Cumulative Growth of Quaternized Goats with Genotypes D1D1, D1D2


One-way ANOVA: TL moc ham versus Thang age


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 ​​Age 2 12TT, 9TT


Analysis of Variance


Source

DF

Adj SS Adj MS

F-Value P-Value

Age

1

9,478 9,478

5.00 0.042

Error

14

26,543 1,896


Total

15

36,021


Maybe you are interested!

Cumulative Growth of Quaternized Goats with Genotypes D1D1, D1D2


Model Summary


S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 1.37692 26.31% 21.05% 3.76%


Means Ladder

age N Mean StDev 95% CI

12TT 8

55,135

1,485 (54,091, 56,179)

9TT 8

53,595

1,260 (52,551, 54,640)


Pooled StDev = 1.37692


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons


Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence


age

Ladder


Mean


Grouping

12TT 8

55,135

A

9TT 8

53,595

B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


One-way ANOVA: Vehicle weight versus Age


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 ​​Age 2 12TT, 9TT


Analysis of Variance


Source

DF

Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Age

1

16.20 16.201 15.89 0.001

Error

14

14.27 1,020

Total

15

30.47


Model Summary


S

R-sq

R-sq(adj)

R-sq(pred)

1.00973

53.16%

49.82%

38.82%


Means




Age N


Mean


StDev


95% CI

12TT 8

8,500

1,198 (7,734, 9,266)

9TT 8

6,488

0.778 (5.722, 7.253)


Pooled StDev = 1.00973


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence Thang

age N Mean Grouping 12TT 8 8,500 A

9TT 8 6.488 B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


One-way ANOVA: Vehicle weight versus Age


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 ​​Age 2 12TT, 9TT


Analysis of Variance


Source

DF

Adj SS Adj MS

F-Value P-Value

Age

1

2,734 2,734

0.42 0.527

Error

14

90,803 6,486


Total

15

93,537



Model Summary


S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 2.54675 2.92% 0.00% 0.00%


Means Ladder

age N Mean StDev 95% CI 12TT 8 43,802 2,442 (41,871, 45,734)

9TT 8 42,976 2,648 (41,044, 44,907)


Pooled StDev = 2.54675


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons


Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence


age

Ladder


Mean


Grouping

12TT 8

43,802

A

9TT 8

42,976

A


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


One-way ANOVA: Meat mass versus Age


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 ​​Age 2 12TT, 9TT


Analysis of Variance

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value Age scale 1 9.226 9.2264 16.75 0.001

Error 14 7.712 0.5509

Total 15 16,939


Model Summary


S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.742207 54.47% 51.22% 40.53%


Means Ladder

age N Mean StDev 95% CI

12TT 8

6.325

0.893 (5.762, 6.888)

9TT 8

4,806

0.552 (4.243, 5.369)


Pooled StDev = 0.742207


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence Thang

age N Mean Grouping 12TT 8 6.325 A

9TT 8 4.806 B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


One-way ANOVA: Meat weight versus Age


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 ​​Age 2 12TT, 9TT


Analysis of Variance


Source

DF

Adj SS Adj MS

F-Value P-Value

Age

1

2,229 2,229

0.67 0.425

Error

14

46,295 3,307


Total

15

48,524



Model Summary


S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 1.81847 4.59% 0.00% 0.00%


Means Ladder

age N Mean StDev 95% CI 12TT 8 32,594 1,834 (31,215, 33,973)

9TT 8 31,847 1,803 (30,468, 33,226)


Pooled StDev = 1.81847


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons


Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence


age

Ladder


Mean


Grouping

12TT 8

32,594

A

9TT 8

31,847

A


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


One-way ANOVA: Weight versus Age


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 ​​Age 2 12TT, 9TT


Analysis of Variance

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value Age scale 1 0.9312 0.93123 13.57 0.002

Error 14 0.9605 0.06861

S

R-sq

R-sq(adj)

R-sq(pred)

0.261936

49.22%

45.60%

33.68%

Total 15 1.8918 Model Summary



Means


Age N


Mean


StDev


95% CI

12TT 8

2,095

0.303

(1,896, 2,294)

9TT 8

1.6125

0.2134

(1.4139, 1.8111)


Pooled StDev = 0.261936


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons


Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence


age

Ladder


Mean


Grouping

12TT 8

2,095

A

9TT 8

1.6125

B


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


One-way ANOVA: TL Xuong versus Thang tuoi


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 ​​Age 2 12TT, 9TT


Analysis of Variance

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value Age scale 1 0.05718 0.05718 0.11 0.745

Error 14 7.28136 0.52010

Total 15 7.33854


Model Summary


S

R-sq

R-sq(adj)

R-sq(pred)

0.721178

0.78%

0.00%

0.00%


Means




Age N


Mean


StDev


95% CI

12TT 8

10,794

0.658 (10.247, 11.341)

9TT 8

10,674

0.779 (10.128, 11.221)


Pooled StDev = 0.721178


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons


Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence


age

Ladder


N


Mean


Grouping

12TT

8

10,794

A

9TT

8

10,674

A


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


2. CONTENT PROCESSING RESULTS 2

2.1 CUMULATIVE GROWTH OF GENOTYPE D 1 D 1 , D 1 D 2

One-way ANOVA: KLSS versus Genotype


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

Source

DF Adj SS Adj MS

F-Value P-Value

Genotype

1 0.03151 0.03151

1.45 0.233

Error

62 1.34469 0.02169


Total

63 1.37619


Genotype 2 D1D1, D1D2 Analysis of Variance


Model Summary


S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.147270 2.29% 0.71% 0.00%


Means


Genotype N Mean StDev 95% CI

D1D1 32 1.7369 0.1547 (1.6848, 1.7889)

D1D2 32 1.6925 0.1394 (1.6405, 1.7445)


Pooled StDev = 0.147270


Tukey Pairwise Comparisons


Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence


Genotype

N

Mean Grouping

D1D1

32

1.7369 A

D1D2

32

1.6925 A


Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.


Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs

Comment


Agree Privacy Policy *