Super Final Thesis [Super Complete]
-
Upload
jeanith-alaba -
Category
Documents
-
view
144 -
download
8
Transcript of Super Final Thesis [Super Complete]
GROWTH RESPONSE OF 45 DAYS CHICKEN FED WITH
YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES
A High school thesis presented to
Mrs. Luzviminda Bago
As a partial fulfillment of the requirement
In the subject Research II
Alaba, Lady Mae G.
Gardon, Matthew F.
Resurreccion, Shaila E.
Dasmariñas National High School
Special Science Curriculum
S.Y. 2010-2011
GROWTH RESPONSE OF 45 DAYS CHICKEN FED WITH
YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES
By:
Alaba, Lady Mae G.
Gardon, Matthew F.
Resurreccion, Shaila E.
Dasmariñas National High School
Special Science Curriculum
S.Y. 2010-2011
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researchers would like to thank the following. Without them, this research would
have been possible. The researchers extend their heartfelt gratitude to the following:
To the Everlasting God, the Lord of All, without whose guidance and given gift and
wisdom to the researchers the study would not have been finished. He who always inspires the
researchers to do their best and who gives them patience throughout the whole study. Thank you
Lord.
To Mr. and Mrs. Alaba, Mr. and Mrs. Gardon, and Mr. and Mrs. Resurreccion who have
given the researchers their understanding, never-ending support, financial assistance, and their
prayers that greatly helped and inspired the researchers.
To Mrs. Luzviminda M. Bago, for being a very considerate teacher to patiently teach the
researchers all the things they need to know about making a research study and for guiding them
in times of troubles in completing the thesis
To Reniel Zuniga, for the information about the proper way of treating a healthy chicken
and for guiding the researchers in some other aspects.
To Mr. Salazar, for helping the researchers for giving some of the needed resources.
To Ms. Janet, the agriculturist who helps the researchers in identifying the Yemane tree
out of different trees on the said forest park.
To Ms. Arshley Conos who gave some advised regarding the improvement of the study.
To Ms. Jevilyn Mary Ruiz, in giving some statistical advise for the benefit and result of
the study.
To Ms. Johanna Gwenn Lomaad who shared some ways in processing feeds for the
convenience of the subject.
To the Department of Science and Technology where the researchers tested and found the
laboratory results and content of the Yemane leaves.
To Mrs. Ma. Lourdes Gonzales, who taught the researchers on how to use the proper
statistics technique that can be applied on the said study.
To IV-Einstein who gladly share their knowledge for the improvement of the study and
giving an inspiration for continuing the said research. Thank you very much.
L M A
S E R
M F G
ABSTRACT
This study entitled “GROWTH RESPONSE OF 45 DAYS CHICKEN FED WITH
YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES” was conducted by Lady Mae G. Alaba, Matthew F.
Gardon, and Shaila E. Resurreccion.
It was conducted to determine the growth response of 45 days chicken fed with yemane
leaves. It also aims to formulate feeds with yemane leaves and commercialized feeds.
The study used experimental method of research, the yemane chicken feed was the
independent variable, the growth of the chickens was the dependent variable and the extraneous
variables were the amount of food, water, temperature and vitamins in each treatment.
Generally, this study aimed to test the growth response of 45 days chicken to yemane
(Gmelina arborea) leaves. And also aims to determine the growth response of the 45 days
chicken in terms of weight and length of breast; and if there is a significant difference between
the treatments in terms of weight and the length of breast of the chicken.
Yemane leaves were gathered, pan-dried and crushed thoroughly to serve as chicken feed
to treatment one containing 10 chicks, treatment two was composed of also 10 chicks fed with
50% yemane and 50% commercialized feeds, while another group of 10 chicks were fed 100%
commercialized feeds as the treatment three. After getting the initial weight and length of breast
of each chicks, they were now fed with booster mash from 1-10 days, starter mash from 11-20
days, then 150g of yemane feeds every meal from 25 days and onwards for treatment one.
Treatment two, on the other hand, were fed from day 1-25 with pure commercialized feed then
fed with 50% yemane and 50% commercialized feed from 25 day onwards. Then lastly,
treatment three were fed from day 1-45 with pure commercialized feeds. Each chick in each
treatment were given 100ml of water with vitamins every meal all throughout the procedure.
After the 45 days the chicken in each treatment were now measured in terms of weight
and the length of breast.
The effectiveness was tested by means of finding the significant difference between the
three treatments in terms of weight and length of breast of the chicken. The collected data were
evaluated by using ANOVA, 13.9 in terms of weight and 2.657 in terms of length of breast.
These values states that there is a significant difference on the growth of the 45-days chicken in
terms of weight but have no significant difference in terms of length of breast. Sheffe’s test was
also used to further understand the data, which then resulted on having a highly significant
difference between A and B (having 27.46); significant difference between B and C (having
9.30); but no significant difference between A and C (having 4.80), which them implies as B
being the best treatment in terms of weight. The mean of the measurements before and after
feeding the chickens were compared and their significant differences were computed.
This study recommends further studies about yemane in the field of chicken feeding and
the discovery of the potential of yemane in other fields as well.
Table of Contents
Contents Page Number
Title Page
Certificate of Approval
Acknowledgement
Abstract
Table of Contents
Chapter I The Problem and its Background
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Hypothesis
Significance of the Study
Scope and Limitations
Definition of Terms
Framework
Chapter II Methodology
Method of research used
Material/Equipment
Procedure
Application of the Treatment
Research Design
Gantt Chart
Evaluation Process
Statistical Treatment
Chapter III Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data
Chapter IV Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Summary
Conclusion
Recommendations
Bibliography
Appendices
Appendix A : Evaluation Sheets
Appendix B : Data Tables
Appendix C : Sample Statistical Computations
Appendix D: Plates on Procedures
Curriculum Vitae
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 1 Mean Measurement of All Treatments
Table 2 ANOVA table of Weight of Chicken
Table 3 ANOVA table of Length of Breast of Chicken
Table 4 Sheffe’s table of Weight of Chicken
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 1 Framework of the research study
Figure 2 Research design of the study
Chapter I
Introduction
I. Background of the study
Today, chicken has become an all-around favorite meal of Filipinos. Be it cooked in a
curry, fried, as a nugget, in adobo, in nilaga or tinola. Chicken is one of the foods that are in
demand in the community. Most people prefer eating chicken because it is healthier to eat than
pork and cheaper than beef. Species of chicken are raised in all parts of the world usually for
consumption of nutritional value .But before an individual can consume it, the chicken is
supposed to be at the right state of growth and maturity. To obtain that objective, feeds and
different vitamins are given to different breeds of chicken. These contain different nutrients,
vitamins, minerals, protein and other chemicals such as arsenics which apparently help in the
growth of chicken.
The chemical arsenics which can be found in most commercialized feeds are not only used
for the improvement of growth but also in killing parasites and in improving pigmentation. By
the year 2008, Dr. Howard Garret found out from the analysis of his conducted study that
chicken feeds which contain arsenics called roxarsone that may harm an individual if
contaminated. This can be a threat to humans who are consuming chicken meats that are fed with
the said feeds. Based on recent studies, roxarsone are chemicals that can cause cancer and partial
paralysis of an individual.
Yemane (Gmelina arborea) has gained prominence not only in the Philippines but also
among Asian countries because of its economic importance. It is a raw material for pulp and
paper making, posts, house timbers and poles while rotary veneers are utilized for plywood
(Levi V. Florido, et al., 2009). Also, according to Little (1983), Yemane (Gmelina arborea)
leaves are harvested for fodder for livestock, cattle and silkworms. Also, studies conducted
reveal that Gmelina arborea leaves have great potential in livestock feeding (Okagbare et al,
2004) .With this, the researchers have come up in determining the growth response of 45 days
chicken to yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves as the main ingredient in the production of chicken
feed.
The utilization of this raw material will largely benefit the poultry industries in terms of
minimizing the usage of commercialized feeds having arsenic chemicals, discovering other
effective materials for the production of chicken feeds but also consequently providing enough
supply of proteins, vitamins and minerals for the chickens.
II. Statement of the problem
Generally, the study aims to determine the growth response of 45 days chicken to yemane
(Gmelina arborea) leaves.
Specifically, the study aims to answer the following questions:
1. What are the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed with the treatments in
terms of weight and length of breast?
2. Is there any significant difference in the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed
with the treatments terms of weight and length of breast?
III. Hypothesis
1. There is no significant effect of using yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves and
commercialized feeds on the growth of 45 days chicken in terms of weight and length
of breast.
2. There is no significant difference among the treatments used in terms of weight and
length of breast.
IV. Significance of the study
The outcome of this study will largely benefit the following:
Poultry industries. In finding substitute for commercialized feeds containing arsenics. It
will also provide new and cheaper means of feeding which is a profit to those who are in
business and even to those consumers of chicken meats.
Community. The success of this study would produce healthy and safe to eat chickens
without them to worry about the harmful effects of roxarsone like paralysis or cancer.
Economy. The results of the study will help the economy save money from usually
expensive commercialized chicken feeds. Also, the selling of yemane chicken feeds will help
the economy to earn money.
School. The success of the study could benefit the school in finding cheaper means of finding
an alternative feed for chickens without the harmful arsenics.
Students. By researching for more data and information, the study could give students ideas
for their studies and upcoming researches.
Other researchers. This may serve as a stepping stone in the field of poultry feeding and for
the discovery of yemane’s benefits.
V. Scope and Limitations
The general purpose of the study “GROWTH RESPONSE OF 45 DAYS CHICKEN FED
WITH YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES ” is to be able to formulate chicken feeds from
yemane and commercialized one and determine the growth response of the 45 days chicken in
terms of weight and length of breast of the chicken. The variety of 45 days chicken used will be
the white leghorn. This study mainly focuses on the growth response of 45 days chicken fed with
yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves in terms of height and weight.
VI. Definition of Terms
Yemane leaves. Is an unarmed, moderately sized to large deciduous tree with a
straight trunk and is fast growing. It will be used to substitute commercialized feeds
and also serves as the main feed in treatments one and two.
Livestock. Refers to one or more domesticated animals raised in an agricultural
setting to produce commodities such as food, fiber and labor. Chicken, or poultry, is
an example of livestock animals.
Chicken. The young of domestic fowl. It is the organism which will be used to test
the effectiveness of yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves as feeds.
Feeds. Food for chicken. Something to be given for nourishment. It serves as the
independent variable in the study. Three kinds of feeds will be used: chicken feed
with 100% ground yemane leaves, chicken feed with 50% yemane and 50%
commercialized and 100% commercialized chicken feed.
VII. Framework
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
Figure 1. Framework of the Research Study
This study used one input which is yemane leaves. It underwent the process of
cleaning, pan drying, crushing and feeding. It was feed to treatment one with 10 chickens and
treatment two as feed mixed with 50% commercialized feed. The output of this study is the
growth response of chicken in terms of height, weight and length of breast of the chickens.
