Precision livestock farming: a qualitative exploration of swine industry stakeholders

Introduction Precision livestock farming (PLF) technology development has proliferated recently, but on-farm adoption has lagged. Understanding PLF stakeholders’ views, practical applications, limitations, and concerns are necessary to understand the factors influencing the adoption of PLF technology. Methods Using semi-structured online interviews, 12 influential stakeholders’ PLF views and lived experiences were investigated. A phenomenological paradigm was used to generate qualitative data that was analyzed using template analysis. Results We identified two unique groups of stakeholders, namely the PLF enthusiast and PLF cautious groups. The majority of the participants were well aware and had firsthand experience with the PLF technologies that are currently being used in the swine industry. Discussion We found that PLF technology was perceived to improve specificity in decision-making, better care for pigs, improve animal health and welfare, increase labor efficiency, and improve resource-use efficiency. Poor internet connectivity and the inability to use PLF data for decision-making due to needing to first complete daily on-farm tasks were considered key obstacles to its implementation. To integrate PLF technology into the existing barn environment, it is necessary to modify farm buildings and infrastructure and management protocols. Stakeholders’ main concerns with PLF technology included data privacy issues and the influence of PLF technology on human-animal relationships and farmers’ duty of care to the animals. In conclusion, stakeholders perceived camera systems for monitoring pig health and welfare and ensuring individual pig identification as a high priority in PLF development going forward.

[1]  S. Brinkmann.  Qualitative Interviewing , 2022 .

[2]  Stacey D. Scott,et al.  Investigating perceptions, adoption, and use of digital technologies in the Canadian beef industry , 2022, Comput. Electron. Agric..

[3]  Mehdi Hazrati,et al.  On-Farm Data Security: Practical Recommendations for Securing Farm Data , 2022, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems.

[4]  C. Dimauro,et al.  Industry 4.0 and Precision Livestock Farming (PLF): An up to Date Overview across Animal Productions , 2022, Sensors.

[5]  R. Bennett,et al.  Exploring the Potential of Precision Livestock Farming Technologies to Help Address Farm Animal Welfare , 2021, Frontiers in Animal Science.

[6]  Paul T. M. Ingenbleek,et al.  Consumer Perceptions of Precision Livestock Farming—A Qualitative Study in Three European Countries , 2021, Animals : an open access journal from MDPI.

[7]  F. Meijboom,et al.  Smart Technologies Lead to Smart Answers? On the Claim of Smart Sensing Technologies to Tackle Animal Related Societal Concerns in Europe Over Current Pig Husbandry Systems , 2021, Frontiers in Veterinary Science.

[8]  Ian Werkheiser.  Technology and responsibility: a discussion of underexamined risks and concerns in Precision Livestock Farming , 2020, Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture.

[9]  J. Turner,et al.  Priorities for science to overcome hurdles thwarting the full promise of the ‘digital agriculture’ revolution , 2018, Journal of the science of food and agriculture.

[10]  L. Schulz,et al.  Impact of health challenges on pig growth performance, carcass characteristics, and net returns under commercial conditions , 2018, Translational animal science.

[11]  Jasmeet Kaler,et al.  Drivers for precision livestock technology adoption: A study of factors associated with adoption of electronic identification technology by commercial sheep farmers in England and Wales , 2018, PloS one.

[12]  Dries Berckmans,et al.  Precision livestock farming for pigs , 2017 .

[13]  Dries Berckmans,et al.  General introduction to precision livestock farming , 2017 .

[14]  R. Bexiga,et al.  90. Precision livestock farming for reproductive performance optimization: a survey , 2016 .

[15]  Ilan Halachmi,et al.  Precision livestock farming applications: Making sense of sensors to support farm management , 2015 .

[16]  N. King,et al.  The Utility of Template Analysis in Qualitative Psychology Research , 2014, Qualitative research in psychology.

[17]  H. Hogeveen,et al.  Economic modelling to evaluate the benefits of precision livestock farming technologies , 2014 .

[18]  N. King.  Doing Template Analysis , 2012 .

[19]  M. Heinonen,et al.  Tail biting and production performance in fattening pigs , 2012 .

[20]  R. Christley,et al.  Researching hard to reach areas of knowledge: qualitative research in veterinary science. , 2010, Equine veterinary journal.

[21]  C. Fischer.  Bracketing in qualitative research: Conceptual and practical matters , 2009, Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research.

[22]  D. Langdridge.  Phenomenological Psychology: Theory, Research and Method , 2007 .

[23]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[24]  S. Fountas,et al.  Farmer Experience with Precision Agriculture in Denmark and the US Eastern Corn Belt , 2005, Precision Agriculture.

[25]  T. Groenewald.  A Phenomenological Research Design Illustrated , 2004 .

[26]  E. Kanis,et al.  Societal Concerns about Pork and Pork Production and Their Relationships to the Production System , 2003 .

[27]  Graham R. Gibbs,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: Explorations with NVivo , 2002 .

[28]  A. Giorgi,et al.  The Theory, Practice, and Evaluation of the Phenomenological Method as a Qualitative Research Procedure , 1997 .