- Email: [email protected]
Current Status of Dairy Foods Education in the United States
Current Status of Dairy Foods Education in the United States JOSEPH A. O ' D O N N E L L Dairy Research Foundation Rosemont, IL 60018 ABSTRACT
The Land-Grant university mandate placed teaching, research, and extension in interdependent roles. Training of qualified graduates, especially at the masters and Ph.D. levels, depends on a professor with an active research program. Research depends upon outside funding and direction, especially from industry and government. Industry depends upon hiring qualified graduates and on research data to carry out product development, thereby remaining competitive and profitable. The commitment to dairy food research has waned since the 1950's, but major infusions of resources and attention to dairy food research are imminent. If properly channeled, data and trained personnel generated will have a major impact on the performance and profitability of the entire dairy industry. DISCUSSION
The threefold mandate of our Land-Grant university system (research, teaching, extension) is well-recognized by the agricultural community. A simple listing, however, may not be a totally accurate description of this mandate for it does not show interrelationships. A more complete and dynamic representation of the threefold mandate is shown in Figure 1. This diagram clearly shows how the Land-Grant system generates and disseminates information and trains personnel for the advancement of agriculture in the US. In addition, nearly anyone engaged in agriculture can identify where he or she fits into this diagram. America is a capitalistic democracy, and success in America implies that someone is producing a product and selling it at a profit. The profit motive is fundamental to American
Received September 23, 1986. Accepted October 20, 1986. 1987 J Dairy Sci 70:1743-1745
culture. To turn a profit, a manufacturer needs to apply technology with expertise, produce a product, and market it. Clearly, the Land-Grant university system, as described in Figure 1, is designed to participate in this process. The university has the responsibility of training future researchers and product developers for the industry, and in so doing generate new technology for the industry. In return, industry must provide direction for university research, and students provide the technical labor to conduct that research under the direction of professors. Upon graduation, the student provides human resources to the industry, and industry provides opportunity for the students. These human resources, together with extension efforts of the university, transfer technology to the industry. New technology then leads to new product development or enhancement, these in turn generate new sales, and new sales expand the economy for all elements of the dairy industry. Let us consider the direction of dairy education since the creation of the agricultural experiment stations with the passage of the Hatch Act in 1887. The Hatch Act decentralized the management of agricultural research by giving more control to the states, where regional agricultural issues could be addressed, and dairy manufacturing was an early issue. During the early 1900's its specialization within agriculture was increased. As increased agriculrural and research activities generated technology, the government responded with the Smith-Lever Act in 1914 to provide federal funding of extension activities critical for the transfer of technology developed at agricultural universities to the industry. During the general industrialization in the US in the decade following World War II, dairy manufacturing became bigger and bigger business. Larger plants with modern equipment needing well-trained people were built at a rapid rate. The demand for graduates in dairy manufacturing was there; unfortunately, money was not. Money for research and money for salaries was minimized. As a result, other
1743
1744
O'DONNELL
University (Research)
Students (Teaching)
Human Resources ,~
~"
Opportunity
Industry (Extension)
Figure 1. Therefold mandate of the Land-Grant university system expressed in terms of interrelationships.
segments of agriculture with greater commitment for the research, education, and extension activities of the universities started to fill space and faculty positions abandoned by the dairy industry. The student, well-trained in dairy food science, became a scarce resource as curricula evolved to more generic food science programs. The job market for dairy food scientists has been and continues to be strong, but without dollars for research, fewer faculty remain devoted to dairy processing, and as a consequence, fewer courses and fewer students. Research and education are interdependent. In short, the complacency of the industry was caused by the excellent productivity of our agricultural university systems. There was a ready supply of well-qualified new graduates willing to accept very modest salaries. The dairy industry took advantage of the situation and rested on past achievements while other segments of the food industry pressured universities to diversify the food processing curricula to address their concerns. A shift from dairy technology to food technology is the result. What exactly has happened since 19507 First, dairy processing plants have become fewer and larger (1). Current dairy processing plants exhibit the following profile: 1) There were 1244 cooperatives in 1964; today there are less than 500. 2) Fifty-three percent of the milk market was controlled by cooperatives in 1950; 75% in 1975; 90% are projected in 1990 with half the number of cooperatives. 3) From 1975 to 1984, the number of cheese plants dropped by 20%; output increased by 105% percent. 4) From 1975 to 1984, butter plants Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 70, No. 8, 1987
decreased 42%; output increased 93%. 5) There are half as many fluid milk plants in 1984 than in 1975. In addition, the number of students enrolled in dairy food curricula has dropped just as the number of programs has dropped (2). Finally, in response to declining research dollars coupled with the loss of identity of dairy food science in the food science curriculum, the American Dairy Science Association (ADSA) queried the industry as to the skills most pertinent to its needs (1). Areas identified as critical to a dairy food science curricula are as follows: processing, engineering, microbiology, chemistry, plant management, labor relations, accounting, communication skills, practical experience, and fundamental training. Ultimately, this ADSA Committee made a number of recommendations. A selected few are listed: 1. The continuing demand for students in dairy technology curricula should encourage support from ADSA, trade associations, and the industry for strengthening existing programs. 2. A study should assess the number of graduates employed annually by the dairy industry or in support of the dairy industry. 3. Ways should be found to help instructors maintain or acquire a high state of expertise in dairy products. 4. Cooperative industry and university workstudy programs should be instituted. This should apply to teaching staff and graduate students as well. 5. Financial commitment by the industry to dairy product research (e.g., fellowships, research grant, and endowed chairs) should be improved. As stated by this ADSA committee, financial commitment is important in any endeavor. In the case of agricultural reasearch there are several sources; major ones are federal, state, and industry. Federal support of dairy products research generally takes three forms: USDA in-house research, Hatch Act, and competitive grants. One index used to measure commitment is in terms of Scientist Years (SY). The commitment by USDA to dairy product research (3) between
SYMPOSIUM: ISSUES IN DAIRY FOODS EDUCATION
Year 1970 1975 1978 1985
SY 50.8 37.1 2.2 22.2
Year 1970 1975 1978 1985
1745
SY 64.5 59.7 63.8 45.0
Figure 2. Trend in USDA support of dairy product research in terms of scientist years (SY).
Figure 3. Trend in state support of dairy product research in terms of scientist years (SY).
1970 and 1985 is described in Figure 2. It is clear there has been a steady decrease in the commitment by USDA to dairy manufacturing research. However, 1986 appears to show a reversal in this trend with the USDA increasing its commitment to product utiIization research. Similarly, state-supported dairy product research measured in SY has declined between 1970 to 1985 (Agricultural Research Service, personal communication) (Figure 3). Industry's commitment to product research and working with the agricultural universities is another concern. The dairy industry is in a dynamic phase. Cooperatives' control over the supply of milk is growing; plants are becoming larger and fewer. Thus, it would seem that the transfer of innovative technology from university to plant could be on a very large scale. Small changes will have major consequences, which makes it important to be certain that well-qualified personnel are at the plant during implementation and operation of technological advances. To maintain its presence in the competitive marketplace, the industry needs to review its commitment to product research not only to provide direction for research efforts but also to enhance a supply of well-qualified graduates:
1984 -- California Milk Advisory Board (CMAB) endowed the Peter J. Shields chair at the University of Caliornia, Davis. Early 1986 - Center for Dairy Research established by WMMB at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Mid 1986 -- Dairy Food Research Centers program authored and proposed by DRF receives financial commitment from NDPRB and local dairy promotion organizations. Late 1986 -- Research Opportunities for the Dairy Industry Conference to set the agenda for tomorrow's research held in Berkeley, California.
1969 -- Dairy Research Inc. (DRINC) established and dedicated to the development of new product/process technology. 1976 Dairy Research Foundation (DRF) established and dedicated to channeling industry funds to support basic dairy product research activities. Mid 1983 - Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board (WMMB) established with a significant commitment to product research. 1984 - National Dairy Promotion and Research Board (NDPRB) established with a significant commitment to product research.
Clearly, the commitment by the dairy food industry to product research has grown tremendously in the last few years. Some specific programs funded by the dairy industry include competitive research, symposia, postdoctoral fellowships, dairy products judging contest, recognition for outstanding research performance, faculty fellowships, graduate industry fellowships, endowed chairs, identification of research priorities, dairy food research centers, and more to come. A financial commitment by the dairy industry to dairy food research and related activities is real and significant. It is time for vision, inspiration, leadership, and a strong sence of cooperation to lay the foundation for the future for the dairy products industry for the teaching, extension, and research mandate of the agricultural universities in the US. This is the challenge before us. REFERENCES
I Parsons, J. G. 1 9 7 9 . A successful program for educating professionals at the undergraduate level. 1979. J. Dairy Sci. 62:1171. 2 Martin, J. H. 1981. trends in dairy manufacturing education during the past twenty-five years. J. Dairy Sci. 64:900. Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 7 0 , No. 8, 1987
The Land-Grant university mandate placed teaching, research, and extension in interdependent roles. Training of qualified graduates, especially at the masters and Ph.D. levels, depends on a professor with an active research program. Research depends upon outside funding and direction, especially from industry and government. Industry depends upon hiring qualified graduates and on research data to carry out product development, thereby remaining competitive and profitable. The commitment to dairy food research has waned since the 1950's, but major infusions of resources and attention to dairy food research are imminent. If properly channeled, data and trained personnel generated will have a major impact on the performance and profitability of the entire dairy industry. DISCUSSION
The threefold mandate of our Land-Grant university system (research, teaching, extension) is well-recognized by the agricultural community. A simple listing, however, may not be a totally accurate description of this mandate for it does not show interrelationships. A more complete and dynamic representation of the threefold mandate is shown in Figure 1. This diagram clearly shows how the Land-Grant system generates and disseminates information and trains personnel for the advancement of agriculture in the US. In addition, nearly anyone engaged in agriculture can identify where he or she fits into this diagram. America is a capitalistic democracy, and success in America implies that someone is producing a product and selling it at a profit. The profit motive is fundamental to American
Received September 23, 1986. Accepted October 20, 1986. 1987 J Dairy Sci 70:1743-1745
culture. To turn a profit, a manufacturer needs to apply technology with expertise, produce a product, and market it. Clearly, the Land-Grant university system, as described in Figure 1, is designed to participate in this process. The university has the responsibility of training future researchers and product developers for the industry, and in so doing generate new technology for the industry. In return, industry must provide direction for university research, and students provide the technical labor to conduct that research under the direction of professors. Upon graduation, the student provides human resources to the industry, and industry provides opportunity for the students. These human resources, together with extension efforts of the university, transfer technology to the industry. New technology then leads to new product development or enhancement, these in turn generate new sales, and new sales expand the economy for all elements of the dairy industry. Let us consider the direction of dairy education since the creation of the agricultural experiment stations with the passage of the Hatch Act in 1887. The Hatch Act decentralized the management of agricultural research by giving more control to the states, where regional agricultural issues could be addressed, and dairy manufacturing was an early issue. During the early 1900's its specialization within agriculture was increased. As increased agriculrural and research activities generated technology, the government responded with the Smith-Lever Act in 1914 to provide federal funding of extension activities critical for the transfer of technology developed at agricultural universities to the industry. During the general industrialization in the US in the decade following World War II, dairy manufacturing became bigger and bigger business. Larger plants with modern equipment needing well-trained people were built at a rapid rate. The demand for graduates in dairy manufacturing was there; unfortunately, money was not. Money for research and money for salaries was minimized. As a result, other
1743
1744
O'DONNELL
University (Research)
Students (Teaching)
Human Resources ,~
~"
Opportunity
Industry (Extension)
Figure 1. Therefold mandate of the Land-Grant university system expressed in terms of interrelationships.
segments of agriculture with greater commitment for the research, education, and extension activities of the universities started to fill space and faculty positions abandoned by the dairy industry. The student, well-trained in dairy food science, became a scarce resource as curricula evolved to more generic food science programs. The job market for dairy food scientists has been and continues to be strong, but without dollars for research, fewer faculty remain devoted to dairy processing, and as a consequence, fewer courses and fewer students. Research and education are interdependent. In short, the complacency of the industry was caused by the excellent productivity of our agricultural university systems. There was a ready supply of well-qualified new graduates willing to accept very modest salaries. The dairy industry took advantage of the situation and rested on past achievements while other segments of the food industry pressured universities to diversify the food processing curricula to address their concerns. A shift from dairy technology to food technology is the result. What exactly has happened since 19507 First, dairy processing plants have become fewer and larger (1). Current dairy processing plants exhibit the following profile: 1) There were 1244 cooperatives in 1964; today there are less than 500. 2) Fifty-three percent of the milk market was controlled by cooperatives in 1950; 75% in 1975; 90% are projected in 1990 with half the number of cooperatives. 3) From 1975 to 1984, the number of cheese plants dropped by 20%; output increased by 105% percent. 4) From 1975 to 1984, butter plants Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 70, No. 8, 1987
