ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Intentions form the basis of behavioral action to improve animal welfare; however an intention-behavior gap has been previously identified. Livestock stakeholders in China, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand (n = 1041) involved in slaughter and transport completed a survey in which they were asked their level of intention to improve animal welfare, and their level of confidence in their ability to do this. Chinese respondents had the most confidence in their ability to improve animal welfare, and veterinarians showed more confidence than livestock team leaders. Those with high or low intentions, and either high or low confidences were compared for key influencing factors to identify the circumstances that may be most conducive to behavior change. Respondents with high intentions and low confidence in their ability to improve animal welfare identified extrinsic factors associated with their immediate workplace and different company priorities, and the intrinsic factor of lack of personal knowledge. It is concluded that targeting these areas to improve confidence in stakeholders in livestock transport and slaughter could bring the most improvements in animal welfare initiatives.
ARTICLE
Turning Intentions into Animal Welfare Improvement in the Asian
Livestock Sector
Michelle Sinclair
a
, John Morton
b
, and Clive J. C. Phillips
a
a
5Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland,
Australia;
b
Jemora Pty Ltd, Geelong, AustraliaAQ1
ABSTRACT
Intentions form the basis of behavioral action to improve animal welfare;
however an intention-behavior gap has been previously identified.
10Livestock stakeholders in China, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand
(n = 1041) involved in slaughter and transport completed a survey in
which they were asked their level of intention to improve animal welfare,
and their level of confidence in their ability to do this. Chinese respondents
had the most confidence in their ability to improve animal welfare, and
15veterinarians showed more confidence than livestock team leaders. Those
with high or low intentions, and either high or low confidences were
compared for key influencing factors to identify the circumstances that
may be most conducive to behavior change. Respondents with high inten-
tions and low confidence in their ability to improve animal welfare identi-
20fied extrinsic factors associated with their immediate workplace and
different company priorities, and the intrinsic factor of lack of personal
knowledge. It is concluded that targeting these areas to improve confi-
dence in stakeholders in livestock transport and slaughter could bring the
most improvements in animal welfare initiatives.
AQ2
AQ3
KEYWORDS AQ4
Animal welfare; ; intentions;
china; asia;farm; culture
Introduction
25Farm animal welfare can be improved by reducing animal suffering and facilitating a satisfactory life
(Mellor, 2016). This has the capacity to bring economic benefits from the farm gate to the slaughter-
house, through increased productivity, improved meat quality, lower farm, transport and lairage
mortality, reduced antibiotic use, less incidence of carcass breaks and bruising, and, ultimately, the
opportunities of exporting to markets requiring high welfare standards (Blandford, Bureau, Fulponi, &
30Henson, 2002; Harley, More, Boyle, O’ Connell, & Hanlon, 2012; Langford, 1989; Vetter, Vasa, &
Ózsvári, 2014). Where the relationship between animal welfare improvement and financial benefit
may be tenuous, animal welfare initiatives may still make economic sense through protection of brand,
social license to operate, and mitigation of risk to the livestock industry in which stakeholders operate.
For these reasons animal producers are paying increasing attention to animal welfare.
35The Asian region occupies an increasingly dominant place in world animal production, with
China being the largest agricultural animal producing country in the world, by a large margin
(FAOSTAT, 2017). However, compared with many of the countries that China exports products to,
animal welfare has not previously been a major concern of the government and although the
landscape is changing rapidly, at present no specific animal welfare legislation exists (FAO, 2017).
40Nevertheless, while the concept of animal welfare is in its infancy in China, it does not mean Chinese
citizens are not concerned about it. In a survey across 12 culturally diverse countries (including
Norway, Iran, the UK, and China) citizens were asked to associate an importance value to 12 world
CONTACT Michelle Sinclair m.sinclair6@uq.edu.au Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science,
University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland 4343, Australia
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2018.1534590
social issues. Although the investigated issues included human-based issues such as poverty, racial
equality, and death penalty; Chinese respondents ranked “animal protection” as the most important,
45together with “environmental protection”, and “sustainable development” (Sinclair & Phillips, 2017).
This is not attributable to a lack of available animal welfare legal framework. The World Animal
Health Organisation (OIE) has the Terrestrial Animal Code: Section 7 (Animal Welfare), to which
181 member countries arecommitted(OIE, 2016). However, this code is widely not properly admi-
nistered, which is the responsibility of the countries themselves (Olavarria, 2008). The reasons for
50poor compliance are not fully understood; however, it is clear that the reasons and motivations vary
by country (Sinclair et al., 2017), and that they represent an opportunity for improvement. Further to
this, it is unknown if livestock stakeholders have an intention to improve animal welfare. If so, when
the motivation to improve animal welfare has come as far as formulating behavioral “intentions” to
do so, it is unclear what restricts stakeholders’ capacity to take action to improve this welfare.
55Intentions can be defined as “the degree to which a person has formulated conscious plans to
perform or not perform some specified future behavior” (Warshaw & Davis, 1985), and are regarded
as “key indices of a person’s mental readiness for action in several social psychological models of
behavior” (Sheeran, 2002). The higher the level of intention, the higher is the “behavioral commit-
ment”. Psychological models used in human behavior practice view intention as the major determi-
60nant of reasoned behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1974).
AQ5 While widely supported in the literature as a
successful predictor of actual behavior, a meta-analysis of relevant sociological studies has indicated
that intention may only account for 28% of behavioral variance (Sheeran, 2002). Clearly there is an
intention-behavior gap, which has been recognized in both human exercise science (Sniehotta,
Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005) and marketing literature, where it is recognized that “consumer intention
65is a poor predictor of consumer behavior” (Hofmeyr, 2007). Consumers demonstrate high levels of
adoption intention for complex innovations that match their needs, but those innovations that are
actually adopted are usually those that are less complex (Arts, Frambach, & Bijmolt, 2011).
AQ6
In relation to ethical products, consumption of these is almost invariably less than intentions
would suggest (Auger & Devinney, 2007). Similarly, a disparity exists between a reported desire for
70higher welfare standards for farm animals and willingness to spend more, and actually altering
behavior to purchase higher welfare animal products (Bennett, 1998). Price, quality, convenience,
and brand familiarity may still be the most important decision criteria (Carrington, Neville, &
Whitwell, 2010), but the impediment to adoption may be financial, including a higher concern for
frugal spending than improved welfare. In any case, understanding the factors that correlate with the
75intention-behavior gap is helpful in creating initiatives to promote action.
Confidence, defined as “a basis by which individuals determine whether they have the requisite
skills, abilities, and/or capabilities to perform a focal behavior” may explain part of the intention-
behavior gap (Kidwell & Jewell, 2003). An action, no matter the intentions, that is perceived to fail is
less likely to be undertaken. The architect of the Theory of Planned Behavior states “it follows that
80intention-behavior correlations will usually be stronger when intentions are held with great, rather
than little, confidence (Ajzen, 1985) in Action control). The intention-behavior gap can be con-
sidered as the difference between behavioral intention and behavioral expectation (Warshaw &
Davis, 1985). In many cases (and indeed, in the present study), behavioral expectation could also
be, seen as a parallel of the person’s confidence that they will successfully perform the behavior or
85action that they intended.
Even though behavioral intention correlates significantly with behavior, intervening events have
been found to reduce the intention-behavior relation (Ajzen & Fisbbein, 1974) by controlling the
level of confidence in a person’s ability to successfully complete the behavior. Understanding and
overcoming intervening and gap generating factors will increase the already significant likelihood
90that intention will result in action.
This study aims to identify the key determinants of intention, to facilitate improvements to
animal welfare during the critical times of transport and slaughter. Disparities between reported
intention to improve animal welfare, and the reported level of confidence in stakeholders’ ability to
2M. SINCLAIR ET AL.
improve animal welfare are investigated. Where disparity exists, this study aims to identify the
95intrinsic and extrinsic factors that correlate with high and low confidence in the ability to improve
animal welfare. This information would be helpful in further understanding the motivation of key
stakeholders in the Asian livestock sector, and could inform initiatives aimed at encouraging
improved animal welfare in the region.
Materials and methods
100Four key yet diverse livestock producing and importing countries in SE and E Asia were selected: the
People’s Republic of China (hereafter China), Malaysia, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam (hereafter Vietnam; n = 11) in which four 2-d workshops were attended by 16, 6, 11 and 11
trainers in the four countries, respectively. At the workshop four international animal welfare science
experts presented key concepts of the welfare of animals during transport and slaughter. Attendees
105received an expenses and travel allowance, refreshments and a memory stick with comprehensive
training resources (available at www.animalwelfarestandards.org). The trainers then delivered 44
one-day regional workshops to livestock stakeholders (mean number of attendees = 30 in each)
directly involved in the transport and slaughter of animals across geographically dispersed regions.
The locations included Guandong, Hain, Hubei, Hun, Shandong, Zhejiang and Jiangxi provinces in
110China; Hanoi, Halphong, Vinh, Dang, Vungtau, Binhduong and Cantho in Vietnam; Khon
Ratchasima, Udon Thani, Champon, Khon Kaen, Sakon khon, Petchaburi and Bangkok in
Thailand; and Zon Selatan, Tengah, Utara, Sabah, Sarawak, Pantai Timur and Kuala Lumpur in
Malaysia. Stakeholders were invited to the workshops where they were also requested to answer the
questionnaire provided by the workshop trainers, with the only selection criteria that they must be
115employed and involved in the domestic livestock slaughter and transport industry. Participants were
sought from among slaughter personnel, transporters, livestock slaughter and transport business
owners and managers, senior livestock veterinarians, livestock farmers, relevant agriculture aca-
demics and government agriculture representatives (see Table 1).
Participants were anonymously surveyed using a paper questionnaire at the start of the slaughter
120and transport workshops, which had been developed in English through consultation with academic
and industry experts in the animal welfare field. It was translated into Bahasa, Mandarin, Thai and
Vietnamese and then back-translated to ensure meaning consistency, with changes to the original
questionnaire where necessary. The questionnaire was piloted in Australia with nationals from each
of the represented countries, and was also administered to the trainers at the start of their work-
125shops, so that they were familiar with it and because they were also deemed to effectively be
Table 1. Distribution of 999 respondents by their intention to make improvements to animal welfare and their degree of
confidence that they could make such improvements; each respondent was classified as having low intention, high intention/
low confidence or high intention/high confidence based on their responses to the two questions shown.
“I intend to make improvements to the welfare of the
animals in my care”
“I am confident that I can make improvements to the welfare of
animals”
Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
Low intention
Strongly disagree 2 2 1
Disagree 8 7 5 1
Neither agree nor disagree 23 79 28 2
High intention/low confidence
Agree 11 102
Strongly agree 2 2 14
High intention/high confidence
Agree 418 47
Strongly agree 98 147
JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE 3
stakeholders in the industry. These were incorporated with the stakeholders’ responses, increasing
the total number of respondents to 1066.
In the questionnaire, respondent demographics were obtained first: country, region, sex, age,
residential area, religion, religiosity, their role within the industry, and how their industry knowledge
130was gained (formal qualifications or otherwise) and over what period. The rest of the questionnaire
consisted of four key question sets with responses to each question measured on a Likert scale from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
The first non-demographic set of eight questions focused on general attitudes to animal welfare,
recognizing that attitudes are a central tenet of the Theory of Planned Behavior, including:
135The importance placed by the respondent on animal welfare during slaughter and transport;
How satisfactory animal welfare in the respondents’ workplace was believed to be;
Whether the respondent intended or felt confident to make animal welfare improvements in
their workplace; and
Whether the respondent had tried to make animal welfare improvements in the past.
140This study focussed on the analysis of the third set of questions, and the relationship between the
intention to make improvements, and the confidence respondents had in their ability to make those
improvements.
The survey was reviewed by three sociological researchers, piloted with nationals from each
participating country and amended to ensure comprehension and relevance. Ethics approval for
145this study was granted by the University of Queensland Human Ethics Committee (Project
Identification Code: 2015000059).
Statistical analyses
A variable that jointly described each respondent’s Intention to make improvements to animal
welfare and their degree of confidence that they could make such improvements was defined based
150on responses to two questions: “I intend to make improvements to the welfare of the animals in my
care” and “I am confident that I can make improvements to the welfare of animals”. This variable
had three categories. Using responses to the question “I intend to make improvements to the welfare
of the animals in my care”, respondents who replied strongly disagree, disagree, or neither agree nor
disagree were classified as having little or no intention to make improvements to animal welfare
155(“low intention”).
The respondents who replied agree or strongly agree to this question were divided into two
categories using responses to the question “I am confident that Ican make improvements to the
welfare of animals”. Those that replied strongly disagree, disagree or neither agree nor disagree
were classified as having little or no confidence (“high intention/low confidence”) while those
160that replied agree or strongly agree were classified as having high confidence (“high intention/
high confidence”).
Potential determinants of each of high intention/low confidence and high intention/high con-
fidence were assessed using multinomial (polytomous) logistic regression, with models fitted using
the -mlogit- command in Stata (version 15, StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA). For all analyses,
165the base category was low intention. Effects of country, gender and workplace role were assessed
adjusted for the other. Other potential determinants were assessed adjusted for country, gender and
workplace role. For analyses of degrees of influence of various factors on the respondents’ abilities to
make improvements to animal welfare during slaughter and transport, strongly disagree and disagree
were pooled, as relatively few respondents recorded strongly disagree for these. P-values for overall
170effects of each potential determinant were calculated using likelihood ratio tests.
Associations between degrees of influence of various factors on the respondents’ abilities to make
improvements to animal welfare were assessed with multiple correspondence analysis using Stata’s
4M. SINCLAIR ET AL.
-mca- command with the Burt matrix. Associations between pairs of factors were assessed with
Spearman’s correlation coefficients calculated using Stata’s -Spearman- command.
175
Results
After cleaning the data, a total of 1014 responses were considered. Of these, 15 (1.5%) were excluded
as they did not indicate their intention (n = 3 respondents), their confidence (n = 8), or both (n = 4).
The remaining 999 respondents had low intention (16%; n = 158), high intention/low confidence
(13%; n = 131), or high intention/high confidence (71%; n = 710; Table 1).
180Effects of country, gender and workplace role on intention and confidence are shown in Table 2.
There was no strong evidence of a large gender effect (overall P after adjustment for country and
workplace role = 0.28; relative risk ratios 1.0 (95% CI 0.6 to 1.9) and 1.4 (95% CI 0.9 to 2.2), but
intention and confidence differed significantly (overall P after adjustment for gender and workplace
role < 0.001) and markedly by country (Table 2). Respondents from Malaysia and Vietnam were
185much less likely to have high intention/high confidence than those from China. Intention and
confidence also varied by workplace role (P = 0.013); veterinarians were much more likely to have
high intention/high confidence than team leaders (Table 2).
The relationship between intention and confidence levels and the strength of influence of various
factors (such as religion, tools and resources, knowledge and monetary gain) on the respondents’
190perceived abilities to make improvements to animal welfare during slaughter and transport are
shown in Table 3 (slaughter) and 4 (transport), respectively. Of the 12 factors potentially influencing
abilities to make improvements to animal welfare during slaughter, for seven (11f to 11l; Table 3),
those respondents who strongly agreed were much more likely to have high intention/high con-
fidence rather than low intention compared to those that disagreed or strongly disagreed (pooled).
Table 2. Numbers of respondents, by country, gender and workplace role, expressing low intention, high intention and low
confidence and high intention and high confidence for making improvements to animal welfare. Associations are described using
relative risk ratios, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and P-values.
Potential
determinant No.
Low
intention
High intention/
low confidence
High intention/
high
confidence
High intention/low
confidence rather than low
intention
High intention/high
confidence rather than low
intention
Relative
risk
ratio
a
95% CI P
b
Relative
risk
ratio
a
95% CI P
b
Country < 0.001
China 122 3% 7% 90% Reference group Reference group
Thailand 290 8% 7% 86% 0.5 0.1 to 2.1 0.343 0.6 0.2 to 1.8 0.346
Malaysia 374 24% 18% 59% 0.4 0.1 to 1.4 0.159 0.1 0.0 to 0.3 < 0.001
Viet Nam 180 22% 19% 59% 0.4 0.1 to 1.5 0.173 0.1 0.0 to 0.3 < 0.001
Gender 0.280
Male 670 17% 15% 68% Reference group Reference group
Female 296 13% 10% 78% 1.0 0.6 to 1.9 0.902 1.4 0.9 to 2.2 0.194
Workplace role 0.013
Team leader
c
427 19% 14% 67% Reference group Reference group
Business
owner or
manager
128 14% 11% 75% 1.1 0.5 to 2.3 0.899 1.7 1.0 to 3.1 0.064
Farmer 154 10% 10% 79% 1.2 0.5 to 3.0 0.655 0.9 0.5 to 1.8 0.797
Veterinarian
d
211 11% 17% 72% 2.1 1.0 to 4.3 0.042 2.6 1.5 to 4.8 0.001
a
Relative risk ratios are adjusted for the other two of country, gender and workplace role.
b
Bolded p-values are the overall likelihood ratio test p-values for the variable; unbolded p-values are Wald p-values for the
particular category relative to the reference group for each of high intention/low confidence and high intention/high confidence
rather than low intention
c
Supervised people who work directly with the animals or worked directly with the animals
d
Veterinarians working for the Government as an advisor or who treated animals hands on.
JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE 5
Table 3. Numbers of respondents, by degree of influence of various factors on the respondents’ abilities to make improvements to animal welfare during slaughter, expressing low intention, high
intention and low confidence and high intention and high confidence for making improvements to animal welfare. Associations are described using relative risk ratios, 95% confidence intervals
(CI) and P-values.
Factor and degree of influence
of factor No.
Low
intention
High intention/low
confidence
High intention/high
confidence
High intention/low confidence rather than
low intention
High intention/high confidence rather than
low intention
Relative risk
ratio
a
95% CI P
b
Relative risk
ratio
a
95% CI P
b
11a. My religious beliefs 0.254
Strongly disagree 47 21% 6% 72%
Disagree 139 12% 16% 72% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 263 23% 17% 60% 0.9 0.4 to 1.7 0.699 0.5 0.3 to 0.9 0.031
Agree 409 15% 11% 74% 1.0 0.5 to 2.0 0.940 0.9 0.5 to 1.5 0.623
Strongly agree 122 7% 10% 83% 1.2 0.4 to 3.7 0.790 0.9 0.4 to 2.2 0.785
11b. My personal beliefs (not religious) < 0.001
Strongly disagree 32 19% 16% 66%
Disagree 141 21% 14% 65% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 294 24% 19% 57% 1.1 0.6 to 2.1 0.713 0.8 0.5 to 1.4 0.427
Agree 409 10% 10% 79% 1.7 0.9 to 3.5 0.129 2.7 1.6 to 4.8 < 0.001
Strongly agree 100 8% 7% 85% 1.0 0.3 to 3.3 0.996 1.6 0.7 to 4.0 0.272
11c. The extent to which there are more pressing concerns than the welfare of animals in my community
Strongly disagree 11 18% 18% 64% 0.001
Disagree 113 16% 12% 72% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 305 24% 14% 61% 0.8 0.4 to 1.7 0.565 0.6 0.4 to 1.2 0.168
Agree 463 12% 14% 74% 1.6 0.7 to 3.6 0.231 1.6 0.9 to 3.0 0.137
Strongly agree 81 7% 7% 85% 1.0 0.2 to 3.8 0.966 2.1 0.8 to 5.9 0.143
11d. Monetary gain to myself < 0.001
Strongly disagree 32 13% 9% 78%
Disagree 137 15% 20% 66% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 278 22% 15% 62% 0.5 0.3 to 1.1 0.075 0.5 0.3 to 0.9 0.014
Agree 446 14% 11% 75% 0.8 0.4 to 1.6 0.519 1.3 0.7 to 2.3 0.394
Strongly agree 85 9% 8% 82% 0.9 0.3 to 3.1 0.870 1.7 0.6 to 4.6 0.285
11e. Monetary gain to my community < 0.001
Strongly disagree 33 21% 6% 73%
Disagree 126 17% 18% 64% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 286 22% 17% 61% 0.8 0.4 to 1.7 0.617 0.7 0.4 to 1.2 0.146
Agree 463 12% 12% 76% 1.2 0.6 to 2.5 0.559 1.8 1.0 to 3.1 0.055
Strongly agree 66 12% 3% 85% 0.3 0.1 to 1.5 0.156 1.7 0.6 to 4.4 0.290
11f. How important the welfare of animals is to the company I work for < 0.001
Strongly disagree 12 25% 8% 67%
Disagree 67 27% 10% 63% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 254 27% 19% 54% 1.9 0.7 to 5.1 0.187 0.8 0.4 to 1.6 0.585
Agree 515 10% 12% 78% 3.6 1.3 to 9.5 0.011 3.2 1.6 to 6.3 0.001
(Continued )
6M. SINCLAIR ET AL.
Table 3. (Continued).
Factor and degree of influence
of factor No.
Low
intention
High intention/low
confidence
High intention/high
confidence
High intention/low confidence rather than
low intention
High intention/high confidence rather than
low intention
Relative risk
ratio
a
95% CI P
b
Relative risk
ratio
a
95% CI P
b
Strongly agree 126 10% 8% 82% 3.3 0.9 to 12.2 0.071 3.3 1.2 to 8.6 0.017
11g. How important the welfare of animals is to those who work with me < 0.001
Strongly disagree 5 20% 0% 80%
Disagree 64 36% 23% 41% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 245 26% 20% 53% 1.1 0.5 to 2.3 0.848 1.6 0.8 to 3.2 0.188
Agree 544 11% 11% 78% 1.4 0.6 to 3.1 0.391 5.3 2.6 to 10.6 < 0.001
Strongly agree 117 8% 6% 86% 1.4 0.4 to 5.3 0.583 8.5 3.0 to 24.2 < 0.001
11h. Company approval towards improving the welfare of animals
Strongly disagree 6 17% 0% 83% < 0.001
Disagree 56 38% 14% 48% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 217 29% 19% 52% 2.0 0.8 to 4.9 0.152 1.4 0.7 to 2.8 0.343
Agree 546 10% 13% 76% 4.2 1.7 to 10.5 0.002 5.9 3.0 to 11.7 < 0.001
Strongly agree 151 9% 6% 85% 1.8 0.5 to 6.3 0.328 6.7 2.8 to 15.9 < 0.001
11i. My knowledge about animal slaughter and animal transportation practices < 0.001
Strongly disagree 9 22% 22% 56%
Disagree 71 34% 13% 54% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 202 22% 17% 61% 2.1 0.9 to 5.3 0.102 2.3 1.1 to 4.7 0.020
Agree 576 13% 13% 74% 2.4 1.0 to 5.5 0.041 3.8 2.0 to 7.3 < 0.001
Strongly agree 127 6% 10% 83% 3.4 1.1 to 11.3 0.041 7.2 2.8 to 18.6 < 0.001
11j. My work space 0.024
Strongly disagree 10 30% 10% 60%
Disagree 68 24% 13% 63% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 250 22% 17% 60% 1.8 0.7 to 4.3 0.204 1.4 0.7 to 2.7 0.356
Agree 546 13% 12% 75% 1.9 0.8 to 4.4 0.139 2.2 1.2 to 4.1 0.015
Strongly agree 101 8% 7% 85% 2.2 0.6 to 8.4 0.253 3.9 1.4 to 10.9 0.010
11k. The availability of tools and resources 0.001
Strongly disagree 6 33% 17% 50%
Disagree 62 27% 10% 63% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 207 25% 15% 60% 1.7 0.6 to 4.6 0.326 1.6 0.8 to 3.3 0.201
Agree 557 12% 13% 74% 3.4 1.3 to 8.8 0.013 3.9 1.9 to 7.7 < 0.001
Strongly agree 143 11% 10% 78% 2.9 0.9 to 9.1 0.074 3.1 1.3 to 7.3 0.009
11l. The government laws and monitoring relevant to animal slaughter and transportation practices < 0.001
Strongly disagree 11 36% 0% 64%
Disagree 50 18% 14% 68% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 189 31% 16% 53% 0.9 0.3 to 2.4 0.764 0.5 0.2 to 1.2 0.116
Agree 510 13% 14% 73% 2.0 0.7 to 5.5 0.179 1.8 0.8 to 3.9 0.125
Strongly agree 222 8% 10% 82% 2.4 0.8 to 7.6 0.129 3.0 1.3 to 7.3 0.012
a
Relative risk ratios are adjusted for each of country, gender and workplace role
b
Bolded p-values are the overall likelihood ratio test p-values for the variable; unbolded p-values are Wald p-values for the particular category relative to the reference group for each of high
intention/low confidence and high intention/high confidence rather than low intention.
JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE 7
195For all but one of these (11l), those respondents who agreed were also much more likely to have high
intention/high confidence. However, this was not true for the two monetary factors. Similar patterns
were evident for the corresponding factors potentially influencing abilities to make improvements to
animal welfare during transport (Table 4).
Associations between degrees of influence of various factors on the respondents’ abilities to make
200improvements to animal welfare and high intention/low confidence rather than low intention were
less clear. For some factors, point estimates for those that agreed or strongly agreed were consistent
with strong associations but for most of these, point estimates were imprecise.
The consistency of associations between various factors and high intention/high confidence rather
than low intention was partly due to correlations in degree of agreement between factors. For
205degrees of influence of various factors on the respondents’ abilities to make improvements to animal
welfare during slaughter and transport, the first three dimensions accounted for at least 76 and 79%
of the total inertia, respectively.
Discussion
For the animal welfare movement, the results are promising. A majority of respondents indicated
210that they had both high intention to improve animal welfare, and high confidence in their ability to
improve animal welfare. This could be associated with the increasing awareness of animal welfare
globally, and the positive nature with which it is gradually being addressed in many nations. Three
out of four of the nations analyzed (Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam) have new legislation released
or to be released in the near future, which could be seen as a level of acknowledgement of the
215responsibility humans have to non-human animals within society, often fuelled by trade require-
ments and economic interests. This is compared to only a small number of respondents who had
little intention to improve animal welfare. Also, but most significantly, a smaller subset of respon-
dents indicated high intention to improve animal welfare while rating their confidence to enact these
improvements as low (hereafter referred to as low confidence stakeholders). This subset of respon-
220dents represents a particular opportunity to improve animal welfare, as they have indicated a positive
animal welfare attitude, and have pre-existing intentions to improve animal welfare, which according
to the Theory of Planned Behavior is the most important prerequisite to achieved behavior (Ajzen,
1985). This group represents a variation of intention-behavior gap, and understanding the motivat-
ing factors that are indicated as significant in these individuals will assist initiatives to reduce this gap
225and improve confidence in those stakeholders who already have intention to improve animal
welfare. With regard to slaughter, the primary factors in this category included company approval
and support of animal welfare improvements, the availability of tools and resources to make the
change, and the knowledge to make change. In addition to advocating improved animal welfare
uptake at company and business level, to mitigate the challenge reported by stakeholders in
230obtaining company approval, other measures such as knowledge building activities and training
could be offered, in regard to further research around the specifics of which tools and resources are
deemed needed.
Similar factors were present for transport, company approval, knowledge and “my workspace”;
however, “tools and resources” or “vehicle design” were not significant. This may indicate that in
235addition to the potential mitigation efforts mentioned in regard to slaughter, suitable workspace
constructs such as ramps, and loading/unloading facilities need review and upgrading.
It is also helpful for animal welfare initiative managers to know more about factors that may assist
in developing in stakeholders an intention to improve animal welfare, and confidence in their ability
to do so (hereafter referred to as high confidence stakeholders), so that these elements can be
240replicated for those that feel less empowered.
As found in previous publications using this dataset, a highly significant relationship is again
present between motivating factors and country (Sinclair et al., 2017) in the context of intention and
confidence, and again by stakeholder role (Sinclair, Zito, & Phillips, 2017). Also in this present
8M. SINCLAIR ET AL.
Table 4. Numbers of respondents, by degree of influence of various factors on the respondents’ abilities to make improvements to animal welfare during transport, expressing low intention, high
intention and low confidence and high intention and high confidence for making improvements to animal welfare. Associations are described using relative risk ratios, 95% confidence intervals
(CI) and P-values.
Factor and degree of influence of factor No.
Low
intention
High intention/
low confidence
High intention/
high confidence
High intention/low confidence rather than low
intention
High intention/high confidence rather
than low intention
Relative risk ratio
a
95% CI P
b
Relative
risk ratio
a
95% CI P
b
12a. My religious beliefs 0.003
Strongly disagree 37 8% 5% 86%
Disagree 153 23% 13% 64% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 309 22% 17% 60% 1.3 0.7 to 2.6 0.419 0.8 0.5 to 1.3 0.369
Agree 403 10% 11% 79% 2.0 1.0 to 4.2 0.051 2.1 1.2 to 3.6 0.010
Strongly agree 80 9% 11% 80% 1.8 0.5 to 6.2 0.373 1.2 0.4 to 3.2 0.738
12b. My personal beliefs (not religious) 0.001
Strongly disagree 30 10% 3% 87%
Disagree 133 22% 14% 65% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 291 22% 20% 58% 1.4 0.7 to 2.8 0.350 0.8 0.5 to 1.4 0.411
Agree 448 11% 10% 78% 1.7 0.8 to 3.5 0.177 2.0 1.1 to 3.4 0.019
Strongly agree 76 9% 8% 83% 1.2 0.3 to 4.3 0.767 1.5 0.6 to 3.9 0.389
12c. The extent to which there are more pressing concerns than the welfare of animals in my community < 0.001
Strongly disagree 14 7% 0% 93%
Disagree 110 20% 8% 72% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 307 21% 19% 60% 2.2 0.9 to 5.4 0.075 0.7 0.4 to 1.3 0.305
Agree 463 13% 13% 75% 2.1 0.9 to 5.2 0.093 1.3 0.7 to 2.4 0.401
Strongly agree 76 9% 4% 87% 1.0 0.2 to 4.6 0.953 2.3 0.9 to 6.1 0.089
12d. Monetary gain to myself 0.323
Strongly disagree 31 10% 13% 77%
Disagree 139 18% 16% 66% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 259 19% 16% 65% 1.0 0.5 to 2.0 0.986 0.8 0.4 to 1.4 0.446
Agree 478 14% 12% 74% 0.9 0.5 to 1.8 0.788 1.2 0.7 to 2.1 0.446
Strongly agree 75 12% 9% 79% 0.8 0.3 to 2.6 0.733 1.1 0.4 to 2.6 0.903
12e. Monetary gain to my community 0.018
Strongly disagree 32 19% 6% 75%
Disagree 121 16% 14% 70% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 300 20% 19% 61% 1.3 0.6 to 2.7 0.473 0.7 0.4 to 1.3 0.284
Agree 458 13% 11% 76% 1.2 0.6 to 2.5 0.692 1.2 0.7 to 2.2 0.457
Strongly agree 68 12% 4% 84% 0.5 0.1 to 2.3 0.391 1.2 0.4 to 3.0 0.773
12f. How important the welfare of the animals is to the company I work for < 0.001
Strongly disagree 7 29% 0% 71%
Disagree 57 23% 12% 65% Reference group Reference group
Neither agree nor disagree 232 29% 17% 53% 1.3 0.5 to 3.6 0.636 0.7 0.3 to 1.4 0.295
Agree 561 11% 13% 76% 2.6 0.9 to 7.0 0.063 2.4 1.2 to 5.1 0.018
Strongly agree 117 8% 6% 86% 1.8 0.5 to 7.3 0.398 3.3 1.2 to 9.2 0.019
(Continued )
JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE 9
analysis, Malaysian and Vietnamese stakeholders were much less likely to have both high intention
245and high confidence, compared to those in China.
Although no literature could be presently found to connect Chinese culture directly with con-
fidence in ability, it may be connected to industriousness and other measurable dimensions recog-
nized in Chinese culture (Harrell, 1985). Achievement against challenge through sustained
dedication, is embodied in traditional Chinese proverbs such as “有志者,事竟成” and “世上无
250难事,只怕有心人”, which basically translates as “where there is a will there is a way” and “nothing
is impossible to a willing mind” (DictALL 词典,2018). This is supported by Hofstede’s scores of
cultural dimension as “long term orientation”, in which China rates among the highest countries,
with 87/100, compared with western cultures which are believed often to have a short-term
orientation, such as that in Australia (21/100), United States (26/100), Canada (36/100) and
255United Kingdom (51/100) (Hofstede Insights, 2018). China also outranks the other countries in
this study on this measure–Malaysia (41/100), Thailand (32/100) and Vietnam (57/100). A will-
ingness to continue until the job is done may be the key attribute behind the increased confidence in
ability demonstrated by Chinese livestock stakeholders in this study.
Veterinarians were significantly more likely to have both high intentions and high confidence,
260compared with livestock team leaders. This may be a due to the increased likelihood that veterinar-
ians are operating independently, are employed in a regulatory or impartial role with government
departments or are perceived to have the welfare of the animals within their control, and so are more
likely to be met with acquiescence and support. Veterinarians play an important role as advocates for
animal welfare within livestock industries, and this study shows that they have confidence in their
265ability to make the necessary improvements.
In high confidence respondents, both the amount of significant factors, and the level of agreement
tended to be much higher overall than in low confidence respondents. For example, 8 influencing
factors emerged as significant during slaughter, and 10 in transportation for the high confidence
stakeholders, compared to 4 for slaughter and 3 for transport for the low confidence respondents. In
270addition, where significant relationships exist with the influencing factors, none are with “strongly
agree” for the low confidence stakeholders, compared with them appearing frequently with the high
confidence stakeholders. This could suggest a personality trait or tendency within the cohort with
less confidence in their ability, in which they are hesitant to take stronger positions on issues,
perhaps displaying a bias for moderate, middle ground responses. However, it may also indicate an
275uncertainty with the topic of animal welfare, which may be contributed to by a lack of knowledge.
This would be supported by the results, in which “my knowledge about animal slaughter and animal
transportation” rated as significant for this group of stakeholders. The influencing factors signifi-
cantly associated with high confidence stakeholders in both slaughter and transport included the
“level of importance of animal welfare within their company”, “the level of importance of animal
280welfare to their peers and co-workers”, “company approval to make changes to animal welfare”, “the
physical workspace”, the “availability of tools and resources”, plus “government laws and monitor-
ing” (which were accorded strong agreement for both slaughter and transportation in most
instances). Highly significant, for both slaughter and transport, and for both the empowered
stakeholders and the lesser empowered stakeholders, was “my knowledge about animal slaughter
285and animal transportation”. The self-assessed personal knowledge of the stakeholders was a sig-
nificant factor in every category, suggesting that knowledge how to improve animal welfare may well
be the most important factor behind confidence levels in ability to improve animal welfare, when
intentions are already present. Higher personal knowledge levels are intuitively associated with high
confidence in ability, likewise the relationship between lower confidence levels (Chezem, Friesen, &
290Boettcher, 2003; King & Smith, 2000; Walker & Erdman, 1984).
In addition to knowledge, the only other influencing factor that transcended all category bound-
aries in each group was “company approval”. Another notable key attribute of the high confidence
stakeholders was the significance of “my personal beliefs”. This was an important influence for both
slaughter and transportation practices for this group only, but not for the low confidence
10 M. SINCLAIR ET AL.
295stakeholders. This may also be indicative of a personality trait that indicates an “empowered” status
in high confidence stakeholders. It indicates a positive attitude or belief among those with high
confidence, and could potentially suggest higher motivation levels overall. “Personal belief” may also
bridge a gap between intention to improve animal welfare, potentially out of duty, and to improve
animal welfare because it is believed to be the right thing to do (either ethically, legally, or
300commercially).
Lastly, for the high confidence stakeholders, although “availability of tools and resources” was
significant for both slaughter and transport, “vehicle design” was significantly associated with the
response of “neither agree or disagree” in the transport category. While this fails to identify which
specific tools and resources are needed or indeed supplied that support animal welfare improvement,
305it does suggest that transport truck, train and ship layout is not seen as the issue by stakeholders.
Although animal welfare science may find that transport vehicle design is important, stocking
density is of great importance in many situations (Broom, 2008). It does support the notion that
loading and unloading ramps and equipment may be considered more important than the design of
the vehicles themselves. This is supported by the significant result of “workspace” for both high
310confidence and low confidence respondents in transportation specifically.
Influencing factors for low confidence stakeholders are less evident, with fewer of them. Most
factors are shared in response to both slaughter and transport, and the significant factors center
around two concepts: the power of the company (extrinsic), and the power of knowledge (intrinsic).
“Company approval” of changes, the immediate physical “workspace” and the “importance of animal
315welfare to the company” were all significant factors for those that had low confidence in their ability
to bring about animal welfare improvement, despite their high intentions to do so. Previous analysis
of this dataset showed “law and monitoring” was the most influential motivating factor overall,
however when analyzed by high and low confidence the results vary, to the point that law does not
emerge as a factor of significance for those with low confidence (although it does for high confidence
320stakeholders). However, the workplace features prominently. This might suggest that law is a
powerful overall motivator (as it is in this analysis for those respondents with high confidence in
ability), but for those with low confidence the workplace is most important – suggesting a dis-
empowerment within the workplace. Those with low confidence may lack perceived control, and
may feel helpless to make improvements. One theory, “planned behavior control (PBC)” specifies
325that the “likelihood of successful behavioral performance will vary as a function of the perceived
controllability toward performing a behavior” (Armitage & Conner, 2001). In addition to this, in the
Theory of Planned Behavior, Ajzen (1985) added “perceived behavioral control” as an element of
intention itself. Perceived control is very important in the translation of intention to behavior, and
“certainly in the confidence one has in their ability to perform a behavior or action”. Perceived
330ability to succeed is also found to impact the amount of effort that is allocated to behavior (Atkinson,
1958). This may also have a cultural dimension, with all four countries ranking high on the Hofstede
cultural dimension of “power distance”, i.e., unwilling to question authority, and a comfort with
hierarchy (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). Lastly, in addition to knowledge and company
approval, one more factor features as significant for those with low confidence in their ability to
335make improvements: “the availability of tools and resources”. This influencing factor appeared for
slaughter only, suggesting the presence of certain equipment, e.g., stunning equipment, that may
currently be unavailable could increase confidence in stakeholders’ ability to make real animal
welfare improvements.
These findings primarily suggest that initiatives aiming to improve farm animal welfare in Asia
340could largely benefit from offering education to livestock stakeholders around animal welfare, to
increase personal knowledge. However, this should not be done in isolation, and company engage-
ment in animal welfare is of paramount importance in creating an environment in which the
knowledge can be used. This could include the creation of animal welfare policy, encouraging
attendance at animal welfare training sessions, which the companies may run themselves, and
345providing support to implement the changes. Further research into platforms on which to encourage
JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE 11
company engagement with animal welfare would be helpful to this end. Further to this, a study to
analyze if indeed the high intention/high confidence stakeholders did in fact improve animal welfare
would be valuable. Respondents sometimes exhibit strong bias to overestimate the likelihood that
they will engage in a socially-desirable behavior, which in turn produces unrealistically high
350estimates of intentions to engage in a worthy cause (Icek Ajzen, Brown, & Carvajal, 2004). This
also could be effected by cultural differences. However, behavioral expectation (relating to “con-
fidence in ability” in this case), has been found to be a more important determinant of actual
behavior than intention itself (Warshaw & Davis, 1985). It also should not be ignored that
confidence in ability to improve animal welfare may also be tied to personality, and a tendency to
355be positive, rather than a sole product of the influencing factors investigated in this study. This is
also supported by the importance of “personal beliefs” for those with high confidence, indicating a
level of empowerment and conviction that is intrinsic. Although this study did assess financial gain
as a factor, it did not assess the impact of industry and consumer demand for higher welfare
products, which would also be useful to investigate in managerial stakeholders in future research.
360In either case, the findings of this analysis could provide helpful insights into the behavior of
livestock stakeholders, and could be incorporated when designing initiatives to improve farm animal
welfare in Asia.
Conclusions
The influence and the genesis of human attitude and behavior change is a complex and lengthy
365process, with education initiatives usually aimed at a long-term change. However, considerable
opportunity exists in animal welfare when pro-welfare values already exist, particularly when this
value has developed to the point of intention formulation. It would therefore be a wise cost/benefit
investment to identify barriers resulting in an intention-behavior gap, and to collaboratively over-
come them. This study identifies some of these factors among livestock stakeholders, particularly
370those confident that they could make change in animal welfare in the increasingly important region
for livestock production of Asia.
References
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl, J. & Beckmann, J. (eds) Action
control (pp. 11–39). Berlin: Springer.
AQ7
AQ8
375Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C., & Carvajal, F. (2004). Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions: The case of
hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,30(9), 1108–1121.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1974). Factors influencing intentions and the intention-behavior relation. Human Relations,
27(1), 1–15.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British
380Journal of Social Psychology,40(4), 471–499.
Arts, J. W. C., Frambach, R. T., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2011). Generalizations on consumer innovation adoption: A meta-
analysis on drivers of intention and behaviour. International Journal of Research in Marketing,28, 134–144.
Atkinson, J. W. (1958). Towards experimental analysis of human motivation in terms of motives, expectancies, and
incentives. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action and society. Princeton, NJ.: Van Nostrand.
385Auger, P., & Devinney, T. M. (2007). Do what con- sumers say matter? The misalignment of preferences with
unconstrained ethical intentions. Journal of Business Ethics,76, 361–383.
Bennett, R. M. (1998). Measuring public support for animal e legislation: A case study of cage egg production. Animal
Welfare,7, 1–10.
Blandford, D., Bureau, J. C., Fulponi, L., & Henson, S. (2002). Potential implications of animal welfare concerns and
390public policies in industrialized countries for international trade. In: Krissoff, B., Bohman, M. & Caswell, J.A. Global
food trade and consumer demand for quality (pp. 77–99). New York: Springer.
AQ9
Broom, D. (2008). The welfare of livestock during road transport. In M. Appleby (Ed.), Long distance transport and
welfare of farm animals. Oxfordshire: United Kingdom: CABI.
12 M. SINCLAIR ET AL.
Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: Towards a
395framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of
ethically minded consumers. Journal of Business Ethics,97, 139–158.
Chezem, J., Friesen, C., & Boettcher, J. (2003). Breastfeeding knowledge, breastfeeding confidence, and infant feeding
plans: Effects on actual feeding practices. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing,32(1), 40–47.
DictALL词典. (2018). Traditional Chinese proverbs. Retrieved from www.dictall.com词典
400FAO. (2017). Strong commitment towards higher animal welfare in China. Animal Production and Health. Retrieved
from http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/Strong_commitment_towards_higher_aw_China.html
FAOSTAT. (2017). Data: China. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/
Harley, S., More, S., Boyle, L., O’ Connell, N., & Hanlon, A. (2012). Good animal welfare makes economic sense:
Potential of pig abattoir meat inspection as a welfare surveillance tool. Irish Veterinary Journal,65, 11.
405Harrell, S. (1985). Why do the Chinese work so hard? Reflections on an entrepreneurial ethic. Modern China,11(2),
203–226.
Hofmeyr, J. (2007). Getting real about predication in marketing research. Retrieved from Cape Town.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, USA:
McGraw-Hill.
410Hofstede Insights. (2018). Country comparison. Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-compar
ison/china,malaysia,thailand,vietnam/
Kidwell, B., & Jewell, R. D. (2003). An examination of perceived behavioral control: Internal and external influences on
intention. Psychology and Marketing,20(7), 625–642.
King, K. A., & Smith, J. (2000). Project SOAR: A training program to increase school counselors’ knowledge and
415confidence regarding suicide prevention and intervention. Journal of School Health,70(10), 402–407.
Langford, M. (1989). Animal welfare and human welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,22(2), 95–103.
Mellor, D. J. (2016). Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “five freedoms” towards “a life worth
living”. Animals,6(3), 21.
OIE. (2016). Terrestrial animal health code: Section 7 (Animal Welfare). Retrieved from http://www.oie.int/interna
420tional-standard-setting/terrestrial-code/access-online/
Olavarria, H. (2008). Implementation of OIE international standards by OIE members. Retrieved from https://www.
oie.int/doc/ged/D6072.PDF
Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention—Behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social
Psychology,12(1), 1–36.
425Sinclair, M., & Phillips, C. (2017). The Cross-cultural importance of animal protection and other world social issues.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,30(3), 439–455.
Sinclair, M., Zito, S., Idrus, Z., Yan, W., Nhiem, D., Lampang, P., & Phillips, C. (2017). Attitudes of stakeholders to
animal welfare during slaughter and transport in SE and E Asia. Animal Welfare,26, 417–425.
Sinclair, M., Zito, S., & Phillips, C. (2017). The Impact of stakeholders’ roles within the livestock industry on their
430attitudes to livestock welfare in Southeast and East Asia. Animals,7(2), 6.
Sniehotta, F. F., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). Bridging the intention–Behaviour gap: Planning, self-efficacy, and
action control in the adoption and maintenance of physical exercise. Psychology & Health,20(2), 143–160.
Vetter, S., Vasa, L., & Ózsvári, L. (2014). Economic aspects of animal welfare. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica,11(7), 119–
134.
435Walker, B., & Erdman, A. (1984). Childbirth education programs: The relationship between confidence and knowl-
edge. Birth,11(2), 103–108.
Warshaw, P. R., & Davis, F. D. (1985). Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology,21(3), 213–228.
JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE 13
... A third study surveyed stakeholders within the livestock industry in four Asian countries (China, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thailand) with regards to animal transportation and slaughter [54]. Chinese participants tended to have strong intentions of making animal welfare improvements in their workplace and a correspondingly high level of confidence in their ability to do so. ...
... Chinese participants tended to have strong intentions of making animal welfare improvements in their workplace and a correspondingly high level of confidence in their ability to do so. Importantly however, participants from all countries considered that knowledge critically underpinned their ability to create change [54]. The number of animal welfare scientists and experts working in China is growing, but is still relatively low [49], which makes the provision of targeted training difficult to accomplish without international collaboration. ...
... The questionnaire was adapted from research developed, validated, and published under the AWSP [18,54,58]. The original questionnaire, and the adapted one used in this study, were developed in collaboration with researchers from China. ...
Article
Full-text available
Globally, China is one of the largest producers and exporters of meat, and animal welfare is an emerging focal issue for Chinese society and for primary producers. We assessed the effectiveness of a “train the trainer” program to increase awareness of animal welfare issues in stakeholders in the livestock industries of China. Chinese abattoir employees were trained in slaughter and transportation standards in either a classroom setting or using posted materials. They subsequently held training sessions within their own workplace and the participants were surveyed either before (n = 161) or after (n = 147) their training. The post-training group had more confidence to improve the welfare of animals in their care than the pre-training group (p = 0.03), and also scored better on the knowledge section of the survey (p = 0.006) only when the facilitator was trained in the classroom setting. The participants’ knowledge of animal welfare was also affected by living area (p = 0.005) and education (p = 0.005). Participants with the least formal education (to middle school only) scored lower than all other participants. Female respondents reported more positive attitudes towards animal welfare than males (p = 0.009). These results indicate that training can effectively improve stakeholder knowledge on animal welfare during slaughter and transport, however, the mode of delivery has an important influence on learning success, and participant demographics, such as gender and education level, need to be considered when preparing training material.
... An animal has good welfare if its needs are being met and hence it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express important behaviour and not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress' [21]. The survey was based on a previously tested survey tool that aimed to investigate attitudes to animal welfare, along with motivations and barriers to improving animal welfare, and had been used by the same researchers in previous studies [15,22,23]. Some targeted attitude questions were added that sought to identify farmers' attitudes to various welfare-related components of pig and poultry farming systems, whichever was relevant, and to the animals themselves (see survey items in appendix). ...
... Male stakeholders represented 59% of the respondents, females 41% (Table 1), which indicates over-representation of males compared with national data (approximately 53% male, 47% female [23]). Most lived in urban (60%) or rural (40%) zones, the former being similar to the national distribution of urban-zoned residents (59.2% [23]). ...
... Male stakeholders represented 59% of the respondents, females 41% (Table 1), which indicates over-representation of males compared with national data (approximately 53% male, 47% female [23]). Most lived in urban (60%) or rural (40%) zones, the former being similar to the national distribution of urban-zoned residents (59.2% [23]). The majority (71%) were aged 26-45, whereas this age group represents only 50% of the population of China, which overall is older [24]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Although the People’s Republic of China produces more animals for consumption than any other country, very little is known about the attitudes of stakeholders in the livestock industries to animal welfare in farming systems. This study investigated the attitudes of stakeholders in pig and poultry farming in south China towards animal welfare in different farming systems, pig and poultry behaviour, and the inherent value of the animals themselves. Respondents thought welfare was important, particularly if they had worked in the industry a long time, and that they intended to make improvements, even though they also believed it to be generally satisfactory. Outdoor systems were perceived to be better for welfare but indoor systems better for food safety, particularly among respondents that had gained their knowledge from multiple sources. Respondents believed pigs and chickens to have equally important needs, despite the fact that pigs were considered more intelligent than chickens. Pig farmers with outdoor systems had a more positive attitude to making welfare improvements compared with those operating intensive indoor systems. However an absence of enrichment in chicken farms increased respondents’ intentions to make improvements, and these were more likely to occur on small chicken farms. Veterinarians and government officials were more likely to perceive welfare as unsatisfactory or to want change it than those working directly with animals. City residents were more likely to support and express confidence that they could improve animal welfare, compared to rural residents. It is concluded that stakeholders in China’s pig and poultry production industries recognised a need to improve welfare, although they saw a conflict with production of safe food. However, farmers involved in intensive production systems were less likely to perceive a need or capacity to improve welfare than those operating more extensive systems, suggesting a dichotomisation of the people in the industry into those in small and outdoor farms that could and were improving welfare and those in indoor intensive farms who did not envisage this happening.
... The study also examined the cross-cultural differences between these countries and the way that the knowledge had been acquired. Previous work with these stakeholders has examined their intention and ability to enhance animal welfare [26], as well as the differences Table 2. Number of participants in the livestock stakeholders' workshops in each country. ...
... The second section examined the participants' attitude to animal welfare during transport and slaughter, how satisfactory they believed animal welfare to be, whether any improvements at their workplace could be initiated by new legislation or by international monetary gains for their local products [26][27][28]. The attitude questions were grouped into four sections, personal assessment, community assessment, ability to make improvements, all separately identified for slaughter and transport, thereby covering the central components of the theory of Planned Behavior. ...
... The second set of questions investigated the key factors influencing the stakeholders' assessments of animal welfare during slaughter and transport, which included: personal beliefs, relevant laws, the importance of animal welfare within the workplace, community and peers, the benefits of improving animal welfare within the community, workplace and industry, in general and in terms of monetary gain. The thirteen questions also investigated the factors influencing the stakeholders' evaluation, capacity to improve and sources of improvement of animal welfare practices during slaughter and transport [26][27][28]. The final section contained demographic questions: the participants' country, their age, sex, religion and residential region, their role within their industry, how long they have been involved in the industry and how their knowledge was gained (formal, employment or otherwise). ...
Article
Full-text available
The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) sets standards and guidelines for international animal welfare for the international livestock trade. The growing economic advancement in the East and Southeast Asian region suggested the potential benefit of a research study to examine stakeholders’ understanding of animal welfare during the transport and slaughter of livestock. A survey of stakeholders’ knowledge of livestock welfare in the transport and slaughter industries was conducted in four Southeast Asian countries, Malaysia, China, Vietnam and Thailand, in association with trainer and stakeholder workshops conducted in each country. The attitudes of participants towards animal welfare during slaughter and transport were also identified. Knowledge scores were in accordance with the respondents’ assessment of their own knowledge level. The biggest knowledge improvement was among Thai respondents, who tended to be younger and less experienced than in other countries. The respondents with the biggest improvement in knowledge scores were most likely to be involved in the dairy industry and least likely to be involved in the sheep and goat industries, with meat processors and those involved in pig or poultry production intermediate. The respondents who obtained their knowledge from multiple sources had most knowledge, but it increased the least after training. Connections between attitudes to improving animal welfare and knowledge were limited, being mainly confined to ambivalent responses about their attitudes. The study suggests that knowledge can be improved in animal welfare training programs focused on livestock welfare around transport and slaughter, but that local cultural backgrounds must be considered in designing the program.
... Researchers have found that Chinese livestock stakeholders view animal welfare as important (10)(11)(12). While researchers have found that some Chinese livestock stakeholders report an intention to improve animal welfare (13), stakeholders also find it difficult to implement specific improvements (e.g., providing quality bedding, reducing painful procedures) (11). These earlier studies used pre-established definitions of animal welfare (12,14), or researcher-generated categories (e.g., bedding, painful procedures) (11), which may fail to reflect the priorities of participants. ...
... During discussions with participants, using the term "animal welfare" seemed to result in a focus on more conceptual issues, whereas talking about what cattle liked and disliked, what was important to cattle, and what gave cattle a good life, resulted in more focus on the daily care of cattle and more practical issues. This difference may explain why Sinclair et al. (13) found that Chinese industry stakeholders reported high intention and even confidence in improving 'animal welfare, ' while Platto et al. (11) found that Chinese farmers perceived it difficult to address specific management challenges such as "keeping the animals and barns clean." ...
Article
Full-text available
‘Animal welfare' (动物福利) 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 ( n = 13) and participant observations ( n = 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.
... Previous research has examined individual stakeholder attitudes using the theory of planned behavior [22,23], with the assumption that attitudes shape intentions, which in turn dictate behavior [48]. However, intention to change often does not result in actual behavior change [49]. Chinese society is highly collectivist and hierarchical [50], suggesting individual attitudes and intention may play less of a role in shaping behavior within a group context. ...
... Under top-down management systems, animal welfare initiatives may require approval and support of company and farm leaders [49]. For example, Farm B's animal welfare related goals (such as reducing lameness and reducing SCC) were set by the company. ...
Article
Full-text available
Farm management can directly and indirectly affect animal care. We explored how farm management affected animal care on two large dairy farms in China (anonymized as Farm A and Farm B). We used a mini-ethnographic case study design whereby the first author lived for 38 days on Farm A and 23 days on Farm B. She conducted participant observation and ethnographic interviews with farm staff positions within five departments in Farm A and six departments in Farm B. In addition, she conducted 13 semi-structured interviews (seven on Farm A; six on Farm B). We used template analysis to generate key themes. On both farms, workers believed that animal care practices had improved over time, due to three key employee management factors: 1) organizational culture, 2) competency of worker and management, and 3) an effective incentive system. Our results suggest that animal care may be improved in this context by: 1) promoting a culture in which workers have ‘grit’ and are eager to learn, 2) ensuring basic worker wellbeing, and 3) using animal care outcomes as performance indicators linked to pay.
... Groundwork research has been conducted to begin understanding the attitudes of livestock stakeholders [7][8][9], but only a few studies have been recently conducted with Asian stakeholders [10][11][12][13] despite the fact that the majority of livestock are produced there. The importance to finding mutual benefits (or 'mutual gains') with stakeholders has been presented in an international development context [14,15] and in the context of animal welfare [16]. ...
... The remainder of the session content focussed on the benefits to improving welfare, willingness to embrace pre-slaughter stunning, and, pursuant to our earlier surveys, achieving a better understanding of the motivators to seek to improve animal welfare [10][11][12][13]16,17]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The welfare of farm animals has been the focus of increasing international interest, however, the movement has had little engagement with livestock leaders who are, arguably, the stakeholders in the position most able to make decisions that impact on animal welfare at critical times. Previous studies have drawn attention to the need to engage in constructive collaborations with the livestock industry for the betterment of animal welfare, and to uncover mutual benefits for both stakeholders and proponents of animal welfare with which collaborations can be motivated. This study aimed to continue this need to understand leaders in livestock management, by consulting their opinions as to what constitutes the most critical animal welfare issues during farming and slaughter, and what they see as some of the solutions to begin addressing livestock welfare issues in their country. Seventeen focus group sessions were held with 139 leaders in livestock industries in six diverse countries in Asia, including China, India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Bangladesh. Leaders included government representatives, key academics in agriculture, and business managers and leaders within the domestic animal agriculture industries, as relevant to each country. After conducting thematic analysis and applying basic statistical measures, the findings suggest that solutions within the themes of education, training, and awareness are most valued. However, how each of these could be best addressed varied by country. The need for local research and local solutions also contributed to the most frequent opportunities, as did the requirement for prescriptive and consistent standards and expectations. A ranking of animal welfare issues is presented, as is a selection of suggested animal welfare initiatives resulting from the findings of this study.
... Different surveys to assess the attitudes towards animal welfare of different animal industry stakeholders have been carried out in China in the past [17,19,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47], including some on college students [13,[48][49][50]. College students-particularly those from veterinary, animal, agricultural, and life sciences majors-represent the future generation of professionals who will work closely with animal industry stakeholders who will be influenced on how animals will be raised and treated. ...
Article
Full-text available
Understanding the attitude of stakeholders towards animals is critical for the development and improvement of animal welfare in a country. College students from veterinary, animal, and life sciences majors represent future key stakeholders that will interact with professionals from animal industries. Therefore, it is critical to understand these college students’ attitudes towards animals and their knowledge about animal welfare. The present survey aimed to investigate Chinese college students’ concerns towards different animal classes (i.e., pets, farm, laboratory, and wild animals) through the animal Sentient and Five Freedoms models. Chinese college students from different majors (i.e., related to animal sciences or not) scored very well in their attitude towards both the animal Sentient and Five Freedoms models, with differences depending on the animal class considered. Pets (dogs and cats) had better consideration for both animal Sentient and Five Freedoms models, followed by wild animals, while farm and laboratory animals were less considered. Veterinary science major students showed the strongest differences in attitudes depending on the animal classes considered compared to other majors. Furthermore, respondents showed better attitude scoring if they currently owned or had owned animals, had participated in animal welfare courses, or in laboratory work that involved animals. When compared to previous studies, our results suggest a general improvement of Chinese college students’ attitudes towards animals
Article
Full-text available
Understanding cross-cultural differences in attitudes to animal welfare issues is important in maintaining good international relations, including economic and trade relations. This study aimed to investigate the attitudes of stakeholders towards improving the welfare of animals during slaughter and transport in four key SE and E Asian countries: China, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia. Logistic regression analysis of the associations between demographic factors and attitudes identified nationality as the most significant factor influencing attitude. Motivating factors for improving welfare were ranked according to their importance: religion, knowledge levels, monetary gain, availability of tools and resources, community issues, approval of supervisor and peers. Strong beliefs in the influence of animal welfare laws, the power of the workplace and the importance of personal knowledge were shared by all countries. In addition, religion and peer consideration were significantly associated with attitudes in Malaysia and Thailand, respectively. The findings of this research will assist in the development of international animal welfare initiatives.
Article
Full-text available
In an increasingly global landscape, NFP (not-for-profit) initiatives including those addressing animal protection, are increasingly operating cross-borders. Doing so without respect, local engagement, and a thorough understanding of the issues of concern is fraught with danger, and potentially wasteful of resources. To this purpose, we sought to understand attitudes to the importance of 13 major world social issues in relation to animal protection (including reducing poverty, racial, LGBT and gender equality, environmental protection, sustainable development, genetic engineering and capital punishment) by surveying 3433 students from at least 103 universities across 12 nations. The emergence of a ‘nature trifecta’ was suggested, with animal and environmental protection and sustainable development recurring as the most highly rated in importance across all countries, with these issues also consistently rating amongst the highest in each individual country. It is concluded that significant differences exist between attributed importance of world issues by nation, pointing towards the benefit of tailoring NFP (including animal protection) initiatives by country and region. It is also suggested that nation, or more specifically, sociopolitical and cultural region, is a vitally important demographic for consideration in social development.
Article
Full-text available
Simple Summary Improving stakeholder attitudes to livestock welfare may help to facilitate the better welfare that is increasingly demanded by the public for livestock. Knowledge of the existing attitudes towards the welfare of livestock during transport and slaughter provides a starting point that may help to target efforts. We compared the attitudes of different stakeholders within the livestock industries in east (E) and southeast (SE) Asia. Farmers were more motivated to improve animal welfare during transport and slaughter by peer pressure, business owners by monetary gain, and business managers by what is prescribed by their company. Veterinarians showed the most support for improving animal welfare. The results suggest that the role that stakeholders play in their sector of the livestock industry must be considered when attempting to change attitudes towards animal welfare during transport and slaughter. Abstract Stakeholders in the livestock industry are in a position to make critical choices that directly impact on animal welfare during slaughter and transport. Understanding the attitudes of stakeholders in livestock-importing countries, including factors that motivate the stakeholders to improve animal welfare, can lead to improved trade relations with exporting developed countries and improved animal welfare initiatives in the importing countries. Improving stakeholder attitudes to livestock welfare may help to facilitate the better welfare that is increasingly demanded by the public for livestock. Knowledge of the existing attitudes towards the welfare of livestock during transport and slaughter provides a starting point that may help to target efforts. This study aimed to investigate the animal welfare attitudes of livestock stakeholders (farmers, team leaders, veterinarians, business owners, business managers, and those working directly with animals) in selected countries in E and SE Asia (China, Thailand, Viet Nam, and Malaysia). The factors that motivated them to improve animal welfare (in particular their religion, knowledge levels, monetary gain, the availability of tools and resources, more pressing community issues, and the approval of their supervisor and peers) were assessed for their relationships to stakeholder role and ranked according to their importance. Stakeholder roles influenced attitudes to animal welfare during livestock transport and slaughter. Farmers were more motivated by their peers compared to other stakeholders. Business owners reported higher levels of motivation from monetary gain, while business managers were mainly motivated by what was prescribed by the company for which they worked. Veterinarians reported the highest levels of perceived approval for improving animal welfare, and all stakeholder groups were least likely to be encouraged to change by a ‘western’ international organization. This study demonstrates the differences in attitudes of the major livestock stakeholders towards their animals’ welfare during transport and slaughter, which advocacy organisations can use to tailor strategies more effectively to improve animal welfare. The results suggest that animal welfare initiatives are more likely to engage their target audience when tailored to specific stakeholder groups.
Article
Full-text available
The Five Freedoms have had major impact on animal welfare thinking internationally. However, despite clear initial statements that the words ‘freedom from’ should indicate ‘as free as possible from’, the Freedoms have come to be represented as absolute or fundamental freedoms, even rights, by some animal advocate and other groups. Moreover, a marked increase in scientific understanding over the last two decades shows that the Freedoms do not capture the more nuanced knowledge of the biological processes that is germane to understanding animal welfare and which is now available to guide its management. For example, the named negative experiences of thirst, hunger, discomfort and pain, and others identified subsequently, including breathlessness, nausea, dizziness, debility, weakness and sickness, can never be eliminated, merely temporarily neutralised. Each one is a genetically embedded element that motivates animals to behave in particular ways to obtain specific life-sustaining resources, avoid or reduce physical harm or facilitate recovery from infection or injury. Their undoubted negativity creates a necessary sense of urgency to respond, without which animals would not survive. Also, the temporary neutralisation of these survival-critical affects does not in and of itself generate positive experience. This questions the commonly held assumption that good animal welfare will result when these internally generated negative affects are minimised. Animals may also experience other negative affects that include anxiety, fear, panic, frustration, anger, helplessness, loneliness, boredom and depression. These situation-related affects reflect animals’ perceptions of their external circumstances. Although they are elicited by threatening, cramped, barren and/or isolated conditions, they can often be replaced by positive affects when animals are kept with congenial others in spacious, stimulus-rich and safe environments which provide opportunities for them to engage in behaviours they find rewarding. These behaviours may include environment-focused exploration and food acquisition activities as well as animal-to-animal interactive activities, all of which can generate various forms of comfort, pleasure, interest, confidence and a sense of control. Animal welfare management should aim to reduce the intensity of survival-critical negative affects to tolerable levels that nevertheless still elicit the required behaviours, and should also provide opportunities for animals to behave in ways they find rewarding, noting that poor management of survival-critical affects reduces animals’ motivation to utilize such rewarding opportunities. This biologically more accurate understanding provides support for reviewing the adequacy of provisions in current codes of welfare or practice in order to ensure that animals are given greater opportunities to experience positive welfare states. The purpose is to help animals to have lives worth living, which is not possible when the predominant focus of such codes is on survival-critical measures. Finally, an updated characterisation of animal welfare that incorporates this more accurate understanding is presented.
Chapter
Full-text available
The book is a compilation of articles on the effect of animal transport on the food safety and quality, health and welfare of livestock animals for agricultural and processing industry. The implication of long distance transport of animals for slaughter is highlighted. Topics discussed are: science of animal welfare; economics; physiology of diseases; legislation; meat quality; enforcement of transportation regulation; and welfare of livestock during sea and road transport with emphasis on countries such as Africa, North America, South America, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Europe and Middle East. This book is intended for researchers, students, veterinarians, animal scientists, livestock producers, and policy makers.
Article
Full-text available
Economic activities are not conducted in a vacuum; external factors may influence production efficiency, and the activity itself may also result in positive or negative impacts. Although disregarding animal welfare aspects appears to hurt only animals that are harmed as a consequence, banning animal torture is as significant a social interest as combating environmental pollution. Therefore, countries and relevant organisations of certain countries (such as the European Union) regulate via provisions the enforcement of animal welfare aspects with regard to economic activities. Below, economic activities covered by animal welfare regulations and the impacts of animal welfare requirements on economic efficiency will be analysed. In most cases, fulfilling such requirements imposes higher costs for the company at issue and, thus, has an inflationary effect on prices similar to levying a tax. As a consequence, animal welfare regulations generally jolt enterprises from the usual minimum cost-maximum return intersection, so animal protection may appear costly at first. However, in the long term in most cases, they do not bring lower revenues because applying the new ‒ often more expensive ‒ method or technology boosts productivity and because the loss of competitors due to compliance failure may increase the market share for complying companies. The consumers' behaviour is a paradox: on one hand, they are becoming more and more aware of the environmental impacts of their daily lives, whereas on the other hand, concern for the ethical treatment of animals does not always mean changes in purchasing habits. If we look at the production side, animal healthcare statistics prove that the large majority of losses in livestock breeding (mortality, compulsory slaughtering, diseases, poor reproduction and body mass index (BMI) results, medical expenses, etc.) are not caused by obligate pathogens. Most losses are the direct result of diseases due to unfavourable conditions related to animal breeding, feeding and raising or other external factors (power failure, damages from hail, etc.). Through the appropriate keeping and adequate care of animals, sensible animal welfare attitudes and practices may prevent material losses.
Article
Full-text available
Despite their ethical intentions, ethically minded consumers rarely purchase ethical products (Auger and Devinney: 2007, Journal of Business Ethics 76, 361–383). This intentions–behaviour gap is important to researchers and industry, yet poorly understood (Belk et al.: 2005, Consumption, Markets and Culture 8(3), 275–289). In order to push the understanding of ethical consumption forward, we draw on what is known about the intention–behaviour gap from the social psychology and consumer behaviour literatures and apply these insights to ethical consumerism. We bring together three separate insights – implementation intentions (Gollwitzer: 1999, American Psychologist 54(7), 493–503), actual behavioural control (ABC) (Ajzen and Madden: 1986, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22, 453–474; Sheeran et al.: 2003, Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 393–410) and situational context (SC) (Belk: 1975, Journal of Consumer Research 2, 157–164) – to construct an integrated, holistic conceptual model of the intention–behaviour gap of ethically minded consumers. This holistic conceptual model addresses significant limitations within the ethical consumerism literature, and moves the understanding of ethical consumer behaviour forward. Further, the operationalisation of this model offers insight and strategic direction for marketing managers attempting to bridge the intention–behaviour gap of the ethically minded consumer. Keywordsactual behavioural control-consumer ethics-ethical consumerism-implementation intentions-intention–behaviour gap-perceived behavioural control-situational context-theory of planned behaviour-word–deed gap
Article
Full-text available
Communicative and compliance behaviors of subjects working in three-person groups were predicted. Consistent with Fishbein's modified version of Dulany's theory of propositional control, subjects' intentions to perform these behaviors correlated highly with their attitudes toward the behaviors and with their normative beliefs about the behaviors, multiplied by their motivation to comply with the norms. Behavioral intentions correlated significantly with behavior, although intervening events were found to attenuate the intention-behavior relation. Measuring intentions after these intervening events had occurred, or taking the intervening events into account, was shown to improve behavioral prediction. These findings were compared with prediction of behavior from traditional attitude measures.