BIBLIOGRAPHY WADASEN, MARK LLOYD P. Study...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
WADASEN, MARK LLOYD P. Study on the Effects of Hot Red Pepper (Capsicum
annum) Supplementation on the Growth Performance of Broilers. Benguet State
Univesity, La Trinidad Benguet.
Adviser:Dr. Richard P. Dumapis
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to determine the growth performance of broilers
supplemented with Hot Red Pepper (Capsicum Annum). It was conducted at Balili, La
Trinidad Benguet. A total of 120 day old Cobb broiler chicks were used in this study. The
treatments were: T0- pure feeds (control); T1- 0.5% of hot red pepper (500g/100kg of
feeds);T2- 1% of hot red pepper (1000g/100kg of feeds);T3- 1.5% of hot red pepper
(1500/100kg of feeds). The same care and management practices were given to all four
treatments.
Results showed that there was no significant difference on initial weight, mean
total feed consumed, and mortality rate among the different treatment. The treated group
(T1, T2 and T3) showed a significantly higher mean weekly gain in weight, mean total
gain in weight, mean final weight, mean feed conversion efficiency and return of
investment as compared to the control group (T0).However the treated group were not
significantly different from each other. No adverse side effects were observed from the
use of hot red pepper as feed supplement to the experimental broilers.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography………………………………………………………………….
i
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………
i
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………. ii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………..
1
Background of the study ……………………………………………...
1
Importance of the study ………………………………………………
4
Objectives of the study ………………………………………………..
4
Place and time of the study …………………………………………..
5
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ….………………… 6
CHAPTER III.MATERIALS AND METHODS …………………………….
10
CHAPTER IV.RESULTS AND DICUSSIONS ……………………………..
19
CHAPTER V. SUMMARY,CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 32
LITERATURE CITED ……………………………………………………….
34
APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………... 37
BIOGRAPHICAL SKECTH ………………………………………………….
55
CHAPTER I
Introduction
Back Ground of the Study
Broiler production plays a major role in food security for the rapidly increasing
Philippine human population. Their short production cycle, high feed efficiency and high
biomass per unit of agricultural land are particularly attractive for the Philippine
production system.
Chicken broiler and egg production are the most progressive animal enterprises in
the Philippines today. The poultry industry in fact began as the backyard enterprise but
has shifted to the formation of very large integrated contract farming operation (Broiler
Production Guide, 2009).
Broiler is a term that defines a market category of poultry that can be apply to all
species. Broilers are young chicken that are grown to 5 to 7 weeks of age, at which time
they are marketed for human consumption.
Broiler meat is popular because it is cheaper, more versatile, and is perceived to
give more health benefits than red meat. In spite of these advantages, the world broiler
industry increasingly faces pressure to improve its production methods, with consumers
and government citing health, environment, and animal welfare as the areas for
improvement. Demand outlook is positive for the Philippine broiler industry because of
1
the continuing growth in population and household incomes in the country (PCCARD,
2006).
Hot red pepper (Capsicum annum) is one of the most important herbs, which is
widely used in human feed all over the world, it originated from central and South
America and it belonged to Solanaceae family. Genus Capsicum belongs to the most
heavily and frequently consumed as spices throughout the world (Kobata et al., 1998).
Capsicum annum is introduced world wide which is divided into two categories:
sweet (or mild) pepper and hot (or chili) pepper. Capsicum annum is the most spread in
term of household consumption and industrial processing. Capsinoids is a family of
compounds that are analogues of capsaicin, which is the pungent component in hot chilli
peppers. Capsinoids are widely present at low levels in chili pepper fruit, it includes
capsiate, dihydrocapsiate and it has a very favorable safety profile (Kobata et al., 1998)
Capsinoids present in red peppers causes pungent, hot tasting sensations when
consumed as a part of the diet in addition to sensory properties that it may be affects
human health, capsinoids includes antimicrobial activities against disease caused by
bacteria. It exhibited protective effects against mutagens and carcinogens, cholesterol,
obesity and pains (Suk-Hyun Choi et al., 2006).
The effect of hot red pepper appetizer on subsequent energy and micronutrient
intakes were examined and it showed that hot red pepper in addition to appetizer
significantly reduced the cumulative ad lib energy and carbohydrate intake .(Yoshioka et
al., 1999).
2
Importance of the study
Poultry production in tropical condition provides a constant challenge. Heavy
economic losses result from decreased productivity and increased mortality due to
different causes like disease, improper management and stress. In connection to this
many feed additives or feed supplements have been develop to boost the production
performance of poultry. But some of the drawback of this is it causes antibiotic resistance
due to the addition of antibiotics by some manufacturers and it is expensive. The main
focus of this study is to find an alternative feed additive which is readily available in the
community and would help to lower the production cause of poultry in backyard growers
and commercial growers.
Objectives
The study was conducted to:
1. Determine the effects of hot red pepper supplementation on the growth performance of
broilers.
2. Determine the best level of hot red pepper ratio as supplement to broilers.
3. Determine the economic return of using hot red pepper as an alternative feed additive.
4. Determine the Side effects of red hot chilli pepper supplements on broilers.
3
Place and Time of the Study
The experiment was conducted at Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet from October
28,2011 to December 11,2011.
4
CHAPTER II
Review of Related Literature
Due to the demands of poultry meat, farmers want their broilers to reach a
maximum growth rate in the shortest possible time so they keep looking for ways to
better improve the growth rate and the feed conversion of broilers. One possibly way of
doing this is to add supplements on the diet of the broilers.
Increased restriction on the use of pharmaceutical antibiotics in feed as growth
promoters is an accelerating trend towards the development of using alternative
ingredients particularly those from plants which are perceived as "natural" and "safe"
ingredients. Rosen (1996) defined the pronutrients as microfeedingstuff used orally in
relatively small amounts to improve the intrinsic value of the nutrient mix in animal diet.
They have many possible modes of action; antioxidation and metabolic enhancement,
appetizer and guts environment modulation, in addition they can encourage efficient
digestion. The mode of action may arise from plant metabolites belong to the classes of
isoprene derivatives, flavonoids and glucosinolates and a large number of these
compounds have been suggested to act as antibiotics or as antioxidants in vivo as well as
in food (Wenk, 2003).
Plant active principles are chemical compounds present in the entire plant or in
specific parts of the plant that confers them therapeutic activity or beneficial effects.
These compounds are produced by the plants for defense against external factors, such as
5
physiological stress, environmental factors, and protection against predators and
pathogens.
Botanical feed ingredients are substrates derived chemically from simple
processes or collected intact from recognized parts of plants that are suitable for practical
use in animal diet.
Red chilis contain high amounts of vitamin C and carotene (provitamin A).
Yellow and especially green chilis (which are essentially unripe fruit) contain a
considerably lower amount of both substances. In addition, peppers are a good source of
most
B vitamins, and
vitamin B6
in particular. They are very high
in potassium, magnesium, and iron. Their high vitamin C content can also substantially
increase the uptake of non-heme iron from other ingredients in a meal, such as beans and
grains.
Capsaicin (CAP) is the main capsaicinod in chilli peppers. CAP is stable in water
and some animal studies indicated that it absorbed into blood stream (Diepvens, 2007).
Capsaicin a pungent principle of hot red pepper, has been used as spices, feed
additives and drugs in hot red pepper are capsaicin carotenoids e.g. capsanthin,
capsorubin, carotene and steroidal saponins known as capsicidins found in seed and root
(Saber, 1982) CAP is the main component of hot red pepper, including hot taste and is
known to active afferent nerve fiber (Holzer, 1991), CAP has been shown to have a
protective function in the gastric mucosa as the stimulation of afferent nerve endings by
6
capsaicin protects against aspirin or alcohol-induced gastric injury (Gonzalez et al.,
1998).
Capsaicin (CAP, 8-methyl-N-Vanilly-6-nonenamide) is the active substance
responsible for the irritating and pungent effects of various species of hot pepper. CAP
has emerged as a relatively selective neurotoxin for small-diameter sensory neurons
(Jessel et al., 1978; Nagy et al., 1981; Mitsuhiro et al., 1994; Jancso et al., 1997).
The role of CAP in carcinogenic processes is quite controversial. Although some
investigators suspect that CAP is a carcinogen, co-carcinogen or tumor promoter, where
as Young-Joon Surh (2002) have reported that it has a chemopreventive and
chemotherapeutic effects. In addition to its action as preferentially repress for the growth
of some transformed human and mouse cells (Morre et al., 1995).
CAP and main capsacinoid are also about twice as potent to taste and nerves as
the minor capsaicinoids. Nordihyro capsaicin, hemodihydrocapsaicin and homocapsaicin
skin, an alarm the residence of the stomach and to tonic a good digest.
Hot red pepper used as a spices and appetizers if it used in reasonable quantities
because it defects the mucous membranes of the intestinal digestive. Hot red pepper is a
tonic plant, has a calming activity, keeping the skin good, does not alarm the residence of
the stomach and gives tonic a good digestion. Hot red pepper play an important role in
increasing the ability analyzer and deposition of cholesterol and fat in the body and
contributes to decrease levels of triglycerides and work to support the vascular system in
the body (Hencken, 1991) explained that hot red pepper is rich in vitamin C which have a
considerable impact on improving production through attributes the reduction of heat
7
stress on a fact that birds consumption of hot red pepper induce a considerable change in
energy balance when individual are given free access to food (Yoshioka et al., 2001).
Plant extracts improved the digestibility of the feeds for broilers. The effect of
different additives on digestibility improved the performance slightly but this effect was
not statistically significant (Hernandez et al., 2004).
8
CHAPTER III
Materials and Methodology
Materials
The materials and equipments that were in the study are the following: 120 heads
Cobb broiler chicks (Plate no.1), hot red pepper as the feed supplement (Plate no.2), Gold
label feeds, brooding pen and rearing pen, weighing scale, vaccines, feeding troughs,
waterers, newspapers, sacks, electric bulbs, sockets, improvised colored leg bands,
marker, cameera, record book and disinfectant(Plate no.3).
Plate no.1 Day-old Cobb broiler chicks.
9
Plate no.2 Hot red pepper (Capsicum annum) powder used in the study
Plate no.3 Materials used in the study
10
Methodology
Pre-experimental Phase
At the start of the study, the brooding, rearing pens were prepared. (Plate
no.4)The pens were divided equally into 12 compartments to represent the 3 replications
of each treatment. The sides of the pens were covered with sacks to serve as protection
for the broilers during sudden weather changes, to conserve heat during brooding time
and to avoid tripping of birds on the floor during the period of experiment.
To maintain dryness of the brooding area news papers were layered on the
flooring, this would also help to conserve the heat on the pens. The replicate pens were
provided with 75-watt incandescent bulb this will provide warmth inside the pens. The
replicate pens were properly label depending on the desired treatment to be given. Before
the arrival of the chicks, the lights were switch on to ensure warmth within the brooding
area.
11
Plate no.4 Brooding pens and rearing pens
Experimental Phase
Upon the arrival of the birds, they were weighed individually and randomly
assign to the different treatments. The birds were identifieed using improvised colored
leg bands to indicate the treatment, replication and the number of the chick. (Plate no.5)
The treatments were replicated three times with ten birds per replicate. The leg bands
were adjusted or replaced as the broilers grow(Plate no. 6).
12
Plate no.5 Improvised colored leg bands for bird identification
Plate no.6 Adjustment of the leg bands
13
The treatments were as follows:
T0- pure feeds (control)
T1- 0.5% of hot red pepper (500g/100kg of feeds)
T2- 1% of hot red pepper (1000g/100kg of feeds)
T3- 1.5% of hot red pepper (1500g/100kg of feeds)
The ratio of hot red pepper per kilograms of feeds was taken from the
recommendation of Galib et al. (2011) who conducted the study entitled “The Effects of
Using Hot Red Pepper as a Diet Supplement on Some Performance Traits in Broiler.”
The chicks were brood for twenty-one days. The temperature inside the brooding
pen was closely monitored using the response or behavior of the chicks as the gauge for
temperature fluctuations. The chicks are vaccinated against NCD on the first week of
brooding followed by second dose on the third week. As the chicks grow, the brooding
pen and also the rearing pen size were adjusted to avoid overcrowding.
The chicks were fed with chick booster from day old to ten days of age which was
gradually shifted to starter crumble from fourteen days to twenty-one days and were
finally shifted to finisher crumble on the fifth week until the end of the study, shifting of
feed types was done by mixing one-fourth of the new type of feed with three-fourth of
the former type then increasing the new feed by one-fourth daily until it becomes the sole
feed type for the birds. For the first three days, feeds were scattered on the floor for better
access to the chicks, thereafter, feeding troughs was used. The feeding troughs and
waterers were refilled as feeds and water are nearly to be consumed. The amount of feeds
14
and water given were measured per treatment and recorded prior to feeding to monitor
the amount of feed given for the duration of study.
The following data were gathered
1. Mean initial weight of broiler chicks (g) - this was obtained by weighing the chicks
individually at the start of the study.
2. Mean weekly gain in weight of broilers (g) - this was obtained by weighing the broilers
individually at weekly intervals.
3. Mean total gain in weight (g) - this was obtained by subtracting the initial weight of the
broilers from their final weight.
4. Mean final weight (g)- this was obtain by weighing the birds at the end of the study.
5. Mean feed consumption (g)- this was obtain by adding the total feed consumption of
the broilers during the experimental period (day 1-day 45).
6. Mean feed conversion efficiency- this was obtained by dividing the mean total feed
consumption with the mean total gain in weight of the broilers during the study.
7. Percentage mortality (%)- this was computed by dividing the total number of dead
broilers per treatment divided by the total number of broilers per treatment then
multiplying by one hundred.
8. Cost and return analysis- this was obtain by subtracting the total expenses that was
incurred per treatment from the total sales per treatment to determine the net profit. The
net profit was divided by the total expenses incurred per treatment to get the return on
investment (ROI) per treatment.
15
A. total sales: this was obtained by the sale of the birds. Each bird was sold at Php. 110
per kilo.
B. Total cost: includes the following:
1. Cost of birds- the birds were bought at Php. 38 per head.
2. Cost of supplement - this was taken by multiplying the total amount of the
supplement that was consumed in each treatment with the corresponding price of
the treatment.
3. Cost of feeds per treatment- this was taken by multiplying the total amount of
feeds that was consumed in each treatment with the corresponding price of feeds.
4. Cost of electricity- this was computed by multiplying the wattage of the bulbs
used by the number of bulbs used and number of hours the bulbs are used. The
products was divided by 100 to get the total kilowatts used then the quotient
multiplied by the price per kilowatt.
5. Cost of disinfectant- this was bought at Php. 60. The amount was divided
among the four treatments.
6. Newspapers-newspapers were bought at Php 15 per kilo. Approximately seven
(7) kilos of newspapers were used during the brooding period as litter materials.
The amount was divided equally among the four treatments.
7. Vaccine- The cost of NCD vaccine was Php 150. The amount was divided
equally among the four treatments.
8. Bulb- bulbs were 50 each. A total of 12 bulbs were used during the brooding
period.
16
9. Labor cost- this was taken by dividing the cost of labor with eight hours and
multiplying the number of hours used in caring and management of the birds and
multiplying again to the number of days of the study. Labor cost was pegged at
Php. 250 per day; approximately two hours per day was used for the feeding and
caring of the experimental birds.
10. Rentals
a. Weighing scale rental- this was pegged at Php. 45. The amount was
divided equally among the four treatments.
b.Housing- this was obtained by dividing the cost of housing materials.
The quotient was further divided by 12 to get the monthly depreciation
cost. The depreciation costs of 1.5 months were computed for the duration
of the study divided equally among the four treatments.
c. Feeders- a total of 12 plastic feeders were rented at Php. 5 each for the
entire duration of the study. The amount was equally divided among the
four treatments.
d. Waterers- a total of 12 plastic waters were rented at Php. 5 each for the
entire duration of the study. The amount was equally divided among the
four treatments.
Sanitation was maintained inside the experimental house throughout the study.
Weighing of the birds and recording was done every Saturday before the birds feeding
17
CHAPTER IV
Results and Discussions
Mean Initial Weight of the Chicks
Table 1. shows the mean initial weight of the chicks in grams.
Table 1: Mean Initial Weight of the Chicks(g)
TREATMENT MEAN
T0
50.500a
T1
49.333a
T2
47.667a
T3
46.667a
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The initial weight of birds was shown in table 1. The table shows that T0 had the
highest initial mean weight of 50.500 grams, followed by T1 with 49.333 grams then T2
with 47.667 grams and T3 with 46.667 grams.
However, statistical analysis revealed that there was no significant difference
among the initial weight of chicks across the different treatments. This means that the
initial weight of chicks were homogenous at the start of the study.
In the study conducted by Sabas (2005) titled “Performance of Meat Breeds of
Chicken Raised Under Semi-ranged System” showed that the mean initial weight of the
18
day-old sasso chicks was 52 grams, kabir chicks was 54 grams, white broiler chicks was
82 grams, and local native chicks was 27 grams. Thus, mean initial weight of the
experimental birds which was 47.875 grams was lower than the other meat breeds except
for the local native chicks.
19
Mean Weekly Gain in Weight
Table 2. shows the mean weekly gain in weight of the broilers in grams for six weeks
rearing period.
Table 2. Mean Weekly Gain in Weight of the broilers (g)
TREATMENT WEEKLY
MEAN
1st week
2nd week
3rd week
4th week
5th week
6th week
T0
156.833a 395.833b 717.13b 1028.43a 1519.83b 1827.00b
T1
154.500a 405.667ab
757.65a
1060.53a 1590.00ab 1926.67a
T2
160.500a 417.167a 788.179a 1031.53a 1510.00b 1936.67a
T3
157.333a 403.000ab
770.00a
1032.87a
1626.67a
1973.33a
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
Table 2 shows that in the first week there were no significant difference among the
treatments in the mean gain in weight. On the second week, T2 showed the higher gain in
weight as compared to T0 but not significantly different to T1and T3 but significantly
higher than T0. T1 and T3 were not also significantly different to T0. On the third week T1,
T2 and T3 had a significantly higher gain in weight as compared to the control group (T0).
However there was no significant different in gain in weight among the treated group. On
the fourth week the treatments showed no significant difference in term of weekly gain in
weight. On the fifth week T3 showed a significantly higher gain in weight as compared to
T0 and T2, but not significantly different to T1. T0, T1 and T2 were not significantly
20
different in mean gain in weight on the fifth week. On the sixth week results showed that
the treated group had a significantly higher gain in weight as compared to the control
group. No significant difference was observed among the treated group in terms of mean
gain in weight on the sixth week.
Result shows that during the duration of the study there were variations on the
weekly gain in weight of the broilers. However on the final week it showed that
treatments with supplement (T1, T2 and T3) had a higher weekly gain in weight as
compared to the control group (T0).
The result of the study conducted by Eldeeb, Metwally and Galal (2006) entitled
“The Impact of Botanical Extract, Capsicum (capsicum annum), Oil supplementation and
their interactions on the productive performance of broiler chicks”, showed that improved
body weight and overall average daily gain due to interaction effect among dietary
treatments. Feeding capsicum in presence of 5% oil significantly improved feed
conversion ratio.
Also on the study conducted by Garcia et al.(2007) showed that mixtures of plant
extracts containing carvacrol, cynnamalde-hyde and capsaicin improved the performance
of broiler chicken.
21
Mean Final Weight of the Broilers (g)
Table 3. shows the mean final weight of the broilers from the first week up to the sixth
week of brooding and rearing.
Table 3: Mean Final Weight of the Broilers (g)
TREATMENT MEAN
T0
1827.00b
T1
1926.67a
T2
1936.67a
T3
1973.33a
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference among T1, T2
and T3 on the mean final weight of the birds, but results show that the treated groups ( T1,
T2, and T3) had significantly higher final weight compared to T0.
Azouze (2001) who conducted the study on the “Effect of hot pepper and fenugreek
seed supplementation on broiler diets” concluded that hot pepper improved body weight
gain and feed conversion after its addition to broiler diets.
Also Hermandez et al. (2004) found that capsaicin increased the enzyme secretion in
the digestive tract, thereby enhanced digestion and increased the nutrient availability.
Improved growth performance of the broilers fed with 5% Chilli powder suggests that
capsaicin alone also enhances the performance of broilers.
22
Mean Total Gain in Weight of the Broilers(g)
Table 4. shows the mean total gain in weight of the birds from the first week up to the
sixth week of brooding and rearing.
Table 4: Mean Total Gain in Weight of the Broilers(g)
TREATMENT MEAN
T0
1776.50b
T1
1877.33a
T2
1889.00a
T3
1926.67a
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference among T1, T2
and T3 on the mean total gain in weight of the broilers, but the three treatments had a
significantly higher total gain in weight as compared to T0.
Pruthi (2003) stated on his study that capsaicin had a growth promotant effect. He
added that dried pods of Capsicum annum or chilli contain 1.8% capsaicin and thus are good
sources of natural capsaicin.
Though Chili powder is normally used as spices in human foods, it’s a nutrient
rich feed ingredient. Chilli contains 10.5 % CP, 5.8 % lipids, 1.6% total phosphorus,
1.9% potassium, 0.47% lysine, 0.12% methionine and 3240 Kcal of gross energy /kg.
Therefore, apart from growth promoting effects, dietary Chili powder could be regarded
as a source of other nutrients too. (Pruthi 2003)
23
Mean Total Feed Consumption (g)
Table 5. shows the mean feed consumption of the broilers.
Table 5. Mean Feed Consumption (g)
TREATMENT MEAN
T0
39190a
T1
39190a
T2
39190a
T3
39190a
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The table shows that there was no significant difference on the mean feed
consumption of all treatments. Since the broilers were not fed ad libitum. The amount of
daily feed consumption per bird was computed based on the feeding guide from Foster
Feeds Inc.
The table showed the same result in all treatments because the amount of feed
given was based on the recommended feeding guide from Foster Feeds Inc. and there
were no mortality incurred during the duration of the study. The feeding guide can be
seen in appendix table 13.
24
Mean Feed Conversion Efficiency (kg)
Table 6. shows the feed conversion efficiency of the birds in the different treatments.
Table 6. Mean Feed Conversion Efficiency (kg)
TREATMENT MEAN
T0
2.20333a
T1
2.09000b
T2
2.07333b
T3
2.03333b
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The feed conversion efficiency indicates the amount of feeds needed to produce
one kilogram live weight of the birds. Statistical analysis shows that T3 had the most
efficient feed conversion but not significantly different from that of T2 and T1. T0 had
significantly lower feed conversion efficiency as compared to the treated groups.
