Factory Farming Started by Mistake

[Jamie in Chile]

An email I received from Animal Rising says that

It started with a mistake.

In 1923, a housewife in Ocean View, Delaware USA named Cecile Steele ordered 50 chicks to restock her laying flock. Her hatchery sent 500 by accident. Rather than return them, she raised them for meat in a 16-by-16 shed and sold the survivors at 62 cents a pound.

The next year she doubled the flock. Then doubled it again.

Her neighbours were watching and soon followed suit. Within five years broiler production on the Delmarva Peninsula in Delaware had jumped from 50,000 birds in 1925 to 7 million by 1934.

To fact check this, I asked Claude AI how factory farming started and it said "The roots go back to the 1920s, when scientists discovered that vitamins A and D could be added to animal feed, making it possible to raise animals indoors year-round without sunlight or pasture." Then it mentioned breeding programs and antibiotics.

I asked Claude "Who was the first factory farmer?" and it said "If forced to pick one name, Cecile Steele arguably deserves the most credit as the accidental pioneer whose experiment showed the industry what was possible".

I then asked Claude "Would factory farming have happened without Cecile Steele?"

It says (and this seems logical) Almost certainly yes, just probably not through her. She's better described as an early pioneer rather than an essential one. The conditions that made factory farming inevitable were already in place by the 1920s — the vitamin discoveries, the economic incentives, the growing urban demand for cheap protein, and the general postwar drive toward industrial efficiency. If Steele hadn't stumbled into her accidental experiment, someone else in Delaware, Virginia, or Georgia would likely have made the same discovery within a few years. The broiler industry was already beginning to take shape independently in multiple places simultaneously.

That said, her specific contribution did matter in one important way — she demonstrated the scalability of the model very publicly and quickly, going from 500 to 10,000 birds within a few years. This gave other farmers a concrete, visible proof of concept to copy. Without her, the industry might have coalesced a few years later or in a different region, but probably not decades later.

As a side note to this main story, it is worth noting that factory farming cannot work without supplementation of some kind, such as vitamin D because they don't get sunlight. Worth remembering the next time someone tells you vegan diets are not natural.

 

[Natnik98]

Interesting piece of history, didn't know these particular facts
It's pretty obvious that it was a long process in our evolution that made us more carnivorous than we were initially, thus our organisms more or less tolerate meat and dairy products. And because it had lasted for centuries, it's easier to accept this reality and claim it's "natural". But I try not to judge people too harshly. I know I was ignorant as well and how hard it is to realize that I can do better and at least try to reduce the cruelty of factory farming by becoming a vegan. Flexitarians are now the most promising group as it is the largest one that influence the good changes. Also, I am finally learning how to prepare some delicious meals to show others how nice vegan cuisine can be rather than arguing with them which is usually unpleasant and doesn't really work. Small steps matter, I understand that people need encouragement and time.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

One argument against the "natural" argument is take the line that the argument is about ethics, not nature, and the fact that something is natural doesn't make it necessarily good or bad. You can say to people it's "natural" for a lion to kill the children of its new girlfriend and then **** on the floor, but that doesn't mean we should copy that kind of behaviour just because it's natural. I think this is actually the most accurate line of argument although not sure if it is effective.

The other line of argument is that meat is natural, but only if you are hunting it, not modern meat.

 

[Natnik98]

One argument against the "natural" argument is take the line that the argument is about ethics, not nature, and the fact that something is natural doesn't make it necessarily good or bad. You can say to people it's "natural" for a lion to kill the children of its new girlfriend and then **** on the floor, but that doesn't mean we should copy that kind of behaviour just because it's natural. I think this is actually the most accurate line of argument although not sure if it is effective.

The other line of argument is that meat is natural, but only if you are hunting it, not modern meat.

Yes, it's also true. We naturally catch many diseases and prolong our lives thanks to modern medicine artificially.
Generally, people will disagree if they really don't want to agree with us. I guess that our approach and even the way we talk is more important.