Other Issue

vol. 5, no. 1 (2014)
Asian Journal of Biodiversity


Description

The Asian Journal of Biodiversity is an international peer reviewed and multidisciplinary journal that provides a venue for scholars to publish their research findings. Through the new knowledge generated, this journal intends to empower citizens to take an active role in biodiversity conservation. Published by the Liceo de Cagayan University, the Asian Journal of Biodiversity is listed and indexed by Thomson Reuters (ISI) Science Journal Master List.


Publisher: Liceo de Cagayan University


Category: Biodiversity Conservation | Ecology |

ISSN 2094-1519 (Online)

ISSN 2244-0461 (Print)


Table of contents

Open Access Subscription Access


Articles


Vascular Plants of the Peat Swamp Forest in Caimpugan, Agusan del Sur Province on Mindanao Island, Philippines.

Lowell G. Aribal | Edwino S. Fernando

Discipline: Forestry

Antimicrobial, Antipyretic, and Anti-Inflammatory Activities of Selected Philippine Medicinal Pteridophytes

Victor B. Amoroso | Dorothy A. Antesa | Dave p. Buenavista | FULGENT P. CORITICO

Discipline: Medicine

Freshwater Fishes of Tikub Lake, Tiaong, Quezon, Philippines

Bonifacio Jr. D. Labatos | Nicomedes D. Briones

Discipline: Fisheries

Assessment of Biodiversity and Water Quality in Association with Land Use in the Alanib River, Mt. Kitanglad Range Park, Philippines

Einstene M. Opiso | Victoria T. Quimpang | Emmanuel P. Leaño | Gloria L. Galan | Florfe M. Acma | FULGENT P. CORITICO | Abigail Labadan | Ronald Regan Forten | Kate Lucelle Coquilla | Angela Grace Bruno | Victor B. Amoroso

Discipline: Bio-Diversity

Plankton Diversity in Ballast Water of an Inter-island Passenger-Cargo Ship Calling the Philippine Ports

Brian Gil S. Sarinas | Lorna D. Gellada | MELCHOR M. MAGRAMO | LOVELL O. BARIA | DANNY B. TIRAZONA | LYNBELLE ROSE D. SORIO | JILLA A. TORNALEJO

Discipline: Bio-Diversity

A Taxonomic Study of Wood-Rotting Basidiomycetes at the Molave Forest of San Fernando City, La Union Province, Philippines

EDWIN R. TADIOSA | JETHRO S. ARSENIO

Discipline: Taxonomy

Practices, Behaviors, and Action on Climate Change and Environmental Protection and Conservation of Settlers along the Banks of Oro River, Northern Mindanao, Philippines

Genaro V. Japos | Lesley C. Lubos

Discipline: Ecology

Comments (3)

Francisco Buctot Jr
5 days ago

Performance and Morphological Characteristics of Red Jungle Fowl (Gallus Gallus L.) In Selected Areas of Leyte under Confinement System 1Francisco F. Buctot Jr. and 2Dinah M. Espina 1College of Business and Management Southern Leyte State University-San Juan, San Juan, Southern Leyte and 2Visayas State University, Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines Abstract This study was conducted to assess the reproductive performance, egg quality traits and morphological of Red Jungle Fowls of Leyte mated to Native hens under confinement system in a Randomized Complete Block Design. The result on egg weight showed a highly significant difference at p value <0.01 and heaviest weight (39.0 g) and lightest weight (35.75 g) on Native x Native and Baybay RJF x Native, respectively. A comparable number of eggs per clutch, fertility and hatchability rates, yolk and albumen, shell weight, egg length and width, egg shape index and yolk color score were recorded. The morphological characteristics of the F1 Native x Native had highest (p< 0.05) bodyweight and lowest on F1 Hinundayan RJF x Native at week 2, but consistently heaviest (p<0.01) body weights on F1 Native x Native at weeks 4, 3 and 8. Bi-weekly body lengths was highly significant (p<0.01) from week 2 to 6 showing consistent longest body lengths on F1 Native x Native and F1 Baybay RJF x Native. Shank length was not significant on weeks 2, 4 and 6 but significantly (p<0.05) differed at week 8.Wingspan also was highly significant (p<0.01) on week 2 to week 6, with the widest (p<0.01) span on F1 Native x Native. The plumage, skin, shank, earlobe, and comb colors of the different F1 progenies varied from red, brown and black showing red plumage color as the dominant color. This indicates that RJF performances are comparable with the native chicken under a confinement system. Keywords: egg clutch, egg shape index, qualitative traits, quantitative traits, cross breeding INTRODUCTION Poultry breeding has become the most commercialized of all livestock species. Separate lines are developed according to purpose like broilers and egg layers. Both have made spectacular progress because of the high selection intensity possible. And also the groups are concerned with the viability and resistance to disease because only live broiler or hen produces income. Strategies for producing specific sires’ lines, dam lines and crosses that differ in production traits are continuing today. Crossbreeding is used to take advantage of heterosis and to combine stocks in which the performance traits complement each other or conversely to cover particularly poor performance of a pure strain for a commercially vital character. The Red Jungle fowls, which were believed to the progenitor of the usual backyard “native” chickens, are still plenty in many forests of Leyte. Although female Red jungle fowls are harder to captivate than the males, people were living near these Leyte jungle-like mountains sometimes capture these wild chickens using either primitive or innovative methods. The forest of Mount Pangasugan, Baybay Leyte is still a sanctuary for wild animals including Red Jungle Fowls. Currently, no available information on morphological characteristics and production performance of Red Jungle fowls in Leyte and their crosses with native chickens in Leyte. The grand parental stocks in the Philippines are entirely dependent on imported stocks from the U.S.A., Canada, Netherlands, Israel, Thailand, Japan and Australia. These stocks have been bred so that they could not be genetically produced elsewhere except in their own foundation farms (Arboleda, et al., 1986). But the lack of performance and breeding records has always been the major problem to improve animal genetic resources in most developing countries like the native chickens in the Philippines. As a matter of fact, the native chicken still contribute to a high degree on the supply of meat and eggs in the markets especially in rural areas (Arboleda, 1987). According to Bondoc (1999), native chickens constitute a special genetic niche evolved by natural selection which is crucial to the continued animal production in the country. Unfortunately, the information on the true potential of the different genetic groups of Philippine native chickens regarding some basic genetic parameters is still limited. Hence, this research is conducted to determine the breeding potentials of male Red Jungle Fowl which comes from the forest of Leyte and bred with native females. Objectives of the Study Generally this research was aimed to explore the breeding potential of Red Jungle Fowl in Leyte. Specifically it aimed to: assess the reproductive performance of Red Jungle Fowl mated with native hens under confined management system; characterize the different egg traits of Red Jungle Fowl mated with native hens under confined management system; and c. determine and differentiate the qualitative and quantitative traits of F1 progenies reared under confined management system METHODOLOGY Experimental Stocks The Red Jungle Fowl (RJF) roosters were geographically acquired from three places of origin (Baybay and Matalom in Leyte and Hinundayan in Southern Leyte) and the Native roosters were from Hinundayan, Southern Leyte. These roosters were mated to sixteen Native hens at a mating ratio of 1:2. The naturally incubated and brooded F1 progenies from different mating combinations of Red Jungle fowl roosters and Native chicken hens were used as experimental units. Experimental Design and Treatments A total of six Red Jungle Fowl roosters, two native roosters and 16 native hens were used to assess the potential of breeding RJF roosters with native hens. There were four treatments and a total of eight replications; each replicate was composed of one rooster and two hens (a mating ratio of 1:2) randomly laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design. T0 Native (Rn) x Native T1 Baybay Red Jungle Fowl (Rj) x Native T2 Matalom Red Jungle Fowl (Rj) x Native T3 Hinundayan Red Jungle Fowl (Rj) x Native On the egg traits assessment, random sample of two eggs per treatment were collected and measured for the different egg quality parameters and morphological characterization, a total of forty-eight (48) F1chicks were randomly selected from the progenies of the different mating combinations of Red Jungle fowl roosters and Native chicken hens. Each treatment was composed of 12 chicks as total number of replicates with three replicates from each mating type. The experimental units were laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design. Data Collection and Analysis The following data were taken on the parental stock (PS) and F1 progenies which was adapted from the study of Buctot, FF and Espina DM, 2015: Egg Production -is the number eggs produced in a clutch. Egg Weight (g) - individually weighed using a egg weighing scale. % Fertility =(number of fertile egg)/(number of egg set) x 100 % Hatchability =(number of chicks hatched)/(number of fertile eggs) x 100 Egg Quality Traits: Yolk weight – after separated from the albumen using yolk separator, yolk was weighed using a digital weighing scale (Appendix Figure 3) Yolk color – under white background, yolk color was evaluated using the ROCHE Yolk Color Fan (Appendix Figure 3) Shell weight with shell membrane, grams - egg shell with shell membrane was weighed using a digital weighing scale Egg shape index, % =(width of egg (mm))/(lenght of egg (mm)) x 100 B. Quantitative and qualitative parameters were measured and evaluated: Body weight (g) - measured using the weighing scale. Body length (cm) - measured from the tip of the rostrum maxillare (beak) and caudal (tail, without feathers). The bird’s body was completely drawn throughout its length. Shank length, cm - measured from the length of the shank and hock joint to the spur of either leg. Wing span, cm - wings were stretched out in full, and measured from the length between tips of right and left. Colors of the plumage, skin, shank, earlobe, and comb. Data collected were subjected to analysis of variance using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17, while comparison of treatment means was done using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) Test. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Egg Production Based on the results, the eggs produced in one clutch ranged from 8.50 to 10.50 (Table 1). Although not significant, the Native x Native exhibited slightly higher (10.5) followed by Matalom RJF x Native (9.0), Baybay RJF x Native (8.75) and Hinundayan RJF x Native (8.5). Result however, implies that any of the Red Jungle Fowls mated to Native hens were comparable to pure native chicken stocks in terms of number of eggs per clutch Percent Fertility and Hatchability The different mating combinations did not differ significantly in terms of percent egg fertility and hatchability rates (Table 1). However, it should be noted that Native x Native exhibited slightly higher (86.67%) fertility rate, followed by Hinundayan RJF x Native (85.0%), Matalom RJF x Native (83.75%), and Baybay RJF x Native (79.86%). Moreover, percent egg hatchability rates showed no significant difference among the four treatments. Although data proved comparable hatchability, it should be noted that Matalom RJF x Native manifested slightly higher rate (83.48%) than Hinundayan RJF x Native (82.34 %), Native x Native (80.97%), and Baybay RJF x Native 