March 2006

MINUTES
NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL ASSOCIATION
STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION DIRECTORS

One Hundred Seventy-Fifth Meeting
March 28-29, 2006
Indianapolis, IN

Attendees: Mary Ann Lila (Illinois); Sonny Ramaswamy, Marshall Martin (Purdue); Joe Colletti, Cathy Good (Iowa); Doug Buhler (Michigan); Sarah Greening (Minnesota); Marc Linit (Missouri); Gary Cunningham (Nebraska); Ken Grafton (North Dakota); Steve Slack, Dave Benfield, Bill Ravlin, (Ohio); John Kirby, CY Wang (South Dakota); Dave Hogg, Richard Straub (Wisconsin); Steven Shafer (ARS); Mary McPhail Gray (CSREES); Daryl Lund, Nicole Nelson (NCRA).

Agenda Item 4.0: Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair
Presenter: Marshall Martin

Background: The NCRA Executive Committee took the following actions since September 2005:

Other Information Provided: Daryl Lund provided information on the Hatch Implementation Team

Action Taken: Approved. The directors expressed that the regional associations are willing and able to be part of the dialogue.

Item	Proj Type	Current Proj # (Temp #)	Title	MRC Recommendation	NCRA Recommendation
5.1.00	New Projects
5.1.01	NC	NC107 (NC_temp107)	An integrated approach to control of bovine respiratory diseases	Approve. The MRC recommends this proposal be approved as submitted. The team has provided strong justification for addressing this important constraint to beef and dairy production. The focus on new diagnostics, new treatments and improved management practices is appropriate and well-described. The account of linkages and interactions among committee members is adequate. The outreach plan is solid. Reviews from the AA and two NCAC committees are positive. MRC concurs with these assessments and congratulates the team on a successful renewal effort. At the mid-term review, we will be looking for evidence of building on existing linkages, leading to new funded projects, joint publications and impacts on the industry. New Project No.: NC1027	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.02		NC218 (NC_temp218)	Characterizing Active Pools of Soil Organic Matter That Control Soil N Availability In Maize-Based Cropping Systems	Defer approval with minor revisions by June 1. No NCRA review in July pending revisions made by June 1. The NC_temp218 committee developed an extensive proposal to assess nitrogen mineralization and refine rates for optimum use by crops. This is a continuation of NC218 and is very timely research, given the increasing costs of inorganic nitrogen. The objectives are clearly identified and the methodology to attain these research objectives is very detailed. Outputs of this committee also are clearly identified and measurable. The MRC requests more detail on outreach programs, technology transfer, and evidence of external funding. The MRC committee also encourages NC_Temp218 to explore opportunities to hold joint meetings with NCERA59. If approved will obtain new NC-type number according to NCRA research portfolio chronological numbering.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.03		NC219 (NC_temp219)	Promoting healthful eating to prevent excessive weight gain in young adults	Approved. This proposal received strong reviews and appears to be on target. The MRC was impressed with the level of interaction and collaboration and we encourage the group to continue to build on this ethic. New Project No.: NC1028	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.04		NC1001 (NC_temp1001)	Influence of food environments on food patterns and population health.	Defer approval with minor revisions by June 1. No NCRA review in July pending revisions made by June 1. Proposal examines the ‘Structure of Place’: how the social infrastructure and resources influence food selections (and availability) in communities. The problem is well defined and the goals are broad, however they are a bit nebulous. Many of the goals like ‘increase visibility’ or ‘gauge impact’ need to be followed with tangible quantitative plans for how to do so. In some cases there is no means to gauge success. Timelines and benchmarks of success need to be articulated. Consider a simpler more straightforward “title” – the meaning of ‘food environment’? Get some wording like ‘factors influencing food choices’. Current title likely uses disciplinary jargon that will not be intuitively obvious to scientific community in general. Revised proposal should incorporate the expertise of environmental scientists, and make use of the expertise of economists in developing the guidelines. If approved will obtain new NC-type number according to NCRA research portfolio chronological numbering.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.05		NC1003 (NC_temp1003)	Impact Analyses and Decision Strategies for Agricultural Research	Defer approval with minor revisions by June 1. No NCRA review in July pending revisions made by June 1. This is a well-respected group of scientists and without doubt have many impacts that can be reported. However, the impacts described in the proposal are system impact vs. project impact. The MRC recommends that the committee carefully evaluate how their project impacts the system. The midterm review suggested that there be increased involvement with stakeholders. The current proposal describes an annual conference designed to inform and involve experiment station directors. This is an excellent step and the MRC encourages it. Multistate proposals require a CRIS search for other relevant projects and to reduce or eliminate duplication. This requirement was brought to the committee’s attendance at midterm and it as yet has not been accomplished. The MRC again requests that the committee conduct a CRIS search to document the uniqueness of this project and any potential interactions with other projects before proceeding. The proposal lists participants for each objective. As presented the reader cannot determine the role and contribution for each participant. The committee should examine the composition of the group and a priori suggest roles and responsibilities.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.06		NCR131 (NC_temp1981)	Applied Animal Behavior and Welfare	Approve. The MRC recommends approval as submitted, but we agree with the NCAC6 reviewer in challenging the committee to develop additional objectives to be addressed by the committee in the years ahead. The existing plan does not seem robust enough to encompass 5 years of research activity. By mid-term review, we would expect to see more rigorous and relevant designs for experimentation and interpretation of experimental results. We will also be looking for better definition of expected outcomes and clear evidence of progress towards meeting objectives. Participation should be sought by more meat industry stakeholders. New Project No.: NC1029	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.07		NE167 (NC_tempNE167)	Family Firms and Policy	Approve. The NC_tempNE167 committee proposes research on evaluating family firms and policy affecting such firms. The proposal is well written, the objectives are clear, attainable using the methodology outlined in the proposal, and the information disseminated through a well constructed outreach plan. The proposal shows very good collaboration among committee members, and efforts to obtain external funding have been made. The MRC encourages the NC_tempNE167 committee to better identify policy decisions, and environmental situations affecting such policy decisions, that impact family firms. New Project No.: NC1030	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.08		NC_temp2461	Investigation of the amenity grasses, Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), as invasive species in the upper Midwest and central Great Plains	Disapprove. Resubmit by December 1, 2006. This proposal generated substantial discussion by an NCAC committee and the MRC. There is broad recognition that the study of invasive plants is an important area of activity. However, it was questioned whether this approach will deliver results that will help manage the problem. The project proposes to do a great deal of survey and assessment, but how would it contribute to management practices? Objectives do not show a clear definition of the scientific approach to a problem. The limited geographic participation was also a concern. Would it be more appropriate for this to originate from the western region? The MRC is not inclined to expend limited resources on this project and recommends disapproval of the project.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.09	NCCC	NCCC22 (NCCC_temp22)	Small Fruit and Viticulture Research	Defer approval with major revisions by June 1. MRC will review in July. A significant part of this project is the development and sharing of germplasm. For obvious reasons this can have a significant impact on the industry. This is an excellent activity and should be encouraged. The project has a large number of participants which is also beneficial however; the proposal does not reflect a real synergy and interaction among these participants. The MRC recommends that the committee examine how they can move toward appropriate and productive interactions and how these interactions can be documented through the committee and other venues. The objectives for this committee focus on general areas of activity but are not specific; consequently they do not lead to identifiable products and potential impacts. The MRC recommends that the objectives be reformulated to identify specific products that lead to quantifiable impacts for the science and industry. The mission-orientation of this proposal is appropriate and the MRC commends the committee. The MRC is confident that the mission orientation is supported by solid science but the proposal does not present the activity in this light. Along with the recommendation of formulating more specific objectives the MRC recommends that science-based objectives be fully incorporated into the proposal such that it is clear what experiments, developments, and results will arise and be shared as a result of the committee’s activities; there is a need for scientific rigor. Part of the process of incorporating scientific rigor is having a solid knowledge of the literature and how it provides the basis to move forward. The committee needs to present relevant and substantive examples of how future work will proceed from previous work based on peer-reviewed literature. The midterm review emphasized these same concerns “the MRC would like to see more focus on key topics such as stress physiology and breeding” and the MRC reiterates that addressing these concerns are essential to the continued support for this committee.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.10		NCCC65 (NCCC_temp65)	Social Change in the Marketplace: Producers, Retailers and Consumers	Defer approval with minor revisions by June 1. No NCRA review in July pending revisions made by June 1. This proposal addresses narrowly defined and targeted (but therefore, achievable) goals to revamp market for small retailers, and encourage them to reposition themselves in a new approach to the marketplace. The project attempts to define niche markets for retailers that might otherwise be lost in the Walmart’s shadow. Discrete and specific subobjectives, specific and reasonably-scaled goals, which makes progress more obvious. A clear recommendation and clear hypothesis: to make retailers embrace niche markets for example. Some weakness in conveying benchmarks of success, and tech transfer to people. Investigators have garnered good external support, and some of these projects do overlap or dovetail with the subject of this NCCC project. Members of the project have interacted, including participation in workshops related to the project, and they plan a repeat in a central location. Suggest a specific change in the title: “Indicators of Social Change in the Marketplace: Producers, Retailers, and Consumers” Need to put a title on this project that really indicates the content of the proposal, and the objectives that are being addressed. Upon approval, project will retain current number, NCCC65.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.11		NCCC170 (NCCC_temp170)	Research Advances in Agricultural Statistics	Approve. MRC recommends approving this brief proposal as submitted. Reviews from the AA and NCAC support this recommendation. The committee has made good progress since the last mid-term review, conducting key annual workshops and fulfilling reporting requirements. This committee represents a unique resource for improving the incorporation of statistics into the design and analysis of agricultural research projects. The concept of conducting annual workshops focused on a key topic seems solid and well-supported by the field. By the mid-term review, the MRC would like the committee to show more evidence of activities and efforts targeting "subject matter scientists" and students, who will become the next generation of ag statisticians. Project will retain current number, NCCC170.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.12	NCERA	NCERA59 (NCERA_temp59)	Soil Organic Matter: Formation, Function and Management	Approve. The NCERA_temp59 committee focuses on soil organic matter and its effect on a number of important functions of soil ecosystems. This committee has a history of being well organized, cohesive, and productive, with a great degree of collaboration and interaction. The committee has identified a clear range of topics that need to be addressed with a multistate committee and have taken the initiative to conduct a joint meeting with NC-1017. The MRC recognizes the research and outreach impact of the NCERA59 project and encourages this committee to consider closer collaborative relationships with NC_temp218. Project will retain current number, NCERA59.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.13		NCERA87 (NCERA_temp87)	Beef-Cow-Calf Nutrition and Management Committee	Approve. The overall assessment of this project by the MRC was positive. It appears to have strong participation and is addressing an important area of activity. The committee would like to see continued building of the linkages with NC 1020, 1021, and NCR 206. Project will retain current number, NCERA87.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.14		NCERA89 (NCERA_temp89)	Swine Production Management to Enhance Animal Welfare	Defer approval with major revisions by June 1. MRC will review in July. This proposal presents a very general discussion of how the committee will in general cooperate and share information. It is however, not possible to fully evaluate the potential impacts of the work for several reasons. 1) The objective is not specific enough to evaluate and more importantly to tie to results and procedures. The MRC recommends a careful evaluation of a set of objectives that are specific, quantifiable, and present a clear picture of potential results and impacts. 2) Because the objectives are very general they do not naturally lead to clear procedures. Note that the procedures and activities section of the proposal is more focused on what was done vs. what will be done and how it will be done; this is a proposal not an annual report. 3) It’s clear that the work of this group is reaching some producers as evidenced by the successful Ventilation Workshop with over 1,000 participants The committee needs to build on this success and clearly and specifically describe plans for new activities and approaches. 4) Science progresses based on what has been done and the link to what has been done is peer-reviewed literature. The literature section of this proposal is limited and a more extensive search and analysis is needed. 5) The midterm review suggested that the committee consider combining their activities with other multistate projects. The MRC requires that the committee address this recommendation or provide substantive justification for this project to exist as a unique entity. 6) The title of the project includes animal welfare. The MRC recognizes the importance of this issue and encourages it’s incorporation into this or other projects. As presented, the proposal contains no substantive details regarding how animal welfare will be addressed and what group of scientists and educators will address the issue.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.15		NCERA125 (NCERA_temp125)	Biological Control of Arthropods and Weeds	Approve. Project is ambitious and covers all the bases in areas related to biological control of these pests, yet the goals are attainable, and the researchers show ample progress. Significant effort on the part of the team members is evident, the need for multiple sites to evaluate is easy to appreciate, and these researchers have a long track record in successful synergistic cooperation. This is a unique project in that it addresses biological control issues in the region in a comprehensive way, and while other projects touch on this subject, none other covers all these bases. The goals are well defined and easy to interpret, and there is room to grow in alternative directions if the evidence of the research results leads them there. There is genuine interactive collaboration between team members, excellent joint participation in project meetings, and the outreach/information exchange is well established, including provision of a website and presentations to students and community groups. However….the team does not provide substantive evidence of Impact. The impact statement states “….(we) hope to see” and “…(we) could save producers”. By the time of the midterm review, this proposal will be carefully re-examined to determine if the researchers have convincingly quantified impact of the project. They should have some real, substantive evidence, not conjectures. Not qualifiers, but concrete success. Project will retain current project number, NCERA125.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.16		NCERA180 (NCERA_temp180)	Site-Specific Management	Defer approval with minor revisions by June 1. No NCRA review in July pending revisions made by June 1. As currently written, the proposal is sketchy and lacks a clear plan for conducting or learning from research in the area of site-specific management. By June 1, the MRC wants to see evidence that the committee is aiming higher in setting its goals and objectives and making a stronger effort to document its impacts on adoption of this technology. As an integrated education/extension and research activity, this NCERA committee needs to focus on identifying and bridging the gaps in research and technology transfer that have limited adoption of site-specific management across our region. As the NCAC reviewer pointed out, the committee needs to add expertise in GIS, remote sensing and soil science. The committee needs to better document the impacts it has had or hopes to have including: joint publications or grant awards; rates or specific examples of adoption and benefits to growers; the "why and how" guidance it has provided or will provide to the industry. In general the proposal needs to show more "oomph," and we think the committee members will be capable of doing just that. Modify the title to reflect the "specific" activity (ie. agriculture, crops, etc.). Upon approval, project will retain current number, NCERA180.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.17		NCERA192 (NCERA_temp192)	North Central Regional Turfgrass Research and Outreach	Defer approval with minor revisions by June 1. No NCRA review in July pending revisions made by June 1. The NCERA192 committee carries out activities in turfgrass research and outreach. This committee clearly is a collaborative relationship, with clear objectives. The MRC evaluation indicated that this committee needs to focus on integrating all aspects of research, education, and extension on turfgrass. This is an extremely popular academic major in all areas of the country and a focused multistate project would play a pivotal role in this arena. The MRC also encourages this committee to expand interactions/linkages with industry and other universities. It is clear to the MRC that the committee needs to better articulate planned extension and academic activities. Upon approval, project will retain current number, NCERA192.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.18		NCERA199 (NCERA_temp199)	Implementation and Strategies for National Beef Cattle Evaluation	Approve. Revisions have been made in response to NCAC comments. The MRC encourages continued development of the research/economic value linkage. Project will retain current number, NCERA199.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.19		NCERA200 (NCERA_temp200)	Management Strategies to Control Major Soybean Virus Diseases in the North Central Region	Defer approval with minor revisions by June 1. No NCRA review in July pending revisions made by June 1. This project clearly tackles issues of immense importance to the North Central Region, as the changing impacts of viral outbreaks in soy and the risks need continual assessment and proactive, rather than reactive, strategies. This project has resulted in redesigned diagnostics procedures, which are measurably more efficacious than previous alternatives available to farmers or IPM professionals (although it is not documented ‘how much’ better the new model is than previous models). The extent of the problem (existent and potential risk) is well documented and compelling, new viral pests continue to move into the region and pose threats that as yet haven’t been gauged well. This team is a good example of bringing together diverse scientific disciplines towards specific project objectives. The composition of this team is novel and it isn’t likely that these individuals would have partnered together without the impetus of the NC project. (In fact, this formation of this team approach is mentioned as one of the success benchmarks of success for the project). Team consistently meets same time/same place and has attracted industry and ARS participants to their meetings. Other measurable parameters include identification of soybean viruses in the region, identification of resistant lines, quantification of how great are the losses in crop yield due to viral infection, and more basic science appreciation of the viral ecology, which must be appreciated in order to design effective control measures. Dissemination of results to stakeholders has been fairly high priority and adopted by extension professionals. This project dovetails with NCR137 and there is significant interplay between these projects (both focus on soy disease problems). The team has behaved as good scientists, conducting productive meetings and publishing, but the text of this proposal is highly technical using jargon that was not completely understandable to someone not in the field, and the 'real world impact' needed to be clearly articulated. Recommend to approve contingent on a concerted effort to organize the proposal and clearly delineate detailed experimental approaches with timelines and projected short term goals across the timelines and specific outcomes. In addition, the team is missing a virus vector ecologist, who could greatly contribute to the proposal. Such a team member should be recruited and folded into the project prior to the next review. Upon approval, project will retain current project number, NCERA200.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.20	NCR	NCR13 (NCR_temp13)	Soil Testing and Plant Analysis	Defer approval with minor revisions by June 1. No NCRA review in July pending revisions made by June 1. This is a long-standing committee that has been very productive. They have a record of strong impacts and should continue. The MRC does however, have several recommendations that the committee should consider. 1) The MRC recognizes that the committee has some name recognition because of its longevity however; the title of project probably understates the scope and intent. The committee should consider the pros and cons of a new title. Because the multistate system (through NIMSS and CRIS) is queried by a wide range of users (often legislators or their staff) this change may be desirable. 2) The committee should consider increased involvement of the private sector and other labs in general. For example, EPA would be a natural participant in this activity. This will increase the visibility of this important activity and expand the potential base of support. Upon approval, project will become NCERA13.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.21		NCR46 (NCR_temp46)	Development, Optimization, and Delivery of Management Strategies for Corn Rootworms and Other Below-ground Insect Pests of Maize	Approve. We concur with one NCAC reviewer in asking that the proposal include more specificity in experimental design. We also concur with another NCAC reviewer in requesting more documentation of leveraging SAES funding. This could be provided in annual reports, and should be highlighted at the mid-term review. The MRC commends this team on meeting with NC205, the corn borer project, and encourages the team to seek synergies between studies on the use of Bt technology above- and below-ground. We encourage the committee to follow through with completion of the NCR146 management guide, which should be made widely available to our stakeholders. Approved as NCCC46.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.22		NCR101 (NCR_temp101)	Controlled Environment Technology and Use	Approve. The NCR101 committee clearly demonstrates activities involving controlled environment systems and the technology utilized in such systems. The committee is extremely active with excellent participation, and industry is very well represented at annual meetings. The outcomes and impacts of this committee are extensive and clearly identified. The project will retain current project number and become an ERA project, NCERA101.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.23		NCR167 (NCR_temp167)	Corn Breeding Research	Defer approval to June 1. No NCRA July review necessary if revisions are made by June 1. The MRC sees continuing value of this area of research. The committee strongly suggests that the objectives be revised to improve the focus of the project. The current objectives are not attainable in a five year period. This revision of the objectives must be completed by June 1, 2006. The committee needs to submit minutes and update other documents to conform to reporting requirements. The leadership of the committee also needs to better coordinate its activities with the AA. The upcoming mid-term review will be a critical juncture for the future of this committee. Upon approval, project will become NCCC167.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.24		NCR193 (NCR_temp193)	Plant health: managing insect pests and diseases of landscape plants	Disapproved. Suggested that committee form NCDC (Development Committee) by June 1 to reorganize. Requires two directors' approval. This project tackles objective of management of pests in a diversified landscape. By definition, IPM in this setting is more complex than in a row crop setting, and thus the project is ambitious and has multiple components. As a necessity, the project spans a larger geographic diversity, and multiple ecosystems. However, this caveat has made the objectives quite diffuse and ill-defined. It is recommended that the project reorganize objectives, narrow the focus and provide more definitive goals. The project needs to be reconstructed with attention to the relevant literature; put the objectives of this particular project in context with the Plant Health Care work done in landscapes in recent years. Very little in the way of substantive outcomes, vague references made without validation. Successful outcomes are mentioned in the progress reports but not quantified, therefore impossible to verify. The team does interface well together and their coordination of efforts is documented well; this falters at the point of describing the outcomes of the coordination, as neither the plan nor the results are quantitatively defined. If this proposal (as the title implies) is a Management proposal, then the Management Plan needs to be clearly articulated, and the plan followed sequentially to achieve measurable goals. At present, the outcomes such as joint publications, grants, and outreach publications can be gauged, but the other outcomes (such as the exchanges of information and outcomes of joint meetings) are nebulous. Perhaps the team should determine discrete subprojects to devote attention to, and put energies into resolving those issues to the point of tangible outcomes. Project should become a Development Committee and work towards a rewrite.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.25		NCR201 (NC_temp1801)	Integrated Pest Management	Approve. This project establishes essential lines of communication with the NC region IPM Center. It is composed of all the state IPM coordinators and as such, embodies key individuals and facilitates interaction and in this case, regional efforts. The committee proposes to develop a “white paper series” focused on priority issues as defined by this group. The MRC commends and encourages this activity as the approach as been effectively used with other committees, agencies, etc. The MRC recommends that the committee consider and develop a means to involve stakeholders as they define priorities and develop white papers. Project will become NCERA201.	Approved MRC recommendation.
5.1.26		NCR202 (NCR_temp202)	A Regional Effort to Maintain the Health and Survival of the Honey Bee, the Most Important Pollinator	Disapprove. MRC commends the committee for proposing a regional effort aimed at promoting the health and survival of the honey bee, a crucially important agricultural pollinator across our region. However, we find that the current proposal is extremely sketchy, lacks scope and rigor, and it appears unlikely that the proposed activity would make an impact. We recomme

Time	Agenda Item	Topic	Presenter
March 28
8:00	1.0	Call to Order	Marshall Martin
	2.0	Approval of Sept 2005 Minutes (http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/Sept2005.htm) Approved.	Marshall Martin
	3.0	Adoption of the Agenda	Marshall Martin
8:05	4.0	Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair	Marshall Martin
8:15	5.0	MRC Report 5.1.1 New NC-type Projects 5.1.9 New NCCC-type Projects 5.1.12 New NCERA-type Projects 5.1.20 New NCR-type Projects (to be re-numbered CC or ERA projects) 5.1.27 New NCDC-type Projects 5.2 Midterm Reviews 5.3 NRSP Budgets 5.4 Other Budgets 5.5 Other MRC Issues	Forrest Chumley
*9:45*		*Break*
10:00	6.0	CREATE-21	Daryl Lund, Steve Slack
11:30	7.0	Executive Director Report Part 1: 7.1 Training Sessions for New Administrative Advisors 7.2 NIMSS Update 7.3 AD-419 Analysis	Daryl Lund
*12:00*		*Lunch*
1:00	7.0	Executive Director Report Part 2: 7.4 Relationship with MASDA 7.5 ED Annual Activities	Daryl Lund
1:30	8.0	ESCOP Science and Technology Committee	Forrest Chumley
1:40	9.0	ESCOP Communication/Marketing Committee	Bill Ravlin
1:50	10.0	ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee	Steve Slack, Daryl Lund
*2:30*		*Break*
2:45	11.0	Current Budget Situation at SAESs	All
4:55	12.0	NCRA Nomination Announcement	Dave Benfield
5:00		EXECUTIVE SESSION

March 29
8:00	13.0	ARS Report	Steven Shafer
8:20	14.0	CSREES Report 14.1: NPL Reps to NCRA States 14.2: POW PowerPoint 14.3: Research Calls	Mary McPhail Gray
8:50	15.0	Nominations Report	Dave Benfield
9:20	16.0	Support of the National Berry Crops Initiative	Daryl Lund
9:30	17.0	Specialty Crops Regulatory Initiative	Doug Buhler
9:40	18.0	N-CFAR Membership	Daryl Lund
9:50	19.0	NIAS	Dave Benfield
10:00	20.0	PathTracer Products	Dan Brady
10:20	21.0	Sun Grant Initiative	Kevin Kephart
10:40	22.0	NABC	Steve Slack
11:00	23.0	Future meetings: 23.1 Summer NCRA and Mini Land Grant Meeting July 9-11, 2006, NDSU, Fargo, ND 23.2 Fall NCRA & ESS Meeting September 24-27, 2006, Harrahs, Lake Tahoe, NV(www.ag.unr.edu/naes/ess2006.htm) 23.3 2007 Joint Spring Meeting With the West?	Marshall Martin
11:15	24.0	Resolutions 24.1 Doreen Woodward Resolution 24.2 Dale Gallenberg Resolution	Marshall Martin
11:20	25.0	Other Items/Announcements	All
11:30		Adjourn