Jose Mourinho refused to say whether Eden Hazard will return to Chelsea’s starting line-up for Tuesday night’s Champions League Group G clash at Dynamo Kiev.Mourinho was critical of Hazard, the stand-out performer in last season’s Barclays Premier League triumph, after leaving the Belgium playmaker on the substitutes’ bench for last Saturday’s 2-0 win over Aston Villa.And the Blues boss declined to reveal if Hazard, who has been told to up his work rate, will start at the NSK Olimpiysky as Chelsea seek to respond from defeat at Porto in their most recent Champions League game.“If he plays tomorrow I don’t tell you. The players don’t know,” Mourinho said.Mourinho has left forwards Pedro and Loic Remy behind due to minor injuries, increasing the likelihood Hazard will return to the starting XI.The Portuguese was critical of Hazard during his first season back at Stamford Bridge and the desired response followed, with the forward compared favourably with Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi when winning individual footballer of the year awards last season.“I didn’t say he had a better season than Ronaldo,” Mourinho said.“Last season he won one of the most important titles in football, which is the Premier League, and [he was] absolutely decisive for Chelsea. Last season he had a phenomenal season.”Asked about Hazard’s response to his comments, Mourinho said: “How did he train? He trained like Eden.”Mourinho also says Radamel Falcao has given no indication to him of his apparent desire to leave Chelsea following reports in Monday morning’s newspapers.“First of all I don’t know if it’s true. To me he said absolutely nothing in relation to that,” Mourinho said.“I speak with him every day. It’s quite strange the press know something I don’t know and my club doesn’t know. We don’t have one single bit of information about it.“What he has to do is play more? He has to give us more than Diego [Costa].“We normally play with one striker. I always go for the performance level.“It’s a direct competition between players for one position. The best one plays.” 1 Eden Hazard
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Dusty Sonnenberg, CCA, Ohio Field LeaderIn a typical year, by the time Farm Science Review rolls around, many of the soybeans in the state of Ohio have started to turn a bright fall yellow color and are quickly drying down. Some fields in the southern regions have even been harvested. But it has not been a typical year. In the southern part of the state much of the crop is on schedule, and the yield has already been determined. In the northern regions, many beans are still very green and filling pods. Soybeans found in the R4 to R5 growth stage are not uncommon in much of northern Ohio. The question among many growers is, “How long do we have to complete the grain fill period?”According to the University of Missouri and Missouri Soybean Center, soybean yield is a product of the number of days of seed fill and rate at which the seeds fill. The vegetative growth that occurs before and after flowering builds the photosynthetic factory and creates a greater rate of seed fill. Later maturing varieties will produce more leaves before flowering starts and will also have a greater number of days for seed filling. These soybeans may have a faster rate of fill for more days, so they may yield more. Soybeans planted very late will be induced to flower almost immediately after emergence.David Holshouser, an agronomist with Virginia Cooperative Extension, said soybean plants sense changes in night length and initiate flowering only after the night is longer (and days grow shorter) than a critical length.“This is the concept of photo determinism. The length of the day, and thus the length of the photo period available ties directly to the summer solstice. The 2019 summer solstice in the Northern Hemisphere was Friday, June 21. Every day after this date has fewer hours and minutes of sunlight. Although technically incorrect, such plants are termed short-day plants. The length of required dark period depends on the species and variety of species,” Holshouser said. “Soybeans are a short-day crop and their development is determined largely by variety-specific daylength requirements that initiate floral development. In other words, as the days grow shorter, soybeans will flower and enter into reproductive development stages. Due to this photoperiod requirement, days from planting until maturity cannot be accurately estimated for soybeans due to variation in planting date and other environmental variations.”This, however, changes once the soybeans flower.“After flowering, temperature drives development and the days until maturity can be estimated. The number of days from floral initiation at R1 until physiological maturity at R7 is usually independent of variety, but will vary slightly from year to year due to temperature differences between years,” he said. “Late planted soybeans initiate flowering during a warmer time of the year; therefore, post-flower development speeds up.”With this in mind, the concerns about frost limiting soybean potential in northern Ohio this year are warranted, said Greg LaBarge, Ohio State University Extension field crops specialist.“Soybeans need both a certain number of days and temperature in order to mature,” LaBarge said. “Typically, in northern Ohio it takes soybeans that are at the R4 growth stage approximately 45 days to reach physiological maturity at R7. Soybeans that are at R5 will take about 35 days. Given that we are past the middle of September, this will push development into early November. That could be a challenge for many of the fields.”The Ohio Agronomy Guide, using data from 1980-2010, lists a median climatological date (50% chance of the first freeze at 32 degrees F), occurring between Oct. 1 and Oct. 20. The Old Farmer’s Almanac has determined Oct. 13, 2019 as the date that has a 30% probability of frost, based on 1981-2010 climate norms.Ohio Field Leader is a project of the Ohio Soybean Council. For more, visit ohiofieldleader.com.
Homebuyers have higher expectations now than they did just a few years ago, and builders are responding with more houses that meet green building standards, a new study from Dodge Data & Analytics says.More than half of the builders surveyed expect more than 60% of the houses they build will be green by 2020, with 36% of remodelers expecting to meet the same standards in their projects by then.Although three-quarters of the builders say that meeting green standards costs at least 5% more than conventional construction, most of them think that consumers are willing to pay more for a house that uses less energy, is more durable, and has better indoor air quality.Exactly what constitutes a “green” home? As defined by the study, green building refers “specifically to homebuilding, home remodeling/renovating and land development that incorporates environmentally sensitive site planning, resource efficiency, energy and water efficiency, improved indoor environmental quality, and homeowner education, or projects the would comply with the ICC 700 National Green Building Standard or other credible rating systems.”In other words, there’s still a lot of room for interpretation.Findings are based on an online survey of builders and remodelers as represented in the membership data base of the National Association of Home Builders. A total of 249 responses are included, from 177 single-family builders and developers, 55 single-family remodelers, and 17 multifamily firms. More reliance on renewable energyAll types of renewable energy have grown more common. In the two-year period between 2013 and 2015, the percentage of projects with photovoltaics (PV) jumped from 12% to 19%, but the real growth appears still to be in the future. Houses equipped with PV will grow to 48% of the market by 2018, builders and remodelers said, while solar hot water heating would increase to 41%, and ground-source heating equipment would rise to 52% of their projects.More than 20% of the builders surveyed said they had built a net-zero or net-zero ready home, and 58% of the builders who report 90% or more of their projects are green are doing net-zero or net-zero ready construction.The interest in renewables seems driven by practicality: while 81% of buyers 55 and older were judged to be influenced by energy efficiency, only 8% of those in that age bracket gave much weight to a reduced carbon footprint. By contrast, 12% of those aged 18-35 considered a reduced carbon footprint influential, builders said. Banking on baby boomers“Mature” homebuyers, those 55 and older, pay closer attention to energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and durability in housing than younger home buyers, the report says. But the millennial generation may eventually catch up.“The baby boomer generation is large and relatively affluent, which supports a strongergreen market currently, but there are also indications that demand may grow among millennials,” the report says.For for now, the baby boomers are in the driver’s seat. For example, 81% of buyers over the age of 36 consider energy efficiency an influential factor, compared with 70% of buyers between the ages of 18 and 35. Sixty-seven percent of those 55 or older think that a healthier indoor living environment is important, compared with 55% of those aged 36-54 and only 49% of those in the 18-to-35 age bracket. Durability? Seventy-two percent of those 55 and up think its important; 47% of the 18-to-35 year olds would agree.The relative wealth of older home buyers may help explain why builders plan more green projects in the years ahead even as more of them believe that green building costs more. In 2011, a Dodge report found that 58% of builders responding to a survey thought that green building cost at least 5% more than conventional construction. That grew to 60% in a 2014 survey, and to 77% in the most recent report.But the disparity in income between different age groups was only part of it. The study also found that older buyers had more experience with houses, and the more they knew about high-performance features the more likely they were to consider those features when making buying decisions.Builders and remodelers said that 83% of home buyers would be willing to spend more for a healthier home, and the number of buyers willing to spend 5% to 10% more for a green home rose from 26% in 2011 to 33% this year. Still, costs remain a concern.“The issue of cost must be addressed by the industry in order to see the full potential of the green market achieved,” the authors said, “especially as consumers have the expectation that a new home is green and therefore may not be willing to pay a premium for that level of performance.”