Interntionl Journl of Poultry Science 4 (6): 372-377, 2005 ISSN 1682-8356 Asin Network for Scientific Informtion, 2005 Effect of Dwrfism on Reproductive nd Met Yield Prmeters of Crossred Chicken 1 2 3 4 5 1 M.A. Rshid, M.A.R. Howlider, J. Alm, Md. Adur Rshid M.H. Kwsr nd S.A. Azml 1,3 Bngldesh Livestock Reserch Institute, Svr, Dhk, Bngldesh Deprtment of Poultry Science, Bngldesh Agriculturl University, Mymensingh, Bngldesh 4 Brisl Government Veterinry College, Bngldesh 5 Rurl Poverty Elevtion Foundtion, Bngldesh E-mil: mrshid31@yhoo.com 2 Astrct: Twenty four indigenous utosoml dwrf hens were selected nd divided eqully into 3 groups. Rhode Islnd Red, White Leghorn nd Fyoumi Cocks, 2 for ech were plced to ech group respectively for reeding. Sixty eggs were selected from ech group nd htched in forced drft incutor. Among those, 36 helthy dy-old chicks from ech group were selected nd rered up to 20 weeks of ge. The chicks were identified s norml nd dwrf genetic groups t 8 weeks of ge. The im of this study ws to oserve the reproductive prmeters of crosses nd prmeters relted to the met yield of norml nd dwrf genetic group of crossred chicken under frm condition. Fertility, htchility on totl eggs nd htchility on fertile eggs of cross B (95.57; 68.71; 72.41) were higher (p<0.01) thn cross A (93.44;63.44;67.62) nd cross C (90.92;60.89;67.19). Ded-in-germ nd ded-in-shell were sttisticlly higher (p<0.01) in cross C thn cross A&B. Reduced dult ody size, improved feed conversion nd higher livility were found in ll genetic groups of dwrf crossred. Among those, White Leghorn ws found s the est one lso considering its different dressing yields. Advntges of dw gene in terms of good scvenger could etter e exploited y introgressing in exotic smller reeds like White Leghorn from indigenous dwrf chicken. Key words: Dwrfism, reproductive, met yield, crossred chicken Introduction In Bngldesh, it ws found tht out 86% of poultry met nd 75% of egg re produced y the villge level frmers under scvenging system (Alm, 1995). Rering of indigenous chicken revels the fct of mximum return with minimum cost y efficient conversion of griculturl y-products nd ll other humn refusl tht would other wise go to wste (microlivestock, 1991). Scvenging chicken re therefore importnt components in integrted frming system (Bru nd Yoshimur, 1997).Although the scvenging chicken re plying vitl role oth to the ntionl economy nd nutrition, ut they re poor met nd egg producers (Ahmed nd Huque, 1994 nd Huque et l., 1990). Feed efficiency of indigenous chicken is lso poor. Szzd et l. (1990) recorded 4.5 kg nd 8.8 kg of feed required to produce 1 kg of ody weight nd 1kg of egg mss respectively for indigenous chicken. On the other hnd, exotic reeds re very much sensitive to sustndrd mngement nd to chnges in the qulity nd quntity of nutrients (Bru nd Yoshimur, 1997). Azizul nd Rez (1980) got higher mortlity in exotic reeds (45.4%) thn indigenous chicken (9%). From the study of Huque et l. (1992), it is lso found tht scvenging chicken suffer from severe deficiency of nutrients. As result, rering of exotic chicken in scvenging condition is lmost impossile. The indigenous genotypes, despite of poor production re well resistnt to most of the diseses nd re highly dpted to scvenging system, where su-stndrd mngement, poor housing fcilities nd disesed environment t vrile temperture nd humidity s previled in tropicl hrsh condition of Bngldesh (Hossin et l., 1991). It is ssumed tht for successful scvenging rering in Bngldesh my need type of chicken hving relistic intermedite met nd egg production etween poor producer indigenous nd high producing exotic strin with lower mintennce feed requirement, so tht the incresed production of the sid type ove indigenous chicken might e supported y the existing level of feed intke in the ckyrd system. They should lso e more resistnt to elevte temperture nd humidity. The indigenous stocks of the country disppering following invsion of non-dptive stocks from developed countries, FAO (1984), therefore, suggested thorough study of the different indigenous popultion nd conserving them, if found worthy. In Bngldesh, recently, the existence of dwrf genotype utosoml recessive (dw) in nture hs een identified (Yesmin nd Howlider, 1998). They got etter feed utiliztion nd higher hen dy egg production. Moreover, from the nutrition /economic point of view use of dwrf genotypes lredy revolutionize roiler industry y decresing the 372
