INTRODUCTION

This is a history of biological engineering as seen through the eyes of an American agricultural engineer. The narrative for the time period up to 1977 was drawn extensively, including many direct quotes, from the book entitled 7 Decades that Changed America - A History of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1907-1977 by Dr. Robert E. Stewart. The rest of the story reflects an interpretation of my firsthand observations of a number of more recent events. I will provide you an image up to the present along with some concluding editorial comments, but the end of the story is largely in the hands of the departments and graduates of the emerging biological engineering programs. So, let's begin the tale. After all, if we don't know where we came from, it is difficult to understand who we are or where we are going.

IN THE BEGINNING

The year was 1907, about 90 years ago, and certainly in the life span of many we know. At that time, according to Stewart, mules provided 75 percent of the total horsepower used by American agriculture. Yet, just 17 years earlier in 1890, 3000 steam tractors and 2661 steam threshers were built. And just seven years earlier, in 1900, 30 manufacturing firms were building 5000 large steam-traction engines per year. In the previous year, 1906, 600 gasoline tractors were built in the United States which would soon mean the end of the steam engine's dominant role in American agriculture.

Yes, 1907 was a significant year in American agriculture, but who could have guessed what was in store for this basic of all industries for the next 90 years as technology, biology and commerce united in a way previously unknown to the world. Clearly, as Stewart stated, "agriculture and engineering were on a collision course," and in 1907, this marriage of necessity gave birth to ASAE, the American Society of Agricultural Engineers.

From its very beginnings, the name of this new professional society was debated by its founders. For one thing, several of the 18 charter members of the "American Society" were Canadian. More importantly, however, was that the establishment of a group identity was brought into question. Was agricultural engineering a branch of agriculture or a branch of engineering, or both? In fact, at the second meeting of ASAE in 1908, a committee was formed to prepare resolutions stating that "agricultural engineering" was preferable to all other titles. Thus, from the beginning of ASAE, the unclear answers to such questions translated to a lack of clear identity. At the same time, it is also of interest to note that the constitution read: "The object of this Society shall be to promote the art and science of engineering as applied to agriculture."

Thus, a new engineering society was born, only a few years younger than many engineering societies and older than a few, including that of chemical engineering. The problems that ASAE faced in 1907 concerning its identity have endured even to this day. Yet, it would be 30 years from its founding before there was a formal effort to alter the original philosophical base of the organization.

THE 1937 INITIATIVE

Let's "fast-forward" our story to 1937 when, according to Stewart, ASAE headquarters identified their view of the "Big Problems for Agricultural Engineers" in an editorial. From their perspective, four items were significant. First, there was the critical need for an engineering analysis of agriculture. Second, there was need for development of farm production economics that considered agricultural engineering as an organization, equipment, and operations factor. Third, there was the chemurgy movement, and lastly, and most importantly from the perspective of this discussion, was the concept of agricultural engineering as "the engineering of agricultural biology."

The last concern was championed by C. O. Reed, a professor at Ohio State University and an earlier winner of the ASAE Cyrus Hall McCormick Medal. Reed had been a longtime ASAE member, having served as treasurer in 1912. According to Reed, the philosophy of ASAE suggested that "agricultural engineering simply is the service of mechanical, civil, electrical, architectural, and industrial engineering taken to the industry of agriculture, as if we were condescending to carry to agriculture something from outside it." From Stewart's account, Reed argued that the factor that conferred distinction upon agricultural engineering was that "it is the engineering of biology... This unique kind of engineering should be based on the energy transformations and transfer conducted by living cells; a methodology and efficiency concept so based would open a new world to the agricultural engineer."

ASAE headquarters agreed with Reed and stated that this concept "... would not step on the toes of older branches of engineering ... Every agricultural engineer may be able to see new light and new opportunity in his particular job and abilities by looking at them in relation to the engineering of agricultural biology." However, it seems that very few ASAE members agreed with Reed and ASAE headquarters. In 1938, a 3-member committee was appointed entitled the ASAE Committee on the Energetics of the Biology in Agriculture (this group also called itself the "Horse-feathers Club"!). Unfortunately, Reed died in 1940, and the committee died with him. Who can say what a difference it would have made had ASAE followed the "engineering of biology" concept presented almost 60 years ago?

