| Summary: | Although the People’s Republic of China produces more animals for consumption than any other country, very little is known about the attitudes of stakeholders in the livestock industries to animal welfare in farming systems. This study investigated the attitudes of stakeholders in pig and poultry farming in south China towards animal welfare in different farming systems, pig and poultry behaviour, and the inherent value of the animals themselves. Respondents thought welfare was important, particularly if they had worked in the industry a long time, and that they intended to make improvements, even though they also believed it to be generally satisfactory. Outdoor systems were perceived to be better for welfare but indoor systems better for food safety, particularly among respondents that had gained their knowledge from multiple sources. Respondents believed pigs and chickens to have equally important needs, despite the fact that pigs were considered more intelligent than chickens. Pig farmers with outdoor systems had a more positive attitude to making welfare improvements compared with those operating intensive indoor systems. However an absence of enrichment in chicken farms increased respondents’ intentions to make improvements, and these were more likely to occur on small chicken farms. Veterinarians and government officials were more likely to perceive welfare as unsatisfactory or to want change it than those working directly with animals. City residents were more likely to support and express confidence that they could improve animal welfare, compared to rural residents. It is concluded that stakeholders in China’s pig and poultry production industries recognised a need to improve welfare, although they saw a conflict with production of safe food. However, farmers involved in intensive production systems were less likely to perceive a need or capacity to improve welfare than those operating more extensive systems, suggesting a dichotomisation of the people in the industry into those in small and outdoor farms that could and were improving welfare and those in indoor intensive farms who did not envisage this happening.
|
|---|
