The University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (UC SAREP)
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) - Region 9 and
California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)
Announce
A Request For Proposals
THAT PROMOTE BIOLOGICALLY INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEMS (BIFS)
FOR
FIELD CROPS * ROW CROPS * ORCHARDS * VINEYARDS
Pre-Proposals Due: March 16, 1998
Full Proposals Due: May 15, 1998
Mail Proposals To:
UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program
University of California
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616-8716
Physical Location: DANR Building, Hopkins Road
Phone: 530-752-7556

Funding Notification: June 19, 1998

---

• Introduction (Eligibility, Funding, Use of Funds, Criteria)

• Procedures and Timeline for Application, Evaluation, and Awards (Pre-Proposal, Full Proposal)

• Further Information

---

An increasing number of California farmers representing many agricultural commodities have been able to maintain yields and quality while reducing their reliance on agricultural chemicals through Biologically Integrated Farming Systems (BIFS). BIFS projects typically include the following three elements: on-farm demonstrations of an innovative biologically-based farming system, a collaborative extension model involving public-private partnerships for sharing technical information about the farming system, and an organized program of monitoring key biological and economic variables so as to inform on-farm decision making as well as evaluate project success.

New monies from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) and the University of California enable us to fund several new projects. These projects can help farmers and their industries address challenges to their farming systems. BIFS projects can be designed to anticipate and comply with federal and state regulatory changes. To fulfill the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, over the next three years US-EPA will be reviewing food residue tolerances for all organophosphates, carbamates and the EPA category B2 carcinogens. Some uses of these pesticides may be lost as the EPA changes their risk assessment protocol and tolerances to be child-based and thus more conservative. In addition, companies who produce these pesticides may decide that potential revenues do not justify the expense of re-registration. BIFS projects can target biologically based solutions to these regulatory changes. In addition, BIFS projects can provide market-place advantages. These projects can provide a link between farmers and consumers who are increasingly supportive of alternative farming systems through new eco labeling initiatives. Eco labeling, like organic labeling, allows a consumer to make an informed choice and support farmers who are practicing environmental stewardship on their farms.

Proposals should integrate into their farming system such key technical elements as biological and cultural controls of pests; habitat management on-farm and at the landscape scale to reduce pest problems; an emphasis on soil-building practices such as biological nitrogen fixation to supply all or part of the nitrogen needed by crop plants; and reduced reliance on agricultural chemicals. Proposed projects may employ field monitoring for pest and beneficial organisms, collection of weather data, reliance on research-based action thresholds for decision making, use of selective bio-rational pesticides, and soil, water, and plant-tissue testing. Proposals should consider the inherent links between the components of a farming system (tillage practices, crop rotation, nutrient, water, and pest management) and the larger landscape or watershed. Proposals can also integrate natural resource and wildlife conservation practices into the farming system. Proposals should involve farmers setting aside demonstration acreage on their own land to evaluate and then demonstrate the innovative farming system. For orchard, vineyard, and field crops; 10-30 acres has been standard for high-value row crops lesser acreage may be appropriate.

Proposed projects should build true partnerships and be completely voluntary and collaborative in nature. The projects should use an extension approach that involves public-private cooperation, this approach has come to be known as a "farmer-to-farmer" method of information sharing. It brings scientists, farmers and consultants together in a collaborative, "co-learning" environment that enables farmers to learn and adapt integrated farming practices to local conditions. Proposals should describe a "management team" of persons experienced in the farming system (including farmers, scientists, a project coordinator, and consultants) that will provide technical support via customized farm plans, written materials, monthly meetings, intensive monitoring, and hands-on field days to a group of 10-30 participating farmers. The projects may be coordinated by a non-profit farmer organization, federal or state extension agency, and/or an industry association. Industry partners can participate by providing matching funds, infrastructure for project support activities, and/or cost sharing rebates for farming system inputs such as cover crop seeds, beneficial organisms (arthropods and micro-organisms), insectary shrubs and trees, insect traps, laboratory services and farm implements. Other financial support can be obtained through government cost-share programs such as the USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).

Eligibility
Only individuals and institutions based in California may receive funding. The following people or groups are eligible to apply as principal investigator for a BIFS grant: farmers and other private individuals; both for-profit and non-profit corporations, including commodity boards and Resource Conservation Districts; United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service employees; University of California Cooperative Extension Farm Advisors and Specialists; and faculty of any accredited institution of higher learning in California.

UC SAREP staff and members of the BIFS Program Advisory Review Board are not eligible to participate as Principal Investigator, Other Investigator, or Cooperator on any proposal for funding under this program. The following persons are members or alternative members of the BIFS Program Advisory Review Board: Karminder Aulakh, Sherman Boone, Walt Bunter, John Carlon, Paul A. Feder, Lonnie Hendricks, Jill Klein, Gregory Nelson, Jean-Mari Peltier, Steve Shaffer, Judy Stewart-Leslie, David Supkoff, Kathy Taylor, Susan Temple, Steve Weinbaum.

Funding
Several new projects will be funded for up to three years. Awards will range from $80,000 to $100,000 per year, with monthly disbursements made upon receipt of invoices. Renewal of funding will be based on project evaluation and available monies. Project evaluation will be based on written reports from the project leaders, presentations by project personnel to the BIFS Program Advisory Review Board, and site visits. To qualify for renewed funding, a project must demonstrate and document continued grower participation and progress in agricultural chemical use reduction and adoption of BIFS practices, while maintaining yields and quality. Development of group process and the overall extension model for the project should also be described, and, where possible, quantified. Data may also be presented on adoption of BIFS technology by non-enrolled farmers who have been influenced by the outreach program.

Use of Funds
Principal expenditures should be for personnel, including the program coordinator, members of the management team, and persons who assist in field data collection, analysis and project evaluation. Reasonable expenses for supplies and travel also qualify for funding. Funds may not be used for equipment purchases, unless these are clearly shown to be more economical than rentals. All expenses must be clearly justified as direct costs of the project. Funds may not be used for indirect overhead charges.

Criteria
Each of the following criteria is equally important and will be used to evaluate proposals:

1. Are current pest management strategies in the targeted conventional farming system threatened due to possible loss of pesticide registration because of FQPA, or due to ineffective control, pesticide resistance, high costs, or documented risk to health or the environment?

2. Does the targeted conventional farming system employ relatively high total or per-acre amounts of restricted-use pesticides, biologically disruptive, non-selective pesticides, or highly soluble nitrogen fertilizer?

3. Does the proposed program address soil fertility, plant nutrition, and pest management decisions in the context of a whole system or at least multiple elements?

4. Has at least one Biologically Integrated Farming System, currently in use on a California farm, been identified that will serve as the template for the proposed outreach project? Have the integrated farming practices employed been clearly described?

5. Have the elements of the proposed project been shown, through scientific studies, to reduce pest damage or incidence or to promote soil fertility?

6. Does the proposed project enable farmers to reduce reliance on synthetic fertilizer and biologically disruptive, non-selective pesticides?

7. Does the project integrate the farming system into the larger landscape or watershed? Does it employ on-farm or regional tactics such as vegetation and habitat management for wildlife conservation and water quality protection?

8. Does the project have a clear 2-3 year innovative strategy for technology transfer to interested farmers and agricultural consultants? Is it based on a farmer-to-farmer model for information exchange? If the project does not employ this kind of extension model does it adequately explain why another model is more appropriate?

9. Has interest and support been documented for the proposed project from farmers, appropriate commodity groups, and extension personnel?

10. Does the project have a clear plan for evaluation and documentation in the following three areas: farmer adoption of the farming system, farmer participation, and changes in agricultural chemical usage?

---

Procedure and Timeline for Application, Evaluation, and Awards

Pre-Proposal
Submit a two page pre-proposal to UC SAREP by 5 P.M. March 16, 1998. The pre-proposal will be read by the Advisory Board and feedback provided to assist principal investigators in developing a full proposal that most effectively fulfills the criteria of the program. It is not necessary to submit a pre-proposal in order to submit a full proposal but it may assist in clarifying program intent. Submit the pre-proposal via electronic mail to SAREP (sarep@ucdavis.edu ) or via surface mail in a printed format or on a disk.

The pre-proposal should include the following:

I. The names affiliations, and contact information of the principal investigators and cooperators. The project location and principal crops involved.

II. A justification for the project including a description of the current farming system and important regional pest management as well as soil nutrient challenges. Regulatory issues to be addressed, e.g., what pest management practices might be affected by implementation of FQPA? What are the environmental and economic challenges to the current farming system being addressed?

III. A description of the alternative farming system to be demonstrated, and possible environmental and economic benefits of this farming system.

IV. A description of the management structure to be used with the project and a description of the kind of information and technology transfer methods that will be employed.

Full Proposal
Submit twenty (20) copies of each proposal, typed, single-spaced, double-sided with 10 pt. font or larger along with a copy on disk to UC SAREP, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616-8716 by 5 P.M. May 15, 1998. The physical location for delivery services is: UC SAREP Office, DANR Building, Hopkins Road (off Hutchison Road west of Highway 113). Faxed proposals will not be accepted. Proposals will be evaluated and ranked by the 13-member BIFS Program Advisory Review Board. Successful applicants will be notified by June 19, 1998 and grants awarded shortly thereafter.

The full proposal should include the following:

I. Title page, including:

A. Title of proposed project.

B. Name, address, institutional or corporate affiliation of the applicant. Include telephone and FAX numbers, and, where applicable, e-mail address.

C. Names, affiliations, addresses, and phone numbers of cooperating individuals and organizations.

II. A summary (abstract) of the proposed project, not to exceed 250 words.

III. Body of the proposal, not to exceed 10 pages, single-spaced, and including:

A. Introduction and justification for the project

1. Give an overview of the current farming system and discuss any sensitive environmental issues associated with this farming system. Discuss the economic viability of the current farming system in light of environmental issues and/or market forces. Discuss potential impacts of the implementation of the US-EPA's Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) on the current farming system. For a list of pesticides under review due to FQPA implementation in California contact SAREP or US-EPA.

2. Give an overview of the alternative farming system to be demonstrated. Discuss the possible environmental and economic benefits of the alternative farming system. If information is lacking, benefits or impacts may be estimated if supported by the literature and/or grower experience. Discuss how these alternative practices will help farmers anticipate the regulatory changes possible with the implementation of FQPA.

3. Discuss in general how information exchange and technology transfer will occur in the project. Describe the kind of extension model to be used and why this approach will be the most effective.

4. Discuss how the project will be evaluated, what kinds of monitoring, surveys and/or data evaluation might be employed and why these are the most effective methods.

B. Workplan and methods

1. Farming system

a. Describe the conventional farming system currently in use. Describe crop acreage and current average yields; the pest complex and pest management strategies employed (include pesticides, total amounts and frequency of use); soil management practices including fertilizer amounts and timing; and water management. Include typical rotational cropping patterns for the region if applicable.

b. Describe the alternative farming system to be demonstrated and the people involved (e.g. researchers and farmers) in developing this farming system. Include crop acreage of the demonstration parcels and the number of farmers and farms; potential strategies for the pest management system; pesticides to be employed including amounts and frequency of use; soil management practices to be demonstrated including fertilizer amounts and timing; and water management. Include proposed rotational crops if applicable.

2. Extension model

a. Describe how the project will use collaborative methods for technology transfer and information exchange. Describe how the project will bring scientists, farmers and consultants together in a "co-learning" environment.

b. Describe the role of the project coordinator in the extension activities of the project.

c. Describe the members of the management team and their roles in the project.

d. Describe any institutional support available for use in information sharing and technology transfer activities.

e. List proposed field days and topics for the first year.

3. Monitoring, documentation and evaluation

a. Provide baseline data and, in subsequent years, annual end-of-season data documenting pre- and continuing project crop yields and quality, fertilizer and pesticide use, and use of elements of BIFS. Comparisons can be made between BIFS plots and county averages and/or side-by-side conventional comparison plots.

b. Describe in-season data collection to be used to inform on-farm decision making, such as monitoring of key biological indicators (e. g., pests, biological control agents, and decomposers) and, if relevant, weather data that might influence pest populations.

c. Describe how you will encourage the use of the alternative farming system by interested farmers. What data will be collected and how will they be analyzed so as to evaluate and demonstrate the effectiveness, economic viability and applicability of the farming system.

IV. Literature Cited

V. Detailed budget for each of the three years, including all sources of support, using this format:

VI. Required attachments

A. Include a list of the names, affiliations, contact information and expected contributions of the principal investigator(s), cooperator(s), and organization(s). Document relevant experiences of those involved and their accomplishments and qualifications to carry out the project. Include no more than a two-page resume for the principal investigators and cooperators. Include signatures for principal investigators and cooperators showing intent to participate.

B. Include a list of proposed members of the management team, including addresses, and phone numbers, with attachments documenting their experience and achievements in BIFS and signed letters of intent to serve. Each management team should include a project coordinator, at least one BIFS grower, at least one pest control advisor, a university researcher and/or a farm advisor or specialist, and an industry representative. The role of management team members is to implement the proposed outreach program and to serve for its duration as resources for participating farmers.

C. Include a list of industry and grower participants, including 10-30 farmers expressing their willingness to participate. Farmers may represent a range of prior experience with elements of BIFS, however, they must be willing to commit acreage as demonstration parcels and to implement recommendations to achieve biological integration and agricultural chemical use reduction, to monitor key variables, and to share data freely with other farmers, the management team, and the community at large. Include any organizational partners in the project and their role and support.

VII. Optional attachments

A. Expressions of intent (signed letters or memoranda) to provide matching contributions, rebates, or cost-sharing from other entities, for example, industry organizations such as commodity groups, governmental agencies, academic institutions, non-profit organizations, and private businesses.

B. Letters of intent from scientists documenting "piggyback" or ancillary research projects to be conducted in coordination with the proposed BIFS extension efforts. These projects could involve monitoring selected variables or evaluating proposed improvements to BIFS technology. This is not critical for the first year's funding cycle, but will become important in ensuring renewed funding of projects in subsequent years.

---

Further Information
UC SAREP staff are available for consultation with prospective applicants. For further information, contact SAREP (email: sarep@ucdavis.edu) at UC SAREP.

For more information on current BIFS projects and other demonstration projects on-going in California, or on the original template program for BIFS, the Community Alliance with Family Farmer's Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems (BIOS), see the following articles available by request from UC SAREP:

• Broome J.C., & W. Liebhardt. 1997. Agricultural Partnerships in California, Sustainable Agriculture, 9(3):1-4.

• Dlott, J., T. Nelson, R. Bugg, M. Spezia, R. Eck, J. Redmond, J. Klein, and L. Lewis. 1996. California, USA: Merced County BIOS Project. In: L.A. Thrupp, ed. New Partnerships For Sustainable Agriculture. World Resources Institute. Washington, D.C.

• Schaefer, Kristen S. (Editor). 1997. Learning from the BIOS Approach: A Guide for Community-Based Biological Farming Programs. Community Alliance with Family Farmers (Davis, CA) and World Resources Institute (Washington D.C.)

Or contact:

Ms. Karminder Aulakh
Community Alliance with Family Farmers
BIOS Program
P.O. Box 363
Davis, CA 95617
Phone: 530-756-8518

This RFP and the above articles are also available via the World Wide Web at http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/.