Table 4.
Effects of probiotics on the nutrient retention of broilers (%, day 42) 1.
| Items | CON | CTC | PB | SEM | p-Value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment 2 | CON vs. CTC | CON vs. PB | CTC vs. PB | |||||
| Dry matter | 73.80 b | 75.42 a | 75.92 a | 0.30 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.72 |
| Gross energy | 76.58 b | 78.07 a,b | 78.38 a | 0.39 | 0.03 | 0.16 | 0.01 | 0.84 |
| Crude protein | 64.04 b | 66.83 a,b | 67.95 a | 0.95 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.42 |
| Ether extract | 91.57 | 93.05 | 91.71 | 0.68 | 0.31 | 0.52 | 0.66 | 0.13 |
| Organic matter | 76.49 b | 77.93 a | 78.33 a | 0.30 | 0.01 | 0.02 | <0.01 | 0.63 |
1 CON, control; CTC, chlorotetracycline (75 mg/kg); PB, probiotic (500 mg/kg in phase 1, 300 mg/kg in phase 2); SEM, standard error of the mean. 2 Treatment, the specific p value of the diet effect in the ANOVAs analysis. a,b values in the same row with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05.