Do Digital Technology and Agroecology Go Hand in Hand? The Case of Livestock Farming

  Stéphane Ingrand, INRAE Contrary to popular belief, farmers in France own, on average, more digital devices than the rest of the population. Specifically, 67% of them own a desktop computer, 60% a laptop, 42% a tablet, and 71% a smartphone. The livestock sector is also the best-equipped among all agricultural production sectors: sensors, herd management software, milking, feeding, and cleaning robots, and more. Fixed cameras for monitoring animals, for example, are the most common piece of equipment on farms. What are we to make of this, given the current controversies surrounding livestock farming? Will digital technologies serve as a catalyst for the necessary agroecological transition of livestock systems by enabling more precise, individualized monitoring and by limiting or even eliminating curative treatments? Or, on the contrary, are they incompatible with the agroecological transition, given that they are costly, contribute to global warming, and replace human skills (monitoring, management)? The idea of a possible synergy between digital technology and agroecology is therefore not universally accepted, even within the scientific community.

From Clone-Based Livestock Farming to “Tailored” Livestock Farming

Advocates of digital technology in support of the agroecological transition in livestock farming and agriculture in general argue that technology now makes it possible to capitalize on the diversity of individuals within a herd, rather than simply having to put up with it. For several years, the ultimate model sought by some researchers was that of a herd composed of clones—individuals that are all identical. This was supposed to maximize performance while simplifying herd management. It is now widely accepted that diversity is an asset, provided it can be effectively managed. Thanks to advances in knowledge and digital tools, it is now possible to monitor biological processes in real time for each individual (for certain species), rather than systematically across an entire group. This is the concept of “tailored” livestock farming.

Agriculture in the Age of Big Data

It is worth noting that agroecology relies on harnessing natural biological mechanisms (ecological processes), with the goal of avoiding undesirable inputs, particularly those produced using non-renewable resources, such as hormones, synthetic fertilizers, or medications—including antibiotics. For example, the use of legumes in pastures (clover, alfalfa, etc.) reduces the need for chemical fertilizers, thanks to their ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen. Plants with therapeutic properties in the pastures where free-range poultry are raised help maintain animal health, and so on. To apply these principles, digital technology enables the production of very large amounts of data (“big data”), which are correlated within a systemic framework. This process of acquiring large amounts of data is called high-throughput phenotyping. This data is then processed by bioinformaticians, statisticians, and artificial intelligence specialists, whose goal is to identify relationships among the data points. For example, researchers have shown that pigs have an extensive vocal repertoire, with certain sounds associated with positive emotions and others with negative emotions. This could be used to monitor animals on farms.

However, the widespread use of digital technology is not without environmental impact: the infrastructure on which it depends is highly resource-intensive, particularly in terms of rare earth elements. Current estimates predict that certain resources necessary for digital technology will be depleted within less than 20 years.

Avoiding the Risk of a Profession Devoid of Substance

For the livestock producer, the challenge of digital technology in livestock farming lies in the added value generated by the information made available to them. Therefore, it is very important to identify which data is useful for managing their livestock system, to better understand the possible applications of digital technology, and to avoid overwhelming farmers with information. This allows them to maintain a sense of purpose in their work and see their skills valued. Digital technology thus enables farmers to make informed decisions based on relevant data, without letting machines decide for them. Human-animal relationships are indeed at the heart of livestock farming, and emotional connections are an integral part of this—including feelings of joy or, conversely, suffering on the job. The use of digital technology must not cause these fundamental aspects of the livestock farmer’s profession to disappear. The risk with digital technology is that the farmer’s work could be stripped of content and meaning, as the task of monitoring animals is shifted to monitoring the equipment itself. This can cause stress (too many alarms, breakdowns, malfunctions) and requires new skills. Consequently, the opportunity to integrate new technologies into livestock farming also serves as a potential source of motivation for young people and a way to inspire future careers in the field.

What are the long-term economic benefits?

The sometimes high cost of these technologies is a major argument against their deployment, particularly in small-scale operations. For farmers to integrate these technologies into their systems, they must generate savings elsewhere, and the resulting income must ultimately be at least equal to—and ideally higher than—what it was before (while making the work easier). The potential savings offered by these new technologies primarily relate to feed and medications. For pig feed, for example, the potential savings are estimated at 8% in production costs, 25% for nitrogen and phosphorus consumption, 40% for nitrogenous waste, and 6% for greenhouse gas emissions, provided that feed intakes are adjusted to meet each animal’s individual needs. For medications, a major challenge is reducing the use of antibiotics and thus the risk of antimicrobial resistance, including for humans. Early detection of abnormalities, before the onset of symptoms detectable by the farmer, would help move in this direction. The monitoring of pig farms based on animal vocalizations, as described earlier, is one example. Video camera systems in barns for dairy cows or in poultry houses also make it possible for early detection of behavioral abnormalities, before the farmer can spot them on his own.

Applications for Agro-Pastoral Systems as Well

Agropastoral systems are those in which animals explore open spaces with highly diverse, natural vegetation (pastoral areas include summer pastures, scrubland, and woodlands, among others). It is therefore very difficult to gain a detailed understanding of the system’s condition—for example, the nutritional value of what the animals consume.

Including users in the discussion

The assessment of human and societal impacts (herders’ skills, monitoring pressure, and the social acceptability of animal monitoring—which may be perceived as “delegated to machines”) must necessarily be conducted in collaboration with the social sciences and humanities. This work must, of course, include the livestock farmers themselves, through monitoring, surveys, and, above all, participatory approaches, which ensure the acceptability and ownership of the resulting innovations. The current development of thinking on participatory research finds a particularly suitable application here. Stéphane Ingrand , Deputy Head of the “Animal Physiology and Livestock Systems” Research Department, INRAE This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.