1

INTRODUCTION

In the Philippines, some information are available on the phenotypic

characteristics (Gerona, 1991; TLRI, 1991; Lambio and Gay, 1993; Bondoc, 1998;

Lambio et al., 1998), molecular characteristics (Lambio et al., 1991; Roxas et al., 1996;

Lambio and Barrion, 1998) and production environment (Oñate, 1991; Roxas et al.,

1996; Magpantay et al., 2006; Celestino, 2010) of native chickens and those belonging

to certain genotypic groups of Philippine native chickens, but there is limited information

regarding their characteristics in the field and geographical distribution. Included in this

genetic group of Philippine native chickens is the Paraoakan which is identified to be

predominant in the province of Palawan, Philippines (TLRI, 1991; Roxas et al., 1996;

Lambio and Barrion, 1998). However, there are no studies dealing with the production

environment and phenotypic characteristics of native chickens in Palawan.

Phenotypic characterization is the process of identifying distinct breed

populations and describing their characteristics and those if their production

environments. It has “primary” characterization phase which involves a single visit to the

field to gather measurements of the animal’s morphological features, interviews with

raisers and identification of some aspects of the production environment and an

“advanced” characterization phase which requires repeated visits to measure productive

and adaptive capacities of breeds in specified production environments (FAO, 2012).

Developing countries have indigenous chickens with diverse benefits. The origin

of each breed or strain/ecotype is the product of mutation and genetic drift, as well as

separate adaption and evolution, with differing selection pressures and imposed by

climate, endemic parasites and diseases, available nutrition and selection criteria

imposed by man (Barker 1994). Similarly, Hartl (1988) indicated that natural and directed
 2

selection; migration and mutation may lead to non-random or directional changes in the

allele frequencies of the population. Thus, each breed or ecotype comprises a unique

set of genes (a number of diversified adaptive and productive traits and genes) with

special utility in the tropics.

Village chickens make substantial contributions to household food security

throughout the developing world, as they represent almost 80% of poultry production in

Africa (Sonaiya, 1997). Indigenous chickens serve as an investment for households in

addition to their use as meat and egg sources both for consumption and for selling

(Muchadeyi et al., 2007; Moula et al., 2011). These indigenous chickens are generally

kept according to an extensive or scavenging system with few or no inputs for housing,

feeding and health care (Mtilleni et al., 2012). These breeds are well adapted to the local

climatic conditions, feeds and management stresses, with better resistance to diseases

(Iqbal and Pampori, 2008). Some major genes have been found potentially useful to the

tropical production environment (Fayeye, 2006).

The Philippine native chicken is the common fowl found in the backyards of most

rural households. It is a mixture of different breeds and believed to have descended from

the domesticated red jungle fowl (Tolentino, 2009). The blood of the imported may vary

colors and other characteristics of our original native chicken.

Native chickens are raised for household consumption, for barters and for

religious rituals. Native chickens are not good feed converters. They are raised in

backyards provided with simple nest, simple housing and simple feed supplements

(Apolonio, 2010).

The improvement of domestic animals including chickens to meet human needs

is independent on variations (variations within and between breeds). Such variation

 3

among individuals or groups of chickens gives room and opportunity for breeding and

selection (Huque, et al. 1993; Ali and Faruque, 1998).

Statement of the Problem

This study would like to answers the following questions:

1. What is the socio-economic status of the respondents?

2. What are the phenotypic characteristics of chickens existing in Salay, Misamis

Oriental?

3. What are the morphometric measurements of each native chickens in Salay,

Misamis Oriental?

4. Determine the egg production, reproductive performances, as well as the rate of

survival of native chickens under intensive and extensive management levels in

Salay, Misamis Oriental?

Objectives of the Study

The general objective of this study was to characterize indigenous chickens

based on some phenotypic traits.

Specifically, it aimed to:

1. Determine the socio-economic status of the respondents;

2. Identify, characterize and describe the phenotypic variation of indigenous chicken

populations;

3. Determine the morphometric measurements of native chicken in Salay, Misamis

Oriental; and;
 4

4. Evaluate the egg production, reproductive performances, as well as the rate of

survival of native chickens in Salay, Misamis Oriental under intensive and

extensive management levels.

Significance of the Study

The assessment of phenotypic information could be employed to preserve

genetic variability and further adulteration. Such information could also use in

conservation and promotion of their utilization.

Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study focused on farmers who raised or adopt backyard farming system of

native chicken in Salay, Misamis Oriental. This study was conducted from November to

January 2018.

Definition of Terms

Barred. Are the alternate transverse markings of two distinct colors on a feather.

Ecotype is a distinct form or race of a plant or animal species occupying a

particular habitat.

Extensive Management is a wide in range including much detailed information.

Genetic drift is variation in the relative frequency of different genotypes. It is a

small population, owing to the chance disappearance of particular genes as individuals

die or do not reproduce.

GPS (Global Positioning System) is a system of earth-orbiting satellites,

transmitting signals continuously towards the earth that enables the position of a
 5

receiving device on or near the earth’s surface to be accurately estimated from the

difference in arrival times of the signals.

Intensive Management. Is needing or using great energy or effort.

Laced. Have a border of contrasting color around the entire web of a feather.

Morphometric (morphe, “shape” and metria, “measurement”) or morphometry

refers to the quantitative analysis of form, a concept that encompasses size and shape.

Mottled. Have a variable percentage of black feathers that are tipped with white.

Native Chicken is also known by the name “Darag”. To those with a sensitive

pallet for poultry, the Darag seems to have a unique flavour far above common

commercially bred and raised chickens, especially when free-ranged.

Phenotypic Characterization is used to identify and document diversity within and

between distinct breeds based on their observable attributes.

Plumage refers both to the layer of feathers that cover a bird and the pattern,

color and arrangement of those feathers.

Spangled. Has a distinct marking of contrasting color at the extremity of a

feather, proximally shaped like a well-defined ‘V’ with a rounded end in some varieties

and curved sides or pear-shaped in other varieties.

Tape Measure is length of tape or thin flexible metal, marked at intervals for

measuring.

Morphological is relating to the form or structure of things.

Weighing Scale is a device to measure weight or calculate mass. Spring

balances or spring scales measure force (weight) by balancing the weight due to the

gravity against the force on a spring, whereas a balance or pair of scales using a
 6

balance beam compares masses by balancing the weight due to the mass of an object

against the weight of a known mass or masses.

Wheaten. Have color of a pale yellow.

 7

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The Red Jungle Fowl

The Red Jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) is a tropical member of the Pheasant family,

and is often believed to be a direct ancestor of the domestic chicken. It was first raised in

captivity at least several thousand years ago in the Indian subcontinent and the

domesticated from has been used all around the world as a very productive food source

for both meat and eggs. Some breeds have been specifically developed to produce

these (Capanzana, 2001).

The early-domesticated chickens still resemble their wild ancestor in many

characteristics. The wild adult male has shiny red plumage with light hackle and black

tails are of single type and the color of their shanks ranges from yellow to grey. The

combined effects of mutation, natural selection, natural selection for cockfighting and the

indiscriminate crossing with the exotic resulted to our domesticated native chicken. The

chicken inventory numbers for sub categories (native, layer, broiler) during 1991 to 2005

shares 54% native, 30% broiler and 16% layer. Peak production of native chicken was in

1998 then slowly it accelerates down while the layer continues going up. In 2005, the

share of commercial broilers in total chicken meat production in the Philippines was

estimated 67% wit native chicken accounting for only 13%. Similarly, commercial layers

accounted 74% the total table egg production while native chicken accounted for the

remaining 24% (Chang, 2005).

In 2007, PCARRD reported that under traditional management system native

chicken only produce 40 to 60 eggs per year. However, with improve management and

better nutrition egg production can be increased by 130 to 200 per year. Traditionally

raised native chickens weigh on kilogram when they are 18 to 20 weeks old but under
 8

improves management and nutrition native chicken weighs 1 kilogram as early as 12

weeks old.

There are few farms of native chicken found in the Philippines. Almost all-native

chickens are raised in backyards just for household use only. Only few farmers sold their

native chickens in the market. Farmer prefers native chicken because it does not require

special care and feeds but they have nutritious products that are free from toxins

compared to commercial broilers. Native chickens do not require high cost of production

and capitals and they could tribe under rugged conditions (Tolentino, 2009).

Native chicken has the great potential of becoming big industry according to Dr.

Provido as cited by Capanzana, 2001, a successful agricultural entrepreneur and the

president chairman of the Regional Agricultural and Fisheries Council (RAFC) Region

VI. He further stated that “it’s about time that the Darag native chicken should be

projected to the public market as one of the region’s flagship commodities. City residents

who lead more sedentary life prefer foods that are low in cholesterol. Their preference is

now shifting to the eggs coming from native chicken which, being small, are small

believed to supply small amount of cholesterol. Aside from that, native birds and eggs

are tastier and savory than improved breeds.

Native Chicken Inventory

Poultry is the most progressive animal enterprise today. It is one of the world’s

major and fastest producers of meat while in the Philippines; it has been a significant

contributor to the country’s agriculture sector. In 2010, the chicken population in the

Philippines was estimated 159 million, slightly higher (0.2 percent) than last year’s level.

Layer and native chicken inventory grew by 12 and 2 percent, respectively. Almost 50

percent of the total chicken population was accounted for native or village chicken raised
 9

in the backyard farms while remaining 32.8% (broilers) and 18% (layers) were taken up

by commercial broilers (PCAARRD, 2010).

The Native Chicken Industry in the Philippines

Zoologically, the domesticated native chickens, which are called Gallus

domesticus, have four species that include Gallus gallus, the red jungle fowl; Gallus

layette, the Ceylonese jungle fowl; Gallus sonnerati, the grey jungle fowl; and Gallus

various, the black or green jungle fowl (PCARRD, 2007). They are commonly found in

rural areas.

The importance of the native chicken industry in the country cannot be

overemphasized, considering its contribution to the total stock of chicken. Native chicken

production in the Philippines accounted for more or less 50% of the chicken inventory

from 2001 to 2011. It provides an additional livelihood to about 2.5 million Filipinos

(PCARRD, 2007). The growing demand for the commodity in recent years due to its

distinct taste compared to broilers indicates future significant economic potential

contribution to the industry (PCARRD, 2011).

Native chicken production in the Philippines is categorized as backyard poultry

production. Chang (2007) noted that rural households in the country often keep in their

backyards a small number of chickens with 5 – 1 hens and 1 – 2 roosters. The common

and most significant feature of backyard poultry is the low-input, low-output production

system which is based almost entirely on native birds and local breeds (FAO as cited in

Chang 2007). Native chicken can be grown under conditions of minimal material inputs

(feed, medications, housing, etc.) and management (De Los Santos, et al., 1995).
 10

Importance of Native Breeds for Rural Economy

Chickens in developing countries have more diverse use and benefits to

household. The use of native chicken in tropics varies from region to region and from

community to community within a region. In the tropics small land holders keep chickens

for their socioreligious functions. This because the commitment of an

individual/community to a particular spiritual being, deity or season and traditional and/or

religious festivals is evaluated by the quality of the offering that satisfies special

morphological features of the demanded by the receiver. Regardless of low output from

native chicken in the tropics they can thrive and produce with irregular supply of feed

and water and with minimum healthcare. They are part of balanced farming system and

have vital roles in the rural households as a source of high quality animal protein and

emergency cash income and play a significant role in the sociocultural life of the rural

community. Though local chickens are slow grower and poor layers of small sized eggs

they are, however, ideal mothers and good sitters, excellent foragers and hardly, and

possess natural immunity against diseases. The small body size of native chickens is a

desirable character in tropical and subtropical environment. One of the most important

positive characters of native chickens is their hardiness, which is ability to tolerate the

harsh environmental condition and poor husbandry practices (climate, handling, watering

and feeding) without much loss in production.

Nchinda et al. (2011) reported that net margins from chicken husbandry

represent 7.3, 3.2 and 2.2% of non-food, food and total monthly household expenditure,

respectively, well above those of the not yet involved in the family poultry in Haiti. The

family poultry (chicken) husbandry support program was profitable for the beneficiary

and contributed to the welfare of participants. Yang and Jiang 2005 reported consumer
 11

preference for coloured feather and slow growing meat- type quality chickens in certain

regions of the world. Quality chickens are generally produced by direct use of native

chickens breed, which are generally slow growing with poor feed conversion. The

sustained use of native chickens in the traditional or family poultry production system

showed the need to consider the value of native chickens. Therefore, a stratified on farm

analysis is required to apprise the needs and opportunities of the different production

system for realistic assessment of the economic value of different traditional traits. Das

et al. 2008 reported that rural poultry production particularly chickens (followed by ducks

production) play significant role in the socioeconomic development of Bangladesh.

Almost 90% of all rural families keep a small number of native chickens and ducks under

traditional free range semi scavenging systems. They reported that poultry are generally

maintained by rural women and children that generate cash revenue and that supply

adequate eggs and meat to their personal family’s diet. Chickens generally scavenge

around the homestead areas during day time, where they eat kitchen waste, left over

cereal like rice, wheat, pulses, green grass, insects and other available feed stuff. These

waste feedstuffs are utilised by these native birds to produce a good quality, cheap

source of animal protein.

Demographical Sketch

Salay is a fourth class municipality in the province of Misamis Oriental,

Philippines. According to the 2015 census, it has a population of 28,705 people.

Poblacion is the center of Salay and had been governed by the Capistrano politicians

until the 2007 elections. Lanzones is one of the major source of income among

Salayanons aside from commerce at Poblacion and fishing to other people. May 1 is the

feast day of Salay although March feast is also celebrated and is the original.
 12

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Time and Place of the Study

This study conducted at Salay, Misamis Oriental from November to January 2018.

Figure 1. Map of Salay, Misamis Oriental (Source: Google map)

 13

Materials

The material that was used in the study are ball pen, paper, survey

questionnaire, cellphone, laptop, GPS, camera, tape measure, meter stick/ruler, and

weighing scale.

Methods

Morphological characteristics and morphometric measurements of the birds were

based on the FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines No. 11: Phenotypic

Characterization of Animal Genetic Resources (FAO, 2012). Morphological

characteristics include feathering characteristics covering only plumage pattern, while

body parameters such as plumage color, eye color, earlobe color, comb type, comb

color, shank color and skin color was recorded. The quantitative body measurements

includes body length, body weight, body height to back level, shank length, wingspan

and chest circumference.

Protocol for Data Collection

Determination of population

The proponent visited each Barangays to determine the possible number of

adopter. The Barangay Captain was interviewed and asked for the number of farmers

who adopted backyard farming of native chickens. The courtesy call was also done to

request permission to conduct a survey research in their Barangay.

 14

Research instrument

This study was using a questionnaire (Appendix C) as the instrument for data

collection. The questionnaire was given to the respondents to gather relevant

information and was interpreted and analysed.

Sampling procedure

The number of respondents were selected from the eighteen Barangays of

Salay, Misamis Oriental, namely; Alipuaton, Ampenican, Bunal, Casulog, Dinagsaan,

Guinalaban, Inubolan, Ili-ilihon, Looc, Matampa, Mimbule, Poblacion, Salagsag, Saray,

Salay River I, Salay River II, Tinagaan and Yungod as the respondents of the research

study.

Questionnaire development/ preparation

A set of questions was developed for this study that would capture all the

information needed to answer the objectives.

Pre-test

This was a trial form of producing questionnaire to be answered by a chosen

people, to determine if it is suitable for the research study to eliminate redundant

questions and solicit suggestions for the improvement of the questionnaire.

 15

Data collection

Gathering of data was recorded from the Municipality of Salay, Misamis Oriental,

namely; Alipuaton, Ampenican, Bunal, Casulog, Dinagsaan, Guinalaban, Inubolan, Ili-

ilihon, Looc, Matampa, Mimbuli, Poblacion, Salagsag, Saray, Salay River I, Salay River

II, Tinagaan and Yungod.

It was visited by roaming around or house to house visit. If the respondent could

not read and write, I would like to them ask face to face to collect information.

Analysis of Data

Analysis of data depended upon the collected sample size of the population on

the said survey at the Municipality of Salay, Misamis Oriental. The data was analysed

using frequencies, percentages and mean to determine the adoption of backyard

farming system of native chickens.

Data to be Gathered

Data collection was focused on the body parameters such as plumage color, skin

color, eye color, earlobe color, comb type, comb color, body size and height to back

level and body weight. Body height was measured by centimetre (cm) from leg on the

ground up to the level of back of the body of the chickens. Their body weight was

measured at 20 weeks of age using a sensitive balance (gram).

1. Body length. This was measured from the anterior part of the keel near the crop

to the posterior of the pubic bones.

2. Shank length. This is measure from the hock joint to the base of the toe pad.
 16

3. Wing span. This is taken between the tips of the right and left wings after both

are stretched out in full.

4. Chest circumference. This was measured from the heart girth area. Wings will be

extended upward to exclude it from the measurement.

5. Rate of Survival. This was measured from the hatchability up to the how many

chicks left in their backyard.

 17

Figure2. Pandungan

Figure3. Kulot
 18

Figure4. Cobra

Figure5. Barbon
 19

Figure6. Basilan

Figure7. Patani
 20

Figure8. Wing span

Figure9. Body height

 21

Figure10. Chest circumference

 22

White Green

Black Grey

Yellow

Figure11. Shank color

 23

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Demographic information

The demographic characteristics of the 147 respondents in Salay, Misamis

Oriental who were the adopters of backyard farming of native chicken shown in figure 12

to 17. Most of the respondents interviewed the ages was categorizes from young (below

40 years), middle age (41-59 years) and old (60 years above). Most respondents was in

the old category (42.86%) (Figure12). Out of 147 respondents who raised native

chickens in their backyard 49% respondents were males, and 51% of this was females

(Figure13). Figure 14 depicted the civil status of the respondents. Majority were married

comprising 84.4% of the total percentage of the respondents. Very few remained single

(6.8%), separated (2.7%) and widow (6.1%) (Figure14).

Figure12. Age of the respondents

Ages of the respondents

35%
43% Young (below 40 years)
Middle (41-50 years)
Old (60 years and above)

22%
 24

Figure13. Gender

Gender of the respondents

Male Female

49%
51%

Figure14. Civil status of the respondents

Civil status
Widow
6%
Separated
3% Single
7%

Married
84%
 25

Majority of the respondents across the barangays speaks Visayan (100%)

(Figure15). The educational attainment of the respondents is presented in figure 16.

Result showed that most of the respondents in Salay, Misamis Oriental were high school

graduate (34.7%). Followed by high school level (21.1%), elementary level (15.6%). The

remaining participant is college level (4.8%), vocational graduate (2.7%) and college

graduate (1.4%). The surveys revealed that majority of the respondents were only until

high school which is low education attainment. Majority of the respondents interviewed

have a household size was categorized by below the mean (4) and above the mean (4).

The highest average of the category was on the below the mean which corresponds to

54.42% and the above the mean was about 45.58% (Figure17).

Figure15. Dialect spoken

Dialect spoken

100% 100% Visayan

 26

Figure16. Educational attainment of the respondents

34.7
35
30
25 19.7 21.1
20 15.6
15
10 4.8
1.4 2.7
5
0

Educational attainment

Figure17. Household size of the respondents

Household size

46% 54% Below the mean (4.00)

Above the mean (4.00)
 27

Socio economic indicator

Figure 18 to 20 shows the source of income, estimated annual income and the

membership organization in tribe of the respondents. Farmers was involved both off-

farm and on farm-activities. About 112 respondents derived their income on farming and

had annually income ranging from Php 30,000.00 below (76.2%). Thirty-six (24.5) of the

respondents had an annually income of 30-50,000.00, six (4.1%) respondents had an

annually income ranging from 50-70,000.00 and only one (.7%) respondent had an

annually income ranging from 100,000.00 above. Off-farm activities refers to business

(5) private company employee (4) fisherman (3) broom maker (1) construction worker (4)

tailor (1) welder (1) grilled man (1) firewood seller (1) gambler (1) from child and parents

(6 because some of the respondents was student and too old to get work in farm) driver

(4), taxi dispatcher (1) and carpenter (1) (Table8). Majority of the respondents were

Salayanon about 147 (Figure20).

Figure18. Source of income of the respondents

Source of income
90
80
70
Percentage

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Private
Farming Business company Others
employee
Source of income 76.2 6.8 2.7 14.3
 28

Figure19. Estimated annual income of the respondents

80 70.1
70
60
50
40
30 24.5
20
10 4.1 0.7 0.7
0

Estimated annual income

Figure20. Membership organization in tribe

Membership organization in tribe

Salayanon

100%
 29

Native chicken adoption

Figure 21 shows the native chicken adoption in Salay, Misamis Oriental. Out of

147 respondents interviewed 83% of respondents answered they adopted pure type of

native chicken and it classified as bisaya (41) and pansabong (43) in their backyard the

highest adoption of native chicken. Twenty (13.6%) respondents answered they raised

Basilan, Patani (3.4%). Majority of the respondents interviewed they let their native

chickens untethered to roam around in their backyard (70.1%). Some respondents

tethered their native chickens because of the environment and some chickens maybe

caught by thieves (9.5%). And 20.4% respondents both tethered and untethered their

native chickens because they live in a wide range of backyard and free from thieves

(Figure22). The main purpose of the respondents why they raised native chickens in

their backyard because in the personal use they can have additional income, free from

food supply when there is a holiday or a celebration and if there’s no more food to cook,

can help into their everyday needs and wants, and others may answer for the fare when

they go to school or work about 68.7%. Some respondents answered for their personal

relaxation or leisure because they bring their chickens to the cockpit (for fighting cock),

they used the chickens for their alarm clocks every day and some may use for

decoration for their houses about 31.3% (Figure23).

 30

Figure21. Types of native chicken

Types of native chicken

50
45
40 43
41
35
30
25
20
15 20

10 15

5 10
7 3 5
0

Figure22. Ways of raising the chickens

80 70.1

70
60
50
40
30 20.4

20 9.5

10
0
Tethered Untethered Both

Ways of raising the chickens

 31

Figure23. Purpose of raising native chicken

Purpose of raising native chicken

Other Leisure
Personal use
31% 31%
69%

Out of 147 respondents 61.9% of the respondents interviewed answered yes

they sell the chickens for the needs of the respondents and only 38.1% respondents

interviewed answered no because they were just raised the chicken for their food

consumption (Figure24). According to the respondents they fed their chickens on

different foods they have in their kitchen or storage room. Most of the respondents they

fed on their native chickens was BSC about 38.8%, rice (19.7%), corn (17%), feeds

(10.9% for fighting cocks), corn grits (8.8%), corn bran (4.1%) and only .7% of

respondent answered they feed banana in their native chickens (Figure25). In terms of

deworming of the native chicken’s the lowest number of respondents answered yes

because they just give their native chickens a Bunga about 68% the traditional

dewormer and other deworming they give on their native chickens was bought from

agrivet supply like Astig, Agmectin, Hammer, Pakyaw and Pidro and highest number
 32

interviewed answered no they just leave their native chickens without giving any

deworming (Figure26).

Figure24. Selling of the native chicken of the respondents

Selling of the native chicken of the

respondents
No
38%

Yes
62%

Figure25. Kinds of feed given to the native chicken

Kinds of feeds given to the native chicken

45
40
35 38.8
30
25
20
15 19.7
17
10
10.9
5 8.8
4.1 0.7
0
Broiler Corn Corn grits Corn bran Rice Feeds Banana
Starter
Crumble
(BSC)
 33

Figure26. Deworming administration by dewormers to chicken

Deworming administration by dewormers to

chicken
Yes No

32%

68%

Figure 27 showed the techniques of the respondents to have many native

chicken raised in their backyard. 71.4% of the respondents interviewed answered they

prefer on extensive care management for their native chickens and they just give the

native chickens food in their back door and front door a total of 105 respondents. And 42

(28.6%) total number of respondents interviewed answered they prefer on intensive care

management for their native chickens and they put in their native chickens in the cage

they set aside the chicks during the brooding and they give an extent care for their native

chickens. In figure 28 shows the number of years raised of native chickens by the

respondents. Majority of the respondents answered below the mean (16.34 years) about

59.18% and above the mean (16.34 years) about 40.82%.

 34

Figure27. Management methods of native chicken in Salay, Misamis Oriental

Management methods of native chicken in

Salay

Intensive
Extensive Other management
management 29% 29%
71%

Figure28. Years of raising of the native chicken in Salay, Misamis Oriental

Years of raising of the native chicken

in Salay
8 1 year below
Number of respondents

6 1-10 years
11-20 years
4
21-30 years
2 31-40 years
41-50 years
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 51-60 years
Barangay in Salay, Misamis Oriental 61-70 years
 35

Phenotypic characterization of native chicken

In figure 29 to 43 shows the shank length, shank color, chest circumference,

wing span, weight, body height, body length, plumage pattern, plumage color, skin color,

comb type, comb color, earlobe color, eye color and benefits they get of raising native

chickens.

The highest percentage of the shank length was about 28.6% and the lowest

percentage was about .7% (Figure29). On shank colour shows in figure 30, the highest

percentage was about 44.2% the color white and the color green was the lowest

percentage about 6.1% (Figure30). The highest percentage of the chest circumference

was about 10.9% and the lowest percentage was about 0.7% (Figure31). In figure 32

shows the wing span of the native chicken, the highest percentage was about 7.5% and

the lowest percentage was about 0.7%. Weight of the native chickens differs on the ages

of the chicken, highest percentage was about 8.2% and the lowest percentage was

about 0.7% (Figure33). Figure 34 and 35 shows the body height and body length of the

native chickens. The body height and body length of the native chickens will be the

same of the chest circumference of the chicken. The highest percentage of the body

height was about 10.2% and the lowest was about 0.7% (Figure34). The highest

percentage of the body length was about 10.9% and the lowest percentage was about

0.7% (Figure35).
 36

Figure29. Shank length

Shank length
10
6 cm
Number of respondents

8 7 cm
6 8 cm
4 9 cm

2 10 cm
11 cm
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 cm
Barangay in Salay, Misamis Oriental 13 cm

Legend: 1- Alipuaton; 2- Ampenican; 3- Bunal; 4- Casulog; 5- Dinagsaan; 6- Guinalaban; 7-

Inobulan; 8- Ili-ilihon; 9- Looc; 10- Matampa; 11- Mimbule; 12- Poblacion; 13- Salagsag; 14-
Saray; 15- Salay River I; 16- Salay River II; 17- Tinagaan; 18- Yungod

Figure30. Shank color

Shank color
50
45
40
Percentage

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
White Green Black Grey Yellow
Shank color 44.2 6.1 2 12.2 35.4
 37

Figure31. Chest circumference

Chest circumference 11
10
9
8
Percentage

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
cmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcmcm
4 months to 9 months old 0.7 2 1.4 2 4.84.85.43.4
10 months to 18 months old 8.88.2116.17.58.84.88.2
19 months old above 7.51.4 2 0.70.7

Figure32. Wing span

8

6 4 months to 9
months old
5
Percentage

10 months to 18
4 months old
3 19 months old
above
2

0
37 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 86
cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm
Wing span
 38

Figure33. Weight of the chicken by age

Weight
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
320 g
450 g
510 g
600 g
750 g
850 g
960 g
1010 g
1150 g
1230 g
1300 g
1390 g
1460 g
1520 g
1650 g
1750 g
1820 g
1980 g
2150 g
2220 g
2350 g
2500 g
2620 g
2980 g
4 months to 9 months old 10 months to 18 months old 19 months old above

Figure34. Body height

Body height
12
4 months to 9
10 months old

8 10 months to 18
Percentage

months old
6
19 months old
4 above

0
16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 38
centimeter
 39

Figure35. Body length

Body length
11
10
9
8
7
Percentage

6 4 months to 9 months old

5
10 months to 18 months old
4
3 19 months old abbove
2
1
0
14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 35
centimeter

Figure 36 and 37 shows the plumage pattern and the plumage color of the native

chickens. Most of the respondents answered the plumage pattern of their native chicken

was pencilled the highest percentage among the five plumage pattern (38.1%) followed

by spangled (23.8%), laced (19.7%), mottled (10.9%) and barred (7.5%) (Figure36). In

figure 37 shows the plumage color of the native chicken, among three colors seen in the

area the highest percentage was the wheaten color (38.8%), followed by the brown color

(37.4%) and the black color (23.8%).

 40

Figure36. Plumage pattern

Plumage pattern

7%
20%

Laced
24%
Pencilled
Mottled
Spangled
Barred
11%
38%

Figure37. Plumage color

Plumage color

Black
24%

Other Wheaten
39% 39%

Brown
37%
 41

Majority of the native chickens the skin color were white with the total percentage

of 98.6% based on the interview and only 1.4% answered they have black color of the

skin (Figure38). The comb type was 100% single (Figure39) and the color was 100% red

(Figure40). The color earlobe was about 77.6% (red) followed by the mixture of red-

white (17.7%) and others have white colors (4.1%) (Figure41). The eye color identified

most of them were orange with the total number of 107 (72.8%) followed by red with 26

(17.7%), Ten (6.8%) of this was pearl and only 3 (2%) was brown (Figure42). Majority of

the respondents answered that they have a benefits of raising a native chicken about

98% and only two percent said that they have no benefits get by raising native chicken in

their backyard (Figure43)

Figure38. Skin color

Skin color
1%

White
Black

99%
 42

Figure39. Comb type

Comb type

Single comb

100%

Figure40. Comb color

Comb color
Red

100%
 43

Figure41. Earlobe color

Earlobe color
Red White Red-white Black

1%

18%

4%

77%

Figure42. Eye color

Black Eye color

1%

Red Brown
17% 2%
Pearl
7%

Orange
73%
 44

Figure43. Benefits obtained by raising native chicken in Salay, Misamis Oriental

Benefits obtained by raising native chicken in

Salay, Misamis Oriental
Yes No

98% 2% 2%

Reproductive characteristics

Figure 44 to 47 shows the numbers of native chickens raised by the farmers from

the beginning, number left of native chickens on their backyard, number of eggs lays,

hatchability, the fertile eggs, infertile eggs, interval number of days/ months/ years

interval for hatching, the diseased infected in their native chickens raised by the farmers

on the very beginning of their existence. In Salay, Misamis Oriental mostly of the

respondents interviewed answered they raised one pair or 2 heads about 51.7% of the

native chickens and this is the number of lowest total average of native chickens. And

the highest total number of native chickens was 5 heads about 12.9% (Figure44). In

figure 45 shows the number left of their native chickens in their backyard. The highest

total number of heads was 50 heads about 1.4% of native chicken and the lowest total
 45

number was only 1 head (0.7%). According to the respondents they only have few native

chickens left in their backyard because of the phenomenal disease affect by their

chickens. The number of eggs shown on figure 46 the respondents said that the highest

total number of eggs lays in their chickens with a total of 20 eggs (0.7%) but not all eggs

be hatched and the lowest number of eggs was only 5 (0.7%) because according to

them it depends on the weather. Majority of the respondents answered all of the eggs

were natural brooding about 100% (Figure47). The hatchability of fertile eggs was high

than the infertile eggs. With a total number of eggs hatched in their native chickens was

the highest number of 15 eggs hatched (1.4%) in their chickens

Figure44. Number of chickens raise from the start

Number of chickens raise from the

start
55
50
45
Percentage

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Total heads of native chicken

 46

Figure45. Number of chickens left

Number of native chickens left

13
12
Percentage of adopters

11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Total heads

Figure46. Number of eggs

Number of eggs
40
38
36
Percentage of adopters

34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20
pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs
Number of eggs 0.7 4.1 12.2 4.8 36.1 2.7 21.1 4.1 3.4 6.8 2 0.7 0.7 0.7
 47

Figure47. Natural brooding

Natural brooding

Yes
100%

The fertile eggs described when all of the eggs hatched and there is an egg did

not hatch. The lowest total number of fertile eggs was 4 fertile eggs (2.7%) (Figure48).

The highest infertile eggs were 8 eggs and the lowest number was 0 eggs (Figure48).

Figure48. Brooding hatchability

Brooding hatchability
35
30
25
Percentage

20
15
10
5
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
0 pc 1 pc
pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs pcs
Fertile eggs 2.7 6.8 14.3 20.4 21.8 8.2 11.6 2 6.8 2.7 1.4 1.4
Infertile eggs 8.8 8.8 31.3 25.9 13.6 6.1 1.4 1.4 2 0.7
 48

In figure 49 to 51 shows the interval number of days/ months/ years answered by

the respondents. The highest average answered the interval of laying eggs of their

chickens was 7 months about 0.7% and the rapid interval of laying was 2 weeks about

2% because they separate their hens and chickens to have more chickens (Table49). In

figure 50 shows the diseased infected in their native chickens. Most respondents

answered that the disease infected in their chickens was CRD (Chronic Respiratory

Disease) with a total of 58 (39.5%) followed by no diseased with a total of 48 (32.7%)

and some of the respondents answered that the virus infected their native chickens

according to them the virus disease was the seasonal kind of harvesting without any

income or some said all of their native chickens die and only few left about 27.9%. In

figure 51 shows the treatments given by the respondents. Majority of the respondents

said that they just give no treatment on their native chickens with a total of 94 (63.9%).

Seventeen percent of this answered they give vetracin when there’s a disease infected

in their native chicken and some may just give only the medicine which they seen on

their medicine kit.

 49

Figure49. Interval of laying by Barangay

Interval of laying
1 month below
8 1 month
Number of adopters

6 2 months
4 3 months
2 4 months
5 months
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 6 months
Barangay in Salay, Misamis Oriental 7 months

Legend: 1- Alipuaton; 2- Ampenican; 3- Bunal; 4- Casulog; 5- Dinagsaan; 6- Guinalaban; 7-

Inobulan; 8- Ili-ilihon; 9- Looc; 10- Matampa; 11- Mimbule; 12- Poblacion; 13- Salagsag; 14-
Saray; 15- Salay River I; 16- Salay River II; 17- Tinagaan; 18- Yungod

Figure50. Disease of the native chicken

Disease of the native chicken

40
35
30
Percentage

25
20
15
10
5
0
Chronic New Castle No Disease
Respiratory Disease
Disease
Disease of the native chicken 39.5 27.9 32.7
 50

Figure51. Treatment

Treatment
70
60
50
Percentage

40
30
20
10
0
No Chilli Amtyl Doxila Vetra Aqua Parac Amoxi Chlor Panya
treat c cin dox etam cillin anphe wan
ment ol necol
Treatment 63.9 0.7 6.1 3.4 17 0.7 1.4 2.7 2.7 1.4
 51

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The study on phenotypic characterization of native chicken (Gallus-gallus

domesticus) in Salay, Misamis Oriental was conducted at Salay, Misamis Oriental. The

study aimed to determine the number of adopters who had phenotypic characteristics of

their native chickens.

There were 147 farmer-respondents used in the study. Based on this study, the

number of adopters who raised native chickens in their backyard, the demographic

information and socio-economic indicators were determined. Also, the native chicken

adoption, phenotypic characteristics of native chicken and reproductive characteristics

were identified. Almost all of respondents from municipality of Salay, Misamis Oriental

were both males and females, ranging from 60 years old above, majority were married,

visayan and mostly were not able to pursue their studies in college and majority of them

had two to nine members as household size.

Majority of them derived their income through farming and most of the

respondents had an annual income below Php 30,000.00.

The number of respondents interviewed the types of native chickens they raised.

They answered only native chickens, they just live the native chickens on their backyard.

They used their chickens for personal purposes and they sell it for additional income.

The respondents fed their native chickens with BSC, rice and corn or what they see in

their kitchen. According to them they neglect their chickens in terms of deworming,

majority answered in techniques were in extensive management. The years of raised in

native chicken were they acquire from their ancestors. The size of the body may differ to

the age of the chickens. The reproductive characteristics maybe different because of the
 52

natural phenomenon and the weather will also the one factors affected by the

reproductive characteristics.

The following are the recommendations:

1. Knowledge of the farmers in adoption of native chickens should be broad,

management and utilization can be used as other sources of information to other

researcher that have similar study about phenotypic characterization.

2. Similar studies should be conducted at other places in Misamis Oriental.

 53

LITERATURE CITED

Ali, A. and Faruque, M.O. 1998. Poultry improvement strategies in Bangladesh. First
National Workshop on Animal Breeding, Bangladesh Agricultural University,
Mymensingh.

Apolonio, A.C. 2002. Production management and practices of indigenous chicken in

Buguias, Benguet. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Pp.3-4.

Barker J SF. 1994. Proceeding of the 5th World Congress on genetic Applied to
Livestock production. Guelph, Volume 21. 501-508.

Bondoc OL. 1998. Biodiversity of Livestock and Poultry Genetic Resources in the
Philppines. Los Baños, Laguna: IAS-CA/UPLB and PCARRD/DOST.

Capanzana, M.V. 2001. Darag native-chicken. Retrieved January 29, 2010 from
http:/www.mxph.com/.

Chang, C. 2005. Analysis of Philippine Native Chicken Industry. Retrieved January 29,
2010 from http:/www.seaca.org/.

Celestino EF. 2010. Native chicken production and marketing under various agro-
ecosystems in Nueva Ecija, Philippines. Master’s Thesis. University of the
Philippines Los Baños.

Fayeye, T.R., Ayorinde, K.L., Ojo, V., and Adesina, O.M.: Frequency and influence of
some major genes on body weight and body size parameters of Nigerian local
chickens, Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 18, available at:
http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/3/faye18037.htm (last access: April 2015), 2006.

FAO. 2012. Phenotypic Characterization of Animal Genetic Resources. FAO Animal

Production and Health Guidelines No. 11. Rome.

Gerona GP. 1991. Population, plumage color pattern and management practices of
native chickens in Northwestern Leyte. Master’s Thesis. University of the
Philippines Los Baños.

Hartl , LD. 1988. A premier of population genetics. 2nd Edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc,
Publishers. Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Huque, Q.M.E., Hossain, M.J. and Huque, M.E. 1993. Growth pattern of Assel birds
under intensive system. Bang. J. Live. Res. Vol.1, No.1.

Iqbal, S. and Pampori, Z.A.: Production and qualitative traits of indigenous chicken of
Kashmir, Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 20, available at:
http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/11/iqba20182.htm (last access: April 2015), 2008.
 54

Lambio IAF and Barrion AA. 1998. Protein polymorphism in five genetic groups of
Philippine native chicken. Proc Annual Convention Philipp Soc Anim Sci, Manila,
Philippines, pp. 118-125.

Lambio AL and Gay EC. 1993. The indigenous chickens in the Philippines. Anim Prod
Texh J 8 (1): 8-11.

Lambio AL, Bondoc OL and Grecia M.C. 1998. Brooding and growing performance of
four genetic groups of Philippine native chickens. Philipp J Vet Anim Sci 24 (1):
1-8.
Lambio AL, Penalba FF and Guevarra LA. 1991. Blood serum albumen, transferrin and
esterase polymorphism in the Philippine indigenous chickens. Philipp Agric 74
(2): 275281.

Magpantay VA, Supangco EP, Pacificador AY, Sevilla CC, Lambio AL and Gayeta EC.
2006. Characterization of native chicken production system in a coconut-based
farming system in Dolores, Quezon. Philipp J Vet AnimSci 32 (2): 195-202.

Moula, N., Luc, D.D., Dang, P.K., Farnir, F., Ton, V.D., Binh, D.V., Leroy, P., and
Antoine Moussiaux, N: The RI chicken breed and livehoods in North Vietnam:
Characterization and prospects, J. Agr. Rural Develop. Trop. Subtrop., 112, 57-
69, 2011.

Mtilleni, M.F.C., Maiwashe, A., Chimonyo, M., and Dzama, K.: Conservation and
utilization of indigenous chicken genetic resources in Southern Africa, World
Poulty. Sci. J., 68, 727747, 2012.

Muchadeyi, F.C., Wollny, C.B.A., Eding, H., Weigend, S., Makuza., and Simianer, H.:
Variation in village chicken production system among agro-ecological zones of
Zimbabwe, Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 39, 453-461, doi:10.1007/s11250-007-
9050-0, 2007.

Nchinda,, V. P, O. Thieme, P. Ankers, V. Crespi, and S. Ariste, “Food security and

economic importance of family poultry (chicken) husbandry program un
Artibonite and South department of Haiti,” Livestock Research for Rural
Development, vol. 23, no. 9, 2011.

Oñate WT. 1991. Estimated population, management practices and performance of

chicken in Camarines Sur. PhD Dissertation. University of the Philippines Los
Baños.

PCARRD-DOST.2007 TheDarag Native Chicken. Information Bulletin No.258/2007. Los

Baños, Laguna

Roxas NP, Villanueva EM and Lambio AL. 1996. Protein and isoenzyme polymorphism
in Philippine native chickens. Philipp J Vet Anim Sci 22 (1): 43-58.
 55

Sonaiya, E. B.: African network on Rural Poultry Proceedings ANRPD Workshop, Addis
Ababa, Ethopia, Progress Report, 134-143, November 1989 to June 1995, 1997.
Taiwan Livestock Research Institute (TLRI). 1991. Catalogue of Native Poultry of
Southeast Asia. Taipe (Taiwan): FFTC/TLRI.

Tolentino, M.L. 2009. Native Chicken. Retrieved January 29, 2010 from
http://maidon.pcrrd.dost.gov.ph.
 56

APPENDICES
 57

Appendix A. Sample Survey Questionnaire

Phenotypic Characterization of Native Chickens (Gallus domesticus)

in Salay, Misamis Oriental

Instruction: Palihog ko ug tsek ug ayaw blangkohi

Barangay: ________________________ Purok: _____________________________

Coordinates: ___________________________________________________________
Pangalan sa Respondent: _________________________________________________
Part I: Demographic Information

1. Edad: ________
2. Gender:

[ ] Lalaki [ ] Babae
3. Civil Status:
[ ] Minyo [ ] Dili minyo
[ ] Bolag sa Asawa/Bana [ ] Balo

4. Pinulungan:

[ ] Bisaya [ ] Tagalog [ ] Ilonggo

[ ] Bol-anon [ ] Higaonon
[ ] Uban pa (palihog isulat)
5. Naabot nga Edukasyon:

[ ] Elementary Level [ ] Elementary Graduate

[ ] High School Level [ ] High School Graduate
[ ] College Level [ ] College Graduate
6. Gidak-on sa pamilya: _______________________
 58

Part II: Socio-Economic Indicators

7. Tinubdan sa kita:
On Farm [ ] Pag uma
Off Farm [ ] Empleyado sa Gobyerno
[ ] Negosyante
[ ] Empleyado sa Pribadong Kompanya
[ ] Uban pa (palihog isulat): ________________________
8. Bana-bana nga kita sulod sa is aka tuig?
[ ] Php 30,000 paubos [ ] Php 30,001 to 50,000
[ ] Php 50,001 to 70,000 [ ] Php 70,000 to 90,001
[ ] Php 90,001 to 110,000 [ ] Php 110,001 pataas
9. Membership Organization in tribe:
[ ] Higaonon [ ] Salayanon [ ] Boholano
[ ] Cebuano [ ] Dumagat
[ ] Uban pa (palihog isulat): ____________________________________

Part III: Native Chicken Adoption

10. Unsa nga mga klase nga manok nga bisaya ang inyong gialimahan?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

11. Binuy-an ba kini o hiniktan ang manok nga bisaya?

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

12. Nganong nagbuhi mo ani nga klase sa manok nga bisaya?

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

13. Gaibaligya ba kini ninyo ang manok nga bisaya?

[ ] Oo, ngano man?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
 59

[ ] Dili, ngano man?

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

14. Unsa nga klase sa pagkaon ang inyong gaihatag sa inyong ginaalimahan nga
manok bisaya?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
15. Ginapurga ba kini ninyo ang inyong gialimahan nga manok bisaya?
Oo, unsa klase nga purga ang inyong gaihatag?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Dili, ngano man?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

16. Unsa inyong pamaagi aron managhan ang inyong gibuhi nga manok bisaya?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
17. Pila na pud mo ka tuig nga nagbuhi sa bisaya nga manok?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Part IV: Phenotypic Characteristics of Native Chicken

18. Kataas sa tiil: _____________________________________________________

19. Kolor sa tiil:
[ ] Puti [ ] Green [ ] Itom
[ ] Grey-blue [ ] Yellow
[ ] Uban pa (palihog isulat): ____________________________________

20. Chest circumference:

21. Wing span:
22. Weight:
23. Body height/ length:
24. Plumage pattern/ color:
 60

25. Skin color:

26. Unsa klase sa tapa ang naa sa inyong bisaya nga manok?
Size: ___________________________________________________________
Color: ___________________________________________________________
27. Earlobe color:
[ ] Pula [ ] Puti
[ ] Blue [ ] Red-white
[ ] Uban pa (palihog isulat): ____________________________________

28. Eye color:

[ ] Red [ ] Brown [ ] Pearl
[ ] Orange [ ] Uban pa (palihog isulat):
_______________

29. Sa inyong pagbuhi sa bisaya nga manok, aduna ba kini nakatabang sa inyong
panginabuhi?
Oo, ngano man:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Wala, ngano man:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Part V: Reproductive Characteristics

30. Pila ka manok nga bisaya ang inyong gialimahan sugod sa permiro nimo nga
pagbuhi?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
31. Karun pila man ang nabilin sa inyung bisaya nga manok?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
32. Kung mangitlog ang inyong bisaya nga manok tag pila pod kabook?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
33. Galomloman ba kani niya?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
34. Pila ka piso ang gakabuhi ug pila pud ka itlog ang dili gakapusa?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
 61

35. Tag pila pod ka adlaw/bulan/tuig gapangitlog ang inyung gibuhi nga manok
bisaya?

36. Sa pagpangitlog sa inyung gibuhi nga manok unsa pud mga sakit ang gatapot sa
bisaya nga manok?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
37. Unsa pud ang inyung tambal nga gaipainom sa inyung gibuhi nga manok bisaya
kung matapdan ug sakit?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

DAGHANG SALAMAT!!!

LOWELL P. CABAÑEROS,
Researcher
 62

Appendix B. Letter to the Mayor

November 17, 2017

HON. ANGELO CAPISTRANO JR.

Municipal Mayor
Salay, Misamis Oriental

Sir:

I am Lowell P. Cabañeros, a bonafide student of University of Science and Technology

of Southern Philippines – Claveria Campus (USTP – Claveria), Claveria, Misamis
Oriental taking up Bachelor of Science in Agriculture major in Animal Science. As
requirement of this degree, we are required to conduct a thesis. My thesis study is entitle
“Phenotypic Characterization of Native Chicken (Gallus domesticus) in Salay, Misamis
Oriental”. The objectives of this study are to (1) identify, characterize and describe the
phenotypic variation of indigenous chicken populations; (2) determine the morphometric
measurements of native chicken in Salay, Misamis Oriental; and; (3) evaluate the egg
production, reproductive performances, as well as the rate of survival of native chickens
in Salay, Misamis Oriental under intensive and extensive management levels.
My study site is the Municipality of Salay, Misamis Oriental. In this regard, I would like to
ask your permission to conduct the said study. It involves a survey of phenotypic
characterization of native chickens in your area. Your support in this study is very
important for the success of my undergraduate thesis.
I am hoping for your favourable response regarding this matter. Thank you in advance.
Respectfully yours,

LOWELL P. CABAÑEROS
BSA 4 Student
Noted by: Approved by:

ALMA L. COSADIO, Ph.D HON. ANGELO CAPISTRANO JR.

Adviser Municipal Mayor
 63

Appendix C. Letter to the Barangay Captain

November 17, 2017

HON. ZOSIMO TUMBAGO

Barangay Captain
Yungod, Salay, Misamis Oriental

Sir:

I am Lowell P. Cabañeros, a bonafide student of University of Science and Technology

of Southern Philippines, Claveria – Campus (USTP – Claveria) Claveria, Misamis
Oriental taking up Bachelor of Science in Agriculture major in Animal Science. As a
requirement of this degree, we are required to conduct a thesis study. My thesis study is
entitle “Phenotypic Characterization of Native Chicken (Gallus domesticus) in Salay,
Misamis Oriental”. The objectives of this study are (1) identify, characterize and describe
the phenotypic variation of indigenous chicken populations; (2) determine the
morphometric measurements of native chicken in Salay, Misamis Oriental; and; (3)
evaluate the egg production, reproductive performances, as well as the rate of survival
of native chickens in Salay, Misamis Oriental under intensive and extensive
management levels.
One of my study sites is the Barangay Yungod in Salay, Misamis Oriental. In this regard,
I would like to ask your permission to conduct the said study. It involves a survey of
phenotypic characterization of native chickens in your area. Your support in this study is
very important for the success of my undergraduate thesis
I am hoping for your favorable response regarding this matter.Thank you in advance.
Respectfully yours,

LOWELL P. CABAÑEROS
BSA 4 Student

Noted by: Approved by:

ALMA L. COSADIO, Ph.D HON. ZOSIMO TUMBAGO

Adviser Barangay Captain
 64

Appendix D. Letter to the Respondent

Dear Farmer:

Maayong adlaw!

Ako si Lowell P. Cabañeros, usa ka tinun-an sa University of Science and Technology in

Southern Philippines, Claveria-Campus (USTP-Claveria) Claveria, Misamis Oriental nga
nagkuha sa kursong Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (Animal Science). Gikinahanglan
sa mao nga degree ang paghimo ug thesis akong pagatun-an ang "Phenotypic
Characterization of Native Chicken (Gallus domesticus) in Salay, Misamis Oriental". Ang
mga katuyoan niini nga pagtuon mao ang (1) pag-ila, paghulagway ug pagkuha sa
phenotypic nga kausaban sa populasyon sa mga indigenous chicken; (2) pagtino sa
morphometric measurements sa lumad nga manok sa Salay, Misamis Oriental; ug; (3)
pagtimbang-timbang sa produksyon sa itlog, mga kahimtang sa ilang daghan, ingon
man ang rate of survival sa mga native nga manok sa Salay, Misamis Oriental para sa
paguswag ug kinatibuk-an nga pagdumala.
Ang usa sa akong mga site sa pagtuon mao ang Barangay Yungod sa Salay, Misamis
Oriental. Niining bahina, gusto kong mangayo sa imong pagtugot sa pagpahigayon sa
maong pagtuon. Naglangkob kini sa usa ka pagsurvey sa phenotypic nga paghulagway
sa mga bisaya o native nga manok sa inyong dapit. Ang imong suporta niining pagtuon
hinungdanon kaayo alang sa kalampusan sa akong undergraduate thesis.
Nanghinaut ko sa imong paborable nga tubag mahitungod niini nga butang. Daghang
Salamat.

Matinahuron nga imo,

LOWELL P. CABAÑEROS
BSA 4 Student

Noted by: Approved by:

ALMA L. COSADIO, Ph.D HON. ZOSIMO TUMBAGO

Adviser Barangay Captain
 65

Table1. Age

Category Frequency Percent

Young (below 40 years) 51 34.69

Middle Age (41-59 years) 33 22.45

Old (60 years and above) 63 42.86

Total 147 100.00

Table2. Gender
Frequency Percent
Male 72 49.0
Female 75 51.0
Total 147 100.0

Table3. Civil status of the respondents

Frequency Percent
Single 10 6.8
Married 124 84.4
Separated 4 2.7
Widow 9 6.1
Total 147 100.0

Table4. Dialect spoken

Frequency Percent
Visayan 147 100.0
 66

Table5. Educational attainment

Frequency Percent
Elementary Level 23 15.6
Elementary Graduate 29 19.7
High School Level 31 21.1
High School Graduate 51 34.7
College Level 7 4.8
College Graduate 2 1.4
Vocational Graduate 4 2.7
Total 147 100.0

Table6. Household size

Category Frequency Percent

Below the mean (4.00) 80 54.42%

Above the mean (4.00) 67 45.58%

Total 147 100.0

Table7. Source of income

Frequency Percent
Farming 112 76.2
Business 10 6.8
Private company employee 4 2.7
Others 21 14.3
Total 147 100.0
 67

Table8. Estimated annual income

Frequency Percent
₱ 30,000.00 below 103 70.1
₱ 30,001.00 - ₱ 50,000.00 36 24.5
₱ 50,001.00 - ₱ 70,000.00 6 4.1
₱ 90,001.00 - ₱ 100,000 1 .7
₱ 100,000.00 above 1 .7
Total 147 100.0

Table9. Membership organization of the respondents

Frequency Percent
Valid 1.00 147 100.0

Table10. Types of native chicken

Frequency Percent
Bisaya 122 83.0
Basilan 20 13.6
Patani 5 3.4
Total 147 100.0

Table11. Ways of raising the chicken

Frequency Percent
Tethered 14 9.5
Untethered 103 70.1
Both 30 20.4
Total 147 100.0
 68

Table12. Purpose of raising native chicken

Frequency Percent
Personal use 101 68.7
Leisure 46 31.3
Total 147 100.0

Table13. Selling of native chicken of the respondents

Frequency Percent
Yes 91 61.9
No 56 38.1
Total 147 100.0

Table14. Kinds of feeds given to the native chickens

Frequency Percent
Broiler Starter Crumble (BSC) 57 38.8
Corn 25 17.0
Corn grits 13 8.8
Corn bran 6 4.1
Rice 29 19.7
Feeds 16 10.9
Banana 1 .7
Total 147 100.0

Table15. Deworming administration by dewormers to chicken

Frequency Percent

Yes 47 32.0
No 100 68.0
Total 147 100.0
 69

Table16. Management methods of native chicken in Salay

Frequency Percent
Extensive management 105 71.4
Intensive management 42 28.6
Total 147 100.0

Table17. Years engaged in native chicken raising

Category Frequency Percent

Below the mean (16.34years) 87 59.18

Above the mean (16.34 years) 60 40.82

Total 147 100.00

Table18. Shank length

Frequency Percent
1.00 5 3.4
6.00 1 .7
7.00 4 2.7
8.00 25 17.0
9.00 34 23.1
(cm)
10.00 42 28.6
11.00 28 19.0
12.00 5 3.4
13.00 2 1.4
14.00 1 .7
Total 147 100.0
 70

Table19. Shank color

Frequency Percent
White 65 44.2
Green 9 6.1
Black 3 2.0
Grey 18 12.2
Yellow 52 35.4
Total 147 100.0

Table20. Chest circumference

Frequency Percent

16.00 1 .7

17.00 3 2.0

18.00 2 1.4

19.00 3 2.0

20.00 7 4.8

21.00 7 4.8

22.00 8 5.4

23.00 5 3.4

24.00 13 8.8

25.00 12 8.2

26.00 16 10.9

27.00 9 6.1
(cm)
28.00 11 7.5

29.00 13 8.8

30.00 7 4.8

31.00 12 8.2

32.00 11 7.5

33.00 2 1.4

34.00 3 2.0

35.00 1 .7

36.00 1 .7

Total 147 100.0

 71

Table21. Wing span

(cm) Frequency Percent
37.00 1 .7

52.00 1 .7
53.00 1 .7
54.00 1 .7
55.00 3 2.0
56.00 1 .7
57.00 2 1.4
58.00 3 2.0
59.00 4 2.7
60.00 6 4.1
61.00 3 2.0
62.00 2 1.4
63.00 4 2.7
64.00 5 3.4
65.00 7 4.8
66.00 1 .7
67.00 3 2.0
68.00 8 5.4
69.00 6 4.1
70.00 5 3.4
71.00 1 .7
72.00 7 4.8
73.00 2 1.4
74.00 4 2.7
75.00 9 6.1
76.00 3 2.0
77.00 5 3.4
78.00 4 2.7
79.00 11 7.5
80.00 6 4.1
81.00 9 6.1
 72

82.00 7 4.8
83.00 9 6.1
85.00 1 .7
86.00 1 .7
89.00 1 .7
Total 147 100.0

Table22. Weight
Frequency Percent
grams 320.00 2 1.4
400.00 1 .7
420.00 1 .7
450.00 3 2.0
480.00 1 .7
500.00 3 2.0
510.00 1 .7
520.00 2 1.4
 73

560.00 1 .7
600.00 1 .7
680.00 2 1.4
720.00 1 .7
750.00 3 2.0
780.00 1 .7
800.00 2 1.4
850.00 2 1.4
890.00 2 1.4
900.00 3 2.0
960.00 2 1.4
980.00 3 2.0
1000.00 12 8.2
1010.00 2 1.4
1100.00 3 2.0
1120.00 1 .7
1150.00 2 1.4
1180.00 2 1.4
1200.00 4 2.7
1230.00 1 .7
1250.00 7 4.8
1280.00 2 1.4
1300.00 2 1.4
1320.00 3 2.0
1350.00 1 .7
1390.00 1 .7
1400.00 1 .7
1450.00 1 .7
1460.00 1 .7
1480.00 2 1.4
1500.00 10 6.8
1520.00 1 .7
1560.00 4 2.7
 74

1620.00 1 .7
1650.00 1 .7
1680.00 1 .7
1700.00 1 .7
1750.00 1 .7
1780.00 1 .7
1800.00 3 2.0
1820.00 1 .7
1880.00 1 .7
1900.00 2 1.4
1980.00 1 .7
2000.00 10 6.8
2100.00 2 1.4
2150.00 1 .7
2180.00 3 2.0
2200.00 1 .7
2220.00 1 .7
2250.00 1 .7
2280.00 1 .7
2350.00 1 .7
2400.00 1 .7
2480.00 1 .7
2500.00 2 1.4
2520.00 1 .7
2600.00 1 .7
2620.00 1 .7
2805.00 1 .7
2900.00 2 1.4
2980.00 1 .7
3800.00 1 .7
Total 147 100.0
 75

Table23.Body height

Frequency Percent
16.00 2 1.4
17.00 2 1.4
19.00 4 2.7
20.00 9 6.1
21.00 5 3.4
22.00 10 6.8
23.00 7 4.8
24.00 12 8.2
25.00 15 10.2
26.00 13 8.8
(cm) 27.00 10 6.8
28.00 12 8.2
29.00 15 10.2
30.00 13 8.8
31.00 4 2.7
32.00 7 4.8
33.00 3 2.0
35.00 1 .7
36.00 1 .7
38.00 2 1.4
Total 147 100.0
 76

Table24. Body length

Frequency Percent
14.00 2 1.4
15.00 2 1.4
17.00 3 2.0
18.00 9 6.1
19.00 5 3.4
20.00 11 7.5
21.00 7 4.8
22.00 12 8.2
23.00 15 10.2
24.00 13 8.8
25.00 10 6.8
26.00 12 8.2
(cm)
27.00 16 10.9
28.00 13 8.8
29.00 4 2.7
30.00 9 6.1
32.00 1 .7
33.00 1 .7
35.00 2 1.4
Total 147 100.0

Table25. Plumage pattern

Frequency Percent
Laced 29 19.7
Pencilled 56 38.1
Mottled 16 10.9
Spangled 35 23.8
Barred 11 7.5
Total 147 100.0
 77

Table26. Plumage color

Frequency Percent
B Brown 55 37.4
r Black 35 23.8
o Wheaten 57 38.8
w
Total 147 100.0

Table27. Skin color

Frequency Percent
White 145 98.6
Black 2 1.4
Total 147 100.0

Table28. Comb type

Frequency Percent
Single 147 100.0

Table29. Comb color

Frequency Percent
Red 147 100.0
 78

Table30. Earlobe color

Frequency Percent
Red 114 77.6
White 6 4.1
Red-white 26 17.7
Black 1 .7
Total 147 100.0

Table31. Eye color

Frequency Percent
Red 26 17.7
Brown 3 2.0
Pearl 10 6.8
Orange 107 72.8
Black 1 .7
Total 147 100.0

Table32. Benefits obtained by raising native chicken in Salay

Frequency Percent
Yes 144 98.0
No 3 2.0
Total 147 100.0
 79

Table33. Number of chickens raise from the start

Frequency Percent
2 76 51.7
3 24 16.3
4 8 5.4
5 19 12.9
6 3 2.0
7 3 2.0
Heads

8 3 2.0
9 1 .7
10 4 2.7
12 2 1.4
15 2 1.4
18 1 .7
20 1 .7
Total 147 100.0
 80

Table34. Number of chickens left

Frequency Percent
1.00 1 .7
2.00 2 1.4
3.00 7 4.8
4.00 11 7.5
5.00 17 11.6
6.00 13 8.8
7.00 13 8.8
8.00 10 6.8
9.00 7 4.8
10.00 13 8.8
11.00 1 .7
12.00 7 4.8
13.00 3 2.0
heads

14.00 6 4.1
15.00 13 8.8
16.00 1 .7
17.00 2 1.4
18.00 1 .7
19.00 1 .7
20.00 8 5.4
23.00 1 .7
25.00 1 .7
28.00 1 .7
29.00 1 .7
30.00 3 2.0
37.00 1 .7
50.00 2 1.4
Total 147 100.0
 81

Table35.Number of eggs

Frequency Percent
5 1 .7
7 6 4.1
8 18 12.2
9. 7 4.8
10 53 36.1
11 4 2.7
12 31 21.1
pieces

13 6 4.1
14 5 3.4
15 10 6.8
16 3 2.0
17 1 .7
18 1 .7
20 1 .7
Total 147 100.0

Table36. Natural brooding

Frequency Percent
Natural brooding 147 100.0
 82

Table37. Brooding hatchability

Infertile Frequenc
Fertile eggs Frequency Percent Percent
eggs y
4 4 2.7 1 8.8
5 10 6.8 2 8.8
6 21 14.3 3 31.3
7 30 20.4 4 25.9
8 32 21.8 5 13.6
9 12 8.2 6 6.1
pieces

pieces
10 17 11.6 7 1.4
11 3 2.0 8 1.4
12 10 6.8 9 2.0
13 4 2.7 10 .7
14 2 1.4 Total 100.0
15 2 1.4
Total 147 100.0

Table38. Interval of laying eggs

Frequency Percent
1 month below 3 2.0
1 month 14 9.5
2 months 46 31.3
3 months 35 23.8
months

4 months 29 19.7
5 months 10 6.8
6 months 9 6.1
7 months 1 .7
Total 147 100.0
 83

Table39. Disease of the native chicken

Frequency Percent
Chronic Respiratory Disease 58 39.5
New Castle Disease 41 27.9
No Disease 48 32.7
Total 147 100.0

Table40. Treatments of native chicken

Frequency Percent
No treatment 94 63.9
Chilli 1 .7
Amtyl 9 6.1
Doxilac 5 3.4
Vetracin 25 17.0
Aquadox 1 .7
Paracetamol 2 1.4
Amoxicillin 4 2.7
Chloranphenecol 4 2.7
Panyawan 2 1.4
Total 147 100.0
 84

Table41. Descriptive statistics

Descriptive Statistics
Maximu Std.
N Minimum m Mean Deviation
age 147 16.00 79.00 46.1701 13.82442
gender 147 1.00 2.00 1.5102 .50160
cstatus 147 1.00 4.00 2.0816 .57944
dspoken 147 1.00 1.00 1.0000 .00000
educ 147 1.00 7.00 3.0816 1.38737
hhsize 147 .00 12.00 3.5510 2.31192
sourceincom 147 1.00 5.00 1.7891 1.48154
annualincome 147 1.00 6.00 1.3878 .73512
memberorg 147 1.00 1.00 1.0000 .00000
q10 147 1.00 3.00 1.2041 .48170
q11 147 1.00 3.00 2.1088 .53800
q12 147 1.00 2.00 1.3129 .46527
q13 147 1.00 2.00 1.3810 .48728
q14 147 1.00 7.00 2.8435 1.90781
q15 147 1.00 2.00 1.6803 .46797
q16 147 1.00 2.00 1.2857 .45330
q17 147 .00 60.00 16.3401 13.87345
q18 147 1.00 14.00 9.3401 2.04235
q19 147 1.00 5.00 2.8844 1.83765
q20 147 16.00 36.00 26.3061 4.31406
q21 147 37.00 89.00 71.3333 9.18630
q22 147 320.00 3800.00 1410.0340 643.76421
q23a 147 16.00 38.00 26.0816 4.26921
q23b 147 14.00 35.00 24.0340 4.12213
q24a 147 1.00 5.00 2.6122 1.25212
q24b 147 1.00 3.00 2.0136 .87575
q25 147 1.00 2.00 1.0136 .11624
q26a 147 1.00 1.00 1.0000 .00000
q26b 147 1.00 1.00 1.0000 .00000
q27 147 1.00 4.00 1.4150 .80106
q28 147 1.00 5.00 3.3673 1.16502
q29 147 1.00 2.00 1.0204 .14188
q30 147 2.00 20.00 3.7755 3.11601
q31 147 1.00 50.00 10.8095 8.02934
 85

q32 147 5.00 20.00 10.8912 2.44705

q33 147 1.00 1.00 1.0000 .00000
q34a 147 4.00 15.00 8.1565 2.34287
q34b 147 .00 10.00 2.7483 1.72747
q35 147 .00 7.00 2.9796 1.42131
q36 147 1.00 3.00 1.9320 .84933
q37 147 1.00 10.00 2.5578 2.39328
Valid N 147
(listwise)