The effect of nutritive feed supplement (poultry saver) on egg production of mallard ducks / by Jethro Leo S. Rivera.
Material type: TextLanguage: English Publication details: Indang, Cavite : 2005. Cavite State University- Main Campus,Description: xiii, 37 pages : illustrations ; 28 cmContent type:- text
- unmediated
- volume
- 636.597 R52 2005
- College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences (VETMET)
Item type | Current library | Collection | Call number | Materials specified | URL | Status | Notes | Date due | Barcode |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Theses / Manuscripts | Ladislao N. Diwa Memorial Library Theses Section | Non-fiction | 636.597 R52 2005 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Link to resource | Room use only | T-2977 | 00006596 |
Thesis (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine) Cavite State University
Includes bibliographical references.
College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences (VETMET)
RIVERA, JETHRO LEO S., Cavite State University, Indang, Cavite, April 2005. The Effect of Nutritive Feed Supplement (Poultry Saver®) on the Egg Production of Mallard Ducks (Anal platyrinchos). Adviser: Alvin L. Estanislao, DVM, MS.
The egg production of fifty-four (54) heads of mallard ducks was evaluated for four (4) weeks to assess the effect of Poultry saver° on the following parameters: egg production percentage, average egg weight and average shell thickness. Ducks were randomly allocated to two (2) treatments: Treatment I (control) without nutritive feed supplement and Treatment II with Poultry Saver®. Each treatment group was done in triplicate and each consisted of nine (9) heads. The results of the study showed continuous increase on the mean egg production on both treatments; however the treatment group decreased in the fourth week. The mean egg weights of both treatments also increased up to the third week and decreased on the last week of the study. On the other hand, the eggshell thickness was observed to have a slight increase on the treatment group. However there were no statistically significant differences observed on all the three parameters mentioned using t-test analysis. The cost and return benefit analysis revealed a higher income in the control group with P321.44 compared on the treated with only P139.05 on the entire duration of the study.
Submitted to the University Library 05/10/2007 T-2977