Table 6.
Items | Treatments1 | SEM | P-value | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 (n = 6) Control | T2 (n = 6) Blend | T3 (n = 6) Amylase | T4 (n = 6) Blend+Amylase | Trat | ||
Carcass variables | ||||||
Carcass weight (kg) | 251 | 244 | 239 | 246 | 9.79 | 0.86 |
Carcass yield (%) | 50.5 | 49.2 | 49.5 | 48.9 | 0.71 | 0.43 |
Meat variables | ||||||
Dry matter (%) | 31.8 | 30.6 | 32.3 | 33.1 | 1.13 | 0.48 |
Protein (%) | 25.1 | 25.7 | 23.8 | 25.7 | 0.78 | 0.30 |
Fat (%) | 2.79b | 2.05b | 3.84a | 1.97b | 0.38 | 0.007 |
Ash (%) | 3.91bc | 2.85c | 4.66ab | 5.43a | 0.40 | 0.001 |
Treatments were: T1 Control- Control treatment, T2 blend– Treatment with 0.5 g of blend per kg of DM in the diet, T3 Amylase- Treatment with 0.5 g of amylase per kg of DM in the diet, T4 blend + Amylase- Treatment with 0.5 g enzyme blend+ 0 0.5 g amylase per kg of DM in the diet.
a,b,cNote: P ≤ 0.05 (different) and P ≥ 0.05 to ≤ 0.1 (trend) were illustrated by different letters (a,b,c) on the same line.