Animal bodies multiple: Practising genomic knowledge on dairy farms

Lonkila, Annika; Kaljonen, Minna

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.08.010

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Those who combine genetic assessments with sensory evaluations, on the other hand, are sometimes directed towards animals in this mediated way and sometimes in ways that are unmediated by (this) technology (cf. Holloway et al 2011, Lonkila andKaljonen 2018).…”

Section: Technological Mediation and Human-animal Relations: A Case A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to note, first, that genetic selection technologies are multistable: they can be embedded in breeding practices in several different ways. Lonkila and Kaljonen (2018) show that some Finnish dairy farmers select their breeding animals exclusively on the basis of genetic parameters, while others use genetic selection in combination with other evaluation practices (e.g. physical inspection or performance prediction based on ancestry records), and yet others do not use genetic selection.…”

Section: Technological Mediation and Human-animal Relations: A Case A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It thus seems that genetic assessment has motivated some breeders to add selection criteria, resulting in 'tougher' selection. Other breeders have come to base their selection decisions solely on genetic criteria, however (Holloway et al 2011;Lonkila and Kaljonen 2018), in which case it is unclear a priori whether selection has become more strict. Selection on physical characteristics can itself be quite stringent and may involve rejecting animals that would be suitable for breeding according to genetic assessments; switching to genetic selection might hence even result in fewer animals being deselected and discarded.…”

Section: Technological Mediation and Human-animal Relations: A Case A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How Do Technologies Affect How We See and Treat Animals? Extending Technological Mediation Theory to Human-animal Relations

Kramer

Meijboom²

2022

Ethic Theory Moral Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human practices in which animals are involved often include the application of technology: some farmed animals are for example milked robotically or monitored by smart technologies, laboratory animals are adapted to specific purposes through the application of biotechnologies, and pets have their own social media accounts. Animal ethicists have raised concerns about some of these practices, but tend to assume that technologies are just neutral intermediaries in human-animal relations. This paper questions that assumption and addresses how technologies might shape human-animal relations in non-neutral ways. Building on the technological mediation approach, it proposes that technologies can influence human-animal relations by amplifying and reducing certain aspects of animals in human perception or by inviting and inhibiting certain actions towards animals. The paper next considers, in two concretizing steps, how this theoretical starting point can enrich ethical discussions on technology and human-animal relations. First, it shows how the technological mediation approach can help to conceptualize a main concern that has been raised regarding the impact of technologies on human-animal relations, namely the concern that animals might be ‘instrumentalized’ or ‘objectified’ in certain technological practices. Second, it considers how this approach can guide investigations of how particular technologies might affect human-animal relations, taking genetic selection technologies as used in livestock breeding as a case. The paper closes by briefly reviewing the prospects and challenges for the application of the technological mediation approach to human-animal relations, thus sketching directions for future research.

show abstract

Section: Technological Mediation and Human-animal Relations: A Case A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Technological Mediation and Human-animal Relations: A Case A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Technological Mediation and Human-animal Relations: A Case A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Do Technologies Affect How We See and Treat Animals? Extending Technological Mediation Theory to Human-animal Relations

Kramer

Meijboom²

2022

Ethic Theory Moral Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We see these co‐constitutive and co‐emergent dimensions of biopower as a useful initial guide for analysing attempts to reframe a hegemonic, animal‐based dietary biopower towards instead the governance of plant‐centred eating. In her studies on medical biopower (Mol, 2002) and nutritional counselling (Mol, 2013), Mol has further underlined how we should never interpret the exercise of biopower as complete, but rather as attempts of ordering that may be interpreted in multiple and unforeseen ways (see also Law, 1994; Lonkila & Kaljonen, 2018). This also means that the coherence of biopower is always a practical matter and the diffuse character of biopower leaves open multiple spaces for resistance and contestation .…”

Section: Thinking Biopolitically About Plant‐centred Eating In An Urb...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing plant‐centred eating at the urban scale in the UK: The Sustainable Food Cities network and the reframing of dietary biopower

Morris

Kaljonen

Kershaw

2021

Geographical Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have seen an increase in actions to address a key feature of food in the Anthropocene: the over-production and consumption of animal-based foods or "animalisation" of diets. However, it is unclear whether such efforts can be understood as a coherent institutional level response that will challenge hegemonic dietary biopower, a regime of governance that normalises and reproduces animalbased food consumption. Building on scholarship that explores food governance initiatives in urban contexts and dietary biopower across a range of empirical cases, this paper explores whether, how, and with what consequences governance actors within urban food partnerships (UFPs) of the UK Sustainable Food Cities (SFC) network are working to reframe dietary biopower so that humans are disciplined to eat less animal-based food and instead to adopt a more plant-centred diet. Document analysis and semi-structured interviews with SFC representatives suggest the breadth and depth of current UFP actions do not add up to a sustained challenge to hegemonic, animal-based dietary biopower. Rather, they reveal a plant-centred dietary biopolitical project in the making, while specific cases suggest that this project is more accurately conceptualised as arrested due to the pursuit of food system actions that are counter to and in tension with the promotion of plant-centred eating. We suggest that a more coherent reframing of dietary biopower would entail urban food governance actors engaging consistently and robustly with the debates surrounding animal-based foods, as well as identifying and enacting synergies between plant-centred eating, food poverty, and local economic development agendas.

show abstract

“…Breeding knowledge is outsourced to specific evaluation tools and indexes. Some farmers lament their loss of expertise and agency (Lonkila and Kaljonen 2018).…”

Section: Invisibility As Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

In Search of Invisible Cows

Kaarlenkaski

Lonkila

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The notion of “invisible cows” has become popular in Finnish dairy production. This concept emerges in a very specific historical context: Increasing herd size, changing technological infrastructure in cowsheds, and the transformation of farmer identities all contribute to a need for more intensified forms of collaborative practices between humans and animals. An invisible cow is healthy, corporally compliant, obedient, easy and collaborative both in its body and behaviour. Invisible cows form a uniform herd in which individual animals require minimal care from farmers. In this paper, we explore how this new ideal is manifested on dairy farms, and how it changes the agencies of both farmers and animals and affects human-animal relationships. We examine the notions of collaboration, resistance and human-animal affection and aim to build links between these concepts. Our discussion of everyday work on dairy farms reveals the unattainability of invisibility. In various ways cattle resist their enactment as see-through members of the herd. Furthermore, invisibility can also be resisted by farmers who embrace their relations with specific animals who fail to stay invisible. Our paper contributes to a more complex understanding of the intertwinement of human and animal agencywithin dairy husbandry and argues that collaborative and resistant practices are always entangled.

show abstract

Animal bodies multiple: Practising genomic knowledge on dairy farms

Cited by 8 publications

References 23 publications

How Do Technologies Affect How We See and Treat Animals? Extending Technological Mediation Theory to Human-animal Relations

How Do Technologies Affect How We See and Treat Animals? Extending Technological Mediation Theory to Human-animal Relations

Governing plant‐centred eating at the urban scale in the UK: The Sustainable Food Cities network and the reframing of dietary biopower

In Search of Invisible Cows

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About