## 3 Results and Discussion
### Analysis of the Chemical and Biological Characteristics of the Grains  
A two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) evaluated the nutritional differences between rice types cultivated in plots subjected to different treatments. Additionally, the Tukey HSD test (\(\alpha=0.05\)) was used to analyze and compare these sources of variation, presenting the mean values of triplicate trials for total phenolic compounds, dietary fiber, \(\gamma\)-oryzanol,ytic acid, and antioxidant activity (Table 1). The results demonstrate that among the treatments differentiating the study groups, the type of rice (white and brown) shows a highly significant response variation across all variables studied. Additionally, the high values in the sum of squares suggest that this factor can explain a large portion of the data variability (between 80 and 95%). Similarly, the low residual values indicate that factors such as rice type (R), control (C), and their interaction (R \(\times\) C) are sufficient to explain the total data variability. Furthermore, among all the nutritional characteristics of the rice types by treatment, the analysis found that phytic acid levels were the only ones that changed concerning the type of control. This is \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Source of Variation**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total Phenolic Compounds (mg Eq.**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total Dietary**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\(\gamma\)-Oryzanol/100**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Phytic Acid**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Antioxidant Activity**} \\  & & **AG/100 g** & **Fiber (\%)** & **\(\gamma\)-Oryzanol/100** & **(mg Eq.** & **Phytic Acid/g**)** & **(mM Eq.** & **Trolox/100 g**)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{ANOVA} & Rice & 6307 *** & 17.618 *** & 2367.9 *** & 2324.70 *** & 10,572,703 *** \\  & Control & 36 & 0.225 & 12.69 & 352.34 *** & 376 \\  & R \(\times\) C & 100. & 0.006 & 13.26 & 98.55 *** & 83.64 \\  & Residuals & 196 & 0.6322 & 78.43 & 19.36 & 393.824 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{R \(\times\) C} & WRBC & 61.16 \(\pm\) 2.24 A & 1.23 \(\pm\) 0.18 A & 3.62 \(\pm\) 2.54 A & 16.11 \(\pm\) 2.27 A & 1292.98 \(\pm\) 49.71 A \\  & BRBC & 101.23 \(\pm\) 3.57 A & 3.66 \(\pm\) 0.50 A & 29.61 \(\pm\) 3.11 A & 49.68 \(\pm\) 0.63 A & 3003.28 \(\pm\) 303.37 A \\ \cline{1-1}  & WRCC & 58.86 \(\pm\) 7.56 A & 1.11 \(\pm\) 0.05 A & 3.57 \(\pm\) 1.19 A & 11.01 \(\pm\) 1.99 B & 1137.18 \(\pm\) 116.14 A \\ \cline{1-1}  & BRCC & 111.72 \(\pm\) 3.65 A & 3.98 \(\pm\) 0.32 A & 33.77 \(\pm\) 8.56 A & 33.11 \(\pm\) 1.57 B & 3199.84 \(\pm\) 218.26 A \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. -, \(p<0.1\); **, \(p<0.01\); ***, \(p<0.001\). Values indicate the tests’ mean \(\pm\) SE (standard error). Different letters within a column indicate significant differences according to the Tukey HSD test (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Evaluation of the nutritional value of two groups of rice treated by chemical and biological methods. evidenced both by the independent effect of the factors R and C and by their interactive effect (R \(\times\) C) on the variable studied. The correlation matrix presented in Table 2 shows that all the study variables are highly correlated, with Pearson coefficients greater than 0.8 in all cases, as well as their levels of significance. Notably, total phenolic compounds (TPC) showed highly significant correlations with almost all variables, particularly highlighting their strong association with antioxidant activity (AA). These results are consistent with those obtained by [PERSON] and [PERSON] in 2011 [26], who found a high relationship between these two characteristics, emphasizing that total phenolic levels largely depend on the extraction method, which is limited when classical solvents are used. Another highly significant correlation is evident in the levels of gamma-oryzanol. Overall, the study variables demonstrate a linear dependence on one another.