Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI logoLink to Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI
. 2021 Mar 17;11(3):855. doi: 10.3390/ani11030855

Chinese Public Attitudes towards, and Knowledge of, Animal Welfare

Francesca Carnovale 1,2,3,†, Xiao Jin 1,†, David Arney 2, Kris Descovich 3, Wenliang Guo 1, Binlin Shi 1,*, Clive J C Phillips 4
Editor: Marina Von Keyserlingk
PMCID: PMC8003013  PMID: 33803067

Abstract

Simple Summary

Most of our current understanding of attitudes to animals comes from studies conducted in Western countries. China, however, is the world’s biggest producer of farm animals for consumption and has one of the worlds’ largest populations of humans. We conducted a survey of public opinion, in order to better understand Chinese people’s knowledge of animal welfare and their attitudes towards measures to adopt to improve it. Most respondents were unaware of the meaning of animal welfare, but it appears that awareness has increased in recent years. The welfare of wild animals was considered particularly important. The effects of good welfare on the taste and safety of food were highlighted and respondents were willing to pay more for food from animals raised in good welfare conditions.

Abstract

Food-producing animals make up the majority of animals that humans manage globally, and China has been a major producer and exporter of animal products since the late 1990s. The opinions of the population in China regarding animal welfare are not as well understood as those in Europe. In China, animal welfare as a societal concern is still at an early stage of development. This survey of Chinese attitudes aimed to understand consumer knowledge of and behaviour towards animal welfare, and to determine whether harnessing consumer interests may be a potential future influence on the development of high-welfare agricultural production. Most participants were not aware of the meaning of animal welfare, but the number of those that were aware was higher than reported previously. The welfare of wild animals was rated particularly important compared to other animals. The links between welfare and the taste and/or safety of food were considered to be important, and Chinese consumers reported a willingness to pay more for food from animals produced in good welfare conditions, although the quality of the food was considered more important than the animal suffering. A large majority of the respondents reported that there should be legislation protecting animals and certification of welfare on farms, that animals on farms should be provided with enjoyable experiences and that transportation times should be minimised. Furthermore, most respondents reported that animals should be stunned before slaughter. We conclude that animal welfare is of importance to the Chinese consumer, in particular because of its connection to food quality.

Keywords: animals, animal welfare, China, attitudes, knowledge, livestock, management, Europe

1. Introduction

In China, as elsewhere, the nuanced differences between animal welfare and animal rights are difficult to understand for the general public [1]. This may be because these concepts were introduced into Mainland China relatively recently, in the early 1990s [1]. Animal welfare can be defined by how well an animal copes with the conditions in which it lives [2]; animal rights are predicated on the idea that the rights of non-human and human animals are, fundamentally, the same [3,4]. However, animal welfare, to a greater extent than animal rights, has attracted increased media attention in recent years [1].

In general, society is becoming more interested in the well-being of animals and our impact on them and the broader environment, at least in Europe [5]. The European Commission for Health and Food Safety [5] reported that 94% of Europeans (including those in the UK) consider it is important to protect the welfare of farmed animals. Within the same report, it was further noted that animal welfare was more important to female respondents than male respondents, and also more important to younger respondents [5]. Food-producing animals make up the majority of animals that are managed by humans globally, and animal farming systems are accused of inefficient use of scarce resources, in particular feed, water and land [6]. Intensive animal production has continued to grow at a rapid rate over the last century [7]. The sustainability of the human-food animal relationship (which includes animal welfare) and the broader environment are likely to be at risk if, as anticipated, prices increase as a result of increasingly scarce feed, water, and land resources on which food animal producers rely [8,9].

China has been a large producer and exporter of animal products since the late 1990s [10,11]. Concerns about China’s record regarding disease control measures and the use of certain proscribed substances in husbandry and food processing have led to a European Union (EU) ban on the import of certain Chinese animal products, with resulting risks to the country’s economy [12,13,14,15]. Chinese livestock industries have experienced a variety of major animal epidemics, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), avian influenza, foot and mouth disease and more recently, African swine fever, all of which necessitated large numbers of animals being removed from the supply chain with considerable impact on both the livestock market and animal welfare. Improvement of animal welfare may help to prevent these disease outbreaks [16,17,18]. However, it is suspected that there is a fundamental lack of understanding of the importance of animal welfare among the majority of livestock stakeholders in China, leading to an absence of relevant government policies to address this [19].

Over the past 30 years, China has experienced a growth in affluence, which has been accompanied by a rise in demand for animal products [11] but, in order to improve the welfare of production animals, it is important to understand the attitudes and knowledge of the general public (as consumers) about animal welfare and, in turn, identify potential obstacles to improving the uptake of high welfare products throughout society. Improving animal welfare has direct benefits for the animals themselves, but also has significant benefits for humans who have livelihoods dependent on animal production, and for the wider community in terms of product quality and disease risk management [20].

Currently, little is known about the knowledge and attitudes of the general population towards animal welfare in China. A survey [10] in 2011 revealed that only around one-third of the Chinese public had heard about animal welfare. Of the participants, 73% believed that improving rearing conditions for swine and poultry would improve food safety of meat and eggs, and 54% expressed willingness to pay more for products from welfare-friendly operations. Platto et al. [21] asked Chinese farmers to rate several different priorities for action on farms, for example, provision of better flooring to promote hoof health or better lying areas; the improvement of animal welfare was rated third, with the most important being the farmer’s own well-being [22]. In China, animal welfare, as a societal concern, is still at an early stage of development. It did not attract attention from the Chinese general public until the early years of this century [10]. Many factors are recognized as having an influence on the attitudes of people to animal welfare, including culture, religion and gender [23].

To date, the term “animal welfare” has no meaningful translation in the Chinese language [24,25]. A survey conducted in 2008 found that Chinese respondents had a less favourable attitude towards the importance of typical welfare issues than students in 11 European and other Asian countries [23]; however, in the same survey they had a very favourable attitude towards wildlife protection [23,26]. Student attitudes towards animal welfare are particularly benign in the UK, Sweden and Norway, with females giving higher ratings to animal protection than males [24,26], as well as being somewhat benign in the USA, Japan, France and Germany [27].

This survey aimed to determine the attitudes of the general public in China towards issues that impact on animals, as well as what variables influence their attitudes and their choices. As China is one of the world’s major livestock-producing countries, this survey of Chinese attitudes is important from a global perspective in understanding consumer knowledge and behaviour, and whether harnessing consumer interests can have a potential future influence on the development of high-welfare agricultural production.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Structure of the Questionnaire

The first section of the questionnaire focused on demographic details such as age, gender, level of education, work fields, religious affiliation and place of residence (Appendix Box A1). Respondents were then asked how and if they had ever heard of animal welfare and where they had learned about it. Subsequently, they were asked if it was important for them to learn and be taught more about it, or to pay more for animal products with assured good animal welfare, and their opinion regarding the acceptance of good animal welfare by the Chinese population compared to other countries. The rest of the questionnaire was structured in four question sets with answers selected from two 5-point Likert scales. The first question set was concerned with general attitudes towards animal welfare. The second set asked which group of animals they cared most about. The third aimed to determine the reasons that they felt animals should be cared for, the fourth asked what aspects of welfare needed to be most cared for, using the Five Freedoms [28] as the basis for their choices. The survey’s format and content were translated into written Chinese (Zhongwen) by the Chinese authors. The translated version was then back-translated into English for comparison with the original questionnaire and changes were made where discrepancies were evident.

Box A1. Survey Administered to Chinese Respondents.

Location (circle): Rural/Village/City

Province:

  • 1 

    Do you identify as Chinese? YES (please continue); NO (if no, please do not continue. Thank you for your time)

  • 2 

    What is your gender? Male; Female; Other; Prefer not to say.

  • 3 

    How old are you? 18–24; 25–34; 54–44; 45–54; 55–64; >65.

  • 4 

    Religion: Chinese folk; Atheist; Buddhism; Muslim; Christians; Daoism; Confucianism; Prefer not to say; Other.

  • 5 

    What is your highest level of education? Elementary school or below; Technical college; Middle school; High school; University undergraduate; University postgraduate.

  • 6 

    Are you currently employed? Yes, No.

  • 7 

    If yes, what field do you work in? Administration; Agriculture; Arts; Construction; Education; Finance; Government; Health; Mining; Military; Retail/Sales; Science; Technology; Other.

  • 8 

    Where do you currently live? Rural; Village; Urban; Other.

  • 9 

    Have you heard of the phrase ‘animal welfare’? Not sure; Never; A few times; Many times.

  • 10 

    Do you live in harmony with animals? Not at all Slightly; Moderately; Very much; To a great extent.

  • 11 

    How important is caring for animals to you as a person? Not at all Slightly; Moderately; Very; Extremely.

  • 12 

    Where did you learn about caring for animals? (Tick all that apply) Formal study; Family and friends; Media; Business; My job; Government; Animal protection organization; Social media; Farmer; Have not heard; Other.

  • 13 

    Do you think that animal care should be taught in schools? Definitely not; Probably not; Possibly; Probably; Definitely.

  • 14 

    Would you be willing to pay more for products from animals that are better cared for? Yes; No

  • 15 

    If yes, how much more would you be willing to pay for a product from an animal very well cared for compared with the standard product? 5%; 10%; 20%; 50%; 100%; >100%

  • 16 

    What do you think is the current standard of animal care in China? Very poor; Poor; Satisfactory

  • Good; Very good.

  • 17 

    How do you think the standard of animal care in China compares to other countries? Much worse; Somewhat worse; About the same; Better; Much Better.

  • 18 

    Who do you think is most responsible for the adequate care of animals? (Tick one only) Government; Animal Protection Organizations; Farmers; All of society; People who like animals; People who own animals; Companies that use animals; Other.

  • 19 

    How important is it that the following animals are cared for?

(Not at all important; Slightly important; Neither important nor unimportant; Somewhat important; Very important.)

  • 19.1 

    Mammals

  • 19.2 

    Reptiles

  • 19.3 

    Birds

  • 19.4 

    Insects

  • 19.5 

    Pet animals

  • 19.6 

    Experimental animals

  • 19.7 

    Agricultural animals

  • 19.8 

    Stray animals

  • 19.9 

    Wildlife

  • 20 

    Why do people take care of farm animals? Indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following reasons

(Strongly disagree; Disagree; Neither agree nor disagree; Agree; Strongly agree.)

  • 20.1 

    It is important for food safety

  • 20.2 

    It is important for sake of the environment

  • 20.3 

    It makes me feel good

  • 20.4 

    My religion tells me to

  • 20.5 

    It is good for human health

  • 20.6 

    For sake of the animals

  • 20.7 

    To improve profit from animals

  • 20.8 

    To improve product quality or taste

  • 20.9 

    To be a kind person

  • 21 

    How important are the following conditions in animal care?

(Not at all important; Slightly important; Neither important nor unimportant; Somewhat important; Very important.)

  • 21.1 

    Species-relevant nutrition

  • 21.2 

    Access to drinking water

  • 21.3 

    A comfortable environment

  • 21.4 

    Space

  • 21.5 

    Physical fitness

  • 21.6 

    Absence of disease or injury

  • 21.7 

    Control over their environment

  • 21.8 

    Opportunity to perform natural behaviours

  • 21.9 

    Absence of fear or distress

  • 21.10 

    Absence of pain

  • 22 

    Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements

(Strongly disagree; Disagree; Neither agree nor disagree; Agree; Strongly agree.)

  • 22.1 

    Farms with animals should be certified by animal protection organizations

  • 22.2 

    Procedures performed on animals such as ear tags, castrations and tail docking are acceptable for management

  • 22.3 

    Transportation time of live animals should be minimized

  • 22.4 

    Animals on farms should be provided with enjoyable experiences

  • 22.5 

    It is OK to buy products of animals that have suffered if the product quality is good enough

  • 22.6 

    It is OK to buy products of animals that have suffered if the price is low enough

  • 22.7 

    Animals should be unconscious (stunned) before they are killed

  • 22.8 

    Animals should be killed before being cooked

  • 22.9 

    It is important to have legislation that ensures animal care is adequate

  • 22.10 

    Animal protection organization are important in ensuring animals are adequately cared for

2.2. Survey Method

The questionnaire and survey method were approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Queensland, Australia (#2019001811). The survey was designed by a cross-cultural research team including researchers from Inner Mongolia, China, and delivered by undergraduate students from the Inner Mongolia Agricultural University (IMAU).

Potential respondents were individually approached in public spaces (e.g., shopping centres, streets, parks, squares, markets) and by door-to-door knocking at residences, as these were likely to be most representative of all members of society. The survey responses (Appendix Box A1) were collected anonymously. A total of 217 undergraduate animal science students assisted in questionnaire dissemination and collection, with each distributing approximately ten questionnaires. Thus, a total of 2170 people were approached to complete a questionnaire between August 2019 and September 2019.

Questionnaires were delivered in 23 of the 31 directly administered provinces of the People’s of Republic China, but the majority of responses were from a single province, Inner Mongolia (Figure 1). Questionnaires took approximately 10–15 min to complete. They were delivered in paper form but verbal explanations were also accepted if necessary.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Map showing the collection points from the 23 provinces of the People ‘s of Republic China and the number of questionnaires collected (total N of questionnaries = 1301) [29].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

All analyses were conducted using the statistical package Minitab (Minitab Version 18; Minitab Inc., State College, PA, USA). Descriptive statistics were generated and demographic data were analysed to check the differences between responses for all groups (Male; Female; Other; Prefer not to say etc.) using one-way ANOVAs to determine if the answers for different species were significant. Assumptions of normality were checked using the Anderson-Darling test. Non-demographic data were analysed by Ordinal Logistic Regression for ordered categorical dependent variables, and Binary Logistic Regression for binary dependent variables to predict interactions between them.

3. Results

A total of 1301 of the 2170 potential respondents completed the questionnaire, a response rate of 60.0%. Demographic responses are shown in Table 1. Respondents were almost equally male and female, while the national average is 3% more males than females, but were skewed towards a younger age (Table 1). About half of the participants were unaffiliated with any religion (atheist 47%), similar to the all-China statistics (51%). High school students (39%) outnumbered the other final levels of education, indicating that survey respondents were educated to a higher level than the all-China levels of education. Approximately 60% of participants were employed full time, and a range of employment fields was represented. The most represented field was agriculture (19%), which in national statistics is only 3% of those employed, and people in military work were least represented (0.8%). Most participants were from urban areas (61%) rather than rural districts or villages, while 58% of the Chinese population live in a rural area. Although most respondents were resident in the province of Inner Mongolia, there were no clear differences that could be attributed to province in our dataset.

Table 1.

Demographics of respondents found in the questionnaires analysed. China statistics data from the 2018 China statistical yearbook [30,31].

Demographic Variables Number of Respondents % of Survey Sample China Statistics 2017, n × 106
Gender Male 621 47 Male 711 (51.17%)
Female 631 48 Female 678 (48.83%)
Other 7 0.5 *
Prefer not to say 39 3 *
Age 18–24 434 33 132 (14%)
25–34 339 26 189 (20%)
35–44 253 19 170 (18%)
45–54 177 13 202 (21%)
55–64 65 5 127 (13%)
>65 27 2 130 (14%)
Religion Chinese folk 213 16 304 (21%)
Atheist 611 47 720 (51%)
Buddhism 132 10 254 (18%)
Muslim 29 2 28 (2%)
Christians 23 1 72 (5%)
Daoism 26 2 *
Confucianism 25 1 *
Prefer not to say 128 9 *
Other 106 720 9 (<1%)
Education Elementary school or below 131 10 730 (55%)
Technical college 146 11 *
Middle school 160 12 286 (21%)
High school 507 39 321 (24%)
University undergraduate 270 20 0.8 (<1%)
University postgraduate 86 6 0.5 (<1%)
Employed Yes 781 60 776
No 504 39
Work field Administration 113 9 *
Agriculture 239 19 2.25 (3%)
Arts 44 3 *
Construction 94 7 26 (33%)
Education 121 9 17 (22%)
Finance 39 3 6.88 (9%)
Government 54 4 *
Health 78 6 8.97 (11%)
Mining 22 1 4.55 (6%)
Military 11 0.8 *
Retail/Sales 101 8 8.42 (11%)
Science 23 1 4.20 (5%)
Technology 65 5 *
Other 251 20 *
Dwelling Rural 171 13 813 (58.5%)
Village 321 24 *
Urban 793 61 576 (41.45%)
Other 14 1 *
Open in a new tab

* = no data.

3.1. Respondents’ Knowledge

The responses to attitudinal questions on animal welfare are shown in Table 2. Almost half of the respondents (47%) had never heard of the term ‘animal welfare’. However, a similar percentage of respondents stated that they live in harmony with animals (43%) and that it is very important to care for animals (53%). About a quarter of respondents stated that animal care should probably not, or definitely not, be taught in schools and only 2% had learned about caring for animals in formal study. Most respondents indicated that they had learned about the care of animals from family and friends or from social media (Table 3).

Table 2.

Respondents’ attitudes towards animal welfare in China.

Questions and Response Options Number of
Respondents		 % of Survey Sample
Have you heard of the phrase “animal welfare”? Not sure 99 7
Never 608 47
A few times 453 35
Many times 128 9
Do you live in harmony with animals? Not at all 70 5
Slightly 247 19
Moderately 411 31
Very much 312 24
To a great extent 256 19
How important is caring for animals to you as a person? Not at all 47 3
Slightly 176 13
Moderately 380 29
Very 471 36
Extremely 221 17
Do you think that animal care should be taught in schools? Definitely not 90 6
Probably not 238 18
Possibly 477 36
Probably 308 23
Definitely 185 14
Would you be willing to pay more for products from animals that are better cared for? Yes 757 58
No 532 41
If yes, how much more would you be willing to pay for a product from an animal very well cared for compared with the standard product? 5% 423 35
10% 328 27
20% 262 21
50% 115 9
100% 36 2
>100% 41 3
What do you think is the current standard of animal care in China? Very poor 128 10
Poor 557 43
Satisfactory 383 30
Good 164 12
Very good 40 3
How do you think the standard of animal care in China compares to other countries? Much worse 263 20
Somewhat worse 473 36
About the same 428 33
Better 91 7
Much Better 42 3
Who do you think is most responsible for the adequate care of animals? Government 100 8
Animal Protection Organizations 157 13
Farmers 18 1
All of society 516 44
People who like animals 123 10
People who own animals 167 14
Companies that use animals 23 2
Other 48 4
Open in a new tab

Table 3.

Origin of respondent’s awareness of caring for animals.

Did the Following Help You to Learn about Caring for Animals? Number of
Respondents		 % of Survey Sample
Formal study Yes 29 2
No 1273 97
Family and friends Yes 459 35
No 845 64
Media Yes 252 19
No 1050 80
Business Yes 57 4
No 1245 95
My job Yes 110 19
No 1192 80
Government Yes 46 3
No 1256 96
Animal protection organization Yes 178 13
No 1124 86
Social media Yes 359 27
No 943 72
Farmer Yes 84 6
No 1218 93
Have not learnt Yes 106 8
No 1196 91
Other Yes 22 1
No 1280 98
Open in a new tab

Most respondents (58%) reported that they would be willing to pay more for animal products if the animals had been well cared for, and more than 60% of these would be willing to pay more than an additional 5% in price (Table 2). More than half of the respondents thought that the current standard of care for animals in China is poor or very poor. A third stated that the standard of animal care in China was similar to other countries, but only 10% responded that it was better or much better. The responsibility for the care of animals was indicated by most respondents to lie with society as a whole (44%), and the number of respondents suggesting it to be mainly the responsibility of farmers was very small (1%).

3.2. Attitudes towards Different Animal Taxa

In order to investigate the relative attitudes towards different species, respondents were asked how important it is that different animal groups are cared for (Figure 2 and Appendix Table A1). More than 80% thought it was somewhat or very important that mammals, reptiles and birds are well cared for and over 68% responded similarly for insects (Figure 2). In terms of different animal use contexts, the care of pet animals, experimental animals, agricultural animals, stray animals and wildlife were all reported to be somewhat or very important, by over 83% of respondents (Figure 2). Very few respondents answered that being well cared for was ‘not at all important’ for any of the animal groups listed. Respondents considered that it was more important that mammals should be cared for than other animal groups (between p < 0.03 and p < 0.0001) (Appendix Table A2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

The relative perceptions of attitudes towards animal taxa and different animal-use groups in China, on a scale from “Not important” to “Very important” that they are well cared for.

Most respondents (>1000) (Table 4) agreed or strongly agreed that reasons to care for animals were for food safety (85%) and for the sake of the environment (85%), and these were more strongly supported than the other options (p < 0.05–0.0001): (Appendix Table A3 Similarly, most (>900) respondents agreed or strongly agreed that caring for animals makes them feel good (75%), which was more strongly supported than “for the sake of animals” (69%) and “because my religion tells me so” (59%) (between p < 0.005 and p < 0.0001) (Table 4). Other differences, and their probabilities, are listed in Appendix Table A3.

Table 4.

Reasons for caring for animals, listed in declining order of agreement.

Indicate How Strongly You Agree or Disagree with the Following Reasons Number of Respondents % of Survey Sample
It is important for food safety Strongly disagree 42 3
Disagree 56 4
Neither agree nor disagree 97 7
Agree 673 51
Strongly agree 433 33
It is important for the environment Strongly disagree 13 1
Disagree 51 3
Neither agree nor disagree 131 10
Agree 628 48
Strongly agree 477 36
To improve product quality or taste Strongly disagree 20 1
Disagree 34 2
Neither agree nor disagree 156 12
Agree 599 46
Strongly agree 491 37
It is good for human health Strongly disagree 19 1
Disagree 61 4
Neither agree nor disagree 209 16
Agree 593 45
Strongly agree 419 32
To improve profit from animals Strongly disagree 55 4
Disagree 76 5
Neither agree nor disagree 178 13
Agree 576 44
Strongly agree 416 31
It makes me feel good Strongly disagree 14 1
Disagree 63 4
Neither agree nor disagree 237 18
Agree 600 46
Strongly agree 387 29
For the sake of the animals Strongly disagree 50 3
Disagree 117 8
Neither agree nor disagree 225 17
Agree 514 39
Strongly agree 395 30
My religion tells me to Strongly disagree 51 3
Disagree 113 8
Neither agree nor disagree 361 27
Agree 463 35
Strongly agree 313 24
Open in a new tab

3.3. Attitudes towards Animal Welfare and Procedures Performed on Animals

Importance ratings for the evaluated welfare assessment criteria are shown in Table 5. For each criterion the majority of respondents (over 80% in all cases) reported that they strongly supported it, with physical fitness being the most important. Differences between respondents’ answers both within and between criteria are listed in Appendix Table A4.

Table 5.

Attitudes towards animal care based on animal welfare evaluation criteria, in declining order of importance.

How Important are the Following Conditions in Animal Care? Number of Respondents % of Survey Sample
Physical fitness Not at all important 6 0.4
Slightly important 25 1
Neither important nor unimportant 95 7
Somewhat important 576 44
Very important 598 46
Absence of disease or injury Not at all important 5 0.3
Slightly important 23 1
Neither important nor unimportant 97 7
Somewhat important 611 46
Very important 565 43
A comfortable environment Not at all important 10 0.7
Slightly important 24 1
Neither important nor unimportant 131 10
Somewhat important 613 47
Very important 521 40
Species-relevant nutrition Not at all important 37 2
Slightly important 32 2
Neither important nor unimportant 96 7
Somewhat important 661 50
Very important 475 36
Access to drinking water Not at all important 8 0.6
Slightly important 50 3
Neither important nor unimportant 116 8
Somewhat important 638 49
Very important 487 37
Space Not at all important 4 0.3
Slightly important 39 3
Neither important nor unimportant 116 8
Somewhat important 596 45
Very important 545 41
Absence of fear or distress Not at all important 14 1
Slightly important 40 3
Neither important nor unimportant 124 9
Somewhat important 596 45
Very important 527 40
Absence of pain Not at all important 10 0.7
Slightly important 42 3
Neither important nor unimportant 129 9
Somewhat important 544 41
Very important 575 44
Control over their environment Not at all important 15 1
Slightly important 40 3
Neither important nor unimportant 149 11
Somewhat important 555 42
Very important 542 41
Opportunity to perform natural behaviours Not at all important 8 0.6
Slightly important 42 3
Neither important nor unimportant 181 13
Somewhat important 564 43
Very important 505 38
Open in a new tab

Responses regarding animal procedures are listed in Table 6. A large majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there should be legislation protecting animals, that farms should be certified by animal protection organisations, and that such organisations are important in ensuring these animals’ care. Over half of the respondents considered management mutilations, such as castration, ear tagging and tail docking, to be acceptable. Minimisation of animal transportation time was thought to be important by 79% of respondents. A similar number agreed or strongly agreed that animals should be provided with enjoyable experiences on farms (82%). However, 70% of respondents agreed that it is acceptable for animals to suffer if the quality of the product is good enough, and over a third (44%) if the price of the product is low enough. However, a large majority of respondents thought that animals should be stunned before slaughter and that animals should be dead before being cooked.

Table 6.

Attitudes towards strategies for the management of animals.

Indicate Your Level of Agreement with the Following Statements Number of Respondents % of Survey Sample
Farms with animals should be certified by animal protection organizations Strongly disagree 62 4
Disagree 39 3
Neither agree nor disagree 133 10
Agree 660 50
Strongly agree 406 31
Procedures performed on animals such as ear tags, castrations and tail docking are acceptable for management Strongly disagree 109 8
Disagree 245 18
Neither agree nor disagree 180 13
Agree 521 40
Strongly agree 246 18
Transportation time of live animals should be minimized Strongly disagree 16 1
Disagree 31 2
Neither agree nor disagree 211 16
Agree 641 49
Strongly agree 400 30
Animals on farms should be provided with enjoyable experiences Strongly disagree 19 1
Disagree 31 2
Neither agree nor disagree 175 13
Agree 642 49
Strongly agree 434 33
It is OK to buy products of animals that have suffered if the product quality is good enough Strongly disagree 178 2
Disagree 250 6
Neither agree nor disagree 223 19
Agree 409 44
Strongly agree 241 26
It is OK to buy products of animals that have suffered if the price is low enough Strongly disagree 187 14
Disagree 277 21
Neither agree nor disagree 244 18
Agree 247 26
Strongly agree 245 18
Animals should be unconscious (stunned) before they are killed Strongly disagree 34 2
Disagree 89 6
Neither agree nor disagree 250 19
Agree 582 44
Strongly agree 346 26
Animals should be killed before being cooked Strongly disagree 30 2
Disagree 48 3
Neither agree nor disagree 197 15
Agree 575 44
Strongly agree 450 34
It is important to have legislation that ensures animal care is adequate Strongly disagree 21 1
Disagree 25 1
Neither agree nor disagree 126 9
Agree 557 42
Strongly agree 571 43
Animal protection organizations are important in ensuring animals are adequately cared for Strongly disagree 19 1
Disagree 31 2
Neither agree nor disagree 119 9
Agree 537 41
Strongly agree 594 45
Open in a new tab

4. Discussion

The survey we conducted suggests that there has been an improvement in the perception of animal welfare in China since a 2008 survey of students found that China had the lowest acceptance rating for animal welfare issues of 13 Eurasian countries [23,26]. However, that survey also found that there was considerable support for wildlife protection within China [26].

4.1. Respondents’ Knowledge about Animal Welfare

Almost half of the respondents had never heard of the term “animal welfare,” which does not necessarily mean that Chinese people do not care about the well-being of animals but Phillips et al. (2012) [26] showed that respondents in a sample of European countries generally had greater concern for the welfare of animals than those in a sample of Asian countries, including China. The Chinese government considers it necessary to adopt intensive rearing in order to meet the growing demand for the products of livestock [24,32,33,34]. As has also been shown in other studies, respondents were very sensitive about killing animals and all practices used on the farm [10]. Respondents mostly knew about animal care and welfare from family and friends, and also from the media. This indicates that reporting in the media may have improved since You et al. (2014) [10] claimed that discussion of animal welfare by the Chinese media was poor at that time. Respondents in the current study mostly felt that they lived in harmony with animals, which may be a reflection of the provinces where the survey was conducted, where agriculture in the economy and animal production are important. Current profession may be more pivotal than educational background in approaches to welfare measures and criteria [9].

Most respondents agreed that it was either very or extremely important to care for animals. Among other reasons, food safety was a common reason for this, as has been found in other studies [5]. Three-quarters of the respondents said that animal welfare should be taught in schools, and likewise Europeans (87%) consider that this is a good way to influence the attitudes of the younger generation towards animals [35,36]. As the survey was distributed by students it is possible that a disproportionate number of the respondents were from high school and university, and educational background influenced views on animal welfare aspects, as has also been shown in other studies [10]. The findings may therefore be skewed towards the perceptions of the younger generation.

The respondents thought that the current standard of care for animals in China is poor or very poor, acknowledging perhaps that there is difficulty in applying high welfare animal husbandry for the production of a large amount of animal products [37]. According to research carried out on meat consumption in China, future spending on meat is expected to increase [38]. This nutritional transition is a response to changes in lifestyle and dietary patterns driven by urbanization, globalization and economic growth, and their resulting impacts on nutrition and health outcomes [39]. But there remains significant diversity of diets around the world, reflecting diversity in food production landscapes and ecosystems, socio-economic conditions, cultures and beliefs. Studies of food systems adapted to their local context, and of the associated traditional knowledge built up over millennia, can provide new insights and pathways towards more sustainable food systems [40]. Most respondents said that they would be willing to pay more for high welfare standard products, which was not found in a previous survey in China [10]. If true, this could drive improvements in good practices on livestock farms; 58% of UK customers believe that by paying more for higher welfare products they can influence the welfare conditions of the animals [41]. In another European survey, Bozzo et al. [42] showed that 58.4% of the persons interviewed would pay 20% more than normal for high welfare products, while in this study 35% of respondents were prepared to pay more than 10% extra, which was most likely due to the perceived improved taste of the animal-derived product and effects on the environment. The European Commission for Health and Food Safety [5] reported that a sample population from 15 Member States of the EU considered that animal welfare contributes to a better-quality animal product.

4.2. Chinese Attitudes towards Animal Taxa and Reasons for Care of the Animals

The Chinese population appears concerned about all types of animals, since none of the species listed in the questionnaire were identified by many as unimportant. Davey and Wu [43], reported that Chinese students were concerned about the use of animals for research, which was also found in our study. Interestingly in the current study, wild animals had the highest amount of support from participants: 46% for very important and 39% for somewhat important. This importance attached to wildlife confirms an earlier study in which Chinese respondents did not care much about animal welfare generally [26] but were very concerned about wildlife protection [23,44]. This was further borne out by the findings of Phillips et al. (2012) [26] that of a range of countries, Chinese respondents scored lowest for animal welfare generally, but highest for the importance of welfare issues among wild animals. That this strength of comparative interest in the welfare of wild animals may have a cultural basis is worthy of further consideration and investigation. It may also be due to an increase in information regarding diseases that can be transmitted from wild animals, which up until recently few people were aware of [45]. Consumers consider farm animal welfare as an attribute of the food quality concept, with more importance given to this than to other attributes [46,47]. There is evidence from this survey that the Chinese population has responded positively to understanding the reasons why animals should care for, and how animal welfare affects other aspects, such as food safety, in China. The disease burden and use of antibiotics in farm animals is taken very seriously in China by government and could be considered a platform from which to advocate improvements to animal welfare [48].

4.3. Chinese Attitudes towards Animal Welfare and Procedures Performed on Animals

China has not yet enacted animal welfare legislation and the reason for this may be in part due to the perceived lack of animal welfare information in the country [1]. In 2005, the National People’s Congress voted on the Animal Husbandry Law of the People’s Republic of China, but the omission of the term ‘animal welfare’ reflects the fact that much of the public and many legislators are of the opinion that animal welfare cannot become a topic codified in the law [49]. The culture in a country can affect perceptions of animal sentience, which according to several studies [5,26,49] will then correlate with the perception of whether practices involving the animal species are considered cruel or not.

The majority of participants in our study considered the absence of injury to be somewhat important. In the EU, inflicting pain and injury are thought to be so well-controlled that people assume that they must be necessary otherwise they would not be allowed [26]. In this case the European respondents may be more trusting of animal production practices and animal welfare than their Chinese peers.

The respondents generally agreed that animals should be dead before being eaten, and this is evidence to encourage efforts to outlaw the consumption of live animals to reduce suffering and improve animal welfare [26].

The Eurobarometer survey (EC 2007) [5] of the European Commission for Health and Food Safety found that 60% of European respondents believed that welfare protection had improved in their country. In China, the attitude part of the survey appears to suggest that the general public mostly support the promotion of animal welfare.

5. Conclusions

The majority of the respondents to our survey remained unaware of the meaning of the term ‘animal welfare’ but the numbers of those that were aware appear to have increased compared with previous studies. Although those that were aware expressed opinions that were positive towards the welfare of animals, the majority considered the care of animals in China to be poor. The role of the popular media in discussing the welfare of animals seems to have improved recently. The respondents that were concerned for the welfare of animals were concerned for the welfare of all taxa and all types of commercial animal uses. A particularly interesting finding, and one that confirms a previous study, was the higher value placed on the welfare of wild animals than for other types of animal uses. The survey also showed the importance given to the taste of food and the safety of food from farm animals, and any possible link these might have to the welfare of the animals used; respondents reported that they would be prepared to pay more for such food.

6. Limitations

The authors recognize that there were limitations of this study that may restrict the conclusions that can be drawn. The respondents were not necessarily typical of the population of China as a whole, being more evenly matched to the student administrators of the survey, in terms of gender, age and having a higher education level. Likewise, the respondents were more urbanised in this study than the population of China as a whole. This may have been due to the use of student questioners rather than professional market research questioners, and also the sites selected to carry out the questioning. Finally, narratives related to the welfare of animals that might have been important but not predicted by the designers of the questionnaire may have been missed.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Weiqi Wu, Yuanqing Xu, Yuanyuan Xing, Chenyu Mao, Lulu Shi, Shuo Yang, to help for the collection data, all students under the supervision of Jin Xiao, Lecturer in College of Animal Science, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University. We are grateful to Michelle Sinclair for her help to us from the University of Queensland.

Appendix A

Table A1.

Show the relative perceptions of attitudes towards animal taxa different species in China and the answers for different species significant with Ordinal Logistic Regression.

How Important Is It That the Following Animals Are Cared for? Number of Respondents % of Survey Sample
Mammals Not at all important 40 3
Slightly important 35 2
Neither important nor unimportant 142 10
Somewhat important 676 52
Very important 407 31
Reptiles Not at all important 18 1
Slightly important 74 5
Neither important nor unimportant 186 14
Somewhat important 631 48
Very important 389 29
Birds Not at all important 19 1
Slightly important 46 3
Neither important nor unimportant 191 14
Somewhat important 617 47
Very important 427 32
Insects Not at all important 41 3
Slightly important 95 7
Neither important nor unimportant 258 19
Somewhat important 529 40
Very important 375 28
Pet animals Not at all important 10 0.7
Slightly important 39 3
Neither important nor unimportant 161 20
Somewhat important 588 45
Very important 501 38
Experimental animals Not at all important 14 1
Slightly important 29 2
Neither important nor unimportant 164 12
Somewhat important 573 44
Very important 518 39
Agricultural animals Not at all important 17 1
Slightly important 27 2
Neither important nor unimportant 138 10
Somewhat important 589 45
Very important 527 40
Stray animals Not at all important 21 1
Slightly important 39 3
Neither important nor unimportant 179 13
Somewhat important 566 43
Very important 494 38
Wildlife Not at all important 18 1
Slightly important 37 2
Neither important nor unimportant 134 10
Somewhat important 508 39
Very important 600 46
Open in a new tab

Table A2.

The relative perceptions of attitudes towards different animal taxa in China. Significant (p < 0.05) differences in the relative perceptions of the importance of looking after different animal groups in China, analysed by Ordinal Logistic Regression.

Mammals vs. Other Species Groups Odds Ratio % 95 CI p-Value
Lower Upper
Reptiles Neither important nor unimportant 0.2 0.05 0.5 0.004
Somewhat important 0.01 0.001 0.05 0.0001
Very important 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.0001
Birds Somewhat important 0.2 0.05 0.9 0.03
Very important 0.05 0.01 0.2 0.0001
Insects Slightly important 5.04 1.8 13.6 0.001
Neither important nor unimportant 4.6 1.7 12.1 0.002
Somewhat important 9.4 3.5 24.9 0.0001
Very important 4.7 1.7 13.1 0.003
Pet animals Very important 0.2 0.04 0.9 0.04
Agricultural animals Slightly important 0.1 0.04 0.8 0.03
Somewhat important 0.2 0.05 0.8 0.02
Very important 0.1 0.02 0.4 0.001
Stray animals Slightly important 14.3 3.9 52.8 0.0001
Neither important nor unimportant 6.1 1.8 20.1 0.003
Somewhat important 5.3 1.6 17.1 0.004
Very important 3.7 1.1 12.1 0.02
Wildlife Slightly important 0.2 0.07 0.9 0.03
Somewhat important 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.03
Very important 0.2 0.08 0.7 0.01
Reptiles vs. Other Species Groups
Mammals Slightly important 0.08 0.03 0.2 0.0001
Neither important nor unimportant 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.0001
Somewhat important 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.0001
Very important 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0001
Birds Very important 0.2 0.06 0.8 0.03
Insects Somewhat important 0.1 0.05 0.2 0.0001
Very important 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.0001
Experimental animals Neither important nor unimportant 8.7 1.6 48.2 0.01
Agricultural animals Neither important nor unimportant 0.1 0.04 0.7 0.02
Very important 0.1 0.04 0.8 0.02
Stray animals Slightly important 0.2 0.08 1 0.04
Neither important nor unimportant 0.1 0.06 0.5 0.004
Wildlife Somewhat important 0.1 0.06 0.5 0.003
Very important 0.1 0.06 0.5 0.002
Birds vs. other species groups
Mammals Neither important nor unimportant 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.04
Somewhat important 0.1 0.07 0.5 0.001
Very important 0.03 0.01 0.09 0.0001
Reptiles Slightly important 0.07 0.02 0.2 0.0001
Neither important nor unimportant 0.05 0.01 0.1 0.0001
Somewhat important 0.02 0.001 0.07 0.0001
Very important 0.01 0.001 0.03 0.0001
Insects Slightly important 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.0001
Neither important nor unimportant 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.0001
Somewhat important 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.0001
Very important 0.01 0.001 0.02 0.0001
Agricultural animals Slightly important 5.9 1.1 29.6 0.03
Neither important nor unimportant 5.9 1.2 27.3 0.02
Stray animals Neither important nor unimportant 0.2 0.08 0.7 0.01
Somewhat important 0.2 0.08 0.6 0.009
Very important 0.2 0.07 0.6 0.006
Wildlife Very important 0.2 0.09 0.8 0.02
Insects vs. other Species Groups
Mammals Slightly important 3.8 1.3 10.6 0.01
Neither important nor unimportant 7.6 2.8 20.6 0.0001
Somewhat important 11.8 4.5 31.1 0.0001
Very important 10.3 3.7 28.4 0.0001
Reptiles Somewhat important 0.1 0.03 0.4 0.003
Very important 0.02 0.001 0.07 0.0001
Birds Slightly important 0.03 0.01 0.1 0.0001
Neither important nor unimportant 0.001 0.001 0.02 0.0001
Somewhat important 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.0001
Very important 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.0001
Pet animals Slightly important 0.03 0.001 0.2 0.0001
Neither important nor unimportant 0.04 0.01 0.2 0.0001
Somewhat important 0.03 0.01 0.1 0.0001
Very important 0.02 0.001 0.1 0.0001
Experimental animals Slightly important 0.1 0.02 0.5 0.006
Neither important nor unimportant 0.1 0.02 0.6 0.01
Somewhat important 0.1 0.03 0.7 0.02
Very important 0.09 0.02 0.4 0.005
Agricultural animals Somewhat important 5.08 1.1 22.06 0.03
Very important 8.3 1.9 36.4 0.005
Stray animals Somewhat important 0.2 0.07 0.6 0.007
Very important 0.1 0.05 0.5 0.002
Pet Animals vs. other Species Groups
Mammals Slightly important 6.07 2.1 17.1 0.001
Birds Neither important nor unimportant 0.1 0.03 0.3 0.0001
Somewhat important 0.1 0.03 0.3 0.0001
Very important 0.08 0.02 0.2 0.0001
Insects Slightly important 4.1 1.6 10.4 0.003
Neither important nor unimportant 5.6 3.3 13.9 0.0001
Somewhat important 2.7 1.1 6.8 0.02
Experimental animals Slightly important 0.09 0.02 0.4 0.002
Neither important nor unimportant 0.01 0.001 0.07 0.0001
Somewhat important 0.01 0.001 0.04 0.0001
Very important 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.0001
Wildlife Slightly important 0.1 0.03 0.4 0.001
Experimental Animals vs. other Species Groups
Birds Somewhat important 0.1 0.03 0.4 0.003
Very important 0.2 0.05 0.7 0.02
Pet animals Very important 0.2 0.05 1 0.05
Agricultural animals Slightly important 0.07 0.02 0.3 0.0001
Neither important nor unimportant 0.01 0.001 0.05 0.0001
Somewhat important 0.001 0.001 0.02 0.0001
Very important 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0001
Stray animals Slightly important 0.1 0.05 0.5 0.005
Neither important nor unimportant 0.2 0.07 0.6 0.008
Somewhat important 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.029
Very important 0.1 0.06 0.5 0.003
Wildlife Slightly important 5.4 1.4 20.7 0.01
Agricultural Animals vs. other Species Groups
Mammals Somewhat important 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.02
Very important 0.1 0.04 0.3 0.0001
Reptiles Neither important nor unimportant 0.1 0.05 0.6 0.01
Somewhat important 0.1 0.05 0.6 0.01
Very important 0.1 0.04 0.5 0.005
Insects Very important 4.2 1.5 11.5 0.005
Experimental animals Slightly important 0.2 0.05 0.8 0.03
Neither important nor unimportant 0.04 0.01 0.1 0.0001
Somewhat important 0.01 0.001 0.05 0.0001
Very important 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.0001
Stray animals Very important 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.03
Stray animals vs. other species groups
Insects Somewhat important 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.03
Very important 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.003
Pet animals Slightly important 7.02 1.4 34.3 0.01
Neither important nor unimportant 4.6 1.01 21.4 0.04
Agricultural animals Neither important nor unimportant 0.1 0.03 0.4 0.002
Somewhat important 0.1 0.03 0.4 0.001
Very important 0.05 0.01 0.2 0.0001
Wildlife Slightly important 4.8 1.4 16.1 0.01
Neither important nor unimportant 3.5 1.1 10.7 0.02
Very important 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.003
Wildlife vs. other Species Groups
Birds Very important 0.1 0.04 0.5 0.005
Experimental animals Somewhat important 0.2 0.04 0.8 0.03
Very important 0.1 0.04 0.8 0.02
Stray animals Somewhat important 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.01
Very important 0.05 0.02 0.1 0.0001
Open in a new tab

Table A3.

Significant (p < 0.05) differences in the reasons that Chinese respondents indicated that they cared for animals, determined by Ordinal Logistic Regression.

For Food Safety vs. Other Reasons Odds Ratio % 95 CI p-Value
Lower Upper
It is important for sake of the environment Neither agree nor disagree 0.04 0.01 0.1 0.0001
Agree 0.01 0.001 0.02 0.0001
Strongly agree 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0001
For sake of the animals Neither agree nor disagree 2.5 1.05 5.9 0.04
Agree 2.7 1.1 6.3 0.02
To improve profit from animals Neither agree nor disagree 0.1 0.04 0.8 0.03
Agree 0.2 0.05 0.8 0.002
Strongly agree 0.1 0.02 0.4 0.0001
For the Sake of the Environment vs. other Reasons
It is important for food safety Disagree 0.06 0.02 0.1 0.0001
Neither agree nor disagree 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.0001
Agree 0.01 0.001 0.01 0.0001
Strongly agree 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0001
It makes me feel good Strongly agree 0.2 0.06 0.9 0.04
My religion tells me to Disagree 2.5 1.3 7.1 0.01
Agree 2.3 1.2 5.6 0.01
It is good for human health Agree 0.2 0.07 0.6 0.005
Strongly agree 0.2 0.06 0.6 0.004
To improve product quality or taste Neither agree nor disagree 0.2 0.07 0.5 0.003
Agree 0.2 0.07 0.5 0.002
Strongly agree 0.1 0.04 0.3 0.0001
It Makes Me Feel Good vs. Other Reasons
It is important for food safety Agree 0.03 0.1 0.6 0.004
Strongly agree 0.02 0.08 0.5 0.0001
It is important for sake of the environment Disagree 0.1 0.04 0.5 0.003
Neither agree nor disagree 0.1 0.03 0.4 0.002
Agree 0.05 0.01 0.2 0.0001
Strongly agree 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.0001
My religion tells me to Agree 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.002
Strongly agree 0.1 0.06 0.2 0.0001
It is good for human health Strongly agree 0.1 0.06 0.5 0.001
To improve profit from animals Disagree 3.4 1.5 7.9 0.004
Neither agree nor disagree 4.8 2.2 10.4 0.0001
Agree 4.3 2 9.1 0.0001
Strongly agree 3.2 1.4 7.1 0.004
To improve product quality or taste Disagree 0.2 0.06 0.6 0.003
Neither agree nor disagree 0.2 0.09 0.7 0.005
Agree 0.2 0.06 0.4 0.0001
Strongly agree 0.1 0.04 0.3 0.0001
My Religion Tells Me to vs. Other Reasons
It makes me feel good Disagree 0.06 0.02 0.2 0.0001
Neither agree nor disagree 0.04 0.01 0.1 0.0001
Agree 0.02 0.001 0.06 0.0001
Strongly agree 0.01 0.001 0.02 0.0001
It is good for human health Strongly agree 0.2 0.08 0.5 0.002
To improve product quality or taste Disagree 4.2 1.4 13.03 0.01
Neither agree nor disagree 3.08 1.1 8.3 0.02
It is good for Human Health vs. other Reasons
It is important for food safety Agree 2.5 1.01 6.01 0.04
It is important for sake of the environment Disagree 0.2 0.07 0.8 0.02
Neither agree nor disagree 0.3 0.07 0.9 0.003
Agree 0.2 0.04 0.6 0.005
Strongly agree 0.1 0.03 0.4 0.001
It makes me feel good Neither agree nor disagree 0.2 0.07 0.8 0.015
Agree 0.09 0.03 0.3 0.0001
Strongly agree 0.05 0.02 0.2 0.0001
My religion tells me to Strongly agree 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0001
To improve profit from animals Neither agree nor disagree 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.002
Agree 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.01
Strongly agree 0.5 0.2 1.02 0.05
To improve product quality or taste Strongly agree 0.3 0.13 0.9 0.02
For the Sake of the Animal vs. other reasons
My religion tells me to Agree 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.002
Strongly agree 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0001
It is good for human health Strongly agree 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.03
To improve profit from animals Disagree 0.15 0.07 0.31 0.0001
Neither agree nor disagree 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.0001
Agree 0.01 0.001 0.02 0.0001
Strongly agree 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0001
To improve product quality or taste Disagree 4.3 1.3 13.9 0.013
To Improve Profit from Animals’ vs. other reasons
It is important for food safety Strongly agree 0.24 0.09 0.6 0.002
It is good for human health Neither agree nor disagree 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.02
Agree 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.03
Strongly agree 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.04
For sake of the animals Disagree 0.09 0.05 0.19 0.0001
Neither agree nor disagree 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.0001
Agree 0.01 0.001 0.01 0.0001
Strongly agree 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0001
To Improve Product Quality or Taste vs. other reasons
It makes me feel good Agree 0.3 0.09 0.95 0.04
Strongly agree 0.2 0.06 0.6 0.004
My religion tells me to Strongly agree 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.005
To improve profit from animals Disagree 4.7 2.07 10.8 0.0001
Neither agree nor disagree 4.8 2.2 10.3 0.0001
Agree 3.6 1.7 7.7 0.001
Open in a new tab

Table A4.

Significant (p < 0.05) differences in attributed importance levels to different conditions for animal care, analysed by Ordinal Logistic Regression.

Species-Relevant Nutrition Odds Ratio % 95 CI p-Value
Lower Upper
Access to drinking water Neither important nor unimportant 0.01 0.001 0.23 0.003
Somewhat important 0.001 0.001 0.05 0.0001
Very important 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.0001
A comfortable environment Very important 0.08 0.01 0.88 0.03
Absence of fear or distress Slightly important 0.03 0.01 0.2 0.0001
Neither important nor unimportant 0.01 0.1 0.04 0.0001
Somewhat important 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.0001
Very important 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.0001
Absence of pain Slightly important 0.08 0.01 0.6 0.01
Access to Drinking Water
Species-relevant nutrition Slightly important 0.04 0.01 0.16 0.0001
Neither important nor unimportant 0.02 0.001 0.07 0.0001
Somewhat important 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.0001
Very important 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0001
A comfortable environment Somewhat important 0.03 0.001 0.25 0.001
Very important 0.01 0.001 0.05 0.0001
Space Neither important nor unimportant 0.01 0.001 0.7 0.03
Somewhat important 0.02 0.001 0.8 0.04
Very important 0.01 0.001 0.5 0.02
Opportunity to perform natural behaviours Neither important nor unimportant 0.1 0.01 1 0.05
Somewhat important 0.07 0.01 0.7 0.02
Very important 0.04 0.001 0.4 0.006
A Comfortable Environment
Species-relevant nutrition Neither important nor unimportant 0.3 0.08 0.9 0.04
Somewhat important 0.3 0.08 0.9 0.05
Very important 0.1 0.04 0.4 0.002
Access to drinking water Slightly important 0.1 0.02 0.9 0.04
Neither important nor unimportant 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.003
Somewhat important 0.01 0.001 0.1 0.0001
Very important 0.001 0.001 0.02 0.0001
Control over their environment Neither important nor unimportant 0.1 0.03 0.8 0.03
Space
Species-relevant nutrition Slightly important 5.5 1.42 21.68 0.01
Access to drinking water Neither important nor unimportant 0.05 0.001 0.72 0.02
Somewhat important 0.03 0.001 0.48 0.01
Very important 0.02 0.001 0.35 0.007
A comfortable environment Somewhat important 0.06 0.01 0.47 0.007
Very important 0.01 0.0001 0.06 0.0001
Physical fitness Neither important nor unimportant 0.01 0.001 0.3 0.005
Somewhat important 0.02 0.001 0.3 0.006
Very important 0.001 0.001 0.06 0.0001
Opportunity to perform natural behaviours Slightly important 12.6 1.3 119.1 0.03
Neither important nor unimportant 21.7 2.3 205.3 0.007
Somewhat important 17.24 1.8 165.6 0.01
Absence of fear or distress Somewhat important 6.3 1.2 32.3 0.02
Very important 5.9 1.1 31.5 0.03
Absence of pain Somewhat important 0.2 0.03 0.9 0.03
Very important 0.1 0.02 0.7 0.01
Physical Fitness
Access to drinking water Slightly important 0.02 0.001 0.2 0.0001
Neither important nor unimportant 0.05 0.001 0.5 0.01
Somewhat important 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.003
Very important 0.02 0.001 0.2 0.001
A comfortable environment Very important 0.1 0.02 0.9 0.04
Absence of disease or injury Somewhat important 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.003
Very important 0.001 0.001 0.05 0.0001
Control over their environment Slightly important 6 1.08 33.2 0.04
Opportunity to perform natural behaviours Neither important nor unimportant 11.4 1.7 74.7 0.01
Somewhat important 7.7 1.2 51.3 0.03
Very important 9.4 1.4 64.2 0.02
Absence of fear or distress Somewhat important 0.1 0.03 0.6 0.01
Very important 0.08 0.02 0.4 0.001
Absence of Disease or Injury
Access to drinking water Slightly important 14.5 1.9 110.3 0.01
Space Slightly important 0.04 0.001 0.9 0.05
Neither important nor unimportant 0.02 0.001 0.5 0.02
Somewhat important 0.002 0.001 0.6 0.02
Very important 0.01 0.001 0.3 0.009
Physical fitness Very important 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.003
Control over their environment Very important 0.2 0.005 0.8 0.03
Opportunity to perform natural behaviours Slightly important 0.01 0.001 0.08 0.0001
Neither important nor unimportant 0.01 0.001 0.09 0.0001
Somewhat important 0.02 0.001 0.1 0.0001
Very important 0.02 0.001 0.05 0.0001
Absence of fear or distress Slightly important 27.7 5.5 138.6 0.0001
Neither important nor unimportant 11 2.2 53.9 0.003
Somewhat important 13.6 2.7 68.6 0.002
Very important 8.5 1.6 43.8 0.01
Absence of pain Slightly important 0.1 0.02 0.6 0.009
Neither important nor unimportant 0.07 0.01 0.4 0.002
Somewhat important 0.03 0.001 0.2 0.0001
Very important 0.01 0.001 0.08 0.0001
Control over Their Environment
Species-relevant nutrition Very important 0.2 0.06 0.6 0.007
Absence of disease or injury Somewhat important 0.08 0.01 0.7 0.02
Very important 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.003
Opportunity to perform natural behaviours Somewhat important 0.06 0.01 0.3 0.002
Very important 0.01 0.001 0.08 0.0002
Absence of fear or distress Slightly important 0.2 0.05 0.8 0.02
Neither important nor unimportant 0.2 0.05 0.7 0.02
Somewhat important 0.1 0.04 0.6 0.009
Very important 0.1 0.03 0.5 0.004
Absence of pain Slightly important 8.8 1.7 46.9 0.01
Neither important nor unimportant 8.3 1.6 44.1 0.01
Somewhat important 8.9 1.6 44.8 0.01
Very important 7.2 1.3 39.1 0.02
Opportunity to Perform Natural Behaviours
Access to drinking water Slightly important 0.1 0.02 0.9 0.04
Neither important nor unimportant 0.1 0.01 0.8 0.03
Somewhat important 0.07 0.01 0.5 0.01
Very important 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.002
A comfortable environment Neither important nor unimportant 0.04 0.001 0.3 0.01
Somewhat important 0.02 0.001 0.1 0.0001
Very important 0.02 0.001 0.2 0.0001
Space Neither important nor unimportant 37.0 1.5 915.6 0.03
Somewhat important 42.8 1.8 1023.4 0.02
Very important 53.3 2.1 1303.9 0.01
Physical fitness Slightly important 0.01 0.001 0.1 0.0001
Neither important nor unimportant 0.01 0.001 0.07 0.0001
Somewhat important 0.01 0.001 0.1 0.0001
Very important 0.001 0.001 0.05 0.0001
Absence of disease or injury Slightly important 12.7 1.03 156.1 0.05
Neither important nor unimportant 23.3 1.7 315.05 0.02
Somewhat important 24.3 1.7 337.6 0.02
Very important 15.4 1.1 214.3 0.04
Control over their environment Slightly important 7.7 0.1 0.03 0.7
Opportunity to perform natural behaviours Very important 0.08 0.01 0.6 0.01
Absence of pain Somewhat important 0.02 0.001 0.09 0.0001
Very important 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.0001
Absence of Fear or Distress
Species-relevant nutrition Slightly important 0.2 0.06 0.9 0.03
Neither important nor unimportant 0.1 0.04 0.5 0.001
Somewhat important 0.1 0.04 0.4 0.001
Very important 0.08 0.02 0.3 0.0001
Access to drinking water Slightly important 34.07 3.6 322.7 0.002
Neither important nor unimportant 75.09 6.03 934.9 0.001
Somewhat important 84.6 6.6 1084.4 0.001
Very important 92.7 7.06 1271.09 0.001
Space Slightly important 0.02 0.001 0.4 0.01
Control over their environment Slightly important 7.7 1.7 34.0 0.007
Somewhat important 0.1 0.03 0.4 0.001
Very important 0.03 0.01 0.1 0.0001
Absence of disease or injury Somewhat important 0.2 0.05 0.9 0.04
Very important 0.07 0.02 0.3 0.001
Absence of pain Neither important nor unimportant 0.1 0.02 0.6 0.01
Somewhat important 0.1 0.02 0.5 0.008
Very important 0.08 0.01 0.4 0.002
Absence of Pain
Species-relevant nutrition Slightly important 4.01 1.1 14.6 0.03
Space Slightly important 0.03 0.001 0.9 0.04
Neither important nor unimportant 0.001 0.001 0.05 0.0001
Somewhat important 0.001 0.001 0.03 0.0001
Very important 0.001 0.001 0.02 0.0001
Absence of disease or injury Neither important nor unimportant 0.07 0.1 0.8 0.03
Somewhat important 0.04 0.001 0.5 0.01
Very important 0.02 0.001 0.2 0.002
Absence of fear or distress Neither important nor unimportant 0.07 0.02 0.3 0.0001
Somewhat important 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.0001
Very important 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0001
Open in a new tab

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.S., X.J., K.D., C.J.C.P., methodology, X.J., K.D., C.J.C.P., resources, (C.J.C.P.), collection data (all student and W.G.); investigation and data curation, F.C. and C.J.C.P., writing-original draft preparation F.C. and D.A.; writing-review and editing F.C., K.D., C.J.C.P. and D.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research project was funded by Open Philanthropy Project in a grant administered through the School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The questionnaire and survey method were approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Queensland, Australia (#2019001811).

Data Availability Statement

The raw data has not been published or stored elsewhere but is available on request from F.C.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Lu J., Bayne K., Wang J. Current status of animal welfare and animal rights in China. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2013;41:351–357. doi: 10.1177/026119291304100505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Organisation for Animal Health . OIE International Standards. OIE; Paris, France: 2013. Terrestrial animal health code. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Rowlands M. Animal Rights: A Philosophical Defence. Macmillan Press; London, UK: St Martin’s Press; New York, NY, USA: 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Taylor A. Animals and Ethics. Broadview Press; Peterborough, NE, Canada: 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Eurobarometer . Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare. Volume 26. European Union; Maastricht, The Netherlands: 2016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Phillips C. The Welfare of Animals: The Silent Majority. Volume 8. Springer; Berlin, Germany: 2009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Food and Agriculture Organization FAOSTAT: Statistical Database. [(accessed on 19 June 2020)]; Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QL.
  • 8.FAO. IFAD. WFP . The State of Food Insecurity, The W. Strengthening the Enabling Environment for Food Security and Nutrition. FAO; Rome, Italy: 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sumner L.W. Animal welfare and animal rights. J. Med. Philos. 1988;13:159–175. doi: 10.1093/jmp/13.2.159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.You X., Li Y., Zhang M., Yan H., Zhao R. A survey of Chinese citizens’ perceptions on farm animal welfare. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e109177. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Phillips C.J.C. The Animal Trade. Volume 208 CAB International; Wallingford/Oxford, UK: 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zhigang X. GM Rules Don’t Block Imported Products. China Daily, Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China; Kunming, China: 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yan Q.H., Li Y.B., You X.L., Zhang M., Liu Z.P., Ge Y. An investigation on social attitude on animal welfare in China. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. 2013;3:99–105. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wang C., Gu H. Consumer’s preference for animal welfare and other quality attributes. Manag. World. 2014;7:67–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Li P.J. Exponential growth, animal welfare, environmental and food safety impact: The case of China’s livestock production. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 2008;22:217–240. doi: 10.1007/s10806-008-9140-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.McOrist S., Khampee K., Guo A. Modern pig farming in the Peoples’s Republic of China: Growth and veterinary challenges. Rev. Sci. Tech. (Int. Off. Epizoot.) 2011;30:961–968. doi: 10.20506/rst.30.3.2091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Anderson B.D., Ma M.-J., Wang G.-L., Bi Z.-Q., Lu B., Wang X.-J., Wang C.-X., Chen S.-H., Qian Y.-H., Song S.-X., et al. Prospective surveillance for influenza. Virus in Chinese swine farms. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2018;7:87. doi: 10.1038/s41426-018-0086-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bedard B., Hunt T. The emerging animal health delivery system in the People’s Republic of China. Rev. Sci. Tech. (Int. Off. Epizoot.) 2004;23:297–304. doi: 10.20506/rst.23.1.1486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Li Y., Wu N., Xu R., Li L., Zhou W., Zhou X. Empirical analysis of pig welfare levels and their impact on pig breeding efficiency—Based on 773 pig farmers’ survey data. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0190108. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sinclair M., Fryer C., Phillips C.J.C. The benefits of improving animal welfare from the perspective of livestock stakeholders across Asia. Animals. 2019;9:123. doi: 10.3390/ani9040123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Rushen J., Haley D., De Passillé A. Effect of softer flooring in tie stalls on resting behavior and leg injuries of lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2007;90:3647–3651. doi: 10.3168/jds.2006-463. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Platto S., Zhu Q., Guo A., He Q., Hu S., Valros A., Irwin A. Chinese farmers’ attitude towards the improvement of animal welfare in their facilities. Anim. Welf. 2020;29:99–112. doi: 10.7120/09627286.29.1.099. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sinclair M., Phillips C.J.C. The cross-cultural importance of animal protection and other world social issues. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 2017;30:439–455. doi: 10.1007/s10806-017-9676-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Phillips C., Izmirli S., Aldavood S.J., Alonso M.E., Choe B., Hanlon A., Handziska A., Illmann G., Keeling L.J., Kennedy M., et al. An international comparison of female and male students’ attitudes to the use of animals. Animals. 2011;1:7–26. doi: 10.3390/ani1010007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sinclair M., Phillips C.J.C. Key tenets of operational success in international animal welfare initiatives. Animals. 2018;8:92. doi: 10.3390/ani8060092. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Phillips C., Izmirli S., Aldavood S., Alonso M., Choe B., Hanlon A., Handziska A., Illmann G., Keeling L., Kennedy M., et al. Students’ attitudes to animal welfare and rights in Europe and Asia. Anim. Welf. 2012;21:87–100. doi: 10.7120/096272812799129466. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pifer R., Shimizu K., Pifer L. Public attitudes toward animal research: Some international comparisons. Soc. Anim. 1994;2:95–113. doi: 10.1163/156853094X00126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Brambell F.W.R. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; London, UK: 1965. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.The Bing, GeoNames Geographical Database, Microsoft. [(accessed on 19 June 2019)]; Available online: https://www.geonames.org/4061113/excel.html.
  • 30.China, National Bureau of Statistics of China Statistical Yearbook. [(accessed on 19 June 2019)]; Available online: http://www.stats.gov.cn/
  • 31.Global Religious Futures Global Religious Futures. [(accessed on 19 June 2019)]; Available online: http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/
  • 32.Heleski C.R., Mertig A.G., Zanella A.J. Results of a national survey of US veterinary college faculty regarding attitudes toward farm animal welfare. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2005;226:1538–1546. doi: 10.2460/javma.2005.226.1538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Paul E.S., Podberscek A.L. Veterinary education and students’ attitudes towards animal welfare. Vet. Rec. 2000;146:269–272. doi: 10.1136/vr.146.10.269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hepper P.G., Wells D.L. Pet ownership and adults’ views on the use of animals. Soc. Anim. 1997;5:45–63. doi: 10.1163/156853097X00213. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Nøhr R., Lund T.B., Forkman B., Sandøe P. How Do Different Kinds of Animal Experts View and Weigh Animal Welfare Indicators? Report—Institute of Food and Resource Economics, Department of Food and Resource Economics. University of Copenhagen, Statens Jordbrugsog Fiskeriøkonomiske Institute; Copenhagen, Denmark: 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bracke M.B., Edwards S.A., Engel B., Buist W.G., Algers B. Expert opinion as ’validation’ of risk assessment applied to calf welfare. Acta Vet. Scand. 2008;50:29. doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-50-29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ortega D.L., Wang H.H., Eales J.S. Meat demand in China. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2009;1:410–419. doi: 10.1108/17561370910989248. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Shi T. Ecological agriculture in China: Bridging the gap between rhetoric and practice of sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 2002;42:359–368. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00122-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mendez M.A., Popkin B.M. Globalization, urbanization and nutritional change in the developing world. J. Agric. Dev. Econ. 2004;1:220–241. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Roex J., Miele M. Consumers, Retailers and Producers. Welfare Quality; Uppsala, Sweden: 2005. Farm Animal Welfare Concerns. Welfare Quality Project Report. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Moran D., McVittie A. Estimation of the value the public places on regulations to improve broiler welfare. Anim. Welf. 2008;17:43–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bozzo G., Barrasso R., Grimaldi C.A., Tantillo G., Roma R. Consumer attitudes towards animal welfare and their willingness to pay. Vet. Ital. 2019;55:1823. doi: 10.12834/VetIt.1209.6739.4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Davey G., Wu Z. Attitudes in China toward the use of animals in laboratory research. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2007;35:313–316. doi: 10.1177/026119290703500305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Yang D., Dai X., Deng Y., Lu W., Jiang Z. Changes in attitudes toward wildlife and wildlife meats in Hunan Province, central China, before and after the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak. Integr. Zool. 2007;2:19–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4877.2007.00043.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.McEachern M.G., Schroder M.J., Willock J., Whitelock J., Mason R. Exploring ethical brand extensions and consumer buying behaviour: The RSPCA and the “Freedom Food” brand. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2007;16:168–177. doi: 10.1108/10610420710751546. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Bonner J. Welfare issues. BSAVA Companion. 2017;2017:10–11. doi: 10.22233/20412495.1217.10. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Sinclair M., Zhang Y., Descovich K., Phillips C.J. Farm animal welfare science in China—A bibliometric review of Chinese literature. Animals. 2020;10:540. doi: 10.3390/ani10030540. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Harper G., Henson S. Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and the Impact on Food Choice, Final Report EU FAIR CT98-3678. Centre for Food Economics Research (CeFER) Department of Agricultural and Food Economics; Reading, UK: Dec, 2001. [(accessed on 30 June 2019)]. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/aw_arch_hist_eu_fair_project_en.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Phillips C.J.C., McCulloch S. Student attitudes on animal sentience and use of animals in society. J. Biol. Educ. 2005;40:17–24. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2005.9656004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data has not been published or stored elsewhere but is available on request from F.C.

Articles from Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES