Assessment of Chicken Nutrition Trial

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) One day old meat chickens were randomly divide into two groups. Randomization
was implemented using individuals (Y7s) uninvolved in the experiment who
randomly selected chickens for each group. This insured that our bias didnt affect
the result.

2) Chickens were fed on Broiler Starter Crumbles (22%CP) from feed merchant Barastoc
for 4 days. This was to ensure that standardisation was implemented and all the
chickens started on approximately the same weight.

3) One group was chosen to receive feed merchant Barastocs Broiler Starter Crumbles
(22%CP) and one group was chosen to receive feed merchant Vellas Broiler Starter
Crumbles (24%CP). The decision was made using a coin toss to randomize the
selection and hence remove potential bias. The two randomly divided groups were
placed in separate pens in the James Ruse poultry shed.

4) On Day 0, the chickens were weighed and the average weight for each of the two
groups were recorded. The weight was recorded so that we had an average weight
of each group to compare our end average weight with, to in turn analyse the
average weight gain at the end of the treatment.

5) On Day 0, three kilograms of each feed were weighed out and placed in their
appropriate labelled bin in each of the two pens. The feed troughs in each pen were
then filled with the feed from their corresponding bin, (Barastoc feed to Barastoc
group chickens, Vella feed to Vella group chickens). Because equal amounts of feed
were weighed out it preserves the independent variable (type of feed) being the only
variable that should affect the result of the experiment. Labelled bins make sure that
there is no ambiguity as to which feed goes to which pen. Emptied feed troughs
ensure that no previous feed left affects the outcome of the experiment.

Matthew Shu 10AG5

 6) From Day 0 to 4 the chickens were weighed individually and the average weight for
each group was calculated. This data allowed us to track the average daily weight
gain for each treatment over the 5 days and monitor the trend of the growth. The
feed in the troughs for each pen were then refilled from the appropriate bins (type
of feed).

7) On Day 4 after the chickens were weighed and the average weight for each group
was calculated the feed left in the bins and the trough were also weighed. This was
done because there was a probability that the chickens would not finish the entirety
of the 5-kg feed. To calculate a valid feed conversion ratio for each treatment we
needed to only consider the feed that was consumed.

8) Calculations:
a. For each day the total live weight and the average live weight of the chickens,
for each treatment, were calculated.
b. The total weight gained by the chickens in each treatment over the five days
was calculated.
c. The total amount of feed consumed by the chickens in each treatment over
the five days was calculated.
d. The feed conversion ratio for each treatment (Feed Merchant Barastoc &
Feed Merchant Vella) was calculated (in terms of feed amount to put on one
kilogram)
e. The average daily weight of the chickens from each treatment against time in
days was plotted on a graph
f. The cost of producing a kilogram of live weight in each treatment (Barastoc &
Vella) was calculated
g. The significance of the difference between the two feed merchant groups
(Barastoc & Vella) were than assessed

Matthew Shu 10AG5

Matthew Shu 10AG5
Results:

Average Daily Weight of Chickens

140.00

120.00
Average Daily Weight (grams)

100.00

80.00

Vella
60.00
Barastoc
40.00

20.00

0.00
Day 0 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4
Time(Days)

Cost of Production of a Kilogram of Live Weight

Feed Barastoc Vella

Cost $37.50 / 20kg $33.50 / 18kg
Cost/kg $1.875 $1.86
Feed Used (kg) 1.623 0.611
Cost for Feed Used $3.04 $1.14
Total Weight Gained (kg) 0.744 0.579
Produce a Kilogram Cost $4.09 $1.97
Produce KG Cost = (Cost for Feed Used/Total Weight Gained) * 1

Significant Difference

Feed Barastoc Vella

Standard Deviation (g) 20.88 12.32
Mean (g) [calculated earlier] 126.4 119.57
Standard Error 6.32
Difference Between Means 6.83
Standard Error = root [(20.88^2)/15 + (12.32^2)/14]
Mean = Total of Values/Number of Values

Standard Deviation =
There is not a significant difference because the difference between two means is less
than twice the standard error. (6.83 < 2*6.32)

Matthew Shu 10AG5

Discussion:
The results of the experiment show that Vella is a more cost-effective feed than Barastoc in
terms of per kilogram cost. The cost for per kilogram weight gain for Vella is nearly half that
of Barastoc. This is considering just the feed that was consumed with respect to its total
weight gained. In terms of the Feed Conversion (calculated how much feed to put on same
weight) Vella is significantly more effective (1.06 vs 2.18) suggesting it requires less feed to
put on the same weight. However, there is a clear fault in this experiment that being we
cant control the amount of feed that is used up. The results to the experiment may be
inaccurate because of the significantly smaller sample size of the Vella in comparison to
Barastoc. In terms of replication multiple chickens were used in the experiment which
enhances accuracy however the experiment could have been improved by using a larger
sample size. The chickens for that feed use almost a third of what Barastoc chickens
consumed and gained less weight. Another issue that may have caused ambiguity in the
results is the step in the method where feed is placed in the trough. There is no quantitative
measure of how much is being placed, this being shown when we shovelled feed into
troughs without weighing, giving way to unreliable results. Another issue is, the number of
chickens used in the two feed groups were different. This drawback causes standardisation
issues in terms of equal sample sizes which lead to inaccurate results. An issue with
randomisation at the beginning of the experiment was that we used a unclear way of
placing chickens into different groups. Although the Year 7s are not involved in the
experiment this doesnt remove their element of bias. A way to improve this would be to
use something inanimate like a coin. As far as the statistical analysis shows the difference
between the two means is significantly lower than double the standard error. This suggests
that there is not a significant difference between the two treatments Barastoc and Vella.
Improvements to the experiment could involve using a larger sample size to make the
results more reliable. By using a more controlled environment such as a proper lab to
regulate certain environmental factors such as temperature and humidity could improve the
accuracy of results and hence improve the experiment.

Conclusion:
The Barastoc feed has an average live weight gain of 49.6 grams after 5 days and a feed
conversion ratio of 2.18. The Vella has an average live weight gain of 41.36 grams after 5
days and a feed conversion ratio of 1.06. This suggests that the Vella feed is more effective
in allowing the putting on of weight in young meat chickens over a five-day period. It is
important to note that Vella is a more cost-effective option than Barastoc in terms of cost
per kilogram of weight put on. Because there is not a significant difference between the two
treatments therefore Vella is recommended because it is a cheaper option.

Matthew Shu 10AG5