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

Qing Yang; Cathy M. Dwyer; Belinda Vigors; Ruqian Zhao; Fritha M. Langford

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307061

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 15, 2024
11 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Editor PONE-D-24-01570Animal welfare with Chinese characteristics: Chinese poultry producers’ perceptions of, and attitudes towards, animal welfarePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yang, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 25 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "The authors thank all the egg and broiler producers interviewed for their time and participation. This work was supported by the Open Philanthropy Project" We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "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." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Dr., Qing Yang Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript needs Major Revision. Kind regards, Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewer1 This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. However, some points need clarifying and certain statements require further justification. There are given below. 1. What is the basis of the interview guide? Do you refer to previous studies? Line 175 seems to mention some references, but it still raises my concerns about the specifics, such as how do you modify the question to fit your research? How can the question be modified so that the questions asked of employees in the reference apply to managers? The lines 154 and 175, which appear to be related to the questionnaire, are not put together. 2. More details about recruiting participants are needed. Why did these farm owners, managers, or senior leaders volunteer to participate in your research? The current statement is untenable. 3. Is the farm size the full size of the participants’ company or the full size they manage? The current one is ambiguous (table 1 and 2). Please add more farm details like Chen [45] did, including available basic demographics and operating characteristics. 4. line 152: the of was set to be upper corner format 5. The discussion is large and interesting. However, appropriate subheadings may give the reader a clearer picture of the structure of the discussion. It is necessary to remove some irrelevant redundant content. 6. There is one thing that puzzles me. Are any of the 30 respondents from the same company or the same person? Are there cases where companies raise both layers and broilers? If not, have you deliberately avoided such participants? 7. Since the participants are at a high level in the organization, their answers may be more official or crowning. Even their answers are not what they really think, but what the company tells them to say. Analyzing such answers is pointless and can lead to results that are significantly biased towards reality. How do you consider and address this issue? 8. Finally, I must emphasize that your title is about PRODUCER and the participants in the manuscript are FARM OWNERS, MANAGERS, or SENIOR LEADERS, who are not producers in the traditional sense of the word (i.e., direct participants in the practice of poultry production). Therefore, the word PRODUCER in the title could be replaced with another word that better summarizes the participants in this study. If all my technical concerns are addressed, this manuscript could be considered for publication. Reviewer2 I enjoyed reading this manuscript. The study appears to be well-conducted and the paper is very well written, describing the findings in an impactful way. A lot of interesting information arose from these interviews and the study will make an important contribution to the field, especially for those working cross-culturally. I have a few suggestions to consider: L50: "Intensive nature". What is described here is really the scale rather than intensity L52-54. This statement suggests that most production of eggs and chicken meat in China is for the domestic market. Is that the case? L58. "While various poultry" suggest to change to "while all poultry..." L67. What makes these companies "leading". Who are they? Is it marketshare or another factor? L82. A reference is needed for the "billions" statement. So far the level of production has been measured in terms of production units e.g. eggs / tonnes of meat L92. This statement "individuals' diverse perspectives on ethical animal treatment" is a bit vague and can be improved L94. For this statement "different degrees of significance attached to animal welfare in animal production" - do you mean in terms of competing priorities? L96 - 97. For the aspects mentioned here e.g. "country-specific dynamics", "sector-specific considerations", "farm-specific contexts" these statements are a bit vague. It would be good to add a few examples after each in brackets so that what you are referring to is more evident. L111. Suggest change "welfare in their practices" might be better as "welfare in practice" L134-137. It would be good to define/describe these systems for readers not in this industry or from a region that uses different terminology L146. It would be good to know more about these participants. I assume some information was collected on them outside of what is described here. For example, how long have they worked in the industry, level of education etc. In essence, more information is needed so the reader can understand how much their opinions and statements hold weight. Tables 1 & 2, ensure the Chinese names are consistently romanised. 166. Be more specific for this statement "checked some quotes". L178. Were the participants ever given a standardised definition of animal welfare? L514. Typo - "anima" should be "animal" [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. However, some points need clarifying and certain statements require further justification. There are given below. 1. What is the basis of the interview guide? Do you refer to previous studies? Line 175 seems to mention some references, but it still raises my concerns about the specifics, such as how do you modify the question to fit your research? How can the question be modified so that the questions asked of employees in the reference apply to managers? The lines 154 and 175, which appear to be related to the questionnaire, are not put together. 2. More details about recruiting participants are needed. Why did these farm owners, managers, or senior leaders volunteer to participate in your research? The current statement is untenable. 3. Is the farm size the full size of the participants’ company or the full size they manage? The current one is ambiguous (table 1 and 2). Please add more farm details like Chen [45] did, including available basic demographics and operating characteristics. 4. line 152: the of was set to be upper corner format 5. The discussion is large and interesting. However, appropriate subheadings may give the reader a clearer picture of the structure of the discussion. It is necessary to remove some irrelevant redundant content. 6. There is one thing that puzzles me. Are any of the 30 respondents from the same company or the same person? Are there cases where companies raise both layers and broilers? If not, have you deliberately avoided such participants? 7. Since the participants are at a high level in the organization, their answers may be more official or crowning. Even their answers are not what they really think, but what the company tells them to say. Analyzing such answers is pointless and can lead to results that are significantly biased towards reality. How do you consider and address this issue? 8. Finally, I must emphasize that your title is about PRODUCER and the participants in the manuscript are FARM OWNERS, MANAGERS, or SENIOR LEADERS, who are not producers in the traditional sense of the word (i.e., direct participants in the practice of poultry production). Therefore, the word PRODUCER in the title could be replaced with another word that better summarizes the participants in this study. If all my technical concerns are addressed, this manuscript could be considered for publication. Reviewer #2: I enjoyed reading this manuscript. The study appears to be well-conducted and the paper is very well written, describing the findings in an impactful way. A lot of interesting information arose from these interviews and the study will make an important contribution to the field, especially for those working cross-culturally. I have a few suggestions to consider: L50: "Intensive nature". What is described here is really the scale rather than intensity L52-54. This statement suggests that most production of eggs and chicken meat in China is for the domestic market. Is that the case? L58. "While various poultry" suggest to change to "while all poultry..." L67. What makes these companies "leading". Who are they? Is it marketshare or another factor? L82. A reference is needed for the "billions" statement. So far the level of production has been measured in terms of production units e.g. eggs / tonnes of meat L92. This statement "individuals' diverse perspectives on ethical animal treatment" is a bit vague and can be improved L94. For this statement "different degrees of significance attached to animal welfare in animal production" - do you mean in terms of competing priorities? L96 - 97. For the aspects mentioned here e.g. "country-specific dynamics", "sector-specific considerations", "farm-specific contexts" these statements are a bit vague. It would be good to add a few examples after each in brackets so that what you are referring to is more evident. L111. Suggest change "welfare in their practices" might be better as "welfare in practice" L134-137. It would be good to define/describe these systems for readers not in this industry or from a region that uses different terminology L146. It would be good to know more about these participants. I assume some information was collected on them outside of what is described here. For example, how long have they worked in the industry, level of education etc. In essence, more information is needed so the reader can understand how much their opinions and statements hold weight. Tables 1 & 2, ensure the Chinese names are consistently romanised. 166. Be more specific for this statement "checked some quotes". L178. Were the participants ever given a standardised definition of animal welfare? L514. Typo - "anima" should be "animal" ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Kris Descovich ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061.r001
Revision 1
27 May 2024 Author Response Reviewer1 1. What is the basis of the interview guide? Do you refer to previous studies? Line 175 seems to mention some references, but it still raises my concerns about the specifics, such as how do you modify the question to fit your research? How can the question be modified so that the questions asked of employees in the reference apply to managers? The lines 154 and 175, which appear to be related to the questionnaire, are not put together. We did not refer to previous studies to develop the interview guides used in this study. It is the first of its kind in a Chinese context, and we have embarked on an exploratory approach to capture rich and nuanced insights. The interview guides were developed iteratively, drawing upon the expertise of our research team and consulting with industry professionals to ensure the relevance and appropriateness of the questions. The interview questions were guided by the overarching research questions, which aimed to investigate producers' knowledge and perceptions of animal welfare, decision-making processes regarding housing systems and the importance of animal welfare in poultry production. In the meantime, the authors also conducted a literature review related to producers’ perspectives on animal welfare and/or poultry housing systems. While this literature review informed our understanding of key concepts and potential areas of inquiry, it did not serve as a direct template for our interview questions. By adopting an iterative approach to developing our interview guide, we explored the topics of interest in-depth while allowing flexibility for participants to share their perspectives and experiences. In response to the query regarding modifying interview questions to suit participants in employee and leadership positions, we would like to clarify that all the participants occupy leadership roles. Our recruitment criteria specifically targeted individuals in leadership positions to understand the decision-making processes. Moreover, our interviews were conducted using a semi-structured format, allowing for adaptability and flexibility in questioning. Instead of rigidly predefined questions, this approach enables the interviewer to explore relevant topics based on the participant's answers, tailored to each participant's unique circumstances and responses. Lines 138-140 specified the targeted population. 2. More details about recruiting participants are needed. Why did these farm owners, managers, or senior leaders volunteer to participate in your research? The current statement is untenable. All participants in our study volunteered to participate, suggesting an interest in contributing to the research. Before their involvement, participants were provided with an information sheet detailing the purpose of the study, the procedures involved, and their rights as participants. They were also asked to sign a consent form affirming their voluntary participation and understanding of the study's objectives and procedures. The participants were assured they could withdraw from the study without facing any negative consequences. We did not explicitly inquire about the participants’ intention to participate because it was not directly relevant to our research questions. Instead, we focused on eliciting insights into participants' perceptions and attitudes towards animal welfare in poultry production, their decision-making processes related to housing systems and the importance of animal welfare. Moreover, we chose not to provide incentives for participation to avoid any potential influence on participants' motivations or responses. We contacted 34 potential participants, of whom four declined to participate in the interviews. While we did not inquire about the specific reasons for their rejection, we respected their decision without imposing any pressure or follow-up. Therefore, the recruitment process was conducted following ethical guidelines and standards, and we focused on voluntary participation, informed consent, and protecting participants' identities. 3. Is the farm size the full size of the participants’ company or the full size they manage? The current one is ambiguous (table 1 and 2). Please add more farm details like Chen [45] did, including available basic demographics and operating characteristics. The farm size described in Tables 1 and 2 reflects the scale of operations the participants manage or supervise. For some participants, the entire company’s farms are under the participants’ management or supervision. In adherence to ethical guidelines and to ensure participant confidentiality and anonymity, our data collection process was designed to collect minimal personal and farm-related information, as approved by the Human Ethical Review Committee. Specifically, we only recorded participants' job positions, the size of the farm(s) they manage, and the provincial location of the farm. These details were essential for confirming participants' eligibility based on our recruitment criteria, outlined in lines 138-145. The primary focus of our study is to explore participants' perspectives and attitudes toward animal welfare and poultry housing systems. As such, our research objectives do not extend to investigating how demographic or operational factors, such as age, gender, education, work experience, or farm history, influence these perspectives. Therefore, we did not collect additional demographic or operational data beyond what was necessary for participant selection and contextual understanding. In summary, the limited scope of our data collection aligns with ethical considerations and the specific focus of our research objectives. While we appreciate the suggestion to include additional farm details, as demonstrated in Chen [45], the nature of our study and ethical constraints preclude us from collecting and providing further information on demographics and operating characteristics. 