THE TEXAS RICE INDUSTRY COALITION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (R.I.C.E.): MAIN POINTS FROM SIX FOCUS GROUPS

The Texas Rice Industry Coalition for the Environment (R.I.C.E.) was formed in February, 1995. Their stated mission is to build a coalition of interests to foster and strengthen relationships between the rice industry and the natural resources of our rice-producing area in Texas. In June, 1995, a series of six focus groups was conducted. These round table discussions involved two groups of producers (from the East Side and West Side of Houston), two groups of environmentalists in the Houston area, and two groups of non-farming Houstonians (adults and children). These focus groups were structured to elicit opinions from various viewpoints concerning the opportunities, challenges, and priorities of Texas R.I.C.E. The goal of the two producers focus groups conducted on the East Side and the West Side of Houston was to determine whether Texas R.I.C.E.'s activities were widely known and to ascertain producers' viewpoints on the coalition's priorities. Producers were agreed on their key concerns regarding compliance with environmental policy - they face a cost-price squeeze and therefore one-size-fits-all regulations are particularly burdensome. Water quality and quantity were most often mentioned as key factors in the continued viability of the rice industry in Texas. Producers recognize the natural synergy between rice production and waterfowl habitat enhancement, yet they are concerned because waterfowl habitat places increased demands on scarce water. Rice producers are concerned about the public being largely ignorant and uninterested in the environmental benefits of rice production, and they endorsed two-way education between rice producers and environmentalists. No clear consensus emerged in the focus group discussions about the role for Texas R.I.C.E. in lobbying. Some rice producers see education and lobbying as conflicting activities and would prefer for Texas R.I.C.E. to focus on education. Others were positive about collaborative opportunities between rice producers' lobbyists and environmental interest groups' lobbyists. The two environmental focus groups were a mix of bird-watchers, hunters, hikers and conservationists. These environmentalists had a good idea of where rice is grown in Texas and knew that rice production is declining in the state. Their major concerns about the environmental effects from rice production were water usage and water quality, agri-chemical runoff, food and habitat for migratory birds, and trade-offs concerning wetlands. In sum, they appreciated that rice production makes a positive contribution to waterfowl habitat. They were concerned that lost Texas rice acreage will be replaced with urban land uses, thus reducing wildlife habitat benefits. They viewed rice production as being environmentally friendly compared with other types of agricultural production, such as cotton farming. They were favorably impressed that rice producers were taking the initiative to form a coalition. They were anxious to work collaboratively and offered several concrete suggestions about forums and issues for educational campaigns. They suggested that consumptive and non-consumptive users of wildlife habitat (such as hunters and bird-watchers, respectively) should compensate private landowners for allowing access. They acknowledged problems with adversarial attitudes going both ways between environmentalists and rice producers; they brainstormed about how Texas R.I.C.E. could help break down barriers. The general public adult focus group, comprised of non-farming Houstonians, established a general interest and awareness concerning rice production. However, the Houstonians participating in this focus group were uninformed about the waterfowl habitat benefits associated with rice production. They offered positive endorsement of the Texas R.I.C.E. effort and expressed sincere (and specific) interests in educational programming. The general public children focus group included several children from the Clear Lake area south of Houston. These children exhibited a natural inquisitiveness and concern regarding the environment and food safety. They were largely ignorant of commercial agriculture, excepting several recollections of "visits to relatives' farms." They expressed considerable interest in more agricultural-related curriculum being incorporated into their science and/or social studies curricula.Environmental Economics and Policy,

Structure and Function of the Hair Cell Ribbon Synapse

Faithful information transfer at the hair cell afferent synapse requires synaptic transmission to be both reliable and temporally precise. The release of neurotransmitter must exhibit both rapid on and off kinetics to accurately follow acoustic stimuli with a periodicity of 1 ms or less. To ensure such remarkable temporal fidelity, the cochlear hair cell afferent synapse undoubtedly relies on unique cellular and molecular specializations. While the electron microscopy hallmark of the hair cell afferent synapse — the electron-dense synaptic ribbon or synaptic body — has been recognized for decades, dissection of the synapse’s molecular make-up has only just begun. Recent cell physiology studies have added important insights into the synaptic mechanisms underlying fidelity and reliability of sound coding. The presence of the synaptic ribbon links afferent synapses of cochlear and vestibular hair cells to photoreceptors and bipolar neurons of the retina. This review focuses on major advances in understanding the hair cell afferent synapse molecular anatomy and function that have been achieved during the past years

Energy Conservation-As it Applies to Condensate Return Systems

Valuable heat energy in condensate is wasted when it is vented to the atmosphere in the form of flash steam at many condensate pumping stations. This heat energy may be recovered and put to use if the pumping station can handle condensate temperatures above 212 °F. The Johnson Corporation has such a condensate pumping station that can handle multiple temperatures and pressures called the LIQUI-MOVER. The Liqui-Mover can be utilized in one of three types of condensate return systems: open, closed, and flash. The closed and flash type condensate return systems are the most energy efficient. The report will show how the Johnson Liqui-Mover operates and how this system has been and can be used to recover wasted flash steam

Steam System Losses

Every day steam users are sending energy into the air. You might say that many of us are increasing the relative humidity of our respective cities. Before a conventional pump package can handle steam condensate, that fluid must be cooled to somewhere below 180°. This cooling is accomplished by venting the receiver to the atmosphere to allow the excess BTU's or heat energy in the condensate to flash to a lower temperature. This presentation will cover the formulas involved in calculating your losses via a simple program called the FLASH LOSS ANALYSIS utilizing published steam tables and some simple mathematical equations. At the end of the presentation you will be able to calculate, with some degree of clarity, your actual steam losses through venting of condensate receivers and have the necessary tools whereby expenditures for energy reduction and savings can be justified

The Pumpless Alternative to Condensate Return

In the pumpless system we use the positive displacement concept thus eliminating the problems associated with a typical pump system. The system uses steam or another gas as the pumping force to move the fluid from the tanks back to the boiler feed system. Impellers, seals, bearings, packing and expensive controls can be eliminated. Pumpless systems even allow you to locate these return units in areas of high moisture content, areas that may be subjected to flooding or hazardous locations. The opportunity exists to replace troublesome pump packages with an efficient, cost-effective condensate return system. This presentation will cover: 1) What is a pumpless system. 2) Ease of retrofit to existing units. 3) Alternative installations and a variety of installation suggestions

THE TEXAS RICE INDUSTRY COALITION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (R.I.C.E.): MAIN POINTS FROM SIX FOCUS GROUPS

The Texas Rice Industry Coalition for the Environment (R.I.C.E.) was formed in February, 1995. Their stated mission is to build a coalition of interests to foster and strengthen relationships between the rice industry and the natural resources of our rice-producing area in Texas. In June, 1995, a series of six focus groups was conducted. These round table discussions involved two groups of producers (from the East Side and West Side of Houston), two groups of environmentalists in the Houston area, and two groups of non-farming Houstonians (adults and children). These focus groups were structured to elicit opinions from various viewpoints concerning the opportunities, challenges, and priorities of Texas R.I.C.E. The goal of the two producers focus groups conducted on the East Side and the West Side of Houston was to determine whether Texas R.I.C.E.'s activities were widely known and to ascertain producers' viewpoints on the coalition's priorities. Producers were agreed on their key concerns regarding compliance with environmental policy - they face a cost-price squeeze and therefore one-size-fits-all regulations are particularly burdensome. Water quality and quantity were most often mentioned as key factors in the continued viability of the rice industry in Texas. Producers recognize the natural synergy between rice production and waterfowl habitat enhancement, yet they are concerned because waterfowl habitat places increased demands on scarce water. Rice producers are concerned about the public being largely ignorant and uninterested in the environmental benefits of rice production, and they endorsed two-way education between rice producers and environmentalists. No clear consensus emerged in the focus group discussions about the role for Texas R.I.C.E. in lobbying. Some rice producers see education and lobbying as conflicting activities and would prefer for Texas R.I.C.E. to focus on education. Others were positive about collaborative opportunities between rice producers' lobbyists and environmental interest groups' lobbyists. The two environmental focus groups were a mix of bird-watchers, hunters, hikers and conservationists. These environmentalists had a good idea of where rice is grown in Texas and knew that rice production is declining in the state. Their major concerns about the environmental effects from rice production were water usage and water quality, agri-chemical runoff, food and habitat for migratory birds, and trade-offs concerning wetlands. In sum, they appreciated that rice production makes a positive contribution to waterfowl habitat. They were concerned that lost Texas rice acreage will be replaced with urban land uses, thus reducing wildlife habitat benefits. They viewed rice production as being environmentally friendly compared with other types of agricultural production, such as cotton farming. They were favorably impressed that rice producers were taking the initiative to form a coalition. They were anxious to work collaboratively and offered several concrete suggestions about forums and issues for educational campaigns. They suggested that consumptive and non-consumptive users of wildlife habitat (such as hunters and bird-watchers, respectively) should compensate private landowners for allowing access. They acknowledged problems with adversarial attitudes going both ways between environmentalists and rice producers; they brainstormed about how Texas R.I.C.E. could help break down barriers. The general public adult focus group, comprised of non-farming Houstonians, established a general interest and awareness concerning rice production. However, the Houstonians participating in this focus group were uninformed about the waterfowl habitat benefits associated with rice production. They offered positive endorsement of the Texas R.I.C.E. effort and expressed sincere (and specific) interests in educational programming. The general public children focus group included several children from the Clear Lake area south of Houston. These children exhibited a natural inquisitiveness and concern regarding the environment and food safety. They were largely ignorant of commercial agriculture, excepting several recollections of "visits to relatives' farms." They expressed considerable interest in more agricultural-related curriculum being incorporated into their science and/or social studies curricula