Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A case study from the post-new deal state agricultural experiment station system: a life of mixed signals in southern Illinois

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A wide literature in the sociology of agriculture has depicted the development of agricultural experiment stations at land grant colleges as part of a development project to improve agricultural productivity in particular commodities. Some experiment stations developed regional agricultural centers or stations to improve productivity and address local concerns, recognizing the importance of context in rural development. Through analysis of one such station, the Dixon Springs Agricultural Center in Southern Illinois, this paper describes how regional agricultural stations played a key role in the often conflicting agricultural programs of and following the New Deal. Changes in university structure from the 1970s to present and the current national recession have led to financial crises that have put these stations in a precarious position. Still, we argue that these institutions ought to be recognized as regional resources for a new era of agricultural development, and we suggest approaching that new era by building on the existing literature of community–university partnerships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While the American Country Life Association was a significant movement and existed into the 1970 s, it was ultimately one of many efforts Roosevelt pushed to alter agricultural institutions. These efforts, including the Resettlement Administration, were generally overshadowed by the transformation caused by productivist agriculture (Busch 2005).

  2. See also Middendorf and Busch (1997) for a broader narrative of the changing focus of scientific inquiry that followed the widespread concern regarding the role of the state.

  3. Public participation was not new to agricultural development programs. In the late 1930s and 1940s the federal government, via the New Deal, encouraged public participation in the Unified Farm Program, which coordinated the activities of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Farm Security Administration. See also Gilbert (2008).

  4. Charlotte Bernard, personal communication, January 16, 2009.

  5. In Crop Sciences, current work focuses on soybeans, sorghum, miscanthus, corn, hybrids, drought tolerance, and sulfur management, with an emphasis on disease insect weed and drought management. Horticulture covers high tunnel construction (especially for tomatoes and strawberries), corn earworm studies, and research on viticulture. The forest research center does outreach to landowners, studies exotic species, and conducts field days and a stewardship week where over 3,000 school children come to DSAC each year. In Animal Sciences, work focuses on beef cattle genomics and reproduction research, cow-calf operations, pastured cattle, and organic beef. DSAC also hosts a sustainable living expo and a summer intern program to bridge research and education.

Abbreviations

AAA:

Agricultural Adjustment Act

DSAC:

Dixon Springs Agricultural Center

References

  • Adams, J. 1994. The transformation of rural life. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J.L. 2009. Industrializing the corn belt. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous. 1934. Cooperative extension work in agriculture and home economics: Annual narrative report, Pope-Hardin Counties, Illinois. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, University of Illinois College of Agriculture, and Pope-Hardin Farm Bureau, cooperating.

  • Baldwin, S. 1968. Poverty and politics. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M.M. 2004. Farming for Us all: Practical agriculture and the cultivation of sustainability. University Park: The Penn State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, W.J. 1960. The separation of the farm bureau and the extension service. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnano, A., L. Busch, W.H. Friedland, L. Gouveia, and E. Mingione (eds.). 1994. From Columbus to Conagra: The globalization of agriculture and food. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, M., and I. Silver. 2005. Poverty, partnerships, and privilege: Elite institutions and community empowerment. City and Community 4(3): 233–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, M., and E. Stratford. 2000. Qualitative research design and rigour. In Qualitative research methods in human geography, ed. I. Hay, 37–49. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, W.P. 2001. The failure of national rural policy: Institutions and interests. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L. 2005. Commentary on ‘ever since hightower: The politics of agricultural research activism in the molecular age’”. Agriculture and Human Values 22: 285–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L., and W.B. Lacy. 1983. Science, agriculture, and the politics of research. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F.H. 1998. Introduction to hungry for profit. Monthly Review 50(3): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cate, H.A. 1976. The heritage redeemed. In Redeeming a lost heritage, ed. W.G. Kammlade, 142–214. Urbana, IL: The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.

  • College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. N.d. A look back at our leaders. College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. http://vetmed.illinois.edu/college/leaders.html. Accessed 5 February, 2009.

  • Conkin, P.K. 1959. Tomorrow a new world. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coughenour, C.M. 2003. Innovating conservation agriculture: The case of no-till cropping. Rural Sociology 68(2): 278–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coughenour, C.M., and S. Chamala. 2000. Conservation tillage and cropping innovation: Constructing the new culture of agriculture. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. N.d. Dixon Springs Agricultural Center: History. Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. http://www.cropsci.uiuc.edu/research/rdc/dixonsprings/history.cfm. Accessed 4 September, 2008.

  • Friedland, W.H., L. Busch, F.H. Buttel, and A.P. Rudy (eds.). 1991. Towards a new political economy of agriculture. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. 2008. Rural sociology and democratic planning in the third new deal. Agricultural History 82(4): 422–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J., and C. Howe. 1991. Beyond “state vs. society”: Theories of the state and new deal agricultural policies. American Sociological Review 56(2): 204–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, W. 1978. As you sow: Three studies in the social consequences of agribusiness. Montclair: Allanheld, Osmun and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadwiger, D.F. 1982. The politics of agricultural research. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, A. 2000. The father of “no-till”. Illinois History 53(2): 21–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heffernan, W.D. 1998. Agriculture and monopoly capital. Monthly Review 50(3): 46–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henke, C.R. 2008. Cultivating science, harvesting power. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hightower, J. 1972. Hard tomatoes, hard times: The failure of the land grant college complex. Washington, D.C.: Agribusiness Accountability Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffman, W.E., and R.E. Evenson. 1993. Science for agriculture. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurt, R.D. 2002. Problems of plenty. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isenberg, A., C.E. Connerly, G. Lipsitz, B.M. Wilson, and J. Manning Thomas. 2004. Symposium on Woods’s development arrested. Journal of Planning History 3(3): 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J.P., P.F. O’Connell, and R.R. Robinson. 1986. Historical evolution of the state agricultural experiment station system. In New directions for agriculture and agricultural research: Neglected dimensions and emerging alternatives, ed. K. Dahlberg, 146–162. Totowa: Rowman and Allenheld Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kammlade, W.G. 1976. Sassafras and persimmons. In Redeeming a lost heritage, ed. W.G. Kammlade, 36–142. Urbana: The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N.A. 1987. The legacy. Columbia: Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Missouri.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, J. 2011. The emergence of the research-development professional. March: The Chronicle of Higher Education. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobao, L. 2004. Continuity and change in place stratification: Spatial inequality and middle-range territorial units. Rural Sociology 69(1): 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T.A. 2004. Civic agriculture: Reconnecting farm, food and community. Medford: Tufts University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurrasse, D.J. 2001. Beyond the campus: How colleges and universities form partnerships with their communities. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, G. 1953. The decline of agrarian democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R.K. 1963. Resistance to the systematic study of multiple discoveries in science. European Journal of Sociology 4(2): 237–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middendorf, G., and L. Busch. 1997. Inquiry for the public good: Democratic participation in agricultural research. Agriculture and Human Values 14: 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordin, D.S., and R.V. Scott. 2005. From prairie farmer to entrepreneur. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, R.L. 1983. Federal versus state agricultural research policy: The case of California’s Tulare experiment station. Agricultural History 57(4): 436–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, S.H., and H.M. Young. 1973. No tillage farming milwaukee. WI: Reiman Assoc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rexroat, P.W. 1976. Before the beginning. In Redeeming a lost heritage, ed. W.G. Kammlade, 1–35. Urbana: The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodefeld, R.D. 1978. The causes of change in farm technology, size, and organizational structure. In Change in rural America: Causes, consequences, and alternatives, ed. R.D. Rodefeld, J. Flora, D. Voth, I. Fujimoto, and J. Converse, 217–237. Saint Louis: The C.V. Mosby Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, C.E. 1997. No other gods, 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singleton, S., D. Hirsch, and C. Burack. 1999. Organizational structures for community engagement. In Colleges and universities as citizens, ed. R.G. Bringle, R. Games, E. Rev, and A. Malloy, 121–140. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skocpol, T. 1992. Protecting soldiers and mothers. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G.C. 1940. Cooperative extension work in agriculture and home economics: Annual narrative report, Pope-Hardin Counties, Illinois. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture, University of Illinois College of Agriculture, and Pope-Hardin Farm Bureau, cooperating.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, J. 2007. Challenges of unequal power distribution in university-community partnerships. Doctorate dissertation: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau. 1930. Census of agriculture, 1930. Washington: US Census Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau. 1962. Census 1960, general social and economic characteristics: Illinois, U.S. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Congress. Act of 1887 Establishing agricultural experiment stations. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Ohio State University. http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/secondary2/Hatch_Act.htm. Accessed 17 November, 2009.

  • University of Illinois. 1959. Research progress at the Illinois agricultural experiment station. Urbana: University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Illinois. 1961. Research progress at the Illinois agricultural experiment station. Urbana: University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Illinois. 1967. Research progress at the Illinois agricultural experiment station. Urbana: University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Es, J.C., and P. Notier. 1988. No-till farming in the United States: Research and policy environment in the development and utilization of an innovation. Society and Natural Resources 1: 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M. 2006. Southern famers and their stories. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks are given to Bronwyn Aly for conducting interviews and to anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions which truly enriched this paper. Support for this research was provided by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture through Hatch project ILLU-875-368.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Sustainability, Saint Louis University, 3550 Lindell Blvd., Tegeler Hall Rm. 323, St. Louis, MO, 63103, USA

    Joanna P. Ganning

  2. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1102 S Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA

    Courtney G. Flint

  3. Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, 316 Berkey Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Stephen Gasteyer

Authors
  1. Joanna P. Ganning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Courtney G. Flint
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen Gasteyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Courtney G. Flint.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ganning, J.P., Flint, C.G. & Gasteyer, S. A case study from the post-new deal state agricultural experiment station system: a life of mixed signals in southern Illinois. Agric Hum Values 29, 493–506 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9373-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9373-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation