This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.

Dr. Lewis Holloway
School of Environmental Sciences, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6 7RX, UK

Basic Info

Basic Info is private.

Research Keywords & Expertise

0 alternative food networks
0 Agricultural Technologies
0 Sustainable farming and food systems
0 Farm animal ethics and welfare
0 Agri-environmental issues

Fingerprints

alternative food networks

Honors and Awards

The user has no records in this section


Career Timeline

The user has no records in this section.


Short Biography

The user biography is not available.
Following
Followers
Co Authors
The list of users this user is following is empty.
Following: 0 users

Feed

Rapid response opinion
Published: 12 May 2020 in Agriculture and Human Values
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Wellcome Trust Collaborative Award 209,818/B/17/Z. Farm Level Interdisciplinary Approaches to Endemic Livestock Disease https://field-wt.co.uk/ Thank you to Abigail Woods for her advice on ‘One Health’ concepts. Bingham, Nick, Gareth Enticott, and Steve Hinchliffe. 2008. Biosecurity: Spaces, practices, and boundaries. Environment and Planning A 40: 1528–1533. Article Google Scholar Hinchliffe, Steve, Nick Bingham, John Allen, and Simon Carter. 2016. Pathological lives: Disease, space and biopolitics. Chichester: Wiley. Google Scholar Download references Department of Geography, Geology and Environment, University of Hull, Hull, UK Lewis Holloway You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar Correspondence to Lewis Holloway. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This article is part of the Topical Collection: Agriculture, Food & Covid-19. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and Permissions Holloway, L. COVID-19 and a shifted perspective on infectious farm animal disease research. Agric Hum Values 37, 573–574 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10072-2 Download citation Accepted: 09 April 2020 Published: 12 May 2020 Issue Date: September 2020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10072-2

ACS Style

Lewis Holloway. COVID-19 and a shifted perspective on infectious farm animal disease research. Agriculture and Human Values 2020, 37, 573 -574.

AMA Style

Lewis Holloway. COVID-19 and a shifted perspective on infectious farm animal disease research. Agriculture and Human Values. 2020; 37 (3):573-574.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lewis Holloway. 2020. "COVID-19 and a shifted perspective on infectious farm animal disease research." Agriculture and Human Values 37, no. 3: 573-574.

Journal article
Published: 07 May 2019 in Geoforum
Reads 0
Downloads 0

This paper begins to develop a terminology for discussing less-than-convivial more-than-human entanglements. The paper reviews existing work on such relations, showing how they tend to have been conceptualised in terms of animal transgression and resistance. It then develops critiques of these terms, focusing on their problematic representations of animals' actions and subjectivities, and engaging with arguments that non-living nonhumans also need to be considered in conceptualisations of problematic more-than-human situations. Drawing on empirical material from research into automated (or robotic) milking systems (AMS), and the associated relations between machines, humans and cows in specific places, the paper proposes and outlines the concept of divergent conduct. It argues that this is a way of exploring how heterogeneous entities co-produce activity which is likely to differ from accounts of trouble-free introductions of technologies and practices. The concept draws together an emphasis on the 'lively' nature of machines with a focus on the agency of nonhuman animals and the topological relationships involved in attempts to establish AMS in UK dairy farming. It suggests that the characteristics and capacities of heterogeneous entities make multiple and relational differences to situations. As such, the concept emphasises the constitution of AMS in relation to multiple human and nonhuman requirements, and their related conducts, which may pull in different directions. The paper argues that divergent conduct provides a way of exploring problematic and politicised entanglements in which inequalities of power can be many-layered and intersectional.

ACS Style

Christopher Bear; Lewis Holloway. Beyond resistance: Geographies of divergent more-than-human conduct in robotic milking. Geoforum 2019, 104, 212 -221.

AMA Style

Christopher Bear, Lewis Holloway. Beyond resistance: Geographies of divergent more-than-human conduct in robotic milking. Geoforum. 2019; 104 ():212-221.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Christopher Bear; Lewis Holloway. 2019. "Beyond resistance: Geographies of divergent more-than-human conduct in robotic milking." Geoforum 104, no. : 212-221.

Journal article
Published: 03 May 2019 in Journal of Rural Studies
Reads 0
Downloads 0

This paper responds to claims that smallholders in the UK farming landscape present a biosecurity threat to commercial farming, by exploring smallholders' perspectives on animal health and their practising of biosecurity, studied through focus group research in England. Biosecurity in animal agriculture has emerged as a key research theme, with attention paid to how biosecurity is both conceptualised and practised in different farming situations. Biosecurity, as an effort to make life safe, is viewed as an articulation of political and scientific discourses with on-farm practices and particular farming and food systems. The paper draws on recent theorisation of biosecurity to discuss smallholders' engagement with the health of their animals and with biosecurity practices, and to explore their relationships with vets and commercial farmers. Contesting representations of themselves and their practices as bioinsecure, smallholders instead contend that commercial farmers and farming produce more risky disease situations, and that smallholding fosters relationships of care and response-ability more likely to engender animal health and welfare. At the same time, smallholders and farmers are involved in attempts to piece together a practical biosecurity under different pressures. The paper argues that within the complex topologies of heterogeneous farming landscapes, the ‘small scale’ of smallholding is constructed as problematic, and that there needs to be an acknowledgement of a politics of biosecurity in which different modes of practicing farming are debateable.

ACS Style

Lewis Holloway. Smallholder knowledge-practices and smallholding animals: Threats or alternatives to agricultural biosecurity? Journal of Rural Studies 2019, 69, 19 -29.

AMA Style

Lewis Holloway. Smallholder knowledge-practices and smallholding animals: Threats or alternatives to agricultural biosecurity? Journal of Rural Studies. 2019; 69 ():19-29.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lewis Holloway. 2019. "Smallholder knowledge-practices and smallholding animals: Threats or alternatives to agricultural biosecurity?" Journal of Rural Studies 69, no. : 19-29.

Journal article
Published: 02 March 2017 in BJHS Themes
Reads 0
Downloads 0

This paper positions the recent emergence of robotic or automatic milking systems (AMS) in relation to discourses surrounding the longer history of milking technologies in the UK and elsewhere. The mechanization of milking has been associated with sets of hopes and anxieties which permeated the transition from hand to increasingly automated forms of milking. This transition has affected the relationships between humans and cows on dairy farms, producing different modes of cow and human agency and subjectivity. In this paper, drawing on empirical evidence from a research project exploring AMS use in contemporary farms, we examine how ongoing debates about the benefits (or otherwise) of AMS relate to longer-term discursive currents surrounding the historical emergence of milking technologies and their implications for efficient farming and the human and bovine experience of milk production. We illustrate how technological change is in part based on understandings of people and cows, at the same time as bovine and human agency and subjectivity are entrained and reconfigured in relation to emerging milking technologies, so that what it is to be a cow or human becomes different as technologies change. We illustrate how this results from – and in – competing ways of understanding cows: as active agents, as contributing to technological design, as ‘free’, as ‘responsible’ and/or requiring surveillance and discipline, and as efficient co-producers, with milking technologies, of milk.

ACS Style

Lewis Holloway; Christopher Bear. Bovine and human becomings in histories of dairy technologies: robotic milking systems and remaking animal and human subjectivity. BJHS Themes 2017, 2, 215 -234.

AMA Style

Lewis Holloway, Christopher Bear. Bovine and human becomings in histories of dairy technologies: robotic milking systems and remaking animal and human subjectivity. BJHS Themes. 2017; 2 ():215-234.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lewis Holloway; Christopher Bear. 2017. "Bovine and human becomings in histories of dairy technologies: robotic milking systems and remaking animal and human subjectivity." BJHS Themes 2, no. : 215-234.

Journal article
Published: 02 September 2015 in Sociologia Ruralis
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

Deborah Butler; Lewis Holloway. Technology and Restructuring the Social Field of Dairy Farming: Hybrid Capitals, ‘Stockmanship’ and Automatic Milking Systems. Sociologia Ruralis 2015, 56, 513 -530.

AMA Style

Deborah Butler, Lewis Holloway. Technology and Restructuring the Social Field of Dairy Farming: Hybrid Capitals, ‘Stockmanship’ and Automatic Milking Systems. Sociologia Ruralis. 2015; 56 (4):513-530.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Deborah Butler; Lewis Holloway. 2015. "Technology and Restructuring the Social Field of Dairy Farming: Hybrid Capitals, ‘Stockmanship’ and Automatic Milking Systems." Sociologia Ruralis 56, no. 4: 513-530.

Journal article
Published: 01 January 2014 in Journal of Rural Studies
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

Lewis Holloway; Christopher Bear; Katy Wilkinson. Re-capturing bovine life: Robot–cow relationships, freedom and control in dairy farming. Journal of Rural Studies 2014, 33, 131 -140.

AMA Style

Lewis Holloway, Christopher Bear, Katy Wilkinson. Re-capturing bovine life: Robot–cow relationships, freedom and control in dairy farming. Journal of Rural Studies. 2014; 33 ():131-140.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lewis Holloway; Christopher Bear; Katy Wilkinson. 2014. "Re-capturing bovine life: Robot–cow relationships, freedom and control in dairy farming." Journal of Rural Studies 33, no. : 131-140.

Journal article
Published: 01 January 2014 in Journal of Rural Studies
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Cattle and sheep breeders in the UK and elsewhere are increasingly being encouraged to use a variety of genetic technologies to help them make breeding decisions. The technology of particular interest here is ‘classical’ statistical genetics, which use a series of measurements taken from animals’ bodies to provide an estimate of their ‘genetic merit’ known as Estimated Breeding Values (EBVs). Drawing on empirical research with the representatives of national cattle breed societies and individual cattle breeders the paper explores the complex ways in which they are engaging with genetic breeding technologies. The concept of ‘heterogeneous biosocial collectivity’ is mobilised to inform an understanding of processes of co-construction of breeding technologies, livestock animals and humans. The paper presents case studies of livestock breeding collectivities at different scales, arguing that the ways in which the ‘life’ of livestock animals is problematised is specific to different scales, and varies too between different collectivities at the same scale. This conceptualisation problematises earlier models of innovation-adoption that view farmers as either ‘adopters’ or ‘non-adopters’ of technologies and in which individual attitudes alone are seen as determining the decision to adopt or not adopt. Instead, the paper emphasises the particularity and specificity of co-construction, and that the co-construction of collectivities and technologies is always in process

ACS Style

Carol Morris; Lewis Holloway. Genetics and livestock breeding in the UK: Co-constructing technologies and heterogeneous biosocial collectivities. Journal of Rural Studies 2014, 33, 150 -160.

AMA Style

Carol Morris, Lewis Holloway. Genetics and livestock breeding in the UK: Co-constructing technologies and heterogeneous biosocial collectivities. Journal of Rural Studies. 2014; 33 ():150-160.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Carol Morris; Lewis Holloway. 2014. "Genetics and livestock breeding in the UK: Co-constructing technologies and heterogeneous biosocial collectivities." Journal of Rural Studies 33, no. : 150-160.

Journal article
Published: 31 October 2013 in Agriculture and Human Values
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Robotic or automatic milking systems (AMS) are novel technologies that take over the labor of dairy farming and reduce the need for human–animal interactions. Because robotic milking involves the replacement of ‘conventional’ twice-a-day milking managed by people with a system that supposedly allows cows the freedom to be milked automatically whenever they choose, some claim 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. 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 that 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.

ACS Style

Lewis Holloway; Christopher Bear; Katy Wilkinson. Robotic milking technologies and renegotiating situated ethical relationships on UK dairy farms. Agriculture and Human Values 2013, 31, 185 -199.

AMA Style

Lewis Holloway, Christopher Bear, Katy Wilkinson. Robotic milking technologies and renegotiating situated ethical relationships on UK dairy farms. Agriculture and Human Values. 2013; 31 (2):185-199.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lewis Holloway; Christopher Bear; Katy Wilkinson. 2013. "Robotic milking technologies and renegotiating situated ethical relationships on UK dairy farms." Agriculture and Human Values 31, no. 2: 185-199.

Articles
Published: 24 June 2013 in Social & Cultural Geography
Reads 0
Downloads 0

This paper focuses on the production of aesthetic ‘truths’ in UK livestock breeding, drawing on detailed qualitative research with breeders and breed societies. It extends emerging interest in the aesthetic in human geographical research, examining how aesthetic judgements about non-human animals depend, in part, on the agency of the animal and their inter-subjective relations with humans in specific places. Aesthetic evaluation further produces implicit judgements about animals' ethical considerability, at the same time obscuring the effects of such judgements on their framing and treatment. Aesthetic evaluation is thus related to sets of material and ethical interests. The paper develops a more-than-human reading of Foucault's biopower, which explores how truths about visual evaluations of animals become established. Two empirical perspectives explore, first, a ‘relational practical aesthetic’ for evaluating beef cattle and sheep, exploring the implications of the aesthetic framing of specific animals and, second, the tensions involved in looking at animals when different aesthetic truths conflict and when traditions of aesthetic evaluation encounter genetic modes of evaluation. The paper concludes by discussing the ethical implications of ongoing transformations of evaluative modes in livestock breeding, suggesting that shifts away from inter-subjective modes of aesthetic evaluation further diminish the ethical status of animals.

ACS Style

Lewis Holloway; Carol Morris. Viewing animal bodies: truths, practical aesthetics and ethical considerability in UK livestock breeding. Social & Cultural Geography 2013, 15, 1 -22.

AMA Style

Lewis Holloway, Carol Morris. Viewing animal bodies: truths, practical aesthetics and ethical considerability in UK livestock breeding. Social & Cultural Geography. 2013; 15 (1):1-22.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lewis Holloway; Carol Morris. 2013. "Viewing animal bodies: truths, practical aesthetics and ethical considerability in UK livestock breeding." Social & Cultural Geography 15, no. 1: 1-22.

Research article
Published: 01 January 2012 in Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Cattle and sheep breeders in the UK and elsewhere increasingly draw on genetic techniques in order to make breeding decisions. Many breeders support such techniques, while others argue against them for a variety of reasons, including their preference for the ‘traditions’ of visual-based and pedigree-based selections. Meanwhile, even for those institutions and breeders who promote genetic techniques, the outcomes are not always as predicted. We build on our recent use of Foucault's discussions of biopower to examine the effects of the introduction of genetic techniques in UK livestock breeding in order to begin to explore the diffuse and capillary nature of resistance within relations of biopower. We focus specifically on how resistance and contestation can be understood through the joint lenses of biopower and an understanding of livestock breeding as knowledge-practices enacted within heterogeneous biosocial collectivities. In some instances these collectivities coalesce around shared endeavour, such as increasing the valency of genetic evaluation within livestock breeding. Yet such mixed collectivities also open up opportunities for counter-conduct: heterogeneous resistances to and contestations of genetic evaluation as something represented as progressive and inevitable. We focus on exploring such modes of resistance using detailed empirical research with livestock breeders and breeding institutions. We demonstrate how in different and specific ways geneticisation becomes problematised, and is contested and made more complex, through the knowledge-practices of breeders, the bodies of animals, and the complex relationships between different institutions in livestock breeding and rearing.

ACS Style

Lewis Holloway; Carol Morris. Contesting Genetic Knowledge-Practices in Livestock Breeding: Biopower, Biosocial Collectivities, and Heterogeneous Resistances. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2012, 30, 60 -77.

AMA Style

Lewis Holloway, Carol Morris. Contesting Genetic Knowledge-Practices in Livestock Breeding: Biopower, Biosocial Collectivities, and Heterogeneous Resistances. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 2012; 30 (1):60-77.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lewis Holloway; Carol Morris. 2012. "Contesting Genetic Knowledge-Practices in Livestock Breeding: Biopower, Biosocial Collectivities, and Heterogeneous Resistances." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 30, no. 1: 60-77.

Journal article
Published: 24 December 2010 in Agriculture and Human Values
Reads 0
Downloads 0

This paper examines the discourses and practices of pedigree livestock breeding, focusing on beef cattle and sheep in the UK, concentrating on an under-examined aspect of this—the deselection and rejection of some animals from future breeding populations. In the context of exploring how animals are valued and represented in different ways in relation to particular agricultural knowledge-practices, it focuses on deselecting particular animals from breeding populations, drawing attention to shifts in such knowledge-practices related to the emergence of “genetic” techniques in livestock breeding which are arguably displacing “traditional” visual and experiential knowledge’s of livestock animals. The paper situates this discussion in the analytical framework provided by Foucault’s conception of “biopower,” exploring how interventions in livestock populations aimed at the fostering of domestic animal life are necessarily also associated with the imperative that certain animals must die and not contribute to the future reproduction of their breed. The “geneticization” of livestock breeding produces new articulations of this process associated with different understandings of animal life and the possibilities of different modes of intervention in livestock populations. Genetic techniques increasingly quantify and rationalize processes of selection and deselection, and affect how animals are perceived and valued both as groups and as individuals. The paper concludes by emphasizing that the valuation of livestock animals is contested, and that the entanglement of “traditional” and “genetic” modes of valuation means that there are multiple layers of valuation and (de)selection involved in breeding knowledge-practices.

ACS Style

Lewis Holloway; Carol Morris; Ben Gilna; David Gibbs. Choosing and rejecting cattle and sheep: changing discourses and practices of (de)selection in pedigree livestock breeding. Agriculture and Human Values 2010, 28, 533 -547.

AMA Style

Lewis Holloway, Carol Morris, Ben Gilna, David Gibbs. Choosing and rejecting cattle and sheep: changing discourses and practices of (de)selection in pedigree livestock breeding. Agriculture and Human Values. 2010; 28 (4):533-547.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lewis Holloway; Carol Morris; Ben Gilna; David Gibbs. 2010. "Choosing and rejecting cattle and sheep: changing discourses and practices of (de)selection in pedigree livestock breeding." Agriculture and Human Values 28, no. 4: 533-547.

Journal article
Published: 01 October 2009 in The Sociological Review
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

Elizabeth Dowler; Moya Kneafsey; Rosie Cox; Lewis Holloway. ‘Doing Food Differently’: Reconnecting Biological and Social Relationships through Care for Food. The Sociological Review 2009, 57, 200 -221.

AMA Style

Elizabeth Dowler, Moya Kneafsey, Rosie Cox, Lewis Holloway. ‘Doing Food Differently’: Reconnecting Biological and Social Relationships through Care for Food. The Sociological Review. 2009; 57 (2_suppl):200-221.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Elizabeth Dowler; Moya Kneafsey; Rosie Cox; Lewis Holloway. 2009. "‘Doing Food Differently’: Reconnecting Biological and Social Relationships through Care for Food." The Sociological Review 57, no. 2_suppl: 200-221.

Journal article
Published: 01 July 2009 in Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Genetic techniques have become increasingly prevalent in livestock breeding, associated with new types of knowledge‐practice and changes in the institutional and geographical relationships related to animal husbandry. This paper examines the value of Foucault’s concept of ‘biopower’ to theorising livestock breeding and the implications of the rise of genetic knowledge‐practices in agriculture, developing the concept to apply to nonhuman animals and to situations where humans and nonhuman animals are co‐constituted through particular knowledge‐practices and corporeal meetings. It focuses on the idea of ‘population’ as a central component of biopower, and relates this to conceptualisations of biosocial collectivity. Reacting to the inherent humanism of Foucault’s outlining of biopower, the paper argues for its relevance in relation to nonhuman populations, and for heterogeneous conceptualisations of biosocial collectivity. Drawing on research with UK beef cattle and sheep breed societies, the paper explores how, in practice, populations are constructed in relation to the production of particular sorts of truths concerning, and particular modes of intervention in, the lives of nonhuman animals. It explores how heterogeneous biosocial collectivities are constituted around these interventions. The emergence of genetic techniques is shown to transform the processes constituting populations and heterogeneous biosocial collectivities, and this is discussed in terms of a new inflection of agricultural biopower associated with novel interventions in the lives of livestock animals.

ACS Style

Lewis Holloway; Carol Morris; Ben Gilna; David Gibbs. Biopower, genetics and livestock breeding: (re)constituting animal populations and heterogeneous biosocial collectivities. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 2009, 34, 394 -407.

AMA Style

Lewis Holloway, Carol Morris, Ben Gilna, David Gibbs. Biopower, genetics and livestock breeding: (re)constituting animal populations and heterogeneous biosocial collectivities. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 2009; 34 (3):394-407.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lewis Holloway; Carol Morris; Ben Gilna; David Gibbs. 2009. "Biopower, genetics and livestock breeding: (re)constituting animal populations and heterogeneous biosocial collectivities." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 34, no. 3: 394-407.

Research article
Published: 17 December 2008 in Progress in Human Geography
Reads 0
Downloads 0

This paper presents an agenda for research into the geographies of UK livestock agriculture as these are being reconfigured through the increasing intervention of genetic techniques and technologies. After discussing three particular techniques, four areas of research are identified. The first three relate to different spaces and scales at which the effects of genetic techniques can be examined: the animal body and animal-human relationships; the farm and other rural spaces; and the national and international networks of genetic knowledge-practices relating to livestock. The fourth area outlines an agenda for engaging with Foucault's notion of biopower as a possible means of gaining a theoretical purchase on three key issues which span these three scales: knowledge, power and life. In its reflections on the wider implications of the proposed research the paper aims to speak to a number of audiences within and beyond the discipline.

ACS Style

Carol Morris; Lewis Holloway. Genetic technologies and the transformation of the geographies of UK livestock agriculture: a research agenda. Progress in Human Geography 2008, 33, 313 -333.

AMA Style

Carol Morris, Lewis Holloway. Genetic technologies and the transformation of the geographies of UK livestock agriculture: a research agenda. Progress in Human Geography. 2008; 33 (3):313-333.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Carol Morris; Lewis Holloway. 2008. "Genetic technologies and the transformation of the geographies of UK livestock agriculture: a research agenda." Progress in Human Geography 33, no. 3: 313-333.

Research article
Published: 01 December 2007 in Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Recent representations of human–animal relationships in farming have tended to focus on human experience, and to essentialise animal subjectivity in granting them a centred subjectivity akin to that assumed to be possessed by humans. Instead, this paper develops an understanding of the coproduction of domestic livestock animal subjectivities and the technologies used in farming domestic livestock animals, based on an analysis of texts produced by agricultural scientists, farmers, and equipment manufacturers relating to the effects of introducing new robotic milking technologies into dairy farming. Drawing particularly on Foucault's conceptions of subjectivity and biopower, I explore the emergence of particular forms of bovine subjectivity associated with robotic milking. Through an analysis of a wide range of secondary sources, the paper shows that, although robotic technologies have been presented as offering cows ‘freedom’, better welfare, and a more ‘natural’ experience, other relations of domination come into effect in association with such technologies and their spatialities. These are expressed through the manipulation of animal bodies and behaviours, in expectations that cows move and act in particular ways, and through normalisation and individualisation processes. I argue that nonhuman animal subjectivities in agriculture are thus heterogeneous, fluid, and contingent on specific sets of relationships between animals, humans, and technologies and on specific agricultural microgeographies. The paper ends by acknowledging that these relationships need further empirical exploration in terms of both attempts to understand animals’ changed experiences and ways of being, and their ethical implications in particular situations.

ACS Style

Lewis Holloway. Subjecting Cows to Robots: Farming Technologies and the Making of Animal Subjects. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2007, 25, 1041 -1060.

AMA Style

Lewis Holloway. Subjecting Cows to Robots: Farming Technologies and the Making of Animal Subjects. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 2007; 25 (6):1041-1060.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lewis Holloway. 2007. "Subjecting Cows to Robots: Farming Technologies and the Making of Animal Subjects." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25, no. 6: 1041-1060.

Journal article
Published: 15 August 2007 in Genomics, Society and Policy
Reads 0
Downloads 0

This paper explores the analytical relevance of Foucault's notion of biopower in the context of regulating and managing non-human lives and populations, specifically those animals that are the focus of livestock breeding based on genetic techniques. The concept of biopower is seen as offering theoretical possibilities precisely because it is concerned with the regulation of life and of populations. The paper approaches the task of testing the 'analytic mettle' of biopower through an analysis of four policy documents concerned with farm animal genetics: the UK's National Scrapie Plan (2003); the UK National Action Plan on Farm Animal Genetic Resources (2006); the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Committee's report on Animals and Biotechnology (2002); and the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the Welfare Implications of Animal Breeding and Breeding Technologies in Commercial Agriculture (2004). Of interest is whether and how the four policy case studies articulate a form of biopower in relation to human-livestock animal relations in the context of genetic approaches to livestock breeding, and how biopower is variably expressed in relation to the different policy issues addressed. In concluding, the paper considers the overall applicability and relevance of biopower in the context of regulating animal lives within livestock breeding, highlighting both possibilities and limitations, and offers suggestions for taking forward research on livestock populations from a neo-Foucaultian perspective.

ACS Style

Lewis Holloway; Carol Morris. Exploring Biopower in the Regulation of Farm Animal Bodies: Genetic Policy Interventions in UK Livestock. Genomics, Society and Policy 2007, 3, 82 .

AMA Style

Lewis Holloway, Carol Morris. Exploring Biopower in the Regulation of Farm Animal Bodies: Genetic Policy Interventions in UK Livestock. Genomics, Society and Policy. 2007; 3 (2):82.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lewis Holloway; Carol Morris. 2007. "Exploring Biopower in the Regulation of Farm Animal Bodies: Genetic Policy Interventions in UK Livestock." Genomics, Society and Policy 3, no. 2: 82.

Journal article
Published: 01 January 2007 in Sociologia Ruralis
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Modes of food production–consumption defined as ‘alternative’ have received considerable academic attention, with studies exploring both their potential for contributing to rural development strategies and the opportunities they provide for countering established power relations in food supply systems. However, the use of the term ‘alternative’ as part of a persistent dualism in which it is opposed to the ‘conventional’ is problematic as it loses sight of the specificity of different examples food production–consumption. Based on extensive field research with a series of very different food projects, this article develops a methodological framework which structures a description of how specific examples of food production–consumption are organised with reference to a series of analytical fields. This framework retains a sense of the diversity and particularity of particular cases of production–consumption, and directs attention to the particular locations of resistance to prevalent power relations in food systems that are made possible through different food projects.

ACS Style

Lewis Holloway; Moya Kneafsey; Laura Venn; Rosie Cox; Elizabeth Dowler; Helena Tuomainen. Possible Food Economies: a Methodological Framework for Exploring Food Production?Consumption Relationships. Sociologia Ruralis 2007, 47, 1 -19.

AMA Style

Lewis Holloway, Moya Kneafsey, Laura Venn, Rosie Cox, Elizabeth Dowler, Helena Tuomainen. Possible Food Economies: a Methodological Framework for Exploring Food Production?Consumption Relationships. Sociologia Ruralis. 2007; 47 (1):1-19.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lewis Holloway; Moya Kneafsey; Laura Venn; Rosie Cox; Elizabeth Dowler; Helena Tuomainen. 2007. "Possible Food Economies: a Methodological Framework for Exploring Food Production?Consumption Relationships." Sociologia Ruralis 47, no. 1: 1-19.

Journal article
Published: 01 September 2006 in The Geographical Journal
Reads 0
Downloads 0

This paper focuses on a case study of an ‘alternative’ food network based in the Abruzzo National Park, Italy, to explore how ideas of sustainable farmland management can be expressed through broader understandings of developing networks of care concerned with local economies and societies, high‐quality specialist food products, particular ‘traditional’ farming practices and livestock breeds, as well as the ecology of a farmed landscape. The scheme allows customers, internationally as well as in Italy, to ‘adopt’ a milking sheep on a large mountain farm. In return, adopters are sent food products from the farm. The adoption scheme is inter‐twined with an agri‐tourism project which provides accommodation, runs a restaurant and engages in educational activities. The scheme is the result of the individual initiative of its founder, and is associated with a strongly expressed ethical position concerning the value of sustaining valued local rural landscapes and lifestyles, and the importance of ‘reconnecting’ urban dwellers with rural areas, farming and ‘quality’ food production. Yet the localness of the scheme is sustained through wider national and international networks: volunteer and paid workers are drawn from several European countries, funding has been acquired from the EU LEADER programme, and internet and transport technologies are essential in connecting with and supplying an international customer base. The broader economy of care instanced in this case study draws attention to a need to develop strategies for sustainable farmland management constructed around wider programmes of social, economic and cultural, as well as environmental, concern.

ACS Style

Lewis Holloway; Rosie Cox; Laura Venn; Moya Kneafsey; Elizabeth Dowler; Helena Tuomainen. Managing sustainable farmed landscape through 'alternative' food networks: a case study from Italy. The Geographical Journal 2006, 172, 219 -229.

AMA Style

Lewis Holloway, Rosie Cox, Laura Venn, Moya Kneafsey, Elizabeth Dowler, Helena Tuomainen. Managing sustainable farmed landscape through 'alternative' food networks: a case study from Italy. The Geographical Journal. 2006; 172 (3):219-229.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lewis Holloway; Rosie Cox; Laura Venn; Moya Kneafsey; Elizabeth Dowler; Helena Tuomainen. 2006. "Managing sustainable farmed landscape through 'alternative' food networks: a case study from Italy." The Geographical Journal 172, no. 3: 219-229.

Research article
Published: 01 December 2005 in Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
Reads 0
Downloads 0

In this paper I examine intertwined modes of bodily evaluation and genetic understanding evident in relation to ‘modernising’ tendencies in contemporary agriculture, using a case study of pedigree cattle breeding. These modes afford different perspectives on the same bodies. Visual evaluation is associated with aesthetic appreciation of physically present animal bodies, and takes on a particular intensity in the ritual of judging during agricultural shows. Statistical techniques of genetic evaluation are concerned to construct numerical estimates of the genetic ‘worth’ or ‘potential’ of an animal, which can stand for the animal and be transported over space and time. In both instances, animals become understood through a series of relationships between material bodies, semiotic practices, social institutions, and spatialities, and both constitute different sorts of assessment of something of the interiority of animal bodies from the outside. Both draw on different practical understandings of bodies and of bodily quality, which are directly related to breeding practices and the production and constitution of new animal bodies. I explore the production of different knowledge practices associated with these modes of evaluation, and examine the interplay and tensions between them. Simultaneously taking into account aesthetic and technical knowledge practices is suggested to be valuable in considerations of the constitution of bodies embedded in specific nature–society relations. Finally, it is suggested that there is evidence for an intensification of genetic discourse in livestock breeding, implying continuing processes of change in the knowledge practices of breeding and in the locus of decisionmaking and relations of power in agriculture.

ACS Style

Lewis Holloway. Aesthetics, Genetics, and Evaluating Animal Bodies: Locating and Displacing Cattle on Show and in Figures. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2005, 23, 883 -902.

AMA Style

Lewis Holloway. Aesthetics, Genetics, and Evaluating Animal Bodies: Locating and Displacing Cattle on Show and in Figures. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 2005; 23 (6):883-902.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lewis Holloway. 2005. "Aesthetics, Genetics, and Evaluating Animal Bodies: Locating and Displacing Cattle on Show and in Figures." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 23, no. 6: 883-902.

Journal article
Published: 01 July 2000 in Sociologia Ruralis
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

Lewis Holloway; Moya Kneafsey. Reading the Space of the Framers 'Market:A Case Study from the United Kingdom. Sociologia Ruralis 2000, 40, 285 -299.

AMA Style

Lewis Holloway, Moya Kneafsey. Reading the Space of the Framers 'Market:A Case Study from the United Kingdom. Sociologia Ruralis. 2000; 40 (3):285-299.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lewis Holloway; Moya Kneafsey. 2000. "Reading the Space of the Framers 'Market:A Case Study from the United Kingdom." Sociologia Ruralis 40, no. 3: 285-299.