Trang chủ / Chăn Nuôi

Sinh Trưởng Tích Lũy Của Dê Định Hóa 67979



Ảnh 23 Bổ sung thức ăn tinh cho dê thí nghiệm Ảnh 24 Dê thí nghiệm Ảnh 25 1Ảnh 23 Bổ sung thức ăn tinh cho dê thí nghiệm Ảnh 24 Dê thí nghiệm Ảnh 25 2


Ảnh 23. Bổ sung thức ăn tinh cho

dê thí nghiệm

Ảnh 24. Dê thí nghiệm

Có thể bạn quan tâm!

Xem toàn bộ 306 trang tài liệu này.


Ảnh 25 Dê thí nghiệm Ảnh 26 Dê thí nghiệm được tách riêng đực cái PHỤ 3Ảnh 25 Dê thí nghiệm Ảnh 26 Dê thí nghiệm được tách riêng đực cái PHỤ 4


Ảnh 25 . Dê thí nghiệm

Ảnh 26. Dê thí nghiệm được tách

riêng đực, cái


PHỤ LỤC 2

KẾT QUẢ XỬ LÝ SỐ LIỆU CỦA ĐỀ TÀI

1. KẾT QUẢ XỬ LÝ NỘI DUNG 1

1.1 SINH TRƯỞNG TÍCH LŨY CỦA DÊ ĐỊNH HÓA


Descriptive Statistics: SS, 1TT, 2TT, 3TT, 4TT, 5TT, 6TT, 7TT, 8TT, 9TT, 10TT, 11TT, 12TT


Variable

N

N*

Mean

SE Mean

StDev

Variance

CoefVar

Minimum

Maximum

SS

60

0

1.7167

0.0255

0.1976

0.0390

11.51

1.4000

2.1000

1TT

60

0

3.5683

0.0499

0.3869

0.1497

10.84

2.8000

4.5000

2TT

60

0

5.1150

0.0599

0.4639

0.2152

9.07

4.2000

6.2000

3TT

60

0

6.5850

0.0726

0.5623

0.3162

8.54

5.5000

7.8000

4TT

60

0

8.0017

0.0824

0.6385

0.4076

7.98

6.5000

9.6000

5TT

60

0

9.4667

0.0851

0.6594

0.4348

6.97

7.9000

11.5000

6TT

60

0

10.788

0.108

0.835

0.698

7.74

9.000

12.800

7TT

60

0

12.177

0.132

1.021

1.042

8.39

9.700

14.500

8TT

60

0

13.483

0.136

1.057

1.117

7.84

11.700

15.800

9TT

60

0

14.890

0.142

1.100

1.211

7.39

12.900

17.700

10TT

52

0

16.225

0.148

1.146

1.313

7.06

14.300

19.800

11TT

52

0

17.522

0.168

1.305

1.702

7.45

15.100

21.200

12TT

52

0

19.117

0.238

1.842

3.395

9.64

16.100

23.500

SINH TRƯỞNG TÍCH LŨY THEO TÍNH BIỆT (D: đực; C: cái)

One-way ANOVA: SS versus Tinh biet

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Significance level α = 0.05

Equal variances were assumed for the analysis. Factor Information

Factor Levels Values TT 2 C, D

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value TT 1 0.5607 0.56067 18.66 0.000

Error 58 1.7427 0.03005

Total 59 2.3033 Model Summary


S

R-sq R-sq(adj)

R-sq(pred)

0.173338

24.34% 23.04%

19.03%


Means


TT N

Mean

StDev

95%

CI

C 30

1.6200

0.1710

(1.5567,

1.6833)

D 30

1.8133

0.1756

(1.7500,

1.8767)

Pooled

StDev =

0.173338



Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence


TT N Mean Grouping D 30 1.8133 A

C 30 1.6200 B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different


Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs

One-way ANOVA: 1TT versus Tinh biet


Method


Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Significance level α = 0.05


Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.


Factor Information


Factor Levels Values TT 2 C, D


Analysis of Variance


Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value TT 1 3.313 3.31350 34.84 0.000

Error 58 5.516 0.09511

Total 59 8.830


Model Summary


S 0.308398


Means

R-sq 37.53%

R-sq(adj)

36.45%

R-sq(pred)

33.14%

TT N

Mean

StDev

95% CI

C

30

3.3333

0.2537 (3.2206, 3.4460)

D

30

3.8033

0.3548 (3.6906, 3.9160)


Pooled StDev = 0.308398


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping

D 30 3.8033 A

C 30 3.3333 B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs


One-way ANOVA: 2TT versus Tinh biet


Method


Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Significance level α = 0.05


Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.


Factor Information


Factor Levels Values TT 2 C, D


Analysis of Variance


Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value TT 1 6.208 6.2082 55.50 0.000

Error 58 6.488 0.1119

Total 59 12.696


Model Summary


S 0.334466


Means

R-sq 48.90%

R-sq(adj)

48.02%

R-sq(pred)

45.31%

TT N

Mean

StDev

95% CI

C 30

4.7933

0.2716 (4.6711, 4.9156)

D 30

5.4367

0.3873 (5.3144, 5.5589)


Pooled StDev = 0.334466


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping

D 30 5.4367 A

C 30 4.7933 B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs


One-way ANOVA: 3TT versus Tinh biet


Method


Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Significance level α = 0.05


Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.


Factor Information


Factor Levels Values TT 2 C, D


Analysis of Variance


Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value TT 1 9.048 9.0482 54.62 0.000

Error 58 9.608 0.1657

Total 59 18.656


Model Summary


S 0.407015


Means

R-sq 48.50%

R-sq(adj)

47.61%

R-sq(pred)

44.89%

TT N

Mean

StDev

95% CI

C 30

6.1967

0.3810 (6.0479, 6.3454)

D 30

6.9733

0.4315 (6.8246, 7.1221)


Pooled StDev = 0.407015


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping

D 30 6.9733 A

C 30 6.1967 B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


One-way ANOVA: 4TT versus Tinh biet


Method


Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Significance level α = 0.05


Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.


Factor Information


Factor Levels Values TT 2 C, D


Analysis of Variance


Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value TT 1 9.842 9.8415 40.17 0.000

Error 58 14.208 0.2450

Total 59 24.050


Model Summary


S 0.494946


Means

R-sq 40.92%

R-sq(adj)

39.90%

R-sq(pred)

36.78%

TT N

Mean

StDev

95% CI

C 30

7.5967

0.4390 (7.4158, 7.7776)

D 30

8.4067

0.5452 (8.2258, 8.5876)


Pooled StDev = 0.494946


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping

D 30 8.4067 A

C 30 7.5967 B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


One-way ANOVA: 5TT versus Tinh biet


Method


Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Significance level α = 0.05


Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.


Factor Information


Factor Levels Values TT 2 C, D


Analysis of Variance


Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value TT 1 9.126 9.1260 32.03 0.000

Error 58 16.527 0.2850

Total 59 25.653


Model Summary


S 0.533811


Means

R-sq 35.57%

R-sq(adj)

34.46%

R-sq(pred)

31.05%

TT N

Mean

StDev

95% CI

C 30

9.0767

0.4826 (8.8816, 9.2718)

D 30

9.857

0.581 ( 9.662, 10.052)


Pooled StDev = 0.533811


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons


Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence


TT

N

Mean Grouping

D

30

9.857 A

C

30

9.0767 B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


One-way ANOVA: 6TT versus Tinh biet


Method


Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Significance level α = 0.05


Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.


Factor Information


Factor Levels Values TT 2 C, D


Analysis of Variance


Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value TT 1 20.53 20.5335 57.73 0.000

Error 58 20.63 0.3557

Total 59 41.16


Model Summary


S

R-sq

R-sq(adj)

R-sq(pred)

0.596373

49.88%

49.02%

46.37%


Means


TT N

Mean

StDev 95% CI

C 30

10.2033

0.5275 (9.9854, 10.4213)

D 30

11.373

0.658 (11.155, 11.591)


Pooled StDev = 0.596373


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons


Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence


TT

N

Mean Grouping

D

30

11.373 A

C

30

10.2033 B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

..... Xem trang tiếp theo?
⇦ Trang trước - Trang tiếp theo ⇨

Ngày đăng: 19/02/2023