Associations between early maternal sensitivity and children's sleep throughout early childhood

Despite strong theoretical reasons to believe that the quality of parent-infant interactions should influence child sleep, the empirical evidence for links between maternal behavior and children’s sleep is equivocal. Notably, it is unclear at which ages such influences might be particularly salient. The current study aimed to examine prospective longitudinal associations between early maternal sensitivity and children’s sleep during early childhood. Maternal sensitivity was assessed at 12 months during a home visit. Children’s sleep was measured at 12 and 18 months as well as at 2, 3, and 4 years, using a sleep diary completed by mothers. Results revealed significant or marginal positive associations between maternal sensitivity and children’s sleep consolidation (percentage of nighttime sleep) at 2, 3 and 4 years, but not at the most proximal assessments of 12 and 18 months. These findings suggest that child age could potentially be a key factor in the associations between maternal behavior and children’s sleep

USDA Agencies Funded $287.7 Million for Specialty Crop Automation or Mechanization Projects

A study by ERS researchers identifies $287.7 million in USDA funding to 213 research projects that during 2008-18 supported the development and use of automation or mechanization in the production and processing of U.S. specialty crops. These projects were funded by research programs in the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) during the above period

Food Loss: Why Food Stays On the Farm or Off the Market

Reducing food loss in produce—when fruits and vegetables are not eaten by consumers—is a priority for the USDA and other national and international food and environmental entities. Food may be left unharvested in a field or not sold by a distributor for a variety of economic reasons, so reducing food loss should be considered alongside other goals like improving farm income

INVESTMENT VALUATION OF GREEN TECHNOLOGY ACCOUNTING FOR SCALE EFFECTS, SCOPE EFFECTS, AND EXTERNALITIES AN APPLICATION TO ANAEROBIC DIGESTER SYSTEMS

As of 2015, anaerobic digesters (ADs) operate on nearly 250 farms in the US. There has been sustained interest from both environmental regulators and livestock associations to expand the use of AD technology. In the first chapter, we examine the economic feasibility of AD systems with nutrient recovery. The two technology groups interconnect through methane and nutrient utilization which we model structurally to examine economies of scope. We conclude that AD setups without codigestion are only economically feasible under a limited set of conditions, but codigestion may contribute to nutrient over-application. Nutrient separation leads to decreases in scenario net present value (NPV), but with the right policies, dairy owners may be willing to adopt AD with nutrient separation which would mitigate nutrient concerns. In the second chapter, we modify the real options approach (ROA) to investment valuation by introducing learning spillover effects. Investment values calculated using ROA include the value of waiting for more information, in contrast to NPV. When learning spillovers are present, the value of waiting increases because firms that wait learn from firms that invest. Using recent US AD survey data, we find there is substantial value in waiting to invest – on average $35 to$74 per head compared to a NPV of $287 per head. Because learning spillovers reduce the waiting value for later adopters, information sharing requirements for early adopters should be a requirement in programs with goals of widespread adoption. In the third chapter, we examine the economies of scope that derive from manure use as fertilizer for crops and their effects on marginal cost of milk production. We compare results for firms that use all manure on farm (non-exporters) and firms that send manure off farm (exporters). We find non-exporters to be smaller dairies compared to exporters, that non-exporters face higher marginal cost, and that the effects of prices for feed, fertilizer, energy, and labor drive marginal cost differences. If nutrient recovery technology adoption caused a shift towards the production characteristics of manure exporters, a 5.2 percent reduction in marginal cost would lead to an increase of 0.2 percent in milk demand

Food-Safety Practices and Rule Coverage Vary Among Post-Harvest Handlers of Fresh Produce, ERS Study Finds

After Congress passed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) created rules to better prevent the spread of foodborne illness. The rules pertain to nearly every aspect of the food supply chain: food as it is grown, harvested, and packed on farms; food as it is processed after harvest; and food stored, transported, and handled by distributors and retailers. Two of those rules are the Preventive Controls Rule, which covers facilities that process commodities into different products, and the Produce Safety Rule, which covers farms that grow fruits or vegetables and may also perform post-harvest activities such as sorting, washing, or packing. For produce, the supply chain is made up of a diverse variety of operations, some of which were more prepared for the new food safety rules than others

Food-Safety Practices and Rule Coverage Vary Among Post-Harvest Handlers of Fresh Produce, ERS Survey Finds

After Congress passed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) created rules to better prevent the spread of foodborne illness. The rules pertain to nearly every aspect of the food supply chain: food as it is grown, harvested, and packed on farms; food as it is processed after harvest; and food stored, transported, and handled by distributors and retailers. Two of those rules are the Preventive Controls Rule, which covers facilities that process commodities into different products, and the Produce Safety Rule, which covers farms that grow fruits or vegetables and may also perform post-harvest activities such as sorting, washing, or packing. For produce, the supply chain is made up of a diverse variety of operations, some of which were more prepared for the new food safety rules than others

Food-Safety Practices and Rule Coverage Vary Among Post-Harvest Handlers of Fresh Produce, ERS Survey Finds

After Congress passed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) created rules to better prevent the spread of foodborne illness. The rules pertain to nearly every aspect of the food supply chain: food as it is grown, harvested, and packed on farms; food as it is processed after harvest; and food stored, transported, and handled by distributors and retailers. Two of those rules are the Preventive Controls Rule, which covers facilities that process commodities into different products, and the Produce Safety Rule, which covers farms that grow fruits or vegetables and may also perform post-harvest activities such as sorting, washing, or packing. For produce, the supply chain is made up of a diverse variety of operations, some of which were more prepared for the new food safety rules than others

With Expanded Options, Organic Producers of Specialty Crops Increase Use of Federal Risk Management Products

While all crops are prone to risk, organic specialty crops—a broad term that includes fruits, tree nuts, vegetables, beans (pulses), and horticulture nursery crops—face specific challenges. Organic certified crops are grown in accordance with the standards set by USDA’s National Organic Program. To meet organic standards, producers must follow restrictions that can increase production costs. For instance, to maintain USDA organic certification, growers must prevent the commingling of their organic crops with nonorganic products and adopt specialized practices for pest, disease, and weed management. Organic growers also face different marketing characteristics that affect risk management. Organic crops may have fewer market participants than conventionally grown crops, limited availability of marketing data, and an increased risk of financial loss due to contamination from prohibited substances. Additionally, organic crops generally command higher prices than conventional crops. This price premium gives farmers an opportunity to recover production costs but also introduces further price risk