Table 5.
Cumulative probability: P(X≤x) that the cold smolt groups performed better than the average in respective POs each year1, where the cold smolt were cultivated together with another smolt at the same location and year compared to them2. We also compared the cumulative probability of the average of cold smolt within each PO each year compared to average in respective POs each year3. p was set at 0,5 (that the outcome if cold smolt would perform better than the group we compared with was random).
| Number of fish groups with cold smolt (n) | Numbers of fish groups of cold smolt better than the group we compare with (x) | Cumulative probability: P(X≥x) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Compared to the average respective PO in the same year regarding: | FCR | 18 | 17 | 0,00007 |
| mortality | 18 | 16 | 0,00065 | |
| share superior | 18 | 16 | 0,00065 | |
| 2Compared to the group with another smolt at the same site in the same year regarding: | FCR | 6 | 5 | 0,109374 |
| mortality | 6 | 6 | 0,01562 | |
| share superior | 6 | 5 | 0,109374 | |
| 3The average of cold smolt within each PO each year compared to the average respective PO in the same year regarding: | FCR | 10 | 10 | 0,00098 |
| mortality | 10 | 10 | 0,00098 | |
| share superior | 10 | 8 | 0,054694 | |
We see that the groups with cold smolt performed significantly better (p>0,95) in all groups except three4.