1

INTRODUCTION

Poultry is a group of domesticated farm animals that

gives us an economic value such as meat, egg and other

product that is primary source of mans needs. Broilers are

the most prolific animals among poultry species. It is a

good primary source of family income.

Some broiler raisers are using commercial feed and

spending too much for the maintenance of the broilers. But

did you know that aside from commercial feeds that contain

chemicals, taro is a good idea that contains carbohydrates

to feed the broilers.

In poultry raising there are cases that animal is very

sensitive especially in terms of climate behavior that

affects their appetite and their performance. In this case

animals will suffer poor growth and some are reducing their

weights that cause economic losses. To avoid high cost of

production the raiser will provide the animals with feed

using indigenous material that are found in the

surroundings. One of the indigenous root crops to use is

taro as one source of feed that will contribute and give

benefits to the animals especially to the poultry raisers.

Colocasia esculenta, commonly known as Taro, is a staple

vegetable crop that has been used as food for over 9,000
 2

years, making it one of the worlds oldest food crops. It is

used as a source of protein, starch, and vitamins. It is

toxic when raw but edible when cooked. It can also be used

for medicinal purpose.

Taro root is rich in complex carbohydrates and it is a

primary source of starch. The nutritional value of taro root

is similar to potatoes. Taro root has very little fat. One

cup serving has 7 g of dietary fiber which is about 27% of

the daily recommended amount. (Adriana Alercia, Bio-

Diversity International)

Utilizing this kind of product is the best way to

reduce cost of purchasing commercial feeds. It helps the

raisers save money and to gain ideas how broilers will

attain the best performance without using more commercial

feeds.

Objectives of the Study

Generally the study aimed to determine the performance

and economic analysis of broilers given taro tubers.

Specifically the study aims to:

1. Determine the effects of taro in the performance of

broilers;

2. Identify which among the preparation of taro tubers

Is more acceptable and gave the best result in

 3

broiler production;and

3. Analyze the economic importance of using taro

tubers prepared in different methods for broilers.

Significance of the Study

The results of the study served as a guide for the

researchers and for those poultry raisers with the

information regarding the efficacy of the taro that was also

used as feed for the broilers. This can be a good source of

idea to give feed to the broilers without using too much

value of money.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The study was focused only on the growth performance

and economic analysis of broilers given taro roots in

different preparations.

Time and Place of the Study

This study was conducted at Balderas residence San

Jose, Pili, Camarines Sur in CBSUA Compound, on October 1 to

November 6, 2016 for a period of 35 days.

 4

Definition of Terms

Brooding is the process of subjecting the young birds

to heat and warmth in order to increase their chances of

survival

Cash Cost include all-out-pocket expenses

Economic Analysis is a systematic approach in

determining the optimum use of scarce resources, involving

comparison of two or more alternatives in achieving a

specific objective under the given assumptions and

constraints.

Profit is the surplus remaining after total costs are

deducted from total revenue and the basis on which tax is

computed and divided is paid.

Ration refers to the composition of a daily diet of the

animals.

Taro Colocasia esculenta, commonly known as Taro, is a

vegetable crop that has been used as food for over

9,000years, making it one of the worlds oldest food crops

 5

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Based on the study of Mohammed Abdulrashid, et al.

(2009), The dietary treatments contain 0% 25%, 50% and 100%

Cocoyam meal. Results revealed that there was a significant

difference (P < 0.05) in feed conversion with a linear

decrease in boiled taro cocoyam meal as substitution levels

of inclusion increased. Higher amounts of feed intake were

achieved at 50% inclusion levels. Body weight gain decreases

linearly (P > 0.05) with increase in Cocoyam meal inclusion

levels. The cost of daily feed intake differ significantly

(P < 0.05) in raw taro cocoyam meal. The levels of some anti

nutritional factors were also determined in both raw and

boiled, sundried taro cocoyam.

Boiling reduced (P < 0.05) the amounts of the anti

nutritional factors in the taro cocoyam meal. It was also

observed that birds on 100% raw sundried taro passed more

watery dropping than those on boiled. In the CCYM, the value

for proventriculus, crop and all other cut parts are

significantly higher (P < 0.05) as compared with the

control. The values of live weight, dressed weight and

Eviscerated weight for the cocoyam diet is relatively lower

than the control, may be due to effects of ant nutritional

factors present in cocoyam diets. Thus proper processing of

 6

cocoyam meal will effectively replace maize at 25% (raw

sundried) and 50% (boiled sundried) as a major source of

energy in diets of broiler finishers.

Adejumo, et al.(2013), Colocasia esculenta as an

Alternative Energy Source in Animal Nutrition. Taro

(Colocasia esculenta) is a less well known source of energy

which is not in great demand for human food. The use of taro

(Colocasia esculenta) in animal nutrition should be

maximally exploited as a way of reducing the competition

between man and animals for maize utilization, since the

quantity of grains produced in tropical Africa is not

sufficient to feed the increasing human population. Heat

treatment and protein supplementation are however

recommended for optimal use of Colocasia esculenta in animal

nutrition.

Based on the study of Schott Isaac Oluseun Adejumo and

Anthony Durojaiye Ologhobo (2014), Hematological Response of

Broiler Finishers Fed Differently Processed Taro Cocoyam

Colocasia esculenta. The mean value of red blood cell (RBC)

counts for birds on raw peeled taro cocoyam diet (2.7

106l-1) was significantly (P < 0.05) higher than those on

control diet (1.9 106l-1). White blood cell (WBC) counts

slightly varied across the treatments. There was no

 7

significant difference in total protein across the

treatments. Birds on control diet had the highest numerical

mean value of 4.3g/dl. In terms of cholesterol, birds on

peels had the least mean value of 62.5g/dl which was

significantly (P < 0.05) different from those on control

diet (105.5g/dl). Birds on boiled unpeeled taro cocoyam had

the least mean value of 142.1g/dl for glucose level which

significantly (P < 0.05) differed from those on control diet

(170.7g/ dl). Taro cocoyam is thus a recommended alternative

energy source for poultry.

Apata and Babalola (2012) studied The Use of Cassava,

Sweet Potato and Cocoyam, and Their By-Products by Non

Ruminants. Studies on these roots and tubers showed that, on

a dry-weight basis, contained 2.0 7.9% crude protein, 0.3

3.1% crude fibre and 72.4 77.9% starch. The practical

use of these roots and tubers in non ruminant feeds is

generally low. This level of utilization is attributed to

the low protein and dry matter and the potentially toxic

cyanogenic glycosides in fresh cassava and irritating

substance in cocoyam. Processing techniques such as

fermentation, soaking, boiling, ensiling and sun-drying are

adopted to remove the deleterious substances, and effects on

animals. The comparable performance of pigs and poultry fed

varying levels of roots and tubers and their by-products

 8

with those maintained on maize showed that they can be used

as substitutes in non-ruminants diets at certain levels

without detrimental effects. To achieve increase in the use

of these root crops and their by-products for maize

replacement in intensive non-ruminant production systems,

adequate protein supplementation and proper processing are

essential.

Adejoro, et al. (2013), studied the Effect of sun-

dried, soaked and cooked wild cocoyam (Colocasia esculenta

meal on the growth performance and carcass characteristics

of broilers. This study was carried out to determine the

performance of broilers fed diets containing wild cocoyam

meal (WCM) using sun drying, soaking or cooking as

processing methods to improve its nutritive value as a

replacement for maize in broiler diets. Seven experimental

diets were formulated with diet 1 (control) containing 0%

WCM, while diets 2 to 7 contained sundried (Su), soaked (So)

or cooked (Co) wild cocoyam meal each at 10% and 20%

inclusion levels respectively. Two hundred and fifty two

(252) one-day old broiler chicks sourced from a commercial

hatchery were allocated into 7 treatments of 12 birds in 3

replicates in a completely randomised design and dietary

treatment lasting 56days.

 9

Soaking and cooking significantly reduced the anti-

nutritional factors in wild cocoyam meal better than sund

rying. Final body weight, average weight gain and average

daily weight gain were significantly different (P<0.05)

among the treatments. Control, So10, Co10 and Co20 showed

better utilisation of feed than Su10, Su20 and So20. However,

total feed consumption and average daily feed intake were

not significantly different among the treatments. There were

no significant differences in the overall carcass

characteristics between the control diets and the varying

levels of inclusion. It can be concluded that soaking and

cooking were adequate to remove toxic phytochemicals in wild

cocoyam meal to tolerable levels for broiler diets and

inclusion up to 20% is advisable. At this level, growth and

carcass characteristics were not significantly affected

compared to the control diet. However, sun drying may be

used as a treatment method when inclusion level is limited

to 10% of total ration.

Results of the study conducted by Charles Umudike, et

al. (February, 2012) showed that, Utilization of Cassava,

Sweet Potato, and Cocoyam Meals as Dietary Sources for

Poultry revealed that cassava root meal replaced up to 30%

of maize without detrimental effect on the performance on

poultry. Also cassava sievate meals are included up to 20%

 10

in the starter cockerel diet. Sweet potato meals are

included up to 38.73%. For more efficient utilization of the

tuber meals, effort should be geared towards sourcing the

best processing technique like decomposing directing by

heating them above a temperature of 1500C. Crushing the

tubers to allow greater interaction and microbial

detoxification that will ensure reduction in the levels of

anti- nutritional factor such as hydro cyanide (HCN) in

cassava and calcium oxalate in cocoyam and pelletizing the

tuber meals to reduce dustiness.

 11

METHODOLOGY

Experimental Animals

A total of 72 broiler chicks were used in this study to

evaluate the growth performance and economic analysis of

broilers given taro roots in different preparations.

Experimental Design and Treatments

The broiler chicks were distributed in Completely

Randomized Design (RCD) with a total of seventy two heads of

broiler chicks that were assigned to four treatments

consisting of 6 birds per replicate as shown in Figure 1.

The assigned treatments of the study are as follows:

T1-control (Broiler commercial feed)

T2-10% sundried dried taro tubers

T3-10% cooked taro tubers

T4-10% soaked taro tubers

Preparation of Taro Tubers

The preparation of sundried taro tubers as broiler feeds

requires several processes. First is the collection of taro

tubers as a raw material. Second is to remove the outer part

of the tuber. After removing of the outer parts the Taro

tuber were grated into small pieces. Then the grated Taro

tuber was subjected to sun drying for at least 2 to 3 days

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

Figure 1. Experimental Layout

 13

In boiled taro, the pilled Taro tuber was immerged in

boiling water at 100oC and allows boiling continuously for

thirty minutes, drained, cooled and dehydrated. Then after

dehydration, the boiled taro were grate into tiny pieces. In

the soaked preparation, the procedures in 1st to 3rd of

sundried taro was likewise followed. Then the grated taro

tuber was soaked in water for 3 days. The soak taro root was

removed from the water and dehydrated for 24 hours until

dry. This was followed by milling to obtain the soak taro

root.

Preparation of the Experimental Ration

Before the formulation of feeds, purchase of the

required feed ingredients for the experiment was conducted.

After buying the ingredients, preparation of the different

materials that are needed in the experiment was done. Then

weighing the different feed ingredients for the accurate

amount required in the experiment was done. Proper mixing is

the next procedure. Mixed the 15 % sundried taro into

different feed ingredients. After mixing thoroughly with the

materials, final weighing of the feeds and storing was done

in the dry place to avoid spoilage and mold. Fifteen percent

of soaked and cooked taro tubers were mixed in 85% of mixed

feed ingredients. Figure 2 presents the preparation of the

 14

experimental rations. The composition and calculated

analysis of the experimental ration is presented in Table 1.

Figure 2. Mixing of different feed ingredients

Tale 1. Composition and calculated analysis of the

 15

experimental ration

Ration/Ingredient T1 T2 T3 T4
(Control) (Su10) (So10) (Co10)

Commercial Broiler 100 0 0 0

Starter

Maize 46 46 46

Su Taro 15 0 0

So Taro 0 15 0

Co Taro 0 0 15

Soybean oil meal 31 31 31

RBD1 4 4 4

Limestone 0.2 0.2 0.2

Skimmed milk 3.3 3.3 3.3

Salt 0.2 0.2 0.2

Vitamins and 0.3 0.3 0.3

Minerals

Total 100 100 100

Calculated Analysis (%)

Crude Protein 20.7 20.49 20.1 20.2

ME Kcal/g 2979 2977.29 3017.49 3014.63

 16

Care and Management Practices

Housing

The experimental house that was used was made of

available indigenous materials such as, bamboo, nipa, and

coco lumber and used metal sheet.

There were 12 cages that were used in the study with

the standard space requirement of 1 square foot per bird.

Before the start of experimental study the cages were

properly sanitized, provided with clear area without any

unnecessary objects. This was done to ensure the security of

the birds and the proper cleaning of the surroundings

throughout the duration of the study. Figure 3 shows the

broiler house used in the study.

Brooding

A total of 72 birds were placed in one cage. This was

provided by clean newspapers as litter materials to serve as

chilling prevention. A 50watt bulb was provided in the cages

with the height of .75 feet from the floor. This served as

lighting source of the birds to regulate the cages

temperature especially in times of cold.

 17

Feeding Management

Pre- starter was provided during the brooding period

using commercial feed. The experimental ration was

introduced after the brooding period.

The feeder was cleaned properly every day before giving

the clean and fresh feeds. During the experiment the birds

were given different preparation of taro root for their

growth performance and economic analysis that was observed

during and after the experiment.

Water Management

Upon the arrival of the chicks, the drinking water was

added with sugar to maintain the energy and provided by

fresh water and clean waterer.

Health and Sanitation

Routine cleaning of the place of the study was done

every day to control the entrance of pathogens to the

assigned birds. Good quality of water supply, minimizing

visitors and avoiding the birds from other animals are the

good program in maintaining the good health of the

experimental animals. A balanced feed prepared according to

the nutrient requirements at different ages was ensured for

proper health and good immune status of the birds..

 18

The cages and the surrounding was cleaned and proper

waste disposal was done to prevent the entry of different

pathogens or insects that causes illness and diseases.

Proper ventilation for fresh air to avoid ammonia for the

birds and provided clean feeder and waterer to avoid

contamination and spread of bacteria that may affect the

health condition and performance of the broilers.

Data Gathered

The following were the data gathered in the study:

Average Initial weight is the average weight of the

birds at the very start of the experiment. It is computed by

getting the weight of the birds per replicate and divided by

the number of chicks.

Average Final weight is the weight of the broilers at

the end of the experiment. This was also taken by weighing

the broilers at the end of the experiment and divided by the

number of birds.

Average Daily Gain (ADG) is the total gain in weight

per day. This was taken by subtracting the final weight of

the birds with the initial weight and divided by the number

of days multiplied by the number of birds.

Feed Conversion ratio is the amount of feed consumed or

needed to produce a kilogram gain in body weight. It is

 19

computed by dividing the total feed consumed by the total

gain in weight of the birds.

Average Feed Consumption was determined by dividing the

total feed consumed by the total number of birds.

Average Feed Cost per kilogram gain in weight was

computed by multiplying the FCR with the cost per kilogram

of feed.

Average Feed Cost per Bird is computed by dividing the

total cost of feeds by the number of birds .

Statistical Analysis

The data gathered was analyzed using the Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) in Completely Randomized Design. The

Duncans Multiple Range Test (DMRT) was used to compare the

significant differences among the means.

 20

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results and discussion on the

growth performance of broilers given taro tubers.

Initial weight

As shown in Table 2, the broilers in Treatment 2 (15%

sundried taro tuber) had an initial weight of 270 g,

followed by the birds assigned in Treatment 3 (15% soaked

taro tuber), with 255.67 g and Treatment 4 (15% cooked taro

tuber) with 254.67 g. Birds in Treatment 1 (Control) had the

lowest initial weight of 249.33 g.

The result on the Analysis of Variance shows that the

average Initial weight of the broilers did not differ

significantly.

Table 2. Average initial weight

TREATMENT REPLICATE MEAN ns

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

Average Final Weight

 21

The average final weight of the broilers after 20 days

of feeding different preparations of taro tubers is

reflected in Table 3. Results showed that the birds that

were assigned in Treatment 2 (15% sundried taro tubers)

(1292.22 g) had slightly higher final weight among the

treatments, followed by the birds assigned in Treatment 1

( Control) (1234.44 g) and Treatment 4 ( 15% cooked taro

tubers (1224.44 g). Birds assigned in Treatment 3 (15 %

soaked taro tubers) had the least weight (1209.997 g).

However, the result on the Analysis of Variance in

final weight of the broilers was not significantly affected

by different preparations of taro tubers. This findings was

in contrast to the findings of Adejoro, et al. (2013)who

reported that the sundried, soaked and cooked wild

cocoyam(calocasia esculenta) significantly influenced the

growth performance and carcass characteristics of broilers.

Table 3. Average final weight (g)

TREATMENT REPLICATE MEAN ns

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

In table 4, the comparative average daily gain in

weight of birds given different preparations of taro tubers

 22

is presented. The highest mean was exhibited by the birds

assigned in Treatment 2 (15% sundried taro tubers), with

51.11 g, followed by the Treatment 1 (control), with 49.26 g

and Treatment 4 (15% cooked taro tubers), with 48.49 g. The

lowest mean was exhibited by the birds assigned in the

Treatment 3 (15% soaked taro tuber), with 47.72 g.

The Analysis of Variance revealed that there was no

significant difference observed among the treatment that was

observed. This finding was in contrast with the study of of

Adejoro, et al. (2013) that was revealed that the daily gain

in weight of the broilers were significantly different among

the treatment. The present findings shows that soaked and

cooked taro roots did not influenced the daily gain in

weight of the broilers.

Table 4. Average daily gain (g)

TREATMENT REPLICATE MEAN ns

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

The highest gain in weight was noted in birds in

Treatment 2 with 15% sundried taro tuber (1022.22 g ),

followed by the birds in Treatment 1 with control diets

 23

(985.11 g) and the lowest was in the birds in Treatment 4

with 15% cooked taro tuber(969.77 g) and Treatment 3 with

15% soaked taro tubers (954.33 g)(Table 5).

Hence, statistical analysis revealed that there is no

significant difference that was noted among the different

treatments. This further test that the different preparation

of taro did not affect the weight gain of the broilers.

Table 5. Average weight gain (g)

TREATMENT REPLICATE MEAN ns

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

Average Feed Consumption

The average feed consumption of the broilers given

different preparations of taro tubers is shown in Table 6.

As shown in the table, the overall average feed consumed was

posted to be 2.49 kg. The birds assigned in Treatment 2 (15%

 24

sundried taro) had the highest mean, with 2.52 kg and

Treatment 4 (15% cooked taro tubers) with 2.52 kg. The least

mean was noted in the birds assigned in Treatment 3 (15%

soaked taro tubers) with 2.48 kg and followed by Treatment 1

(control) with 2.46 kg. However, results further revealed

that birds given 15 percent sundried taro and 15 percent

cooked taro tubers consumed slightly higher feed compared to

birds in other treatments. However differences was observed

too small to be significant.

Average Feed Consumption did not differ significantly.

Table 6. Average feed consumption

TREATMENT REPLICATE MEAN ns

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

Average Feed Conversion Ratio

The average feed conversion ratio of the broilers given

different preparation of taro is reflected in the Table 7.

Bird assigned in treatment 2 had slightly better FCR (2.46)

followed by the birds assigned in the control group with

 25

2.51. Birds assigned in Treatment 3 and Treatment 4 had

almost the same value of FCR (2.60) and (2.60).These

results, indicated that there is no significant influence of

feeding different preparation of taro on the birds ability

to convert feeds into a kilogram gain in weight. However,

the birds in Treatment 2 were efficient in converting feeds

into body weight as compared to the rest of the birds in

other treatments.

Results on the Analysis of variance shows that the mean

feed efficiency of the birds fed different preparations of

taro tuber did not differ significantly. The findings was in

contrast with the findings of Mohammed Abdulrashid, et al.

(2009) who reported that the feed efficiency of the broilers

were significantly different among the treatment. This

revealed findings that the boiled taro tubers influence the

feed efficiency of the broilers.

Table 7. Average feed conversion ratio

TREATMENT REPLICATE MEAN ns

I II III
1 2.34 2.76 2.42 2.51
2 2.40 2.54 2.44 2.46
 26

3 2.41 2.75 2.64 2.60

4 2.49 2.83 2.48 2.60
Grand mean 2.54

Feed Cost per Kilogram Gain in Weight

The mean feed cost per kilogram gain in weight of birds

was noted to be comparable among the treatments except for

those assigned in Treatment 2. As shown in Table 8, the

least feed cost for a kilogram gain in weight was noted in

Treatment 2 that posted a mean of 68.14 followed by T4 with

P72.01, Treatment 3 with 72.03 and the broilers in

Treatment 1 posted a ean cost 72.81.

Results on Analysis of Variance further revealed that

there was no significant differences that were detected

among the different treatments. Compare to the result on the

findings of Mohammed Abdulrashid, et al.(2009) The cost of

daily feed intake of the broilers were significantly

different. .

Table 8. Average feed cost per kilogram gain in weight,

TREATMENT REPLICATE MEAN ns

I II III
1 67.94 80.13 70.35 72.81
2 66.52 70.27 67.61 68.14
 27

3 66.82 76.12 73.13 72.03

4 68.98 78.28 68.76 72.01
Grand mean 71.25

Average Feed Cost per Bird

The average feed cost per bird given different

preparation of taro tubers is presented in Table 9. The

least average feed cost per bird was 68.54 , this was

attained by the broilers given 15% soaked taro tubers. The

highest cost was exhibited byy the birds assigned in the

control with 71.37.The birds assigned in Treatments 2 and

4 had almost the same result with 69.65 and 69.63

respectively.

In the analysis of variance, it was revealed that this

result was found to be not significantly different among the

treatments.

Table 9. Average feed cost per bird,

TREATMENT REPLICATE MEAN ns

I II III
1 71.34 71.58 71.19 71.37
2 68.89 72.08 67.97 69.65
 28

3 68.21 68.44 68.99 68.54

4
67.65 70.97 70.28 69.64
Grand mean 69.81

Average Expenses

As shown in table 10, the average expenses had nearly

differed among the treatments. Treatment 1 had the highest

expenses of P145.98 followed by Treatment 2 with P144.26.

Treatments 4 and 3 had almost the same amount of expenses at

P143.15 and P143.57

In the results manifested that there is no significant

differences that were detected among the treatments.

Table 10. Average expenses, ()

TREATMENT REPLICATE MEAN ns

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

Average Return on Investment

The average ROI of the bird given different

preparations of taro tubers is shown in Table 11. The birds

assigned in Treatment 2 was noted to have the highest ROI of

 29

25.42, followed by the birds assigned in Treatment 4 with

19.48.Birds in the control and those given 15% soaked taro

tubers indicated an almost the same ROI of 18.39 and 18.34.

Result of the Analysis on variance revealed that

Average ROI did not differ significantly among the treatment

means.

Table 11. Average ROI

TREATMENT REPLICATE MEAN ns

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

Average Payback Period

It can be noted that the average payback period of the

birds assigned in the 15% sundried taro tubers had a better

payback period of 3.9 followed by control and those that

were given 15% soaked taro tubers with 5.9 and 6.0. In

Treatment 4 a payback period of 6.7 was attained.

In the Analysis of Variance, it was revealed that the

Average Payback period did not differ significantly among

treatment means.

Table 12. Average payback period of the broilers given taro

 30

tubers
TREATMENT REPLICATE MEAN ns

I II III

1 3.9 8.1 5.8 5.9

2 3.6 4.2 4.0 3.9

3 3.7 7.4 6.9 6.0

4 4.6 12.0 3.5 6.7

Grand mean 5.7

Cost and Return Analysis

The analysis of the cost and return is presented in

Table 13. As shown in the table overall total cost of the

study was 10385.28, and the overall sale was 12055.5. The

overall net income was 1670.2.

It was noted that in terms of total expenses,

T1(control) revealed the highest total cost with 2627.44

followed by the T2(15% sundried taro tubers) and T4(15%

cooked taro tubers) with 2596.67 and P2584.10. The least

expenses was revealed in T3 (15% soaked taro tubers) with

2576.8.

In total sales of the broilers, Treatment 2 had the

highest total sales of 3140.10 followed by Treatment 1 with

2999.7. The birds assigned in the Treatment 4 attained a

total sale of P2975.4 while those birds assigned in

Treatment 3 revealed the lowest sales of the broilers.

 31

In terms of net income the broilers given 15% sundried

taro obtained the highest net income of P543.4.The lowest

net income was attained of the birds given 15% soaked taro

tubers with P363.5, followed by those assigned in the

control with P372.1 while the birds given 15% cooked taro

tubers had a net income of P391.20.

Table13. Cost and return analysis

PARTICULAR T1 T2 T3 T4 TOTAL
COST
Broiler 540 540 540 540 2160
Chicks

Housing 69.44 69.44 69.44 69.44 277.78

Equipment 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 939

 32

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

Water and 125 125 124 125 500

electricity

Total cost 2627.44 2596.67 2576.8 2584.20 10385.28

Total Sales
2999.7 3140.1 2940.3 2975.4 12055.5

Net Income 372.1 543.4 363.5 391.2 1670.2

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary

The study was conducted to determine the performance of

broilers given different preparations of taro tubers. It

specifically attained the following objectives:1) Determine

the effects of taro in the performance of broilers:

2)Identify which among the preparation of taro tubers was

acceptable and gave the best results in broiler production;

 33

and 3) Analyze the economic importance of using taro tubers

prepared in different method as feed for broilers.

The study followed the Completely Randomized Design to

accommodate the experimental treatments as follows, T1-

control, T2- 15% sundried taro tuber, T3 15% soaked taro

tuber, and T4- 15% cocked taro tubers. Data gathered was

analysed using the Analysis of Variance in CRD. Since, there

was no significant difference noted in the results, no

further test was done to compare treatment means.

Results of the study indicated that Treatment 2 (15%

sundried taro tuber) recorded the highest initial weight of

270.00 g, and the lowest was noted in Treatment 1 (control).

This result was observed to be not significantly different.

It was also revealed that final weight of the broilers had

no significant differences among the treatment means,

although the highest value was recorded in Treatment 2(15%

sundried taro tubers) with 1292.22 g and Treatment 3(15%

soaked taro tubers) recorded the lowest final weight.

The average gain in weight was observed to be not

significantly different. The different preparation of taro

tuber did not significantly affect the weight gain of the

broilers. The highest weight gain was noted in Treatment 2

(15 % sundried taro tubers) with 1022.22 g and the lowest

was noted in Treatment 3 (15% soaked taro tubers) with

 34

954.33 g. Average daily gain in weight was highest in

Treatment 2 (15% sundried taro tuber) with 51.11 g and the

lowest was noted in Treatment 3(15% soaked taro tubers with

47.71 g. Hence, the results had no significant differences

among the treatments.

The overall feed conversion ratio was recorded to be

2.54. Birds assigned in Treatment 2 were found to be most

efficient with 2.46 kg.

In the cost of feed required in order to attain a

kilogram gain in weight, the birds assigned in Treatment

2(15% sundried taro tuber) attained lower feed cost among

the treatments and the birds assigned in T1(control) had the

highest cost of 72.81. The results revealed that no

significant different among treatment means exist.

In average expenses, Treatment 1(control) indicated the

highest cost of P145.98 and Treatment 3 (15% soaked taro

tubers) was noted with the lowest cost of 143.15. However,

the results in analysis of variance revealed no significant

differences among the treatment.

The overall net income receive accounted to P1670.20.

Broilers given the 15% sundried taro tubers (Treatment 2)

attain a higher income compare to the other treatments.

In terms of average ROI, Treatment 2(15% sundried taro

tubers) recorded a better ROI with 25.42. Results in Payback

 35

period revealed no significant differences among treatment

means. The better payback period was recorded in Treatment 2

(15% sundried taro tubers) with an average mean of 3.9.

The overall results of the study, was noted that

different preparations of the taro tubers had no significant

effect in all parameters evaluated in the study.

Conclusion

Based from the results of the study, the following

conclusions had been drawn;

1. Different preparations of taro tubers as feed

ingredient in the diet of the broilers had no significant

effect in all the parameters evaluated in the study.

2. Sundried Taro tubers give the best results in the

performance of the broilers.

3. Using different preparations of taro tubers as feed

ingredients is less expensive rather than using a commercial

feeds.

Recommendation

1. Different preparations of taro tuber can be used as

alternative source of feed ingredient in the feed for

broilers.

2. Ten percent of sundried taro tuber is recommended as

the acceptable level of inclusion in the feed for broilers.

 36

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

ADEJUMO, BABALOLA AND ALABIL (2013)

esculenta (L.) Schott as an Alternative Energy vb
Source in Animal Nutrition
ISAAC OLUSEUM ADEJUMO / DUROJAIYA OLOGHOBO
Haematological Response of Broiler Finishers Fed
Differently Processed Taro Cocoyam Colocasia esculenta
(L) Schott

APATA, BABALOLA, (2012)

Federal University, Oye Ekiti. Ikole Campus

Federal College of Animal Health and Production
 37

Technology,Ibadan

NDIMANTANG B, ASINOBI C O, OBIAKOR N 2006

The effect of different processing methods on some

anti-nutritional factors content of Ede uhie
(Xanthosomasagittifolium) and edeocha
(Colocasiaesculenta).

ONU P N, MADABUIKE F N 2006

Effect of raw and cooked wild cocoyam (Caladium
bicolor) on the performance of broiler chicks.

UCHEGBO M C, OMEDE AA, CHIDOZIE J C,AND NWAODU C H 2010

Performance of Finisher Broilers fed varying levels of
raw and sun-dried Cocoyam (Xanthosomasagittifolium)
corm meals. Report and Opinion. 2(8):22-25.

APPENDICES
 38

Appendix Table 1. Analysis of variance on average initial

weight

SOURCE OF DF SS MS Computed F value

F (5% 1%)

Treatment 3 702.917 234.306 0.303ns 4.07 7.59

Error 8 6184 773

Total 11 6886.917
CV= 10.8
 39

Ns- not significant

Appendix Table 2. Analysis of variance on average final

weight

SOURCE OF DF SS MS Computed F value

F (5% 1%)

Treatment 3 11698.41 3899.47 0.8077ns 4.07 7.59

Error 8 38622.73 4827.84

Total 11 50321.14

CV= 5.6
ns- not significant

Appendix Table 3. Analysis of variance on average daily

gain in weight

SOURCE OF DF SS MS Computed F value

F (5% 1%)

Treatment 3 19.0870 6.3623 0.7207s 4.07 7.59

Error 8 70.6211 8.8276

Total 11 89.7082
 40

CV= 6.04
ns-not significant

Appendix Table 4. Analysis of variance on average weight

gain
SOURCE
OF DF SS MS Computed F value
F (5% 1%)
Treatmen
t 3 0.0076 0.0025 0.7191ns 4.07 7.59
Error 8 0.0282 0.0035

Total 11 0.0358

CV= 6.04
ns- not significant

Appendix Table 5. Analysis of variance for average feed

consumption
SOURCE
OF DF SS MS Computed F value
F (5% 1%)
Treatmen
t 3 0.0078 0.0024 0.9349ns 4.07 7.59

Error 8 0.0206 0.0025

Total 11 0.0278
 41

CV= 2.04
ns- not significant

Appendix Table 6. Analysis of variance for average feed

conversion ratio

SOURCE OF DF SS MS Computed F value

F (5% 1%)

Treatment 3 0.0440 0.0147 0.4796ns 4.07 7.59

Error 8 0.2446 0.0306

Total 11 0.2887

CV= 6.87
ns- not significant

Appendix Table 7. Analysis of variance for average feed

cost per bird

SOURCE OF DF SS MS Computed F value

F (5% 1%)

Treatment 3 13.99 4.66 2.34ns 4.07 7.59

Error 8 15.94 1.99

Total 11 29.93
 42

CV= 2.03
ns- not significant

Appendix Table 8. Analysis of variance for average expenses

SOURCE OF DF SS MS Computed F value

F (5% 1%)

Treatment 3 13.99 4.66 2.34ns 4.07 7.59

Error 8 15.94 1.99

Total 11 29.93

CV= .98
ns- not significant

Appendix Table 9. Analysis of variance on average feed

cost per kilogram gain in weight

SOURCE OF DF SS MS Computed F value

F (5% 1%)

Treatment 3 39.86585 13.2886 0.5457ns 4.07 7.59

Error 8 194.7884 24.3485

Total 11 234.6543
 43

CV= 6.92
ns- not significant

Appendix Table 10. Analysis of variance on average ROI

SOURCE OF DF SS MS Computed F value

F (5% 1%)
Treatment 3 102.9 34.29 0.651ns 4.07 7.59

Error 8 421.6 52.7

Total 11 524.5

CV= 35.57
ns- not significant

Appendix Table 11. Analysis of variance on average payback

period

SOURCE OF DF SS MS Computed F value

F (5% 1%)
 44

Treatment 3 12.70 4.219 0.567ns 4.07 7.59

Error 8 59.49 7.437

Total 11 72.20

CV= 48.26
ns- not significant
 45

Figure 3. Cages of broilers used in the study

Figure 4.Randomization
 46

Figure 5. Getting Initial weight of the birds

Figure 6. Getting Final weight of the birds

 47

Figure 7. Soaking of
taro tuber

Figure 8. Preparation of grated boiled taro tuber

 48

Figure 9. Sun drying of taro

tuber

Figure 10. Weighing of feed ingredient

 49

Figure 11. Feeding

LIST OF TABLES
 50

Table Page

1 Composition and calculated analysis of the

experimental ration 10

2 Average Initial weight 22

3 Average Final weight (g) 24

4 Average daily gain (g) 25

5 Average weight gain (g) 26

6 Average feed Consumption 27

7 Feed Conversion ratio 28

8 Feed Cost per kilogram gain in weight, 29

9 Average feed cost per bird, 30

10 Average expenses, () 30

11 Average Return on Investment 31

12 Average Payback Period 32

13 Cost and return analysis 34

LIST OF FIGURES
 51

Figure Page

1 Experimental Layout 13

2 Mixing of different feed ingredients 15

3 Cages of broilers used in the study 47

4 Randomization 47

5 Getting Initial weight of the birds 48

6 Getting Final weight of the birds 48

7 Soaking of taro tuber 49

8 Preparation of grated boiled

taro tuber 49

9 Sun drying of taro tuber 50

10 Weighing of feed ingredient 50

11 Feeding 51

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLE

 52

Appendix Table Page

1 Analysis of variance on

average initial weigh 41

2 Analysis of variance on

average final weight (g) 41

3 Analysis of variance on

average Daily Gain (g) 42

4 Analysis of variance on

average weight gain 42

5 Analysis of variance for

average feed consumption 43

6 Analysis of variance for

average feed conversion ratio 43

7 Analysis of variance for

Average Feed Cost per Bird 44

8 Analysis of variance for

average expenses 44

9 Analysis of variance on average feed

cost per kilogram gain in weight 45

10 Analysis of variance on average ROI 45

11 Analysis of variance on

average payback period 46

PERFOMANCE OF BROILERS GIVEN TARO (Colocasia esculenta)

TUBERS
 53

ALMY DELOS SANTOS BORROMEO

SUBMITTED TO THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL

RESOURCES, FACULTY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL
SCIENCE, CENTRAL BICOL STATE UNIVERSITY OF
AGRICULTURE, PILI, CAMARINES SUR IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE IN

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE

(Animal Science)

APRIL 2017
PERFOMANCE OF BROILERS GIVEN TARO TUBERS
(Colocasia esculenta)
 54

ALMY DELOS SANTOS BORROMEO

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL

SCIENCE, CENTRAL BICOL STATE UNIVERSITY OF
AGRICULTURE, PILI, CAMARINES SUR IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FORT HE
DEGREE OF

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE

Animal Science

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

Experimental Design and Treatments 12

Preparation of Taro as Broiler Feeds 12

CARE AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 16
Housing 16
Brooding 16
Feeding 17
Watering 17
Health and Sanitation 17
DATA GATHERED 18
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 20

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 33

Summary 33
Conclusion 35
Recommendation 38
LITERATURE CITED 37

Appendices 38

ABSTRACT
 56

BORROMEO, ALMY DELOS SANTOS, Central Bicol State

University of Agriculture, San Jose, Pili, Camarines Sur,
March 2017, Performance of Broilers Given Taro (Colocasia
esculenta) Tubers.
Adviser: Efren B.Villafor
The study was conducted to compare the performance of

broilers given taro tubers in different preparation. There

were four treatments assigned and each treatment was

replicated three times with six birds per replicate. There

were seventy two broilers in the study. The distribution of

different preparations of taro tubers were as follows;

Treatment 1 (control), Treatment 2 (15% sundried taro

tubers), Treatment 3(15% soaked Taro Tubers and Treatment

4(15% cocked taro tubers).Taro tubers was given in twenty

days. Results of the study indicated that treatment

2(15%sundried taro tubers) recorded the highest value in the

average initial weight with 270g, and the lowest was noted

in treatment 1(control) with 249.33 g, however these

parameters were found to be not significantly different.

Final weight was noted that the results did not differ

significantly .It was also recorded that broilers in

Treatment 2 had the highest average daily gain in weight

posting 51.113 g and Treatment 3 had the lowest mean of

1209.99 g. It was noted that there was no significant

differences that were observed among the treatment means.

Birds assigned in treatment 2 had obtained the highest

 57

weight gain and Treatment 3 had the lowest with 1022.22 and

954.33 g respectively this indicated that there is no

significant difference observed among the treatments. In

terms of feed consumed of birds, Treatment 2 obtained the

highest feed consumed that was recorded to be 2.52 kg and

Treatment 1 obtained the lowest consumption of 2.46 kg. The

results did not differ significantly among treatment means.

Better FCR were also obtained in Treatment 2 with 2.46 g

Followed by Treatment 1 (control) with 2.51 kg, and

Treatment 3 and 4 with 2.60 kg. The cost of feed per

kilogram gain in weight was lowest in Treatment 2. No

significant difference were noted in the different

treatments. Average feed cost was lowest in Treatment 2 and

highest was noted in Treatment 1. It was also recorded that

broilers assigned in Treatment 2 (15% sundried taro tubers)

had the better ROI of 25.42 and the birds assigned in

Treatment 1 (control) noted with the lowest ROI of 18.39.No

significance difference was noted among the treatments.

In terms of cost and return analysis, The birds

assigned in the control revealed the highest total cost of

P2627.44. Total sales of the broilers recorded that the

highest sales was noted in Treatment 2(15% sundried taro

tubers) with P3140.10 and Treatment 3 (15% sundried taro

tubers) had the lowest sales of P2940.30.The overall net

 58

income was P1670.00 wherein the birds assigned in Treatment

2 attained the highest net income at P543.40 and the lowest

net income was noted on the birds assigned in Treatment

3(15% soaked taro tubers).

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
 59

Almy S. Borromeo is the second and youngest

child of Mr. and Mrs. Alex P. Borromeo and Dulce

S. Borromeo. She was born on December 10, 1991

in Zone 5 Tambo Pamplona, Camarines Sur.

She fineshed her Elementary education at Tambo

Elementary School, Pamplona Camarines Sur and secondary

education at Camarines Sur National High School.

She took up the entrance examination at Universidad De

Sta.Isabel, for the scholarship granted by the school. She

enrolled a commerce course at the University but after few

months she stopped for health reasons.

Because of her ambition to finish college degree she

continued her college education at Central Bicol State

University of Agriculture where she took up Bachelor of

Science of Agriculture major in Animal Science.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 60

The researcher wish to express above all things her

sincerest gratitude to GOD ALMIGHTHY for giving her a good

health, endless guidance, divine inspiration which prompted

her to complete this piece of work.

Special and sincere thanks to her thesis adviser, Sir

Efren B. Villaflor for his invaluable suggestions, worth

emulating criticisms and comments, encouragement and full

support in improving the substance of this study, thanks a

lot sir.

Gratitude also is extended to Sir Fidel P. Talay and

Maam Adelfa A. Villaflor, for their scholarly advices,

comments and suggestions, for unselfish sharing of knowledge

and experiences, patience and all consideration for the

improvement of the study.

To her beloved family, specially to her mother and

sister, for their love, care, financial, spiritual and moral

support, encouragement and guidance which served the

greatest inspiration in order to continue moving toward this

study.

Sincere gratitude to Mr. Angeles C. Bongais for

unselfish sharing of his knowledge and experience, for the

considerations and patience in times of barrowing reference

materials in the library.

 61

Heartfelt thanks are extended to her guardian, Ma.

Victoria P. Balderas for the support and patience,

encouragement, financial and moral support and for the word

of guidance. To ate vanny, LAla and Naning for the time

spared specially in giving suggestions, comment and advices,

for the support and laughter during the time of stresses. To

mommy Paz and daddy Santos for their guidance and

considerations, for moral support and word of wisdom.

Special appreciation to all her classmates specially to

her best friends and friends, Donnabel, ate jannet, anj,

Ghimer, Diane, jom. Dean, Sheila, Jean, Nazh, Marilie,

Allen, Philip, Rosalie and marz for the companionship and

for sharing the laughters, tears, encouragement, moral

support and strength, cooperation, friendship and friendly

advice. Special thanks also to Jessa, lhet, jai, Wilma and

mik for their advice and encouragement.

This study also will not be possible without her

partner in life Reckyboy for his undying support, effort,

patience, care and love.

ALMY DELOS SANTOS BORROMEO

62