3742869

TVA and the Ordinary Farmer
Author(s): W. H. Droze
Source: Agricultural History, Vol. 53, No. 1, Southern Agriculture Since the Civil War: A
Symposium (Jan., 1979), pp. 188-202
Published by: Agricultural History Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3742869 .
Accessed: 05/10/2014 17:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Agricultural History Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Agricultural History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 74.217.196.131 on Sun, 5 Oct 2014 17:46:34 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
W. H. DROZE
TVA AND THE ORDINARY FARMER
The "ordinary" fa1-mer an the Tennessee Valley Region resembles
Franklin D. Roosevelt's "forgotten man" or the equally mythical fig-
ure, "the man in the street." Farmers in the Valley region do not re-
semble their counterparts in the Southeast, the South, or those in the
prairies and plains of Mid-America. A more identifiable figure is the
"typical" Valley farmer. He, incidentally, also differs from the farmer
of other regions. I shall endeavor to relate what has happened to him
since May 1933, when the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) began its
unified development of the Tennessee River watershed.
When TVA entered the Valley, the quality of life had been severely
reduced by depression. Income derived from a subsistence-type of farm-
ing was being shared among more and more people as relatives returned
from urban centers to family farms or settled on alzandoned farmland
in order to obtain food. An investigator of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Bureau of Agricultural Economics reported in March
1933 that immigrants living on abandoned farmlands "are practically
destitute some would starve but for the generosity of their farmer
neighbors.... Some are living in tents, others in windowless and floor-
less log cabins, and yet others in tumble-down buildings that would
ordinarily be considered unsafe to use for any purpose.''1 Dr. Arthur E.
Morgan, TVA's first chairman, told Congress in the fall of 1933 that in
some couniies of the southern highlands more than 50 percent of the
families were on relief. In one county 87 percent of the families were
on relief. He concluded that a considerable part of the population there
was on the verge of starvation.2
The land of the Valley was suffering as well. Gordon Clapp wrote,
"Erosion, abandoned, and wasted land, scrub pine, poverty grass, and
W. H. DROZE is Professor of History and Provost, University General Divisions, Texas
Woman's University.
1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rexford G. Tugwell, "Report on That Part of
the Tennessee River Basin Above Muscle Shoals," 24 June 1933, p. 52. In TVA
Technical Library, Knoxville, Tennessee.
2 Quoted from R. L. Duffus, The Valley and Its People (New York: A. A. Knopf,
1946), 53.
188
189
broom sedge . . . were all too common."3 Hugh Bennett reported in
March 1933, "Present oil conditions within the Tennessee Watershed
oSer an outstanding example of the unwise system that has character-
ized land use in America."4 Bennett found that 55 percent of the Ten-
nessee watershed was too poor, erosive, or otherwise unfavorable for
advantageous crop use.5 In retrospect, a TVA writer said, "In the early
years of TVA, major problems facing the farmers included: low income,
limited resources, and low living standards, low productivity, low soil
fertility, and severe soil erosion."6 Add to these man-made conditions
the naturally poor soils of the Tennessee Valley watershed where 80
percent consisted of third, fourth, or fifth class soils and cone can begin
to understand the difficulty that the Authority faced in trying to protect
its water-control system from siltation and, at the same time, raise the
living standards of the Valley's farmers who made up one-half of the
total population.
Historic factors and depression conditions in 1933 produced the
"typical" farmers of the Tennessee Valley. The "typical" farmers of
1933 were each earning less than $200 per year from all sources. Their
farms were small usually not more than 70 acres and many less than
50 acres. More than three-fourths of all farms were less than 100 acres.
The dominant types of farming were cotton, dairy, general, livestock,
self-suicient, and tobacco. Except in north Alabama and the adjacent
area of Tennessee, where 40 to 60 percent of the farms grew cotton,
diversified farming was the rule. Self-sufficient agriculture prevailed in
the hilly sections of the upper part of the watershed and in the "West-
ern Hibhland Rim" of Tennessee. Tobacco-growing was more intensive
in upper middle Tennessee and that part of Kentucky adjacent to the
northern border of Tennessee. Mountain burley, livestock, dairy pro
ducts, and poultry were primary activities in the Appalachian valleys.
The 1930 census indicated 319,000 farm units in the Tennessee ValIev.
About one-half of these contained less than 50 acres.
The "typical" farmer received little for his labors. The annual value
of farm products sold was only $230 in 1930. It would be almost two
decades before the value of production equaled that of 1930. The Valley
farmer was impoverished in other ways. The value of his farm, in part
3Gordon R. Clapp, The TF/: Aln Approach to the Development of a Region
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955), 144.
4 Hugh H. Bennett, "Relation of Soils and Soil Conditions in the Tennessee Valley
to Needed Adjustments in Land in Practices," 37. In Tugwell Report.
5 Ibid., 44.
6 Tennessee Valley Authority, Agricultural Resource De7velopment Program
(Muscle Shoals, Ala.: TVA, 1968), 1.
190
AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
because of its size was valued at about $2,000 as compared with a na-
tional average value of $7a624. The value of farmlands and buildings
per farm in 1934, for Valley counties, had an average value of $1,869
as compared wlith a national average value of $4,823. The small Valley
farm was
unproductive. Average yieIds in 1934 were extremely low. An
acre of corn yielded only 19.5 bushels. The yield for cotton was one-half
bale per acre. Tobacco fields produced 852 pounds per acre. Low pro-
ductivity resulted from a number of reasons. Almost one-Efth of open
land in the Basin was classified as
submarginal by Hugh Bennett in
1933. Erosion had taken its toll because the row-crop system left fields
bare in wlnter. Bennett wrote "erosion is an
impoverishing process on
all the soils of the Tennessee
Watershed."7 He compared land-use
methods to those of colonial Virginia and Maryland.
A review of the system of
agriculture which prevailed in the Ten-
nessee Valley in 1933 and the conditions under which it operated en-
ables us to focus upon the condition of the so-called typical farmer
when TVA came to the Valley. A TVA spokesman observed, "There
were poverty hunger isolation, and a general separation of farming
from the progressive
economical forces at the time." The typical farmer,
then, was a subsistence farmer "who produced, processed, stored, and
consumed most of his food and much of his clothing.'l8 His small farm
was
inadequately equipped with
machinery, electricity reached only
two of each hundred farms, and
refrigeration for milk or meat process-
ing was virtually
nonexistent. Marketing and processing facilities were
unavailable, and sources of capital were extremely limited. Norman
Wengert observed in 1952:
Rural incomes are extremely low and rural living standards far from adequate.
Housing facilities on the farms in the region . . . are grossly inadequate . . .
tax resources are meager, a fact which is reflected in inadequate educational
and health facilities.9
In the mid 1930s TVA surveyed living conditions in many areas of
the Valley in order to evaluate its progress as its
developmental pro-
grams were
implemented. One such survey
undertaken in the winter of
193X1935 examined living conditions in a community of sixteen amil-
ies living in an area of 1,000 acres along the Clinch River above the
- 7 Bennett, "Relation of Soils and Soil Conditions," 14.
8 Hans Knop, ed., The Tennessec Valley Az4thority Experience: Proceedings of
the First Conference on Case Studies of Large Scale Planning Projects (Laxenburg,
Austria: Instltute for Applied System Analysis, 1974), 2: 110.
9 Norman F. Wengert, Valley of Tomorrow: The TVA and Agriculture (Knoxville:
University of Tennessee, Bureau of Public
Administration, 1952), 22.
191 TVA AND THE ORDINARY FARMER
Norris Dam. Its findings reveal the primitive way of life of some of the
farmers in the eastern part of the Valley during the depths of depres-
sion.
The sixteen famiIies totaIed seventy-one individuals. Two families
contained eight persons each. Four families were couples only. The
families were Baptist. A one-room, one-teacher school with eight grade
levels served the area. None of the parents had gone beyond the eighth
grade. Only a few of the children had gone to high school. The sur-
veyor explained:
A rather typical example of the academic training of one family is the follow-
ing: The mother completed grammar school . . . while the father had never
gorle to school. Two older boys had gone to the same school, and the two
younger sons were in the fourth and fifth grades.l
The reading habits of the families left much to be desired. Frequently
school children left their books at homes near the school rather than
carry them long distances. The conservative Knoxville Journal was the
only newspaper taken by any residents. Mail order house catalogues
and the Bible were the most commonly read literature besides news-
papers.
Housing conditions were deplorable by modern middle class or
poorer class standards. Electric power was unavailable. The sixteen
families occupied separate houses. Most were made from cut lumber
and unpainted. Four lived in log cabins. The homes averaged 3.2
rooms with the largest house containing 7 rooms. Three houses had
only 2 rooms. AI1 families used kerosene lamps. None of the family
members owned a radio. A few had spring-driven phonographs. Water
for most came from a spring a quarter of a mile from their houses. The
spring water was of questionable purity since birds roosted nearby and
insects and lizards used the same water holes. Use of the tin dipper and
a spring-side gourd helped to pass along disease to all members. Two of
the families had wells but they were located near sources of huma
pollution. Medical care was available four to five miles away. Most
families depended wholly or in part on herb remedies. Patent medicine
was the first line of defense. One family head boasted that he had not
seen a doctor in twelve years.
The families depended almost totally on the land to supply all their
needs. Cordwood sufficed for heating and cooking. Forests provided
wild fruits and nuts as well as herbs and shrubs. Honey came from wild
10 Quoted in TVA, Annual Report, 1973, p. 108.
192
swarms. One-half of the residents of "Island F" supplelnented their
diets with fish caught from the Clinch. "Catfish, red horse, drum, and
perchfi' usually made up the catch. Game was limited in amount. Rab-
bits, squirrels, possums, and ground hogs were used as food. Farm land
produced corn, winter wheat, hay, white potatoes, sorghum, and to
bacco for food and cash. The growth of sweet potatoesv tomatoes, beans,
peas, cabbage, onions, and peppers on one-half acre plots kept the
family table supplied. Some excess produce was sold in Knoxville. Most
residents produced cotton for quilting. Seed removal and carding was
done by hand. Quilt-making had a social connotation. "Island F" resi-
dents bought little. Two country stores supplied a few foodstuffs, tb
bacco, and small articles. Most went to Knoxville for clothing, larger
farm machinery, and what the TVA's surveyor called "exploiting
forms'2 of entertainment.
Aside from their small houses, the families owned little movable
property. One-half of the families owned sewing machines-very impor-
tant pieces of equipment. Two families owned phonographs, one fam-
ily owned a gas engine washing machine. Three families owned trucks,
eight families owned horse-drawn wagons and one owned a buggy.
Sleds or skids were used by seven families. One family held half-owner-
ship in a pleasure automobile in 1933. Flat-bottom skiffs were used by
six families for river travel. Horses and mules provided the chief
means of travel for the younger residents. Some farm animals were
owrzed by all the families. Nine of the group listed eight horses and
eight mules. All families owned cattle. Most owned hogs and chickens.
Late fall was butchering time and frequently butcherings became social
affairs.
The farm families of the Clinch River Valley did not see much
money. One carpenter-farmer's income in 1933 was five dollars and he
spent three dollars and fifteen cents. This individual had visited Knox-
ville only once in ten years. His farm implements consisted of a mat-
tock and six hoes. Expenditure of tweIve families in the group in 1933
amounted to $;671.05. Three farmers reported their nonfarm income
from carpentry and agricultural labor to be $58.50 for fifty-three days of
labor or $1.10 per day. The value of food and fuel (crops and forest
products) grown by twelve of the sixteen families totaled $3,315.20 or
an average of $276 worth of home-grown food and fuel. The range for
the twelve family units was $97 for the smallest producer to $401 for
the largest.
The sixteen families of the Clinch River Alalley, while representative
o many of the farmers o the eastern part of the Valley, had a lower
standard of living than most residents of North Alabama, West and
193
Middle Tennessee, and that part of Kentucky in the Basin. Since the
Valley presented no homogeneous pattern of farming, it is to be ex-
pected that depression conditions were not uniformly the same. Wen-
gert expressed it well when he wrote, "The Valley has many prosperous
farmers living on family farms that are equal to those found anywhere
in the United States. But there are still too many poor farms and poor
farmers. ll
Harcourt A. Morgarl, TVA director, was given responsibility to de-
velop TVA's agricultural program. According to Thomas K. McCraw:
"NIorgan [had] a clear vision of what needed to be done for Valley
agriculture and a definite idea of how to do it.''l2 Morgan, an entomol-
ogist, a former dean of agriculture, and later president of the University
of Tennessee, had an intimate knowledge of the Valley and its farmers.
He believed that successful agriculture rested primarily on the rebuild-
ing of the soils of Valley farms. The rebuilding and maintainirlg of soil
fertility require(l the development of cover crops and crop rotations
and decreasing the amount of acreage in tilled crops and bare lands.
Getting large numbers of farmers to agree to change to a cropping sys-
tem that ellcouraged soil and water conservation must have seemed
impossible and cruel in 1933. One IVVA scholar put it this way:
How could you ask a farmer, who rarely saw more than a hundred dollars a
year in cash to finance himself while he converted his farm from the row crops
of cotton, corn, and tobacco to pasture land arld animal husbandry? How
could he afford the lime, fertilizer, aIld seed?l3
How indeed? This was Harcourt Morgan's problem.
Morgan was a long-time leader in working with southern farmers.
He spoke their language and had recently served as president of the
Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Un;versities. He turned to the
land-grant universities of the seven Valley states for answers in 1933.14
TVA was advised to (1) improve skills in producing crops and manag-
ing farms, (2) supply farmers with plant nutrients (especially phos-
phate), and (3) improve the farmers' access to inputs needed to operate a
farm.l5 Programs were begun to provide a supply of soil amendments-
phosphate, lime and later nitrogen to effect erosion control to im-
Wengert, Valley of Tomorrow, 23.
12 Thomas K. McCraw, TVA and the Power Fight, 1933-1939 (Philadelphia: J. B.
Lippincott, 1971), 41.
13 Henry Billings, All Down the Falley (New York: Viking, 1952), 143.
14 Philip Selznick, TYA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal
Organization (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), 9G96.
15Knop, The Tellnessee Falley Authority Experience, 111.
194
prove farm income and to protect the river control system, and to pro-
note the establishment of farmer supply and service cooperatives. TVA
chose rlot to become a direct participant by purchasing farms to serve as
models or by engaging directly in the management of farms. A three-
way arrangement combining the farmer's lands the knowledge of the
agricultural scientists and extension workers of the land-grant universi-
ties, and the fertilizer and funds of the TVA was developed to demon-
strate to farmers that profitable changes were possible.
The gospel of phosphates or concentrated superphosphate was the
core of TVA's early agricultural program. Writing in 1952, almost
twenty years after the birth of TVA Wengert stated: ;'Without phas-
phate, the present program of TVA . . . would hardly be distinguishable
(except perhaps in emphasis and intensity) from the normal agricul-
tural extension program of land-grant colleges in the area."l6 Of course,
other agricultural development activities were conducted to aid the
Valley farmer. Funds granted to the land-grant institutions enabled
their extension services to introduce new crops and to hire more agents
to counsel the farmers. The use of electricity on the farm was vigorously
promoted; the development and introduction of new farm machinery,
freezing and canning processes, and community refrigerated storage
were encouraged and promoted by TVA-sponsored farmer associations.
From the beginning the Authority actively encouraged farmers to
participate as a group in activities designed to advance agriculture in
the Valley. The county association or cooperative became the chief ve-
hicle for promoting fertilizer use, irlcreasing electrical consumption,
administering emergency relief funds in the early 1930s, selecting the
test demonstration armers, purchasing farm supplies, operating terrac-
ing and p;ond-building machinery, conducting seed-cleaning operations,
and producing and distributing agricultural limestone.l7 The county
cooperatives organized state and regional federated cooperatives. Even-
tually the state and regional organizations developed still larger groups
to distribute and test TVA ammonium nitrate and its concentrated su-
perphosphate fertilizers throughout the nation. The cooperatives were
more than distributor organizations. They served as training schools
for local farm leadership. The county agents provided the guidance
and counsel for the formation and growth of the county associations.
In 1976 the Tennessee EFarmer Cooperative had assets of over $40 mil-
lion, a business volume of $150 million, and net savings of $6 million.
6 Wengert, Valley of Tomorrow, 136.
l7"TVA's Role in Developing Farmer Cooperatives in the Tennessee Valley,"
Xerox copy of unpublished studyJ TVA, National Fertilizer Development Center,
Muscle Shoals, 1978, p. 1.
195
A strong state or regional cooperative is present in each of the Valley
states.
The TVA, in addition to its test demonstrations and distributor dem-
onstrations of new fertilizers throughout the nation, conducts special
programs concentrated in the Valley region. These programs are de-
signed to speed up the rate of development of Valley agriculture.
lEalley-related programs, in contrast to those outside, are developed
within the framework of the entire TVA organization and particular
attention is given to the integration of the agricultural program with
other TVA resource-development programs. These programs include
the use of electricity on the farm, erosion and flood control, and for-
estry. Special programs involving state agencies and local associations
are currently being carried out together tc) accelerate lagging portions
of the Valley agricultural program.
As indicated previously, TVA's early programs to rejuvenate agricul-
ture in the Tennessee Watershed sought to increase productivity per
acre and to enhance the farmer's management skills. Although it was
thought that many would abandon the farm as industrial job oppor-
tunities increased,18 it was believed by TVA oicialdom that those who
remained on the farm could raise their incomes and subsequently their
economic wealth by increasing productivity and shiftling their efforts
from row crops to animal agriculture. Economist Gilbert Bantler, re-
flecting upon TVA's naivete, said that TVA literature suggested "all
that is needed is a change of [farm] practices, use of fertilizers, and other
capital improvements to increase productivity and income.''19 Norman
Wengert earlier reached the same conclusion. He wrote:
Improved soil fertility, in turn, is unquestionably a big factor in building
sound agriculture in the Tennessee Valley. But phosphates accompanied by
the necessary farm system readjustments are not enough!20
lVen,ert's analysis was prepared in 1952 when TVA's agricultural pro-
gram was in its first phase of development. Nevertheless, he correctly
evaluated the agency's overemphasis on phosphate as a cure-all for the
Valley's most complex problem, a surplus of noneconomic farm units.
Wengert charged TVA with neglecting to give adequate attention to
such vital matters as "agricultural credit, the farmer's need for capital
18 Arthur E. Morgan, "Address Before TVA Employees, July 29, 1936," TVA
Technical Library, Knoxville.
19 Gilbert Banner, "Toward More Realistic Assumptions in Regional Economic
Development," in John R. Moore, ed., The Economic Impact of TVA (Knoxville:
University of Tennessee Press, 1967), 134.
20 Wengert, Valley of Tomorrow, 136.
196
and markets, questions of farm size and tenure, and similar economic
problems.Sw2l
In brief, many, too many of the "ordinary'? farmers in the Tennessee
Valley were not catching up with the rest of the country. Some farmers
were making substantial gains but "sections of agriculture were not just
temporarily sick. They were chronically ill."22 The Department of Agri-
culture joined the critics of TVA's agricultural program in 1961: "Im-
provements in agricultural incomes nowhere near matched progress in
industrialization and commercialization."23 Clearly, all was not right
with most of TVA's farmers. TVA's annual report for 1961 recognized
the problems of the rural areas of the Valley. It stated:
The region's weakest points are in its overpopulated rural areas where thou-
sands of farms are still too small for economic operation of adequate incomes.
. . . Despite steady progress in improving agricultural resources measures are
needed to speed the increase ill size of farms and make farming more profit-
able.24
Even so, many positive accomplishments were realized during TVA's
first three decades. Erosion control was well on the way to being
achieved by 1941. New fertilizers had been developed, tested, and
widely introduced to the region and the nation. Farm income in rela-
tion to the national average was bettered. Electrification of farm homes
and better living standards for farm families were evident by the end
of World War II. Farm tenancy declined from 43 percent in 1934 to 23
percent in 1949. Nitrogen fertilizer was introduced in 1943- a depar-
ture from TVA's original emphasis on phosphatic fertilizers.
Despite these gains, however, the Valley farmer was not making
progress comparable to that of his national counterpart. This fact Ied
the Authority to initiate a series of studies and conferences with its
partners, the land-grant colleges and universities, to determine how
Valley agriculture might be improved. In retrospect, TVA's agz;cultural
experts put it this way-
Up to this time (1949), there was a fighting chance that the Valley farmer
could compete fairly well with his counterparts in other areas. But when the
non-Alalley farmer suddenly started to mechanize on a large scale, rapidly
adopt nemr technology increase farm size, and apply large amounts of capital,
21 Ibid.
22 Banner, 4XRegional Economic Development," 128.
23 U.S. Department of Agricultures Farmer's World: Yearbook of Agriculture} 1964
(Washington: GPO, 1964), 85.
24 TVA, Annual Report, 1961, l .
197
the Valley farmer was caught in an entirely new type of competition-one for
which he was ill-fitted and at the same time, one for which the earlier TVA
programs could not give him the help that he needed.25
Valley farm income which had been 32 percent of the national average
in 1940 dropped to only 29 percent in 1949. Income per farm had in-
creased from $355 to $1,190 but national and regional levels had in-
creased substantially more. Small-sized farms, an eighth-grade level of
education among farmers, poor soils, strip land, low capital investments
in farming, limited sources of private agricultural credit, and an in-
ability and to some extent, an unwillingness to adjust rapidly to
changing agricultural conditions caused Valley agriculture to be chron-
ically ill.
The decade of the 1950s added other troubles. Farm surpluses, lower
prices for farm products, and higher production costs forced farmers to
become more efficient. The large-scale farmers- nationally became
more cost effective, but the small-scale Valley farmer lacked capital re-
sources, level land, and large acreages. Moreover, by 1950 more and
more Valley farmers were becoming part-time farmers who faced prob-
lems unlike those of full-time farmers; therefore, conventional agricul-
tural programs of the USDA and TVA did not effectively reach them.
Adding to TVA's woes were drought conditions of the early 1950s and
an unfriendly administration in Washington after 1952. Although TVA
recognized the need for change, the decade o the l950s was not one
which encouraged innovation or aggressiveness on the part of the
agency.26 In fact, TVA's funding became a major issue by 1953 and
funds for the agricultural program had to be curtailed. Ironically, ac-
cording to TVA personnel, while TVA's fiscal support for agriculture
was being curtailed, "other Federal agricultural programs in the area
wgere being expanded."27 The l950s thus became a period when TVA's
leadership in agriculture waned, and it had to content itself with a
holding action.
The 1960s brought new friends, new funds, and a period of innova-
tion. In retrospect the diEculties of the l950s helped bring about the
changes of the 1960s. Studies of the l950s made possible a reassessment
of the Valley's program by TVA and its land-grant partners. They
jointly sought "to use the findings from research and development ac-
tivities in demonstration and educational projects for increasing in-
come from agriculture and improving the social and economic welI-
9o TVA, Agricultural Resource Development Program, 9.
96 Ibid., 13.
27 Ibld.
198
being of the region's people."28 Emphasis in the new approach was
placed on identifying the barriers to agricultural growth and demon-
strating solutions to those problems. The primary effort was directed
at transforming those Valley farms with a capability of becoming a
commercial production unit. Other program thrusts included efforts to
assist the rural poor, help the agribusiness components with whom the
farmer dealt, and improve local environments.
Studies in 1967 revealed that the Valley farms were far from realiz-
ing their potential. The value of agricultural production potential for
the Valley was placed at $1.7 billion, wllereas in 1964 the regional agri-
cultural units were producing only $634 million or one-third of their
physical capacity.29 In other words, crop acreages and yields and live-
stock production could be greatly increased. The increases were linked.
The researchers concluded that "the major overall barrier to agricul-
tural production in the Valley is the failure of farmers to adopt proved
and generally available technological know-how in farm management
and resource utilization."30 Other barriers to the full realization of
agricultural potential were the size of farms and tenure restrictions,
land capability restrictions (farmland not capable for even limited cul-
tivation, fragmentation caused by soil differences, and misallocation of
land), human and cultural restraints (farmers below the educational
level required for change), institutional restrictions (structure and acre-
age restrictions), and market limitations (understanding of markets,
changed nature of markets, costs, etc.). TVA argued that if the barriers
were not present, the region's annual farm production would increase
by $1 billion.
To overcome these barriers and thereby enable the Valley farmer to
gain economic parity with farmers elsewhere, the Authority modified
old programs and launched new ones. The test demonstration farms
which had previously emphasized the value of fertilizer use and the
need for the removal of management and technological restraints be-
came pilot units to capitalize upon the lessons learned from rapid ad-
justment farms. The rapid adjustment (RA) farm concept which TVA
and the land-grant universities developed in 1961 is a farm-oriented
management and educational program that "marshals all farm assets
and commits them to a single goal: accelerated income and financial
strength.''31 A farm's assets (including the farmer) are inventoried, and
28TVA, Office of Agricultural and Chemical Development, Snalysis and Review
of the Valley Agricultural Resource Development Program (Muscle Shoals, Ala.:
TVA, 1975), 2.
29 Ibid., 28-29.
30 Ibid., 30.
31 Douglas M. Stephens, "Farmers on an Escalator," Farm Quarterly 19 (Winter
196X1965): 71.
199
several development plans are evolved by use of computer technology.
A four-year growth plan is worked out which requires heavy investment
by the farmer, accurate and precise record keeping, and strict adher-
ence to the plan. The plan frequently requires changes irl the crops
planted, labor use, and markets. The changes are oftentimes revolution-
ary. The concept has been highly successful on most of those farms
where it has been tried. TVA reported in 1976 that thirty-two RA farms
in operation between 1972 and 1976 increased net income 149 percent.32
Recently, farms in the program have had an annual growth rate in
farm income of 20 percent during the four-year period. Thus, the RA
farm's purpose is to develop information for guiding and assisting
small, low-income farmers in making adjustment from subsistence to
commercial levels.
Other new programs include a rural poverty project designed to as-
sist persons with limited agricultural resources and programs tailored
to match the particlllar ills of an area or subarea of the Basin such as
the Sand Mountain region of North Alabama. Still other program ele-
ments, many of which are still in the pilot stage, include the introduc-
tion of new forage crops, the establishmerlt of land-use information
centers, sponsorship of rural life conferences which focus the problem-
solving efforts and resources of all agencies and institutions in the
Valley on speeiSc agricultural development programs, the encourage-
ment of the formation of farm management associations, assistance to
agribusinesses, and the development of Resource Development Demon-
stration farms which will concentrate on eliminating barriers to agricul-
tural progress. Numerous special projects have been undertaken by the
Authority for the ultimate benefit of the Valley farmer and agribusiness
concerns. For example, TVA has encouraged a number of farmers to
engage in catfish farming, trellis tomato production, and truck farming.
It has succesfully used warm water from its steam and nuclear plants to
heat greenhouses for vegetable production.33 Several conferences and
workshops have been devoted to assisting limited-resource farmers.
Home garden demonstrations for poorer families have been held in
different parts of the Valley.34
What has been the result of this almost half-century relationship be-
tween TVA and the ordinary farmer? First of all, farmers everywhere,
nationally and internationally, have benefited from TYA's commit-
ment, leadership, and advances in fertilizer technology. Much of the
increased yields enjoyed by farmers everywhere is in a large measure the
32 TVA, Annual Reports 1976, 80.
33Decatur (Alabama) Daily, 6 April 1978.
34 TVA, Analysis and Review, 20-31.
Soo
result of TVA's fertilizer advances.35 But what about the Valley farmer?
Well, the sixteen families left ''Islarld F" for higher ground before the
Norris Dam was closed in 1936. Some became dam builders. Others left
the farm for nonfarm jobs. Still others became part-time farmers. Some
relocated and became full-time small acreage farmers who dominate the
rural population of the eastern part of the Valley.
The Tennessee Valley farmer remains an enigma. His income is sub-
stantially greater than in 193!4. You will recall that twelve families of
the "Island F" group grew an average of $276.26 of food and fuel pro-
ducts in 1934. TVA reported recently that average sales per farm in the
Valley reached almost $14,000 in 1976. Of course, production costs were
considerably moreI The size of the farm is now 126 acres instead of 70
acres. While this increase is substantial, the average U.S. farm is 440
acres. Instead of 319,000 Valley farms there are now about 114,000.
Values for land and buildings increased from $1,869 in 1934 to $30,716
in 1969. In 1934, a farm population of 1,800,000 had to share farm sales
of $113 million. In 1973, farm-product sales were nearly $1.5 billion
and a farm population of about 378,000 divided it. Also, in 1934, there
were 5.2 persons per farm while in 1970 only 2.5 persons shared the
farm's income. By 1970 manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, ser-
vices, and government provided 95 percent of the income for Valley
residents. Agriculture employed only 5.2 percent. This is signiScant
since a greater proportion of Valley farmers than U.S. farmers work in
nonfarm jobs. Median family income in the seven Valley states in 1975
ranged from $14,579 in Virginia to a low of $9,999 in Mississippi. In the
five remaining states it averaged about $11,000. By comparison the U.S.
average was $14,094 in 1975 dollars.36 Unfortunately the farmer did not
experience as great an increase in income level as the general popula-
tion. TVA reported in 1977 that "forty-one percent of all farms in the
Valley are still smaller than fifty acres and nearly three-fourths of all
farms sold less than $5,000 of agricultural products during 1974."37
The farmer today in the Tennessee Valley region is quite unlike his
1933 counterpart. He has more income; he derives that income from
growing more per acre, producing different kinds of crops such as
soybeans, and shifting from row crops to livestock and poultry produc-
tion. The farms are small and only about 42 percent of the Valley's land
is now used for farming, but the Valley farmer produces $371 of farm
35 The Times: Tri-Cities Daily (Florence, Sheffield, Tuscumbia, Ala.), 26 February
1978.
36 Hubert Hinote, "Changes in Median Family Income," unpublished paper pro-
vided to author, Knoxville, 28 May 1978, by Hubert Hinote.
37TVA, National Fertilizer I)evelopment Center, A Profile of Change, 1949-1974
(Muscle Shoals, Ala.: TVA, 1977), unpaged.
TVA AND THE O]RDINARY FARMER
products per acre of harvested cropland compared to the U.S. average
20I
of $269. Smaller farms necessitate that Valley farmers make more in-
tensive use of their limited land resources. Tenancy is no longer a
major problem for 80 percent of the farmers own their land. More than
ever before, the Valley farmer, like his U.S. counterpart, has become
dependent on foreign marketing. Foreigners bought $450 million worth
of poultry, livestock, cotton, soybeans, and tobacco from the Tennessee
Valley in 1976.38 Erosion, which Hugh Bennett thought would bring
about the end of American civilization if unchecked, is no longer a
serious problem in the Valley. It would be difficult to find a farm home
without electricity and a host of labor-saving appliances and processing
machinery for farm products. Moreover, the Alalley farmer's utility bill
is one-third lower than yours or mine. Recreation and aesthetic enjoy-
ment are readily available. The fish catch is different, and the flat-bot-
tomed skif3 would be deadly on most of the reservoirs. Library services
exist today, and they are used even though many Valley farmers still
have only five to eight years of schooling!
The "ordinary" farmer in the Tennessee Valley has benefited sub-
stantially from TVA's program of agl icultural development. TVA
and its land-grant associates have guided the transfolmation of Valley
agriculture from a crop to a livestock economy. EsTen so, the Tennessee
Valley has not been transformed into an agrarian paradise in the
JefEersonian tradition nor has it become a model for devotees of
Theodore Roosevelt's Country Life Commission. Many difficult un-
solved agricultural pl-olDlems remain. Gerald G. Williams, director of
TVA's Division of Agricultural Development, stated, "As late as 1960,
three of every five farm families in the Tennessee Valley earned less
than $3,000."39 A recent study indicated that "slightly more than hal
of all Tennessee Valley farms had total farm products sales of $2,500."4
lGhus, measured by per capita income or total farm-product sales, a
large number of persons in agriculture have not been reached by TVA's
farm programs or those of other federal agencies. There are still many
limited-resiource farmers who have been bypassed by progress.
TVA has recerltly directed its attentiorl to tllis segment of the
Valley's populatiorl. Congress, of course, declared war on poverty in
1964. Since 1970 a number of conferences and projects have focused orl
the problems of poorer farmers. Several predominantly black institu-
38Nashville Banner, 24 November 1976.
39TVA, Proceedings of the WorEshop on Methods of Working with Limited Re-
source Farmers (Muscle Shoals, Ala.: TVA, 1972), 4.
40 Wesley G. Smith and Robert Nakosteen, "Levels and Sources of Income of Farm
liamilies in the Tennessee Valley Based on Public Use Samples," unpublished study
provided to author, Knoxville, 28 May 1978, 1.
202 AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
tions-the 1890 land-grant institutions have participated in the con-
ferences and are working with the Authority in the search for solutions
to the problems of limited-resource farmers. Many of these farmers are
black. James L. Walker reported in 1970 that "the incidence of poverty
among southern whites was 10.5% and 37.5% for southern Negroes.''4
The Valley contains many of these people, and most are white. Until
the income level of this large group of persons whose income is less
than $3,000 annually approximates the $11,000 median family income
for the Valley states, TVA has not successfully fulfilled its commitment
to uplift and upgrade the quality of life for the "ordinary" farmer.
41 Quoted in TVA, Proceedings . . . Limited Resource Farmers, lo5.

3742869

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

3742869

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

TVA and the Ordinary Farmer

Você também pode gostar