Progress 09/01/10 to 08/31/12
Outputs
OUTPUTS: The pecan industry spans the southern tier of states from the east to west coast. Similarity and differences exist in production practices among the different geographic regions. Communication among producers is poor among the various regions. Although producers, shellers and processors depend upon each other for a viable industry, communication among the three groups is almost nonexistent. This meeting brought together leaders from the different pecan producing regions with industry representatives from shelling and processing to establish research and extension priorities that would support this expanding industry. Scientists and engineers representing various disciplines, agencies and localities also met with the group to begin the process of team building to seek funding and address identified needs. Industry leaders identified six over-arching priorities, with numerous objectives within each priority. One sheller stated that this was the most productive meeting he had attended with producers. Participants were surprised that all segments of the industry listed basically the same priorities. This commonality of purpose has led to the National Pecan Growers' Association to begin a dialog with sheller representatives to form a unified national organization. Results of the meeting were published in Pecan South and Pecan Grower, two producer magazines, and at the SE Pecan Growers Convention and the Oklahoma Pecan Growers' Annual Meeting. In addition, one of the authors attended the Tri-state Pecan Conference and Texas Pecan Growers Meeting to distribute information concerning the outcome of this planning conference. Researchers created a team that developed a CAP-SCRI proposal to address some of the problems identified. The team included 23 scientists and engineers from several universities and other agencies plus a 10 member advisory panel from industry. The proposal, submitted for the 2012 program, was not funded, but is being revised for 2013. PARTICIPANTS: Michael W. Smith and Paul Weckler worked jointly to plan and conduct the conference outlined in the proposal. This includes all publicity, contact, and follow-up publications concerning the meeting. In addition, we have pursued SCRI proposals as appropriate. Becky Cheary assisted Michael W. Smith and Paul Weckler in obtaining materials, projection equipment, and other needs for organizing and at the meeting. TARGET AUDIENCES: There were two target audiences. The first audience was composed of industry members representing producers, shellers, processers, and consumers. These were from diverse geographic regions. Their mission was to define reserach and extension priorities that limited growth and expansion of the pecan industry. The second group were scientists and engineers that worked on pecan related issues. These represented universities, USDA-ARS, and non-profit organizations. Theirs task was to develop SCRI proposals to address the needs identified by the industry. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.
Impacts
Outcomes from this meeting have exceeded all expectations. One of the stated goals was to bring together industry leaders representing the different geographic regions and segments of the industry to establish national research and extension goals for the pecan industry. Not only was this accomplished, but the various segments of industry realized that they all recognized the same limitations and needs within the industry. This has led to additional dialog among the different industry segments, initial steps to create a national organization that represents the entire industry and a feeling of industry unity. Hopefully, this will further spur the rapid growth and expansion of this segment of agriculture. The other objective of this project was to organize a team of scientists to develop a SCRI-CAP project to address some of the identified industry priorities. This team although initially unsuccessful in their initial attempt has submitted one proposal and is in the processing of revising their proposal for another attempt at funding.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
Progress 09/01/11 to 08/31/12
Outputs
OUTPUTS: The pecan industry spans the southern tier of states from the east to west coast. Similarity and differences exist in production practices among the different geographic regions. Communication among producers is poor among the various regions. Although producers, shellers and processors depend upon each other for a viable industry, communication among the three groups is almost nonexistent. This meeting brought together leaders from the different pecan producing regions with industry representatives from shelling and processing to establish research and extension priorities that would support this expanding industry. Scientists and engineers representing various disciplines, agencies and localities also met with the group to begin the process of team building to seek funding and address identified needs. Industry leaders identified six over-arching priorities, with numerous objectives within each priority. One sheller stated that this was the most productive meeting he had attended with producers. Participants were surprised that all segments of the industry listed basically the same priorities. This commonality of purpose has led to the National Pecan Growers' Association to begin a dialog with sheller representatives to form a unified national organization. Results of the meeting were published in Pecan South and Pecan Grower, two producer magazines, and at the SE Pecan Growers Convention and the Oklahoma Pecan Growers' Annual Meeting. In addition, one of the authors attended the Tri-state Pecan Conference and Texas Pecan Growers Meeting to distribute information concerning the outcome of this planning conference. Researchers created a team that developed a CAP-SCRI proposal to address some of the problems identified. The team included 23 scientists and engineers from several universities and other agencies plus a 10 member advisory panel from industry. The proposal, submitted for the 2012 program, was not funded, but is being revised for 2013. PARTICIPANTS: Michael W. Smith and Paul Weckler worked jointly to plan and conduct the conference outlined in the proposal. This includes all publicity, contact, and follow up publications concerning the meeting. In addition, we have pursued SCRI proposals as appropriate. Becky Cheary assisted Michael W. Smith and Paul Weckler in obtaining materials, projection equipment, and other needs for organizing and at the meeting. TARGET AUDIENCES: There were two target audiences. The first audience was composed of industry members representing producers, shellers, processers, and consumers. These were from diverse geographic regions. Their mission was to define research and extension priorities that limited growth and expansion of the pecan industry. They second group were scientists and engineers that worked on pecan related issues. These represented universities, USDA-ARS, and non-profit organizations. Their tak was to develop SCRI proposals to address the needs indentified by industry. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.
Impacts
Outcomes from this meeting have exceeded all expectations. One of the stated goals was to bring together industry leaders representing the different geographic regions and segments of the industry to establish national research and extension goals for the pecan industry. Not only was this accomplished, but the various segments of industry realized that they all recognized the same limitations and needs within the industry. This has led to additional dialog among the different industry segments, initial steps to create a national organization that represents the entire industry and a feeling of industry unity. Hopefully, this will further spur the rapid growth and expansion of this segment of agriculture. The other objective of this project was to organize a team of scientists to develop a SCRI-CAP project to address some of the identified industry priorities. This team although initially unsuccessful in their initial attempt has submitted one proposal and is in the processing of revising their proposal for another attempt at funding.
Publications
- Smith, M.W. and P. Weckler. 2010. Pecan industry to establish research, extension priorities. Pecan South 43(10):12-14. Smith, M.W. and P. Weckler. 2011. Industry driven pecan research and extension priorities. Pecan Grower. 22(4):80-83. Smith, M.W. and P. Weckler. 2011. Industry meets to pinpoint research, extension priorities. Pecan South 44(2):14, 15-17,18. Smith, M.W. and P. Weckler. 2011. Industry driven pecan research and extension priorities. Proc. Okla. Pecan Growers Assn. 81:13-17. Pecan industry input, scientific collaboration sought for February research meeting. High Plains Journal article. Dec. 10, 2010. http://www.hpj.com/archives/2010/dec10/dec13/1104PecanInputSoughtko.c fmtitle=Pecan industry input,scientific collaboration sought for February research meeting Pecan industry input sought for February meeting. Southwest Farm Press, Nov. 4, 2010. http://southwestfarmpress.com/orchard-crops/pecan-industry-input-soug ht-february-meeting
|
Progress 09/01/10 to 08/31/11
Outputs
OUTPUTS: The pecan industry spans the southern tier of states from the east to west coast. Similarity and differences exist in production practices among the different geographic regions. Communication among producers is poor among the various regions. Although producers, shellers and processors depend upon each other for a viable industry, communication among the three groups is almost nonexistent. This meeting brought together leaders from the different pecan producing regions with industry representatives from shelling and processing to establish research and extension priorities that would support this expanding industry. Scientists and engineers representing various disciplines, agencies and localities also met with the group to begin the process of team building to seek funding and address identified needs. Industry leaders identified six over-arching priorities, with numerous objectives within each priority. One sheller stated that this was the most productive meeting he had attended with producers. Participants were surprised that all segments of the industry listed basically the same priorities. This commonality of purpose has led to the National Pecan Growers' Association to begin a dialog with sheller representatives to form a unified national organization. Researchers created four teams, each with a designated leader, to develop SCRI proposals that will address some of the problems identified. Results of the meeting were published in Pecan South and Pecan Grower, two producer magazines, and at the SE Pecan Growers Convention and the Oklahoma Pecan Growers' Annual Meeting. In addition, one of the authors attended the Tri-state Pecan Conference and Texas Pecan Growers Meeting to distribute information concerning the outcome of this planning conference. PARTICIPANTS: Michael W. Smith, and Paul Weckler worked jointly to plan and conduct the conference outlined in this proposal. This includes all publicity, contacts, and follow up publications concerning the meeting. In addition, we have pursued SCRI proposals as appropriate. Becky Cheary assisted Michael W. Smith and Paul Weckler in obtaining materials, projection equipment, and other needs for organizing and at the meeting. TARGET AUDIENCES: There were two target audiences. The first audience was composed of industry members representing producers, shellers, processors, and consumers. These were from diverse geographic regions. Their mission was to define research and extension priorities that limited growth and expansion of the pecan industry. The second group were scientists and engineers that worked on pecan related issues. These represented universities, USDA-ARS, and non-profit organizations. Their task was to develop SCRI proposals to address the needs identified by industry. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: We extended the project one year to facilitate proposal development and further diseminate information concerning the priorities identified by industry.
Impacts
Outcomes from this meeting have exceeded all expectations. One of the stated goals was to bring together industry leaders representing the different geographic regions and segments of the industry to establish national research and extension goals for the pecan industry. Not only was this accomplished, but the various segments of industry realized that they all recognized the same limitations and needs within the industry. This has led to additional dialog among the different industry segments, initial steps to create a national organization that represents the entire industry and a feeling of industry unity. Hopefully, this will further spur the rapid growth and expansion of this segment of agriculture. The other objective of this project was to organize a team of scientists to develop a SCRI-CAP project to address some of the identified industry priorities. Three teams were identified at the meeting, each addressing some of industries needs. One team will develop a CAP project that will address several aspects of pecan alternate bearing, the highest ranked priority of the industry group. Another group will develop a SCRI-SREP proposal addressing aspects of food safety and traceability. The third group will develop a SCRI-eXtension project to coordinate pecan information from different states and agencies such that links and information can be found at a single web site. Submission of these proposals is targeted for the February 2012 deadline.
Publications
- Smith, M.W. and P. Weckler. 2010. Pecan industry to establish research, extension priorities. Pecan South 43(10):12-14. Smith, M.W. and P. Weckler. 2011. Industry driven pecan research and extension priorities. Pecan Grower. 22(4):80-83. Smith, M.W. and P. Weckler. 2011. Industry meets to pinpoint research, extension priorities. Pecan South 44(2):14, 15-17,18. Smith, M.W. and P. Weckler. 2011. Industry driven pecan research and extension priorities. Proc. Okla. Pecan Growers Assn. 81:13-17.
|
|