Automation Systems for Farm Animals: Potential Impacts on the Human—Animal Relationship and on Animal Welfare

ABSTRACT This article discusses ethical issues raised by automation systems in animal farming. These systems automatically collect various kinds of information about an animal and allow the farmer to monitor it remotely. It is argued that the relationship between the farmer and the individual animal is becoming increasingly distant and impoverished. Although this may protect the animal from some negative interactions, it is less clear whether use of these systems will lead to an increase in positive interactions of the kind beneficial for animal welfare. Furthermore, the measurement of specific parameters replaces observation of the animal as a whole, which may affect the perception of the animal. As automation systems replace traditional tasks, the role of the farmer is changing drastically. This may lead to deskilling in the farmer, which in turn may affect animal welfare. The value of automation systems in increasing productivity is clear; however, this paper questions the extent to which these systems can be used to enhance animal welfare. It is argued that ethically acceptable development of automation systems for farm animals can only be achieved if these systems prove to be beneficial in respect of animal welfare.

[1]  Iver Thysen,et al.  Monitoring Bulk Tank Somatic Cell Counts by a Multi-Process Kalman Filter , 1993 .

[2]  Wim Rossing,et al.  Animal identification: introduction and history , 1999 .

[3]  X. Boivin,et al.  Assessing the human-animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review , 2006 .

[4]  P. Hemsworth,et al.  Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. , 2000, Applied animal behaviour science.

[5]  Tom Settle,et al.  Farm Animals' Challenge to Ecological Thinking: Skepticism about the Prospects for an Inclusive Ethics of Health , 2000 .

[6]  Nick Beresford,et al.  Use of GPS to identify the grazing areas of hill sheep , 1997 .

[7]  J. Blackshaw.  Human‐Livestock Interactions , 1998 .

[8]  G. Cronin,et al.  A note on the relationship between the behavioural response of lactating sows to humans and the survival of their piglets , 1999 .

[9]  Anders Ringgaard Kristensen,et al.  Modelling the drinking patterns of young pigs using a state space model , 2005 .

[10]  Deborah G. Johnson.  Computer Ethics , 1985 .

[11]  J. Rushen,et al.  Domestic animals'fear of humans and its effects on their welfare , 1999 .

[12]  J. Lassen,et al.  Happy pigs are dirty! – conflicting perspectives on animal welfare , 2006 .

[13]  Daniel L. Schmoldt,et al.  Ethics in computer software design and development , 2001 .

[14]  Wim J Eradus,et al.  Animal identification and monitoring , 1999 .

[15]  S. Raussi,et al.  Human–cattle interactions in group housing , 2003 .

[16]  J. A. Lines,et al.  A review of livestock monitoring and the need for integrated systems , 1997 .

[17]  P. Hemsworth.  Human–animal interactions in livestock production , 2003 .

[18]  P. Hemsworth.  Human‐Livestock Interaction , 2008 .

[19]  M. Kujala,et al.  Assessing cows' welfare : weighing the cow in a milking robot , 2006 .

[20]  R. Anthony,et al.  The Ethical Implications of the Human-Animal Bond on the Farm , 2003, Animal Welfare.

[21]  J. Moor.  What Is Computer Ethics?* , 1985, The Ethics of Information Technologies.

[22]  P. Hemsworth,et al.  The effect of positive or negative handling on the behavioural and physiological responses of nonlactating heifers , 2003 .

[23]  Katsuji Uetake,et al.  Effect of music on voluntary approach of dairy cows to an automatic milking system , 1997 .

[24]  W Ouweltjes,et al.  Detection model for mastitis in cows milked in an automatic milking system. , 2001, Preventive veterinary medicine.