THESIS I- FINAL.docx

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

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the College of Agriculture Cagayan State University Sanchez Mira, Cagayan

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Science in Agriculture Major 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………………………………………………………………….1 Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………….3 Objectives of the Study……………………………………………………………………4 Scope and Delimitation……………………………………………………………………4 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

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

Cleanliness and Sanitation Management…………………………………………………..11 Gathering the Data…………………………………………………………………………11 4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION General Observation……………………………………………………………………….13 Average Weight……………………………………………………………………………14 Weight Gain………………………………………………………………………………..16 Feed Conversion Ratio……………………………………………………………………..18 Feed Conversion Efficiency………………………………………………………………..19 Chicken Meat Taste………………………………………………………………………...20 Return on Investment……………………………………………………………………….22 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS Summary …………………………………………………………………………………...23 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………24 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………..25 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………………....25 APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………………..26 Appendix A – Experimental Lay-out………………………………………..…………27 Appendix B – Pictorials………………………………………………………………..28 Appendix C – Letter of Request………………………………….……………………31 Appendix D – Appendix Tables………………………………………….……………33 Appendix 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 halfcooked 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, halfcooked 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.

1.54

1.754

2.37 1.584

1.284

1.39 1.096

T₁ T₂

0.86

0.858

1

0.85

1.5

1.15

1.302

1.72

2

1.522

2.135

2.5

T₃

0.5

0 Initial

1st week

2nd week

3rd week

4th week

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

Initial Grand Mean 0.856 Significance 0.14 ns CV (%) 0.33 ns - not significant ** - highly significant

1st week 1.183 24.895** 9.11

2nd week 1.465 71.10** 9.2

3rd week 1.736 35.58** 30.05

4th week 1.875 58.24** 14.66

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 halfcooked 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.

1.53

1.8 1.6 1.4 0.936

1.2

2nd week

3rd week

0.096 0.074 0.071

0.411 0.194 0.234

1st week

0.2

T₂ T₃

0.249 0.198 0.0316

0.42 0.252 0.1864

0.4

0.45 0.292 0.238

0.8 0.6

T₁

0.69

1

0 4th week

Total weight Daily weight gain gain

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

1sr week Grand Mean 0.327 Significance 24.595** CV (%) 26.24 ** - highly significant

2nd week 0.2861 32.43** 37.12

3rd week 0.2760 45.82** 30.05

Total 1.04 56.935** 27.09

Daily 0.080 634.79** 3.38

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, halfcooked 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.

FCR 12

10.82

10 8 6.21 6

FCR

4 2

1.69

0 T₁

T₂

T₃

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

Grand mean Significance CV (%) ** - highly significant

6.36 21.24** 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.

FCE 70 60.04 60 50 40 FCE

30 17.06

20

14.04

10 0 T₁

T₂

T₃

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

Grand mean Significance CV (%) ** - highly significant

29.58 400.98** 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.

3.5 2.93

3

2.89

2.68

2.5

2.28 2

2

T₁ 1.6

T₂

1.5

T₃

1 0.5 0 Tinola recipe

Adobo recipe

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

Grand mean Significance CV (%) * - significant ** - highly significant

Tinola recipe 2.18 4.405* 45.60

Adobo recipe 2.6 1.83** 18.10

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. T 2 had an ROI of 5.6 percent and negative return for T3.

7000 6000

5751

5520

5493.4

5000 4000 Production cost 3000

Net Income ROI

2000 1000

349

6.07

308.6

5.6

0 T₁ -1000

T₂

T₃ -6.85 -378

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 – halfcooked 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. T 1 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. T 1 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 halfcooked 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

LEGEND: T1 - control (commercial feeds) T2 - half-cooked rice T3 - half-cooked corn

T2

T3

PICTORIALS

(T1) Feeding (Concentrate)

Republic of the Philippines Cagayan State University Sanchez Mira, Cagayan College 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. BAYAG Researcher

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

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

Republic of the Philippines Cagayan State University Sanchez Mira, Cagayan College 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. BAYAG Researcher

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. Samples Treatments 1 2 T1 0.85 0.90 T2 0.80 0.75 T3 0.75 0.90

3 0.85 0.90 0.75

4 0.80 0.80 0.75

5 0.90 0.90 0.90

6 0.90 0.90 0.90

7 0.90 0.85 1.00

8 0.80 0.75 0.90

9 0.75 0.85 0.80

10 0.90 0.85 0.95

11 0.80 0.80 0.75

12 0.80 0.85 0.80

13 0.85 0.90 0.95

14 0.85 0.85 0.75

Table 1.0 (continued) Treatments

Total

Mean

0.95

21.25

0.85

0.90 0.90

21.45 21.50

0.858 0.868

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

T2 T3

0.85 0.90

0.90 0.90

0.85 0.80

0.90 0.85

0.90 0.85

0.85 0.90

0.80 0.90

0.95 0.80

0.95 0.80

0.85 0.85

G. Total

64.20

G. Mean

0.856

Table 1.1 ANOVA of table 1.0

Source of Variance Treatment Expt’l Error Total CV = 0.33%

Degree of Freedom 2 72 74

Sum of Squares 0.0014 0.3534 0.3548

Mean of Squares 0.0007 0.0005

Obs. F 0.14ns

Tab. F 5% 1% 3.13 4.92

ns – not significant

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

Samples Treatments 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 T3

1.00 1.25

1.00 1.05

1.10 1.15

1.00 1.00

1.10 1.05

1.15 1.10

1.25 1.20

1.25 1.05

1.15 1.15

1.20 1.15

1.05 1.05

1.30 1.05

1.10 1.10

1.05 1.00

Table 2.0 (continued)

Treatments

Total

Mean

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 T3

1.10 1.00

1.25 1.00

1.05 0.90

1.30 1.15

1.15 1.10

1.10 1.05

1.05 1.25

1.30 1.25

1.30 1.00

1.20 1.15

1.25 1.25

28.75 27.40

1.150 1.096

G. Total

88.70

G. Mean

1.183

Table 2.1 ANOVA of table 2.0

Source of Variance Treatment Expt’l Error Total CV = 9.11%

Degree of Freedom 2 72 74

Sum of Squares 0.5705 0.8303 1.4028

Mean of Squares 0.2853 0.0116

Obs. F 24.95**

Tab. F 5% 1% 3.13 4.92

** - highly significant

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

Samples Treatments 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 T3

1.25 1.50

1.35 1.25

1.45 1.20

1.15 1.10

1.20 1.15

1.45 1.25

1.40 1.50

1.40 1.65

1.45 1.30

1.50 1.20

1.30 1.30

1.40 1.15

1.40 1.15

1.30 1.20

Table 3.0 (continued)

Treatments

Total

Mean

1.65

43.00

1.720

1.45 1.55

34.75 32.10

1.390 1.284

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

T2 T3

1.40 1.10

1.50 1.15

1.30 1.20

1.65 1.40

1.35 1.15

1.40 1.20

1.25 1.45

1.65 1.40

1.65 1.15

1.40 1.30

G. Total

109.85

G. Mean

1.465

Table 3.1 ANOVA of table 3.0

Source of Variance Treatment Expt’l Error Total CV = 9.2%

Degree of Freedom 2 72 74

Sum of Squares 2.5853 1.3086 3.8939

Mean of Squares 1.2926 0.01818

Obs. F 71.10**

Tab. F 5% 1% 3.13 4.92

**- highly significant

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

Samples Treatments 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 T3

1.50 1.75

1.60 1.50

1.65 1.40

1.25 1.25

1.25 1.50

1.65 1.50

1.50 1.75

1.55 1.90

1.65 1.60

1.70 1.40

1.50 1.60

1.50 1.55

1.50 1.35

1.45 1.45

Table 4.0 (continued)

Treatments 15

16

17

18

19

20

T1

2.35

2.50

2.15

1.75

2.00

2.25

T2 T3

1.60 1.35

1.75 1.40

1.50 1.45

1.75 1.65

1.60 1.35

1.65 1.35

21

22

23

2.00 1.70 1.70

1.90 1.65

1.85 1.35

Total

Mean

2.15

49.10

2.135

1.65 1.85

39.60 38.05

1.584 1.522

24

25

2.05 1.60 1.55

G. Total

126.75

G. Mean

1.736

Table 4.1 ANOVA of table 4.0

Source of Variance Treatment Expt’l Error Total CV = 30.05%

Degree of Freedom 2 72 74

Sum of Squares 1.8938 1.9162 3.81

Mean of Squares 0.9469 0.02661

Obs. F 35.58**

Tab. F 5% 1% 3.13 4.92

**- highly significant

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

Samples Treatments 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

Table 5.0 (continued)

