- Email: [email protected]
Program synthesis and future challenge
Program Synthesis and Future Challenge M. M. BECK Department of Animal Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583-0908 (Key words: poultry industry, academia, Ad Hoc Committee on the Status of Poultry Science in North America) 1998 Poultry Science 77:226–229
Received for publication July 9, 1996. Accepted for publication March 31, 1997. 1Published as paper Number 11680, Agricultural Research Division, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0702.
Abbreviation Key: PSA = Poultry Science Association.
226
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Florida International University on May 30, 2015
successful, I believe, is that without direct industry participation in the effort we simply were not a strong voice, and we were not successful in enlisting industry support. At about this time, Hank Engster, of Perdue Farms, Inc., had become aware of the serious negative effects on poultry science bench strength and on numbers of graduates with expertise in poultry. His efforts to expand the dialogue to industry was more successful, as he worked, with input from the PSA Industry Committee, to conceptualize this symposium. Before we can discuss change, however, we have to know where we are now; in order to know where you are going, you must know where you have been. Poultry science and the poultry industry became great because historically there was a joint venture between the two. It is important for us to remember that, and to understand fundamentally that the scientific excellence of poultry science departments in land grant universities complemented, enhanced, and sustained the efforts of the early poultry industry to achieve and maintain efficient production, a safe food supply, and an affordable food supply. The converse was also there—the early industry supported, sustained, and complemented the scientific endeavors at universities. The synergism of those early years is represented by data provided by Milt Sunde, University of Wisconsin, showing the steady increase in departments of poultry science in the first half of this century (Figure 1) and by the steady increase in poultry consumption (Figure 2). To some extent we are spoiled. We are accustomed to seeing production graphs going up. We look at these trends and see that business is good and projections in line. Why should we worry that university poultry programs are dropping rapidly? Does it matter that the other half of Sunde’s graph looks like Figure 3, which represents changes in departmental status during the second half of this century? Does it matter that, as consumption of poultry has increased, the number of poultry scientists has decreased (Figure 2)? One is almost tempted to suggest the converse—if numbers of poultry scientists are driven further down, consumption will go up even more!
For a long time—at least since 1969—different Poultry Science Association (PSA) members have been concerned about disappearing poultry science departments, faculty, and programs. The earliest paper (Sunde, 1969) documenting this trend was followed by others (Barnett and Mountney, 1972; Bigbee and Shaffner, 1972; Sunde et al., 1972; Carlson et al., 1977; Cook, 1988; Gyles, 1988; Reynnells et al., 1988; Havenstein et al., 1990; Beck, 1992). With the steady attrition of poultry programs at universities has been an opposite trend in the poultry industry, where growth has steadily increased. After many years of monitoring the status of poultry science departments, the PSA Board in 1989 revamped the Status Committee to form the Ad Hoc Committee on the Status of Poultry Science in North America. The purpose of this committee, in addition to documenting changes, was to attempt a more proactive role in persuading universities not to eliminate poultry departments or faculty positions. The Ad Hoc Committee existed for approximately 6 yr, and was co-chaired by James Marion, Auburn University, and Mary Beck, University of Nebraska. During this time, the primary activity was to write letters to deans of colleges of agriculture in which poultry departments were being merged into animal science departments. Letters were sent to the deans, with copies to national and state poultry industry leaders, at the University of Florida, The Ohio State University, Washington State University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and the University of Wisconsin. To the extent that we learned about these pending mergers as or just before they occurred, this effort to influence the decisions was still largely reactive. Considering that these departments and programs are no longer in existence, despite our efforts, it is unclear how effective we were. In any case, the Ad Hoc Status Committee ceased to exist around 1994. One reason we were not more
SYMPOSIUM: PARTNERSHIPS IN POULTRY SCIENCE—PERSPECTIVES OF CHANGE
227
Does any of this matter? We still have scientific excellence in spite of shrunken programs. The industry is still gaining. The bird still responds to genetic, nutritional, and management manipulations. Does it matter that these same things have contributed ironically also to the decline of poultry programs? Certainly, industry believes it can take graduates with any major and make them into technically competent personnel. Although there has been some truth to that assumption, it will be increasingly difficult to achieve, with less than 2% of the population having any sort of farm background as a basis for some fundamental level of comprehension of agriculture. Certainly, industry also
FIGURE 2. Poultry consumption (pounds per person) from 1983 to 1992 and total number of poultry science faculty at land grant universities from 1978 to 1993. (From Beck, 1992.)
believes it can do most of its research in-house. So, does it really matter? I believe that it does matter, and I will address the why later. Now, however, I would like to turn the program over to the other speakers, who also believe it matters, to give them an opportunity to voice their opinions and proposed solutions.
CLOSING REMARKS Now, after hearing about regional programs and centers of excellence, both existing and proposed, in Canada and the U.S., it would be easy to end this symposium on a self-congratulatory note. Indeed, these are commendable efforts and positive first steps to solving some of the difficulties. Industry and universities are cooperating in these ventures in ways they never have before. However, I want to look at this in another way and to consider several points as the next generation of challenges for PSA to face. First, I would wager that no one here fails to recognize that we will all be asked to do more with less in the future. Budgets are extremely tight everywhere, and the realities of this will be an ongoing challenge. Second, in centers of excellence and regional programs there is some danger of creating inbred programs and loss of knowledge diversity and perspective that our students need. John Brake in his presentation mentioned that even a department as large as that at North Carolina State University does not have all the necessary expertise. Reducing the number of departments to a few centers could seriously undermine the
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Florida International University on May 30, 2015
FIGURE 1. Changes in Status of U.S. Poultry Departments. States are located above the line at approximately the year in which a poultry science department was established at those land grant universities; state designations below the line represent loss of that state’s poultry science department through merger into animal science. Note: some states are listed more than once (from Milton Sunde, unpublished graph with permission).
228
BECK
research and teaching base in poultry. In addition, undergraduate students from states that do not have poultry programs will not automatically seek out those states that do, particularly if no poultry science faculty are left at the home school. It’s easy to talk about including poultry material in general animal science courses—and I’m encouraged that the Canadians seem to be having some success—but in animal science departments with no or only a token remnant of poultry faculty, it is not easy to sustain an integrated poultry effort. With most poultry science faculty at only a few centers, we run the real danger of seriously narrowing perspectives over time and losing academic diversity. Third, research at universities is increasingly industry-driven and industry is doing some in-house research. Some of this is necessary and acceptable. But it is short-term, crisis-driven research, and to rely solely on it is very short-sighted. It is essential for the future of the poultry industry that there be a balance and that some research be of the other kind—the long-term, risky, not immediately applicable, curiosity-driven research that Hank Classen, University of Saskatchewan, mentioned. Industry cannot and should not do this type of research; there are serious credibility, as well as economic, issues involved. But universities can and should do this kind of research. That means that industry must support university programs, either outright with monies earmarked for different purposes or with political pressure applied to administrators and legislators. Finally, there is a bigger issue facing us if we don’t regain the synergistic focus and balance between
industry and academia. It is at the land grant universities where the future of food production is shaped—and not only at those land grant universities that now have the regional poultry programs and the centers of excellence. Don’t think for a minute that those discussions will include poultry if there are no poultry faculty present. And, in reality, a token poultry faculty member is not enough to make a difference. If we want to ensure that poultry is part of food production in the future, poultry programs must be present and viable where the discussions are going on. If the only interested students are shipped off to regional centers, the rest of the animal science students will be taught that poultry is not a serious food source and that it may be held in contempt. That is a big risk. I should note that Peter Hunton, Ontario Egg Producers’ Marketing Board, is correct in one point—the poultry industry has not fallen apart so far because of loss of poultry programs. However, complacency is dangerous long-term. We must get past the isolation imposed by the poultry industry on itself by its vertical integration. We must get past the isolation imposed on university programs by budgetary constraints. Both industry and academia must deal with bigger societal issues—a public that is complacent about its food supply and ignorant of its origins; a public that is skeptical about food safety, animal welfare issues, and environmental concerns; a public that trusts no one—not the university, not industry. Perhaps we can recapture some of the essence of the earlier poultry science endeavor, if not the details. And at the very least, perhaps we can keep the dialogue going.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Florida International University on May 30, 2015
FIGURE 3. Changes in Status of U.S. poultry departments. States are located below the line at approximately the year in which the poultry science department in that state was eliminated and merged into the animal science departments. Only one state, Arkansas, established a poultry science department during this time (from Milton Sunde, unpublished graph with permission).
SYMPOSIUM: PARTNERSHIPS IN POULTRY SCIENCE—PERSPECTIVES OF CHANGE
REFERENCES Barnett, B. D., and G. J. Mountney, 1972. Trends in support of poultry research among the state agricultural experiment stations. Poultry Sci. 61:1950–1955. Beck, M. M., 1992. Status of poultry science departments and poultry research within combined departments. Poultry Sci. 71:1328–1331. Bigbee, D. E., and C. S. Shaffner, 1972. Poultry science departments: unconsolidated vs. consolidated. Poultry Sci. 51:1175–1180. Carlson, C. W., D. J. Bray, and G. J. Mountney, 1977. Scientistyear and publication expenditure for U.S. poultry research in 1974 and 1975. Poultry Sci. 56:1960–1967.
229
Cook, R. E., 1988. Poultry research programs in the future. Poultry Sci. 67:890–896. Gyles, N. R., 1988. Poultry, people and progress. Poultry Sci. 67:1–8. Havenstein, G. B., 1990. Views from a department head. Symposium: Regionalization of extension poultry programs in the United States. Poultry Sci. 69:233–235. Reynnells, R., 1988. Introduction. Symposium: Poultry programs of the future. Poultry Sci. 67:878. Sunde, M. L., 1969. Poultry Science—today, tomorrow. Poultry Sci. 48:3–8. Sunde, M. L., T. E. Hartung, and L. S. Jensen, 1972. Problem of disappearing poultry science departments. Poultry Sci. 51: 1079–1087.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Florida International University on May 30, 2015
Received for publication July 9, 1996. Accepted for publication March 31, 1997. 1Published as paper Number 11680, Agricultural Research Division, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0702.
Abbreviation Key: PSA = Poultry Science Association.
226
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Florida International University on May 30, 2015
successful, I believe, is that without direct industry participation in the effort we simply were not a strong voice, and we were not successful in enlisting industry support. At about this time, Hank Engster, of Perdue Farms, Inc., had become aware of the serious negative effects on poultry science bench strength and on numbers of graduates with expertise in poultry. His efforts to expand the dialogue to industry was more successful, as he worked, with input from the PSA Industry Committee, to conceptualize this symposium. Before we can discuss change, however, we have to know where we are now; in order to know where you are going, you must know where you have been. Poultry science and the poultry industry became great because historically there was a joint venture between the two. It is important for us to remember that, and to understand fundamentally that the scientific excellence of poultry science departments in land grant universities complemented, enhanced, and sustained the efforts of the early poultry industry to achieve and maintain efficient production, a safe food supply, and an affordable food supply. The converse was also there—the early industry supported, sustained, and complemented the scientific endeavors at universities. The synergism of those early years is represented by data provided by Milt Sunde, University of Wisconsin, showing the steady increase in departments of poultry science in the first half of this century (Figure 1) and by the steady increase in poultry consumption (Figure 2). To some extent we are spoiled. We are accustomed to seeing production graphs going up. We look at these trends and see that business is good and projections in line. Why should we worry that university poultry programs are dropping rapidly? Does it matter that the other half of Sunde’s graph looks like Figure 3, which represents changes in departmental status during the second half of this century? Does it matter that, as consumption of poultry has increased, the number of poultry scientists has decreased (Figure 2)? One is almost tempted to suggest the converse—if numbers of poultry scientists are driven further down, consumption will go up even more!
For a long time—at least since 1969—different Poultry Science Association (PSA) members have been concerned about disappearing poultry science departments, faculty, and programs. The earliest paper (Sunde, 1969) documenting this trend was followed by others (Barnett and Mountney, 1972; Bigbee and Shaffner, 1972; Sunde et al., 1972; Carlson et al., 1977; Cook, 1988; Gyles, 1988; Reynnells et al., 1988; Havenstein et al., 1990; Beck, 1992). With the steady attrition of poultry programs at universities has been an opposite trend in the poultry industry, where growth has steadily increased. After many years of monitoring the status of poultry science departments, the PSA Board in 1989 revamped the Status Committee to form the Ad Hoc Committee on the Status of Poultry Science in North America. The purpose of this committee, in addition to documenting changes, was to attempt a more proactive role in persuading universities not to eliminate poultry departments or faculty positions. The Ad Hoc Committee existed for approximately 6 yr, and was co-chaired by James Marion, Auburn University, and Mary Beck, University of Nebraska. During this time, the primary activity was to write letters to deans of colleges of agriculture in which poultry departments were being merged into animal science departments. Letters were sent to the deans, with copies to national and state poultry industry leaders, at the University of Florida, The Ohio State University, Washington State University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and the University of Wisconsin. To the extent that we learned about these pending mergers as or just before they occurred, this effort to influence the decisions was still largely reactive. Considering that these departments and programs are no longer in existence, despite our efforts, it is unclear how effective we were. In any case, the Ad Hoc Status Committee ceased to exist around 1994. One reason we were not more
SYMPOSIUM: PARTNERSHIPS IN POULTRY SCIENCE—PERSPECTIVES OF CHANGE
227
Does any of this matter? We still have scientific excellence in spite of shrunken programs. The industry is still gaining. The bird still responds to genetic, nutritional, and management manipulations. Does it matter that these same things have contributed ironically also to the decline of poultry programs? Certainly, industry believes it can take graduates with any major and make them into technically competent personnel. Although there has been some truth to that assumption, it will be increasingly difficult to achieve, with less than 2% of the population having any sort of farm background as a basis for some fundamental level of comprehension of agriculture. Certainly, industry also
FIGURE 2. Poultry consumption (pounds per person) from 1983 to 1992 and total number of poultry science faculty at land grant universities from 1978 to 1993. (From Beck, 1992.)
believes it can do most of its research in-house. So, does it really matter? I believe that it does matter, and I will address the why later. Now, however, I would like to turn the program over to the other speakers, who also believe it matters, to give them an opportunity to voice their opinions and proposed solutions.
CLOSING REMARKS Now, after hearing about regional programs and centers of excellence, both existing and proposed, in Canada and the U.S., it would be easy to end this symposium on a self-congratulatory note. Indeed, these are commendable efforts and positive first steps to solving some of the difficulties. Industry and universities are cooperating in these ventures in ways they never have before. However, I want to look at this in another way and to consider several points as the next generation of challenges for PSA to face. First, I would wager that no one here fails to recognize that we will all be asked to do more with less in the future. Budgets are extremely tight everywhere, and the realities of this will be an ongoing challenge. Second, in centers of excellence and regional programs there is some danger of creating inbred programs and loss of knowledge diversity and perspective that our students need. John Brake in his presentation mentioned that even a department as large as that at North Carolina State University does not have all the necessary expertise. Reducing the number of departments to a few centers could seriously undermine the
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Florida International University on May 30, 2015
FIGURE 1. Changes in Status of U.S. Poultry Departments. States are located above the line at approximately the year in which a poultry science department was established at those land grant universities; state designations below the line represent loss of that state’s poultry science department through merger into animal science. Note: some states are listed more than once (from Milton Sunde, unpublished graph with permission).
228
BECK
research and teaching base in poultry. In addition, undergraduate students from states that do not have poultry programs will not automatically seek out those states that do, particularly if no poultry science faculty are left at the home school. It’s easy to talk about including poultry material in general animal science courses—and I’m encouraged that the Canadians seem to be having some success—but in animal science departments with no or only a token remnant of poultry faculty, it is not easy to sustain an integrated poultry effort. With most poultry science faculty at only a few centers, we run the real danger of seriously narrowing perspectives over time and losing academic diversity. Third, research at universities is increasingly industry-driven and industry is doing some in-house research. Some of this is necessary and acceptable. But it is short-term, crisis-driven research, and to rely solely on it is very short-sighted. It is essential for the future of the poultry industry that there be a balance and that some research be of the other kind—the long-term, risky, not immediately applicable, curiosity-driven research that Hank Classen, University of Saskatchewan, mentioned. Industry cannot and should not do this type of research; there are serious credibility, as well as economic, issues involved. But universities can and should do this kind of research. That means that industry must support university programs, either outright with monies earmarked for different purposes or with political pressure applied to administrators and legislators. Finally, there is a bigger issue facing us if we don’t regain the synergistic focus and balance between
industry and academia. It is at the land grant universities where the future of food production is shaped—and not only at those land grant universities that now have the regional poultry programs and the centers of excellence. Don’t think for a minute that those discussions will include poultry if there are no poultry faculty present. And, in reality, a token poultry faculty member is not enough to make a difference. If we want to ensure that poultry is part of food production in the future, poultry programs must be present and viable where the discussions are going on. If the only interested students are shipped off to regional centers, the rest of the animal science students will be taught that poultry is not a serious food source and that it may be held in contempt. That is a big risk. I should note that Peter Hunton, Ontario Egg Producers’ Marketing Board, is correct in one point—the poultry industry has not fallen apart so far because of loss of poultry programs. However, complacency is dangerous long-term. We must get past the isolation imposed by the poultry industry on itself by its vertical integration. We must get past the isolation imposed on university programs by budgetary constraints. Both industry and academia must deal with bigger societal issues—a public that is complacent about its food supply and ignorant of its origins; a public that is skeptical about food safety, animal welfare issues, and environmental concerns; a public that trusts no one—not the university, not industry. Perhaps we can recapture some of the essence of the earlier poultry science endeavor, if not the details. And at the very least, perhaps we can keep the dialogue going.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Florida International University on May 30, 2015
FIGURE 3. Changes in Status of U.S. poultry departments. States are located below the line at approximately the year in which the poultry science department in that state was eliminated and merged into the animal science departments. Only one state, Arkansas, established a poultry science department during this time (from Milton Sunde, unpublished graph with permission).
SYMPOSIUM: PARTNERSHIPS IN POULTRY SCIENCE—PERSPECTIVES OF CHANGE
REFERENCES Barnett, B. D., and G. J. Mountney, 1972. Trends in support of poultry research among the state agricultural experiment stations. Poultry Sci. 61:1950–1955. Beck, M. M., 1992. Status of poultry science departments and poultry research within combined departments. Poultry Sci. 71:1328–1331. Bigbee, D. E., and C. S. Shaffner, 1972. Poultry science departments: unconsolidated vs. consolidated. Poultry Sci. 51:1175–1180. Carlson, C. W., D. J. Bray, and G. J. Mountney, 1977. Scientistyear and publication expenditure for U.S. poultry research in 1974 and 1975. Poultry Sci. 56:1960–1967.
229
Cook, R. E., 1988. Poultry research programs in the future. Poultry Sci. 67:890–896. Gyles, N. R., 1988. Poultry, people and progress. Poultry Sci. 67:1–8. Havenstein, G. B., 1990. Views from a department head. Symposium: Regionalization of extension poultry programs in the United States. Poultry Sci. 69:233–235. Reynnells, R., 1988. Introduction. Symposium: Poultry programs of the future. Poultry Sci. 67:878. Sunde, M. L., 1969. Poultry Science—today, tomorrow. Poultry Sci. 48:3–8. Sunde, M. L., T. E. Hartung, and L. S. Jensen, 1972. Problem of disappearing poultry science departments. Poultry Sci. 51: 1079–1087.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Florida International University on May 30, 2015