Livestock Production Science 72 (2001) 37–42www.elsevier.com/ locate / livprodsci

Impact of technological innovation in animal nutrition

*C.T. WhittemoreInstitute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK

Abstract

Nutritional science serves both animal agriculture and the public consuming animal products. A past failure to demonstratethe relevance of work to the consumer has led in the UK to a reduction in unrestricted funding which now threatens scientificindependence. The risk which innovation sometimes brings can be managed through cost /benefit appraisal and theprecautionary principle. The process of risk assessment requires the involvement of the risk-taker, and is not a soleresponsibility of the scientific community. The likelihood of innovations from nutrition research being put to good use willdepend upon the quality of the science and its relevance to need. Scientific quality is assisted by funders giving preferentialsupport to research centers which can provide the critical mass of scientists necessary to ensure experimental scale, scientificquality control, and the bringing together of different disciplines to focus upon a single problem. Priorities for nutritionalresearch are suggested to be: the understanding and control of response (and failure to respond) to nutrients, the relationshipbetween nutrition and animal wellbeing, the relationship between nutrition and the protection of the environment, and therelationship between nutrition and the quality of animal product (especially meat). The efficiency of technology transfer issuggested to be positively associated with the presence of simple and automatic means for the implementation of aninnovation, or with a need to comply with Farm Quality Assurance Standards. The need for an intermediate extension stepbetween the innovator and the end-user, together with a need for on-going managerial judgement seems to be unhelpful toeffective technology transfer. 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Nutrition; Innovation; Technology transfer; Research funding

1. Introduction nologies (citizens). The implementation of new tech-nology requires the participation of all three com-

Being no exception amongst sciences, the purpose munities.of nutrition science is to serve society at large. The innovation process may be described asInnovation in the nutrition of animals impacts upon scientists and technologists having new ideas andthree sorts of communities; those who produce the testing them, followed by practitioners implementingcommodity (farmers), those who consume the com- those new ideas. But first, the act of being innovativemodity (consumers), and those who have rights and is a quality in scarce supply and therefore worthchoices in relation to the utilization of new tech- caring for. It cannot be generated on demand.

Effective research management recognizes that theenjoyment scientists get from originating new ideas*Tel.: 1 44-131-6671-041; fax: 1 44-131-6672-601.

E-mail address: c.t.whittemore@ed.ac.uk (C.T. Whittemore). is an essential part of the process. In serving the

0301-6226/01/$ – see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.PI I : S0301-6226( 01 )00264-0

38 C.T. Whittemore / Livestock Production Science 72 (2001) 37 –42

industry and the public, innovators benefit from the perceived margin of benefit where there is a demandtime and space to be imaginative and creative, and for high-value meat. The benefit of in-feed anti-the opportunity to take risks and (sometimes) to be biotics lies entirely with the farmer; while the riskswrong. The funding environment for agricultural lie entirely with the consumer. Risk as an actualityresearch should be sure to encourage these qualities can be managed according to the principles of(Whittemore, 2000). Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points. But the

Most research funding comes from one or both of consuming public is also concerned with the percep-two sources; industry and government. Industry will tion of risk. Scientists may consider that a concernbe most ready to fund research when there is for what is perceived rather than what is actual isevidence of future profit through sales of new or illogical. However, perceived risk allows for unpre-improved product. Government funding offers in- dictable non-linear systems, unknowable long termdependence from the profit motive, but this freedom effects and the fallibility of science. While exampleshas become progressively threatened by the intro- such as the ‘improved’ heat treatment procedures forduction of schemes that link government funding to meat and bone meal, and the contamination ofindustrial support. Government may also place re- animal feeds with toxins are few, they are impressivesearch contracts through the process of tendering for in their impact upon the way that society sees animalspecific programmes of work. In this way science nutrition scientists.can be used to progress the political agenda. The precautionary principle can address risk.

It is however proper that industry funds the Precaution is not cessation, but taking protectivescience that it needs for the pursuit of profit. It is steps proportional to the risk. Where the risk is actualalso proper that government funds science that is in and quantifiable, it can be managed to the level ofthe interests of the society that pays its taxes. It is comfort defined by the risk-taker, and that level willfurther the case that joint government / industry fund- be proportional to the benefit. Where the risk ising increases the likelihood of beneficial interaction perceived, it is necessary to determine whether thebetween science and practice. But when science (like perceived risk is possible or imaginary. If possible,art) becomes overly dependent upon the agenda of then precaution demands a transparent system for itsits sponsors it is in danger of becoming compro- on-going investigation and the presence of a systemmised. The scientific progression of hypothesis, for the management of the risk, in case what isobservation, analysis and conclusion is spoilt if its merely possible becomes actual. This would beobjective is to ask only friendly questions and to appropriate for the utilization of a novel feed ingredi-support propositions favourable to its sponsors (see ent, or the continued inclusion of product derivedalso; Miflin, 1997; Lewis, 1997; Whittemore, 1998, from one animal species in the feed of another. If2000). imagined, then precaution demands that the risk is

monitored in such a way as to allow rapid action ifwhat is imagined becomes what is possible (such as

2. New nutritional ideas and risk an encephalopathy jumping the species barrier).Dealing with risk through the medium of the

The risk taken by research sponsors is not only precautionary principle is not the responsibility ofthat of project failure or of unhelpful conclusions. the innovator, but of the prospective user and risk-There is the additional risk that the end-user might taker, and of society at large. Unfortunately, sci-see no or little benefit in putting the new ideas into entists who believe that it is the scientific view ofpractice. The user requires the benefit to have a degree of risk and need for precaution that shouldmargin over the risk. The size of the margin between prevail, often miss this rather obvious point. This isthe risk and the benefit that is needed to secure the unhelpful. The user’s participation in the process ofuse of a new idea is dependent upon the circum- research innovation and its risk assessment is essen-stances of the potential user. For example, the use of tial (Haug, 1999). In the case of innovation in animalorganic grain in feedstuffs will have a greater nutrition the users are both the agricultural communi-

C.T. Whittemore / Livestock Production Science 72 (2001) 37 –42 39

ty and the consuming public (Whittemore, 1995). to deliver good science. Such bids can be tempting toScientists should not be dismayed when society industrial sponsors attracted to the immediacy of andemands that their hard-won knowledge be put aside. applied science approach (Whittemore, 1996). For

example, the interaction between nutrition and thetaste and tenderness of meat, or the interaction

3. Conditions for the likely successful impact of between nutrition and the immune response, are bothinnovations from nutrition research subjects likely to benefit from a basic rather than an

applied scientific approach. However, taking the3.1. Quality of science basic approach does not ensure high scientific qual-

ity. For example, the failure of animals to achieveHigh quality science does not necessarily lead to the expected response to nutrients is presently more

useful innovation (Edwards and Farrington, 1993). in need of high quality science than is the basicHowever, low quality science surely leads to unsafe determination of nutrient requirement in the firstapplication. Quality science comes more readily place. Likewise, pollution control has passed to thefrom independent and imaginative scientists educated applications phase, and is now a matter primarily forin an enlightened and research-based education development engineers.system that encourages revolution of thought, as wellas logic, objectivity and analysis (Whittemore,

3.2. Diminishing response1998).

The utilization of the human resource will beOften it is the first surge of knowledge that

optimized when research aims are clear, the scale ofrepresents the most substantial proportion of the

experimentation adequate for purpose, and objectivi-useful total. Despite this, some subject areas can

ty of interpretation of results ensured by peer reviewbecome fashionable, and large funding allocations

and critical appraisal. These qualities come mostcontinue to be made in the face of a research yield

readily from centers employing excellent scientists inthat progressively decreases; adding unnecessary

a well resourced environment. These centers need todetail to an already sufficient knowledge base. But

be large in scale, allowing a critical mass of staff,new knowledge may sometimes have benefits in

equipment, livestock numbers, laboratories and fieldexcess of the additive effects. In this respect it is

facilities. Interdisciplinarity, so essential to the solu-helpful for funding bodies to distinguish between

tion of contemporary problems, can (by definition)whether it is the law of diminishing returns or the

only come from the formation of large groups.law of first limiting constraint which applies (de Wit,

A consequence of concentration of resource into1992, 1993). The former would be illustrated by yet

‘Centers of Excellence’ is the need also to concen-another estimate of maintenance requirement. The

trate the financial support. Responsible allocation oflatter is illustrated when an outcome from one

funds from research sponsors will necessarily beexperiment also supplements the understanding of

unequal. Small and unviable research centers willanother. Thus an experiment to study response to

find themselves unfunded. But ‘Centers of Excel-protein will be better interpreted in knowledge of

lence’ will foster the proper development of sci-response to energy.

entists through the provision of the necessary re-source, and the delivery of rigorous criticism fromother scientists of quality and reputation. 3.3. Relevance to need

Plans for the next generation of research are oftenidentified not by the scientific community, but by the If a new idea coming from research is to be used,potential funders themselves. This results in required its usefulness must be evident. It is therefore reason-research areas being put out to tender, and research able for research sponsors to expect plans forworkers anxious for funding may be tempted to place technology transfer at the same time as they receivelow-cost bids although they lack adequate resource plans for the experimental protocol (Edwards and

40 C.T. Whittemore / Livestock Production Science 72 (2001) 37 –42

Farrington, 1993; Harrington, 1997). It was the lack quantitative. In this way, the research finding and itsof evident relevance to need in the independent transfer are firmly linked together.government-funded research programmes of 1960–1980 which led in the UK to the cutting of researchbudgets (Whittemore, 1998). Next followed the 4. Technology transfer of innovations frominsistence that either the project had to be jointly research to the end userfunded with industry, or relate to a governmentagenda. A significant cause of the loss of indepen- Table 1 describes a number of example innova-dence suffered by the scientific community was its tions from nutrition research. Information transferinability adequately to demonstrate the relevance of (column 1) relates primarily to transfer by the writtenresearch to the solution of problems of interest to or spoken word amongst peers, while technologygovernment or industry. transfer (column 2) refers to the actual means by

A historical perspective suggests that the 1970s which end-users may achieve implementation. In-were dominated by the determination of nutrient formation transfer amongst scientists is relativelyrequirement and the evaluation of feedingstuffs; as straightforward, but has little to do with either thecomprehensively recorded by Theodorou and France effective transfer of the technology to the end user,(1999). The 1980s identified fundamental errors in or with the impact of the innovation (Nelson andnutrient requirement logic and re-invented the phe- Farrington, 1994).nomenon of nutrition: genotype interaction. Lacta- More than one level of end-user should be consid-tion yield, fatness and lean tissue growth rate domi- ered. For example, the feed and primary productionnated nutritional investigations. The 1990s registered industries (column 3) and the ultimate consumer ofalarm at high productivity in the animal sector, and the animal product (column 4) are all end-users ofbecame sensitive to the relationship between animal animal nutrition research. The nature of the impactnutrition, environmental pollution, sustainability of of an innovation can differ at each level.production, and animal welfare (Whittemore, 1994, High impact innovations tend to be associated1995). To obtain research funds in Europe at the with means of technology transfer which facilitatepresent time, nutritional scientists will often link automatic implementation; such as built-in softwaretheir work to pollution control, animal health and packages, hardware and mechanical equipment, for-wellbeing, or meat and milk product quality. The mulae for diet nutritional content, grading paymentcommercial sector also remains interested in the schedules, and ‘legal’ enforcement. All of which –frank testing of product with a view to its en- once implemented – either limit or exclude furtherdorsement. Kealey (1996) has explored the relative and frequent recourse to the decision-making pro-merits of industry funding for such purposes. cess.

Understanding and being able to control animal The linear pattern of technology transfer; researchresponse to nutrients are both prerequisite for the institute – extension service – practicing farmerprovision of animal wellbeing and the resolution of (Whittemore, 1996, 1998) is probably inadequate foranimal production environmental sustainability prob- developed agriculture, and the transfer of informa-lems (MAFF, 2000). The phrase ‘Integrated Man- tion and technologies requires non-linear and com-

¨agement Systems’ (IMS) has come to be used to plex interactions (Roling and Engel, 1991; Haug,describe a stepwise approach to controlled nutritient 1999). The inclusion of extension methodology as anprovision. First, the identification and monitoring of intermediate step in the chain appears to hinder thethe physiological state of the animal. Next, the uptake of new ideas (Edwards and Farrington, 1993).specification and delivery of the nutritional means to This seems particularly to be the case where thechange that state in the desired direction. Last, end-user, the extension professional, and the sci-assessment of the outcome with a view to improving entific innovator all consider themselves to be equal-(by iteration) the accuracy of any subsequent nutri- ly knowledgeable. As stated by Garforth and Ushertional specification. Inherent in IMS philosophy is (1997) in relation to the influence of the extensionthat the control function is automatic, immediate and step, ‘‘information is not simply passed on but is

C.T.

Whittem

ore/

Livestock

Production

Science72

(2001)37

–4241

Table 1Transfer and impact of nutritional innovation in the livestock industry

Innovation Means of information transfer Means of technology transfer Industry outcome Consumer outcome

(effectiveness of transfer) (effectiveness of transfer) (impact) (impact)

National Standards for nutrient requirement Scholarly texts and software Nutrient requirement provided in the diet Improved efficiency Reduction in product price

(80%) (80%) (high) (medium)

Nutritional evaluation of feedingstuffs Scientific publications Diet formulation matrices Optimization of feed Reduction in product price

(60%) (70%) ingredient inclusion (high) (medium)

Least-cost diet formulation Software Ingredient mixture in compounded diet Improved efficiency Reduction in product price

(100%) (80%) (high) (medium)

Quantification of response to change Scientific publications and Extension services Improved efficiency Reduction in pollution

in level of nutrient supply professional journals (50%) (40%) (medium) (medium)

Quantification of effect of feeding Grading schemes Financial returns from Meat Packers Reduced output and decreased Increase in product quality

level and energy:protein ratio on carcass fatness (100%) imposing grading schemes (100%) returns (negative) (high)

Identification of feeds or feed additives Intellectual Property Advertising Included into diet Increase in diet cost; efficacy sometimes unverified Little

with specific functions in professional journals (10%) (80%) (neutral) (neutral)

Reduction in environmental pollution by Scientific publications and Extension services (40%). Increase in feeding costs Improvement in the local

optimization of nutrient supply professional journals (60%) Legislation and codes of practice (negative) environment (medium)

(95%)

Imposition of Farm Manual of Standards Inspection, followed by withdrawal Increase in production costs, but Improvement in product quality

Quality Assurance Standards (100%) of registration if non compliant (100%) maintenance of market (neutral) (high)

Nutritional enhancement of the flavour and Little information presently Extension services Increase in value of the product in the market place Increased benefit at the point

eatability of the meat product available for transfer (20%) (10%) (high) of consumption (high)

Potential inclusion in Quality Assurance Standards

(80%)

Integrated Management Systems for the Little information presently available Software /hardware interfaces, electronic Improved efficiency, maintenance of market Improvement of product value and

optimization of nutrient provision for transfer. Intellectual property protected control mechanisms, mechanized nutrient balancing position, compliance with pollution controls, reduction in pollution (medium)

software and feed provision (90%) optimization of output (high)

(90%)

42 C.T. Whittemore / Livestock Production Science 72 (2001) 37 –42

Kealey, T., 1996. The Economic Laws of Scientific Research.continually being transformed and adapted’’. ThusMacmillan, London.there is contrast between the rate of uptake of new

Lewis, T., 1997. Farmers Weekly, 19 September.knowledge relating to optimum diet protein content MAFF, 2000. Agriculture Link. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries(which requires no more than a once-for-all adjust- and Food, PB 5240.ment to diet formulation software) on the one hand; Miflin, B., 1997. Farmers Weekly, 19 September.

Nelson, J., Farrington, J., 1994. Information Exchange Net-and on the other, the rate of uptake of new knowl-working For Agricultural Development: A Review of Conceptsedge relating to optimum level of feed supply (whichand Practices For Cta. Sayce Publishing, Exeter.

requires first information delivery, next the inclusion ¨Roling, N., Engel, P., 1991. The development of the concept ofof a decision-maker, and last the exercising of agricultural knowledge and information systems. In: Rivera,judgement on a day-by-day basis). W., Gustafson, M. (Eds.), Agricultural Extension: Worldwide

Institutional Evolution and Forces for Change. Elsevier, Am-Innovations which will result in loss of profit aresterdam, pp. 125–137.unlikely to be implemented by businesses unless

Theodorou, M.K., France, J., 1999. Feeding Systems and Feedthere is some ‘legal’ or moral obligation. In such Evaluation Models. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.circumstances, Farm Quality Assurance Schemes are Whittemore, C.T., 1994. Food from animals: environmental issuesa most effective means of technology transfer, and and implications. In: Dalzell, J.M. (Ed.), Food Industry and the

Environment. Blackie Academic and Professional, London, pp.impact strongly on the way livestock are farmed1–14.(Whittemore, 1995).

Whittemore, C.T., 1995. Response to the environmental andwelfare imperatives by UK livestock production industries andresearch services. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 8, 65–84.

References Whittemore, C.T., 1996. Policy issues for education in generalagriculture in UK Universities. Eur. J. Agric. Educ. Extension3, 21–34.Edwards, D.T., Farrington, J., 1993. Review of the factors

Whittemore, C.T., 1998. Structures and processes required forinfluencing uptake and impact of a sample of 21 UK supportedresearch, higher education and technology transfer in therenewable natural resources research projects. In: ODI Agricul-agricultural sciences; a policy appraisal. Agric. Econ. 19, 269–tural Research and Extension Network Paper 43. Overseas282.Development Institute, London.

Whittemore, C.T., 2000. Pitfalls in Reporting Animal ScienceGarforth, C., Usher, R., 1997. Promotion and uptake pathways forResearch. University of Edinburgh Institute of Ecology andresearch output: a review of analytical frameworks and com-Resource Management, Edinburgh.munication channels. Agric. Systems 35, 301–322.

de Wit, C.T., 1992. Resource use efficiency in agriculture. Agric.Harrington, G., 1997. Technology transfer in the livestock andSystems 40, 125–151.meat industry. In: Commissioned Report to the Meat and

de Wit, C.T., 1993. Resource Use Analyses in Agriculture: ALivestock Commission, Milton Keynes.Struggle For Interdisciplinarity. Wageningen Agricultural Uni-Haug, R., 1999. Some leading issues in international agriculturalversity, Wageningen.extension, a literature review. J. Agric. Educ. Extension 5,

263–274.