Table 4.
Total (n = 1000) |
PUC (n = 500) |
UChile (n = 500) |
p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Importance of animal welfare in productive system, n (%) | 974 (97.4) | 486 (97.2) | 488 (97.6) | 0.843 1 |
Quality of life in production of: | ||||
Cow’s milk | ||||
Good, n (%) | 255 (25.5) | 128 (25.6) | 127 (25.4) | 1.000 1 |
Poor, n (%) | 211 (21.1) | 87 (17.4) | 124 (24.8) | 0.005 1 |
Beef | ||||
Good, n (%) | 223 (22.3) | 108 (21.6) | 115 (23.0) | 0.649 1 |
Poor, n (%) | 206 (20.6) | 110 (22.0) | 96 (19.2) | 0.309 1 |
Salmon | ||||
Good, n (%) | 37 (3.7) | 23 (4.6) | 14 (2.8) | 0.180 1 |
Poor, n (%) | 254 (25.4) | 123 (24.6) | 131 (26.2) | 0.611 1 |
Pig | ||||
Good, n (%) | 271 (27.1) | 133 (26.6) | 138 (27.6) | 0.776 1 |
Poor, n (%) | 89 (8.9) | 53 (10.6) | 36 (7.2) | 0.076 1 |
Laying hens | ||||
Good, n (%) | 214 (21.4) | 108 (21.6) | 106 (21.2) | 0.939 1 |
Poor, n (%) | 240 (24.0) | 127 (25.4) | 113 (22.6) | 0.336 1 |
Most important operations in animal production | 0.438 1 | |||
Food, n (%) | 206 (20.6) | 100 (20.0) | 106 (21.2) | |
Transportation, n (%) | 28 (2.8) | 17 (3.4) | 11 (2.2) | |
Slaughter, n (%) | 69 (6.9) | 38 (7.6) | 31 (6.2) | |
Rearing, n (%) | 472 (47.2) | 226 (45.2) | 246 (49.2) | |
Accommodation, n (%) | 225 (22.5) | 119 (23.8) | 106 (21.2) | |
Food products made while taking into account animal welfare compared to products that do not take this into account | 0.354 1 | |||
Better flavour, n (%) | 543 (54.3) | 281 (56.2) | 262 (52.4) | |
Same flavour, n (%) | 186 (18.6) | 85 (17.0) | 101 (20.2) | |
I don’t know, n (%) | 271 (27.1) | 134 (26.8) | 137 (27.4) | |
Food products made while taking into account animal welfare compared to products that do not take this into account | 0.916 1 | |||
Higher nutritional quality, n (%) | 601 (60.1) | 303 (60.6) | 298 (59.6) | |
Same nutritional quality, n (%) | 187 (18.7) | 91 (18.2) | 96 (19.2) | |
I don’t know, n (%) | 212 (21.2) | 106 (21.2) | 106 (21.2) |
1 Chi-square test for independence.