Farmers’ representations of the effects of precision livestock farming on human-animal relationships

Barriers and drivers of farmers to provide outdoor access in pig farming systems: a qualitative study

Part of the farmers have chosen to raise pigs with outdoor access. However, providing outdoor access to pigs is not a simple matter, and many farmers are hesitating or feel powerless to engage in this transition. A better understanding of their needs and challenges could facilitate the development of innovations that generate commitment. This survey aimed to identify the French pig farmers' barriers to and drivers for providing outdoor access to pigs. A total of 36 farmers, aged 25-60, who worked in all types of pig farming systems (from full indoor to free-range) participated in a semi-structured interview that lasted 1.25-2.25 h. The topics covered included a historical overview, a description of the farm and practices, as well as opinions about the impact of outdoor access on farmers, animals, production and economic performance, environment, and society. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. Most of the participants agreed that rearing pigs indoors is a different job from that of rearing pigs with outdoor access and that it is above all a matter of choice, farmer work conception, and work comfort. Farmers generally agreed that working outdoors is particularly arduous, but this could be compensated by the satisfaction of being in contact with nature and seeing animals in a more complex environment. A large majority of farmers managing a system with outdoor access raised the issue of lack of support, highlighting the need for refinement and diffusion of guides of practices as well as day-to-day support. The impact of outdoor access on the health and welfare of pigs was discussed, especially regarding climatic hazards and the risk of zoonoses, and several outdoor farmers explained how their relationship with the animals changes when pigs are raised outside. Given that zootechnical performance may significantly decrease in farms with outdoor access, various strategies can be employed to maintain profitability, such as feed production, circularity, direct sales, or work diversification. They could be either motivating or demotivating factors depending on the individuals. Concerns about social criticism were prominent among many indoor farmers while farmers providing outdoor access generally felt more serene and proud. Overall, this study can serve as a basis to identify levers that could remove barriers, foster the adherence of more farmers, and facilitate the transition towards more pig farming systems with outdoor access, provided that those systems are viable and beneficial for the welfare and health of the animals and farmers.

Planned behavior, social networks, and perceived risks: Understanding farmers' behavior toward precision dairy technologies

Precision dairy tools (PDT) can provide timely information on individual cow's physiological and behavioral parameters, which can lead to more efficient management of the dairy farm. Although the economic rationale behind the adoption of PDT has been extensively discussed in the literature, the socio-psychological aspects related to the adoption of these technologies have received far less attention. Therefore, this paper proposes a socio-psychological model that builds upon the theory of planned behavior and develops hypotheses regarding cognitive constructs, their interaction with the farmers' perceived risks and social networks, and their overall influence on adoption. These hypotheses are tested using a generalized structural equation model for (a) the adoption of automatic milking systems (AMS) on the farms and (b) the PDT that are usually adopted with the AMS. Results show that adoption of these technologies is affected directly by intention, and the effects of subjective norms, perceived control, and attitudes on adoption are mediated through intention. A unit increase in perceived control score is associated with an increase in marginal probability of adoption of AMS and PDT by 0.05 and 0.19, respectively. Subjective norms are associated with an increase in marginal probability of adoption of AMS and PDT by 0.009 and 0.05, respectively. These results suggest that perceived control exerts a stronger influence on adoption of AMS and PDT, particularly compared with their subjective norms. Technology-related social networks are associated with an increase in marginal probability of adoption of AMS and PDT by 0.026 and 0.10, respectively. Perceived risks related to AMS and PDT negatively affect probability of adoption by 0.042 and 0.16, respectively, by having negative effects on attitudes, perceived self-confidence, and intentions. These results imply that integrating farmers within knowledge-sharing networks, minimizing perceived risks associated with these technologies, and enhancing farmers' confidence in their ability to use these technologies can significantly enhance uptake.

Attitudes of western Canadian dairy farmers toward technology

Dairy farms have become more reliant on technology. The overall aim of this study was to better understand how dairy farmers view technology and its effects on animal care, including their views on the prospect of integrating gene-editing technology in the future. Virtual-semistructured interviews were conducted with dairy farmers (n = 11) from British Columbia and Alberta. To facilitate discussion, the participants were asked to develop and discuss a timeline describing when and why various technologies were adopted on their farm. Although farmers defined technology broadly and affecting multiple aspects of farm management, this paper focuses on their views regarding how technology can affect animal care. Following thematic analysis of the data, the following 3 themes emerged: (1) the changing role of the farmer (including intergenerational considerations and learning new technology), (2) the effect of technology on the cow and her relationship with the farmer and, (3) technology as the future of the farm. The discussions also highlight the concerns that some farmers have regarding challenges associated with reduced human-animal interactions and effective use of the large amounts of data that are collected through technology. We also specifically asked the participants their views about gene editing as a potential future technology. Most of the participants did not specifically address their views on gene editing, but they spoke about the effect on genetic technologies more generally, often making references to genomic testing. However, some questioned how this technology may affect farmers more generally and spoke about how it could affect human-animal relationships. These results illustrate differences among farmers in the way they view technology and how this can affect the dairy cattle they care for.

Farmers' Perspectives of the Benefits and Risks in Precision Livestock Farming in the EU Pig and Poultry Sectors

More efficient livestock production systems are necessary, considering that only 41% of global meat demand will be met by 2050. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic crisis has clearly illustrated the necessity of building sustainable and stable agri-food systems. Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) offers the continuous capacity of agriculture to contribute to overall human and animal welfare by providing sufficient goods and services through the application of technical innovations like digitalization. However, adopting new technologies is a challenging issue for farmers, extension services, agri-business and policymakers. We present a review of operational concepts and technological solutions in the pig and poultry sectors, as reflected in 41 and 16 European projects from the last decade, respectively. The European trend of increasing broiler-meat production, which is soon to outpace pork, stresses the need for more outstanding research efforts in the poultry industry. We further present a review of farmers' attitudes and obstacles to the acceptance of technological solutions in the pig and poultry sectors using examples and lessons learned from recent European projects. Despite the low resonance at the research level, the investigation of farmers' attitudes and concerns regarding the acceptance of technological solutions in the livestock sector should be incorporated into any technological development.

Social and ethical implications of data and technology use on farms: a qualitative study of Swedish dairy and pig farmers

Introduction

Livestock farmers are being increasingly encouraged to adopt digital health technologies on their farms. Digital innovations may have unintended consequences, but there tends to be a pro-innovation bias in previous literature. This has led to a movement towards "responsible innovation," an approach that questions the social and ethical challenges of research and innovation. This paper explores the social and ethical issues of data and technologies on Swedish dairy and pig farms from a critical perspective.

Methods

Six focus groups were conducted with thirteen dairy and thirteen pig farmers. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and a digital critical health lens, which focuses on concepts of identity and power.

Results and discussion

The analysis generated four themes: extending the self, sense of agency, quantifying animals, and managing human labour. The findings suggest that technologies can change and form the identities of farmers, their workers, and animals by increasing the visibility of behaviours and bodies through data collection. Technologies can also facilitate techniques of power such as conforming to norms, hierarchical surveillance, and segregation of populations based on data. There were many contradictions in the way that technology was used on farms which suggests that farmers cannot be dichotomised into those who are opposed to and those that support adoption of technologies. Emotions and morality played an important role in the way animals were managed and technologies were used by farmers. Thus, when developing innovations, we need to consider users' feelings and attachments towards the technologies. Technologies have different impacts on farmers and farm workers which suggests that we need to ensure that we understand the perspectives of multiple user groups when developing innovations, including those that might be least empowered.

Review: Using animal welfare to frame discussion on dairy farm technology

The use of technology on dairy farms has increased dramatically over the last half-century. The ways that scientists describe the potential benefits and risk of technology are likely to affect if it is accepted for use on farms. The aim of our study was to identify papers that describe a linkage between technologies used on dairy farms and the welfare of dairy cattle. Our systematic review identified 380 papers, of which 28 met our inclusion criteria and were used to describe the technologies examined, the welfare-relevant measures used, and the ways in which authors framed welfare benefits and risks associated with the technologies. The large majority (27 of 28 papers) used positive frames, considering how the technology could improve welfare. Some authors carefully articulated the logic linking the specific measures to specific welfare-related outcomes (such as the use of accelerometer data to draw inferences about changes in lying times), but others made more general inferences (about health and welfare) that were not (and perhaps could not) be assessed. We conclude that much of the framing focused on animal welfare is biased toward welfare benefits and that future work should strive to address both potential benefits and harms; more balanced coverage may better inform solutions to the problems encountered by the people and animals affected by the technology. Welfare is a complex and multifaced concept, and it is unlikely that any one technology (or perhaps even a combination of technologies) can adequately capture this complexity. Thus, we encourage authors to restrict their claims to specific, welfare-relevant measures that can be assessed independently and thus validated. More general claims about welfare should be treated with skepticism.

Precision Livestock Farming: What Does It Contain and What Are the Perspectives?

Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) describes the combined use of sensor technology, the related algorithms, interfaces, and applications in animal husbandry. PLF technology is used in all animal production systems and most extensively described in dairy farming. PLF is developing rapidly and is moving beyond health alarms towards an integrated decision-making system. It includes animal sensor and production data but also external data. Various applications have been proposed or are available commercially, only a part of which has been evaluated scientifically; the actual impact on animal health, production and welfare therefore remains largely unknown. Although some technology has been widely implemented (e.g., estrus detection and calving detection), other systems are adopted more slowly. PLF offers opportunities for the dairy sector through early disease detection, capturing animal-related information more objectively and consistently, predicting risks for animal health and welfare, increasing the efficiency of animal production and objectively determining animal affective states. Risks of increasing PLF usage include the dependency on the technology, changes in the human-animal relationship and changes in the public perception of dairy farming. Veterinarians will be highly affected by PLF in their professional life; they nevertheless must adapt to this and play an active role in further development of technology.

Digital Livestock Technologies as boundary objects: Investigating impacts on farm management and animal welfare

Digital Livestock Technologies (DLTs) can assist farmer decision-making and promise benefits to animal health and welfare. However, the extent to which they can help improve animal welfare is unclear. This study explores how DLTs may impact farm management and animal welfare by promoting learning, using the concept of boundary objects. Boundary objects may be interpreted differently by different social worlds but are robust enough to share a common identity across them. They facilitate communication around a common issue, allowing stakeholders to collaborate and co-learn. The type of learning generated may impact management and welfare differently. For example, it may help improve existing strategies (single-loop learning), or initiate reflection on how these strategies were framed initially (double-loop learning). This study focuses on two case studies, during which two DLTs were developed and tested on farms. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders involved in the case studies (n = 31), and the results of a separate survey were used to complement our findings. Findings support the important potential of DLTs to help enhance animal welfare, although the impacts vary between technologies. In both case studies, DLTs facilitated discussions between stakeholders, and whilst both promoted improved management strategies, one also promoted deeper reflection on the importance of animal emotional well-being and on providing opportunities for positive animal welfare. If DLTs are to make significant improvements to animal welfare, greater priority should be given to DLTs that promote a greater understanding of the dimensions of animal welfare and a reframing of values and beliefs with respect to the importance of animals' well-being.

A comparison of online and live training of livestock farmers for an on-farm self-assessment of animal welfare

One approach to strengthening the involvement of farmers or stockpersons in the evaluation and improvement of animal welfare is the implementation of an on-farm self-assessment. A valid comparison of the results with reference values, between or within farms, requires that training of the farmers and reliability testing have taken place. We investigated two different training methods (online vs. live) with a total of 146 livestock farmers from farms with dairy cows and calves, beef cattle, sows and suckling piglets, weaners and fattening pigs, laying hens, broiler chickens, and turkeys from all over Germany. Online tests were conducted by assessing photos/videos of each indicator of the assessment scheme to estimate the inter-rater reliability (prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa, PABAK). The farmers were requested to provide information on their professional background and rate their motivation to participate in the training and their subjective training success, meaning their confidence in assessing each indicator later on-farm. They evaluated the feasibility of the training and its impact on their views and attitudes. In general, farmers achieved at least substantial inter-rater reliability (PABAK ≥ 0.61) in 86.8% of all initial tests; 13.4% of the tests were repeated once or more times, resulting in a significant improvement of the agreement, with 90.9% of the tests reaching a PABAK ≥ 0.61. However, reliability was higher for indicators with a lower number of score levels. The subjective evaluation of training success was, on average, positive (score = 74.8 out of 100). No effects of the training method or the farmers’ professional background on the inter-rater reliability or the subjective training success were detected. Furthermore, for both methods, farmers moderately agreed that the training had sharpened their views on the animals, encouraged them to implement the assessment on their farm, and made it clear that self-assessment supports animal management. Although the reported costs and time investment for the online training were significantly lower, the effort required for both methods and the ease of integration into the workflow were ranked as similarly acceptable. Overall, both training methods appear feasible for the training of farmers/stockpersons on the assessment of animal-based indicators.

Which perspectives for work in agriculture? Food for thought for a research agenda

The 2nd International Symposium on Work in Agriculture (March 29–April 1 2021) was a moment for debate on the perspectives of work in agriculture. In this article, we propose to summarize the exchanges that outline the major issues from this event. We made a bibliometric analysis of all the contributions presented and a cross-cutting expert synthesis. Agricultural work and drivers of employment were the main topics of the presentations, with North and Global South countries facing different labor productivity dynamics. Some questions are continent specific: will OECD countries see agriculture without farmers? Will agriculture provide decent work to youth, notably in the Sub-Saharan Africa? With which models of agriculture? Some issues are common globally: the ability of the agroecological transition to improve working conditions and provide new jobs; the recognition of women and ethnic groups' contributions to work and to decisions. The digital revolution and the migration flows to and from rural areas and cities are also changing agricultural work substantially. Cross-cutting perspectives are introduced such as the potential of the decent work concept to foster the attractiveness of the agricultural professions, the effect of value chains and the potential of the territorial approach to work to foster interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary viewpoints in addressing problems in the domain.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to Integration of Social and Ethical Awareness in Precision Livestock Farming Research

While fully automated livestock production may be considered the ultimate goal for optimising productivity at the farm level, the benefits and costs of such a development at the scale at which it needs to be implemented must also be considered from social and ethical perspectives. Automation resulting from Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) could alter fundamental views of human-animal interactions on farm and, even further, potentially compromise human and animal welfare and health if PLF development does not include a flexible, holistic strategy for integration. To investigate topic segregation, inclusion of socio-ethical aspects, and consideration of human-animal interactions within the PLF research field, the abstracts from 644 peer-reviewed publications were analysed using the recent advances in the Natural Language Processing (NLP). Two Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) probabilistic models with varying number of topics (13 and 3 for Model 1 and Model 2, respectively) were implemented to create a generalised research topic overview. The visual representation of topics produced by LDA Model 1 and Model 2 revealed prominent similarities in the terms contributing to each topic, with only weight for each term being different. The majority of terms for both models were process-oriented, obscuring the inclusion of social and ethical angles in PLF publications. A subset of articles (5%, n = 32) was randomly selected for manual examination of the full text to evaluate whether abstract text and focus reflected that of the article as a whole. Few of these articles (12.5%, n = 4) focused specifically on broader ethical or societal considerations of PLF or (9.4%, n = 3) discussed PLF with respect to human-animal interactions. While there was consideration of the impact of PLF on animal welfare and farmers in nearly half of the full texts examined (46.9%, n = 15), this was often limited to a few statements in passing. Further, these statements were typically general rather than specific and presented PLF as beneficial to human users and animal recipients. To develop PLF that is in keeping with the ethical values and societal concerns of the public and consumers, projects, and publications that deliberately combine social context with technological processes and results are needed.

Exploring the Potential of Precision Livestock Farming Technologies to Help Address Farm Animal Welfare

The rise in the demand for animal products due to demographic and dietary changes has exacerbated difficulties in addressing societal concerns related to the environment, human health, and animal welfare. As a response to this challenge, Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) technologies are being developed to monitor animal health and welfare parameters in a continuous and automated way, offering the opportunity to improve productivity and detect health issues at an early stage. However, ethical concerns have been raised regarding their potential to facilitate the management of production systems that are potentially harmful to animal welfare, or to impact the human-animal relationship and farmers' duty of care. Using the Five Domains Model (FDM) as a framework, the aim is to explore the potential of PLF to help address animal welfare and to discuss potential welfare benefits and risks of using such technology. A variety of technologies are identified and classified according to their type [sensors, bolus, image or sound based, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)], their development stage, the species they apply to, and their potential impact on welfare. While PLF technologies have promising potential to reduce the occurrence of diseases and injuries in livestock farming systems, their current ability to help promote positive welfare states remains limited, as technologies with such potential generally remain at earlier development stages. This is likely due to the lack of evidence related to the validity of positive welfare indicators as well as challenges in technology adoption and development. Finally, the extent to which welfare can be improved will also strongly depend on whether management practices will be adapted to minimize negative consequences and maximize benefits to welfare.

Human-animal relationship influences husbandry practices, animal welfare and productivity in pig farming

The nature of the relationship between humans and farm animals has multiple repercussions on the animals and the farmers and varies with farmers attitudes towards their animals. In particular, this relationship influences animal welfare and human working conditions. The present study, part of a larger research project investigating human-animal relationship (HAR) in pig farming and ways to improve it, had two objectives: 1) to investigate the HAR in a diversity of pig farming situations and to evaluate the possible correlation between farmer attitudes, pigs' reactions to humans, husbandry practices, animal health, welfare and productivity and 2) to find a way to rapidly assign a farmer to a profile, in order to better adapt course content during training sessions on HAR. The study focused on 52 farrow-to-finish farms and consisted of a semi-structured interview with the farmer, observations of the farmer in contact with his/her livestock, two human approach tests conducted on sows and growers and productivity data. Finally, a questionnaire was left at the farm to be filled out by all stockpersons on the farm. Interviews, analyzed using a thematic analysis followed by multiple correspondence analysis and ascendant hierarchical clustering, showed that some farmers develop husbandry practices to improve their HARs and identified three farmer profiles that have been named in relation to the place of the HAR in their profession: Profile 1 farmers for whom HAR is secondary in their work with their pigs, Profile 2 for whom the HAR is useful in their work with their pigs and Profile 3 for whom HAR is central in their work with their pigs. Logistic regression models of the relationships between behavioral tests and productivity data showed that confident sows produce and wean more piglets than fearful sows and that sows of Profile 3 farmers trust more humans than those of Profile 1 or 2 farmers. Farmers' responses to the questionnaire did not predict their profile assignment. Our results confirm the main role of the farmer's attitude towards animals on their farming practices, animal welfare and productivity. The farmers who have more confident pigs and better productivity are those for whom the farm animal is central to their profession, express the most pleasure in working with them and convey empathy for them.