Kroløkke and Honkatukia - Parallel Lives Parallel Lives Human–Cow Entanglements at a Finnish Prison Farm Charlotte Kroløkke University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark Mervi Honkatukia Nordic Genetic Resource Center (NordGen), Ås, Norway HUMANIMALIA 14.1 (Fall 2023) Abstract: This article investigates cow care-taking practices in a Finnish prison and living gene bank. Building upon work in Feminist Science and Technology Studies, Critical Animal Studies, and Critical Heritage Studies, we seek to understand how human and nonhuman animal lives are partially folded together, while also discussing the worlds cultivated in a space of conservation and incarceration. Empirically, the article draws upon multispecies ethnography undertaken during two separate visits to Pelso Prison in central Finland. We conclude that cows emerge as not simply working animals. They are viewed as valuable genetic material vital to the Finnish nation state as well as given names and granted personalities. Meanwhile, in the company of an endangered cattle breed, inmates gain new value as care-workers and conservationists “saving” the breed. In this space of exception, precarious interspecies lives are interwoven. Keywords: Conservation; Multispecies ethnography; Critical animal studies; Bovine biopolitics; Feminist cultural studies; science and technology studies Bio: Charlotte Kroløkke is an interdisciplinary feminist cultural science studies scholar. She has been Head of the Cultural Heritage Package in the 3MC Traditional Mountain Cattle project as well as Principal Investigator of several interdisciplinary research projects on reproduction and reproductive technologies. She has been editor-in-chief of the Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, and author or co-author of more than 50 peer-reviewed journal articles as well as several books and book chapters. Email: charlottekro@sdu.dk ORCID: 0000-0002-9264-5265 Bio: Mervi Honkatukia, PhD, heads NordGen’s livestock department. Her expertise covers the conservation and promotion of animal genetic resources and their cultural heritage as well as the genetic diversity of domestic animals. The adaptation of domestic animals to changing environmental conditions has been one of her research topics. At NordGen Farm Animals, she has led several pan-Nordic networks with a goal of sustainable use of genetic resources and ensuring the preservation of native Nordic breeds for future use. Email: mervi.honkatukia@nordgen.org ORCID: 0000-0003-4839-2931 Copyright © 2023 Charlotte Kroløkke and Mervi Honkatukia This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Humanimalia 14, no. 1 (2023): 281–313. DOI: 10.52537/humanimalia.12919 mailto:charlottekro@sdu.dk https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9264-5265 mailto:mervi.honkatukia@nordgen.org https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4839-2931 http://doi.org/10.52537/humanimalia.12919 Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives | 283 Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) The 2021 Canadian documentary Prison Farm shows how caring for cows helps inmates process guilt and give back to the community. Caring for young calves confronts the hardships associated with being away from their own hu- man children. As one of the men puts it: “Taking care of these an- imals is taking care of my guilt.” Another man notes that “with- out this, I’d have nothing. I’d just be an inmate.”1 Cow care-taking is vividly displayed as being about more than merely acquiring a new set of job skills; we are shown how it gives these men a sense of purpose. This article investigates cow conservation and care-taking practices as they unfold in the case of a Finnish prison farm which, in addition, functioned as a living gene bank for endangered species of livestock. Departing from our backgrounds in feminist cultural studies and an- imal genomic science scholarship, we study how inmates and cows work side by side and are potentially transformed in the company of one another. Located in central Finland, the Pelso Prison and living gene bank can be viewed as a space of exception. Here, an endan- gered breed of cows known as Northern Finncattle or Lapland cows have been kept. The breed is most often divided into three different varieties: Northern Finncattle (the variety referred to in this article, which tend to be white with black ears or spots), as well as Western and Eastern Finncattle. Smaller in size in comparison to other cattle types, Finncattle are viewed as native to Finland. As noted by Sakari Tamminen in his ethnography of Finnish biogenetic resources, non- human animals have become vital in the making of the Finnish na- tion state. Labelling and conserving Finnish cattle, sheep, and even apples becomes, then, interwoven with “the theoretical ideas of a natural Finnishness, a nonhuman nationhood.”2 Emerging from the claims that human and nonhuman animal en- counters can be transformative, we theorize the Pelso Prison and living gene bank as a space of exception. This means recognizing the ways that the exception, in the case of the Pelso Prison, becomes a 1 “Prison Farm”, CBC Television, https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/episodes/prison-farm. 2 Tamminen, Biogenetic Paradoxes, 80 about:blank 284 | Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) regulatory and nation-making norm.3 This understanding is echoed in Tamminen’s work, in which he uses a biopolitical framework to ar- gue that the conservation of Finncattle and Finnsheep exceeds the conservation of nonhuman animals and extends itself to “Finland and the current forms of power in use to maintain particular nonhu- man populations as genetic resources.”4 Against this backdrop, two research questions guide our work: How do inmates work alongside cows at the Pelso Prison? And secondly, in the contexts of conservation and incarceration, what kinds of worlds are cultivated? While endangered cows emerge as valuable genetic resources, they are also viewed as therapeutic nonhuman animal interventions. Meanwhile, in being alongside endangered cows, inmates gain positions as nurturing conservationists and care- takers. In what follows, we begin with a presentation of the Pelso Prison to discuss how multispecies ethnography helps document the ways that human and nonhuman animal lives are partially folded together. We then turn to how nonhuman animals entangle with na- tional, gendered, and racialized histories, while also presenting our theoretical approach drawing on work within the fields of Science and Technology Studies (STS), Critical Animal Studies, and Critical Heritage Studies. In our analysis, we centre human–cow forms of re- latedness, and we delineate how the Pelso Prison case helps us un- derstand how different worlds are cultivated when inmates and en- dangered cows work alongside one another, as well as the broader biopolitical implications of this space. Doing Multispecies Work Located a mere 300 kilometres south of the Arctic circle, Pelso Prison is an all-male prison consisting of closed as well as open wards. It currently houses eighty inmates. The living gene bank at Pelso Prison was established in 1984 and closed in August 2022 (fig. 1). The gene bank was separated into two areas: a Finncattle barn and outside area and an area dedicated to Finnsheep. The 3 See Agamben, State of Exception. 4 Tamminen, Biogenetic Paradoxes, 42. Figure 1: The Pelso Prison and living gene bank is located approximately 82 km from Oulu, Finland. Photo taken by Charlotte Kroløkke, February 2022. 286 | Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) Finncattle living gene bank had grown from its first initial thirty inhabitants to, at the time of its closing, some sixty-eight milking cows, two breeding bulls, and sixty-five calves and heifers. With the goal of breeding, and accordingly, preserving Finncattle, the living gene bank was established at Pelso Prison following a se- ries of events thought to have saved the Northern Finncattle breed. The former Head of the Finnish Agricultural Research Centre, Pro- fessor Kalle Maijala’s work on farm animal conservation is viewed as vital in the establishment of the bank.5 In the early 1980s, the numbers of Finncattle dropped drastically and the breed teetered on the brink of extinction. The decision was made to establish a working living gene bank at Pelso to conserve the breed while si- multaneously giving inmates the opportunity to cultivate “relevant” working skills. In his ethnography of Finnish biogenetic resource management, Tamminen describes Pelso Prison as a form of disci- plinary power, arguing that the prison “holds populations that have no place in the society but that the society is unable to let die since they might prove useful later and in other contexts than those from which they emerge”. 6 The decision to close the living gene bank and relocate all the ani- mals to the Lappia Vocational College, located in Loue in the north- ern part of Finland, was based on several reasons. One significant factor in the decision was that the Pelso Prison is itself scheduled to move to a new facility in 2024. Also, animal husbandry work is now considered less “relevant” and hence it was no longer felt that the prison farm was helping inmates to cultivate the “necessary job-re- lated skills”.7 At the gene bank’s new location in northern Finland, ag- ricultural students will do the care-work while small Lapland-based businesses are expected to derive benefits from what is described as the potential for luxury Lapland products.8 For example, the Arctic 5 MTT Agrifood Research Finland, “EuReCa Cryoconservation”. 6 Tamminen, Biogenetic Paradoxes, 80. 7 Interview with Assistant Director of Pelso Prison, February 2022. 8 For more information about the plans, see Tiinamaija Rantamartti, “Tervolassa valm- istaudutaan ainutlaatuisen geenipankkikarjan tuloon — Lappian koulutustilalle suun- nitteilla miljoonainvestointi,” Yle.fi 6 October 2020, https://yle.fi/a/3-11578328. https://yle.fi/a/3-11578328 Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives | 287 Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) Ice Cream Factory, a local Lapland business, will extend its range of products to include Finncattle-derived dairy.9 The company mar- kets its products as being “inspired by Arctic nature and the best childhood memories”, produced from natural ingredients in made- to-appear exceptional Northern flavours (cloudberry, bilberry, and Northern Finncattle milk).10 The transfer of the Northern Finncattle living gene bank to Lappia Vocational College has received consid- erable media attention, and has been naturalised as an epic “return to Lapland” for the Northern Finncattle.11 To understand how inmates and cows were mutually transformed in the company of each other, we employed a multispecies approach.12 In our case, this meant spending time in the company of inmates and cows at the Pelso Prison. We made two visits to the facility: the first was in February 2022, and the second in August 2022. The latter visit was undertaken during a time of emotional upheaval due to the clos- ing of the living gene bank. During both visits, we spent time inside and outside the barn (fig. 2). We were present at the milking station and engaged in the milking of the cows. We chatted with staff and inmates before, during, and after their work. We walked with cows to their summer pastures and hung out with them within small and large enclosed areas while observing, interacting with, touching, and brushing them. Some of our conversations were conducted in Eng- lish, while others were carried out in Finnish. At the time of our visits, the cattle team consisted of two female supervisors who undertook all the work involved in managing care-work while also supervising a team of five to seven Finnish inmates. They jointly managed the twice-daily work with Finncattle undertaken early in the morning as well as late in the afternoon. While we were within the confines 9 For more information about this project, see Suvi Jylhänlehto, “Lapinlehmän maito mais- tuu nyt artesaanijäätelöissä – tilamaito kannetaan tonkassa navetalta tuotantotiloihin.” Maaseudun Tulevaisuus 3 Sept. 2022. https://www.maaseuduntulevaisuus.fi/ruoka/ fa1c83c6-df7b-4971-a322-3ee71bcc2067. 10 See Rifat Jahan, “Arctic Ice Creams Born out of Local Flavors”, Daily Finland, 7 July 2019, https://www.dailyfinland.fi/business/11451/Arctic-ice-creams-born-out-of-local-flavors/. See also the Arctic Ice Cream Factory’s website, https://www.arcticicecream.fi/. 11 Conversations with supervisors at the Pelso Prison and living gene bank. 12 van Dooren et al., “Multispecies Studies”; Ogden, Hall, and Tanita, “Animals, Plants, Peo- ple, and Things”; Tsing, “Unruly Edges”. about:blank about:blank https://www.dailyfinland.fi/business/11451/Arctic-ice-creams-born-out-of-local-flavors/ https://www.arcticicecream.fi/ Figure 2: Outdoor interactions with cows during the winter months. Photo taken by Charlotte Kroløkke, February 2022. Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives | 289 Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) of the Pelso Prison structure, we exclusively spent time in the living gene bank noting the presence of guards when arriving and leav- ing the bank. As Anna Tsing writes, multispecies ethnography requires a recog- nition of how humanity itself emerges in interspecies relationships. Multispecies scholars Thom van Dooren, Eben Kirksey, and Ursula Münster refer to the cultivation of “arts of attentiveness”, asking “how human lives, lifeways, and accountabilities are folded” together.13 Consequently, it extends our scholarly interest to the ways that hu- man and nonhuman lives come together, paying attention to ethical concerns related to nonhuman animals14 and critically questioning the centrality of the human subject. In the field of anthropology, the multispecies turn has led to a renewed interest in the lives of animals, whether these unfold in labs, on farms, or in various ecosystems.15 Following from the above work, as well as the ethical guidelines for multispecies work proposed by Heather Rosenfeld and Lauren Van Patter,16 we obtained informed consent from all human participants including administrators at the Pelso Prison and carefully consid- ered how our presence could negatively affect the lives of the hu- man and nonhuman residents. Having outlined our case and meth- odological approach, we now turn to our theoretical perspectives prior to discussing our analytical interventions. On Cows and Conservation: Theoretical Perspectives Historically, nonhuman animals have been linked to the making of nations, and cows are no exception.17 Breeds, to quote Krithika Srinivasan, can be viewed as a “construction of the human imagi- nation”.18 Furthermore, as Mette Svendsen argues, nonhuman an- imals become politicized in accordance with eugenic discourses when, for example, attempts are made to keep pigs bred outside 13 van Dooren et al., “Multispecies Studies”, 2. 14 Rosenfeld and Van Patter, “Introduction”. 15 Kirksey and Helmreich, “Emergence”. 16 Rosenfeld and Van Patter, “Introduction”. 17 Kroløkke, “Heritage”; Tamminen, Biogenetic Paradoxes. 18 Srinivasan, “Biopolitics of Animal Being”, 113. 290 | Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) of Denmark away from the national borders.19 Nordic Mountain cows become symbolic of an imagined exceptional Scandinavia,20 while the emergence of Finncattle (as a breed) is bound up with early twentieth-century Finnish nationalist movements: “Labor-in- tensive breeding techniques were used to purify the national ani- mals of foreign blood and to produce purebred Finnish animals in order to prove the theoretical ideas of a natural Finnishness, a non- human nationhood.”21 Moreover, the desires for pure-bred animals are reiterated at a time when Scandinavian politicians and media reports express concern over immigration and the emergence of an increasingly racially and ethnically diverse Scandinavia. Accord- ingly, Eike Marten notes that “valued diversity and de-valued dif- ferences resonate highly with human diversity discourse.”22 In this manner, nonhuman animals become material as well as symbolic nationalized capital.23 Nonhuman animals are also deeply embedded within colonial and racialized discourses.24 Notably, Radhika Govindrajan shows how colonial powers intertwine with notions of the nonhuman. While the colonizer is afforded the status of humanity, Govindrajan argues, animality becomes attributed to the colonized.25 Similarly, and in her critique of Gregory Colbert’s photographic exhibit of exoticized animals (e.g., elephants and cheetahs), Nicole Shukin shows how the visual representations of humans and animals portray brown- skinned non-Westerners as “closer to animals than the white West- erner, who, after all these twists and turns, remains in imperial posi- tion as the universal subject.”26 The racialized hierarchies implicating 19 Svendsen, Pigs, People, and Politics. 20 Kroløkke, “Heritage”. 21 Tamminen, Biogenetic Paradoxes, 79–80. 22 Marten, “Bio/diversity”, 56. 23 Kroløkke, “Heritage”; Shukin, Animal Capital; Swart, “Other Citizens”; Tamminen, Bio- genetic Paradoxes. 24 Govindrajan, Animal Intimacies; Taschereau Mamers, “Human–Bison Relations”; Morin, Carceral Space; Parreñas, Decolonizing Extinction; Shukin, Animal Capital; Wyckoff, “Sex- ism and Speciesism”. 25 Govindrajan, Animal Intimacies, 11. 26 Shukin, Animal Capital, 199. Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives | 291 Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) human and nonhuman actors are also present in human spaces of confinement.27 Karen Morin points to the ways that animals (es- pecially dogs) historically have played a role in the prison system while additionally showing how the figures of “laboring prisoners” and “laboring animals” fruitfully can be thought together: “Labor ex- ploitation inexorably transforms brown-skinned prisoners and ani- mal bodies in carceral spaces.”28 To theorize and document human and nonhuman animal relations, we turn to burgeoning work within Critical Animal Studies.29 In her ethnographic study of interspecies relatedness in the Central Him- alayas, Govindrajan troubles interspecies power relations and dis- mantles the idea of human exceptionalism. Similarly, and based on a visual archive and photo-elicited interviews, in our own ear- lier work, we discuss the ways that human–mountain cattle rela- tions are brought into being through recognizable kinship terms. Nordic Mountain cows emerge, we argue, as “mothers”, “daugh- ters”, “friends”, “co-workers”, “family members”, and, importantly, as “pets”.30 In a similar vein, Catherine Nash discusses interspecies relatedness between Icelandic horses and humans. Interspecies re- latedness, she argues, is embedded within categories of similarity and difference, shaped by how these animals are “valued as indi- viduals, as representatives of the breed and embodiments of pedi- gree and lineage within the breed and evaluated in relation to other members of the breed”.31 Meanwhile, in her analysis of the Animal Planet television show Cell Dogs, Donna Haraway shows how non- human animals emerge as companions, inmates, even therapists. In these programs, dogs and prisoners turn into “freedom-making technologies for each other”.32 Characteristic of this work, then, is 27 Brower, “Lives of Animals”. 28 Morin, Carceral Space, 91–92. 29 Birke and Hockenhull, “Investigating Human–Animal Bonds”; Govindrajan, Animal Inti- macies; Howell and Kean, “Writing in Animals in History”; Kuhl, “Human–Sled Dog Re- lations”; Nash, “Kinship”; Linné, “Cows on Facebook”; Webster and Ebersole, “Maasai Relationships”. 30 Cf. Kroløkke et al., “A Flock of One’s Own”. 31 Nash, “Kinship”, 136. 32 Haraway, When Species Meet, 64. 292 | Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) the desire to discuss how human and nonhuman animal encounters trouble species hierarchies and — in the employment of recogniza- ble kinship terms — become folded together. As we centre the conservation practices conducted in the Pelso Prison farm, we additionally draw upon work in STS and Critical Her- itage Studies that shows how conservation is “caught up in appara- tuses of biopower”.33 In his study of the biopolitics of endangered spe- cies preservation, Matthew Chrulew analyses the networks of power that ensure that certain exoticized animals are bred and kept in cap- tivity. Eike Marten also understands biodiversity conservation as “a biopolitical investment”,34 which works by turning made-to-appear native plants into species that, unlike their “alien” counterparts, are meant to “live and be harnessed”.35 In the case of conservation, then, biopower can be understood as the power to make live and not let die.36 The conservation of endangered species is thus predicated on “the promise of vitality to come”37 as well as the making of “latent fu- tures”38 that privilege species-thinking, which Chrulew defines as fol- lows: “species over individuals, code over life, genes over bodies.”39 By preserving DNA, blood, or reproductive cells, biobanks and living gene banks function as future-making institutions, “hopeful projects”40 en- gaged in conservation in the name of a better future to come. From the perspective of Critical Heritage scholars, concepts like “bi- odiversity” and “endangerment” are foundational in the institution- alization of biobanks. As Rodney Harrison notes, banking biodiver- sity can be conceptualized as hope as well as “a form of biopolitical power” involving an “anticipatory temporal disposition toward the future”.41 When nonhuman animals are classified as “endangered”, 33 Chrulew, “Managing Love and Death”, 140. 34 Marten, “Bio/diversity”, 51. 35 Marten, 54. 36 Kowal and Radin, “Indigenous Biospecimen Collections”, Chrulew, “Freezing the Ark”. 37 van Dooren, “Banking the Forest”, 263. 38 Radin, “Planned Hindsight”. 39 Chrulew, “Managing Love and Death”, 148. 40 van Dooren, “Banking the Forest”, 262. 41 Harrison, “Freezing Seeds”, 81. Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives | 293 Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) for example, it conjures up visions of “loss” and national “depletion”42 and serves as a biopolitical quest to save specific species of ani- mals.43 It is against this backdrop that the conservation of certain species becomes understood as an attempt to secure the nation’s biodiversity and consequently, a form of bio-wealth. Which species come to be viewed as native (and worthy of conservation) entails an active biopolitical intervention in the “production of more or less distant futures”44 as well as a re-naturalization of the borders of the nation state. In this paper, we seek to unsettle human and nonhuman animal bi- naries. Nonhuman animals can be viewed as relational, even per- formative categories enabling human and nonhuman animal partial connections and divisions.45 In Haraway’s influential work, “becom- ing-with” is viewed as a material as well as a discursive process.46 It entails understanding human and nonhuman animal interactions as collaborative. Anita Maurstad, Dona Davis, and Sarah Cowles employ this approach when showing that being-with horses is strongly per- formed in the stories that riders tell.47 Human and nonhuman ani- mals become-with one another as well as with a multitude of other environments.48 Similarly borrowing from Haraway’s work, Andrea Petitt and Alice Hovorka add a feminist intersectional approach to the study of how women in Botswana become-with cows. To Petitt and Hovorka, becoming-with helps take “both humans and other animals seriously by engaging the relationships between them.”49 Human and nonhuman animal worlds, these scholars argue, are materially as well as discursively knotted together. While we find inspiration in this work; in our analysis, we prefer Joanna Latimer’s concept of “being alongside” to “becoming-with”, as it emphasizes 42 Breithoff and Harrison, “From Ark to Bank”, 39. 43 Chrulew, “Managing Love and Death”. 44 Breithoff and Harrison, “From Ark to Bank”, 38. 45 Birke, Intimate Familiarities; “Rats (and Mice)”; Birke, Bryld, and Lykke, “Animal Perfor- mances”, Latimer, “Being Alongside”. 46 Haraway When Species Meet. 47 Maurstad, Davis, and Cowles, “Horse–Human Relationships”, 324. 48 Such as viruses and bacteria, cf. Gundermann, “Equine/Human Lyme Embodiments”. 49 Petitt and Hovorka, “Women and Cattle”, 146. 294 | Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) partial connections with nonhuman animals rather than hybridity: “Each part remains partially connected but also partially divided.”50 In contrast to the more totalizing joining-together in the trope of “becoming-with”, being or working alongside one another encour- ages attention to, for example, the ways that human caretakers may benefit from their nonhuman animal interactions, yet still, in the structures of the penal system, remain inmates. In employing Latim- er’s concept, we can also show how human and nonhuman animals work and dwell together, and in this manner, embody a form of par- tial connectivity. Being alongside Cows “Welcome to prison,” the supervisor says when our team of research- ers first arrives on a cold February morning. In this white snowy land- scape, where it is difficult to see where the road begins and ends, the supervisor’s big, warm smile stands out in contrast to the cold cli- mate. “Finnish native breeds” the sign on the outside door reads, fea- turing a photo of a cow with her calf. Walking into the corridor, a cosy little dining area and office are located on the right-hand side. Here, what appears as a never-ending supply of coffee and cake await (see fig. 3). Across from this room, we find the changing area where the two supervisors and all guests get dressed. The walls are adorned with posters and drawings by the inmates: one poster shows the eight dam lines that have been housed at the prison farm, while a Christmas card (drawn by one of the inmates) along with a range of cattle awards are featured as well (see fig. 3). In the changing room, we put on big rubber boots, overalls, gloves, and a hat — not only to protect us from the freezing cold, but also to help shield us from the smell, the cow dung, and the mud. The two supervisors are experienced at working with Finncat- tle. The main supervisor has spent the past ten years working at the prison and knows each cow by her udder, she jokingly says. Whereas inmates come and go throughout the year, the supervi- sors have remained the same. Of the five inmates present during 50 Latimer, “Being Alongside”, 96. Figure 3: Photo of the head office in which supervisors dine, enjoy coffee breaks, or teach. Photo taken by Charlotte Kroløkke, August 2022. 296 | Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) our visit in August, only one was on the team in February. All the cows have been named either by the supervisors or by the team of inmates. During this first tour of the farm, we meet, for example, the award-winning Amma — a Northern Finncattle cow who is fourteen years old and now retired. Amma spends most of her time outdoors, but she also has an open shed for shelter and sleeping. At the living gene bank, all cows are marked with an ear tag num- ber, but they have also been given names by the inmates, many of which refer to aspects of prison life, alcoholic drinks, or public fig- ures. We meet several three-month old calves — for example, Tuomio (which means “sentence” or “verdict” in Finnish) and Tyrmä (which means “dungeon” or “jail”). Uuno is just one month old and a favourite of one of the inmates. Meaning “number one”, Uuno is also the name of the beloved Finnish comedy character “Uuno Turhapuro”, created by Spede Pasanen, a caricature of a Finnish man (ragged, lazy, and dirty yet married to the daughter of a rich industrialist). In the living gene bank, Uuno seems to indeed enjoy several privileges: He walks freely around in the barn, follows us, and mirrors our curiosity when, like us, he peeks into the enclosed areas (fig. 4). In what the supervi- sor refers to as the “teenage” division, we meet “Tuborg” (named af- ter a brand of Danish beer), whose mother is named “Olvi” (a brand of Finnish beer). During the second visit, the calves we met in February have already left for their new residences or, as in the case of Uuno, joined a local farm as a companion animal. During this visit, we are greeted by several new three-month old calves. We meet “Ulla” (a con- ventional Scandinavian female name) and “UKK” (named after Urho Kaleva Kekkonen, president of Finland from 1956 to 1982), as well as a black-and-white calf named “Upcider” (a Finnish brand of alcoholic cider). Given the fact that the living gene bank is soon to close along with the expressed affections that the supervisors and inmates share with us about the living gene bank, the last calf to be born at the facil- ity is named “Unohtumaton” meaning “unforgettable”. In this working environment, inmates and supervisors attend to var- ious farm chores: cleaning the inside areas, attending to the cattle, feeding, and milking them, while also helping the young ones latch Figure 4: Uuno (the calf) follows us around and visits the other cows in the barn. Photo taken by Mervi Honkatukia, February 2022. Figure 5: Cows line up to get into the milking station. Photo taken by Charlotte Kroløkke, February 2022. Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives | 299 Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) on to large artificial nipples that have come to constitute their source of nourishment. With the radio blasting (music and programming are chosen by the inmates), the atmosphere is decidedly laid-back, and everyone appears to be focused on their work. Inmates move around the barn, cleaning, laughing, talking to each other — and, im- portantly, always also to the cows. As a team, we join the inmates and cattle, brushing the cows, milking, and walking with them. The cows appear content and often playful, especially the younger ones. Cows move to and from the milking station (fig. 5). Inmates make cof- fee, and everyone seems occupied with performing specific tasks. Much in the same manner as the inmates, cows appear adjusted to the daily routines, including going into the milking station as well as, in the summertime, going on a twice-daily walk to a nearby green pasture. The inmates tell us that despite the smell and the risk of in- jury when in the company of large animals, working at the living gene bank is highly desirable work. While cleaning the stables, we chat with two of the inmates. They de- scribe working with non-human animals as transformative. Accord- ing to one of them, working with this type of cow breed has been a “healing” experience — a type of “recovery”. It is, he says, “good for guys like me.” Being with cows makes him feel like “a good guy”. The one-month-old calf Uuno is, he admits, his favourite, and he re- counts how he took care of Uuno from the moment he was born. As is common practice in dairy farming, calves are separated from their mothers upon birth. Left with a new-born calf, the inmate explains that he felt nervous and concerned about having the responsibility of nurturing a new-born, but in the end they both “made it” he says, smiling. This mentality is echoed by another care-worker, who talks of the vulnerabilities associated with giving birth and one incident in which he helped “save” one of the new-born calves. The description of working with animals as healing and calming re- curs in other conversations as well. One care-worker says that work- ing with animals helps him control his temper. It calms him down. This speaks to the affective relationships that emerge in being along- side cows. Moreover, it also reveals how relatedness frequently is 300 | Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) formed when in the company of specific cows. As we walk into the barn, for example, we immediately encounter the cow Olea. Dressed up with one of the care-worker’s hats (see fig. 6), the inmate explains that this signifies their friendship. Not only has he taken care of her for a substantial part of her life, but he is also keen to express that he really likes her personality. Displaying a similar level of reciprocity, Olea runs towards him when he calls her name once the milking is done. Meanwhile, Olea also appears to have a mind of her own, “es- caping” the milking station to visit other parts of the barn and skip- ping into the enclosed area, thereby avoiding having to spend the summer night outside in the pasture. While all the inmates note that simply working with cows makes it easy to think of something else, attending especially to “native” cat- tle makes the inmates feel that they are “making a difference”. Here, time passes by quickly, they say. Meanwhile, the vulnerability of be- ing in the proximity of animals weighing 3–400 kg (660–880 lbs.) is a humbling experience and inmates go to great lengths to negotiate hu- man–cow spaces. As one of the inmates put it: “You cannot fight with the cows, they will always win.” Another states that he especially likes working with cattle (as opposed to sheep), because they are so “big”. Thus, the inmates’ being-alongside the cows is informed by a peculiar mixture of interspecies humility and masculinized prowess. Materi- ally, this is displayed, for example, when the inmates move bulls to an outside area, and one of them recalls trying to ride one of the bulls like a cowboy at a rodeo. Moreover, it unfolds when inmates inter- act with a range of three-month-old calves. Here, inmates are united in expressing a playful joy, touching, and chatting with the animals. Haraway’s observation that nonhuman animals serve as thera- peutic interventions seems right on the mark.51 In being alongside these cows, inmates engage in a form of self-transformation by es- tablishing interspecies intimacy with cows granting them distinct personalities such as being curious and easy-going. Not only do all the inmates volunteer to work in the living gene bank, being paid a minimal amount for their labour (less than five Euros a day), but they 51 Haraway, When Species Meet, 63. Figure 6: Photo of the cow Olea wearing a care-worker’s hat. Photo taken by Mervi Honkatukia, February 2022. 302 | Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) also unilaterally express developing affective bonds, turning cows into “friends” and “pals” — in some cases, even nonhuman compan- ions. In the case of Olea, her care-worker wishes he could take her home with him, while another inmate, with a smile on his face, ex- plains that the cows are probably the reason he keeps returning to prison. Cows and people emerge “as subjects and objects to each other, mutually adapted partners in the naturecultures of lively capi- tal.”52 In this living gene bank, Finncattle are both individualized cows (with names and distinct personalities) and simultaneously also gen- dered symbolic forms of national bio-wealth. The latter is especially evident when inmates stress that they enjoy working with native Finnish animals and when supervisors point to the bank’s success story of having “saved the breed”. While cows are anthropomorphized as “pals”, inmates gain new qualities and value — as “productive” citizens. In this human–cow co-shaping, the value of Finncattle extends beyond their national bio-wealth as “native” animals. It is within this context that inter- species encounters further transform inmates into “good” citizens. As one of the inmates put it: “The cows would say — if they could speak — that he [in reference to himself] is a good guy.” Another in- mate echoes this sentiment when stating that the work at the bank is a form of escape for him: “The cows just love you. They don’t care what you have done.” In these forms of multispecies affective relatedness (“The cows just love you”), inmates and cows synchronize their movements with one another. Finncattle engage in the choreography of “good dairy production” or made-to-appear docile working bodies, when they, for example, are disciplined to enter the milking station or when they walk in an orderly line to the summer pasture — like hu- man children going on a kindergarten trip (see fig. 7). In the case of the Pelso Prison, cows are disciplined to move in particular ways (to and from the milking station, for example) revealing what Chrulew calls the “intense anatomo-politics of the animal body”.53 52 Haraway, When Species Meet, 62. 53 Chrulew, “Managing Love and Death”, 148. Figure 7: Late summer walk with Northern Finncattle from their pasture back to the living gene bank. Photo taken by Charlotte Kroløkke, August 2022 304 | Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) Yet the relationship between the inmates and the Finncattle goes beyond farming practices such as milking, testing of the milk, the udder, and the use of assisted reproductive technologies, to more synchronized practices such as moving inside and outside of the barn area. Accordingly, while cows are certainly disciplined to move in par- ticular ways, in being alongside one another, inmates and cows also synchronize their movements to adapt to each other’s needs. Cows appear to recognize specific inmates and, regardless of this, they interact with everyone using their heads and body weight to get attention (fig. 8). For this reason, inmates carefully manage the interactions with cows. This is also the case with calves. Calves are less predictable, as one inmate found out when playfully kicking a football in an indoor areas for calves, this may result in human injuries. Meanwhile, the inmate and cow interactions unfold in- doors as well as (during the summer months) outdoors in the pas- tures. Inmates walk with the cows (as well as selected calves who, much like companion animals, are put on a leash) to and from their pasture. Encouraging and pushing cows to follow a particu- lar path, inmates also playfully discipline the cows that have cho- sen paths of their own. In these examples of being alongside cows, humans and nonhuman animals playfully connect in the Finnish agricultural landscape. At the Pelso Prison and living gene bank, human and nonhumans ap- pear, in Haraway’s terminology, as messmates or companion species to one another. Not only are cows viewed as having a mind of their own, when, for example, invading the supervisors’ personal space or simply choosing their own path or direction (during the summer walk); inmates also enjoy spending time with the cows playing, as in the case of the football, and interacting with them. In this man- ner, at various points during day-to-day activities, the distinction be- tween humans and cows seems to become blurred — though it is of course quickly reinstated as soon as the cows are being milked and their calves are taken away from them.54 54 See Svendsen, Near Human. Figure 8: Interaction between supervisors and cows. Photo taken by Mervi Honkatukia, February 2022. 306 | Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) Conservation / Incarceration: The Governance of Nonhuman Animals Pouring coffee, yet visibly annoyed during this August afternoon work shift, the inmate grabs his cup and turns his back on the male prison guard. Guards are always present if one of the supervisors is absent. Today, however, three supervisors are working, and the guard’s presence appears to elicit a negative reaction. A stern ap- pearance, prison attire, and equipment (radio and a gun) disrupt the otherwise laid-back atmosphere characteristic of the milking station; materially reminding these cow care-workers of their posi- tion as troubled political bodies (their status as inmates). In this sec- tion, we discuss how worlds of human and nonhuman animal con- servation and incarceration are cultivated and how the boundaries between them at times collapse but also, as indicated in the above example, are re-affirmed. This means privileging the ways that ma- terial and social worlds intertwine as well as paying attention to the governance of what Kirksey and Helmreich refer to as interspecies entangled biographies.55 Each day, inmates are picked up by one or both supervisors. From our vantage point at the living gene bank, we observed inmates walking casually with one of the supervisors to and from the prison. Once inside the structures of the living gene bank, wearing their characteristic orange overalls, inmates quickly move around the barn or the accompanying outside area, pausing only occasionally to have a brief chat or smoke a cigarette. The worlds of conservation and incarceration collapse into one, not only for the inmates but also for the cows, who invariably also move in and out of different spaces of confinement. The supervisors train the inmates inform- ing not only them — but also us — of how to interact with each cow including her temperament (for example, willingness to be milked) and family history. This may shape how inmates know and care about the cows.56 55 Kirksey and Helmreich, “Emergence”. 56 Gillespie, Cow with Ear Tag, 26. Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives | 307 Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) Although Northern Finncattle are viewed as valuable Finnish genetic material, at Pelso Prison, cows must also be reproductively fit. Strok- ing one of the cows and chatting with the supervisor, we learn that this one will not be going to the vocational college up north. Due to a “poor uterus”, the supervisor says, she will be going to the slaughter- house. Technologies of biopower (the use of assisted insemination, for example) dictate which of these endangered animals may live.57 Similarly, echoing this reality, Kelly Somers and Karen Soldatic argue: “Biological diversity is narrowed by the killing of animals who are deemed ‘non-productive’ or ‘productively disabled.”58 Regardless of their endangered status, milk is still at the core of these cows’ ex- istence, and although Finncattle apparently produce less milk than other breeds, their milk is supposedly (according to the prison staff) of a higher quality. In this manner, the decision of which animals get to live and which are slaughtered is bound up with a rationale of productivity. An exception to this rule is the 14-year-old Amma, who received several milking awards yet is past her reproductive years. During the second trip, we learn that Amma now lives on a farm as a companion animal along with a group of other cows and horses. Accordingly, a few of the cows get to live lives in which their repro- ductive abilities play little or no role, the supervisor says. Although the Pelso Prison participates in the industrialized logics of productivity, the treatment and management of the cows also differs from the intensive and industrialized agriculture in several ways. Su- pervisors stress the cows’ physical and mental health and well-being along with that of the team of inmates. Worrying about the level of care that the cows — once moved to the vocational school — will ex- perience, supervisors interestingly position the inmates’ care-work as a more genuine and stable type of care compared to the prospec- tive care offered by “random” vocational students. Like the inmates, who possess different skills and manage different machines while taking care of the day-to-day assignments (seem- ingly at their own pace), each cow is considered an individual with a 57 See Marten, “Bio/diversity”. 58 Somers and Soldatic, “Productive Bodies”, 35. 308 | Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) distinct personality. Throughout our visits, supervisors and inmates are united in entertaining us with stories of different cow personal- ities, while we — when in the proximity of the cows — certainly ob- serve and recognize that the cows act differently. Few cows appear hesitant in our company; most of them come close and are even as- sertive at times, while none of them can be considered docile. Most frequently viewed as a desirable, even necessary, trait in the safe management of livestock, we are told Northern Finncattle display none of the docility of other breeds such as, for example, Holstein cattle. Thus, contrary to Richie Nimmo’s observation that “assem- blages of disciplinary technologies” are “geared towards the produc- tion of ‘docile’ and ‘productive nonhuman bodies’”59 in this living gene bank, endangered cows partially unsettle otherwise well-es- tablished forms of nonhuman animal caretaking practices while si- multaneously, despite their status as endangered, upholding the ra- tionale of productivity in terms of their reproductive abilities. At the gene bank, human and nonhuman worlds are intertwined with worlds of conservation and incarceration. Outlining different “bovine biopolitical” modes of operation, Jamie Lorimer and Clem- ens Driessen sketch the move from industrialized agriculture to con- servation, welfare, biosecurity, and rewilding.60 Each biopolitical mode is characterized, they argue, by a distinct set of logics as well as a distinct set of human and nonhuman monster figures. Whereas the logic of profit and improvement characterizes industrial agricul- ture, preservation and companionship help define the biopolitics of conservation and welfare; including the ways that welfare also gets entangled with industry practices and standards, respectively. In the case of the Pelso Prison living gene bank, inmates acknowledge the individual cow, expressing care and responsibility towards them along with emphasizing their status as “endangered” and “native”. This is in opposition to industrialized agriculture epitomized by the image of the high-achieving “turbo-cow”.61 In contrast, in the world of the living gene bank, the image of an individual yet simultaneously 59 Nimmo, “Bio-Politics of Bees”, 5. 60 Lorimer and Driessen, “Bovine Biopolitics”, 4. 61 Orland, “Turbo-Cows”. Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives | 309 Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) made-to-appear “social” and “happy” cow prevails. Meanwhile, the “turbo-cow” and the irresponsible breeder / farmer appear, in our ob- servations, as undesirable — even monstrous — human and nonhu- man animal figures.62 While cow wellbeing appears at the centre of working alongside cows, the living gene bank does operate accord- ing to industry practices as well. Moreover, in conservation practices, the bank operates at the level of the species (rather than at the level of the individual cow). Simultaneously, and in the protection of what becomes framed as nationalized genetic resources, the bank enacts a biopolitical intervention in the production of (non)human futures. We posit that Finncattle’s position as “endangered” and “native” plays a key role in the ways that these interspecies biographies en- tangle. Interestingly, whereas these made-to-appear native nonhu- man animals turn into forms of Finnish bio-wealth (yet simultane- ously expendable and killable), it also appears that their symbolic value (at least temporarily) sticks to the human inmates as well. The cultural significance of these cows adds another layer of understand- ing to this. When working alongside native Finncattle, inmates are seen as having an opportunity to become rehabilitated and accord- ingly, come to resemble “care-workers” and “conservationists” con- tributing to, as noted by one of the supervisors, “saving the breed”. Thus, the endangerment / conservation label works doubly: it safe- guards the Northern Finncattle breed, turning these cows into na- tionalized bio-wealth, while simultaneously attributing cultural value and symbolic significance to the inmates themselves. Conclusions In conclusion, we want to reflect on what our analysis of the Pelso Prison can offer for theories of more-than-human worlds. Only a few of the inmates have any previous experience with animal husbandry and even fewer expect to work with cattle in the future. Nevertheless, the inmates describe being alongside cows as a vital and meaning- ful human and nonhuman animal interaction. Working with cattle enables inmates to leave their prison living quarters, and it grants 62 Lorimer and Driessen, “Bovine Biopolitics”, 4. 310 | Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) them the opportunity to work and closely interact with other living beings. All inmates echo the therapeutic value that being in the com- pany of cows has: it grants them a sense of worth and helps them engage in what they refer to as meaningful work. In the company of cows, these inmates take on new value, when they emerge ma- terially as well as discursively as Finnish care-workers and conser- vationists who “save” what is positioned as a “native” cattle breed. In the decision to move the living gene bank to its new location, Northern Finncattle prove useful in new and other ways. Trans- formed into a late-modern capitalist site of education, entertain- ment, and food consumption; in this naturalized “return to the Arc- tic”, Northern Finncattle genetic material becomes optimized and emerges now as a symbol of authentic — even “pure” — Arctic expe- riences and ingredients. We began with a desire to understand how inmates work along- side Finncattle as well as the worlds that are cultivated during con- servation and incarceration. Taking a multispecies methodological approach helped reveal the ways that this living gene bank materi- ally — as well as discursively — operates within different biopolitical modes of nonhuman animal well-being, neoliberalism, and conser- vation. At the Pelso Prison, cows are not merely nonhuman animal labourers; they become partially individualized: They are given ear tag numbers but also individual names and granted personalities based on perceived traits, such as “curious”, “stubborn”, and “gen- tle”. They emerge as “trouble-making teenagers” as well as disci- plined “workers” when at the milking station. Supervisors and in- mates express responsibility and care towards the individual cow as well as the breed as a whole, yet also remain bound to the neo- liberal principle of productivity. In these human and nonhuman an- imal interactions, inmates gain a sense of worth as productive citi- zens and conservationists. In this manner, inmates and cows work alongside each other experiencing moments of connection as well as difference. Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives | 311 Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) Works Cited Agamben, Giorgio. State of Exception. Translated by Kevin Attell. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Birke, Lynda. “Intimate Familiarities? Feminism and Human–Animal Studies.” Society and Animals 10, no. 4 (2002): 429–36. https://doi. org/10.1163/156853002320936917. Birke Lynda. “Who — or What — are the Rats (and Mice) in the Laboratory?” Society and Animals 11, no. 3 (2003): 207–24. https://doi.org/dtmddj. Birke Lynda, Mette Bryld, and Nina Lykke. “Animal Performances: An Exploration of Intersections between Feminist Science Studies and Studies of Human / Animal Relationships.” Feminist Theory 5, no. 2 (2004): 167–83. https://doi. org/10.1177/1464700104045406. Birke, Lynda, and Jo Hockenhull. “On Investigating Human–Animal Bonds: Realities, Relatings, Research.” In Crossing Boundaries: Investigating Human–Animal Relationships, edited by Lynda Birke and Jo Hockenhull, 15–36. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Breithoff, Esther, and Rodney Harrison. “From Ark to Bank: Extinction, Proxies and Biocapitals in Ex-Situ Biodiversity Conservation Practices.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 26, no. 1 (2020): 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/13 527258.2018.1512146. Brower, Charles Hendrickson, II “The Lives of Animals, the Lives of Prisoners, and the Revelations of Abu Ghraib.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 37, no. 5 (2004): 1353–88. https:// digitalcommons.wayne.edu/lawfrp/404. Chrulew, Matthew. “Managing Love and Death at the Zoo: The Biopolitics of Endangered Species Preservation.” Australian Humanities Review no. 50 (2011): 137–57. https://doi.org/10.22459/ AHR.50.2011.08. Chrulew, Matthew. “Freezing the Ark: The Cryopolitics of Endangered Species Preservation.” In Radin and Kowal, Cryopolitics, 283–306. Gaard, Greta. “Posthumanism, Ecofeminism, and Inter-Species Relations.” In The Routledge Handbook of Gender and Environment, edited by Sherilyn MacGregor, 115–29. London: Routledge, 2017. Gillespie, Kathryn. The Cow with Ear Tag #1389. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018. Govindrajan, Radhika. Animal Intimacies: Interspecies Relatedness in India’s Central Himalayas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018. Gundermann, Christian. “Equine / Human Lyme Embodiments: Towards a Feminist Ecology of Entangled Becomings.” Humanimalia 10, no. 2 (2019): 150–79. https://doi.org/10.52537/ humanimalia.9505. Haraway, Donna J. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008. Harrison, Rodney. “Freezing Seeds and Making Futures: Endangerment, Hope, Security, and Time in Agrobiodiversity Conservation Practices.” Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 39, no. 2 (2017): 80–89. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/cuag.12096. Howell, Philip, and Hilda Kean. “Writing in Animals in History.” In Kean and Howell, Routledge Companion, 3–26. Isaacs, Tatum. “Farmers behind Bars: A Critical Analysis of Prison Farm Labor in Kentucky and Beyond.” Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law 9, no. 3 (2017): 507–32. https:// uknowledge.uky.edu/kjeanrl/vol9/iss3/6/. Kean, Hilda, and Philip Howell, eds. The Routledge Companion to Animal–Human History. London: Routledge, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853002320936917 https://doi.org/10.1163/156853002320936917 https://doi.org/dtmddj https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700104045406 https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700104045406 https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1512146 https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1512146 https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/lawfrp/404 https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/lawfrp/404 https://doi.org/10.22459/AHR.50.2011.08 https://doi.org/10.22459/AHR.50.2011.08 https://doi.org/10.52537/humanimalia.9505 https://doi.org/10.52537/humanimalia.9505 https://doi.org/ 10.1111/cuag.12096 https://doi.org/ 10.1111/cuag.12096 https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kjeanrl/vol9/iss3/6/ https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kjeanrl/vol9/iss3/6/ 312 | Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) Kirksey, Eben, and Stefan Helmreich. “The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography” Cultural Anthropology 25, no. 4 (2010): 545–76. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01069.x. Kowal, Emma, and Joanna Radin. “Indigenous Bio specimen Collections and the Cryopolitics of Frozen Life.” Journal of Sociology 51, no. 1 (2015): 63–80. https://doi. org/10.1177/1440783314562316. Kroløkke, Charlotte. “Heritage with Cows. Conserving Nordic Human and Nonhuman Animals.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 28, no. 8 (2022): 955–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 3527258.2022.2099448. Kroløkke, Charlotte, Anne Nørkjær Bang, Ulla Ovaska, and Mervi Honkatukia. “A Flock of One’s Own: Nordic Human–Mountain Cattle Kinship-making Practices.” Society & Animals. Forthcoming. Kuhl, Gail. “Human–Sled Dog Relations: What Can We Learn from the Stories and Experiences of Mushers?” Society & Animals 19, no. 1 (2011): 22–37. https:// doi.org/10.1163/156853011X545510. Latimer, Joanna. “Being Alongside: Rethinking Relations amongst Different Kinds.” Theory, Culture & Society 30, nos. 7–8 (2013): 77–104. https://doi. org/10.1177/0263276413500078. Linné, Tobias. “Cows on Facebook and Instagram: Interspecies Intimacy in the Social Media Spaces of the Swedish Dairy Industry.” Television & New Media 17, no. 8 (2016): 719–33. https://doi. org/10.1177/1527476416653811. Lorimer, Jamie, and Clemens Driessen. “Bovine Biopolitics and the Promise of Monsters in the Rewilding of Heck Cattle.” Geoforum no. 48 (2011): 249–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. geoforum.2011.09.002. Marten, Eike. “Bio/diversity and Its Deadly Underside: Making Killable in Times of Emergency.” Journal of Gender Studies 29, no. 1 (2020): 49–62. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09589236.2019.1692650. Maurstad, Anita, Dona Davis, and Sarah Cowles. “Co-Being and Intra-Action in Horse–Human Relationships: A Multi- Species Ethnography of Be(com)ing Human and Be(com)ing Horse.” Social Anthropology / Anthropologie sociale 21, no. 3 (2013): 322–35. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1469-8676.12029. MTT Agrifood Research Finland. “EuReCa Cryoconservation Finland.” EuReCa: Towards Self-Sustainable, European, Regional Cattle Breeds. 2009. https:// www.regionalcattlebreeds.eu/publications/ documents/FINLAND_Cryo.pdf. Morin, Karen M. Carceral Space, Prisoners and Animals. London: Routledge, 2018. Nash, Catherine. “Kinship of Different Kinds: Horses and People in Iceland.” Humanimalia 12, no. 1 (2020): 118–44. https://doi.org/10.52537/ humanimalia.9426. Nimmo, Richie. “The Bio-Politics of Bees: Industrial Farming and Colony Collapse Disorder.” Humanimalia 6, no. 2 (2015): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.52537/ humanimalia.9909. Novek, Joel. “Pigs and People: Sociological Perspectives on the Discipline of Nonhuman Animals in Intensive Confinement.” Society & Animals 13, no. 3 (2005): 221–44. https://doi.org/ 10.1163/1568530054927771. Ogden, Laura A., Billy Hall, and Kimiko Tanita. “Animals, Plants, People, and Things: A Review of Multispecies Ethnography.” Environment and Society: Advances in Research 4, no. 1 (2013): 5–24. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2013.040102. Orland, Barbara. “Turbo-Cows. Producing a Competitive Animal in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries.” In Industrializing Organisms: Introducing Evolutionary History, edited by Susan R. Schrepfer and Philip Scranton, 167–89. New York: Routledge, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01069.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01069.x https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783314562316 https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783314562316 about:blank about:blank about:blank about:blank https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276413500078 https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276413500078 https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476416653811 https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476416653811 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.09.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.09.002 https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2019.1692650 https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2019.1692650 https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1469-8676.12029 https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1469-8676.12029 https://www.regionalcattlebreeds.eu/publications/documents/FINLAND_Cryo.pdf https://www.regionalcattlebreeds.eu/publications/documents/FINLAND_Cryo.pdf https://www.regionalcattlebreeds.eu/publications/documents/FINLAND_Cryo.pdf https://doi.org/10.52537/humanimalia.9426 https://doi.org/10.52537/humanimalia.9426 https://doi.org/10.52537/humanimalia.9909 https://doi.org/10.52537/humanimalia.9909 https://doi.org/10.1163/1568530054927771 https://doi.org/10.1163/1568530054927771 https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2013.040102 Kroløkke and Honkatukia, Parallel Lives | 313 Humanimalia 14.1 (2023) Parreñas, Juno Salazar. Decolonizing Extinction: The Work of Care in Orangutan Rehabilitation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2018. Petitt, Andrea, and Alice J. Hovorka. “Women and Cattle ‘Becoming-With’ in Botswana.” Humanimalia 12, no. 1 (2020): 145–66. https://doi.org/10.52537/ humanimalia.9433. Radin, Joanna. “Planned Hindsight: Vital Valuations of Frozen Tissue at the Zoo and the Natural History Museum.” Journal of Cultural Economy 8, no. 3 (2015): 361–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17530350.2015.1039458. Radin, Joanna, and Emma Kowal, eds. Cryopolitics: Frozen Life in a Melting World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017. Rosenfeld, Heather, and Lauren Van Patter. “Introduction to Special Issue Ethics in Multispecies Research: Reflections from the Field.” ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographers 21, no. 2 (2022): 106–12. https://acme-journal. org/index.php/acme/article/view/2231. Shukin, Nicole. Animal Capital: Rendering Life in Biopolitical Times. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009. Somers, Kelly, and Karen Soldatic. “Productive Bodies: How Neoliberalism Makes and Unmakes Disability in Human and Non-Human Animals.” In Disability and Animality: Crip Perspectives in Critical Animal Studies, edited by Stephanie Jenkins, Kelly Struthers Montford, and Chloë Taylor, 35–56. London: Routledge, 2020. Srinivasan, Krithika. “The Biopolitics of Animal Being and Welfare: Dog Control and Care in the UK and India.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38, no. 1 (2013): 106–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475- 5661.2012.00501.x. Svendsen, Mette N. “Pigs, People, and Politics: The (Re)Drawing of Denmark’s Biological, Politico-Geographical, and Genomic ‘Borders’.” BioSocieties (2021): https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-021- 00244-6. Svendsen, Mette N. Near Human: Border Zones of Species, Life, and Belonging. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2022. Swart, Sandra. “The Other Citizens: Nationalism and Animals.” In Kean and Howell, Routledge Companion, 31–52. Tamminen, Sakari. Biogenetic Paradoxes of the Nation: Finncattle, Apples, and Other Genetic-Resource Puzzles. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2019. Taschereau Mamers, Danielle. “Human– Bison Relations as Sites of Settler Colonial Violence and Decolonial Resurgence.” Humanimalia 10, no. 2 (2019): 10–41. https://doi.org/10.52537/ humanimalia.9500. Tsing, Anna. “Unruly Edges: Mushrooms as Companion Species: For Donna Haraway.” Environmental Humanities 1, no. 1 (2012): 141–54. https://doi.org/ 10.1215/22011919-3610012. van Dooren, Thom. “Banking the Forest: Loss, Hope, and Care in Hawaiian Conservation.” In Radin and Kowal, Cryopolitics, 259–82. van Dooren, Thom, Eben Kirksey, and Ursula Münster. “Multispecies Studies Cultivating Arts of Attentiveness. Environmental Humanities 8, no. 1 (2016): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919- 3527695. Webster, Lena K., and James J. Ebersole. “Maasai Relationships with and Perceptions of Dogs in Northern Tanzania.” Society & Animals 28, no. 4 (2020): 357–76. https://doi.org/ 10.1163/15685306-12341574. Wyckoff, Jason. “Linking Sexism and Speciesism.” Hyaptia 29, no. 4 (2014): 721–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/ hypa.12098. https://doi.org/10.52537/humanimalia.9433 https://doi.org/10.52537/humanimalia.9433 https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17530350.2015.1039458 https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17530350.2015.1039458 https://acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/2231 https://acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/2231 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00501.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00501.x https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-021-00244-6 https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-021-00244-6 https://doi.org/10.52537/humanimalia.9500 https://doi.org/10.52537/humanimalia.9500 https://doi.org/ 10.1215/22011919-3610012 https://doi.org/ 10.1215/22011919-3610012 https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3527695 https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3527695 https://doi.org/ 10.1163/15685306-12341574 https://doi.org/ 10.1163/15685306-12341574 https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12098 https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12098