Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Diversity in agricultural technology adoption: How are automatic milking systems used and to what end?

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Adoption of technology in agriculture can significantly reorganize production and relationships amongst humans, animals, technology, and the natural environment. However, the adoption of agricultural technology is not homogenous, and diversity in integration leads to a diversity of outcomes and impacts. In this study, we examine the adoption of automated milking systems (AMS) in small and midsize dairy farms in the US Midwest, the Netherlands, and Denmark. In contrast to technological determinism, we find significant variation amongst adopters in the implementation of AMS and corresponding variation in outcomes. Adopters have significant discretion in determining the use of AMS, which leads to a diversity of possible outcomes for family and non-family labor, human–cow relationships, animal welfare, the environment, and financial resiliency. Adoption and implementation are shaped by both structural factors, such as debt load and labor market variation, and by farmers’ individual personality traits and values, such as a willingness (or not) to release control to technology. Rather than uniform adoption and impacts of technology, we highlight the importance of context, the co-constitution of technology and users, and the diversity of technology adoption and its associated impacts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abd-Ella, M.M., E.O. Hoiberg, and R.D. Warren. 1981. Adoption behavior in family farm systems: an Iowa study. Rural Sociology 46(1): 42–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, R., and J. Gilbert. 1995. Reproduction or transformation of family farming? An empirical assessment of Wisconsin farms, 1950–1975. In Family farming in the contemporary world: East–west comparisons, ed. K. Gorlach, 123–138. Cracow: Jagiellonian University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, L.L. 1969. The Effect of technology on the farm labor market. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 51(3): 605–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, N. 1996. Object-ions: From technological determinism towards geographies of relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14(6): 635–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Royal Agricultural Society of England 173: 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, W.W. 1958. Farm prices, myth and reality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Correll, D.L. 1998. The role of phosphorus in the eutrophication of receiving waters: A review. Journal of Environment Quality 27(2): 261–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Klein, C.A.M., and S.F. Ledgard. 2005. Nitrous oxide emissions from New Zealand agriculture—Key sources and mitigation strategies. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 72(1): 77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Koning, K., and J. Rodenburg. 2004. Automatic milking: State of the art in Europe and North America. In A better understanding of automatic milking, ed. A. Meijerling, H. Hogeveen, and C.J.A.M. De Koning, 27–37. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dexter, K. 1977. The impact of technology on the political economy of agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Economics 28(3): 211–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkhuizen, A.A., R.B.M. Huirne, S.B. Harsh, and R.W. Gardner. 1997. Economics of robotic application. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 17(1): 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, W.D. 1998. The evolution and strategies of MD foods of Denmark and the Danish dairy board—Implications for the U.S. and world dairy industries. Babcock Institute Discussion Paper No. 98-1. University of Wisconsin-Madison. http://www.babcock.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/documents/productdownload/dp_1998-1.en_.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2013.

  • Fliegel, F.C., and J.C. Van Es. 1983. The diffusion-adoption process in agriculture: Changes in technology and changing paradigms. In Technology and social change in rural areas, ed. G. Summers, 13–28. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, J.B. 1999. Marx’s theory of metabolic right: classic foundations for environmental sociology. American Journal of Sociology 105(2): 366–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. 1978. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction. Trans. R. Hurley. New York: Pantheon.

  • Fraser, D.G. 2005. Animal welfare and the intensification of animal production: an alternative interpretation. Rome: Food & Agriculture Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, W.H., A.E. Barton, and R.J. Thomas. 1981. Manufacturing green gold: capital, labor, and technology in the lettuce industry. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, W.H. 2001. Reprise on commodity systems methodology. Agriculture and Food 9(1): 82–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, H. 1978. World market, state, and family farm: Social bases of household production in the era of wage labor. Comparative Studies in Society and History 20(4): 545–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenna, L.L., R.A. Jussaume Jr, and J.C. Dawson. 2011. How farmers matter in shaping agricultural technologies: Social and structural characteristics of wheat growers and wheat varieties. Agriculture and Human Values 28(2): 213–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, J.J., E.E. Wildman, J.W. Pankey, J.R. Kunkel, D.B. Howard, and B.M. Murphy. 1992. The influence of intensively managed rotational grazing, traditional continuous grazing, and confinement housing on bulk tank milk quality and udder health. Journal of Dairy Science 75(1): 96–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, K.A., D.N. Pellow, and A. Schnaiberg. 2004. Interrogating the treadmill of production, everything you wanted to know about the treadmill but were afraid to ask. Organization & Environment 17(3): 296–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grooms, L., M. Moore, K. McMahon, J. Wehrspann. 2009. Big think: The future of robotics on farms. Farm Industry News. http://www.farmindustrynews.com/farm-equipment/big-think-future-robotics-farms. Accessed 4 March 2013.

  • Haan, M., D. Stuart, and B. Schewe. 2012. Challenges and benefits of adopting robotic milking on Michigan dairy farms. Michigan Dairy Review. https://www.msu.edu/~mdr/vol17no3/challenges.html. Accessed 3 July 2012.

  • Hagel, J., J.S. Brown, and L. Davison. 2010. The power of pull: How small moves, smartly made, can set big things in motion. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamann, J. 2002. Machine milking effects on udder health - comparison of a conventional with a robotic milking system. The First North American Conference on Robotic Milking. http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20023108843.html;jsessionid=DEFE4EC207195D824F6A6A6C9DF7227B. Accessed 1 Apr 2013.

  • Harl, N.E. 1991. The farm debt crisis of the 1980 s, 1st ed. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, M.R., B.F. Quin, and M.L. Nguyen. 2004. Phosphorus runoff from agricultural land and direct fertilizer effects: A review. Journal of Environmental Quality 33(6): 1954–1972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haumann, S., and M. Wattiaux. 1999. Overview of world livestock agriculture and selected dairy industries. Babcock Institute Discussion Paper No. 99-3. University of Wisconsin-Madison. http://babcock.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/documents/productdownload/dp_1999-3.en_.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2013.

  • He, Z., T.S. Griffin, and C.W. Honeycutt. 2004. Phosphorus distribution in dairy manures. Journal of Environment Quality 33(4): 1528–1534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkila, A.M., L. Vanninen, and E. Manninen. 2010. Economics of small-scale dairy farms having robotic milking. The First North American Conference on Precision Dairy Management. www.precisiondairy2010.com/proceedings/s3heikkila.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2013.

  • Hernandez, D. 2012. They’re farming out dairy chores—To robots. Star Tribune. http://www.startribune.com/local/168275196.html. Accessed 4 Apr 2013.

  • Hernandez-Mendo, O., M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, D.M. Veira, and D.M. Weary. 2007. Effects of pasture on lameness in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90(3): 1209–1214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogeveen, H., W. Ouweltjes, C.J.A.M. de Koning, and K. Stelwagen. 2001. Milking interval, milk production and milk flow-rate in an automatic milking system. Livestock Production Science 72(1–2): 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, L., C. Bear, and K. Wilkinson. 2014a. Re-capturing bovine life: robot-cow relationships, freedom and control in dairy farming. Journal of Rural Studies 33: 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, L., K. Wilkinson, and C. Bear. 2014b. Robotic milking technologies and renegotiating situated ethical relationships on UK dairy farms. Agriculture and Human Values 31(2): 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurnik, J.F. 1988. Welfare of farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20(1–2): 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J., and P. Engel. 2002. Investing in a robotic milking system: a Monte Carlo simulation analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 85(9): 2207–2214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson-Smith, D.B. 1999. Understanding the microdynamics of farm structural change: entry, exit, and restructuring among Wisconsin family farmers in the 1980s. Rural Sociology 64(1): 66–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R., and T. Pinch. 1996. Users as agents of technological change: The social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture 37(4): 763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krohn, C.C., and L. Munksgaard. 1993. Behaviour of dairy cows kept in extensive (loose housing/pasture) or intensive (tie stall) environments. II. Lying and lying-down behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37(1): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levins, R.A., and W.W. Cochrane. 1996. The treadmill revisited. Land Economics 72(4): 550–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijering, A., H. Hogeveen, and C.J.A.M. de Koning. 2004. Automatic milking: A better understanding. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meskens, L., Vandermersch, M., and Mathijs, E. 2001. Implications of the introduction of automatic milking on dairy farms: literature review on the determinants and implications of technology adoption. European Union. http://www.automaticmilking.nl. Accessed 3 Oct 2011.

  • Meskens, L., and E. Mathijs. 2002. Motivation and characteristics of farmers investing in automatic milking systems. European Union. www.automaticmilking.nl. Accessed Oct 3, 2011.

  • Mooney, P. 1986. Class relations and class structure in the Midwest. In Studies in the transformation of U.S. agriculture, ed. E. Havens, 206–251. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

  • Napier, T.L., and M. Tucker. 2001. Use of soil and water protection practices among farmers in three Midwest watersheds. Environmental Management 27(2): 269–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Agricultural Statistical Service. 2010. Overview of the United States dairy industry. United States Department of Agriculture. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/USDairyIndus/USDairyIndus-09-22-2010.pdf. Accessed 3 Dec 2012.

  • Peacock, A.D., M.D. Mullen, D.B. Ringelberg, D.D. Tyler, D.B. Hedrick, P.M. Gale, and D.C. White. 2001. Soil microbial community responses to dairy manure or ammonium nitrate applications. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 33(7–8): 1011–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, M.J. 1992. Labor and production barriers to the reduction of agricultural chemical inputs. Rural Sociology 57(3): 347–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phetteplace, H.W., D.E. Johnson, and A.F. Seidl. 2001. Greenhouse gas emissions from simulated beef and dairy livestock systems in the United States. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 60(1–3): 99–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, C.J.C. 1990. Adverse effects on reproductive performance and lameness of feeding grazing dairy cows partially on silage indoors. The Journal of Agricultural Science 115(02): 253–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinch, T.J., and W.E. Bijker. 1984. The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science 14(3): 399–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinch, T.J., and N. Oushoorn. 2005. How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pocock, J. 2006. Automated farmhands. The Corn and Soybean Digest. http://www.cornandsoybeandigest.com/automated-farmhands. Accessed 5 Jan 2013.

  • Porcher, J. 2006. Well-being and suffering in livestock farming: Living conditions at work for people and animals. Sociologie du Travail 48(Supplement 1): e56–e70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porcher, J., and T. Schmitt. 2012. Dairy cows: Workers in the shadows? Society & Animals 20(1): 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regula, G., J. Danuser, B. Spycher, and B. Wechsler. 2004. Health and welfare of dairy cows in different husbandry systems in Switzerland. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 66(1–4): 247–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinemann, D.J. 1999. Prospects for robotic milking in Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Extension. http://www.uwex.edu/uwmril/pdf/RoboticMilking/99_Dariy_Days_Robots.pdf. Accessed 3 Apr 2013.

  • Reinemann, D.J. 2008. Robotic milking: Current situation. National Mastitis Council Annual Proceedings. http://www.uwex.edu/uwmril/pdf/RoboticMilking/RoboticMilking/2008_NMC_Robotic_Milking_Situation.pdf. Accessed 3 Apr 2013.

  • Rivers, T. 2012. Got robotic milkers? Elba dairy does. Holstein World Online. http://www.holsteinworld.com/story.php?id=2394. Accessed 3 Apr 2013.

  • Roberts, R. 1996. Recasting the ‘agrarian question’: The reproduction of family farming in the Southern High Plains. Economic Geography 72(4): 398–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotz, C.A., C.U. Coiner, and K.J. Soder. 2003. Automatic milking systems, farm size, and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 86(12): 4167–4177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saltiel, J., J.W. Bauder, and S. Palakovich. 1994. Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices: Diffusion, farm structure, and profitability. Rural Sociology 59(2): 333–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarris, A., and D. Hallam. 2006. Agricultural commodity markets and trade: New approaches to analyzing market structure and instability. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawant, A.A., L.M. Sordillo, and B.M. Jayarao. 2005. A Survey on antibiotic usage in dairy herds in Pennsylvania. Journal of Dairy Science 88(8): 2991–2999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sassenrath, G.F., P. Heilman, E. Luschei, G.L. Bennett, G. Fitzgerald, P. Klesius, W. Tracy, J.R. Williford, and P.V. Zimba. 2008. Technology, complexity and change in agricultural production systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(04): 285–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schurman, R.A. 2003. Introduction: biotechnology and the new millennium. In Engineering trouble: Biotechnology and its discontents, ed. R.A. Schurman, D. Doyle, and T. Kelso, 1–23. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommers, D.G., and T.L. Napier. 1993. Comparison of Amish and non-Amish farmers: A diffusion/farm-structure perspective. Rural Sociology 58(1): 130–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D., R.L. Schewe, and R. Gunderson. 2013. Extending social theory to farm animals: Addressing alienation in the dairy sector. Sociologia Ruralis 53(2): 201–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tumulty, B. 2012. Dairy farms turn to robots to replace some workers. wgrz.com. http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/192439/37/Dairy-Farms-Turn-to-Robots-to-Replace-Some-Workers. Accessed 3 Apr 2013.

  • Washburn, S.P., S.L. White, J.T. Green, and G.A. Benson. 2002. Reproduction, mastitis, and body condition of seasonally calved Holstein and Jersey cows in confinement or pasture systems. Journal of Dairy Science 85(1): 105–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wauters, E., and E. Mathijs. 2004. Socio-economic implications of automatic milking on dairy farms. European Union. www.automaticmilking.nl. Accessed 3 Oct 2011.

  • Wells, M.J. 1996. Strawberry fields: Politics, class, and work in California agriculture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, D.S., R.A. Labarta, and E.J. Leguía. 2005. Technology adoption by resource-poor farmers: Considering the implications of peak-season labor costs. Agricultural Systems 85(2): 183–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witte, W. 1998. Medical consequences of antibiotic use in agriculture. Science 279(5353): 996–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zellmer, D. 2012. Robotic milking systems growing slowly on Wisconsin dairy farms. Holstein World Online. http://www.holsteinworld.com/story.php?id=2491. Accessed 31 March 2013.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The authors would like to thank colleagues at W.K. Kellogg Biological Station and graduate student Matthew McDermott.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Syracuse University, 426 Eggers Hall, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA

    Rebecca L. Schewe

  2. Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Diana Stuart

Authors
  1. Rebecca L. Schewe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diana Stuart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca L. Schewe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schewe, R.L., Stuart, D. Diversity in agricultural technology adoption: How are automatic milking systems used and to what end?. Agric Hum Values 32, 199–213 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9542-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9542-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation