Advertisement

Science, Promotion, and Scandal: Soil Bacteriology, Legume Inoculation, and the American Campaign for Soil Improvement in the Progressive Era

  • Mark R. FinlayEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Archimedes book series (ARIM, volume 40)

Abstract

At the turn of the twentieth century, the recent discovery that soil bacteria explained how legumes fix atmospheric nitrogen sparked great interest, particularly in the context of ominous warnings of an impending “nitrogen famine.” A new industry quickly arose when it became evident that nitrogen-fixing bacteria could be identified, collected, sent to farmers, applied to farm fields, increase the yield of leguminous crops, and improve soil fertility. Important scientific research in this area took place at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), where the project fit in well with the department’s Progressive Era mission of serving society through useful applications of science. The work also brought considerable attention to a young USDA bacteriologist, George Moore, who became implicated in an apparent scandal that exposed the pitfalls of the sudden enthusiasm for legume inoculation, and forced the USDA to mobilize in order to reestablish its reputation for scientific integrity.

Keywords

Bacteriology Legume inoculation George T. Moore Nitrogen-fixing bacteria Progressive era Soil fertility Walter T. Swingle US Department of Agriculture 

References

  1. 1898a. Nitrogen and wheat. New York Times, September 8.Google Scholar
  2. 1898b. Answering an alarmist. New York Times, September 25.Google Scholar
  3. 1903. Bacteria from Uncle Sam. Trenton Times, August 8.Google Scholar
  4. 1905. New department scandal. New York Times, July 28.Google Scholar
  5. Agee, Alva. 1905a. Bacteria talk. National Stockman and Farmer 28:1551.Google Scholar
  6. Agee, Alva. 1905b. Farm facts and fancies. National Stockman and Farmer 28:1394.Google Scholar
  7. Agee, Alva. 1905c. Farm facts and fancies. National Stockman and Farmer 29:196–197.Google Scholar
  8. Agee, Alva. 1905d. Farm facts and fancies. National Stockman and Farmer 29:500.Google Scholar
  9. Agee, Alva. 1905e. Nitro-culture discredited. National Stockman and Farmer 29:562.Google Scholar
  10. Agee, Alva. 1905f. The booming of nitro-culture. National Stockman and Farmer 29:122–125.Google Scholar
  11. Aikman, C. M. 1896. Nitragin: An important advance in the science of agriculture. Contemporary Review 70:210–214.Google Scholar
  12. Anonymous. 1898. The world’s supply of wheat. Scientific American 79:210–211.Google Scholar
  13. Anonymous. 1904. Soil inoculation. Country Gentleman 69:555.Google Scholar
  14. Anonymous. 1905a. An important discovery in the purification of contaminated water. Scientific American 92:219.Google Scholar
  15. Anonymous. 1905b. Another department scandal. Country Gentleman 70:706.Google Scholar
  16. Anonymous. 1905c. Bacterial soil inoculation for vegetables. Scientific American 92:218–19.Google Scholar
  17. Anonymous. 1905d. Government bacteria. Wallace’s Farmer 30:627.Google Scholar
  18. Anonymous. 1905e. Secretary Wilson’s responsibility. National Stockman and Farmer 29:563.Google Scholar
  19. Anonymous. 1905f. Soil inoculation. Wallace’s Farmer 30:683.Google Scholar
  20. Anonymous. 1905g. Soil inoculation: What it can and cannot accomplish. Country Gentleman 70:324Google Scholar
  21. Anonymous. 1905h. The inoculation of the earth. Current Literature 38:358.Google Scholar
  22. Anonymous. 1912. Old farms made new. Brochure for the German-American Nitragin Company, Milwaukee.Google Scholar
  23. Anonymous. 1915. Country homes for busy little people. San Francisco: Western Soil and Bacteria Co.Google Scholar
  24. Anonymous. 1965. George Thomas Moore. National cyclopædia of American biography, Vol. 47., 680. New York: James T. White.Google Scholar
  25. Bailey, Liberty Hyde. 1905. Nitrogen and agriculture. Country Calendar 1:27–28.Google Scholar
  26. Baker, Ray Stannard. 1903. The scientist and the food problem. Harper's Magazine 107:932–937.Google Scholar
  27. Brock, William. 2008. William Crookes (1832–1919) and the commercialization of science. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008.Google Scholar
  28. Brockwell, J. 1981. A strategy for legume nodulation research in developing regions of the Old World. Plant and Soil 58 (1–3): 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Burrill, T. J. 1904. Micro-organisms of soil and human welfare. Science 20:426–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Butz, George E. 1905. Nitro-cultures. National Stockman and Farmer 29:698.Google Scholar
  31. Cafer du Plessis, Elizabeth. 2009. Meatless days and sleepless nights: Food, agriculture, and environment in World War I America. PhD Diss., Indiana University, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Carpenter, Daniel P. 2001. The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton: Princeton Univ Press.Google Scholar
  33. Clark, Ernest. 1895. Hermann Hellriegel. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society 56:764–67.Google Scholar
  34. Clarke-Nuttall, G. 1902/1903. A botanical discovery and its possibilities. Longman's Magazine 41:119–125.Google Scholar
  35. Coppin, Clayton. 1990. James Wilson and Harvey Wiley: The dilemma of bureaucratic entrepreneurship. Agricultural History 64:167–181.Google Scholar
  36. Crookes, William. 1898. Address of the President before the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Bristol, 1898. Science 8:561–575, 601–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Davis, C. Wood. 1899. Wheat: Crookes vs. Atkinson, Dodge, et. al. The Forum 27:101–13.Google Scholar
  38. Dickinson, Edward Ross. 2004. Biopolitics, fascism, democracy: Some reflections on our discourse about ‘modernity’. Central European History 37:1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Dreiser, Theodore. 1903. The problem of the soil. The Era 12:239–249.Google Scholar
  40. Duggar, J. F. 1897. Soil inoculation for leguminous plants. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin #87. Montgomery: Brown.Google Scholar
  41. Fairchild, David. 1938. The world was my garden: Travels of a plant explorer. New York: Scribners.Google Scholar
  42. Farbewerke vorm. Meister, Lucius & Brüning. 1898. Die Boden-Impfung für Leguminosen mit Reincultivirten Bakterien. Hoechst am Main: A. A. Wagner.Google Scholar
  43. Flack, James Kilpatrick. 1975. Desideratum in Washington: The intellectual community in the capital city, 1870–1900. Cambridge: Schenkman.Google Scholar
  44. Galloway, Beverly T. 1902. Applied botany, retrospective and prospective. Science 16:49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Galloway, Beverly T. 1904. The twentieth century botany. Science 19:11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gorman, Hugh S. 2013. The story of N: A social history of the nitrogen cycle and the challenge of sustainability. New Brunswick: Rutgers Univ Press.Google Scholar
  47. Gossel, Patricia Peck. 1988. The emergence of American bacteriology, 1875–1900. PhD Diss., Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  48. Grosvenor, Gilbert H. 1904a. Inoculating the ground. National Geographic 15:225–228.Google Scholar
  49. Grosvenor, Gilbert H. 1904b. Inoculating the ground: A remarkable discovery in scientific agriculture. Century Magazine 68:831–839.Google Scholar
  50. Harding, H. A., and M. J. Prucha. 1905. The quality of commercial cultures for legumes. New York Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin #270.Google Scholar
  51. Harding, H. A., and M. J. Prucha. 1906. Value of commercial cultures for legumes. Scientific American 94:227.Google Scholar
  52. Hartmann, Anton, Michael Rothballer, and Michael Schmid. 2008. Lorenz Hiltner, a pioneer in rhizosphere microbial ecology and soil bacteriology research. Plant and Soil 312:7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Harwood, W. S. 1906. The new earth: A recital of the triumphs of modern agriculture in America. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hellriegel, H. 1887. Welche Stickstoffquellen stehen der Pflanze zu gebote? Landwirtschaftlicher Versuchsstationen 33:464–465.Google Scholar
  55. Hellriegel, H., and Wilfarth, H. 1888. Untersuchungen über Stickstoffernährung der Gramineen und Leguminosen. Berlin: Kayssler.Google Scholar
  56. Hersey, Mark. 2011. What we need is a crop ecologist’: Ecology and agricultural science in Progressive-Era America. Agricultural History 85:297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hoing, Willard L. 1964. James Wilson as Secretary of Agriculture, 1897–1913. PhD Diss., University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  58. Johnson, Maurice L. 1900. Microbes: Are they inherently pathogenic? Westminster Review 154:324–333.Google Scholar
  59. Jones, Jeffrey J. 2004. The world was our garden: U. S. plant introduction, empire, and industrial agri(culture), 1898–1948. PhD Diss., Purdue University.Google Scholar
  60. Kellerman, Karl F. 1910. Methods of legume inoculation, USDA BPI Circular #63. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  61. Kellerman, Karl F., and T. R. Robinson. 1905. Inoculation of legumes, Farmers’ Bulletin #240. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  62. Kellerman, Karl F., and T. R. Robinson. 1908. Progress in legume inoculation. Farmers' Bulletin #315. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  63. Kimmelman, Barbara A. 1983. The American Breeders’ Association: Genetics and eugenics in an agricultural context, 1903–13. Social Studies of Science 13:163–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kleinman, K. 2010. George Thomas Moore: Botanist, (Phycologist), Administrator. Archives of Natural History. 37 (1): 173–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Krimsky, Sheldon, and Roger Wrubel. 1996. Agricultural biotechnology and the environment: Science, policy, and social issues. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  66. Kupferberg, Eric D. 2001. The expertise of germs: Practice, language, and authority in American bacteriology, 1899–1924. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.Google Scholar
  67. Leonard, Lewis T. 1932. The commercial inoculant business in the United States. Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Soil Science, Commission. Vol. 3, 74–82. Moscow: State Publishing House of Agricultural, Cooperative, and Collective Farm Literature.Google Scholar
  68. Marine Biological Laboratory. 1907. Tenth report, for the years 1903–1906. Woods Hole [sic]: n.p.Google Scholar
  69. Marine Biological Laboratory. 1909. Eleventh report, for the years 1907–1908. Woods Hole: n.p.Google Scholar
  70. Masters, Maxwell T. 1884. Plant life on the farm. New York: Orange Judd.Google Scholar
  71. Moore, G. T. 1903. Bacteria and the nitrogen problem. Yearbook of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1902. 333–342. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  72. Moore, G. T. 1905. Applied botany and its dependence upon scientific research. Science 21:321–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Moore, G. T. 1912. Microorganisms of the soil. Science 36:609–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Moore, G. T., and T. R. Robinson. 1905a. Beneficial bacteria for leguminous crops, USDA Farmers' Bulletin #214. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  75. Moore, G. T., and T. R. Robinson. 1905b. Soil inoculation for legumes: Reports on the successful use of artificial cultures by practical farmers, USDA BPI Bulletin #71. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  76. Noyes, A. D. 1898. The predicted wheat famine. Nation 67:237–238.Google Scholar
  77. Pauly, Philip J. 1988. Summer resort and scientific discipline: Woods Hole and the structure of American biology. In The American development of biology, ed. R. Rainger, K. R. Benson, and J. Maienschein, 121–150. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  78. Pauly, Philip J. 1994. Modernist practice in American biology. In Modernist impulses in the human sciences, 1870–1930, ed. Dorothy Ross, 272–289. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Pauly, Philip J. 2000. Biologists and the promise of American life: From Meriwether Lewis to Alfred Kinsey. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Pauly, Philip J. 2007. Fruits and plains: The horticultural transformation of America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Peters, Scott J., and P. A. Morgan. 2004. The Country Life Commission: Reconsidering a milestone in American agricultural history. Agricultural History 78:289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Porter, Raymond. 1905. Vaccinating the ground. Pearson’s Magazine 17:398–403.Google Scholar
  83. Powell, Fred W. 1927. The Bureau of Plant Industry: Its history, activities and organization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Rosenberg, Charles E. 1964. The Adams Act: Politics and the cause of scientific research. Agricultural History 38:3–12.Google Scholar
  85. Rossiter, Margaret W. 1979. The organization of the agricultural sciences. In The organization of knowledge in modern America, 1860–1920, ed. Alexandra Oleson and John Voss, 211–248. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Schneider, Albert. 1903. Bacteria in modern economic agriculture. Popular Science 62:333–343.Google Scholar
  87. Seifriz, William. 1953. Walter T. Swingle: 1871–1952. Science 118:288–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Simmonds, Jeanette. 2007. Community matters: A history of biological nitrogen fixation and nodulation research, 1965 to 1995. Ph.D. dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.Google Scholar
  89. Smil, Vaclav. 2001. Enriching the earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the transformation of world food production. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  90. Smith, Isaac A. 1913. Soy beans and secrets of legume inoculation. n.c., n.p.Google Scholar
  91. Smith-Howard, Kendra. 2013. Pure and modern milk: An environmental history since 1900. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Springer, Alfred. 1892. Micro-organisms of the soil. Nature 46 (1198): 576–579.Google Scholar
  93. Starnes, Hugh N. 1905. Some field notes on soil inoculation. Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin #71. Georgia Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  94. Stevenson, John A. 1954. Plants, problems, and personalities: The genesis of the Bureau of Plant Industry. Agricultural History 28:155–162.Google Scholar
  95. Swingle, W. T. 1905. Suggestions in favor of pasigraphy. The Monist 15:148–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Swingle, W. T. 1909. A simple to metric conversion table: Changing metric units into English equivalents. Scientific American Supplement 68 (1733): 190.Google Scholar
  97. Townsend, C. F. 1897. Nitragin. Knowledge 20:201–202.Google Scholar
  98. Treitel, Corinna. 2008. Max Rubner and the biopolitics of rational nutrition. Central European History 41:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. True, Alfred C. 1937. History of agricultural experimentation and research in the United States, 1607–1925, including a history of the United States Department of Agriculture. USDA Miscellaneous Publication #251. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  100. Voorhees, Edward B., and Jacob G. Lipman. 1907. A review of investigations in soil bacteriology. USDA Office of Experiment Stations Bulletin #94. Washington: Government Printing Office.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wilson, James. 1903. Report of the Secretary. Yearbook of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1902. 9–124. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  102. Wood, Eugene. 1903. The good bacteria. Everybody’s Magazine 9:613–616.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HistoryArmstrong Atlantic State UniversitySavannahUSA

Personalised recommendations