Thesis
Thesis
Thesis
INTRODUCTION
did you know that aside from commercial feeds that contain
animals will suffer poor growth and some are reducing their
vegetable crop that has been used as food for over 9,000
2
toxic when raw but edible when cooked. It can also be used
Diversity International)
feeds.
broilers;
broiler production;and
value of money.
different preparations.
Definition of Terms
survival
constraints.
animals.
(P < 0.05) in raw taro cocoyam meal. The levels of some anti
which is not in great demand for human food. The use of taro
nutrition.
the low protein and dry matter and the potentially toxic
essential.
METHODOLOGY
Experimental Animals
tuber were grated into small pieces. Then the grated Taro
to make it dried.
T1R3 T3R1 12
2x3
ft.2/cage
opening
T2R3 T4R1
P P
z
A
A T3R3 T2R2
T
T
H
H
W
W
T4R2 T1R1 A
A
Y
Y
T1R2 T2R1
T3R2 T4R3
PATH WAY
tuber was soaked in water for 3 days. The soak taro root was
root.
experimental ration
Ration/Ingredient T1 T2 T3 T4
(Control) (Su10) (So10) (Co10)
Maize 46 46 46
Su Taro 15 0 0
So Taro 0 15 0
Co Taro 0 0 15
RBD1 4 4 4
Housing
Brooding
with the height of .75 feet from the floor. This served as
Feeding Management
the clean and fresh feeds. During the experiment the birds
Water Management
visitors and avoiding the birds from other animals are the
Data Gathered
number of birds.
the birds with the initial weight and divided by the number
of feed.
Statistical Analysis
Initial weight
significantly.
I II III
1 260 280 208 249.33
2 271 271 268 270.00
3 276 261 230 255.67
4 256 220 288 254.67
Grand mean 257.42
I II III
1 1310.00 1173.33 1220.00 1234.44
2 1306.66 1296.66 1273.33 1292.22
3 1296.66 1160.00 1173.33 1209.99
4 1236.66 1126.66 1310.00 1224.44
Grand mean 1240.27
Average Daily Gain
Adejoro, et al. (2013) that was revealed that the daily gain
I II III
1
52.50 44.67 50.6 49.26
2 51.80 51.28 50.26 51.11
3 51.03 44.95 47.17 47.75
4
49.03 45.33 51.10 48.49
Grand mean 49.15
Average Weight Gain
I II III
1 1050.00 893.33 1012.00 985.11
2
1035.66 1025.66 1005.33 1022.22
3 1020.66 899.00 943.33 954.33
4
980.66 906.66 1022.00 969.77
Grand mean 982.86
Treatment 4 (15% cooked taro tubers) with 2.52 kg. The least
I II III
1 2.46 2.47 2.45 2.46
2 2.49 2.60 2.46 2.52
3 2.46 2.43 2.49 2.48
4 2.44 2.56 2.54 2.52
Grand mean 2.49
other treatments.
I II III
1 2.34 2.76 2.42 2.51
2 2.40 2.54 2.44 2.46
26
different. .
I II III
1 67.94 80.13 70.35 72.81
2 66.52 70.27 67.61 68.14
27
least average feed cost per bird was 68.54 , this was
respectively.
treatments.
I II III
1 71.34 71.58 71.19 71.37
2 68.89 72.08 67.97 69.65
28
Average Expenses
I II III
1
145.95 146.19 145.80 145.98
2
143.51 146.69 142.58 144.26
3
142.81 143.05 143.60 143.15
4
142.26 145.58 142.86 143.57
Grand mean 144.24
means.
I II III
1 25.66 12.37 17.14 18.39
2 27.47 23.75 25.03 25.42
3 27.11 13.53 14.39 18.34
4 21.70 8.35 28.38 19.48
Grand mean 20.41
were given 15% soaked taro tubers with 5.9 and 6.0. In
treatment means.
tubers
TREATMENT REPLICATE MEAN ns
I II III
study was 10385.28, and the overall sale was 12055.5. The
2576.8.
net income was attained of the birds given 15% soaked taro
control with P372.1 while the birds given 15% cooked taro
PARTICULAR T1 T2 T3 T4 TOTAL
COST
Broiler 540 540 540 540 2160
Chicks
Feeds
Booster 348.75 348.75 348.75 348.75
Starter 1284.7
2679.7
Feed
ingredients 1253.73 1233.81 1241.26 3740.99
Medicine 25 25 25 25
100
Total Sales
2999.7 3140.1 2940.3 2975.4 12055.5
Summary
tuber, and T4- 15% cocked taro tubers. Data gathered was
Conclusion
feeds.
Recommendation
broilers.
LITERATURE CITED
AGWUNOBI A I,MOHA
MAD A AND LEONARD N (2009)
Taro Cocoyam (Colocasia esculenta) Meal as Feed
Ingredient in Poultry Mohammed Abdulrashid * and
Leonard Nnabuenyi
Technology,Ibadan
APPENDICES
38
Total 11 6886.917
CV= 10.8
39
Total 11 50321.14
CV= 5.6
ns- not significant
Total 11 89.7082
40
CV= 6.04
ns-not significant
Total 11 0.0358
CV= 6.04
ns- not significant
Total 11 0.0278
41
CV= 2.04
ns- not significant
Total 11 0.2887
CV= 6.87
ns- not significant
Total 11 29.93
42
CV= 2.03
ns- not significant
Total 11 29.93
CV= .98
ns- not significant
Total 11 234.6543
43
CV= 6.92
ns- not significant
Total 11 524.5
CV= 35.57
ns- not significant
Total 11 72.20
CV= 48.26
ns- not significant
45
Figure 4.Randomization
46
Figure 7. Soaking of
taro tuber
LIST OF TABLES
50
Table Page
experimental ration 10
10 Average expenses, () 30
LIST OF FIGURES
51
Figure Page
1 Experimental Layout 13
4 Randomization 47
taro tuber 49
11 Feeding 51
1 Analysis of variance on
2 Analysis of variance on
3 Analysis of variance on
4 Analysis of variance on
average expenses 44
11 Analysis of variance on
APRIL 2017
PERFOMANCE OF BROILERS GIVEN TARO TUBERS
(Colocasia esculenta)
54
APRIL 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
55
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
Objective of the Study 3
Significance of the Study 3
Scope and Delimitation of the Study 3
Time and Place of the Study 3
Definition of Terms 4
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 5
METHODOLOGY 11
Appendices 38
ABSTRACT
56
average initial weight with 270g, and the lowest was noted
Final weight was noted that the results did not differ
weight gain and Treatment 3 had the lowest with 1022.22 and
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
59
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
60
lot sir.
study.