Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T04:52:00.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Two-Way Stretches in Contemporary Agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Paul E. Waggoner
Paul E. Waggoner*
Affiliation:
The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven
Get access

Extract

When my father was growing up on a farm in Appanoose County, Iowa, his environment, except for a clock made in Connecticut, was largely homegrown. The homegrown even included the hay-burners that pulled the plow and the timothy that they burned. I have brought home to Connecticut the clock that my grandfather bought from a peddlar, but time has changed almost everything else. The Lockwood Farm of the Connecticut Station is the source of some of the changes, and it shows all of them clearly. There is, of course, the hybrid corn that was invented on the Farm, but there is also a tractor made in the Middle West burning oil pumped from the Middle East and pulling a Dutch sprayer full of fungicide from Pennsylvania. The workers were born in other states as I was, and they spread fertilizer from Tennessee and plant seeds from Idaho. To conclude the contrasts between eras, I can say that my father may have gone to the annual fair in a nearby Missouri county, but he had to enlist in the AEF to see Europe, which is a tour my son can now take for a couple of weeks wages.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , October 1974 , pp. 10 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1 Bosselman, F. and Callies, D. 1971. Quiet revolution in land use control. Council Environ. Quality, Wash., D. C.Google Scholar
2 Butz, E. L. 1973. America is fuel hungry. Speech, Des Moines, Iowa, May 31, 1973. USDA 1683-73.Google Scholar
3 Council on Environmental Quality. 1972. Third Annual Report. G.P.O., Washington, D. C. 450 p.Google Scholar
4 Critchfield, R. 1974. India: The lost years. New Republic, June 15. p. 16–19.Google Scholar
5 Enviro Control, Inc. 1972. National assessment of trends in water quality. PB-210. 669. Nat. Tech. Info. Serv., U.S.D.C. Springfield, Va.Google Scholar
6 Griliches, Z. 1957. Hybrid corn: an exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica 25: 501–522.Google Scholar
7 Heichel, G. H. 1973. Comparative efficiency of energy use in crop production. Conn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bulletin 739. 26 p.Google Scholar
8 Hendricks, S. B. 1969. Food from the land. p. 65–86. In Nat. Acad. Sci. Resources and Man. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco. 269 p.Google Scholar
9 Hightower, J. 1972. Hard tomatoes, hard times. Agribusiness Accountability Project. Wash., D. C. 308 p.Google Scholar
10 Hirst, E., and Moyers, J. C. 1973. Efficiency of energy use in the United States. Science 179: 1299–1304.Google Scholar
11 Holden, C. 1973. Water commission: no more free rides for water users. Science 180: 165–168.Google Scholar
12 Kaya, H. K. and Anderson, J. F. 1972. Parasitism of elm span-worm eggs by Ooencyrtus clisiocampae. Environ. Entomol. 1: 523–524.Google Scholar
13 Lincoln, G. A. 1973. Energy conservation. Science 180: 155–162.Google Scholar
14 Long, R. W. 1973. Food and the Future. Speech, Phila., Pa., May 16, 1973. USDA 1558-73.Google Scholar
15 National Academy of Sciences. 1972. Genetic vulnerability of major crops. N.A.S., Washington, D. C. 307 p.Google Scholar
16 National Academy of Sciences. 1972. Accumulation of nitrate. N.A.S., Washington, D. C. 106 p.Google Scholar
17 U. S. Dept. Agriculture. 1972. Agricultural statistics. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, D. C.Google Scholar