Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Beef cattle and sheep were chosen as both types of livestock tend to be bred at relatively small scales, in contrast to the large-scale, centralized, and corporate production of breeding stock that characterises the pig and poultry sectors. Beef cattle and sheep breeding is carried out by a large number of individual breeders who may thus have “closer” relationships with the animals they breed.
We adopt the term “knowledge-practices” to emphasize the inter-relationships between, and inseparability of, knowledge’s and practices.
Pedigree breeding involves breeding “pure-bred” livestock of a particular breed, with the aim of “improving” the breed. Pedigree farming is seen as a specialized part of the wider livestock arena. The term “commercial” breeding is used to refer to breeding with the objective of supplying animals to the meat trade. But some “commercial” breeders use pedigree livestock to achieve this aim, and most commercial breeders will buy in pedigree males to use with their non-pedigree females, counting on the “superior genetics” which the pedigree animal can bring into their herds/flocks. The two spheres thus overlap, with many breeders involved in both.
UK breed societies are constituted as charities, and have the fundamental objectives of promoting their particular breeds and registering newly born “pure-bred” animals as legitimate members of the breed. Most of the representatives we interviewed are also breeders.
The names of breeders, breed societies, and institutions are removed to protect interviewee confidentiality.
Breed societies are able to sanction the sale of animals at their official sales.
“Cross-breeding” refers to the practice of mating animals of different breeds so as to combine their qualities, gain “heterosis” or “hybrid vigor,” and meet particular commercial requirements.
It is usually male animals that are the subject of such decisions.
We acknowledge that there are some differences in the ways that these techniques are used with different species (and indeed between breeds). However, for the purposes of this paper, there are enough commonalities in the use of EBVs with beef cattle and sheep to make our comments in this section generally applicable to both.
This should not be confused with the science of genetic barcoding, a DNA-fingerprinting approach to the assessment of biodiversity.
In this sense, the making of composite beef cattle and sheep breeds mirrors the process of producing pig and poultry “lines” which has long been established in those sectors. Indeed, advocates of composite breeds frequently argue that cattle and sheep breeding should become more like pig and poultry farming, in this respect at least.
“Terminal” sires are large, meaty breeds that are used to cross with other breeds to produce a “slaughter generation” of animals that will be raised specifically for the abattoir.
Here, the breeder is indicating on a computer screen a listing of bulls by their EBV records.
That is, what the problem of separation demands.
“Marbling” refers to the existence of intra-muscular fat in a cut of meat; it is valued because it contributes to the tenderness and flavor of the meat.
Abbreviations
- EBV:
-
Estimated Breeding Values
- UK:
-
United Kingdom
References
Anderson, K. 1998. Animal domestication in geographic perspective. Society and Animals 6: 119–135.
Berger, J. 1980. About looking. London: Writers and Readers.
Bobrow-Strain, A. 2008. White bread bio-politics: Purity, health, and the triumph of industrial baking. Cultural Geographies 15: 19–40.
Braun, B. 2007. Biopolitics and the molecularization of life. Cultural Geographies 14: 6–28.
Convery, I., C. Bailey, M. Mort, and J. Baxter. 2005. Death in the wrong place? Emotional geographies of the UK 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic. Journal of Rural Studies 21: 99–109.
Convery, I., M. Mort, J. Baxter, and C. Bailey. 2008. Animal disease and human trauma: Emotional geographies of disaster. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Defra, 2003. National scrapie plan for Great Britain: NSP program brief. London: Defra.
Defra, 2006. UK national action plan on farm animal genetic resources. London: Defra.
Demeritt, D. 2001. Scientific forest conservation and the statistical picturing of nature’s limits in the Progressive-era United States. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19: 431–459.
Derry, M. 2003. Bred for perfection: Shorthorn cattle, Collies, and Arabian horses since 1800. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Foucault, M. 1990 [1976]. The history of sexuality, volume 1: An introduction. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Foucault, M. 2004. Society must be defended. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Foucault, M. 2007. Security, territory, population. Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–1978. Basingstoke Palgrave: Macmillan.
Franklin, A. 1999. Animals and modern culture: A sociology of human-animal relations in modernity. London: Sage.
Franklin, S. 2007. Dolly mixtures. The remaking of genealogy. London: Duke University Press.
Gannett, L. 1999. What’s in a cause? The pragmatic dimensions of genetic explanations. Biology and Philosophy 14: 349–374.
Gibbs, D., L. Holloway, B. Gilna, and C. Morris. 2009. Genetic techniques for livestock breeding: Restructuring institutional relationships in agriculture. Geoforum 40: 1041–1049.
Gieryn, T. 1983. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48: 781–795.
Haraway, D. 1997. Modest-witness@second-millennium.Femaleman-meets-oncomouse. Feminism and technoscience. London: Routledge.
Haraway, D. 2008. When species meet. London: University of Minnesota Press.
Hardy, A. 2005. Technology represents next step on selection path. Farmers Weekly 30 December 2005: 38.
Holloway, L. 2001. Pets and protein: Placing domestic livestock on hobby-farms in England and Wales. Journal of Rural Studies 17: 293–307.
Holloway, L. 2005. Aesthetics, genetics, and evaluating animal bodies: Locating and displacing cattle on show and in figures. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 23: 883–902.
Holloway, L., and C. Morris. 2007. Exploring biopower in the regulation of farm animal bodies: Genetic policy interventions in UK livestock. Genomics, Society, and Policy 3: 82–98.
Holloway, L., and C. Morris. 2008. Boosted bodies: Genetic techniques, domestic livestock bodies, and complex representations of life. Geoforum 39: 1709–1720.
Holloway, L., C. Morris, B. Gilna, and D. Gibbs. 2009. Biopower, genetics, and livestock breeding: (Re) constituting animal populations and heterogeneous biosocial collectivities. Transactions Institute of British Geographers 34: 394–407.
Humphrey, N. 1995. Introduction: Histories. Social Research 62 (special issue: In the company of animals): 477–479.
Keller, E.F. 2000. The century of the gene. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Mol, A.-M., and J. Law. 2002. Complexities: An introduction. In Complexities: Social studies of knowledge practices, ed. John. Law, and Anne.-Marie. Mol, 1–22. London: Duke University Press.
Morris, C., and L. Holloway. 2009. Genetic technologies and the transformation of the geographies of UK livestock agriculture. Progress in Human Geography 33: 313–333.
Nealon, J. 2008. Foucault beyond Foucault: Power and its intensifications since 1984. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Noske, B. 1997. Beyond boundaries: Humans and animals. London: Black Rose Books.
Orland, B. 2004. Turbo-cows: Producing a competitive animal in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In Industrializing organisms, ed. Susan. Schrepfer, and Philip. Scranton, 167–190. London: Routledge.
Rabinow, P. 1999. Artificiality and enlightenment: From sociobiology to biosociality. In The science studies reader, ed. Mario. Biagioli, 407–416. London: Routledge.
Rabinow, P., and N. Rose. 2006. Biopower today. Biosocieties 1: 195–217.
Ritvo, H. 1987. The animal estate: The English and other creatures in the Victorian age. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Rose, N. 2007. The Politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Rutherford, S. 2007. Green governmentality: Insights and opportunities in the study of nature’s rule. Progress in Human Geography 31: 291–307.
Shukin, N. 2009. Animal capital: Rendering life in biopolitical times. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Trickett, S. 2009. Helping to push the genetic boundaries. Farmers Weekly 19 June 2009: 32.
Twine, R. 2007. Animal genomics and ambivalence: A sociology of animal bodies in agricultural biotechnology. Genomics, Society, and Policy 3: 99–117.
Twine, R. 2010. Animals as biotechnology: Ethics, sustainability, and critical animal studies. Earthscan: London.
Wilkie, R. 2005. Sentient commodities and productive paradoxes: The ambiguous nature of human-livestock relations in Northeast Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies 21: 213–230.
Wilkie, R. 2010. Livestock/deadstock: Working with farm animals from birth to slaughter. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Wood, D.M. 2008. Beyond the Panopticon? Foucault and surveillance studies. In Space, knowledge, and power: Foucault and geography, ed. Jeremy. Crampton, and Stuart. Elden, 245–263. London: Ashgate.
Youatt, R. 2008. Counting species: Biopower and the global biodiversity census. Environmental Values 17: 393–417.
Acknowledgments
Research for this paper was funded by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council, as part of a project titled “Genetics, genomics, and genetic modification in agriculture: emerging knowledge-practices in making and managing farm livestock” (RES-062-23-0642). We would like to thank the editor of Agriculture and Human Values, two anonymous referees, and Sally Eden for constructive comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Holloway, L., Morris, C., Gilna, B. et al. Choosing and rejecting cattle and sheep: changing discourses and practices of (de)selection in pedigree livestock breeding. Agric Hum Values 28, 533–547 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-010-9298-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-010-9298-2