Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

1. NCERA 201 and the NC IPM Center continued to help members successfully compete for IPM competitive funds. In 2010, the 12 states in the North Central Region received a total of $2,308,717 in USDA Extension Integrated Pest Management funding. This was a slight decrease of $33,595 (1.4%) from 2009 levels. Even with this decrease it was still the second highest of the 4 regions and was only behind the 15 state Southern Region. The EIPM proposal process can be used as one indicator of how well-connected NCERA-201 members are to stakeholder groups in each of the states (Table 3). Letters of support were written by 28 different grower groups to support the IPM activities in the North Central Region. Five private consulting firms, 5 private sector industries and 3 environmental organizations also wrote letters of support for these EIPM proposals. Because of the interactions and communication at regional meetings, such as NCERA-201, IPM coordinators in the region have collaborating arrangements with 5 NC IPM working groups. In addition, much interstate collaboration occurs between IPM scientists from universities located within the region. These relationships are further nourished through working with the North Central IPM Center and other NCERA committees. 2. The NCERA-201 membership initiated the placement of two major sessions on the National ECOP/ESCOP IPM Coordinating Committee meeting agenda (Land-Grant Research on GMOs and Plant Health Labeling). Both of these sessions were conducted on Wednesday, October 2, 2009 and included leading researchers who participated in person and via teleconference. The Land Grant Research on GMOs session was lead by Bob Wright, University of Nebraska  Lincoln; Tom Sappington, Iowa State University; Galen Dively, University of Maryland; Elson Shields, Cornell University; and Andy Lavigne, American Seed Trade Association. This session raised awareness among several governmental agencies of the limitations that industry GMO seed agreements are placing on Land Grant researchers and the inability of these individuals to conduct unbiased independent trials. The Plant Health Labeling session was lead by Paul Vincelli, University of Kentucky; Daren Mueller, Iowa State University; Carl Bradley, University of Illinois; and Don Hershman, University of Kentucky. This session addressed the problems with the current label approval system that allowed the addition of the plant health usage on existing fungicides resulting in misrepresentation of EPAs position on this recommendation. The EPA is now reviewing the plant health labeling issue to determine how to proceed with the current labeling and develop a process to address future requests of this nature. 3. Each year, NCERA members share successes related to IPM implementation. The sharing of innovative programs leads to adoption by other states and increased efficiency. Staff at Michigan State University, the University of Illinois and Purdue has developed the New Agriculture Network (NAN) for partnering with farmers, researchers and educators to provide science-based information for organic and sustainable agriculture. In 2009, NAN collaborated to publish nine fact sheets on organic agriculture. A grant from NCRSARE Professional Development Program provided additional support for this project. They have been used for two organic training programs in Michigan reaching over 100 NRCS and Extension District Conservationists and Educators. View the fact sheets on the NAN web site at http://www.new-ag.msu.edu/Factsheets/tabid/64/Default.aspx 4. The September 9, 2009 Logic Model Training Teleconference entitled Evaluating State-Based IPM Programming was a cooperative effort with leadership from the North Central region and representatives from the National IPM Evaluation Group. This training was focused on use of logic models to plan and evaluate state-based IPM programs such as those coordinated by the NCERA-201 members. The training was attended by 175 individuals and an exit survey was conducted to determine usefulness of the information. The Evaluating State-based IPM Programming Teleconference increased my knowledge of logic models as they apply to IPM programming  90% agreed The Evaluating State-based IPM Programming Teleconference increased my ability to plan for evaluating impacts of IPM programming  90% agreed The October 13, 2009 Logic Model Training Teleconference entitled From Research to Implementation to Impact also was a cooperative effort with leadership from the North Central region and representatives from the National IPM Evaluation Group. This training was focused on use of logic models to plan and evaluate research as part of the process to final impact. The training was attended by 75 individuals and an exit survey was conducted to determine usefulness of the information. The From Research to Implementation to Impact Teleconference increased my understanding of how to use logic models to link activities with impacts  89% agreed The From Research to Implementation to Impact Teleconference increased my understanding of how scientific research fits within a logic model framework  94% agreed The From Research to Implementation to Impact Teleconference presented resources or ideas I intend to use when developing a proposal to receive RIPM funding  100% agreed