decreased 42%; output increased 93%. 5) There are half as many fluid milk plants in 1984 than in 1975. In addition, the number of students enrolled in dairy food curricula has dropped just as the number of programs has dropped (2). Finally, in response to declining research dollars coupled with the loss of identity of dairy food science in the food science curriculum, the American Dairy Science Association (ADSA) queried the industry as to the skills most pertinent to its needs (1). Areas identified as critical to a dairy food science curricula are as follows: processing, engineering, microbiology, chemistry, plant management, labor relations, accounting, communication skills, practical experience, and fundamental training. Ultimately, this ADSA Committee made a number of recommendations. A selected few are listed: 1. The continuing demand for students in dairy technology curricula should encourage support from ADSA, trade associations, and the industry for strengthening existing programs. 2. A study should assess the number of graduates employed annually by the dairy industry or in support of the dairy industry. 3. Ways should be found to help instructors maintain or acquire a high state of expertise in dairy products. 4. Cooperative industry and university workstudy programs should be instituted. This should apply to teaching staff and graduate students as well. 5. Financial commitment by the industry to dairy product research (e.g., fellowships, research grant, and endowed chairs) should be improved. As stated by this ADSA committee, financial commitment is important in any endeavor. In the case of agricultural reasearch there are several sources; major ones are federal, state, and industry. Federal support of dairy products research generally takes three forms: USDA in-house research, Hatch Act, and competitive grants. One index used to measure commitment is in terms of Scientist Years (SY). The commitment by USDA to dairy product research (3) between
SYMPOSIUM: ISSUES IN DAIRY FOODS EDUCATION
Year 1970 1975 1978 1985
SY 50.8 37.1 2.2 22.2
Year 1970 1975 1978 1985
1745
SY 64.5 59.7 63.8 45.0
Figure 2. Trend in USDA support of dairy product research in terms of scientist years (SY).
Figure 3. Trend in state support of dairy product research in terms of scientist years (SY).
1970 and 1985 is described in Figure 2. It is clear there has been a steady decrease in the commitment by USDA to dairy manufacturing research. However, 1986 appears to show a reversal in this trend with the USDA increasing its commitment to product utiIization research. Similarly, state-supported dairy product research measured in SY has declined between 1970 to 1985 (Agricultural Research Service, personal communication) (Figure 3). Industry's commitment to product research and working with the agricultural universities is another concern. The dairy industry is in a dynamic phase. Cooperatives' control over the supply of milk is growing; plants are becoming larger and fewer. Thus, it would seem that the transfer of innovative technology from university to plant could be on a very large scale. Small changes will have major consequences, which makes it important to be certain that well-qualified personnel are at the plant during implementation and operation of technological advances. To maintain its presence in the competitive marketplace, the industry needs to review its commitment to product research not only to provide direction for research efforts but also to enhance a supply of well-qualified graduates:
1984 -- California Milk Advisory Board (CMAB) endowed the Peter J. Shields chair at the University of Caliornia, Davis. Early 1986 - Center for Dairy Research established by WMMB at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Mid 1986 -- Dairy Food Research Centers program authored and proposed by DRF receives financial commitment from NDPRB and local dairy promotion organizations. Late 1986 -- Research Opportunities for the Dairy Industry Conference to set the agenda for tomorrow's research held in Berkeley, California.
1969 -- Dairy Research Inc. (DRINC) established and dedicated to the development of new product/process technology. 1976 Dairy Research Foundation (DRF) established and dedicated to channeling industry funds to support basic dairy product research activities. Mid 1983 - Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board (WMMB) established with a significant commitment to product research. 1984 - National Dairy Promotion and Research Board (NDPRB) established with a significant commitment to product research.
Clearly, the commitment by the dairy food industry to product research has grown tremendously in the last few years. Some specific programs funded by the dairy industry include competitive research, symposia, postdoctoral fellowships, dairy products judging contest, recognition for outstanding research performance, faculty fellowships, graduate industry fellowships, endowed chairs, identification of research priorities, dairy food research centers, and more to come. A financial commitment by the dairy industry to dairy food research and related activities is real and significant. It is time for vision, inspiration, leadership, and a strong sence of cooperation to lay the foundation for the future for the dairy products industry for the teaching, extension, and research mandate of the agricultural universities in the US. This is the challenge before us. REFERENCES
I Parsons, J. G. 1 9 7 9 . A successful program for educating professionals at the undergraduate level. 1979. J. Dairy Sci. 62:1171. 2 Martin, J. H. 1981. trends in dairy manufacturing education during the past twenty-five years. J. Dairy Sci. 64:900. Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 7 0 , No. 8, 1987