On the study conducted by Hernandez et al. (2004), entitled “Influence of two
plant extracts on broilers performance, digestibility and digestive organ size.” showed
that plant extracts improved the digestibility of the feeds for broilers. The effect of
different additives on digestibility improved the performance slightly but this effect was
not statistically significant.
25
Capsaicin increased the enzyme secretion in the digestive tract, thereby enhanced
digestion and increased the nutrient availability (Hermandez et al.2004).
The positive effect of hot pepper may be due to its stimulant, carminative
digestion and antimicrobial properties and also the presence of vit. C, E and provitamin A
(El-Aidy, 1981).
26
Percentage Mortality of the Broilers (%)
Table 7. shows the percentage mortality of birds in the different treatments.
Table 7. Percentage Mortality of the Broilers (%)
TREATMENT MEAN
T0
0
T1
0
T2
0
T3
0
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
Table 7 showed that there was no mortality that occurred during the duration of
the study.
According to Foster Food Incorporated as cited by Wandit (2006), acceptable
percentage mortality among its contract broiler growers was 10 percent.
Chickens are stressed by various factors such as transportation to the growing site,
overcrowding, vaccination, chilling and/or overheating. These tend to create an
imbalance in intestinal microflora and lowers of body defense mechanisms (Quilang
2011).
27
Cost and Return Analysis
Table 8. shows the cost and return analysis of the different treatments.
Table 8. Cost and Return Analysis
TREATMENT PARTICULARS
Total sales
Total Cost
Net income
Mean ROI(%)
T0
6029.1
5705.595
326.505
5.726b
T1
6358
5761.38
596.62
10.356a
T2
6391
5820.165
570.535
9.803a
T3
6512
5878.935
633.065
10.768a
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
Result shows that there was a positive net income for all the treatments. T1, T2 and
T3 had no significant difference in the ROI, however the treated group had a significantly
higher return of investment compared to T0. The particulars of cost and return analysis
can be seen on appendix table 13.
The study showed that T3 had the highest total sale because it had a higher total
gain in weight and a better feed conversion efficiency (see Table 6), which means higher
final weight that resulted to higher net income as compared to the other treatments.
However, the higher total cost incurred in T3 had reduced the net income gained hence
the ROI for the treated group was not significantly different from each other. However,
the ROI of the treated group was significantly higher compared to the control group.
28
The ROI revealed that for every 1 peso investment on T3, there is an earned
income of almost 11 centavos, T2 will earn an income of almost 10 centavos, T1 with an
income of almost 10 centavos and T0 with 6 centavos. It appears that the use of hot red
pepper as feed supplement to broilers had a significant positive economic gain.
29
Side Effects
There were no adverse side effects observed from the use of hot red pepper as
feed supplement to the experimental broilers.
Hot red pepper has a carminative digestion and antimicrobial properties and also
the presence of vitamins which improves growth of broilers as stated by El-Aidy.(1981).
Birds do not detect capsaicin. Although birds possess the TRVP1 (receptor for
capsaicin) receptor in their nerve cells, it is not activated by capsaicin as it is in
mammals. No toxicity information or field studies involving birds were found for
capsaicin (Capsitech 2011).
30
CHAPTER V
Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation
The study was conducted at Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet from October 28, 2011
to December 11, 2011, to determine the effects of hot red pepper supplementation on the
growth performance of broilers, determine the best feed-hot red pepper ratio as
supplement to broilers, the economic return of using hot red pepper as an alternative feed
additive, and the side effects of red hot chilli pepper on broilers.
One hundred twenty day-old cob broiler chicks were randomly distributed into
four treatments. Each treatment was replicated three times with ten birds per replicate.
The treatments were: T0- pure feeds (control); T1- 0.5% of hot red pepper (500g/100kg of
feeds); T2- 1% of hot red pepper (1000g/100kg of feeds); T3- 1.5% of hot red pepper
(1500/100kg of feeds). The same care and management practices were given to all four
treatments.
The birds were randomly assigned into the different treatments and improvised
colored leg bands were used to identify the birds. The birds were fed based on the
recommended feeding guide of Foster Food Inc. with commercial Gold Label feeds. The
birds were confined throughout the duration of the study and were supplemented with the
different levels of Hot Red Pepper.
Results showed that there was no significant difference on initial weight, mean
total feed consumed, and mortality rate among the different treatments. The weekly gain
in weight, total gain in weight, final weight, feed conversion efficiency, and return of
31
investment, results showed that there was a significantly higher result among the treated
group (T1, T2 and T3) as compared to the control group (T0). However the treated group
(T1, T2 and T3) were not significantly different from each other. No adverse side effects
were observed from the use of hot red pepper as feed supplement to the experimental
broilers.
Based on the results of the study, the use of Hot Red Pepper as a supplement to
improve the growth performance of boiler is recommended. Based on the result of the
study T3 which has the ratio of 15grams of hot red pepper per kilograms of feeds gave the
best result.
The author further recommends using the same supplement at different levels in
other poultry enterprise such as in layer and also in other livestock industries to determine
and evaluate its effect on their growth performance. Furthermore, the use of different
commercial feeds, locally available plant supplements can also be studied as to their
effect on the growth performance of the broiler chicks.
32
LITERATURE CITED
AUSTIC, R. AND M. NESHELM.1990. Poultry Production. 13th ed. Philadelphia,
U.S.A.:Lea and Febriger Company
AZOUZ, H.M.M. (2001): (Effect of hot pepper and fenugreek seed supplementation on
broiler diets. /www.google.com)
BROILER PRODUCTION GUIDE.
(http://www.mixph.com/2009/09/broiler-poultry-production-guide.html).
CAPSAICINTECH 2011.http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/Capsaicintech.pdf
DAGOON, J.D. 1989. Husbandry of Farm Animals in the Tropics
DELMAS, D.R.B.2010. Study on the Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken
Supplemented with Different Levels of Halquinol. Unpublished Undergraduate
Thesis, College of
Veterinary Medicine. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet
DIEPVENS, K., 2007. Regulatory intergrative and comparative physiology. Am. J.
Physio.292: 77-85.
FANGONON R.J.B.,2009. Study on the Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Fed
with Okara (Soybean Pulp and Corn) Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis,
College of
Veterinary Medicine. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet
GALIB A.M. AI-KASSEIL, MAMDOOH A.M. AI-NASRAWI AND SABA J.
AJEENA. The Effects of Using Hot Red Pepper as a Diet Supplement on Some
Performance Traits in Broiler (http://www.pjbs.org Pakistan Journal of Nutrition
10 (9): 842-845, 2011 ISSN 1680-5194 © Asian Network for Scientific
Information, 2011)
GAPUZ, R.B. 1992. Poultry Management in the Philippines. Revised edition. Parklane
commercial, Metro Manila
GARCIA V, COTALA-GREGORI P, HERNANDEZ F, MEGIAS M.D AND
MADRID J 2007 (Effect of formic acid and plant extracts on growth, nutrient
digestibility, intestine mucosa morphology and meat yield of broilers. Journal of
Applied Poultry Research. 16:558-563.
33
GONZALEZ, R., MD.R. DUNKEL, B. KOLETZKO, MD.V. SCHUSDZIARRA
AND MD.H.D. ALLESCHER, 1998. Effect of Capsaicin containing red pepper
sauce suspension on upper gastrointestinal motility in healthy volunteers. Dig.
Dis. Sci., 43: 1165- 1171.
HENCKEN, H., 1991. Cooling the burn from hot peppers. J. Am. Med. Assoc., 266:
2766.
HERNANDEZ, F., J. MADRID, V. GARCIA, J. ORENGO AND M.D. MEGIAS,
2004. Influnce of two plant extracts on broilers performance, digestibility and
digestive organ size. Poult. Sci., 83: 169-174.
HOLZER, P., 1991. Cellular targets, mechanism of action and selectivity for thin
sensory neurons. Pharmachol. Rev., 43: 143-201.
JESSEL, T.M., L.L. IVERSEN AND A.C. CUELLO, 1978. Capsaicin induced
depletion of substance P from primary sensory neurons. Brain Res., 152: 183-188.
KITAYAN, R. M., 2010. Study on the Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken
Supplemented
with Different Levels of Sofate. Unpublished Undergraduate
Thesis, College of
Veterinary Medicine. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet
KOBATA, K., G. TODO, S. YAZAWA, I. IWA AND T. WATAB,1998. (Novel
capsacicinoid like subatances, capsiate and dihydrocapsiate, from the fruits of a
nonpungent cultivar, CH-19 sweet of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)
/www.google.com)
MARIAM A. ELDEEB: M.A. METWALLY AND A. E. GALAL. The impact of
botanical extract,capsicum (capsicum frutescence l), oil supplementation and their
interactions on the productive performance of broiler chicks.( http://www.cabi.org
The impact of botanical extract, capsicum (capsicum frutescence l), oil
supplementation and their interactions on the productive performance of broiler
chicks.)
MORRE, D.J., P.J. CHUEH AND D.M. MORRE, 1995. Capsaicin inhibits
preferentially the NADH oxidase and growth of transformed cells in culture. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 92: 1831-1835.
PCCARD. 2006. The Philippine Recommends for Broiler Production. 4th ed.
PCCARD. 2008. The Philippine Recommends for Broiler Production. 5th ed
34
PERRY, T.W., A.E. CULLISON and R.S. LOWRY. 2000. Feeds and Feeding. 5th ed.
Upper Saddle, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
POND, W.G., et. al. 1995. Basic Animal Nutrition and Feeding.4th ed. U.S. Wiley and
Sons, Inc.
POULTRY SCIENCE.http://www.poultryscience.org/psa09/abstracts/09PSA043.pdf
PRUTHI JS 2003 (Chemistry and quality control of capsicum and capsicum products. In
Capsicum and the genus Capsicum. Amit Krishna De. (eds). CRC Press, Taylor
and Francois, UK. Pp 25-7/www.google.com)
QUILANG, A.T.2011. Study on the Effect of Pure Sugar Cane (Saccharum spp.) Extract
and Yeast (Saccharomyces spp.) Mixture on Growth Performance of Broilers.
Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, College of Veterinary
Medicine.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet
ROSEN G. D., 1995. Antibacterial in poultry and egg nutrition in biotechnology in
animal feeds and animal feeding: Ed. Wal Face R J And Chesson A.
SABAS, D.P., 2005. Performance of Meat Breeds of chicken Raised Under Semi-ranged
System.
Unpublished
Undergraduate
Thesis, College of Veterinary Medicine.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet
SABER, M.S., 1982. Antimicrobial substances in certain members of Solanaceae.
Detection of active principles in pepper plant.
SUK-HYUN CHOI, SUH, BONG-SOON, E. KOZUKUE, N. KOZUKUE, C.E.
LEVIN AND FRIEDMAN, 2006. (Analysis of the contents of punget
compounds in fresh Korean red peppers and in contaning food.
/www.google.com)
USE OF PHYTOGENIC PRODUCTS AS FEED ADDITIVES FOR SWINE AND
POULTRY. Use of phytogenic products as feed additives for swine and poultry.
http://jas.fass.org/
WANDIT, E.T., 2006. Study on the effect of Vitamin E + Selenium Supplementation on
the
Production Performance of Heat-Stressed Broilers. Unpublished
Undergraduate Thesis,
College of Veterinary Medicine. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet, p.24
WENK, C., 2003. Herbs and botanical as feed additives in monogastric animals. Asian-
Aust. J. Anim. Sci. Vol. 16 No2 : 282-289.
35
YOSHIOKA, M., S. ST-PIERRE, V. DRAPEAU, I. DIONNE, E. DOUCET, M.
SUZUKI AND A.TREMBLAY, 1999. Effect of red pepper on appetite and
energy intake. Br. J. Nutr., 82: 115-123.
36
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TABLES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Table No.1 Mean Initial Weight of Chicks (g)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
53.5
45.5
47.5
146.5
50.500a
T
1
51
51
46
148
49.333a
T2
50.5
44.5
48
143
47.667a
T3
43.5
48.5
48
140
46.667a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
577 .5 48.542
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean Initial Weight of Chicks (g)
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
26.22916667
8.74305556
1.03
0.4300
Treatment
3
26.22916667
8.74305556
1.03
0.4300
Error
8
68.00000000
8.50000000
Corrected
11 94.22916667
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE Initial Weight Mean
0.278355 6.006131 2.915476 48.54167
37
Table No.2 Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 1 (g)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
160
158
152.5
470.5
156.833a
T1
155.5
157.5
150.5
463.5
154.500a
T2
161.5
159
161
481.5
160.500a
T3
150
164
157.5
472
157.333a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
1887.5
157.291
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 1
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
54.8958333
18.2986111
0.97
0.4528
Treatment
3
54.89583333
18.29861111
0.97
0.4528
Error
8
150.8333333
18.8541667
Corrected
11 205.7291667
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE WK1 Mean
0.266835 2.760565 4.342138 157.2917
38
Table No.3 Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 2 (g)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
403
395
389
1187.5
395.833b
T1
407.5
407.5
402
1217
405.667ab
T2
429
407.5
415
1251.5
417.167a
T3
393
414.5
401.5
1209
403.000ab
Grand Total and Grand Mean
4865
405.4167
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 2
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
707.4166667
235.8055556
3.22
0.0824
Treatment
3
707.416667
235.805556
3.22
0.0824
Error
8
585.000000
73.125000
Corrected
11 1292.416667
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE WK2 Mean
0.547360 2.109266 8.551316 405.4167
39
Table No.4 Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 3 (g)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
725.4
734
692
2151.4
717.13b
T1
762.5
760.5
750
2273
757.65a
T2
797
770
797.5
2364.5
788.179a
T3
747
791
772
2310
770.00a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
9098.9
758.241
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 3
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
8171.969167
2723.989722
8.57
0.0070
Treatment
3
8171.96917
2723.98972
8.57
0.0070
Error
8
2543.84000
317.98000
Corrected
11 10715.80917
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE WK3 Mean
0.762609 2.351756 17.83199 758.2417
\\
40
Table No.5 Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 4 (g)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
1049.5
1039.2
996.6
3085.3
1028.43a
T1
1046.9
1081.5
1053.2
3181.6
1060.53a
T2
1041
1043
1010.6
3094.6
1031.53a
T3
1032.6
1042
1024
3098.6
1032.87a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
12460.1
1038.342
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 4
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
2000.922500
666.974167
1.74
0.2368
Treatment
3
2000.922500
666.974167
1.74
0.2368
Error
8
3073.746667
384.218333
Corrected
11 5074.669167
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE WK4 Mean
0.394296 1.887769 19.60149 1038.342
41
Table No.6 Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 5 (g)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
1594.5
1505
1460
4559.5
1519.83b
T1
1585
1645
1540
4770
1590.00ab
T2
1490
1470
1570
4530
1510.00b
T3
1590
1645
1645
4880
1626.67a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
18739.5 1561.625
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 5
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
28341.72917
9447.24306
3.35
0.0760
Treatment
3
28341.72917
9447.24306
3.35
0.0760
Error
8
22541.83333
2817.72917
Corrected
11 50883.56250
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE WK5 Mean
0.556992 3.399170 53.08229 1561.625
42
Table No.7 Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 6 (g)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
1856
1800
1825
5481
1827.00b
T1
1955
1945
1880
5780
1926.67a
T2
1920
1925
1965
5810
1936.67a
T3
1985
1965
1970
5920
1973.33a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
22991
1915.917
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 6
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
35246.91667
11748.97222
14.86
0.0012
Treatment
3
35246.91667
11748.97222
14.86
0.0012
Error
8
6324.00000
790.50000
Corrected
11 41570.91667
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE WK6 Mean
0.847874 1.467487 28.11583 1915.917
43
Table No.8 Mean total Gain in Weight of the Broilers (g)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
1802.5
1749.5
1777.5
5329.5
1776.50b
T1
1904
1894
1834
5632
1877.33a
T2
1869.5
1880.5
1917
5667
1889.00a
T3
1941.5
1916.5
1922
5780
1926.67a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
22408.5 1867.375
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean total Gain in Weight of the Broilers
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
37021.72917
12340.57639
16.86
0.0008
Treatment
3
37021.72917
12340.57639
16.86
0.0008
Error
8
5854.33333
731.79167
Corrected
11 42876.06250
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE Gain Mean
0.863459 1.448646 27.05165 1867.375
44
Table 9. Mean Feed Consumption of the Broilers (g)
TREATMENT MEAN
T0
39190a
T1
39190a
T2
39190a
T3
39190a
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
45
Table 10. Mean Feed Conversion Efficiency of the Broilers (kg)
TREATMENT MEAN
T0
2.20333a
T1
2.09000b
T2
2.07333b
T3
2.03333b
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean Feed Conversion Efficiency of the Broilers
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
0.04780000
0.01593333
15.17
0.0012
Treatment
3
0.04780000
0.01593333
15.17
0.0012
Error
8
0.00840000
0.00105000
Corrected
11 0.05620000
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE Y Mean
0.850534 1.543033 0.032404 2.100000
46
Table No.11 Percentage Mortality
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
0
0
0
0
0a
T
1
0
0
0
0
0a
T2
0
0
0
0
0a
T3
0
0
0
0
0a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
0
0
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
47
Table No.12 Mean ROI(%)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
7.403735 4.163105 5.609814 17.17665 5.726b
T
1
11.97838 11.4056
7.682534 31.06652 10.356a
T2
8.862893 9.14639
11.3989
29.40819 9.803a
T3
11.42324 10.30059 10.58125 32.30509 10.768a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
109.9564 9.163037
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean ROI of the Broilers
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
48.67368722
16.22456241
6.27
0.0170
Treatment
3
48.67368722
16.22456241
6.27
0.0170
Error
8
20.69666478
2.58708310
Corrected
11 69.37035200
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE ROI Mean
0.701650 17.55358 1.608441 9.163037
48
Table 13: Cost and Return Analysis
PARTICULARS T0
T1
T2
T3
TOTAL SALES 6029.1
6358
6390.7
6512
TOTAL COSTS 5702.595
5761.38
5820.165
5878.935
Chicks
1140
1140
1140
1140
feeds
3111.96
3111.96
3111.96
3111.96
labor
703.125
703.125
703.125
703.125
vaccines
37.5
35.5
37.5
37.5
electricity
375
375
375
375
bulb
90
90
90
90
supplement
0
58.785
117.57
176.34
newspaper
26.25
26.25
26.25
26.25
disinfectant
15
15
15
15
housing
162.51
162.51
162.51
162.51
waterer
15
15
15
15
Weighing
15
15
15
15
scale
11.25
11.25
11.25
11.25
Net Return
326.505
596.62
570.535
633.065
Mean ROI(%)
5.726
10.356
9.803
10.768
49
Table 14. Foster Food Inc. feeding guide
Days Daily
Feed
Consumed
Body Weight
(grams)
(grams)
1 13 45
2 15 57
3 18 71
4 21 87
5 24 105
6 27 125
7 30 147
8 33 171
9 36 197
10 40 226
11 44 258
12 48 292
13 52 328
14 56 365
15 60 403
16 64 442
17 68 482
18 72 523
19 76 565
20 80 608
21 84 652
22 88 697
23 92 743
24 96 790
25 100 838
26 104 887
27 108 937
28 112 988
29 115 1040
30 118 1093
31 121 1147
32 123 1202
33 125 1258
34 127 1315
35 129 1373
36 131 1432
37 133 1492
38 135 1553
50
39 137 1615
40 139 1678
41 141 1742
42 143 1807
43 145 1873
44 147 1940
45 149 2008
51
APPENDIX B
52
APPENDIX C
Benguet State University
COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE
La Trinidad, Benguet
APPLICATION FOR FINAL ORAL DEFENSE
Name of Student: MARK LLOYD P. WADASEN
Student #: 0580102
Thesis Title: STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF HOT RED PEPPER (Capsicum
annum) SUPPLEMENTATION ON THE GROWTH PERFORMANCE
OF BROILERS.
Date of Defense: March 14, 2012
Time and Place of Defense: 1:00-5:00 pm; Audio Visual Room (AVR)
Panels:
Signature
ANATALIA V. CASTRENCE, DVM
____________________
KAREN B. GAERLAN, DVM
____________________
LORETTA C. ROMERO, DVM
____________________
Noted by:
RICHARD P. DUMAPIS, DVM ___________________
Adviser
JOSEPH A. DIANSO, DVM
____________________
Dean
53
Benguet State University
COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE
La Trinidad, Benguet
REPORT ON RESULTS OF FINAL ORAL DEFENSE
Name of Student: MARK LLOYD P. WADASEN
Student #: 0580102
Thesis Title: STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF HOT RED PEPPER (Capsicum
annum) SUPPLEMENTATION ON THE GROWTH PERFORMANCE
OF BROILERS.
Date and time of Examination: ____________________
Place of Examination: __________________________
MEMBERS OF EXAMINING COMMITTEE
Name of members:
Signature
Remarks
ANATALIA V. CASTRENCE, DVM
_______________
______________
KAREN B. GAERLAN, DVM
_______________
______________
LORETTA C. ROMERO, DVM
_______________
______________
Passed/Failed
Approved by:
JOSEPH A. DIANSO, DVM
Dean
54
55
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
NAME:
MARK LLOYD PIAGA WADASEN
BIRTHDAY:
June 19, 1989
PLACE OF BIRTH:
Cotcot, Bangao, Buguias, Benguet
ADDRESS:
IC 132 Betag, La Trinidad, Benguet
PROVINCIAL ADDRESS: Cotcot, Bangao, Buguias, Benguet
CONTACT NUMBER:
09483686030
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
ELEMENTARY
NAME OF SCHOOL:
Cotcot, Talabis,Elementary School
ADDRESS:
Cotcot, Bangao, Buguias, Benguet
YEAR GRADUATED:
2001
SECONDARY
NAME OF SCHOOL:
Benguet State University – Buguias Campus
ADDRESS:
Loo, Buguias, Benguet
YEAR GRADUATED:
2005
COLLEGE
NAME OF SCHOOL:
Benguet State University
ADDRESS:
La Trinidad, Benguet
DEGREE AND YEAR OF
GRADUATION:
DVM 2012
AFFILIATIONS:
BSU - Veterinary Medicine Student Government
Rodeo Club Philippines - BSU chapter
BSU - Highland Cowboys and Cowgirls Rodeo Team
BSU- Basketball Team (men)
55
WADASEN, MARK LLOYD P. Study on the Effects of Hot Red Pepper (Capsicum
annum) Supplementation on the Growth Performance of Broilers. Benguet State
Univesity, La Trinidad Benguet.
Adviser:Dr. Richard P. Dumapis
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to determine the growth performance of broilers
supplemented with Hot Red Pepper (Capsicum Annum). It was conducted at Balili, La
Trinidad Benguet. A total of 120 day old Cobb broiler chicks were used in this study. The
treatments were: T0- pure feeds (control); T1- 0.5% of hot red pepper (500g/100kg of
feeds);T2- 1% of hot red pepper (1000g/100kg of feeds);T3- 1.5% of hot red pepper
(1500/100kg of feeds). The same care and management practices were given to all four
treatments.
Results showed that there was no significant difference on initial weight, mean
total feed consumed, and mortality rate among the different treatment. The treated group
(T1, T2 and T3) showed a significantly higher mean weekly gain in weight, mean total
gain in weight, mean final weight, mean feed conversion efficiency and return of
investment as compared to the control group (T0).However the treated group were not
significantly different from each other. No adverse side effects were observed from the
use of hot red pepper as feed supplement to the experimental broilers.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography………………………………………………………………….
i
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………
i
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………. ii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………..
1
Background of the study ……………………………………………...
1
Importance of the study ………………………………………………
4
Objectives of the study ………………………………………………..
4
Place and time of the study …………………………………………..
5
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ….………………… 6
CHAPTER III.MATERIALS AND METHODS …………………………….
10
CHAPTER IV.RESULTS AND DICUSSIONS ……………………………..
19
CHAPTER V. SUMMARY,CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 32
LITERATURE CITED ……………………………………………………….
34
APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………... 37
BIOGRAPHICAL SKECTH ………………………………………………….
55
CHAPTER I
Introduction
Back Ground of the Study
Broiler production plays a major role in food security for the rapidly increasing
Philippine human population. Their short production cycle, high feed efficiency and high
biomass per unit of agricultural land are particularly attractive for the Philippine
production system.
Chicken broiler and egg production are the most progressive animal enterprises in
the Philippines today. The poultry industry in fact began as the backyard enterprise but
has shifted to the formation of very large integrated contract farming operation (Broiler
Production Guide, 2009).
Broiler is a term that defines a market category of poultry that can be apply to all
species. Broilers are young chicken that are grown to 5 to 7 weeks of age, at which time
they are marketed for human consumption.
Broiler meat is popular because it is cheaper, more versatile, and is perceived to
give more health benefits than red meat. In spite of these advantages, the world broiler
industry increasingly faces pressure to improve its production methods, with consumers
and government citing health, environment, and animal welfare as the areas for
improvement. Demand outlook is positive for the Philippine broiler industry because of
1
the continuing growth in population and household incomes in the country (PCCARD,
2006).
Hot red pepper (Capsicum annum) is one of the most important herbs, which is
widely used in human feed all over the world, it originated from central and South
America and it belonged to Solanaceae family. Genus Capsicum belongs to the most
heavily and frequently consumed as spices throughout the world (Kobata et al., 1998).
Capsicum annum is introduced world wide which is divided into two categories:
sweet (or mild) pepper and hot (or chili) pepper. Capsicum annum is the most spread in
term of household consumption and industrial processing. Capsinoids is a family of
compounds that are analogues of capsaicin, which is the pungent component in hot chilli
peppers. Capsinoids are widely present at low levels in chili pepper fruit, it includes
capsiate, dihydrocapsiate and it has a very favorable safety profile (Kobata et al., 1998)
Capsinoids present in red peppers causes pungent, hot tasting sensations when
consumed as a part of the diet in addition to sensory properties that it may be affects
human health, capsinoids includes antimicrobial activities against disease caused by
bacteria. It exhibited protective effects against mutagens and carcinogens, cholesterol,
obesity and pains (Suk-Hyun Choi et al., 2006).
The effect of hot red pepper appetizer on subsequent energy and micronutrient
intakes were examined and it showed that hot red pepper in addition to appetizer
significantly reduced the cumulative ad lib energy and carbohydrate intake .(Yoshioka et
al., 1999).
2
Importance of the study
Poultry production in tropical condition provides a constant challenge. Heavy
economic losses result from decreased productivity and increased mortality due to
different causes like disease, improper management and stress. In connection to this
many feed additives or feed supplements have been develop to boost the production
performance of poultry. But some of the drawback of this is it causes antibiotic resistance
due to the addition of antibiotics by some manufacturers and it is expensive. The main
focus of this study is to find an alternative feed additive which is readily available in the
community and would help to lower the production cause of poultry in backyard growers
and commercial growers.
Objectives
The study was conducted to:
1. Determine the effects of hot red pepper supplementation on the growth performance of
broilers.
2. Determine the best level of hot red pepper ratio as supplement to broilers.
3. Determine the economic return of using hot red pepper as an alternative feed additive.
4. Determine the Side effects of red hot chilli pepper supplements on broilers.
3
Place and Time of the Study
The experiment was conducted at Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet from October
28,2011 to December 11,2011.
4
CHAPTER II
Review of Related Literature
Due to the demands of poultry meat, farmers want their broilers to reach a
maximum growth rate in the shortest possible time so they keep looking for ways to
better improve the growth rate and the feed conversion of broilers. One possibly way of
doing this is to add supplements on the diet of the broilers.
Increased restriction on the use of pharmaceutical antibiotics in feed as growth
promoters is an accelerating trend towards the development of using alternative
ingredients particularly those from plants which are perceived as "natural" and "safe"
ingredients. Rosen (1996) defined the pronutrients as microfeedingstuff used orally in
relatively small amounts to improve the intrinsic value of the nutrient mix in animal diet.
They have many possible modes of action; antioxidation and metabolic enhancement,
appetizer and guts environment modulation, in addition they can encourage efficient
digestion. The mode of action may arise from plant metabolites belong to the classes of
isoprene derivatives, flavonoids and glucosinolates and a large number of these
compounds have been suggested to act as antibiotics or as antioxidants in vivo as well as
in food (Wenk, 2003).
Plant active principles are chemical compounds present in the entire plant or in
specific parts of the plant that confers them therapeutic activity or beneficial effects.
These compounds are produced by the plants for defense against external factors, such as
5
physiological stress, environmental factors, and protection against predators and
pathogens.
Botanical feed ingredients are substrates derived chemically from simple
processes or collected intact from recognized parts of plants that are suitable for practical
use in animal diet.
Red chilis contain high amounts of vitamin C and carotene (provitamin A).
Yellow and especially green chilis (which are essentially unripe fruit) contain a
considerably lower amount of both substances. In addition, peppers are a good source of
most
B vitamins, and
vitamin B6
in particular. They are very high
in potassium, magnesium, and iron. Their high vitamin C content can also substantially
increase the uptake of non-heme iron from other ingredients in a meal, such as beans and
grains.
Capsaicin (CAP) is the main capsaicinod in chilli peppers. CAP is stable in water
and some animal studies indicated that it absorbed into blood stream (Diepvens, 2007).
Capsaicin a pungent principle of hot red pepper, has been used as spices, feed
additives and drugs in hot red pepper are capsaicin carotenoids e.g. capsanthin,
capsorubin, carotene and steroidal saponins known as capsicidins found in seed and root
(Saber, 1982) CAP is the main component of hot red pepper, including hot taste and is
known to active afferent nerve fiber (Holzer, 1991), CAP has been shown to have a
protective function in the gastric mucosa as the stimulation of afferent nerve endings by
6
capsaicin protects against aspirin or alcohol-induced gastric injury (Gonzalez et al.,
1998).
Capsaicin (CAP, 8-methyl-N-Vanilly-6-nonenamide) is the active substance
responsible for the irritating and pungent effects of various species of hot pepper. CAP
has emerged as a relatively selective neurotoxin for small-diameter sensory neurons
(Jessel et al., 1978; Nagy et al., 1981; Mitsuhiro et al., 1994; Jancso et al., 1997).
The role of CAP in carcinogenic processes is quite controversial. Although some
investigators suspect that CAP is a carcinogen, co-carcinogen or tumor promoter, where
as Young-Joon Surh (2002) have reported that it has a chemopreventive and
chemotherapeutic effects. In addition to its action as preferentially repress for the growth
of some transformed human and mouse cells (Morre et al., 1995).
CAP and main capsacinoid are also about twice as potent to taste and nerves as
the minor capsaicinoids. Nordihyro capsaicin, hemodihydrocapsaicin and homocapsaicin
skin, an alarm the residence of the stomach and to tonic a good digest.
Hot red pepper used as a spices and appetizers if it used in reasonable quantities
because it defects the mucous membranes of the intestinal digestive. Hot red pepper is a
tonic plant, has a calming activity, keeping the skin good, does not alarm the residence of
the stomach and gives tonic a good digestion. Hot red pepper play an important role in
increasing the ability analyzer and deposition of cholesterol and fat in the body and
contributes to decrease levels of triglycerides and work to support the vascular system in
the body (Hencken, 1991) explained that hot red pepper is rich in vitamin C which have a
considerable impact on improving production through attributes the reduction of heat
7
stress on a fact that birds consumption of hot red pepper induce a considerable change in
energy balance when individual are given free access to food (Yoshioka et al., 2001).
Plant extracts improved the digestibility of the feeds for broilers. The effect of
different additives on digestibility improved the performance slightly but this effect was
not statistically significant (Hernandez et al., 2004).
8
CHAPTER III
Materials and Methodology
Materials
The materials and equipments that were in the study are the following: 120 heads
Cobb broiler chicks (Plate no.1), hot red pepper as the feed supplement (Plate no.2), Gold
label feeds, brooding pen and rearing pen, weighing scale, vaccines, feeding troughs,
waterers, newspapers, sacks, electric bulbs, sockets, improvised colored leg bands,
marker, cameera, record book and disinfectant(Plate no.3).
Plate no.1 Day-old Cobb broiler chicks.
9
Plate no.2 Hot red pepper (Capsicum annum) powder used in the study
Plate no.3 Materials used in the study
10
Methodology
Pre-experimental Phase
At the start of the study, the brooding, rearing pens were prepared. (Plate
no.4)The pens were divided equally into 12 compartments to represent the 3 replications
of each treatment. The sides of the pens were covered with sacks to serve as protection
for the broilers during sudden weather changes, to conserve heat during brooding time
and to avoid tripping of birds on the floor during the period of experiment.
To maintain dryness of the brooding area news papers were layered on the
flooring, this would also help to conserve the heat on the pens. The replicate pens were
provided with 75-watt incandescent bulb this will provide warmth inside the pens. The
replicate pens were properly label depending on the desired treatment to be given. Before
the arrival of the chicks, the lights were switch on to ensure warmth within the brooding
area.
11
Plate no.4 Brooding pens and rearing pens
Experimental Phase
Upon the arrival of the birds, they were weighed individually and randomly
assign to the different treatments. The birds were identifieed using improvised colored
leg bands to indicate the treatment, replication and the number of the chick. (Plate no.5)
The treatments were replicated three times with ten birds per replicate. The leg bands
were adjusted or replaced as the broilers grow(Plate no. 6).
12
Plate no.5 Improvised colored leg bands for bird identification
Plate no.6 Adjustment of the leg bands
13
The treatments were as follows:
T0- pure feeds (control)
T1- 0.5% of hot red pepper (500g/100kg of feeds)
T2- 1% of hot red pepper (1000g/100kg of feeds)
T3- 1.5% of hot red pepper (1500g/100kg of feeds)
The ratio of hot red pepper per kilograms of feeds was taken from the
recommendation of Galib et al. (2011) who conducted the study entitled “The Effects of
Using Hot Red Pepper as a Diet Supplement on Some Performance Traits in Broiler.”
The chicks were brood for twenty-one days. The temperature inside the brooding
pen was closely monitored using the response or behavior of the chicks as the gauge for
temperature fluctuations. The chicks are vaccinated against NCD on the first week of
brooding followed by second dose on the third week. As the chicks grow, the brooding
pen and also the rearing pen size were adjusted to avoid overcrowding.
The chicks were fed with chick booster from day old to ten days of age which was
gradually shifted to starter crumble from fourteen days to twenty-one days and were
finally shifted to finisher crumble on the fifth week until the end of the study, shifting of
feed types was done by mixing one-fourth of the new type of feed with three-fourth of
the former type then increasing the new feed by one-fourth daily until it becomes the sole
feed type for the birds. For the first three days, feeds were scattered on the floor for better
access to the chicks, thereafter, feeding troughs was used. The feeding troughs and
waterers were refilled as feeds and water are nearly to be consumed. The amount of feeds
14
and water given were measured per treatment and recorded prior to feeding to monitor
the amount of feed given for the duration of study.
The following data were gathered
1. Mean initial weight of broiler chicks (g) - this was obtained by weighing the chicks
individually at the start of the study.
2. Mean weekly gain in weight of broilers (g) - this was obtained by weighing the broilers
individually at weekly intervals.
3. Mean total gain in weight (g) - this was obtained by subtracting the initial weight of the
broilers from their final weight.
4. Mean final weight (g)- this was obtain by weighing the birds at the end of the study.
5. Mean feed consumption (g)- this was obtain by adding the total feed consumption of
the broilers during the experimental period (day 1-day 45).
6. Mean feed conversion efficiency- this was obtained by dividing the mean total feed
consumption with the mean total gain in weight of the broilers during the study.
7. Percentage mortality (%)- this was computed by dividing the total number of dead
broilers per treatment divided by the total number of broilers per treatment then
multiplying by one hundred.
8. Cost and return analysis- this was obtain by subtracting the total expenses that was
incurred per treatment from the total sales per treatment to determine the net profit. The
net profit was divided by the total expenses incurred per treatment to get the return on
investment (ROI) per treatment.
15
A. total sales: this was obtained by the sale of the birds. Each bird was sold at Php. 110
per kilo.
B. Total cost: includes the following:
1. Cost of birds- the birds were bought at Php. 38 per head.
2. Cost of supplement - this was taken by multiplying the total amount of the
supplement that was consumed in each treatment with the corresponding price of
the treatment.
3. Cost of feeds per treatment- this was taken by multiplying the total amount of
feeds that was consumed in each treatment with the corresponding price of feeds.
4. Cost of electricity- this was computed by multiplying the wattage of the bulbs
used by the number of bulbs used and number of hours the bulbs are used. The
products was divided by 100 to get the total kilowatts used then the quotient
multiplied by the price per kilowatt.
5. Cost of disinfectant- this was bought at Php. 60. The amount was divided
among the four treatments.
6. Newspapers-newspapers were bought at Php 15 per kilo. Approximately seven
(7) kilos of newspapers were used during the brooding period as litter materials.
The amount was divided equally among the four treatments.
7. Vaccine- The cost of NCD vaccine was Php 150. The amount was divided
equally among the four treatments.
8. Bulb- bulbs were 50 each. A total of 12 bulbs were used during the brooding
period.
16
9. Labor cost- this was taken by dividing the cost of labor with eight hours and
multiplying the number of hours used in caring and management of the birds and
multiplying again to the number of days of the study. Labor cost was pegged at
Php. 250 per day; approximately two hours per day was used for the feeding and
caring of the experimental birds.
10. Rentals
a. Weighing scale rental- this was pegged at Php. 45. The amount was
divided equally among the four treatments.
b.Housing- this was obtained by dividing the cost of housing materials.
The quotient was further divided by 12 to get the monthly depreciation
cost. The depreciation costs of 1.5 months were computed for the duration
of the study divided equally among the four treatments.
c. Feeders- a total of 12 plastic feeders were rented at Php. 5 each for the
entire duration of the study. The amount was equally divided among the
four treatments.
d. Waterers- a total of 12 plastic waters were rented at Php. 5 each for the
entire duration of the study. The amount was equally divided among the
four treatments.
Sanitation was maintained inside the experimental house throughout the study.
Weighing of the birds and recording was done every Saturday before the birds feeding
17
CHAPTER IV
Results and Discussions
Mean Initial Weight of the Chicks
Table 1. shows the mean initial weight of the chicks in grams.
Table 1: Mean Initial Weight of the Chicks(g)
TREATMENT MEAN
T0
50.500a
T1
49.333a
T2
47.667a
T3
46.667a
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The initial weight of birds was shown in table 1. The table shows that T0 had the
highest initial mean weight of 50.500 grams, followed by T1 with 49.333 grams then T2
with 47.667 grams and T3 with 46.667 grams.
However, statistical analysis revealed that there was no significant difference
among the initial weight of chicks across the different treatments. This means that the
initial weight of chicks were homogenous at the start of the study.
In the study conducted by Sabas (2005) titled “Performance of Meat Breeds of
Chicken Raised Under Semi-ranged System” showed that the mean initial weight of the
18
day-old sasso chicks was 52 grams, kabir chicks was 54 grams, white broiler chicks was
82 grams, and local native chicks was 27 grams. Thus, mean initial weight of the
experimental birds which was 47.875 grams was lower than the other meat breeds except
for the local native chicks.
19
Mean Weekly Gain in Weight
Table 2. shows the mean weekly gain in weight of the broilers in grams for six weeks
rearing period.
Table 2. Mean Weekly Gain in Weight of the broilers (g)
TREATMENT WEEKLY
MEAN
1st week
2nd week
3rd week
4th week
5th week
6th week
T0
156.833a 395.833b 717.13b 1028.43a 1519.83b 1827.00b
T1
154.500a 405.667ab
757.65a
1060.53a 1590.00ab 1926.67a
T2
160.500a 417.167a 788.179a 1031.53a 1510.00b 1936.67a
T3
157.333a 403.000ab
770.00a
1032.87a
1626.67a
1973.33a
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
Table 2 shows that in the first week there were no significant difference among the
treatments in the mean gain in weight. On the second week, T2 showed the higher gain in
weight as compared to T0 but not significantly different to T1and T3 but significantly
higher than T0. T1 and T3 were not also significantly different to T0. On the third week T1,
T2 and T3 had a significantly higher gain in weight as compared to the control group (T0).
However there was no significant different in gain in weight among the treated group. On
the fourth week the treatments showed no significant difference in term of weekly gain in
weight. On the fifth week T3 showed a significantly higher gain in weight as compared to
T0 and T2, but not significantly different to T1. T0, T1 and T2 were not significantly
20
different in mean gain in weight on the fifth week. On the sixth week results showed that
the treated group had a significantly higher gain in weight as compared to the control
group. No significant difference was observed among the treated group in terms of mean
gain in weight on the sixth week.
Result shows that during the duration of the study there were variations on the
weekly gain in weight of the broilers. However on the final week it showed that
treatments with supplement (T1, T2 and T3) had a higher weekly gain in weight as
compared to the control group (T0).
The result of the study conducted by Eldeeb, Metwally and Galal (2006) entitled
“The Impact of Botanical Extract, Capsicum (capsicum annum), Oil supplementation and
their interactions on the productive performance of broiler chicks”, showed that improved
body weight and overall average daily gain due to interaction effect among dietary
treatments. Feeding capsicum in presence of 5% oil significantly improved feed
conversion ratio.
Also on the study conducted by Garcia et al.(2007) showed that mixtures of plant
extracts containing carvacrol, cynnamalde-hyde and capsaicin improved the performance
of broiler chicken.
21
Mean Final Weight of the Broilers (g)
Table 3. shows the mean final weight of the broilers from the first week up to the sixth
week of brooding and rearing.
Table 3: Mean Final Weight of the Broilers (g)
TREATMENT MEAN
T0
1827.00b
T1
1926.67a
T2
1936.67a
T3
1973.33a
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference among T1, T2
and T3 on the mean final weight of the birds, but results show that the treated groups ( T1,
T2, and T3) had significantly higher final weight compared to T0.
Azouze (2001) who conducted the study on the “Effect of hot pepper and fenugreek
seed supplementation on broiler diets” concluded that hot pepper improved body weight
gain and feed conversion after its addition to broiler diets.
Also Hermandez et al. (2004) found that capsaicin increased the enzyme secretion in
the digestive tract, thereby enhanced digestion and increased the nutrient availability.
Improved growth performance of the broilers fed with 5% Chilli powder suggests that
capsaicin alone also enhances the performance of broilers.
22
Mean Total Gain in Weight of the Broilers(g)
Table 4. shows the mean total gain in weight of the birds from the first week up to the
sixth week of brooding and rearing.
Table 4: Mean Total Gain in Weight of the Broilers(g)
TREATMENT MEAN
T0
1776.50b
T1
1877.33a
T2
1889.00a
T3
1926.67a
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference among T1, T2
and T3 on the mean total gain in weight of the broilers, but the three treatments had a
significantly higher total gain in weight as compared to T0.
Pruthi (2003) stated on his study that capsaicin had a growth promotant effect. He
added that dried pods of Capsicum annum or chilli contain 1.8% capsaicin and thus are good
sources of natural capsaicin.
Though Chili powder is normally used as spices in human foods, it’s a nutrient
rich feed ingredient. Chilli contains 10.5 % CP, 5.8 % lipids, 1.6% total phosphorus,
1.9% potassium, 0.47% lysine, 0.12% methionine and 3240 Kcal of gross energy /kg.
Therefore, apart from growth promoting effects, dietary Chili powder could be regarded
as a source of other nutrients too. (Pruthi 2003)
23
Mean Total Feed Consumption (g)
Table 5. shows the mean feed consumption of the broilers.
Table 5. Mean Feed Consumption (g)
TREATMENT MEAN
T0
39190a
T1
39190a
T2
39190a
T3
39190a
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The table shows that there was no significant difference on the mean feed
consumption of all treatments. Since the broilers were not fed ad libitum. The amount of
daily feed consumption per bird was computed based on the feeding guide from Foster
Feeds Inc.
The table showed the same result in all treatments because the amount of feed
given was based on the recommended feeding guide from Foster Feeds Inc. and there
were no mortality incurred during the duration of the study. The feeding guide can be
seen in appendix table 13.
24
Mean Feed Conversion Efficiency (kg)
Table 6. shows the feed conversion efficiency of the birds in the different treatments.
Table 6. Mean Feed Conversion Efficiency (kg)
TREATMENT MEAN
T0
2.20333a
T1
2.09000b
T2
2.07333b
T3
2.03333b
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The feed conversion efficiency indicates the amount of feeds needed to produce
one kilogram live weight of the birds. Statistical analysis shows that T3 had the most
efficient feed conversion but not significantly different from that of T2 and T1. T0 had
significantly lower feed conversion efficiency as compared to the treated groups.
On the study conducted by Hernandez et al. (2004), entitled “Influence of two
plant extracts on broilers performance, digestibility and digestive organ size.” showed
that plant extracts improved the digestibility of the feeds for broilers. The effect of
different additives on digestibility improved the performance slightly but this effect was
not statistically significant.
25
Capsaicin increased the enzyme secretion in the digestive tract, thereby enhanced
digestion and increased the nutrient availability (Hermandez et al.2004).
The positive effect of hot pepper may be due to its stimulant, carminative
digestion and antimicrobial properties and also the presence of vit. C, E and provitamin A
(El-Aidy, 1981).
26
Percentage Mortality of the Broilers (%)
Table 7. shows the percentage mortality of birds in the different treatments.
Table 7. Percentage Mortality of the Broilers (%)
TREATMENT MEAN
T0
0
T1
0
T2
0
T3
0
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
Table 7 showed that there was no mortality that occurred during the duration of
the study.
According to Foster Food Incorporated as cited by Wandit (2006), acceptable
percentage mortality among its contract broiler growers was 10 percent.
Chickens are stressed by various factors such as transportation to the growing site,
overcrowding, vaccination, chilling and/or overheating. These tend to create an
imbalance in intestinal microflora and lowers of body defense mechanisms (Quilang
2011).
27
Cost and Return Analysis
Table 8. shows the cost and return analysis of the different treatments.
Table 8. Cost and Return Analysis
TREATMENT PARTICULARS
Total sales
Total Cost
Net income
Mean ROI(%)
T0
6029.1
5705.595
326.505
5.726b
T1
6358
5761.38
596.62
10.356a
T2
6391
5820.165
570.535
9.803a
T3
6512
5878.935
633.065
10.768a
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
Result shows that there was a positive net income for all the treatments. T1, T2 and
T3 had no significant difference in the ROI, however the treated group had a significantly
higher return of investment compared to T0. The particulars of cost and return analysis
can be seen on appendix table 13.
The study showed that T3 had the highest total sale because it had a higher total
gain in weight and a better feed conversion efficiency (see Table 6), which means higher
final weight that resulted to higher net income as compared to the other treatments.
However, the higher total cost incurred in T3 had reduced the net income gained hence
the ROI for the treated group was not significantly different from each other. However,
the ROI of the treated group was significantly higher compared to the control group.
28
The ROI revealed that for every 1 peso investment on T3, there is an earned
income of almost 11 centavos, T2 will earn an income of almost 10 centavos, T1 with an
income of almost 10 centavos and T0 with 6 centavos. It appears that the use of hot red
pepper as feed supplement to broilers had a significant positive economic gain.
29
Side Effects
There were no adverse side effects observed from the use of hot red pepper as
feed supplement to the experimental broilers.
Hot red pepper has a carminative digestion and antimicrobial properties and also
the presence of vitamins which improves growth of broilers as stated by El-Aidy.(1981).
Birds do not detect capsaicin. Although birds possess the TRVP1 (receptor for
capsaicin) receptor in their nerve cells, it is not activated by capsaicin as it is in
mammals. No toxicity information or field studies involving birds were found for
capsaicin (Capsitech 2011).
30
CHAPTER V
Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation
The study was conducted at Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet from October 28, 2011
to December 11, 2011, to determine the effects of hot red pepper supplementation on the
growth performance of broilers, determine the best feed-hot red pepper ratio as
supplement to broilers, the economic return of using hot red pepper as an alternative feed
additive, and the side effects of red hot chilli pepper on broilers.
One hundred twenty day-old cob broiler chicks were randomly distributed into
four treatments. Each treatment was replicated three times with ten birds per replicate.
The treatments were: T0- pure feeds (control); T1- 0.5% of hot red pepper (500g/100kg of
feeds); T2- 1% of hot red pepper (1000g/100kg of feeds); T3- 1.5% of hot red pepper
(1500/100kg of feeds). The same care and management practices were given to all four
treatments.
The birds were randomly assigned into the different treatments and improvised
colored leg bands were used to identify the birds. The birds were fed based on the
recommended feeding guide of Foster Food Inc. with commercial Gold Label feeds. The
birds were confined throughout the duration of the study and were supplemented with the
different levels of Hot Red Pepper.
Results showed that there was no significant difference on initial weight, mean
total feed consumed, and mortality rate among the different treatments. The weekly gain
in weight, total gain in weight, final weight, feed conversion efficiency, and return of
31
investment, results showed that there was a significantly higher result among the treated
group (T1, T2 and T3) as compared to the control group (T0). However the treated group
(T1, T2 and T3) were not significantly different from each other. No adverse side effects
were observed from the use of hot red pepper as feed supplement to the experimental
broilers.
Based on the results of the study, the use of Hot Red Pepper as a supplement to
improve the growth performance of boiler is recommended. Based on the result of the
study T3 which has the ratio of 15grams of hot red pepper per kilograms of feeds gave the
best result.
The author further recommends using the same supplement at different levels in
other poultry enterprise such as in layer and also in other livestock industries to determine
and evaluate its effect on their growth performance. Furthermore, the use of different
commercial feeds, locally available plant supplements can also be studied as to their
effect on the growth performance of the broiler chicks.
32
LITERATURE CITED
AUSTIC, R. AND M. NESHELM.1990. Poultry Production. 13th ed. Philadelphia,
U.S.A.:Lea and Febriger Company
AZOUZ, H.M.M. (2001): (Effect of hot pepper and fenugreek seed supplementation on
broiler diets. /www.google.com)
BROILER PRODUCTION GUIDE.
(http://www.mixph.com/2009/09/broiler-poultry-production-guide.html).
CAPSAICINTECH 2011.http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/Capsaicintech.pdf
DAGOON, J.D. 1989. Husbandry of Farm Animals in the Tropics
DELMAS, D.R.B.2010. Study on the Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken
Supplemented with Different Levels of Halquinol. Unpublished Undergraduate
Thesis, College of
Veterinary Medicine. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet
DIEPVENS, K., 2007. Regulatory intergrative and comparative physiology. Am. J.
Physio.292: 77-85.
FANGONON R.J.B.,2009. Study on the Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken Fed
with Okara (Soybean Pulp and Corn) Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis,
College of
Veterinary Medicine. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet
GALIB A.M. AI-KASSEIL, MAMDOOH A.M. AI-NASRAWI AND SABA J.
AJEENA. The Effects of Using Hot Red Pepper as a Diet Supplement on Some
Performance Traits in Broiler (http://www.pjbs.org Pakistan Journal of Nutrition
10 (9): 842-845, 2011 ISSN 1680-5194 © Asian Network for Scientific
Information, 2011)
GAPUZ, R.B. 1992. Poultry Management in the Philippines. Revised edition. Parklane
commercial, Metro Manila
GARCIA V, COTALA-GREGORI P, HERNANDEZ F, MEGIAS M.D AND
MADRID J 2007 (Effect of formic acid and plant extracts on growth, nutrient
digestibility, intestine mucosa morphology and meat yield of broilers. Journal of
Applied Poultry Research. 16:558-563.
33
GONZALEZ, R., MD.R. DUNKEL, B. KOLETZKO, MD.V. SCHUSDZIARRA
AND MD.H.D. ALLESCHER, 1998. Effect of Capsaicin containing red pepper
sauce suspension on upper gastrointestinal motility in healthy volunteers. Dig.
Dis. Sci., 43: 1165- 1171.
HENCKEN, H., 1991. Cooling the burn from hot peppers. J. Am. Med. Assoc., 266:
2766.
HERNANDEZ, F., J. MADRID, V. GARCIA, J. ORENGO AND M.D. MEGIAS,
2004. Influnce of two plant extracts on broilers performance, digestibility and
digestive organ size. Poult. Sci., 83: 169-174.
HOLZER, P., 1991. Cellular targets, mechanism of action and selectivity for thin
sensory neurons. Pharmachol. Rev., 43: 143-201.
JESSEL, T.M., L.L. IVERSEN AND A.C. CUELLO, 1978. Capsaicin induced
depletion of substance P from primary sensory neurons. Brain Res., 152: 183-188.
KITAYAN, R. M., 2010. Study on the Growth Performance of Sunshine Chicken
Supplemented
with Different Levels of Sofate. Unpublished Undergraduate
Thesis, College of
Veterinary Medicine. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet
KOBATA, K., G. TODO, S. YAZAWA, I. IWA AND T. WATAB,1998. (Novel
capsacicinoid like subatances, capsiate and dihydrocapsiate, from the fruits of a
nonpungent cultivar, CH-19 sweet of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)
/www.google.com)
MARIAM A. ELDEEB: M.A. METWALLY AND A. E. GALAL. The impact of
botanical extract,capsicum (capsicum frutescence l), oil supplementation and their
interactions on the productive performance of broiler chicks.( http://www.cabi.org
The impact of botanical extract, capsicum (capsicum frutescence l), oil
supplementation and their interactions on the productive performance of broiler
chicks.)
MORRE, D.J., P.J. CHUEH AND D.M. MORRE, 1995. Capsaicin inhibits
preferentially the NADH oxidase and growth of transformed cells in culture. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 92: 1831-1835.
PCCARD. 2006. The Philippine Recommends for Broiler Production. 4th ed.
PCCARD. 2008. The Philippine Recommends for Broiler Production. 5th ed
34
PERRY, T.W., A.E. CULLISON and R.S. LOWRY. 2000. Feeds and Feeding. 5th ed.
Upper Saddle, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
POND, W.G., et. al. 1995. Basic Animal Nutrition and Feeding.4th ed. U.S. Wiley and
Sons, Inc.
POULTRY SCIENCE.http://www.poultryscience.org/psa09/abstracts/09PSA043.pdf
PRUTHI JS 2003 (Chemistry and quality control of capsicum and capsicum products. In
Capsicum and the genus Capsicum. Amit Krishna De. (eds). CRC Press, Taylor
and Francois, UK. Pp 25-7/www.google.com)
QUILANG, A.T.2011. Study on the Effect of Pure Sugar Cane (Saccharum spp.) Extract
and Yeast (Saccharomyces spp.) Mixture on Growth Performance of Broilers.
Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, College of Veterinary
Medicine.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet
ROSEN G. D., 1995. Antibacterial in poultry and egg nutrition in biotechnology in
animal feeds and animal feeding: Ed. Wal Face R J And Chesson A.
SABAS, D.P., 2005. Performance of Meat Breeds of chicken Raised Under Semi-ranged
System.
Unpublished
Undergraduate
Thesis, College of Veterinary Medicine.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet
SABER, M.S., 1982. Antimicrobial substances in certain members of Solanaceae.
Detection of active principles in pepper plant.
SUK-HYUN CHOI, SUH, BONG-SOON, E. KOZUKUE, N. KOZUKUE, C.E.
LEVIN AND FRIEDMAN, 2006. (Analysis of the contents of punget
compounds in fresh Korean red peppers and in contaning food.
/www.google.com)
USE OF PHYTOGENIC PRODUCTS AS FEED ADDITIVES FOR SWINE AND
POULTRY. Use of phytogenic products as feed additives for swine and poultry.
http://jas.fass.org/
WANDIT, E.T., 2006. Study on the effect of Vitamin E + Selenium Supplementation on
the
Production Performance of Heat-Stressed Broilers. Unpublished
Undergraduate Thesis,
College of Veterinary Medicine. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet, p.24
WENK, C., 2003. Herbs and botanical as feed additives in monogastric animals. Asian-
Aust. J. Anim. Sci. Vol. 16 No2 : 282-289.
35
YOSHIOKA, M., S. ST-PIERRE, V. DRAPEAU, I. DIONNE, E. DOUCET, M.
SUZUKI AND A.TREMBLAY, 1999. Effect of red pepper on appetite and
energy intake. Br. J. Nutr., 82: 115-123.
36
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TABLES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Table No.1 Mean Initial Weight of Chicks (g)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
53.5
45.5
47.5
146.5
50.500a
T
1
51
51
46
148
49.333a
T2
50.5
44.5
48
143
47.667a
T3
43.5
48.5
48
140
46.667a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
577 .5 48.542
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean Initial Weight of Chicks (g)
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
26.22916667
8.74305556
1.03
0.4300
Treatment
3
26.22916667
8.74305556
1.03
0.4300
Error
8
68.00000000
8.50000000
Corrected
11 94.22916667
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE Initial Weight Mean
0.278355 6.006131 2.915476 48.54167
37
Table No.2 Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 1 (g)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
160
158
152.5
470.5
156.833a
T1
155.5
157.5
150.5
463.5
154.500a
T2
161.5
159
161
481.5
160.500a
T3
150
164
157.5
472
157.333a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
1887.5
157.291
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 1
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
54.8958333
18.2986111
0.97
0.4528
Treatment
3
54.89583333
18.29861111
0.97
0.4528
Error
8
150.8333333
18.8541667
Corrected
11 205.7291667
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE WK1 Mean
0.266835 2.760565 4.342138 157.2917
38
Table No.3 Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 2 (g)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
403
395
389
1187.5
395.833b
T1
407.5
407.5
402
1217
405.667ab
T2
429
407.5
415
1251.5
417.167a
T3
393
414.5
401.5
1209
403.000ab
Grand Total and Grand Mean
4865
405.4167
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 2
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
707.4166667
235.8055556
3.22
0.0824
Treatment
3
707.416667
235.805556
3.22
0.0824
Error
8
585.000000
73.125000
Corrected
11 1292.416667
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE WK2 Mean
0.547360 2.109266 8.551316 405.4167
39
Table No.4 Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 3 (g)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
725.4
734
692
2151.4
717.13b
T1
762.5
760.5
750
2273
757.65a
T2
797
770
797.5
2364.5
788.179a
T3
747
791
772
2310
770.00a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
9098.9
758.241
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 3
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
8171.969167
2723.989722
8.57
0.0070
Treatment
3
8171.96917
2723.98972
8.57
0.0070
Error
8
2543.84000
317.98000
Corrected
11 10715.80917
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE WK3 Mean
0.762609 2.351756 17.83199 758.2417
\\
40
Table No.5 Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 4 (g)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
1049.5
1039.2
996.6
3085.3
1028.43a
T1
1046.9
1081.5
1053.2
3181.6
1060.53a
T2
1041
1043
1010.6
3094.6
1031.53a
T3
1032.6
1042
1024
3098.6
1032.87a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
12460.1
1038.342
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 4
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
2000.922500
666.974167
1.74
0.2368
Treatment
3
2000.922500
666.974167
1.74
0.2368
Error
8
3073.746667
384.218333
Corrected
11 5074.669167
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE WK4 Mean
0.394296 1.887769 19.60149 1038.342
41
Table No.6 Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 5 (g)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
1594.5
1505
1460
4559.5
1519.83b
T1
1585
1645
1540
4770
1590.00ab
T2
1490
1470
1570
4530
1510.00b
T3
1590
1645
1645
4880
1626.67a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
18739.5 1561.625
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 5
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
28341.72917
9447.24306
3.35
0.0760
Treatment
3
28341.72917
9447.24306
3.35
0.0760
Error
8
22541.83333
2817.72917
Corrected
11 50883.56250
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE WK5 Mean
0.556992 3.399170 53.08229 1561.625
42
Table No.7 Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 6 (g)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
1856
1800
1825
5481
1827.00b
T1
1955
1945
1880
5780
1926.67a
T2
1920
1925
1965
5810
1936.67a
T3
1985
1965
1970
5920
1973.33a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
22991
1915.917
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean Gain in Weight of the Broilers in Week 6
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
35246.91667
11748.97222
14.86
0.0012
Treatment
3
35246.91667
11748.97222
14.86
0.0012
Error
8
6324.00000
790.50000
Corrected
11 41570.91667
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE WK6 Mean
0.847874 1.467487 28.11583 1915.917
43
Table No.8 Mean total Gain in Weight of the Broilers (g)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
1802.5
1749.5
1777.5
5329.5
1776.50b
T1
1904
1894
1834
5632
1877.33a
T2
1869.5
1880.5
1917
5667
1889.00a
T3
1941.5
1916.5
1922
5780
1926.67a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
22408.5 1867.375
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean total Gain in Weight of the Broilers
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
37021.72917
12340.57639
16.86
0.0008
Treatment
3
37021.72917
12340.57639
16.86
0.0008
Error
8
5854.33333
731.79167
Corrected
11 42876.06250
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE Gain Mean
0.863459 1.448646 27.05165 1867.375
44
Table 9. Mean Feed Consumption of the Broilers (g)
TREATMENT MEAN
T0
39190a
T1
39190a
T2
39190a
T3
39190a
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
45
Table 10. Mean Feed Conversion Efficiency of the Broilers (kg)
TREATMENT MEAN
T0
2.20333a
T1
2.09000b
T2
2.07333b
T3
2.03333b
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean Feed Conversion Efficiency of the Broilers
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
0.04780000
0.01593333
15.17
0.0012
Treatment
3
0.04780000
0.01593333
15.17
0.0012
Error
8
0.00840000
0.00105000
Corrected
11 0.05620000
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE Y Mean
0.850534 1.543033 0.032404 2.100000
46
Table No.11 Percentage Mortality
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
0
0
0
0
0a
T
1
0
0
0
0
0a
T2
0
0
0
0
0a
T3
0
0
0
0
0a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
0
0
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
47
Table No.12 Mean ROI(%)
TREATMENT REPLICATE TOTAL MEAN
1 2 3
T0
7.403735 4.163105 5.609814 17.17665 5.726b
T
1
11.97838 11.4056
7.682534 31.06652 10.356a
T2
8.862893 9.14639
11.3989
29.40819 9.803a
T3
11.42324 10.30059 10.58125 32.30509 10.768a
Grand Total and Grand Mean
109.9564 9.163037
* means with the same letters are not significantly different
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Mean ROI of the Broilers
Source
DF
Sum of squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
3
48.67368722
16.22456241
6.27
0.0170
Treatment
3
48.67368722
16.22456241
6.27
0.0170
Error
8
20.69666478
2.58708310
Corrected
11 69.37035200
Total
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE ROI Mean
0.701650 17.55358 1.608441 9.163037
48
Table 13: Cost and Return Analysis
PARTICULARS T0
T1
T2
T3
TOTAL SALES 6029.1
6358
6390.7
6512
TOTAL COSTS 5702.595
5761.38
5820.165
5878.935
Chicks
1140
1140
1140
1140
feeds
3111.96
3111.96
3111.96
3111.96
labor
703.125
703.125
703.125
703.125
vaccines
37.5
35.5
37.5
37.5
electricity
375
375
375
375
bulb
90
90
90
90
supplement
0
58.785
117.57
176.34
newspaper
26.25
26.25
26.25
26.25
disinfectant
15
15
15
15
housing
162.51
162.51
162.51
162.51
waterer
15
15
15
15
Weighing
15
15
15
15
scale
11.25
11.25
11.25
11.25
Net Return
326.505
596.62
570.535
633.065
Mean ROI(%)
5.726
10.356
9.803
10.768
49
Table 14. Foster Food Inc. feeding guide
Days Daily
Feed
Consumed
Body Weight
(grams)
(grams)
1 13 45
2 15 57
3 18 71
4 21 87
5 24 105
6 27 125
7 30 147
8 33 171
9 36 197
10 40 226
11 44 258
12 48 292
13 52 328
14 56 365
15 60 403
16 64 442
17 68 482
18 72 523
19 76 565
20 80 608
21 84 652
22 88 697
23 92 743
24 96 790
25 100 838
26 104 887
27 108 937
28 112 988
29 115 1040
30 118 1093
31 121 1147
32 123 1202
33 125 1258
34 127 1315
35 129 1373
36 131 1432
37 133 1492
38 135 1553
50
39 137 1615
40 139 1678
41 141 1742
42 143 1807
43 145 1873
44 147 1940
45 149 2008
51
APPENDIX B
52
APPENDIX C
Benguet State University
COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE
La Trinidad, Benguet
APPLICATION FOR FINAL ORAL DEFENSE
Name of Student: MARK LLOYD P. WADASEN
Student #: 0580102
Thesis Title: STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF HOT RED PEPPER (Capsicum
annum) SUPPLEMENTATION ON THE GROWTH PERFORMANCE
OF BROILERS.
Date of Defense: March 14, 2012
Time and Place of Defense: 1:00-5:00 pm; Audio Visual Room (AVR)
Panels:
Signature
ANATALIA V. CASTRENCE, DVM
____________________
KAREN B. GAERLAN, DVM
____________________
LORETTA C. ROMERO, DVM
____________________
Noted by:
RICHARD P. DUMAPIS, DVM ___________________
Adviser
JOSEPH A. DIANSO, DVM
____________________
Dean
53
Benguet State University
COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE
La Trinidad, Benguet
REPORT ON RESULTS OF FINAL ORAL DEFENSE
Name of Student: MARK LLOYD P. WADASEN
Student #: 0580102
Thesis Title: STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF HOT RED PEPPER (Capsicum
annum) SUPPLEMENTATION ON THE GROWTH PERFORMANCE
OF BROILERS.
Date and time of Examination: ____________________
Place of Examination: __________________________
MEMBERS OF EXAMINING COMMITTEE
Name of members:
Signature
Remarks
ANATALIA V. CASTRENCE, DVM
_______________
______________
KAREN B. GAERLAN, DVM
_______________
______________
LORETTA C. ROMERO, DVM
_______________
______________
Passed/Failed
Approved by:
JOSEPH A. DIANSO, DVM
Dean
54
55
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
NAME:
MARK LLOYD PIAGA WADASEN
BIRTHDAY:
June 19, 1989
PLACE OF BIRTH:
Cotcot, Bangao, Buguias, Benguet
ADDRESS:
IC 132 Betag, La Trinidad, Benguet
PROVINCIAL ADDRESS: Cotcot, Bangao, Buguias, Benguet
CONTACT NUMBER:
09483686030
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
ELEMENTARY
NAME OF SCHOOL:
Cotcot, Talabis,Elementary School
ADDRESS:
Cotcot, Bangao, Buguias, Benguet
YEAR GRADUATED:
2001
SECONDARY
NAME OF SCHOOL:
Benguet State University – Buguias Campus
ADDRESS:
Loo, Buguias, Benguet
YEAR GRADUATED:
2005
COLLEGE
NAME OF SCHOOL:
Benguet State University
ADDRESS:
La Trinidad, Benguet
DEGREE AND YEAR OF
GRADUATION:
DVM 2012
AFFILIATIONS:
BSU - Veterinary Medicine Student Government
Rodeo Club Philippines - BSU chapter
BSU - Highland Cowboys and Cowgirls Rodeo Team
BSU- Basketball Team (men)
55
Document Outline
- Study on the Effects of Hot Red Pepper (Capsicumannum) Supplementation on the Growth Performance of Broilers
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- Review of Related Literature
- Materials and Methodology
- Results and Discussions
- Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES
- BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH