1

CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

Philippine native chicken is the common fowl found in the backyards of

most rural households and has been the main source of meat and eggs for

Filipino farmers (Landes et al., 2004; Chang, 2006; Dusaran & Pabulayan, 2015).

It comprised close to 60% of the total chicken population of the country. DOST-

PCAARRD (2012), emphasize that native chicken has high adaptability on local

agro-climatic condition, hardiness, ability to utilize farm products resistance to

diseases and good breeders and efficient foragers.

However, the business of growing native chicken is simplified by a number

of concerns related to production and marketing. Some of the issues related the

o production of native chicken include breeding and selection, the and

seasonality of feedstuffs (Rañola, 2007). Among the poultry products, above the

base year per capita production levels were noted for chicken (dressed) at 12.81

kilograms and chicken egg at 4.69 kilograms in 2017.

The important role of native chickens in the Philippine economy lies not in

their effect on the gross national income but in serving as a stable and reliable

source of protein food for the rural folks and as direct support for farmer’s

immediate needs (Lambio, 2000). Aside from this, native chickens being

commonly raised in the countryside can adapt, survive and reproduce under

adverse conditions with marginal care and low production inputs.

 2

In breeding indigenous/native breeds of chickens, genetic improvements

are made either through selection and crossbreeding by or employing both

(Padhi, 2016). These improvements through selection may be time-consuming,

but the improvement will be permanent cognizant of the fact that Philippine

chickens are mongrels, very slow growers, requiring 8 to 10 months before

reaching one kilogram in weight, and are poor egg layers (Perez, 2016).

The initial intervention to purify certain breeds of native chicken is seen as

a science and technology solution to improve the production efficiency of native

chicken (DOST-PCAARRD, 2017). The known documented strains of the

Philippine native chickens are Banaba from Batangas, Bolinao from Pangasinan,

Camarines from Bicol, Darag from Iloilo/Panay, and the Paraokan from Palawan.

These native chickens are a mixture of different breeds and are believed to have

descended from the domesticated red jungle fowl (Ulfah et al., 2016).

In the Zamboanga Peninsula, the purified Joloano strain from the

mongrel’s native chicken, locally termed as Zamboanga Peninsula (ZamPen)

native chicken, is seen by the DOST-PCAARRD as a new breed and emerging

as one of the best performing native chickens in the Philippines. In the

preliminary works of Narvaez and Castillo (2017), this new strain showed that the

average weight, percent viability, hen-day and hen-housed egg are higher

compared to other breeding stations with 80% fertility and hatchability, and 90%

survival rate.

Another performance indicator to look into new strains is its feeding

(Rañola, 2007). According to Hussein (2014), feed cost in poultry operation

 3

covers about 70-75% of the total cost of production. Feed costs have a major

impact on the profitability of poultry farm operations. Managing feed formulas for

accuracy is an important step in the poultry farm management to safeguard the

environment, and reduce operating costs (Hamra, 2010). Support beneficial

microflora in the intestine and inhibit the pathogen growth. They support the

immune system in general and increase growth rates in raising a poultry (Cyball,

2021).

The term probiotic is etymologically derived from the Latin preposition pro

(for or in support of) and the Greek word (biotic), which literally means “for life”.

The main postulated health benefits associated with probiotics include improving

the gut microflora balance, stimulating the immune reaction, producing different

antimicrobial substances, modulating the immune response, producing digestive

enzymes, and reducing cholesterol levels (Ramirez et al., 2013; Smug et al.,

2014)

Therefore, it is imperative to the study the influence of natural probiotic as

water supplement on the growth performance of ZamPen native chicken.

 4

Objectives of the study

The general objective of the study was to evaluate the effect and

performance of OHN as natural probiotics of ZamPen native chicken.

Specifically, it aimed to;

1. Determine which levels of OHN perform best on the growth performance

of ZamPen native chicken.

2. Evaluate the feed conversion efficiency and water intake of ZamPen

native chicken; and

3. Calculate the return of investment (ROI) of ZamPen native chicken as

supplemented with OHN.

 5

Conceptual Framework

This figure was drawn to determined what are the variables intervening

the dependent variables of the study.

Growth:
ZamPen T1 - 100% pure water
-Weight
of the
Native
(Control) ZamPen
Chicken
- Average Weekly
T2 - 10% of OHN / 1 liter of
gain
water. -Feed Conversion
Efficiency
T3 - 15% of OHN / 1 liter of
-Weekly Water
water. Intake

T4 – 20% of OHN / 1 liter of

water.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

 6

Statement of the Problem

The study was drawn to assess the levels of natural probiotics on the growth

performance of ZamPen native chicken from birth to 16 weeks. Specifically, this

sought to answer the following questions:

1. What levels of OHN will give the highest weight gain of chicken?

2. What level of OHN gives the highest average daily gain and feed

conversion efficiency?

3. What is the effect of OHN on the water intake of ZamPen native chicken?

4. What treatment that will give the highest economic return of

investment?

Hypothesis

There were no significant differences among the treatments of ZamPen as

supplemented by different levels of natural probiotics.

Significance of the Study

The study was useful for the farmers who want to engage in ZamPen

production. It served as the benchmark for future researchers who want to

explore more about the effect of different levels of Oriental Herbal Nutrient (OHN)

on ZamPen production. This study helps meet the increasing demand of for

ZamPen products (Meat) in the Philippines.

 7

Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study was limited only to the levels of Oriental Herbal Nutrient as a

natural probiotic on the growth performance of ZamPen native chicken. The

study was focused on 84 ZamPen Native chickens that was distributed in 12

pens with 4 treatments. Treatment 1 was control, treatment 2 was 10% of OHN/

1liter of water, while treatment 3 was 15% of OHN / 1 liter of water, lastly

treatment 4 20% of OHN/ 1 liter of water. Specific parameters of growth

performance were among the data gathered.

Definition of Terms

The conceptual and operational definition was intended to provide the

readers better understanding of the important terms that occurred in the study.

Growth. It refers to a positive change in size, and/or maturation, often

over a period of time by supplementing different probiotics.

Oriental Herbal Nutrient (OHN). Oriental Herbal Nutrient (OHN) is used

in natural, also known as organic, farming to restrain the growth of anaerobic

bacteria, which usually thrive without the presence of oxygen that can cause

diseases in plants.

Probiotic. Are live bacteria and yeasts that are good for you, especially

your digestive system. We usually think of these as germs that cause diseases.

But your body is full of bacteria, both good and bad. Probiotics are often called

"good" or "helpful" bacteria because they help keep your gut healthy.
 8

Water Intake. It refers to a daily fluid (Total Water) define as the amount

of water consumed.

ZamPen Native Chicken. Is known for its tender meat, sweet flavour,

ability to grow faster than other native chickens in the Philippines.

Average Weekly Gain (AWG). Can be defined as the average amount of

the weight a market animal will gain each day during the feeding period.

Levels. Measure the applied treatment to the chicken.

 9

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter exhibits works that are related and show relevance to the

subject matter. The researchers gather facts and knowledge through looking into

book articles and internet. Also, by examining and searching for thesis and

dissertations that will lead and bring us information about my research problem.

Native chicken

Native chicken for the rural households are regarded as component of

security assets of the family wherein unexpected financial discomfort can be

attenuated by the cash earned from selling the flock. In this sector, minimal

inputs are required to rear the flock as compared to the capital-intensive

commercial sector (Lizada, et.al, 2013).

According to (Lambio, 2000), that the important role of native chickens in

the Philippine economy lies not on its effect to the gross national income but on

serving as a stable and reliable source of protein food for the rural folks and as a

direct support for their immediate needs. Aside from this, native chickens being

commonly raised in the countryside can adapt, survive and reproduce under

adverse conditions with marginal care and low production inputs.

One of the performance indicators to look into new native strains is

through to reduce operating costs and at the same time, safeguard the

environment. Enriched dried coconut (Cocos nucifera) dregs (EDCD) as feed

 10

substitute for native chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) ZamPen strain diet was

evaluated in terms of its effect in the average gain weight (AGW), average daily

gain in weight (ADG), average feed consumption (AFC), feed conversion

efficiency (FCE), feed cost per sew meat produced, and the return of investment

(ROI). The different levels of EDCD mixed with commercial grower crumble

(CGC) were 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%. Feeds were mixed with water at 1:1 ratio and

administered as wet feeding in two feeding sets. The AGW, ADG, AFC, FCE of

birds fed with substituted ration (10%, 20%, 30%) were statistically comparable

with birds fed with 100% CGC. As the level of substitution increases, the level of

crude protein percentage decreases, thus FCE also decreases. However, as the

level of substitution increases, the AFC also increases. Finally, the ROI of birds

fed with substitution ration were comparable with birds fed with pure CGC. Based

on the result, EDCD can be substituted to as high as 30% since at this level, the

results of all parameters tested was comparable with the control treatment.

(Viliganilao, & Caitum, 2019).

As organic livestock farming is still evolving, some research and

development (R&D) topics in the context of sustainable smallholder livestock

farming in the tropics are suggested for each of the foregoing issues or concerns.

(Orville L Bondoc, 2015). The gut is a fundamental organ system which makes

up two equally important functions, i.e., the digestion and host defence. To elicit

the well-functioning and healthy gut, the dynamic balance of gut ecosystem is of

importance. A wide range of factors related to diets and infectious disease

agents seem to affect this balance, and subsequently affect the health status and
 11

production performance of the chicken. With the ban and/or reduction of the use

of antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) in poultry production, the alternatives to

AGP are needed especially to preserve the balance of gut microbiota in chicken.

This review provides a summary of the potentials and possible mechanisms of

action of some alternatives to AGP (referred as nutraceuticals) in improving the

gut microbial ecosystem and immune system as well as growth performance of

poultry (Sugiharto, 2016). Feed additives are a group of nutrient and non-nutrient

compounds which helps in improving the efficiency of feed utilization and thus

reducing the high cost of feed. Now days, use of herbal feed additives are

gaining importance in poultry production due to ban on use of certain antibiotics

because of their harmful residual effects. Herb is defined as a flowering plant

whose stem above ground does not become woody and a plant when valued for

its medical properties, flavor, scent, or the like (Vinus et al. 2018).

Poultry Industry

A variety of synthetic feed additives including drugs and antibiotics are

used in poultry feeds to maximize the efficiency of production, product quality

and to control diseases (Bedford 2000; Whitehead 2002). Although the modes of

action of antibiotic growth promoters are not fully understood, the main effects

are thought to be mediated via the gut associated bacteria (Gaskins et al. 2002).

The poultry and pig industries are currently moving towards a reduction in

use of synthetic antibiotics due to public concerns regarding development of

antibiotic–resistant bacteria in humans (Barton 1998). In the European Union, the

 12

use of antibiotic growth promoters as feed additives is now restricted. This

restriction, however, has resulted in an increased incidence of enteric disorders

such as necrotic enteritis in poultry. Use of herbal feed additive is gaining

importance in animal production due to ban on use of certain antibiotics, harmful

residual effects and cost effectiveness. Probiotics, prebiotics, enzymes and

highly available minerals as well as herbs can be seen as alternatives. Herbs,

spices and their extracts (botanicals) have a wide range of activities. They can

stimulate feed intake and endogenous secretions or have antimicrobial,

coccidiostatic or anthelmintic activity. A major field of application of herbs is the

protection of animals and their products against oxidation (Suganya, et al. 2016).

Oriental Herbal Nutrient (OHN)

Oriental Herbal Nutrient (OHN) is a fermented extract of herbs used in

Natural Farming to provide plants and soil microorganisms with micro-nutrients,

which may optimize their resilience to environmental stresses (wind, heat,

drought, etc.). OHN is a mixture of edible, aromatic herbs extracted with alcohol

and fermented with brown sugar. It is used to discourage the growth of

anaerobic, potentially pathogenic microbes and encourage beneficial aerobic

microbes in the soil and on plants. Herbs long recognized by many ancient

cultures as having such prebiotic properties include fresh ginger root (Zingiber

officinale), turmeric root (Curcuma longa), garlic cloves (Allium sativum), the bark

of Angelica acutiloba, licorice root (Glycurrhiza uralensis), and cinnamon bark

(Cinnamomum sp.) (Chow 2002, Sarker and Nahar 2004, Castleman. 2010, Naz
 13

et al. 2010, Jayaprakasha and Rao 2011, Maekawa et al. 2013, Ming and Yin

2013, Yadav et al. 2013). These herbs are used in the creation of OHN.

Probiotics are defined as microbial food supplements which beneficially

affect the host animal by improving its intestinal microbial balance. The probiotics

were improved feed conversion for the target species, reduced morbidity or

mortality and benefits for the consumer through improved product quality. In this

study, we found that a combination of probiotics with different mechanisms of

action could amplify the protective range of bio-therapeutic preparations and the

potentiated probiotics are more effective than their components separately.

Bacterial probiotics were effective in chickens, pigs and pre-ruminant calves,

whereas yeasts and fungal probiotics were given better results in adult

ruminants. Probiotics were enhanced the growth of many domestic animals

improved the efficacy of forage digestion and quantity and quality of milk, meat

and egg. Probiotics protected animals against pathogens, enhanced immune

response, reduced antibiotic use and shows high index of safety. The trend for

future could be focus on basic research to identify and characterize existing

probiotics strains, determine optimal doses needed for certain strain and asses

their stability through processing and digestion (Hassan, et al., 2009).

 14

CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The research was conducted in order to determine whether the Oriental

herbal nutrient (OHN) had the potential effect of improving the growth

development of ZamPen Native Chicken and playing a significant role in poultry

production.

Time and Place of the Study

The study was conducted at the Don Jose, Dinas, Zamboanga del Sur,

covering a total period of 4 months.

Materials, Facility and other Equipment’s

The study utilized the following materials and equipment: 84 straight-run

hardened ZamPen native chickens and 12 partitioned rearing pens to house the

experimental stocks Oriental Herbal Nutrient (OHN) was prepared before the

study started. A digital weighing scale was used to determine the weight of the

chickens. Waterers and feeding troughs were provided in each pen for the water

and feed supply. Nipa, lumber, bamboo and net, and other materials was used in

constructing the house of the native chicken.

 15

Experimental Design and Treatments

The study was laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD)

with four (4) treatments, and three (3) replications. Eighty-four (84) heads of birds

were randomly distributed to twelve (12) pens with seven (7) per pen. The

varying treatments were as follows:

Treatment 1 - 100% Pure Water (Control)

Treatment 2 - 10% of Oriental Herbal Nutrient (OHN) / 1 L of water

Treatment 3 - 15% of Oriental Herbal Nutrient (OHN) / 1 L of water

Treatment 4 - 20% of Oriental Herbal Nutrient (OHN) / 1 L of water

Construction of Cages

A 2m x 3m housing was made of local materials such as bamboo, nipa,

and round timber. The birds were allowed to range during daytime with an area

of 1m2/bird as recommended by the Philippine National Standard for Free Range

chicken and keep them inside the house at night. Each block was divided into

four pens with seven birds in each pen. Before the arrival of the birds, the cage,

drinking feeding trough and all other equipment used in the study were clean and

disinfected thoroughly. Twenty-five (25) - watts bulbs were provided in a coop as

the source of heat and light. During the brooding period, all treatments are

provided with a 25 watts bulb for 24 hours for proper temperature.

 16

Experimental Design and Layout of the Study

The layout of the experimental pens follows the layout and the design of

the housing experiment. There were three pens each pen will consist of four

cages a total of 12 randomly distributed to the different treatments. The treatment

was arranged in a Randomized Complete Block Design. Based on the condition,

the lay-out of the experiment with corresponding random assignment of

treatments was done as follows;

REPLICATION 1 T1 T2 T3 T4

REPLICATION 2
T4 T3 T1 T2

REPLICATION 3

Figure 2. Experimental Layout of the Study

 17

Procurement of ZamPen Native Chicken

Eighty-four (84) heads of ZamPen Native Chicken were purchased from a

reliable source within the municipality of Dumingag, Dapiwak (JHCSC ZamPen

Project), Zamboanga del Sur. Before the arrival of the chicks, brooding facilities

were prepared. Upon the arrival of the chicks, they had been given pure water to

prevent dehydration due to travel stress and were given a small number of feeds.

Brooding Management

The brooder was set up before the arrival of the chicks. It was thoroughly

cleaned and disinfected to prevent pests and diseases. The brooders have

enough lights to provide proper temperature of the chicks to avoid mortality.

 18

Preparation in Making Oriental Herbal Nutrient (OHN)

This diagram had shown the process of making Oriental herbal Nutrient as

water supplement for ZamPen Native Chickens.

Step 1: Skin the garlic and ginger (or any combination of herbs of your

choice) and cut garlic cloves in half and slice ginger into quarter of

an inch.

Step 2: Mix the sliced herbs with 1 litre of molasses. Cover the mixture

tightly and seal the container with masking tape.

Step 3: Label the mixture with the name and the date of fermentation, then

leave it for 3-5 days. After the first stage of fermentation, open the

cover then add 2.2 liters of pure coconut vinegar.

Step 4: Cover the mixture again and seal it with masking tape, leave it for

10 days. After 10 days, extract the liquid to another container.

Label it first extraction. This is the only time you can use the

mixture as feed for animals.

Step 5: After the first extraction, add 200 grams of chilli and 100 grams of

panyawan, leave it for 10 days. After 10 days, proceed to the

second extraction.
 19

Distribution and Recognition of ZamPen native chicken

The birds were distributed in every area and checked to make them free

from the diseases; after one month of brooding, the chicks were distributed to

their thriving pens. There were seven birds in each pen and individually tagged or

identified. Leg bands were prepared in each treatment with different colors for

proper identification. Color black leg band was for the control group, the color

blue was for the treatment 2, color yellow was used for the treatment 3, and

treatment 4 have a red color band.

Feeding, Care and Management

Before feeding waterers and feeders were cleaned to avoid contaminants

and other foreign organisms that may cause diseases to the birds. Feed must be

available at all times to the chicken. The chicken cages were constructed

properly to prevent the entry of a stray animals and pests that had the potential to

attack chickens. Each cage was implemented daily water in morning and

afternoon to maintain the moisture content and to obtain environmental

conditions. It was provided with clean waterers and feeders. Lastly, the proper

sanitation and cleanliness of cages and the surroundings was also maintained to

prevent possible disease incidence.

Oriental Herbal Nutrient (OHN) Administration

After 1 month of brooding the chicken, it was distributed to the different

cages. A 1 liter of water with different levels of Oriental Herbal Nutrient (OHN)
 20

had been given. On the next morning the remaining diluted water had been

measured from each waterer to get the water intake per treatment and be

replaced with another one litter consumable for another day. Process had been

repeated daily until the study completed.

Data Gathered

1. Weekly weight gain (g) of the ZamPen – This was determined by weighing

the ZamPen before rearing an at one (1), two (2), three (3), four (4) weeks

after introducing it to its individual cages.

2. Average Weekly Weight (g) Gain of ZamPen Native Chicken – This was

determined by subtracting the present weight by previous weight of the

chickens per week.

AWG = Finish weight-Start weight

Age (days)

3. Average Weekly Feed Conversion Ratio – This was determined by

dividing the weight gain over the amount of feed consumed for the

particular week, as presented by the formula below as:

Feed Intake
Final Weight – Initial Weight

4. Weekly water intake with Oriental Herbal Nutrient –This was determined

by measuring the remaining water, left in the waterer every morning. Data

was summarized in weekly bases.

 21

5. Economic Return of Investment – The cost of producing ZamPen

supplement with varying levels of oriental herbal nutrient was recorded.

Net income and return on investment was used this formula:

Net Income = Total Sales-Total Expenses

Net Income
ROI = x 100
Total Expenses

Statistical Analysis

The data gathered were subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in

Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). Significant differences between

the four treatments was further determined through Turkey’s test.

 22

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Observations

Care and management practices were implemented during the whole

duration of the experimental period. Weekly observations were noted from the

onset until the offset of the study. Before supplementing, the initial weight was

taken in every chicken for the growing stage. There were 84 heads of chickens

purchased from Municipality of Dumingag, Dapiwak (JHCSC ZamPen Project),

Zamboanga del Sur.

As observed, on the first week of giving supplement to the chicken, it was

noticed that there were leftovers of Oriental herbal nutrients on the waterers.

Moreover after 2 weeks of supplementing, still selective drinking was often

observed especially those chicken in treatment 4 (20% L) while the chicken in

Treatment 2 (10% L) and Treatment 3 (15% L) were slowly adopted the

formulated levels of Oriental Herbal Nutrient.

Every week there were an increase of feed consumption. Weekly weighing

was done and it shows that every chicken gained weight in every week. This was

because as the chicken grows older, the weight increases and the body

requirements for maintenance also increase. Water were given to chicken,

sometimes chicken does not consume all their water supplement in their waterer

because of environmental factors experienced. These include the bad weather

condition associated with thunder and strong winds.

 23

Average weekly weight gain

Table 1 shows the average weekly weight gain of ZamPen Native

Chicken (ZNC) applied with different levels of oriental herbal nutrient (OHN) as a

water supplement. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences among

treatments in the first week to eight weeks. The computed f- value was less than

5% of the f- critical value level of significance. Treatment 2 (10% of OHN/ 1L of

water) got the highest result on the growth performance of ZNC with total mean

of 83.7 grams, while treatment 1 and treatment 3 obtained a total mean of 77.7

and 71.3 grams respectively, treatment 4 obtained the lowest total mean of 70.8.

Moreover, the result indicated that the four treatments were significantly the

same and the null hypothesis is accepted.

According to Philip, et al 2016 that the addition of 15ml OHN in the

drinking water of colored broilers resulted to better gain in weight and FCR

comparable to those given VMAP without affecting the feed and water intake of

the birds.

Table 1. Weekly Weight Gain of ZamPen Native Chicken

Week (g) Grand
Treatments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean
T1 (Control) 62.3 115.0 106.0 91.0 75.3 66.7 44.3 69.7 77.7
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 50.7 100.3 103.3 78.0 85.3 87.7 76.7 78.7 83.7
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 58.0 56.0 111.9 49.1 71.7 93.0 70.3 85.3 71.3
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 71.7 94.3 69.7 50.0 105.3 57.0 47.0 69.7 70.8
F-test ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
CV (%) 35.41 30.48 40.32 32.66 24.94 26.61 41.51 26.24 7.56

Average weekly feed conversion

 24

Table 2 presents the average total feed consumption of ZNC

supplemented by the varying levels of oriental herbal nutrients (OHN). Statistical

analysis revealed no significant difference among treatments. As observed in

Table 2 showed that the, Treatment 1 (control), Treatment 2 (10%of OHN),

Treatment 3 (15% of OHN), and Treatment 4 (20% of OHN) in 1 Liter of water

show the same results in the average weekly weight gain of ZamPen native

chicken. This is in accordance with the study of Landuay et al (2020) that there

was no significant different effect on the weight gain of broiler chicken as

supplemented with OHN as a bio organic supplement.

Table 2. Weekly Feed Conversion Efficiency (FCE) of ZamPen Native Chicken

Week Grand
Treatments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean
T1 (Control) 46.2 28.0 35.2 36.9 46.3 62.9 92.0 61.9 409.4
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 45.0 36.1 40.9 43.2 41.4 39.9 52.0 50.3 408.3
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 48.9 46.9 28.5 73.8 49.1 38.0 62.0 44.8 392.1
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 40.3 33.6 46.4 76.7 34.4 63.1 78.8 55.3 428.5
F-test ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
CV (%) 21.6 21.66 50.88 51.56 23 33.47 34.68 32.12 10.05

Weekly water intake of ZamPen native chicken

 25

Table 3 shows the weekly water intake (L) of ZamPen native chicken

applied with different levels of OHN as a water supplement. It was found out that

from the first week until eight weeks, statistical analysis revealed that only the

second week showed a significant difference with a coefficient variation of

10.41%. However, the rest of the week shown no significant differences among

Treatments.

In contrast to study of Philip R. et al. 2016 that 15 ml OHN as additive in

the drinking water for colored broilers can be used as alternative to VMAP.

Table 3. Weekly Water Intake (L) of ZamPen Native Chicken

Week Grand
Treatments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean
T1 (Control) 6.0 6.3a 6.3 6.5 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.0 53.1
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 6.3 6.8a 6.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 53.1
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 6.6 6.5a 6.2 6.8 6.7 7.0 7.0 6.9 53.4
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 4.6 4.5b 4.9 5.5 5.9 6.0 5.6 5.0 45.9
F-test ns ** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
CV (%) 18.3 10.41 15.12 15.23 10.04 6.29 9.08 13.85 12.26

Return of Investment
 26

The return of investment (ROI) of the ZamPen Native Chicken

supplemented with varying levels of Oriental Herbal Nutrients was presented in

figure 1. Treatment 1 had the highest return of investment with 92%, followed by

Treatment 3 with 86% and Treatment 2 with 76%, while Treatment 4 had the

lowest return of 73%. The result implies that the supplementing of different levels

of OHN had no impact on the investment as such lowest profits were attained.

Therefore, to observe the trend of the results no one from the rest of the

treatments used in this particular study could replace pure tap water.

Philip R. et al (2016) stated that the same level of OHN also resulted to

less cost per kilogram gain. Based on the prevailing prices of raw materials and

labor cost during the conduct of the study, OHN costs Php 183.20 per liter.

Based on the average water intake of the birds, cost of OHN incurred from birds

given15ml, 30ml and 45ml OHN was Php 22.41, Php4 4.90, and Php 67.14 per

bird, respectively.

100%
90%
92%
80% 86%
70% 76% 73%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
T1 T2 T3 T4

Figure 3. Return and Investment of the study

CHAPTER 5
 27

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The study was conducted at Don Jose, Dinas Zamboanga del Sur from

November 01, 2021 to February 23, 2022. It aimed to determine the significant

effect of supplementing Oriental Herbal Nutrient (OHN) on the growth

performance of ZamPen Native Chicken. It also aimed to assess which levels of

OHN show a higher effect on the growth performance of ZamPen native chicken

and to determine if there was a significant difference among the levels of OHN.

Eighty -four 84 heads of ZamPen native chicken were randomly distributed to 12

cages with (7) birds per cage in four treatments laid out in Randomized Complete

Block Design (RCBD). The experimental layout per cage was thoroughly

prepared with 3 replications. The cage’s size was (2m x 3m). The treatments

were as follows: Treatment 1 (pure water/control), Treatment 2 (10% of oriental

herbal nutrient per 1 liter of water), Treatment 3 (15% of oriental herbal nutrient

per 1 liter of water) and Treatment 4 (20% of oriental herbal nutrient per 1 liter of

water) were added in every treatment as water supplement for ZamPen native

chicken. The data revealed that supplementing levels of (0%, 10%, 15%, and

20%) show no significant result in terms of weight performance and feed

conversion efficiency but in weekly water intake of the chicken, it was found that

starting the from first until eight weeks of the study, statistical analysis revealed

that only the second week showed significant differences among treatments.
 28

At first sampling, 7 days after of experimentation, was observed the most

vigorous drinker was the treatment 2 which was supplemented with 10% of

oriental herbal nutrient (OHN) as water supplement.

After 14 days of experimentation, it was noted that the different percent of

OHN as a water supplement show different results particularly in the weekly

increase in the weight of the chicken in fact there was a remarkable increase in

their weight as they grow older.

It was also observed after 42 days of experimentation due to

environmental factors. There were some in the treatment that the chicken

become slower to drink. If the temperature is very high, they consume more

water mixed with OHN.

As observed the trend of the results from the start until the end of the

study is similar. That no one from the rest of the treatments used in this particular

study could replace the pure tap water.

Findings

The following were the finding of the study base on the problem prescribe.

1. The effect of adding Oriental Herbal Nutrient as water supplement was

found out that Treatment 2 (10% of OHN/ 1L of water) got the highest

result on the growth performance of ZamPen native chicken but not

significantly different among the four treatments.

 29

2. The average total feed consumption of ZamPen native chicken

supplemented by varying levels of OHN statistically, no significant

difference among treatments.

3. The result of weekly water intake was found out that starting from first

week until eight weeks statistical analysis revealed that only second week

showed a significant difference with coefficient variation of 10.41%.

Therefore, none from OHN mixed with 1 L of water can replaced the

efficacy of pure water in terms of the weight of the chicken.

Conclusions

Based on the result, the researchers concluded that:

1. The growth performance of ZamPen native chicken as affected by Oriental

Herbal Nutrient as water supplement showed no significant differences.

ZNC which was given pure water as the control of the study has certified a

better result of increased weight gain in the chicken.

2. There was a significant difference after 2 weeks of gathering data on the

weekly water intake with a coefficient variation of 10.41% but the rest of

the weeks showed no significant difference among treatments. Therefore,

the researchers have concluded that OHN did not have efficacy on the

growth performance of ZamPen native chicken.

3. The result implies that the supplementing of different levels of OHN had no

impact on the investment as such lowest profit were attained.

 30

Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, the following were hereby

recommended.

1. The big scale chicken raiser, using pure water was recommended

due to its effect in terms of the weekly gain in weight of the

ZamPen.

2. Proper management should be observed properly to have

successful poultry farming.

 31

REFERENCES

Abuel-Ang, P. 2005. Philippines: Poultry and Products. Annual 2005. GAIN

Report Number RP5033. FAS, USDA. 146130789.pdf.>Agrifood Consulting
International. 2006. “FAO Poultry <Http://fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200509/.

Alloui, M.N., Szczurek, W., & Swiatkiewicz, S., 2013. The Usefulness of
Prebiotics and Probiotics in Modern Poultry Nutrition: A Review/Przydatnosc
prebiotykow i probiotykow w nowoczesnym zywieniu drobiu-przeglad.
Annals of Animal Science 13 (1), 17.
Bejar, F.R., 2011 Respondents’ Preferences and Profitability of the Native and
Upgraded Chickens in Samar, Philippines. Department of Agriculture and
Related Programs,Northwest Samar State UniversitySan Jorge, Samar,
Philippines bejar_43@yahoo.com
Bondoc O.L., 2015.Organic Livestock Farming and Breeding toward Food
Security of Smallholder Farmers in the Tropics.Southeast Asian Regional
Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture.

Chang, H.S.C 2007. Analysis of the Philippine chicken industry:

Commercial versus backyard sectors. Asian Journal of Agriculture and
Development 4 (1362-2016-107660), 41-56.

Chang, K.S.C., McGinn, J.M, Weinert, Jr. E., Miller, S.A., Ikeda, D.M. & DuPonte,
M.W., 2014. Natural Farming: Oriental Herbal Nutrient.College of Tropical
Agriculture and Human Resources, Cooperative Extension Service, Hilo, HI.

Farrell, D.2010. The role of poultry in human nutrition. School of Land, Crops
and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia 4072,
Queensland, Australia.

Dalal, V.R., Sheoran, N., Maan N.S. & Tewatia, B.S., 2018. Potential benefits of
herbal supplements in poultry fee. The Pharma Innovation Journal 7 (6),
651-6.
Dusaran,R.N., & Pabulayan R.A.V., 2012. Production practices of the native
chicken growers in Western Visayas. Central Philippine.

Hamra C.F., 2010. An Assessment of the Potential Profitability of Poultry Farms:

A Broiler Farm Feasibility Case Study.

Landuay, R. D., Olaybar, B. B., Ramada, J. M., & Soriano, M. L., 2020. Feed
intake, growth and breast fillet sensory analysis of broiler chickens given
drinking water with bio-organic supplements. Animal Biology & Animal
Husbandry, 12(1), 9-19.
 32

Livestock Research Division, 2016. Enhancing the potentials of the Philippine

Native Chicken through S&T. DOST-PCAARRD S&T Media Service.

Omar, J. A., Hejazi, A., & Badran, R., 2016. Performance of broilers
supplemented with natural herb extract. Open Journal of Animal
Sciences, 6(1), 68-74.

Padhi, M.K. & Hanssen, S.A., 2016. Importance of Indigenous Breeds of

Chicken for Rural Economy and Their Improvements for Higher Production
Performance. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2604685.

Philip, R. (2016). Growth Performance of Colored Broiler Given Different Levels

of Oriental Herbal Nutrients (OHN) (Doctoral dissertation).

Rañola, R.F. Jr., Lambio, A., 2007. Philippines Univ. Los Baños, College, Laguna
(Philippines). Prospect for raising native chicken in the Philippines.

Sobayo, R.A., Okonkwo, I.J., Sanwo,K.A., Muhammad, S.B Oso, O.A.,

Eruvbetine, D., & Oguntona, E.B., 2018. Effect of natural plant; guinea hen
weed (Petiveria alliacea) parts on growth and carcass indices of finishing
broiler chickens.Nigeria Agricultural Journal 49 (2), 152-160.

Sugiharto, S., 2016. Role of nutraceuticals in gut health and growth.

performance of poultry. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural
Sciences, 15 (2),99-111.

Suganya, T., Senthilkumar, S., Deepa, K., Muralidharan, J., Gomathi, G., &
Gobiraju, S. ,2016. Herbal feed additives in poultry. Int. J. Sci. Environ.
Technol 5 (3), 1137-45.

Tumampos, S., 2018. Zamboanga Peninsula native chicken gives new source of
livelihood.

Viliganilao, B.J.R. & Caitum, J.P.L. 2019. Utilization of enhanced dried coconut
dregs (EDCD) as feed substitute for ZamPen native chicken (Gallus gallus
domesticus) strain diet. Ciencia, 38, 86-96. [Available online:
www.wmsu.edu.ph/research_journal].

Wenk, C., 2003. Herbs and botanicals as feed additive in monogastric animals.
Asian-Australas J. Anim. Sci., 16: 282289.
 33

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
 34

TABLES

Table 1. Actual weight (kg) of ZamPen native chicken after one week as
supplemented with varying levels of Oriental Herbal Nutrients

Week 1
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 56 78 53 187 62.33
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 12 68 72 152 50.67
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 64 61 49 174 58.00
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 78 55 82 215 71.67
Rep total 210 262 256
Grand Total 728
Grand Mean 242.67

Table 1a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
202.3
Replication 2 404.67 0.44 5.14 10.92
3
230.8
Treatment 3 692.67 0.5ns 4.76 9.75
9
461.5
Error 6 2769.3
6
Total 11 3866.7
CV = 35.41%
 35

Table 2. Actual weight (kg) of ZamPen native chicken after two weeks as
supplemented with varying levels of Oriental Herbal Nutrients

Week 2
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 73 121 151 345 115.0
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 127 94 80 301 100.3
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 51 58 59 168 56.0
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 83 117 83 283 94.3
Rep total 334 390 373
Grand Total 1097
Grand Mean 365.67

Table 2a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 412.1667 206.0833 0.27 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 5695.5833 1898.5278 2.45ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 4457.1667 776.1944
Total 11 10764.9167
CV = 30.48%
 36

Table 3. Actual weight (kg) of ZamPen native chicken after three weeks as
supplemented with varying levels of Oriental Herbal Nutrients

Week 3
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 178 73 67 318.00 106.000
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 143 40 127 310.00 103.333
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 141 89 105.6 335.60 111.867
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 50 81 78 209.00 69.667
Rep total 334 390 373
Grand Total 1097
Grand Mean 365.67

Table 2a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 6621.1267 3310.5633 2.13 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 3261.5567 1087.1856 0.7ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 9313.1133 1552.1856
Total 11 19195.7967
CV = 40.32%
 37

Table 4. Actual weight (kg) of ZamPen native chicken after four week as
supplemented with varying levels of Oriental Herbal Nutrients

Week 4
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 98 108 67 273.00 91.00
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 97 79 58 234.00 78.00
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 46 71 30.4 147.40 49.13
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 53 26 71 150.00 50.00
Rep total 294.00 284.00 226.40
Grand Total 804.40
Grand Mean 268.13

Table 4a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 665.6267 332.8133 0.69 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 3915.64 1305.2133 2.72ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 2875.28 479.2133
Total 11 7456.5467
CV = 32.66%
 38

Table 5. Actual weight (kg) of ZamPen native chicken after five week as
supplemented with varying levels of Oriental Herbal Nutrients

Week 5
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 64 97 65 226.00 75.33
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 61 95 100 256.00 85.33
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 55 93 67 215.00 71.66
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 127 120 69 316.00 105.33
Rep total 307 405 301
Grand Total 1013.00
Grand Mean 337.66

Table 5a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 1704.6667 852.3333 1.92 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 2050.25 683.4167 1.54ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 2660 443.3333
Total 11 6414.9167
CV = 24.94%
 39

Table 6. Actual weight (kg) of ZamPen native chicken after six week as
supplemented with varying levels of Oriental Herbal Nutrients

Week 6
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 36 61 103 200.00 66.67
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 87 89 87 263.00 87.67
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 106 87 86 279.00 93.00
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 47 70 54 171.00 57.00
Rep total 276 307 330
Grand Total 913.00
Grand Mean 304.33

Table 6a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 367.1667 183.5833 0.45 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 2619.5833 873.1944 0.45ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 2460.1667 873.1944
Total 11 5446.9167
CV =26.61%
 40

Table 7. Actual weight (kg) of ZamPen native chicken after seven week as
supplemented with varying levels of Oriental Herbal Nutrients

Week 7
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 54 26 53 133.00 44.33
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 105 50 75 230.00 76.67
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 46 48 117 211.00 70.33
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 39 53 49 141.00 47.00
Rep total 244 177 294
Grand Total 715.00
Grand Mean 238.33

Table 7a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 1723.1667 861.5833 1.41 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 2394.9167 798.3056 1.3ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 3670.8333 611.8056
Total 11 7788.9167
CV =41.51%
 41

Table 8. Actual weight (kg) of ZamPen native chicken after seven weeks as
supplemented with varying levels of Oriental Herbal Nutrients

Week 8
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 40 73 96 209 69.67
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 73 102 61 236 78.67
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 77 80 99 256 85.33
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 74 78 57 209 69.67
Rep total 264 333 313
Grand Total 910
Grand Mean 303.33

Table 8a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 630.167 315.0833 0.8 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 523 174.3333 0.44ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 2376.5 396.0833
Total 11 3529.67
CV =26.24%
 42

Table 9. Actual weight (kg) of ZamPen native chicken after seven weeks as
supplemented with varying levels of Oriental Herbal Nutrients

Grand mean
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 599 637 504 1740 580.0
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 705 617 660 1982 660.7
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 586 587 613 1786 595.3
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 551 530 543 1624 541.3
Rep total 2441 2371 2320
Grand Total 7132
Grand Mean 2377.33

Table 9a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 1845.1667 922.5833 0.46 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 22246.6667 7415.5556 3.68ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 12106.8333 2017.8056
Total 11 36198.6667
CV =7.56%
 43

Table 10. Feed conversion efficiency within the first week on the different
quantities of feeds to the growth performance of ZamPen native
chicken
Week 1
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 50.0 35.9 52.8 138.728 46.2
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 233.3 41.2 38.9 313.399 104.5
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 43.8 45.9 57.1 146.794 48.9
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 35.9 50.9 34.1 120.953 40.3
Rep total 362.981 173.885 183.008
Grand Total 719.874
Grand Mean 239.958

Table 10a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 5689.6517 33368.2767 0.87 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 8032.0967 2677.3656 0.82ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 19646.5283 3274.4214
Total 11
33368.2767
CV = 95.40%
 44

Table 11. Feed conversion efficiency within the second week on the different
quantities of feeds to the growth performance of ZamPen native
chicken.
Week 2
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 40.3 24.3 19.5 84.042 28.0
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 40.3 31.3 36.8 108.301 36.1
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 40.3 50.7 49.8 140.794 46.9
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 40.3 25.1 35.4 100.824 33.6
Rep total 161.096 131.392 141.472
Grand Total 433.960
Grand Mean 144.653

Table 11a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 79.085 39.5425 0.66 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 1169.3492 389.7831 6.49ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 360.3483 60.0581
Total 11
1608.7825
CV =21.66%
 45

Table 12. Feed conversion efficiency within the third week on the different
quantities of feeds to the growth performance of ZamPen native
chicken.
Week 3
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 17.3 42.2 46.0 105.465 35.2
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 21.5 77.0 24.3 122.790 40.9
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 21.8 34.6 29.2 85.617 28.5
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 61.6 38.0 39.5 139.112 46.4
Rep total 122.286 191.823 138.876
Grand Total 433.960
Grand Mean 144.653

Table 12a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 659.52 329.76 0.89 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 528.0033 176.0011 0.48ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 2213.4467 368.9078
Total 11
3400.97
CV = 50.88%
 46

Table 13. Feed conversion efficiency within the fourth week on the different
quantities of feeds to the growth performance of ZamPen native
chicken.

Week 4
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 32.9 29.8 48.1 110.732 36.9
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 33.2 40.8 55.5 129.473 43.2
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 70.0 45.4 105.9 221.273 73.8
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 60.8 123.8 45.4 229.953 76.7
Rep total 196.808 239.773 254.850
Grand Total 691.430
Grand Mean 230.477

Table 13a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 452.7017 226.3508 0.26 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 3780.98 1260.3267 1.43ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 5298.505 883.0842
Total 11
9532.1867
CV = 51.56 %
 47

Table 14. Feed conversion efficiency within the fifth week on the different
quantities of feeds to the growth performance of ZamPen native
chicken.

Week 5
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 52.5 34.6 51.7 138.831 46.3
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 55.1 35.4 33.6 124.050 41.4
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 61.1 36.1 50.1 147.369 49.1
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 26.5 28.0 48.7 103.152 34.4
Rep total 195.130 134.137 184.137
Grand Total 513.403
Grand Mean 171.134

Table 14a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 529.7017 264.8508 2.73 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 372.9633 124.3211 1.28ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 581.1717 96.8619
Total 11
1483.8367
CV = 23.00%
 48

Table 15. Feed conversion efficiency within the sixth week on the different
quantities of feeds to the growth performance of ZamPen native
chicken.

Week 6
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 97.2 57.4 34.0 188.580 62.9
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 40.2 39.3 40.2 119.786 39.9
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 33.0 40.2 40.7 113.946 38.0
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 74.5 50.0 64.8 189.283 63.1
Rep total 244.939 186.933 179.723
Grand Total 611.595
Grand Mean 203.865

Table 15a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 638.9067 319.4533 1.1 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 1740.8958 580.2986 2ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 1745.1667 290.8611
Total 11
4124.9692
CV = 33.47 %
 49

Table 16. Feed conversion efficiency within the seventh week on the different
quantities of feeds to the growth performance of ZamPen native
chicken.

Week 7
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 67.4 140.0 68.7 276.087 92.0
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 34.7 72.8 48.5 156.000 52.0
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 79.1 75.8 31.1 186.075 62.0
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 93.3 68.7 74.3 236.298 78.8
Rep total 274.538 357.313 222.609
Grand Total 854.460
Grand Mean 284.820

Table 16a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 2307.795 1153.8975 1.89 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 2833.6867 944.5622 1.55ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 3658.5983 609.7664
Total 11
8800.08
CV = 34.68%
 50

Table 17. Feed conversion efficiency within the eighth week on the different
quantities of feeds to the growth performance of ZamPen native
chicken.

Week 8
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 94.5 51.8 39.4 185.656 61.9
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 51.8 37.1 62.0 150.807 50.3
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 49.1 47.3 38.2 134.523 44.8
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 51.1 48.5 66.3 165.858 55.3
Rep total 246.453 184.551 205.840
Grand Total 636.844
Grand Mean 212.281

Table17a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 493.0867 246.5433 0.85 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 473.7225 157.9075 0.54ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 1744.48 290.7467
Total 11
2711.2892
CV = 32.12%
 51

Table 18. Feed conversion efficiency within the eighth week on the different
quantities of feeds to the growth performance of ZamPen native
chicken

Grand mean
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 452.1 416 360.2 1228.3 409.4
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 510.1 374.9 339.8 1224.8 408.3
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 398.2 376 402.1 1176.3 392.1
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 444 433 408.5 1285.5 428.5
1804.40
Rep total
0 1599.900 1510.600
Grand Total 4914.900
Grand Mean 1638.300

Table 18a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 11342.765 5671.3825 3.35 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 1995.7892 665.2631 0.39ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 10172.6883 1695.4481
Total 11
23511.2425
CV =10.05 %
 52

Table 19. Water intake of different levels of oriental herbal nutrient on the growth
performance of ZamPen native chicken

Week 1
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 6.3 4.6 7 17.9 6.0
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 6.3 7 5.7 19.0 6.3
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 7 5.7 7 19.7 6.6
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 3.7 3.6 6.5 13.8 4.6
Rep total 23.300 20.900 26.200
Grand Total 70.400
Grand Mean 212.281

Table 19a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 3.5217 1.7608 1.53 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 6.9667 2.3222 2.01ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 6.9183 1.1531
Total 11
17.4067
CV =18.30%
 42

Table 20. Water intake of different levels of oriental herbal nutrient on the growth
performance of ZamPen native chicken.

Week 2
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 6.7 5.3 7 19.0 6.3
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 7 7 6.3 20.3 6.8
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 7 5.5 7 19.5 6.5
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 4.4 4.6 4.6 13.6 4.5
Rep total 25.100 22.400 24.900
Grand Total 72.400
Grand Mean 24.133

Table 20a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 1.1317 0.5658 1.43 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 9.2867 3.0956 7.84* 4.76 9.75
Error 6 2.3683 0.3947
Total 11
12.7867
CV =10.41%
 43

Table 21. Water intake of different levels of oriental herbal nutrient on the growth
performance of ZamPen native chicken

Week 3
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 7 4.9 7 18.9 6.3
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 6.9 7 6.5 20.4 6.8
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 7 4.5 7 18.5 6.2
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 5.1 5.2 4.4 14.7 4.9
Rep total 26.000 21.600 24.900
Grand Total 72.500
Grand Mean 24.167

Table 21a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 2.6217 1.3108 1.57 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 5.8825 1.9608 2.35ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 5.005 0.8342
Total 11
13.5092
CV =15.12%
 44

Table 22. Water intake of different levels of oriental herbal nutrient on the growth
performance of ZamPen native chicken.

Week 4
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 7 5.6 7 19.6 6.5
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 7 7 7 21.0 7.0
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 7 6.4 7 20.4 6.8
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 5.4 7 4 16.4 5.5
Rep total 26.400 26.000 25.000
Grand Total 77.400
Grand Mean 24.167

Table 22a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 0.26 0.13 0.13 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 4.1967 1.3989 1.45ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 5.7933 0.9656
Total 11
10.25
CV =15.23%

Table 23. Water intake of different levels of oriental herbal nutrient on the growth
 45

performance of ZamPen native chicken.

Week 5
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 7 6.8 7 20.8 6.9
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 7 7 6.9 20.9 7.0
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 7 6.1 7 20.1 6.7
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 4.9 7 5.8 17.7 5.9
Rep total 25.900 26.900 26.700
Grand Total 79.500
Grand Mean 26.500

Table 23a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 0.14 0.07 0.16 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 2.2292 0.7431 1.68ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 2.6533 0.4422
Total 11
5.0225
CV =10.04%
 46

Table 24. Water intake of different levels of oriental herbal nutrient on the growth
performance of ZamPen native chicken

Week 6
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 7 7 7 21.0 7.0
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 7 7 7 21.0 7.0
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 7 7 7 21.0 7.0
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 5.4 7 5.7 18.1 6.0
Rep total 26.400 28.000 26.700
Grand Total 81.100
Grand Mean 27.033

Table 24a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 0.3617 0.1808 1 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 2.1025 0.7008 3.88ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 1.085 0.1808
Total 11
3.5492
CV =6.29%

Table 25. Water intake of different levels of oriental herbal nutrient on the growth
performance of ZamPen native chicken.
 47

Week 7
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
T1 (Control) 7 7 7 21.0 7.0
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 7 7 7 21.0 7.0
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 7 7 7 21.0 7.0
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 4.7 7 5.2 16.9 5.6
Rep total 25.700 28.000 26.200
Grand Total 79.900
Grand Mean 26.633

Table 25a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 0.7317 0.3658 1 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 4.2025 1.4008 3.83ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 2.195 0.3658
Total 11
7.1292
CV =9.08%

Table 26. Water intake of different levels of oriental herbal nutrient on the growth
performance of ZamPen native chicken

Week 8
 48

TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean

T1 (Control) 7 7 7 21.0 7.0
T2 (OHN 5%/L) 7 7 7 21.0 7.0
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 7 6.6 7 20.6 6.9
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 4 7 4.1 15.1 5.0
Rep total 25.000 27.600 25.100
Grand Total 77.700
Grand Mean 25.900

Table 26a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 1.085 14.2625 0.67 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 8.3492 2.7831 3.46ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 4.8283 0.8047
Total 11
14.2625
CV =13.85%

Table 27. Water intake of different levels of oriental herbal nutrient on the growth
performance of ZamPen native chicken

Grand mean
TREATMENTS I II III Total Mean
 49

T1 (Control) 55 48.2 56 159 53.1

T2 (OHN 5%/L) 55.2 56 53.4 165 54.9
T3 (OHN 10%/L) 56 48.8 56 161 53.6
T4 (OHN 20%/L) 33.6 48.4 40.3 122 40.8
Rep total 199.800 201.400 205.700
Grand Total 606.900
Grand Mean 202.300

Table 27a. Summary table for analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Tabulated-F
SV DF SS MS F-value
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 134.007 67.0033 1.69 5.14 10.92
Treatment 3 118.997 39.6656 1ns 4.76 9.75
Error 6 237.993 39.6656
Total 11 490.997
CV =12.26%

Table 28. The return of investment on this study

No. of
Gross
chickens Kilos per Total ROI
TREATMENTS income (200
per chicken Expenses percentage
per kilo)
Treatment
 50

18
T1 27 kls. 5,400 5,808.00 92%
Chickens
19
T2 23 kls. 4,600 6,020 76%
Chickens
19
T3 26 kls. 5,200 6,020 86%
Chickens
16
T4 22 kls. 4,400 6,020 73%
Chickens
Rep. total 19,600

Table 29. All expenses

Cost and return analysis
Income Quantity Amount Total amount
Sale of the chicken 82 200/ kilo 19,600
Purchase chicken 90 80 / head 7,200
 51

(Day old)
Feeds 334 kls. 33 per kilo 11,022
Vitamins:
Vetracine Gold 24 pcs. 24 each 576
Dextrose Powder 3 pcs. 90 each 270
B1B1 1 pc 260 each 260
Lasota 1 pc 230 each 230
Vaccine (bastonero) 3 pcs. 35 each 105
Electrical Equipment:
Bulb 3 pcs. 30 90
Poultry net 50 meters 21 / m 1,050
Treatment:
Garlic 1/2 kilo 160/ kilo 80
Ginger 1/2 kilo 180/kilo 90
Chilli 1/2 kilo 40/kilo 20
CVinegar 1 gallon 40 40
Gin 1 pc 225 225
Molasses 1 gallon 60 60
Beer 1 pc 120 120
Man Power 2 days 500/day 1000
Construction of cages:
Nipa 50 pcs 500 500
Nail 1 kilo 80/kilo 80
Tire Wire 3pcs 50 each 150
Lumber (1x2) 20pcs (stick) 35 each 700
TOTAL: 23,868

ROI = 19,600.00
23,868.00

= 0.82 X 100
= 82 %
 51

APPENDIX B

EXPERIMENTAL LAYOUT

REPLICATION 1 T1 T2 T3 T4

REPLICATION 2 T4 T3 T1 T2

REPLICATION 3 T2 T1 T4 T3

APPENDIX C
 52

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION

Cage Layout and rearing

 53

Fermentation
 54

Procurement of chicks
 55

Releasing of chicken per pen

 56

Preparation of OHN
 57

Data gathering
 58

CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL DATA

Name: Edward Jon Lamparas Hofeliña

Gender: Male
Home Address: Don Jose, Dinas, Zamboanga del Sur
Date of Birth: August 25, 1999
Place of Birth: Poblacion, Dinas, Zamboanga del Sur
Civil Status: Single
Citizenship: Filipino
Religion: Roman Catholic
Name of Father: Rolan Geñoso Hofeliña
Occupation: Government Employee Driver
Name of Mother: Marialyn Lamparas Hofeliña
Occupation: Government Employee

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Elementary: Baganian Peninsula Learning Center

Secondary: President Garcia Memorial Institute of Technology
Tertiary: J.H. Cerilles State College
Degree Course: Bachelor of Science in Agriculture
Major Field: Animal Science
Thesis Title: Levels of Oriental Herbal Nutrients (OHN) as Natural
Probiotics on the Growth Performance of ZamPen Native
Chicken
 59

CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL DATA

Name: Darwin Refolledo Buyser Jr.

Gender: Male
Home Address: Bagong Oroquieta, Guipos, Zamboanga del Sur
Date of Birth: September 28, 1999
Place of Birth: Bagong Oroquieta, Guipos, Zamboanga del Sur
Civil Status: Single
Citizenship: Filipino
Religion: Iglesia Filipina Idependente
Name of Father: Darwin Nano Buyser Sr.
Occupation: Farmer
Name of Mother: Barcelisa Refolledo Buyser
Occupation: House keeper

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Elementary: Bagong Oroquieta Elementary School

Secondary: Guipos National High School
Tertiary: J.H. Cerilles State College
Degree Course: Bachelor of Science in Agriculture
Major Field: Animal Science
Thesis Title: Levels of Oriental Herbal Nutrients (OHN) as Natural
Probiotics on the Growth Performance of ZamPen Native
Chicken