• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Brief history of CENTA/UFLA...
 General observations
 Communication assessment - Dr....
 Agricultural economics assessment...
 Soil assessment - Dr. Charles...
 Plant protection assessment - Dr...
 Plant science assessment - Drs....
 UFLA historical experience in research...
 Itinerary: UFLA administrative...
 UFLA personnel commitments to the...
 Cerro Verde seminar and workshop...
 Cerro Verde work group reports
 Budget reports: CENTA/UFLA/AID...
 Contract related publications...






Group Title: Ten years of technical assistance in agriculture: a review of the CENTA/UFLA/AID/El Salvador contract = Diez años de asistencia técnica en agricultura : una revisión del contrato de CENTA/UFLA/AID/El Salvador
Title: Ten years of technical assistance in agriculture
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055284/00001
 Material Information
Title: Ten years of technical assistance in agriculture a review of the CENTAUFLAAIDEl Salvador contract
Alternate Title: Diez años de asistencia técnica en agricultura
A review of the CENTAUFLAAIDEl Salvador contract
Physical Description: 1 v. (various pagings) : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Centro Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (El Salvador)
University of Florida -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
United States -- Agency for International Development
Publisher: The University?
Place of Publication: Gainesville FL?
Publication Date: 1978]
 Subjects
Subject: Agricultural assistance, American -- Evaluation -- El Salvador   ( lcsh )
Agricultural development projects -- Evaluation -- El Salvador   ( lcsh )
Farms, Small -- El Salvador   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: prepared by Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida = Diez años de asistencia técnica en agricultura : una revisión del contrato de CENTA/UFLA/AID/El Salvador / preparado por Instituto de Ciencias Alimenticias y Agropecuarias, Universidad de Florida.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: "Prepared for : National Center for Agricultural Technology, Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock and Rural Development Division, US/AID San Salvador, El Salvador."
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00055284
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000955981
oclc - 24807150
notis - AER8615

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Brief history of CENTA/UFLA cooperation
        Page 3
        Page 4
    General observations
        Page 5
        CENTA: The institution and the client
            Page 5
        Research/extension needs
            Page 6
            Training
                Page 6
                Page 7
            Joint responsibilities
                Page 8
            Communication
                Page 8
            Creditbility
                Page 9
        Administration and planning
            Page 9
            Page 10
            Page 11
        Interinstitutional relationships
            Page 12
    Communication assessment - Dr. Milton Morris
        Page 13
        Background
            Page 13
        Observations
            Page 14
            Page 15
        Recommendations and conclusions
            Page 16
    Agricultural economics assessment - Dr. James Simpson
        Page 17
        Background
            Page 17
        Observations
            Page 18
            Page 19
            Page 20
        Recommendations and conclusions
            Page 21
    Soil assessment - Dr. Charles Eno
        Page 22
        Background
            Page 22
        Observations
            Page 23
            Page 24
        Recommendations and conclusions
            Page 25
    Plant protection assessment - Dr Fowden G. Maxwell
        Page 26
        Background
            Page 26
        Observations
            Page 27
        Recommendations and conclusions
            Page 28
    Plant science assessment - Drs. Coleman Ward & C. B. Hall
        Page 29
        Background
            Page 29
        Observations
            Page 30
        Recommendations and conclusions
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
            Page 34
            Page 35
            Page 36
    UFLA historical experience in research and technical assistance contracts
        Page A
        Page A 1
        Page A 2
        Page A 3
        Page A 4
    Itinerary: UFLA administrative backstop/review team
        Page B 1
        Page B 2
        Page B 3
        Page B 4
        Page B 5
        Page B 6
    UFLA personnel commitments to the CENTA/UFLA/AID contract
        Page C 1
        Page C 2
        Page C 3
        Page C 4
        Page C 5
        Page C 6
    Cerro Verde seminar and workshop notes
        Page D
        Page D 1
        Page D 2
        Page D 3
        Page D 4
        Page D 5
        Page D 6
        Page D 7
    Cerro Verde work group reports
        Page E 1
        Page E 2
        Page E 3
        Page E 4
        Page E 5
        Page E 6
    Budget reports: CENTA/UFLA/AID contract
        Page F 1
        Page F 2
        Page F 3
    Contract related publications list
        Page G 1
        Page G 2
        Page G 3
        Page G 4
        Page G 5
        Page G 6
        Page G 7
        Page G 8
        Page G 9
        Page G 10
        Page G 11
        Page G 12
Full Text
\0 0 -7/7
9'/. oob


0 '








.^.*
6d^lb




*'' < 0 &*


%%\ L~o 6b *










Report of Evaluation and Planning Workshop


CENTA/UFLA/AID

El Salvador









To CENTA:

Ing. Rodolfo Cristales

Director General CENTA, El Salvador








From IFAS/UFLA:


Dr. Charles Eno, Chairman, Soils Science
Dr. Chet Hall, Acting Chairman, Vegetable Crops
Dr. Fowden Maxwell, Chairman, Entomology & Nematology
Dr. Milton Morris, Chairman, Editorial
Dr. James Simpson, Food and Resource Economics
Dr. Coleman Ward, Chairman, Agronomy
Dr. Chris 0. Andrew, Assistant Director, International Programs


October 30 November 3, 1978


and

Dr. Kenneth R. Tefertiller, Vice President of Agricultural
Affairs


October 30-31, 1978







TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction ........................................................

II. Brief History of CENTA/UFLA Cooperation .................... ..........

III. General Observations ..... ........................................... 5

A. CENTA: The Institution and the Client............................ 5

B. Research/Extension Needs .........................................6

1. Training ............... .. ................................... 6

2. Joint Responsibilities .......................................8

3. Communication ..... .......................................... 8

4. Credibility ... .............................................. 9

C. Administration and Planning ......................................

D. Interinstitutional Relationships................................ 12

IV. Communication Assessment Dr. Milton Morris ........................ 13

A. Background ........... ......................................... 13

B. Observations *..................................................14

C. Recommendations and Conclusions .................................16

V. Agricultural Economics Assessment Dr. James Simpson ...............17

A. Background *....................................................17

B. Observations ...................................................18

C. Recommendations and Conclusions .................................21

VI. Soils Assessment Dr. Charles Eno .................................. 22

A. Background *....................................................22

B. Observations *..................................................23

C. Recommendations and Conclusions ................................25

VII. Plant Protection Assessment Dr. Fowden G. Maxwell..................26

A. Background .......... .......................................... 26

B. Observations ...................................................27

C. Recommendations and Conclusions ...............................28







Page
VIII. Plant Sciences Assessment Drs. Coleman Ward & C. B. Hall.........29

A. Background ................................................... 29

B. Observations................................................... 30

C. Recommendations and Conclusions ...............................31



APPENDICES


A UFLA Historical Experience in Research and Technical
Assistance Contracts

B Itinerary: UFLA Administrative Backstop/Review Team

C UFLA Personnel Commitments to the CENTA/UFLA/AID Contract

D Cerro Verde Seminar and Workshop Notes

E Cerro Verde Work Group Reports

F Budget Reports: CENTA/UFLA/AID Contract

G Contract Related Publications List









I. Introduction: Contract Objectives and the Evaluation


While contract objectives have changed somewhat over ten years
of IFAS/UFLA/CENTA/AID cooperation, the general purpose has been to
assist CENTA "to bring higher incomes and living standards for small
and medium farmers in El Salvador." Primary emphasis of late has been
on small farmers through assistance with multiple cropping systems
research and extension. The stated objectives are to be attained
through increased production and improved marketing of basic grains
and vegetables; the foregoing to be accomplished by the Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences/University of Florida (IFAS/UFLA)
providing assistance to the personnel of the Ministry of Agriculture
and Livestock (MAG) and the National Center for Technical Agriculture
(CENTA), the research, extension and education agency of MAG.

This contract is but one such technical assistance contract held
by IFAS/UFLA (Appendix A) and represents annst successful joint effort.
This success is due to the strong commitment and cooperation shown
by CENTA and the El Salvadorian Government to agricultural development
and technical assistance. The institutional structure for a technical
assistance program is particularly complex and may support or dampen
the impact of a contractual arrangement (Figure 1). Generally, the
CENTA/UFLA/AID program has been one of success. Certainly, self-
evaluation is in order because at times the program might have
achieved greater success. To learn from that experience is important.

The purpose of the present workshop was to evaluate the UFLA/
CENTA/AID contract experience and for the UFLA department chairmen
to react to general administrative andplanning concerns of CENTA.
The review team consisted of six department chairmen or departmental
representatives and the Assistant Director of International Programs,
IFAS/UFLA. The Vice President for Agricultural Affairs was present
for the first full day of meetings preliminary to the workshop. The
itineraries of the team are included in Appendix B.

The report addresses historical summary of contract staffing and
CENTA progress; general observations concerning extension/research
programs, administration and planning problems and research administration
through departments and work groups; specific program reports in the
areas of plant protection, economics, soils, cropping systems,
vegetable crops and communication/extension; and a general summary with
recommendations. While an even broader and more comprehensive
evaluation would be desirable, the report evolves from a rich history
of CENTA/UFLA work and the joint experience of numerous staff who
have worked together for several years. Errors, both of commission
and omission, are likely due to time factors.

The report should serve as a guide, but not the last word, with
an understanding that such a review can be helpful in program
planning and should become an ongoing periodic activity of CENTA,
as it is within IFAS.







Figure 1: Institutional Relationships in the
CENTA/UFLA/AID Contract


<- -- --------- -- -- -- --4


IFAS/UFLA USAD/Washington
-,I-FAS/FLA International Programs USAID/Washingto
nt IFAS/UFLA f


U.S. Congress


Departmental Backstop
IFAS/UFLA


1'*'









II. Brief History of CENTA/UFLA Cooperation

Since 1969, UFLA has participated in a technical assistance
program with CENTA. Staffing, by the close of 1978, has included
30 man years of long-term advisory assignments in Soils,Multiple
Cropping, Vegetable Crops, Extension, Agricultural Economics and
Agronomy. Short-term assignments have included 64 scientists in
a broad array of agricultural disciplines and sub-disciplines.
For a complete listing of long and short-term staffing appointments
over the 1969-1978 period, see Appendix C.

In evaluating the staffing pattern for these CENTA/UFLA/AID
contracts, continuity and counterparts are major considerations.
Due to changes in program objectives, primarily dictated by funding
shifts, the advisory team has experienced discontinuity in several
program areas and insufficient time to establish viable programs in
others. Generally, it can be said that two years is too short a
time to provide for establishing and strengthening a program area.
While maintaining the same advisor in a position for more than two
years is generally desirable, this has not been possible in some
areas for several reasons. Where the same advisor may not have
been able to continue, another advisor could have taken up where
the first left off and continued the program thrust until a self-
sustaining level was reached. Careful planning by CENTA/UFLA, but
particularly by AID, could have delivered greater program stability
and continuity in the areas of plant protection, extension and
agricultural economics. To bring a problem area of concern at the
farm level through careful problem identification and analysis, and
in extension, implementation and evaluation again at the farm level,
is an educational and administrative process that must be developed
along with the content thrust of the research and extension effort.
Two years of advisory support for such an activity is not sufficient
in most instances. For this reason, among several, the extension/
research system has not evolved to the extent possible. And, one
might add, given this limitation, CENTA has done quite well.

The staffing pattern has also been influenced by the flow of
events and general ongoing objectives of AID and CENTA. Somewhat
apart from specific contract objectives, program emphasis has
evolved along the following lines:

1969-71: ENA (National Agricultural School) Institutional
Development
1971-72: ENA Institutional Development and Integration
with Research and Extension
1972-73: CENTA Institutional Development as Institute
Came Into Existence and Integration with ENA
1973-75: CENTA Technical Assistance and Institutional
Development
1975-76: CENTA Technical Assistance with Project Focus
on Multiple Cropping
1976-78: CENTA Technical Assistance and Broad Research
Backstop Program




-4-


1978 : CENTA Technical Assistance and Broad
Research Backstop Program including
Institutional Development


Working relationships have vacilated as one might expect in the
three-way CENTA/UFLA/AID institutional relationships. Generally,
UFLA/CENTA relationships were solid and mutually supportive in the
periods 1969-73 and 1976 to present with a low point during the
1974-75 period due to a turnover in CENTA and UFLA administration,
accompanied by a general lack of program specificity and agreement.
UFLA/AID relationships have fluctuated more frequently as leadership
in the rural development office has changed with greater frequency
over the ten year period than in either CENTA or UFLA. Generally,
the low point for solid cooperation was between 1973 and 1976 with
best understanding, communication and cooperation in the first
three years of the contractual period and the most recent two years.

Short-term staffing by Florida for the contracts has evolved in
itself, as the backstop program was strengthened, to a level of
considerable support for the contract. As shown in Appendix C,
each resident UFLA advisor is supported by a professional and
administrative backstop team in Gainesville. All El Salvador
backstop staff act through the backstop committee as an advisory
and evaluation group. In 1978, besides TDY support in special
problem areas, every professional backstop person worked in CENTA
for up to two weeks in presenting short courses, evaluating research
programs and discussing department development concerns. Similarly,
the present administrative team has advised and evaluated department
and CENTA-wide programs. The strength of the backstop effort in
recent years has undoubtedly given support to the solid UFLA/CENTA
operational base that has evolved.

Broad counterpart participation remains critical to successful
technical assistance efforts. The advisory team, to be effective in
the long run, must give in-service training to CENTA personnel.
Where salary conditions and other incentive programs remain sporadic
and inadequate, CENTA professionals have found long-term commitments
not to be in their best interests. Thus, staff have moved
frequently to other public agencies (including AID) and the private
sector. Again, discontinuity in program development is a result.

Continuity, however, in CENTA administration over the past three
years has contributed significantly to solid programming and
successful use of the UFLA advisory team and backstop personnel.
Prior to that time, changes in administration resulted in less
stability. The level of dedication, motivation and overall commitment
evidenced by CENTA leaders, along with a high degree of concern
for developing long-term measures for feeding as many as 8.8
million Salvadorians by the year 2000, provides a base and need
for further technical assistance to CENTA by AID and others.

Given the continuity and stability problems discussed herein,
it is the general observation of the Gainesville UFLA staff who have
been closely involved with the CENTA contract since its inception,









that the progress in CENTA toward integrated research and extension
programs has been quite good. Dr. Tefertiller and Dr. Eno
(9/26-10/2/71) were among the group who first visited CENTA to
establish the early expanded contract and both have remarked that
significant progress has been achieved.



III. General Observations

A. CENTA: The Institution and the Client

CENTA is a good research organization, especially when
one considers the changes which have taken place in the past
five years. It is quite apparent that CENTA has made very
rapid advances in terms of its administrative structure,
personnel, development capability and facilities during this
time frame. CENTA is not at the "take off point" as discussed
by the author Rostow in his book on the stages of economic
growth. The key issue is to be sure that the progress
continues.

CENTA, like many similar institutions, must overcome an ,image
of being researchers in isolation from applied concerns, rather
than being individuals operating as change agents in a develop-
ment sense. In a small country such as El Salvador, with very
low per capital income, it is essential that all groups constantly
remind themselves that they are in the process of change and
that the purpose of utilizing their scarce resources is to
bring about development.

The administration of CENTA is especially impressive. We
have worked for long periods of time with several Latin
American countries as an institution and individually and find
CENTA staff and administration unique as a group who openly
request evaluation of their program and accept recommendations
and criticisms. This attitude is indicative of the motivation
of the administrators and the potentially vast future for CENTA.

The overall program of CENTA appears to be well developed,
although the need for strengthening the extension program is
evident. Attention should be given over the next five years
to identifying and resolving the missing links between research
and the small farmer which now exist. For the most part, the
extension program appears to be very well developed when
reviewing the overall framework and numbers of personnel to
handle the job (Appendix D, Comments by Perez Guerra). A
problem comes in getting materials from the central office
to the agents and in training the agents to assist farmers.
This point is discussed in the report.

An important question must be addressed: Is CENTA really
reaching the small farmer? Although CENTA undoubtedly has a long









that the progress in CENTA toward integrated research and extension
programs has been quite good. Dr. Tefertiller and Dr. Eno
(9/26-10/2/71) were among the group who first visited CENTA to
establish the early expanded contract and both have remarked that
significant progress has been achieved.



III. General Observations

A. CENTA: The Institution and the Client

CENTA is a good research organization, especially when
one considers the changes which have taken place in the past
five years. It is quite apparent that CENTA has made very
rapid advances in terms of its administrative structure,
personnel, development capability and facilities during this
time frame. CENTA is not at the "take off point" as discussed
by the author Rostow in his book on the stages of economic
growth. The key issue is to be sure that the progress
continues.

CENTA, like many similar institutions, must overcome an ,image
of being researchers in isolation from applied concerns, rather
than being individuals operating as change agents in a develop-
ment sense. In a small country such as El Salvador, with very
low per capital income, it is essential that all groups constantly
remind themselves that they are in the process of change and
that the purpose of utilizing their scarce resources is to
bring about development.

The administration of CENTA is especially impressive. We
have worked for long periods of time with several Latin
American countries as an institution and individually and find
CENTA staff and administration unique as a group who openly
request evaluation of their program and accept recommendations
and criticisms. This attitude is indicative of the motivation
of the administrators and the potentially vast future for CENTA.

The overall program of CENTA appears to be well developed,
although the need for strengthening the extension program is
evident. Attention should be given over the next five years
to identifying and resolving the missing links between research
and the small farmer which now exist. For the most part, the
extension program appears to be very well developed when
reviewing the overall framework and numbers of personnel to
handle the job (Appendix D, Comments by Perez Guerra). A
problem comes in getting materials from the central office
to the agents and in training the agents to assist farmers.
This point is discussed in the report.

An important question must be addressed: Is CENTA really
reaching the small farmer? Although CENTA undoubtedly has a long









way to go in effectively and efficiently reaching the farmer,
as do many institutions throughout the world, at least CENTA
is on target. An example of this is shown in Table 1 which
depicts the client focus in Region II. As can be observed,
ninety percent of the clients with whom CENTA works in this
region have less than five manzanas. The small size of
farms is more impressive in the case of renters, as ninety-
eight percent with whom they deal have five manzanas or less.
Sixty-five percent of the individuals with whom CENTA works
are renters. Clearly, their focus is on the small farmer.

An evaluation of the UFLA/CENTA effort has been underway
throughout the past year. Short-term advisors have given
specific emphasis to problem areas in extension programs and
administration, small farm management and project analysis,
vegetable cropping systems, multiple cropping systems, soil
fertility and classification, insect taxonomy and general
entomology and communication systems. Detailed reports of
these assessments are available through CENTA, AID and UFLA.


B. Research/Extension Needs

The need for training at all levels and in both short and
long-term programs is the most commonly expressed concern
by the CENTA/UFLA research and extension administrators and
advisors. Emphasis must be given to training for extension at
the farm level, for applied research/extension work in the
field and at experiment stations, for fundamental research
and for program planning and administration.

A major concern has been expressed for the effectiveness of
the extension program and the transmission of technology needs,
as identified at the farm level, through research and dissemination
again to producers. Generally, CENTA is aware of needs through
recent analyses by the Agricultural Economics Department.
The coordination of research and extension to address these needs
is problematic. Research and extension programs are not closely
enough coordinated to insure that research findings and other
outputs from the research faculty are efficiently transferred
via the extension system to the people of the country, particularly
the disadvantaged. As observed by the consultant team, a link
between researchers and extension people is missing. This gap
could be addressed in several ways, most of which require
further training.

1. Training

Research people must be trained in extension methods
such that a greater degree of appreciation for application
and presentation of results at the farm level is possible.
Similarly, extension people need to better understand research
processes so that they can both more effectively feed needs
into the research system and interpret results for direct
farm application. The issue is not where research ends and
extension begins relative to staffing; instead, it is one









way to go in effectively and efficiently reaching the farmer,
as do many institutions throughout the world, at least CENTA
is on target. An example of this is shown in Table 1 which
depicts the client focus in Region II. As can be observed,
ninety percent of the clients with whom CENTA works in this
region have less than five manzanas. The small size of
farms is more impressive in the case of renters, as ninety-
eight percent with whom they deal have five manzanas or less.
Sixty-five percent of the individuals with whom CENTA works
are renters. Clearly, their focus is on the small farmer.

An evaluation of the UFLA/CENTA effort has been underway
throughout the past year. Short-term advisors have given
specific emphasis to problem areas in extension programs and
administration, small farm management and project analysis,
vegetable cropping systems, multiple cropping systems, soil
fertility and classification, insect taxonomy and general
entomology and communication systems. Detailed reports of
these assessments are available through CENTA, AID and UFLA.


B. Research/Extension Needs

The need for training at all levels and in both short and
long-term programs is the most commonly expressed concern
by the CENTA/UFLA research and extension administrators and
advisors. Emphasis must be given to training for extension at
the farm level, for applied research/extension work in the
field and at experiment stations, for fundamental research
and for program planning and administration.

A major concern has been expressed for the effectiveness of
the extension program and the transmission of technology needs,
as identified at the farm level, through research and dissemination
again to producers. Generally, CENTA is aware of needs through
recent analyses by the Agricultural Economics Department.
The coordination of research and extension to address these needs
is problematic. Research and extension programs are not closely
enough coordinated to insure that research findings and other
outputs from the research faculty are efficiently transferred
via the extension system to the people of the country, particularly
the disadvantaged. As observed by the consultant team, a link
between researchers and extension people is missing. This gap
could be addressed in several ways, most of which require
further training.

1. Training

Research people must be trained in extension methods
such that a greater degree of appreciation for application
and presentation of results at the farm level is possible.
Similarly, extension people need to better understand research
processes so that they can both more effectively feed needs
into the research system and interpret results for direct
farm application. The issue is not where research ends and
extension begins relative to staffing; instead, it is one












Table 1 Client Focus of CENTA in Region II.
Rener


Production
unit size

--manzana--


0-1

1.1-2

2.1-5

5-up

Subtotal

5 Mz & less

Land tenure


Renters

----% of


39

42

17

2

100

98

65%


Renters
Owners & Owners All

total------------------------- --


13

23

35

29

100

71

35%


3

33

63

1

100

99


Total sample size 3,061


Source: Compiled from CENTA extension figures.


30

36

24

10

100

90


- -









of attaining a broad appreciation throughout CENTA for
the entire integrated problem identification, investigation,
transmission and reidentification process.

Extension and ongoing in-service training programs for
specialists and agents are needed. Ongoing programs are
necessary where high turnover is common as is true for
agents, not only in El Salvador, but in more developed
countries as well. A program of in-service training such
as that at the University of Florida, or a similar institution,
should be reviewed by the four extension chiefs to give them
first hand knowledge of this training technique.


2. Joint Responsibilities

Another means of strengthening research and extension is
through joint appointments and extension specialist positions.
The extension specialist is obligated to work closely with
researchers and extension agents, zone managers and regional
directors to achieve a comprehensive impact on specific
problem areas. This person can be identified with a sub-
disciplinary concern or represent a broad disciplinary
perspective. In the CENTA structure, this individual might
perform applied research within the context of the work
groups. Emphasis can be given to appropriately trained
extension specialists to address priority areas of concern.
Without training and adequate budget, however, it would be
unwise to establish extension specialist positions.
Probably, this "catch 22" explains why CENTA has not successfully
instituted an extension specialist program. Careful
consideration should be given by CENTA to joint extension
and research appointments in departments and training
programs to prepare personnel for joint appointments. Such
a program would stimulate researchers to become more involved
at the farm level in fulfilling their extension responsibilities.

Joint responsibilities also extend, without regard for
formal appointments, to full cooperation between extension
and research. Extension agents must help identify and
transmit problems back to the research program just as
results must be translated and transformed by researchers
to extension agents and farmers. Often the feedback
mechanism is overlooked when in fact farmers are, in many
instances, most capable of identifying major problems to
be communicated to the research program for resolution.


3. Communication

A most obvious need at CENTA for improved integration
between research and extension is a well-founded and operative
communication and information program. Published information,
short courses, field days, pilot programs, seminars, workshops,









of attaining a broad appreciation throughout CENTA for
the entire integrated problem identification, investigation,
transmission and reidentification process.

Extension and ongoing in-service training programs for
specialists and agents are needed. Ongoing programs are
necessary where high turnover is common as is true for
agents, not only in El Salvador, but in more developed
countries as well. A program of in-service training such
as that at the University of Florida, or a similar institution,
should be reviewed by the four extension chiefs to give them
first hand knowledge of this training technique.


2. Joint Responsibilities

Another means of strengthening research and extension is
through joint appointments and extension specialist positions.
The extension specialist is obligated to work closely with
researchers and extension agents, zone managers and regional
directors to achieve a comprehensive impact on specific
problem areas. This person can be identified with a sub-
disciplinary concern or represent a broad disciplinary
perspective. In the CENTA structure, this individual might
perform applied research within the context of the work
groups. Emphasis can be given to appropriately trained
extension specialists to address priority areas of concern.
Without training and adequate budget, however, it would be
unwise to establish extension specialist positions.
Probably, this "catch 22" explains why CENTA has not successfully
instituted an extension specialist program. Careful
consideration should be given by CENTA to joint extension
and research appointments in departments and training
programs to prepare personnel for joint appointments. Such
a program would stimulate researchers to become more involved
at the farm level in fulfilling their extension responsibilities.

Joint responsibilities also extend, without regard for
formal appointments, to full cooperation between extension
and research. Extension agents must help identify and
transmit problems back to the research program just as
results must be translated and transformed by researchers
to extension agents and farmers. Often the feedback
mechanism is overlooked when in fact farmers are, in many
instances, most capable of identifying major problems to
be communicated to the research program for resolution.


3. Communication

A most obvious need at CENTA for improved integration
between research and extension is a well-founded and operative
communication and information program. Published information,
short courses, field days, pilot programs, seminars, workshops,










etc. are all in use to a minor degree. The report by Dr.
Morris addresses these concerns.

Research publication needs further emphasis. Work
plans, budgets and evaluation criteria must give greater
emphasis to the ultimate role and value of publication and
distribution of research results. There should be more
writing by CENTA personnel for other researchers, for middle
level people such as extension agents and area specialists
and for the farmer. A well-developed system of research
reporting is needed. It should be possible, for example,
to develop a system of mimeographed staff reports and
papers to complement printed bulletins and leaflets. CENTA
then should publish annually a list of reports. It is our
feeling that CENTA people are generally doing much more
research and extension than they are being given credit for,
primarily because of insufficient attention to publication
and communication. Again, training to better perform those
transmission tasks is essential.

Publications might also be developed by using existing
sources. An example of this is reproducing materials already
developed through RTAC (an arm of AID that was discontinued
a few years ago). In some cases helpful extension information
can be developed and adapted from U.S. and other third
country publications. There is a great deal of information
about general subjects such as care in the use of pesticides
or procedures in soil testing which has already been written.
In other words, why reinvent the wheel when research funds
are so scarce.


4. Credibility

One of the TDY reports and informal discussions have
identified a major problem in extension that can influence
attempts to integrate research and extension. That is,
the power through various means of private farm suppliers
to influence extension personnel without regard to research
recommendations. Credibility and rapport between the two
functions can be influenced by vested private sector interests.
Conflict of interest problems may result from several causes,
one of which is often salary levels. Some countries,and
particularly many states in the U.S., prohibit extension
personnel from working on any basis for a private farm
supply company. To some extent, the problem can be
reduced by strengthening research/extension integration,
cooperation and communication.


C. Administration and Planning

Concern for long run research to develop a base for effective
short-term applied research and extension programs is expressed
by the CENTA administration. Assistance in planning for both
the short and long run is sought particularly through in-service










etc. are all in use to a minor degree. The report by Dr.
Morris addresses these concerns.

Research publication needs further emphasis. Work
plans, budgets and evaluation criteria must give greater
emphasis to the ultimate role and value of publication and
distribution of research results. There should be more
writing by CENTA personnel for other researchers, for middle
level people such as extension agents and area specialists
and for the farmer. A well-developed system of research
reporting is needed. It should be possible, for example,
to develop a system of mimeographed staff reports and
papers to complement printed bulletins and leaflets. CENTA
then should publish annually a list of reports. It is our
feeling that CENTA people are generally doing much more
research and extension than they are being given credit for,
primarily because of insufficient attention to publication
and communication. Again, training to better perform those
transmission tasks is essential.

Publications might also be developed by using existing
sources. An example of this is reproducing materials already
developed through RTAC (an arm of AID that was discontinued
a few years ago). In some cases helpful extension information
can be developed and adapted from U.S. and other third
country publications. There is a great deal of information
about general subjects such as care in the use of pesticides
or procedures in soil testing which has already been written.
In other words, why reinvent the wheel when research funds
are so scarce.


4. Credibility

One of the TDY reports and informal discussions have
identified a major problem in extension that can influence
attempts to integrate research and extension. That is,
the power through various means of private farm suppliers
to influence extension personnel without regard to research
recommendations. Credibility and rapport between the two
functions can be influenced by vested private sector interests.
Conflict of interest problems may result from several causes,
one of which is often salary levels. Some countries,and
particularly many states in the U.S., prohibit extension
personnel from working on any basis for a private farm
supply company. To some extent, the problem can be
reduced by strengthening research/extension integration,
cooperation and communication.


C. Administration and Planning

Concern for long run research to develop a base for effective
short-term applied research and extension programs is expressed
by the CENTA administration. Assistance in planning for both
the short and long run is sought particularly through in-service




-10-


training programs and consultation. Of course, effective
planning itself implies a budget commitment to the long run
as well as the short run, which is not presently within the
confines of CENTA's administrative authority.

A recommendation to help develop the long run research base,
and agreed upon by the CENTA and UFLA department leaders, is to
stimulate in forthcoming contracts funding for thesis and
dissertation research. Such a program would complement a UFLA
desire to give more U.S. graduate students opportunities for
research work in developing countries. Regardless of the origin
of the persons involved, the research would be carefully planned
to fit the long-term needs of CENTA such that a cumulative
research base might evolve. An incidental, but important,
component of this program would be the complementary training
role in research methods, etc. that the degree candidate could
assume with designated Salvadorian fifth year students and
CENTA staff.

Further concern by the Director General's office is for
top level administrative assistance to work with program development,
organization, personnel management and evaluation, budgeting
and special funding arrangements. The rapidly increasing
demands placed upon CENTA and the expanding staff and physical
resource base suggests a scale of operation that heavily taxes
the present administration and organization. The need is not a
question of dedication or desire, but one of method and process
to achieve effective and efficient results. We recommend that
the request by CENTA for top level administrative assistance
be given careful consideration and that appropriate assistance be
provided.

Personnel management and evaluation procedures, or lack
thereof, deserves careful consideration to achieve incentives
necessary for a viable and cumulative program development
process. Generally, CENTA needs a better career management
program in order to train and retain excellent employees.
Advancement in rank and salary and an adequate fringe benefit
package are essential elements of a good program. Presently,
for example, publication of research results, or preparation of
farm level extension programs and material is neither required
nor rewarded by the system. The reward system for effective
transmission of research results could include salary, but
often solid research and program support through technicians,
transportation, supplies, etc. would be a strong incentive. We
recommend that a personnel incentive program become an ongoing
professional activity of CENTA.

Finally, the UFLA department chairmen, while risking the
possibility of oversimplification due to insufficient time to
address the problem, consider that the present department and work
group structure in CENTA is viable (Figure 2). Two major
recommendations are:

1. That the structure of the work groups be viewed with
greater flexibility than may be true at present, and





-11-


Figure 2: Organization Chart of the Ministry of Agriculture and CENTA



Ministry of Agriculture

Director of Animal Husbandry --- Director of Economics

Director of Forestry Director of Administrative Services


Director of CENTA ---- Technical Committee

CENTA/AID Project Planning

Field Operations Administration

Documentation Center Personnel

Legal Advice Internal Audit

External Assistance Maintenance
I-------------


Extension Division



Regions
I
Zones
I
Agents and
Home Economists


Research Division

Departments

Plant Pathology -- Entomology

Soils -- Engineering

Agricultural --- Statistics
Economics

Animal Science --- Chemistry



Commodity Work F
Groups '

Example:

Corn

Chai rman

Vice Chairman

Departmental Representatives


Seed Certification
Division


Production
I
Certification
Processing
Processing


I 1
Soils Agricultural
Engineering


Chemistry


I I
Viruses Entomology


Plant
Science


-





-12-


2. That the department and department chairmen be the
ultimate decision-making body.


Work groups can be addressed to specific short or intermediate
term problems. Departments can serve as the budget, professional
and training bases for maintaining a viable research and extension
structure. Agricultural problems are such that some specilaization
is necessary with a training and disciplinary focus best given
to departments. Departments can then respond to needs of work
groups and thereby provide both security and flexibility for
long run institution development. To shift either all the way to
work groups or to departments would not provide a base from which
CENTA could solve short-term problems and meet long-term needs.
Finally, and returning again to personnel management, evaluation
and incentive mechanisms for staff development and program
administration, are generally administered best through departments
with whatever input deemed necessary from the work group.

We would strongly suggest that the mechanism of multidisciplinary
research be kept, but that the orientation be toward individual
projects rather than toward having committees with staff
representatives from each one of the departments on each and
every one of the commodity line committees. This should make for
a more efficient mechanisms which can be more effective in the
long run.

There should be careful consideration given to improving
the evaluation procedure of employees. This point is developed
to a greater extent in the recommendations which were developed
by subcommittees at our Cerro Verde Conference on Tuesday and
Wednesday (Appendix E).

CENTA has a Technical Committee that is now made up of all
of the research heads in CENTA. This Committee appears to be the
major advisory body to CENTA administration. We strongly suggest
that extension be included in this group. This is a major way
in which the different components of extension can truly be
represented in a collaborative effort about the type of research
which is needed.


D. Interinstitutional Relationships

Present emphasis on farming systems research and development,
particularly oriented to small farms, by various international
interregional and domestic agricultural research and development
institutions suggests that coordination and complementarity
among all must be optimized. The role of CENTA within this
context, we believe, is clear.

As a base for rural and agricultural research and development
work in El Salvador, CENTA has the physical plant and potential





-13-


capability, through complementary support, to continue in an
important and established role. AID, through prior investments
in both CENTA's physical and human resource base, has devoted
significant emphasis and financial support to increasing CENTA's
basic and applied research capacity. Institutions such as CATIE
and IFAS can help provide technical support to help achieve
that capacity, but cannot directly assume the research role.
It should be noted that IFAS has small farm experience in several
Central and South American countries and is working with farming
systems research.

CENTA is particularly well suited, due to good direction in
recent programs, to provide an important problem identification
base with small farmers for establishing integrated programs of
research and extension. This integrated process is now beginning
to take form. Assistance is needed to help develop the fundamental
research base, while assisting applied research programs in
becoming closely integrated with extension. Support for this
activity in terms of technical assistance can evolve from CATIE,
particularly where regional systems can be adapted, and a U.S.
university where research and training needs tend to be more
fundamentally oriented. It is very important to emphasize,
however, that a successful regional program is dependent upon
country level institutions such as CENTA in El Salvador for
direct communication and understanding of local farm problems.

Thus, our considered recommendations are:

1. That strength be given to CENTA through various supporting
agencies to further assist the institute in addressing
country-specific research and development needs;

2. That regional institutions and international centers
address needs where intercountry knowledge transfers
will accelerate CENTA's ability to address applied
small farm research and extension needs;

3. That international centers and universities such as
IFAS/UFLA serve as a base for helping develop the long-
term basic research experience necessary for successful
CENTA programs in the future; and

4. That universities provide the necessary base assistance
for training to perform fundamental and applied research
coupled with extension.


IV. Communication Assessment Dr. Milton Morris, Chairman,
Editorial Department, University of Florida

A. Background

Information was obtained through meetings and discussions with
the University of Florida staff in El Salvador, USAID staff and





-13-


capability, through complementary support, to continue in an
important and established role. AID, through prior investments
in both CENTA's physical and human resource base, has devoted
significant emphasis and financial support to increasing CENTA's
basic and applied research capacity. Institutions such as CATIE
and IFAS can help provide technical support to help achieve
that capacity, but cannot directly assume the research role.
It should be noted that IFAS has small farm experience in several
Central and South American countries and is working with farming
systems research.

CENTA is particularly well suited, due to good direction in
recent programs, to provide an important problem identification
base with small farmers for establishing integrated programs of
research and extension. This integrated process is now beginning
to take form. Assistance is needed to help develop the fundamental
research base, while assisting applied research programs in
becoming closely integrated with extension. Support for this
activity in terms of technical assistance can evolve from CATIE,
particularly where regional systems can be adapted, and a U.S.
university where research and training needs tend to be more
fundamentally oriented. It is very important to emphasize,
however, that a successful regional program is dependent upon
country level institutions such as CENTA in El Salvador for
direct communication and understanding of local farm problems.

Thus, our considered recommendations are:

1. That strength be given to CENTA through various supporting
agencies to further assist the institute in addressing
country-specific research and development needs;

2. That regional institutions and international centers
address needs where intercountry knowledge transfers
will accelerate CENTA's ability to address applied
small farm research and extension needs;

3. That international centers and universities such as
IFAS/UFLA serve as a base for helping develop the long-
term basic research experience necessary for successful
CENTA programs in the future; and

4. That universities provide the necessary base assistance
for training to perform fundamental and applied research
coupled with extension.


IV. Communication Assessment Dr. Milton Morris, Chairman,
Editorial Department, University of Florida

A. Background

Information was obtained through meetings and discussions with
the University of Florida staff in El Salvador, USAID staff and





-14-


CENTA research, extension and information staff. All available
CENTA publications were reviewed and visits were made to the
information office, print shop and library. In addition, all
previous reports from the project were reviewed.

Previous studies have pointed out the communications gap
between research and extension in CENTA, the lack of two way
communication to reflect field problems back to researchers and
the fact that researchers have not accepted the responsibility
to translate research findings into extension recommendations.

Previous recommendations have been made for the establishment
of the traditional extension specialist position in CENTA
departments to forge the needed research-extension link.


B. Observations

CENTA has a stated orientation towards the small and medium
farmer. But translating that goal into an action program will
require that more CENTA staff members gain a greater understanding
of the elements and structure of a successful research-extension
program.

In CENTA today, there is an obvious problem related to
communicating technological information from the researchers to
extension workers in an appropriate form. It is clear that more
emphasis must be given to creating a feeling of responsibility and
an action program. This is not to negate the progress made thus
far by CENTA. The administration has taken many of the proper
steps necessary to bring about a successful program. The new
extension organization promises to create a more efficient field
structure for information delivery. The establishment of the
information office with its good printing equipment is also a
very good decision. The basic structure is there and it is
now a question of how to strategically apply limited additional
resources to achieve the greatest educational impact.

Although previous reports have recommended the addition of
subject matter extension specialists in the departments, this
may not be possible in view of budgetary limitations and the
scarcity of trained personnel to step into such positions. Also,
CENTA views the fourteen extension zone chiefs as having a
responsibility to obtain and translate information back to their
extension agents in the field. This is their concept of the
linkage between research and extension, and though the departmental
extension specialist is the tradition in U.S. extension organization,
there is no rule which states that the CENTA approach is invalid.

If we assume that the present CENTA structure is relatively
fixed, then the challenge is to find out how to make it work
more effectively with the addition of only a few more resources.
The small Communications Department will play a key role in
increasing CENTA's ultimate impact in the field. Let us look
now at the existing Communications Department and some of its
problems and prospects.





-15-


There is an obvious problem related to communicating
technological information from researchers to extension workers
to farmers. During the discussion of personnel evaluation, it
became clear that researchers did not feel that publication
productivity played a great part in their merit evaluations,
thus, there is little incentive to produce technical reports,
and less to produce extension type publications. One of the
discussion group recommendations was that publications of all
types should be encouraged and rewarded.

The role of publications and other media is not fully appreciated
for their potential in helping CENTA achieve its end goal, helping
the small and medium farmer. While there certainly exists a
commitment in philosophy, some help is needed to translate this
into practice.

Publications appear to be the only media presently under
consideration for communicating information. The information
staff is relatively new on the job with no formal training in
the field. There is a strong desire to produce something useful
for extension use. The printing equipment is generally adequate,
lacking only a few small items to complete the production process.

A small number of very excellent simplified publications have
been produced, generally well done and in an economical format.
In addition, they have produced a number of technical research
reports which are needed, but have little direct application in
extension work in the field. The communications staff is doing
the best it knows how under the circumstances but it is clear that
they do not have the professional communications training
needed to do the job at hand.

The budget allocation for communications activities is always
a good indicator of the relative importance within an organization.
CENTA is presently suffering from budgetary limitations which
have essentially halted any publication activity and there is
a backlog of manuscripts. An obvious question is whether or
not additional funds would be provided for communications on a
priority basis when budget conditions ease. Choking off the
CENTA information output cuts the fragile linkage between
research and extension. The research responsibility is not
fulfilled until applicable recommendations are available for
the new farmer where he can use them in an understandable form.
It would do little good to add extension specialists to departments
if they also had no strong communications support to produce needed
materials for farmer communication. This concept must be firmly
fixed into the professional philosophy of CENTA.

But an increased communications budget alone will not solve
the major problem of the lack of a communications strategy.
For example, when an extension publication is produced, ten thousand
copies are printed with no firm basis for deciding whether or not
this is actually the quantity needed. Nor is there any feedback
mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of the publications. There
is no resource for work with radio and no expertise in this area.
Production of audio visual materials for extension field work is





-16-


an urgent need yet unfilled.

A communications strategy must be developed as part of a
coordinated effort involving all CENTA components including
extension field workers. The agenda for a strategy plan should
include such questions as:

1. Linkage between research and extension through
training of research staff, regional extension chiefs
and zone chiefs,

2. A work plan for each extension zone listing information
requirements and scheduling activities for coordinated
efforts,

3. The budget for communications including budget control
and priority assignments by zone and by crop,

4. Communications training for information workers in
publications, radio, field days and audio visual
production and use,

5. Communications training for field extension staff, and

6. Research publication requirements.


C. Recommendations and Conclusions

1. CENTA must have a long-term communications advisor to work
with the communications department and the extension,
regional and zone chiefs. This must be an individual
who knows about photography, audio visuals, printing,
radio, television, field days and demonstrations. The
advisor must be able to develop a communications strategy
to effectively focus limited resources where they will
produce results.

2. Short-term assistance must be provided to conduct hands-
on communications training in extension methods. CENTA
staff have received classroom extension training from
other sources, but they report that this is not what is
now needed. They want to be trained in the field to learn
how to do and evaluate extension work.

3. The communications office head should have a two week
visit to an operating information office, possibly in
Colombia, Mexico or Florida. This is essential.

4. The four extension zone chiefs should work for two weeks
with district extension directors in Florida to observe
potentially useful practices and gain a better understanding
of their potential effectiveness.

5. One recommended farm practice should be selected for
demonstration in one extension zone. Using this as a





-17-


pilot zone, research, extension and communications
personnel could use this as a training project to develop
successful practices for all zones. If resources are
limited, it is preferable to concentrate them to learn
how to conduct one successful program for future duplication
rather than diluting resources widely with relatively
little significant impact.

Any attempt to evaluate a program to develop research information
and communicate it to farmers through an extension organization
is affected by the professional orientation of the evaluator. An
agronomist, perhaps, sees the entire problem as one of overcoming
agronomic barriers. The same could be said for an entomologist,
a soils specialist, etc. This same criticism may be leveled at
the communicator as he views an organization.

However, there is one element present in CENTA that helps to
overcome this problem. The agricultural economics work presently
underway is outstanding in its potential to identify the relevant
needs of farmers and reflect these back to research and communications
staff. The information resulting from this work is precisely what
is needed to formulate the communications strategy required. This
is an advantage seldom seen in such projects and will make the job
easier to do.

It is clear that with this resource, and the research information
now available, that the payoff from a relatively small investment
in communications and extension training and production will be
very great. This is the next step to take. There are trained
individuals in the U.S. and Latin America who can provide the
needed assistance. They have the experience and should be used.


V. Agricultural Economics Assessment Dr. James Simpson, Food and
Resource Economics Department, University of Florida

A. Background

The Department of Agricultural Economics has operated in its
present form only two years. From 1973 to 1975 the Department
was oriented toward multiple cropping; in effect its task was
evaluating one research project rather than as a line department.
In January, 1976, the focus shifted to acting as an accounting,
bookkeeping and statistical unit for other departments. Prior
to June, 1977, research was simply designed on a project basis,
the research implemented, experimental results obtained and
recommendations given.

It was not until early in 1977 that, for the first time, the
Department started to function as a legitimate program. With
the arrival of Mr. Tom Walker of the University of Florida staff,
a system of methodology to evaluate ex ante, as well as ex post,
research was set forth. Since that time, great strides have been
made in developing a professional Department of Agricultural
Economics.





-17-


pilot zone, research, extension and communications
personnel could use this as a training project to develop
successful practices for all zones. If resources are
limited, it is preferable to concentrate them to learn
how to conduct one successful program for future duplication
rather than diluting resources widely with relatively
little significant impact.

Any attempt to evaluate a program to develop research information
and communicate it to farmers through an extension organization
is affected by the professional orientation of the evaluator. An
agronomist, perhaps, sees the entire problem as one of overcoming
agronomic barriers. The same could be said for an entomologist,
a soils specialist, etc. This same criticism may be leveled at
the communicator as he views an organization.

However, there is one element present in CENTA that helps to
overcome this problem. The agricultural economics work presently
underway is outstanding in its potential to identify the relevant
needs of farmers and reflect these back to research and communications
staff. The information resulting from this work is precisely what
is needed to formulate the communications strategy required. This
is an advantage seldom seen in such projects and will make the job
easier to do.

It is clear that with this resource, and the research information
now available, that the payoff from a relatively small investment
in communications and extension training and production will be
very great. This is the next step to take. There are trained
individuals in the U.S. and Latin America who can provide the
needed assistance. They have the experience and should be used.


V. Agricultural Economics Assessment Dr. James Simpson, Food and
Resource Economics Department, University of Florida

A. Background

The Department of Agricultural Economics has operated in its
present form only two years. From 1973 to 1975 the Department
was oriented toward multiple cropping; in effect its task was
evaluating one research project rather than as a line department.
In January, 1976, the focus shifted to acting as an accounting,
bookkeeping and statistical unit for other departments. Prior
to June, 1977, research was simply designed on a project basis,
the research implemented, experimental results obtained and
recommendations given.

It was not until early in 1977 that, for the first time, the
Department started to function as a legitimate program. With
the arrival of Mr. Tom Walker of the University of Florida staff,
a system of methodology to evaluate ex ante, as well as ex post,
research was set forth. Since that time, great strides have been
made in developing a professional Department of Agricultural
Economics.





-18-


B. Observations

An outline of the methodology on research priority development
is given as Figure 3. A complete outline of the research methodology
with all the details involved is given as Figure 4.

The focus of the new methodology, which is being initiated this
year, is that the small farmer becomes a more active participant
in the generation and diffusion of agricultural information by
CENTA. This participation extends to research design, implementation
and evaluation.

In the design stage, the researcher is incorporated into a
multidisciplinary farming systems research team whose goal is to
detect factors constraining small farmer's production and incomes.
This baseline information helps to bridge the perception gap
between the farmer and the researcher, and therefore insures that
problems relevant to the small farmer are identified so that priority
is assigned to research that is appropriate to the agronomic and
socio-economic conditions of the small farmer.

The implementation stage features the location of more trials
in the fields of small farmers. In contrast to a more traditional
approach, the bulk of the applied research takes place at the
experiment station. Research implementation does not stop at
field trials, but rather extends into "parcelas de comprobacion
de resultados," which are on-farm tests where the salient research
findings are compared to the technology of the small farmer. On-farm
testing of results is an improvement over the prior CENTA procedure
of directly disseminating research results to extension agents who
established demonstration plots. Under the old system, the
researcher and the extensionist had little information on whether
demonstrated techniques were economically superior to those
traditionally used by the farmer. This uncertainty induced a
widening in the communication gap among the researchers, the
extensionists and the farmers. The recently initiated focus on
on-farm testing of research results should lead to diminished
uncertainty, improved institutional confidence and speedier
adoption of recommended varieties and techniques.

An evaluation of the adoption of the recommendation constitutes
the final step in the new approach. The evaluation estimated the
rate of adoption and analyzes reasons why the recommendation is or is
not being accepted by farmers according to CENTA's expectations.
It is planned that the evaluation of adoption be carried out
jointly by research and extension personnel, and that a brief
impact statement be issued. This information is then channeled
back to the research design stage so that there is an uninterrupted
flow of information on problem identification and evaluation of small
farm technology.

It should be noted that the "new" way of doing research is not
a radical departure from the "old" methodology, but rather
represents a significant point in an evolutionary process where
ideas are taken and gradually assimilated from international and
national agricultural research institutes, universities











Figure 3 Methodology used for Research Priority Development


Experimentation
Results


Adoption

No Adoption Impact


Adoption Impact
Evaluation Evaluation
"I,-
\ ^


Note: Methodology used prior to June, 1977 is given in upper left hand corner within dashed lines.
Current methodology now being implemented is diagram as a whole. A more detailed explanation
is given in the text.


















Figure 4 Proposed Methodology for the Generation and Transfer of Technology

Metodologia Propuesta en la Generacion y Transferencia de Tecnologia para Cada Zona Identificadal


Capacidad de Criterio Analisis
Investigation Estadistico Estadistico
y Agronomico
--, I T,--- -- --


Recursos
Disponibles


Criterio
Economic


Ipropuesto por el Departamento de Economla Agricola


___


Adopci =e ]

i





-21-


and international lending agencies, such as USAID. A long-term
commitment and institutional stability are required for the new
approach to research to yield benefits to small farmers and consumers
among the rural and urban poor.

CENTA has given the Agricultural Economics Department a
leading role in the implementation of the new methodology.
Departmental research on diagnostic or farming systems surveys,
economic analyses of on-farm trials and test plots, evaluation of
the adoption of new techniques and varieties and the elaboration
of impact statements is consistent with the new research emphasis.
It should be stressed that the research activities of the Agricultural
Economics Department comprise only one component in CENTA's new
research methoblogy and that a trained, viable Department does not
guarantee the success of the new methodology. A trained, viable
Agricultural Economics Department does, however, represent
a necessary condition for the on-going success of the new
research emphasis.

In our opinion, this research methodology should definitely
be continued and the approach developed even further. We think
that CENTA is on the way to setting forth new and useful criteria
and methodologies determining research priorities for developing
countries.


C. Recommendations and Conclusions

1. The Department should have a long-term advisor over the
next five years. The staff is eager, but definitely lacks
training to be able to carry out the evaluation and impact
analyses which they are being asked to do.

2. There should be careful consideration given to more long-
term training of all the individuals in the Department.
At least one researcher should be in the U.S. obtaining
a Masters degree at all times. In addition, Department
staff should be receiving as much short-term training as
possible.

3. The Department should develop a system of staff papers
and reports. Staff papers could be reports which are
developed by individuals without formal review by peers
or department heads. Staff reports could be those which
are developed and agreed upon by a committee within the
Department of Agricultural Economics. These two reports
could then be mimeographed in quantities of perhaps one
to two hundred, depending on the amount of circulation
desired.

4. The system of using partial budgeting, which was discussed
with CENTA as a means of improving program development,
should carefully be considered and developed. The UFLA
Food and Resource Economics Department stands ready to
assist in this evaluation procedure.





-22-


5. Technical assistance and Salvadorian Government support to
agricultural economics and CENTA should:

a. Give careful consideration to being sure that CENTA
has sufficient funding at all times for publication
and communication needs.

b. Take careful measures to assist CENTA and the Florida
Contract team in getting qualified people to the U.S.
for longer term training. It appears that a procedure
could be developed through the AID mechanism to ensure
that all identified people do actually go.

c. Recognize that an organization such as CENTA is only
as good as its personnel. There appears to be declining
morale within CENTA due to the lack of long and short-
term training availabilities. The individuals within
CENTA clearly recognize salary limitations, but they,
as well as researchers all over the world, are willing
to work hard and do a good job if they think they are
advancing within their own profession. Training is
vital as it must be recognized that there is always
going to be a turnover of people within CENTA as new
opportunities arise. Therefore, I suggest that greater
emphasis be placed on assuring that there are always
people being trained at the Masters level outside the
country.

d. Continue to support CENTA in their research responsibilities,
but additional emphasis should be given to extension.
In that regard, AID, along with CENTA, should carefully
consider in its entirety the trip report by Dr. J. N.
Busby entitled, "Program Evaluation of CENTA Agency
of Extension," which was the result of his trip February
19 to March 4, 1978.


VI. Soils Assessment Dr. Charles Eno, Soils Department, University
of Florida

A. Background

During the contract period, Soil Science has had a strong
input into the CENTA program. Dr. Calhoun has been Chief of
Party and Soil Scientist stationed in San Salvador. Short-term
consulting visits have been made by:

1. Dr. C. F. Eno Administrative visits and general
consulting on soil science matters.

2. Dr. C. T. Hallmark Consulting on soil classification,
morphology and genesis.

3. Dr. D. H. Hubbell Consulting on legume inoculation and
ASRS project development





-22-


5. Technical assistance and Salvadorian Government support to
agricultural economics and CENTA should:

a. Give careful consideration to being sure that CENTA
has sufficient funding at all times for publication
and communication needs.

b. Take careful measures to assist CENTA and the Florida
Contract team in getting qualified people to the U.S.
for longer term training. It appears that a procedure
could be developed through the AID mechanism to ensure
that all identified people do actually go.

c. Recognize that an organization such as CENTA is only
as good as its personnel. There appears to be declining
morale within CENTA due to the lack of long and short-
term training availabilities. The individuals within
CENTA clearly recognize salary limitations, but they,
as well as researchers all over the world, are willing
to work hard and do a good job if they think they are
advancing within their own profession. Training is
vital as it must be recognized that there is always
going to be a turnover of people within CENTA as new
opportunities arise. Therefore, I suggest that greater
emphasis be placed on assuring that there are always
people being trained at the Masters level outside the
country.

d. Continue to support CENTA in their research responsibilities,
but additional emphasis should be given to extension.
In that regard, AID, along with CENTA, should carefully
consider in its entirety the trip report by Dr. J. N.
Busby entitled, "Program Evaluation of CENTA Agency
of Extension," which was the result of his trip February
19 to March 4, 1978.


VI. Soils Assessment Dr. Charles Eno, Soils Department, University
of Florida

A. Background

During the contract period, Soil Science has had a strong
input into the CENTA program. Dr. Calhoun has been Chief of
Party and Soil Scientist stationed in San Salvador. Short-term
consulting visits have been made by:

1. Dr. C. F. Eno Administrative visits and general
consulting on soil science matters.

2. Dr. C. T. Hallmark Consulting on soil classification,
morphology and genesis.

3. Dr. D. H. Hubbell Consulting on legume inoculation and
ASRS project development





-23-


4. Dr. W. G. Blue Consulting on soil fertility studies
in the laboratory, greenhouse and field.

5. Dr. L. P. Wilding (Texas A & M) Consulting primarily
on the Vertisols and generally on pedology.

The combined efforts of UFLA fauclty have led to:

1. Increased information on the kinds of soils in the
country and their location.

2. Additional data on the chemical, physical, biological,
and morphological properties of the soils.

3. A better understanding of the relationship between soil
properties and crop production (soil fertility
relationships).

4. New ideas concerning the soil testing program.

5. A contract with USDS/SEA/CR CENTA/UFLA on "Establish-
ment of a Bean Inoculation Program Applicable to Small
Farms in Developing Countries."

The program in Soil Science has been a combination of efforts
some of which were carried out in El Salvador and others in
laboratories in Gainesville, the latter often at no cost to the
contract.


B. Observations

The Soil Science Faculty has considered the CENTA Soil Science
Department, its faculty and program in detail and has arrived at
the following observations:

1. The faculty is generally well-informed in soil
science but lacks in specialization. There is a distinct
need for increased depth in soil-chemistry, physics,
microbiology, fertility and pedology.

2. More attention should be given to the solution of
general problems in the soils of the country and less to
outright "service" work to plant production studies
(fertilizer trials). There is a need to develop sound
principles in the soils discipline that will be
applicable to many soils and crops.

3. The faculty needs to receive additional training either
inside or outside the country. There is a general need
in the country for many more scientists with Bachelor
degrees, a large number with Masters and several with
the Doctoral degree. There is also a real need for in-
service training in soil science for county agent types,
et. al.









4. Extension soil science at the Department level is
essentially not formally recognized. An excellent
opportunity for this exists in a reorientation of the
Soil Testing programs; it should be an Extension activity,
supervised by a faculty member with an Extension appoint-
ment.

5. Formal publication of research findings is very limited.
Extension-type information output is essentially non-
existent. Proper data management and publication of
results is not emphasized enough by the department and
CENTA Administration. Research is not complete until
it is published and often in more than one way to meet
audience needs.

6. Soil science faculty actively participate in essentially
all crop production work groups, however, they must also
recognize the need and spend a reasonable part of their
time solving general problems in soils.

7. Continued very close cooperation must exist between
the Soil Science Department and the Department of
Natural Resources and Soil Survey in order to insure
an efficient program, proper classification of the
soils, good data transfer, etc. It is most logical for
CENTA soils faculty to assist in the characterization
part of the survey.

8. More intense, well-planned laboratory, greenhouse and
field studies should be conducted on critical soils
problems in the country. They must be conducted in a
manner such that transfer of findings from one soil
location to another is efficient. Many physical,
chemical and biological problems in soils are closely
related to specific soils and the solutions may apply
to many crops grown on them.

9. The Department needs more trained field and laboratory
assistants as well as supplies and equipment. This
means a larger budget but it also translates into a
more intense program.

10. The Soil Science Department Faculty could benefit
greatly from frequent consulting visits by well-
trained specialists from foreign countries and by short
or long-term overseas trips. These visits and trips
would be for the purpose of obtaining formal or informal
training not only in the theory of soil science and other
fundamental areas but also in data handling, experimental
design, data presentation techniques and scientific
writing.

11. The University of Florida, Soil Science Department
Faculty participating in this contract have benefited
considerably from it; the experience gained will be of
much value to Florida.










C. Recommendations and Conclusions


The following are suggestions for future foreign assistance
programs in El Salvador and improvement of activities in Soil Science:

1. The Soil Science Department should continue to be of
service to the plant production departments and the
work groups. Every effort should be made to maximize
the application of sound principles of soil science.
For example, less time should be spent on routine
fertilizer trials, per se.

2. Future long-term foreign assistance in soils should be
concentrated in the areas of soil fertility and soil
chemistry. Other areas should be developed through the
use of short-term consultants, in-country training, etc.

3. In general, increased emphasis should be placed on the
various specialties in soil science in order to under-
stand better the fundamental principles in this science
that will be more closely related to soil series and,
therefore, apply to crops grown in various areas of the
country rather than to separate crops.

4. Future assistance programs in CENTA should emphasize
extension activities as well as research. The Soil
Testing and Crop Recommendation Program presently in the
Soil Science Department is an activity that should be
utilized fully in the process of transferring crop
production information to the farmer. This program
should be carried out in close cooperation with the plant
production units because recommendations are a function
of soil and crop scientists. The Soil Science Department
should have an extension person added to the faculty to
supervise this program. Soil scientists in general
should be encouraged to prepare extension-type
publications and participate in extension conferences
and meetings. Dual appointments tend to assist research
and extension faculty in recognizing the needs in both
areas and, therefore,in doing their jobs better. Many,
but not necessarily all, meetings, conferences and work
groups should be constituted of representatives from the
research and extension faculties.

5. Cooperative projects, in addition to legume inoculation
and soil characterization, should be developed with IFAS
and other interested institutions.

6. In general, for soil science and other areas:

a. Funding and personnel management should be handled in
the Departments.

b. Discipline-oriented research and extension activities
should be centered in the departments.





-26-


c. Applied plant production activities should be planned
and conducted through the use of work groups, councils,
committees, or any other mechanism that promotes
interdisciplinary team work.

d. Faculty and administration should be directly involved
in much of the planning for budget and research and
extension programs.

e. Administration should make every effort to insure
that the flow of information up and down the
organizational framework is continuous; in other words,
keep all levels informed.

f. CENTA and Departmental administrations should augment
current mechanisms for evaluating programs and the
people involved.

g. Although much emphasis has been placed on "getting
information to the small farmer," let us not forget
all of this depends on "strong research programs
operating through Departments and several Work Groups."

h. CENTA and the Departments, ingeneral, have good programs,
however, like all organizations, they need continued
attention in regard to maintaining the momentum,
efficiency and currentness of programs.


VII. Plant Protection Dr. Fowden G. Maxwell, Entomology and
Nematology Department, University of Florida

A. Background

The department is comprised of four disciplinary areas,
entomology, plant pathology, nematology and virology. There are 16
full time "technicians" of which one is a full time Administrator
(Department Head) and another serves as his assistant. In addition,
UFLA has one long-term advisor, Dr. Keith Andrews (Entomologist),
who has been assigned to the Department since February, 1978.
The Department Head, Ing. Ortez is highly complimentary of Dr.
Andrews. He has integrated himself well in the department with his
research and has been advising the faculty in experimental design,
analysis and interpretation of data as well as conducting periodic
seminars on relevant need areas of the department. He is well
accepted by the faculty of the department.

Ing. Ortez, the department head, is young and relatively
unexperienced in the administration of research and has anxieties
about the department meeting its charge with the current organizational
structure. He is very conscientious, serious and dedicated to
CENTA and his department's mission. He and Dr. Andrews have developed
plans for reorganization of the department so that it can bring
to bear its now limited resources to the most relevant problems
facing plant protection.





-26-


c. Applied plant production activities should be planned
and conducted through the use of work groups, councils,
committees, or any other mechanism that promotes
interdisciplinary team work.

d. Faculty and administration should be directly involved
in much of the planning for budget and research and
extension programs.

e. Administration should make every effort to insure
that the flow of information up and down the
organizational framework is continuous; in other words,
keep all levels informed.

f. CENTA and Departmental administrations should augment
current mechanisms for evaluating programs and the
people involved.

g. Although much emphasis has been placed on "getting
information to the small farmer," let us not forget
all of this depends on "strong research programs
operating through Departments and several Work Groups."

h. CENTA and the Departments, ingeneral, have good programs,
however, like all organizations, they need continued
attention in regard to maintaining the momentum,
efficiency and currentness of programs.


VII. Plant Protection Dr. Fowden G. Maxwell, Entomology and
Nematology Department, University of Florida

A. Background

The department is comprised of four disciplinary areas,
entomology, plant pathology, nematology and virology. There are 16
full time "technicians" of which one is a full time Administrator
(Department Head) and another serves as his assistant. In addition,
UFLA has one long-term advisor, Dr. Keith Andrews (Entomologist),
who has been assigned to the Department since February, 1978.
The Department Head, Ing. Ortez is highly complimentary of Dr.
Andrews. He has integrated himself well in the department with his
research and has been advising the faculty in experimental design,
analysis and interpretation of data as well as conducting periodic
seminars on relevant need areas of the department. He is well
accepted by the faculty of the department.

Ing. Ortez, the department head, is young and relatively
unexperienced in the administration of research and has anxieties
about the department meeting its charge with the current organizational
structure. He is very conscientious, serious and dedicated to
CENTA and his department's mission. He and Dr. Andrews have developed
plans for reorganization of the department so that it can bring
to bear its now limited resources to the most relevant problems
facing plant protection.





-27-


The faculty of the department are young and with limited training
and experience. All that I met and observed appeared to be very
dedicated. Additional training both on the short-term and long-
term is very critical to develop the capability that this
department should have.


B. Observations

Plant protection in a country like El Salvador is extremely
important. Of all the problems facing the small farmers, pests
probably constitute the number one problem and takes annually
a very heavy toll on the crops produced and in postharvest
storage loss. If food production is to be increased to meet the
population increase projected for the country, viable, economical
packages of control technology must be developed and delivered to
the Campesinos.

In order to meet the challenge of plant protection for small
farm systems, the department cannot afford to put heavy reliance
upon a unilateral chemical approach. It must focus heavily on the
development of effective integrated pest management packages that
are relatively simple and can be managed by small farmers with
very little or no education. It is estimated that the Campesinos
of the primary targeted areas for CENTA have a 60% plus illiteracy
rate. The challenge for the department and other disciplines at
CENTA is to develop pest management technology that can be under-
stood and implemented by such clientele.

The need and urgency for pest control geared to the small
farmer is such that the department must seriously contemplate
a major reorientation of its programs. The effort will require
organizing with effective and functional integrated pest management
teams centering around commodity areas. Initially, because of
limited resources both in personnel and material support, the
department must, with the agreement of CENTA Research Directors,
focus primarily on priority commodities such as maize, sorghum,
rice and perhaps beans. A major effort should be in consolidating
what is known in plant protection on these crops from the World's
Literature and research conducted at CENTA. The focus of the
department should be on interdisciplinary adaptive research. In
other words, putting together what is known and testing it extensively
under El Salvador conditions. Additional research to fill voids
must be undertaken by the department.

With the formation of research teams must come meaningful
long range planning. This is probably one of the most serious
deficiencies, not only within the department but of CENTA in
general. Long range planning is essential to set goals and missions,
establish projects, and evaluate programs. Without it, only
year to year activity will occur that may or may not be relevant
to solutions of long range problems. The relation of the department
to other departments is perceived to be good but probably only
in the area of plant breeding is meaningful cooperative work
occurring. This can and will be improved with commodity'orienteted
research teams.





-28-


C. Recommendations and Conclusions

Basic support areas within the department, especially the
Arthropod Collection,should be greatly improved upon. Insect
boxes for the insect cases are completely lacking. Without
these there is no place to store insects collected. IFAS will
continue to assist in development of the mature ard immature
collections of the department but storage boxes and cases
must be obtained by CENTA.

A system of evaluation for researchers based upon research
productivity must be implemented. Without such a system,
publications will continue to lag and morale of researchers
will not be what it should. Evaluations and a system for
rewarding of productive faculty is also very essential in order
to retain more effective and productive faculty.

Another serious deficiency within the department, as well
as CENTA in general, is the current inability to publish
extension information and to communicate effectively with
extension personnel in the field. This will continue to be a
problem until a closer liason is established between research
and extension personnel. Immediately there is a severe need for
a person to work in the department in a communication mode.
This person would work directly with the researchers to develop
needed recommendations for various commodities and to develop
needed publications on pests, especially informational leaflets
on biology and control for major pests.

A serious void that exists within the department and other
departments within CENTA is the lack of extension specialists.
Without the specialists to serve as a "link" between researchers
and the extension agent, problems will continue. The specialists
can provide the needed detailed information to the agent and can
serve to upgrade the agent in pest control through workshops
and periodic contact.

It is recommended that CENTA select one or more of its
promising extension agents that has training or interest in
pest control and send him to the U.S. for training with the
understanding that he would work within the disciplinary
department as an extension specialist. In the interum, short-
term or perhaps even long-term advisors may be provided in this
"specialist" role through a new contract.

If a new contract is negotiated, Ing. Ortez, Dr. Andrews and
myself reached agreement on the need for the following areas
of technical assistance:

1. Continuation of Entomology (IPM) position currently
held by Dr. Andrews for 3 years.

2. Initiation of new Plant Pathology position (IPM) for
3 years.

3. Initiation of new position for Extension Specialist





-29-


(IPM) to work full-time in communication and
delivery of IPM information to small farm systems
(3 years).

4. Initiate a graduate student research position to
work in area of development of pesticide application
techniques for small farm systems (1-2 years).

5. Initiation of applied ecology position, year 2 and 3
of the contract to help develop ecological information
needed for pest management.

The above are listed in order of priority.

Short-term assistance is needed in the following areas:

1. Biological Control.

2. Taxonomy of adults and immatures and general assistance
in setting up collections.

3. Pesticide safety, chemical screening and application
technology.

4. Toxicology, particularly on technique for determining
levels of resistance, etc.

5. Corn specialist (IPM).

6. Rice specialist (IPM).

7. Sorghum specialist (IPM).

8. Plant resistance to insects.

I conducted a two and one half hour seminar on breeding for
resistance to insect pests on Friday, November 3, which was
well received by twenty-seven researchers. An expanded seminar
program would be very beneficial to the department.

The Department of Entomology and Nematology, IFAS/UFLA looks
forward to a continuing close relationship with the Departmeht
of Plant Protection at CENTA and stands ready to assist wherever
possible. The Department at CENTA has a good, young faculty
that shows enthusiasm for its task and with current leadership
and continued short and long-term training should develop into
a strong and viable force in IPM in Central America.


VIII. Plant Sciences Assessment Drs. Coleman Ward and C. B. Hall,
Departments of Agronomy and Vegetable Crops, University of Florida

A. Background

The Plant Science Department is headed by Ing. Romeo Lopbz
Sanchez with whom Dr. John Bieber and Dr. Alfredo Montez provide





-29-


(IPM) to work full-time in communication and
delivery of IPM information to small farm systems
(3 years).

4. Initiate a graduate student research position to
work in area of development of pesticide application
techniques for small farm systems (1-2 years).

5. Initiation of applied ecology position, year 2 and 3
of the contract to help develop ecological information
needed for pest management.

The above are listed in order of priority.

Short-term assistance is needed in the following areas:

1. Biological Control.

2. Taxonomy of adults and immatures and general assistance
in setting up collections.

3. Pesticide safety, chemical screening and application
technology.

4. Toxicology, particularly on technique for determining
levels of resistance, etc.

5. Corn specialist (IPM).

6. Rice specialist (IPM).

7. Sorghum specialist (IPM).

8. Plant resistance to insects.

I conducted a two and one half hour seminar on breeding for
resistance to insect pests on Friday, November 3, which was
well received by twenty-seven researchers. An expanded seminar
program would be very beneficial to the department.

The Department of Entomology and Nematology, IFAS/UFLA looks
forward to a continuing close relationship with the Departmeht
of Plant Protection at CENTA and stands ready to assist wherever
possible. The Department at CENTA has a good, young faculty
that shows enthusiasm for its task and with current leadership
and continued short and long-term training should develop into
a strong and viable force in IPM in Central America.


VIII. Plant Sciences Assessment Drs. Coleman Ward and C. B. Hall,
Departments of Agronomy and Vegetable Crops, University of Florida

A. Background

The Plant Science Department is headed by Ing. Romeo Lopbz
Sanchez with whom Dr. John Bieber and Dr. Alfredo Montez provide





-30-


technical assistance in multiple cropping and vegetable crops,
respectively. This Department has 87 research projects underway
and employs 60 people including:

19 Technicians in Agronomy
4 Technicians in Horticulture (vegetables)
2 Technicians in Fruit Crops
1 Technician in Multiple Cropping
I Technician in Weed Control
(30 career service assistants 3 years college)

Emphasis is given to plant breeding of grain crops with 80%
of the research conducted at the central station. The basic
grain crops corn, rice and sorghum along with sugarcane
and oil crops, receive major emphasis.

The multiple cropping project which Dr. John Bieber has
assisted with has been successful in the research phase. Many
studies using combinations of corn,beans, sorghum and several
vegetables have been conducted. This program has recently
been shifted to a new research phase in which early findings
are validated in the field in conjunction with extension. This
past season, 40 trials with beans, 17 trials with corn and 20
trials with sorghum were conducted in this manner.

Vegetable research is centered around variety evaluation,
cultural practices and nutrition (cooperative with the soils
research program). These activities are appropriately directed
at present to obtain information for small farm utilization.
Experiments are being put out in outlying areas as well as at
CENTA. Thus, various soil types will be used and more information
will be available as to the responses under various conditions.

In addition to the day to day operations, members of the
Plant Science Department work primarily as members of Commodity
Research Teams, i.e., corn, sorghum, etc.


B. Observations

The Plant Science Department, like other departments in
CENTA, has a very dedicated faculty, but if desired progress is
to be made, several needs must be met. The most glaring weakness
is the lack of advanced training. This lack of training is well
recognized by the administration. Most people working with
vegetables had only one vegetable course at the National
University and have received little formal training beyond that
point.

The building facilities are excellent and provide a base for
considerable expansion and development. Presently, equipment
needs are significant for some programs in the Plant Science
Department. Library facilities, too, are quite good, but
holdings of books and journals to support all sciences, including
the plant sciences, are inadequate.





-31-


Much of the plant science research is field production
oriented, but in the near future, some post-harvest work will
be necessary. This is particularly true for vegetables where
various quality maintenance concerns must be addressed such as
canning, cold storage, home preservation and others.


C. Recommendations and Conclusions

1. Training

Higher education is badly needed within the plant
sciences. This education should not only be oriented
to Ms and Ph.D. levels but also to a more technical or
vocational levels, where CENTA personnel might attend
6 months or one year programs designed specifically
to meet the felt needs of CENTA. Examples of the latter
include technical training in several fields such as:
farm management, weed control, seed processing, fruit
processing, etc.

It is recommended that prior short course participation
be evaluated to determine if short courses fulfill the real
needs for technical training of CENTA's personnel and if
they were effective in subject matter training. The suggested
evaluation is important becuase there is a tendency by many
administrators to believe that short courses effectively
substitute for medium term training such as 3-6 months
intensive courses at a technical institute or university.
The evaluation might be undertaken by assessing prior
participants knowledge of subject material offered in short
courses attended by CENTA's personnel.

It is further recommended that CENTA complement technical
training with the establishment of guide lines for the
selection of new technicians in the plant sciences and,
particularly, vegetable crops production. CENTA should require
that incoming technicians from the National and other
universities have applied experience in vegetable crops
production. The current course offered at the National
University is insufficient to fulfill a minimum requirement
for applied experience. CENTA should not only take an
active interest in the training of their own personnel
but should also lobby for higher standards of training
in educational institutions in El Salvador.

In summary, it is recommended that:

a. The head of the department and other key researchers
be given additional training at the M.S. and/or
Ph.D. level. A systematic program should be initiated
to provide for course work to be taken in the U.S.A.
with arrangements for thesis or dissertation research
to be conducted in El Salvador.

b. Medium term education programs involving intensive





-32-


applied research and extension training in technical
areas of the plant sciences are recommended. Subject
matter and location of training should be carefully
evaluated relative to training needs.

c. A series of carefully designed short courses during
the winter months should be developed to provide
specialized training in agronomy and vegetable crops.
These could be provided by faculty from the University
of Florida or CIMMYT, CIAT or other Centers.

2. Research

a. Research findings must be published. There is at
present no systematic plan for publishing research
information. Publications such as bulletins,
circulars and monographs need to be an integral part
of each research project. Publication plans need to
be included when projects are planned, including
type of publication for the varied clientele,
publication budgets and time for publication
preparation and dissemination.

b. The experimental designs used for routine experiments
needs to be improved. Presently, many experiments
are conducted without regard to subsequent statistical
intrepretation. The requirement that all data be
sent through a statistics department may not be a
desirable system. It is no doubt perpetuated by the
Statistical Division (SD) which apparently is under-
staffed as evidenced by the inordinate delays in
analysis of data; many are reported to be 6 months or
longer.

If the faculty in the Plant Sciences could receive more
adequate training, they would have the knowledge to
improve the design of experiments and make routine
analyses of data without involving the SD, except
where needs can be most effectively and efficiently
fulfilled by the SD. Much effort is put into submitting
research plans on a yearly basis to a planning
committee that determines which research plans will
be supported for the next year. In many instances,
there is a lack of continuity in the year to year
plans because new work is initiated without completion
of previous work. Plans are submitted in many cases
before the results of the past year have been analyzed
because of the backlog at the SD.

The immediate purchase of two programmable calculators
for the Plant Science Department is recommended. This
action will permit analysis of routine data by the
individual scientists thereby enabling them to provide
valid material to Extension more rapidly.

If the requirement is maintained that all data must go





-33-


through the Statistical Division, then it will
need more personnel with better training.

c. A project system where projects are of 3 to 5 years
in duration would be advantageous. A planning
committee would decide which projects were acceptable.
The researcher would prepare yearly progress reports
and work plans for submission to his Department Head.

d. The current Plant Science research program needs to
shift its emphasis from corn and field beans to food
legumes and vegetables. The major thrusts should
be to provide small farmers with better nutrition
and more opportunities to rise above subsistence
agriculture. Cropping systems including more
vegetables, seed legumes and sorghum need to be
developed.

In the next decade, research and extension should be
directed toward providing the small farmer with
technology to produce a series of crops which will:
(1) provide their families with a more balanced
diet and (2) produce quality crops which command a
premium price for local or export trade.

In regard to the former, the families have three
basic needs in nutrition: protein, vitamins and
energy. These can most readily be met by the following
crop groups:

(1) Protein (2) Vitamins (3) Energy

Beans Vegetables Corn
Cowpeas Seed legumes Sorghum
Peanuts (Grains) Seed legumes
Pigeon peas
Soybeans
(Grains)

More research is needed on sorghum, cowpeas, peanuts
and soybeans. These crops are all well adapted to
more marginal land as compared to corn, cane and
cotton. If El Salvador is to meet its increasing
food needs, one of two things must occur: either
bring into use more marginal land not now in
cultivation, or shift the more productive lands now
in cotton and corn to higher value food crops.

Peanuts offer much potential because, (1) they can be
grown throughout El Salvador, (2) they are an excellent
source of energy and protein, (3) they are easily stored
on the farm and (4) they can be chopped or ground and
blended with other foods thereby enhancing flavor and
protein content. Soybeans can also be used in a
similar manner, although they are not as well adapted to
the poorer soils.





-34-


Sorghum is a second crop which should be grown
in increasing amounts. It is a good substitute
for corn. It should be used on non-irrigated areas
as it is more drought tolerant and requires less
nitrogen than corn. Many new varieties are available
from the U.S.A. which have improved flavor, a better
amino acid balance, more desirable color, superior
digestibility and higher yield potential.

e. Weed control systems should be carefully evaluated.
The use of environmentally safe herbicides needs to
be increased to aid in weed control with simultaneous
reduction in erosion through planting of crops into
existing crop residues. The timely use of herbicides
will reduce labor costs, increase yields and reduce
weeds which harbor insects and diseases of the desirable
crops. Equipment for applying herbicides specifically
designed for ease of calibration and small farm use
is needed. A special program to assist the small
farmer in the purchase of a small (3 gallon) knap-
sack sprayer is needed. Such a sprayer could be used
to apply all pesticides. Currently, many insecticides
are being applied as dusts at excessive rates because
the farmer has no equipment for spraying pesticides.

Weed control research should be an integral part of
an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program.

f. Forage Crops Most small farmers own 1 to 5 head of
beef animals. The chief diet of these cattle is crop
residues and grass scavenged from roadsides. Millets
should be very useful as both human and livestock
feed during the dry season. There is also a need to
introduce or develop native legumes for pastures.

g. Suggested UF faculty for technical assistance for the
plant science research programs:

1) Peanuts

A) Peanut breeding and selection Dr. David Knauft

B) Peanut management and cultural practice -
Dr. Dan Gorbet

2) Soybeans

A) Breeding and variety testing Dr. Kuell Hinson

B) Soybean management Dr. Brian Bailey

3) Cowpeas, mungbeans, pigeon peas Dr. Gordon Prine

4) Sorghum breeding and management Dr. Dan Gorbet






-35-


5) Weed control Dr. Wayne Currey

6) Forage Crops

A) Grasses Dr. William Ocumpaugh

B) Legumes Dr. K. H. Quesenberry

7) Vegetable Crops Dr. Ray William, Dr. Sal Locasio,
Dr. Dale Thompson

3. Seed Technology and Certification

CENTA has recently made Seed Certification a major
division of the program. This was a much needed program and
is vital to future success of the increased food production in
El Salvador.

Currently, about 55% of crop seed planted in El Salvador
are certified and the program is expanding. The government has
developed storage facilities for 25,000 hundred weight of
certified seed. The major crops under improvement at present
are corn, rice, beans and sorghum.

It is recommended that the program be expanded to include
equipment and facilities for drying and processing seeds.
Technical assistance with the total seed program should be
secured, and it is suggested that full time technical support
be obtained for one season followed by backstopping as
needed to augment the program.

4. Extension Programs in Plant Science

The Extension Program in CENTA was analyzed recently by
Dr. J. N. Busby (TDY-2/19/78-3/4/78) so this report will
include only recommendations for the Plant Science program.

The basic problem alluded to by both research and extension
faculty is the lack of adequate communication between research
and extension. The present arrangement in Extension appears
to be similar to those of IFAS/UFLA except CENTA does not
have specialists to interact with the respective research
counterpart as is true in many states of the U.S.

The four Regional Chiefs are analogous to IFAS/UFLA
District Agents and the 14 zone chiefs are analogous to IFAS/
UFLA county directors. These positions demand that much of
their energy be spent in administration of the office so they
cannot serve as specialists and training officers. Some
modification should be considered, but this need not be
modeled after the Florida system.

Recommendations for the extension program include:

a. Provision for additional training in Extension administration
and communications as well as selected commodity





-36-


orientations for the Area and Zone Chiefs. As soon
as practical, these faculty should be sent to UFLA-
Gainesville for two weeks of intensive training in
Extension methodology and to observe research-
extension interaction at the department, area and
county levels.

b. Provision for, as soon as possible, "in service
training" to all extension workers. Major emphasis
would be placed on providing agents with the latest
research findings useful to small farmers. The
training sessions would be developed jointly by the
research department chairmen and Extension Area Chiefs.
These special training programs should be carried out
twice during the first year then annually thereafter.

c. Establishing a full time extension leader position
to provide technical advisory assistance for a period
of two years. This person would be supported by
backstop extension specialists in Agronomy and Vegetable
Crops.

d. Intensive applied training programs of 6 months duration
with about 10% of the Agronomos trained at each
recurring session. Basically, this would be hands-on
farming experiences to acquaint the young graduates
with the mechanics of farming.

e. Inclusion of an extension faculty member as an ex-
officio member of each commodity research group (team).
In this manner they can provide input into the research
program and also be aware of the research planned for
each year.

f. Backstopping and/or short-term assistance in Extension
can be provided by the Agronomy and Vegetable Crops
Departments as follows:

1) Soybeans and Peanuts Dr. E.B. Whitty, Dr. B. A. Bailey

2) Grains and Forages Mr. D. W. Jones

3) Weed Control Dr. D. H. Teem

4) Vegetables Dr. Ray William

g. The Home Economics Extension faculty needs training
support. Of particular interest in the plant science
area is assistance with extension training and materials
for the home garden program.

























APPENDIX A










UFLA HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE

IN RESEARCH AND TECHNICAL

ASSISTANCE CONTRACTS







AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Contracts with
The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida


Objective:
To determine which crops can be grown in substitution for coca in
the Yungas and Chapare regions at no or the least appreciable loss
in income to the grower from that which he would have received
from production and sale of coca for legal use.


Staffing :


10.5 man years of long-term assignments in Agronomy,
Agricultural Economics, Plant Pathology, Cropping
Systems, Soils, Communication/Extension, Citrus,
Coffee.
23 short-term scientists.


Objective:
Nitrogen Fixation by grasses after inoculation with spirillum
lipoferum in field trials.

Staffing: 8 short-term agronomists and others in related nitrogen
fixation fields.


Objective:
To determine the essential mineral supplements for grazing animal
diets and to increase the efficiency of lesser developed countries'
meat and milk production systems with resultant increase in quality and
quantity of individual diets and a subsequent increase in employment and
income levels.


Staffing: 10 short-term animal scientists.


Objective:
To provide for supportive professional, technical and administrative
services to be extended to the institution in accordance with the
objectives of its National Agricultural Research Program and in
particular to the National Cattle Project.


Staffing:


8 man-years on long-term assignments in Animal Science
and Agronomy.
9 short-term scientists.


Objective:
To strengthen the capabilities in ruminant livestock development
programs for the tropics with emphasis on nutrition and forage
production and use.

Staffing: 22 short-term animal scientist and others in related fields.


*Staffing is through 1977. Short-term refers to one to about 4-week assignments.


BOLIVIA
1976-


NITROGEN
FIXATION
1975-


MINERAL
RESEARCH
1974-


BRAZ I L
1973-1975


211-D
1972-1977









EL SALVADOR
1969-


Objective:
To bring higher incomes and living standards for small and medium
farmers in El Salvadors. This objective is to be attained through
increased production and improved marketing of basic grains and
vegetables; the foregoing to be accomplished by providing assistance
to the personnel of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG)
and the National Center for Technical Agriculture (CENTA), the
research, extension and education agency of MAG.


Staffing:


VIETNAM
1969-1975


30 man-years on long-term assignments in Soils, Multiple
Crops, Vegetable Crops, Extension Plant Pathology,
Agricultural Economics, Agronomy, Agricultural Education.
64 short-term scientists.


Objective:
To provide technical advice and assistance to the National Agricultural
Center to strengthen the Center and to insure basic economic and
rural development in Vietnam.


Staffing:


PANAMA
1971


NIGER
1972


GUYANA
1968-1973


16 man-years on long-term assignments in Vegetable Crops,
Dairy Science, Forestry, Soils, Animal Science.
19 short-term scientists.


Objective:
To assist the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock to evaluate the
present agricultural research and higher agricultural education program
in Panama and make recommendations for a five-year program designed
to accelerate the development of new farm level technology in Panama
and to improve the related educational function to the University of
Panama School of Agriculture.

Staffing: 3 short-term agricultural research and education advisors.


Objective:
To study and recommend requirements for the construction of a
refrigerated slaughter house in Maradi, Niger. The study will include
economic justification and technical designs for plant and equipment.

Staffing: 3 short-term specialists in Agricultural Engineering.
Agricultural Economics and Meats.

Objective:
To provide Technical Assistance to the Government of Guyana in its
efforts to diversify and develop its agricultural economy.

Staffing: 3 man-years on long-term assignments in Agricultural
Economics and Vegetable Crops.
47 short-term scientists.









RURAL
ELECTRI-
FICATION
1972-1973



FEED
COMPOSITION
1970-1972


COSTA RICA
1965-1970


1970-1972


1973-1975


JAMAICA
1966-69


1976-


Objective:
To assist AID in its efforts to determine the social, cultural and
economic effects of rural electrification in areas of Latin America.

Staffing: 4 short-term Agricultural Economists andSociologists.


Objective:
To find low cost feeds -- (1) survey of existing data and analysis
of feeds, fodder and agricultural by-products; (2) analysis of
other available feeds; and (3) development of cattle feeding trails
and systems utilizing indigenous feeds to fill in the gaps of
existing research.

Staffing: 9 short-term Animal Scientists


1) Objective:
To provide assistance to the government of Costa Rica for Establishing
a Technical School of Agriculture, continuation of the corn and bean
campaigns, improvement of pasture grasses, coffee diversification and
trial programs for a variety of crops.

Staffing: 10 man-years in Agricultural Economics, Agronomy, Agricultural
Education.

2) Objective:
To provide technical advice and assistance to the Government of Costa
Rica in implementation of an Agricultural Technical School and
establishment of a Food Technology Laboratory.


Staffing: 2 man-years in Agricultural Education.
1 short-term in Food Science.

3) Objective:
To establish a Food Technology Laboratory.

Staffing: 1 short-term in Food Science.


1) Objective:
To provide assistance to the Government of Jamaica in developing
extension programs in dairy science and agricultural engineering.

Staffing: 3 man-years in Agricultural Engineering, Dairy Science.
4 short-term scientists.

2) Objective:
To provide research expertise on the lethal yellowing of coconut
disease, its origin, and possible control measures."


Staffing: 2 man-years in Entomology.


* This disease is a serious problem in Florida











CONTRACTS FROM SOURCES


OTHER THAN AID


Country or
Project


Objectives


NSF National
Science Founda-
tion

Ecuador I
National Ag
Res: Inst.
(INIAP)

Ecuador II
Int. Bank for
Reconstruction
& Development -
World Bank

International
Peanut
Rockefeller
Foundation


Honduras
Banco Nacional
de Fomento


Guatemala
El Salto, Co.


CIP Inter-
national Potatoe
Center -
Rockefeller
Foundation


Development of a substained yield tropical
Agro-Ecosystem in the upper Amazone Basin.


To provide Technical Assistance to INIAP
in its efforts to diversify, improve its
staff and develop more rapidly its various
research programs.

To provide international technical services
to INIAP to strengthen its research and
training facilities in support of the devel-
opment of the livestock industries of Ecuador
and to improve its domestic staff.

To work towards a systematic, world-wide
variety development program and to
develop new peanut varieties with wide
soil and climatic adaptation and broad
disease and pest resistance.

To provide the services of technical
advisory personnel in Honduras and
supporting services to assist the
BNF in swine nutrition and production,
computer formulation of economic feed
rations for swine, field tests on swine
nutrition and setting up of a port pro-
cessing plant.

To provide technical assistance to El
Salto in the areas of sugar cane and
sugar cane production.

Define Socio-Economic problems in terms
of transferring and adopting technology
faced by potato farmers in developing
countries.


Years


1976 1977





1970 1977


1977 -





1976 -








1976


1976 1977




1975 1978




















APPENDIX B















ITINERARY:

UFLA ADMINISTRATIVE

BACKSTOP/REVIEW TEAM








ITINERARY:


UFLA ADMINISTRATIVE BACKSTOP TEAM

OCTOBER 29-31, 1978


Team members:


Drs. K. R. Tefertiller, C. F. Eno, C. B. Hall,
F. G. Maxwell, M. E. Morris, J. R. Simpson,
C. Y. Ward, C. 0. Andrew


Individuals


6 pm Team
8-10 pm Team


8-9 am


Team


9am-12pm Department
Chairmen


10:30-11am


K.R. Tefertiller
C.O. Andrew
F.G. Calhoun


1l-l:30pm


2-3pm


l-3:30pm Department
Chairmen

4-4:30pm Team
F.G. Calhoun
D.H. Hubbell


4:30-5:30
pm


8-10pm


9am


K.R. Tefertiller


Team
UFLA Advisors


K.R. Tefertiller


Arrival in El Salvador
Briefing by UFLA contract team
at Ramada Inn

Briefing by CENTA administration -
Ing. Mario Apontes & Ing. Roberto
Vega Lara

Separate department meetings
including UFLA contract advisor,
CENTA department chairman, and
IFAS department chairmen

Informal meeting at Min. of Ag.
with CENTA Dir. Gen. Rodulfo CristalE


Meeting and lunch with Lic. Ricardo
Mata, Ministry of Agriculture

Meeting with J.R. Moffet and C.
Breitenbach, AID/RDD

Touring CENTA facilities


Signing of BeanRhizobium Project
by Dr. K.R. Tefertiller and Dir.
Gen. Cristales assisted by Directors
Apontes and Vega Lara

Meeting with Dir. Gen. Cristales


Briefing by K.R. Tefertiller concern
Min. and AID meetings and general
discussion

Departure from El Salvador


Team To hotel for retreat


Date


Time


Oct. 29



Oct. 30


Activity


Oct. 31


7-9am








Individuals


Team
CENTA
AID
UFLA*


Activity


Opening remarks on
Rodulfo Cristales,
General, CENTA


Remarks concerning
and interests, Sr.
USAID/EI Salvador


CENTA programs,
Director



USAID programs
Ruis, Director


10-10:15
am



10:45am-12
pm
and
1:30-2:30
pm

3-6pm

8-9:30pm

8:30-10:30
am

1:30-3pm


UFLA Commitment: past, present &
future Chris 0. Andrew, Asst.
Director, International Programs,
IFAS/UFLA

Department chairmen counterpart
summary reports of evaluation
of status and needs in each
program.


SI


Workshop sections

Workshop sections


Report on Extension programs
and needs led by Perez Guerra

Workshop group reports:
1) Evaluation, 2) Administration
and Organization, 3) Integration
of Research and Extension Programs
4) Development of Programs.

Final comments and closing.


"See list that follows of workshop participants.


Time


Date


Oct. 31


9:30-9:45
am



9:45-10am


Nov. 1








Time


Individuals


7-llpm


Nov. 2


2-5pm


Team





Andrew
Calhoun
Morris


9-11am Maxwell


10am-12
pm

9-10am


Morris


Team


10am-12 Ward
pm Eno
Simpson
Hall
Andrew


2-4pm


Team


Date

Nov. 1


Return to Gainesville


Activity

Reception for CENTA, AID,
Ministry of Agriculture, UFLA
given by UFLA/Gainesville

General report preparation and
and discussions by team members;
and Professional backstop meetings
among UFLA department chairmen
and respective UFLA advisors

Discussion with AID (Moffet and
Breitenbach) concerning contract
amendment and possible funding
of communication programs.

Seminar on plant protection for
CENTA staff

Assessment of CENTA communication
facilities and needs

Final preparation for report to A

CENTA Department Heads, UFLA
Advisors and R. Vega Lara discuss<
administration procedures for
departments and commodity work
groups with a brief final report
to Ing. R. Cristales

Final report to AID (Ruis, Moffet
and Breitenbach) in presence of
CENTA representatives (Cristales,
Vega Lara)


Nov. 3


Nov. 4 9am


Team









LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AT THE SEMINAR ON THE REVISION AND PLANNING
OF CENTA'S TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NEEDS OCTOBER 31-NOVEMBER 1/78



Ing. Aldelmo Ruiz, Director USAID/El Salvador

Mr. Robert Muffet, Rural Development Officer/USAID

Dr. Charles Breitenbach, Project Manager, RDD/USAID


CENTA

Ing. Rodolfo Cristales, Director General CENTA

Ing. Mario Apontes, Subdirector General CENTA

Ing. Roberto Vega Lara, Head Research Division

Ing. Marco Antonio Escobar, Assistant Head-Research Division

Ing. Jose Roberto Salazar, Head-Soils Department

Ing. Hernan Ever Amaya, Head-Ag. Economics Department

Ing. Romeo L6pez S5nchez, Head-Plant Sciences Department

Ing. Jos6 Alfonso Ortfz, Head-Plant Protection Department

Ing. Moris Ivan Alfaro Galan, Head-Institutional Planning Department

Agr. Jose P6rez Guerra, Head Extension Division

Ing. Mauricio Manzano, Head-Regional Operations-Extension

Ing. Fredy Ruiz Abarca, Regional Chief-Extension

Ing. Vfctor Vasquez, Regional Chief-Extension

Ing. Rodolfo Ernesto Moran, Regional Chief-Extension

Ing. Ovidio Bruno Guadr6n, Regional Chief-Extension



MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK

Lcdo. Alfonso Escobar Chevez, Sectorial Planning Office In charge of
International Cooperation



UFLA EL SALVADOR

Dr. Frank Calhoun, Chief of Party and Soil Science Advisor









Dr. Keith Andrews, Plant Protection Advisor

Dr. John Bieber, Multiple Crop Systems Advisor

Dr. Alredo Montes, Vegetable Crops

Dr. Tom Walker, Agricultural Economics Advisor

Sra. Maritza de Clark, Secretary



UFLA GAINESVILLE

Dr. Chris Andrew, Assistant Director International Programs

Dr. Charles Eno, Chairman Soil Science Department

Dr. Chet Hall, Acting Chairman Vegetable Crops Department

Dr. Fowden Maxwell, Chairman Entomology and Nematology Department

Dr. Milton Morris, Chairman Editorial

Dr. Coleman Ward, Chairman Agronomy Department

Dr. James Simpson, Backstop Food and Resource Economics Department
(Representing Dr. Leo Polopolus, Chairman FRED)




















APPENDIX C















UFLA PERSONNEL COMMITMENTS TO THE

CENTA/UFLA/AID CONTRACT









LONG TERM PERSONNEL


EL SALVADOR 1969 to Present


Harry Pierce Agricultural Education Advisor and Chief of Party
Aug., 1969 July 1973

C.W. Reaves Animal Science Advisor
Jan., 1972 Feb., 1974

Peter E. Hildebrand Ag. Econ. Advisor
March, 1972 Nov., 1974

George Beinhart Agronomic Advisor
Oct. 1972 1974

D. Gull Vegetable Crops Advisor and Chief of Party
June, 1973 June, 1975

Frank Calhoun Soils Science Advisor and Chief of Party
July, 1975 -

Tom Burton Extension Advisor
June, 1975 June, 1977

John Bieber Ag. Econ. Advisor
Nov., 1974 June, 1976

Agronomic and Multiple Crop Advisor
July, 1976 -

Benjamin Waite Plant Pathology Advisor
Sept., 1973 Jan., 1977

Jesus Velez-Fortufo Vegetable Crops Advisor
Aug., 1975 Aug., 1977

Thomas Walker Ag. Econ. Advisor
June, 1977 -

Alfredo Montes Vegetable Crops Advisor
Feb., 1978 -

Keith Andrews Entomology and Nematology Advisor
Feb., 1978 -







SHORT TERM PERSONNEL


1969 Harry Pearce

1970 S.E. Malo
V.G. Perry
Rex L. Smith
R.H. Harms
J.M. Wing
J.E. McCaleb
G.M. Prine
R.L. Smith
L.C. Kuitert
C.R. Miller
C.J. Rogers
R:V. Allison


1971 W.C. Christiansen
3LR.,iGreenman
G.B. Prine
J.C. Glenn
C.B. Ammerman
H.D. Wallace
F.W. Bazer
L.C. Kuitert
V.G. Perry
R.A. Dennison
C.J. Wilcox
W.W. Thatcher
C.R. Miller
L.H. Purdy
E. Ford
W..McCall
A.P. Lorz
J.E. Bertrand
R.L. Smith
J.E. McCaleb
A.C. Tarjan
S.E. Malo
L.E. Tergas


C.F.
G.A.
D.E.
E.T.
K.R.
H.H.
H.N.

1972 D.C.
G.O.
C.O.
A.A.
W.W.


Education Specialist

Horticulturalist
Nematologist
Agronomist
Poultry Scientist
Dairy Scientist
Agronomist
Agronomist
Agronomist
Entomologist
Plant Pathologist
Agricultural Engineer
Fiber Technology Emeritus

Animal Scientist
Agricultural Economist
Animal Scientist
Animal Scientist
Animal Scientist
Animal Scientist
Animal Scientist
Entomologist
Nematologist
Food Scientist
Dairy Scientist
Dairy Scientist
Plant Pathologist
Plant Pathologist
Botanist
Soil Scientist
Vegetable Crop Scientist
Animal Scientist
Agronomist
Agronomist
Nematologist
Horticu 1turist
Consultant on Pastures &
Forages
Soils Research
Vegetable Crops Research
Agronomy Research
Agricultural Engineering Res.
Agricultural Economics Res.
Dairy ScicEce Research
Consultant on Dairy Processing
Equipment
Agronomy Research
Agronomy Research
Agricultural Economist
Plant Pathologist
Dairy Scientist


Eno
Marlow
McCloud
Smerdon
Tefertiller
Van Horn
Dunlap

McCloud
Mott
Andrew
Cook
Thatcher







1972 D.C.
G.O.
C.O.
A.A.
W.W.
A.P.
S.E.

1973 S.E.
C.O.
C.J.
D.D.
L.H.
M.E.


McCloud
Mott
Andrew
Cook
Thatcher
Lorz
Malo


Malo
Andrew
Rogers
Gull
Purdy
Marvel


1974 LrtPolopolus
C.O. Andrew
J.F. Kelly
L.H. Purdy
C.J. Rogers
iK. Hinson
M.E. Marvel

1975 V.F. Nettles
C.Y. Ward
C.O. Andrew
G. Freeman
R. Baranowski
Leo Polopolus
E.S. Horner
D. Bu-ck


1976 C.O. Andrew
E.S. Horner
D.H. Hubbel
L.H. Purdy

1977 C.O. Andrew
R.A. Dennison
C. Eno
L.C. Kuitert
R. Sailer

1978 C.O. Andrew
W.G. Blue
J.N. Busby
C. Eno
D. Habeck
C.B. Hall
D. Hubbell
C.T. Hallmark
F.G. Maxwell
G. Prine
J. Simpson


Agronomy Research
Agronomy Research
Agricultural Research
Plant Pathologist
Dairy Scientist
Vegetable Crop Specialist
Horticulturist

Horticulturist
Agricultural Economist
Agricultural Engineer
Vegetable Crop Specialist
Plant Pathologist
Administrative Review

Food and Resource Economics
Food and Resource Economics
Vegetable Crops
Plant Pathologist
Agricultural Engineer
Agronomist
Administrative Review

Vegetable Crops Specialist
Agronomist
Agricultural Economist
Construction Specialist
Fruit Crops Specialist
Agricultural Economist
Agronomist
Media Specialist


Agricultural Economist
Agriculturalist
Soils Scientist
Plant Pathologist

Agricultural Economist
Chairman of Food Science
Chairman of Soils Science
Entomologist
Entomologist


Agricultural Economist, Asst. Direct
Soils Scientist
Extension, Dean Emeritus
Chairman of Soils Science
Entomologist
chairman Vegetable Crop Specialist
Soils Scientist
Soils Scientist
Chairman of Entomology and Nematolog
Agronomist
Agricultural Economist









1978 Cont..


K.R. Tefertiller
C.Y. Ward
L.P. Wilding
R.D. William


Vice-President of Agric. Affairs
Chairman of Agronomy
Soils and Crop Scientist
Vegetable Crops Specialist









BACKSTOP PERSONNEL
CENTA/UFLA/AID
CONTRACT
(As of 1978-79)


Position


Soils


Cropping
Systems

Agricultural
Economics


Pest
Management


Vegetable
Crops


Communication/
Extension

Administration


Advisor in
Residence

Frank Calhoun


John Bieber


Tom Walker



Keith Andrews



Alfredo Montes


Professional
Backstop

Charles Eno
Bill Blue


Gordon Prine


Jim Simpson
Chris Andrew


Wil Whitcomb
Reece Sailor


Ray William


Milt Morris


Frank Calhoun
Chief of Party


Administrative
Backstop

Charles Eno


Coleman Ward


Leo Polopolus



Fowden Maxwell



Chet Hall
Jack Kelly


Milt Morris

Ken Tefertiller
Hugh Popenoe
Chris Andrew























APPENDIX D













CERRO VERDE SEMINAR NOTES








GENERAL NOTES TAKEN AT THE CENTA/UFLA/AID SEMINAR AT CERRO VERDE

October 31 November 1, 1978


Tuesday afternoon, October 31

RUIZ: Three questions for Dr. Hall about his talk: (a) What has been
your experience with home gardens, (b) How could this be applied in El
Salvador and (c) Do you know of any international organization involved
in this type of program?

HALL: In the Vegetable Crops Department, UFLA, a person works full time
with home gardens; that they have periodical publications on the subject
for the Extension Agents, as well as TVand radio programs; they work through
the 4-C clubs; they also have a program of home gardens in urban areas
of low income. He was not aware of programs in international organizations.

MORAN: The local extension programs for Rural Youth and 4-C are not
efficient because of the methodology used. The home garden programs
described by Dr. Hall would be very useful in the country. Some Peace
Corps Volunteers are helping with these types of programs.

RUIZ: Asked Dr. Ward for further explanation in regard to weed control.

WARD: More research is needed in El Salvador; more economically feasible
herbicides must be tested. There has been assistance from Oregon
State University in the past, but according to Lopez Sanchez more
studies are needed on the use of new products. Programs have been developed
in Florida for various crops.

VEGA LARA: Gave a briefing about the OSU regional and local weed
control programs. There are many local farmers who are using herbicides
in rice, cotton, corn and coffee.

RUIZ: AID is bringing an expert from California to work with OIRSA
in insecticides and herbicides in Central America. AID is very much
interested in agricultural development, but that the institutions
should be careful about the development of programs.

MORAN: The need to integrate extension and research has been repeatedly
mentioned. Such a barrier is present in CENTA, how can it be overcome?

WARD: In the Department of Agronomy, UFLA, there are persons working
half of the time in extension and half in research, or they divide their
time according to the different needs; the important objective is to
distribute their time effectively. Their salaries are covered both by
extension and by research; this is taken care of at the beginning of
the year by the accounting office.

BREITENBACH: Could this be done in CENTA?


CRISTALES: Not at present.








BREITENBACH: I think that we should not be looking for answers in UFLA.

ANDREW: We are not here to try to impose our own methods, we are just
informing you about our organization and would like to hear about
your problems and needs.

HALL: When he arrived in Florida in 1950, the research and extension
were separated, as in CENTA; then, each department started accepting
responsibility for extension, research and teaching.

CRISTALES: At present the budgets are separated, but from the
beginning, we have been interested in integrating the three disciplines
and are going through a similar integration process. We worked separately
for 20 years and are now trying to join everything and put it under one
budget and have the personnel in each department give time to research,
teaching and extension. We are interested in learning about the UFLA
systems to improve our own according to the needs of our country. We
must identify our problems so that the small farmers may receive greater
benefits from a joint research-extension effort and must include better
alternatives to serve them in a better way.

MORRIS: Suggested that CENTA should state its problems and that if
the members of this seminar would work in small groups, more could be
accomplished.

VEGA LARA: Said that opinions should be heard first and that they should
not try to come to final conclusions too quickly.

APONTES: Florida is not trying to impose their ideas on us; the objective
is that together we should try to find new systems to solve our problems.

SIMPSON: It is known that the problem of integration between extension
and research is general in Latin America, we are aware that the same
problem exists here and should try to find an answer to it.

VEGA LARA: It has been agreed to work in small groups, as follows:
1. Administration and organization: Apontes; Andrew; Calhoun; Amaya;
Vega Lara. 2. Programs Development: Maxwell; Breitenbach; Moran;
Andrews; Bieber; Hall. 3. Integration of Extension-Research Programs:
Ward; Eno; Escobar Marco A.; Escobar; Ivan; Alfaro; Salazar; Clark
(translator). 4. Programs Evaluation: Morris; Simpson; Walker;
Lopez Sanchez; Ortiz.

APONTES: What would be the working methodology of these groups?

VEGA LARA: According to the problems of CENTA and of the country, find
possible solutions and make recommendations.

ANDREW: It would help the advisors to know about research priorities:
adaptive, basic and applied, to help the small farmers; and priorities
by crop and weak work areas.

VEGA LARA: In previous years, there had not been a general planning
and much was done in a personal way; there was no continuity when









someone left. In 1972-73 there was an attempt to integrate the work
groups, but there were problems due to lack of personnel. New personnel
was hired in 1974, the work groups were established, as well as the
Technical Committee. In 1976, the Ag. Economics Department started
making surveys to identify the needs of the small farmer. With the
diagnosis of the problems and through research-extension efforts and
credit mechanisms, we hope that they will be solved.

WARD: Lopez Sanchez said that more importance should be given to legume
crops, but if so, like with soybeans, what crops would be deemphasized
to do this?

LOPEZ SANCHEZ: The main limiting problem already mentioned, is the
land shortage, and excessive population; therefore we must find alternatives
to solve food needs. Soybeans are very promising, but we know it will
be difficult to compete with cotton for lands. Some breeding work has
already been done with soybeans. The bean inoculation program that
will soon be started with Dr. Hubbell from UFLA could also provide
information for soybeans.

APONTES: We should try to make an analysis of the problems of CENTA
and of the country according to the Government's Five Year Plan, which
is divided into 4 priorities: 1) Production of basic food. 2) Integrated
development of the Northern area. 3) Establishment of agricultural
enterprises. 4) Exploitation of agricultural crops. This Five Year
Plan has 51 programs, 9 of which are under the responsibility of MAG
and from these 9, four are under CENTA's responsibility.

ORTIZ: Does it mean that the small groups should work under these
four general priorities?

SALAZAR: It may seem that we had left out these four priorities or goals,
but if we had not mentioned them, it was because we always had them
in mind.

BREITENBACH: Pointed out that it is almost the end of the UFLA contract;
that CENTA's problems must be stated and they should say where they
want to go from here in order to write up a new project establishing
what they wish and need.

APONTES: We have a Five Year Plan; we know how the UFLA advisors work.
Thus, we can make new requests.


The small groups were integrated and began working.









Wednesday, November 1 (Extension discussion)


APONTES: Gave a briefing of the previous discussions as information
for the Extension representatives that had just arrived. He informed
them that UFLA started giving advisorship to the School of Agriculture
in 1969 and then progressively to the different programs of what now
is known as CENTA. That the purpose of the seminar is to see how UFLA's
help could be used to benefit CENTA, to identify problems and see how
they could be solved with the help they can provide. He pointed out
that most of the help from UFLA had been in research, but that now
CENTA desired that it be extended to extension.

PEREZ GUERRA: Described the organization of Extension in CENTA. It
is divided in four areas (regions) in the country, each one has a chief
and extension agencies which vary from 3 to 6 in each of the 14
departments in the country. There are 70 extension agencies in the country,
4 regional chiefs, 14 departmental chiefs, 12 extension supervisors and
12 home economics supervisors. Each agency also has a head. There are
100 agents working with basic grains, 20 in cotton, 5 in sugarcane, 97
home economists and 25 with the 4-C clubs. The basic grains agents work
with maize, beans, rice and sorghum and there is also work going with
vegetable and fruit crops.

SIMPSON: Supposedly the agents find the farmer's problems and then
take them to the researchers so that they find answers. Does this
system work in El Salvador?

PEREZ GUERRA: There probably is no Latin American country where this
system works perfectly. In the new organization the departmental chiefs
are the link between the agents and the researchers and the recently
started farm test trials will also be helpful. In the old organization
the agents did not have enough time to dedicate to the farmer.

BREITENBACH: It seems that problems have been caused by the lack of
trained personnel or are there political and cultural problems?

PEREZ GUERRA: There have been no political problems; they have been
mainly financial, of new untrained personnel and of transportation.

SIMPSON: What percentage of their time do the CENTA researchers dedicate
to basic and applied research and to solving problems?

VEGA LARA: There is no basic research in CENTA, only applied. Long-
term planning is needed as well as some basic research as reinforcement.
Thought has been given to the idea that basic research could be done by
the National University. Sixty percent of the research is carried out on
farmer's land and 40% at the experiment station. Help is given to the
extension agents through the Diagnostic Clinic at the Plant Protection
Department, through soil analyses and fertilizer recommendations in
the Soils Department and through other services.

BREITENBACH: I am a scientist and have respect for scientists, but I
believe that researchers think that extensionists are in a lower level.
Does extension suffer because research is too strong?





-5-


PEREZ GUERRA: This may have been true in the past, but in the new
organization we now have ingenieros agronomos that are working in extension
and they will demand answers from their colleagues to the problems and
this link will help solve old difficulties.

VEGA LARA: Gave figures from the budget showing that the money assigned
to extension is more than double that assigned to research.

SIMPSON: After seeing the new extension organization we figure that
CENTA seems to be accomplishing the needed integration and that problem
areas are being reached.

APONTES: CENTA is only a part of the agricultural sector and is not the
only institution responsible for solving agricultural problems. MAG
is also trying to develop closer working relationships among the
various institutions.

MANZANO: Half of the problems in extension have been in regard to
the training of personnel. The educational level of the extensionist
must be improved to make it even with that of the researcher.

VEGA LARA: There are serious problems in regard to the training of
extensionists. Before it was possible to send them to places such as
CIMMYT or CIAT, but now they are accepting only graduate students.
There is money available from BID for training which has not been used
for this reason. We must find means to train them locally and UFLA
could help us.

MANZANO: We have no true extension professionals and all the chiefs
we now have were trained through experience.

BREITENBACH: Maybe short courses could be arranged for extension.

SIMPSON: Asked the regional chiefs if the new system is working or not.

VASQUEZ: The system seems to be working, but there is a need for training
at all levels. Researchers need to be trained in order to communicate
their results to the extensionists. Publications are needed and advisors
in regard to what and how to publish. There is also a need to train
home economists because there is no home economics school in the country.
Also the 4-C club leaders need to be trained; at present they are only
high school graduates with a major in agriculture.

SIMPSON: Could the CENTA researchers take care of the extension training?

VASQUEZ: In certain areas, yes.

BRUNO: There are many areas in which it could not be possible, like in
methodology of extension.

PEREZ GUERRA: We have had some help through short courses from Israel,
like in irrigation, but these courses have not been in the most needed
subjects or at the more appropriate time. In Extension we need to
train our people and have an advisor in communications, as well as in
rural sociology, anthropology, extension methodology and planning.
Help is also needed in fruit and vegetable crops.









MOFFET: WE must double the production of food and there are different
alternatives to accomplish this: (1) Increasing the area of land planted,
which we know is impossible here. (2) Increasing the yield through
(a) Irrigation which is very limited here, (b) More use of fertilizers,
(c) Management practices. Work will be done in marginal areas and with
untrained people: the small farmer. These things are worrying international
organizations. If the GOES and CENTA need help to benefit farmers, AID
is willing to provide such help, but their planning and requests should
be made having the small farmer in mind. Answers must be found for
the feed-back problems. He gave an example about the Exp. Station
at David, Panama, where short courses are periodically given for small
farmers chosen by the extension agents; the MAG provides their transportation
and they are fed using the production of the experimental station.
CENTA could try to do this.

APONTES: CENTA's efforts are presently directed towards the small and
medium farmers. We are trying to solve their problems in an integrated
manner. We will have 21 "centros de apoyo" throughout the country.
The CENCAP is the institution in MAG in charge of agricultural training.

PEREZ GUERRA: According to Mr. Moffet's words, we must double food
production. From figures in the last census we see that there is an
average of 2 manzanas of land per farmer in the country. In the
northern zone most of the lands are not productive at all. The solution
would be that extension could take care of more farmers and train them
to increase their yields per area of land and to accomplish this, there
are two ways: (a) to increase the number of extension agents or (b)
to change the methodology of work. To accomplish (a) we would need
an army of extension agents, thus (b) seems more feasible and could
be done: (a) individually with the farmers, (b) with groups or
(c) reaching the masses, but we believe that (b) would be more
effective. We need technically trained leaders.

MOFFET: What do you need to accomplish this?

PEREZ GUERRA: More "centros de capacitacion", training of extension
personnel and advisors in the already mentioned subjects.

APONTES: Asked the small groups to read their conclusions and recommendations.

MORRIS: He agress with the recommendations for in service training and
points out (1) that there is a great need to produce more information
such as bulletins, leaflets, etc. (2) the barriers which the
extensionists find in regard to communication must be analyzed and solved.
(3) Short courses need to be planned, covering both the technical aspect,
as well as communication.

CHEVES: I think that all the discussions have been around training and
the need to have advisors with more knowledge. We need training in the
country and abroad. The MAG is concerned about loosing trained personnel.
FAO will help the MAG through advisor to the CENCAP.

VEGA LARA: The next contract should be larger to enclose extension and
other areas of CENTA so that the institution may serve the small farmer
better.









LOPEZ SANCHEZ: At the Plant Science Department we shall be involved
in the program of development of the northern area and there is a need
for an advisor in fruit crops and continuance of the horticultural
crops advisorship. Short-term advisors are also needed in the evaluation
of programs and for short, medium and long-term planning.

ORTIZ: The Plant Protection Department needs to continue having an
advisor in pest management.

CHEVES: It has been established that a new advisorship contract is needed
in CENTA. We are formally requesting a new contract; we have shown that
we desire an optimum contract, but the details about specific areas of
advisory support must be worked out later, with more time.

APONTES: Closed the seminar by thanking everybody.


Notes taken by Maritza de Clark.





















APPENDIX E








CERRO VERDE WORK GROUP

REPORTS












CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORK GROUPS ESTABLISHED DURING THE

SEMINAR ON THE REVISION AND PLANNING OF CENTA's TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NEEDS

October 31 November 1, 1978


Evaluation Group

The group's discussions were divided in two aspects considered of importance
to evaluate CENTA's productivity:

1. Personnel Evaluation

At present, CENTA does not have a well defined mechanism for the evaluation
of its personnel. Evaluations are made mainly through subjective assessments
and expressions of appreciation which do not justly reflect the human potential
we have.

Considering that CENTA is a modern institution, dedicated to research and
extension, we recommend the establishment of a Technical Evaluation Committee
for Personnel, which should make objective and tangible evaluations.

The number and quality of publications is considered as one of the main
parameters for evaluation. Due to technical and budget limitation it has not
been given due importance in personnel evaluation.

Therefore, we recommend that enough funding be allowed for publications;
that we obtain the services of a permanent advisor on communications and the
short- and long-term training of local technicians in communications, which
would mean an increase in publications.

2. Technology Evaluation

Previously, the evaluation of technology in CENTA was only measured through
quarterly and annual reports, which show only the goals reached and do not show
the magnitude of the received benefit by the farmer as a product of the generation
transference of technology.

At present, through the Agricultural Economics Department in CENTA, we are
working on the base of economic analyses as a means to efficiently evaluate
generated technology. This economic analyses of technology is performed through
studies on the adoption of new technologies, in order to measure the economical
impact derived from the adoption of technology.

With the purpose that this recently initiated process may have continuity,
we recommend a permanent advisorship in agricultural economics.











Administration and Orqanization Group


1. There is a need in institutional organization and development, to
make efficient use of the recently acquired physical resources.

Recommendation: A full-time advisor to function as associate/director
in institutional organization and development.

2. There is a need to plan the generation and transfer of long-term
technology, annually reviewing the programming, and reasons for
not carrying out annual programs.

Recommendation: Short-term advisorship and short-term training
courses for the research personnel.

3. The reference frame of the institution is to carry out applied research.
It is necessary to have available a fundamental or basic information
system for long-term programming to serve as a basis for short-term
applied research programming.

Recommendation: This information could be obtained through the participation
graduate students who could do their PhD research theses in El Salvador, with
participation of local personnel from CENTA and from other institutions such
as the university.

4. It is necessary to get a true integration of activities between research
and extension.

Recommendation: Training of the extension personnel, as well as a review and
restructure of the study plans of the National School of Agriculture, since
CENTA is the institution which absorbs more of its graduates. General
personnel training is of very high priority.










Group on the Development of Programs


Our group, which did not include Salvadorean representation from the
Research Division, reviewed the manner in which long-term research programs
and short-term research activities are proposed and approved. We are strongly
in favor of the following two aspects of this procedure:

1. The commodity-oriented interdisciplinary working groups appear to use
to provide an excellent means for encouraging interdisciplinary research
activities and providing some continuity to programs.

2. The recently initiated detailed surveys of farmers' needs are
welcomed because they can serve as part of a process for determining long-
range prioritization of research activities.

We noted several weak or inefficient aspects of the currently used system,
most notably (a) the failure to include extensionists' input in the planning
process and (b) the general lack of long-range prioritized plans to guide
research activities.

We make the following suggestions which we feel would help correct these
deficiencies:

1. When surveys are made extensionists as well as farmers should be polled.

Input from extensionists must not be gained only from surveys but also
from significant and continuous institutionalized face to face interaction
between planners, the investigators and extensionists; when problems of physical
isolation are present, means should be sought to correct these problems.

2. A means for establishing long-range research priorities and for assuming
that the yearly work plans are in accord with these priorities needs to be
established.

3. Greater emphasis should be placed on production of quality information
and less on the number of trials carried out or similarly arbitrary criteria.

4. Technical assistance is needed for two areas relating to the development
of programs. First, it may be useful in both the long- and short-term training
and capacitation of investigators. Second, it will be of value in the long- and
short-term planning of research priorities and activities.

5. We view the recently initiated trials to prove results as a very important
addition to research programs. We feel that better planning is required. This
planning should give more consideration to ecological and agronomic realities. In
addition, representatives of extension should be throughly involved in all phases
of the planning, execution and interpretation of results in order to assure higher
quality work and to provide better training for extensionists.











Group on the Integration of Research and Extension Programs


After having analyzed the existing problems between extension and research
activities in CENTA, we believe the following are important considerations:

1. That coordination is necessary between research and extension in order to
accomplish the objectives of CENTA and that this coordination has not
been effective to present.

2. That it is necessary to make proper use of the available resources (human,
physical, financial).

3. That it is necessary to take advantage of international technical
assistance through advisor and/or training of personnel abroad.

4. That it is necessary to identify, quantify and establish alternatives for
solving the limiting factors which confront the small and medium sized
growers.

Because of the above mentioned, we make the following recommendations:

1. Enlarge the participation of extension representatives, such as leaders
from representative areas, in the planning short, medium and long term research
in order to reach an effective coordination directed toward the objectives
of the national economic and social development plans.

2. Train together and periodically the technical personnel in Extension and
Research through seminars, short courses, round tables, etc., given by
foreign specialists.

3. Keep the extension agents up-to-date on the technology generated by research
through field days, seminars, trials to prove results, various publications,
etc., in order to maintain a continuous flow of information to the small
and medium farmer.

4. Enlarge and strengthen studies of the production systems through the inter-
action of Extension and Research in order to make the generated technology
valid and adapt it to similar areas such that the efficient and rational
use of institutional resources will be achieved.

5. Request permanent advisory in communication and specialist in Agronomy
research and extension to coordinate the actions of transference of tech-
nology between Research and Extension.










PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF AREAS IN WHICH CENTA NEEDS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE


EXTENSION

a. Extension b. Technical

Communications Vegetables Crops

Social Sciences Fruit Crops

Methodology Home Economics

Planning Rural Youth

RESEARCH

Integrated Pest Management

Agricultural Economics

Communications

Extension-Research Agronomy Specialist

Horticultural Crops

Fruit Crops

Soil Fertility

Short-term assistance in Soil Chemistry and Soil Physics

INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL

Advisory to act as co-director in institutional organization and development.

Short-term advisor on program planning and evaluation.

Training of personnel.


















APPENDIX F
















BUDGET REPORTS

CENTA/UFLA/AID CONTRACT





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES


COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE SCHOOL OF FOR


INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
CENTER FOR TROPICAL AGRICULTURE


July 7, 1976


2001 MCCART,
GAINESVILLE, FLORID'
TELEPHONE: 1904' 3'
CABLE ADDRESS: CE'


FISCAL REPORT
December 31, 1974
FINAL


Contract No. AID/la-586 (El Salvador)
Between the United States of America and the Universi


ty of Florida


Category


Salaries
Fringe Benefits
Allowances
Travel & Transportation
Other Direct Costs
Overhead
Equipment


Totals


Firm Budget Amount
4/7/69-12/31/74

$ 424,852.00
17,095.00
66,055.00
85,070.00
31,943.00
135,152.00
18,419.00


$ 778,586.00


To Date FINAL Adjustments
12/31/74 12/31/74


$ 423,660.34
-17,122.56
64,831.56
86,156.67
33,484.59
134,770.32
16,496.55

$ 776,522.59


$ 2,127.62
208.76
987.83
2,352.35
1,274.90
703.72
982.49


$ 8,637.67


Computation of Overhead: (Includes salaries and fringe benefits)
Domestic salaries: 49.42% x -0- = -0-
Off-Campus salaries: 30.12% x 2,336.38 = 703.72
703.72

The undersigned hereby certifies: (1) that payment of the sum claimed under the
cited contract is proper and due and that appropriate refund to A.I.D. will be
made promptly upon request of A.I.D. in the event of non-performance, in whole
or in part, under the contract or for any breach of the terms of the contract
and (2) that information on the fiscal report is correct and such detailed
supporting information as the A.I.D. may require will be furnished at the Con-
tractor's home office promptly to A.I.D. on request.


BY_________________
David R. Bryant
Title Administrative Manager
Institute of Food and Agricul-
tural Sciences
University of Florida

Date


EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPPRTUNIT'/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION I-MPIOYER


1






FISCAL REPORT


October 1, 1978 December 31, 1978

Contract No. AID/la-C-1084 (El Salvador)
Between the United States of America and the University of Florida


Firm Budget Amount
Category 1/1/75 4/30/79


Salaries
Fringe Benefits
Allowances
Travel and Transportation
Other Direct Costs
Overhead
Vehicles and Maintenance
Equipment and Supplies
Participant Training


Totals


$ 602,037.00
77,839.00
163,375.00
106,687.00
23,200.00
205,566.00
19,000.00
41,200.00
166,000.00

$1,404,904.00


To Date
12/31/78


$ 472,739.24
58,673.35
120,461.03
92,819.88
20,584.50
165,344.21
19,469.24
27,789.44
33,010.46

$1,010,891.35


This Period
10/1/78-12/31/78

$ 34,187.70
4,534.86
11,537.66
11,252.23
1,337.14
12,084.33
624.08
1,284.96
10,593.23


$ 87,436.19


Computation of Overhead: Includes salaries and fringe benefits


Domestic Salaries:
Off-Campus Salaries:


51% x 3,885.44
29% x 34,837.12


The undersigned hereby certifies: (1) that payment of the sum claimed under the
cited contract is proper and due and that appropriate refund to A.I.D. will be
made promptly upon request of A.I.D. in the event of non-performance, in whole
or in part, under the contract or for any breach of the terms of the contract
and (2) that information on the fiscal report is correct and such detailed
supporting information as the A.I.D. may request will be furnished at the
contractor's name office promptly to A.I.D. on request.


Title


David R. Bryant, Jr.
Administrative Manaqer


Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida


Date


= 1,981.57
= 10,102.76
12,084.33


-- ---


Title
























APPENDIX G










LIST OF TDY, RESEARCH AND

PROJECT REPORTS AND OTHER FILE MATERIALS

CENTA/UFLA/AID

CONTRACT









Publications

Box 1


1. El Salvador Recommendations to Upgrade the Teaching and Practices of
Poultry Production at the "National School of Agriculture", Harms, R.H.,
May 1970.

2. Supplement to El Salvador Recommendations to Upgrade the Teaching and
Practices of Poultry Production at the "National School of Agriculture,"
Harms, R.H., August 1970.

3. Recommendation for the Improvement of the Horticulture Curriculum of the
National School of Agriculture "Roberto Zuinonez" (ENA), Malo, S.E.,
September 1970.

4. El Salvador Recommendations to Upgrade the Teaching and Field Practices
of Tropical Fruit Horticulture at the "National School of Agriculture",
with Brief Observations on the country's Present Fruit Production, Its
Needs and Possibilities, Malo, S.E., February 1970.

5. Precooling of Cantaloupe for Export from El Salvador, Perry, R.L., September
1970.

6. Report of Visit to Escuela Nacional de Agricultura, El Salvador, Perry V.G.,
February 1970.

7. Report of Visit and Genetics Course Outline for the National School of
Agriculture, Smith, Rex, L., May 1970.

8. AID Project Consultants Report, Kuitert, J.C., September 27 October 11, 1970


AID Project

AID Project

AID Project

AID Project
October 10,

AID Project

AID Project

AID Project

AID Project

AID Project

AID Project


Consultants

Consultants

Consultants

Consultants
1970.

Consultants

Consultants

Consultants

Consultants

Consultants

Consultants


Report,

Report,

Report,

Report,


Report,

Report,

Report,

Report,

Report,

Report,


McCaleb, J.E., January 29 February 17, 1971.

McCaleb, J.E., June 1970.

McCaleb, J.E., October 4 October 18, 1970.

Perry, V.G. and Miller, C.R., September 28 -


Prine, G.M., November 2-14, 1970.

Rogers, J.C., September 8-26, 1970.

Smith, Ralph L., November 16-25, 1970.

Wilcox, C.J., February 21 March 6, 1971.

Wing, J.M., August 29 September 13, 1970.

Wing, J.M., June 2 June 13, 1970.









19. AID Project Consultants Report, Ford, E.S., May 1971.

20. AID Project Consultants Report, Dennison, R.A., May 1971.

21. Swine Nutrition and Management, Wallace, H.D., March 1971.

22. Center for Technical Agricultural Education, CENTA, 1971.

23. AID Project Consultants Report, McCall, W.W., May 2 15, 1971.

24. Summary of Reports on E.N.A., Dr. J.C. Glenn, July 1971.

25. Planificacion y Ejecucion de Investigacion Aplicada, Chris 0. Andrew
and Peter E. Hildebrand, September 1972.

26. Agricultural Sectoral Analysis for El Salvador, Volumes 1,11,111, IV,
and Summary Robert R. Nathan Associates, Inc., December, 1969.

27. University of Florida Campus Consultation Visit, January 25-31, 1976, Calhoun,
Frank G., Jr. and Whittle, Boyd.


Box 2


1. A proposal for the Creation of A National Center of Agricultural
Technology, Ministerio de Agricultura Y Ganaderia, July 1970.

2. Zonification Agropecuaria y Forestal en El Salvador Guia Para Una
Planificacion Del Uso de La Tierra, Hector Gonzalez Luna, September 1968.

3. AID Project Consultants Report, Gordon M. Prine, June 13-26, 1971.

4. Plant-parasitic Nematodes of Various Crops in El Salvador, A.C. Tarjan,
July 13 August 11, 1971.

5. Brief on Salvadoran Agriculture, Office of the Agricultural Attache,
American Embassy, San Salvador, El Salvador.

6. Analisis Economico de Fertilizacion en Cinco Hortalizas en San Andres,
Ministerio de Agricultura Y Ganaderia, El Salvador, February 1973.

AID PROJECT CONSULTANT REPORTS:

7. J.R. Greenman, March 20 April 3; August 30 September 17.

8. Ernest S. Ford, April 17 May 1, 1971.

9. Glenn C. Holm, May 2-15, 1971.

10. A.C. Tarjan, July 13 August 11, 1971.

11. Luis E. Tergas, August 8 September 4, 1971.

12. V. C. Perry & L.H. Purdy, August 24 September 4, 1971.

13. Ralph L. Smith, August 16-27, 1971.










14. J.E. Bertrand, October 17-30, 1971.

15. H.D. Wallace, March 14-28, 1971.

16. V. G. Perry, November 8-27, 1971.

17. L.C. Kultert, August 8 September 3, 1971.

18. William W. Thatcher, November 5-15, 1972.

19. L.H. Purdy, June 1973.

20. Richard Bradfield, April 1973.

21. Albert P. Lorz, December 1972.

22. Informe De La Comision Del Programa De Mejoramiento Y Produccion de
Pastos, Luis Tergas.

23. Program De Mejoramiento y Produccion de Pastos, Luis Tergas.

24. El Salvador Post Report, Department of State U.S. of America, March 1971.

25. El Salvador, The Farm Index, November 1971.

26. Analysis Costo-Beneficio de la Educacion Vocacional Agricola en El
Salvador, Jose Dearing, 1972.

27. AID Project Summary of Animal Science Advisors' Reports, 1970-71.

28. Progress Report, January 1, 1972 June 30, 1972.

29. Progress Report, University of Florida/AID, Project in El Salvador,
July 1, 1972 December 31, 1972.

30. Image of El Salvador, supplement to Americas, February 1973, G. DeQendgui,
ed., OAS.

31. End of Tour Report: El Salvador, H.E. Peirce, June 1973.

32. End of Tour Report: George Beinhart, August 1973.

33. Advisor's Report, Harry E. Peirce, September 2-15, 1974.

34. Termination Report, USAID/UFLA, April 72 October 1974, Peter Hildebrand.

35. Consultant's Report, Kuell Hinson, November 11 21, 1974.

36. End of Tour Report, Clarence Reaves, January 11, 1972 December 1973.








Box 3


1. Program De Ensenanza De La Escuela Nacional De Agricultura, Por Asignaturas,
Iniciado En 1966, Parte VIII, Zometa.

2. The AID/USDA Program of Rural Development in El Salvador, Report of the Team
on Program Review and Evaluation, July 1965.

3. Quarterly Report, November 1969.

4. Quarterly Report, December 1, 1969 to March 31, 1970.

5. Semi Annual Report, August 1970.

6. End of Tour Report, Gattoni, L.A., May 1963.

7. Plan Operativo Ano 1971 Escuela Nacional de Agricultura "R.Q.", Ministerio
de Agriculture y Ganaderia, 1971.

8. Background El Salvador-Honduras Conflict, July 1969.

9. The Future Place of the Bast of Soft Fiber Plants, Ramie and Kenaf, in the
Agricultural and Industrial Economy of El Salvador, Allison, R.V., May 1970.

10. Comments, Suggestions, and Recommendations Relative to the Beef Cattle Program
at the National School of Agriculture of El Salvador, Bertrand, J.E., April 197

11. Suggestions for Improving the Organizational Structure of the Ministerio de
Agriculture y Ganaderia of El Salvador, Efferson, J.N., December 1963.

12. Trip Report, Nicaragua and El Salvador, Glenn, J.C., October 1970.

13. Trip Report, El Salvador and Nicaragua, Glenn, J.C., January 1970.

14. Semi-Annual Report, February 1971.

15. Agriculture Sector Analysis, Church, Phillip, November 30 December 3, 1971.

16. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Vocational Agricultural Education in El Salvador,
Dearing, Jose, 1972.

17. Map of El Salvador

Box 4


1. El Salvador zonificacion agricola, OAS reports, 1974.

2. Horticulture, Project Description 104.

3. Un Sistema Salvadoreno de Multicultivos: Su Potencial y Sus Problemas,
P.E. Hildebrand and Edwin French, February 1974.








4. Produccion de Pepinos Utilizando Tallos de Maiz, Hildebrand, P.E. and
Edwin French, February 1974.

5. Circular #104: Guia Para El Cultivo del Tomate. CENTA, 1974.

6. Circular #105: Controle las Enfermedades del Banano. CENTA, 1974.

7. More Food for More People from the Same Amount of Land, Dwain D. Gull.

8. USAID/El Salvador Agriculture Division Monthly Report, September December
1974.

9. USAID/El Salvador Agriculture Division Monthly Report, January, 1975.

10. Review of Recommendations for the General Vegetable Production Research and
the Multiple Cropping in El Salvador, V.F. Nettles, April 13-26, 1975.

11. Monthly Report, February 1975.

12. Administrative Visit to El Salvador to Review the Agricultural Economics
Program. Dr. Chris 0. Andrew, July 3, 1975.

13. Report on Visit to El Salvador Aid Project, Coleman Y. Ward, June 3-6, 1975.

14. Management Factors That Pay Based on a Five-Year Study of El Salvadorian
Dairy Herd Records, C.W. Reaves, 1972-73.

15. Team Progress, Dwain D. Gull, February 14, 1975.

16. Semi-Annual Progress Report, July 1, 1973 December 31, 1973.

17. Monthly Reports March-May, 1974.

18. Semi-Annual Report, December 1, 1969 March 31, 1970.

19. AID Project Consultant's Report, R.A. Dennison, April 1971.

20. Advisor's Report, A.A. Cook, October 23-27, 1972.

21. Conference on Intensive Management and Use of Forage Crops in the Humid
Tropics and Their Utilization by Ruminants, W.C. Christiansen.

22. Advances Recientes En Fisiologia De Reproduccion Del Ganado De Carne,
F.W. Brazer.

23. Trip Report, L. Polopolus & C. 0. Andrew, March 1974.

24. El Uso De Nitrogeno No Proteico En La Nutricion De Ganado De Carne.
C.B. Ammerman.

25. Trip Report to El Salvador to Evaluate Plant Pathology Input in UF/AID
Contract with the Government of El Salvador, L.H. Purdy, February 8-14, 1976.

26. Administrative Trip Report to El Salvador, August 25-31, 1975, M.E. Marvel.









27. Period Report, October 1975, B.H. Waite.

28. Annual Report, J.L. Bieber, October 31, 1975 November 3, 1974.

29. Monthly Reports, November, December, 1975 & January, February 1976,
J.L. Bieber.

31. Monthly Reports, August 1973 February 1974, June 1974 January 1975,
March May, 1975, D. D. Gull.

32. Monthly Reports, November, 1975 & January, February 1976, T.R. Burton.

33. Ensayos Tentativos De Multicultivos Para 1976, J.L. Bieber.

34. El Gandur, Excelente Fuente de Proteina Vegetal para el Tropico,
J. Velez-Fortuno.

35. Multicultivos (multi-cropping)

36. Consultant's Report, F.F. Smith.

37. Periodic Reports, November & December 1975, January & February 1976,
March & April, 1976, B.H. Waite.

38. Monthly Report, March 1976, J.L. Bieber.

39. Monthly Report, March 1976, J. Velez-Fortuno.

40. Outline of a Proposal: A CENTA 5-year Program of Direct Technical Assistance
to Salvadorean Cattlemen DRAFT.

41. The Change Agent and Changes in Production Practices by D. H. Pierce July 1972.

42. Administrative Visit to El Salvador, Dr. M. Marvel October 24-30. 1973

43. Administrative Visit to El Salvador, Dr. M. Marvel May 30, June 4, 1973.

44. Strategy Paper El Salvador Edwin Anderson May 17, 1974.

Box 5


1. Analysis Agroeconomicos Mediante Superficies de Respuesta, P.E. Hildebrand,
September 1972.

2. Administrative Visit, J.F. Kelly, April 1974.

3. AID Project Consultant's Report, L.C. Kuitert, September 26 October 11, 1970.

4. Trip Report, A. P. Lorz.

5. Short-Term Consultant Report, S.E. Malo, September 17-23 & February 11-16, 1973.

6. AID Consultant's Report, G.M. Prine, June 13-26, 1971.








7. Administrative Visit, L. H. Purdy, June 2-9, 1974.

8. End of Tour Report, C.W. Reaves, January 11, 1972 December 29, 1973.

9. Recommendations for CENTA Vehicle Maintenance Shop, Facility and Tool and
Equipment List for Shop, Clarence J. Rogers, April 30 May 17, 1973.

10. Trip Report, J.E. Ross, August 27-29, 1972.

11. Advisor's Report, A.C. Tarjan, July 13 August 11, 1971.

12. Factors Involved in Controlling the Calving Interval of Dairy Cattle,
W.W. Thatcher.

13. Factores Que Intervienen En La Determinacion Del Intervalo Entre Partos
Del Ganado Lechero, W.W. Thatcher.

14. Consultant's Report, F.W. Zettler, December 2-9, 1973.

15. End of Tour Report, June 18, 1973 June 18, 1975, D.D. Gull.

16. Semi-Annual Progress Report, July 1, 1974 December 31, 1974.

17. Period Reports, June, July, August and September 1975, B.H. Waite,

18. Monthly Report, August 1975.

19. Consultant's Report, September 22-27, 1975, E.S. Horner.

20. Monthly Report, September 1975, J.L. Bieber.

21. Monthly Report, September 1975, J. Velez-Fortuno.

22. Monthly Report, September 1975, T.R. Burton.

23. Trip Report, Determine the Feasibility of Utilizing Biosuppressive Agents for
Control of Anastrepha Species of Fruit Flies, September 2-6, 1975, R.M.
Baranowski.

24. AID Project Consultant Report, C.J. Rogers, April 30 May 16, 1973.

25. Periodic Report March and April, 1976, Mr. Thomas R. Burton.

26. Monthly Report April 1976, by Dr. J. Velez-Fortuno.

27. Monthly Report April 1976, by Dr. Joh L. Bieber.

28. Annual Report elaborated by Dr. B.H. Waite, November 1974 October 1975.

29. Monthly Report October 1975, Dr. J. Velez Fortuno.

30. Monthly Report October 1975, Dr. John L. Bieber.

31. Success Story "Vivamos Mejor" by Mr. Thomas Burton, October 31, 1975.









32. Monthly Report, May 1976, by Dr. J. Velez-Fortuno.

33. Observations of Incidence of Pest Damage in a Corn and Bean Interplanted
System in El Salvador, by W. Reed Olszack.

34. Trip Report, Dr. Leo Polopolus, The Discipline of Agricultural Economics in the
Ministry of Agriculture of El Salvador. (memo)

35. PERIODIC REPORT May-June 1976, Mr. Thomas R. Burton.

36. Contract Logistical Support, by Dr. Frank G. Calhoun, February 27, 1976.

37. Multiplecropping Newsletter for PCV, No. 1, May 1976.

38. Intensive Small Farm Management Project, Implementation Plan for 1976.

39. Monthly Report August, 1976, by John L. Bieber.

40. Periodic Report May through August 1976, B. H. Waite.

41. Monthly Report July August, 1976 by Mr. Thomas R. Burton.

42. Monthly Report-- September October, 1976 by Dr. John L. Bieber

43. Monthly Reports Julay, August, September, 1976 by Dr. J. Velez-Fortuno

44. Trip Report Consultant Jose Amador, El Salvador, November 3-10, 1976.

45. Trip Report Consultant Report by Dr. Earls S. Horner, El Salvador,
-Sept. 26 to Oct. 1, 1976, Corn variety improvement in El Salvador.

46. Trip Report Dr. Chris Andrew to El Salvador, November 16-19, 1976
Assessment of Farm Management Needs Within the Agricultural Economics Dept.
CENTA.

47. Foreign Aid to the Small Farmer: The El Salvador Experience By L. Harlan Davis
AID.

48. Bibliography on Multiple Cropping by Susan Poats.

49. Annual Report,-Agronomic Investigations for Small Farms and Intensive
Management, Dr. John Bieber, Nov. 1, 1975 October 31,1976.

50. Annual Report Research on Intensive Production of Vegetable Crops,
Dr. Jesus Velez Fortuno, August 20, 1975 October 31, 1976.

51. Short-term Faculty Report Oct. 13 to Oct. 17 and Oct. 24 to Oct. 27, 1976,
Assessment of Rhizobium Inoculation and Possible Related Problems associated
with Cultivation of Beans in El Salvador. By Dr. David Hubbell.

52. Banana Production for the Small and Large Producer in El Salvador, A Proposal
for CENTA Investigators, By Dr. B.H. Walte.

53. Monthly Reports October, November, December, 1976 and January 1977 By
Dr. J. Velez-Fortuno.








Box 6

1. Quarterly Report Oct. 1, 1976 Dec. 31, 1976. By Dr. Frank Calhoun

2. "El Salvador: Statistical Analysis of the Rural Poor Target Group." By
Samuel Daines, February 2, 1977.

3. Tercer Censo Nacional Agropecuario 1971, Volumen II

4. MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. Frank Calhoun, FROM: Dr. L.C. Kuitert, SUBJECT: Report
of Technical Assistance to Insect Taxonomist, Ministry of Agricultura
y Ganaderia, Santa Tecia, El Salvador, dated June 15, 1977.

5. Intensive Small Farm Management, Quarterly Report: April 1, 1977 June 30,
1977 By Dr. F.G. Calhoun.

6. Quarterly Report April 1 to June 30, 1977. Dr. John L. Bieber.

7. Quarterly Report April-June, 1977 By Dr. J. Velez-Fortuno and Table 1 & 2 on
Tomato and Pepper Yield at San Andrews.

8. Research Accomplishments During Report Period. By Dr. Tom Walker El Salvador.

9. Intensive Small Farm Management Annual Report, Oct. 1, 1976 Sept. 30, 1977.

10. Trip Report El Salvador, April 9-17, 1977. By Dr. R.I. Sailer, Ent. & Nem.

11. Consultant's Report, November 12-19, 1977. By Dr. R.A. Dennison.

12. Quarterly Report October 1 December 31, 1977. By Dr. F. G. Calhoun.

13. Metodologia Sobre La Interpretacion Economica Del Uso Potencial de Tierras
Agropecuarias y Forestales. El Salvador. By Dr. Victor Rene Marroquin.

14. Agricultural Institution Building in El Salvador Contract AID/la586 -
Progress Report. March 1, 1971 December 31, 1971 & January 1, 1972 -
June 30, 1972.

15. Second Roll of Film sent by Dr. F.G. Calhoun copy of El Salvador film.

16. Program Evaluation of CENTA Agency of Extension 1978. Trip Report.
By J.N. Busby.

17. Administratively Confidential Report, 1978. By J.N Busby. Trip Report.

18. A Theoretical Inquiry into the Scope of the Public Sector in Costa Rica
and EL Salvador. 1978.

19. Discussion of Final Draft of a Cooperative Research Grant Proposal (CENTA/UF)
to be Submitted to CSRS, Washington, D.C., Dr. D.H. Hubbell. April 23-26, 1978.

20. Summary of Impressions, Ideas & Progress as of March 15, 1978 and Progress
Report, February 26-March 15, 1978. By K.L. Andrews.




* *,,*


21. Intensive Small Farm Management Quarterly Report Jan. 1 Mar. 31, 1978.

22. Report of Trip to El Salvador May 15-19, 1978. By J.R. Simpson.

23. Trip Report to El Salvador. By R.D. Williams. May 14-20, 1978.

24. Report on Technical support Trip to El Salvador. June 4-10, 1978.
By Charles Eno, and C.T. Hallmark.

25. Living Between Two "Catorce" Families.

26. Statement of Activities by the UFLA Team Assigned to CENTA, August, 1978.

27. Intensive Small Farm Management Quarterly Report April 1, June 30,
1978.

28. Summary of Impressions, Ideas and Progress as of March 15, 1978. By K.L.
Andrews.

29. Report of Technical Support Visit of Grodon M. Prine, Agronomist, to
El Salvador, Gordon M. Prine. July 28, 1978.

30. Field Report on Sampling of Buried Maya Soils Around San Salvador and in
the Zapotitan Basin, El Salvador, Central America An Evaluation of Soil
Properties and Potentials in Different Volcanic Deposits. By G.W. Olson.
1978.

Box 7

1. El Salvador Map, 1978.

2. Guia para Investigadores Republica de El Salvador, Ministerio de Obras
Publicas, Instituto Panamericano de Geografia e Hlstoria, 1977.

3. Report of Visit to El Salvador to Review the Research Program of the Soil
Science Department, CENTA, By W.G. Blue, August 26, 1978 September 8,
1978.

4. CENTA Research Projects for 1978. (maize)

5. Intensive Small Farm Management Quarterly Report Jan. 1 March 31,
1978.

6. El CENTA Su Evolucion y Transcendencia Agropecuaria.

7. General Preliminary areas in which CENTA needs Technical Assistance.
(English and Spanish copies).

8. MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. Chris Andrew FROM: Frank Calhoun, Chief of Party,
SUBJECT: Loan Interim Report, Feb. 21, 1978.

9. Visit to El Salvador. June 12-24, 1978. Report 1978.

10. Country Report Vegetable Growing in "El Salvador". By A. Montez.

11. Soil Fertility/Management Summary for El Salvador. By F.G. Calhoun.







12. Research Responsabilities of the Agricultural Economics Department at
CENTA in the Generation and Diffusion of Technology. DEA, CENTA.
September, 1977.

13. Cropping Intensification for Small Farms, By J.L. Bieber.

14. An analysis of the Department of Plant Protection of the Centro Nacional
de Technologia Agropecuaria. By K.L. Andrews. English Draft. October 13,
1978.

15. Intensive Small Farm Management, Quarterly Report July 1, 1978-September 30,
1978.

16. Report of Visit to Evaluate US/AID Project with CENTA in El Salvador,
Coleman Ward, October 29, 1978-November 3, 1978.

17. Trip Report Cooperative Research Grant No. 801-15-91 University of Florida,
El Salvador, By Dr. David H. Hubbell, October 22-November 1, 1978.

18. Report on Technical Support Trip to El Salvador, Dr. L.P. Wilding, November,
1978.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs