New Places for "Old Spots": The Changing Geographies of Domestic Livestock Animals

Richard Yarwood and Nick Evans 1
Worcester College of Higher Education, United Kingdom

This paper considers the real and imagined geographies of livestock animals. In doing so, it reconsiders the spatial relationship between people and domesticated farm animals. Some consideration is given to the origins of domestication and comparisons are drawn between the natural and domesticated geographies of animals. The paper mainly focuses on the contemporary geographies of livestock animals and, in particular, “rare breeds” of British livestock animals. Attention is given to the spatial relationship these animals have with people and the place of these animals in the British countryside today. The paper concludes by highlighting why it is important to consider livestock animal breeds as part of on-going research into the geographies of domestic livestock animals.


Geographers have a long history of studying the spatial distributions of wild, domestic, and domesticated animals (Philo, 1995; Wolch & Emel, 1995); but, recently, there has been renewed interest in the geographies of domestication. Attempts have been made to re-appraise spatial relationships between human and nonhuman animals in a less anthropocentric manner. Tuan (1984), Anderson (1994), Philo (1995) and Wolch, West and Gains (1995) have argued that animals, their habits, and their habitats are socially constructed in order to fit in and around particular urban places. This work has led to a reconsideration of animal geography and the ways in which it has been studied. In particular, there has been a shift away from mapping animal distributions towards a more culturally-informed approach which attempts to consider animals "as animals" (Philo, 1995, p. 657); or, at the very least, as creatures which are socially constructed to fit within certain (human) spaces and roles. This has revealed much about the spatial relationships between people and animals, and has emphasized the importance of cultural rather than ecological factors in the determination of animals’ places within the world.

Within the sub-disciplines of agricultural and rural geography, however, attention has mainly been given to the productive value of livestock animals within farming systems. This is because agricultural geography has favored economic approaches which have emphasized the productive value of certain species of livestock animals within different modes of agricultural production. Although these studies have illuminated the process of agricultural change, they have given little attention to the animals themselves. As Philo (1995, p. 657) has suggested, animals have only appeared "in the background of studies in rural geography."

Even then, historic rather than contemporary dimensions of their geographies have been emphasized. Thus, a well-established literature exists on the zoogeographical origins of livestock animals and the impacts of domestication on them (Clutton-Brock, 1981; Alderson, 1990). Attention has also been paid to the historical introduction of breeds to particular places by different societies (Alderson, 1976; Friend & Bishop, 1978; Henson, 1982; Wallis, 1986; Ritvo, 1987) and to the impacts of selective breeding on the spatial distribution of livestock animal breeds during the 18th and 19th centuries (Walton, 1984, 1987). However, there has been little or no work on the geographies of contemporary breeds of livestock animals.

In light of these omissions, this paper seeks to reassess the geographies of domestic livestock animals within agricultural systems of developed market economies. It uses new thinking in animal geography to demonstrate that the breeding and distribution of livestock animals is determined by cultural rather than natural processes. Attention is focussed on different breeds, as well as species of farm animals. Breeds are a group of animals which are distinguishable from other members of the same species, and whose distinctiveness is inheritable (Hall, 1991). While acknowledging that there is an astonishing diversity of livestock animal breeds across the world (Simpson, 1958; Ponting, 1980; Friend & Bishop, 1982), this paper focuses on contemporary breeds in the British Isles and makes special reference to the place of rare breeds in the real and imagined geographies of the countryside.


Migration, Domestication, and Culture

There is a well-established literature on the domestication of livestock animals (Haymes, 1972; Friend & Bishop, 1978; Ponting, 1980; Clutton-Brock, 1981; & Alderson, 1990). Without replicating these works, in drawing comparisons between the natural and human-influenced distributions of livestock animals we must consider the zoogeographical origins.

All modern livestock animals can be traced back to wild ancestors who spread to other areas of the world through natural migration (Figure 1). Subspecies evolved who thrived in particular local climatic conditions. Modern cattle, for example, are descended from Aurochsen, large ox-like creatures who originated 7 million years ago in Asia. Five million years later, the Aurochsen had migrated to different parts of the world and had evolved into six locally distinct subspecies (Friend & Bishop, 1978).

[Figure 1]

Aurochsen (Bos primigenious) continued to thrive in Asia and Europe until 1627, when the last one was hunted and killed in Poland (Friend & Bishop, 1978; Clutton-Brock, 1981). Wild horses (equus ferus), wild boar (sus scrofa), and wild asses (equaas africanus) also migrated from their areas of origin and developed subspecies in particular parts of the world. As many as 27 subspecies of wild boar have been identified "representing varieties that have evolved in adaptation to local conditions of environment and climate" (Clutton-Brock, 1981, p. 71). In addition, 40 races of wild sheep who adapted to living in a range of diverse conditions have been identified: Siberian snow sheep (Ovis nivicola), North American mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis, Capra ibex), and Asiatic mouflon (Ovis orientalis).These races are thought to be the main ancestors of domestic sheep (Ponting, 1980; Clutton-Brock, 1981). However, 10,000 years ago, people began to domesticate certain animals, and cultural rather than natural processes began to determine where and how the animals developed. As centers of domestication emerged, dramatic changes occurred in the physiques and geographies of the creatures.

