super final thesis [super complete]

GROWTH RESPONSE OF 45 DAYS CHICKEN FED WITH

YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES

A High school thesis presented to

Mrs. Luzviminda Bago

As a partial fulfillment of the requirement

In the subject Research II

Alaba, Lady Mae G.

Gardon, Matthew F.

Resurreccion, Shaila E.

Dasmariñas National High School

Special Science Curriculum

S.Y. 2010-2011

GROWTH RESPONSE OF 45 DAYS CHICKEN FED WITH

YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES

Alaba, Lady Mae G.

Gardon, Matthew F.

Resurreccion, Shaila E.

Dasmariñas National High School

Special Science Curriculum

S.Y. 2010-2011

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The researchers would like to thank the following. Without them, this research would

have been possible. The researchers extend their heartfelt gratitude to the following:

To the Everlasting God, the Lord of All, without whose guidance and given gift and

wisdom to the researchers the study would not have been finished. He who always inspires the

researchers to do their best and who gives them patience throughout the whole study. Thank you

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.

ABSTRACT

This study entitled “GROWTH RESPONSE OF 45 DAYS CHICKEN FED WITH

YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES” was conducted by Lady Mae G. Alaba, Matthew F.

Gardon, and Shaila E. Resurreccion.

It was conducted to determine the growth response of 45 days chicken fed with yemane

leaves. It also aims to formulate feeds with yemane leaves and commercialized feeds.

The study used experimental method of research, the yemane chicken feed was the

independent variable, the growth of the chickens was the dependent variable and the extraneous

variables were the amount of food, water, temperature and vitamins in each treatment.

Generally, this study aimed to test the growth response of 45 days chicken to yemane

(Gmelina arborea) leaves. And also aims to determine the growth response of the 45 days

chicken in terms of weight and length of breast; and if there is a significant difference between

the treatments in terms of weight and the length of breast of the chicken.

Yemane leaves were gathered, pan-dried and crushed thoroughly to serve as chicken feed

to treatment one containing 10 chicks, treatment two was composed of also 10 chicks fed with

50% yemane and 50% commercialized feeds, while another group of 10 chicks were fed 100%

commercialized feeds as the treatment three. After getting the initial weight and length of breast

of each chicks, they were now fed with booster mash from 1-10 days, starter mash from 11-20

days, then 150g of yemane feeds every meal from 25 days and onwards for treatment one.

Treatment two, on the other hand, were fed from day 1-25 with pure commercialized feed then

fed with 50% yemane and 50% commercialized feed from 25 day onwards. Then lastly,

treatment three were fed from day 1-45 with pure commercialized feeds. Each chick in each

treatment were given 100ml of water with vitamins every meal all throughout the procedure.

After the 45 days the chicken in each treatment were now measured in terms of weight

and the length of breast.

The effectiveness was tested by means of finding the significant difference between the

three treatments in terms of weight and length of breast of the chicken. The collected data were

evaluated by using ANOVA, 13.9 in terms of weight and 2.657 in terms of length of breast.

These values states that there is a significant difference on the growth of the 45-days chicken in

terms of weight but have no significant difference in terms of length of breast. Sheffe’s test was

also used to further understand the data, which then resulted on having a highly significant

difference between A and B (having 27.46); significant difference between B and C (having

9.30); but no significant difference between A and C (having 4.80), which them implies as B

being the best treatment in terms of weight. The mean of the measurements before and after

feeding the chickens were compared and their significant differences were computed.

This study recommends further studies about yemane in the field of chicken feeding and

the discovery of the potential of yemane in other fields as well.

Table of Contents

Contents Page Number

Title Page

Certificate of Approval

Acknowledgement

Abstract

Table of Contents

Chapter I The Problem and its Background

Introduction

Statement of the Problem

Hypothesis

Significance of the Study

Scope and Limitations

Definition of Terms

Framework

Chapter II Methodology

Method of research used

Material/Equipment

Procedure

Application of the Treatment

Research Design

Gantt Chart

Evaluation Process

Statistical Treatment

Chapter III Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data

Chapter IV Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Summary

Conclusion

Recommendations

Bibliography

Appendices

Appendix A : Evaluation Sheets

Appendix B : Data Tables

Appendix C : Sample Statistical Computations

Appendix D: Plates on Procedures

Curriculum Vitae

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 1 Mean Measurement of All Treatments

Table 2 ANOVA table of Weight of Chicken

Table 3 ANOVA table of Length of Breast of Chicken

Table 4 Sheffe’s table of Weight of Chicken

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 1 Framework of the research study

Figure 2 Research design of the study

Chapter I

Introduction

I. Background of the study

Today, chicken has become an all-around favorite meal of Filipinos. Be it cooked in a

curry, fried, as a nugget, in adobo, in nilaga or tinola. Chicken is one of the foods that are in

demand in the community. Most people prefer eating chicken because it is healthier to eat than

pork and cheaper than beef. Species of chicken are raised in all parts of the world usually for

consumption of nutritional value .But before an individual can consume it, the chicken is

supposed to be at the right state of growth and maturity. To obtain that objective, feeds and

different vitamins are given to different breeds of chicken. These contain different nutrients,

vitamins, minerals, protein and other chemicals such as arsenics which apparently help in the

growth of chicken.

The chemical arsenics which can be found in most commercialized feeds are not only used

for the improvement of growth but also in killing parasites and in improving pigmentation. By

the year 2008, Dr. Howard Garret found out from the analysis of his conducted study that

chicken feeds which contain arsenics called roxarsone that may harm an individual if

contaminated. This can be a threat to humans who are consuming chicken meats that are fed with

the said feeds. Based on recent studies, roxarsone are chemicals that can cause cancer and partial

paralysis of an individual.

Yemane (Gmelina arborea) has gained prominence not only in the Philippines but also

among Asian countries because of its economic importance. It is a raw material for pulp and

paper making, posts, house timbers and poles while rotary veneers are utilized for plywood

(Levi V. Florido, et al., 2009). Also, according to Little (1983), Yemane (Gmelina arborea)

leaves are harvested for fodder for livestock, cattle and silkworms. Also, studies conducted

reveal that Gmelina arborea leaves have great potential in livestock feeding (Okagbare et al,

2004) .With this, the researchers have come up in determining the growth response of 45 days

chicken to yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves as the main ingredient in the production of chicken

The utilization of this raw material will largely benefit the poultry industries in terms of

minimizing the usage of commercialized feeds having arsenic chemicals, discovering other

effective materials for the production of chicken feeds but also consequently providing enough

supply of proteins, vitamins and minerals for the chickens.

II. Statement of the problem

Generally, the study aims to determine the growth response of 45 days chicken to yemane

(Gmelina arborea) leaves.

Specifically, the study aims to answer the following questions:

1. What are the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed with the treatments in

terms of weight and length of breast?

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

with the treatments terms of weight and length of breast?

III. Hypothesis

1. There is no significant effect of using yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves and

commercialized feeds on the growth of 45 days chicken in terms of weight and length

of breast.

2. There is no significant difference among the treatments used in terms of weight and

length of breast.

IV. Significance of the study

The outcome of this study will largely benefit the following:

Poultry industries. In finding substitute for commercialized feeds containing arsenics. It

will also provide new and cheaper means of feeding which is a profit to those who are in

business and even to those consumers of chicken meats.

Community. The success of this study would produce healthy and safe to eat chickens

without them to worry about the harmful effects of roxarsone like paralysis or cancer.

Economy. The results of the study will help the economy save money from usually

expensive commercialized chicken feeds. Also, the selling of yemane chicken feeds will help

the economy to earn money.

School. The success of the study could benefit the school in finding cheaper means of finding

an alternative feed for chickens without the harmful arsenics.

Students. By researching for more data and information, the study could give students ideas

for their studies and upcoming researches.

Other researchers. This may serve as a stepping stone in the field of poultry feeding and for

the discovery of yemane’s benefits.

V. Scope and Limitations

The general purpose of the study “GROWTH RESPONSE OF 45 DAYS CHICKEN FED

WITH YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES ” is to be able to formulate chicken feeds from

yemane and commercialized one and determine the growth response of the 45 days chicken in

terms of weight and length of breast of the chicken. The variety of 45 days chicken used will be

the white leghorn. This study mainly focuses on the growth response of 45 days chicken fed with

yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves in terms of height and weight.

VI. Definition of Terms

Yemane leaves. Is an unarmed, moderately sized to large deciduous tree with a

straight trunk and is fast growing. It will be used to substitute commercialized feeds

and also serves as the main feed in treatments one and two.

Livestock. Refers to one or more domesticated animals raised in an agricultural

setting to produce commodities such as food, fiber and labor. Chicken, or poultry, is

an example of livestock animals.

Chicken. The young of domestic fowl. It is the organism which will be used to test

the effectiveness of yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves as feeds.

Feeds. Food for chicken. Something to be given for nourishment. It serves as the

independent variable in the study. Three kinds of feeds will be used: chicken feed

with 100% ground yemane leaves, chicken feed with 50% yemane and 50%

commercialized and 100% commercialized chicken feed.

VII. Framework

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Figure 1. Framework of the Research Study

This study used one input which is yemane leaves. It underwent the process of

cleaning, pan drying, crushing and feeding. It was feed to treatment one with 10 chickens and

treatment two as feed mixed with 50% commercialized feed. The output of this study is the

growth response of chicken in terms of height, weight and length of breast of the chickens.

Cleaning

Pan drying

Crushing

feeding

Yemane

leaves

growth response of chicken in terms of:

Height in terms of centimeters

Weight in terms of grams

Length of breast in terms of centimeters

Chapter II

Methodology

I. Research Method to be used

This study will use an actual investigation using experimental method of research

(Zulueta, Castales Jr., 2003) in order to determine the answer to the problem.

Experimental method was used because it involves the effects of using yemane

(Gmelina arborea) leaves as feeds to the growth of 45 days chicken. The results of the

data gathered from the independent variables were compared to the control treatment

which is the commercialized feeds, to find out the effectiveness of the raw material in

sustaining 45 days chicken growth.

II. Materials and Equipment

The following materials were used in determining the growth response of 45 days

chicken to yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves as the main ingredient in the production of

chicken feed: yemane leaves, commercialized feeds, starter mash, booster feed, chicken

vitamins and water

The following equipment will be used in determining the growth response of 45 days

chicken to yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves as the main ingredient in the production of

chicken feed: containers, measuring cups, pan, weighing scale, tape measure, and

strainer.

III. Procedures

For the preparation of the cage and the 45-days chicken three cages were made. Each

has ten equally divided spaces. The container of feeds and water are arranged in each

cage. Before placing the 30 chicks into the cages, each was marked. The height, weight

and the length of breast of each chick were measured.

The chicks were fed with booster mash from zero day old up to 10 days old. Each

water containers were added by vitamins. 50 grams of booster mash was given every

morning and afternoon on each group of chicks for 10 days. Then the chicks were fed

100g of starter feeds for another 10 days. One hundred ml of drinking water along with

vitamins was given every meal.

Yemane leaves were dried on a frying pan without oil. Dried yemane leaves were

crushed thoroughly. After being fed booster and starter mash for 20 days, the first group

of chicken was fed 150 grams of ground yemane chicken feed in every feeding until the

45 day ends.

The second group of chicken was fed 150g of 50% yemane and 50% commercialized

feed in every feeding for 25 days, that is, after feeding booster and starter mash.

The third group of chicken was fed with 150g of pure commercialized feed from day

1 until the 45 day ends.

150 grams of feed and 100ml of drinking water with vitamins are to be given on each

group of chicken every morning and late afternoon.

IV. Application of Treatment

Ten 45 days chicken for each treatment was used to determine the growth response of

45 days chicken to yemane (Gmelina arborea) leaves as the main ingredient in the

production of chicken feed. Treatment one was the chicken feed with 100% ground

yemane leaves. Treatment two is the chicken feed with 50% yemane and 50%

commercialized and treatment three with 100% commercialized feeds. There will be 10

chickens in each treatment.

V. Research Design

Kind of feeds

Treatments

(Treatment 1) 100% yemane leaves chicken

(Treatment 2) 50% yemane and 50% commercialized

chicken feed

(Treatment 3) 100% commercialized

chicken feed

Number of chickens

10 10 10

Figure 2. Research Design of the study

Experimental units - 3 x 10 = 30 chickens

Independent variable – yemane feeds

Dependent variable – the growth of the chickens

Extraneous variables – amount of feed, amount of water, ventilation, temperature,

kind of vitamins, size of the cage

VI. Gantt Chart

ACTIVITIES DURATION – NO. OF WEEKS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1. Identifying research problem

2. Gathering of basic information

3.Formulating hypothesis

4.Making research design

5. Formulating procedure

6. Gathering necessary materials

7.Experimentation

8. Gathering of data

9. Organizing and

interpreting Data

10. Drawing

Conclusions

11. Giving

Recommendations

Statistical Tool Used

The statistical tools used in this study were ANOVA and Sheffe’s test as a post-test for the

analysis of variance.

1. Mean was used to determine the effect of yemane leaves on the growth of chicken in terms of

height, weight and length of breast.

2. Standard Deviation was used to determine the measures of dispersion of the set of data of every

treatment from its mean. Standard deviation is calculated as the square root of variance.

3. Variance is used as a measure of how far a set of numbers are spread out from each other.

4. ANOVA was used in the study to test the null hypothesis and the significant differences on each

treatment.

5. Scheffe’s test was used in the study as a post-test after the ANOVA to further understand

the data.

Chapter 3

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter includes the organized presentation of the data gathered by the researchers which

were analyzed and interpreted to form conclusions. The data were presented by the use of tables.

Different statistical tools were used to analyze and interpret the gathered numerical data.

Problem 1.1.1: What are the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed with the treatments in

terms of weight and length of breast?

Table 1

Mean Measurements of Treatment One

T1 Range T2 Range T3 Range

Weight 1378.5 1341.1 1904.1 1866 1684.4 1644.6

Length of

Breast15.58 10.64 23.11 18.37 20.06 15.11

The mean measurements and range of chickens in treatment one, fed with yemane; treatment two,

fed with 50% yemane and 50% commercialized feeds; and treatment three, fed with commercialized

feeds.

From the table above, it can be seen that chickens in treatment one, two and three gained weight

and length of breast by eating yemane leaves. It means that the use of yemane leaves as a main feed,

yemane with commercialized and commercialized feeds itself has an effect on the growth response of 45-

days chicken in terms of weight and length of breast.

Problem 2.2 Is there any significant difference in the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed

with treatments in terms of weight?

Table 2

ANOVA table of Weight of Chicken

Source of Variation

df Sum of Squares

Mean of Squares

Tabular Value Computed

F-valueDecision

0.05 0.01

Between groups

2 1393660.87 696830.44 3.35 5.49 13.9 Significant

Within groups

27 65341.8 50310.4369

TOTAL 29 1459002.67

Since the computed F-value of 13.9 is greater than the tabular value of 3.35 at 0.05 level of

significance, and 5.49 at 0.01 level of significance, the null hypothesis is rejected therefore there is a

significant difference among the treatments in terms of weight.

Problem 2.3 Is there any significant difference in the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed

with treatments in terms length of breast?

Table 3

ANOVA table of Length of Breast of Chicken

Source of Variation

df Sum of Squares

Mean of Squares

Tabular Value Computed

F-valueDecision

0.05 0.01

Between groups

2 286.91267 143.456335 3.35 5.49 2.657 Not Significant

Within groups

27 17.389 539921.8614

TOTAL 29 304.30167

Since the computed F-value of 2.657 is lesser than the tabular value of 3.35 at 0.05 level of

significance, and 5.49 at 0.01 level of significance, the null hypothesis is accepted therefore there is no

significant difference among the treatments in terms of length of breast.

Table 5

Scheffé table of Weight of Chicken

Treatments Observed

Tabular Interpretation

5%(K-1)

3.35(2)

1%(K-1)

5.49(2)

A vs. B 27.46 6.7 10.98 Highly Significant

A vs. C 4.80 6.7 10.98 Not Significant

B vs. C 9.30 6.7 10.98 Significant

The above table shows that there is a highly significant difference in terms of weight

between A and B, and B and C; but no significant difference between A and C. This implies that

B is the best in terms of weight.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The summary of the study, findings constructed from the data gathered the drawn conclusions,

and the recommendations of the researchers.

Summary

This study was conducted to determine the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed with

yemane (Gmelina arborea).

There were three treatments in the study. The data were gathered from the measurements of

chickens in terms of weight and length of breast, before and after feeding. The measurement were

analyzed and compared with the use of statistics.

Mean, Analysis of Variance and Scheffe’s test were used to determine the effectiveness of

yemane leaves as feeds. This study was conducted during the school year 2010 – 2011 from August up to

January 2011.

Findings

This study has the following findings:

1. There is a significant effect in using Yemane, as a main ingredient or mixed with commercialized

feeds, on the growth of 45 day chicken in terms of weight and length of breast since the chickens

from all treatments gained measurements. The range of the mean in treatment one is 1341.1 in

terms of weight, and 10.64 in terms of length of breast; in treatment two is 1900.29 in terms of

weight and 18.37 in terms of length of breast; and in treatment three is 16804.2 in terms of weight

and 15.11 in terms of length of breast.

2. With the use of statistical tool Analysis of Variance, it was found out that treatment one, two and

three has a significant difference in the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed with the

treatments in terms of weight. Since the computed F-value of weight, 13.9 is greater than the

tabular value 3.35 and 5.49.

3. The computed F-value 2.657 is lesser than the tabular value 3.35 and 5.49, then, there is no

significant difference in the growth response of the 45 days chicken fed with the treatments in

terms of length of breast.

Conclusion

After the experimentation and the gathering of data, the researchers conclude that yemane leaves

have a significant effect on the growth of 45 days chicken in terms of height in centimeters, weight in

grams and length of breast in centimeters, whether it is used as main feed or commercialized feeds.

Therefore, yemane leaves can be effective feeds for 45 days chicken.

Recommendation

After conducting the study, the researchers had the following recommendations:

1. Among the three treatments, treatment two or the use of 50% Yemane mixed with 50%

commercialized feeds is the best treatment in terms of height, weight and length of breast.

2. Laboratory tests regarding the contents of all treatments should be done.

3. Chicken carcass should be tested.

4. There should be a detailed recording of measurements.

5. Further study and improvement to yemane as the main ingredient in the production of chicken

feeds is encouraged.

6. Follow-up studies should be performed in appropriate places to raise poultry, preferably near

farms and rural places.

7. Further studies about the different potential of Yemane in different fields are encouraged.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Castillon R.D. et al (2010), Effectiveness of soybean (Glycine max) and Pumpkin seed (Cucurbita pepo) as feeds on the growth of 45 days chicken, Dasmariñas National High School – Main, Dasmariñas, Cavite

Adeleye, F.O. and Adebiyi, E. A. (1990)utilization of graded levels of cassava flourmeal as a source of energy in broiler finisher ration. Nig. Journal of Agric. Science. 5:28-31.

Qureshi, A. A. (1980) Poultry communiquéin Nig. Poult. International, pp6-8.www.winrock.org/forestry/factnet.htm

Lauridsen, E.B., E.D. Kjaer, and M. Nissen. 1995. Second evaluation of an international series of Gmelina provenance trials. DANIDA Forest Seed Centre. Humlebaek, Denmark. 120 p.

Dr. Mohammed Kamal Hossain, Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, Chittagong University, Chittagong, Bangladesh. A publication of the Forest, Farm, and Community Tree Network ,Winrock,

Dou TC, Shi SR, Sun HJ, Wang KH (2009). Growth rate, carcass traits and meat quality of slow-growing chicken grown according to three raising systems. Anim. Sci. Papers Rep. 27(4): 361-369

Demby JH, Cunningham FE (1980). Factors affecting composition of chicken meat-literature review. World Poult. Sci. J. 36: 25-37

Haro CV (2005). Interaction between dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E in body lipid composition and -tocopherol content of broiler chickens. PhD thesis. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain, p. 140

Holcman A, Vadnjal R, Žledner B, Stibilj V (2003). Chemical composition of chicken meat from free range and extensive indoor rearing. Arch. Geflügelkd. 67(3): 120-124

Lewis PD, Perry C, Farmer LJ, Patterson RLS (1997). Responses of two genotypes of chicken to the diets and stocking densities typical of UK and Label Rouge production systems: 1. Performance, behaviour and carcass compsition. Meat Sci. 45: 501-216.http://www.small-farm-permaculture-and-sustainable-living.com/what_do_chickens_eat.html

http://ldc.da.gov.ph/pdf_files/Brochures/poultry1.pdf

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=n075p22775723127&size=largest

http://erdb.denr.gov.ph/publications/rise/r_v14n3.pdf

http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB/PDF/pdf2010/27Dec/Bogosavljevic-Boskovic%20et%20al.pdf

http://changingminds.org/explanations/research/analysis/levenes_test.htm

APPENDIX A:Evaluation Sheets

EVALUATION SHEET

Lady Mae AlabaMatthew F. GardonShaila E. Resurreccion

EFFECTIVENESS OF YEMANE (Gmelina arborea) LEAVES AS A MAIN INGREDIENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF CHICKEN FEEDS

I. Title

- Is the title appropriate for the study- Is it broad enough to include in all aspects

of the subject matter

II. Chapter

1 – Is it clear, convincing and concise2 – Is it selected, pertinent and organized3 – Is the researchers methodology appropriately clear, complete and concise4 – Are the data adequate valid and reliable – Are they analyzed carefully and correctly and adequately

5 – Are the contents logical and the valid outcomes of the study. – Are the recommendations feasible practical and attainable, is it action-oriented.

III. Performance During Defense

- Presentation of the study (mastery of work)Cohrence and self – expression with relation to the truth and validity of data

- Ability to answer questions asked by the Evaluators

IV. Comments, Rewards and Suggestions

MA. LOURDES P. GONZALES Evaluator/Panelist

EVALUATION SHEET

V. Title

VI. Chapter

VII. Performance During Defense

VIII. Comments, Rewards and Suggestions

LOURDES J. MANIMTIM Evaluator/Panelist

EVALUATION SHEET

IX. Title

X. Chapter

XI. Performance During Defense

XII. Comments, Rewards and Suggestions

RUFINA M. CRUTO Evaluator/Panelist

EVALUATION SHEET

XIII. Title

XIV. Chapter

XV. Performance During Defense

XVI. Comments, Rewards and Suggestions

HAZEL P. FRONDA Evaluator/Panelist

EVALUATION SHEET

XVII. Title

XVIII. Chapter

XIX. Performance During Defense

XX. Comments, Rewards and Suggestions

ROWENA R. CARIAGA Evaluator/Panelist

EVALUATION SHEET

XXI. Title

XXII. Chapter

XXIII. Performance During Defense

XXIV. Comments, Rewards and Suggestions

EDEN R. DAYAUON

Evaluator/Panelist

EVALUATION SHEET

XXV. Title

XXVI. Chapter

XXVII.Performance During Defense

XXVIII. Comments, Rewards and Suggestions

FRANCIS KENNETH D. HERNANDEZ Evaluator/Panelist

APPENDIX B:Data Tables

Weight Measurements

No. Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3

Pre(g)

Post(g)

Pre(g)

Post(g)

Pre(g)

Post(g)

1 35 1367 37 1965 36 1680

2 34 1409 35 1835 34 1720

3 48 1389 36 1895 37 1590

4 47 1387 44 1956 43 1635

5 36 1459 40 1967 39 1739

6 36 1342 35 1862 45 1680

7 31 1364 36 1853 48 1750

8 36 1394 46 1933 38 1725

9 34 1345 34 1945 42 1630

10 37 1329 38 1830 36 1695

Mean 37.4 1378.5 38.1 1904.1 39.8 1684.4

Length of Breast Measurements

No. Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3

Pre(cm)

Post(cm)

Pre(cm)

Post(cm)

Pre(cm)

Post(cm)

1 4.7 16.5 5.8 25.1 4.3 19.5

2 5.2 15.7 4 22.5 4.7 19.6

3 4.3 14.9 5.3 22.6 5.3 20

4 6.1 15.3 4.1 22.5 5.8 19.8

5 5 16.8 5.8 22.2 4.8 20.8

6 4 14.8 4.5 24.7 4.3 20.5

7 4.5 15.2 4.7 23.5 5.2 20.6

8 5.7 15.6 5 22.5 4.9 19.5

9 5 14.4 4.2 22.7 4.8 19.8

10 4.9 16.6 4 22.8 5.4 20.5

Mean 4.94 15.58 4.74 23.11 4.95 20.06

Correlated Means Data for Weight of Treatment 1

Number PreMeasurement

PostMeasurement

1 35 1367 1332 1774224

2 34 1409 1375 1890625

3 48 1389 1341 1798281

4 47 1387 1340 1795600

5 36 1459 1423 2024929

6 36 1342 1306 1705636

7 31 1364 1333 1776889

8 36 1394 1358 1844164

9 34 1345 1311 1718721

10 37 1329 1292 1668264

Total13411 17997333

PostMeasurement

1 37 1965 1928 3717184

2 35 1835 1800 3240000

3 36 1895 1859 3455881

4 44 1956 1912 3655744

5 40 1967 1927 3713329

6 35 1862 1827 3337929

7 36 1853 1817 3301489

8 46 1933 1887 3560769

9 34 1945 1911 3651921

10 38 1830 1792 3211264

Total 18660 31634246

PostMeasurement

1 36 1680 1644 2702736

2 34 1720 1686 2842596

3 37 1590 1553 2411809

4 43 1635 1592 2534464

5 39 1739 1700 2890000

6 45 1680 1635 2673225

7 48 1750 1702 2896804

8 38 1725 1687 2845969

9 42 1630 1588 2521744

10 36 1695 1659 2752281

Total 16446 27071628

Correlated Means Data for Length of Breast of Treatment 1

PostMeasurement

1 4.7 16.5 11.8 139.24

2 5.2 15.7 10.5 110.25

3 4.3 14.9 10.6 112.36

4 6.1 15.3 9.2 84.64

5 5 16.8 11.8 139.24

6 4 14.8 10.8 116.64

7 4.5 15.2 10.7 114.49

8 5.7 15.6 9.9 98.01

9 5 14.4 9.4 88.36

10 4.9 16.6 11.7 136.89

Total106.4 1140.12

PostMeasurement

1 5.8 25.1 19.3 372.49

2 4 22.5 18.5 342.25

3 5.3 22.6 17.3 299.29

4 4.1 22.5 18.4 338.56

5 5.8 22.2 16.4 268.96

6 4.5 24.7 20.2 408.04

7 4.7 23.5 18.8 353.44

8 5 22.5 17.5 306.25

9 4.2 22.7 18.5 342.25

10 4 22.8 18.8 353.44

Total183.7 3384.97

PostMeasurement

1 4.3 19.5 15.2 231.04

2 4.7 19.6 14.9 222.01

3 5.3 20 14.7 216.09

4 5.8 19.8 14 196

5 4.8 20.8 16 256

6 4.3 20.5 16.2 262.44

7 5.2 20.6 15.4 237.16

8 4.9 19.5 14.6 213.16

9 4.8 19.8 15 225

10 5.4 20.5 15.1 228.01

Total151.1 2286.91

Pre Measurements

Treatment One (Weight)

Mean = 37.4 Variance = 31.16 SD = 5.58

Number X X - µ (X - µ)2

1 35 -2.4 5.76

2 34 -3.4 11.56

3 48 10.6 112.36

4 47 9.6 92.16

5 36 -1.4 1.96

6 36 -1.4 1.96

7 31 -6.4 40.96

8 36 -1.4 1.96

9 34 -3.4 11.56

10 37 -0.4 0.16

Treatment One (Length of Breast)

Mean = 4.94 Variance = 0.39 SD = 0.63

1 4.7 0.24 0.06576

2 5.2 0.26 0.0676

3 4.3 -0.64 0.4096

4 6.1 1.16 1.3456

5 5 0.06 0.0036

6 4 -0.94 0.8836

7 4.5 -0.44 0.1936

8 5.7 0.76 0.5776

9 5 0.06 0.0036

10 4.9 -0.04 0.0016

Treatment Two (Weight)

Mean = 38.1 Variance = 16.32 SD = 4.04

1 37 -1.1 1.21

2 35 -3.1 9.61

3 36 -2.1 4.41

4 44 5.9 34.81

5 40 1.9 3.61

6 35 -3.1 9.61

7 36 -2.1 4.41

8 46 7.9 62.41

9 34 -4.1 16.81

10 38 -0.1 0.01

Treatment Two (Length of Breast)

Mean = 4.74 Variance = 0.50 SD = 0.71

1 5.8 1.06 1.1236

2 4 -0.74 0.5476

3 5.3 0.56 0.3136

4 4.1 -0.64 0.4096

5 5.8 1.06 1.1236

6 4.5 -0.24 0.0576

7 4.7 -0.04 0.0016

8 5 0.26 0.0676

9 4.2 -0.54 0.2916

10 4 -0.74 0.5476

Treatment Three (Weight)

Mean = 39.8 Variance = 21.5 SD = 4.64

1 36 -3.8 14.44

2 34 -5.8 33.64

3 37 -2.8 7.84

4 43 3.2 10.24

5 39 -0.8 10.64

6 45 5.2 27.04

7 48 8.2 67.24

8 38 -1.8 3.24

9 42 2.2 4.84

10 36 -3.8 14.44

Treatment Three (Length of Breast)

Mean = 4.95 Variance = 0.65 SD = 0.81

1 4.3 -0.65 0.4225

2 4.7 -0.25 0.0625

3 5.3 0.35 0.1225

4 5.8 0.85 0.7225

5 4.8 -0.15 0.0225

6 4.3 -0.65 0.4225

7 5.2 0.25 0.0625

8 4.9 -0.05 0.0025

9 4.8 -0.15 0.0225

10 5.4 0.45 0.2025

Post Measurements

Treatment One (Weight)

Mean = 1378.5 Variance = 1453.39 SD = 38.12

1 1367 -11.5 132.25

2 1409 30.5 930.25

3 1389 10.5 110.25

4 1387 8.5 72.25

5 1459 80.5 6480.25

6 1342 -36.5 1332.25

7 1364 -14.5 210.25

8 1394 15.5 240.25

9 1345 -33.5 1122.25

10 1329 -49.5 2450.25

Treatment One (Length of Breast)

Mean = 15.58 Variance = 0.68 SD = 0.82

1 16.5 0.92 0.8464

2 15.7 0.12 0.0144

3 14.9 -0.68 0.4624

4 15.3 -0.28 0.0784

5 16.8 1.22 1.4884

6 14.8 -0.78 0.6084

7 15.2 -0.38 0.1444

8 15.6 0.02 0.0004

9 14.4 -1.18 1.3924

10 16.6 1.02 1.0404

Treatment Two (Weight)

Mean = 1904.1 Variance = 3066.54 SD = 55.38

1 1965 60.9 3708.81

2 1835 -69.1 4774.81

3 1895 -9.1 82.81

4 1956 5.19 2693.61

5 1967 62.9 3956.41

6 1862 -42.1 1772.41

7 1853 -51.1 2611.21

8 1933 28.9 835.21

9 1945 40.9 1672.81

10 1830 -74.1 5490.81

Treatment Two (Length of Breast)

Mean = 23.11 Variance =1.01 SD = 1.01

1 25.1 1.99 3.9601

2 22.5 -0.61 0.3721

3 22.6 -0.51 0.2601

4 22.5 -0.61 0.3721

5 22.2 -0.91 0.8281

6 24.7 1.59 2.5281

7 23.5 0.39 0.1521

8 22.5 -0.61 0.3721

9 22.7 -0.41 0.1681

10 22.8 -0.31 0.0961

Treatment Three (Weight)

Mean = 1684.4 Variance = 2740.27 SD = 52.35

1 1680 -4.4 19.36

2 1720 35.6 1267.36

3 1590 -94.4 8911.36

4 1635 -49.4 2440.36

5 1739 54.6 2981.16

6 1680 -4.4 19.36

7 1750 65.6 4303.36

8 1725 40.6 1648.36

9 1630 -54.4 2959.36

10 1695 10.6 112.36

Treatment Three (Length of Breast)

Mean =20.06 Variance =0.31 SD = 0.56

1 19.5 -0.56 0.3136

2 19.6 -0.46 0.2116

3 20 -0.06 0.0036

4 19.8 -0.26 0.676

5 20.8 0.74 0.5476

6 20.5 0.44 0.1936

7 20.6 0.54 0.2916

8 19.5 -0.56 0.3136

9 19.8 -0.26 0.0676

10 20.5 0.44 0.1936

APPENDIX C:Sample Statistical

Computations

Computation of Statistics

Weight

X1 X2 X3

1367 1965 168

1409 1835 1720

1389 1895 1590

1387 1956 1635

1459 1967 1739

1342 1862 1680

1364 1853 1750

1394 1933 1725

1345 1945 1630

1329 1830 1695

Σ = 13785 19041 16844 = 49670 µ = 1378.5 1904.1 1684.4 = 1655.67 σ = 1453.39 3066.54 2740.27

SSTotal = Σx2 – (Σx) 2 SSBetween = (Σx1) 2 + (Σx 2) 2 + (Σx 3) 2 - (Σx) 2 N 10 30 = 83695966 – (49670) 2 = (13785 2 + 19041 2 + 16844 2 ) - (49670) 2 30 10 30 = 83695966 – 82236963.33 = 83630624.2 – 82236963.33

SSTotal = 1459002.67 SSBetween = 1393660.87

SSWithin = SSTotal - SSBetween MSTotal = Σx2 – (Σx) 2 MSWithin = S12 + S 2

2 ...+S a2

= 1459002.67 – 1393660.87 N aSSWithin = 65341.8 N – 1 = (1453.39 2 +3066.54 2 +2740.3 2 )

= 83695966 – 2467108900 3 30 MSWithin = 6341696.579

29 MSTotal = 50310.436

Length of Breast

X1 X2 X3

16.5 25.1 19.5

15.7 22.5 19.6

14.9 22.6 20

15.3 22.5 19.8

16.8 22.2 20.8

14.8 24.7 20.5

15.2 23.5 20.6

15.6 22.5 19.5

14.4 22.7 19.8

16.6 22.8 20.5

Σ = 155.8 231.1 200.6 = 587.5 µ = 15.58 23.11 20.06 = 19.58 σ = 0.445 1272.7 0.31

SSTotal = Σx2 – (Σx) 2 SSBetween = (Σx1) 2 + (Σx 2) 2 + (Σx 3) 2 - (Σx) 2 N 10 30 = 11809.51 – (587.5) 2 = (15.58 2 + 23.11 2 + 20.06 2 ) - (587.5) 2 30 10 30 = 11809.51-11505.20833 = 11792.121-11505.20833SSTotal = 17.389 SSBetween = 286.91267

SSWithin = SSTotal - SSBetween MSTotal = Σx2 – (Σx) 2 MSWithin = S12 + S 2

2 ...+S a2

= 304.30167 – 286.91267 N aSSWithin = 17.389 N – 1 = (0.45 2 +1272.7 2 +0.31 2 )

= 11809.51 – 345156.25 3 30 MSWithin = 539921.8614

29 MSTotal = 10.49316103

Sheffe’s Test

Weight

A = 1378.5 B = 1904.1 C = 1684.4

A vs B A vs C B vs C

F2 = (µA - µB) 2 F2 = (µA - µC) 2 F2 = (µB - µC) 2 WGMS (NA + NB) WGMS (NA + NC) WGMS (NB + NC)

NANB NANC NBNC

= (1378.5 – 1904.1) 2 = (1378.5 – 1684.4) 2 = (1904.1 – 1684.4)2

1006208.8 1006208.8 1006208.8 100 100 100

F2 = 27.46 F2 = 4.80 F2 = 9.30

APPENDIX D:

Plates of Procedures

Plate 1: Gathering of yemane leaves

Plate 2: Cleaning of yemane leaves

Plate 3: Pan drying of the yemane leaves

Plate 4: Crushing the yemane leaves

Plate 5: feeding of yemane feeds

Plate : Measuring the weight of the chicks

Plate : Measuring the height of the chicks

Plate : Measuring the length of breast of the chicks

Plate: measuring the weight of 45 day chicken

Plate : Measuring the height of 45 day chicken

super final thesis [super complete]

days chicken fed

yemane leaves

yemane chicken feed

terms of weight

terms of length

research study

yemane gmelina arborea

healthy chicken

Documents

kim martinez thesis complete

thesis complete libre

thesis complete revised

final complete thesis

thesis complete report

thesis complete edited

thesis final manuscript complete

super mario brothers 1 - complete

super inductive system complete edition

zuffi senior thesis complete

achleitner thesis complete

thesis complete draft 4

thesis complete compilation

thesis report - complete[1]

01 complete thesis

complete thesis 2

thesis complete - mapping history.pdf

final thesis complete

thesis-org complete (1)

thesis (the complete one)