Browsing by Author "Panas, Joseph A."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Improved feed efficiency and nutritional property effects of honey from Apis mellifera L. as an additive for broiler chickens’ drinking water
    (DMMMSU Research and Extension Journal, 2023-12) Tattao, Rosemarie O.; Panas, Joseph A.; de Castro, David T.; Soliba, Mishima P.; Calimpang, Ison A.; Pajarillo, Rolyne Mae C.
    Antimicrobial usage is particularly high in poultry production. Honey as a water supplement to poultry has been explored as a natural and safe antibiotic alternative. This study aimed to investigate the effects of different levels of honey as a water supplement on broilers' growth performance and chemical properties. Five dietary treatments were used: no supplement (T1), commercial electrolytes (T2), 5mL honey (T3), (7.5mL honey (T4), and 10mL honey (T5) per liter of water. The experiment used 150 1-day-old Cobb-400 broiler chicks, assigned to five treatments with three replications of ten (10) birds each (N=30) employing the Complete Block Design (RCBD) in three blocks. Results indicated that 5mL/L-10mL/L honey supplementation led to a significant (p < 0.05) decrease of 4.3% to 7% in feed consumption compared to those with electrolytes. Similarly, using 5mL/L of honey showed 12.5% lower FCR compared with T2 and 24.3% compared with T1. However, a higher level of honey was comparable to T2, indicating that honey supplementation improved feed utilization and reduced feed cost at a certain level. Results of the proximate analysis, particularly on moisture content (MC), crude protein (CP), crude fat (CF), and total carbohydrates ((TC), revealed numerical differences. Samples with 5mL/L to 7.5mL/L levels of honey showed a higher MC, CP, and TC content and lower CF than T2. This implies that honey as a drinking water supplement offers practical advantages in feed consumption and efficiency and in improving the chemical and nutritional properties of chicken meat. A choice for healthier production.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Profiling of the Beekeeping Industry:
    (DMMMSU Research and Extension Journal, 2022-12-01) Pajarillo, Rolyne Mae C.; Masiong, Pablo L.; de Castro, David T.; Soliba, Mishima P.; Panas, Joseph A.; Acosta, Mac Donald C.
    Beekeeping is a viable agribusiness enterprise of small scale farmers, and other rural and non-rural people. Despite the many returns bees give including the increasing industry stakeholders and trained beekeepers, local honey production remains very low; hence, this study was conducted to determine the profile and status of bee enterprises in Region 1 and CAR. Demographic profile, level of motivation along the STEEP factors, and enterprise profile, were gathered employing semi-structured questionnaire. Interviews and secondary data were also employed. Results revealed that majority (78.95%) belong to the working age population (21-60 years old). There were more male (75.44%) and married (78.95%) beekeepers but women participation (24.56%) was also observed. Beekeepers had a relatively high literacy rate and 98.1% completed bee trainings. More than half (68.42%) were officers/members of community organizations but they were just part-time beekeepers because they had other/main source of family income. Environmental influences e.g., vegetation, were “very highly motivating factors in engaging to. Apiary sites conformed to standards of location appropriateness and resources availability, and all beekeepers practiced migration for higher honey production. They had total colony holdings of 1,097.5 standard (10-framer), with an average of 27.44 colonies each. This classified them as commercial beekeepers based on the Philippine National Standards. Lowland and upland honey flows fall in April to May and October to December. An analogous process flow of honey harvesting, processing and storing was confirmed. Start-up investment is ₽22,010.00. Average yearly operational expense per standard colony incurred by lowland beekeepers from 2000 to 2019, was ₽19,367.84 which is a little higher than the upland costs due to land and truck rental, and labor fees during migration and production periods. CAR beekeepers had a higher ROI of 20.02% than those in Region 1 with 4.39%. Natural environmental harms i.e., bee-eater predator birds, typhoons, were on top of the reasons why beekeepers discontinued their apiculture projects.