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

Abstract

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

Full text

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Animal welfare with Chinese characteristics:
Chinese poultry producers’ perceptions of,
and attitudes towards, animal welfare
Qing YangID
1
*, Cathy M. Dwyer
1,2
, Belinda VigorsID
1
, Ruqian Zhao
3
, Fritha
M. LangfordID
1,4
1Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom,
2Department of Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), Edinburgh, United
Kingdom, 3College of Veterinary Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China, 4School of
Natural and Environmental Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
*s1362029@ed.ac.uk
Abstract
China’s poultry industry faces challenges in adopting and sustaining cage-free systems for
poultry production. Effective interventions are crucial to support producers transitioning from
cages to alternative systems or maintaining cage-free systems to improve animal welfare.
However, little is known about how Chinese poultry producers perceive animal welfare in
relation to cage-free systems and the importance of animal welfare in poultry production.
Through a qualitative interview study with 30 Chinese farm owners, managers and senior
managers from large-scale egg and broiler farms using cages and non-cage systems (col-
lectively referred to as “producers”), this paper explores Chinese poultry producers’ attitudes
and perceptions regarding animal welfare and welfare in different poultry housing systems.
Template analysis was used to analyse the data from semi-structured interviews, which
generated themes related to the participants’ awareness and understanding of the concept
of animal welfare, the factors that impacted their choices of different housing systems, and
the perceived priorities in poultry production. The responses revealed that the participating
producers had a strong awareness and knowledge of animal welfare. However, the partici-
pants’ understanding of the term is heterogeneous: generally, egg producers emphasised
natural behaviours, whereas broiler producers prioritised health and productivity. Neverthe-
less, profitability, leadership, and organisational policies primarily influenced housing sys-
tem choices rather than animal welfare values. Economic motives drove egg producers
towards cage-free systems, prompted by consumers’ and companies’ demand for cage-
free eggs committed to transitioning away from cages by 2025. In conclusion, tailored inter-
ventions for different poultry sectors within China are necessary. While animal welfare val-
ues matter, economic incentives seem more promising for steering the shift towards and
maintaining cage-free poultry production.
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 1 / 27
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Yang Q, Dwyer CM, Vigors B, Zhao R,
Langford FM (2024) Animal welfare with Chinese
characteristics: Chinese poultry producers’
perceptions of, and attitudes towards, animal
welfare. PLoS ONE 19(7): e0307061. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061
Editor: Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ain Shams
University Faculty of Agriculture, EGYPT
Received: February 15, 2024
Accepted: June 30, 2024
Published: July 18, 2024
Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the
benefits of transparency in the peer review
process; therefore, we enable the publication of
all of the content of peer review and author
responses alongside final, published articles. The
editorial history of this article is available here:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061
Copyright: ©2024 Yang et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: This study presents
qualitative data from interviews with Chinese
poultry producers within the authors’ professional
network. All participants have given written consent

1. Introduction
Over the past four decades, the poultry industry in the People’s Republic of China (hereafter
referred to as China) has undergone substantial intensification and industrialisation. This
transformation has shifted from traditional backyard farming to larger, more intensive pro-
duction methods to enhance capacity and efficiency [1,2]. Conventional or battery cages have
become a hallmark of this industry [3], as nearly 90% of laying hens are estimated to be raised
in these cages [4], and there is a growing trend of using similar systems for broilers [5,6]. Chi-
na’s poultry sector is marked by its intensive nature, with the chicken industry alone produc-
ing 29.7 million tonnes of eggs and 15.4 million tonnes of meat in 2021, propelling China to
become the world’s leading poultry producer [3,5,7]. This trajectory of intensification and
industrialisation will persist in meeting the escalating demand for eggs and poultry meat from
the country’s vast population [3,8].
Contrastingly, the European Union (EU) has witnessed a shift away from conventional
cages to alternative housing systems for poultry driven by scientific insights and public con-
cerns for animal welfare [9,10]. Broilers in the EU are commonly reared on littered floors,
with cages being uncommon [11,12]. While all poultry production systems possess distinct
advantages and disadvantages [5,13], well-managed cage-free systems hold greater potential
to ensure poultry welfare [5,14–16]. Cages fail to provide the space and environmental com-
plexity necessary for chickens to express highly motivated behaviors like dustbathing, perch-
ing, and foraging [5,14–17] which are integral to welfare [15,16]. Consequently, EU
legislation prohibits the use of conventional cages and exclusively permits enriched cages and
cage-free systems (e.g., single-tier, multi-tier and free-range systems) in the egg industry [18].
In addition, the European Commission is proposing a legislative phase-out of all cage systems,
including enriched cages, for diverse farm animal species, including laying hens and broilers
[19]. Dozens of global manufacturers, hotels, supermarket chains, and food service companies
have committed to sourcing cage-free eggs throughout their international operations, initially
focusing on European and North American markets [20]. In this context, scientific insights,
legislation, and market dynamics in the EU are synergising to steer the transition toward cage-
free housing systems for farm animals [21].
In recent years, while cages have been the dominant production system, the adoption of
cage-free systems in the egg industry has begun to grow in China. This transition is driven by
consumer preferences and businesses’ growing demand for cage-free eggs [5,22,23]. Local
chicken breeds have historically been raised in small-scale free-range systems [24], and some
Chinese consumers display a willingness to pay for free-range eggs and meats [25,26]. How-
ever, there is limited information regarding consumer egg purchases from other cage-free sys-
tems [23]. Beyond consumers, over 70 international food businesses, retailers, and hotel
chains have pledged to source exclusively cage-free eggs in the Chinese market [20]. Yet, the
scarcity of cage-free egg supply poses challenges for companies to meet their cage-free com-
mitments [27]. Moreover, observational evidence shows that the broiler sector has witnessed a
shift from floor-based systems to cages [28]. Therefore, initiatives to expedite and sustain cage-
free systems in the poultry industry are imperative for the welfare of billions of chickens in
China [7].
Producers wield direct influence on animal welfare by determining the adoption and execu-
tion of animal welfare initiatives [29–31]. Research on European producers demonstrates that
their inclination to choose higher welfare housing systems and engage in welfare schemes cor-
relates with their personal values and attitudes toward animal welfare [32–35]. Those defining
animal welfare in terms of biological functioning and productivity generally favour conven-
tional production systems [34–36] and farmers who prioritise the importance of natural
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 2 / 27
to use direct quotes from their responses in
research papers and QY’s PhD thesis. However,
publishing the interview transcripts, as the PLOS
ONE research data policy suggests, is not feasible.
Despite anonymising all transcripts, the specific
information discussed in the interviews—such as
production systems, flock size, and indigenous
chicken breeds—poses a risk of identifying
individual participating producers. Additionally,
publishing anonymised transcripts would violate
the obtained written consent from participants,
thus non-compliance with the UK General Data
Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data
Protection Act 2018. Due to these restrictions, the
authors will only provide the interview guidelines as
supplemental material to this paper. A summary of
all utilised quotes supporting the themes in
Chinese will be available upon request from the
Human Ethical Review Committee via email at herc.
vets@ed.ac.uk.
Funding: Dr C.M.D. and the Royal (Dick) School of
Veterinary Studies at University of Edinburgh
received funding for this project through Open
Philanthropy (https://www.openphilanthropy.org/).
There is no grant number for this award. The
funder had no role in the study design, data
collection and analysis, publication decision, and
manuscript preparation.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.

behaviours for animals choose production systems that allow behavioural expression [32–35].
In addition, Western producers’ decisions regarding production systems may be influenced by
diverse perspectives on ethical animal treatment. For instance, some free-range farmers advo-
cate for free-range systems, believing they enhance animal welfare [37], while others argue that
cages are preferable for laying hens, citing improved health benefits [38]. Moreover, factors
such as business benefits associated with animal welfare [39], operational priorities and chal-
lenges [30,33,35,36,40] and varying degrees of significance placed on animal welfare in pro-
duction, influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic factors [35,41], also play pivotal roles in shaping
producers’ choices of housing systems. Nevertheless, producers’ decisions regarding housing
systems can deviate from their perceptions and attitudes because their choices are also linked
to country-specific dynamics (e.g. culture and religion) [30,39], sector-specific considerations
(e.g. different species and their needs) [42,43], and farm-specific contexts (e.g. leadership and
organisational culture) [44–46]. Therefore, understanding personal and contextual factors is a
crucial step in improving animal welfare [47] within Europe and across Asian nations [30,39].
However, previous research predominantly stems from Western contexts, leaving a knowl-
edge gap regarding Chinese producers’ perceptions and valuations of animal welfare [44].
There is limited insight into producers’ perspectives on the term “animal welfare” in large ani-
mal operations, and definitions are often derived from Western benchmarks [44,48–50]. A
limited number of quantitative studies have surveyed diverse Asian animal agriculture stake-
holders. Participants exhibited varying degrees of intention to enhance animal welfare
[49,51], prioritised distinct animal welfare issues [30,43], encountered varied challenges [49],
and proposed context-specific solutions for animal welfare improvement [30,52]. In addition,
qualitative investigations have recently delved into farm workers’ understanding and attitudes
towards animal welfare in the Chinese dairy [46] and aquaculture sectors [42]. These studies
revealed that participants in different job roles had divergent levels of animal welfare aware-
ness, accompanied by varying degrees of significance placed on animal welfare in practice, and
leadership support played a pivotal role in enhancing animal welfare [45,53]. Therefore, it is
important to explore business leaders’ understanding of animal welfare to ensure effective
strategy formulation [53].
This paper explores Chinese poultry business leaders’ knowledge and definitions of “animal
welfare”, their choice of housing systems concerning animal welfare, and their perceived
importance of animal welfare in poultry production. Understanding farming business leaders’
perspectives and priorities concerning poultry welfare can contribute to designing strategies
that address the stalling progress of cage-free systems in egg production and growing concerns
about cage utilisation in the broiler sector in China.
2. Materials and method
2.1 Sampling
This study chose a qualitative approach, applying semi-structured interviews, to explore pro-
ducers’ complex perceptions and attitudes toward animal welfare. Purposive and snowball
sampling techniques were used to enable the selection of a population of interest. The popu-
lation targeted for this study were business leaders from medium- to large-scale commercial
laying hen and broiler farms in mainland China, as they were in the decision-making posi-
tions for selecting housing systems. Most participants were located in China’s top poultry
production regions: Shandong, Hebei, Henan, Liaoning, Jiangsu, Sichuan, Anhui, Hubei,
Heilongjiang, and Jilin. Based on the literature [4,8] and the lead author’s industry-based
knowledge, the scales of targeted farms were defined as a minimum of 50,000 birds and
5,000 birds in annual stock for cage and cage-free egg farms respectively, and 2000 birds
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 3 / 27

produced annually for cage and cage-free broiler farms. The sample consisted of producers
using cages (conventional battery cages) and cage-free systems, including single-level sys-
tems (for laying hens), multi-tier systems (for laying hens), floor-based systems (for broilers),
and free-range systems. Conventional laying cages typically comprise small enclosures with
sloping floors made of welded wire mesh [54]. In single-level systems for laying hens and
floor-based systems for broilers, birds are housed on the floor, often covered with litter.
Multi-tier systems are similar to single-level setups but incorporate multiple tiers or plat-
forms, enabling hens to utilise the vertical space within the building [55]. Free-range systems
involve housing birds in either single or multi-tier setups while providing access to outdoor
areas [55]. Considering some poultry farms were transitioning between cages and cage-free
systems, producers using cages and cage-free systems concurrently were also included in the
sample.
The study involved 30 participants with 15 egg producers and 15 broiler producers. We
recruited participants through diverse methods, including WeChat advertisements (a popular
Chinese social platform, equivalent to WhatsApp) and referrals from existing participants and
industry associates. Recruitment stopped once no new information emerged [56]. The partici-
pants comprised professionals in different roles within farming companies, including farm
owners, managers, and senior executives who oversee one or multiple farms in large integrated
animal production firms. For brevity and simplicity in the following sections, these individuals
are collectively referred to as producers. Information regarding farms’ locations, scales and
housing systems can be found in Tables 1and 2.
Table 1. Egg farms’ locations, scales and housing systems.
Participant Locations Farm scales
a
Production systems
1Sichuan 1 million Battery cage
2Nationwide 13 million Battery cage
3Hebei 12,000 Free-range
4Shanxi Cage: 350,000 Battery cages
Multi-tier:40,800 Multi-tier
5Sichuan 20,000 Free-range
6Nationwide Cage: 110,000 Battery cages
Multi-tier: 25,000 Multi-tier
7Nationwide Cage: 300,000 Battery cages
Single-tier: 10,000 Single-tier
8Henan 500,000 Battery cage
9Guangdong 1.2 million Battery cage
10 Nationwide 300,000 Free-range
11 Henan 40,000 Free-range
12 Beijing 100,000 Free-range
13 Nationwide Cage:30 million Battery cages
Multi-tier:200,000 Multi-tier
14 Fujian Cage: 1 million Battery cages
Single-tier: 100,000 Single-tier
15 Nationwide 100,000 Single-tier
a
Farm scales = approximate number of birds kept annually per farm.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061.t001
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 4 / 27

2.2 Interviews
Between the 6
th
of April and the 10
th
of July 2021, the lead researcher (QY) conducted semi-
structured interviews over the phone. Two interview guides were developed for interview-
ing egg producers (S1 Appendix) and broiler producers (S2 Appendix). The interview ques-
tions sought to explore the participants’ understanding of animal welfare, perceptions of
cage-free systems, the importance of animal welfare in poultry farming, and their impres-
sions of laying hens and broilers. Additional probing questions were asked to understand
participants’ experiences of using both cages and cage-free systems. The interview guide-
lines were developed in English to facilitate all authors’ contributions and translated into
Chinese for use in interviews. Conversations were mainly driven by the participants’
responses to facilitate open discussion. All interviews were audio recorded (Mi 10, Xiaomi
Communication and Technology Ltd., China) and transcribed into written Chinese by QY.
Transcripts were uploaded and analysed in Nvivo (QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 12).
QY translated the chosen quotes into English to facilitate the presentation of the results in
this paper because one translator working with the data can maximise the reliability of
translation and interpretation [57]. A bilingual researcher with expertise in a similar
research discipline was provided with selected quotes, specific codes, and relevant text frag-
ments to ensure an understanding of the interview context. Subsequently, the researcher
reviewed the translation of the quotes, codes, and themes to confirm that the intended
meaning and contextual nuances in Chinese were accurately preserved in the translations.
In the presentation of quotations, some contextual information was added in square brack-
ets to ensure clarity.
Table 2. Broiler farms’ locations, scales and housing systems.
Participant Locations Farm Scales
b
Production systems
16 Nationwide 60 million Cages
17 Shandong 40–50 million Cages
18 Shangdong 3.5 million Cages
19 Shandong 4.6 million Cages
20 Shandong 12–14 million Cages
21 Shandong 2 million Cages
22 Shandong 150 million Cages
23 Shandong Cages: 50 million Cages
Floor-based:70–80 million Floor-based
24 Nationwide 323 million Floor-based
25 Nationwide 520 million Cages
26 Guangdong Cages: 1.88 million Cages
Floor-based: 3 million Floor-based
27 Guangdong 100–120 million Cages
Floor-based: unclear Floor-based
28 Hebei 30 million Cages
Floor-based: 20 million Floor-based
29 Guangdong and Guangxi 80 million Free-range
30 Shandong 46 million Floor-based
b
Farm scales = approximate number of birds produced annually per farm.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061.t002
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 5 / 27

2.3 Data analysis
Template analysis was used to analyse all data. Template analysis is a form of thematic analysis
which enables a structured approach to data coding with the flexibility of adapting it to the
needs of a study [58], which helps understand a relatively under-explored topic [59]. It has
been used to analyse qualitative data collected from focus group discussions and semi-
structured interviews with farm animal producers from different countries and cultures,
including China [45,46,59].
QY followed the typical steps of applying template analysis described in King and Brooks
[60]. QY re-read the interview transcripts and examined their accuracy against the recordings
to become familiarised with the data. Several themes corresponding to the study questions
were defined in advance (e.g. “definitions of animal welfare” and “perceptions of chickens”).
Before preliminary coding, QY selected ten interviews containing rich data relevant to the
research topics and coded a text segment with a phrase under a theme. For instance, the codes
“high egg production” and “healthy birds” are put under the parent code of “biological func-
tioning” under the theme of “definition of animal welfare”. QY used the list of codes and
themes drawn from the ten interviews as a template and applied it to the rest of the data sets.
Codes and themes were refined and divided, and new codes were added during the process.
Since some participants accounts of experience tended to be fragmented in the interviews,
QY kept summaries for each interview, to capture the participants’ holistic experiences and
perspectives [60]. QY created an audit trail during data analysis which kept dated versions of
the template, including reflective comments on coding choices and why particular modifica-
tions were made.
2.4 Ethics
Ethical approval for the interviews was sought and granted by the Human Ethical Review
Committee of the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies at the University of Edinburgh
(code HERC_655_21). Before each interview, participants reviewed a participant consent form
and introductory information to the research project, which specified that participants’ identi-
ties would be anonymised and that they could withdraw from the study discretionarily. Writ-
ten consent was obtained from the participants before the interviews.
3. Results
This section describes Chinese poultry producers’ perceptions of, and attitudes towards, ani-
mal welfare and their evaluations of, and decisions on, different housing systems concerning
animal welfare. The first two sub-sections present Chinese poultry producers’ knowledge and
definitions of animal welfare. The subsequent sub-sections detail producers’ choice of housing
systems in relation to animal welfare values, and the last sub-section describes the perceived
importance of animal welfare in Chinese poultry production.
3.1 Participants’ awareness of the term animal welfare
3.1.1 Familiarity with the term. To investigate Chinese producers’ perceptions of, and
attitudes towards, animal welfare, confirming that the participants know the term “animal wel-
fare” is essential. The findings show that all the participants have heard of the phrase “dongwu-
fuli” (动物福利) (i.e. the Chinese translation for the term animal welfare). In some egg
producers’ narratives, this term arose naturally in the discussion of cage-free housing systems
and cage-free egg production. More specifically, the word “fuli” (福利) (welfare) was often
used interchangeably with “cage-free” in egg producers’ statements. For example, “welfare
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 6 / 27

eggs”, “welfare shed”, and “welfare farming” were equivalent phrases to “cage-free eggs”, “the
shed using cage-free systems” and “cage-free production”. Therefore, it is evident that “wel-
fare” is not only a familiar term but is also commonly used in egg production. In contrast, the
broiler producers did not use the term “animal welfare” or “welfare” to describe their practices
or experiences in broiler farming:
“We hope to develop the market [for cage-free eggs]. . .and aim to produce affordable wel-
fare eggs.”
(P15 cage-free egg producer)
“We have several sheds on the farm, and one [of them] is a welfare shed.”
(P7 cage and cage-free egg producer)
“Cage-free production means that the chickens can live freely and move freely. They are
treated with higher welfare and can enjoy the freedom of expressing their nature; that is
what we call welfare farming.”
(P11 free-range producer)
Two producers acknowledged that they could not articulate what animal welfare meant but
were aware of some higher welfare husbandry practices:
“. . .Animal welfare. . .I heard them talking about it, but I am still unclear what it is. . .our
chickens’ beaks are trimmed, but welfare doesn’t do beak-trimming. I heard them mention
some practices [with higher welfare] but did not get the definition.”
(p4 cage and cage-free egg producer).
“Animal welfare, I don’t know how to explain it. There are animal-based indicators. . .in
general, they have a better housing environment with more space and some choices. . .I
don’t know how to define. . .and explain the concept in detail.”
(P27 cage and cage-free broiler producer)
Therefore, it was evident that all the producers had heard of the term animal welfare and
had some knowledge of this concept. Amongst participants, egg producers more commonly
used animal welfare than boiler producers.
3.1.2 Western influences. Several producers followed Western practices when discussing
how the farms started cage-free poultry production. Two producers explained how they began
their cage-free operations after visiting poultry farms in Europe:
“30 years ago, we learnt that . . .Europe started to use housing systems with higher
welfare. . . I visited Europe several times to see the operations. In 2010, we introduced their
equipment into China and set up an automated [cage-free] egg farm.”
(p14 cage and cage-free egg producer)
“We followed the European example to design and build our floor-based broiler farms
because Europe stresses the importance of animal welfare, they don’t want to use cages. . . a
big group of us went abroad to learn [about the system], and the European practice influ-
enced us.”
(P16 cage broiler producer)
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 7 / 27

Although some cage-free producers began their cage-free poultry production based on
learning from their Western counterparts, this does not mean the Chinese producers did not
know what good cage-free practice entailed before they came across the term. This is reflected
in one free-range producer’s narrative when she recalled her experience of interpreting the
word:
“When I first learned the term animal welfare, it sounded so impractical. . .because we
often talk about human welfare. . .and when human welfare issues haven’t been solved, we
are solving animal welfare issues?. . .it sounds so westernised. . .but later. . .I realised it re-
phrases our free-range production standards . . .animal welfare farming [practices] and the
Five Freedoms. . . are the basic living needs.”
(P5 free-range producer)
Therefore, while Western practices influenced some participants’ learning of modern cage-
free poultry production, other cage-free producers could relate their farming experiences to
animal welfare and incorporate their understanding of animal welfare into their daily
practices.
3.2 Conceptualisations of animal welfare
Participants generally approached the concept of animal welfare from a positive perspective,
that is, what constitutes good animal welfare, rather than focusing on indicators of poor wel-
fare. In particular, participants’ understanding of animal welfare can be broadly grouped into
three categories: good health and productivity, positive affective state and providing opportu-
nities for behavioural expression.
3.2.1 Good health and productivity. When defining animal welfare, good health and pro-
ductivity emerged as the most important indicators for the majority of broiler producers and
some egg producers. As one broiler producer described:
“Animal welfare means eating, drinking, and providing a good living environment. If ani-
mal welfare is poor, they won’t grow well, their physical health declines, production effi-
ciency reduces, the birds are more likely to get sick, and their growth rate slows. [animal
welfare] is not limited to the freedom of movement. . .ultimately the excellent production
performance, or efficiency, is the most convincing [indicator of good animal welfare].”
(p 22 cage broiler producer).
Similarly, a senior manager of a large integrated egg production group stated:
“Animal welfare essentially is to maximise chickens’ production performance and provide
an appropriate living environment, so that they can provide products with maximal
efficiency.”
(p13 cage and cage-free egg producer)
3.2.2 Positive affective state. Several producers emphasised the importance of ensuring a
neutral or positive affective state to enable good welfare. For them, a neutral state, such as “no
stress”, as well as a positive affective state, such as “happy” and “comfortable”, were all used as
indicators of good welfare:
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 8 / 27

“. . .We are willing to provide more animal welfare to the broilers. In production, animal
welfare mostly refers to reducing stress. No stress makes chickens more comfortable.”
(p24 cage-free broiler producer)
“Animal welfare is to let the chickens live a happy life.”
(P7 cage and cage-free egg producer)
“[Good animal welfare] should make the chickens feel comfortable.”
(P23 cage and cage-free broiler producer)
3.2.3 Providing opportunities for behavioural expression. Nearly all the egg producers
and a few cage-free broiler producers believed free movement is crucial for good animal wel-
fare. Some of them defined animal welfare as “freedom”, “not restricted”, “return to natural
living”, and the ability to move freely:
“Animal welfare is to give [chickens] the rights of freedom.”
(P5 free-range producer)
“We typically understand animal welfare as chickens are not restricted. . .. . .and she can
restore or live a natural life as much as possible.”
(p10 free-range producer)
“Animal welfare means chickens can return to natural living.”
(P11 free range producer)
“The ability to move freely is primary for the animal’s welfare.”
(P6 cage and cage-free egg producer)
In contrast, some producers did not see the birds’ abilities to express natural behaviours as
necessary or essential due to the genetic and dispositional traits of white-feathered broilers and
laying hens. They argued that the modern breeds of chickens had been genetically selected for
less movement and inhibited behavioural expression, and hence, they did not need to express
specific behaviours:
“The caged layers have been genetically bred for many years, and they are not suitable [for
cage-free systems]. Not all of the chickens. . .like to fly around.”
(p13 cage and cage-free egg producer)
“White broiler is bred for fast growth and high yield of meat. This is the ultimate purpose,
and they are genetically bred to stay still, grow faster and eat more. . . the birds are not bred
for running faster or preferring movement.”
(p25 cage broilers)
3.2.4 Animal welfare as a holistic concept. Several producers stressed that animal welfare
should be a holistic concept, and good animal welfare must meet animals’ different needs and
go beyond the farming stage. Particularly, animal welfare needs to be considered from the
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 9 / 27

animals’ perspectives not only in production but also in genetic breeding, depopulation, trans-
port and slaughter:
“Even after the flock is depopulated, the process of catching and slaughtering also involves
animal welfare. . .so it’s a broad topic . . . [animal welfare] is systematic, it does not only
relate to the farming stage but also include transport, bird’s placement. . .it should be
holistic.”
(p22 cage broiler producer)
“Genetic breeding is not [good for] animal welfare. Why? The heavier the broilers get, the
more pressure their leg joints are under. Why are there so many leg problems in fast-grow-
ing breeds? It is because of being overweight.”
(p16 cage broiler producer)
Overall, participants could explain their understanding of animal welfare at the farming
stage as well as in breeding, transport and slaughter practices. These findings suggest that par-
ticipants had strong animal welfare knowledge.
3.3 Interconnections between animal welfare values and housing systems
It was found that the producers’ values and choices of housing systems were interconnec-
ted. Most producers’ values appeared to underpin their choice of housing systems. How-
ever, some producers’ values are not necessarily consistent with the choice of housing
systems.
3.3.1 Consistency between values and choices. Most producers who valued good produc-
tivity, health, and low stress in a highly controlled environment considered cages superior to a
cage-free or outdoor setting. For them, the birds’ abilities to express appropriate behaviour are
either unnecessary or less important. As such, they strongly supported cage systems, which
was consistent with their values:
“Cages are highly cost-effective. They provide better animal welfare, [because birds] don’t
get sick, use fewer drugs, have higher survival rates; the environment is highly controllable,
and production efficiency is higher.”
(p25 cage broiler producer)
“The [caged] shed is very clean, and you don’t need to disinfect it much. You control the
environment well and don’t disturb the chickens, providing them an environment where
they can grow comfortably and freely, without stress.”
(p17 cage broiler producer)
Similarly, reflecting on the connection between values and housing systems, nearly all egg
producers and a few cage-free broiler producers believed that meeting animals’ behavioural
needs is essential for good animal welfare. Hence, they chose cage-free systems:
“Chickens (should) live in a good and comfortable environment. . . Living in the [caged]
environment, they are not likely to be mentally healthy, cage-free systems are much better.”
(p10 cage-free egg producer)
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 10 / 27

“Cages affect animals’ nature, in five freedoms of animal welfare, the primary freedom is
movement, [otherwise] it’s against animals’ nature.”
(P29 cage-free broiler producer)
Therefore, most producers believed their chosen housing systems benefited animal welfare,
and their choices appeared to reflect their animal welfare values.
3.3.2 Inconsistency between values and choices. Inconsistency between participants’
values and choices of housing systems was also seen in the participants. The inconsistency
is mainly caused by external factors, including profitability and the company’s leadership
decisions. For instance, although some cage producers agreed that behavioural expression
was important and cage-free systems provided better welfare, making a profit and surviv-
ing market competition were the key factors preventing them from using cage-free
systems:
“From the animal welfare perspective, cage-free systems are certainly better than
cages. . .but the key is, from the economic profit perspective, when there are no [legal]
requirements, and you improve animal welfare by investing more, it is not cost-efficient.
We want to choose a cheaper housing system because we are a rational company.”
(P1 cage egg producer)
“From an animal welfare perspective, cage-free systems are preferred, [because] birds are
given more space and freedom. . . For large-scale egg producers, profit is higher in cage sys-
tems than in cage-free systems. However, we can’t even maintain a high profit from cage
systems. . .so we will not consider cage-free systems. . .which bring more uncertainties and
higher deficit. . ..”
(P9 cage egg producer)
The leadership’s decisions in companies also played an essential role in adopting cage-free
systems, especially for the farms established by owners and companies. Although several cage-
free farm managers personally did not equate good animal welfare with a cage-free or “natural”
environment, the choice of production systems was determined by the farm owners and com-
panies’ leadership, hence irrelevant to the participants’ values:
“The farm owner wanted to produce some more natural and high-end agricultural
products. . .[because] he believed there was a market for products of better safety and
quality.”
(p12 free-range egg producer)
Another cage-free egg producer followed his senior management’s decision to set up a
cage-free egg farm to explore the feasibility of cage-free egg production in China:
“After the EU directive took effect in 2012, our [European] headquarter office wanted to
see if there is similar demand in China [for cage-free eggs] . . . so we want to plan early and
explore [the market] . . . we followed the EU standards and built a shed to study its costs
and viability [of producing cage-free eggs].”
(P7 cage and cage-free egg producer)
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 11 / 27

Therefore, while some producers’ values were consistent with their housing systems, others
did not align with the choices. Instead, profitability and leadership decisions led to the selec-
tion of housing systems.
3.4 Attitudes towards animal welfare
3.4.1 Animal welfare as a non-priority. In general, consideration of animal welfare was
not perceived as necessary in poultry production. Exceptions were a couple of cage-free pro-
ducers working for leading agriculture groups. They related animal welfare to the companies’
missions and social responsibilities and believed good animal welfare was an indicator of a
good company and food safety:
“Our company’s vision is to contribute to food safety in China. . .if a company promises to
produce products with higher welfare. . .the company can’t be bad. . .only a good company
can promise to adopt [higher animal welfare] practice.”
(p15 cage-free egg producer)
“I think the motivation and social responsibility of running an agricultural business should
be providing better food choices for consumers. . .animal welfare is human welfar-
e. . .producers should take on the social responsibilities.”
(p11 free range producer)
Nevertheless, regardless of their views on animal welfare, most cage-free producers did not
choose cage-free systems for animal welfare reasons. Instead, the choice rationale came from
meeting the perceived consumer demand and profitability. One cage-free egg producer clearly
stated:
“The cage-free eggs might have a better prospect, [because] raising the conventional chick-
ens probably can’t make much money and cage-free eggs might be sold at a better price and
[producers] can make some profit. . .I will try other cage-free systems if they are cost-effec-
tive. . .whichever is profitable, I will use it.”
(p4 cage and cage-free egg producer)
In the white-feathered broiler sector, animal welfare was generally considered unimportant.
Nearly all the participants had started or completed transitioning from floor-based systems to
cages. The transition was driven by profitability and market demand for affordable meat, even
though the economic investment is much higher in cages than in floor-based systems. One
cage broiler producer observed how animal welfare was less and less emphasised since the
transition began:
“So far animal welfare is less and less considered. . .we increasingly realise that cage systems
make more money indeed. . .from the perspective of profit, [the producers] will not con-
sider animal welfare. . .Since 2013, animal welfare in white-feathered broiler production has
been paid less attention.”
(p16 cage broiler producer)
Other broiler producers explicitly stated their indifference to animal welfare:
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 12 / 27

“At present, almost only the international companies are still using floor-based systems to
raise broilers. . .because of the policies in those companies. . .Europe and America have
higher welfare requirements, we Chinese have no faith [in animal welfare], don’t we?. . .
Animal welfare is not important to us. It is like growing wheat and peanuts. Just grow
them. You don’t complain about the planting density of wheat, do you? crops are crops.”
(p20 cage broiler producer)
“As a business, [our goal] is to turn them into protein as fast as possible. We don’t consider
things like [animal welfare] too much”.
(p26 cage and cage-free producer)
In addition, animal welfare was regarded as conflicting with food security and human wel-
fare. Producers widely agreed that animal welfare should not be considered when securing
food supply for mass consumption was a priority:
“For high-end [products], animal welfare is important. For the low-end products for mass
consumption, animal welfare is not considered. After all, it is based on cost-benefit
analysis.”
(p26 cage and cage-free broiler producer)
“It is hard to define whether or not animal welfare is important. . .for companies like us, we
think it is important, for other companies. . .they need to secure the food supply, then [ani-
mal welfare] is not important.”
(p10 free-range producer)
Therefore, producers perceived caring about animal welfare as incompatible with profit-
ability, food security and human welfare. As businesses, consideration of animal welfare was
not considered necessary in poultry production, especially broiler production, unless the com-
pany’s business orientation targeted the market of higher welfare products.
3.4.2 Profitability as a priority. The emphasis on profitability was ubiquitous in the par-
ticipants’ narratives. A few producers believed that profitability was an inherent feature in
farm animal production and that improving animal welfare offsets the pursuit of efficiency
and profitability. Thus, it is undesirable for Chinese farming businesses to use cage-free sys-
tems. As such, the “pressure” of gaining profits was often highlighted as a significant reason
for not choosing cage-free systems or shifting from floor-based systems to cages in the broiler
sector:
“We are doing commercial animal production, not raising pets or exhibiting animals, so
[the farming practice] needs to consider the nature of animal farming. . . [using cage-free
systems] brings a massive increase in costs. In the short term, I don’t think it is realistic in
China.”
(p23 cage and cage-free broiler producer)
“For the industry of layers. . .there are almost no profits. . .so we always use cage systems
with high stocking density, because only this system can produce the most eggs with the
least investments, and we can barely survive [in the market] . . . most [producers] do not
like animal welfare.”
(p13 cage and cage-free producer)
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 13 / 27

“Profits are the major consideration when we transition to cages. This is the biggest fac-
tor. . .because the investment in converting to cages is large. . .if we can’t recover the costs
soon, we wouldn’t have changed. It is all about profitability.”
(P21 cage broiler producer)
In addition, pressure was imposed on the business leaders, as they were responsible for eco-
nomic profits for the investors, and broiler production is a profit-oriented business:
“It was tiring. . .not everyone can withstand that level of stress. . .if the production perfor-
mance was poor, the investors thumped on the table at me. . .I was so embarrassed. . .they
invested billions in the business. I will be in trouble if the economic returns are not good.”
(p16 cage broiler producer)
“A broiler farm requires . . .nearly one hundred million of investment. What is the purpose
of the investment? It can’t be losing money, can it? The purpose is to make a profit, and
nobody will do it if there is no profit.”
(p8 cage broiler producer)
Similarly, profitability drove the yellow broiler sector from free-range systems to cages, and
the transition does not consider animal welfare. Yellow-feathered broilers are often raised in
free-range systems for better meat taste which consumers prefer over white-feathered chickens
[61,62]. These broilers are commonly sold in the live poultry market for family consumption.
However, the live poultry trade in wet markets has been banned in some regions due to the
impact of COVID-19 pandemic and Avian Influenza, thus processed chicken meat sales have
been growing [62]. Cage-raised broilers have a better carcass appearance and thus are favoured
by the producers. As one participant stated:
“In recent years...we tend to use cages. . .live poultry trade is increasingly hard in big
cities. . .we will sell the frozen chicken meat to consumers, just like the while-feathered
chicken meat production. . .in the Chinese market, animal welfare is not stressed.”
(p27 cage and cage-free broiler producer)
3.4.3 Animal welfare in a Chinese context. Several producers emphasised that improving
animal welfare needs to consider a Chinese context. They further explained that the Chinese
context differs from the West: producers are under more pressure to control animal diseases
and provide sufficient animal protein for a large population with limited resources. Hence,
cages, which economise resources the most, fit in China’s national context and are a way of
improving animal welfare with Chinese characteristics:
“A Chinese context is that there are many producers, and their farming conditions differ
vastly. The disease control is not as good as it is in Western industrialised, intensified, and
standardised farms . . .what works well abroad does not necessarily work in China. . .if we
adopt the foreign model of floor-based systems, we will need much land. . .the scale of pro-
duction in floor-based or free-range systems is not enough in China. . .the number of
farmed animals and a large population in China determine that a suitable housing system
in China should provide chickens with welfare, ensures lower production costs and [good]
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 14 / 27

biosecurity. Hence, we adopt this multi-level welfare farming system, [i.e., the cages] . . .it is
called a [higher] welfare farming model with Chinese characteristics.”
(p17 cage broiler producer)
“China is different from the Western countries: the population is larger, and the land is
scarcer. In this case, if [we] want more output per unit area, we must adopt cages. . .the
essential difference between China and overseas is that they have almost finished their
industrialisation process. . .and can meet their demand for animal protein. Still, the Chinese
per capita consumption of animal protein is far from sufficient. . .and at this historical
stage, we also have the challenges of land resources. . .and raw materials of crops, so we
have to pursue higher efficiency. . . we are facing different developmental challenges.”
(p25 cage broiler producer).
Apart from supporting cage systems, several producers from large poultry operations advo-
cated large-scale intensive poultry production as the best poultry farming practice that suits a
Chinese context:
“Indsutralisation and intensification of the layer industry is a good outcome; after all, China
is a developing country, and we just solved the problem of food shortage. . .if we convert to
the farming systems with higher welfare. . .at least the [egg] price will double, and it will
affect many people’s food supply”
(p13 cage and cage-free egg producer)
“Industralisation and intensification is good for broiler production, just like factory farm-
ing, because the production cost is low.”
(p20 cage broiler producer)
In summary, to some producers, improving animal welfare must consider the Chinese con-
text, in which conventional cages and intensive farming practices are favourable because they
can secure food supply and are cost-efficient.
3.4.4 Opposition against Western welfare standards. Compared to egg producers,
broiler producers demonstrated stronger opposition against the Western animal welfare stan-
dards because they promote floor-based systems to improve animal welfare. They believed
floor-based systems are old-fashioned and should be abandoned:
“. . .Some experts believed in a traditional view of welfare: one must use cage-free systems,
animals must have space to express their nature, and the environment must be enri-
ched. . .at present, based on the Chinese context and farming conditions, I believed [cages
are] the higher welfare housing systems that suit China. So, we don’t follow the Western
requirements, such as providing space of movement. . . they don’t necessarily work in
China.”
(P17 cage broiler producer)
“I have been back from the United States for seven years [from my study], and my biggest
take is that the foreigners’ practices [of using floor-based systems] are obsolete. . .. . .and
they don’t want to. . .. . .embrace new things. . .we will never go back [to floor-based
systems].”
(P25 cage broiler producer)
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 15 / 27

Facing the promotion of cage-free housing systems, these producers saw Western animal
welfare standards as an imposed Western ideology and a political tool to restrict the develop-
ment of the Chinese poultry industry. Therefore, they aspired to change the “rules of the
game” and start a “revolution”. As two cage broiler producers elaborated:
“Animal welfare is the largest hypocrisy in farming practices from the West. For example,
dairy welfare is not stressed [in the West] because they have a much greater demand for
dairy products than China. . .so they don’t talk about dairy welfare much or do very little
about it. Why do they stress poultry welfare? Because their poultry production can meet
their own needs, now they want to restrict the development of fast-growing countries like
China because China’s poultry production efficiency has exceeded the West. . .in the future,
they possibly use the established rules to restrict us. If they don’t restrict us, in the future,
we might restrict them. . .as late mover companies, we are facing [the challenge of] breaking
through the Western logic or the industry standards set under the Western discourse
power. . . We are growing stronger and stronger, and we challenge the West’s logic and dis-
course power as we have our own developmental needs. The theory [of animal welfare] has
no right or wrong, but the country that seizes the discourse power will develop better and
win the competition.”
(p25 cage broiler producer)
“[Cages are] a welfare farming model with Chinese characteristics. It is like developing
socialism with Chinese characteristics. . . cages are suitable for the future of Chinese agricul-
tural development. Chinese agriculture [industry] is big but not strong now, so we need to
grow the industry ‘big and strong’. . .this is a revolution. . .we are leading a revolution of
chicken meat consumption.”
(p17 cage broiler producer)
3.4.5 Perceptions of chickens. Considering the low priority given to animal welfare in
production, it is not surprising that most producers perceived chickens as tools of production
or equalised animals as animal-based protein products. For example, producers explicitly
stated how they perceived chickens:
“The role of chickens is a production tool. Essentially, it is for providing protein for
humans.”
(P13 cage and cage-free egg producer)
“Nowadays broilers have become an irreplaceable source of meat products in China.”
(P22 cage and cage-free broiler producer)
That said, a couple of cage-free producers expressed some sympathy for chickens:
“I sympathise with farm animals. . .after a long time being with the hens, we feel an attach-
ment to them. . . animals deserve some freedom during a short life cycle. . .I think it is good
to provide some happiness and space while they produce.”
(P15 cage-free egg producer)
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 16 / 27

“For broilers, although they are raised on the littered floor, I feel they are miserable because
they can’t see the sunlight even once.”
(P30 cage-free broiler producer)
A small number of producers saw laying hens as sentient individuals as well as production
tools:
“Laying hens are more intelligent than I thought. You can see their cognitive capabilities,
temperament, personalities and likes and dislikes. . .a flock of laying hens are like a factor-
y. . .just like machines. . .but they also have emotions. . .while achieving their production
performance, we can minimise their suffering.”
(P6 cage and cage-free egg producer)
“When I raised the first flock of birds, I saw them as my babies, and I was not dared to eat
them and sold them. . .later on, I feel [raising broilers] is providing animal protein products
for humans. . .now I feel [the broilers] are just healthy animal protein.”
(P27 cage and cage-free broiler producer)
Participants’ attitudes towards animal welfare were inextricably linked to economic consid-
erations. Animal welfare was not a key consideration in production, and producers prioritised
financial success in the market. Broiler producers were more likely to oppose applying West-
ern animal welfare standards in a Chinese context and perceived animal welfare as a Western
political strategy to hinder China’s development. While there appeared to be both a caring and
an instrumental relationship between animals and producers, producers stressed animals’
instrumental values more.
4. Discussion
4.1 Producers’ knowledge and definitions of the term animal welfare
The study investigated Chinese poultry producers’ knowledge and understanding of animal
welfare, explored the reasons for selecting housing systems, and revealed their attitudes toward
animal welfare in poultry production. The findings demonstrate participants’ familiarity with
the term “animal welfare” and their strong grasp of its definitions. Some participating produc-
ers even mentioned “animal welfare” spontaneously and used it interchangeably with cage-
free egg production systems, indicating their comfort with the phrase. Recent research suggests
increased awareness and knowledge of animal welfare among Chinese producers [50,52].
However, those outside the farming leadership in China, such as dairy farm workers [45,46],
workers in the transportation and slaughter sectors [63], and the public [64,65], remain less
acquainted with the concept.
Improved access to information and promotion of animal welfare in the livestock industry
has raised awareness among producers. Animal welfare science was initially introduced to Chi-
na’s livestock industry in the early 1990s to address animal health and food safety concerns in
intensive production systems [66]. Additionally, import restrictions on certain Chinese ani-
mal-based products in the European market compelled the Chinese government to emphasise
animal welfare [67]. Various initiatives, such as research projects, conferences, training, and
workshops, were implemented to heighten awareness and promote higher welfare practices in
the livestock industry [66–68]. The participants’ improved education levels and job statuses
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 17 / 27

likely facilitated access to these knowledge-sharing opportunities. Similar to prior research [46,
50,52], business leaders in this study exhibited notable awareness of animal welfare.
The study’s findings highlight participants’ understanding of animal welfare concepts com-
monly defined in Western literature, in particular the three dimensions of animal welfare (i.e.
biological functioning, affective states and natural behaviour) [32] or Five Freedoms [69]. This
familiarity is attributed to the significant influence of Western organisations and institutions
in disseminating these concepts in China through various means [68], including policy devel-
opment [70], knowledge transfer [66,68], research funding [71], and modelling higher welfare
farming practices [72]. Despite not using the term, China has a rich history of poultry produc-
tion spanning thousands of years [3], and the idea of animal welfare aligns with Chinese tradi-
tional culture [73]. Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism promote compassion towards
animals and harmonious human and non-human animal relationships. The study underscores
that familiarity with the term is not a prerequisite for implementing higher welfare practices.
For instance, certain Chinese dairy farm workers unfamiliar with the term “animal welfare”
were still knowledgeable about cattle welfare based on their daily tasks [46]. Similarly, partici-
pants in this study grasp the underlying conceptual and practical facets of animal welfare with-
out a native definition.
In alignment with prior European literature [41,74–76], participants demonstrated hetero-
geneity in their focused facets of animal welfare and attitudes toward different housing sys-
tems. Egg producers prioritised behavioural expression and supported cage-free housing,
while broiler producers held opposing views. Animal welfare literature often highlights a dis-
parity between minimising health issues and promoting natural behaviours [77]. Stakeholders
attribute varying importance to these dimensions in their welfare assessments [78]. Earlier
studies indicate that conventional producers prioritise health over natural behaviours [35,38,
49,50,79], whilst users of higher welfare systems stress animals’ natural behaviours [36,44,80,
81]. Given the diversity among participants, transitioning to and maintaining cage-free sys-
tems necessitates a tailored approach, as universal strategies may prove less effective than indi-
vidualised tactics.
Participants’ pronounced emphasis on animal health can be linked to various factors,
including concerns about food safety and challenges in mitigating animal health issues within
China. Animal farming in China is susceptible to food safety issues and potential public health
hazards due to the widespread misuse and overuse of veterinary drugs, particularly antimicro-
bials, leading to the propagation of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) from animals to humans
[82]. As one of the largest global consumers of antimicrobials [83], China employs antimicro-
bials extensively in animal agriculture [82], hence producers are anticipated to improve animal
health management (such as improved hygiene in housing environments) to diminish antimi-
crobial use [82]. However, compared to other countries, China’s disease control system has
weaknesses, including unclear policies, ineffective enforcement, limited capacity among work-
ers, resource shortages like vaccinations, and insufficient knowledge of on-farm biosecurity
practices [49,84]. Therefore, animal health is among the primary challenges when producers
consider improving animal welfare on farms [50] and transitioning to cage-free egg produc-
tion [22].
4.2 Producers’ perceived priorities in considering housing systems
This study reveals that external factors beyond personal values significantly influence produc-
ers’ housing system decisions. These choices hinge on perceived profitability, market demand,
organisational leadership and policies. Previous research shows that Western producers’ hous-
ing system choices are affected by external factors such as mandatory legislation [37,85],
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 18 / 27

resource availability [75], and economic returns [75,76,86]. Western farmers are willing to
adopt higher welfare production systems if they can gain price premiums to offset the
increased costs [35–38,87,88]. Similarly, Chinese producers are driven mainly by the profit-
ability and marketability of products to change to higher welfare farming practices [39,52].
This study’s findings indicate that companies’ leadership, policies, and culture significantly
influence the selection and maintenance of cage-free systems. Chinese cultural values, such as
the paternalistic management style and acceptance of hierarchy, primarily influence Chinese
companies [89]. Earlier research reveals the importance of Chinese companies’ leadership, pol-
icies, and organisational culture in motivating and supporting workers to improve animal wel-
fare in China [45,46,53]. Participating leaders in this study prioritised profitability and
market success. Thus, transparent communication regarding the commercial advantages of
improving animal welfare might be a pivotal strategy for engaging with these business leaders.
Certain participants in this study who endorse the benefits of cage-free systems for animal
welfare showed hesitance in transitioning to such systems. This hesitancy corresponds to the
intricate relationship between productivity, profitability, and animal welfare. While some stud-
ies indicate better egg and meat performance in free-range systems [90,91], others find cage-
free systems comparable or inferior in meat and egg production [92,93]. China-based research
suggests variable productivity and profitability outcomes, with some favouring cage systems
[5,94,95] and others supporting free-range production [24,96]. Similar debates extend to
other regions where cage-free systems have been employed [22,97–99], yet data primarily
originate from experimental or small-scale farms, necessitating economic evidence from large
cage-free operations. While Chinese consumers are willing to pay for higher welfare products
[47,100,101], translating intentions into actions lacks empirical confirmation. Chinese live-
stock stakeholders, therefore, demand evidence-based economic results [30,52] due to scepti-
cism about reconciling increased profits with elevated animal welfare costs [39]. Since cage-
free adoption raises costs, entails substantial capital investment [102–104], and introduces
market risks from uncertain demand and fluctuating prices [105], economic considerations
play a more critical role in deciding on housing systems than moral judgment.
Therefore, this study verifies that economic motives precede animal welfare arguments
when producers choose higher welfare housing systems. While knowledge and attitudes might
align with behaviours, they are not the most critical determinants of actions. Instead, external
factors largely shape farmers’ behaviours [106]. Highlighting this gap between knowledge and
action is significant, suggesting that knowledge alone may not hinder improving animal wel-
fare in China, with market incentives potentially proving more effective in engaging
producers.
4.3 Producers’ attitudes toward animal welfare
Several participants in this study did not prioritise animal welfare, expressing a preference for
cages in poultry production. This attitude aligns with previous research that alternative factors
(e.g., food safety, food security, and profits) outweigh animal welfare for Chinese farmers
[39,45,52]. The industry’s perceived low emphasis on animal welfare can be traced to China’s
political, socio-economic, and cultural contexts, as observed in other regions [36,39,107].
At the political level, the Chinese government has prioritised scaling up and intensifying
animal farming to expedite agricultural development to alleviate poverty, address food short-
ages [108], and enhance food safety. In China, food supply underpins social stability, as cap-
tured by the saying: "王者以民为天,民以食为天" (people are the most important to an
emperor, and food is the most important to the people). Moreover, export rejections in inter-
national markets and domestic food safety scandals have heightened awareness and concerns
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 19 / 27

about food safety among Chinese consumers [109,110]. Consequently, China welcomes
industrialised and intensive production systems, such as battery cages [111], seen as “scien-
tific” tools to boost poultry output [43,111] and enhance food risk management [96].
Furthermore, China’s lack of legislation and limited public engagement contributes to the
lower priority of animal welfare in poultry production. Driven by animal welfare science,
advocacy groups [5,14–16], and corporates’ commitments to source higher welfare eggs and
chicken meat [20], conventional cages have been banned for laying hens in Europe [97,112].
In contrast, China lacks national animal welfare laws despite attempts to establish animal pro-
tection regulations [73]. While the Chinese government shows willingness for animal welfare
improvement, it allows limited public engagement in animal welfare initiatives due to the
term’s associations with animal and human rights [67] and concerns that public activism
might jeopardise political stability [71]. Moreover, animal agricultural industries are antago-
nistic toward international advocacy groups and their pressure to improve animal welfare
because the industry might feel their cultural identities are under attack [29]. As such, similar
to previous research [30], participants in this study demanded that farm animal welfare stan-
dards be developed and applied in the Chinese context rather than copying Western standards,
or as Participant 17 put it: “We must [develop] animal welfare with Chinese characteristics”.
At the social level, Chinese consumers’ limited awareness of animal welfare and reluctance
to buy cage-free products discourage producers from prioritising animal welfare in produc-
tion. In Europe, concerns about animal welfare, the environment, and food safety lead West-
ern producers to hesitate to scale production [79]. In China, animal welfare awareness for
farmed animals is lower than for companion animals and wildlife [64,65], and Chinese con-
sumers prioritise food safety and support industrial farms [113]. Nevertheless, recent studies
show that educated, higher-income young consumers are willing to pay more for higher ani-
mal welfare products [47,114]. The approaching deadline for the commitment to cage-free
eggs by 2025 puts pressure on food businesses to source cage-free eggs [115]. This suggests
that Chinese buyers could drive producers to adopt high-welfare practices and cater to a future
niche market [67].
The perceived lower importance of animal welfare in production among the producers is
related to the perception of chickens as commodities lacking sentience. In Chinese culture,
animals are predominantly viewed as resources [67]. This viewpoint posits that the concept of
animal welfare, rooted in Western values, could be deemed too forward-thinking for Chinese
society [73]. "Welfare" is often understood in the context of human welfare [73] and seen as
"luxurious propaganda," leading to resistance against animal welfare legislation [68,116] and
reluctance to promote it until human rights and welfare are fully realised [68].
The limited emphasis on animal welfare and sentience might also stem from farmer-animal
relationships. Participants’ leadership roles often disconnect them from daily animal care, and
large flock sizes hinder individual connections with chickens. Moreover, compared to other
species (e.g. cows), producers might feel less attachment to chickens due to their brief farm
stays (particularly white-feathered broilers) and the purpose of raising them for slaughter. This
physical and emotional distance can foster an "attitude of detached detachment" [117] (p. 219).
Consequently, some producers with daily animal contact display empathy, while many per-
ceive animals as protein products, which is often seen in commercial settings [117]. Detached
human-animal relationships on Chinese farms suggest that advocating animal welfare on ethi-
cal grounds might not effectively engage poultry producers. Instead, identifying links between
animal welfare, food safety, marketability, and profitability could be a more strategic approach
to promoting cage-free production in China.
Nevertheless, some egg producers demonstrated strong intentions to adopt cage-free hous-
ing systems. Contextual differences in the egg and broiler sectors might explain the higher
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 20 / 27

intention to go cage-free among the egg producers than the broiler producers. In Europe, the
cage-free egg-sourcing commitment started in 2007 [118]. In contrast, the Better Chicken
Commitment requiring non-cage systems in the broiler industry only began in 2016, and the
companies who made Better Chicken commitments are limited to their western markets such
as Europe, America and Australia [119]. As a result, similar to Europe, while the demand for
cage-free eggs and discussion of transitioning to cage-free systems has been escalating in
China [23,27], less attention is paid to broiler welfare in cages than the concerns over cages for
laying hens in academia [16] and food businesses in China [119]. Therefore, Chinese egg pro-
ducers were more driven to switch to cage-free systems than broiler sector producers.
5. Conclusion
Based on interviews with thirty Chinese poultry producers employing cage and cage-free sys-
tems, this study highlights producers’ generally robust awareness and knowledge of animal
welfare. While health and productivity, affective state, and natural behaviours collectively
shape their understanding of animal welfare, egg producers prioritise natural behaviours,
while broiler producers emphasise health and productivity. In their housing system choices,
external factors such as profitability, company leadership, and organisational policies wield
greater influence than animal welfare considerations. These producers do not accord primary
importance to animal welfare in poultry production and view chickens more as production
tools than sentient beings.
This study offers insights into designing strategies to encourage Chinese poultry producers
to adopt cage-free systems and enhance animal welfare. Despite heightened awareness of ani-
mal welfare, producers’ perceptions and knowledge do not determine housing system choices.
Instead, their attitudes and behaviours towards animal welfare are intertwined with company,
sector, and China-specific contexts. Moreover, egg producers exhibit a stronger inclination to
transition to cage-free systems, driven by potential market demand for cage-free eggs com-
pared to the broiler sector. Consequently, prioritising engagement with egg producers for
cage-free adoption is a strategic approach, with learnings applicable to the broiler sector in the
future. Given China’s economic, political, social, and cultural milieu, this study highlights mar-
ket incentives as a potentially effective strategy for promoting cage-free systems, necessitating
engagement with corporate buyers to expedite the shift. However, comprehensive strategy
development requires a more extensive exploration of Chinese egg producers’ and corpora-
tions’ perceived opportunities and challenges in the transition process.
Supporting information
S1 Appendix. Interview guide for egg producers.
(DOCX)
S2 Appendix. Interview guide for broiler producers.
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all the egg and broiler producers interviewed for their time and
participation.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Qing Yang, Belinda Vigors.
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 21 / 27

Data curation: Qing Yang.
Formal analysis: Qing Yang.
Funding acquisition: Cathy M. Dwyer, Fritha M. Langford.
Methodology: Qing Yang.
Supervision: Cathy M. Dwyer, Belinda Vigors, Ruqian Zhao, Fritha M. Langford.
Writing – original draft: Qing Yang.
Writing – review & editing: Cathy M. Dwyer, Belinda Vigors, Fritha M. Langford.
References
1. Hu Y, Cheng H, Tao S. Environmental and human health challenges of industrial livestock and poultry
farming in China and their mitigation. Environ Int. 2017; 107:111–30. Epub 20170715. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envint.2017.07.003 PMID: 28719840.
2. Wang X, Wu X, Yan P, Gao W, Chen Y, Sui P. Integrated analysis on economic and environmental
consequences of livestock husbandry on different scale in China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;
119:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.084
3. Yang N. Egg Production in China: Current Status and Outlook. Frontiers of Agricultural Science and
Engineering. 2021; 8(1). https://doi.org/10.15302/j-fase-2020363
4. Yang Z, Rose SP, Yang HM, Pirgozliev V, Wang ZY. Egg production in China. World’s Poultry Science
Journal. 2019; 74(3):417–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043933918000429
5. Chen Q, S H W, Cortenbach J, Jin W. Comparison of Chinese Broiler Production Systems in Economic
Performance and Animal Welfare. Animals (Basel). 2020; 10(3). Epub 20200315. https://doi.org/10.
3390/ani10030491 PMID: 32183491.
6. Song B, Yan S, Li P, Li G, Gao M, Yan L, et al. Comparison and Correlation Analysis of Immune Func-
tion and Gut Microbiota of Broiler Chickens Raised in Double-Layer Cages and Litter Floor Pens.
Microbiol Spectr. 2022; 10(4):e0004522. Epub 20220629. https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.00045-22
PMID: 35766494.
7. FAO. FAOSTAT 2023 [cited 2023 11th November]. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL.
8. Xin X, Zhang Y, Wang J, Nuetah JA. Effects of Farm Size on Technical Efficiency in China’s Broiler
Sector: A Stochastic Meta-Frontier Approach. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue
canadienne d’agroeconomie. 2015; 64(3):493–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12093
9. Scrinis G, Parker C, Carey R. The Caged Chicken or the Free-Range Egg? The Regulatory and Mar-
ket Dynamics of Layer-Hen Welfare in the UK, Australia and the USA. Journal of Agricultural and Envi-
ronmental Ethics. 2017; 30(6):783–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9699-y
10. Molnar M. Transforming Intensive Animal Production: Challenges and Opportunities for Farm Animal
Welfare in the European Union. Animals (Basel). 2022; 12(16). Epub 20220815. https://doi.org/10.
3390/ani12162086 PMID: 36009676.
11. Van Horne PLM, Achterbosch TJ. Animal welfare in poultry production systems: impact of EU stan-
dards on world trade. World’s Poultry Science Journal. 2019; 64(1):40–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/
s0043933907001705
12. Bas Rodenburg T, Giersberg MF, Petersan P, Shields S. Freeing the hens: Workshop outcomes for
applying ethology to the development of cage-free housing systems in the commercial egg industry.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2022; 251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2022.105629
13. Blokhuis HJ, Van Niekerk T. F., Bessei W., Elson A., Gue
´mene
´D., Kjaer J. B., et al. The LayWel proj-
ect: welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. World’s Poultry Science
Journal. 2007; 63(1):101–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933907001328
14. Appleby MC, Hughes BO. Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: environmental,
physical and behavioural aspects. World’s Poultry Science Journal. 1991; 47(2):109–28. https://doi.
org/10.1079/wps19910013
15. Hartcher KM, Jones B. The welfare of layer hens in cage and cage-free housing systems. World’s
Poultry Science Journal. 2017; 73(4):767–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043933917000812
16. Shields S, Greger M. Animal Welfare and Food Safety Aspects of Confining Broiler Chickens to
Cages. Animals (Basel). 2013; 3(2):386–400. Epub 20130513. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3020386
PMID: 26487409.
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 22 / 27

17. Meseret S. A review of poultry welfare in conventional production system. Livestock Research for
Rural Development. 2016; 28(2):234–45.
18. Communities CotE. Council Directive 99/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for
the protection of laying hens. Official journal of the European Communities. 1999; 203:53–7.
19. Commission E. European Citizens’ Initiative: Commission to propose phasing out of cages for farm
animals 2021 [cited 2023 11th November]. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_
21_3297.
20. Watch C. Cage-Free 2018 [cited 2023 11th November]. https://chickenwatch.org/cage-free.
21. Farming CiW. End the Cage Age 2023 [cited 2023 11th November]. https://www.endthecageage.eu/
en/.
22. de Luna MCT, Yang Q, Agus A, Ito S, Idrus Z, Iman RHS, et al. Cage egg producers’ perspectives on
the adoption of cage-free systems in China, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand.
Front Vet Sci. 2022; 9:1038362. Epub 20221205. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.1038362 PMID:
36583038.
23. Chen M, Lee H, Lin Y, Weary D. Cage-free eggs in China. Anim Front. 2023; 13(1):34–9. Epub
20230223. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfac078 PMID: 36845604.
24. He S, Lin J, Jin Q, Ma X, Liu Z, Chen H, et al. The Relationship between Animal Welfare and Farm
Profitability in Cage and Free-Range Housing Systems for Laying Hens in China. Animals (Basel).
2022; 12(16). Epub 20220816. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162090 PMID: 36009680.
25. Liu C, Liu X, Yao L, Liu J. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for eco-labelled eggs: a dis-
crete choice experiment from Chongqing in China. British Food Journal. 2022; 125(5):1683–97.
https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-12-2021-1305
26. Liao W, Cai H, Lian H, Huang Z, Sun Y, Ni H. Quality evaluation of table eggs under different rearing
systems in China. Food Science and Technology. 2023; 43. https://doi.org/10.1590/fst.110322
27. Wright C. Chinese cage-free egg industry in early stages but advancing with standardization thepoul-
trysite.com 2022 [cited 2023 11th November]. https://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/chinese-cage-
free-egg-industry-in-early-stages-but-advancing-with-standardization.
28. Khan I, Wang W, Ye X, Isa AM, Khan MT, Sa R, et al. Comparison of Bacterial Community Structure in
PM2.5 within Broiler Houses under Different Rearing Systems in China. Sustainability. 2022; 14(3).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031357
29. Sinclair M, Phillips CJC. Key Tenets of Operational Success in International Animal Welfare Initia-
tives. Animals (Basel). 2018; 8(6). Epub 20180609. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8060092 PMID:
29890723.
30. Sinclair M, Phillips CJC. Asian Livestock Industry Leaders’ Perceptions of the Importance of, and Solu-
tions for, Animal Welfare Issues. Animals (Basel). 2019; 9(6). Epub 20190605. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ani9060319 PMID: 31195720.
31. Balzani A, Hanlon A. Factors that Influence Farmers’ Views on Farm Animal Welfare: A Semi-System-
atic Review and Thematic Analysis. Animals (Basel). 2020; 10(9). Epub 20200828. https://doi.org/10.
3390/ani10091524 PMID: 32872206.
32. Fraser D. Assessing animal welfare: different philosophies, different scientific approaches. Zoo Biol.
2009; 28(6):507–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20253 PMID: 19434682.
33. Miele M, Blokhuis H, Bennett R, Bock B. Changes in farming and in stakeholder concern for animal
welfare. Improving farm animal welfare2013. p. 19–47.
34. de Lauwere C, van Asseldonk M, van ’t Riet J, de Hoop J, ten Pierick E. Understanding farmers’ deci-
sions with regard to animal welfare: The case of changing to group housing for pregnant sows. Live-
stock Science. 2012; 143(2–3):151–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.09.007
35. Stadig LM, Ampe BA, Van Gansbeke S, Van den Bogaert T, D’Haenens E, Heerkens JL, et al. Opinion
of Belgian Egg Farmers on Hen Welfare and Its Relationship with Housing Type. Animals (Basel).
2015; 6(1). Epub 20151222. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6010001 PMID: 26703742.
36. Bock BB, Bourlakis M, van Huik MM. Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig
farmers. British Food Journal. 2007; 109(11):931–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700710835732
37. Stadig LM, Ampe BA, Van Gansbeke S, Van den Bogaert T, D’Haenens E, Heerkens JL, et al. Survey
of egg farmers regarding the ban on conventional cages in the EU and their opinion of alternative layer
housing systems in Flanders, Belgium. Poult Sci. 2016; 95(3):715–25. Epub 20151114. https://doi.org/
10.3382/ps/pev334 PMID: 26574025.
38. Tuyttens FA, Sonck B, Staes M, Van Gansbeke S, Van den Bogaert T, Ampe B. Survey of egg produc-
ers on the introduction of alternative housing systems for laying hens in Flanders, Belgium. Poult Sci.
2011; 90(4):941–50. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-01122 PMID: 21406383.
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 23 / 27

