Turning DDT into ‘Didimac’: Making insecticide products and consumers in British farming after 1945

IF 1 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY History and Technology Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/07341512.2022.2085492
Sabine Clarke, T. Lean
{"title":"Turning DDT into ‘Didimac’: Making insecticide products and consumers in British farming after 1945","authors":"Sabine Clarke, T. Lean","doi":"10.1080/07341512.2022.2085492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper examines the adoption of DDT and other insecticides in British farming after 1945 to consider the notion that new synthetic insecticides were taken up rapidly. It shows that the uptake of chemical insecticides during the 1940s and 1950s was slower in many agricultural sectors than accounts have often suggested, and slower than the uptake of other agrochemicals, such as herbicides. Importantly, this paper shows that the extent of use before 1965 varied a great deal according to crop or farming sector and also according to the type of insecticide product. Historians have not sufficiently engaged with the fact that farmers did not purchase the raw chemicals, DDT or BHC, they bought insecticide products – a diverse range of formulations for spraying, dusting or the treatment of seeds. This paper shows how the adoption of insecticidal products on a large scale in the post-war period resulted from various types of work by business and government. The very close relationship between state and business gained its legitimacy from its location in a historical moment in which greater output and efficiency in farming had become a national goal.","PeriodicalId":45996,"journal":{"name":"History and Technology","volume":"19 1","pages":"31 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07341512.2022.2085492","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper examines the adoption of DDT and other insecticides in British farming after 1945 to consider the notion that new synthetic insecticides were taken up rapidly. It shows that the uptake of chemical insecticides during the 1940s and 1950s was slower in many agricultural sectors than accounts have often suggested, and slower than the uptake of other agrochemicals, such as herbicides. Importantly, this paper shows that the extent of use before 1965 varied a great deal according to crop or farming sector and also according to the type of insecticide product. Historians have not sufficiently engaged with the fact that farmers did not purchase the raw chemicals, DDT or BHC, they bought insecticide products – a diverse range of formulations for spraying, dusting or the treatment of seeds. This paper shows how the adoption of insecticidal products on a large scale in the post-war period resulted from various types of work by business and government. The very close relationship between state and business gained its legitimacy from its location in a historical moment in which greater output and efficiency in farming had become a national goal.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
把DDT变成“Didimac”:1945年后英国农业生产杀虫剂产品和消费者
本文考察了1945年后英国农业中滴滴涕和其他杀虫剂的使用情况,以考虑新型合成杀虫剂被迅速采用的概念。报告显示,在20世纪40年代和50年代期间,许多农业部门的化学杀虫剂的吸收比经常提出的说法要慢,而且比除草剂等其他农用化学品的吸收要慢。重要的是,这篇论文表明,1965年以前的使用程度根据作物或农业部门以及杀虫剂产品的类型有很大的不同。历史学家没有充分认识到这样一个事实,即农民没有购买原料化学品,滴滴涕或六六六,他们购买的是杀虫剂产品——用于喷洒、撒粉或处理种子的各种配方。本文说明了在战后时期杀虫剂产品的大规模使用是由企业和政府的各种工作造成的。国家和企业之间非常密切的关系从它所处的历史时刻获得了合法性,在这个时刻,提高农业产量和效率已成为国家的目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
16.70%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: History and Technology serves as an international forum for research on technology in history. A guiding premise is that technology—as knowledge, practice, and material resource—has been a key site for constituting the human experience. In the modern era, it becomes central to our understanding of the making and transformation of societies and cultures, on a local or transnational scale. The journal welcomes historical contributions on any aspect of technology but encourages research that addresses this wider frame through commensurate analytic and critical approaches.
期刊最新文献
Hegemony, co-production and the American Empire: essays in honor of John Krige About the Cover Striking the empire back: Dr. Strangelove and the global histories of technology Botanical surveying, nation-building and American empire: the US quest for a Philippine flora, 1903–1925 How the United States learned to commodify the transnational atom
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1