August 16-17, 1999
Baton Rouge, LA
Held In Conjunction with Southern Region Land-Grant Conference
August 15-16, 1999
Participant List for SAAESD Meeting
Summary of Action Items
Participants in SAAESD Meeting:
Jerry Arkin, GA
John Beverly, TX
David Boethel, LA
Bill Brown, FL
Bill Brown, LA
Bob Cannell, VA
Jerry Cherry, GA
Nancy Cox, MS
Larry Crowder, OK
Rafael Davila, PR
Everett Emino, FL
Frank Gilstrap, TX
Tom Helms, Exec. Dir.
|Tom Klindt, TN
Fred Knapp, KY
Randy Luttrell, AR
David Morrison, LA
Jim Rakocy, VI
Larry Rogers, LA
Mike Salassi, LA
Calvin Schoulties, SC
Charles Scifres, AR
Scott Smith, KY
David Teem, AL
Luther Waters, AL
Greg Weidemann, AR
Johnny Wynne, NC
Eric Young, NC
Steve Barlow, SSRC, MS
Ted Bauer, CSREES-CRIS
Bo Beaulieu, SRDC, MS
Velma Blackwell, ARD-Tuskegee
Robert Bush, ESCOP Intern, VA
George Cooper, CSREES-Partnership
McArthur Floyd, ARD-Alabama A&M
Frank Guillot, AC-12 Chair, LSU
Paula Jocobi, AES-LSU
B. D. Mayberry, ARD-Tuskegee
Ed Miller, Academic Dean, OK
Chuck Onstad, ARS
|Agenda Item||Agenda Description|
|Monday, August 16 – Joint Extension/Research Directors’ Meeting
Dr. Pedro Rodriguez and Dr. Jerry Cherry, Presiding
|J1||Update on joint Task Force (D. Foster and E. Young)|
|J2||SERA Updates (Assignments, Requests, etc.) (P. Rodriguez and J. Cherry)|
|J3||Proposed IPM Coordinator (B. Lambert and D. Teem)|
|1:45||J4||AESOP Report (T. Nipp by telephone)|
|2:00||J5||Seeking Common Ground with EPA Regions (M.E. Devitt)|
|Monday, August 16 – Joint Academic Programs/Research Directors’ Meeting
Dr. John Riley and Dr. Jerry Cherry, Presiding
|3:30||~||Discussion of Graduate Programs (Dr. John White)
1) Summary of graduate student data from the national FAEIS databank
2) Significant change in graduate student thrust from the Univ. of Florida
3) Challenges faced by women and minorities in the graduate program
|Tuesday, August 17 – SAAESD Meeting
Dr. Jerry Cherry, Presiding
|1.||Call to Order and Introductions (J. Cherry)|
|2.||Approval of Agenda, April Meeting Minutes, and Interim Actions of Chair (J. Cherry)|
|3.||Southern Regional Research Committee Report (G. Weidemann)|
|8:50||5.||NRSP-7 National Coordinator’s Report (J. Neilson/J. Babish)|
|6.||USDA/ARS Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit (G. Arkin)|
|9:30||7.||CRIS 419 Financial Data Request (E. Young)|
|9:45||8.||Publication Issue: Updating Existing SCSBs (T. Helms)|
|10:30||9.||Rice Task Force Report (M. Salassi)|
|10:45||10.||Social Science Research Center (S. Barlow)|
|11:15||11.||Project Modification Requests (J. Cherry)|
|11:30||12.||Report of Task Force on Cotton Incorporated Contracts (L. Rogers)|
|13.||ESCOP Committee Reports:
|14.||SAAESD Planning Committee (E. Young)|
|2:30||15.||Spring 2001 Meeting Site (T. Helms)|
|2:40||16.||September ESS Meeting and SAES/ARD Workshop (T. Helms)|
|2:50||17.||Final Announcements and Adjournment (J. Cherry)|
|SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS:
- SERA-IEG-2, “Food Safety” — Requests extension to 2004.
On motion/second by Drs. Coston/Lambert, the renewal request was approved.
- A request for a new SERA entitled, “Southeastern Small Fruit Center,” was approved in April by AES Directors as a SERA-Task Force. On motion/second by Extension Directors Drs. Caldwell/Smith, the activity was also approved by Extension as a SERA-Task Force.
Agenda Item J3
BACKGROUND: Executive Summary
SERA-IEG-IPM-3 is the regional research and extension committee for IPM that guides and coordinates IPM activities among the thirteen land-grant universities in the Southern region. This is a complex task that includes communications with the many faculty and staff within the region and with federal partners, reporting on accomplishments and impacts, and the development and maintenance of a database that includes stakeholder needs, a listing of IPM personnel and resources, calls for project proposals, and reports on federally funded projects. The facilitation and the reporting of progress and impact are critical for the region to remain competitive in the National Initiative for IPM. The SERA has recommended that a position be established to facilitate IPM research and extension activities in the region, and to maintain communication between the region and our federal partners. USDA CSREES will provide approximately $50,000 per year for the position for a two-year period. This proposal requests approval to establish a regional IPM facilitator position supported by USDA funds for the period beginning FY2000 and ending FY2001. During the second year period, the committee will provide an assessment of the accomplishments of the Facilitator, and will consider the benefits of continued funding for the position. A written evaluation and recommendations on continued funding for the position will be submitted to the Directors before the end of FY2001.
Background and Justification
The USDA, EPA, and FDA have set a goal for the implementation of Integrated Pest Management programs on 75% of the total crop acreage in the United States by the year 2000. To meet this goal, and to ensure continued high levels of implementation, the USDA CSREES and the Land-grant universities have developed a comprehensive operational plan to put into action the Administration’s “Strategic Plan for Implementation of USDA Integrated Pest Management Initiative” and the “Initiative on Research on Alternatives”. Included in these plans is the requirement for regional research and extension committees, charged with addressing and coordinating regional needs, representing the region at the national level, and developing an annual Request for Proposals. The National IPM Plan “recognizes the enormous need to be more effective in communicating the accomplishments of research and extension projects and programs to diverse clientele, including funding sources, local and national legislative bodies, producers, consumers of goods and services, private consultants and other end-users” (National IPM Plan Version IIIb: 9-1-95).
With this in mind, a major topic of discussion at the SERA-IEG-IPM meeting held in Gainesville, Florida in March 1999 was the increasing administrative workload required of the regional grants manager. Included in this is mandatory reporting by project leaders funded under the Southern Region IPM Program (approved by the committee for inclusion in the FY1999 SRIPM RFP). The committee agreed that additional resources or assistance should be provided to the grants manager to facilitate collection and disposition of reports from project leaders. The committee also discussed publication of SRIPM project reports and “success stories” from these and other regional projects. Committee members in the past have voluntarily taken on development of a regional reports summary, but this has been done sporadically. Thus there is a need for a more coordinated effort in the region to evaluate the impacts of programs, and to communicate results and benefits to clientele. Members of the committee also expressed concern that because committee members meet only once per year, there is a loss of continuity in that there is no follow up process to ensure that projects are carried out as planned. Following this discussion, the SERA-IPM members recommended that options be examined to provide additional administrative assistance to SERA-IPM and to help coordinate and facilitate IPM activities in the region. A subcommittee was appointed to examine options and develop a proposal for action.
The subcommittee recommended establishment of an IPM Facilitator position, as has been done in the Northeast region. Members of the Northeast Research and Extension Committee for IPM (NEREC-IPM) have indicated that the Facilitator position has proven to be invaluable to the region in the three years that it has been in place. Duties of the Northeast IPM Facilitator (Mr. Jim VanKirk) include:
- Fostering multi-state and regional collaboration to further progress in IPM
- Networking with research and extension personnel for purposes of planning, implementation, and evaluation
- Fostering IPM team development by sharing each state’s progress and information from research, implementation and educational outreach efforts
- Providing impacts, accomplishments, and acting as a liaison to federal partners
The NE Facilitator has particularly been helpful in communicating the accomplishments of IPM programs to clientele and key individuals in the region who are in a position to support state IPM programs. Moreover, by sharing success from state programs around the states, the NE Facilitator has helped state programs improve their own communications. Also, the Facilitator’s success at marshaling data describing the region and its IPM efforts, needs and priorities has been an important tool in focusing IPM programs. Since establishment of the Facilitator position, NEREC-IPM has seen “significant improvements in multi-state and regional collaboration for IPM, and increases in efficacy and effectiveness of limited IPM funds given to the region…”.
In recent discussions between Geoffrey Zehnder, chair of the SERA-IPM subcommittee appointed to examine options for administrative assistance, and Mike Fitzner, USDA CSREES National IPM Program Leader, Dr. Fitzner expressed support for the concept of an IPM facilitator in the Southern Region. He further indicated that he would commit USDA funds of approximately $50,000 per year to support the position for a two-year period (beginning FY2000 to the end of FY2001). Based on this commitment, the subcommittee recommended the development of a proposal for an IPM facilitator position. The recommendation was approved by a majority of SERA-IPM members by email vote.
Duties of the IPM Facilitator will include:
- Coordinate and facilitate cooperation and team building among all Land Grant University IPM programs in the Southern Region. This will include developing and strengthening communication links and helping to identify opportunities for improving efficiency and effectiveness through multi-state cooperation.
- Develop and maintain a database that describes attributes, plans and activities of IPM programs throughout the Southern Region. The database will be used in regional priority setting, program evaluation, reporting and other important functions.
- Develop and maintain the Southern Region IPM Internet site. The site will function to:
- Serve as a communications clearinghouse for IPM programs in the region
- Serve as a database site for IPM information in the region
- Reach out to diverse audiences, particularly lay audiences with presentation of IPM success stories from across the region, sections that describe IPM, and that provide links to other sites in the National IPM Network
- Serve as an IPM resource clearinghouse for potential IPM users
- Coordinate final reports from SRIPM funded projects and provide a comprehensive regional report on the accomplishments of IPM efforts across the South to key clientele and federal partners in Washington.
- Assist SERA-IPM leadership with organization of annual meetings, with subcommittee efforts, and serve as SERA-IPM representative in national IPM discussions.
- Assist the SRIPM grants manager with arrangements for the annual peer review panel meeting and with procedures required for grants disbursement from USDA.
Approach and Procedures
SERA-IPM will develop a position announcement that will be sent to all State IPM coordinators and also will be advertised in appropriate professional society publications. Given the available salary, it is expected that the position will be filled at the M.S. level. For consideration, candidates will be required to submit a letter of recommendation from one of the Southern Region state IPM coordinators with an accompanying commitment of office space and necessary office equipment (computer, phone, copy machine, etc.) from the state IPM program, Land Grant university or extension service. A search committee consisting of SERA-IPM members and the SERA-IPM Extension and Experiment Station Director representatives will review applications and select the top candidates for further consideration. The main criteria for selection will be the candidates’ qualifications and the available resources and support in the resident state. Candidates will be interviewed in person or by conference call. It is expected that a successful candidate will be identified by September, 1999 with a starting date in October, 1999. During the two-year period, the IPM Facilitator salary will be paid from USDA funds directed to the resident institution where the Facilitator is housed. USDA will not pay indirect costs to the resident institution.
Proposed Major Tasks; First Year
Oct. ’99 – Summarize reports from previous SRIPM projects
Nov. ’99 – Begin preparation of regional publication to include success stories, new technologies, grower adoption progress, etc.
Nov. ’99 – Travel to Geneva, NY to gain information about the NE IPM Facilitator programs
Jan. ’00 – Release Southern Region IPM Report for 1999
Feb. ’00 – Assist Southern Region IPM Grant Program Grants Manager
Mar. ’00 – Coordinate SERA-IPM meeting and serve as secretary. Report on activities to date.
Mar. ’00 – Begin development of on-line databases of extension IPM materials in the Southern Region and of IPM projects from the Region
Apr. ’00 – Documentation of all Federal, state and producer-funded IPM projects for FY2000
May-Sep. ’00 – Observe research and extension IPM programs throughout the region
Jan.-Sep. ’00 – Preparation of regional success stories of grower adoption progress and technology transfer case studies
SERA-IPM will conduct a yearly assessment of the accomplishments of the Facilitator by asking each southern state and federal IPM program leaders to provide an assessment of the accomplishments of the Facilitator, and to comment on value of the products produced by this individual. During the second year period, the committee will provide an assessment of the accomplishments of the Facilitator, and will consider the benefits of continued funding for the position. A written evaluation and recommendations on continued funding for the position will be submitted to the Directors before the end of FY2001.
USDA will provide $50,000 per year for the first two years. It is expected that approximately $45,000 will be used for salary and benefits with a $5000 budget for travel and operating expenses. The resident state institution housing the position will supply office space, necessary office equipment and supplies, computer and phone. If approved by SERA-IPM and the Directors for continued funding after the two-year period , the following sources of funding for the position may be considered:
- Contribution from each Land Grant university in the Southern Region (approximately $3,800 per state for a $50,000 budget).
- SRIPM Grants Program funds ($50,000 is approximately 4.7% of current funds available in the research, extension and joint research/extension grants pool).
ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion.
ACTION TAKEN: On motion/second by Drs. Walla/Barrett, the committee was asked to rewrite the proposal with more specific language regarding funding by host institutions.
SAAESD Meeting Agenda Items
Call to Order and Introductions
The annual summer meeting of the Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors will be called to order by Chair, Jerry A. Cherry. Participants will introduce themselves.
For information only.
Approval of Agenda, April Meeting Minutes, and Interim Actions of Chair and Executive Committee
Agenda: All members were notified in advance of the meeting that agenda briefs were available on the Association homepage for review. Additions to the agenda will be considered.
Minutes of the April 11-13 meeting held in Lexington, KY are on the homepage for review. Directors were notified in April of their availability.
Interim Actions of the Chair and Executive Committee are as follows:
- Approved Development Committee DC99-06 entitled “Development and Evaluation of Entomopathogens and their Toxins for Control of Insect Pests” to replace S-265. Assigned Dr. Larry Crowder as Administrative Advisor
- Approved DC97-07, Genetic Relationship to Growth and Reproduction in Diverse Poultry Populations, as a replacement for S-233 and submitted to CSREES.
- Approved DC97-01, Technical and Economical Efficiencies of Producing, Marketing, and Managing Landscape Plants, as a replacement for S-103 and submitted to CSREES.
- Appointed Dr. Scott Smith to replace Dr. George Kriz as Administrative Advisor to IEG-73 entitled “Classifying Soils for Solute Transport as Affected by Soil Properties and Landscape Positions.”
- Appointed Dr. Scott Smith to replace Dr. George Kriz as Administrative Advisor to SERA-IEG-6 entitled “Nutrient Analysis of Soils, Plants, Water, and Waste Materials.”
- Appointed Dr. Bob Blackmon to replace Dr. Charles Scifres as Administrative Advisor to AC-8, “Advisory Committee on Aquaculture, Fisheries and Wildlife.”
- Appointed Dr. Calvin Schoulties to replace Dr. Ike Sewell as Administrative Advisor to SERA-IEG-4 entitled “Mechanization and Post-Harvest Technologies of Fruits and Vegetables.”
- Approved SCSB#392 entitled “Engineering Principles for Conservation Cropping Systems” resulting from S-252.
On motion/second by Drs. Scifres/Rogers, Minutes and Interim Actions were approved as presented.
Agenda Item 3
Project Proposals approved by SRRC and forwarded to CSREES:
- DC97-07: Genetic Relationship to Growth and Reproduction in Diverse Poultry Populations (S-233) (sent to CSREES 8/3/99); Tom Scott, Adm. Advisor
- DC97-01: Technical and Economical Efficiencies of Producing, Marketing, and Managing Landscape Plants (S-103) (sent to CSREES 6/23/99); Everett Emino, Adm. Advisor
Project Proposals reviewed by SRRC and returned to Administrative Advisor:
- DC98-03: Systems for Controlling Air Pollutant Emissions and Indoor Environments of Poultry and Livestock Facilities (S-261); George Kriz, Adm. Advisor
- DC97-13: Development of New Processes and Technologies for the Processing of Poultry Products; Jerry Cherry, Adm. Advisor
- DC97-04: Improved Systems of Control for Pecan Arthopod Pests (S-220); Frank Gilstrap, Adm. Advisor
Note: Dr. Weidemann noted that an additional outline, DC97-13: Development of New Processes and Technologies for the Processing of Poultry Products, has been received since the above report was submitted.
Agenda Item 4a.
An update on activities of the Center will be presented. This will include highlights of three recent regional research reports involving labor force patterns, forest-based economic development, and cooperative labor issues with TVA. Additionally, Dr. Beaulieu will discuss a proposed regional rural development millenium series.
A request for a $10,000 one-time donation was deferred to the spring, 2000 meeting.
Agenda Item 4b.
Dr. George Cooper will represent CSREES and present an update from the Agency. The former CSREES liaison to the SAAESD, Dr. Bob Koopman, has left USDA for a new job as chief economist with the International Trade Commission.
Note: A copy of the CSREES Update distributed by Dr. Cooper is available upon request from the Executive Director’s Office.
Agenda Item 5
Dr. John Babish, National Coordinator, will present an overview of activities and future plans for NRSP-7, “A National Agriculture Program to Approve Animal Drugs for Minor Species and Uses.”
The original goal of the NRSP-7 Minor Use Animal Drug Program was to obtain approval by the US FDA for animal drugs intended for use in minor species and for minor uses in major species. While this continues to remain the dominant goal of the program, the research program has expanded or given additional emphasis to aquaculture species, veal calves and sheep. To date 295 drug requests have been submitted to the Minor Use Animal Drug Program for the development of data in support of the submission of a New Animal Drug Approval (NADA). Working in conjunction with many universities, 25 Public Master files have been published in the Federal Register. These have supported FDA approval for 21 products. Currently there are 22 active research projects are being conducted in 15 states involving 18 animal species and 17 different drugs. In addition to the escalating backlog and growing animal drug needs, the recent passage of the Animal Medical Drug Use Clarification Act of 1994 (AMDUCA) enacted in 1996 legalized extra-label drug use by veterinarians and has significantly impacted the use of approved animal drugs. This legislation does not allow for extra-label use of a drug for medication in feed, virtually the only route of drug administration for aquaculture, game bird and several other industries.
Thus, there is an increasing need for research to provide veterinarians with data, such as appropriate withdrawal times, necessary to make informed decisions about extra-label use of unapproved drugs in minor species. Additional demands on the NRSP-7 program include emerging new animal industries such as ostrich and emus, non-food species within agriculture practices, disease transfer from non-agricultural species to domestic species, and food and environmental safety.
Agenda Item 6
The Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit (PGRCU), established in 1949 as a Regional Plant Introduction Station, is a regional cooperative effort supported by the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the Southern State Agricultural Experiment Stations (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, OK, PR, SC, TN, TX, VA, VI). The PGRCU is headquartered at the University of Georgia, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Griffin Campus. The PGRCU is responsible for acquiring plant germplasm from around the world. Germplasm is the hereditary material (DNA) of living organisms. For plant species, germplasm (genetic resources) is generally acquired and conserved as either seed or vegetative tissue. The PGRCU is also responsible for maintaining, evaluating, documenting and distributing the genetic resources to scientists, private industry and others. The PGRCU is a part of the National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS). The PGRCU and NPGS are critically important for assuring available genetic diversity and genetic resources for breeding and other work to develop plant varieties resistant to insects, diseases and other pests. Also, the United States is not the country of origin of most edible plants and, therefore, the PGRCU is particularly important for assuring the availability of these genetic resources (e.g., peanut, watermelon, sweet potato, sorghum, forage and turf grasses, summer legumes, pumpkin, squash, gourd, cowpea, clover, kenaf and eggplant).
During the past decade the PGRCU collection of genetic resources has expanded from approximately 60,000 accessions to nearly 80,000 accessions and the unit has integrated new and expensive essential molecular biology techniques in its protocols for seed safety and characterizations. For most of the past decade, unfortunately, the PGRCU base budget has experienced little, if any increase from USDA/ARS, to maintain the collection and accomplish the concomitant work associated with the collection (See Attachment A). Although the PGRCU has been progressively hobbled and limping along, the situation is now critical. Available funds are inadequate to properly maintain the collection and projected expenses for operations far exceed available funds. Without additional funding, it is not possible to assure the viability of the genetic resources already acquired, properly characterize the accessions, or provide requested genetic resources to scientists and private industry that are of the quality and quantity needed. In short, without relief, the PGRCU simply can not accomplish its important mission. It is imperative that the acquired accessions be preserved and that there is confidence of the users of the material that the genetic resources distributed to them is what they expect it to be.
To preserve the genetic resource collection, bring it to an acceptable level of quality and provide expected and necessary germplasm quality to users of the collection, the USDA/ARS/Plant Genetic Resources Unit is in dire need of a $500, 000 per year increase in its annual base budget. The large increase needed is a result of long term base budget neglect. Independent reviews of the PGRCU by USDA/ARS administrators, State Agricultural Experiment Station administrators, scientists and other users affirm the immediate need for fiscal relief. The PGRCU can no longer continue on its current fiscal course without seriously jeopardizing long term financial investments already made in the unit, the utility of the genetic resources conserved by the unit and collaboration with and service to scientists and industry.
It was reported that the Senate FY 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Bill contained approximately $2,300,000 to fund “Agricultural Genomics.” Approximately $1,200,000 was intended to support the management of genetic resource collections at:
a. Beltsville, MD — approx. $300,000
b. Ames, IA — approx. $300,000
c. Pullman, WA — approx. $300,000
d. Ithaca, NY — approx. $250,000
e. Fort Collins, CO — approx. $250,000
Funding for three (Ames, IA; Pullman, WA; and Ithaca, NY) of the four plant genetic resources collection sites is included. No funding is included for the Griffin, GA plant genetic resources collection site. Each of these four genetic resources collection sites has similar responsibilities, but for different plant species best suited for management in the respective region. Of these four regional sites, the Plant Genetic Resources Unit at Griffin, Georgia (Southern Region) contains by far the largest number of plant genetic accessions.
Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit
Budgets Fiscal Years 1989-2000 (Approximate)
1989 — $1,424,425
1990 — $1 409,873
1991 — $1,409,873
1992 — $1,497,385
1993 — $1,497,385
1994 — $1,647,302
1995 — $1,903,711
1996 — $1,742,692
1997 — $1,603,427
1998 — $1,565,527
1999 — $1,565,527
2000 — $1,495,427 (Requested)
The Plant Genetic Resource Conservation Unit base budget has remained essentially constant for the past decade. Fluctuations in the annual budgets were generally due to special contingency allocations.
For information and discussion.
Agenda Item 7
CRIS is asking for regional approval to release AD-419 financial data on a project-by-project basis in order to satisfy requests from the general public. CRIS has NO plans to put such funding information on the web. However, the new REEIS system planners want to allow users access to funding data on-line, on a project-by-project basis. Since CRIS data will feed into REEIS, there is a concern that once CRIS releases data to REEIS, there will not be any control over use of that information.
Note: CSREES/CRIS’ Ted Bauer indicated that CRIS will release only fixed data and that financial data for individual projects will not be made available to REEIS. Southern Directors however were not concerned if in fact this should occur.
Agenda Item 8
Now that Southern Cooperative Series Bulletins are published on the web, what processes should be used to keep bulletins updated? The association needs guidelines for handling updates of existing publications. Such guidelines might address the following questions:
1) Will approval have to be obtained each time an update is needed?
2) What sort of notification will be necessary?
3) Should the same bulletin number be used and marked revised?
4) Should a new bulletin number be assigned when major additions and revisions are needed?
Southern Directors agree that revisions of existing publications should go through the same approval process as do initial requests for publication. Also agreed is that revisions should maintain the same number as the original with the addition of a “Revised Date.”
Agenda Item 9
Two methodologies were used in estimating the internal rate of return on rice research invested by state experiment stations in the southern rice region. The first methodology was an econometric approach utilizing the Arkansas Global Rice Model. Results from this analysis yielded an estimated internal rate of return of 89.2% in nominal dollars. The second methodology utilized the estimation of a total factor productivity index for rice. Results from this analysis yielded rates of returns estimates of 89% (nominal dollars) and 75% (real dollars). The task force also identified and discussed the effect of several factors which impact this type of research expenditure evaluation. These factors include: accuracy, consistency and completeness of CRIS data; availability of commodity specific models; producer surplus & consumer surplus measures; use of farm-level prices; incorporating beyond-the-farm-gate costs and returns into the analysis; consistent production cost data across states; capital investment costs; human management capital; private research funding; extension funding; spillover effects of U.S. research into other countries; and spillover effects of foreign research into U.S.
Note: The Task Force will prepare a Final Report and Recommendations for consideration at a later time.
Agenda Item 10
August 17, 1999
For more information Contact:
Steve Barlow, Project Director
PO Box 5287, MS State, MS 39762
What it is:
- Cooperative effort of SAAESD & Social Science Research Center, MSU.
- Develop, Maintain, Integrate and Report on databases of interest to the SAAESD, Executive Directors Office, and Members of the Association. That is, provide whatever data or graphic representation of data required to answer your questions.
Progress to Date:
- Numerous databases have been compiled: CRIS (Current Research Information System) data-files or the period 1970-1997, County – level NASS data for twenty-two different crops for 1997. NASS data for Soybeans 1972-1997, County – level NASS data for livestock – 1997. Agricultural Census Nationwide county – level data 1972-1997. In the process of archiving other data on various crops of interest.
- Specific requests for data are filled in a timely manner. For example, CRIS data from 1970-1997 for four southern states were used to evaluate the economic impact of rice research in the south (in: Economic Assessment of Southern Region Agricultural Experiment Station Investment in Rice Research, 1999, by: M. Salassi, G. Cramer, J. Hansen, E. Rister, and W. Couvillion.)
- Much of the county – level NASS Crop and Livestock data files have been integrated into a GIS (Geographic Information System) which will allow thematic mapping of production levels.
- Produced a wall map depicting the locations of the Southern Agricultural Experiment Stations and Substations.
Agenda Item 11
Since the April meeting, the following requests have been received requiring Association action:
David Knauft, NC
|Peanut Molecular Biology||Terminate prior to scheduled 2000 termination date.||There has been no documented activity since March, 1996. The assigned AA is no longer in NC and there is no documentation in his files concerning this IEG. A NC faculty member met recently with geneticists and peanut breeders at a Society meeting and those persons felt that the IEG was no longer functional and should be terminated.|
O.J. Dickerson, SC
|Rootstock Development and Improved Cultural Practices to Reduce Peach Tree Shortlife||Terminate prior to scheduled 2000 termination date.||Unknown to the Association, the assigned AA retired last year. A previous chair of the IEG indicates that the group is no longer functioning. There has been no documented activity since appointment of the AA in 1995.|
Approval of requests.
On motion/second by Drs. Emino/Rogers, Southern Directors unanimously approve termination of projects as requested.
Agenda Item 12
After the Association’s spring meeting, the Task Force on Cotton Incorporated Contracts submitted draft agreements to Cotton Incorporated. Cotton Incorporated has reviewed the documents and suggested minor changes. Dr. William Lalor, Vice President for Agricultural Research, Cotton Incorporated, will be present to assist in this final step toward approving the Master Cooperative Research Agreement and the Project Cooperative Research Agreement.
For information and discussion.
The Committee charged with development of appropriate Master Cooperative Research and Project Cooperative Research Agreements to facilitate cooperative research between Cotton Incorporated and State Agricultural Experiment Stations met on Sunday, August 15. Present were Nancy Cox, Frank Gilstrap, Everett Emino, and Larry Rogers. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss comments received from Cotton Incorporated in response to draft documents of the above agreement that were approved at the April 11-13 meeting of Southern Agricultural Experiment Station Directors. The Committee prepared responses to the concerns Cotton Incorporated expressed about the draft Master Cooperative Research Agreement submitted to them. This information was made available to each State Agricultural Experiment Station for review before this agenda item was considered on Tuesday morning. A copy was also presented to Dr. William Lalor who represented Cotton Incorporated at the meeting.
Most of the concerns expressed by Cotton Incorporated were minor and involved some clarification of terminology used in the document. These were easily resolved in discussions between Dr. Lalor and SAES Directors. The issue of whether royalty sharing should be a component of the document received considerable discussion. It was finally agreed that granting Cotton Incorporated first right to negotiate for an exclusive license and to sub-license technologies owned by the University or co-owned by Cotton Incorporated and the Universities presented sufficient opportunity for sharing of royalties to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis.
Motion was offered, seconded and approved by the SAES Directors to revise the draft boiler plate document as agreed in the discussions and to forward it to Cotton Incorporated with the request that these boiler plates cooperative agreements be accepted by and implemented by Cotton Incorporated for future contracts, and that no basic changes be made in the language or conditions of these agreements by either party to the agreements without prior consultation with and concurrence of the other party.
Agenda Item 13a.
and ESCOP Partnership Committee
Dr. Coston will report on the July 20-22 ESCOP meeting held in Missouri and on developments in the Partnership Committee.
Agenda Item 13b.
Dr. Nancy Cox and Dr. Bill Brown are the Southern Region’s representatives to the ESCOP Science and Technology Committee. Dr. Cox will report on her involvement with the FAIR 2002 process and Dr. Brown will report on developments within the Committee.
Agenda Item 13c.
The next ESCOP Planning Committee meeting will be on Tuesday, August 31 in Dallas, TX. The first joint ESCOP/ECOP Planning meeting, where the agenda for future joint meetings will be discussed, will be on Thursday evening, September 30 & Friday morning, October 1, immediately following the SAES Directors Workshop in Memphis, TN.
Eric Young met on May 13 & 14 with the ECOP Strategic Planning Committee as the ESCOP representative and one of the topics of discussion was future joint ESCOP/ECOP planning efforts. Both committees have agreed that each joint planning session should have specific goals and outcomes in mind and only address one high priority area of mutual interest. The joint session format will probably include a speaker(s), pre-session reading material, and a predetermined means for communicating the results.
The committee has also been discussing an annual process that would link planning and budget development. This would provide a means for input from the whole system that would yield a few high priority research initiatives that would be passed on to the ESCOP Budget, Legislative, Advocacy and Marketing Committee and inform their budget development process. One option being considered is to facilitate a priority-setting session during the Fall SAES Directors Workshop where most of the system is represented.
Another charge given to the Planning Committee is the assessment of ESCOP’s reorganized structure. An initial assessment will be done sometime during 2000, after the new structure has functioned for at least one year.
Agenda Item 13d.
An update on any committee activities will be presented.
Agenda Item 14
The SAAESD Planning Committee will present for approval the final version of the Association’s Mission, Vision and Operational Plan. In addition, Committee chair, Eric Young, will lead discussions concerning SAAESD’s programmatic priorization. The Committee’s “long” list of priority areas divided by the five national goals is on the Committee’s “Planning Process” website in the password protected section of the homepage. Prior to the Association’s meeting, the Committee will be sharing this “long” list with a joint gathering of the Region’s Administrative Heads and CARET members. Their input will be shared with SAAESD members for incorporation in the next draft of the “long” list and development of a “short” list of priorities.
Approval and additional discussion.
On motion/second of Drs. Cox/Smith, the SAAESD Mission and Vision Statements were approved.
On motion/second of Drs. Coston/Cox, the SAAESD Operational Plan was approved with one addition as Objective 2 under Goal 2 regarding development of a rapid-response process.
Discussion of the draft Priority Areas for Multistate Research Activities included comments from CARET representatives during an earlier meeting. Those ideas and ideas further ideas generated during this meeting will be incorporated into the draft document. The SAAESD Planning Committee will refine the list to a more reasonable size, reduce redundancy, etc. and re-present to Directors.
On motion/second of Drs. Coston/Cox, the Directors unanimously approved a suggestion that at a future meeting, CARET, Extension Directors, and Experiment Station Directors should meet together for discussion on substantive topics.
Agenda Item 15
The chart below shows a history of the locations of Association spring meetings since 1950. The Association will entertain ideas for the location of its spring, 2001 meeting.
|1950 – Oklahoma||1960 – Florida||1970 – Alabama||1980 – S. Carolina||1990 – Texas||2000 – Virgin Is.|
|1951 – Louisiana||1961 – Louisiana||1971 – Arkansas||1981 – Oklahoma||1991 – Mississippi||2001 –|
|1952 – Puerto Rico||1962 – N. Carolina||1972 – Florida||1982 – Arkansas||1992 – Tennessee||.|
|1953 – Louisiana||1963 – Tennessee||1973 – Georgia||1983 – Louisiana||1993 – Puerto Rico||.|
|1954 – Alabama||1964 – Puerto Rico||1974 – Puerto Rico||1984 – Kentucky||1994 – Virginia||.|
|1955 – Louisiana||1965 – Louisiana||1975 – Mississippi||1985 – Virgin Is.||1995 – N. Carolina||.|
|1956 – Texas||1966 – Oklahoma||1976 – Texas||1986 – Louisiana||1996 – Arkansas||.|
|1957 – S. Carolina||1967 – S. Carolina||1977 – Tennessee||1987 – Georgia||1997 – S. Carolina||.|
|1958 – Louisiana||1968 – Louisiana||1978 – Virginia||1988 – Florida||1998 – Oklahoma||.|
|1959 – Mississippi||1969 – Kentucky||1979 – N. Carolina||1989 – Alabama||1999 – Kentucky||.|
Invitation by host for spring, 2001 meeting.
On motion/second by Drs. Emino/Weidemann, Directors unanimously approved acceptance of Louisiana as the host for the spring 2001 meeting.
Agenda Item 16
The Memphis Marriott Downtown is the site for the September meetings of the Experiment Station Section (ESS), the SAES/ARD Workshop, Regional Association meetings, ESCOP Executive Committee meetings, and other committee meetings as needed. Deadline for registration and lodging is September 6. A tentative program, registration information, etc. is available on the ESCOP website at http://www.escop.msstate.edu/workshop.htm. The tentative general schedule of meetings and activities is as follows:
Monday, September 27
1-5 — ESCOP Science and Technology Committee Meeting
6:30-7:30 — Casual Reception
Tuesday, September 28
8-12 — ESS meeting
1-5 — SAES/ARD Workshop
6:30 – 9 — Dinner and Speaker: Dr. Charles Laughlin, CSREES Administrator
Wednesday, September 29
8-12 — Workshop Session: Developing Impact Statements for Multistate Research Programs — Training the Administrative Advisor
1-5 — Workshop Session: Developing Priorities for the ESCOP Budget Exercise
Thursday, September 30
8-10 — Workshop: Report of Priorities Established in Breakout Groups on 9/29
10-2 — Regional Association Meetings (as desired)
2-4:30 — ESCOP Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda Item 17
Any additional business and announcements will be conducted prior to adjournment.