. 2020 Sep 12;99(12):6705–6714. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2020.09.009

Table 5.

Effect of feed treatment on poult performance (g) in experiment 1.

Treatment¹	Age (day)
Treatment¹	0–7	7–14	14–21	0–14	0–21
	BWG²
Control crumble	116	250^b	417	365^c	773^b
Medicated three-way crumble	115	261^a,b	498	376^b,c	773^b
AlphaStart crumble	119	270^a	392	389^a,b	781^a,b
AlphaStart minipellet	122	276^a	414	398^a	812^a
SEM³	2.99	4.11	9.05	4.63	9.5
P-value	0.36	0.0004	0.17	0.0001	0.02
	Feed intake
Control crumble	125	285^b	594	410^b	1004^a,b
Medicated three-way crumble	125	281^b	558	404^b	964^b
AlphaStart crumble	125	299^a,b	570	424^a,b	996^a,b
AlphaStart minipellet	127	309^b	598	435^a	1034^a
SEM³	1.94	5.0	13.9	6.0	16.00
P-value	0.91	0.001	0.14	0.004	0.02
	Feed conversion ratio (feed:gain)
Control crumble	1.055	1.517^a	1.775	1.112^a	1.258^a
Medicated three-way NCSU crumble	1.094	1.425^b	1.764	1.079^b	1.224^b
AlphaStart crumble	1.059	1.410^b	1.778	1.085^b	1.251^a,b
AlphaStart minipellet	1.035	1.432^b	1.767	1.089^b	1.252^a,b
SEM³	0.025	0.020	0.037	0.007	0.009
P-value	0.43	0.003	0.99	0.001	0.05

^a-cMeans within a column lacking a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.05).

Abbreviation: NCSU, North Carolina State University.

Treatments were fed to birds until 14 d; from 14 to 21 d all, birds received the control feed.

The BW at placement was not significantly different (59 ± 0.5 g).

The SEM for n = 12 cages of 7 birds each per treatment.