Northeast SARE Grants Portfolio Report August-5-2014 · 2014-08-07 · Northeast SARE, projects...

Northeast SARE, projects portfolio review, August 2014, page 1

Northeast SARE Grants Portfolio Report By David Holm, Carol Delaney, Candice Huber, and Helen Husher. August 5, 2014

Introduction. The northeast region of USDA’s Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program (Northeast SARE) provides grants to advance research in sustainable agriculture and the adoption of sustainable farming practices. Grant proposals are competitive and must address key issues in sustainable agriculture, covering a broad range of environmental, economic, and social issues. Northeast SARE seeks to promote sustainability for farms of all sizes, in all types of agriculture, and in all states within the region. This grant portfolio report has been compiled to determine the segments of agriculture being most served by Northeast SARE grants and identify underserved topics or states. Northeast SARE staff use this portfolio to direct outreach initiatives and advise the regional Administrative Council and state program coordinators. The report consists of tables that describe agriculture in the northeast and the grant applications and awards in each of the Northeast SARE grant programs. Key features of the data are described in the Highlights section of the report. The Agriculture in the Northeast tables are based on data from the last census, the 2012 Census of Agriculture, compiled by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The tables provide an overview of the types of agriculture, the size and number of farms, and the amount of farm product sales within states of the northeast region. The Northeast SARE Grants tables present information about applications received and grants awarded for the six grant programs that have been offered by Northeast SARE: Research and Education (R&E), Professional Development (PDP), Farmer, Partnership, Sustainable Community and Graduate Student Research grants. The last table provides a national perspective, comparing the allocation of funds between the different grant programs in each of the four SARE regions.

Contents Highlights of tables. ..................................................................................................... pages 2-6 Agriculture in the Northeast.

Table 1. Number of farms ..................................................................................... page 6 Table 2. Sales of farm products ............................................................................ page 7 Table 3. Land on farms ......................................................................................... page 7 Table 4. Value of crops sold ................................................................................. page 8 Table 5. Value of livestock sold ........................................................................... page 8 Table 6. Number of farms selling crops............................................................... page 9 Table 7. Number of farms selling livestock or livestock products ...................... page 9

Northeast SARE Grants.

Table 8. R&E grants by topic and commodity group ......................................... page 10 Table 9. PDP grant topics ................................................................................... page 11


Table 10. R&E and PDP grants, institutional affiliation of project leader ......... page 12 Table 11. R&E and PDP grants by home state of project leader ........................ page 12 Table 12. R&E and PDP preproposals by state, applicant success rate .............. page 13 Table 13. R&E and PDP full proposals by state, applicant success rate ............ page 13 Table 14. Farmer Grants by topic and commodity group, 1993-2013................ page 14 Table 15. Farmer Grants by state, applicant success rate, 1997-2013 ................ page 15 Graph 1. State comparisons; number of farms compared to Farmer grants ..... page 15 Table 16. Partnership grants by topic and commodity group, 2003-2013 ..... page 16-17 Table 17. Institutional affiliation of Partnership grants recipients ..................... page 18 Table 18. Partnership grants by state, applicant success rate, 2003-2013 .......... page 18 Graph 2. State comparisons; number of farms compared to Partnership grants page 18 Table 19. Sustainable Community grants by topic, 2006-2013 .......................... page 19 Table 20. Outreach profile for Farmer and Community grant applicants ........... page 20 Table 21. Topics of Graduate Student Research grants ...................................... page 21 Table 22. Graduate Student grants by state and year .......................................... page 22 Table 26. State level data used to create summary tables on applications and awards for Farmer, Partnership, Community, and Grad Student grants ...... page 23-25 Table 24. All proposals and grants; number of grants ........................................ page 26 Table 25. All proposals and grants; dollar value ................................................ page 27 Chart 1. Northeast SARE competitive grants 2010-2013, dollar value of proposals funded ........................................................................................... page 28 Chart 2. Northeast SARE competitive grants 2010-2013, dollar value of proposals approved but not funded ................................................................................... page 28 Graph 3. Northeast SARE proposals by grant program since 2001, percentage of the dollar value of proposals not approved, approved but not funded, or approved and funded ........................................................... page 29 Graph 4. Northeast SARE competitive grant funding distribution, 2010-2014 . page 29

National comparison. Table 26. Grant programs and funding levels in the four SARE regions ........... page 30

Highlights of Tables

Table 1. Number of farms. The USDA’s northeast region consists of Washington D.C. and twelve states, including Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia. The bulk of farms in the Northeast are in Pennsylvania, New York, and West Virginia, which together comprise 66 percent of the farms in the region. Maryland and New Jersey rank next highest with a combined total of 12 percent of farms in the region. Table 2. Farm product sales. In total product sales, Pennsylvania and New York take the lead, with a combined total of 61 percent of regional farm product sales. Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey respectively rank next highest with a combined total of 22 percent of sales. Direct marketing constitutes a greater portion of the state’s farm product sales for New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, where direct to consumer sales account for 10.6 percent, 10.5 percent, and 9.7 percent, respectively, of the overall farm product sales in those states. Organic farm product sales are most important to farmers in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,


and Maine, where they comprise 8.3, 8.1, 5.3, and 4.8 percent, respectively, of farm product sales in the state. Table 3. Land on farms. The states with the most farmland are Pennsylvania, New York, and West Virginia, which together have 71 percent of the land on farms in the region. Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, and West Virginia have the most cropland, with a combined total of 83 percent of the regional cropland. Pennsylvania, New York, and West Virginia have the most woodland, at 66 percent, and the most pastureland, at 82 percent. Table 4. Value of crops sold, and Table 5. Value of livestock sold. The largest segment of crop production in the region is the category of grains-oilseeds-dry beans/peas, which accounts for 16 percent of all crop sales in the region. The largest segment of livestock and livestock-product sales in the region is milk and dairy products from cows, which accounts for 26 percent of regional livestock and livestock-product sales. Second is poultry and eggs, accounting for 18 percent of livestock and livestock-product sales. Table 6. Number of farms with crop sales, and Table 7. Number of farms with livestock

sales. Both crops and livestock product sales are important components of the diversified landscape of farms in the Northeast. Thirty-four percent of farms have sales of hay and other crops, a category which includes for northeast producers: hay and grass silage, haylage, greenchop, hops, and maple syrup. Twenty-nine percent of farms have sales of cattle and calves, 20 percent have sales of grains-oilseeds-dry beans/peas, 13 percent of farms have sales of poultry and eggs, 9 percent have sales of vegetables-potatoes-sweet corn-melons, and 8 percent have sales of milk from cows. Table 8. R&E grants, topics and commodity groups, 1988-2014, and Table 10. Institutional

affiliation of project leader. The initial grants offered in 1988 were the Research and Education Grants. Approximately one quarter of all grants are in pest control (diseases, insects, weeds, IPM, and computerized decision making systems), and one quarter are in soil conservation and fertility management (composting, cover crops, erosion, soil improvement, minimum tillage, and nutrient management). About 9 percent of all grants are directed toward organic production. Marketing is also a major topic, about 8 percent of projects. The largest commodity group is crops, which are a focus of 69 percent of all grants. Livestock represents 23 percent of projects. Due to the prominence of livestock agriculture in the Northeast, continued outreach to the livestock sector may be needed. Research and Education grants are primarily awarded to researchers at academic institutions. Nonprofit organizations and research foundations are also major recipients of these awards. Two thirds of these grants go to project leaders at colleges and universities, very few of whom are at the 1890 institutions (only 4 out of 222 projects that went to colleges were at 1890s). One quarter of the Research and Education grants went to non-profit/nongovernmental organizations. Table 9. PDP grant topics, 1994-2014, and Table 10. Institutional affiliation of project leader. In 1994, SARE began offering Professional Development Grants to provide sustainable agriculture training opportunities for agricultural service providers using a train-the-trainer approach. These grants are primarily (76 percent) awarded to project leaders at colleges and universities, but none have been awarded to 1890 institutions. Nineteen percent have gone to non-profit/non-governmental organizations. The topics addressed by these grants represent the diversity of training needed to promote sustainable agriculture.


Table 11. R&E and PDP grants, by home state of project leader. Since 2002, 22 percent of the project leaders for Research and Education grants have been from New York and 21 percent from Pennsylvania. Having 29 percent of the total, New York is home to more project leaders for Professional Development grants than any other state, followed by Pennsylvania with 19 percent. Table 12. R&E and PDP preproposals by state, applicant success rate, 2003-2014. Since 2003, an approved preproposal has been required in order to submit a full proposal for Research and Education and Professional Development Program grants. The average success rate for preproposals has been 35 percent for Research and Education and 55 percent for Professional Development Program grants. Table 13. R&E and PDP full proposals by state, 2003-2014. Since 2003, full proposal applicants to Research and Education grants have had a success rate of 37 percent, and applicants to Professional Development Grants have had a success rate of 44 percent. Table 14. Farmer Grants, topics and commodity groups, 1993-2014. Northeast SARE began offering grants directly to farmers through its Farmer Grant program in 1993. These have been small grant offerings—under $10,000 through 2009, then under $15,000—for farmer-led exploratory research and demonstration projects. Major topics covered by these grants are pest control; tools and prototypes; grazing, forage and pasture management; marketing; food processing and adding value; and soil and nutrient management. Most farmer grants (65 percent) are crop-related, in contrast to livestock related grants (21 percent). Farmer Grants are most often within the crop group vegetables, sweet corn, and melons; or addressing topics on fruits and berries. The livestock groups most represented in these grants are dairy and sheep and goats. Table 15. Farmer Grants by state, applicant success rate, 1997-2014 and Graph 1. Over the last six years (2009-2014), the success rate for Farmer Grant applicants has been 42 percent. Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, and Connecticut could be considered as being under-represented when the number of farms and the amount of farm product sales – as a percentage of the regions total – are compared to the number of awards in the states. Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont have been most over-represented in the last six years. Table 16. Partnership grants, topics and commodity groups, 2003-2014. Partnership grants were first offered in 2003. These have been small grants offerings—under $10,000 until 2010 when the limit was raised to $15,000—for agricultural service providers to conduct research and demonstration projects. The major topics of these grants have been pest control and pest management; soil fertility and soil conservation; grazing, forage, and pasture management; and marketing, business management or education/training. Most Partnership grants have been in crops, at 71 percent, in contrast to those in livestock, at 23 percent. The primary crop groups represented in Partnership Grants are vegetables, sweet corn, and melons; hay, silage, and forage crops; and fruit. The primary livestock group represented in Partnership grants is dairy. Table 17. Institutional affiliation of Partnership grant recipients, and Table 18. Partnership

grants by state, applicant success rate, 2003-2014. The primary recipient of Partnership grants has been colleges and universities, receiving 78 percent of awards. Non-profit/non-governmental organizations received 14 percent of Partnership grants. The applicant success rate for Partnership grants has been 48 percent, and Partnership grants have been most under-represented in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia and to a lesser extent in Connecticut. Vermont has


become most overrepresented in Partnership grants awarded in the last six years, at least relative to the number of farms and farm product sales from farms in that state. Table 19. Sustainable Community grants, major topics of projects funded, 2006-2013. In 2006, Northeast SARE started a Sustainable Community grant program to address social issues pertaining to sustainable agriculture and create stronger links between rural development and agriculture. It started as a small program limited to $10,000 with co-funding from the Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development, but a special Appalachian Initiative at $25,000 was offered in 2007 with co-funding from the Appalachian Regional Commission. The limit on all the Community grants was raised to $25,000 in 2009, but reset to $15,000 in 2010 along with the other smaller grant programs. Most of the Community grants have been related to forging new markets for agriculture; developing consumer-farmer links, including projects that make links to low-income consumers; building innovative enterprises; and creating links between local government, community, and farm organizations. The application success rate for Community grant applicants has been 27 percent. The Sustainable Community grant program was merged with the Partnership grants program for 2014 awards, so these social issues projects are now funded under the umbrella of the Partnership grants.

Table 20. Outreach profile for Farmer and Community grant applicants. The most prevalent way farmer grant applicants have heard about SARE is through Cooperative Extension. Three years ago applicants mentioned state programs, so we’ve begun tracking those responses. Community grants applicants heard about the grant program primarily through SARE-specific outreach and web, e-lists, or other new electronic media, which seems to be a growing means of outreach. Table 21. Topics of Graduate Student Research grants, and Table 22. Graduate Student

grants by state and year. Although other regions have had Graduate Student grants for a number of years (since 2000 in South, 2002 in North Central, and 2006 in West), this is a recent grant program for Northeast SARE. There has been a robust pool of applicants and quality proposals to select from. The topics and states represented in the first four years are given in these tables.

Table 23. State level data used to create summary tables on Northeast SARE Farmer,

Partnership, Sustainable Community, and Graduate Student grant applications and awards. This table provides for each state the proposal and award counts for each year of the grant programs, useful to state program coordinators in planning outreach activities.

Table 24. All proposals and grants, number each year, and Table 25. Dollar value each year. Over the years, Northeast SARE has expanded its grant offerings to meet the diverse needs of its clients. The Administrative Council continues to direct most funding to the Research and Education and the Professional Development Program grants, the initial grant programs. The greatest number of grants have been awarded under the Farmer Grant program.

Chart 1. Northeast SARE competitive grants 2010-2013, dollar value of proposals funded

and Chart 2. Northeast SARE competitive grants 2010-2013, dollar value of proposals

approved but not funded. In these two charts, the dollar value of grant awards is compared to the dollar value of proposals that could have been funded with a greater allotment of funds to that program.


Graph 3. Northeast SARE proposals by grant program since 2001, percentage of the dollar

value of proposals not approved, approved but not funded, or approved and funded. This graph depicts the dollar value of proposals for each grant program, expressed as a percentage of the total, for the following categories: not approved by review teams, approved but not funded, or approved and funded for each program. Years included are 2001-2014 for Farmer, PDP, and R&E; 2003-2014 for Partnership; 2006-2013 for Sustainable Community; and 2010-2013 for Graduate Student grants.

Graph 4. Northeast SARE competitive grant funding distribution, 2010-2014. This graph shows the allotment of funding for the competitive grant programs from 2010-2014. The value of the Community grant awards has been added to the value of the Partnership grants since those programs are now combined. Table 26. Competitive grant programs and funding levels in the four SARE regions. This table gives the funding to grant programs for all four of the SARE regions as a yearly average over the years 2009 to 2013, and the Northeast SARE allocation in 2014.

Agriculture in the Northeast, Tables 1-7;

Northeast SARE grants, Tables 8-25, Graphs 1-4, and Charts 1-2;

and Other SARE regions compared to the Northeast, Table 26.

Table 1. Number of farms in the Northeast SARE region

% of region % of farms in state % of farms in state % of farms in state % of farms in state

CT 5,977 3.4% 3,249 54% 2,420 40% 1,420 24% 104 1.7%

DE 2,451 1.4% 1,296 53% 1,304 53% 179 7% 16 0.7%

ME 8,173 4.7% 4,899 60% 3,679 45% 2,311 28% 554 6.8%

MD 12,256 7.0% 6,389 52% 5,143 42% 1,276 10% 91 0.7%

MA 7,755 4.4% 4,330 56% 3,168 41% 2,206 28% 198 2.6%

NH 4,391 2.5% 2,356 54% 1,936 44% 1348 31% 192 4.4%

NJ 9,071 5.2% 5,812 64% 3,579 39% 1,788 20% 72 0.8%

NY 35,537 20.3% 22,046 62% 17,144 48% 6,342 18% 864 2.4%

PA 59,309 33.9% 36,948 62% 29,364 50% 7,577 13% 600 1.0%

RI 1,243 0.7% 661 53% 528 42% 376 30% 26 2.1%

VT 7,338 4.2% 4,551 62% 3,683 50% 2,071 28% 554 7.5%

WV 21,489 12.3% 11,494 53% 12,752 59% 1,926 9% 45 0.2%

region 174,990 104,031 59% 84,700 48% 28,820 16% 3,316 1.9%

Data from the 2012 Census of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, www.nass.usda.gov

Number of farms

Farms with crop

sales

Farms with

livestock

product sales

Farms with

products sold

directly for human

consumption

Farms with sales

of certified

organic products


Table 2. Value of sales of farm products from farms in the Northeast SARE region

Sales

average

per farm

(dollars)

% of region % of sales in state % of sales in state % of sales in state % of sales in state

CT $550,620 2.6% $92,123 $389,137 71% $161,482 29% $30,439 5.5% $1,984 0.36%

DE $1,274,014 6.1% $519,794 $429,039 34% $844,975 66% $4,302 0.3% $207 0.02%

ME $763,062 3.6% $93,364 $473,852 62% $289,210 38% $24,793 3.2% $36,401 4.77%

MD $2,271,397 10.8% $185,329 $1,050,557 46% $1,220,840 54% $28,038 1.2% $11,798 0.52%

MA $492,211 2.3% $63,470 $382,915 78% $109,296 22% $47,909 9.7% $26,238 5.33%

NH $190,907 0.9% $43,477 $100,714 53% $90,193 47% $20,321 10.6% $15,838 8.30%

NJ $1,006,936 4.8% $111,006 $890,767 88% $116,169 12% $33,308 3.3% $3,047 0.30%

NY $5,415,125 25.8% $152,380 $2,249,227 42% $3,165,898 58% $100,646 1.9% $97,177 1.79%

PA $7,400,781 35.2% $124,783 $2,782,911 38% $4,617,870 62% $86,030 1.2% $78,525 1.06%

RI $59,652 0.3% $47,990 $48,981 82% $10,671 18% $6,253 10.5% $778 1.30%

VT $776,105 3.7% $105,765 $177,726 23% $598,379 77% $27,430 3.5% $62,634 8.07%

WV $806,775 3.8% $37,544 $139,092 17% $667,683 83% $10,950 1.4% $2,718 0.34%

total $21,007,585 $131,419 $9,114,918 43% $11,892,666 57% $420,419 2.0% $337,345 1.6%

(D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms. * approximate due to data withheld.


Total sales from

farms ($1,000)

Sales of crops,

including nursery

and greenhouse

($1,000)

Sales of livestock,

poultry, and

livestock products

($1,000)

Value of products

sold directly for

human consumption

($1,000)

Value of certified

organic products

($1,000)

Table 3. Land on farms (acres)

% of region % of region % of region % of region

CT 436,539 1.7% 151,144 1.1% 144,391 2.0% 39,806 1.2%

DE 508,652 2.0% 439,157 3.3% 42,184 0.6% 8,154 0.2%

ME 1,454,104 5.6% 477,343 3.6% 773,652 10.5% 81,707 2.5%

MD 2,030,745 7.8% 1,396,144 10.5% 348,482 4.7% 161,243 4.9%

MA 523,517 2.0% 160,789 1.2% 209,111 2.8% 62,234 1.9%

NH 474,065 1.8% 98,268 0.7% 304,801 4.1% 31,141 1.0%

NJ 715,057 2.8% 456,751 3.4% 132,940 1.8% 64,304 2.0%

NY 7,183,576 27.7% 4,217,041 31.8% 1,613,045 21.9% 724,581 22.1%

PA 7,704,444 29.7% 4,546,052 34.3% 1,804,157 24.5% 814,210 24.9%

RI 69,589 0.3% 22,593 0.2% (D) 6,440 0.2%

VT 1,251,713 4.8% 488,327 3.7% 536,075 7.3% 139,976 4.3%

WV 3,606,674 13.9% 804,006 6.1% 1,465,010 19.9% 1,138,037 34.8%

total 25,958,675 100% 13,257,615 51.1% 7,373,848 28.4% 3,271,833 12.6%

Percentage of

land on farms: 51.1% 28.4% 12.6%

(remainder is roads, buildings, wasteland, ponds, etc).

(D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms.

Data from the 2012 Census of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service

Land on farms

(acres) Cropland Woodland

Cropland Woodland Pastureland

Pastureland (other

than cropland &

woodland pastured)


Table 4. Value of crops sold (in $1,000)

vegetables,

sweet corn,

potatoes, &

melons,

fruits,

tree nuts,

and berries

grains,

oilseeds,

and dry

beans/peas

nursery,

greenhouse,

floriculture,

sod crops

cut christmas

trees and

short rotation

woody crops

hay and

other crops tobacco

CT $36,386 $27,349 $15,216 $252,923 $6,049 $15,492 $35,722

DE $60,953 (D) $345,316 $16,333 (D) (D) -

ME $207,254 $114,657 (D) $76,007 (D) $47,980 (D)

MD $70,711 $20,065 $716,348 $204,808 $1,792 $35,806 $1,026

MA $81,209 $125,585 $7,466 $144,188 $1,409 $17,884 $5,174

NH (D) $10,777 $5,068 $49,892 $3,110 (D) -

NJ $191,704 $145,351 $126,967 $405,247 $1,827 $19,671 -

NY $364,135 $307,644 $855,891 $413,277 $6,843 $301,438 -

PA $140,875 $160,501 $1,210,869 $944,883 $21,148 $264,256 $40,379

RI $9,331 $4,131 $848 $32,831 $439 $1,401 -

VT $21,274 $13,494 $26,320 $25,562 $2,812 $88,265 -

WV (D) $26,772 $37,427 $31,338 (D) $33,136 (D)

Total $1,183,832 * $956,326 * $3,347,736 * $2,597,289 $45,429 * $825,329 * $82,301 *% of

region 5.6% * 4.6% * 15.9% * 12.4% 0.2% * 3.9% * 0.4% *



Table 5. Value of livestock and livestock products sold (in $1,000)

cattle and

calves

milk from

cows

hogs and

pigs

poultry and

eggs

sheep and

goats

(wool,

mohair,

milk) aquaculture

horses,

ponies,

mules,

burros, and

donkeys

other animals and

animal

products

CT $9,751 $69,843 $1,259 $48,859 $1,435 $19,665 $8,089 $2,583

DE $9,489 $16,593 $1,427 $811,301 $289 (D) $4,782 (D)

ME $31,076 $126,632 $1,726 $38,938 $3,637 $75,107 $7,159 $4,935MD $69,917 $187,497 (D) $922,999 (D) $9,011 $13,188 (D)

MA $9,503 $44,250 $2,898 $11,748 $2,122 $23,251 $11,600 $3,924NH $9,477 $54,798 $846 $13,488 $1,478 $3,376 $4,085 $2,646

NJ $8,829 $26,119 $1,682 $40,081 $2,598 $12,396 $17,014 $7,450NY $449,497 $2,417,398 $38,999 $144,663 $19,249 $18,036 $58,211 $19,845

PA $717,085 $1,966,892 $457,916 $1,362,039 $15,840 $26,123 $38,693 $33,283RI $1,180 $3,902 $601 $2,177 $257 $1,917 $382 $256

VT $61,905 $504,884 $1,345 $13,136 $6,255 $1,890 $6,531 $2,433

WV $217,411 $32,654 (D) $401,439 $4,322 (D) $5,510 $2,088

Total $1,595,120 * $5,451,462 * $508,699 * $3,810,868 * $57,482 * $190,772 * $175,244 * $79,443 *% of

region 7.6% * 25.9% * 2.4% * 18.1% * 0.3% * 0.9% * 0.8% * 0.4% *




Table 6. Number of farms selling crops

vegetables,

sweet corn,

potatoes, &

melons,

fruits,

tree nuts,

and berries

grains,

oilseeds,

and dry

beans/peas

nursery,

greenhouse,

floriculture,

and sod

crops

cut christmas

trees and

short rotation

woody crops

hay and

other crops tobacco

CT 952 556 261 880 490 1,453 49

DE 221 58 929 97 25 306 -

ME 1,513 1,103 349 1,099 310 2,628 2

MD 797 476 3,769 535 151 2,507 43

MA 1,428 1,223 187 1,039 409 1,804 21

NH 665 428 101 529 223 1,382 -

NJ 1,133 770 1,547 1,287 700 2,225 -

NY 3,489 2,843 7,398 2,195 875 13,051 -

PA 3,995 3,147 19,074 3,012 1,079 19,844 1,312

RI 238 136 35 291 51 208 -

VT 814 582 397 661 232 3,396 -

WV 729 548 823 378 179 10,055 13

Total 15,974 11,870 34,870 12,003 4,724 58,859 1,440% of

region 9% 7% 20% 7% 3% 34% 1%


Table 7. Number of farms selling livestock or livestock products

cattle and

calves

milk from

cows

hogs and

pigs

poultry and

eggs

sheep

and goats

(wool,

mohair,

milk) aquaculture

horses,

ponies,

mules,

burros, and

donkeys

other

animals and

animal

products

CT 774 149 335 777 420 44 445 482

DE 293 50 60 764 89 4 284 92

ME 1,656 367 699 1,504 691 58 441 468

MD 2,663 463 340 1,688 795 25 661 353

MA 870 137 432 1,288 734 193 534 518

NH 606 154 343 930 529 22 233 284

NJ 960 87 256 1,184 951 94 765 536

NY 10,555 4,866 1,629 4,018 2,263 90 2,447 1,522

PA 19,381 7,048 2,672 7,102 4,035 223 3,174 1,982

RI 161 14 66 253 111 28 64 104

VT 2,061 934 525 1,200 664 13 308 382

WV 10,032 140 624 1,946 1,425 42 919 652

Total 50,012 14,409 7,981 22,654 12,707 836 10,275 7,375% of

region 29% 8% 5% 13% 7% 0% 6% 4%



Table 8. Research and Education Grants; topics and commodity groups, 1988-2014

Topic Areas Number % of total

Education 50 10.9%

Nutrient management 44 9.6%Organic 43 9.4%

Marketing 36 7.8%

Pest control; integrated pest management 34 7.4%

Pest control; insects/parasites 33 7.2%

Pest control; diseases (fungal, bacterial, viral) 30 6.5%

Cover crops 27 5.9%

Grazing, forage, & pasture management 25 5.4%

Pest control; weeds 21 4.6%

Processing and adding value 18 3.9%

Soil quality; improvement 16 3.5%New crops and enterprises 14 3.1%

Composting 11 2.4%Tools and prototypes, energy conservation,

efficient farm practices 11 2.4%

Business management, farm management 10 2.2%

Minimum till and no till 8 1.7%

Water and wetlands 8 1.7%

Expert systems/computerized decision making 5 1.1%

Soil quality; erosion control 5 1.1%

Urban agriculture 5 1.1%

Agri-tourism 2 0.4%Pollination 2 0.4%

Other 1 0.2%

100%Commodity groups Number % of total

Berries and other small fruit 21 8.2%

Apples 16 6.3%Other tree fruit 7 2.7%

Grapes 6 2.3%

All fruits, nuts and berries 50 19.5%

Vegetables, swt corn, melons, & potatoes 62 24.2%

Corn, beans, and grains 29 11.3%

Greenhouse, nursery, & ornamentals 20 7.8%Hay and silage 8 3.1%

Herbs and specialty crops, maple sugar 8 3.1%

All crops total 177 69.1%

Livestock: dairy 30 11.7%

Livestock: sheep & goats 19 7.4%

Livestock: beef 4 1.6%Livestock; other livestock 4 1.6%

Livestock: poultry 2 0.8%

All livestock total 59 23.0%

Honey bees 9 3.5%

Forestry 5 2.0%

Aquaculture 4 1.6%Agroforestry 2 0.8%

*Projects may be counted in more than one topic or commodity. 100%


Table 9. Summary of PDP grant topics, number of projects and amount funded, 1994-2014

# Projects 1994-2010 Total Amount Funded

Soil/Nutrient/Natural Resource Management 15 $866,232 $944,760

General soil quality management / assessment 6 $171,004 $249,532

Cover Cropping 3 $165,885 $165,885

Composting 3 $372,164 $372,164

Tillage 1 $99,504 $99,504

Riparian Buffers 1 $20,500 $20,500

Non-Productive Land Management 1 $37,175 $37,175

Crop Production 17 $968,781 $1,222,240

Integrated Crop Management 5 $152,275 $307,431

Pest Management 3 $223,664 $223,664

Weed Management 4 $233,441 $331,744

Season Extension 3 $208,501 $208,501

Disease Management 1 $46,500 $46,500

Pollinators 1 $104,400 $104,400

Animal Production 13 $885,187 $1,143,078

Grazing Management 8 $663,692 $728,044

Livestock Health/Nutrition 4 $221,495 $388,335

Waste management regulations 1 $26,699

Organic Production 7 $682,622 $682,622

Organic Crop Production 4 $371,072 $371,072

General Intro Training in Organics 1 $82,695 $82,695

National Standards 1 $111,893 $111,893

Organic Livestock Production 1 $116,962 $116,962

Agroforestry/Forest Products 5 $462,327 $462,327

Forest Products 3 $221,372 $221,372

Agroforestry 2 $240,955 $240,955

Marketing 15 $905,532 $1,174,339

Local/Direct Marketing 10 $432,592 $701,399

Value-Added/Specialty Products 2 $148,221 $148,221

Cooperative Marketing 2 $162,600 $162,600

Food Safety training 1 $162,119 $162,119

Business Planning 3 $87,773 $214,728

Entrepreneurial Thinking 1 $28,704 $28,704

Farmland transfer and access to land 1 $126,955

Legal Structures 1 $59,069 $59,069

General Sustainable Ag Training 10 $672,115 $672,115

Whole Farm Planning / Holistic Management 10 $794,946 $794,946

Communities 13 $828,359 $828,359

Building Local Food Systems 4 $350,556 $350,556

Watershed Management 4 $137,865 $137,865

Farmland Preservation 2 $134,795 $134,795

Urban Gardening 2 $146,635 $146,635

Farmer-Neighbor Conflicts 1 $58,508 $58,508

Public Policy Education 1 $27,098 $27,098

Implementing Effective Research and Education Programs

Farmer-to-Farmer / Participatory Learning Forums 4 $77,120 $77,120

On-Farm Research 3 $281,844 $281,844

Beginning Farmer Training 5 $207,270 $587,783

Cross-Cultural Communication 1 $80,902 $80,902

Reading the farm - whole farm training 1 $32,734 $32,734

Farm Energy Use 1 $145,000

Climate Change / Greenhouse gas emissions 3 $226,033 $259,131

Agritourism 1 $112,609 $112,609

Table modified from the 2009 report as tabulated by Kristen Wilmer, PDP Project Associate


Table 10. Institutional affiliation of project leader for R&E and PDP grants

R&E PDP

Colleges and universities total 222 66% 99 76%

-1862 land grants 216 64% 99 76%

-1890 land grants 4 1% 0 0%

-other colleges/universities 2 1% 0 0%

Non-profit/non-governmental organizations 77 23% 25 19%

State agriculture experiment stations 11 3% 0 0%

Private consultant/businesses/farms 6 2% 1 1%

Soil-cons.districts/county planning com. 5 1% 5 4%

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 6 2% 0 0%

State departments of agriculture 4 1% 0 0%

Natural Resources Cons. Service (NRCS) 2 1% 1 1%

Cooperatives 2 1% 0 0%

Total 335 131

Includes all R&E and PDP grants. R&E since 1988 and PDP since 1994.

Table 11. Home state of project leader, R&E and PDP grants

Research and Education Grants Professional Development Program Grants1988-2001 2002-2014 1994-2001 2002-2014

number % of total number % of total number % of total number % of total

CT 9 5.8% 5 2.8% CT 2 3.2% 0 0.0%DE 0 0.0% 4 2.2% DE 1 1.6% 0 0.0%

ME 15 9.7% 19 10.5% ME 3 4.8% 6 8.7%

MD 14 9.1% 15 8.3% MD 6 9.5% 0 0.0%

MA 16 10.4% 20 11.0% MA 4 6.3% 9 13.0%

NH 3 1.9% 6 3.3% NH 3 4.8% 1 1.4%

NJ 14 9.1% 3 1.7% NJ 7 11.1% 6 8.7%

NY 41 26.6% 40 22.1% NY 15 23.8% 20 29.0%

PA 16 10.4% 38 21.0% PA 11 17.5% 13 18.8%

RI 3 1.9% 6 3.3% RI 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

VT 19 12.3% 16 8.8% VT 9 14.3% 8 11.6%

WV 3 1.9% 6 3.3% WV 2 3.2% 5 7.2%

Other 1 0.6% 3 1.7% Other 0 0.0% 1 1.4%

total 154 100% 181 100% total 63 100% 69 100%

This provides home state of project leader only. Many proposals are collaborative, involving

project leaders in several states. Proposals from outside the region must be for work within the region and must have project collaborators within the region.


Table 12. Preproposal success rate by home state of project leader, years 2003-2014

Research and Education Professional Development Program

Received Accepted '03-'08 '09-'14 '03-'14 Received Accepted '03-'08 '09-'14 '03-'14

CT 49 12 19% 35% 24% CT 3 2 67% - 67%DE 33 16 62% 40% 48% DE 0 0 - - -

ME 128 59 47% 45% 46% ME 26 14 57% 50% 54%

MD 94 35 38% 36% 37% MD 20 9 36% 67% 45%

MA 151 50 36% 27% 33% MA 26 14 60% 45% 54%

NH 44 17 52% 26% 39% NH 7 3 60% 0% 43%NJ 85 24 30% 24% 28% NJ 21 13 57% 71% 62%

NY 314 107 33% 35% 34% NY 79 40 51% 50% 51%PA 287 95 36% 30% 33% PA 52 27 40% 63% 52%

RI 28 6 17% 25% 21% RI 4 2 100% 0% 50%

VT 193 80 50% 33% 41% VT 48 31 70% 60% 65%

WV 98 35 34% 38% 36% WV 16 11 67% 71% 69%

other 18 6 other 3 0

Total 1531 540 37% 33% 35% Total 302 166 54% 56% 55%

This provides home state of project leader only. Many proposals are collaborative, involving project

leaders in several states. Proposals from outside the region must be for work within the region and must have project collaborators within the region.

Table 13. Full proposal success rate, by home state of project leader, 2003-2014

Research and Education grants Professional Development grantsApplications Funded '03-'08 '09-'14 '03-'14 Applications Funded '03-'08 '09-'14 '03-'14

CT 10 4 20% 60% 40% CT 2 0 0% - 0%

DE 10 4 75% 17% 40% DE - - - - -

ME 45 17 38% 37% 38% ME 11 5 50% 40% 45%

MD 24 14 75% 25% 58% MD 7 0 0% 0% 0%

MA 41 16 34% 50% 39% MA 16 7 50% 33% 44%

NH 11 6 80% 33% 55% NH 2 1 50% - 50%

NJ 15 3 25% 0% 20% NJ 9 5 75% 40% 56%

NY 84 32 34% 43% 38% NY 35 19 50% 62% 54%

PA 86 35 45% 34% 41% PA 21 10 40% 55% 48%

RI 7 6 100% 75% 86% RI - - - - -

VT 68 16 28% 18% 24% VT 23 8 43% 22% 35%

WV 27 5 19% 18% 19% WV 8 4 75% 25% 50%

other 4 3 other 1 1

Total 432 161 40% 34% 37% Total 135 60 46% 42% 44%

This provides home state of project leader only. Many proposals are collaborative, involving

project leaders in several states. Proposals from outside the region are for work within the

region and must have project collaborators within the region.


Table 14. Northeast SARE Farmer Grants, topics and commodity groups, 1993-2014

Topic areas Number of grants directly related to this topic* % of topic count

Pest control; insects, mites, nematodes 77 10.2%

Tools and prototypes 72 9.5%


Marketing 61 8.1%

Processing and adding value 52 6.9%Pest control; weeds 51 6.7%

Pest control; diseases 51 6.7%

Soil & nutrient management 48 6.3%

Cover Crops & living mulches 47 6.2%

Education 41 5.4%

Pest control; whole system, IPM, or organic 27 3.6%

Other production management 26 3.4%


Composting 21 2.8%

Mulch 20 2.6%

New crops/enterprises 20 2.6%

Soil erosion control 12 1.6%On Farm Energy 11 1.5%


Forestry and Silviculture 10 1.3%

Pest control; parasitic worms 8 1.1%

Pest control; animals as pests 5 0.7%

100%

Commodity groups Number of grants about this commodity group* % of projects

Vegetables, sweet corn, and melons 117 16.2%

Herbs and specialty crops 63 8.7%

Berries 56 7.7%

Greenhouse 48 6.6%


Potatoes 28 3.9%

Tree fruit 27 3.7%

Grapes 26 3.6%

Ornamentals, xmass trees, and turf 24 3.3%

Hay and silage 23 3.2%

Other fruits 7 1.0%

Nuts 5 0.7%

Crops total 471 65.1%

Dairy 46 6.4%

Sheep and goats 45 6.2%

Beef cattle, swine, and other livestock 33 4.6%Poultry 29 4.0%

Livestock total 153 21.1%

Honeybees 38 5.2%

Aquaculture 27 3.7%

Agroforestry 25 3.5%

Forestry and silviculture 10 1.4%

100%

*Projects may be counted in more than one topic or commodity group. Only completed projects counted

from 1993-2002. All awarded projects counted 2003-2014.


Table 15. Farmer grants by state, applicant success rate, 1997-2014

'97-02 '03-08 '09-14 '97-02 '03-08 '09-14 '97-02 '03-08 '09-14

CT 38 14 6 12 8 3 32% 57% 50% CT

DE 3 14 9 1 2 5 33% 14% 56% DE

ME 67 51 46 34 28 25 51% 55% 54% ME

MD 60 35 18 29 13 5 48% 37% 28% MD

MA 58 50 34 24 21 18 41% 42% 53% MA

NH 47 29 28 16 10 10 34% 34% 36% NH

NJ 21 17 25 7 6 10 33% 35% 40% NJ

NY 219 111 97 73 44 49 33% 40% 51% NY

PA 93 77 63 33 29 19 35% 38% 30% PA

RI 6 9 6 3 5 3 50% 56% 50% RI

VT 94 49 34 40 22 13 43% 45% 38% VT

WV 42 41 18 18 14 3 43% 34% 17% WV

total 749 497 384 290 202 163 39% 41% 42% total

6 yrs 6 yrs 6 yrs 6 yrs 6 yrs 6 yrs 6 yrs 6 yrs 6 yrs

Graph 1. Each state's farm product sales and number of farms, expressed as a percentage

of the region's total, compared to the percentage of the region's Farmer grants 2009-2014

Sales from farms and number of farms taken from 2012 Census of Agriculture, NASS

Includes Farmer grants awarded in last six years, 2009 to 2014

Success rateNumber of applications Number of grants

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT WV

sales farms grants


Table 16 continued on next page.

Table 16a. Northeast SARE Partnership grants, 2003-2014, topic areasTopic areas number* % of topic count

Education/Business Management 41 13.9%

Pest control; insects & nematodes 29 9.9%

Pest control; whole system, IPM, or organic 25 8.5%

Soil & nutrient management 24 8.2%


Marketing 18 6.1%

Other management/cultivation/productivity 17 5.8%

Pest control; diseases 16 5.4%

Tools and prototypes 14 4.8%

Pest control; weeds 13 4.4%

Cover Crops & living mulches 12 4.1%

Pollination 9 3.1%

Composting 8 2.7%

New crops/enterprises 8 2.7%


Processing and adding value 4 1.4%

Mulch 4 1.4%

Pest control; parasitic worms 3 1.0%

Soil erosion control 3 1.0%

Forestry and Silviculture 3 1.0%


Energy 1 0.3%

Expanded program topics added in 2014 for social/community issues

networking agencies, farms, and community 4 1.4%

farm and land preservation, access, leasing, zoning2 0.7%

food access/underserved communities 1 0.3%

farm to school relationships 1 0.3%

local/regional/community food systems 1 0.3%

labor development/farm worker issues 1 0.3%

urban agriculture 1 0.3%

100%


Table 16b. Northeast SARE Partnership grants, 2003-2014, commodity groupsCommodity groups number* % of projects

Vegetables, sweet corn, and melons 59 27.2%

Hay, silage, forage crops 22 10.1%

Tree fruit 18 8.3%

Greenhouse and ornamentals 17 7.8%

Berries 14 6.5%


Herbs and specialty crops 6 2.8%

Potatoes 4 1.8%

Grapes 2 0.9%

Nuts 1 0.5%

Other fruits 1 0.5%

Crops total 153 70.5%

Dairy 25 11.5%

Sheep and goats 10 4.6%

Beef cattle, swine, and other livestock 8 3.7%

Poultry 6 2.8%

Livestock total 49 22.6%

Honeybees 10 4.6%

Aquaculture 2 0.9%

Forestry and silviculture 2 0.9%

Agroforestry 1 0.5%

100%

*Projects may be counted in more than one topic or commodity group.

Table 17. Institutional affiliation of Partnership grant recipients

Colleges and universities total 176 78%

-1862 land grants 164 72%

-other colleges/universities 10 4%

-1890 land grants 2 1%

Non-profit/non-governmental organizations 31 14%

Private consultant/businesses/farms 10 4%

Soil-cons.districts/county planning com. 4 2%

Natural Resources Cons. Service (NRCS) 2 1%

State agriculture experiment stations 2 1%

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 1 0%

County government or municipality 1 0%

Total 227


Table 18. Partnership grants by state, total of all years, 2003-2014

Number of applications Number of grants Success rate

'03-'08 '09-'14 Overall '03-'08 '09-'14 Overall '03-'08 '09-'14 Overall

CT 8 6 14 4 3 7 50% 50% 50% CT

DE 2 7 9 0 3 3 0% 43% 33% DE

ME 18 26 44 10 9 19 56% 35% 43% ME

MD 12 10 22 4 3 7 33% 30% 32% MD

MA 13 18 31 3 7 10 23% 39% 32% MA

NH 4 13 17 2 7 9 50% 54% 53% NH

NJ 16 15 31 7 9 16 44% 60% 52% NJ

NY 79 82 161 32 40 72 41% 49% 45% NY

PA 26 36 62 17 20 37 65% 56% 60% PA

RI 3 3 6 0 1 1 0% 33% 17% RI

VT 25 36 61 11 25 36 44% 69% 59% VT

WV 4 9 13 2 8 10 50% 89% 77% WV

Total* 210 261 471 92 135 227 44% 52% 48%

*Total includes one application from DC in 2003

Graph 2. Each state's farm product sales and number of farms, expressed as a percentage

of the region's total, compared to the percentage of the region's Partnership grants 2009-2014

Includes Partnership grants awarded in last six years, 2009 to 2014

Sales and number of farms taken from 2012 Census of Agriculture, NASS

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

CT DE ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT WV

sales farms grants


Table 19. Sustainable Community grants, major topics of projects funded, 2006-2013

Number of grants addressing topics (may be more than one topic per grant)

19 - networking agencies, farms, and community

14 - marketing to schools and institutions

12 - cooperative marketing

11 - farm and land preservation, leasing, zoning

11 - value added enterprise development

11 - food access in underserved communities (via foodbanks, farmers markets, CSAs, etc)

9 - farmers markets promotion or development

8 - growers informational association support or organization

8 - new farmers training

8 - buy local campaigns

7 - internet marketing

5 - CSA's promotion or development

5 - produce wholesale distribution

5 - farm credit and finances

4 - labor development or farm workers issues

3 - vegetable and fruit processing

3 - livestock processing or marketing

3 - direct to restaurant marketing

3 - dairy enterprises

3 - community-educational farms

3 - agro-tourism

2 - Farm to school relationships

2 - Seed banks and seed saving

2 - farm transfer issues

2 - energy

163 =topic count total. Number of grants = 110. Some grants counted for more than one topic.


Table 20. Outreach profile for Farmer and Sustainable Community grant applicants

How Farmer grant applicants learn about Northeast SARE, 2000-2014*

2000-2004 2005-2009 2010-2014 All years

Extension 28% 31% 24% 28%

Media 16% 12% 5% 12%

NGO or non-profit 14% 6% 13% 12%

Word of mouth 7% 9% 12% 9%

Web, e-lists, other new media 6% 11% 13% 9%

SARE mailings 5% 11% 10% 8%

Previous applicant 6% 7% 7% 7%

Conferences and workshops 5% 6% 4% 5%

Government entities 5% 3% 3% 4%

State programs/PDP (new responses, so added in 2012) 5% 1%

Other 4% 4% 2% 4%

No response 4% 2% 0% 3%

100% 100% 100% 100%

How Sustainable Community grant applicants learned of SARE, 2006-2013*2006-2008 2009-2011 2010-2013 All years

SARE-specific outreach 18% 22% 19% 20%

Web, e-lists, other new media 15% 11% 21% 18%

Word of mouth, individuals 16% 18% 14% 14%

Extension 9% 11% 10% 10%

Word of mouth, interagency 11% 9% 12% 10%

Previous applicant 9% 10% 9% 10%

Already familiar w/SARE 5% 6% 5% 5%

Government (often state dept. of ag) 7% 1% 8% 4%

Media 4% 7% 1% 4%

Contact with SARE staff/leadership 3% 4% 1% 3%

No response 3% 1% 0% 2%

100% 100% 100% 100%

* Based on response to an open ended question on the application


Table 21. Topics of Graduate Student Research Grants

Topic Number % of Total

Apiary 5 5%

Small Fruits: pollination, soil fertility, insect management 4

Honey Bee: reproduction 1

Aquaculture 4 4%

Fin fish/shellfish: egg production, feeding studies 3

Sea vegetables: seaweed production 1

Crops 49 53%

Cover crops: pollination, soil fertility, insect and weed management 7

Energy crops 1

Grains: cultivation, disease and insect management, soil fertility 7

Greenhouse crops: disease and insect management, organic fertilization 4

Mushroom: cultivation 1

Small Fruits 10

frost protection; pollination; disease, insect, and weed management 8

post-harvest 2

Tree fruits: insect management, propagation 3

Weed control: biocontrol and cultivation 3

Vegetable Crops 10

disease, insect and weed management; reduced tillage 9

vegetable production 1

Silage Crops: forage 3

Energy 1 1%

Methane: anaerobic digestion efficiency 1

Integrated crop and livestock production 5 5%

Forage: management & fertility 4

Poultry: management & fertility 1

Livestock 14 15%

Dairy: cheese production 1

Dairy cattle: breeds evaluation, feeds and feeding, health management 5

Poultry: feeds and feeding, manure management 3

Sheep: feeds and feeding, health management 4

Swine: disease control 1

Rural Sociology 7 8%

Decision-making: soils 1

Economic impact: land acquisition, local food 5

Labor: practices 1

Soils 7 8%

Seaweed: fertility and amendments 1

Soil management: fertility and amendments 3

Vegetable Crops: fertility and amendments 2

Ornamentals and Turf: fertility and amendments 1

Grand Total 92 100%


Table 22. Graduate Student grants by state and year

State 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Connecticut 1 1 1 0 1

Delaware 0 1 0 0 1

Maine 2 1 0 3 3

Maryland 0 2 2 0 1

Massachusetts 0 2 2 3 3

New Hampshire 1 0 2 1 1

New Jersey 1 1 1 3 1

New York 4 3 5 6 5

Pennsylvania 3 3 4 2 2

Rhode Island 1 0 0 0 1

Vermont 0 1 2 1 2

West Virginia 0 2 1 1 1

Total grants awarded 13 17 20 20 22


Connecticut '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14Farmer applications 8 7 8 5 7 3 3 3 2 1 4 1 1 0 2 3 0 0 awards 2 2 3 2 1 2 3 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0Partnership applications 2 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 2

awards 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

Community applications 4 6 2 1 5 1 1 1awards 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1

Grad Student applications 3 2 2 1 6awards 1 1 1 0 1

Delaware '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14Farmer applications 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 12 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 3 2 1 awards 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1Partnership applications 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 2

awards 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1



Maine '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14Farmer applications 12 9 17 5 6 18 13 10 14 3 5 6 14 9 7 4 6 6 awards 6 9 3 3 1 12 8 6 6 3 2 3 7 5 4 3 2 4Partnership applications 4 2 6 1 2 3 6 5 2 4 4 5

awards 1 1 5 0 1 2 3 0 1 1 2 2



Maryland '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14Farmer applications 8 2 14 10 11 15 6 13 1 4 4 7 5 4 1 1 2 5 awards 2 2 11 5 4 5 3 2 1 2 1 4 0 2 0 1 1 1Partnership applications 4 1 3 1 0 3 3 0 1 2 1 3

awards 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1



Massachusetts '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14Farmer applications 8 5 10 7 15 13 16 11 7 4 6 6 4 9 4 7 5 5 awards 4 1 5 4 7 3 8 2 4 4 1 2 1 3 1 5 4 4Partnership applications 4 0 2 4 1 2 0 1 3 0 5 9

awards 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 3



Table 23. Data used in summary tables on Northeast SARE Farmer, Partnership, Sustainable

Community, and Graduate Student grant applications and awards, listed by state and year


New Hampshire '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14Farmer applications 6 4 14 6 11 6 7 8 5 1 5 3 10 3 5 5 3 2 awards 0 3 3 3 5 2 2 1 0 1 4 2 0 1 2 4 1 2Partnership applications 0 2 0 1 1 0 4 2 0 1 1 5

awards 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 4



New Jersey '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14Farmer applications 2 4 4 5 4 2 7 3 2 0 0 5 3 1 9 3 3 6 awards 1 0 0 3 1 2 4 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 2 1 1Partnership applications 4 2 1 2 2 5 5 0 4 2 2 2

awards 1 0 1 2 1 2 3 0 1 1 2 2



New York '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14Farmer applications 20 27 35 46 53 38 35 23 14 17 12 10 18 12 24 14 13 16 awards 4 10 14 24 14 7 7 13 5 10 5 4 8 9 7 12 6 7Partnership applications 19 10 12 18 11 9 9 16 17 11 7 22

awards 5 6 5 8 5 3 4 10 9 6 3 8



Pennsylvania '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14Farmer applications 5 7 17 21 17 26 22 16 6 7 11 15 13 10 23 7 4 6 awards 1 4 8 10 4 6 9 2 1 5 4 8 2 3 8 2 2 2Partnership applications 6 6 4 1 5 4 8 6 4 3 8 7

awards 4 4 3 0 4 2 5 3 2 3 4 3



Rhode Island '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14Farmer applications 2 2 1 1 0 0 3 1 2 1 2 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 awards 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0Partnership applications 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2

awards 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0



Table 23 (continued). Data used in summary tables on Northeast SARE Farmer, Partnership,

Sustainable Community, and Grad Student grant applications and awards, listed by state and year


Vermont '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14Farmer applications 16 16 17 10 19 16 9 15 8 2 11 4 6 6 9 4 3 6 awards 8 5 8 5 6 8 5 4 4 2 6 1 2 2 3 2 1 3Partnership applications 2 7 6 5 1 4 0 3 9 8 7 9

awards 1 2 2 2 1 3 0 3 5 5 6 6



West Virginia '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14Farmer applications 6 4 9 4 10 9 10 10 6 5 5 5 1 2 6 5 3 1 awards 2 2 6 2 3 3 2 5 1 2 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 0Partnership applications 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 3

awards 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 2


Grad Student applications 2 3 2 2 2

awards 0 2 1 1 1

Northeast Region total'97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Farmer applications 93 88 146 120 154 147 131 125 68 45 66 62 77 58 94 57 44 54

awards 30 40 62 62 46 50 52 38 24 31 28 29 23 27 33 35 20 25

Partnership applications 47 34 37 35 24 33 38 34 42 37 39 71

awards 16 17 18 15 12 14 20 19 20 22 22 32

Community applications 88 53 46 63 66 26 24 33

awards 17 19 19 10 17 8 10 9Grad Student applications 51 44 54 43 50

awards 13 17 20 20 22

Farmer grants started in 1993 but there is no state level data on applications prior to 1997Community grant program was merged with Partnership after 2013

Table 23 (continued). Data used in summary tables on Northeast SARE Farmer, Partnership, Sustainable Community, and Grad Student grant applications and awards, listed by state and year


Tab

le 2

5.

No

rth

east

SA

RE

pro

po

sals

an

d p

roje

cts

fu

nd

ed

, n

um

ber

eac

h y

ear,

sta

rtin

g w

ith

cu

rren

t yea

rM

ini-g

ran

t lim

its (

F,P

,C,G

):----

----

- U

p to

15K

each -

---

---

----

----

Up t

o 1

0K

each (

excep

t 25

K f

or

CN

E 2

009

and

Ap

pala

ch

ian I

nitia

tive in C

NE

200

7)

----

----

----

---

Farm

er

(FN

E)

'14

'13

'12

'11

'10

'09

'08

'07

'06

'05

'04

'03

'02

'01

'00

'99

'98

'97

'96

'95

'94

'93

'92

'91

'90

'89

'88

Revie

wed

54

44

57

94

58

77

62

66

45

68

125

132

147

154

120

148

88

93

?

?

?

?

----

----

----

----

----

Pa

ssed

by

revie

w3

328

39

52

31

32

29

28

35

28

77

65

70

86

?

?

?

?

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Fund

ed

24

20

35

33

27

23

29

28

32

24

38

52

50

46

62

62

40

30

44

38

41

36

----

----

----

----

----

Pa

rtn

ers

hip

(O

NE

)'1

4'1

3'1

2'1

1'1

0'0

9'0

8'0

7'0

6'0

5'0

4'0

3'0

2'0

1'0

0'9

9'9

8'9

7'9

6'9

5'9

4'9

3'9

2'9

1'9

0'8

9'8

8

Revie

wed

71

39

37

40

34

38

33

24

35

37

34

47

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Pa

ssed

by

revie

w4

531

25

27

21

29

14

12

16

21

19

28

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Fund

ed

32

22

22

20

19

20

14

12

16

18

16

16

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Co

mm

un

ity (

CN

E)

'14

'13

'12

'11

'10

'09

'08

'07

'06

'05

'04

'03

'02

'01

'00

'99

'98

'97

'96

'95

'94

'93

'92

'91

'90

'89

'88

Revie

wed

----

33

24

26

66

63

45

55

87

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Pa

ssed

by

revie

w--

--13

10

15

45

21

19

35

25

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Fund

ed

----

91

08

17

10

19

20

17

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Co

mm

un

ity is c

om

bin

ed

with

Pa

rtn

ers

hip

in 2

01

4In

clu

ded

in C

NE

200

7 is t

he

App

ala

ch

ian

Inititia

tive

with 1

5 p

rop

osa

ls r

ece

ive

d a

nd

6 f

un

ded

at

25K

each

.

Gra

du

ate

Stu

den

t (G

NE

)'1

4'1

3'1

2'1

1'1

0'0

9'0

8'0

7'0

6'0

5'0

4'0

3'0

2'0

1'0

0'9

9'9

8'9

7'9

6'9

5'9

4'9

3'9

2'9

1'9

0'8

9'8

8

Revie

wed

50

43

54

44

51

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Pa

ssed

by

revie

w4

133

31

37

32

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Fund

ed

22

20

20

17

13

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Res

ea

rch

& E

du

cati

on

(L

NE

)'1

4'1

3'1

2'1

1'1

0'0

9'0

8'0

7'0

6'0

5'0

4'0

3'0

2'0

1'0

0'9

9'9

8'9

7'9

6'9

5'9

4'9

3'9

2'9

1'9

0'8

9'8

8

Pre

pro

posals

90

92

90

113

130

12

4102

123

13

612

61

88

210

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Pro

po

sa

ls in

vite

d3

128

33

34

42

45

45

57

58

54

57

60

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Su

bm

itte

d/R

evie

wed

28

21

28

24

34

35

32

38

44

49

44

51

71

57

70

65

65

74

76

55

48

33

52

??

??

Dis

cu

ssed

at 2n

d t

ier

19

17

18

19

24

27

26

30

33

37

31

27

39

32

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Ap

pro

ved b

y 2n

d tie

r1

58

11

11

13

15

17

23

22

26

22

21

25

19

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Fund

ed

96

97

13

12

10

15

16

21

19

20

20

14

11

16

16

18

16

12

12

64

55

811

Ag

roeco

sys

tem

s R

es

. (L

NE

) '14

'13

'12

'11

'10

'09

'08

'07

'06

'05

'04

'03

'02

'01

'00

'99

'98

'97

'96

'95

'94

'93

'92

'91

'90

'89

'88

Pre

pro

posals

----

----

----

----

47

13

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Pro

po

sa

ls in

vite

d--

--1

----

12

22

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Su

bm

itte

d/R

evie

wed

----

1--

--1

22

2--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--

Fund

ed

----

1--

--1

01

1--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--

Pro

fes

sio

nal

De

ve

lpm

nt

(EN

E)

'14

'13

'12

'11

'10

'09

'08

'07

'06

'05

'04

'03

'02

'01

'00

'99

'98

'97

'96

'95

'94

'93

'92

'91

'90

'89

'88

Pre

pro

posals

16

18

25

20

24

21

924

26

37

41

43

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Pro

po

sa

ls in

vite

d8

11

12

14

13

13

716

18

20

21

21

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Su

bm

itte

d/R

evie

wed

711

810

11

95

13

15

13

18

16

16

13

14

13

14

26

37

10

9--

----

----

----

----

----

--

Dis

cu

ssed

at 2n

d t

ier

55

75

96

410

15

13

16

14

12

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Ap

pro

ved b

y 2n

d tie

r4

45

44

54

71

09

12

11

10

7--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--

Fund

ed

43

54

44

44

76

78

96

56

11

913

95

----

----

----

----

----

----

To

tal

co

mp

eti

tiv

e g

ran

ts9

181

10

190

93

70

77

79

88

69

80

96

79

66

78

84

67

57

73

59

58

42

45

58

11


Ta

ble

25

. N

ort

he

as

t S

AR

E p

rop

osa

ls a

nd

pro

jec

ts f

un

de

d,

do

lla

r valu

e e

ac

h y

ea

r, s

tart

ing

wit

h c

urr

en

t yea

rM

ini-g

rant lim

its (

F,P

,C,G

):--

----

----

----

----

-- U

p to 1

5K

ea

ch -

----

----

----

----

----

-

----

Up t

o 1

0K

(except 25

K f

or

CN

E 2

009

an

d A

ppa

lachia

n Initia

tive in C

NE

20

07)

----

----

Farm

er

(FN

E)

201

4201

3201

2201

120

10

2009

2008

2007

2006

200

520

04

2003

20

02

Revie

wed

683

,61

65

11

,56

265

7,9

62

99

5,2

73

626

,89

45

90

,983

45

0,0

30

48

0,5

57

32

7,2

22

446

,83

88

18

,16

99

29,8

19

950

,47

6

Passed b

y re

vie

w4

37

,00

93

18

,05

042

7,4

40

53

3,6

84

289

,67

02

34

,193

19

0,5

23

18

7,3

67

23

5,2

76

164

,15

94

74

,69

83

78,6

68

410

,18

1

Funde

d2

91

,93

82

21

,85

039

5,6

48

34

2,8

03

243

,08

21

80

,001

19

0,5

23

18

7,3

67

21

3,7

80

138

,80

32

19

,56

22

68,7

44

262

,40

2

Part

ners

hip

(O

NE

)201

4201

3201

2201

120

10

2009

2008

2007

2006

200

520

04

2003

20

02

Revie

wed

1,0

12

,71

15

50

,16

752

4,8

02

54

6,7

12

472

,81

83

55

,478

29

9,2

73

24

1,7

07

31

0,0

49

334

,20

72

86

,19

24

19,8

57

----

Passed b

y re

vie

w6

46

,29

24

41

,37

934

3,0

08

37

2,7

39

280

,78

32

70

,227

12

5,1

16

11

0,8

85

14

4,8

85

189

,51

81

52

,27

22

56,3

52

----

Funde

d4

55

,13

53

21

,56

230

0,4

80

26

9,7

47

256

,89

41

80

,000

12

5,1

16

11

0,8

85

14

4,8

85

160

,01

21

32

,38

51

48,3

00

----

Co

mm

un

ity (

CN

E)

201

4201

3201

2201

120

10

2009

2008

2007

2006

200

520

04

2003

20

02

Revie

wed

----

460

,36

135

0,6

50

36

6,8

63

894

,20

61,2

94,2

39

43

2,9

78

73

4,5

74

82

3,1

59

----

----

----

----

Passed b

y re

vie

w--

--1

81

,20

214

7,5

42

20

9,7

33

620

,67

84

05

,123

17

8,9

04

38

9,4

75

23

6,1

58

----

----

----

----

Funde

d--

--1

25

,86

414

7,2

24

11

2,5

80

237

,31

61

80

,000

17

8,9

04

25

2,8

31

16

1,9

64

----

----

----

----

Inclu

de

d a

bove

in

CN

E 2

00

7 is t

he

Ap

pala

ch

ian

In

ititia

tive

with

$3

69,3

17 in

pro

po

sa

ls r

eceiv

ed a

nd

$1

25,0

00 f

und

ed

.

Gra

du

ate

Stu

den

t (G

NE

)201

4201

3201

2201

120

10

2009

2008

2007

2006

200

520

04

2003

20

02

Revie

wed

690

,21

86

15

,22

876

0,3

81

61

3,1

96

698

,15

4--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--

Passed b

y re

vie

w5

63

,03

44

70

,71

343

6,4

66

51

3,9

85

417

,57

9--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--

Funde

d3

12

,99

42

86

,68

427

9,3

21

23

8,2

75

166

,05

9--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--

Res. &

Ed

ucati

on

201

4201

3201

2201

120

10

2009

2008

2007

2006

200

520

04

2003

20

02

Pre

pro

po

sals

13

,179

,04

513

,264

,82

512

,100

,93

915

,39

7,8

57

16

,894

,42

81

5,8

45

,100

10

,58

8,4

25

14

,90

3,2

73

16

,29

3,2

98

14

,652

,86

12

1,1

29

,24

82

1,0

63,4

65

----

Pro

posals

invi

ted

4,3

79

,23

53

,693

,61

74

,22

4,4

68

4,7

79

,56

95,9

68

,01

15,5

77,2

63

5,4

24,9

14

6,2

70,0

76

6,1

40

,21

95

,672

,97

76,2

10

,081

5,9

90,6

56

----

Sub

mitte

d/R

evie

wed

4,6

98

,23

23

,271

,83

54

,15

6,9

43

3,5

95

,99

34,7

16

,32

34,4

89,5

81

4,5

75,4

38

4,5

75,4

38

5,4

86

,08

15

,039

,31

75,5

86

,486

6,1

28,5

78

8,6

00

,30

2

Dis

cussed a

t 2n

d tie

r3

,193

,93

32

,776

,41

82

,84

8,9

68

2,9

19

,92

03,1

87

,73

23,5

95,3

69

3,3

95,3

54

3,8

30,8

29

3,6

71

,39

03

,616

,59

43,5

79

,388

3,3

44,9

56

4,7

80

,69

5

App

roved b

y 2nd t

ier

2,4

90

,36

51

,330

,52

21

,78

9,8

72

1,4

80

,32

01,7

39

,66

52,1

32,7

57

2,3

57,1

86

2,7

18,1

97

2,6

64

,68

12

,592

,46

42,2

33

,759

2,6

53,9

80

2,8

10

,22

5

Funde

d1

,565

,10

69

44

,36

81

,48

5,5

55

80

6,3

50

1,7

39

,66

51,6

11,4

83

1,5

55,9

61

1,6

42,7

47

1,8

46

,19

32

,074

,86

01,7

10

,388

2,2

55,0

75

2,0

57

,35

5

Ag

roec

os

yste

ms

201

4201

3201

2201

120

10

2009

2008

2007

2006

200

520

04

2003

20

02

Pre

pro

po

sals

--

----

----

----

--1,1

92

,60

02,1

15,0

46

4,4

43,0

25

----

----

----

----

----

----

Pro

posals

invi

ted

----

----

----

----

748

,00

07

68

,800

79

9,8

00

----

----

----

----

----

----

Revie

wed

----

400

,00

0--

--39

2,6

58

788

,01

37

64

,333

77

8,0

87

----

----

----

----

----

----

Funde

d--

--4

00

,00

0--

--39

2,6

58

04

00

,000

37

9,0

87

----

----

----

----

----

----

Pro

f. D

ev

elo

pm

en

t (E

NE

)201

4201

3201

2201

120

10

2009

2008

2007

2006

200

520

04

2003

20

02

Pre

pro

po

sals

1

,478

,92

81

,696

,47

72

,88

6,1

64

2,1

13

,19

12,4

68

,51

21,7

30,9

03

72

7,5

38

1,8

76,5

09

2,3

63

,57

53

,321

,11

53,3

04

,840

2,8

68,7

80

----

Pro

posals

invi

ted

792

,80

71

,121

,88

21

,05

6,1

44

1,5

30

,31

31,4

67

,05

21,1

18,5

25

60

1,8

38

1,3

50,8

09

1,8

37

,22

51

,683

,01

91,6

42

,550

1,5

54,8

82

----

Sub

mitte

d/R

evie

wed

823

,76

11

,131

,26

876

6,5

47

1,0

34

,27

71,4

42

,72

59

52

,071

59

7,5

80

1,3

81,2

21

1,4

46

,77

51

,217

,46

31,7

68

,893

1,3

86,4

59

1,1

81

,63

1

Dis

cussed a

t 2n

d tie

r5

38

,21

66

60

,01

760

8,9

07

40

3,7

46

1,1

05

,72

27

20

,881

44

4,3

93

98

3,6

56

1,4

46

,77

51

,188

,66

61,4

85

,459

1,1

86,1

53

883

,37

2

App

roved b

y 2nd t

ier

484

,71

25

28

,28

147

6,1

43

33

1,0

95

430

,31

05

61

,310

44

4,3

93

76

1,6

11

96

1,5

35

751

,14

51,0

85

,644

89

0,0

63

773

,53

2

Funde

d4

92

,05

83

62

,16

847

6,0

91

33

1,0

95

430

,31

04

03

,335

42

9,2

12

49

7,7

21

64

7,6

18

493

,47

65

80

,96

16

46,8

90

673

,45

2

To

tal g

ran

t fu

nd

ing

3,1

17

,23

12

,662

,49

63

,08

4,3

19

2,4

93

,50

83,0

73

,32

62,9

54,8

19

2,8

58,8

03

2,6

91,5

51

3,0

14

,44

02

,867

,15

12,6

43

,296

3,3

19,0

09

2,9

93

,20

9

Fu

nd

ing

to

Lan

d G

ran

t In

sti

tuti

on

s f

or

sta

te p

rog

ram

pla

ns o

f w

ork

Sta

te p

rogra

m f

unds

646

,38

45

69

,71

955

9,9

34

53

3,2

92

545

,83

24

47

,200

55

2,3

75

24

0,0

00

24

0,0

00

245

,99

62

39

,92

61

60,0

00

212

,49

7



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Graph 3. Northeast SARE proposals by grant program since 2001, percentage of

proposals not approved, approved but not funded, or approved and funded

Not Approved

Approved,

Not Funded

Approved,

Funded

Farmer

Partnership and

Community

Graduate Student

Research

R&E

PDP

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Graph 4. Northeast SARE competitive grant funding distribution, 2010-2014


Table 26. Grant programs and funding levels in the four SARE regions

Average over five calender years 2009 to 2013*

West South North Central Northeast

Research and Education* 1,281,055 1,721,130 1,568,279 1,554,631 1,565,106

Professional Development 501,628 337,763 452,687 399,237 492,058

Farmer (Farmer/Rancher, Producer) 236,026 64,776 473,374 284,627 291,938

Partnership (On-farm Research,

AgProfessional+Producer) 358,123 90,936 not offered 269,953 455,135

Sustainable Community/Community

Innovation. No longer funded. Last

year was 2012 in South, 2013 in NE not offered 56,950 not offered 160,597

Now with Partnership

above

Graduate Student (new for

Northeast in 2010 but previously

funded in other regions) 110,200 90,359 158,985 239,031 312,994

Youth & Youth Educator (in NC

2008 to 2013). Youth Scholar

Enhancement (in South for 2013) not offered 25,257 29,657 not offered not offered

State land grant program plans of

work (average is for 2010-2013) 255,064 454,157 568,610 547,108 646,384

Total**

2,742,095 2,841,327 3,251,592 3,455,184 3,763,615

For 2014 in

Northeast

** Not included in this total are specially funded training events and outreach programs like regional

and subregional conferences.

* Data as reported by regions to national office for Operations Committee meeting reports.

Funding for Northeast Region's Agroecosystems Research and Southern Region's Large System

Research is included in above as part of Research and Education grant program.

2013 R&E figures not yet available for Southern SARE, so this has their average for four years.

Sustainable Community grants have been discontinued, so average isn't for a full five years (figures

given are averages for years when offered in that region).

Date post:	26-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Northeast SARE Grants Portfolio Report August-5-2014 · 2014-08-07 · Northeast SARE, projects...

Documents