1.0 Call to Order and Introductions - Fred Cholick

Present: Madelyn Alt, Jan Bokemeier, Mike Chippendale, Fred Cholick, Virginia Clark, Karen Craig, Margaret Dentine, Cole Gustafson, George Ham, Colien Hefferan, Kevin Kephart, Gerald Klonglan, Phil Larsen, Gary Lemme, Richard Lower, Carol Meeks, Rick Meyer, Darrell Nelson, Eldon Ortman, Tom Payne, Steve Pueppke, Bill Ravlin, Colin Scanes, Dale Vanderholm, Randy Woodson and Doreen Woodward.

2.0 Approval of July, 1999 Minutes - Fred Cholick
Refer to: http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/July99.htm
Minutes were approved as submitted.

3.0 Adoption of Agenda - Fred Cholick

4.0 Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair - Fred Cholick
4.1 Joint Meeting of NCRA and NC CES Executive Committees
4.2 Status of Executive Director Position Description and Search

5.0 Executive Director's Report - Richard Lower
5.1Status of Arrangements for the March, 2000 NCRA Meeting
5.2Report on ED Meetings with Charles Laughlin, CSREES Administrator, and with George Cooper Partnership Office

6.0ESCOP Report - Dale Vanderholm

7.0 Multistate Research Committee - Colin Scanes
7.1 Fate of NCRA Projects Recommended for October 1, 1999
7.2 Updated Version of the Premises, Guidelines and Crosscuts
7.3 NC and NCR Midterm Review Forms

8.0 Status of POW Implementation - Fred Cholick
Refer to: http://www.reeusda.gov/part/areera/
8.1 Questions and Answers - Rick Meyer, CSREES
PowerPoint Presentation
9.0 Potential for Joint North Central Research and Extension Interactions with SUNEI, EPA and Others, i.e., NRCS, USGS on Water Quality - Dale Vanderholm

10.0 Report on Animal Waste Management Consortium Activities - Mike Chippendale

11.0 Plans for the July 10-13, 2000 NCRA Activities - Gerald Klonglan
11.1 NCRA Meeting
11.2 Directors' Reunion
11.3 Joint NC Region Meeting

12.0 Nominations Committee Report - Gerald Klonglan

13.0 Resolutions Committee Report - Cole Gustafson
No resolutions were presented.

14.0 Announcements

15.0 Summary, Review of Assignments and Transfer of Responsibilities - Fred Cholick

16.0 NCRA in the Year 2000 - Tom Payne

17.0 Adjournment -Tom Payne

Meeting Date: September 30, 1999
Agenda Item No.: 4.0/4.1
Presenter: Fred Cholick
Agenda Item Title: Interim Actions of the Chair
Background Information:

Since the July 1999 NCRA meeting, the following has happened:

· Attended the ESCOP meeting in at Osage Beach, Missouri in July.
· The resolutions that were presented at the July meeting were forwarded to the principals.
· Projects approved by NCRA were sent to Washington. Note: All projects have been APPROVED and will start October 1, 1999.
· Participated in phone calls with the NCRA Executive Committee; ESCOP and NCRA Executive Director's office.
· Sent invitation letters for the March 2000 meeting.
· A conference call has been scheduled with extension and research directors to discuss partnering with other agencies; POW and extension representatives on NCR committees/projects.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Meeting Date: September 30, 1999
Agenda Item No.: 4.2
Presenter: Tom Payne
Agenda Item Title: Status of Executive Director Position Description and Search
Background Information:

The Executive Director will be retiring in December 2000. A committee has been formed and the position description has been reviewed by the NCRA Executive Committee. An issue to be discussed with the North Central Extension Directors is if they are interested in having a joint Executive Director for both Extension and Research. States need to partner at their own stations before a regional merger can happen. This will be an item for the conference call scheduled with the Executive Committees of Extension and Research. The position description will have some verbiage about fostering a close relationship with Extension.

Action Requested: Information.

Action Taken: The Search Committee will have the position description out on the street soon.

Meeting Date: September 30, 1999
Agenda Item No.: 5.0
Presenter: Richard Lower
Agenda Item Title: Executive Director's Report
Background Information:

The Executive Director has participated in the following meetings since the July NCRA meeting in Chicago, Illinois:

· Joint COP/AHS at Osage Beach, Missouri, July 19-22, 1999
· The American Society for Horticultural Science at Minneapolis, Minnesota, July 28-29, 1999
· Board of Agriculture/NASULGC Budget Committee, Washington, DC, also meetings with Chuck Laughlin, CSREES Administrator, and with George Cooper, CSREES Partnership Office and with the EDs, August 17-19, 1999
· Chaired the National Genetics Resource Advisory Council meeting in Washington, DC, August 25-27, 1999
· The ad hoc Genomics Committee in Washington, D.C. September 23-24, 1999.
· The Experiment Station Section meeting, Memphis, Tennessee, September 28, 1999
· SAES/ARD Directors' Workshop, Memphis, Tennessee, September 28-30, 1999.
· The ED office has directed its efforts at planning and reporting numerous ongoing activities:
· Planning/Organizing the SAES/ARD Directors' Workshop
· CAC and NCRA Executive Committee Teleconferences
· ESCOP Budget Teleconferences

Action Requested. Information only.

Action Taken: The North Central Executive Director's Office has been asked to help or to take lead in the 2000 SAES/ARD Directors' Workshop. The North Central Directors agreed that the ED's office should take this responsibility.

Meeting Date: September 30, 1999
Agenda Item No.: 5.1
Presenter: Richard Lower
Agenda Item Title: Status of Arrangements for the March 2000 NCRA Meeting
Background Information:

An e-mail was sent to all North Central Directors (July 30, 1999) with the information for making room reservations. If you have not made your room reservation, please do so as soon as possible.

The Multistate Research Committee will meet Tuesday, March 21 from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. (with a working lunch). The NCRA will meet Wednesday, March 22 from 7:30 a.m. until 12:00 noon and Thursday, March 23 from 7:30 a.m. until 12:00 noon.

Action Requested: If you have not made room reservations, please do as soon as possible.

Action Taken: Information only.

Meeting Date: September 30, 1999
Agenda Item No.: 5.2
Presenter: Richard Lower
Agenda Item Title: Executive Directors' Meeting with Administrator Laughlin
Background Information:

The agenda for the meeting with Administrator Laughlin and the Executive Directors was:

1. Interactions with Partnership Office
2. Budget Building
· CSREES Budget Operation Not in Synch with BOA
· CSREES Priorities Not in Synch with BOA
· REE Relationships
· CSREES Help to Enable Upward Movement of ESCOP Actions to REE Level i.e., Relationships with other Dept./Agencies, Budget Initiatives such as genome, farm crisis, environment, biotech risk and trade
3. Enabling Action with CSREES Players
· Enhance and enable research and extension interactions, i.e., POW
4. Strengthening Relationships
· CSREES with NASULGC, AESOP, NAREEEAB
5. Other Items from CSREES Administrator

---

Executive Directors and Chuck Laughlin and George Cooper August 18-19, 1999

We had a great meeting with Chuck Laughlin on the evening of August 18, 1999. The agenda for the meeting was as discussed during the CAC conference call and we did manage to cover nearly everything.

On Thursday, August 19, we met with George Cooper and we had another very positive meeting. This meeting was greatly enhanced by a memo from Bob Heil that laid out many of the findings and agreements from earlier discussions on POW implementation. I will attempt to identify some of the highlights in order to document our discussions and agreements.

We developed the following agenda to initiate and stimulate discussion about multistate research and integrated (joint) guidelines:

For multistate research:

1. Identify Federal Requirements
2. Identify a List of Agency Preferences
3. Develop Consensus on Association Procedures
4. Develop List of Regional Association Differences
5. Draft a National Manual
6. Draft Regional Association Supplementary Manuals
7. Identify Necessary Forms and Appendices
8. Seek Association Endorsements
9. Seek Agency Endorsement
---
Discussions included the following (by number)

1. Identify Federal Requirements
· We agreed that the federal requirements were to have at least 25% of the formula fund support multistate approaches to the conduct of research on national issues.
· We also agreed that interdependency was no longer a necessary or specific requirement.
· We agreed that these activities must be matched with 25% state funds. And, that it is not necessary to have a 25% match for each project, but it is necessary for the entire portfolio.
· We will complete AD 416, 417, 419 and 421 (revised) forms. The revisions will address all of our needs concerning minutes (attendees, meeting details, announcements, etc.) impact statements, relevancy and usefulness. Other secondary sources of information pertaining to a project will be available on the project web page which will be hot linked appropriately. These data might include backup documents for audit purposes. The intent is utilizing paperless management where and whenever possible. The importance of maintaining info for historic and continuity purposes was noted.
· We debated the number of AD 421s that would be necessary for a single multistate project and failed to reach agreement because of lack of knowledge about how this could be handled by CRIS. However, the consensus was that if at all possible we will have only one AD 421 per project and that will be prepared by the Administrative Advisor for the project for all states involved.
· We will also submit a completed project outline that will no longer include a Form 89.
· We agreed to document MSR as a part of the MS requirement.
· We agreed that we could use coordinating committees (under a variety of names or designations) to document MS requirements. Some of these activities may also be helpful for documenting integrated activities (IA) as well.
· Lastly, we agreed that "the only review needed of today's activities was by the Administrator."

2. Identify a List of Agency Preferences
In addition to items above the agency is concerned that we document impact, relevance and usefulness in the project outline. Also, the NPL staff assigned to the project will be the initial contact and ongoing contact for the agency. AD 421 (modified) will be the reporting document and we are seeking ways to have a single AD 421 completed by the AA to suffice for all reporting on that project. That is, the AA's AD 421 will cover each and every SAES contribution.

3. Develop Consensus on Association Procedures

4. Develop List of Regional Association Differences
6. Draft Regional Association Supplementary Manuals
· The EDs are to be responsible for all of these activities. The degree of independence asserted as necessary by each region will determine the number of regional research manuals we have and the length of them.

5. Draft a National Manual
· George Cooper and Bob Heil along with members of their staff will develop the national manual. It will describe a set of requirements and guidelines. It will not be prescriptive. The target date is October 1, 1999.

7. Identify Necessary Forms and Appendices
· Modified forms will be developed by CSREES through the offices of George Cooper and Ted Bauer (ADs, 662s, etc.)

8. Seek Association Endorsements
· Likely, this endorsement will come by way of recommendations from regional or multistate research committees and subsequent approval by the regions.

9. Seek Agency Endorsement and Adoption
· The CSREES Administrator will approve the new formats and procedure. The target date is January 1, 2000.

---

For Integrated Activity (IA) Guidelines

1. Requirements of Agency for Annual Reporting
2. Types of IA Allowed (Options)
3. Assessment of Current Levels of IA
4. Draft Guidance Document
5. Seek Association Endorsement
6. Seek Agency Endorsement

Activity in the above areas will be driven largely by an IA working group or task force that George Cooper will lead. The guidelines are expected to be available by November 1, 1999.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Meeting Date: September 30, 1999
Agenda Item No: 6.0
Presenter: Dale Vanderholm
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP Report
Background information:

A joint meeting of ESCOP/ACOP/ECOP/AHS EXEC was held in Osage Beach, Missouri, on July 19-23, 1999. The general session program focused on the Kellogg President's Commission report "Returning to our Roots: The Engaged Institution." The program featured presentations by Commission ED John Byrne and by CSREES Administrator Charles Laughlin, and included several panel discussions on this topic.

Meetings of the ESCOP and ECOP Executive Committees included discussion of priority issues for AESOP to focus on in future years, AESOP relationships with AHS, BOA, CARET, and NASULGC. Future marketing efforts were also discussed.

CARET Rep to ESCOP, Don Latham from Iowa, suggested that universities increase efforts to help farmers deal with current economic situations and also to be pro-active in communicating good science-based information on GMO and hormone issues.

The four major ESCOP Committees under the new organization are Science and Technology, Partnerships, Planning, and Budget/Legislative/Advocacy/Marketing. All of these are active and are developing various recommendations for future action. Examples include an advocacy effort patterned after the Illinois C-FAR program and the development of a Science Roadmap for agricultural science to be a stronger force in U.S. science policy.

Action requested: Information only.

Action taken: The ESCOP Science and Technology Committee will be forming a task force on GMO. ESCOP needs to take the initiative and have NABC involved.

Meeting Date: September 30, 1999
Agenda Item No: 7.1
Presenter: Colin Scanes
Agenda Item Title: Multistate Research Committee
Background information:


All funded projects have been submitted to Washington and have been approved for a start date of October 1, 1999.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Meeting Date: September 30, 1999
Agenda Item No: 7.2
Presenter: Colin Scanes
Agenda Item Title: Updated Version of Premises, Guidelines and Crosscuts
Background information:

In 1998, congress passed the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act (AREERA) which reconfirms the mandate for multistate research. The overriding philosophy of multistate research is that problems are effectively solved by combining the resources and expertise of two or more states. The funds that support multistate research are unique and are set aside to undertake these specific activities. Thus, within the North Central Region (NCR), multistate research funds will be used to support research that addresses the region's priorities.

Multistate research is targeted to address problems that bring together a team of scientists with the appropriate mix of disciplines. A COMBINATION OF FUNDAMENTAL, APPLIED, ADAPTIVE AND DEVELOPMENTAL RESEARCH MAY BE NECESSARY TO SOLVE PROBLEMS. A combination of fundamental, applied, adaptive and developmental research may be necessary to solve the problems. Multistate research must be of the highest quality science and result in measurable impact. Multistate research must be of the highest quality science and result in measurable impact.

The following guidelines/criteria must be met for all multistate research projects:

1. HIGH PRIORITY RESEARCH. Relevancy of Research. Multistate funds support research that addresses a regional problem within a high priority research area. Fundamental, applied, adaptive and developmental research in combination or separately may be needed to address the problem. The research program should identify measures for documentable progress within a five-year time frame. Thus, the progress must be clearly defined and specific goals relative to solution of the problem must be explicitly identified.

THE NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL ASSOCIATION (NCRA) HAS IDENTIFIED HIGH PRIORITIES FROM WITHIN THE CROSSCUTTING RESEARCH AREAS.

2. High Priority Research. The North Central Regional Association (NCRA) has identified high priorities from within the crosscutting research areas.

3. Quality of Science. In order to solve problems it is essential that multistate projects represent the highest quality science. A well-conceived research plan is required to support each proposal.

4. Multidisciplinary. Research programs should be multidisciplinary. Each project must include the appropriate mix of disciplines to address the problem. The NCRA realizes that the essential prerequisite for multidisciplinary research is a strong disciplinary base. Therefore, discipline-oriented research can be a component of the research effort. The NCRA recognizes that multiple representatives from the same station may be required for multidisciplinary projects. In addition to the biological and physical sciences, projects should consider, as appropriate, economic, social and policy dimensions.

5. Multistate. The multistate research program builds on the specific research strengths of individual states and blends these strengths into cooperative and complementary research programs, thus synergizing the strengths of individual station programs. CAPITALIZING ON THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE AND SCIENTISTS AT PARTICIPATING STATIONS.

6. Interdependency. Multistate research projects must be collaborative efforts between scientists at different SAESs and must demonstrate evidence of INTERRELATIONSHIP OR interdependency. Accordingly, a multistate project that is merely a collection of individual PI activities will not be approved.

7. Impact and BENEFITS TO SOCIETY Accountability. PROJECTS MUST SHOW HOW PROPOSED RESEARCH MAY CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY. The research project must identify potential milestones or indicators of progress within a five-year time frame. (Timely annual reports of research accomplishments are required and should include impacts when measurable.)

8. Benefits to Society. Projects must show how proposed research may contribute to society.

9. RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT. Leveraging. Multistate research proposals must consider internal and outside funding in the proposed research and the likelihood of future external support. The opportunities to leverage support from federal or state agencies, as well as from private sources (including in kind donations), can be greatly expanded by successful multistate research programs. Proposals should address internal leveraging developed by bringing researchers from different institutions together.

10. Information and Technology Transfer. Every multistate project must demonstrate how its results will be delivered to the user (community, extension specialist agents, families, farmers, 4-H and FFA programs, industry, researchers, secondary and post-secondary students, suburban residents, etc.). Projects should include representatives from industry, extension, producer groups, communities, etc., to enhance technology transfer.

AGRICULTURAL Food Production, Processing and Distribution

Agriculture IS encompasses the system that produces processes, and distributes food, fiber and other products and services from the farm to the consumer. IT ENCOMPASSES Agricultural systems also include aquaculture, forestry and a diversity of supporting natural resource elements, such as soils, surface water, ground water, wildlife and the atmosphere. In addition, human resources, institutions, financial capital and community infrastructure are INTEGRAL COMPONENTS OF needed to support and manage agricultural systems.

Priority Research Objectives (5):

· DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS TO ENHANCE ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS IN THE RURAL LANDSCAPE.
· Develop improved animal, plant and microbial production, processing and marketing systems THAT ARE COMPETITIVE, PROFITABLE, AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND OVER THE LONG TERM. which are environmentally sound and profitable. (1.6)* (dev)#
· Develop alternative systems for storage, processing and application of primary waste products to the land SO AS TO EFFICIENTLY PRESERVE AND UTILIZE NEUTRALIZE NUTRIENTS. or for other uses that provide efficient nutrient preservation and utilization. (3.0) (alt)
· Develop management strategies for conversion of secondary products to economically and environmentally sound useable products. (3.2) (mgt)
· DESIGN ECONOMICALLY AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND METHODS TO CONVERT BIOMASS AND SECONDARY PRODUCTS INTO FOOD AND NONFOOD USES.
· Develop CONSTRUCT an information base and methodologies to help form sound public policy and THAT MINIMIZES CONFLICTS to help resolve conflicts resulting from differing DIVERGENT priorities VIEWPOINTS of CITIZENS, BOTH URBAN AND RURAL. producers, consumers, industry, urban dwellers, environmentalists, etc. (3.2) (inf)
· ASSEMBLE Develop and maintain regional, national and international data bases on production systems and USE THEM FOR develop beneficial uses of these for applications such as modeling and decision support systems. (4.1) (man)

* Combined NCRA and NCA rating. Highest priority is designated by the smallest number.
# (dev) is the abbreviation used for the prioritization process by the NCA Committees and SAES Directors

Genetic Resources Development and Manipulation (GENOMICS AND GERMPLASM)

Includes the management of genetic resources (animals, aquatic, insects, microbes and plants) and encompasses both germplasm and genome research activities.

Priority Research Objectives (5):

· Develop new genotypes that increase product value, enhance global competitiveness, improve human nutrition, nurture environmental quality and foster rural development, i.e., new animal/crop/microbial products, alternatives to fossil fuels and value added commodities, added or altered chemical fractions in foods, and pest resistant strains that reduce use of agricultural chemicals. (1.7) (gen)
· Broaden and enrich the knowledge base about GENOMICS. genome makeup and characterization. Includes the utilization of molecular techniques (GENE MAPPING, EST SEQUENCING, FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS, ETC.) to characterize, mediate, manage, and evaluate germplasm, as well as the BIOINFORMATICS, THE development of data bases and computerized management systems to store and transfer knowledge. (2.7) (brd)
· Collect, preserve, share, enhance and evaluate germplasm at the molecular, cellular and/or organismal levels. (2.9) (col)
· Develop strategies that broaden the genetic base and reduce genetic vulnerability (I.E., MAINTAINING GENETIC DIVERSITY). (3.1) (str)
· Develop increased knowledge of the interactions and interrelationships of the various life forms. (4.4) (dev)

Integrated Pest Management

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) FOCUSES ON DEVELOPING SYSTEMS THAT combine the use of biological, cultural, physical, and chemical pest control tactics in a way that TO minimize economic, health, and environmental risks. IPM practices have the potential to simultaneously reduce environmental, food and fiber safety risks associated with pesticide use, to increase the profitability of agriculture, to enhance the sustainability of natural resources TO ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE and to open new export markets for U.S. goods.

Priority Research Objectives (5):

· Develop alternative controls based on biological control and cultural practices. (1.9) (dev)
· Investigate the genetics of pests and hosts to identify new and different vulnerabilities that can be exploited in pest control strategies. (2.7) (inv)
· DEVELOP AND EVALUATE SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY FOR IPM IMPLEMENTATION.
· Refine and develop rapid and positive pest detection and identification techniques to enhance the capability to predict the occurrence and magnitude of pest populations/infestations/infection. (2.9) (ref)
· Reduce RELIANCE ON pesticideS use and the risk of human, animal and environmental exposure to pesticides. through research and citizen/consumer education. (3.1) (red)
· Identify the economic and social impact of IPM on users, the environment, human health and safety and public appearance of food. (4.3) (idn)

Natural Resources and the Environment

Includes an understanding of the ecological processes defining air, water and soil that influence the natural resource base upon which primary production activities such as agriculture, forestry, wildlife management, fisheries management and mineral management depend. The understanding of ecological processes operating in human, plant and animal communities in their own right is essential. Similarly, the maximization of utilization efficiency is crucial to minimizing impact on natural resources. The interaction of human, plant and animal communities offers potential insights into sustainability of large landscape scale human- resource systems.

Priority Research Objectives (8):

· UNDERSTAND THE ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES OF OPERATING IN HUMAN, PLANT AND ANIMAL COMMUNITIES.
· DEVELOP METHODOLOGY TO MEASURE AND MODEL AIR, WATER AND SOIL QUALITY.
· Identify and apply ecosystem management principles and practices for the utilization and protection of resources, restoration of natural systems and management of rural landscapes. (2.5) (idn)
· Define sustainable principles for resource management, utilization and land use. (3.3) (def)
· Assess the relationship of agricultural/forestry practices (primary production) upon soil and water systems and biodiversity. (3.4) (rel)
· Understand the relationships of human health, the food and fiber system and the environment. (4.7) (und)
· UNDERSTAND AND IDENTIFY FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE ECOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND HUMAN HEALTH.
· Develop bioremediation systems to reduce agricultural, non-agricultural and chemical waste contamination of soil, water and air. (4.8) (bio)
· Develop guidelines for optimal economic, social and environmental management of non cropped farm and natural ecosystems and for restoration of damaged ecosystems. (5.1) (dev)
· Assess the implications of alternative public policies and management practices on our natural resource base/environment within an economic framework. (5.3) (imp)
· Document the link between animal welfare/BEHAVIOR, care and management and their environment. (6.8) (doc)

Economic Development and Policy

Includes focus on improving economic and social development in the North Central Region related to profitability, domestic market development, global competitiveness, new management decision-making models and non-market evaluation.

Priority Research Objectives (9):

· Develop profitable technologies and systems. Determine the potential profitability of production, processing, and distribution technologies (innovations, I.E., AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION, TECHNOLOGY, PRECISION AGRICULTURE) that are environmentally sound and socially acceptable. (1.8) (dev)
· Enhance U.S. global competitiveness. Enhance international market development by analyzing factors INCLUDING THE INCREASING ADOPTION OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY that determine U.S. competitiveness in global markets and analyze alternative policies to modify these factors to the advantage of U.S. agriculture. (3.0) (enh)
· Create new management decision-making models. Design optimal management systems for cropping systems, forest systems, non-cropped ecosystems, animal systems, whole farm and watershed systems, fishery and wildlife, and data needs of agricultural businesses, research organizations, and consumer groups. (3.7) (cre)
· Improve community and rural economic development, including home-based business and small businesses. Design strategies to develop social and human capital. (4.5) (com)
· Improve domestic market development potential INCLUDING ASSESSMENTS OF THE ROLE OF ALLIANCES, COOPERATIVES AND PARTNERSHIPS. Determine the potential within traditional and emerging markets for U.S. food and fiber products and develop policy options to enhance this potential. (4.7) (imp)
· Determine rural and urban interface issues and compatibility. (5.5) (det)
· Determine non-market valuation of landscapes, wildlife, trees, etc. (6.9) (rur)
· Measure AND ASSESS structural change and industrialization of agriculture. (7.2) (mea)
· Interpret and evaluate North Central regional implications of public policy. (7.8) (int)
· DEVELOP IMPROVED SYSTEMS FOR RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WHICH INCLUDE LEISURE/TOURISM OF AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISE.

