NOTES - Agronomy · cordant recruitment effort may be effectively fostered among some of the brightest and most motivated uni-versity students. The objective of this article is to

NOTES

Politics, Science, and Hunger:An InterdisciplinaryApproach to Honors

Education in AgricultureD. J. Fairbanks*

AbstractHonors education can be defined as an enriched educa-

tional program designed to challenge highly motivated stu-dents to excel in all aspects of a university education. Itremains, however, an underutilized vehicle through which anawareness of agricultural science and a concordant recruit-ment effort may be effectively fostered among some of thebrightest and most motivated university students. The ob-jective of this article is to describe how honors education maybe utilized to increase the awareness of agricultural scienceand further the objectives of undergraduate agricultural ed-ucation. Most university honors programs have three char-acteristics: (i) small, discussion-oriented classes; (ii) a tralized, university-wide program providing opportunitiesthat foster unusual excellence in all aspects of a universityeducation; and (iii) an honors designation at graduation. survey of 36 universities with programs in agriculture indi-cated that 23 (64%) had honors programs with these threecharacteristics. Honors classes are typically interdisciplinaryand deal with issues of general concern to society. Amongthe most important interdisciplinary issues in agronomy isthe effect of agricultural research on world food productionand hunger. Honors classes on this topic have been highlysuccessful in attracting students and helping to increase theirawareness of agricultural principles underlying important is-sues. Such classes may also serve as a recruitment tool. Hon-ors education provides an excellent opportunity for highlymotivated students with agricultural science majors to de-velop discussion, writing, and research skills, as well as ob-tain an enriched general university education.

CONCER.Nover declining undergraduateenroll-ment in university agricultural science programs

is increasing with the prospect of high employmentturnover in agricultural science professions in thecoming decade. This situation parallels that of sciencein general (Green, 1989) and has spawned a numberof programs designed to attract students, particularlystudents who are gifted intellectually, to scientific ma-jors and careers (National Science Foundation, 1989).The reasons for declining enrollments in science areDepartment of Botany and Range Sci., Brigham Young Univ.,Provo, UT 84602. Received 8 Jan. 1990. *Corresponding author.

Published in J. Agron. Educ. 19:184--186 (1990).

varied, but among the most important is a lack ofawareness of the nature and availability of scientificcareers. Agricultural specialties are particularly af-fected by this lack of awareness due to a general mis-conception that university agricultural programs areintended primarily to teach farming methods. Thenature and extent of agricultural research, its accom-plishments, and its potential unfortunately remain un-known by a majority of college students as well as amajority of the public in general.

The university honors program is an underutilizedvehicle through which such an awareness and a con-cordant recruitment effort may be effectively fosteredamong some of the brightest and most motivated uni-versity students. The objective of this article is to de-scribe how an awareness of the nature and potentialof domestic and international agricultural researchmay be incorporated into university honors programsand thus reach many motivated students who mightotherwise remain unaware of the scientific and ethicalissues related to this oldest and perhaps most essentialscience.

The University Honors Program

The purpose of honors education is well describedin one university catalog: "to permit students to ex-tend the boundaries of their minds beyond the scopeof the ordinary university experience" (University ofArizona, 1989, p. 28). In spite of institutional differ-ences, three characteristics tend to typify the structureof honors education at most universities: (i) small,discussion-oriented classes; (ii) a centralized, univer-sity-wide program providing opportunities that fosterunusual excellence in all aspects of a university edu-cation, and (iii) an honors designation at graduation.

Perhaps the most important of these characteristicsis the provision for small, discussion-oriented classes.Usually these classes are designed to fill general edu-cation requirements, although in some cases they fillmajor requirements as well. Often, honors classesserve as a substitute for required general educationclasses taught through the regular university generaleducation program. These courses carry generic titlessuch as Literature or Biological Science with a morespecific title provided for each class by the instructor.Class sizes are usually limited, ranging from 10 to 40students, and certain students are given priority en-rollment, often through formal membership in thehonors program. Honors classes may be interdiscipli-nary in nature and integrate ethical issues with aca-demic instruction.

Secondly, a centralized, university-wide program isan important aspect of most, though not all, honors

184 J. Agron. Educ., Vol. 19, no. 2, 1990

programs. A facility often referred to as an honorscenter, with offices, reading rooms, and areas for socialactivities, serves as a place for students and faculty tomeet formally or informally outside of the classroom.Honors programs frequently sponsor lectures, seminarseries, artistic events, discussion groups, and socialactivities designed to encourage interaction amongstudents and faculty involved in honors education.Honors programs may also sponsor undergraduate re-search programs, at times with financial support, withan honors thesis as the final product of this researcheffort. At Brigham Young University (BYU) a numberof undergraduate students with majors in agronomyand botany have gained valuable exposure to indivi-dualized scientific research through the completion ofan honors thesis, a distinct advantage to those enteringgraduate research programs.

Third, recognition of students’ accomplishments inhonors programs is typically conferred as an honorsdesignation at graduation. For universities with a uni-versity-wide honors program, grade point average isonly one of several criteria for awarding an honorsdesignation. Other requirements include the comple-tion of a certain curriculum of honors classes, and insome cases the completion of an honors thesis, rec-ommendation by university faculty, and other formsof participation in honors education. An honors des-ignation under these circumstances is much moremeaningful than a simple recognition of high gradepoint average.

The philosophy of honors education is widespreadamong U.S. universities. A national organization, TheNational Collegiate Honors Council, with its own jour-nal Forum for Honors, and national as well as regionalmeetings, exists to promote undergraduate honors ed-ucation. Most universities have a centrally organizedhonors program. A survley of 36 universities with pro-grams in agriculture (Table 1) indicated that 23 (64%)had central honors programs with the three charac-teristics cited above. All but two of the 13 universitieswithout a central honors program had some form ofhonors education at the college or department level.

Agricultural and Honors Education

The specialized nature of disciplines in the agri-cultural sciences often precludes extensive involve-ment of agriculture faculty in honors or generaleducation. Most agronomy courses are quite specificin their content and cannot legitimately be consideredas liberal arts, general education courses. Nonetheless,from an interdisciplinary standpoint, agricultural sci-ence is an integral factor in some of the most pertinentsocial issues, not the least of which is feeding a rapidlyexpanding world population. It is here where the ob-jectives of agricultural education and honors educa-tion coincide. The application of agricultural scienceis clearly the major force behind the tremendous in-creases in world food production over the past severaldecades. Increases in North American food produc-

Table 1. Universities surveyed for description of honorsprograms.

University Location

Brigham Young UniversityClemson UniversityColorado State UniversityCornell UniversityIowa State UniversityKansas State UniversityLouisiana State UniversityMichigan State UniversityMontana State UniversityNew Mexico State UniversityNorth Carolina State UniversityNorth Dakota State UniversityOhio State UniversityOklahoma State UniversityOregon State UniversityPennsylvania State UniversityPurdue UniversityTexas A&M UniversityUniversity of ArizonaUniversity of CaliforniaUniversity of FloridaUniversity of HawaiiUniversity of IdahoUniversity of IllinoisUniversity of KentuckyUniversity of MarylandUniversity of MassachusettsUniversity of MinnesotaUniversity of MissouriUniversity of NebraskaUniversity of NevadaUniversity of WyomingUtah State UniversityVirginia Polytechnic Institute and

State UniversityWashington State UniversityWest Virginia University

Provo, UTClemson, SCFort Collins, COIthaca, NYAmes, IAManhattan, KSBaton Rouge, LAEast Lansing, MIBozeman, MTLas Cruces, NMRaleigh, NCFargo, NDColumbus, OHStillwater, OKCorvallis, ORUniversity Park, PAWest Lafayette, INCollege Station, TXTucson, AZDavis, CAGainesville, FLHonolulu, HIMoscow, IDUrbana-Champaign, ILLexington, KYCollege Park, biDAmherst, MAMinneapolis-St. Paul, MNColumbia, MOLincoln, NEReno, NVLaramie, WYLogan, UT

Blacksburg, VAPullman, WAMorgantown, WV

tion, the green revolution, and the international re-search network that subsequently arose as a result ofsuccessful agricultural research have directly or indi-rectly affected nearly every individual on the planet.Along with increased technology came a host of bio-logical, environmental, and socioeconomic conse-quences that continue to be a source of debate amongscholars and public policy makers. As crucial as theseissues are, few university students and faculty areaware of the principles underlying these issues. Suchan interdisciplinary approach to an important publicissue is ideally suited to the purpose and the natureof honors education.

An honors course dealing with the effect of tech-nology on world food production and hunger was of-fered through the BYU Honors Program during theFall 1989 semester (Table 2). A similar course wasoffered through the University of Arizona Honors Pro-gram during the Spring 1988 semester. In both cases,the courses fulfilled requirements for general and hon-ors education. Although many other courses offered atboth universities fulfilled these same requirements,student interest in these two courses was high as evi-denced by high enrollments. At the University ofArizona, enrollment was two students short of the en-rollment ceiling and at BYU the enrollment ceilingwas lifted, allowing additional students to register. The

J. Agron. Educ., Vol. 19, no. 2, 1990 185

Table 2. Outline for an interdisciplinary honors course onagricultural technology and world hunger. This coursewas taught under the title "Politics, Science, and Hunger"through the Brigham Young University Honors Programas an undergraduate course meeting general education re-quirements in natural sciences and social sciences.t

I. Introduction to the issues: Overview of world hunger.II. Population growth as a contributing factor to hunger.

A. Population growth.B. Relationship of population to food.

III. What agricultural scientists have done to address world hunger.A. Brief history of the green revolution.B. Development of "package technology."

IV. The consequences of increased technology.A. Biological and Agricultural—Effect of new varieties, in-

creased fertilization and pesticide use, irrigation, geneticerosion and conservation.

B. Environmental-Effect of increased fertilizer and pesticideuse, desertification and its putative causes, soil and waterconservation.

C. Social, economic, and political—The talents effect: North-west Mexico, Punjab. Coping with the talents effect: Casestudy, The Puebla Project.

V. Future prospects for technological development.A. Research networking.B. Appropriate technology.C. Biotechnology.D. Sustainable agriculture.

VI. Food storage and food security.A. International vs. National or local food storage systems.B. Food security.

VII. Foreign Aid and Development.A. Large-scale bilateral and multilateral aid.B. Small-scale volunteer and private aid.

VIII. Sustainable Economic Development.IX. Education.

A. Basic literacy.B. Extension education.

X. Prescriptions for dealing with world hunger.t Texts: Brown et al. (1989); The Hunger Project (1985); Lappe and Collins

(1986).

combined enrollment for both universities was 45students.

The course content included a variety of integratedtopics from both the agricultural and social sciences(Table 2). Guest lecturers representing the various dis-ciplines were invited at the appropriate points in thecourse and added valuable insights as well as a rangeof opinions. Student evaluations were unanimouslyfavorable regarding the scope, organization, and rel-evance of the courses.

Inclusion of such courses in an honors educationprogram provides some of the most motivated andsuccessful university students with an increasedawareness of the role of agricultural research in world

society. The long-term effect could be significant be-cause many of these students will eventually holdinfluential positions involving the establishment ofpublic policy. In the short term, such a course mayalso serve as a recruiting tool. Two students from theBYU course described above selected agricultural ma-jors and a number of others have expressed interest.

Additionally, honors programs provide outstandingopportunities for motivated students who are major-ing in the agricultural sciences. Honors classes in gen-eral provide students with a stimulating academicenvironment that encourages broad education, expo-sitory writing, open discussion, and extensive libraryresearch. Those programs with an honors thesis re-quirement provide an exceptional opportunity for un-dergraduates to gain valuable research experience andrecognition for their efforts. In some cases honors pro-grams may also provide financial support for honorsthesis research projects.

Conclusion

There are varied opportunities for participation byfaculty in agricultural sciences in honors education,particularly in interdisciplinary honors courses dealingwith socially important issues. Participation in suchcourses, honors lectures, and seminar series is a meansof making highly motivated university students awareof the most important issues confronting agriculturalscience. Honors education is also a way of reachingthese same students for recruitment purposes. In ad-dition, honors education provides an excellent op-portunity for highly motivated students with majorsin the agricultural sciences to develop discussion, writ-ing, and research skills, as well as obtain an enrichedgeneral university education.


Development of ARCPACSProfessional CertificationProgram for Agronomists

B. Rodney Bertramson*

AbstractThe development of the American Registry of Certified

Professionals in Agronomy, Crops, and Soils (ARCPACS)from first proposals for credentialing agronomists in the early1960s until its legal establishment in 1977 is reported. De-velopment of ARCPACS was a prolonged, painful, policy-making process with many proposals and counter-proposals.It was brought to fruition 1 July 1977. ARCPACS was thefirst national means of credentialing a practicing professionalagronomist for purposes of serving in business or in litiga-tions. By September 1979, ARCPACS certified nearly 1000applicants. The Registry was then ready to serve approxi-mately 40 000 agronomists as they sought professional cre-dentials. Although much about promotion of professionalismand servicing of registrants remained to be developed; a goodbeginning had been made.

T HE FIRST 10 yr of the American Registry of Cer-tified Professionals in Agronomy, Crops, and

Soils (ARCPACS) has been well covered by Richardsand MacCubbin (5). The purpose here is to give someof the background which finally led to the establish-ment of this credentialing program for professional,practicing agronomists.

The Beginning

The American Society of Agronomy (ASA) was or-ganized in 1907 by a group of academic agronomists--Ph.D.s concerned mostly with the academic and civilservice aspects of the profession. Unfortunately, forpracticing agronomists seeking a livelihood in the non-academic arena, this outlook prevailed in the Societydown through the years.

Until the establishment of ARCPACS, the Societyhad operated over the years as a scientific society withlittle concern for professional identity outside of aca-demia. Applications for membership required only aname, address, and a check to cover dues. As late as1965, ASA president L.A. Richards (6) in his addressventured that ASA may find it desirable to tighten itsrequirements for membership. He offered cogent rea-sons for doing so.

By contrast, applications for membership in theAmerican Chemical Society require signed recom-

Department of Agronomy and Soils, Washington State Univ., Pull-man, WA 99164-6420. (Past chair of ARCPACS Board of Directors.)From invited remarks for panel discussion of ARCPACS, ASAmeeting 28 Nov. 1988, Anaheim, CA. Received 15 Dec. 1988. *Cor-responding author.

Published in J. Agron. Educ. 19:187-188 (1990).

mendations of two ACS members. The application isthen reviewed by a nine-person admissions committeeagainst the stated requirements for membership. Fol-lowing committee approval, ACS bills the applicantfor membership fees.

The Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) in theearly 1960s had attempted to "register" soils graduateswho had completed an assigned core curriculum andgraduated with a B.Sc. (4). This was a pioneering at-tempt to credential the new generation. It did nothingfor those already graduated agronomists and was con-fined to soil scientists.

At the 1987 ASA Annual Meeting, ASA PresidentRobert Gast voiced concern about future agronomygraduates meeting competition in the marketplace (3).If agronomists are better qualified to fill certain jobsthan are competitors with other diverse training, whatmakes them better--for instance, than English, or his-tory, or sociology majors--for the jobs (2)? Surely therewas need for a minimum core curriculum of trainingsuch as set forth by ARCPACS in 1983 and for a def-inition to affirm the agronomist’s, crop scientist’s, orsoil scientist’s superior qualifications for a specific job.

Selling ARCPACS

Through the years, a small and determined groupof agronomists with experience in the nonacademic,as well as academic, world continued to press for cre-dentialing. Among the most vocal and persistent ofthis group were M.H. McVickar, J.C. Engibous, R.W.Howell, D.L. Smith, and M.D. Openshaw. Of course,there were others who lent a great deal of support tothe movement. A detailed chronology of developmentof the credentialing plan that ultimately evolved asARCPACS was reported by Openshaw (4). Similarstirrings in other scientific societies dealing with ag-ricultural sciences were reported by Bertramson (1).

The need for credentialing is well illustrated bythose who serve in court or other public proceedings.Although a licensed engineer is immediately recog-nized and accepted as a professional with specificexpertise, the credibility of an agronomist as a profes-sional could easily be eroded by persistent questionsas to, "What is an agronomist?" and "What constitutesthe qualifications for an agronomist?"

Agronomists who have participated in an interdis-ciplinary project often find they are to work for anindividual trained and credentialed as an engineersimply because, "He/she was licensed as a profes-sionaL" Of course, the engineer enjoys the prestige andthe higher pay, even though his/her training and ca-pabilities might not be superior.

The Executive Committees and Boards of ASA,through the years, pondered the problem of creden-tialing with only a few strong proponents in their midstand a large number of individuals who did not wantto be bothered by this process (4). The committee thatwas assigned the task of studying the needs and sug-gesting possible solutions was chaired by McVickar


and Engibous. The committee persevered, answeringevery question and fulfilling every demand from theofficers. In November 1974, the ASA Board grantedapproval to proceed with the proposed certificationplan. The by-laws, code of ethics, and procedures wereformulated and then revised several times. ARCPACSwas eventually incorporated, and the Societies com-mitted the necessary start-up funds, just as they haddone for other new projects of the past, such as CropScience and Crops and Soils magazine (4).

The ARCPACS Program Begins

In February 1975, ASA approved the proposal forthe ARCPACS certification program and the appoint-ment of a "Board of Certifiers." Search for a "man-ager" was authorized (4). The search was frustratingbecause the prevailing philosophy of the Societies wasthat it was to be a clerical job; hence, the salary wastoo low to attract an individual with the qualificationsto administer the program. The ARCPACS Board in-sisted that the manager be an exemplary ARCPACSmember and a promoter among his/her peers. Finally,the ARCPACS Board's view prevailed, and Dr. Open-shaw, one of the most ardent promoters of ARCPACS,became the first managing "Director." He strived toovercome the skepticism and honest ignorance of theprogram to get the program started. He tried to expandservices, to carry on promotional activities so thatARCPACS might become a real service to its members,and to lay plans for a renewal procedure to enhancethe prestige of professional, practicing agronomists inthe nonacademic arena.

The battle is not yet won. More program supportshould be considered by the Societies to serve ASAmembers from the nonacademic arena. The practicingagronomist members of ASA are presently short-changed. And, ARCPACS members can and shouldassess themselves higher certification fees so the pur-pose of ARCPACS, verbalized so well by Openshaw,is fulfilled to serve them. They might well comparetheir certification fees to those of the American Societyof Agricultural Consultants, which are presently $270per year.

The evolution of ARCPACS was a harrowing pro-cess with prolonged debates to obtain the necessaryresources, to set up proper and adequate facilities forthe program, and to get certifying procedures in mo-tion. Finally, in July 1977, the ARCPACS program

became operational and applications were processed.In 2 yr, 1000 professional agronomists, crop scientists,and soil scientists had been credentialed. The Societiespromised continuing financial support, and the futureof the program was assured.

The Future of ARCPACS

Boards of the Societies have wrestled with thesequestions: "How can the Societies better serve the non-academic agronomists?" "What can these Societies doto reach that huge potential membership of practicingagronomists not in the academic arena?" "How canthe professional image of agronomists be enhanced?"Answers to these questions can be found through dia-logue with ARCPACS. Through this unit of theSocieties, ideas on needs of and services for nonaca-demic, practicing agronomists can be obtained. Otherunits of the Societies are oriented toward the academicarena, and practical answers to these questions areunlikely to come from them.

It behooves the certified agronomists to make theseneeds and opportunities known to the Societies—toproceed through the democratic processes to get So-cieties' resources committed for adequately handlingthe needed expanded services of the program. ARC-PACS can make the point to the Societies that pro-motion of ARCPACS is a way to reach that huge poolof potential members of the Societies—to serve allagronomists, nonacademic as well as academic.

With the advent of ARCPACS, practicing agrono-mists in the nonacademic arena can now promote theirprofession. They shall have that professionalism onlyto the extent they promote it for themselves. There ismuch to be done—requiring time, talent, and money!


A Simple Procedure forEstimating Cation Exchange

Capacity Using GentianViolet Dye

W. R. Guertal* and P. A. McDaniel

AbstractDetermination of a soil’s cation exchange capacity (CEC)

is a desirable exercise to include as part of an introductorysoils course or soils-related workshop. Many CEC deter-mination procedures, however, are time-consuming and oftenrequire equipment not readily available in teaching labora-tories. A rapid, simple, inexpensive procedure based on col-orimetric determination of Gentian Violet dye (GVD)adsorption was developed for use by students in an intro-ductory soils lab as an alternative to conventional cation ex-change determinations. A GVD solution is mixed with 2.0 gof mineral soil, shaken, and filtered. The color of the filtrateis measured using a spectrophotometer. Absorbance valuesare compared to standards from a range of samples of knownCEC. Differences in dye adsorption may be detected visuallyfor soils with CEC differences of I to 2 cmolc kg-~ or more.This allows the procedure to be used as a demonstration inlecture or lab.

THE of CEC is fundamental under-CONCEPT to anstanding of soils and their management. An ex-

ercise involving determination of CEC provideshands-on experience and helps illustrate the principlesof cation exchange. Unfortunately, most CEC deter-minations are time-consuming and require laboratoryequipment and skills that may be too advanced forsome teaching situations. For these reasons, exercisesinvolving CEC determination may not be included inintroductory soils courses and soils-related workshops.

Many different methods for determining CEC havebeen developed and often are specific for particularsoil conditions. Most of the procedures require sometype of soil pretreatment, saturation with an index cat-ion, and replacement of that cation with another(Rhoades, 1982). These methods involve several steps,are time-consuming, and require the use of laboratoryequipment, such as atomic adsorption units, whichmay not be available in an introductory soils teachinglab.

One type of colorimetric measurement that hasbeen used to determine CEC is adsorption of the cat-ionic dye, methylene blue. A procedure proposed byBrindley and Thompson (1970) requires an overnightequilibration period. Soon (1988) developed a proce-

W.R. Guertal, Dep. of Soil Science, Box 7619, North Carolina StateUniv., Raleigh, NC 27695-7619; and P.A. McDaniel, Dep. of Plantand Soil Science, Montana StaLe Univ., Bozeman, MT 59717. Re-ceived 30 May 1989. *Corresponding author.


dure that has only a 2-h equilibration period; however,it requires that a 0.25 mL aliquot of the supernatantsolution be pipetted into a tube containing 12.25 mLof distilled water. Transmittance of the resulting so-lution is then measured at 550 nm. The requirementof precise measurement of small quantities of solutionis a disadvantage for use in student laboratories.

Gentian Violet is another cationic dye that may beused for demonstrating the exchange properties of soil(Williams, 1985) (Fig. 1). When added to a soil, positively charged molecule is adsorbed by the nega-tively charged colloid surfaces, resulting in a loss ofsolution color. This visual phenomenon has been usedtbr laboratory and lecture demonstrations. Most of theprevious references to this technique have been strictlydemonstrative and qualitative. The following tech-nique provides a simple but semiquantitative proce-dure for determining CEC using GVD.

Materials and Methods

I. Soil Samples

Fourteen samples representing soils from through-out the state of North Carolina were used. All sampleswere air-dried, ground, and passed through a 2-mmsieve. Chemical characterization, including CEC, wasdone by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture(NCDA), Agronomic Division, Soil Testing Section.The CEC was determined by sum of cations usingMehlich III extractant.

2. Preparation of CEC Dye SolutionTen grams of GVD was mixed with 20 mL of

ethanol and brought to volume with distilled water ina 500-mL volumetric flask. This stock solution (20 L-0 was then used to prepare a working CEC dye so-lution with a concentration of 80 mg L-L At this con-centration, soils having high CEC values (10-20 cmolckg-0 appeared to remove most of the dye solutioncolor, while soils having low CEC values (1-5 cmolckg-0 removed very little of the solution color.

3. Preparation of Standard Curve

Fifteen samples were analyzed using the proceduredescribed in the following section. Only subsoil sam-ples were used to exclude effects of organic matter.


1.0n

0.8-tilo2 0.6 -\m

I °^m<

0.2-

0.0

r = 0.84

0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 20

CECFig. 2. Relationship between CEC and absorbance for subsoil sam-

ples.

Absorbance values of the samples obtained using theGVD procedure were plotted against the correspondingCEC values obtained from the chemical characteriza-tion performed by the NCDA Soil Testing Laboratoryto produce a standard curve (Fig. 2).4. Estimation of CEC

One hundred milliliters of GVD (80 mg L~') wasadded to 2.0 g of soil and stirred for 10 min. Themixture was gravity-filtered through Whatman no. 2qualitative (24-cm diam) filter paper. Approximately50 to 75 mL of the filtrate was collected and transferredto a cuvette and absorbance was determined at a wave-length of 580 nm using a Bausch and Lomb Spectronic20 colorimeter. Absorbance was compared with a stan-dard curve to estimate the CEC of each sample.

Results and Discussion

Gentian Violet is a very strong coloring agent. Evenvery dilute concentrations of the dye exhibit a darkpurple to violet color. The dye that is not adsorbedby a soil's exchange complex causes a dramatic changein filtrate color as the CEC decreases from 5 to 1 cmolckg-1 (Fig. 3). Relatively small differences in filtratecolor, however, are seen as the CEC increases from 6to 19 cmolc kg-1. Despite the lack of a linear relation-ship over the entire range of CEC values used in thisstudy, the procedure is able to consistently detect dif-ferences of approximately 1 to 2 cmolc kg-1 of subsoil(Fig. 2). The procedure is most useful for soils withCEC values ranging from 1 to 6 cmolc kg-1.

Determination of CEC of surface horizons contain-ing organic matter did not yield consistent results (rvalue = 0.23). Sorption of dye by soils containingorganic matter appeared to be influenced by factorsother than CEC. In general, the CEC of soils with or-ganic matter was underestimated using the GVD.Soon (1988) described similar problems with meth-ylene blue dye and suggested that the high degree ofaggregation and/or other characteristics associatedwith surface soils may inhibit the sorption of the dye.

Fig. 3. Filtrates obtained from dye procedure showing range in colorand corresponding CEC values.

Extraction of small amounts of organic compoundsmay also affect filtrate color.

Compared with other methods that can be used todetermine CEC in an introductory soil science labo-ratory, this procedure provides a quick and inexpensivealternative. Students can complete CEC determinationswithin approximately 30 min. Use of the procedurerequires only a colorimeter, some glassware, and filterpaper. In addition, the difference in filtrate color forsoils having different CEC values is sufficient to allowvisual comparison of samples without the use of acolorimeter (Fig. 3), which permits the procedure tobe used effectively as both a laboratory exercise andlecture demonstration.

General Considerations

1. Gentian Violet is a very strong coloring agent andwill stain skin and clothing. Care should be takenwhen handling the dye and students should beadvised to wear appropriate laboratory clothingand gloves.

2. All glassware used in the procedure should bewashed with a solvent such as ethanol after eachuse to remove residual dye. Failure to do so mayintroduce considerable error into the procedure.

3. Different filter papers will absorb differentamounts of dye. It is important to use the samegrade of filter paper for all determinations.

4. The procedure produces inconsistent resultswhen significant quantities of organic matter arepresent in the soil sample (such as soil from sur-face horizons).


Developing the ProfessionalMind-Set

B. Rodney Bertramson*

AbstractThe formal academic training of baccalaureate-level agron-

omists has left little time for development of a professionaloutlook specifically for those 80% of agronomy majors whoseek a career in the non-academic or applied area. In thecommercial arena of business, consultation, and litigation,needs for credentials differ from those in academia. In thebusiness world, the need for credentialing is to meetcompetitors who say, "I am an agronomist," but are not. Inpreparation for a non-academic career, a student requirestraining, challenges, and experiences beyond the narrow con-straints of course outlines-else risks becoming a highly ratedscholar bent on absorbing knowledge but not on applying it.Thus, one may be passed by in the market place. For non-academic employment, one should become a mission-orientedprofessional--one who specializes in a job, or assignment,and strives to do it better than anyone else. If one can takeon the mantle of a potential consultant, or helper, welcomingopportunities to serve in many and varied capacities, one willtake on the mind-set of a professional. Professionals mustprepare for change, meet it with enthusiasm, and use it totheir advantage.

T HE Morrill (Land-Grant) Act of 1862 provided forfinancial assistance to the states for training

young people in agriculture and the mechanic arts. Thepurpose of this education was to prepare these youngpeople to make a living through applying knowledgegained and to advance and implement technology--just as heretofore doctors, lawyers, architects, andministers had been prepared to serve a certain purposeas professionals. Agronomy departments (crop scienceand soil science) did not develop their professionalfranchise, or credentials, as quickly, or aggressively, asdid the departments of engineering colleges. They didnot establish a procedure of departmental accredita-tion nor was state licensing of agronomists imple-mented. Only in 1977 was certification of agronomistsinitiated by ASA through the American Registry ofCertified Professionals in Agronomy, Crops, and Soils(ARCPACS). The professional image of agronomygraduates who enter the nonacademic, or commercial,arena has developed more slowly than the professionalimage of engineers (1,2,3).

The engineers followed a pattern of credentialingstudents that has effectively established their profes-sion and provides instant identity of their training andexperience. The engineers established an accreditation

Department of Agronomy and Soils, Washington State Univ., Pull-man, WA 99164-6420. Version of a symposium paper presented atDiv. A-4, Session 6, of the ASA annual meeting in Anaheim, CA,30 Nov. 1988. Received 15 Dec. 1988. *Corresponding author.


of colleges of engineering in 1932 (7). Licensing states followed. No one doubts engineering is a profes-sion. Engineers enjoy an impressive public identity.The engineering undergraduates are made aware of thedemands of their profession to serve in nonacademe (3).They develop the attitude of practicing professionals.They are made aware of job-searching techniques, em-ployer relationships, the ethics and responsibilities ofprofessionals--the professional mind-set. In some col-leges of engineering, applicants for teaching faculty po-sitions must be licensed engineers.

In colleges of agriculture, little serious considerationhas been given to credentialing--either by accredita-tion of schools or a certification of students accordingto certain core course requirements and as graduatesof accepted land-grant schools or equivalents (2,3).

Professionalism is now becoming a sign of thetimes--a response to the demands of consumerism. Tosell one’s self today, one needs a trade-mark or a unioncard, whether it is a matter of traditional professionsor being a barber, a butcher, baker, or auctioneer (3).

Agronomists (crop scientists and soil scientists)have been slightly more progressive toward creden-tialing than have several other agricultural specialists(2). But, until recent years, nothing further was re-quired of an applicant for membership in ASA thanhis or her name, address, and the payment of annualdues. A Society consensus on definition of an "agron-omist" was lacking. The provincial response was, "Ev-erybody knows what an agronomist is." Unfortu-nately, no two agronomists agreed, and few of thepublic sector had any idea of what an agronomist was.A tentative definition was offered by the Chair of theBoard of ARCPACS based upon what agronomists do(3). Agronomists (crop scientists and soil scientists) the following:

1. Possess a body of distinctive technical knowledgeand art gained by education, research, and ex-perience

2. Recognize a service motive to society in vital andhonorable activities

3. Believe in standards of conduct, such as thoserepresented by ethical rules

4. Support a professional society and credentialingprogram that maintains standards for admissionto the society and for credentialing

5. Recognize the need for continuous, in-servicegrowth, or renewal, for the individual profes-sional throughout his or her career

6. Apply, with judgment, the knowledge of natural,mathematical, and social sciences gained bystudy, experience, and practice to enhance food,feed, and fiber production, while preserving andimproving the environment for the benefit ofmankind

On 16 Aug. 1983, ARCPACS Board of Directorsestablished minimum core requirements for certifi-cation to become effective in 1987 for agronomy (cropscience and soil science) majors for the several cate-gories of ARCPACS certificants. (These requirements


are listed in the brochure "Serving the Professionthrough ARCPACS.")