Rshid et l.: Effect of Dwrfism on Reproductive nd Met Yield Prmeters of Crossred Chicken mintennce feed requirement of the dm lines (Willrd, type ech wing nded ird ws trnsferred into the 1981). The dwrf gene is of interest mong scientists. individul cge to oserve their individul growth Becuse of, its numerous pleiotropic effects in performnce up to 20 weeks of ge. After seprting of physiology, nutrition, ehvior, pthology etc. (Guillume, norml nd dwrf mong 3 crossreds the totl genetic 1976). groups ecme 6 (i.e. RIR LOdw norml nd dwrf; In this regrd, decresing dult ody size is the WLH LOdw norml nd dwrf; FO LOdw norml nd importnt mens of reducing mintennce feed dwrf). Body weight nd feed conversion were recorded requirement, incresing feed efficiency s well s fort-nightly from 8-20 weeks of ge. At 20 weeks of ge dptility in hot-humid tropicl environment through mle nd femle of norml nd dwrf genetic group the introduction of dwrf types, synthesized y using ech of 3 irds, elonging the genotype WLH X LOdw locl utosoml dwrf chicken nd exotic reeds might were slughtered nd different prmeters recorded to fulfil the demnd nd increse villge level met nd oserve their musculr nd skeletl differences. egg production of chicken where there re quntittive Identicl s well s pproprite cre nd mngement nd qulittive deficiency of feed. But, efore introducing were under tken to ll the irds during crossing of such types of indigenous genotype to scvenging prents, rooding nd growing period of the chicks in condition, their reproductive efficiency, ctul production regrding to the floor spce, feeding, wtering, lighting potentils nd requirements re needed to ssess s well s snittion nd vccintion. Prent rtion under controlled frm condition. Informtion in reltion to (crossing of cocks nd hens), chick strter (0-6 weeks) this type of locl genotype is not ville or very scnty. nd grower msh rtion (7-20 weeks) formulted s per With those ides in mind, the present work ws under the BDS (1988) stndrd with loclly ville feed tken to study the reproductive performnce, reduction in ingredients were supplied to the irds on dliitum ody size, feed conversion efficiency nd different sis. Fresh clen wter ws supplied ll the time. The dressing prmeters of norml nd dwrf genetic irds were exposed to lighting system, strted with groups of crossred chicken. 24h/dy nd ws decresed @ 1 hour per week until the night lighting is over, there fter the irds were exposed only to nturl dy light up to 20 weeks of ge. Strict hygienic nd snittion were mintined nd the irds were vccinted ginst By Chick Rnikhet, Rnikhet, Fowl Pox nd Fowl Choler diseses. Mterils nd Methods Collection of prent genertion nd their mngement: The Reserch ws conducted for period of 20 weeks from Mrch to July. A totl of 24 indigenous dwrf hens lmost uniform in ody size nd ge were collected from different district of Bngldesh ccording to the description of Pndey (1996). The experimentl rooms for prent irds were properly clened nd divided into 3 seprted equl sized pens. Fresh rice husk t depth of 5cm on floor ws used s litter. The indigenous dwrf hens were rndomly distriuted into 3 tretment groups hving 8 irds in ech. The selected Rhode Islnd Red (RIR), White Leghorn (WLH) nd Fyoumi (FO) cocks, 2 for ech were plced into 3 pens respectively. A totl of 180 eggs; 60 from ech tretment group were collected nd htched in forced drft th th incutor. The eggs were cndled t 7 nd 14 dy of incution nd finlly fertility, htchility, ded-in-germ nd ded-in-shell were recorded. Preprtion of rooding-cum-growing house nd mngement of chicks: Three selected pens were well prepred for rooding of chicks using electric rooder. Fresh rice husk t depth of 7.5 cm ws used s litter. Rndomly selected 36 wing nded dy-old chicks from ech crossing were distriuted in 3 tretment groups eqully on the sis of genotypes (RIR LO dw; WLH LO dw nd FO x LO dw) replicting those 3 times in ech group nd were rooded in seprte pens up to 8 weeks. During 6-8 weeks of ge the dwrf type ws distinguishle. After identifying the dwrf nd norml Clcultion of different prmeters: Fertility ws clculted y totl numer of fertile eggs divided y totl numer of egg set, whole multiplied y 100. Htchility on totl eggs nd htchility on fertile eggs were otined through the numer of chicks htched divided y totl numer of eggs set nd totl numer of fertile eggs respectively, whole multiplied y 100. Ded-ingerm nd ded-in-shell were determined y totl numer of ded-germs in-shell nd totl numer of ded-chicks in-shell respectively, divided y totl numer of fertile eggs, whole multiplied y 100. Feed conversion efficiency ws clculted through the rtio of feed consumption (g) nd weight gin (g). Dressing percentge otined from the totl dressed met divided y the live weight, whole multiplied y 100. Sttisticl nlysis: All the recorded dt were sujected to fit Completely Rndomized Design (CRD) nd nlysis of vrince ws performed to compre mong the different crossings nd genetic groups. Results nd Discussion Reproductive prmeters: The htching results from Tle 1 evident tht, fertility of cross B (95.57) ws significntly (P<0.01) higher thn cross A (93.44) nd C (90.92). Htchility on totl eggs nd on fertile eggs 373
Rshid et l.: Effect of Dwrfism on Reproductive nd Met Yield Prmeters of Crossred Chicken Tle 1: Htching results of different crossings. Prmeters Crossing LSD (SED) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- nd level of A(RIR LOdw) B(WLH LOdw) C(FO LOdw) significnce Fertility 93.44 95.57 c 90.92 ** Ded-in-germ 17.62 15.00 18.43 ** Ded-in-shell 14.43 12.13 14.68 ** Htchility on totl egg 63.44 68.71 c 60.89 ** Htchility on fertile egg 67.62 72.14 67.19 ** RIR = Rhode Islnd Red; WLH = White Leghorn; Fo = Fyoumi; Lodw = Locl (indigenous) dwrf. ** Significnt (P<0.01). Different superscripts in the sme row differ significntly. Tle 2: Different growth prmeters of 6 genetic groups of chicken etween 9-20 weeks of ge Prmeters ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Live weight (g/ird) Feed intke (g/ird/dy) ------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- 10 weeks 20 weeks 10 weeks 20 weeks -------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- Mle Femle Mle Femle Mle Femle Mle Femle Genetic group (G) RIRN 455 310 c 1435.0 1345.00 53.00 44.00 103.50 112.35 RIRdw 395 285 c 1250.00 1335.00 45.17 41.00 89.67 100.00 WLHN 425 285 c 1340.0 1250.00 49.00 40.00 98.17 95.00 WLHdw 325 275 1125.00 c 1090.00 42.84 35.00 88.50 86.00 FoN 370 295 c 1270.0 c 1240.0 52.34 42.27 95.00 89.00 Fodw 310 255 c 1125.0 c 1180.00 49.50 39.17 93.50 86.84 Men 380 283.33 1257.50 1240.00 48.64 40.29 94.72 94.86 level of significnce G ** NS ** ** S ** NS ** NS G S NS (25.82) 214.395 ** 3.015** 7.023** Feed conversion rtio Survivility ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % (up to 10 weeks 20 weeks 20 weeks) ---------------------------------- ------------------------------- Mle Femle Mle Femle RIRN 7.59 8.55 5.96 7.88 94.44 RIRdw 8.75 8.56 5.62 4.04 97.22 WLHN 4.61 6.67 5.40 6.06 97.22 WLHdw 4.29 5.69 4.65 4.43 100 FoN 5.82 9.06 5.80 8.25 91.67 Fodw 5.74 6.91 5.70 5.59 94.44 Men 6.13 7.57 5.52 6.04 - level of significnce G ** ** ** S ** NS GxS NS (0.694) 2.19** RIRN = Rhode Islnd Red Norml crossred; RIRdw = Rhode Islnd Red dwrf crossred; WLHN = White Leghorn Norml crossred; WLHdw = White Leghorn dwrf crossred; FON = Fyoumi Norml crossred; FOdw = Fyoumi dwrf crossred. NS = Non significnt (P>0.05); ** Significnt (P<0.01) were lso higher (P<0.01) in cross B (68.71 nd 72.14) sttisticl difference etween them. The differences thn tht of cross A (63.44 nd 67.62) nd cross C mong the crosses might e due to reed (60.89 nd 67.19). Though, htchility on totl eggs in chrcteristics of mle nd/or due to preferentil mting. cross A showed higher thn cross C ut there is no Uddin (1989) lso got the similr htchility results. 374
Rshid et l.: Effect of Dwrfism on Reproductive nd Met Yield Prmeters of Crossred Chicken Tle 3: Musculr nd skeletl differences in two genetic groups of White Leghorn crossred chicken Prmeters Genetic group (G) Level of significnce ------------------------------------------------ --------------------------- Sex (S) WLHN WLHdw Men G S Live weight (g/ird) Mle 1360.00 1287.50 1323.75 NS ** Femle 1060.00 980.00 1020.00 Men 1210.00 1133.75 1171.88 Blood weight (%) Mle 5.70 5.75 5.73 NS * Femle 5.30 4.20 9.75 Men 5.50 4.98 5.24 Fether weight (%) Mle 7.20 5.75 6.48 ** ** Femle 6.85 5.10 5.98 Men 7.03 5.43 6.23 Skin weight (%) Mle 5.55 3.85 4.70 ** ** Femle 6.35 6.25 6.30 Men 5.95 5.05 5.50 Shnk length (cm) Mle 8.25 6.90 7.58 ** ** Femle 6.90 5.55 6.23 Men 7.58 6.23 6.90 Thigh one length (cm) Mle 8.25 6.90 7.58 ** ** Femle 6.90 5.55 6.23 Men 7.58 6.23 6.90 Thigh met weight (%) Mle 11.45 12.20 11.83 NS ** Femle 7.55 7.30 7.43 Men 9.50 9.75 9.63 Drumstick met weight (%) Mle 7.00 9.30 8.15 ** ** Femle 5.15 9.20 4.68 Men 6.08 6.75 6.41 Drumstick one length (cm) Mle 10.50 9.75 10.13 ** * Femle 10.10 8.55 9.33 Men 10.30 9.15 9.73 Hert weight (%) Mle 0.55 0.60 0.58 * ** Femle 0.30 0.45 0.38 Men 0.43 0.53 0.48 Liver weight (%) Mle 1.45 1.90 1.68 NS ** Femle 2.90 2.70 2.80 Men 2.18 2.30 2.24 Gizzrd weight (%) Mle 1.55 1.05 1.30 ** ** Femle 2.50 1.55 2.03 Men 2.03 1.30 1.66 Brest met weight (%) Mle 8.35 9.10 8.73 NS ** Femle 12.40 12.30 12.35 Men 10.38 10.70 10.54 Intestine length (cm) Mle 125.00 122.00 123.50 NS NS Femle 107.50 40.50 74.00 Men 116.25 81.25 112.86 Dressed weight (%) Mle 60.10 71.85 65.98 NS * Femle 60.94 58.95 59.94 Men 60.25 65.40 62.96 WLHN = White Leghorn Norml crossred; WLHdw = White Leghorn dwrf crossred; NS = Non significnt (P>0.05); * Significnt (P<0.05); ** Significnt (P<0.01) 375
Rshid et l.: Effect of Dwrfism on Reproductive nd Met Yield Prmeters of Crossred Chicken However, Cross C showed sttisticlly higher (P<0.01) in oth ded-in-germ (18.43) nd ded-in-shell (14.68) thn cross B (15.00 nd 12.13) nd then cross A (17.62 nd (14.43). Growth prmeters: Live weight: At 10 weeks of ge RIR, WLH nd FO dwrf crossreds hd 11.11, 15.9 nd 15.03% depressed live weight respectively in comprison with their norml counterprts (P<0.01). The respective weight reduction t 20 weeks ws 7.01, 14.48 nd 8.17%. However, t 20 weeks of ge live weight reduction for dwrfism ws more in mles thn in femles (P<0.01). At ll stges remrkle live weight depression for dwrfism is supported y Yesmin & Howlider (1998). Moreover, under the present study, more weight reduction t ll ges in WLHdw genetic group thn in RIRdw nd FOdw indicte the more proportionte weight reduction for dwrfism occurred in smller reeds thn tht in hevier reeds. This finding is greed with the Brody et l. (1984), who got 16.83 nd 43.73% live weight depression in high nd low ody weight groups of chicken respectively. Even then, more live weight reduction t 20 weeks s found in mles thn the femles got support from Petersen et l.