4. line 152: the of was set to be upper corner format The mistake has been corrected. Please see line 172. 5. The discussion is large and interesting. However, appropriate subheadings may give the reader a clearer picture of the structure of the discussion. It is necessary to remove some irrelevant redundant content. Three subheadings have been added under the heading of section “5 Discussion”: 5.1 Producer’s knowledge and definitions of the term animal welfare 5.2 Producers’ perceived priorities in considering housing systems 5.3. Producer’s attitudes toward animal welfare Some sentences in the discussion section have been edited or removed. For instance, line 674-681, the original text, “compared to many other countries, some specific weakness in China’s disease control system reportedly results in challenges in ensuring animal health, including a lack of clear policies and effective enforcement of regulations, low capacity of disease control workers, shortage of resources (e.g., vaccinations), and insufficient knowledge of on-farm biosecurity practices” has been edited to a more concise sentence “compared to other countries, China's disease control system has weaknesses, including unclear policies, ineffective enforcement, limited capacity among workers, resource shortages like vaccinations, and insufficient knowledge of on-farm biosecurity practices”. Some redundant information has been deleted, for example, line 752-753 “animal welfare groups in China often adopt a collaborative instead of a confrontational approach as the government supervises their operations”. Please see the file “revised manuscript with track changes”. 6. There is one thing that puzzles me. Are any of the 30 respondents from the same company or the same person? Are there cases where companies raise both layers and broilers? If not, have you deliberately avoided such participants? All respondents represent 30 companies within the poultry sector, none of which raise both layers and broilers. This separation arises due to differences in species, production processes, and biosecurity regulations. While both sectors (i.e. laying hen and broiler) have cages and cage-free housing systems, they require distinct feed, technologies, and husbandry practices. Additionally, companies targeting egg production and chicken meat operate in separate markets and distribution networks, contributing to the sectors' distinct trajectories in modern agriculture. Our study aims to explore producers' perceptions of animal welfare in relation to cages and cage-free systems across these sectors, hence the inclusion of both types of farms. Given the lack of companies raising both layers and broilers, this participant group was not deliberately avoided. We focus on capturing insights from producers within each sector to understand their perspectives on and attitudes toward animal welfare and housing systems. 7. Since the participants are at a high level in the organization, their answers may be more official or crowning. Even their answers are not what they really think, but what the company tells them to say. Analyzing such answers is pointless and can lead to results that are significantly biased towards reality. How do you consider and address this issue? We appreciate the reviewer's concerns over the social desirability bias. In our research, we recognise the potential for social desirability bias, where participants may feel inclined to provide responses they perceive as socially favourable or expected rather than expressing their genuine thoughts or feelings, particularly given the high-level positions of our participants within their organisations. This bias may occur when collecting data on sensitive topics, such as animal welfare in China's animal agriculture, where societal expectations may influence responses. To mitigate this bias, we selected participants involved in decision-making processes related to both cage and cage-free systems to capture diverse perspectives and motivations. Before and during the interviews, we assured participants of confidentiality and anonymity to encourage candid responses during interviews. Moreover, we carefully designed interview questions to avoid leading prompts that could shape participants' responses according to perceived research expectations. Despite assumptions that favouring animal welfare and endorsing cage-free systems are socially desirable responses, our analysis revealed that animal welfare considerations were not consistently prioritised in the decision-making processes of poultry production. Hence, the social desirability bias is not as prevalent as expected. 8. Finally, I must emphasize that your title is about PRODUCER and the participants in the manuscript are FARM OWNERS, MANAGERS, or SENIOR LEADERS, who are not producers in the traditional sense of the word (i.e., direct participants in the practice of poultry production). Therefore, the word PRODUCER in the title could be replaced with another word that better summarizes the participants in this study. We appreciate the reviewer's attention to detail regarding the terminology used in our title. Whilst our participants may not directly engage in the physical aspects of poultry production, they play crucial roles in decision-making processes, resource allocation, and policy formulation at the production stage. Thus, the term 'producer' encompasses the broader spectrum of individuals managing and overseeing poultry production operations, including farm owners, managers, and senior executives. However, we acknowledge that some readers might find the term 'producer' misleading. To address this concern, we added clarifying information in the Abstract to emphasise that our participants are not solely individuals directly involved in poultry production practices but also those in managerial and supervising roles (lines 26-28). Additionally, we have included similar information in the method section to specify that “the participants 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 the sake of brevity and simplicity in the following sections, these individuals are collectively referred to as producers” (lines 161- 165). We believe that retaining the term 'producer' in the title and additional specifications in the abstract and method sections can reflect the essence of our study and the participants' roles. Reviewer 2 1. L50: "Intensive nature". What is described here is really the scale rather than intensity We appreciate the reviewer's insightful observation. Upon reviewing the text, we agree that the term 'intensive' may not be accurate in the context characterised more by its large-scale operations rather than intensity. We have revised the text accordingly to state that “China's poultry sector is characterised by its growing scale of operations”. Please see line 51. 2. L52-54. This statement suggests that most production of eggs and chicken meat in China is for the domestic market. Is that the case? According to the references cited, the implication that most eggs and chicken meat produced in China is for domestic consumption is valid. The statement that most production of eggs and chicken meat in China is for the domestic market is based on the references cited in this sentence, “This trajectory of intensification and industrialisation will persist to meet the escalating demand for eggs and poultry meat from the country's vast population [3, 8]”. Citation 3 says, “Egg exports are also low, about 0.25% of the total production” (p32), indicating that most eggs produced in China are consumed domestically rather than exported. In citation 8, it says, “As the second most highly consumed meat in China (second only to pork), …for the future, it is expected that the meat product demand will continue to rise as a result of a growing population, increased urbanization, and income growth both in the urban and rural areas” (p2). Citation 8 emphasises the high consumption of chicken meat domestically, highlighting it as the second most consumed meat in China after pork. This suggests that the demand for chicken meat is primarily driven by domestic consumption trends, with broiler meat significantly contributing to providing animal protein for urban and rural residents. Given the expected rise in meat product demand due to population growth, urbanisation, and income growth, it can be argued that the primary focus of egg and chicken meat production in China is to cater to domestic market needs. 3. L58. "While various poultry" suggest to change to "while all poultry..." “various” has been changed to “all”. Please see line 59. 4. L67. What makes these companies "leading". Who are they? Is it marketshare or another factor? The authors agree that the word “leading” is unclear in the sentence: “Globally, numerous leading companies in the food industry have committed to sourcing cage-free eggs from suppliers by 2025, initially focusing on European and North American markets.” To improve its clarity according to the cited reference, the sentence has been changed to “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.” Please see lines 70-72. 5. L82. A reference is needed for the "billions" statement. So far the level of production has been measured in terms of production units e.g. eggs / tonnes of meat. The authors agree that a reference is needed for the “billions” statement. According to FAO Stats, the number of chickens used for eggs and meat was over 5.2 billion. Hence, the reference is added to the text. Please see line 87, where the reference is inserted. 6. L92. This statement "individuals' diverse perspectives on ethical animal treatment" is a bit vague and can be improved The authors agree that the wording of "individuals' diverse perspectives on ethical animal treatment" is vague, and the text has been improved: “In addition, Western producers' decisions regarding production systems may be influenced by diverse perspectives on ethical animal treatme Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061.r002
1 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Editor Animal welfare with Chinese characteristics: Chinese poultry producers’ perceptions of, and attitudes towards, animal welfare PONE-D-24-01570R1 Dear Dr. Yang, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Accept Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Bing Jiang ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061.r003
Formally Accepted
8 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Editor PONE-D-24-01570R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yang, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Dr. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307061.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .