March 31-April 2, 2008 Meeting Minutes

agInnovation South Spring Meeting
March 31 – April 2, 2008
Knoxville, TN

Minutes

Participants  |  Action Items  |  Agenda

Participants

Action ItemsAgenda Item 1- Approval of Agenda, Minutes, and Interim Actions: Meeting agenda approved (Shulstad/Cox), fall meeting minutes approved (Morrison/McLellan), and Interim Actions approved (McLellan/Morrison).)
Agenda Item 14- S-009 Report and Budget Request: S-009 budget approved (Guthrie/Bannon)
Agenda Item 25- agInnovation South Excellence in Leadership Award Presentation: Dr. Jerry Arkin was presented the agInnovation South Leadership Award
Agenda Item 26- MRC Report: Selection process – approved, S-1039 nomination – approved, Email on revision changes – approved, Minimum of 2 Peer Reviewers is acceptable when time is short – approved
Agenda Item 31- Resolutions Committee Report: Resolutions of appreciation were read for Dr. Roland Mote who has left the association due to retirement.  A resolution of appreciation was also read for Dr. Tom Klindt and staff of the University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station for their roles in hosting the agInnovation South Spring Meeting.  A round of applause approved the resolution

Agenda Item 1.
Call to Order, Welcome, and Approval of Agenda, Minutes and Interim Actions
Presenter: Tom Klindt
Background:
Minutes from the September17, 2007 Fall meeting in Philadelphia, PA
Interim Actions:

• Appointed Patricia Dyk, (KY) as the southern representative to the SRDC Technical & Operational Advisory Committee.
• Appointed David Monks, (NC) as southern representative to the Joint Cotton Breeding Advisory Committee and the Tecoman Cotton Winter Nursery Steering Committee until 2009.
• Appointed Lisa Collins, (KY) as southern representative to the One Solution Stakeholder Group.
• Appointed Jonathan Edelson, (OK) as Administrative Advisor to S-1022 “Basic and Applied Aspects of Bacterial Source Tracking”
• Appointed Reuben Moore, (MS) as Administrative Advisor to SCC-76 “Economics and Management of Risk in Agriculture and Natural Resources”
• Appointed Jonathan Pote, (MS) as Administrative Advisor to SAC-5 “Agricultural Engineering Department Heads”
• Appointed John Liu, (AL) as Administrative Advisor to SDC324 “Modeling for TMDL Development, and Watershed Based Planning, Management and Assessment”
• Appointed Tom Klindt, (TN) as Administrative Advisor to SDC325 “The Science and Engineering for a Biobased Industry and Economy”
• Appointed Jonathan Edelson, (OK) as Administrative Advisor to the new pecan multistate project.

Action Requested: Approval of agenda, minutes, and interim actions.
Action Taken:  Meeting agenda approved (Shulstad/Cox), fall meeting minutes approved (Morrison/McLellan), and Interim Actions approved (McLellan/Morrison).
Agenda Item 2.
ARS Report
Presenter: Ed King and Darrell Cole
Background:
The Presidents proposed budget for FY 2009 was presented in early February to Congress.  The proposal was $84 million less than the FY 2008 appropriation level.  In addition to an overall cut, the budget proposed another $62 million in program redirection and consolidation for a total impact of $146 million.   Eleven locations were proposed for closure and program terminations/redirections at 9 other locations were impacted.   In total, 101 lines of research and 700 positions in 31 states and 56 research locations across the country are impacted by the proposed budget actions.   The budget proposal curtails the breadth of existing program activities, including production, conservation, post-harvest, and human nutrition; it reduces ARS geographic presence; and it impacts about 8% of our workforce.
Dr. Joseph Spence was named Director of the Beltsville Area and Dr. Thomas Sexton was named Associate Area Director in February, 2008.   Dr. Dwayne Buxton and Ms. Wilda Martinez, Area Directors for the Pacific West and North Atlantic Areas, respectively, retired within the past 6 months.   Several people are serving in an Acting Capacities:  Dr. Andy Hammond, Pacific West Area; Dr. Darius Swietlik, North Atlantic Area; and Dr. Frank Flora, Deputy Administrator for Food Safety and Nutrition, National Program Staff.
In meeting discussion:

• 2008 budget is basically the 2006 budget
  • ARS – 84 Million reduction in budget if President’s budget is approved
  • Budget calls for a 41 million earmark reduction

  Action Requested: NonePresenter: Frank BoetlerUpdate on Major CSREES Activities.This item summarizes major CSREES activities over the last six months. The report includes recent information on grant opportunities, grant processing, budget information, significant staffing changes, and NPL liaison work.In meeting discussion:

  • South has the highest percentage of FTE’s supported by CSREES
  • Special grants notice has gone to only PI’s, CSREES needs to copy director
  • Some special grants notices were later coming than others
  • Notify Frank about which ones were late

  Action Requested: NonePresenter: Jim RichardsIn meeting discussion:

  • FY’09 Budget
    • Going very slow and rough due to election year
    • Earmarks this year – most will be 50-75% less than original amount
    • Will be late in calendar year before its settled
  • Farm Bill
    • IFAFS is in big trouble
    • Farm Bill extended until April 18th
    • Still fighting over numbers
    • Agreed with Executive branch to spend 10 billion more than current Farm Bill
    • Want to spend 20-25 billion more, so they have to find 10-15 billion more from offsets
    • One offset proposed is to cut Research Title 1.24 billion
    • 500 million new money over 5 years is proposed in bioenergy and specialty crops, but that ends in 5 years
    • Trying to extend funding to keep baseline for mandatory funding
    • IFAFS seems dead, but trying to move that into bioenergy and specialty crops
    • Budget battles will not change with change in administration
    • 1.244 billion proposed cut is net cut after IFAFS elimination and adding back bioenergy and specialty crops

  Action Requested: NonePresenter: David Boethel and Tom KlindtFinal Report
  FY 2010 ESCOP-ESS Priorities
  ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee
  David Boethel, ChairmanOverarching Priorities:

  • The Directors continue to indicate that maintaining capacity for research through base funds (Hatch, Evans-Allen, McIntire-Stennis, and Animal Health is the top priority by a 3:1 margin over moving funds into competitive programs.
  • Increasing funding for the NRI with emphasis on integrated activities is also an important priority
  • The Directors did not favor focusing formula funds on specific topics in order to gain increases in these funds but did favor matching new formula funds for specific initiatives.

  Relative Research Priorities

  1. Biobased Economy; Food, Nutrition, Health and Well-Being (Tie)
  2. Environment
  3. Food Agrosecurity

  I. BIOENERGY AND BIOBASED ECONOMY
  Increase our knowledge of bioconversion of feedstocks to bioenergy and bioproducts including plant and microbial genomics, bioprocessing systems, biomass production and conversion of byproducts into value added products, including economics, social issues, land use policies, and their use by other sectors of agriculture. Enhance understanding of the long-term sustainability of feedstock production and bioconversion systems including economics, social issues, land use policies, and energy security and the environment.  Utilization of value added products in other sectors of agriculture, such as poultry, livestock, and dairy production. Emphasize eliminating contributions to greenhouse gas effects and carbon sequestration.

  1. Sustainable bioenergy systems; Water quality and quantity (Tie)
  2. Bioconversion and biofuels; Bioproducts, utilization, and value added; Sustainability, economics and policy (Tie)
  3. Feedstock development and utilization

  II. FOOD, NUTRITION, HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
  Develop an understanding of the role of diet and consumer behavior on human health including obesity with emphasis on socio-economic, cultural and demographic characteristics.  Link food with the overall well being and develop preventive health measures.  Identify the role that epigenetic factors play in human health.  Develop knowledge base on the etiology of food-borne pathogens.  Develop innovative plant and animal production technologies and systems to reduce disease incidence. Enhance the ability to identify foods with physiological activity, apply new, innovative technologies to improve food systems and to make foods safer and of higher quality.

  1. Tie: Food safety; Obesity/Consumer behavior healthy lifestyles
  2. Innovative plant and animal technologies and systems
  3. Functional foods/Nutraceuticals,
  4. Tie: Role of specialty and organic crops in food nutrition and health; Knowledge of pesticide and pollen drift
  5. Personalized and cultural nutrition

  III. ENVIRONMENT
  Develop better understanding of interactions between agricultural and natural systems to promote the long-term sustainability of both. Develop sustainable agricultural systems emphasizing energy conservation and utilization of renewable energy resources, best practices for marginal land, and better understanding of the land-water interface and the urban-agriculture interface.  Contribute to solutions to the consequences of global climate change.  Provide a framework for understanding and addressing issues of water quality and quantity, carbon sequestration, air quality, and invasive species.  Develop a better understanding of factors contributing to rural community vitality including land use. Develop sustainable agriculture systems emphasizing energy conservation and utilization of renewable energy resources.  Develop sustainable agricultural systems emphasizing energy conservation and utilization of renewable energy resources, best practices for marginal land, and better understanding of the land-water and the urban-agriculture interface.  Seek economically viable practices for improved sustainability in large and small scale agriculture.

  1. Water quality and quantity
  2. Tie: Global Climate Change, Sustainable agriculture systems
  3. Tie: Sustaining natural ecosystems; Carbon footprint reduction, carbon sequestration; Air Quality
  4. Science-based policy development

  IV. FOOD AND AGRO SECURITY
  Develop the knowledge base for:  (I) rapid detection of threat agents including existing and new diseases of plants and animals as well as disaster preparedness and recovery efforts, (II) risk assessment, and (III) facility and personnel security. Continue to support better understanding the etiology of current and emerging plant and animal diseases that threaten the food supply. Develop and deliver educational and training programs for producers as well as suppliers.  Provide for facilities as stated in section 1485 of the 2002 Farm Bill that authorizes up to $10M per year awarded to each experiment station on a competitive basis.

  1. Rapid detection of threat agents
  2. Tie: Food Safety and Security; Risk assessment
  3. Tie: Invasive Species; Emerging threats (new threats – containment and elimination
  4. Facility and personnel security

  Action Requested: NonePresenter: Jerry Arkin, Mary Duryea, and Ron LacewellThe System Communication and Marketing Implementation Committee PlanWho is involved?
  In the fall of 2007, the System Communication and Marketing Implementation Committee was formed to provide a coordinated and targeted educational effort to increase awareness of AES and CES.  The System Implementation Committee is made up of two deans from the College of Agriculture, the ECOP and ESCOP Chairs, the ESCOP and ECOP Marketing Committee Chairs, one member each from ACOP and ICOP, and staff from the regional associations and NASULGC. ACOP and ICOP programs are also included in this effort.The System Communication and Marketing Implementation Committee has identified 13 members of the House and 15 members of the Senate (the members of the House and Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees) that will be the focus of this educational campaign. Marketing efforts will strategically target the right issue with the right appropriation champion.Budget
  The Experiment Station Section has approved a three year annual assessment at the $300,000 level for this effort which will become available on July 1, 2008 and, an additional $75,000 is available immediately. ECOP on March 13, 2008 passed the following motion: “ECOP recommends that the Cooperative Extension Section utilize $100,000 per year from its $200,000 Marketing Assessment for up to 3 years, with the annual renewal subject to a performance review, in support of the System Marketing and Communications proposal. No new CES assessment is required to fund this action.  Final approval is subject to a vote of the Cooperative Extension Section.  An electronic vote will take place 30 days following a formal announcement of the vote.” This investment is based on the condition that the overall contract with Podesta and Cornerstone for the System Marketing Plan not exceed $300,000 per year. Agenda Item 7.
  Science and Technology ReportBackground:Click here for the Science and Tech Committee’s Key PointsAgenda Item 8.
  Clean Energy Collaboration – Public Interest Energy Research & Technology Transfer Programs
  Background:Click here to view the ASERTTI PowerPointAgenda Item 9.
  Regional Bioenergy Activities & Bioenergy SERA UpdateBackground:In meeting discussion:

  • Each state needs to check with their institution to see if they would like to participate in this SERA and if so they need to complete an Appendix E form, via NIMSS
  • Would agInnovation South consider joining SAFER as a underwriting membership – cost is $1,000 a year?
  • SAFER is a non-profit alliance – under the Southern Growth Policy Board umbrella
  • SAFER and Oak Ridge are working together to form research working groups on specific topics

  Action Requested: NonePresenter: Eric YoungUSDA/REE began an strategic planning process with a workshop last September to guide the mission area’s efforts in all aspects of energy research, extension, and education.  As the plan was developed over the following months, Undersecretary Buchanan and others requested assistance to identify a group of individuals, with emphasis on Directors, who would be interested in providing feedback on the Plan and leadership for implementation of the plan’s near term action steps.  A list of AES, CES, and APS Directors and a number of “working” faculty members were were identified to act as this core LGU implementation team to work with REE leadership.  Mark Hussey (TAMU) was chosen to represent agInnovation South on this team.
  The plan continues to be a work in progress due to minor editing within USDA however, the major details remain unchanged. The latest version (ver 3) of the plan can be found on the REE website and is also attached.  In addition, the list of action steps was reviewed and areas requiring university collaboration were identified.  This list attached is currently being populated with interested Directors. The REE implementation team holds monthly conference calls.  Recent discussions suggested a regional approach to implementation with regional teams, but the exact definition of “region” in unclear.  A workshop including all “champions” to review progress and plan future activities is being planned for September 16-17, 2008.
  The REE plan’s goals and action steps will be discussed with opportunity for feedback to the implementation team and REE and volunteers or suggestions for directors and scientists who would like to help lead implementation of the various action steps.

  • Leans heavily toward outreach
  • No bold new initiatives
  •  Leaders of plan will likely be gone in January ’09, where will the plan be?
  • Gale has reached out for a buy in

  Action Requested: NonePresenter: Eric YoungagInnovation SouthSouthern Region Bioenergy
  The Southern Region Bioenergy Research and Extension Coordinating Committee was formed in April 2007 during last spring’s joint meeting of agInnovation South and ASRED.  The overall goal of this Committee is to assist in coordinating our regional efforts in research and extension related to bioenergy.  Activities so far include developing a white paper on current status and future challenges of a sustainable bioenergy industry in the southern region and a one-page PR/information sheet on the advantages and needs of the southern region in this area.  The information sheet has been distributed to southern region CARET reps for their use when interacting with Congress and other decision makers.   Also we arranged a meeting last August of faculty from throughout the region to plan a new Southern Research & Extension Activity (SERA) to enhance multistate extension programming and research/extension interactions related to bioenergy.  This multistate activity was approved in February as SERA-38, Biobased Energy Research and Information Exchange Committee, which had its initial meeting in Atlanta in February.  In addition, Mark Hussey, Jim Trapp, Ron Brown, and I will be involved with implementation of the recently released USDA Energy Research, Education, and Extension Strategic Plan.Vegetable Crops Initiatives
  agInnovation South is supporting the National Vegetable Crops Initiative, which is a partnership of industry, academia and government formed in fall 2006 to develop a strategic plan for the continued growth and sustainability of the vegetable crop industry in the United States.  This is part of an effort by CSREES national program staff to identify high priority issues and needs across all specialty crops in anticipation of increased federal funding in that area.  A planning workshop will be held in Denver, May 13-14, 2008, that will involve over 60 representatives from the vegetable industry, university research and extension, and USDA.Grantsmanship Workshops
  agInnovation South is again co-sponsoring the CSREES Competitive Programs and Writing Successful Grants workshops this fall Washington, D.C. with NERA in October.  Also, our office will manage the travel grants offered by CSREES to participants of minority serving institutions; including soliciting applications, reviewing applications along with Dan Rossi of NERA, approving grant awards, processing travel reimbursements, and disbursing funds.agInnovation South Assignments
  NRSP-8, National Animal Genome Research Program, Administrative Advisor
  S-1014, Mineral Controls on P Retention and Release in Soils and Soil Amendments, Administrative Advisor
  AC-6, Horticulture, Administrative Advisor
  Joint Cotton Breeding Advisory Committee and Tecoman Winter Nursery Steering Committee
  Southern Region IPM Center Steering Committee
  Southern Region Water Quality Program Advisory Committee
  T-STAR Caribbean Basin Advisory Group
  Southern Region Small Fruit Consortium
  Liaison to the Association of Southern Region Extension Directors
  Liaison to the Association of Research Directors (1890s)BAA Policy Board of Directors New Task Forces
  Last spring I was asked by Fred Cholick, BAA Policy Board of Directors Chair, to formulate a plan to phase out the Partnership Working Group and transition its charge and responsibilities to a Policy Board task force(s).  After discussion at two PBD meetings and vetting the plan through the joint Executive Director’s group, the Policy Board has now constituted two new task forces charged with responsibility for two of the goals in its new plan of work.  These task forces are System Integration and Futuring & Emerging Issues and together their charges cover all the responsibilities of the PWG plus some new items.  I am the lead ED support for the System Integration TF which has among its responsibilities development of the agenda for the Deans and Directors Orientation Workshop to be held again this December.Overarching Priorities:

  • The Directors continue to indicate that maintaining capacity for research through base funds (Hatch, Evans-Allen, McIntire-Stennis, and Animal Health).
  • Increasing funding for the NRI with emphasis on integrated activities is also an important priority
  • The Directors did not favor focusing formula funds on specific topics in order to gain increases in these funds but did favor matching new formula funds for specific initiatives.

  Research Priorities

  1. Biobased Economy and Food, Nutrition, Health & Well-Being (Tie)
  2. Environment
  3. Food Agrosecurity

  ESCOP Assignments
  BAA Policy Board of Directors (support for ESCOP representative)
  National Plant Germplasm Coordinating Committee (Executive Vice-Chair)
  BAA System Integration Task Force (Executive Vice-Chair)
  NIMSS Oversight Committee (Chair)
  NRSP Review Committee (Executive Vice-Chair)
  BAA Farm Bill Committee
  National Multistate Coordinating Committee
  eXtension Internal Partners Advisory CouncilNext Meeting
  ESCOP, July 21-25, San Juan, PR (Joint COPs Meeting)Agenda Item 12.
  Chief Operating Officers’ Meeting ReportBackground:

  • Approved agInnovation South 08/09 budget
  • Approved continuing with Cotton Winter Nursery support for another five years, same assessments as past five years

  Action Requested: NonePresenter: Jerry ArkinThe NPGCC met by conference calls on October 31, 2007 and again on February 27, 2008.  Below is a summary of some of the committee’s discussions.

