Ten years of technical assistance in agriculture

Material Information

Ten years of technical assistance in agriculture a review of the CENTAUFLAAIDEl Salvador contract
Added title page title:
Diez años de asistencia técnica en agricultura
Added title page title:
A review of the CENTAUFLAAIDEl Salvador contract
Centro Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (El Salvador)
University of Florida -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
United States -- Agency for International Development
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville FL?
The University?
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
1 v. (various pagings) : ill. ; 28 cm.


Subjects / Keywords:
Agricultural assistance, American -- Evaluation -- El Salvador ( lcsh )
Agricultural development projects -- Evaluation -- El Salvador ( lcsh )
Farms, Small -- El Salvador ( lcsh )
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references.
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."
Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
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.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services ( with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
030421309 ( ALEPH )
24807150 ( OCLC )
AER8615 ( NOTIS )


This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
-7/7 \0
91 C,
,qf % #
kv NO
A AY 01 '. &
NOO 6dlb\ ze
'C', \0 6b
Vie 6,?q

Report of Evaluation and Planning Workshop CENTA/UFLA/AID
El Salvador
Ing. Rodolfo Cristales
Director General CENTA, El Salvador
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

1. Introduction ... . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1
11. Brief History of CENTA/UFLA Cooperation...............................3
111. 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......................................9
0. 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

VIII. Plant Sciences Assessment Drs. Coleman Ward & C. B. Hall ......... 29
A. Background ..................................................... 29
B. Observations ................................................... 30
C. Recommendations and Conclusions ............................... 31
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, selfevaluation 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
Government of El Salvador
Agricultural Ministry of
Sector Agriculture
Rural Development CENT +- - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Office
USAID/El Salvador
UFLA Contract Team
I I1 International Programs Ia
Florida U.S. Congress
Departmental Backstop IFAS/UFLA

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 selfsustaining 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

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.
Ill. 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
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 development sense. In a small country such as El Salvador, with very
low per capita 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 I which depicts the client focus in Region 11. 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 ninetyeight 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 UIFLA/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
b y 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 I Client Focus of CENTA in Region II.
Production Renters
unit size Renters Owners & Owners All
--manzana-- ---- % of total-------------------------0-1 39 13 3 30
1.1-2 42 23 33 36
2.1-5 17 35 63 24
5-up 2 29 1 10
Subtotal 100 100 100 100
5 Mz & less 98 71 99 90
Land tenure 65% 35%
Total sample size 3,061
Source: Compiled from CENTA extension figures.

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. Ongo-ing 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 subdisciplinary 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 g-reater
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.
4i. Credibility
One of the TOY 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

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 onjgoing9 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

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 I ---- Technical Committee CENTA/AID Project Planning
Field Operations Administration
Documentation Center Personnel
Legal Advice Internal Audit
External Assistance Maintenance
ExtZnsion ivon R Division eed Certification
Departments I
Regions Plant Pathology Entomology Production
Zones Soils Engineering Certification
Agents and Agricultural Statistics Processing
Home Economists Economics
Animal Science Chemistry
C ommodity Work Groups
a i rman
vice Chairman
Departmental Representatives Plant Soils Agricultural Chemistry Viruses Entomology
Science Engineering

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. Interinsti tutional 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

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 longterm 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

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 be tween 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.

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

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
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 handson 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

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

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
I Adoption
Project Project Experimentation R No Adoption Impact
Design Implimentation Results Recommendations ,
Needs Adoption Impact
Evaluation Evaluation
Note: Methodology used prior to June, 1977 is given in upper left hand corner within dashed lines.
Current methodology now being implimented 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 Ceneracion y Transferencia de Tecnologia para Cada Zona Identificada
Capacidad de Criterlo Anallsis
Investigation Estadistico Estadistico
y Agronomico [A :- c =
Decisions de Transmision de
CENTA. Gr u po s implementation_, FRes Ita dos Parcelas de Rccomendaciones
los -4 Exper
Interdisciplinary de imentalesl-+Comprobacion 4 Recomendaciones (Parcclas
de Trabajo. Ensayos de Resultados Agropecuarias Demostrativas
Analysis Estad Mod i f i cac i or
y Agronomico
'i S-s
gr n.m.
Recursos K Evaluaclon EvalLZCiCnI
Criteria 'An I ii 1 s de d e
I Disponibles Economico Adoocion ; Ozczo
Agro Socio C
Economica -4. p Informacion
rm. in
LCientL ca
National Cient fica
Studios Especial
A Nivel de Finca
Propuesto por el Departamento de Economia Agricola

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 methocblogy 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 resea rch emphas is.
In our opinion, this research methodlology 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 longterm 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
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
desi red.
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.

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 time 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 shortterm 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
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

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
4. New ideas concerning the soil testing program.
5. A contract with USDS/SEA/CR CENTA/UFLA on "Establishment 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 productiTon 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 inservice training in soil science for county agent types,
et. a].

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 appointment.
5. Formal publication of research findings is very limited.
Extension-type information output is essentially nonexistent. 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
p rob I ems i n the coun t ry. 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 welltrained 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
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 understand 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.
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, thereforein 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.

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. Admininstration 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 Departr9ental 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.

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 longterm 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 understood 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- orientated research teams.

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, shortterm 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:
I. 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

(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:
I. Biological Control.
2. Taxonomy of adults and immatures and general assistance in setting up collections.
3. Pesticide safety, chemical screeening 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 Lop~z
Sanchez with whom Dr. John Bieber and Dr. Alfredo Montez provide

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
4i 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 pont.
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.

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 techical 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

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
interpretation. 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 understaffed as evidenced by the inordinate delays in
analysis of data; many are reported to be 6 months or
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

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
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.

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) knapsack 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 (1PM) 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 practiceDr. 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

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

orientations for the Area and Zone Chiefs. As soon as practical, these faculty should be sent to UFLAGainesville for two weeks of intensive training in
Extension methodology and to observe researchextension 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
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 exofficio 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.


Contracts with
The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences University of Florida
BOLIVIA Objective:
1976- 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.
NITROGEN Objective:
FIXATION Nitrogen Fixation by grasses after inoculation with spirillum
1975--_ lipoferum in field trials.
Staffing: 8 short-term agronomists and others in related nitrogen fixation fields.
MINERAL Objective:
RESEARCH To determine the essential mineral supplements for grazing animal
1974- 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.
BRAZIL objective:
1973-1975 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.
211-D Objective:
1972-1977 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.

EL SALVADOR Objective:
1969-_ 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: 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.
VIETNAM Objective:
1969-1975 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: 16 man-years on long-term assignments in Vegetable Crops, Dairy Science, Forestry, Soils, Animal Science. 19 short-term scientists.
PANAMA Objective:
1971 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.
NIGER Objective:
1972 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.
GUYANA Objective:
1968-1973 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 Objective:
ELECTRI- To assist AID in its efforts to determine the social, cultural and
FICATION economic effects of rural electrification in areas of Latin America.
1972-1 973
Staffing: 4 short-term Agricultural Economists andSociologists.
FEED Objective:
COMPOSITION To find low cost feeds -- (1) survey of existing data and analysis 1970-1972 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
COSTA RICA 1) Objective:
1965-1970 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.
1970-1972 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.
1973-1975 3) Objective:
To establish a Food Technology Laboratory.
Staffing: 1 short-term in Food Science.
JAMAICA 1) Objective:
1966-69 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.
1976- 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

Country or
Project Objectives Years
NSF National Development of a substained yield tropical
Science Founda- Agro-Ecosystem in the upper Amazone Basin. 1976 1977 tion
Ecuador I To provide Technical Assistance to INIAP
National Ag in its efforts to diversify, improve its
Res: Inst. staff and develop more rapidly its various
(INIAP) research programs. 1970 1977
Ecuador II To provide international technical services
Int. Bank for to INIAP to strengthen its research and
Reconstruction training facilities in support of the devel& Development opment of the livestock industries of Ecuador World Bank and to improve its domestic staff. 1977
International To work towards a systematic, world-wide
Peanut variety development program and to
Rockefeller develop new peanut varieties with wide
Foundation soil and climatic adaptation and broad
disease and pest resistance. 1976
Honduras To provide the services of technical
Banco Nacional advisory personnel in Honduras and
de Fomento 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 processing plant. 1976
Guatemala To provide technical assistance to El
El Salto, Co. Salto in the areas of sugar cane and
sugar cane production. 1976 1977
CIP Inter- Define Socio-Economic problems in terms
national Potatoe of transfering and adopting technology Center faced by potato farmers in developing
Rockefeller countries. 1975 1978


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
Date Time Individuals Activity
Oct. 29 6 pm Team Arrival in El Salvador
8-10 pm Team Briefing by UFLA contract team
at Ramada Inn
Oct. 30 8-9 am Team Briefing by CENTA administration
Ing. Mario Apontes & Ing. Roberto Vega Lara
9am-12pm Department Separate department meetings
Chairmen including UFLA contract advisor,
CENTA department chairman, and IFAS department chairmen
lO:30-11am K.R. Tefertiller Informal meeting at Min. of Ag.
C.O. Andrew with CENTA Dir. Gen. Rodulfo CristalE
F.G. Calhoun
ll-l:30pm Meeting and lunch with Lic. Ricardo
Mata, Ministry of Agriculture
2-3pm Meeting with J.R. Moffet and C.
Breitenbach, AID/RDD
l-3:30pm Department Touring CENTA facilities
4-4:30pm Team Signing of BeanRhizobium Project
F.G. Calhoun by Dr. K.R. Tefertiller and Dir.
D.H. Hubbell Gen. Cristales assisted by Directors
Apontes and Vega Lara
4:30-5:30 K.R. Tefertiller Meeting with Dir. Gen. Cristales
8-1Opm Team Briefing by K.R. Tefertiller concern
UFLA Advisors Min. and AID meetings and general discussion
Oct. 31 9am K.R. Tefertiller Departure from El Salvador
7-9am Team To hotel for retreat

Date Time Individuals Activity
Oct. 31 9:30-9:45 Team Opening remarks on CENTA programs,
am CENTA Rodulfo Cristales, Director
AID General, CENTA
9:45-10am Remarks concerning USAID programs
and interests, Sr. Ruis, Director USAID/EI Salvador
10-10:15 UFLA Commitment: past, present &
am future Chris 0. Andrew, Asst.
Director, International Programs, IFAS/UFLA
10:45am-12 Department chairmen counterpart
pm summary reports of evaluation
and of status and needs in each
1:30-2:30 program.
3-6pm Workshop sections
8-9:3Opm Workshop sections
Nov. 1 8:30-10:30 Report on Extension programs
am and needs led by Perez Guerra
1:30-3pm 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.

Date Time Individuals Activity
Nov. I 7-llpm Reception for CENTA, AID,
Ministry of Agriculture, UFLA given by UFLA/Gainesville
Nov. 2 Team General report preparation and
and discussions by team members; and Professional backstop meetingE among UFLA department chairmen and respective UFLA advisors
2-5pm Andrew Discussion with AID (Moffet and
Calhoun Breitenbach) concerning contract
Morris amendment and possible funding
of communication programs.
Nov. 3 9-11am Maxwell Seminar on plant protection for
CENTA staff
lOam-12 Morris Assessment of CENTA communication
pm facilities and needs
9-10am Team Final preparation for report to A
10am-12 Ward CENTA Department Heads, UFLA
pm Eno Advisors and R. Vega Lara discuss(
Simpson administration procedures for
Hall departments and commodity work
Andrew groups with a brief final report
to Ing. R. Cristales
2-4pm Team Final report to AID (Ruis, Moffet
and Breitenbach) in presence of CENTA representatives (Cristales, Vega Lara)
Nov. 4 9am Team Return to Gainesville

Ing. Aldelmo Ruiz, Director USAID/El Salvador Mr. Robert Muffet, Rural Development Officer/USAID Dr. Charles Breitenbach, Project Manager, RDD/USAID
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. Jos6 Roberto Salazar, Head-Soils Department Ing. Hernin 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 Visquez, Regional Chief-Extension Ing. Rodolfo Ernesto Morin, Regional Chief-Extension Ing. Ovidio Bruno Guadr6n, Regional Chief-Extension
Lcdo.Alfonso Escobar Chevez, Sectorial Planning Office In charge of
International Cooperation
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
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)


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-Fortuio 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 -

1969 Harry Pearce Education Specialist
1970 S.E. Malo Horticulturalist
V.G. Perry Nematologist
Rex L. Smith Agronomist
R.H. Harms Poultry Scientist
J.M. Wing Dairy Scientist
J.E. McCaleb Agronomist
G.M. Prine Agronomist
R.L. Smith Agronomist
L.C. Kuitert Entomologist
C.R. Miller Plant Pathologist
C.J. Rogers Agricultural Engineer
R.V. Allison Fiber Technology Emeritus
1971 W.C. Christionsen Animal Scientist
J R.uGreenman Agricultural Economist
G.B. Prine Animal Scientist
J.C. Glenn Animal Scientist
C.B. Ammerman Animal Scientist
H.D. Wallace Animal Scientist
F.W. Bazer Animal Scientist
L.C. Kuitert Entomologist
V.G. Perry Nematologist
R.A. Dennison Food Scientist
C.J. Wilcox Dairy Scientist
W.W. Thatcher Dairy Scientist
C.R. Miller Plant Pathologist
L.H. Purdy Plant Pathologist
E. Ford Botanist
W .'McCall Soil Scientist
A.P. Lorz Vegetable Crop Scientist
J.E. Bertrand Animal Scientist
R.L. Smith Agronomist
J.E. McCaleb Agronomist
A.C ,Tarjan Nematologist
S.E. Malo Horticulturist
L.E. Tergas Consultant on Pastures &
C.F. Eno Soils Research
G.A. Marlow Vegetable Crops Research
D.E. McCloud Agronomy Research
E.T. Smerdon Agricultural Engineering Res.
K.R. Tefertiller Agricultural Economics Res.
H.H. Van Horn Dairy Scimce Research
H.N. Dunlap Consultant on Dairy Processing
1972 D.C. McCloud Agronomy Research
G.O. Mott Agronomy Research
C.O. Andrew Agricultural Economist
A.A. Cook Plant Pathologist
W.W. Thatcher Dairy Scientist

1972 D.C. McCloud Agronomy Research
G.O. Mott Agronomy Research
C.O. Andrew Agricultural Research
A.A. Cook Plant Pathologist
W.W. Thatcher Dairy Scientist
A.P. Lorz Vegetable Crop Specialist
S.E. Malo Horticulturist
1973 S.E. Malo Horticulturist
C.O. Andrew Agricultural Economist
C.J. Rogers Agricultural Engineer
D.D. Gull Vegetable Crop Specialist
L.H. Purdy Plant Pathologist
M.E. Marvel Administrative Review
1974 LtPolopolus Food and Resource Economics
C.O. Andrew Food and Resource Economics
J.F. Kelly Vegetable Crops
L.H. Purdy Plant Pathologist
C.J. Rogers Agricultural Engineer
iK. Hinson Agronomist
M.E. Marvel Administrative Review
1975 V.F. Nettles Vegetable Crops Specialist
C.Y. Ward Agronomist
C.O. Andrew Agricultural Economist
G. Freeman Construction Specialist
R. Baranowski Fruit Crops Specialist
Leo Polopolus Agricultural Economist
E.S. Horner Agronomist
D. Bu-tck Media Specialist
1976 C.O. Andrew Agricultural Economist
E.S. Horner Agriculturalist
D.H. Hubbel Soils Scientist
L.H. Purdy Plant Pathologist
1977 C.O. Andrew Agricultural Economist
R.A. Dennison Chairman of Food Science
C. Eno Chairman of Soils Science
L.C. Kuitert Entomologist
R. Sailer Entomologist
1978 C.O. Andrew Agricultural Economist, Asst. Direci
W.G. Blue Soils Scientist
J.N. Busby Extension, Dean Emeritus
C. Eno Chairman of Soils Science
D. Habeck Entomologist
C.B. Hall Chairman, Vegetable Crop Specialist
D. Hubbell Soils Scientist
C.T. Hallmark Soils Scientist
F.G. Maxwell Chairman of Entomology and Nematolog
G. Prine Agronomist
J. Simpson Agricultural Economist

1978 Cont..
K.R. Tefertiller Vice-President of Agric. Affairs
C.Y. Ward Chairman of Agronomy
L.P. Wilding Soils and Crop Scientist
R.D. William Vegetable Crops Specialist

Advisor in Professional Administrative
Position Residence Backstop Backstop
Soils Frank Calhoun Charles Eno Charles Eno
Bill Blue
Systems John Bieber Gordon Prine Coleman Ward
Economics Tom Walker Jim Simpson Leo Polopolus
Chris Andrew
Management Keith Andrews Wil Whitcomb Fowden Maxwell
Reece Sailor
Crops Alfredo Montes Ray William Chet Hall
Jack Kelly
Extension Milt Morris Milt Morris
Administration Frank Calhoun Ken Tefertiller
Chief of Party Hugh Popenoe
Chris Andrew


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: I. 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) Eplo-itation 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. Longterm 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 ina lower level. Does extension suffer because research is too strong?

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.


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 Organization Group
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 longrange 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 arbitrarycriteria.
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
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 interaction 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 technology between Research and Extension.

a. Extension b. Technical
Communications Vegetables Crops
Social Sciences Fruit Crops
Methodology Home Economics
Planning Rural Youth
Integrated Pest Management Agricultural Economics Communications
Extension-Research Agronomy Special ist
Horticultural Crops Fruit Crops
Soil Fertility
Short-term assistance in Soil Chemistry and Soil Physics
Advisory to act as co-director in institutional organization and development. Short-term advisor on program planning and evaluation. Training of personnel.


December 31, 1974
Contract No. AID/la-586 (El Salvador) Between the United States of America and the University of Florida
Firm Budget Amount To Date FINAL Adjustments
Category 4/7/69-12/31/74 12/31/74 12/31/74
Salaries $ 424,852.00 $ 423,660.34 $ 2,127.62
Fringe Benefits 17,095.00 17,122.56 208.76
Allowances 66,055.00 64,831.56 987.83
Travel & Transportation 85,070.00 86,156.67 2,352.35
Other Direct Costs 31,943.00 33,484.59 1,274.90
Overhead 135,152.00 134,770.32 703.72
Equipment 18,419.00 16,496.55 982.49
Totals $ 778,586.00 $ 776,522.59 $ 8,637.67
Computation of Overhead: (Includes salaries-and fringe benefits)
Domestic salaries: 49.42% x -0- = -0Off-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 Contractor's home office promptly to A.I.D. on request.
David R. Bryant
Title Administrative Manager Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida

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 To Date This Period
Category I/1/75 4/30/79 12/31/78 10/1/78-12/31/78
Salaries $ 602,037.00 $ 472,739.24 $ 34,187.70
Fringe Benefits 77,839.00 58,673.35 4,534.86
Allowances 163,375.00 120,461.03 11,537.66
Travel and Transportation 106,687.00 92,819.88 11,252.23
Other Direct Costs 23,200.00 20,584.50 1,337.14
Overhead 205,566.00 165,344.21 12,084.33
Vehicles and Maintenance 19,000.00 19,469.24 624.08
Equipment and Supplies 41,200.00 27,789.44 1,284.96
Participant Training 166,oo0.o0 33,010.46 10,593.23
Totals $1,404,904.00 $1,010,891.35 $ 87,436.19
Computation of Overhead: Includes salaries and fringe benefits
Domestic Salaries: 51% x 3,885.44 = 1,981.57 Off-Campus Salaries: 29% x 34,837.12 = 10,102.76 12,084.33
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.
David R. Bryant, Jr.
Title Administrative Manager
Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida


Publ ications
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 9. AID Project Consultants Report, McCaleb, J.E., January 29 February 17, 1971. 10. AID Project Consultants Report, McCaleb, J.E., June 1970. 11. AID Project Consultants Report, McCaleb, J.E., October 4 October 18, 1970. 12. AID Project Consultants Report, Perry, V.G. and Miller, C.R., September 28
October 10, 1970.
13. AID Project Consultants Report, Prine, G.M., November 2-14, 1970. 14. AID Project Consultants Report, Rogers, J.C., September 8-26, 1970. 15. AID Project Consultants Report, Smith, Ralph L., November 16-25, 1970. 16. AID Project Consultants Report, Wilcox, C.J., February 21 March 6, 1971. 17. AID Project Consultants Report, Wing, J.M., August 29 September 13, 1970. 18. AID Project Consultants Report, 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.
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. Programa 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. Programa De Ensenanza De La Escuela Nacional De Agricultura, Por Asignatura$, 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 Agricultura 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 19? 11. Suggestions for Improving the Organizational Structure of the Ministerio de
Agricultura 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 Carn6.
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.
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.
47. Foreign Aid to the Small Farmer: The El Salvador Experience By L. Harlan Davis
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. Waite.
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 Ghnaderia, 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,
28. Summary of Impressions, Ideas and Progress as of March 15, 1978. By K.L.
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.
Box 7
1. El Salvador Map, 1978.
2. Guia para Investigadores Republica de El Salvador, Minlsterio de Obras Publicas, Instituto Panamericano de Geografia e Historia, 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,
4. CENTA Research Projects for 1978. (maize)
5. Intensive Small Farm Management Quarterly Report Jan. I 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,
15. Intensive Small Farm Management, Quarterly Report July 1, 1978-September 30,
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,

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EX6D7HTQ1_4WZMR6 INGEST_TIME 2018-12-07T21:09:00Z PACKAGE UF00055284_00001