Livestock Production Science 72 (2001) 37–42

www.elsevier.com / locate / livprodsci

Impact of technological innovation in animal nutrition

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

Abstract

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

Being no exception amongst sciences, the purpose
of nutrition science is to serve society at large.
Innovation in the nutrition of animals impacts upon
three sorts of communities; those who produce the
commodity (farmers), those who consume the com-
modity (consumers), and those who have rights and
choices in relation to the utilization of new tech-
*Tel.: 1 44-131-6671-041; fax: 1 44-131-6672-601.
E-mail address: c.t.whittemore@ed.ac.uk (C.T. Whittemore).
nology requires the participation of all three com-
munities.
The innovation process may be described as
scientists and technologists having new ideas and
testing them, followed by practitioners implementing
those new ideas. But first, the act of being innovative
is a quality in scarce supply and therefore worth
caring for. It cannot be generated on demand.
Effective research management recognizes that the
enjoyment scientists get from originating new ideas
is an essential part of the process. In serving the

0301-6226 / 01 / $ – see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0301-6226( 01 )00264-0
38 C.T. Whittemore / Livestock Production Science 72 (2001) 37 – 42
industry and the public, innovators benefit from the
time and space to be imaginative and creative, and
the opportunity to take risks and (sometimes) to be
wrong. The funding environment for agricultural
research should be sure to encourage these qualities
(Whittemore, 2000).
Most research funding comes from one or both of
two sources; industry and government. Industry will
be most ready to fund research when there is
evidence of future profit through sales of new or
improved product. Government funding offers in-
dependence from the profit motive, but this freedom
has become progressively threatened by the intro-
duction of schemes that link government funding to
industrial support. Government may also place re-
search contracts through the process of tendering for
specific programmes of work. In this way science
can be used to progress the political agenda.
It is however proper that industry funds the
science that it needs for the pursuit of profit. It is
also proper that government funds science that is in
the interests of the society that pays its taxes. It is
further the case that joint government / industry fund-
ing increases the likelihood of beneficial interaction
between science and practice. But when science (like
art) becomes overly dependent upon the agenda of
its sponsors it is in danger of becoming compro-
mised. The scientific progression of hypothesis,
observation, analysis and conclusion is spoilt if its
objective is to ask only friendly questions and to
support propositions favourable to its sponsors (see
also; Miflin, 1997; Lewis, 1997; Whittemore, 1998,
2000).
2. New nutritional ideas and risk
The risk taken by research sponsors is not only
that of project failure or of unhelpful conclusions.
There is the additional risk that the end-user might
see no or little benefit in putting the new ideas into
practice. The user requires the benefit to have a
margin over the risk. The size of the margin between
the risk and the benefit that is needed to secure the
use of a new idea is dependent upon the circum-
stances of the potential user. For example, the use of
organic grain in feedstuffs will have a greater
perceived margin of benefit where there is a demand
for high-value meat. The benefit of in-feed anti-
biotics lies entirely with the farmer; while the risks
lie entirely with the consumer. Risk as an actuality
can be managed according to the principles of
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points. But the
consuming public is also concerned with the percep-
tion of risk. Scientists may consider that a concern
for what is perceived rather than what is actual is
illogical. However, perceived risk allows for unpre-
dictable non-linear systems, unknowable long term
effects and the fallibility of science. While examples
such as the ‘improved’ heat treatment procedures for
meat and bone meal, and the contamination of
animal feeds with toxins are few, they are impressive
in their impact upon the way that society sees animal
nutrition scientists.
The precautionary principle can address risk.
Precaution is not cessation, but taking protective
steps proportional to the risk. Where the risk is actual
and quantifiable, it can be managed to the level of
comfort defined by the risk-taker, and that level will
be proportional to the benefit. Where the risk is
perceived, it is necessary to determine whether the
perceived risk is possible or imaginary. If possible,
then precaution demands a transparent system for its
on-going investigation and the presence of a system
for the management of the risk, in case what is
merely possible becomes actual. This would be
appropriate for the utilization of a novel feed ingredi-
ent, or the continued inclusion of product derived
from one animal species in the feed of another. If
imagined, then precaution demands that the risk is
monitored in such a way as to allow rapid action if
what is imagined becomes what is possible (such as
an encephalopathy jumping the species barrier).
Dealing with risk through the medium of the
precautionary principle is not the responsibility of
the innovator, but of the prospective user and risk-
taker, and of society at large. Unfortunately, sci-
entists who believe that it is the scientific view of
degree of risk and need for precaution that should
prevail, often miss this rather obvious point. This is
unhelpful. The user’s participation in the process of
research innovation and its risk assessment is essen-
tial (Haug, 1999). In the case of innovation in animal
nutrition the users are both the agricultural communi-
 C.T. Whittemore / Livestock Production Science 72 (2001) 37 – 42
ty and the consuming public (Whittemore, 1995).
Scientists should not be dismayed when society
demands that their hard-won knowledge be put aside.
3. Conditions for the likely successful impact of
innovations from nutrition research
3.1. Quality of science
High quality science does not necessarily lead to
useful innovation (Edwards and Farrington, 1993).
However, low quality science surely leads to unsafe
application. Quality science comes more readily
from independent and imaginative scientists educated
in an enlightened and research-based education
system that encourages revolution of thought, as well
as logic, objectivity and analysis (Whittemore,
1998).
The utilization of the human resource will be
optimized when research aims are clear, the scale of
experimentation adequate for purpose, and objectivi-
ty of interpretation of results ensured by peer review
and critical appraisal. These qualities come most
readily from centers employing excellent scientists in
a well resourced environment. These centers need to
be large in scale, allowing a critical mass of staff,
equipment, livestock numbers, laboratories and field
facilities. Interdisciplinarity, so essential to the solu-
tion of contemporary problems, can (by definition)
only come from the formation of large groups.
A consequence of concentration of resource into
