Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Holloway, Lewis; Bear, Christopher; Wilkinson, Katy (2014)
Publisher: Springer Verlag
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: G1, S1
Robotic or automatic milking systems (AMS) 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. This paper examines how established ethical relations on dairy farms are unsettled by the intervention of a radically different technology such as AMS, and that the renegotiation of ethical relationships is thus an important dimension of how the actors involved are re-assembled around a new technology. The paper draws on in-depth research on UK dairy farms comparing those using conventional milking technologies with those using AMS. We explore the situated ethical relations which are negotiated in practice, focusing on the contingent and complex nature of human-animal-technology interactions. We show that ethical relations are situated and emergent, and that as the identities, roles and subjectivities of humans and animals are unsettled through the intervention of a new technology, the ethical relations also shift.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Anthony, R. 2012. Building a sustainable future for animal agriculture: An environmental virtue ethic of care approach within the philosophy of technology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25(2): 123-144.
    • Bear, C., and S. Eden. 2011. Thinking like a fish? Engaging with nonhuman difference through recreational angling. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 29(2): 336-352.
    • Bingham, N. 2006. Bees, butterflies, and bacteria: Biotechnology and the politics of nonhuman friendship. Environment and Planning A 38(3): 483-498.
    • Brandth, B. 2006. Agricultural body-building: Incorporations of gender, body and work. Journal of Rural Studies 22(1): 17-27.
    • Brown, K., and R. Dilley. 2012. Ways of knowing for 'response-ability' in more-than-human encounters: The role of anticipatory knowledges in outdoor access with dogs. Area 44(1): 37-45.
    • Buller, H., and C. Morris. 2003. Farm animal welfare: A new repertoire of nature-society relations or modernism re-embedded? Sociologia Ruralis 43(3): 216-237.
    • Burton, R.J.F., S. Peoples, and M.H. Cooper. 2012. Building 'cowshed cultures': A cultural perspective on the promotion of stockmanship and animal welfare on dairy farms. Journal of Rural Studies 28(2): 174-187.
    • Butler, D., L. Holloway, and C. Bear. 2012. The impact of technological change in dairy farming: Robotic milking systems and the changing role of the stockperson. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England 173: 1-6.
    • Cole, M. 2011. From “animal machines” to “happy meat”? Foucault's ideas of disciplinary and pastoral power applied to 'animal-centred' welfare discourse. Animals 1(1): 83-101.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article