What Are Animal Science Departments Doing to Address Contemporary Issues?
by J. C. Swanson
Department of Animal Science and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506
ABSTRACT: Animal science departments are principle progenitors and disseminators of scientific information relating to the production of agricultural animals and their food products. The Land-Grant university missions of teaching, research, and extension are conduits designed to advance and enhance scientific knowledge within agriculture and to make this knowledge available to the public. I conducted an electronic survey to determine whether animal science departments are addressing contemporary issues through the traditional missions of the Land-Grant university system, which issues they are addressing, and how they are addressing these issues. Sixty–three animal science department administrative heads (AH) were contacted through an E–mail listserve maintained through Michigan State University. An introductory letter described the goals of the survey and asked the AH to submit contact information for faculty coordinators of teaching, research, and extension within their departments. Forty–nine percent of the administrative heads responded and submitted contact information for 72 faculty members. Survey questions were sent to the identified faculty. The total survey return was 38.9%, 37.7% of the respondents answered questions for teaching, 31.1% for research, and 31.1% for extension. Animal waste, animal welfare, and food safety are examples of issues where all three missions have concentrated efforts. However, graduate student education on issues was identified as lacking emphasis. Animal science departments are responding to contemporary issues in all three of the Land-Grant mission components.
Introduction
Animal scientists are a critical link to finding resolutions to issues facing the agricultural animal and food production industries. Issues such as animal welfare (Swanson, 1995a), food safety (Kastner, 1995), the environment (Morse, 1995; Vavra, 1996), and use of technology (Stricklin and Swanson, 1993; Weber et al., 1995) manifest social concerns that are intertwined with the scientific and economic aspects of animal production and different social value systems (Rollin, 1995; Schillo, 1997). The majority of 4-yr animal science programs are located within the Land–Grant system. Land–Grant universities, by deliberate design, carry mandates that provide for the transfer and application of scientific knowledge. One example is the formula funding to agricultural experiment stations for applied and basic agricultural research programs (Westendorf et al., 1995). Teaching, research, and extension should work synergistically to ensure that information about an issue is objective, of high quality, and accessible (Owens, 1997). Therefore, it is incumbent upon our animal science programs to provide current, objective, accurate information to all stakeholders. Most importantly, undergraduate and graduate students emerging from our animal science programs should be informed and possess skills to handle the many complicated issues we face today (Weber et al., 1995).
A survey of faculty was undertaken to develop a random sample and general assessment of the types of activity animal science departments have in addressing contemporary issues affecting animal agriculture. The survey was conducted with the specific intention to be presented at the 89th ASAS annual meeting’s Contemporary Issues Symposium titled "What Should Animal Science Departments Be Doing to Address Contemporary Issues?"
Methods
Sixty-three administrative heads ( AH), defined as either department head or chair, were contacted by Email. The AH was notified that a survey was planned for the purpose of determining whether animal science departments were actively involved in addressing contemporary issues in their missions of teaching, research, and extension. I asked them to forward to me the contact information for faculty coordinators of each of those missions within their department. The E–mail listserve used to contact each AH is maintained by Maynard Hogberg at Michigan State University and is regularly used to transmit important ASAS news and other information of interest. The list has been maintained since 1993 and is considered to be complete. Messages were resent when error messages and other indicators of incomplete transmittal were apparent. The message was sent to all AH in early February 1997. The primary purpose of using the AH E–mail list was to obtain a random sample of animal science departments, not to evaluate AH interest or participation.
After receiving AH responses, surveys were sent to the faculty appointed to answer questions in the mission areas of teaching, research, and(or) extension. The survey consisted of an introductory letter and the set of questions (Table 1) corresponding to the mission for which the faculty member was to respond. Similar to AH correspondence, messages were resent or personal contact made when indicators of unsuccessful transmission were present. Survey responses were compiled and percentages were calculated for types and numbers of responses according to each question asked, mission category, and overall response. For the purpose of minimizing individual interpretation a contemporary issue was defined as "a contentious social and(or) political issue involving dispute or controversy between two or more parties about animal science, animal production and(or) animal products (e.g., food safety, animal protection, environmental pollution, etc)." The survey questions were developed for each mission category by the chair of the ASAS Contemporary Issues Committee and me.
Results
Administrative Head Response
Sixty-three AH were contacted by the E-mail listserve; 49.2% responded to the message by submitting the names of faculty or appointing themselves to respond to all questions or questions within a specific mission category. The regional distribution of AH that responded to the initial E–mail represented all regions of the United States, including Hawaii and the territory of Puerto Rico, but not Alaska. The departments (n = 19) that had members complete and return the survey provided regional representation from the northeast and midatlantic regions and across to the northwest, including California and Hawaii. No representation was present east to west from the southern contiguous states.
Seventy–two animal science faculty members were designated to respond to survey questions, and 38.9% completed and returned the surveys. To simplify reported results, the term faculty includes AH who opted to respond to survey questions. A history of the department responses is presented in Table 2, and the number of responses recorded for each question in each mission category are presented in Table 3.
Table 1. Survey questions answered by faculty in animal science departments concerning their activities in teaching, research, and extension that address contemporary issues
| Mission | Question |
|---|---|
| Teaching |
|
| Research |
|
| Extension |
|
Teaching Response
Only 23.6% of the total surveys sent were returned in the area of teaching. Of the faculty responding to one or more mission categories, 60.7% included teaching. In some cases, more than one faculty member answered questions for teaching. Responses to the first question indicated that 13 departments offered a total of 22 courses specifically designed to address contemporary issues. Nearly 81.3% offered one or more courses (maximum of three courses) focused on contemporary issues. Also, 44% of the 17 teaching respondents noted that contemporary issues were addressed in other types of courses such as swine science, beef science, or livestock management.
Nearly 55% of the courses listed were considered multi-issue courses covering topics including animal welfare, environment, food safety, ethics, and biotechnology. Not all respondents sent course descriptions but chose instead to provide a number, title, and brief narrative description of the course. Another 27.3% of the courses were specific to animal welfare and(or) ethics, and the remaining 18% offered single courses on the human–animal bond, natural resources, ethics in science, or biotechnology. Most courses (63.6%) were designed for juniors and(or) seniors, 18.2% were directed at freshmen and(or) sophomores, and 18.2% provided no class level designation. Twenty–two percent of the courses were labeled as general education or core curriculum courses, and 17.3% were classified as capstone. Teaching methods varied from lecture and(or) discussion to experiential-type classroom projects (Table 4).
Table 2. Response history for animal science departments in which faculty responded to questions in one or more mission categories of teaching (T), research (R), or extension (E)
| Responses by mission† | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department¹ | Surveys² sent | Faculty³ responses | T | R | E |
| 1. | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2. | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 3. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 4. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 5. | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 6. | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 7. | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 8. | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 9. | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 10. | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 11. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 12. | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 13. | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 14. | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 15. | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 16. | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 17. | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 18. | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 19. | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 49 | 39 | 17 | 14 | 14 |
¹Each item number corresponds to a distinct animal science
department.
²Number of surveys requested to be sent to faculty for each of the
listed institutions.
³Number of faculty responses. In some cases, one member of the
department responded to all three missions.
†In several cases, a faculty member chose to respond to questions
in more than one category.
Table 3. Number of faculty responses generated per survey question for each mission of teaching, research, and extension
| Question number | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mission | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Teaching | 17 | 12 | 15 | 4 |
| Research | 12 | 12 | 9 | --- |
| Extension | 12 | 7 | --- | --- |
Responses to Question 2 revealed that other activities were considered important to providing information on contemporary issues. Nearly 67% of the respondents to Question 2 listed seminars as a forum for discussing contemporary issues. Other activities listed were clubs (33.3%), special problems (33.3%), current topics (8.3%), and internships (25%).
Courses outside of the animal science department were recommended by 88% of the teaching respondents (Question 3). The following represent a short list of course titles recommended by faculty: Animal Behavior; Medical Ethics; Agricultural Ethics; Science and Technology; Environmental Issues; Issues in International Agriculture; Agricultural Policy; Technology Transfer; Science and Society; Science and Politics; and Natural Resources and Community Values.
Table 4. Teaching methods used in animal science department contemporary issues courses listed by faculty to Question 1 for teaching
| Method | % Use¹ |
|---|---|
| Reading/writing/discussion | 100 |
| Problem solving | 20 |
| Debate | 20 |
| Case study | 13 |
| Mock hearing | 20 |
| Interaction with policy makers | 13 |
¹n = 22 courses. Courses may use multiple teaching methods.
Question 4 yielded no additional information. Only four faculty responded and all stated "none" as an answer.
Research
A total of 14 faculty from 12 departments responded to questions about research. Question 1 revealed that 71.4% of the respondents indicated that research within their departments focused on a contemporary issue, 14.3% said no, and 14.3% did not answer the question. Thirty-six research projects were listed by respondents as pertaining to a contemporary issue. In summarizing the projects (Table 5), a general category and a subcategory were assigned to each project based on project title and description. The listed projects fell within four general categories: Environment, Animal Production, Food Safety, and Social Research. Within the general categories of Environment and Animal Production three subcategories emerged. All reported projects involving animal products were focused on various aspects of food safety (bacterial detection, decontamination, etc.) and assigned to one general category. Social research was defined as research that focused on human values and perspectives as related to animal agriculture but did not involve conducting basic or applied research using animals as models. Social research was not itemized.
The majority of research projects (66.6%) addressed issues in the general categories of Environment and Animal Production. Animal waste management and pollution were cited as having high priority by several respondents. The remaining projects (33.3%) focused on food safety and on public, producer, and professional opinions and(or) attitudes.
Table 5. Percentage of research projects by category and subcategory as listed by animal scientists (n = 14) responding to a survey about contemporary issues
| Project category¹ | n | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| Environment² | 14 | 38.8 |
| Pollution.waste | 5 | 13.9 |
| Grazing/ecosystem | 7 | 19.4 |
| Special habitats | 2 | 5.5 |
| Animal production³ | 10 | 27.8 |
| Animal well-being | 7 | 19.4 |
| Housing | 2 | 5.5 |
| Management | 1 | 2.7 |
| Food safety† | 7 | 19.4 |
| Social research‡ | 5 | 13.9 |
¹Research projects (n = 36) that fall within a general category
and(or) subcategory.
²Projects were considered environmental if major focus was on
environmental effects. Subcategories reflect the nature of projects
within the general category.
³Projects were considered as animal production if major focus
was on effects to the animal from handling, housing, or other
management factors. Subcategories reflect nature of projects within
general category.
†Projects were considered as food safety if major focus was
concerned with animal product quality and safety.
‡Projects were considered as social research if major focus was
directed at assessing public, producer, or other social group attitudes,
values and opinions.
Table 6. Educational non-course activities listed by animal science faculty that expose graduate students to contemporary issues
| Activity¹ | % |
|---|---|
| Seminars | 61.5 |
| Journal clubs | 23.1 |
| Class discussion | 15.3 |
| Lab meeting | 7.1 |
¹More than one activity may be listed by a respondent.
Faculty responses to Question 2 found that 78.6% indicated other activities provided graduate students with a chance to learn about contemporary issues, but to a limited extent. Another 7.2% said there were no opportunities, and 14.3% did not answer the question. Only two departments offered a course to graduate students that focused on contemporary issues. Table 6 presents all non–course activities associated with graduate students that could promote learning about contemporary issues.
Responses to Question 3 revealed that 64.3% of the faculty listed "brown bag" lunches, participation in state focus groups, and advisory committees as informal sources of exposure to issues.
Extension
Extension activities were more difficult to categorize due to the variety of titles and regional emphasis. General and subcategories were developed similar to those used to categorize research. Social programs were itemized. Results are presented in Table 7. The majority of activities addressed consumer and social concerns or actions. Livestock show ethics programs were frequent and considered "social" due to their implications for youth development and assurance to consumers. Animal waste management and pollution programs were often cited as a priority on an individual department basis but were not the most frequently listed activities. Specialty habitats such as coastal areas and mine reclamation sites reflected regional emphasis. Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) programs and food preparation and handling workshops made up the majority of activities recorded for Food Safety.
Question 2 prompted 37.1% of the faculty respondents to list the following specialized extension efforts: news articles, radio programs, Internet listserves and WWW sites, letters to the editor, videotape production, and the hiring of specialized personnel.
Discussion
The survey provided a random sample of animal science departments’ teaching, research, and extension activities that address contemporary issues. As suspected, high–profile areas of current controversy such as water pollution, animal waste, animal welfare, and food safety were reflected in all three mission areas. Based on my survey, I can easily argue that the majority of activities within animal science departments address current issues. However, respondents seemed careful to select and list only activities that had the strongest relationship to an issue.
The quality of the reported activities were not assessed by the survey. There was considerable variability among respondents in the depth of answering a question. Some respondents supplied additional materials (e.g., course and curricula descriptions). Others sent the minimum information necessary to supply an answer. Therefore, I will highlight examples from the extensive responses to illustrate types of activities in teaching, research, and extension.
Teaching
A number of course syllabi and detailed curriculum descriptions were provided by faculty responders. For example, the undergraduate curriculum for receiving a B.S. degree in animal science from Cook College of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey requires that students complete two courses (five credits) under a mandate titled "Interdisciplinary/Ethical Analysis." During their first semester, students must complete a "perspectives course" that introduces them to the multidisciplinary nature of problems and their solutions. During their junior or senior year students are to participate in a colloquium series that serves as a capstone experience. There were 17 colloquia offered on topics ranging from global warming to animal ethics. The department of animal science offers two of these colloquia.
In my department, we offer two courses that are specifically designed to expose students to issues in animal agriculture. History and Attitudes of Animal Use (300 level) is approved as a general education course and seeks to provide majors and nonmajors with an overview of animal use not only in agriculture but also in biomedicine, recreation, and other areas. Discussion, writing assignments, case studies, videos, and guest lectures are used. The second course, Contemporary Issues in Animal Science (500 level) (Swanson, 1995b,c), is student–driven and taught primarily through experience–based projects. The highlight of the course is a mock congressional hearing that is conducted by the students on a federal or state bill. Last year, Kansas State University ( KSU) students teamed up with animal science students taking a similar course at the University of Nebraska to conduct a joint hearing. The exercise allows students to develop a full understanding of the political aspects of issues while having an opportunity to use skills in information retrieval and written and oral communication. The project also encourages students to explore opposing viewpoints and value systems. Other departments, including the University of Kentucky and the University of Maryland, also reported the use of mock hearings (Mench and Stricklin, 1991).
Table 7. Percentage of extension activities by category and subcategory as listed by faculty (n = 14) responding to a survey about contemporary issues
| Project category¹ | n | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| Environment² | 18 | 23.4 |
| Pollution/waste | 7 | 9.0 |
| Grazing/ecosystem | 6 | 7.8 |
| Quality assurance | 5 | 6.5 |
| Animal production/well-being³ | 18 | 23.4 |
| Animal well-being | 3 | 3.9 |
| Housing/size | 3 | 3.9 |
| Management/qualty assurance | 12 | 15.6 |
| Food safety† | 12 | 15.6 |
| Social‡ | 29 | 37.7 |
| Science/biotechnology | 3 | 3.9 |
| Animal welfare/rights | 3 | 3.9 |
| Ethics (livestock) | 10 | 13.0 |
| Humane Office training | 2 | 2.6 |
| Safety | 1 | 1.3 |
| Financial/economic | 10 | 13.0 |
¹Extension activities (n = 77) within a general category and(or)
subcategory.
²Activities were considered environmental if major focus was on
environmental effects. Subcategories reflect the nature of activities
within the general category.
³Activities were considered as animal production if major focus
was on effects to the animal from handling, housing, or other
management factors. Subcategories reflect the nature of activities
within the general category.
†Activities were considered as food safety if major focus was
concerned with animal product quality and safety.
‡Activities were considered as social if major focus was directed
at addressing public, producer, or other social group concerns or
actions.
Oregon State University offers a series of three issues courses. Two are labeled as core courses under the curriculum mandate "Science, Technology, and Society." A third course, Animal Ethics, will be a required course for animal science majors and is part of an intensive writing program. Writing across the curriculum can be easily incorporated into a contemporary issues course (Aarons, 1996). The University of Kentucky requires students to complete two courses (GEN 100 and GEN 200) that are required for all agricultural majors. The first course (GEN 100) provides a historical background in agriculture and covers major agricultural issues. The second course is student–driven and involves considerable debate, discussion, reading, and role playing. A mock congressional process is also used in this course. Finally, students are also required to take a capstone course offered within the animal science department. Similar examples were listed by the University of California Davis ( UC–Davis) (two courses) and the University of Maryland (two courses). Although issues courses may have been available for several years, the mandate to require animal science majors to take a course on contemporary issues is a more recent development in animal science curricula.
A small number of courses were reported as capstone. Capstone courses offer students an opportunity to explore issues at a later stage of their academic development. Montana State University offers a course titled Program Planning and Analysis, which requires senior animal science students to "develop solutions, strategies, and management plans to address technical and social problems." For example, case studies involving real properties (e.g., ranches) that combine public and private lands offer students the opportunity to fully explore the complexities of the various issues that arise with this type of agricultural use arrangement. Conflict resolution was a stated goal for several courses listed by other respondents.
The variety of teaching approaches reported by animal science faculty showed considerable creativity and a desire to enhance students’ intellectual skills and to produce animal science students who can "think outside the box." This indicates a belief that animal scientists should be active participants in resolving issues. Although faculty were not asked to identify the philosophy driving the development of their courses, the survey respondents seem to be committed to teaching students how to think rather than what to think (Schillo, 1997).
Research
Animal science is one of the scientific disciplines that places merit on applied and basic science. It is not a new revelation that the research projects reported in this survey are in alignment with the primary issues the agricultural animal industry faces today (e.g., animal waste). It is essential that agricultural research remain responsive to societal concerns and broaden the constituencies with whom the research is conceived (Westendorf et al., 1995). Although many of the projects respondents listed were not surprising, the efforts toward conducting social research were.
In an early attempt to gauge emerging public attitudes toward animal agriculture the Pennsylvania State University (PSU) conducted a survey of high school scholars and teachers across the state (Bennett and Wilson, 1992) with respect to farm animal welfare, care, and use. More recently, PSU conducted another survey to gauge public attitudes toward different types of standard agricultural practices.
Currently, PSU is conducting surveys of livestock producers regarding "changes they have made in their handling and transport systems and to gather their suggestions regarding changes they perceive are needed in their current operations and procedures."
Focus group interviews and surveys are being conducted at livestock auctions and other establishments handling livestock in order to help "producers conduct self–assessments of their methods and facilities." Oregon State University (OSU) reported conducting a survey across faculty of several OSU campus departments concerning their perceptions about animal minds, animal thinking, and animal intelligence, and how those attributes relate to human obligations. The same survey was administered to the audience during the 1997 ASAS Contemporary Issues Symposium. Progressive research into the changing perceptions and value systems held by society about animals and agriculture can help animal scientists to better delineate concerns and(or) identify potential problems.
Several other nontraditional areas of research were reported, including competition of elk and domestic cattle, herbivory of large ungulates, deer population control, computer simulations, and measuring pig cognition by use of computer technology. Special habitat research addressed environmental issues that are unique to a region. For example, the entire state of Hawaii is considered a coastal zone. The University of Hawaii animal science department has participated in conducting focus groups and research to develop agricultural management measures appropriate to coastal conditions. The reported research is critical to the survival of animal agriculture on the islands. Equally important is the issue of the disposition and recycling of animal waste. Research efforts are in progress to address these issues.
I have chosen to highlight the nontraditional types of research to demonstrate the willingness of animal science departments to engage in research that is interdisciplinary and usually not thought to be within the scope of a traditional animal science program.
Finally, research efforts directed toward solving a contemporary problem ought to expose graduate students to the scientific and social aspects of the issue. But this is dependent on faculty members’ attitudes toward actively engaging their graduate students in the debate. As evidenced by this survey, there are some faculty who fail to identify or relate their research program to an issue. My survey revealed that graduate student education is heavily reliant on seminars and other nonspecific educational activities as sources of information on contemporary issues. One respondent pointed out, "In regard to question #2 under RESEARCH–this is obviously one of our biggest voids in graduate education." Only two programs offered a formal course that addressed contemporary issues. One was a course taught biannually on food animal well–being and the other was a multi–issue course in which seniors and graduate students could enroll. Graduate students are the next generation of professionals that will likely possess industry, academia, and government positions.
Although contemporary issue courses may have been taken by graduate students during their undergraduate training, undergraduate courses are often taught at a lower level of sophistication. Graduate students have advanced course work, research training, and should have greater insight into the science behind issues. Therefore, graduate students should be offered the opportunity to understand issues at an intellectual level that fits their abilities.
Extension
Outreach programs are a major activity conducted by extension faculty. Similar to research, there was a concentration on areas where public issues are prevalent. Ethics of livestock showing was listed by several respondents and was intimately linked with youth development and quality assurance. Animal welfare and animal rights, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, livestock quality assurance, use of biotechnology, corporate farming, and financial viability were all subjects for workshops. Promotional campaigns were also reported, such as pork promotion and the nutritional value of meat. The University of Hawaii (College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources) fielded a "Meat Eaters" running team that placed first in a 1996 48–km relay race.
Issues concerning appropriate animal production and husbandry practices, coupled with an emerging unskilled labor market for large intensive livestock and poultry production, will hasten the need for practical training. Extension faculty reported programs such as worker safety, manure management, and livestock manager certification to provide practical training to those engaged in livestock vocations. Seeds have already been sown for the development of voluntary certification of animal care programs (dairy) on commercial farms. I would expect extensionists to be active well into the 21st century producing programs to meet the new demands for accountability.
At the other end of the spectrum, PSU and UCDavis provide training for humane officers through their extension groups. The KSU extension faculty provide similar training to humane workers and sheriff’s departments (on a request basis) on the condition scoring of horses and livestock. To address environmental concerns, UC-Davis has hired a staff member with a .75 full–time–equivalent appointment to develop programs and handle questions relating to environmental pollution. Similarly, extension programs are heavily involved in food safety education programs that teach proper food preparation and handling procedures, HACCP, and safe standard operating procedures for food handlers.
Extension activities reported from this survey directly reflect faculty efforts to address contemporary issues through adult and youth programming.
Implications
During the past 20 yr animal science departments have faced issues that are increasingly diverse, scrutiny that is more intense, and special interest group efforts that are more focused. The speed of media hastens information dissemination, public perception development, debate, and the urgency to legislate. From cholesterol to E. coli, nonambulatory livestock to gestation crates, water pollution, land pollution, and fish kills, animal scientists will be found amid the scuffle. There is no signal that any of these issues will dissipate; as soon as one is resolved, another will take its place. Through the Land-Grant mission we must be responsive to the important issues we face in animal agriculture and to document our actions. Our credibility with decision makers and stakeholders will depend on it.
Literature Cited
Aaron, D. K. 1996. Writing across the curriculum: Putting theory into practice in animal science courses. J. Anim. Sci. 74: 2810-2827.
Bennett, M. B., and L. L. Wilson. 1992. The influence of special instruction on the perceptions/opinions of academically talented youth regarding farm animal welfare, care, and use. Prof. Anim. Sci. 8:1-6.
Kastner, C. L. 1995. The real story about food safety. J. Anim. Sci. 73:2741-2743.
Mench, J. A., and W. R. Stricklin. 1991. The impact of the animal rights movement on animal science teaching programs. Paper presented at 1991 ASAS Annu. Mtg., August 6-9, Laramie, WY.
Morse, D. 1995. Environmental considerations of livestock producers. J. Anim. Sci. 73:2733-2740.
Owens, F. N. 1997. Sources of animal science research information: Usefulness and reliability. J. Anim. Sci. 75:331-338.
Rollin, B. E. 1995. Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical, and Research Issues. Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Schillo, K. K. 1997. Teaching animal science: Education or indoctrination? J. Anim. Sci. 75:950-953.
Stricklin, W. R., and J. C. Swanson. 1993. Technology and animal agriculture. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 6(Spec. Suppl.1):67-80.
Swanson, J. C. 1995a. Farm animal well-being and intensive production systems. J. Anim. Sci. 73:2744-2751.
Swanson, J. C. 1995b. Teaching college students about issues affecting animal agriculture. In: Proc. 1995 Annu. Mtg. Livestock Conservation Institute. pp 134-137. Livestock Conservation Institute, Bowling Green, KY.
Swanson, J. C. 1995c. The use of experience-based learning in a contemporary issues course in animal science. J. Anim. Sci. 73(Suppl.1):290.
Vavra, M. 1996. Sustainability of animal production systems: An ecological perspective. J. Anim. Sci. 74:1418-1423.
Weber, G. M., T. J. Hoban, P. A. Kendall, and L. S. Bull. 1995. Consumer concerns about modern technology in agriculture: Considerations for undergraduate and graduate teaching. J. Anim. Sci. 73:2727-2732.
Westendorf, M. L., R. G. Zimbelman, and C. E. Pray. 1995. Science and agricultural policy at Land Grant institutions. J. Anim. Sci. 73:1628-1638.