BIBLIOGRAPHY MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013. Growth Performance of Native Chickens
Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi) and Commercial Feeds. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Mary Arnel D. Garcia, MSc.
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to determine the effect of ornamental peanut on the
performance of native chicken specifically on the gain in weight, feed efficiency and
carcass yield. It also aimed to determine the profitability of the raising native chickens
given ornamental peanut and commercial feeds. This study was conducted at brgy. Digdig,
Carranglan, Nueva Ecija.
There were 32 native chickens ranging from 22 to 42 day old involved in the study,
which were distributed following the Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). There
were two treatments used blocked into four with four birds per block. Treatment 0 received
commercial feeds ad libitum while treatment 1 received ornamental peanut plant and
commercial feeds on a restricted time.
Over a period of 84 days of feeding trial, the birds were able to attain a mean total
gain in weight of 1.106kg, from a mean initial weight of 0.152kg to a final weight of
1.255kg. The birds had a mean consumption of 4.811kg per head on a dry matter basis
yielding a feed conversion ratio (FCR) of 4.388 and Php153.72 feed cost to produce a kg
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
gain in weight. Profits obtained per peso invested from the sales of the birds were 15.19%
and 7.59% in treatment 0 received commercial feeds only and treatment 1 received
ornamental peanut and commercial feeds, respectively. After slaughtering and dressing the
sample birds, a mean dressing percentage of 63.18% was obtained.
Except for the return on investment, statistical analysis shown that on all parameters
evaluated, the performance of the native chickens was not enhanced or improved by giving
ornamental peanut.
Lower returns from the native chickens given commercial feeds + ornamental
peanut plant was accounted to more labor spent in the preparation of the feedstuff.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
INTRODUCTION
The Philippine native chicken is the common village chicken raised in backyards
throughout the country. Such chickens are sometimes turned loose to scavenge, while some
are housed in semi-confinement. Although native chicken are comparatively poor egg and
meat producers, they remain an important source of much needed animal protein and also
bring extra income to farmers.
Most farmers prefer to raise native chickens rather than imported exotic breeds,
because of the ability to survive under harsh conditions and to reproduce regularly even
under minimal care and management. Native chicken are relatively resistant to common
poultry diseases and need little or no feed concentrates. Now that the nutritional importance
of the native chicken and its potential for generating income has begun to be appreciated,
some farmers in the Philippines are raising native chickens in a semi-commercial system,
at a very low operational cost. Native Chickens indicate that the hen lays 40 to 60 eggs per
year and becomes broody 3 to 4 times a year, producing some 30 to 35 chicks per year
(FFTC, 1992).
According to poultry specialists with the Department of Agriculture recently, native
chickens have failed to sustain their potential as a steady source of meat products. The
blame seems to fall on the people's attitude of confining the raising of native breeds to
backyard farming and the rapid commercialization of free-range chickens (Wiebe et al.,
2011).
Ornamental perennial peanut plant (Arachis pintoi), also known as mani – mani is
a potential feed supplement for native chickens. Several researches were conducted on its
use as feed for livestock and were found to improve the animals’ performance. However,
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
2
studies on its use as feed supplement for poultry particularly on native chicken is very
limited. Hence, it is interesting to research on the potential of this plant as feed supplement
for the native chickens. Also, this feedstuff is readily available and we can see and produce
it everywhere as ground cover for our garden.
The result of this study would help the native chicken growers on either commercial
or backyard raising. Moreover, it could serve as a guide for other researchers on the use of
ornamental perennial peanut plant as feed for native chickens. There are just a few who
want engage in growing native chicken for commercial purposes because of their slow
growth rate. Giving the birds ornamental perennial peanut supplemented with commercial
feeds, if found to improve the growth performance of native chickens and give reasonable
profit will encourage backyard raisers and interested individual to adapt this ration.
Generally, this study was conducted to determine the effect of feeding ornamental
peanut plant with commercial feeds on the growth performance of the native chicken.
Specifically it aimed to determine the effect of ornamental perennial peanut on the
following:
1. the final weight, the gain in weight, the feed consumption, the feed conversion
ratio of the native chickens;
2. the rate of morbidity and mortality of the native chickens; and,
3. the profitability of raising native chicken given ornamental peanut plant with
commercial feeds.
This study was conducted at Brgy. Digdig, Carranglan, Nueva Ecija from October
2012 to January 2013.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The Philippine Native Chicken
These feathered scavengers are descendants of the Red Jungle Fowl of Asia, from
which the modern day white or colored chickens of the world originated. In the Philippines,
this Red Jungle Fowl still exists and is popularity called the Labuyo, the Philippine wild
chicken. Over time, this chicken has evolved due to the unabated infusion of exotic breeds
from US and recently the French and Israel range chickens. Because of this the real native
strain is believed to be almost impossible to find. Nowadays, the evolved local strain is
called the Philippine chicken. In spite of the high level advancement of the commercial
poultry industry, the Philippine chicken has remained popular (Villar, 2005).
According to Manila Bulletin (2005), in an article about agriculture, geneticists and
breeders define this genotype as having evolved from the indiscriminate breeding between
the indigenous stocks and the exotic purebreds that were introduced into the country a long
time ago. The breed has undergone a long process of natural selection under local
environments with no known infusion of exotic blood during its recent past, and was able
to survive and reproduce under local environmental conditions with minimal management
intervention.
Through a long process of natural selection, several strains have evolved in the
different regions/island groups of the country namely: the Bolinao strain in Pangasinan, the
Banaba in Batangas, the Camarines in Bicol, the Paraoakan in Palawan and the Darag in
Panay Island. These groupings were characterized and identified through extensive
researches (FFTC, 1992).
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Importance of the Philippine
Native Chicken
Fondly known as “the chicks for the poor”, these scavenging chickens play an
important role in supporting the farmers’ livelihood by fulfilling a range of functions
including: provision of meat and eggs, provision of income to farmers and related
industries, efficient utilization of farm by products and control of pests in the, family food
security asset, fulfillment of various socio-cultural obligations of small hold farmers, and
contributes to local economy. Apart from aforementioned socio-economic value, these
indigenous poultry species is also considered as a genetic treasure just as other developed
countries like Japan, Korea, and China consider their indigenous animals as national
treasures (WESVARRDEC, 2006).
Native Chicken Industry Status
It is estimated that 54.74% of the total chicken population of the country are native
chicken distributed as follows: Western Visayas, 13.32%; Southern Mindanao, 10.63%;
Southern Tagalog, 9.51%; Central Visayas, 10.36%; Cagayan Valley, 9.29% (PIN, 2003).
Ornamental Perennial Peanut
Arachis pintoi is a perennial, low growing, ground cover species. This plant is a
member of the leguminosae family which can fix nitrogen from the atmosphere. Based on
the several fact sheets, Arachis pintoi is one of the most promising multipurpose legume
cover crops with possible uses as: Living mulch in no-till vegetable production fields and
orchards, forage animal feeding, and ornamental ground cover along highway, ramps and
sidewalks, (Abdul-Baki et al., 2002).
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
The perennial peanut evolved in tropical conditions and it’s adapted to subtropical
and warm temperate climates. In the northern hemisphere, this would include locations
below 32 degrees north latitude (Florida Georgia state line) having a long, warm growing
season (Rouse et al., 2001).
Perennial peanut was first introduced from Brazil in 1936 and since that time no
insect, disease, or nematode pests have been identified that cause economic loss. Since its
introduction, it has not spread into natural areas or become a nuisance plant in unimproved
properties. Rhizomal perennial peanut does not produce by seed; therefore, it can’t be
carried by birds or wildlife or transported in plant material to unintended areas, (Rouse et
al., 2001).
Perennial peanut can be grown in sandy or clay soil (Cook, 1992). It tolerates high
level of aluminum and manganese but has low tolerance for sanity, tolerates flooding and
can grow well under heavy (70 – 80 %) shade. Perennial peanut can survive in areas with
annual rainfall of 1,000 mm or less, but grows best with over 1,500 mm/yr. and survives
dry seasons of 3-4 months (Cook et al., 2007).
Nutritive value varies with ecotype or cultivar, and declines with age of
material. Values range from 10-18% Crude protein and 45-68% In Vitro Organic Matter
Digestible for material cut twice a year and up to 22% Crude protein and 77% In Vitro
Organic Matter Digestible for material cut more regularly. Phosphorus levels of 0.15%
have been recorded in Arachis pintoi growing in extremely infertile soils, and up to 0.52%
in well-fertilized soils (CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems et al., 2005).
