Re-capturing bovine life: Robot-cow relationships, freedom and control in dairy farming

Robotic milking machines are novel technologies that take over the labour of dairy farming and reduce the need for human–animal interactions. Replacing ‘conventional’ twice-a-day milking managed by people with a system that supposedly allows cows the freedom to be milked automatically whenever they choose, it is claimed that robotic milking has health and welfare benefits for cows, increases productivity, and has lifestyle advantages for dairy farmers. Such claims are certainly contested, but the installation of robotic milkers clearly establishes new forms of relationships between cows, technologies and dairy farmers. This paper draws on in-depth interviews with farmers and observational research on farms to examine relationships between representations of robotic milkers as a technology which gives cows freedom and autonomy, and practices and mechanisms which suggest that bovine life is re-captured and disciplined in important ways through the introduction of this technology. We focus on two issues. First, we explore changes in what it is to ‘be bovine’ in relation to milking robots, drawing on a combination of a discursive framing of cows' behaviour and ‘nature’ by dairy farmers and on-farm observation of cow-technology interaction. Second, we examine how such changes in bovinity might be articulated through conceptions of biopower which focus on knowledge of and intervention in the life of both the individual cow body and the herd. Such knowledge and intervention in the newly created sites of the robotic milking dairy are integral to these remodelled, disciplinary farm systems. Here, cows' bodies, movements and subjectivities are trained and manipulated in accordance with a persistent discourse of agricultural productivism. In discussing these issues, the paper seeks to show how particular representations of cows, the production of embodied bovine behaviours, technological interventions and micro-geographies contribute to a re-capturing and re-enclosure of bovine life which counters the liberatory discourses which are used to promote robotic milking.

[1]  M. Whitehead,et al.  Technological trajectories: old and new dialogues in geography and technology studies , 2008 .

[2]  Scott Kirsch,et al.  The Incredible Shrinking World? Technology and the Production of Space , 1995 .

[3]  Charles Watkins,et al.  Exploring Knowledge-Cultures: Precision Farming, Yield Mapping, and the Expert–Farmer Interface , 2000 .

[4]  Jeffrey T. Nealon Foucault Beyond Foucault: Power and Its Intensifications since 1984 , 2007 .

[5]  Rebekah Fox Animal behaviours, post-human lives: everyday negotiations of the animal–human divide in pet-keeping , 2006 .

[6]  S. Hinchliffe Technology, Power, and Space—The Means and Ends of Geographies of Technology , 1996 .

[7]  Vaughan Higgins,et al.  Biosecurity, Trade Liberalisation, and the (anti)Politics of Risk Analysis: The Australia-New Zealand Apples Dispute , 2011 .

[8]  Barbara Pini,et al.  Towards an Understanding of Gender and Capital in Constituting Biotechnologies in Agriculture , 2006 .

[9]  Catherine Johnson,et al.  Animals in Translation , 2005 .

[10]  L. Holloway Subjecting Cows to Robots: Farming Technologies and the Making of Animal Subjects , 2007 .

[11]  M. Foucault Security, Territory, Population , 2005 .

[12]  Richard Twine,et al.  Animals as Biotechnology: Ethics, Sustainability and Critical Animal Studies , 2010 .

[13]  Alan D. Schrift,et al.  Discipline and Punish , 2013 .

[14]  Richard Twine Animal Genomics and Ambivalence: A Sociology of Animal Bodies in Agricultural Biotechnology , 2007, Genomics, society, and policy.

[15]  N. Oudshoorn,et al.  Introduction: How users and non-users matter , 2003 .

[16]  Henk Hogeveen,et al.  Automatic milking : a better understanding , 2004 .

[17]  R. Lamb,et al.  Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change , 1996, Inf. Process. Manag..

[18]  D. Gibbs,et al.  Biopower, genetics and livestock breeding: (re)constituting animal populations and heterogeneous biosocial collectivities , 2009 .

[19]  D. Coppin Foucauldian Hog Futures: The Birth of Mega-Hog Farms , 2003 .

[20]  Paul Rabinow,et al.  Artificiality and Enlightenment: From Sociobiology to Biosociality , 2008, The Ethics of Biotechnology.

[21]  C. Morris,et al.  Contesting Genetic Knowledge-Practices in Livestock Breeding: Biopower, Biosocial Collectivities, and Heterogeneous Resistances , 2012 .

[22]  Berit Brandth Rural masculinity in transition: Gender images in tractor advertisements , 1995 .

[23]  C. Morris,et al.  Boosted bodies: Genetic techniques, domestic livestock bodies and complex representations of life , 2008 .

[24]  N. Thrift From born to made: technology, biology and space , 2005 .

[25]  M. Foucault Society Must Be Defended , 2003 .

[26]  Henk Hogeveen,et al.  Concepts et implications de la traite automatisée , 2001 .

[27]  J. Porcher,et al.  Dairy Cows: Workers in the Shadows? , 2012 .

[28]  A. Bruni,et al.  Reassembling the Social—An Introduction to Actor Network Theory , 2007 .

[29]  Peter Miller CALCULATING ECONOMIC LIFE , 2008 .

[30]  Vernon W. Ruttan,et al.  What Happened to Technology Adoption-Diffusion Research? , 1996 .

[31]  Nikolas Rose,et al.  The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century , 2006 .

[32]  Samuel Kinsley,et al.  Anticipating ubiquitous computing: Logics to forecast technological futures , 2011 .

[33]  T. Pinch,et al.  Users as Agents of Technological Change: The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States , 1996, Technology and Culture.

[34]  Samuel Kinsley Representing ‘Things to Come’: Feeling the Visions of Future Technologies , 2010 .

[35]  J. Porcher Well-being and suffering in livestock farming: living conditions at work for people and animals , 2006 .

[36]  S. Hinchliffe,et al.  Where Species Meet , 2007 .

[37]  Nick Bingham,et al.  Object-Ions: From Technological Determinism towards Geographies of Relations , 1996 .