Anyone familiar with Margaret Derry's earlier work on animal breeding will expect a new book to contain detailed accounts of the long lives of domesticated animal breeds, the shorter lives of breeders, and the changes brought about in both by market, social and regulatory conditions. All of these elements are indeed to be found in Art and Science in Breeding: Creating Better Chickens. However, Derry now also wishes to make the role of science and scientists in the history of breeding much more central. Focusing upon North America between 1850 and 1960 – though also drawing heavily upon the British context and ranging chronologically further afield – this book charts the changing structure of the chicken-breeding industry in response to developments within science, more specifically in genetics. Derry succeeds in constructing a history of chicken breeding that is original, entertaining and informative. However, her treatment of genetics (and science more generally) is not without its problems.
The first chapter considers the ancient origins of chicken farming before turning to the history of animal breeding between the eighteenth century and the mid-nineteenth. The second reconstructs the chicken's entry into the Victorian world of fancy breeding. Together they demonstrate the existence of a chicken-breeding industry prior to 1900, one complete with shared methods, societies and standards. Derry's discussion of breeding methodology is not confined to chickens. Allowing for an appreciation of the shared language and beliefs of animal breeders is certainly important, though as a consequence what makes chickens special (for example, their rapid reproduction in comparison with other domesticated animals) is somewhat lost. While she does highlight some important nineteenth-century chicken breeders (such as I.K. Felch), this discussion is often based upon later sources. The reader is therefore left wondering precisely how influential or coherent these breeding methods were. Nevertheless, the regulatory practices of Canadian and American societies, which are described in detail, provide an important introduction to themes returned to throughout the book. These include the distinction between chicken breeding and chicken farming, breeding for beauty or use, and breeding for purity. Chapter 3 considers the rise of genetics and the efforts of geneticists to introduce Mendelian concepts to chicken-breeding practice. Chapters 4 and 5 explore a tension between geneticists and traditional breeders in the North American egg industry. Particularly noteworthy is Derry's account of the expansion of hatcheries around 1920 which, thanks to their location within the industry, gave hatchery owners unprecedented control over breeders. Chapter 6 chronicles the victory of the geneticist over the traditional breeder as large multinational corporations take over the industry, enticed by the expanding market for meat or ‘broiler’ chickens. Derry then includes a final chapter on the industry beyond 1950 to the present.
This book will primarily interest historians of genetics. Introducing some important primary research material, Derry's account is also based upon interviews with industry representatives which certainly help to make the final chapters (concerning 1950 and beyond) particularly revealing. The book also draws attention to a significant historiographical gap, the majority of historians of genetics having been concerned with plant rather than animal breeding. However, her discussion of genetics and geneticists is not entirely convincing. The third chapter, dedicated to the history of agricultural genetics, is confused and ranges over a large number of theoretical debates and developments, the connections between which are by no means obvious. There is also very little critical engagement with contemporary historiography. The inroads made by Jonathan Harwood and Barbara Kimmelman might lead us to expect that chicken-breeding geneticists would be more concerned with physiological problems than were their non-agricultural colleagues. Derry's account does not reflect upon these possibilities. Instead it is argued that until the proper combination of population genetics and quantitative assessment was reached, genetics had nothing to offer breeders. At the same time, geneticists are treated as entirely antagonistic towards traditional breeders, appealing to their insights when they support scientific conclusions but otherwise undermining their claims to expertise. Others who have considered the peculiar nature of agricultural genetics – including some who have focused on chicken breeding, such as Kathy Cooke – have emphasized the efforts of many scientists to work for the benefit of the traditional breeding community. Few of these (often publicly funded) breeders make an appearance in Derry's book, a great deal more attention being given to commercial breeders. These problems are perhaps due to her account of genetic history relying upon outdated secondary sources and her having primarily interviewed scientists who spent a large part of their career in the commercial sector.
While these limitations affect the value of the work for historians of genetics, they point to a larger problem with the thesis itself, one expressed in the book's title. Other than to say that it is sometimes hard to see a difference between them, the categories of ‘art’ and ‘science’ are not called into question. For Derry there is (historically) some art in the science; the breeds used by geneticists today have a history, as do some of the techniques. There is also (empirically) some science in the art; from our perspective some older breeders got it right and their techniques might deserve to be called scientific. But these two categories are always in competition with one another. Historians of science and technology have achieved more by acknowledging the independent lives of theory and practice, while at the same time highlighting how such divisions have primarily served a rhetorical purpose and often disappear under scrutiny. Rather than assume that scientists were primarily motivated by the logic of their theories, or breeders by a love for their traditional craft practices, we should recognize that scientists themselves have often made claims to artistry as bold as the claims to scientific competence occasionally made by artisans. Sometimes breeders relied upon their status as scientists, or their membership within a wider breeding community, other times they did not. On the issue of art and science, we ought not to be distracted by the question of which came first.
