- Email: [email protected]
Status of Poultry Science Departments and Poultry Research Within Combined Departments12
Status of Poultry Science Departments and Poultry Research Within Combined Departments1-2 MARY M. BECK Department of Animal Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583-0908
1992 Poultry Science 71:1328-1331
INTRODUCTION The future of poultry science departments has been of great concern for many years (Sunde, 1969; Bigbee and Shaffner, 1972; Sunde et al., 1972; Barnett and Mountney, 1982; Reynnells, 1988). In spite of the acknowledged lack of administra-
Received for publication August 14, 1991. Accepted for publication February 26, 1992. 1 Submitted as Journal Article 9757, Agricultural Research Division, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 2 Presented at the 1991 Poultry Science Association Annual Meeting in College Station, TX 77843 in Panel III: Issues Facing Departments. 3 Department of Animal Science, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0908. 4 Department of Poultry Science, University of Wisconsin, 1675 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706.
tive and industry support (Reynnells, 1988), few proactive measures have been taken to counter the continued downward trend, with perhaps a single exception at the University of Wisconsin in the 1980s, where massive alumni and industry pressure prevented a merger (T. W. Sullivan3 and M. L. Sunde,4 personal communications). During 1991, however, several actions were taken, indicating that the gravity of the situation has finally begun reaching deeper levels of consciousness. These actions include resolutions by the Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association and the National Broiler Council in support of separate poultry departments and the formation by the Poultry Science Association of a university-industrygovernment committee to seek long-term solutions.
1328
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sydney Library on May 2, 2015
ABSTRACT Although most of the poultry science departmental losses occurred during the 1960s, attrition through mergers with animal science units has continued. In the 1980s and 1990s, four departments were merged, leaving only the southeast (from Delmarva to Texas) and a few scattered states elsewhere with intact poultry departments. The loss of departments coincides with areas where the poultry industry is relatively smaller, but even in states with significant industries, departments are threatened. It is suggested that a divergence of program needs between industry and university, precipitated by vertical integration and loss of job opportunities and exacerbated by lack of cooperative planning, has been a contributing factor. The contrast between departmental and industry trends is striking, with university personnel decreasing -15% since 1984 but with per capita consumption increasing -20% since 1986 and surpassing beef consumption in 1991. Heavily integrated poultry operations have been relying more and more on in-house research and on-the-job training, but long-term efforts in such areas as animal welfare, behavior, and basic or mechanistic research require university participation. Universities and industry must work more closely together in the future to address long-range efforts to the maximum benefit of both. (Key words: departmental status, animal science, poultry science, poultry research, combined departments)
1329
SYMPOSIUM: ISSUES FACING DEPARTMENTS
NEWhCWCO
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
Presently separate
FIGURE 1. Poultry science departmental status from an historical perspective. Dates indicate when departments were merged or disbanded. From Cook, 1988.
Of the original poultry departments as shown by Cook (1988), only 14 remain (Figure 1). Most of the losses were caused by mergers into animal science departments, primarily in the 1960s as vertical integration in the poultry industry occurred. The Midwest, Northwest, and Northeast, where the poultry industry tends to be relatively smaller than on the coasts, were heaviest hit, leaving the midAtlantic Delmarva Peninsula, the Southeast, and a few other states with intact programs. The University of Arkansas is currently in the process of creating a separate department of poultry science out of its combined department. However, Oregon State and Cornell Universities lost their poultry science departments through a merger and a dissolution, respectively, in 1991. Several others are currently threatened; most notably California and Maryland, both with significant poultry industries. The tally at the beginning of 1992 will thus be 15 poultry science
departments in the United States, with serious erosion of poultry programs in combined departments.
TABLE 1. Poultry staff by region in the United States Region Northeast Southeast North Central West Total
I960 1
19801
19842
1991 3
(no. of staff members) 48 99 38 30 150 155 140 125 109 64 60 50 65 38 42 41 423 305 280 238 4- 28% 131% 4-15% 4 44%
^rom Sunde, 1981. From Sunde, 1985. From 1990-1991 Directory of Professional Workers in State Agricultural Experimental Stations. 2
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sydney Library on May 2, 2015
Always combined
1330
BECK
TABLE 2. Per capita consumption of turkey, chicken, and beef in the United States, 1960 to 19911 Year
Turkey
1960 1983 1986 1989 1991 (estimated)
2.86 5.08 6.03 7.76 8.89
Chicken
Beef
[kg (lb)] (6.3) (11.2) (13.3) (17.1) (19.6)
24.4 26.8 31.2 32.7
(53.8) (59.1) (68.7) (72.0)
35.7 35.5 31.3 30.6
(78.6) (78.3) (68.9) (67.4)
^SDA figures cited in National Turkey Federation Report, 1991; National Turkey Federation, Reston, VA 22090.
In almost all cases, mergers are of poultry programs into animal science departments rather than vice versa, even when the poultry department and state industry are significantly stronger, such as is the case in Maryland. In only one instance did the merger description indicate discontinuance of both original departments, with formation of a new combined department (Sunde, 1985). Because of this, when poultry is merged into animal science, such possible advantages as may accrue from larger units (e.g., more laboratory capabilities, greater chance for comparative efforts, and exposure of students to broader education in animal science), are offset by loss of program identity, dilution of effort, and ultimately threatened loss of program. Since 1960, poultry staff in the United States has decreased approximately 40% (Table 1). To some extent these trends may have been somewhat inevitable. Vertical in-
tegration in industry has led to specialization and decreased job availability, both in reality and in student perception. Decreasing numbers of undergraduate students negatively affect administrative support of faculty or departments. Decreasing university efforts aggravate already sensitive relationships with industry. In striking contrast to these trends have been the enormous increases in per capita consumption of turkey and chicken meat. In 1991, turkey and chicken consumption surpassed that of beef by an estimated 20 lb (9.07 kg) (Table 2), increasing 20% since 1986. Beef consumption decreased 14% over the same time period (Figure 2). Again, in contrast, the respective changes in national efforts for the two commodities since 1968 (Table 3), with poultry effort decreasing 40%, but beef effort increasing -34%. FUTURE OF POULTRY PROGRAMS
With steadily decreasing university poultry programs despite such tremen-
TABLE 3. National efforts in animal science
Year
Poultry
Dairy
Number of staff listed Sheep
19681 19781 19912 Percentage change
403 347 238 -40
489 400 NC3 (-22)
173 134 NC (-25)
Swine
Beef
190 235 NC (+24)
462 616 700 +34
1 Data for 1968 and 1978 reprinted from Proceedings of the Conference on Priorities for Agricultural Research, Extension and Higher Education in Poultry Science Newsletter, January 1982. 2 Data for 1991 from 1990-1991 Directory of Professional Workers in State Agricultural Experimental Stations, USDA-CSRS, Agricultural Handbook No. 305, Washington, DC. 3 NC = not calculated.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sydney Library on May 2, 2015
TYPES AND CAUSES OF MERGERS
SYMPOSIUM: ISSUES FACING DEPARTMENTS
,U
1983
1
1
1986
1989
L_
1991
Year
dous growth in poultry industries, what does the future hold? Why should a heavily integrated industry support scientific endeavors at universities? Why should administrations support programs that attract few students? Implicit in any vision of the future is that both groups must be able to identify mutually beneficial programs. Creative, innovative extension programming could be a means for reaching small flock owners and, through exploration of new thrusts, provide a basis for substantial diversification, and perhaps even increased market potential, especially considering the role that poultry might play in sustainable agricultural systems. Long-range planning efforts might benefit state industry organizations; advisory groups representing both industry and university personnel could, and should, meet regularly to review teaching and extension programs and to discuss and plan research projects. For example, industry research, although perhaps immediately beneficial to one company, does have a profit motive associated with it, is often proprietary, and can be at best only shortterm. Universities have the capability to a d d r e s s long-term q u e s t i o n s , basic mechanistic questions, animal welfare questions, and concerns of food quality and safety. Basic research at major universities has provided the important breakthroughs in nutrition, physiology, food
science, and diseases. These developments have given the poultry industry its unsurpassed efficiency. Without university scientists focusing on basic questions, the industry may lose ground in the future. Finally, youth programs are vital and can serve as strong vehicles for healthy selfesteem. It is obvious that poultry programs will not likely be re-extracted from combined departments. In addition, preventing loss of poultry faculty following a merger into animal science will require diligent industry monitoring and support. Is it not short-sighted for industry to take the stance that university programs are obsolete and for universities to abandon such an important industry? Industry and university poultry personnel need each other and must be aggressive in reforging and then maintaining close association. It is evident that university poultry programs must change to meet changing needs of industry. Finally, it is only logical that a strong (large or small) poultry program is a necessary component of a comprehensive animal science department. As one student put it, "You can't ride 'em, rope 'em, or brand 'em, but chickens and turkeys may be the wave of the future."
