CARIBBEAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL

SCHOOL BASED ASSESSMENT

AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE

BROILER INVESTIGATION

Name of Student: Suemia Ali

Student Registration Number: 090038002
Name of School: North Georgetown Secondary
School Registration Number: 090038
Start date:
Termination date:
Date of Submission: 1st february, 2022
Name of Teacher: Miss Lindie

1
Table of Contents

Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................2
Title:............................................................................................................................................................3
Literature Review........................................................................................................................................4
Statement of Problem.................................................................................................................................5
Aims of Investigation...................................................................................................................................5
METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................................5
Materials and Equipment............................................................................................................................6
ACTIVITIES...................................................................................................................................................7
DATA COLLECTION.....................................................................................................................................11
RESULTS.....................................................................................................................................................11
DISCUSSION...............................................................................................................................................14
CONCLUSION, LIMITATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................14
COST ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................................15
PROJECTED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT FOR BROILER BIRDS, 2021..............15
ACTUAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT FOR BROILERS, 2021..............................16
Bibliography..............................................................................................................................................17

2
INTRODUCTION

This broiler investigation is set out to determine the growth rate and income of a batch of birds by
comparing the usage of treatment 1 which is garlic and ginger powder and treatment 2 which is only water
also known as control treatment. Small portions of ginger and garlic are put into the water and given to the
birds on a daily basis. The treatments were placed into two separate replicates, both containing 14 birds
each. This investigation was carried out within the period of 6 weeks in order to record how well the
treatments would have assisted in the birds to gain weight.

3
Title:
To compare the growth performance and income generated of broiler birds fed garlic and ginger powder.

4
 Literature Review

Garlic and ginger has been tested among different poultry farmers around the world to determine whether it
is a good alternative supplement to enhance broiler birds’ health and growth performance.

Garlic and ginger are known boosters and a great addition to the diet of broilers. This was opined by many
scholars that feed additives are a class of nutritional compounds that aid in boosting feed utilization
efficiency and lowering costs. Feed is the most expensive component of a poultry venture's total costs,
accounting for 80% of all expenses (Asghar et al., 2000). Allium sativum, also known as garlic, is a
member of the Amaryllidaceae family and subfamily Allioideae. Garlic, shallot, leek chive, and rakkyo are
some of its other common names. It thrives in the Indian subcontinent. It's a well-known seasoning. It's also
utilized in traditional medicine for treating and preventing a variety of health issues (Adimoradi et al. 2006).
Antimicrobial, antihypertensive, and antioxidant activities are also present (Konjufca et al. 1997; Sivam,
2001).
In addition, the use of garlic powder in hens resulted in a hypocholesterolemic effect (Konjufca et al. 1997;
Qureshi et al. 1983). According to Tollba & Hassan (2003), garlic is a well-known natural supplement that
has reduced mortality, improved feed conversion ratio, and increased broiler chicken development. The
precise mode of action is difficult to decipher. In the duodenum, jejunum, and ileum, a moderate dose of
garlic can increase villus height linearly. Garlic supplementation at higher doses of 0.5 to 2.0 percent, on the
other hand, increases crypt depth (p0.05), resulting in a lower crypt to villi ratio in the duodenum and a
greater ratio in the jejunum and ileum (Konjufca et al. 1997).
Another spice is Zingeber officinale (ginger). It is a member of the Zingiberaceae family. Turmeric,
cardamom, and galangal are also members of this plant family. Its therapeutic and flavoring effects are
well-known (Onyenekwe & Hashimoto, 1999). It has been used as an edible herb for generations, and it is
still used to treat diabetes, asthma, stroke, constipation, gingivitis, neurological illnesses, and catarrh in Tib,
Unani, and Chinese medicine (Tapsell et al. 2006, Wang and Wang, 2005, Awang, 1992). Ginger contains
nine chemicals that may bind to serotonin receptors and affect gastrointestinal function. In vitro
investigations have shown that ginger extract has the capacity to regulate the number of free radicals and
lipid peroxidation (Al.amin et al.2006).
Ginger is also used to treat a variety of ailments, including dyspepsia, gas, diarrhea, and colic (Borrelli et
al., 2004). It also acts as an appetite stimulant (White, 2007). It also contains anti-inflammatory and cancer-
prevention effects (Grzanna et al., 2005). (Shukla & Singh; 2007). As an alternative to sub-therapeutic
antibiotics, herbal extracts, organic acids, prebiotics, enzymes, and probiotics are commonly utilized in
chicken feed (Yahkeshi et al. 2011). Variation in gut histomorphometric parameters (Markovic et al. 2009),
intestine and growth performance (Patterson & Burkholder 2003), immune system, and antibacterial
activity are all examples of its method of action (Thenmozhi et al. 2012, Schley & Field 2002).
These studies have shown that there are many implications of adding garlic and ginger to the diet of animals
to boost production

5
Statement of Problem
The local poultry farmers have noticed that their broiler birds were not gaining weight per feed
consumption. Thus this experiment was carried out to find out if feed consumption and weight gain will be
increased by adding garlic and ginger powder.

Aims of Investigation
 To investigate how the ginger and garlic powder can be more effective than normal water
in the broilers’ growth
 To investigate the difference in income generated from the set of birds that consumed garlic
powder and ginger powder treatment from the ones that consumed normal water.

METHODOLOGY

Experimental Design
A total of 60 one-day-old chicks were employed in this experiment; the brooding phase lasted 14 days, and
the birds were fed molasses and occasionally sugar during that time. Following brooding, the birds were
divided into 14 groups, each with 14 birds. The birds in C1R1 received 2 to 3 teaspoons of ginger and garlic
in their waterers, while C2R2 received only water. After being fed starter for the first two weeks, the birds
began eating the grower (14 days). The birds were weighed before and after slaughtering.

Materials and Equipment

Table 1 showing the materials and equipment and their uses

MATERIALS USES
Wood shaving As litter
Newspaper To place under the litter
Garlic powder Treatment for broiler
Ginger powder Treatment for broiler
Feed To provide the chickens with nutrients
Water To keep birds hydrated
Fabuloso and pinesol To disinfect pen

EQUIPMENT USES
Feeders To hold food for the broiler
Waterers To hold water for the broiler
Knives To slaughter, dress and cut up chicken

6
Salt bags to store and dispose of litter
Scales to weigh the broiler
Spades cleaning and removal of litter
Buckets holds water for cleaning of pen
Cutting board a base to place the chicken on when time for
evisceration
Killing cones to hold birds in place for slaughtering
Incandescent bulb to provide warmth for the chickens at night
Pot to heat water for removal of feathers of the
chickens
Gloves to protect hands

VALUE ADDITION USES

Seasoning To add flavour to chicken
Lime and vinegar To rid the chicken of rankness
Plastic bags To package chicken
Salt Acts as preservative
Casareep To add flavour and dark colour to the chicken
sugar To add sweetness to the chicken
label To display the price of the meat

ACTIVITIES
Preparation of brooding area

7
Arrival of day-old chicks

Feeding of broilers manually

Application of treatment

8
Cleaning and changing of litter

Recording live weight of broiler

9
The slaughtering of broiler using killing cones

Removal of feathers of carcass

Dressing of carcass

10
Weighing of carcass

Seasoning of meat

Packaging of meat

11
 DATA COLLECTION
Each of the birds from both treatments was weighed before and after they were slaughtered. Data was
acquired from weighing a sample from each treatment’s replicate by using a pocket scale. Kilograms were
used as the unit of measurement. The collection of data included the live weight of the birds, the feed intake
of the broiler against the conversion ratio and the dress weight of the broiler birds.

RESULTS

Figure 1

T2 R2 2

T2 R1 1.6

T1 R2 2.2

T1 R1 2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Column2

The graph above shows the comparison of the average carcass weight from the two treatments. T1 R1 has
the same average carcass weight as T2 R2 which is 2kg. T1 R2 has an average weight of 2.2kg and the
difference is 0.2kg and T2 R1 has an average weight of 1.6kg and its difference is 0.4kg.

12
Figure 2

45,000 41,496 Series 1

40,000
35,000 32,528
30,000
25,000
20,000 Series 1

15,000
10,000
5,000
0
T1 T2

Graph 2 shows that the income generated from treatment one is higher than that of treatment two.
Treatment one has an income of $41,496 and treatment two has an income of $32,528. There is a difference
of $8,968 and the total income is $74,024.

Figure 3

Series 1
60000 55980

50000

40000
Series 1
30000 26752

20000

10000

0
sale of chicken sale of seasoned
meat

Graph 3 shows the income generated from the sale of non-value added meat and the sale of the value
added meat. The income generated from the sale of the chicken without value addition is less than that of
the seasoned meat. $26,752 was the income generated from the sale of the non-value added chicken and
$55,980 was from the sale of seasoned meat. the difference between the two prices is $29,228 and the
total amount is $82,732.

13
 DISCUSSION
It was observed that T1was more effective on the growth performance of the broilers than T2. The weight
gained from T1 was greater than the weight gained from the T2. Hence, T1 had a better growth
performance than the T2. The income generated from the birds which consumed ginger and T1 was higher
than that of those birds which consumed T2. This observation comes into agreement with the literature
review. Results show that treatment one had a greater weight gain than treatment two and the income
generated for treatment one was higher than treatment two. The overall price of both treatments was
$74,024. Treatment one had a total income of $41,496 and treatment two had an income of $32,528.
However, both of the treatments had a general conversion ratio of 2.6:1 meaning that for every 2.6kg of
feed intake, one chicken gained 1 pound.

CONCLUSION, LIMITATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion
To sum up everything that has been stated so far, the birds that consumed ginger and garlic treatment had a
higher weight gain and a higher total income from those birds that consumed the control treatment.
Moreover, the ginger and garlic treatment should be considered the best option for growth performance in
broiler birds.
Limitations
Litter- there was a lack of litter, which caused the birds to brood in vile conditions for a couple of days.
Mortality- throughout the brooding process, about 6 chicks died because of poor health conditions.
Recommendations
An ample amount of wood shaving should be provided
The replicates should be cleaned at least twice a day and birds should be given food and water in
correspondence with cleaning the replicates

14
 COST ANALYSIS

PROJECTED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT FOR BROILER BIRDS,

2021

Income Quantity Unit Unit price ($) Total ($)

Sale of meat 45.2 Kg 560 25,312
Sale of value added 36.3 Kg 1500 54,450
meat
Total projected 79,762
Income

Expenditure Quantity Unit Cost ($) Total ($)

Chicks 60 200 1200
Feed
- Starter 3 Bags 4500 13,500
- Grower 3 Bags 3000 9,000

Electrolyte 1 Packet 1000 1,000

Ginger Powder 4 Packets 110 440
Garlic Powder 4 Packets 180 720
Wood shaving 11 Bags 500 5500
Bulb 1 Box 160 160
Padlock 1 Box 700 700
Extension cord 1* 50feet 3000 3,000
Coals 1 Bag 660 660
Expenses: Value added
product
Plastic container 90 Boxes 160 14,400
Plastic bags 1000 20 20,000

Total projected $69,680

Expenditure

15
Projected Profit = $79,762-
Total projected $69,680=$10,082
Income- Total
projected Expenditure

ACTUAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT FOR BROILERS, 2021

Income Quantity Unit Unit price ($) Total ($)

Sale of meat 35.2 Kg 760 26,752
Sale of value added 62.2 Kg 1000 62,200
meat
Total Actual Income 88,952

Expenditure Quantity Unit Cost ($) Total ($)

Chicks 60 160 9,600
Feed
- Starter 1* 50kg Bag 5400 5,400
- Grower 4* 50kg Bags 5200 20,800
Electrolyte 1 Packet 1000 1,000
Ginger Powder 5 Packets 200 1,000
Garlic Powder 5 Packets 200 1,000
Wood shaving 20 Bags 300 6,000
Bulb 2 Box 200 400
Padlock 1 Box 1000 1,000
Extension cord 1* 50feet 3000 3,000
Coals 1 Bag 1000 1,000
Expenses: Value added
product
Plastic container 120 Boxes 60 7,200

Total Actual $57,400

Expenditure

Actual Profit = Total $62,200-

Actual Income- Total $57,400=$4800

16
Actual Expenditure

Comparison between the Actual and Projected: Income, Expenditure and Surplus
From this experiment completion there was an actual profit of $4800 with expenses compared to the
projected income of $10,082. The results of the profit were from the sale of the value added meat. The total
projected expenditure ($69,680) was higher than that of the actual expenditure ($57,400) and the total
projected income ($79,762) was lower than that of the total actual income ($88,952). There is also a
difference of $5282 between the two prices.

Appendix
Table 2 showing the live and carcass weight (kg) of the two treatments used.

treatment sample Live weight Carcass weight Feed conversion ratio

T1 R1 1 2.5kg 2.1kg 2.6:1
2 2.5kg 2kg 2.6:1
3 2.3kg 1.9kg 2.6:1
4 2.2kg 2kg 2.6:1
5 2.3kg 1.9kg 2.6:1
T1 R2 1 2.6kg 2.1kg 2.6:1
2 2.8kg 2.3kg 2.6:1
3 2.7kg 2.5kg 2.6:1
4 2.5kg 2.3kg 2.6:1
5 2.5kg 2.2kg 2.6:1
Control 1 2.1kg 1.7kg 2.6:1
2 2.1kg 1.6kg 2.6:1
T2 R1 3 2kg 1.5kg 2.6:1
4 2.1kg 1.7kg 2.6:1
5 2kg 1.6kg 2.6:1
T2 R2 1 2kg 1.8kg 2.6:1
2 2.2kg 2kg 2.6:1
3 2.4kg 2kg 2.6:1
4 2kg 1.7kg 2.6:1
5 2.3kg 1.8kg 2.6:1

17
Treatment sample Day 21 Day 28 Day 35 Day 42
T1 R1 1 1.8kg 2kg 2.3kg 2.5kg
2 1.8kg 2kg 2.3kg 2.5kg
3 1.7kg 2kg 2.1kg 2.3kg
4 1.6kg 2.1kg 2.2kg 2.2kg
5 1.9kg 2.1kg 2.2kg 2.3kg
Average total 1.8kg 2kg 2.2kg 2.4kg
weight
T1 R2 1 1.6kg 2kg 2.3kg 2.6kg
2 1.7kg 2.1kg 2.4kg 2.8kg
3 1.4kg 1.9kg 2.3kg 2.7kg
4 1.3kg 1.9kg 2.2kg 2.5kg
5 1.6kg 2kg 2.2kg 2.5kg
Average total 1.5kg 1.9kg 2.3kg 2.7kg
weight
T2 R1 1 1kg 1.5kg 2kg 2.1kg
2 1.5kg 1.8kg 2kg 2.1kg
3 1.5kg 1.7kg 2kg 2kg
4 1.6kg 1.9kg 2.1kg 2.1kg
5 1kg 1.5kg 2kg 2kg
Average total 1.3kg 1.7kg 2kg 2kg
weight
T2 R2 1 1.2kg 1.6kg 1.8kg 2kg
2 1.4kg 1.7kg 2kg 2.2kg
3 1.6kg 1.8kg 2.1kg 2.4kg
4 1kg 1.4kg 1.9kg 2kg
5 1.2kg 1.3kg 2kg 2.3kg
Average total 1.3kg 1.6kg 1.9kg 2.2kg
weight

Table 3 showing the total income generated for the sale of broiler birds

Treatment Weight (kg) Unit Price Total Income ($)

T1 54.6 760 41,496

T2 42.8 760 32,528

Total Income 74,024

Table 3 showing the total income generated from the value added product and non-value added
product

Income Weight (kg) Unit Cost ($) Total ($)

Sale of chicken 35.2 760 26,752

18
 Sale of seasoned meat 62.2 900 55,980
Total income 82,732

Bibliography
Asghar A, Farooq M, Mian MA, Khurshid A. Economics of broiler production of Mardandivision. Journal of
Rural Development 2000;32(3):56-65.

Adibmoradi M, Navidshad B, Seifdavati J, Royan M. Effect of dietary garlic meal on histological structure of
small intestine in broiler chickens. Journal Poultry Science 2006;43:378-383.

Konjufca VH, Pesti GM, Bakalli RI. Modulation of cholesterol levels in broiler meat by dietary garlic and
copper. Poultry Science 1997;76:1264-1271.

Sivam GP. Protection against helicobacter pylori and other bacterial infections by garlic. Journal of Nutrition
2001;131:1106-1108.

Tollba AAH, Hassan MSH. Using some natural additives to improve physiological and productive
performance of broiler chicks under high temperature conditions. 2. Black cumin (Nigella Sativa) or garlic
(Allium Sativum). Poultry Science 2003;23:327-340.

Qureshi AA, Abuirmeileh N, Din ZZ, Elson CE, Burger WC. Inhibition of cholesterol and fatty acid
biosynthesis in liver enzymes and chicken hepatocytes by polar fractions of garlic. Lipids 1983;18:343-348.

Onyenekwe PC, Hashimoto S. The composition of the essential oil of dried Nigerian ginger (Zingiber
officinale Roscoe). European Food Research and Technology 1999;209(6):407-410.

Wang WH, Wang ZM. Studies of commonly used traditional medicine-ginger. Zhongguo Zhongyao Zazhi
2005;30:1569-1573.

Al-Amin ZM, Thomson M, Al-QattanKK, Peltonen-Shalaby R, Ali M. Anti-diabetic and hypolipideamic

properties of ginger (Zingiberofficinale) in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats. British Journal Nutrition
2006;96: 660-666.

Borrelli F, Capasso R, Pinto A, Izzo AA. Inhibitory effect of ginger (Zingiberofficinale) on rat ileal motility in
vitro. Life Science 2004;74(23):2889-96.

White B. Ginger: aAn overview. American Family Physician 2007;75(11):1689-1691.

19
Yakhkeshi S, Rahimi S, GharibNaseri K. The effect of camparison of herbal extracts, antibiotics, probiotic and
organic acid on serum lipids, immune response, GIT microbial population, intestinal morphology and
performance of broilers. Journal of Medicial Plants 2011;10:37.

Grzanna R, Lindmark L, Frondoza CG. Ginger-an herbal medicinal product with broad anti-inflammatory
actions. Journal of Medicine Food 2005;8(2):125-32

Shukla Y, Singh M. Cancer preventive properties of ginger: A brief review. Food Chemical Toxicology
2007;45(5):683-690.

Markovic R, Sefer D, Krstic M, Petrujkic B. Effect of different growth promoters on broiler performance and
gut morphology. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria 2009;41:163-169.

Patterson JA, Burkholder KM. Application of prebiotics and probiotics in poultry production. Poultry Science
2003;82:627-631.

Thenmozhi R, Nithyanand P, Rathna J, Pandian SK. Antibiofilm activity of coral-associated bacteria against
different clinical M serotypes of Streptococcus pyogenes. FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology
2009;57:284-294.

20