  • There are still a number of position vacancies in National Plant Germplasm System.
  • ~160,000 assessions were distributed in 2006, which may be record high.
  • Plant samples stored at the Fort Collins back-up site are now >700,000, including backups for numerous foreign repositories.
  • FAO international treaty status.
    • Currently at State Department recieving final approval and will go to White House next for signing, which will be a polical decision.
    • Beginning in January, breeders will begin to see the standard MTA when requesting germplasm from other countries.
    • Accepting terms of MTA is up to recipient, once the NPGS site has sent the material; they are no longer responsible for the MTA terms.
    • National Plant Germplasm System is not yet incorporating materials with MTA because they don’t have the tracking mechanism required.  They anticipate this will be in place sometime in 2008.
  • Norway – germplasm vault opened for germplasm preservation
    • Norway government funded construction, Global Crop Diversity Trust in Rome will fund maintainence and operations
    • 10,000 samples shipped from US
  • ARS & Biodiversity International partnered with World Bank (focuses on building gene band capacity) to support transformation of GRIN to state of the art version that can be adapted to desktop PC’s as well as large services
    • Make user interface friendly
    • Better for curators
    • Interfaces better with genebank databases
    • Will be called GRIN Global
  • Budget for National Plant Germplasm System
    • FY’08 was reduced ~0.7 % across the board
    • President proposed ’09 would reduce ARS overall by ~ 13%, but has an increase from reallocation of $3.25 million in genomics, germplasm, and collections, which indicates it’s an agency priority
  • ARS programs reviews have found that National Plant Germplasm System programs are very high quality and received excellent reviews

  2. NPGCC ontacts with Oranizations Involved in Germplasm Preservation

  • NPGCC would like to give presentations at meetings of ASTA, AOSCA, Industrial Crops Society, Organic Seed Growers Association, etc.
  • Candy Gardner is the incoming President of Industrial Crops Society and their meeting next September in College Station, TX will include a session on germplasm and briefing on NPGCC.
  • Ann Marie will spoke at Organic Seed Growers meeting in February.
  • ASTA is interested in designating someone as an NPGCC liaison
  • Lee Sommers will talk with CSU’s AOSCA representative about a NPGCC presentation at their next meeting

  3. Future Issues & Actions

  • Reexamine LGU funding mechanisms for germplasm system
  • Continue making contacts with relevant organizations and establish liaison criteria and roles
  • Assist in development of new Cotton Winter Nursery agreement between INIFAP, ARS, and Cotton Council
  • Explore possibility of producing a PR video on National Plant Germplasm System

  4. Next Meeting

  • NPGCC will meet Thursday, June 5, 2008 after PGOC meeting in Fort Collins.

  In meeting discussion:

  • Is there a plan to grow out or revitalize? Yes, faculty groups, commodity based, assess collection and decide what needs revitalized.

  Action Requested: NonePresenter: Jerry ArkinMULTI-STATE RESEARCH PROJECT S-009
  PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND UTILIZATIONAccomplishments for 2007:

  • The collection totals 88,270 accessions of 1,490 species and 251 genera with 87.3% available for distribution and 94.3% backed up at Ft. Collins, CO.
  • Currently, 55,370 accessions or 65.1% of the collection have at least one inventory sample stored at -18 C.  Seed longevity is improved by storage in -18 C rather than 4 C.  Most seed of the accession is stored at -18 C and a distribution sample is stored at 4 C.
  • Germination tests were conducted at Griffin on 9,790 accessions.  Since 2002 when the first germination testing was conducted at Griffin, germination tests have been conducted on 45,331 accessions or 51.4% of the total collection.
  • A total of 27,312 accessions (16,156 in S-009 region) were distributed in 720 orders to users worldwide in 2007.
  • Molecular characterization utilizing SSRs was conducted on the peanut, lespedeza, and mung bean collections.  Potential molecular markers were identified for little and big bluestem collections.  Genetic characterization studies utilizing TILLING on sorghum and Eco-TILLING on mung bean were continued.  Molecular studies were conducted on minor as well as major crops as encouraged by S-009 Technical Committee members.
  • HPLC studies were conducted to quantify flavonoids in accessions of different legumes species and evaluate capsaicin variability in accessions of chile peppers.  Other studies to evaluate variation in oil content in castor bean and peanut accessions were initiated.
  • Chile pepper accessions were evaluated for fruit quality characteristics.  Methods to control pepper mild mottle virus in pepper accessions were evaluated.
  • Characterization and evaluation data were taken on over 1,550 vegetable, peanut, legume, warm-season grass, annual clover, and other accessions in the field.
  • Additional accomplishments are reported in the S-009 annual report and minutes (www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=9592).

  Financial Situation:  Though significant accomplishments have been achieved in the past few years, financial resources for this project are becoming a major concern.  Since 2004, a number of positions have been terminated when vacant to maintain financial resources for operations.  This includes the Research Plant Pathologist/Vigna curator, Molecular Bioinformatics position, and three technicians (seed storage, farm operations, and field curation).  Also, the next 1-2 vacant positions will not be filled.  This loss of positions and operational funds has impacted regenerations of crops with extensive labor or supply requirements, such as cultivated peanuts which had 50% fewer regenerations last year compared to 3-4 years ago.Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Utilization Funding Request for FY09Action Taken: S-009 budget approved (Guthrie/Bannon)Presenter: John BambergNRSP-6 is located on the University of Wisconsin Peninsular Agricultural Research Station near Sturgeon Bay.  NRSP-6 is the US genebank for tuber-bearing Solanum species and is part of the National Plant Germplasm System.  Staff and organization will be introduced.  NRSP6’s mission of acquisition, classification, preservation, distribution, and evaluation of wild and cultivated potato germplasm and information supports genetic improvement of the potato crop, and consequently has an impact on the larger economic, nutritional and environmental aspects of potato across the nation.  NRSP-6 also conducts R&D work to determine the most efficient germplasm management and manipulation techniques which benefit both the genebank and its germplasm users.  Recent NRSP-6 cooperation and service to the SR will be summarized.  Recent developments which will help the SR and nation continue to realize a large return on potato germplasm investment will be discussed.Action Requested: NonePresenter: Lisa CollinsResearch Planning Using the Current Research Information System (CRIS)By vote at the Experiment Station Section Annual Meeting in Philadelphia in September 2007, the project was extended one year and currently has a duration of October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2010.The NRSP-1 Annual Meeting was held in Washington on August 28, 2008.  At that time, the group reviewed the CRIS changes that were released October 1, 2007 and discussed the eventual move from CRIS to CIS (CSREES Information System).Status Report on One Solution
  December 20, 2007

  • The One Solution Initiative is a comprehensive approach to develop a management strategy that CSREES can use to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of reports to OMB and Congress.
  • One Solution is far from finished and not ready to be released in the near future.
  • CSREES will be implementing a One Solution integrated reporting system, referred to as the CSREES Information System (CIS) over the next several years.  One Solution is the overall umbrella and CIS is just one element of One Solution.
  • The goals of One Solution include the ability to reuse and combine existing data from various separate reporting systems; standardize reporting requirements and definitions; and maintain the CRIS legacy database but make it more accessible by migrating it to new CIS platform.
  • The first step towards an integrated CIS is the CRIS Transition Standard Report.  More standardized CRIS AD416 (Work Unit Description) and AD421 (Accomplishment Report) reports were released on October 1, 2007.  There are no plans to revise the AD417 (Classification) form at this time.  The revised reporting forms will provide a more consistent format for project directors who may be reporting on multiple types of CSREES grants.  Revisions to the forms are consistent with the Generic Logic Model and the definition of terms such as outputs and outcomes contained therein.
  • There are no plans to require CRIS type reporting of Smith Lever 3b & c funds.  There should be no substantial changes to Extension reporting.
  • The transition to standardized reporting is being driven by OMB and moves CSREES towards the language used in the Draft Format of the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) published in the Federal Register by NSF.  RPPR provides a uniform format for reporting performance on federally-funded research projects.  Links to the Federal Register notice and the draft reporting format can be found at:http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/07-5601.htm
    http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rppr/draftformat.pdf .
  • A One Solution Stakeholders Group, consisting of representatives from the research, education and extension communities, has been formed to provide guidance to the transition to CIS.  It will be important for this group to meet with both the CSREES IT leadership but also the CSREES policy leadership.  It is critical that the system continue to provide feedback and input as we transition to CIS.
  • CSREES National Program Leaders will be able access CIS data through the Leadership Management Dashboard.  A similar system is being considered to accommodate institutions’ needs but funding is not currently available to develop it.

  Members of the NRSP Review Committee and NRSP-1 Committee reviewed the draft format of the RPPR and have developed a set of comments for ESCOP Chair, Bruce McPheron, to submit.  Key recommendations include:

  • The committee members supported the concept of a single standard reporting format for recipients to report progress on activities supported by Federal agencies’ research grants.  This would reduce the reporting burden on university research faculty who receive grants with synergistic goals from multiple Federal agencies.  However, for this standard format to be both efficient and effective it must capture all appropriate and relevant information regarding the research activity and the resulting database must be mineable.
  • If a single standard reporting format is not adopted, then members suggest that a similar web-based portal be established to access the RPPR to enter report information for all Federal-funding agencies.  The design and programming of this portal should be developed by a joint agency group which represents all Federal-funding agencies to ensure it meets the needs of each individual agency.
  • Whatever reporting system that is adopted should include all appropriate fields pre-populated with previously entered core information to avoid re-entering data that has not changed from grant initiation or previous reporting periods.
  • The committee members also felt that consideration should be given to including a reporting field that would allow grant recipients to reference related projects and other sources of funding (federal, state, private, etc.) that support the overall research program that includes the specific grant’s activity, thus better reflecting institutional support and overall leveraging.

  A copy of the specific comments on the RPPR will be distributed when they are finalized.
  The Committee members also reviewed the status of NRSP-1 and concluded that the decision to extend NRSP-1 one year with a new termination date of September 30, 2010 is appropriate given the climate of uncertainty relative to a more standardized reporting system.  The Committee members recommend that the budget for the extended year for NRSP-1 include the standard 3% increase as in previous years.  Given the fact there are no expected significant changes in the CRIS reporting requirements for Extension or Academic programs, there is no need to currently reconsider changes in funding sources for NRSP-1.  NRSP-1 Budget Request SummaryAgenda Item 17.
  NRSP-3
  Project Renewal Proposal and Budget RequestBackground:Please see the NRSP 3 renewal proposal and the budget and narrative for this project for more background.Agenda Item 18.
  NRSP-4
  Project Extension Request and Budget RequestBackground:For over 40 years, the IR-4 Project (NRSP-4) has been the major resource for supplying pest management tools for specialty crops by developing research data to support registration clearances.  IR-4 is a national multi-state project designed to link and facilitate research efforts with land grant universities, SAES, CSREES, ARS, commodity organizations and the crop protection industry. Some 2007 Accomplishments include:
  • 647 Specialty Crop Use Registrations: US EPA established 203 permanent tolerances and five exemptions based on IR-4 submissions. These decisions support 628 new specialty crop use registrations for conventional and reduced risk pest control products and 19 for biopesticides for a total of 647. Though this number of registrations in 2007 is sizably less than the all-time records experienced in 2006 (804 for conventional/reduced risk products, 306 for biopesticides) the impact to growers is relatively similar. In 2007, new use registrations were spread over 33 pest control products, while in 2006, successes focused on only a few active ingredients. • 2 Expanded Crop Groups and 1 New Crop Group: EPA published the Final Rule for two expanded crop groups and one new group. Publications included an expanded Bulb vegetable group 3, an expanded Berry and small fruit group 13 and the establishment of a new Edible fungi group 21. The decision for these crop groups will significantly increase the number of additional registrations for crops in these groups.• 644 Field Trials: IR-4 placed in the field 644 trials associated with 95 high priority studies on food crops to support eventual registration of conventional/reduced risk pest control products to answer specialty crop grower pest management needs.• Biopesticide Programs Funds 37 Projects: The Biopesticide Grant Program funded five Early Stage, 19 Advanced Stage and 13 Demonstration Stage projects. These were conducted at 21 universities and USDA research centers. The research involved 30 scientists and nearly 100 product-crop combinations. EPA co-funded and co-reviewed the demonstration stage grants. EPA also provided additional resources to support three Technology Transfer Projects associated with the demonstration projects to further develop the extension phase of those projects.• Ornamental Horticulture Data Packages: IR-4 submitted 8 Ornamental Horticulture data packages to registrants; 2 summaries on efficacy and 6 on crop safety. These comprehensive data packages contained results from 1658 field trials managed by IR-4. These IR-4 summaries enabled registrants to make registration decisions on at least 15 products. In some cases, registration decisions were made 1 to 2 years earlier than otherwise possible; for other products, decisions to not register the uses were made.•  IR-4 Contributes $7.7 billion to Annual Gross Domestic Product: The Center for Economic Analysis at Michigan State University published an economic analysis of IR-4 Project activities and concluded that IR-4 contributes $7.7 billion to the annual gross domestic product.ACTIONS:
  NRSP-4 Project Extension Request:
  The Project, NRSP-4: High Value Specialty Crop Pest Management was approved for the period of October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2009.  For a variety of reasons, IR-4 believes it would be beneficial to request a one year extension with a new expiration date of September 30, 2010.Action Requested: Approval of 1-Year Extension for NRSP-4NRSP-4 Budget Request SummaryAgenda Item 19.
  NRSP-5
  Project Extension Request and Budget RequestBackground:A one-year extension to the current NRSP-005 project is requested to bridge the program during its transition to its projected inclusion in a National Clean Plant Network.  Tremendous progress was made toward inclusion in the National Clean Plant Network at two levels.  USDA-CSREES / USDA-APHIS-PPQ convened a strategic planning committee to develop the framework for a national system to improve the phytosanitary status of plants-for-planting, a concept that evolved from discussions concerning the future of NRSP-005.  The planning process culminated in a stakeholder meeting in May 2007 with representatives of nursery and production industries, state and federal regulatory agencies, and public and private researchers representing ten perennial specialty crops.  Subsequently, planning meetings were held in both the east and west regions to develop a workable governance structure.  Three branches of USDA (CSREES, APHIS and ARS) are developing a memorandum to define their cooperative role in administration of the National Clean Plant Network.  Securing funding for this fledgling program also made dramatic advancements during the past twelve months.  Creation and mandatory funding of the National Clean Plant Network is currently embodied in both the House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill.  The funding proposed in the Farm Bill document will replace NRSP funding for this project, as well as fund other components of a national system. In meeting discussion:

  • Why lack of industry support?
  • Industry is not unified and doesn’t have one voice so it’s hard to convince them of the importance
  • The industry has developed a roadmap and therefore should be able to come together
  • NRSP-5 leaders need to continue pressing industry
  • Activities are vital to industry

  Action Requested:NonePresenter: Richard GuthrieInter-Regional Potato Introduction Project: Acquisition, classification, preservation, evaluation and distribution of potato (Solanum) germplasmUW-Hort planned withdrawal of its share of salary support for the Project Assistant has been enacted in FY08, costing us about $25.  The FY08&09 budget proposal submitted included supplies and travel outlays.  However, that envisioned ARS compensating salary support that has not been confirmed as of this writing.  Thus, all of the FY08 $150K budget may be needed to support the two FTE of core Wisconsin staff positions plus our 0.2 FTE share of the third Wisconsin staff position we jointly support with UW-Hort.    The budget proposal for FY09 was to maintain at $150 MRF support. Action Requested: NonePresenter: John BabishA National Agricultural Program for Minor Use Animal DrugsPurpose of funding:
  Individually these minor species represent drug markets too small to provide a sufficient return to drug companies to provide incentives for developing new drug applications. Additionally many drugs are out of patent protection. As a result few approved drugs are available to treat diseases in the so-called minor species. In response to this shortage of approved drugs a national Minor Use Animal Drug Program was created in 1982. The overall objectives of the NRSP-7 Minor-Use Animal Drug Program are:

Identify the animal drug needs for minor species and minor uses in major species;
Generate and disseminate data and information for safe and effective therapeutic or reproductive applications; and
Facilitate FDA/CVM approvals for minor uses.

• To accomplish these goals, NRSP-7 functions through the coordination of efforts among animal producers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, FDA/CVM, USDA/Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, universities, State Agricultural Experiment Stations and veterinary medical colleges throughout the country.As part of its mission to disseminate data for safe and effective therapeutic applications, during 2007 the regional coordinators published six articles in peer-reviewed journals containing data developed in the Program.
  To date 342 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.  Currently there are 14 active research projects involving nine animal species and 11 different drugs. Approximately 23% of the active projects involve ruminant species, 15% avian, 38% aquatic and 23% other species such as rabbits and honeybees. Current active projects are more evenly divided among additional species. Through a prioritization process that has included (1) constraints imposed by concerns of antimicrobial resistance, (2) limitations of availability of certain expensive or rare animal species, (3) appropriate efficacy models, and (4) high risk/benefit liabilities and lack of economic incentive for certain pharmaceutical manufacturers, there are approximately 41 requests that are highest priority requests. Added to the current active projects, the backlog of projects represents a research commitment stretching over several decades.NRSP-7 Budget Request SummaryOther Funding Sources:
  Other sources of funding include FDA/CVM and stakeholder industry support. The off-the-top, multi-state funds that NRSP-7 receives will be used to partially cover the salaries of support personnel in the four regions and the National Coordinator’s office located in the Cornell Technology Park. Additionally, these multi-state funds support approximately 90% of the research effort of the program. Action Requested: NonePresenter: Eric YoungNational Animal Genome Research ProgramAction Requested: NonePresenter:George JansonUSDA UV-B Monitoring and Research Program: Enhancement of Network Data Products, Research Support, and National Research CollaborationClick here to view the NRSP_temp101PowerPointAgenda Item 24.
  Best Practices Session – Documenting and Reporting ImpactsBackground:Click here to view the Writing Impact Statements PowerPoint
  • University of Kentucky has a impact reporting web site
  • Virginia’s biggest problem is being able to search.  University of Kentucky is using Google
  • Florida – Are you integrating with AD 421’s
  • Yes, but it’s entered manually
  • Digital Measures software has been used to do reports, etc., but it can’t integrate with CRIS
  • Clemson University has EFAR for faculty activity, but not integrated with CRIS
  • University of Florida just killed their big on-line reporting system and are starting over with something simple
  • What’s needed the most is a way to link our systems with CRIS or CIS
  • NRSP-1 and CSREES should be working on how to interface CIS with university systems
  • Industry has good integrated systems for information collection and reporting, if not they wouldn’t survive
  • Asking faculty to explain the value of their research in simple terms can help
  • One possibility is to require all researchers to enter their information into CRIS and then extract it back out for local use

Action Requested: None
Agenda Item 25.
agInnovation South Excellence in Leadership Award Presentation
Presenter: Tom Klindt
Background:
Tom Klindt , agInnovation South Chair, will present the annual agInnovation South Leadership Award.
Action Taken: Dr. Jerry Arkin was presented the agInnovation South Leadership Award
Agenda Item 26.
MRC Report and National Multistate Research Award Nomination
Presenter: David Morrison
Background:
The Southern Multistate Research Committee is composed of Ed King, Tom Klindt, David Morrison (Chair), Craig Nessler, Clarence Watson, and Eric Young.  During the 12-month period since the 2007 Spring Meeting, the MRC has reviewed and approved 9 S-project proposals (S1031 – S1039), 2 Rapid Response proposals (S501 and S502), and 3 SCC proposals.  Approval of one additional proposal was deferred and is still pending.  Most of the S-project proposals were not approved upon initial review.  The most common deficiencies observed by MRC members continues to be: 1) failure to discuss accomplishments achieved under the previous project (if for a replacement project) and relating these to those areas needing further research in the new project, 2) failure to clearly indicate the level of participation of participating institutions for each objective, 3) failure to adequately indicate collaboration and interdependence among participants. AAs are urged to provide proposal writing committees with copies of Appendix H (the MRC Evaluation Form), which will alert these committees to the evaluation criteria being used by the MRC. This should help facilitate an increase in the number of proposals approved upon initial MRC review.
The following is a current status report, prepared by Donna Pearce, of MRF activities sorted by termination date.  This information is also available on the southern directors’ web site.
STATUS OF TERMINATING MRF PROJECTS AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEES

• Projects scheduled for termination September 30, 2008

  S-1011 Clarence Watson, OK	Water Quality Methodology for Crop Protection Chemicals	Terminating without a replacement on 9/30/08.
  S-1012 Nancy Cox, KY	Nutritional Systems for Swine to Increase Reproductive Efficiency	NIMSS# S_temp1862. Sent to AC2 on 3/17/08.
  S-1014 Eric Young, NC	Mineral Controls on P Retention and Release in Soils and Soil Amendments
  S-1015 Ron Lacewell, TX	Host Resistance as the Cornerstone for Managing Plant-Parasitic Nematodes in Sustainable Agroecosystems
  S-1016 Tom Klindt, TN	Impacts of Trade and Domestic Policies on the Competitiveness and Performance of Southern Agriculture	Approved SDC331. NIMSS# S_temp1703. Sent to SAC-7 on 01/25/08. Sent to Executive Committee on 3/4/08. Sent back to AA on 3/17/08.
  S-1019 Bob Shulstad, GA	Fruit and Vegetable Supply-Chain Management, Innovations, and Competitiveness

  Projects scheduled for termination September 30, 2009
  S-501Jonathan Pote, MS	Improving Growth and Feed Efficiency in Warmwater Aquaculture
  S-502 Nancy Cox, KY	Regional Animal Health Situational Awareness Project
  S-1013 David Morrison, LA	Genetic (Co) Variance of Parasite Resistance, Temperament, and Production Traits of Traditional and Non-Bos Indicus Tropically Adapted Breeds
  S-1017 Clarence Watson, OK	Improved Systems for Management of Economically-Important Arthropod Pests Attacking Pecan
  S-1018Winston Hagler, NC	Irrigation Management for Humid and Sub-Humid Areas
  S-1020Winston Hagler, NC	Enhancing Reproductive Efficiency of Poultry
  S-1021 Craig Nessler, VA	Managing and Marketing Environmental Plants for Improved Production, Profitability, and Efficiency
  Development Committees terminating September 30, 2008
  SDC324 John Liu, AL	Modeling for TMDL Development, and Watershed Based Planning, Management and Assessment		NIMSS# S_temp1522. Sent to AC1, AC5, and AC7 on 10/17/06. Sent to Executive Committee on 11/9/06. Sent back to AA on 11/27/2006.
  SDC325 Tom Klindt, TN	The Science and Engineering for a Biobased Industry and Economy		NIMSS# S_temp1523. Sent to AC5, AC7, and AC13 on 10/17/06. Sent to Executive Committee on 11/09/06. Sent back to AA on 11/27/06.
  SERA’S & SCC’s Scheduled for Termination September 30, 2008
  SCC13 Ken Koonce, LA	Statisticians Group
  SCC40 Greg Brown, VA	Genetics & Breeding of Southern Forest Trees
  SERA005 David Monks, NC	Sweet Potato Collaborators Conference
  SERA007 Richard Guthrie, AL	Biology and Management of Peanut Insects and Other Arthropods
  SERA008 Bruce Pinkerton, SC	Fescue Endophyte Research and Extension
  SERA009 Jim Rakocy, VI	Aquatic Food Animals from Warm Water Aquaculture
  SERA014 Doug Archer, FL	Development and Evaluation of Bunch and Muscadine Grapes for Fresh Market, Juice, Wine and Other Products
  SERA015 Terry Kiser, MS	Competitiveness and Sustainability of the Southern Dairy Industry
  SERA017 Steve Hodges, VT	Minimizing Agricultural Phosphorus Run-off Losses for Protection of the Water Resource
  SERA018 David Boethel, LA	Rice Technical Workers Group
  SERA019 Gail Cramer, LA	The Changing Rural Health System: Education for Consumers and Providers
  SERA025 George Hochmuth, FL	Turf
  New Projects Being Proposed
  NEW SERA Roland Smith, TX	Public Policy Issues Education		NIMSS# S_temp1802.
  NEW SCC Nancy Cox, KY	Nutritional Factors Affecting Equine Productivity		NIMSS#S_temp1462.
  NEW Multistate Project Jonathan Edelson, OK	Pecan

Action Requested:  For information
A. National Excellence in Multistate Research Award

• • Process and criteria for selection of our regional nominee
    • In future years, AAs of the ACs should be involved in suggesting excellent projects to nominate
    • The process for selecting the regional nominee is recommended as follows
      • Nomination documents, collected by the ED’s office, will be sent to the MRC within a few days after the deadline, along with the document outlining the award criteria
      • The MRC will discuss the nominations by conference call 1 to 2 weeks after the deadline and choose which project will be recommended to agInnovation South as our regional nominee
      • The nomination document for the project to be recommended will be attached to the MRC agenda brief so the directors can review it
      • The MRC will recommend to agInnovation South that all participants of the regional nominee project receive a certificate and a letter of congratulations from the agInnovation South chair copied to the participant’s dean

Action Requested: 

• • The MRC recommends that agInnovation South approve the process for selecting the regional nominee for the National Excellence in Multistate Research Award as stated above including that all participants of the regional nominee project receive a certificate and a letter of congratulations from the agInnovation South chair copied to the participant’s dean and research director as appropriate. (Certificate example provided)
  • The MRC recommends that agInnovation South approve S-1039 (Biology, Impact, and Management of Soybean Insect Pests in Soybean Production Systems) as the Southern Region nominee for the National Excellence in Multistate Research Award (see attached nomination document)

Action Taken: Selection process – approved
Action Taken:  S-1039 nomination – approved
B. SDCs that go beyond the S-project termination date

• • The MRC strongly recommends that AAs push hard to ensure that a replacement S-project is approved no later than one year after the original project terminates

  C. Multistate project impact statements

  • AAs of all MRF activities (especially S-projects) need to be diligent about submitting impact statements when they are due, i.e. 60 days after annual meeting in 3rd year or final year; final impact has to be submitted before final MRC approval for replacement project is granted

  D. Other items

  • Determining edits/changes that have been made in a proposal in response to the MRC review
    • Most of the S-project proposals have been deferred upon initial review for the reasons provided at the beginning of this report.  Upon submission of a revised proposal, the MRC chair must re-read the entire proposal to see if the changes requested by the MRC have been made.

  Action Requested: 
  That a requirement be added to our review process requesting the AA or writing committee chair to send an email to the MRC chair indicating in bullet form the changes that were made in response to the MRC review.2. Number of peer reviews

  • Some proposals have only had two peer reviews entered in NIMSS when the MRC reviews them

  It has been determined that some projects in the past have had only two peer reviews out of 3 or 4 requested because the termination deadline was approaching and final approval was needed from the MRC.  Peer reviewers are always contacted ahead of time by the Assistant to the Executive Director to see if they can review the proposal and if not, the AA is notified so another name can be submitted.

• Action Taken: Email on revision changes – approved
• In meeting discussion:
• This will be a semi-structured discussion centered on documenting and reporting impacts; ie data collection, impact statements, reporting methods, etc. The session will begin a brief (10 min) presentation on to write effective impact statements by Eric Young and case studies on this topic by Lisa Collins (UKY). These opening remarks will be followed by open discussion about director’s experiences with this topic, including current situations, successes and failures, new ideas, barriers, etc. This session will be 45-60 minutes and followed soon after by a break to allow for immediate casual conversations and contacts between directors.
• Presenter: Tom Klindt
• Action Requested: None
• A new NRSP is being proposed entitled USDA UV-B Monitoring and Research Program: Enhancement of Network Data Products, Research Support, and National Research Collaboration.  To view the proposal click here and for the attachments, including proposed budget, click here.  The merits of this proposal will be discussed and comments/questions sent to the NRSP Review Committee to be considered in their deliberations.”
• Background:
• Agenda Item 23.
  New NRSP Proposal – UV-B Monitoring and Research Program
• Please see the NRSP 8 renewal proposal and the budget request summary for this project for more background.
• Background:
• Agenda Item 22.
  NRSP-8
  Project Renewal Proposal and Budget Request
• Click here to view the NRSP-7 PowerPopint
• Please note, the request for FY 09 ($325,000) is a decrease of 40% from the amount ($542,720) received last year. The Program recognizes the emergency nature of this off-the-top funding and has moved to assure its previous line-item status with USDA/CSREES. With the organization and backing of our Stakeholders Advisory Committee, we have been included and supported in the President’s FY09 budget recommendation and added to the Senate version of the Farm Bill (12/14/07).
• Future needs:
  Through a prioritization process that has included (i) constraints imposed by concerns of antimicrobial resistance, (ii) limitations of availability of certain expensive or rare animal species, (iii) appropriate efficacy models, and (iv) high risk/benefit liabilities and lack of economic incentive for certain pharmaceutical manufacturers, the number of highest priority projects has been estimated at approximately 41.  Added to our 14 current active projects, the backlog of projects represents a research commitment stretching over several decades.
• Justification of funding:
  Since the program’s first drug approval in 1984, NRSP-7 has been responsible for generating 32 Public Master File (PMF) publications in the Federal Register, an average of 1.4 per year. These Public Master Files have supported FDA approval for 27 drugs for use in minor food species or minor uses in major species. Further, these data also enter the public domain as presentations to professional groups, peer-reviewed articles and inclusion in the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD). Thus, NRSP-7 provides data supporting the safe and effective use of therapeutics in minor species.
  In 2007-8, the target animal safety technical section for the EAZI-BREED CIDR-G intravaginal progesterone releasing insert (CIDR) for synchronization of estrus in meat and dairy goat does during the breeding season was accepted by FDA/CVM. In addition, data from NRSP-7 was used in support of the FDA approval of peroxide as 35% PEROX-AID® (New Animal Drug Application 141-255). Tissue stability studies of progesterone implants for estrus synchronization in sheep have been completed and submitted to FDA/CVM.
• Background and Justification:
  Agricultural production of fish, game birds, sheep, goats, ostrich, emu, rhea, honeybees and deer is critically important to numerous regional economies in the United States. This diverse aggregation of Minor Species represents approximately $1.5 billion in food and fiber farm gate revenues annually.  Minor species are defined by exclusion as any species other than cattle, swine, chickens, turkeys, horses, dogs and cats. Processing and export of minor species food and fiber products represents a further $4.5 billion of revenue. In addition to the importance of minor species as food animals, honeybees are critical for the pollination of a broad variety crops and ornamentals. It is estimated over one-third of our food crops in the US are benefited by honeybee pollination and the value of this service to the US agriculture has been estimated to be $18 billion dollars.
• Background:
• Agenda Item 21.
  NRSP-7 Budget Request
• NRSP-6 Budget Request Summary
• Although figures are estimates, substantial extramural grant support is not counted, and partner contribution proportions are somewhat subjective, we calculate current other inputs at $375 ARS and $183 Wisc., putting MRF contribution at about 20% of total.
• MRF funding hovered around $162 for over a decade.  For the project revision for FY06-10, we initially proposed a budget that incorporated 3% increases for inflation, but that was determined to be unacceptable, we revised to 5% per year cutback plan. A severe reduction plan for $150, 110, 75, 50, 50 was enacted.  In FY07, a consensus developed that, to the contrary, SAES ought to maintain substantial OTT funding for NRSP6.  We avoided a nearly disastrous FY08 shortfall due to a communication problem, and now have restored the current budget to $150.
• Background:
• Agenda Item 20.
  NRSP-6 Budget Request
• NRSP-5 Budget & Narrative Request Summary
• National Program for Controlling Virus Diseases of Temperate Fruit Tree Crops
• Presenter: Reuben Moore
• Action Requested: None
• NRSP-4 Budget Request Summary:
  Attached is the budget request summary for NRSP-4 for FY 09.  Please note, the request for FY 09 is the same amount ($481,182) stated in the Project Statement that was previously approved. The off-the-top, multi-state funds that NRSP-4 receives are provided to partially cover the salaries of senior management and their support team at the national coordination headquarters office located at the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station.  All research activities for NRSP-4 are funded in total by CSREES Special Grants, ARS contributions and unrestricted gifts.
• This one year extension will allow us to incorporate IR-4’s strategic plan and a formal CSREES peer review into the NRSP-4 Project proposal.  The current IR-4 Strategic Plan expires in 2008.  IR-4 is scheduling a Strategic Planning Conference in December 2008 in Washington, DC.  From this stakeholder driven conference, IR-4 will draft a new strategic plan in early 2009.  It is anticipated that CSREES will conduct a formal peer review of the NRSP-4 project in late spring 2009.  During the review, the panel will be able to examine progress since the last review and evaluate the new 5-year strategic plan.  IR-4 will then be able to include the findings of the CSREES review panel and the strategic plan in the NRSP-4 Project proposal.
• •  Global Minor Use Summit Held: IR-4, working alongside the USDA- Foreign Agricultural Service, US EPA and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, brought together nearly 250 people from 56 countries to participate in the first Global Minor Use Summit. The Summit initiated a dialogue among countries toward the concept of working together to solve the minor use problem on a global basis.
• •  1246 Ornamental Trials: The IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture program conducted nearly 1246 trials with greenhouse and field ornamentals crops. These will support recommendations in 2008/2009.
• • Biopesticide Database: Working with funding provided through an US EPA Region 2 grant, IR-4 created and posted on its website, a Biopesticide and Organic Label Database for Integrated Pest Management practitioners.
• • Partnership with Canada: 2007 was the first year the Canadian Minor Use Program served as sponsor and study director in joint residue studies.
• • Quality Assurance Audited 106 Final Reports:  The IR-4 Quality Assurance Unit audited 106 final reports; a new yearly record. These allowed submission of 157 tolerance petitions for conventional and reduced risk pest control products that will be reviewed and hopefully registered in 2008/early 2009.
• • New Reduced Risk Insecticide Spinetoram: IR-4 assisted Dow AgroSciences with the registration of the new reduced risk insecticide spinetoram on almost all of the crops where a similar product, spinosad, is already registered.
• Specialty crops include most: vegetables, fruits, nuts, herbs, spices, floral, nursery, landscape, turf and Christmas trees.  They are high value/low acreage crops and make up about 33% of U.S. agricultural production and $45 billion in sales.
• High Value Specialty Crop Pest Management
• Presenter: Mary Duryea
• Action Requested: None
• The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)
• Presenter: Bill McCutchen for Bill Dugas
• Action Requested: None
• Another response from CSREES to the concerns of experiment station administrators and others has been the creation of a One Solution Stakeholders Group, which consists of representatives from research, extension, and education, to consult with CSREES representatives as One Solution moves forward.  This stakeholder group had their first teleconference call in mid-March 2008.  More information about One Solution is available at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/onesolution.html .
• Members of the ESCOP NRSP Review Committee and the NRSP-1 Technical Committee met on November 28-29, 2007 with representatives from CSREES to discuss the current status of and timeline for the implementation of One Solution.
  The meeting resulted in some important new understandings and recommendations to ESCOP and the SAES system:
• NRSP-1 recently has taken center stage because CSREES is moving to the One Solution initiative.  While the purpose of One Solution is to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of CRIS reports to OMB and Congress, Experiment Station administrators have expressed concerns about the exchange of information between the stations and CSREES as the impending changes occur.  In response to these concerns, ESCOP NRSP Review Committee members and NRSP-1Technical Committee members met with CSREES personnel in December 2007.  The results of that meeting follow in a report written by Dr. Daniel Rossi, Executive Director Northeastern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors:
• Also by vote at the September 2007 meeting, the NRSP-1 off-the-top funding for FY08 was approved at $337,574.   This amount constitutes 25 percent of the funds needed to support the CRIS system, with the additional 75 percent funded by CSREES.  The budget for NRSP-1 increases approximately 3 percent a year.  To read more about NRSP-1, go tohttp://lgu.umd.edu/lgu_v2/pages/showInfo.cfm?trackID=5054 .
• Each SAES region is responsible for reviewing National Research Support Project (NRSP) Summaries and submitting recommendations to the NRSP Review Committee at the conclusion of their spring meeting.  NRSP-1 is Research Planning Using the Current Research Information System (CRIS), which is the national database used to manage the USDA project portfolio.
• Background:
• Agenda Item 16.
  NRSP-1
  Budget Request and CIS & One Solution Update
• Click here to view the US Potato Genebank PowerPoint
• Background:
• Agenda Item 15.
  US Potato Genebank
• Action Requested: Approval of S-009 FY09 Budget Request.
• S-009 Budget Request
  Increase the S-009 FY09 personnel services budget in the amount of $8,196 for a total S-009 FY09 budget of $415,404.  The requested increase reflects a 2.5% increase in personnel expenses based on The University of Georgia salary projections.
• Background:  Crop collections of importance to the Southern Region have been supported since 1949 through a joint partnership, designated as Multi-State Research Project S-009, between the USDA, ARS, Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit and the Southern State Agricultural Experiment Stations. For over 58 years, the S-009 Project has served as a major component of the National Plant Germplasm System, and its activities have markedly improved crop technology in the Southern Region, the U.S., and abroad, by providing plant genetic resources and associated information to scientists and educators.
• Background:
• Agenda Item 14.
  S-009 Report and Budget Request
• 1. National Plant Germplasm System & Plant Germplasm Operations Committee Update – Peter Bretting
• Background:
• Agenda Item 13.
  National Plant Germplasm Coordinating Committee Report
• In meeting discussion:
• Presenter: Tom Klindt
• Action Requested: None
• ESCOP Officers
  Chair – Bruce McPherson (Penn State)
  Chair-elect – Steve Pueppke (Michigan State)
  Executive Vice Chair – Dan Rossi (NERA)
  Past Chair – Ron Pardini, (UNV-Reno)
  Section Representative to BAA Policy Board – Nancy Cox (UKY)
• FY 10 ESCOP Federal Budget Priorities
  From a recent budget priorities survey, Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, Animal Health, and the NRI remain the top budget priorities for the Experiment Station Section.  Below are the Section’s programmatic priority areas for FY ‘10 (as of Feb 2008).
• ESCOP
• Food Systems Leadership Institute
  I’ve completed two of the residential sessions, one at UNC-Chapel Hill and one at Ohio State.  The session at OSU was particularly interesting because we heard and discussed a lot about change.  Bobby Moser, OSU dean, led one half day session where he discussed the processes they used to make significant changes in his college over the first 2-3 years after becoming dean.  I’m currently formulating a plan for my individual project, which will most likely focus on how an individual’s effort as part of a team or collaboration can be effectively evaluated for promotion, tenure, salary increase, etc.  I plan to talk with various university administrators to gage current practices and with food and non-food industry administrators with the hope of gaining insight into private sector evaluation methods that might be applicable for universities.
• Cotton Winter Nursery Agreement
  The Cotton Winter Nursery, maintained at the INIFAP Experiment Station, Tecoman, Mexico, is the result of a 57 year old collaboration between INIFAP, ARS, and the National Cotton Council.  During the winter nursery visit this February, the director of INIFAP and the research station superintendent again expressed strong support for this collaboration and emphasized how beneficial the nursery has been to both countries.  They also indicated that there is increased pressure to formalize the agreement thru an MOU or some other document between the three parties.  This formalization was attempted about 10 years ago, but was stalled somewhere in the Mexican government, however they thought that the current political climate makes it more likely to succeed now.  I will be working with ARS and the Cotton Council to ensure that the agreement maintains the best interests of the southern region universities.  We also hope that this agreement may act as a model for similar agreements in the future for other crops that could benefit from a winter nursery in Mexico.
• agInnovation South and ESCOP Web Sites
  We continued the process for a complete redesign of the agInnovation South web site to make it more user-friendly and contemporary in its function and appearance.  Our new web site will reside on the server used by the Southern Region IPM Center and the NCSU IPM Center.  These servers are housed in the office suite where agInnovation South is located and are maintained by IT personnel on site.  This will make maintenance and upgrading much more efficient than with current college server and support system.   We have resumed hosting the ESCOP web site, also on the SRIPMC server, which had been moved to Univ. of MD for the past couple years.
• President’s FY ’09 Federal Budget Proposal
  The four regional research Executive Directors are assisting Cornerstone in its effort to maintain the Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, and Animal Health formula funds at the same level or higher than in FY ’08 by facilitating collection of financial and personnel impacts from experiment stations.   Also, we reemphasized ESCOP’s position that we would only support a competitive multistate program if it was established with new federal funds.
• Background:
• Agenda Item 11.
  Executive Director’s Report
• In meeting discussion:
• Background:
• Agenda Item 10.
  REE Energy Science, Education, and Extension Strategic Plan
• An update will be given on the Southern Region Bioenergy Research and Extension Coordinating Committee’s efforts to enhance coordination and communication of regional research and extension activities related to bioenergy.  The new bioenergy SERA proposed last year has been approved with a start date of March 1, 2008.  The project outline, including a list of participants, isattached.  Also, the coordinating committee developed a one-page summary (see attached) of the region’s strategic advantages and needs for developing a sustainable bioenergy industry.  This one-pager has been distributed to the region’s deans, directors, and CARET representatives.  Future ideas for enhancing  regional coordination and communication in this area will be solicited and discussed.
• Presenter: Nancy Cox
• Action Requested: None
• The Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions (ASERTTI) facilitates the development of collaborative projects and programs across state and local energy research centers and institutions with the aim of leveraging funds and reaching shared program goals more rapidly and efficiently.  ASERTTI’s members include a range of public interest energy organizations, such state research institutions, colleges and universities, national laboratories, municipal energy research organizations, and others.  This presentation will provide a brief overview of ASERTTI and its members, and will focus on how several successful collaborative programs were developed and operate, including: 1) Anaerobic Digester Protocols Partnership; 2) Distributed Generation and Combined Heat and Power Database; 3) Plug-in Hybrid Electric School Bus Initiative.  In addition, there will be a review of emerging multi-state clean energy projects and a discussion of opportunities to work with ASERTTI and it’s members.
• Presenter: David Terry,
• Action Requested: None
• The ESCOP Science & Technology Committee meeting is on March 27, a brief report will be given on the outcomes of that meeting
• Presenter: Nancy Cox and Clarence Watson
• Action Requested: None
• Cornerstone and the Podesta Group
  The Podesta Group has been hired to launch the educational campaign.  Cornerstone will coordinate closely with the Podesta Group in this effort.  Cornerstone is our advocacy firm and Podesta is the marketing/public relations firm. There is no duplication of effort between Podesta and Cornerstone.
• Strategy
  How do we build upon existing efforts to get better recognition of AES and CES and turn that into strategic support for our programs? The System Communication and Marketing Implementation Committee believes that earlier and repeated use of the media to educate and attract major congressional sponsors for our programs is the best way to go forward. We have to build support in home districts and states of our congressional champions and convert that locally-based support into explanations of and publicity for the national AES and CES system.
• Why
  Despite the vital work and exciting discoveries at the State Agricultural Experiment Stations (AES) and Cooperative Extension Services (CES), federal funding for their programs has not increased, in real terms, over the past 30 years.  To remedy this situation, the System Communication and Marketing Implementation Committee recommended a marketing (educational) campaign aimed at key federal officials.
• Background:
• Agenda Item 6.
  Communication & Marketing
• Issues Ranking: (Top 6)
• Issues Ranking: (Top 6)
• Issues Ranking: (Top 7)
• Issues Ranking: (Top 6)
• Descriptions and priorities reported herein are the result of discussions at the Experiment Station Section Annual Meeting held in Philadelphia, September 18, 2007.  Input was also obtained from an on-line survey that was conducted from October 29 to December 1, 2007.  There were a total of 62 responses to the survey.
• Background:
• Agenda Item 5.
  Budget & Legislative
• Background:
• Agenda Item 4.
  Farm Bill and FY’09 Federal Budget Update
• Click here for the report
• Background:
• Action Requested:  The MRC requests that agInnovation South approve two peer reviews as acceptable for S-projects in circumstances where time is short, i.e. the termination deadline is close, and efforts to obtain additional peer reviews have been unsuccessful.
• Agenda Item 3.
  CSREES Report

Action Taken: Minimum of 2 Peer Reviewers is acceptable when time is short – approved
Agenda Item 27.
BAA Policy Board of Directors Report
Presenter: Nancy Cox
Background:
Items from the Policy Board Meeting on March 11-12 in Memphis, TN will be discussed briefly. For more details see the notes from that meeting below.
1. Fred Cholick attended the NASULGC Board as BAA representative

• Higher Education Act is up for reauthorization
  • New provisions will impact accessibility & accountability in LGU institutions
  • Act will micromanage all the way to curriculium design & how we communicate with students, particularly during emergencies
  • Act has 238 items that will impact Land Grant Universities
• Items of concerns from Board meeting (discussed in item 7 below)
• Name change for NASULGC
  • Committee appointed to propose new name
  • Current name & acronym thought to be too complicated
  • +200 institutions, 70 Land Grant Universities, so LGUs are a minority
  • Strong resistance to dropping Land Grant from name
  • Committee will propose new name at next Board meeting
• Move all advocacy efforts to within NASULGC, rather than outside contractors, under CGA staff
• Move BAA and sections’ account reserves into NASULGC foundation at Univ of Minn to get higher interest, but control of funds would decrease cause they wouldn’t be as liquid

2. Board on Agriculture Assembly/CARET Assessment

• Collected >99% last year, only one institution didn’t pay entire assessment
• ESCOP marketing assessment will be sent to directors as a separate invoice
• All assessements same as last year, except APS down slightly

3. Advocacy contract

• Review last year was very positive and bonus was approved
• New contracts were signed in January, no significant changes from last year
4. PBD System Integration Task Force
• Responsible for PBD goal 4, system integration, including Dean & Director Orientation Workshop
• Two members per section plus CSREES, ED support will be Young & Wade

5. Emerging Issues Task Force

• Responsible for Policy Board of Directors goal 1, futuring efforts and emerging issues, including stake holder input gathering and analysis
• Two members per section plus CSREES, ED support will be Wade & Young

6. REE Energy Initative

• REE strategic plan is almost complete and is available on web
• Implementation action steps are being matched with leaders in REE and LGUs
• REE is kicking this off with BEAD II (Bio-Energy Awareness Day) in D.C. in mid-June
• One open question is where funding for implementation will come from
  • USDA will probably have ~ $20 miliion in Farm Bill for bioenergy
• NASULGC has several initiatives
  • Energy related agenda is being developed
  • Tracking institutions that are working on energy conservation & “greening”
  • Boards on Natural Resources and Ocean & Atmospheres are both engaged with energy issues related to bioenergy
• NASULGC representative will be involved with new group, Council on Energy Research and Energy Leadership (CEREL), which will be on interagency group also involving universities and other institutions

7. NASULGC Issues from Board Meeting

• Move funds to NASULGC foundation account at University of Minnesota
  • Withdraw of funds would require prior notice
  • May be a management fee?
  • Interest return would be a lot higher than currently
  • Control of funds would shift more to NASULGC
  • Fred Cholick will get answers to questions about withdraw approval, management fees, why specifically University of Minnesota, and what is their portfolio consist of and its history
  • Question tabled until July meeting
• Move advocacy contract to within NASULGC with CGA staff
  • Peter McPherson thinks we pay too much
  • He also thinks it would be better to do numerous subcontracts for specific items
  • There are advantages to having same firm/people advocate for all items each year
  • Danger of advocacy becoming less focused and different lines competing
  • Current system gives some independence to BAA advocac
  • Move to decline offer to place BAA advocacy with NASULGC CGA staff (passed)
• NASULGC name change
  • Want to have name that is easier to understand and pronounce
  • NASULGC name is recognized by most ag staff on Hill
  • There would be a lot of resistance to removing Land Grant from name
  • Doesn’t appear to be any compelling reason to change
  • Policy Board of Directors strongly opposes changing the name

8. Exhibit on Hill

• Nutrition and Health was theme
• People’s choice award was tie between Purdue and Univeristy of Florida
• There was media coverage by a news service which supplies campuses with news
• Exhibit Committee will select theme for next year and then ofter opportunity to partner to all Boards in CFERR

9. CARET Strategic Plan

• CARET is developing a strategic plan to help them become more active and effective
• Numerous recommendations are listed for the Policy Board of Directors to consider
• Position description for CARET representatives has been written

10. Policy Board of Directors Election

• Sections that need to hold elections this year are Administrative Heads, Experiment Station, Internationsl, and 1994s

11. FSLI

• Currently in 3rd cohort, recruiting now, have 21-23 committed, looking for 4 or 5 more
• PBD needs to recognize and support LEAD 21 equally as other primary leadership development programs for system
• LEAD 21 will bring proposal for scholarship support to July PBD meeting
• Need to ensure that the two programs remain distinct in their target audience and content, PBD will discuss this further at July meeting

12. N-CFAR Membership

• Board on Agriculture Assembly has been asked to join N-CFAR, dues are $1,000
• Move to decline invitation (passed)

13. CSREES Report – Colien Hefferan

• House hearing had many questions on Hatch, more questions on ARS lab closings
• Anna Palmisaro has gone back to DOE with their biological programs
  • Debbie Sheeley is interim NRI director
  • Waiting to fill position until any restructuring of REE is complete
  • Next RFA will have some program areas more open, less targeting specific research
• CSREES will do more work in next few months to help institutions understand requirement that all formula funds go through grants.gov

14. Administrative Heads Section Fly-in end of June, topics for discussion

• Does Administrative Heads Section have an agenda?
• What is Administrative Heads Section role in Board on Agriculture Assembly?
• Relationship with NASULGC and CARET
• Development of leadership, including relationship with Land Grant University Presidents

15. Role of Policy Board of Directors Alternates

• Alternates will be on distribution list row so they’ll have all information the members have
• Alternates may be called on to have more active role on TFs, etc

In meeting discussion:

• Steve Slack and Susan Barefoot are the ESCOP representatives to the BAA-PBD System Integration Task Force.

Action Requested: None
Agenda Item 28.
Best Practices Session #2 – Increasing and Managing Grants and Contracts
Presenter: Clarence Watson
Background:
This will be a semi-structured discussion centered on increasing and managing grants and contracts; ie training and motivating faculty, proposal writing support, post-award management, etc.. The session will begin with brief (10 min) explanations of case studies on this issue by John Liu (Auburn) and Mark McLellan (UFL). These opening remarks will be followed by open discussion about director’s experiences with this issue, including current situations, successes and failures, new ideas, barriers, etc. This session will be 45-60 minutes and followed soon after by a break to allow for immediate casual conversations and contacts between directors.
Click here to view the Grantsmanship PowerPoint
Click here to view the Motivating for Grantsmanship document
In meeting discussion:

• Mark
  • Needed to get faculty to whole different level related to grants
  • Needed to build skill set to allow faculty to be more successful
  • Cost has been ~ $130,000 a year total, gone down some since it started
  • Has it been effective across all disciplines? Yes, although the instructors are NIH type scientist
  • Instruction is not geared toward seeking industry grants
• John
  • Internal mentor
    • Provost provides $4,000; $3,000 for mentee, $1,000 for mentor
  • External mentor
    • Faculty member identifies expert to help with grant application and college provides small honorarium for mentor
• Grant Developer can be helpful with Centers/Institutes to help unify writing styles and look for funding sources
• Grantsmanship Workshops
  • September 30 – October 1, 2008 – Marriott Crystal Gateway, Arlington, VA
  • October 17 – 18, 2008 – Embassy Suites Outdoor World, Grapevine, TX

Action Requested: None
Agenda Item 29.
agInnovation South Personnel & Financial Database
Presenter: Eric Young
Background:
Last summer the new agInnovation South personnel and financial database was opened for data entry.  This database was developed to parallel a similar database for the southern region extension directors.  This database allows research directors, business officers, and others with access to easily obtain state-by-state data and regional averages that can be used as comparison for university, state, and federal reports and many other purposes.  agInnovation South directors can log into the database web site at: http://eit-data.tamu.edu/essr/slog/index.asp
So far three experiment stations have completed data entry for 2007 and a number of others are in the process of entering their data.  Since this is the first year, we expect that there have been some questions regarding interpretation of the data elements.  We will discuss those data elements that need further clarification in their definition and any other problems that have been encountered.  The list of data elements and their current definitions is attached.
Action Requested: None
Agenda Item 30.

Presenter:
Background:
Action Requested:
Agenda Item 31.
Resolutions Committee Report
Presenter: Rick Roeder
Background:
Resolutions in Appreciation will be offer to Dr. Roland Mote and to Dr. Tom Klindt and the University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station.
Action Taken:  Resolutions of appreciation were read for Dr. Roland Mote who has left the association due to retirement.  A resolution of appreciation was also read for Dr. Tom Klindt and staff of the University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station for their roles in hosting the agInnovation South Spring Meeting.  A round of applause approved the resolution.
Agenda Item 32.
2009 Joint ASRED/ agInnovation South Meeting in Puerto Rico
Presenter: Hector Santiago
Background:
In meeting discussion:

• The 2009 Joint ASRED/agInnovation South Spring Meeting will be held in San Juan, PR
• Meeting will be from Tuesday to Thursday
• Possible dates are during the weeks of March 30 to April 15

Action Requested: None
Agenda Item 33.
Fall agInnovation South Meeting, Announcements, etc.
Presenter: Tom Klindt
Background:
The next agInnovation South meeting will be Monday, September 22, 2008 in Traverse City, MI, just prior to the Experiment Station Section meeting and the SAES/ARD Workshop.
ESS/SAES/ARD Workshop and agInnovation South Meeting – Traverse City, MI – September 21-24, 2008 Meeting adjourned at 10:10 am.