BIBLIOGRAPHY ALAMAN, ROGER D. ...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011. Reproductive Performance of Native
Chicken Raised in the Backyard. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Madeline S. Kingan, MSc.
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted at Remedios, Cervantes, Ilocos Sur from April to
September 2010 to determine the average number of eggs that can be laid by native
chicken pullets, the average hatchability of native chicken eggs, the growth rate of the
chicks up to three months of age, and the mortality rate of native chicken raised in the
backyard.
Three pullets from three strains of native chicken particularly “Puraw”,
“Dalusapi" and “Itim” were bred to three roosters which were all “Puraw”.
It was found that the average clutch size that can be laid by native pullets is 7 with
a hatchability rate of 61 to 69%. The total body weight increment of the chicks at 90 days
of age range from 461g to 473g.
The mortality rate was notably high (50 to 75%) and incurred from May to
September when there were adverse weather changes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
MATERIALS AND METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Initial Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Color of the Pullets, Rooster and Chick Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Clutch Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Egg Measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Laying Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Hatchability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Monthly Weight Increment of the Chick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Mortality rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1
INTRODUCTION
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 breeds
varied the 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.
Native chickens are capable of self-supporting. They do not require wide knowledge and
extra time for them. Native chicken are resistant to different diseases and they could tribe
in adverse environment. Native chickens are known for their good mothering ability and
desirable products.
This research attempts to put in proper perspective some of the characteristics of
native chicken, particularly those related to reproduction. Information generated in this
study will serve as standard information for future researches. It will allow students to
have working knowledge on the performance of native chicken. The information can be
use in designing better management practice that will improve the performance of native
chicken.
There are many raisers of native chicken in rural areas but most of them do not
know the basic parameters of native chicken. Native chicken raisers must know the basic
parameters of native chicken to have a higher income. It provides them knowledge on
how they will manage their stock properly in order to have a higher production level. It
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
2
provides basis for the raisers in making feasibility studies. This study invites job seekers
to engage their selves in native chicken rather than wasting their time.
The general objective of the study was to observe the reproductive performance of
native chicken.
Specifically it aimed to:
1. To determine the mortality rate of chicks of the native chicken.
2. To determine the growth rate of the chicks of native chicken up to three month
of age.
3. To determine the average number of that can be laid by pullets at first laying.
4. To determine the average hatchability of a native chicken eggs.
The study was conducted at Remedios Cervantes, Ilocos Sur from March 2010 to
June 2010.
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The Red Junglefowl (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 form 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
tail are of single type, and the color of their shanks ranges from yellow to gray. 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. Native
chicken production is more widespread but most prominent in Western Visayas (14.1%),
Central Visayas (9.4%), Cagayan Valley (7.9%), Southern Mindanao (7.9), and Ilocos
Region (7.5%). In 2005, the share of commercial broilers in total chicken meat
production in the Philippines was estimated 67%, with native chicken accounting for only
13%. Similarly, commercial layers accounted for 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
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
4
better nutrition egg production can be increased to 130 to 200 per year. Traditionally
raised native chickens weigh one kilogram when they are 18 to 20 weeks old but under
improved 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 chicken 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 does 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 “its 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 also
believed to supply a small amount of cholesterol. Aside from that, native birds and egg
are tastier and savory than the improved breeds.
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
5
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
A total of nine pullets that were more or less of the same weight and age and three
“puraw” strain roosters were used as breeders during the study. The nine pullets belong
to three strains of native chicken namely “puraw”, “dalusapi” and “itim”. The three
strains were used as the treatments with each treatment replicated three times. An
isolated old piggery house was used as the housing of the chickens (Figure 1). A total of
ten small baskets for the nest (Figure 2) and ten bigger baskets (improvised scratch pen)
to confine the hen for the first month old of the chicks were provided (Figure 3). Rice
hull was provided in the brooding pen. Improvised drinking troughs and feeding troughs
made up of bamboo and plastic covers were made. Woven bamboo was used as a divider
while cogon grass (dried) was used to cover the sides of the housing (Figure 4). Corn,
rice middlings, palay, rice bran, and kitchen leftovers were fed to the birds.
This materials include the record book, weighing scale, ball pen, multi square,
and others.
Methodology
Housing preparation. An old piggery pen was used in the study. It was divided
into two, half for the nest and perch and half for the brooding pen. It is important to
divide the housing to prevent fighting among the hens with little chicks. One more reason
is to prevent stealing of feed of little chicks by older birds. Open sides of the housing
were covered with cogon grass to minimize the entrance of moist and strong wind. The
nests and perches are placed 5 to 6 feet above the ground. The feeding trough and
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
6
drinking trough were provided in the housing. Rice hull was also provided in the
brooding pen.
Figure 1. A piggery pen improved into the study area
Figure 2. Nest for the hens
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
7
Figure 3. Improvised scratch pen
Figure 4. Cogon grass (dried) used to cover the sides of the housing
Figure 5. Multi-square used to measure egg length and diameter
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
8
Experimental animals. A total of nine pullets were used in the study. They are
raised in backyard from Cervantes, Ilocos Sur. The pullets were eight months old. The
pullets belong to three strains (Figure 5). Three pullets belong to “puraw”, three pullets
belong to “dalusapi” and three pullets belong to “itim”. The “puraw” was the treatment
one, “dalusapi” was the treatment two, and the third treatment was the itim. Three
roosters that belong to “puraw” strain were used as breeders in the study (Figure 6).
Feeding and management. The animals were fed in the morning and in the
afternoon. The birds were first confined in the housing for three days before they were
released for mating. The rooster stayed together with the pullets until all of them laid
eggs. The pullets who laid eggs were identified and checked every day because they
might interchange their nest. During incubation, the nests were partially covered so that
the other pullets would not disturb them.
Figure 6. Sample pullets from each treatment
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
9
Figure 7. The roosters used in the study
The chicks and the hen were confined in the brooding pen with the improvised
scratch pen at day old up to one month of age. The chicks were feed with kitchen
leftovers and rice bran. All the birds were provided with water adlibitum. The chicks
were released at one month of age. The chicks were checked every day.
Data gathering. The weights of the birds were taken before breeding. The eggs
were checked every feeding schedule. The laying intervals of the pullets were recorded.
The weight, width and length of the eggs were taken and recorded. The eggs were
marked according to the date they were laid. The total number of eggs laid per hen was
recorded. The intervals of the eggs were recorded. Hatched and unhatched eggs were
counted and recorded. The chicks were weighed at day old up to three months with one
month interval. The causes of death and sickness were identified and recorded.
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
10
The data gathered were the following:
1. Weight of the pullets. The weight of the rooster and pullets at the start of the
study.
2. Color of the pullets and rooster. The different colors of the pullets and rooster at
the start of the study.
3. Number of eggs. The number of eggs laid by the pullets during the study.
4. Laying period . The number of days that the hen laid eggs in one laying period.
5. Sizes of the eggs
a. Weight. The weight of the egg laid.
b. Length. The longitudinal diameter of the egg.
c. Width. The transversal diameter of the egg.
6. Number of hatched and unhatched eggs
7. Weight of the chicks
a. Day old. The weight of the chicks at day old.
b. Thirty days. The weight of the chicks at one month old.
c. Sixty days. The weight of the chicks at two months old.
d. Ninety days. The weight of the chicks at three months old.
8. Chick mortality. The mortality rate of the chicks from day old up to three
months old.
9. Hatchability(%). This was determined using the formula:
Hatchability= Number of eggs hatched x 100
Number of eggs incubated
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
11
10. Mortality rate. This was determined using the formula:
Mortality rate= Number of chicks at third month x 100
Number of chicks hatched
11. Monthly weight increment (MWI). This was determined using the formula:
MWI= Weight at current month – Weight at previous month x 100
Weight at previous month
Analysis of Data
Data were subjected to the analysis of variance for CRD experiment. Treatment
means were compared using the Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT).
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Weight of Pullets
Table 1 shows the mean initial weight of the pullet of different strains. Statistical
analysis shows that there were no significant differences among the weight of the pullets.
The pullets used had been calculated that they were ranging from 7 to 8 months old. They
have a mean initial weight of 1.3 kilograms. The pullets used were heavier compared to
the “gulaya” strain used by Tabino (2003) having a mean initial weight of 1.15 at an
average of 5.63 months old. This indicates that the pullets the pullets used had have
already reached their maturity age at the start of the study.
Color of the Pullets, Rooster and Chicks Produced
The color of the chicks produced reveals the color of the ancestor of the pullets
and roosters. Most of the colors of the chicks were combination of black or brown with
white spots. Treatment one produced a white plumage inherited from their parents
(Figure 7a). The other colors produced in this treatment such as brown and black have
white spots all over the body. Treatment two produced dark brown plumage with bright
Table 1. Weight of the Pullets
TREATMENT
WEIGHT
(kg)
Puraw
1.30
Dalusapi
1.40
Itim
1.20
*means with no letter superscripts are not significantly different at .05 DMRT
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
13
yellow at the neck and some has a color of “lasak”. “Lasak” was defined by Balesteros
(2004) which is reddish brown with white spots. It appears that some “lasak” was from
the cross of “dalusapi” and “puraw” (Figure 7b). Most of the chicks produced in
treatment three inherited the color of the parent hen (Figure 7c). They have a dominant
black color but they have white spots at the neck and other parts of body. There were
other colors produced at downy stage in each treatment but were not traced because of
high mortality at first month.
8a
8b
8c
Figure 8. Chicks produced from the different treatments; (a) from white pullet and
white rooster; (b) from brown pullet and white rooster and (c) from black
pullet and white rooster
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
14
Clutch Size
Table 2 shows the average clutch size of each treatment. Statistical analysis shows
that there were no significant differences in the clutch size among the three strains.
“Puraw” and “Dalusapi” pullets have a clutch size of 7.67 and “Itim” pullets have
slightly lower clutch size of 7.33. The clutch sizes of chickens were affected by the body
condition of the pullets as seen in the third treatment which are the black pullets having
slightly lower body weights.
In earlier study, Tabino (2003) reported that “gulaya” strain of native chicken has
an average clutch size of 8.53. In 2004, Ballesteros reported that “itim” and “dalusapi”
have an average clutch size of 10.2 and 9.8 respectively. The “itim” and “dalusapi” used
by Ballesteros had a higher clutch size than the “itim” and “dalusapi” used in the study.
Maybe this was affected by some factors such as place of origin of the pullets and time of
conduct. The pullets used by Ballesteros was taken from Itogon, Benguet while the
pullets used in this study was taken from Cervantes, Ilocos Sur. The study was conducted
during the month of May to September while Ballesteros conducted her research during
the month of October to April.
Table 2. Average clutch size of pullets
TREATMENT
CLUTCH SIZE
Puraw
7.67
Dalusapi
7.67
Itim
7.33
*means with no letter superscripts are not significantly different at .05 DMRT
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
15
Egg Measurements
Table 3 shows the average weight, diameter and length of the egg produced in
each treatment which was measured using a multi-square. Statistical analysis shows that
there were no significant differences in the egg measurements among the three strains of
native pullets used in the study.
The “puraw”, “dalusapi” and “itim” pullets have an average egg weight of 38.15
grams, 37.96 grams and 36.88 grams respectively. The general average of egg diameter
of the three strains of native pullets was 3.74 cm and egg length of 4.88.
In 2003, Tabino reported that “gulaya” strain has an egg diameter of 3.85 cm and
egg length of 5 cm. In 2004, Ballesteros reported that native chicken has egg diameter of
2.6 cm and egg length of 3.8 cm. It could be noted that the “gulaya” strain has slight
larger eggs. It would appear that egg diameter of native chicken range from 2.6 to 3.85
cm and egg diameter from 3.8 to 5 cm.
Laying Period
Table 4 shows the average laying period of the pullets. Statistical analysis shows
that there was no significant difference in the laying period of the three strains. “Puraw”
pullets have an average laying period of 11.67 days, “dalusapi” pullets have 12 days and
“itim” pullets have 12.33 days.
In 2004, Ballesteros reported that native chickens have an average laying period
of 11.5 days. It could be noticed that the mean laying period of the three strain used in
this study is higher than those the same strain used by Ballesteros. It is further noticed
that the average laying period of native chicken at their first laying period is ranging from
11.5 days to 12 days long.
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
16
Table 3. Average egg measurements
TREATMENT
EGG WEIGHT
EGG DIAMETER
EGG LENGTH
(g)
(cm)
(cm)
Puraw
38.15
3.72
4.90
Dalusapi
37.96
3.82
4.95
Itim
36.88
3.69
4.79
*means with no letter superscripts are not significantly different at .05 DMRT
Table 4. Average laying period of native chicken
TREATMENT
AVERAGE LAYING INTERVAL
(days)
Puraw
11.67
Dalusapi
12.00
Itim
12.33
*means with no letter superscripts are not significantly different at .05 DMRT
Hatchability
Statistical analysis shows that there was no significant difference in the
hatchability rate of the three strains used. Table 5 shows the average hatchability of the
pullets. White pullets have 69%, brown pullets have 61.31%, and black pullets have
67.47%. The data obtained in this study is slight lower than that reported by Ballesteros
which was 69.29%. Furthermore, Apolonio (2002), on his Survey on the performance of
native chicken in Buguias, reported that on average different strains of native chicken
hatch 5 to 14 chicks per laying period. The result of earlier study confirms the data
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
17
Table 5. Hatchability rate of native chicken eggs
TREATMENT
HATCHABILITY RATE (%)
Puraw
69.00
Dalusapi
61.31
Itim
67.86
*means with no letter superscripts are not significantly different at .05 DMRT
obtained in this study which was five to six chicks at their first laying period.
Hatchability rate is greatly affected by the fertility of the pullets. There were always
unfertile eggs in the first clutch laid by pullets, thus the lower hatchability rate of pullets
than the hens. This was also affected by the body condition of the hen to sit over the eggs
for twenty one days. The hen sacrifices a lot of meals just to incubate the eggs thus; she
uses her body reserves for that time. The hen having little body reserves the hen would
always moved out to look for food. This action of the hen would lead to the disturbance
to the development of the eggs and sometimes may cause total damage of the egg.
Monthly Weight Increment of the Chicks
Table 6 shows the average weight of the chicks starting from day old up to three
months of age. Statistical analysis shows that there was no significant difference in the
weight increment of the chicks of the three strains. The chicks have an average initial
weight of 23.94 grams, slightly higher than 23.67 grams which were reported by
Ballesteros in 2004. The chicks increased their weight to an average of 44.4 grams at the
end of thirty days, 155.56 grams at the end of sixty days and 468.67 at the end of ninety
days. In earlier research conducted, Tabino (2003) stated that “gulaya” strain wean their
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
18
Table 6. Monthly weight increment of the chicks
TREATMENT
DAY OLD(g)
THIRTY
SIXTY
NINETY
DAYS (g)
DAYS (g)
DAYS (g)
Puraw
24.77
45.39
156.33
473.17
Dalusapi
21.78
44.80
152.56
461.22
Itim
25.27
43.00
157.78
471.63
*means with no letter superscripts are not significantly different at .05DMRT
chicks at their sixty days old with a weaning weight of 271.58 grams in traditional
feeding condition and 334.55 grams to the treatment supplemented with commercial
feeds. It appeared that the weaning weight of the strains used is lower than “gulaya”
strain. The lower weaning weight of the strains used maybe because bad weather
condition during the time this study was conducted. Other factors such as the total
number of chicks raised by the parent hen, the mothering ability of the hen and the feed
supplied to the chicks may have a great effect in the weight increment of the chicks.
Mortality Rate
Statistical analysis shows that there was no significant difference in the mortality
of the chicks used in the study. Table 7 show the average mortality of the three strains
used at the end of third months of age. The three strains had a mean mortality rate of
59.66%. In earlier research conducted by Tabino (2003) and Ballesteros (2004) from the
month ranging September to February, they reported a higher Survival rate of native
chicken. In 2003, Tabino reported that under traditional feeding condition of “gulaya”
had a Survival rate of 77. 5% after brooding. In 2004, Ballesteros reported a higher mean
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
19
Table 7. Average mortality rate of native chicks
TREATMENT
MORTALITY RATE
(%)
Puraw
75.67
Dalusapi
50.00
Itim
53.33
*means with no letter superscripts are not significantly different at .05DMRT
survival rate of 83.21% by “itim”, “lasak” and “dalusapi”. It could be noted that the
weather is the greatest factor that contributes to the mortality rate of the chicks during the
study was conducted. According to farmers, starting from the month of May to
September was the part of the year that has the highest mortality rate because these were
the times of strong typhoons, wind, and very high humidity. This observation of the
farmers also conform the result of the study conducted during month of May to
September.
One more factor that affect death rate was the food they ate. Chicks bellow one
month of age who had eaten pure hard grain like corn and rice at two consecutive meal
would die because it they could hardly digest the food. Their digestive system were not
developed enough to digest the food that would cause their death. Tabino (2004) noted in
his study that chicks at downy stage should be feed with easily digested feeds.
It is the nature of native chicken to fight stranger in the flock. Newly hatched hens
were considered stranger among the group and the fight cannot be avoided. If hen with
chicks would fight, it is possible that they would injure their chicks that may lead to their
death. Other cases would be the hen would intentionally hit the chicks of other hens.
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
20
The presence also of predator like the birds, dogs, big rats, snakes and wild cat in
the raising area would contribute mortality rates.
Figure 9. Chick mortality
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
21
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study on the reproductive performance of native chicken was conducted at
Cervantes, Ilocos Sur from April to September 2010. This study aims to determine some
of the parameters of native chicken such as the mortality rate, growth rate, clutch size and
hatchability.
A total of nine pullets were used in the study. They were distributed in three
treatments according to their color. Each treatment was replicated three times. The
treatment were puraw , dalusapi and itim.
The average clutch size of the native pullets is 7.56 and they could hatch an
average of 66.07 percent of their eggs at their first laying period. The average mortality
of chicks during these months reaches 59.66 percent. The chicks of native chicken weigh
an average of 468.67 grams at the end of three months.
Conclusion
The researcher concludes that the native chicken could only lay seven to eight eggs
at their first laying period and could only hatch five heads of chicks. The researcher
concludes that the chick mortality is during the month of May to September is very high.
At the end of ninety days, the approximate weight of the chicks is 468.67 grams.
Recommendation
It is recommended to provide better housing and other facilities for the native
chickens during May to September to reduce the mortality of the chicks. The chicks must
be assisted with little amount of feeds during adverse weather condition.
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
22
LITERATURE CITED
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.
BALLESTERO S, M. 2004. Reproductive performance of native raised in backyards.
BS Thesis. Benguet State University. Pp 1-5
CABACAB, J. A. 2003. Production and management of native chicken in Sabangan. BS
Thesis. Benguet State University. Pp 1-4
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/.
LABISTE, D. 2010. Demand On Native Chicken.Business Philippine. Daily Inquirer.
Retrieved January 29, 2010 from http://business inquirer.net.
PCARRD. 2007. Synchronized Natural Incubation by Free-Range Native Chicken.
Retrieved January 27, 2010 from http://www.agnet.org.
TABINO, J.A. 2003. Lying performance of native chicken (Gulaya) given traditional
and commercial feeds. BS Thesis. Benguet State University. Pp 3-5
TALLOCOY, A. M. 2003. Production and management practices of native chicken in
Besao Mountain Province. . BS Thesis. Benguet State University. Pp 15-16
TOLENTINO, M. L. 2009. Native Chicken. Retrieved January 29, 2010 from http://
maidon.pcrrd.dost.gov.ph.
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
23
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Initial weight (kg)
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T1
1.3
1.4
1.2
3.9
1.3
T2
1.4
1.3
1.5
4.2
1.4
T3
1.3
1.2
1.1
3.6
1.2
GRAND TOTAL
11.7
GRAND MEAN
1.3
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF
SUM OF
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
SQUARES
F
.05
.01
Treatment
2
0.06
1.2
5.14ns
10.92 ns
Error
6
0.15
TOTAL
ns = not significant CV. = 12%
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
24
Appendix Table 2. Width of eggs (cm)
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T1
3.77
3.66
3.73
11.16
3.72
T2
3.70
3.78
3.99
11.46
3.82
T3
3.69
3.84
3.53
11.07
3.69
GRAND TOTAL
33.69
11.23
GRAND MEAN
3.74
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF
SUM OF
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
SQUARES
F
.05
.01
Treatment
2
0.03
0.14
5.14 ns
10.92 ns
Error
6
0.11
TOTAL
= not significant CV. = 3.78%
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
25
Appendix Table 3. Length of eggs (cm)
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T1
5.16
4.81
4.75
14.72
4.90
T2
4.94
4.81
5.11
14.86
4.95
T3
4.69
4.99
4.69
14.37
4.79
GRAND TOTAL
43.95
GRAND MEAN
4.88
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF
SUM OF
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
SQUARES
F
.05
.01
Treatment
2
0.05
1.25
5.14 ns
10.92 ns
Error
6
0.13
TOTAL
= not significant CV. = 2.9%
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
26
Appendix Table 4. Weight of the eggs (g)
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T1
39.57
37.25
37.63
114.45
38.15
T2
38.14
37.00
38.75
113.89
37.96
T3
36.00
39.50
35.14
110.64
36.88
GRAND TOTAL
338.98
GRAND MEAN
37.66
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF
SUM OF
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
SQUARES
F
.05
.01
Treatment
2
2.82
0.55
5.14 ns
10.92 ns
Error
6
15.34
TOTAL
= not significant CV. = 4.25%
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
27
Appendix Table 5. Clutch size
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T1
7
8
8
23
7.67
T2
7
8
8
23
7.67
T3
7
8
7
22
7.33
GRAND TOTAL
68
GRAND MEAN
7.56
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF
SUM OF
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
SQUARES
F
.05
.01
Treatment
2
0.22
0.33
5.14 ns
10.92 ns
Error
6
2.00
TOTAL
= not significant CV. = 7.59%
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
28
Appendix Table 6. Laying period
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T1
11
11
13
35
11.67
T2
13
12
12
37
12.33
T3
13
13
10
36
12.00
GRAND TOTAL
108
GRAND MEAN
12
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF
SUM OF
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
SQUARES
F
.05
.01
Treatment
2
0.66
0.2112
5.14 ns
10.92 ns
Error
6
9.34
TOTAL
= not significant CV. = 12.97%
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
29
Appendix Table 7. Hatchability (%)
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T1
57.14
75.00
75.00
207.14
69.05
T2
71.43
62.50
50.00
183.93
61.31
T3
57.14
75.00
71.43
203.57
67.86
GRAND TOTAL
1594.64
GRAND MEAN
66.07
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF
SUM OF
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
SQUARES
F
.05
.01
Treatment
2
104.12
0.50
5.14 ns
10.92 ns
Error
6
623.04
TOTAL
= not significant CV. = 15.44%
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
30
Appendix Table 8 Weight of chicks at day old
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T1
25.25
24.4
24.67
74.32
24.77
T2
19.00
24.60
21.75
65.35
21.78
T3
26.00
28.00
21.80
75.80
25.27
GRAND TOTAL
215.47
GRAND MEAN
23.94
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF
SUM OF
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
SQUARES
F
.05
.01
Treatment
2
21.32
1.77
5.14 ns
10.92 ns
Error
6
57.39
TOTAL
= not significant CV. = 10.24%
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
31
Appendix Table 9. Weight of chicks at the end of first month
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T1
45.67
45.00
45.50
136.17
45.39
T2
43.75
43.67
41.67
129.09
43.09
T3
45.67
45.00
45.75
134.42
44.80
GRAND TOTAL
399.68
GRAND MEAN
44.4
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF
SUM OF
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
SQUARES
F
.05
.01
Treatment
2
9.07
0.15
5.14 ns
10.91 ns
Error
6
183.92
TOTAL
= not significant CV. = 12.58%
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
32
Appendix Table 10. Weight of the chicks at the end of second month
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T1
155.00
158.00
156.00
469.00
156.33
T2
154.67
151.50
151.50
457.67
152.56
T3
159.00
156.67
157.67
473.34
157.78
GRAND TOTAL
1400.01
GRAND MEAN
155.6
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF
SUM OF
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
SQUARES
F
.05
.01
Treatment
2
43.63
9.29
5.14 ns
10.92 ns
Error
6
14.11
TOTAL
= not significant CV. = .99%
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
33
Appendix Table 11. Weight of chicks at the end of third month
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T1
477.00
470.00
472.50
1419.51
473.17
T2
466.47
458.00
459.00
1383.66
461.22
T3
461.22
477.00
476.69
1414.89
471.63
GRAND TOTAL
4218.06
GRAND MEAN
468.67
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF
SUM OF
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
SQUARES
F
.05
.01
Treatment
2
253.54
3.00
5.14 ns
10.92 ns
Error
6
251.60
TOTAL
= not significant CV. = 1.38%
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
34
Appendix Table 12. Mortality (%)
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T1
75
85.33
66.67
227
75.67
T2
40
60.00
50.00
150
50.00
T3
50
50.00
60.00
160
53.33
GRAND TOTAL
537
GRAND MEAN
59.66
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREE OF
SUM OF
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
SQUARES
F
.05
.01
Treatment
2
1168.67
1.44
5.14 ns
10.92 ns
Error
6
2441.43
TOTAL
= not significant CV. = 33.81%
Reproductive Performance of Native Chicken Raised in the Backyard.
ALAMAN, ROGER D. APRIL 2011
Document Outline
- Reproductive Performance of NativeChicken Raised in the Backyard
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES