1 Introduction
In the autumn of 2020, I visited multiple sanctuaries for formerly farmed animals in rural Denmark, observing and participating in their everyday activities including partaking in open house and volunteer days. On one such occasion, I recall an incident that suddenly stopped our work as we were setting up a new fence. “No, stop! Maisja! Kiki! Stop!”. “NO STOP”. The power pistol and the welded wire roll were quickly placed on the ground. I looked across the densely vegetated garden through the old apple trees and past the chicken house trying to get a glimpse of what had caused this tumult. The pack of dogs was all excited, barking, running around, agitated. They were chasing something, or, as it transpired, someone: “Oh, the rabbit!”, the woman next to me shouted and then ran towards the dogs.
Luckily, on that sunny autumn day, the rabbit, a steel grey doe named Fanny, managed to escape. She disappeared as quickly as she had appeared through the same tunnel underneath the old brick wall. The danger of something like this happening is why the sanctuary—while being shared by multiple animals—geese, chickens, cats, dogs, rabbits, pigs, sheep, horses, donkeys, and human beings—is separated by hedgerows, wooden barriers, electric fences, and wire. As a place designed for different species to co-exist and grow old, the sanctuary is a troubled place in which flourishing is not easily attained but requires persistent efforts and compromises to be made.
In this chapter, I delve into the everyday experiences of sanctuary-making based on fieldwork performed at two Farmed Animal Sanctuaries (FASes) in rural Denmark. FASes strive to provide a permanent home for rescued farmed animals where they can live together with other members of their species and engage in behaviour that they would otherwise be denied: a place where chickens can scratch in the dirt and pigs can wallow in the mud. However, the care that is performed in the context of FASes involves several challenges: even after the animals have been removed from their immediate source of harm and
This chapter sets out to explore caregiving in the context of farmed animal sanctuaries at a moment increasingly marked by humanity’s toll on the environment including ecological degradation, species extinction, and general defaunation. Situated in the context of Denmark—one of the countries in the world with the largest number of animals consumed per capita and the largest percentage of agricultural land use, amounting to 62% of total land use1—the study considers the activities of FASes in view of the growing concern about the devastating consequences of industrial farming and large-scale feeding operations on multispecies life both locally and globally. In doing so, the chapter resonates with the recent call for situated and local analysis in view of the increasing attention to the particular histories and relationships that comprise the broader crisis of anthropocentrism2 (Chakrabarty 2020). More specifically, the purpose is to investigate FASes as concrete multispecies sites with the aim of contributing to the broader conversation of the potential for replacing current anthropocentric orders and practices of care.
Feminist scholars have long highlighted the fundamental role of care for multispecies justice and co-existence (Kheel 2008). For example, scholarship associated with the feminist care tradition of animal ethics has highlighted the importance of moral obligation emerging in face-to-face encounters (Gruen 2013). Moreover, previous research has highlighted how FASes might provide an optimal setting for exploring the potential for community and relationships of empathy in multispecies contexts (Jones 2014; Donaldson and Kymlicka 2015; Gillespie 2018; Blattner, Donaldson, and Wilcox 2020; Abrell 2021). Against this backdrop, the subsequent analysis examines the everyday activities and experiences of sanctuary life in order to learn from the concrete practices of care as they unfold (Desai and Smith 2018). In addressing this perspective, I take inspiration from María Puig de la Bellacasa’s (2010) seminal exploration
However, interpreting Puig de la Bellacasa’s study in the context of the permaculture movement, I wonder what would happen to the analysis if it were conducted within a different domain regarding the collapse of the nature-culture dichotomy, namely, in the context of the practices of care performed at farmed animal sanctuaries? While I consider Puig de la Bellacasa’s analysis of the practices of permaculture to explore crucial dimensions of how ethical doings—i.e., when embodied and performed as everyday care—can help to cultivate alternative non-anthropocentric forms of care work for the collective, I am wary of her omission of the dualistic mindset that continues to prevail in environmental ethics and that privileges certain nonhuman natures over others.3 For example, permaculture does not necessarily preclude the use4 and consumption of certain (often domesticated) animals that remain largely excluded from the discourse of “nature” and therefore outside the promoted ethos of flourishing5 (Arcari, Probyn-Rapsey, and Singer 2021). In this
As noted, caregiving for formerly farmed animals is a complicated task and critical questions can be posed about life and care as they unfold in such locations. Thus, informed by these issues, this chapter delves into the practical labour of caring for animals bred and exploited in agricultural contexts. The analysis is divided into three separate sections: In the first section, Sanctuary Place-making and Caregiving, I briefly account for the basic tenets of FASes against the backdrop of the broader economic, legal and political structures that define their activities. In the second section, Flourishing Across Species Boundaries, I describe multispecies life and care as they unfold in the respective sanctuaries, particularly focusing on the conditions of intra- and interspecies life. In the third section, Post-domestic Care, I address sanctuary caregiving as a site of contestation in opposition to mainstream veterinary care and the ways in which human-animal relations are currently governed, for example, limiting the sanctuaries’ ability to care for old and sick animals. By applying the prefix -post, I do not intend to describe a situation that precludes other animals from the domestic domain nor a political aesthetics that rejects ‘the domos’ altogether (Donaldson and Kymlicka 2015). Instead, I simply aim to point to the important ways in which FASes assist in developing new forms of multispecies care that disrupt the predominant ideas constraining care to conditions of captivity, commodification and human control.
