The antinomies of feed and feeding in animal agriculture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is about the environmental politics and ethics of animal agriculture through a focus on feed and feeding. We review a large and interdisciplinary body of scholarship on animal agriculture to show that the production of feed, and the feeding of animals in confined systems of production, is associated with degradation, exploitation, and violence. At the same time, and especially in the current conjuncture, feed and feeding research and scholarship highlight ways to address and mitigate animal agriculture's environmental problems while also providing hope for more ethical multispecies relations on the farm. We map the antinomies of feed and feeding through three analytical registers: feed as object, feeding as practice, and feed/ing as conversion. We argue that feed and feeding are at the center of the contemporary politics and ethics of animal agriculture — both as a site of exploitation and domination, but also as a contested promise of a more ethical and sustainable animal agriculture. Our conclusion examines how the antinomies of feed and feeding are both incompatible and yet bound together, an issue that we argue provides critical insights into the contemporary environmental politics and ethics of animal agriculture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".