NCRA Homepage
Joint Meeting Website


One Hundred Sixty-Ninth Meeting
March 28-31, 2004
Perdido Beach, AL

ATTENDEES: Wendy Wintersteen, Chair (IA); Mary Anne Lila (IL); Randy Woodson and Marshall Martin (IN); Forrest Chumley (KS); Ian Gray, Gary Lemme, Jan Bokemeier, Doreen Woodward, Kelly Millenbaugh (MI); Phil Larsen, Bert Stromberg, Sarah Greening (MN); Tom Payne and John Gardner (MO); Darrell Nelson and Nancy Betts (NE); Steven Slack, David Benfield, Bill Ravlin (OH); Kevin Kephart (SD); Margaret Dentine (WI); Ralph Otto (CSREES); Larry Newell (CSREES, Civil Rights); Daryl Lund and Nicole Nelson (NCRA).

Sunday, March 28, 2004

4:00pm - 6:00pm


6:30pm - 8:00pm



Monday, March 29, 2004

7:00am - 8:00am


8:15am - 12:00pm




Call to Order, Welcome and Approval of Joint Agenda - Wendy Wintersteen and Greg Weidemann



ESCOP Core Committee Reports:




Communication and Marketing - Jerry Arkin, Chair




Budget and Legislative - Darrell Nelson, Chair




Science and Technology - Nancy Cox, Chair




Partnerships - Margaret Dentine and Susan Barefoot, NC and SO Reps




Planning - Virginia Clark Johnson, Chair




Executive Committee - Ian Gray, ESCOP Chair



National Institute for Agricultural Security Report - DC Coston



CSREES Report - Ralph Otto



ARS Report - Charles Onstead and Darrell Cole



Collaborative Opportunities with DOE - Jim Fischer





NIMSS Update - Daryl Lund



PIPRA Update - Nancy Cox (KY) and Bill Brown (FL)



NRSP Four-Year Budget Requests (reports and clarifying questions only):




NRSP-3 - Jerry Arkin




NRSP-5 - DC Coston and Randy Woodson




NRSP-8 - Jerry Cherry and Margaret Dentine



NRSP One-Year Budget Request (report and clarifying questions only):




NRSP-6 - Bob Westerman and Steve Slack



NRSP Project Renewals and Five-Year Budget Requests (reports and clarifying questions only):




NRSP-1 - Bill Brown (FL) and Darrell Nelson




NRSP-4 - Mary Duryea and Gary Lemme




NRSP-7 - Don Robertson



Obesity Initiative - Daryl Lund







Call to Order - Wendy Wintersteen



Approval of the September 2003 Minutes - Wendy Wintersteen (Available at



Adoption of Agenda



Executive Committee Report and Interim Actions of the Chair - Wendy Wintersteen (Refer to ED Report)



Executive Director's Report - Daryl Lund




Activities since September 2003




NCRA Office Update




National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research (N-CFAR) Membership




Revision of the NCRA Review Forms




Impact Statements and the BAC




Multistate Nomenclatures





Increased Efficiency and Focus in the Multistate Project System - Wendy Wintersteen




NCRA Office FY '04 Budget - Wendy Wintersteen, Margaret Dentine, Daryl Lund


ED Annual Report - Wendy Wintersteen, Daryl Lund


Adjourn - Dinner on your own


Tuesday, March 30, 2004

7:00am - 8:00am


8:00am - 12:00pm




Multistate Research Committee - Marshall Martin

Click here to view the MRC Agenda (in Excel format)


MRC Project Recommendations


NRSP Discussion (see NRSP Review Website at:



Nominations Committee Report - Bert Stromberg







Potential LTER (Long Term Ecological Research) Project on Mississippi River Basin - Daryl Lund

Click here for Powerpoint Presentation



Research Highlights from Auburn - John Jensen


"Big Science in the Genomics Era: How the Catfish Genome Project Fits" - Dr. John Liu, Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures

"Poultry Products Safety & Quality Peaks of Excellence Program" - Dr. Pat Curtis, Department of Poultry Science

"Turfgrass Research at Auburn University" - Dr. Beth Guertal, Department of Agronomy and Soils






Wednesday, March 30, 2004

7:00am - 8:00am


8:15am - 12:00pm




Sun Grant Initiative - Kevin Kephart



Update on Tribal colleges in the North Central Region - Wade Gordon



Regional Dairy Research, Teaching, and Extension - Wendy Wintersteen, Steve Slack, Phil Larsen





Report from Each SAES on Budget




Ohio State Review of Economic Impacts

Steve Slack passed around copies of the OSU Batelle Study (Phase I) as well as a sign-up for anyone interested in the Phase II information. Any questions should be sent to OARDC. Wendy Wintersteen also shared that Iowa State had utilized Batelle at their campus as well. The Iowa State results can be found at




Budgets, Administration, Etc.



Resolutions - Marshall Martin







Business Officers' Meeting




Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs)




Animal Health Protection (FY05 Appropriations Request)




NC-7 and NC-1100 FY05 Budgets




Spring 2005 Meeting



Announcements - Wendy Wintersteen

  • North Central Regional Summer Meeting - Illini Center, Chicago, IL - July 13-15, 2004
  • All COPs/ESCOP meeting - TBA
  • ESS Meeting, SAES/ARD Directors Workshop, North Central Regional Fall Meeting - Renaissance Hotel, Oklahoma City, OK - September 26-29, 2004



Summary and Review of Assignments - Wendy Wintersteen




Agenda Items

Item J2: ESCOP Core Committee Reports

 Item J2a: Communication and Marketing

Presenter: Jerry Arkin


The committee has been dormant since January 2002; however, with the appointment of a new Chairperson and Executive Vice Chair, the committee has been recharged this winter. They met via teleconference on February 20, 2004, and agreed on the following actions:

1. Assist Wally Huffman with the edit and revision of the Counterfactual Study for a broader audience. Wendy Wintersteen will assist.

2. Tom Fretz will check with Wally Huffman on how 1890s were handled in the study. A suggestion was made to segment the group since the 1890s have fewer formula funds.

3. Review the Science Roadmap and develop strategies on how to keep it on our partners' radar screen. Should milestones be tracked and reported on a regular basis?

4. Initiate the process of including the Science Roadmap and the Counterfactual Study in next year's Agriculture Exhibit on the Hill - Jerry Arkin and Tom Fretz.

5. Continue discussion on communication vs. marketing, and the committee's future course of actions.

The committee plans to meet again by teleconference in April.

Jerry relayed that the committee is trying to identify specifics such as what exactly to communicate, who to communicate to, and how effective the communications are on their audience. Any comments or questions should be directed to him at

Action Requested: For information and discussion.

Item J2b: Budget and Legislative

Presenter: Darrell Nelson

FY 04 Budget:  The FY 04 budget was passed in January with an overall 0.59% reduction in all CSREES line items and a 10% cut in 33 specific line items. Many of the line items were Extension programs including EFNEP.  Pest control including IR-4 was cut 10%.

FY 05 Budget:  Priorities for the FY 05 budget were adopted at a BAC meeting Feb 9.  Priorities are (1) restore the cuts to the line items from the FY 04 budget (generally included in the President's budget request), (2) increase funding for minority-serving institutions, (3) increase EFNEP funding above the FY 03 level by $3M, and (4) increase the NRI by 10% (from $164M to $180M).  We are also committed to supporting the President's budget when he requested an increase in support for a program.  The BRT analysis reported the following: "1. Overall, USDA funding would be cut by $1.2 billion.  2. Total CSREES funding is cut by $108 million, but most of these reductions would come from congressional earmarks.  3. The National Research Initiative would increase by approximately $16 million (ten percent) over the FY 2004 enacted level.  4. Funding for many of the programs cut by 10% would be at least partially restored, including EFNEP, which would receive almost $58 million in funding under the president's request.  5. "Homeland Security" related items would increase: the plant and animal diagnostic labs would get a $22 million increase and there is a new "higher education agrosecurity education program" line item that would be funded at $5 million.  6. IFAFS authority was captured again, thereby enabling the administration to "take credit" for $260 million in budgetary "savings." In addition, there appear to be more "limitations" imposed on mandatory USDA programs, a move that could complicate efforts by our congressional champions to help the system as the budget/appropriations process moves forward." The BRT called for statements from everyone citing how the cuts would impact program.  Approximately 25 Experiment Stations responded with specific examples.  The BRT will use these to develop materials to use in support of the budget priorities.  The EDs generated approximately 40 impact statements from the multistate research portfolio, which will also be used by the BRT.

FY 06 Budget:  ESCOP went through a process (including all directors and members of the B/L Committee) to identify priorities for FY 06.  The priorities are posted on the ESCOP homepage under the B/L Committee.  The BAC and BRT will begin working on the FY 06 budget this summer.

Farm Bill Committee:  LeRoy Daugherty is chair-designate of the B/L Committee and therefore has the leadership for the Legislative part of our agenda.  He will serve on the BAA Farm Bill Committee.  ED Tom Fretz will serve as Executive Staff to the legislative function of our ESCOP B/L Committee.  Daryl Lund will continue to serve as Executive Staff for the budget function.  Jeff Armstrong, Chair of the BAA Farm Bill Committee, has called for a teleconference Thursday February 26.  The EDs (Research, Extension and Academic Programs) have volunteered to serve as staff to the Farm Bill Committee.

Action Requested: None, for information only.

