You are on page 1of 69

GROWTH RESPONSE OF 45 DAYS CHICKEN FED WITH YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES

A High school thesis presented to Mrs. Luzviminda Bago As a partial fulfillment of the requirement In the subject Research II

Alaba, Lady Mae G. Gardon, Matthew F. Resurreccion, Shaila E.

Dasmarias National High School Special Science Curriculum S.Y. 2010-2011

GROWTH RESPONSE OF 45 DAYS CHICKEN FED WITH YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES

By: Alaba, Lady Mae G. Gardon, Matthew F. Resurreccion, Shaila E.

Dasmarias National High School Special Science Curriculum

S.Y. 2010-2011

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The researchers would like to thank the following. Without them, this research would have been possible. The researchers extend their heartfelt gratitude to the following: To the Everlasting God, the Lord of All, without whose guidance and given gift and wisdom to the researchers the study would not have been finished. He who always inspires the researchers to do their best and who gives them patience throughout the whole study. Thank you Lord. To Mr. and Mrs. Alaba, Mr. and Mrs. Gardon, and Mr. and Mrs. Resurreccion who have given the researchers their understanding, never-ending support, financial assistance, and their prayers that greatly helped and inspired the researchers. To Mrs. Luzviminda M. Bago, for being a very considerate teacher to patiently teach the researchers all the things they need to know about making a research study and for guiding them in times of troubles in completing the thesis To Reniel Zuniga, for the information about the proper way of treating a healthy chicken and for guiding the researchers in some other aspects. To Mr. Salazar, for helping the researchers for giving some of the needed resources. To Ms. Janet, the agriculturist who helps the researchers in identifying the Yemane tree out of different trees on the said forest park. To Ms. Arshley Conos who gave some advised regarding the improvement of the study.

To Ms. Jevilyn Mary Ruiz, in giving some statistical advise for the benefit and result of the study. To Ms. Johanna Gwenn Lomaad who shared some ways in processing feeds for the convenience of the subject. To the Department of Science and Technology where the researchers tested and found the laboratory results and content of the Yemane leaves. To Mrs. Ma. Lourdes Gonzales, who taught the researchers on how to use the proper statistics technique that can be applied on the said study. To IV-Einstein who gladly share their knowledge for the improvement of the study and giving an inspiration for continuing the said research. Thank you very much. LMA S ER MFG

ABSTRACT This study entitled GROWTH RESPONSE OF 45 DAYS CHICKEN FED WITH YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES was conducted by Lady Mae G. Alaba, Matthew F. Gardon, and Shaila E. Resurreccion. It was conducted to determine the growth response of 45 days chicken fed with yemane leaves. It also aims to formulate feeds with yemane leaves and commercialized feeds. The study used experimental method of research, the yemane chicken feed was the independent variable, the growth of the chickens was the dependent variable and the extraneous variables were the amount of food, water, temperature and vitamins in each treatment. Generally, this study aimed to test the growth response of 45 days chicken to yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves. And also aims to determine the growth response of the 45 days chicken in terms of weight and length of breast; and if there is a significant difference between the treatments in terms of weight and the length of breast of the chicken. Yemane leaves were gathered, pan-dried and crushed thoroughly to serve as chicken feed to treatment one containing 10 chicks, treatment two was composed of also 10 chicks fed with 50% yemane and 50% commercialized feeds, while another group of 10 chicks were fed 100% commercialized feeds as the treatment three. After getting the initial weight and length of breast of each chicks, they were now fed with booster mash from 1-10 days, starter mash from 11-20 days, then 150g of yemane feeds every meal from 25 days and onwards for treatment one. Treatment two, on the other hand, were fed from day 1-25 with pure commercialized feed then fed with 50% yemane and 50% commercialized feed from 25 day onwards. Then lastly,

treatment three were fed from day 1-45 with pure commercialized feeds. Each chick in each treatment were given 100ml of water with vitamins every meal all throughout the procedure. After the 45 days the chicken in each treatment were now measured in terms of weight and the length of breast. The effectiveness was tested by means of finding the significant difference between the three treatments in terms of weight and length of breast of the chicken. The collected data were evaluated by using ANOVA, 13.9 in terms of weight and 2.657 in terms of length of breast. These values states that there is a significant difference on the growth of the 45-days chicken in terms of weight but have no significant difference in terms of length of breast. Sheffes test was also used to further understand the data, which then resulted on having a highly significant difference between A and B (having 27.46); significant difference between B and C (having 9.30); but no significant difference between A and C (having 4.80), which them implies as B being the best treatment in terms of weight. The mean of the measurements before and after feeding the chickens were compared and their significant differences were computed. This study recommends further studies about yemane in the field of chicken feeding and the discovery of the potential of yemane in other fields as well.

Table of Contents Contents Title Page Certificate of Approval Acknowledgement Abstract Table of Contents Chapter I The Problem and its Background Page Number

Introduction Statement of the Problem Hypothesis Significance of the Study Scope and Limitations Definition of Terms Framework Chapter II Methodology

Method of research used Material/Equipment Procedure Application of the Treatment Research Design Gantt Chart Evaluation Process Statistical Treatment

Chapter III Chapter IV

Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Summary Conclusion Recommendations Bibliography Appendices Appendix A : Evaluation Sheets Appendix B : Data Tables Appendix C : Sample Statistical Computations Appendix D: Plates on Procedures Curriculum Vitae

LIST OF TABLES Table Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Mean Measurement of All Treatments ANOVA table of Weight of Chicken ANOVA table of Length of Breast of Chicken Sheffes table of Weight of Chicken Page

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Figure 1 Figure 2 Framework of the research study Research design of the study Page

Chapter I Introduction I. Background of the study

Today, chicken has become an all-around favorite meal of Filipinos. Be it cooked in a curry, fried, as a nugget, in adobo, in nilaga or tinola. Chicken is one of the foods that are in demand in the community. Most people prefer eating chicken because it is healthier to eat than pork and cheaper than beef. Species of chicken are raised in all parts of the world usually for consumption of nutritional value .But before an individual can consume it, the chicken is supposed to be at the right state of growth and maturity. To obtain that objective, feeds and different vitamins are given to different breeds of chicken. These contain different nutrients, vitamins, minerals, protein and other chemicals such as arsenics which apparently help in the growth of chicken. The chemical arsenics which can be found in most commercialized feeds are not only used for the improvement of growth but also in killing parasites and in improving pigmentation. By the year 2008, Dr. Howard Garret found out from the analysis of his conducted study that chicken feeds which contain arsenics called roxarsone that may harm an individual if contaminated. This can be a threat to humans who are consuming chicken meats that are fed with the said feeds. Based on recent studies, roxarsone are chemicals that can cause cancer and partial paralysis of an individual. Yemane (Gmelina arborea) has gained prominence not only in the Philippines but also among Asian countries because of its economic importance. It is a raw material for pulp and paper making, posts, house timbers and poles while rotary veneers are utilized for plywood

(Levi V. Florido, et al., 2009). Also, according to Little (1983), Yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves are harvested for fodder for livestock, cattle and silkworms. Also, studies conducted reveal that Gmelina arborea leaves have great potential in livestock feeding (Okagbare et al, 2004) .With this, the researchers have come up in determining the growth response of 45 days chicken to yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves as the main ingredient in the production of chicken feed. The utilization of this raw material will largely benefit the poultry industries in terms of minimizing the usage of commercialized feeds having arsenic chemicals, discovering other effective materials for the production of chicken feeds but also consequently providing enough supply of proteins, vitamins and minerals for the chickens.

II. Statement of the problem Generally, the study aims to determine the growth response of 45 days chicken to yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves. Specifically, the study aims to answer the following questions: 1. What are the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed with the treatments in terms of weight and length of breast?
2. Is there any significant difference in the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed

with the treatments terms of weight and length of breast? III. Hypothesis
1. There is no significant effect of using yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves and

commercialized feeds on the growth of 45 days chicken in terms of weight and length of breast.
2. There is no significant difference among the treatments used in terms of weight and

length of breast.

IV.

Significance of the study The outcome of this study will largely benefit the following: Poultry industries. In finding substitute for commercialized feeds containing arsenics. It will also provide new and cheaper means of feeding which is a profit to those who are in business and even to those consumers of chicken meats. Community. The success of this study would produce healthy and safe to eat chickens without them to worry about the harmful effects of roxarsone like paralysis or cancer. Economy. The results of the study will help the economy save money from usually expensive commercialized chicken feeds. Also, the selling of yemane chicken feeds will help the economy to earn money. School. The success of the study could benefit the school in finding cheaper means of finding an alternative feed for chickens without the harmful arsenics. Students. By researching for more data and information, the study could give students ideas for their studies and upcoming researches. Other researchers. This may serve as a stepping stone in the field of poultry feeding and for the discovery of yemanes benefits.

V.

Scope and Limitations The general purpose of the study GROWTH RESPONSE OF 45 DAYS CHICKEN FED

WITH YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES is to be able to formulate chicken feeds from yemane and commercialized one and determine the growth response of the 45 days chicken in terms of weight and length of breast of the chicken. The variety of 45 days chicken used will be the white leghorn. This study mainly focuses on the growth response of 45 days chicken fed with yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves in terms of height and weight. VI. Definition of Terms Yemane leaves. Is an unarmed, moderately sized to large deciduous tree with a straight trunk and is fast growing. It will be used to substitute commercialized feeds and also serves as the main feed in treatments one and two. Livestock. Refers to one or more domesticated animals raised in an agricultural setting to produce commodities such as food, fiber and labor. Chicken, or poultry, is an example of livestock animals. Chicken. The young of domestic fowl. It is the organism which will be used to test the effectiveness of yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves as feeds.

Feeds. Food for chicken. Something to be given for nourishment. It serves as the independent variable in the study. Three kinds of feeds will be used: chicken feed with 100% ground yemane leaves, chicken feed with 50% yemane and 50% commercialized and 100% commercialized chicken feed.

VII.

Framework INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT growth response of chicken in terms of: Yemane leaves Cleaning Pan drying Crushing feeding Height in terms of centimeters Weight in terms of grams Length of breast in terms of centimeters

Figure 1. Framework of the Research Study This study used one input which is yemane leaves. It underwent the process of cleaning, pan drying, crushing and feeding. It was feed to treatment one with 10 chickens and treatment two as feed mixed with 50% commercialized feed. The output of this study is the growth response of chicken in terms of height, weight and length of breast of the chickens.

Chapter II Methodology I. Research Method to be used This study will use an actual investigation using experimental method of research (Zulueta, Castales Jr., 2003) in order to determine the answer to the problem. Experimental method was used because it involves the effects of using yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves as feeds to the growth of 45 days chicken. The results of the data gathered from the independent variables were compared to the control treatment which is the commercialized feeds, to find out the effectiveness of the raw material in sustaining 45 days chicken growth. II. Materials and Equipment The following materials were used in determining the growth response of 45 days chicken to yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves as the main ingredient in the production of chicken feed: yemane leaves, commercialized feeds, starter mash, booster feed, chicken vitamins and water

The following equipment will be used in determining the growth response of 45 days chicken to yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves as the main ingredient in the production of chicken feed: containers, measuring cups, pan, weighing scale, tape measure, and strainer.

III. Procedures For the preparation of the cage and the 45-days chicken three cages were made. Each has ten equally divided spaces. The container of feeds and water are arranged in each cage. Before placing the 30 chicks into the cages, each was marked. The height, weight and the length of breast of each chick were measured. The chicks were fed with booster mash from zero day old up to 10 days old. Each water containers were added by vitamins. 50 grams of booster mash was given every morning and afternoon on each group of chicks for 10 days. Then the chicks were fed 100g of starter feeds for another 10 days. One hundred ml of drinking water along with vitamins was given every meal. Yemane leaves were dried on a frying pan without oil. Dried yemane leaves were crushed thoroughly. After being fed booster and starter mash for 20 days, the first group of chicken was fed 150 grams of ground yemane chicken feed in every feeding until the 45 day ends. The second group of chicken was fed 150g of 50% yemane and 50% commercialized feed in every feeding for 25 days, that is, after feeding booster and starter mash.

The third group of chicken was fed with 150g of pure commercialized feed from day 1 until the 45 day ends. 150 grams of feed and 100ml of drinking water with vitamins are to be given on each group of chicken every morning and late afternoon.

IV. Application of Treatment Ten 45 days chicken for each treatment was used to determine the growth response of 45 days chicken to yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves as the main ingredient in the production of chicken feed. Treatment one was the chicken feed with 100% ground yemane leaves. Treatment two is the chicken feed with 50% yemane and 50% commercialized and treatment three with 100% commercialized feeds. There will be 10 chickens in each treatment. V. Research Design Treatments Kind of feeds (Treatment 1) 100% yemane leaves chicken feed (Treatment 2) 50% yemane and 50% commercialized chicken feed (Treatment 3) 100% commercialized chicken feed

Number of chickens

10

10

10

Figure 2. Research Design of the study

Experimental units - 3 x 10 = 30 chickens Independent variable yemane feeds Dependent variable the growth of the chickens Extraneous variables amount of feed, amount of water, ventilation, temperature, kind of vitamins, size of the cage VI. Gantt Chart

ACTIVITIES

DURATION NO. OF WEEKS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 20

1. Identifying research problem 2. Gathering of basic information 3.Formulating hypothesis 4.Making research design 5. Formulating procedure 6. Gathering necessary materials 7.Experimentation 8. Gathering of data 9. Organizing and interpreting Data 10. Drawing

Conclusions 11. Giving

Recommendations

Statistical Tool Used The statistical tools used in this study were ANOVA and Sheffes test as a post-test for the analysis of variance. 1. Mean was used to determine the effect of yemane leaves on the growth of chicken in terms of height, weight and length of breast.

2. Standard Deviation was used to determine the measures of dispersion of the set of data of every treatment from its mean. Standard deviation is calculated as the square root of variance. 3. Variance is used as a measure of how far a set of numbers are spread out from each other. 4. ANOVA was used in the study to test the null hypothesis and the significant differences on each treatment. 5. Scheffes test was used in the study as a post-test after the ANOVA to further understand

the data.

Chapter 3 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA This chapter includes the organized presentation of the data gathered by the researchers which were analyzed and interpreted to form conclusions. The data were presented by the use of tables. Different statistical tools were used to analyze and interpret the gathered numerical data.

Problem 1.1.1: What are the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed with the treatments in terms of weight and length of breast? Table 1 Mean Measurements of Treatment One T1 Weight Length of Breast 1378.5 Range 1341.1 T2 1904.1 Range 1866 T3 1684.4 Range 1644.6

15.58

10.64

23.11

18.37

20.06

15.11

The mean measurements and range of chickens in treatment one, fed with yemane; treatment two, fed with 50% yemane and 50% commercialized feeds; and treatment three, fed with commercialized feeds. From the table above, it can be seen that chickens in treatment one, two and three gained weight and length of breast by eating yemane leaves. It means that the use of yemane leaves as a main feed, yemane with commercialized and commercialized feeds itself has an effect on the growth response of 45days chicken in terms of weight and length of breast.

Problem 2.2

Is there any significant difference in the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed

with treatments in terms of weight? Table 2 ANOVA table of Weight of Chicken Source of df Sum of Mean of Tabular Value Computed Decision

Variation Between groups Within groups TOTAL 2 27 29

Squares 1393660.8 7 65341.8 1459002.6 7

Squares 696830.44 50310.4369

0.05 3.35

0.01 5.49

F-value 13.9 Significant

Since the computed F-value of 13.9 is greater than the tabular value of 3.35 at 0.05 level of significance, and 5.49 at 0.01 level of significance, the null hypothesis is rejected therefore there is a significant difference among the treatments in terms of weight. Problem 2.3 Is there any significant difference in the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed

with treatments in terms length of breast? Table 3 ANOVA table of Length of Breast of Chicken Source of Variation df Sum of Squares Mean of Squares Tabular Value 0.05 3.35 0.01 5.49 Computed F-value Decision

Between groups Within groups TOTAL

2 27 29

286.9126 7 17.389 304.3016 7

143.456335 539921.861 4

2.657

Not Significant

Since the computed F-value of 2.657 is lesser than the tabular value of 3.35 at 0.05 level of significance, and 5.49 at 0.01 level of significance, the null hypothesis is accepted therefore there is no significant difference among the treatments in terms of length of breast.

Table 5 Scheff table of Weight of Chicken Tabular Treatments Observed F A vs. B A vs. C B vs. C 27.46 4.80 9.30 5%(K-1) 3.35(2) 6.7 6.7 6.7 1%(K-1) 5.49(2) 10.98 10.98 10.98 Highly Significant Not Significant Significant Interpretation

The above table shows that there is a highly significant difference in terms of weight between A and B, and B and C; but no significant difference between A and C. This implies that B is the best in terms of weight.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The summary of the study, findings constructed from the data gathered the drawn conclusions, and the recommendations of the researchers. Summary

This study was conducted to determine the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed with yemane (Gmelina arborea). There were three treatments in the study. The data were gathered from the measurements of chickens in terms of weight and length of breast, before and after feeding. The measurement were analyzed and compared with the use of statistics. Mean, Analysis of Variance and Scheffes test were used to determine the effectiveness of yemane leaves as feeds. This study was conducted during the school year 2010 2011 from August up to January 2011. Findings This study has the following findings: 1. There is a significant effect in using Yemane, as a main ingredient or mixed with commercialized feeds, on the growth of 45 day chicken in terms of weight and length of breast since the chickens from all treatments gained measurements. The range of the mean in treatment one is 1341.1 in terms of weight, and 10.64 in terms of length of breast; in treatment two is 1900.29 in terms of weight and 18.37 in terms of length of breast; and in treatment three is 16804.2 in terms of weight and 15.11 in terms of length of breast. 2. With the use of statistical tool Analysis of Variance, it was found out that treatment one, two and three has a significant difference in the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed with the treatments in terms of weight. Since the computed F-value of weight, 13.9 is greater than the tabular value 3.35 and 5.49. 3. The computed F-value 2.657 is lesser than the tabular value 3.35 and 5.49, then, there is no significant difference in the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed with the treatments in terms of length of breast.

Conclusion

After the experimentation and the gathering of data, the researchers conclude that yemane leaves have a significant effect on the growth of 45 days chicken in terms of height in centimeters, weight in grams and length of breast in centimeters, whether it is used as main feed or commercialized feeds. Therefore, yemane leaves can be effective feeds for 45 days chicken. Recommendation After conducting the study, the researchers had the following recommendations: 1. Among the three treatments, treatment two or the use of 50% Yemane mixed with 50% commercialized feeds is the best treatment in terms of height, weight and length of breast. 2. Laboratory tests regarding the contents of all treatments should be done. 3. Chicken carcass should be tested. 4. There should be a detailed recording of measurements. 5. Further study and improvement to yemane as the main ingredient in the production of chicken feeds is encouraged. 6. Follow-up studies should be performed in appropriate places to raise poultry, preferably near farms and rural places. 7. Further studies about the different potential of Yemane in different fields are encouraged.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Castillon R.D. et al (2010), Effectiveness of soybean (Glycine max) and Pumpkin seed (Cucurbita pepo) as feeds on the growth of 45 days chicken, Dasmarias National High School Main, Dasmarias, Cavite Adeleye, F.O. and Adebiyi, E. A. (1990)utilization of graded levels of cassava flourmeal as a source of energy in broiler finisher ration. Nig. Journal of Agric. Science. 5:28-31. Qureshi, A. A. (1980) Poultry communiquin Nig. Poult. International, pp6-8.

