GROWTH PERFORMANCE OF COBB BROILERS AS SUPPLEMENTED

WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF PROBIOTICS

AND PREBIOTICS

________________________

A Thesis Proposal

Presented to the Faculty of the

College of Agriculture Systems and Technology

Pampanga State Agricultural University

_________________________

In Partial Fulfilment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Science in Agriculture

(Animal Science)

By

ROBERT P. CABRERA
NIKYRA DY. CALMA
EIRENE JOY R. DIZON

July 2022
 APPROVAL SHEET

This report entitled “GROWTH PERFORMANCE OF COBB BROILERS AS

SUPPLEMENTED WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF PROBIOTICS AND
PREBIOTICS)”, prepared and submitted by ROBERT P. CABRERA, NIKYRA DY.
CALMA, and EIRENE JOY R. DIZON, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (B.S.A) major in Animal Science is hereby
recommended for approval and acceptance.

JELLA MAE C. TOLENTINO, M.S.A

Adviser, Technical Committee

__________________________
Date Signed

BERNARDO E. MARTIN, M.S.A LOREEN LOIS V. VITALICIO, M.S.A

Member, Technical Committee Member, Technical Committee

__________________________ __________________________
Date Signed Date Signed

Approved and accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (B.S.A.) major in Animal Science, Pampanga State
Agricultural University, Magalang, Pampanga.

FIDES M. HERNANDEZ, M.S.A ALVIN S. SANCHEZ, M.S.A

OJT/Farm Practice Coordinator OJT/Farm Practice Coordinator

___________________ _________________
Date Signed Date Signed

JOANARCH C. BRIONES, M.S.A ROGELIO D. COSIO, Ph.D.

Chair, Department of Dean, College of Agriculture
Animal Science Systems and Technology

___________________ _________________
Date Signed Date Signed
 Republic of the Philippines

PAMPANGA STATE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

PAC, Magalang, Pampanga

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY

CERTIFICATION

This certifies that this thesis entitled, “(GROWTH PERFORMANCE OF

COBB BROILERS AS SUPPLEMENTED WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF

PROBIOTICS AND PREBIOTICS)”, prepared and submitted by ROBERT P.

CABRERA, NIKYRA DY. CALMA, and EIRENE JOY R. DIZON has been duly

edited and scrutinized by the English Critic whose signature is affixed below.

MARJORIE CLARISSE N. MANARANG, LPT

English Critic

July 26, 2022

Date Signed
 ABSTRACT

ROBERT P. CABRERA, NIKYRA DY. CALMA AND EIRENE JOY R. DIZON.

July 2022. GROWTH PERFORMANCE OF COBB BROILERS AS
SUPPLEMENTED WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF PROBIOTICS AND
PREBIOTICS. Bachelor of Science in Agriculture major in Animal Science.
Pampanga State Agricultural University, PAC, Magalang, Pampanga.

Adviser: JELLA MAE C. TOLENTINO., M.S.A

The study was conducted to determine the growth performance of Cobb broilers

as supplemented with different levels of probiotics and prebiotics. This study was

conducted from May 13 to June 21, 2022 at Purok 3, San Agustin, Magalang, Pampanga.

Following a two-factorial experiment set up in Randomized Complete Block

Design (RCBD), 180 Cobb500 broiler heads were randomly distributed into six

treatments and replicated three times. Each treatment was composed of thirty heads. The

treatments were: Factor A: A1-Probiotics, A2-Prebiotics, and Factor B: B1-

Recommended Dosage (Control), B2-Lower dosage (Negative), and B3-Higher dosage

(Positive). 
 INTRODUCTION

Importance of the Study

Domestic chickens first appeared in Southeast Asia about 8000 years ago and

were brought to the rest of the world by sailors and traders. They are currently the most

significant poultry species on the planet.

The Philippine Statistics Authority has identified the poultry industry as a

growing industry in the country. Galang (2019) said that poultry production contributes

to 13% of agriculture's gross value added (GVA), and dressed chicken output in the

Philippines increased by 40% from a million metric tons to 1.4 million between 2009 and

2018. The poultry industry grew at a 2.5% annual rate in the second quarter of 2021.

High-yielding commercial chicken breeds have been produced to fulfill rising global

demand for animal-source diets.

These birds are developed primarily for meat or egg production, and their genetic

potential requires extensive nutritional and health control. When compared to other

commercial strains being raised around the world, the Cobb500 broiler is a modern

commercial breed characterized by fast initial growth and competitive breast meat yields

at various processing ages (Coneglian et al., 2010). 

In addition, probiotics have been proven to increase immunity, intestinal

structure, and gut barrier function in broilers. These components can help with digestion

and absorption, which can lead to better performance (Larsson et al., 2012). Improvement
of immunity, health, and growth in all ages and classes of poultry by improving a healthy

balance of bacteria in the gastrointestinal system, supporting gut integrity and maturation,

boosting the immunological response and reducing inflammation, improving feed intake

and digestion by increasing digestive enzyme activity while decreasing bacterial enzyme

activity and decreasing ammonia production, neutralizing enterotoxins, and stimulating

immune function (Kabir, 2009; Alagawany et al., 2016, 2018; Soomro et al., 2019).

Roberfroid (2007) and Gibson (2000) explained in their studies that prebiotics are

widely used in the poultry industry to help chickens grow and develop a healthy

microbiome. Prebiotics are made up of fermentable oligosaccharides that promote the

growth of good bacteria in the stomach. Prebiotics can be delivered by a different method

into the avian gastrointestinal tract, but they must be given to an animal as soon as

possible after birth to attain the desired efficacy. In-feed or in-water supplements have

typically been applied in the early hours/days after hatching (Waldroup et al., 2003;

Ciesiolka et al., 2005; Schneitz, 2005; Biggs et al., 2007; Midilli et al., 2008;

Huyghebaert et al., 2011).

Because of their wide range of beneficial effects, such as promoting growth and

production, immunological strengthening, and health protection, feed additives and

nutritional supplements are becoming increasingly important in the chicken business, as

well as in healthcare systems (Alagawany, Abd El-Hack, et al., 2018).

 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The general objective of this study is to determine the growth performance of

Cobb broiler chickens as supplemented with different levels of probiotics and prebiotics

in their drinking water.

Specifically, this study aimed to determine the following:

 initial weight;

 final weight;

 gaining weight

 Average Daily Gain (ADG);

 Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR);

 feed consumption;

 water consumption;

 mortality rate; and

 cost and return analysis

TIME AND PLACE OF THE STUDY

This study was conducted at Purok 3, San Agustin, Magalang, Pampanga from

May 13 to June 21, 2022.

 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Zhang, L. et al. (2021) stated that the goal of this study is to see how commercial

probiotic supplementation in water affects broiler chick performance, carcass

characteristics, immunological function, and antioxidant capacity. In the study, 120 Arbor

Acres (AA) broilers (60 males and 60 females) were randomly assigned to one of four

groups (G): G1: base food, G2, G3, and G4: base diet with 1% Lactobacillus casei, 1% L.

The water was treated with acidophilus and 1% Bifidobacterium for 42 days. Female

chicks' body weight, average daily feed intake (ADFI), and average daily weight increase

were all positively affected by probiotic additions. However, male chicks' ADFI and feed

conversion ratio were considerably lower (P 0.05). For male broiler chicks, probiotics

increased eviscerated yield and breast yield while lowering abdominal fat (P 0.05). The

weight of the spleen, Fabricius' bursa, and thymus increased significantly in the therapy

group (P 0.05).

Furthermore, as compared to the control, probiotics had a significant influence on

the concentrations of immune-related proteins (P 0.05) and significantly enhanced the

concentrations of antioxidase and digesting enzymes (P 0.05). The administration of

probiotics significantly reduced overall counts of E. coli and Salmonella while

significantly increasing Lactobacilli (P 0.05). The results of this study showed that adding

1% probiotics (L. casei, L. acidophilus, and Bifidobacterium) to broiler water improved

growth performance, carcass characteristics, immunological function, gut microbial

population, and antioxidant capacity.

Torshizi et al. (2010) asserted that a total of 360 one-day-old male broiler

chickens were used to compare two probiotic administration routes in broiler farms: in
water and in feed. Probiotics and antimicrobials were not given to the controls. A

probiotic formulation was given to the water group at a rate of 0.05 g/l and to the feed

group at a rate of 1 g/kg. In comparison to the control and feed groups, broiler

performance in terms of body weight gain (BWG), feed intake (FI), and feed conversion

ratio (FCR) improved when probiotic was administered via drinking water. Birds'

performance and immune competence can be influenced by probiotic administration, and

drinking water administration appears to be preferable to the more traditional in-feed

supplementation technique.

Paz et al. (2019) determined the goal of this study to be to see how commercial

probiotic supplementation in water affects broiler chick performance, carcass

characteristics, immunological function, and antioxidant capacity. In the study, 120 Arbor

Acres (AA) broilers (60 males and 60 females) were randomly assigned into four groups

(G): G1: base diet; G2, G3, and G4: base diet with 1% Lactobacillus casei, 1% L.

acidophilus, and 1% Bifidobacterium in the water for 42 days. Female chicks' body

weight, average daily feed intake (ADFI), and average daily weight increase were all

positively affected by probiotic additions. However, male chicks' ADFI and feed

conversion ratio were considerably lower (P 0.05). For male broiler chicks, probiotics

increased eviscerated yield and breast yield while lowering abdominal fat (P 0.05). The

weight of the spleen, Fabricius' bursa, and thymus increased significantly in the treatment

group (P 0.05). Furthermore, as compared to the control, probiotics had a significant

influence on the concentrations of immune-related proteins (P 0.05) and significantly

enhanced the concentrations of antioxidase and digesting enzymes (P 0.05). The

administration of probiotics significantly reduced overall counts of E. coli and

Salmonella while significantly increasing Lactobacilli (P 0.05). The results of this study

showed that adding 1% probiotics (L. casei, L. acidophilus, and Bifidobacterium) to

broiler water improved growth performance, carcass characteristics, immunological

function, gut microbial population, and antioxidant capacity.

Rehman et al. (2020) experimented to see how adding probiotics (Protexin) and

prebiotics (active MOS, mannan oligosaccharides) to the diet affected broiler growth,

carcass composition, and antibody titer. In a 3 x 3 factorial design, 360-day-old Ross

broiler chicks were randomly allocated into 9 groups. It is possible to conclude that

supplementing broilers with prebiotics or probiotics can increase their growth

performance. It could also assist broilers fed antibiotic-free diets to improve their

antibody titers against IBD.

Ahmad (2006) stated that the introduction to probiotics, method of action

including immunological augmentation, growth stimulation, feed conversion ratio,

competition for adhesion receptors, digestion and absorption, and health treatment of ill

animals are all covered in the article. The following are some of the authors' own

findings: Increasing probiotic doses up to a certain point promotes poultry growth. The

growth pattern increased in comparison to the control up to 1.0 gram per 10 kg feed but

then reversed; ii) no difference in feed conversion ratio of broilers was observed when

compared to the control; iii) crypt cell proliferation in the small intestine increased with

the use of probiotics when compared to the control. The latter section of the article

discusses the present and future of probiotics, which includes the discovery of more

probiotic species through genetic engineering.

 Skvortsova et al. (2018) examined the effects of probiotics on crop growth,

preservation, consumption, and feed costs. It is known that the duration of use,

consistence, and dosage of probiotics Biostim and Bacell had an effect on the indicators

of growing meat chickens. Thus, the authors have found that the use of the Biostim

probiotic in liquid form and Bacell in dry form veraciously increased the live weight of

chickens in all age periods of growth.

Awad et al. (2021) mentioned that heat stress has become an emergent problem

as a result of global warming and food security concerns. Heat stress generates significant

economic losses in the broiler business and has a negative impact on chicken output. As a

result, a range of strategies for reducing heat stress have been investigated. Prebiotics,

which have been shown to improve the health and output of heat-stressed broilers, are

one of these tactics that is gaining popularity. Existing research suggests that prebiotics

can help broiler hens cope with the detrimental impacts of heat stress by improving their

intestinal microbiota, gut architecture, oxidative state, physiological stress response, and,

as a result, their growth performance. Prebiotics given to heat-stressed broilers at a dose

as low as 0.025 percent, for example, have been demonstrated to increase feed intake,

body weight gain, and feed efficiency by 7.5, 9.9, and 2.3 percent, respectively, in heat-

stressed broilers. This study summarizes recent findings on prebiotics as a viable strategy

for improving broiler well-being, health, and growth performance under heat stress.

Ricke (2018) stated that prebiotics are regarded as preventative agents because

they target the gut microbiota, which helps the host while also acting as a barrier to

disease colonization. Prebiotics in poultry can have both indirect and direct impacts on
the bird, such as changing the composition and fermentation patterns of the gut

microbiota and altering host systems like immunological responses.

Duong et al. (2019) determined that dietary prebiotics are thought to be

potentially important alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters in poultry

production because of their beneficial performance and health effects. The administration

of dietary prebiotics has been demonstrated to improve animal health, growth

performance, and microbial food safety in poultry production. In this study, we evaluated

the effects of Saccharomyces-derived prebiotic refined functional carbohydrates (RFC)

with yeast culture on growth performance and gastrointestinal and environmental

microbiota when administered in-feed and through drinking water to broiler chickens.

Broilers were administered 2 doses of prebiotic in-feed through 42 days of production

and prebiotic-treated water in the final 72 h. Administration of prebiotic RFC improved

ADG and decreased cecal Campylobacter counts, while the high dose also increased final

BW. Additionally, significant main effects of prebiotic RFC dose were observed, with the

high dose improving ADG and ADFI over the finisher phase and final BW. Although the

effects were not significant, the prevalence of Campylobacter in the cecum after feed

withdrawal was 17% lower when broilers were administered the high prebiotic dose, and

the recovery of Campylobacter from litter was up to 50% lower when broilers were

administered prebiotic RFC. Our results suggest that co-administration of RFC with yeast

culture as a prebiotic can be used to improve growth performance and reduce human

foodborne pathogens in poultry.

Dhama et al. (2008) said that the probiotics, or live microorganisms, have a

beneficial effect on the host by modifying the intestinal microbial balance, thereby
reducing the detrimental effects of pathogenic bacteria in the gut. Probiotics have been

proven to boost growth performance, feed conversion efficiency, and immunological

responses in both livestock and poultry. They work via competitive exclusion or by

generating antibacterial chemicals that are harmful to pathogenic microorganisms.

Similarly, prebiotics are nondigestible feed supplements that are digested selectively by

beneficial microflora and used to keep harmful bacteria out. These non-digestible

substrates are made up of oligosaccharides, which have the ability to increase mineral

absorption in the gastrointestinal.

Al-Khalaifah (2018) emphasized that the use of antibiotics has been minimized

and replaced by effective dietary supplements such as probiotics and/or prebiotics that are

claimed to enhance growth and positively modulate the immune response.

Alloui et al. (2013) specified that a probiotic is a live microbe culture that can

manipulate and maintain a healthy gut microbiota. Prebiotics are nondigestible feed

components that can have a favorable impact on an animal's health by promoting the

activity and growth of beneficial native bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract while

suppressing the growth of harmful bacteria.

 MATERIALS AND METHOD

Experimental Animals

A total of one hundred eighty (180) heads of Cobb broiler chicken were used in

this experiment. The experimental animals were bought at P34.00 per bird at Pulilan,

Bulacan.

The Cobb 500 broiler (chicken) is arguably the world’s most "production

efficient" line of meat chickens. The Cobb500 broiler is exclusively bred by Cobb-

Vantress Inc. (the world’s oldest poultry breeding company).

Experimental Design and Treatment

A two-factorial experiment in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) was

used in the study. Factor A - probiotics and prebiotics supplements and Factor B were the

different levels. Each treatment was replicated three (3) times with ten (10) per replicate.

Each treatment has ten (10) broiler chickens. Treatment one (1) Recommended dosage

(control), Treatment two (2) Lower dosage (negative), and Treatment three (3) Higher

dosage (positive).

Factor A B2– Lower dosage (negative)

A1– Probiotics
B3– Higher dosage (positive)
A2– Prebiotics

Factor B

B1– Recommended dosage (control)

Experimental Treatments

A1B1 - Recommended dosage (control) of Probiotics (5grams/4Liter water).

A1B2 - Lower dosage (negative) 2.5grams/4Liter water.

A1B3 - Higher dosage (positive) 7.5grams/4Liter water.

A2B1 - Recommended dosage (control) of Prebiotics (10grams/Gallon of water).

A2B2 - Lower dosage (negative) 5grams/Gallon of drinking water.

A2B3 - Higher dosage (positive) 15grams/Gallon of drinking water.

Experimental Lay-out (RCBD)

A2B2 A2B1 A1B2

A1B1 A1B3 A2B3

A2B1 A2B3 A1B3

A1B2 A1B1 A2B2

A2B3 A2B2 A1B1

A1B3 A1B2 A2B1

Number of treatments = 6

Number of replications = 3

Number of birds per treatments = 30

Number of birds per replications = 10

Total number of birds = 180

Space requirement per birds = 1 sq ft.

Experimental Supplement

The experimental supplements used in this study are commercial probiotics and

prebiotics.

BATTLECOCK: Vit Min Pro, Probiotics, Immunity, Energy, Anti-Stress, Digestion,

and Growth Enhancer. Dosage and administration as a nutritional supplement is 5g/4L in

drinking water.

SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL: Advance Prebiotics supplement is a blend of essential

probiotics designed to boost resistance to diseases, reduce the effects of stress caused by

hot weather, improve feed digestion and absorption, and improve feed digestion and

absorption. Dosage and administration as a nutritional supplement is 10g/gallon of

drinking water.

Statistical Analysis

An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed on all collected data. The

mean of the treatments was compared using LSD to see if there were any significant

changes.
 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Housing/Cages

The broiler house was sanitized and covered to provide protection from possible

infectious diseases and predators. The housing was designed to ensure the safety and

comfort of the birds. The house was constructed with bamboo wood, coco lumber,

Amazon screen, tarpaulin, and a galvanized steel roof.

Housing measurements and dimension

House no. Length x Width x Height Ground to floor Capacity (no. of birds)
1 10ft x 10ft x 5ft 2ft 100

House no. Length x Width x Height Ground to floor Capacity (no. of birds)
2 10ft x 10ft x 5ft 3ft 100
Preparation of Treatment

The probiotics and prebiotics supplements were purchased and ordered from an

online store. The experimental supplements were added to their drinking water following

the recommended, lower and higher dosages of administration.

Brooding Preparation

The brooding pen was prepared days before the chick stock arrived. Pens were

rented to the former classmate. Sterilization and cleaning of the brooding pen were done.

Brooding Management

Light was given from one day old to fourteen (14) days old, for 22 hours a day.

Chick brooding is given much attention to prevent the rise in mortality rates among

chicks with one (1) watt per bird, an incandescent light bulb as a heat source. Giving

artificial heat and building immunity and strong bones are the core targets of brooding.

Feeds and Feeding

The amount and kinds of feed given in feeding were based on the number of days

of the animals. The birds were fed Pureblend Premium chick booster from day 1 to 14,

Pureblend Premium broiler starter from day 15 to 29, and Pureblend Premium broiler

finisher from day 29 to market. The birds were fed three (3) times a day at 6:00 A.M,

1:00 P.M, and 6:00 P.M.

Provision of Drinking Water

Fresh and clean water was given to the birds at all times. Cleaning and sanitizing

the waterer container is done every day.

Health Program

At one day old, the birds were vaccinated with NCD B 1B1 at the hatchery to

provide protection against New Castle Disease (NCD). From day 1 to 7, the birds were

given Multivitamins + Amino Acid + Electrolytes and Premoxil from day 9 to 15.

Experimental supplementation of probiotics and prebiotics started on day 18 to 39.

Every 6:00 A.M. following the administered dosage, supplements are given every

Supplementation and medication is applied to improve immune health for better

performance.

Sanitation practices

Cleaning and disinfecting the pens, feeders, waterers, and the area around the

cages with antibacterial detergent powder and disinfectant liquid mixed with water

following the administration was done on a regular basis to ensure sanitization.

Manure Disposal

The removal of manure was done at least twice a week to prevent the

accumulation of ammonia and to stop the entry of diseases. The collected manure was

buried in the ground.

Data gathered

The data gathered were as follows:

1. Initial weight- this was taken at the beginning, before the start of the

supplementation. It was done by weighing the birds from the different replicates

of each treatment. The total weight of the birds was divided by the number of

birds. All weights were expressed in grams.

2. Final weight- final weight was obtained by weighing the birds at the end of the

study.

3. Gain in weight- the gain in weight was computed by subtracting the initial

weight from the final weight.

4. The Average Daily Gain (ADG)- was calculated by dividing the total weight

gain by the number of days in the study.

5. Feed Consumption- the feed consumption of the birds was determined by

subtracting the feed refusal from the total feed given.

6. Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR)- the FCR was calculated by dividing the total

feed consumed by the total weight gain.

7. Water Consumption- the water was given to the birds; it was subtracted from the

left over to determine the actual amount of water consumed.

8. Mortality rate- total number of dead birds divided by the total number of

populations multiplied by one hundred (100). The percentage mortality was

computed on a weekly and cumulative basis.

9. Cost and Return Analysis- all income and expenses were recorded. The

expenses were subtracted from the gross income to determine the net income.
 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Initial Weight of the Broiler Chickens

Table 1 shows the mean initial weight of the birds. This was obtained as the basis

for determining the gain in weight.

There were no significant differences among treatments, showing that the weight

of the birds was relatively uniform in weight.

Initial Weight. Not significant.

Table 1. Initial Weight Means.

Supplements B1 – Recommended B2 – Lower dosage B3 – Higher dosage

dosage (Control) (Negative) (Positive)

A1 – (Probiotics) 409.13 399.3 389.73

A2 – (Prebiotics) 395.9 373.03 389.46

Summary of the Result:

MEANS 402.51 386.16 389.59

Initial Weight of the birds in grams (g)

TREATMENT BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

PROBIOTICS (5 g/4L of water) 407.2 411.1 409.1 1227.4 409.13

PROBIOTICS (2.5 g/4L of water) 398.8 397.4 401.8 1198 399.3

PROBIOTICS (7.5 g/4L of water) 401.4 368.2 399.6 1169.2 389.73

PREBIOTICS (10g/1 gallon of water) 406.3 402.3 379.1 1187.7 395.9

PREBIOTICS (5g/1 gallon of water) 404.8 308.6 405.7 1119.1 373.03

PREBIOTICS (15g/1 gallon of water) 384.7 405.5 378.2 1168.4 389.46

GRAND TOTAL 7069.8

GRAND MEAN 392.75

Final Weight of the Broiler Chickens

Table 2 shows the mean final weight of the birds at day 39 in grams (g). The B1 –

Recommended dosage (Control) is the highest among B2 – Lower dosage (Negative) and

B3 – Higher dosage (Positive).

As shown in table 2, there was no significant difference observed in factors A and

B and their interaction. When it comes to the dosage, results showed a significant

increase. Supplementation of probiotics at the recommended dosage had a higher weight

compared to the negative and positive dosage. Following the recommended dosage can

improve the weight of the birds.

The findings demonstrated that at the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth weeks

of age, the body weight gains attributable to the various treatments were significantly

different (p 0.01). While bursa weight varied significantly (p 0.05) among the several

groups, the meat yield features associated with the various treatments did not (p > 0.05).

The results imply that adding probiotic supplements has a considerable impact on the live

weight increase of broiler chickens. This result was supported by M.W. Islam, M.M.

Rahman et al. (2004).

A significant difference was found among the dosages.

Table 2. Final Weight Means

Supplements B1 – Recommended B2 – Lower dosage B3 – Higher dosage

dosage (Control) (Negative) (Positive)

A1 - (Probiotics) 1606.03 1525.13 1488.46

A2 - (Prebiotics) 1549.66 1529.96 1457.33

Summary of the Result:

MEANS 1577.85a 1527.55b 1472.90c

Final Weight of the birds in grams (g)

TREATMENT BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

PROBIOTICS (5 g/4L of water) 1568.2 1678.5 1571.4 4818.1 1606.03

PROBIOTICS (2.5 g/4L of water) 1514.2 1526.5 1534.7 4575.4 1525.13

PROBIOTICS (7.5 g/4L of water) 1471.6 1527.1 1466.7 4465.4 1488.46

PREBIOTICS (10g/1 gallon of water) 1562.2 1577.8 1509 4649 1549.66

PREBIOTICS (5g/1 gallon of water) 1518.4 1516.3 1555.2 4589.9 1529.96

PREBIOTICS (15g/1 gallon of water) 1485.3 1446.1 1440.6 4372 1457.33

GRAND TOTAL 27469.8

GRAND MEAN 1526.09

Gain in Weight of the Broiler Chickens

Table 3 shows the mean gain in weight of the birds. When it comes to the dosage,

results showed a significant increase. Supplementation at the recommended dosage had a

higher gain in weight compared to the negative and the positive dosage. Thus, following

the recommended dosage can improve the gain in weight of the birds. However, there are

no significant differences among treatments and the interaction of both factors.

Based on an assessment that took Xiaolu Liu, Hai Yan et al. (2012), taking daily weight

gain and feed conversion rate into account, the probiotics significantly increased broiler

output. In the meantime, the probiotic helped to improve the breast fillet's chemical,

nutritional, and sensory qualities. Overall, the study shows that probiotics can be utilized

to boost broiler poultry meat quality and increase growth.

A significant difference was found between the dosages and weight.

Table 3. Gain in Weight Means

Supplements B1 – Recommended B2 – Lower dosage B3 – Higher dosage

dosage (Control) (Negative) (Positive)

A1 - (Probiotics) 1196.90 1125.80 1098.73

A2 - (Prebiotics) 1153.76 1132.93 1067.86

Summary of the Result:

 MEANS 1175.33a 1129.37b 1083.30c

Gain in Weight of the birds in grams (g)

TREATMENT BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

PROBIOTICS (5 g/4L of water) 1161 1267.4 1162.3 3590.7 1196.9

PROBIOTICS (2.5 g/4L of water) 1115.4 1129.1 1132.9 3377.4 1125.8
PROBIOTICS (7.5 g/4L of water) 1070.2 1158.9 1067.1 3296.2 1098.73
PREBIOTICS (10g/1 gallon of water) 1155.9 1175.5 1129.9 3460.4 1153.46
PREBIOTICS (5g/1 gallon of water) 1113.6 1135.7 1149.5 3398.8 1132.93
PREBIOTICS (15g/1 gallon of water) 1100.6 1040.6 1062.4 3203.6 1067.86
GRAND TOTAL 20,327.1

GRAND MEAN 1129.28

Average Daily Gain of the Broiler Chickens

The mean average daily gain in weight is shown in table 4. Birds given a

recommended dosage of probiotics and prebiotics obtained a higher daily gain in weight

than those given negative and positive dosages. The result showed that following the

recommended dosage is good practice in obtaining a higher daily gain in weight. There

are no significant differences among treatments and the interaction of both factors.

Investigations were conducted into how probiotics affected the growth

performance and digestive enzyme activity of broilers. Yanbo Wang and Qing Gu

(2010) found broilers receiving probiotic supplements displayed significantly improved

growth characteristics, including final weight and daily weight gain (DWG). It was

shown that administering probiotics at a particular concentration had a growth-promoting

impact.

Average Daily Gain. Significant difference was found among dosage.

Table 4. Average Daily Gain Means

Supplements B1 – Recommended B2 – Lower dosage B3 – Higher dosage

dosage (Control) (Negative) (Positive)

A1 – (Probiotics) 56.99 53.60 52.32

A2 – (Prebiotics) 54.94 53.04 50.85

Summary of the Result:

MEANS 55.97a 53.78b 51.59c

Average Daily Gain in Weight of the birds in grams (g)

TREATMENT BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

PROBIOTICS (5 g/4L of water) 55.28 60.35 55.34 170.97 56.99

PROBIOTICS (2.5 g/4L of water) 53.11 53.76 53.94 160.81 53.60
PROBIOTICS (7.5 g/4L of water) 50.96 55.18 50.81 156.95 52.31
PREBIOTICS (10g/1 gallon of water) 55.04 55.97 53.80 164.81 54.93
PREBIOTICS (5g/1 gallon of water) 53.02 54.08 54.73 161.83 53.94
PREBIOTICS (15g/1 gallon of water) 52.40 49.55 50.59 152.54 50.84
GRAND TOTAL 967.91

GRAND MEAN 53.76

Average Feed Consumption of the Broiler Chickens

Table 5 shows the mean average feed consumption of the birds. Chickens

supplemented with a recommended dosage of probiotics of 5 g/liter of water had the

highest feed consumption. While giving a higher dosage of prebiotics, 15 g/gallon water

obtained the lowest feed consumption. However, there are no significant differences

among treatments and the interaction of both factors.

AFC. Not significant.

Table 5. Average Feed Consumption Means

Supplements B1 – Recommended B2 – Lower dosage B3 – Higher dosage

dosage (Control) (Negative) (Positive)

A1 - (Probiotics) 116.48 114.52 114.63

A2 - (Prebiotics) 115.87 113.72 110.84

Summary of the Result:

MEANS 116.17 114.12 112.73

Average Feed Consumption of the birds in grams (g)

TREATMENT BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

PROBIOTICS (5 g/4L of water) 113.63 121.53 114.29 349.75 116.48

PROBIOTICS (2.5 g/4L of water) 112.3 112.6 118.68 343.58 114.52

PROBIOTICS (7.5 g/4L of water) 119.31 113.74 110.86 343.91 114.63

PREBIOTICS (10g/1 gallon of water) 112.95 116.15 118.51 347.61 115.87

PREBIOTICS (5g/1 gallon of water) 114.57 112.87 113.79 341.17 113.72

PREBIOTICS (15g/1 gallon of water) 110.78 112.04 109.73 332.54 110.84

GRAND TOTAL 2058.56

GRAND MEAN 114.34

Total Feed Consumption of the Broiler Chickens

Table 6 shows the mean total feed consumption of the birds. Chickens

supplemented with a recommended dosage of probiotics of 5 g/liter of water had the

highest total feed consumption. However, there are no significant differences among

treatments and the interaction of both factors.

TFC. No Significant difference found

Table 6. Total Feed Consumption Means

Supplements B1 – Recommended B2 – Lower dosage B3 – Higher dosage

dosage (Control) (Negative) (Positive)

A1 - (Probiotics) 2446.15 2405.06 2407.37

A2 - (Prebiotics) 2433.27 2388.19 2327.78

Summary of the Result:

MEAN 2439.71 2396.62 2367.57

Total Feed Consumption of the birds in grams (g)

TREATMENT BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

PROBIOTICS (5 g/4L of water) 2386.23 2552.13 2400.09 7338.45 2446.15

PROBIOTICS (2.5 g/4L of water) 2358.3 2364.6 2492.28 7215.18 2405.06

PROBIOTICS (7.5 g/4L of water) 2505.51 2388.54 2320.06 7222.11 2407.37

PREBIOTICS (10g/1 gallon of water) 2371.95 2439.15 2488.71 7299.76 2405.06

PREBIOTICS (5g/1 gallon of water) 2404.71 2370.27 2389.59 7164.57 2388.19

PREBIOTICS (15g/1 gallon of water) 2326.38 2352.84 2304.12 6983.34 2327.78

GRAND TOTAL 43223.41

GRAND MEAN 2396.60

Feed Conversion Ratio of the Broiler Chickens

The mean average feed conversion ratio (FCR) of birds is shown in table 7. It

indicates that chickens supplemented with the recommended dosage of probiotics in their

water were more efficient in converting feeds into weight gain.

However, no significant differences were observed among treatments and the

interaction of both factors.

FCR. No Significant difference found

Table 7. Feed Conversion Ratio Means

Supplements B1 – Recommended B2 – Lower dosage B3 – Higher dosage

dosage (Control) (Negative) (Positive)

A1 – (Probiotics) 2.04 2.13 2.19

A2 – (Prebiotics) 2.10 2.10 2.18

Summary of the Result:

MEANS 2.07 2.11 2.18

Feed Conversion Ratio of the birds in grams (g)

TREATMENT BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

PROBIOTICS (5 g/4L of water) 2386.23 2552.13 24000.09 7338.45 2446.15

PROBIOTICS (2.5 g/4L of water) 2358.3 2364.6 2492.28 7215.18 2405.06

PROBIOTICS (7.5 g/4L of water) 2505.51 2388.54 2328.06 7222.11 2407.37

PREBIOTICS (10g/1 gallon of water) 2371.95 2439.15 2488.71 7299.76 2433.25

PREBIOTICS (5g/1 gallon of water) 2404.71 2370.27 2389.59 7164.57 2388.19

PREBIOTICS (15g/1 gallon of water) 2326.38 2352.84 2304.12 6983.34 2327.78

GRAND TOTAL 43223.41

GRAND MEAN 2401.3

Water consumption of the Broiler Chickens

Table 8 shows the mean daily water consumption of the birds. Results showed

that supplementing a lower dosage of probiotics with 2.5g/liter of water had the highest

consumption of water with a mean of 226.01. The lowest consumption of water was

obtained by supplementing with a lower dosage of prebiotics of 5g/1 gallon of water.

However, there are no significant differences among treatments and no significant

difference between Factor A and B.

Water Consumption. Not significant

Table 8. Water Consumption Means

Supplements B1 – Recommended B2 – Lower dosage B3 – Higher dosage

dosage (Control) (Negative) (Positive)

A1 – (Probiotics) 220.89 226.01 224.21

A2 – (Prebiotics) 221.35 214.59 219.85

Summary of the Result:

MEANS 221.12 220.3 222.03

Water Consumption of the birds in grams (g)

TREATMENT BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

PROBIOTICS (5 g/4L of water) 201.4 229.33 231.95 662.68 220.89

PROBIOTICS (2.5 g/4L of water) 217.33 220.99 239.71 678.03 226.01

PROBIOTICS (7.5 g/4L of water) 232.24 210.46 229.84 672.64 224.21

PREBIOTICS (10g/1 gallon of water) 208.33 220.85 234.88 664.06 221.35

PREBIOTICS (5g/1 gallon of water) 192.74 217.67 233.36 643.77 214.59

PREBIOTICS (15g/1 gallon of water) 215.19 216.04 228.34 659.57 219.85

GRAND TOTAL 3980.75

GRAND MEAN 221.15

APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Initial Weight

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

SOURCE DF SS MS F Pr(> F)
VALUE
BLOCK 2 133.5700 66.7850 0.37 0.7024
TREATMENT 1 124.8200 124.8200 0.68 0.4275
DOSAGE 2 518.5833 259.2917 1.42 0.2863
TREATMENT:DOSAGE 2 145.9033 72.9517 0.40 0.6807
ERROR 10 1824.8633 182.4863
TOTAL 17 2747.7400
Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

Initial weight. Not significant

CV = 3.40%

INITIAL.WT Mean = 396.77

Appendix Table 2. Final Weight

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

SOURCE DF SS MS F Pr(> F)
VALUE
BLOCK 2 3495.7300 1747.8650 61.51 0.2679
TREATMENT 1 3416.8889 3416.8889 2.95 0.1168
DOSAGE 2 33062.43000 16531.8406 14.25 0.0012
TREATMENT:DOSAGE 2 2837.8811 1418.9406 1.22 0.3347
ERROR 10 11598.2100 1159.8210
TOTAL 17 54411.1400

Summary of the Result:

DOSAGE MEANS N GROUP

B1 1577.85 6a
B2 1527.55 6 b
B3 1472.90 6 c

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

Final weight. Significant difference was found among the dosage

CV= 2.23%

FINAL.WT Mean = 1526.10

Appendix Table 3. Gain in Weight

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

SOURCE DF SS MS F Pr(> F)
VALUE
BLOCK 2 4316.5900 2158.2950 1.76 0.2220
TREATMENT 1 2235.5756 2235.5756 1.82 0.2072
DOSAGE 2 25410.4133 12705.2067 10.34 0.0037
TREATMENT:DOSAGE 2 2060.6044 1030.3022 0.84 0.4607
ERROR 10 12291.1567 1229.1157
TOTAL 17 46314.3400

Summary of the Result:

DOSAGE MEANS N GROUP

B1 1175.33 6a
B2 1129.37 6 b
B3 1083.30 6 c

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

Gain in Weight. Significant difference was found between dosage.

CV: 3.10%

GAIN.IN.WT Mean = 1129.33

Appendix Table 4. Average Daily Gain

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

SOURCE DF SS MS F VALUE Pr(> F)

BLOCK 2 9.7882 4.8941 1.76 0.2220
TREATMENT 1 5.0693 5.0693 1.82 0.2072
DOSAGE 2 57.6200 28.8100 10.34 0.0037
TREATMENT:DOSAGE 2 4.6726 2.3363 0.84 0.4607
ERROR 10 27.8711 2.7871
TOTAL 17 105.0212

Summary of the Result:

DOSAGE MEANS N GROUP

B1 55.97 6a
B2 53.78 6 b
B3 51.59 6 c

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

ADG. Significant difference was found among dosage

CV: 3.01%

ADG Mean = 53.78

Appendix Table 5. Average Feed Consumption

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

SOURCE DF SS MS F VALUE Pr(> F)

BLOCK 2 2.4892 1.2446 0.11 0.9012
TREATMENT 1 13.5547 13.5547 1.14 0.3097
DOSAGE 2 35.8443 17.9222 1.51 0.2665
TREATMENT:DOSAGE 2 9.5237 4.7619 0.40 0.6792
ERROR 10 118.3831 11.8383
TOTAL 17 179.7951

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

AFC. No Significant difference found

CV: 3.01%

AFC Mean = 114.35

Appendix Table 6. Total Feed Consumption

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

SOURCE DF SS MS F VALUE Pr(> F)

BLOCK 2 2.4892 1.2446 0.11 0.9012

TREATMENT 1 13.5547 13.5547 1.14 0.3097
DOSAGE 2 35.8443 17.9222 1.51 0.2665
TREATMENT:DOSAGE 2 9.5237 4.7619 0.40 0.6792
ERROR 10 118.3831 11.8383
TOTAL 17 179.7951

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

Average Feed Consumption. No Significant difference found

CV: 3.01 %

TFC Mean = 2401.30

Appendix Table 7. Feed Conversion ratio

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

SOURCE DF SS MS F VALUE Pr(> F)

BLOCK 2 0.0087 0.0043 0.65 0.5432
TREATMENT 1 0.0003 0.0003 0.04 0.8392
DOSAGE 2 0.0372 0.0186 2.78 0.1095
TREATMENT:DOSAGE 2 0.0075 0.0038 0.56 0.5867
ERROR 10 0.0668 0.0067
TOTAL 17 0.1204

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

FCR. No Significant difference found

CV: 3.84%

FCR Mean = 2.13

Appendix Table 8. Water Consumption

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

SOURCE DF SS MS F VALUE Pr(> F)

BLOCK 2 1458.1350 729.0675 7.36 0.0108
TREATMENT 1 117.3001 117.3001 1.18 0.3021
DOSAGE 2 9.0385 4.5192 0.05 0.9556
TREATMENT:DOSAGE 2 107.1127 53.5563 0.54 0.5985
ERROR 10 990.7361 99.0736
TOTAL 17 2682.3224

Means with the same letter are not significantly different

Water Consumption. Not significant

CV% 4.50
Table 9. Cost and Return analysis

Item A1B1 A1B2 A1B3

EXPENSES A1

Cost of Chicks

Chicks (Cobb) (P34.00) P 1,020 P 1,020 P 1,020

90 heads
Cost of Feeds

Pureblend Premium Starter 1,149.12 1,149.12 1,149.12

(P33.6/kg)
Pureblend Premium Finisher 1,466.16 1,466.16 1,466.16
(P32.8/kg)
NCDB1B1 50 50 50

Electricity 333.33 333.33 333.33

Premoxil 90 90 90

Multivitamins+amino acid 50 50 50
+eletrolytes
Probiotics 190 190 190
Other Materials 208.33 208.33 208.33
Housing 1,000 1,000 1,000

TOTAL P 5,556.94 P 5,556.94 P 5,556.94

GROSS INCOME
Weight of broilers 46.5 kg 44.31 kg 42.44 kg
Price of broiler per kg P 120.00 P 120.00 P 120.00
Gross Sales P 5,580.00 P 5,317.2 P 5,092.8

Net Income P 23.06 -P 225.74 -P 464.14

Table 10. Cost and Return analysis

Item A2B1 A2B2 A2B3

EXPENSES A2

Cost of Chicks

Chicks (Cobb) (P34.00) P 1,020 P 1,020 P 1,020

90 heads
Cost of Feeds

Pureblend Premium Starter 1,149.12 1,149.12 1,149.12

(P33.6/kg)
Pureblend Premium Finisher 1,466.16 1,466.16 1,466.16
(P32.8/kg)
NCDB1B1 50 50 50

Electricity 333.33 333.33 333.33

Premoxil 90 90 90

Multivitamins+amino acid 50 50 50
+eletrolytes
Prebiotics 550 550 550
Other Materials 208.33 208.33 208.33
Housing 1,000 1,000 1,000

TOTAL P 5,556.94 P 5,556.94 P 5,556.94

GROSS INCOME
Weight of broilers 44.72kg 45.89 kg 43.72kg
Price of broiler per kg P 120.00 P 120.00 P 120.00
Gross Sales P 5,366.4 P 5,506.8 P 5,246.4

Net Income -P 190.54 -P 50.14 -P310.4

 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION

SUMMARY

The study aimed to determine the growth performance of a commercial broiler

chicken as supplemented with different levels of probiotics and prebiotics.

This study was conducted at San Agustin, Magalang, Pampanga from May to

July, 2022.

A total of one hundred eighty (180) heads of Cobb broiler chicken were used in

this experiment. The Cobb 500 broiler (chicken) is arguably the world’s most "production

efficient" line of meat chickens. The Cobb500 broiler is exclusively bred by Cobb-

Vantress Inc. (the world’s oldest poultry breeding company). It’s now a trademarked

name.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, the use of probiotics at the recommended dosage had a better

effect on growth performance in broilers because of dosage.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the results of the study, probiotics at the recommended dosage can

improve the growth performance of broiler chickens.

 LITERATURE CITED

Jia, H., Li, H., Ma, Y., Zhang, L., Zhang, R. & Zhu, Z. (2021).

Supplementation of probiotics in water beneficial growth performance, carcass

traits, immune function, and antioxidant capacity in broiler chickens.

A.R. Moghaddam, N. Mojgani, Sh Rihimi, Dr. M.A Karimi Torshizi (2010).

Assessing the effect of administering probiotics in water or as a feed supplement

on broiler performance and immune response.

Borges M., Caldara F., Chaves G.H., da Silva M.I., de Lima Almeida, I.C., de la Vega,

L.T., dos Ouros C.C., Filho, R. L., Milbradt, E.L. & Paz, I.C. (2019).

Productivity and Well-Being of Broiler Chickens Supplemented with Probiotic.

M.E. Abd El-Hack, M. Alagawany, M.Q. Al-Ghadi, A.R. Alhimaidi, B.O. Almutairi,

R.A. Amran, M. Arif, S.S. Elnesr, E.O.S. Hussein, A. Rehman, N. Sajjad, A.A. Swelum

(2020).

Dietary effect of probiotics and prebiotics on broiler performance, carcass, and

immunity.

I. Ahmad (2008). Effect of Probiotics on Broilers Performance.

V.I. Fisinin, A.G. Koshchaev, Y.A. Lysenko, I.P. Saleeva, S.F. Sukhanova, V.I.

Shcherbatov, L.N. Skvortsova (2018).

THE USE OF PROBIOTICS FOR IMPROVING THE BIOLOGICAL

POTENTIAL OF BROILER CHICKENS.

M.E. Abdallh, E.A. Awad. E.S. Khalil, S.K. Ramiah & I. Zulkifli (2021).

Prebiotics supplementation: an effective approach to mitigate the detrimental

effects of heat stress in broiler chickens, World's Poultry Science.

S. Ricke (2018). Impact of Prebiotics on Poultry Production and Food Safety.

L.K. Froebel, S. Jalukar, T.A. Lavergne, J.T. Lee, T. Duong (2019).

Administration of dietary prebiotics improves growth performance and reduces

pathogen colonization in broiler chickens.

R.S. Chauhan, K. Dhama, M. Mahendran, S. Tomar (2008).

Beneficial Effects of Probiotics and Prebiotics in Livestock and Poultry: The

Current Perspectives.

H.S. Al-Khalaifah (2018).

Benefits of probiotics and/or prebiotics for antibiotic-reduced poultry.

M.N. Alloui, S. Swiatkiewiez, W. Szczurek (2013).

The usefulness of prebiotics and probiotics in modern poultry nutrition: a review.

M.N. Islam, M.W. Islam, S.M.L. Kabir, S.M. Kamruzzaman, M.M. Rahman. (2004).

Effects of Probiotics Supplementation on Growth Performance and

Certain Haemato-biochemical Parameters in Broiler Chickens.

Jiye Hu, Xiaolu Liu, Le Lv,  Pei Wang, Qianqian Xu,  Hai Yan, Chunhua Yin,  Keyi

Zhang. (2012).
 Growth Performance and Meat Quality of Broiler Chickens Supplemented

with Bacillus licheniformis in Drinking Water

Qing Gu, Yanbo Wang. (2010).

Effect of probiotic on growth performance and digestive enzyme activity of Arbor

Acres broilers.
PLATES
Plate 1: The author mixed the water and probiotics in the container

Plate 2: The author cleaned the water container

Plate 3: The author weighing the feed refusal

Plate 4: Cobb500
Plate 5: The authors, together with their statistician and OJT coordinator and co-adviser
 PERSONAL DATA

Name : Robert P. Cabrera

Address : 127 AML SUBD, San Pablo, Magalang, Pampanga

Date of Birth : October 07, 1998

Place of birth : Magalang, Pampanga

Civil Status : Single

Nationality : Filipino

Religion : Roman Catholic

Parents : Manuel A. Cabrera

Adoracion P. Cabrera

EDUCATIONAL BACGROUND
Tertiary: Pampanga State Agricultural University
PAC, Magalang, Pampanga
2018-2022

Secondary: Pampanga State Agricultural University

PAC, Magalang, Pampanga
2017-2018

Primary: San Francisco Elementary School

San Francisco Magalang, Pampanga
2011-2012
 Name : Nikyra Dy. Calma

Address : Purok 2, San Agustin, Magalang, Pampanga

Date of Birth : December 29, 1999

Place of birth : Magalang, Pampanga

Civil Status : Single

Nationality : Filipino

Religion : Born Again

Parents : Nicolas Calma

Aileen Dy. Calma

EDUCATIONAL BACGROUND
Tertiary: Pampanga State Agricultural University
PAC, Magalang, Pampanga
2018-2022

Secondary: Pampanga State Agricultural University

PAC, Magalang, Pampanga
2017-2018

Primary: Magalang Elementary School

San Nicolas 2 Magalang, Pampanga
2011-2012
 Name : Eirene Joy R. Dizon

Address : 411 Purok 5, San Pablo, Magalang, Pampanga

Date of Birth : August 03, 1999

Place of birth : Angeles Medical Center

Civil Status : Single

Nationality : Filipino

Religion : Roman Catholic

- Parents : Rea R. Dizon

EDUCATIONAL BACGROUND
Tertiary: Pampanga State Agricultural University
PAC, Magalang, Pampanga
2018-2022

Secondary: Pampanga State Agricultural University

PAC, Magalang, Pampanga
2017-2018

Primary: Holy Family Academy

Sto. Rosario, Angeles City
2011-2012