REFERENCES Barnett, B. D., and G. J. Mountney, 1982. Trends in support of poultry research among the state agricultural stations. Poultry Sci. 61:1950-1955. Bigbee, D. E., and C. S. Shaffner, 1972. Poultry science departments: Unconsolidated vs consolidated. Poultry Sci. 51:1175-1180. Cook, R. E., 1988. Poultry research programs in the future. Poultry Sci. 67:890-896. Reynnells, R., 1988. Symposium: Poultry programs of the future: Introduction. Poultry Sci. 67:878. Sunde, M. L., 1969. Poultry science—today, tomorrow. Poultry Sci. 48:3-8. Sunde, M. L., 1981. Report of departmental status committee. Poultry Sci. 60:2746. Sunde, M. L., 1982. Report of departmental status committee. Poultry Science Newsletter. January. Sunde, M. L., 1985. Report of departmental status committee. Poultry Sci. 64:2415. 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 University of Sydney Library on May 2, 2015
FIGURE 2. Per capita consumption of beef and poultry meat in the United States, 1983 to 1991 (1 lb = .4536 kg).
1331
1992 Poultry Science 71:1328-1331
INTRODUCTION The future of poultry science departments has been of great concern for many years (Sunde, 1969; Bigbee and Shaffner, 1972; Sunde et al., 1972; Barnett and Mountney, 1982; Reynnells, 1988). In spite of the acknowledged lack of administra-
Received for publication August 14, 1991. Accepted for publication February 26, 1992. 1 Submitted as Journal Article 9757, Agricultural Research Division, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 2 Presented at the 1991 Poultry Science Association Annual Meeting in College Station, TX 77843 in Panel III: Issues Facing Departments. 3 Department of Animal Science, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0908. 4 Department of Poultry Science, University of Wisconsin, 1675 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706.
tive and industry support (Reynnells, 1988), few proactive measures have been taken to counter the continued downward trend, with perhaps a single exception at the University of Wisconsin in the 1980s, where massive alumni and industry pressure prevented a merger (T. W. Sullivan3 and M. L. Sunde,4 personal communications). During 1991, however, several actions were taken, indicating that the gravity of the situation has finally begun reaching deeper levels of consciousness. These actions include resolutions by the Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association and the National Broiler Council in support of separate poultry departments and the formation by the Poultry Science Association of a university-industrygovernment committee to seek long-term solutions.
1328
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sydney Library on May 2, 2015
ABSTRACT Although most of the poultry science departmental losses occurred during the 1960s, attrition through mergers with animal science units has continued. In the 1980s and 1990s, four departments were merged, leaving only the southeast (from Delmarva to Texas) and a few scattered states elsewhere with intact poultry departments. The loss of departments coincides with areas where the poultry industry is relatively smaller, but even in states with significant industries, departments are threatened. It is suggested that a divergence of program needs between industry and university, precipitated by vertical integration and loss of job opportunities and exacerbated by lack of cooperative planning, has been a contributing factor. The contrast between departmental and industry trends is striking, with university personnel decreasing -15% since 1984 but with per capita consumption increasing -20% since 1986 and surpassing beef consumption in 1991. Heavily integrated poultry operations have been relying more and more on in-house research and on-the-job training, but long-term efforts in such areas as animal welfare, behavior, and basic or mechanistic research require university participation. Universities and industry must work more closely together in the future to address long-range efforts to the maximum benefit of both. (Key words: departmental status, animal science, poultry science, poultry research, combined departments)
1329
SYMPOSIUM: ISSUES FACING DEPARTMENTS
NEWhCWCO
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
Presently separate
FIGURE 1. Poultry science departmental status from an historical perspective. Dates indicate when departments were merged or disbanded. From Cook, 1988.
Of the original poultry departments as shown by Cook (1988), only 14 remain (Figure 1). Most of the losses were caused by mergers into animal science departments, primarily in the 1960s as vertical integration in the poultry industry occurred. The Midwest, Northwest, and Northeast, where the poultry industry tends to be relatively smaller than on the coasts, were heaviest hit, leaving the midAtlantic Delmarva Peninsula, the Southeast, and a few other states with intact programs. The University of Arkansas is currently in the process of creating a separate department of poultry science out of its combined department. However, Oregon State and Cornell Universities lost their poultry science departments through a merger and a dissolution, respectively, in 1991. Several others are currently threatened; most notably California and Maryland, both with significant poultry industries. The tally at the beginning of 1992 will thus be 15 poultry science
departments in the United States, with serious erosion of poultry programs in combined departments.
TABLE 1. Poultry staff by region in the United States Region Northeast Southeast North Central West Total
I960 1
19801
19842
1991 3
(no. of staff members) 48 99 38 30 150 155 140 125 109 64 60 50 65 38 42 41 423 305 280 238 4- 28% 131% 4-15% 4 44%
^rom Sunde, 1981. From Sunde, 1985. From 1990-1991 Directory of Professional Workers in State Agricultural Experimental Stations. 2
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sydney Library on May 2, 2015
Always combined
1330
BECK
TABLE 2. Per capita consumption of turkey, chicken, and beef in the United States, 1960 to 19911 Year
Turkey
1960 1983 1986 1989 1991 (estimated)
2.86 5.08 6.03 7.76 8.89
Chicken
Beef
[kg (lb)] (6.3) (11.2) (13.3) (17.1) (19.6)
24.4 26.8 31.2 32.7
(53.8) (59.1) (68.7) (72.0)
35.7 35.5 31.3 30.6
(78.6) (78.3) (68.9) (67.4)
^SDA figures cited in National Turkey Federation Report, 1991; National Turkey Federation, Reston, VA 22090.
In almost all cases, mergers are of poultry programs into animal science departments rather than vice versa, even when the poultry department and state industry are significantly stronger, such as is the case in Maryland. In only one instance did the merger description indicate discontinuance of both original departments, with formation of a new combined department (Sunde, 1985). Because of this, when poultry is merged into animal science, such possible advantages as may accrue from larger units (e.g., more laboratory capabilities, greater chance for comparative efforts, and exposure of students to broader education in animal science), are offset by loss of program identity, dilution of effort, and ultimately threatened loss of program. Since 1960, poultry staff in the United States has decreased approximately 40% (Table 1). To some extent these trends may have been somewhat inevitable. Vertical in-
tegration in industry has led to specialization and decreased job availability, both in reality and in student perception. Decreasing numbers of undergraduate students negatively affect administrative support of faculty or departments. Decreasing university efforts aggravate already sensitive relationships with industry. In striking contrast to these trends have been the enormous increases in per capita consumption of turkey and chicken meat. In 1991, turkey and chicken consumption surpassed that of beef by an estimated 20 lb (9.07 kg) (Table 2), increasing 20% since 1986. Beef consumption decreased 14% over the same time period (Figure 2). Again, in contrast, the respective changes in national efforts for the two commodities since 1968 (Table 3), with poultry effort decreasing 40%, but beef effort increasing -34%. FUTURE OF POULTRY PROGRAMS
With steadily decreasing university poultry programs despite such tremen-
TABLE 3. National efforts in animal science
Year
Poultry
Dairy
Number of staff listed Sheep
19681 19781 19912 Percentage change
403 347 238 -40
489 400 NC3 (-22)
173 134 NC (-25)
Swine
Beef
190 235 NC (+24)
462 616 700 +34
1 Data for 1968 and 1978 reprinted from Proceedings of the Conference on Priorities for Agricultural Research, Extension and Higher Education in Poultry Science Newsletter, January 1982. 2 Data for 1991 from 1990-1991 Directory of Professional Workers in State Agricultural Experimental Stations, USDA-CSRS, Agricultural Handbook No. 305, Washington, DC. 3 NC = not calculated.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sydney Library on May 2, 2015
TYPES AND CAUSES OF MERGERS
SYMPOSIUM: ISSUES FACING DEPARTMENTS
,U
1983
1
1
1986
1989
L_
1991
Year
dous growth in poultry industries, what does the future hold? Why should a heavily integrated industry support scientific endeavors at universities? Why should administrations support programs that attract few students? Implicit in any vision of the future is that both groups must be able to identify mutually beneficial programs. Creative, innovative extension programming could be a means for reaching small flock owners and, through exploration of new thrusts, provide a basis for substantial diversification, and perhaps even increased market potential, especially considering the role that poultry might play in sustainable agricultural systems. Long-range planning efforts might benefit state industry organizations; advisory groups representing both industry and university personnel could, and should, meet regularly to review teaching and extension programs and to discuss and plan research projects. For example, industry research, although perhaps immediately beneficial to one company, does have a profit motive associated with it, is often proprietary, and can be at best only shortterm. Universities have the capability to a d d r e s s long-term q u e s t i o n s , basic mechanistic questions, animal welfare questions, and concerns of food quality and safety. Basic research at major universities has provided the important breakthroughs in nutrition, physiology, food
science, and diseases. These developments have given the poultry industry its unsurpassed efficiency. Without university scientists focusing on basic questions, the industry may lose ground in the future. Finally, youth programs are vital and can serve as strong vehicles for healthy selfesteem. It is obvious that poultry programs will not likely be re-extracted from combined departments. In addition, preventing loss of poultry faculty following a merger into animal science will require diligent industry monitoring and support. Is it not short-sighted for industry to take the stance that university programs are obsolete and for universities to abandon such an important industry? Industry and university poultry personnel need each other and must be aggressive in reforging and then maintaining close association. It is evident that university poultry programs must change to meet changing needs of industry. Finally, it is only logical that a strong (large or small) poultry program is a necessary component of a comprehensive animal science department. As one student put it, "You can't ride 'em, rope 'em, or brand 'em, but chickens and turkeys may be the wave of the future."
REFERENCES Barnett, B. D., and G. J. Mountney, 1982. Trends in support of poultry research among the state agricultural stations. Poultry Sci. 61:1950-1955. Bigbee, D. E., and C. S. Shaffner, 1972. Poultry science departments: Unconsolidated vs consolidated. Poultry Sci. 51:1175-1180. Cook, R. E., 1988. Poultry research programs in the future. Poultry Sci. 67:890-896. Reynnells, R., 1988. Symposium: Poultry programs of the future: Introduction. Poultry Sci. 67:878. Sunde, M. L., 1969. Poultry science—today, tomorrow. Poultry Sci. 48:3-8. Sunde, M. L., 1981. Report of departmental status committee. Poultry Sci. 60:2746. Sunde, M. L., 1982. Report of departmental status committee. Poultry Science Newsletter. January. Sunde, M. L., 1985. Report of departmental status committee. Poultry Sci. 64:2415. 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 University of Sydney Library on May 2, 2015
FIGURE 2. Per capita consumption of beef and poultry meat in the United States, 1983 to 1991 (1 lb = .4536 kg).
1331