ABSTRACT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009. The Growth Performance of
Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria. Benguet State University,
La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: MADELINE S. KINGAN, MS.
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted at Nursery, Oyao, Dupax del Norte, Nueva Vizcaya,
from April 16 to June 10, 2009 to determine the effect of rhizobacteria on the growth
performance of Sunshine chicken.
One hundred twenty day old Sunshine chicks were used. They were divided into
three treatments and each was replicated four times with ten birds per replicate. Analysis
of variance for Complete Randomized Design was used to compare treatments and
Duncan’s Multiple Range Test was used to compare the significance of differences
among means. The treatments were control, 10 g rhizobacteria powder per 40 litters
water, and 10 g rhizobacteria powder per 50 litters water.
Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences among the treatments in
terms of initial weight, feed consumption, slaughter weight, carcass weight, dressing
percentage, major cuts and morbidity rate. On the other hand, final weight, total gain in
weight, water consumption, feed conversion ratio and feed cost to produce a kilogram
gain in weight were significantly better.
In the return on investment, Sunshine Chicken given 10 g rhizobacteria powder
per 50 liters and 40 liters water obtained 23.50 percent and 20.17 percent, respectively.
The Sunshine Chicken not given rhizobacteria obtained 17.11 percent.
Based on the results of the study, 10 grams rhizobacteria powder per 50 litters of
water gave the best performance among the treatments. With these findings, it is
concluded that giving of rhizobacteria in the drinking water can enhance the growth
performance of Sunshine chicken. It can lessen the feed cost to produce a kilogram gain
in weight, and can obtain higher return on investment.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography……………………………………………………
i
Abstract …………………………………………………………
i
Table of Contents ………………………………………………. iii
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………..
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ………………………………….
5
MATERIALS AND METHODS ………………………………
8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Initial Weight …………………………………………..
12
Final Weight ……………………………………………
12
Total gain in Weight ……………………………………
13
Water Consumption ……………………………………
13
Total Feed Consumption ……………………………….
14
Feed Conversion Ratio …………………………………..
15
Cost of Feed to Produce a
Kilogram Gain in Weight ……………………………….
15
Dressing Percentage ……………………………………. 17
Weight of Main Cuts ………………………………....... 17
Page
Morbidity Count ………………………………………… 18
Return on Investment …………………………………… 19
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION …... 21
v
LITERATURE CITED …………………………………………. 23
APPENDICES …………………………………………………. 25
vi
INTRODUCTION
In the first several years, Sasso chicken from France was very popular with a lot
of local growers especially the smaller raisers that included backyard raisers. It also
appealed to those with commercial intentions. Sasso chickens are praised by raisers for
their plump body, fast growth, sturdiness, and taste that resemble that of native chicken.
However, for succeeding years, many growers have become disgruntled. The
Sasso chickens did not grow as big as before until these were no longer available in the
market. According to Dr. Rey Itchon, this was because the replacement of parent stocks
was not done regularly. He explained that the first generation chickens that were sold in
the beginning should not have been used as breeders to produce chicks for sale or for
growing.
For now, with a new partnership, the country is producing a new strain called
Sunshine. Sunshine chicks are produced using parent stocks from the Sasso Company in
France. These are imported colored chicken from France. This type of chicken is for meat
production and for egg production as well. Every six months, a new batch of parent
stocks will be imported to ensure a stable supply of quality Sunshine chicks for meat and
egg production (Itchon and Ramos, 2007). Sunshine chicken is becoming increasingly
popular in many parts of the country. Thousands of Sunshine chicken eggs everyday is
sold in Metro Manila, particularly in the upscale specialty food stores and restaurants.
In the other hand, Solraya (2008), suggested the using of probiotics in the
drinking water for the first 21 days of free range Sunshine chicken prior to ranging.
.
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
2
Probiotics are live microbial food ingredient that when ingested in sufficient
quantities exert health benefits on the consumer. According to Doron and Gorbach
(2006), probiotics exert their benefits through several mechanisms: they prevent
colonization, cellular adhesion and invasion by pathogenic organisms, they have direct
antimicrobial activity and they modulate the host immune response. Probiotics are good
bacteria that can boost the level of beneficial bacteria in the gut, whereas antibiotics
attack and kill infections and unwanted bacteria. Further, the natural balance of beneficial
bacteria in the digestive system is disrupted under certain conditions and one of which is
the antibiotic treatment. The number of pathogens increases while the number of
beneficial microorganisms decreases causing digestion upsets and discomfort to animals.
For animals, probiotics are more commonly referred to as Direct Fed Microbes (DFM’s).
DFM’s can restore the normal balance of the gut and improve the overall health of the
animal.
Meanwhile, the Exquisite Focus Philippines Incorporation, an Agricultural based
Company, offers a simple, direct and practical approach to Agriculture, Aquaculture, and
Livestock including the environment. With an aim of maximizing the income for farmers
at the same time reducing farm inputs by 50 percent through its excellent features and
benefits, the Company is promoting BD Soil Conditioner/ Inoculants, BD Bio Organic
Fertilizer, BD Probiotics for Aquaculture and Livestock. It further aims to promote better
health through Bio Food Production Technology.
One of the contents of Probiotics is called rhizobacteria. It is a selection of
specific dormant active bacterial product made from strains through advance fermenting
and concentrating technology. It is a powdered live bacteria commercially prepared as
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
3
plant growth enhancer that contains non-toxic effective live bacteria numbering to 1
billion per gram. The product is suited to enable reproduction of beneficial microbial
bacteria, reduce populations of pathogenic bacteria, regulate rhizosphere nutrient
environment and restore soil original embiosis. It is primarily used in agricultural crops,
plantations and fisheries and it maximizes income for farmers at the same time reducing
farm inputs.
Poultry production is considered as one of the common and practical agricultural
enterprises nowadays because of its short production period. However, poultry raisers
today are faced with some constraints. One major problem is the prevalence of infectious
diseases. Losses from high cost of production and the increasing problem of antibiotic
resistance brought about by the use of antibiotics that has led to the increased interest of
using probiotics in animal production. Hence, this study was designed to utilize
rhizobacteria solutions in chickens without the use of synthetic antibiotics.
The result of the study may provide helpful information in improving the growth
performance of sunshine chickens and may also of help to other researchers, to people
engaged in poultry production as well as to the community by providing knowledge on
Sunshine chicken production.
The findings of this study may provided significant information which is relevant
to poultry production. Whereas, to the people engaged in poultry production, the study
provided them with helpful data that may guide them in improving the growth
performance of sunshine chicken. More importantly, the results of the study were of
assistance in improving the poultry industry not only in Nueva Vizcaya but in other areas
as well.
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
4
Furthermore, it was hoped that this study inspired other researchers to conduct
similar studies to help improve the poultry industry as a whole. This study may also serve
as a guide and reference to future researchers.
Generally, the study aimed to determine the growth performance of sunshine
chickens supplemented with rhizobacteria in Dupax del Norte, Nueva Vizcaya.
Specifically, this study aims to:
1. measure the growth rate of sunshine chickens supplemented with
rhizobacteria.
2. determine the feed consumption of sunshine chickens supplemented with
rhizobacteria.
3. compare the feed conversion ratio of sunshine chickens supplemented with
rhizobacteria.
4. determine the effect of rhizobacteria on the health status of birds as reflected
by morbidity and mortality rate.
5. identify the level of rhizobacteria that gives the best growth performance of
Sunshine chickens.
6. find out the profitability of raising sunshine chickens supplemented with
rhizobacteria in terms of ROI and cost to produce a kilogram gain in weight.
The study was conducted at Nursery, Oyao, Dupax del Norte, Nueva Vizcaya
from April 16 to June 10, 2009.
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Ever since the commercial broiler industry was introduced in the early eighties,
urban consumers had been exposed to these antibiotics-laden chickens and their eggs,
thereby resulting in more incidents of cancer and other debilitating human sicknesses
(Exquisite Focus Philippines, 2005).
Various theories have been proposed to explain the mechanisms by which avian
indigenous gut microorganisms protect their host against invading enteropathogens. Sluis
(2003) stated that in the early nineties, Japanese researchers discovered that probiotics
such as Lactobacillus acidophilus and Streptococcus faecium were able to reduce the
severity of necrotic enteritis. Further, probiotics were able to inhibit the growth of
potentially pathogenic microorganisms by lowering the pH through production of lactate,
lactic acid and volatile facts.
Chong (2006) on the other hand made use of probiotics rhizobacteria in
aquaculture. Accordingly, with the use of probiotics rhizobacteria, water stays clean,
requiring change only after four months or upon harvest. Fish kills could record as high
as 90 percent mortality in warm months and could wipe out the entire stock in just a few
days.
In addition, Pontiveros (2001) of Lubao, Pampanga who raises tiger prawns,
milkfish, tilapia and crabs confirms that probiotics is proven effective in arresting
continuous deaths even in limited span (Manila Bulletin, 2001).
Further, Banciles (2004), Ph.D of Quirino State College wrote in her journal that
the QSC was alarmed with the high mortality of chicks in the poultry farm due to the cool
weather condition associated with other factors. The university conducted an experiment
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
6
by mixing ten grams of rhizobacteria with 40 liters of water. The solution was given to
the chicks throughout the experiment. The result was remarkable since the death among
the chicks has finally stopped. From then on, the solution was continuously administered
to all birds in the farm. It was observed that the birds became resistant to diseases and
finally regained their agility as shown in their improved growth rate.
With this experience, according to Banciles (2004), a group of researchers was
motivated to try rhizobacteria to broilers. At first, they were hesitant since they know that
the broilers are not as sturdy as the Sasso breeds but they took the risk. The result was
unbelievable because the birds treated with rhizobacteria registered an average of 1.69
kilograms in barely 36 days compared to 1.2 kilograms mean weight of birds that were
not treated with rhizobacteria.
The curiosities lead other researchers to try rhizobacteria in the tilapia farm of
Quirino State College. Accordingly, the result was remarkable. The muddy water in the
pond became clear and greenish. Planktons and algae were observed to be growing
thickly in the pond. The fish from the treated pond appeared dark blue-gray in color with
pinkish fins. They are generally bigger and heavier in weight than those fish taken in
untreated pond which are whitish in color and smaller in size.
Faria et al, (2006) as cited by Polig (2008) studied probiotics for broiler chickens
in Brazil: systematic review and meta analysis concluded the probiotics are a technical
viable alternative to antimicrobial growth promoters in broiler feeding.
The effects of different levels of probiotics (Lactobaccilus acidophilus,
Streptococcus faecium and Yeasacc 10260) supplementation on the performance of
broiler chickens were evaluated using 144 commercial broiler chicks, 1-day-old, for a
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
7
period of 8 weeks. The feed intake, feed efficiency and protein efficiency were
statistically insignificant at 6 and 8 weeks of age among the treatment groups. Cost
production of broilers was lower in the 0.025 and 0.05 percent probiotics supplemented
groups at 6 to 8 weeks of age, respectively. It was concluded that probiotics
supplementation in standard boiler ration at a lower level is beneficial in the early stages
o f growth (Elizabeth, V. et al, 2005).
Administration of probiotics via the drinking water had beneficial on broiler
performance. In the field trials, probiotic treatment significantly improved feed
conversion. In each field trial total final body weight was increase by supplemental
probiotics, ranging from 0.74 to 1.64 percent. Mortality was reduced by the addition of
probiotics to the drinking water (Timmerman H. M. et al, 2006).
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
METHODOLOGY
The materials used in the study were 120 heads of day old sunshine chicks,
rhizobacteria powder, poultry feeds, brooding cages , weighing scale, electric bulbs,
feeding and drinking troughs, pails, record book, empty sacks carton sheets and cleaning
materials.
The stocks were purchased from one of the reliable Sunshine chicken dealer in
Maharlika Highway, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya.
All equipments including the brooding pens were thoroughly cleaned and
disinfected a week before the arrival of the chicks. The brooding pens were divided into
twelve compartments measuring three (3) feet by four (4) feet each which was enough to
contain ten (10) sample birds. The sides of the pens were made of bamboo covered with
clean empty feed sacks and carton sheets inside to help conserve heat. The brooders were
preheated an hour before the arrival of the chicks to attain uniform warmth inside the
cages.
Upon arrival, the chicks were weighed to obtain their initial weights and were
distributed at random following the completely randomized design (CRD). There were
three treatments and each was replicated four times with ten birds per replicate making a
total of forty birds per treatment.
The different treatments were as follows:
T0 = control
T1 = 20 g rhizobacteria powder per 40 liters water.
T2 = 20 g rhizobacteria powder per 50 liters water.
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
9
Ad libitum feeding was employed from the start until the end of the study. Chick
booster were given to the chicks up to two (2) weeks of age then were gradually shifted
to starter ration on the 15th day and finisher ration on the 35th day until the end of the
study. Shifting of feeds were done by mixing 25 percent of the new feed on the first day,
50 percent on the second day and 75 percent on the third day and the fourth day the birds
were totally with the new type of feeds. The feeders were placed inside the compartments
from the start of the study until 20th day and were placed along the walls outside the pen
on 21st day adjusted to the breast level of the birds. The rhizobacteria solutions were
made available to the birds from the first day and throughout the duration of the
experiment.
The data gathered were the following:
1. Initial weight (kg). This was obtained by weighing the birds individually at
the start of the study.
2. Final weight (kg). This was obtained by taking the weight of the birds at the
end of the study.
3. Feed offered (kg). This was obtained by weighing the amount of feeds given
to the birds.
4. Feed left-over (kg).This was obtained by weighing the amount of feeds not
consumed by the birds from the feed offered.
5. Mortality count. This was obtained by taking the number of birds that have
died during the experimental period.
6. Morbidity rate. This was obtained by taking the number of sick birds during
the study period.
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
10
7. Production cost. This includes the cost of stocks, feeds, probiotics, labor,
electricity, equipment and materials that were used in the study.
8. Slaughter weight (kg). This refers to the body weight of the fasted animal
prior to slaughter.
9. Dressed weight (kg). This was obtained by weighing the carcass of the
chickens after evisceration, head and feet off.
10. Weight of the major cuts (kg). This refers to the weight of the legs, thighs,
wings, breast and back of the birds.
The data that were computed:
1. Total gain in weight (kg). This was computed by subtracting the initial weight
from the final weight of birds.
2. Total feed consumption (kg). This was obtained by taking the difference
between the offered and the left over.
3. Dressing percentage (%). This was obtained by dividing the carcass weight
with the slaughter weight multiplied by 100.
4. Feed conversion ratio (FCR). This was obtained by dividing the total feed
consumed by the total gain in weight of the birds.
5. Feed cost to produce a kilogram gain in weight (Php). This was taken by
multiplying the feed conversion ratio by the cost of feed per kilogram.
6. Net profit (Php). This was obtained by subtracting the cost of production
(inputs) from the sales of the produced sunshine chickens (outputs).
7. Return on investment (ROI). This was computed by taking the net income
divided by the total cost and multiplied by 100.
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
11
Data Analysis
Analysis of Variance for CRD was used to compare treatment means while the
Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) was used to compare the significance of
differences among means.
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Initial and Final Weight
The mean initial weight of the birds in the different treatments taken at the start of
the study when the birds were one day of age is shown in Table 1. Statistical analysis
revealed that there were no significant differences observed among the treatments. This
shows that the birds were more or less of the same weight at the start of the study.
The table further shows the mean final weight of the birds in the different
treatments taken at 56 days of age. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences
among the treatments. The birds not given rhizobacteria solution registered the lowest
mean of 1.673 kg as compared to the other treatments provided with the same 10 g
rhizobacteria powder per 40 liters water and 50 liters water with 1.749 kg and 1.782 kg
respectively, which are not significantly different.
The result agrees with the statement of Timmerman (2006) that probiotic
supplements increases the total final body weight by 0.74 to 1.64 percent.
Table 1.Initial and final weight of Sunshine chicken (kg)
TREATMENT INITIAL WEIGHT FINAL WEIGHT
(kg) (kg)
Control 0.02375a
1.673b
10 g rhizobacteria powder per 40 liters water 0.02375a
1.749a
10 g rhizobacteria powder per 50 liters water 0.02425a 1.782a
Means with the same letter superscript are not significantly different at 5% DMRT
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
13
Total Gain in Weight
Table 2 shows the mean total gain in weight of the birds which were taken by
subtracting the initial weight from the final weight.
Statistical analysis revealed that there were significant differences among the
treatments. The birds given 10 g rhizobacteria powder per 50 liters water obtained the
highest mean of 1.758 kg which is not significantly different to the birds given 10 g
rhizobacteria powder per 40 liters water with 1.725 kg mean gain in weight. On the other
hand, the birds not given rhizobacteria solution gained the lowest mean of 1.649 kg. This
result may be attributed to the differences in final weight and implies that rhizobacteria
can increase the gain in weight of Sunshine chicken.
Water consumption
The table 3 shows the mean water consumption of the birds which were taken
from the start to the end of the study. Statistical analysis revealed that there significant
differences among treatments. The birds given 10 g rhizobacteria per 50 liters water
obtained the highest mean water consumption of 70.54 liters which is not significantly
different from the birds given 10 g rhizobacteria per 40 liters with 70.49 liters.
Table 2. Total gain in weight (kg)
TREATMENT MEAN
(kg)
Control
1.649b
10 g rhizobacteria powder per 40 liters water
1.725a
10 g rhizobacteria powder per 50 liters water
1.758a
Means with the same letter superscript are not significantly different at 5% DMRT
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
14
In contrast, the birds not given rhizobacteria solution consumed the lowest mean
of 70.26 liters. The result may be attributed to the differences in water consumption and
implies that rhizobacteria can increase the water consumption of Sunshine chicken.
Feed Consumption
The mean feed consumption of the birds is shown in Table 4. The data shown that
the birds given 10 g rhizobacteria per 50 liters water listed the highest feed consumption
of 3.417 kg, followed by the birds given 10 g rhizobacteria per 40 g liters water with
3.417 kg and the control with 3.375 kg. However, differences in the feed consumption
between the treatments were not significant. This implies that the additional of 10 g
rhizobacteria to the 40 and 50 liters drinking water of the birds did not affect the feed
consumption of the birds.
Table 3. Water consumption (L)
TREATMENT MEAN
(liters)_____________
Control
70.26b
10 g rhizobacteria powder per 40 liters water
70.49a
10 g rhizobacteria powder per 50 liters water
70.54a
Means with the same letter superscript are not significantly different at 5% DMRT
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
15
Table 4. Feed consumption (kg)
TREATMENT MEAN
(kg)
Control
3.375a
10 g rhizobacteria powder per 40 liters water
3.417a
10 g rhizobacteria powder per 50 liters water
3.437a
Means with the same letter superscript are not significantly different at 5% DMRT
Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR)
The mean feed conversion ratio of the birds which was computed by dividing the
feed consumption by the total gain in weight is presented in Table 5. This represents the
efficiency of the birds to convert feed into meat or body gain in weight. The birds given
10 g rhizobacteria per 50 liters water had a better FCR which significantly different from
the rest of the treatments. The control with 2.049 and the birds given 10 g rhizobacteria
per 40 liters water with 1.982 feed conversion ratios are not significantly different from
each other.
The result implies that addition of 10 g rhizobacteria powder per 50 liters to the
drinking water of the birds required lesser amount of feed to produce a kilogram gain in
weight. Timmerman (2006) stated that probiotic treatment significantly improved feed
conversion.
Feed Cost to Produce a Kilogram Gain (Php)
Table 6 shows the feed cost to produce a kilogram gain in weight which was
obtained by multiplying the feed conversion ratio with the mean cost of feed per
kilogram.
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
16
Table 5. Feed conversion ratio
TREATMENT MEAN
(kg)
Control
2.049a
10 g rhizobacteria powder per 40 liters water
1.982a
10 g rhizobacteria powder per 50 liters water
1.956b
Means with the same letter superscript are not significantly different at 5% DMRT
Table 6. Feed cost to produce a kilogram gain (PhP)
TREATMENT MEAN
(PhP)______ ___
Control
53.448a
10 g rhizobacteria powder per 40 liters water
51.736b
10 g rhizobacteria powder per 50 liters water
51.045b
Means with the same letter superscript are not significantly different at 5% DMRT
Statistical analysis revealed significantly differences among the treatments. The
control garnered a cost of feed of Php 53.448 per kilogram gain which is significantly
higher than the means of the treatments given rhizobacteria solution. Conversely, the
differences of the treatments given rhizobacteria solution were not significant.
The result implies that mixing of 10 g rhizobacteria powder per 40 and 50 liters
on the drinking water of the birds lowered the cost of feeds to produce a kilogram gain in
weight.
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
17
Dressing percentage
The slaughter weight, carcass weight and dressing percentage are shown in
Table 7. Dressing percentage was obtained by dividing the carcass weight by the
slaughter weight multiplied by 100. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences
between the treatments for all the data. The slaughter and carcass weights of the sample
birds were taken at 57th day of the study.
Average weight of main cuts
Table 8 presented the mean weight of main cuts. Statistical analysis revealed
no significant differences among the weight of legs, thighs, wings, breast and back in the
different treatments.
Table 7. Slaughter weight (kg), carcass weight (kg) and dressing percentage (%)
TREATMENT
SLAUGHTER CARCASS DRESSING
WEIGHT WEIGHT PERCENTAGE
(kg) (kg) (%)_________
Control
1.850 1.300
70.255
10 g rhizobacteria powder /40 L water 1.855 1.305
70.313
10 g rhizobacteria powder /40 L water 1.855 1.305 70.480
Means in the same row with no letter superscript are not significantly different at 0.05
level of DMRT
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
18
Table 8. Average weight of main cuts (kg)
TREATMENT BREAST BACK LEGS THIGHS WINGS
To 0.315 0.349 0.220
0.205 0.204
T1 0.315 0.353 0.221 0.205 0.205
T2 0.316 0.354 0.224 0.206 0.205
Means in the same row with no letter superscript are not significantly different at 0.05
level of DMRT
Morbidity Rate
Table 9 shows the mean number of the birds injured because of feather pecking. It
was observed during the 4th weeks to 6th weeks of the study. Statistical analysis revealed
no significant differences between the treatments.
According to Huber (1998), feather pecking is a serious problem in poultry
housing as it may lead to feather damage, injuries and even mortality. Feather pecking
should thus be considered as redirected foraging behavior.
Further, in 1997, Huber stated that the presence of sand as a dust bathing does not
prevent domestic chicks from developing feather pecking. On the other hand, housing
conditions that promote foraging behavior like provision of straw are effective in
reducing and preventing feather pecking.
Even Schwarz (2002), pointed out that the misdirection of foraging behavior
toward nonspecific represents an inadequacy in the housing system, a deficiency of
opportunity to forage, and not a deficiency in a nutritional aspect of foraging.
In addition, according to Davis (2001), pecking is a precise, high-tech activity,
requiring good coordination with the eye. In natural conditions chickens spend between
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
19
half and 90% of their time foraging, making up to 15,000 pecks a day. Feather pecking
and cannibalism occur in environments that frustrate the behavioral needs of foraging
birds. In cages, feather pecking occurs particularly in the afternoon when hens have
finished feeding and laying eggs, and have little else to do. One chick was recorded died
in the control.
Return on Investment
The return on investment is shown in table 10. It was computed by subtracting
the total cost from the total sales divided by the total cost and multiplied by 100. The data
shows that birds given rhizobacteria solution accounted higher cost of production than
that of control. However, highest Return on Investment (ROI) with 23.50 percent was
then found out on the birds given 10 g rhizobacteria powder per 50 liters water, followed
by birds given 10g rhizobactria powder per 40 liters water with 20.17 percent and the
lowest Return on Investment was observed to be in the control with 17.11 percent.
TABLE 9. Morbidity rate
TREATMENT MORBIDITY
RATE
(%) __ _
Control
10a
10 g rhizobacteria powder per 40 liters water
7.5a
10 g rhizobacteria powder per 50 liters water
5a
Means with the same letter superscript are not significantly different at 5% DMRT
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
20
TABLE 10. Return on Investment (%)
TREATMENT COST OF TOTAL GROSS TOTAL ROI
PRODUCTION SALE NET GAIN
(Php) (Php) (Php) (%)__
Control
6,685.50 7,829.50 1,144.00 17.11
10 g rhizobacteria powder /40 L water 6,985.50 8,395.25 1,409.50 20.17
10 g rhizobacteria powder /40 L water 6,925.50 8,553.50 1,628.00 23.50
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The study was conducted to determine the effect of rhizobacteria on the growth
performance of Sunshine Chicken under Nursery, Oyao, Dupax del Norte Nueva Vizcaya
condition.
One hundred of day old Sunshine chicks were used. They were divided into three
treatments and each was replicated four times with ten birds per replicate. Analysis of
variance for Complete Randomized Design was used to compare treatments and
Duncan’s Multiple Range Test was used to compare the significance of differences
among means. The treatments were control, 10 g rhizobacteria powder per 40 liters water,
and 10 g rhizobacteria powder per 50 litters water.
Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences among the treatments in
terms of initial weight, feed consumption, slaughter weight, carcass weight, dressing
percentage, major cuts and morbidity rate. On the other hand, significant differences were
observed between the treatments in terms of final weight, total gain in weight, water
intake, feed conversion ratio and feed cost to produce a kilogram gain in weight.
On the return on investment, Sunshine Chicken given 10 g rhizobacteria powder
per 50 liters and 40 liters water obtained 23.50 percent and 20.17 percent, respectively.
The Sunshine Chicken not given rhizobacteria obtained 17.11 percent.
Conclusions
Based on the results of the study, 10 grams rhizobacteria powder per 50 liters of
water is better than 10 grams rhizobacteria powder per 40 liters water. With these
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
22
findings, it is concluded that giving right amount of rhizobacteria in the drinking water
can enhance the growth performance of Sunshine chicken. It can lessen the feed cost to
produce a kilogram gain in weight, and can produce higher return on investment.
Recommendations
For the above reason, the researcher strongly recommends the use of rhizobacteria
not only to Sunshine chicken but also in other animals as it was proven to be very
efficient as growth enhancers and proficient in lessening the feed cost to produce gain in
weight. Further studies are recommended using rhizobacteria powder to Sunshine
chicken in free range type and on the carcass analysis of Sunshine chicken.
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
LITERATURE CITED
BANCILES, H. 2005. Exquisite BD Soil Conditioner Convince Farmers and Experts of
its Wonders. Research Journal. Qurino State College
CHONG, F. 2006. Craw-Fish Biotech May Solve Productivity Woes. Gippsland
Aquaculture Industry Network, Australia. Retrieved on March 16, 2009.
http://www.growfish.com.au/content.asp?ContentId=4566
DAVIS, K. 2001. Knowing More about Natural Poultry Behavior can Lead to Better
Care.
Retrieved
on
October
15,
2009.
http//:www.upc-
online.org/Welfare/behavior.htm
DORON, S. and GORBACH, S. L. 2006. Probiotics: Their role in the Treatment and
Prevention of Diseases. Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy. Tufts-New
England. Boston. Retrieved on March 30, 2009. http//:www.sdorontufts-
nemc.org
ELIZABETH, V. K., JALALUDEEN, A., SABIHA, M. K. 2005. Effect of
Supplementation of Probiotic on the Growth Performance of Broiler Chicken.
Retrieved
on
March
16,
2009.
http//:www.cababstractsplus.org/google/abstract.asp?AcNo=20053093066
EXQUISITE FOCUS PHILIPPINES.2005. Exquisite Organic Technology. Madrid
Agribusiness Digest. Advertorial Article provided by Exquisite Focus
Philippines.pp.22-23.
FARIA, D. et al, 2006. Probiotics for Broiler Chickens in Brazil: Systematic Review and
Meta
Analysis.
Retrieved
on
March
16,
2009.
http//:www.scielo.br/scielo.php/pid=S1516-635X2006000200004&script=sci
arttext-69k
HUBER, W. 1998.1997. Feather Pecking in Domestic Chicks: Its Relation to Dust
bathing
and
Foraging.
Retrieved
on
October
15,
2009.
http://www.isapoultry.com/download/1/feather pecking. pdf
ITCHON, S and RAMOS, R. 2007. What Went Wrong With the Old Sasso?.. Now
Comes Sunshine Chicken Techno Guide News. Retrieved on March 30, 2009.
http//:www.bicol/.da.gov.ph./sasso_chicken.htm/
POLIG,V. 2008.The Growth Performance of Hubbard Broilers Given Fermented Sweet
Potato Tops Juice. BS Thesis (Unpub), Benguet State University, La Trinidad
Benguet
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
24
PONTIVEROS, P. 2001. Biotech may Solve Productivity Woes. Retrieved on March
16, 2009. http//:www.infoagrios.
SOLRAYA.2008. How To Take Care of Your Sunshine Chicken. Solraya Sunshine
Chicken. Retrieved on March 16, 2009. http://solraya.blogspot.com
SLUIS, W.2003. Selected and Specific Probiotics May Reduce Salmonella and
Clostridium Infections in Broilers. World Poultry. Volume 19.No.7.
SCHWARZ, R. 2002. What Factors Lead to the Misdirection of Foraging Behavior in
Laying Hens ? Retrieved on October 15, 2009. http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range
556/
TIMMERMAN, H. M. et al, 2006. Mortality and Growth Performance of Broilers Given
Drinking Water Supplemented with Chicken Specific Probiotics. Retrieved on
March 16, 2009. http//:www.ps.fass.org/cgi/content/full/85/8/1383
THE MANILA BULLETIN. 2005. Biotech may Solve Productivity Woes. Retrieved on
March 16, 2009. http//:www.infoagrios.
The Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria.
AMADO, WARELA B. October 2009
APPENDICES
APPENDIX TABLE 1.Initial Weight (kg)
TREATMENT _______REPLICATON_____________ TOTAL MEAN
______ I
II III
IV _________ _
To 0.025
0.023 0.025 0.022 0.095 0.02375
T1 0.025
0.025 0.023
0.022 0.095 0.02375
T2 0.023
0.025 0.025 0.024 0.097 0.02425
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL 0.287
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND MEAN 0.02392
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F-VALUE 0.05 0.01
Treatment 2 0.666667 0.3333335 0.18ns 4.26 8.02
Error 9 16.249997 1.805555222
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 11 16.916667
ns-not significant Coefficient for variance=5.62%
26
APPENDIX TABLE 2. Final Weight (kg)
TREATMENT __________REPLICATON__________ TOTAL MEAN
______ I II III
IV___________________________
To 1.736 1.685
1.655 1.615 6.691 1.673
T1 1.805 1.790 1.730 1.670 6.995 1.749
T2 1.735 1.825 1.807 1.760 7.127 1.782
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL 20.813
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND MEAN 1.734
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTE TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F-VALUE 0.05 0.01
Treatment 2 0.02499467 0.012497335 4.61* 4.26 8.02
Error
9 0.02438625 0.002709583
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 11 0.04938092
*- significant Coefficient for variance= 3%
27
APPENDIX TABLE 3. Total Gain in Weight (kg)
TREATMENT ______REPLICATON____________ TOTAL MEAN
______ I
II III
IV__ _______________________
To 1.711 1.662 1.630
1.593
6.596
1.649
T1 1.780 1.765 1.707 1.648
6.900 1.725
T2 1.712 1.800 1.783 1.736 7.031 1.758
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL 20.527
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND MEAN 1.711
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F-VALUE 0.05 0.01
Treatment 2 0.02490017 0.012450085 4.79* 4.26 8.02
Error 9
0.02337675 0.002597417
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 11 0.04827692
*- significant Coefficient for variance=2.98%
28
APPENDIX TABLE 4. Water Consumption (liters)
TREATMENT __________REPLICATON____________ TOTAL MEAN
______ I
II III
IV___________________________
To 70.50
70.35 70.25 69.95 281.05 70.26
T1 70.53 70.50 70.49 70.45 281.97 70.49
T2 70.50 70.73 70.60 70.54 282.37 70.54
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL 845.39
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND MEAN 70.45
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F-VALUE 0.05 0.01
Treatment 2 0.229065 0.1145325 5.28* 4.26 8.02
Error 9 0.195385 0.021709444
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
11 0.42445
*-significant Coefficient for variance= 0.21%
29
APPENDIX TABLE 5. Feed Consumption (kg)
TREATMENT __________REPLICATON____________ TOTAL MEAN
______ I
II III
IV___________________________
To 3.415
3.380 3.375 3.330
13.500 3.375
T1 3.46 3.450 3.405 3.355 13.670
3.418
T2 3.385 3.480 3.465 3.420 13.750 3.4375
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL 40.920
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND MEAN 3.410
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F-VALUE 0.05 0.01
Treatment 2 0.00815 0.004075 2.26ns 4.26 8.02
Error 9 0.0162 0.0018
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
11 0.02435
ns-not significant Coefficient for variance=1.24%
30
APPENDIX TABLE 6. Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR)
TREATMENT __________REPLICATON____________ TOTAL MEAN
______ I
II III
IV___________________________
To 2.000 2.034 2.071 2.090
8.195 2.049
T1 1.943
1.955 1.995
1.995 7.929 1.982
T2 1.977 1.933 1.943 1.970 7.823 1.956
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL 23.947
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND MEAN 1.996
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F-VALUE 0.05 0.01
Treatment 2 0.01836467 0.009182335 7.21* 4.26 8.02
Error
9 0.01146025 0.001273361
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 11 0.02982492
*-significant Coefficient for variance= 1.79%
31
APPENDIX TABLE 7. Feed Cost to Produce a Kilogram Gain (Php)
TREATMENT __________REPLICATON____________ TOTAL MEAN
______ I
II III
IV___________________________
To 52.100 53.087 54.053 54.55 213.79 53.4475
T1 50.710 51.026 52.069 53.14 206.945 51.73625
T2 51.600 50.451 50.712 51.417 204.18 51.045
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL 624.915
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND MEAN 52.07625
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F-VALUE 0.05 0.01
Treatment 2 12.2376113 6.11880565 6.82* 4.26 8.02
Error
9 8.0768727 0.8974303
_______________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
11
20.314484
*-significant Coefficient for variance= 1.82%
32
APPENDIX TABLE 8. Weight of Slaughtered Animals (kg)
TREATMENT __________REPLICATON____________ TOTAL
MEAN
______ I
II III
IV___________________________
To 1.920
1.820
1.860 1.800
7.400 1.850
T1 1.890 1.910 1.860
1.760
7.420 1.855
T2 1.910 1.880 1.850
1.780
7.420 1.855
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL 22.240
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND MEAN 1.853
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F-VALUE 0.05 0.01
Treatment 2 0.00006667 0.000033335 0.0098ns 4.26 8.02
Error
9
0.031
0.003444444
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 11 0.03106667
ns-not significant Coefficient for variance= 3.17%
33
APPENDIX TABLE 9.Carcass Weight (kg)
TREATMENT ________REPLICATON__________ TOTAL MEAN
______ I
II III
IV___________________________
To 1.370
1.280 1.300 1.250 5.200 1.300
T1 1.35 0
1.350 1.320 1.200 5.220 1.305
T2 1.35 0
1.330 1.300 1.250 5.230 1.307
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL 15.65
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND MEAN 1.304
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F-VALUE 0.05 0.01
Treatment 2 0.00011667 0.000058335 0.018ns 4.26 8.02
Error
9 0.029175
0.003241667
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
11 0.02929167
ns-not significant Coefficient for variance= 4.37%
34
APPENDIX TABLE 10. Dressing Percentage (%)
TREATMENT __________REPLICATON____________ TOTAL MEAN
______ I
II III
IV___________________________
To 71.354
70.33 69.892 69.444 281.02 70.255
T1 71.423 70.681 70.968 68.181 281.253 70.313
T2 70.681 70.745 70.27 70.225 281.921 70.480
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL 844.194
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND MEAN 70.350
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F-VALUE 0.05 0.01
Treatment 2 0.1093625 0.05468125 0.058ns 4.26 8.02
Error
9
8.5646485 0.95162761
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 11 8.674011
ns-not significant Coefficient for variance= 1.39%
35
APPENDIX TABLE 11. Weight of the Legs (kg)
TREATMENT __________REPLICATON____________ TOTAL MEAN
______ I
II III
IV___________ ____________
To 0.235 0.210 0.225 0.210 0.880 0.220
T1 0.230
0.230 0.225
0.200 0.885 0.221
T2 0.230
0.230 0.225
0.210 0.895 0.224
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL 2.660
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND MEAN 0.222
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F-VALUE 0.05 0.01
Treatment 2 0.000029167 0.0000145835 0.098ns 4.26 8.02
Error 9 0.0013375
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
11 0.001366667
ns-not significant Coefficient for variance=5.49%
36
APPENDIX TABLE 12.Weght of the Thighs (kg)
TREATMENT __________REPLICATON____________ TOTAL MEAN
______ I
II III
IV___________________________
To 0.215
0.200 0.205 0.200 0.820 0.205
T1 0.210 0.210 0.205
0.195 0.820 0.205
T2 0.210 0.210 0.205
0.200 0.825 0.206
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL 2.465
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND MEAN 0.205
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F-VALUE 0.05 0.01
Treatment 2 0.000004167 0.0000020835 0.051ns 4.26 8.02
Error
9 0.00036875 0.000040972
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
11 0.000372917
ns-not significant
Coefficient for variance=3.21%
37
APPENDIX TABLE 13. Weight of the Back (kg)
TREATMENT __________REPLICATON____________ TOTAL MEAN
______ I
II III
IV___________________________
To 0.380
0.340 0.350 0.325 1.395 0.349
T1 0.375 0.375 0.360 0.300 1.41 0.353
T2 0.375 0.360 0.350 0.330 1.415 0.354
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL 4.22
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND MEAN 0.352
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F-VALUE 0.05 0.01
Treatment 2 0.000054167 0.000027085 0.043ns 4.26 8.02
Error
9
0.0057125 0.00063472
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 11 0.005766667
ns-not significant
Coefficient for variance=7.16%
38
APPENDIX TABLE 14. Weight of the Wings (kg)
TREATMENT __________REPLICATON____________ TOTAL MEAN
______ I
II III IV_______ ____________________
To 0.210
0.200 0.205 0.200
0.815
0.2013
T1 0.210 0.210 0.205 0.195
0.820
0.2025
T2 0.200 0.205 0.205 0.200
0.820
0.2025
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL 2.455
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND MEAN 0.2021
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F-VALUE 0.05 0.01
Treatment 2 0.000004167 0.0000020835 0.070ns 4.26 8.02
Error
9 0.00026875 0.000029861
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
11 0.000272917
ns-not significant Coefficient for variance= 8%
39
APPENDIX TABLE 15. Weight of the breast (kg)
TREATMENT _________REPLICATON____________ TOTAL MEAN
______ I
II III
IV___________________________
To 0.330
0.305 0.315
0.310 1.260 0.32
T1 0.325 0.320 0.315 0.300 1.260 0.32
T2 0.325
0.315 0.315 0.310 1.265 0.32
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL 3.785
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND MEAN 0.315
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F-VALUE 0.05 0.01
Treatment 2 0.000004167 0.0000020835 0.023ns 4.26 8.02
Error 9 0.00081875 0.000090972
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
11 0.000822917
ns-not significant Coefficient for variance=3.03%
40
APPENDIX TABLE 16. Morbidity Rate
TREATMENT _________REPLICATON____________ TOTAL MEAN
______ I
II III
IV___________________________
To 0
10 10 20 40
10
T1 10 0 10 10 30
7.5
T2 0 10
10 0
20
5
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL 90
________________________________________________________________________
GRAND MEAN 7.5
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE
=SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F-VALUE 0.05 0.01
Treatment 2 50 25 0.6ns 4.26 8.02
Error 9 375 41.67
_______________________________________________________________________
TOTAL
11 425
ns-not significant Coefficient for variance=86.07%
41
APPENDIX TABLE 17. Cost and Return Analysis
ITEM
T1
T2
T3
________________________________________________________________________
A. Cost of Production
1. Cost of chicks
1,400.00 1,400.00 1,400.00
2. Cost of feeds
3,523.50 3,567.50 3,588.25
3. Housing 987.00 987.00
987.00
4. Cost of bills
Light
95.00 95.00
95.00
Water
10.00
10.00 10.00
5. Rhizobacteria
__
300.00 240.00
6. Transportation 50.00 50.00 50.00
7. Labor 100.00 100.00 100.00
8. Others
Bulb
90.00 90.00 90.00
Feeders 130.00 130.00 130.00
Waterers 120.00 120.00 120.00
Pails 90.00 90.00 90.00
Cartons
20.00
20.00 20.00
Sacks _70.00_ 70.00 _ 70.00_
TOTAL 6,685.50 6,985.50 6,925.50
B. GROSS SALE 7,829.50 8,395.25 8,553.50
C. NET GAIN 1,144.00 1,409.50 1,628.00
D. RETURN ON INVESTMENT (%) 17.11 20.17 23.50
Document Outline
- The Growth Performance ofSunshine Chicken Supplemented with Rhizobacteria
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES