ASRED / agInnovation South Joint Spring Meeting
April 4 – 7, 2011
Greenville, South Carolina

List of Participants
Sharon Anderson, National 4-H
Doug Archer, FL
George Askew, SC
Bill Batchelor, AL
Kofi Boateng, VI
Bill Brown, TN
Steve Brown, GA
Brian Callahan, SC
Patrick Colyer, LA
Paul Coreil, LA
Nancy Cox, KY
Tim Cross, TN
Mary Duryea, FL
Jonathan Edelson, OK
Millie Ferrer-Chancy, FL
Bob Godfrey, VI
Shirley Hastings, TN
Jimmy Henning, KY
George Hopper, MS
Bill Hubbard, SR Forester, GA
Gary Jackson, MS
Jody Jellison, VA
Ed Jones, VA
Dwight Landreneau, LA
John Liu, AL
Ross Love, OK
Nathan McKinney, AR
Steve Meadows, SC
David Monks, NC
Reuben Moore, MS
David Morrison, LA
Saied Mostaghimi, VA
Craig Nessler, TX		 Steve Oliver, KY
Rafael Olmeda, PR
Karen Ramage, KY
Rick Roeder, AR
John Russin, LA
Harald Scherm, GA
Jane Schuchardt, ECOP
Bob Shulstad, GA
David Smith, NC
Gaines Smith, AL
Beverly Sparks, GA
Joe Street, MS
Jim Trapp, OK
Clarence Watson, OK
Tony Windham, AR
Steve Workman, KY
Joe Zublena, NC
Executive Director’s Office:
Ron Brown, ASRED
Eric Young, agInnovation South
Donna Pearce, agInnovation South
Liaison’s:
Ed King, ARS – Stoneville, MS
Other guests:
Bo Beaulieu, SRDC
Marcel Bergerman, Carnegie Mellon Univ.
Sheila Julian, OK
Ralph Otto, NIFA
Michael Smolen, OK
Jim VanKirk, Southern IPM Center

 

Monday, April 4
3:00 pm Registration – Pre-function Area
6:00 – 7:30 pm Joint Welcome Reception – 2nd Level Atrium
Tuesday, April 5
6:30 – 8:00 am Joint Breakfast – 2nd Level Atrium
8:00 – 10:00 am Joint ASRED and agInnovation South Meeting – Regency D-F
8:00 Call to Order – Gaines Smith and Bob Shulstad
8:00 – 8:30  J1 NIFA and AFRI Report – Ralph Otto, USDA/NIFA

In meeting discussion:

  • NIFA has already lost $134M. There is still no approved budget for NIFA for FY2011, but new CRs have been released in DC.
  • If there is a shutdown, staff cannot travel, cannot go to their offices, cannot use computer systems, etc. Payments to states will stop. Staff, IT and others, can shut down in 4 hours, but bringing systems back up will take much longer.
  • The budget proposal for FY12 is unusual since the FY11 baseline is unknown. Currently the proposal for FY12 is based on the FY10 budget since it is the latest approved budget.
  • Principal Scientist’s interviews have been finished in some institutes; others will be soon.
  • Tina Buch and Jim Spurling have retired
  • The SCRI Review has been completed and is linked to the NIFA website
  • The REE Strategic Plan draft has been released.
  • The POW System was hacked into recently but the problem has been corrected.
8:30 – 8:40  J2 BAA Policy Board of Directors Report – Mark McLellan/Eric Young
8:40 – 9:00  J3 Southern Region IPM Center Report – Jim VanKirk, SRIPMC Director
Regional IPM Centers were created (as “Pest Management Centers”) in 2000 as part of the AREERA Section 406 funding. The Southern Region Pest Management Center was located at the University of Florida from 2000 through 2003, with Dr. Nesheim and Dr. Mizell as Directors. The Southern Region IPM Center (SRIPMC) has been hosted by North Carolina State University since 2003. Funding for SRIPMC is winding down with termination in August 2012. Now is a good time to provide an overview of a decade of funding, activities and impacts.
Funding for all “section 406 IPM programs” has been omitted from the President’s budgets for both FY 2011 and FY 2012. These programs include Regional IPM Centers, Crops at Risk (CAR) and Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program (RAMP) – as well as other non-IPM programs including Water Quality and Food Safety  – all of which have brought considerable funding and impacts to the Southern Region over the last decade. Whether these programs or the functions they address will reappear either as part of the AFRI competitive program or as the result of budget negotiations is unknown.
A 501(c)3 non-profit organization called IPM Voice has recently been created. Designed to allow individual membership of anyone including public employees, the mission of IPM Voice is:
IPM Voice advocates for integrated pest management (IPM) that is genuinely progressive and seeks continuous improvement of environmental, social and economic conditions through application of accepted scientific principles. We comprise diverse philosophies and approaches united to support a broad foundation upon which IPM will be strengthened and improved.

In meeting discussion:

  •  Stakeholder Engagement is important to the Center to set and address priorities, enhance two-way communications ownership and support of programs. Engagement is facilitated with Working Groups around issues, e.g., School Work Group, Advisory Council and Steering Committee; SERA03; and other technical committees.
  • SR-IPM regularly does Crop Profiles (251 now in database; 146 since 2004)
  • Strategic Plans (PMSPs or Pest Management Strategic Plans) – Stakeholder collaboration; which pests are important? What’s working and what isn’t? Prioritized list of what to work on next.
  • Regulatory Information Network or Regulatory Reality Check – Without real-world data, EPA makes “worst-case” assumptions that overstate exposure and risk and understate the benefits of pesticides. Hosted on IPM web site. So far, there have been 101 queries answered.
  • Type 2 Grants – small grants to start small projects or to finish or fine tune other work. One recent example is funding smart phone app for rice – RiceScout.
  • The Center manages SR IPM Grants program ($800K) (SR-RIPM) and other things, e.g., methyl bromide
  • Funding Issues – 406 IPM, CAR, RAMP omitted from President’s budget for FY11 and FY12. One possibility is that these will be included in AFRI.
  • A new IPM organization, IPM Voice, to be advocates for IPM has been incorporated as a 501(c) 3. (www.ipmvoice.org)
9:00 – 9:20  J4 Southern Regional Water Program – Michael Smolen, Water Quality Coordinator, Oklahoma State University
9:20 – 10:00  J5 Open Discussion – Future of Integrated Program Funding in the Southern Region
In meeting discussion:
1.        406 Task Force is looking at options

  • Hard to put much effort in 406 when Smith-Lever and Hatch are at risk
  • What part of 406 activities do we need to keep?
    •  Water and IPM are most important and a regional effort needs to be supported in some manner

2.        Federal capacity vs. competitive funds

  • Southern Region research and extension directors both feel capacity is top priority
  • Other region’s research directors are not as strong on capacity being first priority, some favor competitive
  • Question from Congress is, which do you want?  Southern directors would choose an increase in capacity over competitive if they had to choose
  • Should we write a southern region letter or position statement?
  • Ideally we have to have both capacity for base program support and competitive to develop new, innovative ideas in both research and extension
  • These types of support are analogous to DOD’s support of military bases vs. reserves
  • Ron Brown and Eric Young will work on drafting a regional position paper on this topic
1:30 – 2:30  J6 Discussion and Comments on the draft REE Action PlanBackground:
This session will give extension and experiment station directors an opportunity to comment on any aspect of the recently released REE Action Plan.  These comments will be compiled as part of the Cooperative Extension and Experiment Station Sections’ feedback to Under Secretary Woteki on this draft.  The following documents will be used for this discussion.

REE Action Plan agInnovation South and ASRED Comments
12:00 – 1:30 pm Joint Lunch – Regency B/C – Speaker: John Kelly, Vice President for PSA and Economic Development at Clemson University
Germany Ambassador Kelly
3:30 – 5:00 pm Separate ASRED & agInnovation South Meetings – ASRED in Redbud Suite & agInnovation South in Gardenia Suite
6:00 pm Dinner on your own

 

Wednesday, April 6
6:30 – 8:30 am Joint Breakfast – 2nd Level Atrium
8:30 – 12:00 pm Joint ASRED and agInnovation South Meeting – Regency D-F
8:30 Reconvene Joint Session – Bob Shulstad and Gaines Smith
8:30 – 9:00 J7 Southern Rural Development Center Report – Bo Beaulieu, SRDC Director
Focus on four key activities that the Center is engaged in that represent  important integrated Research and Extension activities in the community/economic development arena.  These represent a mix of both regional and national activities.
9:00 – 12:00 Development and Management of Large Integrated, Multistate Grants
9:00 – 10:00  J8 Experiences developing and managing a large SCRI grant – Marcel Bergerman, Carnegie Mellon University
2011 0406 Joint ASRED agInnovation South Meeting
In meeting discussion:

  • Must have stakeholder involvement
  • Must benefit actual growers
  • Must plan to measure success up front
  • Proposal must be integrated, not a “quilt” of smaller proposals; the whole must be greater than the sum of the parts.
  • Develop good links with industry being served – months/years before CFP is issued
  • Jointly define and prioritize problems to be solved
  • Identify core team
  • Recruit a strong advisory panel
  • Identify thematic areas and themes
  • Each theme should have a clearly identified leader
  • Over match funding
  • Refuse to take written text from anyone before the storyboard is complete
  • Core team produces proposals and carries it to finish line
  • Benefits – if you solve the problem, who would benefit and how; focus on the grower, preferably in economic terms
  • Then show the approach; key ideas, stress novelty of ideas; rationale, why the ideas are worth considering
  • For each year, show activities, milestones, success criteria; this turns into a Statement of Work
  • Use graphics; not only to explain what you are proposing, but to also show what you have already done
  • Project director – visionary, imagine solutions to big problems; select collaborators carefully, negotiates budget; sets proposal outline and page budgets; has final word on conflicts
  • Project manager – integrate contributions from team; makes sure all requirements from solicitation are met; build a checklist of requirements
  • Review (red) team; not the researchers who write the proposal; performed sufficiently early so comments can be used. They evaluate proposal against RFA requirements.
10:00 – 10:30 am Joint Break – Pre-function Area
10:30 – 11:00 J9 Extension and Experiment Station Directors’ perspectives on facilitating enhancement of integrated multistate activities – John Russin and Jimmy Henning
11:00 – 12:00  J10 Open discussion on integrated multistate activities
 
Background:
This will be an open discussion on how AES and CES directors, both individually and collectively, might encourage and enhance integrated multistate activities.  Below are some questions to help guide the discussion.

  • Is there a common understanding of the criteria or characteristics of a true integrated multistate activity among the partners; AES, CES, and NIFA?
  • How do you define successful integration between the Experiment Stations and Cooperative Extension (in your state – in the region).
  • What are we hoping to achieve by “enhancing” the integration of Experiment Stations and Cooperative Extension?
    • What are our common goals?
    • What have we identified as common outcomes/products of this integration?
  • What are important considerations (components) to ensuring a positive and productive relationship between Experiment Stations and Extension (in your state)?
  • What are the barriers to forming an integrated multistateteam that can develop a successful grant proposal?
  • What can CES and AES directors do within their institution to overcome or reduce these barriers?
  • What actions might ASRED and agInnovation South take together to lessen these barriers?
  • Are there emerging issues that you see where enhancing and/or increasing integration and multistate collaboration will occur in the next five years (e.g., what key issues will require you to work together on moving your respective institutions in collaborative ways through funding, staffing, public engagement)?
    • What specific issues or knowledge areas require research/extension to produce a joint work product?
    •  What opportunities exist for multistate collaboration
    •   Should regional grant training be advanced for developing integrated multistate proposals?

In meeting discussion:

  • Research’s development of a new technology or practice usually has a shorter term than extension’s work to get it adopted through behavioral change. Competitive grants need to take this into account so that the Extension function is included, not just the involvement of Extension in the Research function.
  • Marcel – CMU Robotics Institute doesn’t see extension as the output channel, but as a partner with research, constantly involved in all phases of the project
    • Generate initial ideas together
    • Engineers develop technology with continual feedback and reality checks from extension
    • All field testing and data collection are done by or with extension
  • Extension is key in identifying problems from industry
  • Concern extension has is that most grants fund development of a new technology or practice, but do not extend beyond that point to support putting it into practice
  • Marcel – CMU’’s SCRI grant is developing very little new technology, but rather putting known technology into different systems that have application in the field, then testing and adjusting until it works for the growers
  • Campuses are acting as conduits to take technology and practice to the growers
  •  In putting together teams for large grants, it’s most difficult to identify appropriate expertise in other institutions
  • Directors could support bringing faculty together around a common theme or problem to discuss their work and explore potential collaborations
  • The new Science Roadmap and Future Opportunities documents could help select potential areas of need
  • A key point in development of these types of grants is how does a significantly large grant involving a few institutions bring value to the industry across a lot of states, a region, or the whole country?
  • In research, grants can also be considered a continuing process that keeps moving technology and practice forward, similar to extension’s continuing effort to cause behavioral change around a new technology or practice
  • We have expertise in the region to address significant new problems, but in order to do so their effort would have to be redirected from current activities to the new effort, i.e., everyone is fully employed
  • It’s also important for industry partners to continue working with extension over the long term to achieve adoption of a new technology or practice, long after the grant is over and technology has been developed
  • The institutional makeup of a large team is very important; needs to be composed of public and private entities, not just public
  • If a grant’s budget is cut when awarded, it’s best to go back to the industry and ask them to prioritize each of the various problems or issues that were proposed to be addressed, then cut out whole objectives based on that prioritization, do not cut across the board

Actions:

  • Ron and Eric will develop a list of potential issues/problems to be addressed on a multistate or regional basis, i.e.
    •  Biofuels
    • Obesity
    • Water
    • Food safety
    • Rural prosperity
  • Directors will identify top regional priorities from a list through a simple survey
  • Top 5 – 7 priorities will be selected and directors will be asked which of those they’d like to support faculty to participate in
  • A forum of faculty will be organized around one or more of those priorities and directors will support travel for their faculty to attend
  • Faculty group will be asked to determine if there is interest in developing a large integrated, multistate grant proposal to address one or more aspects of that priority area
  • Faculty groups may also work as a team to provide input into future RFAs.
12:00 – 1:30 pm Joint Lunch – 2nd Level Atrium
1:30 – 2:30 pm Clemson’s International Center for Automotive Research – Bob Geolas, Executive Director – Regency D-F
2:30 – 3:00 pm Joint Break – Pre-function Area
3:00 – 4:30 pm Clemson Research and Extension Programs – Regency D-F
6:00 pm Joint Dinner – Regency B/C

 
agInnovation South Spring Meeting Minutes
Participants:

Doug Archer, FL
George Askew, SC
Bill Batchelor, AL
Bill Brown, TN
Patrick Colyer, LA
Nancy Cox, KY
Maru Duryea, FL
Jonathan Edelson, OK
Bob Godfrey, VI
George hopper, MS
Jody Jellison, VA
John Liu, AL
Nathan McKinney, AR
David Monks, NC
Reuben Moore, MS
David Morrison, LA
Saied Mostaghimi, VA
Craig Nessler, TX		 Steve Oliver, KY
Rick Roeder, AR
John Russin, LA
Harald Scherm, GA
Bob Shulstad, GA
David Smith, NC
Clarence Watson, OK
Steve Workman, KYExecutive Director’s Office:
Eric Young, agInnovation South
Donna Pearce, agInnovation SouthLiaisons:
Ed King, ARS – Stoneville, MS
Other guests:
Sheila Julian, OK

Action Items:

 Agenda #
  Actions Taken
 S2  Agenda – Approved
Fall Meeting Minutes – Approved (Watson/Cox)
Interim Actions – Approved (Askew/Mostaghimi)
 S7  Approved – S-1032 as nominee for National Mulstitate Award
 S10  Maintain the S-009 FY2012 operations budget at the FY2011 level of $417,723 –Approved
 S14  Continue SAFER Membership – Approved

Minutes:

Tuesday, April 5
 10:30 – 10:40  S1 Call to Order, Welcome, and Introductions – Bob Shulstad
 10:40 – 10:40  S2 Approval of Agenda, Minutes and Interim Actions 2011 – Bob Shulstad
 10:40 – 11:10  S3 ARS Update – Ed King
ARS Update Handout
In meeting discussion:

  • Committed to finding/placing everyone in a job due to budget cuts
  • Move people to vacant positions that are funded
  • No announcement has been made on where these positions are – waiting on budget

 
 11:10 – 11:20  S4  Budget & Legislative – Bob Shulstad and Bill Brown
 11:20 – 11:40  S5  Communication & Marketing – Jerry Arkin, Mary Duryea, and Nancy Cox
 11:40 – 11:50  S6  Science & Technology – John Liu and John Russin
 11:50 – 12:00  S7  MRC Report – David Morrison

Action Taken: Approved – S-1032 as nominee for National Mulstitate Award
2:30 – 2:40  S8 NRSP_Temp-001: Support for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Information System (NIS) and National Information Management and Support System (NIMSS) – Bill Brown

In meeting discussion:

  • Undergoing shift from CRIS to NIMSS
  • Better data sharing with NIFA
  • Now focusing on NIMSS
 2:40 – 3:00  S9  Questions and/or discussion on continuing NRSP’s

  • NRSP-3, The National Atmospheric Deposition Program – Bill Dugas
  • NRSP-4, Enabling Pesticide Registrations for Specialty Crops and Minor Uses – Mary Duryea
  • NRSP-6, Inter-Regional Potato Introduction Project: Acquisition, classification, preservation, evaluation and distribution of potato germplasm – Craig Nessler
  • NRSP-7, A National Agricultural Program for Minor Use Animal Drugs – John Liu
  • NRSP-8, National Animal Genome Research Program – Eric Young
  • NRSP-9, National Animal Nutrition Program – Nancy Cox
 3:30 – 3:45  S10  S-009 Report and Budget Request – Jerry Arkin

Action Taken: Maintain the S-009 FY2012 operations budget at the FY2011 level of $417,723.00 – Approved
3:45 – 4:45  S11 Best Practices Session – Initiating and Facilitating a Multi-Institutional Discussion to Establish a Shared Faculty Position and/or Research Program – David Morrison, Reuben Moore, and Nancy Cox
Nancy Cox PowerPoint Presentation
David Morrison and Reuben Moore PowerPoint Presentation

In meeting discussion:

  • There is a need to systematically identify expertise and facility needs across the region that may be addresses through sharing resources across state lines.
  • Eric will survey the COO’s to determine their most significant needs in expertise and major facilities.
  • A significant portion of the fall agInnovation South meeting in Colorado will be used to discuss those needs and the possibilities for shared resource agreements.

 
4:45 – 4:55  S12  Executive Director’s Report – Eric Young
 4:55 – 5:00  S13  agInnovation South Excellence in Leadership Award Presentation – Bob Shulstad

  • Bob Shulstad, agInnovation South Chair, presented the annual agInnovation South Leadership Award to Dr. Clarence Watson, OK.
Wednesday, April 6
 7:00 – 8:30 am  agInnovation South Chief Operating Officers’ Breakfast Meeting -Boardroom
 Thursday, April 7
6:30 – 8:30 am Joint Breakfast – 2nd Level Atrium
8:30 – 11:00 am Separate ASRED & agInnovation South Meetings – ASRED in Redbud Suite & agInnovation South in Gardenia Suite
8:30 – 8:35  S14 Report from Chief Operating Officers Meeting – Bob Shulstad
Action Taken: Continue SAFER Membership – Approved
8:35 – 10:00  S15 Bioenergy Research UpdateStatus of Federal Bioenergy Research
10:00 – 10:45  S16 Additional Agenda Items
10:45 – 10:50  S17 2012 Spring agInnovation South, North Carolina – David Smith
In meeting discussions:

  • Meeting will take place at the Sheraton Downtown Raleigh Hotel
  • March 26-29, 2012
  • Monday through Thursday
  • Open with Monday night reception

Future Meetings:

  • 2013 – Arkansas – joint – ASRED schedule
  • 2014 – Oklahoma
  • 2015 – Virginia – joint, ASRED schedule
  • 2016 – Virgin Islands
10:50 – 10:55  S18 Resolutions Committee Report – Rick Roeder

  • A Resolution in Appreciation will be presented to Dr. David Boethel
  • A Resolution in Appreciation will be presented to Dr. George Askew and the Clemson University Experiment Station for their role in hosting the agInnovation South Spring Meeting
10:55 – 11:00  S19 Fall agInnovation South and ESS Meetings and ESS Workshop, Announcements, etc. – Bob Shulstad

  • The next agInnovation South meeting will be Monday, September 26, 2011 in Estes Park, CO, just prior to the Experiment Station Section meeting and the SAES/ARD Workshop.
  • ESS/SAES/ARD Workshop and agInnovation South Meeting – Estes Park, CO – September 26-29, 2011
11:00 am Adjourn