Table 2. Evaluation of and involvement in animal and pig husbandry for the total sample and the split samples 1 and 2.
| Mean (SD) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Total sample (n = 1,038) |
Split 1 (n = 520) |
Split 2 (n = 518) |
|
| Animal husbandry is acceptable1 | 3.42 (1.50) | 3.38 (1.48) | 3.46 (1.53) |
| Pig husbandry is acceptable1 | 3.20 (1.52) | 3.13 (1.49) | 3.28 (1.54) |
| Rating of pig welfare2 | 3.06 (1.30) | 3.06 (1.29) | 3.07 (1.30) |
| Interest in animal husbandry3 | 4.45 (1.50) | 4.49 (1.51) | 4.41 (1.50) |
| Interest in pig husbandry3 | 4.39 (1.55) | 4.47 (1.55) | 4.30 (1.54) |
| Knowledge about animal husbandry3 | 3.72 (1.31) | 3.72 (1.30) | 3.72 (1.32) |
| Knowledge about pig husbandry3 | 3.62 (1.32) | 3.62 (1.31) | 3.62 (1.34) |
Displayed are means and standard deviations (SD) in brackets. Rating on 7-point Likert scales: 1from 1 = completely disagree, 4 = partly/partly, 7 = totally agree; 2from 1 = very bad, 4 = partly/partly, 7 = very good; 3from 1 = very low, 4 = moderate, 7 = very high. Comparison of means between splits using t-test for independent samples: We found no differences for none of the statements (p > 0.05).