Advertisement

Respect for Animal Autonomy in Bioethical Analysis: The Case of Automatic Milking Systems (AMS)

  • Kate M. Millar
Article

Abstract

An analysis of the ethical impacts of the use of anAutomatic Milking System (AMS) is employed as a casestudy to illustrate the use of a form of bioethicalanalysis in technology assessment. The approach isbased on the Ethical Matrix, where `impacts' areassessed in terms of (lack of) respect for threeethical principles as applied to interest groups. Inthis case, only impacts on dairy cows are examined,and principally in terms of their behaviouralfreedom.

In contrast to traditional milking systems, AMS, inprinciple, allow cows to present for milkingvoluntarily. So with AMS, it is claimed that dairymanagement relies on the autonomous interaction of thecow with her environment.

One of the roles of bioethical analysis is to identifythe influence of rhetoric and symbolism in technologyassessment, e.g., with respect to the claimed`voluntariness' of cows' presentation. The AMS can beinstalled to allow cows three types of access, viz., i)free choice ii) rewarded access (RA) iii) obligatoryaccess (OA). Studies suggest the desire for milkremoval per se is not critical in the cow'sattendance at the AMS. Continued motivation to bemilked, required for the system to function,principally relies on RA and OA. Both RA and OA aresubject to numerous factors, such as: design of theAMS, location, etc. In turn, these can affect thecows' behavioural freedom and welfare.

One of the aims of this approach is to illustrate theethical basis on which public policy is or can beformulated.

Automatic milking systems dairy technology assessment bioethics animal behaviour 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Beauchamp, T.L. and J.F. Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 4th edition (Oxford University Press, New York, 1994)Google Scholar
  2. De Boer, I.J.M., F.W.A. Brom, and J.M.G. Vorstenbosch, “An Ethical Evaluation of Animal Biotechnology: the Case of Using Clones in Dairy Cattle Breeding,” Animal Science 61(3) (1995), 453-463.Google Scholar
  3. Devir, S., H. Hogeveen, P.H. Hogewerf, A.H. Ipema, C.C. Ketelaar-de-Lauwere, W. Rossing, A.C. Smits, and J. Stefanowska, “Design and Implementation of a System for Automatic Milking and Feeding,” Canadian Agricultural Engineering 38(2) (1996), 107-113.Google Scholar
  4. Farm Animal Welfare Council, Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Cattle (Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, UK, Leaflet 701, 1993).Google Scholar
  5. Hillerton, J.E. “Is the Milking Robot a Friend or an Enemy of the Cow?” Velfaerd og produktion (Braedstrup, Denmark, Dansk Boologisk Selskab) (1997), I.7.1-I.7.5.Google Scholar
  6. Hurnik, J.F. and H. Lehman, “Ethics and Farm Animal Welfare,” Journal of Agricultural Ethics 1 (1988), 305-318.Google Scholar
  7. Ketelaar-de-Lauwere, C.C., S. Devir, and J.H.M. Metz, “The Influence of Social Hierarchy on the time Budget of Cows and Their Visits to an Automatic Milking System,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49(2) (1996), 199-211.Google Scholar
  8. Ketelaar-de Lauwere, C.C., M.M.W.B. Hendriks, J.H.M. Metz, and W.G.P. Schouten, “Behaviour of Dairy Cows Under Free or Forced Cow Traffic in a Simulated Automatic Milking System Environment,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56 (1998), 13-28.Google Scholar
  9. Ketelaar-de-Lauwere, C.C., Cow Behaviour and Managerial Aspects of Fully Automatic Milking in Loose Housing Systems. PhD thesis. DLO Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. Mepham, T.B., “Approaches to the Ethical Evaluation of Animal Biotechnologies,” Animal Production 57 (1993), 353-359.Google Scholar
  11. Mepham, T.B., “Ethical Analysis of Food Biotechnologies: An Evaluative Framework,” in B. Mepham (ed), Food Ethics (Routledge, London, 1996), pp. 101-119.Google Scholar
  12. Metz-Stefanowska, J., P.J.M. Huijsmans, P.H. Hogewerf, A.H. Ipema, and A. Keen, “Behaviour of Cows Before, During and After Milking with an Automatic Milking System,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prospects for Automatic Milking, 23-25 Nov (Pudoc Scientific Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1992), pp. 278-288.Google Scholar
  13. Millar, K.M., Bioethical Analysis of Production Technologies in the UK Dairy Industry. PhD thesis. University of Nottingham, UK, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. Mottram, T., “Automatic Monitoring of the Health and Metabolic Status of Dairy Cows,” Livestock Production Science 48 (1997), 209-217.Google Scholar
  15. Prescott, N.B., T.T. Mottram, and A.J.F. Webster, “Relative Motivations of Dairy Cows to be Milked or Fed in a Y-Maze and an Automatic Milking Machine,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57 (1998), 23-33.Google Scholar
  16. Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1972).Google Scholar
  17. Regan, T., The Case for Animal Rights (Routledge, London, 1988).Google Scholar
  18. Rossing, W., P.H. Hogewerf, A.H. Ipema, C.C. Ketelaar-de-Lauwere, and C.J.A.M. de Koning, “Robotic Milking in Dairy Farming,” Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 45 (1997), 15-31.Google Scholar
  19. Stefanowska, J., S. Devir, and H. Hogeveen, “Time Study on Dairy Cows in an Automatic Milking System with a Selection Unit and One-Way Cow Traffic,” Canadian Agricultural Engineering 39(3) (1997), 221-229.Google Scholar
  20. Wathes, C.M., “Animals in Man' Environment - a Question of Interest,” Outlook on Agriculture 23(1) (1994), 47-54.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kate M. Millar
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Applied Bioethics, School of Biological Sciences, Sutton Bonington CampusUniversity of NottinghamLoughborough, Leics

Personalised recommendations