"Cattle Welfare Is Basically Human Welfare": Workers' Perceptions of 'Animal Welfare' on Two Dairies in China.

Maria Chen, Daniel M Weary
Author Information
  1. Maria Chen: Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  2. Daniel M Weary: Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Abstract

'Animal welfare' () is a foreign term in China, and stakeholder interpretations can affect receptiveness to the concept. Our aim was to explore workers' perceptions of animal welfare on two dairies in China. We used a mini-ethnographic case study design, with the first author (MC) living for 38 days on one farm and 23 days on a second farm. MC conducted semi-structured interviews ( = 13) and participant observations ( = 41) with farm management and staff. We used template analysis to generate key themes from the ethnographic data. Responses revealed a connection between human and animal welfare. Workers saw human welfare as a prerequisite to animal welfare, and cattle welfare as potentially mutually beneficial to humans. Some workers also saw an ethical obligation toward providing cattle with good welfare. Though some workers were unfamiliar with the term 'animal welfare,' in daily practice caring for cattle led farm workers to ponder, prioritize, and make decisions relevant to welfare including lameness, morbidity, and nutrition. Workers in management positions appeared to embrace evidence-based animal care improvements, especially those which were perceived to also benefit people. Based on our findings, we suggest animal welfare initiatives should (1) consider worker welfare, (2) clearly communicate the concept of 'animal welfare,' (3) identify mutual benefits, and (4) provide pragmatic, evidence-based strategies to improve welfare.

Keywords

References

  1. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2019 Oct-Dec;22(4):385-399 [PMID: 30362369]
  2. Animals (Basel). 2021 Sep 13;11(9): [PMID: 34573646]
  3. Rev Sci Tech. 2005 Aug;24(2):483-92 [PMID: 16358502]
  4. Vet J. 2014 Jan;199(1):184-7 [PMID: 24239263]
  5. J Dairy Sci. 2019 May;102(5):4341-4351 [PMID: 30879812]
  6. Animals (Basel). 2021 Apr 27;11(5): [PMID: 33925746]
  7. J Dairy Sci. 2015 Nov;98(11):7426-45 [PMID: 26342982]
  8. Acta Biotheor. 2011 Jun;59(2):121-37 [PMID: 21347723]
  9. Sci Rep. 2019 Dec 20;9(1):19555 [PMID: 31862944]
  10. Anim Front. 2018 Apr 11;8(1):8-13 [PMID: 32002209]
  11. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 14;9(10):e109177 [PMID: 25314159]
  12. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2021 Apr 10;:1-12 [PMID: 33843378]
  13. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006 Feb;21(2):77-82 [PMID: 16701478]
  14. Vet Rec. 2016 Oct 22;179(16):412-413 [PMID: 27770094]
  15. Animals (Basel). 2019 Oct 24;9(11): [PMID: 31652966]
  16. Rev Sci Tech. 2014 Apr;33(1):131-7 [PMID: 25000785]
  17. Animals (Basel). 2019 Jul 04;9(7): [PMID: 31277448]
  18. Animals (Basel). 2019 Dec 24;10(1): [PMID: 31878310]
  19. Animals (Basel). 2018 Jun 09;8(6): [PMID: 29890723]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0welfareanimalChinafarmcattleworkers'AnimaltermconceptusedMCdaysone=managementhumanWorkerssawalso'animal'evidence-basedwelfare'foreignstakeholderinterpretationscanaffectreceptivenessaimexploreworkers'perceptionstwodairiesmini-ethnographiccasestudydesignfirstauthorliving3823secondconductedsemi-structuredinterviews13participantobservations41stafftemplateanalysisgeneratekeythemesethnographicdataResponsesrevealedconnectionprerequisitepotentiallymutuallybeneficialhumansethicalobligationtowardprovidinggoodThoughunfamiliardailypracticecaringledponderprioritizemakedecisionsrelevantincludinglamenessmorbiditynutritionpositionsappearedembracecareimprovementsespeciallyperceivedbenefitpeopleBasedfindingssuggestinitiatives1considerworker2clearlycommunicate3identifymutualbenefits4providepragmaticstrategiesimprove"CattleWelfareBasicallyHumanWelfare":Workers'PerceptionsWelfare'TwoDairiesdairyfarmingemployeeethnographylivestockqualitativemethods

Similar Articles

Cited By