• Preparing an Effective SAES-422 Report

Sponsored Links

  •   
  • FileName: EffectiveSAES-422.pdf [preview-online]
    • Abstract: Agricultural research has become one of the many successes of federally-funded research. ... System, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Defense to the science-based ...

Download the ebook

Preparing an Effective
SAES-422 Report
By
David R. MacKenzie, Thomas. J. Helms,
Daryl Lund, H. Michael Harrington and Eric Young
Revised By
Nicole Nelson, January 2007
INTRODUCTION
Agricultural research has become one of the many successes of federally-funded research. In
particular, multistate research that takes place among the State Agriculture Experiment Stations
continues to produce sound scientific results on which future research will be based. In recent
years, these research projects have documented much of their success using the SAES-422
annual report form. Since the late 1990s, these forms have continually evolved to become more
specific and uniform in layout and content. Additionally, each SAES regional association now
requires that every project type submit these forms before an Administrative Advisor can
authorize a meeting for the following year. The SAES-422 form has improved over time, and
the regional associations expect research projects to document even stronger accomplishments
and impacts in the future.
HISTORY
Until the early 1990s, the federal government made few demands on scientific research to
demonstrate impact and effective use of federal resources. Scientists were left alone to pursue
discoveries regarding the nation’s economy, society, health and the environment. The 1945
publication entitled “Science, The Endless Frontier” by Vannevar Bush
(http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm) a policy document in force for nearly 50
years, called for major federal investments in post-WWII science with the general pledge that
such investments would yield huge payoffs. Indeed such payoffs did occur, but the
documentation on the extent of the payoffs is scanty. The Bush doctrine has guided federal
research investments since its publication.
For most of the late 20th Century the federal government invested heavily in scientific research,
resulting in legendary health improvements for the general public, improvements in agricultural
productivity and harmony with the environment, protection of natural resources and enhanced
success for youth, families and communities. For example, research funded by the federal
government has vastly increased food supplies, and food costs have dropped to less than 9% of
the average American’s disposable income. It also greatly improved the environment. These
results and many more are a direct consequence of public and private scientific research
investments.
In 1993, the Federal Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA – refer to
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/mgmt-gpra/gplaw2m.html) significantly changed Executive
Branch agency expectations. Hence fourth it required that all agencies, including those funding
scientific research activities, develop performance-based plans to report against annually. They
anticipated that future budget decisions would relate to demonstrated performance by agencies
based on their reported results. However, the Act omitted organized plans for gathering
performance and result information generated outside the agency. This was notably true for
scientific research activities for which accomplishments and impacts were notoriously difficult to
predict as in research trials “yet-to-be conducted.”
The government imposed the GPRA requirements across all agencies from the Social Security
System, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Defense to the science-based
agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the Department of Agriculture.
The 1998 Farm Bill required all public institutions to organize federal formula fund activities
using state-based Plans of Work. Congress expected to provide the funding agency (i.e., the
USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES)) with reliable
information they could assemble into performance reports for GPRA compliance.
The State Agricultural Experiment Stations use formula funds to maintain facilities, pay faculty
salaries, hire technicians, feed research animals, buy fertilizers for crop trials, and for other
essential resources. The government requires matching non-federal funding in equal amounts,
and the federal investment is often overmatched by a ratio between five- and ten-to-one.
Additionally, formula funding requires that public institutions use “not less than 25%” for
multistate research projects. Also, twice the 1997 base amount (or not less than 25% of the
formula funds, which ever is less) must be used for integrated activities with extension. The
justification for these requirements rests with the perspective that researchers should not use
federal tax dollars to study local- or state-specific problems or issues. Researchers should use
federal funds to invest more towards regional and national needs and opportunities.
The ramp up period to full GPRA reporting is over, and those units receiving USDA CSREES
formula-distributed funds must provide information showing the use of those funds to meet
national or regional goals. The consequence of poor or inadequate reporting could result in loss
of formula funding, a prospect that would be devastating to agricultural research as we know it.
Federal formula funding, viewed as an essential component of the Federal-State Partnership in
agricultural research and Extension, is under attack for not being sufficiently accountable. Some
critics of formula funds also assume it to be an entitlement and propose converting the funds to
competitive grants. SAES directors remain committed to assuring proper use of formula funds
and, given the importance of these funds to their funding portfolio, have sought increases in
federal formula allocations.
Agricultural research programs funded by the federal government must provide information that
justifies continuation of the funds. This means that each project or activity must report results in
a way that the committee can results into comprehensive reports for decision makers. To
facilitate this responsibility and better support the preservation of this important research funding
source, the regional associations of State Agricultural Experiment Station directors adopted a set
of guidelines designed to implement the intent of the changes in the 1998 Farm Bill and turn
reporting instruments into an impact-oriented system. Among those changes was the requirement
for the annual SAES-422 accomplishment report (see Appendix 1) for each multistate research
fund (MRF) project or activity.
The SAES-422 annual report evolved from a series of federal forms that must be prepared and
submitted in connection with Hatch money and CRIS (ie. AD-416, AD-417, AD-418, AD-419,
and AD-421). Early SAES-422 reports focused mostly on activities rather than accomplishments
or impacts, for example, a meeting attended, a common set of plants grown or an animal fed for
so many days. Unfortunately, none of these measures informs the reader about research
accomplishments or the application benefits of research knowledge as impacts.
In 2001, the Northeast Regional Association of SAES directors introduced their online multistate
database, the Information Management and Support System (IMSS). Soon after, the other
regional associations adopted this system creating the National Information Management and
Support System (NIMSS). With the creation of NIMSS came a way to submit uniform proposals
and reports, including the SAES-422. NIMSS is now the official multistate proposal and report
submission mechanism for not only the regional associations, but also for CSREES.
While NIMSS has been a great resource by which to obtain uniform SAES-422 reports, the
report format still challenges some committees. In 2005, the regional associations agreed that
ALL project types (MRF, Advisory Committees, Extension/Education and Research Activities,
Coordinating Committees and Development Committees) must submit SAES-422s to report their
project activities. Prior to this time, the regional associations and CSREES only required MRF
projects to submit these forms. The reason for now requiring all committees to submit the forms
is to provide information on outputs, outcomes and impacts of all activity supported by
multistate research funds. The form provides a quick, easy and convenient way of summarizing
the project or activity thereby justifying the continued existence of the project or activity. Also in
2005, the regional association began allowing the regional association offices to cancel meeting
authorizations if a committee did not submit its annual report from the previous year. SAES-422
Annual Reports are due within 60 days of an annual meeting. If a project does not submit an
annual report for the previous year, a committee may not authorize its next year’s annual meeting
until the committee submits that report.
In addition to the SAES-422 reports, the regional associations require termination report
submission when an NC-, NE-, S- or W- project number (aka MRF project) terminates.
Termination reports do not apply to CC, ERA, AC or DC projects (see
http://www.wisc.edu/ncra/identifiers.htm for project-type descriptions). Termination reports use
the same format as SAES-422 annual reports and provide comprehensive accomplishment,
impact and publication sections from the five-year period, rather than from only a one-year
period. Basically, they sum up the project before the regional association and CSREES archive
it. Termination Reports are due within six months of an MRF project’s termination.
The regional associations and CSREES developed this publication to provide guidance to those
charged with preparing the SAES-422. To address the need for clear communication, the authors
adapted the terminology of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR). It aligns the terms with current American English to accommodate terminology used
by USDA. Appendix 2 displays an example of an exemplary SAES-422.
TERMINOLOGY
Performance Targets:
Goals: Overall benefits intended for the targeted beneficiaries. The agricultural research
Federal-State Partnership has adopted these six USDA goals:
1. Increase economic opportunities in agriculture and natural resources
2. Improve human nutrition and health
3. Support rural and urban community development
4. Protect America’s natural resource base and environment
5. Enhance safety and security of U.S. agriculture and food supply
6. Ensure family, youth, and community success.
Intermediate Goals: Benefits directly resulting from innovation uptake including Federal-State
Partnership research outputs (see Appendix 3 for “A Science Roadmap for Agriculture Revised
Challenge Areas and Objectives”).
Themes: Information topics organized to describe progress addressing one or more goals
(or intermediate goals). Theme utility (versus a programmatic organization) is theme
versatility; stakeholders can flex it to respond to shifting priorities as administrations
change in Washington, D.C. Thematic organization application is commonly done
through text key words searches (e.g., food safety).
