Arts, Faculty of
Other UBC
Anthropology, Department of
DSpace
Animals 11 (5): 1260 (2021)
University of British Columbia. Animal Welfare Program
Chen, Maria
von Keyserlingk, Marina A. G.
Magliocco, Sabina
Weary, Daniel M.
Farm management can directly and indirectly affect animal care. We explored how farm management affected animal care on two large dairy farms in China (anonymized as Farm A and Farm B). We used a mini-ethnographic case study design whereby the first author lived for 38 days on Farm A and 23 days on Farm B. She conducted participant observation and ethnographic interviews with farm staff positions within five departments in Farm A and six departments in Farm B. In addition, she conducted 13 semi-structured interviews (seven on Farm A; six on Farm B). We used template analysis to generate key themes. On both farms, workers believed that animal care practices had improved over time, due to three key employee management factors: 1) organizational culture, 2) competency of worker and management, and 3) an effective incentive system. Our results suggest that animal care may be improved in this context by: 1) promoting a culture in which workers have ‘grit’ and are eager to learn, 2) ensuring basic worker wellbeing, and 3) using animal care outcomes as performance indicators linked to pay.
animalsArticleEmployee Management and Animal Care: A ComparativeEthnography of Two Large-Scale Dairy Farms in ChinaMaria Chen 1, Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk 1 , Sabina Magliocco 2 and Daniel M. Weary 1,*Citation: Chen, M.; von Keyserlingk,M.A.G.; Magliocco, S.; Weary, D.M.Employee Management and AnimalCare: A Comparative Ethnography ofTwo Large-Scale Dairy Farms inChina. Animals 2021, 11, 1260.https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051260Academic Editor: Clive JulianChristie PhillipsReceived: 31 December 2020Accepted: 16 April 2021Published: 27 April 2021Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutralwith regard to jurisdictional claims inpublished maps and institutional affil-iations.Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.This article is an open access articledistributed under the terms andconditions of the Creative CommonsAttribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).1 Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall,Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada; mchen242@mail.ubc.ca (M.C.); nina@mail.ubc.ca (M.A.G.v.K.)2 Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada;smaglioc@mail.ubc.ca* Correspondence: dan.weary@ubc.caSimple Summary: China’s dairy industry is growing and restructuring to favor large-scale dairyfarms. The lead author lived on two large-scale dairy farms in China and conducted immersivefieldwork where she participated in daily cattle care alongside the workers, conducted interviewswith workers, and collected relevant documents. We found that employee management criticallyshaped animal care on both farms. Workers reported improvements to animal care on both farms,attributing these to improved employee management practices. Our findings suggest that cattle caremay be improved through employee management practices such as fostering a positive organizationculture, ensuring better working conditions, and incentivizing farm workers.Abstract: Farm management can directly and indirectly affect animal care. We explored how farmmanagement affected animal care on two large dairy farms in China (anonymized as Farm A andFarm B). We used a mini-ethnographic case study design whereby the first author lived for 38 days onFarm A and 23 days on Farm B. She conducted participant observation and ethnographic interviewswith farm staff positions within five departments in Farm A and six departments in Farm B. Inaddition, she conducted 13 semi-structured interviews (seven on Farm A; six on Farm B). We usedtemplate analysis to generate key themes. On both farms, workers believed that animal care practiceshad improved over time, due to three key employee management factors: 1) organizational culture,2) competency of worker and management, and 3) an effective incentive system. Our results suggestthat animal care may be improved in this context by: 1) promoting a culture in which workers have‘grit’ and are eager to learn, 2) ensuring basic worker wellbeing, and 3) using animal care outcomesas performance indicators linked to pay.Keywords: animal welfare; farm culture; human resource; behavior change; qualitative methods1. IntroductionThe changes in technology, genetics, housing, and management associated with in-creased farm size have resulted in benefits and challenges to dairy cattle welfare [1].Commonly discussed welfare issues affecting dairy cattle include those associated withhealth (e.g., lameness, mastitis), negative affective states such as pain (e.g., due to proce-dures like dehorning), and the inability to express key natural behaviours (e.g., grazing andmaternal-young interactions) [2]. While poor animal health can lead to reduced production,production alone is not a reliable indicator of welfare, in part because higher productioncan be associated with a higher incidence of health disorders [3].Fraser [4] points out that the study of animal welfare and what it means to provide “agood life for animals” is shaped by cultural context and values. Attitudes towards animalsin China are complex and nuanced. While Confucianism is anthropocentric [5], it promotesthe virtue of ren (仁 , compassion and kindness) towards non-human animals. Taoismemphasizes harmonious existence of man within nature [6]. Buddhists promote respectAnimals 2021, 11, 1260. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051260 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/animalsAnimals 2021, 11, 1260 2 of 18for animals [7]. Cao [8] argues that the concept of ‘animal welfare’ is compatible withmajor traditional Chinese philosophies. Although such ideals are not always expressed inmodern society [8], public reaction to highly publicized animal cruelty cases indicates thatthere is growing concern for treatment of animals [9].The term ‘animal welfare’ was introduced to China in the 1990s as动物福利 (动物meaning animal; meaning welfare) [10]. China’s focus on this area thus lags around30 years behind Western counties [11]. Shi [12] suggests that the direct translation of‘animal welfare’ and its simplistic explanations during initial promotion led to misunder-standing. Presently, there is low but increasing interest in animal welfare by the Chinesegovernment [13,14], agricultural industry leaders [15], students [16,17], and the generalpublic [18,19], and an increasing body of Chinese academic literature that explores ques-tions related to animal welfare [12,20].To improve farm animal welfare, it is critical to understand and engage livestockstakeholders whose decisions impact their animals [21]. Work to date has used surveysand focus groups to understand Chinese stakeholder attitudes [22–24], perceptions [15,25],and knowledge [26,27]. However, Burton et al. [28] argued that attitudes and knowl-edge of individuals play a minor role compared to what they termed “cowshed culture”,i.e., understanding the culture and context on farm provides insights into what shapesactual behaviors.Human resource management (e.g., affecting the skills, knowledge, and motivationof workers) is critical in addressing farm animal welfare issues [29]. Although there isresearch about human resource management in the dairy industry [30], no work to datehas focused on how employee management impacts animal care practices in a Chinesecontext. Ethnography (a set of methods for understanding cultural and social worlds [31])provides insight into participants’ experiences and the farm culture.We used mini-ethnographic case studies to explore factors influencing animal careon two large dairy farms in China, with a special focus on factors related to employeemanagement. The phrase ‘animal care’ was used during this study, avoiding the use of theterm ‘animal welfare’ that would likely have been less familiar to participants.2. Materials and Methods2.1. Mini-Ethnographic Case StudyAs ethnographies have rarely been used in animal welfare research [32], we firstdescribe ethnography and clarify what our study intends to achieve. Ethnographiesare methods used to understand social groups and involve immersive fieldwork andparticipant observation [31]. MC actively engaged and participated in daily farm lifeto understand insider perspectives of farm workers. Strengths and limitations of thisapproach are explored in Section 4.4. Mini-ethnographic case studies typically last a fewweeks and focus on a few cases [33].Ethnographic research utilizes an inductive and exploratory approach: our initialgoal was to explore factors influencing animal care, and through fieldwork we found thatemployee management shaped animal care on both farms. Thus, our study focused onhow employee management shaped animal care on the two farms MC visited.Though our study focuses on animal care, our participants only included humans;observations of animals occurred only tangentially when participants interacted with them(e.g., during herding, milking, feeding), thus we do not make direct claims about animalwelfare on these farms. Inferences about animal care practices are the result of MC’sobservations, available farm data, and conversations with workers.China is a geographically and culturally diverse country, and ethnographic data arebased on locally relevant anecdotes and observations. As such, findings are not intended tobe generalizable. However, we can draw useful conclusions using thorough analysis (seeSection 2.5) and strategies to increase trustworthiness (see Section 2.6). We make claimsspecific to farms we studied, but with an understanding of these practices and context, ourconclusions may be transferred to similar contexts.Animals 2021, 11, 1260 3 of 182.2. Research EthicsThis study was approved by The University of British Columbia’s Behavioral ResearchEthics Board under #H18-03664. Farms and participants are anonymized to protect theiridentities. Legal representatives of both farms provided written consent and farm access,while participants provided verbal consent.2.3. Farm ContextEthnographic findings are specific to the culture under study, so we first providerelevant context necessary for understanding data generation and results. Farm A andFarm B were selected based on meeting the inclusion criteria of being large Chinese dairyfarms (herd size > 500 cattle; [34]), feasibility of access [31], and ability to allow for cross-case comparison [35]. MC’s mutual connections introduced her to the legal representativesof both farms who then granted access.Farm A (herd size ~1500; ~50 farm employees) is located in central China. It is theonly farm owned by Company A, a private dairy processing company who sources mostof its milk from small farms nearby. Farm B (herd size ~11,000; ~200 farm employees) islocated in east China. At the time of writing, it was the newest and largest farm owned bystate-owned dairy company. Overall, Farm B workers had more qualifications and weregenerally younger compared to Farm A (see Table 1).Table 1. General farm information (accurate as of November 2019) for the two Chinese dairy farmsused as study sites.Farm Characteristic Farm A Farm BFarm location Central China East ChinaBuilding date 2000s 2010sOwned by Privately-owned company State-owned companyNumber of workers ~50 ~200Worker age 30s–60s(average ~ 45)20s–40s(average ~ 30)Worker education3 Trade school10+ High schoolRest: ≤Middle school2 Master’s25 Trade school30+ High schoolRest: ≤Middle schoolCattle breed Holstein HolsteinHerd size ~1500 ~11,000~milk yield/cow/d 25 kg 34 kg2.4. Data GenerationMC paid an introductory 5 day visit to Farm A in April 2019, and later conductedfieldwork for 38 days on Farm A (27 September to 4 November 2019), and 23 days onFarm B (11 November to 3 December 2019).MC conducted daily participant observation, ethnographic interviews (unstructuredconversations), and critical reflections which all generated fieldnotes. Participant obser-vation involved participating in the daily activities of the workers to gain insight intocommon animal care practices on the farms. Purposive sampling was used to identifyparticipants who could discuss factors influencing animal care.On Farm A, MC conducted participant observation with 20 employees including thefarm management team (farm manager, deputy farm manager, 2 veterinarians, reproduc-tive specialist, and nutritionist), and members from the 5 farm teams (maternity, calf andheifer, milking parlor, reproductive, waste management).On Farm B, MC conducted participant observation with 21 workers from the farm man-agement team, various department leaders, team leaders, and farm workers. ParticipantAnimals 2021, 11, 1260 4 of 18observation took place across 6 out of 8 departments: data collection, veterinary, maternity,calf and heifer, milking parlor, and reproductive. Due to limited time on this farm, MC didnot conduct participant observation with nutrition and environmental department (wastemanagement and recycling of manure).Participant observation with each department lasted between 2 and 8 days, dependenton the participants’ comfort level and their contribution to data generation. Participationranged from observer (witnessing procedures such as surgery and hoof trimming) to com-plete participant (taking part in calf feeding, milking, manure cleaning). MC participatedas much as possible to try gaining an insider perspective, given her own comfort level, skilllevel, and relationship with the worker.Ethnographic interviews were conducted in Mandarin by MC and the participant’spreferred Chinese dialect. These dynamic, purposeful conversations were open-ended, butoften focused on the research topic and the daily activities [31]. For example, during calffeeding, MC asked, “why are we feeding this amount?” and “how do you know this is theright amount?” to understand worker decision-making.Throughout fieldwork, MC took descriptive, handwritten fieldnotes on conversations,setting, and verbal and non-verbal interactions between cattle and humans. Descriptivefieldnotes were a mixture of English and Chinese to capture local phrases and meaning.Since MC was integral to the data generation process, she wrote daily reflectivefieldnotes to critically reflect on how her identity shaped her findings. For example, heridentity as a female, Chinese-Canadian graduate student studying in an animal welfareprogram with little experience working on a dairy farm shaped her relationships andinteractions with workers.In addition, MC conducted 13 semi-structured, audio-recorded interviews (7 onFarm A; 6 on Farm B) using an established interview guide (see Table S1 in supplementarymaterials). These interview questions focused on worker background, perception of cattlewell-being, and animal care on the farm. MC also collected relevant documents (e.g.,standard operating procedures, SOPs, which were made available on Farm B).2.5. Data AnalysisMC transcribed all interviews, then uploaded and organized fieldnotes, documents,and interview transcripts in NVivo 12.6.0 (QSR International, Vancouver, BC, Canada).MC used template analysis to analyze all data [36]. As a type of thematic analysis [37],the goal was to examine all data and eventually develop ‘themes’, or overarching patternsand conclusions relevant to the research topic.Following King and Brooks [36], MC first familiarized herself with the data by tran-scribing the interviews, and re-reading documents and fieldnotes. MC then selected 5days of data and interviews which involved diverse participant roles and contained richdata relevant to the research topic of employee management’s influence on animal care.Next, MC started preliminary ‘coding’ of this subset of data. ‘Coding’ was a process oflabelling segments of text with a relevant phrase called a ‘code’ (e.g., “eager to learn”).This list of codes was compiled into a ‘template’, where related codes were ‘clustered’together and arranged in a hierarchical way. For example, the codes “eager to learn” and“responsibility” fell under the ‘parent code’ of “work ethics”, under the larger theme of“competent workers”.The rest of the data were then coded using this initial template as a starting point.MC closely read the remaining data, refining, adjusting, and adding to the codes in thetemplate based on what she interpreted from the data. Once no more major codes wereadded to the template, the final template was used to complete a final coding of the wholedataset (see Table S2 in supplementary materials for final template).To help generate findings, MC also created a document to note down data that weresimilar, different, contradictory, or surprising to her. Through template analysis, MCgenerated three major themes relevant to how employee management shaped animal care.Animals 2021, 11, 1260 5 of 182.6. TrustworthinessMC used several strategies to improve trustworthiness of findings in accordancewith Nowell et al. [38]. To improve credibility of the data, MC engaged in prolongedparticipation in, and observation of participants’ daily life. Data was triangulated from avariety of sources (observations, MC’s experiences, interviews with multiple individuals).During analysis, MC created an audit trail by keeping successive versions of the templatesaccompanied by commentary to changes (see supplementary material B for sample). MCcontinued to write reflexive journal entries throughout analysis (entries written afterfieldwork were not analyzed). To reduce meaning being lost in translation, quotes weretranslated during final write-up. MC’s translations were checked by four individuals fluentin Mandarin and English.2.7. Data RepresentationFindings are summarized into three themes, each reported using relevant fieldnoteand transcript excerpts. Longer excerpts are indented and where translations could beambiguous, we provide the original Chinese in brackets. Original Chinese text to longerquotes and excerpts are presented in supplementary materials A. Participants are identifiedin the format ‘A1′, with the letter representing their farm, and the number as an anonymousidentifier of individuals within that farm. The participant role and identifier are occasionallyomitted to protect the anonymity of participants.3. ResultsWe begin by describing contextual factors related to animal care on Farm A andB and then present the 3 themes of how employee management improved animal care:1) organizational culture, 2) competent workers and management, and 3) an effectiveincentive system. For the first theme the organizational culture is described separately foreach farm, but for the second and third themes the findings on both farms are describedtogether to ease comparison.3.1. Animal Care ContextFarm A’s workers reported that the CEO hired a new farm management team inMarch 2019 in response to a series of challenges. Workers reported that during the previouswinter (i.e., before the change in management), on average one cow and one calf diedeach day (A18, cleaner; A7, calf caretaker). Other than high mortality, a farm managementteam member (A12) mentioned “there was low productivity, many ill and emaciated cattle,mastitis and metritis were left untreated”. Lameness was high, estimated by a farm man-agement team member (A13) to be more than 50%. By the time of MC’s visit in September2019, workers commented that the new farm management had brough about improve-ments in animal care, including reduced mortality and morbidity (A5, calf veterinarian; A7,calf caretaker), mastitis and metabolic diseases (A11, maternity veterinarian), improvedproductivity and hoof health (A14, milker), a cleaner barn environment, and improvedheifer growth (A19, heifer barn cleaner).Relatively speaking, Farm A’s average daily yield was 25 kg/cow/day in November2019, slightly lower than the 2018 averages for China (26.2 kg/cow/day) and Chinese dairyfarms with ≥1000 cattle (30.9 kg/cow/day) [39]. High somatic cell count (SCC) is oftenan indicator of mammary gland infections [40], and management reported SSC to be over400,000/mL, higher than the 2018 averages for China (262,000/mL) and Chinese dairyfarms with ≤1000 cattle (237,000/mL).Farm B’s lactating cattle produced on average 34 kg/cow/day in November 2019,higher than the 2018 averages for China and Chinese dairy farms with ≤1000 cattle. SSCin November 2019 was 130,000/mL, lower than the 2018 averages for China and Chinesedairies with ≤1000 cattle. Unlike Farm A, Farm B kept records that enabled them to reportthat in 2019 they had a 99% survival rate for calving and a clinical lameness prevalence ofAnimals 2021, 11, 1260 6 of 182%. Clinical mastitis prevalence was reported below 2%, much below the national averageestimated in 2019 (33.4%) [41].Farm B’s workers did not report major shifts in farm management prior to November2019. According to workers, productivity (B2, data management department member),calf growth and health (B14, calf caretaker), fertility (B1, member of farm management; B7,department leader), and barn cleanliness (B15, department leader) have steadily improvedsince the farm started operating.3.2. Organizational CultureSchein [42] defined organizational culture as the visible artifacts, beliefs, values, andassumptions of an organization. We found organizational culture, shaped by the leader ofa group (company level, farm level, and department level), seemed to affect animal care.This section explores aspects of organizational culture which were deemed to substantiallycontribute to animal care outcomes. Farm B’s section is longer as we describe how theChinese Communist Party (CCP) culture influenced the state-owned farm culture andprovide an example where the unique reproductive departmental subculture influencedanimal care.3.2.1. Organizational Culture: Farm AAccording to a member of the new farm management team (A12), “organizationalculture is the soul of an organization, something that unites people’s hearts to do things”.Company culture seem determined by company-level leadership (some are the CEO’srelatives), which the farm management team (without familiar ties to the CEO) perceivedwere not under their influence. The poor company culture was perceived to negativelyimpact animal care and limit the farm management’s ability to improve, reflected in thisconversation with the farm management team:A12: “This is a very, very complex privately-owned company . . . I gave them anickname, the ‘three steals farm’ (三偷牧场 ).”MC: “‘Three steals’?”A12: “Yes. Those with power, steal money. Those in charge of things, steal things.Those with no power, are lazy. (三有权的人,偷钱。中层干部,偷东西。老百姓,偷懒儿。 ) [...] This is a terrible farm. It is related to company culture . . . ”MC: “So you are managing, but you can’t manage the company’s culture”A12: “We can’t change that! Company culture is a boss’ (CEO) culture [...] thebiggest change we could make was changing the people, getting them to workmore diligently [...].” He sighs. “We can only change some aspects of the people.But we can change the cattle’s health. Their nutrition is better, there is lesslameness, mastitis. The cattle are full, healthy, and not dying. These are ourchanges. But [we, the farm management team] cannot change their companyculture [...] This is why there are some things we cannot implement.”In this dialogue, A12 conveys his belief that although some changes took place, companyculture still limited the extent to which farm management is able to encourage workers towork more diligently and thereby positively impact animal care. This culture was furtherdescribed by one member of the farm management team (A13) who stated that the ‘boss’“does not really value raising cattle on this farm [ . . . ] the farm only provides [a smallportion] of the company’s milk supply.” Workers share material evidence such as the useof outdated equipment (e.g., broken, manual headlocks, broken hoof trimming chute)(A16; A17). MC observed how poor infrastructure occasionally led to rough handling, forexample when undersized headlocks did not close properly on cattle with thicker necks.A member of the farm management team (A12) commented on the lack of bothintegrity and transparency from the leaders, which conveyed a sense of not being valuedAnimals 2021, 11, 1260 7 of 18by the company. This was also evident other three workers’ comments: “not getting paidon time” (A12), “underpaid and overworked” (A6), and too little time off work (A18; A6).Worker A8 appeared frustrated by nepotism; for example, stating that the individualresponsible for medication was the boss’ relative and so could not be held accountable forpurchasing cheaper “fake” products, such as caustic paste which did not properly disbudcalves. Additionally, the individual failed to purchase medication promptly, meaningveterinarian A5 felt the need to personally intervene: “This calf is about to die, so I boughtthis medicine. Using my own money! You know what I mean, to save her first.” Withoutclear direction and support from leadership, the responsibility of animal care on this farmseemed to depend, at least in part, upon personal ethics of the individual workers.In addition to organizational culture issues mentioned above, workers also referred toother challenges (see Animal Care Context Section 3.1.) and described the infrastructure as‘outdated’ (落后 ) and ‘archaic’ (原始 ). Despite these challenges, workers reported thatthere were improvements in animal care, attributing these to the competence of the newfarm management team. Worker A18 shared that before the change in management therewere daily cattle deaths, but “now we have better veterinarians so they can raise cattlewell.” Members of the new management team came with relevant expertise, a change thatwas clearly respected by the workers; according to A9 this was a clear improvement as theprevious farm manager “knew how to manage people but not cattle”.3.2.2. Organizational Culture: Farm BThe state-owned Company B (and thus also Farm B) placed emphasis on the CCP’svalues and culture, reinforced by the mandatory presence of Party member workers whomet frequently with other workers to disseminate Party teachings. As departmental leaderand Party member B18 explained, the goal was “to spread positive energy from the Party”.For example, one meeting was about “iron man spirit/attitude” (三偷铁人精神 ), a storyof historical Chinese figures who used hard work, dedication, science, and a Chineseapproach to ensure the growth of China’s oil industry; these attributes were then tied backto farm work, as illustrated by excerpt of B18′s speech below:“Farm work can get monotonous and boring, but we need to have high spirits!To achieve ‘The Chinese Dream’ is not easy [...] We need to have an unyieldingspirit. Be fearless of hard work/endure hardships (不怕苦 ) . . . and not forgetabout the hardworking spirit of the older generations . . . We need to becomefarm ‘iron man’, ‘cattle people’ (牛人 ).”(‘cattle people’ is also slang for ‘awesome people’)This Party culture appeared to improve worker motivation, sense of identity, pride,engagement, and spread the value of persevering through hardship and repetitive work,as well working towards a shared purpose of ‘The Chinese Dream’ (this is a concept andideal of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation; it is promoted by Chinese CommunistParty).A sense of discipline and respect of hierarchy was evident among farm workers.Department leader B15 shared: “When the country’s political orders arrive, you need toexecute without question”. This allowed for rapid implementation of top-down changes;for example, one of the team managers explained that when the government imposedstricter environmental regulations in 2015, the farm was quick to implement this directiveby installing a manure recycling biogas facility (resulting in the usage of manure recycledstall bedding) and reducing usage of outdoor pens due to waste management concerns.Farm B’s culture was also reflective of farm-level leadership. When asked whataspects of the farm he was most proud of, B5 (farm management team) smiled humbly andanswered: “I think what we do best is identifying and solving problems . . . We need toensure the cattle are most comfortable, the humans have good welfare, and our farm isprosperous [ . . . ] If there is need for change, we need to do so immediately and be awareof our shortcomings.” Both younger and older workers shared a preference for youngerAnimals 2021, 11, 1260 8 of 18workers, who were perceived to be more “aggressive/energetic” (闯劲儿 ), proactive intrying new ideas, motivated and productive compared to the older generation.Workers shared how higher worker welfare translated to improved animal care.During discussions about worker entertainment activities (e.g., speech contests and singingfestivities), B5 (farm management team) explained that “this is [farm B’s] specialty. Notjust production related activities, but entertainment too. Give workers [higher] welfare,more free gifts, so everyone will see the farm as their home (以场为家 ). This actuallymeans workers work more effectively.” Workers also shared how this aspect of farm cultureattracted them to the farm and also improved animal care. Veterinarian B19 explained thathe came to work at the farm because of“high wages, good [worker] welfare [ . . . ] Only after you ensure the people’s[quality of] life, can you ensure the cattle’s [quality of] life.” Worker B2 shared thissentiment: “they recently improved our meal plan, everyone is more motivatedto work! [...] Cattle welfare is basically human welfare, only when humans livebetter can they take good care of the cattle.”The conversations with, and the observations of, the farm workers showed evidencethat both cattle comfort and humane treatment were viewed as important for productivity.Veterinarian departmental leader B11 shared “of course [there is hitting], but this occursrarely . . . . The farm doesn’t allow hitting now. [ . . . ] We rely on cattle for a living, howcan we hit them?” Indeed, interactions observed between workers and cattle were calm,with few exceptions such as when cattle were forced to enter the hoof-trimming chutes,and for loading of adolescent bulls.Leaders within each department shaped the departmental subculture. The reproduc-tion department exemplified how a positive subculture may impact animal care outcomes.Many workers on the farm singled out this team’s unique culture and performance, includ-ing a member of farm management: “The percentage of infertile cows when I came was12% [in 2016]. Manager B6 arrived in February 2017, after which we updated our SOPs.Now our infertility rate is 3%. Our reproductive team is doing really well, the best [out ofall the farms at Company B]”.The leader of the reproductive team (B7) explained that “The best management ismilitarized (军事化管理 ); I use this style in my management”. From participant observa-tion, this involved a clear sense of shared purpose, frequent communication and reflection,discipline, and respect for the chain of command. Below is a field note excerpt taken duringthe team’s daily meeting:The departmental leader stands in the corner of the cramped meeting room as theworkers takes notes. He says: “we need to read lots and learn lots, not just about reproduc-tion, but also history [ . . . ] Don’t be short sighted. We must look at the bigger picture. Lookat China’s dairy industry. We lack talent who can dedicate themselves. No matter whichaspect [of cattle rearing], we need to take things to the next level, become world leaders [. . . ] Who are we depending on? Us, brothers. We must have these large ambitions andpush through despite hardships.”By tying daily work to the overall success of the Chinese dairy industry, workers weregiven a greater sense of purpose. These values and beliefs were not just communicated inmeetings; MC observed workers (and especially the department leader) trying to reflectthese values in their actions. B2 (from another department) shared how the reproductionteam leader was unique in that he spent time individually with team members having“heart-to-heart chats”.Another distinguishing feature of reproductive team’s culture was respect for chainof command, following directions given by the leader and SOPs. An example of theteam’s militarized discipline was that workers would march to the dorms from the officein formation, which the department leader explained was to “set the tone”.Trust and respect in the leadership was the norm in this department. When MC askedworker B9 about what aspects on the farm could be improved upon, he responded: “I’veactually never thought about this . . . I just do my job properly [ . . . ] The departmentAnimals 2021, 11, 1260 9 of 18leader is the one ‘taking the wheel’.” He went on to share how his role was to “make suremy execution skills are at 100%”.3.3. Competency of Workers and ManagementCompetent individuals, in terms of formal education, personal experience, and workethic, affected animal care. For example, farm management at Farm A complained thatthe company management’s lack of knowledge resulted in high morbidity and mortality.A13 (farm management) thought the cull rate set by the company management wasunreasonably low. This meant as farm management, he could not cull enough cattle withlow productivity, illnesses, and fertility issues, likely increasing on-farm deaths. He linkedthis to poor morale:“[Workers] are frowning every day, of course their motivation is low. Additionally,medical fees are high, and many cattle are sustained by medication.” He furtherexplained: “We provide training, and the workers agree (认可 ) with what theyare taught. But they don’t execute it in practice. They know it is good to do this,but they say, ‘I can’t execute it, I have no energy’, there’s a vicious cycle.”This illustrates how a lack of cattle knowledge at the company management level canultimately lead to a vicious cycle of poor worker performance and animal care outcomeson the farm which is out of the farm management’s control.Farm A’s management team appeared to make efforts in matching competent workerswith positions appropriate to their skill set. To address high lameness rates, managershired professional hoof trimmers to come and work for three weeks; MC observed thatthese experts handled cattle calmly and efficiently compared to farm workers who were nottrained in this task. In another example, the farm manager commented on changing to aveterinarian with more calf experience—which according to workers improved calf health.Farm management and technical staff (e.g., veterinarians, reproductive staff) on bothfarms commented on the importance of formal education for ensuring high standards ofanimal care. On Farm B, many departmental leaders were trade school graduates withdiplomas in Animal Science. One such individual was department leader B17 who sharedthe benefits of hiring trade school graduates: “when it comes to hiring, I would definitelychoose trade school [students]. [ . . . ] firstly, they are obedient, secondly, they can doeverything, thirdly they can endure hardships” (吃苦 ; literally ‘eat bitter’). However,workers also acknowledged that education needed to be coupled with experience. Forinstance, departmental leader B11 shared “Even if you have extremely high education[ . . . ] you need to be able to apply this within farm context.” He argues that without“work experience”, “understanding farm procedures”, and “management experience”, “noone will listen to/respect you” (他不服你 ). Department leader B15 shared how the farmmanager asked him to adapt the company SOPs for the farm because of his experience.This suggests that education needs to be coupled with relevant experience, especially formanagers or technical staff.On both farms there were indicators that employee education, experience and workethic were respected. Department leader B15 shared how he studied each night, despiteit being tiring, because “there is high competition, you need to know more than thoseyou manage, you need to let them respect you!” (你得让他们服你啊! ). His knowledge ofcattle, animal science diploma, and constant learning earned him respect from his workers,helping him to manage even older workers. Workers on both farms shared that regardlessof education (or “being cultured”;有文化 ), eagerness to learn and a good work ethic (学习态度;工作态度 ) played a major role in worker performance. For instance, a strong workethic was observed in members of the new management team in Farm A; veterinarianA5 proudly shared: “I didn’t go to school. I trained myself as a ‘barefoot veterinarian’”;those who, despite being “uncultured/uneducated” (没文化 ), “use experience and skillsto service the common folks” (‘barefoot doctor’,赤脚医生 , is a term that arose during theCultural Revolution in reference to rural doctors, without medical training, who broughthealthcare to places where urban doctors would not settle). He added as he patted a calfAnimals 2021, 11, 1260 10 of 18affectionately, “I am very dedicated to my technical skills. I will figure out every mistake Imake. You need to know why you cured or failed to cure. That is the way of the successful.”When MC asked department leader A8 what makes a good worker, he shared “it’s not theeducation. It’s not the master/teacher. It’s your willingness to learn.”One component of work ethic was being responsible. When asked about what makeshim proud, department leader B15 said:“As a veterinarian, I want to be competent (称职 ) at my job. I am not foolingaround. [ . . . ] Back when I worked as a veterinarian on [another farm at Com-pany B], every year my performance was top 3 in the company! I feel like I amnot letting down the cattle I am responsible for. No matter what job, if you wantto master it, you need to devote experience and time to study it. You can’t ‘putaway the cup after taking a tiny sip’ (浅尝辄止 )”.Similarly, a member of Farm A’s management team shares how the new farm man-ager’s high sense of responsibility combined with expertise bought improvements toanimal care outcomes.Notably, individual worker attitude and work ethics appeared to be influenced byorganizational culture and norms. For example, on Farm B there appeared to be strongernorms regarding work ethic. Workers were generally more detail-oriented (e.g., picking upsmall pieces of rubbish from cattle feed even in the absence of supervisors), and interactionswith cattle in the milking parlor were consistently gentle. Members of high performingdepartments (such as the reproduction department) were engaged (e.g., they appearedfocused and took notes during group meetings), studious, and eager to learn. Within thisdepartment, one worker (B8) told MC they also wished they could do a research projectto understand cattle reproduction, and another (B20) was reading about how to improvemotivation in his spare time.Workers on both farms reported challenges in finding competent and qualified work-ers. Departmental leaders on Farm B described challenges associated with the lack oftalented individuals (especially younger workers) willing to dedicate themselves to farmwork. This challenge was attributed by two departmental leaders B15 and B17 to be aconsequence of China’s one child policy. This policy combined with the improvementsin quality of life, was viewed to result in “only children”(独生子女 ) who were “giveneverything they wanted” (有求必应 ), “spoilt” (娇生惯养 ) and therefore “unable to adapt”,to do “dirty work” or “endure hardship” (吃苦 ) on farms. This gritty attitude and ability toendure hardship was repeatedly mentioned as critical to achieving success on both farms.Qualified and educated workers might also be picky according to departmental leaderB17, “people with college education might arrive and say: ‘the environment is not nice,I quit’”. For veterinarians this appeared to be a particularly relevant issue; team leaderB2 (a veterinary school graduate) shared that most veterinary graduates prefer to work incity clinics where the pay was better. Departmental leader B15 also shared the difficultyto attract and retain veterinary students to the farm, even with a relatively high startingwage. Interestingly, on Farm B, all veterinary graduates were in leadership positions suchas department leads, but only two of them were working on the veterinary team. Themove to appoint educated workers directly into managerial positions (e.g., milking parlordepartment leader) seemed to be common; whereas, in the case of technical positions,they were required to work their way up to leadership positions (e.g., the reproductivedepartmental leader started off as a team worker). Veterinarians (兽医 ) was the title givento any staff who carried out medical care, regardless of qualifications. Veterinarians on bothfarms were mostly workers hired from nearby villages and trained on site. Departmentalleader B15 felt that “there’s no requirements for becoming a vet in China”, arguing thatthis lack of qualified veterinarians resulted in preventable illnesses being left untreated,and that this hindered his ability to take a more proactive approach to disease prevention.On Farm A, the farm management shared the view that qualified workers may notwant to work on the farms due to low wages. Recognizing the difficulty in attracting andAnimals 2021, 11, 1260 11 of 18maintaining competent workers, Farm B’s management implemented a strategy of improv-ing conditions via providing improved accommodation, food, wages, and worker benefits.3.4. IncentivesBoth farms used incentive systems that tied worker performance with rewards andpunishments, providing a structure for encouraging certain outcomes. Workers reportedthat these incentives were effective in motivating behavior change. Both companies identi-fied key performance indicators (e.g., increased profit; increased milk yield and quality)and utilized rewards to mutually benefit the farms and individual workers.Farm managers on both farms reportedly increased performance appraisal (Farm Asince the arrival of the new farm management team in March 2019, and Farm B since2018). On Farm A, the farm management team’s compensation was based on farm profit,determined by milk quantity (kg) and quality (e.g., SCC). As such, the team saw the cattle’swell-being as instrumental to increased profit. Comments reflecting this mindset wereconveyed by the farm management team. At a monthly meeting, one member of thisteam (A12) told workers, “see the cattle as your partner in earning money, when they arecomfortable, they will produce more, and we will benefit” and another member (A13)added “if it is in the cow’s interest then it is correct.”To achieve improved farm-level outcomes, Farm A’s new farm management team setmerit-based pay for farm workers. The farm manager conveyed that since his arrival, heincreased wages and merit-based pay for workers, including calf caregivers. Followingwage increases, calf caretakers and veterinarians reported reductions in calf mortality andmorbidity, and increased calf growth. One calf caregiver described: “I’m proud our calvesgrew more. The milk yield went up! [ . . . ] When there’s more milk, workers earn morewith merit-based income.” Similarly, Farm A’s reproduction team members shared howthey took pride in their work and that when more cattle became pregnant, they earnedmore for their families.Farm B had implemented a three-level performance appraisal system (三级考核 ) toalign performance outcomes to company goals. In the first level, the company set farm-levelkey performance indicators (KPI) (e.g., daily yield should be 29.5 kg/cow/day; % cattlelying in stalls should be 80%) which determined how much each farm earns. In the secondlevel, each department within Farm B was assessed based on relevant KPI (e.g., dailyyield was a KPI for the milking parlor department; mastitis rates for the milking parlordepartment, veterinary department, environment department; and successful calving formaternity department). Within each department, the department leader was in charge ofdistributing wages to workers based on assessment of KPI. An example where having aperformance outcome was viewed as important was conveyed by calf caretaker B14. Inthis case calf weight gain was tied to her monthly merit-based income, which was a strongmotivator for this employee as she used her income to support her children. Below is afieldnote excerpt as MC shadowed her:“Before we fed the calves manually, using little buckets. Now we [use ad libitumfeeding of acidified milk]. Each year is better than the last. The performanceis better, the benefits are clear. You can see the effects of your work, and youcan tell the worker’s ability. If [the calves are] fed well, [I’ll] earn better. Withperformance appraisal, if the calves gain weight, I will earn more. I quite likethis job. Each month if the weight is above the goal, I am extremely happy!” Shesmiles broadly, looking very proud. “I’m so happy in my heart!” As we continueto feed the calf starter, she says to her calves “Eat more! Grow heavier!”This kind of assessment was made possible given the data management departmenton Farm B, who collected data such as monthly calf weight gain, gait scores, and bodycondition scores for performance appraisals. These performance indicators were notmeasured on Farm A, in part, due to lack of a dedicated workers needed to generatethis data.Animals 2021, 11, 1260 12 of 18Farm B also coupled training and education to performance appraisal, likely pro-viding motivation for workers to implement what they learnt. For example, Farm B’sveterinarians were trained and tested on theoretical and technical knowledge and alsoclinical applications such as surgeries, while herders were trained and tested on low stresshandling. Workers who received the top scores were given cash bonus as well as honoraryred badges to wear (many recipients were seen proudly wearing them).The effectiveness of the incentive system appeared to differ on the two farms, possiblydue to differences in company culture, especially related to transparency, integrity, andfairness when it comes to finances. A member of farm management on Farm A complained“The key is the leader. His thinking determines the company’s direction. [ . . . ] Withperformance indicators, it is important for the leader to clarify what happens if I achievemy goals, and what happens if I don’t. That’s it! Then keep your word. Don’t have internalconflicts. It’s that simple.” Workers shared how corruption within Company A meant evenif the owner wanted to pay them the individual in charge of finances may not do so.In contrast, on Farm B compensation appeared to be more transparent; all farmworkers, including the farm managers, had their wages displayed on the canteen wall, andworkers were observed comparing each other’s wages to see who benefited the most fromthe merit-based pay. This comparison appeared to be a strong motivator according to milkerB20 who shared “you see each other’s wages, [the departmental leader tells you] why otherpeople did so well, then I want to do even better”. However, not everyone saw this increasein performance review as ideal; department leader B15 shared how performance appraisalsalso increase rivalry and pit workers against each other. Departmental leader B17, whowas in charge of paying his team members, emphasized the importance of transparency onFarm B: “If you are paying employees things must be completely clear and transparent.Everyone is here to earn money. Food comes first for the people, right? (民以食为天 ) [ . . . ]So anything concerning money must be handled carefully.”Punishments, such as fines, were used on both farms and were felt by some to beuseful in discouraging poor behavior. For example, after the veterinary department leaderon Farm B increased fines for veterinarians who made mistakes when writing their dailyreports about cattle, these mistakes noticeably reduced. However, Farm A’s managerrecognized that he could not enforce too many fines given that the base wage was low, andhe expressed concern that implementing such an approach could result in some employeesquitting their jobs.Workers on Farm B (including departmental leaders and farm managers) were sub-jected to regular performance appraisals. B1, a member of farm management on Farm Bindicated that they would be placing increasing emphasis on performance reviews.“Everyone will start from the same starting point. [After performance appraisala] team leader with good performance can be promoted to be department leader,while a department leader with poor performance will no longer hold thatposition anymore. Give them a sense of crisis and competition. Let them provetheir technical skills and ability.”Although the implementation of incentive systems appeared to help align workerperformance with company goals, they were almost always profit focused, which can causesome tension with regards to animal care. For example, on Farm B it was viewed to beprofitable to cull and sell the cattle alive vs. euthanizing. This may have resulted in somecompromised cows suffering during transport and slaughter. On Farm B, any workercausing a cow to die was fined. Thus, workers stated that they chose to keep animals aliveand cull them rather than euthanize.4. DiscussionOur findings are not intended to be generalizable to all Chinese dairy farms, but theresults may be transferable to farms with similar contexts. Chinese livestock farms arenow viewed as being run more like a business compared to previous modes of traditionalfarming, meaning farm performance is closely tied to employee management and orga-Animals 2021, 11, 1260 13 of 18nizational culture [43]. Keeping in mind that farm performance and productivity do notnecessarily indicate higher animal welfare, we discuss some animal welfare implications ofour findings.4.1. Organizational CultureLeadership affects culture, which in turn impacts performance [44], employee atti-tudes [45], and job satisfaction [46]. While attitudes towards animals and work impactanimal welfare [47], changing the attitudes of some workers is not sufficient in promotinga self-reinforcing culture of positive animal welfare [28]. Previous research has examinedindividual stakeholder attitudes using the theory of planned behavior [22,23], with theassumption that attitudes shape intentions, which in turn dictate behavior [48]. However,intention to change often does not result in actual behavior change [49]. Chinese societyis highly collectivist and hierarchical [50], suggesting individual attitudes and intentionmay play less of a role in shaping behavior within a group context. It is thus criticalto understand the farm context (e.g., organizational culture and norms) where behaviortakes place.Under top-down management systems, animal welfare initiatives may require ap-proval and support of company and farm leaders [49]. For example, Farm B’s animalwelfare related goals (such as reducing lameness and reducing SCC) were set by the com-pany. These SOPs were adapted within each farm and department to ensure these werelocally relevant and achievable. However, strong hierarchies coupled with Chinese culturaltraits of deference to authority and conflict avoidance [51] may cause challenges. For exam-ple, subordinates may hesitate to provide critique or feedback to superiors, and workersmay not have enough agency to make changes they find important.Leadership approval is more likely if animal welfare improvement is viewed as bene-ficial (e.g., associated with increased productivity and profit; [52]). However, challengescan arise when outcomes focused on improving animal welfare conflict with economicoutcomes, as was observed on Farm B where culling was viewed as financially beneficialcompared to euthanasia.Chinese culture places importance on interpersonal relationships (guanxi) [53], whichfacilitates corruption in certain contexts [54]. Such relationships in Company A appearedto hinder the farm management team’s ability to improve animal care.4.2. CompetenceSuccess of a dairy business depends on a competent workforce [55]. Competence wasperceived to require a strong work ethic and knowledge of animal care (acquired throughformal education, on-farm training, and personal experience).As reported by workers, lack of skill can lead to issues such as poor detection of healthproblems. Classroom and online training can help increase Chinese livestock stakeholders’knowledge of animal welfare issues [26]. Senior veterinarians, agriculture advisors, andscientific experts are considered influential by Chinese farmers [22]. For example, FarmA’s nutritionist was a well-respected advisor for farms across China. Although thereis increasing Chinese literature about animal welfare [20], academic journals are not acommon source of knowledge for Chinese livestock stakeholders [27]. Future effortsshould focus on disseminating animal welfare knowledge from academia to influentialleaders and workers—for example through extension and collaboration with veterinariansand nutritionists [30]. That said, it is important to realize that increased animal welfareknowledge does not necessarily lead to increased empathy [27] or changes in workerbehavior [28], especially without appropriate incentives.Competent workers were eager to learn and had a strong work ethic. High perfor-mance among Asian workers often includes drivers such as perseverance through hardshipand a desire to become experts in the field (observed in Farm B’s reproductive team),and the acknowledgment that they can learn from past mistakes to transcend deficiencies(observed when veterinarian A5 perceived himself as uncultured but learning throughAnimals 2021, 11, 1260 14 of 18mistakes) [56]. This type of ‘growth mindset’ (belief that ability can improve overtime)can be a predictor of higher performance compared to a ‘fixed mindset’ [57]. Grit (chiku,吃苦 , the ability to ‘eat bitter’ and persevere) is a key determinant of success [58] andconsidered by workers to be an important factor shaping farm success. These attitudeswere articulated by workers on both farms and promoted in farm meetings, especially byleaders of high performing departments.Though Chinese farmers did not rate ‘farmer well-being’ as highly important forimproving animal welfare in surveys [22], qualitative research conducted in Finland [59]and Denmark [60] found that farmer well-being was critical to ensuring animal welfare.We found competent workers on these farms were attracted and motivated by improvedworking conditions, suggesting that, in similar contexts, improving worker welfare couldimprove animal welfare.4.3. Incentive SystemsEffective incentive systems help increase work performance; linking performanceappraisal to pay is common in Chinese businesses [61]. Increased pay appeared to motivateworkers on both farms. That said, incentives tied to measures of profit will be onlyindirectly (and sometimes even negatively) associated with animal welfare; the animalsare most likely to benefit if incentives are directly tied to welfare outcomes (e.g., Farm Blinking successful calving to the maternity team’s wage). Sinclair et al. [24] recommendedthat animal welfare outcomes be included in key performance indicators. In farms withexisting performance appraisal systems, animal welfare can be improved by incorporatinganimal-based welfare indicators (e.g., lameness and mastitis assessments were used inperformance appraisal on Farm B).Sinclair et al. [52] suggested that extrinsic motivators can shape behavior, even in theabsence of intrinsic motivation. Creating clear and measurable goals during performanceappraisal is associated with improved performance [62]. Our findings, similar to thoseof Armstrong [63], noted that accuracy, fairness, and transparency were important inperformance appraisal. To improve worker satisfaction and performance, Peng and Tan [43]highlighted the need to include both material incentives (such as merit-based pay andgifts), and psychological incentives (such as having a pleasant work environment, and funsocial activities).There is currently no mention of ‘animal welfare’ in Chinese legislation [64,65], thoughfarm animal welfare is affected by the Animal Husbandry Law (畜牧法 ; [66]) and slaughterregulations (e.g., in 2016 China introduced its first humane poultry slaughter regula-tion [67]). Within the dairy industry, leading processors such as Mengniu have createdcattle welfare standards [68]. Relevant regulations and standards may be implemented byusing such on-farm incentive systems.4.4. Strengths and LimitationsHow participants perceived MC shaped her findings. MC was often perceived as acurious “foreign student” (外国留学生 ) from the city. As such, most workers willinglyexplained farm life and animal care with her, but sometimes were uncomfortable sharingaspects of farm work which they perceived as “dirty” or embarrassing.Ethnographic interviews and participant observations were valuable in engagingworkers as they carried out daily practices, such as calf feeding, herding, and milking.Walking while interviewing stimulated richer discussion about the surroundings [69]. Ad-ditionally, more participants consented to informal, non-recorded conversations comparedto formal, recorded interviews.Immersive fieldwork allowed the researcher to participate in daily activities. Whileparticipants may have behaved differently in front of the researcher due to the observereffect (MC noted differences in behavior in certain participants on Farm A during thefirst two weeks of her visit), this was mitigated by spending more time with participants,developing trusting relationships, and becoming a normal presence. MC noted increasedAnimals 2021, 11, 1260 15 of 18participant trust and willingness to share after receiving support from key decision-makersat each farm.Triangulation using a variety of methods (e.g., interviews, observation, documentcollection, and participation) meant gaining a deeper and more holistic picture of the farms.Fieldwork involved interacting with a variety of workers. This included participants whomight not have participated in surveys (e.g., hard to reach employees working directly withanimals). These sampling issues are discussed by Li et al. [25]. Previous survey, interview,and focus group research on Chinese stakeholder’s perceptions of animal welfare mayhave suffered from self-selection of participants with an existing interest in the topic (e.g.,Li et al. [25]). The farms and participants in the current study were not selected based oninterest in animal care and welfare, reducing this selection bias.The mini-ethnographic case study was practical, but results are limited by the rela-tively short time spent in the field. Due to limited time, we did not include company-levelmanagement; we acknowledge that these individuals can also impact animal care deci-sions. Given the annual and seasonal changes in dairy farm operations, MC’s one-monthstay inevitably missed key events. The two farms differed in ownership (state-ownedvs. privately-owned), herd size (1500 vs. 11,000), farm age, location, and many otherfactors; the findings from these farms are not generalizable to all Chinese farms, but keyaspects may be transferable to farms with similar contexts. Ethnography has rarely beenapplied in the field of animal welfare [32], and our results illustrate how the application ofthis methodology can provide researchers with nuanced insights into the experiences offarm workers5. ConclusionsAddressing complex animal welfare issues on farms requires an understanding of theircultural contexts. Qualitative approaches such as ethnography and participant observationscan capture cultural factors that may be missed using other approaches. Our resultsindicated that farm worker satisfaction, competence, and motivation played a criticalrole in shaping animal care. We suggest that strategies to improve animal care includedeveloping a positive organizational culture that unites individuals to pursue commongoals, attracting and retaining competent workers (for example through improving workerwelfare), and providing incentives for achieving animal care outcomes.Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ani11051260/s1, Table S1: Initial interview guide, Supplementary material A: Longer quotesand excerpts in English and Chinese, Table S2: Final template, Supplementary material B: Sample ofedited audit trail.Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.C., D.M.W., and M.A.G.v.K.; methodology, M.C. andS.M.; software, M.C.; investigation, M.C.; data curation, M.C.; writing—original draft preparation,M.C.; writing—review and editing, D.M.W., M.A.G.v.K., and S.M.; supervision, D.M.W.; fundingacquisition, M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.Funding: This research was funded by Open Philanthropy and Good Ventures.Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was approved by The University of BritishColumbia’s Behavioral Research Ethics Board under #H18-03664. Farms and participants areanonymized to protect their identities. Legal representatives of both farms provided written consentand farm access, while participants provided verbal consent.Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from thecorresponding author. The data are not publicly available in order to protect the confidentiality ofthe participants, and due to the personal and subjective nature of the data.Animals 2021, 11, 1260 16 of 18Acknowledgments: The first author is deeply grateful for each farm worker who openly welcomedher into their farms and patiently taught her their expertise and way of life (感谢每位场上的员工。谢谢你们欢迎我进入牛场,并且耐心分享你们的生活方式以及如何养牛 ). She is especially thankful forher Grandpa (Zhou Yun Ning) and Dad (Chen Xi) for initially visiting the farms with her together (感谢外公与爸爸陪同我一起去场上 ). We appreciate Katherine Elizabeth Koralesky and the anonymousreviewers for their insightful feedback, as well as Sky Kehan Sheng, Congcong Li, Janet Zhou Tong,Eric Olav Chen for their help in checking the accuracy of the Mandarin-English translations.Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.References1. Barkema, H.W.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Kastelic, J.P.; Lam, T.J.G.M.; Luby, C.; Roy, J.-P.; LeBlanc, S.J.; Keefe, G.P.; Kelton, D.F.Invited Review: Changes in the Dairy Industry Affecting Dairy Cattle Health and Welfare. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 7426–7445.[CrossRef] [PubMed]2. Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Rushen, J.; de Passillé, A.M.; Weary, D.M. Invited Review: The Welfare of Dairy Cattle—Key Conceptsand the Role of Science. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 4101–4111. [CrossRef]3. Coignard, M.; Guatteo, R.; Veissier, I.; Lehébel, A.; Hoogveld, C.; Mounier, L.; Bareille, N. Does Milk Yield Reflect the Level ofWelfare in Dairy Herds? Vet. J. 2014, 199, 184–187. [CrossRef] [PubMed]4. Fraser, D. Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in Its Cultural Context; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2008; pp. 9–23.5. Blakeley, D.N. Listening to the Animals: The Confucian View of Animal Welfare. J. Chin. Philos. 2003, 30, 137–157. [CrossRef]6. Schönfeld, M.; Chen, X. Daoism and the Project of an Ecological Civilization or Shengtai Wenming. Religions 2019, 10, 630.[CrossRef]7. Cao, W.W.; Chen, B.J. Comparative Investigation of Western Animal Liberation Theory and Chinese Buddhist Viewpoints ofProtecting Beings. J. Zunji Norm. Coll. 2009, 11, 5–9. (In Chinese)8. Cao, D. Is the Concept of Animal Welfare Incompatible with Chinese Culture? Soc. Anim. 2020, 1, 1–13. [CrossRef]9. Lu, J.; Bayne, K.; Wang, J. Current Status of Animal Welfare and Animal Rights in China. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2013, 41, 351–357.[CrossRef] [PubMed]10. Bao, J.; Li, Y. China perspective: Emerging interest in animal behaviour and welfare science. In Animals and Us; WageningenAcademic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 241–252.11. Jiang, B. Analyzing standardized dairy farm economic profitability from the perspective of animal welfare. Chin. J. Anim. Sci.2021, 57, 214–219. (In Chinese)12. Shi, J.Z. Developments in Chinese Animal Welfare. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Welfare Science (China) Conference the 2ndQuality and Welfare Egg China Summit, Shanghai, China, 15–16 October 2020.13. Guoqing. Yu Kang Zhen: Chinese Livestock Workers Should be Responsible for Furthering Farm Animal Welfare. Available online:http://guoqing.china.com.cn/2019-09/12/content_75199336.htm?f=pad&a=true (accessed on 21 December 2020). (In Chinese).14. Sohu. The Vice Minister of the Ministry of Agriculture Yu Kang Zhen: China Animal Welfare Has Important Developments.Available online: www.sohu.com/a/198667311_115376 (accessed on 21 December 2020). (In Chinese).15. Sinclair, M.; Phillips, C.J.C. Asian Livestock Industry Leaders’ Perceptions of the Importance of, and Solutions for, Animal WelfareIssues. Animals 2019, 9, 319. [CrossRef]16. 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. [CrossRef]17. Davey, G. Chinese University Students’ Attitudes toward the Ethical Treatment and Welfare of Animals. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci.2006, 9, 289–297. [CrossRef]18. 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. [CrossRef]19. Littlefair, P. Why China is waking up to animal welfare. In Animals, Ethics, and Trade: The Challenge of Animal Sentience; Turner, J.,D’Silva, J., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2006; pp. 225–237.20. Sinclair, M.; Zhang, Y.; Descovich, K.; Phillips, C.J.C. Farm Animal Welfare Science in China—A Bibliometric Review of ChineseLiterature. Animals 2020, 10, 540. [CrossRef] [PubMed]21. Sinclair, M.; Phillips, C.J.C. Key Tenets of Operational Success in International Animal Welfare Initiatives. Animals 2018, 8, 92.[CrossRef]22. Platto, S.; Zhu, Q.; Guo, A.; He, Q.; Hu, S.; Valros, A.; Irwin, A. Chinese Farmers’ Attitude towards the Improvement of AnimalWelfare in Their Facilities. Anim. Welf. 2020, 29, 99–112. [CrossRef]23. Sinclair, M.; Zito, S.; Idrus, Z.; Yan, W.; van Nhiem, D.; Lampang, P.N.; Phillips, C. Attitudes of Stakeholders to Animal Welfareduring Slaughter and Transport in SE and E Asia. Anim. Welf. 2017, 26, 417–425. [CrossRef]24. Sinclair, M.; Zito, S.; Phillips, C.J.C. The Impact of Stakeholders’ Roles within the Livestock Industry on Their Attitudes toLivestock Welfare in Southeast and East Asia. Animals 2017, 7, 6. [CrossRef]25. Li, X.; Zito, S.; Sinclair, M.; Phillips, C.J.C. Perception of Animal Welfare Issues during Chinese Transport and Slaughter ofLivestock by a Sample of Stakeholders in the Industry. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0197028. [CrossRef]Animals 2021, 11, 1260 17 of 1826. Descovich, K.; Li, X.; Sinclair, M.; Wang, Y.; Phillips, C.J.C. The Effect of Animal Welfare Training on the Knowledge and Attitudesof Abattoir Stakeholders in China. Animals 2019, 9, 989. [CrossRef]27. Erian, I.; Sinclair, M.; Phillips, C.J.C. Knowledge of Stakeholders in the Livestock Industries of East and Southeast Asia aboutWelfare during Transport and Slaughter and Its Relation to Their Attitudes to Improving Animal Welfare. Animals 2019, 9, 99.[CrossRef]28. Burton, R.J.F.; Peoples, S.; Cooper, M.H. Building ‘Cowshed Cultures’: A Cultural Perspective on the Promotion of Stockmanshipand Animal Welfare on Dairy Farms. J. Rural Stud. 2012, 28, 174–187. [CrossRef]29. Hemsworth, P.H. Key Determinants of Pig Welfare: Implications of Animal Management and Housing Design on LivestockWelfare. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2018, 58, 1375–1386. [CrossRef]30. Mills, K.E.; Weary, D.M.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Graduate Student Literature Review: Challenges and Opportunities forHuman Resource Management on Dairy Farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 1192–1202. [CrossRef]31. Coffey, A. Doing Ethnography, 2nd ed.; SAGE: Newcastle, UK, 2018.32. Jones McVey, R. An Ethnographic Account of the British Equestrian Virtue of Bravery, and Its Implications for Equine Welfare.Animals 2021, 11, 188. [CrossRef] [PubMed]33. Fusch, P.I.; Fusch, G.E.; Ness, L.R. How to Conduct a Mini-Ethnographic Case Study: A Guide for Novice Researchers. Qual. Rep.2017, 22, 923.34. China Dairy Industry Association. Development of the National Dairy Industry. In Proceedings of the 10th Dairy Conference ofChina, Tianjin, China, 12–14 June 2019; pp. 1–5. (In Chinese).35. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2018.36. King, N.; Brooks, J.M. Template Analysis for Business and Management Students; SAGE: Newcastle, UK, 2016.37. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Reflecting on Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health 2019, 11, 589–597. [CrossRef]38. Nowell, L.S.; Norris, J.M.; White, D.E.; Moules, N.J. Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. Int. J. Qual.Methods 2017, 16, 1609406917733847. [CrossRef]39. Dairy Association of China; Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. China Dairy Statistical Summary; Dairy Association ofChina: Beijing, China; Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs: Beijing, China, 2019.40. Sharma, N.; Singh, N.K.; Bhadwal, M.S. Relationship of Somatic Cell Count and Mastitis: An Overview. Asian Australas. J. Anim.Sci. 2011, 24, 429–438. [CrossRef]41. Gao, C.S.; Bai, C.; Wu, D.; Wang, N.; Yu, Q.L. Dairy cattle mastitis research progress. Jilin Anim. Husbandry Vet. Med. 2019,40, 58–59. (In Chinese)42. Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership, 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010.43. Peng, G.Y.; Tan, F.F. Human resource management is the key to improving farm economic efficiency. Contemp. Anim. Husbandry2006, 1, 49–51. (In Chinese)44. Boyce, A.S.; Nieminen, L.R.G.; Gillespie, M.A.; Ryan, A.M.; Denison, D.R. Which Comes First, Organizational Culture orPerformance? A Longitudinal Study of Causal Priority with Automobile Dealerships. J. Organ. Behav. 2015, 36, 339–359.[CrossRef]45. O’Reilly, C.A.; Caldwell, D.F.; Chatman, J.A.; Doerr, B. The Promise and Problems of Organizational Culture: CEO Personality,Culture, and Firm Performance. Group Organ. Manag. 2014, 39, 595–625. [CrossRef]46. Belias, D.; Koustelios, A. Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction: A Review. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 2014, 4, 132–149.47. Hemsworth, P.H.; Coleman, G.J. Animal welfare and management. In Welfare of Production Animals: Assessment and Management ofRisks; Smulders, F.J.M., Algers, B., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 133–147.48. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]49. Sinclair, M.; Morton, J.; Phillips, C.J.C. Turning Intentions into Animal Welfare Improvement in the Asian Livestock Sector. J. Appl.Anim. Welf. Sci. 2019, 22, 385–399. [CrossRef] [PubMed]50. Hofstede, G. Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2011, 2, 1–26. [CrossRef]51. Fan, Y. A Classification of Chinese Culture. Cross Cult. Manag. Int. J. 2000, 7, 3–10. [CrossRef]52. Sinclair, M.; Idrus, Z.; van Nhiem, D.; Katawatin, S.; Todd, B.; Burns, G.L.; Phillips, C.J.C. Motivations for Industry Stakeholdersin China, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia to Improve Livestock Welfare. Animals 2019, 9, 416. [CrossRef]53. Luo, Y. Guanxi and Business, 2nd ed.; World Scientific: Singapore, 2007.54. Luo, Y. The Changing Chinese Culture and Business Behavior: The Perspective of Intertwinement between Guanxi and Corruption.Int. Bus. Rev. 2008, 17, 188–193. [CrossRef]55. Milligan, R.A. Leadership for the farm business. In Large Dairy HerdManagement; American Dairy Science Association: Champaign,IL, USA, 2017; pp. 1179–1188.56. Vera, M.J.D.; Gavino, J.C.; Portugal, E.J. Grit and Superior Work Performance in an Asian Context. In Proceedings of the 11thInternational Business and Social Science Research Conference, Dubai, UAE, 8–9 January 2015; p. 11.57. Yeager, D.S.; Dweck, C.S. Mindsets That Promote Resilience: When Students Believe That Personal Characteristics Can BeDeveloped. Educ. Psychol. 2012, 47, 302–314. [CrossRef]58. Duckworth, A.L.; Peterson, C.; Matthews, M.D.; Kelly, D.R. Grit: Perseverance and Passion for Long-Term Goals. J. Pers. Soc.Psychol. 2007, 92, 1087–1101. [CrossRef] [PubMed]Animals 2021, 11, 1260 18 of 1859. Kauppinen, T.; Valros, A.; Vesala, K.M. Attitudes of Dairy Farmers toward Cow Welfare in Relation to Housing, Management andProductivity. Anthrozoös 2013, 26, 405–420. [CrossRef]60. Anneberg, I.; Sandøe, P. When the Working Environment is Bad, You Take it Out on the Animals—How Employees on DanishFarms Perceive Animal Welfare. Food Ethics 2019, 4, 21–34. [CrossRef]61. Cooke, F.L. Human Resource Management in China: New Trends and Practices; Routledge: Abington, UK, 2013.62. Verbeeten, F.H.M. Performance Management Practices in Public Sector Organizations: Impact on Performance. Account. Audit.Account. J. 2008, 21, 427–454. [CrossRef]63. Armstrong, M. Armstrong’s Handbook of Performance Management: An Evidence-Based Guide to Delivering High Performance; KoganPage Publishers: London, UK, 2009.64. Lu, C.P.; Fei, R.M. OIE Animal Welfare Standards in the Legislation: Experience of China 2012. In Proceedings of the Third OIEConference on Animal Welfare, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 6–8 November 2012.65. Tian, Y.; Zou, S. Legislation Focus: “Animal Welfare” Provisions Deleted from Draft of Livestock Law. Available online:http://www.gov.cn/zwhd/2005-12/24/content_136421.htm (accessed on 29 December 2020). (In Chinese)66. National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China. Animal Husbandry Law. Available online: http://www.npc.gov.cn/wxzl/gongbao/2005-12/29/content_5343919.htm (accessed on 30 December 2020). (In Chinese)67. Gao, Y.Y. Shandong Province Enacts Humane Slaughter: Considering the Chicken’s Experience during Slaughter. Availableonline: http://news.sina.com.cn/c/nd/2016-08-28/doc-ifxvixeq0620553.shtml (accessed on 5 February 2021). (In Chinese).68. Xinhuanet. Mengniu Drafts <Farm Dairy Welfare Implementary Strategy> Bringing Good News for Supply Chain—Xinhuanet. Available online: http://www.xinhuanet.com/food/2020-04/20/c_1125881053.htm (accessed on 30 December 2020).(In Chinese).69. Evans, J.; Jones, P. The Walking Interview: Methodology, Mobility and Place. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 849–858. [CrossRef]
Article
eng
Reviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
CC BY 4.0
Faculty
animal welfare
farm culture
human resource
behavior change
qualitative methods
Employee Management and Animal Care: A Comparative Ethnography of Two Large-Scale Dairy Farms in China
Text