Thesis by Chapters

Broiler Feed Ration Formulation Using Peanut Hull, Fish Meal,
Kudzu, Corn, Rice Bran D1 and Molasses
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The growth of population is still rapidly increasing, as the result, the increasing demand for
goods and services. In agricultural sector, where our food is coming, they still looking for some
improvement on how to fasten the production in terms of animal and crop products to meet the
daily needs of human.
In animal production, poultry production is one of the top producers in terms of meat and
eggs. In such way, poultry farming are facing many challenges and problems that may affect the
production of poultry products and to the profit of poultry raisers. One of this is the unending
increase costs of commercial feed and other feed stuffs. One solution for this is the proper
utilization of the agricultural waste and by-products, unknown legumes and forages and other,
which have characteristics, potential as feed ingredients and feed additives. The use of locally
available and indigenous materials is not new in poultry production due to unstoppable research
for improvement and making solution and getting answer for increasing commercial feed costs.
Another problem is the proper feed formulation. Proper feed formulation could help the
production to become more efficient. Errors and difficulties during the feed making process can
lead to feeds reduced its quality, being presented to the birds. Some of the problems that can
occur during the making process are including; incorrect nutritional values within the feed
formulation matrix, inappropriate grinding- inadequately or excessively ground raw materials
will reduce its quality and durability. This could lead to a high percentage of fines in the finished
1
feed and increased segregation and feeds wastage and also inadequate mixing or incorrect raw
materials inclusion will result in nutrient imbalances in the finished feeds.
The purpose of every poultry raisers is to produce the best and quality chickens that
perform well in terms of better and higher weight gain, better conversion efficiency and better
meat quality to meet the unending increase of demand in poultry products. Those purpose must
be attain because quality chickens require shorter growing period, lesser feeds, lesser efforts and
lesser expenses, that result in bigger profit.
Peanut ( Arachis hypogea L.) is consists of an extra hull (or shell) (21-29%) surrounding
the nut (71-79%) (Van Doosselaere, 2013; Davis et al., 2016). The shelling of peanuts is often
the second operation (after cleaning) of peanut processing, as both the production of peanut oil
and the production of peanut snacks, peanut butter and other peanut-based foods require kernels
without hulls ( except the production of in-shell peanuts). And peanut hulls usually consists of
fragmented hulls with variable amounts ta whole or broken kernels (Hill, 2002).
Peanut hulls and skins are considered as waste products of the food industry generated in
large amounts. Peanut hulls are often burned, dumped or left to detoriate naturally, in peanut
producing countries (Singh et al., 1999). In the recent past environmental concerned have led to
an interest in using peanut shells for a variety of purposes; fuel, mulch, carrier for chemical and
fertilizers, bedding for livestock and poultry, pet litter, soil conditioners, etc. (Hill, 2002). That’s
why, peanut hulls are effectively used as roughage source at levels 20% of beef finishing diets,
for bedding in dairy cattle loafing sheds. Peanut hulls are economically priced because of their
quantity, their inherent high fiber content and low CP content and they should not be fed as
2
primary feedstuffs for beef cattle (Hill, 2002). It is also fed to poultry, rabbits and other livestock
animals.
Tropical kudzu (Pueraria phaseoloides) is a vigorous dense- growing vine cultivated
cover crop, green manure and fodder for livestock. It is a twining and climbing perennial legume.
Tropical kudzu forms swards of tangled branches that may reach (60-75 cm) in height (Heuze et
al., 2016).
Tropical kudzu is often used as nitrogen-fixing green manure or grown as a cover crop in
coffee, oil palm, citrus and rubber plantations. Tropical kudzu leaves and stems are rich in
protein (about 19%) and palatable to livestock and so are used widely as animal fodder. It may
also be used as a pasture crop (ECHOcommunity.org). According to Halim, 1997, the roots are
reported to be edible and its fibrous roots are used to make ropes. In addition, like most legume
forages it is rich in protein but due to its very high fiber content (crude fiber 26-40%) it is tends
to be detrimental for animal feeding.
Rice bran D1 is the finest by product of rice milling process. Rice bran contains various
antioxidants that have good effects in human and animal health. It is widely used as a major
component of livestock feeds and is a source of rice bran oil also used as food and medicine
ingredients (West Grains, 2013).
Fish meal is a by-product of fish production; it comes from fish trimmings,
offal’s, excess production that may not contribute in human consumption, small fishes and etc. It
can obtain by drying, cooking, and grinding.
3
Fish meal is recognized as valuable animal protein supplement and a source of
vitamins, minerals and unknown growth factors. Fish meals are added to the diet as high quality
supplements to obtain efficient diets, particularly for aquaculture and animal feed (Janatha Fish
Meal and Oil Products, 2017).
Maize (Zea mays L.) is a major staple food grain throughout the world,
particularly in Africa, Latin America and Asia and it is a major feed stuff in developed countries
(ECOcrop, 2010).
Maize or corn is very important as a livestock feed ingredient to chickens and other
poultry species. This is because maize is the major energy source in livestock feeds and it is very
high in energy. It is also the most common and readily available source of energy for livestock.
Maize contains protein, but very low and of poor quantity (Livestocking, 2018).
Molasses is a sticky dark by-product of processing sugar cane or sugar beets into
sugar. Molasses can be a source of quick energy and an excellent source of minerals for farm
animals and even humans. Molasses can also be a key ingredient for cost effective management
of feed and pastures (Daley, 2012).
Daley, 2012, said that, feeding molasses to farm animals will improve digestion of
pastures/hay; increase milk production, help maintain body condition and appetite and result is
less feed waste. In addition, molasses can reduce the dusty powdery nature of some finely
ground feeds. In this role, it makes a feed mixture more palatable and edible to livestock.
4
Molasses is typically used as a binder in dry poultry diets, but its use as energy source has
also been investigated (Gohl, 1982).
Objectives of the Study
Generally, the study aimed to evaluate the effect of the formulated feedstuffs using
Peanut hull, (Puraria phaseoloides) Kudzu, Fish meal, Rice bran D1, Corn and Molasses on the
performance of broiler. Specifically the study determined the;
1. Effect of the formulated feedstuffs using Peanut hull, (Pueraria phaseoloides) Kudzu,
Fish meal, Rice bran D1, Corn and Molasses on the performance of broiler, in terms of
gain in weight, water consumption, feed consumption, feed conversion ratio and meat
and carcass quality.
2. Economic feasibility of using Peanut hull, (Pueraria phaseoloides) Kudzu, Fish meal,
Rice bran D1, Corn and Molasses as feedstuffs for broiler by computing the Return on
Investment (ROI) and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR).
Significance of the Study
The study will be significant to the following:
1. Broiler chicken raiser: Help broiler raisers improve the growth quality of broilers
produced and help to reduce cost for commercial feeds and other feedstuffs as its cost is
unending increasing due to its high demand in the market.
5
2. Consumers: Help them to provide and serve a non-chemical product in their family that
secure about health problems.
3. Department of Agriculture: Serve a basis for possible technology trials and transfer to
help the raisers in improving the growth and production of their broiler.
4. Researchers: Future researchers can use the results as basis for further researches to
improve the performance of broiler and the quality of the meat.
5. Environment: Help to reduce agricultural waste, from utilizing properly those materials
that is possible as feedstuffs ingredients or drink supplement.
Scope and Delimination of the Study
The study was delimited to determine the effectiveness of Peanut hull, (Puraria
phaseoloides) Kudzu, Fish meal, Rice bran D1, Corn and Molasses as feedstuffs for broiler on
growth and development, meat and carcass quality and improvement of their weight by the
different treatments.
6
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
Feed formulation is the process of quantifying the amounts of feed ingredients that need
to be combined to form a single uniform mixture (diet) for poultry supplies all of their nutrient
requirements. Since feed accounts for 65-75% of total live production costs for most types of
poultry throughout the world, a simple mistake in diet formulation can be extremely expensive
for a poultry producer (Poultry Hub, 2018).
A complete diet meets the needs of an animal for nutrients and energy for maintenance,
growth and reproduction, and this must be kept in mind when feeds are being formulated for the
relate to the bioavailability of a feed may depend not only on its chemical composition but also
on the sensitivity of the animal towards its components. Even when readily accepted,
nutritionally balanced feeds have been formulated, their physical qualities may have important
influences upon stability and nutrient bioavailability according to Houlihan D, Boujarf T, Jobling
M (2001).
RELATED LITERATURE
Poultry farming means ‘raising various types of domestic birds commercially for the
purpose of meat, eggs and feather production’. The most common and widely raised poultry
birds are chicken. About 5k million chickens are being raised every year as a source of food
(both meat and eggs of chicken). The chickens which are raised for eggs are called layer chicken,
7
and the chickens which are raised for their meat production are called broiler chickens (Poultry
Farming, 2018).
As of July 01, 2017, the total chicken inventory in the country was estimated at 181.05
million birds. This went up by 3.73 percent compared with the previous year’s total inventory.
The inventory of layer and native/improved chickens recorded respective increases of 9.80
percent. Meanwhile, broiler chicken inventory declined by 1.24 percent compared with the
previous year’s stocks (PSA, 2017). In broiler production, reducing feed costs can lead to
improved production efficiency and profitability, that’s why many researchers focused their
attention on how to reduce feed cost. The use of locally or indigenous materials as feed added to
commercial feeds for broiler ration may be one solution to lower feed cost.
Peanut Hull
Peanut shell remains an agricultural waste problem in peanut producing countries.
According to Chids and Abajian (1976), dried ground peanut hulls were found to contain 34.56
lignin, 39.42% cellulose, 73.98% acid detergent fiber and 86.16% neutral detergent fiber. The
hulls bound 2-3g HOH/g sample, exchanged 1.55 meq cations/g sample and bounds 2.28 + 0.87
uM sodium taurocholate/ 100 mg sample.
In addition, the National Peanut Board (2011), breaks down peanut shell content as
follows: 60% crude fiber, 25% cellulose, 8% water/moisture, 6% crude protein, 2% ash and 1%
fat. They said that, the composition differs based on peanut varieties and manufacturing
environments. Other than dietary fiber, peanut shells offer virtually no nutritional value.
8
Tropical kudzu
According to Heuze, Tran, Hassoun, Bastianelli and Lebas (2017), tropical kudzu, like
most legume forages, is rich in protein (about 20% DM, ranging from 13 to 25%). However, its
fiber content is very high (crude fiber 26 to 40%), which tends to be detrimental for animal
feeding.
In addition, according to Dirven (1965) tropical kudzu contained on average crude
protein 18.3, fiber 37.9, ash 6.6, K 2.09, Na 0.02, Ca 0.72, Mg 0.36, P 0.24, Cl 0.33 and S 0.20%
of dry matter. The protein level is sufficient to permit the daily yield of 10 kg milk, 4% fat, from
a 400 kg cow, but the high fiber content would prevent high yields. K and Ca were high and Na,
Cl and S were low compared with levels in indigenous grasses on the same soil. The mineral
composition was considered favorable.
Fish Meal
According to Jacob (2015), fish meal is an excellent source of protein for poultry. It has
high levels of essential amino acids such as methionine and lysine and it also has a good balance
of unsaturated fatty acids, certain minerals (available phosphorus), and vitamins (A, D, and B-
complex). The use of fish meal is usually restricted to 5% to 10% of the content of poultry diets.
In addition, according to Sauvant et al., (2004), fish meal has a high crude protein content
ranging from 62% to more than 70% while Medale et al., (2009) added that fish meal also have a
high amino acid quality.
The article (Fishmeal in Animal Feed), stated that, the fat will generally improve the
balance of fatty acids in the feed to restore the ratio of omega-6: omega3: forms towards 5:1,
9
which is believed to be optimum; in the fat in many diets currently this ratio is considerably
higher. With the optimum ratio and omega-3 fatty acids provided ass DHA and EPA, general
health of the animal is improved, especially where there is to be less dependence on routine
medication. A dietary source of DHA and EPA results in their deposition in animal products.
This in turn will help to balance omega-6: omega-3 ratios in the human diets and provide pre-
formed DHA and EPA required for infant development and for prevention of numerous disorders
of the circulatory system, the immune system and to reduce inflammatory conditions. In
addition, fish meal is a concentrated energy source. With 70% to 80% of the product in the form
of digestible protein and fat its energy content is higher than of many other proteins.
Rice Bran D1
According to Jacob (2013), rice bran is rich in protein and fat. It contains high levels of
the B-vitamins, vitamin E, and some trace minerals.
Batal and Dale (2010) give the nutrient content of rice bran which include crude protein
(13.5%), Methionine (0.17%), Cysteine ( 0.10%), Lysine (0.50%), Trytophan (0.10%), and
Threonine (0.40%), crude fat at (5.9%), crude fiber (13%), while ash content is at (11%),
Calcium at (0.10%), total phosphorus is at (1.70%) and non-phytate phosphorus is (0.24%).
Corn
According to Jacob (2015), corn is the easiest grain for chickens to digest and is low in
fiber. Yellow dent corn is the variety typically used in feed. Nutrient content of ground corn
varies from variety to variety, location to location, and year to year, but recent averages suggest
that corn has about 1520 kcal/lb. (3350 kcal/kg.) of energy for poultry. It has also, on average
10
7.5% crude protein. Corn protein is low in methionine. In addition, much of the phosphorus corn
grain is bound to phytate and is not readily available to birds. Birds do not produce sufficient
phytase, which is the enzyme required to break down phytate and release the bound phosphorus.
Phosphorus availability can be increased by the addition of the enzyme phytase to feed. Another
option is to feed poultry low-phytate corn varieties (also-referred to as high available phosphorus
or HAP corn), which will reduce the need for supplemental phosphorus in poultry diets.
Yellow maize has higher vitamin A content than white maize. Vitamin A deficiency is of
little importance in ruminants but it may have deleterious effects in pigs and poultry if not
adequately supplemented with source of Vitamin A. Yellow maize is best for monogastric
animals said; Piccioni (1965).
Molasses
Molasses usually fed to animals is a liquid viscous product containing 70-75% DM. From
a nutritional point of view, it is primarily source of energy, due to its high sugar content (60-70%
DM), also the proportion of the non-sugar fraction increases from A to C molasses according to
Perez (1995). Leclerc (2003) stated; that in cane molasses, only 2/3 of the sugar content consists
of sucrose, unlike beet molasses where the sugar is mostly sucrose. Perez (1997); Le Dividich et
al (1978) added that molasses is free of fat and fiber with low nitrogen content and the crude
protein equivalent is about 6% , half of which is non-protein N.
In addition, Blair (2007), sugarcane molasses is a rich source of minerals. The calcium
content is quite high (about 0.9% DM) due to the addition of calcium hydroxide during
processing. Cane molasses is also high in sodium, potassium and magnesium and contains
11
significant quantities of copper, zinc, iron and manganese. However, its poor in phosphorus (less
than 0.1% DM) and supplementation may be required. Molasses can be a good source of
vitamins such as pantothenic acid, choline and niacin.
Leclerc (2003); Ly (1989) added, that the non-sugar fraction also contains soluble gums,
organic acids (citric, malic) and unidentified compounds originating from different chemicals
(electrolytes, formaldehyde, sulphur dioxide, hypochlorite, sodium bisulphite and also tension-
active compounds) added during the process of sugar extraction.
RELATED STUDIES
Peanut Hull
Peanut hulls have been successfully used by broiler growers in some parts of the country
in United States, where peanuts are grown, according to Jacob (2015).
According to Hill, (2002) in the article (Peanut by products fed to cattle), peanut hulls are
effectively used as a roughage source at levels up to 20% of beef finishing diets, for bedding in
dairy cattle loafing sheds and in variety of manufactured products. Peanut hulls are economically
priced because of their quantity, their inherent high fiber, and low CP content, and they should
not be fed as primary feedstuffs for beef cattle.
Crandell K, Ph.D. a senior nutritionist at Kentucky Equine Research (2015) stated that
the results investigated by many researchers about peanut hull as an ingredient in horse feeds
have proven disappointing. Nutritional analysis conducted by Nutrient Requirements of Horses
and published by the National Research Council (2015), peanut hull reveals low levels of
12
protein, fat and minerals and virtually no vitamins whatsoever. Peanut hulls are rich in fiber, a
dietary component that all horses require. Fiber is mostly indigestible to horses. Average
statistics from multiple samples showed neutral detergent fiber (NDF) as 69% and acid detergent
fiber (ADF) as 60%. And among equine nutritionists and some feed manufacturers, peanut hulls
are considered filler and it does not appropriate to horses because of almost entirely empty of
useful nutrients. In addition, Crandell said, that peanut hulls are contaminated with aflatoxins,
which are poisonous to horses.
According to Lien et al. (1998), peanut hulls do not have any nutritive value for poultry.
They can only be used as bedding material, as an alternative to wood shavings. In addition,
ICRISAT (2016) said that, for poultry and livestock, aflatoxins can cause loss of appetite, loss of
weight, reduced egg production, and contamination of milk.
Tropical Kudzu (Pueraria phaseoloides)
According to Nworgu et al. (2013), tropical kudzu leaves are rich in fiber and hence not
particularly adapted to poultry feeding. When tropical kudzu leaf meal was in added to broiler
diets, growth performance decreased significantly and feed conversion was degraded. Also
depressive effect was higher in young animals and with increasingly levels of kudzu. In addition,
according to Zambrano et al. (2015), in slow growing chickens, feed intake and growth
performance were depressed when 5 to 10% tropical kudzu leaf meal was included. Etela et al.
(2007) stated that when tropical kudzu was fed as green forage in supplement of a complete diet,
tropical kudzu had a slight negative effect on growth and feed efficiency.
13
In rabbit, feeding fresh Pueraria phaseoloides forage can be used without restriction as a
source of fiber and protein. However, topical kudzu protein cover only ~65% and ~75% of the
requirement for sulfur-containing amino acids and lysine respectively, and only 80% and 50%
of calcium and phosphorus requirements according to Lebas et al. (2013). The precise nutritive
value of tropical kudzu hay has not been established yet, but this dry forage could certainly be
used as a good source of fiber.
Fish Meal
Considerable data have been accumulated concerning the value of fish meal as an
ingredient for broiler diets.
According to Blair and Chadd (2008), fish meal is an interesting concentrated protein
source for poultry, particularly in situations where land animal-by-products have been banned in
poultry feeds. Fish meal has a higher biological value in poultry, not only as a protein source but
also as source of minerals, such as P and Ca, and trace elements such Se or I. However, the high
prices of fish meal limit the inclusion levels and those remain around or below 5%. Blair (2008)
added that including fish meal in broiler diets increases body weight and feed intake. Fish meal
has greater impact on growing broilers than on starters. It is highly valuable to young turkeys. In
laying hens and broilers, inclusion of fish meal may cause a fishy taste in eggs and meats.
Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding stuffs (ACAF) (2001) stated that, it is argued
that ruminant animals are herbivores and do not naturally consume animal or fish material.
Nevertheless, prior to the introduction of the temporary EU-wide ban, there was some usage of
fish meal in ruminant diets. For dairy cows, it is a good source of undegradable protein with a
14
good balance of amino acids for milk production which is required for higher yields. In addition,
for sheep, research shown that the inclusion of fish meal can result in heavier lambs at birth,
therefore its use has welfare benefits to ewes and lambs.
Rice Bran D1
According to Widyobroto, (1989), the variability of rice bran, and in particular its fiber
content, has a very high effect on its nutritional value for poultry. In addition, rice ran has a high
lysine and methionine contents according to Tsvetanov et al. (1990), it has also a good Mn
availability at 65% said, Fialho et al. (1993); Halpine et al. (1986).
Rice bran is prone to rancidity, has a high phytate content, contains an enzyme inhibitor
(trypsin inhibitor), and is high in fiber, and these characteristics of rice bran have limited in
poultry diets according to Gallinger et al. (2004). A maximum of 10-20% is recommended in
broiler diets, depending on the geographical origin of the rice and the level of supplemental
enzymes used, stated by; Martin and Farrell, (1998).
Gallinger et al. (2004) reported that inclusion of 20% rice bran in broiler diets resulted in
reduced growth performance. In addition, adding just 10% rice bran reduced feed efficiency and
tibia ash content. Others have recommended like Martin and Farrell, (1998) that rice bran not be
include in diets of broilers less than 21 days of age.
Higher levels are possible with ducklings and laying hens said; Farrell, (1994). While
60% rice bran has been successfully used in layer diets, an upper limit of 45% is more widely
accepted, and the use of feed enzymes has had only limited success, although phytate has been
shown to increase phosphorus availability, added; Farrell, (1994). In addition, when including
15
high levels of rice bran in duckling diets, the inclusion of 5% fish meal has been shown to
increase growth performance according to Martin et al., (1998).
Corn
Daghir (2008) stated that in poultry, maize is appreciated for its highly digestible starch,
low fiber and relatively high oil content, resulting in high metabolizable energy values. It is fed
at high levels in broilers and laying hens. In addition, white and yellow maize have equivalent
energy, protein and mineral values. Yellow maize is beneficial to yolk pigmentation because it
contains more carotene and cryptoxanthin.
Molasses
According to Preston (1986), it is important to distinguish between low and high level
usage of all types of molasses. At low levels (<20 percent of the diet dry matter), the effect of the
soluble carbohydrates in the molasses tends to be complementary rather than competitive and
there appears to be little or no depression in the degree to which the basal feed resource is
fermented. Beyond a concentration of 20% in the rumen microorganisms, with the result that the
basal diet is used less and less efficiently according to the amount of molasses that is fed.
Daley (2012) said; that molasses can be source of quick energy and an excellent source
of minerals for farm animals and even humans. Molasses can also be a key ingredient for cost
effective management of feeds and pastures. The calcium content of sugar cane molasses is high
(up to one percent), whereas phosphorus content is low. It is also high in sodium, potassium,
magnesium, and sulphur. In addition, supplementing poor quality hay molasses will increase fed
intake and improve palatability. Microbes in the rumen break down the sugars in molasses
16
rapidly, which extensively causes rapid release of energy that makes molasses very useful for
balancing other feeds in the dairy diet. In addition, feeding molasses to farm animals will
improve digestion of pastures/hay; increase milk production, help maintain body condition and
appetite and result in feed waste.
According to Gohl (1982), molasses is typically used as a binder in dry poultry diets, but
its use as an energy source has also been investigated. Poultry, particularly geese and ducks, can
be fattened on liquid diets containing up to 60% DM of molasses.
Early research showed that sugarcane molasses could be used up to more than 30% in
broiler diets. However, high levels of molasses tend to cause sticky droppings and caked litter
according to Roseberg (1995). In addition, molasses is suggested at a high level for laying hens,
said Soldevila et al. (1976), while Sharma et al. (1973) said that, feeding molasses to laying hens
will decreased the feed efficiency at 30%.
17
Chapter 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Facilities and Equipment
The following poultry facilities and essential equipment were used during the study:
Broiler chicken house Dustpan Record Book
90 broiler chicken (day old) Pail Ballpen
50 watts incandescent bulb Beaker (1 liter) Calculator
Improvised feeding troughs (9) Graduated cylinder (50 ml) Stick Broom
Waterers (9) Peanut hull Molasses
Commercial feeds (broiler ration) (P. phaseoloides) Kudzu
Weighing scale (10 kg) and (1 kg) Fish meal
Old newspaper Ground yellow corn
Palm oil Rice bran D1
METHODS
Experimental Design and Treatment
The study was laid to Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) during the study.
The birds were randomly distributed into three treatments, replicated three times with ten birds in
each replication. The different treatments were as follows:
18
Treatment 1: farmer’s practice (control)
Treatment 2: 50% commercial feeds and 50% of Peanut hull, Kudzu, Fish meal, Corn, Molasses,
and Rice bran D1
Treatment 3: 100% Peanut hull, Kudzu, Fish meal, Corn, Molasses, and Rice bran D1
Experimental Animals
A total of ninety (90) heads of 14 days-old broiler chicks, regardless of sex, were used in
the study. There were three (3) treatments and replicated three times with ten (10) birds each
replication.
Time and Place of the Study
This study was conducted its first trial from December 29, 2017 to February 02, 2018 and
from February 10, 2018 to March 17, 2018 conducted its second trial respectfully at Sitio Bacod,
Barangay Zaragoza, Bolinao, Pangasinan.
PREPARATION OF FEED INGREDIENTS
Preparation of Peanut Hull and (P. phaseoloides) Kudzu
Peanut Hull and (Pueraria phaseoloides) kudzu were collected. The collected peanut hull
and kudzu were washed thoroughly to remove dirt such as sands and other matters that could
affect the quality of the feeds. After washing, the peanut hull and kudzu were being dry through
air to prevent volatilization of nitrogen and other nutrients present from the plant (the said
materials were being weighed every other day and if the weight were constant for three
19
consecutive weighing, it is already dried). After drying, peanut hull and kudzu were being passed
to DA Sual Satellite Station for grinding.
Preparation of Fish Meal
Tilapia, other small fishes and waste or by-products of different fish were been collected
and then washed. Then, all the collected and gathered cleaned raw products were dried. After
drying, fish by-products & waste, tilapia and other small fishes were cooked by frying without
using any kind of oil. Then after cooking, it will be passed also to DA Sual Satellite Station for
grinding.
Other Feed Ingredients
The remaining feed ingredients- molasses, ground yellow corn and rice bran d1 were
purchased from a reliable dealer to ensure the quality and reliability of materials.
PREPARATION OF FEED STUFF
Prepare all the needed ingredients, the feed stuff ingredients and other materials. Ground
peanut hull, ground kudzu, fish meal, ground yellow corn, rice bran d1, molasses and palm oil.
Weighing scale and mat is also needed. If all needed ingredients and materials are already
prepared, prepare the mat for mixing all the things needed. Weigh every ingredients based from
the computed feed formulation. Every ingredient that is solid will be place on the mat one by one
and mixed thoroughly then pour 1 liter of palm oil and the weighed molasses which is 5 liters.
After pouring palm oil and molasses, it will be mixed again thoroughly. And finally, after mixing
it well, it will be packed in sacks and ready to be fed to the broiler chickens. The feedstuff
20
(starter and finisher) were also being passed to Institute of Animal Science (Animal Nutrition
Division- Animal Nutrition Analytical Service Laboratory) University of the Philippines Los
Baños -College of Agriculture for proximate analysis to analyze and determined the (%) crude
protein, (%) moisture content, (%) ash, (%) crude fiber and (%) crude fat.
CARE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE EXPERIMENTAL BIRDS
Preparation of Brooder and Experimental House. Prior to the start of the study, the
brooder and experimental house and all other facilities and equipment’s needed in the conduct
of the study were thoroughly cleaned and disinfected to eliminate the disease-causing organisms.
Electric bulbs were installed at center of the each brooder and turned on during day and night to
keep them warm and provide the sufficient heat requirements of chicks and encourage eating.
Procurements of Stocks. The experimental broiler chicks were purchased from a
reputable dealer to ensure the health and vigor of the birds. The chicks were inspected for any
deformities and health problems such as lameness, crooked legs and beaks, pasty vents and
unhealed navels. Feeds and other necessary materials were also purchased to a reputable and
reliable dealer to ensure the reliability of the materials.
Care and Management of the Experimental Birds during Brooding Period. Upon the
arrival, the broiler chicks were placed in the brooding cages with old newspapers as beddings to
avoid damage to the feet and legs of the chicks and as insulator. Drinking troughs containing
fresh water mixed with sugar was immediately placed in the brooder to relieve the chicks from
stress due to transport. The chick booster feed were scattered on the newspaper beddings for the
21
chicks could easily pick-up it. On the following days, floor feeding was gradually reduced.
Water supply fortified with drink supplement was provided during the entire brooding period for
the broiler chicks. Wet newspaper bedding are removed and replaced with new ones to prevent
the chicks from getting wet and soiled which might cause pulmonary infection. Chick booster
feeds was given alone, as adjustment period throughout the brooding period and ad libitum
feeding was employed. The chicks in fourteenth day of life were randomly selected, a total of 90
broiler chicks-up from the original 110 chicks and distributed into three dietary treatments. And
the weight obtained was recorded as the initial weight of the chicks.
Drink Management. The birds were provided with clean water every day. Vetracin was
mixed with water and administered every 2 weeks to protect the birds from pest and diseases.
Rearing Management. From the original one hundred ten (110) heads of chicks, ninety
(90) heads of chicks were randomly picked and were used in this study. Ninety (90) heads of
chicks were distributed into three (3) treatments, replicated three (3) times consisting of ten (10)
birds per replication with a floor space of
Feeding Management. After 14 days of brooding, the birds in T1 were assigned as
control (farmer’s practice), while the birds in T2 were given 50 % of the feedstuff made and 50%
of commercial feeds, T3 were given 100% of the feedstuff made. Gradual change of feeds was
applied.
Other Management Practices. Cleaning inside and outside of the experimental house
was done every day to avoid the occurrence of pest and diseases. Carbonized rice hull were
22
placed in the chicken dung everyday to reduce the multiplication and breeding of house fly and
other organisms that might bring pest and diseases. Drinking jars were cleaned and washed every
day. Proper sanitation and waste disposal was imposed in the whole study.
DATA GATHERED
The data gathered were the mean initial weight, mean final weight, mean gain in weight,
water consumption, mean feed consumption, mean feed conversion ratio, meat and carcass
quality, total cost of production, net income, return of investment and benefit cost ratio.
Data gathered were derived using the following formula:
Mean Initial Weight. This was obtained by weighing the experimental animals at the
start of feeding period, by adding the total number of kilogram or gram using the weighing scale,
divided by the number of birds per treatment.
Total weight of the birds/treatments
MIW=
Total no. of birds/treatments
Mean Final Weight. This was obtained by weighing the experimental birds at the end of
the feeding period, by adding the total number of kilogram using the weighing scale, divided by
the total number of birds per treatments.
Total weight of the birds/treatments
MFW=
23
Mean Gain in Weight. This was obtained by deducting the mean initial weight from the
mean final weight.
MGW= Mean Final Weight - Mean Initial Weight
Water Consumption. This was measured by adding all the water consumed during the
entire experiment and subtracting the left over.
Total water given – Total left over
WC=
Mean Feed Consumption. This was obtained by adding the total feed consumed from
the start up to the end of the study and deducting from it the left over feeds.
Total feed consumed – Total left over
MFC=
Mean Feed Conversion Ratio. This was obtained by dividing the total feed consumption
by the total gain in weight.
Mean Feed Consumption
MFCR=
Mean Gain in Weight
Meat and Carcass Quality. This was obtained at the end of the study by dressing one
bird per treatment. Percentage fat per body weight, fat color, and meat color were determined.
24
Total Cost of Production. This was obtained by adding the all expenses incurred during
the conduct of the study per treatment.
Net Income. This was obtained by deducting the gross income from the total cost of
production.
Net Income= Gross Income – Total Cost of Production
Return of Investment. This was computed by the percentage of the income from the
total operating investment multiplied by 100.
Net Income
ROI= X 100
Total Cost of Production
Benefit Cost Ratio. This was computed by the percentage of the net income from the
variable cost multiplied by 100.
Net Income
BCR = X 100
Variable Cost
Statistical Tools and Analysis.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in RCBD was used to determine the differences among
treatment means.
25
Chapter 4
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Table 1.
Summary of the Comparison of Mean Initial Weight, Week 1 Mean Weight, Week 2 Mean
Weight, Mean Final Weight, Mean Gain 1, Mean Gain 2, Mean Gain 3, Mean Gain in Weight,
under Trial Regardless of the Different Treatments
Trial Mean Week Week 2 Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

Initial 1 Mean Mean Final Gain Gain Gain 3 Total
Weight Weight Weight Weight 1 2 Gain
1 387.56 649.98 1310.56 1725.00 262.42 660.58 414.44 1337.44
2 501.67 856.11 1220.67 1481.67 354.44 364.56 261.00 980.00
Grand 444.62 753.05 1265.62 1603.34 308.43 512.57 337.72 1158.72

mean
F- comp. 159.11 175.74 9.60 44.40 78.13 236.70 67.53 110.40
p-value .000 .000 .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
CV 1.02 1.03 1.15 1.14 1.69 1.88 2.76 1.47
F-tab(1, 2) = 18.5128 at alpha 0.05
Mean Initial Weight (kg)
Table 1 shows the comparison of the initial weight of the birds between two trials before
distributing them in their respective experimental and dietary cages. As presented in Table 1,
birds under Trial 2 registered the highest initial weight and performed well compared with Trial
1, with a mean of 501.67 kg, and Trial 1 registered the lowest initial weight with a mean of
26
387.56 kg. The difference of trial 2 to trial 1 is at 114.11 kg. This means that regardless to the
hotter environmental condition Trial 1 performed well in terms of initial weight compared with
Trial 2 conducted in cooler environmental condition that performed less efficient in terms of
initial weight. Environmental condition is only one of the problems that may affect the
performance of the birds.
Statistical analysis revealed that the comparison of the two trials in terms of mean initial
weights of the broilers were significantly different. This was shown by the computed p-value of .
000, lower than 0.05 the set level of significance using analysis of variance. This means that the
birds is not comparable to each other in terms on initial weights and are homogenous condition
for the experiment.
Week 1 Weight (kg)
Result in Table 1 shows that the week 1 weight of the experimental birds between two
trials, under trial 2 registered the highest week 1 weight with a mean of 856.11 kg, compared
with Trial 1 registered only a mean of 649.98 kg.
Statistical revealed that the comparison of two trials in terms of week 1 weight of the
broilers were significantly different. This was shown by the computed p-value of .000, lower
than 0.05 the set level of significance using analysis of variance. This means that the birds is not
comparable to each other in terms on week 1 weights and are homogenous condition for the
experiment.
27
Week 2 Weight (kg)
Table 1 show that the week 2 weights of the experimental birds between two trials, under
Trial 1 got the highest week 2 weights with a mean of 1310.56 kg, while Trial 2 got only 1220.67
kg which registered the lowest.
Statistical analysis revealed that the comparison of two trials in terms of week 2 weight
of the broilers were significantly different. This was shown by the computed p-value of .002,
lower than 0.05 the set level of significance using analysis of variance. This means that the birds
are not comparable to each other in terms on week 2 weights under the comparison of the trials.
Mean Final Weight (kg)
Result in Table 1 shows that the mean final weight of the experimental birds of the
comparison between two trials, Trial 1 administered the highest mean final weight and
performed better with a mean of 1725.00 kg, while Trial 2 were administering only a mean of
1481.67 kg and having a 243.33 kg difference into Trial 1. This means that environmental
condition would may affect the birds in terms of Final weight, Trial 1 conducted in a colder
environmental condition performed better in terms of Final weight compare to Trial 2 conducted
in hotter environmental condition, wherein environmental condition is only factor that could
affect the growth performance of the birds.
Analysis of Variance reveals that there were significant differences in the final weight of
the birds this was shown by the computed p-value of .000, lower than 0.05 the set level of
28
significance. This means that the birds are not comparable to each other in terms on week 2
weights under the comparison of the trials.
Gain 1
Table 1 show that the Gain 1 of the experimental birds of the comparison between two
trials, in terms of Gain 1, Trial 2 registered the highest mean in gain 1 with a mean of 354.44 kg
and performed well compared with Trial 1 registering only a main of 262.42 kg.
Statistical analysis revealed that the comparison of two trials in terms of Gain 1 of the
than 0.05 the set level of significance using analysis of variance. This means that the birds are
not comparable to each other in terms on Gain 1 under the comparison of the trials.
Gain 2
Result in Table 1 show that in terms of Gain 2 under the comparison of the Two Trials,
Trial 1 performed better with a mean of 660.58 kg while Trial 2 registering only a mean of
364.56 kg lower than the mean of Gain 2 of Trial 1.
Analysis of Variance reveals that there were significant differences in the Gain 2 of the
birds, this was shown by the computed p-value of 0.000, lower than 0.05 the set level of
significance. This means that the birds are not comparable to each other in terms on Gain 2 under
the comparison of the trials.
29
Gain 3
Table 1 shows that in terms of Gain 3 under the comparison of the Two Trials. Trial 1
registered the highest mean in terms of Gain 3 with a mean of 414.44 kg and Trial 2 registered
the lowest mean in terms of Gain 3 having a mean of 261.00 kg. This means that in terms of
Gain 3, Trial 1 performed better compared with Trial 2.
Statistical analysis revealed that the comparison of two trials in terms of Gain 3 of the
than 0.05 the set level of significance using analysis of variance. This means that the birds are
not comparable to each other in terms on Gain 3 under the comparison of the Two Trials.
Mean Total Gain
Result in Table 1 shows that the mean total gain of the experimental birds of the
comparison between two trials, Trial 1 administered the highest mean total gain and performed
better with a mean of 1337.44 kg, while Trial 2 were administering only a mean of 980.00 kg
and having a 357.44 kg difference into Trial 1. This means that in terms of total gain,
environmental condition could may affect the birds, Trial 1 conducted in a colder environmental
condition performed better in terms of Total gain compare to Trial 2 conducted in hotter
environmental condition. Environmental condition is only one factor that could affect to the
performance of the broiler.
Analysis of Variance reveals that there were significant differences in the total gain of the
birds this was shown by the computed p-value of 0.000, lower than 0.05 the set level of
30
significance. This means that the birds are not comparable to each other in terms on total gain
under the comparison of the trials.
31
Table 2.
Summary of the Comparison of Mean Feed Intake, Feed Conversion Efficiency and Mean Liquid
Consumption under Trial Regardless of the Different Treatments
Mean Liquid
Trial FCE Mean Feed Intake
Intake
1 73077.22 35802.00 2.770
2 69650.89 34863.67 4.028
Grand mean 71364.06 35332.84 3.40
F- comp. 1.55 0.46 16.80
p-value .249 .003 .516
CV 1.93 1.95 4.50
F-tab(1, 2) = 18.5128 at alpha 0.05
Mean Liquid Intake
Table 2 shows that in terms of Mean Liquid Intake under the comparison of the Two
Trials with different environmental condition. Trial 1 registered the highest mean in terms of
Liquid Intake with a mean of 73,077.22 ml and Trial 2 registered the lowest mean, having a
mean of 69,650.89 ml. This means that in terms of Liquid Intake, Trial 1 consumed more water
regardless to a cooler environmental condition while Trial 2 slightly consumed lesser water
compared to trial 1 conducted in hotter environmental condition. Different acclimation of
environmental temperatures may affect and responsible for the different water intake.
32
Analysis of Variance reveals that there were no significant differences in the mean liquid
intake of the birds this was shown by the computed p-value of .249, higher than 0.05 the set level
of significance. This means that the birds are comparable to each other in terms on liquid intake
FCE
The mean FCE of the birds was observed that trial 1 have higher mean with 35,802.00 kg
than trial 2 with a mean of 34863.67 kg. This means that trial 1 performed better in terms of feed
conversion efficiency rather than trial 2.
Analysis of Variance reveals that there were significant differences in the final weight of
the birds this was shown by the computed p-value of .003, lower than 0.05 the set level of
significance. This means that the birds are not comparable to each other in terms on feed
conversion efficiency under the comparison of the trials.
Mean Feed Intake
Table 2 shows that in terms of Mean Feed Intake under the comparison of the Two Trials
conducted into different environmental condition. Trial 2 registered the highest mean in terms of
Feed Intake with a mean of 4.028 kg and Trial 2 registered the lowest mean, having a mean of
2.770 kg. This means that in terms of Feed Intake, Trial 2 consumed more feeds regardless to a
hotter environmental condition while Trial 1 consumed lesser feeds compared to trial 2
conducted in cooler environmental conditions. Different acclimation of environmental
temperatures may affect and responsible for the different feed intake of the broiler and this is
only factor that affect the growth performance of the broiler.
33
Analysis of Variance reveals that there were no significant differences in the mean feed
intake of the birds this was shown by the computed p-value of .516, higher than 0.05 the set level
of significance. This means that the birds are comparable to each other in terms on feed intake
34
Table 3.
Summary of the Comparison of Mean Initial Weight, Week 1 Mean Weight, Week 2 Mean
Weight, Mean Final Weight, Mean Gain 1, Mean Gain 2, Mean Gain 3, Mean Gain in Weight,
under Treatment Regardless of the Different Trials
Treatme Mean Week Week Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

nt Initial 1 Mean 2 Final Gain 1 Gain 2 Gain 3 Total
Weigh Weight Mean Weight Gain
t Weight
1 449.58 868.75a 1504.17 1882.50a 378.33 1432.92a
419.17a 635.42a
a
2 449.1 795.38b 1313.33 1656.67 346.22 517.95b 343.3 1207.50

b
7 b
b
3 b
3 435.0 595.00 979.33 1270.83 159.92 384.33 291.5

c c c c c 835.75c
8 0
F- comp. 1.11 110.73 111.77 95.65 219.87 56.84 7.30 104.77
p-value 0.332 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000
CV 1.017 1.03 1.15 1.14 1.69 1.88 2.76 1.47
F-tab(1, 2) = 18.5128 at alpha 0.05
Mean Initial Weight
Table 4 presented the results of the comparison among the different treatments regardless
of the two trials in terms of mean initial weight. It was observed, the mean initial weight per
treatment are mostly comparable from each other With a mean of 449.58g Treatment 1 have the
highest mean initial weight, followed by the Treatment 2 with a mean of 449.17g, and having
the least mean initial weight is Treatment 3 having a mean of 435.08g.
35
Statistically analyzed that there were no significant differences among the three
treatments as it is shown by the computed p-value of the mean initial weight of 0.332 is higher
than 0.05, the set level of significance using the analysis of variance. This proved that all
treatments regardless of the different trials are comparable to each other.
Week 1 Mean Weight
The Table 4 posted that the T1 got the highest week 1 mean weight 868.75 g and the T3
is the lowest mean of 595.00 g, and 795.38 g of the week 1 mean weight of the T2. They are not
comparable from each other.
Statistical analysis revealed that there are significant differences among all the treatments
regardless of the two trials in terms of Week 1 Mean Initial Weight. The results from the Table 4
shows, that T1 is statistically higher than T2. Treatment 2 is statistically lower than T1 but higher
than T3 in week 1 mean weight. And statistically lowest is Treatment 3 among all treatments of
the mean weight in week 1. It is also shown by the computed p-value of 0.000 is lower than
0.005 set level of significance by using the analysis of variance.
Week 2 Mean Weight
Presented in the Table 4, the result shows that Treatments 1 is the highest with the mean
of 1504.17 g in terms of week 2 mean weight, then followed by the T2 of 1313.33 g and the least
mean of the week 2 weight is T3 of 979.33 g.
36
Statistically analysis revealed that there are significant differences among the three
treatments. A mean 1882.50 g of the T1 from the week 2 mean weight is statistically highest
among all the 3 treatments. Treatment 2 is statistically lower than T1 but higher than the
Treatment 3 in terms of the mean weight of the second week. And T3 is statistically the least
mean weight of the week 2. It is also posted by being the p-value of 0.000 as lower than 0.005
set level of significance by using the analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Mean Final Weight
The first treatment with the mean of 1882.50 g is the highest mean final weight, and the
least is the third treatment with the mean of 1270.83 g and the second treatment with the mean of
1656.67 g. This result shows that they are not comparable from each other. And also, this means
that the treatment treated with farmer’s practice is performed better compared with the two the
other treatments, while the treatment treated with a 50% farmer’s practice and 50% feed
formulated is performed next to farmer’s practice and the treatments treated with a 100% feed
formulated performed less efficient.
Statistically analysis revealed that among all the treatments regardless of the two trials,
that they are significantly different from each other. It is shown from the p-value of 0.000, lower
than the 0.005 set level of significance using the analysis of variance. It also observed that T1 is
statistically highest and higher than T2 in terms of mean final weight. Statistically lower of T2
than T1 but nevertheless statistically higher than T3. And T3 is statistically lowest among all the
different treatments in terms of mean final weight.
37
Mean Gain 1
Among all the three treatments, T1 is the highest, with the mean of 419.17 g, next is T2
with a mean of 346.22 g and the least with the mean of 159.92 g is T3 in terms of mean gain 1. It
was observed that they are not comparable from each other.
Statistical analysis reveals that the treatments are significantly differences from each
other. Based from the result of the computed p-value of 0.000, lower than 0.005 the set level of
significance. It is revealed from the table that Treatment 1 is statistically higher than T2.
Treatment 2 is statistically lower than T1 but higher than T3, so T3 is statistically lowest among
all the treatments in terms of mean first gain.
Mean Gain 2
From the Table 4, it shows that all the treatments are not comparable to each other. A
635.42 g of the mean is the highest from T1, secondly a 517.95 g mean gain 2 of T2 and the
lowest is the T3 having a mean gain 2 of 384.33 g.
Statistical analysis revealed that there are significant differences among all treatments
regardless of different trial. This was shown by the computed p-value of 0.000, lower than 0.05
the set level of significance.
38
Mean Gain 3
The mean gain 3 of the birds was observed that treatment 1 have the highest mean in
terms of mean gain 3 with a mean of 378.33 kg. , next is treatment 2, with a mean of 343.33 kg
and treatment registered the lowest mean, with 291.50 kg mean.
Analysis of variance revealed that there were significant differences among all treatments
regardless to the trials in terms of mean gain 3. This was shown that the computed p-value of
0.001, lower than 0.05 the set level of significance.
Mean Total Gain
Table 3 shows the mean total gain of the birds among different treatments, the table
shows treatment 1 is statistically higher than treatment 2 with a mean of 1432.92 kg. , treatment
2 is statistically lower than treatment 1 and higher than treatment 3 with a mean of 1207.50 kg
while treatment 3 is statistically lowest among all treatments having a mean of 835.75 kg.
Statistical analysis revealed that the mean total gain of the broilers were significantly
differences among all different treatments. This was shown by the computed p-value of 0.000,
lower than 0.05 the set level of significance using analysis of variance. This means that the birds
have incomparable to each other in terms of mean total gain and broilers treated with treatment 1
performed well which is the farmer’s practice, while broilers treated with 50% farmer’s practice
and 50% feed formulated were performed next to farmer’s practice and treatment 3 which are
treated with 100% feed formulated is performed less efficient in terms of mean total gain.
39
Table 4.
Summary of the Comparison of Mean Feed Intake, Feed Conversion Efficiency and Mean Liquid
Consumption under Trial Regardless of the Different Treatments
Treatment Mean Liquid FCE Mean Feed Intake

Intake
1 80272.167a 32904.500 2.316b
2 72029.167a 36849.167 3.106b
3 61790.833b 36244.833 4.775a
F- comp. 15.07 3.16 22.30

.098
p-value .002 .001
CV 1.93 1.95 4.50
F-tab(1, 2) = 18.5128 at alpha 0.05
Mean Liquid Intake
The mean liquid intake of the birds was observed that treatment 1 have the higher mean
with 80272.167 ml, next is treatment 2 with a mean 0f 72029.167 ml and treatment registered the
lowest the mean in terms of mean liquid intake having a mean of 61790.833ml. This means that
broilers under treatment 1 consumed more water, next is treatment two and consuming less water
is broilers under treatment 3.
Analysis of variance revealed that there were significant differences among all treatments
in terms of mean liquid intake. This was shown by the p-value of .002, lower than 0.05 the set
40
level of significance using analysis of variance. This means that the birds in three treatments
have incomparable to each other in terms of mean liquid intake.
Mean Feed Conversion Efficiency
Table 4 showed the mean feed conversion efficiency of the birds, treatment 2 registered
the highest mean, with a mean of 36849.17 kg. , treatment 3 registered a mean of 36244.833 and
having a lowest mean is treatment 1 with a mean of 32904.50 kg. This means that in terms of
mean feed conversion efficiency treatment 2 treated with 50% commercial feeds and 50% feed
formulated performed better, while treatment 3 is next which are treated with 100% feed
formulated and treatment 1 which treated with commercial feeds/farmer’s practice performed
less efficient in terms of feed conversion of the birds.
Analysis of variance on the mean feed conversion efficiency showed that there were
significant differences among all treatments means. The computed p- value (0.001) is lower than
0.05, the set level of significance. This means that the birds in three treatments have
incomparable to each other in terms of mean feed conversion efficiency.
Mean Feed Intake
Result in table 4 show that the mean feed intake of the birds ranges from2.32 to 4.77 kg.
Analysis of Variance on the mean feed intake of the birds showed that there were no significant
differences among all treatments means. This was shown by the computed p-value of 0.098,
higher than 0.05, the set level of significance. Based on the result, the birds given 100% feed
41
formulation using peanut hull, kudzu, rice bran d1, corn, fish meal and molasses did not enhance
the performance of the birds and all treatments are comparable with each other.
The result of the study showed that the birds consumed on the average of 3.4 kg for the
whole rearing period. The means falls slightly higher with the normal feed consumption of 3.25
according to Dr. T. Kotaiah a senior poultry geneticist working with poultry projects in India
since 1974.
42
Meat and Carcass Quality
Table 5.
Fat Content and Meat and Carcass Quality of the Experimental Birds under Trial 1
Trial Treatment Meat and Fat % Fat per

Carcass Content Body
Quality Weight
1 T1-
(Commercial feeds) Normal 20g 2.04
T2-
(50% commercial feeds
and 50% feed formulated ) Normal 40g 4.08
T3-
(100% feed formulated) Normal 40g 4.08
Table 5 showed that the meat and carcass quality of the experimental birds under trial 1
was normal based on the results of the study. The results of the study in terms of fat content, it
was observed that the birds treated with 50% commercial feeds and 50% feed formulated (T2)
and 100% feed formulated (T3) had the highest and are the same having 40g fat content per body
weight, while the birds treated with commercial feeds (T1) as control registered 20g per body
weight which is the lowest.
43
Table 6.
Fat Content and Meat and Carcass Quality of the Experimental Birds under Trial 2
Trial Treatment Meat and Fat % Fat per

Carcass Content Body
Quality Weight
2 T1-
(Commercial feeds) Normal 40g 4.211
T2-
(50% commercial feeds
and 50% feed formulated ) Normal 50g 5.26
T3-
(100% feed formulated) Normal 50g 5.26
Table 6 showed that the meat and carcass quality of the experimental birds under trial 1
was normal based on the results of the study. The results of the study in terms of fat content, it
was observed that the birds treated with 100% feed formulation (T3) and 50% commercial feeds
and 50% feed formulation had the highest fat content at 50g per body weight, while the
commercial feeds (T1) as control registered at 40g per body weight, which is the lowest.
44
Cost and Return Analysis
Cost and Return Analysis for Different Treatments under Trial 1
The cost and return analysis of the different treatments under the two trials, Treatments 3
treated with a pure feed formulation using peanut hull, kudzu, fish meal, rice bran d1, corn and
molasses revealed that it did not reduced the cost of production, as observed treatments 3 did not
perform well compared with Treatment 1 which utilized by commercial feeds. In terms of Return
of Investment (ROI) and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), Treatment 3 showed lowest result, followed
by Treatment 2 while treatment 1 treated with commercial feeds registered the highest ROI and
BCR. This means that the feed formulation did not enhance the growth performance of the
broiler which leads into lower profit compared with Treatment that treated with commercials
feeds.
45
Table 7.
Summary of Cost and Production of Different Treatments under the Two Trials
Trial 1 Trial 2
Treatment Treatmen Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment
1 t2 3 1 2 3
Gross 7,343.75 6,637.5 5,425 6,775 5,787.5 4,106.25
Income
Cost of 6,237.21 6,145.93 5,559.07 6,360.24 6,089.23 6,027.45
Productio
n
Net Income 1,106.54 491.57 -134.07 414.76 -301.73 -1,921.2
ROI% 17.74% 8% -2.41% 6.52% -4.96% -31.87%
BCR% 18.39% 8.30% 2.51% 6.76% -5.14% -33.08%
Therefore, feed formulation using peanut hull, kudzu, fish meal, rice bran d1, corn and
molasses can be an alternative feeds substitute to commercial feeds but it can’t increases the
profitability of broiler production. Treatment 3 got the lowest Return on Investments (ROI) of –
(2.41% under Trial 1 and -31.87% under trial 2) and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of (2.51% under
Trial 1 and -33.08% under Trial 2) as compared to farmer’s practice. One factor, is due to the
feed formulation quality, type and texture, the feeds being formulated is dusty and mash it will
lead to increased feed wastage, reduced feed intake and reduced growth rate, increased time
spent at the feeder that result in an increased amount of energy spent on feeding thus reducing
the energy available for growth and incomplete or inefficient digestion of the feed, this factor
could affect the growth performance of the broiler that leads in lower weights of the birds and
result to lower profitability. Another factor of getting a low profit is the excess inclusion of
46
tropical kudzu which affects the growth performance of birds and slows down the growth of the
broiler.
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY
This study “Broiler Feed Ration Formulation Using Peanut Hull, Kudzu, Fish meal, Corn,
Rice bran D1 and Molasses” was conducted to evaluate the effect of feed formulation using
locally available materials on the performance of broiler in terms of gain in weight, water
consumption, feed consumption, and feed conversion efficiency. This was conducted at
Barangay Zaragoza, Sitio Bcaod, Bolinao, Pangasinan from December 29, 2017 to February 02,
2018 its first trial and from February 10, 2018 to March 17, 2018 conducted its second trial
respectfully.
Ninety heads of chicks were used in this study and were randomly distributed into 3
treatments and being replicated three times, each replication was consist of 10 birds using
random numbers in Randomized Complete Block Design (BCBD). The treatments used were as
follows:
Treatment 1: Farmer’s practice (control)
Treatment 2: 50% commercial feeds and 50% of Peanut hull, Kudzu, Fish meal, Corn, Molasses,
and Rice bran D1
47
Treatment 3: 100% Peanut hull, Kudzu, Fish meal, Corn, Molasses, and Rice bran D1
Findings
The following are the findings of the study:
1. Using feed formulation using peanut hull, kudzu, fish meal, corn, rice bran d1, and
molasses did not significant affect the performance of broiler in terms of mean initial
weight and mean feed intake, while mean liquid intake, mean feed conversion efficiency,
mean total gain, mean gain 3, mean gain 2, mean gain 1, mean week 1 and 2 weight and
mean final weight were significantly affect the broilers. In analysis and interpretation
under the comparison of different treatments regardless of the trials, it revealed that the
performance of the broiler treated with 100% feed formulated is incomparable to the
raised in farmer’s practice and raised to the 50% feed formulated and 50% commercial
feeds.
2. Broiler treated with 100% feed formulated gave the lowest Return on Investments (ROI)
and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) than those treated with commercial feeds.
3. Environmental condition is one factor that could affect the birds in terms of growth
performance. As observed, birds under trial 1 which conducted in cooler environmental
condition were performed better compared to trial 2 which conducted in hotter
environmental condition.
48
4. Quality of the feeds also affects the broiler, a poor quality of feeds given to broiler will
lead to a of increased feed wastage, reduced feed intake and reduced growth rate,
increased time spent at the feeder that result in an increased amount of energy spent on
feeding thus reducing the energy available for growth and incomplete or inefficient
digestion of the feed.
5. Having excessive fiber content of the feeds can adversely affects the body weight gain of
the broiler.
6. Too much inclusion rate of tropical kudzu can significantly decrease the growth
performance of the broiler and feed conversion can also degrade. (5% to 10% is the
recommended inclusion rate).
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of the study this conclusion was formulated:
1. Feed formulation using peanut hull, kudzu, fish meal, corn, rice bran d1, and molasses
has incomparable effect with commercial feeds on the growth performance of broiler in
terms of mean initial weight and mean feed intake, while it have a comparable effects in
terms of mean liquid intake, mean feed conversion efficiency, mean total gain, mean gain
3, mean gain 2, mean gain 1, mean week 1 and 2 weight and mean final weight.
2. Using feed formulation using peanut hull, kudzu, fish meal, corn, rice bran d1, and
molasses can’t reduce the cost of production wherein broiler could not achieve the
growth and performance and gave a lower Return on Investments (ROI) and Benefit Cost
Ratio (BCR) compared to farmer’s practice.
49
3. Different factors could affect the growth performance of the broilers. Samples of these
factors are environmental condition and feed quality, type and texture. Like Having
excessive fiber content of the feeds can adversely affects the body weight gain of the
broiler and too much inclusion rate of tropical kudzu can significantly decrease the
growth performance of the broiler and feed conversion can also degrade. (5% to 10% is
the recommended inclusion rate).
RECOMMENDATIONS
The researchers recommend a proper selection and formulation of locally and
indigenous feeds materials used in formulating a feeds for broiler ration. Proper inclusion
rate of the different feed materials is also recommend and is very important to familiarize
the feed materials being used. It is further recommended to re-study this study for some
improvements and to improved its profitability as it is proved that farmer’s practice is
more profitable.
50
REFERENCES:
[PSA] Philippine Statistics Authority. 2017. Chicken Situation Report, January – June 2017.
https://psa.gov.ph/livestock-poultry-iprs/chicken/inventory
Heuze V., Thiollet H., Tran G., Edouard N., Bastianelli D., Lebas F., 2017. Peanut hulls.
Feedipedia a programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. Retrieved from the
worldwide web: https://www.feedipedia.org/node/696 last updated on February 01, 2017.
Hill GM. 2002. Peanut by-products fed to cattle. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2002
Jul; 18(2): 295-315. Retrieved: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12235662/.
Golden Peanut and Tree Nuts. 1985. Hull and Fiber.

www.goldenpeanut.com/HullAndFiber.aspx.
Andrews E. 1991. Patents; New Uses For Hulls of Peanuts.

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/31/business/patents-new-uses-for-hulls-of-
peanuts.html
Jacob J. 2015. Alternative Feed Ingredients for Poultry Diets.

articles.extension.org/pages/68863/alternative-feed-ingredients-for-poultry-diets.
Fern K, Fern A, Morris R. 2014. Useful Tropical Database.

tropical.theferns.info/viewtropical.php?id=Pueraria+phaseoloides.
Heuze V.,Hassoun P., Tran G., Edouard N., Bastianelli D., Lebas F., 2017.Tropical kudzu
(Pueraria phaseoloides). Feedipedia a programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO.
Retrieved from the world wide web : https://www.feedipedia.org/node/257 Last
updated on December 15, 2017, 17:55.
Plants for A Future: A resource and information center for edible and otherwise useful plants.
1996. Pueraria phaseoloides. https://www.pfaf.org/USER/Plant.aspx?
LatinName=Pueraria+phaseoloides.
ECHOcommunity. TROPICAL KUDZU.

https://www.echocommunity.org/en/resources/66dc56cc-d33a-417e-b29e-6ebb15caf3b9.
Jacob J. 2013. Use of rice Bran in Poultry Diets. articles.extension.org/pages/70111/use-of-rice-

bran-in-poultry-diets.
51
WestGrains TRADING. 2013. The leading exporter and trader of quality grains and agricultural
products in the Philippines, Asia and Europe. westgrains.ph/products/
Janatha Fish Meal and Oil Products. 2017. Janathafishmeal.com/index.
Parepalo M. 2017. How to Make Fishmeal. animals.mom.me,

http://www.ehow.com/how_8161565_make-fishmeal.html. 01 November 2017.
Heuze V., Tran G., Kaushik S., 2015. Fish Meal. Feedipedia a programme by INRA, CIRAD,
AFZ and FAO. Retrieved from the world wide web :
https://www.feedipedia.org/node/208 Last updated on May 11, 2015, 14:32.
Jacob J. 2015. Common Feed Ingredients in Poultry Diets.

articles.extension.org/pages/68432/common-feed-ingredient-in-poultry-diets.
Miyumo S. 2015. A comprehensive guide on all poultry feed ingredients. Retrieved from the
world wide web: https://www.nation.co.ke/business/seedsofgold/A-comprehensive-
guide-on-all-poul feed-ingredients/2301238-2867064-np2m8vz/index.html.
Die HK. 2017. Assessment of Maize (Zea mays) as Feed Resource for Poultry. Retrieved
from the world wide web: https://www.intechopen.com/books/poultry-science/assesment-
of-maize-zea-mays-as- feed-resource-for-poultry.
Livestocking.2014. Nutritional difference between white maize and yellow maize and the effect
on poultry birds. Retrieved from the world wide web:
https://www.livestocking.net/nutritional-difference-white-maize-yellow- maize-effect-
poultry-birds.
Jacob. J. 2015. Feeding Corn to Poultry. articles.extension.org/pages/68429/feeding-corn-to-

poultry.
Solagbade T. 2012. [BLOG] Top 10 Ingredients Used in Livestock Feed.

www.nigeriabusinesscommunities.com/features/top-10-ingredients-used-in-livestock-
feed.html.
Waldroup P.W. 2007. Use of Molasses and Sugars in Poultry Feeds. Department of Animal
Sciences, University of Arkanses. Fayetteville, Arkansas USA 72701.
https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS19810014.
52
Daley M. 2012. Molasses Usage for Livestock. Retrieved from the world wide web:
https://issuu.com/pvamucahs/docs/publication_- _daley-molasses_-_final.
Dirven J.G.P (1965). Chemical composition and nutritive value of tropical kudzu (Pueraria
phaseoloides (Roxb.)Benth). Retrieved from the world wide web:
https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/mobile/abstract/19661400367.
Jacob (2015). Feeding Fish meal to poultry. articles.extension.org/pages/67352/feeding-

fishmeal-to-poultry.
Chechar (2017), Can I Eat Peanut shells? Retrieved from the World Wide Web:
https://www.livestrong.com/article/493419 -can-i-eat-peanut-shells/
Corn Fed research: New publication highlights corn farmer’s support for beef initiatives (2014).
Retrieved from the World Wide Web: www.mcorn.org/2014/05/06/corn-fed-research-
new-publication-highlights-corn-farmers-support-for-beef-initiatives/
E.Childs, A.Abajan (1976) Physico-chemical characterization of peanut hull as a potential fiber

additive (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-261.1976.tb14427.x)
53
APPENDICES
54
TRIAL 1
Appendix Table 1. Mean Initial Weight
Replication Total Mean

Treatment
I II III
I ** Expression
0.43 0.35 0.37 0.38
is faulty **
** Expression
II 0.35 0.41 0.42 0.39
is faulty **
** Expression
III 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.39
is faulty **
** Expression ** Expression
Total 1.19
is faulty ** is faulty **
Grand Total ** Expression
is faulty **
Grand Mean 0.39
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed Sig.

Variance Freedom Squares Square F
Treatment 2 2243.889 1121.944 .265 .768
Error 85 359661.111 4231.307
Total 87 361905
Appendix Table 1a. Analysis of Variance

CV=1.7693
NS=Not Significant
55
Appendix Table 2. Mean Final Weight

Treatment
I II III
I 2.18 1.94 1.76 5.88 1.96
II 1.60 1.87 1.85 5.32 1.77
III 1.44 1.51 1.39 4.34 1.45

Total 5.22 5.32 5
Grand Total 15.54
Grand Mean 1.73

Treatment 2 4018166.667 2009083.33 24.259 .000

3
Error 85 7039416.667 82816.667
Total 87 11057583.33
CV=1.7586
S = Significant
56
Appendix Table 3. Mean Gain in Weight

Treatment
I II III
I 1.75 1.59 1.39 4.73 1.58
II 1.25 1.46 1.43 4.14 1.38
III 1.05 1.12 0.99 3.16 1.05

Total 4.05 4.17 3.81
Grand Total 12.03
Grand Mean 1.34

Treatment 2 4163727.222 2081863.61 30.097 .000

1
Error 85 5879694.444 69172.876
Total 87 10043421.67

CV=2.0728
S = Significant
57
Appendix Table 4. Mean Feed Consumption

Treatment
I II III
I 3.81 3.43 2.59 9.83 3.28
II 3.61 4.21 3.55 11.37 3.79
III 3.85 3.50 3.67 11.02 3.67

Total 11.27 11.44 9.81
Grand Total 32.22
Grand Mean 3.58
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square Computed Sig.

Variance Freedom Squares F
Treatment 2 43709352.000 21854676.00 1.308 .365

0
Error 4 66822849.333 16705712.33
3
Total 6 110532201.33
3
CV=3.8054
NS=Not Significant
58
Appendix Table 5. Feed Conversion Ratio

Treatment
I II III
I 2.17 2.16 1.86 6.19 2.06
II 2.91 2.87 2.49 8.27 2.76
III 3.66 3.12 3.70 10.48 3.49

Total 8.74 8.15 8.05
Grand Total 24.94
Grand Mean 2.77

Treatment 2 3.054 1.527 21.824 .007
Error 4 .280 .070
Total 6 3.334
CV=3.1769
NS= Not Significant
59
Appendix Table 6. Mean Water Consumption

Treatment
I II III
I 8.47 8.02 7.35 23.84 7.95
II 7.00 7.60 7.39 21.99 7.33
III 6.18 7.97 5.79 19.94 6.65

Total 21.65 23.59 20.53
Grand Total 65.77
Grand Mean 7.308

Treatment 2 253391981.55 126695990.77 2.624 .187

6 8
Error 4 193118892.44 48279723.111
4
Total 6 446510874

CV=3.1694
NS =Not Significant
60
TRIAL 2

Treatment
I II III
I 0.51 0.53 0.51 1.55 0.52
II 0.50 0.51 0.51 1.52 0.51
III 0.52 0.39 0.53 1.44 0.48

Total 1.53 1.43 1.56
Grand Total 4.51
Grand Mean 0.50

Treatment 2 24486.667 12243.33 3.907 .024

3
Error 85 266391.667 3134.020
Total 87 290878.334
CV=1.1763
S =Significant
61

Treatment
I II III
I 1.82 1.77 1.83 5.42 1.81
II 1.51 1.56 1.57 4.64 1.55
III 1.04 1.19 1.06 3.29 1.10

Total 4.37 4.52 4.46
Grand Total 13.35
Grand Mean 1.48

Treatment 2 7768166.667 3884083.33 104.381 .000

3
Error 85 3162916.667 37210.784
Total 87 10931083.33
CV=1.3724
S =Significant
62
Appendix Table 9. Mean Gain in Weight

Treatment
I II III
I 1.31 1.24 1.32 3.87 1.29
II 1.00 1.05 1.06 3.11 1.04
III 0.52 0.80 0.53 1.85 0.62

Total 2.83 3.09 2.91
Grand Total 8.83
Grand Mean 0.98

Treatment 2 6923286.667 3461643.33 98.959 .000

3
Error 85 2973358.333 34980.686
Total 87 9896645
CV=2.0117
S =Significant
63
Appendix Table 10. Mean Feed Consumption

Treatment
I II III
I 3.34 3.34 3.24 9.92 3.31
II 3.61 3.64 3.48 10.73 3.58
III 3.62 3.50 3.60 10.72 3.57

Total 10.57 10.48 10.32
Grand Total 31.37
Grand Mean 3.49

Treatment 2 14820370.667 7410185.33 16.247 .012

3
Error 4 1824401.333 456100.333
Total 6 16644772
CV=0.6457
S =Significant
64
Appendix Table 11. Feed Conversion Ratio

Treatment
I II III
I 2.55 2.70 2.46 7.71 2.57

II 3.60 3.48 3.29
** Expression
III 7.01 4.38 6.79 6.06
is faulty **
Total 13.16
Grand Total ** Expression
is faulty **
Grand Mean 4.03

Treatment 2 19.752 9.876 12.694 .019
Error 4 3.112 .778
Total 6 22.864
CV=0.6457
S =Significant
65
Appendix Table 12. Mean Water Consumption

Treatment
I II III
I ** Expression
8.43 8.33 7.56 8.11
is faulty **
** Expression
II 6.87 7.14 7.21 7.07
is faulty **
III 5.15 6.01 5.96 17.12 5.71
Total 20.73
Grand Total 62.66
Grand Mean 6.96

Treatment 2 867349080.22 433674540.11 21.694 .007

2 1
Error 4 79960378.444 19990094.611
Total 6 947309458.7
CV=0.6457
S =Significant
66
COMPARISON BY TRIAL
Trial Initial Weights of 90 Total Mean
birds
1 34880 34880 387.556
2 45150 45150 501.667
Grand Total 80030
Grand Mean 444.6115
Trial 1 585960.556 585960.556 159.113 .000
Error 2 6876.944 3438.472 .934
Total 3 592837.5
CV=1.0173
S = Significant
67
Trial Final Weights 0f 90 Total Mean
birds
1 155250 155250 1725.000
2 133260 133260 1481.667
Grand Total 288510
Grand Mean 1603.3335
Trial 1 2664500.000 2664500.000 44.398 .000
Error 2 97583.333 48791.667
Total 3 2762083.333
CV=1.1389
S = Significant
Appendix Table 15. Mean Total Gain
Trial Total Gain of 90 birds Total Mean

1 120369 120369 1337.444
2 88200 88200 980.000
Grand Total 208569
Grand Mean 1158.722
68
Trial 1 5749493.889 5749493.889 110.404 .000
Error 2 82943.611 41471.806
Total 3
CV=1.4679
S = Significant
Appendix Table 16. Mean Feed Intake
Trial Feed Intake of 90 Total Mean
birds
1 3222180 3222180 35802.000
2 3137730 3137730 34863.667
Grand Total 6359910
69
Trial 1 3962112.500 3962112.500 .462 .516
Error 2 15161900.333 7580950.167
Total 3 19124012.83
CV=1.9541
NS = Not Significant
Appendix Table 17. Mean Feed Conversion Efficiency
Trial Feed Conversion Total Mean
Efficiency of 90 birds
1 249.3 249.3 2.770
2 362.52 362.52 4.028
Grand Total 611.82
Grand Mean 3.399
70

Trial 1 7.121 7.121 16.797 .003
Error 2 .464 .232
Total 3 7.585
CV=4.5013
Appendix Table 18. Mean Liquid Consumption
Trial Liquid Consumption Total Mean
Efficiency of 90 birds
1 6576949.98 6576949.98 73077.222
2 6268580.01 6268580.01 69650.889
Grand Total 12845529.99
71
Trial 1 52828920.500 52828920.500 1.548 .249
Error 2 44540959.000 22270479.500
Total 3 97369879.500
CV=1.9297
COMPARISON BY TREATMENTS
Treatments Initial Weight of Total Mean
Birds per Treatments
Regardless of Trials
1 26974.98 26974.98 449.583
2 26950.02 26950.02 449.167
3 26104.98 26104.98 435.083
Grand Mean 444.611
Treatment 1 8175.278 4087.639 1.110 .332
72
Error 170 626052.778 3682.663
Total 171 634228.056

CV=1.0173
NS= Not Significant
Treatments Final Weight of Birds Total Mean
per Treatments
1 112950 112950 1882.500
2 99400.02 99400.02 1656.667
3 76249.98 76249.98 1270.833
Grand Total 288600
Grand Mean 1603.333

Treatment 1 11480083.333 5740041.667 95.645 .000
Error 170 10202333.333 60013.725
Total 171 21682416.67
CV=1.1389
S = Significant
73
Treatments Total Gain of Birds Total Mean
per Treatments
1 85975.02 85975.02 1432.917
2 72450 72450 1207.500
3 50145 50145 835.750
Treatment 1 10912375.278 5456187.639 104.772 .000
Error 170 8853052.778 52076.781
Total 171 19765428.06
CV=1.4679
S = Significant
74
Treatments Feed Intake of Birds Total Mean
per Treatments
1 1974270 1974270 32904.500
2 2210950.02 2210950.02 36849.167
3 2174689.98 2174689.98 36244.833
Grand Total 6359910
Treatment 2 54166881.333 27083440.667 3.156 .098
Error 8 68647250.667 8580906.333
Total 10 122814132
CV=1.9541
per Treatments
75
1 138.96 138.96 2.316
2 186.36 186.36 3.106
3 286.5 286.5 4.775
Grand Total 611.82
Grand Mean 3.399
Treatment 2 18.913 9.456 22.304 .001
Error 8 3.392 .424
Total 10 22.305
CV=4.5013
S = Significant
Appendix Table 24. Mean Feed Liquid Consumption
per Treatments
1 4816330.02 4816330.02 80272.167
2 4321750.02 4321750.02 72029.167
3 3707449.98 3707449.98 61790.833
76

Source of Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Square Computed Sig.
Variance Freedom F
Treatment 2 1028660400.44 514330200.22 15.068 .002

2
4
Error 8 273079270.889 34134908.861
Total 10 1301739671
CV=1.9297
S = Significant
COMPARISON BY TRIAL AND TREATMENTS
Trial
Treatments Total Mean
I II
I 380.500 518.667 899.167 449.5835
II 391.333 507.000 898.333 449.1665
III 390.833 870.166 435.083

479.333
Total 1162.666 1505
77

Grand Mean 444.611
Variance Freedom F
Treatment
2 18555.278 9277.639 2.519 .084
Error
170 626052.778 3682.663
Total 172 644608.056
CV=1.9297
Trial
I II
I 1958.333 1806.667 3765 1882.5
II 1770.000 1543.333 3313.333 1656.6665
III 1446.667 2541.667 1270.8335

1095.000
Total 5175 4445
Grand Total 9620
78
Grand Mean 1603.333
Variance Freedom F
Treatment
2 306250.000 153125.000 2.551 .081
Error
170 10202333.333 60013.725
Total 172 1326483.333
CV=1.1389
Trial
I II
I 1577.833 1288.000 2865.833 1432.9165
II 1378.667 1036.333 2415 1207.5
III 1055.833 1671.5 835.75

615.667
Total 4012.333 2940
79
Variance Freedom F
Treatment
2 174638.611 87319.306 1.677 .190
Error
170 8853052.778 52076.781
Total 172 9027691.389
CV=1.4679
NS =Not Significant
Trial
I II
I 32760.000 33049.000 65809 32904.5
II 37910.000 35788.333 73698.333 36849.1665
III 36736.000 35753.667 72489.667 36244.8335
Total 401706 104591

Grand Total 211997
80
Variance Freedom F
Treatment
2 4362841.333 2181420.667 .254 .782
Error
8 68647250.667 8580906.333
Total 10 73010092
CV=1.9541
NS =Not Significant
Trial
I II
I 2.064 2.569 4.633 2.3165
II 2.755 3.456 6.211 3.1055
III 3.491 6.060 9.551 4.7755
Total 8.31 12.085

Grand Total 20.395
81
Variance Freedom F
Treatment
2 3.894 1.947 4.592 .047
Error
8 3.392 .424
Total 10 7.286
CV=4.5013
NS =Not Significant
Appendix Table 30. Mean Liquid Consumption
Trial
I II
I 79453.333 81091.000 160544.333 80272.1665
II 73315.667 70742.667 144058.334 72029.167
III 66462.667 57119.000 123581.667 61790.8335
Total 219231.664 208952

82
Variance Freedom F
Treatment
2 92080661.333 46040330.667 1.349 .313
Error
8 273079270.889 34134908.861
Total 10 365159932.2
CV=1.9297
NS =Not Significant
TRIAL 1
Appendix Table 31. Cost and Return for Different Treatment
PARTICULAR T1 T2 T3
Gross Income 7,343.75 6,637.5 5,425
Total L.W. of the Birds @ Php.125/kg 58.75 53.1 43.4
Less Operating Investments
1. Material for Broiler House
Bamboo 33.33 33.33 33.33
Cogon 41.67 41.67 41.67
Nail @ Php. 40/kg 6.67 6.67 6.67
Plastic Net @ Php. 60/meter 25 25 25
Electrical wires @ Php. 18/meter 7.5 7.5 7.5
83
Receptacle @ Php.25/pieces 6.25 6.25 6.25

Electrical bulbs @ Php.15.75/pieces 11.81 11.81 11.81
Drinking troughs @ Php.40/pieces 10 10 10
Bamboo Feeding troughs 3.33 3.33 3.33
Labor for making broiler house 75 75 75
2. Day Old Chicks @ Php.32/head 960 960 960
3. Commercial feeds
Chick booster @ Php.32/kg 480 480 480
Starter @ Php. 29/kg 1,424.92 824.62
Finisher @ Php.27/kg 1,326.65 767.75
4. Drinking Supplements 66.67 66.67 66.67
5. Feedstuff Ingredients
Peanut hull @ Php. 5/kg 66.2 128.6
Kudzu @ Php.5/kg 33.15 64.3
Fish meal @ Php. 45/kg 394.65 765
Corn @ Php.23/kg 277.84 538.66
Rice bran D1 @ Php.10/kg 104.3 202
Molasses @ Php.26.63/liter 126.23 244.46
Palm oil @ Php.69/liter 65.55 130.41
6. Transportation 70 70 70
7. Electricity 488.41 488.41 488.41
8. Labor for the whole duration of the study 1,200 1,200 1,200
TOTAL 6,237.21 6,145.93 5,559.07
NET INCOME 1,106.54 491.57 -134.07
ROI% 17.74% 8% -2.41%
BCR% 18.39% 8.30% -2.51%
Appendix Table 32. Total Gross Income of Broiler per Treatment
Replication Price
Treatment Total Total (Php.)
I II III (L.W.)
I 21.8 19.35 17.6 58.75 125/kg 7,343.75
II 15.95 18.7 18.45 53.1 125/kg 6,637.5
III 14.4 15.1 13.9 43.4 125/kg 5,425
84
Appendix Table 33. Net Income, Return of Investments (ROI),and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of
the Broiler
Cost of
Treatment Gross Income Net Income BCR%
Production ROI%
I 7,343.75 6,237.21 1,106.54 17.74% 18.39%
II 6,637.5 6,145.93 491.57 8% 8.30%
III 5,425 5,559.07 -134.07 -2.41% -2.51%
TRIAL 2
Appendix Table 34. Cost and Return for Different Treatment
PARTICULAR T1 T2 T3
Gross Income 6,775 5,787.5 4,106.25
Total L.W. of the Birds @ Php.125/kg 54.2 46.3 32.85
Less Operating Investments
1. Material for Broiler House
Bamboo 33.33 33.33 33.33
Cogon 41.67 41.67 41.67
Nail @ Php. 40/kg 6.67 6.67 6.67
85
Plastic Net @ Php. 60/meter 25 25 25

Electrical wires @ Php. 18/meter 7.5 7.5 7.5
Receptacle @ Php.25/pieces 6.25 6.25 6.25
Electrical bulbs @ Php.15.75/pieces 11.81 11.81 11.81
Drinking troughs @ Php.40/pieces 10 10 10
Bamboo Feeding troughs 3.33 3.33 3.33
Labor for making broiler house 75 75 75
2. Day Old Chicks @ Php.32/head 1,050 1,050 1,050
3. Commercial feeds
Chick booster @ Php.32/kg 480 480 480
Starter @ Php. 29/kg 1,437.68 775.75
Finisher @ Php.27/kg 1,338.53 722.25
4. Drinking Supplements 66.67 66.67 66.67
5. Feedstuff Ingredients
Peanut hull @ Php. 5/kg 62.4 154.6
Kudzu @ Php.5/kg 31.2 77.3
Fish meal @ Php. 45/kg 371.25 919.35
Corn @ Php.23/kg 261.51 647.68
Rice bran D1 @ Php.10/kg 98 243
Molasses @ Php.26.63/liter 121.43 294
Palm oil @ Php.69/liter 61.41 152.49
6. Transportation 70 70 70
7. Electricity 496.80 496.80 496.80
8. Labor for the whole duration of the study 1,200 1,200 1,200
TOTAL 6,360.24 6,089.23 6,027.45
NET INCOME 414.76 -301.73 -1,921.2
ROI% 6.52% -4.96% -31.87%
BCR% 6.76% -5.14% -33.08%
Appendix Table 35. Total Gross Income of Broiler per Treatment
Replication Price
Treatment Total Total (Php.)
I II III (L.W.)
18.2 17.7 18.3 6,775
I 54.2 125/kg
II 15.05 15.55 15.7 46.3 125/kg 5,787.5
III 10.35 11.9 10.6 32.85 125/kg 4,106.25
86
Appendix Table 36. Net Income, Return of Investments (ROI),and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of
the Broiler
Cost of
Treatment Gross Income Net Income BCR%
Production ROI%
I 6,775 6,360.24 414.76 6.52% 6.76%
II 6,089.23 -301.73 -4.96% -5.14%

5,787.5
III 6,027.45 -1,921.2 -31.87% -33.08%
4,106.25
Appendix Table 37. Summary of Cost and Return of Different Treatments under the Two Trials
Trial 1 Trial 2
Treatment Treatmen Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment
1 t2 3 1 2 3
Gross 7,343.75 6,637.5 5,425 6,775 5,787.5 4,106.25
Income
Cost of 6,237.21 6,145.93 5,559.07 6,360.24 6,089.23 6,027.45
87
Productio
n
Net Income 1,106.54 491.57 -134.07 414.76 -301.73 -1,921.2
ROI% 17.74% 8% -2.41% 6.52% -4.96% -31.87%
BCR% 18.39% 8.30% 2.51% 6.76% -5.14% -33.08%
Figure 1. Experimental Lay-out in Randomized Complete Block Design
T1R1 T3R2 T2R3

T2R1 T1R2 T3R3
88
T3R1 T2R2 T1R3

Figure 2. Experimental House
Figure 3. Feed Materials
89
Figure 4. Feed Formulation
90
Figure 5. The Experimental Birds during their Brooding Stage
91
Figure 6. Data Collection of Initial Weight of the Experimental Birds
Figure 7. Meat and Carcass Quality of the Experimental Birds under Different Treatments
92
Figure 8. Meat and Carcass Quality of the Experimentsl Bird T1
Figure 9. Meat and Carcass Quality of the Experimental Bird T2
93
Figure 10. Meat and Carcass Quality of the Experimental Bird T3
CURRICULUM VITAE
94
PERSONAL BACKGROUND
NAME Ronald R. Noma

ADDRESS Linmansangan, Alaminos City, Pangasinan
DATE OF BIRTH September 12,1997
CIVIL STATUS Single
NAME OF PARENTS Mr. Perlito P. Noma Jr.
Mrs. Rowena R. Noma
NAME OF BROTHER Rowelito R. Noma
NAME OF SISTERS Mary Rose R. Noma
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
PRIMARY Maliga Elementary School

Macatiw, Alaminos City, Pangasinan
2004-2010
SECONDARY Alos National High Scool
Alos, Alaminos City, Pangasinan
2010-2014
TERTIARY Pangasinan State University
Alaminos City Campus
Bolaney, Alaminos City, Pangasinan
2014-2018
DEGREE Bachelor of Science in Agriculture
95
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL BACKGROUND
NAME Angelica R. Caniedo

ADDRESS Pangapisan, Alaminos City, Pangasinan
DATE OF BIRTH February 02, 1998
CIVIL STATUS Single
NAME OF PARENTS Mr. Ricardo F. Caniedo
Mrs. Juvy R. Caniedo
NAME OF SISTERS Srah Jane R. Caniedo
Jenelyn R. Caniedo
Monica R. Caniedo
Melissa R. Caniedo
PRIMARY Popantay Elementary School

Poblacion, Alaminos City, Pangasinan
2004-2006
Pangapisan Elementary School
Pangapisan, Alaminos City, Pangasinan
2006-2010
SECONDARY Alaminos City National High Scool
San Jose Drive, Alaminos City, Pangasinan
2010-2014
2014-2018
96
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL BACKGROUND
NAME Carlo G. Abongan

ADDRESS Dulacac, Alaminos City, Pangasinan
DATE OF BIRTH December 14, 1997
CIVIL STATUS Single
NAME OF PARENTS Mr. Cezar B. Abongan
Mrs. Luzviminda G. Abongan
NAME OF BROTHER Ariel G. Abongan
NAME OF SISTER Bluebel G. Abongan
PRIMARY Dulacac Elementary School

Dulacac, Alaminos City, Pangasinan
2004-2010
SECONDARY Cabanaetan National High Scool
Cabanaetan, Mabini, Pangasinan
2010-2014
2014-2018
97
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL BACKGROUND
NAME Eddielyn A. Radoc

ADDRESS Gais Guipe, Dasol, Pangasinan
DATE OF BIRTH September 01, 1997
CIVIL STATUS Single
NAME OF PARENTS Mr. Eddie R. Radoc
Mrs. Rhodora A. Radoc
NAME OF BROTHER Edmund A. Radoc
NAME OF SISTERS Eden Grace A. Radoc
PRIMARY Palamis Elementary School

Palamis, Alaminos City, Pangasinan
2004-2010
SECONDARY Don Marcelo Jimenez Memorial Polytechnic
Institute
Poblacion, Dasol, Pangasinan
2010-2014
2014-2018
98

Thesis by Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis by Chapters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis by Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Broiler Feed Ration Formulation Using Peanut Hull, Fish Meal,

Kudzu, Corn, Rice Bran D1 and Molasses

Background of the Study

daily needs of human.

formulation matrix, inappropriate grinding- inadequately or excessively ground raw materials

materials inclusion will result in nutrient imbalances in the finished feeds.

lesser expenses, that result in bigger profit.

Tropical kudzu (Pueraria phaseoloides) is a vigorous dense- growing vine cultivated

to be detrimental for animal feeding.

ingredients (West Grains, 2013).

Fish meal is a by-product of fish production; it comes from fish trimmings,

can obtain by drying, cooking, and grinding.

Fish meal is recognized as valuable animal protein supplement and a source of

Meal and Oil Products, 2017).

of feed and pastures (Daley, 2012).

also been investigated (Gohl, 1982).

Objectives of the Study

performance of broiler. Specifically the study determined the;

and carcass quality.

Investment (ROI) and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR).

Significance of the Study

The study will be significant to the following:

unending increasing due to its high demand in the market.

secure about health problems.

improve the performance of broiler and the quality of the meat.

that is possible as feedstuffs ingredients or drink supplement.

Scope and Delimination of the Study

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

for a poultry producer (Poultry Hub, 2018).

Peanut shell remains an agricultural waste problem in peanut producing countries.

uM sodium taurocholate/ 100 mg sample.

In addition, according to Dirven (1965) tropical kudzu contained on average crude

composition was considered favorable.

high amino acid quality.

the B-vitamins, vitamin E, and some trace minerals.

Calcium at (0.10%), total phosphorus is at (1.70%) and non-phytate phosphorus is (0.24%).

animals said; Piccioni (1965).

protein equivalent is about 6% , half of which is non-protein N.

vitamins such as pantothenic acid, choline and niacin.

active compounds) added during the process of sugar extraction.

in United States, where peanuts are grown, according to Jacob (2015).

not be fed as primary feedstuffs for beef cattle.

have proven disappointing. Nutritional analysis conducted by Nutrient Requirements of Horses

which are poisonous to horses.

weight, reduced egg production, and contamination of milk.

Tropical Kudzu (Pueraria phaseoloides)

used as a good source of fiber.

ingredient for broiler diets.

therefore its use has welfare benefits to ewes and lambs.

availability at 65% said, Fialho et al. (1993); Halpine et al. (1986).

poultry diets according to Gallinger et al. (2004). A maximum of 10-20% is recommended in

enzymes used, stated by; Martin and Farrell, (1998).

include in diets of broilers less than 21 days of age.

increase growth performance according to Martin et al., (1998).

contains more carotene and cryptoxanthin.

appetite and result in feed waste.

be fattened on liquid diets containing up to 60% DM of molasses.

will decreased the feed efficiency at 30%.