Cleaning
Pan drying
Crushing
feeding
Yemane
leaves
growth response of chicken in terms of:
Height in terms of centimeters
Weight in terms of grams
Length of breast in terms of centimeters
Chapter II
Methodology
I. Research Method to be used
This study will use an actual investigation using experimental method of research
(Zulueta, Castales Jr., 2003) in order to determine the answer to the problem.
Experimental method was used because it involves the effects of using yemane
(Gmelina arborea) leaves as feeds to the growth of 45 days chicken. The results of the
data gathered from the independent variables were compared to the control treatment
which is the commercialized feeds, to find out the effectiveness of the raw material in
sustaining 45 days chicken growth.
II. Materials and Equipment
The following materials were used in determining the growth response of 45 days
chicken to yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves as the main ingredient in the production of
chicken feed: yemane leaves, commercialized feeds, starter mash, booster feed, chicken
vitamins and water
The following equipment will be used in determining the growth response of 45 days
chicken to yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves as the main ingredient in the production of
chicken feed: containers, measuring cups, pan, weighing scale, tape measure, and
strainer.
III. Procedures
For the preparation of the cage and the 45-days chicken three cages were made. Each
has ten equally divided spaces. The container of feeds and water are arranged in each
cage. Before placing the 30 chicks into the cages, each was marked. The height, weight
and the length of breast of each chick were measured.
The chicks were fed with booster mash from zero day old up to 10 days old. Each
water containers were added by vitamins. 50 grams of booster mash was given every
morning and afternoon on each group of chicks for 10 days. Then the chicks were fed
100g of starter feeds for another 10 days. One hundred ml of drinking water along with
vitamins was given every meal.
Yemane leaves were dried on a frying pan without oil. Dried yemane leaves were
crushed thoroughly. After being fed booster and starter mash for 20 days, the first group
of chicken was fed 150 grams of ground yemane chicken feed in every feeding until the
45 day ends.
The second group of chicken was fed 150g of 50% yemane and 50% commercialized
feed in every feeding for 25 days, that is, after feeding booster and starter mash.
The third group of chicken was fed with 150g of pure commercialized feed from day
1 until the 45 day ends.
150 grams of feed and 100ml of drinking water with vitamins are to be given on each
group of chicken every morning and late afternoon.
IV. Application of Treatment
Ten 45 days chicken for each treatment was used to determine the growth response of
45 days chicken to yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves as the main ingredient in the
production of chicken feed. Treatment one was the chicken feed with 100% ground
yemane leaves. Treatment two is the chicken feed with 50% yemane and 50%
commercialized and treatment three with 100% commercialized feeds. There will be 10
chickens in each treatment.
V. Research Design
Kind of feeds
Treatments
(Treatment 1) 100% yemane leaves chicken
feed
(Treatment 2) 50% yemane and 50% commercialized
chicken feed
(Treatment 3) 100% commercialized
chicken feed
Number of chickens
10 10 10
Figure 2. Research Design of the study
Experimental units - 3 x 10 = 30 chickens
Independent variable – yemane feeds
Dependent variable – the growth of the chickens
Extraneous variables – amount of feed, amount of water, ventilation, temperature,
kind of vitamins, size of the cage
VI. Gantt Chart
ACTIVITIES DURATION – NO. OF WEEKS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1. Identifying research problem
2. Gathering of basic information
3.Formulating hypothesis
4.Making research design
5. Formulating procedure
6. Gathering necessary materials
7.Experimentation
8. Gathering of data
9. Organizing and
interpreting Data
10. Drawing
Conclusions
11. Giving
Recommendations
Statistical Tool Used
The statistical tools used in this study were ANOVA and Sheffe’s test as a post-test for the
analysis of variance.
1. Mean was used to determine the effect of yemane leaves on the growth of chicken in terms of
height, weight and length of breast.
2. Standard Deviation was used to determine the measures of dispersion of the set of data of every
treatment from its mean. Standard deviation is calculated as the square root of variance.
3. Variance is used as a measure of how far a set of numbers are spread out from each other.
4. ANOVA was used in the study to test the null hypothesis and the significant differences on each
treatment.
5. Scheffe’s test was used in the study as a post-test after the ANOVA to further understand
the data.
Chapter 3
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter includes the organized presentation of the data gathered by the researchers which
were analyzed and interpreted to form conclusions. The data were presented by the use of tables.
Different statistical tools were used to analyze and interpret the gathered numerical data.
Problem 1.1.1: What are the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed with the treatments in
terms of weight and length of breast?
Table 1
Mean Measurements of Treatment One
T1 Range T2 Range T3 Range
Weight 1378.5 1341.1 1904.1 1866 1684.4 1644.6
Length of
Breast15.58 10.64 23.11 18.37 20.06 15.11
The mean measurements and range of chickens in treatment one, fed with yemane; treatment two,
fed with 50% yemane and 50% commercialized feeds; and treatment three, fed with commercialized
feeds.
From the table above, it can be seen that chickens in treatment one, two and three gained weight
and length of breast by eating yemane leaves. It means that the use of yemane leaves as a main feed,
yemane with commercialized and commercialized feeds itself has an effect on the growth response of 45-
days chicken in terms of weight and length of breast.
Problem 2.2 Is there any significant difference in the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed
with treatments in terms of weight?
