Skip to main content

Regionalizing Knowledge: The Ecological Approach of the USDA Office of Dryland Agriculture on the Great Plains

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Perspectives on the History of Life Sciences and Agriculture

Part of the book series: Archimedes ((ARIM,volume 40))

  • 1121 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the environmental region as a middle level of knowledge production between local and universal, focusing on the US Department of Agriculture’s Office of Dryland Agriculture in the early twentieth century, under E. C. Chilcott. The office supported branch field stations dispersed across the Great Plains—a region experiencing a tremendous influx of farming immigrants during this period—and these stations undertook coordinated agronomic experiments and measurements of ecological variables throughout the region. Such a regionalized ecological approach to agricultural research was not only similar in many respects to research in the emerging field of ecology but also produced knowledge claims contrasting markedly with the contemporaneous “scientific soil culture” movement led by promoters such as Hardy Webster Campbell. At the same time, the practice of agricultural research involving systematic coordination of research design and uniform collection of ecological variables generated some tensions between federal and state scientists.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Historians of science have not generally placed much emphasis on regions, but three suggestive examples focusing on regions in different countries include Smith (1987), Naylor (2010), and Phillips (2003).

  2. 2.

    Worster (1985). In Worster’s framing of the problem, though focused on history of ideas more than practices, a related tension between “imperial” (what I would call cosmopolitan scientific) views of nature and “arcadian” views of nature drives the entire narrative of the history of ecology. For a recent volume of papers that collectively argue for the continuing relevance of place-based ecological approaches, along with a few historical contributions, see Billick and Price (2010).

  3. 3.

    Examples include Cittadino (1993); Kingsland (1993); Klingle (1998); Schneider (2000); Way (2006). For the general framework of the lab-field borderlands, see Kohler (2002).

  4. 4.

    Kingsland (2005 , p. 2). She goes on to point out that “the same need to rationalize resource use that supported the conservation movement also supported research in ecology” (p. 4), a connection which is only heightened and amplified by the comparison with agricultural science research that I develop in this chapter.

  5. 5.

    A basic, laudatory overview, of both the USDA Office and the state experiment stations who collaborated, is provided in Quisenberry (1977). Historiography of the dry-farming movement, more generally, is still dominated by the thorough and comprehensive work of Mary W. M. Hargreaves (1957). For later developments, see Hargreaves (1993). Brief treatments are provided in Hargreaves (1948); Hargreaves (1977).

  6. 6.

    Chilcott (1903, p. 446).

  7. 7.

    Galloway (1906, p. 236).

  8. 8.

    Chilcott (1903, p. 448).

  9. 9.

    Publications by or associated with Campbell included books, articles, and periodicals, among which perhaps the most well known was his Soil culture manual, which was published in a few different versions in the early twentieth century, e.g., Campbell (1907b). Among the many overviews of Campbell’s life, one brief but solid synopsis is Hargreaves (1958). Laudatory popular accounts were also published during the early twentieth-century Great Plains dry-farming boom, including Cowan (1906).

  10. 10.

    Campbell (1907b, p. 67, 70, 72).

  11. 11.

    Campbell (1907a, p. 111).

  12. 12.

    Chilcott (1911, pp. 247–48).

  13. 13.

    Interestingly, this also meant that Chilcott’s primary “Great Plains” residency was nearly a 100 miles to the east of Aberdeen, South Dakota, which was the place where Campbell gained the “experience…[from which he] formulated the basic procedures of his farming system,” though Aberdeen was itself just barely west of the 98th meridian! See Hargreaves (1958, p. 63). As Hargreaves points out, Campbell had arrived in South Dakota in 1879, just in time for the Great Dakota Boom that peaked in the early 1880s (Hargreaves (1958, p. 62), thus suggesting that the dry-farming promoter himself had at least 20 years of practical experience in the region.

  14. 14.

    Chilcott (1903, p. 450, 452).

  15. 15.

    Galloway (1907, p. 319).

  16. 16.

    Galloway (1906, p. 236).

  17. 17.

    Chilcott (1903, p. 449).

  18. 18.

    For a discussion of this historical taxonomy of field practice, including lay networks and surveys (discussed here), stations (discussed elsewhere throughout this chapter) and quarries (unimportant in agricultural research but common in extractive disciplines such as paleontology and archaeology), see Vetter (2012).

  19. 19.

    Some key works on the early history of US long-distance weather networks and the organization of the US Weather Bureau through the early twentieth century include Fleming (1990); Fleming (2000); and Monmonier (1988). For a case study including the Great Plains and focusing on the interactions between lay observers and government forecasters, see Vetter (2011).

  20. 20.

    Jensen (1910, p. 8).

  21. 21.

    Dillman (1910, p. 11).

  22. 22.

    Chilcott et al. (1915, p. 5).

  23. 23.

    On “[e]cologists’ embrace of laboratory ideals and practices,” see Kohler (2002, p. 86). For the more explicitly articulated face of the early symbiosis of ecology and agricultural science, see Hersey (2011).

  24. 24.

    Galloway (1907, p. 320).

  25. 25.

    Jensen (1910, p. 3).

  26. 26.

    Galloway (1907, p. 320).

  27. 27.

    However, a significant difference was that the Chilcott, Briggs, and their collaborators viewed the key agent of change as human activity—whether in the form of plowing the soil itself or the multi-year crop rotations that were at the heart of the Office’s research practice—whereas Clementsian ecologists would ultimately come to focus on processes of ecological succession toward climax in the absence of human disruption. See Clements (1916).

  28. 28.

    For example, they were very similar to the variables studied by academic ecologists at sites such as the Desert Lab in Tucson, Arizona. On the history of the Desert Lab, see Kingsland (1993); McGinnies (1981); and Bowers (1990).

  29. 29.

    Galloway (1908).

  30. 30.

    Chilcott et al. (1915, pp. 2–3).

  31. 31.

    Galloway (1908, p. 318).

  32. 32.

    Cooperative Experiment Association of the Great Plains Area (1908, p. 3).

  33. 33.

    Galloway (1908, pp. 319–20).

  34. 34.

    Cooperative Experiment Association of the Great Plains Area (1908, pp. 7–8). The meetings of the organizing meeting in Washington, D.C., in November 1905, seem not to have been published, but a typescript labeled “Minutes of a Meeting Held at the Cosmos Club in Washington, November 15, 1905, for the Purpose Organizing a Cooperative Association for the Great Plains Area” can be found in University Archives, North Dakota State University, Institute for Regional Studies, Fargo, North Dakota Dickinson Experiment Station records (DES) 1/4.

  35. 35.

    Love Library, University Archives, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Agricultural Experiment Station records, North Platte Experiment Station 10/14/1 (NPES); E. C. Chilcott to W. W. Burr, 21 April 1906.

  36. 36.

    The unfamiliarity of the branch field station personnel with the intricacies of evaporation tanks, not just as scientific instruments but more generally, is suggested by another letter indicating the problems posed by the field agent at Highmore, South Dakota, having received a disassembled tank even though the company that manufactured it had promised to “furnish the tanks complete,” as noted in NPES; Chilcott to Burr, 14 May 1906.

  37. 37.

    DES 1/6; J. H. Worst to L. R. Waldron, 19 July 1906.

  38. 38.

    DES 1/6; Chilcott to Waldron, 26 July 1906.

  39. 39.

    DES 1/6; Worst to Waldron, 27 July 1906.

  40. 40.

    DES 1/6; Chilcott to Waldron, 6 August 1906.

  41. 41.

    NPES 9; Chilcott to Burr, 29 August 1906.

  42. 42.

    NPES 9; E. A. Burnett to Chilcott, 15 October 1905. At nearly the same time, as Nebraska station director, Burnett was also complaining directly to the USDA Bureau of Plant Industry chief, who was also Chilcott’s supervisor, about collaboration requests that he viewed as too indefinite from another agency within the Bureau—though, interestingly, Chilcott was invoked there as a positive model, due to his more definite lines of communication about “details and plans of the work,” where were deemed “satisfactory” as involving “mutual consideration,” as noted in NPES 9; Burnett to B. T. Galloway, 9 October 1906.

  43. 43.

    NPES 9; Burnett to Snyder, 31 October 1906.

  44. 44.

    NPES 1; Snyder to Burnett, 9 March 1911. For another example expressing a similar sentiment, see NPES 1; Snyder to Burnett, 18 September 1911.

  45. 45.

    Taylor (1915, p. 150).

  46. 46.

    Taylor (1920, pp. 186–87).

  47. 47.

    Chilcott et al. (1915, p. 3).

References

  • Billick, Ian, and Mary V. Price, eds. 2010. The ecology of place: Contributions of place-based research to ecological understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, Janice E. 1990. A debt to the future: Scientific achievements of the Desert Laboratory, Tumamoc Hill, Tucson, Arizona. Desert Plants 10:9–12, 35–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, H. W. 1907a. Address delivered at Dry Farming Congress, Denver, Colorado, January 1907. Proceedings of the Trans-Missouri Dry Farming Congress, 111–122. Denver: Denver Chamber of Commerce.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, H. W. 1907b. Campbell’s 1907 soil culture manual: A complete guide to scientific agriculture as adapted to the semi-arid regions. Lincoln: Campbell Soil Culture Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chilcott, E. C. 1903. Some soil problems for practical farmers. Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture, 441–452. Washington: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chilcott, E. C. 1911. Some misconceptions concerning dry farming. Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture, 247–256. Washington: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chilcott, E. C., J. S. Cole, and W. W. Burr. 1915. Crop production in the Great Plains Area: Relation of cultural methods to yields. USDA Bulletin No. 268. Washington: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cittadino, Eugene. 1993. A ‘marvelous cosmopolitan preserve’: The dunes, Chicago, and the dynamic ecology of Henry Cowles. Perspectives on Science 1:520–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements, Frederic E. 1916. Plant succession: An analysis of the development of vegetation. Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooperative Experiment Association of the Great Plains Area. 1908. Dry-land agriculture: Papers read at the second annual meeting of the Cooperative Experiment Association of the Great Plains Area, Held at Manhattan, Kanas, 26–27 June, 1907. USDA, Bureau of Plant Industry, Bulletin No. 130. Washington: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, John L. 1906. Dry farming-The hope of the West. Century Magazine 50:435–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, Arthur C. 1910. Breeding drought-resistant plants for the Great Plains Area. USDA Bureau of Plant Industry, Bulletin No. 196. Washington: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, James Rodger. 1990. Meteorology in America, 1800–1870. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, James Rodger. 2000. Storms, strikes, and surveillance: The U.S. Army Signal Office, 1861–1891. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 30:315–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galloway, B. T. 1906. Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Plant Industry. Annual Reports of the Department of Agriculture, 175–266. Washington: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galloway, B. T. 1907. Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Plant Industry. Annual reports of the Department of Agriculture, 257–341. Washington: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galloway, B. T. 1908. Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Plant Industry. Annual reports of the Department of Agriculture, 283–407. Washington: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, Mary W. M. 1948. Dry farming alias scientific farming. Agricultural History 22:39–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, Mary W. M. 1957. Dry farming in the northern Great Plains, 1900–1925. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, Mary W. M. 1958. Hardy Webster Campbell (1850–1937). Agricultural History 32:62–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, Mary W. M. 1977. The dry-farming movement in retrospect. Agricultural History 51:149–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, Mary W. M. 1993. Dry farming in the northern Great Plains: Years of readjustment, 1920–1990. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hersey, Mark. 2011. ‘What we need is a crop ecologist’: Ecology and agricultural science in Progressive-Era America. Agricultural History 85:297–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, C. A. 1910. Seasonal nitrification as influenced by crops and tillage. USDA Bureau of Plant Industry, Bulletin No. 173. Washington: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsland, Sharon E. 1993. An elusive science: Ecological enterprise in the southwestern United States. In Science and nature: Essays in the history of the environmental sciences, ed. Michael Shortland, 151–179. Oxford: British Society for the History of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsland, Sharon. 2005. The evolution of American ecology, 1890–2000. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klingle, Matthew W. 1998. Plying atomic waters: Lauren Donaldson and the ‘Fern Lake concept’ of fisheries management. Journal of the History of Biology 31:1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, Robert E. 2002. Landscapes and labscapes: Exploring the lab-field border in biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinnies, William G. 1981. Discovering the desert: Legacy of the Carnegie Desert Botanical Laboratory. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monmonier, Mark. 1988. Telegraphy, iconography, and the weather map: Cartographic weather reports by the United States Weather Bureau, 1870–1935. Imago Mundi 40:15–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naylor, Simon. 2010. Regionalizing science: Placing Knowledges in Victorian England. London: Pickering and Chatto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Denise. 2003. Friends of nature: Urban sociability and regional natural history in Dresden, 1800–1850. Osiris 18:43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quisenberry, Karl. 1977. The dry land stations: Their mission and their men. Agricultural History 51:218–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Daniel W. 2000. Local knowledge, environmental politics, and the founding of ecology in the United States: Stephen Forbes and ‘The lake as microcosm’ (1887). Isis 91:681–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Michael. 1987. Pacific visions: California scientists and the environment, 1850–1915. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, W. A. 1915. Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Plant Industry. Annual Reports of the Department of Agriculture, 143–158. Washington: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, W. A. 1920. Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Plant Industry. Annual Reports of the Department of Agriculture, 159–220. Washington: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vetter, Jeremy. 2011. Lay observers, telegraph lines, and Kansas weather: The field network as a mode of knowledge production. Science in Context 24:259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vetter, Jeremy. 2012. Field life in the American West: Surveys, networks, stations, and quarries. In Scientists and scholars in the field: Studies in the history of fieldwork and expeditions, ed. Kristian H. Nielsen, Michael Harbsmeier, and Christopher J. Ries, 225–258. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Way, Albert G. 2006. Burned to be wild: Herbert Stoddard and the roots of ecological conservation in the southern longleaf pine forest. Environmental History 11:500–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worster, Donald. 1985. Nature’s economy: A history of ecological ideas, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Vetter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vetter, J. (2015). Regionalizing Knowledge: The Ecological Approach of the USDA Office of Dryland Agriculture on the Great Plains. In: Phillips, D., Kingsland, S. (eds) New Perspectives on the History of Life Sciences and Agriculture. Archimedes, vol 40. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12185-7_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics