You are on page 1of 7

P Kon

10AG3Mr. Pronger

Aim: To compare the effect of two different commercial broiler starter feeds on
the growth of young meat chickens over a five-day period.
Method:

1. 22 days old broiler chickens were divided into two groups. The groups

2.
3.

4.
5.

6.

7.

8.

were divided by randomly selecting them and putting them into two
separate groups. The randomisation process of dividing 26 chicks in two
groups i.e. 13 in Barastoc and 13 in Vella removed bias in the selection
process.
The chickens were fed on Broiler Starter Crumbles (22% C.P) from feed
company Barastoc for 4 days. This was done to help them adjust to their
environment and get used to eating from the feeder.
One group was chosen to receive feed merchant Barastocs Broiler Starter
Crumbles (22% C.P) and the other one was to receive merchant Vellas
Broiler Starter Crumbles (24% C.P). This process was once again
randomised, by flipping a coin and whichever group was assigned to
heads, got Barastocs Broiler Started Crumbles, leaving the other group
with Vellas Broiler Starter Crumbles.
On Day 0, chickens were weighed in each group and the average was
calculated. By recording their weight on Day 0, the initial results and end
results could be compared to see trends, progress and growth.
On Day 0, 5kg of each feed were measured and placed in their allocated
labelled bins. The feed troughs were emptied and refilled with either
Barastocs Broiler Starter Crumbles or Vellas Broiler Starter Crumbles,
with each feed going to their correct pen. This was done to make sure that
the Barastoc and Vella chickens were getting their right feed and that the
feed was not mixed. This prevented any errors in results improving
accuracy and reliability.
On days 0-4, the weight of each chicken was individually calculated. The
Barastoc chickens were first placed into a box, taken out one by one,
weighed and then placed into another box was used to release them back
into their pen. Similarly, the Vella chickens were weighed, results were
recorded and average were calculated. This was done to make sure that
the chickens that were being fed their respective feeds were put back into
their correct allocated pens. As well as that the feed in the troughs was
refilled to make sure that the chickens were being properly fed.
Additionally, the water quality was also checked, to ensure the health of
the chicks.
On Day 4 after the chickens were weighed, the leftover feed in the bins
and troughs was weighed. This was to gather information such as, how
much feed the chickens had used, the Feed Conversion Ratio and their
growth.
Calculations were made for:
- Total live weight each day and the average live weight of the
chickens for each feed
- Total weight gain by chickens for each feed over the five days
- Total amount of feed consumed for each feed over the five days
- Feed Conversion Ratio for each feed
- A graph was plotted of the average daily weight for each feed
against time in days

Cost of producing a kilogram of live weigh for each feed.


Significant differences between the two feed merchant groups

Results:
1. Live Weight, Average Live Weight and Total Weight GainControl: BarastocDays

Total live weight (13 chicks)


(Grams)

0
1
2
3
4
Total Weight Gain

1588
1724
2136
2619
2852
1264

Average Live
weight/Chick (Grams to
1.d.p.)
132.3
143.7
164.3
201.5
219.4

Treatment: VellaDays

Total Live Weight (12 chicks)


(Grams)

0
1
2
3
4
Total Weight Gain

1647
1827
1912
2319
2585
938

Average Weight
Gain/Chick (grams to 1
d.p.)
126.7
130.5
147.1
178.4
198.5

2. Feed consumedThe leftover amount in the bin at the end of the trial for Barastoc was: 3038g
Therefore, feed consumed was: 5000-3038= 1962g
The left over amount in the bin at the end of the trial for Vella was: 3545g
Therefore, feed consumed was: 5000-3545= 1455g
3. Feed Conversion RatioThe feed conversion ratio is given by:
Total food eaten(grams) / Total Weight Gained(grams)
For Barastoc:
= 1962/1264

= 1.6: 1
For Vella:
= 1455/938
= 1.6: 1

4. Graph-

Chart Title
250
200
150
Average Weight (Grams) 100
50
0

Time (Days)
Barastoc

Vella

5. Cost of producing a kilogram of live weigh in each treatmentBarastoc feed costs $37.55 for a 20 kg bag
The FCR is 1.6:1. This mean 1.6kg of Barastoc Feed is required.
1kg of Barastoc feed= 37.55/20
= $1.88
1.6kg of Barastoc feed= 1.6 x $1.88
= $3.01
Vella feed costs $33.50 for an 18kg bag.
The FCR is 1.6:1. This means 1.6kg of Vella Feed is required.
1kg of Vella feed= 33.50/18
= $1.86
1.6kg of Vella feed= 1.6 x 1.86
= $2.98

6. Significant differences between the two feed merchant groupsMeanBarastoc Mean = 132.3 + 143.7 + 164.3 + 201.5 + 219.4 / 5

= 172.24
Vella Mean= 126.7 + 130.5 + 147.1 + 178.4 + 198.5 / 5
= 156.24

Measure of VariabilityBarastoc Standard Deviation = 33.33


Vella Standard Deviation = 27.91
Standard ErrorThe standard error can be calculated by: Standard deviation / Square root
(number of values)
Barastoc Standard Error= 33.33/square root (5)
= 14.91
Vella Standard Error= 27.91/square root (5)
= 12.48
Significance of ResultsResults are significant when: Difference between the means > Difference
between the standard error
Difference between means= 172.24 156.24
= 16
Difference between standard errors = 14.91-12.48
= 2.43
16 > 2.43, therefore the difference between the means is greater than the
difference between the standard errors
Thus, the results are significant. This means that the results are valid, reliable
and accurate. This
DiscussionFrom the calculations above, the following trends can be identified-

The total weight gained and average weight gained for chickens
was greater in in the Barastoc treatment method.
The results for the Barastoc treatment method were more spread
The standard error for the Barastoc treatment method was greater
The results were significant

From the graph, we can observe that at the start, the Vella chickens had a
greater weight at the start (initially), however, their rate of growth, i.e. live
weight gained each day was lower. As the chick trial proceeded further it was

noticed that chickens for both treatments started gaining weight much faster. As
observed from the graph, the steepness of the slope was greater toward the end
of the graph (days 2-4). In the end the Barastoc Chickens were able to be
significantly heavier than the Vella Chickens.
The mean of weight gained per day was also significantly higher for the Barastoc
chickens. The greater standard deviation in the data was an indicator of the
spread of data and the consistency of data.
Looking at the feed conversion ratio, it can be identified that both chickens used
the same amount of feed to gain one kilogram, i.e. 1.6kg of feed to gain 1
kilogram. This showed that while they had the same FCR, the Barastoc chickens
ate more feed, thus grew more. It can thus be said, that chickens liked the
Barastoc feed more than the Vella feed.
In regards to cost, the cost of both feeds was fairly similar, i.e. $3.01 for Barastoc
chickens, and $2.98 for Vella Chickens. The cost of both feeds can be round to
$3.00 and the value of money spent on the feed can be calculated by looking at
the weight gained, in regards to feed. For Barastoc treatment, the chickens
gained greater weight for the same price, thus the Barastoc feed was of greater
value for money.
Through, the above analysis of results, it can thus be concluded that, Barastoc
feed is better than Vella feed, as it allowed chickens to gain more weight by
using the same FCR, and using the same cost as the Vella feed. This means that
the Barastoc feed was more efficient than Vella feed. The average weight gained
for Barastoc was significantly larger than the average weight gained for Vella, for
a lower cost and same FCR, thus proving that Barastoc treatment was superior to
Vella treatment.
Discussion on MethodsThe results were fairly accurate as the method was reliable, the equipment was
working properly and variable were controlled. In the method, randomisation,
replication and the control were all used to ensure that the data collected was
valid and reliable. The randomisation of the selection of chicks and allocating
them to their treatment method removed bias. The replication of results by using
13 chickens for the trial in each treatment method. The control was Barastoc and
most variables such as water supply, feed, heat and shelter as well as the
environment were kept controlled for both treatment methods (standardisation).
Issues and ImprovementsThe equipment used included the weighing scale was accurate and was
calibrated correctly to provide accurate results, however, in the rare case, it may
not have been calibrated and results could have been flawed. This could have
been prevented and the trial could have been improved by using a digital
weighing scale rather than an analogue weighing scale. This provides more
accurate results and does not need to be calibrated manually each time,
increasing efficiency.
Another issue during the trial was the number of chickens in each pen on various
days. There were 12 Barastoc and 13 Vella chicks in their own respective pens on
Monday. One chick was added to Barastoc to make it 13 in each pen on Tuesday.

However, on Wednesday, there were 14 in the Vella pen and 12 in the Barastoc
pen. This went back to 13 in each pen on Thursday and Friday. This alteration
was a major issue as the variables were not controlled and could have directly
affected the average live weight results. An improvement for the future would be
to eliminate one chicken from the trial rather than trying to get back to the
original number of chickens.
ConclusionThe trial was completed successfully, the aim was achieved and the results
obtained from the trial were significant. From, the results collected, it can be
concluded that Barastoc feed treatment is better than Vella feed treatment, as
Barastoc chickens gained weight, faster, gained more weight, has the same FCR
as Vella chickens. The cost for Barastoc feed was only slightly greater than Vella
feed, but Barastoc feed provided greater value for money. Over the 5-day trial, it
was observed that Barastoc feed was better, thus it would be the best
recommendation for commercial use for broiler farmers.

You might also like