Vertical/Indoor Farms

Here's a Fortune article on an outfit in NJ.

Here's a Technology Review piece on farming in shipping containers.

It's possible that the advent of LED lights makes such farming economically feasible, feasible at least if the produce gets a premium from being "local" and "organic".  USDA has agreed that they may be labeled "organic", though the original organic community does not like the idea at all. 

Call me old, I am, but I don't call these "farms" or "farming".

Humans Are Resilient

I back my assertion with three points:

• my experience as a draftee in the Army
• Chris Blattman in his interview by Tyler Cowen
• Stephen Hawking.

That is all.

Keeping Up With Lawyers and Business: Contract Farming

Modern Farmer reports that SBA's inspector general has determined that poultry farmers operating on a contract with a processor (which 97 percent do) don't qualify as a "small business".

Reminds me of back in the day when ASCS determined that growers of seed corn, which operate under a contract with seed companies, didn't qualify as "producers" because they didn't share in the risk of producing the crop.  That determination was speedily reversed by pressure from Congress (not sure they put it in legislation or appropriations, but reversed it was).

The bottom line is people don't like risk, so for many many years people have been planning and scheming on ways to minimize it.

USDA EEO

Secretary Perdue is proposing to reorganize USDA civil rights offices--he's asking for comments on his proposal.  Strikingly, he's allowing only until March 25 for comments to be received.

I've long since lost my grasp of how USDA is organized so I don't really understand what he's doing.  One change seems to be giving each mission area (I think NRCS, FSA, RMA are now or will a mission area) one civil rights/EEO office.  That would mean taking the Office of Civil Rights out of FSA and putting it at the Under Secretary level.

It seems he's also changing the department level office. Given what happened under Reagan I'd suspect it would have less power, but that's pure speculation.

Traffic Control in Korean Restrooms

Can't resist blogging this from my cousin's Olympic blog:

"That gives us just enough time to hit the restrooms. I don't think I've mentioned them so far, but they are worthy of mention. Korea is one of the most technologically based countries on Earth so I guess that it is no surprise that the toilets have more buttons on them that seem possible. But did you know that they have a sort of air traffic control board in the front of the restroom? A video monitor shows you which stalls are open and whether each stall has a western style toilet or a traditional "squat" toilet. I can't speak for the women, but I notice that the men don't pay any attention to the video board and will often stand waiting at a closed door when the board says that there are clearly open stalls. The other interesting thing is that the women who clean the restrooms don't give you any advanced warning when they go in to clean, they just barge in."

Appalachian Religion

This seems totally wrong, but I swear I got it from a tweet by Lyman Stone, who comes off as pretty knowledgable on both Appalachia and religion. But I can't find the tweet again.

"Statistically, Appalachia is one of the *least* religious places in America. It's as secular as a college campus in California."

PDF's and Forms

A bureaucrat loves her forms, and so in the current climate, loves her PDF's.  Here's a piece at Motherboard on the development of the PDF.

Big Issue: Shape of the Table

I remember when the US and North Vietnam spent  months negotiating over the shape of the table at which to conduct peace talks in Paris (1968).  It may be an issue for the Kim Jong Un/ Donald Trump talks (i.e., is it strictly bilateral or does South Korea want a representative, and if SK is in, how about China and Japan--one of the papers had a photo of the 6-sided table China constructed for the last time there were negotiations, six-party negotiations.

It's All in the Name

My mom would get very aggravated about margarine.  I vaguely remember her kneading coloring into the white brick, so it must have been at the end of WWII, when butter was in short supply and presumably my parents broke down and bought margarine as the cheaper, available spread (might have been rationed).  Despite living on a dairy farm, we didn't make our own butter.  A ban on selling margarine colored to look like butter was just one of the measures dairy farmers took across the country to limit its inroads on their market, and not just in the U.S., but in Europe and Canada as well.

Identity is big in food.  France and the EU fight hard to preserve the cachet of champagne, which can only be produced in Champagne.  Such fights over cheeses and other foods are  old hat.  More recent are fights over things like "soy milk" and "almond milk".  And the controversy over "organic" including hydroponic vegetables.  And the latest controversy  is "clean meat", which is meat produced in the lab/factory from cell cultures.

Regulatory Costs and Benefits

I'm a little confused here. Something called E&ENews noted: "The White House Office of Management and Budget on Friday evening released its annual report on the costs and benefits of federal regulations, showing that the benefits of major Obama-era rules far exceeded the costs."

Vox caught the release, and went on to do an extensive analysis here. It's all good and heart-warming for a retired bureaucrat who believes that regulations can do good. They do.

But--when Vox links to the report, the link goes to the E&ENews site and brings up the : "2017 Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Agency Compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act".  I briefly looked and didn't find it on the OMB/whitehouse site, but it may be there, well-buried.

Googling for the title of the report brings up a Forbes piece, combating the Vox analysis in part.  I disagree with the thrust of the writer's analysis, which says that "final rules" should be considered in the analysis, as opposed to "major" rules.  It's a sad fact that the threshold for the major rule is obsolete, when one looks at its history (which I've done but don't remember writing up--someday maybe).  I seriously doubt that considering final rules would change the overall picture. He's on somewhat better ground to doubt how concrete the cost-benefit analyses submitted to OMB are.

Towards the end of the Forbes article there's a little discussion of the process of submitting this report to Congress--interesting for a nerd like me, but disconcerting for anyone who believes in simplistic pictures of how the government operates.