AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MOREWhicker: Clemson demonstrates that it’s tough to knock out the champ The driver overcorrected, sending the car back onto the pavement, but causing it to skid sideways. It slid into the eastbound lanes and was broadsided on its passenger side by a Chevrolet Tahoe, Souza said. Both men were dead at the scene. The Tahoe contained five occupants, but no one was seriously injured. The male driver complained of pain in his arm. His female passenger, who is 4 months pregnant, complained of pain to her head, leg and stomach. She was taken to a hospital for treatment. The dead men’s names were not immediately released pending notification of relatives. An autopsy will determine if the driver was intoxicated, Souza said. larry[email protected] A driver and his male passenger were killed and two people in another car were injured in a collision in Rancho Palos Verdes, deputies said today. A half-full broken bottle of hard liquor was found in the men’s car, but it was unknown if it had been partially consumed or just shattered in the crash, sheriff’s traffic Investigator Ray Souza said. The crash occurred as the men traveled together at 10 p.m Friday in the 4100 block of Palos Verdes Drive South. Souza said the Lexus was headed west near Schooner Drive when the car went off the roadway onto the dirt shoulder. 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set!
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest National Corn Growers Association President Chip Bowling has urged President Obama to reverse the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed cuts in the Renewable Fuel Standard’s volume obligation and adhere to the statute of the law itself.In a letter sent in mid-November, Bowling noted that the most recent estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture has forecast a larger than expected crop at 13.65 billion bushels, and lower projected price for corn — nearly a dollar per-bushel lower than the cost of production.“Contrary to the erroneous criticism spread by the oil industry, biofuels have not driven up the price of food or fuel,” Bowling wrote. “Your administration’s proposed blending targets will decrease the availability of renewable fuels, further exacerbating already low corn prices, and causing further, significant, harm to the agriculture sector.”Rural America cannot afford this, Bowling told the president.“We urge you to reverse the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed reduction in the RVO and adhere to the statute. This action will provide a crucial demand signal to commodity markets, benefit rural economies, and solidify your commitment to a lower carbon future. The EPA’s recommendation is one we cannot afford in America’s heartland.”The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) received the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final proposed rule on the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). This was the final stage of the review process and is an indication that the Administration was on track to finalize the rule by Nov. 30.The official public comment period on the EPA Proposed Rule closed on July 27. The initial EPA proposal released in May set biomass-based diesel volumes at 1.63 for 2014, rising by approximately 100 million gallons per year to 1.9 billion gallons in 2017.While these volumes were a significant increase from the original 2013 EPA proposal of 1.28 billion gallons, the American Soybean Association (ASA) has urged EPA to support more aggressive, but achievable, RFS volume targets for biodiesel. Given the many benefits of biodiesel and the capability for increased production, EPA should, at a minimum, support biomass-based diesel volumes of at least 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017.Ethanol supporters also really ramped up efforts and called out their opposition leading up to the EPA decision. The NCGA n expressed deep disappointment in members of Congress from corn-producing states who asked the EPA to reduce the volume of ethanol in the nation’s fuel supply. This includes Jim Jordan (R), Steve Chabot (R), and Bradley Wenstrup (R) from Ohio.“I’m disappointed to see Members of Congress turn their back on farmers and rural communities,” said Wesley Spurlock, first vice president of the NCGA. “The Renewable Fuel Standard has been one of the most successful energy policies ever enacted. The RFS works. It has reduced our dependence on foreign oil. It has made the rural economy stronger. And it has been better for the environment. It’s puzzling that these Representatives would not want to support it.”In a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy dated Nov. 4, House members asked the EPA to reduce the Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO), the amount of biofuels blended into the nation’s fuel supply, despite the fact that doing so would violate congressional statute. Electronic document properties have since revealed that the letter was drafted by an oil industry lobbyist, as reported by Bloomberg News.“This letter has Big Oil’s fingerprints all over it,” Spurlock said. “The letter includes false attacks on ethanol that have been disproven time and again. The blend wall is a false construct. We have known from the beginning that eventually we would need higher blends of ethanol to meet the statutory requirements. That was the point: to replace fossil fuels with renewables. The oil industry doesn’t want to hear that. That’s why they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to repeal the RFS, even to the point of having their lobbyists write this letter.”Spurlock called on farmers, employees of the renewable fuels industry, and rural community leaders to contact their elected officials and make their voices heard leading up to the EPA decision.“Ethanol is the backbone of the rural economy, and the elected officials who represent these communities need to hear from us. It’s up to us to tell them this is unacceptable and hold them accountable,” he said. “Corn farmers are doing their part to feed and fuel America. It’s time for Congress to do their part and stand up for energy independence, clean air, and strong rural communities.”In addition to the Representatives from Ohio, the following members of Congress from corn-producing states signed the letter.Colorado: Mike Coffman (R), Doug Lamborn (R)Illinois: Robert Dold (R)Kansas: Mike Pompeo (R)Kentucky: Thomas Massie (R), Andy Barr (R)Maryland: Andy Harris (R)Michigan: Dan Benishek (R), Mike Bishop (R), Tim Walberg (R)Missouri: Billy Long (R)North Carolina: G. K. Butterfield (D), Robert Pittenger (R), David Rouzer (R), George Holding (R), Renee Elmers (R), Walter Jones (R), Virginia Foxx (R), Richard Hudson (R)New York: John Katko (R), Christopher Gibson (R), Tom Reed (R), Chris Collins (R), Lee Zeldin (R), Richard Hanna (R), Peter King (R)Pennsylvania: Lou Barletta (R), Glenn Thompson (R), Ryan Costello (R), Joseph Pitts (R), Keith Rothfus (R), Charles Dent (R), Bill Shuster (R), Patrick Meehan (R), Tim Murphy (R), Scott Perry (R), Mike Kelly (R)Texas: Marc Veasey (D), Henry Cuellar (D), Filemon Vela (D), Gene Green (D), Ruben Hinojosa (D), Joaquin Castro (D), Kevin Brady (R), Will Hurd (R), Randy Weber (R), Kay Granger (R), Randy Neugebauer (R), Roger Williams (R), Jeb Hensarling (R), Pete Session (R), Louie Gohmert (R), Lamar Smith (R), Mike Conaway (R), Sam Johnson (R), Kenny Marchant (R), Michael Burgess (R), John Culberson (R), Ted Poe (R), Blake Farenthold (R), Michael McCaul (R), Brian Babin (R), John Ratcliffe (R), Joe Barton (R), John Carter (R), Pete Olson (R), Mac Thornberry (R), Bill Flores (R)Virginia: Scott Rigell (R), Robert Wittman (R), Morgan Griffith (R), Robert Hurt (R), Barbara Comstock (R), Dave Brat (R), Bob Goodlatte (R)Wisconsin: Glenn Grothman (R), James Sensenbrenner (R)
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) requires facilities processing any type of animal food (complete feed or ingredients) to comply with new current good manufacturing practices and to implement a written animal food safety plan developed and overseen by a “preventive controls qualified individual (PCQI).”In order to meet the requirements set by the Food and Drug Administration, the Ohio AgriBusiness Association, in collaboration with the American Feed Industry Association (AFIA), will offer the FSPCA Preventive Controls for Animal Food Course Oct. 25-27.Open to all facilities impacted by FSMA, this course is the standardized training developed by the Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance (FSPCA). Led by Henry Turlington and Gary Huddleston, of AFIA, the course content will provide knowledge of the FSMA animal preventive controls rule and training for creation of an effective animal food safety plan.Other course topics include:Overview of the FSMA requirements for animal foodCurrent Good Manufacturing Practice requirementsAnimal food safety hazardsOverview of the food safety planHazard analysis and preventive controls determinationPreventive control management componentsProcess controlsSanitation controlsSupply-chain-applied controlsRecall plan“This course is a great resource for PCQI’s that haven’t yet met the FSMA requirements,” said Henry Turlington, director of quality, education and training for AFIA. “We provide all the tools necessary to create an effective animal food safety plan, as well as in-depth coverage of other FSMA topics.”Registration for the PCQI training is $700 per participant, with a limit of 60 participants. The event will be held at All Occasions Catering in Waldo, Ohio. For complete event details or to register, visit oaba.net/events or contact Margo Long at 614-326-7520 or [email protected] The registration deadline is Oct. 7.For those attendees in need of lodging, block rooms are available at the Holiday Inn in Marion, by calling 740-389-4300. Rooms are $99 per night plus tax and are available until Sept. 28. Participants should use the group code “OABA” to reserve their rooms at the discounted rate.
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Matt ReeseThere is not a row crop farmer in Ohio who can avoid getting a bit antsy sitting idle as temperatures warm in April and conditions approach ideal. Yet, the early spring experience of many has shown the perils of getting a jump on planting the often-fickle corn crop. Cory Atley of Greene County, founder of Advanced Yield, has found a spring planting recipe for success, and he’s got impressive yield numbers to back it up. He plants soybeans first.“We really want to plant when the conditions are fit. Normally we only really get 10 or 14 days of optimal conditions when things are right and we really try to take advantage of that. We have seen through a lot of different planting trials we have done on our own farm that the early-planted beans are the easiest way to pick up more bushels. Beans don’t mind some stress. They are rough and tough and they can handle it,” Atley said. “It is hard to sit on your hands when you have a lot of acres to get across. It is hard to not do anything just because the soil temperature is not quite 56 degrees. We’ve learned, instead of messing up the corn crop, let’s just go after the beans. They like being earlier. The corn doesn’t like being stressed early. By the time we get done with the beans, we save ourselves from ourselves. We have implemented that into our farm for a few years now if we are able to get in during April. We get the beans out first and then the corn. Now, obviously if we can’t get in until the middle of May, things change with that, but we normally see an 8- to 12- bushel increase with the early-planted beans. We started when we just had one bean planter and wherever that guy ran, it didn’t matter the variety, side-by-side on the same farm — those earlier-planted beans were always better. That is what first grabbed out attention.”The productive soils on the Atley farm are primarily conventionally tilled with a v-ripper in the fall followed by a field cultivator in the spring. Soybean fields get a burndown and post- applications are used in the fields as needed.“In 2018 for beans we were really wanting to get some out in March. We had a small window where we wanted to attempt it but they were calling for snow so I sat on my hands. That turned out to be a good thing. We ended up getting in around April 18 and 19 and we got a few hundred acres of beans in. Then it rained again and we had to sit out another week. The last week of April we really got rolling and that’s when the weather changed. We started on beans first and wrapped up beans May 3,” Atley said. “The earlier bean crop we planted struggled. It was really wet. I was starting to get nervous. Around 50% of those beans came up in good time but the other half on some clay ground really struggled. It was not 100% emerged until 20 to 28 days after the planting date, but it didn’t take long for those beans to catch up and we were able to recover. By June you couldn’t even tell. They really came on fast after that.”The Atleys prioritize providing nutrients specifically when the crops need them.“We fertilize in front of each crop. We feel it is important that the bean crop gets its own food for the year. We’ve played around with 28%, urea, ammonium sulfate, and we could never get over that 100-bushel bump consistently for the beans. With the soil types we have we figured we could produce the nutrients we need ourselves but how do we do it? We started running Vault inoculant on the fully treated seed and then came in with another inoculant with TerraMax in-furrow with straight water and some Fulvic acid and other biologicals with it,” Atley said. “With our soil tests we don’t see a need for 3-18-18 right now. We are trying to get more activity going on and use what we already have there.“Then, most of our 100+-bushel beans in 2018 all got Cobra. We came in at V1 and we stunted them. We have been playing with that for 3 years now and it has worked every year for us. It is hard to do because it is borderline on killing that bean, but that has paid off really big for us.”The ample moisture in 2018 led to strong yields, but also significant disease potential.“We came in with a fungicide at R1 and then at R3 again. We are trying to keep the leaves healthy. We saw great success with that R3 application. To me that is a must-do pass, especially with the really wet August we had last year,” he said. “Going into harvest, we knew the beans were really going to be something special. We had some we felt could have gone higher. We had some lodging issues so we are going to pull down our planting populations even more than we had. This year we are going to be more around that 80,000 to 100,000 range where last year we were around that 100,000 to 130,000 population range. The earliest beans and the later beans were all about the same yields. The winning contest yield we had was the Asgrow 38X8 in Ohio and it was 97+ bushels there per acre. We had a lot of really good beans. We had a few hundred acres over the 100-bushel mark this year with some CROPLAN beans.”In 2018, the Atley corn crop got started with planting populations ranging from 37,000 to 42,000 and planting dates May 4 through May 8.“We try to keep a tight window because you are fighting Mother Nature in the spring and getting a good early stand is really important,” Atley said. “Our yields have actually gone up on corn since we started getting the soybeans planted first and then planting corn. Corn does not like early stress. I cannot put enough in-furrow or 2X2 on to overcome those early cold soil temperatures. If the corn seed is not happy, you are losing yield right from the get go.”Prior to planting in 2018, Atley applied 180 to 220 pounds of anhydrous in mid-April and then provided an aggressive starter package in the 20-inch rows.“We use a micropack from Winfield. In the corn starter we are really heavy with the biologicals along with sulfur the Fulvic acid. We are trying to get the best start we can. You are going to make or break a corn crop in that first month. It is very important to get off to a good start,” he said. “We’d rather go into V5 having a 400-bushel potential crop than a 200-bushel crop. Once you have a 200-bushel crop you can’t get that other 200 bushels back. If we can get to harvest around a 300-bushel crop we are tickled to death. We are trying to preserve that yield and the biologicals have become really important for us in-furrow.”The 2018 May weather cooperated nicely.“Once we got in the field and planted, the corn came screaming out of the ground. It never looked back. The GDUs it was getting were by far the most we have gotten since we have been tracking them,” Atley said. “It felt like we’d just gotten done planting and here we are going out to spray the corn at V5. We’ve had great success with nitrogen and the Max-in Ultra ZMB foliar spray when we come in with a fungicide at a half rate to keep the plant health going. Then that corn is pretty much on its own until around the VT timeframe. We try to come in with a fungicide before we see problems, because if we see problems it is already too late. In 2018 we came back with another shot at VT. We use Brian Fisher who flies it all on for us. We don’t always want to plan for a two-shot because of the expense, but the disease pressure kept getting worse last year. We spilt fields to see if it would pay and it did last year.”Aside from a 90-degree stretch during pollination, weather conditions were nearly ideal for the 2018 corn crop and hopes were high going into harvest.“We had our best-ever yield average through the early corn harvest. We were right around that 300-bushel mark with some of our corn until around Oct. 20 when we had a big windstorm come through. We had about 1,000 acres still out and it took a big chunk of that corn and laid it flat. Some of the fields we’d already started to run and there was about a 45-bushel difference pre-wind to post-wind. We were going about every direction we could to get that corn. There were other farmers around with the same challenges. We wrapped up harvest around Nov. 8. We put in a lot of hours once that corn went down because once you get in November you can be in December before you know it,” Atley said. “We ended up around 261 bushels for the farm average. We were on pace for better before the windstorm. On the early corn we were running around a 285-bushel average before the wind came in. Our winning yield in 2018 was CROPLAN 4895 and that came in at 304 bushels in the NCGA yield contest.”Now looking toward the start of 2019, Atley is excited for some changes in the corn.“We have made a lot of changes for 2019. We are going to try some new things for the corn program this year. The biggest thing is we are pulling the 6-24-6 and going with straight water in-furrow. We are trying new corn inoculants and Fulvic acid in the starter — things we couldn’t put in before because they didn’t mix well with 6-24-6 or 10-34-0. We are excited to see what that will bring. We’ve tried it and had success with it in the past,” he said. “At V5 we will try some other products and we will try to feed it more this year at the V8 to V10 range to help with the ear length. We try to spoon feed the corn through the year. We can pull back if Mother Nature is not being nice to us. I am also experimenting on a few acres with 10-inch corn this year, but 20-inch is already a pain to walk through. We’ll see how it goes with 10-inch rows.”Like in 2018, Atley’s goal for 2019 is to produce big yields across all of the Atley family’s 7,000 acres, not just on the contest plots.“With way the economics are, we have to raise more. As a farm average we want 250 to 275 bushels. At the end of the day, it is all about ROI so that is why we really don’t do a 10-acre plot for a yield contest,” he said. “We want to replicate what we do on every acre at any time.”
When Commonwealth Games gold medallist Manoj Kumar starts his campaign at the London Olympics, he will realise a dream which his elder brother and former international boxer Rajesh Kumar once had but could never fulfil.After a training session at the NIS here, Manoj said that after qualifying for the Olympics, he is happy not just for himself but for his brother too.”Going to the Olympics and winning a medal was a dream that both of us shared. If he had not been a boxer, I would never have been a Commonwealth Games champion and an Olympian. I want to compete and win a medal in London. If I do so, I can share the joy with my brother,” Manoj, who will be making his Olympics debut in London, told Mail Today.He might have fell short in his bid for the Olympics, but Rajesh has had a big influence on his family members and relatives, amongst whom as many as eight took to boxing after watching him.”He actually took our family to a new direction. After him, I came into boxing and made the sub-junior team in 1999. My younger brother Mukesh followed me in 2004 and currently we are eight brothers and cousins who are representing India in different age categories,” he said.Manoj started by imitating his brother but it soon turned into a passion.”I used to watch my brother practising and started imitating him. Initially, it was fun to throw punches like him but gradually I started taking keen interest in boxing. My brother noticed it and took me to a coach where I started boxing seriously,” said Manoj.advertisementRajesh took part in some international tournaments but fell short in his bid for the Olympics. He left boxing and studied physical education and after getting a doctorate, became a coach with an NIS diploma achieved under national coach Gurbux Singh Sandhu. “Even today there are matters, regarding sport and family which I discuss only with him and if I win in London the unconditional support of my brother will be a major factor,” said Manoj.Manoj is training hard at the NIS where his preparations are in the final phase.”Now the entire focus is on speed and strength. Both the factors will give me an edge at the Olympics and I want to make the most of the opportunity,” he said.To acclimatise to local conditions, Manoj went with the team to Ireland and will be leaving for London for training on Friday. “The Ireland trip was good because of the local conditions. London and Dublin are almost similar and training at such venues will help us feel at home at the Olympic venue.”Ireland was the No.1 boxing team at the Commonwealth Games and sparring with them was a fruitful experience. Now our camp is in London and it will help us adjust physically, mentally and physiologically,” said Manoj.
In addition to being the number one Men’s touch referee based on the 2009 National Touch League, he is also a regular NRL Toyota Cup (Under 20’s) whistle blower as well. While most people can relax after the end of the NYC, Gavin has to fly back to Sydney to referee a NSW Cup rugby league match. West missed out on a place as a referee in the Trans Tasman series earlier this year, after taking a break from the game to concentrate on his league commitments. West said it was sad to miss out on the series but he has set refereeing at the next Trans Tasman as one of his goals to make up for that disappointment. “I’m very motivated to get that next Trans Tasman game so I’ve got to work towards that,” he said. His road to the top of the referee standings hasn’t come easy. He earned his level six badge in touch in 2002, and had to work hard in the meantime to get to the number one position. “I was the youngest ever to get that (level six), I’ve been on level six for quiet a while now. In 2005 I became number two but from there I had a few years off but I came back this year and got that so I’ve just been refereeing at state cup, NSW level and I was just lucky enough to get that spot this year,” he said. West took time off to concentrate on his goal of becoming a league referee, which included moving from Newcastle to Sydney to pursue his dream.And this is now starting to pay dividends in both codes. West has refereed the most Toyota Cup games this year, and was also named the number one referee at the NYC this week, but it hasn’t come easy. “It’s (a) heavy workload with the training, you don’t get much free time between work and footy but hopefully in a couple of years I’ll have a full time position (refereeing) and it’s the only job I’ll have so I’m not juggling that workload as well,” West said. West’s busy schedule means that it can be difficult to manage his time, especially as the top two touch tournaments of the year clash with important league games. “The NTL is often the first week of league so I had to manage that to get the finals this year and also this tournament as it’s the finals for league as well. I just had to fully focus on league at that time but now that I’m established there I can be a bit more flexible,” he said. Now that he is more established in League, he hopes to be able to make the transition from Under 20’s to first grade in the near future. “I want it done in the next three years at least, I’m hoping not 2010 but 2011 that might occur so it’s just a matter of the numbers game and just waiting for people to retire or getting past their use by date,” he said.
TagsTransfersAbout the authorCarlos VolcanoShare the loveHave your say Ex-Real Madrid defender Pepe leaving Besiktas after contract releaseby Carlos Volcano10 months agoSend to a friendShare the lovePepe is leaving Besiktas after terminating his contract by mutual consent.Marca says an official announcement has not yet been made but the Portugal international, whose deal was due to expire in June, is now free to sign for another club.Reports in Turkey indicate that Besiktas are going through economic issues and have been unable to pay the high salaries of many of their players, including Pepe.The 35-year-old played 17 league game this season and managed an impressive five goals, with three coming in domestic action and two in Europe.Pepe moved to Besiktas from Real Madrid.
Malaysian MISC Berhad (MISC) informed that the recently signed deal between AET Tanker Holdings and Brazilian petroleum corporation Petrobras has a value of USD 645 million.Under the long-term charter contract agreed between the parties, AET will own and operate four specialist DP2 Suezmax shuttle tankers from Petrobras.The units, to be hired under a firm charter period of 10 years, will be used for operations in international and Brazilian waters, MISC added.The four 152,000 dwt DP2 shuttle tankers will be built by South Korean shipbuilder Samsung Heavy Industries.The company is paying KRW 392.3 billion (USD 365.6 million) for the units, which are scheduled for delivery in 2020, the shipbuilder said in a stock exchange filing.Compliant to IMO NOx Tier 3 requirement, the new vessels will be in addition to the two AET DP2 ships currently on charter in the Brazilian Basin for Petrobras.
In July, I wrote a piece titled “The Rate of Domestic Violence Arrests Among NFL Players,” which has been getting a lot of attention recently — some of it missing the point.I based the analysis in my article on USA Today’s NFL Arrests Database, combined with data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Arrest Data Analysis Tool and some historical data gleaned from the National Incident-Based Reporting System and a variety of BJS reports on domestic violence. The main points I made were:For most crimes, NFL players have extremely low arrest rates relative to national averages.Their relative arrest rate for domestic violence is much higher than for other crimes.Although the arrest rate for domestic violence may appear low relative to the national average for 25- to 29-year-old men, it is probably high relative to NFL players’ income level (more than $75,000 per year) and poverty rate (0 percent).But the article has been cited by a number of people to support the proposition that the NFL does not have an unusually high domestic violence rate. While I think this is a fair characterization of my intermediate results — the arrest rate I noted was 55.4 percent of the national average for 25- to 29-year-old men as suggested by the USA Today arrest data and rough number of players in the NFL — it’s misleading when taken out of context.Let’s be more explicit about the different assumptions that can affect that bottom-line comparison. For that analysis, I generally tried to lean toward assumptions favorable to the NFL, with the intention of showing that, even under those assumptions, the NFL appeared to have a “downright extraordinary” arrest rate for domestic violence.But there are still a lot of unknowns in the data and lot of choices to be made about what exactly we’re comparing to what.Reliability of arrest dataA lot of readers, commenters, emailers, tweeters, media, etc., have questioned the USA Today NFL arrest data. They’re right to be skeptical. There’s a good chance the arrest data is incomplete — particularly when it comes to marginal players who are only attached to the NFL briefly.When I wrote that piece, I was concerned about both over- and under-inclusion: The pool of NFL players who would pop up in the database might be even larger than the estimate based on roster limits (because some players come and go, and players are frequently dropped and replaced throughout the year), but it might also miss some players whose arrests flew under the radar.I hand-sampled a number of cases and found that they appeared to include many marginal players with minimal attachment to the league. With the NFL being so intensely followed, I thought the USA Today data set was probably pretty comprehensive.But some readers have made some good cases for why the arrest count the database produces could be low.On the pure data-collection level, I’ve corresponded with an enterprising reader who compared the frequency of arrests in the USA Today data for players with more games played vs. those with few games played. He found the first group had a much higher arrest rate. From this, he concluded that the database was probably missing arrests for lesser-known players, and he determined that basing the arrest rate on an assumption of 53 players per team (rather than the 80 players per team I used) was the most accurate approach (only coincidentally corresponding to the number of players on the roster during the year).His case seemed strong to me but not conclusive: It’s possible that marginally attached players are arrested at a lower rate. For example, marginally attached players may be younger (unsigned rookies) or older (borderline veterans) than typical players, and thus less likely to have families (younger) or be aged out of the most likely group to commit domestic violence (older). Additionally, we don’t know what’s driving the NFL’s overall domestic violence arrest rate, and I can imagine plausible scenarios in which regular players are more likely to commit and/or get arrested for the offense.Another potential problem, as several readers pointed out, is that virtually any NFL arrest data may understate the equivalent arrest rate in a less privileged population. In other words, NFL players who are involved in domestic violence incidents could be better at avoiding arrests than the general public. Relatedly, it’s possible there have been arrests that were either avoided or kept off the media’s radar because of team and/or league machinations.Whether any of those possibilities are likely or not, we should be explicit as to how our position on them affects our results.An appropriate pool for comparisonIf we want a bottom-line NFL vs. X number, the pool you use for X is obviously quite meaningful. But it’s difficult to figure out which pool we should be comparing to, and even if we do know what pool we want to use, figuring out their arrest rate (especially for domestic violence crimes) can be quite difficult.In my article, I primarily compare NFL arrest rates to arrest rates for 25- to 29-year-old men, and then I compared their arrest rate for domestic violence to their arrest rates for other crimes (it’s about four times higher). While we don’t have arrest data broken down by income, we do have such breakdowns for victimization rates (based on BJS survey data). I compared the relative domestic violence victimization rate for people from households making $75,000 or more to both the overall domestic violence victimization rate (it’s 39 percent as high) and rate for ages 20 to 34 (20 percent as high). It’s impossible to compare this directly to the relative NFL arrest rates with precision, but at least it gives us some benchmark for how income level may affect domestic violence incidents.In addition to inherent murkiness of trying to compare across different types of data, there are a few other possible problems with the $75,000 or more per year comparison.First, NFL players have a number of advantages that your typical member of a household making $75,000 and up each year may not. That’s the highest income group I had data for, but NFL players are typically wealthier than that. NFL players spend a good portion of the year in an extremely structured environment. They have extremely low rates of drug and alcohol abuse (especially relative to arrest rates for drug and alcohol-related crimes), and alcohol and drugs tend to be big risk factors for domestic violence.On the other hand, NFL players didn’t necessarily have the advantages that a lot of $75,000-and-up earners do. NFL players may be more likely than those earners to have come from difficult backgrounds, or to have experienced or observed abuse in their families, and in general to have missed out on the privileges associated with coming from a wealthier background.Finally, there are some differences in the data that we don’t know enough about to say what their effect might be, such as:Are victims from higher-income households more or less likely to make police reports that lead to arrests?How does the extreme wealth disparity between NFL players and their domestic partners affect the power dynamics that may lead to more or fewer arrests?Note: None of this has to be the case, and I haven’t studied these factors or their effects on criminality. But they are questions that affect our assumptions, and affect what type of comparison we should be making and how we should interpret it.Even if we could settle on a perfectly representative pool for comparison, getting even approximate figures for each group is extremely difficult. For example, as I noted in the original article, the BJS’s Intimate Partner Violence reports don’t include breakdowns by income anymore. So we have to make reasonable estimates based on several related numbers. This process has a lot of wiggle room in it as well, so we should be clear to look at what kinds of proxies lead to what kinds of results.Different combinations of assumptionsWith so much murkiness in both our data and our aims, the best thing to do is to look at a range of assumptions and see whether there are patterns that are apparent independent of such choices.Let’s first combine the possible issues with the USA Today data and represent them as a single number — which we’ll call “percentage of arrests captured by USA Today data” — representing its completeness with regards to actual arrests, as well as arrests that were otherwise avoided.Likewise, let’s combine the issues about comparison groups into a single percentage representing the bottom-line arrest rate of our comparable population (whatever it might be) relative to our 25- to 29-year-old average. In other words, we’re using one metric to represent each group by our best estimate for its relative arrest rate (which we can compare to benchmarks).Then we combine these two metrics with the information we have (NFL Arrest Rates in USA Today database, approximate number of NFL players and arrest rates for the general population), like so:We calculate the known NFL arrest rate and scale it to per 100,000 by taking the NFL arrests per year in the database, multiplied by 100,000, and divided by the number of NFL players per year (approximately 2,560).We divide this by the “percentage of arrests captured by USA Today data” (by assumption, per above).We gather data on the known national arrest rate for 25- to 29- year-olds, which is per 100,000.We divide this by our estimated relative arrest rate of a comparable population (by assumption, per above).Finally, we calculate the ratio between 2) and 4) and subtract 100 percent — this tells us how our estimated NFL arrest rate compares to the rate we estimate for a comparable population.Now we can chart the result of this calculation for given values of A and B as heat maps. Even if we assume extremely incomplete arrest data, the NFL’s overall arrest rate is still very low relative to the national average for its age range. But if we hold the NFL to an extremely high standard, we can still find its arrest rate to be subpar.I’ve used the same color scheme for both of these (100 percent = white). So it should be obvious that the NFL’s doing much worse with domestic violence arrests than with arrests overall.Note that the difference between assumptions can be an order of magnitude or more. Under a favorable set of assumptions, the NFL looks better than average; under an unfavorable set of assumptions, it’s doing terribly.For example, if you compare NFL players only to the national average for 25- to 29-year-old men, and you assume that the USA Today database is pretty much complete, you arrive at the 55.4 percent figure.On the other hand, if you assume that the NFL’s domestic violence arrest rate should be proportional to the overall arrest rate, you can see that the NFL has a “domestic violence problem,” whether the USA Today data is complete or not. This was essentially the scenario I was leading to in my initial article.