One characteristic of the “customer experience” of school children, dormitory residents, patients in university-affiliated hospitals and attendees of large athletic events is the quality of food. School districts and large research universities are responsible for hundreds of food service enterprises for communities that are sensitive to various points along the food supply chain.
The American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) is one of the first names in standards setting for the technology and management of the major components of the global food supply chain. It has organized its ANSI-accredited standards setting enterprise into about 200 technical committees developing 260-odd consensus documents*. It throws off a fairly steady stream of public commenting opportunities; many of them relevant to agricultural equipment manufacturers (i.e, the Producer interest where the most money is) but enough of them relevant to consumers (i.e. the User interest where the least money is) and agricultural economics academic programs that we follow the growth of its best practice bibliography.
A few of the ASABE consensus documents that may be of interest to faculty and students in agricultural and environmental science studies are listed below:
The ASABE bibliography is dominated by product-related standards; a tendency we see in many business models of standards setting organizations because of the influence of global industrial conglomerates who can bury the cost of their participation into a sold product. Our primary interest lies in the movement of interoperability standards — much more difficult — as discussed in our ABOUT.
The home page for the ASABEs standards setting enterprise is linked below:
As of this posting we find no live consultation notices for interoperability standards relevant to education communities; though there are a few product-related standards open for comment usually announced in ANSI Standards Action. We always encourage our colleagues to participate directly in the ASABE standards development process. Students are especially welcomed into the ASABE Community. Jean Walsh (firstname.lastname@example.org) and Scott Cederquist (email@example.com) are listed as contacts.
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jack Janveja, Richard Robben
Why Industry Standards Matter https://t.co/Nn7CgfEdAV
— Scott Cedarquist (@CedarquistASABE) March 4, 2019
Robert Schuerger | HP Critical Facilities
Robert Arno | ITT Excelis Information Systems
Neal Dowling | MTechnology
Michael A. Anthony | University of Michigan
Abstract: One of the most common questions in the early stages of designing a new facility is whether the normal utility supply to a fire pump is reliable enough to “tap ahead of the main” or whether the fire pump supply is so unreliable that it must have an emergency power source, typically an on-site generator. Apart from the obligation to meet life safety objectives, it is not uncommon that capital on the order of 100000to1 million is at stake for a fire pump backup source. Until now, that decision has only been answered with intuition – using a combination of utility outage history and anecdotes about what has worked before. There are processes for making the decision about whether a facility needs a second source of power using quantitative analysis. Fault tree analysis and reliability block diagram are two quantitative methods used in reliability engineering for assessing risk. This paper will use a simple one line for the power to a fire pump to show how each of these techniques can be used to calculate the reliability of electric power to a fire pump. This paper will also discuss the strengths and weakness of the two methods. The hope is that these methods will begin tracking in the National Fire Protection Association documents that deal with fire pump power sources and can be used as another tool to inform design engineers and authorities having jurisdiction about public safety and property protection. These methods will enlighten decisions about the relative cost of risk control with quantitative information about the incremental cost of additional 9’s of operational availability.
CLICK HERE to order complete paper
Dairy milk products remain a vital part of global food supply. Since 1970 an ISO Technical Subcommittee — ISO/TC 34/SC 5 Milk and milk products — seeks globally effective standardization solutions in the methods of analysis and sampling for milk and milk products, covering the dairy chain from primary production to consumption. The business plan of its parent committee is linked below:
The Stichting Koninklijk Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut is the Global Secretariat for TC34/SC5. Participating and Observing nations are shown on the map below:
The American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers is the US Technical Advisory Group Administrator to the parent TC34 committee but ANSI does not have a Technical Advisory Group leader. As the U.S. member body to the ISO, ANSI is always on the hunt for its members and/or relevant stakeholders to participate in discovering standardization solutions in a broad range of technologies and markets with like-minded experts in other national standards bodies. The full sweep of ANSI’s participation in consensus documents developed by the ISO is described in the link below:
This committee has functioned since 1970 — long enough for many of the best practice titles it produces to have stabilized. There is other market action in the global dairy supply — notably the growth of non-dairy food supply — but we find no public consultations open on proposed standardization solutions as of this posting. When they are released they will appear in the link below:
Land grant colleges and universities are likely stakeholders in this domain. Apart from the passion that young people have for fair trade in any market, we see this as an opportunity for faculty and students to gain insight into the geo-politics of food supply generally and the subtleties of coffee markets. Business schools, agricultural colleges, international studies program developers who may be, and should be, interested in a leadership opportunity on behalf of the United States should communicate directly with ANSI’s ISO Team ((firstname.lastname@example.org).
We devote at least an hour every month breaking down public consultations on food safety and sustainability. The work products of TC 34 appears on the standing agenda of both our Global and Food colloquia. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Category: Academic, Global
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Christine Fischer, Akkeneel Talsma
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
University of Houston, Clear Lake, Texas
For decades, application of National Electrical Code (NEC) rules for sizing services, feeders and branch circuits has resulted in unused capacity in almost all occupancy classes. US Department of Energy data compiled in 1999 indicates average load on building transformers between 10 and 25 percent. More recent data gathered by the educational facilities industry has verified this claim. Recognizing that aggressive energy codes are driving energy consumption lower, and that larger than necessary transformers create larger than necessary flash hazard, the 2014 NEC will provide an exception in Section 220.12 that will permit designers to reduce transformer kVA ratings and all related components of the power delivery system. This is a conservative, incremental step in the direction of reduced load density that is limited to lighting systems. More study of feeder and branch circuit loading is necessary to inform discussion about circuit design methods in future revisions of the NEC.
CLICK HERE for complete paper