This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Cross-Sector Comparisons of Poultry Production in The Philippines by Hui-Shung (Christie) Chang No. 2004-12
Working Paper Series in Agricultural and Resource Economics
ISSN 1442 1909 http://www.une.edu.au/febl/EconStud/wps.htm
Copyright © 2004 by University of New England. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided this copyright notice appears on all such copies. ISBN 1 86389 9111
Cross-Sector Comparisons of Poultry Production in The Philippines∗ Hui-Shung (Christie) Chang∗∗
Abstract The Philippine poultry industry is diverse. It comprises broiler chicken, layer chicken, native chicken and duck. The production of broiler and layer chickens are characterised by large-scale, intensive, commercial production systems with modern technology and imported hybrids. Native chicken and duck production, one the other hand, is characterised by low-input, backyard production by smallholders. The objectives of the paper are to provide an overview of the Philippine poultry industry, make cross-sector comparisons and derive policy implications based on the issues identified. The main conclusion is that although demand outlook is optimistic for the Philippine poultry industry as a whole because of anticipated income and population growth, it faces increasing threats from poultry imports due to higher input costs and less efficient production and marketing systems.
Key Words: The Philippines; backyard production; smallholder production; poultry marketing; trade liberalisation.
The author wishes to thank the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) for providing the funding for the research project entitled “Future prospects for smallholder Philippine poultry producers: ducks and native chickens”, of which this paper is a part. ∗∗ Dr Hui-Shung (Christie) Chang is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Economics, and in the Graduate School of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of New England. Contact information: School of Economics, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia. Email: email@example.com.
Introduction Research on meat production worldwide has indicated that poultry is the fastest growing livestock sector. The Philippines is no exception. The outlook for the Philippine poultry industry appears optimistic because the demand for poultry products is expected to increase along with population and income growth (DA and NAFC, 2002a,b). Productivity improvements and developments in marketing infrastructure, such as expansion of food processing, modernising retail sector (such as growth in super and hyper markets), and increasing refrigeration ownership, are additional drivers for future demand growth (Livestock Development Council, 2002; DA and NAFC, 2002a,b). However, there are increasing concerns about the threats from imports (Gonzales, 1995; Mangabat, 1998; Mateo, 2001; Arboleda, 2001). Like in most countries, and for many years, the Philippine poultry industry has been protected from foreign competition through tariffs and other non-tariff measures. However, since the signing of both global (eg World Trade Organisation) and regional (eg Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation and ASEAN Free Trade Area) trade agreements in the mid-1990s, imports of poultry meats (mainly frozen chickens and ducks) have increased substantially. These agreements have resulted in the lowering of tariffs and removal of quantitative restrictions on agricultural products, including poultry. It is envisaged that as trade liberalisation continues and trade barriers are reduced further, the Philippine poultry industry will face increasing competition, especially from overseas. Continuing survival, and growth, of the Philippine poultry industry depends on its ability to compete in the global market, which, in turn, depends largely on the efficiency in its production and marketing systems. A number of studies have looked at the impact of trade liberalisation on the commercial poultry sector. In most cases the commercial poultry sector was found uncompetitive with imports in a more liberalised trade environment (e.g. SEARCA, 1999; SIKAP/STRIVE, 2001). However, to date little attention has been given to the backyard poultry sector and little is known about how it will be affected by trade liberalisation. The backyard poultry sector deserves more attention because it comprises the majority of the poultry production in the Philippines. For example, backyard ducks and native chickens 3
The paper is organised as follows. 0. consumption. Value of poultry production The Philippine poultry industry. values of production for chicken meat. 2.3 billion Philippine pesos (BAS. an overview of the poultry sector is provided on production.3 billion Philippine pesos.2 billion Philippine pesos).61 billion (based on the exchange rate of 25 Philippine pesos in an Australian dollar in 2002).7. more importantly. the chicken sector is substantially larger than the duck sector. In 2002. Clearly.7% in 2002. the Philippine poultry industry generated 40.9. respectively. The increase in the value share of the poultry sector indicates that it is growing at a faster rate than all other agricultural sectors. It is also evident that for 4 . Also can be seen from Table 1. followed by policy recommendations and concluding remarks. as a percentage of the value of total agricultural production. 2004a. with the discussion being focused on the recent developments in sectoral growth and industry structure. 2003a).81% in 2001 to 13.b). where similar increases were observed. 7. this represented a 14.4 and 1. The objectives of the research are to identify the issues and opportunities facing the Philippine poultry industry and to suggest policy responses. distinction is made between the commercial and backyard operations in this paper. duck meat. price and trade of major poultry products. Therefore. the growth in the poultry sector appears to have come from chicken meat and duck egg production. The value share of the poultry production. the crops. respectively. Problems and opportunities facing the poultry industry and its sub-sectors are then identified. The corresponding value shares were 10. Further. also increased from 12. and duck eggs in 2002 were 29.5% increase from 2001 (with a value of 35. livestock and fishery sectors all showed some decline in their value shares during the same period. As can be seen from Table 1.10.69. despite some ups and downs over the years.48 and 0. of the total duck and chicken inventories in 2002 (BAS. the respective production and marketing issues. which is equivalent to $A1.still accounted for more than 60% and 75%. 1.43%. is a fast growing sector in the Philippine agricultural sector. It is also worth a separate investigation because it differs from the commercial sector not only in terms of the scale of operation but. By comparison. First. chicken eggs.
respectively.93 100 % 2002 In million pesos 40.47 0.78 17.42 49.10 0.876. Growth rate is calculated based on the following formula: r =[ (y/x)**1/n ] – 1.25 52.28 17.81 9.36 1. x and y are volumes of production in the first and the last year of the observation period.99 1.441.36 18.348. 1 5 .287.131. followed by duck meat (4.106.92 137.35 12.794.896. the poultry sector as a whole had grown at 5.07 52. Volume of poultry production Over the observation period 1991-2002.38 0. major poultry products in the Philippines exhibited some forms of growth in volume terms.29 6. 2000-2002 2000 Sub-sectors In million pesos Poultry Total Chicken Meat Duck Meat Chicken Eggs Duck Eggs Crops Livestock Fishery Total 32.90 18. chicken meat showed the highest growth rate at 6.510.773. Table 1.51%).145.05 1.185.399.270.75 100 % Source: BAS 2003a.84 29.49 11.011.59%) (see bottom of Table 2).402.95 146.38 1.717.27 125.70 10.22 100 % 2001 In million pesos 35.65 23.077.62 294.54 2. Specifically. duck egg (4.43 49.49 0. and n is the number of years being considered.547.91 7.872.56% per annum over the period between 1991 and 2002.73% per annum.68 13. Values and shares of agricultural production by sector.41 53.47 274.03%) and chicken egg (3.727.60 17.65 6.961.154.69 0.606.92 25.27 48.78 18.90 8.49 2.287.96 55.89 50.94 1.1 Overall.51 0.chickens.196. where r is the annual compound growth rate.473. the meat sector is four times as large as the egg sector while duck meat and duck egg sectors are more similar in value terms.05 47.71 1.34 276.48 2.
2003b.952 725.097 496.17% of total poultry production. the chicken meat sector has been growing at a higher rate than the rest.481 10.481 376.11% per annum while shares of chicken egg.394 10.607 399.910 205.612 5.118 587.429 533.067 627.226 656.100 52. 1% and 1.56% Source: BAS. The volume share of each of the poultry products is shown in Table 3.040 199.520 202.33%). while the other three poultry products all showed a decline.630 4.91%).650 53.398 364.59% Dressed duck 6.808 789.870 227.400 36.940 11. 1991-2002 Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Growth rate Dressed Chicken 286.690 54.513 7.520 10. respectively.03% Total 497.51% Duck eggs 33.531 9.880 243.651 455.750 39. Notice that the volume share of chicken meat has shown a positive growth. This means although all poultry products have shown growth in volume terms in the past decade. duck meat and duck egg have decreased at 1.597 581.590 222.570 47.488 898. Volumes of poultry production by product type (in tonnes).472 10.920 53. during the period 1991-2002 chicken meat accounted for around 62.460 52.580 782.100 196. duck egg (6.Table 2. the chicken meat share has increased at a rate of 1.960 53.312 623. as shown in Table 2.45%.820 3.127 952.686 491.200 260.009 9.227 496.59%) and duck meat (1. followed by chicken egg (29.105 6.470 53.810 180. Specifically.200 41.701 10.057 4.910 781.000 229.433 10.380 246.205 614.537 8. 6 .874 356.431 840.87%.73% Chicken eggs 170. As can be seen.
31 1.33 -1. VI and XII.34 1. respectively.72 63.12 28. 23% and 23% of the total production of chicken meat. It can be seen that poultry production in the Philippines is geographically concentrated in a few regions.46 30. For ducks. 15%.00 5.51 6.67 6.41 27. duck meats and duck eggs.38 29. Regions III.91 -1. Volume shares of poultry production by product type (in %). chicken eggs.33 28.16 1.43 60.65 61.83 62. being the overall leader in poultry production in the Philippines.06 32.37 65.59 -1.32 59. Region III.39 1.87 Dressed duck 1. For chickens. III and VII accounted for 55% of total chicken egg production (BAS. the top three producers are Regions III.45 1.04 29.43 65.33 60.30 1.33 1.96 27.26 7.71 6.83 62.83 62.63 6. accounted for 30%. they had a combined market share of around 45% for both duck meat and duck egg (BAS.67 7.00 Duck eggs 6. IV and XI accounted for 63% of total chicken meat production and Regions IV. 2004b).17 1.33 31.43 28.36 6.44 62.48 1.22 1.38 6. 2004a).44 1.47 29.Table 3.79 6.90 31.25 1.76 6. 7 .32 6.11 Chicken eggs 34.88 63.33 1. 1991-2002 Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Average Growth rate Dressed Chicken 57. Together.45 Total poultry production and the leading producing regions for the poultry sub-sectors in 2002 are summarised in Table 4.
978 1. it presents significant challenges to on-farm disease control and waste management.html to 08p02.535 33.309 3.152 5.291 7.gov.663 5.2 2002 Region Car Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V Region VI Region VII Region VIII Region IX Region X Region XI Region XII Caraga Armm Total Chicken Meat 7.633 Source: Poultry Statistics.452 2.html) The domination by few leading producing regions reflects the competitive advantage they all share in terms of access to major inputs and markets. A disease outbreak.Table 4. 2003.745 12.826 5.671 1.428 2.173.421 17.501 76.065 1.974 7.488 3.176 51.372 13.909 12. Although such a high degree of geographical concentration has its advantage in marketing and sourcing of inputs. live weight).096 37.333 69.738 Chicken Eggs 2.830 Duck Meat 985 2.885 2.158 2. It is not to be confused with the volume of production presented in Table 2.440 260.724 1.3 can be disastrous with the potential to wipe out the entire industry in a very short time.142 4.890 26.168 1.472 25.273 4. 2 8 .821 78.ph/stats/lpsd/05p02. Geographic distribution of poultry production (in tonnes. 3 Unlike its neighbours.082 21.686 297.194 45.047 26.370 5.717 352. such as the bird flu which has plagued a number of poultry producing countries worldwide in recent years.107 Duck Eggs 891 2.288 1.727 3. www.957 1.html (also from 06p02.788 2.041 38.412 17. which represents the actual quantity supplied.146 1.bas.012 42.767 5.573 9.300 5. BAS.782 1.493 18.796 1.659 53.618 3.866 8. Live weight is estimated by simply converting the inventory number into weight.337 6. the Philippine is lucky enough to escape the bird flu.642 85.671 3.103 54.
000 heads) while commercial chicken farms were classified into small commercial (100 . Although there is no public information about the market share of commercial broilers in chicken meat production. Therefore. it is “backyard”. Layer and broiler chickens were referred to as “commercial” chickens in BAS statistics until 1998. A poultry farm is classified as “commercial” if it has more than 100 birds (BAS.Commercial versus backyard production Poultry inventory in the Philippines is classified into “commercial” and “backyard”.37% and 13.900 heads). commercial duck farms were classified as small commercial (100 . Layers and broilers. it is conceivable that commercial chickens can be raised in the backyard while some native chicken farms have more than 100 birds. the commercial chickens (broiler and layer chickens) make up about one third of the total chicken population while native or village chickens from smallholders make up about two thirds. Otherwise. 5 Not until 1998 were data for layers and broilers separated. the chicken inventory is also classified into three sub-categories – native. 1987). Note that such classifications are basically ad hoc applicable only to a particular data set and analysis. commercial table egg production was reported to account for 68% of the total chicken eggs produced in the Philippines (the remaining 32% comes from native/improved chickens) (DA and NAFC. 26. It appears that the current classification systems may need to be revised to reflect more clearly the key characteristics of the production systems.000 heads) and large commercial (more than 1. they were combined and referred to as “commercial” chickens in BAS statistics. Commercial poultry farms can be further classified into small.29%.6 Chicken inventory numbers for the three sub-categories during 1990-2002 are shown in Table 5. medium commercial (501 – 1. native chickens were referred to as “backyard” because they were more commonly raised in the backyard by smallholders. This means native chickens are used For example.34% for native chickens. broiler and layer chickens. broiler and layer chickens.4 In addition to the classification on the basis of the size of the operation.000 heads) and large commercial (more than 11. medium and large to suit different purposes. 6 Because of the loose definition and the diversity of the poultry production systems. respectively (Table 5). are imported hybrids.5 Likewise. 1999). 4 9 .000 heads) (SEARCA.000 – 10. • Chicken inventory In 2002. medium commercial (1. Native chickens are defined as those that are NOT of the recent imported hybrid chickens with foreign strains and include chickens that are crosses of local chickens with foreign strains (so called “improved breeds”). Prior to that. the inventory shares were 60.500 heads). 2002b). on the other hand.
529 27.240 81.21 and 3.41% per annum during 1990-2002. However.366 16.885 39.610 125. Population of chicken by type (in ‘000 head). and productivity.963 134. 1990-2002 Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Growth rate Source: BAS. • Duck inventory Broiler 26.272 13.775 4.839 117.173 34.391 46. In 2002 more than three quarters of ducks were still being raised in small-scale. backyard operations.780 75.72% Layer 9.41% Like the chicken sector.939 78.602 8.342 9.730 3. 4.796 11.960 33.312 46.558 43. there is a change in the industry structure where the percentage share of ducks raised under commercial scale increased from about 12% in 1990 to about 23% in 2002 (Table 6).805 3.93% Total 81.364 10.870 16. layer and native sub-sectors growing at 1.087 58.525 87.771 27.814 9. More also needs to be known about their share of poultry meat production.230 28.924 45.675 76.996 65. respectively.783 134.965 67.both for meat and egg production and therefore their contribution to the poultry sector.763 47.087 34. should be assessed taking into account both meat and egg production. the duck industry is also dominated by smallholders (Table 6).215 115.21% Native 45.303 78.466 12. Table 5.703 71.250 71.200 96.356 31. with less than 100 heads per household.565 24. The growth in the 10 .384 50.770 30.330 7. 2004b.178 14. with broiler.72.406 8.658 115.159 93.93%.324 115. Also indicated at the bottom of Table 5 is the fact that the chicken sector has experienced an overall growth at 3.150 1.
57 77.54 24.03 Commercial Head 861.108 6.27 Source: BAS.22 21.242.90 92. ducks were raised on naturally occurring feeds in and around rivers and lakes and rice paddy fields.55 78. Central 11 . as well as raising ducks in traditionally non-duck areas.769 2.762.159 6.072.176.28 8.134.743 2. Traditionally.23 6. More detailed information on the industry structure of the Philippine duck industry can be found in Chang and Dagaas (2004).170 687.335 6.19 -1.469.80 22.267.944 7.46 75.769 2.78 78.550 2.32 Backyard % 88.348.101 7.80 76. accounting for 65% of total duck inventory.460 7.356.45 21. Sixty-four percent of total backyard production concentrated in five regions. However.823.81 5.203 9.72 10.651 9. The latter also has resulted in changes in the geographical distribution of ducks in the Philippines.20 23.706.10 7.953.494.291 8.335.986.855.50 23.520 7. Table 6.50 76.43 22.810.231 2.26 6.241 6. In 2002.72 91.650 162 1.803 9.175.923.308 601. 2004a.877 9. IV and VI.167.inventory share of the commercial sector has been attributed to the introduction of commercial duck feeds. 1990-2002 Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Growth rate (%) Total Head 7. VI.270 8.77 93.35 24.534 2.216.767 2.034 7.65 75.870. II.496 8.024.690 8.911 269 2.475 7.711 9.589. the top five duck producing regions were Regions III.396 531.70 % 11.693 8.566 8.895 8.28 89.613.790 850.255 1.161.783 8.660.20 77. the advent of commercial feeds has allowed duck raisers to increase the scale of production. including Cagayan (Region II) (12%).186. Philippine duck inventory (in head).074.480 7.417.261 107 7.585.
27%) (bottom of Table 6).63 kg and 0. respectively (Table 7). over other meats. such as lower price. followed by chicken (8.5 kg and 27 kg.26% versus 1. on the other hand.02 kg. because of its many advantages. In addition. 2002a.b). the geographical concentration of the commercial sector can be expected to increase. Low household incomes and high retail prices were cited as the main reasons behind the low demand (DA and NAFC. as observed elsewhere in the world. Such a development will result in more efficient marketing and production systems similar to what has been observed in the commercial chicken sector. it is likely to be at the expense of the backyard sector in terms of market access and sale prices. Poultry consumption Chicken meat is the second most popular meat in the Philippines. Western Visayas (Region VI) (17%). 0. respectively (DA and NAFC. All have shown little growth in the past ten years.Luzon (Region III) (15%). 12 . Southern Mindanao (Region XI) (11%) and Central Mindanao (Region XII) (9%) (BAS. 2002). However. were located in two regions. following pork. annual per capita chicken meat consumption in Thailand and Malaysia were 11. It can be seen in Table 7 that in 2002 annual per capita pork consumption was 13. These statistics indicate that commercial operations are much more concentrated than the backyard operations.14kg.84% for chicken. For example. which accounted for 79% of total commercial duck production.92% for beef and 4.16kg). The demand for chicken is increasing faster. the commercial sector is growing faster than the backyard sector (5. lower fat contents and more convenient.85kg. 2002a). As the commercial sector expands further. In 2002. accounting for a growing share of total duck inventory. 2. Central Luzon (52%) and Southern Tagalog (Region IV) (27%).04kg) and beef (2. duck egg and duck meat were 3. annual per capita consumption for chicken egg. Poultry meat consumption in the Philippines is relatively low compared to neighbouring Asian countries.92% for pork. Commercial duck farms. The growth rates in per capita consumption for pork and beef over the period 1991-2002 were 1.
1 13.57 5. 2002).02 1. Philippines. income. 2003b. the prices of substitutes and complements.73 0.04 4.15 0.87 2.57 0.15 0.15 0.69 2.68 0.84% Pork 11.04 11.65 12.75 7.84 2.50 0. 2002a).03 7.92% Beef 1.66 0.54 0.Table 7.50 2. However.65 0. Per capita consumption of meat products (in kg). more recent studies have shown that the cholesterols and other trace elements contained in poultry eggs are actually “good for you”. 1980).49 5. A number of meat demand studies have found that the demand for chicken has been increasing because it has become cheaper relative to other meats.63 2.14 0.14 0.14 2.02 11.47 2. as well as occasional demand shocks to the system such as a FMD outbreak (Deaton and Muellbauer.70 2. the Philippine egg industry has suffered setbacks because of the negative publicity associated with the level of cholesterol in eggs for the past two decades.35 13.86 2.91 3.59 2.70 0.68 8.51 6.84% 0.51 13.9 2.94% Duck egg Duck meat 0.53 1.74 1. Some suggest that it is a result of income growth (eg DA and NAFC.96 6.57 0.14 0. 13 . In contrast to the chicken meat sector.17 2. the Philippine egg industry through its “Egg Board” has embarked on activities to promote the goodness of eggs and to change consumer perceptions (Philippine Egg Board.66 0.22 2.85 6.6 1.54 12.32 2.10 0.92% Source: BAS. demographics and consumer preference.55 5.16 2. Based on the new findings.13 0.66 0.93 2.79 11.03 10.85 1.14 0.43 2. 1991-2002 Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Growth rate Chicken egg 2.59% Chicken meat 4.63 1.12 0.83 2.69 13.03 2.21 12.43 2.13 0.56 5.20 7. Basic demand theory suggests that the demand for a product depends on its own price.
