A: We have not defined “socio-economically disadvantaged communities”. We encourage you to clearly describe who your project will serve and include relevant demographics for the student population (e.g., free/reduced lunch rates, poverty rates, or being located in a food desert) to demonstrate how you are reaching underserved communities.
A: We have not defined “socio-economically disadvantaged communities”. We encourage you to clearly describe who your project will serve and include relevant demographics for the student population (e.g., free/reduced lunch rates, poverty rates, or being located in a food desert) to demonstrate how you are reaching underserved communities.
A: Yes, you may propose curriculum that covers any aspect of meat processing. However, the focus of the RFP is on cutting and butchery, and you are encouraged to emphasize these components to the extent possible.
A: Yes. In your application, you should explain the rationale for renting the mobile unit rather than purchasing it.
A: Equipment or facility renovation that is funded by the grant can be located at a local industry partner, provided that you clearly describe how the expenditure primarily benefits students rather than the meat processing facility. Meat processors are eligible to apply for the AGRI Value-Added Grant for investment in equipment for their own business needs.
A: Purchases must be made during the grant period. Grant funds may be used to purchase products that will be used after the grant period, as long as the products are received by the contract end date. You are encouraged to provide an estimated range of dates for receipt of purchases on the timeline in your application. Expenses for equipment installation and other services are eligible only if incurred and provided during the grant period.
A: Applicants determine which local businesses are appropriate to include in their proposed programming and define the roles and responsibilities of each partner. We encourage you to clearly describe the proposed framework of the partnership in the collaboration section of your application.
A: No, applicants determine the appropriate grade levels to serve with the proposed secondary curriculum, as long as those grades are included in the district's secondary school grades.
A: Yes, grant funds could be used to establish a meat cutting certificate at a post-secondary institution, but the funding would need to flow through a secondary school/school district and produce an end result that benefits secondary students. The post-secondary institution cannot apply independently.
A: Yes, only secondary career and technical education programs are eligible so they would need to be the primary recipient, and if awarded a grant, will be the grantee.
A: No, the college or university doesn't need to have an established program at the time of application. If funding is approved, instruction that benefits secondary career and technical education students must be offered, but the instruction doesn't need to be a part of a formal program.
A: The MEAT Grant is intended to teach students about meat cutting and butchery. Your application should focus on the necessities for this type of instruction rather than what is needed for food preparation. If you apply for items that the review committee determines to be outside the scope of the purpose of the grant, they will have the ability to recommend funding for just those items that are considered eligible.
Your farm is not considered fully "covered" by the produce safety rule if it qualifies for an exemption. Fully "covered" means your farm has to comply with all parts of the FSMA Produce Safety Rule and is subject to routine inspection. If you are eligible for an exemption your farm does not qualify for this funding category within the mini-grant application.
Your farm is not considered fully "covered" by the produce safety rule if it qualifies for an exemption. Fully "covered" means your farm has to comply with all parts of the FSMA Produce Safety Rule and is subject to routine inspection. If you are eligible for an exemption your farm does not qualify for this funding category within the mini-grant application.
Estimating N leaching from agricultural fields is complicated. There are many factors that influence N leaching losses, including:
- Climate (precipitation, temperature, evapotranspiration)
- Soils (texture, organic matter, depth)
- Crop rotation and management
- Water management (irrigation, tile-drainage)
- Nitrogen management (source, rate, timing, placement, method of application)
- Crop growth (planting date and nitrogen uptake)
- N movement over or within the soil (leaching, tile-drainage, runoff, groundwater discharge)
Developing N leaching reduction strategies based solely on field research can be difficult since research is often limited to specific locations, management practices, environmental conditions, and soil properties that may not accurately represent all DWSMAs. However, Minnesota specific field research data is used to inform models by helping to set input constraints and output expectations.
Estimating N leaching from agricultural fields is complicated. There are many factors that influence N leaching losses, including:
- Climate (precipitation, temperature, evapotranspiration)
- Soils (texture, organic matter, depth)
- Crop rotation and management
- Water management (irrigation, tile-drainage)
- Nitrogen management (source, rate, timing, placement, method of application)
- Crop growth (planting date and nitrogen uptake)
- N movement over or within the soil (leaching, tile-drainage, runoff, groundwater discharge)
Developing N leaching reduction strategies based solely on field research can be difficult since research is often limited to specific locations, management practices, environmental conditions, and soil properties that may not accurately represent all DWSMAs. However, Minnesota specific field research data is used to inform models by helping to set input constraints and output expectations.
In anticipation of the Minnesota Groundwater Protection Rule the MDA signed a contract with the U of M in 2015 (continues into 2023) to provide extensive modeling expertise and assist the MDA’s efforts of modeling N leaching losses and develop N leaching reduction strategies in DWSMAs. Activities have included:
- The U of M conducted an extensive analysis to determine the most suitable models to use considering the varying landscapes, environmental conditions, and management practices across Minnesota. Based on a rigorous analysis, of computer models available, the U of M determined the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was the most appropriate for use in tile-drained landscapes, while the Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) model was the most suitable for regions with coarse textured soil and irrigation.
- The University also used existing Minnesota specific field research to develop model input information specific for various agricultural management, environmental, and soil conditions for regions throughout the state.
- Due to the extensive level of effort required to develop DWSMA specific N leaching model scenarios, the U of M provided initial training to MDA staff. This process enabled staff from the MDA to lead the modeling efforts.
- For continued capacity building and quality control, the MDA consults weekly with the U of M to refine model input to best reflect DWSMA specific conditions. This iterative process of continuously reviewing the calculations ensures a high accuracy for the N leaching estimates and N leaching reduction strategies developed for DWSMAs.
- Field monitoring data and research into new management techniques or products underway at U of M research farms is continuously being reviewed and used to ensure high accuracy in the calculations.
In anticipation of the Minnesota Groundwater Protection Rule the MDA signed a contract with the U of M in 2015 (continues into 2023) to provide extensive modeling expertise and assist the MDA’s efforts of modeling N leaching losses and develop N leaching reduction strategies in DWSMAs. Activities have included:
- The U of M conducted an extensive analysis to determine the most suitable models to use considering the varying landscapes, environmental conditions, and management practices across Minnesota. Based on a rigorous analysis, of computer models available, the U of M determined the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was the most appropriate for use in tile-drained landscapes, while the Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) model was the most suitable for regions with coarse textured soil and irrigation.
- The University also used existing Minnesota specific field research to develop model input information specific for various agricultural management, environmental, and soil conditions for regions throughout the state.
- Due to the extensive level of effort required to develop DWSMA specific N leaching model scenarios, the U of M provided initial training to MDA staff. This process enabled staff from the MDA to lead the modeling efforts.
- For continued capacity building and quality control, the MDA consults weekly with the U of M to refine model input to best reflect DWSMA specific conditions. This iterative process of continuously reviewing the calculations ensures a high accuracy for the N leaching estimates and N leaching reduction strategies developed for DWSMAs.
- Field monitoring data and research into new management techniques or products underway at U of M research farms is continuously being reviewed and used to ensure high accuracy in the calculations.
