Skip to main content
. 2019 May 6;97(6):2524–2533. doi: 10.1093/jas/skz151

Table 4.

Effects of phytase dose level on apparent ileal digestibility (AID, %) of AA

NC+ phytase levels, FTU/kg Probability of contrast Dose response model1
PC NC 250 500 1,000 2,000 SEM PC vs NC NC vs phytase Linear Exponential
Cysteine 61.5 62.3 67.2 68.3 70.8 71.1 2.09 0.3363 0.0001 0.015 0.163#
Isoleucine 80.1 78.5 79.8 82.3 83.2 85.3 1.15 0.4152 0.0091 <0.001 0.191#
Leucine 80.6 79 80.5 83 84.2 85.1 1.2 0.3966 0.0068 <0.001 0.129#
Lysine 84.2 81.6 84 86.7 87.3 88.6 1.49 0.1245 0.0007 <0.001 0.051#
Methionine 81.7 80.5 81.6 84.5 83.7 85.7 3.26 0.3334 0.0395 0.059# 0.546
Threonine 77.2 76.7 79.4 82.3 82 83.3 1.37 0.7704 0.0005 0.001 0.056#
Tryptophan 78.9 78.9 79.5 84.1 83.4 82 3.12 0.9805 0.0836 0.228 0.375
Valine 76.6 75.3 77.2 78.6 80.8 82.4 1.98 0.5606 0.0169 <0.001 0.29#
Mean 77.6 76.6 78.7 81.2 81.9 82.9 1.84 0.3414 0.0012 <0.001 0.072#

NC, negative control; PC, positive control.

1Linear and exponential regression analysis were performed with increasing phytase dose from 0 (NC) to 2,000 FTU/kg, excluding PC, using JMP fit Y by X (linear response, where P-value is for phytase dose) and modeling-nonlinear - exponential growth and decay: fit exponential 3P (exponential response = a+b * EXP (c * phytase dose)). The P-value in the table is for growth rate. When P-value is below <0.1 for one of the models, a goodness of fit test was done, and the optimal model is the prediction equation with the lowest AIC (measure of fit) and root mean square error (RMSE, measure of precision) and marked with #.