Fusione Agribusiness Concept Revisited

John H.
Davis: Architect of the Agribusiness Concept Revisited

Author(s): Alan E. Fusonie
Source: Agricultural History, Vol. 69, No. 2, [Agribusiness and International Agriculture]
(Spring, 1995), pp. 326-348
Published by: Agricultural History Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3744273
Accessed: 17-10-2016 04:19 UTC
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.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Agricultural History Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Agricultural History
This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Mon, 17 Oct 2016 04:19:34 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
John H. Davis:
Architect of the Agribusiness Concept Revisited
ALAN E. FUSONIE
The year 1904 was a significant one indeed. Among other things,
the year in which the Burlington Railroad transported agricultural e
and equipment on special trains throughout the midwest to demonst
improved agricultural methods to local farmers. Secondly, it was the
in which Theodore Roosevelt was elected president. And, finally, it w
year in which John H. Davis, the man who would one day defi
concept of agribusiness, was born. John H. Davis?country schoolt
basketball coach, agricultural economist, administrator, professo
innovative leader in American agriculture?grew up as a typical farm

from Missouri.
His introduction to agriculture began as a child on the family farm
was born on 9 October 1904, as an identical twin, on his grandfather D
240-acre farm in Wellsville, Missouri, which was located about two m
from the town of Martinsburg. Young John Davis grew up on his pa
120-acre self-sufficient family farm which was located about a half mil
his grandfather's farm.

His parents' farm, a traditional mixed grain and livestock operation
upon home consumption and the sale of hogs, cattle, and sheep, inclu
the typical outbuildings?barn, chicken house, livestock shed, wor

smokehouse?and relied upon horse and mule power. Davis's farm
began at a young age, increasing in responsibility as he grew older. I
Aristotle who noted that good habits developed during one's youth m
ALAN E. FUSONIE is a professor of history at Charles County Community College, L

Maryland.
Agricultural History / Volume 69 / Number 2 / Spring 1995. ? Agricultural History Society

326
John H. Davis / 327
all the difference in later life. Davis never forgot those early on-the-farm
years: "We were healthy and at about age eight we were doing chores and
each year our responsibilities increased.... Our first field work with horses
was cultivating corn, using a horse-drawn cultivator....at age 13 or 14, we
operated a two bottom gang plow, using four to six horses hitched abreast.
Then we'd run the field mower and hay rake when the hay was ready to
be cut. We progressed from one thing to another until at about age 16

we started threshing; threshing was done with a stationary grain separator
and a steam engine."1 And, of course, when old enough, Davis participated
in hog butchering, the curing of hams, shoulders, and bacon as well as the
turning of headmeats into scrapple, carcasses into sausage, and animal fat
into lard. There were also livestock ponds where he liked to fish and catch
frogs and dress them out.2
Time passed, and eventually Davis became a full participant in the annual
threshing time, an experience that impressed upon him the economic and
social importance of farm families working together. Each year, about

eighteen local farms pooled their workforce into a cooperative threshing
ring for four to six weeks, moving from farm to farm until the threshing
was completed. It was hard work, and Davis came to appreciate the
importance of the Huber threshing machine to a farm community. "The
threshing machine was a Huber, powered by a Huber four steam engine.

The separator was rather big, 42- or 44-inch cylinder grain separator. This
one had side wings to receive the bundles and four men could pitch grain
into it at a time. The Huber engine was a return flue type, which means
that the smoke stack was back of the boiler. It did a good job. Finding
enough water for the engine was often a problem?each farmer provided
water and coal to run the engine."3 A time of shared work and shared
friendships which culminated in a final pot luck picnic with homemade
ice cream made a lasting impression upon Davis.4
1. Alan Fusonie, "John H. Davis: A Career in American Agriculture: An Oral History Interview,"
(11 November 1983 through February 1984), 1, John Davis Papers, National Agricultural Library,
Beltsville, Md. [hereafter cited as JDP, NAL].
2. Ibid., 3; John H. Davis, "Chapters From My Life" (unpublished autobiographical manuscript,
1978), 1-6, JDP, NAL.

3. Fusonie, "John H. Davis," 5.
4. Ibid., 3.
328 / Agricultural History
In 1919 the Davis family moved to a 250-acre farm in Boone County,

central lowa, and began farming corn, small grains, soybeans, hay, and
pasture crops while raising cattle and sheep. The farm chores were constant
and demanding; having two mature, hard-working sons who could maintain
equipment and manage the livestock was critical to the farm's success. As
Davis recalled:
most of what we produced was for sale.... In large part, the corn that
we grew was fed to hogs, cattle, and sheep. In the fall of the year we
usually purchased one or two carloads of feeder lambs and one carload
of ewes for breeding, usually from Wyoming or nearby areas. We had
our own rams and produced lambs for market in the spring. In the fall,
usually in September, the sheep were turned into the cornfield to graze
on corn leaves and the grass growing between rows. The sheep did not
touch the ears of corn as long as there was plenty of green grass and
corn leaves. Then later we would pull back the shucks on a few ears to
start them eating corn. Once they started on the corn there was no
stopping them. We would put up a temporary fence to hold the sheep
in a limited part of the field. By snow time they would have harvested
the corn in this area. The sheep ate the shucks off of the ears and then
the kernels of corn off of the cobs, leaving the cobs still attached to the
stalk.5
After graduating from the Consolidated High School in Napier, lowa,

in 1923, the Davis brothers attended college during the fall and winter and
farmed during the spring and summer. Their parents, who placed a high
value on education, and their high school English teacher, Nettie Getty,
encouraged the two boys to go to lowa State College although the boys
continued to live at home and help their father farm during their freshman
and sophomore years. During their junior and senior years, Davis and his
brother became partners with their father, renting an eighty-acre farm and
operating it themselves to help finance their college tuition. Davis received

his bachelor's degree in economics in 1928.6
5. Ibid., 2.
6. See files marked "Biographical Sketch," "Qualifications," and "Notes" for background
statement on John H. Davis's farming and commodity experience, JDP, NAL
John H. Davis / 329
With the Depression years approaching, when jobs would become scarce
to non-existent, life in small farm communities in lowa began to change.
Davis saw this exemplified in the no-win situation at the local grain elevator
in the town of Jordin: "corn sold one week at a price as low as eight cents
per bushel. If you had to hire help to shuck it, you had to provide two
horses and a wagon, feed the man, and pay him two or three cents a bushel
for his work. Obviously, the farmer lost...."7
As his long-term goal, Davis decided upon a career in agricultural

economics or education. Using his college elective courses, he was able to
qualify for a high school teaching certificate and found employment in
secondary education. From 1928 through 1930, Davis taught vocational

agriculture, and coached basketball, and from 1930 through 1936, he served
as superintendent of schools in Douds-Leando, lowa. Here was a farming
community where strong discipline and corporal punishment were an

integral part of teaching. In fact, tenure at Douds-Leando High School
depended upon how well each teacher handled and maintained discipline.8
The local school board authorized the use of a rubber hose, the end of
which was split into six or eight strips about twelve-inches long. As was
expected of any new teacher, Davis was soon tested by several rowdy
students and found that he had no problem meeting the challenge of
disobedient students in the classroom, on the court, or in the parking lot.
Davis continued to pursue his own educational goals with steadfast

determination. Each June, when Douds-Leando High School closed its doors
for summer vacation, Davis could be found in Minneapolis, accumulating

additional college credits and coursework at the University of Minnesota.
In 1935, he received his master of arts degree in agricultural economics;

his thesis was entitled "School Costs and the Farm Tax Burden in Van Buren
County, lowa."
Leaving the Douds-Leando school system, Davis traveled to Washington,
D.C, where he accepted a temporary position of assistant agricultural

economist with the Resettlement Administration of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA). Concerned with the need for having

farmers work their own land, this agency focused, in part, on relocating
7. Fusonie, "John H. Davis," 9.
8. Ibid., 13-14.
tenant farmers on land purchased by the government. Between 1936 and

June of 1938, Davis's job involved both the preparation and review of farm
plans and loan papers, as well as field inspection trips to the states of
Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Davis
also reviewed loan dockets from all regions of the United States. The
Resettlement Administration programs provided several approaches to the
problems of farm families and poor submarginal land. In the spring of 1938,
Davis resigned his job with the Department of Agriculture in order to

become superintendent of schools at Story City, lowa. With an enrollment
of 430 students, a teaching staff of eighteen, a practice teaching program
with lowa State College, and an evening adult education program, Davis
found that his new position provided an interesting educational opportunity
to enhance his administrative and supervisory skills.
From 1939 to 1941 Davis completed the course and residency require?
ments for his doctorate in Agricultural Economics and Business Administra?
tion at the University of Minnesota.9 In his graduate studies, Davis became
interested in learning more about the role of cooperatives in American
agriculture. Eager to increase his knowledge of cooperatives, he read

selectively, enrolled in a special seminar on cooperatives, and completed
a thirty-one page research report entitled "Cooperative Marketing," on their
history, development, policies, and goals. He also wrote a twenty-three page
report entitled "Financial Analysis of the Midland Cooperative Wholesale

for the Years 1935-1940." In his final written preliminary examination for
the doctorate in 1941, he was thoroughly tested on his understanding of
the difficult economic problems that cooperative associations were then

experiencing.10
The outbreak of World War II not only created a farm labor shortage
and unprecedented demands for farm commodities but also provided a

catalyst for both risk capital and economic incentive. As a result, the
adoption of labor-saving technology and practices and improved marketing
9. John H. Davis, "Starting a Career in Depression Time," chap. 2 in "Chapters From My
Life," 9-19, JDP, NAL.
10. See John H. Davis, "Cooperative Marketing," University of Minnesota, 1939, JDP, NAL;
see also "Financial Analysis of Midland Cooperative Wholesale For Years 1935-1940," (1939) and
"Written Preliminary Examination for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree," (University of Minnesota,
31 March 1941), JDP, NAL.
John H. Davis / 331
and transportation systems were accelerated in order to handle the

expansion in farm output.11 The gradual increased involvement on the part
of the United States in a full-scale war created a boom for increased
agricultural production and put demands upon cooperatives to expand their

processing, marketing, and purchasing operations to meet the growing war
needs.12
In June 1941 Davis again accepted employment with the United States
Department of Agriculture in its Cooperative Research and Service Division
of the Farm Credit Administration. His work on the critical problem of
grain storage earned him a promotion to chief of the Wheat Section in

the Grain Division ofthe Commodity Credit Corporation.13 Although Davis
was progressing in his career with the USDA, he was called upon to use
his talents yet again in the challenging, high profile leadership role of
executive secretary for the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
In late December 1943 Davis was contacted by Ezra Taft Benson, then
executive secretary of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. The
two men met outside the office of Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard.
Benson, who had served from 1939 through most of World War II,
explained that he was returning to Salt Lake City to become a member
ofthe Quorum of Twelve Apostles in the Mormon Church, that John Davis
had been recommended as a possible successor, and that Davis's name had
been forwarded for consideration at the national meeting in Chicago. In

February 1944, 150 delegates representing 4,600 cooperatives and a com?
bined farmer membership of over 2 million met for four full-day sessions.
Davis, who had not yet made up his mind whether to accept the offer,
attended the meeting. To his surprise, Davis was introduced to the delegates
as the "new Executive Secretary." Realizing that there would be no interviews,
11. Glen T. Barton, "Technological Change, Food Needs, and Aggregate Resource Adjustment
(1940-58)," Journal ofFarm Economics 40 (December 1958): 1430; Wayne Rasmussen, "The Impact
of Technological Change on American Agriculture, 1862-1962," Journal of Economic History 22
(December 1962): 588; also Alan Fusonie, "The Development of the American Food Supply: A
Selective Historical Overview," Journal ofNAL Associates 5 (January/June 1980): 10.
12. Joseph G. Knapp, "The Boom in Agricultural Cooperatives: 1941-1945," chap. 22 in The
Advance of American Cooperative Enterprise: 1920-1945 (Danville, 111.: Interstate Printers and
Publishers, 1973), 471-93.

13. Davis, "Chapters From My Life," 21-22, JDP, NAL.
evaluations, or speeches, Davis quickly decided to accept the challenging

position.14
John Davis headed the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives from
1944 to 1952. This was an unprecedented time of post-war recovery,

technological change, and, in particular, of increasing attacks on the
tax-exempt status of farm cooperatives. Fortunately, Davis's research
background proved particularly relevant to the critical tax issue, and his
leadership in the task at hand was multifaceted. It was in part educational,
in regard to the membership and to the public, in part political, and, in
part, a blending of the two. The political aspect, in particular, involved

written and printed communications and testimony before Congress and
other government agencies (especially the USDA) about cooperative interests
and their viewpoints on agricultural policies and programs.
Once the war was over, farmer cooperatives would face serious readjustments. During an inspection tour of California member cooperatives, Davis
was interviewed by the Los Angeles Times and voiced his hope that there
would be no repetition of the postwar farm conditions experienced after
World War I: "The boom was responsible for many ofthe farmer's troubles
in the 20's and 30's [and he] hoped a similar situation can be avoided this
time."15
Speaking on 17 November 1944, at the third New England War

Conference in Boston, Davis addressed a concerned audience of farm
leaders. In his paper entitled "The Present and Future Contributions of the
Farmer Cooperatives in New England Agriculture," he noted that, "Our

agricultural plant has expanded roughly 130 per cent of prewar."16 Discussing
the inability of agricultural production to adjust easily, Davis encouraged

farmer cooperatives to work on the "reduction in the cost of production,
supplies and distribution" as a constructive service in the postwar period.17
Davis saw the cooperative-type organization as a major solution for the

14. Washington Situation (12 January 1944): 2; Cooperative Digest: The National Magazine of
Agricultural Cooperation 4 (February 1944): 10; Davis, "Chapters From My Life," 22-23, JDP,
NAL.
15. Los Angeles Times, 2 November 1944.
16. John H. Davis, "The Present and Future Contributions ofthe Farmer Cooperatives in New
England Agriculture" (address given before the third New England War Conference, Boston, 17
November 1944), JDP, NAL.
17. Ibid.; see also John H. Davis, "Farmer Cooperative?A Safety Valve for Private Business,"
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives News Service Press Release, 16 October 1944.
John H. Davis / 333
more than 6 million farm units averaging less than one hundred acres each.
These individual units were at a singular disadvantage in the purchasing
of production supplies and in the marketing of products. Commenting

realistically on the effectiveness of farmer cooperative organizations in
American agriculture, he said in the Yearbook of the National Council of
Farmer Cooperatives in 1945, "If America is to achieve a sound rural

economy based on maximum farmer self-help, farmers must strive to
strengthen their cooperative organization from the grassroots to the

top."18
For Davis, the challenge was to encourage vitality, direction, unity, and
growth within the farmer cooperatives at the local level. While on the road
in Kentucky, in January 1946, Davis addressed the Farm and Home

Convention in Lexington, speaking with pride about the fact that approx?
imately one half of the farmers in the United States belonged to at least
one cooperative. He also mentioned that the family farm unit made up
over 95 percent of all farms in the country.19 During the next nine years,
Davis would often extol the principles of the family farm along with the
principles of the farmer cooperatives. To mention the importance of the
family farm unit was to pay tribute to one of the most time-honored
lifestyles in American society.
The major crisis facing Davis shortly after he assumed his duties in 1943
was the intensive and vicious campaign mounted against the tax-exempt
status of farmer cooperatives. Historically, the legal status of cooperative
associations was established with the passage of the Capper-Volstead Act

of 1922 and further strengthened by the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926
and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929.20 Now, as the nation prepared
18. John H. Davis, "Farmers' Self-Help," Official Yearbook of the National Council of Farmer
Cooperatives 12 (1945): 6.
19. John H. Davis, "Cooperation Among Farm People During Reconversion" (speech given
before the Kentucky Farm and Home Convention, Lexington, Ky., 29 January 1946), JDP, NAL.
20. Knapp, Advance of American Cooperative Enterprise, 25-26, 88-95, 120-22; see also Joseph
Knapp, Farmers in Business, Studies in Cooperative Enterprise (Washington, D.C: American Institute
of Cooperation, 1963); Joseph Knapp, How Farmers' Cooperatives Contribute to Agricultural
Well-Being (Washington, D.C: Farmer Cooperative Service, USDA, 1963); Ewell Paul Roy,
Cooperatives: Development, Principles and Management (Danville, 111.: Interstate Printers and
Publishers, 1981), 41-62; for biographical sketches by different authors of 101 major pioneers in
the cooperative movement in the United States, see Joseph Knapp, Great American Cooperators
(Washington, D.C: American Institute of Cooperation, 1967); for a brief overview treatment of
individuals and achievements in the American cooperative movement, see Cooperatives?People

With A Purpose (Washington, D.C: American Institute of Cooperation, 1979), 25-46.
for war and tax rates began to rise rapidly, proprietary organizations bore
the increasingly heavy economic burden of these substantial rises in

corporate tax, thereby cutting into anticipated profits. Opposition to the
income tax exemption allowed to farmer cooperatives increased.21 The

National Tax Equality Association (NTEA) was formed specifically to fight
against the tax-exempt position of cooperatives citing tax advantages and
an unfair competitive edge. With a reported budget of one-half million

dollars that could be used to mount an extensive campaign, the NTEA was
viewed with a great deal of concern.22 The National Council of Farmer

Cooperatives, in taking the lead to counter the NTEA attacks, resolved that
"such attacks should be vigorously resisted by the Council...[and] the

Council should assume the leadership, on behalf ofthe millions of farmers
represented in its membership....23
Why should the net earnings of cooperatives be taxed both at the

corporate and at the farm level?24 Realizing the seriousness of these
anti-cooperative forces, Davis wasted little time in rallying the strength of
the National Council office inclusive of expert legal talent, accountants, and
other key people to defend the position of farmer cooperatives and to keep
existing laws from being abolished, changed, or modified. Davis entrusted
Karl D. Loos with this responsibility. Two other key people in defense of
cooperatives were D. W. Brooks (Gold Kist Company, Atlanta, Georgia)

and John Sims (Ohio Farm Bureau Cooperative, Columbus, Ohio). For the
next two years, court cases were heard across the country, and extensive
congressional hearings were held in Washington, D.C.25 As to the motives
ofthe NTEA, the 25 November 1944 issue ofthe Christian Science Monitor
carried a column entitled "Family Sized American Farms Called Free

Enterprise at Best" in which Davis was quoted as saying, "the real underlying
21. Davis, "Chapters From My Life," 24, JDP, NAL; also see Gilbert C. Fite, Beyond the Fence
Rows: A History of Farmland Industries, Inc, 1929-1978 (Columbia: University of Missouri Press,
1978), 200-202.
22. Knapp, Advance of American Cooperative Enterprise, 522.
23. The 1944 Blue Book of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, vol. 11 (Washington,
D.C: n.p.), 24.

24. Beryle Stanton, "Cooperatives Come To Washington?Chronicle of CounciTs 50 Years"
in Cooperatives?People With A Purpose, 32.
25. Davis, "Chapters From My Life," 24, JDP, NAL; see also Stanton, "Cooperatives Come to
Washington," 32.
John H. Davis / 335
objective is to hinder the cooperatives as pace-setting competitors."26

Although Davis found congressional leaders sympathetic to his presentations
on farmer cooperatives, there was as yet no room for overconfidence. During
the next two years, the tax battle continued. On the last Sunday in December
1946, Davis wrote a timely column in the Sunday Star entitled "How Co-ops
View Tax Issue." Intended for the congressional readership and the general
public, he explained in simple language why many farmers needed

cooperatives: "An individual family farm is too small a production unit to
have its own sales and purchasing departments, as does the typical industrial
firm. As a result farmers have joined together to form cooperative

associations to carry on these functions efficiently."27 This story was picked
up and printed in many local newspapers.
From the beginning, the tax issue had clearly illustrated to Davis the
urgent need for more effective educational programs on the importance
of cooperatives in American agriculture. Speaking in Seattle, Davis told the
Washington State Council to "build themselves up both externally and

internally."28 Under John Davis's leadership, the National Council of Farmer
Cooperatives' defense of cooperatives given before Congress apparently had

been successful. According to a 1 November 1947 New York Times article,
"Farm Co-op Tax," the studies initiated by the Treasury Department and
the House of Representatives' Small Business Committee supported the

Council's position that farmer cooperatives were a valuable part of the
American free enterprise system.29 The Council's story of farmer cooper?
atives needed to be heard. In particular, Davis's statements on cooperatives
and taxes were widely distributed and reached such printed media as
Kiplinger's The Changing Times?0
26. Christian Science Monitor 25 November 1944; see John H. Davis, "The Cooperative Tax
Issue As Viewed From the Nation's Capital" (address given before the Consumer Cooperative
Association, Kansas City, Mo., 26 November 1945), JDP, NAL; see also W. L. Bradley, "Taxation
of Cooperatives," Harvard Business Review 25 (Autumn 1947): 576-86; Howard W. Selby, "Farmers'
Cooperatives As Competitors," Harvard Business Review 24 (Winter 1948): 215.
27. Sunday Star (Washington, D.C), 29 December 1946.

28. "Educate Your Public?State Co-ops Urged," Granger News (Seattle), 18 November 1944,
JDP, NAL.
29. New York Times, 1 November 1947.

30. Changing Times, August 1944; also see this statement reprinted in NULAID News, October
1949, and Cooperative Digest, 1 September 1949.
On the tax issue, Davis continued to urge individual members to promote
a good image for the farmer cooperatives reminding them that "the big
job to be done is at the crossroads and in the local communities" not just
in Washington, D.C.31 In the year that followed, the tax issue and the
opposition from such organizations as the National Tax Equality Association
remained a major concern for the leadership of the National Council of

Farmer Cooperatives.32
In the decade following World War II, Davis not only articulated the
position of the farmer cooperatives on taxes but, more importantly, tried
to keep the membership informed on the rapidly changing face of American
agriculture, due in large part to the influence of the second agricultural

revolution. With the passing of each year, more poor small-scale farmers
with inefficient undercapitalized operations and no access to money or credit
found it increasingly difficult to survive. Davis and the National Council

were, in fact, opposed to the continuation of inefficient farm units through
the use of subsidies. Davis, however, did encourage the productive, efficient
family farm to use the cooperative as a tool to integrate farm production

with the purchasing of supplies and the marketing of products.33
As the 1948 elections loomed on the horizon, Davis found it necessary

to defend the status and programs of the farmer cooperatives before the
Platform Committees of the Democrats and Republicans. A position

pamphlet was prepared and distributed. Davis remained confident that both
parties would endorse the farmer cooperatives, and the executive leadership
actually felt the Republicans would get the farm vote. In the post-election
analysis, Davis commented to the press, "Mr. Truman and the Democratic
Party have demonstrated their willingness not only to support but also
defend the rights of farmers to create, own and control their

cooperatives."34
Certainly, Harry Truman's strong grass-roots campaign and plain talk
was well received by many within the agricultural community. Testifying
31. John H. Davis, "A Current Concept of Cooperative Public Relations," papers summarized
in American Cooperation (Washington, D.C: American Institute of Cooperation, 1947), 311.
32. Fite, Beyond the Fence Rows, 348.
33. Davis, "Cooperation Among Farm People During Reconversion," 3, 6, 7; also "Co-ops Can
Solve the Surplus Problem," Dairymens League News, 3 June 1947.
34. See Star Gazette (Elmira, N.Y.), 5 November 1948; Daily Times Herald (Dallas), 14 January
1949; Times-Union (Rochester, N.Y.), 5 November 1948.
John H. Davis / 337
on behalf of the National Council before the Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Davis characterized the future of American agriculture as

dynamic and in the process of transition: "We will see the continuation
of rapid mechanization in agriculture, a further decrease in our farms'
population and the use of new methods of production, harvesting,

processing and marketing farm products."35 Whether choosing the road to
the city, seeking employment adjustments through vocational training, or
remaining on the farm, the American farmer was portrayed by Davis as
caught up in a period of transition filled with risk and change in the years
ahead. On 9 January 1950, Davis sounded a warning to the membership

ofthe farmer cooperatives about their future in American agriculture: "We
must realize that the size ofthe family farm must change to make possible
the efficient use of mechanization. We no longer will need 20 percent of
our people engaged in agriculture...."36 Davis's message sounded hardnosed, yet he realized only too well that the economic forces of integration
in American agriculture were on the verge of even further acceleration.37
After almost a decade of service with the National Council of Farmer

Cooperatives, Davis felt that it was time to elect a new executive secretary;
he also felt that it was time for him to seek new vantage points for viewing
farm problems. In his 27 May 1952 letter of resignation, he stressed his
need to "again view farm problems looking toward our national capital
rather than from it."38 As word of Davis's announcement spread, initial
reaction was one of disappointment, sadness, surprise, and regret. Then

letters of appreciation began pouring into the national office, thanking him
for his counsel, his deep devotion, his diplomacy, and his leadership.39 Frank
35. John H. Davis, "Statement Before the Senate Committee on Agriculture on S2318: A Bill
to Provide A Coordinated Agricultural Program,** 14 April 1948, JDP, NAL.
36. John H. Davis, "The National Council at Work'* (address given before the Annual Meeting
of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Edgewater Beach Hotel, Chicago, 111., 9 January
1950), 2-3, JDP, NAL.

37. See John H. Davis, "Should Farmers Pay For More Agricultural Research?" (address given
before the seventeenth Conference ofthe National Farm Chemurgic Council, St. Louis, Mo.), 12
March 1952, JDP, NAL.
38. John Davis, executive secretary, to the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives* Board
of Directors, 27 May 1952, JDP, NAL.
39. W. G. Wysor, Management Council, Southern States Cooperative, to John H. Davis, 26

May 1952; H. S. Agster, general manager, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau Cooperative Association, to
John Davis, 29 May 1952, JDP, NAL.
U. Hussey, president of Maine Potato Growers, commended Davis for a

"statesmanship in agriculture ofthe highest order."40 Davis had taken charge
during a period of intense opposition, and he had successfully rallied many
different farmer cooperatives into a united front on critical farm

problems.41
Under Davis's leadership, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives

had developed into one of the largest and strongest farm organizations in
America.42 M. L. Wilson, director of extension work for the USDA, held
Davis in high regard because ofthe contribution that he made to agriculture
and rural life in the United States: "You have always had a broad point
of view which recognized the general welfare of all people on the other.
You have also thought much deeper about the non-material values in life
than most people in the busy world of today."43
On 28 June 1952, just about a month after Davis's letter of resignation,
he received a two-page letter from Donald K. David, dean of the School

of Business Administration at Harvard University, asking him to serve on
a distinguished advisory committee for research and teaching activities

related to agriculture and business relations. The committee would include
representatives from agriculture, business, government, and education.
Charles R. Sayre, president of Delta and Pine Land Company in Scott,

Mississippi, would serve as chairman. Dean David pointed out in his letter
40. Fred W. Hussey, president, Maine Potato Growers, Inc, Growers Co-operative, to John
Davis, executive secretary, 5 June 1952, JDP, NAL.
41. Howard A. Cowden, president, Consumers' Cooperative Association, Kansas City, Mo., to
John Davis, 26 May 1952; Charlie McNeil, general manager, Mississippi Federated Cooperatives,
Jackson, Miss., to John Davis, 4 June 1952, JDP, NAL.
42. O. E. Zacharias, Jr., general manager, Southern States Cooperative, Richmond, Va., to John
Davis, 26 May 1952; see also F. G. Ketner, secretary-treasurer and general manager-producer,
Livestock Cooperative Association, to John Davis, 28 May 1952, JDP, NAL.
43. M. L. Wilson, director of Extension Work, USDA, Washington, D.C, to John Davis, 25
June 1952, JDP, NAL. Today, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives represents about 90
percent of the more than 6,200 farm cooperatives in the nation with a combined membership
of nearly 2 million farmers; for a brief analysis of cooperatives, see Randall E. Torgerson, "The
Environment In Which Cooperatives Find Themselves in the 1890's" and Donald R. Davidson,
Donald W. Street, and Roger A. Wissman, "Trends in the Financial Makeup of the 100 Largest
Cooperatives," both articles in American Cooperation (Washington, D.C: American Institute of
Cooperation, 1982), 10-13 and 40-46, respectively. For statistical data and charts on farmer
cooperatives see also USDA, 1984 Handbook of Agricultural Charts: Agricultural Handbook No. 637
(Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 1984), 18-20.
John H. Davis / 339
that George M. Moffett, former chairman of the board of Corn Products

Refining Company, had already set up the George M. Moffett Professorship
in Agriculture and Business through the Whitehall Foundation. David also
mentioned his concern for the mutual lack of understanding between

agriculture and business.
Dean David explained that the role of the advisory committee was to
assist in program development, identity research topics, and select faculty
to help "bridge the gap in understanding between agriculture and busi?

ness."44 John Davis would bring a special kind of breadth to the committee.
As Ray Goldberg, colleague and co-author, remembers, "John...had a

communication network, the likes of which were second to none...a mental
information network that we could always rely on."45 At that time, only
an estimated one in eight or ten graduate students in the Harvard School
of Business Administration possessed any background in agriculture through
either upbringing or work on a farm. On 30 June, Davis responded positively
to David, for he was most pleased with the idea of the Harvard School
of Business Administration moving into this important and too-longneglected field.46
The outbreak of World War II had been an initial catalyst for revitalizing
American agriculture, causing unprecedented demand for farm commod?
ities, favorable prices, and the increased adoption of improvements in

technology. In talks with members of the National Farmer Cooperative,
Davis had warned of the downsizing impact of transition and change in
American agriculture. Yet, those farmers who managed to utilize effectively
the improvements and the package approach became a part of the

specialized labor force behind what Wayne Rasmussen interpreted as the
second agricultural revolution. Between 1947 and 1952, American farmers
also felt the negative impact of an emerging economic recovery in Western
44. Donald K. David, dean, School of Business Administration, Harvard University, to John
H. Davis, 28 June 1952; according to an article in the New York Times, 20 January 1954, the Moffett
Program started with an endowment of $300,000 from the George W. Moffett Estate, donated
on 22 December 1951, JDP, NAL.
45. Alan Fusonie, "Oral History Interview with Dr. Ray Goldberg," professor of the Moffett
Program in Agriculture and Business, Harvard Business School, 17 March 1989, JDP, NAL.
46. John H. Davis, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, to Donald K. David, dean, School
of Business Administration, Harvard University, 30 June 1952, JDP, NAL; see Rasmussen, "The
Impact of Technological Change," 578-91.
Europe and Asia in the form of farm commodity surplus and farm income
decline at home. Under the authority of the 1942 Stabilization Act, the
Commodity Credit Corporation of the Department of Agriculture was

engaged in purchasing commodities such as wheat, cotton, corn, and dairy
products as the existing remedy for stopping the downward slide of prices.
But economists, policy makers, and politicians disagreed on the future role
ofthe federal government in this area.
On 21 January 1953, Ezra Taft Benson brought to the office of the

secretary of agriculture a personal belief that the best support government
could give agriculture was to liberate the private sector economic forces
of production and marketing from government controls. Only hours after
Benson took office, he announced a reorganization of the Department of

Agriculture into four units reporting to the secretary of agriculture rather
than the existing twenty separate agencies. Reshuffling, staff changes,

reduction in force, and retirements for top-policy-level people became a
part of department daily life. T. Roy Reed, a Democrat and one-time

assistant to Claude R. Wickard, retired as director of personnel; after
seventeen years of service, Howard Gordon, president of Commodity Credit
Corporation and administrator ofthe Commodity Stabilization Service?a

multi-billion-dollar crop and price support agency?was fired for reportedly
moving too slowly in replacing Democrats with Republicans on the

state-level commodity stabilization committees. Gordon, the ninth of twelve
top aides to leave, would be returning to his private sector management

job with Southern States in Richmond, Virginia. Twenty-three members
ofthe Farmers Home Administration were fired, and rumors about extensive
reductions in the agency's field offices were the agriculture staff talk of the
day.47
In 1953 Secretary Benson asked Davis to join the Department of

Agriculture as president of the Commodity Credit Corporation; shortly
47. Trudy Haskamp Peterson, Agricultural Exports, Farm Income and the Eisenhower Administra?
tion (Lincoln: Nebraska University Press, 79), 2-5, 19; see "Benson to Regroup His Department
Into 4 Units in Major Overhauling," Wall Street Journal 23 January 1953; "Benson to Speed Up
Plans For Revamping Department," Washington Post, 10 August 1953; for an overview see Edward
L. Schapsmeier and Frederick H. Schapsmeier, Ezra Taft Benson and the Politics of Agriculture: The
Eisenhower Years 1953-1961 (Danville, 111.: Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1975).
John H. Davis / 341
thereafter, he was appointed assistant secretary of agriculture. Economists
supportive of Democratic policies?such as John Kenneth Galbraith,

Harvard economist; Clyde Mitchell, chairman of the Department of
Agricultural Economics at the University of Nebraska; and former Depart?
ment of Agriculture Economist Louis Bean?were already criticizing the

Eisenhower agriculture program in the area of set-asides, storage, and flexible
price supports. During the next year, although Davis's relationship with
Benson remained cordial, it was far from harmonious on policy. Acting

in his dual capacities, Davis soon found his time divided between speeches,
press interviews, meetings on agricultural policy, and all day sessions on
the agency reorganization before congressional committees. He was called
to Capitol Hill nearly fifty times concerning the reorganization alone.
Davis was in agreement with the goals of the Eisenhower agriculture

program, but his approach to the problems showed a deeper understanding
of the complexities involved in bringing about change. On the one hand,

Davis saw the need for farmers, agricultural trade people, and research and
educational specialists to focus on assessing and developing a viable farm

program based on less government. Yet, faced with the existing economic
conditions in agriculture, Davis believed that the Department of Agriculture
must continue to utilize fully both the existing price supports and other
types of farm aid. With falling incomes, surplus production, and declining
markets, Davis saw saving farmers as a more important priority than

keeping Republican campaign promises.
Davis believed in the dynamics of private enterprise as the emerging

source of basic price stability for farmers. For Davis, this was the right
direction, although he realized that all the ingredients for success were still
unclear. So, in the meantime, were not farmers as deserving of an earned

measure of security as other economic groups? Were not the existing high
levels of farm price supports and production controis for stabilizing farm
prices better for now than a repeat of the adverse circumstances which led
to the depression during the 1920s and 1930s? How was a surplus always
a bad thing when it assured the country enough to eat? Throughout his
brief stay in the department, Davis was always quick to defend his
supervisor, Secretary Benson, against political attacks, yet in agricultural
economic policy, Davis viewed world economic indicators as well as trends

and views ofthe American farmer as vitally important to his own thinking
and outlook.48
The position at the Department of Agriculture had been so challenging
and demanding that Davis stayed longer than the transition period he had
contemplated originally. His efforts were appreciated by Secretary Benson
who, in a letter to Davis dated 8 January 1954, commended him for his
service in 1953 and urged his "continued dedication" in 1954.49 In spite

ofthe conflicts and frustrations, Davis found his years as assistant secretary
to be professionally fulfilling, particularly his work with some ofthe capable
and dedicated employees in the department who had been specially recruited
in the days of the New Deal and who had reached their prime in the
1950s.50
In the spring of 1954, Davis resigned his position as assistant secretary

in order to accept the challenging faculty position of director ofthe Moffett
Program in Agriculture and Business at the Harvard Business School.51 On
1 August Earl Butz, head of the Agricultural Economics Department at

Purdue University, replaced Davis, who assumed his full-time duties at
Harvard. News of Davis's Harvard appointment brought words of praise
from many agricultural leaders and such notable economists as John

Kenneth Galbraith and Mordecai Ezekiel.52
The 1950s were critical years in American agriculture, for the second
agricultural revolution continued to influence the growing trend toward
48. See "GOP Delays Farm Policy Changes Because of Urgent 1953 Problems," New York Times,
30 June 1953; "The Curse of Abundance," Wall Street Journal, 1 July 1953; "Mr. Davis Makes a
Rash Suggestion," Hartford Courant, 6 July 1953; "USDA Official for Fewer Controls," Capital Times,
4 February 1954; years later, Davis would view the Commodity Credit Corporation as a stabilizing
force providing agriculture with a financial structure and cash flow that has fed this country and
much of the world with fewer persons working on the farms?see Fusonie, "John H. Davis," 27,
JDP, NAL.
49. Ezra Taft Benson, secretary of agriculture, to John H. Davis, 8 January 1954, JDP, NAL.
50. Davis, "Chapters From My Life," 38, JDP, NAL.
51. See Des Moines Register, 20 January 1954; Washington Post, 20 January 1954; New York
Times, 20 January 1954; Boston Herald, 20 January 1954; see also Davis, "Chapters From My Life,"
57-58, JDP, NAL.
52. John H. Davis to George Peer, executive secretary, Harvard University, Graduate School
of Business, 25 June 1954; John H. Davis, assistant secretary, to Earl L. Butz, head, Department
of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, 2 July 1954, JDP, NAL.
John H. Davis / 343
larger, more efficient, and integrated producers. In terms of size and

productivity, fewer ofthe larger farms were playing an increasingly important
role in the nation's agriculture.53 Davis understood the dynamic changes
taking place in American agriculture; he would attempt, through the

development of special courses using the case method, through speeches
to the agricultural community, and through the publication of articles and
books, to redefine a modern agriculture-business setting.54 With the

continued impact of science and technology on marginal farms, as well as
on modern-day family farms, it became increasingly apparent that some
farmers would, or should, choose to transfer into nonfarm occupations.

Davis saw this long-term problem as requiring comprehensive study and
input from leaders in industry, agriculture, government, and education.55
As Davis initiated his program in agriculture and business, he searched

for a new terminology to describe the agricultural journey from the farm
to the consumer. A new definition was needed to portray adequately every
stage through which a farm commodity passed from production to ultimate
utilization.56 Davis was already hard at work on a technical publication

entitled A Concept of Agribusiness. On 17 October 1955 the word "agribusi?
ness" was born in a speech Davis gave before the Boston Conference on
Distribution entitled "Business Responsibility and the Market for Farm
Products." During this presentation, Davis touched upon "income anemia"
and the pressures for farm programs, but he also spoke of "new direction,"
"closer teamwork," "interdependency," and "unified function" involving a
modern relationship of agriculture and business.57 Davis told his audience
that a new word was needed, and that word was the term agribusiness.
53. Gilbert C. Fite, American Farmers: The New Minority (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1981), 126-27.

54. See John H. Davis, "Goals of Farm Policy In A Free Society" (address given before the
National Farm Forum, Des Moines, la., 19 February 1955); John H. Davis, "Agriculture-Industry
Teamwork Increases Farm Efficiency" (address given before the New England Council Meeting,
10 June 1955); John H. Davis, "A Policy For Agriculture and Business" (excerpts of an address
given before the National Grain Trade Council, 13 September 1955), JDP, NAL.
55. See John H. Davis, "Thinking Ahead: The Farm Problem," Harvard Business Review 33
(May/June 1955): 19-24.
56. Fusonie, "John H. Davis," 40, JDP, NAL.
57. John H. Davis, "Business Responsibility and the Market for Farm Products" (address given
before the Boston Conference on Distribution, 17 October 1955), JDP, NAL.
Davis said that by definition agribusiness meant "the sum of all farming
operations, plus the manufacture and distribution of farm commodities.

In brief, agribusiness refers to the sum-total of all operations involved in
the production and distribution of food and fiber."58
Davis's new definition caught the attention of many leaders and managers
in agriculture and business. Newspapers carried short fillers announcing
the new term and its inventor. Davis followed up his new word with an
article, "From Agriculture to Agribusiness," which appeared in the Harvard
Business Review and received immediate demands for reprints.59 In 1957
the technical book, A Concept of Agriculture, which was co-authored with
colleague, Ray Goldberg, was published and widely distributed throughout
the agricultural community. This work both enriched and reinforced the
agribusiness definition and included detailed charts and graphs that focused
on the future in terms of developing agribusiness research and policy. From
the first time these two men met, they had much in common, and their
ability to work together was something to watch.
Similar to Davis, Ray Goldberg had a farming background and personal

memories of the depression, such as farm families eating what little food
they had standing up, for the fiirniture had been sold. In addition, both
men had pursued their graduate education with doctorates in economics

from the University of Minnesota. Looking back at how well these two men
worked together, Goldberg recalled, "It was amazing. My background and

his [was] like having two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that came together and
sort of blended immediately.... John had it down to a fine art. He

understood the role of government and he also understood the pressures
that farmers had in trying to think about the input side and the output
side."60
In an effort to broaden the interest in and understanding ofthe meaning
of agribusiness, John Davis and Kenneth Hinshaw co-authored a popularized

by-product entitled Farmer in a Business Suit. With the help ofthe ficticious
Yeoman Family, the writers skillfully dramatized three centuries of transition
from the self-sufficient backwoodsman to the corporate farmer whose

58. Ibid., 5.
59. Davis, "From Agriculture to Agribusiness," Harvard Business Review 34 (January/February
1956): 107-15.
60. Fusonie, "Oral History Interview with Dr. Ray Goldberg," JDP, NAL.
John H. Davis / 345
success is determined by the degree to which he integrates his business with
the intricacies of modern processing and marketing. From buckskin to

business suit, this work about rural life was readable and made sense, and
it was translated into many languages. Assistant Secretary of Agriculture
Earl Butz read the book while on a business trip from San Francisco to
Tokyo in May 1957. He wrote Davis commending the publication and

commented, "I don't know whether it was the rare atmosphere at high
altitudes, or the peaceful surface of the blue Pacific below me, or just old
fashioned common sense in the book, but I enjoyed the blame thing. I am
inclined to think it was the substantial dose of common sense in the book
that made me enjoy it."61
When Davis left the Harvard Business School, his successes there were
threefold: the word agribusiness had gained a significant respectability

nationally; graduate students, upon completion of their agribusiness studies,
were in demand for important positions with agribusiness companies; and
his colleague, Ray Goldberg, continued teaching and promoting the

importance of agribusiness and agribusiness education. Davis continued to
speak out on the technological revolution, the food and fiber front,
agribusiness research, vertical integration, and marketing functions.62 In
January 1978 Davis was asked to speak to the United Egg Producers
Management Conference about the future of agribusiness?its opportunities
and problems. After hitting the high notes of achievements, entrepreneurship, greater skill, and better management, Davis said, "I believe that it is
high time for us to carefully and systematically reappraise this vast

transformation [technological revolution] for the purpose of determining
where we go from here.... I am suggesting that agribusiness leaders,

61. Earl L. Butz, assistant secretary, Office ofthe Secretary, Department of Agriculture, to John
H. Davis, director, Program in Agriculture and Business, Harvard University Graduate School of
Business Administration, 28 May 1957, JDP, NAL.
62. See John H. Davis, "A Forward Look at Technology and Institutions Affecting New England
Agriculture" (summary of address before the Second Annual Meeting, New England Agricultural
Economic Council, College of Agriculture, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Conn., 27 June 1957);
John H. Davis, "Research in an Agribusiness Era" (address before the Experiment Station Section
ofthe Land Grant College Association, 12 November 1957); John H. Davis, "Farm Problems and
Opportunities" (highlights of an address given before the ninety-first Annual Session ofthe National
Grange, 13 November 1957); John H. Davis, "Vertical Integration of Production and Marketing
Functions in Agriculture*' (paper prepared for a hearing before the Subcommittee on Agricultural
Policy ofthe Joint Economic Committee of Congress, 15 December 1957), JDP, NAL.
including producers, take the initiative in bringing about a reappraisal of
agribusiness...a series of studies; some to be done by the public research

agencies and others within the private sector."63
About seven years later, on 9 July 1984, John Davis and his good friend
Oris V. Wells did a taped conversation about some of their agribusinessrelated activities. Wells, while serving as administrator for the Agricultural
Marketing Service from 1953 to 1961, had provided, along with his staff,
council and assistance in assembling some data used in the book, A Concept
of Agribusiness (1957). Wells also served with Davis on the Harvard School
of Business Advisory Committee and later as deputy director general for
the Food and Agriculture Organization. In Davis's library study on that

March afternoon, these two men not only discussed past progress but also,
more importantly, focused on the continuing need in agribusiness for a

major reappraisal study. Specifically, Congress, the USDA, and the land-grant
universities should cooperate on a well-funded research study to assess the

fiindamental problem of national stability without government supports in
the food and fiber industry. Surely, with the Harvard example, land-grant
universities, with outstanding personnel and farm constituency, possessed
a significant research advantage for focusing comprehensively on the

problem of national stability on an international agribusiness scale.64
The agribusiness program at Harvard would increasingly emphasize

agriculture's global aspects, such as the connectiveness of the private and
public policy-making enterprises ranging from farming and farm supplies
to processing and distribution. The global arena of agribusiness participants,
both large and small scale, continued to include the dynamics of commodity
systems, as well as the impact of economic, political, social, and technological
change.65 Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Ray Goldberg continued

teaching and interpreting the global agribusiness market as one undergoing a
revolution in which its leaders became agents of change at every level in
the system. He saw biotechnology as having a major impact on global

63. John H. Davis, "The Agribusiness Outlook?Opportunities and Problems" (paper presented
at the United Egg Producers Management Conference, Phoenix, Ariz., 4 January 1978), 1-2.
64. John H. Davis, interview of Oris V. Wells, conducted in Davis's study, 9 July 1984, JDP,
NAL.
65. Ray A. Goldberg, "Introduction," Research in Domestic and International Agribusiness

Management 7 (1987): ix.
John H. Davis / 347
agribusiness. With this new technology, scientists could influence natural

systems of plants and animals to work more effectively?for instance, in
the case of meat, a leaner beef, and with pork and lamb, a lower cholesterol
count.66
In a 1989 interview, Goldberg, looking ahead to the next ten years,
underscored biotechnology as the "major revolution of our time."67

Agricultural historian Terry Sharrer, who has studied the impact of
biotechnology in medicine, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and food process?
ing, agrees and asks us to ponder for a moment how a greater photosynthetic efficiency on a light-sensitive plant such as corn would allow this
plant to be grown closer together so that ears of corn could grow successfully
within each other's shadow instead of using the traditional spacing. This
is only one example of scientific breakthroughs influencing international
agribusiness. Another broader example can be seen in Peoria, lllinois, where
the Agricultural Research Service in cooperation with the Biotechnology
Research and Development Corporation, comprised of five corporations,

identify high-risk projects with market potential. Under this arrangement,
industry now has the incentive to invest in federal scientists in exchange
for proprietary interests, and the federal scientists share in patent royalties.68
In this regard, John Davis and Ray Goldberg understood change in

agribusiness as fundamental to the United States maintaining its position
as the foremost leader in the development of a modern food system. As

a part of today's global international agribusiness, our food and fiber system
is the best bargain in the world. On 11 March 1994, during recent testimony
before the House of Representatives Foreign Agriculture and Hunger

Subcommittee on Agriculture, Joseph H. Marshall, chairman of the Board
of Governors, American Society of Agricultural Consultants, underscored
the United States' envious position: "In the U.S....only 10 percent ofthe
66. Ray A. Goldberg, "A Global Agribusiness Market Revolution" Yearbook of Agriculture?
Marketing US. Agriculture (1988): 18, 23.
67. Fusonie, "Oral History Interview with Ray Goldberg," JDP, NAL.
68. Robert Fraley, "Sustaining the Food Supply" Bio/Technology 10 (January 1992): 40-43; Susan
McCarthy, "USDA's Plant Genome Research Program," Bulletin of the Medical Library Association
81 (July 1993): 278-81; G. Terry Sharrer, "The Health Factor: Biotechnology and World Economy"
(Plenary Lecture, Korean Society for Applied Microbiology, 30 April 1993); "Industry Consorts With
Science," Agricultural Research 41 (May 1993): 5-6.
average person's income is now spent in food... 18 percent for Japan, 29

percent for Thailand, 31 percent for Mexico, 48 percent for China."69
Looking toward the future of international agribusiness, historians and
economists should continue to identify and research the important agribusi?
ness record in order to determine the impact of functions, participants,
commodities, changing economic conditions, government policies, pro?

grams, and regulations, as well as networking, agribusiness education, and
new technologies. The results of this research will create a better under?
standing of both the historical developments and the continuing evolution
of international agribusiness. If John Davis were with us today, he would
continue to call for a major assessment of the international agribusiness

food and files system.
69. House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Foreign Agriculture and Hunger,

Statement by Joseph H. Marshall, chairman, Board of Governors, American Society of Agricultural
Consultants International, 103d Cong., 2d sess., 11 March 1994.

Fusione Agribusiness Concept Revisited

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Fusione Agribusiness Concept Revisited

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

John H.

Davis: Architect of the Agribusiness Concept Revisited

the year in which the Burlington Railroad transported agricultural e

and equipment on special trains throughout the midwest to demonst

improved agricultural methods to local farmers. Secondly, it was the

in which Theodore Roosevelt was elected president. And, finally, it w

concept of agribusiness, was born. John H. Davis?country schoolt

basketball coach, agricultural economist, administrator, professo

innovative leader in American agriculture?grew up as a typical farm

His introduction to agriculture began as a child on the family farm

was born on 9 October 1904, as an identical twin, on his grandfather D

240-acre farm in Wellsville, Missouri, which was located about two m

from the town of Martinsburg. Young John Davis grew up on his pa

his grandfather's farm.

the typical outbuildings?barn, chicken house, livestock shed, wor

began at a young age, increasing in responsibility as he grew older. I

ALAN E. FUSONIE is a professor of history at Charles County Community College, L

Agricultural History / Volume 69 / Number 2 / Spring 1995. ? Agricultural History Society

John H. Davis / 327

be cut. We progressed from one thing to another until at about age 16

social importance of farm families working together. Each year, about

threshing machine was a Huber, powered by a Huber four steam engine.

2. Ibid., 3; John H. Davis, "Chapters From My Life" (unpublished autobiographical manuscript,

1978), 1-6, JDP, NAL.

328 / Agricultural History

In 1919 the Davis family moved to a 250-acre farm in Boone County,

After graduating from the Consolidated High School in Napier, lowa,

operating it themselves to help finance their college tuition. Davis received

John H. Davis / 329

As his long-term goal, Davis decided upon a career in agricultural

secondary education. From 1928 through 1930, Davis taught vocational

as superintendent of schools in Douds-Leando, lowa. Here was a farming

community where strong discipline and corporal punishment were an

Davis continued to pursue his own educational goals with steadfast

for summer vacation, Davis could be found in Minneapolis, accumulating

In 1935, he received his master of arts degree in agricultural economics;

D.C, where he accepted a temporary position of assistant agricultural

Department of Agriculture (USDA). Concerned with the need for having

330 / Agricultural History

tenant farmers on land purchased by the government. Between 1936 and

Davis resigned his job with the Department of Agriculture in order to

to enhance his administrative and supervisory skills.

tion at the University of Minnesota.9 In his graduate studies, Davis became

interested in learning more about the role of cooperatives in American

agriculture. Eager to increase his knowledge of cooperatives, he read

report entitled "Financial Analysis of the Midland Cooperative Wholesale

the difficult economic problems that cooperative associations were then

and unprecedented demands for farm commodities but also provided a

31 March 1941), JDP, NAL.

John H. Davis / 331

and transportation systems were accelerated in order to handle the

agricultural production and put demands upon cooperatives to expand their

of the Farm Credit Administration. His work on the critical problem of

grain storage earned him a promotion to chief of the Wheat Section in

been forwarded for consideration at the national meeting in Chicago. In

Publishers, 1973), 471-93.

332 / Agricultural History

evaluations, or speeches, Davis quickly decided to accept the challenging

John Davis headed the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives from

1944 to 1952. This was an unprecedented time of post-war recovery,

in regard to the membership and to the public, in part political, and, in

part, a blending of the two. The political aspect, in particular, involved

Speaking on 17 November 1944, at the third New England War

Farmer Cooperatives in New England Agriculture," he noted that, "Our