The Berlin historian Veronika Settele researches the history of factory farming at the University of Bremen. In her book “German Meat Work” she examines the development of meat production in East and West. In an interview with the Berliner Zeitung, she explains why Berliners used to keep cows, what problems farmers face today, and why we have created a democratic problem with the way we produce meat.
Ms. Settele, your study states that Berlin only got its own slaughterhouse in 1881 – later than other major European cities. What role did animals play in the city up until then?
At that time animals were still visible in the city, in the 1890s there were about 5000 cows in Berlin. Significantly more animals were carted into the city from the area around Berlin, unloaded there and slaughtered privately before the municipal livestock and slaughterhouse was built. This was becoming increasingly uncomfortable, especially for the residents. The stench, dirt and noise pollution finally brought hygiene-oriented social reformers onto the scene, who advocated slaughtering the animals centrally. Their request was then put into practice a little later than in other large cities.
With the central slaughterhouse in the east of the city, the animals then got out of people’s everyday lives. But meat remained a luxury product. How did people deal with it?
One must not think of the past as a time of continuous scarcity. But up until the second half of the 20th century there were booms in shortages. These periods of shortage became more problematic in people’s perception the more prosperity grew and expectations rose. The more the idea spread across all social classes that meat is part of the good life, the lack of access to meat led to resentment.
In order to remedy the shortage, meat production had to be changed. How did you do that?
Since the last third of the 19th century, agricultural experts have been writing guide after guide urging livestock farmers to make their economies more efficient. However, their effect remained manageable. In post-war Germany, on the other hand, it was possible to change the three dimensions of animal husbandry – body, economy and technology. The result was an efficient animal economy that prevented periods of starvation. Seen from this perspective, the development of animal husbandry is a success story. This is primarily the result of an agricultural policy that focuses on increasing productivity. The agricultural policy of the Federal Republic was the first policy area to be integrated into the European Economic Community. What all the states there could agree on were measures that made the animals more productive. First of all, breeding was optimized in order to create animals whose bodies worked more efficiently: In this way, more meat, more eggs, more milk could be obtained with less food in a shorter time.
But wasn’t that enough?
no In addition, there was a huge training offensive that led to the business management professionalization of the companies. Here, too, the aim was to increase productivity. Farmers could have been trained in behavioral biology, but it was an educational offensive for profitability. In the 1950s, it was sometimes still about very simple connections. For example, that you should only keep as many animals as you can feed. So that ten full cows are better than 15 that you just barely make ends meet.
The third factor you name is mechanisation.
Exactly. Animal husbandry has had a labor problem since the second half of the 19th century because jobs in the stables were not in demand. They were badly paid, dirty, exhausting and unprestigious. Unless you were the owner of the farm, it was never a desirable job. And it became less and less popular as other areas became more regulated and better paid. Again motivated by agricultural policy, rationalized work processes solved this problem. New barn technologies allowed fewer people than ever before to look after as many animals as never before.
There was also a meat shortage in East Germany in the late 1940s, but in the 1980s more meat was consumed per capita in the East than in the West. How did the development in the GDR differ overall from that in the West?
This is a surprising finding: the bottom line is that a similar type of industrialized animal husbandry emerged. The most important difference was the coercive character of the SED regime. In agriculture, too, people were persecuted who did not behave in accordance with the system. These include veterinarians who did not want to work for large companies, or farmers who refused to enter the agricultural production cooperative with their private property. This difference to the Federal Republic and its economic compulsion is to be emphasized despite all structural similarities.
But did the centralistic character also have its advantages?
Yes, at least they were attributed to him. In the 1960s, western agricultural experts looked with great interest at the GDR because they were envious of this central state, which can simply rule right down to every stable. They opted for large, specialized companies there and were able to push through their establishment. But these operations proved increasingly inefficient from the 1970s onwards. The basic organizational problems of the planned economy were seen in agriculture. The low motivation to work in livestock farms was regularly complained about, for example by milkers before the introduction of milking machines. That was a job that wasn’t attractive in the East either. According to the hourly wage in the 1950s, the saying circulated: “Whether lazy or hardworking – hour 1.36.”
Due to the high level of productivity, only a fraction of the people are still working in agriculture. Accordingly, consumers have little contact with those who ensure the supply. Does this have an impact on the perception of animal husbandry?
Definitive. There is no longer a communicative thread between the agricultural part of the public and the general public. And that’s why most people have a poor understanding of how animals are made. What we know are non-representative organic farms. Here in Berlin you take the children to the Dahlem domain and then there are breeds threatened with extinction in premium husbandry conditions. Afterwards you have the feeling: “Today we did something with agriculture.” But that has nothing to do with real production conditions.
Do you see a way to bring farmers and the general public back into a productive exchange?
This breaking of the communicative thread is a result of an agricultural policy, because agriculture and animal husbandry are highly controlled policy areas. To put it succinctly: “Consumers are demanding such cheap food, that’s why it has to look like this in the barn.” Because, to a large extent, political money and the guidelines for its allocation define what happens in the barn. The adjustment screws that can be turned are therefore known. There needs to be a discussion across society about what actions pet owners should be rewarded for. What is the relationship between cheap meat, soil and climate protection and behaviorally recommended animal handling?
What incentives is agriculture currently working on?
At the moment, all traffic lights in agriculture are still pointing to productivity increases, which creates enormous economic pressure. If prices are not stable, then the solution is: mass. You have to produce and rationalize even more in order to be able to service the loans at all. If we want companies to do business differently, you have to ask: What should these companies do instead? How should the animals be kept? How should the environmental impact be? Then income would possibly no longer be generated primarily through the production volume, but through actions that respect nature and animal welfare. At the same time, that would create more consensus again, but make animal products more expensive. The main communicative problem at the moment is that animal owners primarily evaluate their actions in economic terms, whereas the public argues in terms of animal ethics or ecology. And these two fundamentally different interpretations would have to be brought back into the conversation.
Criticism of factory farming has been present in Germany for 50 years now, and culturally, vegetarians are increasingly setting the tone. Economically and politically little has changed so far. So maybe that’s not enough?
There are definitely changes. For example, we no longer have conventional poultry cages. But reforms in this area are extremely sluggish. We are also seeing an increase in organic farming. Unfortunately, their boom is also greater in discourse than in reality. In animal husbandry, the organic share is in the single-digit percentage range, and in pig husbandry it is even less than one percent. So we do have change, but change in the stable is slower than change in society.
Why is this change so slow if the entire sector is dependent on politics? Doesn’t dependency also lead to controllability?
The dependency is mutual, after all, society also needs the food that comes from farmers. The concentration process to increase productivity – fewer farms but more meat – has meant that the food supply is in fewer and fewer hands. I believe that we are dealing with a democratic problem here, precisely because the communicative thread has broken and agricultural associations are able to assert their interests very effectively, which do not correspond to the general interest. We increasingly have consumers with a post-materialist attitude, but livestock farmers who continue to operate in a Fordist manner. Hence the tension.