Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Incorporating the Philosophy of Technology into Animal Welfare Assessment

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Changes in attitudes towards how animals are housed in agriculture are currently under question in the public eye—particularly for laying hens. Many arguments from the rights and utilitarian viewpoints have been made for changing environmental conditions and managerial practices for animals in an effort to respect the interests of the animal and better their welfare. Yet, these arguments have been based upon belief systems that were developed from information that can be collected by human perception only. Technological advancements can facilitate animal welfare assessment by providing humans with new information about what the animal perceives. Yet, little has been discussed surrounding the thought process behind which technologies are conceived, how they are developed, and why they are implemented. Here, using the laying hen as a model, we turn to the philosophy of technology to address what role technological advancements may have in our capacity to understand animals, how technology can affect their welfare, and what role technology may play in furthering animal welfare assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anthony, R. (2010). Building a sustainable future for animal agriculture: an environmental virtue ethic of care approach within the philosophy of technology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 1–22. doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9285-z.

  • Barrozo, D., Buzanskas, M., Oliveria, J., Munari, D., Neves, H., & Queiroz, S. (2012). Genetic parameters and environmental effects on temperament score and reproductive traits of Nellore cattle. Animal, 6(1), 36–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bubier, N. (1996). The behavioural priorities of laying hens: The effect of cost/no cost multi-choice tests on time budgets. Behavioural Processes, 37, 225–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Classen, H., Riddell, C., & Robinson, F. (1991). Effects of increasing photoperiod length on performance and health of broiler chickens. British Poultry Science, 32(1), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, N., & Dickinson, A. (2006). Rational rats. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 427–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J., & Appleby, M. C. (1995). Nesting behaviour of hens: Effects of experience on motivation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 42(4), 283–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J., & Appleby, M. C. (2003). The value of environmental resource to domestic hens: A comparison of the work-rate for food and for nests as a function of time. Animal Welfare, 12(1), 39–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornou, C., Vinther, J., & Kristensen, A. (2008). Automatic detection of oestrus and health disorders using data from electronic sow feeders. Livestock Science, 118, 262–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, M. (1989). The budgets in Red Junglefowl as a baseline for the assessment of welfare in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 24, 77–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, M. (2004). Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 13, S3–S7.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Eath, R. B., & Keeling, L. J. (2003). Social discrimination and aggression by laying hens in large groups: From peck orders to social tolerance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 84(3), 197–212. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2003.08.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. (1995). Heidegger on gaining a free relation to technology. In A. Feenberg & A. Hannay (Eds.), Technology and the politics of knowledge. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, 50(Suppl 1), S1. doi:10.1186/1751-0147-50-S1-S1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardeman, E., & Jochemsen, H. (2011). Are there ideological aspects to the modernization of agriculture? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 1–18, doi:10.1007/s10806-011-9331-5.

  • Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • HSUS (2009). Michigan Governor Granholm Signs historic farm animal welfare measure. http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2009/10/mich_gov_granholm_signs.html.

  • Jacobs, J., & Siegford, J. (2012). Lactating dairy cows adapt quickly to being milked by an automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy Science, 95(3), 1575–1584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, H. H., Prescott, N. B., Perry, G. C., Ladewig, J., Ersboll, A. K., Overvad, K. C., et al. (2007). The behaviour of broiler chickens in different light sources and illuminances. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 103(1–2), 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, G., Dahlen, C., Larson, J., Marquezinin, G., & Stevenson, J. (2010). Control of the estrous cycle to improve fertility for fixed-time artificial insemination in beef cattle: A review. Journal of Animal Science, 88(Suppl 13), E181–E192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, P., & Morris, T. (2000). Poultry and coloured light. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 56, 189–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchant, J. N., Broom, D. M., & Coming, S. (2001). The influence of sow behavior on piglet mortality due to crushing in an open farrowing system. Animal Science, 72, 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 83(4), 220–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norwood, F., & Lusk, J. (2011). Compassion by the pound. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, I., & Keeling, L. (2000). Night-time roosting in laying hens and the effect of thwarting access to perches. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 68(3), 243–256. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00097-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastell, M., Kujala, M., Aisla, A., Hautala, M., Poikalainen, V., Praks, J., et al. (2008). Detecting cow’s lameness using force sensors. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 64, 34–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, L., & Munger, B. (1996). The sensorineural specializations of the trunk tip (finger) of hte Asian elephant, elephas maximus. The Anatomical Record, 246(1), 127–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauw, W., Kanis, E., Noordhuizen-Stassen, E., & Grommers, F. (1998). Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: A review. Livestock Production Science, 56, 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, T. (2004). The right’s view. In T. Regan (Ed.), The case for animal rights (pp. 266–329). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schjelderup-Ebbe, T. (1922). Beitrage zur Sozialpsychologie des Haushuhns. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 88, 225–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shields, S., & Duncan, I. J. H. (2006). An HSUS Report: A comparison of the welfare of hens in battery cages and alternative systems. The Humane Society of the United States.

  • Singer, P. (1993). Practial ethics. New York: Cabridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. F., Appleby, M. C., & Hughes, B. O. (1990). Problem solving by domestic hens: Opening doors to reach nest sites. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 28(3), 287–292. doi:10.1016/0168-1591(90)90108-P.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suarez, S. D., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (1983). Emotionality and fear in birds: A selected review and reinterpretation. Bird Behavior, 5, 22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. (1998). Agricultural ethics: Research, teaching, and public policy. Amers, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. (2008). The opposite of human enhancement: Nanotechnology and the blind chicken problem. Nanoethics, 2, 305–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titi, H., Kridili, R., & Alnimer, M. (2010). Estrus synchronization in sheep and goats using combinations of GnRH, progestogen and prostaglandin F(2 alpha). Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 45(4), 549–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M., Gurney, P., Crowther, J., & Sharp, J. (1984). An automatic weighing system for poultry. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 29, 17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Uexkull, J. (1909). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington, D. (2005). A field guide to Heidegger: Understanding ‘the question concerning technology’. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37(4), 567–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood-Gush, D. (1971). The behaviour of the domestic fowl. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. (1990). How modern technology transforms the everyday world—and points to a new one. In D. Ihde (Ed.), Heidegger’s confrontation with modernity: Technology, politics and art (pp. 205–221). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Paul Thompson of Michigan State University (East Lansing, MI, USA) for nurturing a scientist’s inner philosopher and helping me transform my abstract ideas into concrete concepts. He helped me to find my philosophical edge and provided the support I needed to find strength to grow as a writer, thinker, and researcher. I am grateful to Janice Siegford of Michigan State University (East Lansing, MI, USA) for her thoughtful comments and suggestions concerning the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Animal Behavior and Welfare Group, Department of Animal Science, 3270H Anthony Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Courtney Lynd Daigle

Authors
  1. Courtney Lynd Daigle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Courtney Lynd Daigle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Daigle, C.L. Incorporating the Philosophy of Technology into Animal Welfare Assessment. J Agric Environ Ethics 27, 633–647 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9482-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9482-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation