PSA newsletter

Most of my time devoted to PSA this fall and winter has been used to work on the development of an organizational structure for the proposed new federation, involving the American Dairy Science Association (ADSA), the American Meat Science Association (AMSA), the American Society of Animal Science (ASAS), and the Poultry Science Association (PSA). To provide an identity for the proposed group, we are using the tentative name, Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS). We have also been dealing with the effect that federation would have on the current Federation of American Societies of Food Animal Sciences (FASFAS). Briefly, I will say that I believe we can keep what has worked in the past and improve on the problem areas to create a new Federation that would improve and strengthen our current organizations. Changes on the administrative end to make the Business Office more efficient are an important part of this planning process.

While attending these meetings, I was made aware of Carl Johnson's plans to retire during this year. Although we are happy for him in this upcoming career move, we certainly have mixed feelings. We are trying very hard to get Carl to come to Athens to participate in and enjoy our Poultry Science meeting one last time.

Regarding the annual meeting, I spoke to Henry Marks, Chair of the Local Arrangements Committee, and he is very excited about the upcoming meeting. There have already been many organizational meetings. Those who have attended these meetings have all been very positive and have assured me that we will have a good meeting in August.

I am pleased to report that plans for a symposium on infectious diseases of poultry, sponsored jointly by PSA and the American Association of Avian Pathologists (AAAP), are moving ahead on schedule. David Swayne and Mo Saif have been serving as program chairs and working with Murray Bakst, Chair of the Ancillary Scientists Committee, to develop a high quality symposium.

I have also been in contact with Sarge Bilgili, General Program Chair for our annual meeting. As of this writing, he had some concern over the lack of suggestions and plans for other symposia, but we are confident that our membership will rise to the occasion. We are planning to have a two-hour Town Hall or Open Forum style of session. This will focus on PSA issues, including discussion of the FASS proposal mentioned in my opening paragraph and reviewed more completely in this issue of the Newsletter. Please watch for this session; plan to attend and participate. It should be interesting.

On a more somber note, we are always saddened by the loss of any of our PSA members. We were particularly hard hit by the loss of Helene Cecil, a Past President of PSA and a very active member of many PSA and FASFAS committees. I was delighted to see the Yearbook of FASFAS Activities dedicated to her. Please keep Dr. Cecil and all that she stood for in your memories, and keep her and her family and friends in your prayers.

The Board of Directors mid-year meeting will be January 18_19, preceding the World Poultry Expo, in Atlanta. Many issues are scheduled for discussion. Thanks to all who are serving the Association on committees this year. Without you, the annual meeting, the awards and even the Association simply would not be. As always, please feel free to contact me or any Board member if there are significant issues that need to be addressed.

By the time this newsletter reaches you, I will hopefully be the "lame duck" Newsletter Editor. That is, the Board of Directors will have had their mid-year meeting and will have at least discussed the candidates. I'm not sure what the timetable will be for making a final decision.

They will also have given a lot of consideration to the question of PSA joining with the other animal societies that currently operate out of the Savoy Business Office (ADSA, AMSA, and ASAS) to create a Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS). President Engster has included comments in this newsletter on the current thinking. At this point, our Directors have only voted to proceed with the development of a business plan. Keep in mind that any of the details are subject to revision, based on the discussions being held at the mid-year meetings of each society. Even the FASS name is just a handle adopted for the planning process. Then, a "business structure or plan" will be developed for consideration at the annual summer meetings of each society. This will be your opportunity to participate. Please do participate. This is a major undertaking for PSA and the other groups.

I won't try to influence your biases with my prejudices; in part, because I don't know what my prejudices are yet. I do have some questions. What are our real options? If we should decide against the Federation idea, is the "status quo" an option? As I understand it, ADSA has basic control of the Business Office at this time and we contract for the needed services. Is it their desire (or mandate?) to not continue in that role? If three of the groups vote for the Federation, what are the options for the other group? Attending the annual meeting of FASFAS in November gave me some additional insight into the process being undertaken to design a federation, tailored to the needs of the animal societies, but this is an ongoing process. President Engster will keep us informed. The April newsletter should include a report on the Board's mid-year meeting and their reaction. The "final" proposalthat which will come before the annual meeting for discussionwill probably not be ready until the July newsletter. We'll do our best to keep you up-to-date.

It's that time of the year again when members should be thinking about nominating co-workers for some of the PSA Awards. Remember, March 1 is the deadline for most award nominations. The "Association Notes" section of this newsletter lists the chair of each award committee. There have been a couple of changes in the last two years regarding eligibility to nominate or receive awards. Nominators do not need to be PSA members. The PSA Research Award is open to individuals who received their terminal degree within the last ten years, without regard for age (this change was missed in the flyer you received with your October newsletter and in the Constitution and By-Laws published in the October, 1996 issue of Poultry Science). Contact the committee chair if you have questions regarding eligibility, nomination requirements, etc. for a specific award.

The mailings from the PSA office included with the last newsletter included a form to list nominees for awards. If you filled this out, make sure someone follows up to actually submit the required nominating materials, including supporting materials as appropriate. Make sure the nomination includes all of the materials required, without going overboard with superfluous materials. Provide the number of copies of nominating and supporting materials specified in the rules and regulations.

The other big deadline coming up is for the submission of abstractsMarch 3, 1997. These dates come up faster than we expect, so give some thought to what research you may want to report at the annual PSA meeting in August.

Our society is faced with an opportunity that promises to ensure a strong future by generating synergy among animal science societies with the formation of a federation of animal science societies. Please read the details of FASS that are described in the accompanying article, "Exploring a New Frontier: Federation of Animal Science Societies." Your Board of Directors has been thinking about the pros and cons of a new federation for a few years. Now, formation of FASS appears to have some momentum to move forward. Your Board has approved exploring the development of a business plan. The Officers and Board members ask that you provide us with input that we can effectively use as we make final decisions regarding FASS. You may do so by attending an open forum at the annual meeting, where the FASS proposal will be discussed. It should be emphasized that the plans outlined here reflect the thinking of the planning committee to date, and are subject to revision, based on further committee meetings and the outcome of discussions at the various society Board meetings this winter.

A Federation of Animal Science Societies would seek to support the common interests and collective good of its member societies in ways that would advance animal agriculture and animal science, while preserving the idenity and autonomy of the member societies. A few of the important questions you may have concerning the proposal are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.

What does joining the Federation entail?

Joining the Federation will provide PSA with increased efficiency in activities and services. These are not possible within our individual society. There would be an expected level of society involvement and responsibility, as well as optional activities. For example, PSA and the other founding societies (ADSA, AMSA, and ASAS), through their mem bership in FASS, would have the option to buy into the facilities, equipment, and staff that are currently under control of the American Dairy Science Association. We, in turn, would share in the responsibility of setting policies as an equal partner, instead of contracting for our business services through ADSA.

How will the identity of PSA be maintained?

The PSA would maintain a Board of Directors, hold annual meetings, produce publications, maintain a professional staff, and administer our own finances and resources.

What would member societies expect to receive from FASS?

Each member society should expect to receive increased member services, such as:

• Enhanced Electronic Communication
• Professional Development Opportunities
• Economies through Shared Equipment
• Conferences, Symposia, and Workshop Training Sessions
• Placement and Employment Services
• Professional Conference Administration
• Greater Access to Scientific Journal Information
• Improved Intercollegiate Interaction
• Jointly Planned Meetings when Desired
• Shared Newsletters
• Mass Mailing Services
• Possible Combined Dues Billings for Members of Multiple FASS Societies

Another direct benefit to members would be a strong advocacy position for the animal sciences and animal agriculture, which leads into the next question.

How would poultry and animal sciences benefit from the Federation?

The FASS would provide a powerful and influential voice, strengthened through numbers, and an expanded sphere of influence for better advocacy of the animal sciences and animal agriculture. By creating a strong and unified voice for science-based animal agriculture, scientific credibility will be enhanced, and scientific exchange would be improved, particularly on issues relevant to animal resources and use. By becoming a strong advocate for animal agriculture, the research, teaching, and extension activities could be voiced along with the perspectives of private-sector industry (animal producers, processors, allied industries and consumers). We can expect enhanced appreciation of animal sciences within institutions, government agencies, and the general public.

I am convinced that a federation partnership would be the most efficient approach for the future of animal agriculture. We can be proud of the fact that PSA has always been a very progressive professional society, focused on providing science-based information and service to our members. The Federation is another logical step in our goal to improve on what we already have and to gain efficiency. I have appreciated the chance to work with colleagues from the other animal science associations on the Society Structure Committee. There is a shared team spirit among the societies' representatives to really work together for this consortium.

There is keen competition between plant and animal sciences for research dollars in Washington. In general, it is a fact that animal agriculture receives less research funding than plant agriculture. As our population gets farther and farther away from agriculture, we have an obligation to ensure that our future does not lie in the hands of uninformed politicians. Many people do not understand that most politicians do not really care about the differences between beef, pork, and poultry. We need to ensure that the word "science" is properly defined and that decisions are made based on science, rather than opinion.

It would be nice to say that we, as an Association, could do this alone. However, the fact is that we can't. There is power in numbers. We can increase the power of the "animal agriculture constituency" by working together. Please give this some serious consideration and be prepared to participate in the discussions at our annual meeting in August. In the meantime, I will keep you informed of our progress on a proposed Federation structure that will best meet the needs of the four societies, considering their similarities, as well as their different and unique needs.

In the last issue of the PSA Newsletter, I addressed the topic of the formation of a new federation among the animal science societies, similar in structure to that of the Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology (FASEB). Within the last year a special committee, made up of representatives of PSA, American Society of Animal Science (ASAS), American Dairy Science Association (ADSA), American Meat Science Association (AMSA), American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists (ARPAS), and Federation of American Societies of Food Animal Sciences (FASFAS), has been exploring the formation of a stronger and closer alliance between these animal science societies. Mary Ann Ottinger and I have served as the PSA representatives to this committee. The committee has endorsed the federation concept and continues to make progress toward its formation. The PSA Board voted unanimously to proceed with the development of a business plan for such a federation. It is important to recognize that core services now provided by FASFAS would become part of the Federation. The attempt is to build on the strengths of FASFAS and make it even stronger.

The new Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS) would seek to coordinate the common interests of its member societies, while preserving their individual identities and autonomy. The vision of the Federation is to:

• Provide common administrative support, with potentially expanded services, at the most reasonable costs.
• Enhance opportunities for professional development and support services to all members.
• Provide a common voice on priorities and needs of animal agriculture to decision-making bodies.
• Allow member societies opportunities for stronger and more strategic programming in services to customers of the societies.
• Become a more powerful and united voice in advocating scientific perspectives to the general public and an effective means of disseminating information to the member societies.

• To gain efficiencies by sharing common administrative and support functions among societies, with increased potential services.
• To provide advocacy by having animal science professionals speak with one voice whenever possible.
• To facilitate activities, taking advantage of jointly planned projects and coordinated efforts, and sharing the benefits derived from acting for the collective good.

The Federation would be organized on a model similar to that of FASEB. It would be governed by the member societies and would depend minimally on dues for core funding by core societies. The majority of funding would come from an array of services provided to member societies or others on a fee basis. Those services could include membership data management, professional certification, conference or meeting planning and support, publication services, continuing education services, marketing, and financial management. Each member society would choose those services it wishes to contract through the Federation. Core services related to public affairs, research, and education would be combined for all member societies. These could include, but not necessarily be limited to, those currently provided by FASFAS and otherssuch as the Congressional Science Fellow program and the Issues Team effort.

Looking to the future planning process, the Society Structure Committee met recently to review a proposed business plan for the Federation. The final concept, structure, and business plan will be transmitted to each of the societies' Boards of Directors for consideration at their winter meetings. Again, I would emphasize that changes to the proposed new organization (minor or major) could follow these winter meetings. Members will then review the plan at each annual summer meeting. We will plan to provide you with updated information in the two newsletters preceding our annual meeting.

The 1996 National Poultry and Egg Conference was held on November 21, at the Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center, in Louisville, KY. The annual conference drew 137 senior 4-H'ers from all over the country to participate in educational events that will help them learn to make and defend decisions, speak publicly, and gain skills in poultry-related subject matter.

One of five separate events, the Poultry Judging Contest, required teams of contestants to evaluate ready-to-cook poultry, live production hens, and market eggs. In the chicken and turkey barbequing contests, individuals prepared barbequed chicken or turkey and made an oral presentation on the broiler or turkey industry. Egg Preparation Demonstrations involved preparation of an egg dish, plus an oral presentation on the nutritional value of eggs. The Avian Bowl required teams to compete in a round robin tournament, answering questions regarding poultry science, poultry production and information about the poultry industries.

Some 42 individuals, companies and commodity organizations, including PSA, supported the Conference through donations of funds, goods, and services. The event would not be possible without these contributors.

In the cooking contests, Robert Elliott, North Carolina won first place in the Chicken Barbequing Contest. Stephanie Osborne, Virginia, captured top place in the Turkey Barbequing Competition.

The Egg Preparation Demonstration Contest was won by Bethany Bishop, Ohio.

This year's Champion Avian Bowl Team was from California. Team members were Sam Palmer, Louis Wilson and Martin Paukert, and their coach was Mrs. Sheryle Paukert.

Other top-ranking teams were Kentucky, 2nd; Ohio, 3rd; Minnesota, 4th; and Indiana and North Carolina, tied for 5th.

Competetion in the judging contest continued strong, as in other years. The overall individual champion was Emily Green, from Virginia, scoring 1,403 points out of a possible 1,500. Indiana had the overall Poultry & Eggs Judging Contest champion team, scoring 4,180 points out of a possible 4,500. The Indiana team consisted of Jeremy Fisher, Brad Smith, Ryan Betzner, and Amanda Whybrew (alternate), and was coached by Glen Jones. Other teams ranking in the top ten were Virginia, 2nd; Florida, 3rd; Maryland, 4th; Ohio, 5th; Georgia, 6th; Arkansas, 7th; Tennessee, 8th; Illinois, 9th; and North Carolina, 10th. Each winner of the individual events and each winning team member received awards consisting of a watch, a gold pin, a plaque or trophy and a $500.00 savings bond. Coaches of the winners were presented plaques.

Major membership efforts:

• PSA staff surveyed 200 non-renewing members; 12 responded; 4 renewed membership, 4 indicated the journal was no longer relevant to their job, 3 retired, and 1 thought the journal was too scientific for his use.
• Promoted PSA at International Poultry Expo., Midwest Poultry Federation Meeting, and Western Poultry Disease Conference/ANECA Meeting
• Will receive WPSA India registration listing in October
• Designed new membership form and new member information packet
• Offered discounts for 145 non-renewing professional subscribers in 1995
• Contacted "Free Student Members" with renewal form
• Included "Reminder to Join" in PSA Annual Meeting Registration Packet
• PSA Annual Meeting Registration "On-Site" membership forms

The National Educational Forum for Food Safety Issues (NEFFSI) is sponsoring the North American Food Safety Educational Workshop in cooperation with several universities and USDA divisions, on March 10_12, 1997, at the Holiday Inn, College Park, Maryland. The conference is designed for professionals interested in food safety as it relates to grocery stores, convenience stores, and food service establishments, including commercial, institutional, and military sectors. Some of the key topics to be covered in presentations and breakout discussion sessions include:

• What is HACCP to food service? Is it possible?
• Proposed changes in the FDA Food Code
• Challenges of and barriers to training food service workers
• Identification of safe food handling training programs
• Evaluating the effectiveness of food safety programs
• Food safety problems unique to food retailers and food service

The registration fee of $150.00 ($175.00 after February 15) covers breaks, printed materials and Tuesday lunch. For complete information and registration forms, contact Lisa Gordon, Box 7624, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7624; phone 919/515-2956, FAX: 919/515-7124. Members of the workshop planning committee that your editor recognized with poultry-related interests were Pat Curtis, John Marcy, Richard Reynnells, and Chuck Wabeck. They would also be good sources of additional information.

Dear Lou:

I have just recently donated my copies of the Proceedings of the National Poultry Breeders Roundtable to the University of Minnesota-St. Paul Library. This includes the original, 1950, through 1996 volumes. So far as I know, this is the only intact set available. There may be others. In any case, I thought it would be useful to let people know that the set is available for reference. Contact Ms. Jo Ann De Vries, U. of M. St. Paul Library, St. Paul, MN 55108.

Sincerely,
R. N. Shoffner
Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota

Editor's Comments:

Thanks, Bob, both for making sure these Proceedings will be available to others for the future, and for letting PSA members know about them. We were able to get a phone number for Ms. De Vries (612/624-7446) and a general number for the library (612/624-2233). It should also be possible to gain access to these proceedings through the interlibrary loan system.

Too often, such materials end up being thrown out by someone not familiar with their value to researchers and students. Another good place for similar materials would be the National Agricultural Library in Beltsville, Maryland. With the collection the late James Gwin donated and materials Bob Hogue and John Skinner have collected through the American Poultry Historical Society, the NAL has extensive holdings related to poultry. Bob and John can advise you of the interests and needs of the NAL, and put you in contact with the right people.

In Bob Shoffner's letter, he indicated that the set he put in their library might be the only complete set available. Jim Bitgood suggested that Arnie Nordskog and Susan Lamont might have accumulated a complete set. The late Ramakrishna Reddy was a regular participant in the Roundtables, and may have left a set at Peterson Farms, Inc.

Natural Antioxidants: Chemistry, Health Effects, and Applications is the title of a new book from the American Oil Chemists Society (AOCS) Press. The editor is Fereidoon Shahidi, Department of Biochemistry, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada. Released in December of 1996, the 432 page, hard-cover book is priced at $105.00 (AOCS members - $84.00); IBSN 0-935315-77-22; Item #NR111.

The AOCS Press also released Deep Frying: Chemistry, Nutrition, and Practical Application in November, 1996. Editors are Edward G. Perkins, Food Chemistry and Nutritional Sciences, University of Illinois and Michael D. Erickson, Process Engineer with AC Humko, Memphis, TN. Hardbound, 368 pages; ISBN 0-935315-75-6; Item #NR107; List price - $60.00, AOCS member price - $48.00.

To order either of the above books, call 800/336-2627 within the U.S. or Canada or 217/359-5401, ext 128; FAX orders to 217/351-8091. Mail orders to AOCS Publication Orders, P.O Box 3489, Champaign, IL 61826-3489, USA. Include the reference Item Number when placing orders.

Ratite Management, Medicine, and Surgery, edited by Thomas N. Tully, Jr. and Simon M. Shane, both from the School of Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State University. The book is designed to provide a comprehensive approach for enhancing ratite production through integration of scientific knowledge of nutrition, disease control and therapy. ISBN 0-89464-874-8, 214 pages, $59.00 plus shipping. For full information on content, ordering, shipping, etc., contact Krieger Publishing Company, P.O. Box 9542, Melbourne, FL 32902-9542; phone 407/724-9542, FAX 407/951-3671; direct order line 407/727-7270.

February 11-16, 1997 National Meat Association 51st Annual Convention. San Diego Concourse, San Diego, California. Contact AMA, 1970 Broadway, Suite 825, Oakland, CA 94162; phone 510/763-1533, FAX 510/763-6186.

Texas A & M
. . . . . . .

The Department of Poultry Science at Texas A & M University would like to recognize their undergraduate and graduate students for their hard work and dedication, both in and out of the classroom. Thirty-eight scholarships and fellowships were awarded to deserving individuals for the 1996-97 school year, totaling $64,100 in support for the students. The scholarship or fellowship and recipients are listed below.

R. E. Janes: Benjamin Crabb;
Cecil Ryan: Kellie Ramey;
Delvin and Marye Barrett: Kris Forks;
Hubbard Farms Charitable Foundation: Kris Forks >br? Pilgrim's Pride Fellowship: Fred Prochaska and Ken Maciorowski
James W. Lee: Clifton Griffin;
Herb Chafin: Debra Revier and Carol Slominski;
Leo and Edna Fuchs: Craig Coufal;
Janet Greer: Jason lee;
Texas Allied Poultry Association: Jaye Sansom, Jack McReynolds, Hollie Crabb, Lynette Ryan,
Texas Broiler Council: Shay Harman, Jason McDonald, Darren Andrews, Thomas Weber, John Wyatt, Jack McReynolds, Jaye Sansom, Keith Dolch, Sara Robinson, Rene Woelfel, Amy Svoboda, Jennifer Albert, Jason Sagebiel, Ruben Beltran, Koyle Knabe, Paul Sensiba, Sean Miller;
Tyson Foods: Julie Rose, Casey Jones, Jessica Andrews, Kyle Shaw, Gary Stephens, Jason Mooney.

USDA Activities
The request for proposal for the Fund for Rural America competitive grants is reportedly due late in the week of January 20, 1997. This is a delay, but the USDA assures us that there will be a full 90-day period for submission of proposals after publication. The delay is apparently due to the fact that Secretary Glickman plans a press conference on January 15 and wishes to provide details of the entire $100 million program. The law provides $33 million for competitive grants, $33 million for rural development, and $33 for discretionary use by the USDA Secretary. The word is that some portion of the discretionary portion will also be for competitive grants, although with different focus than the original competitive grants portion. Based on unofficial comments, animal agriculture should be pleased with these additional funds in particular.

Animal Well-Being
A lot of activity has been generated on animal well-being issues in recent months. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) excludes animals for food and fiber research. It does cover farm animals used in Biomedical Research. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS/USDA) has been working on guidelines for a number of years to more closely define the standards for such animals. In anticipation of issuing guidelines, the Office of Management and Budget asked APHIS to get some estimates of financial impact on universities from their proposed guidelines. This has led to some universities being interviewed about the cost of certain changes. This interpretation by some, that APHIS will regulate all farm animal use, has led to some concerns. One of the problems, of course, is how to define the line between food and fiber research and biomedical research. Certain basic food and fiber research may have implications for biomedical purposes and may involve procedures such as surgery that are considered by many as a biomedical technique. Other issues, such as sharing of space, raise issues in the minds of some regarding a certain overlap of AWA regulations. It seems prudent to be careful in describing the purpose of your research in all protocols, and to have clear understanding of the issues by your Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Animal Agriculture Coalition
The AAC had a major meeting with the CSREES/USDA recently. It was a good meeting and increased communication on a lot of research and extension issues. Relationship of the cooperative state programs relative to the goals of FAIR `95 was the basis for the discussion. An increased dialogue on federal programs will result from this and future meetings. The USDA has been mandated to demonstrate greater accountability for research, extension, and educational programs. Accountability and relevance start with meeting the needs of stakeholders, FAIR`95 is recognized as that kind of input from a broad coalition of stakeholders. I think you will note changes in future programs based on such input. The Government Results and Performance Act (GPRA) is a government-wide mandate to increase such accountability and is receiving much attention from USDA as they prepare for its implementation.

Federation Activities A task force from the four societies is considering a new Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS) as reported in previous newsletters. The success of past FASFAS activities, such as the Congressional Science Fellow program and FAIR`95, has demonstrated that we can gain more from sharing of resources and talent. FASFAS would probably be absorbed in FASS as a public affairs activity.

Abe Aberle held a meeting of his Executive Planning Committee this quarter and Jim Males has agreed to chair the Program Committee for FAIR2002. This will likely involve a workshop in early 1998. The plant-related societies and crop commodity groups are planning a similar activity. Their acronym is CROPS 99 (Coalition for Research on Plant Systems) for 1999. Because they did not have a similar effort when we did FAIR`95, they feel a need to get their effort underway somewhat earlier than FAIR2002 is scheduled. Both efforts are being seen as the kind of input needed by the new USDA Advisory Board for Research, Education, and Economics.

CoFARM
I represented CoFARM at a number of meetings recently. NASULGC (Land Grant Institutions) had a great many meetings to gain input from their stakeholders. I participated at the National Advisory Committee on what they termed as a Joint Futuring Activity. The key feature was to have the Experiment Station and Extension components listening to their stakeholders in a joint activity rather than separately. CoFARM is also represented on a committee to update the CRIS (Current Research Information System) of USDA. This is an essential activity in line with the GPRA and other accountability needs as described above. The CoFARM steering committee has met with a number of USDA officials to discuss broader aspects of agricultural research in the bigger federal picture of research. We also heard of a potential significant involvement of the private sector to markedly increase ag research funding. The concept is that recent changes in agricultural policy provides a unique opportunity to make the case that ag research has been underfunded and lost ground in funding over the recent past . The effort is in early discussion and I will keep you informed.

Regulatory Issues
The Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) of FDA has issued it proposal to ban the feeding of ruminant products to other ruminants. The proposal was issued on January 3, 1997. The ban would not preclude feeding of ruminant derived proteins in hog, poultry or pet foods. It also excludes from the ban blood, milk, or gelatin from ruminant sources. The goal of the proposal is to prevent the spread of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE, BSE in particular) among our cattle herds in the event that cases of BSE occur in the future. No cases have been found in the U.S. to date, but certain experts say a certain level of cases is certain to occur from "spontaneous" events at some point. The general feeling is that the CVM proposal would help us to avoid the spread of BSE that occurred in Britain in the epidemic known popularly as "mad-cow disease". The issue of Endocrine Disruptors continues to receive attention. A special advisory committee of the Environmental Protection Agency has been organized to make recommendations on this issue. An initial meeting of nominated members was held in late October and Ellen Bergfeld, current Congressional Science Fellow, and I both attended. This is a very broad issue based on the premise that agents with endocrine (primarily estrogen) activity abound in the environment and are having negative impact on both wildlife and humans. This thesis was brought to broad public attention through a book entitled "Our Stolen Future". Several well known scientists have indicated that the premises are not very well-founded scientifically. Nevertheless, it is an issue which could be presented in a very scary fashion to a public with little understanding of science. This issue focuses mostly on pesticides and other chemical manufacturing processes, but covers the area of Dioxin and such agents that are supposed to concentrate in the fat of animals and fish as a route for human exposure. So it is prudent that animal scientists be alert to developments in this area.

Things are starting to heat up here in DC; with plenty of unrest regarding ethics both in the White House and in Congress. I'm hoping that it will make for a more conciliatory approach to legislative action, but I am still naive in the ways of politics and it may end up making everyone more hard-nosed than ever.

The primary issue that I will be involved in this year is the re-authorization of the Research Title of the 1996 Farm Bill. This is critical to anyone in agriculture and crucial to our land grant universities. It is imperative that you, as individual constituents and as members of the research community, keep your members in Congress informed on issues such as this. You must stand up and make yourself heard. This is a time of tight budgets and less money for everyone. We cannot allow agriculture and agricultural research to be cut in the appropriations process because we didn't have enough representation. We, in agriculture, need to do a better job of educating the public and our government of the critical importance of agriculture and agricultural research. It is time that we advertise broadly the fact that farmers are stewards of the land, that those of us in agriculture are educated, resourceful, innovative individuals, that we are aware of the environment, that we care for our animals, that we do basic and applied research in areas that are fundamental to human health, as well as in order to increase the efficiency of production so that our food costs are the lowest in the world while the quality of our products is the highest.

My charge to you is to get the word out that agriculture is the foundation of this country, that the broad-range and long-term effects are critical for the continued quality of our nation's food supply. I admit that I was apathetic prior to coming here. But I now see how one letter, one phone call, can start a ripple of reaction in an office. That ripple turns into a wave as more offices are contacted, the wave becomes a movement and similar movements have met with great success. The environmental movement and animal rights movements are both excellent examples of this. Please, write your Representatives and your Senators. Pick up the phone. Ask for the benefits of agriculture and agricultural research. Although these actions may appear to be trivial, they build into movements that can shape legislative policy and appropriate money.

The Poultry Science World Wide Web (WWW) site is being prepared to serve full-length papers from Poultry Science in Adobe Acrobat format (*.pdf), beginning with the January 1997 issue. Access of the papers will be limited to active PSA members using a username / password system, similar to other WWW sites on the internet.

Members, please see the paper copy of this newsletter for further details.....

Beginning in 1997 when you access the papers from the table of contents, a small icon will link the paper for retrieval. You must download the Adobe Acrobat reader for your computer to read these files. This reader is free of charge from: