BIBLIOGRAPHY CADALIG, MYLENE P....
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013. Response of Native Chicken given Phytase
as Feed Additive. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Myrna B. Walsiyen, MSc.
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted at Central Pico, La Trinidad Benguet from October 2012
to December 2012 to determine the response of native chicken to phytase when added into
their diet. Specifically, the study aimed to determine the response of native chickens to the
phytase in terms of gain in weight, feed consumption, feed conversion ratio, and morbidity
and mortality rates; and, to determine the profitability of raising native chicken when fed
with diets supplemented with phytase.
The two treatments were T0– without phytase supplementation and T1- with phytase
supplementation. The results of the statistical analysis showed no significant differences in
terms of the initial and final weights, gain in weight, feed consumption, feed conversion
ratio and dressing percentage.
Even though the net income and return on investment (ROI) were not subjected to
statistical analysis, results of study showed that native chicken given commercial feed +
corn grits obtained higher ROI compared to the birds given phytase. It is therefore
concluded that supplementing the ration (50% corn grits + 50% commercial feed) of native
chickens with phytase at the level of one gram per kg feed did not improve the growth
performance of the native chickens.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
INTRODUCTION
Native chicken raising is one of the oldest farming practices in the Cordillera Region.
Native chicken are raised mainly for food consumption. Native chicken meat is a good
source of high quality protein. They are also raised for barters and especially for religious
rituals. Because of the unique attributes such as distinct flavor, higher degree of leanness
and more intense pigmentation, consumers prefer to patronize the product (Kibatay, 1999).
Farmers prefer to raise native chicken because they don’t need extra time and care and they
can be maintained easily. They require no special feeds yet they can provide eggs and meat.
Occasionally they are capable of self-supporting in the sense that they are contented with
rice left-over and other plant leaves around them. Native chickens are resistant to different
diseases and can thrive to any adverse environmental conditions (Suayan, 2007).
However, farmers are not satisfied with the performance of their native chicken. They want
their chickens to grow fast at a shorter period of time. One factor that affects the slow
growth of the native chicken is the inabsorption of some of the minerals and protein from
the feeds they eat. The inabsorption is affected by phytate (phytic acid). McDonald, et. al.,
(2002) stated that phytate is biologically unavailable to non-ruminant animals like chicken
because they do not produce the phytase. Monogastric animals do not carry bacteria that
produce phytase, thus these animals cannot use phytic acid as a major source of phosphorus
and it is excreted in the feces.
Phytase provides natural phosphorus source from phytate in feedstuff. It increases the
utilization of mineral and protein and other nutrients. Phytase reduces the environmental
pollution caused by unused phosphate and most of all; it improves the livestock
performance (Genofucos. Inc., 2012).
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
Because of the above reasons, it is the aim of the researcher to find out the effect of phytase,
a commercial feed additive, on the growth performance of the native chickens.
The result of the study can serve as a guide to native chicken raisers to improve their
production. It can also serve as a guide or reading material to students or other researchers
if they come up with other related studies.
The main objective of the study was to determine the response of native chicken to phytase
when added into their diet. Specifically, this study was conducted to: determine the
response of native chickens to the phytase in terms of gain in weight, feed consumption,
feed conversion ratio, and morbidity rate; and to determine the profitability of raising
native chicken when fed with diets supplemented with phytase.
The study was conducted at Central Pico, La Trinidad Benguet from October 2012 to
December 2012.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In 2000, PCARRD reported that traditionally raised native chicken weigh one kilogram
when they are 18-20 weeks old but under improved management and nutrition native
chicken weigh one kilogram as early as 12 weeks old. Bacod (2007) cited that the growth
rate of native chicken was 889 grams. The average body weight was 31 grams at day old.
Chickens weighed an average of 106 gram at 2 weeks, 259 grams at 4 weeks, 371 grams
at 6 weeks and 536 grams at eight week. Garcia (2006) cited that the adult size of native
chicken is usually small. Generally, the male weighs an average of 1.3 kilograms and the
female weighs one kilogram.
Roselina and Applegate (2002) mentioned that the primary constituents of diets for poultry
are plant-based ingredients which come primarily from the seeds of plants. Most of the
stored phosphorus in plants is found in seeds mainly as a component of phytin. Phytin-
phosphorus is poorly available to poultry and this availability varies both within and among
the ingredients. The enzyme phytase releases phosphate from phytin potentially making
this released phosphorus available to the animal. Phytase is the only recognized enzyme
that can initiate the release of phosphate from phytin, this speed up the chemical reactions.
Genofucos Inc. (2012) mentioned that inorganic phosphorus are relatively high digestible
than that of the plant one, so this is usually added to feed ration. However, the addition of
inorganic phosphate is an additional cost. The Genofucos Inc. mentioned also that the
recommended dosage of the phytase when used in animals is as follows: for laying hens is
60g/ton, for broilers is 100 g/ton, for swine is 100 g/ton; and for others is 100 g/ton.
Phytase is an enzyme that breaks down the indigestible phytic acid (phytate) portion in
grains thereby, releasing the digestible phosphorus and calcium. It is an enzyme that is
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
employed to destroy materials that interfere with the digestion, absorption and utilization
of nutrients (McDonald et al., 2002). Adding phytase to animal feeds makes grain
phosphorus more available to animals, thereby reducing the amount of supplemental
phosphorus needed for optimum animal performance. Most of the phosphorus present in
grain fed to livestocks is phytate-phosphorus. This organic phosphorus form is not readily
available to animals, particularly to monogastric animals like poultry (Smith and Joern,
2003).
Graham et al., (2011) stated that phytase is present in over 60% of monogastric feed, and
possibly even in the higher percentage of poultry diets. Phytase has mainly been considered
to be a tool to increase phosphorus availability/digestibility from vegetable sources and to
reduce the inclusion of higher cost of phosphorus sources. Phytase releases the phosphorus
bound in the phytase molecule, increasing the availability/ digestibility of this mineral to
the animal. Thus, increasing the inclusion rate of phytase would be expected to release
additional phosphorus from the indigestible feed phytate and consequently allow an even
greater substitution of higher cost of phosphorus sources.
Additionally, for an enzyme to work, it must be in proximity to the substrate, and the
substrate cannot have the site of action blocked in certain regions of the gastro intestinal
tract (small intestine). Phytin can react readily with other compounds such as calcium, iron,
copper, zinc and precipitate out of solution such that the enzyme cannot act on this
precipitated substrate. In other areas of the gastro intestinal tract (proventriculus and
gizzard), phytin is more soluble and can readily be acted upon by the phytase enzyme
(Roselina and Applegate, 2002).
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
The addition of phytase to a diet by at least 1 g/kg improves phosphorus digestibility. This
leads to a saving of about 5 to 6 kg of in organic phosphorus (Kleyn, 2012). A higher
enzyme dose increases the nutrient absorption and animal performance. One study
provided high doses of phytase for broilers in the diet with phosphorus level of 0.25% and
observed improve performance. Another study is giving higher dose of phytase using diets
with normal levels of phosphorus have already shown better poultry performance (Graham
et al., 2011).
Saylor (2012) has confirmed that the chickens are digesting more of the phosphorus, an
essential nutrient, in their feed due to the addition of phytase, a natural enzyme.
Phytase can increase the growth rate and improves the feed conversion ratio of the broilers.
It can replace 0.10% of effective phosphorus approximately 65%of inorganic phosphorus.
In pigs, it can also increase the growth rate and improves the feed conversion ratio. It can
replace 0.13% of effective phosphorus that is approximately 60% inorganic phosphorus
(Graham et al., 2011).
Molitas (1999) added that native chicken under reared cages and commercialy fed has
higher feed consumption than chickens that are raised loose and traditionaly fed.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
The materials used in this study were twenty four (thirty-days-old) native chicks, phytase
enzyme, commercial feeds, corn grits, feeders and waterers, weighing scale, pens,
disinfectants, record book, and ball pen.
Methodology
Preparation of the experimental pens. The rearing cages were divided into six
compartments to accommodate six groups of birds. The feeders and waterers were cleaned
and disinfected with lysol solution. Electric bulbs were installed in each division to provide
heat and light needed by the birds.
Procurement of stock. The experimental birds were purchased from Sagada, Mountain
Province. The birds were purchased earlier and brought to La Trinidad a week before the
start of the study for them to adjust to the new environment.
Experimental design and treatments. Using the completely randomized design (CRD), the
birds were distributed into two treatments. Each treatment was replicated three times with
four chicks per replication
The two treatments were as follows:
T0- without phytase supplementation (control)
T1- with phytase supplementation
However, before the birds were placed into their respective cages, their individual weights
were taken and recorded.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
Feeding and watering. All the birds were subjected to the same management except on the
diets offered to them. Birds in the control group were fed with 50% corn grits plus 50%
commercial feeds. The birds under treatment 1 were also fed with 50% corn grits plus 50%
commercial feeds but this was supplemented with phytase (Figures 1 and 2). The phytase
given was supplemented at the level of 1 g/kg of commercial feeds which is the
recommendation of the manufacturer (Genofucos, Inc., 2012). The phytase was given to
the birds from the start of the study at 30 days old until the birds were 90 days old or for a
feeding period of 60 days. Feeding was ad libitum and done two times a day at 6:00-7:00
am and 4:00-5:00 pm.
The weight of the feeds given to the birds per treatment each day was recorded. Similarly,
the weights of the daily left-over feeds were recorded and were subtracted from the feeds
offered to obtain the daily feed intake of the birds. Since mixing of the phytase to the
commercial feed was done manually, this was mixed thoroughly to small amounts of feeds
first and then additional feeds was added into the mixture little by little while mixing. Clean
fresh water was available at all times. Cleaning and refilling of waterers were done once in
the morning and once in the afternoon.
Slaughter procedures. Before dressing, the birds were fasted for 12 hours but water was
given ad libitum. Live weight was taken before dressing. Birds were secured by a helper
holding both shanks with one hand and both wings with the other hand before sticking. The
birds were raised about 450 to allow complete bleeding.
Defeathering was performed by washing first the birds in cold water and immersing them
in the scalding water with a temperature ranging from 800C -870C. Plucking of feathers
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
followed after which, the carcass was washed and now ready for fabrication. The head,
feet, and viscera were detached from the carcass ready for carcass weighing.
Figure 1. Sample of the phytase enzyme used in the study
Figure 2. Sample ration (50% commercial feed + 50% corn grits)
given to the native chickens
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
Data Gathered
1. Initial weight (kg). This was obtained by weighing the birds individually at the start of
the study or at30 days of age (Figure 3).
2. Final weight (kg). This was taken by weighing the birds at the end of the study
or after a feeding period of 60 days (Figure 4).
3. Feed offered (kg). This was the amount of feeds given to the chicken each day.
4. Left- over feeds (kg). This was the amount of feeds not consumed by the birds which
was collected every morning before feeding the chicken.
5. Cost of production (Php). This includes the cost of the stocks and other materials used
in the study.
5. Slaughter weight (kg). This was obtained by taking the weight of the birds prior to
slaughter.
6. Carcass weight (kg). This was obtained by taking the weight of the carcass without the
head and feet.
Data Computed
1. Total gain in weight (kg). This was taken by subtracting the initial weight from the final
weight.
2. Total feed consumption (kg). This was obtained by adding the daily feed consumption
of the birds from the start to the end of the study.
3.Feed conversion ratio (FCR). This was computed by dividing the total feed consumption
by the total gain in weight.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
Figure 3. Weighing the birds at 30 days of age
Figure 4. Weighing the birds after a feeding period of 60 days
4. Mortality rate (%). This was computed using the formula:
MR= Number of dead birds x 100%
Total number of birds
5. Total cost of production (Php). This was taken by adding all the expenses incurred per
treatment from the start of the study until the end.
6. Net profit (Php). This was obtained by subtracting the cost of production from the gross
sales.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
7. Return on Investment (%). This was computed using the following formula:
ROI = Net Profit x 100 %
Total cost of Production
8. Dressing Percentage (%). This was obtained by dividing the carcass weight by
the slaughter weight multiplied by 100 percent.
Data Analysis
All data gathered were consolidated, tabulated and analyzed using the T-test.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Body Weights
The initial and final weights of the birds in the two treatments are shown in Table
1. Statistical analysis revealed that there were no significant differences between the two
treatment means. The mean initial weight of the birds in the two treatments was 175 grams.
Similarly, no significant difference between the two treatment means was observed
as revealed by the statistical analysis. This shows that all the experimental birds were more
or less of the same weights at the end of the study. The mean final weight was 1.082 kg.
Total Gain in Weight
Table 2 presents the total gains in weight of the birds in the two treatments there is
a slight is difference between the two treatment means was noticeable, however, such
difference was considered small to cause a significant effect as revealed by the statistical
analysis.
Table 1. Initial weight of the birds at 30 days old and final weight at 90 days old
TREATMENT
INITIAL
FINAL
WEIGHT
WEIGHT
(g)
(kg)
Without phytase supplementation
175a
1.065a
With phytase supplementation
175a
1.099a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level, DMRT.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
This implies that the birds in the two treatments had more or less the same gains in weight.
It also implies that the phytase added to the ration of the native chickens at the levels of 1
g/kg feed did not increase the gain in weight of the birds.
Total Feed Consumption
Table 3 shows the total feed consumptions of the birds in the two treatments.
Statistical analysis revealed that there were no significant differences between the two
treatment means. This implies that the birds in the treatments had consumed more or less
the same amount of feed. It is also revealed that the incorporation of phytase enzyme into
the bird’s diet did not affect their feed consumption. The overall mean feed consumption
of the birds in the two treatments was 5.978 kg.
Table 2. Total gains in weight of birds in the two treatments
TREATMENT
TOTAL GAIN
(kg)
Without phytase supplementation
0.890a
With phytase supplementation
0.921a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level, DMRT.
Table 3. Total feed consumptions of the birds in the two treatments
TREATMENT
TOTAL FEED
CONSUMPTION
Without phytase supplementation
5.834a
With phytase supplementation
6.122a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level, DMRT
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
Feed Conversion Ratio
Table 4 shows the amounts of feeds eaten by the birds to produce a unit gain in
weight. The Table further shows that birds given no phytase supplementation had a mean
of 6.653 while the birds given phytase had a mean 7.078.
Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between the two treatment
means. This means that birds had more or less eaten the same amount of feeds to produce
a kilogram increase in body weights. According to Graham et. al. (2011), phytase can
increase the growth rate and improved the feed conversion ratio of the birds but this was
in broilers or fast growing birds. It may not be true to native chickens as revealed by the
result of the experiment.
Morbidity and Mortality Rate
There was neither mortality nor even morbidity rate observed among the birds in
the two treatments. This result showed that adding phytase to the ration of the birds had no
adverse effect on the health of the birds.
Table 4. Feed conversion ratio
TREATMENT
FCR
Without phytase supplementation
6.653a
With phytase supplementation
7.078a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level, DMRT.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
Dressing Percentage
The dressing percentages of the birds in the two treatments are presented in Table
5. Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the two
treatment means. This implies that the dressing recovery of native chickens was not
affected by the addition of phytase into their diets.
The overall mean of the dressing percentage of the birds in the two treatments was
69.028%. This is lower compared to the dressing percentage of native chicken obtained by
Donguez (2004) which was 72.21%, however, the birds slaughtered in this study were 6
months old. In this study, the birds slaughtered were at 3 months old and the weights of the
head, and feet were not included.
Return on Investment
Table 6 presents the cost of production and returns on investment in raising the
birds in the two treatments and the particulars are presented in Appendix Table 7. Though
the ROI was not subjected to statistical analysis, higher retuns was realized fron the birds
given no phytase which had 8.03%. On the other hand, the birds given phytase had an ROI
of 6.78%. Based on the above results, it is revealed that the addition of phytase into the
birds diets was just an additional expense because there was no improvement on the growth
performance of the birds was observed and hence, the lower ROI also.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
Table 5. Dressing percentage of the birds in the two treatments
TREATMENT
SLAUGHTER CARCASS
DRESSING
WEIGHT
WEIGHT PERCENTAGE
Without phytase supplementation
1.025
0.706
68.883
With phytase supplementation
1.048
0.725
69.173
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level, DMRT.
Table 6. Cost of production and return on investment observed from the birds in the two
t treatments
TREATMENT
TOTAL
TOTAL
NET
ROI
SALES
COST
INCOME
(%)
(Php)
(Php)
(Php)
Without phytase
4473
4140.608
332.392
8.03%a
supplementation
With phytase supplementation
4614.4
4321.328
293.073
6.78%a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level, DMRT.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The study was conducted to determine the response of native chicken to phytase when
added into their diet. The birds used in the study were twenty four (30 days old) native
chicks. This was conducted at Central Pico, La Trinidad Benguet from October 2012 to
December 2012.
Specifically, the study aimed to determine the response of native chickens to phytase in
terms of gain in weight, feed consumption, feed conversion ratio, morbidity and mortality
rates; and to determine the profitability of raising native chicken fed with diets
supplemented with phytase.
Following the completely randomized design (CRD), the birds were randomly distributed
into two treatments. Each treatment was replicated three times with four birds per
replication making a total of 12 birds per treatment. The two treatments used were as
follows: without phytase supplementation (T0) and with phytase supplementation (T1).
The results of the statistical analysis showed no significant differences in terms of the initial
and final weights, gain in weight, feed consumption, feed conversion ratio and dressing
percentage.
On the returns on investment, though this was not subjected to statistical analysis, results
revealed that a lower ROI was realized from the birds given phytase supplementation
because of the additional expense on phytase.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
Conclusion
Based on the results of the study, it is therefore concluded that supplementing the
diets of native chickens with phytase did not improve their gains in weight and feed
efficiency.
Recommendations
Since birds from control treatment and birds given phytase did not vary
significantly, supplementing the native chicken’s diet (50% commercial feed + 50% corn)
with phytase is not recommended.
However, it is recommended that studies should be conducted to include other
strains of birds or using the same strains of birds with more treatments and replications.
Also, related studies should be conducted to determine the effect of adding phytase into
the bird’s diet on the carcass quality
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
LITERATURE CITED
BACOD, P. Q 2007. Comparative Study on Natural and Artificial Brooding of Native
Chicken. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 7.
DONGUEZ, M. O. 2004. Comparative Study on Carcass Characteristics of Sasso and
Native Chicken. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad Benguet. P.16
GARCIA, MA. D. 2006. Case studies of Production of Native Chickens in Mountain
Province. MS Thesis. Benguet State University.P.6.
GENOFUCOS.INC. ANONYMOUS. 2012. New Generation Phytase (Powder and
Granule).Retrieved June 2012 from http://www.genofocus.com.
GRAHAM, H., T. T. SANTOS, R. L. DOESCHATE. 2011. Phytase Use in Poultry
Diets: Going Beyond Phosphorus Release. AB Vista Feed Ingredients, UK. World
Poultry. No.5. Volume 27. Pp. 28-29.
KIBATAY, M. 1999. Production and Management of Native Chicken in Sagada, Mountain
Province. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 4-5.
KLEYN. R. 2012. Finding Correct Inclusion Levels of Phytase in Broiler Diets. Rivonia,
South Africa, World Poultry. No. 02.Volume 28. Pp 16-17.
MCDONALD, P., R. A. EDWARDS, J. F. D. GREENHALGH, and C. A. MORGAN.
2002. Animal Nutrition. Ashford Colour Press Ltd., Gosport. Pp. 120, 623.
MOLITAS, M.P. 1999. The Effect of Cage Rearing and Commercial Feeds on the Growth
Performance of Native Chicken. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad
Benguet. P.20.
PHILIPPINE COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND NATURAL
DEVELOPMENT. 2000. Improved Management of Philippine Native Chickens. Farm
Primer No.19.
ROSELINA, A., and T. J. APPLEGATE. 2002. Basic Enzyme Function. Retrieved July,
2012 from http.//www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/as/as-560-w.pdf.
SAYLOR, W. 2012. Phytase in Poultry Diets Fights P Overload on the Environment.
World Poultry. Vol. 28.No. 2.P.16.
SUAYAN, I.C. 2007. Status of Native Chicken Production in Bokod, Benguet. BS Thesis.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad Benguet. P.1.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
SMITH, D. and B. JOERN. 2003. Dietary Phytase to Reduce Phosphorus Losses from
Animal
Manure.
Retrieved
June,
2012
from
http.//www.Sera
17.Ext.
vt.Edu/documents/BMP_dietary_phytase .pdf.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013. Response of Native Chicken given Phytase
as Feed Additive. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Myrna B. Walsiyen, MSc.
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted at Central Pico, La Trinidad Benguet from October 2012
to December 2012 to determine the response of native chicken to phytase when added into
their diet. Specifically, the study aimed to determine the response of native chickens to the
phytase in terms of gain in weight, feed consumption, feed conversion ratio, and morbidity
and mortality rates; and, to determine the profitability of raising native chicken when fed
with diets supplemented with phytase.
The two treatments were T0– without phytase supplementation and T1- with phytase
supplementation. The results of the statistical analysis showed no significant differences in
terms of the initial and final weights, gain in weight, feed consumption, feed conversion
ratio and dressing percentage.
Even though the net income and return on investment (ROI) were not subjected to
statistical analysis, results of study showed that native chicken given commercial feed +
corn grits obtained higher ROI compared to the birds given phytase. It is therefore
concluded that supplementing the ration (50% corn grits + 50% commercial feed) of native
chickens with phytase at the level of one gram per kg feed did not improve the growth
performance of the native chickens.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
INTRODUCTION
Native chicken raising is one of the oldest farming practices in the Cordillera Region.
Native chicken are raised mainly for food consumption. Native chicken meat is a good
source of high quality protein. They are also raised for barters and especially for religious
rituals. Because of the unique attributes such as distinct flavor, higher degree of leanness
and more intense pigmentation, consumers prefer to patronize the product (Kibatay, 1999).
Farmers prefer to raise native chicken because they don’t need extra time and care and they
can be maintained easily. They require no special feeds yet they can provide eggs and meat.
Occasionally they are capable of self-supporting in the sense that they are contented with
rice left-over and other plant leaves around them. Native chickens are resistant to different
diseases and can thrive to any adverse environmental conditions (Suayan, 2007).
However, farmers are not satisfied with the performance of their native chicken. They want
their chickens to grow fast at a shorter period of time. One factor that affects the slow
growth of the native chicken is the inabsorption of some of the minerals and protein from
the feeds they eat. The inabsorption is affected by phytate (phytic acid). McDonald, et. al.,
(2002) stated that phytate is biologically unavailable to non-ruminant animals like chicken
because they do not produce the phytase. Monogastric animals do not carry bacteria that
produce phytase, thus these animals cannot use phytic acid as a major source of phosphorus
and it is excreted in the feces.
Phytase provides natural phosphorus source from phytate in feedstuff. It increases the
utilization of mineral and protein and other nutrients. Phytase reduces the environmental
pollution caused by unused phosphate and most of all; it improves the livestock
performance (Genofucos. Inc., 2012).
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
Because of the above reasons, it is the aim of the researcher to find out the effect of phytase,
a commercial feed additive, on the growth performance of the native chickens.
The result of the study can serve as a guide to native chicken raisers to improve their
production. It can also serve as a guide or reading material to students or other researchers
if they come up with other related studies.
The main objective of the study was to determine the response of native chicken to phytase
when added into their diet. Specifically, this study was conducted to: determine the
response of native chickens to the phytase in terms of gain in weight, feed consumption,
feed conversion ratio, and morbidity rate; and to determine the profitability of raising
native chicken when fed with diets supplemented with phytase.
The study was conducted at Central Pico, La Trinidad Benguet from October 2012 to
December 2012.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In 2000, PCARRD reported that traditionally raised native chicken weigh one kilogram
when they are 18-20 weeks old but under improved management and nutrition native
chicken weigh one kilogram as early as 12 weeks old. Bacod (2007) cited that the growth
rate of native chicken was 889 grams. The average body weight was 31 grams at day old.
Chickens weighed an average of 106 gram at 2 weeks, 259 grams at 4 weeks, 371 grams
at 6 weeks and 536 grams at eight week. Garcia (2006) cited that the adult size of native
chicken is usually small. Generally, the male weighs an average of 1.3 kilograms and the
female weighs one kilogram.
Roselina and Applegate (2002) mentioned that the primary constituents of diets for poultry
are plant-based ingredients which come primarily from the seeds of plants. Most of the
stored phosphorus in plants is found in seeds mainly as a component of phytin. Phytin-
phosphorus is poorly available to poultry and this availability varies both within and among
the ingredients. The enzyme phytase releases phosphate from phytin potentially making
this released phosphorus available to the animal. Phytase is the only recognized enzyme
that can initiate the release of phosphate from phytin, this speed up the chemical reactions.
Genofucos Inc. (2012) mentioned that inorganic phosphorus are relatively high digestible
than that of the plant one, so this is usually added to feed ration. However, the addition of
inorganic phosphate is an additional cost. The Genofucos Inc. mentioned also that the
recommended dosage of the phytase when used in animals is as follows: for laying hens is
60g/ton, for broilers is 100 g/ton, for swine is 100 g/ton; and for others is 100 g/ton.
Phytase is an enzyme that breaks down the indigestible phytic acid (phytate) portion in
grains thereby, releasing the digestible phosphorus and calcium. It is an enzyme that is
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
employed to destroy materials that interfere with the digestion, absorption and utilization
of nutrients (McDonald et al., 2002). Adding phytase to animal feeds makes grain
phosphorus more available to animals, thereby reducing the amount of supplemental
phosphorus needed for optimum animal performance. Most of the phosphorus present in
grain fed to livestocks is phytate-phosphorus. This organic phosphorus form is not readily
available to animals, particularly to monogastric animals like poultry (Smith and Joern,
2003).
Graham et al., (2011) stated that phytase is present in over 60% of monogastric feed, and
possibly even in the higher percentage of poultry diets. Phytase has mainly been considered
to be a tool to increase phosphorus availability/digestibility from vegetable sources and to
reduce the inclusion of higher cost of phosphorus sources. Phytase releases the phosphorus
bound in the phytase molecule, increasing the availability/ digestibility of this mineral to
the animal. Thus, increasing the inclusion rate of phytase would be expected to release
additional phosphorus from the indigestible feed phytate and consequently allow an even
greater substitution of higher cost of phosphorus sources.
Additionally, for an enzyme to work, it must be in proximity to the substrate, and the
substrate cannot have the site of action blocked in certain regions of the gastro intestinal
tract (small intestine). Phytin can react readily with other compounds such as calcium, iron,
copper, zinc and precipitate out of solution such that the enzyme cannot act on this
precipitated substrate. In other areas of the gastro intestinal tract (proventriculus and
gizzard), phytin is more soluble and can readily be acted upon by the phytase enzyme
(Roselina and Applegate, 2002).
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
The addition of phytase to a diet by at least 1 g/kg improves phosphorus digestibility. This
leads to a saving of about 5 to 6 kg of in organic phosphorus (Kleyn, 2012). A higher
enzyme dose increases the nutrient absorption and animal performance. One study
provided high doses of phytase for broilers in the diet with phosphorus level of 0.25% and
observed improve performance. Another study is giving higher dose of phytase using diets
with normal levels of phosphorus have already shown better poultry performance (Graham
et al., 2011).
Saylor (2012) has confirmed that the chickens are digesting more of the phosphorus, an
essential nutrient, in their feed due to the addition of phytase, a natural enzyme.
Phytase can increase the growth rate and improves the feed conversion ratio of the broilers.
It can replace 0.10% of effective phosphorus approximately 65%of inorganic phosphorus.
In pigs, it can also increase the growth rate and improves the feed conversion ratio. It can
replace 0.13% of effective phosphorus that is approximately 60% inorganic phosphorus
(Graham et al., 2011).
Molitas (1999) added that native chicken under reared cages and commercialy fed has
higher feed consumption than chickens that are raised loose and traditionaly fed.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
The materials used in this study were twenty four (thirty-days-old) native chicks, phytase
enzyme, commercial feeds, corn grits, feeders and waterers, weighing scale, pens,
disinfectants, record book, and ball pen.
Methodology
Preparation of the experimental pens. The rearing cages were divided into six
compartments to accommodate six groups of birds. The feeders and waterers were cleaned
and disinfected with lysol solution. Electric bulbs were installed in each division to provide
heat and light needed by the birds.
Procurement of stock. The experimental birds were purchased from Sagada, Mountain
Province. The birds were purchased earlier and brought to La Trinidad a week before the
start of the study for them to adjust to the new environment.
Experimental design and treatments. Using the completely randomized design (CRD), the
birds were distributed into two treatments. Each treatment was replicated three times with
four chicks per replication
The two treatments were as follows:
T0- without phytase supplementation (control)
T1- with phytase supplementation
However, before the birds were placed into their respective cages, their individual weights
were taken and recorded.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
Feeding and watering. All the birds were subjected to the same management except on the
diets offered to them. Birds in the control group were fed with 50% corn grits plus 50%
commercial feeds. The birds under treatment 1 were also fed with 50% corn grits plus 50%
commercial feeds but this was supplemented with phytase (Figures 1 and 2). The phytase
given was supplemented at the level of 1 g/kg of commercial feeds which is the
recommendation of the manufacturer (Genofucos, Inc., 2012). The phytase was given to
the birds from the start of the study at 30 days old until the birds were 90 days old or for a
feeding period of 60 days. Feeding was ad libitum and done two times a day at 6:00-7:00
am and 4:00-5:00 pm.
The weight of the feeds given to the birds per treatment each day was recorded. Similarly,
the weights of the daily left-over feeds were recorded and were subtracted from the feeds
offered to obtain the daily feed intake of the birds. Since mixing of the phytase to the
commercial feed was done manually, this was mixed thoroughly to small amounts of feeds
first and then additional feeds was added into the mixture little by little while mixing. Clean
fresh water was available at all times. Cleaning and refilling of waterers were done once in
the morning and once in the afternoon.
Slaughter procedures. Before dressing, the birds were fasted for 12 hours but water was
given ad libitum. Live weight was taken before dressing. Birds were secured by a helper
holding both shanks with one hand and both wings with the other hand before sticking. The
birds were raised about 450 to allow complete bleeding.
Defeathering was performed by washing first the birds in cold water and immersing them
in the scalding water with a temperature ranging from 800C -870C. Plucking of feathers
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
followed after which, the carcass was washed and now ready for fabrication. The head,
feet, and viscera were detached from the carcass ready for carcass weighing.
Figure 1. Sample of the phytase enzyme used in the study
Figure 2. Sample ration (50% commercial feed + 50% corn grits)
given to the native chickens
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
Data Gathered
1. Initial weight (kg). This was obtained by weighing the birds individually at the start of
the study or at30 days of age (Figure 3).
2. Final weight (kg). This was taken by weighing the birds at the end of the study
or after a feeding period of 60 days (Figure 4).
3. Feed offered (kg). This was the amount of feeds given to the chicken each day.
4. Left- over feeds (kg). This was the amount of feeds not consumed by the birds which
was collected every morning before feeding the chicken.
5. Cost of production (Php). This includes the cost of the stocks and other materials used
in the study.
5. Slaughter weight (kg). This was obtained by taking the weight of the birds prior to
slaughter.
6. Carcass weight (kg). This was obtained by taking the weight of the carcass without the
head and feet.
Data Computed
1. Total gain in weight (kg). This was taken by subtracting the initial weight from the final
weight.
2. Total feed consumption (kg). This was obtained by adding the daily feed consumption
of the birds from the start to the end of the study.
3.Feed conversion ratio (FCR). This was computed by dividing the total feed consumption
by the total gain in weight.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
Figure 3. Weighing the birds at 30 days of age
Figure 4. Weighing the birds after a feeding period of 60 days
4. Mortality rate (%). This was computed using the formula:
MR= Number of dead birds x 100%
Total number of birds
5. Total cost of production (Php). This was taken by adding all the expenses incurred per
treatment from the start of the study until the end.
6. Net profit (Php). This was obtained by subtracting the cost of production from the gross
sales.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
7. Return on Investment (%). This was computed using the following formula:
ROI = Net Profit x 100 %
Total cost of Production
8. Dressing Percentage (%). This was obtained by dividing the carcass weight by
the slaughter weight multiplied by 100 percent.
Data Analysis
All data gathered were consolidated, tabulated and analyzed using the T-test.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Body Weights
The initial and final weights of the birds in the two treatments are shown in Table
1. Statistical analysis revealed that there were no significant differences between the two
treatment means. The mean initial weight of the birds in the two treatments was 175 grams.
Similarly, no significant difference between the two treatment means was observed
as revealed by the statistical analysis. This shows that all the experimental birds were more
or less of the same weights at the end of the study. The mean final weight was 1.082 kg.
Total Gain in Weight
Table 2 presents the total gains in weight of the birds in the two treatments there is
a slight is difference between the two treatment means was noticeable, however, such
difference was considered small to cause a significant effect as revealed by the statistical
analysis.
Table 1. Initial weight of the birds at 30 days old and final weight at 90 days old
TREATMENT
INITIAL
FINAL
WEIGHT
WEIGHT
(g)
(kg)
Without phytase supplementation
175a
1.065a
With phytase supplementation
175a
1.099a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level, DMRT.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
This implies that the birds in the two treatments had more or less the same gains in weight.
It also implies that the phytase added to the ration of the native chickens at the levels of 1
g/kg feed did not increase the gain in weight of the birds.
Total Feed Consumption
Table 3 shows the total feed consumptions of the birds in the two treatments.
Statistical analysis revealed that there were no significant differences between the two
treatment means. This implies that the birds in the treatments had consumed more or less
the same amount of feed. It is also revealed that the incorporation of phytase enzyme into
the bird’s diet did not affect their feed consumption. The overall mean feed consumption
of the birds in the two treatments was 5.978 kg.
Table 2. Total gains in weight of birds in the two treatments
TREATMENT
TOTAL GAIN
(kg)
Without phytase supplementation
0.890a
With phytase supplementation
0.921a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level, DMRT.
Table 3. Total feed consumptions of the birds in the two treatments
TREATMENT
TOTAL FEED
CONSUMPTION
Without phytase supplementation
5.834a
With phytase supplementation
6.122a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level, DMRT
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
Feed Conversion Ratio
Table 4 shows the amounts of feeds eaten by the birds to produce a unit gain in
weight. The Table further shows that birds given no phytase supplementation had a mean
of 6.653 while the birds given phytase had a mean 7.078.
Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between the two treatment
means. This means that birds had more or less eaten the same amount of feeds to produce
a kilogram increase in body weights. According to Graham et. al. (2011), phytase can
increase the growth rate and improved the feed conversion ratio of the birds but this was
in broilers or fast growing birds. It may not be true to native chickens as revealed by the
result of the experiment.
Morbidity and Mortality Rate
There was neither mortality nor even morbidity rate observed among the birds in
the two treatments. This result showed that adding phytase to the ration of the birds had no
adverse effect on the health of the birds.
Table 4. Feed conversion ratio
TREATMENT
FCR
Without phytase supplementation
6.653a
With phytase supplementation
7.078a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level, DMRT.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
Dressing Percentage
The dressing percentages of the birds in the two treatments are presented in Table
5. Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the two
treatment means. This implies that the dressing recovery of native chickens was not
affected by the addition of phytase into their diets.
The overall mean of the dressing percentage of the birds in the two treatments was
69.028%. This is lower compared to the dressing percentage of native chicken obtained by
Donguez (2004) which was 72.21%, however, the birds slaughtered in this study were 6
months old. In this study, the birds slaughtered were at 3 months old and the weights of the
head, and feet were not included.
Return on Investment
Table 6 presents the cost of production and returns on investment in raising the
birds in the two treatments and the particulars are presented in Appendix Table 7. Though
the ROI was not subjected to statistical analysis, higher retuns was realized fron the birds
given no phytase which had 8.03%. On the other hand, the birds given phytase had an ROI
of 6.78%. Based on the above results, it is revealed that the addition of phytase into the
birds diets was just an additional expense because there was no improvement on the growth
performance of the birds was observed and hence, the lower ROI also.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
Table 5. Dressing percentage of the birds in the two treatments
TREATMENT
SLAUGHTER CARCASS
DRESSING
WEIGHT
WEIGHT PERCENTAGE
Without phytase supplementation
1.025
0.706
68.883
With phytase supplementation
1.048
0.725
69.173
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level, DMRT.
Table 6. Cost of production and return on investment observed from the birds in the two
t treatments
TREATMENT
TOTAL
TOTAL
NET
ROI
SALES
COST
INCOME
(%)
(Php)
(Php)
(Php)
Without phytase
4473
4140.608
332.392
8.03%a
supplementation
With phytase supplementation
4614.4
4321.328
293.073
6.78%a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level, DMRT.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The study was conducted to determine the response of native chicken to phytase when
added into their diet. The birds used in the study were twenty four (30 days old) native
chicks. This was conducted at Central Pico, La Trinidad Benguet from October 2012 to
December 2012.
Specifically, the study aimed to determine the response of native chickens to phytase in
terms of gain in weight, feed consumption, feed conversion ratio, morbidity and mortality
rates; and to determine the profitability of raising native chicken fed with diets
supplemented with phytase.
Following the completely randomized design (CRD), the birds were randomly distributed
into two treatments. Each treatment was replicated three times with four birds per
replication making a total of 12 birds per treatment. The two treatments used were as
follows: without phytase supplementation (T0) and with phytase supplementation (T1).
The results of the statistical analysis showed no significant differences in terms of the initial
and final weights, gain in weight, feed consumption, feed conversion ratio and dressing
percentage.
On the returns on investment, though this was not subjected to statistical analysis, results
revealed that a lower ROI was realized from the birds given phytase supplementation
because of the additional expense on phytase.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
Conclusion
Based on the results of the study, it is therefore concluded that supplementing the
diets of native chickens with phytase did not improve their gains in weight and feed
efficiency.
Recommendations
Since birds from control treatment and birds given phytase did not vary
significantly, supplementing the native chicken’s diet (50% commercial feed + 50% corn)
with phytase is not recommended.
However, it is recommended that studies should be conducted to include other
strains of birds or using the same strains of birds with more treatments and replications.
Also, related studies should be conducted to determine the effect of adding phytase into
the bird’s diet on the carcass quality
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
LITERATURE CITED
BACOD, P. Q 2007. Comparative Study on Natural and Artificial Brooding of Native
Chicken. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 7.
DONGUEZ, M. O. 2004. Comparative Study on Carcass Characteristics of Sasso and
Native Chicken. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad Benguet. P.16
GARCIA, MA. D. 2006. Case studies of Production of Native Chickens in Mountain
Province. MS Thesis. Benguet State University.P.6.
GENOFUCOS.INC. ANONYMOUS. 2012. New Generation Phytase (Powder and
Granule).Retrieved June 2012 from http://www.genofocus.com.
GRAHAM, H., T. T. SANTOS, R. L. DOESCHATE. 2011. Phytase Use in Poultry
Diets: Going Beyond Phosphorus Release. AB Vista Feed Ingredients, UK. World
Poultry. No.5. Volume 27. Pp. 28-29.
KIBATAY, M. 1999. Production and Management of Native Chicken in Sagada, Mountain
Province. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 4-5.
KLEYN. R. 2012. Finding Correct Inclusion Levels of Phytase in Broiler Diets. Rivonia,
South Africa, World Poultry. No. 02.Volume 28. Pp 16-17.
MCDONALD, P., R. A. EDWARDS, J. F. D. GREENHALGH, and C. A. MORGAN.
2002. Animal Nutrition. Ashford Colour Press Ltd., Gosport. Pp. 120, 623.
MOLITAS, M.P. 1999. The Effect of Cage Rearing and Commercial Feeds on the Growth
Performance of Native Chicken. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad
Benguet. P.20.
PHILIPPINE COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND NATURAL
DEVELOPMENT. 2000. Improved Management of Philippine Native Chickens. Farm
Primer No.19.
ROSELINA, A., and T. J. APPLEGATE. 2002. Basic Enzyme Function. Retrieved July,
2012 from http.//www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/as/as-560-w.pdf.
SAYLOR, W. 2012. Phytase in Poultry Diets Fights P Overload on the Environment.
World Poultry. Vol. 28.No. 2.P.16.
SUAYAN, I.C. 2007. Status of Native Chicken Production in Bokod, Benguet. BS Thesis.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad Benguet. P.1.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013
SMITH, D. and B. JOERN. 2003. Dietary Phytase to Reduce Phosphorus Losses from
Animal
Manure.
Retrieved
June,
2012
from
http.//www.Sera
17.Ext.
vt.Edu/documents/BMP_dietary_phytase .pdf.
Response of Native Chicken given Phytase as Feed Additive
CADALIG, MYLENE P. APRIL 2013