Geoforum 42 (2011) 16–27

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoforum

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /geoforum

‘Letting them go’ – Agricultural retirement and human–livestock relations

Mark RileyDepartment of Geography, University of Portsmouth, Buckingham Building, Lion Terrace, Portsmouth PO13HE, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 8 October 2009Received in revised form 31 July 2010

Keywords:LivestockRetirementAnimal geographiesFarming culturesCommodificationMoral geographies

0016-7185/$ - see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.08.004

E-mail address: mark.riley@port.ac.uk1 For example celebrity chefs Hugh Fearnley-Whitti

recently explored the ethics of intensive chicken farChannel 4 series Hugh’s Chicken Run (2008) and Jamie’s

2 It is recognised that ‘livestock’ is a problematic andimplicit power relations between humans and animalscentral concern of the paper is the specific consteagriculture.

Through a focus on agricultural retirement, this paper extends on the recent work considering human–livestock relations. Drawing on research conducted in Hampshire and West Sussex (UK), the paper utilis-es farmers’ narratives of farm work and retirement to explore the themes of [dis]connection betweenfarmers and their dairy cattle. The paper attempts to add complexity and nuance to assumptions aboutthe nature and extent of animal objectification with commercial dairy farming, and consider the intricatemoral geographies [re]created within the individual farm. The discursive and material ‘placings’ of ani-mals are considered alongside an exploration of how the intricate temporality and spatiality of theseare disturbed and disrupted by the move to retirement. In discussing these relations the paper examineshow animals are central to the everyday lives and identities of farmers and how separation from themalters farmers’ attachment to particular practices, places and social networks.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Recent years have witnessed a profusion of responses to thecall to ‘bring animals back in’ within geography (Wolch and Emel,1995, p. 632). Particularly important within this corpus of workhas been that considering how animals are ‘quintessential hy-brids’ (Buller and Morris, 2003, p. 217) which are enrolled in net-works and ‘‘might have subjectivities, agencies and practicesthrough which they might create lifeworlds that impact on hu-man ideas and communities” (Johnston, 2008, p. 633). Agriculturewould appear to be fertile ground for exploring the geographiesof animal–human relations, with recent political attention paidto the importance of farmers being seen as ‘good stewards of bothland and livestock’ (The Curry Report, 2002, p. 24) alongside morepopularised discourses of the treatment of animals within ‘mod-ern’ industrialised agricultural practices, reminding us how dis-tanced we have become from our food.1 Whilst Morris andEvans (2004) observed a greater initial research interest on ‘wild’and ‘domestic’ animal–human relations than on farm livestock,there is now a developing body of work opening up in this latterarea.2 Notable recent studies have explored, for example, thecentrality of livestock to locality, politics and identity (Evans and

ll rights reserved.

ngstall and Jamie Oliver haveming in their respective UKFowl Dinners (2008).value-laden term suggesting

. The term is used here as thellation of actors relating to

Yarwood, 2000), and contrasting views on farm animals beingboth reduced to ‘meat machines’ (Stassart and Whatmore, 2003,p. 456) and also sentient beings performing individual subjectivi-ties (Holloway, 2007).

While behaviour and welfare scientists (e.g. Hemsworth, 2003)have explored animal–human interactions in experimental condi-tions to better understand issues of productivity and animalwelfare, social scientists have made progress in exploring thesocio-affective relations between humans and livestock. Severalqualitative studies have begun to unpick the complexities and con-tradictions within these relations. Holloway’s (2001) study of hob-by-farms, for example, is enlightening in exploring the ethicalambiguity of these relations and how socially-constructed catego-ries of ‘livestock’ and ‘pet’ are blurred within what may be seen asmore ‘marginal’ forms of production. Recent studies by Converyet al. (2005, 2008) and Wilkie (2005) have used qualitative method-ologies to get ‘behind the scenes’ of larger-scale commercial farm-ing to illustrate that despite these long being synonymous inpopular discourse with ‘factory farming’ of the ‘animal machine’(Harrison, 1966), they too host ambiguous moral relations inwhich livestock are often viewed by farmers as more than simplycommodities.

Both Convery et al. (2005) and Wilkie (2005) investigate thecritical importance of context in exploring these animal–humanrelations, with attachment and detachment acting as critical fram-ing concepts. Wilkie (2005) explores the emotional attachmentto animals of different actors in the agricultural industry and ob-serves how individual animal subjectivity can lead to them becom-ing more than ‘just an animal’ – what may be termed thedecommodification of the animal – but that ultimately they remainsomething that can be quickly recommodified. Convery et al.

M. Riley / Geoforum 42 (2011) 16–27 17

(2005) explore detachment in a much more literal sense by consid-ering the ambiguities of the ‘breach in relationships between ani-mals and humans’ in light of the 2001 UK foot and mouthepidemic. They illustrate both the contradictory attitudes farmershave to the same animal, whilst articulating how this loss tran-scended the material and became a loss of the meanings associatedwith the lifescape of which humans, animals and landscape formpart.

The current paper wishes to contribute to this growing discus-sion of human–livestock relations and further explore the themesof attachment/detachment between animals and humans withincommercial farming. The paper takes as its focus agriculturalretirement – a further, but hitherto under-explored, momentwhich breaches the relationship between farmer and livestock,and which arguably provides a fruitful context for exploring hu-man–animal relations. Although there has been some academicattention paid to agricultural retirement, this has tended to focusmost predominantly on themes of farm transfer and succession(e.g. Potter and Lobley, 1996), with little attention on the retire-ment experiences of farmers and what these may tell us about hu-man–livestock relations. Discussing animals post-separation (cf.Convery et al., 2005), gives a nexus at which farmers can reflectclearly on the nature of their previous relationship to animals, theirfeelings post-separation, as well as articulating the nature of thisattachment. In doing this the paper wishes to explore and furtherdevelop several themes. First it examines the nature of the subjec-tification/objectification boundary (after Holloway, 2001) and indoing so attempts to further challenge the assumption that com-mercial farming is de facto more objectifying in relation to animalsthan smaller-scale farming. Second, the paper will explore themoral ambiguity faced by these farmers and how it is managedwhen they are forced to sell (or recommodify) their animals as theyretire. Third, and related, the paper will discuss how individual ani-mal subjectivity is not, and indeed cannot, be disregarded on thesefarms. Fourth, in exploring farmers’ narratives, the paper wishes totake up the suggestion that a fruitful avenue for discussing the‘relational geographies of ageing’ (after Hopkins and Pain, 2007),may be to explore the co-constitution of ‘‘moments and geogra-phies between human and non-human actants” (Horton and Kraftl,2008, p. 286). Specifically, the paper will explore the way that ani-mals may figure in the challenges retirement poses those farmersstudied.

2. Background: farmers, livestock and identity

2.1. Livestock and human relations

Recent work has attempted to probe and challenge the ontolog-ical divides, inherent within modernist thinking, within whichthere is a dichotomous separation of human and non-human ani-mals. Social scientists, and geographers in particular, have soughtto pay fuller attention to the ways in which humans and animalsare ‘‘increasingly intertwined into new configurations of simili-tude, difference, relational materiality, shared spaces [and] ethicalresponsibility (Buller and Morris, 2007, p. 474).3 It is such a rela-tional approach – recognising the shared material and emotionalspaces of human and livestock – that helps conceptually frame thispaper. The paper draws on the notion of the ‘lifescape’ as advancedby Convery et al. (2005, 2008). Originating from work in developingcountries, lifescape has been used as a method of explaining the waysin which families utilise the resources in their locality to secure a liv-ing, and more widely as a framework to understand the economic,

3 There is also a growing body of work beyond the social sciences that is exploringthese and analogous themes – for a useful synthesis see Buller and Morris (2007).

social and cultural interactions between people across the landscape(see Howorth, 1999). Convery et al. (2005, pp. 99–100) apply theconcept to articulate the ‘‘complexity of the spatial, emotional andethical dimensions of the relationship between landscape, livestock,farming and rural communities”. The value of their approach is per-haps best understood in relation to the treatment of farmers’ reac-tions to the slaughter of their cattle in the Foot and Mouthepidemic of 2001. They see depictions of farmers weeping at theslaughter of their cattle not as ‘simply hypocritical’ (Smith, 2002,p. 53), but reframe this display of distress as reflecting a ‘‘severeand often poorly understood disruption to a complex lifescape”(Convery et al., 2005, p. 99). In this context, they recognise thatthe loss of livestock is not just a material or economic loss, but a con-ceptual loss – that is, that meanings associated with the lifescape arechanged or lost.

The lifescape approach allows an appreciation of the dynamicand socially-constructed nature of livestock–farming relations,whilst understanding that these form ‘‘lifescapes of ‘taken forgranted’ social, cultural and economic interactions between hu-mans, livestock and landscape” (Convery et al., 2005, p. 100). Thisechoes Gray’s (1996) notion of ‘consubstantiation’ which refers tothe ways in which assemblages of farmers, livestock and placesform interconnected and internally-reinforcing local farming net-works. Lifescapes, in this context, are ‘‘thus shaped by livestock–farmer practices, which in turn shape ways of being in the world”(Convery et al., 2005, p. 100). As Gray observes, through repeated,iterative, practices co-constitutive relationships develop betweenland, livestock and people, and such consubstantive relationshipsgrow together over time, becoming united in a common substance(Gray, 1998). The farming environment, under Gray (1998) andConvery et al.’s (2005, p. 101) conceptualisation, may be seen asa ‘work in progress’, an embodiment of past activity that is contin-ually ‘in the making’. The emotional geographies of livestock farm-ing, it is suggested, are enmeshed with human and non-humanidentities which are performed and [re]constructed in differentcontexts, times and places. Boundaries between farmers, livestockand farm, they suggest, are osmotic.

In exploring these similar themes of the consubstantiation ofhumans, animals and place, Yarwood and Evans (2006) employBourdieu’s (1977) notion of the habitus as a ‘theoretical middleground’ to both acknowledge that farmers keep livestock for eco-nomic reasons, while at the same time leaving space to realise thatthese animals may be much more than economic assets. The hab-itus offers a ‘‘system of lasting and transposable dispositionswhich, integrating past experiences, function at every moment asa matrix of perceptions, appreciations and actions and makes pos-sible the achievement of infinitely diversified tasks” (Bourdieu andWaquant, 1992, p. 18). This allows a consideration of the ways inwhich local actions are not simply a direct response of structuralforces but ‘‘are best seen as a resulting from ‘rules’ that are embod-ied and carried by the individual farmer but at the same time pro-duce a shared understanding of what farming in the. . .areahistorically is about” (Setten, 2004, p. 395). Yarwood and Evans(2006) draw out the different forms of capital central to Bourdieu’sthinking: social capital (coming from, and reaffirmed by, socialcontacts and networks); cultural capital (gained by educationand socialisation) and symbolic capital (the form that ‘‘various spe-cies of capital assume when they are perceived and recognised aslegitimate” (Bourdieu, 1989, p. 17)). These forms of capital, it issuggested, intersect with the habitus, as actors negotiate their po-sition within a field – as Gray (1996, p. 45) observed for the case offarmers, localised practices may act like a prism ‘‘refracting exoge-nous forces manifest in the agricultural policies of the EC [sic]according to its endogenous social dynamics”.

Taking these frameworks together allows animals to be seenas essential, co-constitutive, actors in farm–animal–farmer

5 Linked lives research has also considered, for example, intra-familial relations and

18 M. Riley / Geoforum 42 (2011) 16–27

assemblages which are held together in particular localities.Animals, Yarwood and Evans (2006, p. 1310) show, perform andembody knowledges:

Flocks of sheep have economic worth and manifest good decision-making and husbandry (cultural capital), representing products ofknowledge and decisions made through local and national net-works (social capital). They are not only a form of symbolic capital,but also actively embody and perform the operation and successionof the farm.

Holloway (2002) considers these relations through an examinationof the moral geographies of the farm space. He extends Lynn’s(1998) conceptualisation of ‘situated morality’, which allows theplace-specific and time-specific contexts of various moral principlesto be explored. Holloway explores how ‘‘doing farming involvesethical positioning in relation to, and physical engagement with,what is farmed” (Holloway, 2002, p. 2058). Such a relational ethicsis central to identity formation as individuals (re)position them-selves within networks of discourse and practice. Wilkie (2005),in her study of livestock farming in Aberdeenshire, draws onKopytoff’s (1986) notions of ‘decommodification’ and ‘recommodifi-cation’ to illustrate the dynamic nature of human-animal relationsin this context – with decommodified animals which farmers are at-tached to, often becoming recommodified as they reach age ofslaughter or complete their productive life. Although using slightlydifferent terminology the article extends Holloway’s (2002) discus-sion of moral geographies by considering the fragility of the dualismbetween pet and livestock. Drawing on Digard (1994), Wilkie ex-plores how ‘‘the production and utilisation of domesticated animalsand their byproducts may fundamentally underpin the system, butit does not totally reflect or explain the range of emotional, sym-bolic and political roles that these animals can also fulfil” (Wilkie,2005, p. 223). She uses the term ‘commodified sentient being’ toshow that livestock have an indeterminate commodified status,and notes that ‘‘although the slave can become decommodified heor she remains a commodity that can be recommodified and remar-keted at any time” (Wilkie, 2005, p. 224). Recognising how farmers,livestock and landscape are held together in the farming lifescape –both materially and emotionally – gives a framework to considerhow retirement may alter this lifescape and thus the frames of ref-erence through which farmers relate to their animals.

2.2. Lifescape, identity and retirement

There has been relatively little work which has looked at themoral geographies and emotional terrains of the farming lifescapein relation to agricultural retirement. Where retirement has beenconsidered within agriculture, focus has tended to be on the struc-tural and economic aspects of this (e.g. Mazorra, 2000), rather thanthrough a focus on the socio-affective relationships within thefarming lifescape and the identity challenges faced with retire-ment.4 Retirement research from social science and gerontology,when taken alongside the extant literature on farming lifescapes,can provide a number of insights for beginning to think about therelationship between the farmers, livestock and retirement. Fourinterrelated themes emerge at this intersection and are consideredin the current paper: identity, social interaction, place and routine.

It has been noted that the loss of ‘professional identity’ may be asignificant issue in retirement (Price, 2000), and this work offerssignificant potential for understanding farming retirement.Themes of ‘self-image’ and ‘role attachment’ have, for example,both been important conceptual vehicles for understandingwork–retirement transitions. In discussing role attachment Adams

4 cf. Lally’s (2007) study of identity and retirement amongst professional athletes.

and Beehr (2003) observe that when individuals highly invest in aparticular occupational role, feelings of self-worth become associ-ated with their ability to carry out that role effectively. Similarly,Lim (2003), following on from Burgess’ (1960, p. 20) classic notionof the ‘roleless role’ of retirement, observes the importance of workroles in shaping identity, and notes that this may cause an identitychallenge as an individual contemplates, or enters into, retirement.Although rarely traced into the discussion of retirement, there hasbeen a good deal of research into issues of self-image and identitieswithin farming lifescapes. Work on farmer identity has recognisedthe importance of ‘nurturing roles’ (McEachern, 1992) – oftenembodied in the appearance of both crops and livestock (Burtonet al., 2008) – in defining farmers’ self-identity. Whilst there hasbeen a recognition, predominantly from post-structural perspec-tives, of the multiple, layered, and hierarchical nature of theseidentities (e.g. Holloway, 2002; Pini, 2004; Riley, 2009), Burtonand Wilson (2006, p. 110) note the ‘‘continued dominationof. . .identities based on production orientated roles”. Farmers’interaction with their livestock may be seen as an example of the‘‘identity enhancing instrumental activities” (Coughenour, 1995,p. 387) inherent within the farming lifescape, and as Evans andYarwood (2000) note, human–livestock interactions may be onesthrough which significant social and cultural capital is derived.

It is argued by Taylor et al. (2007, p. 1698) that work roles ‘‘pro-vide not only a source of self-identity, but also a larger sense of so-cial connectedness”. Thus, they go on to argue, retirementtransitions may be more difficult for those who closely definethemselves in relation to their occupations and careers. Moen(2003, p. 270) picks up this theme with more specific referenceto the workplace, noting how ‘‘workplaces furnish a communityof friends and workmates, a sense of place and of social mean-ing. . .[with colleagues serving] as reference groups planning ormaking the transition to retirement”, what she refers to as ‘linkedlives’.5 Both of these themes may offer important insights intounderstanding the relevance of place, routine and social contactwithin farming retirement, and arguably help highlight the unique-ness of the agricultural retirement situation. Whilst the common ref-erence to agriculture as a ‘solitary’ and ‘lonely’ occupation – asfarmers often work their particular holding on their own or withinthe faming family – may be read as setting agriculture apart fromMoen’s (2003) observations, there is substantial evidence of theimportance of the wider farming community, and the interactionstherein, to farmers. At one level, research has considered the impor-tance of both the informal ‘moral economies’ historically associatedwith reciprocal labour exchanges within agriculture (Salazar, 1996),and at another the more formalised cooperatives within agriculture– from and within which, significant social capital may be derived(see Svendsen and Svendsen, 2003). Related to this, others havenoted the prevalence of horizontal knowledge networks withinfarming, whereby farmers often rely on, and give preference to, theunderstandings of other farmers in their locality when consideringnew policies or schemes (Feder et al., 2004). Burton (2004) observesthe often more implicit, but equally important, relevance of thewider farming community in ‘hedgerow farming’ – where the obser-vations of neighbouring farmers and passers-by shape the everydaypractices, and associated identities, of the farmer. Others have alsoobserved the centrality of agricultural-related settings such as shows(Holloway, 2004) as sites of social interaction and knowledge ex-change within the farming communities.

Those studies which have looked at the more everyday practicesof work and retirement have commented that ‘‘work also provides

tirement. One of the primary foci of the previous research into farming retirementas been on farming succession (e.g. Fennell, 1981). Although not a primary focus ofe present research, it was important for some of farmers spoken to (see Table 1).

rehth

M. Riley / Geoforum 42 (2011) 16–27 19

a series of routines giving structure and meaning to people’s lives,upon which they rely more or less heavily” (Barnes and Parry,2004, p. 218). It is here that the literatures on retirement and thoseon the farming lifescape can usefully be brought together. The hab-itus of the farm, often developed over several generations (see Ri-ley, 2008), which incorporates the consubstantiation of land,farmers and livestock, can be seen as a central aspect of farmers’identity and one to which retirement poses a significant challenge.Convery et al. (2005, p. 102) observed how farmers ‘‘drew identity,self-esteem and well-being from their ‘day-to-day’ environment”and this is used in the following paper to illustrate how both theeveryday practices of agriculture, and the specific places in whichthese take place, are important to farmers. Whilst structural andeconomic studies of retirement at the macro-scale are important,studies of the cultural aspects of farm work at the micro-scale,especially as they relate to animals, may help us further under-stand both animal–human relations and retirement.

3. Studying farming retirees

The research presented in this paper was conducted in Hamp-shire and West Sussex, UK – areas which both have a rich historyof commercial dairy farming (Taylor, 1987), but which have expe-rienced a decline in the number of dairy farms in recent years.6 Thepaper focuses specifically on dairy farming for several reasons. First,dairying has been one of the areas of the industry perhaps most crit-icised for its objectification of animals within intensive production(see Penman, 1996). Second, it has been seen in previous research(e.g. Convery et al., 2005) that farmers may hold different valuesto different livestock species. The intention here was to focusin-depth on one particular species over time. Third, dairying hasundergone significant ‘scientisation’ in the last 60 years with devel-opments in areas such as housing, milking and medical technologies.Such advances, Webster (2005) suggests, may be a key driver in thecommodification of animals. Related to this, milk producing farmsare required to work within strict codes of good practice – not onlyrelating to animal welfare (as with all livestock keepers), but alsospecific hygiene and milk quality standards; as the paper will dis-cuss, this means animals are often engaged with in very particularways. Finally, in focussing on retirement, dairy farming is more likelyto offer a distinct separation of farmers and their cattle as part of a‘herd dispersal’ sale. Whilst Potter and Lobley (1992) have observeda process of ‘winding down’ the farm enterprise when approachingretirement, it is more common for dairy farmers to undertake awhole herd dispersal sale, which both necessitates and facilitates awholesale disconnection from their animals.7

As there is no definitive register of farming retirement in theUK, farmers who have actually retired represent what Heckathorn(2002) has referred to as a ‘‘hidden population”, and respondentswere accordingly reached through chain-referral sampling. Initialfarm contacts were randomly selected from the Yellow Pages tele-phone directory. Previous research has questioned the use of theYellow Pages as a source from which to recruit research partici-pants – with suggestions that less commercial or ‘life style’ farmersmay be excluded (Burton and Wilson, 1999). As the intention of thecurrent research was to investigate retirement from more com-mercial agriculture, this was not seen as a major problem. These

6 Jones (2009) reports a decline in the previous 5 years from 128 to 72 dairy farmsin West Sussex, and 187 to 109 in Hampshire.

7 Two structural issues have further encouraged this trend in recent years: (aRising flat-rate charges for milk collection mean a gradual reduction in herd numbersis not cost effective; (b) pre-movement testing for Bovine TB, introduced in the UK in2006, means that each cow taken to market must have been tested negative in theprevious 60 days (a cost charged to the farmer) – making herd testing and dispersamore cost effective than individual testing/selling.

8 Thirty sets of respondents refers to previous farming families, so included farmmen and women and their respective partners and families.

)

l

initial contacts were asked to refer to the previous owners or ten-ants of the farm where they had contact details. A letter was sent topotential respondents (via the initial contact if they were unwillingto disclose the retirees’ addresses) explaining the nature and aimsof the research and requesting an interview.

A total of 30 sets of respondents were generated through chainreferral.8 Of these, 18 sets of farmers, including farming couples,who had retired from dairy farming in the last 10 years were identi-fied (characteristics of these are presented in Table 1). Although thenature of their retirement varied for individuals, the central themewas a cessation of milk production and a separation of the farmersfrom dairy cows as all respondents had dispersed their dairy herdat the point of retirement. As scholars such as Wilkie (2005, p.219) have observed that there is a ‘‘dearth of qualitative data aboutthe nature of commercial human–livestock relations”, what may betermed the ‘farm life history interviews’ were conducted with retir-ees. Life history interviews have been employed as a useful methodof shifting the emphasis on defining and interpreting social worldsfrom the researcher to the participant (Limerick et al., 1996). Along-side this, it enables the researcher to investigate and contextualisethe situation of that particular individual and hence get away fromthe limitation of previous studies which have often cast farmers asa homogenous group (Morris and Evans, 2004). The term farm lifehistory highlights the intention of this research not to focus singu-larly on individual’s biographies, but to consider how these intersectwith and on the farm and in conjunction with those biographies ofothers (see Riley, forthcoming). The objective of these interviewswas to explore the nature of farmers’ relationship(s) with their cat-tle. Accordingly the retirees were asked to reflect on the nature oftheir farming practices, their experiences of working with animalsand their attitudes towards, and experiences of, these animals.Retirement was important within the discussion as the farmers wereasked to reflect on both the specifics of separation (such as the saleor culling of cattle) and their subsequent experiences of retirement.

‘Narrator reliability’ is an issue often called into question withinthe use of qualitative, particularly retrospective, techniques(Norquay, 1999). Although the partiality of memory and recollec-tion cannot be ignored – indeed some argue that there is muchto be gleaned from any apparent selectivity (Riley and Harvey,2007) – several approaches were employed in interrogating retir-ees’ narratives in order to facilitate fuller, less selective, recollec-tions. Within interviews, questions were left as open-ended aspossible, in order, as Gilbert (2001, p. 126) suggests, to ‘‘to gainspontaneous information about attitudes and actions, rather thana rehearsed position”. Where possible, group interviews were con-ducted with both retired couples and with other family membersassociated with the farm history, in order to allow some ‘triangula-tion’ information between different respondents (Denzin and Lin-coln, 2003). Serial interviewing (after Riley and Harvey, 2007)was employed, over a 14 month period, to allow specific themesto be revisited, commonly through rephrased questions. This en-abled recorded information to be compared both for factual detailas well as ascertaining which narratives were retold verbatim. Fur-thermore, the approach allowed an interview–interviewee trust todevelop, which offered the advantage of allowing respondents todiscuss a wider range of topics as they became more comfortablewith the interview dynamic. More practically the approach al-lowed long time periods, often not possible in a single interview,to be discussed. This was particularly important for the current re-search as animals may be seen as a ‘‘shadow population” (Emelet al., 2002, p. 409), often featuring only fleetingly in wider narra-tives. Serial interviews allowed such narratives to be investigated,

Table 1Interviewee details.

Codelettera

Gender Years sinceretirement

Size of dairyherdb

Other farmingactivities

Method of retirement

A M & F 4 150–200 None Sold herd and relinquished farm tenancy. Retired to nearby villageB M 10 50–100 Beef Retired to bungalow on farm, son still farming holding as beef farmC M & F 5 50–100 Beef Retired to converted building on farm, son still farming holding as beef farmD M 4 50–100 Arable/Sheep Sold herd and retired to nearby village and rents out landE M & F 3 50–100 Beef Retired to nearby village, son still farming holding as beef farmF M & F 6 100–150 Beef/Sheep/Arable Retired to nearby town, daughter and son-in-law still farming holding as mixed

farm without dairyingG M 4 150–200 Beef/Sheep/Arable Retired to converted building on farm, son still farming holding as arable farmH M & F 8 100–150 Arable Sold animals and holding and moved to nearby townI M 3 100–150 Arable/Beef Sold herd and retired to nearby town and rents out landJ M & F 1 50–100 Arable Sold animals and holding and moved to nearby townK M & F 5 100–150 Arable Sold herd and retired to nearby village and rents out landL M 9 100–150 Arable/Beef Retired to nearby village and rents out land to a neighbourM M &F 3 150–200 Arable/Sheep Sold herd and relinquished farm tenancy. Moved to nearby townN M 2 50–100 None Sold animals and holding and moved to nearby townO M & F 6 100–150 Arable Sold herd and relinquished farm tenancy. Moved to nearby villageP M 10 50–100 Arable/Sheep Sold herd and retired to nearby village and rents out landQ M & F 4 50–100 None Sold herd and relinquished farm tenancy. Moved to nearby villageR M 6 50–100 Arable/beef Retired to bungalow on farm, son still farming holding as mixed farm without

dairying

a Interviews were undertaken with both members of a farming couple where possible, or where individual farmers, their respective gender identified.b To maintain anonymity herd numbers are given as a range rather than specific numbers.

20 M. Riley / Geoforum 42 (2011) 16–27

and the position and role of animals in these to be teased out andmore fully explored. Interviews lasted between 1 and 4.5 h andwere recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts werecoded manually, following the framework set out by Jackson(2001), with each transcript read several times. This thematic cod-ing allowed several overarching themes to be identified and theseare discussed in the following sections.

4. ‘Not how it should be’: moving to retirement and[re]positioning livestock

I saw them take the lorry away and felt I’d let [the cows]down. . .140 of them gone at once and an empty farm. . .not theirfault, it was us not them (A).

The retired farmers’ reflections on their ‘final’ sale – that is the saleaccompanying their retirement – provided a useful entrance pointto discussing their relationship with their livestock, whilst also pro-viding a useful comparative context to discuss the themes of saleand disconnection within the everyday lifescape of the farm. Theextract above, illustrating the farmer’s upset at the separation anddisconnection from their animals, may cynically be read as hypo-critical or at least contradictory. However, as Hemsworth andColeman (1998, p. 20) suggest ‘‘humans working closely with farmanimals develop relationships. . .often not dissimilar from those thatdevelop between humans and their companion animals”. It was re-vealed in the current research that this relationship was a dynamicone and that the subjectifying/objectifying boundary between farm-ers and livestock is a diffuse, and arguably permeable, one. The fol-lowing quote, which is illustrative of many similar examples foundin the research, related to two emerging themes:

9 For two farms, ill health hastened the intended sale date of animals.

Selling milk cows happens at the end of their lives. . .or at the startof their lactation. We were selling cows half way through it. . .that’snot how it should be (E).

The first theme here is the very intricate timing(s) and placing(s)associated with the recommodification of animals. Second, and re-turned to later in the paper, is the symbolic and social capital cen-tral to the moving and selling of animals and the ways in whichthese impinge upon this recommodification. Convery et al. (2005)

and Smith (2002) highlight the spatiality of this subjectification/objectification, showing how the abattoir, through moralistic dis-courses of ‘hygiene’ and ‘humane slaughter’, facilitates a more mor-ally acceptable distancing between farmers and the death of theiranimals in the everyday lifescape of the farm. The farmers inter-viewed represented a different case to those of Convery et al.(2005) in that the sale of animals was not, predominantly, as sud-den and unexpected as the ‘death in the wrong place’ in the footand mouth epidemic,9 but began to illustrate how the intricaciesof this recommodification are best understood as a process. In artic-ulating the ways in which the retirement sale was ‘not how it shouldbe’ the respondents, both explicitly and more implicitly, revealedmuch about the moral geographies and associated discursive prac-tices in this sale process in the everyday lifescape of the farm. Thepreparation of animals for sale was central to this process. Suchpreparation was not simply material – that is preparation throughgrooming or fattening of animals – but also discursive, as one ormore strategies were used to allow a moral and empirical separationfrom the animal as it became positioned as a commodity.

Discussing the sale of cows revealed how retirement disruptedthe recommodification process for farmers. Culling and selling cat-tle is a normal, and arguably essential, part of the everyday lifes-cape of the farm, but retirement brought an inversion to theaccepted sets of relations and discourses which enabled farmersto overcome the ‘ethical ambiguity’ (after Holloway, 2001) that al-lows them to simultaneously consider cows as something ‘to becared for’ or ‘to be culled’. The selling of healthy cattle will be dis-cussed later in the paper, but it is first important to explore thenumerous discursive strategies drawn out by respondents in dis-cussing the selling and slaughter of their cattle. Individually andcollectively, these allowed the farmers to create a very particularmoral geography in which they were able to reposition some ofthe ethical responsibility. For over three-quarters of the farmersthe discourse of animal welfare was utilised within their narrativesof selling animals. One farmer commented: ‘‘the vet always saidthat we shouldn’t keep them anymore if they are suffering” (B).The reference here to ‘good practice’, as advised by the vet, allowedat the same time a distancing of the farmer from the ultimate

M. Riley / Geoforum 42 (2011) 16–27 21

decision – acting on advice from the expert on best practice –whilst maintaining the position and identity of an ethically respon-sible ‘good farmer’ (Burton, 2004). Others took a slightly broaderperspective, again positioning themselves as the enactor of higherwisdom, by making reference to the policy contexts in which theirbusiness operated. References, for example, were made to the reg-ulations of many milk purchasing companies regarding animal cellcounts10:

we were often forced to sell good cows simply because they’d gothigher cell counts. . .their milk tastes no different. . .its just a fadof the day (F).

Here farmers were able to point to these practices as enforced asmuch as chosen. Whilst the discourses of health and milk qualityboth offered an easy moral repositioning for these farmers, in whichthey could posit themselves as not ultimately responsible, the cull-ing of ‘healthy’ cows required a more abstracted reasoning and jus-tification. Here, wider geographical and historical contexts wereused to frame, and ultimately legitimise, their actions. First, refer-ence was made to how:

The country wants cheap food. . .we get screwed on the price, socan only keep the most productive animals (J).

Drawing on the widely-trodden narratives of commodity prices(and low prices to producers) allowed these farmers to discursivelyplace themselves as victims and their associated need to sell, andthus disconnect from, animals as inevitable. An interesting furtherapproach, often used in conjunction with those discussed, was todraw a wider temporal framework:

My grandfather always said a cow needed to pull it’s weight. . .he’dalways say ‘she’s eating the same food and taking the same amountof space as one giving twice as much’. . .so she’d have to go (B).

Important here is how past practices provide a moral framework, or‘blueprint’ (after Bourdieu, 1977), for farmers’ own current activi-ties and actions. Mobilising such narratives again allowed an ethicalrepositioning – allowing farmers to position themselves as simplyfollowing the tradition, or rules, set out by others. Illustrated withinsuch examples is how external forces are mediated into the habitusof the farm in such a way that past traditions can overshadow con-temporary policies and structures.

Holloway (2002, p. 2058) has referred to the ‘ethical position-ing’ of farmers, and taken together these examples illustrate howfarmers are able to ethically [re]position to simultaneously holdpositions as ‘keeper’ and ‘killer’. The killer, through various and of-ten intersecting discursive strategies, is legitimised through a pro-cess of recommodification, involving discursively placing animalsinto ‘appropriate’ categories (such as ‘unhealthy’ or ‘insufficientlyproductive’) in order that their sale becomes morally justifiable.Whilst previous research has made reference to the spatiality ofthis recommodification, as cattle move to market or abattoir, it isrevealed here that such positioning is commonly discursive andbegins on the farm through an ethical distancing of the farmer.Although Wilkie (2005, p. 224) suggests animals can be ‘‘recom-modified and remarketed at any time”, discussing the disruptioncaused by retirement illustrates that very particular spatial andtemporal contexts need to be in place for this seemingly rapidrecommodification. Retirement, for those farmers studied, argu-ably disrupted these temporal rhythms that underpin the situatedmorality of livestock recommodification. As one farmer com-

10 Somatic cell counts are used as an indicator of milk quality by most milkpurchasing companies. High average cell counts leads to a reduction in milk pricepaid to the producer, with offending individual cows medically treated or, in severecases, culled.

11 Striking because Herefords are normally seen as a beef breed not commonly usedin commercial dairy herds. Although there has been recent consideration of movingtowards (or crossing with) less commercial breeds in order to develop longevity andother desirable traits (see VanRaden and Sanders, 2003), this has not usually includedHerefords. ‘Black and Whites’, in this context, refers to more commercial BritishFriesian and Holstein cows.

mented ‘‘there’s never a good time really. . .you couldn’t wait to sellevery cow as they finish [their lactation] or you’d never be able todo it” (B), with another commenting ‘‘you just have to bite the bul-let and do it” (D). Unlike Convery et al.’s (2005) respondents, whowere able to point to the foot and mouth virus as ultimatelyresponsible for the untimely separation from their cattle, the cur-rent respondents were unable to assume the ethical repositioningthat has been routine in the everyday farming lifescape, with sev-eral pointing to the associated moral unease they faced. In additionto shedding light on the temporal element of the recommodifica-tion process, the retirees’ narratives can also be seen to add a fur-ther dimension to how we understand retirement. The closeproximity of farmers to their cattle, and both the literal and moralrepositioning necessitated by their retirement – which representeda departure from the dynamics of the everyday farming lifescape –means that these animals themselves constitute linked lives (cf.Moen, 2003) in the retirement process.

5. ‘A lifetime’s work’ – the symbolic significance(s) of animals

The discussion of selling animals, and unveiling the intricaciesof the associated process of recommodification, began to uncoverthe meanings underpinning the networked relations of farmersand their livestock. For many, it was the finality of selling the herdwhich was most painful:

It takes a lifetime to build up a well-balanced herd like this. . .it’snot something you can restock, even if you had the money. . .you’velost the bloodline (H).

As Yarwood and Evans (2006) suggest, animals are not only a formof symbolic capital, but they also actively embody and perform theoperation and succession of the farm. As such, animals serve to con-nect people and place both in the present and the past. Whilst herdshad a monetary value (realised at the sale) they also represented,for the farmers interviewed, an embodiment of their farm history,with the efforts and achievements of several generations inscribedupon them. The ‘bloodline’, for these farmers, was a relationalachievement – holding together the work of several generationsof farmers and animals. This concern for the breaking up of thebloodline was seen most notably in relation to pedigree herdswhere the breeding of ‘pure animals’ had taken place over severalgenerations and often been made into very lucrative herds. For oth-ers, herds did not carry the obvious economic and social capital ofpedigree herds, but a much more personalised (yet equally prized)value associated with stories of farming progression:

Our cows weren’t classically well bred, but we improved them.Granddad started with just a few Shorthorns, even a Herefordcross. . .but in the end we managed to get them all black and whitesand milking fairly well11 (M).

Significant here is how animals, as a relational achievement, mayserve as important biographical markers. Both individual cowsand collective bloodlines allowed farmers to narrate their past. Per-sonal references such as ‘‘she was born on our daughter’s 21st birth-day [. . .] we calved her just after the party” (F) or wider referencesto how ‘‘she came from the neighbour’s bull which got loose oneday and served her mother” (L) form part of the histories of theindividual, the family, and the farm. For others the animals serve

22 M. Riley / Geoforum 42 (2011) 16–27

as living testament to the developments and progressions that havebeen made on the farm:

2 Cattle passports were introduced in the UK in 1996 to conform to the EUquirement for Cattle Tracing Systems (CTS) and as part of the UK government’srategy to eradicate BSE. Passports record the unique ear tag number for each cow

nd act as a movement document, recording movements between holdings andllowing each cow to be traced throughout their life.

We started keeping more Holsteins when we kept more land, whenwe got into a bigger way and I started working at home full time (B).

Families of cows in these contextualised networks serve the affec-tive function of connecting farmers to place and history – being wo-ven into farm and personal histories. Disconnection from animals inretirement brought challenges for retirees at two scales. At the indi-vidual level the everyday contact with animals can be seen as partof the ‘nurturing’ (McEachern, 1992) and ‘‘identity enhancinginstrumental activities” which Coughenour (1995, p. 387) sees ascentral to farmer’s identity, and a cessation of such interactionwas a significant part of the loss of ‘professional identity’ referredto in the retirees’ narratives. Whilst the literature on retirementsuggests that professional identity loss may be less pronouncedwhen retirees can point to lasting worklife achievements and lega-cies (such as medals and honours for athletes (Lally, 2007)), theherd achievements (both specific bloodlines and general herdimprovement) referred to above are more ephemeral and contextspecific, largely ceasing at the point of retirement sale. One retireeencapsulated this feeling suggesting that a ‘‘lifetime’s work” waslost when he ‘‘split them up and sold them” (H).

At another, and interrelated, level the achievements of herddevelopment can be seen as an important aspect of continuity.Atchley (1989) has suggested that maintaining lifestyle patternsand social connections developed earlier in life can lead to greaterretirement satisfaction. Previous discussions of farming retirementhave noted the importance of the farm within this continuity, witha strong and common desire to ‘keep the name on the land’ (Potterand Lobley, 1992). The evidence from the retired farmers spoken tois that the desire for such continuity related not only to the mate-rial space of the farm, but also the herds therein. This was encap-sulated well in the narrative of farmer L, who had no successorto pass on their farm and herd to, and who had decided to retireafter health problems:

You breed to improve. . .to get better cows all the time [. . .] theyused to say ‘farm like you’ll live forever’ and that’s it, you neverthink there will be an end (D).

Watts (2000, p. 295) has referred to animals’ bodies as ‘sites of accu-mulation’ and the farmer’s narrative here reveals that this relatednot only to capital, but also an accumulation of ideas and ideologiesassociated with good farming practices in their locality. The individ-ual animals and dairy herds generally of those spoken to, cumula-tively stood as testament to the successes, and rectified failures,of not just their own work but often that of their predecessors.The animals represented not only economic successes in terms ofincreased farm or herd size, but also served to illustrate the farmers’sophisticated understandings of the limits of their farming localityin developing ‘the right type of cattle for our land” (D). Referenceswere given to the trial and error with cattle breeding with farmerD ‘‘we found some continental breeds weren’t robust enough forour area. . .they never did very well” (D), with others recollectinghow ‘‘we tried the Charolais bull but it was too much for our cow-s. . .they had too much trouble calving” (F). For these farmers, theirherds stood as testament to their farming development – being partof the lifescape which Gray (1998) suggests is always in the making,and built toward continuity rather than an end. Even for those farm-ers where successors were in place, the fact that they had not car-ried on with dairying represented only partial continuity: ‘‘there’ssome comfort in it still being in the family. . .but sad to see theend of all the work in those cows” (R). It can be argued here thatretirement for these respondents meant a moral predicament –not being an entirely individualistic decision – but one that was

made in reference to the moral obligations often felt to previousgenerations.

6. ‘A cow that we’d made’ – the individualisation of animals anddisconnecting

As has been seen in the previous section, the disconnectionfrom cattle brought a challenge for the retirees spoken to. Thetwo following interview extracts came from farmers’ discussionsof the sale of their herds:

[at the end of the sale day ] we just ended up with a pile of pass-ports12 to be dealt with. . . I saw on the details the history of thecow. . . who its mother was and what bull she was got by, and it stir-red a whole lot of memories. . .she was a cow that we had made (M).

They had gone [. . .long pause. . .] what we’d been getting out of bedto look after for most of our lives (N).

Embedded in the farmers’ narratives is first an indication of the spe-cific types of engagement that farmers had with their animals, andsecond a suggestion of the further challenges faced as retirementbrought a disconnection from these animals. The pile of passportscould ostensibly be read as the ultimate act of objectification – withlivestock reduced to no more than numbers – reinforcing the oft-presented dichotomy of a less personalised relationship betweenfarmers and livestock in commercial enterprises, as opposed to the‘closer’ relationship where animals are named (rather than objecti-fied through practices such as freezebranding) in smaller scale orhobby-farms (Holloway, 2001). The research, however, revealed afar more fluid, and often greatly more personalised relationship thanprevious research has given space to. Two interrelated points areimportant. First, is that the close proximity to, and interaction with,dairy cows (inherent within industrialised farming systems) meantthat farmers had built a very intricate understanding of their individ-ualities and subjectivities. Second, is that many of the practices ofobjectification, which are often regarded as reducing individuality,may actually be seen to reinforce these individualised understand-ings and produce a greater appreciation of the individual and individ-ual subjectivities. Just as Wilkie (2005, p. 222) notes that theclassificatory groups of ‘pets’ and ‘livestock’ ‘‘overlooks the transientnature of the statuses, roles and identities people ascribe animals towhich they are close”, so too it can be argued that categories suchas ‘commercial’ and ‘less commercial’ adumbrate the often persona-lised interrelations which occur within these respective systems.

Turning first to the issue of proximity. It has been generally ar-gued that the industrialisation of agriculture, typified for examplein intensive chicken or pig production, has brought a distancing –physically and conceptually – of farmers and their animals (see forexample MacNaghten, 2001). This logic has been carried forwardinto dairying, with technical advances such as the move away fromhand milking of cows tied in byres changing the nature of everydayphysical contact between farmers and their animals, and selectivebreeding arguably creating less individualistic (at least in aestheticterms) animals (Grasseni, 2005). However amongst the farmersspoken to, it was found that dairy cattle offer a very particular casefor human–animal relations. Whilst Singer (1975, p. 9) refers to the‘speciest tendencies’ of humans, which suggests greater attach-ments between humans and those species which are geneticallycloser to humans (see DeGrazia, 2002), the research found thatthe ‘closeness’ of this relationship comes as a result of the spatialand temporal scales at which farmers engage with their cows. At

1

restaa

M. Riley / Geoforum 42 (2011) 16–27 23

a very basic level it was observed that ‘‘you get to know them be-cause you see them so much” (D), with another farmer going on toobserve ‘‘I saw as much of number 79 as I did of my own mother”(F). Such regular contact, as will be discussed later in the paper,facilitates an evolving understanding of the character and subjec-tivity of individual animals, often encouraging what Wilkie(2005) refers to as empathy for the animal.13

An understanding of the cow at the individual level was alsofacilitated, and even necessitated, by the science-policy networkswithin which dairy cows are part. Whilst practices such as taggingand branding of cattle may be seen as an act of objectification, itserved, farmers revealed, to mark the animals out as individuals:

You have traceability. . .all the records and passports and a big yel-low ear tag14 in each one. . .before you tended to miss individualswhen they were stirks, when they ran together, but now you see eachone (G)

Although such identifiers meant that the naming of individual cows(an act of anthropomorphising) was something that has ceased onmost farms discussed, reference to family names had often persisted.So, for example, many of the farmers referred to ascriptions such as‘‘Sarah 124” (C) and ‘‘Julie 112” (E) where cows were named and num-bered in relation to their respective families.15 Such acts revealed theunderstanding farmers have of individual cows. They also illustratethe success of particular bloodlines, with high numbers appendingname, standing as testament that those cows have successfully contin-ued in the herd and been bred from.

So whilst changes over time to the technologies, policy and thescale of farming practices may be read as animals being increasinglyseen as ‘numbers’ and commodities rather than cows (Webster,2005), it is seen here that this may also be read, at least in part, as in-creased individualisation. National requirements for traceability, aswell as the necessity to monitor cow health and performance, argu-ably individualises dairy cattle more than other livestock. One farm-er explained:

A pig has to produce meat. . . that’s its job, and a sheep to give you acouple of fat lambs. You’ll pick out the ones that didn’t do well, butthe rest fly under the radar [. . .]they can be off their feet for a whileand ill. . .but you judge them over a season. . .but with the milk jobyou have to keep an eye on them every day really (J).

Another farmer made reference to the specific theme of breeding,contrasting the ‘flock’ treatment of his sheep with that of cows:‘‘You’ll turn the tups out, but keep a close eye on the cow to see whenshe comes into service” (K). Necessitated by industry developments –in this case a desire for level year-round milk production from eachfarm and associated need for cows to calf at different points in theyear – means that cattle need to be engaged with at regular, and thusmore individual, temporal scales. The daily monitoring and recordingof cattle gives an intricate understanding of the well-being, and aswill be seen later the nature, of individual cows – as it was explained:‘‘you could see a drop in yield even between morning and night, solooked out for trouble” (C). Whilst such measurement can be read intothe discourse of scientisation which sees cows as ‘machines’, the nar-ratives of farmers also revealed how it brought a much more intimate– both spatially and temporally – relationship with their cattle.Rather than being read as an act of commodification, for them itwas a further extension of the good husbandry and ‘‘closeness toour cattle that we have prided ourselves on for years” (E).

13 None of the farmers spoken to had employed the robotic milking technologieswhich Holloway (2007) shows are further altering the nature of this interaction.

14 The use of standard yellow tags with individual identification number wasintroduced in the UK in 2000 to conform with Article 3 of Commission Regulation (ECNo. 262/97.

15 Wilkie (2005, p. 222) refers to a similar process of what may be termed ‘duanaming’ amongst pedigree livestock keepers.

)

l

This ‘closeness’ to their dairy cattle ultimately impacted on theretirement transitions and experiences of the farmers interviewed.In the opening quote of this section, the reference to what they gotout of bed for, illustrated the centrality of animals to the structur-ing of the history and everyday routines of their lives. All the farm-ers interviewed had spent a good deal of their working lives infarming and common reference was made to how they ‘‘had beenamongst livestock all my life” (L). As Barnes and Parry (2004, p.214) argue ‘‘The transition away from. . .such ‘occupational com-munities’ can be particularly difficult” as it may lead to a loss ofcentral life goals. For these farmers, care and management of ani-mals was arguably one of their central goals, with one case sug-gesting: ‘‘every day for 50 years I put milk out for sale” (J). Acessation of such activities brought a change to life as a whole,but within this it can be seen that the presence of, and affectivequalities of, animals served to give farmers ‘‘a structure to yourlife” (L) – which was seen to work at different time scales.

Tending to animals, specifically milking cows, and the widerassociated tasks, give a routine to both the daily and yearly livesof these farmers. Speaking of his retirement, one farmer observed:

I’m awake and waiting to get up at half five, but have no cows tomilk. It’s nice not to be going out on cold winter mornings, butit’s engrained into me. . .get up and milk the cows (J).

Such daily routines clearly become internalised, or ‘‘embeddedwithin an individual” (Holloway, 2002, p. 2060), as the organisationof day-to-day lives become inextricably intertwined with therhythms and needs of livestock. Respondents revealed how a voidis created by the loss of animals, which makes the maintenance ofdaily routines – which Atchley (1989) suggests are essential to suc-cessful retirement – problematic. Even for those farmers with suc-cessors, who still have access to the farm space, the change inenterprise away from dairying ‘‘it’s not the same, you can feedand check the beef cows and sheep, but there’s not the level ofinvolvement” (F). For those who had retired away from the farm,the internalised routines that they developed in relation to livestockcare and management were not easily mapped onto the types of‘substitute’ routines activities Dorfman and Rubenstein (1994) sug-gest can aid retirement transitions. As one retiree commented:

I’ve taken up gardening. . . [laughter] but the neighbours wouldn’t bepleased if I started at milking time [5.30am] when I’m ready to get up.

Their interactions with livestock not only provided the retirees witha very rigid set of routines from which they needed to break from oradapt to in retirement, but livestock also provided a lens throughwhich they understood particular places:

I used to look at a good field of grass and think how the cows wouldenjoy it, and how much milk it’d produce. . .now I don’t really lookat it in the same way (R).

For such respondents, the cessation of engagement, often at a veryindividual and deep level, with their livestock not only left voids interms of time and empty routine structures, but also the loss of alens through which they channelled very particular understandingsof, and relationships with, specific places and practices.

7. ‘Letting them go’ – understanding the animal and socialrelations

The last section of the paper noted how animals may be viewedand understood, often simultaneously, through scientific measure-ment and in more subjective, experiential and more individualisedways. The following quote, discussing a final herd dispersal sale,opens up several themes relating to how such objective and

24 M. Riley / Geoforum 42 (2011) 16–27

subjective measures could not be read in isolation, as well as high-lighting the often intricate interplay between them.

If we sold them in the past we’d have time to tell the buyer aboutthe individual cow. Even if you went to market you could standwith the cow and explain to people why you were selling it, andlet them know what it was like or if there was anything wrong withit (I).

The quote relates to a practice, referred to by several respondents,of what may be termed ‘narrating the animal’, whereby farmersspoke to potential sellers and gave an account of their experiencesof the animal; relating not only to objective measures such as milkyield and quality (figures that are announced publicly as the cowenters the sale ring), but also the cow’s history, temperament andbehaviour. Farmers spoke of their distress in being unable to under-take such an individual narration when selling the whole herd atretirement. In explaining this they illustrated how such narrationis central to the development and circulation of trust both for farm-ers perpetuating the market for future sale of their animals, as wellas reinforcing their identity as a good farmer. In discussing the saleof animals Holloway (2005) notes that objective measures do notwholly replace the more traditional visual assessment of cattle,and the accounts of retirees illustrated how these are often mutu-ally reinforcing – as when one farmer spoke of how ‘‘she scored wellon yield and cell count and looked good”.

Second, and related to this, was the importance of the individ-ual subjectivities of cows. As Holloway (2007) has pointed out,there is a tendency to view animals as having closed, and managed,subjectivity. In this way the animal as subject becomes essentia-lised, rather than allowing recognition of the continual process ofbecoming the subject. The two following extracts illustrate theinterplay between these measures:

She came into the ring and was kicking out at the driver16 andcaught him a good un. . .but he was being too rough with her. . .hit-ting her with the stick. . .she never lifted a foot in the parlour, butpeople there would think she was a kicker. . .so she didn’t make much(N).

She hogged17 up for weeks after she’d calved. . .but one of the dealerssaid she looked like she was wrong in the bag. . .she was a straightcow, but they said that and pulled her down (K).

The first quote illustrates how individual autonomy and subjectiv-ity of the animals may serve to destabilise their positioning undermore objective measures – such that the positioning of a cow asproductive (and hence beneficial to the herd) is superseded bythe indication given by the kicking that she may be difficult to dealwith. The latter reference to the cow’s tendency to ‘hog up’ for sev-eral weeks, highlights both that over time, farmers come to recog-nise the individual characteristics and idiosyncrasies of animals,and also how these – although not always conventionally ‘produc-tive’ – may be accepted, and even celebrated, even within moreconventional herds. Here the animal’s biography was importantas farmers were able to recognise over time, from the context-specific knowledge cultures of the farm, that the visual trait ofhogging up was temporary (albeit more prolonged than most othercows) and something that did not hinder the animal significantly.These interconnected points are further illustrated in the followingextract:

16 Employee of the auctioneer used to drive the cattle into the sale ring on the day ofthe sale.

17 Term refers to a swelling of the udder and teats, often referred to as mammaryedema, which commonly occurs in cattle in the weeks before and after calving.

She wasn’t the highest yielding cow, but she always had a verygood calf. We sold the last one for £300 at 2 weeks old. . .that’s verygood profit. . .worth a few litres of milk (F).

The retrospective reflection facilitated by retirement interviewsmeant that farmers knew of life histories of individual animals,clearly seeing them as ‘minded’ social actors (Sanders, 1993; Fox,2006), and showed that even within commercial herds there is flex-ibility for cows to show other qualities. Here cows were actors ableto perform other characteristics, beyond those merely reducible justto objective measures of yield volume, which allow them to be ‘‘veryvaluable to the herd” (J). Recognition of these individual qualitiesand subjectivities, and the reference to being valuable to the herd,highlighted the importance of localised, farm-specific, networks in[re]shaping human–livestock relations and also within which their‘value’ becomes a relational, and context-specific achievement. Suchvalues were not always reducible to monetary terms, but also tookthe form of individual and collective behaviours:

That cow was a good leader. . .we have a paddock system. . .shewasn’t the best milker, but she was useful, you could turn her outand she’d lead the way (M).

For this cow, mediocre milk yields were compensated by what maybe called a ‘herd value’ or ‘farm value’. Important here is that whilstindividual farmers may recognise and accept these subjectivities,they are less transferable than more standardised measures. Sowhile individual cows, or the same traits in different cows, maycontinue on farms (rather than being ‘culled’ out), they can onlydo so where they are held together in a specific farm network. Thatis, where the farmer recognises the characteristic as valuable, or atleast not detrimental, to the rest of the herd, or where this may becompensated by animals with different characteristics in the sameherd (e.g. higher yielding cows in this case). A good example of this‘relational value’ was seen on 8 farms where reference was made tokeeping an often solitary Jersey or Guernsey cow:

We kept two of them because they were good for the butter-fat. . .they don’t give much, and only ever have a small calf – butthey keep the overall butterfat in the tank up (D).

The farmer went on to discuss their fate at the sale, recalling howone cow was sold at a very low price, and how the second had nobidder and was sent to slaughter. Illustrated in both this and theexamples above, are how the farmers’ understandings of their live-stock were tied to very particular spatial, temporal and herd-spe-cific contexts, and that a full understanding of each animal couldnot be gleaned outside their relative position in such networks.

The disruption of these networks as a result of retirementbrought two main challenges for the farmers – relating both totheir animals specifically, and also in relation to the occupationand other farmers more generally. Dealing first with their connec-tion to their livestock, the retirees referred to the emotional chal-lenge when ‘‘letting them go” (D). One farmer commented, inreference to a farm several counties away who bought a numberof his herd: ‘‘Their system is not for our type of cow” (K). Whilst‘our type of cow’ related specifically, in a few cases, to a differencein cattle breed – for example lower yielding Shorthorn cattle andhigher yielding Holstein breeds – more generally it related to a net-work of farm geography, infrastructure, history and herd composi-tion of the farm. Farmers used narratives of both specific cows toillustrate this: ‘‘number 47 was a boss cow here, but will get bul-lied in a new herd” (N), and also their dispersed herd as a whole;‘‘they’d not get used to a herring-bone parlour, they were used toside-milking and will kick I’m sure” (J). Kelly and Swisher (1998)have reported on the importance of certain retirement rituals,such as retirement celebrations, in giving ‘‘closure and allow[ing]

M. Riley / Geoforum 42 (2011) 16–27 25

development of the new retiree roles” (p. 60, emphasis added).Whilst the cessation of direct contact with the dairy herd may beseen as giving closure in a physical sense, the retiree’s narrativesrevealed a lack of closure in a second, emotional, sense. The contin-uation of the lives of their animals in what retirees considered tobe inappropriate contexts, or wherein their individual, relational,value and characteristics would go un[der] recognised, broughtan emotional barrier which hindered respondents from gaining fullclosure and disconnection.

As Johnston (2008) has suggested, animals may create life-worlds that impact on human ideas and communities, and thiscreated a second post-retirement challenge. In speaking of theirpost-retirement experiences farmers revealed the centrality of ani-mals in both forming and maintaining social networks. Wood et al.(2005, p. 1162) make reference to how pets may be ‘facilitators ofsocial contact’, and whilst the immediate activities that they referto (such as dog walking) are less directly relevant to livestock, theaccess (or legitimacy) that they give to social networks (both for-mally and informally) is highly pertinent for the case of farmers.Several expressions were given by farmers of the sentiment that:‘‘farming is a fulltime occupation. . .your living, work and hobbyall at the same time” (P). Passing reference has been made withinprevious work to the importance of livestock-related gatherings,such as auctions and agricultural shows, as sites of social interac-tion and knowledge transfer (see Holloway, 2004). For several ofthe farmers interviewed, such activities were one of the few waysin which they ‘‘got off the farm” and ‘‘mixed with other people”(O), within what is often a very solitary occupation. Whilst retire-ment could ostensibly be seen as offering more free time to engagein these activities, it was revealed that without their own animals,engagement was significantly different:

‘‘we’re part of the clean shoe brigade in the market. . .we’re sittingat the back, not up at the front buying and selling the ani-mals. . .we’re out of it a bit really” (O).

For these farmers, legitimate engagement came through perfor-mance – that is through having animals to buy or sell. Referenceto being in the ‘clean shoe brigade’ served a metaphorical, as wellas perhaps literal, distinction between themselves and those cur-rent farmers who still engaged with animals. To be a ‘proper’ partof the relations of the market, ownership of, and connection to, ani-mals, is arguably essential. Significant here is that whilst the ‘busyethic’ (Ekerdt, 1986), where undertaking replacement activitiessuch as gardening (8 respondents) new hobbies (10 respondents)or child care roles (8 respondents), allowed many respondents toreduce the impact of the retirement transition, the cessation ofengagement with animals brought a change of meaning, and oftena decreased sense of belonging, to such animal-centred occasionswhich had formed an important part of their pre-retirement lives.

For the majority of respondents retirement had meant remain-ing on the same farm or close to (less than 20 miles) the farm.However, in 12 of these cases reference was given to how livestockmay be seen as what Wood et al. (2005, p. 1162) refer to as ‘facil-itators of community participation’. For these people the socialrupture that they experienced in retirement was not so much ageographic one, but one that related to their disengagement fromactive farming. Animals were central to these narratives, and aretypified in the following extract:

You’re just not part of the community anymore. You can empathisefrom your memory, but you’ve not been up all night with a cowcalving, or not been covered in cow muck that morning (N).

For these farmers corporeal engagement with animal bodies isimportant to acceptance into the farming community. It can be seenthat the farming communities which made up a very important part

of the lives of farmers prior to retirement were, in part, held to-gether by the commonality of keeping and tending livestock. Adkinsand Lury (1999) refer to the ‘mutual interdependence’ of identityperformance in the workplace, and it can be seen here that livestockare a central part of this interdependence. Not only are their behav-iours, and farmers’ daily interactions with them, a catalyst and focalpoint for conversation (cf. McNicholas and Collis, 2000, on domesticanimals) their bodies, as suggested, are a site of learning and under-standing for farmers.

You still know that a cow is a cow. . .but you lose the understandingof the things. . .rules and stuff. . .that go around it (L).

It was seen that meaningful engagement needs to be continual andongoing. Speaking of current agricultural policies, one retiree ex-plained: ‘‘You read it in the papers, but because you don’t have thestock anymore you don’t understand it” (P). For these retirees identityand practice are inextricably intertwined. Burton and Wilson’s(2006, p. 95) observation that farmers’ self-concept tends to bedominated by ‘production-orientated’ identities, is important here.Identity comes from active engagement where something – in thiscase livestock – is produced. The lack of involvement, of everydayclose proximity and interaction with animals, limits both theirunderstanding of changing policy and technological landscapes,whilst leaves their position within previously familiar social group-ings irrevocably changed.

8. Conclusions

The contributions of this paper are twofold. First, through draw-ing on the narratives of farming retirees, this paper has further ex-posed the intricate nature of farmers’ relationships with theirlivestock. Second, the paper has shown that a relational geographyof ageing and retirement may be one that usefully incorporates thelinked lives of animals. The paper has highlighted how socio-affec-tive relationships between farmers and their animals do exist with-in commercial dairying, but these remain well masked by whatmay be seen as a process of recommodification. This process relatesnot just to geographical [re]placings, but is also discursive andtemporally layered. Approaching such a process through the lensof retirement exposes some of these intricate timings and placings.It also reveals how the discursive practices which make recommo-dification, and the associated moral repositioning of farmers, rela-tively easy in the everyday farming lifescape, do not hold togetherin the context of the transition to retirement.

As previous research has suggested, animals often embody alifetime’s work, and it has been seen here that this relates not justto an embodiment of farming skill in terms of breeding and hus-bandry, but also as biographical markers through which farmersmay narrate not only their own life, but also the progression andcumulative work of several generations. The implications of thisfor retirement are significant. Separation from, and particularlythe selling of, animals arguably serves to magnify the hiatus whichprevious research has shown retirement may create – representingnot only a cessation of occupation, but also a disconnection from alocalised, often familial, farming heritage. Indeed this paper con-tributes to the wider literature on retirement in suggesting thatthe decision to retire is neither entirely individualistic, nor a purelypresent-centred one.

Farmers’ narratives of their farming lives and subsequent retire-ment illustrates how individual animals, rather than homogenousherds, are commonly recognised. The objectifying practices ofmodern agriculture may, conversely, be read as an increased indi-vidualisation of animals, as farmers are forced to engage with theirlivestock at very detailed spatial and temporal scales. Whilst previ-ous research has sought to explore how such technical changes

26 M. Riley / Geoforum 42 (2011) 16–27

have reframed the way we comprehend livestock, the current find-ings suggest there are also implications for the retiring farmer.Livestock are commonly embedded within spatially-specific net-works – where individual idiosyncrasies are harnessed, and evencelebrated, within the herd. The value of these animals is under-stood relationally, and whilst the point of retirement may be seenas offering physical closure, as individuals move away from thefarm or disconnect from the dairy herd, moral and emotional clo-sure may not always accompany this.

Recognising the socio-affective relationship between farmersand livestock offers potential for understanding retirement transi-tions. Those farmers spoken to talk of a role attachment, to whichanimals are central, and which shows not only a simple emotional[dis]connection to their animals, but also how landscapes andplaces are understood, relationally, through their animals and re-lated working practices. Alongside this, daily and seasonal rhythms– historically shaped by the demands of livestock husbandry – be-come internalised and there is a need to remap these into theirnew, retirement, situations. The social capital associated with ani-mal husbandry may be lost and altered in retirement, which inturn remoulds the nature of engagement with particular socialgroups and settings.

This paper has focused on those for whom retirement involvedphysical disconnection from their dairy herd. Further research isneeded into the retirement experiences of those whose successorsmaintain their dairy herd, those who choose alternative retirementroutes (such as semi- or non-retirement), and those from otherareas of the agricultural sector – who are likely to offer differentemphases and experiences from those considered here. More de-tailed research is needed into other forms of disconnection fromlivestock – not only relating to disease (Convery et al., 2008) andretirement, but also those who have either chosen to, or beenforced to leave the dairy industry for other reasons. There remainsa further gap, not only in relation to agriculture but also retirementmore generally, in the research which focuses on the post-retire-ment experiences and adaptations of individuals, couples andwider families.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Katie Willis and the anonymous referees for theirgenerous and helpful comments in improving an earlier draft ofthe paper.

References

Adams, G., Beehr, T., 2003. Retirement: Reasons, Processes, and Results. SpringerPublishing Company, London.

Adkins, L., Lury, C., 1999. The labour of identity: performing identities, performingeconomies. Economy and Society 28 (4), 598–614.

Atchley, R.C., 1989. A continuity theory of normal aging. The Gerontologist 29 (2),183–190.

Barnes, H., Parry, J., 2004. Renegotiating identity and relationships: men andwomen’s adjustments to retirement. Ageing and Society 24, 213–233.

Bourdieu, P., 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Chicago University Press,Chicago.

Bourdieu, P., 1989. Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory 7 (1), 14–25.

Bourdieu, P., Waquant, L.J.D., 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago.

Buller, H., Morris, C., 2003. Farm animal welfare: a new repertoire of nature–societyrelations or modernism re-embedded? Sociologia Ruralis 43 (3), 216–237.

Buller, H., Morris, C., 2007. Animals and society. In: Pretty, J., Ball, A., Benton, T.,Guivant, J., Lee, D., Orr, D., Pfeffer, M., Ward, H. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook inEnvironment and Society. Sage, London, pp. 471–484.

Burgess, E.W., 1960. Aging in Western Societies. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

Burton, R., Kuczera, C., Schwarz, G., 2008. Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance tovoluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociologia Ruralis 48 (1), 16–37.

Burton, R., Wilson, G., 1999. The yellow pages as a sampling frame for farm surveys:assessing potential bias in agri-environmental research. Journal of Rural Studies15 (1), 91–102.

Burton, R., Wilson, G., 2006. Injecting social psychology theory intoconceptualisations of agricultural agency: towards a post-productivist farmerself-identity? Journal of Rural Studies 22 (1), 95–115.

Burton, R.J.F., 2004. Seeing through the ‘good farmer’s’ eyes: towards developing anunderstanding of the social symbolic value of ‘productivist’ behaviour.Sociologia Ruralis 44 (2), 195–215.

Convery, I., Bailey, C., Mort, M., Baxter, J., 2005. Death in the wrong place? Emotionalgeographies of the UK 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic. Journal of RuralStudies 21 (1), 99–109.

Convery, I., Mort, M., Bailey, C., Baxter, J., 2008. Animal Disease and Human Trauma:Emotional Geographies of Disaster. Palgrave MacMillan.

Coughenour, C., 1995. The social construction of commitment and satisfaction withfarm and nonfarm work. Social Science Research 24 (4), 367–389.

Degrazia, D., 2002. Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford UniversityPress, USA.

Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., 2003. Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Sage, London.Digard, J., 1994. Relationships between humans and domesticated animals.

Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 19, 231–236.Dorfman, L., Rubenstein, L., 1994. Paid and unpaid activities and retirement

satisfaction among rural seniors. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics12 (1), 45–63.

Ekerdt, D., 1986. The busy ethic: moral continuity between work and retirement.The Gerontologist 26 (3), 239.

Emel, J., Wilbert, C., Wolch, J., 2002. Animal geographies. Society and Animals 10 (4),407–412.

Evans, N., Yarwood, R., 2000. The politicization of livestock: rare breeds andcountryside conservation. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (2), 228–248.

Feder, G., Murgai, R., Quizon, J., 2004. The acquisition and diffusion of knowledge:the case of pest management training in farmer field schools, Indonesia. Journalof Agricultural Economics 55 (2), 221–243.

Fennell, R., 1981. Farm succession in the European community. Sociologia Ruralis21, 18–42.

Fox, R., 2006. Animal behaviours, post-human lives: Everyday negotiations of theanimal–human divide in pet-keeping. Social & Cultural Geography 7, 525–537.

Gilbert, G., 2001. Researching Social Life. Sage Publications Ltd.Grasseni, C., 2005. Designer cows: the practice of cattle breeding between skill and

standardization. Society and Animals 13 (1), 33–50.Gray, J., 1996. Cultivating farm life on the borders: Scottish hill sheep farms and the

European Community. Sociologia Ruralis 36 (1), 27–50.Gray, J., 1998. Family farms in the Scottish borders: a practical definition by hill

sheep farmers. Journal of Rural Studies 14 (3), 341–356.Harrison, R., 1966. Animal Machines: The New Factory Farming Industry. Ballantine

Books.Heckathorn, D.D., 2002. Respondent-driven sampling II: deriving valid population

estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Social Problems49 (1), 11–34.

Hemsworth, P., Coleman, G., 1998. Human–Livestock Interactions: The Stockpersonand the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals. CABInternational, Wallingford, UK.

Hemsworth, P.H., 2003. Human–animal interactions in livestock production.Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81 (3), 185–198.

Holloway, L., 2001. Pets and protein: placing domestic livestock on hobby-farms inEngland and Wales. Journal of Rural Studies 17 (3), 293–307.

Holloway, L., 2002. Smallholding, hobby-farming and commercial farming: ethicalidentities and the production of farming spaces. Environment and Planning A34, 2055–2070.

Holloway, L., 2004. Showing and telling farming: agricultural shows and re-imagingBritish agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies 20 (319–330).

Holloway, L., 2005. Aesthetics, genetics, and evaluating animal bodies: Locating anddisplacing cattle on show and in figures. Environment and Planning D-Society &Space 23, 883–902.

Holloway, L., 2007. Subjecting cows to robots: farming technologies and the makingof animal subjects. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25 (6),1041–1060.

Hopkins, P., Pain, R., 2007. Geographies of age: thinking relationally. Area 39 (3),287–294.

Horton, J., Kraftl, P., 2008. Reflections on geographies of age: a response to Hopkinsand Pain. Area 40 (2), 284–288.

Howorth, C., 1999. Rebuilding the Local Landscape: Environmental Management inBurkina Faso. Aldershot.

Jackson, P., 2001. Making sense of qualitative data. In: Limb, M., Dwyer, C.(Eds.), Qualitative Methodologies for Geographers: Issues and Debates, pp. 199–214.

Johnston, C., 2008. Beyond the clearing: towards a dwelt animal geography.Progress in Human Geography 32 (5), 633–649.

Jones, W., 2009. Farm Diary – May 2009. West Sussex Gazette, 12 (21.05.2009).Kelly, N., Swisher, L., 1998. The transitional process of retirement for nurses. Journal

of Professional Nursing 14 (1), 53–61.Kopytoff, I., 1986. The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. In:

Appadurai, A. (Ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in CulturalPerspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 64–91.

Lally, P., 2007. Identity and athletic retirement: a prospective study. Psychology ofSport and Exercise 8 (1), 85–99.

Lim, V., 2003. An empirical study of older workers’ attitudes towards the retirementexperience. Employee Relations 25 (4), 330–346.

M. Riley / Geoforum 42 (2011) 16–27 27

Limerick, B., Burgess-Limerick, T., Grace, M., 1996. The politics of interviewing:power relations and accepting the gift. Qualitative Studies in Education 9 (4),449–460.

Macnaghten, P., 2001. Animal futures: public attitudes and sensibilities towardsanimals and biotechnology on contemporary Britain.

Mazorra, A.P., 2000. Analysis of the evolution of farmers’ early retirement policy inSpain. The case of Castille and Leon. Land Use Policy 17 (2), 113–120.

Mceachern, C., 1992. Farmers and conservation – conflict and accommodation infarming politics. Journal of Rural Studies 8 (2), 159–171.

Mcnicholas, J., Collis, G., 2000. Dogs as catalysts for social interactions: robustnessof the effect. British Journal of Psychology 91, 61 (London, England: 1953).

Moen, P., 2003. Midcourse: navigating retirement and a new life stage. In:Mortimer, J.T., Shanahan, M.J. (Eds.), Handbook of the Life Course. Plenum,New York, pp. 269–291.

Morris, C., Evans, N., 2004. Agricultural turns, geographical turns: retrospect andprospect. Journal of Rural Studies 20 (1), 95–111.

Norquay, N., 1999. Identity and forgetting. The Oral History Review 26 (1), 1.Penman, D., 1996. The Price of Meat. Victor Gollancz, London.Pini, B., 2004. On being a nice country girl and an academic feminist: using

reflexivity in rural social research. Journal of Rural Studies 20 (2), 169–179.Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food (The Curry Report), 2002.

Farming and Food: A Sustainable Future. Cabinet Office, London.Potter, C., Lobley, M., 1992. Aging and succession on family farms – the impact on

decision-making and land use. Sociologia Ruralis 32 (2–3), 317–334.Potter, C., Lobley, M., 1996. Unbroken threads? Succession and its effects on family

farms in Britain. Socilogia Ruralis 36 (3), 286–306.Price, C., 2000. Women and retirement: relinquishing professional identity. Journal

of Aging Studies 14 (1), 81–101.Riley, M., 2008. Experts in their fields: farmer-expert knowledges and

environmentally friendly farming practices. Environment and Planning A 40(6), 1277–1293.

Riley, M., Harvey, D., 2007. Oral histories, farm practice and uncovering meaning inthe countryside. Social and Cultural Geography 8 (3), 391–415.

Riley, M., 2009. Bringing the ‘invisible farmer’ into sharper focus: gender relationsand agricultural practices in the Peak District (UK). Gender, Place and Culture 16(6), 665–682.

Riley, M., forthcoming. Emplacing the research encounter: exploring farm lifehistories. Qualitative Inquiry. doi:10.1177/1077800410374029.

Salazar, C., 1996. A Sentimental Economy: Commodity and Community in RuralIreland. Berghahn Books, Providence, RI/Oxford.

Sanders, C.R., 1993. Understanding dogs – Caretakers attributions of mindedness incanine-human relationships. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 22, 205–226.

Setten, G., 2004. The habitus, the rule and the moral landscape. CulturalGeographies 11, 389–415.

Singer, P., 1975. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals.Random House, London.

Smith, M., 2002. The ‘ethical’ space of the abattoir: on the (in) human (e) slaughterof other animals. Book Review Editor 9 (2), 49.

Stassart, P., Whatmore, S., 2003. Metabolising risk: food scares and the un/re-making of Belgian beef. Environment and Planning A 35 (3), 449–462.

Svendsen, G.L.H., Svendsen, G.T., 2003. On the wealth of nations: bourdieuconomicsand social capital. Theory and Society 32 (5–6), 607–631.

Taylor, D., 1987. Growth and structural change in the english dairy industry, c1860-I931. Agricultural History Review 35 (1), 51–70.

Taylor, M., Shultz, K., Spiegel, P., Morrison, R., Greene, J., 2007. Occupationalattachment and met expectations as predictors of retirement adjustment ofnaval officers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37 (8), 1697–1725.

Vanraden, P., Sanders, A., 2003. Economic merit of crossbred and purebred US dairycattle. Journal of Dairy Science 86 (3), 1036–1044.

Watts, M., 2000. Afterword: enclosure. In: Philo, C., Wilbert, C. (Eds.), Animal Spaces,Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human–Animal Relations. Routledge,London, pp. 292–304.

Webster, J., 2005. Animal Welfare: Limping Towards Eden: A Practical Approach toRedressing the Problem of our Dominion over the Animals. Blackwell, Oxford.

Wilkie, R., 2005. Sentient commodities and productive paradoxes: the ambiguousnature of human–livestock relations in Northeast Scotland. Journal of RuralStudies 21 (2), 213–230.

Wolch, J., Emel, J., 1995. Bringing the animals back in. Environment and Planning D:Society and Space 13 (6), 632–636.

Wood, L., Giles-Corti, B., Bulsara, M., 2005. The pet connection: pets as a conduit forsocial capital? Social Science and Medicine 61 (6), 1159–1173.

Yarwood, R., Evans, N., 2006. A Lleyn sweep for local sheep? Breed societies and thegeographies of Welsh livestock. Environment and Planning A 38 (7), 1307–1326.