Table 7.
RSM | Dehulled RSM | P-value2 | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4.5% hulls | 9.0% hulls | Microbial phytase effect | Dehulled effect | Hull inclusion effect | ||||||||||||
Diets | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1,3,5,7 vs. 2,4,6,8, | 1 vs. 3 | 2 vs. 4 | 3 vs. 5 vs. 7 | 4 vs. 6 vs. 8 | |||
Description | F1- | F1+ | F2- | F2+ | F3- | F3+ | F4- | F4+ | SEM | Lin | Lin | Lin | Lin | Qua | Lin | Qua |
Performances | ||||||||||||||||
BW 21 d, g | 939 | 948 | 955 | 948 | 951 | 939 | 953 | 960 | 4.34 | 0.96 | 0.33 | 0.98 | 0.89 | 0.84 | 0.52 | 0.33 |
BW 31 d, g | 1807 | 1825 | 1796 | 1862 | 1811 | 1798 | 1758 | 1792 | 8.40 | 0.12 | 0.73 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.23 | 0.042 | 0.34 |
ADG, g/j | 90.1 | 90.1 | 87.2 | 95.4 | 90.6 | 88.2 | 84.6 | 84.3 | 0.84 | 0.37 | 0.31 | 0.080 | 0.38 | 0.073 | 0.001 | 0.55 |
ADFI, g/d | 138.2 | 139.6 | 131.1 | 144.1 | 137.2 | 131.3 | 134.0 | 129.8 | 1.111 | 0.60 | 0.079 | 0.26 | 0.49 | 0.19 | 0.001 | 0.13 |
FCR | 1.54 | 1.53 | 1.51 | 1.51 | 1.52 | 1.49 | 1.56 | 1.49 | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.32 | 0.60 | 0.10 | 0.59 | 0.49 | 0.65 |
Tibia characteristics | ||||||||||||||||
Dry weight, g | 5.05 | 5.40 | 5.33 | 5.46 | 5.31 | 5.32 | 5.10 | 5.40 | 0.04 | 0.005 | 0.071 | 0.33 | 0.15 | 0.51 | 0.65 | 0.052 |
Ash weight, g DM | 1.74 | 1.88 | 1.79 | 1.96 | 1.76 | 1.8 | 1.68 | 1.82 | 0.02 | <0.001 | 0.36 | 0.14 | 0.071 | 0.56 | 0.018 | 0.070 |
Ash, % DM | 33.9 | 34.9 | 33.6 | 35.4 | 33.2 | 33.4 | 33.0 | 33.0 | 0.19 | 0.021 | 0.60 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.92 | 0.004 | 0.11 |
BS3, N | 171 | 181 | 167 | 175 | 157 | 170 | 141 | 166 | 2.40 | 0.011 | 0.68 | 0.55 | 0.087 | 0.83 | 0.31 | 0.92 |
1n = 18 per treatment.
2Contrast analysis: linear effect of microbial phytase; linear effect of dehulled rapeseed seed without and with microbial phytase; linear and quadratic effects of the inclusion of hulls without and with microbial phytase.
3Bone breaking strength.