Animal welfare with Chinese characteristics: Chinese poultry producers' perceptions of, and attitudes towards, animal welfare.

Qing Yang, Cathy M Dwyer, Belinda Vigors, Ruqian Zhao, Fritha M Langford
Author Information
  1. Qing Yang: Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. ORCID
  2. Cathy M Dwyer: Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
  3. Belinda Vigors: Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. ORCID
  4. Ruqian Zhao: College of Veterinary Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China.
  5. Fritha M Langford: Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. ORCID

Abstract

China's poultry industry faces challenges in adopting and sustaining cage-free systems for poultry production. Effective interventions are crucial to support producers transitioning from cages to alternative systems or maintaining cage-free systems to improve animal welfare. However, little is known about how Chinese poultry producers perceive animal welfare in relation to cage-free systems and the importance of animal welfare in poultry production. Through a qualitative interview study with 30 Chinese farm owners, managers and senior managers from large-scale egg and broiler farms using cages and non-cage systems (collectively referred to as "producers"), this paper explores Chinese poultry producers' attitudes and perceptions regarding animal welfare and welfare in different poultry housing systems. Template analysis was used to analyse the data from semi-structured interviews, which generated themes related to the participants' awareness and understanding of the concept of animal welfare, the factors that impacted their choices of different housing systems, and the perceived priorities in poultry production. The responses revealed that the participating producers had a strong awareness and knowledge of animal welfare. However, the participants' understanding of the term is heterogeneous: generally, egg producers emphasised natural behaviours, whereas broiler producers prioritised health and productivity. Nevertheless, profitability, leadership, and organisational policies primarily influenced housing system choices rather than animal welfare values. Economic motives drove egg producers towards cage-free systems, prompted by consumers' and companies' demand for cage-free eggs committed to transitioning away from cages by 2025. In conclusion, tailored interventions for different poultry sectors within China are necessary. While animal welfare values matter, economic incentives seem more promising for steering the shift towards and maintaining cage-free poultry production.

References

  1. J Adv Nurs. 1997 Aug;26(2):418-23 [PMID: 9292378]
  2. Front Vet Sci. 2022 Dec 05;9:1038362 [PMID: 36583038]
  3. Poult Sci. 2016 Jul 1;95(7):1564-1572 [PMID: 26994200]
  4. Poult Sci. 2016 Mar;95(3):715-25 [PMID: 26574025]
  5. Animals (Basel). 2021 Jul 10;11(7): [PMID: 34359187]
  6. Environ Int. 2017 Oct;107:111-130 [PMID: 28719840]
  7. Zoo Biol. 2009 Nov;28(6):507-18 [PMID: 19434682]
  8. Poult Sci. 2008 Jan;87(1):71-9 [PMID: 18079453]
  9. Anim Front. 2023 Feb 23;13(1):34-39 [PMID: 36845604]
  10. Animals (Basel). 2021 May 13;11(5): [PMID: 34068258]
  11. Animals (Basel). 2019 Nov 18;9(11): [PMID: 31752147]
  12. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2019 Oct-Dec;22(4):385-399 [PMID: 30362369]
  13. Altern Lab Anim. 2013 Nov;41(5):351-7 [PMID: 24329743]
  14. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2014 Aug;27(8):1196-203 [PMID: 25083115]
  15. Poult Sci. 2011 Apr;90(4):941-50 [PMID: 21406383]
  16. Animals (Basel). 2015 Dec 22;6(1): [PMID: 26703742]
  17. Animals (Basel). 2021 Sep 13;11(9): [PMID: 34573646]
  18. PLoS One. 2018 Jun 22;13(6):e0197028 [PMID: 29933370]
  19. Microbiol Spectr. 2022 Aug 31;10(4):e0004522 [PMID: 35766494]
  20. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 14;9(10):e109177 [PMID: 25314159]
  21. Animals (Basel). 2020 Aug 28;10(9): [PMID: 32872206]
  22. Animals (Basel). 2022 Sep 14;12(18): [PMID: 36139280]
  23. Animals (Basel). 2017 Jan 25;7(2): [PMID: 28125058]
  24. Animals (Basel). 2022 Aug 16;12(16): [PMID: 36009680]
  25. Animals (Basel). 2022 Aug 15;12(16): [PMID: 36009676]
  26. J Anim Sci. 2016 Mar;94(3):1296-308 [PMID: 27065290]
  27. Meat Sci. 2023 Jan;195:108994 [PMID: 36240585]
  28. Poult Sci. 2011 Jan;90(1):229-40 [PMID: 21177465]
  29. Environ Pollut. 2016 Dec;219:993-997 [PMID: 27180067]
  30. Animals (Basel). 2013 May 13;3(2):386-400 [PMID: 26487409]
  31. Lancet. 2013 Jun 8;381(9882):2044-53 [PMID: 23746904]
  32. Animals (Basel). 2019 Jun 05;9(6): [PMID: 31195720]
  33. PLoS One. 2021 Mar 3;16(3):e0247788 [PMID: 33657189]
  34. Animals (Basel). 2021 Apr 27;11(5): [PMID: 33925746]
  35. Poult Sci. 2015 Mar;94(3):552-7 [PMID: 25480736]
  36. Animals (Basel). 2020 Mar 15;10(3): [PMID: 32183491]
  37. J Anim Sci. 2011 Mar;89(3):845-55 [PMID: 21036931]
  38. Animals (Basel). 2019 Oct 24;9(11): [PMID: 31652966]
  39. Animals (Basel). 2021 Mar 17;11(3): [PMID: 33803067]
  40. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2022 Jul-Sep;25(3):275-286 [PMID: 33843378]
  41. Front Vet Sci. 2022 Feb 08;8:808767 [PMID: 35211535]
  42. Animals (Basel). 2019 Jul 04;9(7): [PMID: 31277448]
  43. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 May 5;112(18):5649-54 [PMID: 25792457]
  44. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2014 Jan;27(1):140-6 [PMID: 25049936]
  45. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 26;16(19): [PMID: 31561621]
  46. J Dairy Sci. 2021 Sep;104(9):10158-10170 [PMID: 34218920]
  47. Animals (Basel). 2018 Jun 09;8(6): [PMID: 29890723]
  48. Poult Sci. 2011 Jan;90(1):241-50 [PMID: 21177466]

MeSH Term

Animals
Animal Welfare
China
Animal Husbandry
Humans
Poultry
Attitude
Female
Housing, Animal
Chickens
Male
Farmers
Perception
Adult
Middle Aged

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0welfarepoultryanimalsystemscage-freeproducersChineseproductioncageseggdifferenthousingtowardsinterventionstransitioningmaintainingHowevermanagersbroilerproducers'attitudesperceptionsparticipants'awarenessunderstandingchoicesvaluesChina'sindustryfaceschallengesadoptingsustainingEffectivecrucialsupportalternativeimprovelittleknownperceiverelationimportancequalitativeinterviewstudy30farmownersseniorlarge-scalefarmsusingnon-cagecollectivelyreferred"producers"paperexploresregardingTemplateanalysisusedanalysedatasemi-structuredinterviewsgeneratedthemesrelatedconceptfactorsimpactedperceivedprioritiesresponsesrevealedparticipatingstrongknowledgetermheterogeneous:generallyemphasisednaturalbehaviourswhereasprioritisedhealthproductivityNeverthelessprofitabilityleadershiporganisationalpoliciesprimarilyinfluencedsystemratherEconomicmotivesdrovepromptedconsumers'companies'demandeggscommittedaway2025conclusiontailoredsectorswithinChinanecessarymattereconomicincentivesseempromisingsteeringshiftAnimalcharacteristics:

Similar Articles

Cited By