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Perennial Peanut as Livestock Feed
Some literature shows mutual benefit of integrated legumes-grass pasture:
perennial peanut as fodder, improved forage quantity and quality, and increased milk
production, stocking and calving rate, and also increased cattle weight. The benefits come
about because of the higher content of perennial peanut compared with nutrient content in
grass alone and also because of the higher biomass production in grass-legumes pasture.
As a livestock fodder, perennial peanut has a positive effect for the soil and livestock (Rivas
and Holmann, 2000).
According to Firth (1995), perennial peanut has many benefits and strengths such
as; it is excellent for soil conservation, it improves soil quality, it is a good source of
compost, it promotes tree growth, it is a choice livestock feed, it could control diseases, it
could suppress weed growth, it is hardy ornamental plant, and it is good source of nectar
for bees.
A study of Venuto et al., (1999), a considerable benefit of perennial peanut hay for
the horse market has been product consistency. The most immature, high protein growth
cannot be effectively harvested for hay. Sufficient growth for acceptable hay yields
tropically results in hay of 14% to 16% crude protein. This is an appropriate level of protein
for the horse market. Premium alfalfa hay will range from slightly below this level of crude
protein to more than 20%. This large range in crude protein, as well as occasional dust and
mold problems, has been associated with digestive disorders of horses consuming alfalfa
hay.
In research studies conducted in Florida and Georgia, perennial peanut forage has
been found to be highly nutritious for beef and dairy cattle, and goats (Bennette et al.,
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
1995). They reported that goats fed perennial peanut hay actually had slightly greater
digestibility of dry matter, fiber, and protein than those fed the alfalfa hay control. The
goats also voluntarily ate more perennial peanut hay than alfalfa hay. Hammond et.al,
(1992) found that perennial peanut forage is suitable protein and energy supplement feed
for wintering cattle, especially for those on low protein grass hay. Thus, for ruminant
animals (cattle, sheep and goats) perennial peanut is very nutritious and well liked. The
nutritional quality of perennial peanut appears to be as good as alfalfa.
Typical composition of perennial peanut hay grown in South Georgia and north
Florida (100% dry matter basis) according to Eckert (2008) are crude protein 14.0, neutral
detergent fiber 42.0 %, acid detergent fiber 32.0 %, lignin 9.0 %, total mineral matter (ash)
10.0 %, total digestible nutrient 60.0 %, horse digestible energy 1.1 Mcal/lb, relative feed
value 145.0, relative forage quality 140.0, calcium 1.3 %, phosphorus 0.2 %, potassium 1.4
%, magnesium 0.5 %, copper 6.0 %, and zinc 34.0 %.
Eckert (2008) also conducted an in vitro study to evaluate the potential digestibility
of various perennial peanut hays. In vitro (Latin for “within the glass”) procedures simulate
digestion by animals in the laboratory. The most common in vitro digestibility procedures
were developed to simulate digestion by cattle. There are now procedures to simulate
digestion by horses. One such procedure was used to evaluate several perennial peanut
hays, including hays of two perennial peanut varieties. The in vitro digestibility of all
perennial peanut hays was good as or greater than alfalfa.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
Thirty-two native chickens (Figure 1) with varying ages ranging from 22 to 42 days
old from different broods were used as experimental animals. Experimental birds include
those non-descript breeds of chicken commonly raised in the backyards. The materials used
were commercial feeds, chopped perennial peanut plant, cages, feeders, waterers, knives,
containers, weighing scale and recording materials.
Figure 1. Native chicks at 22 to 42 days old
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Methods
Preparation of cages, feeders and waterers. The cages were made up of scrap woods
and split bamboo poles (Figure 2). It was divided into compartments of about 1 m x 0.7 m
to accommodate four birds. Feeders and waterers were cleaned and disinfected a week
before the start of the study.
Figure 2. Cages used in the study
Procurement of stock. Experimental birds were bought from different owners at
Carranglan, Nueva Ecija.
Experimental design and treatment. Due to the difficulty in acquiring birds of
homogenous ages, experimental birds included those birds ranging from 22 days to 42
days. These were then grouped into four blocks as follows;
Block 1 – 22 days to 28 days
Block 2 – 29 days to 35 days
Block 3 – 32 days to 36 days
Block 4 – 36 days to 42 days
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
12
The experimental birds were distributed at random into two treatments following
the Random Completely Block Design (RCBD) with four blocks per treatment. Each block
had four birds making a total of 16 birds per treatment.
The following are the different treatments used in the study:
T0 – commercial feeds
T1 – commercial feeds + ornamental peanut plant
The feed to be given to the birds was introduced for a week before the actual start
of the study for them to adjust. After this adjustment period, they were weighed
individually to obtain their initial weight.
Preparation of ornamental peanut plant. Ornamental peanut plants (Figure 3) were
harvested from a garden in a backyard at Brgy. Digdig, Carranglan, Nueva Ecija. The
ornamental peanut plants were washed thoroughly to remove unnecessary particles then
set aside for 30 minutes for air drying. Then this was chopped into small pieces of about
0.5 cm.
Figure 3. Preparation of ornamental peanut
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Feeding scheme. For the control treatment (T0), the commercial feeds were given
ad libitum. For treatment 1, the commercial feeds and the chopped perennial peanut were
given separately. The time of giving commercial feeds was restricted. It was offered twice
a day from 7 am to 8 am in the morning and 4 pm to 5 pm in the afternoon. After the
specified time, any left-over was withdrawn and measured as left-over. On the other hand,
the ornamental peanut was given ad libitum from 9 am to 3 pm. After the specified time,
any left-over was withdrawn, too. This scheme was followed all throughout the study. This
feeding trial lasted for 84 days.
Care and management. All birds were subjected to the same care and management,
except for the ration which depended on the treatment where they were assigned. The
native chickens were confined all throughout the study.
Dressing. This was done a day after the feeding trial. Two sample birds from each
block per treatment were taken at random and fasted for 12 hours before slaughtering. The
proper procedure in dressing poultry was followed to ensure a quality carcass. The steps
done are as follows: sticking, scalding, defeathering, removal of the head, feet, neck, and
internal organs.
Data Gathered
The data gathered were as follows:
1. Initial weight (kg). Using a digital weighing scale, individual weights of the birds
was taken on the first day of feeding experiment where they were about 22 days to 42 days.
2. Final weight (kg). This was taken by weighing the birds individually after 84
days of feeding trial when the chickens are 106 days to 126 days old.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
3. Amount of feeds offered (kg). This was taken by weighing all the feeds offered
at the start until the end of the study.
4. Amount of feed left over (kg). This was taken by weighing the amount of spilled
or refused feeds.
5. Dry matter content of feeds (g). This was taken by measuring the mass of feeds
after oven drying to a constant weight.
6. Mortality. These are the number of birds that died during the study.
7. Morbidity. These are the number of bird affected with diseases during the study.
8. Production cost. This includes all direct and indirect costs incurred during the
study.
9. Live weight/ Slaughter weight (kg). This is the weight of the 12 hours fasted
sample birds prior to slaughter.
10. Dressed weight (kg). This is the weight of the slaughtered sample birds after
removal of feathers, head, neck, feet and entrails.
Data Computed
1. Total gain in weight (kg). This was obtained by subtracting the initial weight
from final weight of the birds.
2. Daily gain in weight (kg). This was taken by subtracting the initial weight from
the respective daily weight.
3. Weekly gain in weight (kg). This was taken by subtracting the initial weight from
the respective weekly weight.
4. Total feed consumption (kg).This was the amount of feeds consumed by the birds
from the start of the study until the end of the study.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
5. Percent dry matter of feeds (%).
a. % DM of ornamental peanut plant. This was obtained by dividing the
weight of dry matter of ornamental peanut plant by its fresh weight and multiplied by 100.
b. % DM of commercial feeds. This was taken by subtracting the %
moisture content of the feeds (based on the label) from 100%.
6. Dry matter intake (DMI). This was obtained by multiplying the fresh weight
intake by the percent dry matter of feeds.
7. Mortality rate (%). This was the percent of birds that died computed by dividing
the number of birds died by the total number of birds multiplied by 100.
8. Morbidity rate (%). This was the percent of birds affected with diseases
computed by dividing the number of birds affected with diseases by the total number of
birds multiplied by 100.
9. Feed conversion ratio. This was obtained by dividing the total feed consumption
by the total gain in weight.
10. Feed cost per kg gain (Php/kg). This was obtained by multiplying the feed
conversion ratio by the cost per kg of feeds.
11. Return on Investment (%). This was computed using the formula:
ROI = Gross income – Production cost X 100
Production cost
12. Dressing percentage (%). This was taken by dividing the dressed weight by the
live weight then multiplied by 100.
Statistical Analysis
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
All data were subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) appropriate for
Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). Means were compared using Least
Significant Difference (LSD) test.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Body Weight
Initial weight. The mean initial weight of the native chickens is shown in Table 1
and there appearance at 22 to 42 days is shown in Figure 4. Birds given commercial feeds
(T0) and those given commercial and ornamental peanut plant (T1) had the same mean
initial weight of 0.152kg, hence, no statistical difference.
Mean initial weight of the birds among blocks shows that block 2 and block 3 are
not significantly different since the gap in the ages of the birds between the said blocks are
not as far as the gap in ages of the birds in blocks 1 and 4.
Final weight. The mean final weight of native chickens is shown in Table 1 and
photos on Figure 5. There is no significant difference as shown in the statistical analysis
between the birds given commercial feeds only and those given commercial feeds plus
ornamental peanut plant. This means that the final weight of treatment 1 (commercial feeds
+ ornamental peanut plant) that is 1.261kg is not different to the mean final weight of
treatment 0 (pure commercial feeds) that is 1.249 kg. This indicates that the native chickens
fed with commercial feeds plus ornamental peanut plant on a restricted basis grew as fast
as those birds given pure commercial feeds ad libitum.
Figure 5 shows the mature native chickens at 15 to 18 weeks of age. The final
weights attained by the birds were comparable to the weight of native chickens under
improved management which is 1kg (PCARRD, 2000). Though the weight was improved,
their growth was slow as attributed to their genetic make-up.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Table 1. Mean initial and final weight of the native
BODY WEIGHT (kg)
INITIAL FINAL
Commercial feeds
0.152
1.249
Commercial feeds 0.152
1.261
+ ornamental peanut plant
*Means with the no superscript are not significantly different at 5% level of significance by LSD.
Figure 4. Native chickens at the start of the experimental period
Figure 5. Native chicken at 15 to 18 weeks (106 to 126 days)
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Growth Parameters
Table 2 presents the gains in weight of the native chickens on daily and weekly
basis as well as the total gain in weight after 84 days or 12 weeks of feeding.
Average daily gain in weight. Both treatments had a mean average daily gain of
0.01267kg which implies that the ornamental peanut plant did not affect the birds’ ability
to gain weight on daily basis. The daily gain in weight of the native chicken is lower
compared to the average daily gain of broiler that is 0.0150kg (Butcher, 2004).
Weekly gain in weight. Statistical analysis shows no significant difference between
treatment 0 (0.088kg) and treatment 1 (0.089kg). This is the same with the result on daily
gain in weight. Figure 1 shows that the weekly increments on the weight of the birds in
both treatments are almost the same. This result coincides with the average daily gain in
weight of the birds.
Table 2. Average daily gain, weekly gain, and total gain in weight
GAIN IN WEIGHT (kg)
TREATMENT
DAILY GAIN WEEKLY GAIN TOTAL GAIN
Commercial feeds
0.01267
0.08814
1.097
Commercial feeds
0.01267
0.08869
1.114
+ ornamental peanut plant
*Means with the no superscript are not significantly different at 5% level of significance by LSD.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
17
1400
1200
1000
800
treatment 0
600
treatment 1
400
200
0
week week week week week week week week week week week week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Figure 6. Weekly weight
Total gain in weight. Native chickens in treatment 0 (commercial feeds) had a total
gain in weight of 1.097kg that is not significantly different to treatment 1 (commercial
feeds and ornamental peanut plant) that gained 1.114kg. These results are consistent with
the data on final weight where native chickens with the heaviest final weight had also the
biggest gain in weight.
Total Feed Consumption
Table 3 shows the total amount of feeds consumed by the native chickens in both
treatments. Statistical analysis shows that treatment means are not significantly different
from each other. T0 consumed commercial feeds with a mean of 5.265kg/head while T1
consumed commercial feeds with a mean of 4.136kg/bird and 0.222kg/bird of ornamental
peanut plant (dry matter basis) having a total mean of 4.358kg/bird. This results means that
even if birds in treatment 1 (commercial feeds + ornamental peanut
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Table 3. Total feed consumption per bird
TOTAL FEED CONSUMPTION (kg)
TREATMENT
(AS FED)
(DRY MATTER)
Commercial feeds
5.922
5.265
Commercial feeds
4.429
4.358
+ ornamental peanut plant
*Means with the no superscript are not significantly different at 5% level of significance by LSD.
plant) were given feeds at a restricted time, they were able to consume feeds (4.136kg/bird)
as much as those birds in treatment 0 (commercial feeds) given on ad libitum basis with a
mean of 5.265kg/bird.
Feed Conversion Ratio
Table 4 presents the mean feed conversion ratio of native chickens given
commercial feeds and those given commercial feeds + ornamental peanut plant with means
of 4.799 and 3.976, respectively.
Statistical analysis detected no significant difference between the treatments. This
connotes that the birds fed commercial feeds + ornamental peanut plant were able to
convert the same amount of feeds to gain a kilogram in weight when compared to those
birds in control group (commercial feeds).
The feed conversion ratio of the native chickens in this study is much poorer than
the average FCR for broilers which is 2.0 (Vencobb, 2010). The birds’ poor ability to
convert feeds into a unit gain in weight is attributed to their genetic make-up, wherein even
under improved feeding system they cannot be at par with its commercial counterpart.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Feed Cost Per Kilogram Gain
As presented in Table 5, statistical analysis revealed no significant differences
between the treatment means in feed cost per kg gain in weight. T0 (pure commercial feeds)
had a mean of Php168.476 per kg while T1 (commercial feeds + ornamental peanut plant)
had Php138.963. This means that the amount of money spent for the feeds to produce kg
gain in weight was comparable in both treatments. Feed costs across blocks also show
that regardless of age, the same cost would be incurred to produce a kg gain of weight.
Commercial
feeds
were
bought at Php32.00/kg while ornamental peanut plant was Php16.50/kg for the labor spent
in gathering and preparation.
Table 4. Mean feed conversion ratio
TREATMENT
FCR
Commercial feeds
4.799
Commercial feeds
3.976
+ ornamental peanut plant
*Means with the no superscript are not significantly different at 5% level of significance by LSD.
Table 5. Mean feed cost per kilogram gain
TREATMENT
FEED COST per kg GAIN (Php)
Commercial feeds
168.476
Commercial feeds
138.963
+ ornamental peanut plant
*Means with the no superscript are not significantly different at 5% level of significance by LSD.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Mortality and Morbidity
Majority of the birds had colds after the first month of the feeding trial where they
were about seven to ten weeks old shown in Table 6. This was due to the inclement weather
condition at the experimental place. Most of them recovered, however, two birds died from
T0 (commercial feeds) while four birds from T1 (commercial feeds + ornamental peanut
plant). Figure 7 shows the picture of the birds with colds.
Table 6. Mean mortality and morbidity rate
TREATMENT
MORBIDITY
MORTALITY
(%)
(%)
Commercial feeds
50.00
12.50
Commercial feeds
50.00
25.00
+ ornamental peanut plant
*Means with the no superscript are not significantly different at 5% level of significance by LSD.
Figure 7. Sick birds from both treatment
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Return on Investment
Table 7 shows that higher return (15.19%) was obtained in T0 (commercial feeds)
than in T1 (commercial feeds + ornamental peanut plant) with 7.79%. Lower return on the
latter treatment was due to more time spent inT1 for preparing the feeds ration, hence higher
labor cost. However, on feed cost per se (Appendix 12), it shows that T1 is more
economical.
Carcass Yield
Table 8 shows the mean slaughter weight, carcass weight and dressing percentage
of the T0 (commercial feeds) and T1 (commercial feeds + ornamental peanut plant). There
were no significant differences between treatments on all parameters.
Treatment 0 had a mean carcass weight of 0.822kg and dressing percentage of
63.99%, while treatment 1 had 0.807kg and 63.29%, respectively. These results indicate
that the carcass weight and dressing percentage of the birds in both treatments were not
affected by the diets given.
The mean dressing percentage of 63.64% is lower compared to the average dressing
percentage of broilers which is 70%. One factor that could practically be considered is the
fact that the native chickens had minimal fats in their carcass even when fed with highly
energy diet. Broilers have much fat deposits in their carcasses which add weight to their
carcass yield.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Table 7. Return on investment
TREATMENT
GROSS INCOME NET INCOME RETURN ON
(Php)
(Php)
INVESTMENT (%)
Commercial feeds
5,290.75
697.59
15.19
Commercial feeds
4,488.00
316.50
7.59
+ mani-mani
*Means with the no superscript are not significantly different at 5% level of significance by LSD.
Table 8. Carcass yield
TREATMENT
SLAUGHTER DRESSED WEIGHT DRESSING
WEIGHT (kg)
(kg) PERCENTAGE (%)
Commercial feeds
1.289 0.822
63.989
Commercial feeds
1.271 0.807
63.286
+ ornamental peanut plant
*Means with the no superscript are not significantly different at 5% level of significance by LSD.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
Ornamental peanut plant, commonly known as mani-mani, is a tested feed for
ruminant especially horses. However, no data are available to show how native chickens
perform when fed with this feedstuff. Hence, this study was conducted to evaluate the
performance of native chickens given ornamental peanut plant with commercial feeds. The
feeding experiment was undertaken in a backyard at Brgy. Joson, Carranglan, Nueva Ecija
from October 2012 to January 2013.
The study verified the gain in weight, feed efficiency and carcass yield of native
chickens given ornamental peanut plant with commercial feeds and made a cost and return
analysis on native chicken production using this ration. There were 32 native chickens
ranging from 22-42 days old involved in the study. All the native chickens were completely
confined throughout the study (84 days) and given the same care and management except
for the ration given.
There were two treatments blocked into four with four birds per block. Birds in
treatment 0 were given commercial feeds only while birds in treatment 1 were given
ornamental peanut plant and commercial feeds. Both treatments yield the same results on
initial weight, final weight, total gain in weight, daily and weekly gain in weight, feed
consumption, feed conversion ratio, feed cost per kg gain, carcass weight and dressing
percentage.
Over a period of 84 days of feeding trial, the birds were able to attain a mean total
gain in weight of 1.106kg, from a mean initial weight of 0.152kg to a final weight of
1.255kg. The birds had a mean consumption of 4.811kg per head on a dry matter basis
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
yielding a feed conversion ratio (FCR) of 4.388 and Php153.72 feed cost to produce a kg
gain in weight. Profits obtained per peso invested from the sales of the birds were 15.19%
and 7.59% in treatment 0 and treatment 1, respectively. After slaughtering and dressing the
sample birds, a mean dressing percentage of 63.18% was obtained.
Results showed that the native chickens given ornamental peanut plant and
commercial feeds on a restricted time had the same performance with those given
commercial feeds adlibitum. However, lesser return was obtained from the former
treatment because of the additional labor spent in the preparation of ornamental peanut
plant.
Conclusion
Based on the findings of this research, it is concluded that the ornamental peanut
plant had the same effect on the performance of native chicken given commercial feeds
only. Thus, supplementation of this feedstuff to poultry especially native chicken did not
enhance nor depressed their performance.
Recommendation
It can be recommended for backyard raisers using the cage system on native
chicken production and those who are interested to engage on this production to adopt the
use of commercial feeds and ornamental peanut plant following the restricted time of
feeding as done in this study to minimize wastage of feeds.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
LITERATURE CITED
ABDUL-BAKI A.A., H.H. BRYAN,W. KLASSEN, and M. CODALLO. 2002.
Propagation and Establishment of Perennial Peanuts for Ground Covers Along Roadsides
and Highway Ramps. Proceeding Florida State Horticultural Society. Pp. 115:267-272.
BENNETTE, L.L., A.C. HAMMOND, M.J., WILLIAMS, W.E. KUNKLE, D.D.
JOHNSON, R.L. PRESTON, and M.F. MILLER. 1995. Performance, Carcass, Yield, and
Carcass Quality Characteristics of Steers Finished on Perennial Peanut. J. Animal Science,
Unversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Pp. 1881-1887.
BUTCHER G.D. 2004. Broiler Production-Important Numbers. Retrieved on March 14,
2013 from http://edis.ifas.edu/vm099.
COOK, B.G. 1992. Arachis pintoi krap.Plant Resources of South East Asia. 4. Forages.
Pudoc Scientific Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 48-50.
COOK, B.G., A.M. BOWMAN, and I.C. CROSTHWAITE. 2007. Utilization of Arachis
species as forage.The Groudnut Crop: A Basis for Scientific Improvement. Chapman &
Hall, London.Pp 624-657.
COMMONWEALTH
SCIENTIFIC
AND
INDUSTRIAL
RESEARCH
ORGANIZATION SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEM, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY
INDUSTRIES AND FISHERIES, CENTRO INTERNACIONAL DE AGRICULTURA
TROPICAL and THE INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE.
2005. Tropical Forages: an interactive selection tool. Retrieved on August 3, 2012 from
http://www.tropicalforages.info/key/Forages/Media/Html/Arachis_glabrata.htm.
ECKERT, J.V. 2008. Digestibility and nutrient retention of perennial peanut and Bermuda
grass hays for mature horses. Master Thesis, Department of Animal Science, University of
Florida, Gainsville.
FOOD AND FERTILIZER TECHNOLOGY CENTER.1992. Catalogue of the Native
Poultry of South Asia. The Native Chicken of the Philippines. Book series No. 43
FIRTH, D. 1995. Ground Covers in Macadamia Orchards. The Sixth Conference of the
AustralasianCouncilontheTreeandNutCropsInc.Lismore, NSW,Australia. Retrieved on
August 21, 2012 http://www.newscrops.uq.edu.au/acontanc/papers/firth.htm.
HAMMOND, A.C., L.J. PADGETT, and M.J. WILLIAMS. 1992. Relative feeding value
of perennial peanut hay as a supplement to bahia grass hay for wintering beef cows and
heifers. Prof. Animal Science University of Florida, Gainsville. Pp. 8:48-54.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
MANILA BULLETIN.2005.Agriculture.Native Chicken from Scavenging to Niching.
Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation. Muralla corner Recoletos, Intramuros, Manila,
Philippines. Pp. 9
PHILIPPINE COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND NATURAL
RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT. 2000. Improve Management of Philippine Native
Chickens. Los Banos, Laguna. PCARRD and LDC-DA, 16 p. PCARRD farm Primer No.
http://blog.agriculture.ph/native-chicken-production-in-the-philippines.html.
POULTRY INFORMATION NETWORK. 2003. Industry Status-Chicken. Retrieve on
September 1, 2012 from http://www.pcarrd.dost.gov.ph/CIN/poultry/.
RIVAS L. and HOLMANN F. 2000. Early adoption of Arachis pintoi a in the humid
tropics: the case of dual-purpose livestock systems in Caqueta, Columbia. Journal of
Livestock Research for Rural Development.
ROUSE, R.E., R.M. MUCHOVEJ, and J.J. MULLAHEY. 2001. Perennial Peanut Ground
Cover in Citrus Orchard Row Middles and Discussion of Potential Environmental Benefits.
Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society. Pp. 110: 79-82.
WESTERN VISAYAS AGRICULTURE AND RESOURCES RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM. 2006. Philippine Native Chicken. Retrieved on
September
3,
2012
from
http://maidon.pcarrd.dost.gov.ph/regional_consortia/wesvarrdec/native-chicken.htm.
WIEBE V. S., FACHRUDIN A., MAVROMICHALIS I., and MOJTABA Y. 2011.
Weblog: Poultry Production and Management. Retrieve on August 25, 2012 from
http://www.worldpoultry.net/weblog/poultry-production-management/.
VENCOBB. 2010. Vencobb Broiler and Broiler Breeder. Retrieve on March 14, 2013 from
http://www.venkys.com/vh-breeds/vencobb-broiler-broiler-breeder/vencobb-broiler-
management-guide/broiler-performance-criteria/
VENUTO B.C., D.D REDFEARN, and W.D., PITMAN. 1999. A New Forage Option for
Louisiana. In Agronomy Abtract.ASA, Madison, WI.Pp. 136.
VILLAR, E.C. 2005.The Native Chicken… from Scavenging to Niching.Agriculture.
Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation. Muralla corner Recoletos, Intramuros, Manila,
Philippines. Vol. IX. Pp. 8-11.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013. Growth Performance of Native Chickens
Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi) and Commercial Feeds. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Mary Arnel D. Garcia, MSc.
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to determine the effect of ornamental peanut on the
performance of native chicken specifically on the gain in weight, feed efficiency and
carcass yield. It also aimed to determine the profitability of the raising native chickens
given ornamental peanut and commercial feeds. This study was conducted at brgy. Digdig,
Carranglan, Nueva Ecija.
There were 32 native chickens ranging from 22 to 42 day old involved in the study,
which were distributed following the Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). There
were two treatments used blocked into four with four birds per block. Treatment 0 received
commercial feeds ad libitum while treatment 1 received ornamental peanut plant and
commercial feeds on a restricted time.
Over a period of 84 days of feeding trial, the birds were able to attain a mean total
gain in weight of 1.106kg, from a mean initial weight of 0.152kg to a final weight of
1.255kg. The birds had a mean consumption of 4.811kg per head on a dry matter basis
yielding a feed conversion ratio (FCR) of 4.388 and Php153.72 feed cost to produce a kg
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
gain in weight. Profits obtained per peso invested from the sales of the birds were 15.19%
and 7.59% in treatment 0 received commercial feeds only and treatment 1 received
ornamental peanut and commercial feeds, respectively. After slaughtering and dressing the
sample birds, a mean dressing percentage of 63.18% was obtained.
Except for the return on investment, statistical analysis shown that on all parameters
evaluated, the performance of the native chickens was not enhanced or improved by giving
ornamental peanut.
Lower returns from the native chickens given commercial feeds + ornamental
peanut plant was accounted to more labor spent in the preparation of the feedstuff.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
INTRODUCTION
The Philippine native chicken is the common village chicken raised in backyards
throughout the country. Such chickens are sometimes turned loose to scavenge, while some
are housed in semi-confinement. Although native chicken are comparatively poor egg and
meat producers, they remain an important source of much needed animal protein and also
bring extra income to farmers.
Most farmers prefer to raise native chickens rather than imported exotic breeds,
because of the ability to survive under harsh conditions and to reproduce regularly even
under minimal care and management. Native chicken are relatively resistant to common
poultry diseases and need little or no feed concentrates. Now that the nutritional importance
of the native chicken and its potential for generating income has begun to be appreciated,
some farmers in the Philippines are raising native chickens in a semi-commercial system,
at a very low operational cost. Native Chickens indicate that the hen lays 40 to 60 eggs per
year and becomes broody 3 to 4 times a year, producing some 30 to 35 chicks per year
(FFTC, 1992).
According to poultry specialists with the Department of Agriculture recently, native
chickens have failed to sustain their potential as a steady source of meat products. The
blame seems to fall on the people's attitude of confining the raising of native breeds to
backyard farming and the rapid commercialization of free-range chickens (Wiebe et al.,
2011).
Ornamental perennial peanut plant (Arachis pintoi), also known as mani – mani is
a potential feed supplement for native chickens. Several researches were conducted on its
use as feed for livestock and were found to improve the animals’ performance. However,
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
2
studies on its use as feed supplement for poultry particularly on native chicken is very
limited. Hence, it is interesting to research on the potential of this plant as feed supplement
for the native chickens. Also, this feedstuff is readily available and we can see and produce
it everywhere as ground cover for our garden.
The result of this study would help the native chicken growers on either commercial
or backyard raising. Moreover, it could serve as a guide for other researchers on the use of
ornamental perennial peanut plant as feed for native chickens. There are just a few who
want engage in growing native chicken for commercial purposes because of their slow
growth rate. Giving the birds ornamental perennial peanut supplemented with commercial
feeds, if found to improve the growth performance of native chickens and give reasonable
profit will encourage backyard raisers and interested individual to adapt this ration.
Generally, this study was conducted to determine the effect of feeding ornamental
peanut plant with commercial feeds on the growth performance of the native chicken.
Specifically it aimed to determine the effect of ornamental perennial peanut on the
following:
1. the final weight, the gain in weight, the feed consumption, the feed conversion
ratio of the native chickens;
2. the rate of morbidity and mortality of the native chickens; and,
3. the profitability of raising native chicken given ornamental peanut plant with
commercial feeds.
This study was conducted at Brgy. Digdig, Carranglan, Nueva Ecija from October
2012 to January 2013.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The Philippine Native Chicken
These feathered scavengers are descendants of the Red Jungle Fowl of Asia, from
which the modern day white or colored chickens of the world originated. In the Philippines,
this Red Jungle Fowl still exists and is popularity called the Labuyo, the Philippine wild
chicken. Over time, this chicken has evolved due to the unabated infusion of exotic breeds
from US and recently the French and Israel range chickens. Because of this the real native
strain is believed to be almost impossible to find. Nowadays, the evolved local strain is
called the Philippine chicken. In spite of the high level advancement of the commercial
poultry industry, the Philippine chicken has remained popular (Villar, 2005).
According to Manila Bulletin (2005), in an article about agriculture, geneticists and
breeders define this genotype as having evolved from the indiscriminate breeding between
the indigenous stocks and the exotic purebreds that were introduced into the country a long
time ago. The breed has undergone a long process of natural selection under local
environments with no known infusion of exotic blood during its recent past, and was able
to survive and reproduce under local environmental conditions with minimal management
intervention.
Through a long process of natural selection, several strains have evolved in the
different regions/island groups of the country namely: the Bolinao strain in Pangasinan, the
Banaba in Batangas, the Camarines in Bicol, the Paraoakan in Palawan and the Darag in
Panay Island. These groupings were characterized and identified through extensive
researches (FFTC, 1992).
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Importance of the Philippine
Native Chicken
Fondly known as “the chicks for the poor”, these scavenging chickens play an
important role in supporting the farmers’ livelihood by fulfilling a range of functions
including: provision of meat and eggs, provision of income to farmers and related
industries, efficient utilization of farm by products and control of pests in the, family food
security asset, fulfillment of various socio-cultural obligations of small hold farmers, and
contributes to local economy. Apart from aforementioned socio-economic value, these
indigenous poultry species is also considered as a genetic treasure just as other developed
countries like Japan, Korea, and China consider their indigenous animals as national
treasures (WESVARRDEC, 2006).
Native Chicken Industry Status
It is estimated that 54.74% of the total chicken population of the country are native
chicken distributed as follows: Western Visayas, 13.32%; Southern Mindanao, 10.63%;
Southern Tagalog, 9.51%; Central Visayas, 10.36%; Cagayan Valley, 9.29% (PIN, 2003).
Ornamental Perennial Peanut
Arachis pintoi is a perennial, low growing, ground cover species. This plant is a
member of the leguminosae family which can fix nitrogen from the atmosphere. Based on
the several fact sheets, Arachis pintoi is one of the most promising multipurpose legume
cover crops with possible uses as: Living mulch in no-till vegetable production fields and
orchards, forage animal feeding, and ornamental ground cover along highway, ramps and
sidewalks, (Abdul-Baki et al., 2002).
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
The perennial peanut evolved in tropical conditions and it’s adapted to subtropical
and warm temperate climates. In the northern hemisphere, this would include locations
below 32 degrees north latitude (Florida Georgia state line) having a long, warm growing
season (Rouse et al., 2001).
Perennial peanut was first introduced from Brazil in 1936 and since that time no
insect, disease, or nematode pests have been identified that cause economic loss. Since its
introduction, it has not spread into natural areas or become a nuisance plant in unimproved
properties. Rhizomal perennial peanut does not produce by seed; therefore, it can’t be
carried by birds or wildlife or transported in plant material to unintended areas, (Rouse et
al., 2001).
Perennial peanut can be grown in sandy or clay soil (Cook, 1992). It tolerates high
level of aluminum and manganese but has low tolerance for sanity, tolerates flooding and
can grow well under heavy (70 – 80 %) shade. Perennial peanut can survive in areas with
annual rainfall of 1,000 mm or less, but grows best with over 1,500 mm/yr. and survives
dry seasons of 3-4 months (Cook et al., 2007).
Nutritive value varies with ecotype or cultivar, and declines with age of
material. Values range from 10-18% Crude protein and 45-68% In Vitro Organic Matter
Digestible for material cut twice a year and up to 22% Crude protein and 77% In Vitro
Organic Matter Digestible for material cut more regularly. Phosphorus levels of 0.15%
have been recorded in Arachis pintoi growing in extremely infertile soils, and up to 0.52%
in well-fertilized soils (CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems et al., 2005).