‘Centers of Excellence’ is the need also to concen-
trate the financial support. Responsible allocation of
funds from research sponsors will necessarily be
unequal. Small and unviable research centers will
find themselves unfunded. But ‘Centers of Excel-
lence’ will foster the proper development of sci-
entists through the provision of the necessary re-
source, and the delivery of rigorous criticism from
other scientists of quality and reputation.
Plans for the next generation of research are often
identified not by the scientific community, but by the
potential funders themselves. This results in required
research areas being put out to tender, and research
workers anxious for funding may be tempted to place
low-cost bids although they lack adequate resource
39
to deliver good science. Such bids can be tempting to
industrial sponsors attracted to the immediacy of an
applied science approach (Whittemore, 1996). For
example, the interaction between nutrition and the
taste and tenderness of meat, or the interaction
between nutrition and the immune response, are both
subjects likely to benefit from a basic rather than an
applied scientific approach. However, taking the
basic approach does not ensure high scientific qual-
ity. For example, the failure of animals to achieve
the expected response to nutrients is presently more
in need of high quality science than is the basic
determination of nutrient requirement in the first
place. Likewise, pollution control has passed to the
applications phase, and is now a matter primarily for
development engineers.
3.2. Diminishing response
Often it is the first surge of knowledge that
represents the most substantial proportion of the
useful total. Despite this, some subject areas can
become fashionable, and large funding allocations
continue to be made in the face of a research yield
that progressively decreases; adding unnecessary
detail to an already sufficient knowledge base. But
new knowledge may sometimes have benefits in
excess of the additive effects. In this respect it is
helpful for funding bodies to distinguish between
whether it is the law of diminishing returns or the
law of first limiting constraint which applies (de Wit,
1992, 1993). The former would be illustrated by yet
another estimate of maintenance requirement. The
latter is illustrated when an outcome from one
experiment also supplements the understanding of
another. Thus an experiment to study response to
protein will be better interpreted in knowledge of
response to energy.
3.3. Relevance to need
If a new idea coming from research is to be used,
its usefulness must be evident. It is therefore reason-
able for research sponsors to expect plans for
technology transfer at the same time as they receive
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
of evident relevance to need in the independent
government-funded research programmes of 1960–
1980 which led in the UK to the cutting of research
budgets (Whittemore, 1998). Next followed the
insistence that either the project had to be jointly
funded with industry, or relate to a government
agenda. A significant cause of the loss of indepen-
dence suffered by the scientific community was its
inability adequately to demonstrate the relevance of
research to the solution of problems of interest to
government or industry.
A historical perspective suggests that the 1970s
were dominated by the determination of nutrient
requirement and the evaluation of feedingstuffs; as
comprehensively recorded by Theodorou and France
(1999). The 1980s identified fundamental errors in
nutrient requirement logic and re-invented the phe-
nomenon of nutrition: genotype interaction. Lacta-
tion yield, fatness and lean tissue growth rate domi-
nated nutritional investigations. The 1990s registered
alarm at high productivity in the animal sector, and
became sensitive to the relationship between animal
nutrition, environmental pollution, sustainability of
production, and animal welfare (Whittemore, 1994,
1995). To obtain research funds in Europe at the
present time, nutritional scientists will often link
their work to pollution control, animal health and
wellbeing, or meat and milk product quality. The
commercial sector also remains interested in the
frank testing of product with a view to its en-
dorsement. Kealey (1996) has explored the relative
merits of industry funding for such purposes.
Understanding and being able to control animal
response to nutrients are both prerequisite for the
provision of animal wellbeing and the resolution of
animal production environmental sustainability prob-
lems (MAFF, 2000). The phrase ‘Integrated Man-
agement Systems’ (IMS) has come to be used to
describe a stepwise approach to controlled nutritient
provision. First, the identification and monitoring of
the physiological state of the animal. Next, the
specification and delivery of the nutritional means to
change that state in the desired direction. Last,
assessment of the outcome with a view to improving
(by iteration) the accuracy of any subsequent nutri-
tional specification. Inherent in IMS philosophy is
that the control function is automatic, immediate and
quantitative. In this way, the research finding and its
transfer are firmly linked together.
4. Technology transfer of innovations from
research to the end user
Table 1 describes a number of example innova-
tions from nutrition research. Information transfer
(column 1) relates primarily to transfer by the written
or spoken word amongst peers, while technology
transfer (column 2) refers to the actual means by
which end-users may achieve implementation. In-
formation transfer amongst scientists is relatively
straightforward, but has little to do with either the
effective transfer of the technology to the end user,
or with the impact of the innovation (Nelson and
Farrington, 1994).
More than one level of end-user should be consid-
ered. For example, the feed and primary production
industries (column 3) and the ultimate consumer of
the animal product (column 4) are all end-users of
animal nutrition research. The nature of the impact
of an innovation can differ at each level.
High impact innovations tend to be associated
with means of technology transfer which facilitate
automatic implementation; such as built-in software
packages, hardware and mechanical equipment, for-
mulae for diet nutritional content, grading payment
schedules, and ‘legal’ enforcement. All of which –
once implemented – either limit or exclude further
and frequent recourse to the decision-making pro-
cess.
The linear pattern of technology transfer; research
institute – extension service – practicing farmer
(Whittemore, 1996, 1998) is probably inadequate for
developed agriculture, and the transfer of informa-
tion and technologies requires non-linear and com-
¨
plex interactions (Roling and Engel, 1991; Haug,
1999). The inclusion of extension methodology as an
intermediate step in the chain appears to hinder the
uptake of new ideas (Edwards and Farrington, 1993).
This seems particularly to be the case where the
end-user, the extension professional, and the sci-
entific innovator all consider themselves to be equal-
ly knowledgeable. As stated by Garforth and Usher
(1997) in relation to the influence of the extension
step, ‘‘information is not simply passed on but is
Table 1
Transfer 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)

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

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%)

41
42 C.T. Whittemore / Livestock Production Science 72 (2001) 37 – 42
continually being transformed and adapted’’. Thus
there is contrast between the rate of uptake of new
knowledge relating to optimum diet protein content
(which requires no more than a once-for-all adjust-
ment to diet formulation software) on the one hand;
and on the other, the rate of uptake of new knowl-
edge relating to optimum level of feed supply (which
requires first information delivery, next the inclusion
of a decision-maker, and last the exercising of
judgement on a day-by-day basis).
Innovations which will result in loss of profit are
unlikely to be implemented by businesses unless
there is some ‘legal’ or moral obligation. In such
circumstances, Farm Quality Assurance Schemes are
a most effective means of technology transfer, and
impact strongly on the way livestock are farmed
(Whittemore, 1995).
References
Edwards, D.T., Farrington, J., 1993. Review of the factors
influencing uptake and impact of a sample of 21 UK supported
renewable natural resources research projects. In: ODI Agricul-
tural Research and Extension Network Paper 43. Overseas
Development Institute, London.
Garforth, C., Usher, R., 1997. Promotion and uptake pathways for
research output: a review of analytical frameworks and com-
munication channels. Agric. Systems 35, 301–322.
Harrington, G., 1997. Technology transfer in the livestock and
meat industry. In: Commissioned Report to the Meat and
Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes.
Haug, R., 1999. Some leading issues in international agricultural
extension, a literature review. J. Agric. Educ. Extension 5,
263–274.
Kealey, T., 1996. The Economic Laws of Scientific Research.
Macmillan, London.
Lewis, T., 1997. Farmers Weekly, 19 September.
MAFF, 2000. Agriculture Link. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries
and Food, PB 5240.
Miflin, B., 1997. Farmers Weekly, 19 September.
Nelson, J., Farrington, J., 1994. Information Exchange Net-
working For Agricultural Development: A Review of Concepts
and Practices For Cta. Sayce Publishing, Exeter.
¨
Roling, N., Engel, P., 1991. The development of the concept of
agricultural knowledge and information systems. In: Rivera,
W., Gustafson, M. (Eds.), Agricultural Extension: Worldwide
Institutional Evolution and Forces for Change. Elsevier, Am-
sterdam, pp. 125–137.
Theodorou, M.K., France, J., 1999. Feeding Systems and Feed
Evaluation Models. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Whittemore, C.T., 1994. Food from animals: environmental issues
and implications. In: Dalzell, J.M. (Ed.), Food Industry and the
Environment. Blackie Academic and Professional, London, pp.
1–14.
Whittemore, C.T., 1995. Response to the environmental and
welfare imperatives by UK livestock production industries and
research services. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 8, 65–84.
Whittemore, C.T., 1996. Policy issues for education in general
agriculture in UK Universities. Eur. J. Agric. Educ. Extension
3, 21–34.
Whittemore, C.T., 1998. Structures and processes required for
research, higher education and technology transfer in the
agricultural sciences; a policy appraisal. Agric. Econ. 19, 269–
282.
Whittemore, C.T., 2000. Pitfalls in Reporting Animal Science
Research. University of Edinburgh Institute of Ecology and
Resource Management, Edinburgh.
de Wit, C.T., 1992. Resource use efficiency in agriculture. Agric.
Systems 40, 125–151.
de Wit, C.T., 1993. Resource Use Analyses in Agriculture: A
Struggle For Interdisciplinarity. Wageningen Agricultural Uni-
versity, Wageningen.