The Quantified Animal: Precision Livestock Farming and the Ethical Implications of Objectification

Food Ethics 2 (1):77-92 (2018)

Abstract

Precision livestock farming is the management of livestock using the principles and technology of process engineering. Key to PLF is the dense monitoring of variegated parameters, including animal growth, output of produce, diseases, animal behaviour, and the physical environment. While its proponents consider PLF a win-win strategy that combines production efficiency with sustainability goals and animal welfare, critics emphasise, inter alia, the potential interruption of human-animal relationships. This paper discusses the notion that the objectification of animals by PLF influences the developmental pathways of conventional industrial farming. We conduct a conceptual analysis of objectification by comparing discussions in feminist ethics and animal ethics. We find that in animal ethics, objectification includes deontological arguments regarding instrumentalisation, de-animalisation, alienation, commodification and quantification of animals. The focus on socio-political context and relationality connects these debates to central ideas in care ethics. We adopt a care ethics perspective to assess the implications of the objectification of animals in livestock farming. The basic claim is that sensory knowledge symbolised by the farmers’ unity of hand, head and heart would make it harder to objectify animals than abstract and instrumental reasoning where the pursuit of knowledge is intertwined with the pursuit of control, as in mainstream PLF. Despite of what can be considered as a good caring relationship between farmers and animals that is mediated by PLF, people involved in conventional industrial farming still seem to become further detached from farmers and animals, because the PLF system itself is objectifying. PLF redefines the notion of care, in terms of data transparency, standardisation of methods for analysis, real-time collection and processing of data, remote control, and the use of digital platforms. This creates new expectations and requires a redistribution of responsibilities within a wider scope of relations in the value chain.

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,855

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-02-03

Downloads
11 (#859,949)

6 months
3 (#197,582)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Bernice Bovenkerk
Wageningen University and Research

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references

Similar books and articles

Precision Livestock Farming and Farmers’ Duties to Livestock.Ian Werkheiser - 2018 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31 (2):181-195.
Sustainable Agriculture is Humane, Humane Agriculture is Sustainable.Michael C. Appleby - 2005 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (3):293-303.
The Morality of Livestock Farming.Kaoru Fukuda - 2016 - Society and Animals 24 (1):17-33.
Industrial Farming is Not Cruel to Animals.Timothy Hsiao - 2017 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (1):37-54.
Concepts of Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Livestock Systems.Mette Vaarst & Hugo F. Alrøe - 2012 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):333-347.
A Moral Operating System of Livestock Farming.Bart Gremmen - 2017 - Pragmatism Today 8 (2):41-51.
Animal Vulnerability and its Ethical Implications: An Exploration.Angela K. Martin - 2021 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 38 (2):196-216.