Sheep were among the first domesticated livestock animals. Ponting (1980) suggests that people, using dogs, started to herd sheep in the Neolithic period, 10,000 BCE. In the 7th or 8th century BCE, when breeding could be controlled, Asiatic Mouflon (Ovis orientalis) became "the first livestock animals to have altered in their appearance by human control" (Clutton-Brock, 1981, p. 53). Evidence suggests that selective breeding was used to alter sheep physically—shorter limbs, fatter tails, and woollier or different colored coats.

Cattle were domesticated between 4,000 and 6,000 BCE in India and Egypt (Friend & Bishop, 1978). In India, wild cattle were domesticated to become zebu, humped cattle. These cattle were exchanged with people in Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations who interbred them with humpless Arochen to create the humpless cattle more familiar to Europe. By 4,000 BCE, two main strains of domestic cattle had emerged, each strain reflecting the influence of a different human society. Three main centers of pig domestication also emerged: European, Chinese, and Near Eastern. In each of these places,, one of the 27 natural subspecies of wild boar was adapted for meat consumption, producing three locally distinct strains of domestic pig.


Geographies of Domestication

The early domestication of animals had a distinct geography. Different strains of domestic livestock animals emerged in different places. Culture played a large part in determining the nature and extent of domestication. Domestication in some places was rare. For example, Clutton-Brock (1981) noted that until the 15th century, only dogs, camelids, and guinea pigs had been domesticated in South America and, in North America, only dogs and turkeys. In other places, some thought domestication could achieve little. Camels, for example, are not domestic animals because "it would not be possible by artificial selection to improve on the dromedary's ability to survive in the Sahara" (Clutton-Brock, 1981, p. 104). Religious beliefs also contributed to geographies of early domestication with some animals, pigs in particular, being considered taboo by particular societies (Alderson, 1990).

Over time, centers of domestication emerged where local breeds were developed to match productive needs and climatic conditions. Livestock animals were diffused from these centers by human migration, and the historical geographies of animal breeds reflected the geographies of dominant societies. In the British Isles (Table 1), a succession of invasions by different societies led to the introduction of new breeds of livestock animals (Henson, 1982; Wallis, 1986; Evans & Yarwood, 1995). The Romans introduced their white cattle to Britain for religious ceremonies (Henson, 1982). Following the Roman retreat in 410 CE, these cattle were left unattended, and some animals returned to the wild. A herd still lives in a feral state at Chillingham Park in Northumberland.

 

In other parts of the world as well (Figure 1), associations emerge as breed distributions reflect cultural hegemony and the influence of colonialism (Philo, 1995, p. 663). In the 16th century, European invaders introduced cattle to North America. In 1519, the Spanish introduced longhorned cattle, ancestors of the famed Texas Longhorn, to America. "Many European cattle came to America in the wake of the Spanish" (Friend & Bishop, 1978, p. 17). By the 17th century, Dutch, French, and British colonists were introducing their own breeds.

Because indigenous animals had not been domesticated and exploited for farming, European colonists exported livestock animals to Australia and South America. Because of colonialism, European breeds of livestock animals are found today throughout the world. Before the mid-19th century, however, the humped Zebu cattle of India had remained close to Africa and Asia and were not introduced to other countries with hot, humid climates until the end of the century. Thus the Australian Droughtmaster and the American Brahman were derived from the Zebu.

Previous research has revealed a complex geography of livestock breeds. As animals were domesticated, their evolution and diffusion became more and more associated with cultural rather than natural processes. Over time, particular breeds became associated with particular people and places. Until the recent advent of scientific breeding and the development of capitalist agriculture, the adoption of breeds in particular places owed more to colonial domination than to agricultural innovation.


Selective Breeding

Significant changes occurred in the geographies of British livestock during the agricultural revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, as a result of selective breeding. This techniques used scientific principles to improve the genetic characteristics of livestock for increased profitability. Changes both created and destroyed associations between particular places and breeds. On the one hand, livestock improvement established breeds that were closely linked with places. As Clutton-Brock (1981, p. 30) suggested, "for many breeds their vernacular names ... precisely describe their place of origin." On the other hand, selective breeding led to the diffusion of livestock breeds. During the 18th and 19th centuries, this led to the spread of Shorthorn cattle from the North East of Britain to the majority of the country (Walton, 1984). Similarly, the 19th century saw an increase and diffusion of Cotswold, Hampshire, Southdown, and Oxford Down Sheep, considered more productive than other breeds from their places of origin to other areas of Britain (Walton, 1987).

Selective breeding was used to achieve productive gains in livestock and to create animals who had fashionable appearances—the least acceptable use of selective breeding. For example, blackfaced sheep became widespread in upland Britain during the 19th century because they were taken as a sign of progressiveness in farming. Swaledale and Scottish Blackface sheep eventually replaced Whitefaced Woodland sheep in many central upland areas of England. Perhaps the most extreme example of appearance-related breeding was the creation of the St. Rona's Hill sheep. The goal was to breed a whitefaced, multihorned animal, as all other multihorned sheep had black or brown faces. When the experiment succeeded, interest in the St. Rona Hill dwindled, and the animal became extinct.

Breeding during the Victorian period became an elitist activity. Animals were bred to reflect their breeder's status (Ritvo, 1987). Animal size became important because owners thought that larger animals reflected greater wealth. This cruel practice created animals who could not cope with daily life. Dorset Gold Top pigs, for example, were so fat they could hardly walk and required props on their snouts to prevent suffocation from their own rolls of fat.

During the 20th century capitalist farming, especially in the post-war, productivist era, has been characterized by specialization, concentration, and intensification (Healey & Ilbery, 1985; Marsden, Murdoch, Lowe, Munton, & Flynn, 1993). As the efficiency and profitability of livestock gained emphasis, animals were bred to produce more food at less cost. Successful breeds such as Holstein-Friesian cattle, Poland China pigs, and Texan sheep were widely adopted by capitalist agriculture.

Although the breeding was beneficial for farmers, three main issues arose: (a) the animals’ living condition, which included cramped quarters on battery farms and physical abuses, (b) selective breeding, which harmed the animals’ physiques, and (c) the loss of breeds deemed unsuitable for intensive agricultural conditions. Attention is now given to this latter issue.

Twenty six breeds of farm animals became extinct in the British Isles alone between 1900 and 1973 (Alderson, 1990) because they were less than ideally suited to the intensive, indoor conditions needed by agribusinesses. Pigs, in particular, suffered in the face of intensive production as emphasis was given to leaner, faster growing animals who could be reared indoors (Ufkes, 1995). Traditional breeds such as Gloucester Old Spots, British Saddlebacks, and Tamworths declined drastically in numbers, and five other breeds of pig died out altogether (Henson, 1982). Changing market demands and consumer preference for lean meat also contributed to the decline. For example, there were thousands of Beef Shorthorn cattle in the 1950's when "fat animals were the order of the day" (Rare Breed Survival Trust, 1994, p. 5). By 1991, as a result of a consumer-led trend for leaner meat, Shorthorn cattle were endangered.

The status and numbers of livestock breeds are now carefully monitored (Rare Breed Survival Trust, 1994). Yet, little is known about the contemporary geographies of livestock animals in the late 20th century (Simpson, 1958; Jamieson, 1966). Shortcomings in data sources explain these omissions in part. For example, the only categories of breeds in the U.K. Agricultural Census are crude distinctions between "beef" or "dairy" cattle and "table" or "laying" fowl, making detailed distinction impossible.

It is more likely, however, that breed types have been ignored because monitoring work was relegated in priority on the research agenda of agricultural geographers during the 1980's and the early 1990's. Instead, emphasis was placed on explaining the economic aspects of the farming crisis including agri-environmental change and the switch to pluriactivity. Although types of livestock animals were used as exemplars of the restructuring process, actual breeds were thought to be less important to this form of explanation. For example, Halliday's (1988) study of the dairy industry in Devon, Edwards' (1991) analysis of livestock in Ireland, Bowler's (1994) analysis of poultry production in Ontario, and MacQueen's (1997) spatial analysis of the U.K. dairy industry, all discuss livestock farming without mentioning specific breeds. In addition, there was little work done to map the various types of enterprises involved with animals. Thus, an important field for new geographical research has emerged. Rare breeds were chosen here as a focus because they urgently need help to survive. Vaynol cattle -- 17 female adults -- are rarer than Giant Pandas! Indeed, geographical research is being used to guide current conservation programs (Lutwyche, 1996).


Contemporary Geographies of Farming in Britain

More than 60 breeds of animals in Britain are currently classed by The Rare Breed Survival Trust (RBST as rare or minority. To qualify for recognition by the RBST, breeds must meet strict criteria based on genetic characteristics, numbers, and annual trends. Following genetic confirmation, a breed is classified as "critical," "endangered," "vulnerable," or "at risk" (Table 2).

There are categories for imported animals at risk in their native country; feral animals; and native breeds. A "minority breeds" category applies to breeds that fulfill genetic requirements but whose populations have risen above levels deemed to be at risk.

 

(Source: The Ark, Summer/Autumn 1997, p. a iii.)


Spatial Distribution of Livestock

The spatial distributions of rare livestock breeds have been mapped at a county level using data from current herd and flock books compiled by breed societies. The books contain detailed information on the numbers and locations of pedigree animals. In many cases, the location of animals could be traced to individual farms. A full analysis of these results is available (Yarwood, Evans, & Higginbottom, 1997; Evans & Yarwood, 1998). Three main types of distribution were identified: (a) breeds clustered in particular places, (b) breeds more uniformly scattered, and (c) individual animals far removed from their area of origin. Many breeds of livestock, such as Shetland cattle (Figure 2) or Gloucester Old Spot pigs (Figure 3), appear to have strong place associations. More popular rare breeds show a uniform distribution across the British Isles.

[Figures 2 and 3]

Good examples are Dexters (Figure 4) and Longhorn cattle. Both of these breeds, close to extinction in the 1970's, are now two of the most popular rare breeds. As their popularity has grown their geographical distribution has widened.

Figure 5 shows isolated examples of Boreray sheep in many parts of Lowland England. The Boreray sheep of Scotland originate in the island of Boreray in the St. Kilda's group of Orkney, where there are currently 350 to 450 animals living in feral conditions (RBST, 1994).

[Figures 4 and 5]

Explanations for the location of livestock animals have traditionally centered around a breed's ability to thrive in local climatic conditions. These maps show a limited relationship between breed type and the environment. Shetland cattle, for example, can produce milk yields even when grazing in poor conditions and upland environments (RBST, 1994). Thus, most Shetland Cattle are found in the highland and islands of Scotland, specifically, in the Shetland Isles (Figure 2). Nevertheless, this does not explain why Shetland cattle are absent from other areas with similar conditions such as the West of Ireland or the Midlands.


Livestock and Local Culture

Certain breeds have retained local importance, and their survival can be linked to differences in local culture and economy (Evans & Yarwood, 1995). There is a need to determine how people fit livestock into different geographical imaginations of the countryside. Despite recent attention given to lay discourses about rural areas (Philo, 1992; Jones, 1995), only limited consideration has been given to the role of livestock in social constructions of rurality.

An extensive survey was distributed to all 7,864 members of the RBST via its journal, The Ark. More than 1,834 surveys were returned— a 23% response rate. The survey showed why members felt it was important to preserve rare breeds, established why particular breeds were kept by members, and provided a socioeconomic profile of those who supported the RBST and its aims.

The survey of RBST membership noted a strong degree of local loyalty to breeds. In Scotland, for example, there were higher than average rates of ownership of Shetland cattle (kept by 27% of Scottish RBST owners); Belted Galloway cattle (kept by 24% of Scottish RBST owners); and Clydesdale horses (kept by 43% of Scottish RBST owners). In Wales, higher than average rates of ownership were recorded for Hill Radnor, Llanwenog, and South Wales Mountain sheep, all Welsh breeds. Sixty percent of Dorset Down sheep, 57% of Cotswold sheep, 56% of Greyfaced Dartmoor sheep, and 48% of Wiltshire Horn sheep were found in the South of England. The survey revealed that a number of farmers specifically kept breeds because the breeds had local importance.

Breeds are used to market places and local products (Evans & Yarwood, 1995). For example, local affection for Gloucester Old Spot pigs has been used by the Uley Brewery in Gloucester to market a local beer called "Old Spot" (Plate 1). This is served in many local hostelries, including the Old Spot public house. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Gloucester Old Spot pigs retain strong associations and loyalty in the county of Gloucestershire (Figure 3).

[Plate 1]

Local historic livestock animals are used in the iconography of particular places. The Cotswold sheep is used on the emblem of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a leaping Dartmoor pony is used as the Dartmoor National Park motif, and the Swaledale sheep is used to advertise the Yorkshire Dales National Park. Hereford United Football Club uses a Hereford bull in their club shield, and Herdwick sheep also have become important local icons in the Lake District because of their association with the author, Beatrix Potter (Higgins, 1993).

When a breed is close to extinction, its remaining numbers are often found only in its place of origin. When Gloucester cattle were reduced to one herd in the 1970's, the herd was located in Gloucestershire. The rarest breed of cattle today, the Irish Moiled, is almost exclusively found in its Northern Ireland home. On a practical level, local clustering of breeds allows better opportunities for breeding and informal exchange of information (Clifford & King, 1995). Animals originally bred and named after a place are likely to be popular there (Figures 2 & 3). Today, the rural heritage industry exploits certain breeds and farmers keep rare breeds to use in local heritage enterprises.


From Market Place to Marketing

In the mid-1980's agricultural policy-makers first challenged the fundamental principle of raising food output, a principle enshrined in the 1947 Agricultural Act. It was a much-needed response to a multifaceted farm crisis caused by overproduction of foodstuffs, the immense budgetary costs of agrarian support, falling family farm incomes, and unprecedented damage to the environment. With the government under public pressure to solve these problems, agricultural policy-makers placed emphasis on reducing food production, curtailing state expenditures, and promoting a more sustainable agriculture. These pressures shifted farmers into the post-productivist era (Evans & Ilbery, 1996).

Post-productivism has been characterized by the involvement of many farmers in pluriactivity— operating enterprises different from, and in addition to, farming (Evans & Ilbery, 1993). Some have used their farm business resources to create new, nonfood businesses as visitor attractions. Enterprises have included farm shops, fisheries, centers for outdoor activities, and children's play-barns. (Ilbery, 1996). Central to many of these activities has been the selling of places and products associated with an idealized rural lifestyle (Thrift, 1989; Cloke & Goodwin, 1992; Bunce, 1994). An increasing number of farmers have found these activities as essential to their economic well-being as their actual food production.

Livestock animals have been subjected to these changes in common with other aspects of agricultural production (Evans & Yarwood, 1995). Just as features of the industrial past have been commodified in order to re-imagine postindustrial cities (Hall, 1995), so too has there been a re-imagination of livestock animals in the post-productive countryside. One example is the growth of Rare Breed Centers. Since 1973, the RBST has officially recognized 22 of these centers. The centers serve important breeding and conservation purposes and create images of the agricultural past to attract the paying public. Central to these attractions are activities such as horse-drawn ploughing, demonstrations of hand milking, and other "forgotten" country skills. The idea is to present a "living museum" of agricultural heritage (Bunce, 1994, p. 134).

Farm animals have been enlisted and even modified to play a role in these images—sometimes literally. Striped "Iron Age" pigs, for example, have been reconstructed by crossing Tamworth Sows and European Wild Boars to create an approximation of the breed thought to have been found in Iron-Age England (Henson, 1995). Other breeds of historic livestock animals such as Longhorn cattle, Gloucester Old Spot pigs, and Wensleydale sheep had been regarded as unsuitable for intensive agricultural production. Their distinctiveness and docility now make them excellent visitor attractions as part of a reenactment of past countryside life.

Only 11% of farmers who kept rare breeds believed that their produce had any economic value, according to the RBST survey. A majority (67%) thought that being part of national heritage justified preserving a breed. Farmers (94%) who operated on-farm tourist activities kept rare breeds as part of their venture because they were local breeds relevant to the area and part of the region's agricultural history and heritage. The survey identified a part-time farm manager in Buckinghamshire who operated an 18-hectare, open-air museum, and kept Berkshire pigs, Shorthorn Cattle, and two local breeds of poultry, all because of their local, historical relevance. Another full-time farmer in Oxfordshire kept Oxford Down sheep, Cotswold sheep, Berkshire pigs, and Gloucester Old Spot pigs because they allowed him to recreate a local Victorian farm.

In general, the more unusual a breed appears, the more likely it is to be used in a farm-park. For example, Longhorn cattle, Manx Loghtan sheep, or Golden Guernsey goats (Plates 2 to 4) have proved popular because of their huge horns. Shaggy-coated Highland cattle, although not classed as rare, make unusual visitor attractions outside of the Scottish Highlands. Alderson (1990, p. 54) commented that "the sentiment surrounding rare breeds exerts a powerful attraction on the general public, who are intrigued by colored sheep, longhorned cattle and massive heavy horses." Alderson also laments the loss of other breeds that lacked this appeal: "Maybe if the Irish Dun and Suffolk Dun [cattle] had been a more spectacular color they might have escaped extinction."

[Plates 2 to 4]

The shift in agriculture has caused rare breeds to be revalued, not for their productivity, but for their role in the sanitized reconstruction of past rural life. Gloucester Old Spot pigs and other rare breeds are finding themselves in new types of rural spaces that are bound up with consumption rather than production.

The presence of rare breed centers accounts for many of the anomalies in Figures 4 and 5, where animals in farm-parks are found far from their place of origin. Although these centers undoubtedly serve valuable education and research functions they rely heavily on using animals for entertainment (Alderson, 1990). The use of unusual but non-native breeds in farm-parks only intensifies the problem. For example, Plate 5 shows a guinea pig village in a British farm-park. Animals native to South America are presented in a traditional English village of black and white houses and shops, one of which is an American fast-food restaurant! The scenario uses animals to present an astonishing version of rurality and heritage. This alone merits analysis. Yet, the guinea pig village illustrates the contribution rare breeds can make to the reconstruction of historic landscapes—a contribution that is yet to be fully appreciated. This emphasizes the need for livestock animals to be considered in the formation of agri-environmental policies designed to encourage local landscape uniqueness (Alderson, 1990; Evans & Yarwood, 1995).

[Plate 5]

Rare breed centers are designed to attract audiences with little experience of farm animals. The animals are clean, healthy, and docile. They even have "pet" names. This sanitization of livestock animals has pervaded many aspects of the heritage industry, even in RBST-recognized farm-parks (Plate 6). Anthropomorphic caricatures of livestock animals have been used to sell a range of products including toys (Houlton & Short, 1995), holidays, television programs, and food (Evans & Yarwood, 1995).

[Plate 6]

This has led to conflicts as some people have learned, to their surprise, that farm animals are just that -- animals. A good illustration of this is the case of "Heather the Highland Cow" (Hancox, 1995).


Heather the Highland Cow

The story begins with the television series, "Hamish Macbeth," a lighthearted drama series about a rural policeman. Filmed in the Highlands of Scotland, the series uses a strong sense of place to portray Scottish rurality in a particular, populist way. In common with other programs in this genre (Fish, 1996), the locations used to film the series have attracted tourists. Many of the tourists stopped in the village of Pocklton, where they wanted to be photographed with a particular Highland cow who is featured in the series. As a result, two conflicts occurred.

The first conflict concerned the identity of the cow. Originally, a local farmer claimed that his cow, Heather, was featured in the program. However, another local farmer disputed this and claimed that his cow, Morag, was the "true Highland Moo" who appeared on the series. The dispute received national press coverage (Hancox, 1995). The second conflict arose because of the two cows' temperaments. While Morag was described as a "biddable beast," Heather gained a reputation for damaging property and frightening residents. Heather’s personality clashed with the sanitized expectations of tourists who, according to her owner, frightened her. Eventually, these tensions forced Heather's keeper to move her away.

This story makes three important points. First, it confirms that the commodification of livestock animals as consumption linked images has a large potential for making money, although Morag's keepers claimed they allowed her to be filmed "for the glory rather than the money" (Hancox, 1995, p. 3). Second, the story shows that cattle have more than monetary value to their owners, who attribute names and personalities to them. Third, the tale of Heather and Morag illustrates the sanitized expectations visitors have of farm animals. The last two points prompt questions about the extent to which livestock animals have been incorporated into constructions of rurality.


Conclusions

By analyzing these discourses in greater depth, rural geographers can make a contribution toward the rethinking of animals in geography. And, to this end, some evidence has begun to emerge. In his study of rurality in six English parishes, Halfacree (1995) notes that a significant number of sampled residents referred to animals and agricultural livestock as important in their perceptions of rurality. By contrast, Cloke, Milbourne, & Thomas (1997, p. 218) noted that some migrants to rural areas were allegedly surprised to find "manure smells [and] cows mooing." Often this can go against sanitized perceptions of the countryside and can lead to tension as Cloke (1993) also demonstrated by detailing a legal dispute surrounding Corky the Cock's right to crow in the early hours. Central to this argument, Cloke suggests, was a cultural conflict over the place of the "sights, smells, and sounds of agriculture" (p. 120) in the countryside, and the right of animals to behave in a natural way. To date, however, little attention has been given to the voices of farmers in these discussions.

The RBST survey (1994) revealed some of the ways in which some farmers view livestock and the place of livestock in the countryside. For example, when asked to comment about the general nature of rural change, as many as 18% of the respondents referred to livestock changes as causing "a loss of breed diversity"; "less livestock [to be] kept locally"; "increased numbers of inferior foreign breeds"; or the "continual loss of traditional breed types in favor of black and white cattle and white pigs, and hybrid poultry, and the introduction of more continental beef stock." In addition, respondents reported that "the introduction of foreign breeds was leading to the destruction of landscape." Others suggested that livestock added "to the general rural scene and are important for urban dwellers and us countryfolk," and that it was important to "preserve breeds for the enhancement of rural life."

The survey results reflect the viewpoints of RBST members who clearly have an interest in farm livestock. These viewpoints may therefore be restricted to a minority of people, but as Philo (1992) points out, these minorities are important. It would appear that farm livestock animals are important within the geographical imagination of the countryside. Animals, to some people, are anthropomorphic creatures who have been constructed by the rural heritage industry. To others, however, animals represent an important aspect of local, rural identity. Either way, farm livestock animals are a great deal more than units of production.


New Directions

The study of livestock animals offers a number of new directions for geographical research, especially in the subfield of rural geography:

1. Post-productive farming changes. A focus on animals can inform us about post-productive farming changes in farming (Evans & Yarwood, 1998). Rare breed numbers have undoubtedly benefitted from the post-productive transition, but their survival has played an important role in its regulation. This is because the unique genetic characteristics of many rare breeds have been particularly suited to the activities associated with post-productivism.

2. Animal exploitation in place and product marketing. More attention needs to be given to the ways in which animals have become associated with certain places and products. Examination of the extent to which these associations are founded in fact needs to be addressed.

3. Landscape conservation. Further attention should be given to the role of livestock animals in the creation and dilution of landscape. Landscape policy needs to take these factors into consideration (Evans & Yarwood, 1995, 1997).

4. Conservation movements. The RBST and other international conservation movements concerned with livestock animals need to be included in rural environmental politics. Too often, rural environmental conflicts are portrayed in terms of a farming lobby against an environmental lobby. However, the RBST has a large number of farmers in its membership, suggesting that farmers also care about conservation. The participation of conservationists will contribute to a better understanding of rural environmental politics and pressure groups.

5. Rural "others." There has been much geographical interest in rural others (Philo, 1992), and this paper has identified farmers as "othered." Although interest in presenting lay, rural discourses is high, farmers have been surprisingly neglected. Farmers, however, have voices, and those voices say that livestock animals, breeds of livestock animals, and individual animals are important to the farmer’s constructions of rurality.

6. Livestock animals are even more "othered," raising a number of issues that demand further attention if livestock animals are to be considered in a less anthropocentric way.


Alternative Ruralities

Although some readers may be uneasy with the reality, livestock animals have been bred to meet human agricultural and economic needs. The continued existence of these animals depends on the attitudes of people toward them. History has shown that, should these animals fail to meet human demands, they will become extinct. To some breeds, such as the Dorset Gold Top pig, which was almost too fat to walk, extinction may have been a mercy. However, to maintain the good of agriculture, to retain local distinctiveness, and to maintain global biodiversity, further loss of farm animals must be avoided. How is this best accomplished?

One way is to continue to keep these animals useful for farmers by niche marketing of their products. In Britain, a number of butchers specialize in rare breed meat, so farmers have a ready market for rare breeds. Understandably, some readers may disapprove of eating animals in order to preserve them. An alternative is to retain them for use in farm-parks. However, this also raises moral questions. Farm-parks however, may offer one advantage. The livestock animals who live there are kept in more humane, free-range conditions (Plate 7).

[Plate 7]

Farmers in the United Kingdom are becoming landscape curators. Perhaps their role should be expanded to preserve the animals who live on these landscapes, especially those animals whom people have domesticated and bred. Perhaps farmers can be paid incentives to keep less profitable animals in the same way that they are paid to set aside land for environmental, scientific, and historic purposes. Certainly, livestock animals and nature conservation are not unconnected (Small, 1995).

Grazing with rare breeds may be an another option for the farmer who seeks to maintain the nature conservation interest of a particular site. For example, Longhorn cattle have been employed to graze in the pastures of the Derbyshire Dales, an area overrun by tough plant species that are inedible to softer-mouthed, modern cattle A further, radical, alternative that can help to preserve livestock animals is allowing them to live in a feral state, such as in Chillingham Park, or even returning them to the wild. Perhaps selective breeding could be introduced to equip creatures for living in the wild. Attempts have already been made, using modern genetic material, to recreate versions of Aurochsen.

Clearly, tricky moral questions have been raised here, and answers will depend largely on moral values. One thing is clear. People should be more sensitive to the impact on animals of breeding and selection, especially when the successful cloning of Dolly the Sheep signals a new phase of animal breeding.

People who are tangent to the studies of livestock animals also require sensitivity. It is sweeping to consider the relationship between people and animals without considering how their relationship varies over time and space and across and between societies. Too often, it has been assumed, for example, that farmers are anti-environment, driven only by profit. Our survey has shown that some farmers and other keepers of rare breeds have a deep affection for, and knowledge of, farm animals. The success of the RBST— no animals have been made extinct since its formation— suggests that farmers can help to conserve animals. The organization and efficiency of the RBST in promoting animal welfare and conservation is matched only by their members' enthusiasm for certain breeds. The welfare of livestock animals rests in the hands of those who seek cooperation with conservation-minded farmers.

As the place of livestock animals in the countryside is considered by geographers, benefits will emerge not only for geography but also for livestock animals. It is vital to reach a middle ground in the study of livestock animals that views livestock as more than units of production or sanitized anthropomorphic creatures. We must see that animals possess their own value and meaning. The emerging field of animal-inclusive rural geography will help to develop these sensitivities.


References

Alderson, L. (1990). A chance to survive. London: Helm.

Alderson, L. (1976). Farm animals. London: Frederick Warne.

Anderson, K. (1995). Culture and nature at Adelaide zoo: At the frontiers of "human" geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 20, 275-294.

Bowler, I. (1994). The institutional regulation of uneven development: The case of poultry production in the province of Ontario. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 19, 346-358.

Bunce, M. (1994). The countryside ideal: Anglo-American images of landscape. London: Routledge.

Clifford, S. & King, A. (Eds.). (1995). Local distinctiveness: Place, particularity and identity. London: Common Ground.

Cloke, P. (1993). On "problems and solutions." The reproduction of problems for rural communities in Britain during the 1980's. Journal of Rural Studies, 9, 113-122.

Cloke, P. & Goodwin, M. (1992). Conceptualising countryside change: From Post-Fordism to rural structured coherence. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 17, 321-336.

Cloke, P., Milbourne, P., & Thomas, C. (1997). Living lives in different ways? Deprivation, marginalization and changing lifestyles in rural England. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, New Series, 22, 210-231.

Clutton-Brock, J. (1981). Domesticated animals from early times. London: British Museum and Heinemann.

Dodgson, R. (1987). The European past: Social evolution and spatial order. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Edwards, C. (1991). Spatial changes in livestock production in Northern Ireland: 1974-1986. Journal of Rural Studies, 7, 277-285.

Evans, N. & Ilbery, B. (1996). Exploring the influence of farm-based pluriactivity on gender relations in capitalist agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis, 36, 74-92.

Evans, N. & Ilbery, B. (1993). Pluriactivity, part-time farming and the farm diversification debate.
Environment and Planning, A, 25, 945-959.

Evans, N. & Yarwood, R. (1998). Rare breeds, livestock and the post-productive countryside. In A. Ontiveros & F. Molinero (Eds.), From Traditional Countryside to post-productivism: Recent trends in rural geography research in Britain and Spain (pp. 133-148). Murcia: Associacion de Geografos
Espanoles, Grupo de Trabajo: Geografia Rural.

Evans, N. & Yarwood, R. (1997). Livestock and landscape in Britain. American Livestock Breeds Conservancy News, 14.5, 4-5.

Evans, N. & Yarwood, R. (1996). Rare Breeds, livestock and the post-productive countryside. In I. Bowler (Ed.), Progress in research on rural geography. Department of Geography occasional paper 35 (pp. 27-28). Leicester: Leicester University.

Evans, N. & Yarwood, R. (1995). Livestock and landscape. Landscape Research, 20, 141-164.
Fish, R. (1996). The restructuring of rural areas through media imagery. In I. Bowler (Ed.), Progress in research on rural geography. Department of Geography occasional paper 35 (pp. 53-54). Leicester, UK: Leicester University.

Friend, J. & Bishop, D. (1978). Cattle of the world. Poole, UK: Blandford.

Halfacree, K. (1995). Talking about rurality: Social representations of the rural as expressed by residents of six English parishes. Journal of Rural Studies, 11, 1-20.

Hall, S. (1991). Rare and traditional breeds: Their place in alternative farming. Smallholder, August, 24-26.

Hall, T. (1995). "The second industrial revolution": Cultural reconstructions of industrial regions. Landscape Research, 20, 112-123.

Halliday, J. (1988). Dairy farmers take stock: A study of milk producers' reactions to quota in Devon. Journal of Rural Studies, 4, 193-202.

Hancox, J. (1995,May 14). Horns of a dilemma over star's identity. Sunday Telegraph.

Haymes, E. (1972). Animals in the service of man. London: Dent and Sons, Ltd.

Healey, M. & Ilbery, B. (Eds.). (1985). Industrialisation of the countryside. Norwich, UK: Geo Books.

Henson, E. (1995). Cotswold Farm-park. Stroud, UK: Wheatley's Printers.

Henson, E. (1982). Rare breeds in history. Cheltenham, UK: Olivant and Son, Ltd.

Higgins, D. (1993). The Lake District: The contemporary representation of a valued place as a national institution. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Exeter University, Exeter, UK.

Houlton, D. & Short, J. (1995). Sylvanian families: The production and consumption of a rural community. Journal of Rural Studies, 11, 367-387.

Ilbery, B. (1996). Farm-based recreation and the development of farm attraction groups in England and Wales. Geography, 81, 86-91.

Jamieson, A. (1966). The distribution of transferrin genes in cattle. Heredity, 21, 191-328.

Jones, O. (1995). Lay discourse of the rural: Developments and implications for rural studies. Journal of Rural Studies, 11, 35-50.

Lutwyche, R. (1996). Mapping out the breeds. The Ark, 24, 44.

MacQueen, D. (1997). The milk industry in the United Kingdom and The Republic of Ireland. Glasgow: Glasgow University.

Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R., & Flynn, R. (1993). Constructing the countryside. London: UCL Press.

Philo, C. (1995). Animals, geography and the city: Notes on inclusions and exclusions. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 13, 655-681.

Philo, C. (1992). Neglected rural geographies: A review. Journal of Rural Studies, 8, 193-209.

Ponting, K. (1980). Sheep of the world. Dorset: Blandford Press.

Rare Breed Survival Trust (RBST). (1994). Rare breeds: facts and figures. Kenilworth: Rare Breed Survival Trust.

Ritvo, H. (1987). The Animal Estate: The English and other creatures of the Victorian Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Simpson, E. (1958). The cattle population of England and Wales: Its breed structure and distribution. Geographical Studies, 5, 45-60.

Small, R. (1995). Rare breeds in habitat conservation, The Ark, 22, 246-250.

Tuan, Y. F. (1984). Dominance and affection: The making of pets. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Thrift, N. (1989). Images of social change. In C. Hamnett, L. McDowell & P. Sarre (Eds.), The changing social structure (pp. 12-42). London: Sage.

Ufkes, M. (1995). Lean and mean: U.S. meat packing in an area of agri-industrial restructuring. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 13, 655-681.

Wallis, D. (1986). The rare breeds handbook. Poole, UK: Blandford Press.

Walton, J. (1987). Agriculture 1730–1900. In R. Dodgshon & R. Butlin (Eds.), An historical geography of England and Wales (1st ed.). London: Academic Press.

Walton, J. (1984). The diffusion of the improved Shorthorn breed of cattle in Britain during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 9, 22-36.

Wolch, J. & Emel, J. (1995). Bringing the animals back in. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 13, 632-636.

Wolch, J., West, K., & Gaines, T. (1995). Transspecies urban theory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 13, 735-760.

Yarwood, R., Evans, N., & Higginbottom, J. (1997). The contemporary geography of indigenous Irish livestock. Irish Geography, 30, 17-30.


Notes

1. Correspondence should be sent to Richard Yarwood and Nick Evans, Center for Rural Research, Geography Department, Worcester College of Higher Education, Henwick Grove, Worcester, WR2 6AJ, United Kingdom. This research has been funded by a grant from the Nuffield Foundation. We would like to thank Julie Higginbottom for her help in analyzing the RBST membership survey and our departmental cartographer, Alan Bennett, for drawing Figure 1. Thanks also go to Chris Philo and Jennifer Wolch for their advice and encouragement on an earlier draft.

2. Throughout this paper, the terms "farm animals" and "livestock animals" are used to describe domestic animals who are explained by people in their farming systems. However the authors realize that these terms may be problematic from an animal's perspective. The term "livestock," for example, literally means "stock (food) which is alive": "[I]t is difficult to preserve meat....Whenever meat is required, it is better to store meat as 'livestock' rather than to keep it as dead flesh" (Clutton-Brock, 1981, p. 46). While the uncritical use of these terms is somewhat anthropocentric, it might also be argued that this terminology serves an important purpose because it continually emphasizes the ways in which these animals are exploited by society. The term "livestock animal" at least recognizes the animal's existence as a being, and not simply a piece of meat. Domestic animals may be defined as those which "through direct selection by man [sic] have certain inherent morphological, physiological, or behavioral characteristics by which they differ from their ancestral stocks" (Clutton-Brock, 1981, p. 104). These differ from domesticated animals or exploited captives which are "individual [animals] that have been made more tractable and tame but ... whose breeding remains more under the influence of natural rather than artificial selection" (p. 104).
 

For Abstracts of all issues, including the most current, click Article Abstracts

To order Society & Animals Journal, go to our secure online ordering page

You can Search the online issues of Society & Animals, as well as the entire Society & Animals Forum (formerly PSYETA) website,
for topics and keywords of your interest: