C. Edrnund Marshall
Department of Agronomy University of Missouri Columbia, 65201
Chemistry for Students in Agriculture and Natural Resources
Students in colleges of agriculture and to some extent in departments of biology and applied biology have long felt that chemistry has been one of their main stumbling blocks. At the same time, the agricultural and biological faculty have been conscious of it as a source of friction with the department of chemistry or division of arts and science. Similar difficulties have been shared also by physics and mathematics. But because of the central position of chemistry as a link between biological and physical sciences the strains here are probably greatest. In 1966-67 the Division of Biology and Agriculture of the National Research Council, operating through its Commission on Education in Agriculture and Natural Resources, CEANAR, set up committees on chemistry, physics, and mathematics to examine the present situation and the prospects for future developments. Recommendations were sought which could he translated directly into changes in undergraduate curricula. The committee on chemistry prepared a report which was later reviewed by a "working group" which met in Washington in February, 1968. The original report was endorsed, with recommendations that certain aspects should he given even greater emphasis (see below). The printed "Proceedimgs" begins with the work accomplished a t the Washington meeting and then proceeds to the individual committee reports. In this account the report on chemistry will primarily be discussed with additional comments occasioned by views expressed in the Washington meeting. Needs in Chemistry
Students in the fields under consideration (agriculture, agricultural specialties, science, and applied sciences related to natural resources generally) need first a broad overview of chemistry in its relation to everyday living, then a clear concept of its applications, both direct and tangential, in their special fields. The depth required varies considerably, and three groups can he fairly clearly distinguished. 1) For some, one course in general chemistry (including an organic and biochemical component) is at present sufficient. If one projects present trends into the future, then chemistry is likely to penetrate even more deeply into all kinds of general biological and human considerations. This means that speeialties such as agricultural economies and rural sociology may eventually find the need for more than the first course in general chemistry provides. At present, however, we may assume that a
This article is a review of the Committee Report "Undergrduate Education in the Physical Sciences and Mathematics for Students in Agriculture and Natural Resources," Proceedings of a conference (1968, published 1970) available from: Division of Biology and Agriculture, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, D. C. 20418.
minimum of one general course, with suitable balance in subject matter, applies to students in certain fields in agriculture and natural resources. 2) A considerably larger group, namely all those concerned in agricultural production and in conservation of natural resources, need the further broadening into chemical and biochemical mechanisms, structures, and energy considerations which a second course offers. The two courses together should provide 8. hssic understanding of the impact of chemistry, both through biological and indutrial means, upon agriculture and resources. 3) Many undergraduates in the general aieas of agriculture and natural resources choose subject matter fields which require greater specialisation in chemistry or biochemistry. Clearly the first two courses should be of such depth that further sequences of courses can be built upon them. Since such advanced sequences are commonly designed for professional chemists and biochemists, the preparation provided by the first two courses should not be inferior in coverage or depth to what is required of these professional groups.
From these considerations the committee concluded that the first and second courses recommended should not be terminal courses, nor should they he watered-down versions of the regular chemistry sequences. At the Washington review conference these conclusions were reemphasized. Scope of Courses The First Course in General Chemistry
Two trends have caused changes in the content of first courses in chemistry in recent times. The first has been an increasing emphasis on quantitative physical chemistry, to the exclusion of some descriptive inorganic chemistry. The second has favored the introduction of components of organic chemistry into the first course. To some extent, and in certain institutions, there has been a decreased emphasis on demonstrations by the lecturer and on laboratory work by the student. The partial replacement of descriptive inorganic chemistry by physical chemistry has followed from the desire to present a fairly complete overview of chemistry in the first course. The committee endorsed the idea of ~resentinasuch an overview, and was, therefore, faced with the problem of defining descriptive inorganic chemistry for students in agriculture and biology. The list of elements which normally receive particular attention, namely, H, 0, N, Na, Mg, Al, Si, P, S, C1, I
