Production Performance, Carcass Characteristic of Broiler

with Different Brands of Probiotics

in Drinking Water

Short Term Research

Presented to the College of Agriculture and Related Sciences
University of Southeastern Philippines
Apokon, Tagum City, Davao del Norte

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

For the Degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE
(Animal Science)

Proponents:

Rey Mariano
Karlo Anthony Estilloso
Janice Marie Lapore
Catherine Alboroto
Elvera Recalde
Sinagula, Kerwin
Ramon Damag

S.Y. 2015-2016
 Abstract

Production Performance, Carcass Characteristic of Broiler with Different Brands of

Probiotics in Drinking Water. MSA Animal Science Short Term Research. College of
Agriculture and Related Science, University of Southeastern Philippines, Apokon, Tagum
City, Davao del Norte.

Short term research on Production Performance, Carcass Characteristic of Broiler with

Different Brands of Probiotics via Drinking Water. Was conducted to determine the Initial
weight, feed consumption, final weight, feed efficiency, weight gain, marginal benefit cost ratio
(MBCR) of broiler chicken for 21 days.

A total of eighty (80) heads of broiler chicks were used as experimental birds in the
study. The experimental birds were arranged in a Completely Randomized Design (CRD) with
four (4) treatments replicated four (4) times with five (5) birds in each replication. Treatments
were: A – Control, B – 10mL Yakult/Liter of water, C – 10mL Lacto-Pafi/Liter of water and D –
10mL Nature Bio/Liter of water. The study was conducted at the University of Southeastern
Philippines – Mabini Campus, Pindasan, Mabini, Comval Province from August 8, 2015 to
September 11, 2015.

The highest and the lowest Marginal Benefit Cost Ratio in kilogram of birds were
obtained from Treatment 3 and 1 at 0.57 and 0.43 respectively.
 Introduction

The poultry industry has become an important economic activity in many countries. In
large-scale rearing facilities, where poultry are exposed to stressful conditions, problems related
to diseases and deterioration of environmental conditions often occur and result in serious
economic losses. Prevention and control of diseases have led during recent decades to a
substantial increase in the use of veterinary medicines. However, the utility of antimicrobial
agents as a preventive measure has been questioned, given extensive documentation of the
evolution of antimicrobial resistance among pathogenic bacteria. So, the possibility of antibiotics
ceasing to be used as growth stimulants for poultry and the concern about the side-effects of their
use as therapeutic agents has produced a climate in which both consumer and manufacturer are
looking for alternatives. Probiotics are being considered to fill this gap and already some farmers
are using them in preference to antibiotics

Adding the so-called beneficial bacteria to the digestive tract of poultry is not a new
concept, however, a complete understanding of where, when and how to use them still has
escaped us in its entirety. A strikingly crucial event in the development of probiotics was the
finding that newly hatched chickens could be protected against colonization by Salmonella
enteritidis by dosing a suspension of gut contents derived from healthy adult chickens. This
concept is called competitive exclusion.

The impact of biotechnology in poultry nutrition is of significant importance.

Biotechnology plays a vital role in the poultry feed industry. Nutritionists are continually putting
their efforts into producing better and more economical feed. Good feed alone will not serve the
purpose but its better utilization is also essential. Dietary changes as well as lack of a healthy diet
can influence the balance of the microflora in the gut thus predisposing to digestion upsets. A
well-balanced ration sufficient in energy and nutrients is also of great importance in maintaining
a healthy gut. A great deal of attention has recently been received from nutritionists and
veterinary experts for proper utilization of nutrients and the use of probiotics for growth
promotion of poultry.

In Broiler nutrition, probiotic species belonging to Lactobacillus, Streptococcus,

Bacillus, Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus, Aspergillus, Candida, and Saccharomyces have a
beneficial effect on broiler performance, modulation of intestinal microflora and pathogen
inhibition, intestinal histological changes, immunomodulation, certain haemato-biochemical
parameters, improving sensory characteristics of dressed broiler meat and promoting
microbiological meat quality of broilers.

It is believed by most investigators that there is an unsteady balance of beneficial and

non-beneficial bacteria in the tract of normal, healthy, non-stressed poultry. When a balance
exists, the bird performs to its maximum efficiency, but if stress is imposed, the beneficial flora,
especially lactobacilli, has a tendency to decrease in numbers and an overgrowth of the non-
beneficial ones seems to occur. This occurrence may predispose frank disease, i.e., diarrhea, or
be subclinical and reduce production parameters of growth, feed efficiency, etc. ( LutfulKabir, S.
M. 2009)

Objectives

1. To evaluate the effects of probiotics in the Production Performance, Carcass

Characteristic, Sensory Evaluation and Marginal cost per bird of Broiler.
2. To know which of the probiotics supplementation is suitable for Production Performance,
Carcass Characteristic, Sensory Evaluation and Marginal cost per bird of Broiler.
3. To be able to help future poultry farmers/researchers to have further researches on the
effects of probiotics to poultry production.
 Review of Related Literature

Yakult is a fermented milk drink that contains a very high concentration of the
beneficial bacterium Lactobacillus casei Shirota strain.This bacteria was named after Dr
Shirota who first discovered this unique strain in 1935. The beneficial bacteria strain in
Yakult is scientifically proven to survive the journey through the gastric juices to reach the
small intestine alive. Each 65ml bottle contains 6.5 billion of these highly acid resistant
bacteria, exclusive to Yakult. This means that every millilitre of Yakult contains 100 million
(100, 000, 000) of the live Lactobacillus casei Shirota strain. The benefits of Yakult
consumption are supported by an array of scientific studies. Those could range from
maintenance of gut flora, "modulation" of the immune system, regulation of bowel habits
and constipation and finally effects on some gastrointestinal infections. Although the
number of scientific papers is certainly large, most of them are related to in vitro and in
vivo experiments, with some human clinical trials done on cohorts and with daily
consumption of 40–100 billions of probiotic L. caseiShirota, far above the single bottle
concentration of approximately 6.5 billion. (Online Available)
Lactopafi ingredients is milk which consists of an abundance of the major nutrients
to maintain good health, including fats, carbohydrates, proteins, minerals, and vitamins.
Cow’s milk typically contains about 3.5 to 5 percent fat, which is dispersed throughout the
milk in globules. In addition to providing milk’s characteristic taste and texture, fat supplies
vitamins A, D, E, and K, as well as certain fatty acids that the body cannot produce on its
own.

Lactose, a kind of sugar found only in milk, that makes up about 5 percent of milk’s

content, lactose is a carbohydrate that is broken down by the body to supply energy.
Infants digest lactose easily. But for adults, there are some who are milk intolerance; they
lost some of their ability to digest this sugar, that when they drink milk, they often suffer
gastric distress and diarrhea. The most important protein in milk is casein, accounting for
80 percent of milk protein. Casein is a complete protein, meaning that it contains all of the
essential amino acids, which the body cannot manufacture on its own. Casein molecules
and globules of fat deflect light rays passing through milk, giving milk its opalescent
appearance. Other proteins present in milk include albumin and globulin.
Milk contains many minerals, the most abundant of which are calcium and phosphorus, as
well as smaller amounts of potassium, sodium, sulfur, aluminum, copper, iodine,
manganese, and zinc. (Sanchez Jr., 2009)

Natures bioprotein probiotic ingredients: good bacteria, tuna fish extract, tropical

seaweeds, moringa extract, molasses. Natures bioprotein probiotic an all-natural & a pro-
biotic containing a potent blend of beneficial microbes, fresh seaweeds extract, tuna fish
extract, moringa extract & sugarcane molasses which improve the essential microbial
natural balance of animal health and help to reduce the recurrence of disease-causing or
harmful toxic bacteria.
Improves the essential microbial natural balance of the animal health, and a
compliment nutrients such as 60 micronutrients and natural growth enhancers from
seaweed extracts protein, amino acids, calcium and omega 3 from tuna fish extracts
essential vitamins (a,c,d and e) and minerals from moringga extracts also good for lactating
energy boosters from molasses
  Features and benefits of Natures Bioprotein probiotic is useful for swine, poultry,
gamefowl, racin pigeon, dairy, fish &prawn farm, pets. Its improves the micro-flora in the
intestines of the animal.animals getting healthy and stronger, less stress, decrease
mortality rate, increase weaning rate & adult fertility. Enhance the quality of meat and
prevent disease development and epidemics. It also increase rate in egg laying poultry and
dairy production, not chemically synthesized or genetically engineered or modified. (Online
Available)
 

Methodology
Location and Duration of Study

The study were conducted from August 8, 2015 to September 11, 2015, covering a period
of thirty-five (35) days at the University of Southeastern Philippines – Mabini Campus,
Pindasan, Mabini, Comval Province.

Experimental Design and Treatment

A total of eighty (80) heads of broiler chicks were used as experimental birds in the
study. The experimental birds were arranged in a Completely Randomized Design (CRD) with
four (4) treatments replicated four (4) times with five (5) birds in each replication.

The treatments will be as follows:

T1 – Control
T2 - 10mL Yakult/Liter of water
T3 - 10mL Lacto-Pafi/Liter of water
T4 - 10mL Natures Bio/Liter of water

Experimental Birds

Eighty (80) heads day old chicks were purchased at Vitarich Corporation were used in the
study. The birds were raised for fifteen (15) days in the brooder. After the brooding period, the
birds were randomly distributed to the growing finishing cages and were fed in ad libitum basis.
Preparation of Poultry House

A week before the arrival of the birds, the poultry house was properly cleaned and
disinfected with Creoline. All the materials that are needed like waters, feeders, electrical
fixtures, brooms, pails and newspapers were prepared.

Sixteen (16) cages with a space requirement of 1 square foot per bird werepaired and
cleaned. Every cage accommodated five (5) birds. This was made up of local materials such as
bamboos and timber. The height of each caged was 2.5 meter from the floor of the building.

Brooding

Experimental birds were brooded for fifteen (15) days with the used of 100 watts
electrical bulb. Bulb was place at the center of the brooder of the pen to allow even distribution
of heat. The light was turn on a few hours before the birds arrived and was remained lighted for
24 hours until birds were transferred to the rearing cages for brooding.

Care and Management

Proper sanitation was practiced throughout the duration of the experiment. Waterer,

feeders and the surroundings were cleaned every day and the manure was removed regularly to

minimized bad odor. Sickly and weak birds were separated or culled to prevent the possible

spreading of diseases.

Data Gathered

Initial Weight

The birds were weighed at the start of the study and recorded as initial weight
Feed Consumption

Feed consumption were weighed daily until the 35days of feeding. It was taken by
deducting from feed left from feed offered. The total feed consumption for the duration of the
study was recorded as feed consumption.

Final Weight

It was taken after the duration of the study.

Feed Efficiency

The total feed consumed divided by the weight gain of the broilers is equal to feed
efficiency.

Weight gain

It was done by getting the final weight minus the initial weight.

Marginal Benefit Cost Ratio (MBCR)

Marginal Benefit Cost Ratio is equal to the benefit divided by the marginal cost of
production. Benefit is equal to the weight gain times price of the bird in its replication. The cost
production includes the cost of chicks and experimental rations.
Sensory Evaluation

Sample Selection (4 chicken breast per 4 treatment)

Selection of Panelists (12 Panelists)

Sample Preparation (Steam for 30-45mins)

Sample Presentation (4 Replication)

Data Gathering

Data Interpretation
 Result and Discussions

A. Production Performance, Carcass Characteristic of Broiler with Different Brands of

Probiotics in Drinking Water.

Table 1: Initial weight in (kg) of Broiler with different brands of Probiotics in drinking water

Replication
Treatment 1 2 3 4 Mean
T 1-control 0.554 0.56 0.567 0.567 0.562
T 2-Yakult 0.558 0.558 0.55 0.561 0.557
T 3-LactoPafi 0.572 0.564 0.548 0.563 0.562
T 4-Moringa 0.557 0.564 0.546 0.576 0.561
Each entry is average of (5) five birds.

Table 1 shows the initial weight in (kg) of broilers. Birds in treatment 1 and treatment 3
was slightly heavier followed by treatment 4, treatment 2.

Table 2: Feed Consumption in (kg) of Broiler with different brands of Probiotics in

drinking water

Replication
Treatment 1 2 3 4 Mean
T 1-control 2.4 2.39 2.38 2.4 2.393
T 2-Yakult 2.4 2.39 2.4 2.39 2.395
T 3-LactoPafi 2.39 2.44 2.41 2.43 2.418
T 4-Moringa 2.41 2.46 2.41 2.4 2.420
Each entry is average of (5) five birds.

Table 2 shows the fed consumption in (kg) of broilers with different brands of Probiotics
in drinking water. Birds in treatment 4 had slightly higher feed consumed which was 2.420 kg
than the other treatments. It was followed by treatment 3which was 2.418kg,and treatment 2
which was 2.395 kg.treatmet1 without probiotics in drinking water had consumed 2.393 kg.
Table 3: Final weight in (kg) of Broiler with different brands of Probiotics in drinking

Replication
Treatment 1 2 3 4 Mean
T 1-control 1.254 1.046 1.25 1.23 1.195
T 2-Yakult 1.358 1.39 1.38 1.4 1.382
T 3-LactoPafi 1.48 1.438 1.412 1.454 1.446
T 4-Moringa 1.4 1.43 1.434 1.406 1.418
Each entry is average of (5) five birds.

Table 3 shows the final weight in (kg) of broiler feed with different brands of probiotics
in drinking water. The result showed that the birds in treatment 3 showed slightly heavier weight
which was 1.446 kg than that the other treatment. It was followed by treatment 4which was
1.418 kg of final weight and treatment 3which was 1.382 kg treatment 1 showed the lowest final
weight which was 1.195 kg.

Table 4: Weight Gain in (kg) of Broiler with different brands of Probiotics in drinking water

Replication
Treatment 1 2 3 4 Mean
T 1-control 0.7 0.486 0.683 0.663 0.633
T 2-Yakult 0.8 0.832 0.83 0.839 0.825
T 3-LactoPafi 0.908 0.874 0.864 0.891 0.884
T 4-Moringa 0.843 0.866 0.888 0.83 0.857
Each entry is average of (5) five birds.
Table 4 shows the weight gain in (kg) of broilers with different brands of probioticsin
drinking water.
The result showed that the birds in treatment 3 showed the highest weight gain of .884
kg. This was followed by treatment 4 having .857 kg. Then by treatment 3 with .825 kg.
Treatment 1 gave the lowest weight gain of .633 kg. Treatment 3, treatment 4, treatment 2 gave
the higher weight in gain compared to treatment 1.This could be due to the higher feed
consumption of birds in their treatment as shown in table 2.
Table 5: Feed Efficiency in (kg) of Broiler with different brands of Probiotics in drinking water

Replication
Treatment 1 2 3 4 Mean
T 1-control 3.43 4.92 3.48 3.62 3.86
T 2-Yakult 3.00 2.87 2.89 2.85 2.90
T 3-LactoPafi 2.63 2.79 2.79 2.73 2.74
T 4-Moringa 2.86 2.84 2.71 2.89 2.83
Each entry is average of (5) five birds.
Table 5 shows the Feed Efficiency in (kg) of broilers with different brands of probioticsin
drinking water. The result showed that the birds in treatment 3 showed the highest feed
efficiency of 2.74 kg. This was followed by treatment 4 having 2.83 kg then by treatment 3 with
2.90 kg. Treatment 1 gave the lowest weight gain of 3.86 kg.
Table 6: Marginal Benefit Cost Ratio in (kg) of Broiler with different brands of Probioticsin
drinking water

Replication
Treatment 1 2 3 4 Mean
T 1-control 0.65 0.45 0.64 0.58 0.43
T 2-Yakult 0.70 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.54
T 3-LactoPafi 0.79 0.75 0.74 0.76 0.57
T 4-Moringa 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.42 0.47
Each entry is average of (5) five birds.
Table 6 Marginal Benefit Cost Ratio in (kg) of Broiler with different brands of Probiotics
in drinking water. The result shows that in Treatment 3 has the highest marginal benefit cost with
0.57 followed by Treatment 2 0.54, Treatment 4 with 0.47 and the last is the Treatment 1 or the
control with 0.43.

Table 7: Dressing Percentage (%) of Broiler with Different brands of Probiotics in

drinking water.
Replication
Treatment 1 2 3 4 Mean
T 1-control 82.50 79.40 84.40 84.30 82.65
T 2-Yakult 87.10 78.80 84.00 83.20 83.28
T 3-LactoPafi 89.60 85.60 86.90 84.70 86.70
T 4-Moringa 85.50 82.40 88.70 85.60 85.55
Each entry is average of (5) five birds.
Table 7 Dressing Percentage (%) of Broiler with Different brands of Probiotics in
drinking water.
 The result showed that the birds in treatment 3 showed the highest dressing
percentage of 86.7.This was followed by treatment 4 having 85.55. Then by treatment 2
with 83.28.Treatment 1 gave the lowest weight gain of 82.65
B. Analysis of Variance

Table 8: ANOVA Table for Initial weight in (kg) of Broiler with different brands of Probiotics in
drinking water
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
0.56233333
T 1-control 4 1.687 3 7.03333E-05
T 2-Yakult 4 1.686 0.562 1.2E-05
T 3-LactoPafi 4 1.644 0.548 4E-06
T 4- 0.56666666
NaturesBio 4 1.7 7 6.63333E-05

ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
0.00019763
Treatment 0.000592917 3 9 5.178311499 0.028014854 4.066180551
Error 0.000305333 8 3.81667E-05

Total 0.00089825 11

Based on the ANOVA table shown above, it shows that at least one treatment is
significally different from the other. F>F crit or 5.18>4.07. Therefore, since the F statistic is
smaller than the critical value, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. The chicken broiler
that was treated with one probiotics treatment was different statistically.
Table 9: ANOVA Table for Feed Consumption in (kg) of Broiler with different brands of
Probiotics in drinking water

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
T 1-control 4 7.17 2.39 0.0001
T 2-Yakult 4 7.19 2.396666667 3.33333E-05
T 3-LactoPafi 4 7.24 2.413333333 0.000633333
T 4-NaturesBio 4 7.28 2.426666667 0.000833333

ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Treatment 0.00246667 3 0.000822222 2.055555556 0.18468455 4.066181
Error 0.0032 8 0.0004

Total 0.00566667 11

Based on the ANOVA table shown above, it shows that feed consumption (kg) was
statistically significance. F<F crit or 2.06<4.06 which means the chicken broiler were have same
level of feed intake or consumption together with different probiotics added in water.
Table 10: Final weight in (kg) of Broiler with different brands of Probiotics in drinking

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
T 1-control 4 3.526 1.17533333 0.012645
T 2-Yakult 4 4.17 1.39 0.0001
T 3-LactoPafi 4 4.304 1.43466667 0.000449
T 4-NaturesBio 4 4.27 1.42333333 0.000229

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Treatment 0.13355567 3 0.04451856 13.26536 0.001797 4.0661806
Error 0.026848 8 0.003356

Total 0.16040367 11

Based on the ANOVA table shown above, it shows that at least one treatment is
significally different from the other. F>F critical or 13.27>4.07. Therefore, since the F
statistic is smaller than the critical value, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. The final
weight of chicken broiler that was treated with one probiotics treatment was different
statistically.
Table 11: ANOVA Table for Weight Gain in (kg) of Broiler with different brands of Probiotics
in drinking water

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
T 1-control 4 2.551 0.850333333 0.002956
T 2-Yakult 4 2.572 0.857333333 0.000497
T 3-LactoPafi 4 2.582 0.860666667 0.000849
T 4-NaturesBio 4 2.56 0.853333333 0.001084

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Treatment 0.000184 3 6.14167E-05 0.045601 0.986121 4.066181
Error 0.010775 8 0.001346833

Total 0.010959 11

Based on the ANOVA table shown above, it shows that weight gain (kg) of chicken
broiler were statistically significance. F<F critical or 0.05<4.07 which means the chicken broiler
were have same level of weight gain with different probiotics added in water.
Table 12: ANOVA Table for Feed Efficiency in (kg) of Broiler with different brands of
Probiotics in drinking water

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
T 1-control 4 8.490996 2.830332 0.034436
T 2-Yakult 4 8.505005 2.835002 0.001657
T 3-LactoPafi 4 8.394882 2.798294 0.007946
T 4-NaturesBio 4 8.467468 2.822489 0.007261

ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Treatment 0.002399 3 0.0008 0.062362 0.978248 4.066181
Error 0.1026 8 0.012825

Total 0.104999 11

Based on the ANOVA table shown above, it shows that feed efficiency (kg) of chicken
broiler were statistically significance. F<F critical or 0.06<4.07 which means the chicken broiler
were have same level of feed efficiency with different probiotics added in water.
Table 13: ANOVA Table for Marginal Benefit Cost Ratio in (kg) of Broiler with different brands
of Probiotics in drinking water

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
T 1-control 4 1.666 0.555333 0.009105
T 2-Yakult 4 2.176 0.725333 2.63E-05
T 3-LactoPafi 4 2.254 0.751333 0.000104
T 4-NaturesBio 4 1.295 0.431667 0.00016

ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Treatment 0.20378425 3 0.067928 28.91685 0.000121 4.066181
Error 0.018792667 8 0.002349

Total 0.222576917 11

Based on the ANOVA table shown above, it shows that at least one treatment is
significally different from the other. F>F critical or 28.92>4.07. Therefore, since the F
statistic is smaller than the critical value, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. The
marginal benefit cost ratio of broiler chicken that was treated with one probiotics treatment was
different statistically.
Table 13: ANOVA Table for Dressing Percentage (%) of Broiler with Different brands of
Probiotics in drinking water

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
T 1-control 4 248.1 82.7 8.17
T 2-Yakult 4 246 82 7.84
T 3-LactoPafi 4 257.2 85.7333333 1.2233333
T 4-NaturesBio 4 256.7 85.5666667 9.9233333

ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Treatment 33.44667 3 11.1488889 1.6421587 0.2553349 4.066181
Error 54.31333 8 6.78916667

Total 87.76 11

Based on the ANOVA table shown above, it shows that dressing percentage (%) of
broiler chicken were statistically significance. F<F critical or 1.64<4.07 which means the
chicken broiler were have same level of dressing percentage with different probiotics added in
water.
 Sensory Evaluation

Table 1: Appearance

Repetition 1 Mea Repetition 2 Mea Repetition 3 Mea Repetition 4 Mea

Panel n n n n
T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4
Score Score Score Score
1 1 7 7 2 4.25 3 7 2 1 3.25 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 4 5 5
2 6 6 6 6 6 2 7 5 5 4.75 7 6 6 7 6.5 6 5 6 7 6
3 6 5 6 5.667 5 4 4 5 4.5 6 6 5 6 5.75 7 6 6 7 6.5
4 5 5 6 6 5.5 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 5 7 6 6 5 7 6 6
5 5 5 6 3 4.75 6 6 5 5 5.5 7 7 6 5 6.25 5 5 7 5 5.5
6 6 6 4 5 5.25 6 7 6 6 6.25 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 6 6 5.25 3 4 4 4 3.75 5 4 5 5 4.75
8 5 6 6 6 5.75 6 6 6 5 5.75 6 4 5 6 5.25 5 4 5 5 4.75
9 4 5 6 4 4.75 7 7 7 7 7 6 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4.5
10 5 5 4 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 5.75 6 6 5 5 5.5
11 7 6 7 6 6.5 4 4 4 5 4.25 7 6 7 7 6.75 7 7 7 7 7
12 6 5 6 5 5.5 6 5 5 6 5.5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Total 62 67 64 61 64.92 63 70 63 64 65 69 66 65 68 67 68 63 67 68 66.5
Mea
n 5.167 5.58 5.33 5.08 5.408 5.25 5.83 5.25 5.33 5.417 5.75 5.5 5.42 5.67 5.583 5.67 5.25 5.58 5.67 5.542
Based on the table above, it shows that Treatment 2 – 10mL Yakult/Liter of water were favoured by the most of the panellists with mean of 5.54.
Next treatment favoured by the panellists was Treatment 1 - Control (water). All treatment got the judgement of 5 to 6 which interprets into Hedonic
Rating Scale as 5 as Neither Like nor Dislike and 6 as Like Slightly
Legend
9-Like Extremely 4-Dislike Slightly
8-Like Very Much 3-Dislike Moderately
7-Like Moderately 2-Dislike Very Much
6-Like Slightly 1-Dislike Extremely
5-Neither Like Nor Dislike
Table 2: Odor Rating
Mea Mea Mea Mea
Repetition 1 Repetition 2
n n Repetition 3 n Repetition 4 n
Panel
T
T1 T2 T3 T4 Score T1 T2 T4 Score T1 T2 T3 T4 Score T1 T2 T3 T4 Score
3
1 5 5 5 7 5.5 2 1 1 4 2 5 5 4 4 4.5 6 4 4 5 4.75
2 2 2 5 3 3 4 7 5 4 5 7 6 6 6 6.25 6 5 6 7 6
3 5 4 5 6 5 5 5 4 3 4.25 6 5 6 4 5.25 7 5 6 4 5.5
4 4 3 5 6 4.5 6 7 7 7 6.75 6 3 6 6 5.25 4 7 6 6 5.75
5 5 5 5 4 4.75 5 6 5 6 5.5 5 7 5 5 5.5 1 6 5 1 3.25
6 6 6 6 5 5.75 7 7 7 7 7 5 6 6 6 5.75 5 5 5 6 5.25
7 5 4 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 4 5 5 5 5 3 4.5
8 6 5 5 7 5.75 6 5 5 4 5 4 3 6 4 4.25 4 3 6 6 4.75
9 4 4 5 7 5 7 7 7 6 6.75 5 4 4 3 4 5 5 4 5 4.75
10 4 6 5 6 5.25 5 4 3 5 4.25 4 5 6 5 5 6 5 6 5 5.5
11 7 6 7 7 6.75 5 4 5 4 4.5 6 7 7 7 6.75 5 7 7 7 6.5
12 5 6 6 5 5.5 6 4 5 6 5.25 4 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 5.75
Total 58 56 64 69 61.8 64 63 60 62 62.25 62 61 68 59 62.5 59 63 66 61 62.25
4.8 5.3 5.3 5.1 5.
Mean 3 4.67 3 5.75 5.15 3 5.25 5 5.17 5.19 7 5.08 5.67 4.92 5.21 4.92 5.25 5 5.08 5.19
In terms of odor, the panellists favoured most was Treatment 3 – 10mL Lacto-Pafi/Liter of water with 5.38 mean score. Next treatment that favoured
by the panellists were treatment 1 - Control (water). And lastly, Treatment 4 – 10mL Beneficial Moringga/Liter of water.

Legend
9-Like Extremely 4-Dislike Slightly
8-Like Very Much 3-Dislike Moderately
7-Like Moderately 2-Dislike Very Much
6-Like Slightly 1-Dislike Extremely
5-Neither Like Nor Dislike
Table 3: Taste Rating
Mea Mea Mea Mea
Repetition 1 Repetition 2
n n Repetition 3 n Repetition 4 n
Panel
Scor Scor Scor
T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 Score T1 T2 T3 T4
e e e
1 4 4 2 4 3.5 5 6 6 6 5.75 5 5 4 4 4.5 6 5 4 6 5.25
2 5 4 5 6 5 6 6 7 7 6.5 6 6 5 6 5.75 6 5 6 6 5.75
3 4 7 6 6 5.75 4 4 4 5 4.25 6 6 6 7 6.25 5 6 5 6 5.5
4 5 3 5 6 4.75 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 4 5.25 5 4 6 6 5.25
5 5 6 7 4 5.5 5 6 7 6 6 5 5 7 5 5.5 6 6 6 3 5.25
6 5 4 6 6 5.25 7 7 7 6 6.75 5 6 6 6 5.75 6 5 5 5 5.25
7 5 5 5 5 5 6 4 6 6 5.5 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 5 4.25
8 6 5 5 7 5.75 4 4 5 5 4.5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 6 4.75
9 3 6 4 4 4.25 7 7 7 7 7 6 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 6 4.75
10 5 5 6 6 5.5 5 4 7 5 5.25 5 4 6 5 5 7 5 6 5 5.75
11 7 7 7 7 7 3 5 4 4 4 7 6 7 7 6.75 6 7 7 7 6.75
12 5 5 5 7 5.5 6 5 4 7 5.5 7 5 6 7 6.25 7 6 6 6 6.25
Total 59 61 63 68 62.75 64 64 70 70 67 66 61 66 63 64 66 63 63 67 64.8
5.2 5. 5. 5. 5.2 5.2 5.5
Mean 4.92 5.08 5 5.67 5.23 5.33 5.33 5.83 5.83 5.58 5 5.08 5 5.25 5.33 5 5 5 8 5.4
Based on the table above, it shows that in terms of taste. Most panellists favoured Treatment 4 - 10mL Beneficial Moringga/Liter of water with mean
score of 5.58. Next favoured treatment was Treatment 3 - 10mL Lacto-Pafi/Liter of water with mean score of 5.46 and Treatment 1 Control (water)
with 5.32 mean score.

Legend
9-Like Extremely
8-Like Very Much
7-Like Moderately
6-Like Slightly
4-Dislike Slightly
3-Dislike Moderately
2-Dislike Very Much
1-Dislike Extremely
5-Neither Like Nor Dislike

Table 4: Juiciness Rating

Mea Mea Mea
Repetition 1 Repetition 2 Mean
n n Repetition 3 n Repetition 4
Panel
T T
T2 T3 T4 Score T1 T2 T3 T4 Score T1 T2 T3 T4 Score T1 T2 T3 Score
1 4
1 6 6 4 1 4.25 6 5 5 3 4.75 4 7 5 5 5.25 5 6 5 7 5.75
2 6 6 6 6 6 7 3 6 7 5.75 6 4 5 6 5.25 5 6 6 6 5.75
3 5 6 5 6 5.5 3 5 3 7 4.5 5 3 4 7 4.75 5 5 5 6 5.25
4 3 5 3 3 3.5 6 6 7 6 6.25 6 4 5 5 5 5 6 5 7 5.75
5 7 7 6 3 5.75 5 6 6 6 5.75 5 3 3 7 4.5 6 3 7 4 5
6 5 5 5 5 5 7 6 5 7 6.25 5 4 6 5 5 6 6 5 5 5.5
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 6 4 4 3 6 4 4.25 3 3 3 5 3.5
8 6 6 5 4 5.25 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 6 3 4.5 6 4 6 5 5.25
9 3 7 5 4 4.75 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 4 4 4.5 4 6 5 6 5.25
10 4 5 6 5 5 4 2 4 4 3.5 6 5 3 4 4.5 7 6 5 7 6.25
11 7 7 7 7 7 4 5 5 5 4.75 7 6 7 7 6.75 6 6 6 7 6.25
12 4 5 6 5 5 6 4 5 6 5.25 6 5 7 7 6.25 7 6 5 7 6.25
Total 60 69 62 53 61 65 58 62 70 63.75 64 53 61 64 60.5 65 63 63 72 65.75
Mea 5.7 4. 5.2 5.2
n 5 5 5.17 4.42 5.08 5.42 4.83 5.17 5.83 5.31 5.33 4 5.08 5.33 5.04 5.42 5 5 6 5.48
In terms of juiciness, the treatment that favoured by the panellist was Treatment 4 – 10mL Beneficial Moringga/Liter of water with mean value of
5.40. Treatment 1 - Control (water) and Treatment 2 – 10mL Yakult/Liter of water were least favoured by the panellists.

Legend
9-Like Extremely 4-Dislike Slightly
8-Like Very Much 3-Dislike Moderately
7-Like Moderately 2-Dislike Very Much
 6-Like Slightly 1-Dislike Extremely
5-Neither Like Nor Dislike

Table 5: Tenderness Rating

Mea Mea
Repetition 1 Repetition 2 Mean Mean
n n Repetition 3 Repetition 4
Panel
Scor Scor
T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4 Score T1 T2 T3 T4 Score
e e
1 7 3 3 6 4.75 4 3 7 2 4 5 6 5 4 5 6 5 4 6 5.25
2 6 6 6 6 6 7 5 5 6 5.75 6 5 5 6 5.5 5 5 6 6 5.5
3 6 7 5 5 5.75 3 4 7 7 5.25 6 4 6 7 5.75 5 6 5 6 5.5
4 6 4 3 5 4.5 6 5 6 6 5.75 7 3 7 7 6 4 4 7 7 5.5
5 5 6 5 3 4.75 6 6 5 6 5.75 5 3 7 3 4.5 6 5 6 5 5.5
6 4 5 4 6 4.75 7 6 5 7 6.25 6 6 5 4 5.25 6 6 5 5 5.5
7 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 6 5.5 5 3 5 3 4 3 4 3 6 4
8 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4.5 6 4 5 4 4.75 5 6 5 6 5.5
9 3 6 4 3 4 7 7 5 7 6.5 5 4 5 4 4.5 5 5 4 6 5
10 4 6 5 5 5 7 2 6 4 4.75 6 3 7 5 5.25 7 6 6 7 6.5
11 6 7 7 7 6.75 5 5 5 6 5.25 7 6 7 6 6.5 6 6 6 6 6
12 4 5 7 5 5.25 6 4 5 6 5.25 6 4 6 7 5.75 7 6 5 7 6.25
Total 61 65 59 61 61.5 67 57 66 68 64.5 70 51 70 60 62.75 65 64 62 73 66
Mean 5.08 5.4 4.92 5.0 5.13 5.58 4.75 5.5 5.67 5.36 5.83 4.25 5.8 5 5.23 5.42 5.33 5.17 6.08 5.50
2 8 3
Based on the table above, it shows that Treatment 4 – 10mL Beneficial Moringa/Liter of water were more favoured by most panellists, and in terms
of tenderness treatment 2 – 10mL Yakult/Liter of water with means score of 5.46. And Treatment 3 – 10mL Lacto-Pafi/Liter of water was the next
favoured by the panellists.

Legend
9-Like Extremely 4-Dislike Slightly
8-Like Very Much 3-Dislike Moderately
7-Like Moderately 2-Dislike Very Much
6-Like Slightly 1-Dislike Extremely
5-Neither Like Nor Dislike

Table 6: Over-all Acceptability

Mea Mea Mea
Repetition 1 Repetition 2 Mean
Panel n n Repetition 3 n Repetition 4
T1 T2 T3 T4 Score T1 T2 T3 T4 Score T1 T2 T3 T4 Score T1 T2 T3 T4 Score
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1.75 4 5 4 5 4.5 6 5 4 5 5
2 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 5 6 6 6 5 5 6 5.5 6 6 6 6 6
3 5 6 6 6 5.75 4 4 4 5 4.25 6 4 5 6 5.25 6 5 5 5 5.25
4 6 5 6 5 5.5 6 6 7 6 6.25 6 5 6 6 5.75 5 5 6 6 5.5
5 6 6 7 5 6 6 6 6 5 5.75 5 5 7 5 5.5 6 6 6 5 5.75
6 6 6 5 4 5.25 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 5.75 5 6 6 6 5.75
7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 5.5 4 4 5 4 4.25 5 4 3 5 4.25
8 6 6 6 4 5.5 5 5 4 5 4.75 6 5 6 5 5.5 5 5 5 6 5.25
9 3 4 3 4 3.5 7 7 6 7 6.75 5 5 4 4 4.5 4 5 4 6 4.75
10 5 5 6 6 5.5 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 5 5.25 7 6 6 6 6.25
11 7 7 7 6 6.75 6 5 6 6 5.75 7 6 7 7 6.75 6 7 7 7 6.75
12 5 5 7 5 5.5 6 4 5 6 5.25 6 5 6 7 6 7 6 5 7 6.25
Total 62 63 66 58 62.25 66 64 61 65 64 66 59 67 66 64.5 68 66 63 70 66.75
5.2 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5.2
Mean 5.17 5 5 4.83 5.19 5 5.33 5.08 5.42 5.33 5 4.92 5.58 5 5.38 5.67 5 5 5.83 5.56
In terms of over-all acceptability, each treatment result has slightly difference, Treatment 1 - Control (water) with mean score of 5.46, treatment 4 –
10mL Beneficial moringa/Liter of water with mean score of 5.40, treatment 3 – 10mL Lacto-Pafi/Liter of water and Treatment 2 – 10mL
Yakult/Liter of water with mean score of 5.25-5.35 consecutively.

Legend
9-Like Extremely 4-Dislike Slightly
8-Like Very Much 3-Dislike Moderately
7-Like Moderately 2-Dislike Very Much
6-Like Slightly 1-Dislike Extremely
5-Neither Like Nor Dislike
Conclusion

Based on the result of the sensory evaluation, it is therefore concluded that Treatment 1 –
Control were favoured by most panellists in terms of overall acceptability. However, each
treatment varies results for every criteria given. For the appearance, Treatment 2 – 10mL
Yakult/Liter of water were most favoured. In terms of taste, juiciness and tenderness, Treatment
4 – 10mL Natures Bio/Liter of water were chosen by most panellists. Related Study show that
Natures Bio Enhance the quality of meat and prevent disease development and epidemics.
And for odor, the panellist liked the most is Treatment 3 – 10mL Lacto-Pafi/Liter of water.

Other Observation

A. Physical Appearance

When probiotics was supplemented in drinking water, it was observed that the
feather of the birds showed neat and clean compared to control group. High density of
feather and red color of the comb was then observed,

B. Waste Product

It was observed that the birds supplemented with probiotics had drier and more
compact feces and less odorous as compared to the control group.

C. Mortality Rate

No mortality between treatments was observed during the duration of the study.
Recommendation
Reference

Sanchez Jr. G. 2009.   Lactobacillus Pafi. [Online Available: http://www.lactopafi.com.ph/

index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=69

Natures Bio Protein Probiotics - Organic Probiotic for Animal Health Supplement, 2009
from[OnlineAvailable:http://www.21food.com/products/natures-bio-protein-
probiotics---organic-probiotic-for-animal-health-supplement-1687219.html
www.21food.com.

Lutful Kabir, S.M. 2009. The Role of Probiotics in the Poultry Industry