|
|||||||||||
|
![]() |
||||||||||
| Cotton and science Cotton farming in the early years of the 20th century, like much of U.S. agriculture, suffered
from overproduction, a chronic problem that resulted in surpluses and low prices. In a sense, the
American farmer was the victim of his own success as mechanization and newer and better crop varieties
increased yields per acre. After World War I agricultural problems worsened. In the 1920s farmers were
buffeted by inflation. Then the Great Depression, an era of deflation and lower and lower commodity
prices, forced many off the land and impoverished those who stayed. Record agricultural production combined with declining demand spurred the growth of the chemurgy movement
("chem" from chemistry; urgy, Greek for work), which was composed of scientists, agriculturalists, and
industrialists determined to put chemistry to work to find nonfood uses for agricultural surpluses. The
public voice of this movement was the Farm Chemurgic Council which had the support of Henry Ford and Irenee
DuPont and which bombarded Congress with its message that through research new industrial products would be
developed from farm commodities. Congress was receptive to this message because of the excellent track record of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture in sponsoring research. USDA scientists made many significant advances in the decades after
the department's creation during the Civil War, and numerous subsequent agricultural adjustment acts
established experimental stations and research laboratories around the country. These facilities proved
their value by developing new uses for agricultural products. The crop surpluses, the influence of the chemurgy movement, and the USDA's research record encouraged
Congress, in a small part of the 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act, to instruct Secretary of Agriculture
Henry Wallace "to establish, equip, and maintain four regional research laboratories, one in each major
farm producing area, and at such laboratories to conduct researches into and to develop new scientific
chemical and technical uses and new and extended markets and outlets for farm commodities…." A subsequent
law directed the USDA to conduct a survey to determine the best locations for the regional laboratories
and to recommend areas of research for each. The four sites chosen were Philadelphia, the San Francisco Bay area, Peoria, Illinois, and New Orleans.
Congress appropriated four million dollars to build and equip the laboratories, and sites were quickly
obtained. In New Orleans, the site was a swampy part of City Park near Bayou St. John. The New Orleans
municipal government donated the land to the USDA. Contracts for construction were let quickly, and by
early 1941 all the buildings at all four sites had been completed and equipped, and the first scientists
were hired and on the job doing research. The first director of the New Orleans facility, Daniel F. J. Lynch, said in 1939 that "one important line
of attack [to solve the surplus problem] is by means of research… carried on with the specific aim of
finding new and extended uses for farm commodities. We believe that research of this nature will pay (not
immediately of course - that would be too much to hope for) but more and more with the passing of each year.
We believe, moreover, that such a program is long overdue." Each center was commissioned to focus on problems
affecting crops in its region: for the southern center, that meant sweet potatoes, peanuts, and cotton -
especially cotton. In the 1950s and 1960s, for example, as much as 80% of the budget was on cotton research.
"Not how to grow cotton," says Clark Welch, a scientist at the SRRC for 46 years. "I don't know a thing about
that, but how to chemically process it to make it suitable as a flame retardant and wrinkle resistant material." Charles H. Fisher was the director of the SRRC from 1950 to 1972, when much of the important early research into
the chemical modification of cotton took place. Many of the scientists who worked there then and later - the
lengthy tenure of so many of the researchers at SRRC is striking - speak highly of Fisher as an administrator.
Robert. Reinhardt, for example, says "I think Dr. Fisher was a great director… getting us the materials we wanted
and the money from Washington. He was very, very good at that." Another SRRC veteran, Ruth Benerito, points out
that "the 50's was the golden age of science, when they put a lot of money into science because we were competing
with Sputnik. Wherever you were, it was a good time to be in science." She adds that the administrators in Washington,
who decided what research would be done and allocated resources, were all scientists: "That was before the days of
the Harvard School of Business Administration."
|
|||||||||||
|
Cotton under attack |
Cotton and science |
Durable press |
Flame retardant Copyright
©2004 American Chemical Society. All Rights Reserved. 1155 16th Street
NW, Washington DC 20036 |
|||||||||||