Table 2
ANOVA table of Weight of Chicken
Source of Variation
df Sum of Squares
Mean of Squares
Tabular Value Computed
F-valueDecision
0.05 0.01
Between groups
2 1393660.87 696830.44 3.35 5.49 13.9 Significant
Within groups
27 65341.8 50310.4369
TOTAL 29 1459002.67
Since the computed F-value of 13.9 is greater than the tabular value of 3.35 at 0.05 level of
significance, and 5.49 at 0.01 level of significance, the null hypothesis is rejected therefore there is a
significant difference among the treatments in terms of weight.
Problem 2.3 Is there any significant difference in the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed
with treatments in terms length of breast?
Table 3
ANOVA table of Length of Breast of Chicken
Source of Variation
df Sum of Squares
Mean of Squares
Tabular Value Computed
F-valueDecision
0.05 0.01
Between groups
2 286.91267 143.456335 3.35 5.49 2.657 Not Significant
Within groups
27 17.389 539921.8614
TOTAL 29 304.30167
Since the computed F-value of 2.657 is lesser than the tabular value of 3.35 at 0.05 level of
significance, and 5.49 at 0.01 level of significance, the null hypothesis is accepted therefore there is no
significant difference among the treatments in terms of length of breast.
Table 5
Scheffé table of Weight of Chicken
Treatments Observed
F’
Tabular Interpretation
5%(K-1)
3.35(2)
1%(K-1)
5.49(2)
A vs. B 27.46 6.7 10.98 Highly Significant
A vs. C 4.80 6.7 10.98 Not Significant
B vs. C 9.30 6.7 10.98 Significant
The above table shows that there is a highly significant difference in terms of weight
between A and B, and B and C; but no significant difference between A and C. This implies that
B is the best in terms of weight.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The summary of the study, findings constructed from the data gathered the drawn conclusions,
and the recommendations of the researchers.
Summary
This study was conducted to determine the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed with
yemane (Gmelina arborea).
There were three treatments in the study. The data were gathered from the measurements of
chickens in terms of weight and length of breast, before and after feeding. The measurement were
analyzed and compared with the use of statistics.
Mean, Analysis of Variance and Scheffe’s test were used to determine the effectiveness of
yemane leaves as feeds. This study was conducted during the school year 2010 – 2011 from August up to
January 2011.
Findings
This study has the following findings:
1. There is a significant effect in using Yemane, as a main ingredient or mixed with commercialized
feeds, on the growth of 45 day chicken in terms of weight and length of breast since the chickens
from all treatments gained measurements. The range of the mean in treatment one is 1341.1 in
terms of weight, and 10.64 in terms of length of breast; in treatment two is 1900.29 in terms of
weight and 18.37 in terms of length of breast; and in treatment three is 16804.2 in terms of weight
and 15.11 in terms of length of breast.
2. With the use of statistical tool Analysis of Variance, it was found out that treatment one, two and
three has a significant difference in the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed with the
treatments in terms of weight. Since the computed F-value of weight, 13.9 is greater than the
tabular value 3.35 and 5.49.
3. The computed F-value 2.657 is lesser than the tabular value 3.35 and 5.49, then, there is no
significant difference in the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed with the treatments in
terms of length of breast.
Conclusion
After the experimentation and the gathering of data, the researchers conclude that yemane leaves
have a significant effect on the growth of 45 days chicken in terms of height in centimeters, weight in
grams and length of breast in centimeters, whether it is used as main feed or commercialized feeds.
Therefore, yemane leaves can be effective feeds for 45 days chicken.
Recommendation
After conducting the study, the researchers had the following recommendations:
1. Among the three treatments, treatment two or the use of 50% Yemane mixed with 50%
commercialized feeds is the best treatment in terms of height, weight and length of breast.
2. Laboratory tests regarding the contents of all treatments should be done.
3. Chicken carcass should be tested.
4. There should be a detailed recording of measurements.
5. Further study and improvement to yemane as the main ingredient in the production of chicken
feeds is encouraged.
6. Follow-up studies should be performed in appropriate places to raise poultry, preferably near
farms and rural places.
7. Further studies about the different potential of Yemane in different fields are encouraged.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Castillon R.D. et al (2010), Effectiveness of soybean (Glycine max) and Pumpkin seed (Cucurbita pepo) as feeds on the growth of 45 days chicken, Dasmariñas National High School – Main, Dasmariñas, Cavite
Adeleye, F.O. and Adebiyi, E. A. (1990)utilization of graded levels of cassava flourmeal as a source of energy in broiler finisher ration. Nig. Journal of Agric. Science. 5:28-31.
Qureshi, A. A. (1980) Poultry communiquéin Nig. Poult. International, pp6-8.www.winrock.org/forestry/factnet.htm
Lauridsen, E.B., E.D. Kjaer, and M. Nissen. 1995. Second evaluation of an international series of Gmelina provenance trials. DANIDA Forest Seed Centre. Humlebaek, Denmark. 120 p.
Dr. Mohammed Kamal Hossain, Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, Chittagong University, Chittagong, Bangladesh. A publication of the Forest, Farm, and Community Tree Network ,Winrock,
Dou TC, Shi SR, Sun HJ, Wang KH (2009). Growth rate, carcass traits and meat quality of slow-growing chicken grown according to three raising systems. Anim. Sci. Papers Rep. 27(4): 361-369
Demby JH, Cunningham FE (1980). Factors affecting composition of chicken meat-literature review. World Poult. Sci. J. 36: 25-37
Haro CV (2005). Interaction between dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E in body lipid composition and -tocopherol content of broiler chickens. PhD thesis. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain, p. 140
Holcman A, Vadnjal R, Žledner B, Stibilj V (2003). Chemical composition of chicken meat from free range and extensive indoor rearing. Arch. Geflügelkd. 67(3): 120-124
Lewis PD, Perry C, Farmer LJ, Patterson RLS (1997). Responses of two genotypes of chicken to the diets and stocking densities typical of UK and Label Rouge production systems: 1. Performance, behaviour and carcass compsition. Meat Sci. 45: 501-216.http://www.small-farm-permaculture-and-sustainable-living.com/what_do_chickens_eat.html
http://ldc.da.gov.ph/pdf_files/Brochures/poultry1.pdf
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=n075p22775723127&size=largest
http://erdb.denr.gov.ph/publications/rise/r_v14n3.pdf
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB/PDF/pdf2010/27Dec/Bogosavljevic-Boskovic%20et%20al.pdf
http://changingminds.org/explanations/research/analysis/levenes_test.htm
APPENDIX A:Evaluation Sheets
EVALUATION SHEET
Lady Mae AlabaMatthew F. GardonShaila E. Resurreccion
EFFECTIVENESS OF YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES AS A MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF CHICKEN FEEDS
I. Title
- Is the title appropriate for the study- Is it broad enough to include in all aspects
of the subject matter
II. Chapter
1 – Is it clear, convincing and concise2 – Is it selected, pertinent and organized3 – Is the researchers methodology appropriately clear, complete and concise4 – Are the data adequate valid and reliable – Are they analyzed carefully and correctly and adequately
5 – Are the contents logical and the valid outcomes of the study. – Are the recommendations feasible practical and attainable, is it action-oriented.
III. Performance During Defense
- Presentation of the study (mastery of work)Cohrence and self – expression with relation to the truth and validity of data
- Ability to answer questions asked by the Evaluators
IV. Comments, Rewards and Suggestions
MA. LOURDES P. GONZALES Evaluator/Panelist
EVALUATION SHEET
Lady Mae AlabaMatthew F. GardonShaila E. Resurreccion
EFFECTIVENESS OF YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES AS A MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF CHICKEN FEEDS
V. Title
- Is the title appropriate for the study- Is it broad enough to include in all aspects
of the subject matter
VI. Chapter
1 – Is it clear, convincing and concise2 – Is it selected, pertinent and organized3 – Is the researchers methodology appropriately clear, complete and concise4 – Are the data adequate valid and reliable – Are they analyzed carefully and correctly and adequately
5 – Are the contents logical and the valid outcomes of the study. – Are the recommendations feasible practical and attainable, is it action-oriented.
VII. Performance During Defense
- Presentation of the study (mastery of work)Cohrence and self – expression with relation to the truth and validity of data
- Ability to answer questions asked by the Evaluators
VIII. Comments, Rewards and Suggestions
LOURDES J. MANIMTIM Evaluator/Panelist
EVALUATION SHEET
Lady Mae AlabaMatthew F. GardonShaila E. Resurreccion
EFFECTIVENESS OF YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES AS A MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF CHICKEN FEEDS
IX. Title
- Is the title appropriate for the study- Is it broad enough to include in all aspects
of the subject matter
X. Chapter
1 – Is it clear, convincing and concise2 – Is it selected, pertinent and organized3 – Is the researchers methodology appropriately clear, complete and concise4 – Are the data adequate valid and reliable – Are they analyzed carefully and correctly and adequately
5 – Are the contents logical and the valid outcomes of the study. – Are the recommendations feasible practical and attainable, is it action-oriented.
XI. Performance During Defense
- Presentation of the study (mastery of work)Cohrence and self – expression with relation to the truth and validity of data
- Ability to answer questions asked by the Evaluators
XII. Comments, Rewards and Suggestions
RUFINA M. CRUTO Evaluator/Panelist
EVALUATION SHEET
Lady Mae AlabaMatthew F. GardonShaila E. Resurreccion
EFFECTIVENESS OF YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES AS A MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF CHICKEN FEEDS
XIII. Title
- Is the title appropriate for the study- Is it broad enough to include in all aspects
of the subject matter
XIV. Chapter
1 – Is it clear, convincing and concise2 – Is it selected, pertinent and organized3 – Is the researchers methodology appropriately clear, complete and concise4 – Are the data adequate valid and reliable – Are they analyzed carefully and correctly and adequately
5 – Are the contents logical and the valid outcomes of the study. – Are the recommendations feasible practical and attainable, is it action-oriented.
XV. Performance During Defense
- Presentation of the study (mastery of work)Cohrence and self – expression with relation to the truth and validity of data
- Ability to answer questions asked by the Evaluators
XVI. Comments, Rewards and Suggestions
HAZEL P. FRONDA Evaluator/Panelist
EVALUATION SHEET
Lady Mae AlabaMatthew F. GardonShaila E. Resurreccion
EFFECTIVENESS OF YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES AS A MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF CHICKEN FEEDS
XVII. Title
- Is the title appropriate for the study- Is it broad enough to include in all aspects
of the subject matter
XVIII. Chapter
1 – Is it clear, convincing and concise2 – Is it selected, pertinent and organized3 – Is the researchers methodology appropriately clear, complete and concise4 – Are the data adequate valid and reliable – Are they analyzed carefully and correctly and adequately
5 – Are the contents logical and the valid outcomes of the study. – Are the recommendations feasible practical and attainable, is it action-oriented.
XIX. Performance During Defense
- Presentation of the study (mastery of work)Cohrence and self – expression with relation to the truth and validity of data
- Ability to answer questions asked by the Evaluators
XX. Comments, Rewards and Suggestions
ROWENA R. CARIAGA Evaluator/Panelist
EVALUATION SHEET
Lady Mae AlabaMatthew F. GardonShaila E. Resurreccion
EFFECTIVENESS OF YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES AS A MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF CHICKEN FEEDS
XXI. Title
- Is the title appropriate for the study- Is it broad enough to include in all aspects
of the subject matter
XXII. Chapter
1 – Is it clear, convincing and concise2 – Is it selected, pertinent and organized3 – Is the researchers methodology appropriately clear, complete and concise4 – Are the data adequate valid and reliable – Are they analyzed carefully and correctly and adequately
5 – Are the contents logical and the valid outcomes of the study. – Are the recommendations feasible practical and attainable, is it action-oriented.
XXIII. Performance During Defense
- Presentation of the study (mastery of work)Cohrence and self – expression with relation to the truth and validity of data
- Ability to answer questions asked by the Evaluators
XXIV. Comments, Rewards and Suggestions
EDEN R. DAYAUON
Evaluator/Panelist
EVALUATION SHEET
Lady Mae AlabaMatthew F. GardonShaila E. Resurreccion
EFFECTIVENESS OF YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES AS A MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF CHICKEN FEEDS
XXV. Title
- Is the title appropriate for the study- Is it broad enough to include in all aspects
of the subject matter
XXVI. Chapter
1 – Is it clear, convincing and concise2 – Is it selected, pertinent and organized3 – Is the researchers methodology appropriately clear, complete and concise4 – Are the data adequate valid and reliable – Are they analyzed carefully and correctly and adequately
5 – Are the contents logical and the valid outcomes of the study. – Are the recommendations feasible practical and attainable, is it action-oriented.
XXVII.Performance During Defense
- Presentation of the study (mastery of work)Cohrence and self – expression with relation to the truth and validity of data
- Ability to answer questions asked by the Evaluators
XXVIII. Comments, Rewards and Suggestions
FRANCIS KENNETH D. HERNANDEZ Evaluator/Panelist
APPENDIX B:Data Tables
Weight Measurements
No. Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3
Pre(g)
Post(g)
Pre(g)
Post(g)
Pre(g)
Post(g)
1 35 1367 37 1965 36 1680
2 34 1409 35 1835 34 1720
3 48 1389 36 1895 37 1590
4 47 1387 44 1956 43 1635
5 36 1459 40 1967 39 1739
6 36 1342 35 1862 45 1680
7 31 1364 36 1853 48 1750
8 36 1394 46 1933 38 1725
9 34 1345 34 1945 42 1630
10 37 1329 38 1830 36 1695
Mean 37.4 1378.5 38.1 1904.1 39.8 1684.4
Length of Breast Measurements
No. Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3
Pre(cm)
Post(cm)
Pre(cm)
Post(cm)
Pre(cm)
Post(cm)
1 4.7 16.5 5.8 25.1 4.3 19.5
2 5.2 15.7 4 22.5 4.7 19.6
3 4.3 14.9 5.3 22.6 5.3 20
4 6.1 15.3 4.1 22.5 5.8 19.8
5 5 16.8 5.8 22.2 4.8 20.8
6 4 14.8 4.5 24.7 4.3 20.5
7 4.5 15.2 4.7 23.5 5.2 20.6
8 5.7 15.6 5 22.5 4.9 19.5
9 5 14.4 4.2 22.7 4.8 19.8
10 4.9 16.6 4 22.8 5.4 20.5
Mean 4.94 15.58 4.74 23.11 4.95 20.06
Correlated Means Data for Weight of Treatment 1
Number PreMeasurement
PostMeasurement
D D2
1 35 1367 1332 1774224
2 34 1409 1375 1890625
3 48 1389 1341 1798281
4 47 1387 1340 1795600
5 36 1459 1423 2024929
6 36 1342 1306 1705636
7 31 1364 1333 1776889
8 36 1394 1358 1844164
9 34 1345 1311 1718721
10 37 1329 1292 1668264
Total13411 17997333
Correlated Means Data for Weight of Treatment 2
Number PreMeasurement
PostMeasurement
D D2
1 37 1965 1928 3717184
2 35 1835 1800 3240000
3 36 1895 1859 3455881
4 44 1956 1912 3655744
5 40 1967 1927 3713329
6 35 1862 1827 3337929
7 36 1853 1817 3301489
8 46 1933 1887 3560769
9 34 1945 1911 3651921
10 38 1830 1792 3211264
Total 18660 31634246
Correlated Means Data for Weight of Treatment 3
Number PreMeasurement
PostMeasurement
D D2
1 36 1680 1644 2702736
2 34 1720 1686 2842596
3 37 1590 1553 2411809
4 43 1635 1592 2534464
5 39 1739 1700 2890000
6 45 1680 1635 2673225
7 48 1750 1702 2896804
8 38 1725 1687 2845969
9 42 1630 1588 2521744
10 36 1695 1659 2752281
Total 16446 27071628
Correlated Means Data for Length of Breast of Treatment 1
Number PreMeasurement
PostMeasurement
D D2
1 4.7 16.5 11.8 139.24
2 5.2 15.7 10.5 110.25
3 4.3 14.9 10.6 112.36
4 6.1 15.3 9.2 84.64
5 5 16.8 11.8 139.24
6 4 14.8 10.8 116.64
7 4.5 15.2 10.7 114.49
8 5.7 15.6 9.9 98.01
9 5 14.4 9.4 88.36
10 4.9 16.6 11.7 136.89
Total106.4 1140.12
Correlated Means Data for Length of Breast of Treatment 2
Number PreMeasurement
PostMeasurement
D D2
1 5.8 25.1 19.3 372.49
2 4 22.5 18.5 342.25
3 5.3 22.6 17.3 299.29
4 4.1 22.5 18.4 338.56
5 5.8 22.2 16.4 268.96
6 4.5 24.7 20.2 408.04
7 4.7 23.5 18.8 353.44
8 5 22.5 17.5 306.25
9 4.2 22.7 18.5 342.25
10 4 22.8 18.8 353.44
Total183.7 3384.97
Correlated Means Data for Length of Breast of Treatment 3
Number PreMeasurement
PostMeasurement
D D2
1 4.3 19.5 15.2 231.04
2 4.7 19.6 14.9 222.01
3 5.3 20 14.7 216.09
4 5.8 19.8 14 196
5 4.8 20.8 16 256
6 4.3 20.5 16.2 262.44
7 5.2 20.6 15.4 237.16
8 4.9 19.5 14.6 213.16
9 4.8 19.8 15 225
10 5.4 20.5 15.1 228.01
Total151.1 2286.91
Pre Measurements
Treatment One (Weight)
Mean = 37.4 Variance = 31.16 SD = 5.58
Number X X - µ (X - µ)2
1 35 -2.4 5.76
2 34 -3.4 11.56
3 48 10.6 112.36
4 47 9.6 92.16
5 36 -1.4 1.96
6 36 -1.4 1.96
7 31 -6.4 40.96
8 36 -1.4 1.96
9 34 -3.4 11.56
10 37 -0.4 0.16
Treatment One (Length of Breast)
Mean = 4.94 Variance = 0.39 SD = 0.63
Number X X - µ (X - µ)2
1 4.7 0.24 0.06576
2 5.2 0.26 0.0676
3 4.3 -0.64 0.4096
4 6.1 1.16 1.3456
5 5 0.06 0.0036
6 4 -0.94 0.8836
7 4.5 -0.44 0.1936
8 5.7 0.76 0.5776
9 5 0.06 0.0036
10 4.9 -0.04 0.0016
Treatment Two (Weight)
Mean = 38.1 Variance = 16.32 SD = 4.04
Number X X - µ (X - µ)2
1 37 -1.1 1.21
2 35 -3.1 9.61
3 36 -2.1 4.41
4 44 5.9 34.81
5 40 1.9 3.61
6 35 -3.1 9.61
7 36 -2.1 4.41
8 46 7.9 62.41
9 34 -4.1 16.81
10 38 -0.1 0.01
Treatment Two (Length of Breast)
Mean = 4.74 Variance = 0.50 SD = 0.71
Number X X - µ (X - µ)2
1 5.8 1.06 1.1236
2 4 -0.74 0.5476
3 5.3 0.56 0.3136
4 4.1 -0.64 0.4096
5 5.8 1.06 1.1236
6 4.5 -0.24 0.0576
7 4.7 -0.04 0.0016
8 5 0.26 0.0676
9 4.2 -0.54 0.2916
10 4 -0.74 0.5476
Treatment Three (Weight)
Mean = 39.8 Variance = 21.5 SD = 4.64
Number X X - µ (X - µ)2
1 36 -3.8 14.44
2 34 -5.8 33.64
3 37 -2.8 7.84
4 43 3.2 10.24
5 39 -0.8 10.64
6 45 5.2 27.04
7 48 8.2 67.24
8 38 -1.8 3.24
9 42 2.2 4.84
10 36 -3.8 14.44
Treatment Three (Length of Breast)
Mean = 4.95 Variance = 0.65 SD = 0.81
Number X X - µ (X - µ)2
1 4.3 -0.65 0.4225
2 4.7 -0.25 0.0625
3 5.3 0.35 0.1225
4 5.8 0.85 0.7225
5 4.8 -0.15 0.0225
6 4.3 -0.65 0.4225
7 5.2 0.25 0.0625
8 4.9 -0.05 0.0025
9 4.8 -0.15 0.0225
10 5.4 0.45 0.2025
Post Measurements
Treatment One (Weight)
Mean = 1378.5 Variance = 1453.39 SD = 38.12
Number X X - µ (X - µ)2
1 1367 -11.5 132.25
2 1409 30.5 930.25
3 1389 10.5 110.25
4 1387 8.5 72.25
5 1459 80.5 6480.25
6 1342 -36.5 1332.25
7 1364 -14.5 210.25
8 1394 15.5 240.25
9 1345 -33.5 1122.25
10 1329 -49.5 2450.25
Treatment One (Length of Breast)
Mean = 15.58 Variance = 0.68 SD = 0.82
Number X X - µ (X - µ)2
1 16.5 0.92 0.8464
2 15.7 0.12 0.0144
3 14.9 -0.68 0.4624
4 15.3 -0.28 0.0784
5 16.8 1.22 1.4884
6 14.8 -0.78 0.6084
7 15.2 -0.38 0.1444
8 15.6 0.02 0.0004
9 14.4 -1.18 1.3924
10 16.6 1.02 1.0404
Treatment Two (Weight)
Mean = 1904.1 Variance = 3066.54 SD = 55.38
Number X X - µ (X - µ)2
1 1965 60.9 3708.81
2 1835 -69.1 4774.81
3 1895 -9.1 82.81
4 1956 5.19 2693.61
5 1967 62.9 3956.41
6 1862 -42.1 1772.41
7 1853 -51.1 2611.21
8 1933 28.9 835.21
9 1945 40.9 1672.81
10 1830 -74.1 5490.81
Treatment Two (Length of Breast)
Mean = 23.11 Variance =1.01 SD = 1.01
Number X X - µ (X - µ)2
1 25.1 1.99 3.9601
2 22.5 -0.61 0.3721
3 22.6 -0.51 0.2601
4 22.5 -0.61 0.3721
5 22.2 -0.91 0.8281
6 24.7 1.59 2.5281
7 23.5 0.39 0.1521
8 22.5 -0.61 0.3721
9 22.7 -0.41 0.1681
10 22.8 -0.31 0.0961
Treatment Three (Weight)
Mean = 1684.4 Variance = 2740.27 SD = 52.35
Number X X - µ (X - µ)2
1 1680 -4.4 19.36
2 1720 35.6 1267.36
3 1590 -94.4 8911.36
4 1635 -49.4 2440.36
5 1739 54.6 2981.16
6 1680 -4.4 19.36
7 1750 65.6 4303.36
8 1725 40.6 1648.36
9 1630 -54.4 2959.36
10 1695 10.6 112.36
Treatment Three (Length of Breast)
Mean =20.06 Variance =0.31 SD = 0.56
Number X X - µ (X - µ)2
1 19.5 -0.56 0.3136
2 19.6 -0.46 0.2116
3 20 -0.06 0.0036
4 19.8 -0.26 0.676
5 20.8 0.74 0.5476
6 20.5 0.44 0.1936
7 20.6 0.54 0.2916
8 19.5 -0.56 0.3136
9 19.8 -0.26 0.0676
10 20.5 0.44 0.1936
APPENDIX C:Sample Statistical
Computations
Computation of Statistics
ANOVA
Weight
X1 X2 X3
1367 1965 168
1409 1835 1720
1389 1895 1590
1387 1956 1635
1459 1967 1739
1342 1862 1680
1364 1853 1750
1394 1933 1725
1345 1945 1630
1329 1830 1695
Σ = 13785 19041 16844 = 49670 µ = 1378.5 1904.1 1684.4 = 1655.67 σ = 1453.39 3066.54 2740.27
SSTotal = Σx2 – (Σx) 2 SSBetween = (Σx1) 2 + (Σx 2) 2 + (Σx 3) 2 - (Σx) 2 N 10 30 = 83695966 – (49670) 2 = (13785 2 + 19041 2 + 16844 2 ) - (49670) 2 30 10 30 = 83695966 – 82236963.33 = 83630624.2 – 82236963.33
SSTotal = 1459002.67 SSBetween = 1393660.87
SSWithin = SSTotal - SSBetween MSTotal = Σx2 – (Σx) 2 MSWithin = S12 + S 2
2 ...+S a2
= 1459002.67 – 1393660.87 N aSSWithin = 65341.8 N – 1 = (1453.39 2 +3066.54 2 +2740.3 2 )
= 83695966 – 2467108900 3 30 MSWithin = 6341696.579
29 MSTotal = 50310.436
Length of Breast
X1 X2 X3
16.5 25.1 19.5
15.7 22.5 19.6
14.9 22.6 20
15.3 22.5 19.8
16.8 22.2 20.8
14.8 24.7 20.5
15.2 23.5 20.6
15.6 22.5 19.5
14.4 22.7 19.8
16.6 22.8 20.5
Σ = 155.8 231.1 200.6 = 587.5 µ = 15.58 23.11 20.06 = 19.58 σ = 0.445 1272.7 0.31
SSTotal = Σx2 – (Σx) 2 SSBetween = (Σx1) 2 + (Σx 2) 2 + (Σx 3) 2 - (Σx) 2 N 10 30 = 11809.51 – (587.5) 2 = (15.58 2 + 23.11 2 + 20.06 2 ) - (587.5) 2 30 10 30 = 11809.51-11505.20833 = 11792.121-11505.20833SSTotal = 17.389 SSBetween = 286.91267
SSWithin = SSTotal - SSBetween MSTotal = Σx2 – (Σx) 2 MSWithin = S12 + S 2
2 ...+S a2
= 304.30167 – 286.91267 N aSSWithin = 17.389 N – 1 = (0.45 2 +1272.7 2 +0.31 2 )
= 11809.51 – 345156.25 3 30 MSWithin = 539921.8614
29 MSTotal = 10.49316103
Sheffe’s Test
Weight
A = 1378.5 B = 1904.1 C = 1684.4
A vs B A vs C B vs C
F2 = (µA - µB) 2 F2 = (µA - µC) 2 F2 = (µB - µC) 2 WGMS (NA + NB) WGMS (NA + NC) WGMS (NB + NC)
NANB NANC NBNC
= (1378.5 – 1904.1) 2 = (1378.5 – 1684.4) 2 = (1904.1 – 1684.4)2
1006208.8 1006208.8 1006208.8 100 100 100
F2 = 27.46 F2 = 4.80 F2 = 9.30
APPENDIX D:
Plates of Procedures
Plate 1: Gathering of yemane leaves
Plate 2: Cleaning of yemane leaves
Plate 3: Pan drying of the yemane leaves
Plate 4: Crushing the yemane leaves
Plate 5: feeding of yemane feeds
Plate : Measuring the weight of the chicks
Plate : Measuring the height of the chicks
Plate : Measuring the length of breast of the chicks
Plate: measuring the weight of 45 day chicken
Plate : Measuring the height of 45 day chicken