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

Table 5.

Perceptions toward animal welfare of Chilean university students from different faculties.

	Agricultural 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
Importance of animal welfare in productive system, n (%)	99 (99.0)	99 (99.0)	99 (99.0)	97 (97.0)	99 (99.0)	97 (97.0)	97 (97.0)	98 (98.0)	92 (92.0)	97 (97.0)	0.158 ¹
Quality of life in production of:
Cow’s milk
Good, n (%)	38 (38.0) ^a	17 (17.0) ^b,c	15 (15.0) ^c	36 (36.0) ^a,b	22 (22.0) ^a,b,c	28 (28.0) ^a,b,c	21 (21.0) ^a,b,c	21 (21.0) ^a,b,c	32 (32.0) ^a,b,c	25 (25.0) ^a,b,c	<0.001 ²
Poor, n (%)	10 (10.0) ^a	19 (19.0) ^a,b,c	35 (35.0) ^c	29 (29.0) ^b,c	19 (19.0) ^a,b,c	17 (17.0) ^a,b,c	13 (13.0) ^a,b	26 (26.0) ^a,b,c	25 (25.0) ^a,b,c	18 (18.0) ^a,b,c	<0.001 ²
Beef
Good, n (%)	40 (40.0) ^a	36 (36.0) ^a,b	22 (22.0) ^a,b,c,d	27 (27.0) ^a,b,d	21 (21.0) ^a,b,c,d	9 (9.0) ^c	19 (19.0) ^a,b,c,d	21 (21.0) ^a,b,c,d	10 (10.0) ^c,d	18 (18.0) ^b,c,d	<0.001 ²
Poor, n (%)	16 (16.0) ^a	11 (11.0) ^a	12 (12.0) ^a	13 (13.0) ^a	16 (16.0) ^a	38 (38.0) ^b	28 (28.0) ^a,b	20 (20.0) ^a,b	25 (25.0) ^a,b	27 (27.0) ^a,b	<0.001 ²
Salmon
Good, n (%)	8 (8.0)	2 (2.0)	5 (5.0)	2 (2.0)	2 (2.0)	6 (6.0)	2 (2.0)	4 (4.0)	5 (5.0)	1 (1.0)	0.200 ¹
Poor, n (%)	23 (23.0) ^a,b,c	23 (23.0) ^a,b,c	15 (15.0) ^c	34 (34.0) ^a,b,c	44 (44.0) ^b	16 (16.0) ^a,c	31 (31.0) ^a,b,c	20 (20.0) ^a,c	15 (15.0) ^a,c	33 (33.0) ^a,b,c	<0.001 ²
Pig
Good, n (%)	8 (8.0) ^a	33 (33.0) ^b	39 (39.0) ^b	13 (13.0) ^a,c	33 (33.0) ^b	35 (35.0) ^b	21 (21.0) ^a,b,c	33 (33.0) ^b	30 (30.0) ^b,c	26 (26.0) ^b,c	<0.001 ²
Poor, n (%)	12 (12.0) ^a,b	20 (20.0) ^b	11 (11.0) ^a,b	13 (13.0) ^a,b	4 (4.0) ^a	5 (5.0) ^a,b	4 (4.0) ^a	5 (5.0) ^a,b	6 (6.0) ^a,b	9 (9.0) ^a,b	<0.001 ²
Laying hens
Good, n (%)	6 (6.0) ^a	12 (12.0) ^a,b	19 (19.0) ^a,b,c	22 (22.0) ^a,b,c	22 (22.0) ^a,b,c	22 (22.0) ^a,b,c	37 (37.0) ^c	21 (21.0) ^a,b,c	23 (23.0) ^b,c	30 (30.0) ^b,c	<0.001 ²
Poor, n (%)	39 (39.0) ^a	27 (27.0) ^a,b	27 (27.0) ^a,b	11 (11.0) ^b	17 (17.0) ^b	24 (24.0) ^a,b	24 (24.0) ^a,b	29 (29.0) ^a,b	29 (29.0) ^a,b	13 (13.0) ^b	<0.001 ²
Most important operations in animal production											<0.001 ¹
Food, n (%)	31 (31.0) ^a	21 (21.0) ^a,b	19 (19.0) ^a,b,c	5 (5.0) ^c	32 (32.0) ^a	22 (22.0) ^a,b	19 (19.0) ^a,b,c	24 (24.0) ^a,b	22 (22.0) ^a,b	11 (11.0) ^b,c
Transportation, n (%)	16 (16.0) ^a	3 (3.0) ^a,b	0 (0.0) ^b	2 (2.0) ^b	0 (0.0) ^b	0 (0.0) ^b	2 (2.0) ^b	0 (0.0) ^b	0 (0.0) ^b	5 (5.0) ^a,b
Slaughter, n (%)	6 (6.0) ^a	6 (6.0) ^a	10 (10.0) ^a	4 (4.0) ^a	10 (10.0) ^a	4 (4.0) ^a	8 (8.0) ^a	9 (9.0) ^a	10 (10.0) ^a	2 (2.0) ^a
Rearing, n (%)	32 (32.0) ^a	37 (37.0) ^a,b	51 (51.0) ^a,b	47 (47.0) ^a,b	45 (45.0) ^a,b	53 (53.0) ^a,b	59 (59.0) ^b	51 (51.0) ^a,b	54 (54.0) ^a,b	43 (43.0) ^a,b
Accommodation, n (%)	15 (15.0) ^a,b	33 (33.0) ^b,c,d,e	20 (20.0) ^a,b,e	42 (42.0) ^d	13 (13.0) ^a	21 (21.0) ^a,b,c,d,e	12 (12.0) ^a	16 (16.0) ^a,b	14 (14.0) ^a,b	39 (39.0) ^c,d,e
Food products made while taking into account animal welfare compared to products that do not take this into account, have:											<0.001 ²
Better flavor, n (%)	52 (52.0) ^a,b	62 (62.0) ^b,c	47 (47.0) ^a,b,d	84 (84.0) ^e	55 (55.0) ^a,b,c	29 (29.0) ^d	52 (52.0) ^a,b	51 (51.0) ^a,b,d	36 (36.0) ^a,d	75 (75.0) ^c,e
Same flavour, n (%)	32 (32.0) ^a	21 (21.0) ^a,b	25 (25.0) ^a,b	9 (9.0) ^b	16 (16.0) ^a,b	9 (9.0) ^b	24 (24.0) ^a,b	21 (21.0) ^a,b	21 (21.0) ^a,b	8 (8.0) ^b
I don’t know, n (%)	16 (16.0) ^a,b,c	17 (17.0) ^a,b,c	28 (28.0) ^c,d	7 (7.0) ^b	29 (29.0) ^a,c,d	62 (62.0) ^e	24 (24.0) ^a,c,d	28 (28.0) ^a,c,d	43 (43.0) ^d,e	17 (17.0) ^a,b,c
Food products made while taking into account animal welfare compared to products that do not take this into account, have:											<0.001 ²
Higher nutritional quality, n (%)	54 (54.0) ^a	81 (81.0) ^b,c	55 (55.0) ^a	90 (90.0) ^c	50 (50.0) ^a	46 (46.0) ^a	56 (56.0) ^a	66 (66.0) ^a,b	49 (49.0) ^a	54 (54.0) ^a
Same nutritional quality, n (%)	32 (32.0) ^a	13 (13.0) ^a,b,c,d,e,f	16 (16.0) ^a,b,c,d,e,f	7 (7.0) ^e,f	24 (24.0) ^a,d	7 (7.0) ^c,f	27 (27.0) ^a,b,d	10 (10.0) ^b,c,d,e,f	20 (20.0) ^a,b,c,d,e,f	31 (31.0) ^a
I don’t know, n (%)	14 (14.0) ^a,b,c,d,e	6 (6.0) ^d,e	29 (29.0) ^c,f	3 (3.0) ^b,e	26 (26.0) ^a,c,f	47 (57.0) ^f	17 (17.0) ^a,c,d	24 (24.0) ^a,c	31 (31.0) ^a,c,f	15 (15.0) ^a,b,c,d,e

¹ Fisher’s exact test and posthoc test with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. Different superscript letters indicate a significant difference. ² Chi-square test for independence and posthoc test with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. Different superscript letters indicate a significant difference.