THESIS I- FINAL.docx

HALF-COOKED RICE AND CORN WITH NATURAL PRO-BIOTIC:

THEIR EFFECT ON THE GROWTH OF COBB BROILER CHICKEN

A Thesis Presentedto the Faculty of the

College of AgricultureCagayan State UniversitySanchez Mira, Cagayan

In Partial Fulfillment of theRequirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Science in AgricultureMajor in Animal Science

By:

LERRY BON JOVI C. BAYAG

October 2012

APPROVAL SHEET

This thesis titled, “HALF-COOKED RICE AND CORN WITH NATURAL PROBIOTICS: THEIR EFFECT ON THE GROWTH OF COBB BROILER CHICKEN”, prepared and submitted by LERRY BON JOVI C. BAYAG, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Science in Agriculture, Major in Animal Science is hereby recommended for approval.

NOEMI C. BAYAG, Ph. D.

Research Adviser

Approved by the panel on oral examination with a grade of_________.

ELMER A. BAGASOL, Ph. D.

Chairman

JOSEPHINE M. BAGASOL, Ph. D. MILDRED D. TALOSIG, Ph.D.

Member Member

Accepted in Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Science in Agriculture, Major in Animal Science.

NOEMI C. BAYAG, Ph. D. FROILAN A. PACRIS, JR

Research Coordinator, College of Agriculture Dean, College of Agriculture

LINA M. GARAN

Campus Executive Officer

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The researcher gratefully, wholeheartedly acknowledges those who in one way or another

contributed to the completion of the research study:

Dr. Lina M. Garan, the Campus Executive Officer of Cagayan State University at Sanchez Mira

for administration and motherly advice;

Prof. Froilan A. Pacris Jr., Dean of College of Agriculture, for his expertise and efforts shared for

the improvement of this study;

Dr. Eleanor L. Cacacho, Extension Coordinator of CSU- Sanchez Mira and English Critic, for her

willingness and expertise in making this manuscript a presentable one;

Dr. Noemi C. Bayag, his research adviser, thesis instructor, mother for her constructive criticism

and suggestions and for evaluating the papers;

To the faculty members of the College of Agriculture; Dr. Mildred M. Talosig, Dr. Elmer A.

Bagasol, Dr. Josephine M. Bagasol, Mr. Fredison B. Bistayan, Engr. Shirley Agcaoili, Mrs. Karl Ann G.

Calegan and Miss Mel Ruth Cabutaje for their suggestions and pieces of advice for the completion of the

study;

All faculty and facilitative staff, who on the other hand, extended their hands to the researcher;

To his beloved parents Mr. & Mrs. Pantaleon U. Bayag and loving sisters Teffany and Keri Marie

for their financial and moral support;

Above all, to the Almighty God for giving His unending blessings and guidance and providing

him strong determination to the completion of the study.

LBJCB

DEDICATION

To my beloved grandparents,

Engineer Jovencio A. Bayag and Epifania A. Bayag;

Mr. Perfecto C. Corales and Faustina G. Corales;

My Beloved Parents

Mr. Pantaleon U. Bayag and Dr. Noemi C. Bayag;

To my loving sisters,

Teffany and Keri Marie,

This piece of work is lovingly dedicated.

LBJCB

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

Page

TITLEPAGE……………………………………………………………………………………………. i

APPROVAL SHEET……………………………………………………………………………………ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT…………………………………………………………………………….. iii

DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………………………… iv

TABLE OC CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………………….v

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………………...vii

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………………..ix

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………………. x

Chapters

1. INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study………………………………………………………………….1Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………….3Objectives of the Study……………………………………………………………………4Scope and Delimitation……………………………………………………………………4

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Material of the Study……………………………………………………………………....8Experimental Design and Treatment of the Study………………………………………...8Securing the Chicks………………………………………………………………………..8Preparing the Brooder Brooding the Chicks……………………………………………….9Securing other Materials…………………………………………………………………...9Constructing the Chicken House and Rearing Cages……………………………………...9Feeding Management and Treatment Application…………………………………………9Preparing the Natural Fermented Juice……………………………………………………10Sources of Drinking Water………………………………………………………………...11

Cleanliness and Sanitation Management…………………………………………………..11Gathering the Data…………………………………………………………………………11

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

General Observation……………………………………………………………………….13Average Weight……………………………………………………………………………14Weight Gain………………………………………………………………………………..16Feed Conversion Ratio……………………………………………………………………..18Feed Conversion Efficiency………………………………………………………………..19Chicken Meat Taste………………………………………………………………………...20Return on Investment……………………………………………………………………….22

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary …………………………………………………………………………………...23Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………24Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………..25

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………………....25

APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………………..26

Appendix A – Experimental Lay-out………………………………………..…………27Appendix B – Pictorials………………………………………………………………..28Appendix C – Letter of Request………………………………….……………………31Appendix D – Appendix Tables………………………………………….……………33Appendix E – Curriculum Vitae…………………………………….…………………48

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

1.0 Mean initial weight (kg) of the chickens before treatment application……………………............. 33

1.1 ANOVA of table 1.0……………………………………………………………………………….. 33

2.0 Mean weight (kg) of the chickens after one week of treatment application………………………...34

2.1 ANOVA of table 2.0………………………………………………………………………………...34

3.0 Mean weight (kg) of the chickens after two weeks of treatment application……………………….35

3.1 ANOVA of table 3.0………………………………………………………………………………...35

4.0 Mean weight (kg) of the chickens after three weeks of treatment application……………………...36

4.1 ANOVA of table 4.0………………………………………………………………………………...36

5.0 Final weight (kg) of the chickens (45 days old)……………………………………………………..37

5.1 ANOVA table of 5.0…………………………………………………………………………………37

6.0 Mean weight gain (kg) of the chickens after one week of treatment application……………………38

6.1 ANOVA table of 6.0…………………………………………………………………………………38

7.0 Mean weight gain (kg) of the chickens after two weeks of treatment application…………………..39

7.1 ANOVA table of 7.0…………………………………………………………………………………39

8.0 Mean weight gain (kg) of the chickens after three weeks of treatment application…………………40

8.1 ANOVA table of 8.0…………………………………………………………………………………40

9.0 Total weight gain (kg) of the chickens (45 days old)………………………………………………..41

9.1 ANOVA table of 9.0…………………………………………………………………………………41

10.0 Mean daily weight gain (kg) of the chickens (45 days old)………………………………………...42

10.1 ANOVA table of 10.0………………………………………………………………………………42

11.0 Feed conversion ratio of the chickens (45 days old)………………………………………………..43

11.1 ANOVA table of 11.0….……………………………………………………………………………43

12.0 Feed conversion efficiency of the chickens (45 days old)………………………………………….44

12.1 ANOVA of table 2.0………………………………………………………………………………..44

13.0 Tinola recipe taste of chicken meat…………………………………………………………………45

13.1 ANOVA table of 13.0………………………………………………………………………………45

14.0 Adodo recipe taste of chicken meat………………………………………………………………...46

14.1 ANOVA table of 14.0………………………………………………………………………………46

15.0 Return on investment………………………………………………………………………………………………..47

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Mean weight of chicken fed with commercial feeds, half-cooked rice and corn…………15

2. Weight gain of chickens fed with commercial feeds, half-cooked rice and corn…………17

3. FCR of chickens fed with commercial feeds, half-cooked rice and corn…………………18

4. FCE of chickens fed with commercial feeds, half-cooked rice and corn…………………19

5. Meat taste of chickens fed with half-cooked rice and half-cooked corn………………….21

6. Return on investment of chickens fed with half-cook rice and corn……………………...22

Title: HALF-COOKED RICE AND CORN WITH NATURAL PRO-BIOTICS: THEIR EFFECT ON THE GROWTH OF COBB BROILER CHICKEN

Researcher: LERRY BON JOVI CORALES BAYAG

Institution: CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Degree: BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE

MAJOR IN ANIMAL SCIENCE

Adviser: DR. NOEMI C. BAYAG

ABSTRACT

Using seventy five (75) cobb broiler chicken, the study was conducted to determine the effect of half-cooked rice and corn with natural pro-biotic on the growth performance of broiler chicken. It was laid out using the Completely Randomized Design (CRD) with the following treatments: T1- Control (Commercial Feeds), T2 - half-cooked rice, T3 – half-cooked corn. The drinking water was mixed with 10 ml. natural pro-biotic per L of water.

Result of the study showed that the initial weight of chickens obtained not significant difference among treatment means the weight during the first, second, third and fourth weeks revealed a highly significant difference among treatments. T1 obtained the highest weight.

Likewise, the weight gain of chicken on the first, second and third week revealed significant among the treatments. Also, the daily gain in weight and total gain in weight reported highly significant.

In terms of feed conversion ratio and feed conversion efficiency, chicken fed with commercial feeds outweighed the other treatments. A highly significant difference among treatments.

The recipe taste of the meat of chicken tinola and adobo T3 and T2 were the best respectively. There was highly significant difference among treatments.

Return of investments showed that Control (commercial feeds) had higher returns than T2 and T3 had a lost.

It is concluded that commercial feeds has a better effect on the growth performance of cob broiler chickens in terms of gain in weight, feed conversion ratio and efficiency and return on investment.

Further, it is concluded that tinola and adobo recipe taste of chicken meat were better for chickens fed with half-cooked rice and corn.

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

The growing trend is eating healthy foods. This means organically or naturally farmed

agricultural products, both plants and animals. Farming, now a days is back to basic but technological.

The use of native materials can restore and enhance the fertility and vitality of the farm. The

presence of a fundamental philosophy of sustainability and biodiversity will allow organic agriculture to

transcend current trends to define it simply as a system of farming that restricts the use of certain

synthetically prepared nutrients to livestock and poultry.

Natural farming is a sustainable farming. It makes all input from natural materials, observes the

law of nature and respects the right crops and livestock.

At this time, agriculture promotes natural farming due to high cost of commercial feeds and feed

supplements and veterinary medicines.

Poultry production in the country contributes a great deal to the income of the Filipinos. In fact, it

has become the most popular enterprise among professionals of different vocations as well as local

farmers.

Enter the broiler industry to satisfy the burgeoning population’s growing appetite for fried

chicken, something whetted by fast food chains. Filipinos gradually came to consume chicken as if supply

were about to run. But the older generation still hankers for bind that makes for the real tinola and adobo

thus, the sporadic come back of native chicken.

Growers use to pasture and free-ranged colored chicken but the problems with importing parents

stocks from bird flu-infected countries caused instability in production. The prices of white chicks are far

lower than those of colored chicken. They are easy to find in poultry supply stores in the locality.

Chickens are chickens. Surely, if they were raised naturally from being hatched, then they will

learn to live that way.

Corn and rice are natural feeds for poultry in particular chickens. These crops contain

carbohydrates, protein, lipids, water and minerals needed on the growth and development of broiler meat

type chicken to find solution on high cost of colored chicken and commercial feeds, using white chicken

locally available natural feeds.

At the same time, the researcher in his advocacy for sustainable organic agriculture and this is the

answer for providing affordable, lean chickens on our tables.

Supplying an adequate quantity of water is very important to bird health and production

performance. Monitoring of water consumption, as it also relates to feed intake, can be useful tool for

evaluating a poultry flock’s status. It is in this premise that the researcher thought of introducing a natural

probiotic fermented fruits and vegetables- malunggay, tomato, radish, banana peeling, melon. Further, the

researcher thought of mixing natural pro-biotic in the drinking water of broiler chicken fed with half-

cooked rice and corn.

Significance of the Study

The result of the study will be significant to patch up the high cost of colored organic chicks,

commercial feeds, feed supplements and veterinary medicines. Also, significant as it goes with the trend

of farming as “back to basic but technologically” through organic farming that it would be a contributory

factor in the healthy lifestyle of Filipinos in consuming organically produced foods.

The result of the study will be beneficial to backyard and small-scale broiler growers to enhance

their capacity on the utilization of natural available and less cost materials in the locality. Today, dressed

organic chicken almost everywhere are becoming popular among consumers throughout the country

because of the nutritional meat value and high degree of safety. It is expressed that the cost of production

will be lessened and the income of growers will be increased.

Free-ranged and pastured chicken are already the trends in broiler and egg production. This was

conducted to support the government campaign on Organic Farming Law of 2012 and to test and verify

the reported merging ideas of a natural farmer and a veterinarian on the use of half-cook rice and corn,

fermented fruits and vegetables with wine and molasses that strengthening the immune system of plants

and animals. Both feed rations and solution added to the drinking water is effective on the growth and

meat development of white chicken.

Objective of the Study

Generally, this study determined the effect of half-cooked rice and corn with natural pro-biotic on

the growth performance of broiler chicken (cobb type).

Specifically, it aimed to find out the effects in terms of:

1. weekly weight increment

2. total gain weight

3. feed conversion ratio

4. feed conversion efficiency

5. average daily gain in weight

6. taste

7. return on investment

Scope and Delimitation

This study was conducted at Namuac, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan on March 30- May 15, 2012. This

was delimited on the growth performance of organic white chicken for 45 days.

It was delimited on the discussion of results on the researcher’s observation during the conduct of

the study.

Chapter II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Organic farming is getting more buzzes today that before. In today’s agribusiness and

entrepreneurship model, many are eager to make profitable business operation by using natural and local

available materials for their plants and animals as well.

Entrebank.com reported that organic chicken is very good strain of chicken raised as free-ranged

and pastured. It is added that natural feeds will also be provided to maintain its organic characteristics.

Department of Science and Technology (2001), reported that “linage” (boiled) rice contains

moisture, energy, protein, fat, carbohydrates, fiber, ash, calcium, phosphorous, iron, thiamine, riboflavin,

and niacin which are essential on the growth and development of human and also to lower class of

animals.

It is reported that “binatog” (homing) contains moisture, energy, protein, fat, carbohydrates, fiber,

ash, calcium, phosphorous, iron, riboflavin, niacin and ascorbic acid. It is added that mais dilaw (golden

corn) contains the same with added beta-carotene.

Biotechnology (2003), analyses that the two kinds of molecules found in common starches of

rice, potatoes, corn, and beans are amylase and amelopectin. That digestive system can easily convert

them to glucose which provides energy for the cell.

National Institute of Health USA, (2007) reported that coconut and corn oil compose the fatty

acids, capric, lauric, mynistic, palmitic, palmito oleic, linoleic which are essential to the growth and

development of animals. It is also reported that macro minerals phosphorous, magnesium and sulfur are

present from grains and cereal products useful in bones, teeth, cell membranes, direct all growth, enzyme

co-function nerve signal transmission and muscle contraction. The micro minerals, iron, manganese and

chromium are present in unrefined flour of rice, corn and other grains essential for glucose metabolism

which are useful in forming insulin enzymes, central nervous system, responsible in blood and muscle

formation and oxidative enzymes.

From Agni Magazine (2009), it is reported that the crops and livestock weaved by natural

farming are very healthy. It is also mentioned that natural farming products have high quality, good taste

and better yield. Natural farming products have much nutritive contents; protein, a minor acids crude fat

and other essential nutrient were identified to be as much as 300 per century higher than the ordinary

products.

Houng, H. et. al. (2006) conducted a unique study to compare the apparent ideal digestibility of

sorghum to corn using broilers, layers and matured leghorn rooster. Crude protein digestibility of

sorghum vs. corn in all 3 classes of bird was similar between the grain sources. However, the amino acids

still defer in digestibility.

Maiye Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association MOFGA (2012) stated that in the United

States, corn is the main grain used in poultry feeds, it is highly digestible and good source of dietary

energy.

National Organic Program NOP (2012) reported that an organic livestock operation must adhere

to the national standards, for organic chicken farmers, these agricultural feed must be 100 percent (%)

organic.

Draker, P. (2008) stated that with the same nutrients and energy, yellow corn and white corn

makes a great alternative to white corn for organic chicken, not in organic chicken only but also in breeds

of chickens like native and other breed. It is rarely used in egg laying operations as it does not produce the

darker yellow yolk of the egg.

The known FFJ (banana, papaya and squash) have certain proteins to the growth and

development of animals, rich in vitamin C. the banana are packed with potassium, papaya and squash are

packed with color indicates are rich in beta carotene which are important crystalline, HC pigments which

are essential on the growth of animals. These fruits, when fermented boost the flowering and fruiting

veggies (Van Hause 2007).

Moringa Trust (2005) chicken for O will not voluntarily consume moringa leaves. Half the

protein content can be extracted from the leaves in the form of concentrated which can be added to

chicken food. The protein content desired in the chicken feed is 22% to obtain the concentrate, mix with

water and mix through a hammer mill.

Definition of Terms

Half-cook. It is boiled rice and corn used as feed for organic white chicken.

White chicken. It refers to the broiler meat type white color chickens.

Natural feeding. It refers to the feeding management of chickens using local available materials

for feed ration.

Organic chicken. It refers to a chicken grown from natural pro-biotics, feeds and feed

supplement, organic medicines and natural methods of growing.

Chapter III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Materials of the Study

The materials used in the study are as follows: brooder and range house, shed type housing,

feeding and drinking troughs, broiler chicks (cobb type), commercial feeds, yellow corn, rice and record

materials.

Experimental Design and Treatments of the Study

The Completely Randomized Design (CRD) was used in the study. Sixty (60) broiler chicks were

randomly distributed to cages. Twenty five (25) birds were randomly distributed per treatment cage.

The experimental treatments used as feed rations are as follows;

T1-control (commercial feeds)

T2-half-cook rice

T3-half-cook corn

Site Selection

The site was cleared and provided with good shed, ventilation and easily cleaned inside and outside.

Securing the Chicks

The chicks were bought from the authorized BMEG Farm Supply store in the locality.

Preparing the Brooder and Brooding the Chicks

A 2 x 4m well screened brooding cage was constructed. Three 60-watt electric bulbs were

installed to provide the chicks with appropriate temperature during the brooding period. Newspapers were

used as litter. The chicks were fed with booster ration upon arrival until 21 days. Fresh water with

fermented fruits and vegetables juice (FFVJ) were given to the chicks at all times.

Securing Other Materials

Other materials needed in the study were bought in any store outlet.

Constructing the Chicken House and Rearing Cages

The design of the housing of the chickens was a shed type of roof and airy to get sunlight

required on the growth of organic chickens. Two cages of the two treatments were screened all around so

their chickens will be protected from predators like cats and rats. A screen net was used as a division of

the two treatment cages. The floor was provided with gravelly sand which serves as playground of the

chickens.

The brooding cage was utilized as a rearing cage of the chickens for the control. This was put

under the shed type house.

Preparing Half-Cooked Rice and Corns

Boil one (1) liter of water for every 1.2 kg of rice and corn grit. When the water is already boiling

put the rice and corn grit to the respective kettle, stir and remove from fire. Let it cool and ready for

feeding.

Feeding Management and Treatment Application

Required amount of feeds was given to all the experimental birds. Chick booster ratio was given

at the brooding stage (0-12 days old) and the prepared natural pro-biotics.

On the 22nd day to termination, commercial feed was given. For the first five days, the feeds

gradually shifted on the growth stage of the chicken. This is for the control. Chicks on the two treatments

were gradually shifted to half cooked rice and corn.

The floor of the range area was covered with gravelly sand for the chicks to eat stone grits. Acids

will help the gastric juices and the strong muscles of the gizzard to digest the feed intake.

Adequate number of feeders and sources of clean water are critical. Make sure that there are

enough, and that all chicken are able to eat some amount at any given time. This is one of the causes of

unequal growth, when some are left to eat.

Preparing the Natural Fermented Juice

The ingredients of mixture:

1kg molasses

700 ml Ginebra San Miguel gin (65DP)

100 ml E.M. Bokashi solution

1 kg tomato (reject)

½ kg radish

½ kg banana peelings (lakatan)

½ fresh malunggay leaves

Procedure:

1. Collect fresh malunggay leaves, banana peelings, radish and tomato.

2. Slice the banana peelings, radish and tomato into pieces.

3. Melt the molasses with hot water and let it cool.

4. Mix thoroughly malunggay leaves, banana peelings, radish and tomato.

5. Mix the wine and 100 ml E.M. to the melted molasses then slowly pour on the mixture of the

vegetables.

6. Put the mixture in a plastic container with tight cover and keep it in cool dry place for

fermentation (anaerobic) for seven days. Open the container everyday to remove the air.

7. After seven days, extract the juice and put it in a plastis bottle with tight lid and ready for use

as pro-biotic for chicken.

Sources of Drinking Water

The chickens were provided with clean fresh water every feeding time and natural pro-biotic at a

ratio of 10 ml per liter of water. The water was put in an automatic drinking through.

Cleanliness and Sanitation Management

The surrounding of the chicken’s house was cleaned regularly, morning and afternoon. The

chicken dung was collected and mixed with compost, rice hull and carbonized rice hull. This are pack in a

sack as an organic fertilizer. This was done to control and prevent the attack of pest and eliminating the

foul odor.

Data Gathering Procedure

1. Initial weights (g). This was taken by weighing the chicks at the start of the study.

2. Weekly weight (g). This was taken by weighing the birds weekly starting from the initial

weights for five weeks.

3. Final weights (g). This was taken by weighing the birds at the end of the study.

4. Weekly weights (g). This was determined by subtracting initial weight from the weekly

weight.

5. Total weight gain (g). This was determined by subtracting the initial weight from the final

weight.

6. Feed conversion ratio. This was computed using the formula:

FCR = total feed consumed

total weight gained

7. Feed conversion efficiency (%). This was computed using the formula:

FCE = weight gain x 100

feed intake

8. Taste. Two recipes (adobo and tinola) using the chicken meat were prepared and evaluated

by fifteen raters using the three points Likert scale:

1 – fair

2 – good

3 – very good

9. Return on Investment. All the costs of inputs and the net income were determined. The ROI

was computed using the formula:

ROI = net income__________ x100

total cost of production

Data Analysis Procedure

The data gathered were tabulated and calculated with the statistical analysis of Completely

Randomized Design (CRD).

Chapter IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

General Observation

Generally, the experimental chickens from the three treatments did not show any variation in appearance

and they were healthy and vigorous during the brooding period. However, during the first week of the

treatment application, the chickens in the two treatments observed that a slow growth rate.

The control treatment has a thicker fat compared to the chickens fed with half-cooked rice and

corn.

Mortality recorded in T1 (two chickens) at the third week of treatment application caused by a

sudden death due to the abnormal gizzard of the chickens.

A good effect was observed on the growth of the chickens given with natural pro-biotic product

out fermented fruit juices and vegetables.

Mean Weight

Figure 1 shows the mean weight of White Leghorn broiler fed with commercial feeds, half-

cooked rice and corn. Results of the study shows T3 had the highest initial weight of 0.86 kg followed by

T2, 0.858 kg, and the least T1 with a mean weight of 0.850 kg.

On the 1st week, T1 had the highest mean weight of 1.302 kg followed by T2, 1.150 kg, and the

least is T3, 1.096 kg. This means that the chickens fed with commercial feeds were heavier than the

chickens fed with half-cooked rice.

On the 2nd week, T1 had the highest mean weight of 1720 grams followed by T2 and the least is T3

with mean weight of 1.39 kg and 1.284 kg respectively. This means that the chickens fed with

commercial feeds gained the highest average weight followed by the chickens fed with half-cooked rice

and the least were the chickens fed with half cooked corn.

On the 3rd week, T1 had the highest mean weight of 2.135 grams followed by T2 and the least is T3

with mean weights of 1.584 grams and 1.522 grams respectively. This means that chickens fed with

commercial feeds were the heaviest followed by the chickens fed with half-cooked rice and the lightest

were the chickens fed with half-cooked corn.

On the 4th and final week, T1 had the highest mean weight of 2.37 kg followed by T2 and the least

is T3 with mean weights of 1.754 kg and 1.54 kg respectively. This means that the chickens fed with

commercial feeds were the heaviest followed by the chickens fed with half cooked rice and the lightest

were the chickens fed with half-cooked corn.

Initial 1st week 2nd week 3rd week 4th week0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.50.

8500

0000

0000

001 1.

302

1.72

2.13

5 2.37

0.85

8000

0000

0000

1

1.15

1.39

1.58

4 1.75

4

0.86

0000

0000

0000

1

1.09

6 1.28

4 1.52

2

1.54

T₁T₂T₃

Figure 1. Mean weight of chickens fed with commercial feeds, half cooked rice and corn.

Initial 1st week 2nd week 3rd week 4th weekGrand Mean 0.856 1.183 1.465 1.736 1.875Significance 0.14 ns 24.895** 71.10** 35.58** 58.24**CV (%) 0.33 9.11 9.2 30.05 14.66

ns - not significant** - highly significant

Analysis of variance reveals that there were significant differences among treatment means in

terms of mean weight throughout the duration of the study. This means that the weight of chickens fed

with commercial feeds, half-cooked rice and corn had a great difference. This implies that the growth

hormones and nutrients on commercial feeds contribute a lot o the growth of Cobb broiler chicken. This

implies further that commercial feeds is better than Half-cooked rice and corn in attaining good growth

of broiler chicken.

Weight Gain

Figure 2 shows the weekly weight gain, total weight gain and daily weight gain of Cobb broiler

chickens fed with commercial feeds, half cooked rice and corn. On the 1st week, T1 had the highest

weight gain of 0.45 kg followed by T2 and T3 with respective weight gains of 0.292 kg and 0.238kg. This

means that chickens fed with commercial feeds gained the highest mean weight gain.

On the 2nd week, T1 attained the highest with a weight gain of 0.42 kg followed by T2 and T3 with

weight gains of 0.252 kg and 0.1864 kg respectively. This means that chickens fed with commercial feeds

gained the highest weight gain followed by the chickens fed with half-cooked rice and corn respectively.

On the 3rd week, T1 still had the highest weight gain of 0.411 kg followed by T3 and T2 with

respective weight gains of 0.234 kg and 0.194 kg. This means that chickens fed with commercial feeds

gained the highest weight gain followed by the chickens fed with half-cooked corn and the lightest were

the chickens fed with half-cooked rice.

For the total weight gain, T1 obtained the highest with a total weight gain of 1.530 kg followed by

T2 and T3 with total weight gains of 0.936 kg and 0.690 kg respectively. This means that chickens fed

with commercial feeds attained the highest total weight gain followed by the chicken fed with half-

cooked rice and the least were the chickens fed with half-cooked corn.

For the daily weight gain, T1 attained the highest with a mean of 0.096 kg by T2 and T3 with

respective means of 0.074 kg and 0.071 kg. This means that chickens fed with commercial feeds obtained

the highest daily weight gain followed by the chickens fed with half-cooked rice and corn respectively.

1st week 2nd week 3rd week 4th week Total weight gain

Daily weight gain

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.80.

45

0.42

0.41

1

0.24

9

1.53

0.09

60.29

2

0.25

2

0.19

4

0.19

8

0.93

6

0.07

40.23

8

0.18

6400

0000

0000

1

0.23

4

0.03

1600

0000

0000

01

0.69

0000

0000

0000

1

0.07

1

T₁T₂T₃

Figure 2. Weight gain of chickens fed with commercial feeds, half-cooked rice and corn.

1sr week 2nd week 3rd week Total DailyGrand Mean 0.327 0.2861 0.2760 1.04 0.080Significance 24.595** 32.43** 45.82** 56.935** 634.79**CV (%) 26.24 37.12 30.05 27.09 3.38

** - highly significant

Analysis of variance shows that there were highly significant differences among the treatments in

terms of weight gain throughout the duration of the study. This means that the performance of the

chickens fed with commercial feeds, half-cooked rice and corn had great differences. This implies that the

chickens fed with commercial feeds are far better than the chickens fed with half-cooked rice and corn

due to the higher nutritive value of commercial feeds than half-cooked rice and corn.

Feed Conversion Ratio

Result of the study on the feed conversion ratio of chickens fed with commercial feeds, half-

cooked rice and corn is presented in figure 3. T3 had the highest FCR of 10.82 followed by T2 and T1 with

an FCR of 6.21 and 1.69 respectively.

The lower the FCR, the better is the performance of the birds. The T1 with an FCR of 1.69 is the

best. This means that 1.69 kg of feed is needed to make a kilo of meat. The chickens fed with commercial

feeds are far better than the chickens fed with half-cooked rice and half-cooked corn.

T₁ T₂ T₃0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1.69

6.21

10.82

FCR

FCR

Figure 3. Feed conversion ratio of chickens fed with commercial feeds, half-cooked rice and corn.

Grand mean 6.36Significance 21.24**CV (%) 76.3


Figure 3 reveals that T1 is the best in terms of FCR, followed by T2 and T3. Analysis of variance

shows a significant difference among treatment means. This means that there is a great difference on the

feed conversion ratio of the chickens fed with commercial feeds, half-cooked rice and half-cooked corn.

This implies that commercial feeds contain the needed feed requirements in broiler meat production.

Feed Conversion Efficiency

Figure 4 shows the FCE of chickens fed with commercial feeds, half-cooked rice and half-cooked

corn. Result shows that T1 registered the highest with an FCE of 60.04 percent followed by T2 and T1 with

an FCE of 17.06 percent and 14.04 percent respectively.

The higher the FCE, the better is the performance of the birds. This means that higher percentage

of the feed is converted into meat. The chickens fed with commercial feeds are far better than the

chickens fed with half-cooked rice and half-cooked corn.

T₁ T₂ T₃0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

60.04

17.0614.04

FCE

FCE

Figure 4. Feed conversion efficiency of chickens fed with commercial feeds, half-cooked rice and half-cooked corn.

Grand mean 29.58Significance 400.98**CV (%) 21.26


Analysis of variance reveals a highly significant difference among the treatments in terms of feed

conversion efficiency. This implies that the same amount of feeds fed to the chickens but chickens fed

with commercial feeds were the best in terms of feed conversion efficiency due to the nutrient

components required on the growth of Cobb broiler chicken.

Chicken Meat Taste

Meat taste of chickens fed with commercial feeds, half-cooked rice and half-cooked corn is

shown in figure 5. The chicken meats were cooked in two recipes, tinola and adobo.

On the tinola recipe T1 had a mean of 1.6 rated as fair, followed by T2 with mean of 2.28 rated as

good and T3 with a mean of 2.68 was rated as very good. This means that the meat of chickens fed with

half-cooked rice and half-cooked corn was the best for tinola, half-cooked rice better for tinola and

commercial feeds for a fair taste.

On the adobo recipe, T1 had a mean of 2.0 rated good, T2 and T3 had means of 2.93 and 2.89

respectively were both rated as very good. This means that meat of chickens fed with half-cooked rice

and corn are better for the adobo recipe compared to meat of chickens fed with commercial feeds.

Tinola recipe Adobo recipe0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1.6

2

2.28

2.93

2.682.89

T₁T₂T₃

Figure 5. Meat taste of chickens fed with commercial feeds, half-cooked rice and half cooked corn.

Tinola recipe Adobo recipeGrand mean 2.18 2.6Significance 4.405* 1.83**CV (%) 45.60 18.10

* - significant** - highly significant

Analysis of variance reveals a significant difference on the taste of chicken meat on the tinola

recipe. This implies that the components of the different rations given to the chicken greatly affect their

taste.

Analysis of variance also shows a highly significant difference on the taste of chicken meat on

the adobo recipe. This implies that synthetic commercial feeds and natural feeds (half-cooked rice and

corn) have great differences in affecting the taste of chicken meat.

Return on Investments

As shown in figure6, T1 had the highest production cost of P5751.00 followed by T3 and T2 with

production cost of P5520.00 and P5439.40 respectively.

In terms of net income, T1 obtained the highest with a net income of P349.00 followed by T2 with

a net income of P308.60 T3 had a loss of P78.00

In terms of ROI, T1 attained the highest with an ROI of 6.07 percent which means for every peso

invested, it gained a return of 6.07 centavo. The return, however, is very minimal. T2 had an ROI of 5.6

percent and negative return for T3.

T₁ T₂ T₃

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

57515493.4 5520

349 308.6

-378

6.07 5.6

-6.85

Production costNet IncomeROI

Figure6. Return on investments of chickens fed with commercial feeds half-cooked rice and corn.

Chapter V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary

To determine the effect of half-cooked rice and corn on the growth of cob broiler chicken, a study

was conducted from March 30 to May 15, 2012 at Namuac, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan.

Seventy five (75) Cobb Broiler Type were experimental chickens. The Completely Randomized

Design with the following treatments: T1- Control (Commercial feeds), T2 – half-cooked rice, T3 – half-

cooked corn.

The result of the study were summarized as follows:

1. The first week weight increment had a highly significant difference among treatment means,

T1 had the highest.

2. The second week weight increment obtained a highly significant difference among treatment

means. T1 had the highest increment comparable to T2 and T3.

3. The third week weight increment obtained a highly significant difference among treatment

means. T1 had the highest followed by T3 and T2 had the least.

4. A highly significant difference among treatments in terms of total gain weight. T1 obtained

the highest followed by T2 and the least T3.

5. Mean daily gain in weight had a highly significant difference among treatments. T1 had the

highest followed by T2 and T3 as the least.

6. The feed conversion ratio and feed conversion efficiency had a highly significant difference

among treatments. T1 had the highest performance both feed conversion ratio and efficiency.

7. A significant difference among treatments on the tinola recipe taste of chicken meat. T1 was

rated fair, T2 – good and T3 – very good.

8. A highly significant difference among treatments on the adobo recipe taste of chicken meat.

T1 was rated good, both T2 and T3 were rated very good.

9. In terms of return on investments, chickens fed with commercial feeds and half-cooked rice

had a little return and the chickens fed with halt-cooked corn had a loss.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing findings of the study, it is concluded that commercial feeds has a better

effect on the growth performance of Cobb chickens in terms of gain in weight, feed conversion ratio, feed

conversion efficiency and return on investment.

Further, it is concluded that tinola and adobo recipes taste of chicken meat were better for

chickens fed with half-cooked rice and corn.

Recommendation

Based on the drawn conclusions, it is recommended that follow-up studies on a ration of half-

cooked rice and corn to validate the results and findings and to formulate a natural feed rations for

chickens.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. JOURNALS/PAMPHPLETS

BIOTECHNOLOGY. 2003. Organic foods and feeds.

DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. 2002. Food and Nutrition Research Institute.

HAUTE, VAN. 2007. Food and plants in the world of South Africa. Marshal. Cavendish Baiza Publication

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF USA. 2007. Herbs in the tropics. Journal on Health (Vol.32)New York, USA.

NELA, DANILO. 2011. Naturally farmed brown eggs. Manila Bulletin. Agriculture magazine. Vol XV, No. 7

SUMAOANG, REY. 2011. Pastured white chicken. Manila Bulletin, Agriculture Magazine. Vol XV, No. 6

B. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS

SECRETARIO, JAMES. 2011. Ginger garlic concocted with wine: Its effect on the growth cperformance of organic chicken. Unpublished thesis. CSU- Sanchez Mira.

A. Experimental Lay-out

B. Pictorials

C. Letters of Request

D. Appendix Table

E. Curriculum Vitae

EXPERIMENTAL LAY-OUT

T1 T2 T3

LEGEND:

T1 - control (commercial feeds)

T2 - half-cooked rice

T3 - half-cooked corn

PICTORIALS

(T1) Feeding (Concentrate)

Republic of the PhilippinesCagayan State University

Sanchez Mira, CagayanCollege of Agriculture

April 5, 2012

Froilan A. Pacris, Jr.Dean, College of Agriculture

Sir:

May I request permission from your good office to start the Cobb conduct of my thesis titled, “Half-cooked rice and corn with natural pro-biotics: Their effect on the growth of Cobb broiler chicken,” on April 7, 2012. In this connection, may I request the presence of my research adviser and research coordinator.

Thank you for your favorable consideration.

Respectfully yours,

LERRY BON JOVI C. BAYAGResearcher

Noted:

NOEMI C. BAYAG, Ph.D.Research Coordinator, College of Agriculture/Adviser

Approved:

FROILAN A. PACRIS, JR.Dean, College of Agriculture

Republic of the PhilippinesCagayan State University

Sanchez Mira, CagayanCollege of Agriculture

May 21, 2012

Froilan A. Pacris, Jr.Dean, College of Agriculture

Sir:

May I request permission from your good office to terminate my thesis titled, “Half-cooked rice and corn with natural pro-biotics: Their effect on the growth of Cobb broiler chicken”, on May 23, 2012. In this connection, may I request the presence of my research adviser and research coordinator.

Thank you for your usual coordination.

Respectfully yours,

LERRY BON JOVI C. BAYAGResearcher

Noted:

NOEMI C. BAYAG, Ph.D.Research Coordinator, College of Agriculture/Adviser

Approved:

FROILAN A. PACRIS, JR.Dean, College of Agriculture

Appendix Tables

Table 1.0 Mean initial weight (kg) of the chicken before treatment application.

SamplesTreatments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14T1

0.85

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.80

0.75

0.90

0.80

0.80

0.85

0.85

T2

0.80

0.75

0.90

0.80

0.90

0.90

0.85

0.75

0.85

0.85

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.85

T3

0.75

0.90

0.75

0.75

0.90

0.90

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.95

0.75

0.80

0.95

0.75

Table 1.0 (continued)

Treatments Total Mean

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

T1 0.65 1.00 0.65 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.85 0.90 0.85 0.95 21.25 0.85

T2 0.85 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.90 21.45 0.858T3 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.85 0.90 21.50 0.868

G. Total 64.20

G. Mean 0.856

Table 1.1 ANOVA of table 1.0

Source of Variance

Degree of Freedom

Sum of Squares

Mean of Squares

Obs. F Tab. F5% 1%

Treatment 2 0.0014 0.0007 0.14ns 3.13 4.92

Expt’l Error 72 0.3534 0.0005Total 74 0.3548

CV = 0.33% ns – not significant

Table 2.0 Mean weight (kg) of the chickens after one week of treatment application

SamplesTreatments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

T1 1.35 1.45 1.35 1.35 1.40 1.35 1.40 1.25 1.15 1.40 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.30

T2 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.15 1.25 1.25 1.15 1.20 1.05 1.30 1.10 1.05

T3 1.25 1.05 1.15 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.20 1.05 1.15 1.15 1.05 1.05 1.10 1.00



15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

T1 1.15 1.50 1.00 1.30 1.25 1.30 1.25 1.25 1.40 1.30 1.25 32.55 1.302

T2 1.10 1.25 1.05 1.30 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.30 1.30 1.20 1.25 28.75 1.150T3 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.25 1.25 1.00 1.15 1.25 27.40 1.096

G. Total 88.70

G. Mean 1.183


Source of Variance

Degree of Freedom

Sum of Squares

Mean of Squares

Obs. F Tab. F5% 1%

Treatment 2 0.5705 0.2853 24.95** 3.13 4.92Expt’l Error 72 0.8303 0.0116Total 74 1.4028

CV = 9.11% ** - highly significant

Table 3.0 Mean weight (kg) of the chickens after two weeks of treatment application

SamplesTreatments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

T1 1.50 1.85 1.75 1.70 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.60 1.80 1.65 1.75 1.75 1.75

T2 1.25 1.35 1.45 1.15 1.20 1.45 1.40 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.30

T3 1.50 1.25 1.20 1.10 1.15 1.25 1.50 1.65 1.30 1.20 1.30 1.15 1.15 1.20


Treatments

Total Mean

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

T1 1.80 2.00 1.60 1.85 1.65 1.75 1.90 1.75 1.75 1.65 1.65 43.00 1.720

T2 1.40 1.50 1.30 1.65 1.35 1.40 1.25 1.65 1.65 1.40 1.45 34.75 1.390T3 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.40 1.15 1.20 1.45 1.40 1.15 1.30 1.55 32.10 1.284

G. Total109.8

5G. Mean 1.465


Source of Variance

Degree of Freedom

Sum of Squares

Mean of Squares

Obs. F Tab. F5% 1%


CV = 9.2% **- highly significant

Table 4.0 Mean weight (kg) of the chickens after three weeks of treatment application

SamplesTreatments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

T1 1.90 2.25 2.00 2.00 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.00 2.00 2.25 2.00 2.25 2.25 2.25

T2 1.50 1.60 1.65 1.25 1.25 1.65 1.50 1.55 1.65 1.70 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.45

T3 1.75 1.50 1.40 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.75 1.90 1.60 1.40 1.60 1.55 1.35 1.45


Treatments

Total Mean

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

T1 2.35 2.50 2.15 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.00 2.05 2.15 49.10 2.135

T2 1.60 1.75 1.50 1.75 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.90 1.85 1.60 1.65 39.60 1.584T3 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.65 1.35 1.35 1.70 1.65 1.35 1.55 1.85 38.05 1.522

G. Total126.7

5G. Mean 1.736


Source of Variance

Degree of Freedom

Sum of Squares

Mean of Squares

Obs. F Tab. F5% 1%



Table 5.0 Final weight (kg) of the chicken (45 day old)

SamplesTreatments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

T1 2.25 1.85 2.40 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.65 2.25 2.00 2.50 2.25 2.40 2.50 2.20

T2 1.50 1.75 2.40 2.00 1.50 1.95 2.00 1.90 1.90 1.85 1.50 1.50 1.75 1.50

T3 2.00 1.70 1.25 1.15 1.15 1.40 1.75 1.05 1.85 1.40 1.95 1.55 2.00 1.40


Treatments

Total Mean

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

T1 2.50 2.75 2.25 2.70 2.55 2.25 2.50 2.25 2.50 54.50 2.370

T2 1.50 1.90 1.50 2.25 1.75 1.60 1.75 2.00 2.45 1.00 2.00 43.85 1.754T3 1.15 1.05 1.70 1.75 1.30 1.35 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.50 2.10 38.85 1.540

G. Total136.8

5G. Mean 1.875


Source of Variance

Degree of Freedom

Sum of Squares

Mean of Squares

Obs. F Tab. F5% 1%



Table 6.0 Mean weight gain (kg) of the chickens after one week of treatment application.

SamplesTreatments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

T1 0.50 0.55 0.50 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.50 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.45

T2 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.40 0.50 0.30 0.35 0.25 0.45 0.20 0.20

T3 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.35 0.20 0.30 0.25 0.15 0.25



15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

T1 0.50 0.50 0.35 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.40 0.50 0.45 0.30 11.25 0.450

T2 0.25 0.35 0.20 0.40 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 7.30 0.292T3 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.25 0.15 0.35 0.45 0.20 0.30 0.35 5.95 0.235

G. Total 24.50

G. Mean 0.327


Source of Variance

Degree of Freedom

Sum of Squares

Mean of Squares

Obs. F Tab. F5% 1%



Table 7.0 Mean weight gain (kg) of the chickens after two weeks of treatment application

SamplesTreatments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

T1 0.15 0.40 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.25 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.40 0.45

T2 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.10 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.15 0.30 0.25

T3 0.25 0.20 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.30 0.61 0.15 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.20



15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

T1 0.65 0.50 0.60 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.75 0.50 0.35 0.35 0.40 10.50 0.420

T2 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.35 0.35 0.20 0.20 6.30 0.252T3 0.10 0.15 0.30 0.25 0.05 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.30 4.66 0.1864

G. Total 21.45

G. Mean 0.2861


Source of Variance

Degree of Freedom

Sum of Squares

Mean of Squares

Obs. F Tab. F5% 1%



Table 8.0 Mean weight gain (kg) of the chickens after three weeks of treatment application.

SamplesTreatments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

T1 0.40 0.40 0.25 0.25 0.50 0,50 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.45 0.35 0.50 0.50 0.50

T2 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.20 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.10 0.15

T3 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.25



15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

T1 0.55 0.50 0.55 0.10 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.50 9.45 0.411

T2 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.20 4.85 0.194T3 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.30 5.85 0.234

G. Total 20.16

G. Mean 0.2760


Source of Variance

Degree of Freedom

Sum of Squares

Mean of Squares

Obs. F Tab. F5% 1%



Table 9.0 Total weight gain (kg) of the chickens after four weeks of treatment application

SamplesTreatments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

T1 1.40 0.95 1.55 1.20 1.60 1.70 1.75 1.45 1.25 1.60 1.45 1.60 1.65 1.35

T2 0.75 1.00 0.85 1.20 0.60 1.05 1.15 1.15 1.05 1.00 0.70 0.65 0.85 0.65

T3 1.05 0.95 0.35 0.40 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.15 1.05 0.45 1.20 0.75 1.05 0.65



15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

T1 1.85 1.75 1.60 1.85 1.70 1.35 1.65 1.40 1.55 35.20 1.530

T2 0.65 1.00 1.65 1.35 0.85 0.75 0.95 1.05 1.30 0.15 1.10 23.40 0.936T3 0.25 0.15 0.90 0.90 0.45 0.45 0.85 0.95 0.70 0.65 1.20 17.00 0.690

G. Total 75.95

G. Mean 1.04


Source of Variance

Degree of Freedom

Sum of Squares

Mean of Squares

Obs. F Tab. F5% 1%



Table 10.0 Mean daily weight gain (kg) of the chickens after four weeks of treatment application

SamplesTreatments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

T1 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.09

T2 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08

T3 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06



15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

T1 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.10 2.21 0.096

T2 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.70 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.08 1.84 0.074T3 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.70 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.08 1.76 0.071

G. Total 5.81

G. Mean 0.080


Source of Variance

Degree of Freedom

Sum of Squares

Mean of Squares

Obs. F Tab. F5% 1%



Table 11.0 Feed conversion ratio of the chickens after four weeks of treatment application.

SamplesTreatments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

T1 1.82 2.68 1.65 2.13 1.59 1.50 1.46 1.76 2.04 1.59 1.76 1.00 1.56 1.89

T2 7.53 5.27 6.20 4.39 8.79 5.02 4.58 4.58 5.02 5.27 7.53 8.11 6.20 8.11

T3 4.59 5.0913.8

112.0

819.3

39.65 6.44

32.21

4.60 20.71 4.03 6.44 4.60 7.43



15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

T1 1.39 1.46 1.59 1.38 1.50 1.89 1.55 1.82 1.65 38.86 1.69

T2 8.11 3.91 8.11 3.91 6.20 7.10 5.60 5.02 4.10 10.50 4.80155.3

26.21

T3 19.33 32.21 5.37 5.37 10.74 10.74 5.70 5.09 6.90 13.59 4.03270.5

910.82

G. Total464.7

7G. Mean 6.36


Source of Variance

Degree of Freedom

Sum of Squares

Mean of Squares

Obs. F Tab. F5% 1%



Table 12.0 Feed conversion efficiency of the chickens after four weeks treatment application.

SamplesTreatments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

T1 54.9 37.3 60.8 47.1 62.8 66.7 68.6 56.9 49.1 62.8 56.9 62.8 64.7 52.9

T2 13.3 19.0 16.1 22.8 11.4 19.9 21.8 21.8 19.9 19.0 13.3 12.3 16.1 12.3

T3 21.7 19.7 7.2 8.3 5.2 10.3 15.5 3.1 21.7 9.3 24.8 15.5 21.7 15.5


Treatments

Total Mean

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

T1 72.6 68.6 62.8 72.6 66.7 52.9 64.7 54.9 60.8 1381.9 60.04

T2 12.3 19.0 12.3 25.6 16.1 14.2 18.0 19.9 24.7 9.5 20.9 426.5 17.06T3 5.2 3.1 18.6 18.6 9.3 9.3 17.6 19.7 14.5 13.5 24.8 351.1 14.04

G. Total 2159.6

G. Mean 29.577


Source of Variance

Degree of Freedom

Sum of Squares

Mean of Squares

Obs. F Tab. F5% 1%



Table 13.0 Tinola recipe taste of chicken meat.

SamplesDescriptive

ValueTotal Mean

Treatments1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

T₁ 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 24 1.6 FairT₂ 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 34 2.28 GoodT₃ 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 40 2.68 Very goodGrand Total 98Grand Mean 2.18


Source of Variance

Degree of Freedom

Sum of Squares

Mean of Squares

Obs. FTab. F 5% 1%

Treatment 2 8.7113 4.356 4.405* 3.88 6.98Expt’l Error 12 11.8667 0.9889Total 14 20.578

CV = 45.60% * - significant

Table 14.0 Adobo recipe taste of chicken meat.

SamplesDescriptive

ValueTotal Mean

Treatments1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

T₁ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 30 2.00 GoodT₂ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 44 2.93 Very goodT₃ 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 43 2.89 Very goodGrand Total 117Grand Mean 2.60


Source of Variance

Degree of Freedom

Sum of Squares

Mean of Squares

Obs. FTab. F 5% 1%

Treatment 2 8.133 4.067 183* 3.13 4.92Expt’l Error 72 2.667 0.222Total 74 10.8

CV = 18.10% ** - highly significant

Table 15.0. Return on investment of chickens fed with commercial feeds half-cook rice and corn.

Particulars T1 T2 T3

A. Labor Cost 250.00 250.00 250.00

B .Inputs 1.Day-old chicks at 33/head 825.00 825.00 825.00 2.Free and biologics

a. commercial feeds 3978.00 b. half-cook rice 3270.00

c. half-cook corn 3747.00 d. pro-biotic 184.00

C. Overhead Expenses1. Power 167.00 167.00 167.002. Depreciation 147.00 147.00 147.003. Miscellaneous 200.00 200.00 200.00

D. Total Cost 5751.00 5493.00 5520.00

E. Gross Income

1. Sale of birds T1 – 58 kg @ P100/kg 5800.00 T2 – 45.85 kg @ P120/kg 5502.00 T3 – 42.85 kg @ P120/kg 5142.00

2. Sale of manure 300.00 300.00 300.00

F. Total Gross income 6100.00 2874.00 2883.00

G. Net Income (Php) 349.00 308.60 -78.00

H. ROI 6.07 5.6 -1.41

CURRICULUM VITAE

A. Personal Data

Name: Lerry Bon Jovi C. BayagAddress: Namuac, Sanchez Mira, CagayanDate of Birth: November 28, 1991Place of Birth: Namuac, Sanchez Mira, CagayanSex: MaleCivil Status: SingleFamily:

Father: Pantaleon U. BayagMother: Noemi C. BayagSisters: Teffany G. Bayag

Kerie Marie G. Bayag

B. Education BackgroundElementary: Namuac – San Andres Elem. SchoolInclusive Years: June 2000 – 2005

Secondary: Namuac AcademyInclusive Years: June 2005 – 2008

Tertiary: Cagayan State UniversityCentro-2, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan

Inclusive Years: June 2008 – 2012Courses: Bachelor of Science in Agriculture

Major in Animal ScienceCertificate in Apiculture

THESIS I- FINAL.docx

Documents

lerry bon

beloved parents

completely

feed conversion

feed conversion

cobb broiler

highly significant

respective