Dodo6/Topic_Modelling_using_LDA
1
1animals2Article3 4Comparison of Chinese Broiler Production Systems in5Economic Performance and Animal Welfare6Qichang Chen 1,2 , Helmut W. Saatkamp 2 , Jan Cortenbach 3 and Weidong Jin 1, *71829310 11*12 13Department of Agriculture Economic and Management, Shenyang Agriculture University, Shenyang 100161,14China; 2017200135@syau.edu.cn15Business Economics Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen,16The Netherlands; helmut.saatkamp@wur.nl17Wellhope-De Heus Animal Nutrition B.V. Nr. 2 International Mansion 2, 9A-B, Information rd. 2,18Beijing 100085, China; jcortenbach@deheus.com19Correspondence: Wangjianhua@stu.syau.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-024-88488887202122 23Received: 12 February 2020; Accepted: 10 March 2020; Published: 15 March 202024 25Simple Summary: There are three main rearing systems for white-feathered broilers in China.26They are the net floor system (NFS), the normal cage system (NCS), and the high standard cage system27(HCS). This study compared the relationship between economic benefit and animal welfare between28these systems. The high economic input, high output, and high profit in these three different rearing29systems. The welfare scores were 778.24 ± 29.45, 691.09 ± 32.97, and 669.82 ± 22.79, respectively.30As white-feathered broiler production in China has developed, from the conventional system to the31latest system, both cost and economic profit have increased while the welfare score has decreased.32This study explains why the level of animal welfare in China’s white-feathered broiler production is33not high at present, and why breeders do not wish to improve the level of animal welfare production.34Abstract: Both proper animal welfare and economic benefit are important to the broiler industry,35so it is better to consider these two factors together. The purpose of this study was to investigate36the relationship between economic benefit and animal welfare in different production systems of37white-feathered broilers in China. Based on the Welfare Quality Assessment (WQA) protocol for38poultry, the authors compared and evaluated the results of the Welfare Quality model (WQM) and39the deterministic model. The present study conducted welfare evaluations and investigations on 6640broiler chicken flocks on 52 farms in China. These flocks included three types: the net floor system41(NFS), the normal cage system (NCS), and the high standard cage system (HCS). In terms of economy,42the results were in line with high economic input, high output, and high profit. In terms of animal43welfare assessment, the authors calculated the welfare scores per measure and the attributional WQ44scores and WQ index scores of each production systems. The results showed that nine welfare45measures from four welfare criteria presented different trends in the three production systems.46WQ index scores were 778.24 ± 29.45, 691.09 ± 32.97, and 669.82 ± 22.79, respectively. According to47Chow test results, significant differences were found between WQ index scores and total cost and48profit (all p < 0.01). In conclusion, with the development of white-feathered broiler production in49China, from the conventional system to the latest system, both cost and economic profit have been50increased, but the welfare score has been decreased.51Keywords: animal welfare; broiler production system; economic performance52 531. Introduction54In the past few decades and especially in recent years, as in many other countries, the public55in China has become more concerned about animal welfare [1]. When compared to the laying hen56Animals 2020, 10, 491; doi:10.3390/ani1003049157 58www.mdpi.com/journal/animals59 60 Animals 2020, 10, 49161 622 of 1463 64and fattening pig industries, broiler production has the best short-term and mid-term prospects for65developing animal-friendly market concepts [2].66In the past 40 years, the broiler industry has developed rapidly in China and its production is67the second largest in the world after USA. In addition, the broiler industry in China has become the68second largest animal husbandry after the pig industry, and the development of white-feathered broiler69industry has been especially striking [3,4]. However, animal welfare and related research in the broiler70industry are still at a low level in China [1]. Furthermore, most studies focus only on the concept and71significance of animal welfare [5–8]. Excitingly, more studies have focused on consumer willingness to72pay (WTP) and the actual level of welfare during the process of production in recent years. Nowadays,73the Chinese middle-class has begun to be more concerned about animal welfare [9]. These results74are similar to the research in many countries, such as Belgium, the Netherlands, and especially75Brazil [10–12] where socio-demographic characteristics present the largest differences in consumer76attitudes [13].77A comparison of perforated flooring (netting) systems and the conventional litter floor system78in production performance and welfare showed that each system has its pros and cons [14]. Studies79have proved that floor systems show advantages in production performance and welfare, however,80in the field of white-feathered broilers, farmers still prefer the cage system instead of the flooring81system [3,4]. Even so, the efficiency of broiler production in China still lags behind the highest levels in82the world [15]. Therefore, it is valuable to evaluate the animal welfare and economic benefits of the83white-feathered broilers production model in China, thus promoting the welfare self-evaluation and84self-improvement of the production sector [16].85Nowadays, based on the Welfare Quality Assessment (WQA) protocol for poultry, more86assessments of the welfare level of broiler production have been performed [17]. These studies87have focused on a specific single measure in the welfare protocol, such as plumage condition [18],88stunning [19], light intensity [20], gait score [21], and dark system [22]. In order to reduce bias and89accurately calculate the overall Welfare Quality (WQ) index score for each system, Gocsik et al. (2016)90used a weighted index based on WQA to relate system attributes to welfare measures [23,24].91Currently, yellow- and white-feathered broilers are mainly bred in China’s broiler industry.92There are three main production systems for white-feathered broilers: the net floor system (NFS),93the normal cage system (NCS), and the high standard cage system (HCS) [3,4]. The main objective94of this paper is to compare and analyze the economic performance and animal welfare of the three95systems. This thesis is structured in the following steps: in the first step, based on the survey data,96a deterministic model was used to obtain economic performance; in the second step, the assessment97data and Welfare Quality model were used to obtain welfare scores per measure, attributional WQ98scores, and WQ index scores of each system; and in the third step, economic performance and WQ99index scores were compared by using correlation analysis and the Chow test.1002. Materials and Methods101This study included at least two aspects of data, economic performance and animal welfare102assessment. Production data was collected on the farm by interviews. Some of the data were103summarized from the delivery reports, which were sourced from the slaughterhouse. These included104farm information, flock information, technical information, and cost information. Assessment data105of animal welfare and production were collected at 66 flocks on 52 farms. The authors conducted106an assessment of animal welfare of poultry in accordance with the guidance of the Animal Welfare107Quality Broiler Assessment protocol [17]. A flock was defined as broiler chickens in a single coop at a108particular farm depopulated on the same date [23]. In the NFS, chickens could walk back and forth109when they were young, yet with low density and semi-confinement. In the NFS, almost all work was110done manually, and the sample flock was eight in this report. The NFS has quickly been replaced by111the NCS, but in the past few years, the NCS has been fully upgraded to the HCS. In the NCS and HCS,112several chickens are isolated in a half-square-meter iron cage with high density and total confinement.113 114 Animals 2020, 10, 491115 1163 of 14117 118The major difference between the NCS and HCS is whether they use the automatic feces-scraping119equipment. As a result, the environmental condition of the NCS is poor, because the feces cannot120be removed on time. In addition, the HCS is equipped with an automated feeding system and an121automated adjustment system of ventilation and temperature control (NCS flocks, n = 20; HCS flocks,122n = 38). Compared with the fully automated HCS, the NCS can be called semi-automatic. Therefore,123the fundamental difference between these three systems lies in initial cost.124In general, the assessment was performed in accordance with the Welfare Quality Assessment [17].125Most of the measures could be assessed but some measures differed from the description in the126assessment protocol. For example, mortality and cull rates are two different indicators used to assess127the score of good health in the WQA. In this study, however, only mortality was used. Since the farmers128did not record the number of broilers culled separately, only the total mortality rate was available for129the entire data set. This treatment was the same as that of Ingrid’s study (2016) [23].130Due to inadequate data of flocks in the litter system in this study, the assessment of the litter131system was cancelled. According to the protocol, the animals will initially be disturbed when the132observers visit observation points, and then the response and expressive quality of their activity at133the group level will be included in the assessment. However, it is impossible to observe and evaluate134broilers in dim, restricted, and high-density cages in which the density is more than fifty kilograms135per square meter (Table S1). Thus, the assessment of qualitative behaviors was cancelled in this136research as well. According to the WQ protocol, the percentage of broilers with ascites, septicemia,137hepatitis, pericarditis, and abscesses should be recorded at the slaughterhouse. However, only the138total percentage of rejected broiler chickens and the number of small broiler chickens are recorded in139Chinese slaughterhouses [23].140Costs and benefits were calculated for all three systems using a deterministic model. The model141was redesigned based on the research of Gocsik [24]. Variable costs, fixed costs, and total cost were142calculated in Chinese currency (CNY) per delivered broiler. Based on the deterministic model, together143with the survey data on the farm, and the delivery report back from the slaughterhouse, the authors144could get all the production costs as well as the return of the broiler flocks, such as the price of145day-age chickens, feed cost, health cost, heating cost, water and electricity cost, catching chicken146cost, feed transportation cost, chicken transportation cost, labor cost, infrastructure construction,147and inventory investment.148A stepwise approach, modified from Gocsik et al. [24] (Figure 1), was used to obtain a WQ index149score for each production system. First, the welfare score per measure for each flock was assessed150(Step 1 in Figure 1). Calculations were carried out according to the WQ protocol. Second, for each151flock, the attributional WQ score was calculated per system attribute by multiplying each welfare score152by its weight associated with a given attribute and subsequently by summing up the weighted scores153obtained per attribute (Step 2 in Figure 1):154WQ − A jk =155 156X157 158wik × xij159 160161 162where WQ − Ajk is the attributional WQ score for each flock and system attribute k, wik is the weight163of the link between welfare measure i and system attribute k (the value of wik is very crucial for the164next calculation), and xij is the welfare score for welfare measure i and flock j. The weight matrix was165from the research of Gocsik et al. (2016) [24] (Table S1).166 167 In NCS, d1i = 1, d2i = 0, the formula can be expressed as follows:168=∝169 170(β171 172μ173 174π) var175 176In HCS, d1i = 0, d2i = 1, the formula can be expressed as follows:177=∝178 179Animals 2020, 10, 491180 181(182 183v184 185)186 1874 of 14188 189Figure 1. Overview of steps for calculation of the Welfare Quality (WQ) index score.190Figure 1. Overview of steps for calculation of the Welfare Quality (WQ) index score.191 192Third, the attributional WQ scores per production system were calculated as the mean of the1933. Results194attributional WQ scores of the flocks of a given production system (Step 3 in Figure 1):195 1963.1 Technical Performance197 198WQ − Akm =199 200X201 202(WQ − A jk )/n203 204where WQ − Akm is the attributional WQ score for production system m and n is the number of farms205of production system m.206Finally, the overall WQ index score per production system was calculated by adding up the mean207attributional WQ scores for each production system (Step 4 in Figure 1):208WQ − Im =209 210X211 212WQ − Akm213 214where WQ − Im is the WQ index score for production system m. It is important to note that the overall215WQ index score can be calculated in an alternative way, that is, by calculating the mean of the welfare216scores for each flock and summing up the mean welfare score per welfare measure for each production217system. All the data was collected based on the animal welfare questionnaire.218In order to examine the impact of total cost or benefit on Welfare Quality scores in the three219different production systems, it was necessary to test the coefficient differences of three subsamples.220The Chow test and Fisher’s permutation test are common methods used to test coefficient difference221between groups after grouping regression [25,26]. The authors used the Chow test as a reference222and introduced cross-terms for testing significance of the coefficient and the intercept. In this study,223two dummy variables, d1i and d2i, were introduced. If one sample belonged to NFS, then d1i = 0 and224d2i = 0; if one sample belonged to NCS, then d1i = 1 and d2i = 0; and if one sample belonged to HCS,225then d1i = 0 and d2i = 1. The model of this study was set as follows:226WQi =∝ +µd1i + vd2i + βvari + π (vari × d1i ) + ϕ (vari × d2i ) + εi227where, ∝, β, µ, v, π, and ϕ are the parameters. εi is the common error term of this formula, vari is the228independent variable, which is the be total costs and profit in this article, d1i and d2i are two dummy229variables that mean the different systems in this research, (vari × d1i ) and (vari × d2i ) are two cross230terms of system and total costs (profit), WQi is the Welfare Quality score of each flock and i is a flock in231this research, and it varies from 1 to 66.232 233 Animals 2020, 10, 491234 2355 of 14236 237In NFS, d1i = 0, d2i = 0, the formula can be expressed as follows:238WQi =∝ +βvari + εi239In NCS, d1i = 1, d2i = 0, the formula can be expressed as follows:240WQi =∝ + µ + (β + π) vari + εi241In HCS, d1i = 0, d2i = 1, the formula can be expressed as follows:242WQi =∝ + v + (β + ϕ) vari + εi2433. Results2443.1. Technical Performance245The technical performance of the three production systems is listed in Table 1. Significant246differences were found between the NFS and the cage system, but the values of the one-way test247showed no obvious differences between the NCS and the HCS. Among these indexes, there were248significant differences in terms of density, mortality, and rounds per year. The cage systems had the249highest density with the lowest mortality. At the same time, the farmers with the cage systems can250make, on average, nearly six rounds of products per year, but those with NFS can make only 4.5 rounds251per year because more time is needed to clean up the barn for removal of the worse environmental252conditions, and sometimes the farmers with NFS have to wait for good market conditions. The Europe253production index (EPI) is one of the most critical indicators in livestock production. Under the same254production conditions, a large value of EPI usually indicates a better profit. In this study, the value of255EPI was 323.7 (NFS), 368.4 (NCS), and 377.8 (HCS), respectively, which means that HCS had the best256profit. In addition, analysis of variance showed that there was a significant difference between the NFS257and the cage rearing system, but no significant differences were found between the two kinds of cage258systems. As shown in Table 1, the value of EPI varied considerably in the NFS, however, in the HCS,259the value of EPI was more stable.260Table 1. Technical inputs, costs, and profits per delivered broiler.261Production System262Item263Technical variables264Length of growth period265Daily growth266Delivery weight267Density268FCR 1269Mortality270Rounds271EPI 2272 273Variable costs2741-d chick 4275Feed276Health care277Heating278Electricity279Transport (chicks)280General cost281Transport (feed)282 283NFS284 285Unit286 287day288g289kg290kg/m2291%292#/year293#294 295NCS 3296 297HCS 3298 299Mean300 301SD302 303Mean304 305SD306 307Mean308 309SD310 31143.5 a31258.3 a3132.53 a31426.5 a3151.69 a3166.92 a3174.61 a318323.69 a319 3202.933213.743220.133234.83240.133252.653260.7432747.93328 32944.8 b33064.1 b3312.87 b33253.5 b3331.68 a3343.79 b3355.9 b336368.41 b337 3380.833393.393400.153415.993420.0323431.243440.3134525.19346 34744.8 b34864.5 b3492.89 b35051.4 b3511.65 a3523.26 b3536b354377.77 b355 3560.653572.623580.123595.053600.033611.033620.1636319.63364 365mean366 367%368 369mean370 371%372 373mean374 375%376 377a378 379CNY/bird380CNY/bird381CNY/bird382CNY/bird383CNY/bird384CNY/bird385CNY/bird386CNY/bird387 3883389 39023.683914.58 a39216.49 a3931.52 a3940.38 a3950.18 a3960.37 a3970.198 a3980.20 a399 40089.30%40117.30%40262.20%4035.70%4041.40%4050.70%4061.40%4070.70%4080.80%409 410a411 41224.954134.83 b41417.61 a4151.1 b4160.48 b4170.18 a4180.49 a4190.212 a4200.25 a421 4226.70%42318.10%42465.90%4254.10%4261.80%4270.70%4281.80%4290.80%4300.90%431 432b433 43426.124355.05 c43618.56 b4370.96 c4380.48 b4390.18 a4400.40 b4410.214 a4420.21 a443 44493.90%44518.20%44666.70%4473.50%4481.70%4490.60%4501.40%4510.80%4520.80%453 454 Animals 2020, 10, 491455 4566 of 14457 458Table 1. Cont.459Production System460Item461 462NFS 3463 464Unit465Mean466 467Labor (hire)468Fixed costs469Labor (own)470Build471Inventory472Total cost473Return474Profit475 476CNY/bird477CNY/bird478CNY/bird479CNY/bird480CNY/bird481CNY/bird482CNY/bird483CNY/bird484 485a486 4870.0004882.83 a4891.12 a4900.70 a4911.01 a49226.51 a49324.04 a494−2.47 a495 496NCS 3497SD498 4990.00%50010.70%5014.20%5022.60%5033.80%504100.00%50590.70%506−9.30%507 508Mean509a510 5110.135121.78 b5130.47 b5140.36 b5150.96 b51626.74 a51727.75 b5181.01 b519 520HCS 3521SD522 5230.50%5246.70%5251.80%5261.30%5273.6%528100.0%529103.80%5303.80%531 532Mean533b534 5350.3055361.70 b5370.05 c5380.50 b5391.15 b54027.81 b54129.19 c5421.37 b543 544SD5451.10%5466.10%5470.20%5481.80%5494.10%550100.00%551104.90%5524.90%553 554One-way test: values with different superscripts indicate significant differences between systems. (p < 0.05).555FCR = feed conversion ratio, 2 EPI = Europe Production Index, EPI = delivery weight × (1-mortality) × 10000/(FCR556× length growth period), 3 NFS = normal floor system, NCS = normal cage system, and HCS = high standard cage557system, 4 1-d chick = The price of one-day-old chicks.558a–c559 5601561 5623.2. Economic Performance563•564 565•566 567•568 569Total cost: Table 1 shows the input and output in the different production systems. For each570delivered broiler, the total costs were increased from NFS to HCS and were 26.51 CNY, 26.74 CNY,571and 27.81 CNY, respectively. However, the total costs for per delivery kilogram decreased and572were 10.48 CNY, 9.67 CNY, and 9.62 CNY respectively. The total costs can be divided into two573parts: the variable costs and the fixed costs. The variable costs accounted for a larger proportion574of total costs than the fixed costs. The lowest proportion was 89.3% in NFS, and HCS had the575highest proportion, which was 93.9% (Table 1).576Variable cost and fixed cost: Feed price was the main factor contributing to the increase in total577costs, which accounted for around 60%–70%, and the one-day chick price accounted for 17.3% to57818.2% of the total costs (Table 1). Feed price and chick price together accounted for 79.5% (NFS),57984.0% (NCS), and 84.9% (HCS) of the total costs, respectively. Meanwhile, health care costs are580also important for raising broilers. The authors found that NFS had the highest health care fee,581which was approximately 50% more than that of the cage systems. One of the main differences582between the three systems was the labor cost. As shown in Table 1, the hiring labor cost in the583HCS was 0.305 CNY per broiler chicken, which was almost two times higher than that of the NCS,584and the hiring labor cost in the NFS was zero CNY. In contrast, the cost of own labor in the NFS585was the highest, almost 2.4 times higher than that of the NCS. The cost of the own labor was close586to zero CNY in the HCS (Table 1).587Return and profit: NFS had the lowest, and HCS had the highest return of the three systems.588If the authors considered the total cost, the profit in NFS would be negative (-2.47 CNY per broiler589chicken). The profit of the HCS was 37% more than that of NCS, which was 1.37 CNY per broiler590chicken (Table 1).591 5923.3. Broiler Animal Welfare593The stepwise approach model was used to resolve the research question of what was the WQ594index score of each production system. As shown in Figure 1, the mean welfare score per measures,595all the mean attributional WQ scores from each flock, the mean attribution WQ score of each system,596and WQ index score were counted.597•598 599Welfare score per measure: Fourteen measures were cited in the present research model, and they600were divided into four categories: good feeding, good housing, good health, and appropriate601behavior [17]. Measurements of emaciation and thirst indicate good feeding levels. Measurements602of cleanliness, dust, panting, and stocking indicate the level of good housing. Lameness, hock603burn (HB), foot pad dermatitis (FPD), breast blister (BB), mortality, and ascites indicate the level604 605 Animals 2020, 10, 491606 6077 of 14608 609of good health. The outdoor and avoidance distance test (ADT) indicates the level of appropriate610behavior. Nine out of fourteen measures showed significant differences between the three systems611(p < 0.05). The measures of cleanliness, panting, FPD, lameness and the ADT did not show significant612differences. The most obvious difference between NFS, NCS, and HCS was stocking density. In NFS,613the score was 56.25, while in NCS and HCS, the scores were 0.36 and 0.89, respectively (Table 2).614Table 2. Mean welfare score per measure per system type.615NFS 5616 617System618Mean619Emaciated620Thirst621Cleanliness622Dust623Panting624Stocking density625Lameness626HB 1627FPD 2628BB 3629Mortality630Ascites631Outdoor632ATD 4633 634NCS 5635SD636 637a638 63961.4664099.74 a64199.42 a64265.50 a64369.25 a64456.25 a64581.9864676.20 a647100 a64856.6564960.51 a65071.5065113.0065293.42 a653 654Mean655 656SD657 658b659 66014.0066113.926620.0066313.3666423.066659.006660.0066716.156680.006690.0067015.186710.006720.006733.31674 675HCS 5676Mean677 67812.036799.156800.0068110.7768216.946831.616840.0068518.446863.226870.0068817.356890.006900.006910.00692 69379.7669473.04 b69599.42 a69685.70 b69776.80 a6980.36 b69981.9870075.34 a70198.94 a70233.4870387.14 b70410070513.0070624.63 b707 708SD709 710c711 71288.7071376.93 b71499.42 a71581.89 b71668.39 a7170.89 b71886.1671955.28 b72099.06 a72133.4872289.51 b72310072413.0072524.63 b726 72712.487286.927290.0073011.6673119.397324.127330.0073413.347352.427360.0073713.947380.007390.007400.00741 742One-way test: values with different superscripts indicate significant differences between systems. (p < 0.05).743HB = hock burn, 2 FPD = foot pad dermatitis, 3 BB = breast blister, 4 ATD = avoidance distance test, 5 NFS =744normal floor system, NCS = normal cage system, and HCS = high standard cage system.745a–c746 7471748 749•750 751Attributional WQ scores: The mean attributional WQ scores of all flocks as well as each system752type were showed in Table 3. In terms of all the flocks, the mean WQ scores of broiler-types was753220.92. As a percentage of the population it was 32.4%, and was the major contributor. The WQ754score of the dark length period was 138.9, and the proportion was 20.4%, which was the second755contributor. The third contributor was the outdoor access, for which the attributional WQ score756was 115.92 and the proportion was 17%. The fourth contributor was the stocking density, for which757attributional WQ score was 114.82, and the proportion was 16.9%. These four attributes accounted758for 86.7% of the total WQ index score. The assessment results in Table 3 also show the significant759difference in density, dark length period, and flock size (p < 0.05). The stocking density had the most760significant difference in attributes. The score for NFS was 164.94, accounting for 21.2%, which was761more prominent than that NCS (112.65) and HCS (105.43). However, the welfare score in density762measurement could be considered as the main reason for the advantages of NFS accounting for a76361% increment from NCS to NFS, and a 55% increment from HCS to NFS (Table 3).764Table 3. Mean attributional WQ scores and WQ index scores per system type.765Production System Attributional WQ Scores766System Attributes767 768A1. Broiler type769A2. Length growth770A3. Weight at delivery771A4. Enrichment772A5. %Grain in feed773A6. Stocking density774A7. Outdoor access775A8. Daylight776A9. Length of dark period777A10. Flock size778Total WQ index score779 780NCS 1781 782HCS 1783 784Total785 786Mean787 788SD789 790%791 792Mean793 794SD795 796%797 798Mean799 800SD801 802%803 804Mean805 806SD807 808%809 810217.59 a81133.46 a81215.24 a8139.1181425.02 a815164.94 a816107.90 a8179.11818164.75 a81931.14 a820778.24 a821 82210.748233.238243.238250826082720.288285.0682908306.028311.183229.45833 834288354.383628371.28383.283921.284013.98411.284221.28434844100845 846225.62 a84733.28 a84815.07 a8499.1185024.74 a851112.65 b852116.49 b8539.11854136.82 b8558.21 b856691.09 b857 85811.398593.698603.6986108620.886311.058645.8586508666.48867086832.97869 87032.68714.88722.28731.38743.687516.387616.98771.387819.88791.2880100881 882219.15 a88330.20 b88411.06 b8859.5788624.77 a887105.43 b888117.31 b8899.57890134.55 b8918.21 b892669.82 c893 89410.988952.678962.6789708980.689910.129004.7390109025.92903090427.79905 90632.79074.59081.79091.49103.791115.791217.59131.491420.19151.29161917 918220.9291931.5292012.779219.3792224.79923114.82924115.929259.38926138.992710.99928681.4929 93011.369313.49323.639330.239340.6393522.379365.889370.2393811.449397.5494045.25941 94232.49434.69441.99451.49463.794716.9948179491.495020.49511.6952100953 954One-way test: values with different superscripts indicate significant differences between systems. (p < 0.05).955NFS = normal floor system, NCS = normal cage system, and HCS = high standard cage system.956 957a–c9581959 960NFS 1961 962 correlation in all the samples and each system. The semi-dotted line represents the relationship963between total costs and the WQ score. The solid line represents the relationship between total964revenue and the WQ score. The gap represents the profit, which was equal to the total revenue965minus the total costs.966•Animals967When968animal WQ score increased, total costs and revenue continued to decline, and profits9692020, the97010, 4919718 of 14972continued to fall until they reach zero, when the losses were getting greater and greater. Similar973trends were shown in Figure 3a,b. However, when the animal WQ score was relatively low, the974• objective975WQ indexdata976score:977The animal978indexonly979scores980areaalso981given982in Table9833 according984of profits985were WQ986obtained987from988small989number990of flocks991in NFS.toAsproduction992shown in993system.994The995WQ996index997score998sharply999decreased1000when1001shifting1002from1003NFS1004(778.24)1005to NCS1006(691.09)1007or1008Figure 3c,d, when the WQ score increased, both the revenue and the total costs1009increased,1010and1011HCSprofit1012(669.82)1013and1014differences were found between all systems (p < 0.05). The standard1015the1016grew1017as significant1018well.1019errors1020of1021the1022WQ1023index1024scores1025were102629.45 (NFS),102732.971028(NCS),102927.791030(HCS)1031respectively1032•1033Chow test results: To test significant1034differences1035in the1036effect1037of WQand1038score1039on total1040costs1041and profit1042indicating1043that1044NCS1045had1046the1047broadest1048range1049of1050variation.1051among the three systems, the authors used the Chow test method twice for reference and tested1052by introducing cross items to test whether there were significant differences in WQ coefficients10533.4. Correlation Analysis1054between the three groups. Table 4 presents the Chow test results in stata12.0 analysis; in this1055• table,1056Distribution1057trends:1058Figure 2 variables1059shows theand1060distribution1061and and1062trends1063based on the1064costs of the1065d1and and1066d2 are1067two dummy1068total-cost-d11069total-cost-d21070aretotal1071the interaction1072different1073Points1074invariables1075three different1076patterns showed1077the distribution1078of the1079WQthe1080score1081of1082items.1083Thesystems.1084p value of1085all the1086were significant1087at the level1088of 0.01, which1089means1090three1091each system.1092NFSsignificant1093was on thedifferences1094top, and had1095onlyimpact1096a smalloffraction1097intersection1098but d41099no1100systems1101showed1102in the1103the totalofcosts1104on WQ with1105score.NCS,1106d3 and1107intersection1108withtwo1109HCS.1110That means1111the flocks1112in NFS1113hadwere1114a higher1115score. The1116areas1117of1118were1119the other1120dummy1121variables,1122profitd31123andmostly1124profitd41125the WQ1126interaction1127items.1128The1129NCS and1130were that1131mostly1132According1133to profit1134Figurewas11352, thesignificantly1136fitting straight1137line of between1138the three1139Chow1140testHCS1141showed1142theoverlapped.1143impact of WQ1144score on1145different1146systems1147was1148at1149the1150different1151heights.1152The1153broken1154line,1155which1156was1157drawn1158by1159the1160mean1161values1162of1163NFS, NCS, and HCS (p < 0.01)1164these three systems, showed that there was a downward trend from NFS to HCS (Figure 2).1165 1166Figure 2. Distribution of WQ scores based on cost of per delivered broiler. NFS = normal floor system,1167NCS = 2.1168normal1169cage system,1170HCS1171= high1172standard1173system.1174Figure1175Distribution1176of WQand1177scores1178based1179on cost1180of percage1181delivered1182broiler. NFS = normal floor system,1183 1184•1185 1186•1187 1188•1189 1190NCS = normal cage system, and HCS = high standard cage system.1191 1192Correlation between the economic performance and AW: The correlation between the total costs,1193the revenue, the profit, and the WQ scores are shown in Figure 3. These four diagrams show the1194correlation in all the samples and each system. The semi-dotted line represents the relationship1195between total costs and the WQ score. The solid line represents the relationship between total1196revenue and the WQ score. The gap represents the profit, which was equal to the total revenue1197minus the total costs.1198When the animal WQ score increased, total costs and revenue continued to decline, and profits1199continued to fall until they reach zero, when the losses were getting greater and greater.1200Similar trends were shown in Figure 3a,b. However, when the animal WQ score was relatively low,