Revolutionary Farmers

  • John H. Perkins


Culturally derived philosophical assumptions were not the only factors influencing the development of entomological thought in the years after World War II. Socioeconomic and political considerations also played a role in the creation and adoption of new entomological expertise. Most importantly, American agriculture continued a long-term trend of substituting capital* for labor. Domestic agricultural production also became a part of strategic international planning in the U.S. In periods of open warfare, the food of American farmers assumed a role comparable to combat weapons. During times of peace, food came to play a role in diplomatic maneuvering and negotiations.


Technological Change Large Farm Farm Income Farm Operator Price Support 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference Notes

  1. 1.
    Data for 1800 and 1950 are from Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1960) series K 83–97, p. 281 (hereafter cited as Historical Statistics, Colonial-1957). Data for 1973–1977 are from USDA, Agricultural Statistics 1978 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1979), Table 642 (hereafter cited as Agricultural Statistics 1978). Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    William L. Cavert, The technological revolution in agriculture, 1910–1955, Agric. Hist. 30 (1956): 18–27.Google Scholar
  3. 2a.
    John C. Ellickson and John M. Brewster, Technological advances and the structure of American agriculture, J. Farm Econ. 29 (1947): 827–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 2b.
    A. N. Johnson, The impact of farm machinery on the farm economy, Agric. Hist. 24 (1950): 58–62.Google Scholar
  5. 2c.
    Wayne D. Rasmussen, The impact of technological change on American agriculture, J. Econ. Hist. 22 (1962): 578–591.Google Scholar
  6. 3.
    Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstrct of the United States 1977 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978) p. 674, Table 1134 (hereafter cited as Statistical Abstract 1977). Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    Agricultural Statistics 1978, Table 601.Google Scholar
  8. 5.
    Historical Statistics, Colonial-1957, series K 73–82, p. 280.Google Scholar
  9. 6.
    Statistical Abstract 1977, p. 675, Table 1135.Google Scholar
  10. 7.
    Agricultural Statistics 1978, Table 619.Google Scholar
  11. 8.
    Ibid., Table 621.Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    Willard W. Cochrane, The City Man’s Guide to the Farm Problem (Minneapolis: Univ. of Minn. Press, 1965), p. 29 (hereafter cited as Cochrane, City Man’s Guide). Google Scholar
  13. 10.
    Agricultural Statistics 1978, Table 601.Google Scholar
  14. 11.
    Statistical Abstract 1977, p. 678, Table 1143.Google Scholar
  15. 12.
    Statistical Abstract 1976, p. 378, Table 605. The average income for all domestic industries was $9994, and average annual supplements amounted to $1440. Total average income was $11,434.Google Scholar
  16. 13.
    Ibid., p. 406, Table 652.Google Scholar
  17. 14.
    Agricultural Statistics 1978, Table 661.Google Scholar
  18. 15.
    Lawrence A. Jones and Ronald L. Mighell, “Vertical integration as a source of capital in farming,” in Capital and Credit Needs in a Changing Agriculture, E. L. Baum, Howard G. Diesslin, and Earl O. Heady, eds. (Ames, Iowa State Univ. Press, 1961), pp. 147–160.Google Scholar
  19. 15a.
    Harold R. Jensen, “Farm management and production economics, 1946–1970” (hereafter cited as Jensen, Farm management), in A Survey of Agricultural Economics Literature, Vol. 1, Lee R. Martin, ed. (Minneapolis: Univ. of Minn. Press, 1977), pp. 3–88.Google Scholar
  20. 16.
    Jensen, Farm management, p. 49; Donald K. Larson and Thomas A. Carlin, Income and economic status of people with farm earnings, South J. Agric. Econ. 6 (Dec, 1974): 73–79.Google Scholar
  21. 17.
    A fundamental connection between education and an ability to use capital in farming was noted by Roger C. Woodworth and J. W. Fanning, “Relationships between capital and education,” in Capital and Credit Needs in a Changing Agriculture, E. L. Baum, Howard G. Diesslin, and Earl O. Heady, eds. (Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press, 1961), pp. 337–344.Google Scholar
  22. 17a.
    James D. Tarver and C. Shannon Stokes document the increased educational achievements of farm youth in Georgia between 1940 and 1960 (Educational Trends of Rural and Urban Population of Georgia, Coll. of Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Report 130, University of Georgia, May, 1972, Tables 16–18. Wayne D. Rasmussen argues that technical change in agriculture has changed farming from an occupation to a profession that requires substantial educational support. At the same time, the decreasing number of farmers has created both an intellectual and fiscal crisis for the agricultural colleges (Liberal Education and Agriculture, Institute of Higher Education, Columbia Univ., mimeo, [1958], 49 pp.).Google Scholar
  23. 18.
    Carter’s business interests were begun by his father, Earl Carter, who ran a farm supply store in Plains, Georgia. Earl expanded his operations to include (1) purchasing peanuts on contract for oil processing, (2) 4000 acres of peanut production, and (3) fertilizer merchandising. The varied business interests were kept in the family after Earl Carter’s death in 1953. See Current Biography Yearbook 1977 (New York: H. W. Wilson Company, 1978), pp. 100–101.Google Scholar
  24. 19.
    R. G. Bressler, The impact of science on agriculture,J. Farm Econ. 40 (Dec, 1958): 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 20.
    Adriann K. Constandse, Pedro F. Hernandez, and Alvin L. Bertrand, Social implications of increasing farm technology in rural Louisiana, Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 628, La. State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Aug. 1968, 39 pp.Google Scholar
  26. 21.
    G. E. Brandów, “Policy for commercial agriculture, 1945–71,” in A Survey of Agricultural Economics Literature, Vol. 1, Lee R. Martin, ed. (Minneapolis: Univ. of Minn. Press, 1977), pp. 212, 276.Google Scholar
  27. 22.
    Keith C. Barrons of the Dow Chemical Co. presents a positive image of the new farming technologies in The Food in Your Future (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1975), 173 pp. He balances his presentation with frank acknowledgements of the pressures under which contemporary farmers work.Google Scholar
  28. 22a.
    A particularly enthusiastic endorsement of capital-intensive farming is Edward Higbee, Farms and Farmers in and Urban Age (New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1963), pp. 3–4, 45–75 (hereafter cited as Higbee, Farms and Farmers). Wheeler McMillen was a fan of the progressive farmer before World War II, as expressed in Too Many Farmers (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1929), pp. 295–297. See also Lowry Nelson, American Farm Life (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1954), p. 31.Google Scholar
  29. 23.
    The clearest articulation of technological change as the source of dynamism in agriculture is Willard W. Cochrane, Farm Prices: Myth and Reality (Minneapolis: Univ. of Minn. Press, 1958), pp. 96–107 (hereafter cited as Cochrane, Farm Prices). Google Scholar
  30. 23a.
    An earlier articulation of the same theory is in Carl T. Schmidt, American Farmers in the World Crisis (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1941), pp. 31–37, 60–80.Google Scholar
  31. 23b.
    Frederic C. Hegel gathered evidence from Wisconsin farmers in 1951 that demonstrated (1) high farm incomes were associated with innovation, and (2) farmers consider other farmers with higher incomes to be the best farm operators; see Farm incomes and the adoption of farm practices, Rural Sociology 22 (1957): 159–162.Google Scholar
  32. 23c.
    Olaf F. Larson and Everett M. Rogers summarized a large body of sociological research on changes in farming in “Rural society in transition: The American setting,” in Our Changing Rural Society: Perspectives and Trends, James H. Copp, ed. (Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press, 1964), pp. 39–67.Google Scholar
  33. 23d.
    Increased inequality in agriculture as a result of innovation was reviewed by Willis Peterson and Yujiro Hayami, “Technical change in agriculture,” in A Survey of Agricultural Economics Literature, Vol. 1, Lee R. Martin, ed. (Minneapolis: Univ. of Minn. Press, 1977), pp. 528–532.Google Scholar
  34. 23e.
    A recent article justifying innovation despite painful displacement is Richard E. Just, Andrew Schmitz, and David Zilberman, Technological change in agriculture, Science 206 (1979): 1277–1280 (hereafter cited as Just, Schmitz, and Zilberman, Technological change).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 24.
    John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath (New York: The Viking Press, 1939), pp. 47–53.Google Scholar
  36. 25.
    Wendell Berry, The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture (New York: Avon Books, 1977), 228 pp.Google Scholar
  37. 26.
    A classic study of this type was on the adoption of two important inventions, 2,4-D and antibiotic supplements in swine feeds, prepared by George M. Beal and Everett M. Rogers, The Adoption of Two Farm Practices in a Central Iowa Community, Special Report No. 26, Iowa State Univ. of Science and Technology, Agric. and Home Econ. Exp. Stn., June, 1960, 20 pp.Google Scholar
  38. 26a.
    A general summary of adoption-diffusion research is provided by Joe M. Bohlen, “The adoption and diffusion of ideas in agriculture,” in Our Changing Rural Society: Perspectives and Trends, James H. Copp, ed. (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Univ. Press, 1964), pp. 265–287.Google Scholar
  39. 27.
    James Hightower, Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman, 1973), 268 pp.Google Scholar
  40. 28.
    William H. Friedland, Amy E. Barton, and Robert J. Thomas, Conditions and consequences of lettuce harvest mechanization, Hort. Science 14 (Apr., 1979): 110–113.Google Scholar
  41. 29.
    Jensen, Farm management, pp. 55–56.Google Scholar
  42. 30.
    Zvi Griliches, Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change, Econometrica 25 (1957): 501–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 31.
    Zvi Griliches, Research costs and social returns: Hybrid corn and related innovations, J. Polit. Econ. 66 (1958): 419–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 31a.
    For a general review of studies on rates of return see Willis Peterson and Yujiro Hayami, “Technical change in agriculture,” in A Survey of Agricultural Economics Literature, Vol. 1, Lee R. Martin, ed. (Minneapolis: Univ. of Minn. Press, 1977), pp. 505–523.Google Scholar
  45. 31b.
    Robert E. Evenson and Yoav Kislev Studied rates of return to agricultural research on a global basis and concluded that rates of return were far higher than “normal” returns, in Agricultural Research and Productivity (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1975), p. 157.Google Scholar
  46. 32.
    Yujiro Hayami and Vernon Ruttan, Agricultural Development: An International Perspective (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971), pp. 55–59, 129–133. For a general argument on how imbalances in technology, labor unrest, and shortage of materials can force technological change in particular directions.Google Scholar
  47. 32a.
    see Nathan Rosenberg, Perspectives on Technology (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976), pp. 108–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 33.
    G. E. Brandów, “Policy for commercial agriculture, 1945–71,” in A Survey of Agricultural Economics Literature, Vol. 1, Lee R. Martin, ed. (Minneapolis: Univ. of Minn. Press, 1977), p. 276.Google Scholar
  49. 34.
    Just, Schmitz, and Zilberman, Technological change.Google Scholar
  50. 35.
    Wilson Gee, The Place of Agriculture in American Life (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1930), p. 22.Google Scholar
  51. 36.
    Wilson Gee, The Place of Agriculture in American Life (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1930) p. 5.Google Scholar
  52. 37.
    Don Paarlberg, American Farm Policy (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964), pp. 90–91.Google Scholar
  53. 38.
    For a brief account of Washington, see Cecil Wall, George Washington: Country Gentlemen, Agric. Hist. 43 (1969): 5–6. Thomas Jefferson’s activities as a farmer have been reviewed by E. Merton Coulter, Southern agriculture and southern nationalism before the Civil War, Agric. Hist. 4 (1930): 77–91.Google Scholar
  54. 38a.