39. Sinclair M, Idrus Z, Nhiem DV, Katawatin S, Todd B, Burn GL, et al. Motivations for Industry Stakehold-
ers in China, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia to Improve Livestock Welfare. Animals (Basel). 2019; 9
(7). Epub 20190704. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9070416 PMID: 31277448
40. Kauppinen T, Valros A, Vesala KM. Attitudes of Dairy Farmers toward Cow Welfare in Relation to
Housing, Management and Productivity. Anthrozoo
¨s. 2015; 26(3):405–20. https://doi.org/10.2752/
175303713x13697429463718
41. Heise H, Theuvsen L. German dairy farmers’ attitudes toward farm animal welfare and their willingness
to participate in animal welfare programs: a cluster analysis. International Foodand Agribusiness Man-
agement Review. 2018; 21(8):1121–36. https://doi.org/10.22434/ifamr2017.0066
42. Yang Y, Wang T, Phillips CJC, Shao Q, Narayan E, Descovich K. Knowledge of, and Attitudes
towards, Live Fish Transport among Aquaculture Industry Stakeholders in China: A Qualitative
Study. Animals (Basel). 2021; 11(9). Epub 20210913. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11092678 PMID:
34573646.
43. Li X, Zito S, Sinclair M, Phillips CJC. Perception of animal welfare issues during Chinese transport and
slaughter of livestock by a sample of stakeholders in the industry. PLoS One. 2018; 13(6):e0197028.
Epub 20180622. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197028 PMID: 29933370.
44. Sinclair M, Yan W, Phillips CJC. Attitudes of Pig and Poultry Industry Stakeholders in Guandong Prov-
ince, China, to Animal Welfare and Farming Systems. Animals (Basel). 2019; 9(11). Epub 20191024.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110860 PMID: 31652966.
45. Chen M, von Keyserlingk MAG, Magliocco S, Weary DM. Employee Management and Animal Care: A
Comparative Ethnography of Two Large-Scale Dairy Farms in China. Animals (Basel). 2021; 11(5).
Epub 20210427. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051260 PMID: 33925746.
46. Chen M, Weary DM. "Cattle Welfare Is Basically Human Welfare": Workers’ Perceptions of ’Animal
Welfare’ on Two Dairies in China. Front Vet Sci. 2022; 8:808767. Epub 20220208. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fvets.2021.808767 PMID: 35211535.
47. Sinclair M, Lee NYP, Ho
¨tzel MJ, de Luna MCT, Sharma A, Idris M, et al. Consumer attitudes towards
egg production systems and hen welfare across the world. Frontiers in Animal Science. 2022; 3.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2022.995430
48. Sinclair M, Zito S, Phillips CJ. The Impact of Stakeholders’ Roles within the Livestock Industry on Their
Attitudes to Livestock Welfare in Southeast and East Asia. Animals (Basel). 2017;7(2). Epub
20170125. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7020006 PMID: 28125058.
49. Platto S, Zhu Q, Guo A, He Q, Hu S, Valros A, et al. Chinese farmers’ attitude towards the improve-
ment of animal welfare in their facilities. Animal Welfare. 2020; 29(1):99–112. https://doi.org/10.7120/
09627286.29.1.099
50. Jo H, Nasrullah M, Jiang B, Li X, Bao J. A Survey of Broiler Farmers’ Perceptions of Animal Wel-
fare and their Technical Efficiency: A Case Study in Northeast China. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2021;
25(3):275–86. Epub 20210410. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2021.1912605 PMID:
33843378.
51. Sinclair M, Morton J, Phillips CJC. Turning Intentions into Animal Welfare Improvement in the Asian
Livestock Sector. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2019; 22(4):385–99. Epub 20181026.https://doi.org/10.1080/
10888705.2018.1534590 PMID: 30362369.
52. Sinclair M, Lee HP, Chen M, Li X, Mi J, Chen S, et al. Opportunities for the Progression of Farm Animal
Welfare in China. Frontiers in Animal Science. 2022; 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2022.893772
53. Bacon H, Vigors B, Shaw DJ, Waran N, Dwyer CM, Bell C. IsAnimal Welfare an Internationally Under-
stood Concept in the Zoo World? Thematic Analysis of Two Regional Groups of Zoo Staff. Animals
(Basel). 2021; 11(7). Epub 20210710. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11072059 PMID: 34359187.
54. Majewski E, Potori N, Sulewski P, Wąs A, Mo
´rawska M, Gębska M, et al. End of the Cage Age? A
Study on the Impacts of the Transition from Cages on the EU Laying Hen Sector. Agriculture. 2024; 14
(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010111
55. Mench JA, Sumner DA, Rosen-Molina JT. Sustainability of egg production in the United States—the
policy and market context. Poult Sci. 2011; 90(1):229–40. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00844
PMID: 21177465.
56. Braun V, Clarke V, Hayfield N, Terry G. Thematic Analysis. Handbook of Research Methods in Health
Social Sciences2018. p. 1–18.
57. Twinn S. An exploratory study examining the influence of translation on the validity and reliability of
qualitative data in nursing research. J Adv Nurs. 1997; 26(2):418–23. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2648.1997.1997026418.x PMID: 9292378.
58. King N. Doing Template Analysis. Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current
Challenges2012. p. 426–50.
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 24 / 27

59. Smid AC, Inberg PHJ, de Jong S, Sinclair S, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM, et al. Perspectives of
Western Canadian dairy farmers on providing outdoor access for dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2021; 104
(9):10158–70. Epub 20210701. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-20342 PMID: 34218920.
60. King N, Brooks JM. Template Analysis for Business and Management Students2017.
61. Yang Y, Wen J, Fang GY, Li ZR, Dong ZY, Liu J. The effects of raising system on the lipid metabolism
and meat quality traits of slow-growing chickens. Journal of Applied Animal Research. 2014; 43
(2):147–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2014.928631
62. Yuan C, Jiang Y, Wang Z, Chen G, Bai H, Chang G. Indigenous, Yellow-Feathered Chickens Body
Measurements, Carcass Traits, and Meat Quality Depending on Marketable Age. Animals (Basel).
2022; 12(18). Epub 20220914. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12182422 PMID: 36139280.
63. Descovich K, Li X, Sinclair M, Wang Y, Phillips CJC. The Effect of Animal Welfare Training on the
Knowledge and Attitudes of Abattoir Stakeholders in China. Animals (Basel). 2019; 9(11). Epub
20191118. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110989 PMID: 31752147.
64. You X, Li Y, Zhang M, Yan H, Zhao R. A survey of Chinese citizens’ perceptions on farm animal wel-
fare. PLoS One. 2014; 9(10):e109177. Epub 20141014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109177
PMID: 25314159.
65. Carnovale F, Jin X, Arney D, Descovich K, Guo W, Shi B, et al. Chinese Public Attitudes towards, and
Knowledge of, Animal Welfare. Animals (Basel). 2021; 11(3). Epub 20210317. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ani11030855 PMID: 33803067.
66. Bao, Li Y. 12. China perspective: emerging interest in animal behaviour and welfare science. Animals
and Us 2016. p. 241–52.
67. Littlefair P. Why China is waking up to animal welfare. In: Joyce D’Silva JT, editor. Animals, Ethics and
Trade: The Challenge of Animal Sentience. New York: Routledge; 2012. p. 251–63.
68. Lu J, Bayne K, Wang J. Current status of animal welfare and animal rights in China. Altern Lab Anim.
2013; 41(5):351–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119291304100505 PMID: 24329743.
69. Council FAW. Farm Animal Welfare in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future 2009 [cited 2023 11th
November]. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/319292/Farm_Animal_Welfare_in_Great_Britain_-_Past__Present_and_
Future.pdf.
70. Sima Y, & O’Sullivan S. Chinese animal protection laws and the globalisation of welfare norms. Inter-
national Journal of Law in Context. 2016; 12(1):1–23.
71. Li PJ, and Davey G. Culture Reform Politics and Future Directions_ A Review of China’s animal pro-
tection challenge. Society and Animals. 2013; 21(1):34–53.
72. Gong Y, Jia F., & Brown S. Modernisation of dairy farms: the case of Nestle
´’s Dairy Farming Institute
in China. Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies. 2018; 8(1):1–20.
73. Cao D. Is the Concept of Animal Welfare Incompatible with Chinese Culture? Society & Animals.
2020; 30(3):284–96. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341610
74. Franz A, Deimel I, Spiller A. Concerns about animal welfare: a cluster analysis of German pig farmers.
British Food Journal. 2012; 114(10):1445–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701211263019
75. Gocsik E
´, van der Lans IA, Lansink AGJMO, Saatkamp HW. Elicitation of preferences of Dutch broiler
and pig farmers to support decision making on animal welfare. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sci-
ences. 2016; 76(1):75–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2015.11.006
76. Heise LvHaH, editor German Pig Farmers’ Attitudes Towards Farm Animal Welfare And Their Willing-
ness To Participate In Animal Welfare Programs An Empirical Study. System Dynamics and Innova-
tion in Food Networks; 2018.
77. Vigors B, Ewing DA, Lawrence AB. Happy or healthy? How members of the public prioritise farm ani-
mal health and natural behaviours. PLoS One. 2021; 16(3):e0247788. Epub 20210303. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0247788 PMID: 33657189.
78. Weary DM, Robbins JA. Understanding the multiple conceptions of animal welfare. Animal Welfare.
2019; 28(1):33–40. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.1.033
79. Tuyttens F, Vanhonacker F, Verbeke W. Broiler production in Flanders, Belgium: current situation and
producers’ opinions about animal welfare. World’s Poultry Science Journal. 2014; 70(2):343–54.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s004393391400035x
80. Spooner JM, Schuppli C. A., & Fraser D. Attitudes of Canadian Beef Producers Toward Animal Wel-
fare. Animal Welfare. 2012; 21(2):273–83.
81. Becker T, Kayser M, Tonn B, Isselstein J. How German dairy farmers perceive advantages and disad-
vantages of grazing and how it relates to their milk production systems. Livestock Science. 2018;
214:112–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2018.05.018
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 25 / 27

82. Hu Y, Cheng H. Health risk from veterinary antimicrobial use in China’s food animal production and its
reduction. Environ Pollut. 2016; 219:993–7. Epub 20160511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.04.
099 PMID: 27180067.
83. Van Boeckel TP, Brower C, Gilbert M, Grenfell BT, Levin SA, Robinson TP, et al. Global trends in anti-
microbial use in food animals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112(18):5649–54. Epub 20150319.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503141112 PMID: 25792457.
84. Xinjie Wei WL, and David A. Hennessy. Biosecurity and disease management in China’s animal agri-
culture sector. Food Policy. 2015; 54:52–64.
85. Tuyttens FAM, Struelens E, Van Gansbeke S, Ampe B. Factors influencing farmers’ responses to wel-
fare legislation: A case study of gestation sow housing in Flanders (Belgium). Livestock Science.
2008; 116(1–3):289–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.10.013
86. Tuyttens FA, Van Gansbeke S, Ampe B. Survey among Belgian pig producers about the introduction
of group housing systems for gestating sows. J Anim Sci. 2011; 89(3):845–55. Epub 20101029.
https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-2978 PMID: 21036931.
87. Christensen T, Denver S, Sandøe P. How best to improve farm animal welfare? Four main approaches
viewed from an economic perspective. Animal Welfare. 2019; 28(1):95–106. https://doi.org/10.7120/
09627286.28.1.095
88. Gocsik E
´. Animal welfare decisions in Dutch poultry and pig farms: Wageningen University and
Research; 2014.
89. Pun KF, Chin KS, Lau H. A review of the Chinese cultural influences on Chinese enterprise manage-
ment. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2003; 2(4):325–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1468-2370.00045
90. Ponte PI, Rosado CM, Crespo JP, Crespo DG, Mourao JL, Chaveiro-Soares MA, et al. Pasture intake
improves the performance and meat sensory attributes of free-range broilers. Poult Sci. 2008; 87
(1):71–9. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2007-00147 PMID: 18079453.
91. Yilmaz Dikmen B, Ipek A, Sahan U, Petek M, Sozcu A. Egg production and welfare of laying hens kept
in different housing systems (conventional, enriched cage, and free range). Poult Sci. 2016; 95
(7):1564–72. Epub 20160318. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew082 PMID: 26994200.
92. Durali T, Groves, P., & Cowieson, A. J. Comparison of performance of commercial conventional and
free-range broilers. 23rd Annual Australian Poultry Science Symposium; Sydney, Australia 2012.
p. 19–22.
93. Ahammed M, Chae BJ, Lohakare J, Keohavong B, Lee MH, Lee SJ, et al. Comparison of aviary, barn
and conventional cage raising of chickens on laying performance and egg quality. Asian-Australas J
Anim Sci. 2014; 27(8):1196–203. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13394 PMID: 25083115.
94. Zhao ZG, Li JH, Li X, Bao J. Effects of Housing Systems on Behaviour, Performance and Welfare of
Fast-growing Broilers. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2014; 27(1):140–6. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.
2013.13167 PMID: 25049936.
95. Wang Y, Gou Z, Lin X, Fan Q, Ye J, Jiang S. Optimal Level of Supplemental Manganese for Yellow-
Feathered Broilers during the Growth Phase. Animals (Basel). 2021; 11(5). Epub 20210513. https://
doi.org/10.3390/ani11051389 PMID: 34068258.
96. Yan Y. Food Safety and Social Risk in Contemporary China. The Journal of Asian Studies. 2012; 71
(3):705–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021911812000678
97. Balsiger P. Moral Struggles in Markets: The Fight against Battery Cages and the Rise of Cage-Free
Eggs in Switzerland. European Journal of Sociology. 2016; 57(3):419–50.
98. Vukina T, Nestic D. Paying for animal welfare? A hedonic analysis of egg prices. Agribusiness. 2020;
36(4):613–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21658
99. Oh SE, Vukina T. The price of cage-free eggs: Social cost of Proposition 12 in California. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2021; 104(4):1293–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12279
100. Lai J, Wang HH, Ortega DL, Olynk Widmar NJ. Factoring Chinese consumers’ risk perceptions into
their willingness to pay for pork safety, environmental stewardship, and animal welfare. Food Control.
2018; 85:423–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.09.032
101. Xu L, Yang X, Wu L, Chen X, Chen L, Tsai FS. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Food with Informa-
tion on Animal Welfare, Lean Meat Essence Detection, and Traceability. Int J Environ Res Public
Health. 2019; 16(19). Epub 20190926. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193616 PMID: 31561621.
102. Sumner DA, Gow H, Hayes D, Matthews W, Norwood B, Rosen-Molina JT, et al. Economic and market
issues on the sustainability of egg production in the United States: analysis of alternative production
systems. Poult Sci. 2011; 90(1):241–50. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00822 PMID: 21177466.
103. Matthews WA, Sumner DA. Effects of housing system on the costs of commercial egg production.
Poult Sci. 2015; 94(3):552–7. Epub 20141205. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/peu011 PMID: 25480736.
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 26 / 27

104. Gocsik E
´, van der Lans IA, Lansink AO, Saatkamp HW. Willingness of Dutch broiler and pig farmers to
convert to production systems with improved welfare. Animal Welfare. 2015; 24(2):211–22. https://doi.
org/10.7120/09627286.24.2.211
105. Trejo-Pech CJO, Thompson JM. Discounted cash flow valuation of conventional and cage-free pro-
duction investments. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review. 2021; 24(2):197–
214. https://doi.org/10.22434/ifamr2020.0046
106. Burton RJF, Peoples S, Cooper MH. Building ‘cowshed cultures’: A cultural perspective on the promo-
tion of stockmanship and animal welfare on dairy farms. Journal of Rural Studies. 2012; 28(2):174–87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.12.003
107. Vilas-Boas J, Klerkx L, Lie R. Facilitating international animal welfare standards implementation in
national contexts: The role of intermediaries in Brazilian pig production. Journal of Rural Studies.
2022; 90:53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.01.012
108. Li PJ. Animal Welfare in China: Culture, Politics and Crisis: Sydney University Press; 2021.
109. Calvin L, Gale HF Jr., Hu D, Lohmar B. Food Safety Improvements Underway in China. Amber
Waves. 2006:17–21.
110. Lam HM, Remais J, Fung MC, Xu L, Sun SS. Food supply and food safety issues in China. Lancet.
2013; 381(9882):2044–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60776-X PMID: 23746904.
111. Li PJ. Exponential Growth Animal Welfare Environmental and Food Safety-Peter. Journal of Agricul-
tural and Environmental Ethics. 2009; 22(3):217–40.
112. Mench JA, Swanson J. C., & Arnot C. The coalition for sustainable egg supply: A unique public—pri-
vate partnership for conducting research on the sustainability of animal housing systems using a multi-
stakeholder approach. Journal of Animal Science. 2016; 94(3):1296–308. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.
2015-9680 PMID: 27065290
113. de Barcellos MD, Grunert KG, Zhou Y, Verbeke W, Perez-Cueto FJA, Krystallis A. Consumer attitudes
to different pig production systems: a study from mainland China. Agriculture and Human Values.
2012; 30(3):443–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9416-4
114. Liang Y, Xu Y, Lai D, Hua G, Huang D, Wang H, et al. Emerging market for pork with animal welfare
attribute in China: An ethical perspective. Meat Sci. 2023; 195:108994. Epub 20220930. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108994 PMID: 36240585.
115. Mendez S, Peacock J. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Animal Welfare Standards:
Evidence from the Cage-free Egg Industry. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2022. https://doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.4219976
116. Song W. Animal welfare legislation in China: Public understanding and education. In: Joyce D’Silva
JT, editor. Animals, Ethics and Trade:The Challenge of Animal Sentience: Routledge; 2012. p. 127–
36.
117. Wilkie R. Sentient commodities and productive paradoxes: the ambiguous nature of human—livestock
relations in Northeast Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies. 2005; 21(2):213–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jrurstud.2004.10.002
118. Kolleenda E, Baldock D., Hiller N., & Lorant A. Transitioning towards cage-free farming in the EU:
Assessment of environmental and socio-economic impacts of increased animal welfare standards.
Brussels, Belgium: Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), 2020.
119. Welfare commitments-broilers [cited 2023 11th November]. https://welfarecommitments.com/broiler/.
PLOS ONE
Producers’ perceptions and attitudes
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061 July 18, 2024 27 / 27