See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286823059

Animal Machines: The Public Response to Intensification in Great Britain, c.

1960-c. 1973

Article  in  Agricultural History · September 2013

DOI: 10.3098/ah.2013.87.4.473

CITATIONS READS

4 1,135

1 author:

Karen A Sayer
Leeds Trinity University
40 PUBLICATIONS   54 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Muesum of Rural Life Fellowship View project

Thinking forward through the past: Linking science, social science and the humanities to inform the sustainable reduction of endemic disease in British livestock
farming View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Karen A Sayer on 31 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 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 E lite 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, Un it ed Kingdom. A fe ll ow of the Roya l Historical Society, she is the
aut ho r of Country Cottages: A Cultural History (2000) a nd Women of the Fields: Rep resen-
tations of Rural Women in the Nineteenth Century (1995). Her current proj ects are material
and technological aspects of British li vestock farm ing in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries and women in Victori an farming. She has served as treasurer of the British
Associat ion for Victorian Studies and is an executive committee member of the British
Agricu ltural History Society.
Molly Be nnett 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

So uRCE: P FS PH1/K3,
An evocative piece of writing, which used "gawky" to suggest the gangly,
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
hidden the farmed animal from view. 2 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. Wilkinso n, at the ir farm White Posts in Barley, Royston.

Sou RcE: P FS PH1 /K3, Muse um of English Rura l Li fe , U niversit y of Rea din g, 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 developm ent 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 increa~
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. T he 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 ske ptical 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 - und er the influe nce of co nsta nt pressure fro m officia ls a nd le ading
"crue lty" in the agri cultura l co mm e nta to rs. 4
ow have co nsid- Worri ed by rising imports of eggs and looking to lead fa rming out of
imal Machines, late nin etee nth-ce ntury depression, the British governme nt and others
ng lobby , public became increasingly concerned to improve domestic poultry production,
. The book was , distribution , and marke ting by foll owing best practices. H enry R ew,
wspaper debate fo r instance, reported on the poultry-rearing and fa ttening industry of
examination of Sussex in 1895 as part of th e R oyal Commissio n o n Agriculture and
ners about wider suggested tha t farm ers in other co unties mi ght lea rn from th e manage-
and commerci al ment and m arke tin g practices of cramme rs, who speci a li zed in fa ttening
aking in Great chickens on rich food s such as milk, mol asses, and barl ey fl o ur. T he Royal
mic Community A gricultural Soci ety of England (RASE ) a nd o th e rs published reports
of production practices within th e empire and ove rseas, a nd the Board
emerged within of A griculture publicized British efforts at innovati on , such as E dward
producing more Brown 's work for the Nationa l Poultry Organisa tio n Society. Indeed ,
rli ne from around B rown , as Brian Holderness has observed , " wrote and preached tire-
at and eggs) had lessly to th e indiffere nt and sceptical, and expressed a clear conviction
ltinent , especially th at the large impo rt bill fo r poultry produce co uld be significantly
tain had not gen- reduced with the benefit of organization. " Hi s a nd official efforts con-
·rom. T here were tinued into the early twe nti e th ce ntury.5
for instance, has In 1909 the gove rnm e nt established a committee to look at poultry
ss on the Sussex breeding and egg marke tin g in Scotland, which no ted th at the domestic
ett, and Betha ni e dem and for eggs had outstripped supply in the U nited Kin gdom since
! entrepreneurial the 1870s and that thi s demand had increased steadily up to 1908. Advo-
to suit the pre- ca tes published advice books, which sought to dissemin ate the most
rs were skeptica l profitable techniques to sma ll as we ll as large concerns. Indeed, by
oduction because World War I, the pro moti on of egg producti o n by the Board of A gricul-
>handled poul try ture and Fishe ri es through broadsheets such as th e Times, attracted
ls J oanna Bourke the skeptical attentio n of the popular press, as can be seen in W . K.
oversial decisions H aselden 's cartoon fo r th e Daily Mirror. Chi ckens were predominantly
thing was agreed: treated as comic subj ects when they we re no t of econo mic concern .
ltry industry was D espite this, after th e war, they were viewed as a way out of rural
I at the time, the unemployment and agricultural crisis in G reat Britain . Specialist texts
rable. The refor e, told poultry keepers to increase production "from September to J anuary,
lorn that po ultry, whe n they [eggs] are scarce." But, it was stressed again and again tha t the
itabl e onl y bega n marke ting of eggs was a wea k spot. To compe te with imports, British
j even then on ly 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 suppl ying his produce nice ly graded and in bulk, owing for B ritain than
to his better orga nizati 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 auth or William I
had yet been effected. T he 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 specialize ral green and inst
in keeping chi cke ns fo r profit. During the 1920s and 1930s, as J ane Tegetm eier belie·
Adam s has record ed , drawin g on their ex isting ex perience with poul-
try, American fa rm women increase d th e ir "flock s into almost e ntirely Chickens that a1
m arket-ori ented enterprises" and as Joa n T hirsk suggests, once the often ta ke to ro<
industry bega n to ta ke off in th e U nited Kin gdom, it similarly "gave and early autun;
scope to some no tably successful wo men," in all aspects of the indus- and better condi
6
try and its ancill ary trades.
This was an international industry, and the First World 's Poultry Tegetmeier sot
Congress was held at the H ague in H oll and in 1921. Meetings like this, try, and , in his vit
alongside speci alist publica ti ons, allowed fo r de bate and discussion of un favora ble as to
new technologies, such as development and use of lighting regimes. tica l. Improvers \
However, th ere were still local differences. At this stage, for exampl e, ove rstocking, poo
the British model was less integrated-a fea ture that continued at least H ence, Walter Gi
in terms of vertica l integration until the postwar period- than that in on the same grot
the United Sta tes, and "immense capital" o utl ay 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 foo ting. In cases of small- ures in the interw;
scale, regional specializa tion-such as eggs, milk, and vegeta bles so ld spread of disease),
out of fa rm carts in neighbori ng seasid e towns and industrial centers- of in tensification a
the smaller enterprises adapted many of th e new methods associated even Brown.obsen
with large-sca le po ultry fa rming. In this way, small farms continued to there is usually a
be economically significa nt 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 oth er in th e U nited Kingdom , with opments, internati<

478
 Fall 2013 Animal Machines

e foreigner has poultry and eggs in 1936 (despite imports) produci ng £3,085,405 more
in bulk, owing fo r Britain than cerea ls. 7
lished a report Throughout th e 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 auth or William Bernard Tege tmeier, 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 th e 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 confinement resulted in "the wa nt of fresh air, natu-
m to specialize ral gree n and insect food, [which produces] unfo rtun ate res ults." R ather,
930s, as Jane Tege tm eier believed, the birds sho uld be "allowed a free ra nge" because:
ilce with poul-
lmost entirely Chickens that are reared in the neighbourhood of trees a nd coppices very
ests, once th e ofte n take to roosting in the branches during the mild wea the r of summer
milarly "gave and earl y a utumn, and a re always fou nd to be in much ha rdi e r plum age
; of the indus- and better condition than those th at roos t in ho uses. 8

orld's Poultry Tege tmeier sought to improve the management and breeding of poul-
tings like this, try, and , in his view, th e birds' responses t o close confin ement were so
l discussion of unfa vorable as to make either specialization or intensification imprac-
bting regimes. tica l. Improvers were well aware of the effects of d isease ca used by
, for example, overstocking, poor manage ment, foul accommod ati 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 o n th e same ground , and fed continually on the sa me place, ... or
Dt, as Michael if they are crowded in ill-ventil ated houses in whi ch dun g is allowed
rs who sought to accumul ate, 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 eve n Brown.observed of what he called "Special Egg Fa rms": "On these
; continued to th ere is usually a greater or lesser amount of intensification, in many
~ u stry at least instances much more than is justified. There is abundant experience that
1930s, "14 per many failures have arisen fro m disregard of natural factors." 9
•re were to be As William Boyd and Michael Watts have argued, what all owed both
olved in poul - specia li za ti on and intensifica ti on to take place initiall y were new devel-
i ngdom , with opments, internationally, in disease control and nutritio n. 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 th e 1920s resea rchers 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, eith er period-a timE
because the windows of their shed are of wire netting or the special ray- risi ng yields am
passing glass, .. . or because they live in th e 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 far ming fully f
beneficial in actual cases of leg-weakness." This was crucial in th e devel- hold. Farming ~
opment of the e nvironmentally controll ed management systems th at cul tural produc
adjusted the laying season through step li ghting pattern s, and , therefore, break between .
according to Robert Coles a first ste p toward " th e almost standard house intensive livestc
design with its completely intensive building . .. [associated) with th e plistic or teleolc
term 'egg factory."' 10 agricul ture fron:
The chicke n had become a mature subj ect of animal science by the improvers in Gr
1930s. It was studi ed by agriculturalists and also used as a general lab debated the bes
animal by resea rche rs in genetics, nutrition, and virology. In Willi am Conseq uently, t
Boyd 's view, thi s was vital in placing " poultry in the vanguard of anim al were as likely to
improveme nt e fforts," and , therefore, it can be seen in the " vanguard " that producers fr
of intensification. G enetic knowledge, in particular, led to new breeds note, " the authc
bein g developed vi a hybridization to meet the needs of the specialist that well manag6
and th e intensive farmer. Birds in close confinement were particul arly of the bi rds." A~
vuln era ble to di sease because of their proximity to one another and high tech aspirati
because of shared food and water suppli es. This co ntinued to be th e of the period ha
case until systematic recordkeepin g 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 th e Updated method
e nd , one solutio n was confinement in sealed buildings that all owed equipment manu
co ntroll ed ventil ati on, steriliza tion of all equipm ent, and th orough the new system. <
clea ning of all personnel and also preve nted access by di sease-ca rryin g within the wider
wild birds or other species. Such confin ement also permitted ca reful This complexity i
li ghtin g of th e birds so as to stimulate year-ro und egg producti on and within which Har
limit aggression and what the trade ca lled "flightiness," meaning th e A good exam
symp toms of stress and anxiety brought on by in creased egg production called "battery b
and close confinement. 11 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 se nse 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
'1to 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 an imals," 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 c
producers. Most of the remaining birds were raised in other intensive research carefully
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 . .. So
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 esti mated diminished in the