(1977). Feed intke: At ll stges higher feed intke recorded in norml genetic group thn their dwrf counterprts nd it ws highest for RIR followed y FO nd WLH crossreds, reduction in feed Intke for dwrfism t 10 weeks in RIR, WLH nd FO ws 12.58, 14.34 nd 6.70% nd t 20 weeks it ws 13.80, 10.69 nd 2.03% respectively. However, in the current study, reduction in feed intke rnged from 2.03 to 15.34 percent which is lmost similr to the findings of Penionzhkevich et l. (1976), Coquerelle nd Mert (1997). Feed conversion: Better feed conversion in dwrfs thn their norml counterprts otined t different ges is in greement with khn (1981), Mert (1990) nd Yesmin nd Howlider (1998). Survivility: Higher survivility for dwrfs thn their norml ones is supported y khn et l. (1987), who oserved lower mortlity in dwrf lyers thn in norml odied roilers. This finding lso greed with Decuypere et l. (1991). Musculr nd skeletl prmeters: From the results of different dressing prmeters (Tle 3) dwrf irds showed higher for drumstick met weight (p<0.01) nd hert weight (p<0.01) thn their norml counterprts. However, rest nd thigh met weight, liver weight s well s dressed weight lso found higher ut sttisticlly non significnt. On the other hnd, norml crossred found highly significnt (p<0.01) thn dwrf counterprts for fether, skin nd gizzrd weight, shnk length s well s thigh nd drumstick one length. However, norml irds showed higher ut non significnt for liver nd lood weight nd lso for intestine length. However, mles found superior to femles for liver weight, drumstick nd thigh met weight, hert nd fether weight s well s shnk nd thigh one length (p<0.01). Where s lood weight nd drumstick one weight ws (p<0.05) ut, intestine length found sttisticlly non-significnt in oth the genetic group. On the other hnd, rest met weight, liver weight gizzrd nd skin weight were higher (p<0.01) for femles thn mles in oth the genetic group. In the current study, the dressing prmeters discriminted tht different one length Ws higher in norml tht in dwrf irds. Oviously, lrger the ones, lrger the skeleton, which proves the lrger ody size of the norml sized irds. Consequently, lrger ody size required more feed. Simultneously, the higher gizzrd weight nd intestinl length in norml irds certinly indictes its higher feed consumility thn tht of dwrf counterprts. Fether nd skin weight highly correlted with the surfce re. In this study, the hevier skin weight in norml thn in dwrfs lso justifies the more surfce re in normls thn their dwrf counterprts. Although, there re very scnty informtion regrding this type of crossred chicken to compre the results. But, in the present study, higher thigh met, rest met yield s well s the dressing percent in dwrfs thn in normls my e due to the compctness of ody stture. However, higher hert weight nd similr lood weight (sttisticlly) perhps indictes more lood circulting cpcity of dwrfs leding to ccelerted physiologicl function needed for efficient nutrient utiliztion. This result is in confirmtory with khn et l. (1987). He found highest dressing percentge nd the lowest cost of producing 1 kg met in progeny of dwrf irds. However, higher rest met percent in the femles found in the current study is supported y Grey nd Richrdson (1988) nd Howlider (1988) who got 3.5% higher rest met in femles thn in mles. Considering the results of the current study, it ws concluded tht introgression of dw gene from indigenous to exotic reed should decrese the dult ody size s well s feed intke of crossred dwrfs in comprison with their norml sized counterprts, which is the prerequisite for the scvenging chicken. Although, further mss tril is needed efore introducing this type of chicken s scvenger ut the dvntge of dw gene in terms of stisfctory fertility nd htchility, reduced dult ody size, reduced feed intke, improved feed conversion nd higher met yield s well s livility could etter e exploited y introgressing dw gene in smller reeds like White Leghorn. 376
Rshid et l.: Effect of Dwrfism on Reproductive nd Met Yield Prmeters of Crossred Chicken References Ahmed nd Huque, 1994. Bckyrd Poultry Feeding System in Bngldesh. Proceedings of Animl Science Congress, Bli, Indonesi. Alm, J., 1995. Livestock resources in Bngldesh: Present sttus nd future potentils. The University Press Limited, pp: 1-9. Azizul, H.D. nd A. Rez, 1980. A comprtive study of the performnce of exotic reeds nd indigenous irds under Bngldesh condition. M.Sc. Thesis, Deprtment of Poultry Science, Bngldesh Agriculturl University, Mymensingh-2202, Bngldesh. Bru, A. nd Y. Yoshimur, 1997. Rurl poultry keeping in Bngldesh. World s Poult. Sci. J., 53: 388-394. BDS, 1988. Bngldesh Stndrd for the nutrient requirement of chicken. Brody, T.B., P.B. Siegel nd J.A. Cherry, 1984. Age, ody weight nd ody composition requirements for the onset of sexul mturity of dwrf nd norml chickens. Br. Poult. Sci., 25: 245-252. Coquerelle, A. nd P. Mert, 1997. The sex linked dwrfing gene in the fowl (dwb): effect on egg production nd feed consumption. Annles de Genetique et de Selection Animle, 11: 267-269. Decuypere, E., L.M. Huyrechts, E.R. Kuhn, M. Tixier- Biochrd nd P. Mert, 1991. Physiologicl ltertions ssocited with the chicken sex-linked dwrf gene. Crit. Rev. Poult. Biol., 3: 191-221. FAO., 1984. Animl genetic resources conservtion y mngement, dt nks nd trining. Proceedings of the joint FAO/UNDP expert pnel meeting, Octoer, 1983. Prt-I, FAO (Food nd Agriculture Orgniztion) of the United Ntions, Rome. Grey, T. nd I. Richrdson, 1988. Improving qulity in fresh nd processed poultry products. Science nd the poultry industry. pp. 8-9. Edited y John Hrdcstle, Agriculturl nd Food Reserch Council, U.K. Guillume, J., 1976. The dwrfing gene (dw-); its effects on ntomy, physiology nutrition, mngement. Its ppliction in poultry industry, World s Poult. Sci. J., 32: 285-303. Howlider, M.A.R., 1988. Rering temperture nd the met yield of roilers. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Aerdeen, U.K. Huque, Q.M.E., M.H. Edul nd E.M. Rigor, 1990. The effect of chick seprtion on productivity of the hen nd chick. Asin-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 3: 121-123. Huque, Q.M.E., M.A. Ukil, M.J. Hossin nd M.H. Edul, 1992. Nutritionl sttus of scvenging hens in Bngldesh. Bng. J. Sci. Res., 10: 217-222. Hossin, M.M., M.A.R. Howlider nd M.J. Hossin, 1991. The growth performnce nd met yield of Nked neck Austrlorp nd roiler chickens in hot humid environment. The Bngldesh Veterinrin, pp: 4-8. Khn, A.G., 1981. Breeding for dw egg lyer. Poult. Adv., 15: 29-36. Khn, A.G., R.N.S. Tiwri, K.K.S. Bghel nd R.D. Gupt, 1987. Influence of the dwrfing gene dw on egg production nd viility under summer het stress. Br. Poult. Sci., 28: 541-546. Mert, P., 1990. Associted effects nd utiliztion of mjor genes reducing ody size in the fowl. Productions Animles, 3: 151-158. Micro Livestock., 1991. Ntionl Reserch Council, Wshington, D.C., pp: 91-99. Pndey, S., 1996. Comprtive perforsmnce of crossred nd pure red egg type mini pullets. th Proceedings of 20 World Poultry Congress. Vol. IV p. 32, Septemer 2-5, 1996, New Delhi. Penionzhkevich, E.E., A.V. Egorov, A.E. Penionzhkevich, nd N.I. Mtskevich, 1976. The commercil significnce of met type fowls with the dwrfing gene. Zhivotnovodstvo, 7: 25-27. In: Poult. Ast., 1976, 2: 2936. Petersen, J., P. Horst nd J. Seehwer, 1977. Effect of the dwrfing gene on growth prmeter nd their genetic sis in lying hens. Archiv Fur Geflugelkunde, 41(2): 72-75. In: Poult. Ast., 1978, 4: 2698. Szzd, M.H., M.H. Edul nd M.U. Asduzzmn, 1990. Egg production y desi (indigenous) hens in rurl Bngldesh. Animl Breeding Astrcts, 58: 3929. Uddin, 1989. Study on Performnce of the Different Crossred in Bngldesh. M.Sc. Thesis. Deprtment of Poultry Science. Bngldesh Agriculturl University, Mymensingh. Bngldesh. Yesmin, T. nd M.A.R. Howlider, 1998. Comprtive physicl fetures, egg production nd egg qulity chrcteristics of norml nd dwrf indigenous (Deshi) hens of Bngldesh. J. Appl. Anim. Res., 13: 191-196. 377