ISHS | Future of Horticultural Science within Academia

June 22, 2007

Dear Colleagues,
I do not believe that all that is needed to solve the problem is a rebadging of horticultural science. There are other areas that need to be addressed. I believe that horticulture and horticultural science are driven by growth in horticultural industries and by associated R&D funding. A look at global production and consumption statistics shows that fruit and vegetable consumption per capita is slowing or is static, with a few exceptions such as some tropical fruits like mango. (See FAOSTAT, USDA, ABS databases). The number of new research positions in horticulture in Australia is nearly non-existent and current salaries are relatively poor compared with other professions. Professional salaries tend to increase if there is a high demand driven by high growth for that profession e.g. medicine and nursing. Students these days are more savvy than their parents and are acutely aware of future job prospects and salaries. I believe that we need a paradigm shift in thinking to drive growth in horticultural industries. First, we need to drive consumption of fruit and vegetables up by shifting the focus to educating young children in schools about the benefits of eating fruits and vegetables. We need new extension agents to set up demonstration gardens in schools and role models such as champion athletes to show children how and why they should be eating fruit and vegetables. Second, we also need to review the health and medicinal benefits of individual fruit and vegetables and set up databases with access by the public and health professionals. Third, we need to educate the health professionals on the health and medicinal benefits of fruits and vegetables as most have very little understanding of their role in diets. Society and governments greatly underestimate the real value of fruit and vegetables in the diet and the associated health and wellness costs if they are lacking. At the production end, farm gate prices in real terms are static or have declined due to the lack of relative power of the small farmer in the supply chain. If the small farmers are to survive they must move to collective marketing perhaps through grower owned companies. The alternative is to shift to corporate farming. In Australia, research is largely driven by funding from industry levies. Many industries are now spending increasing amounts of funds on promotion in an attempt to stay viable, often at the expense of R&D funding. This lack of R&D investment will only further drive the downward spiral in research and horticultural education.

Alan George, Australia

April 12, 2007

Recent thoughts from a professional in a primarily agricultural country:

April 12, 2007

Dear Colleagues,
In some African countries, rural to urban migration has caused the greatest problem in keeping young people in horticulture. People that are left in the villages have been doing farming in the traditional way and the younger generation has developed a general dislike of anything that deals with farming. Most of them want white collar jobs. They think that if they follow the traditional path and learn farming, they will be like the village people they left at home. But this has to stop. No one can survive if all of us are pulled from farming. Our country is an agricultural country and horticultural professionals - that our young people can emulate - are needed. Horticulture needs to be embraced as a profession like Medicine or Law.

Robert Mwangi Wachira

September 25, 2006

The following new contribution suggests that introducing horticulture curriculum at early stages of education would stimulate interest among young people:

September 25, 2006

Dear Colleagues,
I believe that horticulture contributes to many livelihoods worldwide and therefore horticultural production is a necessity all over the world. However, there are increasing constraints facing the horticulture industry at all levels, from the farm to the consumer. Certainly this requires adequate training and education.

We need to interest young people at early stages of education by mainstreaming horticulture in their curriculum. In Uganda, Seeds for Africa - a UK based charity - supports 157 schools in practical production of vegetables and fruit trees. In this way, interest in horticultural crops is built up in the youth - who are the future horticultural scientists.

Charles Ssekyewa, Uganda

June 2, 2006

The following contributor argues that horticulture and agriculture should serve to integrate basic science with applied outcomes in order to deliver affordable, nutritious foods and healthy environments. This is not unlike the "engineering" model put forth by previous contributors:

June 2, 2006

Dear Colleagues,
There is no doubt in my mind but that horticultural science and agricultural science are in crisis in Australia. In my view, this has occurred because of an inappropriate image among urban populations, coupled with a recent disconnect between urban and rural communities. Also, the forces of globalisation are forcing all industries into one of two places: either become an industrial enterprise with "power" in the market place or become a niche-market player. There is nothing in the middle. The niche market is dominated by an anti-science movement - the organic movement - while the "industrial" end is dominated by financial and marketing interests. "Industrialisation" of tertiary education is occurring in Australia with no core funding and no strategy to sustain courses and appointments through the changes that are occurring in society. Horticulture and agriculture are the "mother" sciences on which all other sciences and society itself is founded, but have we lost our way in trying to be "basic" scientists - competing with the molecular biologists and environmental scientists of the day (and appointing these to "horticultural" and "agricultural" roles).

Horticulture and agriculture as disciplines have a vital role and that role, in my view, lies in the integration of the basic sciences; in collaboration with "basic" scientists to deliver appropriate outcomes to sustain society through affordable and nutritious foods and healthy environments. I am attracted to the "engineering" model of an applied science delivering integrated management systems to producers. I am seeking to develop a greater emphasis on management and "systems" in order to enhance career options for our graduates and benefits to society. We should strive to retain strength in the basic plant and environmental sciences but develop a greater emphasis on their integration and application. Thus we should be marketing ourselves as "managers", just as engineers do and with strong career options. We should engage the community through demonstrating that sustainable practices can be "rationally" based rather than "belief" based, with better outcomes for the producer, the consumer and the community at large.

I don't believe that this can happen quickly, even if all agree today on a direction. In the meantime, we need to manage the inevitable mergers to ensure that we sustain an accessible discipline, one that can grow and assume its necessary place in society and among the community of scientists and technologists.

John A. Considine, The University of Western Australia

May 30, 2006

The following contribution suggests that horticulture programs at the undergraduate and graduate level should emphasize applied work and de-emphasize the hard sciences:

May 30, 2006

Dear Colleagues,
Horticulture programs in an academic setting have always been of interest to me. I am a graduate of Western Illinois University with a B.S. in Agricultural Business and an emphasis in Horticulture. Upon graduation, I obtained a job in the field of horticulture. One of the main problems I experienced is the low levels of pay available. I think that there are other problems that we are facing in an academic sense also. I feel that many of these programs are drowning in the hard sciences. How many students who graduate with a degree in Horticulture move on to obtain a position in horticultural research? I admit that there must be a balance between practical and scientific, but if many of our students will be working directly with the field then we must take that into consideration.

Currently, I am working on an M.S. in Education, as I want to teach in a community college horticulture program upon my completion of my degree. Before making a decision about M.S. programs, I looked into many horticulture graduate programs and was distressed to see the views that many programs take on field research and experience. I believe we currently have a faculty of horticulture professors/instructors that do not have the practical experience that they need to become effective instructors in applied horticulture. After much consideration, I felt an M.S. in Education was the best route to be competitive to teach horticulture at the community college level.

We need to look at the overall structure of our horticulture programs, our curriculum, and we then might have a much clearer picture of why enrollment is dropping. Also, we may choose to look at the enrollment of community college horticulture programs where less time and money is needed to obtain a degree and where programs offer more hands-on practical experience that will allow a student to be more competitive in the field compared with their 4-year university graduate counterparts.

Kari Houle, Illinois, USA

May 3, 2006

Dear Colleagues,
The issue we are facing in horticulture is actually broader and includes all of agriculture. Applied horticulture is facing a more serious problem than basic horticulture. In the early 1980's in the USA, a huge shift was made towards the basic science aspect of horticulture. Thus, most institutions were demanding and hiring faculty with a strong basic science background. In my opinion, this shift went too far. As a result, there is a serious shortage of scientists who have a good knowledge of applied horticulture today. Academic standards for promotion and tenure in the USA have also encouraged more and more scientists to shift towards basic science, since such research can generate larger grants. Additionally, basic research projects may not be as affected by environmental factors as applied, field-oriented work, and thus there is a greater chance for gathering repeatable data for publication within a few months, rather than years. Furthermore, interest in studying horticulture, either basic or applied, has not received as much enthusiasm from students as computer science, engineering, medicine and other fields. Unfavorable world political situations have resulted in a sharp decline in the number of overseas graduate students in the USA. The mission of universities or research and extension centers are misunderstood, misinterpreted, or simply forgotten. Under the existing conditions, there is intensive competition to conduct basic science that does not address short-term or even medium-term problems faced by developing countries. In such areas, farmers often may not have a general knowledge of modern cultural practices in horticulture, while scientists are competing to conduct more and more basic science. In conclusion, I believe that horticulture is the application of different fields of science such as biology, biochemistry, etc. to horticultural crops. This fact is not very well understood or taught to horticultural students.

Esmaeil Fallahi, Idaho, USA.

March 14, 2006

The following contribution suggests that horticulture education at both the undergraduate and graduate levels should be revised to address the current needs of the biotechnology/molecular biology industry. Education in horticulture should not be "locale specific".

March 14, 2006

Dear Colleagues,
The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi, has a strong network of research institutes and agricultural universities in India. Most of the agricultural universities offer courses in horticulture at the undergraduate and graduate level. But students opting for these courses are declining at a faster rate than in the past. The national level competition for admission to graduate courses in India=s premier institute is intense for biotechnology, molecular biology, and plant sciences. The discipline of horticulture used to rank first or second, but is now occupying fourth position, which is an indication of students' changing attitude towards the subject. The main reason is that the biotechnology industry is booming and offering better jobs and overall career prospects to the younger generation. We should initiate a campaign making students aware that biotechnology is merely a tool that can be applied in any field, including horticulture. The revision of course curricula for undergraduate and graduate programs is required to meet the changing needs of the industry.

The objectives of horticultural education should be redefined to broaden the scope of the subject and should not be locale specific. This will help the students become globally competitive and meet the requirements of employers from any part of the world. The horticulture industry should be encouraged to institute fellowships for bright students. An international student and faculty exchange program can be put into place to promote collaborative research projects. ISHS should also consider the exemption/special discount on symposia registration fees for selected graduate students belonging to developing countries.

S.P. Singh, IARI, New Delhi, India.

December 2, 2005

The following is a description of a current governmental sponsored program in Australia to increase awareness of agriculture/horticulture in secondary school students and teachers.

December 2, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I attended an inspiring seminar last week that is relevant to the task force on the future of horticultural science in academia. Although this particular project is focused more widely on agriculture, it has relevance to horticulture. It has been operating for about 6 years in Tasmania and expanded into Western Australia about 3 years ago. It is also planned to expand into South Australia and, at present, there is a study funded by the Australian Minister for Education, Science and Training to incorporate the approach nationally, such is the concern for the decline in students studying agricultural science in Australian universities.

The program focuses on connecting secondary school science teachers and tertiary bound science students with primary industry science and career paths. It consists of 5 phases: 1) selected and well-briefed academics deliver a presentation to science classes illustrating cutting edge research and the importance of science to industry, 2) a 2-day program of professional development for science teachers, highlighting current research and the relevance of classroom science to industry, 3) selected high school students participate in a 5-day camp which illustrates the career and research opportunities for agricultural (horticultural) science students, 4) these students are placed with an individual industry for 5-days under an industry placement scholarship program, and 5) selected teachers work with industry scientists and university researchers to provide science teaching resources based on agricultural (horticultural) science.

This program attracts large sponsorship from agricultural industry, and all high schools in Tasmania are involved in the program. The program has been successful in encouraging students to study agricultural science at university.

Russ Stephenson, Horticulture and Forestry Science Queensland, Australia

November 29, 2005

A further comment on the differences in horticultural education between developing and developed countries:

November 29, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
For developing countries like Indonesia, Horticultural Science or Technology still lags behind developed countries, therefore we need to improve the higher education program at our Universities. High school students and the public at large still do not understand the meaning of horticulture, thus, we have few students interest in horticulture.

Even in developed countries, we still have to improve and promote horticulture in our educational system. Many universities are combining horticulture into plant science departments, and I think this is a problem. Horticulture is both a specific science and a technology, and a generalized education will not provide the professional expertise needed for horticulture. We have to promote to the public how important horticulture is for economic development, health, and the environment.

Tatik Wardiyati Adisarwanto, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia

November 18, 2005

The following contribution suggests that in order for horticulture to remain viable as a profession, horticultural scientists must serve the needs of the industry, rather than pursuing more esoteric academic goals.

November 18, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
If students fail to perceive horticulture as a science, they are correct. Horticulture is an industry and its aim is economic success. The fundamental task of scientists in horticulture is to contribute to this success. This can be achieved by improving the product or the methods of production by all available means; a fascinating and never-ending challenge.

For this purpose, scientists must have a good overall knowledge of the crops they are dealing with, of their needs, their weaknesses, and of the methods to better serve these needs and to overcome these weaknesses. The general approach of a scientist working in and for horticulture should be a holistic one, trying to understand the plant as a system, the function of this system and the specific manner of its interaction with the larger system of environment.

Whether science in horticulture is well recognized and respected depends on the co-operation between science and the industry. Do scientists listen to the needs of the growers? Do they actively push growers? Do they promote the grower's understanding of the plant/environment-interactions? Or do they prefer to remain in their ivory tower? In the latter case, declining numbers of positions and declining salaries are inevitable.

We need to discuss whether the term 'Horticultural Science' is still appropriate. It is somewhat artificial. Others consider Horticultural Science a section of Crop Science, and this might help to free those working in it from obvious isolation and disregard.

Max Saure, Moisburg, Germany

November 4, 2005

The following contribution suggests that student exchange programs between developing and developed countries might be one way of developing student interest in horticulture.

November 4, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I am a Horticulture consultant from Chennai, India and I would like to share some information about the state of Horticultural Academia in India.

India is a country with diverse climatic conditions, so horticulture students have an opportunity to study tropical, subtropical, temperate, and desert horticulture. Recently, the horticultural industry in India has grown to a great extent; however, the academic side has to be improved. Academics is mostly limited to Indian agriculture. This is the time to revise the horticultural curricula to include a global perspective. More emphasis needs to be given to horticultural marketing and economics. Farmers are able to produce crops using appropriate technologies if they are assured the market is there.

Today's students are less interested in horticulture than in the past. Compared to other careers, job opportunities in horticulture are fewer and the remuneration is lower. Most of the graduates are under-employed. About 70% of the population in India depends on agriculture and agriculture is the backbone of the country. Thus, more emphasis should be given to this area. One way to do this is to have exchange programs between students of different countries, so that information can be shared.

Surya Narmada Inbavijayan, Chennai India

October 17, 2005

The following contribution suggests a reorganized approach to horticultural research and education, based on using modeling to improve production practices:

October 17, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I'd like to propose a plan for research and education in universities to elaborate on my previous comments of August 16.

The primary process in practically-oriented research is to integrate information from various sources. This is a process of synthesis in contrast to more basic sciences, where the primary process is analysis. From this point of view, horticultural research is technological in nature, comparable to engineering as pointed out by Dr. DeJong (August 24).

Horticultural research and education in universities should be reorganized on the basis of the technological nature of horticulture. I propose "design" and "diagnosis" as the motif for the research and education programs because they imply the improvement horticultural practices.

The design process, is an unexplored field in agricultural research overall, where various kinds of modeling will play a key role. Diagnostic studies on plants, environmental impacts and cultural practices provide information needed for improving or developing cultural practices and cropping. Various new approaches should be sought, including those based on various kinds of modeling and extensive surveys of commercial farms.

Thus, design and diagnosis can have practical as well as theoretical themes for researchers of all fields of science who wish to address practical goals within the horticultural industry. Since diagnosis itself is a product of design, studies of diagnosis and design complement each other in research and education programs.

Takuro Kikuchi, Kyoto, Japan

September 22, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I would like to add the following observations to the discussion on the future of Horticulture:

In the past, horticulture was practiced in order to produce food to survive. Ornamentals and flowers were added to improve well-being. People were proud to produce their own fruits, vegetables, medicinal and aromatic plants, and flowers. Gardening was a most welcome job. Nowadays, gardening (i.e. Horticulture) is thought of as a hobby, although it's also a profession. We must communicate to young people and to the public that we are involved in one of the most challenging professions in the world, and that it impacts our daily lives. We are responsible for developing and growing a broad variety of plants to produce fruits, vegetables and other products. We have to deliver high quality horticultural products year-round at an acceptable price. We need to look forward and anticipate market needs for food and health products. I agree with many other colleagues; that is, we have to create a new description for the Horticulture profession. This new name should express more about the final product than the plants we are working with.
We need to emphasize that Horticulture is a scientific discipline. We need more emphasis in basic research, so students will be attracted to Horticulture. Only basic research is really recognized as research in the long run. Where are the internationally recognized price winners in science? In the field of Horticulture? In our profession many excellent scientists exist. But many of them are specialists in biotechnology, biochemistry, food technology, food science, economics, physiology or even nanotechnology. As scientists, some cooperate with medical scientists, dieticians, and others. Are they still horticulturists? We still need scientists in the traditional field of horticulture, but not all horticulturalists should remain in the traditional areas. There are attractive jobs in the life sciences that horticulturalists could fill.
Horticulture within academia is not in a crisis. We did not detect early enough that we do not need so many graduates in Horticulture, at least not in the developed countries. Our professional people have learned how to grow a tree or a rose. Therefore we have to offer our students much more than that, a scientific background for their future profession. We are very late to realize this fact. We have to teach and promote the more attractive areas, such as molecular biology, environmental science, organic farming, health and medicinal plants. We also need to emphasize the tie-in of horticulture with social science, communication, information technology, and new business start-up. But, we should also educate young people for production positions in less developed countries.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to the board of ISHS for giving us the opportunity to express our views on this urgent subject.

Walter Mueller, Waedenswil, Switzerland

September 1, 2005

Another contributor also suggests that the problem lies not only with horticulture, but in applied agriculture in general. Perhaps the time has come to merge horticulture and other applied agricultural areas into a single, focused, society that emphasizes the applied value of what we do.

September 1, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
In my view, as a member of CSSA also, Horticulture is not too broad, it is too narrow. I think our future is best served by a single society - or federation of societies - of all applied agricultural sciences (distinct from the general or basic sciences). The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) has the right idea as to the scope. But I am thinking of a society, not just a think tank. The new society or federation would have a very large membership. Choosing the right name would be very important - worth investing some time and funds in getting it right. I am thinking beyond plants.

The name should emphasize the delivery value of what we do. This is an opportunity to change the popular image that applied agricultural scientists resist basic science and must be forced to allow the findings of, e.g., molecular biology to be integrated with their work. Instead, replace that image with one where applied scientists go to the basic scientists and say, "Here are our stakeholders, here are the strategic goals we aim for. What have you learned that will help us achieve these goals?" We then take their findings and put them to work to make the world a more prosperous, safer, healthier, diverse, and more beautiful place.

A unified society or federation should be something we can all get behind, from biotech to organic. This society or federation should represent a branch of science, not a choice of one or another type of farming system, economic system, or world view. There are other venues for that.

Meeting together is something we should move to over the next five years or so, so that what today are interdisciplinary collaborations between individual scientists in a project here, a campus there, become collaborations among many. For example, I imagine that my colleagues in plant pathology are having similar discussions of their own, but I am clueless as to who/what they are and so cannot help to strengthen them. The same is true for other applied agricultural disciplines.

The day when we could afford to gather in our specializations was the day when applied agricultural research enjoyed broad-based support from the grass roots to the elite. That time is past and we have the task of informing new constituencies of what we do and why they should care. They will not take time to listen to horticulture for a moment, nor agronomy, plant pathology, animal science, weed science, entomology, etc... but they might listen to applied agricultural sciences as a group (by some attractive name).

Together we can make a case that cannot be ignored, that applied agricultural sciences are essential in order to realize the benefits from the public investment in the basic, general sciences. Without applied agricultural sciences, data from the basic sciences are used only by other basic scientists (or by applied programs in competitor countries). Without applied agricultural sciences, basic research never leads by itself to any of our national strategic goals. Basic science does not automatically morph into robust agriculture, into marketing and trade opportunities, into a secure food supply, into a healthy population, or into a healthy environment. Skilled applied scientists are required to make those things happen.

We are already beginning to coordinate at the national level as our leaders conduct joint planning sessions and together hire science policy coordinators. That is a start but I feel we should go all the way.

Some societies have recently reinvented themselves (e.g. The American Society of Plant Biology, previously The American Society of Plant Physiology). Some will prefer not to join a merged society of applied agricultural research. But others will. Many may be willing to join at least a federation of societies, something more definite than the loose alliances we have now. The process will take several years. But, the time to start is now.

Ann Marie Throe, CSREES, USDA, Washington, D.C., USA

August 30, 2005

The following contribution also argues that merging horticulture departments into plant science departments is not a serious issue; rather, it's the public perception of agriculture as a whole that is worrisome.

August 30, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
There have been extensive concerns that Academic Horticulture is in trouble despite the importance of horticulture, its increasing role in our daily lives, and the increasing world production of horticultural products worldwide. The evidence presented is the merging of horticulture departments and declining student enrollment in many academic institutions. Many feel that Horticulture as a discipline is to blame for this fact. While there has been a lot of breast beating, I think the point should be made that we are not alone. The exact same point could be made about all other agricultural disciplines: agronomy, forestry, entomology, agricultural engineering, and agricultural economics. Horticulture is not doing anything wrong. Rather the problem is the trends that are affecting society. The problem is that with the decline in farm population and the soaring economy that constantly reduces the percent contribution of agriculture to GNP, the concept of agriculture as an academic - even scientific - discipline is declining. Thus, our problem is the public perception of agriculture, not the public perception of horticulture.

These trends are difficult to reverse. The result is that horticulture as a discipline is going to get smaller and there is a danger we could lose our identity. The fact that we must face is that ordinary people do not understand what horticulture or agronomy is, much less the difference between them. If the academic community prefers to pigeonhole us as plant scientists, fine. If horticulture and agronomy combine into plant science or crop science, I do not think this is a real problem, or that horticulture will necessarily suffer. The real problem is the declining prestige of agriculture, not the declining prestige of horticulture. To solve this problem we need to think on a larger scale. For example, we need a National Academy of Agriculture because, frankly, we are not taken seriously by the National Academy of Science. Just ask the few agricultural members in the Academy and find out how difficult it is to increase our participation.

Remember that the same loss of identity happened to botany and zoology, which have basically disappeared as disciplines, only to be resurrected as biology. Departments of Botany and Zoology are almost all gone. Agricultural Economics has morphed itself into Applied Economics, and Agricultural Engineering is transforming itself into Food and Biological Engineering; clearly, we are next. But horticulture will never die, it simply means that the term will be a code word that fewer really understand. We might change this perception by promoting horticultural activities in grade schools. However, remember the adage I learned as a kid: Sticks and stones will break our bones but names will never harm us.

Jules Janick, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

August 25, 2005

It may be more important that horticulturalists focus on strengthening the role of organizations related to Horticultural Science, rather than be too concerned about the decline of Horticulture Departments in academic settings. Horticulture covers such a wide range of areas, perhaps incorporation of horticulture into plant science departments is not such a bad thing.

August 25, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I would only like to add one point, not developed in other contributions, and which comes to me probably because it is related to my own experience in the French organization of Science and Academia. As you know, the organization of the University in France is quite different from what occurs in other parts of the world. In France, applied plant sciences (e.g. horticulture, arable crop sciences) are not taught in universities, but in specialized schools that we call here Ingenior school. They deliver a diploma very close to Master's degrees of specialized University departments in the Anglo-Saxon world. Most of them also offer Ph.D. degrees, but this is not their main task. On the research part, INRA is the main French public organization devoted to agricultural research, including all aspects of Horticulture. Nevertheless INRA is not organized into commodity departments, and various aspects of horticultural science are studied in more than 7 different departments: genetics, agronomy and environment (in France the term agronomy is used in a general sense which includes horticulture), post-harvest, plant health, economics, social sciences, and in some instances the plant physiology and molecular biology department. As a consequence, Horticulture is not recognized here as a distinct science. Nevertheless, INRA's contribution to horticultural science, as measured by the number of papers published in international journals, has increased dramatically in the past five years: from about 30 papers/year in 1999-2000 to about 100 papers in 2003. At the same time, the relative contribution of INRA to papers related to horticultural science in the ISI base has more than doubled.

You are probably wondering why I am giving you all these details. In my opinion, they show that the development or the decline of a scientific discipline would be better studied through the number of published papers instead of the development or decline of some specialized department in universities. Please do not misunderstand me. It would be clearly preferable to have strong Horticulture Departments. But I have the feeling that having them included in Plant Science Departments is not dramatically detrimental. Moreover, it can even strengthen, if necessary, the role that ISHS has to play as a professional scientific organization at a global level. As stated by Prof. Ted DeJong in Coolum, ISHS is becoming the only place in the world where disciplines can meet and encompass all aspects of sciences related to Horticulture. I consider this is one of the main scientific roles of ISHS for the future.

Therefore, my conclusion is that the task force should concentrate on how to strengthen the role of national and international organizations related to Horticultural Sciences. The ISHS division and section symposia, the active lobbying of founding organizations, the effective participation of ISHS members, and more particularly of board members, to the definition of national and global issues concerning Horticulture are different ways to contribute to this purpose. There are other very valuable proposals made by the contributors to the forum. Drawn together, all this forms a rich answer to the question addressed by the internet forum.

I hope this contribution, coming from a different context, will be somehow useful to your own thoughts.

Robert Habib, INRA, France

August 24, 2005

The following contribution argues that horticulture is the application of science and the development of technology, rather than a science in and of itself. Until we embrace the idea that horticulture is not a fundamental science, we will continue to face a decline.

August 24, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I think that one fundamental issue is that we horticulturists as well as most others in science are not willing to deal with the fact that Horticulture is not a disciplinary science per se, but the application of science to improving, growing and handling of horticultural crops.Horticulture is to biological and physical sciences as Engineering is to physical (and more recently biological) sciences.

The dictionaries are fairly clear on this but we seem to be confused. Webster=s defines Engineering as the science by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to man in structures, machines and products.Webster's defines horticulture as the cultivation of an orchard, garden, or nursery on a small or large scale, or the science and art of growing fruits, vegetables, flowers or ornamental plants.I believe that we could easily argue that, like engineering, horticulture is the science by which properties of (fruit, vegetable, flower and ornamental) plants and the natural resources that support them are made useful to man for food, fiber and cultural enrichment.If we accept these definitions we see that with both engineering and horticulture, the emphasis is not primarily on being a fundamental science, but rather the application of fundamental sciences to solving problems and developing technology.

If we look at engineering schools we see that they are growing, students are still flocking to them and engineers are held in relatively high esteem in society. The curriculum of engineers is also perceived to be among the most rigorous among undergraduates because of the strong requirements for course work in math and physical sciences. And most engineers freely admit that they are more involved in development of technology than creative discovery in the hard sciences.

If you ask an engineer what he/she does and what field he/she is in they won't say they are physicists and chemists working on structures or petroleum products, but they will say they are structural or chemical engineers.Can we learn some lessons from the engineers I think so. For some reason (probably mainly because of psychological insecurities) over the last 100 years horticulturists have been arguing that they are more involved in science than the application of science and the development of technology. Over the years, this has led to great confusion about what the differences really are between scientists in horticultural departments and the more disciplinary departments. In recent years, this confusion has been exacerbated by the fact that in order to "compete with" or "look as good as" disciplinary departments, horticultural scientists/departments have embraced the same value system as disciplinary departments.

Thus, perceived merit/success is based on creative contributions to disciplinary sciences, publication rates in disciplinary journals, grantsmanship in disciplinary research, etc. rather than development of new applied technologies, impact on horticultural practices, etc.No wonder administrators, students, new scientists in the "plant science" departments (that used to be called horticulture, agronomy, pomology, etc), and the general public are confused! We are all confused!!! Unless we (the few horticulturists left who maybe understand why we are/were here) stop trying to defend ourselves as scientists on par with disciplinary scientists but embrace the notion that horticulture is not a fundamental science but is primarily about the application of sciences and the development of technology by which properties of (fruit, vegetable, flower and ornamental) plants and the natural resources that support them are made useful to man for food, fiber and cultural enrichment we will continue to lose ground.

Like engineers, people in horticulture need to have strong training in disciplinary sciences but we have to distance ourselves from the disciplinary sciences in our goals, objectives and measures of success in our profession. This will require that success in horticulture is judged on progress in development of new technologies and practical impact rather than on new, creative, scientific discovery. The irony is that with much of the new scientific tools, techniques and instrumentation, it is now easier to make new (but often largely esoteric and/or mundane) "discoveries" in disciplinary sciences than it is to develop creative applications in technology or have significant impact on horticultural practices. So not only have horticulturists sold horticulture out to gain the "prestige" of the disciplinary sciences by accepting the same measures of success as the disciplinary scientists, in the process they have adopted lower standards of achievement.

If you question this just do a little test. Identify the top 25% of the most scientifically prestigious individuals in a horticulture (or formerly horticulture) department that are younger than 60 years old. Evaluate the basis of their prestige in terms of scientific publications/national grantsmanship vs. impact on horticultural practice/new horticultural technologies. I rest my case.

I think we should rename our societies to something like International Society for Horticulture and American Society for Horticulture. We should stop trying to convince everyone that horticultural science is a science on par with biology, plant physiology, genetics, ecology, etc. It isn't, no one believes it and we should not want to be!! We should instead emphasize the applications and technology aspects of what we do and that through our workwe strive to make life better for people and society just like engineers do in other areas.

Ted DeJong, University of California, Davis, USA

August 20, 2005

The following contribution suggests, as have others, that the problem of declining enrollment in horticulture and approaches to addressing the problem are very different in developing vs developed countries.

August 20, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
After reading a lot of contributions to this forum, I believe the problem should be approached in different ways, depending on whether we are in a developing country, where horticulture production is still very important, or in the "Western world", where quality or specialty production is more important. In either case, promotion is a key question. We should perhaps devote resources for reaching the target audience (i.e. potential students and policy makers) through special articles, videos, or other means that emphasize what horticulture is and why it is important. We should emphasize areas such as urban horticulture, organics, or specialty crops with added values for consumption, nutraceutical properties, etc. But I think we need to agree on what horticulture is. I view it as a science that encompasses genetic and physiological knowledge to solve both quantitative and qualitative production problems of crops used as food, or for health or ornamental purposes. It comprises both basic and applied sciences that should be linked to the main objective of improving the welfare of the humanity.

Víctor Galán Saúco, Instituto Canario de Investigaciones Agrarias, Spain

August 16, 2005

The following comments suggest that the current focus of horticulture in academia is contributing to the demise of horticultural science departments at universities. More emphasis needs to be placed on the environment and sustainable/organic production. Along with this, the general public needs to be made aware of what horticulture is, and this awareness needs to begin at the primary and secondary school levels.

August 16, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
In a submission to an Australian audit of rural skills training and research, the Australian Society of Horticultural Science made the following recommendations that may have some relevance to the future of horticultural science within academia.

Promote an awareness in the general community, and in particular primary and secondary school students, of the importance of horticulture and horticultural science to the economy of Australia and to the health, well-being and quality of life of Australians.
Review the quality of science teaching, and the qualifications of science teachers, in primary and high schools and upgrade these, providing rewards, status and incentives for better qualifications, so that students will be instilled with a love of science and inspired to pursue a career in science, including horticultural science.
Coordinate the different levels and types of horticultural education to ensure that their individual objectives are defined to more effectively meet the training and knowledge needs of students by the efficient delivery of complete and appropriate courses, avoiding wasteful duplication.
Revise the horticultural curriculum to ensure that content is appropriate to current needs and that areas such as processing, marketing and value-adding are adequately catered for.
Review the accessibility of education and training options in horticulture to ensure that industry participants have the opportunity to acquire and upgrade their skills and knowledge through appropriate on-going educational opportunities.

Russ Stephenson, Maroochy Research Station, Nambour, Australia

August 16, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
The value of horticultural crops is far above that of agronomic crops all over the world. Most of the edible plant species raised for human consumption are horticultural crops. At present, horticulture is the leading, most intensive and advanced sector of the farm economy in both advanced and developing countries.

Then, why is the number of horticultural science departments in North American Universities declining? Agricultural research funds are devoted to a few major agronomic crops (cereals, sugarcane, soybean and cotton), but few horticultural crops. Industries are encouraged to focus attention on a few major crops and only those horticultural crops that are highly export driven.

In these circumstances, we have to change the horticultural research and teaching programs. Horticultural research must be more narrowly focused to better respond to future consumer needs. Industrialization has damaged our environment. Cancer kills millions of people all over the world. We know that we are some of the culprits behind this problem. We have been using all kinds of chemicals in the horticultural field. Consumers are more concerned with health issues than ever before and numerous medical studies point to horticultural crops as a critical component of a healthy diet.

More research must be dedicated to determine the beneficial effects of horticultural plants in the maintenance and improvement of environmental quality, thus we need to concentrate more on organic horticulture.

Girish K. Panicker, Lorman, Mississippi, USA

August 16, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
It is ironic that ASHS met in Nevada, where we don't even have a plant science department; let alone a horticulture department. Legislation calling for the addition of a "Plant and Natural Resources Department" at the University of Nevada, Reno for the purpose of training landscape and natural resource managers in plant production in arid environments was introduced this year. Testimony at the hearing on this proposed legislation was overwhelmingly positive from the Sierra Club to the Nevada Landscape Association. Unfortunately, the University of Nevada System opposed it and the bill died. My feeling is that the university opposed it because much of the grant money for research at the national level is not for the applied research we desperately need in horticulture. Also faculty don't get enough points toward tenure when they teach.

To reverse these trends I believe universities and the policy makers who decide where research dollars go need to look at the practical needs of horticultural professionals (not just academics). As a horticultural professional involved in native plant production and writing a garden column, I have no need of genetic engineering and other more Aacademic@ areas of horticulture. I do; however, need information about organic gardening and farming. People are concerned about chemicals and their potential to harm the environment. Also Nevada is the driest state in the union and we need to develop horticulture around plants that don't require a lot of water.

The needs in other states may not be the same as the ones I have mentioned. However, I think that horticultural professionals who are not in academia or "big industry" (such as multi-national seed companies, multi-state nurseries, and chemical companies) feel horticulture in academia has abandoned our needs.

Edith Isidoro-Mills, Nevada, USA

August 16, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
A great deal of the information needed for improving or developing horticultural farming has been left unaddressed because it is unattractive for reductionist scientists or inappropriate for experimental studies. A large number of horticultural scientists, particularly those in universities, have been following the same path of other scientists, who are reductionists by nature. This trend has alienated horticultural science from intact plants and the horticultural industry.

Horticultural research and education in universities must address practical goals. Research for achieving practical goals is conducted on the basis of designs made through integrating all kinds of information from various sources. Designing new interdisciplinary research that emphasizes diagnostic studies on plants, environmental impacts, and farming systems can achieve practical goals and give a more comprehensive understanding of both science and industry.

Dr. Takuro Kikuchi, Hirosaki University, Kyoto, Japan

June 29, 2005

The loss of identity suffered by the horticulture profession, and the resultant move towards folding horticulture departments into generic plant science departments, needs to be addressed in order to re-invigorate the profession.
Some suggestions follow.

June 29, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
The Horticulture Department at Rutgers University was converted to the Plant Science Department (which is next to the Department of Plant Biology and Pathology). Similar changes appear to have occurred in other institutions. This merger is apparently based on the view that Horticulture is merely a branch or an aspect of an overall and encompassing plant science. It may be an outcome of a failure to define Horticulture as its own distinct science.

I propose the following definition: 'Horticulture is a science dedicated to the understanding and control of life processes related to the production and maintenance of garden crops'.

Please note the emphasis on 'understanding'. I believe that Horticulture would be on the ascent if we had used up-to-date technologies to develop understanding in areas such as dormancy, propagation, mineral nutrition, and growth regulation, to name a few.

Chaim Frenkel, Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA

June 29, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
Much of the discussion has noted the value of reaching schools and youth. Certainly, disciplines such as history and geography have used the media and political forces to shame schools into ensuring that children come out of school knowing who past presidents were or who fought in various wars and why. They embarrass people on the streets by having TV reporters ask people walking by, "Where in the world do you find Taipei or Shanghai?" and laugh at their answers, calling attention to the need for better education in these areas.

Maybe we should be equally as outraged and vocal that children do not know the source of their food or the value of trees and landscapes to their economic, mental and physical well-being. Possibly a new emphasis on educational research could help develop K-12 curricula in Horticulture Science that addresses these issues and uses current excellence in educational planning and teaching methods.

Politics is typically a place our industry has avoided until recently, when they found that in order to be recognized, they had to be involved. Recent economic impact studies indicate that most of our horticultural industry's economic contributions far exceed traditional agricultural crops in many states and parts of the world. However, the money tagged for research does not reflect this, placing horticulture products under 'minor crops'. Marketing, political strategies and lobbying are new paths we need to emphasize. We are not trying to degrade traditional agriculture, we do need to show our relative importance to our economies.

Using this same strategy, we must stop the trend toward folding Horticulture into Plant Science departments. Identity is lost, as larger agronomy and soils faculty slowly render traditionally strong horticulture programs impotent. This, again, is no slap at traditional agriculture faculty who are using their political clout to improve their programs.

Like lawyers, doctors, morticians, landscape architects and other professions, we need recognition for educational achievements, skills, and knowledge levels. As many have offered in this exchange, there is no minimum level of expertise required to be a professional horticulturist; thus, there is little distinction between a backyard gardener and a professional horticulturist. A formal, legal graduated ladder of professional standards and recognition needs to be established and recognized in our laws and ordinances.

Ken Tilt, Auburn University, Auburn, AL USA

June 29, 2005

What role does the horticultural industry play in training horticulture professionals?

June 29, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I find it interesting that the focus and concern expressed is based on a 35% reduction in horticulture departments at universities. This is indeed a grave concern but what it fails to recognize is the tremendous increase in research and development spending in the private sector that has been going on for the past 20 years. I find that most universities still believe they are the source of information, but that is no longer the truth. Universities must come to grips with the reality that we are now in a collaborative situation and partnerships between private industry and public universities are necessary to achieve future breakthroughs. We must look for ways to create these partnerships and bring the excitement back into horticulture. If we do not do this, the decline will continue and it will become even harder for those of us in the industry to find the fresh new blood that is essential to all of our futures.

Mark V. Mason, Syngenta

June 29, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
The issues are complex, with elements of societal values, the funding of R&D, and other activities. Much of our most valuable research is very applied. In most industries/ businesses this would be funded 90% by those in the industry. Much of the specific education need would be funded by those in the industry as well. The money in our industry doesn't allow this to occur. We are then dependent on a government with other priorities. If this were many industries, you might ask if this matters. You can still ask this but the answer relates to the role of Horticulture, and Agriculture, in relation to health, environmental sustainability, and the sustainability of rural communities. Until we remake these relationships and convince people of their importance, horticulture will not be seen as important, and therefore will not be able to attract new entrants. So, no quick answers, just a world-wide problem requiring leadership to address the above complex issues.

David Atkinson, Edinburgh, U.K.

June 23, 2005

The following contributions suggest that much of the responsibility for the decrease in student interest in horticulture lies with the horticulturalists themselves.

June 23, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
Horticulturists have failed to convey their message to the greater public about horticulture and what a marvelous discipline we have. We need passionate advocates for 'horticulture' who can explain what horticulture is to the public and the policy makers. What most outsiders see is either 1) 'gardening' - which is (in the UK) classed as a suitable place for the less able but certainly not somewhere for academic high fliers, especially if they are carrying large debts after graduation, or 2) field scale agriculture - which has a bad name for being tainted with environmentally adverse practices and (in Europe at least) is being fed huge subsidies.

There is a total failure to realise that horticulture has been exposed to the 'global' market for decades. As a consequence, with the decrease in students being attracted to science at large, horticulture has been one of the major losers.

There are some wisps of comfort in the UK in that the government now recognises that it needs the products of horticulture. A lot of tax pounds are going into encouraging healthier eating, and into the recognition that urban green space is vital to mental & physical well being. On the science front, there is some recognition also that 'whole plants= are important, i.e. the gel jockeys can get only so far in solving the world's problems; ultimately we need people who understand the genotype x environment interaction in order to make things grow better in fields & glasshouses. The greatest importance needs to be placed by horticulturists in telling the wider world what we do and why it is important to the world.

Geoff Dixon, GreenGene International & University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

June 23, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
After reviewing the comments posted on-line and considering them in light of 30 years of working with professionals from all areas of the horticulture (industry, academia, government agencies, arboreta and botanic gardens, public schools, and, most importantly, CONSUMERS of horticultural products and services), I believe that the reason that horticulture departments at universities world-wide are failing to thrive, perhaps even survive, is that they are sustained by deeply held beliefs that might be seen as myopic, out-dated, short-term, and self serving, and that should be recognized as fallacies. A few of the fallacies to consider:

Fallacy I
Horticulture research and education should focus on production. At one time this was true and miracles of technology took place. Now we can produce more food that we can sell at a decent profit to pay good wages. Production is not the limiting factor, marketing and distribution are.
Furthermore, meeting the nutritional needs of people is only a part of what horticultural crops do. Equally important, they meet psychological, social, physiological, and environmental needs. This area is just beginning to be explored.

Fallacy II
Horticulture must be recognized as a science equivalent to plant physiology. Horticulture was separated from the other biological science departments to give it the opportunity to address the immediate, relevant, applied needs of people. However, our primary source of research validity seems to be conducting work "good enough to be published in the Journal of Plant Physiology." If that is the kind of science that horticulture is, then is it not time to merge back with those other departments?
If we are to be recognized as a science, we need to understand the diversity and meaning of our science and define our role in changing the quality of life for people worldwide. We can no longer focus exclusively on being a traditional plant science of applied plant physiologists.

Fallacy III
Students should come to horticulture because they recognize its value as a science. But our primary academic product (i.e. the undergraduate student) is trained to work as a laborer, with skills in techniques such as tree pruning, greenhouse crop production, and vegetable crop planting. Horticulture departments need to begin training students with skills in managing and directing horticultural firms, educational program development, international product development and marketing, or other career areas with significant income and impact potential.

Fallacy IV
Horticulture is about solitary jobs for the independent "farmer-type," growing plants to sell. In today's climate, horticulture is about careers working with people to improve health and quality of life. This means careers as divergent as managing an environmentally friendly greenhouse or grounds maintenance business, designing environmentally sound home landscapes, or conducting horticultural therapy programs. It means developing educational programs to teach grade school teachers how to teach kids the value of eating their vegetables. It requires a world-view, an ability to work with others from different cultures and with different languages, and tremendous skill at problem solving.

Fallacy V
If we wait long enough and hold on to the traditional way we have always done things, the rest of the world will see the value of horticulture and students will come to us with excitement and anticipation to learn at our feet and crop production research dollars will pour forth as from fountains.
Actually, does anybody remember the 1970's when that actually happened and departments grew to 300-400 students? The departmental response was: we are here to serve the industry not the public. We wish you would go away, but if you will not, then you must learn things useful to a crop production career, not things useful to an urban, dynamic, constantly changing lifestyle. We did not have a clue that horticulture had any relevance to urban life. Maybe it=s time we started to listen to the public who pays our salaries and prepare our students and our industry for economic and social relevance.

Paula Diane Relf, Professor Emeritus, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA , USA

June 21, 2005

Additional comments on why horticulture as a profession is declining in developed countries.

June 21, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
Horticulture is becoming more and more a low-tech, low-income activity. No wonder it does not attract good students anymore, at least in the developed countries. The shift of production from developed countries to developing countries indicates that investors in developed countries believe that they can increase profits by decreasing production costs. Researchers in developed countries are partly responsible for this situation, mainly because they failed during the last two decades to provide the horticultural industry of their homelands with truly innovative production techniques. I believe that the scientific community in developed countries could reverse the downward trend by committing itself more firmly to helping the growers in innovative ways.

Laurent Urban, INRA/CIRAD, Saint-Pierre, La Réunion, France

June 20, 2005

Interest in horticulture as a career could be revitalized among young people by emphasizing non-traditional career opportunities in areas such as nutraceuticals and medicinal crops. Along with this, the perception of horticulture as an unscientific, non-glamorous, low wage career needs to be addressed through public relations campaigns.

June 20, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I suggest we break down the issue in two parts, as they may not be correlated:

We want to increase enrollment and student interest in horticulture. A good approach may be to find out from students what made them choose or decide against horticulture. Also, since students are often attracted to fields that offer them prospects of employment, I believe we should survey the needs of employers in the horticultural field (academia, industry, government and NGOs).
As a horticultural scientist working in the nutraceutical industry, I can attest to the difficulty we had recruiting candidates with that specialization. I realize this field is fairly new, but it may be these "new and exciting" areas that "excite" students and prepare them for the changing horticultural landscape cited in the initial statement.
We need to address the perception that horticulture is unscientific. We may need public relations experts, media campaigns, trade shows, and other means to inform the public about the science of horticulture.

Ernesto Brovelli, Research and Development, Nutrilite, California, USA

June 20, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
In Dutch society, horticulture/agriculture is associated with environmental pollution, manure, dirty hands, poisonous chemicals, long hours, low wages, and uncertain job situations. More than 1000 Dutch farmers declare bankruptcy annually. There is little government support for horticulture.

Education prior to BSc and/or MSc schooling emphasizes biology, rather than to horticulture; thus horticulture/agriculture is an unknown field to students. Additionally, students view careers in medicine and other technical fields as more lucrative and Awhite collar@.

Thus, it is not difficult to guess why horticulture is unpopular among young people.

Can this trend be reversed ?

History teaches us that "turning the tides" has seldom been successful; however, national and/or international efforts might succeed. This would mean agreements on the EU-level, resulting in actions by national Ministries of Agriculture and Education. Beginning in primary school, pupils should be taught about horticulture; this is even more true for secondary schools where the choice of professions is being made. The advantages of careers in horticultural science should be publicized on the internet, in newspapers, and educational brochures.

Dik de Vries, The Netherlands

June 20, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
There needs to be an expansion and/or introduction of new high-income careers in horticulture. For example, floriculture has great potential to generate high income jobs in the perfume industry; new careers in medicinal use of horticultural crops (both traditional as well as allopathic and homeopathic uses), organic fruit and vegetable production, and other less traditional careers need to be emphasized.

Muhammad Afzal Ansari, Government Gardens, Bagh-e-Jinnah, Pakistan, and Institute of Horticultural Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan

June 17, 2005

Several contributors suggest that increased national and international collaborations, that emphasized the multi-disciplinary aspects of horticulture, could increase interest among young people. Additionally, programs that integrate horticulture into other sciences, or focused on particular aspects of horticulture that were especially relevant today and the near future, could further increase interest.

June 17, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
The decline in interest in horticultural science is probably due to many reasons. Students are more interested in new and modern lab techniques, e.g. molecular biology. This has enhanced the field of horticulture, but horticultural physiology and biochemistry are also essential. We have also experienced decreased funding for horticulture, and the reasons were well developed by Dr Hrazidna in a previous posting to this site.

Why not create an international institute of horticulture, involving ISHS, FAO and other partners to encourage interest in horticulture in academic institutions?

Noureddine Benkeblia, Dept Food Science, Rakuno Gakuen University Ebetsu, Hokkaido, Japan

June 17, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I am convinced that the future of horticulture science is in substantially scaled-up and intensified international collaboration, especially in the formation of strong "International Scientific Consortium of Horticultural Sciences", which would promote submission of large complex grant projects, where 10-15 or more research teams around the world would participate, and which would bring together basic (molecular) and applied research areas, making them harmonious together.

Ivo Wiesner, The Institute of Plant Molecular Biology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic

June 17, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
A few months ago a number of European colleagues met at the ISHS headquarters in Leuven to discuss the problem of declining numbers of students in horticulture in Europe. We concluded that in Western countries, modern "horticulture consists of many activities that form a global chain: plant breeding and production, greenhouse construction, irrigation, climate control, information processing, product processing, packaging, transport, retail, etc. All these activities are based on knowledge and expertise of various disciplines in science and technology. Horticulture is a truly multidisciplinary sector, and people working in horticulture have very different backgrounds (plant sciences, physics, engineering, information technology, economics, etc.)".

Recently a leading person in Dutch horticulture told me that for their top positions, big horticultural companies want to have good general managers with a feeling for horticulture, whom they teach the necessary crop-specific details, rather than hiring horticulturists with a highly specialized background. Also for many of the technical and research-oriented jobs in the high-tech horticultural industry, a broad, multidisciplinary knowledge is required, in addition to a thorough academic basis in a relevant field.

In The Netherlands and other Western-European countries, plant sciences in general are not attracting many students. Universities offering a multidisciplinary curriculum to their horticulture students instead of focusing mainly on plant and crop sciences might help improve that situation. To achieve that, a strong collaboration among various universities and/or university departments will be necessary.

Robert Bogers, Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlands

June 17, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
If 14 - 17 year old science students do not see the relevance of Horticulture or Agriculture to what they are being taught in their other science classes, why should they consider a career in Agriculture? For some years now, we have been developing a "blueprint" that integrates brief class visits, a student industry placement program, teachers Professional Development, and the production of targeted teaching resources for university bound science students. This program, run by an experienced science teacher, promotes the importance of the sciences that underpin our Agricultural Industries. The financial backers are universities, Agricultural R&D corporations and government.

This program has been successful in the states of Tasmania and Western Australia. The Riverland Horticultural Council is working with us to initiate the program in South Australia. A six-month study to develop this model for the national scene is in place, funded by the Federal Government. Maybe a whole agriculture approach, including Horticulture, is the way to raise the interest of school science students in these industries?

David Russell, University of Tasmania, Australia

June 17, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I would suggest that much of this problem is the perceived irrelevance of traditional horticulture (and agriculture) to urban areas, where most of our population growth occurs. If institutions can broaden their approach to horticulture - like developing urban horticulture programs for undergraduates, graduate students, and extension audiences - there is a much greater chance of increasing interest in the field. Having come from one such program at University of Washington's Center for Urban Horticulture and now as Washington State University's Extension Horticulturist, I can tell you that student interest in the fields of urban horticulture and arboriculture as career choices is healthy and growing.

Linda Chalker-Scott, Washington State University, Puyallup Research and Extension CenterPuyallup, WA, USA

June 17, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I think the problem exists in developed countries because of the population move from rural to urban areas, as well as high labor and other production costs. The situation in developing countries is quite different because of the need for increased food quality and safety. In these countries, interest in horticulture is increasing, not only for internal consumers but also for export.

Maria Emilia Malvolti, Institute of Agro-environmental and Forest Biology, Italian National Research Council, Porano, Italy

June 15, 2005

The following comments suggest (among other things) that public perception and understanding of horticulture is lacking. Students do not see horticulture as 'glamorous' enough, nor do they see it as a lucrative career path. As a consequence, universities and colleges are de-emphasizing horticulture as a major. One partial solution would be to introduce horticulture - and everything it encompasses - to young people early in their schooling.

June 15, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I can't comment for universities in the USA but I can say that the problem is certainly not unique to the USA. This problem is seen in both New Zealand and Australia also.

I completed Bachelor and Master's degrees at a university in New Zealand in the 80's and early 90's. I noticed even while at the university (7 years in total) that the yearly intake of students in the Horticultural Department was declining, while Business Studies and IT departments were growing in size. This was due to a change in the direction of the university towards more "popular" degrees: business studies, veterinary studies and IT (this university did not offer medical degrees, engineering or other "popular" courses).

For the university, it was all about numbers, for which they attract funding. So the question then becomes: why are horticultural degrees not "popular". The answer to this I believe is simple: Horticulture is undervalued by the general population. People who work in Horticulture are perceived as hard working for little reward and the income potential is low. Other degrees, on the other hand, lead to work with high income potential.

So how true is this perception? I think that the industry has moved on from where it was several decades ago. The trend today in New Zealand and Australia is a move away from small family owned and operated businesses towards larger corporate businesses (sometimes still with family involvement). The number of businesses has decreased while the size of the average business has increased. Part of the reason for this trend has to do with the need for economies of scale in order to remain profitable. These larger businesses require more professional management. While in the past, businesses were run by a few people who were responsible for a number of aspects of the business, today's businesses employ people specialised in specific areas and thus these businesses will employ growers, managers, engineers, marketing professionals etc. Today there is actually a shortage of good growers, especially those with some experience.

As a result of all this I have seen the income potential for Horticulturally trained professionals increase substantially.

I now have experience in both the New Zealand and Australian markets, specialising in the greenhouse industry and I know in this industry alone the larger corporate businesses are offering remuneration well in to the six figures for growers and grower/managers.

So now the question has become: how do we communicate to today's youth that Horticulture is a worthwhile industry to become part of and the rewards are not only significant in monetary terms but they can also be responsible for helping solve some of today's food production issues?

Marcus van Heyst (M.Hort.Sc), Sales Engineer, Pakenham (VIC), Australia

June 15, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I am a student of horticulture at Writtle Agricultural College in England. In the past decade alone, the investment of the college into the commercial horticulture department has dropped severely. The research/teaching greenhouses are scheduled to be demolished and the courses are becoming more orientated to the amenity area of horticulture. With these adjustments comes the expansion of other departments, including Rural Resources and Equine.

The reason this is the case can be traced down to two origins: The financial needs of the college and the changing perception of prospective students and the public as a whole.

The change in funding for academic institutions has caused many colleges to be more concerned with finances than ever before. The common response by many of these institutions has been to focus on developing 'popular' areas of study and putting academic interest lower in priority. This is leading to colleges acting as businesses and only offering the products (courses) that are in highest demand by the consumer (students).

The perception of the public, and hence the majority of prospective students, towards commercial horticulture is based on the media representation of agriculture; and their experiences in domestic shopping.

The media tends to show western farmers as either damaging the environment or complaining about poor protection from cheap imports. This creates a poor image of agriculture and therefore horticulture in the public's eye and leads to a highly significant conclusion: Modern advances in agriculture are harmful to the environment and do not lead to more or better food. This perception is obviously not accurate but there is nothing to tell the public otherwise.

The supermarket's role in informing the public on issues of agriculture is also mainly negative. When the consumer goes shopping they can purchase almost any food they wish and at a cheap price. Though the public may be aware of poor living conditions and lack of food security worldwide, it is hard for them to relate to it when the foods readily available in our supermarkets are coming from these same areas.

With this public perception, it is not hard to understand that there is little support for horticultural science from the public. This leads in turn to little interest from our political leaders.

The obvious course of action would be to change the way academic institutions are financed, and to alter public perception through media and the retail arena. Though both of these ideas are easily put on paper, it would be very difficult to put them into practice. However, these issues could be addressed by focusing on the effects of climate change on horticultural production. Climate change will have its greatest impact on how the human race feeds itself. As climate change is entering the political arena, it seems important for there to be voices calling for research in horticulture to both reduce our role in climate change, and for us to be able to adapt to the changes that are happening now.

Marcus Hawksley, Writtle Agricultural College, United Kingdom

June 15, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
Having taught horticulture for over 18 years, I have seen little change in the type of student in horticulture programs. However, there have been dramatic changes in administration and funding of education in the United States (U.S.). The measurement of success has become increasingly monetary, which education in general and horticulture specifically has neglected. Too often, the values of horticultural contributions are left to the beholder. Administrators have become business executives running college campuses like profit centers, for which the current system is ill-suited. This may prove to be an educational disaster or a revitalizing renovation for the U.S. educational system.

Independent businesses seeking to profit from the fear-stricken U.S. educational system have drained established funding streams. College administrators struggle to operate under tightened budgets and externally applied criteria. Therefore, the various college departments experience increased scrutiny of a numerical nature. The numbers of students, grants, teaching loads, publications, etc. are evaluated on shortened time frames. While short-sighted, it is a reality of today's horticulture department.

Horticulture and its impact are increasingly remote to the U.S. citizen. Most of my students have little, if any, idea how horticulture products are produced. More importantly, they believe these products need to be protected from the industries which produce them. As a result, students seek an agrarian-like, living museum as fulfillment for their nostalgic views of horticulture. This is a symptom of the remote relationship which U.S. citizens have with horticulture. The transition from an agricultural society to an industrial society and then to an information society has widened the gap between production and consumer.

Since the 1960's, horticultural education has relied on the altruistic nature of its students and faculty. We have not offered the monetary, social stature, or interdisciplinary opportunities of other professions. These opportunities are the guiding lights for students and administrators alike. Molecular science brought a brief glimmer of legitimacy to the horticulture endeavor, but like many of its constituents, molecular horticulture has disappeared into the lab.

What we need today is to move horticulture education to those who might benefit from it and to those who recognize its value. We should move off of the main campus and into the midst of those utilizing or needing the technology. The horticulture department should move to places like India, China, Africa, and South and Central America. Those individuals charged with feeding the world would embrace the applicability of horticulture beyond its altruistic nature. It is easy to understand why societies struggling to control consumption would have trouble comprehending the value of increased horticultural effectiveness.

Philip G. Gibson, Ph.D., Gwinnett Technical College, Lawrenceville, Georgia, USA and Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA.

June 15, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I'm an undergraduate horticulture student at the University of Puerto Rico- Mayagüez Campus. A concern I have is that students do not see horticulture as a science because they are not aware that it encompasses molecular biology, plant biochemistry, environmental horticulture, and organic production, among others. Also, students are often not exposed to new technologies, especially those developed outside the US. More companies, institutions and universities should offer internships, study scholarships, travel scholarships to conferences or seminars, and cooperative working plans to get students more involved in horticulture and teach them how much it encompasses.

Christian W. Torres, San German, Puerto Rico.

June 15, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
One of the main problem with horticulture is that it is by nature a very general discipline. In fact, it is the most general discipline in the universities. A little bit of biology, spiced with a bit of mechanical, computer, electronic, electric, and oh, yes civil engineering! Add to that the marketing and economic sauce, environmental, legal... you get the idea!

Horticulture, therefore, is the antithesis of the doctoral specialization. Furthermore the horticultural and agricultural think tanks have failed to make the public see their discipline as the great science integrator it really is.

Another problem is the "glamour-factor". Over the years, biotechnology, computer science, etc. have become glamourous; horticulture has kept itself in the dark and does not publicize the cutting-edge science, the excitement, and the real glamour that horticulture has in its role as the integrator of all the above. Horticulture is perceived as easy. Anybody can grow plants. What the general urban public does not know is that it is not easy! And growing plants profitably is a real science where the competition is stiff and if no research is done the competition will engulf you.

Last, but not least, urban kids are not sensitized to where their food comes from and an overwhelming majority of them believe it is factory made. So when they arrive at college, they have no idea what horticulture is. There is no curiosity about plants created early in school, that's where the academic efforts should be oriented.

Armando Suarez-Romero, Coppell, TX, USA.

June 15, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I think the reason is simple. Horticulture is one of the oldest sciences. We have reached a point where we can't contribute much to practical production, as almost all problems have been solved by our scientific predecessors. I am able to set up low cost, high quality production in every region of the world with the knowledge at hand. Therefore, the disposition to finance horticultural research is understandably low as the remaining crop specific questions (adaptation of fertiliser, spacing, plant protection etc.) can hardly be regarded as research. It is difficult to advise young people to a horticulture career in a low money, minor advance environment.

Dr. Ralf Zimmermann, Agro Project Manager, R&D Department, Pharmaplant GmbH - Medicinal- and Aromatic Plants Research and Breeding Ltd. , Artern, Germany

June 15, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
Why should any one choose horticulture as a career?
Horticulture as a profession carries few kudos with the young people who will be the scientists of the future. Plant science research as a career is often overlooked by career guidance professionals. Typical salaries are well below those you would expect for the level of skill required of a plant scientist.

We need to engender a degree of enthusiasm in mainstream schools if we want our young people to progress to universities and become tomorrow's plant scientists

Jim Yates, Shuttleworth College, Bedfordshire, UK

June 15, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
Having recently gone through a Plant Science program, I understand why students fail to perceive Horticulture as a science and a career option.

Even though the institution I graduated from is located centrally within one of the largest agricultural producing regions in the world (the North Sacramento Valley), the resources available for a student who wishes to pursue such an education and then career are very limited.

[Additionally, the general population often ridicules horticulture because they are ignorant of what horticulture really is.] How do you overcome that? Start when they are young so they can eventually reach a stage where they can contribute and hopefully encourage others to pursue this field. There are various youth programs already formed which could encourage them to discover plants and the interactions they have with nature. Perhaps if they are curious then this trend can be reversed?

William S. Miller, Oroville, CA, USA.

June 15, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
The decline in the pursuit of horticulture in Academia is, I feel, a reflection of the fall from grace of horticulture as an industry. The producers' terms of trade and profitability have been greatly eroded in Australia by the undue influence of the supermarket's dominance of the marketplace.

While this decline continues, younger people are not choosing horticulture as a study path to production or research careers, as they cannot see a profitable future in it.

Andrew Mathews, South Australia

June 15, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
Horticulture must provide financial motivation for students, as well as giving students better defined targets for responding to demands from the public.

Marek Krajczynski, Manager, Vitroservice Co Ltd, Kosakowo, Poland.

June 15, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
Why is there a lack of interest in horticulture in the developed world? I am sure that there are many contributing factors and I will address a couple that come to my mind.

First of all is the migration from the farm to the city and the decline in family farms. With this shift in experience, people do not see the link between growing things and what they place on their table at meal time.

Second, there appears to be more money to be had in what we all call the technology sectors: computers, engineering, Ahard science@ such as genetics, etc. People today seem to put more value on items that cost more or where others are willing to pay more.

Third, with all of the progress in the past, there is probably little understanding that there is still much to do - assuming of course that there is.

Fourth, the news media seems to cover only the exciting parts of the topic, such as genetic engineering and cloning, making the "less technical" part, in the mind of the viewer, as either non-existent or at least well under control.

Fifth, with the growth of corporate farming, the place for the "little guy" seems to be diminishing. Big companies have fewer positions available.

I think that we can all see the flaws in the conventional wisdom in each of these points, except perhaps the salary issue. Fortunately, there are benefits to work beyond salary.

How to turn these perceptions around is another issue.

Richard Fairfield

June 15, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
We need to recognise that:

Fewer people in industrialised countries are involved in horticulture these days as the family farm becomes the corporate farm. Thus there will be fewer opportunities for graduates in the old sense. However, more people in industrialised countries are involved in food processing industries that add value and convenience. Also, GDP growth comes not by selling more goods, but by selling high-value products, e.g. Gucci shirts, high quality wines, speciality coffees. Horticultural education needs to target these growth areas.
There are more and more opportunities for horticulturists in developing countries: a) many countries are importing basic fruits and vegetables from countries where labor is cheaper, b) rapid growth is taking place in the populous areas of Asia, in particular India and China, as the number of middle income earners explode. These are now the big consumers of higher value horticultural products, and c) horticultural crops are finally getting a big push by CGIAR centres and FAO as these organisations realise that people cannot be lifted out of poverty by growing simply rice or maize or grain legumes on small plots of land, high value horticultural crops can make a big difference.

Thus I think the trick is to capture such opportunities in the top end of the market at home and at the same time push the development assistance agencies for funds to train more people for work in developing countries.

Keith Chapman, Industrial Crops Officer, FAO Bangkok Thailand

June 15, 2005

What role does advertising play in the decreased interest in horticulture as a profession?

June 15, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
The decreasing interest in horticulture in academia is a demand problem. The general public is not demanding horticultural knowledge and that is reflected in lower application rates, fewer horticulture departments, less grant money, and less interest from University administrators.

We need to ask Hollywood, CNN, Cartoon Network, Disney and the like to put horticultural crop food back into our culture. Kids grow up exposed to all sorts of high tech toys and images, but develope absolutely no respect for food, it is simply always on their plate.

Making it exciting for kids to produce food that is good for you and show college applicants that production of "new food" is a very promising business. Call it Organic, Environmentally Friendly, Healthy, whatever works.

Mauricio Salamanca, Bogotá Colombia

June 15, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
We probably need to lobby more aggressively, though I don't like that it should be so. Horticulture is vitally important - but then so are many things and the pot of money is finite. I think a big problem - not just for horticulture, but for science in general - is how to quantify the return on the investment that is made. Step forward the economists among us.

Guy Self, Horticulture & Fruit Production Dept., CIRAD, Montpellier, France

June 15, 2005

Here are additional comments on what the focus of Horticulture should encompass:

June 15, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I was directed to you site by another researcher in our company. I am particularly concerned over the lack of programs that are directed to greenhouse hydroponic production of vegetables. This industry has grown in North America in the last 15 years, and currently comprises 34% of the fresh tomato industry. If the US market trend is similar in Europe, the greenhouse industry could dominate vegetable production in the future.

Michael Bledsoe, Ph.D., Village Farms, Eatontown, N.J., USA

June 15, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
Horticultural Science needs to be broad, to encompass all areas of research and production from sowing/planting, production management, post harvest handling, marketing, transportation and distribution. This involves multidisciplinary approaches, involving all areas and covering all products, in the lab and in the field.

Prof. Dr. Jose Crespo Ascenso, R & D Consultants, Carnaxide, Portugal.

June 14, 2005

Several colleagues suggest that 'horticulture' needs to redefine and/or focus itself. Is it so broad that it's unclear what it encompasses? On the other hand, is it missing vital components that could invigorate it?

June 14, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I lecture in a regional campus of the University of Melbourne. My specialisation is Horticulture - Temperate Fruit Production mainly at a Campus whose courses are in Agriculture. Agricultural courses are suffering the same lack of interest Horticulture is suffering. While it is easy for us as relatively mature people in the profession to see the value of horticulture, it is too diverse to appeal to the students. They want something here and now and without too much integration of a broad range of information. They just want straight- forward answers.

I guess I can see the problem, but what about a solution? I find it impossible to envision horticulture without a need to integrate a wide range of information. Maybe that is the way forward - to view horticulture as an add-on to a prior course of study in the sciences when students have matured enough to see its value. While that may be a way forward for tertiary level students, that does not solve the issue for growers who need competent workers in their production enterprises. Dare I suggest that growers need to drive the recruitment of new workers and the educators need to be responsive enough to run programs for "on the job" learning options? These will be narrowly focused to reduce the length of time to complete, but structured so that several learning options can accumulate into a more complete area of learning.

John Wellman, Senior Horticultural Lecturer, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

June 14, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
The problem can be looked in different ways. The future of horticulture, whether seen as an art or a science, perhaps should be reconstructed to be perceived as a 'service' industry rather than merely the promotion of the, albeit essential, science behind it. It may be important to clearly (and more loudly) identify horticulture with health, beauty and taste, whilst also helping make its products more abundant and efficient.

Building such a new awareness together with a health-preserving oriented market can be considered. It brings horticulture out into a wider system where it belongs and highlights its relevance to our daily lives - at the consumer level. Thus a narrow focus and subsequent limitations may be avoided.

A couple of thoughts :

Many cultures have long used various horticultural products as preventive medicine yet certainly as delicious foods. Can such a consideration be brought more visibly into the realm of horticultural science and expanded upon?
The quality of the product grown (whether in taste or otherwise) depends much on its growing conditions. Can we use this to promote entrepreneurial and cutting edge marketing (including supermarkets)?

Would a real need exist for these types of 'services' offered by this noble science? We may need to redefine horticulture's contribution closer to its final end - serving humanity each person at a time, at least three times a day, both sufficiently as well as efficaciously. For this to happen, both the producer and the consumer require constant updated information derived from horticultural science's (new) broader definition.

Faraz Maani, Yunnan, China.

June 14, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
In the last several years, science has made a lot of progress, resulting in practical solutions to specific problems, as well as increasing the general knowledge base. Today, "horticultural problems" are approached by looking at the genetics, physiology, and/or biochemistry involved. The name "Horticulture" may be old-fashioned, as it doesn't define a discipline. Perhaps "horticulture" needs to be redefined.

Marek Krajczynski, Manager, VitroService Co. LTD, Kosakowo, Poland

June 14, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
I have just returned from a meeting in Belgium (3rd International Symposium on the Applications of Modeling as an Innovative Technology in the Agri-Food Chain) and I am a bit worried about one thing. Only one of the contributions (a poster) talked about the relevance of horticultural economics. Many technical trends were presented, but we should remember that our farmers are very interested in maintaining their productivity and financial success. Please check the meeting calendar and count how many meetings are directly related to economics, sustainability, and related subjects.

Carlos R. García, ETEA, Business Administration Faculty, University of Córdoba, Spain

June 10, 2005

The following comments from colleagues in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico suggest various reasons for the decline in horticulture in academia, ranging from the public's lack of knowledge about where our food comes from, to the idea that horticultural research has fallen behind in its contribution to basic science, and to the lack of job opportunities.

June 10, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
The decline of horticultural science within academia is probably related to the decline of agriculture in general in academia. In many nations, particularly in the 'Western' World, the percentage of the population actively involved in farming is so low that most people probably don't even know a farmer. Most people live in cities and their lives are completely divorced from farming, horticultural or otherwise. For most people, horticulture is what happens at the grocery store or the garden centre: tomatoes appear as if by technological magic on the store counter. Orchards, nurseries and vegetable fields only exist in a few people's imaginations, it would seem. Another issue is the highly seasonal aspect of horticulture and agriculture, especially in cold climates: it is difficult to convince a young person to embark on a career in landscaping when he/she will be out of work for 4 months or more per year.

So what can academia do? Perhaps if the masses won't go to academia, academia must go to the masses. To the average city dweller, landscaping, gardening and turf are more relevant than commercial horticultural production. Perhaps we need to better identify other areas where horticulture has a link to urbanites' lives. Yes, there will always be a place for "production" horticulture but for various reasons, largely demographic and political, our target audience has changed.

David Wees, Macdonald Campus of McGill University, Ste-Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada

June 10, 2005

Dear Colleagues,
The factors contributing to the decline of Horticultural Science are more complex than they appear:

In the past, crops were produced by individual growers on a relatively small scale, with research done mainly at universities and horticultural research stations. Today, large companies control the production of horticultural crops and research is done in-house.
Horticulture as a discipline has largely ignored the advances in biology and genetics, and has fallen behind as a contributor to basic science. This reflects on funding. Funding has consequences for the university scientist/researcher. Lack of funding implies lack of importance to administrators.
While earlier fruit and vegetable crops were important model systems in horticulture, Arabidopsis has taken over the role of the model system. Development of horticultural crops takes time by traditional methods. Today's society has no patience with a system or researcher that requires 6-14 years to evaluate the results of an experiment. You can do that with Arabidopsis in 6 months time.
In today's publication craze, impact factors count. The impact factors for horticultural journals are low. This is being equated with low quality science. Result? No funding.

Regaining importance of horticulture will require multiple faceted approaches, and will take a long time. It will also require changes in society's view of science.

Geza Hrazdina, Department of Food Science and Technology, Cornell University AES, Geneva, NY, USA

Forum: Future of Horticultural Science within Academia

June 22, 2007

June 22, 2007

April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

February 1, 2007

September 25, 2006

September 25, 2006

June 2, 2006

June 2, 2006

May 30, 2006

May 30, 2006

May 3, 2006

March 14, 2006

March 14, 2006

December 2, 2005

December 2, 2005

November 29, 2005

November 29, 2005

November 18, 2005

November 18, 2005

November 4, 2005

November 4, 2005

October 17, 2005

October 17, 2005

September 22, 2005

September 1, 2005

September 1, 2005

August 30, 2005

August 30, 2005

August 25, 2005

August 25, 2005

August 24, 2005

August 24, 2005

August 20, 2005

August 20, 2005

August 16, 2005

August 16, 2005

August 16, 2005

August 16, 2005

August 16, 2005

June 29, 2005

June 29, 2005

June 29, 2005

June 29, 2005

June 29, 2005

June 29, 2005

June 23, 2005

June 23, 2005

June 23, 2005

June 21, 2005

June 21, 2005

June 20, 2005

June 20, 2005

June 20, 2005

June 20, 2005

June 17, 2005

June 17, 2005

June 17, 2005

June 17, 2005

June 17, 2005

June 17, 2005

June 17, 2005

June 15, 2005

June 15, 2005

June 15, 2005

June 15, 2005

June 15, 2005

June 15, 2005

June 15, 2005

June 15, 2005

June 15, 2005

June 15, 2005

June 15, 2005

June 15, 2005

June 15, 2005

June 15, 2005

June 15, 2005

June 15, 2005

June 15, 2005