Xu, Xiaoqing
Tian, Dandan
Qiao, Yu
Peng, Qing
Ran, Chao
Yang, Yalin
Zhang, Zhen
Yao, Yuanyuan
Ding, Qianwen
Zhou, Zhigang
Article History
Received: 19 November 2025
Accepted: 28 April 2026
First Online: 8 May 2026
Declarations
:
: This study was conducted as per the guidelines approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the Feed Research Institute of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (IFR-CAAS20231108 and IFR-CAAS20240418).
: Not applicable.
: The authors declare no competing interests.
: All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.
: Limitation of data statistics of this study should be acknowledged. First, although we used the least significant difference (LSD) post hoc test following a significant one-way ANOVA, no additional correction for multiple comparisons (e.g., Bonferroni or Tukey) was applied. As such, the reported p-values may be subject to an increased risk of Type I error. However, given the exploratory nature of this study, the limited number of a priori planned comparisons, and the relatively small sample size, we opted for LSD to reduce Type II error and avoid overlooking potentially meaningful biological or clinical differences. A more conservative test (e.g., Tukey) might have obscured such signals under these conditions. Nevertheless, readers are encouraged to interpret the findings cautiously, and the results should be validated in future confirmatory studies with larger sample sizes and stricter adjustments for multiple comparisons.