Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35692299›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2022

Twelve Threats of Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) for Animal Welfare.

Frank A M Tuyttens, Carla F M Molento, Said Benaissa

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
17.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Seen but overlooked: animals as stakeholders in AI ethics discourses.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2026
    Article
  7. AI Ethics Guidelines: Time to Include Animals.Science and engineering ethics · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Modern Technologies for Improving Broiler Production and Welfare: A Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Frank A M TuyttensFlanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Merelbeke, Belgium.
Carla F M MolentoAnimal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Said BenaissaFlanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Merelbeke, Belgium.
Ghent University · BEUniversidade Federal do Paraná · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research and development of Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) is booming, partly due to hopes and claims regarding the benefits of PLF for animal welfare. These claims remain largely unproven, however, as only few PLF technologies focusing on animal welfare have been commercialized and adopted in practice. The prevailing enthusiasm and optimism about PLF innovations may be clouding the perception of possible threats that PLF may pose to farm animal welfare. Without claiming to be exhaustive, this paper lists 12 potential threats grouped into four categories: direct harm, indirect harm via the end-user, via changes to housing and management, and via ethical stagnation or degradation. PLF can directly harm the animals because of (1) technical failures, (2) harmful effects of exposure, adaptation or wearing of hardware components, (3) inaccurate predictions and decisions due to poor external validation, and (4) lack of uptake of the most meaningful indicators for animal welfare. PLF may create indirect effects on animal welfare if the farmer or stockperson (5) becomes under- or over-reliant on PLF technology, (6) spends less (quality) time with the animals, and (7) loses animal-oriented husbandry skills. PLF may also compromise the interests of the animals by creating transformations in animal farming so that the housing and management are (8) adapted to optimize PLF performance or (9) become more industrialized. Finally, PLF may affect the moral status of farm animals in society by leading to (10) increased speciesism, (11) further animal instrumentalization, and (12) increased animal consumption and harm. For the direct threats, possibilities for prevention and remedies are suggested. As the direction and magnitude of the more indirect threats are harder to predict or prevent, they are more difficult to address. In order to maximize the potential of PLF for improving animal welfare, the potential threats as well as the opportunities should be acknowledged, monitored and addressed.

Indexed as

animal well-beingautomationdigital agricultureethicsinternet of thingssensorssmart farmingtechnology

Identifiers

PMID35692299
PMCPMC9186058
OpenAlexW4281821804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.