Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36009680›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

The Relationship between Animal Welfare and Farm Profitability in Cage and Free-Range Housing Systems for Laying Hens in China.

Shuai He, Jiao Lin, Qiongyu Jin, Xiaohan Ma, Zhongying Liu, Hui Chen, Ji Ma, Huancheng Zhang, Kris Descovich, Clive J C Phillips and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Animal biotechnology · 2024
    Article
  11. Suppliers' Perspectives on Cage-Free Eggs in China.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Overview of Avian Sex Reversal.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Shuai HeState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.
Jiao LinState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.
Qiongyu JinState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.
Xiaohan MaState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.
Zhongying LiuState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.
Hui ChenCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Hebei Agricultural University, Baoding 071001, China.
Ji MaState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.
Huancheng ZhangPingliang Hongniu Institute, Pingliang 744000, China.
Kris DescovichSchool of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5149-001X
Clive J C PhillipsInstitute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 1, 51014 Tartu, Estonia.ORCID 0000-0002-1926-6357
Kate HartcherSchool of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia.
Zhonghong WuState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.
China Agricultural University · CNThe University of Queensland · AUEstonian University of Life Sciences · EEHebei Agricultural University · CNPingliang People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several countries and regions have regulations in place to provide standards for the welfare of production animals, which have implications for breeding, management and trade. In the chicken egg production industry, the welfare impacts of this are not well understood. In the past decades, free-range systems were widely used for local chicken breeds in poultry industry in China, but their use has gradually declined due to the lower competitiveness compared to commercial cage systems. However, the practices of free-range systems for hens raising have gradually increased again over the past decade, as consumer individualized demand for higher food quality and animal welfare has increased. We recruited 14 free-range farms and 45 cage farms from Beijing, Shandong, Hebei, Anhui, Yunnan, Gansu and Jiangsu provinces in China, for an evaluation of hen welfare, production and economic outcomes from farm operations. This study provides data for the welfare outcomes of laying hens in China and preliminarily explored the relationship between welfare level and economic income within farming system types. The researchers visited the farms and used Welfare Quality measures to investigate the welfare, and farm self-reported profits. Nonparametric Mann−Whitney U tests were used to compare the welfare scores between cage and free-range rearing farms. Correlation and regression are used for the analysis of the animal welfare scores, economic data, and production metrics. The general income from free-range farms was linearly correlated with red mite score and stocking density (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05, respectively). The results showed less centimeters of feeder and drinker space per animal in the free-range system than in cage systems (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). Welfare scores for both the stocking density and beak condition were significantly better in the free-range systems than the cage systems (p < 0.001), as were qualitative behavior assessment scores (p < 0.05). The total egg production and peak egg production in cage farms were much higher than in free-range farms (p < 0.001), and egg loss rate was significantly lower (p < 0.001). While the production efficiency of free-range farms was lower than that of cage farms, general income per 10,000 hens was actually higher. Our results provide some evidence that some welfare indicators and general income (per 10,000 hens) in free-range farms in China were better than those of cage farms. The results indicate that better parasite control and lower stocking densities may result in improved hen welfare on free-range farms and potentially improve profitability. The level of welfare and economic benefits of free-range farms vary widely, and there was potential room for improvement in feeding space, drinking water space and human−animal relationship.

Indexed as

animal welfare qualitycage rearing systemfarm economicsfree-range rearing systemlaying hens

Identifiers

PMID36009680
PMCPMC9405104
OpenAlexW4292170885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.