482
 Fall 2013 Animal Machines

·y, so that the battery ll lh 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
writing. However, by when considering Harrison and the reception of her work. 13
bout a quarter of all Though not connected with farmin g, 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 structura l 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 i nternational 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
nt of all eggs produced "very large flocks indeed. " 14
.o the consumer by the Concern about an im al 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,
he argued , but the experienced farmer could recognize the sounds that
Adisturbi1
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: G uardian, Fe

484
 Fall 2013 Animal Machines

bullying and major The leaflet itself cited many contemporary newspape r 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 extre mely well
ortality, the birds publicized. Two extracts from the book appeared in the Observer before
came characteristic publication, with editori al comment, and its seriali zation 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 th e
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
~lount additionall y
~ inspect each indi-
r "which allows him
ing perhaps several
reo's point of view,
ze the sounds that
Adisturbing survey
ion "; the calls that
e of "cheerful and
f
rstanding of nature
tls, the concern tha t
intensive methods

~ that Blount tried

a cause of concern
aflet that Harrison
which H eleen Van
of factory farming . So u RcE: 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 Tim es 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 pleasa nt 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."
f 250,000 signa- In this context Harrison's publication was decisive. 17
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 anima ls on human hea lth , 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
tion. Before th e the pragmatic approach taken by the MAFF. 18
he non-farming Finally, at the end of the year, the Times's agricultura l 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 accord ing 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 a nd th e competition

487
 Agricultural History Fall 2013

they face from very large-scale e nterprises, such as t hose which dominate Animals Kept
poultry a nd egg production. To a fair sectio n 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 misread ing of evide nce, this book, like
sions Act of 1S
Rach el Ca rson'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
Ethol ogy (196
up of a committee to consider what cha nges might be necessary in the law
highlighted tht
governing the. welfare of far m livestock in the light of the new farming. 19
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- o n 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 o n 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 lea d 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 so lve the nutri ti
author's name: Huxley) was entitled Bra ve New Victuals: An Enquiry into stated that the '
Modern Food Production. Meanwhile, the Duke of E dinburgh gave a rather than an e1
speech in support of the work of the Nationa l 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 genera tions of British people, life in husbandry there
these islands was going to be reduced to the level of animals on a factory considera ble 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 th e 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, freq uent
nately, the physical dimensions of the British Isles." 20 i ng from severe w~
Following the publica tion of Harrison's book, th e government of H arrison 's boo
established " A Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of distress to many w