Treatments 15

16

17

18

19

20

T1

2.50

2.75

2.25

2.70

2.55

2.25

T2 T3

1.50 1.15

1.90 1.05

1.50 1.70

2.25 1.75

1.75 1.30

1.60 1.35

21

22

23

2.50 1.75 1.75

2.00 1.75

2.45 1.50

Total

Mean

24

25

2.25

2.50

54.50

2.370

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.10

43.85 38.85

1.754 1.540

G. Total

136.85

G. Mean

1.875

Table 5.1 ANOVA of table 5.0

Source of Variance Treatment Expt’l Error Total CV = 14.66%

Degree of Freedom 2 72 74

Sum of Squares 8.7973 5.4383 14.2356

Mean of Squares 4.39865 0.07553

Obs. F 58.327**

Tab. F 5% 1% 3.13 4.92

**- highly significant

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

Samples Treatments 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 T3

0.20 0.30

0.25 0.30

0.20 0.25

0.20 0.25

0.20 0.15

0.25 0.20

0.40 0.20

0.50 0.15

0.30 0.35

0.35 0.20

0.25 0.30

0.45 0.25

0.20 0.15

0.20 0.25

Table 6.0 (continued)

Treatments

Total

Mean

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 T3

0.25 0.10

0.35 0.10

0.20 0.10

0.40 0.30

0.25 0.25

0.25 0.15

0.25 0.35

0.35 0.45

0.35 0.20

0.35 0.30

0.35 0.35

7.30 5.95

0.292 0.235

G. Total

24.50

G. Mean

0.327

Table 6.1 ANOVA of table 6.0

Source of Variance Treatment Expt’l Error Total CV = 26.24%

Degree of Freedom 2 72 74

Sum of Squares 0.609 0.5299 1.1389

Mean of Squares 0.3045 0.00736

Obs. F 24.595**

Tab. F 5% 1% 3.13 4.92

**- highly significant

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

Samples Treatments 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 T3

0.25 0.25

0.35 0.20

0.35 0.05

0.15 0.10

0.10 0.10

0.30 0.15

0.15 0.30

0.15 0.61

0.30 0.15

0.30 0.06

0.25 0.25

0.15 0.25

0.30 0.05

0.25 0.20

Table 7.0 (continued)

Treatments

Total

Mean

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 T3

0.30 0.10

0.25 0.15

0.25 0.30

0.35 0.25

0.20 0.05

0.30 0.15

0.20 0.20

0.35 0.15

0.35 0.15

0.20 0.15

0.20 0.30

6.30 4.66

0.252 0.1864

G. Total

21.45

G. Mean

0.2861

Table 7.1 ANOVA of table 7.0

Source of Variance Treatment Expt’l Error Total CV = 37.12%

Degree of Freedom 2 72 74

Sum of Squares 0.7315 0.8124 1.5439

Mean of Squares 0.3658 0.01128

Obs. F 32.43**

Tab. F 5% 1% 3.13 4.92

**- highly significant

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

Samples Treatments 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 T3

0.25 0.25

0.25 0.25

0.20 0.20

0.10 0.05

0.05 0.25

0.20 0.25

0.10 0.25

0.15 0.25

0.20 0.30

0.20 0.20

0.20 0.30

0.35 0.25

0.10 0.20

0.15 0.25

Table 8.0 (continued)

Treatments 15

16

17

18

19

20

T1

0.55

0.50

0.55

0.10

0.35

0.25

T2 T3

0.20 0.25

0.25 0.25

0.20 0.25

0.10 0.25

0.25 0.20

0.25 0.15

21

22

23

0.25 0.25 0.25

0.25 0.25

0.20 0.20

Total

Mean

0.50

9.45

0.411

0.20 0.30

4.85 5.85

0.194 0.234

24

25

0.40 0.20 0.30

G. Total

20.16

G. Mean

0.2760

Table 8.1 ANOVA of table 8.0

Source of Variance Treatment Expt’l Error Total CV = 30.05%

Degree of Freedom 2 72 74

Sum of Squares 0.6305 0.4951 1.1256

Mean of Squares 0.31525 0.00688

Obs. F 45.82**

Tab. F 5% 1% 3.13 4.92

**- highly significant

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

Samples Treatments 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 T3

0.75 1.05

1.00 0.95

0.85 0.35

1.20 0.40

0.60 0.25

1.05 0.50

1.15 0.75

1.15 0.15

1.05 1.05

1.00 0.45

0.70 1.20

0.65 0.75

0.85 1.05

0.65 0.65

Table 9.0 (continued)

Treatments 15

16

17

18

19

20

T1

1.85

1.75

1.60

1.85

1.70

1.35

T2 T3

0.65 0.25

1.00 0.15

1.65 0.90

1.35 0.90

0.85 0.45

0.75 0.45

21

22

23

1.65 0.95 0.85

1.05 0.95

1.30 0.70

Total

Mean

1.55

35.20

1.530

1.10 1.20

23.40 17.00

0.936 0.690

24

25

1.40 0.15 0.65

G. Total

75.95

G. Mean

1.04

Table 9.1 ANOVA of table 9.0

Source of Variance Treatment Expt’l Error Total CV = 27.09%

Degree of Freedom 2 72 74

Sum of Squares 9.0411 3.7138 14.7549

Mean of Squares 4.5206 0.0794

Obs. F 56.935**

Tab. F 5% 1% 3.13 4.92

**- highly significant

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

Samples Treatments 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 T3

0.06 0.06

0.07 0.07

0.07 0.07

0.08 0.08

0.06 0.06

0.08 0.08

0.08 0.08

0.08 0.08

0.08 0.08

0.08 0.07

0.06 0.06

0.06 0.06

0.07 0.07

0.08 0.06

Table 10.0 (continued)

Treatments 15

16

17

18

19

20

T1

0.10

0.11

0.09

0.11

0.10

0.09

T2 T3

0.08 0.08

0.08 0.08

0.08 0.06

0.09 0.09

0.07 0.07

0.06 0.06

21

22

23

0.10 0.70 0.70

0.08 0.08

0.09 0.09

Total

Mean

0.10

2.21

0.096

0.08 0.08

1.84 1.76

0.074 0.071

24

25

0.09 0.04 0.04

G. Total

5.81

G. Mean

0.080

Table 10.1 ANOVA of table 10.0

Source of Variance Treatment Expt’l Error Total CV = 3.38%

Degree of Freedom 2 72 74

Sum of Squares 0.0092268 0.00052 0.009788

Mean of Squares 0.004634 0.0000073

Obs. F 634.79**

Tab. F 5% 1% 3.13 4.92

**- highly significant

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

Samples Treatments 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 T3

7.53 4.59

5.27 5.09

6.20 13.81

4.39 12.08

8.79 19.33

5.02 9.65

4.58 6.44

4.58 32.21

5.02 4.60

5.27 20.71

7.53 4.03

8.11 6.44

6.20 4.60

8.11 7.43

Table 11.0 (continued)

Treatments 15

16

17

18

19

20

T1

1.39

1.46

1.59

1.38

1.50

1.89

T2 T3

8.11 19.33

3.91 32.21

8.11 5.37

3.91 5.37

6.20 10.74

7.10 10.74

21

22 5.02 5.09

Mean

1.65

38.86

1.69

4.80 4.03

155.32 270.59

6.21 10.82

24

25

1.82 4.10 6.90

10.50 13.59

1.55 5.60 5.70

Total 23

G. Total

464.77

G. Mean

6.36

Table 11.1 ANOVA of table 11.0

Source of Variance Treatment Expt’l Error Total CV = 76.30%

Degree of Freedom 2 72 74

Sum of Squares 1000.329 1671.81 2672.14

Mean of Squares 500.17 23.55

Obs. F 21.24**

Tab. F 5% 1% 3.13 4.92

**- highly significant

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

Samples Treatments 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 T3

13.3 21.7

19.0 19.7

16.1 7.2

22.8 8.3

11.4 5.2

19.9 10.3

21.8 15.5

21.8 3.1

19.9 21.7

19.0 9.3

13.3 24.8

12.3 15.5

16.1 21.7

12.3 15.5

Table 12.0 (continued)

Treatments 15

16

17

18

19

20

T1

72.6

68.6

62.8

72.6

66.7

52.9

T2 T3

12.3 5.2

19.0 3.1

12.3 18.6

25.6 18.6

16.1 9.3

14.2 9.3

21

22

23

64.7 18.0 17.6

19.9 19.7

24.7 14.5

Total

Mean

60.8

1381.9

60.04

20.9 24.8

426.5 351.1

17.06 14.04

24

25

54.9 9.5 13.5

G. Total

2159.6

G. Mean

29.577

Table 12.1 ANOVA of table 12.0

Source of Variance Treatment Expt’l Error Total CV = 21.26%

Degree of Freedom 2 71 73

Sum of Squares 31713.747 2807.723 34521.347

Mean of Squares 15856.874 39.545

Obs. F 400.98**

Tab. F 5% 1% 3.13 4.92

**- highly significant

Table 13.0 Tinola recipe taste of chicken meat.

Samples Total

Mean

Descriptive Value

24 34 40 98

1.6 2.28 2.68

Fair Good Very good

Treatments T₁ T₂ T₃ Grand Total Grand Mean

1 1 2 3

2 1 2 2

3 1 1 3

4 2 2 2

5 1 2 3

6 2 2 3

7 1 2 3

8 2 3 2

9 2 2 2

10 2 3 3

11 2 2 2

12 2 3 3

13 1 3 3

14 2 2 3

15 2 3 2

2.18

Table 13.1 ANOVA of table 13.0 Source of Variance Treatment Expt’l Error Total CV = 45.60%

Degree of Freedom 2 12 14

Sum of Squares 8.7113 11.8667 20.578

Mean of Squares 4.356 0.9889

Obs. F 4.405*

Tab. F 5% 3.88

1% 6.98

* - significant

Table 14.0 Adobo recipe taste of chicken meat.

Samples Total

Mean

Descriptive Value

30 44 43 117

2.00 2.93 2.89

Good Very good Very good

Treatments T₁ T₂ T₃ Grand Total Grand Mean

1 2 3 3

2 2 3 3

3 2 3 3

4 2 3 2

5 2 3 3

6 2 3 3

7 2 3 3

8 2 2 3

9 2 3 3

10 2 3 3

11 2 3 2

12 2 3 3

13 2 3 3

14 2 3 3

15 2 3 2

2.60

Table 14.1 ANOVA of table 14.0 Source of Variance Treatment Expt’l Error Total CV = 18.10%

Degree of Freedom 2 72 74

Sum of Squares 8.133 2.667 10.8

Mean of Squares 4.067 0.222

Obs. F 183*

Tab. F 5% 3.13

1% 4.92

** - 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

825.00

825.00

825.00

B .Inputs 1.Day-old chicks at 33/head 2.Free and biologics a. commercial feeds b. half-cook rice c. half-cook corn d. pro-biotic

3978.00 3270.00 3747.00 184.00

C. Overhead Expenses 1. Power 2. Depreciation 3. Miscellaneous

167.00 147.00 200.00

167.00 147.00 200.00

167.00 147.00 200.00

D. Total Cost

5751.00

5493.00

5520.00

E. Gross Income 1. Sale of birds T1 – 58 kg @ P100/kg T2 – 45.85 kg @ P120/kg T3 – 42.85 kg @ P120/kg 2. Sale of manure

5800.00 5502.00 300.00

300.00

5142.00 300.00

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: Address: Date of Birth: Place of Birth: Sex: Civil Status: Family: Father: Mother: Sisters:

B. Education Background Elementary: Inclusive Years:

Lerry Bon Jovi C. Bayag Namuac, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan November 28, 1991 Namuac, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan Male Single Pantaleon U. Bayag Noemi C. Bayag Teffany G. Bayag Kerie Marie G. Bayag

Namuac – San Andres Elem. School June 2000 – 2005

Secondary: Inclusive Years:

Namuac Academy June 2005 – 2008

Tertiary:

Cagayan State University Centro-2, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan June 2008 – 2012 Bachelor of Science in Agriculture Major in Animal Science Certificate in Apiculture

Inclusive Years: Courses: