. 2021 Jun 28;11(7):1921. doi: 10.3390/ani11071921

Table 3.

Awareness and knowledge of animal welfare of Chilean university students from different faculties.

	Agricultura (n = 100)	Art and Architecture (n = 100)	Exact and Natural Sciences (n = 100)	Social Sciences (n = 100)	Law (n = 100)	Humanities (n = 100)	Education (n = 100)	Technology (n = 100)	Health (n = 100)	Administration and Commerce (n = 100)	p-Value
Awareness of animal welfare, n (%)	84 (84.0) ^a,b	71 (71.0) ^b	80 (80.0) ^a,b	79 (79.0) ^a,b	77 (77.0) ^a,b	69 (69.0) ^b	76 (76.0) ^a,b	67 (67.0) ^b	70 (70.0) ^b	92 (92.0) ^a	<0.001 ¹
Total scores of knowledge (0–7), mean (SD) ⁴	4.51 (1.37) ^a	3.73 (1.28) ^b,c	4.04 (1.18) ^a,b	3.64 (1.05) ^b,c	3.41 (1.24) ^c	3.45 (1.38) ^c	3.64 (1.00) ^b,c	3.62 (1.10) ^b,c	3.63 (1.33) ^b,c	3.67 (1.22) ^b,c	<0.001 ²
Self-reported level of knowledge											<0.001 ³
High, n (%)	36 (36.0) ^a,b	62 (62.0) ^c	29 (29.0) ^b	57 (57.0) ^a,c	64 (64.0) ^c	49 (49.0) ^a,b,c	64 (64.0) ^c	51 (51.0) ^a,b,c	53 (53.0) ^a,c	46 (46.0) ^a,b,c
Medium, n (%)	46 (46.0) ^a,b	36 (36.0) ^a,b,c	52 (52.0) ^b	22 (22.0) ^c,d	12 (12.0) ^d	29 (29.0) ^a,c,d	27 (27.0) ^a,c,d	34 (34.0) ^a,b,c	26 (26.0) ^a,c,d	23 (23.0) ^c,d
Low/No, n (%) ⁵	18 (18.0) ^a,b	2 (2.0) ^c	19 (19.0) ^a,b	21 (21.0) ^a,b	23 (23.0) ^a,b	21 (21.0) ^a,b	9 (9.0) ^b,c	13 (13.0) ^a,b,c	21 (21.0) ^a,b	31 (31.0) ^a
Not interested, n (%)	0 (0) ^a	0 (0) ^a	0 (0) ^a	0 (0) ^a	1 (1) ^a	1 (1) ^a	0 (0) ^a	2 (2) ^a	0 (0) ^a	0 (0) ^a
Source of information											<0.001 ¹
Educational institutions, n (%)	43 (43.0) ^a	6 (6.0) ^b	36 (36.0) ^a	3 (3.0) ^b	5 (5.0) ^b	10 (10.0) ^b	3 (3.0) ^b	3 (3.0) ^b	8 (8.0) ^b	2 (2.0) ^b
Social media channels, n (%)	26 (26.0) ^a,b	35 (35.0) ^a,b	19 (19.0) ^b	24 (24.0) ^a,b	38 (38.0) ^a,b	31 (31.0) ^a,b	44 (44.0) ^a	44 (44.0) ^a	38 (38.0) ^a,b	35 (35.0) ^a,b
Friends and family, n (%)	17 (17.0) ^a	12 (12.0) ^a,b	14 (14.0) ^a,b	27 (27.0) ^b	16 (16.0) ^a,b	7 (7.0) ^a	15 (15.0) ^a,b	17 (17.0) ^a,b	19 (19.0) ^a,b	9 (9.0) ^a
Internet (e.g., websites), n (%)	10 (10.0) ^a	42 (42.0) ^b	19 (19.0) ^a,c	21 (21.0) ^a,b,c	21 (21.0) ^a,b,c	33 (33.0) ^b,c	18 (18.0) ^a,c	19 (19.0) ^a,c	11 (11.0) ^a	14 (14.0) ^a,c
Mass media (e.g., radio, television, cinema), n (%)	3 (3.0) ^a	4 (4.0) ^a	4 (4.0) ^a	5 (5.0) ^a	11 (11.0) ^a	3 (3.0) ^a	13 (13.0) ^a	7 (7.0) ^a	6 (6.0) ^a	9 (9.0) ^a
None, I’ve never heard about animal welfare, n (%)	1 (1.0) ^a	1 (1.0) ^a	8 (8.0) ^a,b	20 (20.0) ^b,c	9 (9.0) ^a,b	16 (16.0) ^b,c	7 (7.0) ^a,b	10 (10.0) ^a,b	18 (18.0) ^b,c	31 (31.0) ^c
Understanding of animal welfare											<0.001 ³
Mental and physical state, n (%)	62 (62.0) ^a,b,c	46 (46.0) ^c,d,e	60 (60.0) ^a,b,c,d,e	76 (76.0) ^b	52 (52.0) ^a,c,d,e	37 (37.0) ^e	56 (56.0) ^a,b,c,d,e	61 (61.0) ^a,b,c,d	67 (67.0) ^a,b,c	38 (38.0) ^d,e
Appropriate policies and legislation, n (%)	34 (34.0) ^a,b,c,d,e	43 (43.0) ^d,e,f,g,h	40 (40.0) ^c,e,f,g,h	17 (17.0) ^b	47 (47.0) ^{a,c,d,e,f,g,h}	59 (59.0) ^g,h	36 (36.0) ^a,b,c,d,e,h	37 (37.0) ^{a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h}	31 (31.0) ^a,b,c,d,e	60 (60.0) ^f,g
Avoid use of animals, n (%)	4 (4.0) ^a,b	11 (11.0) ^b	0 (0.0) ^a	7 (7.0) ^a,b	1 (1.0)	4 (4.0) ^a,b	8 (8.0) ^a,b	2 (2.0) ^a,b	2 (2.0) ^a,b	2 (2.0) ^a,b
Dairy cows feel more comfortable when walking on:											0.003 ³
Smooth cement, n (%)	6 (6.0) ^a	6 (6.0) ^a	3 (3.0) ^a	1 (1.0) ^a	3 (3.0) ^a	0 (0.0) ^a	1 (1.0) ^a	3 (3.0) ^a	0 (0.0) ^a	2 (2.0) ^a
Soil, n (%)	81 (81.0) ^a	87 (87.0) ^a	83 (83.0) ^a	89 (89.0) ^a	84 (84.0) ^a	82 (82.0) ^a	92 (92.0) ^a	90 (90.0) ^a	80 (80.0) ^a	78 (78.0) ^a
I don’t know, n (%)	13 (13.0) ^a	7 (7.0) ^a	14 (14.0) ^a	10 (10.0) ^a	13 (13.0) ^a	18 (18.0) ^a	7 (7.0) ^a	7 (7.0) ^a	20 (20.0) ^a	20 (20.0) ^a
Interested in animal welfare course, n (%)	73.0 (73.0) ^a,b	55 (55.0) ^b	94 (94.0) ^c	92 (92.0) ^c	93 (93.0) ^c	91 (91.0) ^c	86 (86.0) ^a,c	93 (93.0) ^c	88 (88.0) ^a,c	82 (82.0) ^a,c	<0.001 ¹

¹ Chi-square test for independence and posthoc test with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. Different superscript letters indicate a significant difference. ² One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. Different superscript letters indicate a significant difference. ³ Fisher’s exact test and posthoc test with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. Different superscript letters indicate a significant difference. ⁴ Total scores of knowledge are derived from the sum of response of the following variables: awareness of five freedoms (Yes = 1), awareness of Law on protection of animals in Chile (Yes = 1), animals have emotions (Yes = 1), animals have personality types (Yes = 1), anaesthetics is used in castration (Yes = 1), calf separated from mother after birth (Yes = 1), and dehorning is done with ease of handling (Yes = 1). ⁵ ‘Low/no’ is a combined category consisting of responses to ‘Low knowledge’ and ‘No knowledge’.