Pub Date : 2021-12-16DOI: 10.1080/10496505.2021.2012870
David Luftig
{"title":"Review of Freedom Farmers: Agricultural Resistance and the Black Freedom Movement","authors":"David Luftig","doi":"10.1080/10496505.2021.2012870","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2021.2012870","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43986,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural & Food Information","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43046206","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-09DOI: 10.1080/10496505.2021.2012083
R. Sperling
You may have seen internet memes comparing llamas and alpacas (e.g., https://amp.cheezburger.com/9680389/llamas-vs-alpacas-learn-the-difference and https://imgur.com/t/llama/lHoXp). “An alpaca has soft fleece,” one such meme reads, while a llama “has a knife in its fur.” “Llamas are the Devil incarnate,” reads another, while “alpacas are not the Devil incarnate.” While llamas are larger, stronger, and generally more independent than alpacas, it is safe to say that these pack animals are being unfairly, if humorously, maligned. Both llamas and alpacas can be ill-tempered when highly provoked – like other camelids, llamas and alpacas are famous spitters – but they also can be quite docile, even friendly, when raised and handled properly. This column discusses some of the differences between llamas and alpacas, their various uses, and some tips and resources for raising them.
{"title":"Llamas and Alpacas","authors":"R. Sperling","doi":"10.1080/10496505.2021.2012083","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2021.2012083","url":null,"abstract":"You may have seen internet memes comparing llamas and alpacas (e.g., https://amp.cheezburger.com/9680389/llamas-vs-alpacas-learn-the-difference and https://imgur.com/t/llama/lHoXp). “An alpaca has soft fleece,” one such meme reads, while a llama “has a knife in its fur.” “Llamas are the Devil incarnate,” reads another, while “alpacas are not the Devil incarnate.” While llamas are larger, stronger, and generally more independent than alpacas, it is safe to say that these pack animals are being unfairly, if humorously, maligned. Both llamas and alpacas can be ill-tempered when highly provoked – like other camelids, llamas and alpacas are famous spitters – but they also can be quite docile, even friendly, when raised and handled properly. This column discusses some of the differences between llamas and alpacas, their various uses, and some tips and resources for raising them.","PeriodicalId":43986,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural & Food Information","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43851339","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-06DOI: 10.1080/10496505.2021.2010563
Christine D’Arpa
ABSTRACT The information work at the U.S. Department of Agriculture not only altered the kind and amount of information farmers had access to, but effectively sought to redefine who the experts were: through the production and dissemination of research conducted by scientists at the Department, or work by others filtered through the institution. One vehicle for this information transfer was the annual report. This study identifies and examines the information work of the agency from 1862–1868 and situates it within the context of the emergence of the modern state and the history of information. It is conceded on all hands that the farming interest is the basis of all other interests and the primary source of national prosperity. The outlines of the rise and decay of the Roman empire could have been written in the fields which environed the capitol as well as in her libraries amid historical records. Report of Mr. Owen Lovejoy (IL) from the House Committee on Agriculture, February 11, 1862. (Rives et al., 1862, p. 856) [The American farmer] belongs to a class of citizens who hold in their hands five-sixths of the wealth of the country and its entire political power; and the hands which have wrought this wealth are able to defend the Constitution which makes us one people. Isaac Newton, Commissioner of Agriculture, January 1, 1863. (United States Department of Agriculture, 1863, p. 14)
美国农业部的信息工作不仅改变了农民获得信息的种类和数量，而且有效地试图重新定义谁是专家:通过该部门科学家进行的研究的生产和传播，或通过该机构过滤的其他人的工作。这种信息传递的一个工具是年度报告。本研究确定并考察了该机构从1862年至1868年的信息工作，并将其置于现代国家出现和信息历史的背景下。大家都承认，农业利益是所有其他利益的基础，是国家繁荣的主要源泉。罗马帝国兴衰的轮廓可以写在国会大厦周围的田野里，也可以写在历史记录中的图书馆里。众议院农业委员会欧文·洛夫乔伊先生的报告，1862年2月11日。(Rives et al.， 1862，第856页)[美国农民]属于掌握国家六分之五财富和全部政治权力的公民阶级;创造财富的双手能够捍卫使我们成为一个民族的宪法。艾萨克·牛顿，农业专员，1863年1月1日。(美国农业部，1863年，第14页)
{"title":"Sharing the Science of Agricultural Practice: Information Transfer via the Annual Reports of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1862–1868","authors":"Christine D’Arpa","doi":"10.1080/10496505.2021.2010563","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2021.2010563","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The information work at the U.S. Department of Agriculture not only altered the kind and amount of information farmers had access to, but effectively sought to redefine who the experts were: through the production and dissemination of research conducted by scientists at the Department, or work by others filtered through the institution. One vehicle for this information transfer was the annual report. This study identifies and examines the information work of the agency from 1862–1868 and situates it within the context of the emergence of the modern state and the history of information. It is conceded on all hands that the farming interest is the basis of all other interests and the primary source of national prosperity. The outlines of the rise and decay of the Roman empire could have been written in the fields which environed the capitol as well as in her libraries amid historical records. Report of Mr. Owen Lovejoy (IL) from the House Committee on Agriculture, February 11, 1862. (Rives et al., 1862, p. 856) [The American farmer] belongs to a class of citizens who hold in their hands five-sixths of the wealth of the country and its entire political power; and the hands which have wrought this wealth are able to defend the Constitution which makes us one people. Isaac Newton, Commissioner of Agriculture, January 1, 1863. (United States Department of Agriculture, 1863, p. 14)","PeriodicalId":43986,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural & Food Information","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45655810","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-04DOI: 10.1080/10496505.2021.2013850
Sarah C. Williams
ABSTRACT This study explores data reuse and data sharing based on a review of the two most recent publications of each faculty member in crop sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Following the methodology of a study conducted in 2011, this 2021 study reveals current practices and compares present-day findings with those of the original study and other literature on data practices. In particular, this work addresses the variety of data sources used by scientists, data citation practices, common data sharing methods, and the challenges of determining the effects of funder policies on data sharing.
{"title":"Data Practices Ten Years Later: A New Review of Selected Publications by Crop Sciences Faculty","authors":"Sarah C. Williams","doi":"10.1080/10496505.2021.2013850","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2021.2013850","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study explores data reuse and data sharing based on a review of the two most recent publications of each faculty member in crop sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Following the methodology of a study conducted in 2011, this 2021 study reveals current practices and compares present-day findings with those of the original study and other literature on data practices. In particular, this work addresses the variety of data sources used by scientists, data citation practices, common data sharing methods, and the challenges of determining the effects of funder policies on data sharing.","PeriodicalId":43986,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural & Food Information","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48970612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10496505.2021.1980855
Leslie M. Delserone
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"Leslie M. Delserone","doi":"10.1080/10496505.2021.1980855","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2021.1980855","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43986,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural & Food Information","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43154842","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-15DOI: 10.1080/10496505.2021.1936399
Innocent Awasom
{"title":"Review of the New American Farmer: Immigration, Race, and the Struggle for Sustainability","authors":"Innocent Awasom","doi":"10.1080/10496505.2021.1936399","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2021.1936399","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43986,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural & Food Information","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44218864","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-05DOI: 10.1080/10496505.2021.1966728
Leyla Cabugos
From 1981 through 1986, agricultural communities in the United States (U.S.) experienced the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s (Barnett, 2000). In the decade prior, agricultural production had increased dramatically, encouraged by government programs and by growing international demand for U.S. agricultural commodities. Agricultural producers, particularly those just starting their businesses, took on high levels of debt to purchase equipment and land in an effort to maximize production and hedge against inflation. Heavily leveraged farmers were devastated when elevated production and loss of some export markets brought down commodity prices sharply, and drought added to the dire losses incurred by farmers and their communities (Barnett, 2000). Grassroots organizations working with rural communities during this farm crisis observed widespread interest among farmers in alternatives to trying to achieve viability through scale. Representatives from these groups came together to explore how federal research programs could better support farmers to “use more of their management and skills to cut input cost, to add value to their production, and capture a bigger share of the profit in the food system” (Hassebrook, 2015, p. 2). Drawing inspiration from seminal government research and policy recommendations on the status of family farms (United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1981), agricultural lands (United States Department of Agriculture & the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, 1981), and organic practices (United States Department of Agriculture Study Team on Organic Farming, 1980), leaders in these discussions agreed on the need for representation in Washington to advance a policy platform to more comprehensively support sustainable agriculture (Hassebrook, 2015; Hoefner, 2015). They also recognized the value of cultivating a diverse network that could engage https://doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2021.1966728
从1981年到1986年，美国农业社区经历了自20世纪30年代大萧条以来最严重的金融危机(Barnett, 2000)。在此之前的十年里，在政府项目和对美国农产品日益增长的国际需求的鼓励下，农业生产大幅增长。农业生产者，特别是那些刚刚开始创业的农业生产者，为了最大限度地提高产量和对冲通货膨胀，承担了高额债务，以购买设备和土地。当产量的提高和一些出口市场的丧失导致商品价格急剧下跌时，负债累累的农民遭受了毁灭性的打击，干旱加剧了农民及其社区遭受的可怕损失(Barnett, 2000)。在这场农业危机中，与农村社区合作的基层组织发现，农民普遍对通过规模来实现生存的替代方案感兴趣。来自这些团体的代表聚集在一起，探讨联邦研究项目如何更好地支持农民“更多地利用他们的管理和技能来削减投入成本，为他们的生产增加价值，并在粮食系统中获得更大的利润份额”(Hassebrook, 2015, p. 2)。从关于家庭农场状况的开创性政府研究和政策建议中汲取灵感(美国农业部(USDA)， 1981)，农业用地(美国农业部和总统环境质量委员会，1981年)和有机实践(美国农业部有机农业研究小组，1980年)，这些讨论中的领导人一致认为，需要在华盛顿有代表，以推进一个更全面地支持可持续农业的政策平台(Hassebrook, 2015;Hoefner, 2015)。他们还认识到，建立一个能够吸引https://doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2021.1966728参与的多元化网络的价值
{"title":"The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (https://sustainableagriculture.net/)","authors":"Leyla Cabugos","doi":"10.1080/10496505.2021.1966728","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2021.1966728","url":null,"abstract":"From 1981 through 1986, agricultural communities in the United States (U.S.) experienced the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s (Barnett, 2000). In the decade prior, agricultural production had increased dramatically, encouraged by government programs and by growing international demand for U.S. agricultural commodities. Agricultural producers, particularly those just starting their businesses, took on high levels of debt to purchase equipment and land in an effort to maximize production and hedge against inflation. Heavily leveraged farmers were devastated when elevated production and loss of some export markets brought down commodity prices sharply, and drought added to the dire losses incurred by farmers and their communities (Barnett, 2000). Grassroots organizations working with rural communities during this farm crisis observed widespread interest among farmers in alternatives to trying to achieve viability through scale. Representatives from these groups came together to explore how federal research programs could better support farmers to “use more of their management and skills to cut input cost, to add value to their production, and capture a bigger share of the profit in the food system” (Hassebrook, 2015, p. 2). Drawing inspiration from seminal government research and policy recommendations on the status of family farms (United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1981), agricultural lands (United States Department of Agriculture & the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, 1981), and organic practices (United States Department of Agriculture Study Team on Organic Farming, 1980), leaders in these discussions agreed on the need for representation in Washington to advance a policy platform to more comprehensively support sustainable agriculture (Hassebrook, 2015; Hoefner, 2015). They also recognized the value of cultivating a diverse network that could engage https://doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2021.1966728","PeriodicalId":43986,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural & Food Information","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47534817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/10496505.2021.1968873
Claire Williams, Savannah Gleim, S. Smyth, D. M. Macall
Abstract Agriculture has a long history of providing safe food products. Yet, consumers frequently express skepticism about the safety of the food products. Consumer perception of biotechnology products is not homogenous, particularly for products derived from genetic modification. This article reports results of a 2018 online consumer survey of English-speaking Canadians, wherein preferences toward a variety of risks and benefits related to commonly used food production methods were expressed. Results indicate that regardless of the method used, consumers are unsure of their feelings toward food production. Overall, consumers are skeptical of biotechnology and favor organic food production methods.
{"title":"Canadian Consumer Risk Perceptions of Food Production","authors":"Claire Williams, Savannah Gleim, S. Smyth, D. M. Macall","doi":"10.1080/10496505.2021.1968873","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2021.1968873","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Agriculture has a long history of providing safe food products. Yet, consumers frequently express skepticism about the safety of the food products. Consumer perception of biotechnology products is not homogenous, particularly for products derived from genetic modification. This article reports results of a 2018 online consumer survey of English-speaking Canadians, wherein preferences toward a variety of risks and benefits related to commonly used food production methods were expressed. Results indicate that regardless of the method used, consumers are unsure of their feelings toward food production. Overall, consumers are skeptical of biotechnology and favor organic food production methods.","PeriodicalId":43986,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural & Food Information","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47357757","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-25DOI: 10.1080/10496505.2021.1967219
J. Boice
{"title":"Review of the CABI Horizon Scanning Tool ( https://www.cabi.org/Horizonscanningtool ) Reviewed by Jocelyn Boice, Colorado State University Libraries, Fort Collins, Colorado","authors":"J. Boice","doi":"10.1080/10496505.2021.1967219","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2021.1967219","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43986,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural & Food Information","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46442572","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：