USDA Scientific Cooperation and Research Program

SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) announces the availability of grant funds and requests proposals for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems Program (IFAFS) for fiscal year (FY) 2001 to support competitively

awarded research, extension and education grants addressing key issues of national and regional importance to agriculture, forestry, and related topics. The amount available for support of this program in FY 2001 is approximately $113,400,000.

DATES: For the FY 2001 competition, a Letter of Intent is requested and is due by March 23, 2001. Project proposals and proposals for Multidisciplinary Graduate Education Traineeship Grants (MGET) must be received by COB April 23, 2001. Proposals received after this date will

not be considered for funding. Critical or Emerging Issues proposals must be received by COB on June 1, 2001. Comments regarding this Request for Proposals are invited for six months from the issuance of this notice. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Applicants may e-mail the Letter of Intent to Dr. Rodney Foil at rfoil@reeusda.gov or send the letter by mail to IFAFS; Mail Stop 2213; Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250-2213; or fax the Letter to IFAFS at (202) 690-3858. The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals submitted using an express mail or overnight courier service is: Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems; c/o Proposal Services Unit;

Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the following address: Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250-2245.

Written user comments should be submitted by mail to: Policy and Program Liaison Staff; Office of Extramural Programs; Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington,

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Applicants and other interested parties are encouraged to contact the Program Director listed in the program areas found in the Program Area Description section below, or Dr. Rodney Foil, Director IFAFS, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2242; 1400

Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250-2242; telephone: (202) 720-4423; e-mail: rfoil@reeusda.gov; or Dr. Sally Rockey, Deputy Administrator, CRGAM, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2240; 1400

CSREES is requesting comments regarding this RFP from any interested party. These comments will be considered in the development of any future RFP for the program. Such comments will be forwarded to the Secretary or his designee for use in meeting the requirements of section 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7613(c)(2). This section requires the Secretary to solicit and consider input on a current RFP from persons who conduct or use agricultural research, education and extension for use in formulating future RFPs for competitive programs. Comments should be submitted as provided for in the ``Addresses'' and ``Dates'' portions of this Notice.

Section 401 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) (7 U.S.C. 7621) established in the Treasury of the United States an IFAFS account and authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a research, extension, and education

income. Grants are to be awarded that shall address priority mission areas related to (a) Agricultural genome, (b) Food safety, food technology and human nutrition, (c) New and alternative uses and production of agricultural commodities and products, (d) Agricultural

biotechnology, (e) Natural resource management, including precision agriculture, and (f) Farm efficiency and profitability, including the viability and competitiveness of small- and medium-sized dairy, livestock, crop, and other commodity operations. Priority is to be given to projects that are multistate, multi-institutional, or multidisciplinary or projects that integrate agricultural research,

Subject to the availability of funds to carry out this program, the Secretary may award grants to a college or university or a research foundation maintained by a college or university. This represents a change from the FY 2000 solicitation. Section 724 of Public Law No. 106-389, as amended by section 101(3) of H.R. 566 which was enacted by section 1(a)(4) of Public Law No. 106-554, removed Federal research agencies, national laboratories, and private research organizations from eligibility for IFAFS awards.

Grants also may be awarded to ensure that faculty of small and mid-sized academic institutions that have not previously been successful in obtaining competitive grants under subsection (b) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) (i.e. the CSREES National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program) receive a portion of the IFAFS grants. Grants are to be awarded to address priorities in United States agriculture that involve research, extension, and education activities as determined by the Secretary in

The purpose of the IFAFS is to support research, education and extension grants that address critical emerging U.S. agricultural issues related to (1) future food production, (2) environmental quality and natural resource management, or (3) farm income.

In awarding IFAFS grants, priority will be given to projects that are multistate, multi-institutional, or multidisciplinary or projects that integrate agricultural research, extension and education. Integrated projects hold the greatest potential to produce and transfer

knowledge directly to end users, while providing for educational opportunities to assure agricultural expertise in future generations. The IFAFS also holds great opportunity to bring the agricultural knowledge system to bear on issues impacting small and mid-sized producers and land managers, thus enabling improvements in quality of life and community. In support of the agency's goal to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture, consideration will also be given

IFAFS is distinct from other CSREES programs because of its priority on integration of research, extension, and education; its consideration of the concerns of small and mid-sized operations; its emphasis of agricultural production issues; and its goal to support relatively large projects that provide more intensive support to the research, extension, and education system.

There is no commitment by USDA to fund any particular proposal or to make a specific number of awards. Approximately $113,400,000 is available in FY 2001 for programs within the IFAFS for the following priority areas: Agriculture Genome and Agricultural Biotechnology

($32,800,000); Food Safety, Food Technology, and Human Nutrition ($21,900,000); New and Alternative Uses and Production of Agricultural Commodities and Products ($10,000,000); Natural Resource Management, including Precision Agriculture ($29,000,000); and Farm Efficiency and

Profitability, Including the Viability and Competitiveness of Small and Medium-sized Dairy, Livestock, Crop, and Other Commodity Operations ($19,000,000). Funds available for each priority area are targets. The number and quality of applications, as well as the need to reach

programmatic goals, may necessitate the movement of funds between priority areas. CSREES is not committed to funding any specific amount or make any specific number of MGET awards, however, funds in the amount of $2.2 million will be made available from the aforementioned

Funds will be made available to small or mid-sized academic institutions that have not been previously successful in obtaining competitive grants under the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Research Program.

Two additional requests for proposals will be available in FY 2001. These are new collaborative programs between CSREES/IFAFS and other Federal Agencies. These include the USDA/NSF Microbial Genome Sequencing Project (total joint funding of approximately $9 million) and the USDA/NASA Application of Geospatial and Precision Technology Project (total joint funding of $9.5 million).

The program areas described herein were developed within the context of the authorized purposes of both USDA research, extension, and education (7 U.S.C. 3101) and IFAFS (7 U.S.C. 401), within the framework of the CSREES Strategic Plan (Available at www.usda.gov/ocfo/

(1) Administrator means the Administrator of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and any other officer or employee of the Department to whom the authority involved may be delegated.

(4) Authorized organizational representative means the president or chief executive officer of the applicant organization or the official, designated by the president or chief executive officer of the applicant organization, who has the authority to commit the resources of the organization.

(10) Graduate education means recruitment, enrollment, instruction, mentoring, retention, and graduation of students seeking master's or doctoral degrees; providing resources for thesis research in fields related to the research problems in the project; and support of graduate students through assistantships, fellowships or traineeships.

(11) Grant means the award by the Secretary of funds to an eligible organization or individual to assist in meeting the costs of conducting, for the benefit of the public, an identified project which is intended and designed to accomplish the purpose of the program as identified in these guidelines.

(16) Peer review is an evaluation of a proposed project for scientific or technical quality and relevance performed by experts with the scientific knowledge and technical skills to conduct the proposed work or to give expert advice on the merits of a proposal.

(17) Principal Investigator/Project director (PI/PD) means the single individual designated by the grantee in the grant application and approved by the Secretary who is responsible for the direction and management of the project.

(23) Small- and Mid-Sized Institutions means academic institutions having an enrollment of 15,000 or fewer (including part-time students), and that are no higher than the 50th percentile of academic institutions funded by the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program in the past three years and are not within the top 100 Federally funded institutions (see Appendix A.)

(24) Third party in-kind contributions means non-cash contributions of property or services provided by non-Federal third parties, including real property, equipment, supplies and other expendable property, directly benefitting and specifically identifiable to a funded project or program.

(25) Traineeship means a student centered educational program that addresses knowledge needs, personal and professional skills development, career experiences and global awareness; student is supported like a scholarship or fellowship.

Eligible applicants may subcontract to organizations not eligible under these requirements. For Multidisciplinary Graduate Education Traineeship (MGET) proposals, eligible colleges or universities are those with accredited graduate degree programs in the food and agricultural sciences.

If a grant provides for applied research that is commodity specific and not of national scope, the grant recipient is required to provide funds or in-kind support to match the amount of Federal grant funds provided.

1. New proposal. This is a project proposal that has not been previously submitted to the IFAFS Program. All new proposals will be reviewed competitively using the selection process and evaluation criteria described in Part IV--Selection Process and Evaluation Criteria.

2. Resubmitted proposal. This is a proposal that had been previously submitted to the IFAFS but not funded. The resubmitted proposal should clearly indicate the changes that have been made in the project proposal. Further, a clear statement acknowledging comments from the previous reviewers, indicating revisions, rebuttals, etc., can positively influence the review of the proposal. Therefore, for resubmitted proposals, the investigator(s) must respond to the previous

panel summary on no more than one page, titled Response to Previous Review, which is to be placed directly after the Project Summary as described in Part III--Preparation of a Proposal. Resubmitted proposals will be reviewed competitively using the selection process and

IFAFS funds may not be used for the renovation or refurbishment of research spaces; the purchase or installation of fixed equipment in such spaces; or the planning, repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of buildings or facilities.

In accordance with the President's Memorandum of March 4, 1997, regarding the use of Federal funds for the cloning of human beings (33 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 278), IFAFS funds shall not be used to support, fund, or undertake any cloning activity that could lead to the creation of a new human being with genetic material identical to that of another human being, including research related directly thereto. The prohibition on use of grant funds to ``support'' human cloning activity includes using, or making available for use, grant-funded equipment for

1. Project grants. Project grants can be proposed that range in size to a total grant size of up to five million dollars over four years. The amount requested must be commensurate with the activities proposed; support for very large requests of funds will be highly competitive.

Project grants may involve any combinations of institutions and states but may: involve multiple states and/or institutions that conduct research; synthesize previous, ongoing and future research; develop curricula and build educational and research capacity; and transfer information to producers, end users, and the public. The type and number of participating institutions should be appropriate to the project proposed, and should include all participants necessary for

successful completion of the project. All IFAFS project grants will be expected to address research, extension and education in a focused project area or through larger endeavors that coalesce around project areas that cannot be addressed through the funding of individual

efforts. It is the intent of CSREES to promote collaboration, open communication, exchange of information and resources, and integration of activities among individuals, institutions, states or regions. Larger projects that include many institutions, states or efforts, should minimize isolation and over-competitiveness, reduce duplication of efforts, and provide an accessible source of expert information, technology, and education upon which the public can draw. More focused projects are expected to generate new knowledge and/or apply existing knowledge quickly through outreach and dissemination to specific issues in agriculture where immediate results may be visible.

Dependent on the merits of proposals received, CSREES will ensure that a portion of project grants will be awarded to proposals in which the lead institution (recipient of the Federal funds) is a small- or mid-sized institution (as defined in Part I., C. Definitions). Other institutions or organizations involved in small- and mid-sized institution eligible projects need not meet the criteria described in the definition of a small- and mid-sized institution.

A designated lead institution of each project will administer funds and be responsible for overall management of activities. Larger grant proposals of more than $1 million, or those that are comprised of multifaceted participation by a number of institutions must include how the administration of the grant will be achieved and monitored since proper management of a complex project will influence overall success of the project. Plans for how each project will be maintained and monitored for progress during and beyond the duration of the grant should also be included in the proposal.

2. Bridge Grants. Applicants may not directly apply for Bridge grants. Bridge grants only are awarded to small- and mid-sized academic institutions after a review of a submitted Project Grant proposal places the application below the funding cutoff.

Small- and Mid-Sized Institution means academic institutions having an enrollment of 15,000 or fewer (including part-time students), ranked no higher than the 50th percentile of academic institutions funded by the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program in the past

important collaborations and activities that might lead to future program success or success in obtaining IFAFS and/or other grants. Institutions eligible for Bridge grants will be considered for a one-time infusion of up to $100,000 if a submitted Project Grant proposal is considered meritorious but ranks below the funding cutoff during the peer review process. Proposals that meet these criteria will be forwarded from each program area review panel to the IFAFS

3. Critical or Emerging Issues Grants. IFAFS is offering the opportunity to consider applications based upon critical issues that transcend the specific elements of the individual IFAFS program areas as well as those issues that are of emerging significance. Critical or

Emerging Issues grants can be proposed that range in size to a total of $5 million over four years. The amount requested must be commensurate with the activities proposed. Support for very large requests of funds will be highly competitive. See Program Area 16.0 under the ``Program

4. Multidisciplinary Graduate Education Traineeship (MGET) Grants. MGET grants will support innovative, research-based, graduate education and training activities in critical, emerging areas of agricultural sciences. They must be organized upon a cohesive multidisciplinary

theme and involve a diverse group of faculty members and other investigators with appropriate expertise in research, education and extension. Depending upon the availability of funds, each grant may receive up to $2,200,000 for a four-year project period which is divided into student support in the amount up to $500,000 per year and into start-up costs up to an additional $200,000 in the first year for appropriate equipment and special purpose materials. Graduate student stipend allowance is $18,000 per year accompanied by a cost-of-education allowance (tuition and normal fees) of $10,500 per year per student. All graduate and other stipend recipients must be citizens or permanent residents of the U.S. See Program Area 17.0 for more

The IFAFS seeks to sponsor integrated research, education and extension programs in plant, animal and microbe genomics and the development of bioinformatic tools and educational resources with specific applications to agricultural challenges.

A more complete understanding of the entire complement of genes in agriculturally relevant plants, animals and microbes is imperative. More knowledge in this area will have a major impact on the ability of the United States to produce nutritious and safe food, while preserving the environment and sustaining the economic stability of the agricultural enterprise. Greater efforts aimed at identifying, mapping and understanding the function and control of genes responsible for

traits in agriculturally important species of plants, animals and microbes are needed. These efforts will lead to the development of new genetic technologies for improvements in yield, pest and pathogen resistance, and the composition, quality, and safety of U.S. agricultural products in the global context.

New bioinformatic and computational biology tools are needed to analyze, interpret and utilize the vast amounts of data that will be generated by genomic research in agriculturally important species. CSREES expects that bioinformatics will be an integral component of any project funded under this Agricultural Genomics program. CSREES is also interested in funding integrated projects primarily dedicated to the research and development of bioinformatics tools and education programs, hence a separate sub-area in bioinformatics. Prospective applicants who are primarily interested in working on a particular plant, animal or microbial system should address their projects to the relevant section. Those primarily interested in developing

All agricultural genomics grant recipients are expected to present their project plan at the International Plant, Animal, and Microbial Genome meetings in January in San Diego, CA. Additional information will be made available if an award is made.

sequence data is essential for advancing research on agriculturally important species. Early release of unfinished sequence has already proven useful in accelerating the pace of experimental discovery in non-agricultural fields, such as human health, energy production and

bioremediation. At the same time, CSREES recognizes that it also is necessary to allow investigators time to verify the accuracy of their data and to accomplish the goals proposed in their application, which often includes the assembly and annotation of the sequence data.

In addition to the general data release procedures above, applications for support of genome sequencing projects must include a detailed description of the data release plan. Timely release is strongly encouraged in recognition of the benefits to the broader research community. Release should be accompanied by appropriate information on the reliability of the data (e.g., level of coverage and extent of assembly, extent of contamination with vector and other sequences, statistical measures of accuracy). At a minimum, it is anticipated that sequence data will be released within one month after 3X coverage of the genome (or chromosome for eukaryotic organisms) is achieved. The released data should be provided as assemblies of equal

In the view of some, raw genomic sequences, in the absence of additional demonstrated biological information, lack demonstrated utility and therefore are inappropriate for patent filing. Patent applications on large blocks of primary genomic sequence could stifle future research and the development of future inventions of useful products. However, according to the Bayh-Dole Act, the grantees have the right to elect to retain title to subject inventions and are free to choose to apply for patents should additional biological experiments reveal convincing evidence of utility. CSREES grantees are reminded that the grantee institution is required to disclose each subject

invention to CSREES within two months after the inventor discloses it in writing to grantee institution personnel responsible for patent matters. Where appropriate, a plan for apportionment of rights to intellectual property with international partners should be provided.

Research in plant genomics has advanced rapidly in the past few years. The entire genome of Arabidopsis has been sequenced and is being annotated, and the rice genome will be sequenced and annotated in the near future. Knowledge of these sequences will provide basic information on the genes in a flowering plant species. While genomic tools and resources are currently available for plant research, they will need to be improved and expanded. Additionally, genomic resources

will need to be developed for other agriculturally important plant species. Furthermore, if genomic information is to be applied to plant improvement, more research is needed to determine the function of gene sequences.

The IFAFS Plant Genome Program sub-area will support integrated projects of research, education and extension that advance our knowledge of the structure, organization and function of agriculturally important plant genomes. Some examples of education and extension components pertinent to this sub-area include training of graduate and undergraduate students, postdoctoral associates, and/or colleagues (through classes, seminars, workshops, sabbaticals) in the use of genomic resources or outreach to the community through informational seminars and classes on the benefits and methods of genomic research. Wherever appropriate, investigators are encouraged to develop national and international collaborations with research groups already working on the species of interest to maximize the use of structural and functional genomic resources. Collaborations with private industry that have made a significant investment in the species are also encouraged to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.

(1) Development or improvement of genomic tools and resources for plant species important to agriculture or forestry. (a) High throughput genomic approaches to understand genome structure and organization of horticultural (including fruit and vegetable crop species and ornamental plants relevant to U.S. agriculture) and forest plants will be given high priority, particularly those plants that have not been the focus of major study. Proposals that apply marker assisted selection/breeding of horticultural and forest plants are also encouraged. (b) Proposals that extend or complement ongoing research on complex cereal crop genomes already under study will also be considered; potential research areas include innovative approaches to sequence gene-rich regions, synteny of cereal genomes with rice application of marker assisted selection in public breeding programs, and the development of publicly accessible transformation technology.

(2) Functional analysis of the rice genome. The U.S. is a participant in the international project to sequence the genome of rice. To build on the sequencing effort now underway, this program area will support (a) functional genomic studies in rice that seek to uncover the function of cereal crop genes by relating a mutant phenotype with sequence information. Examples of approaches include gene tagging, proteomics, microarrays, and development of knockout lines and ESTs. (b) projects for production of strains and sequences of rice that will be made available to the international research community, and for development of a public database to consolidate information on mutagenized populations and phenotypic information about mutants characterized.

10.2 Animal Genome. (For clarification on this sub-area, contact the Program Directors, Ed Kaleikau at (202) 401-6030, e-mail: ekaleikau@reeusda.gov; and Richard Frahm, at (202) 401-4895, e-mail: rfrahm@reeusda.gov.)

Proposals are solicited that address one or more of the following areas in animal genomics: (a) Develop high density comparative gene maps, which include human and mouse, across agricultural animal species (Cattle, sheep, swine, horse, poultry species and aquaculture species); (b) generate ordered and arrayed BAC libraries for those species where such reagents are not presently available (Arrangements must be included in the proposal to distribute these to

other U.S. investigators on a cost-recovery basis); (c) develop novel marker (single nucleotide polymorphysims/microarrays) for high through-put genotyping systems using agricultural animal populations to identify quantitative trait loci (QTL) or to apply marker assisted selection; (d) develop computational applications to facilitate comparative gene mapping; and (e) develop education programs on new developments in agricultural animal genome research for outreach to

10.3 Microbial Genome. (For FY 2001, Microbial Genomics will be offered through a separate solicitation for a joint USDA/NSF Microbial Genomics Sequencing Project. See the CSREES website, www.reeusda.gov, under ``funding opportunities'' for additional information concerning

The vast amounts of data being generated by genomic research only will be of use to plant, animal and microbial improvement and protection if technologies are developed to utilize genomic sequence, gene maps and gene function information. In addition, new cadres of scientists must be trained in the use of these technologies. Because of the interdisciplinary nature of genomic science, bioinformatic research provides an ideal opportunity for a range of scientists, including

engineers, computer scientists, chemists, and biologists, to work together in a collaborative environment. Bioinformatic tools and personnel will play a vital role in applying genomic data to the improvement of animal, plant and microbial species of agricultural importance. This program sub-area seeks to support proposals to develop or improve bioinformatic tools and to develop training programs in bioinformatics. Projects may involve experts in computer science, software engineering, genomics, genetics, plant, animal, or microbial improvement, or related sciences as well as individuals with an interest in the development of education and training programs in

(1) Development or improvement of bioinformatic tools and resources. There is an acute need to manage and interpret genomic data efficiently and effectively. The current absence of standardization for data management and storage has led to an increasing number of databases that do not communicate well among themselves. If this trend continues, the progress promised by genomics will be slowed not only for agriculture, but for all fields involved in genomics. As

agricultural databases are developed, it is imperative that they exhibit good interconnectivity with new and existing sources of data. To meet this challenge, software programs for bioinformatics must be developed and/or refined; further, other broadly-defined tools are needed to provide the support to handle and interpret the massive amounts of genomic data being generated. Research projects in this area should develop bioinformatics tools with application to agricultural systems. Examples of research areas include: (a) Development or improvement of database management techniques and software; (b) development or improvement of computational tools for analysis of

(2) Development of bioinformatic education programs or courses. Training programs should address the current gap in the availability of professionals trained in plant, animal, and microbe bioinformatics. The interaction of biologists and computational scientists must be evident in the proposal. Approaches to training may include, but are not limited to: (a) Development of courses at the undergraduate and graduate level in bioinformatics/computational biology; (b) creation of

programs which include summer institutes, short courses, sabbaticals or training centers designed to educate and train faculty and or graduate students in bioinformatics; (c) development of secondary education science teaching modules to introduce young students to the

This program area will support research, education, and extension that addresses risks and benefits associated with the use of biotechnology in agriculture. Biotechnology is believed to have great potential for supplying the world's food and fiber needs in a sustainable manner. However, the development of agricultural biotechnology products has resulted in expressions of concern by

producers, consumers, media, interest groups, and other stakeholders about possible health, environmental, social, and economic effects. This program area seeks to address those concerns and assist citizens in making informed decisions about the use of this technology in

The application of biotechnology to agriculture has the potential to provide a number of public benefits. It is expected to increase productivity while reducing the negative environmental effects of traditional production methods by reducing the need for antibiotics, fertilizers, herbicides, hormones, and pesticides. The technology also has the potential to facilitate the development of new food products with improved nutritional benefits, flavor, and shelf-stability, as well as new non-food products, including lubricants, oils and plastics.

Successful application of this technology to food and agriculture is possible only with the approval and acceptance of consumers, environmentalists and other stakeholders. Research, education, and extension focused on identifying and assessing present and predicted benefits and identifying, assessing, and reducing present and predicted risks associated with agricultural biotechnology will aid in addressing the needs and concerns of various stakeholder groups.

Proposals should be submitted to one of the following three areas: Section 11.1 focusing on the impact of agricultural biotechnology on human and animal health; Section 11.2 focusing on social and economic aspects associated with the development and use of biotechnology; or

Section 11.3 focusing on the management of potential environmental effects associated with agricultural biotechnology. Proposals that seek to integrate both the biological aspects (Sections 11.1 and 11.3) and social aspects (Section 11.2), should be submitted to the section that best describes the majority emphasis of the proposed project.

Where practicable, graduate training opportunities are encouraged in proposals submitted to this program area. Also, international partnerships are permitted so long as the partnership clearly benefits the understanding of U.S. agricultural biotechnology questions and concerns.

11.1 Effects of Agricultural Biotechnology on Human and Animal Health. (For clarification of this program area, contact the Program Directors, Daniel Jones at (202) 401-6854; email: ddjones@reeusda.gov; or Deborah Sheely at (202) 401-1924, e-mail: dsheely@reeusda.gov.)

Research, extension, and education activities regarding the effects of genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM food on human and animal health, include but are not limited to: (a) Approaches for anticipating, detecting, and managing allergenicity in food products derived through biotechnology; (b) the role of GM products in the development of antibiotic resistance; (c) secondary metabolite formation and how this may affect food and feed; (d) changes in bioavailability of essential nutrients; (e) development of new and enhanced testing and evaluation methods of biologically modified products that ensure human and animal safety; (f) development of experiential learning opportunities for students, academics, and agricultural professionals to study the effects of GM food and feed on humans and animals; (g) development of outreach programs to explain the risks and benefits of GM food and feed on human and animal health.

This program area is seeking projects to evaluate or assess the effects of transgenic organisms or food on human and animal health. It will not consider proposals to develop transgenic products of any kind, including those designed to improve human or animal health.

11.2 Social and Economic Aspects of Biotechnology. (For clarification of this program area, contact Program Directors, John Michael at (202) 720-8744, jmichael@reeusda.gov; or David Holder at (202) 720-3605, dholder@reeusda.gov.)

This section solicits proposals for research, education and extension activities that deal with the human dimensions associated with agricultural biotechnology. It is concerned with positive and negative economic and social impacts on stakeholders--producers, processors, input manufacturers, consumers, environmentalists, governmental agencies and others; impacts on economic and social institutions, communities, and society; reactions to biotechnology; and

people's beliefs and attitudes about biotechnology and the responses of stakeholders, institutions, and communities. ``Social and economic'' is broadly defined to also include psychological, cultural, ethical, and political aspects of biotechnology. Comparative approaches are invited, including comparisons across geography, culture, history, and technologies. Other approaches are also invited.

The expected outcomes of the program include: (a) objective and complete assessments of perceived and actual benefits and risks associated with agricultural biotechnology; (b) greater stakeholder involvement (civic engagement) in decisions regarding agricultural biotechnology; (c) more informed decisions by public and private decision makers about the development and use of biotechnology; and (d) greater clarity regarding the role of research and educational institutions in helping stakeholders weigh the risks and benefits of alternative approaches and technologies in agriculture.

(a) Business issues--Economic and other impacts of biotechnology on individual firms or groups of firms; firm-level decisions about selling or buying biotechnology products and processes, such as a farmer/farm family decision to plant herbicide-tolerant soybeans; changes in business practices and alliances.

(b) Agriculture and Food System Issues--Impact of biotechnology on the organization, structure and behavior of participants in the agricultural industry from input manufacturers to retailers; changes in economic institutions and government policies; capacity of the food

system to segregate genetically modified commodities/products for specific markets; competitiveness of U.S. agriculture in world markets; and impacts of establishing various standards, oversight arrangements and alternative regulations and policies.

(c) Market/Consumer Issues--Needs, desires, and concerns of consumers in domestic and international markets; understanding consumer decisions about the use of biotechnology products, including the influence of culture, product labeling, advertising, scientific information, and recent news events; methods most effective for increasing understanding and improving public and private decision making ability.

(d) Societal Issues--Needs of various publics to gain meaningful information and be involved in decision making processes surrounding the development and use of biotechnology; the role of civic engagement; perceived and actual risks and benefits to consumers and other stakeholder groups or society in general; policy alternatives and analysis; property rights; environmental protection; conflict emergence and resolution; role of ethics.

(e) Institutional Issues--(Economic and social institutions include such things as markets, universities, and the policy-making bodies). Impact of biotechnology on markets; role of public research, education and extension; mechanisms for funding research and disseminating results; role of local, state, federal and international governments.

11.3 Ecological Risk Management of Agricultural Biotechnology. (For clarification of this program area, contact the Program Directors, Deborah Sheely at (202) 401-1924, e-mail: dsheely@reeusda.gov; or Daniel Jones at (202) 401-6854; email: ddjones@reeusda.gov.)

Research, extension, and education activities regarding the management of risks associated with the release of transgenic organisms into the environment. These include, but are not limited to: (a) Techniques to minimize or eliminate potential negative impacts of transgenic products on non-target species, agricultural systems and the environment; (b) management systems to slow the evolution of resistance to transgenic protection against pests and diseases; (c) techniques or

methods to prevent the movement of transgenes from transgenic organisms to others; or to prevent their expression in new or unintended organisms; (d) management systems to control the impact of transgenic plants, especially insect resistant or herbicide tolerant plants, on biodiversity of agro-ecosystems; (e) experiential learning opportunities for students, academics, and agricultural professionals to manage environmental risks associated with agricultural biotechnology; and (f) outreach programs to develop and share techniques or methods to manage ecological risks.

This program solicits projects designed to manage or reduce ecological risks associated with the release of transgenic organisms into the environment. Projects to assess risks of transgenic organisms (i.e. identification of an ecological hazard, and determining its probability and impact) will not be considered for funding by this program. Research addressing risk assessment should be directed to USDA's Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research Grants Program

(http://www.reeusda.gov/crgam/biotechrisk/biotech.htm).

This program area concentrates resources on two critical areas in food technology and nutrition: Factors affecting food and nutrition behavior of consumers and the nutritional impact of functional and designer foods. Future food production will be impacted by consumer food choices, and the health and happiness of Americans is dependent upon diets appropriate to individual lifestyles and physical condition. Understanding consumer behavior and how to increase the beneficial components in food will help inform future food production. A key anticipated benefit of this initiative will be to strengthen the existing links among research, teaching, and extension/outreach activities related to nutrition and food technology. Descriptions of the two program subareas are below.

12.1 Consumer Food Choices. (For clarification of this sub-area, contact the Program Directors, Susan Welsh at (202) 720-5544; email: swelsh@reeusda.gov; or Etta Saltos, at (202) 401-5178; e-mail: esaltos@reeusda.gov.)

The most fundamental knowledge gap in nutrition research is in understanding why people choose what they choose to eat and how to effectively intervene to improve diets. Although USDA, together with the Department of Health and Human Services, has formulated Federal

nutrition policy in the form of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans for 20 years, we know that many consumers are not following this guidance. According to the Department's 1996 Healthy Eating Index, a measure of how Americans' diets fare in meeting the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines, only 12 percent of Americans have diets that can be classified as ``good;'' 71 percent have diets that are considered to ``need improvement'' and 17 percent are classified as

having ``poor'' diets. Additionally, the prevalence of obesity in the United States increased from 12 percent in 1991 to 18 percent in 1998. In the past decade, the number of U.S. children who are overweight has more than doubled and the incidence of type 2 diabetes in adolescents, once rare, is increasing.

USDA researchers have found that in children the risk of becoming obese increases as family income decreases. The consistent and visible interest of Americans in weight loss diets indicate both an interest in and the difficulties in maintaining desirable weight. Community-based research on food systems has demonstrated limited food choices in low-income communities as insufficient resources limit grocery retail establishments in economically deprived areas. Food intake of low-income individuals is dramatically affected by the availability of food, especially fruits and vegetables. Food stamp recipients sometimes have difficulty stretching food dollars through the month, creating an atmosphere of food insecurity late in the month, affecting food choices.

Food choice behavior is influenced by a variety of factors ranging from available income to physiologic need to societal standards and community resources. Knowledge of how these factors interact to affect food choices is limited. Nutrition experts agree that for nutrition

interventions to be successful, they should be behaviorally-based, but the gaps in knowledge of consumer dietary behavior limits development of such interventions. When behaviorally-based nutrition interventions have been implemented, evaluation of the outcomes of such interventions

has been limited, primarily due to lack of funds. Research on the strengths and weaknesses of an intervention in relation to its objectives is essential to improving the intervention and in facilitating its application to other situations.

individuals, and older adults; (b) research on behavioral factors that may contribute to the development of obesity; (c) exploration and analysis of the impact of community resources on food choices, including the effect of insecure food systems in low-income communities and prevalence of obesity, unhealthy food choices, and related food behaviors; (d) innovative studies, including longitudinal and non-self-report methods of assessing dietary behavior; (e) multidisciplinary studies to examine current theory-based models of behavior change; (f) development and evaluation of diet regimens and intervention(s) at either the individual or community level; (g) development and evaluation of social marketing approaches to target nutrition and health messages to lead to behavior changes; and (h) development of innovative cross-training programs in nutrition and the social sciences.

12.2 Nutritional Impact of Functional Foods. (For clarification of this sub-area, please contact the Program Directors, Ram Rao at (202) 401-6010; e-mail: rrao@reeusda.gov or Melvin Mathias at (202) 720-4124; e-mail: mmathias@reeusda.gov.)

nutrition. The national and international market for functional foods is growing rapidly as consumers are increasingly interested in including functional foods in their diets. Considerable scientific information demonstrates that some food components have the potential health benefits. Additional research is necessary to substantiate the claims of health benefits of the food components and functional foods. Advances in food technology through both traditional processing methodologies, and genetic engineering of foods, have provided the consumer with ever increasing food choices that claim to offer increased health benefits due to selection in favor of certain components.

integrate and encompass the design of commercially feasible functional foods, characterization of bioactive components, measurement of health benefits, and consumer outreach programs will be given priority. Integration should include a holistic approach to developing functional foods, including an analysis of impact on the food system and on health. Applicants are strongly encouraged to seek industry collaboration.

Examples of potential integrated research, extension and education activities include, but are not limited to: (a) Creation of foods that have increased amounts of the beneficial components found in fruits, vegetables, grains and animal products; (b) interactive (synergistic or antagonistic) effects of the bioactive components as consumed in the food; (c) improved processes to enhance stability and bioavailability of bioactive components; (d) the design of functional foods with acceptable sensory attributes; (e) the development of methods to monitor the effectiveness of functional foods on improving health and preventing diseases; (f) analysis to support the issuance of regulatory guidelines to ensure the safety and efficacy of functional food products; and (g) provide information usable by and readily available to health professionals and consumers.

Proposals dealing with genetically modified foods that do not fit under the definition of functional foods described in this section or which deal with risk management of biotechnology derived foods should be directed to Program Area 11.1 (Effects of Agricultural Biotechnology

on Human and Animal Health) or 11.2 (Social and Economic Aspects of Agricultural Biotechnology); proposals dealing with consumer choices offunctional foods for health should be directed to Program Area 12.1 (Consumer Food Behavior).

The goal of this program area is to provide for research, education and extension activities that enhance the competitive value, find new uses for, or establish entirely new non-food agricultural and forestry products, primarily biomass fuel sources and biobased industrial products that can replace petroleum-based fuels and products. This program area addresses the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000, which calls for expanded public investment in research and development of economically competitive, environmentally sound bioenergy and biobased products, and to advance their availability and widespread use. Further, these efforts address the issues of resource depletion and environmental degradation, while building new markets for

A comprehensive, system-based approach is required to accomplish the goals of this program area, which encompasses: (a) The development of crop varieties or agricultural wastes for biomass fuel uses and for biobased industrial products; (b) processing biomass; (c) product

development; (d) test, evaluation and certification for commercial use; (e) demonstration of final product(s); (f) consideration of environmental impacts of material selection in early stages of product development; (g) life cycle cost evaluation of final product(s); and (h) establishing marketing networks. Accordingly, integration of these activities to the maximum extent practicable, are strongly encouraged. A system-based approach is expected to accelerate research and development and to result in measurable outcomes, i.e. increased production and use of biofuels and biobased products. This initiative strongly encourages research, education, and extension activities that explicitly recognize, account for, and enhance the interaction among

growers, processors, manufacturers, markets and the community. To increase profitability to the farm and rural business sectors, applicants are encouraged to develop proposals which include post-harvest processing and manufacturing activities that add value at the local level. In considering environmental impacts of material choices, applicants should refer to EPA's Guidance on Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/guidancepage.htm).

In addition, to facilitate technology transfer and marketing of biobased products, the product demonstration phase should be of sufficient size to generate data for a life cycle cost evaluation. The evaluation should clearly articulate the scope or boundary and the product alternative(s) for which the comparison is being made. A full life cycle assessment, though desirable, is beyond the scope of this RFP, both in terms of time and available funds. However, applicants are

The education component is expected to be an integral part of the proposal and should include graduate training at either the Master's degree level or the doctoral degree level. The number of research assistants should match the size and scope of the proposal. Graduate training programs that include curriculum development and/or internships at relevant private companies or national laboratories, or other innovative educational models are strongly encouraged.

Proposers are also encouraged to incorporate collaborative international activities which may lead to the discovery of new or alternative uses, or which improve the prospects for those uses through enhanced production or commercialization, thus improving the prospects for U.S. farmers in the global market.

Successful management of natural resources in an agricultural landscape should address environmental integrity, quality of life, and economic viability. The purpose of this program area is to address how best to integrate the needs of production agriculture, the environment, and society, such that an acceptable sustainable system results.

This area will focus on key environmental problems that are best addressed using a holistic systems approach in the below stated program areas. Priority will be given to proposals that explicitly address the interaction among production, the environment, and the well-being of

producers and the general public. Preference will also be given to multi-state, multi-institutional, and multi-disciplinary projects. The emerging agricultural and natural resource issues to be addressed include: System-wide management of natural resources, particulary involving small and mid-sized tracts of privately owned land within a defined geographic area (watershed or eco-region); encroachment and subsequent environmental impact of invasive native and non-native

species (all taxa); conservation of biodiversity; animal waste management; and development and evaluation of precision technologies for efficient and sustainable production and harvesting of agricultural and natural resources.

14.1 Alternative Natural Resource Management Practices for Private Lands. (For further information concerning this program sub-area, contact the Program Director, Larry Biles, at (202) 401-4926; e-mail: lbiles@reeusda.gov.)

As the world's population increases, the demands for delivery of natural resource goods and services will also increase. In addition, there is an increasing demand for diversity in the commodities being produced and an increased recognition that such production changes must

This program will support integrated projects which address methods to maintain environmental integrity, quality of life, and economic viability. The focus of this program is on alternative natural resource management for private lands with emphasis on the development and

understanding of integrated natural resources management systems for forest, range, wildlife and aquatic resources that improve our capacity to support natural resources. Proposals should present a scientific framework that qualitatively and quantitatively links production practices, societal preferences, demographics, and economic needs to the impacts on natural resources. Preference will be given to proposals that demonstrate the active participation of the user community that is expected to benefit. Proposals should include a plan for coordination among scientists, state and federal agencies, commodity organizations, environmental groups, and producers to deal with the integrated ecological, technological, economic, social and environmental issues in a specified geographic region.

This sub-area of the initiative is intended to provide the research, extension and education information needed to support the management needs of the small and mid-sized aquatic, range, wildlife, and forest systems owners and managers. Projects should address management practices and technologies that will increase the opportunities for the small to mid-sized manager to operate profitable enterprises that respond to the demands for: (a) Alternative natural resources production, (b) sustainable forestry certification, (c) agroforestry, (d) invasive species management across multiple ownerships, (e) wildlife control and management, (f) nutrient management, (g) maintaining or enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, including restoration of species and ecosystems, (h) coping with the demands imposed by environmental and regulatory requirements within the increasingly mixed distribution of urban, rural, and wildlands management systems, and (i) training programs to enhance success and adoption of regionally-appropriate practices.

Proposals submitted to this sub-area will enhance our capacity to integrate regionally appropriate data and information to increase long-term, site-specific, and whole system efficiencies and profitability while both minimizing unintended impacts on natural resources and

enhancing environmental integrity. Proposals are encouraged that use a whole systems approach (economic, environmental, social and community development) to evaluate the practices most conducive to sustaining small and mid-sized land management systems in the U.S. Partnerships

The spread of non-native invasive species is one of the greatest threats to the long-term health of agricultural environments. The invasion of plant, animal and microbial pests is a global issue and it is of critical importance to the nation's land and water resources. United States agriculture is both losing income and incurring expenses to address this issue.

This program will focus on newly emerging non-native invasive species that threaten, or are already impacting agricultural, forest and rangeland resources and their associated waterways. In this program, non-native invasive species are defined as species (animal, plant and microbial) that are not indigenous to a particular eco-system and that have not become naturalized there. Priority will be given to proposals that: (1) Strongly justify their proposed work in terms of impact on U.S. agriculture, and (2) contain a substantial extension and/or public education component in addition to research.

Proposals will be considered that address five key areas: (1) Prevention of introductions (including pathway analysis), (2) prevention of spread of newly established invasive species (3) early detection of and rapid response to invasion, (4) monitoring of control efforts, and (5) quantification of impact of the invasive species (e.g. economic and/or ecological). The emphasis of this program will be to fund proposals that contain objectives that create a measurable outcome that can be realized within a relatively short period of time. Proposals should clearly indicate the nature of the impact expected to result should the proposal be funded. In addition, proposals should present a rationale for how the results of the work will be integrated into an overall management plan.

There is a great need to prevent the degradation of air, soil, and water resources by food animal production systems and to protect the ecological integrity of forest, rangeland, crop, aquatic, estuarine, and marine systems. Proper management of manure resulting from various

production systems is one of the most critical issues facing the food animal industry. Animal feeding operations vary by region, species, size, and management requirements, so that each operation is site-specific and must be managed accordingly. Physical, chemical and/or

biological treatment techniques may be used to reduce the pollution potential of animal manure. Regulation of animal feeding operations at the local, state and federal level is undergoing rapid change. An overall goal of this program is to improve American agriculture, environmentally and economically.

Proposals for this section will support integrated research, education and extension on regional or multi-state systems that will ultimately reduce adverse environmental and human health impacts of animal manure. Proposals will be considered that develop and evaluate

manure management practices, and treatment systems for the protection of natural resources. Proposals which employ a watershed, landscape-scale approach are encouraged and could include the transport and fate of nutrients and/or pathogens from animal manure through air, water and soil. The incorporation of comprehensive nutrient management planning in educational programs is encouraged, as is the development of partnerships with already established waste management centers.

This sub-program will accept proposals which address the following topical areas: (a) Determination of the effects of animal manure nutrient content and quality, and extension of this knowledge to producers or companies who may in turn modify their feed; (b) resolving community and regulatory concerns about siting, land application, health and economic issues; (c) determination and prediction of odor, gas and particulate matter impacts on the atmosphere and society, and development of management strategies to alleviate such impacts; (d) understanding and predicting source, delivery and fate of pathogens, antibiotics and/or endocrine disruptors (hormones) in the environment and their potential effects of the environment; and (e) development and implementation of alternative waste treatment technologies and alternative animal production systems.

Proposals should indicate which of the following animal groups will be addressed: swine, dairy, beef, poultry or aquaculture. If appropriate, the proposal should address the economic aspects of the described process, methodology, practice, etc. as it affects agriculture and the environment.

Proposals focusing on producing and marketing value-added products from manure should be submitted to IFAFS Program Area 13.0 New Uses for Agricultural Products. Proposals that are predominantly water quality or food safety should be submitted to The Integrated Research,

14.4 Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies. (For FY 2001, the Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies will be offered through a separate solicitation for a joint USDA/NASA Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies Program. See the CSREES website, www.reeusda.gov, under ``funding opportunities'' for additional information concerning this program.)

(For clarification of this program area, contact the Program Director, Don West, at (202) 720-5633; e-mail: dwest@reeusda.gov; Mark Bailey, at (202) 401-1898; e-mail: mbailey@reeusda.gov; or Denis Ebodaghe, at (202) 401-4385; e-mail: debodaghe@reeusda.gov.)

Dramatic changes in the global agricultural environment and in domestic farm programs have created new challenges for U.S. farmers as they strive to maintain the efficiency and profitability of their operations and the financial viability of their families and communities. This program emphasizes the use of existing data and emerging information to synthesize and deliver knowledge that improves profitability for families operating small and medium-sized farms.

Proposals that address the concerns of family-owned farms with limited financial resources will be given priority. Proposals should indicate how target audiences will benefit from the proposed programs/projects. Proposals ideally will address issues using a system-wide approach. For

All proposals submitted to this program area will undergo a peer review in which the efficiency and profitability of small and medium-sized farms is the most important criterion. New partnerships and new administrative mechanisms that involve universities, industry, profit/

non-profit organizations and/or community colleges are also important criteria. Consideration will be given to system approaches useful in meeting the production, marketing, capital and human resource needs associated with dairy, livestock, crop and other commodity operations. This priority area recognizes linkages with natural resources and