Table 7.
The effect of sampling time and dietary treatment on serum and saliva antioxidant capacity in pigs.
| Item | Day 0 (23 kg BW) | Day 103 (120 kg BW) | p-Value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON 1 | GAR | CON | GAR | SEM 2 | Time | Treatment | T × T 6 | |
| Serum | ||||||||
| TEACH 3 (mmol/L) | 0.41 | 0.39 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 0.012 | 0.007 | 0.996 | 0.388 |
| FRAP 4 (mmol/L) | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.42 | 0.44 | 0.020 | 0.110 | 0.910 | 0.586 |
| CUPRAC 5 (mmol/L) | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.876 | 0.528 |
| Saliva | ||||||||
| TEACH (mmol/L) | 0.65 | 0.63 | 1.04 | 0.93 | 0.102 | 0.118 | 0.832 | 0.795 |
| FRAP (mmol/L) | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1.49 | 1.36 | 0.200 | 0.553 | 0.951 | 0.818 |
| CUPRAC (mmol/L) | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.73 | 0.71 | 0.079 | 0.335 | 0.989 | 0.877 |
1 Diet: CON, control; GAR, the inclusion of 5 g/kg of Allium spp. extract (30 ppm PTSO). 2 Standard error of the mean (n = 5 replicates per treatment). 3,4,5 Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity, ferric reducing ability of plasma, and cupric reducing antioxidant capacity, respectively.6 Time × Treatment.