    August C. Miller, Jefferson as agriculturalist, Agric. Hist. 16 (1942): 65–78.Google Scholar
  55. 38b.
    Henry A. Wallace, Thomas Jefferson’s Farm Book: A review essay, Agric. Hist. 28 (1954): 133–138. Wallace, Franklin Roosevelt’s first Secretary of Agriculture, was particularly strong in his endorsement of Jefferson as an outstanding American.Google Scholar
  56. 39.
    For two popular articles about modern farming, see Jules B. Billard, The revolution in American agriculture, National Geographic 137 (1970): 147–185.Google Scholar
  57. 39a.
    and James A. Sugar, The family farm ain’t what it used to be, National Geographic 146 (1974): 391–411.Google Scholar
  58. 40.
    U.S. Congress, Senate, Temporary National Economic Committee, Patents and Free Enterprise Monograph No. 31 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1941), 179 pp.Google Scholar
  59. 41.
    Earl W. Hayter, The western farmers and the drivewell patent controversy, Agric. Hist. 16 (1942): 16–28.Google Scholar
  60. 41a.
    Earl W. Hayter, The patent system and agrarian discontent, 1875–1888, Miss. Val. Hist. Reo. 34 (1947): 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 42.
    Irwin Feller, Inventive activity in agriculture, 1837–1890, J. Econ. Hist. 22 (1962): 560–577.Google Scholar
  62. 43.
    For an early review of the entire agricultural teaching and research establishment, see Edward Wiest, Agricultural Organization in the United States (Lexington: Univ. of Ky. Press, 1923), pp. 187–289.Google Scholar
  63. 44.
    Gladys L. Baker and Wayne D. Rasmussen, Economic research in the Department of Agriculture: A historical perspective, Agric. Econ. Res. 27 (1975): 53–72.Google Scholar
  64. 45.
    E. A. Meyer, Developments under the Research and Marketing Act of 1946—finance, administrative organization, procedure, and policy,J. Farm Econ. 29 (1947): 1378–1382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 45a.
    Edward C. Banfield, Planning under the Research and Marketing Act of 1946: A study in the sociology of knowledge, J. Farm Econ. 31 (1949): 48–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 46.
    See, for example, “Statement from the South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, October 24, 1977,” in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Priorities in Agricultural Research of the U.S. Department of AgricultureAppendix, Appendix to Hearings, Part 2, 95th Congress, 1st sess., 1977, pp. 56–61. A quote gives the flavor: “Agricultural research benefits people. . . . And that is what agricultural research is all about: producing food and fiber economically to benefit all segments of society. Agricultural research is designed to improve the quality of life of all people.”Google Scholar
  67. 47.
    Earl D. Ross, “Father” of the land-grant college, Agric. Hist. 12 (1938): 151–186.Google Scholar
  68. 48.
    Charles Rosenberg, No Other Gods (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1976), p. 145 (hereafter cited as Rosenberg, No Other Gods). Google Scholar
  69. 49.
    H. C. Knoblauch, E. M. Law, W. P. Meyer, B. F. Beacher, R. B. Nestler, and B. S. White, Jr., State Agricultural Experiment Stations, USDA Misc. Publ. No. 909, May, 1962, pp. 12–22.Google Scholar
  70. 50.
    Ibid., pp. 50–52; Rosenberg, No Other Gods, p. 173.Google Scholar
  71. 51.
    Rosenberg, No Other Gods, pp. 146–151.Google Scholar
  72. 52.
    Bid., pp. 180–182. Blair Booles argues that Cannon’s philosophy of government was antagonistic toward federal intervention in the affairs of the people. He became the antithesis of the Progressive era as symbolized by Robert La Follette and Theordore Roosevelt. See Tyrant from Illinois (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1951), 248 pp.Google Scholar
  73. 53.
    Joseph C. Bailey, Seaman A. Knapp, Schoolmaster of American Agriculture (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1945), pp. 260–276 (hereafter cited as Bailey, Knapp). Google Scholar
  74. 54.
    Roy V. Scott, The Reluctant Farmer: The Rise of Agricultural Extension to 1914 (Urbana: Univ. of 111. Press, 1971), pp. 307–313.Google Scholar
  75. 55.
    Rosenberg, No Other Gods, pp. 135–177.Google Scholar
  76. 56.
    Ibid., p. 138.Google Scholar
  77. 57.
    Ibid., p. 148.Google Scholar
  78. 58.
    Edward L. and Frederick H. Schapsmeier, Henry A. Wallace of Iowa: The Agrarian Years, 1910–1940 (Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press, 1968), pp. 53, 88.Google Scholar
  79. 59.
    Bailey, Knapp, pp. 177–183.Google Scholar
  80. 60.
    Ibid., pp. 260–276.Google Scholar
  81. 61.
    Rosenberg, No Other Gods, pp. 163, 176–177; Higbee, Farms and Farmers, pp. 49–51, 60–61; Cochrane, Farm Prices, pp. 105–107. For a study of how the West Virginia Grange wanted an experiment station to their liking, see William D. Barns, Farmers versus scientists: The Grange, the Farmer’s Alliance, and the West Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, W.V. Acad. Sci. Proc. 37 (1965): 197–206.Google Scholar
  82. 62.
    Don F. Hadwiger, Farmers in politics, Agric. Hist. 50 (1976): 156.Google Scholar
  83. 63.
    Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, 1789–1945 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1949), series D7, p. 63 (hereafter cited as Historical Statistics, 1789–1945). Google Scholar
  84. 64.
    John Schlebecker, Whereby We Thrive (Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press, 1975), pp. 154–161 (thereafter cited as Schlebecker, Whereby). Google Scholar
  85. 65.
    Leo Rogin, The Introduction of Farm Machinery in Its Relation to the Production of Labor in the Agriculture of the United States During the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press, 1931), p. 91 (hereafter cited as Rogin, Introduction of Farm Machinery). Google Scholar
  86. 65a.
    Wayne D. Rasmussen, The impact of technological change on American agriculture, 1862–1962, J. Econ. Hist. 22 (1962): 578–591.Google Scholar
  87. 65b1.
    Wayne D. Rasmussen, The Civil War: A catalyst of agricultural revolution, Agric. Hist. 39 (1965): 187–195.Google Scholar
  88. 66.
    Inventors were in some cases part-time farmers as well as implement makers. For example, the first McCormick reapers (1840–1844) were made as a sideline on the McCormick farm in Rockbridge County, Virginia. After 1844 Cyrus McCormick began manufacturing in Ohio and New York. After 1847, McCormick’s reapers were made exclusively in Chicago (Rogin, Introduction of Farm Machinery, pp. 74–75).Google Scholar
  89. 67.
    Knowles A. Ryerson, History and significance of the foreign plant introduction work of the USDA, Agric. Hist. 7 (1933): 110–128.Google Scholar
  90. 68.
    Schlebecker, Whereby, pp. 89–91, 171.Google Scholar
  91. 69.
    Ibid., pp. 100–101.Google Scholar
  92. 70.
    Rogin, Introduction of Farm Machinery, pp. 213–241.Google Scholar
  93. 71.
    Wheat harvesting in California, for example, changed from animal power to steam power in the 1890s (ibid., p. 147). Technological change was an uneven process, however; practices changed at different rates in different crops and regions [Earle D. Ross, Retardation in farm technology before the power age, Agric. Hist. 30 (1956): 11–18].Google Scholar
  94. 72.
    Schlebecker, Whereby, pp. 157–163.Google Scholar
  95. 73.
    John D. Hicks, The Populist Revolt (Minneapolis: Univ. of Minn. Press, 1931), pp. 54–95, 97, 209–215.Google Scholar
  96. 73a.
    William P. Tucker, Populism up-to-date: The story of the Farmers’ Union, Agric. Hist. 21 (1947): 198–208.Google Scholar
  97. 73b.
    William D. Barns, Oliver Hudson Kelley and the genesis of the Grange: A reappraisal, Agric. Hist. 41 (1967): 229–242.Google Scholar
  98. 74.
    Stanley N. Murray, Railroads and the agricultural development of the Red River Valley of the North, 1870–1890, Agric. Hist 31 (1957): 57–66.Google Scholar
  99. 75.
    Historical Statistics, 1789–1945 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1949), series E 24, p. 96. For an argument that tenancy, at least in nineteenth-century Iowa, was both a useful and necessary economic institution, see Donald L. Winters, Farmers without Farms: Agricultural Tenancy in Nineteenth Century Iowa (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1978), pp. 106–108.Google Scholar
  100. 76.
    Historical Statistics, 1789–1945, series E 24, p. 96.Google Scholar
  101. 77.
    James H. Shideler, Farm Crisis 1919–1923 (Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press, 1957), pp. 4–10 (hereafter cited as Shideler, Farm Crisis). Google Scholar
  102. 78.
    Schlebecker, Whereby, pp. 159–160.Google Scholar
  103. 79.
    Theodore Saloutos and John D. Hicks, Agricultural Discontent in the Middle West 1900–1939 (Madison: Univ. of Wis. Press, 1951), p. 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 80.
    Historical Statistics, Colonial-1957 series K 150, p. 285.Google Scholar
  105. 81.
    Ibid., series K 73, p. 280.Google Scholar
  106. 82.
    Shideler, Farm Crisis, pp. 46–52; Historical Statistics Colonial-1957, series K122, p. 283.Google Scholar
  107. 83.
    Shideler, Farm Crisis, p. 79.Google Scholar
  108. 84.
    Historical Statistics, Colonial-1957, series K 158, pp. 284–285.Google Scholar
  109. 85.
    Ibid., series K 150–155, p. 285.Google Scholar
  110. 86.
    This conclusion is a restatement of the “agricultural treadmill” argument advanced in Cochrane, Farm Prices, pp. 105–107.Google Scholar
  111. 87.
    John Philip Gleason, The attitudes of the business community toward agriculture during the McNary-Haugen period, Agric. Hist. 32 (1958): 127–138.Google Scholar
  112. 88.
    Darwin N. Kelley, The McNary-Haugen bills, 1924–1928: An attempt to make the tariff effective for farm products, Agric. Hist. 14 (1940): 170–180.Google Scholar
  113. 89.
    See Clifford V. Gregory, The Master Farmer movement, Agric. Hist. 10 (1936): 47–58.Google Scholar
  114. 90.
    T. N. Carver, Rural depopulation. J. Farm Econ. 9: (1927) 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 91.
    Alice M. Christensen, Agricultural pressure and governmental response in the United States, 1919–1929, Agric. Hist. 11 (1937): 33–42.Google Scholar
  116. 92.
    Murray R. Benedict, Farm Policies in the United States, 1790–1950 (New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1953), pp. 250–252 (hereafter cited as Benedict, Farm Policies). Google Scholar
  117. 92a.
    Allan Rau, Agricultural Policy and Trade Liberalization in the United States, 1934–56; A Study of Conflicting Policies (Geneva: Droz, 1957), pp. 46–50.Google Scholar
  118. 93.
    Wayne D. Rasmussen and Gladys L. Baker, A short history of price support and adjustment legislation and programs for agriculture, 1933–65, Agric. Econ. Res. 18 (1966): 69–78 (hereafter cited as Rasmussen and Baker, A short history).Google Scholar
  119. 93a.
    Christiana M. Campbell, The Farm Bureau and the New Deal (Urbana: Univ. of Dl. Press, 1962), pp. 188–195.Google Scholar
  120. 94.
    Rasmussen annd Baker, A short history.Google Scholar
  121. 95.
  122. 96.
    Benedict, Farm Policies, pp. 472–477, 484–490.Google Scholar
  123. 97.
    Donald Holley, Uncle Sam’s Farmers (Urbana: Univ. of IU. Press, 1975), pp. 25–26, 261–278.Google Scholar
  124. 98.
    Edward C. Banfleld, Ten years of a Farm Tenant Purchase Program, J. Farm Econ. 31 (1949): 469–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 99.
    Number of people on farms dropped from 32 million in 1910 to 30.5 million by 1930. The number rose to 32.4 million in 1933, but dropped again by 1940 to 30.5 million. The farm population continued to drop after 1940. The number of farms was 6.37 million in 1910. It rose unevenly to 6.81 million in 1935 and thereafter dropped. [Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975), series K-l and K-4, p. 457].Google Scholar
  126. 100.
    E. O. Heady and L. Auer, Imputation of production to technologies, J. Farm Econ. 48 (1966): 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 100a.
    A. Richard Crabb, The Hybrid Corn Makers: Prophets of Plenty (New Brunswick: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1947), 331 pp.Google Scholar
  128. 101.
    Historical Statistics, 1789–1945, series E 106, 108, 115, p. 100.Google Scholar
  129. 102.
    Albert A. Blum, The farmer, the army, and the draft, Agric. Hist. 38 (1964): 34–42.Google Scholar
  130. 103.
    The parity ratio rose from 80 in 1940 to 117 in 1945. It was above 100 in 1942–1945. Cash receipts rose from $9.1 billion in 1940 to $22.3 billion in 1945. (Historical Statistics, 1789–1945, series E 88, p. 99).Google Scholar
  131. 104.
    Synthetic ammonia production based on the work of Fritz Haber began in Germany in 1913. Both World War I and World War II stimulated the production of ammonia as an intermediate in the manufacture of explosives. Improvements in production technology during the 1950s and 1960s allowed the construction of plants producing over 1000 tons per day. Much of the ammonia was used in agriculture as a fertilizer. For example, in the U.S. 89% of the ammonia produced in 1968 was used for fertilizer. Anhydrous ammonia is the major supplier of nitrogen fertilizer in the U.S. See A.V. Slack and G. Russell James, eds., Ammonia, Vol. 2, Part 1 (New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1973), pp. 2–30.Google Scholar
  132. 105.
    Gale E. Peterson, The discovery and development of 2,4-D, Agric. Hist. 41 (1967): 243–253.Google Scholar
  133. 105a.
    George M. Beal and Everett M. Rogers, The adoption of two farm practices in a central Iowa community, Special Report No. 26, Agric. and Home Econ. Exp. Stn., Iowa State Univ. of Science and Technology, June, 1960, 20 pp.; U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Manpower, Chemistry, and Agriculture, Senate Document 103, 82nd Congress, 2nd sess., 1952, 45 pp.Google Scholar
  134. 106.
    John W. Kendrick, Productivity trends in agriculture and industry, J. Farm Econ. 40 (1958): 1554–1564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 107.
    Zvi Griliches, The sources of measured productivity growth: United States agriculture 1940–1960,J. Polit. Econ. 71 (1963): 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 108.
    The Story of Farm Chemicals (Wilmington, Delaware: E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., [1954]), 32 pp.Google Scholar
  137. 109.
    Herbert Thomasek, Chemical industry in farm management,J. Am. Soc. Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers 18 (1954): 11–16.Google Scholar
  138. 110.
    Edward L. Schapsmeier and Frederick H. Schapsmeier, Eisenhower and Ezra Taft Benson: Farm policy in the 1950s, Agric. Hist. 44 (1970): 369–378 (hereafter cited as Schapsmeier and Schapsmeier, Eisenhower).Google Scholar
  139. 111.
    Ezra Taft Benson, Freedom to Farm (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1960), pp. 222–223, 231, 233–235.Google Scholar
  140. 112.
    Ibid., p. 37.Google Scholar
  141. 113.
    Schapsmeier and Schapsmeier, Eisenhower.Google Scholar
  142. 114.
    Cochrane, City Man’s Guide, p. 29; Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States Colonial Times to 1957, Continuation to 1962 and Revisions (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1965), series K 1, p. 41. 4.514 million farms were reported in 1956 but only 3.688 million in 1962.Google Scholar
  143. 115.
    Cochrane, City Man’s Guide, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar
  144. 116.
  145. 117.
    Peter A. Toma, The Politics of Food for Peace (Tucson: Univ. of Ariz. Press, 1967), pp. 39–45 (hereafter cited as Toma, Food for Peace). Google Scholar
  146. 118.
    For a discussion of U.S. food aid to Europe and elsewhere after 1945, see Allen J. Matusow, Farm Policies and Politics in the Truman Years (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1967), pp. 145–169.Google Scholar
  147. 118a.
    Harry B. Price, The Marshall Plan and Its Meaning (Ithaca New York: Cornell Univ. Press, 1955), pp. 29–38; and Toma, Food for Peace, pp. 25–28.Google Scholar
  148. 119.
    Toma, Food for Peace, pp. 39–45.Google Scholar
  149. 120.
    Orville L. Freeman, World Without Hunger (New York: Frederick L. Praeger, 1968), p. 99.Google Scholar
  150. 121.
    Earl Lauer Bute served as an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture under Ezra Taft Benson, where he became identified with Benson’s goal to lower price supports. As Nixon’s Secretary, Bute was instrumental in raising price supports in order to win farmer support for the 1972 elections, Bute, despite his political realism, remained ideologically committed to a free market and to larger farm units replacing smaller ones. See Current Biography Yearbook 1972 (New York: H. W. Wilson Co., 1973), pp. 65–67.Google Scholar
  151. 122.
    Bob Selmer Bergland served as a representative of the Minnesota Farmers’ Union between 1948 and 1950. He then began operation of a commercial farm, which still continues. He entered the 92nd Congress, where he served until becoming Secretary of Agriculture in 1977 [Who’s Who in America 1978–1979, Vol. 1 (Chicago: Marquis Who’s Who, Inc.), p. 257.]Google Scholar
  152. 123.
    Bob Bergland, “Foreword,” in Structure Issues of American Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report 438, Economic, Statistics and Cooperative Service, USDA, 1979, p. i (hereafter cited as Bergland, Foreword).Google Scholar
  153. 124.
    91 Stat. 1005–1006; Sections 1440–1443; Title 14, subtitle F, of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, P.L. 95–113.Google Scholar
  154. 125.
    Bergland, Foreword.Google Scholar
  155. 126.
    Bob Bergland, speech prepared for the National Farmers Union Convention, Kansas City, Mo., Mar. 12, 1979, Office of the Secretary, USDA 571–79, 13 pp.Google Scholar
  156. 127.
    Status of the Family Farm, Agricultural Economics Report No. 434, Second Annual Report to the Congress, Economic, Statistics and Cooperative Service, USDA, 1979, p. i (hereafter cited as USDA, Status). Google Scholar
  157. 128.
    Structure Issues of American Agriculture, Agricultural Economics Report 438, Economics, Statistics and Cooperatives Service, USDA, 1979, 305 pp. (hereafter cited as USDA, Structure Issues). Google Scholar
  158. 129.
    Bergland, Foreword.Google Scholar
  159. 130.
    Yao-Chi Lu, “Technological change and structure,” in USDA, Structure Issues, pp. 121–127.Google Scholar
  160. 131.
    A Survey of U.S. Agricultural Research by Private Industry (Washington, D.C.: Agricultural Research Institute, 1977), p. 5.Google Scholar
  161. 132.
    Bob Tomarkin, The country slicker, Forbes, 125 (Jan. 21, 1980): 39–42, 44Google Scholar
  162. 133.
    USDA, Status, pp. 4–6.Google Scholar
  163. 134.
    David Lins, The financial condition of U.S. agriculture: Past, present, implications for the future, Economics, Statistics and Cooperative Service, Staff Report, June, 1979, pp. 4–5, 20–21.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • John H. Perkins
    • 1
  1. 1.The Evergreen State CollegeOlympiaUSA

Personalised recommendations