Results and Data Analysis

Specific Objective b: Change in number of fecal egg count (EPG)

Comment: Specific objective b should be presented first.

Note: The data collected during different days of treatment is shown on Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1. Egg Count Per Gram for the Presence of Capillaria Spp Using Different Treatments
Egg Count Per Gram
Treatment
Day 0 Day 3 Day 5 Day 7
Betel Nut, 1g (T1) 383 92 83 75
Betel Nut, 2g (T2) 392 33 50 50
Betel Nut, 3g (T3) 367 0 0 0
Commercial Dewormer (T4) 375 0 0 0
Distilled Water (T5) 317 342 375 383

Table 2. Change in Egg Count Per Gram for the Presence of Capillaria Spp Using Different
Treatments
Change in Egg Count Per Gram
Treatment
Day 3 Day 5 Day 7
Betel Nut, 1g (T1) -291.67 -300.00 -308.33
Betel Nut, 2g (T2) -358.33 -341.67 -341.67
Betel Nut, 3g (T3) -366.67 -366.67 -366.67
Commercial Dewormer (T4) -375.00 -375.00 -375.00
Distilled Water (T5) 25.00 58.33 66.67

Note: The changes can be visually compared on Figure 1.

100
58.33 66.67
50
25.00
Change in Egg Count Per Gram

0 0.00
-50 Distilled Water (T5)
-100 Betel Nut, 1g (T1)
Betel Nut, 2g (T2)
-150
Betel Nut, 3g (T3)
-200 Commercial Dewormer (T4)
-250 -291.67 -300.00
-308.33
-300 -341.67
-358.33 -341.67
-350 -366.67 -366.67 -366.67
-375.00 -375.00 -375.00
-400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Day
Figure 1. Mean change in egg count per gram on different days during treatment

Note: Figure 1 shows that the egg count per gram decreased with the use of betel nut and
commercial dewormer. On the other hand, the egg count per gram increased with the used of
distilled water.
Specific Objective a: To determine the in-vivo anthelmintic effectiveness between Betel nut and
commercial dewormer to Pekin ducks

Table 3. ANOVA of the change in egg count per gram using different treatments
Source of Variation SS df MS F p-value
Treatment 2332944.44 4 583236.11 56.40 .0000*
Days 59555.56 2 29777.78 2.88 .0619
Replicates 1388.89 2 694.44 0.07 .9351
Error 837666.67 81 10341.56
Total 3231555.56 89
*Means are significantly different at p<.01

Note: The different treatment means are significant in affecting the change in egg count per gram
of Pekin ducks at p<.01.

Table 4. Multiple Comparisons Value of LSD with the different treatments

Mean 95% Confidence Interval
(I) (J) Std.
Difference Sig. Lower Upper
Treatment Treatment Error
(I-J) Bound Bound
T2 47.220 33.898 .16741 -19.216 113.661
T3 66.670 33.898 .05264 0.228 133.105
T1
T4 75.000* 33.898 .02975 8.561 141.439
T5 -350.000** 33.898 .00000 -416.439 -283.561
T1 -47.220 33.898 .16741 -113.661 19.216
T3 19.440 33.898 .56781 -46.994 85.883
T2
T4 27.780 33.898 .41493 -38.661 94.216
T5 -397.222** 33.898 .00000 -463.661 -330.784
T1 -66.670 33.898 .05264 -133.105 -0.228
T2 -19.440 33.898 .56781 -85.883 46.994
T3
T4 8.330 33.898 .80643 -58.105 74.772
T5 -416.667** 33.898 .00000 -483.105 -350.228
T1 -75.000* 33.898 .02975 -141.439 -8.561
T2 -27.780 33.898 .41493 -94.216 38.661
T4
T3 -8.330 33.898 .80643 -74.772 58.105
T5 -425.000** 33.898 .00000 -491.439 -358.561
T1 350.000** 33.898 .00000 283.561 416.439
T2 397.222** 33.898 .00000 330.784 463.661
T5
T3 416.667** 33.898 .00000 350.228 483.105
T4 425.000** 33.898 .00000 358.561 491.439
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 10341.564.
*Mean difference is significant at p<.05
**Mean difference is significant at p<.01
 100.0
0.0 50.0
Change in Egg Count Per Gram
-100.0
Estimated Marginal Mean

-300.0 -347.2
-200.0 -366.7 -375.0
-300.0
-400.0
1) 2) 3) 4) T5
)
(T (T (T r(
T
r (
g g g e e
,1 ,2 ,3 m at
ut ut ut or W
N N N ew d
t el t el t el D ill
e
Be Be Be c ial is t
D
er
m
m
Co
Treatment

Figure 2. Estimated marginal means of the change in egg count per gram of using different
treatments.

Note: At p<.01, treatments T1, T2, T3, and T4 are significantly different to T5. This means that
all these treatments are effective in reducing the egg count per gram for Pekin ducks. It follows
that T1, T2, T3, and T4 are all comparable. At p<.05 however, T1 is less effective than T4.