Railroads and Automobiles: The Spatial and Psychological Distantiation of Abattoirs

By Thomas Valdriz

One of the most important drivers of the spatial and psychological distantiation of the Bay Area’s meatpacking industry continues to be use of transportation technology. “Butchertowns” in Oakland, San Francisco, and South San Francisco maintained strong connections to both markets and hinterlands with the support of railroads networks such as the Southern Pacific, Central Pacific, Western Pacific, and Union Pacific railroads. San Francisco’s “Butchertown” established along the Southern Pacific Railroad in the late 1860’s. In the 1870’s Abattoirs in Oakland (latter part of Emeryville after the city incorporated in 1896) moved their operations northward and established a butchering reservation along the Central Pacific Railroad.[1] In 1894 South San Francisco’s Western Meat Corporation established its butchering reservation along the Southern Pacific Railroad (see Figure 1).[2] The use of extensive railroad networks enabled abattoirs spatially distance themselves from their markets, while the usage of railroads in fact compressed the time necessary to transport goods back to their consumers.  In short, railroads suited the needs of industry as well as the desires of consumers.

Figure 1: Union Pacific Railroad Network 1940
Source: Poole Bros Inc.

The next major driver in the spatial and psychological distantiation of Bay Area abattoirs came with the invention and utilization of automobiles. Beginning in the 1910’s automobiles played a vital role in delivering of goods between cities and their hinterlands.[3] In addition, automobiles played a major role in the outward spreading of cities and the creation of suburbs in 1940’s. After World War II, dependency on automobiles became a universal aspect of urban development across the Bay Area as cheap mass-produced housing developments were built within a short distance from major areas of employment.[4] Since 1940, population growth in San Francisco has grown much slower than any other Bay Area county (see Figure 2). The desires to escape crowded living conditions, crime, pollution, poor education, as well as the inability to afford living in urban areas all led to the movement into bedroom communities and suburbs during the post-war era.  Automotive-induced suburban sprawl in the post-war period of the late 1940’s not only affected the spatial arrangement of residents, but of abattoirs as well. Meatpacking in both San Francisco and South San Francisco’s began to decline in the 1940’s with the passage of stricter sanitary regulations[5] and an inability to compete with rural slaughterhouses.

Automotive-induced suburban sprawl in the post-war period of the late 1940’s not only affected the spatial arrangement of residents, but of abattoirs as well. Meatpacking in both San Francisco and South San Francisco’s began to decline in the 1940’s with the passage of stricter sanitary regulations[6] and an inability to compete with rural slaughterhouses. World War II may have increased the demand of beef for a brief amount of time; however, the Bay Area’s urban abattoirs were unable to achieve the same economies of scale that rural abattoirs gained by locating their operations in rural areas. Rural abattoirs maintained a competitive advantage over urban abattoirs because their facilities were strategically located nearby feedlots, thus reducing the weight loss that cattle experience during transportation before being slaughtered and increasing the corporation’s profit margin.[7]Once rural abattoirs were able to pull ahead from their urban counterparts, their increasing profits were then invested into the expansion of operations, leading to increased market share. With the inability to compete with rural abattoirs, urban slaughterhouses in South San Francisco, San Francisco, and Emeryville closed in 1968,[8] 1971,[9] and 1980’s[10] respectively.

Sources:

[1] Ambro, Richard. “The North End: “Butchertown”.” The Secret News. N.p., 2 Nov. 2012. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.

[2] The City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco: 100 Years of History. South San Francisco: City of South San Francisco, 2008. Print.

[3] The Emeryville Historical Society. “Constructing the Crossroads: Transportation.” Emeryville. San Francisco, CA: Acadia, 2005. 34. Print.

[4] Self, Robert O. American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Postwar Oakland. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2003.25-26. Print.

[5] Dean, Ben. “Islais Landing.” Ben Dean Account Project, 2008. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.

[6] Dean, Ben. “Islais Landing.” Ben Dean Account Project, 2008. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.

[7] Pollan, Michael. “Power Steer.” New York Times 31 Mar. 2002: 8. Print.

[8] Spangler, Ray. “Scheduled to Close: Swift & Co. Was a Boon to SSF.” The Industrial City Echoes [South San Francisco] 1968: 1. Print.

[9] Fredricks, Darold. “Butcher Town (in San Francisco’s Bayview).” Butcher Town (in San Francisco’s Bayview). The Daily Journal, 10 Dec. 2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.

[10] Ambro, Richard. “The North End: “Butchertown”.” The Secret News. N.p., 2 Nov. 2012. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.

Laborsaving Techniques: The Spatial and Psychological Distantiation of Bay Area Abattoirs

By Thomas Valdriz

The utilization of technology not only brought about both the psychological and spatial distantiation between Bay Area abattoirs and their consumers, but laborsaving technology also helped to psychologically and spatially distance laborers from the products they made. Laborsaving technology has been utilized in order to increases efficiency and productivity with the end goal being to maximize profits. The sheer competitiveness of meatpacking generates the need to innovate in order to lower total costs and increase production, thereby gaining more market share and realizing more profits. In the early days of industrial meatpacking, productivity was increased as surplus value was appropriated from laborers through the division of labor. In the long run the division of labor decreases the marginal cost per unit of output.

San Francisco’s Miller and Lux,[1] South San Francisco’s Western Meatpacking Co (later called Swift & Company),[2] and Emeryville’s Golden West Meat Co[3] were all highly influential in streamlining Bay Area meatpacking and utilized laborsaving techniques and technology in order to reduce variable costs and stay competitive. By the mid 1800’s Gustavus Swift’s “disassembly line” system of industrial meat production became the standard production technique because his system enabled unskilled cheap labor to quickly assimilate into the production process by dividing the stages of slaughtering into small manageable tasks. The disassembly line of production created more unskilled jobs, leading to the breakdown of apprenticeship traditions[4] and the devolution of the intimate relationship between laborers and cattle (see Figure 3). The division of labor was exerted upon laborers and machines as well as automated devices were able to fill specific roles of production and in turn replace the jobs of the laborers who once filled unfavorable or dehumanizing duties. Although capital investment has high initial costs, over the long run innovative technology can facilitate increases in production by performing the traditionally unpleasant duties with minimal assistance from laborers, thus reducing long run variable costs and distancing laborers from detestable tasks.

The process of making slaughtering more humane was another step in spatially and psychologically dissociating laborers from their products. In the traditional disassembly line system of beef slaughtering, cattle were herded from stockyards to holding pens and positioned single file to be “stunned”. After 1958, the U.S. Congress’s Humane Slaughter Act required that cattle be rendered unconscious prior to being slaughtered.[5] Before the HSA, Bay Area abattoirs used large-caliber soft-nosed bullets or simply bludgeoned the cattle before slitting the throat. In the HSA, the US Congress outlined various methods to humanely slaughter livestock, such as the use a pneumatic captive bolt gun[6] which makes a dull and abrupt “pfft” sound and was a quicker and less psychologically stressful way for workers to perform the task of rendering a cow brain-dead before being bled by another worker. By briskly dividing the process of killing between multiple laborers, the physical act of killing became less absolute and the mental burden is minimized as laborers could isolate themselves from accountability.[7]

Contemporary abattoirs use a much more sophisticated division of labor to further increase productivity and separate laborers from dehumanizing aspects of meatpacking. Bay Area abattoirs have always had distinctive spatial zones within the structure of the slaughterhouse; however, modern-day laborers are now spatially divided into zones of production based on the life, killing, and postmortem stages of a cow’s body, all of which are visibly segregated from one another. [8] In the new spatial arrangement of the industrial slaughter, laborers are spatially and psychologically divided into separate zones and wear color-coordinated hardhats to delineate which zone their duties belong (see Figure 4).[9]

Sources:

[1] Bowcock, Robert H. Butchertown: A Collage of a San Francisco Institution during 1850-1969. San Francisco, CA: Robert H. Bowcock, 2004. 58. Print.

[2] Spangler, Ray. “Scheduled to Close: Swift & Co. Was a Boon to SSF.” The Industrial City Echoes [South San Francisco] 1968: 1. Print.

[3] The Emeryville Historical Society. “Constructing the Crossroads: Transportation.” Emeryville. San Francisco, CA: Acadia, 2005. 34-37. Print.

[4] Groth, Paul. “Working, Shopping, and Living Downtown From the 1850’s To 1900: The C.B.D., Cottage Districts, and Slums.” Lecture. American Cultural Landscapes 1600-1900. University of California, Berkeley. 1 Nov. 2013.543. Print.

[5] United States. Cong. United States Congress. Legal Information Institute. By Government Printing Office. Cong 7 USC § 1902. Cornell University, Web. 1 Nov. 2013.

[6] United States. Cong. United States Congress. Legal Information Institute. By Government Printing Office. Cong 7 USC § 1902. Cornell University, Web. 1 Nov. 2013.

[7] Pachirat, Timothy. “Kill Floor.” Every Twelve Seconds: Industrialized Slaughter and the Politics of Sight. New Haven: Yale UP, 2011.56. Print.

[8] Pachirat, Timothy. “Kill Floor.” Every Twelve Seconds: Industrialized Slaughter and the Politics of Sight. New Haven: Yale UP, 2011.61. Print.

[9] Pachirat, Timothy. “Kill Floor.” Every Twelve Seconds: Industrialized Slaughter and the Politics of Sight. New Haven: Yale UP, 2011.82. Print.