Reshaping the U.S. Cattle Industry: Producers and Packers, 1914–1933
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Reshaping the U.S. cattle industry: Producers and packers, 1914–1933 by Daniel T. Gresham B.A., Colorado State University, 2006 M.A., Kansas State University, 2014 AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History College of Arts and Sciences KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2019 Abstract In 1914 the stockmen of the American West launched what they referred to as the “war on the packers.” Desiring more than rhetoric, stockmen donated their own money to finance a producer-led investigation of the big meat packer’s economic power. That investigation ultimately led to a Federal Trade Commission bombshell report that indicted the packers for attempting to control the global food supply, served them a crippling consent decree, and ended with the Packers and Stockyards Act in 1921. Perennial conflict is historians’ standard narrative of the relationship between producers and packers. However, from 1922 to 1933, producers such as John Kendrick, Dan Casement, and O. M. Plummer, cooperated with Thomas E. Wilson and other big packers along associational lines and looked to packers for industry leadership. Although contemporary producers and packers applauded their newfound cooperative attitudes, producers never fully trusted the packers, making this a tenuous cooperation. The political philosophy of associationalism helped legitimize big packer leadership of the industry. Producers’ acceptance of packer leadership is evident in their shared effort to reform the practices of meat retailers, how producers generally supported packer policies, and how they worked through the Federal Farm Board to eliminate middlemen. The packers also created a campaign for increased consumer consumption of meat and cast vegetarians as their common enemy as a way of unifying the livestock industry. The big packers and the National Live Stock and Meat Board used their power in subtle and often hidden ways to get producers to raise smaller cattle and get consumers to purchase more meat and to prepare it in certain ways. The producers largely accepted the packers demand for smaller cattle. Finally, the Meat Board relied on several consumer-based networks established by home economists, but these women were employees—not actual members of the board. While board members respected the home economist’s ability and advice, institutionally they were junior partners of sorts in the industry collective known as the Meat Board. As employees, home economists of the board were not expected to defend housewives’ consumer choices, but to shape those choices. The Meat Board’s home economics department members attempted to shape consumer thought by manipulating as many channels to the consumer as possible, from schools to women’s magazines. On the eve of the New Deal then, many big producers stood ready to follow packer leadership. Reshaping the U.S. cattle industry: Producers and packers, 1914–1933 by Daniel T. Gresham B.A., Colorado State University, 2006 M.A., Kansas State University, 2014 A DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History College of Arts and Sciences KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2019 Approved by: Major Professor James E. Sherow Copyright © Daniel T. Gresham 2019. Abstract In 1914 the stockmen of the American West launched what they referred to as the “war on the packers.” Desiring more than rhetoric, stockmen donated their own money to finance a producer-led investigation of the big meat packer’s economic power. That investigation ultimately led to a Federal Trade Commission bombshell report that indicted the packers for attempting to control the global food supply, served them a crippling consent decree, and ended with the Packers and Stockyards Act in 1921. Perennial conflict is historians’ standard narrative of the relationship between producers and packers. However, from 1922 to 1933, producers such as John Kendrick, Dan Casement, and O. M. Plummer, cooperated with Thomas E. Wilson and other big packers along associational lines and looked to packers for industry leadership. Although contemporary producers and packers applauded their newfound cooperative attitudes, producers never fully trusted the packers, making this a tenuous cooperation. The political philosophy of associationalism helped legitimize big packer leadership of the industry. Producers’ acceptance of packer leadership is evident in their shared effort to reform the practices of meat retailers, how producers generally supported packer policies, and how they worked through the Federal Farm Board to eliminate middlemen. The packers also created a campaign for increased consumer consumption of meat and cast vegetarians as their common enemy as a way of unifying the livestock industry. The big packers and the National Live Stock and Meat Board used their power in subtle and often hidden ways to get producers to raise smaller cattle and get consumers to purchase more meat and to prepare it in certain ways. The producers largely accepted the packers demand for smaller cattle. Finally, the Meat Board relied on several consumer-based networks established by home economists, but these women were employees—not actual members of the board. While board members respected the home economist’s ability and advice, institutionally they were junior partners of sorts in the industry collective known as the Meat Board. As employees, home economists of the board were not expected to defend housewives’ consumer choices, but to shape those choices. The Meat Board’s home economics department members attempted to shape consumer thought by manipulating as many channels to the consumer as possible, from schools to women’s magazines. On the eve of the New Deal then, many big producers stood ready to follow packer leadership. Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ ix Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... xii Chapter 1 - Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2 - Fighting over Market Fairness: The War on the Packers .......................................... 13 Chapter 3 - Meat Retail Reform: Packers form an Uneasy Alliance with Producers ................... 58 Chapter 4 - Building Associations: Producers, Packers, and the Federal Government ................ 99 Chapter 5 - Making Meat Myths: Fighting Vegetarianism in the Realms of Science and Publicity ............................................................................................................................................. 136 Chapter 6 - Developing a “Meat Consciousness:” Shaping Cattle and Consumption through Science ................................................................................................................................. 169 Chapter 7 - Consumer Manipulation: How the Meat Board Home Economics Department tried to shape opinion among Housewives....................................................................................... 199 Chapter 8 - Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 225 Chapter 9 - Epilogue ................................................................................................................... 231 Selected Sources ......................................................................................................................... 245 viii Acknowledgements I would first like to thank my advisor, James Sherow, who has been a great mentor throughout my program at KSU. He encouraged, challenged, and inspired me. Professor Sherow sets a high standard of excellence through his scholarly example and he guided me with the soul of a teacher. My committee members, Bonnie Lynn-Sherow, Phil Tiemeyer, Suzanne Orr, and Matthew Sanderson provided valuable feedback on my initial proposal and helped me to think about the big picture. I would also like to thank my committee chair, Justin Kastner. I also benefitted from the advice of Professors Heather McCrea and Morgan J. Morgan. St. Mary’s Academy and College was always generous in giving me time off to research or present parts of this research at conferences. Fellow graduate student Jennifer Day-Tope read and commented on a draft of my first chapter. I would like to thank several colleagues for many fruitful conversations especially Wayne Anderson, Mickey Belding, Virgil Dean, Cory Haala, David Vail, Margaret Weber, and Kelly Wenig. I presented papers on some topics from my dissertation at conferences of the Kansas Association of Historians and of the Agricultural History Society and benefitted from audience questions during those panels. I would also like to thank Deborah Fitzgerald and David Danbom for their helpful comments and support. The Kansas State University history department liberally bestowed travel and research grants that allowed me to complete my research quickly and present some of it at distant conferences. These grants included the Albert N. Hamscher Graduate Student Research Award, the Leroy and Mary Sullivan Page Fund Award, and the Ina Belle Mueller Graduate Research Scholarship. I benefitted from several travel grants provided by the Agricultural