1.4.2 KÍCH THƯỚC MỘT SỐ CHIỀU ĐO THEO TÍNH BIỆT
1. CAO VÂY
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 68.05 68.054 55.94 0.000
Error 58 70.56 1.216
Total 59 138.61
Model Summary
R-sq 49.10% | R-sq(adj) 48.22% | R-sq(pred) 45.53% | |
Means | |||
TT N | Mean | StDev 95% CI | |
C 30 | 31.933 | 1.081 (31.530, 32.336) | |
D 30 | 34.063 | 1.125 (33.660, 34.466) | |
Pooled | StDev = | 1.10295 | |
Có thể bạn quan tâm!
-
Đặc điểm sinh trưởng và mối tương quan đa hình gen POU1F1 với tính trạng sinh trưởng của dê địa phương Định Hóa - 20 -
Sinh Trưởng Tương Đối Của Dê Định Hóa -
Kích Thước Một Số Chiều Đo Chính Của Dê Định Hóa -
Đặc điểm sinh trưởng và mối tương quan đa hình gen POU1F1 với tính trạng sinh trưởng của dê địa phương Định Hóa - 24 -
Năng Suất Thịt Thời Điểm 9 Tháng Tuổi Theo Tính Biệt -
Năng Suất Thịt Tại Thời Điểm 12 Tháng Tuổi
Xem toàn bộ 306 trang tài liệu này.
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping
D 30 34.063 A
C 30 31.933 B
Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.
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 75.26 75.264 51.08 0.000
Error 58 85.45 1.473
Total 59 160.72
Model Summary
R-sq 46.83% | R-sq(adj) 45.91% | R-sq(pred) 43.10% | |
Means | |||
TT N | Mean | StDev 95% CI | |
C 30 | 37.807 | 1.149 (37.363, 38.250) | |
D 30 | 40.047 | 1.275 (39.603, 40.490) | |
Pooled | StDev = | 1.21381 | |
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping
D 30 40.047 A
C 30 37.807 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 26.40 26.401 13.08 0.001
Error 58 117.10 2.019
Total 59 143.50
Model Summary
R-sq 18.40% | R-sq(adj) 16.99% | R-sq(pred) 12.67% | ||
Means | ||||
TT N | Mean | StDev | 95% | CI |
C 30 | 43.643 | 1.290 | (43.124, | 44.163) |
D 30 | 44.970 | 1.541 | (44.451, | 45.489) |
Pooled | StDev = | 1.42088 |
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping
D 30 44.970 A
C 30 43.643 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 46.29 46.288 15.88 0.000
Error 58 169.10 2.916
Total 59 215.39
Model Summary
R-sq 21.49% | R-sq(adj) 20.14% | R-sq(pred) 15.98% | |
Means | |||
TT N | Mean | StDev 95% CI | |
C 30 | 48.040 | 1.464 (47.416, 48.664) | |
D 30 | 49.797 | 1.920 (49.173, 50.421) | |
Pooled | StDev = | 1.70750 | |
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping
D 30 49.797 A
C 30 48.040 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 63.04 63.037 15.04 0.000
Error 50 243.09 4.191
Total 51 306.13
Model Summary
R-sq 20.59% | R-sq(adj) 19.22% | R-sq(pred) 15.02% | |
Means | |||
TT N | Mean | StDev 95% CI | |
C 26 | 51.643 | 1.673 (50.895, 52.392) | |
D 26 | 53.693 | 2.363 (52.945, 54.442) | |
Pooled | StDev = | 2.04725 | |
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping
D 26 53.693 A
C 26 51.643 B
Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.
2. VÒNG NGỰC
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 61.61 61.611 43.54 0.000
Error 58 82.07 1.415
Total 59 143.68
Model Summary
R-sq 42.88% | R-sq(adj) 41.90% | R-sq(pred) 38.87% | |
Means | |||
TT N | Mean | StDev 95% CI | |
C 30 | 33.980 | 1.175 (33.545, 34.415) | |
D 30 | 36.007 | 1.204 (35.572, 36.441) | |
Pooled | StDev = | 1.18951 | |
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping
D 30 36.007 A
C 30 33.980 B
Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.
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 1 274.3 274.348 80.34 0.000
Error 58 198.1 3.415
Total 59 472.4
Model Summary
R-sq 58.07% | R-sq(adj) 57.35% | R-sq(pred) 55.13% | |
Means | |||
TT N | Mean | StDev 95% CI | |
C 30 | 40.193 | 1.226 (39.518, 40.869) | |
D 30 | 44.470 | 2.308 (43.795, 45.145) | |
Pooled | StDev = | 1.84793 | |
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping
D 30 44.470 A
C 30 40.193 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 1 220.4 220.417 28.13 0.000
Error 58 454.4 7.835
Total 59 674.8
Model Summary
R-sq 32.66% | R-sq(adj) 31.50% | R-sq(pred) 27.94% | |
Means | |||
TT N | Mean | StDev 95% CI | |
C 30 | 49.147 | 1.880 (48.124, 50.170) | |
D 30 | 52.980 | 3.484 (51.957, 54.003) | |
Pooled | StDev = | 2.79908 | |
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping
D 30 52.980 A
C 30 49.147 B
Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.