Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Animals 2020, 10, 540; doi:10.3390/ani10030540 www.mdpi.com/journal/animals
Article
Farm Animal Welfare Science in China—A
Bibliometric Review of Chinese Literature
Michelle Sinclair *, Yu Zhang, Kris Descovich and Clive J.C. Phillips
Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton,
QLD 4343, Australia; yu.zhang2014@gmail.com (Y.Z.); k.descovich1@uq.edu.au (K.D.);
c.phillips@uq.edu.au (C.J.C.P.)
*Correspondence: m.sinclair6@uq.edu.au
Received: 18 March 2020; Accepted: 19 March 2020; Published: 24 March 2020
Simple Summary: For animal welfare scientists and advocates who operate in English, it may be
assumed that animal welfare is not an area that receives attention within China; coupled with an
awareness that China has not yet opted to enact animal welfare legislation, the reason for this
assumption may also be in part due to the perceived lack of animal welfare literature coming from
the country. Operating under the hypothesis that animal welfare literature emanating from China
may have instead been published in Chinese, rather than English, this study reports the finding of a
systematic search of Chinese animal welfare literature on Chinese databases. We searched for articles
and research publications released in a recent 10-year period, specifically related to the welfare of the
two most commonly farmed land-based animals in China; pigs and chickens, and identified 854
academic publications. In order to facilitate an understanding of Chinese scientific priorities in the
field, we further categorised the identified literature into broader approximate categories of welfare
freedoms (eg, freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom to express natural behavior). The
identification of a significant animal welfare literature represents an opportunity to increase
collaboration with Chinese partners by identifying areas of mutual interest, and to share mutually
beneficial knowledge more readily. This could be sustained by increasing the accessibility of Chinese
literature to English speakers, and to English literature to Chinese speakers.
Abstract: Farm animal welfare in the People’s Republic of China (henceforth, China) is not well
represented in the international scientific literature. This may lead researchers, advocates and those
with agricultural partnerships in China to assume that animal welfare is not a field of interest there.
This study reports a literature review of published pig and poultry welfare research in China using
Chinese scientific databases. We aimed to determine which areas of welfare research have recently
received academic attention in China. From an understanding of areas being studied, current and
emerging priority areas for research could be determined. This study identified 854 academic
publications citing pig or chicken welfare in China published between 2008 and 2018. Within these
publications, two broader areas of significant attention were addressed in the context of animal
welfare; yield and product quality, such as feeding, biosecurity and antimicrobial resistance, including
immunity and second, the relationship of animal welfare with the Chinese philosophy of ‘ecological
agriculture.’ Holistic systems were advocated to maximize sustainability and maintain a healthy
environment, such as the creation of fermented bedding for pigs. Environmental enrichment was also
a focus of attention, demonstrating an interest in animals’ mental welfare, which was usually
conjectured from their behavior. Few of the articles were translated into English or other languages
and therefore most were largely unavailable to the English-speaking global scientific community. This
presents an opportunity to provide relevant animal welfare knowledge, which could improve animal
welfare globally. China is a global animal trade leader and the home of the largest agricultural
industries in the world. An increase in collaboration on animal welfare research and understanding
Animals 2020, 10, 540 2 of 21
of the advancements that have been made in China, as reviewed in this manuscript, could advance
farm animal welfare from a global perspective.
Keywords: animal welfare; China; science; bibliometric review; livestock production; Asia; pigs;
poultry
1. Introduction
The People’s Republic of China (henceforth China) has no single legal framework outlining key
responsibilities for the welfare and protection of animals [1]. However, since being introduced to
mainland China in the 1900s, the concept of ‘animal welfare’ is beginning to be recognized, recently
expedited by a growing economy and information accessibility and domestic reform that allows
participation in social debate [1]. Before the current growth in prosperity in China [2], animal welfare
was generally considered less important than other social issues, such as poverty reduction and
improving human welfare. Today it is gaining more attention and generating more discussion in
Chinese society [3]. As a similar concept, animal protection ranks amongst the most important social
progress movements in China, according to Chinese university students, alongside environmental
protection and sustainable development [4].
The concept of good welfare for animals is linked to the wider Chinese concept of ‘ecological
agriculture’; providing animals with improved health, nutrition and natural conditions that encourage
increased productivity, increased profit, as well as being perceived to improve product quality,
including taste [5]. Some Chinese livestock companies, such as Guangdong Dexing, Inner Mongolia
Yili Industrial Group, Shandong Tuhe Food Co. Ltd and BenLai Group, have responded to the increase
in concern for animal welfare by focusing efforts on the supply of products with improved welfare
policies [6–9]. Likewise, one of the largest global food production companies, the Chinese section of CP
International, has implemented improved welfare policy and practices in response to increasing
consumer concern for animals [10]. ‘Animal welfare’ is also receiving attention from Chinese national
governing bodies and authorities, with the establishment of the International Collaborative Committee
for Animal Welfare (ICCAW) in 2013. ICCAW is engaged in drafting animal welfare standards and
serves as a conduit between international animal welfare non-government organizations, the Chinese
livestock community and the central China government [11]. Furthermore, an annual farm animal
welfare conference was established in 2016 by the Chinese Government, to promote the improvement
of animal welfare in China through the assembly of domestic and international leaders in livestock
production, livestock welfare science, animal advocacy and government policy advisors that have
interests in animal welfare [3].
The concept of animal welfare, as it is understood in Europe, Australia/New Zealand and North
America, is still relatively new in China, highlighted by the fact that there is still no clear translation for
the term in Mandarin Chinese [12]. In addition, farming practices that have been phased out in other
nations for animal welfare reasons remain commonplace in China, such as the use of battery cages for
egg-laying chickens [13], sow stalls [14] and teeth trimming of pigs [15]. While approximately 50% of
farms in China are still small scale (e.g. fewer than 500 pigs on a single farm), in which the animals are
kept in environments that could be considered more natural, the trend is moving towards large scale,
intensive farming operations with complex and highly industrialized farming systems as part of a
supply chain [16].
Demand for meat is growing worldwide, as a result of population growth and growing
affordability of meat in developing country markets [17]. In China, the demand for the main terrestrial
animal products (pork, beef, mutton, poultry and eggs) has expanded from 7 kg per capita in 1978 to
25 kg per capita by 2010 [17], with demands forecast to continue increasing exponentially to 55 kg per
capita by 2026 [18]. In line with this trend, China’s poultry production has increased most, to an annual
Animals 2020, 10, 540 3 of 21
output of 19 million tons [19]. To meet this demand further intensification will be required and
continued movement towards large scale farms. This has the potential to further jeopardize the welfare
of production animals and challenge China’s traditional interest in ‘ecological agriculture.’ Balancing
these challenges, while safeguarding animal welfare and economic return, is complex and particularly
important because the nation produces more farm animals than any other; 39% of total global
production by number [20].
Animal welfare in China is best addressed with Chinese solutions, rather than solutions designed
by international organizations and dictated by global trends [21]. Nevertheless, the welfare of the
animals raised and slaughtered in China is of key interest to trading partners that receive exported
produce, particularly those in regions with more stringent animal welfare legislation, practices and
expectations [22]. Likewise, the welfare of animals in all countries remains of major importance to those
organizations who advocate for animals, including within China. Despite the growing significance of
animal welfare within China, the prominence of Chinese agriculture on the global stage and the
importance of continued good relationships with international trading partners; little knowledge is
available outside of China regarding the state of animal welfare within the nation, and many have a
low opinion of Chinese standards [23]. With this lack of knowledge may come an assumption that the
state of animal welfare across China has not progressed, and that in some cases cruelty is commonplace.
However, good intentions for the welfare of animals have been evident in Chinese literature for
centuries. Sixth century literature ‘Qimin Yaoshu’ is one example, and 14
th
century author Wangzhen
Nongshu, specifically cited the need for compassion towards animals [3], albeit both written with
regard to the value and productivity of animals for humans.
In many countries with high welfare standards, reform has been fueled by, and based on, animal
welfare science. One example of this can be seen in the findings of the Scientific Veterinary Committee
of the European Union, which concluded that serious animal welfare concerns existed for sows in even
the best gestation stalls, ultimately resulting in the ban of the system across the European Member
States in 2003 [24]. The potentially inaccurate perception that animal welfare is not of interest or concern
in China is, at least partially, likely to be influenced by a lack of empirical Chinese animal welfare
scientific literature. However, English is the current dominant language of science [25] and commonly
used scientific databases are skewed towards English-language journals [26]. This limits the recognition
and accessibility of research published in other languages [27]. Relevant studies conducted in China
and literature published in Chinese are likely to be infrequently encountered or accessed by the wider
scientific community. For this reason, a catalogue of existing animal welfare literature in Chinese and
a review of the primary focus of this literature, could serve as a useful tool in better understanding the
state of animal welfare in the nation. Furthermore, it could also assist in identifying areas that may
benefit from development domestically, with international collaborative support where suitable. It may
also serve to identify mutual areas of interest and foster more productive and collaborative
relationships; delivering more successful initiatives for improved animal welfare.
China is a global animal trade leader as well as an important global economic power and the home
of the largest animal production industries in the world [20]. Animal agriculture is a particularly
important industry for the country, which is likely to continue to increase in importance, alongside
crop yields, as the world moves further into anticipated increased food demand [28,29]. It is therefore
important that aspects of sustainability, including animal welfare within the pillar of socio-cultural
sustainability, are recognized and developed [30,31]. It would be of great utility for China to
understand the improved animal welfare practices of international partners and for international
partners to understand where the Chinese animal welfare focus has been placed in the past. This study
aims to support this endeavor by firstly investigating the reported focus of farm animal welfare science
by Chinese scientists, secondly, to quantify the extent of Chinese scientists’ attention to this topic.
Lastly, this study aims to identify the extent to which knowledge around animal welfare in China is
considered accessible, transferable or shared internationally. To do this, we have conducted a search of
chicken and pig scientific literature relevant to animal welfare, created and analysed a library
containing this literature.
Animals 2020, 10, 540 4 of 21
2. Method
2.1. Literature Search Strategy
Literature published between 2008 and 2018 was searched between September and October 2018.
This review was conducted by one of the authors (Y.Z.), a Mandarin-speaking Chinese national but
also fluent in English and holding a PhD in animal welfare science from an Australian university. The
review was focused on chickens and pigs, the two most commonly farmed terrestrial animals in China.
The databases used in the search were three Chinese retrieval platforms—VIP Chinese Journal
Database (VIP), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Data—and one
English database, Web of Science. The following search terms were used—[“猪” or “鸡”] and [“福利”
or “康乐”] in the topic for the Chinese databases. The following search terms were used—[“pig” or
“swine” or “sow” or “boar,” “piglet” or “poultry” or “chicken” or “broiler” or “hen” or “egg layer” or
“egg-layer” or “domestic fowl”] and [“welfare” or “well-being” or “wellbeing”] in the topic for the
English database and “China” in the address.
Inclusion criteria used for literature selection were the following—full text articles published in
journals or as dissertations; directly related to pig or chicken welfare; Chinese studies or originating
internationally but translated to Chinese; affiliations of the first or more authors had to be in China. In
total, 505 studies on pig welfare and 349 studies on poultry welfare were identified from the literature
search (Appendix 1).
2.2. Data
E
xtraction and Analysis
Initially two categories were used to classify each item (paper or dissertation). Then each paper or
dissertation was assigned to ten primary categories (Table 1). The central primary categories were
based on the ‘Five Freedoms’—Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; Freedom from
discomfort and exposure; Freedom from pain, injury and disease; Freedom to express most normal
behavior; and Freedom from fear and distress [32,33]. Research items were further categorized by
secondary characteristics, treatment factors and measurement variables. Secondary subcategories were
created when three or more publications were found to have a similar focus. Subcategories were not
mutually exclusive, so a single research item could be included in more than one subcategory. The
number of publications in each category was recorded. To further investigate the accessibility of
Chinese pig or poultry welfare knowledge, the number of publications available in English and the
number of non-Chinese publications translated into Chinese were recorded under each primary
category.
To identify which age of animals and production stage received the most scientific focus, this
information was extracted from the compiled catalogue. Age of commercial meat chicken, with three
fixed age categories and age of commercial egg-laying chicken, with four fixed categories, were based
on the definitions by the National Research Council (1994) [34]. Growth phases of pigs reared for meat
and production stages of pigs used for breeding were defined according to Food and Drug
Administration (2015) [35] and Compassion in World Farming (2019) [36] categories.
To determine whether the number of publications changed over time, a Pearson’s Correlation test
was conducted in R (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria 2009) statistical software in the RStudio interface
(RStudio Team, Boston, MA, USA, 2015), with the total number of publications as the dependent
variable and year of publication as the independent variable. The final year (2018) was excluded from
the analysis as some publications from that year may not have been indexed in databases at the time of
data collection. Assumptions for the correlation were checked using Shapiro-Wilk tests for normality
of the variables and scatterplot inspection for homoscedasticity and outliers.
Table 1. Description of categories and subcategories for literature classification.
# Primary Category of Publication Subcategory
1 Feed/diet/nutrition
Animals 2020, 10, 540 5 of 21
Freedom from hunger, thirst and
malnutrition
Water
2
Freedom from discomfort and exposure
Environment impact and control
Integrated rearing management
3
Freedom from pain, injury and disease
Pain
Injury or disease
Prevention and control
4
Freedom to express normal behavior
Non-experimental article on behavior
Technology for behavior monitoring or analysis
Behavior research
5 Freedom from fear and distress
Non-experimental article on psychological welfare
Measurement of fear responses
6 Welfare assessment & indicators
Welfare assessment
Welfare indicators
7 Welfare during loading, unloading,
transport or slaughter
Non-experimental article on welfare during
loading, unloading, transport or slaughter
Welfare during loading or unloading
Welfare during transport
Welfare during slaughter
8 Public or farmers' knowledge or attitudes
towards pig welfare
Knowledge or attitude of pig farmers and farm staff
Knowledge or attitude of consumers
Knowledge or attitude of public
9 Non-experimental article on welfare
Non-experimental article on welfare
Non-experimental article on stress impact
10 Welfare-related genetics and breeding
Genetic improvement and breeding
Genetic research
3. Results
In total, 854 articles, published between 2008 and 2018 were identified as relevant to the welfare
of pigs (n = 505) or chickens (n = 349) in the Chinese scientific literature (Figure 1). Over that time period
(excluding 2018) there was a significant increase in the number of publications per year (r(8) = 0.90, p <
0.001)).
Animals 2020, 10, 540 6 of 21
Figure 1. Chinese animal welfare literature published on chickens and pigs from 2008-2018.
The most common topic categories from the collected dataset were “Rearing systems,” “Disease
treatment and prevention” and “Normal behavior” (Figure 2). The least common topics were “Fear
and distress” and “Stakeholder knowledge and attitudes.”
Some similarities and differences in topic occurrence were apparent between the pig and chicken
literature (Figure 2, Tables 2 and 3). Of the pig literature collected, a large percentage was on “integrated
management” (30.9%), particularly the secondary sub-category of “rearing methods” (12.7%), as well
as “environmental management” (28.1%) and “injury and disease” (15.1%), with secondary
subcategories of “immunity” (14.5%)) and “bedding” (9.1%) (Table 2). Behavior was also commonly
studied (14.5%), with a predominant focus on general activity such as lying, standing and sitting, but
abnormal behavior was also relatively frequently studied. Topics that were not common within the pig
literature dataset included “affective states,” “stakeholder attitudes and knowledge” and “genetics” –
all comprising less than 2% each of the pig literature collated (Table 2).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Number of articles
Year of publication
Chicken
Pig
Animals 2020, 10, 540 7 of 21
Figure 2. Topic categories of Chinese animal welfare literature on chickens and pigs. The total for each
species adds up to more than 100% as categories were not mutually exclusive.
The literature on chickens also had a similar focus on “integrated management” (38.4%),
“environmental management” (33.0%) and “rearing” (19.8%) (Table 3). Health-related topics such as
“disease and injuries” (28.4%) or their prevention (17.5%) were relatively frequent, with specific focal
topics including “feather loss” (10.3%) and “immunity” (13.2%) (Table 3). Behavior was a focus of the
chicken literature (22.3%) which included both general behavior as well as abnormal/undesirable
behavior such as “aggression” (5.4%) and behavioral indicators of health, for example, “gait score”
(11.2%).
In contrast to the pig literature, bedding was infrequently studied (1.2%) in chickens. Chicken-
based research on affective states and stakeholder attitudes/knowledge were uncommon (4.0% and
0.9%, respectively). Literature on painful management procedures such as beak trimming was present
but uncommon (1.2%) and the related topic of pain relief was absent (Table 3).
0
20
40
60
Percentage of articles
Categories
Chickens
Pigs
Animals 2020, 10, 540 8 of 21
Table 2. Summary of pig welfare research in Chinese (N= number of publications).
Primary Category
N
Primary subcategory
N
Secondary subcategory
N
1. Freedom from hunger, thirst and
malnutrition 58 Feed/diet/nutrition 53
Functional feeds or ingredients, including feed additives
22
Feeding strategies
6
Green feed
6
Low-protein diet
3
Mineral nutrition
3
Nutritional management
3
Water
5
2. Freedom from discomfort and
exposure 241
Integrated management 156
Pig rearing method (incl. use of fermented bedding (45))
64
Feeding and management of pigs
31
Monitoring systems
18
Stocking density or space allowance
10
Tail docking
8
International systems
7
Teeth clipping
6
Artificial insemination
5
Castration
5
Group size
4
Mixing groups
4
Weaning piglet management
4
Pre-weaning piglet management
3
Environmental management and
control 142
Bedding (incl. fermented bedding (45))
46
Environmental enrichment
34
Design of pig house and rearing facility
23
Environmental assessment
18
Environmental control
12
Floor type
7
Temperature, humidity
7
Ventilation and air quality
9
Non-experimental article on environmental impact and control
4
Lighting
3
3. Freedom from pain, injury and
disease 123 Injury or disease 76
Body injury (incl. skin lesions (22) and tail injury (9))
25
Lameness, limb-and-hoof disease or injury
17
Piglet diarrhea
9
Respiratory or lung disease/damage
8
Hernia
6
Incidence rate of diseases
6
Arthritis
4
Classical Swine Fever
4
Gastric diseases
3
Hemophilus parasuis
3
Animals 2020, 10, 540 9 of 21
Neurological disorder
3
Non-experimental article on disease
3
Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome
3
Prevention and control 73
Immunity (incl. indicators of immune response (41))
48
Specific disease detection technology and treatment
11
Non-experimental article on causes of diseases, prevention, control
8
Medicine
6
Pain
3
4. Freedom to express normal
behavior 85
Behavior research 73
Lying
39
Standing
35
Sitting
27
Aggressive behavior
26
Drinking
25
Biting behavior (incl. tail (13), ear (5), bar (8), trough biting (2))
23
Feeding
20
Elimination
18
Exploratory behavior
18
Abnormal behavior (incl. sham chewing (15))
18
Social behavior (incl. positive and negative social behavior)
11
Walking
11
Huddling
10
Playing
10
Manipulating behavior (with pen, pen mate, straw, toy)
8
Resting
6
Suckling
6
Sleeping
5
Vocalizing
5
Object licking
4
Nursing behavior
4
Rooting
4
Rubbing
4
Sow posture change
4
Maternal infanticide
3
Nest-building
3
Tongue rolling/playing
3
Technology for behavior
monitoring or analysis
10
Non-experimental article on
behavior
7
5. Freedom from fear and distress 2
Measurement of fear response
1
Non-experimental article on
psychological welfare
1
6. Welfare assessment & indicators
16
Welfare indicators
10
Biomarkers
3
Animals 2020, 10, 540 10 of 21
Welfare assessment
7
7. Welfare during loading,
unloading, transport or slaughter 27
Welfare during slaughter 13
Slaughter with or without stunning
8
Pre-slaughter impact and strategy for reducing stress
5
Welfare during transport 12
Impact of transport stress and strategy for reducing stress
9
Specific transport stressor
3
Non-experimental article on
welfare during loading,
unloading, transport or slaughter
2
Welfare during loading or
unloading
1
8. Public or farmers' knowledge or
attitude on pig welfare 10
Knowledge or attitude of pig
farmers and farm staffs
6
Knowledge or attitude of
consumers
3
Knowledge or attitude of public
1
9. Non-experimental article on
welfare 79
Non-experimental article on
welfare
59
Non-experimental article on
welfare related strategy,
technology, facility and
equipment
18
Non-experimental article on
stress impact
3
10. Welfare related genetic and
breeding 15
Genetic improvement and
breeding
6 Stress resistance 3
Genetic research
9
Genome-wide association study linked to diseases
6
Animals 2020, 10, 540 11 of 21
Table 3. Summary of chicken welfare research in Chinese (N= number of publications)
Primary Category
N
Primary subcategory
N
Secondary subcategory
N
1. Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition 39 Feed/diet/nutrition 38
Feed additives
17
Nutritional management
12
Feeding strategy and management
7
Non-experimental article on feed, diet and nutrition
4
Water
3
2. Freedom from discomfort and exposure 215
Environment impact and control 115
Environmental enrichment
33
Lighting
24
Temperature, humidity
23
Environmental control
15
Air quality, ventilation and ammonia
15
Non-experimental article on environmental impact and
control
6
Bedding
4
Environment assessment
4
Integrated rearing management 134
Chicken rearing systems
69
Stocking density
29
Equipment and technology for rearing management
14
Rearing management of broilers
8
Breeding mode
7
Beak trimming
4
Rearing management of chicks
4
Rearing management of layers
3
3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease 129
Injury or disease 99
Feather loss
36
Foot pad injury
35
Lameness and leg disease or injury
31
Feather pecking
17
Feather cleanliness score
13
Fluctuating asymmetry of legs, wings and tibias
13
Breast disease
10
Beak disease or injury
7
Claw condition including toe damage
6
Skin wounds
5
Organ damage
4
Abnormality of the keel
3
Ocular health
3
Skeleton disease or injury
3
Prevention and control 61
Immunity (incl. indicators of immune response (44))
46
Non-experimental article on causes of diseases, prevention
and control
7
Specific disease detection technology and treatment
6
Animals 2020, 10, 540 12 of 21
Biosecurity
3
4. Freedom to express normal behavior 82 Behavior research 80
Feeding
43
Gait score
39
Drinking
38
Standing
32
Preening
29
Walking
27
Lying
24
Pecking
23
Perching
17
Sand bathing
16
Foraging
14
Tonic immobility
14
Panting
12
Wing flapping
12
Stretching
10
Aggression
19
Resting
9
Shaking
9
Vocalizing
8
Nesting
7
Wing lifting
7
Exploratory activity
6
Scratching
6
Head movement
5
Running
4
Sitting
4
Non-experimental article on
behavior
2
5. Freedom from fear and distress
14
Measurement of fear response
14
6. Welfare assessment and indicators 21
Welfare indicators
16
Non-experimental article on welfare indicators
13
Welfare assessment
5
7. Welfare during loading, unloading, transport or
slaughter 19
Welfare during slaughter 13
Pre-slaughter impact and strategy for reducing stress
7
Slaughter with stunning
3
Welfare during transport 8
Impact of transport stress and strategy for reducing stress
7
Specific transport stressor
4
Welfare during loading or
unloading
1
8. Public or farmers' attitude 3 Knowledge or attitude of
chicken farmers and farm staffs
2
Knowledge or attitude of public
1
9. Non-experimental article on welfare 31 Non-experimental article on
welfare
28
Animals 2020, 10, 540 13 of 21
Non-experimental article on
welfare related strategy,
technology, facility and
equipment
3
10. Welfare related genetic and breeding 18
Genetic improvement and
breeding
12 Stress resistance 7
Non-experimental article on genetic improvement and
breeding
3
Genetic research
6
Genome-wide association study linked to diseases
4
Animals 2020, 10, 540 14 of 21
All of the literature published was available in written Chinese, however a subset was also
available in another language. In total, 23.3% of pig-focused articles were available in both Chinese
and a second language and the same was true for 31.8% of chicken-focused articles relevant. For both
species, dual-language items were mostly focused around environmental control, animal discomfort,
rearing, pain/injury/disease and normal behavior (Table 4).
Table 4. Transfer and accessibility of animal welfare literature: publications translated from written
Chinese into English or from another language into Chinese.
Primary Focus Area - Pigs
Chinese
→English
Other Language
→Chinese
1
Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition
2
19
2
Freedom from discomfort and exposure
23
16
2a
Environment impact and control
12
4
2b
Integrated rearing management
14
12
3
Freedom from pain, injury and disease
22
14
4
Freedom to express normal behavior
24
10
5
Freedom from fear and distress
1
0
6
Welfare assessment and indicators
4
4
7
Welfare during loading, unloading transport or slaughter
6
4
7a
Welfare during loading or unloading
0
1
7b
Welfare during transport
4
0
7c
Welfare during slaughter
2
3
8
Public or farmers' attitude
2
3
9
Non-experimental article on welfare
0
4
9a
Non-experimental article on welfare (subcategory)
0
3
9b Non-experimental article on welfare related strategy,
technology, facility and equipment
0 1
10
Welfare related genetics and breeding
8
1
Total
49
68
Primary Focus Area – Chickens Chinese→English Other Language →Chinese
1
Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition
8
11
2
Freedom from discomfort and exposure
52
18
2a
Environment impact and control
36
7
2b
Integrated rearing management
22
12
3
Freedom from pain, injury and disease
41
12
4
Freedom to express normal behavior
21
4
5
Freedom from fear and distress
4
1
6
Welfare assessment and indicators
1
3
7
Welfare during loading, unloading transport or slaughter
3
2
7a
Welfare during loading or unloading
0
1
7b
Welfare during transport
2
1
7c
Welfare during slaughter
2
0
8
Public or farmers' attitude
2
0
9
Non-experimental article on welfare
0
4
10
Welfare related genetics and breeding
7
5
Total
69
42
Within species and production systems, there did not appear to be a consistent focus across
age/sex classes (Table 5). For example, 40% of all pig articles focused on finishing pigs in meat
production, while only 21.0% focused on nursery piglets (Table 5). Articles on pig breeding largely
focused on adult females in different stages of the breeding cycle, particularly pregnant (32.5%) and
lactating sows (28.9%). For chickens, only 12.3% of the articles focused on breeding animals within
the meat industry, with the other age classes having similar levels of representation in this system
(starter: 31.0%, grower: 35.2%, finisher: 27.2%). In egg production, the primary focus was on laying
hens, with 33.0% of the chicken literature focused on these. Other age classes within egg production
comprised less than 15% each of all chicken articles.
Animals 2020, 10, 540 15 of 21
Table 5. Animal welfare literature by species, age and production stage (N= number of
publications).
Species/System Age/Stage Definition N %
Chickens:
Meat production
For breeding Breeder males and females 43 12.3
Starter 0–3 wks old 108 30.9
Grower 3–6 wks old 123 35.2
Finisher 6 – > 8 wks old 95 27.2
Chickens:
Egg production
For breeding Breeder males and females 32 9.2
Starter 0–6 wks old 42 12.0
Grower 6–12 wks old 37 10.6
Pre-layer 12–18 wks old 44 12.6
Layer > 18 wks old 115 32.9
Pigs:
Breeding
Boars Intact males for breeding/slaughter 121 24.0
Gilts Nulliparous females for
slaughter/breeding 82 16.2
Sows Primiparous or multiparous females 190 37.6
Gestating sows Sows that are pregnant 164 32.5
Farrowing sows Sows that are farrowing 94 18.6
Lactating sows Sows that are producing milk for
offspring 146 28.9
Dry sows Non-lactating sows that are gestating,
awaiting service or barren 54 10.7
Pigs:
Meat production
Nursing pigs Birth until weaning (at ~3–5 weeks old) 165 32.7
Weaners Weaning until 10 weeks old 135 26.7
Nursery pigs Weaning until end of nursery phase (~18–
32 kg) 106 21.0
Growing pigs From 18–32 kg until 55–68 kg 137 27.1
Finishing pigs From 55–68 kg until market weight for
slaughter 202 40.0
4. Discussion
Within this review 854 Chinese animal welfare articles were discovered that had been published
in the ten years since 2008. This indicates significant attention to the subject, contrary to the common
perception that animal welfare remains an unexplored concept in China. It appears that research
aimed at improving conditions and health for pigs and chickens were the most substantial focus in
the region.
Within the Chinese animal welfare literature, substantially more focus was placed on pigs than
poultry. This could reflect the value of pork industries in international trade or a perceived
complexity in providing improved welfare for pigs but may also echo a similar species value system
seen in English animal welfare literature. That is, that a pig’s life and intrinsic value is often perceived
as more important than that of a chicken, given their closer similarity to humans than chickens and
the perception of greater sentience (compared to birds) and therefore increased ability to suffer [37].
Animals 2020, 10, 540 16 of 21
In general, focus areas in the compiled animal welfare literature tended to be very similar among
the species; elements of the rearing environment, which can be related to discomfort, disease and
injury and behavioral studies related to natural behaviors. The focus within these general areas,
however, differed between the two species. The largest focus; the environment of the rearing system
placed substantial attention on bedding systems for pigs, specifically, developing and testing
fermented bedding technology. Made of mostly organic material, this substrate was observed to
facilitate the decomposition of pig’s excreta and is thought to reduce cleaning time, reduce disease
and create a compost that adds richness to agricultural soil; thus increasing sustainability and
potentially profit [38]. In terms of the welfare of the pigs, it provides a more comfortable bedding
compared to the traditional concrete flooring and opportunities to display natural rooting behavior.
Considering that one focus of the Chinese government is on ‘ecological agriculture’ [39], sustainable
practices such as this fit within the mandate of improving the environment in general. This focus for
animal welfare literature is therefore logical.
While substrate and bedding research in pigs is relevant to welfare because it affects comfort,
the issue of discomfort is also being addressed in the poultry research with attention mainly on
lighting and temperature control. These factors are also of economic significance as they influence
layer hen egg yield and broiler growth rates [40]. Rather than optimization of the farming systems
and resources, the focus on these factors is to maximize the animal’s physical productivity, which
may at times have positive benefits for welfare (such as more comfortable temperatures) and at other
times may be neutral or potentially detrimental to welfare (restricting lighting and forcing molting).
The second largest focus of the literature on both species was disease and injury. In the pig
literature, this was primarily focused on the prevention and control of disease and improving
immune responses. This is supported by recent studies, which demonstrate that the global threat
antimicrobial resistance poses to animal agriculture and human health alike is taken very seriously
in China and could be considered a platform on which to advocate improvements to animal welfare
[21,41]. This focus appears to have increased exponentially in China recently, in the wake of an
African Swine Fever outbreak that has had a major impact on pig production industries across the
country [42]. The focus within the poultry literature was similar; however, controlling the incidence
of feather loss, footpad injury and hock injury research was also prioritized, probably motivated by
the reduction of carcass and product quality that the injuries can cause, with chickens’ feet being
consumed and of value in China [43].
The third largest focus within the Chinese literature was on animal behavior. For both species,
this primarily addressed feeding and drinking. Related to growth rates, these behaviors are a logical
focus when the intention is to increase productivity. The poultry research also included measures of
leg health, including walking time and gait scoring. The behavioral literature for pigs included
research into lying and standing, as well as social behaviors, such as display of aggressive behaviors,
biting and sham chewing. This acknowledgement that pigs are social animals, while still focusing on
behaviors that may be problematic for carcass quality [44]. This is echoed by another study in
Guangdong province, the home of the largest pork producers in China, in which pig farmers agreed
that pigs were intelligent animals, friendly and enjoyed social interaction [45].
The areas that received most attention within the compiled Chinese literature indicate a focus
on animal welfare tied to improving production, yield, agricultural sustainability and biosecurity,
rather than for improving or understanding welfare for the animals’ sake. Livestock leaders in
Guangzhou, Beijing and Zhengzhou asked about the most important benefits of addressing animal
welfare [5] attested that good welfare improves productivity of the animals, quality of products
(including taste) and increased trade opportunities [5]. When the same livestock leaders were asked
what they saw as the solutions for improving animal welfare in China they stated that, in addition to
creating prescriptive standards, a focus on the business benefits of improving welfare was needed
[21]. Considering this, the focus of Chinese animal welfare literature on elements of welfare that result
in increased productivity, quality and reduced expense of treatment, indicate that the demonstration
of financial benefits from improved animal welfare is of great importance to livestock industries in
China.
Animals 2020, 10, 540 17 of 21
Welfare topics which received the most attention in the compiled literature offer insight into
research priorities in China, however topics that received the little attention offer opportunities for
future research and development. One of these areas is pre-slaughter stunning, the pre-slaughter
process applied to individual animals to induce unconsciousness and insensibility, so that slaughter
can be performed without fear, anxiety, pain, suffering or distress [46]. While limited Chinese animal
welfare literature on stunning was discovered in this review (pigs n = 8; chickens n = 4), it has been
identified by Chinese stakeholders as an area of potential development in China. In one survey,
Chinese livestock workers ranked the absence of pre-slaughter stunning as the most important farm
animal welfare issue in China [47]. In another study, the absence of pre-slaughter stunning was also
consistently ranked in a group activity as the most important animal welfare issue in a slaughter
context [21]. Furthermore, in a focus group study with livestock leaders, participants consistently
suggested that they were ‘extremely’ willing to adopt pre-slaughter stunning, the most willing of
stakeholders across the participating Asian nations [48]. In-depth discussion with the same
stakeholders suggested that the key ways to increase the uptake of the practice is, firstly, to dispel
the perception that stunning negatively impacts meat taste and quality (particularly in south China),
secondly, by increasing the accessibility of suitable equipment, and, lastly, providing technical
training on usage to operators [48]. As with most animal welfare challenges in China, legislation
could be a powerful motivator, however while it is a difficult element of the animal welfare landscape
to resolve as long as it remains absent, it does offer a shortcut to motivate uptake of animal welfare
practices, including pre-slaughter stunning [49]. Pre-slaughter stunning practices are not used in
mainland China at this point, except a few of the major production companies [48]. While the
transition in China from smaller companies to major supply chains may resolve this issue, these
studies demonstrate an interest and willingness to adopt the practice [21]. Coupled with the
demonstrated lack of focus on the issue within Chinese literature to date, there is a substantial
opportunity to improve the welfare of animals in China by facilitating a more humane death.
The success of cross-cultural animal welfare initiatives can be enhanced by developing respectful
relationships with the most empowered stakeholders and identifying mutually-beneficial outcomes
[12]. To that purpose, the findings of this study can be used to ascertain mutual benefits for the
Chinese livestock industries and academics, which can be leveraged to progress collaborative
relationships that are beneficial and respectful to both parties. The substantial literature presented in
this study demonstrates that animal welfare has attracted significant attention in China; however, it
may be conceptualized and labelled differently compared to European countries; which should be
expected given the vast differences in history, culture and political, social and economic landscapes
between the regions. Our study suggests that animal welfare research in China is pragmatic, focused
on husbandry practices aimed at good productivity and product quality. The concept of animal
welfare for the sake of the animals, for a higher ethical purpose, has not been explored and may
therefore not be a fruitful basis for useful animal welfare progression. Opting for language and
collaborations in which the net result is improved welfare (and eventually profit), through improving
productivity and appealing to Chinese tastes may facilitate more productive partnerships than are
otherwise possible. This may mean that successful collaborations to improve animal welfare in China
may not focus on animal welfare in the same way that it is approached in key trading partners in the
EU, USA and Australia.
Further to this, the difference between Chinese and European approaches to animal welfare may
partially explain the potential misconception that China does not value the concept. This
misconception may also be partly attributable to the vast cultural differences when approaching how
nations treat their progress. Asian culture often values a position that is by nature more quiet, private
and modest [50,51], which could at times be contrasted with the cultural approaches to celebrating
successes and progress in some of China’s trading partner nations. Chinese research and
developments, however, have the potential to reform their livestock industries in future.
5. Applications and Limitations
Animals 2020, 10, 540 18 of 21
The primary finding of this study is that there is a substantial body of animal welfare science
literature in China, potentially little-known outside of China due to it not being accessible in English,
nor being easily accessible to any scientist that does not read the written Chinese language. This
finding suggests the existence also of opportunity; to increase knowledge transfer by making key
Chinese animal welfare papers available in English, and those from other regions such as
Australia/NZ, USA and Europe translated into Chinese. The existence of this literature also suggests
the importance for any party developing animal welfare partnerships in China to ensure that they
have a thorough understanding of existing literature, in particular its pre-existing foci and
conclusions. This study offers a deeper understanding of where attention to farm animal welfare has
been directed in China, which assists in the identification of priorities, mutual benefits and
opportunities with industry partnerships within China. It also suggests considerable research and
development capabilities of Chinese scientists and highlights the areas in which Chinese-led
international collaborations could develop science in areas of animal welfare that are being
investigated, for example the opportunities and challenges of using China-specific pig or chicken
breeds [52].
Further research in the form of a comparison of the priorities of European animal welfare science
with the findings in this study could be usefully conducted in the future in order to facilitate
improved understanding, communication and collaboration across regions.
This literature review focused on the most numerous terrestrial species in Chinese farming—
pigs and chickens only. Further investigations through a similar format of literature review could be
conducted for other species, such as fish (the most numerous farmed species), dairy cattle, sheep and
other frequently consumed aquatic species in China such as the soft-shell turtle; about whom limited
animal welfare knowledge is available. In addition, this literature review only covered a 10-year
period. As such, this provides a snapshot of welfare science in China during this period but these
identified trends are likely to change in the future, particularly in light of the changing livestock
landscape due to consumer pressure and disease emergence. This study does, however, provide
baseline data to track scientific trends in the future.
6. Conclusion
This study outlines the substantial body of animal welfare science conducted in China and
published in Chinese, otherwise unavailable to researchers searching academic databases in English.
This study also identifies the research priorities within this work, for both pig and poultry farming.
While more focus has been placed on pigs than chickens, the most common area of investigation for
both species centers around key environmental factors. In line with the importance of the ‘ecological
agriculture’ movement in China, for pigs the literature commonly focused on the use of fermented
bedding. For poultry, it was more heavily focused on lighting and temperature control. This was
likely to be influenced by motivations to increase productivity and product quality, understood
through previous research to be the strongest perceived benefit for improving welfare for livestock
stakeholders in China. Reflective of the importance placed on ‘food safety,’ biosecurity and
antimicrobial resistance in China, the physical disease burden and use of antibiotics in farm animals
was the second most prioritized area of research, coupled with leg breakage injuries for poultry,
which impacts carcass quality and the saleability of a body part frequently consumed in the region.
The third most common area of animal welfare research was behavior; primarily time spent eating
and drinking, which are again direct indicators of productivity and yield. Social and stereotypic
behavior of pigs was also a focus, further demonstrating an awareness of the social complexity of
pigs as suggested by previous research.
The findings of this study can be used as an opportunity for collaborations based on mutual
benefit and respect, with an acknowledgement that animal welfare science does exist in China. While
the concept or philosophy motivating the scientific investigation of animal welfare may differ when
compared to the contemporary philosophies of other regions, the ultimate outcomes are similar in
many contexts and keen interest in industry development is present in China, the world’s most
important pig and poultry meat provider.
Animals 2020, 10, 540 19 of 21
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.S. and C.J.C.P.; Formal analysis, Y.Z. and K.D.; Funding
acquisition, M.S. and C.J.C.P.; Investigation, Y.Z. and K.D.; Methodology, Y.Z., M.S. and C.J.C.P.; Project
administration, M.S.; Supervision, M.S. and C.J.C.P.; Writing – original draft, M.S., Y.Z. and K.D.; writing –
editing M.S., K.D. and C.J.C.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Open Philanthropy Project.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Lu, J.; Bayne, K.; Wang, J. Current status of animal welfare and animal rights in China. Altern. Lab. Anim.
2013, 41, 351–357.
2. Central Intelligency Agency. The World Factbook: China. 2018. Available online:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html (accessed on 1/12/2019).
3. FAO. Strong Commitment Towards Higher Animal Welfare in China. Animal Production and Health. 2017.
Available online:
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/Strong_commitment_towards_higher_aw_China.
html (accessed on 1 December 2018).
4. Sinclair, M.; Phillips, C.J.C. The Cross-Cultural Importance of Animal Protection and Other World Social
Issues. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2017, 30, 439–455.
5. Sinclair, M.; Fryer, C.; Phillips, C.J.C. The Benefits of Improving Animal Welfare from the Perspective of
Livestock Stakeholders across Asia. Animals 2019, 9, 123, doi:10.3390/ani9040123.
6. Xu, K. Promote animal welfare protection and facilitate the establishment of global ecological civilization.
In Proceedings of the 3rd World Farm Animal Welfare Conference 2019, Qingdao, China, 19–20 September
2019.
7. Huide, Y. Swine Welfare: Panel Discussion. In Proceedings of the 3rd World Farm Animal Welfare
Conference 2019, Qingdao, China, 19–20 September 2019.
8. Lui, Y. Promote traceability upgrading of agriculture and animal husbandry with quality e-commerce. In
Proceedings of the 3rd World Farm Animal Welfare Conference 2019, Qingdao, China, 19–20 September
2019.
9. Zhang, X. Swine Welfare: Panel Discussion. In Proceedings of the 3rd World Farm Animal Welfare
Conference 2019, Qingdao, China, 19–20 September 2019.
10. Bai, S. The important role of animal welfare in brand building of enterprises in whole industry chain. In
Proceedings of the 3rd World Farm Animal Welfare Conference 2019, Qingdao, China, 19–20 September
2019.
11. International Cooperation Committee of Animal Welfare. About Us: Introduction. 2019. Available online:
http://www.iccaw.org.cn/plus/list.php?tid=71 (accessed on 1 February 2019).
12. Sinclair, M.; Phillips, C.J.C. Key Tenets of Operational Success in International Animal Welfare Initiatives.
Animals 2018, 8, 92, doi:10.3390/ani8060092.
13. Wang, F.F.; Wang, M.; Xu, F.R.; Liang, D.M.; Pan, B.L. Survey of prevalence and control of ectoparasites in
caged poultry in China. Vet. Rec. 2010, 167, 934–937.
14. Li, P.J. Exponential growth, animal welfare, environmental and food safety impact: The case of China’s
livestock production. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2009, 22, 217–240.
15. Zhang, Z. Problems and Countermeasures of Piglet Welfare in China’s pig farms. J. Anim. Ecol. 2017, 38,
83–86.
16. Pingali, P.; Khwaja, Y.; Meijer, M. Commercializing Small Farms: Reducing Transaction Cost; Agricultural and
Development Economics Division: Rome, Italy, 2005.
17. Zhangyue, Z.; Tian, W.; Wang, J.; Liu, H.; Cao, L. Food Consumption: Trends in China; Australian Government
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Canberra, Australia, 2012.
18. OECD Data. Meat Consumption; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Paris, France,
2018.
19. FAO. Overview of Global Meat Market Developments in 2018. Meat Market Review. Available online:
http://www.fao.org/3/ca3880en/ca3880en.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2019).
20. FAOSTAT Data: China. 2017. Available online: http://www.fao.org/ (accessed on 1 March 2019).
21. Sinclair, M.; Phillips, C.J.C. International livestock leaders’ perceptions of the importance of, and solutions
for, animal welfare issues. Animals 2019, 9, 319, doi:10.3390/ani9060319.
Animals 2020, 10, 540 20 of 21
22. Xi, C.; Zhang, P. Farm animal welfare development and welfare friendly production system exploration in
China. In Proceedings of the World Conference of Farm Animal Welfare 2017, Hangzhou, China, 12–13
October 2017.
23. PEW Research Centre. Opinion of China. Global Indicators Database. 2018. Available online:
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/database/indicator/24/ (accessed on 1 December 2019).
24. Jensen, P.; Von Borell, E.; Broom, D.M.; Csermely, D.; Edwards, S.S.; Dijkhuisen, A.A.; Hylekema, S.;
Madec, F.; Stamataris, C. The Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs; Technical Report of the Scientific Veterinary
Committee No. XXIV/B3/ScVC/0005/1997; Commission of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 1997.
25. Montgomery, S.L. Does Science Need a Global Language? English and the Future of Research; University of
Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2013.
26. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis.
Scientometrics 2016, 106, 213–228.
27. Amano, T.; González-Varo, J.P.; Sutherland, W.J. Languages Are Still a Major Barrier to Global Science.
PLOS Biol. 2016, 14, e2000933, doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2000933.
28. Edmeades, G.; Fischer, R.A.; Byerlee, D. Can we feed the world in 2050? N. Z. Grassl. Assoc. Proc. 2010, 72,
35–42.
29. Bradford, G.E. Contributions of animal agriculture to meeting global human food demand. Livest. Prod. Sci.
1999, 59, 95–112.
30. Mench, J.A.; Sumner, D.A.; Rosen-Molina, J.T. Sustainability of egg production in the United States—The
policy and market context. Poul. Sci. 2011, 90, 229–240.
31. Boogaard, B.K.; Boekhorst, L.J.S.; Oosting, S.J.; Sørensen, J.T. Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production:
Citizen perceptions in the Netherlands and Denmark. Livest. Sci. 2011, 140, 189–200.
32. Webster, J. Animal Welfare: Limping Towards Eden; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2005.
33. Mellor, D.J. Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “five freedoms” towards “a life worth
living”. Animals 2016, 6, 21, doi:10.3390/ani6030021.
34. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry 1994; NRC: Washington, DC, USA.
35. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Changes to Approved NADAS-New NADAS vs. Category II Supplemental
Nadas: Guidance for Industry 191; FDA: White Oak, MA, USA, 2015.
36. Compassion in World Farming (CIWF). The Life of Pigs. 2019. Available online:
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/5235118/The-life-of-Pigs.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2019).
37. Westbury, H.R.; Neumann, D.L. Empathy-related responses to moving film stimuli depicting human and
non-human animal targets in negative circumstances. Biol. Psychol. 2008, 78, 66–74.
38. 丁永贵, 高床发酵床养殖模式是养殖业污染治理与减排的重要模式. Chin. J. Tradit. Vet. Sci. 2015, 9, 134.
39. Shi, T. Ecological agriculture in China: Bridging the gap between rhetoric and practice of sustainability.
Ecol. Econ. 2002, 42, 359–368.
40. Brickett, K.E.; Dahiya, J.P.; Classes, H.; Gomis, S. Influence of dietary nutrient density, feed form, and
lighting on growth and meat yield of broiler chickens. Poul. Sci. 2007, 86, 2172–2181.
41. Yu, A.Y.; Van Katwyk, S.R.; Hoffman, S.J. Probing popular and political discourse on antimicrobial
resistance in China. Glob. Health Res. Policy 2019, 4, doi:10.1186/s41256-019-0097-z.
42. International Pig Improvement Company. African Swine Fever: An Update from the Other Side of the World;
IPIC: Nantwich, UK, 2019.
43. Spindler, A.A.; Schultz, J.D. Comparison of dietary variety and ethnic food consumption among Chinese,
Chinese-American, and white American women. Agr. Hum. Val. 1996, 13, 64–73.
44. D’Eath, R.B.; Turner, S.P.; Kurt, E.; Evans, G.; Thölking, L.; Looft, H.; Wimmers, K.; Murani, E.; Klont, R.;
Foury, A.; Ison, S.H.; Lawrence, A.B.; Mormède, P. Pigs’ aggressive temperament affects pre-slaughter
mixing aggression, stress and meat quality. Animals 2010, 4, 604–616.
45. Sinclair, M.; Yan, W.; Phillips, C.J.C. Attitudes of Pig and Poultry Industry Stakeholders in Guangdong
Province, China, to Animal Welfare and Farming Systems. Animals 2019, 9, 860, doi:10.3390/ani9110860.
46. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Scientific report of the Scientific Panel for Animal Health and
Welfare on a request from the Commission related to welfare of animals during transport 2004. EFSA J.
2004, 1–36, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2004.44.
47. Li, X.; Zito, S.J.; Sinclair, M.; Phillips, C.J.C. Perception of animal welfare issues during Chinese transport
and slaughter of livestock by a sample of stakeholders in the industry. PLoS ONE 2018, 13,
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0197028.
48. Sinclair, M.; Idrus, Z.; Burns, G.L.; Phillips, C.J.C. Livestock Stakeholder Willingness to Embrace
Preslaughter Stunning in Key Asian Countries. Animals 2019, 9, 224, doi:10.3390/ani9050224.
Animals 2020, 10, 540 21 of 21
49. Sinclair, M.; Zito, S.J.; Idrus, Z.; Yan, W.; van Nhiem, D.; Na Lampang, P.; Phillips, C.J.C. Attitudes of
stakeholders to animal welfare during slaughter and transport in SE and E Asia. Anim. Welf. 2017, 26, 417–
425.
50. Yamamoto, Y.; Li, J. Quiet in the eye of the beholder: Teacher perceptions of Asian immigrant children. In
The Impact of Immigration on Children’s Development; Karger Publishers: Basel, Switzerland, 2012; pp. 1–16.
51. House, R.J.; Dorfman, P.W.; Javidan, M.; Hanges, P.; de Luque, M.S. Strategic Leadership across Cultures:
Globe Study of CEO Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness in 24 Countries; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks,
CA, USA, 2013.
52. Nielsen, B.L.; Zhao, R. Farm animal welfare across borders: A vision for the future. Anim. Front. 2012, 2, 46–
50.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).