PROFITABLE AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS (PSAS) INITIATIVE TEAM MEETING
Present: Ruth Wilson,
Brett Moline, Lynn Woodard, Mike Smith, Tom Thurow, Ron Delaney, John Hewlett,
Glen Whipple, Ed Bradley, Jim Gill, Jerry Langbehn,
Not all persons were present throughout the entire
meeting. However, all of the above were present during some part of the
meeting.
1)
Team membership was briefly discussed.
a)
Membership is changing from 2 field representatives
per district to 1 from each area. We presently have one area with two
representatives and 3 areas with no representatives. As the areas designate a
representative, administration will notify the team.
2)
In-Depth Training has been changed to
a)
Susan James has asked for a team representative to
assist in planning the training.
i)
Brett Moline agreed to be the PSAS representative on
the planning committee.
3)
Dallas Mount reported on activities of the SMRR team
and their efforts to establish a
4)
Bill discussed the FY2002 budget expenditures and
FY2003 budget allocation for the team.
a)
The team spent $4670.28 of their $9440 FY02 allocated
funds. In addition $427.50 was spent from the $850 raised in YBF program fees.
The remaining $422.50 in program fees remains in a revolving account with ABO.
b)
A FY03 budget of $10,632 has been approved by the
State Coordinating Committee and CES administration.
5)
Wayne Tatman reported on the “Managing the Young
Beef Female” program
a)
The evaluations in general were positive.
i)
Positive aspects were the breakout sessions and
meetings around the state.
ii)
Negative aspects include the lack of attendance and
some people disliked the format.
(1)
People didn’t travel to the program.
(2)
Time of year.
(3)
Some didn’t like the timing.
(4)
Eric asked some that didn’t attend if it was the
cost and they said “no.”
b)
Without CES personnel approximately 64 people
attended.
i)
About 60% of those want a CD as opposed to hard
copy.
ii)
The goal was to have at least 25 people at each
meeting for a total of 100.
6)
Discussion on sustainable livestock programs ensued.
a)
There is lots of competition in the area of beef
programs.
i)
We could move our programs so they are on opposite
years from the Range Beef Cow Symposium.
b)
There seems to be little travel across county lines
to attend programs.
c)
Publicity
i)
Need to market better.
(1)
Use Ag Communications
ii)
Better coordination with outside agencies and
industry people – i.e. ag lending
iii)
It was suggested that we need a publicity committee
for the team.
(1)
However, we are spread so thin that no one felt they
could take on the responsibility.
(2)
Publicity venues that could/should be used:
(a)
Brochure is needed.
(b)
Newsletters.
(c)
(d)
Work on buy-in from area agents.
(e)
Web teasers.
(f)
Sponsors should get the information for their
newsletters, membership, etc.
(i)
Incorporate into sponsor ads
(g)
Need to use TV and radio.
(i)
WEST cost of TV publicity - $5000 match, $5000
donation
(h)
Personal calls.
(3)
Need a checklist of publicity steps.
(4)
Bill will talk to Ag Communications about developing
a publicity packet for issue teams to use which would list steps, deadline,
venues, etc.
d)
Could we check with those who didn’t attend the
program to see why they didn’t attend?
e)
Bill should check with Susan James to see if the
state-wide survey will gather information on ways citizens get information from
us and their awareness of CES.
i)
This will help determine what publicity works.
f)
Do we need to characterize our efforts differently?
i)
Is the topic not right?
ii)
Perhaps the emphasis should be “profitability.”
g)
We need to partner with local stakeholders,
agencies, other groups.
i)
Partners will help draw clients.
h)
Area programs.
i)
Would they be competing?
ii)
Timing, length
i)
We could work with other teams to set up a multiple
day educational event by theme. E.g. – Montana Ag Trade and Education Show.
i)
Held in January, each day is a different theme.
j)
The survey
k)
Directives and suggestions to the sustainable
livestock issue team:
i)
Industry and NRCS representatives need to added to the team.
ii)
Keep the Young Beef Female program available.
iii)
Use at Profitability Conference at WSGA meeting.
iv)
Use at county level and tailor to the area.
v)
Keep the
website expanding.
vi)
Provide professional development activities for
educators (In-Depth).
vii)
Find external funding.
viii)
Get the CD and written materials out to those who
requested it.
ix)
Need to finish with the follow-up evaluation.
7)
Karen Panter spoke to the group concerning the state
extension horticulture program.
a)
We need to consider how to reach citizens better.
b)
Her primary concern is the Master Gardener program.
i)
Direction is needed from the PSAS team on where to
go with this program.
ii)
There are 10 MG programs in the state.
(1)
All levels of coordination and independence exist.
(2)
Much of the group is very independent, feel they are
autonomous and don’t want campus direction.
(a)
Basically two counties run the MG association.
(3)
Should we respond to requests and start more MG
programs or maintain the status quo?
(a)
There is no specialist support for more MG programs.
(b)
At this time there is no entomology support for the
program.
iii)
Guidance about the program and its future is needed.
(1)
This team could suggest more hort support from specialists.
(2)
Should a hort issue team be formed?
(3)
The PSAS team needs to deal with this issue.
iv)
We need an additional half-time MG coordinator to
meet the needs.
c)
The group discussed Karen’s concerns and requests.
i)
The team decided
to form an issue team to address the issue, charge them with several
responsibilities, and to develop an initiative team statement concerning CES's
responsibility and relationship to the horticulture issue. The results are
below:
(1)
Statement
concerning horticulture: It is self evident by the demand for service that UW
CES must maintain and support a quality horticulture extension program.
Horticulture is important to urban and rural clientele to enhance quality of
life, and economic viability and sustainability for private and commercial enterprises.
As part of this goal it is important that UW CES adequately support those
services in place to solve horticultural problems (disease, entomology, soils,
etc.). Horticulture should be a recognized and rewarded portion of the field
educator's job description as outlined in the UW CES Strategic Plan.
(2)
Issue team
membership will be:
(a)
Jim Gill – chair
(b)
Scott Hininger -
co-chair
(c)
Karen Panter,
Horticulture Specialist
(d)
Kelli Belden,
Soils Lab Manager
(e)
An unbiased
Master Gardener suggested by Karen Panter
(f)
A county based
horticultural program associate
(g)
Roy Reichenbach,
Wyoming Weed and Pest Coordinator
(h)
Other field
UEE's as needed
(i)
Commercial
industry representative
(3)
The issue team
received the following charge:
(a)
Develop a vision
or scope for the state CES horticulture program
(b)
Determine
resources required
(c)
Implementation
plan
(d)
Financial
(e)
Required
training
(f)
Services
provided
(g)
Fee basis
(i)
Amount charged
(ii)
What fees are
used for
(h)
Small acreage
owners
(i)
A joint PSAS and
SMRR issue team has been organized to address this issue and the Horticulture
Issue Team should coordinate efforts with this Small Acreage Issue Team to
address horticultural issues on small acreage plots. Scott Hininger is the PSAS
representative on the Small Acreage Issue Team.
(i)
Impacts and
outcomes expected of the CES horticulture program
(j)
Alternative/high
intensity horticultural crops for existing landowners should be addressed.
(4)
Other comments
that we made note of were:
(a)
A formal
connection between UW CES and all volunteer groups needs to be established.
(b)
CES needs more
personnel to address the Master Gardener program.
(c)
The Dean's
visioning process emphasized the "esthetic landscape."
(d)
Training of
volunteers may need to be centralized to develop more consistency and
accountability.
(e)
Should look at
relationship with weed and pest districts.
(5)
The team
budgeted $1500 for three Horticulture Issue Team meetings and $200 for one
conference call for the issue team.
8)
The LOGIC model
developed by the team was reviewed and a few minor changes were made.
9)
John Hewlett
a)
In November
& December there will be a train-the-trainer program in Powell &
Worland on government programs.
i)
The goal of this project will be to provide
producers of targeted commodities with education and information necessary for
them to be better able to use risk management tools including crop insurance,
marketing contracts, pricing strategies, financial management tools, and other
emerging risk management tools.
ii)
3 commodity categories:
(1)
Those covered by Section 196 of Ag. Market
Transition Act.
(a)
Floricultural, ornamental nursery, Christmas tree
crops, turf grass sod, seed crops, aquaculture and industrial crops
(2)
Specialty commodities
(a)
Fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, syrup & honey,
herbs, specialized traditional crops (malt barley, confectionary sunflowers).
(3)
Underserved commodities.
(a)
Do not have federal crop insurance program or
government loan program.
(i)
Grazing, hay, forage, livestock, poultry &
poultry products, dairy, large garbanzo beans, many dry edible beans,
buckwheat, millets.
iii)
Will be an in-service training program provided by
Montana State personnel, John will facilitate.
b)
Explained his
involvement in a regional risk management simulation program.
i)
This is a funded project through RMA including 6
states.
ii)
Web based software program for producers.
iii)
Educational game in risk management strategies.
(1)
Several scenarios included from all involved states
and numerous commodities.
(2)
Producer plays to see how he/she fares over several
years of a particular risk management program.
(3)
Will allow a choice of years – can use actual data
of past years or probabilities of future years.
iv)
The grant will purchase a mobile computer lab to be
shared by the 6 states.
v)
The team agreed
to include the program within their endorsed list of activities.
10) Bill Taylor presented a program he is involved with called
Commodity Challenge.
a)
Granted regional
program which simulates marketing grain commodities through futures and option
contracts.
b)
Sponsored by
Montana Grain Growers Association.
c)
All contracts
controlled via actual market prices and movements.
d)
Web-based, fee
paid by grant, open to anyone, geared for producers to learn and practice
actual commodity trading.
e)
The team also
agreed to include this program within their endorsed list of activities.
11) The need to address the issue of sustainable cropping
systems was discussed.
a)
It was suggested
that this effort needs to include FSA and NRCS.
b)
What to do when
Holly Sugar closes?
c)
Alternatives for land/water uses.
d)
Who educates about the farm bill?
i)
FSA newsletter
e)
It was agreed to
establish a Sustainable Cropping Systems issue team.
i)
Team members:
(1)
Jim Krall, Agronomy Specialist, Team Chair.
(2)
Steve Miller, Plant Sciences.
(3)
Dave Koch, Agronomy Specialist.
(4)
John Hewlett, Farm & Ranch Management
Specialist.
(5)
Brett Moline, University Extension Educator.
(6)
Jerry Langbehn, University Extension Educator.
(7)
Other field agents as needed.
(8)
Producer representative(s).
(9)
NRCS representative(s).
ii)
The purpose of this issue team is to develop
appropriate Extension programming to address the area of sustainable cropping
as outlined in the strategic plan.
iii)
The charge to this team is: Develop an educational
strategy for Extension programming in sustainable cropping issues, identifying
internal and external funding sources. This issue team is to examine how to
address the immediate needs within this program area (within the next 1-2
years), but also develop a strategy to address future needs in sustainable
cropping systems. The team should examine developing an information delivery
system that includes a menu of sustainable cropping subjects available to the
public similar to the Range College being developed by the Sustainable
Management of Range Resources initiative team.
iv)
Comments offered by the PSAS team:
(1)
Dryland.
(a)
NRCS does a lot in SE Wyoming.
(b)
Monsanto does annual effort in the region.
(c)
NE Wyoming not covered.
(d)
Forage grant may cover some in forages.
(2)
Irrigated crops not well covered.
(a)
Most questions on alternative crops.
(b)
Should add programs for WESTI Days (Washakie County)
& Farm & Ranch Days (Fremont County) and do something in Platte/Goshen
counties.
(c)
Precision farming.
(d)
Forage.
(i)
Dave Koch
(e)
Farm bill.
(i)
Jim Johnson, MSU
(f)
Irrigation systems.
(3)
There are ties here with horticulture.
12) Small
Acreage Program.
a)
Mike Smith outlined a train-the-trainer website
program funded by SARE in landscape management called “Coached Land Planning.”
i)
Scott Cotton of Colorado is running this program.
ii)
Program specific to CO & WY.
(1)
Brands, water, range mgmt., etc.
iii)
Will have training program.
(1)
Local, milti-county programs.
iv)
Should have hort, intensive cropping, climate info.
v)
We need to take this issue seriously.
vi)
This program was endorsed and Scott Hininger agreed
to join Mike S., Tom Heald, Phil Rosenlund, and Eric Peterson to work on this
project.
13) Ethics of
Ag Sustainability
a)
Program proposed by a team at CSU and offered to WY
CES educators.
b)
$3000 provided by a SARE grant.
c)
Covers:
i)
Ag challenges in the social and scientific arenas.
ii)
What is “sustainable.”
iii)
Case study.
d)
This would be a good program for In-Depth. Bill will
forward this suggestion to Susan J.
14) The team
developed the following approximate budget guidelines:
a)
Resources available - $9800
b)
Full team activities
i)
Cost - $2800
ii)
Leaves $7000 resources
c)
Sustainable Livestock
i)
CD & Hardcopy - $375 + $300 = $675 cost.
ii)
Evaluation - $100 cost.
d)
Remaining resources - $6225
i)
Plus revolving account - $422
ii)
Total - $6647
e)
Horticulture issue team
i)
3 meetings - $1500
ii)
1 conference call - $200
f)
Livestock issue team
i)
1 meeting - $500
ii)
1 conference call - $200
iii)
Programming - $500
g)
Crops issue team
i)
2 meetings - $1000
ii)
1 conference call - $200
iii)
Programming - $2000