In sum, the three sections offer a reading of the challenges and barriers to sanctuary-making, which aids in directing attention to the myriad ways in which animal capital impacts the potential for multispecies flourishing. From this perspective, sanctuary caregiving emerges as a form of resistance to common anthropocentric notions and practices governed and sanctioned by law. Together the three sections encompass the simultaneously idealistic and practical objectives of FASes in providing a refuge for rescued farmed animals. Overall, the analysis is based on the understanding that to meaningfully
2 Research Site, Background and Method
The Cornflower Refuge and Little Green Cottage6—the two sanctuaries that inform this analysis—are both situated in small rural communities in Denmark. The sanctuaries’ residents comprise around 40 and 80 animals, respectively, including pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, human beings, dogs, rabbits, cats, geese, sheep, goats, and cows. These sanctuaries that I have come to know through my field research can be placed within a broader global movement that is working to combat the exploitation and abuse of animals in the food and agricultural industry and foster change in the public’s perceptions of and relationships with farmed animals (Abrell 2021). In Denmark, the first official farmed animal sanctuary was opened in 2015. Since this time, a few more FASes have been established.7
Unlike traditional animal shelters or rescue centres, which provide a temporary space for companion animals such as cats and dogs in need of care, FASes aspire to create a permanent home in which the rescued animals not only receive immediate care but are also able to roam and flourish together with members of their own species. Rather than being professional organisations with paid staff, these sanctuaries have developed out of grassroots activist environments focused on care while raising awareness through the use of various social media platforms and open house events.
The two sanctuaries informing this study are the private homes of individual members of the sanctuary collectives run by one or two primary caregivers.
The material presented in this chapter is based on semi-structured interviews and observations conducted throughout the autumn of 2020.8 The observations include everyday life at the sanctuaries as well as open house or volunteer days, which play an essential role at many sanctuaries. While the open house events might primarily be a form of outreach, the volunteer days are about both community building and basic maintenance such as mucking out, repairing buildings and fixing fences.
Performing the study and analysis in various multispecies settings presented me with a number of methodological and ethical challenges. In relying on traditional research methods of interviewing and observing, it was challenging to explore sanctuary-making as a process that involves both human and nonhuman animals, i.e., not simply consider the nonhuman residents as being passive recipients of care but as actively taking part in the care labour. In addition, I was confronted with the ethics of conducting research at more-than-human sites at which consent can only be approximated, never explicitly granted, recalling how the lives of other animals have often been negatively impacted by the presence and intrusion of researchers.
In order to critically reflect on the problems of human-centredness that permeate common research methods, I have relied on multispecies ethnography, a field of study or methodology that addresses “life’s emergence” in more-than-human contexts (Kirksey and Helmreich 2010; Hamilton and Taylor 2017). As animal geographer Kathryn Gillespie (2019) has demonstrated, there are ways of accounting for the human-centredness of common research practices
Although I had prepared myself for such challenges—in particular thinking that additional time spent in the field might help me to attune myself to ‘other ways of knowing’—I ended up having to limit my actual field observations due to the COVID-19 pandemic which, in many ways, complicated the ethics of field research even more.9 While I have tried to be mindful of these limitations by continuously considering the human and nonhuman co-constructedness of life at the sanctuaries, the main focus of the subsequent analysis remains on the human caregivers’ experiences and accounts of multispecies life at the sanctuary.
3 Sanctuary Place-Making and Caregiving
From the main road, I get off the bus and walk the remaining two kilometres following a small road across the fields. It is my first visit to the Cornflower Refuge. Together with a group of visitors, I am introduced to the place and shortly afterwards we are standing by the enclosure of two sows—Rita and Gertrude—both of whom escaped from an industrial farm. They are large creatures, pink with white hairs, making slow movements as they dig and eat from the grass. One of the caregivers, Ebba—a woman in her 50s—talks about their rescue, noting the chain of events that led to the rescue of these two particular animals: “It’s quite a coincidence that it was these two who made it,” she reflects. People nod and ask questions about the individual stories and past lives of the two pigs.
At first sight, farmed animal sanctuaries might recall to memory the idea of traditional small-scale farms. However, sanctuaries are places that offer a kind of flourishing beyond life at a farm (Donaldson and Kymlicka, 2015). Ultimately designed to accommodate individual nonhuman residents, the
Previous studies have described the compromises and sacrifices that sanctuary caregivers face when trying to create an environment in which formerly farmed animals can thrive (Donaldson and Kymlicka 2015; Blattner, Donaldson, and Wilcox 2020; Abrell 2021). Most significantly, due to the limited resources and space available, sanctuaries can only help a tiny fraction of the actual animals that need care. It is therefore necessary to make difficult decisions. Additionally, caring for others—and the ethical responsibility that comes with it—is essentially precarious and marked by uncertainty when responding to the complex need of the other (Gruen and Weil 2012). This last point resonates with Ebba’s reflection on the difficult job of running a sanctuary. As she explains: “We don’t save animals at any cost. We only take animals in when we believe it will improve the situation for that particular animal.” This often means that only animals who have no other possibility of rescue and thus otherwise would be killed are considered.
Although sanctuary caregivers aspire to create the conditions for a life beyond the constraints imposed by conventional farming practices, the location of sanctuaries in rural and agricultural settings is often a practical solution. The property is often less expensive and includes some hectares of land, appropriate facilities for sheltering animals, as well as a main building to house the human caregivers and companion animals such as cats and dogs.
The location of sanctuaries in rural areas is also supported by the legal infrastructure (Donaldson and Kymlicka, 2015). In Denmark, animal husbandry is governed by multiple legal regulations, including the Danish Animal Welfare Act.10 Additionally, like in many countries, zoning laws provide the overall legal framework that specifies the number of animals that can be kept for non-commercial purposes in urban and rural zones, including restricting certain species, breeds and even sexes.11 In urban areas, certain species, such as cows,
Multiple aspects of care constitute part of the daily procedures at the sanctuaries: feeding, regular health checks, cleaning and trimming of hooves and cloves, predator proofing, repairs, etc. Furthermore, caring for farmed animals requires expert veterinary care. Although once they have arrived at the sanctuary, the animals might effectively be protected from any immediate source of harm or death, their life at the sanctuary could still be significantly impaired by how they have been specifically engineered to grow as large and quickly as possible. This particularly applies to animals that have been used in the commercial industry. Domestication and ongoing processes of selection resulting in the specialised production of “fast-growing broilers”, “breeding sows” or “high-producing dairy cows” all expose the animals to significant health risks, some of which can be fatal. For example, century-long processes of domestication and subsequent selection of wild boars (sus scrofa)—a species from which most of today’s pigs are descended—have resulted in phenotypic changes, causing present-day sows to grow an extra rib. Additionally, such selection practices have caused changes in behaviour, reproduction, and “coat” colour (Rubin et al. 2012).
Danish farmers achieve record numbers in “pig production” with the average sow giving birth to 33.3 piglets per year (in comparison, the figure for the UK is 25.8 piglets for an average sow per year) (van der Zee and Kosc 2021). In 2018, a new record was set when an industrial farmer managed to breed sows “producing” a disturbing average of 41 piglets (Hansen 2019). The sows and piglets pay a high price. The high mortality rate in farrow stables is a known problem. On average, 29,514 piglets die every day on Danish pig farms (that is one out of four), amounting to more than ten million piglet deaths a year (Arp 2022). Due to the enormous pig industry in Denmark, the sanctuary caregivers regard
Even with the intention of providing lifelong care, farmed animals such as rescued sows do not grow to be very old. Having been fed a high-protein diet prior to their arrival they are often experiencing obesity-related health issues. Thus, one of the ways in which the caregivers attend to the well-being and health of sows is by placing them on a diet as soon as they arrive at the sanctuary. The precarious situation for farmed animals reveals the extent of the commodification of animal life in the context of industrial animal farming. For animals in this production regime, their only relief from pain and suffering is death. In fact, very few of the sanctuary residents are from large-scale industrial agricultural facilities, because at such facilities it is standard practice to “put down” sick or injured animals if they are no longer “fit” for production. Thus, more often than not, the sanctuary residents come from hobby farms, small-scale farms or private individuals who might not be able to care for them properly or simply no longer wish to take on such a task. Also, in some cases in which individuals have been charged and convicted of mistreatment in accordance with the Danish Animal Welfare Act, the animal surviving the abuse might be brought to one of the sanctuaries. However, as no infrastructure and formal partnership with the enforcement authorities currently exist, such examples are rare. Consequently, a disturbingly low number of animals in need of care make it to a sanctuary—even in situations in which they are formally recognised as victims of abuse. More often than not, these animals are simply killed.
4 Flourishing across Species Boundaries
When Ann arrives from work one dark and cold winter’s day, there is no sign of the horses. This would not be the first time they had left the enclosure. Ann had previously taught me that horses are quick to learn—they know exactly the right moment when the current is low on the electric fence. However, after searching the few hectares of land, Ann finds all of them—a group of seven horses—closely grouped together in the corner furthest away from the new pig enclosure.
Ann tells me this story when I visit the Little Green Cottage a few days after a new group of pigs had been relocated to the sanctuary. I had come to learn about their arrival but as I quickly discovered, the pigs were not the only ones
The aspiration of a life beyond the traditional farm is very much connected with the idea of creating places in which individual residents can engage with other members of their species or across different species. Some residents might be rescued with their offspring or siblings, but individual animals are frequently brought together at the sanctuary. This means that the sanctuary caregivers have to carefully assess the possibility of inter- and intra-species life and cohabitation, taking into account a number of unknown factors such as an individual animal’s past experiences, their history of trauma, and individual preferences, all of which depend on their circumstances before arriving at the sanctuary. Thus, the decision to accept new animals is based on a case-by-case assessment of whether the sanctuary can provide a sufficiently stable and suitable environment for the particular animal depending on the space available and whether the new resident would potentially fit in and be accepted by the other sanctuary residents.
Whenever new animals are introduced, careful monitoring and supervision are required. This also includes planning for unsuccessful attempts to bring the residents together. Sometimes this process can take months during which time the newcomer is slowly introduced to the other residents. For example, the sanctuary caregivers have often had to deal with the particular dilemma of welcoming new pigs. As pigs are social beings who, in their natural surroundings, would remain with their offspring and siblings in sounders of 12 to 20 individuals, they are very alert and potentially hostile towards other pigs. Ebba recalls the discussions when they were first contacted regarding a five-year-old rescued sow now living at the sanctuary: “Taking in a five-year-old pig, which is relatively old, seemed quite unmanageable.” She adds that it might not be optimal for the sow, either. However, as no other solution could be found, the sanctuary eventually agreed to take her and after some months of slowly introducing her to the other residents, she was finally accepted as a member of the herd.
However, co-existence is not a given. For example, combining rescue dogs with other animals is another challenge that could create potentially dangerous situations such as the aforementioned incident with the dogs chasing a
Because an essential task of caregiving at the sanctuary is considered to be accommodating the social needs of each of its residents, the human caregivers do their best to ensure that all residents can form bonds with other members of their species. This is one of the important aspects of sanctuary life that makes it fundamentally different from life at a traditional farm or animal shelter.13 Many of the animals who come to the sanctuary are in urgent need of care. Karen recalls an incident in which a pig was found in the woods and picked up by a group of working men who happened to live in the neighbourhood. Instead of returning the pig to the adjacent pig farm—assuming he had escaped from there—they searched online and by chance found the sanctuary. After some time, the pig—now called Tom—established a close friendship with another older pig sanctuary resident, Albert, and they now follow each other around all day and sleep close together each night in the barn.
Importantly, life at the sanctuary reflects how care is not only provided by human caregivers. For example, horses and donkeys are known to form close bonds and this was also something that Karen witnessed between Benny, a donkey, who had formed strong ties with Tira, one of the horses. They had lived together for several years when Tira fell seriously ill. As she had an untreatable illness, the caregivers had been forced to put her to sleep. Benny had laid down beside her and tried to get her to stand up by lifting her head. “There was no question that Benny experienced great grief,” Karen later told me.14 Thus, the experiences of multispecies care at the sanctuary remind us that the relationship between human caregivers and nonhuman residents in the sanctuary context—as in all interspecies relationships—cannot be boiled down to
5 Post-Domestic Care
The entanglement of care and place has recently been articulated in the field of geographies of care (Lawson 2007). Evidently, the particular spatial context plays an enormous role when contrasting sanctuary caregiving with the limited care provided at agricultural facilities. However, as this analysis brings to attention, care performed at FASes remains embedded in normative structures of industrial farming. For example, one disconcerting aspect of sanctuary caregiving relates to the practice of reproductive control. The Open Sanctuary Project, a digital guide for FASes, stresses the critical need to adopt a “no-breeding” philosophy, noting that “[b]reeding residents does not help [sanctuary residents]; it merely perpetuates the idea that animals exist primarily for human entertainment and enjoyment” (Griffler 2020; see also Chapter 1 by Szczygielska and Kowalewska in this volume concerning the politics of sex and reproduction in pig farming). As noted in the guide, caring for farmed animals is already a task that exceeds the capacity of sanctuaries15 and to intentionally breed “reduces a sanctuary’s ability to take in an already existing animal that may have nowhere else to go” (ibid.). Preventing animals from reproducing naturally might be problematic when considering the goal of animals regaining their place in broader “socio-ecological reproductive networks”16 (Collard 2020). Furthermore, castration or neutering is a painful and stressful procedure.17
In a country that “produces” 28 million pigs annually, it is revealing to note that sanctuary caregivers experience difficulty finding veterinarians who are actually willing to treat pigs in the event of illness. Euthanasia is commonly suggested to sanctuary caregivers, even when a medical condition is treatable. It is also extremely difficult for the sanctuaries to find veterinarians who know how to anesthetise pigs as anaesthesia is most often only used in the veterinary care provided to smaller companion animals such as cats and dogs.
The problem of finding proper veterinary skills is not only a matter of the specialised training that a vet receives, but also about how care practices are heavily influenced by social and cultural perceptions of animals of different species. Karen explains how on several occasions she had tried to instruct veterinarians to examine pigs according to the standards of other animals such as dogs. Similarly, Beatrice, a caregiver at the Cornflower Refuge, recalls an episode in which she persuaded a private vet for smaller companion animals to place a new-born piglet with breathing difficulties in an oxygen chamber designed for dogs. Reflecting back on this episode, she regards this as being a minor victory in itself even if the piglet did not recover from its condition.
Sanctuary caregivers are not only confronted with the limited remit of care with regard to mainstream veterinary practices, they might also be confronted with a certain regime of care governed and sanctioned by the Danish Animal Welfare Act. According to this legalisation, animals “must be treated properly and protected in the best possible way from pain, suffering, distress, lasting injury and substantial nuisance.”18 A paradoxical consequence
While animal welfare legislation is often associated with a lax interpretation in terms of protecting the welfare of animals within the farming industry, it appears that the opposite might also be true in a sanctuary context. Here, the regulatory framework appears to have rather far-reaching implications meaning that sanctuary caregivers risk being reported for violating specific animal welfare regulations. In other words, challenging the authorities by insisting that animals should be allowed to grow old could potentially have serious consequences for a sanctuary, as it might face a temporary or permanent ban on keeping animals.20 Of course, the highest price might be paid by the individual animal if a decision were made to put an end to their life, even if we can never know a particular animal’s preferences.
6 The Ethics and Politics of Sanctuary-Making
This chapter has documented the care labour performed in the context of two farmed animal sanctuaries (FASes) in rural Denmark. In drawing on Puig de la Bellacasa’s situated ethics, the analysis has offered a perspective of care which simultaneously includes its affective, ethical and practical dimensions, i.e., the
Importantly, the analysis has drawn attention to the challenging task of caring for formerly farmed animals against the backdrop of the broader normative structures that impact sanctuary life (e.g. restrictive zoning laws, the lack of suitable veterinary assistance and the potential frictions in view of the legal framework—in addition, consider the significant role of introduced biosecurity measures on human-porcine relations as described in Chapter 1 by Szczygielska and Kowalewska in this volume). One important reflection in this regard is how sanctuary caregivers are forced to navigate their way through multiple constraints given how conventional forms of care are embedded in a regulatory framework intended on industrial production. Thus, the analysis depicts how sanctuary caregivers risk coming into conflict with the very institutions that are supposed to protect the well-being of animals (i.e., animal welfare law) when undertaking what in this context I have proposed to describe as practices of post-domestic care.
When engaging with the everyday practices of sanctuary caregiving, it is difficult to ignore how this work is being done at a time that is significantly marked by the devastating consequences of ecological overshoot on a global scale. As much critical thinking and scholarship is directed towards how humanity can come to terms with its destructive patterns, which pose a fundamental threat to all life on earth, sanctuary caregivers focus on those animals whose existence is intimately shaped by the presence of humans: the animals who are reduced to consumable objects and completely separated from the discourse of ‘nature.’
In insisting on caring for previously farmed animals, the sanctuaries challenge the deep-rooted assumptions of Enlightenment thinking about nature and culture as distinct spheres and the consequential image of nature and nonhuman beings as resources completely disconnected from society’s activities. Thus, as a specific example of the collapse of the nature-culture dichotomy, the sanctuary becomes a disruptive site for contemplating ethics and politics beyond these binary categories. Alongside other concrete manifestations of natureculture cosmologies, FASes are part of shaping an alternative idea about multispecies life beyond the contemporary political-economic context of animal capital, thereby opening up largely neglected sites for more-than-human flourishing, namely, that of domestic places.
In this broader context of political contestation, farmed animal sanctuaries go largely unnoticed: small in scale and with few resources, they have limited ways of standing up to the industry. However, as Elan Abrell (2019, 109) suggests, animal sanctuaries are potential sites of rural political action given their role in “reconfiguring the power dynamics of the dominant mode of rural human‐animal care‐based relations in which animals are reared as agricultural resources.” From this perspective, the primary role of sanctuaries might be to offer an alternative idea about what multispecies life could be. However, more than an ideal place, sanctuary life is a practical manifestation of a community already engaging in transforming the world—an observation which compelled
The primary purpose of this chapter has been to offer a perspective about what we might learn from the activities of sanctuaries for farmed animals. First and foremost, FASes serve as an important reminder of the precarious situation for most animals inhabiting this earth. In other words, the mere existence of such sanctuaries underlines how the responsibility of providing aid and care for previously farmed and abused animals has come to rest on a handful of individuals who have taken on the difficult task of creating a better life for these particular beings. In a society in which the commodification and exploitation of animals are deeply engrained in our social and cultural norms, the care provided by the sanctuaries reveals how current restricted and instrumentalised forms of care are essential aspects of the broader crisis in human-animal relations. In this sense, sanctuaries might be promising sites “where care is radically reimagined” (Gillespie 2018, 127).
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the sanctuary caregivers (human and nonhuman) for their generosity, hospitality and patience with me throughout the field research. I would also like to thank the participants of the Emerging Scholars Workshop in Law, Animals and Society organised by the Animals & Society Research Initiative at the University of Victoria for their helpful comments in an earlier version of this chapter. For final suggestions and insights, I would like to thank my Ph.D. research fellows Lena Lindström, María Ruiz Carreras and Naja Yndal-Olsen. Last, I would like to thank the editors and other contributors for the collective spirit in which this volume came into being.
The Danish Ministry of Environment and Food (2016). Additionally, in 2016, Denmark killed more pigs per capita than in any other country in the world, namely 3.2 pigs per human, according to Faunalytics (Sanders 2018).
According to Chakrabarty, this crisis not only comprises the multiple anthropogenic issues regarding environmental degradation, climatic upheaval and species loss (the Anthropocene), it also poses a challenge to the humanities and the long-serving idea of humans as unique beings.
A similar issue comes up in environmental and multispecies studies. For example, scholarship inspired by Haraway, although importantly noting the complex entanglements of harm and care that inform human-animal relationships, has been criticised for failing to engage with the structures that produce inequalities between animals in the first place (Weisberg 2009; Giraud 2013).
Recently, a growing body of scholarship has addressed the potential of nonhuman animals to be included as a labour force in non-exploitative ways (Coulter 2016; Blattner, Coulter, and Kymlicka 2019). Recognising nonhuman animals as co-workers could be approached within the permaculture movement, but I have not encountered such discussions in a Danish context.
Despite these exclusions, the permaculture movement considers a much broader category of nonhumans, including microorganisms, thereby expanding mainstream ecological awareness, which is typically directed towards a very limited array of species such as “native” or “charismatic megafauna.”
The sanctuaries and their residents have all been given pseudonyms.
As there is no formal register that keeps track of the number of FASes in Denmark, I have relied on information I was able to obtain via the internet, social media, and from speaking to people involved in FASes. Due to the informal and grassroot ways in which these sanctuaries are run, it is difficult to know the exact number.
A total of five observations were performed at two different locations where I spent between four to six hours on each visit. Fieldnotes about key incidents, details and descriptions of the general atmosphere were taken either during or immediately after the visits and subsequently turned into coherent accounts. Five qualitative interviews were conducted with the primary sanctuary caregivers on the specific history of the sanctuary, their personal histories when they entered the sanctuary and the everyday tasks of caring. One interview was conducted on site, one in a private setting, and the remaining three interviews were performed online. The interviews were conducted in Danish and generally lasted between 80 minutes and two hours with one short interview of around 40 minutes. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed. Selected quotes have been translated into English.
During my fieldwork, I was faced with the ethics of conducting face-to-face interviews and observations at a time that was marked by the presence of the COVID-19 pandemic. The interviews and observations were conducted between September and November 2020 at a time when the virus was considered to be largely under control in those specific regions of Denmark where I conducted my research. During this period, the social distancing restrictions imposed by the Danish health authorities in the early spring of 2020 had been lifted. However, the virus continued to pose certain limitations on my fieldwork. While I was able to perform my observations outdoors, it was necessary for me to adjust my original plan with regards to the interviews. In the end, three of the six interviews were conducted online.
The Animal Welfare Act no. 133 of 25/02/2020.
For example, municipalities might only permit one rooster per household.
The specific piece of legislation defining “non-commercial animal husbandry” is entitled “Executive Order on the Environmental Regulation of Certain Activities” no. 844 of 23/06/2017. According to Section 7, the maximum number of animals is limited to (1) 30 hens, (2) four adult dogs and additional puppies under 18 weeks, (3) a group of animals including either: (a) two dairy cows, (b) four cattle, (c) four horses (d) two sows with piglets (up to 40 kg), (e) 15 porkers, (f) 10 ewes (mother sheep) with lambs, (g) 10 mother goats with kids, (h) animal species other than those referred to in points a–f or g, if the total area for keeping these animals does not exceed 25 m²; or (i) different types of animals composed in accordance with points a–g or h, if the proportion of each type of animal in accordance with points a–g or h does not in total exceed 100% (author’s own translation, the content has been slightly moderated for simplification).
While animal shelters might also consider the social needs of rescued animals, the animals are often kept in separate enclosures and, upon adoption, close bonds (such as between a mother and her offspring or siblings) might be broken.
As this example illustrates, the sanctuary is also a place in which the grief of nonhuman animals can be recognised. In Flight Ways, Thom van Dooren (2014) discusses how considering nonhuman grief might be a powerful way to challenge human exceptionalism as it draws attention to the deep evolutionary continuity and persistent entanglements between humans and other animals.
With a global industry that is estimated to “produce” 31 billion farmed animals at any given time (Anthis and Anthis 2019), it is unrealistic to believe that all animals can be rescued and saved.
In Animal Traffic (2020), Rosemary-Claire Collard observes the harmful and sometimes “misanthropic” procedures of reinstalling natural behaviour and fear of humans in “exotic pets” to potentially enable these captive animals in returning to wildlife. By analogy, the process of “de-commodification” in FASes might involve techniques such as reproductive control, which can be problematised from the perspective of the individual animal. For a more elaborate discussion of the ethically compromised practice of preventing sanctuary residents from reproducing, see Donaldson and Kymlicka (2015).
Nevertheless, in Denmark—as in most countries—it is routine practice to surgically castrate pigs without using anaesthetics, causing immediate pain that becomes chronic and can last for up to several days and weeks (Rault, Lay, and Marchant-Forde 2011).
Section 2 of The Animal Welfare Act no. 133 of 25/02/2020 (author’s own translation).
In his careful consideration of bird conservation such as captive crane rearing in Flight Ways, Van Dooren (2014) draws attention to the complex entanglement of care and harm when it comes to practices such as cross-species imprinting and costume rearing.
According to Section 60 of the Danish Animal Welfare Act no. 133 of 25/02/2020: “Anyone convicted of ill-treatment or grossly negligent treatment of animals may be banned from owning, using, taking care of or slaughtering animals, or in general dealing personally with animals on a permanent basis or for a specified period of time. The same applies to a person who, after having previously been found guilty of the improper treatment of animals, is found guilty of such an offence again. The ban may be limited to certain species of animals. Violation of the ban is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to six months” (author’s own translation).
Landsforeningen mod Svinefabrikker [The National Association Against Pig Factories] (www.landmodsvin.dk) and Miljøforeningen Tuse Næs [The Environmental association Tuse Ness] are two examples of such campaigns involving local environmental groups in alliance with national environmental organisations such as Noah (part of the international alliance of Friends of the Earth) and the Danish branch of International Greenpeace.
The negative environmental effects of intensive farming has been well documented, including increasing loss of natural habitats, soil degradation such as erosion, depletion, and pollution of natural water resources and climatic upheaval (see, for example, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2018). However, the effects on human health are less studied in Denmark. During the past decades, neighbours of large farming facilities have complained about health and odour annoyance associated with the emission of particles and gasses from industrial farming. A recent literature review conducted by researchers at the Danish Centre for Environment and Energy concluded “a scarcity of studies concerning health and neighbourhood exposure to farming operations.” In contrast, the increased frequency of respiratory diseases among farmers and farm workers has been described in previous studies. In conclusion, the Danish researchers found “strong evidence” concerning odour annoyance. However, they emphasised that more research was required to examine the potential health risks (Sigsgaard et al. 2020, 46ff).
References
Abrell, Elan. 2019. “Sanctuary‐Making as Rural Political Action.” Journal for the Anthropology of North America 22 (2): 109–11.
Abrell, Elan. 2021. Saving Animals: Multispecies Ecologies of Rescue and Care. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Anthis, Kelly, and Jacy Reese Anthis. 2019. “Global Farmed & Factory Farmed Animals Estimates.” Sentience Institute. February 21, 2019. https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/global-animal-farming-estimates
Arcari, Paula, Fiona Probyn-Rapsey, and Haley Singer. 2021. “Where Species Don’t Meet: Invisibilized Animals, Urban Nature and City Limits.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 4(3): 940–65.
Arp, Andreas. 2022. “Dødelighed hos pattegrise slår ny rekord: 29.514 dør om dagen.” Altinget, June 3, 2022. https://www.altinget.dk/artikel/doedelighed-hos-pattegrise-slaar-ny-rekord-29514-doer-om-dagen
Blattner, Charlotte E., Kendra Coulter, and Will Kymlicka, eds. 2019. Animal Labour: A New Frontier of Interspecies Justice? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blattner, Charlotte E., Sue Donaldson, and Ryan Wilcox. 2020. “Animal Agency in Community.” Politics and Animals 6 (0): 1–22.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2020. “The Human Sciences and Climate Change.” Science and Culture 86 (1–2): 46.
Collard, Rosemary-Claire. 2020. Animal Traffic. Lively Capital in the Global Exotic Pet Trade. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Coulter, Kendra. 2016. “Beyond Human to Humane: A Multispecies Analysis of Care Work, Its Repression, and Its Potential.” Studies in Social Justice 10 (2): 199–219.
Donaldson, Sue, and Will Kymlicka. 2015. “Farmed Animal Sanctuaries: The Heart of the Movement?” Politics and Animals 1 (1): 50–74.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2018. “Shaping the Future of Livestock.” Berlin: The 10th Global Forum for Food and Agriculture.
Gillespie, Kathryn. 2018. The Cow with Ear Tag #1389. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gillespie, Kathryn. 2019. “For a Politicized Multispecies Ethnography.” Politics and Animals 5 (0): 17–32.
Giraud, Eva. 2013. “‘Beasts of Burden’: Productive Tensions between Haraway and Radical Animal Rights Activism.” Culture, Theory & Critique 54 (1): 102–20.
Giraud, Eva. 2019. What Comes After Entanglement? Activism, Anthropocentrism, and an Ethics of Exclusion. Durkham, NC: Duke University Press.
Griffler, Zee. 2020. “Why Residents Shouldn’t Breed At A Farmed Animal Sanctuary.” The Open Sanctuary Project, August 4, 2020. https://opensanctuary.org/article/why-a-farmed-animal-sanctuary-shouldnt-breed-residents/
Gruen, Lori. 2013. Entangled Empathy: An Alternative Ethic for Our Relationships with Animals. Brooklyn, NY: Lantern Books.
Gruen, Lori, and Kari Weil. 2012. “Animal Others.” Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy (special issue) 27 (3): 477–700.
Hamilton, Lindsay, and Nik Taylor. 2017. Ethnography after Humanism: Power, Politics and Method in Multi-Species Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hansen, Kjeld. 2019. “Danish Bacon: What Happens When You Push Pigs to the Limit?” The Guardian, November 30, 2019. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/30/danish-bacon-what-happens-when-you-push-pigs-to-the-absolute-limit
Jones, Miriam. 2014. “Captivity in the Context of a Sanctuary for Formerly Farmed Animals.” In Captivity in the Context of a Sanctuary for Formerly Farmed Animals, edited by Lori Gruen, 90–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kheel, Marti. 2008. Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective. Studies in Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kirksey, S. Eben, and Stefan Helmreich. 2010. “The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography.” Cultural Anthropology 25 (4): 545–76.
Lawson, Victoria. 2007. “Geographies of Care and Responsibility.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97 (1): 1–11.
Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark. 2016. Denmark’s Report for the State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark, The Danish Agrifish Agency.
Pachirat, Timothy. 2018. “Sanctuary.” In Critical Terms for Animal Studies, edited by Lori Gruen. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Puig de la Bellacasa, María. 2010. “Ethical Doings in Naturecultures.” Ethics, Place and Environment 13 (2): 151–69.
Puig de la Bellacasa, María. 2012. “‘Nothing Comes without Its World’: Thinking with Care.” Sociological Review 60 (2): 197–216.
Puig de la Bellacasa, María. 2017. Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More than Human Worlds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Rault, Jean-Loup, Donald C. Lay, and Jeremy N. Marchant-Forde. 2011. “Castration Induced Pain in Pigs and Other Livestock.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Special Issue: Pain in Farm Animals, 135 (3): 214–25.
Rubin, Carl-Johan, Hendrik-Jan Megens, Alvaro Martinez Barrio, Khurram Maqbool, Shumaila Sayyab, Doreen Schwochow, Chao Wang, et al. 2012. “Strong Signatures of Selection in the Domestic Pig Genome.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (48): 19529–36.
Sanders, Bas. 2018. “Global Pig Slaughter Statistics & Charts.” Faunalytics (blog), July 29, 2020. https://faunalytics.org/global-pig-slaughter-statistics-and-charts/
Shukin, Nicole. 2009. Animal Capital: Rendering Life in Biopolitical Times. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Sigsgaard, Torben, Lise M Frohn, Signe Frederiksen, Ole Hertel, and Søren Kj. 2020. “Review of the Scientific Evidence of Air Pollution Causing Health Effects in People Living in the Vicinity of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO s).” 401. Aarhus: DCE - Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University.
van Dooren, Thom 2014. Flight Ways: Life and Loss at the Edge of Extinction. New York: Columbia University Press.
van der Zee, Bibi, and Wojciech Kosc. 2021. “High Risk of Injuries in Denmark’s Live Piglet Export Trade, Audit Warns Environment.” The Guardian, February 16, 2021.
Weisberg, Zipporah. 2009. “The Broken Promises of Monsters: Haraway, Animals and the Humanist Legacy.” Journal for Critical Animal Studies 7 (2): 22–62.