Defining Research and Extension Priorities for Pecan Production, Processing, Marketing and Consumer Utilization

<p>NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY:<br/> This Research & Extension Planning Project will solicit input from all segments of the pecan industry to develop priorities for research & extension activitie that will result in quality proposals for the UDA Specialty Crop Research Initiative and other grant programs. Research and/or extension programs on pecan exist in most states where pecans are grown, but fragmentation exists. The opportunity for stakeholders and scientists to come together with the expressed purpose of establishing industry needs and priorities followed by development of a trans-discipline, mulit-state SCRI grant(s) will focus the group's efforts and enhance the chance for success.
<p>APPROACH:<br/> Key industry leaders represented by Presidents of state and regional producer organizations, Chairmen of pecan commodity commissions, President of the national pecan shellers association, equipment manufacturers, produce buyers for both grocery stores and confectioners, and other selected individuals representing unique segments of the industry have been identified. Scientists with research and/or extension assignments that are currently working on pecan or have interest in developing programs on pecan representing horticulture, soil science, agricultural economics, agricultural engineering, consumer science, food science, postharvest physiology, and biochemistry have been identified from throughout the pecan belt (southern states from east to west coast). Industry personnel and scientists will meet at a four day conference to establish industry
research/extension priorities. The first two days will be dedicated to stakeholder driven develop of ranked priorities in a) production, b) processing and distribution, and c) consumers and marketing. The second part of the conference will be dedicated to development of trans-discipline, multi-state research/extension team(s) to address the priorities identified by stakeholders. Responsibilities for team leadership, emphasis areas and preliminary assignment of duties for proposal development will proceed during this period. Proposal(s) development will then be completed using normal communication avenues.
<p>PROGRESS: 2010/09 TO 2012/08<br/>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.
<p>PROGRESS: 2011/09/01 TO 2012/08/31<br/>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.
<p>PROGRESS: 2010/09/01 TO 2011/08/31<br/>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.