Reshaping the U.S. cattle industry: producers and packers, 1914–1933

K-REx Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Gresham, Daniel T.
dc.date.accessioned 2019-04-19T15:12:53Z
dc.date.available 2019-04-19T15:12:53Z
dc.date.issued 2019-05-01
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2097/39632
dc.description.abstract In 1914 the stockmen of the American West launched what they referred to as the "war on the packers." Desiring more than rhetoric, stockmen donated their own money to finance a producer-led investigation of the big meat packer’s economic power. That investigation ultimately led to a Federal Trade Commission bombshell report that indicted the packers for attempting to control the global food supply, served them a crippling consent decree, and ended with the Packers and Stockyards Act in 1921. Perennial conflict is historians' standard narrative of the relationship between producers and packers. However, from 1922 to 1933, producers such as John Kendrick, Dan Casement, and O. M. Plummer, cooperated with Thomas E. Wilson and other big packers along associational lines and looked to packers for industry leadership. Although contemporary producers and packers applauded their newfound cooperative attitudes, producers never fully trusted the packers, making this a tenuous cooperation. The political philosophy of associationalism helped legitimize big packer leadership of the industry. Producers' acceptance of packer leadership is evident in their shared effort to reform the practices of meat retailers, how producers generally supported packer policies, and how they worked through the Federal Farm Board to eliminate middlemen. The packers also created a campaign for increased consumer consumption of meat and cast vegetarians as their common enemy as a way of unifying the livestock industry. The big packers and the National Live Stock and Meat Board used their power in subtle and often hidden ways to get producers to raise smaller cattle and get consumers to purchase more meat and to prepare it in certain ways. The producers largely accepted the packers demand for smaller cattle. Finally, the Meat Board relied on several consumer-based networks established by home economists, but these women were employees—not actual members of the board. While board members respected the home economist’s ability and advice, institutionally they were junior partners of sorts in the industry collective known as the Meat Board. As employees, home economists of the board were not expected to defend housewives’ consumer choices, but to shape those choices. The Meat Board’s home economics department members attempted to shape consumer thought by manipulating as many channels to the consumer as possible, from schools to women’s magazines. On the eve of the New Deal then, many big producers stood ready to follow packer leadership. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.subject U.S. cattle industry en_US
dc.subject American West en_US
dc.subject Meat packers en_US
dc.subject Food supply en_US
dc.subject National Live Stock and Meat Board en_US
dc.subject Consumer en_US
dc.title Reshaping the U.S. cattle industry: producers and packers, 1914–1933 en_US
dc.type Dissertation en_US
dc.description.degree Doctor of Philosophy en_US
dc.description.level Doctoral en_US
dc.description.department Department of History en_US
dc.description.advisor James E. Sherow en_US
dc.date.published 2019 en_US
dc.date.graduationmonth May en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search K-REx


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Statistics








Center for the

Advancement of Digital

Scholarship

cads@k-state.edu