ABSTRACT. The study was conducted at the Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute (BLRI), Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh with the objectives of comparing the body characteristics and body weight of three Indigenous chicken genotypes namely Common Desi, Hilly and Naked Neck. Of the four hundred and eighty nine birds analyzed the proportion of Common Desi, Naked Neck and Hilly chicken were 49.49, 24.95 and 25.56% respectively. The most predominant plumage color was reddish black (33.13%). Four types of shank colors were most frequently observed, i.e. white (39.87%), yellow (37.22%), black (20.04%) and mixed (2.87%). The earlobes were mainly reddish white (44.79%) followed by white (29.24%) and red (25.97%). The most predominant skin color was white (92.22%). Most birds had a single comb (96.12%). Hilly birds were heavier than the other Indigenous chicken groups (p < 0.05). The mature weight between Common Desi and Naked Neck did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) but significantly differed from that of Hilly chicken. In terms of shank length and circumference, there were no significant (p > 0.05) differences between Common Desi and Naked Neck chicken, but Hilly chicken had significant (p < 0.05) differences from both.Keywords: indigenous chicken, morphological characteristics, body weight.Investigação ex situ sobre as características do corpo e os efeitos da cor das penas no peso corporal de frangos indígenas (Gallus domesticus) em Bangladesh RESUMO. O estudo foi conduzido no Instituto de Pesquisa Animal (BLRI) em Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh, para comparar as características corporais e o peso corporal de três genótipos de frangos indígenas, Common Desi, Hilly e Naked Neck. A proporção dos genótipos Common Desi, Naked Neck e Hilly foi respectivamente 49,49, 24,95 e 25,56% num total de 489 aves analisadas. A cor predominante das penas foi preto avermelhado com 33.13%. Foram observados os quarto tipos de cores mais frequentes das pernas: branca (39,87%), amarela (37,22%), preta (20,04%) e mista (2,87%). A cor das orelhas era geralmente branca avermelhada (44,79%), seguida por branca (29,24%) e vermelha (25,97%). A cor da pele mais predominante era branca (92,22%). A maioria das aves tinha uma só cresta (96,12%). As aves Hilly eram mais pesadas do que os outros grupos de aves indígenas (p < 0,05). Não havia diferença significativa entre o peso maduro entre as aves Common Desi e Naked Neck (p > 0,05), mas havia diferença significativa do peso das aves Hilly. Em termos de cumprimento de perna e circunferência, não havia diferença significativa (p > 0,05) entre Common Desi e Naked Neck, embora as aves Hilly diferissem significativamente (p < 0,05) dos outros dois.Palavras-chave: aves indígenas, características morfológicas, peso corporal.

The experiment was carried out at Kaunia upazila in Rangpur district to investigate the socio-economic conditions of the farmers, use of different hormones, feed additives and their effects. The data were collected through interview schedule by selecting 30 respondents who were involved in goat fattening. Collected data were analyzed using Excel sheet. It was found that most of the farmers were middle aged categories (50%) and educational level of the farmers was primary (57%), secondary (23%), and higher secondary (10%). Half of the respondents were farmer, followed by businessman (20%). About 67% farmers used own capital, 3% farmers took loan from bank and 23% took loan from other sources such as NGO. It was also found that about 33% respondents had on short time training experience and the rest 67% had no experience. Almost 97% farmers reared Black Bengal goat and 3% Jamunapari goat. Near about 97% farmers used roadside grass and tree leaves and only 3% farmers used cultivated fodder. Only 7% farmer used growth promoter & feed additives in feed where 93% farmers are not being used growth promoter &feed additives in feed. But not a single farmer used growth hormones for fattening purpose. Therefore, still now goat meat would be safe for human consumption without any health hazard. Asian Australas. J. Food Saf. Secur. 2017, 1 (1), 1-6