Fall vol. 4297 , Mexico Animal Machines: The Public Response to

Reserve Villages," Intensification in Great Britain, c. 1960-c. 1973 [er and Company. (Winkler, Man.: rhe Porfirian Elite KAREN SAYER Historical Review

~ihuahua , Mexico, ta E. Will, "The isions," Americas Though historians have begun to chart the development of intensive agricul­ riko (Cuauhtemoc, ture in twentieth-century Great Britain and to seek to understand postwar ky, They Sought a conceptualizations of the rural, they have paid less attention to the question 2 (Apr. 1947): 28. of public attitudes to and perceptions of intensification. By focusing on the public debate surrounding the publication of Ruth Harrison's Animal Machines (1964), this article seeks to better understand the impact of the book by exploring the context in which it was published, the extent and nature of reporting in connection with it, and its reception. The article draws on the specialist and farming press from the period, in parallel to the broad­ sheets and parliamentary debate, and uses battery farming as a case study. It argues that, though materially significant, the rhetorical opposition established in this debate between intensive and traditional systems was representative neither of British agricultural production in the 1960s nor of the established concerns about "factory farming" already being discussed in the countryside at that time.

Britai n has a long record of concern about animals, going back to Richard Martin, MP, who, after a long campaign, initiated the first Bill forbidding the ill-treatment of horses and cattle in 1822 .... In 191111912 ... the Protection of Animals Act provided a clearly codified list,

KAREN SAYER is a professor of social and cultural history at Leeds Trinity University, West Yorkshire, Unit ed Kingdom. A fe ll ow of the Roya l Historical Society, she is the author of Country Cottages: A Cultural History (2000) and Women of the Fields: Rep resen­ tations of Rural Women in the Nineteenth Century (1995). Her current projects are material and technological aspects of British li vestock farming in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and women in Victorian farming. She has served as treasurer of the British Association for Victorian Studies and is an executive committee member of the British Agricultural History Society. Molly Bennett was the editorial assistant for this article.

© the Agricultural History Society, 2013 DOl: 10.3098 /ah.2013.87.4.473 473 Agricultural History Fall 2013

regulating the ways in which animals should be treated. This adopted a Figure "commonsense" approach. It was accepted that everyone knew what pain and suffering were, and that animals should be protected from hunger and thirst, given shelter, and not exposed to specific ill-treatment. This approach might have worked well in traditional systems, but Ruth Harrison, in her book Animal Machines in 1964, pointed out that such an approach might be inadequate in intensive husbandry systems. 1

RUTH HARRISON SET OUT CLEARLY THE gap between the public's (or the culturally dominant) understanding of what a farm was, and the world of: "Rapid turnover, high-density stocking ... mechanization ... low labour requirement, and efficient conversion of food into saleable prod­ ucts, [that were] the five essentials for a system of animal production to be called intensive." Farm "animals," she said,

are being taken off the fields and the old lichen covered barns are being replaced by gawky, industrial type buildings into which the animals are put . .. and the sense of unity with his stock which characterises the traditional farmer is condemned as being uneconomic and sentimental.

Messr. Wilkinson, at th1 An evocative piece of writing, which used "gawky" to suggest the gangly, SouRCE: P FS PH1/K3, teenage newness of what she came to call factory farming, in opposition to the idyllic, static agedness of the "lichen covered" farm, her work stressed the changes that had taken place to the British landscape as a the history of the r result of the move to intensification. Intensive farming, which came to be different attitudes contrasted as in the epigraph with "traditional systems," had it seems argued that Harris1 2 hidden the farmed animal from view. David Fraser, in c Since the 1960s in Great Britain, the public, politicians, and activists­ and of animal wei many of them much more hard-hitting than the measured Harrison­ "bomb [dropped c have continued to respond to this supposed vanishing act. Later, in the though rural histon United States, James Serpell identified the key distancing devices that movement in 1970s allowed for easier exploitation and that reconfigured the animal into society and the ban an abstract unit of production, as these increased levels of concealment, campaigns centerec coupled with a greater detachment of farmers from their stock, in inten­ rians for their part sive systems. Subsequently, critics have promoted the tearing away of fication and emerge such concealment (through press and media exposure), and Harrison's have been more ir work has been seen as seminal. Michael C. Appleby, who has documented specific work and r

474 Fall 2013 Animal Machines

ated. This adopted a Figure 1. Exterior of Battery House for Chickens. knew what pain and ted from hunger and tment. This approach tuth Harrison, in her h an approach might husbandry systems. 1

the public's (or the as, and the world anization ... low · nto saleable prod­ . mal production to

d barns are being h the animal~ are characterises the nd sentimental.

Messr. Wilkinson, at their farm White Posts in Barley, Royston. SouRcE: P FS PH1/K3, Museum of English Rural Li fe , University of Reading, U K. suggest the gangly, ming, in opposition d" farm, her work tish landscape as a the history of the rise of the European Union ban on battery cages and g, which came to be different attitudes to animal welfare within the European Union, has ems," had it seems argued that Harrison's publication "had a large, international impact." David Fraser, in charting the emergence of the language of welfare tans, and activists­ and of animal welfare science, has referred to Harrison's book as a asured Harrison­ "bomb [dropped onto] industrialized animal production." However, g act. Later, in the though rural historians have looked at the development of the organic ancing devices that movement in 1970s Great Britain and postwar urban attitudes to rural ed the animal into society and the banning of cruel sports, they have paid less attention to els of concealment, campaigns centered on farm animal welfare, while agricultural histo­ heir stock, in inten­ rians for their part have focused largely on a linear history of intensi­ he tearing away of fication and emergence of industrial agriculture. Historians of science !fe), and Harrison's have been more interested in the emergence of ethology and the rho has documented specific work and philosophy of ethnologists such as W. H . Thorpe.

475 Agricultural History Fall 2013

Abigail Woods has investigated policymakers' responses to farm ani­ under the intl mal welfare and the competing terms "welfare" and "cruelty" in the agricultural co period after Animal Machines was published. But, few have consid­ Worried by ered the wider dynamic between the reception of Animal Machines, late nineteentl public perceptions of farming, critique from the farming lobby, public became incre a~ response, and the emergence of government control. The book was, distribution, a1 indeed, important. Following its publication, in the newspaper debate for instance, n about the emergence of factory farming, the public examination of Sussex in 1895 animal welfare issues superseded concerns among farmers about wider suggested that structural change. This focus affected the legislative and commercial ment and mark frameworks of agricultural production and policymaking in Great chickens on riel Britain in the lead up to joining the European Economic Community Agricultural Sc in 1973? of production I At the end of the nineteenth century, a debate had emerged within of Agriculture British agriculture that centered on the potential of producing more Brown's work eggs for profit. The poultry business had been in decline from around Brown, as Bria 1750 to 1880. Though poultry farming (for both meat and eggs) had lessly to the inc transitioned to a business during this period on the continent, especially that the large in France and Denmark, agriculturalists in Great Britain had not gen­ reduced with tb erally seen it as something that farmers could profit from. There were tinued into the< exceptions to this at the local level. Brian Short, for instance, has In 1909 the 1 outlined the rise and fall of the "cramming" business on the Sussex breeding and eg Weald from 1850 to 1950. Michael Turner, John Beckett, and Bethanie demand for egg Afton have demonstrated that, by the 1880s, "more entrepreneurial the 1870s and tb farmers" were prepared to "chang( e] their interests to suit the pre­ cates published vailing circumstances." But, for the most part, farmers were skeptical profitable techn about the possible commercial benefits of poultry production because World War I, tb1 of the widespread assumption that it was women who handled poultry ture and Fisher keeping and that this was only done for pin-money. As Joanna Bourke the skeptical att observes, "despite the impassioned debates and controversial decisions Haselden's carto concerning the poultry industry from the 1890s, one thing was agreed: treated as comit for better or (more commonly) for worse, the poultry industry was Despite this, aft dominated by women." In addition, as was observed at the time, the unemployment a capital expenditure required could also be considerable. Therefore, told poultry keep the perception among farmers in the United Kingdom that poultry, when they (eggs] more generally, and eggs, specifically, might be profitable only began marketing of eg1 to change at the end of the nineteenth century and even then only egg producers of

476 Fall 2013 Animal Machines

.ses to fa rm ani­ under the influe nce of constant pressure from officials and leading 4 "cruelty" in the agri cultural commentators. ow have consid­ Worried by rising imports of eggs and looking to lead farming out of imal Machines, late nineteenth-century depression, the British government and others ng lobby, public became increasingly concerned to improve domestic poultry production, . The book was, distribution, and marketing by following best practices. H enry R ew, wspaper debate for instance, reported on the poultry-rearing and fattening industry of examination of Sussex in 1895 as part of the R oyal Commission on Agriculture and ners about wider suggested that farmers in other counties mi ght learn from the manage­ and commercial ment and marketing practices of crammers, who speci ali zed in fattening aking in Great chickens on rich foods such as milk, molasses, and barl ey fl our. The Royal mic Community A gricultural Soci ety of England (RASE ) and others published reports of production practices within the empire and overseas, and the Board emerged within of A griculture publicized British efforts at innovation, such as E dward Brown's work for the National Poultry Organisation Society. Indeed, rproducin g more li ne from around Brown, as Brian Holderness has observed, "wrote and preached tire­ at and eggs) had lessly to the indifferent and sceptical, and expressed a clear conviction ltinent, especially that the large import bill fo r poultry produce could be significantly tain had not gen­ reduced with the benefit of organization." His and official efforts con­ 5 ·rom. There were tinued into the early twentieth century. for instance, has In 1909 the government established a committee to look at poultry ss on the Sussex breeding and egg marketing in Scotland, which noted that the domestic ett, and Bethani e demand for eggs had outstripped supply in the U nited Kingdom since ! entrepreneurial the 1870s and that this demand had increased steadily up to 1908. Advo­ to suit the pre­ cates published advice books, which sought to disseminate the most rs were skeptical profitable techniques to small as well as large concerns. Indeed, by oduction because World War I, the promoti on of egg producti on by the Board of Agricul­ >handled poul try ture and Fisheri es through broadsheets such as the Times, attracted ls Joanna Bourke the skeptical attention of the popular press, as can be seen in W. K. oversial decisions H aselden 's cartoon for the Daily Mirror. Chi ckens were predominantly thing was agreed: treated as comic subj ects when they were not of economic concern. ltry industry was D espite this, after the war, they were viewed as a way out of rural I at the time, the unemployment and agricultural crisis in Great Britain . Specialist texts rable. Therefore, told poultry keepers to increase production "from September to January, lorn that poultry, when they [eggs] are scarce." But, it was stressed again and again that the itable only began marketing of eggs was a weak spot. To compete with imports, British j even then only egg producers of all stripes must work together "collectively," C. A. Flatt

477 Agricultural History Fall 2013 exhorted, to "improve our own methods of marketing. The foreigner has poultry and egg the advantage of supplying his produce nicely graded and in bulk, owing for Bri tain than to his better organizati on. " In 1926 the government published a report Throughout 1 on egg marketing in E ngland and Wales. Once again both the shortage sistent assumptit in supply and low standard of egg producti on and marketing were call ed "nature" ' noted, which suggests that despite all previous efforts, no great change author William I had yet been effected. The government, th erefore, proposed a national poultry industry standard and a system of stamping on a voluntary basis. The British Egg be cited into th< Marketing Board (BE MB) inherited the Nati onal Mark Scheme wh en it extensively-he was established in 1957. Clearly, the uptake of commercial poultry pro­ fow ls-while win duction was slow, but gradually both women and men began to speci alize ral green and inst in keeping chickens fo r profit. During the 1920s and 1930s, as Jane Tegetm eier belie· Adams has recorded, drawin g on their existing experience with poul­ try, American fa rm women increased their "flocks into almost entirely Chi ckens th at a1 market-oriented enterprises" and as Joan Thirsk suggests, once the often ta ke to ro< industry began to take off in the U nited Kingdom, it similarly "gave and early autun; scope to some notably successful women," in all aspects of the indus­ and better condi try and its ancillary trades.6 This was an international industry, and the First World's Poultry Tegetmeier sot Congress was held at the Hague in Holl and in 1921. Meetings like this, try, and , in his vit alongside speci ali st publicati ons, allowed fo r debate and discussion of un favora ble as to new technologies, such as development and use of lighting regimes. tical. Improvers \ However, there were still local differences. At this stage, for example, overstocking, poo the British model was less integrated-a feature that continued at least H ence, Walter Gi in terms of vertical integration until the postwar period- than that in on the same grot the United States, and "immense capital" outlay was not, as Mi chael if they are crowd Winstanley has shown, requisite fo r British egg producers who sought to accumulate, the to put their poultry production onto a business footing. In cases of small­ ures in the interw; scale, regional specialization-such as eggs, milk, and vegetables sold spread of disease), out of farm carts in neighboring seaside towns and industrial centers­ of in tensification a the smaller enterprises adapted many of th e new methods associated even Brown.obsen with large-scale poultry fa rming. In this way, small farms continued to there is usually a be economicall y significant within the British poultry industry at least instances much mo until World War II. H ence, Winstanley observes, by the 1930s, "14 per many fai lures have cent of all hens in E ngland on holdings of one acre or more were to be As William Boy fo und in Lancashire." By 1937 "500,000 persons" were involved in poul­ specializa ti on and i try production in some form or other in th e U nited Kingdom, with opments, internati<

478 Fall 2013 Animal Machines

eh foreigner as poultry and eggs in 1936 (despite imports) produci ng £3,085,405 more in bulk, owing for Britain than cereals. 7 lished a report Throughout the peri od, however, there was a widespread and per­ h the shortage sistent assumption among British agriculturalists that wh at was usually arketing were called "nature" was peculiarly unbending in the case of poultry. British ) great change author William Bernard Tegetmeier, whose influence within th e nascent •sed a national poultry industry extended to th e U nited States and wh o continued to ~e British Egg be cited into the 1930s, believed th at the birds needed to be fa rmed cheme wh en it extensively-he suggested they needed at least an acre per hundred al poultry pro­ fowls-while winter confin ement resulted in "the wa nt of fresh air, natu­ m to specialize ral green and insect food, [which produces] unfortunate results." Rather, 930s, as Jane Tegetmeier believed, the birds should be "allowef d a ree ra nge" because: ilce with poul­ lmost entirely Chi ckens that are reared in the neighbourhood of trees and coppices very ests, once th e often take to roosting in the branches during the mild weather of summer milarly "gave and early autumn, and are always fou nd to be in much hardi er plumage 8 ; of the indus- and better condition than those th at roost in houses.

orld's Poultry Tegetmeier sought to improve the management and breeding of poul­ tings like this, try, and, in his view, the birds' responses t o cl ose confin ement were so ldiscussion of unfa vorabl e as to make either specialization or intensification imprac­ bting regimes. tical. Improvers were well aware of the effects of disease caused by , for example, overstocking, poor management, foul accommodati on, and "stale" land. tinued at least H ence, Walter Gilbey argued th at, "if fo wls are kept in large numbers -than that in on the same ground, and fed continually on the same place, ... or Dt, as Michael if they are crowded in ill-ventil ated houses in whi ch dung is allowed rs who sought to accumulate, they necessarily become diseased. " Foll owin g many fail­ cases of small­ ures in the interwar period (when the losses were high due to the rapid egetables sold spread of disease), British experts continued to questi on the practicality trial centers­ of in tensification and to use th e language of "nature" to do so. In 1929 ~ d s associated even Brown.ob served of what he called "Special Egg Farms": "On these ; continued to th ere is usually a greater or lesser amount of intensification, in many ~ u stry at least in stances much more than is justified. There is abundant experience that 1930s, "14 per many failures have arisen from disregard of natural factors."9 •re were to be As William Boyd and Michael Watts have argued, what all owed both olved in poul ­ speciali za ti on and intensificati on to take place initiall y were new devel­ i ngdom, with opments, internationally, in disease control and nutrition. For instance,

479 Agricultural History Fall 2013 when hens were kept inside windowless buildings for too long, th ey Because of suffered from "leg weakness." In the 1920s researchers discovered that dominantly pn adding vitamin D via cod liver oil to their diet corrected for their lack of tion of commc exposure to ultraviolet light, and, thus, all owed year-round confinement. S. H . Gordon a Walter Brett explained the problem to poultry keepers in Poultry Keep­ 1953-1954 as tl ing Today, "Lack of direct sunlight is the most common cause [of leg­ tion and variet' weakness). Chicks which are exposed freely to direct sunlight, either period-a timE because the windows of their shed are of wire netting or the special ray­ rising yields am passing glass, .. . or because they live in the open air will seldom suffe r terized as a "n from the trouble. The addition of 2 per cent. of cod liver oil to the mash is farming fully f beneficial in actual cases of leg-weakness." This was crucial in the devel­ hold. Farming ~ opment of the environmentally controlled management systems that cul tural produc adjusted the laying season through step li ghting patterns, and, therefore, break between . according to Robert Coles a first step toward "th e almost standard house intensive li vestc design with its completely intensive building . .. [associated) with the pli stic or teleolc 10 term 'egg factory."' agricul ture fron: The chicken had become a mature subj ect of animal science by the improvers in Gr 1930s. It was studied by agriculturali sts and also used as a general lab debated the bes animal by researchers in genetics, nutrition, and virology. In William Consequently, t Boyd's view, this was vital in placing "poultry in the vanguard of animal were as likely to improvement efforts," and, therefore, it can be seen in the "vanguard" that producers fr of intensification. Genetic knowledge, in particular, led to new breeds note, "the authc being developed vi a hybridization to meet the needs of the specialist that well manag6 and the intensive farmer. Birds in close confinement were particul arl y of the bi rds." A~ vulnerabl e to disease because of their proximity to one another and high tech aspirati because of shared food and water supplies. This continued to be the of the period ha case until systematic recordkeeping by breeders and industry-wide productive and ~ standards in management and handling were introduced alongsid e latterly, consum€ vaccination to prevent diseased birds being passed up the line. In the Updated method end, one solution was confinement in sealed buildings that all owed equipment manu controll ed ventilati on, sterilization of all equipment, and thorough the new system. < cl eaning of all personnel and also prevented access by di sease-carrying within the wider wild birds or other species. Such confinement also permitted careful This complexity i li ghting of the birds so as to stimulate year-round egg production and within which Har limit aggression and what the trade called "flightiness," meaning the A good exam symptoms of stress and anxiety brought on by in creased egg production called "battery b 11 and close confinement. have remade the

480 Fall 2013 Animal Machines

too long, they Because of these developments, the accounts of this period are pre­ hscovered that dominantly progressive and focus on the rapidity and extent of the adop­ ·or their lack of tion of commercial production and intensive methods after the 1930s. d confinement. S. H. Gordon and D . R. Charles refer to the period from World War I to 1 Poultry Keep- 1953-1954 as the "Traditional" period, to capture a sense of the innova­ 1 cause [of leg­ tion and variety of methods then in use, followed by the "Conventional" sunlight, either period-a time of intensification, increasing flock sizes, and rapidly he special ray- rising yields among housed stock. The post-1953 period has been charac­ 11 seldom suffer terized as a "modern revolution in agriculture," during which British '1 to the mash is farming fully embraced science and technology, weakening nature's ial in the devel­ hold. Farming sought to find an "integrated industrial solution to agri­ lt systems that cultural production." This narrative of dramatic change offers a distinct and, therefore, break between labor-intensive general farming and modern, large-scale, standard house intensive livestock production. However, it is crucial to avoid too sim­ :iated] with the plistic or teleological a narrative when it comes to the history of British agriculture from 1910 to 1965. There was no sharp divide. For example, l science by the improvers in Great Britain between World War I and World War II still 1s a general lab debated the best methods to apply when seeking to profit from poultry. Jgy. In William Consequently, the "modern" methods used by commercial producers guard of animal were as likely to be extensive as intensive. Gordon and Charles observed the "vanguard" that producers frequently put birds on pasture, for instance, while as they ~ to new breeds note, "the authoritative technical writers of the period recommended of the specialist that well managed good quality pasture could contribute to the nutrition ere particularl y of the birds." At the same time, "the ... traditional period ... had very ne another and high tech aspirations." Production techniques described in standard texts inued to be the of the period have since proved a valuable resource for those seeking j industry-wide productive and profitable methods of management in order to answer, luced alongside latterly, consumer demand for eggs produced in non-battery systems. the line. In the Updated methods of outdoor rearing were taken seriously enough for gs that allowed equipment manufacturers to sell rearing units designed to work within , and thorough the new system. Outdoor systems were still a viable, commercial option disease-carrying within the wider poultry industry at the time that Harrison was writing. !rmitted careful This complexity is particularly significant in understanding the context production and within which Harrison's book was researched, published, and received. 12 s," meaning the A good example is Harrison's chapter looking at layers, which is I egg production called "battery birds." Challenges to commercial poultry production have remade the layers into vulnerable victims of intensification within

481 Agricultural History Fall 2013 the discourse of welfare and have led to public outcry, so that the battery 11 liz million layers hen itself has become a key signifier in animal rights literature. "Chickens, in the June census: like other animals," Harrison suggested "are fast disappearing from the 200 birds ... [and] farm scenery." And to an extent she was right: only about 20 percent or rather the mea1 of birds were free range by the time that she was writing. However, by when considering 1 1964 battery systems had only been taken up by about a quarter of all Though not ci producers. Most of the remaining birds were raised in other intensive research carefull y systems. In 1963 only 27 percent of eggs were produced from hens researched, closely housed in cage systems (by 1966 this was 67 percent). The history of egg in assessing the si! production in the postwar period is therefore more complex than it it was based on fa would appear from the chapter title. Following the Agriculture Act of Agriculture . .. So1 1947, and supported by the BEMB from 1957, British farmers sought to the Farmer and Sto increase egg production, and Great Britain became an exporter for the "Agriculture, Poul1 first time in 1965. But, though the push was for reduced labor costs, with "agricultural a greater quality control, and higher profit, the use of battery cages within flock sizes were in controlled indoor environments was far from being a foregone conclu­ dramatic structur sion; many business-led farmers even in the postwar period still pre­ which both the ferred extensive and other outdoor-rearing methods in which the birds were apparently less prone to disease and "troublesome . .. vices," such as "cannibalism and feather-pecking." And, according to an earlier increasing num Poultry International article, "the controlled environment trend in Great International Britain is ending its run of popularity . .. [because] 'even some of the still has no more system's loudest advocates have come to believe that when you improve the journal noted environmental conditions for poultry, you do the same for their disease organisms."' Moreover, large commercial producers who used cage sys­ tems sti ll did not necessarily opt for fully mechanized units, possibly year ago." What because of the tight financial margins involved. Finally, as Harrison tion of the notes at the beginning of her chapter, most hens in Great Britain were (along with the still kept in relatively small flocks "consisting of five hundred birds or less." In the 1960s the BEMB sold roughly 60 percent of all eggs produced in the United Kingdom; the rest were sold directly to the consumer by the producer. The BEMB's statistics division carried out a producer survey for the first time in 1961. At that point the average flock size was two hundred birds, although 10 percent of the eggs that went through their summary of packing stations were supplied by producers with laying flocks of at least concerns as being two thousand birds. Subsequently, the BEMB data published in 1968 with either hens or revealed that roughly "between them ... small holders own an estimated diminished in the

482 Fall 2013 Animal Machines

·y, so that the battery lllh million layers (contrasted with 44.3 million others which are recorded ~ terature . "Chickens, in the June census) .. .. Two-thirds of all producers have flocks of less than isappearing from the 200 birds .. . [and] produce 9 per cent of all eggs." This issue of flock sizes, 1ly about 20 percent or rather the meaning attached to the size of flocks, becomes important 13 writing. However, by when considering Harrison and the reception of her work. bout a quarter of all Though not connected with farming, Harrison carried out her ~d in other intensive research carefully. The book was, as Woods has said, "thoroughly produced from hens researched, closely argued and dispassionate in tone." It is worth noting t). The history of egg in assessing the significance and subsequent reception of her work that ore complex than it it was based on farm visits, information sought from "the Ministry of e Agriculture Act of Agriculture ... Soil Association, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, ·sh farmers sought to the Farmer and Stockbreeder, and the Farmer's Weekly, " extensive use of e an exporter for the "Agriculture, Poultry World, and other agricultural journals," and work reduced labor costs, with "agricultural advisors." She was quite correct in stating that average f battery cages within flock sizes were increasing. The period in question was certainly one of [g a foregone conclu­ dramatic structural change for British agriculture as a whole, one in :war period still pre­ which both the ownership of land and leadership in agriculture shifted ds in which the birds entirely from landlords to farmers. And, the British branch of the egg some . .. vices," such industry changed post war, with falling numbers of egg producers and ording to an earlier increasing numbers of layers from 1957. However, even in 1967, Poultry nment trend in Great international reported that the "average egg producer in Great Britain ,e] 'even some of the still has no more than 250 birds." This was considered remarkable, and wt when you improve the journal noted that though their share of the egg market had fallen same for their disease from "just over 40% in 1957 to 15%," those with fewer than two hundred rs who used cage sys­ birds "actually represent a larger percentage of all flocks than they did a anized units, possibly year ago." What Harrison was therefore writing about was not the posi­ Finally, as Harrison tion of the majority of producers, or the majority of flocks, but rather in Great Britain were (along with the proponents of intensification) the minority of producers: rive hundred birds or the "egg tycoons" who produced at that point "a sixth" of the eggs from 14 nt of all eggs produced "very large flocks indeed." .o the consumer by the Concern about animal welfare within battery systems predated the out a producer survey publication of Animal Machines. In 1951 W. P. Blount felt the need to .ge flock size was two include a chapter entitled "Hen Batteries: Are They Cruel?" in his .at went through their summary of battery systems for the industry. Blount dismissed such aying flocks of at least concerns as being characteristic of the "townsman, who is not familiar lta published in 1968 with either hens or batteries" and argued that "the chance of cruelty was ders own an estimated diminished in the well-managed hen battery where every bird received

483 Agricultural History Fall 2013 adequate food, water, and attention; was free from bullying and major The leaflet itsf infestations by parasites and attacks by predatory animals." Blount went farming. In tit on, "that during the cold, wet, snowy winters, there is little pleasure in cerns about th hens scratching Mother Earth trying to find an elusive worm." Under the ment, Harriso battery system, he believed, there was reduced mortality, the birds publicized. Tw1 gained weight, and laid more eggs. This argument became characteristic publication, wi of support for the battery system, grounded in the idea of welfare widely, with a J secured by progress and evidenced by the physiological response of the Figure 2). The birds. From the outset of the debate, many farmers and veterinarians laid the Times. Let claim to a genuine interest in the wellbeing of stock, arguing that animals Observer, and in industrialized modern agricultural systems were protected from the vagaries of nature. Their claims were embedded in the shifting meanings of "welfare," which may be interpreted, as David Fraser has outlined Figure 2. A as "affective states" (i.e., an animal's feelings/emotions, including pain, pleasure, etc.); the degree of "naturalness" in an animal's life (i.e., its ability to exhibit natural behaviors and to access natural resources such as fresh air); or freedom from predation, disease, exposure to the elements, injury, etc., measureable through the animal's growth and physical condition. Sometimes these definitions overlap, but they are different enough to mean that pursuit of one alone may not improve the welfare of animals as judged by the other two. Blount additionally argued that the battery system allowed the farmer to inspect each indi­ vidual bird daily, a system that he contrasted with any "which allows him only to view them en masse-i.e., as a flock, comprising perhaps several hundred birds." No one can see the world from the hen's point of view, Adisturbi1 he argued, but the experienced farmer could recognize the sounds that the hens make to express "contentment or dissatisfaction"; the calls that he has heard, Blount testified, were all representative of "cheerful and inquisitive" birds. This drew on the established understanding of nature seen in Tegetmeier, Gilbey, and Brown. In other words, the concern that animals could not be pushed too hard, just as with intensive methods themselves, pre-existed Animal Machines. 15 The "townsman's" concerns about animal welfare that Blount tried to dismiss built through the 1950s and were already a cause of concern in government by the 1960s. They also fed into a leaflet that Harrison read-"Crusade Against All Cruelty to Animals"-which Heleen Van de Weerd has argued led to Harrison's investigation of factory farming. SouRcE: Guardian, Fe

484 Fall 2013 Animal Machines

bullying and major The leaflet itself cited many contemporary newspaper reports on factory mals. " Blount went farming. In this respect, as well as being positioned within wider con­ is little pleasure in cerns about the impact of modern agricultural practice on the environ­ ·worm." Under the ment, Harrison's publication was timely. It was also extremely well ortality, the birds publicized. Two extracts from the book appeared in the Observer before came characteristic publication, with editorial comment, and its serialization was advertised e idea of welfare widely, with a line drawing of a chicken framed by cogs and wheels (see .cal response of the Figure 2). The book was advertised in the Observer and reviewed in d veterinarians laid the Times. Letters responding to it were printed in the Guardian, the guing that animals Observer, and the Times. Following publication, factory farming was protected from the e shifting meanings ~raser has outlined Figure 2. Advertisement for Two-Part Serialization of Extracts ms, including pain, from Animal Machines. 1imal's life (i.e., its natural resources se, exposure to the ~mal's growth and ~ rlap , but they are ay not improve the ~ l ount additionally ~ inspect each indi­ r "which allows him ing perhaps several reo's point of view, Adisturbing survey ze the sounds that ion "; the calls that e of "cheerful and frstanding of nature tls, the concern that intensive methods

~ that Blount tried a cause of concern aflet that Harrison which Heleen Van of factory farming. SouRcE: Guardian, Feb. 28, 1964, 11.

485 Agricultural History Fall 2013 discussed on TV and radio, with a half-hour program on the subject of stated, at tl "Farming: Animal Machines" broadcast on BBC1, the BBC's flagship pinnacle of television channe1.16 survived, an, The book also led to the establishment of organizations to protest occasional c factory farming, and the Times reported on a petition of 250,000 signa­ In this conte tures asking for the "end of factory farms," delivered to the Ministry of When qu Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) by two hundred people who the term "fa, marched from Trafalgar Square. A "four-hour mass rally in Trafalgar initial questi Square," at which Harrison spoke, was organized by "the Animal the Minister Machines Action Group." There was debate about the building of new (Bedford, C. "factory farms," and East Suffolk County Council's planning committee food produce refused permission for the British Beef Company to build "16 covered edge, the im~ cattle yards for beef on a £750,000 'factory farm"' at old Newton Suffolk. issues of crue Peter Terson wrote a play, The Ballad of the Artificial Mash, staged at the C.) asked fo1 Victoria Theatre, Stoke-on-Trent, which was described in its Guardian animal house1 listing as "a jolly knock at the factory farms which are pouring so many and health-gi chemicals down our throats." Finally, it entered the fashion pages as a the opportuni macabre cause celebre. "I am aware," Mary Holland quipped, strated by th1 established tc livestock proc th at it is probably sacrilege to wear vivid colors if you are going to follow any blood sport, but after reading the recent extracts from Harrison 's tory farm " wa book it is to be hoped you will not anyway. It is bad enough having to eat that further ii broiler chickens in town. At least getting away from it all to the country "MAFF offici should mean that no reader plans to go round killing anything over the to the status c Easter weekend. Harrison, to fc broadsheets, b There was clearly a relationship between the uneasy perception of the (Times) , there countryside as a contested space of leisure when it came to the pursuit response to H of traditional country sports, and, thanks to the stir caused by Animal they did so sh:: Machines, the perception that it was also a site of production. Before the the pragmatic , book, agriculture had typically been represented to the non-farming Finally, at tt public through innovative farming technology, warmhearted documen­ out the heart o tary films such as Farmer Moving South (1952), and the occasional piece ists and campai of political news on pricing. The extent and nature of the public response to Animal Machines, therefore, marks a turning point in public per­ has come to h ceptions of postwar British farming, which had until this point been in which it i predominantly favorable. As Alun Hawkins and Linda Merricks have apprehension

486 Fall 2013 Animal Machines n the subject of stated, at the end of World War II, "British agriculture stood on a BBC's flagship pinnacle of public esteem." England's "green and pl easant land" had survived, and this "happy state of affairs seems to have persisted, despite tions to protest occasional complaints about 'featherbedded farmers,' until the 1960s." 17 f 250,000 signa­ In this context Harrison's publication was decisive. the Ministry of When questions were asked in Parliament, the debate focused on red people who the term "factory farm." Jon Rankin (Glasgow, Govan, Lab.) asked the .lly in Trafalgar initial question, fo ll owed by Fenner Brockway (Eton & Slough, Lab.); y "the Animal the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Christopher Soames building of new (Bedford, C.) replied. The debate ranged across the nutritional value of ning committee food produced under intensive conditions, the extent of consumer knowl­ ild "16 covered edge, the impact of the "drugs" fed to the animals on human health , and issues of cruelty and cited Harrison's book. Denys Bullard (King's Lynn, ~ewton Suffolk. C.) asked for constraint in the use of the term "factory farm," as an sh, staged at the animal housed "in small, warm, well-bedded quarters can be more healthy in its Guardian and health-giving than one kept out on open moor." This gave Soames ro.uring so many the opportunity to reply that the animals were not suffering, as demon­ ~non pages as a strated by the fact that they "thrive," but that a committee would be tped, established to investigate, whether, given "the growth ... of intensive livestock production," standards should be established. The phrase "fac­ :oing to follow tory farm" was queried by government officials, but they quickly accepted om Harrison's that further investigation ought to take place. As Woods has argued, ~having to eat to the country "MAFF officials quickly realized the severity of Harrison's challenge thing over the to the status quo," but they "disregarded the moral questions posed by Harrison, to focus on the technical details of how animals were kept." The broadsheets, both left-leaning (Guardian and Observer) and right-leanjng

~rception of the (Times), therefore, disseminated the debate taking place in Parliament in e to the pursuit response to Harrison's book relatively accurately. But, the way in which 1sed by Animal they did so shaped public perceptions of the terms of that debate beyond 18 tion. Before th e the pragmatic approach taken by the MAFF. he non-farming Finally, at the end of the year, the Times's agricultural correspondent set uted documen­ out the heart of the debate that was about to emerge between agricultural­ )Ccasional piece ists and campaigners. The term "factory farming," the correspondent said: public response in public per­ has come to have two quite different connotations according to the circles this point been in which it is used. Among small livestock producers it carries their Merricks have apprehension about the effects of vertical integration and the competition

487 Agricultural History Fall 2013

they face from very large-scale enterprises, such as those which dominate Animals Kept poultry and egg production. To a fair secti on of the non-farming public by F. W. Rog it conjures up the horrors so graphicall y described in Mrs .. Harri~on 's 1965 having vi: Animal Machines. organizations. For all its exaggeration and misreading of evidence, this book, like sions Act of 1S Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, started fresh thinking among those who ing Advisory ( had been inclined to take new techniques fo r granted. June saw the setting Ethology (196 up of a committee to consider what changes might be necessary in the law 19 highlighted tht governing the. welfare of farm livestock in the li ght of the new farming. cruelty. The B press. The Jette Given these connotations for the "non-farming public," the term "fac­ tions from read tory farm" quickly became absorbed into much wider critiques of the condi­ on the slow pro tion of the countryside as a whole and operated as an inherently un-British The Times c rhetorical device that conjured up an almost dystopian vision of its future. si dered agricult Earlier that year, focusing on the animals, but drawing implicitly on the farming p1 established images of the rural for rhetorical impact, one correspondent highly gendere to the Times had written: "a TV commentator suggested the other night, angrily, charac~ that, if the present trend continues, there will no longer be sheep on the lead to world s Downs, and that all the lambs, among other creatures, will be in prison." instance, arguec Following Harrison's lead, a book published a year later (playi ng on its solve the nutri ti author's name: Huxley) was entitled Brave New Victuals: An Enquiry into stated that the ' Modern Food Production. Meanwhile, the Duke of Edinburgh gave a rather than an e1 speech in support of the work of the National Trust at Mansion House, in Agriculture, tl which he argued that, "without some remnants of the countryside which welcoming in its had inspired and warmed the hearts of generations of British people, life in husbandry there these islands was going to be reduced to the level of animals on a factory considerable diso farm." The duke invited the gathering to imagine what things were going publication of tl to be like at the end of the century, with the increase in population, the almost 80 perce1 shorter working week, and the pressure on land for housing and some­ public) agreed wi where to work. "Agriculture will inevitably be more industrialized and less as with Blount, 01 of a compromise with nature," he said. "New roads must also be squeezed the reviewer in A in somehow. Into this pattern we must attempt to fit the facilities fo r to fresh air and s recreation which a greater proportion of a great total population will these in the wi ld expect. In fact, everything is growing and expanding except, most unfortu­ hunger, frequent 20 nately, the physical dimensions of the British Isles." i ng from severe w~ Following the publication of Harrison's book, the government of H arrison's boo established "A Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of distress to many w

488 Fall 2013 Animal Machines ose which dominate Animals Kept Under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems," chaired non-farming public by F. W. Rogers Brambell (the Brambell Committee). It reported in in Mrs .. Harrison's 1965 having visited sixty-three farms and gathering evidence from twenty organizations. Its findings led to the Agricultural Miscellaneous Provi­ nee, this book, like sions Act of 1968, the establishment of the Farm Animal Welfare Stand­ g among those who ing Advisory Committee, and the creation of the Society for Veterinary June saw the setting Ethology (1966). It also set out a number of recommendations that necessary in the law highlighted the significance of animal behavior in assessing issues of the new farming.19 cruelty. The Brambell Committee's work was followed closely in the press. The letters pages carried a regular stream of statements and ques­ 'ublic," the term "fac­ tions from readers, and Harrison contributed an open letter to the Times . critiques of the condi- on the slow progress made after the committee's report? ' 1 inherently un-British The Times correspondent's summation was typical of the more con­ an vision of its future. sidered agricultural response to Harrison's work, but the response in [rawing implicitly on the farming press was often, unsurprisingly, extremely hostile and ct, one correspondent highly gendered. Those who believed in intensification responded 1ested the other night, angrily, characterizing her work as emotionally charged and likely to roger be sheep on the lead to world shortages of food. A review by Francis E. Bryan, for res, will be in prison." instance, argued that her book was likely to "undermine all efforts to r later (playing on its solve the nutritional problems of the underdeveloped world." And he 1,.: als: An Enquiry into stated that the "situation [needed to be] looked at with an objective f Edinburgh gave a rather than an emotional eye."22 [ t Mansion House, in Agriculture, the journal of the MAFF, was much more measured and the countryside whjch welcoming in its reception of the book, agreeing with Harrison "that in f British people, life in husbandry there is an obligation not to add to pain, nor to occasion any lf anlinals on a factory considerable discomfort." In fact, a Gallup Poll undertaken just after the hat things were going publication of the Brambell Committee's report demonstrated that fase in population, the almost 80 percent of farmers polled (and 90 percent of the general 1or housing and some­ public) agreed with that report's principles. The key disagreement was, industrialized and less as with Blount, on the meaning of the word "welfare." "Mrs. Harrison," must also be squeezed the reviewer in Agriculture went on, "argues that an animal has a right :o fit the facilities for to fresh air and sunshine, but she ignores the penalties which accompany total population will these in the wild state, or even in extensive farming; varying degrees of ; except, most unfortu­ hunger, frequent fear, anguish from predators and parasites, and suffer­ zo ing from severe weather." Yet, even in this more shrewd review the tenor 10k, the government of Harrison's book was said to be "emotional" and likely to "cause 23 : into the Welfare of distress to many well-meaning persons" unfamiliar with farming.

489 Agricultural History Fall 2013

These views were constant among those who had a stake in agricul­ first emerged ture, be they representatives of organizations or farmers/farmers' rela­ windowless un tives. Again, Harrison was normally referred to as "Mrs. Harrison" and was associa te< her work additionall y feminized through statements about its "emotive" and broiler pr language and supposed inaccuracies. The proof that intensive systems ing patterns. · were benign often rested on statements about the animals' contentment and placed th( and also on the necessity for the animals to be happy in order for them "bitterly attac to be productive. Some of the letters from farmers and farmers' wives Royal Agriculi argued that if the birds were not happy, then they would not be of use. "Mrs. Harriso: " If stock are not content they do not thrive and the owner of unthrifty exempted the 1 animals will very soon have a very unhappy bank manager and will not a large rneasun long remain a farmer," a farmer's wife posited in a letter to the Times. In The debate other words, it made business sense for animals to be well treated, and ness of what th the farmer, of necessity, had to be responsive to the birds' needs. Often exhorted "the such statements rested on the assumption that the farmer knew their agricultural pr stock well and continued to use established farming techniques alongside systems. Arnon the new methods. This was a rhetoric that-sometimes politely, some­ nantly characte times rudely-pitted the farmer and stockman's expertise against the dent suggested wider public's supposedl y innocent concern or naivety and begged the question raised by Fraser: where do you locate compassion/ethi cs, in The really int protection from disease, bad weather, predation or in freedom to express or rather its cc 24 "natural" behaviors? housewife whf At each point there was debate about what exactly "factory farming" same sill y crea meant and who had the right to define it, and the Brambell Committee clothing fashi< itself struggled to define "intensive livestock production. " Earlier uses of and a hindqua, "factory farming" in particular are rare, but in late 1920s to the 1930s­ of Onward pe; when the term had last been current-it referred simply to larger units of chicken. 26 of production, with an eye to improved economies of scale. The term then seems to have va nished in the United Kingdom and onl y Here the hou reappeared early in 1964 matching the usage described by the Times's fication by buyit agricultural correspondent in a report on a National Farmers' U nion BEMB, who ad meeting. This usage, which focused on the consequences of vertical inte­ distinguish bet , gration, continued among farmers. However, despite initial protest from terns (the majoli agriculturalists, Harrison's work effectively secured the public meaning the time it was "factory farm" to refer to intensive production in agriculture. In Blount's sought to ensun Intensive Livestock Farming, a book that was published as an industry and conformed J response to Harrison, Robert Coles argued that the word "factory" keting quality n

490 Fall 2013 Animal Machines

:1 a stake in agricul­ first emerged out of the use of "egg factory" to describe the standard rmers/farmers' rela­ windowless units increasingly used to house hens in the 1950s. "Factory" 'Mrs. Harrison" and was associated with environmentally controlled houses in laying hen about its "emotive" and broiler production, which both needed to be able to control light­ at intensive systems ing patterns. W. P. Roberts, in the same volume, was more critical imals' contentment and placed the phrase "factory fa rming" at the door of those who had y in order for them "bitterly attacked" intensive methods. By 1974 the Journal of the , and farmers' wives Royal Agricultural Society of England stated in deliberate terms that, would not be of use. "Mrs. Harrison ... defined factory farming as indoor farming, but e owner of unthrifty exempted the systems which are clean, bright, well bedded and allowing anager and will not a large measure of freedom. "25 ... tter to the Times. In The debate about definitions particularly impacted consumer aware­ be well treated, and ness of what they were buying, and a number of letters to the press either e birds' needs. Often exhorted "the housewife" to buy, or demonstrate a desire to purchase, e farmer knew their agricultural products, especiall y eggs, that came from non-intensive echniques alongside systems. Among some of these appeals, "the housewife," was predomi­ imes politely, some­ nantly characterized as a "si ll y creature." In one letter, the correspon­ ~xpertise against the dent suggested that: vety and begged the :ompassionlethics, in The reall y interesting aspect of Ruth Harrison's book . .. is its revelation, n freedom to express or rather its confirmation, of the incompetency and laziness of the average housewife when it comes to the purchase of food-stuffs of any kind . .. . These tly "factory farming" same sill y creatures who devote half their li ves to fiddling and fussing with Brambell Committee clothing fashions ... do not know the difference between a forequarter tion. " Earlier uses of and a hindquarter. .. . "Three pounds of peas, please," not "Three pounds 1920s to the 1930s- of Onward peas .... " any kind will do, and any kind of egg, and any kind of chicken .Z6 ~imply to larger units ~s of scale. The term Kingdom and only Here the housewife rather than the farmer took the blame for intensi­ :ribed by the Times's fication by buying cheaply without due attention, despite the fact that the Dna! Farmers' Union BEMB, who administered the government's contract scheme, fa il ed to ences of vertical in te­ distinguish between eggs produced via battery and other intensive sys­ te initial protest from tems (the majority) and those produced under extensive systems. From d the public meaning the time it was established in 1957 until its demise in 1971, the BEMB ~ric ultur e. In Blount's sought to ensure that British eggs were, above all else, fresh and clean •lished as an industry and conformed to standard grades. This oversight of standardized mar­ . the word "factory" keting quality remained its principle focus; it was not concerned with

491 Agricultural History Fall 201 3 labeling eggs by production system. From the outset, it also operated world's unde as a trading as well as a marketing board and "adopted the policy of widespread c large-scale sales promotion campaigns in an attempt to persuade the more hopefu housewife to buy more eggs." To ensure that demand matched supply, might go sorr the BEMB focused on a standardized housewife/consumer who cooked developed cc (many of its advertisements provided recipes and showed a woman's nized the ec< hands breaking eggs), cleaned, looked after her husband (she was of surpluses exhorted to "Take two eggs-and give him a proper meal," by adding East," and sl them to his sandwich bag), tried to keep slim (a number explained how methods we : eggs could help the "slimmer," while showing pictures of trim women), speaking at ; and cared for her child (children of various ages were fed boiled eggs, Group in Oc pregnant women were told to eat eggs, and mothers of babies told to paigns directc 7 mix raw eggs into baby's bottle).Z · and against t A 1962 BEMB campaign published in British women's magazines mental impac included flattering images that apparently recognized the effort of health fears, t their work ("but did you have an egg for breakfast this morning?"), Within the: while in the national papers, a community of consumers was raised. "Whe represented through the "Get Cracking Campaign," which illustrated Guardian ask a number of people on the street passing by a BEMB poster that frontation wit detailed how each person would buy and use their eggs that day. In create their o this instance the housewife, rather than being a "silly creature," was stock as belt-c represented as a kind of professional placed in public space (out Eastwood, ab• shopping). She stopped and watched the crowd to which she normally establish integ belonged and reflected on her role. Here, the wife and mother sur­ already taken veyed her world. The BEMB poster implicated her in an active pro­ grave concern cess of analysis by giving her the information to decode people she (there were sr saw and determining what each would do with their eggs. Though her establish a tw power was limited, it was an image that treated the housewife as an fifty thousand agent, one who actively sought to nurture her family. As Douglas As it turned o Sackman has put it, "advertisers have shown us ... how to use their theless suppli6 products in ways that will fulfill expectations for a wholesome and 1960s until the 28 happy home life." million pound Strikingly, how.ever, the BEMB itself never seems to have responded described by t to critiques of the consumer or the producer. Indeed, during 1964, while over, within tl Bryan was arguing that the "first and foremost duty of every agricultural Animal Welfm worker, researcher, or scientist would appear to be to provide new and Welfare Coun• efficient methods of production and cheap, but wholesome food for the like Thorpe a

492 Fall 2013 Animal Machines

t, it also operated world's underfed ... people" the BEMB were flagging problems of pted the policy of widespread overproduction. Harrison herself noted that "the industry's 1t to persuade the more hopeful protagonists would have us believe that these methods tl matched supply, might go some way towards the solution of the food problems in under­ ;umer who cooked developed countries. [But the] World Poultry Congress of 1962 recog­ howed a woman's nized the economically unsound conception of any long-term disposal wsband (she was of surpluses of poultry and eggs" by simply sending surpluses to "the meal," by adding East," and she "hoped that care will be taken to avoid [the] wasteful ber explained how methods we have in the West." This point was reiterated by a farmer s of trim women), speaking at a conference organized by the Ruth Harrison Advisory ·e fed boiled eggs, Group in October 1966. These concerns, in turn, spilled out to cam­ ; of babies told to paigns directed against specific businesses, such J. B. Eastwood Limited, and against the building of battery farms (later due to their environ­ omen's magazines mental impact, as well as issues of cruelty and, more recently, public zed the effort of health fears, e.g., bird flu). 29 . this morning?"), Within these campaigns the question of when a farm is not a farm was I consumers was raised. "Where does one draw the line," one correspondent to the which illustrated Guardian asked in 1964, "between the traditional farmer and his con­ !EMB poster that frontation with the elements and these new industrialized farmers who eggs that day. In create their own hazards (and our consumer hazards) by treating their ly creature," was stock as belt-conveyor units?" Many of the largest farmers, such as John oublic space (out Eastwood, about whom this correspondent was writing, were looking to ich she normally establish integrated concerns mirroring the vertical integration that had and mother sur­ already taken place in the United States. British farmers expressed in an active pro­ grave concerns about overproduction being stimulated by state subsidy ecode people she (there were specific fears that J. B. Eastwood Limited, which sought to eggs. Though her establish a two-million-bird egg-laying unit in Lincolnshire, would put ! housewife as an fifty thousand farmers-a seventh of all producers-out of business). ily. As Douglas As it turned out, planning permission was refused, but Eastwood none­ how to use their theless supplied almost 10 percent of the market nationally from the a wholesome and 1960s until the business was sold to Imperial Tobacco in 1978 for forty million pounds. In .this sense, the two definitions of "factory farm " ·o have responded described by the Times's agricultural correspondent coincided. More­ juring 1964, while over, within the official processes of inquiry, bodies such as the Farm every agricultural Animal Welfare Standing Advisory Committee (later the Farm Animal provide new and Welfare Council) included industry representation not just ethnologists mme food for the like Thorpe and critics such as Harrison. In this way, the industry

493 Agricultural History Fall 2013 became an active participant in the formation of the voluntary and then and to bri legislative controls that would limit it. Thus, networks of power linked of nostalgi change on the farm to integrated agribusiness, legislation, consumer reflection, choice, and resistance. This has often been articulated, as Watts has argued, Er observed, as intensive versus traditi onal agriculture, and this opposition This form ' can certainly be seen in the public response to the emergence of intensive There\\ agriculture. H owever, Lewis Holloway argues, it is not possible "to Great Brit; simply contrast the 'domination' of animals in industrial farming with a fication, de 'freedom' granted by other modes of farming .. . . Instead, particular at a specifi fa rming systems produce varying and related effects of freedom and came to cal domination according to their use of particular technologies, spatialities, more stati1 knowledges, and so on." The behaviors and experiences of chickens will longstandir vary depending on whether they are reared for intensive egg production barn" belo and live in cages, are kept in a niche system-which may use the same landscape 1 breed and is still geared for year-long production-or kept casually by a In the 1981 hobby fa rmer. Holloway, therefore suggests, with reference to cows, regret at W• that there is a hi storical dimension to the subj ective experi ence of farm been, he be animals, which includes their presence in law and their welfare judged cultural "e1 30 by their behavior. "express . . The contrast between "traditional" and "intensive" systems can look immediate!' like simple nostalgia. Even now, apologists will frequently characterize view, was n any form of criticism of intensification as a misplaced attempt to step perspective. back in time, and they certainly represented Harrison's work in this way landscape i1 at the time that it was published. But, traditional agriculture versus aesthetic rei intensive agriculture is much better understood as a historical artifact: a the "lichen product of the political dialogue that, framed by the broadsheet press, failure of a! emerged at the national level of public interest (particularly given official competition uptake via government inquiry and subsequent legislative intervention), tiona!" hum. between British producers and consumers at a specifi c point in time. The story That is, in the mid-twentieth century's broadsheet press, the attempt by has largely t British campaigners to make contemporary (mass-) production methods ered" farm i explicit and visible, especi ally to a non-farming readership, was made mixed farmi through the very effective rhetorical opposition of the conceptualization production." of animal-used-as-machine within modern , fast-paced intensive systems different intt versus the perception of farming as slow-paced, humane, and (despite its of progress fJ artifice) inherently natural. If the rhetoric is nostalgic, it is, therefore, ently been ], best understood as that form of nostalgia that uses the past to criticize words, the ct

494 Fall 2013 Animal Machines

he voluntary and then and to bring about change in the present. Roger Sales broke this kind vorks of power linked of nostalgia for the rural down into what he call ed the "five 'R 's: refuge, legislation, consumer refl ection, rescue, requiem and reconstruction." Through these, he culated, as Watts has argued, E ngli sh rural virtues are selected and retrieved for the present. ·e, and this oppositi on This form of nostalgia has a political, social, and economic impact.3 1 !mergence of intensive There were two established images of the farm in twentieth-century t is not possible "to Great Britai n, which were used by both critics and supporters of in tensi­ lustrial farming with a fication, derived from the conceptualization of agriculture as conceived . . Instead, particul ar at a specific point in time. On the one hand, there was what Harrison 'fects of freedom and came to call the "fa ctory fa rm" and on the other, the im age of the rath er :hnologies, spatialities, more static " li chen covered" farm. In origin, the two images had a iences of chickens will longstanding and well -documented relati onship. The "lichen covered ensive egg producti on barn" belongs to the decay of the eighteenth-century picturesque, a .i ch may use the sa me landscape that Ann Bermingham has described as largely abandoned . - or kept casually by a In the 1980s Raymond Williams described a constant, or formula of th reference to cows, regret at work in the fo rmation of a very E nglish rural idyll. There had ve experience of farm been, he believed, an unvarying sorrow at the loss of a "golden age," a I their welfare judged cultural "escalator" that might be fo ll owed back in time. Such ideas, "express ... human interests and purposes fo r whi ch there is no other ive" systems can look immedi ately avail able vocabulary." Such un wavering grief, in Williams's requently characterize view, was not so much a matter of "historical error," as of "historical laced attempt to step perspective. " Thus, to a degree, H arrison was writing about the British son's work in this way landscape in the 1960s within a much longer tradition of cultural and a! agriculture versus aesthetic responses to the effects of agri cultural change. The decay of a historical artifact: a the "lichen covered barn" referenced the picturesque tradi tion, the the broadsheet press, fa ilure of agriculture in the U nited Kingdom in the face of worl dwide ticularly given offici al competition in the late nineteenth century, and the fa ilure of "tradi­ ~ islati ve intervention), ti onal" humane agriculture to hold its own against intensification.32 pecific point in time. The story of change told with reference to postwar British agri culture press, the attempt by has largely been progressive. In these lin ear narrati ves the "lichen cov­ ) producti on methods ered" fa rm is associated with old-fashi oned and bygone labor-intensive, readership, was made mi xed fa rming, with a "rural, land-based organisa ti on of agricultural the conceptualization production." Strikingly, th e same story was told by H arrison, but with a ced intensive systems diffe rent interpretation. The difference is that H arrison retold the story mane, and (despite its of progress from the point of view of essential regret for what had appar­ :algic, it is, therefore, ently been lost: a humane concern fo r the animals' welfare. In other :s the past to criticize words, the choice to oppose the image of the new "gawky industri al type

495 Agricultural History Fall 201 3 buildings into which the animals are put" with that of the "old lichen cheese to th~ covered barns" was a rhetorical deployment of supposed age-old "rural the United K virtues" to gain the political ground that was required to criticize the of what they agricultural present, as shaped by marketing boards, commercial inter­ However, wi ests, farmers' cooperatives, supermarkets, and policymakers. This is part reference to of the contested nature of the space-or rather, the "spaces": multiple struct shaped and contingent-of the British countryside. The political ground was ences," to w won, the meaning of "factory farm" determined by Harrison rather than attention, pul farmers. In the process, the structural changes that small and general farmers were concerned about in Great Britain largely took place with NOTES the public eye, framed in 1964 by the broadsheets, focused on the farmed 1. Thanks to animal, in consequence of which the structural changes affecting rural Woods and to l society-laborers, stockmen, and farmers-were missed. Industrial agri­ questions and cc Animals?" Agric culture has had a wide-ranging impact. It has shaped the landscape Mar. 1981 , 1- 15, (dilapidated farmhouses and barns), dramatically reduced the range of evalu ation-welfa1 foods grown, and reduced the "chickens and hogs" access to the outside 2. Ruth Han 1 world, but it is easy to miss the influence of industrial agriculture "upon Vincent Stuart, 3. James Seq 33 the lives of those living in rural places. " ships (Cambridgt Following Harrison's description of the industrialized treatment of "The European I animals, the profitability of niche/non-intensive methods of production pects," Journal Oj Understanding A increased steadily in the United Kingdom. This created new opportu­ Bl ackwell , 2008), nities and led some producers to adapt their production methods to 1800 (London: I. meet emerging welfare standards in advance of legislative change Seve nties Genera based on consumer demand. While some consumers are motivated by 2008): 217- 34; B. of England and W price, many have been prepared to pay the premium placed on organic sity Press, 2000); ~ and niche products. Thus, as observed in an Agricultural Research Ethology of W. !­ Council paper in 1981 , in "working on welfare .. . we are responding Abigail Woods, "I to a public demand." By 2008 the free range and organic end of the Brita in , 1964- 71 ," did consider the i sector accounted for over 30 percent of eggs put through British pack­ Exports and Midd ing stations- that is, 35 percent of eggs sold in the retail sector. The 85- 103. fact that consumers buy eggs produced under these systems even 4. Joan Thirsk, Day (Oxford: Oxfc though they cost more has been interpreted by the Department for of Chicken Cramrr Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) as being indicative Review 30:1 (1982) of the value that British consumers place on animal welfare. This is 1914 (Oxford: Oxft difficult to assess without further qualitative study, but economic geogra­ in Ireland, 1891-19 Note on the Origire phers have observed that the demand for "natural and locally embedded 5. Royal Comrr foods ... everything from the small-scale niche production of farmhouse reports, see, for ex

496 Fall 2013 Animal Machines

.t of the "old lichen cheese to the large-scale production of free-range eggs" has increased in )Osed age-old "rural the United Kingdom as consumers have sought to purchase the products tired to criticize the of what they perceive to be traditional, "authentic" farming methods. s, commercial inter­ However, with eggs, as social geographer Peter Atkins has argued with rmakers. This is part reference to milk, what is perceptually a "natural" commodity is a con­ e "spaces": multiple struct shaped by "scientific, technological, commercial, and legal influ­ >olitical ground was ences," to which list can be added, with reference to welfare: press Harrison rather than attention, public protest, and voluntary action by industry? 4 t small and general gely took place with NOTES cused on the farmed L Thanks to Paul Brass ley, Marga ret Derry, Andrew Godley, Harriet Ritvo, Abigail mges affecting rural Woods and to the editors and peer reviewers of A gricultural History for their helpful ssed. Industrial agri- questions and constructi ve comm ents. B. 0. Hughes, "How Can We Assess Welfare in Animals?" Agricultural Science Seminar, The Assessment of the Welfare of Farm An imals, ped the landscape Mar. 1981, 1- 15, htrp://eurekamag.com/research/001 /294/agricultural-science-seminar-the­ educed the range of evalu ation-welfare-farm-animals.php (accessed May 15, 2013, materi al no longer avail able). ~cces s to the outside 2. Ruth Harrison, Animal Machines: The New Factory Farming In dustry (London: Vincent Stuart, 1964), L a! agriculture "upon 3. James Serpell, in the Company of Animals: A Study of Human-Animal Relation­ ships (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni versity Press, 1986), 186, 191- 96; Mi chael C. Appleby, .alized treatment of "The E uropean Union Ban on Conventional Cages for Lay ing Hens: History and Pros­ hods of production pects," Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 6 (Apr. 1, 2003): 103- 21; David Fraser, Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context (Chichester: Wiley­ eated new opportu­ Blackwell , 2008), 61; Jeremy Burchardt, Paradise Lost: Rural Idyll and Social Change since tluction methods to 1800 (Lond on: L B. Taurus, 2002); Philip Conford, "Somewhere Quite Diffe rent: The · legislative change Seventies Generation of Orga nic Activists and Their Context," Rural History 19 (Oct. s are motivated by 2008): 217-34; B. A. Holderness, " Intensive Livestock Keeping," in The A grarian History of England and Wales VII, 1850-1914, ed. E. J. T. Collins (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni ver­ placed on organic sity Press, 2000); Neal C. Gi ll espi e, "The Interface of Natural Theology and Science in the icultural Research Ethology of W. H. Thorpe," Journal of the History of Biology 23 (Spring 1990): 1- 38; we are responding Abiga il Woods, " From Cruelty to Welfare: The Emergence of Farm Animal Welfare in Britain, 1964- 71," Endeavour 36 (Mar. 2012): 14-22. Alun Hawkins and Linda Merricks organic end of the did consider the impact of Harrison's work in " Dewy-Eyed Veal Calves: Live Animal rough British pack­ Exports and Middle-Class Opinion, 1980-1995," Agricultural History Review 48:1 (2000): e retail sector. The 85- 103. hese systems even 4. Joan Thirsk, Alternative Agriculture: A History from the Black Death to the Present Day (Oxford: Oxford Uni ve rsity Press, 1997), 189- 95, 212; Brian Short, "The Art and Craft he Department for of Chicken Cramming: Poultry in the Weald of Sussex, 1850- 1950," Agricultural History as being indicative Review 30:1 (1982): 17-30; Michael E. Turner et a!. , Farm Production in England, 1700- al welfare. This is 1914 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 113; Joann a Bourke, "Women and Poultry t economic geogra- in Ireland, 1891-1914," Irish Historical Studies 15 (May 1987): 293; W. H. Chalconer, "A Note on the Origins of t~ e Broiler Industry," AgricullUral History Review 17:2 (1969): 161. td locally embedded 5. Royal Commission on Agriculture, Parli amentary Papers, 1895, Cd. 7623, XV I. For Jcti on of farmhouse reports, see, for example, Journal of the Board of Agriculture 5 (1899): 502-503; "Egg

497 Agricultural History Fall 2013

Industry of Tientsin," Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 69 (Jan. 21, 1921): 148. Edward Britain," Bz Brown, "Sale of Eggs by Co-operative Means," Journal of the Board of Agriculture 17 Science toP (Apr. 1910- Mar. 1911): 989-91; Holderness, "Intensive Livestock Keeping," 487- 94. cultural Bre• 6. Departmental Committee on Poultry Breeding in Scotland, Parliamentary Papers, and Science 1909, Cd. 4616, xxxvi; Walter Gilbey, Poultry-Keeping on Farms and Small Holdings 2012); Robe (London: Vinton, 1904). For promotion of egg production, see, for example, Times, June 19, Agricultural 1916, 5. W. K. H aselden, "Theory and Practice in Poultry Keeping," Daily Mirror (London), Spaces, Beas Sept. 25, 1916, British Cartoon Archive, University of Kent, http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/ Chris Wilber browse/cartoon_item/anytext=farmer?subjects_text[] =Agriculture&page=4 (accessed Feb. 12, 12. S. H. 2013); Susan M. Squier, "Chicken Auguries," Configurations: A Journal of Literature, nology and S Science, and Technology 14 (Winter- Spring 2006): 69-86; Jane Adams, " Modernity and Blaxter and US Farm Women's Poultry Operations: Farm Women Nourish the Industrializing Cities, Biotechnolog 1880- 1940," paper, 2002, Yale University Program in Agrarian Studies, http://www.siu.edu/ 49-52, 85, 11 1 ~jadams/chickens_modernity / adams -p g_l. html (accessed May 27, 2005, site discontinued); Lockwood & C. A. Flatt, Poultry Keeping Do's and Dont's (London: Methuen, 1925), 42, 53 . Flatt was an Anthony Phe inspector of the education branch within the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Min­ (Jan. 1964): 2 istry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Report on Egg Marketing in England and Wales, Eco­ 13. Harri: nomic Series 10 (London: np, 1927); Thirsk, Alternative Agriculture, 189; Th e Feathered Changes in I World Year Book and Poultry Keepers Guide for 1937 (London: Feathered World, 1937), Hens," Farm 28- 33, 43- 49. .htm (accesse. 7. Kenneth Blaxter and Noel Robertson, From Dearth to Plenty: The Modem Revolution tional4 (Jan. in Food Production (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 242-43; World's Poul­ Lockwood & try Congress and Exposition, Transactions of the First World's Poultry Congress at the I-lague­ from Free Ra 5- 9, 1921. I. (np: np, 1922?); Scheveningen, September Vol. Papers and Communications 23- 24; Phelps. Karen Sayer, "Battery Birds, 'Stimulighting' a nd 'Twili ghting': The Ecology of Standardised New Look fo Poultry Technology," in History of Technology, ed. Ian Inkster (London: Institute of His­ "British Indus torical Research, 2009), 149- 68; Chalconer, "A Note," 161; Michael Winstanley, "Industri­ (Jan. 1967): 5' alization and the Small Farm: Family and Household Economy in Nineteenth-Century Intensive Live, Lancashire," Past and Presem 152 (Aug. 1996): 175-83; Feathered World, 7. (Jan. 1962); B 8. Gilbey, iii; Brown, 777; Morley A. Jull, Poultry-Keeping, Poultry Breeding, Poultry lion advertiser (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1930), 28; William B. Tegetmeier, Husbandry The Poultry Book: rising Trust Ra (London: Comprising the Breeding and Management of Profitable and Ornamental Poultry and Stockmen Routledge, 1873), 9- 10, 384. Heinemann M 9. Karen Sayer, " Let Nature be Your Teacher: W. B. Tegetmeier's Distinctive Orni­ 14. Woods, thological Studies," Victorian Literature & Culture 35 (Sept. 2007): 589- 605; Gilbey, Poultry­ Brass ley, "The 36; Edward Brown, 2 vols. (London: Ernst Benn, Keeping, Poultry Breeding and Production, 2, 235-51; Testt 1929), 2:633. 15. W. P. E 10. William Boyd, " Making Meat: Science, Technology, and American Poultry Produc­ Luther T'Yeete tion," Technology and Culture 42 (Oct. 2001): 633-34; William Boyd and Michael Watts, Press, 2003), 1 "Agro-lndustrial Just-in-Time: The Chicken Industry a nd Postwar American Capitali sm," Scandinavica 5( in Globalising Food: Agrarian Questions and Global Restructuring, ed. D . Goodman and 16. Richard M. J . Watts (London: Routledge, 1997), 197; Walter Brett, Poultry-Keeping To-day: Pic­ Biography, Oxl tured and Explained (1938; repr., London: C. Arthur Pearson, 1941), 242; Robert Coles, 74285 (accessec "The Structure of the Poultry Industry of England and Wales," in Intensive Livestock Welfare to the I Farming, ed. W. P. Blo unt (London: Wi lli am Heinemann Medical, 1968), 151. iour Science 11: 11. Boyd, " Making Meat," 636, 640-43; Andrew Godley and Bridget Williams, 1964, 21, 28; Se "Democratizing Luxury and the Contentious 'Invention of the Technological Chicken' in responses to it, s

498 Fall 2013 Animal Machines

1, 1921): 148. Edward Britain," Business History Review 83 (Summer 2009): 267-90; Kathy J. Cooke, "From ard of Agriculture 17 Science to Practice, or Practice to Science? Chickens and Eggs in Raymond Pearl's Agri­ eping," 487-94. cultural Breeding Research, 1907-1916," /sis 88 (Mar. 1997): 62-86; Margaret Derry, Art >arliamentary Papers, and Science in Breeding: Creating Better Chickens (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, and Small Holdings 2012); Robe rt Coles, "Changes in the Pattern of Poultry Keeping," Journal of the Royal 1mple, Times, June 19, Agricultural Society of England 115 (1954): 78; Michael J. Watts, " Afterword" in Animal 1aily Mirror (London), Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human-Animal Relations, ed. Chris Philo and //www.cartoons.ac.uk/ Chris Wilbert (London: Routledge, 2000), 298. e=4 (accessed Feb. 12, 12. S. H . Gordon and D. R. Charles, Niche and Organic Chicken Products: Their Tech­ ournal of Literature, nology and Scientific Principles (Nottingham: Nottingham University Press, 2002), v, iii , 3, 6; ams, "Modernity and Blaxter and Robertson, Dearth to Plenty, 20; David Goodman et al., From Farming to Industrializing Cities, Biotechnology: A Theory of Agro-Jndustrial Development (London: Basil Blackwell, 1987), :s, http://www.si u.edu/ 49- 52,85, 119-23, 177-SO; Leonard Robinson, Modern Poultry Husbandry (London: Crosby 5, site discontinued); Lockwood & Son, 1957); J. Farrant, "Review of 1971," Poultry World 124 (Jan. 1972): 7-8; ), 42, 53. Flatt was an Anthony Phelps, " Outdoor Rearing: New Look for an Old Method," Poultry lntemational3 ·e and Fisheries. Min­ (Jan. 1964): 22; Phelps, "Wire Floors," Poultry Internationa/ 3 (Apr. 1964): 48. land and Wales, Eco­ 13. Harrison, Animal Machines, chpt. 4, 37-61; Watts, " Afterword," 300-301; "Table 1: e, 189; The Feathered Changes in Egg Production Systems, % of Eggs" in " Report on the Welfare of Laying ~thered World, 1937), Hens," Farm Animal Welfare Council, http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports/layhensllhgre007 .htm (accessed Mar. 12, 2013); "Poultry Communique: United Kingdom," Poultry lnrerna­ 'he Modem Revolution tiona/4 (Jan. 1965): 18; Geoffrey Sykes, Poultry: A Modem Agribusiness (London: Crosby 242-43; World's Paul­ Lockwood & Son, 1963), 89- 101. For continued free range hens, see, for example, "Eggs Congress at the Hague­ from Free R angers, Poultry Section Supplement," Fanner and Stockbreeder (Oct. 1956): lions (np: np, 1922?); 23-24; Phelps, "Outdoor Rearing," 18-22; Coles, "Changes"; "Outdoor Rearing in Britain: :ology of Standardised New Look for an Old Method," Poultry International (Jan. 1964): 18-22; Jean Tester, 1don: Institute of His­ "British Industry Shakeup Yields Fewer Flocks But More Birds," Poultry International 6 iWinstanley, "lndustri- (Jan. 1967): 59- 60; W. P. Roberts, "The Economics of Intensive Livestock Production," Nineteenth-Century lmensive Livestock Farming, 373; " BEMB Annual Report & Accounts," British Farmer vrld, 7. (Jan. 1962); British Egg Marke ting Board 1961-64 advertising portfoli o; BEMB informa­ [orley A. Jull, Poultry tion advertisement, Financial Times Supplement, Dec. 1961 , OM (L) 21, History of Adver­ ier, The Poultry Book: tising Trust Raveningham, Norfolk, UK (hereafter HAT); W. P. Blount, "Statistics-Stock tal Poultry (London: and Stockmen," in Intensive Livestock Farming, ed. W. P. Blount (London: William Heinemann Medical, 1968), 339- 58, 347. er's Distinctive Orni­ 14. Woods, "From Cruelty to Welfare," 17; Harrison, Animal Machines, xiii, 37; Paul -605; Gilbey, Poultry­ Brassley, "The Professionalisation of British Agriculture?" Rural History 16 (Oct. 2005): 16, (London: Ernst Benn, 2, 235-51; Tester, " British Industry Shake up," 58-62; BEMB, Nov. 3, 1960, 14480/1, HAT. 15. W. P. Blount, Hen Balleries (London: Baillie re, Tindall & Cox, 1951), vi, 245- 47; .rican Poultry Produc­ Luther Tweeten, Terrorism, Radicalism, and Populism in Agriculture (Ames: lowa State i:l and Michael Watts, Press, 2003), 102; David Fraser, " Understanding Animal Welfare," Acta Veterinaria .merican Capitali sm," Scandinavica 50 (Aug. 19, 2008); Woods, "From Cruelty to Welfare," 9. ed. D. Goodman and 16. Richard D. Ryder, " Harrison, Ruth (1920-2000)," Oxford Dictionary of National Keeping To-day: Pic­ Biography, Oxford University Press, May 2005, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/ ), 242; Robert Coles, 74285 (accessed May 20, 2013); Heleen Van de Weerd, "Bringing the Issue of Animal n Intensive Livestock Welfare to the Public: A Biography of Ruth Harrison, 1920-2000," Applied Animal Behav­ l68), 151. iour Science 113 (Oct. 2008): 404-10; Observer (London), Mar. 1, 1964, 21-22, 10; Mar. 8, td Bridget Williams, 1964, 21 , 28; Sept. 22, 1963, 24; Times, Mar. 19, 1964, 16. For reviews of the book and nological Chicken' in responses to it, see, for example, Observer, Feb. 23, 1964, 2; Mar. 22, 1964, 26; Mar. 15, 1964,

499 Agricultural History Fall 2013

30; Guardian, Feb. 28, 1964, 11; Mar. 9, 1964, 8; Mar. 13,1964, 12; Times, Feb. 28, 1964, 17; (London: Chall Mar. 19, 1964, 16; Mar. 25, 1964, 15; "Farming: Animal Machines," Jan. 9, 1965, BBCl; "Foucauldian Home Service Radio, "Factory Farms," Sept. 26, 1965. (Fall 2003): 591 17. Times, Sept. 28, 1964, 5; Observer, Apr. 25, 1965, 4; Mar. 22, 1964, 32; Times, June 2, gies and the 1964, 6; Guardian, Sept. 18, 1967, 2; Burchardt, Paradise Lost, 202-206; Farmer Moving Space 25:6 (200 South, dir. John Taylor and Charles De Lautour (British Transport Films, 1952); "Farmer 31. Tweeter Glanfield Defies CEA," lTV News, Dec. 21 , 1956; "Turkeys," lTV News, Dec. 18, 1957; "Nostalgia and Good Servam, dir. Alan Harper (Films of Scotland, BUFVC, 1958); "Farm Subsidies Inter­ Advanced Stud view," lTV News, Mar. 10, 1960; Hawkins and Merricks, " Dewy-Eyed Veal Calves," 85. (accessed Dec. 18. Oral answers to Questions, "Factory Farming," House of Commons Hansard, and Politics (Ne Elizabeth II year 13, Fifth Series, vo l. 695, May 11 , 1964, 7-10; Times, May 12, 1964, 16; 32. Ann Be Guardian, May 13, 1964, 18; Woods, "From Cruelty to Welfare," 18. 1860 (London: 19. Times, Dec. 28, 1964, 12. City (New York 20. Times, July 11, 1964, 9; Elspeth Huxley, Brave New Victuals: An Enquiry into 33. Goodm< Modern Food Production (London: Chatto & Windus, 1965); Times, May 12, 1965; Guard­ "Eating and Re1 ian, Nov. 12, 1965, 9. 34. Gordon 21. Times, Sept. 24, 1968, 9; Observer, June 29, 1969, 3. Health and WeU 22. Francis E. Bryan, "A Wish to Go Backward?" Poultry International (Oct. 1964): ment Food and 64, Iowa State University library, lib.iastate.edu:9060/coll ections/agri/ag09html (accessed indicators/5-l.ht Oct. 9, 2008, material no longer available). and Embed ded ~ 23. Ibid.; H. G. S., "Animal Machines, Ruth Harrison, Vincent Stewart," Agriculture 71 Economic Geo8 (Apr. 1964): 197; Hughes, "How Can We Assess," 3. Career of a Com 24. Observer, Mar. 15 , 1964, 30; Times, Mar. 25 , 1964, 15. 25. P. Biglin , " Intensive Livestock Production," Journal of the Royal A gricultural Soci­ ety of England 135 (1974): 122; Times, Aug. 10, 1926, 7; Dec. 1, 1930, 20; Sept. 11 , 1934, 6; Jan. 29, 1964, 6; Jan. 11 , 1965, 12; "Preface," Intensive Livestock Farming, vii ; Coles, "Structure of the Poultry Industry," 151; Roberts, "Econom ics," 362. 26. Guardian, Mar. 13, 1964, 12. 27. Guardian, Oct. 17, 1966, 4; May 14, 1967, 31; E. A. Attwood and G. Hallett, "The Marketing of Farm Products in the UK," Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England 119 (1959): 19- 34. For examples of advertisements, see, "Take two eggs-and give him a proper meal," "Take an egg a day if you're slimming (or if you're not)," " If you 're expecting a baby take at least one egg a day," "Take home eggs for baby," and" Add an egg and be sure," OM (S) OS; British Egg Marketing Board 1961-64 advertising portfolio, OM (L) 21; British Egg Marketing Board 1964- 66 advertising portfoli o, OM (L) 41, HAT. 28. BEMB, Glasgow Daily Record, Oct. 26, 1962, British Egg Marketing Board 1961-64 advertising portfolio, OM (L) 21, HAT; Douglas Sackman, " Putting Gender on the Table: Food and the Family Life of Nature," in Seeing Nature through Gender, ed. Virginia J. Scharff (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003) , 187. 29. Bryan, "A Wish to Go Backward?" 64; Times, Mar. 11 , 1964, 5; Sept. 28, 1964, 5, Dec. 9, 1964, 17; Harrison, Animal Machines, 174-75; Guardian, Oct. 17, 1966, 4. 30. Marjorie D. Hollowood, letter, Guardian, Mar. 18, 1964, 10; "Poultry Communique, United Kingdom," Poultry International (July 1964): 20; C. David Edgar, "Obituary Sir John Eastwood," Oct. 4, 1995, The Independent, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ people/obituary-sir-john-eastwood-1575903.html (accessed Mar. 14, 2013); W. H. Thorpe, "Welfare of Domestic Animals," Nature 224 (Oct. 4, 1969): 18-20; Ruth Harrison, "Case Study: Farm Animals," Environmental Dilemmas: Ethics and Decisions, ed. R. J. Berry

500 Fall 2013 Animal Machines

rimes, Feb. 28, 1964, 17; (London: Chapman & H all , 1993), 120- 25; Watts, " Afterword," 296, 301; D awn Coppin, s," Jan. 9, 1965, BBCl ; "Foucauldian H og Futures: T he Bi rth of Mega-Hog Farms," Sociological Quarterly 44 (Fall 2003 ): 597-616; Lewis Holloway, "Subjecting Cows to Robots: Farming Technolo­ 1964, 32; Times, June 2, gies and the Making of A nimal Subjects," Environment and Planning 0 : Society and 02-206; Farmer Moving Space 25:6 (2007): 1041--60. t Fi lms, 1952); "Farmer 31. Tweeten, Terrorism, 102; Brya n, " A Wi sh to Go Backward?" 64; Svetl ana Boym, V News, Dec. 18, 1957; " Nostalgia and Its Discontents," Hedgehog Revi ew, Summer 2007, p. 7- 18, Institute fo r ; "Farm Subsidies lnter­ Advanced Studies in Culture, http://www.iasc-culture.org/eNews/2007 _10 /9.2CBoym.pdf ed Veal Calves," 85. (accessed D ec. 18, 2012); Roger Sales, English Literature in History 1780- 1830: Pastoral of Commons Hansard, and Politics (New York: St. Martin's, 1983), 15 . 'imes, May 12, 1964, 16; 32. A nn Bermingham, Landscape and Ideology: The English Rustic Tradition, 1740- 8. 1860 (London: Thames and Hudson, 1987), 69; Raymond Williams, The Country and the City (New York : Oxford Uni versity Press, 1973), 10- 11,291. tuals: An Enquiry into 33. Goodman, From Farming, 123; Williams, Country, 10- 12; Deborah Fitzgerald, ~s, May 12, 1965; Guard- "Eating and Remembering," Agricultural History 79 (Fall 2005): 395. 34. Gordon and Charl es, Niche, 15-16; Hughes, "How Can We Assess," 3; "A nimal Health and Welfare Indicators: Core Jndicator 5.1 ," Sept. 9, 2009, Department for Environ­ uernational (Oct. 1964): ment Food and Rural Affa irs, http://archi ve.defra.gov.u klfoodfarm/po li cy/animalh ealth/eig/ agri/ag09html (accessed indicators/5-l.htm (accessed Mar. 12, 2013); Jonathan Murdoch et al. , "Q uality, Nature, and Embeddedness: Some Theoretica l Considerati ons in the Context of the Food Sector," Stewart," Agriculture 71 Economic Geography 76 (Apr. 2000): 120; Peter Atkins, " Laboratories, Laws, and the Career of a Commodity," Environment and Planning 0: Society and Space 25 :6 (2007): 984.

Royal Agricultural Soci- 130, 20; Sept. 11, 1934, 6; rck Fa rming, vii; Coles, 52. oct and G. Hall ett, "The Agricultural Society of rake two eggs-and give you're not)," " If you're baby," and "Add an egg vertising portfo lio, OM , OM (L) 41 , HAT. arketing Board 1961-64

Gender, ed. Virginia J.

964, 5; Sept. 28 , 1964, 5, >ct. 17, 1966, 4. i "Poultry Communique, lavid Edgar, "Obituary ndependent.co.uk/news/ 4, 2013); W. H. Thorpe, ); Ruth Harrison, "Case ?cisions, ed. R. J. Berry

501