the verge of extinction. Any takers?(Visited 12 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest The market feels like it is in free-fall and the lack of strong exports is discouraging. One silver-lining, as futures continue to drop, export demand may eventually increase. World grain supplies are still high, which could keep a cap on prices for a long time. It will likely take a supply disruption to change the course dramatically.Rumors indicate the Chinese government may drop domestic corn subsidies and pay farmers direct instead. This may lower corn prices and make China imports more difficult. However, China will still need the same amount of grain, regardless if it is domestic or imported. So, the impact of this on the market is uncertain. When will the corn low be in place?In the last 40 years, the year’s low was in Sep/Oct 12% of the time (Sep three years/Oct two years) and in Nov/Dec 30% of the time. Many farmers still have old crop and are hoping for a small run up before harvest. The market drifted lower all of September only to rally in October, it may happen again this year.Early yield reports are lower than some expected, but the worst performing corn appears to be maturing quicker and is located in the states that didn’t have the best growing conditions for the year. As harvest progresses north it should improve greatly. Hope = RiskHow often do you hear a farmer say “I hope the market goes back up and then I will sell”? We all have had this thought. The thing is, hope is not a marketing strategy. Hoping the market will go back up to $4.50 on corn and waiting for it to happen, despite unlikely reasons for it to do so, is not a strong marketing strategy. In fact, it is risky. Ask a farmer who did not sell the remainder of their 2014 corn crop on the July rally. Those farmers had the opportunity for $4.50 but “hoped” for $4.75. They might be taking $3.75 today.A strong marketing plan is based upon knowing your breakeven points and determining price goals. You can base it upon market conditions, but I advise my clients to set a base-line price goal to sell a set percentage of their crop. Then if prices increase, continue to sell a percentage of their crop incrementally. I also encourage everyone to write their price goal down in advance. This can help discourage farmers from waiting, “hoping” prices will continue to increase after reaching their goals.Having a plan in place enables farmers to take advantage of key opportunities throughout the year. It also minimizes the use of hope as a strategy.Jon grew up raising corn and soybeans on a farm near Beatrice, NE. Upon graduation from The University of Nebraska in Lincoln, he became a grain merchandiser and has been trading corn, soybeans and other grains for the last 18 years, building relationships with end-users in the process. After successfully marketing his father’s grain and getting his MBA, 10 years ago he started helping farmer clients market their grain based upon his principals of farmer education, reducing risk, understanding storage potential and using basis strategy to maximize individual farm operation profits. A big believer in farmer education of futures trading, Jon writes a weekly commentary to farmers interested in learning more and growing their farm operations.Trading of futures, options, swaps and other derivatives is risky and is not suitable for all persons. All of these investment products are leveraged, and you can lose more than your initial deposit. Each investment product is offered only to and from jurisdictions where solicitation and sale are lawful, and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations in such jurisdiction. The information provided here should not be relied upon as a substitute for independent research before making your investment decisions. Superior Feed Ingredients, LLC is merely providing this information for your general information and the information does not take into account any particular individual’s investment objectives, financial situation, or needs. All investors should obtain advice based on their unique situation before making any investment decision. The contents of this communication and any attachments are for informational purposes only and under no circumstances should they be construed as an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation to buy or sell any future, option, swap or other derivative. The sources for the information and any opinions in this communication are believed to be reliable, but Superior Feed Ingredients, LLC does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information or opinions. Superior Feed Ingredients, LLC and its principals and employees may take positions different from any positions described in this communication. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. He can be contacted at [email protected]