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Perennial Peanut as Livestock Feed
Some literature shows mutual benefit of integrated legumes-grass pasture:
perennial peanut as fodder, improved forage quantity and quality, and increased milk
production, stocking and calving rate, and also increased cattle weight. The benefits come
about because of the higher content of perennial peanut compared with nutrient content in
grass alone and also because of the higher biomass production in grass-legumes pasture.
As a livestock fodder, perennial peanut has a positive effect for the soil and livestock (Rivas
and Holmann, 2000).
According to Firth (1995), perennial peanut has many benefits and strengths such
as; it is excellent for soil conservation, it improves soil quality, it is a good source of
compost, it promotes tree growth, it is a choice livestock feed, it could control diseases, it
could suppress weed growth, it is hardy ornamental plant, and it is good source of nectar
for bees.
A study of Venuto et al., (1999), a considerable benefit of perennial peanut hay for
the horse market has been product consistency. The most immature, high protein growth
cannot be effectively harvested for hay. Sufficient growth for acceptable hay yields
tropically results in hay of 14% to 16% crude protein. This is an appropriate level of protein
for the horse market. Premium alfalfa hay will range from slightly below this level of crude
protein to more than 20%. This large range in crude protein, as well as occasional dust and
mold problems, has been associated with digestive disorders of horses consuming alfalfa
hay.
In research studies conducted in Florida and Georgia, perennial peanut forage has
been found to be highly nutritious for beef and dairy cattle, and goats (Bennette et al.,
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
1995). They reported that goats fed perennial peanut hay actually had slightly greater
digestibility of dry matter, fiber, and protein than those fed the alfalfa hay control. The
goats also voluntarily ate more perennial peanut hay than alfalfa hay. Hammond et.al,
(1992) found that perennial peanut forage is suitable protein and energy supplement feed
for wintering cattle, especially for those on low protein grass hay. Thus, for ruminant
animals (cattle, sheep and goats) perennial peanut is very nutritious and well liked. The
nutritional quality of perennial peanut appears to be as good as alfalfa.
Typical composition of perennial peanut hay grown in South Georgia and north
Florida (100% dry matter basis) according to Eckert (2008) are crude protein 14.0, neutral
detergent fiber 42.0 %, acid detergent fiber 32.0 %, lignin 9.0 %, total mineral matter (ash)
10.0 %, total digestible nutrient 60.0 %, horse digestible energy 1.1 Mcal/lb, relative feed
value 145.0, relative forage quality 140.0, calcium 1.3 %, phosphorus 0.2 %, potassium 1.4
%, magnesium 0.5 %, copper 6.0 %, and zinc 34.0 %.
Eckert (2008) also conducted an in vitro study to evaluate the potential digestibility
of various perennial peanut hays. In vitro (Latin for “within the glass”) procedures simulate
digestion by animals in the laboratory. The most common in vitro digestibility procedures
were developed to simulate digestion by cattle. There are now procedures to simulate
digestion by horses. One such procedure was used to evaluate several perennial peanut
hays, including hays of two perennial peanut varieties. The in vitro digestibility of all
perennial peanut hays was good as or greater than alfalfa.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
Thirty-two native chickens (Figure 1) with varying ages ranging from 22 to 42 days
old from different broods were used as experimental animals. Experimental birds include
those non-descript breeds of chicken commonly raised in the backyards. The materials used
were commercial feeds, chopped perennial peanut plant, cages, feeders, waterers, knives,
containers, weighing scale and recording materials.
Figure 1. Native chicks at 22 to 42 days old
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Methods
Preparation of cages, feeders and waterers. The cages were made up of scrap woods
and split bamboo poles (Figure 2). It was divided into compartments of about 1 m x 0.7 m
to accommodate four birds. Feeders and waterers were cleaned and disinfected a week
before the start of the study.
Figure 2. Cages used in the study
Procurement of stock. Experimental birds were bought from different owners at
Carranglan, Nueva Ecija.
Experimental design and treatment. Due to the difficulty in acquiring birds of
homogenous ages, experimental birds included those birds ranging from 22 days to 42
days. These were then grouped into four blocks as follows;
Block 1 – 22 days to 28 days
Block 2 – 29 days to 35 days
Block 3 – 32 days to 36 days
Block 4 – 36 days to 42 days
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
12
The experimental birds were distributed at random into two treatments following
the Random Completely Block Design (RCBD) with four blocks per treatment. Each block
had four birds making a total of 16 birds per treatment.
The following are the different treatments used in the study:
T0 – commercial feeds
T1 – commercial feeds + ornamental peanut plant
The feed to be given to the birds was introduced for a week before the actual start
of the study for them to adjust. After this adjustment period, they were weighed
individually to obtain their initial weight.
Preparation of ornamental peanut plant. Ornamental peanut plants (Figure 3) were
harvested from a garden in a backyard at Brgy. Digdig, Carranglan, Nueva Ecija. The
ornamental peanut plants were washed thoroughly to remove unnecessary particles then
set aside for 30 minutes for air drying. Then this was chopped into small pieces of about
0.5 cm.
Figure 3. Preparation of ornamental peanut
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Feeding scheme. For the control treatment (T0), the commercial feeds were given
ad libitum. For treatment 1, the commercial feeds and the chopped perennial peanut were
given separately. The time of giving commercial feeds was restricted. It was offered twice
a day from 7 am to 8 am in the morning and 4 pm to 5 pm in the afternoon. After the
specified time, any left-over was withdrawn and measured as left-over. On the other hand,
the ornamental peanut was given ad libitum from 9 am to 3 pm. After the specified time,
any left-over was withdrawn, too. This scheme was followed all throughout the study. This
feeding trial lasted for 84 days.
Care and management. All birds were subjected to the same care and management,
except for the ration which depended on the treatment where they were assigned. The
native chickens were confined all throughout the study.
Dressing. This was done a day after the feeding trial. Two sample birds from each
block per treatment were taken at random and fasted for 12 hours before slaughtering. The
proper procedure in dressing poultry was followed to ensure a quality carcass. The steps
done are as follows: sticking, scalding, defeathering, removal of the head, feet, neck, and
internal organs.
Data Gathered
The data gathered were as follows:
1. Initial weight (kg). Using a digital weighing scale, individual weights of the birds
was taken on the first day of feeding experiment where they were about 22 days to 42 days.
2. Final weight (kg). This was taken by weighing the birds individually after 84
days of feeding trial when the chickens are 106 days to 126 days old.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
3. Amount of feeds offered (kg). This was taken by weighing all the feeds offered
at the start until the end of the study.
4. Amount of feed left over (kg). This was taken by weighing the amount of spilled
or refused feeds.
5. Dry matter content of feeds (g). This was taken by measuring the mass of feeds
after oven drying to a constant weight.
6. Mortality. These are the number of birds that died during the study.
7. Morbidity. These are the number of bird affected with diseases during the study.
8. Production cost. This includes all direct and indirect costs incurred during the
study.
9. Live weight/ Slaughter weight (kg). This is the weight of the 12 hours fasted
sample birds prior to slaughter.
10. Dressed weight (kg). This is the weight of the slaughtered sample birds after
removal of feathers, head, neck, feet and entrails.
Data Computed
1. Total gain in weight (kg). This was obtained by subtracting the initial weight
from final weight of the birds.
2. Daily gain in weight (kg). This was taken by subtracting the initial weight from
the respective daily weight.
3. Weekly gain in weight (kg). This was taken by subtracting the initial weight from
the respective weekly weight.
4. Total feed consumption (kg).This was the amount of feeds consumed by the birds
from the start of the study until the end of the study.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
5. Percent dry matter of feeds (%).
a. % DM of ornamental peanut plant. This was obtained by dividing the
weight of dry matter of ornamental peanut plant by its fresh weight and multiplied by 100.
b. % DM of commercial feeds. This was taken by subtracting the %
moisture content of the feeds (based on the label) from 100%.
6. Dry matter intake (DMI). This was obtained by multiplying the fresh weight
intake by the percent dry matter of feeds.
7. Mortality rate (%). This was the percent of birds that died computed by dividing
the number of birds died by the total number of birds multiplied by 100.
8. Morbidity rate (%). This was the percent of birds affected with diseases
computed by dividing the number of birds affected with diseases by the total number of
birds multiplied by 100.
9. Feed conversion ratio. This was obtained by dividing the total feed consumption
by the total gain in weight.
10. Feed cost per kg gain (Php/kg). This was obtained by multiplying the feed
conversion ratio by the cost per kg of feeds.
11. Return on Investment (%). This was computed using the formula:
ROI = Gross income – Production cost X 100
Production cost
12. Dressing percentage (%). This was taken by dividing the dressed weight by the
live weight then multiplied by 100.
Statistical Analysis
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
All data were subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) appropriate for
Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). Means were compared using Least
Significant Difference (LSD) test.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Body Weight
Initial weight. The mean initial weight of the native chickens is shown in Table 1
and there appearance at 22 to 42 days is shown in Figure 4. Birds given commercial feeds
(T0) and those given commercial and ornamental peanut plant (T1) had the same mean
initial weight of 0.152kg, hence, no statistical difference.
Mean initial weight of the birds among blocks shows that block 2 and block 3 are
not significantly different since the gap in the ages of the birds between the said blocks are
not as far as the gap in ages of the birds in blocks 1 and 4.
Final weight. The mean final weight of native chickens is shown in Table 1 and
photos on Figure 5. There is no significant difference as shown in the statistical analysis
between the birds given commercial feeds only and those given commercial feeds plus
ornamental peanut plant. This means that the final weight of treatment 1 (commercial feeds
+ ornamental peanut plant) that is 1.261kg is not different to the mean final weight of
treatment 0 (pure commercial feeds) that is 1.249 kg. This indicates that the native chickens
fed with commercial feeds plus ornamental peanut plant on a restricted basis grew as fast
as those birds given pure commercial feeds ad libitum.
Figure 5 shows the mature native chickens at 15 to 18 weeks of age. The final
weights attained by the birds were comparable to the weight of native chickens under
improved management which is 1kg (PCARRD, 2000). Though the weight was improved,
their growth was slow as attributed to their genetic make-up.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Table 1. Mean initial and final weight of the native
BODY WEIGHT (kg)
INITIAL FINAL
Commercial feeds
0.152
1.249
Commercial feeds 0.152
1.261
+ ornamental peanut plant
*Means with the no superscript are not significantly different at 5% level of significance by LSD.
Figure 4. Native chickens at the start of the experimental period
Figure 5. Native chicken at 15 to 18 weeks (106 to 126 days)
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Growth Parameters
Table 2 presents the gains in weight of the native chickens on daily and weekly
basis as well as the total gain in weight after 84 days or 12 weeks of feeding.
Average daily gain in weight. Both treatments had a mean average daily gain of
0.01267kg which implies that the ornamental peanut plant did not affect the birds’ ability
to gain weight on daily basis. The daily gain in weight of the native chicken is lower
compared to the average daily gain of broiler that is 0.0150kg (Butcher, 2004).
Weekly gain in weight. Statistical analysis shows no significant difference between
treatment 0 (0.088kg) and treatment 1 (0.089kg). This is the same with the result on daily
gain in weight. Figure 1 shows that the weekly increments on the weight of the birds in
both treatments are almost the same. This result coincides with the average daily gain in
weight of the birds.
Table 2. Average daily gain, weekly gain, and total gain in weight
GAIN IN WEIGHT (kg)
TREATMENT
DAILY GAIN WEEKLY GAIN TOTAL GAIN
Commercial feeds
0.01267
0.08814
1.097
Commercial feeds
0.01267
0.08869
1.114
+ ornamental peanut plant
*Means with the no superscript are not significantly different at 5% level of significance by LSD.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
17
1400
1200
1000
800
treatment 0
600
treatment 1
400
200
0
week week week week week week week week week week week week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Figure 6. Weekly weight
Total gain in weight. Native chickens in treatment 0 (commercial feeds) had a total
gain in weight of 1.097kg that is not significantly different to treatment 1 (commercial
feeds and ornamental peanut plant) that gained 1.114kg. These results are consistent with
the data on final weight where native chickens with the heaviest final weight had also the
biggest gain in weight.
Total Feed Consumption
Table 3 shows the total amount of feeds consumed by the native chickens in both
treatments. Statistical analysis shows that treatment means are not significantly different
from each other. T0 consumed commercial feeds with a mean of 5.265kg/head while T1
consumed commercial feeds with a mean of 4.136kg/bird and 0.222kg/bird of ornamental
peanut plant (dry matter basis) having a total mean of 4.358kg/bird. This results means that
even if birds in treatment 1 (commercial feeds + ornamental peanut
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Table 3. Total feed consumption per bird
TOTAL FEED CONSUMPTION (kg)
TREATMENT
(AS FED)
(DRY MATTER)
Commercial feeds
5.922
5.265
Commercial feeds
4.429
4.358
+ ornamental peanut plant
*Means with the no superscript are not significantly different at 5% level of significance by LSD.
plant) were given feeds at a restricted time, they were able to consume feeds (4.136kg/bird)
as much as those birds in treatment 0 (commercial feeds) given on ad libitum basis with a
mean of 5.265kg/bird.
Feed Conversion Ratio
Table 4 presents the mean feed conversion ratio of native chickens given
commercial feeds and those given commercial feeds + ornamental peanut plant with means
of 4.799 and 3.976, respectively.
Statistical analysis detected no significant difference between the treatments. This
connotes that the birds fed commercial feeds + ornamental peanut plant were able to
convert the same amount of feeds to gain a kilogram in weight when compared to those
birds in control group (commercial feeds).
The feed conversion ratio of the native chickens in this study is much poorer than
the average FCR for broilers which is 2.0 (Vencobb, 2010). The birds’ poor ability to
convert feeds into a unit gain in weight is attributed to their genetic make-up, wherein even
under improved feeding system they cannot be at par with its commercial counterpart.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Feed Cost Per Kilogram Gain
As presented in Table 5, statistical analysis revealed no significant differences
between the treatment means in feed cost per kg gain in weight. T0 (pure commercial feeds)
had a mean of Php168.476 per kg while T1 (commercial feeds + ornamental peanut plant)
had Php138.963. This means that the amount of money spent for the feeds to produce kg
gain in weight was comparable in both treatments. Feed costs across blocks also show
that regardless of age, the same cost would be incurred to produce a kg gain of weight.
Commercial
feeds
were
bought at Php32.00/kg while ornamental peanut plant was Php16.50/kg for the labor spent
in gathering and preparation.
Table 4. Mean feed conversion ratio
TREATMENT
FCR
Commercial feeds
4.799
Commercial feeds
3.976
+ ornamental peanut plant
*Means with the no superscript are not significantly different at 5% level of significance by LSD.
Table 5. Mean feed cost per kilogram gain
TREATMENT
FEED COST per kg GAIN (Php)
Commercial feeds
168.476
Commercial feeds
138.963
+ ornamental peanut plant
*Means with the no superscript are not significantly different at 5% level of significance by LSD.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Mortality and Morbidity
Majority of the birds had colds after the first month of the feeding trial where they
were about seven to ten weeks old shown in Table 6. This was due to the inclement weather
condition at the experimental place. Most of them recovered, however, two birds died from
T0 (commercial feeds) while four birds from T1 (commercial feeds + ornamental peanut
plant). Figure 7 shows the picture of the birds with colds.
Table 6. Mean mortality and morbidity rate
TREATMENT
MORBIDITY
MORTALITY
(%)
(%)
Commercial feeds
50.00
12.50
Commercial feeds
50.00
25.00
+ ornamental peanut plant
*Means with the no superscript are not significantly different at 5% level of significance by LSD.
Figure 7. Sick birds from both treatment
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Return on Investment
Table 7 shows that higher return (15.19%) was obtained in T0 (commercial feeds)
than in T1 (commercial feeds + ornamental peanut plant) with 7.79%. Lower return on the
latter treatment was due to more time spent inT1 for preparing the feeds ration, hence higher
labor cost. However, on feed cost per se (Appendix 12), it shows that T1 is more
economical.
Carcass Yield
Table 8 shows the mean slaughter weight, carcass weight and dressing percentage
of the T0 (commercial feeds) and T1 (commercial feeds + ornamental peanut plant). There
were no significant differences between treatments on all parameters.
Treatment 0 had a mean carcass weight of 0.822kg and dressing percentage of
63.99%, while treatment 1 had 0.807kg and 63.29%, respectively. These results indicate
that the carcass weight and dressing percentage of the birds in both treatments were not
affected by the diets given.
The mean dressing percentage of 63.64% is lower compared to the average dressing
percentage of broilers which is 70%. One factor that could practically be considered is the
fact that the native chickens had minimal fats in their carcass even when fed with highly
energy diet. Broilers have much fat deposits in their carcasses which add weight to their
carcass yield.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
Table 7. Return on investment
TREATMENT
GROSS INCOME NET INCOME RETURN ON
(Php)
(Php)
INVESTMENT (%)
Commercial feeds
5,290.75
697.59
15.19
Commercial feeds
4,488.00
316.50
7.59
+ mani-mani
*Means with the no superscript are not significantly different at 5% level of significance by LSD.
Table 8. Carcass yield
TREATMENT
SLAUGHTER DRESSED WEIGHT DRESSING
WEIGHT (kg)
(kg) PERCENTAGE (%)
Commercial feeds
1.289 0.822
63.989
Commercial feeds
1.271 0.807
63.286
+ ornamental peanut plant
*Means with the no superscript are not significantly different at 5% level of significance by LSD.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
Ornamental peanut plant, commonly known as mani-mani, is a tested feed for
ruminant especially horses. However, no data are available to show how native chickens
perform when fed with this feedstuff. Hence, this study was conducted to evaluate the
performance of native chickens given ornamental peanut plant with commercial feeds. The
feeding experiment was undertaken in a backyard at Brgy. Joson, Carranglan, Nueva Ecija
from October 2012 to January 2013.
The study verified the gain in weight, feed efficiency and carcass yield of native
chickens given ornamental peanut plant with commercial feeds and made a cost and return
analysis on native chicken production using this ration. There were 32 native chickens
ranging from 22-42 days old involved in the study. All the native chickens were completely
confined throughout the study (84 days) and given the same care and management except
for the ration given.
There were two treatments blocked into four with four birds per block. Birds in
treatment 0 were given commercial feeds only while birds in treatment 1 were given
ornamental peanut plant and commercial feeds. Both treatments yield the same results on
initial weight, final weight, total gain in weight, daily and weekly gain in weight, feed
consumption, feed conversion ratio, feed cost per kg gain, carcass weight and dressing
percentage.
Over a period of 84 days of feeding trial, the birds were able to attain a mean total
gain in weight of 1.106kg, from a mean initial weight of 0.152kg to a final weight of
1.255kg. The birds had a mean consumption of 4.811kg per head on a dry matter basis
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
yielding a feed conversion ratio (FCR) of 4.388 and Php153.72 feed cost to produce a kg
gain in weight. Profits obtained per peso invested from the sales of the birds were 15.19%
and 7.59% in treatment 0 and treatment 1, respectively. After slaughtering and dressing the
sample birds, a mean dressing percentage of 63.18% was obtained.
Results showed that the native chickens given ornamental peanut plant and
commercial feeds on a restricted time had the same performance with those given
commercial feeds adlibitum. However, lesser return was obtained from the former
treatment because of the additional labor spent in the preparation of ornamental peanut
plant.
Conclusion
Based on the findings of this research, it is concluded that the ornamental peanut
plant had the same effect on the performance of native chicken given commercial feeds
only. Thus, supplementation of this feedstuff to poultry especially native chicken did not
enhance nor depressed their performance.
Recommendation
It can be recommended for backyard raisers using the cage system on native
chicken production and those who are interested to engage on this production to adopt the
use of commercial feeds and ornamental peanut plant following the restricted time of
feeding as done in this study to minimize wastage of feeds.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
LITERATURE CITED
ABDUL-BAKI A.A., H.H. BRYAN,W. KLASSEN, and M. CODALLO. 2002.
Propagation and Establishment of Perennial Peanuts for Ground Covers Along Roadsides
and Highway Ramps. Proceeding Florida State Horticultural Society. Pp. 115:267-272.
BENNETTE, L.L., A.C. HAMMOND, M.J., WILLIAMS, W.E. KUNKLE, D.D.
JOHNSON, R.L. PRESTON, and M.F. MILLER. 1995. Performance, Carcass, Yield, and
Carcass Quality Characteristics of Steers Finished on Perennial Peanut. J. Animal Science,
Unversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Pp. 1881-1887.
BUTCHER G.D. 2004. Broiler Production-Important Numbers. Retrieved on March 14,
2013 from http://edis.ifas.edu/vm099.
COOK, B.G. 1992. Arachis pintoi krap.Plant Resources of South East Asia. 4. Forages.
Pudoc Scientific Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 48-50.
COOK, B.G., A.M. BOWMAN, and I.C. CROSTHWAITE. 2007. Utilization of Arachis
species as forage.The Groudnut Crop: A Basis for Scientific Improvement. Chapman &
Hall, London.Pp 624-657.
COMMONWEALTH
SCIENTIFIC
AND
INDUSTRIAL
RESEARCH
ORGANIZATION SUSTAINABLE ECOSYSTEM, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY
INDUSTRIES AND FISHERIES, CENTRO INTERNACIONAL DE AGRICULTURA
TROPICAL and THE INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE.
2005. Tropical Forages: an interactive selection tool. Retrieved on August 3, 2012 from
http://www.tropicalforages.info/key/Forages/Media/Html/Arachis_glabrata.htm.
ECKERT, J.V. 2008. Digestibility and nutrient retention of perennial peanut and Bermuda
grass hays for mature horses. Master Thesis, Department of Animal Science, University of
Florida, Gainsville.
FOOD AND FERTILIZER TECHNOLOGY CENTER.1992. Catalogue of the Native
Poultry of South Asia. The Native Chicken of the Philippines. Book series No. 43
FIRTH, D. 1995. Ground Covers in Macadamia Orchards. The Sixth Conference of the
AustralasianCouncilontheTreeandNutCropsInc.Lismore, NSW,Australia. Retrieved on
August 21, 2012 http://www.newscrops.uq.edu.au/acontanc/papers/firth.htm.
HAMMOND, A.C., L.J. PADGETT, and M.J. WILLIAMS. 1992. Relative feeding value
of perennial peanut hay as a supplement to bahia grass hay for wintering beef cows and
heifers. Prof. Animal Science University of Florida, Gainsville. Pp. 8:48-54.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013
MANILA BULLETIN.2005.Agriculture.Native Chicken from Scavenging to Niching.
Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation. Muralla corner Recoletos, Intramuros, Manila,
Philippines. Pp. 9
PHILIPPINE COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND NATURAL
RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT. 2000. Improve Management of Philippine Native
Chickens. Los Banos, Laguna. PCARRD and LDC-DA, 16 p. PCARRD farm Primer No.
http://blog.agriculture.ph/native-chicken-production-in-the-philippines.html.
POULTRY INFORMATION NETWORK. 2003. Industry Status-Chicken. Retrieve on
September 1, 2012 from http://www.pcarrd.dost.gov.ph/CIN/poultry/.
RIVAS L. and HOLMANN F. 2000. Early adoption of Arachis pintoi a in the humid
tropics: the case of dual-purpose livestock systems in Caqueta, Columbia. Journal of
Livestock Research for Rural Development.
ROUSE, R.E., R.M. MUCHOVEJ, and J.J. MULLAHEY. 2001. Perennial Peanut Ground
Cover in Citrus Orchard Row Middles and Discussion of Potential Environmental Benefits.
Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society. Pp. 110: 79-82.
WESTERN VISAYAS AGRICULTURE AND RESOURCES RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM. 2006. Philippine Native Chicken. Retrieved on
September
3,
2012
from
http://maidon.pcarrd.dost.gov.ph/regional_consortia/wesvarrdec/native-chicken.htm.
WIEBE V. S., FACHRUDIN A., MAVROMICHALIS I., and MOJTABA Y. 2011.
Weblog: Poultry Production and Management. Retrieve on August 25, 2012 from
http://www.worldpoultry.net/weblog/poultry-production-management/.
VENCOBB. 2010. Vencobb Broiler and Broiler Breeder. Retrieve on March 14, 2013 from
http://www.venkys.com/vh-breeds/vencobb-broiler-broiler-breeder/vencobb-broiler-
management-guide/broiler-performance-criteria/
VENUTO B.C., D.D REDFEARN, and W.D., PITMAN. 1999. A New Forage Option for
Louisiana. In Agronomy Abtract.ASA, Madison, WI.Pp. 136.
VILLAR, E.C. 2005.The Native Chicken… from Scavenging to Niching.Agriculture.
Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation. Muralla corner Recoletos, Intramuros, Manila,
Philippines. Vol. IX. Pp. 8-11.
Growth Performance of Native Chickens Given Ornamental Peanut Plant (Arachis pintoi)
and Commercial Feeds | MATIAS, SHERWIN D. APRIL 2013