Introduction
The Morrill Act of 1862 helped establish the foundation of land-grant institutions in the United States, which enabled states to develop higher education programs with an initial focus on agriculture, engineering, and practical education (Nevins, 1962; Duemer, 2007). The missions of the Morrill Act of 1862 were further enriched by the Morrill Act of 1890, which focused on addressing racial discrimination by establishing additional land-grant institutions for African Americans in states practicing segregation, and the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994, which focused on providing federal resources to tribal colleges and universities (Hytche, 1992; Phillips, 2003). The responsibilities of land-grant institutions are centered on making higher education more accessible for citizens of the United States (and beyond) through the 3 mission areas of classroom instruction, research, and extension/outreach (Zimdahl, 2003; Gavazzi, 2020; King et al., 2022). Over the past 160 years, land-grant institutions have been widely successful in maintaining and broadening the accessibility of public education systems throughout the country while serving the public on a wide range of agricultural, food, and rural affairs, while coping with greater levels of urbanization across the country. While several scholars have devoted significant efforts to addressing the impact of land-grant institutions, a manifesto written by Goldstein et al. (2019) wrote that land-grant institutions “have an essential responsibility to engage with communities grappling most directly with economic stagnation, climate change, and agrarian dispassion.” This appropriately describes the communities involved with the production of food and agricultural products in the United States and can be particularly relevant for individuals involved at the intersection of the meat industry and the land-grant mission.
The first formal meat science course, titled “Instruction of killing, dressing, cutting, and curing meat,” was offered at the University of Minnesota in 1893 (Bray, 1997). By 1930, there were around 20 higher education institutions offering formal meat science education and training programs (Bray, 1997). Over the past 100 years, there have been dynamic shifts in meat science as a higher education discipline, yet documented records of such data are scarce. Specific areas of focus should be those involving the number of meat science instructors, curriculum offerings for undergraduate and graduate students, physical resources such as university meat science labs, and the perceived support of meat science programs from institutional colleagues, institutional leadership, and external stakeholders. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to provide a current benchmark for meat science curriculum and resources in the United States.
Materials and Methods
The Office of Responsible Research Practices at Ohio State University determined that the project (Ohio State IRB #2024E0472) did not meet the federal definition of human subject research requiring review; thus, it was deemed exempt from review by the institutional review board.
Data Collection
An online survey was created to quantify several different parameters related to meat science curriculum and resources (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA; Table 1). The survey was shared with individuals from 187 higher education institutions (including fifty 1862 land-grant institutions, fifteen 1890 land-grant institutions, and 122 other institutions). These individuals were selected based on their tenure, affiliation, and level of expertise with the meat science program at each institution and included department unit heads/chairs, professors, lecturers, and meat science lab managers. Thirty-four surveys were completed (including surveys from twenty-six 1862 land-grant institutions, one 1890 land-grant institution, and 7 other institutions; Table 2).
Survey questions.
| Question Number | Question | Response Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Name of institution: | Open-ended |
| 2 | Name of department(s) that house meat science faculty members: | Open-ended |
| 3 | Approximate number of faculty with primary appointment in meat science or a closely related discipline (examples of closely related discipline include post-harvest poultry interests, food safety working primarily with meat, growth and development working primarily with muscle or adipose development of food animals, muscle biology of farm animals, among others): | Numerical – Discrete |
| 4 | How many meat science undergraduate courses does your institution currently offer? | Numerical – Discrete |
| 5 | Please include a link where we can find your undergraduate curriculum (that includes meat science or related courses): | Open-ended |
| 6 | Approximate number of undergraduate students who will enroll in an introductory-level meat science course at your institution in 2024: | Numerical – Discrete |
| 7 | Approximate number of undergraduate students who will enroll in additional meat science courses at your institution in 2024: | Numerical – Discrete |
| 8 | Does your institution offer a meat science major? | Categorical – Dichotomous (Yes/No) |
| 9 | Does your institution offer a meat science minor? | Categorical – Dichotomous (Yes/No) |
| 10 | Does your institution offer a meat science certificate? | Categorical – Dichotomous (Yes/No) |
| 11 | Has your institution ever had an intercollegiate meat judging team? | Categorical – Dichotomous (Yes/No) |
| 12 | Will your institution participate in intercollegiate meat judging in 2024? | Categorical – Dichotomous (Yes/No) |
| 13A 13B | Does your institution have a graduate program (if so, please indicate MS and PhD or MS-only)? | Categorical – Dichotomous (Yes/No) |
| 14 | Approximate number of MS-level graduate students studying meat science who will complete their graduate program in 2024: | Numerical – Discrete |
| 15 | Approximate number of MS-level graduate students studying meat science who have completed their graduate program during the years of 2014-2023: | Numerical – Discrete |
| 16 | Approximate number of PhD-level graduate students studying meat science who will complete their graduate program in 2024: | Numerical – Discrete |
| 17 | Approximate number of PhD-level graduate students studying meat science who have completed their graduate program during the years of 2014-2023: | Numerical – Discrete |
| 18 | Does your institution have a meat science lab that has the capability of slaughtering animals? | Categorical – Dichotomous (Yes/No) |
| 19 | If your institution does have a meat science lab, what level of inspection does it adhere to (e.g., USDA, State, or not inspected)? | Categorical – Nominal |
| 20 | If your institution does have a meat science lab, what year was it built (or underwent significant renovations)? | Numerical – Discrete |
| 21 | If your institution does have a meat science lab, approximately how many full time employees (>32 hours per week) does the meat laboratory employ? | Numerical – Discrete |
| 22 | If your institution does have a meat science lab, approximately how many students will be employed on a part-time basis by the meat science lab during 2024? | Numerical – Discrete |
| 23 | If your institution does have a meat science lab, do you have a physical retail storefront to sell meat products? | Categorical – Dichotomous (Yes/No) |
| 24 | On a scale of 0-100 (with 0 being extremely low support and 100 being extremely high support). What level of support does department/college co-workers provide the meat science program at your university? | Numerical – Continuous (0-100 sliding scale) |
| 25 | On a scale of 0-100 (with 0 being extremely low support and 100 being extremely high support). What level of support does department/college leadership provide the meat science program at your university? | Numerical – Continuous (0-100 sliding scale) |
| 26 | On a scale of 0-100 (with 0 being extremely low support and 100 being extremely high support). What level of support does external stakeholders/commodity partners provide the meat science program at your university? | Numerical – Continuous (0-100 sliding scale) |
Institutions that responded to the survey.
| Institution | Location | Type of Institution |
|---|---|---|
| Auburn University | Auburn, Alabama | 1862 Land Grant |
| Clemson University | Clemson, South Carolina | 1862 Land Grant |
| College of the Sequoias | Visalia, California | Other |
| Colorado State University | Fort Collins, Colorado | 1862 Land Grant |
| Connors State College | Warner, Oklahoma | Other |
| Illinois State University | Normal, Illinois | Other |
| Iowa State University of Science and Technology | Ames, Iowa | 1862 Land Grant |
| Kansas State University | Manhattan, Kansas | 1862 Land Grant |
| Michigan State University | East Lansing, Michigan | 1862 Land Grant |
| Mississippi State University | Starkville, Mississippi | 1862 Land Grant |
| Montana State University | Bozeman, Montana | 1862 Land Grant |
| New Mexico State University | Las Cruces, New Mexico | 1862 Land Grant |
| North Dakota State University | Fargo, North Dakota | 1862 Land Grant |
| Oklahoma State University | Stillwater, Oklahoma | 1862 Land Grant |
| Oregon State University | Corvallis, Oregon | 1862 Land Grant |
| Prairie View A&M University | Prairie View, Texas | 1890 Land Grant |
| Purdue University | West Lafayette, Indiana | 1862 Land Grant |
| South Dakota State University | Brookings, South Dakota | 1862 Land Grant |
| State University of New York (SUNY) Cobleskill | Cobleskill, New York | Other |
| Texas A&M University | College Station, Texas | 1862 Land Grant |
| Texas Tech University | Lubbock, Texas | Other |
| The Ohio State University | Columbus, Ohio | 1862 Land Grant |
| The Pennsylvania State University | State College, Pennsylvania | 1862 Land Grant |
| University of Arizona | Tucson, Arizona | 1862 Land Grant |
| University of Arkansas | Fayetteville, Arkansas | 1862 Land Grant |
| University of Connecticut | Storrs, Connecticut | 1862 Land Grant |
| University of Florida | Gainesville, Florida | 1862 Land Grant |
| University of Idaho | Moscow, Idaho | 1862 Land Grant |
| University of Illinois | Urbana-Champaign, Illinois | 1862 Land Grant |
| University of Kentucky | Lexington, Kentucky | 1862 Land Grant |
| University of Nebraska | Lincoln, Nebraska | 1862 Land Grant |
| Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University | Blacksburg, Virginia | 1862 Land Grant |
| West Texas A&M University | Canyon, Texas | Other |
| Western Kentucky University | Bowling Green, Kentucky | Other |
Statistical Analysis
Data were identified by response type (i.e., numerical or categorical). Numerical data were analyzed in SAS (v9.4; SAS Inst. Inc.) using the MEANS procedure to determine measures of central tendency (mean, median, and mode) and measures of variation (minimum, maximum, and standard deviation), and categorical data were analyzed in SAS using the FREQ procedure to determine frequency distributions.
Results and Discussion
Number of institutions and faculty
The number of faculty with a primary appointment closely related to meat science at each institution was quantified for central tendency with a mean of 3.88, median of 3.00, and mode of 2.00, and quantified for variation with a range of 1 to 14 and a standard deviation of 3.21 (Table 3). In total, there were 132 faculty members with a primary appointment closely related to meat science, according to the survey. While this number is likely under-reported, as there were several institutions with established meat science programs that did not participate in the survey, it does provide an adequate value for comparison with other agri-food disciplines and will serve as an initial baseline for future surveys of this nature.
Summary statistics.
| Survey Question | Mean | Median | Mode | Standard Deviation | Minimum | Maximum | Sum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 – Approximate number of faculty with primary appointment in meat science or a closely related discipline | 3.88 | 3.00 | 2.00 | 3.21 | 1 | 14 | 132 |
| 4 – Number of undergraduate meat science courses | 4.71 | 4.00 | 2.00 | 3.60 | 1 | 16 | 145 |
| 6 – Approximate number of undergraduate students enrolling in introductory-level meat science course in 2024 | 102.67 | 70.00 | 20.00 | 106.00 | 10 | 400 | 3080 |
| 7 – Approximate number of undergraduate students enrolling in additional meat science courses in 2024 | 63.55 | 40.00 | 40.00 | 75.96 | 0 | 300 | 1970 |
| 14 – Approximate number of MS-level graduate students studying meat science graduating in 2024 | 3.78 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 7.01 | 0 | 33 | 102 |
| 15 – Approximate number of MS-level graduate students studying meat science graduating in 2014-2023 | 32.27 | 12.50 | 1.00 | 63.21 | 0 | 275 | 839 |
| 16 – Approximate number of PhD-level graduate students studying meat science graduating in 2024 | 1.26 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 2.14 | 0 | 10 | 34 |
| 17 – Approximate number of PhD-level graduate students studying meat science graduating in 2014-2023 | 11.92 | 4.00 | 0.00 | 24.98 | 0 | 120 | 298 |
| 20 – Year of meat lab construction | 1990.6 | 1986.5 | 1978.0 | 23.3 | 1952 | 2024 | - |
| 21 – Full time employees employed by meat lab | 1.90 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.63 | 0 | 7 | 55 |
| 22 – Part time student employees employed by meat lab | 11.18 | 9.00 | 0.00 | 12.52 | 0 | 60 | 313 |
| 24 – Level of support from department/college co-workers | 65.30 | 70.00 | 70.00 | 28.12 | 2 | 100 | - |
| 25 – Level of support from department/college leadership | 57.77 | 60.00 | 80.00 | 31.15 | 1 | 100 | - |
| 26 – Level of support from external stakeholders/commodity partners | 71.47 | 80.00 | 80.00 | 26.89 | 5 | 100 | - |
Undergraduate student education
The total number of undergraduate meat science course offerings at each institution was quantified for central tendency with a mean of 4.71, median of 4.00, and mode of 2.00, and quantified for variation with a range of 1 to 16 and a standard deviation of 3.60. In total, there were 146 undergraduate meat science course offerings, according to the survey. This number is likely under-reported as there were several institutions with established meat science programs that did not participate in the survey, some institutions without established meat science programs, and many institutions that may offer an undergraduate meat science course that does not have a faculty member with a primary appointment closely related to meat science.
Undergraduate student enrollment for introductory meat science courses at each institution in 2024 was quantified for central tendency with a mean of 102.67, median of 70.00, and mode of 20.00, and quantified for variation with a range of 10 to 400 and a standard deviation of 106.00. In total, there were 3,080 undergraduate students enrolled in introductory meat science courses in 2024, according to the survey. Undergraduate student enrollment for additional meat science courses at each institution in 2024 was quantified for central tendency with a mean of 63.55, median of 40.00, and mode of 40.00, and quantified for variation with a range of 0 to 300 and a standard deviation of 75.96. In total, there were 1,970 undergraduate students enrolled in additional meat science courses in 2024, according to the survey. While not asked in the survey, examples of additional meat science courses include meat evaluation, processed meats, advanced meat science, muscle biology, and meat cookery courses, among others. The variation observed for undergraduate student enrollment clearly illustrates that meat science courses differ in their place within curriculum plans among institutions. It is likely that some universities require an introductory meat science course within prevalent majors such as animal science or food science, while others do not. Greater efforts to advocate for meat science courses as a requirement in such majors should be prioritized by the meat science community.
Institutions offering a meat science major were 6.06% of respondents (n = 2), institutions offering a meat science minor were 18.18% of respondents (n = 6), and institutions offering a meat science certificate were 24.24% of respondents (n = 8) (Table 4). Overall, meat science specialization offerings are rare among higher education institutions in the United States, even though there is a seemingly high demand for meat scientists in the agri-food industry. Thus, undergraduate students with a strong interest in meat science usually select related disciplines for their major and/or minor, such as animal science, food science, or biology.
Frequency statistics.
| Survey Question | No, % | Yes, % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8 – Meat science major offered | 93.94 | 6.06 | |
| 9 – Meat science minor offered | 81.82 | 18.18 | |
| 10 – Meat science certificate offered | 75.76 | 24.24 | |
| 11 – Intercollegiate meat judging team in history | 24.24 | 75.76 | |
| 12 – Intercollegiate meat judging team in 2024 | 51.52 | 48.48 | |
| 13A – MS graduate program | 9.09 | 90.91 | |
| 13B – PhD graduate program | 15.15 | 84.85 | |
| 18 – Meat science lab | 12.90 | 87.10 | |
| 23 – Physical retail storefront to sell meat products | 30.00 | 70.00 | |
| Not inspected, % | State inspected, % | Federally inspected, % | |
| 19 – Level of inspection for meat science lab | 6.90 | 24.13 | 68.97 |
Institutions that indicated previous participation in intercollegiate meat judging were 73.76% of respondents (n = 25), while 48.48% of respondents (n = 16) indicated participation in intercollegiate meat judging in 2024. The intercollegiate meat judging program started in 1926 and is currently sponsored by the American Meat Science Association. According to the American Meat Science Association (2022), “meat judging programs are currently the most effective tool for the recruitment and development of future meat science technologists in existence today.” Intercollegiate meat judging should continue to be prioritized by higher education institutions to demonstrate the various aspects of meat science to undergraduate students.
Graduate student education
Institutions offering a master’s level graduate program in meat science were 91.18% of respondents (n = 30). Students completing a master’s level graduate program in meat science at each institution in 2024 were quantified for central tendency with a mean of 3.78, median of 1.00, and mode of 1.00, and quantified for variation with a range of 0 to 33 and a standard deviation of 7.01. In total, there were 102 students who completed a master’s level graduate program in meat science in 2024, according to the survey. Students completing a master’s level graduate program in meat science at each institution from 2014 to 2023 (previous 10-year period) were quantified for central tendency with a mean of 32.27, median of 12.50, and mode of 1.00 and quantified for variation with a range of 0 to 275 and a standard deviation of 63.21. In total, there were 839 students who completed a master’s level graduate program in meat science from 2014 to 2023, according to the survey.
Institutions offering a meat science PhD-level graduate program were 84.85% of respondents (n = 28). Students completing a PhD-level graduate program in meat science at each institution in 2024 were quantified for central tendency with a mean of 1.26, a median of 1.00, and a mode of 0.00, and quantified for variation with a range of 0 to 10 and a standard deviation of 2.14. In total, there were 34 students who completed a PhD-level graduate program in meat science in 2024, according to the survey. Students completing a PhD-level graduate program in meat science at each institution from 2014 to 2023 (previous 10-year period) were quantified for central tendency with a mean of 11.92, median of 4.00, and mode of 0.00, and quantified for variation with a range of 0 to 120 and a standard deviation of 24.98. In total, there were 298 students who completed a PhD-level graduate program in meat science from 2014 to 2023, according to the survey.
The number of graduate students studying meat science was relatively high, particularly with the lack of undergraduate student programs focused directly on meat science. Additional information on the employment status of these graduates and the needs of academic and industry employers for individuals with advanced academic degrees in meat science would be of great interest.
Meat science facilities
Twenty-seven institutions indicated that their institution has a university meat lab facility, which accounted for 87.10% of the survey respondents. The year in which meat science lab facilities were built (or underwent significant renovations) was quantified for central tendency with a mean of 1991, median of 1987, and mode of 1978, and quantified for variation with a range of 1952 to 2024 and a standard deviation of 23.3. Interestingly, 25% of university meat labs (n = 7 of 28) have been constructed in the last 8 years, while another 25% of university meat labs (n = 7 of 28) were constructed over 50 years ago (before 1974) (Figure 1). University meat lab facilities were quantified for their type of inspection as 6.90% not inspected (n = 2), 24.13% state inspected (n = 7), and 68.97% federally inspected (n = 20). University meat lab facilities offering a retail storefront to sell meat products were 70.00% of respondents (n = 21). The number of full-time meat science lab employees was quantified for central tendency with a mean of 1.90, a median of 1.00, and a mode of 1.00, and quantified for variation with a range of 0 to 7 and a standard deviation of 1.63. In total, there were 55 full-time meat science lab employees, according to the survey. The number of part-time student employees for university meat labs (on an annual basis) was quantified for central tendency with a mean of 11.18, median of 9.00, and mode of 0.00, and quantified for variation with a range of 0 to 60 and a standard deviation of 12.52. In total, there were 313 part-time student employees for the university meat labs. It should be noted that the number of hours that part-time student employees worked was not quantified in this survey. The important activities taking place in university meat lab facilities should be used to advocate for meat science programs. These efforts are used to support the land-grant missions of teaching, research, and extension/outreach and will continue to be essential for the viability of the meat science discipline.
Year of construction for university meat science labs (i.e., new construction or underwent significant renovations).
Perceived level of support
On a scale of 0–100 (with 0 being extremely low support and 100 being extremely high support), survey respondents were asked for their perceived level of support among department/college co-workers (i.e., colleagues), department/college leadership, and external stakeholders/commodity partners. Support from department/college co-workers was quantified for central tendency with a mean of 65.30, median of 70.00, and mode of 70.00 and quantified for variation with a range of 2 to 100 and a standard deviation of 28.12 (Figure 2). Support from department/college leadership was quantified for central tendency with a mean of 57.77, median of 60.00, and mode of 80.00 and quantified for variation with a range of 1 to 100 and a standard deviation of 31.15 (Figure 3). Support from external stakeholders/commodity partners was quantified for central tendency with a mean of 71.47, median of 80.00, and mode of 80.00 and quantified for variation with a range of 5 to 100 and a standard deviation of 26.89 (Figure 4). The perceived level of support collected in this survey should be interpreted as the opinion of the individuals who completed the survey and not the entirety of those involved with meat science programs at each institution. With that being said, survey respondents perceive above-average levels of support from institutional colleagues, institutional leadership, and external stakeholders.
Frequency distribution for perceived level of support among institutional colleagues on a scale of 0–100 (with 0 being extremely low support and 100 being extremely high support).
Frequency distribution for perceived level of support among institutional leadership on a scale of 0–100 (with 0 being extremely low support and 100 being extremely high support).
Frequency distribution for perceived level of support among external stakeholders/commodity partners on a scale of 0–100 (with 0 being extremely low support and 100 being extremely high support).
Conclusions
The results of this survey provide an initial benchmark highlighting the number of meat science faculty, the extent of educational programming, the number of students reached, meat science lab capabilities, and perceived support of meat science programs. Of the 34 institutions that responded to the survey, the average meat science program consisted of nearly 4 meat science faculty instructing approximately 160 undergraduate students in meat science courses on an annual basis and providing graduate-level supervision of approximately 7 master’s level graduate students (assuming 2-year programs) and approximately 5 PhD-level graduate students (assuming 4-year programs) on an annual basis. This work was conducted in university meat lab facilities with an average date of construction in 1991 with approximately 2 full-time employees and 11 part-time student employees on an annual basis. On average, survey respondents perceived above-average levels of support from colleagues and leadership at their institution and from external stakeholders. The results of this survey should be used in a strategic manner to improve conversations around resource and personnel prioritization in the future.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the American Meat Science Association, which provided donations from their apparel store to survey respondents.
Author Contributions
B.M. Bohrer – conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, visualization, writing – original draft, writing – review & editing.
L.G. Garcia – writing – conceptualization, review & editing.
Literature Cited
American Meat Science Association (AMSA). 2022. What is meat judging? https://meatscience.org/students/meat-judging-program. (Accessed 25 April 2025).https://meatscience.org/students/meat-judging-program
Bray, R. W. 1997. Prologue to meat science. https://meatscience.org/about-amsa/history-mission/history-of-meat-science. (Accessed 23 April 2025).https://meatscience.org/about-amsa/history-mission/history-of-meat-science
Duemer, L. S. 2007. The agricultural education origins of the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862. American Educational History Journal 34:135–147.
Gavazzi, S. M. 2020. The land-grant mission in the 21st century: promises made and promises to be kept. Animal Frontiers 10:6–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfaa016
Goldstein, J. E., Paprocki, K., & Osborne, T. 2019. A manifesto for a progressive land-grant mission in an authoritarian populist era. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109:673–684. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2018.1539648
Hytche, W. P. 1992. A national resource—A national challenge: The 1890 land-grant colleges and universities. In: A century of service. Routledge, New York, NY. p. 13–28.
King, A. E., Q. Settle, D. Cartmell, A. Cooley, and J. Sallee. 2022. Perception and conceptualization of the land-grant mission at a land-grant institution. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 106:6. doi: https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2403
Nevins, A. 1962. The origins of the land-grant colleges and state universities: A brief account of the Morrill Act of 1862 and its results. Civil War Centennial Commission, Washington, D.C.
Phillips, J. L. 2003. A tribal college land grant perspective: Changing the conversation. Journal of American Indian Education 42:22–35.
Zimdahl, R. L. 2003. The mission of land grant colleges of agriculture. Am. J. Alternative Agr. Res. 18:103–115. doi: https://doi.org/10.1079/AJAA200241