Accomplishments:
This section focuses on intended activities, outputs, and short-term outcomes. Committees
should build information built around the activity's milestones, as identified in the original
proposal. Please indicate significant evidence of linkages both internal to the project/committee
and to external peer groups, stakeholders, clientele, and other multistate activities. The report
should also reflect on the items that stakeholders want to know, or want to see. The committee
should describe plans for the coming year in no more than one or two short paragraphs. If the
committee is filing an annual report, the accomplishments will cover only the current year of the
project; for termination reports, list accomplishments from the entire span of the project.
To aid in understanding the description of accomplishments, these definitions are offered for key
words.
Short-term Outcomes: Quantitative, measurable benefits of the research outputs as
experienced by those who receive them. Examples include the adoption of a technology,
the creation of jobs, reduced cost to the consumer, less pesticide exposure to farmers, or
access to more nutritious food.
Outputs: Defined products (tangible or intangible) that are delivered by a research
project. Examples of outputs are reports, data, information, observations, publications,
and patents.
Activities: Organized and specific functions or duties carried out by individuals or teams
using scientific methods to reveal new knowledge and develop new understanding.
Milestones: Key intermediate targets necessary for achieving and/or delivering the
outputs of a project, within an agreed timeframe. Milestones are useful for managing
complex projects. For example, a milestone for a biotechnology project might be "To
reduce our genetic transformation procedures to practice by December 2004."
Impacts:
This section focuses on actual or intended potential long-term outcomes and impacts.
Committees should build information around the activity's milestones, as identified in the
original proposal. The report should also reflect on the items that stakeholders want to know, or
want to see. List any grants, contracts, and/or other resources obtained by one or more project
members as a result of the project's activities. Include the recipients, funding source, amount
awarded and term if applicable. If the committee is filing an annual report, the impacts will cover
only the current year of the project; for termination reports, list impacts from the entire span of
the project.
To aid in understanding the description of accomplishments, these definitions are offered for key
words.
Additional Definitions of "Impact":
“The economic, social, health or environmental consequences derived as benefits for the
intended users. These are usually quantitatively measured either directly or indirectly as
indicators of benefits. (An example of an impact would be improved human nutrition for
so many individuals through genetically engineering rice to contain the precursors to
vitamin A.)”
Source: National Multistate Guidelines - Glossary
“‘The quantifiable difference a land-grant program makes in the quality of life for its
clients and general citizenry.’ Supplementing that brief statement is also the definition of
an impact statement: ‘A brief document that describes the social, environmental, and/or
economic difference that your research, teaching, or extension efforts have made on the
public. Specifically, it states your accomplishments and the payoff to society.’”
Source: National Impact Statement Writing Team
Activities: Organized and specific functions or duties carried out by individuals
or teams using scientific methods to reveal new knowledge and develop new
understanding.
Milestones: Key intermediate targets necessary for achieving and/or delivering
the outputs of a project, within an agreed timeframe. Milestones are useful for
managing complex projects. For example, a milestone for a biotechnology project
might be "To reduce our genetic transformation procedures to practice by
December 2004."
Indicators: Qualitative surrogate observations or indirect measures of
quantitative performance measures which permit monitoring the achievement of
outcomes when direct measurement of performance is difficult, too costly, or not
possible. An indicator of cultivar adoption might be seed certification records,
rather than actual land area planted to that cultivar.
REALITY CHECK
If only the world were as neat as this typology, but it is not. Many research results find utility in
some far off applications. Some research discoveries must combine with other findings to make a
difference. Many times a research discovery must await other “market” factors before being
applicable. Frequently, scientists do not gather the associated research impact measures or they
are not available. So who gets credit? Who does the study?
Researchers need a system that provides suitable information to Federal Partners in the form of
summary statements for policy and budget decision-makers. Committees should consider the
following items as they craft their SAES-422 annual report forms:
• Organize research project proposals to facilitate evaluation: This includes reporting
accomplishments and impacts. If a project has as an objective that they will reduce pesticide
use, how might they measure that? If another project is intending to improve child nutrition,
what statistics are available as benchmarks, and how might the intended change be
documented?
• Rate of return on the investment: Selection of research objectives needs to become more
closely tied to meaningful future measures. Some measures are relatively simple, such as
calculating internal rates of return on a research investment. If a project cost $500,000 to
accomplish and provides the target audience with $10 million in benefits the following year,
researchers can easily calculate the annual rate of return on the investment.
• Cost: benefit ratio; Proportion of an area affected; Percentage of individuals adopting a
research aspect or plan: Researchers can express project cost versus the benefits in terms of
gains for the intended users as a ratio. Another measure might be the proportion of an area
affected or the percentage of individuals adopting a specific technology.
• Indicators: In many cases, scientists cannot directly measure an impact or it would be
dubious. In these instances, researchers may use indicators to express research investment
outcomes.
• Testimonials from beneficiaries: These may be an adequate substitute (e.g., a quote from a
please farmer) for indicators. In fact, many newspaper reporters use anecdotal information to
prove a point. Politicians particularly use case examples to make their points.
• Case studies: Long eschewed by science, case studies may be necessary to defend some
types of research accomplishments, especially for project outcomes scientists cannot easily
measure, such as environmental quality improvements.
• Plausible associations: Useful in establishing research accomplishments. For example, it is
plausible to claim that higher yields and other factors reduced food costs. In particular, high-
yielding cultivars and better cultivation technologies result in cheap potatoes. Proving that
claim might be difficult, but claiming it to be true seems plausible.
• Sharing credit for research impacts: This can be problematic in many cases, especially
when the work of many contributes to a success story. A common example happens when
several institutions work with the private sector to complete an activity. Who gets the credit?
In all fairness, everyone should be able to claim the success.
• Ex ante and ex post impact studies: These can help document research impacts, but in many
cases the expense of doing such an analysis may not be worthwhile. In these instances,
scientists should seek substitutes.
• Milestones: Particularly helpful in reporting accomplishments and impacts, if researchers
cleverly design a project with well-thought-out milestones, it can greatly facilitate reporting
progress and achievements. Thus, time invested in project design pays off in the reporting
requirements. This thought motivated the multistate project outline changes, which now list
outcomes oriented with a milestones structure.
• Other things to think about:
o Has the project become more of the same? How is it innovative compared to previous
projects (if the project has been renewed/revised)?
o Does the project overlap with other MRF projects? If so, could/should the committees
combine to form one larger project? What makes this project unique?
o Is the research “cutting edge”?
o Does the project have a wide variety of expertise participating in relation to the research?
o Is the report written so that non-scientists can understand it? Some stakeholders reading
the reports may not come from a scientific research background.
o Is the group following regional association review committee (MRC/MAC/RCIC) advice
provided when the project was renewed/revised or underwent midterm review?
o How has the meeting attendance been?
CONCLUSION
Due to the introduction of NIMSS and the regional associations continually expecting nothing
but the best from their research projects, today’s SAES-422s have become more uniform,
complete and direct than ever before. The SAES directors maintain high standards and set the
bar increasingly higher for future multistate research committees. We need to persistently
sustain (and indeed increase) agricultural research funding. Our staunch advocates want to
double agricultural research funding, as has been done for the National Institutes of Health and
the National Science Foundation in recent years. We need to give our advocates within and
outside the Federal government ammunition to make a case for increased funding. To do this,
research scientists need to provide clear, concise and up-to-date information on research
accomplishments and impacts. Equally important are clear statements about what it all means
for the intended beneficiaries. The SAES-422 is the way to fill that need.
APPENDIX 1
National Multistate Research Guidelines
APPENDIX D
SAES-422
Format for Multistate Research Activity
Final version must be submitted in the National Information Management
And Support System (NIMSS)
Note: This report is submitted each year of an activity’s duration and is due 60 calendar days
following the annual meeting. The SAES-422 is submitted electronically by AAs into NIMSS.
Annual Reports for MRF projects are available to CRIS and CSREES through NIMSS.
Project/Activity Number:
Project/Activity Title:
Period Covered:
Date of This Report:
Annual Meeting Date(s):
Participants: Provide information with a focus on the decisions made. As an alternative, list the
URL for the meeting minutes, if that report contains the list of those who were present. And, if
available, add the address for the list server as well. (Max characters = 4,000. Suggested Format:
"Last name, First name (email) - Institution;" The semicolon is used to separate participant
information.)
Brief summary of minutes of annual meeting: Provide information with a focus on the
decisions made (Max characters = 12,000. Single line breaks are not preserved, use double line
breaks instead or use a tag to separate paragraphs.). As an alternative, list the URL for your
meeting minutes.
Accomplishments: This section focuses on intended activities, outputs, and short-term
outcomes. Committees should build information built around the activity's milestones, as
identified in the original proposal. Please indicate significant evidence of linkages both internal
to the project/committee and to external peer groups, stakeholders, clientele, and other multistate
activities. The report should also reflect on the items that stakeholders want to know, or want to
see. The committee should describe plans for the coming year in no more than one or two short
paragraphs. If the committee is filing an annual report, the accomplishments will cover only the
current year of the project; for termination reports, list accomplishments from the entire span of
the project.
Short-term Outcomes: Quantitative, measurable benefits of the research outputs as
experienced by those who receive them. Examples include the adoption of a technology,
the creation of jobs, reduced cost to the consumer, less pesticide exposure to farmers, or
access to more nutritious food.
Outputs: Defined products (tangible or intangible) that are delivered by a research
project. Examples of outputs are reports, data, information, observations, publications,
and patents.
Activities: Organized and specific functions or duties carried out by individuals or teams
using scientific methods to reveal new knowledge and develop new understanding.
Milestones: Key intermediate targets necessary for achieving and/or delivering the
outputs of a project, within an agreed timeframe. Milestones are useful for managing
complex projects. For example, a milestone for a biotechnology project might be "To
reduce our genetic transformation procedures to practice by December 2004."
Impacts: This section focuses on actual or intended potential long-term outcomes and impacts.
Committees should build information around the activity's milestones, as identified in the
original proposal. The report should also reflect on the items that stakeholders want to know, or
want to see. List any grants, contracts, and/or other resources obtained by one or more project
members as a result of the project's activities. Include the recipients, funding source, amount
awarded and term if applicable. If the committee is filing an annual report, the impacts will cover
only the current year of the project; for termination reports, list impacts from the entire span of
the project.
Additional Definitions of "Impact":
“The economic, social, health or environmental consequences derived as benefits for the
intended users. These are usually quantitatively measured either directly or indirectly as
indicators of benefits. (An example of an impact would be improved human nutrition for
so many individuals through genetically engineering rice to contain the precursors to
vitamin A.)”
Source: National Multistate Guidelines - Glossary
“‘The quantifiable difference a land-grant program makes in the quality of life for its
clients and general citizenry.’ Supplementing that brief statement is also the definition of
an impact statement: ‘A brief document that describes the social, environmental, and/or
economic difference that your research, teaching, or extension efforts have made on the
public. Specifically, it states your accomplishments and the payoff to society.’”
Source: National Impact Statement Writing Team
Activities: Organized and specific functions or duties carried out by individuals
or teams using scientific methods to reveal new knowledge and develop new
understanding.
Milestones: Key intermediate targets necessary for achieving and/or delivering
the outputs of a project, within an agreed timeframe. Milestones are useful for
managing complex projects. For example, a milestone for a biotechnology project
might be "To reduce our genetic transformation procedures to practice by
December 2004."
Indicators: Qualitative surrogate observations or indirect measures of
quantitative performance measures which permit monitoring the achievement of
outcomes when direct measurement of performance is difficult, too costly, or not
possible. An indicator of cultivar adoption might be seed certification records,
rather than actual land area planted to that cultivar.
Publications: For SAES-422 reports list the publications for current year only (with the
authors, title, journal series, etc.). If the list exceeds the maximum character limit below, an
attachment file may be used. (Max characters = 50,000. Single line breaks are not preserved; use
double line breaks instead or use a tag to separate paragraphs.)
Authorization: Submission by an AES or CES director or administrative advisor through
NIMSS constitutes signature authority for this information.
APPENDIX 2
Example of a Completed SAES-422
Multistate Research Project NC213
Taken from the National Information Management and Support System
Project No. and Title: NC213 Management of Grain Quality and Security for World Markets
Period Covered: 02-2005 to 02-2006
Date of Report: 14-Mar-2006
Annual Meeting Dates: 28-Feb-2006 to 01-Mar-2006
Participants: Terry Arbogost - USDA-ARS-CMAVE Paul Armstrong - USDA-ARS-GMPRC Lloyd Bullerman - University of
Nebraska Mark Casada - USDA-ARS-GMPRC Florence Dunkel - Montana State University David Funk - USDA-GIPSA-TSD
Arvid Hawk - Cargill, Inc. Ken Hellevang - North Dakota State University Tim Herrman - Texas A&M University Charles
Hurburgh - Iowa State University David Jackson - University of Nebraska Stephen Kells - University of Minnesota Bill Koshar -
Ohio State University Dirk Maier - Purdue University Frank Manthey - North Dakota State University Lina Mason - Purdue
University Leland McKinney - Kansas State University Sam McNeill - University of Kentucky Michael Montrose - University of
Kentucky Marvin Paulsen - University of Illinois Bill Ravlin - Ohio State University James Stitzlein - Consolidated Grain &
Barge Co. Dennis Strayer - Dennis Strayer & Associates Charlene Wolf-Hall - North Dakota State University
Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting:
The General Business Meeting began at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Motion passed to approve minutes of the 2005 general business meeting
Old Business
1. Revision to responsibilities of officers (Dirk Maier Committee Chair).
The previous revisions, which began in 2004, were discussed. Comments that had previously been submitted by Tim Herrman,
Charles Hurburgh and Charlene Wolf-Hall were mentioned as well as feedback from the summer meeting. Areas that needed
clarification included:
• Project Advisor versus Project Coordinator responsibilities - how to separate these (Bill Ravlin would come up with
wording).
• Vice Chair - use consistent terminology - would chair nomination committee.
• Andersons grant proposal review committee - coordinator will determine if there is a conflict of interest as consistently
as possible - committee will include two objective chairs, two industry advisors, and two USDA representatives - all
will review all proposals - may use adhoc reviewers.
• Industry advisory committee - attendance at annual meeting expected - executive committee can decide on continuing
membership (Dirk Maier would come up with wording)
• Membership - can members who are not official university representatives vote (the answer was no), but can be officers
in which case they would be able to vote (Dirk Maier would come up with wording)
• Discussion on the heading for the document - use of the legal name versus a consortium name - tentative agreement on
using the official title with consortium tag-line (Executive Committee will finalize)
2. Education proposal development update (Charlene Wolf-Hall, Academic Group).
The survey information was mentioned for the partner survey and the development of the industry survey. Input was asked for
and given by:
• Dirk Maier - the GEAPS group would be open to the industry survey.
• Bill Ravlin - good way to leverage history of NC-213 and new ideas.
• Florence Dunkel - volunteered to help as much as possible and has contact with the HEC program director through 3
other HEC grants.
• Charles Hurburgh – don’t make it too big.
• Dirk Maier - wouldn t necessarily be one degree granting institution.
• Stephen Kells - how would subcontracts fit in? How would this affect a tenure track person? Charlene will initiate the
formation of a small group of individuals (David Jackson, Dirk Maier, Leland McKinney, and Charlene Wolf-Hall)
who had expressed strong interest through the partner survey to continue with the process. This group will consult with
the industry advisors for the industry survey and will keep others updated.
3. Industry Advisory Committee - deferred to Executive Committee meeting.
New Business
1. Midterm review was discussed - led by Bill Ravlin.
There is an apparent disconnect between what is asked for in the review versus the annual reports. Impact statements and
connections are important. Handouts including a powerpoint presentation by Mike Harrington describing impact statements was
distributed. It was emphasized that these will be very important with the President s budget proposal. It was emphasized that it
is important to indicate the funding is a good investment and results in impacts and is leveraged by state and private sector funds.
Things that can be included were quality of life, dollars, things that can be quantified. Charlie Hurburgh cautioned against getting
“too far a field” as can raise questions, to which Bill Ravlin said there is some acceptable overlap.
2. Financial status of NC-213 was discussed - led by Bill Ravlin.
The Anderson’s endowment is in “fine fiscal shape”.
3. Discussion of the Anderson’s award process - led by Bill Ravlin.
Bill Ravlin emphasized the importance of following the directions in the RFA. Handouts of the review criteria for the regular and
team awards program was distributed. The RFA can only be changed at the beginning of the year. There had been some
dissatisfaction with the reviewer feedback to applicants, so this revision is an attempt to make the process more transparent and
give applicants better feedback. Some of the comments on the criteria for the regular and team award review forms included:
• Yes/no questions should not need numbers.
• Some yes/no questions could be answered at administrative level and don’t need to be on the review form.
• Be more specific on what can be included in the ten page minimum.
• Bill Ravlin will reword methodological questions.
• The outcomes will move up in order - use outputs instead of outcomes?
• Timetable question is OK.
• Impact - should indicate if project is part of long term or short term study.
• Take out the question about if the problem will be solved by the project.
• Budget appropriate - yes/no, if no explain why.
• Additional comments can be sent to Bill Ravlin, referred to executive committee.
4. Summer workshop ideas
Discussion on what “summer” means ensued. Some workshop possibilities were suggested by:
• Tim Herrman - Feed Industry HACCP Training May 9-11.
• Lloyd Bullerman - tentative mycotoxins in grains conference in Omaha.
• Charlie Hurburgh - do we have to have one?
• David Jackson - will discuss with executive committee.
5. New officers.
The floor opened for nominations for secretary. Linda Mason nominated Stephen Kells, seconded by Florence Dunkel. Kells
agreed and was unanimously approved, pending Minnesota Station Rep approval. David Jackson will move up from chair to past-
chair, Mike Montrose will move up from vice chair to chair, Charlene Wolf-Hall will move up from secretary to vice chair.
6. 2007 Annual Technical Meeting.
Was suggested to overlap with the Wheat Quality meeting in Kansas City. There was consensus that it was good to hold it every
other year or so with GEAPS. Dirk Maier proposed NC-213 sponsorship if the 2008 International Grain Quality Conference.
Charlie suggested it be the NC-213 annual meeting place for 2008. Bill Ravlin will check if meeting can occur in another
country. Dirk indicated that a decision would need to made soon.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:15 PM.
Accomplishments:
A. Develop practices and technologies to support quality management systems for production, distribution, processing, utilization
of quality grains and oilseeds.
• Near infrared calibration models for determination of subunit (amino acid, fatty acid, etc)factors of corn and soybeans
were extended.
• Survey of corn and soybean quality on an annual basis, targeted at end-use related factors for corn/soybean quality and
yield information will be reorganized and expanded.
• Measurement of ethanol production from corn hybrids are optimal for use in dry grind ethanol plants.
• Examine milling properties, dough characteristics, protein functionality, and baking properties of soft white wheat
varieties. Biochemical studies on flour proteins were conducted and the use of transglutaminase (TG) to improve dough
strength of weak gluten protein flour samples was investigated.
• Evaluate postharvest insect resistance of most popular varieties of wheat for organic producers in Montana organic
producers most popular varieties of wheat. Determine location within the kernel causing insect resistence in Montana-
grown hard spring and hard winter wheat varieties.
• Development of methods that allow for the characterization of grain and its end-use processing properties. Efforts were
focused on tests associated with predicting the alkaline cooking (nixtamalization) processing performance of sorghum
and maize.
• Effect of preharvest production practices on end-use quality of wheat, specifically changes in vitreousness kernel
content.
• Characterization of maize and sorghum samples representative of genetic and environmental diversity for establishing a
sample set for the end-use quality on the basis of physical quality-associated properties. This enables development of
classification rules to predict the suitability of samples for the particular end-use processing performance.
• Define the attributes of wheat flours with excellent quality for flour tortillas. Evaluate the baking quality of Texas
wheat breeders’ samples.
• Evaluate physical, chemical and processing properties of sorghum and corn and develop improved food quality
cultivars. Improve aflatoxin tolerance and improve nutritional and processing quality of corn through breeding.
• Development of a system simulation model to evaluate and quantify the practically achievable purity levels for the
segregated handling and delivery of differentiated (GM vs. non-GM; identity preserved vs. commodity) grains and
oilseeds from producer to end user.
B. Develop basic knowledge, science-based standards, and technologies that promote crop quality, food security and food safety
in grain markets.
• Measurement of fermentation process used for dry-grind ethanol production.
• High value (pharmaceutical, industrial) grains will require extremely stringent isolation from staple commodities if
they are to be grown in commodity-producing areas. Operations from plan


Use: 0.139