www.winrock.org/forestry/factnet.htm Lauridsen, E.B., E.D. Kjaer, and M. Nissen. 1995. Second evaluation of an international series of Gmelina provenance trials. DANIDA Forest Seed Centre. Humlebaek, Denmark. 120 p. Dr. Mohammed Kamal Hossain, Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, Chittagong University, Chittagong, Bangladesh. A publication of the Forest, Farm, and Community Tree Network ,Winrock, Dou TC, Shi SR, Sun HJ, Wang KH (2009). Growth rate, carcass traits and meat quality of slow-growing chicken grown according to three raising systems. Anim. Sci. Papers Rep. 27(4): 361-369 Demby JH, Cunningham FE (1980). Factors affecting composition of chicken meat-literature review. World Poult. Sci. J. 36: 25-37 Haro CV (2005). Interaction between dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E in body lipid composition and -tocopherol content of broiler chickens. PhD thesis. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain, p. 140 Holcman A, Vadnjal R, ledner B, Stibilj V (2003). Chemical composition of chicken meat from free range and extensive indoor rearing. Arch. Geflgelkd. 67(3): 120-124 Lewis PD, Perry C, Farmer LJ, Patterson RLS (1997). Responses of two genotypes of chicken to the diets and stocking densities typical of UK and Label Rouge production systems: 1. Performance, behaviour and carcass compsition. Meat Sci. 45: 501-216. http://www.small-farm-permaculture-and-sustainable-living.com/what_do_chickens_eat.html http://ldc.da.gov.ph/pdf_files/Brochures/poultry1.pdf http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=n075p22775723127&size=largest http://erdb.denr.gov.ph/publications/rise/r_v14n3.pdf http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB/PDF/pdf2010/27Dec/Bogosavljevic-Boskovic%20et%20al.pdf http://changingminds.org/explanations/research/analysis/levenes_test.htm

APPENDIX A:
Evaluation Sheets

EVALUATION SHEET

Lady Mae Alaba Matthew F. Gardon Shaila E. Resurreccion

EFFECTIVENESS OF YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES AS A MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF CHICKEN FEEDS I. Title Is the title appropriate for the study Is it broad enough to include in all aspects of the subject matter

II.

Chapter 1 Is it clear, convincing and concise 2 Is it selected, pertinent and organized 3 Is the researchers methodology appropriately clear, complete and concise 4 Are the data adequate valid and reliable Are they analyzed carefully and correctly and adequately 5 Are the contents logical and the valid outcomes of the study. Are the recommendations feasible practical and attainable, is it action-oriented.

III.

Performance During Defense Presentation of the study (mastery of work) Cohrence and self expression with relation to the truth and validity of data Ability to answer questions asked by the Evaluators

IV.

Comments, Rewards and Suggestions

MA. LOURDES P. GONZALES Evaluator/Panelist EVALUATION SHEET

Lady Mae Alaba Matthew F. Gardon Shaila E. Resurreccion

EFFECTIVENESS OF YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES AS A MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF CHICKEN FEEDS V. Title Is the title appropriate for the study Is it broad enough to include in all aspects of the subject matter

VI.

Chapter 1 Is it clear, convincing and concise 2 Is it selected, pertinent and organized 3 Is the researchers methodology appropriately clear, complete and concise 4 Are the data adequate valid and reliable Are they analyzed carefully and correctly and adequately 5 Are the contents logical and the valid outcomes of the study. Are the recommendations feasible practical and attainable, is it action-oriented.

VII.

Performance During Defense Presentation of the study (mastery of work) Cohrence and self expression with relation to the truth and validity of data Ability to answer questions asked by the Evaluators

VIII.

Comments, Rewards and Suggestions

LOURDES J. MANIMTIM Evaluator/Panelist EVALUATION SHEET

Lady Mae Alaba Matthew F. Gardon Shaila E. Resurreccion

EFFECTIVENESS OF YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES AS A MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF CHICKEN FEEDS IX. Title Is the title appropriate for the study Is it broad enough to include in all aspects of the subject matter

X.

Chapter 1 Is it clear, convincing and concise 2 Is it selected, pertinent and organized 3 Is the researchers methodology appropriately clear, complete and concise 4 Are the data adequate valid and reliable Are they analyzed carefully and correctly and adequately 5 Are the contents logical and the valid outcomes of the study. Are the recommendations feasible practical and attainable, is it action-oriented.

XI.

Performance During Defense Presentation of the study (mastery of work) Cohrence and self expression with relation to the truth and validity of data Ability to answer questions asked by the Evaluators

XII.

Comments, Rewards and Suggestions

RUFINA M. CRUTO Evaluator/Panelist EVALUATION SHEET

Lady Mae Alaba Matthew F. Gardon Shaila E. Resurreccion

EFFECTIVENESS OF YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES AS A MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF CHICKEN FEEDS XIII. Title Is the title appropriate for the study Is it broad enough to include in all aspects of the subject matter

XIV.

Chapter 1 Is it clear, convincing and concise 2 Is it selected, pertinent and organized 3 Is the researchers methodology appropriately clear, complete and concise 4 Are the data adequate valid and reliable Are they analyzed carefully and correctly and adequately 5 Are the contents logical and the valid outcomes of the study. Are the recommendations feasible practical and attainable, is it action-oriented.

XV.

Performance During Defense Presentation of the study (mastery of work) Cohrence and self expression with relation to the truth and validity of data Ability to answer questions asked by the Evaluators

XVI.

Comments, Rewards and Suggestions

HAZEL P. FRONDA Evaluator/Panelist EVALUATION SHEET

Lady Mae Alaba Matthew F. Gardon Shaila E. Resurreccion

EFFECTIVENESS OF YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES AS A MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF CHICKEN FEEDS XVII. Title Is the title appropriate for the study Is it broad enough to include in all aspects of the subject matter

XVIII. Chapter 1 Is it clear, convincing and concise 2 Is it selected, pertinent and organized 3 Is the researchers methodology appropriately clear, complete and concise 4 Are the data adequate valid and reliable Are they analyzed carefully and correctly and adequately 5 Are the contents logical and the valid outcomes of the study. Are the recommendations feasible practical and attainable, is it action-oriented. XIX. Performance During Defense XX. Presentation of the study (mastery of work) Cohrence and self expression with relation to the truth and validity of data Ability to answer questions asked by the Evaluators

Comments, Rewards and Suggestions

ROWENA R. CARIAGA Evaluator/Panelist EVALUATION SHEET

Lady Mae Alaba Matthew F. Gardon Shaila E. Resurreccion

EFFECTIVENESS OF YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES AS A MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF CHICKEN FEEDS XXI. Title Is the title appropriate for the study Is it broad enough to include in all aspects of the subject matter

XXII. Chapter 1 Is it clear, convincing and concise 2 Is it selected, pertinent and organized 3 Is the researchers methodology appropriately clear, complete and concise 4 Are the data adequate valid and reliable Are they analyzed carefully and correctly and adequately 5 Are the contents logical and the valid outcomes of the study. Are the recommendations feasible practical and attainable, is it action-oriented. XXIII. Performance During Defense Presentation of the study (mastery of work) Cohrence and self expression with relation to the truth and validity of data Ability to answer questions asked by the Evaluators

XXIV. Comments, Rewards and Suggestions

EDEN R. DAYAUON Evaluator/Panelist EVALUATION SHEET

Lady Mae Alaba Matthew F. Gardon Shaila E. Resurreccion

EFFECTIVENESS OF YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES AS A MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF CHICKEN FEEDS XXV. Title Is the title appropriate for the study Is it broad enough to include in all aspects of the subject matter

XXVI. Chapter 1 Is it clear, convincing and concise 2 Is it selected, pertinent and organized 3 Is the researchers methodology appropriately clear, complete and concise 4 Are the data adequate valid and reliable Are they analyzed carefully and correctly and adequately 5 Are the contents logical and the valid outcomes of the study. Are the recommendations feasible practical and attainable, is it action-oriented. XXVII.Performance During Defense XXVIII. Presentation of the study (mastery of work) Cohrence and self expression with relation to the truth and validity of data Ability to answer questions asked by the Evaluators

Comments, Rewards and Suggestions

FRANCIS KENNETH D. HERNANDEZ Evaluator/Panelist

APPENDIX B:
Data Tables

Weight Measurements No. Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3

Pre (g)

Post (g)

Pre (g)

Post (g)

Pre (g)

Post (g)

35

1367

37

1965

36

1680

34

1409

35

1835

34

1720

48

1389

36

1895

37

1590

47

1387

44

1956

43

1635

36

1459

40

1967

39

1739

36

1342

35

1862

45

1680

31

1364

36

1853

48

1750

36

1394

46

1933

38

1725

34

1345

34

1945

42

1630

10

37

1329

38

1830

36

1695

Mean

37.4

1378.5

38.1

1904.1

39.8

1684.4

Length of Breast Measurements

No.

Treatment 1

Treatment 2

Treatment 3

Pre (cm)

Post (cm)

Pre (cm)

Post (cm)

Pre (cm)

Post (cm)

4.7

16.5

5.8

25.1

4.3

19.5

5.2

15.7

22.5

4.7

19.6

4.3

14.9

5.3

22.6

5.3

20

6.1

15.3

4.1

22.5

5.8

19.8

16.8

5.8

22.2

4.8

20.8

14.8

4.5

24.7

4.3

20.5

4.5

15.2

4.7

23.5

5.2

20.6

5.7

15.6

22.5

4.9

19.5

14.4

4.2

22.7

4.8

19.8

10

4.9

16.6

22.8

5.4

20.5

Mean

4.94

15.58

4.74

23.11

4.95

20.06

Correlated Means Data for Weight of Treatment 1

Number

Pre Measurement

Post Measurement

D2

35

1367

1332

1774224

34

1409

1375

1890625

48

1389

1341

1798281

47

1387

1340

1795600

36

1459

1423

2024929

36

1342

1306

1705636

31

1364

1333

1776889

36

1394

1358

1844164

34

1345

1311

1718721

10

37

1329

1292 13411

1668264 17997333

Total

Correlated Means Data for Weight of Treatment 2

Number

Pre Measurement

Post Measurement

D2

37

1965

1928

3717184

35

1835

1800

3240000

36

1895

1859

3455881

44

1956

1912

3655744

40

1967

1927

3713329

35

1862

1827

3337929

36

1853

1817

3301489

46

1933

1887

3560769

34

1945

1911

3651921

10

38

1830

1792

3211264

Total

18660

31634246

Correlated Means Data for Weight of Treatment 3

Number

Pre Measurement

Post Measurement

D2

36

1680

1644

2702736

34

1720

1686

2842596

37

1590

1553

2411809

43

1635

1592

2534464

39

1739

1700

2890000

45

1680

1635

2673225

48

1750

1702

2896804

38

1725

1687

2845969

42

1630

1588

2521744

10

36

1695

1659

2752281

Total

16446

27071628

Correlated Means Data for Length of Breast of Treatment 1

Number

Pre Measurement

Post Measurement

D2

4.7

16.5

11.8

139.24

5.2

15.7

10.5

110.25

4.3

14.9

10.6

112.36

6.1

15.3

9.2

84.64

16.8

11.8

139.24

14.8

10.8

116.64

4.5

15.2

10.7

114.49

5.7

15.6

9.9

98.01

14.4

9.4

88.36

10

4.9

16.6

11.7 106.4

136.89 1140.12

Total

Correlated Means Data for Length of Breast of Treatment 2

Number

Pre Measurement

Post Measurement

D2

5.8

25.1

19.3

372.49

22.5

18.5

342.25

5.3

22.6

17.3

299.29

4.1

22.5

18.4

338.56

5.8

22.2

16.4

268.96

4.5

24.7

20.2

408.04

4.7

23.5

18.8

353.44

22.5

17.5

306.25

4.2

22.7

18.5

342.25

10

22.8

18.8 183.7

353.44 3384.97

Total

Correlated Means Data for Length of Breast of Treatment 3

Number

Pre Measurement

Post Measurement

D2

4.3

19.5

15.2

231.04

4.7

19.6

14.9

222.01

5.3

20

14.7

216.09

5.8

19.8

14

196

4.8

20.8

16

256

4.3

20.5

16.2

262.44

5.2

20.6

15.4

237.16

4.9

19.5

14.6

213.16

4.8

19.8

15

225

10

5.4

20.5

15.1 151.1

228.01 2286.91

Total

Pre Measurements Treatment One (Weight)

Mean = 37.4

Variance = 31.16

SD = 5.58

Number

X-

(X - )2

35

-2.4

5.76

34

-3.4

11.56

48

10.6

112.36

47

9.6

92.16

36

-1.4

1.96

36

-1.4

1.96

31

-6.4

40.96

36

-1.4

1.96

34

-3.4

11.56

10

37

-0.4

0.16

Treatment One (Length of Breast)

Mean = 4.94

Variance = 0.39

SD = 0.63

Number

X-

(X - )2

4.7

0.24

0.06576

5.2

0.26

0.0676

4.3

-0.64

0.4096

6.1

1.16

1.3456

0.06

0.0036

-0.94

0.8836

4.5

-0.44

0.1936

5.7

0.76

0.5776

0.06

0.0036

10

4.9 Treatment Two (Weight)

-0.04

0.0016

Mean = 38.1

Variance = 16.32

SD = 4.04

Number

X-

(X - )2

37

-1.1

1.21

35

-3.1

9.61

36

-2.1

4.41

44

5.9

34.81

40

1.9

3.61

35

-3.1

9.61

36

-2.1

4.41

46

7.9

62.41

34

-4.1

16.81

10

38

-0.1

0.01

Treatment Two (Length of Breast)

Mean = 4.74

Variance = 0.50

SD = 0.71

Number

X-

(X - )2

5.8

1.06

1.1236

-0.74

0.5476

5.3

0.56

0.3136

4.1

-0.64

0.4096

5.8

1.06

1.1236

4.5

-0.24

0.0576

4.7

-0.04

0.0016

0.26

0.0676

4.2

-0.54

0.2916

10

-0.74

0.5476

Treatment Three (Weight)

Mean = 39.8

Variance = 21.5

SD = 4.64

Number

X-

(X - )2

36

-3.8

14.44

34

-5.8

33.64

37

-2.8

7.84

43

3.2

10.24

39

-0.8

10.64

45

5.2

27.04

48

8.2

67.24

38

-1.8

3.24

42

2.2

4.84

10

36

-3.8

14.44

Treatment Three (Length of Breast)

Mean = 4.95

Variance = 0.65

SD = 0.81

Number

X-

(X - )2

4.3

-0.65

0.4225

4.7

-0.25

0.0625

5.3

0.35

0.1225

5.8

0.85

0.7225

4.8

-0.15

0.0225

4.3

-0.65

0.4225

5.2

0.25

0.0625

4.9

-0.05

0.0025

4.8

-0.15

0.0225

10

5.4

0.45

0.2025

Post Measurements Treatment One (Weight)

Mean = 1378.5

Variance = 1453.39

SD = 38.12

Number

X-

(X - )2

1367

-11.5

132.25

1409

30.5

930.25

1389

10.5

110.25

1387

8.5

72.25

1459

80.5

6480.25

1342

-36.5

1332.25

1364

-14.5

210.25

1394

15.5

240.25

1345

-33.5

1122.25

10

1329

-49.5

2450.25

Treatment One (Length of Breast)

Mean = 15.58

Variance = 0.68

SD = 0.82

Number

X-

(X - )2

16.5

0.92

0.8464

15.7

0.12

0.0144

14.9

-0.68

0.4624

15.3

-0.28

0.0784

16.8

1.22

1.4884

14.8

-0.78

0.6084

15.2

-0.38

0.1444

15.6

0.02

0.0004

14.4

-1.18

1.3924

10

16.6

1.02

1.0404

Treatment Two (Weight)

Mean = 1904.1

Variance = 3066.54

SD = 55.38

Number

X-

(X - )2

1965

60.9

3708.81

1835

-69.1

4774.81

1895

-9.1

82.81

1956

5.19

2693.61

1967

62.9

3956.41

1862

-42.1

1772.41

1853

-51.1

2611.21

1933

28.9

835.21

1945

40.9

1672.81

10

1830

-74.1

5490.81

Treatment Two (Length of Breast)

Mean = 23.11

Variance =1.01

SD = 1.01

Number

X-

(X - )2

25.1

1.99

3.9601

22.5

-0.61

0.3721

22.6

-0.51

0.2601

22.5

-0.61

0.3721

22.2

-0.91

0.8281

24.7

1.59

2.5281

23.5

0.39

0.1521

22.5

-0.61

0.3721

22.7

-0.41

0.1681

10

22.8 Treatment Three (Weight)

-0.31

0.0961

Mean = 1684.4

Variance = 2740.27

SD = 52.35

Number

X-

(X - )2

1680

-4.4

19.36

1720

35.6

1267.36

1590

-94.4

8911.36

1635

-49.4

2440.36

1739

54.6

2981.16

1680

-4.4

19.36

1750

65.6

4303.36

1725

40.6

1648.36

1630

-54.4

2959.36

10

1695

10.6

112.36

Treatment Three (Length of Breast)

Mean =20.06

Variance =0.31

SD = 0.56

Number

X-

(X - )2

19.5

-0.56

0.3136

19.6

-0.46

0.2116

20

-0.06

0.0036

19.8

-0.26

0.676

20.8

0.74

0.5476

20.5

0.44

0.1936

20.6

0.54

0.2916

19.5

-0.56

0.3136

19.8

-0.26

0.0676

10

20.5

0.44

0.1936

APPENDIX C:
Sample Statistical Computations

Computation of Statistics ANOVA Weight X1 1367 X2 1965 X3 168

1409 1389 1387 1459 1342 1364 1394 1345 1329 = 13785 = 1378.5 = 1453.39

1835 1895 1956 1967 1862 1853 1933 1945 1830

1720 1590 1635 1739 1680 1750 1725 1630 1695 = 49670 = 1655.67

19041 16844 1904.1 1684.4 3066.54 2740.27

SSTotal = x2 (x)2 N = 83695966 (49670)2 30 = 83695966 82236963.33 SSTotal = 1459002.67

SSBetween = (x1)2 + (x2)2 + (x3)2 - (x)2 10 30 2 2 2 = (13785 + 19041 + 16844 ) - (49670)2 10 30 = 83630624.2 82236963.33 SSBetween = 1393660.87

SSWithin = SSTotal - SSBetween MSTotal = x2 (x)2 MSWithin = S12 + S22...+Sa2 = 1459002.67 1393660.87 N a 2 SSWithin = 65341.8 N1 = (1453.39 +3066.542+2740.32) = 83695966 2467108900 3 30 MSWithin = 6341696.579 29 MSTotal = 50310.436 Length of Breast X1 16.5 15.7 14.9 15.3 X2 25.1 22.5 22.6 22.5 X3 19.5 19.6 20 19.8

16.8 14.8 15.2 15.6 14.4 16.6 = 155.8 = 15.58 = 0.445

22.2 24.7 23.5 22.5 22.7 22.8

20.8 20.5 20.6 19.5 19.8 20.5 = 587.5 = 19.58

231.1 200.6 23.11 20.06 1272.7 0.31

SSTotal = x2 (x)2 N = 11809.51 (587.5)2 30 = 11809.51-11505.20833 SSTotal = 17.389

SSBetween = (x1)2 + (x2)2 + (x3)2 - (x)2 10 30 = (15.582 + 23.112 + 20.062) - (587.5)2 10 30 = 11792.121-11505.20833 SSBetween = 286.91267

SSWithin = SSTotal - SSBetween = 304.30167 286.91267 SSWithin = 17.389

MSTotal = x2 (x)2 MSWithin = S12 + S22...+Sa2 N a N1 = (0.452+1272.72+0.312) = 11809.51 345156.25 3 30 MSWithin = 539921.8614 29 MSTotal = 10.49316103

Sheffes Test Weight A = 1378.5 A vs B F2 = (A - B)2 WGMS (NA + NB) NANB B = 1904.1 C = 1684.4 A vs C F2 = (A - C)2 WGMS (NA + NC) NANC B vs C F2 = (B - C)2 WGMS (NB + NC) NBNC

= (1378.5 1904.1)2 1006208.8 100 F2 = 27.46

= (1378.5 1684.4)2 1006208.8 100 F2 = 4.80

= (1904.1 1684.4)2 1006208.8 100 F2 = 9.30

APPENDIX D:
Plates of Procedures

Plate 1: Gathering of yemane leaves

Plate 2: Cleaning of yemane leaves

Plate 3: Pan drying of the yemane leaves

Plate 4: Crushing the yemane leaves

Plate 5: feeding of yemane feeds

Plate : Measuring the weight of the chicks

Plate : Measuring the height of the chicks

Plate : Measuring the length of breast of the chicks

Plate: measuring the weight of 45 day chicken

Plate : Measuring the height of 45 day chicken