00 0. Secondly. as well as changing demographics and eating habits.00 Pesos/kg 100. chicken. To learn more about whether and why the demand for meats has changed over time in the Philippines would require a demand systems analysis to determine consumer responses to changes in prices and income. followed by pork and chicken.00 60. that the demand for chicken. 7 Note that beef prices are not available prior to 1987. which is in favour of chicken. 2003). pork and beef will increase as income grows. and beef. Retail meat prices in Metro Manila. but with poultry meat experiencing faster growth (Taha. pork. 14 . The retail prices of three most popular meats in the Philippines.00 80. 1978-2003 180. In addition.00 20.7 It is evident that beef is the most expensive. first of all.00 120. 1980). Bureau of Animal Industry. in the past two decades (1978-2002) are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1.00 160. chicken meat has become more price competitive than beef or pork.00 40.Others have argued that the increased demand for chicken is a result of changing consumer preference.00 140. as suggested in (Deaton and Muellbauer. Nevertheless. based on experiences overseas it is reasonable to predict.00 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Year Beef rump Liem pork Chicken Source: Market Development Division. the demand for chicken meat may increase significantly in the near future at the expense of pork as chicken price becomes even cheaper relative to pork. 2004.
Table 8.12 54.85 36.95 34.25 ---- --a ---------53.60 40.72 55.10 58.85 34. Note that eggs are a cheaper alternative to meats.57 55..84 38.50 35.29 66. 8 15 .00 43. 1990-2002 YEAR Broiler Native chicken Duck Chicken egg Duck egg live weight 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 -- 34. Africa and Egypt. Thailand. Gueye et al.46 48. Price premiums reflect the strong consumer preference for the unique taste of native chickens. 1997.86 59.65 65. Poultry prices Farmgate prices for poultry products in the Philippines are presented in Table 8. which are more flavourable and juicier than broilers.64 56.61 50.60 Not recorded or not available.35 45.96 50.38 44.91 56.36 47.54 63.25 45. 2003a.20 44.55 57. and have been scientifically proven in several studies (eg Fujimura et al. This is particularly true for beef for which the Philippines does not have a comparative advantage in production and border protection is relatively weak.00 38..73 37.09 46.96 56. Source: BAS.47 45. Farmgate prices of poultry products (in Philippine pesos/kg).75 48. World Poultry.10 48.46 45.40 39.88 53.90 53.20 47.11 47. China.47 55. Farmgate prices are presented here since wholesale and retail prices for native chickens and ducks are either not available or not reported consistently.01 42.94 68.10 49. Taiwan.8 Note also that there are price premiums associated with native chickens compared to their commercial counterpart.89 48.64 56.91 52.78 47.28 63.96 65.80 32.Thirdly. 1994. eg Japan. 2004). some of the increased demand may be filled by imports that are cheaper to produce overseas. These favourable traits are recognised elsewhere.
wholesale and farmgate prices have fluctuated in the similar manner.96 23.83 17.92 15.48 17.40 17.00 Farmgate 42.83 89.00 Farm/Retail 0. For example. Broiler data in 2003 are used for demonstration since no comparable price data are available for other poultry products. Bureau of Animal Industry.9 kg.2 Philippine pesos/kg in December.64 0. 16 .53 81. Another issue facing the Philippine poultry industry is seasonal variation in demand and supply.06 51.36 19. it should be remembered that native chickens are dual-purpose and are raised with minimum inputs.64 0.50 23. On the surface.88 12.92 76.16 89.85 20.48 W-F 22.22 Average 87.78 46.28 14. In Table 9.20 83.60 0. it takes broiler chickens 7 weeks to reach a body weight of 1.88 74.75 16. Table 9.88 39.54 0.48 19. native chickens may appear to be unproductive.99 19.67 80.90 14.84 64.However.01 87. with an average of 87.78 20.34 14. 2004.43 95.8-1. price premium alone does not necessarily imply higher profitability because of lower productivity.62 0.62 23.52 0.12 54.97 62.48 20.49 41.25 80.59 December 107.52 0.91 Pesos/kg over the 12-month period.49 0.11 15.48 Wholesale 64.65 13.80 89.28 17.39 85. Productivity between the commercial and backyard sectors appears to differ substantially.00 R-W 17.40 55.18 Source: Market Development Division.17 84.50 Philippine pesos/kg in March to a high of 107. it is shown that the fully dressed chicken price at the retail level varies from a low of 80. and hence the resulting fluctuating prices.2-1.58 0.09 72.36 69.28 69. Likewise.84 63. while it takes about 18-20 weeks for native chickens to reach about 1.49 74.02 50.14 55. Table 8 illustrates monthly price variations at different marketing levels.52 71.64 0.54 62.5 kg.14 13.07 21. 2003 Month January February March April May June July August September October November Dressed 82. However.91 72. Monthly average prices of broiler (in Philippine pesos/kg).62 0.61 53.88 15. Also.65 0.50 83.01 57. annual chicken egg production is around 300 per hen for imported hybrid layers but only 40 for native chickens.
the more marketing services (including risk-taking) and the more middlemen are involved in moving the product down the marketing chain. cautions should be exercised in interpreting the information presented in Table 9. Therefore. Note also that the price spread between wholesale and farmgate prices was generally bigger than that between retail and wholesale prices (20.85 Philippine pesos/kg) (see bottom of Table 9). Generally speaking. the larger the price spread. In principle. The price spreads between wholesale and farmgate prices were highest in March and September when the farm prices were the lowest. Therefore.Also shown in Table 9 are marketing margins or price spreads for broilers. This means that for every consumer dollar (or 100 Pesos) spent on broiler meat. pp. it is difficult to define what a reasonable or fair return should be for all parties concerned.9 The farm share (ie the ratio of farm price to retail price) ranged from 49% to 65%. on average.18 Philippine pesos/kg versus 15. it may not be representative or of reliable quality. 168-169). it is not always straightforward to assess whether the price spread is reasonable and whether the producer has received a fair share. quantitative restrictions have largely been abolished (except for rice) and tariffs reduced since the mid-1980s as a result of 9 No test was employed to test the statistical significance of the differences because of small sample size. 17 . collecting information on the services being provided and the associated costs is difficult because of the proprietary nature of such information. However. Thirdly. However. It is evident that the largest price spread between the retail and wholesale prices occurred in December when both prices were at their highest. the broiler producers receive. Secondly. Poultry trade Government intervention in poultry trade in the forms of tariff and quantitative restrictions has always been an important part of the Philippine agricultural policies because of the desire to be self-sufficient. averaging at 59%. pp. marketing margins have increased and farm shares have decreased over time for agricultural products because more and more marketing services are required to meet consumers’ demand for more convenient and higher quality products (Rhodes and Dauve. First of all. 1998. even if data are available. 162-169). price spread in a competitive market reflects the costs of providing marketing services (Rhodes and Dauve. 1998. 59 cents (59 Pesos).
For example. It is evident from Table 11 that. These fluctuations can be attributed to the more liberal trade regimes since the mid1990s. 18 . Table 10 shows the change in tariffs over time for chicken and duck meats as a consequence of trade liberalisation.392 in 1999.tariff reforms and the accession to WTO in 1995 (Cororaton and Suenca.00 tonnes in 1991 to a peak of 29. 2002-2004 HS CODE 2002 2003 2004 (Commodity) Out In Out In Out 0207 (Poultry) In quota quota quota quota quota quota Frozen Chicken 40 60 40 40 40 40 (Whole) Frozen Chicken 40 60 40 40 40 40 (Liver) Frozen Chicken 40 50 40 40 40 40 (Cuts/Other Offals) Frozen Ducks 40 50 40 40 40 40 (Whole) Frozen Ducks 40 60 40 40 40 40 (Cuts/Other Offals) Source: Department of Agriculture. For duck products. but these were reduced to 40% by 2003. but with high degrees of fluctuations. 2003b. egg imports increased four-fold from 56. which was gradually being reduced to 22. Tariff rates for chicken and duck meat (in %).84 tonnes in 1997. during the past decade (1991-2001). changes in domestic supply.62 tonnes in 1994. chicken meat imports increased from 71. Imports of duck meat have likewise fluctuated between a low of 6. the tariffs were 50 to 70% for the period 1993 to 1994.12 tonnes in 1991 to 218. Table 10. imports of poultry products have increased. and instability and uncertainty in the economy. Chicken egg imports also showed great fluctuations despite less complete data.3 tonnes in 1991 and a peak of 421. the devaluation of Philippine pesos. particularly following the Asian financial crisis in the late 1997. More specifically.88 tonnes in 2001. 2000). Note the substantial tariff reductions under the new trading regimes.
00 Chicken eggb 218.00 973. • Chicken meat imports Despite the substantial increases in chicken meat importation since 1997. preserved/cooked.00 213. “Chicken importation.gov. the in-quota MAV for fresh/chilled/frozen poultry were set at 22.834 tonnes in 2001. 16.91 8.00 113.11 15.160 tonnes in 1997. 2003a).00 2. fresh.lfc.32 22.12 103. 16.95 7. b Chicken egg are hens’ eggs in shell. 11. No poultry meat exportation was recorded during the observation period. For example.34 Duck egg 56.88 Chicken meats include fresh. chilled/frozen.html.80 302. and 21.525 tonnes in 1995/96.21 189.477.79 421.00 29.392.92 161. 2003b.62 157.71 171.49 167. 1991-2002 YEAR 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 a Chicken meat a 71. dried/salted. respectively.84 329.75 118.30 8.03 260. prepared/preserved and processed meat. BAS. there are reports that exportation of broiler meat is being contemplated by some integrators.41 Duck meat 6.74 189.90 5.22 106.923 tonnes in 2003 (Department of Agriculture.95 150. Source: “Supply and Utilisation Accounts”.48 238. Poultry exports have been quite limited. the volume of imports was far below the Minimum Access Volume (MAV) commitments of 3% of domestic consumption. 17. mostly in the form of hatching eggs (ie partly incubated eggs which contain embryos that are about 20 days old).879 tonnes in 2002.154. 18.790 tonnes in 2000.74 156.72 25. 1991-2002”.00 42.746 tonnes in 1999.176.34 Not available Not available Not available 11.60 60.28 490.04 218.36 219.ph/import-chicken. 20.87 175.00 12.16 10. 19. Note that imports 19 . However.Table 11.41 tonnes of duck eggs were exported. In 2000 and 2001. These data are taken from Livestock Development Council.00 12.80 212. Importation of poultry products (in tonnes). www.564.07 tonnes and 10.701 tonnes in 1998.00 11.38 198.
However. 1999). 1999). 2001). One reason for the low utilisation rates is that consumers prefer fresh local poultry products to frozen imports (SEARCA. duck meat is derived mainly from the culled or excess male ducks which is used in traditional dishes such as “kinulob na itik” (Lambio. the demand for high quality duck meat can be expected to increase as urban and more affluent consumers demand greater variety and higher quality. it faces increasing 10 11 More detailed discussion of the Philippine poultry industry is provided by Chang and Dagaas (2004).10 As a result. 1999). 20 . particularly in the earlier years. Given the massive amount of culled or excess male ducks that are being produced as by-products from balut making. increased imports pose an increasing threat to the domestic broiler industry. Nevertheless. Hong Kong and Canada (University of Asia and the Pacific. A large proportion of the imported frozen chicken meat is used by the processing sector while some is sold in the wet markets as fresh or chilled. it appears that better utilisation of these by-products has the potential to substantially improve the returns to duck raisers and downstream processors. USA. Taiwan. reaching 94. To meet demand for high quality duck meat from the food service sector. like many other poultry sectors in the world. Australia. as well as the sector egg and other meat sectors because of potential substitution effects.11 Production of the specialty meat-type ducks has been quite limited. frozen duck meat has increasingly been imported from China. Therefore. In either case.have not reached the allocated MAVs under the new regimes. As income grows and urbanisation continues. the Philippine duck industry focuses mainly on the egg-type Philippine Mallard ducks for the production of “Balut” (embryonated eggs of 14-18 days old). Taha (2003) pointed out that deriving meat from culled birds and males is typical of backyard poultry production. • Duck meat imports Traditionally. the utilization rate has increased in more recent years. Such a production system can be expected to become obsolete over time as commercialisation and specialisation become the norm.7% in 2003. consumer preference may have served as a natural import barrier (SEARCA. Major issues The demand outlook appears positive for the Philippine poultry industry given its current low level of per capita consumption and anticipated growth in population and household incomes.
vertically integrated production system. In addition. While the short production cycles enable the poultry sector to respond more quickly to changing market conditions. Although some of the issues are relatively complex to sort out. including market instability. inefficient marketing systems and threats of imports. fluctuations in supply are a result of relatively shorter poultry production cycles.b. and 4. the use of vaccines and drugs to control diseases. For example. While growth has become more significant in the past decade. 1999. Issues facing the Philippine commercial and backyard poultry sectors are discussed in more detail below. modern foreign breeds from the western countries. The sector is characterised by (SEARCA. Market instability. it can also exacerbate the imbalance of demand and supply. which contribute to variable product quality and inconsistent supply. Secondly. 2. The backyard sector. as well as a lack of planning on the part of the industry as a whole. the commercial sector appears to be relatively uncompetitive because of higher input costs. SEARCA (1999) offered some explanations. 1999. SIKAP/STRIVE Foundation. 3.consumer demand for food safety and product quality. and an inefficient marketing system (DA and NAFC. such as the devaluation of Philippine pesos and the financial meltdown in 1997. 2002a. high input costs. is characterized by low productivity and high degree of diversity. SEARCA. on the other hand. and increasing global competition. • The commercial sector The commercial chicken sector in the Philippines has shown continuing growth since the introduction of modern technologies in the 1960s. 2001). the highly cyclical local markets or an unexpected shock to the market may be misinterpreted as a 21 . fluctuations in demand reflect the instability in economic activities. there are major issues facing the commercial sector. Firstly. public concerns over animal welfare and the environmental impact associated with intensive poultry production. especially when the market is judged wrongly. 2001): 1. below-par on-farm productivity. SIKAP/STRIVE Foundation. the use of advanced technology to raise chickens.
and often less capitalised. veterinary supplies and feedstuffs. 2 million birds were imported in response to the FMD outbreak in 1994 and 1995 (SIKAP/STRIVE Foundation. In 2000. 2002). The balance comes from other independent commercial farms and backyard raisers.12 Over-expansion in some years has resulted in low prices and financial losses and have forced out less efficient. San Miguel Foods. lowering input costs has been cited as the most important factor for improving global competitiveness (Arbolada.13 Thirdly. the accession to GATT-WTO in 1995 also contributed to the less than stable industry growth because of the entry of cheaper (and sometimes illegal) imports. the disadvantage is that it depends heavily on imported inputs. Since feed costs make up close to 70% and Day-Old Chicks (DOC) make up about 25% of the total cost of intensive poultry production. including breeding stock. 13 The broiler industry in the Philippines is dominated by seven vertically integrated companies. 2002). they account for about 80% of the broiler supply in the country (DA and NDFC. 2001. It appears that market stability can be improved through better planning with more reliable and time industry data and forecasts and more cooperation in information sharing between industry participants and between the industry and the government. These integrators are involved in both production and marketing of broiler chickens. 2002a.permanent change in demand and responded as such. The over-expansion resulted in overproduction in 1996 and 1997. Mateo. In 1995. Cavite. Laguna. However. 2002a). and manufacture and sales of commercially mixed feeds. particularly from Rizal. 2001). are organised through the United Broilers’ Association (DA-AMAS 2001). Pampanga and Tarlac. the Philippines imported almost eight million Grand Parent Stocks (GPS) and Parent Stocks (PS) from Thailand and the United States (Livestock Development Council. the volume of imports was 1. Pure Foods. Bulacan. As the industry consolidates. importation of grandparent and parent stocks. The small and medium-scale commercial broiler and poultry producers. General Milling Corporation and Universal Robina Corporation (DA-AMAS 2001). 2001. Input costs.7 million birds (Livestock Development Council. DA and NAFC. They are: Swift Foods. Vitarich Corporation. operations. Tysons Agro-Ventures. Together. The integrators are organised through the Philippine Association of Broiler Integrators. it has become highly concentrated. 12 From 1990 to 2000. Although modern technology has increased productivity significantly compared with more traditional production methods.b). 22 . High input costs have been exacerbated by the continuing devaluatioin of the Philippine pesos in recent years because a weakened peso makes imported goods more expensive. the anticipated demand increase did not materialise.
Although corn is the Philippines’s third largest crop. Brazil and Thailand have ready access to feeds and breeding stocks. 1992). Inefficient production. particularly in the areas of environmental control and automation in feeding. all of which are major broiler producers in the world market. particularly when world’s major broiler producers and exporters such as USA. According to industry sources. In Table 12. the integrators have only attained 70% of the international efficiency standards. Production inefficiency. the National Food Authority (NFA) has been responsible for regulating the local supply of corn by purchasing directly in the open market and managing the disbursement of buffer stock. Take corn for example. The reliance on imported inputs means that strong Philippine peso and access to cheap inputs are crucial for improving global competitiveness. Under the import licensing scheme.. Thailand and Brazil. 2001). the sector is inefficient and corn is expensive because of existing price support and import licensing policies (Mendoza and Rosegrant. importers have complained about the misuse of authority by NFA in severely limiting corn imports and raising local prices above competitive levels (Panuayon. the Philippine broiler industry is on par with the world’s best practices in terms of livability and is slightly below par in terms of FCR (feed conversion rate). Cost competitiveness is especially important for intensive poultry production because most producers use basically the same technology and there is little room for product differentiation. the NFA determines the volume and the timing of corn imports and allocated among qualified. production cost becomes the basis for competitiveness and profitability.Moreover. along 23 . In many instances. 1995). drinking and other management practices (DA-AMAS. As can be seen. It likewise monitors the importation of corn through the control of import licences. licensed local corn processors and livestock and poultry raisers. the input markets are often subject to government intervention. which would include adopting the latest technology in poultry raising. Therefore. Nominal rate of protection for corn in the early 1990s were as high as 40-50% (Rosegrant et al. Supply and cost of corn are seen as a major issue for the commercial poultry industry because of its impact on feed costs and hence cost competitiveness. China. As a result. following rice and coconut. the on-farm performance of the Philippine broiler industry is assessed against USA. 1985). there is a need for modernisation. Since the early 1970s.
see DA and NAFC. Table 12. By contrast. especially processing and distribution (for details. compared with USA. the small and medium-scale independent broiler producers sell directly to the live chicken traders or viajeros/traders who pass on the chickens either live or dressed to retailers in the wet markets and restaurants. HRI (hotels. which is 10 pesos per bird higher than USA and Brazil. As shown in Table 12. Inefficient marketing systems.85 1. restaurants and institutions) (40%) and supermarket (10%) (DA and NAFC. dressed birds at the wholesale/retail level are also more expensive.00 1. resulting in small average weight per bird and hence higher cost per kilogram of meat.85 Live weight 34 24 -26 24 Dressed weight 51 33 -33 33 Source: PABI (cited in SIKAP/STRIVE Foundation.5 kg in other countries) (DA and NAFC. The demand for smaller carcass means that broiler growth is not allowed to reach its peak feed efficiency (normally at around 1. Brazil and Thailand. Despite the highly concentrated and vertically integrated production structure of the commercial broiler sector.with the reliance on high cost. 2002a.9 kg live weight). The three major market segments that are serviced by the integrators are: wet market (50%). Details on distribution to these three market segments are provided in DA-AMAS (2001). 2002a. a large proportion of broilers are sold as live birds through the wet markets because of consumer preference for fresh meat.90 1. has resulted in higher production cost of live birds. 2001). pp. compared to 1.2 kg dressed weight for a whole chicken.0-1.b).85 2. The higher wholesale and retail prices are due to the inefficiency existing in the marketing chain. 2002a). Another reason for the higher production cost may be because of consumer preference for smaller carcass (around 1. imported inputs. 24 . 26). Cross-country comparisons of broiler production Country On-farm productivity Production cost (in Philippine pesos/kg) % livability Philippines USA China Thailand Brazil 95 95 93 95 95 FCR 1.
Therefore. However. 25 . the current marketing system is likely to change in the foreseeable future for two reasons. Secondly. it increases possibilities of bruising on the carcass. Nevertheless. There is also no systematic breeding or management regime that is practiced by the commercial sector. improving both production and marketing efficiency is necessary for improving international competitiveness (SEARCA. it increases the risk of the spread of diseases. The leakage may have resulted in higher broiler prices and hindered demand growth. as opposed to the intensive.The diversity of the marketing channels and the involvement of many small traders and retailers mean that the broiler marketing system does not benefit from the economies of scale that exists in the production system. often keep a small number of chickens and ducks in their backyards as a means to supplement their household incomes and nutritional needs. fallen grains or household refuse. weight loss and death during shipping and handling. and limited access to marketing services. it is reasonable to say that the Philippine backyard sector is also characterised by low productivity. the preference for live bird has a few disadvantages. Furthermore. they. Low productivity. Devendra. They are often raised with primitive or no housing and scavenging on naturally occurring feeds. Rural households in the Philippines. backyard poultry production system is extensive and low-input. are more likely to shop at supermarkets and own refrigerators for preserving perishable commodities such as meat and poultry (Taha. • The backyard sector Little is known about the production potential of the backyard poultry sector in the Philippines. Lastly. Thirdly. 1999). it increases food safety risks because of lack of hygienic facilities and practices in wet markets. based on research done elsewhere (eg FAO. Backyard poultry utilises very little resources. it has been shown that although consumers may prefer fresh meats and shopping at wet markets. 2003). 2000. especially city dwellers. 1993). high degree of farm diversity. over time. its purpose is more for subsistence than for commercial purposes. high-input commercial production. First. For one thing. small-scale operations. Therefore. However. it increases costs because of fragmented. Output and productivity are generally low as a result. like their counterparts in other developing countries.
1998. Poor genetics is therefore another main contributing factor to low productivity (Coligado. there is little incentive for them to actively seek improvement because there is little to gain from a very small base. There appears to be two policy options for genetic improvements for backyard poultry. Generally speaking. One is based on the importation of breeding animals from overseas. Inadequate management is therefore the key factor contributing to low productivity. The other option is to select and upgrade the existing and native breeds. The main reasons are: (1) unavailability of good quality stock. particularly for farmers in remote. Studies on rural poultry development have found that rural households are often not interested in extension service or new technology that aims to improve their production. Thirdly. As a result. and (3) they were too expensive for smallholders (Department of Agriculture. The reasons for failures were that (1) the imported stocks were inappropriate either for smallholder production or for Philippine conditions. Although the issue of not adopting new technology can be quite complex. There are several reasons. This strategy has gained support from the Philippine 26 .. 2002). poultry productivity is a function of genetics and management. et al. This particular strategy had been tried both in the Philippines and overseas before but failed (Kitalyi. Arboleda. productivity improvement is usually not high on the minds of rural households. 1986. (2) higher costs associated with sourcing better quality stocks. the lack of resources to act upon the advice is often cited as a main reason for not adopting new technology. 1996). Therefore. Backyard duck raisers in the Philippines were found not to attach any importance to breeds or the quality of stocks when it comes to finding replacement (BAS-SRTC. 2001). isolated areas. they may not have the resources to invest on any improvement even if they want to. 2001). Illiteracy and low education are additional barriers to adoption (de Castro et al. (2) they were inputintensive and possibly import-dependent. replacement stocks are often obtained from own flock or cheaper sources with unknown origins or genetics (Lambio. occasional loss or poor production has little impact on the overall performance. The other reason for being seemingly indifferent is that poultry raising is only a part of a very diversified farming system for smallholders.However. 1995). and (3) lack of the technique/know-how to identify good quality stocks. Firstly. Lambio.. 2001).
the commercial poultry sector is supported basically by the same technology (including breeds and standardised management practices) that is available worldwide with a sole focus on production efficiency. As discussed earlier. The slow growth rate. on the other hand. body weight and time to maturity. Access to market and services. However. as well as better utilisation of local resources and conservation of local germplasm (Department of Agriculture. because of small trading volumes and distance from the market. more research is needed to review existing policies and develop strategies that improve the productivity of the local breeds and the skill base of backyard poultry producers. One is the low-input requirement which keeps cost down. utilising a variety of feed sources and management practices. The backyard production systems. has the benefits of producing carcass that has unique flavour. This diversity means that there are many different breeds. texture and taste that are appreciated by a significant segment of the market. In addition. The most significant difference between the backyard and the commercial poultry sectors may be the diversity of the backyard sector. or not known. Although a majority of backyard poultry producers do not produce for the market alone. Farm diversity. vary greatly from region to region depending to a large extent on local conditions and grower preference. Extension services and other government programs also are often not available. This is particularly true for native chickens in Asia and Africa where native chickens commend premium prices and are 27 . when they do they face some obstacles. This diversity inevitably results in variable product quality and inconsistent supply. Although it is generally true that the local breeds employed by the backyard sector have relatively low productivity in terms of weight gain. although in itself may be a drawback. They include access to market and market information. they often incur higher transaction costs and are subject to exploitation by unscrupulous traders. size. However. Both of that are serious issues for contemporary marketing in terms of meeting market demand for consistent supply and product quality. to the more isolated and less-informed backyard producers.government and academics in recent years with the advantage of being less expensive and more suitable for local conditions. 2001). it does have some advantages.
Due to high market demand. It appears that the Philippine poultry industry stands to benefit from the demand trends. One the other hand. and improvements in technical and marketing efficiency. backyard poultry production has also been modernized and commercialised around the world. the Philippine commercial poultry sector is relatively uncompetitive because of higher input costs. Conclusion Poultry production is the fastest growing meat sector worldwide. Finally. The backyard poultry sector. native chickens are no longer limited to backyard production by rural households but have been produced in eg Taiwan. it faces increasing consumer demand for food safety and product quality. is characterized by low 28 . on the other hand. However. there is a potential to convert into organic production which has gained recognition and support from consumers worldwide in recent years. China and Thailand on a large commercial scale that is similar to the broiler sector. In the past. modern technology and marketing strategy are such that almost any product can be supplied from anywhere in the world as long as demand and profits are there. Future competitiveness will depend largely on and strong Philippine pesos. and an inefficient marketing system. like many other poultry sectors in the world. Take native chicken for example. The outlook is especially positive for the Philippine poultry industry given its current low level of per capita consumption and anticipated growth in population and household incomes.often in short supply. the availability of cheap feed sources. below-par on-farm productivity. and increasing global competition. because most backyard poultry production does not use veterinary medicines or other substances. The increasing demand for poultry products is attributable to its relatively low cost and healthiness. In addition. it might be the case that unique Filipino products such as native chickens and balut have somehow been immune from foreign competition. However. Exportation of native chickens is also being contemplated by commercial native chicken producers such as Thailand and China. public concerns over animal welfare and the environmental impact associated with intensive poultry production.
More direct government involvement appears to be desirable. some of these problems can be overcome with promotion and. Obviously. It can be expected that some of the future increase in poultry consumption is likely to be met by cheaper imports. It appears that there is also a need to change consumer perception of. especially in areas such as product grading and standard setting. the Philippine poultry industry must pursue production and marketing efficiency and the government must provide an environment that is conducive to investment and productivity improvements. and preference for.productivity and high degree of farm diversity. and improving roads and other marketing infrastructure. the threat of foreign competition can be expected to intensify as trade liberalisation continues and it will impact on the commercial and the backyard sectors alike. Finally. with innovative processing and packaging technologies that can meet consumer demand for convenient cuts and freshness without sacrificing production efficiency. collection and dissemination of market information. poultry products. This will include influencing consumers’ preference for small carcass and the dislike for frozen meat products. 29 . more importantly. which contribute to variable product quality and inconsistent supply. To survive.
Diliman. (eds). Department of Agriculture. Quezon City. 2004 (available at http://www.html). 1998..ph/stats/lpsd/05i300. Chang. N. Cipanas. 2003a..html).R. Breeding and management of ducks for meat and egg production.da. Report on performance of agriculture. 30 . Terminal Report. 2001. Duck industry performance report. Cororaton.C. Luis. 1985. 1987. & Dagaas. E. C. Indonesia. S. C. A. A. R. 2002. An Analysis of Philippine Trade Reforms in 1995-2000 Using the 1994 Apex Model. BAS. The Philippine poultry industry: meeting the challenges of the 21st Century. Discussion Paper Series No. NSTA-Assisted. Castro.bas. Novero. November 18-22. Diliman.. 2000-36. January-December 2003.J and Stapleton. BAS-SRTC (Statistical Research and Training Centre). E. BAS. 1985. 2004. Broiler industry situation report (available at http://www. Lambio. P. E. 2000.S. Coligado. Duck industry performance report. 2002. 7901Ag (mineo). Paper presented at the 39th PSAS Annual Convention. Chicken industry performance report. DA June 2002 BAS.C. R. 1986.bas. 2004b. the Philippines. J. Farrell.P. June 2004 (available at http://www. Diliman. Department of Agriculture. C. D. & Malabayabas.ph/download_now. National Agriculture and Fishery Council. In Proceedings of Duck Production: Science and World Practice. January-December 2001.ph/download_now. Chang.References Arboleda. 17 May 2001. H.php?id=62). Quezon City.pdf). June 2004 (available at http://www.gov. Improvement of methodology on production survey for duck.da. Diliman. BAS.. University of New England. Presented to the 3rd 2001 PSAS Lecture Series on The Philippine Poultry Industry in the 21st Century: Threats and Opportunities. Supply and utilisation accounts. Coligado.gov.php?id=63).ph/about/performance/2002/tab1_value. Department of Agriculture. H.gov.html). Project No. Bogor. Livestock and Poultry Statistics Division. Quezon City (available at http://bas. BAS. Livestock and Poultry Statistics Divison. C. B. M. BAS. & Capitan. Arboleda.S.. Dagaas. Department of Agriculture. January-December 2003. School of Economics. Working Paper Series No.S. Duck production in the Philippines. de.gov. Ranola.S. S. The Philippine duck industry: issues and research needs.au/febl/GSARE/arewp04-1.une. Department of Agriculture.gov. Backyard livestock and poultry survey: manual of operations. Livestock and Poultry Statistics Division. Alejar.da. BAS (Bureau of Agricultural Statistics).edu. Quezon City (available at http://bas. BAS. BAS.. Market prospects of duck eggs and by-products. BAS-SRTC Project. C. Cebu City. 2003b.ph/agribiz/broiler.R. 2004a. & Cuenca. DA-AMAS (Department of Agriculture-Agribusiness and marketing Assistance Service) 2001. 2004-1 in Agricultural and Resource Economics.S.
ph/layers6. Department of Agriculture.L.DA & NAFC (Department of Agriculture and National Agricultural and Fishery Council). 1993. 1997. December 9-13. DA & NAFC (Department of Agriculture and National Agricultural and Fishery Council). Indonesia.htm).J. A. S. 2002b. S. Mateo. June 2002. E. at Fujimura. FAO (available at http://www. and Muellbauer.fao.gov.ph/MAV/TariffRate/RariffRate. Lambio. The CGPRT Centre Working Paper Series. 2000. Senegal. Rome (available at http://www. T. College. Economics and Consumer Behaviour.A.htm). L. Quezon City. 1996. M.org/docrep/003/t0757e/T0757E00.gov.gov.html). Unpublished manuscript. C.ph/MAV/utilisation rate/MAVUrate2.ldc.. Gonzales.htm). A.html). In quota/out quota tariff rates (available at http://www. CGPRT. Quezon City. Mangabat. 1997. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. A. June 2002. Layer industry master plan.C. T. Chemical analysis and sensory evaluation of free Amino Acids and 5’-Inosinic Acid in meat of Hinai-dori. Deaton. T. Department of Agriculture 2003b. Rome (available http://www. Devendra. Dieng. Status. UPLB-CA. Department of Agriculture 2003a. 2001. J. Layer industry situation ( available at www.fao. 1995. and Dieng. National Integrated Research Development and Extension Agenda and Program (NIRDEAP) for Livestock and Poultry. Effects of trade liberalisation on agriculture in the Philippines: institutional and structural aspects.da. MAV utilization rate (percentage) (1995-2002) (available at http://www. J.org/livestock/agap/war/warall/w6437t/w6437t07. Laguna. and Ishibashi. Philippines. Village chicken production systems in developing countries: what does the future hold? Short Communication.fao. Hatano.html). Livestock Development Council. A. Presented to the 3rd 2001 PSAS Lecture Series “The Philippine Poultry 31 . Trends and prospects of the broiler industry in the Philippines for the millennium.P. M’Bour. Philippines. FAO.F. Pasig City. DAI.da. Gueye. problems and prospect of the duck industry in the Philippines. Final report submitted to the USAID/ASAP Policy Team. 2001. Metro Manila. The impact of GATT-UR on the Philippine agribusiness competitiveness: the case of poultry and livestock products. Kitalyi. Animal Science Technology 65(7): 610-618. In the Proceedings for INFPD Workshop. Sustanable animal production from small farm systems in South-East Asia. Institute of Animal Science. Katsukawa.. Bogor. 2001. Integrated backyard systems. 1994.org/ag/againinfo/subjects/documents/ibsy/default . Livestock & poultry RDE agenda & program (20002004). Muramoto. 2002.. Meat quality of indigenous and commercial chickens in Senegal. FAO. M. Japanese native chicken: comparison with broilers and layer pullets. Broiler industry master plan. 1980. 1998. 2002a.
gov/publications/WRS03/dec03/wrs0302).usda.A. Proceedings for the Second Philippine Egg Show. National Statistics Office. 1999. Manzo. Pricing behaviour in Philippine corn markets: implications for market efficiency. Rosegrant. Mendoza. Diliman. Taha. and Rosegrant. 1992.ers. Rhodes. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development. and Bouis. S.C. Dimaranan. M. M. Interim Report to the Department of Agriculture. 1999.Industry in the 21st Century: Threats and Opportunities”. National Agriculture and Fishery Council. The poultry sector in middle-income countries and its feed requirements: the case of Egypt. Pabuayon. global competitiveness analysis and policy advocacy for the poultry and livestock subsectors. World Poultry. The Agricultural Marketing System. D. Philippine Egg Board. Manila. Mandaluyong City. Foreign trade statistics. USDA (available at http:// www.V. F. 2001. 32 . M. Philippines. 1995.D.. P. 2004. 20-22 September 2002. 2002. Slow growth lifts chick meat quality.W. WRS03-02. Research Report 101. 1998.15 (Jan-July): 55-80. Holcomb Hathaway Publishers: Scottsdale. J. Quezon City.H. World Poultry. I. International Food Policy Research Institute. Economic Research Service. M..E. University of Asia and the Pacific. Outlook Report No.W. and Dauve. N.. Benchmarking. Final Report. Final Report. The effects of trade liberalisation on the Philippine livestock industry. 1985. Mendoza. L. 5th edition.. 2003. Gonzales. Terminal report submitted to the US Agency for International Food Policy Research Institute. 20(6): 19. SEARCA (the SEAMEO Regional Centre for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture). The Philippine corn/livestock sector: performance and policy implications. Corn marketing in the Philippines: an overview and review of trade and pricing policies. 17 May 2001.. SIKAP/STRIVE Foundation. B. 2002.. Competitive and benchmarking analysis for selected agribusiness products. Washington. Setboonsarng.A.S. J. Perez. H.S.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.