Cotton on the federal road to economic development: Technology and labor policies following World War II

Agricultural History

Volumn 74, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 272-292

  Grove, Wayne A ^a  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COTTON; HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY; LABOR POLICY; POST-WAR; TECHNOLOGY POLICY; TWENTIETH CENTURY;

UNITED STATES;

ANIMALIA; GOSSYPIUM HIRSUTUM; TRITICUM AESTIVUM; ZEA MAYS;

AGRICULTURE; COTTON INDUSTRY; ECONOMIC INFORMATION; LABOR; TEXTILE HISTORY;

EID: 0033800423     PISSN: 00021482     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (82)

1. For labor requirements per acre, see M. R. Cooper, W. C. Holley, H. W. Hawthorne and R. S. Washburn, Labor Requirements for Crops and Livestock, USDA, 1943, 116. Regarding grower manipulation of labor markets, for the South generally, see Lee Alston and Joseph Ferrie, Southern Paternalism and the American Welfare State, Chapter 5 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1999), and Jay R. Mandle, Not Slave, Not Free (Durham: Duke University Press, 1992); for the Mississippi Delta area, see James C. Cobb, The Most Southern Place on Earth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), especially Chapter 8; for Texas, see David Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987), Chapter 9; for California, see Ernesto Galarza, Strangers in Our Fields (Washington, D.C.: Joint U.S.-Mexican Trade Union Committee, 1956) and Merchants of Labor (Santa Barbara: McNally & Loftin, 1964).
2. For labor requirements per acre, see M. R. Cooper, W. C. Holley, H. W. Hawthorne and R. S. Washburn, Labor Requirements for Crops and Livestock, USDA, 1943, 116. Regarding grower manipulation of labor markets, for the South generally, see Lee Alston and Joseph Ferrie, Southern Paternalism and the American Welfare State, Chapter 5 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1999), and Jay R. Mandle, Not Slave, Not Free (Durham: Duke University Press, 1992); for the Mississippi Delta area, see James C. Cobb, The Most Southern Place on Earth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), especially Chapter 8; for Texas, see David Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987), Chapter 9; for California, see Ernesto Galarza, Strangers in Our Fields (Washington, D.C.: Joint U.S.-Mexican Trade Union Committee, 1956) and Merchants of Labor (Santa Barbara: McNally & Loftin, 1964).
3. For labor requirements per acre, see M. R. Cooper, W. C. Holley, H. W. Hawthorne and R. S. Washburn, Labor Requirements for Crops and Livestock, USDA, 1943, 116. Regarding grower manipulation of labor markets, for the South generally, see Lee Alston and Joseph Ferrie, Southern Paternalism and the American Welfare State, Chapter 5 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1999), and Jay R. Mandle, Not Slave, Not Free (Durham: Duke University Press, 1992); for the Mississippi Delta area, see James C. Cobb, The Most Southern Place on Earth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), especially Chapter 8; for Texas, see David Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987), Chapter 9; for California, see Ernesto Galarza, Strangers in Our Fields (Washington, D.C.: Joint U.S.-Mexican Trade Union Committee, 1956) and Merchants of Labor (Santa Barbara: McNally & Loftin, 1964).
4. For labor requirements per acre, see M. R. Cooper, W. C. Holley, H. W. Hawthorne and R. S. Washburn, Labor Requirements for Crops and Livestock, USDA, 1943, 116. Regarding grower manipulation of labor markets, for the South generally, see Lee Alston and Joseph Ferrie, Southern Paternalism and the American Welfare State, Chapter 5 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1999), and Jay R. Mandle, Not Slave, Not Free (Durham: Duke University Press, 1992); for the Mississippi Delta area, see James C. Cobb, The Most Southern Place on Earth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), especially Chapter 8; for Texas, see David Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987), Chapter 9; for California, see Ernesto Galarza, Strangers in Our Fields (Washington, D.C.: Joint U.S.-Mexican Trade Union Committee, 1956) and Merchants of Labor (Santa Barbara: McNally & Loftin, 1964).
5. For labor requirements per acre, see M. R. Cooper, W. C. Holley, H. W. Hawthorne and R. S. Washburn, Labor Requirements for Crops and Livestock, USDA, 1943, 116. Regarding grower manipulation of labor markets, for the South generally, see Lee Alston and Joseph Ferrie, Southern Paternalism and the American Welfare State, Chapter 5 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1999), and Jay R. Mandle, Not Slave, Not Free (Durham: Duke University Press, 1992); for the Mississippi Delta area, see James C. Cobb, The Most Southern Place on Earth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), especially Chapter 8; for Texas, see David Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987), Chapter 9; for California, see Ernesto Galarza, Strangers in Our Fields (Washington, D.C.: Joint U.S.-Mexican Trade Union Committee, 1956) and Merchants of Labor (Santa Barbara: McNally & Loftin, 1964).
6. For labor requirements per acre, see M. R. Cooper, W. C. Holley, H. W. Hawthorne and R. S. Washburn, Labor Requirements for Crops and Livestock, USDA, 1943, 116. Regarding grower manipulation of labor markets, for the South generally, see Lee Alston and Joseph Ferrie, Southern Paternalism and the American Welfare State, Chapter 5 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1999), and Jay R. Mandle, Not Slave, Not Free (Durham: Duke University Press, 1992); for the Mississippi Delta area, see James C. Cobb, The Most Southern Place on Earth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), especially Chapter 8; for Texas, see David Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987), Chapter 9; for California, see Ernesto Galarza, Strangers in Our Fields (Washington, D.C.: Joint U.S.-Mexican Trade Union Committee, 1956) and Merchants of Labor (Santa Barbara: McNally & Loftin, 1964).
7. For labor requirements per acre, see M. R. Cooper, W. C. Holley, H. W. Hawthorne and R. S. Washburn, Labor Requirements for Crops and Livestock, USDA, 1943, 116. Regarding grower manipulation of labor markets, for the South generally, see Lee Alston and Joseph Ferrie, Southern Paternalism and the American Welfare State, Chapter 5 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1999), and Jay R. Mandle, Not Slave, Not Free (Durham: Duke University Press, 1992); for the Mississippi Delta area, see James C. Cobb, The Most Southern Place on Earth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), especially Chapter 8; for Texas, see David Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836-1986 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987), Chapter 9; for California, see Ernesto Galarza, Strangers in Our Fields (Washington, D.C.: Joint U.S.-Mexican Trade Union Committee, 1956) and Merchants of Labor (Santa Barbara: McNally & Loftin, 1964).
8. Nancy Virts, "The Efficiency of Southern Tenant Plantations, 1900-1945," Journal of Economic History 51 (June 1991): 387-89.
9. Jack Kirby, Rural Worlds Lost: The American South, 1920-1960 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987), 15-16.
10. Charles Richard Sayre Jr., "The Economics of Mechanization in Cotton Production" (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1948).
11. Although every aspect of its design and operation were tinkered with thereafter, its basic design remains the same today. The McLemore brothers of Montgomery County, Alabama, provided a similar demonstration of mechanized production on 150 acres of their 7,000-acre plantation in 1946. See David R. Goldfield, Promised Land: The South Since 1945 (Arlington Heights, Ill: Harlan Davidson, 1987), 25. Regarding farm experts' advocacy of laborsaving changes, see Gilbert C. Fite, Cotton Fields No More (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 984), 176-90.
12. Although every aspect of its design and operation were tinkered with thereafter, its basic design remains the same today. The McLemore brothers of Montgomery County, Alabama, provided a similar demonstration of mechanized production on 150 acres of their 7,000-acre plantation in 1946. See David R. Goldfield, Promised Land: The South Since 1945 (Arlington Heights, Ill: Harlan Davidson, 1987), 25. Regarding farm experts' advocacy of laborsaving changes, see Gilbert C. Fite, Cotton Fields No More (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 984), 176-90.
13. For the Delta Station quote, see Sayre, "The Economics of Mechanization," 110; Warren C. Whatley, "Southern Agrarian Labor Contracts as Impediments to Cotton Mechanization," Journal of Economic History 47 (March 1987): 67.
14. For the Delta Station quote, see Sayre, "The Economics of Mechanization," 110; Warren C. Whatley, "Southern Agrarian Labor Contracts as Impediments to Cotton Mechanization," Journal of Economic History 47 (March 1987): 67.
15. Regarding the delayed southern mechanization, see James H. Street, The New Revolution in the Cotton Economy: Mechanization and Its Consequences (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1957).
16. For relative harvest costs and mechanization, see Wayne A. Grove, "Mechanization of the Cotton Harvest Across the Pan-continental Cotton Belt" (Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana, forthcoming), Chapter 2 and 3.
17. The "Cotton Picker Special" was described as "the single largest shipment of farm machinery equipment ever made by rail." See 30 Seasons of Better Picking with John Deere (John Deere Co., no date), 8.
18. The term "bracero" comes from brazo, the Spanish word for arm, which loosely interpreted means "farmhand."
19. United States Census of Agriculture, 1950, Agriculture, vol. 2, 66; Fite, Cotton Fields, 170.
20. United States Census of Agriculture, 1950, Agriculture, vol. 2, 66; Fite, Cotton Fields, 170.
21. Arthur F. Raper's comments in an address to a meeting of sociologists in Atlanta in May 1946, quoted in Pete Daniel. Breaking the Land: The Transformation of Cotton, Tobacco, and Rice Culture since 1880 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 247. By 1949 the Delta and Pine Land Company only owned a few tractors and was just beginning to harvest with machines. Regarding the D&PL plantation, see Kirby, Rural Worlds Lost, 339, and Lawrence J. Nelson, King Cotton's Advocate: Oscar G. Johnston and the New Deal (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1999), 244.
22. Arthur F. Raper's comments in an address to a meeting of sociologists in Atlanta in May 1946, quoted in Pete Daniel. Breaking the Land: The Transformation of Cotton, Tobacco, and Rice Culture since 1880 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 247. By 1949 the Delta and Pine Land Company only owned a few tractors and was just beginning to harvest with machines. Regarding the D&PL plantation, see Kirby, Rural Worlds Lost, 339, and Lawrence J. Nelson, King Cotton's Advocate: Oscar G. Johnston and the New Deal (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1999), 244.
23. Arthur F. Raper's comments in an address to a meeting of sociologists in Atlanta in May 1946, quoted in Pete Daniel. Breaking the Land: The Transformation of Cotton, Tobacco, and Rice Culture since 1880 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 247. By 1949 the Delta and Pine Land Company only owned a few tractors and was just beginning to harvest with machines. Regarding the D&PL plantation, see Kirby, Rural Worlds Lost, 339, and Lawrence J. Nelson, King Cotton's Advocate: Oscar G. Johnston and the New Deal (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1999), 244.
24. The nontraditional workers were largely recruited through the Victory Farm volunteers and the Women's Land Army. For a legislative history of the World War II Bracero Program, see Wayne Rasmusssen, A History of the Emergency Farm Labor Supply Program, 1943-1947, USDA, Agricultural Monograph no. 13, September 1951. For a legislative history of the Bracero Program during the 1950s and 1960s, see Richard Craig, The Bracero Program (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971). Political economy analyses of the Bracero Program are offered by Craig, The Bracero Program; Alston and Ferrie, Southern Paternalism, chap. 5;
25. The nontraditional workers were largely recruited through the Victory Farm volunteers and the Women's Land Army. For a legislative history of the World War II Bracero Program, see Wayne Rasmusssen, A History of the Emergency Farm Labor Supply Program, 1943-1947, USDA, Agricultural Monograph no. 13, September 1951. For a legislative history of the Bracero Program during the 1950s and 1960s, see Richard Craig, The Bracero Program (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971). Political economy analyses of the Bracero Program are offered by Craig, The Bracero Program; Alston and Ferrie, Southern Paternalism, chap. 5;
26. The nontraditional workers were largely recruited through the Victory Farm volunteers and the Women's Land Army. For a legislative history of the World War II Bracero Program, see Wayne Rasmusssen, A History of the Emergency Farm Labor Supply Program, 1943-1947, USDA, Agricultural Monograph no. 13, September 1951. For a legislative history of the Bracero Program during the 1950s and 1960s, see Richard Craig, The Bracero Program (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971). Political economy analyses of the Bracero Program are offered by Craig, The Bracero Program; Alston and Ferrie, Southern Paternalism, chap. 5;
27. The nontraditional workers were largely recruited through the Victory Farm volunteers and the Women's Land Army. For a legislative history of the World War II Bracero Program, see Wayne Rasmusssen, A History of the Emergency Farm Labor Supply Program, 1943-1947, USDA, Agricultural Monograph no. 13, September 1951. For a legislative history of the Bracero Program during the 1950s and 1960s, see Richard Craig, The Bracero Program (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971). Political economy analyses of the Bracero Program are offered by Craig, The Bracero Program; Alston and Ferrie, Southern Paternalism, chap. 5; Ernesto Galarza, Merchants of Labor.
28. Kitty Calavita, Inside the State (New York: Routledge, 1992);
29. The nontraditional workers were largely recruited through the Victory Farm volunteers and the Women's Land Army. For a legislative history of the World War II Bracero Program, see Wayne Rasmusssen, A History of the Emergency Farm Labor Supply Program, 1943-1947, USDA, Agricultural Monograph no. 13, September 1951. For a legislative history of the Bracero Program during the 1950s and 1960s, see Richard Craig, The Bracero Program (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971). Political economy analyses of the Bracero Program are offered by Craig, The Bracero Program; Alston and Ferrie, Southern Paternalism, chap. 5; Ernesto Galarza, Merchants of Labor.
30. See Wayne A. Grove, "The Mexican Farm Labor Program, 1942-1964," Agricultural History 70 (Spring 1996), and Grove, "Mechanization of the Cotton Harvest," chap. 2.
31. See Wayne A. Grove, "The Mexican Farm Labor Program, 1942-1964," Agricultural History 70 (Spring 1996), and Grove, "Mechanization of the Cotton Harvest," chap. 2.
32. Until the introduction of the tractor, cotton production practices had changed very little from the postbellum era. Most importantly for harvest mechanization, the use of tractors began to change production practices by allowing more precise and timely operations and by encouraging farmers to reorganize production, e.g., field layouts, to accommodate machines. The tractor allowed planters to improve land and diversify crops. Agricultural experiment stations throughout the Cotton Belt in conjunction with each other and with the USDA and private companies spearheaded the research and development of the various components of the new culture of mechanized production. For each decade from 1950 to 1970, Charles R. Sayre outlines the major developments for each stage of cotton mechanization. See Sayre, "Cotton Mechanization Since World War II," Agricultural History 53 (January 1979).
33. All of the initial and subsequent studies of harvest mechanization identified these problems, attempted to measure their size, and sought solulions. For a discussion of agricultural experiment station studies, see Frank Maier, "An Economic Analysis of Adoption of the Mechanical Cotton Picker" (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1969). Machine harvesting entailed mostly fixed costs and few variable expenses, the reverse of hand harvesting. In the 1950s most mechanical harvesters mounted on tractors, although self-propelled models became increasingly popular. For machine harvesting, fixed costs consisted of depreciation and interest on the harvester and the tractor and the cost of mounting and dismounting the harvester device, while variable costs were for labor, tractor use and repairs, and hauling to the gin. For hand harvesting, most of the costs were variable wage expenses, while fixed costs consisted of the time it took for someone to weigh the cotton and monitor its quality and the cost of transporting, recruiting, and providing perquisites for laborers.
34. This required at least twenty feet for a one-row picker and at least twenty-five feet for a two-row picker. See Rex R. Colwick and E. B. Williamson, "Harvesting to Maintain Efficiency and to Protect Quality," in Advances in Production and Utilization of Quality Cotton: Principles and Practices, ed. Fred C. Elliot, Marvin Hoover, and Walter K. Potter (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1968), 438-39.
35. Maier, "An Economic Analysis," largely estimates potential machine harvest hours from C-GEES (Cotton Growers Equipment Exchange Service) reports, an interstate coordination committee to promote the movement and utilization of mechanical cotton harvesters (Tables 44-46, pp. 214-19).
36. Yield per acre for wheat rose from 16.5 to 26.1 bushels and for corn from 37.6 to 53.5 bushels. The average dairy cow produced 5,314 pounds of milk in 1950 compared to 7,029 pounds in 1960. See Bureau of Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, 1975, pt. 1, 510-11, 517, 522.
37. Ultimately, engineers determined that efficient harvesting required two-row machines with at least 3.25-inch long barbed and tapered spindles along with an appropriate wetting agent. See Basil G. Christidis and George J. Harrison, Cotton Growing Problems (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1955), 599-600. The following are the eight most important developments of the 1950s: wetting agents; modified drum heights; synchronization of picker head with forward ground speed; improved pressure plates; improved spindle types; improved plant lifters; two-row, self-propelled machine; and improved air control in picker head (Sayre, "Cotton Mechanization," 113). Researchers examined factors that affected the performance of the mechanical picker, for example, the number, spacing in picking zone, shape, and size of spindles; barbs on them and their height, sharpness, and angle; dampness and cleanliness of spindle; rate per minute of spindles and synchronized movement of the spindle or rate per minute of picker drum with the forward travel of the machine; width of throat adjacent to spindle; pressure given the plate holding the plants into the spindles; use of spindles on one or both sides of the row; and the thoroughness of removal of the cotton from the spindles from the doffing device. See Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting." 30-34; Colwick et al., "Harvesting," 384-85.
38. Ultimately, engineers determined that efficient harvesting required two-row machines with at least 3.25-inch long barbed and tapered spindles along with an appropriate wetting agent. See Basil G. Christidis and George J. Harrison, Cotton Growing Problems (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1955), 599-600. The following are the eight most important developments of the 1950s: wetting agents; modified drum heights; synchronization of picker head with forward ground speed; improved pressure plates; improved spindle types; improved plant lifters; two-row, self-propelled machine; and improved air control in picker head (Sayre, "Cotton Mechanization," 113). Researchers examined factors that affected the performance of the mechanical picker, for example, the number, spacing in picking zone, shape, and size of spindles; barbs on them and their height, sharpness, and angle; dampness and cleanliness of spindle; rate per minute of spindles and synchronized movement of the spindle or rate per minute of picker drum with the forward travel of the machine; width of throat adjacent to spindle; pressure given the plate holding the plants into the spindles; use of spindles on one or both sides of the row; and the thoroughness of removal of the cotton from the spindles from the doffing device. See Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting." 30-34; Colwick et al., "Harvesting," 384-85.
39. Ultimately, engineers determined that efficient harvesting required two-row machines with at least 3.25-inch long barbed and tapered spindles along with an appropriate wetting agent. See Basil G. Christidis and George J. Harrison, Cotton Growing Problems (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1955), 599-600. The following are the eight most important developments of the 1950s: wetting agents; modified drum heights; synchronization of picker head with forward ground speed; improved pressure plates; improved spindle types; improved plant lifters; two-row, self-propelled machine; and improved air control in picker head (Sayre, "Cotton Mechanization," 113). Researchers examined factors that affected the performance of the mechanical picker, for example, the number, spacing in picking zone, shape, and size of spindles; barbs on them and their height, sharpness, and angle; dampness and cleanliness of spindle; rate per minute of spindles and synchronized movement of the spindle or rate per minute of picker drum with the forward travel of the machine; width of throat adjacent to spindle; pressure given the plate holding the plants into the spindles; use of spindles on one or both sides of the row; and the thoroughness of removal of the cotton from the spindles from the doffing device. See Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting." 30-34; Colwick et al., "Harvesting," 384-85.
40. Breeders developed storm-proof varieties in which the burr never completely opened for the severe winds of the High Plains and storm-resistant varieties which only partially opened for the coastal plains areas where tropical disturbances at the harvest were common. For these developments in California, see George J. Harrison, "Breeding and Adapting Cotton to Mechanization," Agricultural Engineering 9 (September 1951): 486-88; J. P. Fairbank and K. O. Smith, "Cotton Mechanization in California," Agricultural Engineering 8 (May 1950): 219. Along with improved fertilizer equipment, deep tillage equipment (subsoiler, chisel plow, two-way middle busters, and moldboard plows) permitted better hardpan breakup. In addition, farmers could obtain a firm seedbed by combining a four-row front-mounted cultivator with four-row rear-mounted planter (Sayre, "Cotton Mechanization," 112). The major developments included precision seed monitoring; low-mounted hoppers; rubber-tired press wheels; improved openers; high-speed hill-drop attachments; standardized four-row planters; and planter attachments to apply liquid fertilizers and herbicides. Also see Rex F. Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting of Cotton," Southern Cooperative Series, Bulletin no. 100, March 1965, and Rex F. Colwick, William F. Lalor, and Lambert H. Wilkes, "Harvesting," in Cotton, Agronomy Monograph no. 24, 1984. The field loss estimates are from Maier ("An Economic Analysis," 263), based on conversations with selected experts given the absence of consistent data by state over time regarding field losses. Regarding harvester efficiency, see Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 13. For field loss estimates, see Maier, "An Economic Analysis," 262-67; Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 5.
41. Breeders developed storm-proof varieties in which the burr never completely opened for the severe winds of the High Plains and storm-resistant varieties which only partially opened for the coastal plains areas where tropical disturbances at the harvest were common. For these developments in California, see George J. Harrison, "Breeding and Adapting Cotton to Mechanization," Agricultural Engineering 9 (September 1951): 486-88; J. P. Fairbank and K. O. Smith, "Cotton Mechanization in California," Agricultural Engineering 8 (May 1950): 219. Along with improved fertilizer equipment, deep tillage equipment (subsoiler, chisel plow, two-way middle busters, and moldboard plows) permitted better hardpan breakup. In addition, farmers could obtain a firm seedbed by combining a four-row front-mounted cultivator with four-row rear-mounted planter (Sayre, "Cotton Mechanization," 112). The major developments included precision seed monitoring; low-mounted hoppers; rubber-tired press wheels; improved openers; high-speed hill-drop attachments; standardized four-row planters; and planter attachments to apply liquid fertilizers and herbicides. Also see Rex F. Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting of Cotton," Southern Cooperative Series, Bulletin no. 100, March 1965, and Rex F. Colwick, William F. Lalor, and Lambert H. Wilkes, "Harvesting," in Cotton, Agronomy Monograph no. 24, 1984. The field loss estimates are from Maier ("An Economic Analysis," 263), based on conversations with selected experts given the absence of consistent data by state over time regarding field losses. Regarding harvester efficiency, see Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 13. For field loss estimates, see Maier, "An Economic Analysis," 262-67; Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 5.
42. Breeders developed storm-proof varieties in which the burr never completely opened for the severe winds of the High Plains and storm-resistant varieties which only partially opened for the coastal plains areas where tropical disturbances at the harvest were common. For these developments in California, see George J. Harrison, "Breeding and Adapting Cotton to Mechanization," Agricultural Engineering 9 (September 1951): 486-88; J. P. Fairbank and K. O. Smith, "Cotton Mechanization in California," Agricultural Engineering 8 (May 1950): 219. Along with improved fertilizer equipment, deep tillage equipment (subsoiler, chisel plow, two-way middle busters, and moldboard plows) permitted better hardpan breakup. In addition, farmers could obtain a firm seedbed by combining a four-row front-mounted cultivator with four-row rear-mounted planter (Sayre, "Cotton Mechanization," 112). The major developments included precision seed monitoring; low-mounted hoppers; rubber-tired press wheels; improved openers; high-speed hill-drop attachments; standardized four-row planters; and planter attachments to apply liquid fertilizers and herbicides. Also see Rex F. Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting of Cotton," Southern Cooperative Series, Bulletin no. 100, March 1965, and Rex F. Colwick, William F. Lalor, and Lambert H. Wilkes, "Harvesting," in Cotton, Agronomy Monograph no. 24, 1984. The field loss estimates are from Maier ("An Economic Analysis," 263), based on conversations with selected experts given the absence of consistent data by state over time regarding field losses. Regarding harvester efficiency, see Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 13. For field loss estimates, see Maier, "An Economic Analysis," 262-67; Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 5.
43. Breeders developed storm-proof varieties in which the burr never completely opened for the severe winds of the High Plains and storm-resistant varieties which only partially opened for the coastal plains areas where tropical disturbances at the harvest were common. For these developments in California, see George J. Harrison, "Breeding and Adapting Cotton to Mechanization," Agricultural Engineering 9 (September 1951): 486-88; J. P. Fairbank and K. O. Smith, "Cotton Mechanization in California," Agricultural Engineering 8 (May 1950): 219. Along with improved fertilizer equipment, deep tillage equipment (subsoiler, chisel plow, two-way middle busters, and moldboard plows) permitted better hardpan breakup. In addition, farmers could obtain a firm seedbed by combining a four-row front-mounted cultivator with four-row rear-mounted planter (Sayre, "Cotton Mechanization," 112). The major developments included precision seed monitoring; low-mounted hoppers; rubber-tired press wheels; improved openers; high-speed hill-drop attachments; standardized four-row planters; and planter attachments to apply liquid fertilizers and herbicides. Also see Rex F. Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting of Cotton," Southern Cooperative Series, Bulletin no. 100, March 1965, and Rex F. Colwick, William F. Lalor, and Lambert H. Wilkes, "Harvesting," in Cotton, Agronomy Monograph no. 24, 1984. The field loss estimates are from Maier ("An Economic Analysis," 263), based on conversations with selected experts given the absence of consistent data by state over time regarding field losses. Regarding harvester efficiency, see Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 13. For field loss estimates, see Maier, "An Economic Analysis," 262-67; Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 5.
44. Breeders developed storm-proof varieties in which the burr never completely opened for the severe winds of the High Plains and storm-resistant varieties which only partially opened for the coastal plains areas where tropical disturbances at the harvest were common. For these developments in California, see George J. Harrison, "Breeding and Adapting Cotton to Mechanization," Agricultural Engineering 9 (September 1951): 486-88; J. P. Fairbank and K. O. Smith, "Cotton Mechanization in California," Agricultural Engineering 8 (May 1950): 219. Along with improved fertilizer equipment, deep tillage equipment (subsoiler, chisel plow, two-way middle busters, and moldboard plows) permitted better hardpan breakup. In addition, farmers could obtain a firm seedbed by combining a four-row front-mounted cultivator with four-row rear-mounted planter (Sayre, "Cotton Mechanization," 112). The major developments included precision seed monitoring; low-mounted hoppers; rubber-tired press wheels; improved openers; high-speed hill-drop attachments; standardized four-row planters; and planter attachments to apply liquid fertilizers and herbicides. Also see Rex F. Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting of Cotton," Southern Cooperative Series, Bulletin no. 100, March 1965, and Rex F. Colwick, William F. Lalor, and Lambert H. Wilkes, "Harvesting," in Cotton, Agronomy Monograph no. 24, 1984. The field loss estimates are from Maier ("An Economic Analysis," 263), based on conversations with selected experts given the absence of consistent data by state over time regarding field losses. Regarding harvester efficiency, see Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 13 For field loss estimates, see Maier, "An Economic Analysis," 262-67; Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 5.
45. Breeders developed storm-proof varieties in which the burr never completely opened for the severe winds of the High Plains and storm-resistant varieties which only partially opened for the coastal plains areas where tropical disturbances at the harvest were common. For these developments in California, see George J. Harrison, "Breeding and Adapting Cotton to Mechanization," Agricultural Engineering 9 (September 1951): 486-88; J. P. Fairbank and K. O. Smith, "Cotton Mechanization in California," Agricultural Engineering 8 (May 1950): 219. Along with improved fertilizer equipment, deep tillage equipment (subsoiler, chisel plow, two-way middle busters, and moldboard plows) permitted better hardpan breakup. In addition, farmers could obtain a firm seedbed by combining a four-row front-mounted cultivator with four-row rear-mounted planter (Sayre, "Cotton Mechanization," 112). The major developments included precision seed monitoring; low-mounted hoppers; rubber-tired press wheels; improved openers; high-speed hill-drop attachments; standardized four-row planters; and planter attachments to apply liquid fertilizers and herbicides. Also see Rex F. Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting of Cotton," Southern Cooperative Series, Bulletin no. 100, March 1965, and Rex F. Colwick, William F. Lalor, and Lambert H. Wilkes, "Harvesting," in Cotton, Agronomy Monograph no. 24, 1984. The field loss estimates are from Maier ("An Economic Analysis," 263), based on conversations with selected experts given the absence of consistent data by state over time regarding field losses. Regarding harvester efficiency, see Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 13. For field loss estimates, see Maier, "An Economic Analysis," 262-67; Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 5.
46. Breeders developed storm-proof varieties in which the burr never completely opened for the severe winds of the High Plains and storm-resistant varieties which only partially opened for the coastal plains areas where tropical disturbances at the harvest were common. For these developments in California, see George J. Harrison, "Breeding and Adapting Cotton to Mechanization," Agricultural Engineering 9 (September 1951): 486-88; J. P. Fairbank and K. O. Smith, "Cotton Mechanization in California," Agricultural Engineering 8 (May 1950): 219. Along with improved fertilizer equipment, deep tillage equipment (subsoiler, chisel plow, two-way middle busters, and moldboard plows) permitted better hardpan breakup. In addition, farmers could obtain a firm seedbed by combining a four-row front-mounted cultivator with four-row rear-mounted planter (Sayre, "Cotton Mechanization," 112). The major developments included precision seed monitoring; low-mounted hoppers; rubber-tired press wheels; improved openers; high-speed hill-drop attachments; standardized four-row planters; and planter attachments to apply liquid fertilizers and herbicides. Also see Rex F. Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting of Cotton," Southern Cooperative Series, Bulletin no. 100, March 1965, and Rex F. Colwick, William F. Lalor, and Lambert H. Wilkes, "Harvesting," in Cotton, Agronomy Monograph no. 24, 1984. The field loss estimates are from Maier ("An Economic Analysis," 263), based on conversations with selected experts given the absence of consistent data by state over time regarding field losses. Regarding harvester efficiency, see Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 13. For field loss estimates, see Maier, "An Economic Analysis," 262-67; Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 5.
47. Regarding increased moisture content due to the wetting agent, see Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 25.
48. With new cleaning and drying equipment, "grade loss" could be minimized, although it still garnered a lower market price. The extra cleaning and drying in the gin, however, often changed the spinning quality of the lint, and cotton's value declined. This was particularly true of cotton grown for and harvested by spindle pickers, as it was usually of longer staple and was expected to bring higher prices than cotton normally stripped.
49. Regarding defoliant use and the length of the daily harvest, see J. A. Riley and E. B. Williamson, "Relative Humidity in Cotton Fields at Harvest Time," Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin no. 581, July 1959.
50. Regarding the importance of technical skills, see Fite, Cotton Fields, 189; Sayre, "Cotton Mechanization," 109. The operator of the cotton picker had to carefully guide the machine through the field with the picking cylinders accurately straddling the row or rows while monitoring the picking speed, flow of water to the spindle cleaners, moisture pad clearance, and position of plant lifters. Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 22-25.
51. Regarding the importance of technical skills, see Fite, Cotton Fields, 189; Sayre, "Cotton Mechanization," 109. The operator of the cotton picker had to carefully guide the machine through the field with the picking cylinders accurately straddling the row or rows while monitoring the picking speed, flow of water to the spindle cleaners, moisture pad clearance, and position of plant lifters. Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 22-25.
52. Regarding the importance of technical skills, see Fite, Cotton Fields, 189; Sayre, "Cotton Mechanization," 109. The operator of the cotton picker had to carefully guide the machine through the field with the picking cylinders accurately straddling the row or rows while monitoring the picking speed, flow of water to the spindle cleaners, moisture pad clearance, and position of plant lifters. Colwick, "Mechanized Harvesting," 22-25.
53. J. T. Holstun Jr. and O. B. Wooten, "Weeds and Their Control," chap. 6 in Advances in Production and Utilization of Quality Cotton: Principles and Practices.
54. Ned Cobb is quoted in Theodore Rosengarten, All God's Dangers: The Life of Nate Shaw (New York: Vintage Press, 1974), 493.
55. See Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, 1975, pt. 1, series K, 449, 454, 459, 467-68, and 500. For yields, see Statistical Reporting Service, "Century of Agriculture in Charts and Tables," USDA, Agricultural Handbook no. 318, 1966. Labor hours per bale fell 41 percent between 1940 to 1944 and 1950 to 1954 and 76 percent between 1950 to 1954 and 1965 to 1969. Farm Production Economics Division, "Changes in Production Efficiency, a Summary Report," ERS, USDA, Statistical Bulletin no. 233, 1966. For output changes, see "Statistics on Cotton and Related Data, 1920-73," USDA, Statistical Bulletin no. 535, 1974, 63.
56. See Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, 1975, pt. 1, series K, 449, 454, 459, 467-68, and 500. For yields, see Statistical Reporting Service, "Century of Agriculture in Charts and Tables," USDA, Agricultural Handbook no. 318, 1966. Labor hours per bale fell 41 percent between 1940 to 1944 and 1950 to 1954 and 76 percent between 1950 to 1954 and 1965 to 1969. Farm Production Economics Division, "Changes in Production Efficiency, a Summary Report," ERS, USDA, Statistical Bulletin no. 233, 1966. For output changes, see "Statistics on Cotton and Related Data, 1920-73," USDA, Statistical Bulletin no. 535, 1974, 63.
57. See Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, 1975, pt. 1, series K, 449, 454, 459, 467-68, and 500. For yields, see Statistical Reporting Service, "Century of Agriculture in Charts and Tables," USDA, Agricultural Handbook no. 318, 1966. Labor hours per bale fell 41 percent between 1940 to 1944 and 1950 to 1954 and 76 percent between 1950 to 1954 and 1965 to 1969. Farm Production Economics Division, "Changes in Production Efficiency, a Summary Report," ERS, USDA, Statistical Bulletin no. 233, 1966. For output changes, see "Statistics on Cotton and Related Data, 1920-73," USDA, Statistical Bulletin no. 535, 1974, 63.
58. See Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, 1975, pt. 1, series K, 449, 454, 459, 467-68, and 500. For yields, see Statistical Reporting Service, "Century of Agriculture in Charts and Tables," USDA, Agricultural Handbook no. 318, 1966. Labor hours per bale fell 41 percent between 1940 to 1944 and 1950 to 1954 and 76 percent between 1950 to 1954 and 1965 to 1969. Farm Production Economics Division, "Changes in Production Efficiency, a Summary Report," ERS, USDA, Statistical Bulletin no. 233, 1966. For output changes, see "Statistics on Cotton and Related Data, 1920-73," USDA, Statistical Bulletin no. 535, 1974, 63.
59. The title of the first major book to address this topic expressed precisely this sentiment, The New Revolution in the Cotton Economy: Mechanization and Its Consequences by Street.
60. For the fall in farm population, see Dept. of Commerce, Historical Statistics, pt. 1, 457.
61. Gavin Wright argues that the South was so profoundly affected because it had been an isolated low-wage region in a high-wage country and southern workers had had few employment options other than cotton. The southern low-wage enclave resulted from the legacy of slavery, attempts by grower interests to limit labor mobility, bad timing, poverty, and poor education. See Gavin Wright, Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy Since the Civil War (New York: Basic Books, 1986), 74. Robert A. Margo argues instead that poor education better explains the root cause of southern isolation. See Margo, Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 126. That the mechanization of the cotton harvest was directly associated with the southern way of life is one of the dominant themes of the following works: the aforementioned books by Wright and Margo, Alston and Ferrie's Southern Paternalism; Kirby's Rural Worlds; Daniel's Breaking Land; Fite's Cotton Fields; and Mandle's Not Slave. Regarding the out-migration, all told from 1940 to 1970 the number of people on southern farms declined from nearly 14 million to only 2.9 million. In 1940 farmers made up 43 percent of the southern population, compared to less than 7 percent in 1970. For example, during the 1960s the farm population in the South dropped by about 50 percent. These numbers refer to the eleven southern states. See Vera J. Banks and Calvin L. Beale, "Farm Population Estimates, 1910-1970," USDA, Statistical Bulletin no. 523, 1973. Lemann makes the claim of the greatest migration stream ever. See Nicolas Lemann, The Promised Land: The Great Migration and How It Changed America (New York: Knopf, 1991), 6.
62. Gavin Wright argues that the South was so profoundly affected because it had been an isolated low-wage region in a high-wage country and southern workers had had few employment options other than cotton. The southern low-wage enclave resulted from the legacy of slavery, attempts by grower interests to limit labor mobility, bad timing, poverty, and poor education. See Gavin Wright, Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy Since the Civil War (New York: Basic Books, 1986), 74. Robert A. Margo argues instead that poor education better explains the root cause of southern isolation. See Margo, Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 126. That the mechanization of the cotton harvest was directly associated with the southern way of life is one of the dominant themes of the following works: the aforementioned books by Wright and Margo, Alston and Ferrie's Southern Paternalism; Kirby's Rural Worlds; Daniel's Breaking Land; Fite's Cotton Fields; and Mandle's Not Slave. Regarding the out-migration, all told from 1940 to 1970 the number of people on southern farms declined from nearly 14 million to only 2.9 million. In 1940 farmers made up 43 percent of the southern population, compared to less than 7 percent in 1970. For example, during the 1960s the farm population in the South dropped by about 50 percent. These numbers refer to the eleven southern states. See Vera J. Banks and Calvin L. Beale, "Farm Population Estimates, 1910-1970," USDA, Statistical Bulletin no. 523, 1973. Lemann makes the claim of the greatest migration stream ever. See Nicolas Lemann, The Promised Land: The Great Migration and How It Changed America (New York: Knopf, 1991), 6.
63. Gavin Wright argues that the South was so profoundly affected because it had been an isolated low-wage region in a high-wage country and southern workers had had few employment options other than cotton. The southern low-wage enclave resulted from the legacy of slavery, attempts by grower interests to limit labor mobility, bad timing, poverty, and poor education. See Gavin Wright, Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy Since the Civil War (New York: Basic Books, 1986), 74. Robert A. Margo argues instead that poor education better explains the root cause of southern isolation. See Margo, Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 126. That the mechanization of the cotton harvest was directly associated with the southern way of life is one of the dominant themes of the following works: the aforementioned books by Wright and Margo, Alston and Ferrie's Southern Paternalism; Kirby's Rural Worlds; Daniel's Breaking Land; Fite's Cotton Fields; and Mandle's Not Slave. Regarding the out-migration, all told from 1940 to 1970 the number of people on southern farms declined from nearly 14 million to only 2.9 million. In 1940 farmers made up 43 percent of the southern population, compared to less than 7 percent in 1970. For example, during the 1960s the farm population in the South dropped by about 50 percent. These numbers refer to the eleven southern states. See Vera J. Banks and Calvin L. Beale, "Farm Population Estimates, 1910-1970," USDA, Statistical Bulletin no. 523, 1973. Lemann makes the claim of the greatest migration stream ever. See Nicolas Lemann, The Promised Land: The Great Migration and How It Changed America (New York: Knopf, 1991), 6.
64. Gavin Wright argues that the South was so profoundly affected because it had been an isolated low-wage region in a high-wage country and southern workers had had few employment options other than cotton. The southern low-wage enclave resulted from the legacy of slavery, attempts by grower interests to limit labor mobility, bad timing, poverty, and poor education. See Gavin Wright, Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy Since the Civil War (New York: Basic Books, 1986), 74. Robert A. Margo argues instead that poor education better explains the root cause of southern isolation. See Margo, Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 126. That the mechanization of the cotton harvest was directly associated with the southern way of life is one of the dominant themes of the following works: the aforementioned books by Wright and Margo, Alston and Ferrie's Southern Paternalism; Kirby's Rural Worlds; Daniel's Breaking Land; Fite's Cotton Fields; and Mandle's Not Slave. Regarding the out-migration, all told from 1940 to 1970 the number of people on southern farms declined from nearly 14 million to only 2.9 million. In 1940 farmers made up 43 percent of the southern population, compared to less than 7 percent in 1970. For example, during the 1960s the farm population in the South dropped by about 50 percent. These numbers refer to the eleven southern states. See Vera J. Banks and Calvin L. Beale, "Farm Population Estimates, 1910-1970," USDA, Statistical Bulletin no. 523, 1973. Lemann makes the claim of the greatest migration stream ever. See Nicolas Lemann, The Promised Land: The Great Migration and How It Changed America (New York: Knopf, 1991), 6.
65. Gavin Wright argues that the South was so profoundly affected because it had been an isolated low-wage region in a high-wage country and southern workers had had few employment options other than cotton. The southern low-wage enclave resulted from the legacy of slavery, attempts by grower interests to limit labor mobility, bad timing, poverty, and poor education. See Gavin Wright, Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy Since the Civil War (New York: Basic Books, 1986), 74. Robert A. Margo argues instead that poor education better explains the root cause of southern isolation. See Margo, Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 126. That the mechanization of the cotton harvest was directly associated with the southern way of life is one of the dominant themes of the following works: the aforementioned books by Wright and Margo, Alston and Ferrie's Southern Paternalism; Kirby's Rural Worlds; Daniel's Breaking Land; Fite's Cotton Fields; and Mandle's Not Slave. Regarding the out-migration, all told from 1940 to 1970 the number of people on southern farms declined from nearly 14 million to only 2.9 million. In 1940 farmers made up 43 percent of the southern population, compared to less than 7 percent in 1970. For example, during the 1960s the farm population in the South dropped by about 50 percent. These numbers refer to the eleven southern states. See Vera J. Banks and Calvin L. Beale, "Farm Population Estimates, 1910-1970," USDA, Statistical Bulletin no. 523, 1973. Lemann makes the claim of the greatest migration stream ever. See Nicolas Lemann, The Promised Land: The Great Migration and How It Changed America (New York: Knopf, 1991), 6.
66. Gavin Wright argues that the South was so profoundly affected because it had been an isolated low-wage region in a high-wage country and southern workers had had few employment options other than cotton. The southern low-wage enclave resulted from the legacy of slavery, attempts by grower interests to limit labor mobility, bad timing, poverty, and poor education. See Gavin Wright, Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy Since the Civil War (New York: Basic Books, 1986), 74. Robert A. Margo argues instead that poor education better explains the root cause of southern isolation. See Margo, Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 126. That the mechanization of the cotton harvest was directly associated with the southern way of life is one of the dominant themes of the following works: the aforementioned books by Wright and Margo, Alston and Ferrie's Southern Paternalism; Kirby's Rural Worlds; Daniel's Breaking Land; Fite's Cotton Fields; and Mandle's Not Slave. Regarding the out-migration, all told from 1940 to 1970 the number of people on southern farms declined from nearly 14 million to only 2.9 million. In 1940 farmers made up 43 percent of the southern population, compared to less than 7 percent in 1970. For example, during the 1960s the farm population in the South dropped by about 50 percent. These numbers refer to the eleven southern states. See Vera J. Banks and Calvin L. Beale, "Farm Population Estimates, 1910-1970," USDA, Statistical Bulletin no. 523, 1973. Lemann makes the claim of the greatest migration stream ever. See Nicolas Lemann, The Promised Land: The Great Migration and How It Changed America (New York: Knopf, 1991), 6.
67. Gavin Wright argues that the South was so profoundly affected because it had been an isolated low-wage region in a high-wage country and southern workers had had few employment options other than cotton. The southern low-wage enclave resulted from the legacy of slavery, attempts by grower interests to limit labor mobility, bad timing, poverty, and poor education. See Gavin Wright, Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy Since the Civil War (New York: Basic Books, 1986), 74. Robert A. Margo argues instead that poor education better explains the root cause of southern isolation. See Margo, Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 126. That the mechanization of the cotton harvest was directly associated with the southern way of life is one of the dominant themes of the following works: the aforementioned books by Wright and Margo, Alston and Ferrie's Southern Paternalism; Kirby's Rural Worlds; Daniel's Breaking Land; Fite's Cotton Fields; and Mandle's Not Slave. Regarding the out-migration, all told from 1940 to 1970 the number of people on southern farms declined from nearly 14 million to only 2.9 million. In 1940 farmers made up 43 percent of the southern population, compared to less than 7 percent in 1970. For example, during the 1960s the farm population in the South dropped by about 50 percent. These numbers refer to the eleven southern states. See Vera J. Banks and Calvin L. Beale, "Farm Population Estimates, 1910-1970," USDA, Statistical Bulletin no. 523, 1973. Lemann makes the claim of the greatest migration stream ever. See Nicolas Lemann, The Promised Land: The Great Migration and How It Changed America (New York: Knopf, 1991), 6.
68. Gavin Wright argues that the South was so profoundly affected because it had been an isolated low-wage region in a high-wage country and southern workers had had few employment options other than cotton. The southern low-wage enclave resulted from the legacy of slavery, attempts by grower interests to limit labor mobility, bad timing, poverty, and poor education. See Gavin Wright, Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy Since the Civil War (New York: Basic Books, 1986), 74. Robert A. Margo argues instead that poor education better explains the root cause of southern isolation. See Margo, Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 126. That the mechanization of the cotton harvest was directly associated with the southern way of life is one of the dominant themes of the following works: the aforementioned books by Wright and Margo, Alston and Ferrie's Southern Paternalism; Kirby's Rural Worlds; Daniel's Breaking Land; Fite's Cotton Fields; and Mandle's Not Slave. Regarding the out-migration, all told from 1940 to 1970 the number of people on southern farms declined from nearly 14 million to only 2.9 million. In 1940 farmers made up 43 percent of the southern population, compared to less than 7 percent in 1970. For example, during the 1960s the farm population in the South dropped by about 50 percent. These numbers refer to the eleven southern states. See Vera J. Banks and Calvin L. Beale, "Farm Population Estimates, 1910-1970," USDA, Statistical Bulletin no. 523, 1973. Lemann makes the claim of the greatest migration stream ever. See Nicolas Lemann, The Promised Land: The Great Migration and How It Changed America (New York: Knopf, 1991), 6.
69. Gavin Wright argues that the South was so profoundly affected because it had been an isolated low-wage region in a high-wage country and southern workers had had few employment options other than cotton. The southern low-wage enclave resulted from the legacy of slavery, attempts by grower interests to limit labor mobility, bad timing, poverty, and poor education. See Gavin Wright, Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy Since the Civil War (New York: Basic Books, 1986), 74. Robert A. Margo argues instead that poor education better explains the root cause of southern isolation. See Margo, Race and Schooling in the South, 1880-1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 126. That the mechanization of the cotton harvest was directly associated with the southern way of life is one of the dominant themes of the following works: the aforementioned books by Wright and Margo, Alston and Ferrie's Southern Paternalism; Kirby's Rural Worlds; Daniel's Breaking Land; Fite's Cotton Fields
70. Regarding the unemployment rates, see Wright, Old South, Table 8.3, 246. Wright comments that mechanization may have been inevitable "and yet the speed and heartlessness of the transition did not have to be what it was." He notes the role of government funding "with intense concern for the competitive position of American cotton but little for the human consequences" (Old South, 247). Wilson is the author of Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, Fences, Joe Turner's Come and Gone, Two Trains Running, The Piano Lesson, and Seven Guitars. In addition to the Pulitzer Prizes in 1987 and 1990, he has received a Tony Award and a New York Drama Critics Circle Award.
71. Zvi Griliches, "Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations," Journal of Political Economy 66 (October 1958): 419-31; Andrew Schmitz and David Seckler, "Mechanized Agriculture and Social Welfare: The Case of the Tomato Harvester," American Journal of Agricultural Economics 52 (November 1970): 569-77; Grant M. Scobie and Rafael Posada, "The Impact of Technical Change on Income Distribution: The Case of Rice in Colombia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60 (February 1978): 85-92; Barry L. Price, The Political Economy of Mechanization in U.S. Agriculture (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1983).
72. Zvi Griliches, "Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations," Journal of Political Economy 66 (October 1958): 419-31; Andrew Schmitz and David Seckler, "Mechanized Agriculture and Social Welfare: The Case of the Tomato Harvester," American Journal of Agricultural Economics 52 (November 1970): 569-77; Grant M. Scobie and Rafael Posada, "The Impact of Technical Change on Income Distribution: The Case of Rice in Colombia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60 (February 1978): 85-92; Barry L. Price, The Political Economy of Mechanization in U.S. Agriculture (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1983).
73. Zvi Griliches, "Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations," Journal of Political Economy 66 (October 1958): 419-31; Andrew Schmitz and David Seckler, "Mechanized Agriculture and Social Welfare: The Case of the Tomato Harvester," American Journal of Agricultural Economics 52 (November 1970): 569-77; Grant M. Scobie and Rafael Posada, "The Impact of Technical Change on Income Distribution: The Case of Rice in Colombia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60 (February 1978): 85-92; Barry L. Price, The Political Economy of Mechanization in U.S. Agriculture (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1983).
74. Zvi Griliches, "Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations," Journal of Political Economy 66 (October 1958): 419-31; Andrew Schmitz and David Seckler, "Mechanized Agriculture and Social Welfare: The Case of the Tomato Harvester," American Journal of Agricultural Economics 52 (November 1970): 569-77; Grant M. Scobie and Rafael Posada, "The Impact of Technical Change on Income Distribution: The Case of Rice in Colombia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60 (February 1978): 85-92; Barry L. Price, The Political Economy of Mechanization in U.S. Agriculture (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1983).
75. Wright, in Old South, 246-47, discusses the speed and unknown social cost of cotton harvest mechanization.
76. In Old South Wright presents the dominant view of the push-pull debate (243-45).
77. Willis Peterson and Yoav Kislev, "The Cotton Harvester in Retrospect: Labor Displacement or Replacement?" Journal of Economic History 46 (March 1986): 199-216;
78. Craig Heinicke, "African-American Migration and Mechanized Cotton Harvesting, 1950-1960," Explorations in Economic History 31 (October 1994): 501-20.
79. For my work regarding the relative harvest costs, see Grove, "Mechanization of the Cotton Harvest," chap. 3.
80. The percent of cotton mechanically harvested is for the 1992-93 season. See International Cotton Advisory Committee, Survey of Cotton Production Practices (Washington, D.C.: International Cotton Advisory Committee, 1993). For world market shares, see Bridge Commodity Research Bureau, The CRB Commodity Yearbook, 1999 (John Wiley & Sons, 1999), 65. Regarding Uzbekistan's demechanization, see Richard Pomfret, "Agrarian Reform in Uzbekistan: Why Has the Chinese Model Failed to Deliver?" Economic Development and Cultural Change 48 (January 2000).
81. The percent of cotton mechanically harvested is for the 1992-93 season. See International Cotton Advisory Committee, Survey of Cotton Production Practices (Washington, D.C.: International Cotton Advisory Committee, 1993). For world market shares, see Bridge Commodity Research Bureau, The CRB Commodity Yearbook, 1999 (John Wiley & Sons, 1999), 65. Regarding Uzbekistan's demechanization, see Richard Pomfret, "Agrarian Reform in Uzbekistan: Why Has the Chinese Model Failed to Deliver?" Economic Development and Cultural Change 48 (January 2000).
82. The percent of cotton mechanically harvested is for the 1992-93 season. See International Cotton Advisory Committee, Survey of Cotton Production Practices (Washington, D.C.: International Cotton Advisory Committee, 1993). For world market shares, see Bridge Commodity Research Bureau, The CRB Commodity Yearbook, 1999 (John Wiley & Sons, 1999), 65. Regarding Uzbekistan's demechanization, see Richard Pomfret, "Agrarian Reform in Uzbekistan: Why Has the Chinese Model Failed to Deliver?" Economic Development and Cultural Change 48 (January 2000).