BIBLIOGRAPHY


ANA B. MENDOZA, April, 2006. BASELINE STUDY ON DOGS
CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO COMMUNITY WELFARE. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Julia A. Solimen, Ph.D

ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to have a baseline study on dogs characteristics in relation to
community welfare specifically to find out the dog owner’s profile and dog management
practices by dog owners, the profiles and descriptions of dogs; to establish the morphometric
data of dogs; and to determine the relationship between the selected socio-economic variables
and dog characteristics. There were 216 respondents owning 312 dogs.

Morphologic and morphometric data were gathered using visual examination and manual
distance measurement. After the collected data were entered into the corresponding data sheet,
they were statistically analyzed using descriptive statistics and principal component analysis and
chi-square test.
On owner’s profile, the majority are females, above middle age, most are college
graduates. Their primary occupation is farming. Most dog owners are average income earners.
Less than half of the respondents live in a traditional family house and some live in a modern
family house. The majority of the houses have no enclosures.
Many dogs are offspring of the owner’s bitch and some are received as gift from people
in the neighborhood. The majority of the dogs are used as guard dogs and some use them as
guards and at the same time pets. A great majority of the dogs are left to roam around the

---

owner’s house where most of these dogs secure shelter. Almost all household members feed the
dogs twice a day with kitchen left-overs.

A great majority of the respondents do not consult veterinarian due to unavailability of
veterinary services, fees and medicines rather they confine them and care for them when dog get
sick.
Dog profile indicates the female.male a ratio of 1:1.2, and a great majority is less than
one year of age. The majority are judged as aggressive dogs. Many are vaccinated against rabies
and dewormed.
Morphometric examinations resulted in only one group of dogs examined, the so-called
“Native” dogs which may be described as having a single, short, smooth coat in a diverse array
of coat textures. Color varies from brown to a combination of 2 to 3 primary colors. They present
no specific markings, and the back may arch over the loin or level back with tucked up abdomen.
The head is long, tapering with a flat skull and belongs to the mesaticephalic skull formation.
The ears are erected and are set within the level of the eyes. The eyes are oval, or brown, have
saucy to gruff eye expression; and have a short eyebrows, short eyelashes and dark eye rims. The
dogs have down face, black, roman, nose and flared nostrils, level mouth and snippy muzzle. The
shoulder slopes to a narrow straight front and the hind legs are straight stifled with cat feet. The
tail is tapering and set low. They do not present breeching color inside the thigh, have an oval
chest, no dewlap, shallow furrow, not prominent keel, not prominent occiput, straight stop, not
chiseled, short coupled, well ribbed up and are cobby. The dog moves in a well balanced manner.
There is no significant difference in the morphometrics of dogs examined. The dogs
differ only in their external features. On the other hand, there is a significant difference among
age, educational attainment, occupation and level of income between barangays.

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS







Page

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Abstract

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Table of Contents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

NTRODUCTION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


Background of the Study
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1



Statement of the Problem
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Objectives of the Study
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Importance of the Study
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5


Scope and Delimitation of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Roles played by Dogs
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7


Description of Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13


Conceptual Framework
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


Hypotheses of the Study
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Locale and Time of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27


Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27


Data Gathering Procedure
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28


Pretest

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


Instrumentation
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


Data Analysis
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

---

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62


Profile of Respondents
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62


Management of Dog Owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69


Profile of Dogs Examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Descriptions of Dogs Examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86


Result of Morphometric Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Relationship Between dog characteristics
and respondent’s selected socio-economic profile . . . . . 120


SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . 124




Summary
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124



Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126



Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127


LITERATURE CITED
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

APPENDICES


A. Data sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

B. Letter of request to conduct the study . . . . . . . . . . 135

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

---

INTRODUCTION


Background of the Study


Thousands of years ago, man and dog teamed together, benefiting from
each other’s company. As the years progressed, different types of dog evolved,
some to hunt with man, others to work in different ways and yet others purely as
companions. The tasks that dogs have performed throughout the centuries are
many and varied. They have guarded man, protected his flocks, chased and
retrieved game, pulled heavy burdens, sought out and saved lost souls from snowy
and difficult terrain even from the sea. The list of tasks is endless. Now people are
thoroughly familiar with the important work carried out by police and sniffer
dogs. Some dogs act as ‘eyes’ for the blind, others as ‘ears’ for the deaf, and
many help to make life a great deal easier for those who are disabled in other
ways (Cunliffe, 2000). In some parts of the world, Dog remain an item in the
human diet (Encarta Interactive World Atlas, 2004). Some people raise dogs for
income.
The sizes of different segments (owned, unowned) of a dog population
depend heavily on the proportion of the human population keeping dogs,
tolerating dogs, or rejecting dogs in their neighborhood. Dogs can be kept as pets
and companions, for hunting, as guard dogs, draught animals, for food or for

---

commercial buying and selling. For certain tasks special breeds are raised.
Besides, the duties dogs are kept for; they may also fulfill beneficiary
functions in other ways. Dogs can also be rejected because they bite, or because
they are disease vectors, pests or nuisances.
There are qualitative and quantitative differences in what people think the
functions of dogs are and what dogs really do. In different cultures dogs are
regarded as supernatural and the environmental setting determine the conditions
in which dogs are kept, how much they are cared for and the degree of
governmental regulations and disease control measures (WHO, 1987).
The domestic dog is the most widespread of domestic creatures, living
everywhere that its human counterparts do. It surpasses all other domestic animals
with their sheer diversity of its many breeds (Encarta Interactive World Atlas,
2004).
The dog is a canine carnivorous mammal that has been domesticated for at
least 14,000 years and perhaps as long as 150,000 years based on recent evidence.
In this time, the dog has developed into hundreds of breed with a great degree of
variations. For example, heights range from just a few inches to nearly three feet,
and colors range from white to black with red, grays, and browns also occurring
in tremendous variations of patterns. Dogs, like humans, are high social animals
and pack hunters; this similarity in their overall behavioral design accounts for

---

their trainability, playfulness, and their ability to fit into human households and
social situations (Wikipedia, 2005).
Different countries operate under diverse ruling bodies and many
interesting breeds of dogs are found throughout the world, but are not known in
the United Kingdom because it is an island nation. Because quarantine laws have
been stringent until now, freedom of movement for dogs to and from Britain is
not as easy as in the majority of countries (Cunliffe, 2000).
Many dog breeds show more variation in size, appearance, and behavior
than any other domestic animal. Within the range of extremes, dogs generally
share attributes with their wild ancestors, the wolves. Dogs are predators and
scavengers, possessing sharp teeth and strong jaws for attacking, holding, and
tearing their food.
Their legs are designed to propel them forward rapidly, leaping as
necessary, to chase and overcome prey. Consequently, they have small, tight feet,
walking on their front toes; their rear legs are fairly rigid and sturdy; the front legs
are loose and flexible, with only muscles attaching them to the torso.
Generally, dogs are described as having a striking difference in body
shape. The head may be round and acromegalic or has a flat muzzle (Boxer and
Pug), or it may be long and slender with an extended nose (Wolfhound and
Greyhound). The body ranges from short (Pug), rounded (Bulldog) and narrow
(Whippet), to long (Dachshund), deep (Greyhound), wide (St. Bernard) and

---

tapering (Afghan). The legs are long and slender in some, short and stocky in
others. Some toy breeds have thin and spindly legs; the chondrodystrophoids have
short, heavy bent and twisted legs. The tails range from long, slender and straight,
to short heavy and curled, and in a few the tail does not protrude at all. Hair coats
may be of any color or combination of colors except green; length and texture
range from almost complete absence of hair in a few breeds from Mexico, South
America and Ceylon, to hair that reaches the floor and covers the eyes. All breeds
in spite of their differences in size, shape and characteristics share the loyal
devotion of man (Getty 1975).
Most of the dogs in the Cordillera are called mongrels, which mean that
they are of mixed parentage of unknown ancestry. Although we hear of numerous
stories of mongrels being abandoned and left to roam are heard, there are many
others that are well cared for and much loved pets, providing much pleasure and
companionship as compared to a pedigreed dogs. Some dogs indeed are bred
together from a sire and dam selected for their attributes.

Statement of the Problem


The Philippines, has no records of dog characteristics. Local dogs are
characterized on the basis of the descriptions given by other countries. Further,
the locality has dog populations susceptible to rabies and cultural activities
leading to the endemic dog rabies situations. Furthermore, dog control and rabies

---

vaccination programs cannot be assessed. There is a need to characterize dogs,
their susceptibility to rabies and its effect on the human population.

Objectives of the Study


In general, this study of morphological characteristics using morphometry
and visual examination in relation to socio-economic development was conducted
as a contribution to the field identification and characterization of dogs in relation
to socio-economic benefits of dogs in La Trinidad, Benguet.
Specifically, the study was conducted to:
1. Determine the dog owner’s profile and current management practices for
their dogs between barangays;
2. Determine the physical profiles of dogs;
3. Established the morphometric data of dogs;
4. Determine the groupings of dogs found in the study area;
5. Determine the relationship between some selected socio-economic variables
of owners and dog characteristics.

Importance of the Study


There is a need for documentation and baseline information on the
different characteristics of dogs along sociological data regarding dog-human
relationship to determine the characteristic of dogs in relation to the way

---

owners/people treat them and further understand the presence of dog populations
susceptible to rabies and cultural activities leading to endemic dog rabies
situations and better understanding of dog demography, ecology, behavior and
human cultural practices as related to the effectiveness of dog control and rabies
vaccination programs.
The morphometric data gathered would serve as a scientific record of the
animal, which may help researchers and students alike as their guide. Since the
study entailed morphological characterization, it would be useful in the field
identification of the animal. It is sought to provide a basis for further studies,
which will ensure the conservation, optimum utilization and sustainability of dogs
in La Trinidad, Benguet.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study
Included in the study were dogs aged 3 months to 10 years regardless of sex,
all dogs regardless of breed and dogs that were in-heat or were in the early stages
of pregnancy to late pregnancy were not measured but the physical profiles of
these dogs were considered. Only one dog among siblings was included in the
study.
On the other hand, those not included in the study were aggressive dogs
because they cannot be handled by the owner and attempts to bite; dogs showing

---

slight deformities on the body, head and limbs, and groomed dogs. Households
with no dogs were not included.

---

METHODOLOGY


Locale and Time of the Study

Physical characteristics and morphometric data were gathered in two
barangays: Betag barangay, which is within the valley floor to represent urban
barangay, and Beckel barangay, which is located outside the valley floor of La
Trinidad, Benguet to represent rural barangay. The study was conducted in
summer of SY 2004 – 2005.
Respondents

Random sampling was used to choose the respondents of the study with
the barangay as the stratum. The heads of the household were the respondents.
Respondents were selected based on being owners of a dog and on being
owners or occupies of the premises on which the dog is found.
The number of respondents in each barangay was computed by the
Sloven-formula, as follows:
N = N
1 + Ne2


Where: n = number of samples


N = number of households


e = degree of error at 5%

---

Figure 2. A map showing the study area

Data Gathering Procedure.
Field observation and structured interview questionnaire were used in the
study. Owner’ profiles were gathered using the survey questionnaire. The animal
specimens were studied morphometrically using manual distance measurement.
Morphological profiles were gathered through visual examination.
The taxonomic method applied was the “non-dimensional species
analysis”, which was named after Mayr’s “non-dimensional species” (Mayr’s,
1942; 1970, as cited by Deigo, 1998).

---

Each morphometric variable was measured using either a caliper; foot
rule, meter stick, or steel measuring tape, and each were measured from point to
point. Morphometric data gathered from the animals were recorded in their
corresponding individual data sheet.
Sample animals were muzzled before the morphometric data were

gathered.


Pretest

The data sheet constructed was pretested. Each data sheet contains the
profile of the owner, questions on economic benefits of dog keeping, how they
treat dogs, morphologic profiles and morphometric variables of the selected
animals. Pretesting of data sheet was done on five dogs outside the study area.

Instrumentation

Field observation and structured interview questionnaire were used in the
study. The following were the data noted in the individual data sheet.
Owners profile such as the age, sex, civil status, educational attainment,
occupation, level of income, types of home, enclosure of homes, number of
persons in the household, the source of dog, the use of dogs, confinement, dog’s
shelter, who fed the dogs, source of food given to the dogs, persons that handle or
play with the dog, consultations to veterinarians and care given to sick dogs.

---

Dog’s profile includes age, sex, temperament vaccination against rabies,
and deworming.
The following physical characteristics were determined:
1. Coat
a. The types of coat were classified into single coat or double coat
(Figure 3).













Double


Single
Figure 3. Descriptions of coat
b. The length of coat were classified into long, medium, short
(Figure 4).








Long coat
Medium coat
short coat





Figure 4. Descriptions of coat length.

c. The Coat texture or quality were classified into broken, Bear-like,
dense mane, smooth coats, briskly, harsh coat, curly, “pily, Long,
fairly coarse coat, wire coat and stand off coat (Figure 5).

---

Broken hairs
smooth coats Briskly, harsh coat





curly coat
“pily” coat

Stand-off coat





Long, fairly coarse coat corded coat

wire coat



Figure 5. Descriptions of coat texture

2. Colors and markings
The colors included were black, brown, red, yellow, gold, gray,
blue, sable, white, brindle, black and tan, black/tan/white, liver/tan/white,
and merle (Figure 6).

---

Black
Brown
Red

Blue



Gray
Gold
Yellow

Sable



White Black/Tan
Red/Tan

White/fawn/black


Black/tan/white

Red/white
Gold/white Black/white


Merle
Brindle
Cream
Liver/tan



Figure 6. Coat colors of dogs

---

a. Specific markings were mask, pips and pencilings. ( Figure 7)



Dark mask around the Pips above the eyes
Pencilings(on top
Muzzle and eyes




of each toe)


Figure 7. Specific markings of dogs

b. The presence of other distinguishing marks such as stockings,
socks, mottled coat, Lozenge mark or spot, and spectacles in
the eyes (Figure 8).




Stockings

Socks

Spectacles

Figure 8. Other distinguishing marks

3. The back and underline
a. The back was characterized as arched over the loin, level back,
long back, roach back, sloping back, straight back and wheel
back (Figure 9).

---

‘arched over the loins’
straight back
Level back





Hollow back Sloping back long back
Roach back


Figure 9. Characterization of the back

b. The underline was described as tucked up, or full abdomen
(Figure 10).







Figure no. 9. Example of dog with
Tuck-up abdomen

4. Head and skull. This described the head shapes, skull shapes and the
formation of the skull.

a. The head shape was described as apple head, balanced head,
brick shaped head, cone-shaped head, fox like head, pear-
shaped head, long or tapering head, short or round head, and
wedge-shaped head ( Figure 11).

---

Apple head Balance head Brick-shaped







Cone shaped Fox-like head Pear shaped






Long and Tapering Short or Round Wedged-shaped





Figure 11. Descriptions of head shape

b. The skull shapes were described as broad, flat, oval, rounded
and bumpy ( Figure 12)

---

Arched skull
Flat skull
oval skull





Rounded skull
Bumpy skull


Figure 12. Descriptions of skull shapes

c. The skull formation was classified into brachycephalic,
dolichocephalic, and mesaticephalic.

5. Ear shape and ear set
The ear shaped was described as bat ear, blunt-tipped ears,
button ears, candle-flamed ears, cocked ears, cropped ears, drop ears,
prick ears, filbert-shaped ears, flying ears, folded, ears, heart-shaped
ears, hooded ears, lobe-shaped ears, rolled ears, rose ears, triangular
ears and v-shaped ears (Figure 13).

The ears were described as high set or and low.

---

Bat ears
Candle-flame ears Cocked ears









drop ears

prick ears

Prick ears



Button ears
Semi prick ears
Drop ears





Hooded ears



Figure 13. Descriptions of ear shape


6. Eyes and eye expression
a. The eye shape was described as almond, deep-set, globular,
oval, round and triangular (Figure 14).

---

Round eyes Deep set eyes Oval eyes
Round eyes

Figure 14. Descriptions of eye shapes

b. The eye marking were determined on the presence of
spectacles, pips, four eyes and domino ( figure 15).





Spectacles
Four eyes
Pips ( melon pips) Domino







pattern


Figure 15. Different eye markings

c. The eye colors determined were black, blue clear eyes, walleye
and brown color.

d. The eye expressions were described as eastern, gruff, monkey
–like, ape-like and saucy (Figure 16).

---

Eastern


Monkey-like
saucy



Ape-like


Gruff



Figure 16. Descriptions of eye expressions

e. The eyelashes were classified as short, medium or long
(Figure 17)

Figure no. 17. Long eyelashes

f. The eyebrows were classified as long, medium, or short
(Figure 18).









Figure 18. Eyebrows of a miniature
wire-haired dachshund

---

g. Eye rims were described as dark or light color.
h. The third eyelids were described as prominent or hidden.
7. The descriptions of the face were classified into down face, dish
face, cheeky face (Figure 19).




Cheeky face Dish face
Down face
Broken face


Figure 19. Descriptions of dogs face

8. Nose a. The shapes were described as ram’s nose, roman nose or
butterfly nose (Figure 20).






Rams’s nose


Roman nose Butterfly nose

Figure 20. Descriptions of the shape of nose.

b. The color. The colors were categorized into brown or liver
spot, fleshed colored, winter nose, self-colored nose ( Figure
21).

---

Brown or liver nose Fleshed-colored nose Winter nose



Figure 21. Descriptions of nose’ color

c. Nostrils. The nostrils were described as flared or pinched
(Figure 22).



Flared nose

Pinched nose

Figure 22. Descriptions of nostrils



9. The mouth was described as level mouth, undershot or over shot
(Figure 23).



Figure 23. Different Levels of the mouth

10. The muzzle was described as snippy, blunt or rounded or full muzzle
(Figure 24).

---

Snippy muzzle
Blunt muzzle



Figure 24. Descriptions of muzzle
11. The shoulders were described as sloping or straight shoulder
(Figure 25).





Sloping shoulder

Straight shoulder



Figure 25. Descriptions of dogs’ shoulder

12. The fronts and feet. These described the front and feet in a normal
standing position.
a. The front were described as bowed front, crooked front, horseshoe,
straight, wide front, fiddle front, narrow front, out of elbow,
knucked over, or down in pastern (Figure 26).

---

Bowed front
Crooked front Wide front
Straight front




Fiddle front Narrow front

Out at elbow


Figure 26. Descriptions of dogs’ front

13. The feet were described as cat feet, hare feet, oval feet, webbed feet or
paper foot (Figure 27).







Figure 27. Descriptions of dogs’ feet

14. The hindquarters were described as cow-hocked, angulated over
angulated, straight stifled, or moderately angulated (Figure 28).

---

Cow hocked Correct Hind end Straight stifled Moderately Over
angulated

Figure 28. Description of the hindquarters


15. The tail shape and tail set. These described the tail shape and position.
The tail shape was categorized into bee sting tail, brush tail, curled
tail, docked tail, flagpole tail, hook tail, plumed tail, rat tail, ring tail,
sabre tail, snap tail, stumpy tail, tapering tail, or tufted tail. (Figure 29).

---

Bee sting tail
Brush tail
Curled tail





Docked tail
Flagpole tail Crank tail



Hooked tail Plume tail
Rat tail


Docked tail
Ring tail

Saber tail



Scimiter tail Tufted ail
Snap tail




Stumpy tail Sword tail
Tapering tail


Figure 29. Description of the Tail

---

The tails were set at the level of the croup, high set or low set.

16. The movements were categorized into paddling, weaving, correct
movement and poor movements (Figure 30).






Correct movement Paddling Weaving
Good








Movement





Poor movement rear Good Movement rear Poor movement side

Figure 30. Description of dog’s movement.

18. Other features:
a. The balance described the over all symmetry which gave the
harmonious and well-proportioned blends of the various parts
which described the whole dog.

b. The breeching described the presence of tan-colored hair on the
inside of the thighs (Figure 31).

---

Figure 31. Dog’s
breeching
c. The Chest was described as barrel shape or oval shape.
d. The chiseling described the clean contours and lines, primarily
around the head and foreface. The dog was described as
chiseled or not chiseled.

e. Coupling was described as long or short coupling ( figure 32)



Long coupling



Short coupling

Figure 32 . Short and long coupling dog

f. The crest were described as prominent or not prominent
g. The dewlap was described as exaggerated or not (Figure
33).

---

Figure 33. An example of dogs with
prominent Dewlap

g. The furrow was described as deep, shallow or none
(Figure 34).

Figure 34.An example of dog
with furrow running from
the center of the skull
toward the stop

i. The keel was described as prominent or not (Figure 35)

Figure 35 an example of dogs
with a prominent keel

---

j. The racy described the elegant appearance of a dog while
cobby dog is described as strong and yet compact or weak and
yet lean. The dog was described as elegant or cobby ( figure
36)











Elegant dog

cobby dog


Figure 36. An example of an elegant and a cobby

dog.


B. Morphometric variables gathered were:
1. Dorso-ventral diameter of muzzle (DVDM). This was the widest
distance from the apex of the philtrum of the muzzle (Figure 37, nr
6).

2. Distance between lateral sides of suzzle (DBLSM). This was the
widest distance from the dextral to sinistral sides of the muzzle (
Figure.37, nr 3).

---

Figure 37. Schematic illustration of measurements on the

head: 1 –HL; 2- DBE; 3 – DBLSM; 4- LLCBLE;
5 – RLCBLE; 6 - DVDM; 7 – LEL/F; 8 – LEL/B;
9 – LEW; 10 – BMCE; 11 – DBLCE; 12-
DBLCMCR

3. Tip of muzzle to angle formed by frontal and nasal regions
(TMAFNR). This was measured from the apex of the muzzle to the
angle formed between the frontal and nasal regions of the face
(Figure 38, nr 6).

---

4. Angle formed by the frontal and nasal regions to poll (AFFNRP).
This was measured from the angle formed between the frontal and
nasal regions to the dorsal most of the head (Figure 38, nr 7).

5. Head depth (HD). This was measured laterally from the highest
point of the head to the level of the angle of the jaw.

6. Jaw to tip of muzzle (JTM). This was measured diagonally from
the level of the angle of the jaw to the apex of the muzzle (Figure
39, nr 1)

7. Head Length (HL). This measurement was taken from the Occiput
to tip of the muzzle (Figure no. 37, nr 1).

8. Jaw to angle formed between frontal and nasal regions (JAFFNR).
This was measured between the level of the angle of the lower jaw
to the angle formed between the frontal and nasal regions of the
face (Figure 38, nr 3).

9. Jaw to lateral commissure of the lips (JLCL). This was measured
from the lower jaw to the lateral commissures of the left lips
(Figure no. 38, nr 4).



Figure38. Schematic illustration of measurements on the lateral

part of the Head: 1 – JTM; 2 – VJL; 3 – JAFFNR; 4 –

JLCL; 5 – LEBJ; 6 - TMAFFNR; 7 - AFFNRP

---

10. Distance between the lateral canthus of the eyes (DBLCE). This
was taken from the lateral canthus of the left Eye to the Lateral
Canthus of the Right eye (Figure no. 37, nr 11).

11. Distance between the medial canthus of the eyes (DBMCE). This
was taken from the medial canthus of the left eye to the medial
canthus of the right eye (Figure no. 37, nr 10).

12. Distance between left lateral canthus of left eye to medial canthus
of the right eye (DBLCMCR). This was the distance between the
lateral canthus of the left eye to the medial canthus of Right eye (
Figure 37, nr 12).

13. Left medial canthus to tip of muzzle (LMCTM). This measurement
was taken from the medial canthus of the left eye to the apex of the
muzzle Figure 39, nr 5).

14. Left lateral canthus to tip of muzzle (LLCTM). This was taken
from the lateral canthus of the left eye to the apex of the muzzle
(Figure 39, nr 6).

15. Left lateral canthus to base of the left ear (LLCBLE). This was
measured from the left lateral canthus of the base of the left ear
(Figure 37, nr 4).

16. Left medial canthus to the base of the Left ear (LMCBLE). This
was measured from the left medial canthus to the base of the left
ear (Figure 38, nr 3).

17. Left lateral canthus to poll (LLCP). This was measured from left
lateral canthus to the dorsum most of the head (Figure 39, nr 3).

18. Left medial canthus to poll (LMCP). This was measured from the
left medial canthus to the dorsum most of the head (Figure 39, nr
4).

19. Head width (HW). This was the widest distance between the left
and right sides of the head (Figure 39, nr 2).

20. Facial width (FW). This was the widest distance between the left
and right sides of the face (Figure 39, nr 1).

---

21. Facial depth (FD). This was the measured from dorsum of the face
to the level of the lower jaw (Figure 42, nr 7).

Figure 39. Schematic illustration of measurements on the head
dorsal View: 1 – FW; 2 – HW; 3 – LLCP; 4 –LMCP;
5 –LMCTM; 6 - LLCTM

22. Distance between the ears (DBE). This was the widest distance
between the base of the left and right ears (Figure 37, nr 2).

23. Left ear length/front (LEL/F). This was measured from the base to
the tip of the left ear on the backside (Figure 37, nr 7).

24. Left ear length/back (LEL/B). This was measured from the base to
the tip of the left ear on the backside (Figure 37, nr 8).

25. Left ear width (LEW). This was the widest distance between the
edges of the left ear pinna (Figure 37, nr 9).

26. Left ear base to jaw (LEBJ). Measurement was taken from the base
of the left ear to the left lower jaw (Figure 38, nr 5).

27. Neck depth (ND) This was measured from the highest dorsal point
of the neck to the lowest ventral point of the lower jaw (Figure 42,
nr 6).

---

28. Ventral jaw width (VJW). This was the widest distance between
the lateral sides of the ventral jaw (Figure 40, nr 3).

29. Neck width (NW). This was the widest distance between the left
and right sides of the neck (Figure 41, nr 1).

30. Dorsal neck length (NL). This was measured from the base of the
head to the highest point between the shoulders (Figure 42, nr 2).

31. Ventral neck length (VNL). This was measured from the
manubrium following a straight line to the base of the mandible
(Figure 40, nr 2)

32. Ventral jaw length (VJL). This was measured from the base of the
mandible following a straight line to the level of the first incisor
teeth (Figure 40, nr 1).

33. Ventral chest length (VCL). This was measured from the anterior
of the manubrium to the xiphoid process (Figure 40, nr 4).

34. Abdominal length (Abd.L). This was measured from the xiphoid
process to the base of the vulva in the female and to the base of the
testicles in males (Figure 40, nr 5).

---

Figure 40. Schematic illustration of measurements on the entral

neck and abdomen: 1- VJL; 2 - VNL; 3 – VJW; 4 –

VCL; 5 – bdL; 6 – PL

35. Back width (BW). This was the widest distance between the left
and right sides of the Back (Figure 41, nr 3).

36. Shoulder width (SW).This was the widest distance between the
lateral sides of the left and right shoulders (Figure 41, nr 2).

37. Shoulder depth (SD). This was measured from the level of the
ventral keel following an imaginary line to the level of the withers
(Figure 42, nr 5).

38. Body depth (BD). This was measured from the level of the
umbilicus following an imaginary line to the level of the back
(Figure 42, nr 4).

39. Body length (BL). This was measured from the base of the head to
tail head (Figure 42 nr 1).

---

Figure 41. Schematic illustration of the measurements on the
back dorsal view: 1 – NW; 2 – S; 3 – BW; 4 –
HiW.




Figure 42. Schematic illustration of the measurements

---

on the lateral side of the body: 1- BL; 2-
NL; 3 – THPBS; 4 – BD; 5 – SD; 6 – ND;
7 - FD; 8 – LALG

40. Tail head to point between shoulders (THPBS). This was measured
from the dorsal portion of the tail head to the highest point between
the shoulders (Figure 42, nr 3).

41. Left axilla to left groin (LALG). This measurement was taken on
the left sides between the axilla and Groin (Figure 42, nr 8).

42. Point between shoulders to digital surface of anterior limb
(PBSDSAL). This was the vertical measurement from the point
between the shoulders and the digital surface of the left anterior
limb (Figure 43, nr 2).

43. Point between shoulders to sole of anterior limb (PBSSAL).This
was the distance from the highest point between the shoulders to
the part of the digital pad touching the ground of the left anterior
limb (Figure 43, nr 1).

44. Axilla to tip of dew claw (digit I) of anterior limb (ATDCAL)
.This was measured vertically from the medial side of the limb
from the axilla to the tip of Dewclaw (digit 1) of the anterior limb
of the left anterior limb (Figure 44, nr 2).

45. Axilla to tip of digits of anterior limb. (ATDAL). This was
measured vertically on the medial side of the forelimb from the
axilla to the part of the tip of the digits touching the ground of the
left anterior limb (Figure 43, nr 1).

46. Left axilla to right axilla (LARA). This was the widest distance
between the Medial sides of the left axilla and the right axilla.

---

Figure 43. Schematic illustration of measurement on the lateral
side of left anterior Limb: 1 - PBSSAL; 2 - PBSDSAL;
3 - EJDSD; 4 - EJCJ; 5 - OPCE

47. Axilla to olecranon process of the elbow (AOPE). This was
measured vertically from the Axilla to the olecranon process of the
elbow of the left anterior limb (Figure 44, nr 6).

48. Olecranon process to point of elbow (OPPE). This was a horizontal
measurement from the point of the olecranon process to point of
elbow (Figure 43, nr 5).

49. Elbow joints to tip of dewclaws (EJTDC). This was measured
vertically between the elbow joints to the Tip of Dew Claws of the
left anterior limbs (Figure 44, nr 4).

50. Elbow joints to tip of digits (EJTD). This was measured from the
elbow joints to the tip of digits of the left anterior limbs (Figure 44,
nr 3).

51. Elbow Joints to the Antebrachiocarpal joint (EJAJ). This was
measured from the elbow joint to the antebrachiocarpal joints of
the left anterior limbs (Figure 43, nr 4).

---

Figure 44. Schematic illustration of measurements on the medial



side of left anterior limb: 1 – ATDAL; 2 – ATDCAL; 3
-EJTD; 4 – EJTDC; 5 – EJAJ; 6 - AOPE

52. Elbow joint to the dorsal surface of the digits (EJDSD). This was
measured from the elbow joint to the dorsal surface of the Digits of
the left anterior limb (Figure 43, nr 3).

53. Antebrachiocarpal joint to tip of dew claw (AJTDC). This was
measured from the antebrachiocarpal joint to the tip of dewclaws
of the left and right anterior limb (Figure 46, nr 2).

54. Antebrachiocarpal joint to tip of digits (AJTD). This was measured
from the antebrachiocarpal joints to the tip of digits of the left
anterior limb (Figure 46, nr 1).

55. Carpal pads to metacarpal pads (CPMP). This was measured from
the carpal pads to the metacarpal pads of the left anterior limb
(Figure 45, nr 1).

56. Carpal pads to tip of dew claw (CPTDC). This was a diagonal line
on the medial side between the carpal pads and the tip of dewclaw
of the left anterior limb (Figure 45, nr 2).

---

Figure 45. Schematic illustration of measurements on the left


caudal view and dorsal view of the anterior


foot: 1 – CPMP; 2 – CPTDC; 3 - CJDSD; 4 –


MJPPIJ; 5 - PPIJTD

57. Carpal joint to dorsal surface of the digits (CJDSD). This was
measured cranially from the carpal joint to the dorsal surface of the
digits of the left anterior limb (Figure 45, nr 3).

58. Tip of dew claw to digital tip (TDDT). This was measured from
the tip of the dewclaw to the tip of the digits touching the ground
of the left anterior limb (Figure 46, nr 3).

59. Front feet width (FFT).This was the widest distance between the
medial and lateral sides of the Dorsal surface of the digits of the
left of anterior limb (Figure 46, nr 4).

60. Metacarpophalangeal joint to point of proximal interphalangeal
joint (MJPPIJ). This was a measurement taken from the dorsal
surface of the Digits from the metacarpophalageal joint to the point
of proximal interphalangeal joint of the left anterior limb (Figure
45, nr 4).

61. Point of the proximal interphalangeal joint to tip of digits
(PPIJTD). This was measured from the point of the interphalangeal
joint to the tip of the digits of the left anterior limb (Figure 45, nr
5).

---

62. Hip width (HiW). This is the widest distance between the lateral
sides of the left and right hips (Figure 41, nr 4).



Figure 46. Schematic illustration of measurements on the left



anterior foot: 1 – AJTD; 2 – AJTDC; 3 – TDDT;



4 -FFW








Figure 47. Schematic illustration of measurements on

the Posterior limb caudal view: 1 -TH; 2-

RDT; 3 – RMP; 4 – THPH; 5 – PHTFD; 6 –
PHMP

---

63. Thigh width (TW). This is the widest distance taken from lateral
side of the thigh of the right posterior limb to the left lateral side of
the left posterior limb caudally (Figure 47, nr 1).

64. Rump to metatarsal pad (RMP). This is the vertical measurement
from the rump to the metatarsal pad of the left posterior limb (
Figure 47, nr 3).

65. Rump to digit tip (RDT). This was the vertical measurement from
the rump to the down part of the tip of the digit touching the
ground of the left of posterior limb (Figure 47, nr 2).

66. Rump to stifle joint (RSJ). This was a vertical measurement taken
from the rump to the stifle joint of the left posterior limb (Figure
49, nr 1).

67. Rump to point of the hock (RPH). This measurement was taken
from the rump to the point of the hock of the left posterior limb
(Figure 49, nr 2).

68. Groin to metatarsal pad (GMP). This is taken on the medial side of
the limb from the groin to the metatarsal pad of the left posterior
Limb (Figure 48, nr 1).

69. Groin to digit tip (GDT).This was taken on the medial side of the
limb from the groin to the tip of the digit touching the ground of
the left posterior limbs (Figure 48, nr 2).

70. Tail head to the point of the hock (THPH). This was a vertical
measurement from the root of the tail to the point of the hock of
the left posterior limb (Figure 47, nr 4).

71. Point of the hock to metatarsal pads (PHMP).This was measured
caudally from the Point of the Hock to the Metatarsal Pads of the
left posterior limbs (Figure 47, nr 6).

---

Figure 48. Schematic illustration of measurements on the
left medial side of posterior limb: 1 – GMP; 2 –
GDT; 3 – SJDT; 4 –HJDSD; 5 – PHDT

72. Point of the hock to digit tip (PHDT). This was measured from the
point of the hock to the tip of the digits touching the ground of the
left posterior limbs (Figure 48, nr 5).

73. Hock joint to dorsal surface of digit (HJDSD). This was measured
cranially from the hock joint to the dorsal surface of the
Metatarsophalangeal Joint of the left posterior limb (Figure 48, nr
4).

74. Metatarsophalangeal joint to proximal interphalangeal joint
(MJPIJ). This was a measurement taken on the dorsal surface from
the metatarsophalangeal joint to the point of proximal
interphalangeal joint of the left posterior limbs (Figure 49, nr 5).

75. Point of proximal interphalangeal joint to the digit tip of posterior
limb (PPIJDTPL). This was a measurement taken from the dorsal
surface of the point of the proximal interphalangeal joint to the tip
of the claw touching the ground of the left posterior limbs (Figure
49, nr 6).

76. Hind feet width (HFW). This was a widest distance taken on the
dorsal surface of the digits of Posterior limb from medial to lateral
sides of the left posterior limb (same as figure 47, nr 4).

---

77. Metatarsal pad to tip of digit tip (MPTDT). This was a
measurement taken from the lateral side of the metatarsal pad
caudally to the tip of the digits located anteriorly of the left
posterior limbs (same as figure 45 nr 1).

78. Point of the hock to the tip of the first digit (PHTFD) .This was
measured medially from the point of the hock to the level of the
first digit. (Figure 47, nr 5).





Figure 49. Schematic illustration of measurements on the left

lateral part of Posterior Limb: 1 – RSS; 2 – RPH; 3

– SJPH; 4 – HJDSD; 5 – MJPPIJ; 6 – PPIJDTPL.

---

Plate No. 1. Measuring the dog from the point between

shoulders to the sole of anterior limb.












Plate no. 2. Measuring the head depth of the dog

Data analysis
Both morphologic and morphometric data collected were tabulated,
categorized, and analyzed. The number of specimens (n) and mean were obtained

---

on the morphologic data. The morphometric data was analyzed using descriptive
statistics and principal component analysis (PCA).
The measurements were expressed as ratios of a reference length. All the
measurements of the body were expressed as percentage of the body length.
Principal component analysis (PCA) was done using the STATISTICA
(statsoft Inc.) package (version 5.0 for analysis and graphs).
PCA is one of the multivariate methods most frequently applied to
biological problems. It is by far the most widely used method for morphometric
analysis. Since the group structure is not known in advance, PCA is the most
appropriate tool to use in the study. This tool reduces the dimensionality of the
data set by representing the observed variables as functions of a smaller number
of latent factors which are uncorrelated with another and ideally can be
interpreted (Schaefer, 1991 in Diego, 1998).
Size describes the magnitude of a given character while shape implies the
relationship between two or more characters (Somers, 1986 in Deigo, 1998).
Since morphometric variables are always size- related (allometry), the raw data
was needed to be log-transformed prior to analysis. The covariance matrix was
used for the log-transformed morphometric data in calculating for the principal
components. The first Principal Component (PC I) was interpreted as the “size”
factor since all the characters are positively correlated with this component

---

although shape and size are actually incorporated into this component (Humphries
et.al., 1981 in Deigo, 1998).
The second (PC II) and third (PC III) were regarded as “shape” factors
(Cracraft, 1976 as cited by Deigo, 1998) independent of size. In order to partition
out effects of age and size such as growth, only the “shape” factors were used for
discriminating against species groups. A categorized scatter plot of the factor
scores for every two principal component axes was used to visualize the results of
the analysis.

---

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


Profile of Respondents



Table 1 presents the distribution of respondents by sex, civil status,
citizenship, age, educational attainment, occupation and level of income.

A total of 216 respondents were interviewed and 312 dogs were examined
in the study.
Results show there are more female respondents than male in barangays
Beckel and Betag. A great majority of them married, and a few are single. Only
two respondents are widowed. The respondents are all Filipinos. There are more
women respondents because they are the ones who do most of the household
chores. Staying most of the time, they have more time spent with their dogs.
They bathe and feed them while men have to go out to work on the farm or in the
office.
The age and civil status of respondents from Beckel and those respondents
from Betag do not significantly differ.
Table 1 also shows that in Beckel most of the respondents range in age
from 46 to 61 years. The rest of the respondents range in age from 26 to 35, 36 to
45 and 10 to 17 years. Conversely, in Betag respondents range in age from 36 to
45 years followed closely by those aged 46 and above. The reason for more
respondents range in age from 36 to 45 years in barangay Beckel is that a high

---

people are employed in government and private establishments in nearby
barangays and city.
Table 1 further shows the highest educational attainment of respondents.
In Beckel, a great number of respondents are elementary graduates, and a few are
either high school or college graduates. In contrast, almost or majority are college
graduates in Betag and some are high school graduates. The reasons for the high
number of college graduates in Betag are that it is an urban area where
employment offers a reason to live in and that it is near schools. In Beckel, the
interviewed respondents said that they lack education because schools are located
far away, parents do not give financial support, and they help with the house
chores and farm work most of the time.
Educational attainment is important as it determines their understanding of
dog behavior, the purpose of acquisition and the way they treat dogs. It is also
important since their behavior, values and habits towards dogs are affected by
their educational level.

The occupation of respondents varies. In Beckel, the majority, and the rest
of the respondents are students, housekeepers, employee/s, or businessman. In
Betag, a great number of the respondents are businessmen or employees. Some
are farmers, students, housekeepers, retired/veteran, driver construction
workers/carpenters, housemaids, miners or mechanics. Farming being the greatest
occupation of respondents in Beckel shows that it is mainly an agricultural lot.

---

Businessmen being the greatest number in Betag show that it is a highly
developing urban area. Employee/s being the second highest is due to private and
public establishments that offer employment.

In terms of income in thousand per month, the majority of the respondents
in Beckel earn an income of Php 5001 to 10,000, or Php 5001 and below. In
barangay Betag, a great majority have an income of Php 10,000 and above, or
Php5001-10,000.

The respondents from the two barangays significantly differ in age,
educational attainment, occupation and level of income. The result implies that
the respondents in Betag earn higher income than the respondents in barangay
Beckel because of the fact that Betag is a tourist destination due to its strawberry
plantation and the presence of many institutions and business establishments.

---

Table 1. Distribution of respondents according to sex, civil status, age,

educational attainment, occupation and level of income




BECKEL

BETAG
TOTAL


Number % Number
%
Number %
Sex:
Male
37
44
63
48
100
46
Female
47
56
69
52
116
54
Total
84
100 132
100
216 100
NSX2c = 0.2797 df = 1
X2 t = 3.841
Civil status:
Single
21
25
36
27
57
26
Married
62
74
95
72
157
73
Widow/er
1
1
1
1
2
1
Total
84
100 132
100
216 100


NSX2c =0.0213 df = 2
X2 t = 5.991
Age (year)
17 and below
14
17
6 5 20
9
18-25

10
12
17 13 27
13
26-35

18
21
27 20 45 21
36-45

12
14
43 33 55
25
46 and above
30
36
37 28 67
31
No response
0
0
2 1 2
1
Total

84
100
132 100 216
100


*X2c = 17.2121 df =5
X2t = 11.070

Educational attainment:
Elementary levell
20
24
7 5 27
12
Elementary grad
18 21
5 4 23
11
High school leve
l7 8
8 6 15
7
High school grad
16 19
14 11 30
14
College level
8 9
33 25 41
19
College graduate
9 11
63 48 72
33
Vocational

2 2
1 1 3
1
No schooling
4 5
0 0 4
2
No response
0
0
1 7 1
0
Total

84
100
132 100 216 100


*X2c = 67.5429 df = 8
X2t =15.507

---

Table 1. Continued...

BECKEL

BETAG
TOTAL



Number % Number % Number %

Occupation:
Businessman
6
7
33 25 39
18
Farmer

41
49
21 16 62
29
Employee/s
8
10
32 24 40
19
Student
16
19
20 15 36
17
Housekeeper
11
13
11 8 22
10
Housemaid
1
1
1 1 2
1
Construction/carpenter 0
0
3 2 3
1
Miner

0
0
1 1 1
1
Standby/unemployed 0
0
2 1 2
1
Mechanic

0
0
1 1 1
1
Driver
0
0
3 2 3
1
Retired/veteran
1
1
4 3 5
2
Total
84
100
132 100 216 100


*X2c =43.89 df = 11
X2t =19.675
5,000 and below
24
29
11 8 35
16
5,001 – 10,000
29
34
42 32 71
33
10,000 and above 7
8
53 40 60
28
NA


24
29
26 20 50
23
Total

84
100
132 100 216 100


*X2c =33.52 df = 3
X2t = 7.815

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

Table 2 shows the average number of persons in one household
categorized by age brackets. The table shows that in Beckel, the majority of the
persons in one household range in age from 18 to 50 years. Some range in age
from 11 to 17, 5 to 10 years, less than 5 years and more than 10 years old. In
barangay Betag, majority of the persons in one household range in age from 18 to

---

50 years. Some range in age from 11 to 17 years, less than 5 years, or more than
50 years old.
There is an average of 5.405 and 5.16 members in one household in
Barangays Beckel and Betag respectively. The number of persons in one the
household indicates the persons that can feed and care for the dogs in case the
owner is out of town.
The numbers of persons in Beckel significantly differ from the number in
Betag. The difference may be attributed to the location of the barangays. Betag is
within the valley floor where more people converge because of employment and
is near to schools and other government institutions; conversely, Beckel is outside
the valley floor which represents a type of a rural setting. Result further implies a
higher work force in Betag.

The table further shows the different types of home of respondents.
In barangay Beckel, a great majority or respondents live in a traditional family
house. Some live in a modern family house. In Betag, some live in traditional
family house, either in a modern family house, in a home in multi-apartment, in
apartment above commercial area, in a farm house and or in a canteen. The type
of home indicates that dogs live with the owners whatever the type of home.

The type of home of respondents in Beckel differs significantly from the
type of home of respondents in Betag. Comparatively, the obvious difference is
that there are not so many apartments in Beckel. The multi-apartments and

---

apartments above commercial area are found in Betag. Apartments in Betag are
one of the earning businesses in the area.

In terms of house enclosures, In Beckel, almost all have no fence or wall,
few have a fence or wall but does not restrain dog and, or have a fence or wall
that completely restrains a dog. Whereas in Betag, many have fence or wall that
completely restrains dog, some do not have fence or wall and/or have fence or
wall but does not restrain a dog.
The presence or absence of enclosures around the respondents’s home in
Beckel significantly differs from the presence or absence of enclosures around the
respondents’ home in Betag. The high number of respondents’ home with
enclosures in barangay Betag can be attributed to their added security against
intruders and to set boundaries between lands since this is a place where different
classes of people can be found and a small piece of land is very valuable to the
owners of the land. In Beckel, the high number of home without fence or wall as
enclosures indicates that their neighbors may be family relatives.
In terms of controlling dogs’ mobility, respondents from Betag can better
control their dogs with the aid of fence or walls compared to barangay Beckel
where there are no enclosures of the house.

---

Table 2. Number of persons per household categorized by age brackets and

Distribution of respondents as to the type of home and enclosure of

home





BECKEL
BETAG

TOTAL



Number %
Number % Number %
Number of persons
per household (year)
< 5



46
10
48 7
94
8
5 – 10


52
11
37 5
89
8
11 – 17


81
18
83 12 164
14
18 – 50

235
52
507 74 742
65
More than 50

40
9
6 1
46
4
Total

454 100
681 100 1135 100


*X2c = 85.45
df = 4
X2t = 9.488
Type of Home:
Traditional family house
57
68
42 32
99
46
Modern family house
27
32
40 30
67
31
Apartment above commercial




Area

0
0
13 10
13
6
Home in multi-apartment
0
0
33 25
33
15
Farm house

0
0
3 2
3
1
Canteen


0
0
1 1
1
1
Total


84
100 132 100 216 100


*X2c = 46.38
df = 5
X2t = 11.07

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

Table 2. Continued...




BECKEL
BETAG TOTAL



Number % Number % Number %

---

Enclosure of Home:
No fence or wall

78
93
46 35 124 57
Fenced or walled but



does not restrain dog
5
6
36 27
41 19
Fence or wall, completely



restrains dog
1
1
50 38
51 24
Total

84 100 132 100 216 100


*X2c = 77.7062
df = 2
X2t = 5.991
*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

Management of Dogs by Owners
Table 3 shows the distribution of dogs as to the sources. It shows that in
Beckel less than half were offspring of their own bitches. Some dogs are, received
as gift from neighbor, received as gift from outside neighborhood, bought or
traded from neighbor, bought or traded from outside neighborhood and/or found
on the street In Betag, some dogs were offspring of their own bitches, received as
gifts from neighbors, bought or traded from outside neighborhood, received as
gift from outside neighborhood, bought or traded from neighbor, found on the
street and/or unclaimed patient.
The sources of dogs in Beckel do not significantly differ among the
sources of dogs in Betag.

---

The high percentage of the offspring of the owners’ bitches is attributed to
high reproductive efficiency of owned dogs and to females
Table 3. Distribution of dogs as to sources

SOURCES

BECKEL
BETAG
TOTAL


Number %
Number % Number %

Offspring of own bitch
51
46
68 34 119
38
Bought from or traded



With neighbor
11
10
18 9 29
9
Bought from or traded with
outside neighborhood
9
8
31 15 40
13
Received as gift from





Neighbor

20
18
60 30 80
26
Received as gift from
outside neighborhood
19
17
22 11 41
13
Found on the street
1
1
1 1 2
1
Unclaimed patient

0
0
1 1 1
1
Total

111 100 201 100 312
100






NSX2c = 12.1821
df = 6
X2t = 12.592

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

retained as replacements. That dogs received as gifts from neighbors as the
second highest percentage may be attributed to the Filipino values of keeping and
gift giving. It may be inferred that whatever is the source of dog and whatever are
the characteristics of the dog, respondents willingly accept them as their dogs.

---

Table 4 shows the distribution of dogs as to the uses. In Beckel, almost all
are used as guard dogs. Some are used as both guard and as pet dogs, claimed it is
a pet dog only and /or claimed it is a source of income. In Betag, Many are able to
make them as guard dogs. Some use them as guard and pet dog, pet dogs only
and/or serves as a source of income. This finding implies that whatever is the
characteristic of dogs, respondents are able to make use of
Table 4. Distribution of dogs examined as to their uses

USES

BECKEL

BETAG
TOTAL
Number % Number % Number %

Guard dog

94
85
87 43
181 58
Pet


3
3
26 13
29 9
Source of income
1
1
12 3
13 2
Both as guard & pet 13
12
76 38
89 29
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100


*X2c = 50.7083
df = 3
X2t = 7.815

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

them as guard dogs, pets, or for income by selling puppies as like what
commercial breeders do and for slaughter as dog meat.
The use of dogs as guard by the majority of the respondents may be
attributed to the ability of the dogs to sense intruders and protect their masters.

---

The uses of dogs in Beckel significantly differ from its uses in Betag. The
difference lies on the purpose by which respondents acquire their dogs.
Table 5 shows the distribution of persons who can handle and play with
the dogs. In Beckel, Many of the dogs examined are handled by adults of
household. Some dogs are handled by, anybody, neighbors, children and adult of
household and/or children of adult. In Betag, the majority are handled by owner.
Some are handled by adults of household, by children of household, handled by
children and adult of household and there are dogs not handled by anybody.
The persons who handle and play with dogs at Beckel differ significantly
from persons who handle dogs in Betag. The difference lies in the fear of the
person to handle the dog because it might bite and the fear that

---

Table 5. Distribution of persons who handles or play with the dog


PERSONS

BECKEL

BETAG

TOTAL


Number % Number % Number %

Owner

47
42 113
56 160
51
Adults of household 49
44
67
33 116
37
Children of household 2
2
9
4 11
4
Neighbors

4
4
0
0 4
1
Nobody

0
0
3
1 3
1
Anybody

6
5
0
0 6
2
Children and adult of






Household
3
3
9
4 12
4
Total
111 100 209
100 312 100





*X2c = 26.758
df = 6
X2t = 12.592

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

they might be infected with rabies when bitten. The result also implies that not
everybody can handle a dog unless it is your own dog. Further, a dog submits to
its master and not to anybody else because of fear. It barks to warn a stranger or to
bite because it is its nature to protect itself and survive.
Table 6 shows the distribution of dogs by confinement. Dogs examined in
Beckel are mostly free roaming dogs, some are leashed, or are confined. A
majority of those examined in Betag are free-roaming and some are leashed or
confined. The findings indicates that many dogs roam in the vicinity of the
owner’s house either in the porch, inside the house, within the frontage of the

---

house, under the house or these dogs may roam outside the owner’s house but
they usually return home anytime of the day usually in the
afternoon. Dogs in kennels are those that are used by commercial breeders
for breeding and selling pups example is a rottweiler dog examined in Betag.
The number of dogs leashed in barangay Betag is attributed to the
barangay ordinance regarding loitering of dogs in the streets. This is also
supported by WHO (1987) stating that tying dogs is our society’s “protection”
against bites and rabies and is part of a new law implemented in urbanized areas
in the country.
The number of confined dogs in Beckel differs significantly from the
number of confined dogs in Betag. The difference may be attributed to the use of
dogs and its the temperament. For example dogs that are too aggressive are tied
and a dogs used as guards must be unleashed to roam and protect the surrounding
of the owner.

---

Table 6. Distribution of dogs as their confinement



BECKEL

BETAG

TOTAL


Number
%
Number %
Number %
Confined 3
3
29 14
32 10
Leashed
24 22 57 28
81 26
Free roaming 84 76 115 57
199 64
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100




*X2c =14.6515

df = 2
X2t =5.991

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

Table 7 shows the distribution of dogs as to shelter. It shows that a great
majority of the dogs examined live around the owner’s house either within the
house, under the house, or in the porch of the house. Only few dogs in Beckel live
in a kennel house. Some dogs examined in Betag live in kennel houses. There are
more free roaming dogs in Beckel than in Betag. Extra spaces previously used for
other animals serve as shelter for dogs. Only 3 dogs are housed in a pigpen
percent of the dogs were housed in a pigpen.
Free roaming dogs are not tied by the owners and they are found anywhere
in the neighborhood. Results show that respondents allow their dogs to roam
anywhere around their house. The number of dogs housed in kennels can be
attributed to the knowledge and concern of the respondents about the welfare of
their dogs or dogs with a particular breed. The number of free roaming dogs

---

though they are few can have an impact on rabies incidence in the community
since uncontrolled activities of these dogs are open to infection through contact
with a stray dog and eating contaminated garbage.
The kinds of dog’s shelter in Beckel did not differ significantly from the
kind of dog’s shelter in Beta, that there is no significant difference among the
description of the dog’s shelter between barangays Beckel and Betag.
Table 8 shows the distribution of dogs as to the kind of food given. In
Beckel, Almost all received kitchen left over. Only few received home cooked
vegetable refused mix with rice tuyo/fish gills, and/or received dog food. As
compared to Betag, Almost all received kitchen leftovers. Some received
commercial dog food, received commercial dog food with rice, received home
cooked vegetables mixed with rice/tuyo/fishgills and/or only one received family
garbage and waste.

---

Table 7. Distribution of dogs as to shelter
SHELTERS
BECKEL

BETAG

TOTAL


Number
%
Number %
Number %
Kennel house 10 9
35 17
45
14
Owner’s house 89 80
154 77
243
78
Free roaming 11 10
10 5
21
7
Pigpen
1 1
2 1
3
1
Total 111 100
201 100
312 100




NSX2c =6.2134

df = 3
X2t = 7.815

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

The food given to dogs in Beckel differs significantly from the food given
to the dogs in Betag. The difference may be attributed to the presence of
established breeds in Betag that receive dog foods or may be attributed to the
knowledge of respondents of the quality of food given for the dogs.
The high number of dogs receiving kitchen leftovers is attributed to the
knowledge of respondents on what to feed to the dogs. Cooking of vegetables
mixed with tuyo/fishgills for dogs foods for dogs is done by older people who feel
secure with their dogs and those that fatten dogs for income. The dogs that
receive dog foods are commercial breeders whose puppies are sold.

---

Comparatively, the difference between Beckel and Betag is the presence
of dogs with established breeds. All dogs examined in Beckel receive kitchen
leftovers and home cooked vegetables mixed with something palatable. In Betag,
there are those with established breeds that are given with commercial dog food,
others fed dog food because this is the formulated food that should be given to the
dogs.

In a publication on dog ecology in central Philippines, Beran, 1982) stated
that owned dogs scavenged garbage, received leftover human food and frequently
ingested human feces. Food quality, distribution and availability are heavily
dependent on cultural practices and on human attitudes towards dogs. Dog-
feeding habits have public health implications (hygiene, spread of parasitic
diseases, etc.).
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2005) state that a carnivore does not
necessarily mean that a dog’s diet must be restricted to meat alone. This

---

Table 8. Distribution of dogs as to the kind of food given

KIND OF FOOD
BECKEL BETAG TOTAL


Number % Number % Number %
Commercial dog food 1 1
10 5 11 3
Kitchen leftovers
101 91
177 88 278 89
Family garbage
and waste

0 0
2 1 2
1
Home cooked vegetable
refuse, Rice/tuyo/fish
gills, etc.
9 8
3
2 12
4
Commercial dog food
with rice

0 0
9
4 9 3
Total

111 100 201 100 312 100



*X2c = 17.6369

df = 5
X2t = 11.07

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

statement supports the result. Unlike a true obligate carnivore, such as cat, a dog
is able to healthily digest a variety of foods including vegetables and grains, and
in fact requires a large proportion of these in its diet.
Table 9 shows the frequency of feeding dogs. Almost all dogs in Beckel
are fed twice a day. Some receive foods thrice a day and/or received food anytime
as long as food is available. In Betag, A great majority of the dogs examined

---

received foods twice a day. Some receive foods thrice a day, some receive foods
anytime and/or some received foods once a day.
Dog feeding in Beckel differs significantly from dog feeding in Betag. It
may be inferred that the frequency of feeding the dogs in Beckel is different from
that of dogs in Betag. However, both barangays feed dogs anytime, once a day or
three times a day depending on the availability of food, the nature of work of the
owner, the availability of person who will feed the dogs and the accessibility of
markets selling dog food/s.
The result corroborates the statement cited in the complete dog book
(1964) that it is better and necessary to feed small amounts of food at frequent
intervals than it is to feed large amounts once or twice daily. By feeding
frequently, the total amount of food ingested may be increased, and still the pup’s
stomach is not overloaded. Young puppies should be fed four times daily; once at
each household mealtime and once at bedtime. At three to four months of age, this
can be reduced to three times daily; at six months of age, twice daily, and after
one year, once daily may be adequate. However, most should be given at night if
the dog shall sleep or a lighter meal if the dog should serve as a watchdog.
The right quantity of food according to literature on the complete dog
book can be estimated by the following: wet meal or canned -one ounce per
pound of body weight of the dog per day. This is usually enough for young
growing dogs. One-half to three-quarter ounce per pound of body weight- This is

---

usually enough for maintenance of older animals. Dry meal –1 to 2lb of dry meal
per 30lb of dog. This measure is often useful in estimating quantities of meal to
mix when feeding several dogs. Adult dogs will usually require one main meal
daily, with a light snack given at the other end of the day. On the other hand, this
may be divided into two smaller meals if preferred.
Table 9. Distribution of dogs by frequency of feeding

FREQUENCY OF BECKEL
BETAG

TOTAL
FEEDING
Number % Number % Number %

Once a day 0
0
4 2
4
1
Twice a day 99
89
149 74 248
79
Thrice a day 8
7
42 21 50
16
Anytime
4
4
6 3 10
3
Total 111
100
201 100 312 100


*X2c = 12.6974

df = 3
X2t = 7.815
*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

Table 10 shows the person who fed the dogs. Most of the dogs examined
in Beckel are a great majority of household members. Some are fed by household
members, boarders and neighbors and/or by neighbors. In Betag, almost all dogs
are fed by household members. Some are fed by household members, boarders
and neighbors and/or dog finds its food.

---

The persons who fed dogs in Beckel differ significantly from those who
feed dogs in Betag. The result indicates that dogs receive from different persons
aside from the owners and household members in the two barangays.

Table 11 shows the distribution of dogs as to consultation to veterinarians.
Almost all of the dogs examined are referred to a veterinarian and few dogs are
referred to a veterinarian in Beckel. In barangay Betag, the majority are not
brought or referred to a veterinarian. However, less than half are referred to a
veterinarian.
Table 10. Distribution of dogs examined as to who feed them

WHO FED THE
BECKEL

BETAG

TOTAL
DOGS?
Number %
Number
%
Number %

Household members 97
87
190
94
287
92
Neighbors

2
2
0
0
2
1
Dog finds its food
0
0
2
1
2
1
Household members,





borders and neighbors 12
11
9
5
21
7
Total
111 100
201
100 312 100


*X2c = 9.3870
df = 3
X2t = 7.815

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

The consultation with a veterinarian in Beckel differs significantly from
consultation with a veterinarian in Betag. The very low consultation to the
veterinarians by respondents in Beckel may be attributed to the availability of
veterinary services in the area and the awareness to the kind of consultation
compared to Barangay Betag. Though they are accessible to veterinary services,

---

the cost of consultation hinders respondents from Betag to do so. This finding
further implies that there is a need to institute a lay and professional education on
instituting proper care to dogs in relation to the Animal Welfare Act 8485.
Table12 shows the measure/s done by owners to their sick dogs. It shows
that almost all the dogs in Beckel are cared for/confined. Some are to a vet and
few are butchered. In Betag, a great majority are cared for/confined. Some are
taken to a vet, are butchered and/or are killed.

Table 11. Distribution of dogs as to its referral/consultation to a veterinarian




BECKEL
BETAG
TOTAL
Number % Number % Number %


Yes
14 13
89 44
103 33
No

97 87
112 56
209 67
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100




*X2c = 32.3614
df = 2
X2t = 5.991


*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

---

Table12. Distribution of dogs as to the measures done when dogs get sick


MEASURES
BECKEL

BETAG
TOTAL
Number %
Number %
Number %


Cared for/confined 106
96
135
67
241
77
Killed

0
0
2
1
2
1

Taken to a vet
4
4
48
24
52
17
Butchered

1
1
16
8
17
5
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100



*X2c = 32.7314
df = 3
X2t = 7.815

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant


The measures done to sick dogs in Beckel differ significantly from those
measures done by owners in Betag. The difference may be attributed to the
availability of veterinary services, accessibility of veterinary medicines, the cost
of medicines/consultations and hospitalization of dogs.
The numbers of dogs butchered in Betag is higher than in Beckel because
respondents from Betag view dog meat as an alternative source of cheap protein.

---

Profile of Dogs Examined
Table 13 shows the distribution of dogs by sex. In Beckel, a great
majority are females than male and/or male neutered dogs. In Betag majority are
female than male and/or male and 1% male neutered dogs
Sex ratios are commonly expressed as the number of males per 100
females. Sex ratios are also used to calculate other statistics. Variation in dog/sex
ratios may significantly influence productivity of the population. Data on sex
ratios are needed in order to understand and interpret other vital statistics that are
frequently expressed separately for each sex (Downing, 1980). The sex ratio of
the dogs examined is 1:1.54 and 1:1.25 in barangays Beckel and Betag,
respectively. The finding implies that there is a higher productivity of dogs in
Beckel than in Betag.
The sex of dogs examined in Beckel does not differ significantly from the
sex of dogs examined in Betag. It may thus be inferred that both barangays have
male, female and neutered dogs.

---

Table 13. Distribution of dogs examined by sex


SEX
BECKEL

BETAG TOTAL
Number
%
Number % Number %

Male
43
39
88
44
131
42
Female
67
60
110
55
177
57
Neutered 1
1
3
2
4
1
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100

X2c = 1.02758
df = 2
X2t =5.991

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

Table 14 shows the distribution of dogs examined by age. In Beckel,
Many examined dogs are less than 1 year old. Some are 1-2 years, 3-5 years or
more than 5 years old. In Betag, many examined dogs are also less than one year
of age. Some are 1-2 years, 3-5 years or more than 5 years old
The ages of dogs examined in Beckel do not significantly differ from
those of dogs examined in Betag. The findings imply that both barangays have all
dogs of all ages. The number of dogs examined with to less than one year of age
is attributed to their docility and playfulness.
Age ratio or the number of animals that occur in each age class can
provide important information regarding the population. For example, young to
adult ratios are an indication of natality and productivity of the population and of

---

the pattern of mortality (Downing, 1980). In the study, the dogs examined are not
too young nor not too old. The mean age is 2 years.

Table 14. Distribution of dogs examined by age

AGE
BECKEL
BETAG TOTAL
Number %
Number % Number %
Years
<1


47
42
80 40 127
41
1-2

37
33
54 27 91
29
3-5

21
19
48 24 69
22
>5

6
5
19 9 25
8
Total
111
100
201 100 312 100

NSX2c = 3.39654
df = 3
X2t =7.815
*Significant at 0.05 level of significance

NS – not significant


Table 15 shows the distribution of dogs examined by temperament. In
barangay Beckel, aggressive temperament accounts for the greatest number. Some
have a friendly temperament and/or docile temperament. In Betag, the great
majority are aggressive, although some are friendly and a few are docile or
sensitive.
The two barangays do not significantly differ in their dogs in regard to
their temperament. It may be inferred that the types of temperament that the dogs
have do not vary between the animals in the two barangays.

---

Aggression, according to Onayd (2000), can be hormonal or medical in
nature but in most cases in the Philippines it is due to poor socialization. It was
further stated that an aggressive dog is not given enough exposure to other dogs
and humans. Unsocialized dogs that are allowed to interact with other dogs and
humans tend to be overly defensive. They view other dogs and humans as threats,
and thus act aggressively to warn them off. They are labeled fierce and vicious
but ironically, they are in fact fearful dogs. Normal dog bites; it is their nature to
survive. Either a dog withdraws from a threat or uses its teeth – it is a normal
canine behavior. Dogs do not welcome strange things easily; any new thing can
be a menace.
Table 16 shows the distribution of dogs examined as to the vaccination
against rabies. In Beckel, the majority are not vaccinated against rabies although
many are. In Betag, many dogs examined are not vaccinated a great majority are.
The high percentage of dogs vaccinated in Betag is attributed to

---

Table 15. Distribution of dogs examined as to temperament
TEMPERAMENT BECKEL
BETAG

TOTAL
Number %
Number %
Number %
Docile
7 6
14 7
21 7
Friendly
41 37
68 34
109
35
Aggressive 63 57
112 56
177
56

Sensitive
0 0
7 3
7
2
Total 111 100
201 100
312 100

NSX2c = 4.122 df = 3
X2t =7.815

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

the barangay ordinance and to the awareness of residents of the effect of rabies in
humans. The high number of unvaccinated dogs in Beckel is due to the absence of
rabies vaccination drives in the area. Rabies is a zoonotic viral disease mainly of
the nervous system that can be transmitted from dog to man through bite of
infected dog. There are many vaccines against diseases of dogs but rabies is the
only one considered because it is endemic in the area and its effect on human
once bitten by infected dog is always fatal.
The number of dogs vaccinated against in Beckel differs significantly
from the number of dogs vaccinated in Betag. This finding implies that the
respondents in Betag are more aware of rabies and its effect on humans than the

---

respondents in Beckel. This calls for more information drive as well as
vaccination drive in the study area.

Table 16. Distribution of dogs examined as to their vaccination against

rabies

BECKEL
BETAG
TOTAL


Number %
Number %
Number %
Yes
50 45
129 64 179
57
NO

59 53
70 35
129
41
Do not know 2 2
2
1
4
1
Total 111 100
201 100
312 100

*X2c = 10.7408
df = 2
X2t =5.991

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

Table 17 shows the distribution of dogs examined as to their deworming.
In Beckel, almost all dogs examined are not dewormed. Conversely, in Betag, a
great majority are of the dogs examine are dewormed by owners or are taken to
vet for that dewormer. Two dogs are not known if dewormed or dewormed
because they have received them as gift for neighbor. Not Only one percent do
not know if the dog was dewormed because it was just a given to them.
The number of dogs dewormed in Beckel differs significantly from that of
dogs dewormed in Betag. The findings imply that respondents from Betag are
more knowledgeable of worms affecting their dogs and that means many of them

---

dewormed their dogs. Deworming of dogs should be done to get rid of the
internal parasites of the dogs that impede absorption of consumed nutrients and
causes lower resistance to infection. As per recommendations by manufacturers
and veterinarians, puppies should be deworm as early as 14 days and then repeat
after two weeks until four months old then treat it as adult. Adult dogs should be
deworm every three months.

Table 17. Distribution of dogs examined as to deworming




BECKEL

BETAG

TOTAL


Number
%
Number
%
Number %


Yes
21 19
136 68
157
50
No

90 81
63 31
153
49
Do not know 0 0
2 1
2
1
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 71.0155
df = 2
X2t =5.991

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

---

Descriptions of Dogs Examined
Table 18 shows the distribution of dogs examined as to type, length and
coat texture/quality. There are more dogs with single coat than dogs with double
coat in Beckel and in Betag. The findings indicate that both types of coats can be
found in Beckel and in Betag because the weather, which has an effect on coats, is
almost similar in both barangay. Double coat is a coat type which has an outercoat
and undercoat. The undercoat is usually short, soft, and dense and acts as a
protective layer against water and elements; while it is also a support to the
outercoat. The outer coat is generally longer than the undercoat. Single coat has
no undercoat, only an outercoat.
In terms of length, there more short coated dogs in both barangays. A
great majority of the dogs examined in Beckel have a short coat. Some have a
medium coat and few have a long coat. Similarly, in Betag, short coated dogs
account for the most number. Some have a medium coat or a long coat.
In terms of quality of coat, in Beckel, many have smooth coat. Some have
briskly coat, briskly harsh coat, long fairly coarse coat, stand offs, dense mane,
pily/crisp coat, wire coats, wavy coats, long stand offs, curly coats or bear like
coat. Similarly in Betag, some have smooth coats, briskly harsh coat, short
briskly coat, long fairly coarse coat, stand-offs, broken coat, wavy coats, long
stand offs coats, wire coats, dense mane, or curly coats.

---

The length of coat and the coat texture of dogs examined in Beckel have a
significant difference among those of dogs examined in Betag. This finding
implies that the length of coat and coat texture vary from place to place. The
reasons for the differences may be that breeds such as smooth haired dachshund,
German shepherd and rottweiler at present in Betag or that dog taken form outside
neighborhoods have parents with long or short smooth hair. The difference in the
coat texture is attributed to the quality and quantity of foods given to the dogs.
Table 18. Distribution of dogs examined as to coat description

COAT
BECKEL
BETAG
TOTAL


Number %
Number %
Number %
Types:
Double coat 40 36
95 47
135
43
Single
71 64
106 53
177
57
Total 111 100
201 100
312 100
X2c = 3.841
df = 1
X2t =3.841
Length:

Long
2 2
19 9 21
7
Medium
52 47
87 43
139
44
Short
57 51
95 47
152
48
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c =6.66676
df = 2
X2t =5.991

---

Table 18. Continued ....
COAT
BECKEL
BETAG
TOTAL


Number %
Number %
Number %
Coat texture/quality:
Broken
0 0
8 4
8
3
Bear like
1 1
1 0
2
1
Dense mane 6 5
3 1
9
3
Curly coats 1 1
2 1
3
1
Stand offs
5 5
8 4
13
4
Pily/ crisp coat 5 4
1 0
6
2
Long fairly coarse 6 5
17 8
23
7

Briskly harsh coat 9 8
50 25
59
19
Short briskly coat 23 21
38 19
61
19
Long stand off 1 1
6 3
7
2
Wire coats
3 3
5 2
8
3
Smooth coats 49 44
56 28
105
34
Wavy coats 2 2
6 3 8
3
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100

*X2c = 33.5247
df = 12
X2t =21.026

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

Table 19 shows the distribution of dogs examined as to color as found,
there is a great variety of colors among the dogs examined. In Beckel, black and
brown account the greatest number. Some have black/tan, sable, black/white,
white, Brown/white, red, cream, white/fawn/tan, black/white/tan or

---

brindle/dapple. In Betag, brown color predominates over the other colors such as
sable, white, black/white, black, black/tan, white/fawn/tan, red, brown/white,
cream, black/white/tan or gray.
The coat color of dogs examined in Beckel does not a significantly differ
from that of dog Betag. In other words, colors observed in Beckel are similar to
those observed in Betag.
The differences in coat color of dogs are explained by Willis (1998) who
said that coat color in various dogs is often influenced by interaction between
genes. Dog breeds have an agouti coat color series being, A, ay, aw, as, at which
leads to a variety of coat colors. Not all breeds have these alternatives, but all
breeds carry the gene even if they only have one version of it.
Table 20 shows the distribution of dogs as to specific and other markings.
Almost all dogs examined in Beckel have no markings. Few have pips over the
eyes, a mask and/or penciling over the toes. Similarly in Betag, the great majority
of the dogs examined have no markings. Few have pips over the eyes or a mask
around the face.

---

Table 19. Distribution of dogs as to the coat colors

COAT COLORS BECKEL
BETAG
TOTAL

Number %
Number %
Number %


Black/white 10 9
22 11 32
10
Gray
0 0
3 1 3
1
Red
8 7
17 8 25
8
Brown
19 17
30 15 49
16
Black
19 17
18 9 37
12
White
10 9
22 11 32
10
White/fawn/tan 4 4
16 8 20
6
Sable
11 10
26 13 37
12
Brindle/dapple 1 1
6 3 7
2
Brown/white 9 8
12 6 21
7
Black/white/tan 1 1
3 2 4
1
Black tan
14 13
17 8 31
10
Cream
5 4
9 4 14
4
Total
111 100 201 100 312 100

NSX2c = 12.5319

df = 12
X2t =21.026
*Significant at 0.05 level of significance

NS – Not Significant

The specific marking of dogs examined in Beckel differ significantly from
those of dogs examined in Betag. The difference may be accounted for by those
dogs that have pips over the eyes and pencilings over the toes in Barangay Betag.
This result can be attributed to crossbreeding of purebred dogs with mongrels
present in the study area.
The table further shows that almost all dogs examined in Beckel have no
distinguishing marks around the body. However, some have socks, a

---

splashed/mottled coat, or stockings on the feet. In Betag, a great majority no have
other distinguishing marks. Few have socks, stockings, splashed/mottled coat,
lozenge mark and/or spectacled eyes.
The distinguishing marks observed on dogs in Beckel do not significantly
differ from those on dogs in Betag. In other words, markings such as the socks
and stockings are exhibited by dogs in both barangays.
Table 20. Distribution of dogs examined as to the specific and other

distinguishing marks

MARKINGS BECKEL BETAG TOTAL


Number %
Number
%
Number %


Specific markings
mask
1
1
21
10
22
7
Pips
7
6
31
15
38
12
Pencilings
1
1
0
0

1
1
Absent
102 92
149
74
251
80
Total
111 100
201 312
312 100

*X2c = 18.7382

df = 3
X2t =7.815

---

Table 20. Continued...

MARKINGS BECKEL BETAG TOTAL


Number %
Number
%
Number %


Specific markings
Other Distinguishing marks
Stockings 5
4
25
12
30
1
Splashed/mottled 1 11
2
1

3
1
Socks
16 14
35
17
51
16
Lozenge mark/spot 0
0
1
1

1
1
Spectacles
0
0
1
1

1
1
Absent
89 80
137
68
226
72
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
NSX2c = 7.6161

df = 5
X2t =11.070

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

Table 21 shows the distribution of dogs as to the descriptions of the back
and underline. The table shows that there are more level (Plate 3) back dogs in
Beckel than in Betag. Betag has more examined dogs with arched over the loin, a
hollow back, straight back, sloping back or long back than in Beckel.
The types of back observed among dogs in Beckel differ significantly
from those observed among dogs in Betag. The difference may be attributed to
incorrect position during examination because the animal exhibit fear.

---

The table further shows that a great majority of the dogs observed in both
barangays have a tucked up abdomen and some exhibit a full abdomen. The
underline of dogs observed in Beckel does not significant differ from that of dogs
observed in Betag. That is, both barangays have tucked up and a full underline
abdomen.

Table 21. Distribution of dogs examined as to the descriptions of the back an
Underline
BACK and
BECKEL

BETAG
TOTAL
UNDERLINE Number % Number % Number %
Back:
Arched over the loin 43
39
87
43 130
42
Level back

52
47
57
28 109
35
Long back

0
0 4
2
4
1
Roach back
3
3
5
2
8
3
Sloping back
1
1
12
6 13
4
Straight back
6
5
15
7 21
7
Wheel back
0
0
2
1 2
1
Hollow back
6
5
19
9 25
8
Total
111
100 201 100 312 100


X2c = 16.995
df = 7
X2t = 14.067
Underline:
Tucked up

70
63 125
62
195 62
Full

41
37 76
38
117
38
Total
111 100 201 100
312 100

NSX2c = .02331

df = 1
X2t = 3.841
*Significant at 0.05 level of significance NS – not significant

---

Table 22 shows the distribution of dogs examined as to the description of the head
and skull. The table shows that head shape of dogs examined in

Plate no. 3. Red colored dog with a level back

Beckel is identical to that of dogs examined in Betag. Some dogs have a head that
is long and tapering, balanced, fox like, cone shaped, a wedge-shaped, apple,
rounded, brick-shaped or pear-shaped. Similarly in Betag, the dogs examined
have heads that is long and tapering, balanced, fox-like, wedge-shaped, pear-
shaped, cone-shaped, short and rounded, brick-shaped or an apple shaped.
There is a variation in the skull of the dogs examined in the two
barangays. In Beckel, the greatest numbers have an oval skull. The skull of some
are arched, bumpy, a flat, rounded skull or a broad skull. Betag has a higher
percentage of dogs with flat skull than Beckel. The skull of some is bumpy,
broad, rounded, arched or oval.
The table further shows that there is a variation on the number of dogs
belonging to the three skull formation. Comparatively, there are more dogs in
Beckel belonging to the mesaticephalic skull formation than in Betag. In Betag,

---

the number of dogs under the brachycephalic and dolichocephalic skull formation
is higher than that in Beckel.

The head shapes, skull shapes and skull formation observed on dogs
examined in Beckel differ significantly from those observed on dogs in Betag.
This implies a certain preference of respondents to the size of the skull of dogs
among the respondents in Betag. The difference may also be attributed to the
Table 22. Distribution of dogs examined as to the descriptions of the head

shape, skull shape and Skull formation of dogs examined

HEAD
BECKEL BETAG
TOTAL

Number
%
Number % Number %
Head shape:
Apple head
2
9
5 2
7
2
Balanced head 26 24
60 30
86
28
Brick shaped head
1
1
4 2
5
2
Cone-shaped head 13 12
10 5
23
7
Fox-like head 25 22
16 8
41
13
Pear shaped head
1
1
14 7
15
5
Long and tapering 29 26
68 34
97
31
Short or Rounded 3 3
7 3
10
3
Wedge-shaped head 11
10
17 8
28
9
Total
111 100 201 100 312 100


*X2c = 24.832
df = 8
X2t= 15.507
Skull shape:
Arched skull 18 16
18 9
36
11
Broad skull
9
8
24 12
33
11
Flat skull
16 14
78 39
94
30
Oval skull
41 37
9 4
50
16
Rounded skull 10
9
22 11
32
10
Bumpy skull 17 15
50 25
67
21
Total
111 100
201 100 312 100


*X2c = 68.7006

df = 5
X2t = 11.070
Skull Formation:
Brachycephalic 16 14
43 21

59
19
Mesaticephalic 94 85
131 65
225
72
Dolichocephalic 1
1
27 13

28
9

---

Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 18.303
df = 2
X2t = 5.991

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS - not significant
fact that there are more purebred dogs in Betag than in Beckel that show a
particular head shape, skull shape and skull formation.
Table 23 shows the distribution of dogs examined as to the descriptions of
the ears and ear set. More dogs have folded ears in Beckel and more dogs exhibit
pricked ears in Betag. Similarly, more dogs in Beckel exhibit cocked ears or bat
ears than the number of dogs exhibiting the same ear shapes in Betag. The result
adds up to the finding of Credo, (2005) that in Taguig, Metro Manila, most of the
purebred and half-bred dogs have pricked ears but the result contradicts Credo’s
statement stating that most of the native dogs have dropped ears.
The ear shape of dogs examined in Beckel differs significantly from that
of dogs examined in Betag. The ears of dogs in Beckel may be folded but those
dogs Betag are erect.
Table 23 also shows that many dogs in Beckel have ears set high. Some
are set within the level of the eyes and few have low set ears. In Betag, one half
of the dogs have eyes set within the level of the eyes. Some are set high and few
are set low.
The ear set of dogs examined in Beckel does not significantly differ from
that of dogs in Betag. In other words, the ear set of dogs examined in Beckel is

---

similar to the ear set of dogs in Betag. The result may be explained by Cunliffe
(2000) who said that ears are held differently when the dog is alert; most dogs
move their ears to a greater or lesser extent when wishing to hear more.
Table 23. Distribution of dogs examined as to the Descriptions of the Ears

and ear set

EARS
BECKEL
BETAG TOTAL

Number %
Number
%
Number %
Shape:
Bat ear
23
21
26
13
49
16
Hooded ear 8
7
8
4
16
5
Button ear
2
2
27
13
29
9
Candle flamed ear 0
1
1

1
1
1
Cocked ear 16
14 30

15
46
15
Cropped ear 0
0
1

1
1
1
Drop ear
2
2
31

15
33
11
Prick ears
27
24
49

24
76
24
Folded ears 33
30
28

14
61
19
Total 111 100 201
100
312 100
*X2c = 37.4108

df = 8
X2t = 15.507
Ear set:
High set
51
46
72
36
123
39
Low set
13
12
28
14
41
13
Set within the
level of the eyes 47
42
101
50 148
47
Total 111
100 201
100 312
100
NSX2c = 3.06977

df = 2
X2t = 5.991

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

Table 24 shows the distribution of dogs examined as to the description of
the eyes. Among dogs examined in Beckel, less than half have oval shaped eyes.

---

Some have an almond shape, a round shape or deep-set eyes. Among dogs
examined in Betag, some have oval shaped, a round, an almond shape or deep-set
eyes. Most all of the dogs examined in Beckel have no eye markings. Few have
pips over the eyes and/or a spectacle eyes. Among dogs examined in Betag, a
great majority shows no eye markings. Some have pips over the eyes, and few
have spectacle eyes or black color around the eyes.

The table also shows that brown eyes predominate over the black eyes. A
great majority of the dogs examined in Beckel have brown eyes. Few have black
eyes, deep irish eyes or a wall eyes. In Betag, the majority have brown eyes. Few
have a black, wall eye, deep iris or shades of bluish gray.
In terms of the length of eyelashes and eyebrows, eye rims and exposure
of third eyelid, almost all dogs examined have short eyelashes, short eyebrows,
dark eye rims and hidden third eyelid. Few dogs exhibit a medium a long
eyelashes and short eyebrows, liver brown eye rims and exposed third eyelid in
the two barangays studied.

In terms of eye expression, many dogs examined in Beckel have a gruff
eye expression. Some have a saucy expression or an eastern expression. In Betag,
many have a saucy - eye expression. Some have a gruff expression, an eastern
expression, an ape-like or a monkey-like expression.

The eye shape, eye markings, eye color, length of eyelashes and the length
of eyebrows in Beckel differ significantly from those in Betag.

---

Overall, there are variations of the shapes, colors, the lengths of eyelashes and
eyebrows among dogs Beckel and Betag and similarity in terms of eye
expressions, and color of the eye rim. The findings may have seen the effect or
influence of the presence of purebred dogs in Betag. Like for example dachshund
and Shih Tzu that are not found in Beckel.
Table 24. Distribution of dogs examined as to the descriptions of the eyes


EYES

BECKEL
BETAG
TOTAL
Number % Number % Number %


Eye shape:

Almond shape
39
35
53 26
92 29
Deep set

3
3
5 2
8 3
Oval eyes

52
47
79 39
131 42
Round eyes
17
15
64 32
81 26
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 10.3681

df = 3
X2t = 7.815
Eye Markings:
Spectacles

1
1
16 8
17 5
Pips/melon pip
20
18
46 23
66 21
Black around the eyes 0
0
3 1
3 1
Absent

90
81
136 68
226 72
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 10.7757
df = 3

X2t =7.815
Eye color:
Wall eye

5
4
29 14
34 11
Brown
77
69 116 58
193 62
Black
15
14 35 17
50 16
Deep irish
14
13
20 10
34 11
Shades of blue gray 0
0
1
1
1 1
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100

* X2c = 9.72883

df = 4
X2t = 9.488
Eye lashes:
Long

0
0
13
6
13 4
Medium

6
95
18
9
24 8
Short
105
5
173 85
25 88

---

Total
111 100
201 100
312 100

*X2c = 9.164
df = 2
X2t = 5.991
Eyebrows:
Long

1
1
13
6
14 4
Medium

2
2
15
7
17 5
Short
108
97
13 86
281 90
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 10.1451
df = 2
X2t = 5.991

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant
Table 24. Continued...

EYES

BECKEL
BETAG
TOTAL
Number % Number % Number %


Eye rims:
Dark
103
93
188 93
291 93
Liver/brown 8
7
13
6
21 7
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100

NSX2c = 0.0623

df = 1
X2t = 3.841


Third eyelid:
Exposed

2
2
2
1
4 1
Hidden
109
98
199 99
308 99
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100

NSX2c = 0.36776

df = 1
X2t = 3.841

Eye Expression:
Eastern/oriental 31
28
49 24
80 26
Gruff
43
39
68
34
111 36
Monkey Expression 0
0
2
1
2 1
Ape-like

0
0
2
1
2 1
Saucy
37
33
80
40
117 38
Total 111 100
201 100
312 100

---

NSX2c = 3.8422

df = 4
X2t = 9.488

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

Table 25 shows the distribution of the dogs examined as to their faces
almost all of the dogs examined in Beckel have a down face. Few dogs exhibit a
dish face, cheeky face, or broken face. In Betag, a great majority of the dogs
examined have a down face. Some exhibit a dish face. Few dogs exhibit a cheeky
face or a broken face.
Table 25. Distribution of dogs examined as to their faces

FACES
BECKEL
BETAG
TOTAL


Number
%
Number
%
Number %

Down face
93 84
134 67
227 73
Dish face
10 9
51 25
61 19
Broken face 3 3
1
1
4 1
Cheeky face 5 4
15
7
20 6
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 16.3627
df = 3
X2t = 7.815

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

The types of face exhibited by dogs in Beckel differ significantly from
those exhibited by dogs examined in Betag. That is the faces of dogs observed in
Beckel are different from those dogs observed in Betag.

---

This result conforms with the finding of Credo,(2005) that in Taguig,
Metro Manila stating the majority of dogs whether purebred, half bred or native
were considered as having a down face.

Table 26 shows the distribution of dogs examined as to the nose. In
Beckel, most have a black nose. Few have a brown/ liver nose, a self-colored
nose, a winter nose, or a butterfly nose. Among dogs examined in Betag, a great
majority have a black nose (Plate 4). Few have a self-colored nose, butterfly nose,
brown/liver nose or a winter nose.
The table further shows that the number of roman-nosed and ram’s nosed
dogs observed in Betag are higher than that of dogs in Beckel. Almost all dogs
examined from the two barangays have a flared nose than a pinched nose.

Plate No. 4. A dog with a flat skull, shallow furrow, flying ears
Which is set within the level of the eyes. It has brown
eyes, dark eye rims with eastern eye expression. The
nose is black with flared nostrils.

---

The color of the nose and the kind of nostrils of dogs examined in Beckel
differ significantly from those of dogs observed in Betag. The shapes of the nose
examined in the barangays not significantly differ.

Table 26. Distribution of dogs examined as to the nose

NOSE
BECKEL

BETAG
TOTAL
Number %
Number
%
Number %
Nose color:
Brown/liver 15 13
20 10
35
11
Self-colored 5 4
30 15
35
11
Winter nose 4 4
4
2

8
3
Butterfly nose 2 2
23 11
25
8
Black
85 77
124 62
209
67
Total 111 100
201 100
312 100

*X2c = 19.1182

df = 4
X2t = 9.488
Shape:
Ram’s nose 40 36
57 28
97
31
Roman nose 71 64
144 72
215
69
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100

NSX2c = 1.9676

df = 1
X2t = 3.841


Table 26. Continued...

NOSE
BECKEL

BETAG
TOTAL
Number % Number % Number %
Nostrils:

Flared
63 57
161 80
224
72
Pinched
48 43
40 20
88
28
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100

*X2c = 19.2418

df =1
X2t =3.841
*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

---

Table 27 shows the distribution of dogs examined as to the descriptions of
the mouth. Almost all dogs examined from the two barangays exhibit a level
mouth. Few exhibit an overshot or an undershot mouth. Overshot mouth is the
description used when the upper jaw protrudes a little rostrally than the lower jaw
and undershots when the lower jaw protrudes a little rostrally than the upper jaw.
The levels of the mouth of dogs examined in Beckel do not differ
significantly from those of dogs examined in Betag. The result seems to
contradict the finding of Credo (2000) that more than half of the native dogs
showed overshot mouths but 44 percent have level mouths.
Table 28 shows the distribution of the dogs as to the description of the
muzzle. The majority of the dogs examined in both barangays have snippy
muzzles while less than half have blunt muzzles. The result disagrees with the
findings of Credo that native dogs have blunt muzzles.
The descriptions of the muzzle of dogs examined in Beckel differ

Table 27. Distribution of dogs examined as to the level of mouth

MOUTHS
BECKEL
BETAG TOTAL


Number %
Number % Number %

Level mouth 109 98
191 95
300 96
Undershot
1 1
4 2
5 2
Overshot
1 1
6 3
7 2
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
NSX2c = 1.9987

df = 2
X2t = 5.991

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance

NS – Not significant

---

Table 28. Distribution of dogs examined as to the descriptions of the muzzle

MUZZLE
BECKEL
BETAG

TOTAL
Number %
Number %
Number %
Snippy
58 52
105 52
163
52
Blunt
53 48
96 48
149
48
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100

NSX2c = .00000096
df = 1
X2t = 3.841

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant


significantly from those of dogs examined in Betag. Thus, there is a variation in
the descriptions of the muzzle in the two barangays studied. The variation of
muzzle is due to the effect or influenced of the presence of purebred males that
may have mated female mongrels and resulted to a blunt or snippy muzzle of their
offspring.
Table 29 shows the distribution of dogs examined as to the descriptions of
the front limbs. Almost all dogs examined in Beckel have sloping shoulders. Few
exhibit a straight shoulder. In Betag, a great majority has sloping shoulders and
some have straight shoulders. A Sloping shoulder (Plate 5) indicates that the
shoulder blades are positioned correctly to allow adequate or good forward
extension of the forelegs, and straight shoulder indicates that the angle at which
the shoulder blade is placed too upright, hence forward movement is restricted.
Hence, most of the dogs examined move faster than dogs with a straight shoulder.

---

Plate No. 5. Dog with sloping shoulder, cat feet, and straight stifled
and curved tail

The table also shows that among the dogs examined in Beckel, some
exhibit a narrow and fiddle front and a few exhibit a straight front, a wide front,
bowed front, or out of elbow. Among dogs examined in Betag, straight front
accounts for the greatest number. Some exhibit a narrow front and few exhibit a
fiddle front, wide front, crooked front, bowed front or out of elbow. The result
varies with the finding of Credo (2005) that in Taguig, Metro Manila that 91
percent of the purebred and 60 percent of the half-bred have narrow front, 48
percent native dogs have straight front legs.

The table further shows that a great majority of the dogs examined in
Beckel exhibit cat feet, some exhibit hare feet and few exhibit splay feet or oval
feet. In Betag, many exhibit cat feet. Some dogs exhibit hare feet and few exhibit
splay feet, oval feet, paper feet or webbed feet.

---

The result supports the observation of Credo (2005) on the feet of dogs
that there were a greater number of dogs with hare feet whether these were
purebred, half-bred or native.

The descriptions of the shoulders, front and feet of dogs examined in
Beckel differ significantly from those of dogs examined in Betag. That is, the
descriptions vary from the two barangays. The difference may be attributed to the
adaptation of the dogs to the terrain of the study area.


Table 29. Descriptions of the front limbs of dogs examined
FRONTS and BECKEL BETAG

TOTAL
FEET
Number %
Number %
Number %
Shoulder:
Sloping
99 89
142 71
241
77
Straight
12 11
59 29
71
23
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 13.9872

df = 1
X2t = 3.841
Front:
Bowed front 3 3
4 2

7
2
Crooked front 0 0
6 3

6
2
Gun-barrel front 0 0
1 1

1
1

---

Horse-shoe front 0 0
2 1

2
1
Straight front 15 14
82 41
97
31
Wide front
12 11
10 5
22
7
Fiddle front 40 36
31 15
71
23
Narrow front 40 36
60 30
100
32
Out of elbow 1 1
5 2

6
2
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 40.848
df = 8
X2t = 15.507

---

Table 29. Continued...

VARIABLES
BECKEL

BETAG
TOTAL
Number % Number % Number %


Feet:
Cat feet
68 61
86 43
154
49
Oval feet
1 1
10
5

11
4
Splay feet
5 4
14
7

19
6
Hare feet
37 33
81 40
118
38
Webbed feet 0 0
1
1

1
1
Paper feet
0 0
9
4

9
3
Total 111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 15.4626

df = 5
X2t = 11.070

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant


Table 30 shows the distribution of dogs as to the descriptions of the
hindquarters. In Beckel, less than half exhibit a straight stifled; some exhibited a
moderately angulated hindquarters, correct hind end or cow-hocked hindquarters.
In Betag, some exhibit a straight stifled, moderately angulated, correct-hind end

---

or cow-hocked hindquarters. The hindquarters commence at the pelvic girdle and
encompass the area of the dog from there downward. The angulation of the
hindquarters varies very much according to the breed.
The descriptions of the hindquarters of dogs examined in Beckel differ
significantly from those of dogs examined in Betag. This observation means that
the hindquarters of the dogs from the two barangays vary. The significant
differences of the descriptions of the hindquarters are due to abnormal stance
during examination or the animal is uneasy during the examination.

---

Table 30. Distribution of dogs examined as to the descriptions of the
Hindquarters

VARIABLES BECKEL
BETAG
TOTAL


Number %
Number
%
Number %
Cow- hocked 5
4
39
19
44
14
Correct hind-end 14 13
28
14
42
13
Straight stifled 54 49
69
34
123
39
Moderately angulated 38 34
65
32
103
33
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 15.145
df = 3
X2t = 7.815

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

Table 31 shows the distribution of dogs as to the description of the tails. It
showed that among dogs examined in Beckel, many have tapering tail and some
exhibit brush tail, curled tail, plumed tail, snap tail, saber and ring tail, a flagpole,
a bee sting tail, a tufted and/or stumpy tail. Among the dogs examined in Betag,
some have tapering tail, plumed tail, saber tail, brush tail, curled tail, tufted,
stumpy, snap tail, ring tail, bee sting tail, docked tail, flagpole or a hook tail.

The table further shows that among dogs examined in Beckel, a great
majority exhibit a low set tail. Some have a tail that is set within the level of the
croup and/or a tail that is set high. Similarly among dogs examined in Betag, less
than half have their tails set low. Some are set within the level of the croup or set
high.

---

The tails observed among dogs examined in Beckel differ significantly
from those observed among dogs in Betag. The findings indicate that the way
dogs carry their tails depend upon some factors such as mood, position of tails,
and length of the tail. Fear may provoke the dog to tuck in its tail inside its
hindlegs.
Table 31. Distribution of dogs examined as to the descriptions of the tail


TAILS
BECKEL
BETAG TOTAL


Number %
Number % Number %
Shape:
Bee sting
2
2 5 3
7 2
Brush tail
31
28
21 10 52 17
Curled
8
7
15 7
23 7
Docked tail 0
0
5 2
5 2
Flagpole tail 2
2
3 1
5 2
Hook tail
0
0
3 1
3 1
Plumed tail 6
5
45 22
51 16
Rat tail
0
0
1 1
1 1
Ring tail
3
3
6 3
9 3
Sabre tail
3
3
27 13
30 10
Snap tail
5
4
9 4
14 4
Stumpy tail 1
1
8 4
9 3
Tapering tail 49
44
46 23
95 30
Tufted tail
1
1
7 4
8 3
Total 111
100 201 100
312 100
*X2c = 54.3017

df = 13
X2t = 22.362
Tail set: Set within the level
of the croup 37
33
61
30
98 31
High
7
6
46
23
53 17
Low
67
60
94
47
161 52
Total 111
100 201
100
312 100

*X2c = 14.3349

df = 2
X2t = 5.991
*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

---

Table 32 shows the distribution of dogs as to other descriptions
(Breeching style, chest, furrow, keel, Occiput and Stop) Almost all dogs
examined from the two barangays do not exhibit breeching style or color marking
inside the thigh, have an oval chest, have no dewlap, have a shallow furrow, not
prominent keel, occiput and straight stop.

The descriptions of the chest, presence of dewlap, furrow, and keel among
dogs examined in Beckel differ significantly from those of dogs observed in
Betag. The differences may be due to error in the examination/observation,
abnormal position and the nutritional status of the animal during examination.

---

Table 32. Distribution of dogs examined as to breeching, chest, dewlap,


furrow, keel, Occiput and stop.



BECKEL
BETAG
TOTAL


Number %
Number %
Number
%
Breeching:
Present
9 8
21 10
30
10
Absent
102 92
180 89
282
90
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100

NSX2c = 0.4504

df = 1
X2t = 3.841
Chest:
Barrel chest 1 1
38 19
39
12
Oval Chest 110 99
163 81
273
88
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 21.194
df = 1
X2t =3.841
Dewlap:
Present
37 33
16 8
53
17
Absent
74 67
185 92
259
83
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 32.6472

df = 1
X2t = 3.841
Furrow:
Deep
2 2
18 9

20
6
Shallow
109 98
183 91
292
94
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 6.09942

df = 1
X2t =3.841
Keel:
Prominent
0 0 4 2

4
1
Moderately
prominent
24 22
20 10

44
14
Not prominent 87 78
177 88
264
85
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 9.90839

df =2
X2t = 5.991

---

Table 32. Continued...

VARIABLES BECKEL
BETAG
TOTAL
Number %
Number % Number %


Occiput:
Prominent
1
1
4 2

5
2
Moderately
prominent
21
19
58 29
79
25
Not prominent 89
80
139 69
228
73
Total 111
100
201 100
312 100
NSX2c = 4.50756

df = 2
X2t =5.991
Stop:
Dished
1
1
7 3

8
3
Straight 100
99
194 96
304 97
Total 111
100
201 100
312 100
NSX2c = 1.90773

df = 1
X2t =3.841

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant


The descriptions on the breeching style, occiput and the stop of dogs
examined in Beckel not have any significantly differ from those dogs in Betag.

Table 33 shows the distribution of dogs examined as to the other
descriptions (chiseling, coupling, well-ribbed up, compactness and balance). In
Beckel, a great majority do have either modeling appearance or have a short
coupled. Similarly, in Betag, most of the dogs examined do not have a modeling
appearance and majority is short coupled. Coupling is the area that joins the chest
to the hindquarters. Short coupling enables the dog to turn faster than the dog with

---

long coupling. The distance between the last rib and the start of the hindquarters
when relatively short (short-coupled) gives strength in this region.

The table also shows that almost all dogs examined from the two
barangays are well ribbed up. A well-ribbed up (Plate 6) dog is one that has a rib
that extends well back along the length of the whole body. The table further
shows that the majority of dogs examined from the two barangays are cobby or
well balanced dogs.

The descriptions on coupling, well-ribbed up, and the compactness of dogs
in Beckel differ significantly from the descriptions on coupling, well-ribbed up,
and the compactness of dogs in Betag. The difference may attribute to the
presence of purebred dogs that are described as racy in barangay Betag like
Doberman and German shepherd dogs and the error during examination where the
dog can taut itself during examination.

Chiseling and the total symmetry did not differ significantly between
barangays.

---

Table 33. Distribution of dogs examined as to chiseling, coupling, well-ribbed

up, compactness and balance

VARIABLES BECKEL
BETAG TOTAL

Number %
Number %
Number %

Chiseling:

Chiseled
38 34
51 25
89 29
Not chiseled 73 66
150 75
223 72
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
NSX2c = 2.75394

df = 1
X2t = 3.841
Coupling:

Long
35 32
93 46
128 41
Short
76 68
108 54
184 59
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 6.41906

df = 1
X2t = 3.841

Well-ribbed up:
Yes
110 99
179 89
289 93
No

1 1
22 11
23 7
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 10.5656

df = 1
X2t = 3.841

Compactness of dog:
Cobby
76 68
107 53
183 59
Racy
35 31
94 47
129 41
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 6.84
df = 1
X2t = 3.841
Balance:
Yes
110 99
199 99
309 99
No

1 1
2 1
3 1
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
NSX2c = 1.51664

df = 1
X2t = 3.841


*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant

---

Plate No. 6. A well rib, short coupling, not chiseled dog.


The table 34 shows the distribution of dogs examined as to the
movements. Almost all dogs examined in Beckel and Betag have a good
movement from front and side view (Plate 7).

The movements of dogs examined in Beckel differ significantly from
those dogs examined from those dogs Thus, it may be inferred that the movement
desired means that the movement varies between the two barangays. The
differences may be attributed to the terrain and physical status of the animal.

---

Plate 7. Dog with a balance gait

Table 34. Distribution of dogs examined as to descriptions of the movements



MOVEMENTS BECKEL
BETAG
TOTAL


Number
%
Number
%
Number %

Paddling
0
0
13 6
13
5
Weaving
1
1
5 2
6 4
Good movement








Front and side view 109 98
175 87
284
2
Poor movement







Front and side view 1
1
8 4
9 91
Total
111 100
201 100
312 100
*X2c = 11.4395

df = 3
X2t = 7.815

* Significant at 0.05 level of significance
NS – not significant


Principal Component Analysis



The results of a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of 79 log-
transformed morphometric variables are shown on Figure 49.

---

Figure 50. A scatter plot of PC I versus PC II


Plotting PC I against PC II does not lead to the formation of groups among
the 295 dogs as valid number. All measurements from the head are expressed as
percentage of the head length while measurements from the other parts of the
body except the head are expressed as percentage of the body length. PC I is
interpreted as size factor since all characters are positively correlated with this
component. PC II is regarded as the ‘shape” factor independent of size. Size
describes the magnitude of a given characters and shape implies the relationship
between two or more characters.

Table 35 shows the principal component loadings. The asterisk indicates
the variables that have a significant contribution to the formation of groups among
the dogs examined.

---

In PC 1 the variables that have the most significant contribution are
%PBSSAL, %RDT and %PHDT. In PC II, % DBLCE is the only significant
variable.

Another scatterplot is made between PC II and %DBLCE , the only
variable that contribute significantly to PC II to find out if the result of plotting
PC I against PC II can be duplicated.


Figure 51. A scatter plot of PC II versus %DBLCE


Plotting PC II against % DBLCE shows that there is still only one distinct
group formed among the 295 dogs examined that has been accepted as valid.

Figure 50 shows that the distance between the lateral canthi of the eyes of
the dogs examined is short, and since there is no significant difference in the
distance between the medial canthi of the eyes, the shape of the eyes is oval.

---

Table 35. Principal Component loadings for 75 log transformed variables

(n=295)
Variables
PC I
PC II

% AFFNRP
.16234
-.376293
% TMAFNR
-.11759
-.067340
%DBE
-.03092
-.630994
%DBLSM
.14661
-.279605
%DVDM
.11004
-.457768
%DBMCE
.14310
-.550281
%DBLCE
.06035
-.706838*
%DBMLCRL
-.02098
-.565041
%LLCP
.07497
-.589440
%LMCP
.15654
-.626559
%LLCTM
.07531
-.359899
%LMCTM
-.2577
-.404873
%LLCBLE
-13203
-.392669
%LMCBLE
-.01221
-.406398
%LEL F
.14376
-.652809
%LEL B
.10327
-.670986
%LEW
.02274
-.620424
%JAFFNR
.21129
-.358064
%LLCJ
.12078
-.369823
% JTM
.18058
-.344065
%LEBJ
.06361
-.490123
%FW
.07627
0.617404
%HW
.05570
-.564163
%NL
.13316
-.280187
%THPS
.10561
.210209

---

%BD
.45839
0.217580
%SD
.33814
.152025
%ND
.40384
-.164262
%HED
.59820
-.173656
%FD
.64898
-.139163
%LALG
.29086
.023101
%HIW
.50588
-.239296
%BW
.51748
-.167145
%SW
.54027
-.149276
%NW
.44697
-.021554
%VJW
.59561
-.017223
%VJL
.40505
.106498
%VCL
.41656
-.097709
%VABL
.32209
-.138663
%VNL
.44928
.003601
%PBSSAL
.75860*
.333923

























%ATDCAL
.60524
.249271
%AJTDC
.49239
-.126929
%AJTD
.59769
-.79246
%FFW
.66285
-.099393

---

%LARA
.42045
-.149234
%TDDT
.46390
.007320
%CPMP
.56677
.134636
%CPTDC
.42450
-.139448
%CTDS
.55638
.033549
%MJPIJ
.58181
-.280527
%PPIJTD
.58388
-.133562
%RDT
.74086*
.271643
%RMP
.68938
.337102
%THPH
.47868
.185542
%TW
.54810
-.098601
RPH
.48157
.380354
%RSJ
.48214
.216436
%PHDT
.77247*
-.031715
%PHMP
.69356
.029967
%BFW
.56272
-.015686
%HJDSD
.38618
-.170826
%MPTDT
.57846
-.286728
%PPIJDTPL
.53777
-.127725
%GDT
.61732
.313651
%GMP
.55965
.333142
%PHIFID
.66031
-.073131



Expl. Var
15.62462 7.788125
Prp.Totl.
.20833
. 102842



Table 36..Morphometeric data of dogs examined (n=295)






Range
Standard

---

Variable
Mean
Minimum Maximum
Deviation






AFFNRP
10.31
7.10
16.30
1.60
TMAFNR
8.21
4.62
14.96
1.89
DBE
7.59
3.98
11.56
1.42
DBLSM
3.79
1.80
9.31
1.10
DVDM
4.14
1.88
9.62
1.03
DBMCE
4.14
2.23
9.89
.78
DBLCE
7.68
4.50
13.60
1.16
DBMLCRL
6.40
4.07
17.20
1.30
LLCP
9.24
5.45
15.00
1.49
LMCP
10.11
6.44
14.03
1.49
LLCTM
9.88
4.50
13.50
1.72
LMCTM
7.75
4.36
13.70
1.48
LLCBLE
5.91
2.72
11.00
1.29
LMCBLE
8.10
3.94
13.00
1.62
LEL F
8.50
5.33
13.10
1.37
LEL B
8.22
5.00
12.39
1.30
LEW
5.02
2.06
9.68
1.11
JAFFNR
8.77
3.97
15.10
1.62
LLCP
7.78
4.00
14.40
1.51
JTM
14.25
7.30
23.00
2.65
LEBJ
4.95
2.08
13.74
1.33
FW
5.14
2.99
9.10
.98
HL
18.67
11.10
25.10
2.81
HW
8.90
5.56
13.40
1.46
BL
54.03
25.80
78.80
10.17
NL
13.04
6.20
23.20
3.51

---

THPS
41.03
19.00
64.00
8.22
BD
12.30
7.40
25.20
3.05
SD
17.13
9.20
31.40
5.01
ND
8.95
4.31
19.00
2.14
HED
9.10
5.40
19.20
1.79
FD
5.85
3.05
9.78
.99
LALG
23.97
11.75
41.20
5.88
HIW
11.15
6.79
20.00
2.23
BW
9.79
5.29
17.00
2.04
SW
10.27
5.58
19.80
2.18
NW
7.08
3.32
19.90
2.01
VJW
6.07
3.05
10.40
1.09
VJL
12.36
5.50
23.00
2.74





Table 37.
Continued...





Range

Variable
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Standard




Deviation


11.72
36.00

VCL
23.18
5.01
VNL
14.33
6.20
28.00
3.58
PBSSAL
41.11
19.90
61.40
8.15
PBSBSAL
38.54
18.00
57.70
7.98
OPCEJ
5.17
2.07
10.70
1.21
EJSDSD
19.47
10.00
36.00
4.42
EJAJ
13.90
5.30
26.50
3.72
EJTD
22.28
12.00
39.20
4.47
EJTDC
19.38
8.60
29.50
4.02
AOP
7.13
3.00
14.90
2.06

---

ARDAL
28.81
10.20
49.60
6.61
AJTDC
6.47
3.20
16.50
1.96
AJTD
9.52
4.50
20.00
2.23
FFW
4.38
2.10
8.78
.97
LARA
9.48
4.50
21.0
2.53
TDDT
5.06
1.20
10.00
1.25
CPMP
6.40
2.40
10.00
1.54
CPTDC
5.45
2.30
12.50
1.62
CTDS
6.23
2.50
11.00
1.41
MJPIJ
1.85
1.10
5.00
.43
PPIJTD
2.67
1.18
5.00
.54
RDT
41.09
21.00
58.20
7.90
RMP
40.36
13.50
59.0
8.21
THPS
41.03
19.00
64.00
8.22
THPH
27.48
12.00
47.60
6.55
TW
11.97
6.10
27.20
2.82
RPH
29.77
7.50
45.30
7.32
RSJ
19.05
8.30
34.80
4.65
PHDT
14.21
8.40
25.00
2.31
PHMP
12.46
6.00
20.50
2.21
BFW
4.11
2.00
8.00
.86
HJDSD
9.79
4.10
23.70
2.93
MPTDT
1.88
1.03
3.50
.38
PPIJDTPL
2.70
1.50
5.30
.59
GDT
32.07
14.00
49.00
7.03
GMP
31.99
14.30
47.50
7.18
PHIFID
13.31
7.00
22.80
2.40

---

Relationship Between Dog Characteristics and Respondent’s Selected Socio-
economic Variables


The choice of dog characteristics has an impact on the way owners
treat their dogs.

Table 37 shows that length of coat and tail shapes of dogs are the dog
characteristics that significantly relate to level of income. It may be inferred that
these characteristics have an effect on the level of income. For example, the
higher the income the shorter the coat and tapering tail is preferred than the other
characteristics such as coat texture and coat color.
Table 38 shows that coat texture and skull shapes are the dog
characteristics that significantly relate to age of respondents. These are the
characteristics that have an effect on the age of respondents.

Table 37. Relationship between level of income of Respondents and dog
characteristics

Dog characteristics
X2c

X20.05
Remarks


Sex of Dog

6.56
12.59
Not significant
Age of Dog

5.10
16.72
not significant
Temperament

11.71
16.92
not significant
Types of coat

1.39
7.81
not significant
Length of coat

13.90
12.59
significant
Coat texture

37.04
49.77
not significant
Coat color


38.59
49.77
not significant
Skull shapes

7.62
25.00
not significant
Ears of dog

19.35
32.67
not significant
Color of eyes

12.79
21.02
not significant
Tail shape


61.77
55.76
significant
Height of dog

9.19
12.59
not significant

---

Table 38. Relationship between the of Age of respondents and dog

Characteristics

Dog characteristics
X2c

X20.05
Remarks

Sex of Dog

4.72
11.07
not significant
Age of Dog

20.44
21.02
not significant
Temperament

11.99
21.02
not significant
Types of coat

7.59
9.48
not significant
Length of coat

8.81
15.51
not significant
Coat texture

67.74
67.50
significant
Coat color


41.39
67.50
not significant
Skull shapes

32.34
31.40
significant
Ears of dog

27.30
41.34
not significant
Color of eyes

24.31
26.30
not significant
Tail shape


63.71
67.50
not significant
Height of dog

5.87
15.51
not significant



For example, smooth coat and flat skull are dog characteristics more
commonly seen among dogs in the study area.
Other characteristics such as sex, age, temperament, and type of coat,
length of coat, coat color, ears, and color of eyes, tail shape and height do not
significantly relate to age of respondents.

Table 39 shows that age of dogs, type of coat, length of coat, coat texture,
skull shapes, ears of dogs and tail shape are dog characteristics that significantly
relate to Educational attainment. This means that these are the characteristics that

---

have an effect on educational attainment for a choice of a dog. For example, the
higher the educational attainment, young dogs are more preferred because studies
show that young dogs are easily trained in the way they are desired.


Table 39. Relationship between Educational attainment of respondents and dog
characteristics

Dog characteristics
X2c

X20.05
Remarks


Sex of Dog

16.72
23.64
not significant
Age of Dog

46.36
32.67
significant
Temperament

29.83
32.67
not significant
Types of coat

21.17
14.06
significant
Length of coat

38.75
23.68
significant
Coat texture

112.54
101.88
significant
Coat color


96.41
101.88
not significant
Skull shapes

76.59
49.77
significant
Ears of dog

100.34
49.77
significant
Color of eyes

24.72
41.34
not significant
Tail shape


173.14
113.41
significant
Height of dog

9.23
23.69
not significant



Table 40 shows that age, type of coat, coat texture, coat color, skull
shapes, and ears of dogs, color of eyes, tail shape and height of dogs are the
characteristics that do not significantly relate to occupation. This means that these
are the characteristics that have an effect on the choice of dog by occupation.
Characteristics such as age of dogs, temperament of dogs, and length of
coat do not significantly relate to occupation. These characteristics have no effect
on the choice of dogs by occupation. For example, a farmer can choose any age of

---

dogs that he likes, a businessman can choose whatever the temperament of dogs
is, and an employee can choose any length of coat.






Table 40. Relationship of Occupation of respondents and dog characteristics

Dog characteristics
X2c

X20.05
Remarks


Sex of Dog

48.70
28.86
significant
Age of Dog

37.57
40.11
not significant
Temperament

38.91
40.11
not significant
Types of coat

29.20
16.92
significant
Length of coat

27.29
28.86
not significant
Coat texture

204.92
124.34
significant
Coat color


131.04
124.34
significant
Skull shapes

89.79
61.63
significant
Ears of dog

74.47
61.63
significant
Color of eyes

52.25
49.77
significant
Tail shape


181.50
124.34
significant
Height of dog

64.72
28.86
significant

---

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Summary


Three hundred twelve dogs from Betag and Beckel were examined to
determine their characteristics in relation to community development and
specifically to determine the dog owner’s profile and the way by which they care
for their dog, the physical profiles of dogs, establish morphologic and
morphometric data of dogs and to determine the relationship between the socio-
economic profile of dog owners and the dog characteristics.

The Salient Findings of the Study are:



1. There are more female than male respondents, great majority are
married, and the greatest number range in age from 46 and above years. There are
more farmer respondents in Beckel and more businessman respondents in Betag.

The respondents have an income of an average of Php 5,001 to 10, 000 a
month. A great majority of the respondents live in a traditional family house.
Many of the houses do not have enclosures.
Many dogs examined are offspring of the owner’s bitch. The majority of
the dogs are used as guard dogs hence many are left to roam around the house of
the owner. Almost all dogs are fed with kitchen left-overs twice a day by
household members.

---

Less than half of the respondents consult veterinarian about their dogs
because of high consultation fees, high cost of medicines and the accessibility or
the availability of veterinarians. Thus most of the respondents confine and give
human medicines to their sick dogs.
2. There are more female dogs examined than male dogs with a sex ratio
of 1:1.2. Many of the dogs examined are less than one year old. The majority are
aggressive. There are more dogs vaccinated and dewormed in Betag than in
Beckel.
3. In morphologic examination, the majority have short, single, smooth
coat, and color brown predominates over other coat colors. Almost all dogs
examined from the two barangays have no markings. Many dogs have a back
which arched over the loin and have tucked-up abdomen.
The head is long, and tapering with a flat skull and of the mesaticephalic
skull formation. The greatest numbers of dogs have pricked ears set within the
level of the eyes; have oval eyes with short eyelashes, short eyebrows, dark eye
rims and hidden third eyelid; saucy eye expressions, down face, black, roman
nose, pinched nostrils, level mouth, and a snippy muzzle. A great majority has a
sloping shoulder, narrow front, cat feet; many have straight stifled and a tapering
tail.
Almost all dogs have no breeching style inside the thigh, have an oval
chest, have no dewlap, have a shallow furrow, have no keel; are well ribbed up

---

and not chiseled; have no prominent occiput but have a straight stop. Almost all
dogs not chiseled, short coupled and cobby.


3. In morphometric examination, only one group of dogs has been
examined in both barangays studied.

4. The length of coat is significantly related to income and educational
attainment. Tail shape is significantly related to income, educational attainment
and occupation. Coat texture and skull shapes significantly relate to age of
respondents, educational attainment and occupation. Age of respondents, types of
coat and ears of dogs significantly relate to educational attainment and
occupation. And coat colors, color of the eyes, height of dogs significantly relate
to occupation only.


Conclusions

Based on the findings, the following conclusions are drawn:

1. In the selected socio-economic variables such as age of respondents,
occupation, level of income and educational attainment, the respondents from
Beckel differ significantly from those of Betag
Respondents are aware of dog management and its effect on the
community but the cost and the availability of veterinary services hinder them to
give a more proper management to their dogs.

---

2. There is a significant difference among the morphology of dogs
between barangays in terms of color, coat texture and length of coat, skull shape,
color of the eyes, ear shape and set, tail shape and set, shoulders, fronts and feet.
3. There is no significant difference in the morphometrics of dogs in the
two study area.
4. There is a significant difference among the selected socio-economic
profile of respondents to preference of dog characteristics.

Recommendations

Based on the result, it is recommended that more studies on dogs be made
especially dogs in the highlands; such studies should use parameters with low
standard deviations. Further, it is recommended a similar study be conducted
using the morphometric data of known breeds as standards to be compared with
the so-called native dogs.

It is further recommended that the municipal ordinance prohibiting dogs
from loitering within the prohibited zones in La Trinidad be strictly observed and
implemented since no program for the control of rabies in dogs can succeed
without full government support and full cooperation of the people in the locality.
(Prohibited zones include residential, commercial and institutional as parks,
public roads, schools and other public places)

---

LITERATURE CITED

CUNLIFFE, JULIETTE. 2000. The Encyclopedia of DOG BREEDS. Paragon
Publishing. Queen Street House, 4 Queen Street, Bath BA1 1HE, UK.

DIEGO, R.C. 1998. Contribution to the Systematic Revision of the Southeast
Asian Clarid Catfishes of the Genus Clarias ( Siluriformes, Clariidae).
Master Thesis. University of Ghent. Belgium.

DONE,S.H. Color Atlas of Veterinary Anatomy. THE DOG AND CAT. Vol.
3. Mosby-Wolfe. London.

ENCARTA LIBRARY REFERENCES. 2004. Encarta Interactive World
Atlas.

GETTY, ROBERT. 1975. Sisson and Grossman’s. The Anatomy of the
Domestic Animals. 5th ed. Vol.2. W.B. Saunders Company.
Philadelphia. London. Toronto.

KAPOOR, V.C. 1998. Principles and Practices of Animal Taxonomy. Science
Publishers Inc. Enfield, New Hampshire 03748, USA. Pp. 9,18,24, 33,
40-43, 100-101.

LABOTAN, ALLAN N. 2004. Identification and Characterization of the
Philippine ‘Native Pig’ Using Morphometry. Unpublished
Undergraduate Thesis, Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet.

LUMBAO, B. ONAYD. 2004. MAG-SAO AY DI BIRO. Understanding and
Training Dogs in the Philippine Context. Dog scout of the Philippines.
www.dogs scout Philippines.com. Tri-Milson’s Publication. TOCS
Ave. Cor. Warm St. Virginia Summerville Subdv. Mayamot, City of
Antipolo.

REIST, J.D. , 1986. An Empirical evaluation of Coefficients used in residual
and allometric adjustment of size covariation. Canada Journal,
Zoology, 64:1363-8.

THE COMPLETE DOG BOOK. 1964. New Revised Edition . an Official
Publication
of the American Kennel Club. Garden City Books,
Garden City, N.Y. Pp. 60-75 and 263-270.

---

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO). The Dog Population in Urban
and Rural
areas:The
Dog Functions in Human Societies.
Guidelines For Dog
Rabies Control. Geneva,
June 1987. Page

WILLIS, M. B.1998. Dalton’s Introduction to Practical Animal Breeding. 4th
ed. Blackwell Science Inc. USA. Pp. 16 & 20.

WIKIPEDIA, 2005. The free encyclopedia. http://en. Wikipedia.org/wiki/dog,
2005.

WIKIPEDIA,2005.The free Encyclopedia.http://en. ikipedia.org/wiki/mixed-
breed- Dog,

WIKIPEDIA. 2005. The free encyclopedia. http://en. Wikipedia.org/wiki/coat-
%28dog%29

---

Appendix A

DATA SHEET


Barangay: _________Date of Data Collection: ___________ Sample animal #:
___________

I. Name of Owner: ________________________
Age:
_______________
Address: ____________________________________
Sex: _______Male: ______ Female
Civil Status: ________Married ______ Sinlge _____ Widow/Widower
____Others ( specify)
Citizenship: ________Filipino _______American _____Chinese _______
Others ( Specify)
Number of Persons in the household: ____________________
Educational Attainment: ____ high school level

______ High school
graduate


____ Elementary level
______ Elementary graduate
____ College Level

______
College
graduate
____ Vocational


______
Others
(specify)
Occupation: _____ Businessman
______ Farmer
______ Student

_____ Employee ______ Others ( Specify)
Level of income: _____5, 000 and below _____ 5,001 – 10,000 ___
10,001
and above

Persons who handle and play with the dog: ______ Owner _____
adults
of
Household





_____ children of household _____ friends





_____ Neighbors

______Strangers____ nobody
Number of persons in household:
______ less than 5 years old _______ 5-10
years old


____ 11-17 years old ____ 18-50 years old ___ more than 50 years
old
Type of home: _____Traditional single-family house
______
Modern
family house

_____ Apartment above commercial area ______ home in multi-
apartment

---

_____ Farmhouse _____ tent ______ others ( Specify)
Enclosure of home: _____ No fence or wall _____ fence or wall, but does not
restrain dog


_____ fence or wall, completely restrains dog ______ others (
specify)
Source of dog:
_____ offspring of own bitch


______ Bought or traded from neighborhood


______ Bought or traded from outside neighborhood


______ Received as gift from neighbor


______ Received as gift from outside neighborhood


______ Others (specify)
Use of dog: ______ guarding the premises ______ herding

______ hunting
______ pet

______ meat source

______ Source of income

______ Breeding purposes ______ Others ( Specify)
Is the dog: _____ Confined? ______Leashed?

______ free roaming?
The dog’s shelter __ a dog’s kennel ____ owners house _____ free roaming
____Others (specify)
Who fed the dog? __Household members ___by neighbors __dog finds its food _
Others (specify)
Source of food:
_____ Commercial dog food _____ family garbage and
waste


_____ Kitchen left overs

_____ small rodents


_____ Others (specify)
How often is the dog fed?
_____ once a day
_____ twice a day ______
thrice a day
Is the dog vaccinated against rabies? _____ yes

_____ No
Is the dog deworm? _____ yes ( if yes how often) _____ No
Do you consult veterinarians about your dogs? ____ yes ____ No. If No, why?
____________________

What do you do when your dog get sick?
______ Care for/confined
______
killed





______ Taken to a vet ______ Butchered

II. Animal Profile:
Name: ________

Age: ________
Sex: ________
Temperament:
_____docile
_____friendly
_____sensitive


_____aggressive

_____ Others (specify)

---

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
PUT A CHECK MARK IN EACH OF THE BLANKS. WRITE NECESSARY
DESCRIPTIONS THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE CHOICES.

1. Coat: a. Types: ______ double coat
_____ single coat
______ Others
(describe) ______

b. Length: ____ long_____ medium_____ short______ Others (describe)
______

c. Coat textures/quality:




______ broken

______

briskly, harsh coat




______ bear like

______
short
briskly coat




______ dense mane ______
long standoff




______ curly coats ______
Corded Coat




______ stand-offs
______
wire coat




______ pily coat

______
smooth
coat




______ long, fairly coarse ______
Others
(describe) ______





coat
2. Colors and Markings:

a. Colors:

______
black/white ______
red




______
gray
______
roan




______
black/tan
______

brown/white




______
brown
______

white/tan




______
sable (specify) ______

brindle/dapple




______
cream
______

white/black/tan




______ merle
______
others
(describe)
b. Specific markings like the presence of :




_____ mask _____ pips ______ pencilings

c. Other distinguishing marks (if any) such as:



______
stockings
______
socks



______
splashed coat ______
Lozenge mark
or spot



______
spectacles
______
others(specify)
________

---

3. Back and underline:

a. Back








______
arched over the loin ______
straight
back



______
level back

______
wheel
back



______
long back

______
camel
back



______
sloping back
______ hollow back



______
roach back
______arched-shape wheel
back



______
others
(describe)
_____________________________








4. Head and skull

a. Head shape: ______
apple head
______
otter head



______
balanced head ______
pear-shaped
head



______
brick-shaped head______
long
and
tapering head



______
clean head
______
ram’s head



______
cone-shaped head
______
short
or round head



______
egg-shaped head
______
wedge-
shape head



______
fox like head ______
square-off
head



______
others(described) _____

b. Skull shapes:





______
arched skull
______
oval
skull



______
broad skull
______

rounded skull



______
flat skull


______

bumpy skull

---

______
others(describe) _______

c. Division of skull formation:



______
brachycephalic

______

mesaticephalic



______
dolicocephalic

5. Earshape and Ear set:



a. shape:


______
bat ear
______

heart-shape ear




______
blunt-tipped ears
______

button ears




______
hooded ears ______
candle-
flamed ear




______
lobed shaped ears
______

cocked ears




______
low-set ears ______

cropped ears




______
rolled ears
______
drop
ears




______
rose ears

______

prick ears




______
tulip ears
______
filbert-
shaped ears




______
V-shaped ears ______
flying
ears




______
triangular ears ______
folded
ears




______others(describe) __________________

b. Ear set:




______
high set


______

low set




______
set within the level of the eyes

6. Eyes and eye Expression:
a. Eye shape:
______
almond eye ______

obliquely placed eyes
______
deep set eyes ______
oval
eyes
______
globular eyes ______
round
eyes
______
haw eyes
______

triangular eyes

---

______
Others(describe)
___________________
b. Eye marking:
______
spectacles
______
pips
(melon pips)
______
four eyes
______

domino pattern
______
Others(describe):
___________________
c. Eye color:
______
black
______
brown
______
wall eye

______

others ( specify)____
d. Eyelashes:
______
long

______

medium

____ short

e. Eyebrows:
______
Long

______
medium


____ short
f. Eye Rims:
______ dark eye rims ______
Liver eye rims
______
others (describe)
g. Third eyelid:
______ exposed


______

hidden
______
others
(describe)
______________________


h. Eye expression: ______
eastern/oriental

______

ape-like
______
gruff

______

saucy
______
monkey like
______

Others (describe)
7. Face



______
down face
______
cheeky

---

______
dish face

______
frog
face

______
broken face ______

others(describe) ______
8. Nose

a. Nose color: ______
brown/liver nose

______

self-colored nos



______
fleshed colored

______

winter nose



______
others
(describe)
________________________

b. Shape:





______
ram’s nose
______
roman nose



______
butterfly nose ______
others
(describe) _____
9. Mouth



______
level mouth ______
undershot



______
overshot

______
others(
describe) ______
10. Muzzle



______
snippy muzzle
______
blunt
muzzle



______
others(describe) _______________
11. Shoulders:



______
Sloping shoulder

______

straight shoulder

12. Fronts and feet

a. front
______
bowed front ______
fiddle front



______
crooked front ______
narrow front



______
gun-barrel front
______
out of
elbow



______
horse shoe front
______

knucked over



______
straight front ______
down
in
pastern



______
wide front
______
others
(describe) ______

b. feet



______
cat feet

______
hare
feet

---

______
oval feet


______

webbed feet



______
splay feet

______
paper
foot



______
others(describe)
_______________________

13. Hindquarters



______
cow-hocked ______
straight stifled



______
correct hind end
______

moderately angulated



______
over angulated ______
Others
(describe) ______






14. Tail shape and tail set

a. Tail shape




______
bee sting
tail
______

plumed tail



______
bob tail


______

pot-hooked tail



______
brush tail

______
rat tail



______
carrot-shaped tail

______

ring tail



______
cocked-up tail
______
sabre
tail



______
crank tail

______

scimiter tail



______
curled tail

______
screw
tail



______
docked tail

______
sickle
tail



______
flagpole tail
______
snap
tail



______
flat tail

______

squirrel tail



______
gay tail

______
stumpy
tail

---

______
hook tail


______

sword tail



______
horizontal tail
______

tapering tail



______
kinked tail

______
tufted
tail



______
otter tail

______
others
(describe) ______

15. Movements



______
paddling

______
correct
movement front



______
weaving

______
good
movement side view



______
poor movement rear______good movement
rear



______
poor movement side view
______

others (describe)
16. Other features:

a. Balance:





______
yes


______
no

b. Breeching ______
present

______ absent


c. Chest

______
barrel chest
______

oval chest



______
others
(describe)
__________________________

d. Chiseling:



______
Chiseled


______

not chiseled

e. Coupling ______
short coupling
______
long
coupling

f. Dewlap
______
present

______
absent

g. Furrow
______
deep

______

shallow

h. Keel
______
prominent

______
not
prominent



______
moderately prominent

i. Occiput
______
prominent

______
not
prominent



______
moderately prominent

j. Stop
______
dished

______
straight

---

k. Well-ribbed up
______
yes


______

no

l. Describe the dog as a whole:



______
cobby?

______
racy?

MORPHOMETRIC VARIABLES:
FILL UP THE NECESSARY MEASUREMENTS ON THE SPACE
PROVIDED.

Measurements on the left lateral part of the body:


BD __________

FD __________

HD
__________


ND __________

LALG _______

SD
__________

Measurements on the back


BL __________

BW __________

HIW
__________


NL __________

NW __________

SW
___________


THPS ________

Measurements on the ventral neck and abdomen:


VJL __________

VJW
__________

VNL__________


VCL _________

VAL __________


Measurements on the head:

Frontal view


AFFNRP ______

DBE __________
DBLSM
________


DVDM _______

LLCBLE _______ LMCBLE
_______


TMAFNR _____


Dorsal view


DBMCE ______

DBLCE
________
FW
____________


HL ___________

HW ___________
LLCP
__________

---

LMCP ________

LMCTM
_______

LLCTM________


DBMLCLERMC _____


Lateral view




JAFFNR ______

JLLCL ________

JTM
__________




VJL __________

LEL/F ________

LEL/B
________


LEW _________

LEBJ _________

Measurements on the anterior limbs:

Left lateral view:


EJDSD _______

OPCE _________
PBDSAL
________


PBSSAL ______




Left Medial view:


AOP _________

ATDAL ________ ATDCAL
________


EJAJ ________

EJTD _________

EJTDC
__________



Left frontal view:


AJTDC ______

AJTD _________

FFW
____________


LARA _______

TDDT _________


Left caudal view(foot):


CPMP _______

CPTDC ________



Left dorsal view (foot)


CTDS _______

MJPIJ _________
PPIJTD
__________


Measurements on the hind limbs:


Left caudal view


PHDT _______

PHMP _________ RDT
_____________


RMP _______

THPH _________
TW
______________

---

Left lateral view


BFW ________

HJDSD
________

MPTDT __________


PPIJDTPL ____

RPH ___________ RSS
_____________


SJDT ________

Left medial view


GDT _________

GMP ___________ PHFID
___________

---

Appendix B

COMUNICATION

Benguet State University
GRADUATE SCHOOL
La Trinidad, Benguet


April 28, 2005


PEDRO GOLOCAN JR.
Barangay Captain
Betag

Sir:

I am conducting a study entitled “Characterization of Dogs in Relation to
Community Development” in La Trinidad, Benguet in fulfillment of my graduate
Studies.

In this regard please allow me to use your dogs as my sample specimen
and your people as my respondents in gathering my data.


Thank you very much


Respectfully yours:

(SGD)ANA B. MENDOZA
Student


Noted:

(SGD)JULIA M. SOLIMEN, Ph.D

Adviser


Approved:

(SGD)PEDRO GOLOCAN JR.
Barangay Captain

---

Appendix C

COMMUNICATION

Benguet State University
GRADUATE SCHOOL
La Trinidad, Benguet

April 28, 2005

MURPHY QUEZON
Barangay Captain
Beckel

Sir:

I am conducting a study entitled “Characterization of Dogs in Relation to
Community Development” in La Trinidad, Benguet in fulfillment of my graduate
Studies.

In this regard please allow me to use your dogs as my sample specimen
and your people as my respondents in gathering my data.


Thank you very much



Respectfully yours:



(SGD) ANA B. MENDOZA
Student


Noted:


(SGD)JULIA M. SOLIMEN, Ph.D

Adviser

---

Approved:

(SGD)MURPHY QUEZON
Barangay Captain

---

Appendix D

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH



Ana Badival-Mendoza is the sixth of the 10 children of Mr. And Mrs.
Antonio Badival of Atok, Benguet. She is happily married to Tito P. Mendoza,
who worked presently as a fireman at Baguio City Fire Station, and by whom she
is blessed with three children, two boys and one girl.

She finished her Elementary Education at Celo Haight Elementary School
(CHES), Sayangan, Atok, Benguet on March 1986 and her high school education
at Saint Paul’s Academy on March 1990. She obtained her degree in Doctor of
Veterinary Medicine at Benguet State University in March 1996. She took the
Board of Veterinary Medicine that same year and luckily she became one of the
licensed veterinarians that year.

In September –December 1996, she volunteered at Philippine National
Red Cross – Benguet Chapter as a one of the primary health care volunteers. In
February –December, 1997, she was hired as a breeding section supervisor at First
Great Fortune Farm, Bo, Cupang, Pandi, Bulacan.

In 1998, she applied at Alpha Pet Care Center, A small animal clinic at
#57 M. Roxas Street, Trancoville, Baguio City and fortunately she was hired as an
assistant resident veterinarian. She worked at APCC for more than two years.

In November 2000, she applied at Benguet State University as an
instructor and was luckily hired as a substitute of Dr. Jocelyn Runas, who went

---

for a study leave. When Dr. Runas came back, the author was hired as a
contractual instructor until given a temporary in April, 2003.

Presently, the author handles subjects in animal production, Animal
Nutrition, Principles of Genetics, Veterinary Physiology and sometimes as a
substitute instructor in Veterinary Anatomy.

---

---

Document Outline

• BASELINE STUDY ON DOGSCHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO COMMUNITY WELFARE
  • BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • ABSTRACT
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS
  • INTRODUCTION
  • METHODOLOGY
  • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  • SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • LITERATURE CITED
  • APPENDICES

---