Articoli di riviste sul tema "Lansing Michigan State Agricultural College"

Abstract Michigan State Univ. (MSU) has a long history of rendering outstanding service to the citizens of Michigan, the nation, and the world. Founded in 1855 as the Agricultural College of the State of Michigan, the teaching institution soon began its tripartite mission of instruction, research, and public service. In 1862, the college became a prototype for the 68 land-grant colleges established under the Morrill Act. Now, 132 years later, MSU has 11 baccalaureate-granting colleges that offer more than 125 programs, many of these offering multiple fields of concentration, and an enrollment of ≈42,000 students.

Michigan State Univ. (MSU) offers 10 certificate programs through the Institute of Agricultural Technology. These programs are campus based, approximately three semesters in length, and include a professional internship. Efforts were made in horticulture to expand programs into major population centers through joint programs with community colleges. Cooperative agreements were developed with Grand Rapids Community College and with Northwestern Michigan College in Traverse City. Issues addressed in the agreements include recruiting, admissions, advising, financial aid, integration of curriculum from both institutions, distance-learning delivery through the CODEC system, instructional commitments from campus-based and adjunct faculty, procedures for transfer to bachelor's degree program at MSU, and graduation. The symbiotic relationship between the institutions has expanded curriculum opportunities in the local areas, increased accessibility to MSU Horticulture programs, and better serves the nontraditional student. Outreach efforts for academic programs complement the traditional outreach that has occurred through the Cooperative Extension Service.

Soybean vein necrosis virus (SVNV) is associated with an emerging disease in soybean producing regions of the United States. Soybean leaves with necrotic vein symptoms were initially noted in 2008 or 2009 in fields across Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky and SVNV was determined to be the causal agent (2). In 2012, widespread reports of SVNV were made across most soybean (Glycine max) producing states including the recent confirmation of SVNV in Iowa and Wisconsin (1). Foliar symptoms similar to those reported for SVNV were observed at approximately 1 to 10% incidence in soybean fields across Michigan in late August and September of 2012, including fields located in Cass, Ingham, Midland, Saginaw, and Van Buren counties. Symptoms included chlorosis and necrosis which initiated on the veins with subsequent spread across the leaf. An initial sample collected from the East Lansing Agricultural Research Station was confirmed to have SVNV with a polyclonal antibody using double antibody sandwich (DAS)-ELISA at AC Diagnostics, Inc. (Fayetteville, AR) and with reverse transcription PCR by Ioannis Tzanetakis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Additional samples from five fields were subsequently collected from Cass, Ingham, and Van Buren counties. Duplicate leaf tissue samples were tested with DAS-ELISA using the SVNV test kit (AC Diagnostics). All symptomatic leaf samples exhibited a strong positive reaction based on the optical density reading at 405 nm. Absorbance reading that exceeded the healthy soybean tissue by a standard deviation of +3× were considered positive. Total RNA was also extracted from each sample using the RNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen, Germantown, MD). Complementary DNA (cDNA) was generated using virus-specific LdetR and SdetR primers (2) with the High Capacity RT cDNA kit (Life Technologies; Carlsbad, CA). The cDNA was used as template for PCR with the SVNV-specific primers that amplify regions of the L (LdetF/LdetR) and the S (SdetF/SdetR) RNAs (1). Amplification products of the expected 297 and 861 bp size, respectively, were detected in all symptomatic samples while no amplification products were generated from healthy soybean plant tissues grown under greenhouse conditions. Significantly, this is the first documentation and confirmation of the widespread prevalence of SVNV across the state of Michigan in 2012. References: (1) D. L. Smith et al. Plant Dis. http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-11-12-1096-PDN . (2) J. Zhou et al. Virus Genes 43:289, 2011.

Journal of Agricultural Studies (JAS) would like to acknowledge the following reviewers for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Many authors, regardless of whether JAS publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers. Their comments and suggestions were of great help to the authors in improving the quality of their papers. Each of the reviewers listed below returned at least one review for this issue.Reviewers for Volume 8, Number 2AncaLuiza Stanila, CPA, RomaniaAngel Ramon Sanchez Delgado, Universidade federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, BrazilAriel Reinaldo Soto Caro, Universidad de Concepción, ChileArnaud Z. Dragicevic, IRSTEA, FranceBabak Mohammadi, University of Tehran, IranBenard Kiplangat Rop, University of Nairobi, KenyaBoumahdi Merad Zoubeida, University Blida, AlgeriaCamilla H. M. Camargos, University of Campinas, BrazilChenlin Hu, The Ohio State University, USACleber Duarte, University of Guararapes, BrazilEben von Well, Agricultural Research Council, South AfricaEliana Mariela Werbin, National University of Cordoba, ArgentinianElizabeth Amélia Alves Duarte, College Maria Milza-FAMAM, BrazilEric Krawczyk, University of Michigan, USAEwa Moliszewska, Opole University, PolandFábio Cassola, UNICAMP, BrazilFortune Ogo-ndah Awala, University of Port Harcourt, NigeriaGuitong Li, China Agricultural University, ChinaHedayatollah K. Soureshjani, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, IranJanerson Jose Coelho, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, BrazilJeferson Coutinho, Federal Institute of Science, BrazilJuliana Nneka Ikpe, Akanu Ibiam Federal Polytechnic, NigeriaMd. Sadique Rahman, ShereBangla Agricultural University, BangladeshMohamed Mattar, King Saud University, Saudi ArabiaMohammed El Basuini, Kagoshima University, JapanNkemkanma Vivian Agi, Rivers State University Port Harcourt, NigeriaRafael Cardoso Rial, Federal Institute of Mato Grosso do Sul, BrazilSabatino Cuomo, University of Salerno, ItalySahar Bahmani, University of Wisconsin at Parkside, USAServet Aras, Bozok University, TurkeyShakirudeen Abimbola Lawal, University of Cape Town, South AfricaShubha Kumari, ICARRCER, IndiaSina Nabaei, Azad University, IranSomaia Alkhair, Alzaeim Alazhari University, SudanSudu Hakuruge Pushpa Malkanthi, Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, Sri LankaToncho Gospodinov Penev, Trakia University, BulgariaTugay Ayasan, East Mediterrenaen Agricultural Research Institute, TurkeyUtkarsh R. Moon, Mahatma Gandhi College of Science, IndiaWossenie Shibabaw Mebratie, Bahir Dar University, EthiopiaZakaria Fouad Abdallah, National Research Centre, EgyptZeinab Mohammadi Shad, Iowa State University, USAZhao Chen, Clemson University, USA Richard WilliamsEditorial AssistantJournal of Agricultural Studies--------------------------------------Macrothink Institute5348 Vegas Dr.#825Las Vegas, Nevada 89108United StatesPhone: 1-702-953-1852 ext.521Fax: 1-702-420-2900Email 1: jas@macrothink.orgEmail 2: jas@macrothink.comURL: http://jas.macrothink.org

The Morrill Act of 1862 afforded the US states the opportunity to found state colleges with agriculture as part of their mission—the so-called "land-grant colleges." The Hatch Act of 1887 gave the same opportunity for agricultural experiment stations as functions of the land-grant colleges, and the "third Morrill Act" (the Smith-Lever Act) of 1914 added an extension dimension to the experiment stations. Overall, the end of the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th was a time for growing appreciation for, and growth of institutional education in the natural sciences, especially botany and its specialties, mycology, and phytopathology. This paper outlines a particular genealogy of mycologists and plant pathologists representative of this era. Professor Albert Nelson Prentiss, first of Michigan State then of Cornell, Professor William Russel Dudley of Cornell and Stanford, Professor Mason Blanchard Thomas of Wabash College, and Professor Herbert Hice Whetzel of Cornell Plant Pathology were major players in the scenario. The supporting cast, the students selected, trained, and guided by these men, was legion, a few of whom are briefly traced here.

Journal of Agricultural Studies (JAS) would like to acknowledge the following reviewers for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Many authors, regardless of whether JAS publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers. Their comments and suggestions were of great help to the authors in improving the quality of their papers. Each of the reviewers listed below returned at least one review for this issue.Reviewers for Volume 9, Number 3Ahmad Reza Pirali Zefrehei, Gorgan University, IranAlessandra M. Lima Naoe, Federal University of Tocantins, BrazilAlexandru Ioan Apahidean, Univ. of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, RomaniaAna Daniela Lopes, Universidade Paranaense, BrazilAnca-Luiza Stanila, ICPA, RomaniaAndré Luiz Rodrigues Magalhães, UFAPE, BrazilAngel Ramon Sanchez Delgado, Universidade federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, BrazilArnaud Z. Dragicevic, IRSTEA, FranceBenard Kiplangat Rop, University of Nairobi, KenyaCamilla H. M. Camargos, University of Campinas, BrazilCleber Duarte, University of Guararapes, BrazilDarwin Pangaribuan, University of Lampung, IndonesiaEben von Well, Agricultural Research Council, South AfricaEliana Mariela Werbin, National University of Cordoba, ArgentinianEmmanuel E. Omeje, University of Nigeria, NigeriaEric Krawczyk, University of Michigan, USAEric Owusu Danquah, CSIR-Crops Research Institute, GhanaFernando Rodrigues de Amorim, State University of Paulista (UNESP), BrazilGuitong Li, China Agricultural University, ChinaHabu Saleh Hamisu, National Horticultural Research Institute, NigeriaHedayatollah K. Soureshjani, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, IranJacquelin Teresa Camperos Reyes, São Paulo State University (UNESP), BrazilJorge A. López, University Tiradentes, BrazilJuliana Nneka Ikpe, Akanu Ibiam Federal Polytechnic, NigeriaLuh Suriati, Warmadewa University, IndonesiaMahyar Gerami, Sana Institute of Higher Education, IranMaría Francisca Perera, ITANOA, EEAOC-CONICET, ArgentinaMariana Esteves, Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture University of Sao Paulo, BrazilMohamed Mattar, King Saud University, Saudi ArabiaMohammed El Basuini, Kagoshima University, JapanMohammed Jamal Uddin, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), BangladeshNkemkanma Vivian Agi, Rivers State University Port Harcourt, NigeriaOlga Mykhailenko, National University of Pharmacy, UkraineRadu Liviu Sumalan, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary, RomaniaRaul Pașcalău, Banat's University, RomaniaSaiful Irwan Zubairi, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), MalaysiaSarir Ahmad, Abdul Wali Khan University, PakistanShubha Kumari, ICAR-RCER, IndiaSina Nabaei, Azad University, IranSudu Hakuruge Pushpa Malkanthi, Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, Sri LankaSybelle Mesquita Silva, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, BrazilToncho Gospodinov Penev, Trakia University, BulgariaTugay Ayasan, Osmaniye Korkut Ata University, TurkeyUtkarsh R. Moon, Mahatma Gandhi College of Science, IndiaZakaria Fouad Abdallah, National Research Centre, EgyptZeinab Mohammadi Shad, Iowa State University, USAZhao Chen, Clemson University, USA Richard WilliamsEditorial AssistantJournal of Agricultural Studies--------------------------------------Macrothink Institute5348 Vegas Dr.#825Las Vegas, Nevada 89108United StatesPhone: 1-702-953-1852 ext.521Fax: 1-702-420-2900Email 1: jas@macrothink.orgEmail 2: jas@macrothink.comURL: http://jas.macrothink.org

Journal of Agricultural Studies (JAS) would like to acknowledge the following reviewers for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Many authors, regardless of whether JAS publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers. Their comments and suggestions were of great help to the authors in improving the quality of their papers. Each of the reviewers listed below returned at least one review for this issue.Reviewers for Volume 8, Number 3Ai-Ping Wu, Hunan Agricultural University, ChinaAlessandra M. Lima Naoe, Federal University of Tocantins, BrazilAnca-Luiza Stanila, Agrochemistry and Environment-ICPA, RomaniaAngel Ramon Sanchez Delgado, Universidade federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, BrazilAriel Reinaldo Soto Caro, Universidad de Concepción, ChileArnaud Z. Dragicevic, IRSTEA, FranceBabak Mohammadi, University of Tehran, IranBenard Kiplangat Rop, University of Nairobi, KenyaBoumahdi Merad Zoubeida, University Blida, AlgeriaCamilla H. M. Camargos, University of Campinas, BrazilChenlin Hu, The Ohio State University, USACleber Duarte, University of Guararapes , BrazilEben von Well, Agricultural Research Council, South AfricaEliana Mariela Werbin, National University of Cordoba, ArgentinianElizabeth Amélia Alves Duarte, College Maria Milza-FAMAM, BrazilEmmanuel E. Omeje, University of Nigeria, NigeriaEric Krawczyk, University of Michigan, USAErnest Baafi, CSIR-Crops Research Institute, GhanaEwa Moliszewska, Opole University, PolandFábio Cassola, UNICAMP, BrazilFernando Coelho Eugenio, Federal University of Santa Maria, BrazilGeorgiana G. Codina, Stefan cel Mare University, RomaniaGuitong Li, China Agricultural University, ChinaHéctor S. Tavárez Vargas, Universidad de Puerto Rico, BrazilHedayatollah K. Soureshjani, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, IranJacquelin Teresa Camperos Reyes, São Paulo State University (UNESP), BrazilJanerson Jose Coelho, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, BrazilJeferson Coutinho, Federal Institute of Science, BrazilJiban Shrestha, Nepal Agricultural Research Council, NepalJoão Manoel da Silva, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, BrazilJuliana Nneka Ikpe, Akanu Ibiam Federal Polytechnic, NigeriaMohammed El Basuini, Kagoshima University, JapanOlga Mykhailenko, National University of Pharmacy, UkraineOscar Mitsuo Yamashita, Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, BrazilRadu Liviu Sumalan, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary, RomaniaRafael Cardoso Rial, Federal Institute of Mato Grosso do Sul, BrazilSabatino Cuomo, University of Salerno, ItalySaiful Irwan Zubairi, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), MalaysiaServet Aras, Bozok University, TurkeyShakirudeen Abimbola Lawal, University of Cape Town, South AfricaShubha Kumari, ICAR-RCER, IndiaSina Nabaei, Azad University, IranSomaia Alkhair, Alzaeim Alazhari University, SudanSybelle Mesquita Silva, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, BrazilThiago A. S. Oliveira, State University of Feira de Santana (UEFS), BrazilToncho Gospodinov Penev, Trakia University, BulgariaTugay Ayasan, Osmaniye Korkut Ata University, TurkeyUtkarsh R. Moon, Mahatma Gandhi College of Science, IndiaWossenie Shibabaw Mebratie, Bahir Dar University, EthiopiaZakaria Fouad Abdallah, National Research Centre, EgyptZeinab Mohammadi Shad, Iowa State University, USAZhao Chen, Clemson University, USA Richard WilliamsEditorial AssistantJournal of Agricultural Studies--------------------------------------Macrothink Institute5348 Vegas Dr.#825Las Vegas, Nevada 89108United StatesPhone: 1-702-953-1852 ext.521Fax: 1-702-420-2900Email 1: jas@macrothink.orgEmail 2: jas@macrothink.comURL: http://jas.macrothink.org

Journal of Agricultural Studies (JAS) would like to acknowledge the following reviewers for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Many authors, regardless of whether JAS publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers. Their comments and suggestions were of great help to the authors in improving the quality of their papers. Each of the reviewers listed below returned at least one review for this issue.Reviewers for Volume 9, Number 2Ai-Ping Wu, Hunan Agricultural University, ChinaAlessandra M. Lima Naoe, Federal University of Tocantins, BrazilAlexandra-Nadia Cirdei, Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest, RomaniaAlexandru Ioan Apahidean, Univ. of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, RomaniaAna Daniela Lopes, Universidade Paranaense, BrazilAnca-Luiza Stanila, ICPA, RomaniaAndré Luiz Rodrigues Magalhães, UFAPE, BrazilAngel Ramon Sanchez Delgado, Universidade federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, BrazilArnaud Z. Dragicevic, IRSTEA, FranceCleber Duarte, University of Guararapes, BrazilDarwin Pangaribuan, University of Lampung, IndonesiaEben von Well, Agricultural Research Council, South AfricaEliana Mariela Werbin, National University of Cordoba, ArgentinianEric Krawczyk, University of Michigan, USAEric Owusu Danquah, CSIR-Crops Research Institute, GhanaErnest Baafi, CSIR-Crops Research Institute, GhanaEwa Moliszewska, Opole University, PolandFernando Coelho Eugenio, Federal University of Santa Maria, BrazilFernando Rodrigues de Amorim, State University of Paulista (UNESP), BrazilHabu Saleh Hamisu, National Horticultural Research Institute, NigeriaHedayatollah K. Soureshjani, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, IranJoão Manoel da Silva, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, BrazilJorge A. López, University Tiradentes, BrazilJuliana Nneka Ikpe, Akanu Ibiam Federal Polytechnic, NigeriaMahyar Gerami, Sana Institute of Higher Education, IranMariana Esteves, Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture University of Sao Paulo, BrazilMohammed El Basuini, Kagoshima University, JapanMpho Tshikororo, University of Venda, South AfricaNkemkanma Vivian Agi, Rivers State University Port Harcourt, NigeriaRadu Liviu Sumalan, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary, RomaniaRaul Pașcalău, Banat's University, RomaniaSaiful Irwan Zubairi, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), MalaysiaSait Engindeniz, Ege University Faculty of Agriculture, TurkeySamir Neggaz, Université Oran, AlgeriaServet Aras, Bozok University, TurkeyShubha Kumari, ICAR-RCER, IndiaSina Nabaei, Azad University, IranSybelle Mesquita Silva, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, BrazilToncho Gospodinov Penev, Trakia University, BulgariaTugay Ayasan, Osmaniye Korkut Ata University, TurkeyUtkarsh R. Moon, Mahatma Gandhi College of Science, IndiaWossenie Shibabaw Mebratie, Bahir Dar University, EthiopiaZakaria Fouad Abdallah, National Research Centre, Egypt Richard WilliamsEditorial AssistantJournal of Agricultural Studies--------------------------------------Macrothink Institute5348 Vegas Dr.#825Las Vegas, Nevada 89108United StatesPhone: 1-702-953-1852 ext.521Fax: 1-702-420-2900Email 1: jas@macrothink.orgEmail 2: jas@macrothink.comURL: http://jas.macrothink.org

Journal of Agricultural Studies (JAS) would like to acknowledge the following reviewers for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Many authors, regardless of whether JAS publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers. Their comments and suggestions were of great help to the authors in improving the quality of their papers. Each of the reviewers listed below returned at least one review for this issue.Reviewers for Volume 8, Number 4Ahmed Mohamed Elbeltagi, Mansoura University, EgyptAi-Ping Wu, Hunan Agricultural University, ChinaAlessandra M. Lima Naoe, Federal University of Tocantins, BrazilAlexandra-Nadia Cirdei, Technical Univ. of Civil Engineering of Bucharest, RomaniaAlexandru I. Apahidean, Univ. of Agricultural Sciences&Veterinary Medicine, RomaniaAnca-Luiza Stanila, National Research Institute for Soil Science, RomaniaAngel Ramon Sanchez Delgado, Universidade federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, BrazilArnaud Z. Dragicevic, IRSTEA, FranceAshit Kumar Paul, Patuakhali Science and Technology University, BangladeshBenard Kiplangat Rop, University of Nairobi, KenyaBoumahdi Merad Zoubeida, University Blida, AlgeriaDarwin Pangaribuan, University of Lampung, IndonesiaEben von Well, Agricultural Research Council, South AfricaEliana Mariela Werbin, National University of Cordoba, ArgentinianElizabeth Amélia Alves Duarte, College Maria Milza-FAMAM, BrazilEric Krawczyk, University of Michigan, USAEwa Moliszewska, Opole University, PolandFábio Cassola, UNICAMP, BrazilFernando Coelho Eugenio, Federal University of Santa Maria, BrazilFernando Rodrigues de Amorim, State University of Paulista (UNESP), BrazilGeorgiana G. Codina, Stefan cel Mare University, RomaniaGuitong Li, China Agricultural University, ChinaHabu Saleh Hamisu, National Horticultural Research Institute, NigeriaHéctor S. Tavárez Vargas, Universidad de Puerto Rico, BrazilHedayatollah K. Soureshjani, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, IranJoão Manoel da Silva, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, BrazilJorge A. López, University Tiradentes, BrazilJuliana Nneka Ikpe, Akanu Ibiam Federal Polytechnic, NigeriaMahyar Gerami, Sana Institute of Higher Education, IranMaría Elena Estrada Martínez, Universidad Metropolitana, EcuadorMaría Francisca Perera, ITANOA, EEAOC-CONICET, ArgentinaMohammed El Basuini, Kagoshima University, JapanNkemkanma Vivian Agi, Rivers State University Port Harcourt, NigeriaOlga Mykhailenko, National University of Pharmacy, UkraineOscar Mitsuo Yamashita, Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, BrazilSaiful Irwan Zubairi, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), MalaysiaSarir Ahmad, Abdul Wali Khan University, PakistanServet Aras, Bozok University, TurkeyShaibu Baanni Azumah, University for Development Studies, GhanaShakirudeen Abimbola Lawal, University of Cape Town, South AfricaShubha Kumari, ICAR-RCER, IndiaSina Nabaei, Azad University, IranSomaia Alkhair, Alzaeim Alazhari University, SudanSybelle Mesquita Silva, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, BrazilToncho Gospodinov Penev, Trakia University, BulgariaUtkarsh R. Moon, Mahatma Gandhi College of Science, IndiaWossenie Shibabaw Mebratie, Bahir Dar University, EthiopiaZakaria Fouad Abdallah, National Research Centre, EgyptZhao Chen, Clemson University, USA Richard WilliamsEditorial AssistantJournal of Agricultural Studies--------------------------------------Macrothink Institute5348 Vegas Dr.#825Las Vegas, Nevada 89108United StatesPhone: 1-702-953-1852 ext.521Fax: 1-702-420-2900Email 1: jas@macrothink.orgEmail 2: jas@macrothink.comURL: http://jas.macrothink.org

Journal of Agricultural Studies (JAS) would like to acknowledge the following reviewers for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Many authors, regardless of whether JAS publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers. Their comments and suggestions were of great help to the authors in improving the quality of their papers. Each of the reviewers listed below returned at least one review for this issue.Reviewers for Volume 9, Number 1Ahmed Mohamed Elbeltagi, Mansoura University, EgyptAi-Ping Wu, Hunan Agricultural University, ChinaAlessandra M. Lima Naoe, Federal University of Tocantins, BrazilAlexandra-Nadia Cirdei, Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest, RomaniaAlexandru Ioan Apahidean, UASVM, RomaniaAna Daniela Lopes, Universidade Paranaense, BrazilAnca-Luiza Stanila, ICPA, RomaniaAngel Ramon Sanchez Delgado, Universidade federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, BrazilArnaud Z. Dragicevic, IRSTEA, FranceBenard Kiplangat Rop, University of Nairobi, KenyaCleber Duarte, University of Guararapes, BrazilDarwin Pangaribuan, University of Lampung, IndonesiaEben von Well, Agricultural Research Council, South AfricaEric Krawczyk, University of Michigan, USAEric Owusu Danquah, CSIR-Crops Research Institute, GhanaFábio Cassola, UNICAMP, BrazilFernando Coelho Eugenio, Federal University of Santa Maria, BrazilGuitong Li, China Agricultural University, ChinaHabu Saleh Hamisu, National Horticultural Research Institute, NigeriaHedayatollah K. Soureshjani, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, IranJanerson Jose Coelho, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, BrazilJoão Manoel da Silva, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, BrazilJorge A. López, University Tiradentes, BrazilMahyar Gerami, Sana Institute of Higher Education, IranMaría Elena Estrada Martínez, Universidad Metropolitana, EcuadorMaría Francisca Perera, ITANOA, EEAOC-CONICET, ArgentinaMariana Esteves, Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture University of Sao Paulo, BrazilMd. Sadique Rahman, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, BangladeshNeha Jha, Massey University New Zealand, New ZealandNkemkanma Vivian Agi, Rivers State University Port Harcourt, NigeriaOlga Mykhailenko, National University of Pharmacy, UkraineOscar Mitsuo Yamashita, Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, BrazilRaul Pașcalău, BUASVM, RomaniaSaiful Irwan Zubairi, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), MalaysiaSamir Neggaz, Université Oran, AlgeriaSarir Ahmad, Abdul Wali Khan University, PakistanShakirudeen Abimbola Lawal, University of Cape Town, South AfricaShubha Kumari, ICAR-RCER, IndiaSomaia Alkhair, Alzaeim Alazhari University, SudanSybelle Mesquita Silva, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, BrazilToncho Gospodinov Penev, Trakia University, BulgariaUtkarsh R. Moon, Mahatma Gandhi College of Science, IndiaWossenie Shibabaw Mebratie, Bahir Dar University, EthiopiaZakaria Fouad Abdallah, National Research Centre, EgyptZhao Chen, Clemson University, USA Richard WilliamsEditorial AssistantJournal of Agricultural Studies--------------------------------------Macrothink Institute5348 Vegas Dr.#825Las Vegas, Nevada 89108United StatesPhone: 1-702-953-1852 ext.521Fax: 1-702-420-2900Email 1: jas@macrothink.orgEmail 2: jas@macrothink.comURL: http://jas.macrothink.org

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>* </span><span>A previous versions of this article was published in C. James Newlan’s journal, T</span><span>HE </span><span>S</span><span>OCIAL </span><span>C</span><span>RITIC</span><span>, </span><span>as Ellis Washington, </span><span>Excluding the Exclusionary Rule</span><span>, 3 T</span><span>HE </span><span>S</span><span>OC</span><span>. C</span><span>RITIC </span><span>(1998), and in E</span><span>LLIS </span><span>W</span><span>ASHINGTON</span><span>, T</span><span>HE </span><span>I</span><span>NSEPARABILITY OF </span><span>L</span><span>AW AND </span><span>M</span><span>ORALITY</span><span>: T</span><span>HE </span><span>C</span><span>ONSTITUTION</span><span>, N</span><span>ATURAL </span><span>L</span><span>AW AND THE </span><span>R</span><span>ULE OF </span><span>L</span><span>AW </span><span>16-28 (2002) [</span><span>hereinafter </span><span>W</span><span>ASHINGTON</span><span>, I</span><span>NSEPARABILITY OF </span><span>L</span><span>AW AND </span><span>M</span><span>ORALITY</span><span>]. For a comprehensive legal and historical analysis regarding the integration of the rule of law, jurispru- dence, and society in modern times, </span><span>see generally </span><span>Ellis Washington, </span><span>Reply to Judge Richard A. Posner on the Inseparability of Law and Morality</span><span>, 3 R</span><span>UTGERS </span><span>J. L. &amp; R</span><span>ELIG</span><span>. 1 (2001-2002); </span><span>The Nuremberg Trials: The Death of the Rule of Law </span><span>(In International Law), 49 L</span><span>OY</span><span>. L. R</span><span>EV</span><span>. 471-518 (2003). </span></p><p><span>** </span><span>Ellis Washington, DePauw University; B.A. 1983, University of Michigan; M.M. 1986, John Marshall Law School; J.D. 1994. The author an editor at the U</span><span>NIVERSITY OF </span><span>M</span><span>ICHIGAN </span><span>L</span><span>AW </span><span>R</span><span>EVIEW </span><span>and a law clerk for the Rutherford Institute. He was a faculty member at Davenport University and member of the Board of Visitors at Ave Maria School of Law. Currently, Mr. Washington is a freelance writer and lecturer at high schools, universities, and law schools throughout America specializing in the history of law, legal and political philosophy, jurisprudence, constitutional law, critical race theory, and legal feminist theory. He also teaches composition at Lansing Community College. In addition to numerous articles, he has published three books: T</span><span>HE </span><span>D</span><span>EVIL IS IN THE </span><span>D</span><span>ETAILS</span><span>: E</span><span>SSAYS ON </span><span>L</span><span>AW</span><span>, R</span><span>ACE</span><span>, P</span><span>OLITICS AND </span><span>R</span><span>ELIGION </span><span>(1999); B</span><span>EYOND </span><span>T</span><span>HE </span><span>V</span><span>EIL</span><span>: E</span><span>SSAYS IN THE </span><span>D</span><span>IALECTICAL </span><span>S</span><span>TYLE OF </span><span>S</span><span>OCRATES </span><span>(2000, 2004); T</span><span>HE </span><span>I</span><span>NSEPRABILITY OF </span><span>L</span><span>AW AND </span><span>M</span><span>ORALITY</span><span>: T</span><span>HE </span><span>C</span><span>ONSTITUTION</span><span>, N</span><span>ATURAL </span><span>L</span><span>AW AND THE </span><span>R</span><span>ULE OF </span><span>L</span><span>AW </span><span>(2002). His article, </span><span>The Nuremberg Trials: The Death of the Rule of Law (In International Law)</span><span>, 49 L</span><span>OY</span><span>. L. R</span><span>EV</span><span>. 471-518 (2003), has received both national and international recognition and has been accepted into many prestigious archives and collections including–Chambers Library of the Supreme Court of the United States, State Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau, The Simon Wiesenthal Center, The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. </span></p><p><span>*Exceeding gratitude to my friend, attorney Che Ali Karega (a.k.a. “Machiavelli”) for his antagonism, advice, ideas, source materials, and inspiration. To Arthur LaBrew, musicologist and historian, founder Michigan Music Research Center (Detroit), for his prescient comments and attention to detail on earlier drafts of the Article. To C. James Newlan, publisher of the Journal, T</span><span>HE </span><span>S</span><span>OCIAL </span><span>C</span><span>RITIC</span><span>, for being my friend, my first publisher, an intellectual, a visionary, and the first person to believe that I had ideas worthy to be published and read. </span></p></div></div></div>

About 25% of women in the United States are obese prior to becoming pregnant. Although there is some knowledge about the relationship between the gastrointestinal microbiota and obesity, there is little knowledge about the relationship between pre‐pregnancy obesity and the gastrointestinal microbiota in pregnancy. We are in the first phases of developing birth cohorts in the state of Michigan to assess the associations between pre‐pregnancy obesity and maternal and infant gastrointestinal microbial communities. Women were recruited at Obstetric/Gynecological offices in the greater Lansing and Traverse City areas. To date, 40 mother/infant dyads have enrolled. Participants complete questionnaires as well as submit fecal samples. Fecal samples are collected from the mother in her third trimester of pregnancy and from the infants at one week, six months, 12 months and 24 months of age. This research population is unique because the majority of participating moms are unmarried, have not graduated from college, and have an annual household income of less than $25,000. 35% of the currently enrolled moms had smoked at some point in their life. Of the 32 moms from whom we've collected fecal samples, 34% are obese (BMI≥30), 22% are overweight (25≤BMI<30) and 44% are normal weight (18.5≤BMI<25). Nine moms had used antibiotics in the year prior to becoming pregnant. Over 50% (n=18) of the moms reported at least one allergic or intestinal health problem. Five of the mothers have given birth to three or more babies. Of the 26 babies from whom we've collected fecal samples, 65% were exclusively breastfed, 4% (n=1) were exclusively formula‐fed, and 31% (n=8) were fed between 20–80% human milk. DNA has been extracted from the pregnancy and infant one week samples of 26 participanting dyads. 16S rRNA gene libraries have been created and submitted for sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq platform. Data will be processed with the Mothur curation pipeline. Using the data collected from these cohorts, we will determine the associations between maternal pre‐pregnancy BMI and the gastrointestinal bacterial communities in pregnant women and their infants as well as compare the microbiota of the mother to that of her infant.Support or Funding InformationMichigan State University and NIH UG3 OD023285

Sometimes people engage in joking talk that might be characterized as blatantly sexist.1 A judgmental label such as "sexist" does not mean the same thing to different people. I've picked instances of joking that I think most readers would judge as sexist. That is not a claim that the participants themselves orient to the talk as sexist; or if they did, that they would agree that such joking is problematic. Indeed, one purpose of undertaking such analysis is to attempt to characterize what the talk is and what it is doing for its producers in the first place. What do people accomplish in and through joking based on negative sexual stereotypes? Three examples are presented below. One involves demeaning joking about categories of women; the other two involve demeaning joking about particular individuals. 2 In all three cases, this talk provides a resource for participants to mark aspects of identity and relationship while furthering joking and laughter. The laughables and laughter provide sequential warrants for extending such talk. Furthermore, analysis will show how participants may implicate themselves more or less in offensive talk; there are minimal ways to play along just as there are ways to mark one's full cooperation in what is getting said. These issues will be taken up in the discussion of each instance and in the closing remarks. Example 1: Stan and Dave Two university students are talking on the phone. At the moment of interest, Stan is telling of his recent whereabouts. Dave takes this mention of a wedding to make a comment (line 39) that opens up a sequence of demeaning talk about women: Dave's initial assessment of the "wool" at weddings is gratuitous in that it takes one element from Stan's prior telling and uses it to sexualize the talk. Weddings are now occasions for noticing good-looking women. Stan immediately agrees with Dave's assessment3 and provides an alternative term, "coot" (line 40), thereby implicating himself fully in the demeaning talk. Their use of metaphorical language helps key a shift into a play frame (Goffman, 1974), and they sustain it with additional metaphors ("shit," "dog meat"). Stan compares girls "down here" (in the college town) to the city girls "up there" (in the big city in that state) in terms of their desirability, sexual availability, and demeanor (lines 44-54). They compare overweight girls to livestock and laugh (lines 58-66). Following Dave's laughter, Stan poses a question that takes them to another topic (lines 67-68). The sexist nature of this talk lies both in the activities done and in the terms used in doing those actions. They refer to women in colloquial, sexual, reductionistic terms, based on the objectifying male gaze. They assess women as either good-looking and a "challenge" or overweight but "easy to grease," both sets of comparisons playing on derogatory stereotypes (cold/standoffish v. easy/sluttish; thin/desirable v. overweight/undesirable). They compare women to wool, coot, shit, dog meat, and livestock. We can see these young men doing identity and relationship work through this talk. By making the blanket assertion about "wool" at weddings, Dave positions himself as worldly and knowledgeable enough to make this assessment. Stan's agreement asserts his membership in the club of discerning, heterosexual male. They claim knowledge of whether women are "easy to grease" or not. Dave positions himself as picking and choosing women for sexual partners, provided they keep themselves thin enough. They are also accomplishing relationship work. Dave is the leader who initiates the assessments. Stan is the follower who reinforces Dave's claims and laughs at Dave's jokes. "Women" serve as topical resources for these endeavors. Example 2: Dan and Jeff Two men talk on the phone, interspersing playful joking with family news and business (Apparently, Dan manages an apartment complex and Jeff does work for him). After a couple of minutes of conversation, Jeff asks Dan's Thanksgiving holiday plans and Dan replies that he and his wife will leave town and leave another person in charge of the apartments. Reference to this person moves them into blatantly sexist talk: Dan's initial reference to Dana as "one a the girls" (line 79) genders the scene4 , but he does not refer to the specific woman until following Jeff's show of interest (line 82). He identifies the "girl" by first name only in a question that calls on Jeff to confirm recognition of her. Jeff does so by providing an additional descriptor of her as having "big- wangers" (line 84)--hearable as a colloquialism for breasts. Jeff's questioning intonation invites Dan to confirm that they are talking about the same person. In this way it slips sexism in as part of the ongoing talk activity5 . It also serves to shift the talk from the topic of holiday plans to Donna and her appearance. Dan produces an unenthusiastic confirmation (line 86) and a nonsexual reference to her by a room location (lines 88-89). Jeff again assesses while shifting the referent from breasts to the whole person ("Big girl, bi:g.="). Dan seconds this assessment and links back to the previous "wangers" reference by adding that "everything's" big on her. Jeff's expressed appreciation (line 94) of Donna draws laughter from Dan but no reciprocal appreciation. Jeff again appreciates (line 98) and Dan agrees but does not share the assessment, implicitly marking it as Jeff's alone (lines 100-101). Dan then asks Jeff's holiday plans, and this moves them away from the playful talk about Donna. Like in the preceding instance, here both playfulness and sexism get keyed by an assessment employing metaphoric language that reduces a woman to a (presumably sexually attractive) body part and instantiates the objectifying male gaze. By this assessment, Jeff identifies himself as heterosexual male who notices women's possible sexual attractiveness. Unlike the previous instance, however, here a co-participant displays some resistance (Glenn, 2003, p. 150). "Wangers" poses a test of sorts for Dan: to "get it" he must recognize the colloquialism, know what constitutes "big," and show whether or not he has noticed this part of Donna's anatomy. To do so is to participate in sexist talk. Dan shows that he understands the talk and has noticed Dana's appearance; he also shows resistance to participating in the sexualized assessments of her. Nevertheless, the "wangers" talk provides a resource for pulling them into joking interaction. While joking they can display identities as heterosexual males who recognize and can talk about sexual, visual features of women. Example 3: W and T Two university students talk in a dormitory room6 . W is telling a story about Monica, who is his "little sister" via his fraternity. Such a relationship implies in part that they spend time together in non-dating, non-sexual relationship. As we pick up on the story in progress, he is telling about her coming out of her room and asking him how she looks. His reference to not starting with her "on the wrong foot" suggests that she was treating him (inappropriately) like a date. In overlap with his talk that would return to events in the story (line 34), T offers a negative assessment of Monica's looks. From there they move into joking talk about Melissa as a possible sexual partner: T packages his assessment of Monica's looks (lines 35-36) with a tag question that explicitly seeks W's agreement. W's ambiguous response marks his unwillingness to agree with the assessment. Orienting to this, T produces a subsequent version (Davidson, 1984) that begins with a more positive but also more explicitly sexual description (lines 39-40). W affiliates by assessing Monica's breasts (line 42). This line also helps key a shift into playfulness by its repetition of the three part assessment: "XXX little XXX" ("nice litt:le- bo:dy" and "cute little breasts"). 7 In a mock-Southern dialect (associated with a stereotypical "redneck" identity), T invokes and then declines the possibility of doing her violence (line 44). W affiliates in expressing sexual desire "in character" also using a mock-Southern dialect (lines 46, 48-49). He makes a sexual pun on the word "rise" (51) which T reworks (52). After lengthy shared laughter, W resumes his story (line 58). These two young men talk about Monica, not as a "little sister" (her role in W's story) but as a sexual object. They describe her body parts in demeaning terms. They invoke joking identities as sexually violent characters who might consider killing a girl if she isn't attractive enough. They get to this talk by T derailing W's story in progress and W going along with the derailment. Derailing the story also means unmasking W's character in the story as someone who is concerned that his "little sister" might be treating him as a date. Dislodging W's big brother identity brings him to acknowledge that he, like T, has turned the male gaze on Monica and can provide assessments of her body and attractiveness. It allows space for them affiliate as heterosexual males who view women and women's bodies. More specifically, they align in their (mildly) positive assessment of Melissa. Talking about Monica as a sexual object provides them a basis for joking, doing character voices, punning, and sharing laughter. Discussion These three instances share several common features. In each, Speaker A is engaged in an extended talk activity (listing events, recounting holiday plans, telling a story). Speaker B plays off of some aspect of Speaker A's talk to introduce a sexually-based assessment of a woman or women. Speaker A responds and the participants move into joking and laughter. All three instances involve "dissector" talk (Hopper, 2003, p. 149) that reduces women to supposedly desirable body parts (wool, wangers, and breasts). The sexual items B Speakers introduce are gratuitous in that they do not pursue the topic of talk on the floor but rather seize an opportunity to sexualize the talk. In the course of doing so they accomplish moving the talk away from what it was in the preceding turn. They initiate a new sequence in which response to the sexual item is relevant. At the same time, in two of the three instances the A speakers explicitly provide a basis for gendering the talk in their previous turns ("one of the girls" and "let's not start this off on the wrong foot"). Joking and laughter occur within sequential environments conducive to producing sexually demeaning talk that forwards an ecology of prejudice. Such talk provides materials for participants to display interactional intimacy. A speaker may introduce sexual references in order to move towards displays of like-mindedness. In each of the three instances, the B speaker produces an impropriety-a potentially offensive comment or term. Jefferson, Sacks, & Schegloff (1987) show the range of responses relevant to an impropriety, ranging from disaffiliation to appreciating with laughter and/or talk to escalating with a new impropriety. To disaffiliate from such an impropriety is to reject the proposed intimate relationship and impose distance. An escalation following an impropriety ratifies a mutual display of interactional intimacy. A first joke or humorous remark prompting laughter provides a sequential warrant for any speaker producing another such to extend the laughter (Glenn, 2003, Ch. 4). Laughter becomes a goal for its own sake. Thus it is no accident that such intimacy sequences routinely accompany (and get accomplished through) joking talk. A second speaker producing a next humorous or playful impropriety both forwards the laughing environment and ratifies like-mindedness. The introduction of sexual joking, whether it involves assessments, metaphorical language, or stereotyping, presents a potent interactional crossroads. By acknowledging the sexualized items the A speakers implicate themselves in this kind of talk. However, if the A Speakers disattend the sexual talk they risk being treated as naive, hypocritical, puritanical, unfriendly, or (perhaps worst of all for these individuals) not a "real" man8. For all these reasons, it is not surprising to find sexually demeaning talk occurring in environments characterized by joking, humor, and laughter. Affirming identity and pursuing relational intimacy are not in and of themselves problematic actions. Neither, of course, is joking. We can ask ourselves what alternatives exist for these men to joke, affirm masculinity, and affiliate, without demeaning women. Yet asking such questions and labeling this talk "sexist" are part of our interaction as writer and reader, not theirs. They produced their talk for and with each other, 9 and substantive critique of such talk will benefit from coming to grips with how it unfolds in situ and what it is about for the people producing it. Otherwise we risk reifying a divide between participants' and analysts' worlds that trivializes both. Notes 1. For a discussion of sexism see Hopper, 2003, 27-30. 2. That these all involve (presumably heterosexual) males talking about females is a matter of convenience sampling. It does not mean that only males engage in such talk, although it is possible that certain groups do so with greater regularity. 3. Interestingly, Stan locates his assessment in a single wedding; Dave's assessment is of weddings, generalized. 4. See analysis of this in Hopper, 2003, pp. 122-123; also see Hopper and LeBaron, 1998 characterizing how participants bring gender into talk 5. See Sacks and Schegloff (1979) regarding rules for person reference in conversation. 6. See insightful analyses of this conversation in Beach, 2000, and Hopper, 2003, p. 162. 7. For a discussion of repetition's role in triggering play, see Hopper and Glenn, 1994. 8. Sacks (1974) shows how in a teenage group therapy session dirty jokes may pose "understanding tests" for which those caught not "getting" the joke may be teased or regarded as naïve. Glenn (2003) shows how a hearer failing to get a sexual joke leads him to be a victim of laughing at. 9. Their talk may also orient to other present and future listeners; we can only speculate how knowledge of being recorded might have figured in their interactions. Works Cited Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. In Steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 177-193). New York: Ballantine. Beach. W. A. (2000). Inviting collaborations in stories about a woman. Language in Society, 29, 379-407. Booker, J. L. (1991). The Jewish American Princess and other myths: The many faces of self hatred. New York: Shapolsky Publishers. Davidson, J. A. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In: J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 102-128). Cambridge University Press. Glenn, P. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis; An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row. Hopper, R. (2003). Gendering talk. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Hopper, R., Glenn, P. J. (1994). Repetition and play in conversation. In: B. Johnstone (Ed.), Repetition in discourse: Interdisciplinary perspectives, Vol. II (pp. 29-40). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Hopper, R., & LeBaron , C. (1998). How gender creeps into talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31, 1, 59-74. Jefferson, G., Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 152-205). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke's telling in conversation. In R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337-353). London: Cambridge University Press. Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language; Studies in ethnomethdology (pp. 15-21). New York: Irvington. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge University Press. Links Transcription symbols http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssca1/notation.htm Citation reference for this article MLA Style Glenn, Phillip. "On Sexism in Conversational Joking" M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture <http://www.media-culture.org.au/0311/1-glenn-feature-sexism.html>. APA Style Glenn, P. (2003, Nov 10). On Sexism in Conversational Joking. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture, 6, <http://www.media-culture.org.au/0311/1-glenn-feature-sexism.html>