Social Change and Development

Issues include adoption of appropriate agricultural technologies, determining consumer demand, designing successful family survival strategies, designing new organizational management schemes and building new linkages, enhancing community systems and designing effective communication strategies.

Priority Research Objectives (6):

· Enhance community systems. Building support services for family stability and rural community development, including job creation, education, work place support systems, housing and home-based support systems and conflict resolution capacity needed for rural vitality. (2.5) (enh)
· Increase the adoption of appropriate health, education and agricultural technologies. Determine the barriers to the adoption of new agricultural technologies and innovations; especially the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (environmental, economic and social). (2.8) (inc)
· Determine consumer demands. Determine factors affecting consumer demands for agricultural and ecological commodities/products to improve human well being, e.g., food choices, nutritional status, housing, support services, health, recreational opportunities, education and quality of life. (3.3) (det)
· Design new organizational management schemes and build new linkages for: assessing social and economic outcomes; evaluating resource utilization by families and communities; obtaining and evaluating public input; evaluating non-cropped farm ecosystems, forest ecosystems, fishery and wildlife policies; determining social benefits; setting research priorities; developing expanded teaching and research interactions; and establishing new linkages among key interest groups, farm firms, agricultural and community organizations, and broad social interests. (3.9) (org)
· Design successful family survival and adaptability strategies. Enhance our understanding of why some families are more capable than others in managing and recovering from the hardships and catastrophes of family life. (4.0) (des)
· Design and evaluate effective communication strategies and technologies to reach desired constituencies. (4.5) (eva)

INCLUDES AN EMPHASIS ON SOCIAL PROCESSES AS THEY WORK IN RURAL AREAS, THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY (SOCIAL PROCESSES) ARE CHANGING, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO URBAN ISSUES: UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIPS AND INTERACTIONS AMONG INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMUNITIES; CREATION OF COMMUNITY SYSTEMS THAT CAN IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF RESIDENTS.

· IMPROVE COMMUNITIES BY ASSESSING SUPPORT SERVICES FOR CITIZENS IN EDUCATION, HEALTH, JOB CREATION, HOUSING, RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, COMMUNICATION, CONFLICT RESOLUTIONS, AND OTHER AVENUES NEEDED TO ENSURE RURAL VITALITY.
· EXTEND COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES AND TECHNOLOGIES THAT INSURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR LIFELONG LEARNING AMONG ALL RURAL AND URBAN RESIDENTS.
· DETERMINE BARRIERS TO USE OF APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGIES AND INCREASE THE ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY, SOCIALLY AND ECONOMICALLY SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL AND COMMUNITY PRACTICES; EVALUATE SOCIAL IMPACTS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES ON RURAL RESIDENTS.
· IDENTIFY FACTORS AFFECTING CONSUMER DEMAND FOR ITEMS THAT WOULD IMPROVE HUMAN WELL BEING, I.E., FOOD CHOICES, NUTRITIONAL STATUS, HOUSING, SUPPORT SERVICES, HEALTH, RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATION AND QUALITY OF LIFE.
· ENHANCE CIVIC PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES BY INCREASING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM DIVERSE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES IN ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMUNITIES.
· ESTABLISH NEW LINKAGES AMONG KEY INTEREST GROUPS, INCLUDING THOSE REPRESENTING FAMILY BUSINESSES, AGRICULTURAL AND COMMODITY ORGANIZATIONS, COUNTIES AND COMMUNITIES, AND BROAD SOCIAL INTERESTS.
· DESIGN SUCCESSFUL FAMILY SURVIVAL AND ADAPTABILITY STRATEGIES: ENHANCE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIFFERENCES ACROSS FAMILIES IN MANAGING STRESSFUL EVENTS.

Food and Nutrition

Includes the development, production, processing, procurement, handling, safety, preservation and consumption of food products; the functional, nutritional, mechanical and sensory properties of food components; nutrient metabolism and relationship to health and disease; and factors that influence dietary intake.

Priority Research Objectives (6):

· Emphasize research that expands our understanding of the relationship between diet, health, and disease prevention with particular focus on antioxidants, dietary lipids, FUNCTIONAL FOODS/NUTRICEUTICALS, nutrient bioavailability, nutrient regulation of gene expression, and nutrition and physical activity. (2.3) (emp)
· Develop new and improved methods and technologies for processing, handling, and storage of foods and food ingredients to provide a safe, nutritious, affordable, and environmentally sound and consumer acceptable food supply. (2.4) (dev)
· ENHANCE FOOD SAFETY BY EXPANDING Expand research efforts to IDENTIFY AND control food borne pathogens at all stages of the food system from production to consumption) PRODUCER TO CONSUMER and to develop and evaluate effective food safety programs for both producers and consumers. (2.5) (exp)
· Elucidate unique aspects of food components including mechanical, structural and functional properties of foods or food systems to enhance processing, storage, food safety, and nutritional quality of foods. (4.3) (elu)
· Elucidate health benefits associated with functional or phytochemical properties of food constituents. (4.5) (hlt)
· Design effective nutrition education programs and delivery methods that modify human behavior such that individuals including those most at risk (pregnant women, infants, adolescents, and the elderly) choose healthier diets. (4.8) (des)

Action Requested: Approval of changes.

Action Taken: The NCRA voted unanimously to approve the changes. The changes will be made and put on the NCRA web page.

Meeting Date: September 30, 1999
Agenda Item No: 7.3
Presenter: Colin Scanes
Agenda Item Title: Midterm Review Forms
Background information:

NCA- ______ Evaluation (Should reflect input from the full NCA Committee.)
AA_________________________________
What other NCA Committees should review this project/committee: NCA ______

1. Progress Report: Describe results since the project was last approved; compare actual accomplishments with the objectives in the project outline; reasons should be given if project objectives were not met. Rate this project on accomplishment of stated objectives.

_____ Excellent Comments:___________________________________________
_____ Good ______________________________________________________
_____ Poor ______________________________________________________
_____ Unacceptable ________________________________________________

2. Linkages: Provide evidence of the interdependence among project participants and with other projects/agencies. How well is the technical committee working together. Document any linkages. Rate this project on linkages.

_____ Excellent Comments:__________________________________________
_____ Good _____________________________________________________
_____ Poor ______________________________________________________
_____ Unacceptable _______________________________________________

3. Funding: Has outside funding been obtained from other federal and state agencies or the private sector by the technical committee to support project activities? Rate this project on its accomplishments in leveraging outside funding to help solve the problem being investigated.

_____ Excellent Comments:__________________________________________
_____ Good _____________________________________________________
_____ Poor ______________________________________________________
_____ Unacceptable _______________________________________________

4. Information and Technology Transfer. Document information and technology transfer which is required for every project supported by Multistate Research Funds. Rate this project on plans or accomplishments for delivering the results to users which include other researchers (journal articles, technical reports, etc.), Cooperative Extension, industry, producers, students, etc.

_____ Excellent Comments:__________________________________________
_____ Good _____________________________________________________
_____ Poor ______________________________________________________
_____ Unacceptable _______________________________________________


NCA Committee or AA Recommendation:

_____ Approve/continue project with normal revision.
_____ Approve/continue project with revision (provide specific recommendations).
_____ Disapprove/terminate project at termination time (provide specific reasons).

Signature:

___________________________________________________
NCA Chair/Administrative Advisor/Date

NCA- ______ Evaluation (Should reflect input from the full NCA Committee.)
AA_________________________________
What other NCA Committees should review this project/committee: NCA ______

1. Progress Report. Describe accomplishments since the committee was last approved; compare actual accomplishments with the objectives in the project outline; reasons should be given if any objectives were not met. Rate this project on accomplishment of stated objectives.

_____ Excellent Comments:__________________________________________
_____ Good _____________________________________________________
_____ Poor ______________________________________________________
_____ Unacceptable _______________________________________________

2. Coordination/linkages. Provide evidence of the interaction among committee participants and with other projects/agencies. How well is the committee working together? Has the committee moved beyond individual activities and ideas to some collective, integrated activity? Provide evidence of synergy, collaborative output via joint publicity, specific coordinated activity, etc. Rate this project on linkages.

_____ Excellent Comments:__________________________________________
_____ Good _____________________________________________________
_____ Poor ______________________________________________________
_____ Unacceptable _______________________________________________

3. Information exchange. Document information exchange and technology transfer. Rate this project on plans or accomplishments for delivering the results to users.

_____ Excellent Comments:___________________________________________
_____ Good ______________________________________________________
_____ Poor ______________________________________________________
_____ Unacceptable _______________________________________________

4. Attendance/ participation. Attendance and participation at committee meetings are imperative for the committee to be successful. Rate this committee for attendance/participation.

_____ Excellent Comments:___________________________________________
_____ Good ______________________________________________________
_____ Poor ______________________________________________________
_____ Unacceptable ________________________________________________

NCA Committee or AA Recommendation:

_____ Approve/continue committee with normal revision.
_____ Approve/continue committee with revision (provide specific recommendations).
_____ Disapprove/terminate committee at termination time (provide specific reasons).

Signature
________________________________ ___________________
NCA Chair/Administrative Advisor Date

Action Requested: Approval of forms.
Action Taken: The NCRA voted unanimously to approve both midterm review forms. The forms will be available on the NCRA web site. Thank you to George Ham for his work on these forms!

Meeting Date: September 30,1999
Meeting Item: 8.0
Presenter: Rick Meyer
Agenda Item Title: POW

Rick Meyer, CSREES, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the POW. This is available on the NCRA home page with the 1999 September Minutes.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None

Meeting Date: September 30,1999
Meeting Item: 9.0
Presenter: Date Vanderholm
Agenda Item Title: Potential for Joint North Central Research and Extension interactions with other Federal Agencies on Environmental Programs(e.g., EPA, NRCS, USGS)

The SUNEI Steering committee and the SUNEI staff are encouraging regional associations to make efforts to improve communication and linkages with environmentally-focused federal agency regional offices. This can help foster future joint program activity in priority area of mutual interest. SUNEI has helped organize interactive sessions for meeting of NERA and SRA with agency representatives and is offering to help do so for the NCRA, possibly in conjunction with the summer 2000 meeting.

Action requested: Name NCRA representatives to work with SUNEI to help plan a North Central program.

Action taken: Dr. Vanderholm will continue to be the liaison with SUNEI. He will work with the coordinators of the July 2000 meeting to have this on the agenda.

Meeting Date: September 30,1999
Meeting Item: 10.0
Presenter: Michael Chippendale
Agenda Item Title: Report on Animal Waste Management Consortium Activities

In 1997, the Experiment Station Directors at Iowa State University, Michigan State University, University of Missouri, North Carolina State University, Oklahoma State University, and Purdue University established a Consortium among the institutions for the purpose of encouraging and supporting collaborative projects in animal waste management.

The Consortium is especially interested in systems or holistic approaches to solve problems in animal waste management and delivering information to appropriate audiences. Each AES allocates $75,000 annually to support Consortium research and demonstration.

In FY99, a $1 million appropriation was received from EPA to be administered through the University of Missouri to supplement research, demonstration, and outreach projects in the six- state Consortium.

In 1999, the Consortium issued a request for two-year proposals supported by $900,000 from the AESs in the six states, a net of $730,000 from EPA, and $50,000 from the NC State Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center. The intention of this REP was to foster collaborative research, demonstration, and outreach to address high priority needs in animal waste management. Emphasis was placed on innovative approaches to solve problems facing the livestock industry, and systems studies covering environmental protection with economic competitiveness for producers. An important component is the economic analysis and an assessment of the social acceptability of production/waste systems, including feedstuffs and food products.

Proposals were evaluated by a panel representing university scientists, university and EPA administration, industry, and stakeholders. 29 proposals were submitted and 10 were funded. The funded projects and the participating states are listed:

· Development of an objective approach to odor characterization while assessing diet as a tool to manage odor emission. Iowa, North Carolina, and Indian
· Near infrared (NIR) technology to determine manure nutrients. Iowa, Oklahoma, and Missouri.
· Internet-based computer programs for comprehensive nutrient management planning and record keeping. Indiana, Michigan, and Missouri.
· Quantifying the impact of manure application on soil-test phosphorus and phosphorus losses from benchmark soils. Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina.
· Assessment of the impact of manure applications on soil phosphorus and water quality. Iowa and Oklahoma.
· Impact of diet manipulation on manure phosphorus production by swine, poultry, beef and diary cattle and soil properties of the generated manure phosphorus. Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina
· Amino acid manipulation of swine diets to reduce nitrogen excretion, ammonia and odor. Missouri, Oklahoma, Indiana, and North Carolina.
· Reducing excretion of zinc and copper in swine waste through dietary manipulation. North Carolina and Michigan.
· Evaluation of commercial systems for controlling dust-borne odors emitted from swine buildings. Michigan and North Carolina.
· Effects of dust, sample handling and other factors on quantification of swine house odor and gases. Indiana and North Carolina.

Action Requested: Information only.

Action Taken: None.

Meeting Date: September 30, 1999
Meeting Item: 11.0
Presenter: Gerald Klonglan
Agenda Item Title: Plan for the July 2000 NCRA activities
Background Information:

II.1 NCRA Meeting
Option 1: A separate meeting on Thursday July 13, 8:00 to end (Noon or 2:00 or 4:00)

Option 2: A four-hour meeting on Thursday afternoon (11:00-4:00 if want to leave, or 1:00-9:00 if stay over)

II.2 Director's Reunion
A. Lists of Directors to be invited have been updated

B. An announcement of the reunion and a survey of interest in attending the reunion is being prepared

C. NCRA needs to decide on the agenda Monday p.m. with the former directors

II.3 North Central Mini-Land Grant Meeting July 2000

A. A North Central Executive Board has been created to plan the July 2000 Meeting.

B. The NC Executive Board will meet from 12:00-2:00 p.m. on Sunday, November 7 at NASULGC.

C. Members of the Executive Board and those attending the NASULGC planning meeting November 7:

GROUP - MEMBER