Tung Tried: Agricultural Policy and the Fate of a Gulf South Oilseed Industry, 1902-1969
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Automated Template B: Created by James Nail 2011V2.01 Tung tried: agricultural policy and the fate of a Gulf South oilseed industry, 1902-1969 By Whitney Adrienne Snow A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Mississippi State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Department of History Mississippi State, Mississippi May 2013 Copyright by Whitney Adrienne Snow 2013 Tung tried: agricultural policy and the fate of a Gulf South oilseed industry, 1902-1969 By Whitney Adrienne Snow Approved: _________________________________ _________________________________ Mark D. Hersey Alison Collis Greene Associate Professor of History Assistant Professor of History (Director of Dissertation) (Committee Member) _________________________________ _________________________________ Stephen C. Brain Alan I Marcus Assistant Professor of History Professor of History (Committee Member) (Committee Member) _________________________________ _________________________________ Sterling Evans Peter C. Messer Committee Participant of History Associate Professor of History (Committee Member) (Graduate Coordinator) _________________________________ R. Gregory Dunaway Professor and Interim Dean College of Arts & Sciences Name: Whitney Adrienne Snow Date of Degree: May 11, 2013 Institution: Mississippi State University Major Field: History Director of Dissertation: Mark D. Hersey Title of Study: Tung tried: agricultural policy and the fate of a Gulf South oilseed industry, 1902-1969 Pages in Study: 403 Candidate for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The U.S. tung oil industry began as a government experiment in plant diversification but businessmen mistakenly interpreted this interest as an endorsement of domestic production and began growing tung trees in the Gulf South states of Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. The new crop quickly caught the attention of paint, varnish, and ink companies in the northern and Midwestern states and created a buzz among chemurgists like Henry Ford and other industrialists who eagerly expanded tung acreage. With the erection of the first crushing mill in 1928, the tung oil industry began but it did not acquire any semblance of maturity until World War II. The war thrust the nascent tung oil industry into strategic status. Used as a varnish on military airplanes and naval vessels, a brake lining, a machinery lubricant, a liner for tin cans, and as electrical insulation, demand exceeded supply. Traditional consumers had such a difficult time purchasing tung oil during the war that they turned to other oilseeds or new synthetic oils. The war both aided and crippled tung oil by highlighting its chemurgic uses and deterring consumers given that shortages encouraged the quest for alternatives. Despite a barrage of synthetic competitors and imports, domestic tung growers continued production in the hopes that the discovery of new industrial markets would increase demand and attract government support in the form of parity, tariffs, and quotas. Between 1949 and 1969, a series of agricultural policies granted protection but from the outset federal support proved reluctant and tenuous because production remained miniscule, quotas threatened to heighten diplomatic tensions, and wealthy, part- time growers comprised the bulk of parity recipients. Hurricane Camille has often received credit for bringing a swift end to the industry but imports, competitive oilseeds, synthetics, and freezes had delivered powerful blows to the extent that many farmers stopped growing tung long before 1969. Indeed, Camille proved nothing more than a death knell to a waning industry that had become dependent on government largesse. Key words: tung, commodity, oilseeds, diversification, chemurgy, agricultural policy DEDICATION For my parents Donald and Barbara Snow ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like express her appreciation to the people without whom this dissertation would not have been possible. Profound gratitude goes to my advisor Dr. Mark D. Hersey and my dissertation committee, Dr. Alan I Marcus, Dr. Stephen Brain, Dr. Alison Collis Greene, and Dr. Sterling Evans for their aid and direction. I would also like to express my appreciation for the suggestions of Dr. John Byrd, Jr., of the Plant and Soil Sciences Department as well as for the translation assistance provided by Dr. Shu- Hui Wu of the History Department. Heart-felt thanks are extended to John Corley, Denise Chenel Daughtry, Greg Frost, Lynn Crosby Gammill, Sally Goodyear, Blake Hanson, Dixie Kilby, Pierre Livaudais, Leon Neel, William Newman, Dr. Tim Rinehart, Dr. Jay Shockey, and Dr. Jim Spiers for sharing their tung industry experiences and knowledge. Many librarians and archivists also merit immense recognition for their generous help throughout this project. They include Mattie Sink Abraham of Mississippi State University; Charlene Bonnette of State Library of Louisiana; Jeanette Bornholt of Foley Public Library; Janet Boudet of Roddenberry Memorial Library; Brett Castleberry of LeRoy Collins Leon County Public Library System; David Clark of Harry S. Truman Library and Museum; Keith M. Finley of Center for Southeast Louisiana Studies; Chriselle L. Henry of Ascension Parish Library; Nancy Korber of Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden Archive; Cindy Lawler of University of South Mississippi; Naomi Hurtienne Magola of Lafourche Parrish Public Library; Sarah Malcolm of Franklin D. iii Roosevelt Presidential Library; Rita Millican of Livingston Parish Library; Herb Pankratz of Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library; Lamont Pearson of Margret Reed Crosby Memorial Library; Bobby Ruth Powell of Alachua County Library District; Sarah Pratt of John F. Kennedy Presidential Library; Sarah Roberts of Michigan State University; Lesley Schoenfeld of Harvard Law School Library; Charles Sullivan of Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College; Leigh Ann Vey of Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscripts Library; and Monica Wilkinson of Pike-Amite-Walthall Library. I would also like to express my appreciation to my parents Donald and Barbara Snow for their love and support. Last but certainly not least, special recognition goes to colleagues Karrie Barfield, Cari Casteel, Justin Dornbusch, Sean Halverson, Erinn McComb, Michael Murphy, Karen Senaga, and Alyssa Warrick for their friendship, encouragement, and multitude of “tung” jokes. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION.................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................x CHAPTER I. THE TALE OF THE TUNG BELT: AN INTRODUCTION ...........................1 II. TUNG TAKES ROOT: THE QUEST FOR A DOMESTIC TUNG OIL INDUSTRY, 1902-1928 ..............................................................18 III. TUNG TIED: TRIAL AND ERROR IN THE DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE, 1929-1936 .............................................................................57 IV. “THE AMERICAN TUNG OIL INDUSTRY IS HERE TO STAY”? CHEMURGY AND THE IMPETUS OF WAR, 1937-1952 ............106 V. TUNG OIL TURMOIL: AGRICULTURAL POLICY AND THE DECLINE OF AN INDUSTRY, 1953-1961 .....................................148 VI. DRIED UP? POLITICAL CLIMATE, HURRICANE CAMILLE, AND THE END OF AN ERA, 1962-1976 ........................................202 VII. “PINK CLOUDS IN DIXIE”: TUNG TREES AND TUNG OIL IN POPULAR CULTURE......................................................................247 VIII. “THE CROP THAT WAS”?: A CONCLUSION..........................................298 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................312 APPENDIX A. IMAGES ........................................................................................................376 v B. TUNG OIL MILLS ........................................................................................386 C. TUNG OIL COMPANIES .............................................................................388 D. STATE PRODUCTION ................................................................................392 E. COUNTRY AND WORLD TUNG PRODUCTION ....................................395 F. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS, 1957-1959 ................397 G. TUNG FARMS WITH SALES OF $2,500 OR MORE, 1969 ......................399 H. UNITED STATES OILSEED IMPORTS .....................................................401 vi LIST OF TABLES 2.1 Tung oil imports, 1922-1928 ..............................................................................49 3.1 Estimated annual earnings ..................................................................................70 3.2 Tung Farms, 1930 and 1935 ...............................................................................71 3.3 Types of tung trees .............................................................................................80 3.4 Planting costs ......................................................................................................82 4.1 Domestic tung fruit production (tons)