Welfare Impacts of Cross-Country Spillovers in Agricultural Research, 2007

The welfare implications of intellectual property protection (IPP) for private sector agricultural research are analyzed, focusing on the realistic cases in which countries provide different IPP levels, technology spills over across countries, and the public sector is involved in research. A model is developed to determine who benefits from, and who should pay for, the associated research. The paper contains some interesting results on the implications of a harmonization of IPP policies through multilateral agreements or via technology that allows research firms to prevent the copying of plants and animals that express traits that have emerged from their research.

Audit report on America’s Agricultural Industrial Heritage Landscape, Inc., d/b/a Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area, in Waterloo, Iowa for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006

Audit report on America’s Agricultural Industrial Heritage Landscape, Inc., d/b/a Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area, in Waterloo, Iowa for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006

Audit report on the Iowa Agricultural Development Authority for the year ended June 30, 2008

Audit report on the Iowa Agricultural Development Authority for the year ended June 30, 2008

Audit report on America’s Agricultural Industrial Heritage Landscape, Inc., d/b/a Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area, in Waterloo, Iowa for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007

Audit report on America’s Agricultural Industrial Heritage Landscape, Inc., d/b/a Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area, in Waterloo, Iowa for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007

Audit report on the Iowa Agricultural Development Authority for the year ended June 30, 2009

Audit report on the Iowa Agricultural Development Authority for the year ended June 30, 2009

Audit report on America’s Agricultural Industrial Heritage Landscape, Inc., d/b/a Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area (Silos and Smokestacks), in Waterloo, Iowa for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008

Audit report on America’s Agricultural Industrial Heritage Landscape, Inc., d/b/a Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area (Silos and Smokestacks), in Waterloo, Iowa for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008

Iowa Agricultural Organization Directory, 2009

The directory of all the Agriculture organizations on Iowa. Taken from online directory on June 1, 2010.

Audit report on the Iowa Agricultural Development Authority for the year ended June 30, 2010

Audit report on the Iowa Agricultural Development Authority for the year ended June 30, 2010

Audit report on America’s Agricultural Industrial Heritage Landscape, Inc., d/b/a Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area, in Waterloo, Iowa for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009

Audit report on America’s Agricultural Industrial Heritage Landscape, Inc., d/b/a Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area, in Waterloo, Iowa for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009

Tree and Brush Control For County Road Right-of-Way, Ocotober 2002

This manual summarizes the roadside tree and brush control methods used by all of Iowa's 99 counties. It is based on interviews conducted in Spring 2002 with county engineers, roadside managers and others. The target audience of this manual is the novice county engineer or roadside manager. Iowa law is nearly silent on roadside tree and brush control, so individual counties have been left to decide on the level of control they want to achieve and maintain. Different solutions have been developed but the goal of every county remains the same: to provide safe roads for the traveling public. Counties in eastern and southern Iowa appear to face the greatest brush control challenge. Most control efforts can be divided into two categories: mechanical and chemical. Mechanical control includes cutting tools and supporting equipment. A chain saw is the most widely used cutting tool. Tractor mounted boom mowers and brush cutters are used to prune miles of brush but have significant safety and aesthetic limitations and boom mowers are easily broken by inexperienced operators. The advent of tree shears and hydraulic thumbs offer unprecedented versatility. Bulldozers are often considered a method of last resort since they reduce large areas to bare ground. Any chipper that violently grabs brush should not be used. Chemical control is the application of herbicide to different parts of a plant: foliar spray is applied to leaves; basal bark spray is applied to the tree trunk; a cut stump treatment is applied to the cambium ring of a cut surface. There is reluctance by many to apply herbicide into the air due to drift concerns. One-third of Iowa counties do not use foliar spray. By contrast, several accepted control methods are directed toward the ground. Freshly cut stumps should be treated to prevent resprouting. Basal bark spray is highly effective in sensitive areas such as near houses. Interest in chemical control is slowly increasing as herbicides and application methods are refined. Fall burning, a third, distinctly separate technique is underused as a brush control method and can be effective if timed correctly. In all, control methods tend to reflect agricultural patterns in a county. The use of chain saws and foliar sprays tends to increase in counties where row crops predominate, and boom mowing tends to increase in counties where grassland predominates. For counties with light to moderate roadside brush, rotational maintenance is the key to effective control. The most comprehensive approach to control is to implement an integrated roadside vegetation management (IRVM) program. An IRVM program is usually directed by a Roadside Manager whose duties may be shared with another position. Funding for control programs comes from the Rural Services Basic portion of a county's budget. The average annual county brush control budget is about $76,000. That figure is thought not to include shared expenses such as fuel and buildings. Start up costs for an IRVM program are less if an existing control program is converted. In addition, IRVM budgets from three different northeastern Iowa counties are offered for comparison in this manual. The manual also includes a chapter on temporary traffic control in rural work zones, a summary of the Iowa Code as it relates to brush control, and rules on avoiding seasonal disturbance of the endangered Indiana bat. Appendices summarize survey and forest cover data, an equipment inventory, sample forms for record keeping, a sample brush control policy, a few legal opinions, a literature search, and a glossary.

Audit report on the Iowa Agricultural Development Authority for the year ended June 30, 2011

Audit report on the Iowa Agricultural Development Authority for the year ended June 30, 2011

Agency Fact Sheet, Department of Agricultural and Land Stewardship, FY2007

This document produced by the Iowa Department of Administrative Services has been developed to provide a multitude of information about executive branch agencies/department on a single sheet of paper. The facts provides general information, contact information, workforce data, leave and benefits information and affirmative action data.

Audit report on America’s Agricultural Industrial Heritage Landscape, Inc., d/b/a Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area, in Waterloo, Iowa for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010

Audit report on America’s Agricultural Industrial Heritage Landscape, Inc., d/b/a Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area, in Waterloo, Iowa for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010

Erosion Control for Highway Applications, Phase I: Review and Synthesis of Literature, Final Report, TR-464, May 2002

The project described herein has led to a convenient, computer-based expert system for identifying and evaluating potentially effective erosion- and sedimentation-control measures for use in roadway construction throughout Iowa and elsewhere in the Midwest. The expert system is intended to be an accessible and efficient practical resource to aid state, county, and municipal engineers in the selection of the best management practices for preventing unwanted erosion and sedimentation at roadway construction sites, during and after construction.

Audit report on the Muscatine Agricultural Learning Center for the year ended December 31, 2011 and the six months ended December 31, 2010

Audit report on the Muscatine Agricultural Learning Center for the year ended December 31, 2011 and the six months ended December 31, 2010