Progress toward professionalism in student think-ing has been made on several fronts. Much more isneeded in advising and training "professional agron-omists" so they graduate as "associate professionals"in the process of becoming certified by ARCPACS--much as engineers are licensed. How can this be ac-complished by a faculty with training, experience, andfocus mostly in the academic arena? How can theneeds of students who will go into nonacademic areasof employment as professionals be better served bymodern departments of agronomy? To serve this 80°6of future graduates, agronomy faculties can get muchhelp and ideas for training in professionalism and forcertification of majors by drawing on the experienceand practices of engineering departments. For creden-tialing other than going the route of accreditation ofdepartments, they can draw on the experience and pat-tern of one of the largest scientific and professionalsocieties, the American Chemical Society with 138 000members. Professional, practicing agronomists in thenonacademic arena can be retained on a consultingbasis to assist with advising and mentoring of thosestudents preparing for a nonacademic, professionalcareer.

Growing interest in alumni relations bodes well fornonacademic agronomists who, in the past, left thecampus with little continuing departmental contacts.It costs money for departments to maintain alumnirelations. It also helps draw legislative support to thecollege and to the department. This continuing dia-logue is needed to build a sense of loyalty and to de-velop the professional mind-set both for those who arealumni and for those who will become alumni, espe-cially those in nonacademe.

In his Presidential Address (1987), Dr. Robert Gastexpressed concern about the stiff competition futureagronomy professionals will face in the marketplace(5). Credentialing is sorely needed to show who is agronomist (4). Without promoting our product by well-known label, there will be tough times ahead inthe marketplace!

No agronomy major should graduate without athorough indoctrination as to what ARCPACS is andcan do, especially for those agronomists headed foroff-campus careers. Failure to get students to become"associate professionals" for eventual certification un-derscores the inadequacy of the agronomy indoctri-nation program for professionalism.

If the colleges of agriculture and departments ofagronomy (crops and soils) will do all of these thingsfor the professional training of students who will be-come nonacademic agronomists, then what can thestudents do to develop their professional mind-set andto carry forward the label of agronomist (crop scientistor soil scientist)?

Agronomy majors, especially those headed for anonacademic professional career, have to think interms of putting knowledge to work--a mission ori-entation. They should constantly seek reasons why the

knowledge is as it is, and how it applies in problem-solving because their success will depend a great dealon how well they work with their colleagues. There-fore, they should seek hands-on experiences while incollege, such as working in their agronomy clubs, vol-unteering for new and different assignments, acceptinginterim job opportunities over a wide range to broadentheir experience, and to gain information on non-academic activities off campus. They should learnfrom those who preceded them in this arena and pressfor contacts with alumni in professional, nonacademicroles. They should take field tours to agri-businessesand farm operations to learn more about the non-academic arena. They should check on how their en-gineering cousins are developing through professionalindoctrination programs of their engineering depart-ments. If the department offers a formal practicumcourse, as do forestry and other accredited depart-ments, this should be a part of their curriculum.

By all means, agronomy majors should attendprofessional and scientific meetings of a state, regional,or national level with an inquiring mind: "Why arethings as they are in society organizations? .... What arethe objectives of the society? .... What can I do in thesociety? .... How can I help make a difference?" Theyshould prepare for the earliest certification byARCPACS.

Agronomy majors need to be mindful of change!Change is ubiquitous and won’t go away. It is the pro-cess by which the future invades peoples’ lives. Un-fortunately, it is resisted by most people. There is aneed to recognize change, cope with it, use it to one’sadvantage. Meeting change with enthusiasm is essen-tial for success as a professional.

Professionalism is promotion and practice of thework ethic among those trained to serve a specializedfunction. Lippitt (6) defined professional asanyonewho specializes in a job and does it better than anyoneelse. He defined an academically derived professionas follows:

1. It is supported by a body of specialized knowl-edge

2. It requires academic and internship preparationof its members

3. It requires continuous in-service growth of itsmembers during their career

4. It affords a life career and a permanent mem-bership in a group with identified and similarcompetencies

5. It formally establishes standards of training andperformance for members of the professionthrough their scientific organizations

6. It maintains a code of ethics7. Its members constitute a strong, closely-knit

professional organizationIn addition, professionals individually and collectivelyaccept public responsibility for their sectors of society(2).

Professionalism is closely akin to religion. It dealswith principles, philosophies, behavior, and ethics. Itis not a subject easily handled with strangers. It is a

192 J. Apron. Educ., Vol. 19, no. 2, 1990

very personal matter with each individual. Awakeningan interest in, and commitment to, professionalismamong the 80% of graduates who will become prac-ticing agronomists is an essential part of their train-ing—to fulfill their role in the nonacademic world.

Agronomy students should understand the necessityin today's consumerism of certification and that itsreal value rests on the number and quality of regis-trants. Collectively they shall be known by theirservice to mankind. Hence, they should support andpromote ARCPACS, as engineers and others likewisesupport and promote their credentialing programs.They should resolve to commit a part of their time tothe upbuilding of their profession. They shall haveprofessional status only to the extent they create it forthemselves (6).

Can Agronomy be Appetizingto Non-Agricultural Students?

Zane R. Helsel* and Nan F. Unklesbay

AbstractNon-agricultural undergraduate students get very little ex-

posure to the science of agriculture, and that limited exposureusually conies from the mass media. To make agronomy andagriculture subjects more appealing to these students, acourse in the Honors College program was team-taught byan agronomist and a food scientist. The course, containinglecture and demonstrations on basic agronomy and relatedagricultural sciences, was approached from issues familiarto nonagricultural students. Examples of current topics de-bated included nonfood products from agriculture; food, nu-trition, and personal health; environmental quality; energyresources, and conservation. Scientific demonstrations on se-lected issues, content, and, of course, sensory evaluation offood products greatly aided making the course appetizing.Students rated the course as a very important part of theircollege program, they enjoyed both the palatable content andteam-teaching approach.

FOR THE 1980s, Bentley (1980) encouraged thebroadening of agricultural instruction to include

disciplines of public concern such as energy and en-vironmental quality. Jenkinson (1979) reported ondevelopment of such an introductory undergraduateagriculture course in Canada. Several institutions haveimplemented the concepts of this broader approach toZ.R. Helsel, Rutgers Coop Ext., P.O. Box 231, New Brunswick, NJ08903 (formerly Agronomy Dep., 214 Waters Hall, Univ. of Mis-souri); and N.F. Unklesbay, Food Science and Nutrition Dep.,Univer. of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. Missouri Agric. Exp.Stn. J. Ser. no. 10863. Received 10 July 1989. *Correspondingauthor.


agriculture and agronomy instruction. Connor (1989)recommended that the entire issue of service coursesby reexamined within Colleges of Agriculture acrossthe nation, suggesting that agricultural faculty have anobligation to provide general education courses relat-ing to such areas as food, world hunger, resource ecol-ogy, soil, and the environment.

Most undergraduate college students know littleabout the science of agriculture, and even less aboutagronomy. What little knowledge they possess usuallycomes from mass media sources. In recent years, jour-nalists have often portrayed agriculture as a pollutingand somewhat menacing industry to the health andwelfare of society. In the winter of 1989, a course wastaught for nonagricultural students to make the subjectof agronomy and related agricultural sciences palata-ble. The overall objective was to help nonagriculturalstudents better understand the science and the socialimportance of agronomy and related areas. The coursewas designed to help students learn pertinent factsabout the science of agronomy and agriculture andlearn to understand and interpret the many currentdiscussions on such agronomically related areas as en-vironmental pollution and U.S. and world food pol-icies. Connor (1989) recently emphasized that this typeof educational approach could also have ramificationsfor recruiting students into majors in the Colleges ofAgriculture.

Because this course was new and designed for non-agricultural students, it was important to advertise thecourse in an innovative manner. The Associated Deanof Resident Instruction cooperated by writing andtalking to her colleagues in other colleges (i.e., Collegeof Arts and Sciences, College of Education) to informthem of this unique course offering. The advisor chair-persons of four colleges were personally contacted andprovided with posters, informational brochures, andseveral course syllabi to assist them in advertising thiscourse to their advisees prior to registration. Althoughthe course was adequately advertised through aca-


demic and other channels, no preregistrations for thecourse were received. At this point, it was decided todrop the course offering for that semester.

Another route of opportunity was chosen to imple-ment this course. The University of Missouri-Colum-bia has an Honors College program, which is a flexibleand challenging course of study designed for studentswith a 3.3 or higher grade point average (on a 4-pointsystem). A wide range of courses are taught under thedesignation of the Honors College. Approval was ob-tained to teach a condensed two-credit version of thecourse, which was entitled "World Food and You" forthe Winter Semester of 1989. This course was ap-proved as a natural science course for these majors.Only about 10% of the students at the University ofMissouri-Columbia are eligible for the Honors Col-lege. With this small number, enough funds were avail-able to send out an informational pamphlet to all theHonors College students. This flyer contained infor-mation on the course and various comments aboutwhat the students could learn and why they shouldtake the course. For example, it was indicated thatthere would be weekly demonstrations on various foodproducts and that students would be able to "havetheir course and eat it too." More than 40 inquirieswere received from the over 2000 students to whomthe brochure was sent. The Honors College allows amaximum of 25 students per class, keeping the num-ber low to encourage discussion between the facultyand students. Enthusiasm ran high and numerous stu-dents who expressed an interest in this class wereturned away.

Structure of the Course

The formal objectives of the course were: (i) to sur-vey the basic scientific principles involved in foodproduction, processing, marketing, nutrition, and the

Table 1. Lecture and demonstration topics.

Lecture (no.) Demonstration

World population and fooddistribution (1)

World population and nutrientdistribution (1)

Food chain in the USA: soil,photosynthesis, N-cycle, etc. (2)

Food chain in the USA: crops andlivestock (2)

Food chain in the USA: processing,consumption, waste (2)

Production of plants and animals (4)Processing of plants and animals (3)

Nutrition (5)USA and foreign food policies (1)Chemicals in the food chain (2)

Energy in food production (1)Energy in food processing and

distribution (1)

Food for the 21st Century ResearchProgram (1)

Soy products

Corn (Zea mays L.) products

Extruded feed products from waste

Greenhouse plant nutrientdeficiencies

Industrial products from agriculture

Food for Peace ProgramFood additives/food packagingFats and oilsFat and lean meatsSensory analysis: Pork/soyhull

productsDaily nutrients (computer)Dietary fiber and foods

PesticidesDeep-fat fried insects/entomology

supporting agricultural systems; and (ii) to evaluateand understand current agricultural issues that affecthuman foods and required nutrients. The course wasdesigned as a two-credit course to be taught on Tues-days and Thursdays, using primarily the lecture style.Every Thursday during the last 15 min of the classperiod, however, a demonstration was given on a topicrelated to either the proceeding or upcoming lectures.General lecture and demonstration topics are outlinedin Table 1.

Evaluation of the students’ comprehension of thecourse materials was achieved through two semesterexams and a final exam that included true and false,multiple choice, and short answer questions. Studentswere also assigned two projects that supplemented thelecture topics. One project required the writing of anevaluation of a news article or presentation relating tofood and agriculture. Students selected and critiquedthe article on the scientific merit of the discussion andthe overall presentation of that subject. The other proj-ect was the selection and evaluation of a food product.Students were asked to determine the nutritional valueof the product and indicate where and how compo-nents of this product came from the agricultural sys-tem. Students were encouraged to participate in class,especially during the 15-min demonstrations. Somestudents brought items to discuss, while others askedquestions concerning the demonstrations. The stu-dents’ interests were incorporated into upcominglectures.

Student Reaction and Response

On the first day of class, the students were asked torank from 1 to 5 (5=highest) their knowledge of thefollowing three areas: agriculture, world and U.S. foodpolicy, and nutrition. This data was used to assist withthe development of lectures. On the last day of class,students were again asked to rate their knowledge ofthese three areas (Table 2). It is evident that the stu-dents thought the class helped them gain understand-ing in all three areas. Several indicated on their courseevaluations that they probably would have rankedtheir understanding higher at the end, but they actuallylearned how much they did not know!

Student participation was stronger than in the dis-cipline-oriented classes that the instructors teach. Thestudents’ inquisitiveness helped dictate the directionof some of the lectures. As an example, the Alar {dam-

Table 2. Student perception of their knowledge level in foodand agriculture.

Subject area

World foodDay of class Agriculture policies Nutrition

rating~

First day 2.53 2.00 2.41Last day 3.72 3.39 4.06

~" Rating scale on a basis of I to 5, with 5 being the highest perceived knowledgelevel.


inozide[butanedioic acid mono (2,2-dimethylhydra-zide)] concern with apple (Malus spp.) and the cyanideproblem in grapes (Vitus labrusca L.), which surfacedin the spring of 1989, created opportunities to relatelectures to chemicals in the food chain. These exam-ples were used to help students better understand whatpotential health and environmental problems mightor might not result from chemicals used in agriculture.Lectures and discussions at this time clearly aug-mented the cover stories in Time and Newsweek andthe coverage by such programs as 60 Minutes.

The students rated the demonstrations as very help-ful to their understanding of food and agriculture. Forexample, a demonstration on soybean [Glycine max(L.) Merr.] products served as a reference pointthroughout the course in talking about cholesterol, fiber,protein/amino acid balances, and N2 fixation. The stu-dents also responded very favorably to the discussionof these problems because it allowed them to criticallyevaluate mass media and consumer information thatthey encounter on a daily basis.

Students rated the concept of team teaching veryhighly in this course. Other team-taught courses incollege have tended to produce less favorable re-sponses. An agronomist and a food scientist taughtindividual lectures related to their disciplines, but alsoventured into each other's areas. Sometimes lectureswere split: demonstrations were worked on together,and often each instructor interacted in the class whenthe other taught. As Haque and Bradshaw (1986) havefound, the instructors experienced an easing of thetransition between inexperience and experience whenteaching outside each other's discipline; a stimulationof enthusiasm, support, and intellectual exchange; andan opportunity for immediate nonthreatening evalu-ation by the other instructor. The pitfalls of teamteaching that others have noted (Haque and Bradshaw,1986; McFee et al., 1980) were avoided. The benefitsof team teaching and the importance of course contentwere reflected in the score of 4.7 (5= highest) for theoverall student rating of the class.

Challenges

Several land-grant institutions already have taughtsimilar courses. They and other Colleges of Agriculturecould benefit greatly by emphasizing nutrition andfood issues in an agronomy/agriculture course to cre-ate an "appetizing" atmosphere for nonagriculturalstudents to learn the true nature of agriculture in theirlives.

The major challenge that many agricultural instruc-tors face is how to attract students from outside col-leges of agriculture. Any similar courses must bepromoted to a potentially large student body thatknows little about the science of agriculture. Addi-

tionally, the College of Arts and Sciences at the Uni-versity of Missouri-Columbia has required that alltheir students take certain core courses and has rec-ommended certain activities. This restricts the num-ber of available free electives. Creative promotionsuch as establishing a booth at the student union dur-ing registration sessions and actually being present tovisit with potential students could be helpful. TheHonors College allowed the course to be used for sci-ence credit. As a regular course taken by any student,additional approval would need to be obtained to al-low the course to be used as science credit for nona-gricultural students.

A second challenge faced in teaching the course wasthat students came from several different colleges withvery limited science background. Some of these stu-dents had never taken a science course other than ageneral biology and physical science class in highschool. It was extremely difficult, for example, to teachthe basics of plant and animal genetics or use simplechemistry terminology to discuss pesticide interactionin the environment.

There were many initial difficulties in attracting stu-dents and developing the proper methods and mate-rials to instruct the students on the basics of theagriculture sciences. But the course provided an ex-cellent opportunity to help nonagricultural studentsbetter understand the way in which agriculture andfood sciences affect their human existence. Given thedynamic field of agronomy and its impact on the entireagricultural scene, the mass media will be perpetuallyfocusing on issues ranging from chemical scares to bio-technological advances. The challenge to professorsinterested in teaching this type of course, therefore,will be to develop a flexible syllabus that can readilyincorporate current issues without compromising thedissemination of scientific knowledge. When studentsare encouraged to discuss current issues, such as Alarin apple and cyanide in Chilean grape, in an appro-priate scientific forum, their perception of the rele-vance of such a course to their future lives is increased.Hopefully, more agriculture faculty will experiencethis form of personal academic reward in their futurecareers.


Extension and Teaching SplitAppointments for Extension

SpecialistsD. R. Hicks and B. R. Durgan*

AbstractExtension specialists may have opportunities for split ap-

pointments with classroom teaching responsibilities. In thisarticle we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of ex-tension and teaching (E/T) split appointments from the per-spective of the individual and the teaching and extensionprogram areas. We define extension as noncredit teaching oreducational programming and teaching as resident educationin which classes are taught for credit. Advantages of E/Tappointments include keeping the extension specialists incloser contact with the academic environment, giving the spe-cialist visibility and contact with students, offering variabil-ity, challenge, and broader academic experiences, and pro-viding an opportunity to develop teaching materials that canbe used in both credit and noncredit situations. Advantagesfor institutions include making efficient use of faculty ex-pertise; broadening the classroom experience for students;keeping the specialist closer to the academic discipline andtherefore current, developing teaching materials that are use-ful in extension programs; and providing a more broad andbalanced exposure of faculty to students. Disadvantages ofE/T appointments for the extension specialist include careerand time conflicts, prevention of extension/research split ap-pointments, limitations on employment options in later ca-reer, and adverse effects on promotion and tenure consider-ation depending on an institution’s guidelines and philosophyrelative to promotion and tenure

SPLITAPPOINTMENTS faculty arefor nonextensionnot new; teaching and research splits have been

common appointments in land-grant universities. Splitappointments for extension faculty are relatively new.However, they are becoming more common as posi-tion descriptions for extension specialist positions arebeing redefined when positions are open (2). Most splitappointments for extension specialists are for exten-sion and research (2,10). Some split appointments in-volve teaching, however. This article reflects our phi-losophy based on our experiences with our extension/teaching (E/T) appointments.

Dep. of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, 411 Borlaug Hall, Univ. ofMinnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108. Contribution of the MinnesotaAgric. Exp. Stn. and Minnesota Ext. Ser., Paper no. 17 395, ScientificJournal Series. Presented at the 1986 American Society of Agronomyannual meeting as an invited paper at the Symposium on SplitAppointments. Received 18 Sept. 1989. *Corresponding author.


196 J. Agron. Educ., Voi. 19, no. 2, 1990

Good communication skills are essential qualitiesfor both an effective extension specialist and an ex-cellent classroom teacher. For this reason, extensionspecialists increasingly may be asked to take split ap-pointments for extension and teaching responsibili-ties. Following is a discussion of the advantages anddisadvantages of E/T split appointments, as we seethem, for the extension specialists and for the teachingand extension program areas. This article also reflectsour philosophy, based on our own experience and thoseof several of our colleagues who have split E/T ap-pointments and program responsibilities.

Advantages and Opportunities of Extension/Teaching Appointments

The following is a list of the advantages, as we seethem, of E/T appointments. We do not imply rankimportance by the order in which we discuss thesepoints.

Contact with Academic Environment. Classroomteaching provides the extension specialist the oppor-tunity for and the challenge of closer contact with theresident teaching portion of the academic environ-ment. With teaching responsibility, there is the ex-pectation of continual updating of technical expertise.That is not to say extension specialists are not tech-nically current in their subject discipline, but theteaching responsibility of meeting students helps stim-ulate academic currentness. Classroom teaching alsogive the extension specialist more contact with teach-ers from other disciplines and a greater sense of aca-demic involvement by being a part of the classroomteaching group.

Broader Academic Experience. The classroomteaching responsibility gives extension specialists abroader academic experience and brings them intocloser working relationships with other faculty withinand across departmental and collegiate boundaries.

Variety and Challenge. Broadening the responsi-bilities of any position introduces variety to the workexperience, which brings challenge and freshness to anindividual. This enhances the interest and vigor andmaintains the enthusiasm that one brings to his or herjob.

Visibility with Students. Classroom teaching pro-vides exposure of extension specialists to students theywould not otherwise have. This exposure has led tostudent interest in extension programs. "What do youdo when you are not teaching?" they have asked. Stu-dent exposure and knowledge of extension programsis extremely limited during their collegiate experience.This is a good opportunity for students to broadentheir experience and for the specialist to stimulate andencourage student interest in extension programming.

Student Contact--Recognition and Credibil-ity. Many of the clientele of the extension specialist(farmers, industry representatives, government em-ployees, county and area extension personnel, etc.) arecollege graduates (3,4). Classroom teaching could the first contact of a long professional relationship be-tween the extension specialist and members of theseclientele groups. To the students, teaching gives theextension specialist recognition as an academiciancomparable to his or her peers in the department.Teaching also establishes the academic credibility ofthe extension specialist with the students with whomhe or she will work professionally. This concept ofestablishing the scientific credibility of the extensionspecialist is very important because his or her exten-sion programs are more quickly accepted and the ex-tension specialist is more effective as an educator withthese individuals when they become members of theextension specialists’ clientele groups.

Peer Recognition. Classroom teaching gives the ex-tension specialist academic recognition with depart-mental and collegiate peers. The extension function issometimes not well known or understood by residentteachers, researchers, and administrators, and theremay be little or no interest in the extension functionamong one’s peers. Our peers, however, understandand care about "classroom teaching." Therefore,teaching gives extension specialists a special recogni-tion and "equality" with other academic peers in thedepartment, college, and the university.

Makes Use of Specialists" Expertise. Extension spe-cialists have a different and varied professional ex-perience, especially in solving practical problems. Witha teaching appointment, students are exposed to thisunique interest and expertise that enhances and broad-ens their educational experience. There is interest ingiving students more practical experience in problemsolving than most curriculums have offered in the past.The extension specialist as a teacher provides that di-mension to the teaching curriculum.

Develop Teaching Materials Useful in Exten-sion. Teaching materials can be developed for class-room teaching that are useful for extension programs.Durgan (1) and Strand and Miller (5,6,7,8,9) have veloped slide sets and authored fact sheets on plantidentification they initially used in the classroom andlater used in extension programs teaching plant iden-tification to such groups as county agents and countyweed inspectors.

Promotion, Tenure, and Salary Considera-tions. Many of the advantages that we have discussedfor E]T appointments are positive factors that enhanceand improve the considerations of promotion, tenure,salary, awards, and other professional recognition. Witha partial teaching appointment, one may receive morefavorable consideration during this very important ac-tivity simply because the system has had more expe-rience and is more comfortable with evaluating resi-dent teaching. The evaluation of one’s resident teaching

should also be useful to administrators when they eval-uate an individual’s extension educational programsbecause resident teaching is a demonstration of one’scommunication skills in another setting.

Disadvantages of Extension/Teaching Appointments

Time and Career Conflicts. Split appointments varyconsiderably in the official percent time for extensionand teaching responsibilities. Regardless of what thepaper appointment indicates, there is a conflict fortime between the two program areas, especially duringthe quarter or semester when the actual teaching oc-curs. For the extension program area, there are many"unplanned" activities that occur without considera-tion of other responsibilities. When a county agentmakes a request to a specialist, there is little sympathywhen an extension specialist is in the classroom. Man-agement of time such that both program areas receivea commitment comparable to the appointment is im-portant and may sometimes be difficult. We have man-aged this conflict by limiting our own teaching to onequarter per year.

Programs in both the extension and teaching areascan develop such that there may be a career conflict.The interests and effectiveness of the individual maybe high for both program areas such that the individualmay continue to do a good job in both areas, but notdevelop into an excellent or outstanding individual ineither. We believe limiting the split to no more than25% in one program area helps to minimize this po-tential conflict. Other ways to manage this conflictmight include (i) limiting resident teaching to onequarter or semester or (ii) teaching in your area expertise so materials developed for classroom use canalso be used in extension education.

Restrictions of Extension/Teaching Appoint-ment. An extension/research appointment with sup-porting funds and facilities is probably a more desirablesplit for extension specialists (2), especially for young,nontenured faculty. Our reason is that most univer-sities require faculty to have refereed publications fortenure and/or promotion. Because of the time and ca-reer conflicts we have just discussed, a three-way ap-pointment would be more difficult to manage andtherefore is not a desirable appointment. We recognizethat many faculty work some in all three program areas,as we believe most faculty should in applied scientificdepartments in colleges of agriculture. But we doubtthat many have formal appointments in all three pro-gram areas. Because three-way appointments are notdesirable, an E/T appointment would prevent one fromhaving a formal research appointment. Without a re-search appointment, the opportunity to author refer-eed publications may be limited.

Employment Option in Later Career. If the respon-sibilities of the two program areas are not well man-aged, it may be more difficult for individuals to es-tablish themselves as professional experts in their field,which may restrict employment opportunities, espe-cially during the later part of their careers. On the other


hand, the split appointment could be an advantage forthe extension specialist. Because of the more broadand varied work experience, there could be more em-ployment opportunities, particularly if one has ex-celled in either or both of the program areas.

Promotion, Tenure, and Salary Considerations. Welisted this point as an advantage, but it would be adisadvantage if the individual has problems managingthe time aspect such that their effectiveness and pro-ductivity are decreased compared with what it wouldbe without the split appointment. With lower pro-ductivity, professional recognition and rewards comeslower.

In summary, we believe an E/T appointment canbe a good combination for the extension specialist andthe institution. The two program areas supplementeach other and the formal responsibility of classroomteaching and extension teaching can be a rewarding,stimulating, and satisfying combination for the exten-sion specialist and the two programs (extension andteaching). However, there are potential problems foran untenured faculty member who has both extensionand research responsibilities. Having a formal teach-ing appointment may limit the amount of research anuntenured faculty member can conduct, therefore po-tentially limiting his or her promotion and tenure. Wehave discussed advantages and disadvantages from thespecialist's viewpoint and the advantages to the pro-gram areas. We have identified some disadvantages ofan E/T appointment for the extension specialist, but

we believe the advantages for the specialist and theprogram areas far outweigh the disadvantages. We en-courage extension specialists to consider E/T appoint-ments when the opportunity exists.

Vintage Plant ScienceTextbook Data Need

UpdatingDavid R. Hershey*

AbstractNo educator would probably utilize a 50-plus year old plant

science textbook; however, some of the vintage data in con-temporary plant science textbooks are >50 yr old and appearincomplete or obsolete. An example is the 1924 corn (Zeamays L.) plant elemental data of Latshaw and Miller, whichdo not include the essential elements Cu, B, Zn, and Mobecause their essentiality was not demonstrated until after1924. Plant science textbooks need to be carefully scrutinizedto determine whether all the vintage data they contain arestill appropriate.

CURRENT plant science textbooks often contain thesame vintage data that have been appearing in

texts for several decades. Unfortunately, some of theseDepartment of Horticulture, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD20742-5611. Scientific Article no. A-4927, Contribution no. 7970 ofthe Maryland Agric. Exp. Stn. Received 12 Apr. 1989. *Correspond-ing author.Published in J. Agron. Educ. 19:198-199 (1990).

data have become incomplete or obsolete as newknowledge is discovered. Thus, their inclusion in con-temporary texts, other than in a historical context,seems questionable. Examples of vintage data includethe corn plant (Zea mays L.) elemental data of Lat-shaw and Miller (1924), the chart showing nutrientavailability as a function of soil pH in Pettinger (1935),and the rye plant (Secale cereale L.) root and root hairnumbers of Dittmer (1937).

In the early 1920s, knowledge of agricultural plantelemental content was "rather limited and fragmen-tary" (Latshaw and Miller, 1924). To remedy this sit-uation, Latshaw and Miller did a classic study of theelemental analysis of'Pride of Saline' corn plants grownin 1920. Their research was extremely innovative anddetailed for its day. The analytical data, however, arenow incomplete because the essential elements Cu, Zn,B, and Mo were not measured, probably because theiressentiality was not demonstrated until after 1924. So-dium was also not measured, although the authorshypothesized that "sodium represented a considerableproportion" of approximately 1% of plant dry weightthat was not accounted for in the analysis. The dataare probably also somewhat high in the proportionsof certain elements, like Fe, because of "minute par-ticles of soil adhering to or embedded in the exteriorof the roots." The iron concentration of the root wasabout ten times that in the other tissues.

Considering the tremendous advances in analytical


methods and corn cultivars since 1924, an updatingof Latshaw and Miller's (1924) data for textbooks wouldbe highly desirable. Raven and Evert (1981) do presentcorn elemental data for all 13 of the essential mineralelements. Recent texts using Latsaw and Miller's datainclude Salisbury and Ross (1985), Pandey and Sinha(1986), Glass (1989), Noggle and Fritz (1983), Devlin(1975), Bidwell (1974), and Epstein (1972). Several ofthese texts do not cite Latshaw and Miller directly butderived the data from Miller (1938), who featured thedata in his textbook.

The full-color, classic chart for elemental availa-bility as a function of soil pH by Pettinger (1935) wasalso an innovative idea. The chart, however, had sev-eral weaknesses: the essential elements S, Cu, Zn, B,and Mo were not included, Al was incorrectly shownas increasing in availability as soil pH increased above8, and the bars for several elements disappear com-pletely at certain pH values. For example, the bar forNO3 disappeared above pH 8, indicating that none wasavailable. Pettinger's chart became obsolete in 1947when Truog (1947) introduced an improved version,which corrected the errors and omissions of Pettinger'schart, except for Mo. Unfortunately, black-and-whitecopies of Pettinger's chart are still appearing in text-books published in the 1970s and 1980s (e.g., Boodley,1981; Janick, 1986; Mastalerz, 1977), and the chart'serrors and omissions are not discussed. Pettinger's chartneeds to be completely retired and the updated ver-sions of Truog's chart used instead.

The vintage data of Dittmer (1937) are also widelyutilized in textbooks (e.g., Epstein, 1972; Glass, 1989;Klein and Klein, 1988; Kramer, 1983; Meyer et al.,1973; Raven and Evert, 1981). Dittmer's 619 km (387miles) of winter rye roots in 0.05 m3 (1.8 cubic feet)of soil is also listed as a world record by Guinness(McFarlen, 1988). Dittmer's study is a classic, but hisdata may be atypical for well-fertilized plants. Foehseand Jungk (1983) found that N or P deficiency causedup to a ninefold increase in root hair length and num-ber. Dittmer (1937) was very vague about his fertil-ization method, stating that the soil was "very lightlyfertilized with a mixture of sheep manure and Vigoro."Exact fertilizer amounts and analyses were not given.The words very lightly suggest the plants may havebeen nutrient-deficient.

Dittmer's data are still remarkable as indicated bytheir world record status. New root count data fromplants of known nutritional status, however, would behighly desirable, especially because root counting tech-niques have greatly improved since Dittmer's work.More relevant data might give root counts for plantsnormally grown in containers, like the tens-of-millionsof Christmas poinsettias (Euphorbia pulcherrima Willd.ex Klotzsch) or African violets (Saintpaulia ionanthaH. Wendl.) sold annually. Perhaps the chance to breaka Guinness world record will encourage more rootcounting.

Storey (1989) noted that many textbooks still givethe atmospheric CO2 concentration as 300 nLfL (300

ppm) when it is now about 350 jtL/L (350 ppm) be-cause of fossil fuel burning and deforestation.

The foregoing discussion was not meant as a crit-icism of the classic papers mentioned, only to makethe point that modern textbooks should have solid andcomplete data. Classic papers, such as those of Lat-shaw and Miller (1924), Pettinger (1935), and Dittmer(1937), could be presented in texts in the proper his-torical context or could be featured in books of classicscientific papers like the one by Janick (1989). No ed-ucator would probably consider utilizing a 50-plus yearold plant science textbook, yet some of the data ap-pearing in contemporary textbooks are that old andappear obsolete or incomplete. Plant science textbooksneed to be carefully scrutinized to determine whetherall the vintage data they contain are still appropriate.


Documents

NOTES - Agronomy · cordant recruitment effort may be effectively fostered among some of the brightest and most motivated uni-versity students. The objective of this article is to