Directory of agricultural and home economics leaders, United States and Canada...official directory the agricultural extension services executives and personnel, including county agricultural agents and home economics teachers.

Volumes for 1922- also called 4th ed.-

Home Economics Circular

Mode of access: Internet.

Pre-service home economics teachers’ attitudes on selected aspects of practical teaching

This paper presents the results of a study conducted among pre-service home economics teachers from the Faculty of Education of the University of Ljubljana with different levels of practical experience in teaching. The pre-service Home Economics teachers in the 3rd year of their studies had just completed their first class of teaching experience in contrast to the pre-service teachers from the 4th year of their faculty studies, who had conducted more teaching lessons. The results showed that the 4th-year pre-service teachers had fewer doubts and problems concerning the planning and conducting of a lesson. They also statistically significantly agreed that they are sufficiently prepared to teach than the 3rd-year pre-service teachers are. The results showed that the majority of the pre-service teachers agreed that the feedback from their colleagues was helpful for their professional development. The results suggest the importance of practical teaching experience in the context of professional development and the intention to continue a career in education. However, the results also revealed some critical points in the teacher’s development of competency. The results suggest problems related to the application of theoretical knowledge on the children’s development in practice and pro problems related to classroom management in specific situations. (DIPF/Orig.)

Relatório de participação no 112nd. Annual Meeting of the American Veterinary Medical Association; 30th. Annual Meeting of the American Association of Veterinary Parasitologists; 60th. Annual Meeting of the American Society of Parasitologists.

1985

‘Beyond all the trends’: Torres Strait Island foods, past, present and future

While trends are cyclical, Indigenous perspectives offer continuity to life’s pathways. One of the current trends is the increasing culinary interest in Indigenous Australian foods, not just in restaurants, but also in home kitchens. This is a recent trend despite Indigenous foods being nutritious and wholesome, and sustaining Indigenous peoples for thousands of years. Home Economics can support, foster and affirm Indigenous foods both within this current mainstream trend and in the future in life sustaining ways. In order to do so, Home Economics need’s to ensure it is prepared, and skilled, with the appropriate knowledge and regard for Indigenous ingredients, foods and foodways. This paper will focus on Torres Strait Islander foods from the Torres Strait and from mainland Australia. It will showcase Torres Strait foods is the past, present and the future. Some of what is presented here is part of a research case study, which involves a literature review, data collection, and photography. In documenting the history of Torres Strait Island food and foodways, the traditions and customs will be kept alive for future generations, and beyond any trends or fashions.

Asset pricing in created markets

We investigate the applicability of the present-value asset pricing model to fishing quota markets by applying instrumental variable panel data estimation techniques to 15 years of market transactions from New Zealand's individual transferable quota (ITQ) market. In addition to the influence of current fishing rents, we explore the effect of market interest rates, risk, and expected changes in future rents on quota asset prices. The results indicate that quota asset prices are positively related to declines in interest rates, lower levels of risk, expected increases in future fish prices, and expected cost reductions from rationalization under the quota system. © 2007 American Agricultural Economics Association.

Was It Something I Ate? Implementation of the FDA Seafood HACCP Program

We develop a theoretical model of enforcement and compliance under HACCP regulation and use the FDA's seafood inspection records to examine: (1) if the FDA has targeted its inspections under HACCP regulation; (2) the effects of inspections on compliance with HACCP and plant sanitation standards; and (3) the relationship between compliance with HACCP and preexisting sanitation standards. There is some evidence of targeting based on product risk, but not on past compliance performance. The threat of an inspection increases the likelihood of compliance, but only for sanitation inspections, not for HACCP. HACCP compliance does not improve compliance with sanitation standards. © 2008 American Agricultural Economics Association.

When do export subsidies have a redistributional role? Reply

Our differences are three. The first arises from the belief that "... a nonzero value for the optimally chosen policy instrument implies that the instrument is efficient for redistribution" (Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, p. 543, paragraph 3). Consider the two equations: (1) o* = f(P3) and (2) = -f(3) ++r h* (a, P3) representing the solution to the problem of maximizing weighted, Marshallian surplus using, simultaneously, a per-unit border intervention, 9, and a per-unit domestic intervention, wr. In the solution, parameter ot denotes the weight applied to producer surplus; parameter p denotes the weight applied to government revenues; consumer surplus is implicitly weighted one; and the country in question is small in the sense that it is unable to affect world price by any of its domestic adjustments (see the Appendix). Details of the forms of the functions f((P) and h(ot, p) are easily derived, but what matters in the context of Alston, Smith, and Vercammen's Comment is: Redistributivep referencest hatf avorp roducers are consistent with higher values "alpha," and whereas the optimal domestic intervention, 7r*, has both "alpha and beta effects," the optimal border intervention, r*, has only a "beta effect,"-it does not have a redistributional role. Garth Holloway is reader in agricultural economics and statistics, Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, School of Agriculture, Policy, and Development, University of Reading. The author is very grateful to Xavier Irz, Bhavani Shankar, Chittur Srinivasan, Colin Thirtle, and Richard Tiffin for their comments and their wisdom; and to Mario Mazzochi, Marinos Tsigas, and Cal Turvey for their scholarship, including help in tracking down a fairly complete collection of the papers that cite Alston and Hurd. They are not responsible for any errors or omissions. Note, in equation (1), that the border intervention is positive whenever a distortion exists because 8 > 0 implies 3 - 1 + 8 > 1 and, thus, f((P) > 0 (see Appendix). Using Alston, Smith, and Vercammen's definition, the instrument is now "efficient," and therefore has a redistributive role. But now, suppose that the distortion is removed so that 3 - 1 + 8 = 1, 8 = 0, and consequently the border intervention is zero. According to Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, the instrument is now "inefficient" and has no redistributive role. The reader will note that this thought experiment has said nothing about supporting farm incomes, and so has nothing whatsoever to do with efficient redistribution. Of course, the definition is false. It follows that a domestic distortion arising from the "excess-burden argument" 3 = 1 + 8, 8 > 0 does not make an export subsidy "efficient." The export subsidy, having only a "beta effect," does not have a redistributional role. The second disagreement emerges from the comment that Holloway "... uses an idiosyncratic definition of the relevant objective function of the government (Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, p. 543, paragraph 2)." The objective function that generates equations (1) and (2) (see the Appendix) is the same as the objective function used by Gardner (1995) when he first questioned Alston, Carter, and Smith's claim that a "domestic distortion can make a border intervention efficient in transferring surplus from consumers and taxpayers to farmers." The objective function used by Gardner (1995) is the same objective function used in the contributions that precede it and thus defines the literature on the debate about borderversus- domestic intervention (Streeten; Yeh; Paarlberg 1984, 1985; Orden; Gardner 1985). The objective function in the latter literature is the same as the one implied in another literature that originates from Wallace and includes most notably Gardner (1983), but also Alston and Hurd. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 86(2) (May 2004): 549-552 Copyright 2004 American Agricultural Economics Association This content downloaded on Tue, 15 Jan 2013 07:58:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 550 May 2004 Amer. J. Agr. Econ. The objective function in Holloway is this same objective function-it is, of course, Marshallian surplus.1 The third disagreement concerns scholarship. The Comment does not seem to be cognizant of several important papers, especially Bhagwati and Ramaswami, and Bhagwati, both of which precede Corden (1974, 1997); but also Lipsey and Lancaster, and Moschini and Sckokai; one important aspect of Alston and Hurd; and one extremely important result in Holloway. This oversight has some unfortunate repercussions. First, it misdirects to the wrong origins of intellectual property. Second, it misleads about the appropriateness of some welfare calculations. Third, it prevents Alston, Smith, and Vercammen from linking a finding in Holloway (pp. 242-43) with an old theorem (Lipsey and Lancaster) that settles the controversy (Alston, Carter, and Smith 1993, 1995; Gardner 1995; and, presently, Alston, Smith, and Vercammen) about the efficiency of border intervention in the presence of domestic distortions.