TABLE 2.
Time1 | P-value | < | 0.0001 | |
Variable | Mean2 (%) | SEM | ||
0 | 100.00a | ± | 0.00 | |
24 | 89.95a | ± | 15.00 | |
48 | 38.79b | ± | 15.63 | |
Treatment3 | P-value | < | 0.0001 | |
Variable | Mean4 (%) | SEM | ||
CON | 89.16a | ± | 10.15 | |
XPC | 63.33b | ± | 15.23 | |
Time × Treatment5 | P-value | < | 0.0001 | |
Variable | Mean6 (%) | SEM | ||
0 | CON | 100.00a | ± | 0.00 |
XPC | 100.00a | ± | 0.00 | |
24 | CON | 97.47a | ± | 6.89 |
XPC | 82.42ab | ± | 13.69 | |
48 | CON | 70.00b | ± | 14.49 |
XPC | 7.58c | ± | 11.29 |
1Main effect of time: P < 0.0001, n = 40, N = 120, k = 3, Pooled SEM = 4.79.
2Those with different superscripts (a–b) are significantly different from one another (P < 0.05).
3Main effect of treatment: P < 0.0001, n = 60, N = 120, k = 2, Pooled SEM = 3.86.
4Those with different superscripts (a–b) are significantly different from one another (P < 0.05).
5Interaction of Treatment and Time: P < 0.0001, n = 20, N = 120, k = 6, Pooled SEM = 6.69.
6Those with different superscripts (a–c) are significantly different from one another (P < 0.05).
There was a trend in the effect of Salmonella serovars (P = 0.07, n = 60, N = 120).