 Item J2c: Science and Technology

Presenter: Nancy Cox


The Science and Technology Committee met on March 1, 2004 in Washington, D.C. prior to the ESCOP meeting. The following items were discussed:

1. ESCOP has asked the S & T Committee to conduct a more in-depth, validated needs assessment of the Science Roadmap for agriculture. A subgroup was appointed to develop a plan to do this assessment and a budget, consisting of Lou Swanson (chair), Dan Rossi and Sally Rockey. Recommendations will be presented to ESCOP at the July Joint COPS meeting.

2. ESCOP has asked the S & T Committee to recommend ways that ESCOP can assist the PIPRA initiative in it's humanitarian mission relative to intellectual property generated by public universities. The following suggestions came from the discussion:

o        The NASULGC Council of Presidents and Council of VPs for Research should consider this issue.

o        IR4 may be a model to look at for a process to use patents on minor crops.

o        The Global Challenge Program is working to leverage genomics technology for use in the developing world. Robert Ziegler is now its director and PIPRA leadership should communicate with him and explore potential collaborations.

The PIPRA subcommittee (Cox, Pueppke, and Brown) will explore this question and make further recommendations.

3. An S&T Task Force to develop a white paper on the current state of knowledge concerning prions, BSE, CJD, nvCJD, and other TSE's was proposed by Forrest Chumley, Kansas State Univ. The National Academy report on TSE that was commissioned by USDA and just completed will be examined to determine if it already accomplished what the task force would do. If not, the S&T Committee will make recommendations for membership on this task force.

Tom Payne suggested the inclusion of extension directors and recommended that they form an informational document about TSEs. David Benfield and Bert Stromberg also supported the inclusion of the Veterinary Medicine faculty.

Action Requested: None; information only.

Item J2d: Partnerships

Presenter: Margaret Dentine and Susan Barefoot


The ESCOP Partnership Committee has recently been reconstituted with a full complement of Agricultural Experiment Station members. One conference call was held with the AES members to discuss the appropriateness of the committee's current membership, charge, and scope of potential activities. Several potential activities were discussed including: working with other agencies (e.g. NIH, CDC, DHS, etc), other USDA agencies (ERS, ARS, APHIS, NASS) and working with CSREES on the new POW Guidelines and processes that will be forthcoming. The latter would necessarily require a joint effort with extension. The members agreed to poll their respective regional associations at the upcoming spring meetings for possible activities of the Partnership Committee. The Committee plans to hold another conference call in early April to discuss input from the regional association meetings and possibly a face to face meeting.

Action requested: Suggested action items for the Committee.

Action Requested:

Item J2e: Planning Committee

Presenter: Virginia Clark Johnson

The Planning Committee met February 23-24, 2004 in Irving, Texas.

Actions from the meeting follow:

    1. Reviewed and discussed the membership list and terms of membership. A request will be made to ESCOP to review and update the list.
    2. Discussed potential for involvement in the Fall 2004 meeting priority setting session.
    3. Reviewed the proposed timeline for ESCOP and ESS Strategic Planning.
    4. Prepared a draft of a Plan for Operationalizing the Science Roadmap. This will be reviewed once more by the committee and them submitted to the ESCOP Executive Committee for input. The goal is to have a document for approval at the July meeting.
    5. Provided a report to ESCOP at the Washington, DC meeting on Tuesday, March 2, 2004. 

Actions Required:

    1. Review and update committee membership.
    2. Determine role of committee in priority setting session at the Fall meeting.
    3. Finalize a draft for review and suggestions.

Actions Taken:  

Item J2f: Executive Committee

Presenter: Ian Gray

Strategic Planning: I asked the EDs to formulate a process for ESCOP to reexamine its strategic plan. A process was adopted at the February CAC teleconference and is posted with the CAC Minutes on the ESCOP homepage. Basically the process consists of two activities to be carried out over the next year. The first is for the Planning Committee to develop an operational plan for the ESS to support its programmatic priorities as identified in the Science Roadmap. This operational plan will be presented to the ESS at the fall meeting. The second activity is for the Planning Committee to develop an operational plan for ESCOP that guides its activities in support of the ESS operational plan. This operational plan will be presented to ESCOP at its November meeting for final review and adoption.

Appointments: Several appointments to various committees have been made as requested. The ESCOP Nominating Committee, chaired by Scott Angle, will be nominating two people for the BAA Policy Board and one person as ESCOP Chair-Designate (this person will be from the ARD). These nominations will be presented to ESCOP at during the July All COPs meeting.

N-CFAR: Based on advice from CAC, I authorized Mort Neufville to pay our $1000 membership in NCFAR for 2004 from our residual funds at NASULGC.

Counterfactual study: The Counterfactual Study Report that ESCOP authorized was received. I authorized expending up to $5000 to generate appropriate reports from the study for use in support of our federal budget requests and priorities including base funds. Tom Fretz is working with the authors of the study and the report will be presented at the fall meeting of ESS.

Civil Rights Guidelines: Following several civil rights compliance reviews at several Experiment Stations, ESCOP notified CSREES that the reviews were largely redundant with guidelines that the Experiment Station follows from our Offices of Civil Rights Compliance on our campuses. Collien is now in the process of appointing a committee (with representatives from ESCOP and ECOP) that will meet at the end of March. Margaret Dentine (WI) and Bill Trumble (NH) will be the ESCOP representatives to this committee.

 Action Requested: None, for information only


Item J3: National Institute for Agriculture Security

Presenter: DC Coston

Background: NIAS is transforming to a membership organization. The response from potential members has been positive. Of the 1862 Experiment Stations, 35 have said "yes", 9 are continuing discussions, 7 have said "no". Of the Territories, 4 have said "yes", 1 is continuing discussions, and 1 has not responded. From the 1890 Land Grants there has been no response. Three Extension Services have concurred to join in conjunction with their respective AES. A mailing has gone out to Extension Service Directors offering membership. Invoices have gone out to those that answered "yes".

The extension directors are kept separate from the SAES directors as far as joining NIAS. However, if both join, there is a discount.

A first year's annual report was prepared and distributed with the request for membership commitments. This report is proving to be a successful tool for explaining what NIAS is, who are members, and what are the activities.

At present, much of the activity is focused on implementing the grant provided by USDA entitled Developing Science-Based Site Security Guidelines. The purpose is focused on developing best management practices for handling non-select agents. During the summer, there will be a questionnaire that is distributed to all Experiment Station and ARD Directors. The results of a workshop, some site visits, and the questionnaires will be utilized to develop a draft report that will be distributed in early September. The Tuesday morning part of the SAES/ARD workshop in September will be devoted to a discussion that will lead to finalizing the report.

DC noted that the NIAS budget would total $110,000.

Action required: None, for information only.

Item J4: CSREES Report

Presenter: Ralph Otto

Larry Newell was in attendance as a Civil Rights representative. AJ Dye sent regards for his absence.



Anna Palmisano ( - Deputy Administrator, Competitive Programs

Mary McPhail Gray ( - Deputy Administrator, Families 4-H and Nutrition Department.



The National Research Initiative is undergoing changes; CSREES is developing "national" priorities with significant input from of stakeholders. Ralph said it was not in their best interest to spread the NRI across many small programs. Contact Anna Palmisano with any concerns. CSREES is also asking for $180 million in the budget. Also, if you would like to be involved in defining programs, contact Anna Palmisano or Mark Poth.



Ralph mentioned that some of the directors in attendance had been contacted as panel discussion volunteers. The original strategic plan still exists. There are five goals in that strategic plan. OMB has targeted CSREES for participation in BPI (Budget and Planning Implementation). The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) will be applied to goal 1 (Enhance Economic Opportunities for producers) this year with the remaining four goals covered over the next two years.

Action required: None; for information only.

Item J5: ARS Report

Presenter: Charles Onstead

ARS celebrated their 50th anniversary last November (2003).

Personnel Changes:

Darrell Cole is now area director of the NE region; Andy Hammond has been re-assigned to the Western region. These two position now need to be filled.

The following budget information was provided:

United State Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Research Service

President’s 2005 Budget Estimate


Salaries and Expenses:

President’s Budget

FY2004 Base


Program Initiatives:

Emerging & Exotic Diseases (HS) a


Food Safety (HS) a




Human Nutrition b


Invasive Species


National Plant and Disease Recovery System (HS) a, c




Climate Change Research


Agricultural Information Services d


Cyber Security




Operational Needs:

Pay Cost


Program/Operational Reductions:

IT Activities


Project Terminations



-174,865 e

Net Change:


FY 2005 Budget Estimate

987,597 f


The following notations should be associated with the above information:

a.        Anything with the notation "(HS)" is in regards to Homeland Security.

b.        There is an emphasis here on obesity

c.        A Presidential Homeland Security Directive was issued January 30, 2004 in regards to this issue. Basically, it was an executive order stating that Food and Agriculture are critical system in homeland security.

Specifically this budget topic is associated with paragraph 18 of the Directive:

The Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall work with State and local governments and the private sector to develop:

a.        A National Veterinary Stockpile (NVS) containing sufficient amounts of animal vaccine, antiviral, or therapeutic products to appropriately respond to the most damaging animal diseases affecting human health and the economy and that will be capable of deployment within 24 hours of an outbreak. The NVS shall leverage where appropriate the mechanisms and infrastructure that have been developed for the management, storage and distribution of the Strategic National Stockpile.

b.        A National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS) capable of responding to a high-consequence plant disease with pest control measures and the use of resistant seed varieties within a single growing season to sustain a reasonable level of production for economically important crops. The NPDRS will utilize the genetic resources contained in the US National Plant Germplasm System, as well as the scientific capabilities of the Federal-State-industry agricultural research and extension system. The NPDRS shall include emergency planning for the use of resistant seed varieties and pesticide control measures to prevent, slow, or stop the spread of a high-consequence plant disease such as wheat smut or soybean rust.

APHIS has been charged with expending the veterinary vaccine stockpile. Also, the technology associated with the current germplasm system should be used.

This directive is independent of the actual budget proposal listed above – it needs to be done even if everything else on the list is not.

a.        In particular, this topic has to do with the Agricultural Library and electronic distribution.

b.        This number removes the congressional earmarks.

c.        This number reveals the 8-9% budget reduction.


$178 million has been set aside to complete the ARS/APHIS facility in Iowa.


Item J6: Collaborative Opportunities with DOE

Presenter: Jim Fischer

Background: A New Model for University/Government Interaction

October 6, 2003

Article for NASULGC Newsline

What do colleges and universities have in common with the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)? The answer is purpose.

Both NASULGC's member institutions and the Enenrgy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs of the Department of Energy are about enhancing the quality of life of the people. Both organizations have recently invested in developing plans and roadmaps to lead these entities into the 21st century. NASULGC recently published the Kellogg Commission report on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities whereas; the EERE Office recently published its Strategic Plan and implemented reorganization. Both organizations are seeking to engage organizations with whom they can develop productive partnerships, build integrated programs that will result in interactive and responsive organizations. Both organizations seek to be engaged organizations!

Dr. James Fischer, who last served as a Dean at Clemson University, is in a unique position to forge linkages with colleges and universities and EERE. His experiences at three universities (Clemson, Michigan State and Missouri), the USDA, and his leadership roles in many organizations and associations as well as his work on establishing a vision and developing the plan for the future of land-grant universities and agriculture makes him a natural to build collaboration among universities, industry and the DOE.

Appointed in June 2003 to EERE's Board of Directors, Dr. Fischer serves as the primary advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy on collaboration with universities and key related organizations such as NASULGC. The EERE Board has five members, each with a specific focus ranging from international affairs to technical and analytic integrity to the University/Education Board Seat held by Dr. Fischer.

Like its private sector counterparts, EERE Board functions include serving the Assistant Secretary by providing advice and counsel on policy and strategy issues, representing EERE with internal and external stakeholders to ensure linkages with policies and priorities and serving as an ambassador for EERE. But the existence of a Board of Directors as a governmental function is a brand new concept. While government long has relied on advisory boards for counsel, EERE, as the first federal office to engage a full-time Board of Directors, has the opportunity to set a new standard of excellence for government.

Dr. Fischer, with his focus on universities and education, is interested in developing new and innovative partnerships and educational models with universities, especially land grant universities, foundations, and the agricultural, industrial and business communities. He is committed to linking EERE activities with those of associations, organizations and agencies to strengthen current alliances, develop new partnerships for discovery and marketing opportunities for EERE products and services.

Fischer long has been an effective and enthusiastic supporter of partnerships, believing that by expanding opportunities for joint research, internships and a wide range of off-campus learning opportunities, faculty and students will be enriched by new ways of doing business. Partnerships between EERE and the academic community hold the potential for practical opportunities for the students, the university faculty and for the consumers of the research and educational products and services of the joint efforts.

While the issues addressed by EERE research are complex, opportunities abound for partnership and collaboration with the university community. And Dr. Fischer is determined to help EERE find ways to negotiate complex university structures for the maximum benefit of all partners. This interdisciplinary and integrated approach will help forge partnerships that nourish creative solutions.

EERE, along with its corporate and academic partners, can work together to help solve the vexing resource/energy problems that today limit opportunities for people around the world. Together, we can make a difference. be used as a sidebar in the article

Programs of the U.S. Department of Energy's

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Biomass Program - Using domestic, plant-derived resources to meet our fuel, power and chemical needs

Building Technologies Program - Homes, schools, and businesses that use less energy, cost less to operate, and, ultimately, generate will generate as much power as they use

Distributed Energy & Electric Reliability Program - A more reliable energy infrastructure and reduced need for power plants

Federal Energy Management Program - Leading by example, saving energy and taxpayer dollars in federal facilities

FreedomCAR & Vehicle Technologies Program - Less dependence on foreign oil, and eventual transition to an emissions-free, petroleum-free vehicle

Geothermal Technologies Program - Tapping the Earth's energy to meet our heat and power needs

Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program - Paving the way toward a hydrogen economy and net-zero carbon energy future

Industrial Technologies Program - Boosting the productivity and competitiveness of U.S. industry through improvements in energy and environmental performance

Solar Energy Technology Program - Utilizing the sun's natural energy to generate electricity and provide water and space heating

Weatherization & Intergovernmental Program - Accelerating the use of today's best energy-efficient and renewable technologies in homes, communities, and businesses

Wind & Hydropower Technologies Program - Harnessing America's abundant natural resources for clean power generation to learn more, visit

 Action Requested: None; For Information Only. See for more information.


Item J7: NIMSS Update

Presenter: Daryl Lund

Background Information:

NIMSS is currently undergoing major reconstruction. This reconstruction has not affected the usability of the current system. Programmers are using a duplicate database to construct the new NIMSS version. The planned roll-out of early 2004 was considerably delayed due to server problems and software upgrade in the OIT-UMD.

The purpose of the upgrade is to increase NIMSS' functionality by re-designing the framework with which users are registered and assigned access. In the "new" NIMSS, menus are customized according to the user's profile and level of authorization.

Tasks completed to date are:

  • New design of the NIMSS main page
  • Search and view functions for all multistate projects
  • Project homepages and uploading info functions
  • Proposal submission
  • Submission of participation information (Appendix E) is about 65% completed

The timetable for the remaining activities is as follows:

  • Late March - early April: Preview and training of regional system administrators
  • April 19-20: Preview of NIMSS Version 2004 to general users at the CSREES Administrative Workshop in Rhode Island
  • May 10: Roll-out of NIMSS Version 2004

Each region will preview the new version to their directors at their summer meetings. Training for station directors, advisors and project coordinators will be the responsibility of each region.

Eric Young will be taking over for Daryl Lund as Chair of the NIMSS Oversight Committee, effective immediately.

Action Requested: For information only

Item J9: NRSP Four-Year Budget Requests (reports and clarifying questions only):

Item J9a, J9b, J9c: NRSP-3, NRSP-5, NRSP8


Each SAES region is responsible for reviewing the budget for the remaining four years of NRSP 3, 5, & 8 and submitting recommendations to the NRSP Review Committee at the conclusion of their spring meetings.

The renewal proposals for these NRSPs were approved in 2003 as five-year projects, but only the first budgets year were approved. The remaining 4-year budgets can be found at

Action: See MRC Minutes

Item J10: NRSP One-Year Budget Requests (reports and clarifying questions only): 

Item J10a: NRSP-6


Each SAES region is responsible for reviewing the final year's budget for NRSP 6 (Inter-Regional Potato Introduction Project) and submitting recommendations to the NRSP Review Committee at the conclusion of their spring meetings.

This NRSP terminates September 31, 2005 and therefore only the fifth-year budget needs to be approved. The final year's budget for NRSP 6 can be found at

Action: See MRC Minutes


Item J11: NRSP Project Renewals and Five-Year Budget Requests (reports and clarifying questions only): 

Item J11a, J11b, J11c: NRSP-1, NRSP-4, NRSP-7


Each SAES region is responsible for reviewing the NRSP 1, 4, and 7 renewal and submitting recommendations to the NRSP Review Committee at the conclusion of their spring meetings.

These renewal proposals can be viewed in NIMSS ( The 5-year budgets can be found at Criteria for approval of an NRSP are described in the NRSP Review Form.

Action: See MRC Minutes


Item J12: Obesity Initiative

Presenter: Daryl Lund

Daryl Lund presented the following information:

Report on Exploring Interest in Establishing an NC project onObesity

Background: Recently I had the opportunity to assist in organizing a workshop on the research needs/gaps in understanding and combating obesity. Needless to say this is a hot topic. The secretary of HHS just announced a major new initiative on obesity through NIH, and CSREES just released its white paper on obesity, seeking your input. One of the participants at the workshop was Etta Saltos, National Program Leader, Human Nutrition Competitive Programs, CSREES, USDA, who is also a primary contact on the CSREES white paper (Drs. Susan Welsh (swelsh(ja), and Etta Saltos (esaltos(S), Following the workshop, Etta contacted me about the possibility of initiating a multistate research project on obesity and sent me the following description:


Overweight and obesity have reached epidemic proportions in the United States. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 40 of adults (69 million) will be obese by 2010 if trends go unchanged. In the past 20 years, the percentage of children who are overweight has doubled from 7 to 15, while the percentage of adolescents who are overweight has almost tripled from 5 to 16. Notable disparities exist among racial, ethnic and economically disadvantaged groups which are the primary groups served by USDAs food and nutrition assistance programs. A new intense focus is needed to find the salient behavioral factors that lead to obesity including biologically-determined behavioral predispositions, such as taste and sensory specific satiety; experience with food including physiological and social conditioning; intra-personal factors, such as attitudes, self-identity and self-efficacy; inter-personal factors, such as social and cultural norms; and environmental factors including the physical, social, economic, and informational environment. A multistate project on obesity prevention is needed to link researchers and Extension personnel in the university system to provide a coordinated, integrated approach to addressing this complex issue.


Follow-up: The NCRA Multistate Research Committee met March 11 and at that meeting the potential to develop an NC project on obesity was considered. It was decided that I would contact the directors of agricultural experiment stations to determine the interest of investigators and faculty to participate in a potential project on obesity. I sent a memo to the directors on March 16, and this is a report of the subsequent response.

CSREES Obesity Initiative: On March 4, Mark Poth, Deputy Administrator of the Competitive Grants Programs, CSREES, sent an email to all directors with attachments that included a covering memo from Gary Cunningham announcing an Obesity White Paper by CSREES and the white paper outlining the current and proposed activities within the CSREES portfolio and instructions to respond to Etta Saltos and Susan Welsh with comments. Following is an analysis of the contents of the white paper.

The white paper was positioned to complement the President's initiative "Healthier US" and "Healthy People 2010". It suggested that CSREES would contribute to a decrease in obesity through an initiative entitled, "Partnership Obesity Initiative." This initiative would coordinate increased, directed funding toward research, academic programs and extension. The components of the program would be: (1) behavioral factors and intervention strategies, (2) educational outreach through a new" Obesity Prevention Competitive Grants Program" building on CES programs, and (3) focus on low income families and children through EFNEP.

Specific funding opportunities were identified for:


NRI section on "Human Nutrition and Obesity." First awards were in 2003

Coordinated Agricultural Program (CAP) - large grants (up to $5M) multiyear.

Section on "Improving Food Quality" - expand to include obesity

Small Business Innovation Research -include obesity grants


Proposed a CES "Obesity Prevention Competitive Grants Program"

Expand EFNEP to focus on obesity

Develop "Community Foods Projects Competitive Grants Program" to include obesity

Higher Education:

Proposed a "Higher Education Competitive Grants Program" to include obesity

Expand "Multidisciplinary Graduate Education and Training Scholarships" for obesity

CSREES also provided a table with information from CRIS and all grants within CSREES that have some focus on obesity. The following data were extracted from the table: NRI – 31 projects; IFAFS - 7; Multistate Research Funds - 3; Special - 3; Hatch - 49; SBIR - 1; National Needs Graduate Fellowships - 1; Multicultural Scholars - 1; Challenge Grants - 1; and Extension -4.

Results of Contacts with Experiment Station Directors:

The following responded positively to the idea of forming an NC project on obesity-

Etta Saltos CSREES

Susan Welsh CSREES

Connie Weaver Purdue

Sue Shapses Rutgers

Nancy Betts Nebraska

Beth Olson Michigan State

Ray Jussaume Washington State University

Cornelia Flora Iowa State University

Marjorie Fitch University of Arkansas

Jerold Foote University of Arkansas

Rachel Johnson University of Vermont

Sharon Fleming Berkeley

Joanne Ikeda Berkeley

Pat Crawford Berkeley


It would appear that there is sufficient interest in forming an NC project on obesity or at least tying the subject onto an existing NC or W project (NC-219 entitled "Using Stage-Based Interventions to Increase Fruit and Vegetable Intake in Young Adults"; W-1003 "Parent and Household Influences on Calcium Intake Among Preadolescents"; or NC 1001 "System Analyses of the Relationships of Agriculture and Food Systems to Community Health").

Action Taken: Daryl Lund will forward Mark Poth's email to the SAES directors.

Item NC5: ED Report

Presenter: Daryl Lund

 Item NC5a: Activities Since September 2003

The NCRA co-hosted our first NC Regional Funding Opportunities Workshop on USDA/CSREES Competitive Grants with the NC Cooperative Extension Association. About 100 people attended the conference, which was held at the Holiday Inn O'Hare. See for the meeting agenda and speaker powerpoints.

Nancy Betts from the University of Nebraska will be the second representative to the ESCOP Partnerships Committee from the NCRA, joining her colleague Margaret Dentine (WI).

For other activities, please refer to the Executive Committee Session briefs.  

Item NC5b: NCRA Office Update

The NCRA Office frequently receives requests from Administrative Advisors for information to relay to their committees during annual meetings. To assist in this effort, we will begin distributing a newsletter every six months as a resource. The first newsletter has been distributed (the "Spring Edition"). If there are any suggestions on the content of the newsletter, they should be directed to our office.  

Item NC5c: N-CFAR Membership

February 27, 2004

Dear National C-FAR colleagues,
I would like to take this opportunity to share a few thoughts with you about (1) the importance of research "customers" taking the lead if we are to realize National C-FAR's potential as an advocate for increased public investment in food and agricultural research, and (2) potential collaborative opportunities with other noteworthy initiatives.

The past few months have been extraordinarily interesting and busy for me, in part because the National C-FAR Board of Directors elected me to serve as its President following the departure of David Graves from the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. I represent the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council on the Board; but as most of you know, I have a day job at the University of Illinois. It is for this reason that I've informed the Board that I wish to remain as President only until the next regularly scheduled elections in May and then step back to help my successor fight the good fight.
It's not that my time is overcommitted. But as an Illinoisan and a long time employee of Land-Grant Universities, I've come to realize that stakeholder leadership lends an aura of credibility that I could never muster as a representative of "the system." We learned this lesson with the establishment of Illinois C-FAR 10 years ago. For the first time ever, the potential beneficiaries of our research were arguing for increased funding, and to the great surprise of the legislators, with one voice. And it was not just the solo voice of the traditional agricultural interests.
No, all those interested in the environment and in food and in nutrition were in the chorus, and they were ultimately successful in influencing legislative process and public policy. From this flowed new resources and a model that has the customers identifying problems and setting priorities, while the research community and our extension partners gained increased public funding and a clear expectation of what needed to be done.

National C-FAR brings the research community and its customers together in a common cause. Being customer-led is arguably what makes National C-FAR different from other groups with similar objectives, providing real value to members, customer and researcher alike. Our challenge in National C-FAR is not so much to replicate Illinois C-FAR as it is to exploit the model and secure adequate federal funding for the unmet needs that we are all so passionate about. So although I look forward to engaging through National C-FAR for a long, long time, I want to stand behind leaders from the "customer" stakeholder communities who feel they can benefit from the outcomes of increased public investment in food and agricultural research.

Let me change the subject and tell you about an opportunity for National C-FAR to partner up with a new federal task force charged to "evaluate the merits of establishing one or more National Institutes focused on disciplines important to the progress of food and agricultural science." This group was called into life under Section 7404 of the 2002 Farm Bill and is chaired by Dr. William Danforth, former Chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis.
National C-FAR has been monitoring the process closely. This task force has met on several occasions, most recently on January 28, and I have been in contact with several committee members to think about the potential of the "strength in numbers" approach. At this point, the task force has not come to any firm decisions, and we have made no firm commitments either. But there is great potential.
Similarly, I have been contacted by a leading representative of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, an organization that has fought for decades to enhance funding for food and agricultural research. The message is much the same as that from the federal task force-how can we work together?-and my response has been to signal a willingness to listen and consider joint activities. I'm sure we'll all be hearing much more about this opportunity over the coming months.
In the meantime, let me thank you for the privilege of serving as President of your Board of Directors and to ask that you contact me directly [, or (217) 333-0240] if you have any comments or suggestions. I am confident we are now moving in the right direction. It is up to each of us to pitch in through National C-FAR and help make a difference by teaming together as advocates for food and agricultural research.
Here's hoping for an early spring,  

Action Taken: NCRA voted to support N-CFAR for one more year at the $500 Affiliate Member Level.

Item NC5d: Revision of the NCRA Review forms

The MRC held its meeting March 11 in Chicago, Illinois. During this meeting, the MRC discussed revision of the NCRA Project Review Forms (Appendices H-1, I, J-1, and K). The MRC suggested that a sub-committee be formed, possible from past MRC members, to make the review forms more applicable to the current projects in the NCRA portfolio.

Action Requested: Assign 3-5 past MRC members to a sub-committee to review the NCRA project review forms.

Action Taken:  Volunteers are welcome and should contact the NCRA Office. If there are no volunteers, NCRA will appoint reviewers.

Item NC5e: Impact Statements and the BAC

The NCRA Office submitted impact statements on 5 NC projects, 4 NCR committees and one NRSP project to the BAC for use by the BRT in support of the FFY 05 Budget. This is the first round of impact statements solicited from projects/committees in the North Central Region. We will eventually obtain an impact statement from each of our projects/committees to create a presence on our website similar to that of the Western Region ( 

Item NC5f: Multistate Nomenclatures

Background: The North Central Regional Association charged Daryl Lund to explore adoption of a common nomenclature for committees operating under the MRF. The NCRA adopted a nomenclature and suggested that a common nomenclature would be desirable. The EDs are proposing the following nomenclature, which will be discussed at each of the regional spring meetings:

Approved by CSREES, with expected outcomes:

Multistate Research Projects (NC, S, W, NE) - Projects that are potentially funded in part by Hatch Multistate Research Funds (MRF); involve integrated, potentially interdisciplinary, and multistate activities; have expected outcomes; convey knowledge; and are formally approved by CSREES.

500 Series (NC-5xx, S-5xx, W-5xx, NE-5xx) - Committees formed, for a maximum of two years, to provide a mechanism for response to acute crises, emergencies, and opportunities using the multistate research approach and may be funded by MRF. Activities may range from formally organized research on targeted objectives to very informal research coordination or information exchange activity, depending on the circumstances; have expected outcomes; convey knowledge; and are formally approved by CSREES.

National Research Support Project (NRSP) - Activities that focuses on the development of enabling technologies, support activities (such as to collect, assemble, store, and distribute materials, resources and information), or the sharing of facilities needed to accomplish high priority research, but which is not of itself primarily research; formally approved by CSREES.

Not approved by CSREES, but with expected outcomes (*These do not apply to the NCRA projects):

*Coordinating Committees (CC) - Activities that provide a mechanism for addressing critical regional issues where multistate coordination is appropriate within a function (ie. research, education or extension); have expected outcomes; convey knowledge; but are not formally approved by CSREES.

*Education/Extension and Research Activity (ERA) - Activities that serve to integrate education (academic and extension) and research on a particular topic; have expected outcomes; convey knowledge; but are not formally approved by CSREES.

Not approved by CSREES, with primary focus on information exchange or advisory:

Information Exchange Groups (IEG) - Activities that bring together faculty/staff to exchange information on a particular topic; not formally approved by CSREES.

Advisory Committees (AC) - Committees of department chairs/heads that exchange information on their particular discipline and may serve to review multistate projects; not formally approved by CSREES.

Not approved by CSREES, primary focus on development of long-term multistate activity:

Development Committee (DC) - Committees of duration less than two years for the purpose of developing a Multistate Research Activity, IEG, ERA, CC, or 500 Series; not formally approved by CSREES. 

Item NC6: Increased Efficiency and Focus in the Multistate Project System

Presenter: Wendy Wintersteen


At the October Conference on Multistate Activity (Chicago), Dean Woteki challenged the group to examine the multistate research portfolio and guidelines with the objective of making the system more efficient and effective and creating a reporting mechanism that makes the Plan of Work and Annual Report of Experiment Stations more useful to the agency and to the experiment stations themselves. On the basis of this discussion, Wendy Wintersteen appointed an NCRA ad hoc Committee on Multistate Project Efficiency to examine the issue. They submitted the report below to the NCRA. Needless to say, the discussion on this topic was lively and engaging.

Multistate Project Efficiency Committee Report - March 2004

Participants: Wendy Wintersteen, Chair, Ian Gray, Steve Pueppke and Randy Woodson

Problem Statement

Over the past four years, most land grant university budgets have received significant budget reductions. The cuts have been no less dramatic in the Experiment Station budgets. In addition, federal dollars have been on the decline for the past 20 years. Now federal funds account for less than 5 percent of many Experiment Station's budgets. There is a crisis in the funding of agricultural research. As a result, it is imperative that the Experiment Station system focus its energies in high-priority areas, reduce funding to lower-priority areas and become more efficient and effective with fewer funds.

What are the key goals or outcomes of the discussion?

• Save faculty and staff time

• Save money

• Better accountability

• Maximize return on investment-

• Increased focus to achieve enhanced visibility

Questions Discussed by Multistate Efficiency Committee

1. Do we have too many NC committees? Do the majority of NC committees function as desired?

• Many NCs function as NCRs—not enough money to allow them to function otherwise; some are not truly interdependent

• Many NC committees never terminate

• Hard to reduce number of committees—strong vested interests

• Should we move to establish a larger number of NCR committees, reduce paperwork and oversight of NCRs (would require a change in rules by CSREES to allow activity to count towards 25 match) and place focus a small number of NC committees on high priorities?

2. Can we reduce the paperwork required for NCR committees and maintain compliance with federal requirements?

• The paperwork for NCRs is minimal but that the directions are not clear.

• Do the required reports focus on the most important issues (leveraging and impact)?

3. Can the function of the Administrative Advisor be accomplished in a more efficient manner? Does the Administrative Advisor function vary with the type of multistate committee?

• AAs could be provided with better guidance on a more regular basis.

• Suggest that NCAs don't need the same level of administrative guidance as other committees; could the host university of the annual meeting provide a Director to meet with NCAs for a short time on the meeting agenda?

• Suggest that AA's be physically present only at the meetings prior to the mid-term year and proposal renewal with an understanding that the other meetings are done without an AA or with the AA joining for a portion of the meeting via teleconference.

4. How do we move towards a national system versus a regional system?

5. There are several examples of multistate collaboration (e.g. Manure consortium, Poultry consortium) but these efforts are not captured in the multistate system (and we are not allowed to 'count' our financial contribution towards these efforts in meeting our 25 requirement). Can the system be modified to allow these efforts to count without requiring additional the additional paperwork to join the project system?

• What did Congress want to accomplish through the multistate requirement?

• Eliminate duplication—have we accomplished that?

• Extension can't capture their multistate investment the way the current system is organized.

6. Can NIMSS be modified to reduce the email message load?


Establish a national taskforce to address these issues.


Action Requested: The net result of the above discussion was to express two motions concerns to ESCOP: 

ESCOP should undertake a review of the multistate project system to examine how increased efficiency and effectiveness can be achieved in the system. This concern was raised specifically by the ad hoc Committee as demonstrated in the attached report from them. Although their report focuses on projects in the North Central Region, we believe that some of the comments are applicable to the entire multistate system.

As a follow on to the discussion on the multistate project system, it was the consensus of NCRA that a reporting system should be in place to ensure simplification of accountability, meet the needs of the agency (CSREES), and contribute to evaluation and planning for the experiment stations. It was moved, seconded and passed to take the concerns about the Federal Plan of Work and Annual Report to ESCOP and request that these concerns are forwarded to the BAA and the Farm Bill Task Force so that they may be addressed. This topic is timely for the BAA Farm Bill Committee because the reporting requirements that we now labor under had some of their roots in the 1998 Farm Bill and the subsequent Agricultural, Research, Extension and Education Reform Act (AREERA) passed in 1998. Furthermore, CSREES has currently extended the Five-Year Plan of Work of 2000 another two years so the agency can critically evaluate the requirements and usefulness of the Plan of Work and the Annual Report. This presents an excellent opportunity for ESCOP to have input into this review.

Action Taken: ESCOP should take immediate action on the motion of NCRA that calls for forwarding these concerns to BAA and the Farm Bill Committee. Wendy will work with Daryl Lund to present an official request to ESCOP.


NCRA OFFICE FY'04 BUDGET (*refer to handout)

Presenters: Wendy Wintersteen, Margaret Dentine, Daryl Lund



Presenters: Wendy Wintersteen, Daryl Lund


2003 Annual Report

Daryl Lund, Executive Director NCRA


    • Member, Multistate Research Committee - all day meeting Spring; half-day meeting Summer
    • Member, Executive Committee - organize teleconferences
    • Liaison to NC Extensions Directors
    • Prepared draft of reports for NC Region to ESCOP
    • Co-organizer, Spring, Summer, Fall NCRA meetings
    • Assisted in AA Training teleconferences
    • Organized drafting of Impact statements for 9 NC/NCR projects and 1 NRSP


    • Executive Vice-Chair ESCOP
    • Executive Vice Chair, Budget and Legislative committee
    • ESCOP representative to BAC
    • Executive Vice-Chair, Chairs' Advisory Committee (monthly teleconferences)
    • Member, National Institute for Agricultural Security Board of Directors
    • Executive Vice-Chair NRSP Review Committee
    • Member, Executive committee
    • Member, National Multistate Coordinating Committee
    • Program Organizer, SAES/ARD Workshop, September 21-24
    • Attendee Joint COPs Meeting, Jersey City, NJ July 20 - 23
    • Chair National Information Management and Support System (NIMSS) Advisory Committee


    • Member, Core Committee for NASULGC Presidents' Food and Society Initiative
    • Member Organizing Committee for NAS Workshop on Food and Health Wash DC June 9
    • Attendee, NASULGC annual meeting
    • Member, NASULGC- ICA Organizing Committee, Co-Chair Research Committee, Beauvais, France March 30 - April 6
    • Member NASULGC-DOE Project


    • Institute of Food Technologists (IFT)

Chair, ad hoc Committee on Summit Conferences - executed protocol for developing Summit

Conferences - Summit 1. Dormant microbes: Research needs. Jan 12 - 14, 2003. Summit 2. Kinetic models for microbial survival during processing. Jan 14-16, 2003. Prelude to Summit 3. The Obesity Conundrum: Is there a food solution. February 15-17, 2004.

Member, Committee on Science, Communications, and Government Relations

Scientific Editor, Journal of Food Science section on Concise Reviews/ Hypothesis

Editor-in-Chief IFT Peer-Reviewed Publications

Member, Marcel Loncin Jury

Member, Nominations Committee

Chair-elect Refrigerated and Frozen Foods Division; organized session of 2004 meeting

Member Task Force on Leadership Development

    • Wisconsin Section IFT

Chair session on Role of Food Science Departments in Economic Development

    • International Union of Food Science and Technology (IUFoST)

Chair, Task Force on Distance Education - drafted proposal on DE in Sub-Saharan Africa for ICSU

Co-PI - USDA grant on virtual food processing plant tours

Member Academy Council Executive Committee

    • Sigma Xi

Member, Committee on lectureships

    • World Food Logistics Organization (WFLO)

Chair, Scientific Advisory Council

Member, Board of Governors

    • Food Science

Department of Food Science - UW-Madison

o        Member, Fund Raising Committee

o        Member, Food Engineering Program Committee

o        Member, Food Engineering Position Search Committee

o        Member, Executive Committee, Department of Food Science - Rutgers

o        Member, Advisory Council


    • Member, Downtown Kiawanis Agriculture, Conservation and Environment Committee
    • Advisor, Institute Pertanian-Bogor, Indonesia


    • USDA Agricultural Telecommunications Program
    • J Food Engineering
    • Land grant mission review Cornell University
    • Biotechnology Progress
    • International Institute of Refrigeration Program


    • Karel, M and DB Lund. 2003. Physical Principles of Food Preservation. 2nd Ed. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, pp 603.
    • Fu, YC, CH Tong, DB Lund. 2003. Flavor migration out of food matrices: I. System Development for on-line measurement of flavor concentration. J Food Sci 68(3), 775-783.
    • Fu, YC, CH Tong, DB Lund. 2003. Flavor migration out of food matrices: II. Quantifying flavor migration from dough undergoing isothermal heating. J Food Sci 68(3), 923-930.
    • Fu, YC, CH Tong, DB Lund. 2003. Flavor migration out of food matrices: III. Migration of limonene and pyrazine in formulated dough undergoing microwave reheating. J Food Sci 68(3), 931-939.
    • Fu, YC, CH Tong, DB Lund. 2003. Moisture migration in solid food matrices. J Food Sci 68(8), 24997-2503.
    • Lund, DB. 2003. Predicting the impact of food processing on food constituents. J Food Engr 56, 113-117


    • Lund, D.B. 2003. Role of SAESs. Forum on the future of Science Outreach at UW.

Report of the Executive Director 2003

Daryl Lund, Executive Director NCRA

Highlights and Challenges


Activities by the NCRA Office:

There are continued improvements to the NCRA homepage by adding links and information of potential use by SAESs. In addition, we completed an analysis of mapping the NCRA Priorities onto the ESCOP Science Roadmap onto the GRPA goals and finally onto the 2002 -2007 USDA goals. We have asked all NC projects to reflect on how their project supports the priorities of the NCRA and the GRPA goals.

Relations with NC Extension Directors:

I am serving as liaison to the NC Extension Directors and Carl O'Connor is liaison to NCRA. We are both anxious to see a closer working relationship between the groups.


National Research Support Project Guidelines:

The NRSP Guidelines were adopted by the Experiment Station Section and supported by CSREES. Gary Lemme was elected the first chair (two-year term) and, by virtue of regional association, I became the Executive Vice-Chair. In that role, I organized development of all protocols for the NRSP Review Committee including forms to be used for submission, evaluation and budgets. These forms were placed on the NCRA website by Nicole Nelson and were used this past year. The forms will be implemented in the NIMSS by July 1, 2004. The first recommendations of the NRSP Review Committee will be made at the ESS fall meeting.

In January 2004, NCRA cosponsored with CSREES and the NCEDA (North Central Extension Directors Association) a workshop on competitive grants application in Chicago. Although considered successful by the approximately 100 attendees, plans are already underway to make the next one in two years even better.

In an effort to develop impact statements in support of multistate activity, each ED asked 10 multistate projects (5 NCs, 4 NCRs and 1 NRSP) to develop impact statements. These have been developed in rough form and were forwarded to the BRT for use in support of the FY 05 federal budget. We are in the process of having a professional writer edit the statements so we can use them as examples for other projects. We intend to continue the development of these impact statements for all NC and NCR projects

ESCOP Budget and Legislative Committee:

I continue to serve as the Executive Vice-chair of the ESCOP B/L Committee. The Committee developed priorities for the FY 06 federal budget.

National Information and Management Support System:

I continue to chair the NIMSS Oversight Committee, a position I will relinquish to Eric Young, ESCOP liaison to NRSP-1 this spring. NIMSS budget was presented to and adopted by the ESS at its Fall meeting ($30000 taken from the reserves held by NASULGC). NIMSS has undergone reconstruction and version 2.0 will be released May 10. The reconstructed version will be much more friendly to first-time or infrequent users.

SAES/ARD Workshop:

I was chief staff support for the Fall ESS Workshop held in Dearborn, MI, September 2003. In the future the support for this meeting will be rotated among the EDs corresponding to the chair-designate of ESCOP. Fall 2004 the chair designate is DC Costen and Eric Young will be support ED.

Support for Research with other Federal Agencies

The EDs have expressed an interest in developing closer relations to other federal funding agencies so that the ESS might have some influence on funding priorities and increase the opportunity for faculty in SAESs to participate in projects. With the appointment of Jim Fischer as a director in the DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the opportunity for EDs to become directly engaged in the EERE programs quickly materialized. Jim along with Stan Johnson, Dan Bartel and Jim Zuiches developed a proposal for relations between NASULGC and EERE. The proposal consisted of five projects and has been adopted by both parties. The support staff of experiment stations, extension and academic programs are all serving a staff to the projects. Carl O'Connor and I support project 1: Expanding the Opportunities for Cooperation and Communications between NASULGC and DOE/EERE. Our work plan will be posted on the website in the near future. The EDs will continue to look for these types of opportunities to get visibility of the SAESs in federal funding agencies.


Relations with NASULGC Staff:

The Regional EDs are now included in all staff meetings called by Mort Neufville. These meetings serve to keep everyone in the loop on developments especially in Washington DC and as linkages between the functions.

NASULGC - ICA Initiative:

NASULGC has been actively engaged with its sister organization in Europe (ICA) in furthering academic programs (including student exchanges) and research interaction between European and US universities. As co-chair of the research activity, I organized the research session for the forth coming meeting in Athens, GA, April 6-9. I will continue to be active in this activity.

NASULGC Presidents' Food and Society Initiative:

I continue to serve on the Core Committee of the F/S Initiative. The report from the NAS workshop held June 9, 2003 is about to be issued. The workshop identified research needs in the area of food and health. I chaired the session on breakouts to identify the research needs.


Interactions with CSREES

Relations with CSREES staff remain very good. The EDs met with CSREES National Program Leaders and Deputy Administrators last fall to review agency priorities and SAES priorities. We also interacted with Colien Hefferan on the Civil Rights Guidelines for review of SAES and Extension compliance with EEO Guidelines. As a result of that meeting, Colien agreed to appoint a committee of SAES directors (Margaret Dentine and Paul Rasmussen), Extension Directors (two) and her staff to review the guidelines for redundancy with existing university guidelines. In addition I am working with two NPLs on a workshop on new technologies for food safety through processing.


Distance Education in Food Science and Technology:

I continue to chair the International Union of Food Science and Technology Task Force on Distance Education. We have submitted to ICSU (International Council of Scientific Unions) a project proposal for developing learning modules in food science and technology for use in Sub-Saharan Africa. I am also Co-PI on a successful Distance Education Higher Education grant (USDA/CSREES) on developing virtual tours of food processing operations. I will chair the Advisory Committee.

Item J13: Potential LTER (Long-Term Ecological Research) Project on Mississippi River Basin

Presenter: Daryl Lund

 Background: Given that this is the first joint meeting between our two regions in some time, it seemed like a good opportunity to explore potential issues of mutual interest. One that comes to mind is the Mississippi River basin since what is done in the North Central Region clearly affects what happens in the Southern Region. As a result I have investigated the potential for a long-term ecological research project (LTER) for the Mississippi River. I will present the information in the following power point and ask for suggested next steps.

Click HERE for powerpoint presentation.

Action Required: For information only.

Item NC9: Sun Grant Initiative

Presenter: Kevin Kephart

Background: The Sun Grant Initiaitive was authorized by Congress in January 2004 as part of the FY04 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. The details of the authorization can be found in the appropriations bill, but some of the major points include:

Through development, distribution, and implementation of biobased energy technologies:

- Enhance America's national energy security through development, distribution and implementation of biobased energy technologies.

- Promote diversification and environmental sustainability of America's agriculture.

- Promote opportunities for biobased economic diversification in America's rural communities.


- the authorization is $25 million in FFY05, $50 million in FFY06 and $75 million in FFY07 through FFY10.


- the home department is USDA; however, a home agency in USDA is yet to be identified.

- five SGI centers and respective regions were defined. Centers include SDSU, Univ. of TN, Oklahoma State Univ., Oregon State Univ, and Cornell.

- the states in the North Central reagion include MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, IA, MN, WI, IL, and IN.

Funding structure:

- appropriated funds are to be divided equally among the five centers/regions.

- there's one off-the-top item, a $4 million national SGI data analysis center.

- no more than 25% of the allocated funds to a center may be used for the direct functions of the center (research, teaching, extension, administration).

- the remaining 75% must be awarded to land grant institutions in the region on a competitive basis.

- the competitive activities must include (1) technology development, and (2) technology implementation.

- a plan of activities must be developed and approved by the Secretary of USDA.

Action Requested: None, for information only.

Item NC11: Regional Dairy Research Teaching and Extension

Presenter: Wendy Wintersteen


 Midwest Dairy Consortium:

Research, Education, and Outreach for the Midwest Dairy Industry

Purpose: To be a driving force to revitalize and grow the dairy industry in the Midwestern USA via innovative research, education, and outreach programs.

Concept: To form a consortium among the upper Midwest Land-Grant Universities, the dairy processing industry, allied industries in support of dairy producers, and dairy producers, with the aim of maximizing use of scarce resources and creating new funding opportunities to support multi-state, multi-disciplinary programs of direct relevance to the Midwest dairy industry.

Objectives: To increase collaboration among the Midwest university dairy science programs, in cooperation with allied industries, in order to meet the following general objectives relating to research, education, and outreach:

1. Establish shared research objectives and develop new funding sources to support research on areas of direct relevance and importance to sustainability of the Midwest dairy industry, and to effectively communicate the results of that research to the Midwest dairy industry.

2. Establish collaborative teaching activities to provide unique educational opportunities to undergraduate and graduate students that are not able to be provided by individual universities.

3. Establish better shared mechanisms to deliver information to dairy producers and the allied industries that support dairy production in the Midwest.

Specific activities to address these objectives are detailed in a later section.

Justification: Milk production, cow numbers, and dairy farm numbers have decreased over the last decade in many of the Midwestern states. University resources committed to dairy-related activities likewise have shrunk. Research facilities continue to deteriorate and are difficult to replace. Costs for labor, inputs, and regulatory compliance continue to strain state budgets to operate dairy production research enterprises. It will be difficult for all states to maintain modern research facilities and a critical mass of faculty and staff to maintain independent university programs in dairy production. Moreover, declining resources make it difficult for existing faculty to maintain viable research, teaching, and extension programs.

A consortium offers the opportunity to create and exploit synergy among several states. The consortium establishes mechanisms to centralize the development of regional objectives, to create a new stream of funding for programs, and to more effectively channel results to dairy producers and the allied industries.

Proposed approaches and activities:

Research. The proposed initial activities are divided into three broad areas. First, gather data to create a catalogue of strengths and anticipated gaps in the scientific disciplines relating to Dairy research. Second, strengthen or establish mechanisms for increased collaborations and partnerships for multi-institution projects and graduate student education and training.

Third, develop more and better tools for on-farm research, especially research related to dairy farming systems and their decision-support elements.

I. Catalogue

                A planning committee will design a survey to poll members as to their current individual strengths as well as anticipated gaps due to retirements, closings, or normal aging. The disciplines considered will be within the departments of Dairy Science, Animal Sciences, Plant Sciences, Food Sciences, Ag Engineering, Ag Economics, Rural Sociology, and Ag Business and Management. The committee will decide on the specifics to be polled. For example, within the dairy and animal sciences, they will consider breeding and genetics, nutrition, physiology (reproductive, digestive and mammary), health, and behavior and well-being. Within the plant sciences, both forages and concentrates will be considered. Aspects of crop production will be considered from planting and growth through harvest, treatment, storage, mixing, and feeding. The ag engineers might consider manure handling and management issues as well as farm facilities. Food scientists and dairy products specialists will consider processing of dairy products. Sociology groups might consider both dairy farmers themselves as well as their neighbors and customers. Strengths among the cooperating institutions will be assessed by evaluating faculty, students, courses offered, current research projects, current grants, and facilities. The current state of interactions between the institution and the local dairy community will also be assessed.

II. Multi-institution projects

                Proposals will be developed with the objective of creating mechanisms for streamlining the logistics of multi-institutional projects and graduate training. Graduate student committees can be made up of faculty from different member institutions and students will be able to take classes at different institutions. Guidelines will be drawn up to standardize requirements for allowing qualified faculty to serve on each other's graduate faculty. Individual units within institutions simultaneously can be the leader in some projects and supporting member on others. This scheme will allow each institution to maintain its own individual identity while strengthening and widening impact in its area of strength. Examples of details to be worked out include funding streams, lines of supervision, and partitioning credit for research results. A Forum is to be established in which faculty can discuss and establish priorities for collaborative research endeavors. As the Consortium grows, a central board or committee will need to be established to allocate a pool of funds to these multi-institutional projects. This board also can serve as a clearinghouse for grant applications involving two or more member institutions.

III. On-farm research

                While many individual investigators at member institutions already employ on-farm research to address applied and systems research, the extent and usefulness of on-farm research projects may be enhanced using techniques and tools from the medical and quality control industries. Conducting well-designed scientific research on stakeholders' facilities will increase the power and scope of research, increase research capacities, and provide instant validity of research results. Special emphasis will be placed on the evaluation of entire production systems with an objective of rating and ranking different management practices.

IV. General aspects of consortium research

                A primary goal of the consortium is to develop and distribute new funding sources for addressing important research or education questions that are unlikely to be funded by other existing programs (e.g., USDA-National Research Initiative [NRI], national dairy check-off, private industry). This is not to exclude innovative multi-institution opportunities that might come along where consortium money could be used as valuable seed money to leverage against future grant program opportunities, such as USDA-NRI grants.

                Larger programmatic proposals addressing major objectives from a multi-state, multi-disciplinary perspective should be a key component of the portfolio supported by the consortium. Potential target or focus areas for soliciting proposals can be developed at the start or as the consortium evolves. Examples might include farm systems development, grazing research, labor management and development, linking producers to branded or differentiated endproducts, nutrient management, nutrition and health or nutrition and reproduction interactions, heifer development, niche marketing, development of training courses or materials, etc.

                The consortium could sponsor an annual symposium or conference to highlight research findings, targeted at various audiences (producers, industry advisors, veterinarians, or scientists). Other ways to engage the participants and deliver results of sponsored research to the industry should be sought.

Education. Proposed activities center on 1) identifying opportunities and mechanisms to share in providing graduate (and perhaps undergraduate) courses, and 2) development of a professional MS degree program or certification. Graduate courses (especially at the upper or Ph.D. level) are becoming a challenge to offer due to low enrollments and lack of specific expertise in teaching as departments downsize. Examples include dairy cattle breeding courses (traditional animal breeding) and advanced nutrition courses. As an example of how the Consortium might address these needs, Consortium universities such as Iowa State University and the University of Nebraska offer extensive MS and PhD course sequences in breeding and genetics that are not available at other member universities. Iowa State and Nebraska could take the lead and team with other consortium members to create comprehensive distance education offerings and market them as web-based courses.

                Within the current Midwest Consortium universities, the most significant educational deficit related to shortage of coursework or lack of faculty expertise in teaching and research is in dairy manufacturing. South Dakota State University (SDSU) is recognized as a leader in education and research in dairy manufacturing technologies. SDSU could serve as the lead institution to develop distance education programs for undergraduate and graduate degrees. Dairy manufacturing education contains an intense hands-on laboratory component. SDSU might also provide on-site facilities for short-course delivery of critical laboratory exercises, similar to the model for on-site activities in the Midwest Poultry Consortium courses. Other universities in the region also have expertise in the area (e.g., University of Wisconsin).

                It should be noted that although the two examples previously listed are aimed at solutions to concerns raised by representatives from the universities in attendance at the consortium conference, similar educational needs exist at other universities outside of the Midwest. The potential market for consortium-created programs and distance education materials should be considered to be global.

                Consortium members believe that a significant need exists for a professional Masters degree or certification program with strength in dairy science disciplines for careers in managerial positions. New programs should encourage more broad-based disciplinary study and include business education. The Midwestern dairy industry, in particular, consistently seeks M.S. level graduates with this type of education. This issue does not indicate a lack of teaching expertise or available educational opportunities, but rather highlights a need, and opportunity, to consider new programming. The educational opportunity may be able to be met by repackaging existing course sets at member institutions to create new majors or programs across the region.

                Specific approaches will center on curriculum revitalization across the regions. Programs need to be vital and interesting to potential students as a method of increasing enrollments. Outcomes must meet needs and expectations of employers; much of this input should be able to be obtained from the Consortium members the allied industries. Modular courses and internship opportunities likely will be key in meeting these curricular needs. Universities and industry cooperators could come together to offer individual programs at a consortium member school, team to offer programs on a rotational basis, or offer various permutations of workshop and internship activities. The Midwest Poultry Consortium ( is an excellent example of a multi-university/industry cooperative program, which currently includes 13 universities and offers 6 summer courses. Midwest Dairy Consortium representatives will meet with representatives of the poultry consortium and learn from their success.

                A steering committee within the Consortium will be established to move forward the concept of shared activities to meet regional challenges in dairy science education. This committee will address the needs described above, and also address barriers to effective collaboration, which largely center on inter-institutional challenges such as sharing academic and teaching credit, sharing costs and tuition income, cost of delivery vs. return for on-line or distance education courses, credit transfer among institutions, required residence time at respective institutions, on-load vs. off-load teaching, and provision of laboratory components for distance-education opportunities. Involvement of administrators from the outset will be key to overcoming these potential barriers.

 Extension Programs and Outreach: Extension programs and outreach activities in the Consortium will serve to coordinate and enhance cooperative relationships among Midwest dairy extension educators (university, government, and private sector). Three major focal areas are identified, which include: 1) Inventory of assets, including both personnel and educational materials; 2) information dissemination and delivery; and 3) information generation. All of these mechanisms ultimately can serve as information delivery vehicle for results of research conducted by the Consortium. Critical to long-term success is a centralization and control process to integrate and coordinate both activities and information.

I. Inventory of extension and outreach assets

                The initial thrust will be to define the personnel and educational materials that already exist among member institutions and organizations, and then use this inventory to define areas of critical need for the future.

a.        Personnel: A survey has already been conducted of participating states (and a few others) regarding personnel with dairy extension appointments and their areas of expertise. This survey is not only critical to evaluate current areas of strength and collaboration, but also to define key needs for future hires. The initial survey was among universities. A similar exercise will be conducted across agribusinesses to define key players.

b.        Educational materials: An assessment of current educational materials from all entities (university, government, and private sector) will be performed. This will allow organization and and cataloging of materials for dissemination. In addition, the inventory will identify current areas or topics where new materials need to be developed and implemented.

II. Information dissemination and delivery

a.        Educational materials: The cataloging of educational materials described above will allow for greater access to materials that can be used for information dissemination.

b.        Educational meetings or programs: This is certainly a major avenue for information dissemination. A real-time centralized network or catalogue of meetings and program offerings, including topics, will be developed. Centralization will allow potential use of materials, speakers, or programs across multiple states and disciplines within the region. Expansion or enhancement of existing multi-state extension efforts (e.g., the four-state programs [IA, IL, MN, WI], tri-state programs [IN, MI, OH]), Central Plains Expo (SD, ND, NE, IA, MN) will be considered.

c.        Internet resources and delivery: Websites have become an excellent tool for information cataloging and dissemination. A website has already been developed that provides inter-linking of individual university dairy extension and education websites (

d.        Distance education learning and network opportunities: Many existing programs in the region incorporate distance education and network learning ( IA ICN dairy programs, Illinois Nutrition and Dairy Management courses via internet, Web CT courses, etc.). Potential opportunities already exist to network some of these to other states or to provide the materials for use by other states (e.g., Illinois had CD-ROM materials made for their courses) as a framework and background for offering educational programming locally.

  •                 A key area for concern that needs to be addressed is the diverse systems used among the states for videoconferencing, etc. A focused effort will be made to examine this subject so that multi-state collaboration via videoconferencing, web delivery, etc. can be achieved. Exploration will need to encompass the IT staff from each state as well as experts who can help define and centralize the processes and protocols.

III. Information generation

                The assessments above will serve to define areas or gaps where new materials are needed and existing materials need to be updated, and the means by which this should be done (i.e., individual state or multi-state depending on the topics). Many current issues in dairy science and production are complex and by nature lend themselves to multi-state efforts. The push for education and materials available on modern media and at reasonable cost led to joint Four-State efforts to develop a new Parlor and Facilities CD and other materials, including virtual farm tours. Recent increased interest in raising replacement heifers and the costs involved resulted in the new Raising Dairy Replacements publication and CD. The Transition Cow CD (joint with university and industry) collectively addressed all areas of transition cow management with possibilities for interactive learning and delivery. The recent Minnesota materials on milk quality have been made available electronically to participating consortium states. Some current issues that need attention include: educational programs for Hispanic workers, focused training modules for specific dairy job areas (feeding, milking, etc), milk marketing and risk management, etc. Many of these are being addressed in individual states but could be better served by collective development of materials and programs.  

IV. Centralization and coordination of extension and outreach efforts

                Currently, individual states or multiple states take the lead in developing joint materials, programs, and websites. Much of our future success with this consortium hinges on continual assessment of personnel, educational materials, and programs and the abilities to link this information into a centralized information system with a coordinator. This goal will be even more critical as we integrate teaching and research information into extension and outreach efforts.


Possible additional funding sources

1) Corporate sustaining memberships are a critical component and need to be aggressively pursued and cultivated. Corporate sustaining memberships would be multiyear commitments at first (three years?) at a suggested level of $10,000- $20,000 annually. Membership would entitle the organizations to voting rights, access to licensing of any intellectual property developed from the consortium, discounts on registration to sponsored programs, prompt provision of semiannual and annual reports, and other privileges as identified.

2) State Departments of Agriculture should be another target for continuing support (or perhaps special initiative-based support). A suggested target sustaining level might be $2,000 to $5,000 per state per year. Larger grants might be sought for specific objectives.

3) The consortium should work closely with, and perhaps include membership by, other dairy-related organizations in the Midwest states, such as the Minnesota Milk Producers' Association, Illinois Milk Producers' Association, and others. Because of the differences in structure and relationships of each state's dairy organization, flexibility must be allowed to optimize each state's participation.

4) Targeted Federal appropriations may be a key opportunity to support the Consortium activities, especially if initial seed money can be obtained from other sources.

5) Changes in federal grants programs such as the USDA-NRI that allow large, multistate, multidisciplinary grants to fund research, education, and extension activities may provide an excellent opportunity to support consortium efforts.

6) As the dairy industry changes and existing check-off programs change or are discontinued, , an additional area of support once the consortium is operational could be a dairy producer check-off program in the participating states. This likely would have to be voluntary to be successful. Funds would support a competitive grants program (similar to the Illinois C-FAR program, or Florida dairy checkoff, etc.). Selling points are that the program would be relevant and accountable (a key component of our C-FAR program) by having producers sit on the governing board, on working groups to develop objectives, and on grant review panels. Research reports go to a central website that all producers could access. Plans for dissemination of results and findings to the industry are part of the grant proposal (i.e., how will the team get findings and application directly to dairy producers or the allied industry, apart from traditional peer-reviewed scientific publications?). Relevancy to the Midwest dairy industry is a core component of the proposal evaluation process.

Producers currently must contribute to a national checkoff that is prohibited by law from supporting production-related research (interpreted very broadly by NDB and DMI) that might increase milk production. This program would be different in that projects directly addressing key areas of producer profitability or concern could be supported by producer revenue.

Item NC13: Resolutions

Presenter: Marshall Martin

 A Resolution Honoring

Dr. Philip O. Larsen

Senior Associate Dean for Research, College of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences

Associate Director, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station

University of Minnesota

Whereas, Philip O. Larsen served admirably as Professor and Department Head, Senior Associate Dean, and Interim Dean in the College of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences; and Interim Director and Associate Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station at the University of Minnesota, and

Whereas, Philip O. Larsen regularly attended North Central Regional Association and national meetings of Experiment Station directors, and actively served on the Multistate Research Committee from 1999 to 2001, and as chair of the NCRA in 2003, and

Whereas, Philip O. Larsen conducted research, both scientifically and recreationally, on turfgrass, and published several books and chapters on turfgrass diseases, and

Whereas, Philip O. Larsen taught, mentored and encouraged numerous undergraduate and graduate students in the plant pathology discipline and received the "Faculty Mentor of the Year Award" and the "Distinguished Service Award" in the Department of Plant Pathology at the University of Minnesota, and

Whereas, Philip O. Larsen served as project director for Visions for Change, a collaborative effort with citizen groups in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, to assess their vision for the future of food systems education at Land Grant Universities in the 21st Century, and

Whereas, Philip O. Larsen, while head of the Department of Plant Pathology at the University of Minnesota, led a campaign to raise $1,000,000 to establish the Endowed Chair for Disease Resistance Breeding in Cereal Crops, and

Whereas, Philip O. Larsen persevered through University politics, budget constraints and challenging personnel issues with dignity, honesty and the quest to "do things right," and

Whereas, Philip O. Larsen, whether teacher, researcher, administrator, husband, father, or friend, is the kindest man a person could ever meet!

Be it now resolved that the North Central Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors expresses its sincerest appreciation and deepest thanks to Philip O. Larsen and wishes him well in his future endeavors.

 Presented March 31, 2004

NCRA meeting, Orange Beach, Alabama



Wendy Wintersteen

Daryl Lund

Chair, NCRA

Executive Director, NCRA


Item NC14: Other

Item NC14a: Business Officers Meetings - Sarah Greening

Many NCRA attendees expressed frustration at the length and cost of these meetings. The also feel that more topics presented at these meetings apply to extension offices than to experiment stations. "$450 is a lot of money to spend for five days, and therefore many offices can’t afford to send people to attend four one-hour sessions."

Doreen Woodward mentioned that the planners try to spread the experiment station topics out over the entire week of the meeting so that they are not all held on one day. However, this is not convenient for attendees.

Darrell Nelson suggested holding one meeting for new attendees and a shorter session for those who have attended before.

Action: Daryl will follow up with CSREES and USDA about changing the issues raised.


Item NC14b: Material Transfer Agreements regarding Plant Breeding Materials - Kevin Kephart

More and more, MTAs are negotiated between stations, contrary to prior procedures. It’s very difficult to maneuver through the intellectual property office rules at each university.

NCURA and AUTM have this on their websites as well. They add the new/different information to the bottom of these forms.

Action Taken: The NCRA Office will request that each experiment station provide its boilerplate MTA. These will be posted on the NCRA homepage in a manner similar to posting the germplasm/variety release survey.


Item NC14c: Animal Health Protection (FY05 Appropriations Request) - Bert Stromberg

See handout provided:

FY 05 Appropriations Request (March 16, 2004)

Animal Health Protection



$100M for USDA §1433 Formula Funds for Animal Health to improve prevention, surveillance, diagnosis and control measures for infectious diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), avian influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), monkeypox and foot-and-mouth disease.


    • In response to infectious animal disease outbreaks, there is an immediate and critical need to build local, regional and national capacity in prevention, surveillance, diagnosis, geographic information systems (GIS) tracking, control procedures and recovery management.
    • These measures are needed to ensure the continued high level of confidence in the safety and security of the U.S. food supply.
    • The USDA § 1433 Formula Funds for Animal Health Program was created specifically to provide resources for this type of applied research.
      • Funds are distributed to all states based on animal inventory and research capacity.
      • The nation's agriculture experiment stations, colleges of agriculture and colleges of veterinary medicine can effectively respond to this critical need with increased funding.


    • Develop and apply rapid diagnostic technology for priority disease agents such as BSE.
    • Develop tests to detect the presence of ruminant proteins in ruminant and other animal feeds.
    • Sample foods for evidence of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs).
    • Strengthen animal surveillance and animal census and tracking, integrated with GIS tracking.
    • Develop models for target diseases to determine risk, economic impact and risk management.
    • Establish new approaches for controlling these diseases through improved vaccines, immune potentiators and genomics.
    • Devise plans for recovery after a disease outbreak, including effective carcass disposal and safe repopulation of affected premises.


Animal health protection requires effective veterinary response at the local level. In the event of a disease outbreak, veterinarians are responsible for diagnosis and risk management leading to disease control or elimination. The failure to diagnose foreign animal diseases, emerging infectious diseases and zoonotic agents accurately and rapidly, whether they are intentionally introduced or naturally occurring, can lead to catastrophic economic losses and loss of human and animal lives.


Action Requested: None; for information only.


Item NC14d: NC-7 and NC1100 FY05 Budgets

Wendy Wintersteen presented handouts illustrating the budgets for these two projects. Contact the NCRA Office for more information or copies of the handouts.

The following are the results of the NCRA conversation:

NC-1100: FY05 Budget approved for $24,000

NC-7: Approve FY 05 funding at the FY 04 level (after rescission) with adjustment in the budget corresponding to the adjustments made in the Hatch Appropriations, such upward adjustments not to exceed the requested budget of the NC7 - $536,305. A presentation by the NC-7 group would be appreciated at the March 2005 meeting.


Item NC14e: Spring 2005 NCRA Meeting

The NCRA voted to hold the Spring 2005 meeting in Columbus, Ohio. The NCRA Office will work with OARDC in making the arrangements. The meeting will likely take place April 3-5, 2005 all day Tuesday and a 1/2 day Wednesday (until noon).