Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. 1 (2026)

Growth performance of Muscovy ducks fed home-mixed diets supplemented with varying levels of Hagonoy (Chromolaena odorata) leaf meal

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.9084
Submitted
25 April 2025
Published
30-01-2026 — Updated on 05-02-2026
Versions

Abstract

Hagonoy (Chromolaena odorata) is an abundant yet underutilized plant in the Philippines with potential as an alternative feed ingredient for poultry production. This study was conducted at Isabela State University from 5th January 2025 to 5th March 2022, to evaluate the effects of Hagonoy leaf meal (HLM) on duck growth, feed efficiency and economic viability, to determine the optimal inclusion level for improved weight gain, feed utilization and profitability. A Completely Randomized Design (CRD) was employed using four dietary treatments with 10 ducks per replication: T1 (Control – home-mixed feeds [HF] + 0 % HLM), T2 (HF + 2 % HLM), T3 (HF + 4 % HLM) and T4 (HF + 8 % HLM). Parameters measured included weight gain, feed consumption, feed conversion ratio (FCR), dressing percentage, organ weights, hematological values and economic returns. Results showed that ducks supplemented with 4 % HLM (T3) consistently achieved the highest growth performance, with a final body weight of 1178.50 g at eight weeks, the most efficient feed conversion ratio and the highest return above feed and duckling cost (Php 2164.24; 34.24 %). Feed consumption and dressing percentage were not significantly affected, although higher liver and pancreas weights were noted at 8 % HLM, suggesting possible physiological stress. Moreover, a 4 % inclusion of HLM is recommended as the optimal level for improving growth, feed utilization and profitability in Muscovy duck production without compromising carcass yield or meat quality.

References

  1. 1. Applegate TJ, Angel R. Nutrient requirements of poultry publication: history and need for an update. J Appl Poult Res. 2014;23(3):567–75. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2014-00980
  2. 2. Dale N. National Research Council nutrient requirements of poultry-ninth revised edition. J Appl Poult Res. 1994;3:101. https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/3.1.101
  3. 3. Sonaiya EB, Swan SEJ. Small-scale poultry production: technical guide. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2004.
  4. 4. Rizzo G, Migliore G, Schifani G, Vecchio R. Key factors influencing farmers’ adoption of sustainable innovations: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Org Agric. 2023;14(1):57–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-023-00440-7
  5. 5. Lambio AL. The duck industry in the Philippines: challenges and opportunities. Philipp Agric Rev. 2000;82(1):15–28.
  6. 6. Apori SO. The role of Chromolaena odorata in soil fertility improvement. Agric Sci J. 2000;14(2):102–12.
  7. 7. Aro SO, Aluko OB, Akinyemi AA. Toxicity potential of Chromolaena odorata in ruminants: a review. Vet Toxicol J. 2009;12(3):67–75.
  8. 8. Fasuyi AO, Ojo OB. Effects of Chromolaena odorata leaf meal on egg yolk color in laying hens. Poult Sci J. 2005;17(1):89–97.
  9. 9. Akinmoladun FO, Akinrinlola BL, Akinwunmi OA. Phytochemical properties and bioactivity of Chromolaena odorata. J Plant Res. 2007;21(4):45–56.
  10. 10. Odutayo OI, Kolawole AO, Babajide O. Chemical composition and pharmacological properties of Chromolaena odorata. Afr J Bot. 2017;12(3):67–79.
  11. 11. Onwuka CF. Fermentation as a detoxification method for Chromolaena odorata. J Anim Nutr. 2018;29(1):21–37.
  12. 12. Ndife MO. Processing methods to reduce anti-nutritional factors in Chromolaena odorata. Food Nutr Res. 2016;8(2):34–49.
  13. 13. Onwuka GI. Food analysis and instrumentation (theory and practice). 2nd ed. Nigeria: Naphtali Printers; 2018. p. 299–314.
  14. 14. DeFilippis F, Pasolli E, Ercolini D. The food-gut axis: lactic acid bacteria and their link to food, the gut microbiome and human health. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2020;44:454–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsre/fuaa015
  15. 15. Duangnumsawang Y, Zentek J, Boroojeni FG. Development and functional properties of intestinal mucus layer in poultry. Front Immunol. 2021;12:745849. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.745849
  16. 16. Liu Q, Yu Z, Tian F, Zhao J, Zhang H, Zhai Q, et al. Surface components and metabolites of probiotics for regulation of intestinal epithelial barrier. Microb Cell Fact. 2020;19:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-020-1289-4
  17. 17. Fu Z, Ao N, Liang X, Chen J, Wang Y, Wang Q, et al. Effects of fermented feed on growth performance, serum biochemical indexes, antioxidant capacity and intestinal health of lion-head goslings. Front Vet Sci. 2023;10:1284523. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1284523
  18. 18. Irawan A, Ratriyanto A, Respati AN, Ningsih N, Fitriastuti R, Suprayogi WPS, et al. Effect of feeding fermented soybean meal on broiler chickens’ performance: a meta-analysis. Anim Biosci. 2022;35:1881–91. https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.21.0546
  19. 19. Li Z, Li C, Lin F, Yan L, Wu H, Zhou H, et al. Duck compound probiotics fermented diet alters the growth performance by shaping the gut morphology, microbiota and metabolism. Poult Sci. 2024;103:103647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103647
  20. 20. Heir E, Solberg LE, Jensen MR, Skaret J, Grøvlen MS, Holck AL. Improved microbial and sensory quality of chicken meat by treatment with lactic acid, organic acid salts and modified atmosphere packaging. Int J Food Microbiol. 2022;362:109498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2021.109498
  21. 21. Johnson A, Miller EA, Weber B, Figueroa CF, Aguayo JM, Johny AK, et al. Evidence of host specificity in Lactobacillus johnsonii genomes and its influence on probiotic potential in poultry. Poult Sci. 2023;102:102858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.102858
  22. 22. Ferrer-Lorente R, Fernández-López JA, Alemany M. Estimation of the metabolizable energy equivalence of dietary proteins. Eur J Nutr. 2007;46:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-006-0623-x
  23. 23. Eglite S, Ilgaza A, Mancevica L, Zolovs M. The effects of Lactobacillus farciminis and Lactobacillus rhamnosus on growth, blood biochemical and meat quality indicators of specific pathogen-free broiler chickens. Vet Med Int. 2023;2023:6297068. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6297068
  24. 24. Grootjans J, Hundscheid IH, Buurman WA. Goblet cell compound exocytosis in the defense against bacterial invasion in the colon exposed to ischemia-reperfusion. Gut Microbes. 2013;4:232–5. https://doi.org/10.4161/gmic.23866
  25. 25. Na SW, Guan LL. Understanding the role of rumen epithelial host-microbe interactions in cattle feed efficiency. Anim Nutr. 2022;10:41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2022.04.002
  26. 26. World Economic Library. National Health and Family Planning Commission; 2015.
  27. 27. Li J, Li Z, Shang S, Zhao X, Zhang W, Zhang X, et al. Effect of additives and moisture on the fermentation quality and bacterial community of high moisture ear corn. Front Microbiol. 2023;14:1251946. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1251946
  28. 28. Brody S. Bioenergetics and growth, with special reference to the efficiency complex in domestic animals. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation; 1945.
  29. 29. Williams KC. A review of feeding practices and nutritional requirements of postlarval groupers. Aquaculture. 2009;292(3-4):141–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.04.026

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.