78.13%). Results suggest that the three Red Jungle fowls from three origins were comparable with the Native roosters on the percent egg fertility and hatchability rates. Aside from breed and strains, fertility and hatchability of eggs for the confined and scavenging chickens can be attributed to unbalanced male to female ratio, storage condition and storage condition and duration of the eggs, age of the bird, nutrition, disease, management and environmental factors (North & Bell, 1990) Table 1. Breeding performance of Native chicken and Red Jungle Fowls in selected areas of Leyte under confinement system Treatment Fertility (%) Hatchability (%) Egg Production T0 (Native x Native) 86.67 80.97 10.50 T1 (Baybay RJF x Native) 79.86 78.13 8.75 T2 (Matalom RJF x Native) 83.75 83.48 9.00 T3 (Hinundayan RJF x Native) 85.00 82.34 8.50 p-value 0.687ns 0.750ns 0.071ns RJF-Red Jungle Fowl ns Not significantly different (p > 0.05). Egg Weight Egg weights ranged from 35.75 grams to 39.00 grams and were significantly different among treatment means (Table 2). The Native x Native eggs (39.0 g) exhibited heaviest (P<0.01) egg weight, although not significantly different from Matalom RJF x Native (37.0 g). The Matalom RJF x Native eggs (37.0 g) were slightly heavier than Hinundayan RJF x Native eggs (36.75 g) and Baybay RJF x Native eggs (35.75 g) which got the lowest among the RJF roosters. Result proved that native chicken egg weight trait diverged slightly from those infused with Matalom RJF, but greatly differed from both Hinundayan and Baybay Red Jungle Fowls mating combinations.. Alsoyabel et al. (1991) emphasized that the age of the hen plays an important role in determining egg weight, and weight increases when the age increases, and higher body weights are also associated with bigger eggs. Egg Quality Traits Yolk weight. Under confinement system the yolk weights proved no significant difference among the four treatments (Table 2). It should however be noted that Native x Native yolk was slightly heavier followed by Matalom RJF x Native (22.75 g), Hinundayan RJF x Native (21.71 g) and Baybay RJF x Native (20.57 g). It can be deduced that yolk weight followed the same trend with the egg weight. Nevertheless, result showed comparable yolk weights among the different treatments. Crawford (1990) reported that genetic and non-genetic factors such as age of the hen, length of storage and seasons played significant role in determining albumen and yolk quality. Albumen Weight. Data on albumen weight were also not significantly different among treatment means. Consistent with other egg quality traits, Native x Native displayed slightly heavier (11.17 g) albumen, and was followed by Hinundayan RJF x Native (10.11 g), Baybay RJF x Native (9.92 g) and Matalom RJF x Native (9.34 g). Shell weight. The shell weight ranged from a mean weight of 4.91 g to 5.26 g among the different treatments under confinement system Table 2). Result was not significantly different among the four treatments. Surprisingly, the Baybay RJF x Native (5.26 g) slightly surpassed the mean shell weight of Native x Native (4.98 g), Hinundayan RJF x Native (44.94 g) and Matalom RJF x Native (4.91 g). Result proved comparable shell weights among the different treatments, but it is important to note that the egg weight of Baybay RJF x Native was largely influenced by its heavy shell as result of thick shell. Table 2. Egg weight (g), yolk weight (g), shell weight (g) and albumen weight (g) of Native chicken and Red Jungle Fowls in selected areas of Leyte under confinement system Treatment Egg weight Yolk weight Shell weight Albumen weight T0 (Native x Native) 39.00a 22.85 4.98 11.17 T1 (Baybay RJF x Native) 35.75b 20.57 5.26 9.92 T2 (Matalom RJF x Native) 37.00ab 22.75 4.91 9.34 T3 (Hinundayan RJF x Native) 36.75b 21.71 4.94 10.11 p-value 0.004** 0.150ns 0.705ns 0.524ns RJF-Red Jungle Fowl Column means without common superscripts are significantly different (p<0.01) ** highly significant (p <0.01) ns Not significantly different (p > 0.05) Egg Shape Index. Table 3 revealed no significant difference in the egg length, egg weight and egg shape index among the different treatments. According to the Government of Alberta (2006), the shape of a normal chicken egg is elliptical and varies a lot depending on size, age and health of the chicken. The strength of the egg shell is directly related to egg shape index, varied according to the strain of the birds, size of the eggs and the position of the eggs in the clutch and the time of oviposition. This was also supported by the study of Mueller et al.(1990) that emphasized that shape index increases until the 5th or 6th month of production then decreases gradually. The eggs laid during the 2nd year of production have significantly lower shape indices than eggs laid in the 1st production because older layers lay eggs longer length but smaller width. Table 3. Egg length (mm), egg width (mm) and egg shape index (%) of Native chicken and Red Jungle Fowls in selected areas of Leyte under confinement system Treatment Length Width Egg Shape Index T0 (Native x Native) 48.82 35.53 73.19 T1 (Baybay RJF x Native) 48.83 32.78 67.89 T2 (Matalom RJF x Native) 49.07 33.03 67.46 T3 (Hinundayan RJF x Native) 47.54 32.29 67.99 p-value 0.881ns 0.167ns 0.344ns RJF-Red Jungle Fowl ns Not significantly different (p > 0.05) Yolk Color. The result on yolk color scores based on the Roche Yolk Color Fan manifested almost similar pale colors among treatments, and far below the generally acceptable color score of 9. It should be noted that egg yolk color was probably affected by the confinement system and kind of diet given to the experimental chickens, and not a relevant parameter considering that it more affected by nutritional factors than breed or strain. North (1984) mentioned that some factors affected yolk color such as fat content of the ration, ingredients of the ration, strain as well as individual variations played a significant role in determining yolk color of the egg. Table 4. Yolk color scores of Native chicken and Red Jungle Fowls in selected areas of Leyte under confinement system Treatment Yolk Color Score T0 (Native x Native) 5 T1 (Baybay RJF x Native) 4 T2 (Matalom RJF x Native) 3 T3 (Hinundayan RJF x Native) 5 Quantitative Traits Body weight. Bi-weekly body weights showed significant differences from week 2 up to week 8 (Table 5). On the first two weeks, F1 Native x Native (212.50 g) got the highest (p< 0.05) bodyweight followed by F1 Baybay RJF x Native (200.0 g), F1 Matalom x Native (172.92 g), and F1 Hinundayan RJF x Native (158.33 g). The week 4, week 3 and week 8 bi-weekly body weights revealed consistently heaviest (p<0.01) body weights on F1 Native x Native hen with 393.75 g, 537.5 g and 720.83 g, respectively. The bi-weekly body at weeks 4 and 6 were lowest (p<0.01) on F1 Hinundayan RJF x Native (233.33 g and 375.0 g, respectively). Result on bi-weekly body weights at week 6, showed comparable body weights among the different F1 progenies of Red Jungle fowls from any place of origin in Leyte. Although not significant, F1 biweekly body weight at week 8 was lowest (p<0.01) on F1 Matalom RJF x Native (537.5 g) compared with F1 Hinundayan RJF x Native (625.0 g) and F1 Baybay RJF x Native (591.67 g). The F1 progenies of native chicken were expected to be heavier than any of the F1 progenies from crosses between Red Jungle fowls and Native chicken hen due to continuous intensive selection for growth under domestication. The F1 Red Jungle Fowl/Native were infused with the small body characteristic of the Red Jungle Fowl resulting to slower growth performance. According to the Poultry Nutrition Handbook the body weight of F1 progenies performed well and quite comparable to the standard body weight at 8 weeks old of 537-720 grams vs. 500-640 grams, respectively. Moreover, the growth performances of these lines were comparable with those of the native chicken breed, which could be explained by the effects of provision of good commercial feeds, better management, health care and environment. The result of this study is similar to the work reported by Shanawany (1987) who stated that differences in hatching weight have been reported to affect the subsequent growth performance (North, 1984). Table 5. Biweekly body weight (g) of the F1 progenies from crosses between Native and Red Jungle Fowls in selected areas of Leyte under confinement system Treatment 2 weeks 4 weeks 6 weeks 8 weeks T0 (F1 Native x Native) 212.50a 393.75a 537.50a 720.83a T1 (F1 Baybay RJF x Native) 200.00ab 316.67b 433.33b 591.67ab T2 (F1 Matalom RJF x Native) 172.92ab 254.17bc 406.25b 537.50b T3 (F1 RJF Hinundayan x Native) 158.33b 233.33c 375.00b 625.00ab p-value 0.025* 0.000** 0.001** 0.005** RJ F- Red Jungle Fowl Column means with no common superscript are significantly different. * significant (p < 0.05) ** highly significant (p < 0.01) ns not significant (p > 0.05) Body Length. Bi-weekly body lengths showed highly significant (p<0.01) differences from week 2 up to week 6, but not significant (p>0.05) at week 8 (Table 6). On weeks 2, 4, and 6, consistently longest body lengths were manifested on F1 Native x Native (19.41 cm, 25.33 cm, and 28.75 cm, respectively) and F1 Baybay RJF x Native (19.42 cm, 23.58 cm and 27.41 cm, respectively). The body lengths at week 2, 4, and 6 from F1 Matalom RJF x Native were comparable to F1 Hinundayan RJF x Native. Although not significant, the week 8 bi-weekly body lengths revealed slightly heavier on F1 Native x Native over that of the other mating combinations. Just like bi-weekly body weight, biweekly body length was presumed to improve in the native chickens due to domestication selection pressure on important economic traits. Table 6. Biweekly body length (cm) of F1 progenies from crosses of Native and Red Jungle Fowls in selected areas of Leyte under confinement system Treatment 2 weeks 4 weeks 6 weeks 8 week T0 (F1 Native x Native) 19.41a 25.33a 28.75a 31.33 T1 (F1 Baybay RJF x Native) 19.42a 23.58ab 27.41a 30.75 T2 (F1 Matalom RJF x Native) 18.19ab 22.15b 27.16ab 29.38 T3 (F1 Hinundayan RJF x Native) 17.392b 21.89b 25.45b 30.02 p-value 0.010** 0.000** 0.000** 0.210ns RJ F- Red Jungle Fowl Column means with no common superscript are significantly different *significant ( p < 0.05) ** highly significant (p < 0.01) ns not significant (p > 0.05) Shank Length. In terms of shank length, results showed no significant difference weeks 2, 4 and 6 among treatments, but significantly (p<0.05) differed at week 8 (Table 7). Just like bi-weekly body weight, biweekly body length and shank length, wingspan tends to improve in the native chickens due to domestication selection pressure on important economic traits. Table 7. Biweekly shank length (cm) of pro F1 genies from crosses of Native and Red Jungle Fowls in selected areas of Leyte under confinement system Treatment 2 weeks 4 weeks 6 weeks 8 weeks T0 (F1 Native x Native) 2.85 3.78 4.63 5.15ab T1 (F1 Baybay RJF x Native) 2.79 3.54 4.39 4.83ab T2 (F1 Matalom RJF x Native) 2.72 3.50 4.24 4.79b T3 (F1 Hinundayan RJF x Native) 2.92 3.70 4.42 5.30a p-value 0.617ns 0.091ns 0.094ns 0.016* RJ F- Red Jungle Fowl Column means with no common superscript are significantly different * significant (p < 0.05) ** highly significant (p < 0.0) ns not significant (p > 0.05) Colors of the Plumage, Skin, Shank, Earlobe, and Comb. Result on plumage, skin, shank, earlobe, and comb colors of the F1 progenies varied from red, brown and black but the red plumage color dominated among the four treatments. However, a considerable number of chickens showed heterogeneity and had diverse plumage color like black, multicolor, black with white tips, reddish brown and white with red stripes. The presence of such large variations in plumage colors could be the result of their geographical isolation as well as periods of natural and artificial selections (Missohou, et al., 1998). Variations were also observed on shank colors that varied from yellow, gray, white, black and a mix of either of the two colors. It was found out that the shank colors that dominated in F1 Native x Native were yellow and gray for F1 Baybay RJF x Native, F1 Matalom RJF x Native, and F1 Hinundayan RJF x Native. The distinguishing characteristics that helped identify various breeds and varieties of chickens, several forms or shapes of combs included buttercup, cushion, pea, rose, single, strawberry and v-shaped. As revealed in Table 5, results showed that the type of comb that dominated among the four treatments was the single type comb which was moderately thin, fleshy formation of smooth soft surface texture, firmly attached from the beak along the top of the skull with a strong base. The top portion showed five or six rather deep serrations or distinct points while the middle points were higher than the back or front, forming a semi-oval shape when viewed from the side. The comb was always upright and much larger and thicker in males than in females. It was lopped or upright in the female depending on the breed. The comb was divided into three sections: the front, the middle and the posterior or blade that extended past the rear base of the skull, and supported by Garrigus (2007). The earlobe of the chicken is a structure on the skin of the face just below the ear, the outline of which is marked by a slight thickening of the tissues. Based on the result of the study the type of earlobe color that dominated the four treatments were with brown feathers for T0 (F1 Native rooster x native hen), T2 (F1 RJF from Matalom x native hen) and T3 (F1 RJF from Hinundayan x native hen), while with red feathers for T1 (F1 RJF from Baybay x native hen). Banks (1999) said that the earlobe is bare of feathers and may be the same color as the rest of the face for which the degree of redness is somewhat dependent upon the health of the bird. As is true of most of the head furnishings, this structure is larger in males than females. Skin color (yellow or white) is being restricted to the epidermis, or top layer of skin. This is present in both the epidermis and dermis (deeper layers of skin). Based on the result, skin colors among the four treatments were dominated by a white color skin which was dominant and was the wild type (W+). White skin was characterized by a lack of yellow pigmentation. Table 8. Colors of the Plumage, Skin, Shank, Earlobe, and Comb of F1 progenies from crosses of Native chicken hen and Red Jungle Fowls in selected areas of Leyte under confinement system Treatment Comb Earlobe Plumage Shank Color Skin Color T0 (F1Native rooster x native) Single With Brown Feathers Red Yellow White T1 (F1Baybay RJF x native) Single With Red Feathers Red Gray White T2 (F1Matalom RJF x native) Single With Brown Feathers Red Gray White T3 ( F1 Hinundayan RJF x native ) Single With Brown Feathers Red Gray White CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Red Jungle Fowl in the three selected areas of origin does not differ in terms of the breeding performance and egg traits. This indicates that their performances are comparable with the native chicken under a confinement system. The results of the study proved that the native chicken population is generally better in terms of the overall economically important traits compared with F1 progenies infused with Red Jungle Fowl as a result of selection under domestication. Thus, it is highly recommended to increase the number of Red Jungle Fowl roosters that should be mated with more number of native hens, and possibly RJF hens should be included to compare performance of RJF chickens with that of Native chickens. Future research should also widen the scope of the study to include analysis of the nutritional composition of the egg using large number of egg samples, and cover more areas of Leyte having RJF populations.For future breeding studies, pure breeding of the Red Jungle Fowls under confinement system and reciprocal crossing should be done to assess the general and specific combining abilities of Red Jungle Fowls and Native Chickens. Of considerable importance is to conduct phylogenetic study on Red Jungle fowls and native chickens in Leyte to verify phylogenetic relationship of Red Jungle fowls and the common backyard “native” chickens. References ALSOYABEL, A.A., F.M. ATTIA and M.A. EL-BADRY, 1991. Influence of protein in rearing regimens and age on egg quality characteristics of Saudi Arabian Baladi Hens. J. King Saud Univ., 3:201-211 CRAWFORD, R. D. (1990). Origin and History of Poultry Species. Poultry Breeding and Genetics (Crawford, R. D., Ed.). Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 1 – 42. FAO. 2009. Guidelines or Phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources.F7042 FISININ, V.I., ZHURAVLYOV, I.V. and AIDINYAN, T.G., 1990. Embryological development of poultry. Agropromizdat, Moscow, Russia. GARRIGUS, W. P. (2007).Poultry Farming In: Encyclopedia Britannica GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA, 2006. Egg Size and Shape. Government of Alberta and 1996-2006 Royal Alberta Museum. GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS 2011ed. By Craig Glenday - page 286 HARTMAN C., JOHANSSON K., STRANDBERG E. & WILHEMSON M. (2000) One-generation divergent selection on large and small yolk proportion. British Poultry Science 41, 280–6. HUNTON P. (1990) Industrial breeding and selection. In: Poultry Breeding and Genetics(Ed. by R.D. Crawford ), pp. 43–60. Elsevier Amsterdam. KUMAR, J. & ZACHARY, R. M., 1980. Genotypic and phenotypic parameters of egg production and egg quality of desi poultry. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 50:514-519. NARUSHIN, V.G. AND M.N. ROMANOV. 2002. Egg physical characteristics and hatchability. World Poultry Sci. 58:297-303 NORTH, M.O., 1984. Commercial Chicken Production Manual, 3rd edition, AVI publishing company, Inc., Westport, Conneticut, Connecticut, USA. RICHELL W.A. (1997) Breeding and genetics – a historical perspective. Poultry Science 76, 1057–61. ROBERTS, J. A. (1995). Assessing the scavenging feed resource base on sustainable smallholder poultry development. Proceedings ANRPD Workshop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Pp 40 – 52. ROQUE, L. & SOARES, M.C., 1994. Effects of eggshell and broiler breeder age on hatchability. Poult. Sci. 73: 1838-1845. SERGEYEV, A. 1986. Egg quality and egg hatchability. Ptitsevodstvo, Moscow, Russia.3:24-25. SINGH, R.P. & KUMAR, J., 1994. Biometrical Methods in Poultry Breeding. 1st edition, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, India.240pp. SINGH, R.A., 2000. Poultry production. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, India. STEVENS L. (1991) Quantitative genetics. In: Genetics and Evolution of the Domestic Fowl. (Ed. by L. Stevens ), pp. 137–69. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Francisco Buctot Jr
5 days ago

HOW CAN I SEND MY ARTICLE

Francisco Buctot Jr
5 days ago

HOW CAN I SEND MY ARTICLE