Trang chủ / Chăn Nuôi

Sinh Trưởng Tuyệt Đối Của Dê Định Hóa


One-way ANOVA: 7TT 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 38.72 38.7207 98.56 0.000

Error 58 22.79 0.3929

Total 59 61.51


Model Summary


S

R-sq R-sq(adj)

R-sq(pred)

0.626796

62.95% 62.31%

60.35%

Có thể bạn quan tâm!

Xem toàn bộ 306 trang tài liệu này.

Đặc điểm sinh trưởng và mối tương quan đa hình gen POU1F1 với tính trạng sinh trưởng của dê địa phương Định Hóa - 19


Means


TT N Mean StDev 95% CI

C 30 11.373 0.551 (11.144, 11.602)

D 30 12.980 0.695 (12.751, 13.209)


Pooled StDev = 0.626796


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

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

D 30 12.980 A

C 30 11.373 B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


One-way ANOVA: 8TT 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 42.67 42.6727 106.54 0.000

Error 58 23.23 0.4005

Total 59 65.90


Model Summary


S 0.632873


Means

R-sq 64.75%

R-sq(adj)

64.14%

R-sq(pred)

62.28%

TT N

Mean

StDev

95% CI

C 30

12.640

0.550 (12.409, 12.871)

D 30

14.327

0.706 (14.095, 14.558)


Pooled StDev = 0.632873


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

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

D 30 14.327 A

C 30 12.640 B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


One-way ANOVA: 9TT 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 46.46 46.4640 107.93 0.000

Error 58 24.97 0.4305

Total 59 71.43


Model Summary


S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.656138 65.04% 64.44% 62.59%


Means


TT N Mean StDev 95% CI

C 30

14.010

0.587 (13.770, 14.250)

D 30

15.770

0.719 (15.530, 16.010)


Pooled StDev = 0.656138


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

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

D 30 15.770 A

C 30 14.010 B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


One-way ANOVA: 10TT 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 47.70 47.7042 93.01 0.000

Error 50 29.75 0.5129

Total 51 77.45


Model Summary


S

R-sq R-sq(adj)

R-sq(pred)

0.716172

61.59% 60.93%

58.90%


Means


TT N Mean StDev 95% CI

C 26 15.333 0.608 (15.072, 15.595)

D 26 17.117 0.810 (16.855, 17.378)


Pooled StDev = 0.716172


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

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

D 26 17.117 A

C 26 15.333 B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


One-way ANOVA: 11TT 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 65.94 65.9402 110.85 0.000

Error 50 34.50 0.5949

Total 51 100.44


Model Summary


S 0.771269


Means

R-sq 65.65%

R-sq(adj)

65.06%

R-sq(pred)

63.24%

TT N

Mean

StDev

95% CI

C 26

16.473

0.638 (16.191, 16.755)

D 26

18.570

0.885 (18.288, 18.852)


Pooled StDev = 0.771269


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

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

D 26 18.570 A

C 26 16.273 B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


One-way ANOVA: 12TT 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 1 152.96 152.961 187.47 0.000

Error 50 47.32 0.816

Total 51 200.28


Model Summary


S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.903276 76.37% 75.96% 74.71%


Means


TT N Mean StDev 95% CI

C 26

17.520

0.729 (17.190, 17.850)

D 26

20.713

1.049 (20.383, 21.043)


Pooled StDev = 0.903276


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

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

D 26 20.713 A

C 26 17.520 B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


1.2. SINH TRƯỞNG TUYỆT ĐỐI CỦA DÊ ĐỊNH HÓA

Variable

N

N*

Mean

SE

Mean

StDev

Minimum

Maximum

Ss - 1TT

60

0

61.72


1.53

11.81

40.00

86.67

1 -

2TT

60

0

51.56

1.56

12.06

26.67

83.33

2 -

3TT

60

0

49.00

1.73

13.38

20.00

83.33

3 -

4TT

60

0

47.22

2.05

15.89

23.33

86.67

4 -

5TT

60

0

48.83

1.84

14.23

20.00

80.00

5 -

6TT

60

0

44.06

1.92

14.86

10.00

83.33

6 -

7TT

60

0

46.28

2.20

17.05

16.67

90.00

7 -

8TT

60

0

42.90

1.96

15.20

13.33

90.00

8 -

9TT

60

0

46.89

1.85

14.35

16.67

83.33

9 -

10TT

52

0

44.50

2.24

17.36

20.00

100.00

10 - 11TT

52

0

43.22

2.47

19.11

13.33

103.33

11 - 12TT

52

0

53.17

3.58

27.76

6.67

103.33

SS - 12TT

52

0

47.671

0.632

4.897

39.452

60.274

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


SINH TRƯỞNG TUYỆT ĐỐI THEO TÍNH BIỆT

One-way ANOVA: Ss -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 1276 1275.7 10.64 0.002

Error 58 6957 120.0

Total 59 8233 Model Summary

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 10.9524 15.50% 14.04% 9.57%


Means


TT N

Mean

StDev

95%

CI

C 30

57.11

9.50

(53.11,

61.11)

D 30

66.33

12.23

(62.33,

70.34)


Pooled StDev = 10.9524

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence


TT N Mean Grouping D 30 66.33 A

C 30 57.11 B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


One-way ANOVA: 1-2TT 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 1 500.7 500.7 3.59 0.063

Error 58 8087.4 139.4

Total 59 8588.1


Model Summary


S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 11.8084 5.83% 4.21% 0.00%


Means


TT N Mean StDev 95% CI

C 30 48.67 10.88 (44.35, 52.98)

D 30 54.44 12.67 (50.13, 58.76)


Pooled StDev = 11.8084


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

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

D 30 54.44 A

C 30 48.67 A


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

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

Ngày đăng: 19/02/2023