2017 Spring Meeting of the WPSA UK Branch

Figures & data

Table. Effect of coccidia challenge and betaine and sotolon supplementation on the weight gain (g/day/bird), feed intake (g/day/bird) and feed conversion ratio (FCR, g/g) in broilers fed a wheat-soy based diet (1 to 21 d post-hatch)

	Challenged				Betaine				Sotolon
Parameter	No	Yes	SEM	P	No	Yes	SEM	P	No	Yes	SEM	P
FI 0–7	22.0	22.0	1.048	NS	22.1	21.9	1.039	NS	21.1	22.9	1.039	NS
FI 0–14	34.01	35.01	0.211	0.081	34.9	34.3	0.685	NS	34.4	34.8	0.685	NS
FI 0–21	49.2	49.9	0.220	NS	49.9	49.2	0.570	NS	48.9	50.2	0.570	NS
WG 0–7	13.8	14.3	0.249	NS	14.0	14.0	0.283	NS	14.01	13.9	0.283	NS
WG 0–14	23.0	22.8	0.073	NS	22.6	23.2	0.365	NS	23.2	22.6	0.365	NS
WG 0–21	30.5	30.8	0.171	NS	30.3	31.1	0.398	NS	30.6	30.7	0.398	NS
FCR 0–7	1.602	1.572	0.0884	NS	1.605	1.570	0.0777	NS	1.524	1.651	0.0777	NS
FCR 0–14	1.468	1.636	0.0108	0.047	1.536	1.469	0.0289	NS	1.487	1.517	0.0289	NS
FCR 0–21	1.612	1.613	0.0085	NS	1.644	1.582	0.0207	0.043	1.602	1.624	0.0207	NS

Table. Performance and analytical results from the 4 different treatments

	No Clos.; no AP	No Clos.; AP	Clos.; No AP	Clos.; AP
Final weight (g)	1863^b	1916^a	1823^c	1852^b
FCR	1.77	1.74	1.81	1.78
No. of birds with lesion score 3-2-1-0 (day 21)^#	0-0-0-10	0-0-0-10	6-4-0-0	3-2-5-0
No. of birds with lesion score 3-2-1-0 (day 28)^#	0-0-0-10	0-0-0-10	0-2-3-5	0-0-4-6
Hepatic IGF-1 expr.	1.69^a	1.78^a	1.12^c	1.43 ^b
Bursa weight (% of total weight)	0.20^b	0.22^b	0.21^b	0.27 ^a
HI titer against ND vaccine (day 35)	5.44^b	7.20^a	3.50^c	6.80^a

Different superscript letters in a single row denote P < 0.05.

^#No birds were seen with a score higher than 3.

Table. The overall growth response, European Production Efficiency Factor (EPEF) and Campylobacter counts in caeca of broilers naturally challenged with Campylobacter over the global trial period (0–42d)

	Weight gain	Feed Intake			Campylobacter
Treatment	(kg/bird)	(kg/bird)	FCR	EPEF	1og10 CFU/g
T1: Natural challenge, no FeTyr3	3.305^a	5.358	1.637^b	467.2^a	5.124^b
T2: Natural challenge + 0.01 g FeTyr3/kg feed	3.442^ab	5.295	1.546^a	498.7^ab	4.716^ab
T3: Natural challenge + 0.02 g FeTyr3/kg feed	3.425^ab	5.306	1.550^a	520.0^ab	4.692^ab
T4: Natural challenge + 0.05 g FeTyr3/kg feed	3.358^ab	5.205	1.550^a	489.6^ab	4.377^a
T5: Natural challenge + 0.10 g FeTyr3/kg feed	3.490^b	5.348	1.543^a	513.9^ab	4.64^ab
T6: Natural challenge + 0.20 g FeTyr3/kg feed	3.492^b	5.345	1.536^a	528.4^b	4.472^a
P-value	0.007	0.480	<.001	0.016	0.007
Standard error of deviation (SED)	0.053	0.083	0.019	17.59	0.201
Control vs. FeTyr3 (T1 vs T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6)	0.002	0.378	<.001	0.003	<.001
Linear	0.003	0.989	<.001	0.004	0.002

FCR = Mortality adjusted feed to gain ratio;

different superscript letters within a same column indicate significant differences at P < 0.05.

Fig. Mean (±SE) latencies for key behaviour, EEG and ECG measures for Trial 1 (a); and Trial 2 (b).

Table. Estimated marginal means of tibia morphology and composition for RFI groups and estimate for effects of GR

	Low RFI	Aver. RFI	High RFI	P	GR estimate	P
Weight (g)	20.70	20.42	19.55	NS	0.326	<0.001
Length (cm)	11.45	11.40	11.37	NS	0.032	<0.001
Width at centre (mm)	8.984	9.068	8.966	NS	0.057	<0.001
Ash (%)	37.70	37.11	36.99	NS	−0.111	<0.001
Breaking strength (N/mm^2)	3.68	3.80	3.82	NS	−0.008	NS

Table. Effect of performance classification on bird performance

	High FCR	Low FCR	SEM	P-value
Bird age 15 d
FCR	1.38	1.28	0.008	0.019
Bird liveweight (g)	333	342	7.6	0.021
Bird age 29 d
FCR	1.62	1.52	0.008	0.571
Bird liveweight (g)	1234	1358	117.4	0.416

Fig. 1 & 2. The relationship between tibial and tendon breaking strength (Fig 1; see legend) and femoral and tendon strength (Fig 2; see legend).

Table. Tendon and bone measures of birds at day 21 fed diet with and without 1000 ppm silica

Measure	Control	Si	P-value
Tendon strength/N	48.1 (4.97)	51.1 (3.90)	0.634
Time to breaking /s	12.9 (1.37)	14.46 (1.40)	0.419
Femur breaking strength /N	126.1 (8.88)	177.4 (6.15)	<0.001
Tibia breaking strength /N	134.1 (6.81)	174.5 (6.68)	<0.001

Table. Chemical composition and apparent metabolisable energy (AME MJ/kg DM) of 17 wheat samples.

Wheat cultivars	Growing site	Chemical composition of wheat cultivars (g/kg DM)					AME
		Starch	NSP	Sol NSP	Protein	Ash
Leeds	Nottinghamshire	678	98.2	0.1827	143	19.6	14.00
Leeds	Yorkshire	704	92.8	0.2294	117	16.0	14.25
Leeds	Lincolnshire	704	90.5	0.1794	127	15.3	13.94
Leeds	Cambridge	696	87.7	0.1569	116	12.8	14.44
KWS Santiago	Yorkshire	697	86.6	0.1749	117	15.9	14.38
KWS Santiago	Nottinghamshire	722	90.6	0.2032	138	17.9	13.82
KWS Santiago	Lincolnshire	671	80.1	0.1539	116	16.2	14.20
KWS Santiago	Cambridge	728	87.7	0.1282	123	18.0	13.68
KWS Lili	Yorkshire1	699	86.7	0.2167	122	16.3	14.03
KWS Lili	Yorkshire2	704	90.7	0.2488	117	15.1	14.55
KWS Trinity	Yorkshire1	707	82.2	0.1370	126	16.9	14.05
KWS Trinity	Yorkshire2	727	86.9	0.2665	119	16.4	14.50
KWS Trinity	Lincolnshire	708	83.5	0.1906	127	14.2	14.63
KWS Trinity	Cambridge	715	84.7	0.1604	116	14.8	14.05
KWS Barrel	Lincolnshire	704	92.9	0.2337	122	14.9	14.26
KWS Barrel	Cambridge	709	87.5	0.1972	114	15.3	14.40
KWS Basset	Cambridge	726	87.4	0.1592	97	17.2	14.36
	SE	3.8	1.05	0.00958	2.4	0.38	SEM = 0.263

NSP = non-starch polysaccharides, Sol NSP = soluble proportion of total NSP.

Table. Main treatment effects on leg health parameters.

Parameter	C	P	PD	RMSE	P
% lame birds	9.27	13.66	12.27	14.03	0.64
Mean gait score	1.48	1.57	1.52	0.18	0.35
% birds with hock burn (at slaughter)	7.11	3.64	8.35	8.39	0.62
% birds with podo dermatitis (at slaughter)	24.51	27.12	25.19	3.32	0.94
Severity of angular leg deformities	0.70	0.74	0.69	0.23	0.75
Severity of hock burn lesions	1.21	1.24	1.26	0.04	0.62
Severity of podo dermatitis lesions	1.77^a	2.08^b	1.97^ab	0.35	0.04

Different superscript letters in a single row denote P < 0.05.

Table. Comparison of bird behaviour when interacting with oat husks or straw bales. Mean percentage ± SD.

Behaviours	Oat Husks	Bales	P-value
Dustbathing	14.04 ± 11.18	0.33 ± 1.71	0.019
Foraging	28.77 ± 16.06	6.35 ± 4.75	0.009
Sitting inactive	17.22 ± 8.89	49.46 ± 16.69	0.031
Sitting pecking	24.25 ± 8.88	9.55 ± 5.51	0.019

Table. Effect of essential oils on intestinal morphology and gut microbial count of broiler chickens (day 42)

Parameters	Control	Nutmeg	Crina	Crina + nutmeg	SEM	P-value
Villus height (µm)	885.00^b	760.00^b	975.00^b	1225.00^a	98.35	0.0009
Crypt depth (µm)	230.00^a	185.00^b	199.17^b	205.00^b	9.39	0.0014
Villus crypt ratio	3.85	4.21	4.94	5.98	0.28	0.1400
Total bacteria count	5.40^a	5.10^a	3.60^b	3.00^b	0.58	<0.0001
Staphylococcus aurues	3.90^a	3.25^ab	2.75^b	2.80^b	0.27	0.0517
Lactobacillus	1.05^b	1.80^a	1.60^a	1.95^a	0.20	0.0002
Salmonella spp.	0.95^a	0.05^b	0.10^b	0.16^b	0.21	<0.0001

Superscript letters indicate significant difference (P < 0.05).

Table. Effect of whole wheat inclusion on the performance of Turkey poults

	CON	LWGW	HWGW	SEM	P-value
Phase 1
Feed intake (g/d)	360	346	365	9.0	0.352
Growth rate (g/d)	139^a	124^b	131^ab	3.6	0.013
FCR	2.635^a	2.916^b	3.036^b	0.042	0.001
Phase 2
Feed intake (g/d)	473	468	473	13.8	0.705
Growth rate (g/d)	200	183	199	6.6	0.113
FCR	2.367^a	2.574^b	2.456^b	0.026	0.004

Different superscript letters in a single row denote P < 0.05.

Table. Effect of whole wheat inclusion on the digesta pH of Turkey poults

	Phase
Digesta	1				2				P-value
Site	CON	LWGW	HWGW		CON	LWGW	HWGW	SEM	Phase	Diet	P × D
Gizzard	3.45^a	2.60^b	3.05^ab		3.34^a	3.38^a	3.06^ab	0.156	0.077	0.026	0.012
Caecum	5.78	5.78	5.49		5.89	5.74	5.49	0.179	0.858	0.140	0.918

Different superscript letters in a single row denote P < 0.05.

Figure 1 Mean upper mandible lengths (cm) predicted from LMM back transformed (±SE). Treatment factors: Columbian Rock (CR), White Leghorn (WL), Blunting board (BB), Cuttlebone (CB), No enrichment present (NA), Feed trough (FT), Vertical in cage (VC).

Table. The effect of micronizing and rape seed cultivar on dietary apparent metabolisable energy (AME MJ/kg DM) when fed to broilers.

	Cultivar
Micronizing	Charger	Hawai	Picto	Popular	SEM	P-value
No	13.53	13.74	13.05	13.55	0.091	0.006
Yes	13.52	13.53	13.49	13.36
Cultivar means	13.53	13.63	13.27	13.46	0.065	0.005

Table. Growth performance in body weight gain (BWG), body weight (BW) and feed conversion ratio (FCR).

	A	B	C
BWG 0–10 (g/d)	26.3	25.4	25.9
BWG 25–35 (g/d)	76.3b	82.4a	76.6b
BWG 10–35 (g/d)	70.2B	72.6A	69.5B
BW d35 (g)	2065	2116	2044
FCR 0–35	1.522	1.525	1.532

^a,b P < 0.05, ^A,B P < 0.10.

Table. Performance (g/bird) and lipid profile (mg/dL) of starter broilers on experimental L-Dopa diets.

Period	Diets (g/kg)	FI	BWG	FCR	TC	LDL	HDL	TAG
Starter 0-21d	SE+0.0 L-Dopa	978^a	680^a	1.44	125^a	78^b	115	78^b
	HE+0.0 L-Dopa	773^cd	539^c	1.44	129^a	134^a	105	134^a
	HE+1.0 L-Dopa	858^b	624^ab	1.38	121^ab	99^ab	118	99^ab
	HE+2.0 L-Dopa	839^bc	605^b	1.39	117^b	110^ab	98	110^ab
	HE+3.0 L-Dopa	711^cd	521^c	1.37	116^b	112^ab	112	112^ab
	HE+4.0 L-Dopa	681^e	478^c	1.43	131^a	113^ab	116	113^ab
	SEM	22	21	0.03	6	13	10	13
	P-value	0.001	0.001	0.309	0.0063	0.0296	0.3955	0.0296

Means on the same column with different superscript letters are significantly different (P < 0.05). SEM = standard error of mean.

Table. The effect of dietary supplementary inositol and phytase on daily dry matter intake (DMI), weight gain (WG), feed conversion ratio (FCR), nitrogen corrected apparent metabolisable energy (AMEn), digestible energy (DE) and net energy (NE), in broilers.

Treatments	DMI (g/b/d)	WG (g/b/d)	FCR-DM	AMEn (MJ/kg DM)	DE (MJ/kg DM)	NE MJ/kg DM
MYO. 0	48.590	31.627	1.655	13.947	16.211	9.944
MYO. 1	48.015	32.301	1.592	13.860	15.694	10.288
MYO. 2	48.266	31.879	1.625	13.893	16.003	9.753
MYO. 3	48.667	32.281	1.617	13.717	15.698	10.086
SEM (df = 45)	1.1237	1.0255	0.0289	0.0802	0.2071	0.1551
PHY (–)	46.658	28.420	1.750	14.031	14.951	9.852
PHY (+)	50.110	35.625	1.494	13.678	16.852	10.184
SEM (df = 45)	0.7946	0.7251	0.0204	0.0567	0.1465	0.1096
Female	47.994	30.911	1.669	13.894	15.868	9.635
Male	48.775	33.134	1.575	13.814	15.935	10.401
SEM (df = 45)	0.7946	0.7251	0.0204	0.0567	0.1465	0.1096
Probabilities of differences
MYO	0.975	0.959	0.505	0.228	0.233	0.113
Lin.	0.924	0.739	0.529	0.074	0.191	0.873
Quad.	0.666	0.895	0.354	0.580	0.611	0.97
PHY	0.004	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001	0.039
SEX	0.491	0.035	0.002	0.322	0.75	<.001
MYO × PHY	0.951	0.704	0.333	0.318	0.16	0.201
MYO × SEX	0.508	0.707	0.116	0.045	0.701	0.019
PHY × SEX	0.433	0.628	0.862	0.263	0.109	0.571
MYO × PHY × SEX	0.988	0.956	0.843	0.299	0.899	0.632

Table 1. The calibration and validation statistics for the prediction of broiler performance

	N	Mean	SD	Min	Max	SEC	R^2	SECV	SECV as % of mean	RPD cal*
FI (g/d)	182	78.7	10.1	48.2	108.8	2.77	0.92	3.08	3.9	4.12
LWG (g/d)	182	57.3	6.8	37.0	77.7	2.33	0.88	2.81	4.9	2.41
Gain:feed (%)	181	73.2	5.2	57.6	88.7	1.72	0.89	2.11	2.9	2.46

*RPD cal = ratio of prediction to deviation for calibration = SD/SECV (values above 3.0 indicate prediction equations are excellent).

Table 2. Statistics of cross validation for feed intake, LWG and gain:feed (%)

	FI (g/d)		LWG (g/d)		Gain:feed (%)
	Actual	Predicted	Actual	Predicted	Actual	Predicted
Standard error of prediction (SEP)	2.96		2.79		2.02
Means	78.7	78.5	57.3	57.1	73.2	73.1
R^2	0.92		0.83		0.85
SEP as % of mean	3.8		4.7		2.8
Standard deviation	10.15	9.70	6.73	6.49	5.23	4.86
RPD validation*	3.43		2.41		2.59

*RPD validation = ration of prediction to deviation = SD/SEP (values above 3.0 indicate prediction equations are excellent).

Fig. Comparison of bone ash content (%) for various microwave ashing systems (MAS) and muffle furnace.

Table. Effects of different sources of Zn and feeding method on performance and bone characteristics of broiler chicken

Treatment	Chick weight (g)	Feed intake (g)	Feed conversion	Bone weight (g)	Bone length (mm)	Seedor index (mg/mm)	Bone break resistance (kg)	Bone ash (%)
Positive control	728.7	1020	1.49	11.12^c	80.21	136.4^c	71.72^c	42.88^c
Negative control	722.3	1011	1.49	11.19^c	81.21	136.3^c	72.59^c	43.09^b
In ovo ZnSO4	750.1	1032	1.46	11.30^c	81.32	137.5^bc	72.30^c	43.28^a
Fed ZnSO4	749.0	1039	1.46	11.39^ab	81.66	139.3^ab	73.52^b	43.33^a
In ovo Zn Meth	746.9	1028	1.46	11.33^bc	80.91	137.8^bc	72.66^c	43.16^a
Fed Zn meth	755.1	1031	1.42	11.57^a	81.17	140.5^a	74.30^a	43.57^a
SEM	4.89	3.66	0.44	0.39	0.070	0.414	0.181	0,61
P-value	0.294	0.331	0.0462	0.0008	0.1907	0.0055	<0.0001	0.0057

Values with different superscript letters are significant (P > 0.05). SEM = standard error of the mean.

Table. Effect of black seed and garlic dietary supplementation on carcass traits and cellular immune response of broilers.

		Black seed			Garlic
Item	Cont	1%	2%	3%	1%	2%	3%	SEM	P-value
Body weight at 6 weeks, g	1968.2	1934.5	2090.0	1925.8	1981.6	1877.3	1976.2	31.5	NS
Dressed carcass, %	71.7	71.5	72.7	72.5	72.7	71.4	70.8	0.28	NS
Thigh, %	9.1	9.9	9.0	9.1	9.3	9.9	9.0	0.19	NS
Drum stick, %	4.8	4.9	4.8	4.9	5.1	4.9	4.9	0.04	NS
Breast muscles, %	10.5	10.1	9.9	10.4	10.0	10.6	10.2	0.13	NS
Toe-web swelling after 24 h, mm	0.51^c	0.61^b	0.58^bc	0.56^bc	0.57^bc	0.63^b	0.72^a	0.03	0.05
Toe-web swelling after 48 h, mm	0.34^b	0.48^a	0.37^b	0.35^b	0.33^b	0.38^b	0.49^a	0.03	0.05
Toe-web swelling after 72 h, mm	0.20	0.29	0.20	0.18	0.22	0.19	0.23	0.02	NS

Means within rows with no common superscript letters are significantly differed. NS: non-significant.

Table. Effect of naked neck and frizzle genes on immune response parameters of chickens

Item	Genotype			SEM	P-value
	NaNaff	NaNaFF	NaNaff
Swelling response after 24 h, mm	0.66^a	0.51^a	0.28^b	0.06	0.001
Swelling response after 48 h, mm	0.29	0.31	0.21	0.03	NS
Swelling response after 72 h, mm	0.23 ^a	0.25^a	0.12^b	0.03	0.01
Serum IgA, µg/mL	0.45	0.40	0.47	0.02	NS
Serum IgM, µg/mL	3.09	3.23	2.82	0.13	NS
Serum IgY, µg/mL	5.51	5.42	5.45	0.13	NS
Thymus, %	0.28	0.27	0.26	0.02	NS
Spleen, %	0.23	0.20	0.22	0.01	NS
Bursa of Fabricius, %	0.11^a	0.09^ab	0.07^b	0.01	0.01

Means within rows with no common superscript letters are significantly different.

Table. Effect of overnight storage at 4°C and dilution buffer on log mean CFU/g of lactic acid bacteria of chicken caecal samples (N = 8) at maximum recovery diluent (MRD) and phosphate buffer saline (PBS).

Sample no.	Collection day		Overnight
	MRD	PBS	MRD	PBS
1	5.90	5.95	7.07	7.06
2	6.17	7.19	6.25	7.22
3	6.72	6.77	7.30	7.43
4	6.79	6.66	7.46	7.43
5	5.86	6.01	6.86	6.95
6	5.90	5.88	6.95	7.04
7	6.23	6.16	7.17	7.12
8	6.07	6.	7.04	7.12
SEM	0.13	0.11	0.06	0.06

Table. The impact of diet or additive type on growth performance and coefficients of total tract nutrient retention.

	Wheat				Barley					P-values
	CTR	XYL16	XYL32	XOS	CTR	BG16	BG32	GOS	SEM	DT	AT	DT× AT
WG. g	771.2	805.6	791.4	801.4	755.2	835.9	792.6	745.7	40.5	NS	NS	NS
FCR	1.53	1.41	1.45	1.36	1.45	1.38	1.45	1.51	0.069	NS	NS	NS
DM	0.66^b	0.71^b	0.73^c	0.69^b	0.67^b	0.60^a	0.66^b	0.72^c	0.016	0.007	0.010	<0.001
AME	13.6^a	15.9^b	14.3^b	14.4^b	14.3^b	14.6^b	14.7^b	12.7^a	0.145	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
N	0.65	0.66	0.71	0.66	0.69	0.60	0.69	0.67	0.019	NS	0.013	NS

Means within a row but with different superscript letters are significantly different (P < 0.05). Comparisons were made within groups namely either wheat group or barley group. CTR: control; XYL16 and XYL 32: xylanase at 16,000 or 32,000 units/kg; BG16 and BG32: β-glucanase at 16,000 and 32,000 units/kg; XOS: xylo-oligosacchardies; GOS: galacto-oligosaccharides; DT: diet type; AT: additive type; WG: body weight gain; FCR: feed conversion ratio; DM: dry matter; AME: metabolisable energy (MJ/kg), N: nitrogen retention; SEM: standard error of the means, NS: non-significant.

Table. The effect of wheat distillers dried grains with soluble (DDGS) and xylanase on feed intake (FI), body weight gain (g/b/d), egg production (%), egg mass (g/b/d), feed conversion ratio (FCR) for egg production and apparent metabolisable energy (AME) from 23 to 43 weeks of age.

	Feed intake (g/b/d DM)	Body weight gain (g/b/d)	Egg production (%)	Egg mass (g/b/d)	FCR for egg production	AME (MJ/kg DM)
DDGS
–	107.0	2.71	92.3	59.0	1.932	12.70
+	98.8	1.26	85.0	50.1	2.093	12.90
Xylanase
–	103.1	1.84	86.9	53.7	2.035	12.63
+	103.8	2.12	90.5	55.4	1.990	12.97
SEM	1.160	0.097	0.009	0.71	0.022	0.107
DDGS × xylanase
– DDGS – xylanase	107.5	2.67	90.6	58.1	1.951	12.79^a
– DDGS + xylanase	108.7	2.75	93.9	60.0	1.914	12.62^a
+DDGS – xylanase	98.7	1.02	83.2	49.4	2.110	12.48^a
+ DDGS + xylanase	99.0	1.50	87.1	50.9	2.066	13.31^b
SEM	1.640	0.136	0.013	1.00	0.031	0.151
Probabilities of statistical differences
DDGS	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	NS
Xylanase	NS	0.044	0.052	0.093	NS	0.038
DDGS × xylanase	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	0.003

Table. Wheat mycotoxin profile and the relationship (R²) between wheat mycotoxin content and broiler performance.

	Wheat mycotoxin profile (ng/g)				Overall DMI		Overall LWG		Overall FCR
	Min	Mean	Max	SD	R^2	P-value	R^2	P-value	R^2	P-value
Beauvericin	0.15	1.10	3.49	6.99	0.05	0.218	0.01	0.837	0.01	0.299
Enniatin A	0.55	13.12	59.12	17.59	0.01	0.680	0.12	0.073	0.09	0.111
Enniatin A1	3.73	76.89	303.42	93.55	0.01	0.707	0.07	0.138	0.04	0.194
Enniatin B	34.70	3541.07	12 157.10	4079.72	0.01	0.632	0.09	0.107	0.05	0.168
Enniatin B1	10.68	424.70	1546.20	493.50	0.01	0.709	0.06	0.154	0.04	0.207
Aurofusarin	12.17	308.90	1005.68	307.00	0.03	0.476	0.12	0.073	0.05	0.184
Deoxynivalenol (DON)	22.02	218.02	677.84	187.18	0.03	0.462	0.01	0.410	0.01	0.984
Equisetin	1.54	5.60	23.69	5.45	0.01	0.284	0.01	0.495	0.01	0.569
Zearalenone (ZON)	1.94	11.22	38.40	12.30	0.61	0.013	0.16	0.155	0.01	0.378