488
 Fall
ose which dominate
non-farming public
in Mrs .. Harrison 's
nee, this book , like
g among those who
June saw the setti ng
necessary in the law
the new farming . 19
'ublic," the term "fac-
. critiques of the condi-
1 inherently un-British
an vision of its future.
[rawing implicitly on
ct, one correspondent
1ested the other night,
roger be sheep on the
res, will be in prison."
r later (playing on its
1,.: als: An Enquiry into
f Edinburgh gave a
[ t Mansion House, in
the countryside whjch
f British people, life in
l f anlinals on a factory
hat things were going
fase in population, the
1 public) agreed with that report's principles. The key disagreement was,
or housing and some-
industrialized and less
must also be squeezed
:o fit the facilities for
total population will
; except, most unfortu-
zo
10k, the government
: into the Welfare of
2013 Animal Machines
Animals Kept Under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems," chaired
by F . W. Rogers Brambell (the Brambell Committee). It reported in
1965 having visited sixty-three farms and gathering evidence from twenty
organizations. Its findings led to the Agricultural Miscellaneous Provi-
sions Act of 1968, the establishment of the Farm Animal Welfare Stand-
ing Advisory Committee, and the creation of the Society for Veterinary
Ethology (1966). It also set out a number of recommendations that
highlighted the significance of animal behavior in assessing issues of
cruelty. The Brambell Committee's work was followed closely in the
press. The letters pages carried a regular stream of statements and ques-
tions from readers, and Harrison contributed an open letter to the Times
on the slow progress made after the committee's report? '
The Times correspondent's summation was typical of the more con-
sidered agricultural response to Harrison 's work, but the response in
the farming press was often, unsurprisingly, extremely hostile and
highly gendered. Those who believed in intensification responded
angrily, characterizing her work as emotionally charged and likely to
lead to world shortages of food. A review by Francis E. Bryan, for
instance, argued that her book was likely to " undermine all efforts to
solve the nutritional problems of the underdeveloped world ." And he
stated that the "situation [needed to be] looked at with an objective
rather than an emotional eye." 22
Agriculture, the journal of the MAFF, was much more measured and
welcoming in its reception of the book, agreeing with Harrison "that in
husbandry there is an obligation not to add to pain, nor to occasion any
considerable discomfort. " In fact, a Gallup Poll undertaken just after the
publication of the Brambell Committee's report demonstrated that
almost 80 percent of farmers polled (and 90 perce nt of the general
as with Blount, on the meaning of the word " welfare." "Mrs. Harrison,"
the reviewer in Agriculture went on, "a rgues that an animal has a right
to fresh air and sunshine, but she ignores the pena lties which accompany
these in the wild state, or even in extensive farming; varying degrees of
hunger, frequent fear , anguish from predators and parasites, and suffer-
ing from severe weather. " Yet, even in this more shrewd review the tenor
of Harrison 's book was said to be "emotional" and likely to "cause
distress to many well-meaning persons" unfamiliar with farming. 23
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 anim als' 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 far mers' 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
anim als will very soon have a very unh appy 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 necessi ty, had to be responsive to the birds' needs. Often exhorted "the
such statements rested on the ass umpti on 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 th at-sometim es 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
"natural" behaviors? 24 housewife whf
At each point there was debate about what exactly "factory farming" same silly crea
meant and who had the right to define it, and the Brambell Committee clothing fashi<
itself struggled to defi ne "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 th e 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 foc used 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 mea ning 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 th e 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 syste ms ing patterns. W. P. R oberts, in the same volume, was more critical
imals' contentm ent 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 fa rming 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, especially eggs, that came from non-intensive
echniques alongside systems. Among some of these appeals, "the housewife," was predomi-
imes politely, some- nantl y characterized as a "si lly 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 ave rage
housewife when it comes to the purchase of food-stuffs of any kind . .. . These
tly "factory farming" same silly creatures who devote half their lives to fiddling and fussing with
Brambell Committee clothing fashions ... do not know the difference between a forequarter
tion. " Earlier uses of and a hindqua rter. .. . "Three pounds of peas, please," not "Three pounds
1920s to the 1930s- of Onward peas .... " any kind will do, a nd any kind of egg, a nd any kind
~imply to larger units
of chicken .Z 6
~s of scale. The term
Kingdom and only H ere 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 governm ent'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 fro m 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
~riculture. 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
mix raw eggs into baby's bottle) .Z 7 · 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
happy hom e life. " 28 million pound
Strikingly, how.e ver, 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 for mation of the voluntary and then and to bri
legislative controls that would limit it. Thus, networks of power linked of nostalgi
change on th e farm to integrated agribusiness, legislation, consumer reflection ,
choice, a nd resistance. This has often been a rticul ated, as W atts has argued , Er
observed, as intensive versus tradi ti onal agriculture, and this opposition This form '
ca n certainly be seen in the public response to the eme rgence of inte nsive There\\
agriculture. H owever, Lewis Holloway argues, it is not possible " to Great Brit;
simply contrast th e 'dominati on' of animals in industrial farming with a ficatio n, 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 behavi ors and experiences of chickens will longstandir
vary depe nding on whe ther they are reared for inte nsive egg production barn" belo
and live in cages, are ke pt in a niche system-which may use th e same landscape 1
breed and is still geared for year-long production-or kept casually by a In the 1981
hobby fa rmer. Holl oway, th erefore suggests, with reference to cows, regret at W•
th at there is a hi storical dime nsion to th e subj ective experi ence of farm been, he be
animals, which includes their presence in law and their welfare judged cultura l "e1
by their be havi or. 30 "express . .
The contrast betwee n "traditional " and " inte nsive" syste ms can look immediate!'
like simple nostalgia. Even now, apo logists will frequently characterize view, was n
a ny form of criticism of intensifica tion 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 th at it was published. But, traditional agriculture versus aesthetic rei
intensive agriculture is much be tter understood as a historical artifact: a the "lichen
product of the political dialogue that, framed by th e broadsheet press, fail ure of a!
e merged at the national level of public interest (particularly given official competition
uptake via government inquiry and subseque nt legislative interve ntion), tiona!" hum.
between British producers and consumers a t a specifi c point in tim e. 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 me thods ered" farm i
explicit a nd visible, especi ally to a non-farming readership , was made mixed farmi
through the very effective rhe torical opposition of the conceptualization production."
of animal-used-as-machine within modern , fas t-paced inte nsive systems different intt
versus the perception of farming as slow-paced , humane, and (despite its of progress fJ
artifice) inherentl y na tural. If the rhe toric 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
he voluntary and then
vorks of power linked
legislation, consumer
culated, as Watts has
·e, and this oppositi on
!mergence of intensive
t is not possible " to
lustrial farming with a
. . Instead, particul ar
'fects of freedom and
:hnologies, spatialities,
iences of chickens will
ensive egg producti on
.ich may use the sa me
- or kept casually by a
th reference to cows,
ve experience of farm
I their welfare judged
ive" systems can look
requently characterize
laced attempt to step
son 's work in this way
a! agriculture versus
a historical artifact: a
the broadsheet press,
ticularly given offici al
~islati ve intervention),
pecific point in time.
press, the attempt by
) producti on methods
readership, was made
the conceptualization
ced intensive systems
mane, and (despite its
:algic, it is, therefore,
:s the past to criticize
2013 Animal Machines
and to bring about change in the present. R oger Sales broke this kind
of nostalgia for th e rural down into what he call ed th e "five 'R 's: refuge,
refl ection, rescue, requiem and reconstruction." T hrough these, he
argued, E nglish rural virtues are selected and retrieved fo r the present.
This form of nostalgia has a politica l, social, and economic impact. 3 1
There were two established im ages of the farm in twenti eth -century
G reat Britai n, which were used by both critics and supporters of in tensi-
fica tion, derived fro m the conceptualization of agriculture as conceived
at a specific point in tim e. On the one hand , there was what Harrison
ca me to call th e "fa ctory fa rm " and on th e other, the im age of the ra th er
more static " li chen covered" farm . In origin, the two images had a
longstanding and well -documented relati onship. The "lichen covered
barn " belongs to the decay of th e eighteenth-century picturesque, a
landscape that A nn Bermingham has described as largely abandoned .
In the 1980s R aymond Willi ams described a constant, or formul a of
regret at work in the fo rmation of a very E nglish rural idyll. There had
been, he believed, an unvarying sorrow at the loss of a "golden age," a
cultural "escalator" that might be fo ll owed back in time . Such ideas,
"ex press ... hum an interests and purposes fo r whi ch th ere is no other
immedi ately ava il able voca bulary." Such un wavering grief, in Williams 's
view, was not so much a matter of "historical error," as of "historical
perspective. " Thus, to a degree, H arrison was writing abo ut the British
landscape in the 1960s within a much longer tradition of cultural and
aesthetic responses to the effects of agri cultural change. The decay of
the " lichen covered barn " referenced the picturesque tradi tion, the
fa ilure of agriculture in th e U nited Kingdom in the face of worl dwide
competition in the late nineteenth century, and th e fa ilure of " tradi-
ti onal" humane agriculture to hold its own aga inst intensifica tion.32
T he story of change told with refe rence to postwar British agri culture
has largely been progressive. In these lin ear narrati ves the "lichen cov-
ered" fa rm is associated with old-fas hi oned and bygone labor-intensive,
mi xed fa rming, with a "rural, land-based organisa ti on of agricultural
production." Strikingly, th e same story was told by H arrison, but with a
diffe rent interpretation. T he difference is that H arrison retold the story
of progress from the point of view of essential regret for what had appar-
ently been lost: a humane concern fo r the animals' welfa re. In other
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
questions and cc
society-laborers, stockmen, and farmers-were missed. Industrial agri-
Anima ls?" 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 e va lu ation-welfa1
foods grown, and reduced the "chickens and hogs" access to the outside 2. Ruth Han
Vincent Stuart, 1
world, but it is easy to miss the influence of industrial agriculture " upon
3. James Seq
the lives of those living in rural places." 33 ships (Ca mbridgt
Following Harrison 's description of th e industrialized treatm ent of "Th e E uropean 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 ackwe ll , 2008),
nities and led some producers to adapt their production methods to 1800 (Lo ndon: I.
meet emerging welfare standards in advance of legislative change Se ve nties Genera
2008): 217- 34; B.
based on consumer demand. While some consumers are motivated by
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 R esearch E th o logy of W. !-
Council paper in 1981 , in "working on welfare .. . we are responding Abi gail Woods, "I
Brita in , 1964- 71,"
to a public demand." By 2008 the free range and organic end of the
did conside r the i
sector accounted for over 30 percent of eggs put through British pack- Expo rts a nd 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 o f C hicken Cramrr
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) as being indicative Review 30:1 (1982)
of the value that British consumers place on anima l welfare . This is 1914 (Oxford: Oxft
in Ire land, 1891-19
difficult to assess without further qualitative study, but economic geogra-
Note o n 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 re ports, 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 genera l
gely took place with NOTES
cused on the farmed L Thanks to Paul Brass ley, Marga ret Derry, Andrew God ley, Harriet Ritvo, Abigail
mges affecting rural Woods and to the editors and peer reviewers of A gricultural History for their helpful
questions and constructi ve comm ents. B. 0. Hughes, " How Ca n We Assess Welfare in
ssed. Industrial agri-
Animals?" Agricultura l Science Semin ar, The Assessment of the Welfare of Farm An imals,
ped the landscape Mar. 1981, 1- 15, htrp://e ureka mag.com/resea rch/001 /294/agricultural-science-se min ar-the-
educed the range of eva lu ation-welfare-farm- animals.php (accessed May 15, 2013, materi al no longer ava ilab le).
~ccess to the outside 2. Ruth H arriso n, Animal Machines: The New Factory Farming In dustry (London:
Vince nt Stuart, 1964), L
a! agriculture "upon
3. James Serpell , in the Company of Animals: A Study of Human-An imal Relation-
ships (Ca mbridge: Ca mbridge Uni vers ity Press, 1986), 186, 191- 96; Mi chae l C. Appleby,
.alized treatment of "The E uropea n Union Ban on Conventi onal Cages for Lay ing Hens: History and Pros-
pects," Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 6 (Apr. 1, 2003): 103- 21; David Fraser,
hods of production
Understanding Animal Welfare: Th e Science in its Cultural Context (Chichester: Wiley-
eated new opportu- Blackwell , 2008), 61; Jerem y Burchard t, Paradise Lost: Rural Idyll and Social Change since
tluction methods to 1800 (Lo nd on: L B. Taurus, 2002); Philip Conford, "Somewhere Quite Diffe rent: The
· legislative change Seventies Genera tion of Orga nic Activists and T heir Contex t," Rural History 19 (Oct.
2008): 217-34; B. A. Holderness, " Intensive Livestock Keeping," in The A grarian History
s are motivated by
of England and Wales VII, 1850-1914, ed. E. J. T. Collins (Ca mbridge: Ca mbridge Uni ver-
placed on organic sity Press, 2000); Nea l C. Gi llespie, "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. A lun Hawk ins and Linda Merricks
organic end of the
did consider the impact of Harrison's work in " Dewy-Eyed Veal Ca lves: Live A nim al
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. T urner et a!. , Farm Production in England, 1700-
al welfare. This is 1914 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 113; Joann a Bourke, " Women and Poultry
in Ire land, 1891-1914," Irish Historical Studies 15 (May 1987): 293; W. H. Chalconer, "A
t economic geogra-
Note on the Origins of t~ e Broiler Industry," AgricullUral History Review 17:2 (1969): 161.
td locally embedded 5. Royal Commissio n on Agricu lture, Parli amentary Papers, 1895, Cd. 7623, XV I. For
Jcti on of farmho use reports, see, for exampl e, 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 Keep ing," 487- 94. cultural Bre•
6. Departmental Committee on Poultry Breeding in Scotland, Parliamentary Pape rs, 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, "Chicke n 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 Industrializ ing 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-pg_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- (J an. 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
Scheveningen, September 5- 9, 1921. Vol. I. Papers and Communications (np: np, 1922?); 23- 24; Phelps.
Karen Sayer, " Battery Birds, 'Stim ulighting' a nd 'Twili ghting': The Ecology of Standardised Ne w Look fo
Poultry Technology, " in History of Technology, ed. Ian Inkster (London: Institute of His- " British Indus
torical Research, 2009), 149- 68; C halconer, " A Note," 161; Michael Winstanley, " Industri-
(Jan. 1967): 5'
alization and the Sma ll Farm: Family a nd Household Economy in Nineteenth-Century Intensive Live,
Lancashire," Past and Presem 152 (Aug. 1996): 175-83; Feathered World, 7. (Jan. 1962); B
8. Gilbey, Poultry-Keeping, iii; Brown , Poultry Breeding, 777; Morley A. Jull , Poultry
lion advertiser
Husbandry (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1930), 28; William B. Tegetmeier, The Poultry Book: rising Trust Ra
Comprising the Breeding and Management of Profitable and Ornamental Poultry (London: and Stockmen
Routl edge, 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; Gi lbey, Poultry- Brass ley, "The
K eeping, 36; Edward Brown, Poultry Breeding and Production, 2 vols. (London: Ernst Benn, 2, 235-51; Testt
1929), 2:633.
15. W. P. E
10. W illi am Boyd, " Mak ing 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-Tim e: The Chicken Industry a nd Postwar American Cap ita li sm ,"
Scandinavica 5(
in Globalising Food: Agrarian Questions and Global Restructuring, ed. D . Goodman and
16. Richard
M. J . Watts (London: Routled ge, 1997), 197; W alter Brett, Poultry-Keeping To-day: Pic-
Biography, Oxl
tured and Explained (1938; repr. , London: C. Arthur P ea rson , 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 L uxury and the Conte ntious ' Invention of th e Technologica l 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 R aymo nd Pearl's Agri-
eping," 487-94. cultura l 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 Co les, "Changes in the Pattern of Poultry Keeping," Journal of the Royal
1mple, Times, June 19, Agricultural Society of England 115 (1954): 78; Michae l 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: Routl edge, 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 (Nott ingham: Nottingham University Press, 2002) , v, iii , 3, 6;
ams , "Modern ity and B laxter and Robe rtson, 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, " R eview of 1971 ," Poultry World 124 (Jan. 1972): 7-8;
), 42, 53. Flatt was an Anthony Phelps, " Outdoor Rearing: New Look for an Old M ethod," 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 We lfare of Laying
~thered World , 1937), Hens," Farm Animal Welfare Council, http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports/layhensllhgre007
.htm (accessed Mar. 12, 2013); " Poultry Comm unique: 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 he ns , see, for exa mple , "Eggs
Congress at the Hague- from Free R a ngers, Poultry Section Supplement," Fanner and Stockbreeder (Oct. 1956):
lions (np: np, 1922?); 23-24; Phelps, " Outdoor R eari ng," 18-22; Coles, " Cha nges "; "O utdoor R earing in Britain:
:ology of Standardised New Look for an Old Method ," Poultry International (Jan. 1964): 18-22; Jea n Tester,
1don: Institute of His- " British Industry Shakeup Yi e lds Fewer Flocks But More Birds," Poultry International 6
iWinstanley, " lndustri- (Jan. 1967): 59- 60; W. P. Roberts, "The Economics of Intensive Livestock Production,"
Nine teenth -Ce ntury 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 Rave ningham , Norfolk, UK (hereafter HAT) ; W. P. Blount, "Stati stics-S tock
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; Pa ul
-605; Gilbey, Poultry- Brassley, "The Professionalisa tion 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, Tinda ll & 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 Anima l We lfare," Acta Veterinaria
.merica n Capita li sm," Scandinavica 50 (A ug. 19, 2008); Woods, "From Cruelty to Welfare," 9.
ed. D . Goodman and 16. Richard D. R yder, " H arrison , Ruth (1920-2000) ," Oxford Dictiona ry of National
Keeping To-day: Pic- Biography, Oxford University Press, May 2005, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/
), 242; R obe rt Coles, 74285 (accessed May 20, 2013); H eleen Van de Weerd, " Bringing the Issue of Animal
n Intensive Livestock We lfare 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, Ma r. 19, 1964, 16. For rev iews of the book and
nologica l Chicken ' in responses to it, see, for examp le, 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
G lanfield Defies CEA," lTV News, D ec. 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. Tim es, 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/collections/agri/ag09html (accessed indicators/5-l. ht
Oct. 9, 2008, material no longer available). and Embed ded ~
23. Ibid.; H. G. S., " Animal Machin es, 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; Tim es, 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 advertisemen ts, 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 hom e eggs for baby," and" Add an egg
and be sure," OM (S) OS; British Egg Marketing Board 1961-64 advert ising 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 Tab le:
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; Tim es, Mar. 11, 1964, 5; Sept. 28, 1964, 5,
Dec. 9, 1964, 17; Harrison , Animal Machin es, 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.htm l (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;
s," Jan. 9, 1965, B BC l ;
1964, 32; Tim es, Jun e 2,
02-206; Farmer Moving
t Fi lms, 1952); "Fa rmer
V News, D ec. 18, 1957;
; "Farm Subsidies lnter-
ed Vea l Calves," 85.
of Commons Hansa rd ,
'imes, May 12, 1964, 16;
8.
tuals: A n Enquiry into
~s,May 12, 1965; Guard-
uernational (Oct. 1964):
agri/ag09html (accessed
Stewart," Agriculture 71
( London: Chapman & H all , 1993), 120- 25; Watts, " Afterword ," 296, 301; D awn Coppin,
"Fouca uldia n H og Futu res: T he Bi rth of Mega- Hog Fa rms," Sociological Quarterly 44
(Fa ll 2003 ): 597-616; Lewis H olloway, " Subjectin g Cows to Robo ts: Fa rming Techn olo-
gies and th e Mak ing of A nim al Subjects," Environment and Planning 0 : Society and
Space 25:6 (2007): 1041--60.
31. Tweete n, Terrorism, 102; B rya n, " A Wi sh to Go Backwa rd ?" 64; Svetl a na Boym,
" Nosta lgia a nd Its Disconte nts," Hedgehog Revi ew, Summe r 2007, p. 7- 18, Institute fo r
Adva nced Studies in Culture, http://www. iasc-cultu re.org/eNews/2007_10/9.2CBoym.pdf
(accessed D ec. 18, 2012); Roger Sales, English Literature in History 1780- 1830: Pastoral
and Politics (New York: St. Martin 's, 1983), 15.
32. A nn Be rmingha m, Landscape and Ideology: The English Rustic Tradition, 1740-
1860 (Londo n: Th ames a nd Hudson, 1987), 69; Raymond Willi ams, The Country and the
City (New Yo rk : O xford U ni versity Press, 1973) , 10- 11,291.
33. G oodm an, From Farming, 123; Willi ams, Country, 10- 12; Deborah Fitzgerald,
"Ea tin g and R e me mbe rin g," Agricultural History 79 (Fall 2005) : 395.
34. Gordo n and Charl es, Niche, 15-16; Hughes, " H ow Ca n We Assess," 3; " A nimal
H ea lth and We lfare Indicators: Core Jndica tor 5.1 ," Sept. 9, 2009, Departme nt for Environ-
ment Food and Rural Affa irs, http://archi ve.defra.gov .u klfoodfarm/po li cy/animalh ea lth/eig/
indica tors/5-l.htm (accessed Ma r. 12, 2013); Jonath an Murdoch et al. , " Q uality, Na ture ,
and E mbeddedness: Some Th eoretica l Conside rati ons in the Context of th e Food Sector,"
Econom ic Geography 76 (Apr. 2000): 120; Pete r A tkins, " Labo ratories, Laws, and the
Ca ree r of a Comm odity ," En vironment and Planning 0: Society and Space 25 :6 (2007): 984.

Royal Agricultural Soci-

130, 20; Sept. 11, 1934, 6;
rck Farm ing, vii; Coles,
52.

oct and G. H all ett, "T he

A gricultural Society of
r ake two eggs-and give
you' re not)," " If you're
baby," and " A dd an egg
vertising port fo lio, OM
, OM (L) 41 , HAT.
arketing Boa rd 1961-64

Gender, ed. Virginia J.

964, 5; Sept. 28, 1964, 5,

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

501

View publication stats