THE 1960'S INITIATIVE

Our journey now shifts forward 20 years to 1960 when G.W. Giles made a speech to the Farm Equipment Institute (FEI) as part of the Winter ASAE meeting held in Memphis. Giles was head of the Agricultural Engineering Department at North Carolina State College. Stewart tells us that at that time, there was concern that synthetic fibers were competing successfully with some agricultural fiber products. Giles told his equipment-oriented audience that agricultural engineers should work to make the "biological factory" more competitive by giving more attention to "the internal mechanism of biological production and to the external operations and environment that influence this mechanism." In a speech that could just as easily be given today, Giles said, "Some may say that the science of biological processes should be left to the pure scientist and that agricultural engineering should confine its activities strictly to engineering practices. Regardless of whether it is called pure science or not, the fact remains that the mathematical relationships of the physical to the biological processes are basic to developing superior engineering systems. Our profession needs some fundamental law on which to base our judgments and guide our direction and pattern of growth for engineering the biological system. The core of our profession should be built on engineering laws governing the intricate complex processes of plants and animals. This is the thing that distinguishes agricultural engineering from other engineering professions." This time the idea of "biological engineering" was received with more enthusiasm than 20 years before, especially among the ASAE members employed in higher education. However, those in the private sector did not look upon this approach with great favor, so you can imagine the reception that Giles probably received speaking before this particular audience.

The discussion about "biological engineering" went on for another two years. One of the ASAE directors was quoted as saying that "modern" agricultural engineering was essentially biological engineering and that perhaps ASAE should consider "broadening its base to include all aspects of biological engineering." In fact there was the hint that ASAE should change its name to the "American Society of Biological Engineering."

According to Stewart, an ASAE committee on the "Relationship of Biological Engineering to Agricultural Engineering" was appointed which concluded that ASAE would be a doubtful nucleus for a "Society of Biological Engineers." They reported that under no circumstances should ASAE change its name. However, they did suggest that the technical divisions such as Soil & Water and Power & Machinery change their names in favor of designations which described the functional aspects of engineering the biological systems of agriculture. They basically placed the biological engineering ball in the court of the academic institutions. Despite the rather mild statements concerning the role of ASAE and biological engineering, the committee's report was not received with open arms. In fact, it became clear that the enthusiasm for biological engineering centered largely in the academic institutions with industry and government staying somewhat removed from the movement. In the end, ASAE even rejected the creation of a "bioengineering division" in 1966, although a bioengineering committee was formed. The visible mark of this effort, however, was seen at a few academic institutions where "biological" was included as part of the department name at North Carolina State University in 1965, and a little later at Mississippi State University and Rutgers University. In retrospect, the seeds that were planted in 1937 had begun to germinate in the classrooms of agricultural engineering departments in the 1960's. Another 30 years, however, would be required before these seeds would take root and emerge from the soil that constituted agricultural engineering.

COMPUTERS, BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING AND THE 1970'S

While the public interest in environmental issues played a significant role, it is my perception that the technology that would help bring biological engineering to the forefront over this 30-year transition period was not biological in nature. Rather, the technology that most significantly advanced the concept of biological engineering was the digital computer which could perform mathematical instructions at unprecedented speeds. With this machine, the question was asked, "Would it be possible to quantitatively describe biological processes over time?" Certainly! All that was needed was a little imagination, a little creativity, an engineering orientation to problem-solving and a willingness to work as part of interdisciplinary teams. Also, a certain amount of "thick skin" was needed to take considerable criticism from those who viewed this new technology as a heresy when applied to biological systems.

The development of computer models describing biological processes led to a new role for many agricultural engineers, especially those with research, teaching and extension responsibilities. They became the team leaders, the people who served as integrators of agricultural and biological knowledge in a way that could be used to develop new insights in biological systems. It could be argued that those who developed computer models were the first agricultural engineers who made the transition to become biological engineers. In retrospect, perhaps the computer became to biological engineers what the internal combustion engine had been to the first agricultural engineers early this century.

The "computer oriented" group of academic ASAE members began to have considerable influence within the organization. Likewise, many rose in prominence within their departments. At the same time, undergraduate student enrollments at most departments remained relatively low as compared to other areas of engineering. At the same time, interest in research continued to increase. By the mid- 1970's, the Ph.D. degree, usually with computer skills, was expected of almost all new agricultural engineering faculty. The introduction of the IBM microcomputer in 1980 legitimized computer technology for the masses, and agricultural engineers were busy developing the tools needed for the "row crop" farmers of the day who were experiencing the "economic good times" of the early 1970's.

But an economic cloud was on the horizon for agriculture in general. Likewise, the success of high technology had been followed by an exodus from the farm of the youth who had populated the agricultural engineering programs of years gone by. The prosperity that agricultural engineering departments had enjoyed for a number of years was about to dwindle.

THE 1987 DEPARTMENT CHAIRS MEETING

Traditional agriculture had been relatively prosperous in the 1970's, but the economic downturn of the 1980's adversely impacted agricultural college programs across the United States. Agricultural engineering was also impacted. The mid-1980's saw a steady decline in agricultural engineering undergraduates whose numbers had peaked a few years before. Graduation rates were about half of what they had been at their peak a few years earlier.

By 1987, the department heads in agricultural engineering were greatly concerned about the continued vitality of their departments, especially at the undergraduate engineering level. A meeting was called for department heads to gather at Ohio State University on October 26-28, 1987, to discuss this serious situation and to develop, if possible, a common approach for solving the problems of low enrollment. Thirty-seven departments in the U.S. and Canada were represented at this "Project 2001 - Engineering for the 21st Century" meeting.

The attendees worked long and hard, but it became very clear that the philosophical positions of those in attendance would make a common vision improbable at best. Many believed that if the profession could only educate the general public about agricultural engineering, then enrollment would grow. Others argued that this approach had been tried for years with little success, and that a fundamental change in our traditional programs was in order. In fact, several programs were already moving in that direction.

A formal report (Project 2001 - Engineering for the 21st Century) was generated that tried to accommodate a wide range of viewpoints. The report mentioned many worthy goals but nothing really captured the imagination of those in attendance. On its last page, a special heading entitled "Program Names" was added stating: "The name 'Agricultural Engineering' has a restrictive connotation to represent the breadth of knowledge anticipated to become a part of the academic programs. However, the reasons to maintain continuity and to represent the knowledge base from agricultural sciences, there is strong sentiment to retain the word 'agricultural' in the name finally selected." Despite their best intentions, it is safe to say that little consensus was reached among those in attendance with regard to changing much of anything from a national perspective, especially if that change was viewed as adversely impacting the historical roots of the profession. Thus, the prevailing opinion after the workshop seemed to be that every department would have to find its own way through these troublesome times.

The next three years would bring considerable turbulence to agricultural engineering programs across the country as each department attempted to market its own program. It became increasingly clear to most of the agricultural engineering academic community that for the engineering undergraduate program to survive, fundamental change was needed and needed quickly. Likewise, this change needed to recognize that the current world situation was very different than in 1907 when ASAE was founded.

THE 1990 DEPARTMENT CHAIRS MEETING

At the 1989 Winter meeting of ASAE, held in New Orleans, the mood of the department chairs was somewhat the same as that of the Ohio State University meeting two years earlier. That is, enrollments were still low, and there was some feeling of despair about the future of agricultural engineering undergraduate programs. However, there had been considerable turnover in departmental leadership, and a considerable number of departments were now ready to try something new to revitalize their programs. After all, to this group, what had been tried in earlier times was not presently working and, perhaps even with a sense of desperation, most were receptive to new ideas.

Many of these department leaders were convinced that curriculum and name changes were required, and that a move towards a science-focused engineering program (biological engineering) away from an industry-focused engineering program (agricultural engineering) was what was needed. The decision was made to have a department chairs workshop in St. Louis early the next year, and a planning committee, headed by Dick Hegg of Clemson University, was given the task of developing the workshop program. This meeting was to be devoted exclusively to a discussion of the undergraduate engineering program as compared to the Ohio State University meeting that had addressed a wide range of issues.

The St. Louis meeting was held just four months later, on April 24-25, 1990. There were 43 in attendance representing 39 academic programs, a large percentage of the total number of programs in the U.S. and Canada. Less than half of those in attendance were present at the Ohio State University meeting three years before.

Given this substantial change in departmental leadership, it was still somewhat surprising that the mood was far different than in 1987. The St. Louis group was committed to being proactive, and they discovered, much to their surprise, that there was considerable agreement as to what needed to be done. In fact, many departments, acting independently, had taken the first steps required for development of biological engineering programs. This approach had considerable support among the faculty, especially among the mid-sized to smaller departments where survival supplanted tradition as the order of the day. At the end of the meeting, the attendees made a bold statement as to the path that they believed their academic units should follow and endorsed the concept that agricultural engineering was a subset of biological engineering.

A follow-up workshop was held on June 26, 1990, at the 1990 summer ASAE meeting. Forty-six were in attendance representing 36 academic units. A report was formally approved by the group with only a single negative vote. The report ("A Vision for the Future") was printed in ASAE's Agricultural Engineering magazine stating that "...it is our collective opinion that for our undergraduate engineering programs to prosper, the following recommended actions should be implemented: Offer a biological science based, biological applications focused engineering curriculum that defines our uniqueness among engineering disciplines; Have a core curriculum designed to define the biological science base of our discipline; Provide areas of emphasis within the curriculum that focus upon applications involving biological systems; adopt 'Biological Engineering' as the name of our curriculum." Obviously, this group of administrators, having seen the reality of the past and a vision of the future, was ready to launch out in a new direction with or without the blessing of ASAE.

THE 1990'S ASEE INITIATIVE

The department chairs were not alone in their belief that changes in curriculum and name were in order. A significant number of agricultural engineering faculty were also pushing in the same direction. They began by creating the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Division within the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) in the late 1980's. From this base, they held a workshop in Atlanta on January 10-13, 1991, to develop a core curriculum in biological engineering. A second workshop was held as part of the 1991 Winter ASAE meeting where the following courses were identified as being "core" to biological engineering: Biology for Engineers I, Transport Processes from a Biological Perspective, Engineering Properties of Biological Materials, Biological Systems Control, and Responses of Biological Systems to Environmental Stimuli.

This ASEE group, with initial leadership provided by Roger Garrett of the University of California at Davis, was also influential in getting USDA to fund the development of these biological engineering core courses through its Challenge Grant Program. To date, all but one of these courses have received funding. In addition, funding was received for a project to incorporate more biological engineering into the senior-level design courses.

ASAE AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING IN THE 1990'S

The plight of ASAE followed that of academic programs. Hard economic times in agriculture took a heavy toll on ASAE membership. This impact was especially hard felt by the farm machinery industry. Although "power and machinery" agricultural engineers had been the largest single membership group in ASAE, their influence decreased as the relative number of career opportunities for new graduates in the farm machinery industry became smaller. At the same time, ASAE power and machinery engineers appeared to be most opposed to biological engineering, although there was no shortage of skeptics among other areas of the profession as well.

ASAE found itself caught in an internal struggle with a significant part of its industry leadership having one view of the future and its academic leadership having another. Fortunately, ASAE had a series of presidents who worked hard to make room to accommodate a difference of opinion. In the early 1990's, a commission chaired by former ASAE president John Walker of the University of Kentucky examined a name change for the society, the result being the decision to refer to the American Society of Agricultural Engineers as ASAE: The Society for Engineering in Agricultural, Food, and Biological Systems. A series of formal ASAE discussions, promoted by ASAE presidents Doug Bosworth of John Deere and Norm Scott of Cornell University, did much to bring the two schools of thought together. The creation of the Institute of Biological Engineering in 1995 with close connections to ASAE is indicative of the rather rapid evolution of ASAE to a greater acceptance of biological engineering.

SUMMARY

The path that biological engineering has taken within the agricultural engineering profession has been long and often difficult. The history of the next few years will either tell a story of how agricultural engineering nurtured a new identity to maturity or it will record how two visions of a profession that sprang from the same roots separated from each other. Each of us will contribute to the writing of this history. Which ending do you prefer?

.

WHAT ABOUT THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE?

BY OTTO J. LOEWER

I now pass from historian to editorialist, from telling what has happened to commenting on what may happen. As I survey the academic landscape within agricultural engineering, I see the profession in a state of transition. Most departments have changed their departmental name and many have changed their academic program name and curriculum. There is little uniformity in name across departments and programs, in large part because the political battles that have to be fought for name changes vary considerably from one university to another. The modifiers "biological, biosystems, biological systems and bioresource" are the most common names, often linked directly with "agricultural," for example, "Biological and Agricultural Engineering." For the most part, those programs that have enthusiastically endorsed the biological engineering concept have significantly increased their number of undergraduate engineering students. These increases are especially successful where some type of "bioenvironmental" option is offered. In fact, many of the undergraduate engineering programs no longer include "agricultural" as part of the degree title.

With the changes in name and program have come a different type of student, a student who is more likely to be urban, female and minority. These students may be working with the same biological systems as their agricultural engineering peers, but the two groups often view themselves and the roles they play very differently. Perhaps what is evolving is a type of "urban agricultural engineering" but with a new name, a new image and a new science-focused curriculum that is much more relevant to those in the programs. These new biological engineers, I would imagine, see themselves as working for the general public or their individual company rather than serving the interest of "agriculture" as it has been traditionally defined.

Of course, those who promote biological engineering are often asked to define exactly what it is. Interestingly enough, the failure to define agricultural engineering in a generally acceptable way has resulted in a loss of identity that has plagued the profession since its beginnings. The public thinks it knows what agricultural engineering is but is usually mistaken in a way that is often harmful to the profession. Likewise, the public probably is mistaken about biological engineering but often in a way that is helpful. Perhaps the public's misperception about agricultural engineering is relatively harmless in research and even extension, but it makes recruitment of students extremely difficult. Likewise, from an historical perspective, agricultural engineers have had difficulty, when compared to most other areas of engineering, in finding employment among certain industry sectors for which we have much to offer.

Still, I have not defined "biological engineering," not because I don't have a definition but rather because it will eventually be what the academic institutions define it to be through their curricula. I will, however, offer a vision statement provided to me by Art Teixeira that states that biological engineering is engineering applied to biological sciences for the purpose of protecting our environment and conserving and replenishing our natural resources while producing food, feed, fiber, fuels and chemicals from renewable biological materials. One can argue that this statement is not greatly different from a definition of agricultural engineering. In fact, most biological engineering curricula do not currently differ greatly from that taken in the agricultural engineering areas of specialization of food engineering, waste management, or other aspects of bioprocessing as well as the soil and water option engineering with a bioenvironmental slant. Certainly this is good because, while the profession has experienced considerable "identity" problems, its graduates have distinguished themselves in the engineering community once given the opportunity. More importantly, however, is that despite the views of traditional agricultural engineers, the profession has been on a path towards biological engineering for the last 30 years. It could be argued that we have been mislabeling our graduates for many years, and in my opinion, this self-inflicted wound has adversely impacted our profession.

Let there be no mistake as to my background. I grew up on a rice-soybean farm, the son of a family of farmers. I had a great desire to become an agricultural engineer, a choice that has served me well. I continue to have a love for agriculture. Yet, we whose agricultural roots are deep are often too proud to believe that what attracted us to agricultural engineering could prove a detriment to a new generation. Thus, we fight what is with what we believe should and used to be. From my perspective, this is a battle that the traditionalist cannot win regardless of the logic of their arguments. Future graduates of our programs have spoken. Their votes are in. Our choice is to either be thankful for a new and exciting opportunity or to see ourselves die a slow death by attrition, all the while surrounded by the life boats of opportunity.

You see, we can have outstanding biological engineering programs that help sustain society's ability to have a high quality of life through environmentally sound engineering of biological resources that are, for the most part, renewable. These programs can educate, at the same time, a number of graduates that meet the direct needs of the agricultural industry. In this view of the future, agricultural is a subset of biological engineering.

Biological engineering does not threaten agricultural engineering. Rather, it provides a disciplinary home in the academic community that can lead our profession to its greatest days. There will be some hurdles. Those who are among the first graduates will have to pave the way. Those who are to become faculty members will often have to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps so that they can prepare our biological engineering students for outstanding service to society.

We in ASAE cannot blame others for our failure to act responsibly. Let's take the opportunity to establish an accurate identity, both within our profession as well as to the public. Let's become the best professional engineers that we can be. Let's look to what the future can hold and continue to seize this moment of opportunity. If we are successful, then perhaps in the year 2107 a group of biological engineers, many of whom will work in agriculture, will be at the 200th anniversary meeting of ASAE. They will look at what was accomplished a 100 years earlier in developing and promoting biological engineering and say, to borrow a quote from Winston Churchill, "This was their finest hour"!

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Stewart, Robert E., 1979. Seven Decades that Changed America - A History of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1907-1977. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085. USA.

Return to September Resource Magazine Page | Return to Resource Magazine Issues Page

Return to the Resource Home Page | Return to ASAE's Home Page