IT’S THE College of Agriculture, not the College of Farming. And that’s one of the main issues provoking a change in the college’s name at the University of Saskatchewan.
Ernie Barber, dean of the agriculture faculty, has the unenviable job of spearheading a name change to the venerable college, one of two that launched the U of S almost 100 years ago. It has proven a rough field to plow.
After a few months of consideration and input, Barber has come to the correct conclusion: agriculture must remain in the name.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
Why change? The dean and others at the university contend that the word agriculture alone no longer accurately encompasses the range of education offered within the college, from soil science, plant research, wildlife, water and environmental studies through to agricultural business, economics, animal and poultry science and food industry development.
It’s a value chain, says Barber, and the next century will belong to agriculture, biological research and bio-based industry – right where the college is positioned to deliver knowledge.
Prospective students and the public at large don’t necessarily realize all that lies within the college.
They equate agriculture with farming, and farming with precarious fortunes, which forestalls exploration of the riches within.
Thus the name change is a matter of marketing, of changing public perception and of boosting enrolment that has steadily declined over the past 10 years.
That’s the rationale, but there is a larger question.
How did it come to this? How did those of us involved in the agricultural industry arrive at a place where the word “agriculture” carries such limitations in the minds of the general public? Farmers, agri-business people, faculty and most certainly agriculture grads know the quality and range of study within the college – and indeed the quality and range of agriculture as applied in the wider world.
Perception of agriculture as a larger concept is not a problem unique to the university. Somewhere along the way, agriculture’s role and reputation haven’t been adequately marketed. And anyone with a stake in the industry shares some responsibility for agriculture’s apparently poor optics.
“Why in the world do people have a problem with the word agriculture,” queried one perplexed grad at a Saskatchewan Agricultural Graduates Association meeting Jan. 13. “Agriculture feeds people. Why should we be changing our name?”
The query goes to the heart of the matter. This country and this university were founded upon agriculture. Saskatchewan, as much and probably more than any other province, depends on agricultural development and innovation for its economic stability and its sustainable future. In turn, the university depends on the support of the farming community and its alumni for its reputation, promotion and financial support.
It all comes down to the A word. Removing it seems somehow disloyal, even disrespectful of a proud past and a hopeful future.
Experience at the U of S demonstrates the risks inherent in a name change. Go from home economics to food science and bear the wrath of disappointed alumni. Go from physical education to kinesiology and see enrolment blossom.
Nor is the U of S the first university to ride the rocky ranges of the agriculture question. Faced with similar concerns, the University of Alberta changed the name of one department to Agricultural Food and Nutritional Science.
The University of Manitoba opted for Agricultural and Food Sciences. The University of British Columbia has the faculty of Land and Food Systems. Lethbridge chose Agricultural Biotechnology and Agricultural Studies. New Brunswick lays claim to Agricultural and Biotechnological Sciences.
Farther afield, Texas A & M originally stood for Agricultural and Mechanical but now, says the college website, the initials “no longer represent any specific words,” because the curriculum has grown beyond the original two descriptors.
Barber said the college appears headed for a similar compromise. He thinks the new name will include the words agriculture and resources, with a few others words to flesh out the concept.
Agriculture belongs in the name. And if it stays, it will afford everyone in agriculture with some new opportunities to market all that it stands for.
