Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Characterization of indigenous Aseel chicken breed for morphological,
growth, production, and meat composition traits from India
U. Rajkumar,1S. Haunshi, C. Paswan, M. V. L. N. Raju, S. V. Rama Rao, and R. N. Chatterjee
Directorate of Poultry Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, Telengana, India
ABSTRACT Aseel is an important native chicken
breed of India, known for its martial qualities (aggres-
sive fighting abilities), pugnacity, and majestic gait.
The aim of the study is to conserve and characterize
the Aseel germplasm, which is considered to be endan-
gered. The birds were maintained on deep litter under a
simulated backyard type of housing having night shel-
ter and a free-range area. A total of 313 chicks pro-
duced in the second generation from the flock collected
from native tract in Andhra Pradesh was characterized
for morphological, growth, production, and meat qual-
ity parameters. Aseel birds were characterized by mul-
ticolored plumage (predominantly dark brown, black,
golden, etc.) with solid feather patterns and normal
distribution. Ear lobes were red (92%) and small in
size, while 98% of the birds had red colored pea combs
with variations in intensity of color. The shank color
was yellow in the majority (65%) of the birds. The skin
color was white (98%) with pinkish red coloration on
exposed body parts, especially on the breast. The fertil-
ity and hatchability on total eggs were 67.2 and 41.4%,
respectively. Cocks were heavier (P≤0.05) with dis-
tinct sexual dimorphism in Aseel. The body weight of
hens and cocks was 1,704.4 ±23.2 and 2,702.5 ±28.1 g
at 40 wk and 2,333.7 ±26.1 and 3,793.7 ±20.8 g at
72 wk of age, respectively. The age at sexual maturity
was 214.0 ±6.0 days. The egg production up to 40,
52, and 64 wk of age was 18.0 ±1, 30.0 ±2.0, and
47 ±3 eggs, respectively. The annual egg production
(72 wk) was 64 ±6 eggs. The proximate composition of
breast muscle was; protein 21.5 ±0.5%, fat 3.4 ±0.1%,
ash 2.0 ±0.1%, and moisture 73.3 ±0.5%. The pH of
breast muscle was 6.0 ±0.03 and the cholesterol content
was 72.5 ±6.7 mg/100 g. Efforts are on for improving
the productivity in the flock without compromising the
original breed characteristics.
Key words: Aseel, characterization, morphology, growth, production
2017 Poultry Science 96:2120–2126
http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew492
INTRODUCTION
Aseel is one of the important indigenous chicken
breeds of India and is well known for its pugnacity,
majestic gait, agility, high stamina, and dogged fight-
ing qualities (Singh, 2001). The home tract of Aseel
chickens is the state of Andhra Pradesh; however, the
birds are present in parts of other states like Orissa,
Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. The Aseel hens are
poor layers but have excellent broodiness traits and
are quite formidable in the protection of their young
ones under free-range conditions. Eight variants of Aseel
breed were reported in India of which, Aseel (Yellow)
and Aseel (Black) are commonly available (Panda and
Mohapatra, 1989). These birds are characterized by
their hardiness and ability to thrive under adverse cli-
matic conditions. The productivity is low in Aseel chick-
ens, but the birds are known for their meat quality with
desirable taste and flavor (Rajkumar et al., 2016). The
native chicken meat is known for intense flavor, firm
C
2017 Poultry Science Association Inc.
Received July 26, 2016.
Accepted December 13, 2016.
1Corresponding author: ullengala@yahoo.com
texture, low fat, and rich nutrients (Zhao et al., 2007;
Chen et al., 2008). Assessing and documenting the meat
quality and its composition, especially proximate com-
position in Aseel is very important in terms of its nu-
trient composition and also in consumer interest.
Of late, there is growing interest in native chickens
among farmers because of their hardiness, ability to
thrive under adverse conditions, and the desirable taste
and flavor of their eggs and meat. Considerable genetic
erosion is occurring because of the introduction of im-
proved hybrid chicken varieties in the breeding tracts of
recognized breeds leading to dilution of genetic purity
or replacement of the breeds, which has brought them
under threat of extinction (Singh, 2009). The avail-
able literature on the morphology, performance, and
other parameters of Aseel chicken is very limited (Singh
et al., 2000a,b; Mohan et al.,2008; Haunshi et al.,
2011). Further, there is a considerable variation in the
growth and production traits of Aseel chickens in the
published literature (Mohan et al.,2008; Haunshi et al.,
2011; Sarkar et al., 2012). Comprehensive information
on characterization of Aseel chickens for morphology,
growth, and production in a complete laying cycle is
essential for planning, management, and conservation
2120
CHARACTERIZATION OF ASEEL CHICKEN 2121
of Aseel chickens in a sustainable manner. Therefore,
the present study was carried out with an aim to con-
serve and characterize Aseel chickens with respect to
morphological, growth, production, and meat quality
traits.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was carried out at the experimental poul-
try farm of Indian Council of Agricultural Research-
Directorate of Poultry Research (ICAR-DPR), Hy-
derabad, India. Hyderabad is located in the Deccan
plateau in the southern part of India positioned between
17◦23’N and 78◦28’E at a height of 500 m above sea
level. The region experiences usually a hot and humid
tropical climate with maximum temperature ranging
from 20◦C in winter to 45
◦C in summer seasons. The
experiment was approved by the Institutional Animal
Ethics Committee.
Experimental Population
The Aseel chickens were collected from the native
breeding tract in Andhra Pradesh, India, for conser-
vation purpose. A total of 313 chicks, produced ran-
domly in the second generation (G-2) was utilized for
the study. Standard management practices were fol-
lowed during brooding, growing, and laying stages. The
hens were housed in individual cages with dimensions
of 19.05 cm width ×38.1 length ×50.8 front height ×
45.7 cm back height, and cocks were maintained on deep
litter in a backyard type of housing with night shel-
ter and a free-range facility for movement of the birds
to retain the original breed characteristics. The birds
were maintained on ad libitum feeding with maize and
soya based diets during the experimental period. The
birds were vaccinated against Marek’s disease (first d),
Newcastle disease (Lasota - seventh and 30th d; R2B-
9th wk; inactivated - 18th wk), infectious bursal disease
(14th and 26th d), fowl pox (6th wk), and infectious
bronchitis (18th wk). The ambient temperature ranged
from 20◦Cto42
◦C during the rearing period.
Morphology
Data on physical characters like feather distribution
and pattern, comb types, color of the shank, skin, ear
lobe, eyes, spur, etc., were collected on 236 birds (116
hens and 120 cocks) at 20 wk of age as per the standard
proforma developed by the Indian Council of Agricul-
tural Research - National Bureau of Animal Genetic
Resources (ICAR-NBAGR).
Growth Traits
Body weight was measured in chicks at one d old,
and 4, 6, 12, and 16 wk of age on pooled sex and at
20, 40, 52, 64, and 72 wk of age on a unisex basis. The
corresponding shank lengths were measured until 40 wk
of age. The body weight was measured to 0.1 g accuracy
using digital balance.
Production Traits
Age at sexual maturity (ASM); egg weights at 32,
40, 52, 64, and 72 wk of age; and part-period egg pro-
duction up to 40 (EP40), 52 (EP52), and 64 (EP64)
and annual egg production up to 72 (EP72) wk of age
were recorded. The weight of eggs was recorded using
a digital balance (0.01 g accuracy).
Meat Quality
Meat quality parameters, namely, the proximate
composition, pH, and cholesterol content of breast mus-
cle, from 20 Aseel cocks slaughtered at 20 wk of age were
evaluated. Moisture (Sox Plus, Model SCS-6, Pelican
Equipments, Chennai, India), fat, protein (Kel Plus,
Model KES 6 L, Pelican Equipments, Chennai, India),
and ash contents of the meat were determined as per
procedures of AOAC (1995). Cholesterol content of the
muscle was estimated by the Zaks and Henly method.
pH. The pH of meat was determined as per AOAC
(1995). Briefly, 5 g of meat were homogenized with
45 mL of distilled water for one min using a tissue ho-
mogenizer. The pH of the homogenate was recorded by
immersing the combined glass electrode and tempera-
ture probe of the digital pH meter.
Statistical Analysis
The data on qualitative characters were expressed
as percentages. The descriptive statistics for various
growth, production and meat quality traits were an-
alyzed using SPSS version 16.0. One way ANOVA was
carried out to study the effect of sex on body weights
and shank length.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Morphology
Morphological features, namely, plumage, comb,
shank, ear lobe, eye, and skin color observed in Aseel
chickens are presented in Table 1.Aseel chickens had
compact, firm, and muscular bodies held in a dis-
tinct upright position with strong shanks, majestic
gait, short curved beaks, and broad skulls. The keel
bone was straight and well developed. The back was
straight with a slanting appearance from the neck to
the tail. Aseel birds were characterized by multicolored
plumage, predominantly dark brown, black, red, golden,
and white, with solid feather patterns and normal dis-
tribution (Figure 1–4). The long, glossy tail feathers
drooping downwards added to the beauty of the bird.
The primary feather color was black in both sexes;
2122 RAJKUMAR ET AL.
Table 1 . Qualitative characters in Aseel chickens
expressed as percentage (n = 236).
Character Type/size Percentage,%
Comb Pea comb 98
Strawberry 2
Comb size Small 64
Medium 25
Large 11
Comb color Dark red 82
Medium 11
Pale red 7
Wattles Males 72
Fem a les Ab s ent
Spur Males 96
Fem a les Ab s ent
Ear lobe Red 92
White 6
Black and others 2
Eye color Black 99
White 1
Skin color White 98
Yellow 2
Shank color Yellow 65
Black 19
White 16
Beak color Yellow 95
Black 5
however, different feather colors with various combi-
nations also were observed. Variations in plumage col-
orsintheAseel breed also were reported by many au-
thors (Panda and Mohapatra, 1989; Singh, 2001;Sarkar
et al., 2012; Suganti, 2014). Almost all the birds (98%)
Figure 1. Aseel cock.
hadpeacombsthatweresmallinsizewithdarkred
color and firmly set on the head. The pea comb was the
breed characteristic of Aseel birds with minor variations
(Singh, 2001). Strawberry combs were observed in 2%
of the birds. Firm and small pea combs reduce the inci-
dence of injuries during fights as the birds were bred for
cock fights during earlier days. Similar to the present
findings, strawberry combs (24.05%) were reported in
Aseel from Bangladesh (Sarkar et al., 2012); however,
the proportion is very low (2%) in the present study.
This may be due to the purity and uniformity of the
breed in India, the home tract of Aseel chickens. Wat-
tles were observed in 72% of males, which were small
in size and sometimes rudimentary. However, wattles
were either absent or rudimentary in females. Sarkar
et al. (2012) reported similar findings for wattles in
Aseel chickens from Bangladeash. The beak color was
yellow in most (95%) of the birds with 5% black col-
oration. Ear lobes were small and red in color in 92% of
birds, and white and black colors also were observed in
smaller proportions (Table 1). Small and red ear lobes
were reported by Sarkar et al. (2012) from Bangladesh.
Eye color was black in almost all the birds with com-
pact and circular eyes. The neck was long with uni-
formly thick lustrous multicolored plumage based on
the body plumage pattern. Skin colors observed were
white (98%) and yellow (2%) with a bright reddish
coloration on exposed parts of the skin, especially on
the chest region. Similar observations were reported
Figure 2. Aseel cock.
CHARACTERIZATION OF ASEEL CHICKEN 2123
Figure 3. Aseel cock.
in Aseel by Singh (2001) from India and Sarkar et al.
(2012) from Bangladesh. Spur was present in most of
the males (96%) and absent in females. Aseel shanks
were predominantly yellow (65%) followed by black
and white in considerable proportions (Table 1). Yellow
shanks were reported in Aseel from Bangladesh (Sarkar
et al., 2012). The Aseel chickens were bred for game pur-
pose over the years, evolving the features like compact
and firm body structure, strong appendages (spur and
toe), firmly attached pea combs, strong legs, etc., suit-
able for the purpose for which they were bred. All the
findings confer to the Indian chicken breed standards
as per ICAR-NBAGR guidelines, the nodal agency for
breed characterization and registration. The observa-
tions were in accordance with American Standards of
Perfection (APA 1998) and British Poultry Standards
(Roberts, 1997) with little variations due to breed evo-
lution over the years.
Reproductive Performance
The fertility and hatchability are influenced by
the breed, nutrition, age, and management of birds. The
mean fertility rate was 67.18% in Aseel chickens. The
hatchability percentage was low, 44.71% on total egg
set (TES) and 80.87% on fertile egg set (FES), respec-
tively. High fertility (86.96%) and hatchability (FES:
81.21% and TES: 70.74%) was reported in Aseel birds,
Figure 4. Aseel hen.
which was under selection for improved growth (Mohan
et al., 2008; Haunshi et al., 2012). The variations in fer-
tility and hatchability might be due to the differences in
age of the birds and environmental conditions. The low
reproductive performance might be due to the fact that
the birds were brought from the field and reared under
captive conditions under a new environment, leading to
reduced fertility and hatchability among the birds.
Growth Performance
Growth performance of Aseel chickens up to 72 wk of
age is presented in Table 2. The juvenile body weight
and shank length at 6 wk of age were 297.7 ±6.4gand
57.9 ±1.2 mm, respectively on pooled sex. The growth
appears to be slow in Aseel chickens during the early
period of life and birds continued to grow up to 40 wk
of age. The growth was faster in the later period up to
40 wk of age. The body weights recorded up to 16 wk of
age were comparable to the findings of Chatterjee et al.
(2007)inAseel chickens. Sex had significant (P≤0.05)
effect on body weight and shank length in the Aseel.
Cocks had firm and compact bodies with broad chest
and upright posture. Similar observations on sex effects
were reported by Haunshi et al. (2011)intheAseel.
Higher body weights at 40 wk (Haunshi et al., 2011)
and lower body weights (Mohan et al., 2008) than the
present findings were reported in Aseel peela. Higher
2124 RAJKUMAR ET AL.
Table 2 . Body weight (g) and shank length (mm) at different
ages in Aseel chickens.
Age, weeks n Body weight Shank length,
(Mean ±SE), g (Mean ±SE) mm
Day old 313 28.9 ±1.1
4 272 142.4 ±5.4 43.5 ±0.9
6 266 297.7 ±6.4 57.9 ±1.2
12 255 821.2 ±10.1 92.5 ±1.8
16 243 1122.5 ±12.2 112.0 ±1.9
20 Hens (116) 1381.4 ±18.2b108.4 ±2.1b
Cocks (120) 1840.9 ±20.7a132.2 ±2.6a
40 Hens (109) 1704.4 ±23.2b115.3 ±3.5b
Cocks (62) 2702.5 ±28.1a139.6 ±3.2a
52 Hens (102) 2121.2 ±21.0b
Cocks (59) 3148.5 ±21.5a
64 Hens (96) 2201.9 ±22.2b
Cocks (52) 3485.8 ±23.4a
72 Hens (88) 2333.7 ±26.1b
Cocks (48) 3793.7 ±20.8a
a,bMeans with different superscripts differ significantly between sexes
(P≤0.05).
Means presented up to 16 wk of age represent combined sex data.
Table 3 . Egg production and egg weight at different ages in
Aseel chickens.
Age, wk n Egg production, Egg weight
(Mean ±SE), no. (Mean ±SE), g
32 112 – 37.1 ±0.3
40 109 18 ±1 38.8 ±0.6
52 102 30 ±2 40.3 ±0.4
64 96 47 ±3 45.1 ±0.5
72 88 64 ±6 47.5 ±0.7
body weights in a former study might be due to the
selection practiced for higher body weight in the Aseel,
whereas in the present study, birds were not under any
selection and brought from the field a generation be-
fore. Higher shank lengths were observed in the present
study for Aseel chickens than reported by Haunshi
et al., (2011). Aseel cocks have been selected for their
fighting abilities with longer and stronger shanks and
legs either naturally or by farmers, leading to longer and
stronger shanks in the birds. The annual body weight
of cocks (3.79 kg) and hens (2.33 kg) were similar to the
observations of 3 to 4 kg (cocks) and 2 to 3 kg (hens)
reported by Singh (2001).
Production Performance
The annual egg production, part-period egg produc-
tion, and egg weight at different ages are presented in
Table 3. The ASM was 214 ±6 d, which was compar-
atively higher than reported by Mohan et al. (2008)
in Aseel birds. This is justifiable, as the present birds
under study were recently brought to captive condi-
tions. All the native chicken breeds mature at a late
age either in farm or field conditions. However, sim-
ilar observations on ASM were reported by Haunshi
et al. (2011)inAseel hens. The part-period egg pro-
duction up to 40 wk of age was 18 ±1 eggs. The EP40,
EP52, and EP64 was quite low (Table 2)intheAseel
as the hens are poor layers. The EP72 was 64 ±6 eggs
in a laying cycle of 72 wk (Table 3). The prominent
broodiness character might be the primary reason for
lower production in native chickens in general and Aseel
in particular. The long broodiness period up to 30 to
45 d was observed in hens if they were allowed with no
human interference or disturbance. Higher EP40 (35.71
±1.68 eggs/yr) was reported by Sarkar et al. (2012)
in Aseel hens from Bangladesh. Haunshi et al. (2011)
reported higher EP40 (36.23 eggs) in Aseel hens. The
annual egg production of 160 eggs in Aseel peela
hens (Mohan et al., 2008) was the highest produc-
tion recorded for these birds. The increased production
might be due to the loss of natural characteristics, espe-
cially broodiness under a long-term selection program
for improvement.
The mean egg weight at 40 and 72 wk of age was
38.8 ±0.6 and 47.5 ±0.7 g, respectively, in Aseel
chickens (Table 3). The present findings for egg weights
were comparable to that reported (41 g) by Singh et al
(2000a); and (45 g) by Ahmad et al., 2013 in Aseel
chickens. Haunshi et al. (2011) reported higher egg
weight (45.80 and 49.28 g) at 32 and 40 wk of age,
respectively, compared to the present finding, which
might be due to prolonged selection for increased body
weight in the flock. Heavier eggs (51.62 to 55.65 g) were
observed in Aseel chickens from Pakistan (Usman et al.,
2014). Higher egg weights than the present results were
observed by Mohan et al. (2008) and Haunshi et al.
(2011)inAseel hens. The observed lower egg weights
in the present study might be due to the breed char-
acteristic. The egg weights gradually increased as age
increased, showing the positive correlation between egg
weights and age, which might be due to the higher body
weight at older age as heavier birds laid larger eggs.
Meat Composition
The proximate composition, pH and cholesterol, of
Aseel breast meat are presented in Table 4.Meatqual-
ity plays an important role in determining the con-
sumer preference and acceptability of meat. The qual-
ity of meat is affected by many factors like breed,
genetic makeup of the bird, environment, nutrition,
stress condition, etc., (Rajkumar et al., 2016). The
value of the meat is measured in terms of the major
chemical components like proteins, fats, carbohydrates,
Table 4 . pH, cholesterol (mg/100 g),
and proximate composition (%) of Aseel
meat (n = 20) at 20 wk of age.
Parameter Mean ±SE
pH 6.0 ±0.03
Cholesterol 72.5 ±6.7
Proximate composition
Protein 21.5 ±0.5
Fat 3.4 ±0.1
Ash 2.0 ±0.1
Moisture 73.3 ±0.5
CHARACTERIZATION OF ASEEL CHICKEN 2125
minerals, and fatty acid contents of the meat (Pearson
and Gillet, 1996). The chemical composition of protein,
fat, ash and moisture observed in the present study were
within the range of reported values of 17.0 to 23.3% for
protein; 1.0 to 8.9% for fat; 0.1 to 1.1% for ash; and 60.4
to 76.14% for moisture in the chicken meat (Boskovic
et al., 2010, Karakok et al., 2010; Souza et al., 2011).
The nutritive composition of Aseel meat was similar to
broiler meat with respect to proximate principles with
little variations, which might be due to the composi-
tion of feed and metabolic activity of the birds. Many
factors like breed, age, sex, nutrition, rearing systems,
dressing, and type of meat affects the composition of
meat (Boskovic et al., 2010), which might have caused
the variations in the present findings in Aseel meat. The
fat percentage (3.40%) in breast muscle in the present
study was similar to the reports (3.75%) of Haunshi
et al., (2013)intheAseel. Lower fat proportions were
observed (Karakok et al., 2010; Souza et al., 2011)in
broiler compared to Aseel chickens, which might be
due to the muscle sampling in which skin is also in-
cluded in the present study, as native chickens are pre-
ferred with skin in India. Ash proportion was higher in
Aseel cocks indicating high mineral content in the mus-
cle. These minerals are associated with organic com-
pounds involved in muscle contraction (Souza et al.,
2011) wherein the muscular movement is higher, as
Aseel birds are reared for game purposes.
The pH values observed (6.0 ±0.03) in Aseel meat
was in the normal range and similar to that of broiler
chicken meat, 5.8 to 6.3 (Sarsenbek et al., 2013). pH has
been the major factor affecting all the quality attributes
of chicken meat (Dadgar et al., 2011). The lower pH val-
ues in Aseel chickens could be due to the higher shack-
ling stress at the time of slaughter leading to rapid acid-
ification of breast muscle (Debut et al., 2005), resulting
in lower pH as the breast muscle is more sensitive to
wing flapping (Fanatico et al., 2007).
Cholesterol content of Aseel breast meat was low
(72.5 ±6.7 mg/100 g), which might be due to more
metabolic activity under free-range conditions and
lean meat of the bird, which is a desirable feature
for meat purpose birds. Salma et al. (2007) reported
higher (93.6 ±9.4 mg/100 g) cholesterol content in
the breast meat of broilers. Higher cholesterol con-
tents of 147.0 mg/100 g (Demirel et al., 2012)and
194.2 mg/100 g (Salma et al., 2007) were reported in
thigh muscles in broiler chickens.
CONCLUSION
Aseel chickens are characterized by multicolored
plumage, solid feather patterns, normal feather distri-
bution, compact upright bodies, stronger shanks, ma-
jestic gait, pugnacity, and red colored pea combs. The
birds are slow growers, poor layers, and known for deli-
cacy of meat. Aseel chickens have the ability for higher
productivity in terms of growth and production. How-
ever, the challenge is to improve the bird without com-
promising the breed characteristics. The efforts are on
to improve the productivity of Aseel chickens while
maintaining a balance between production and breed
characteristics, especially fighting qualities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are thankful to the Director, Indian
Council of Agricultural Research-Directorate of Poultry
Research (ICAR-DPR) for his constant support and en-
couragement in conducting the research work. Special
thanks are due to Director, ICAR-National Research
Center on Meat (ICAR-NRCM) for permitting us to
takeupthemeatqualityworkatICAR-NRCMand
Dr. M. Muthukumar, Senior Scientist, ICAR-NRCM,
for his help in conducting meat quality studies. The
technical help received from farm and hatchery staff is
duly acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Ahmad,S.,M.Akram,J.Hussain,Z.Sarfraz,F.Aslam,A.Rehman,
and A. Iqbal. 2013. Comparative study on productive perfor-
mance, egg quality, egg geometry and hatching traits of three
age groups of indegeneous Peshawari Aseel chickens. Sci. J. Vety.
Adv. 2:21–25.
AOAC. 1995. Official method of analysis. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem.,
Arlington, VA.
Boscovik, S. B., S. Mitrovic, R. Djokovic, V. Doskovic, and V.
Djermanovic. 2010. Chemical composition of chicken meat pro-
duced in extensive indoor and free range rearing systems. Afri. J.
Biotech. 10:9069–9075.
Chatterjee, R. N., R. P. Sharma, M. R. Reddy, M. Niranjan, and
B. L. N. Reddy. 2007. Growth, body conformation and immune
responsiveness in two Indian native chicken breeds. Livest. Res.
Rural Dev.19. Available at www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/10chat1951.htm
Chen, J. L., G. P. Zhao, M. Q. Zheng, J. Wen, and N. Yang. 2008.
Estimation of genetic parametres for contents of intra muscular
fat and inosine -5 –monophospate and carcass traits in Chinese
Beijing –You chickens. Poult. Sci. 87:1098–1104.
Dadgar, S., E. S. Lee, T. L. V. Leer, T. G. Crowe, H. L. Classen,
and P. J. Shand. 2011. Effect of acute cold exposure, age, sex and
lairage on broiler breast meat quality. Poult. Sci. 90:444–457.
Debut, M., C. Berri, C. Arnould, D. Guemene, V. Sante- Lhoutel-
lier, N. Sellier, E. Bacza, N. Zehl, Y. Zego, C. Beaumont, and E.
Le-Bihan-Duval. 2005. Behavioral and physiological responses of
three chicken breeds to pre slaughter shackling and acute heat
stress. Br. Poult. Sci. 46:527–535.
Demirel, G., A. Y. Pekel, M. Alp, and N. Kocaba˘gl. 2012. Effects
of dietary supplementation of citric acid, copper, and microbial
phytase on growth performance and mineral retention in broiler
chickens fed a low available phosphorus diet. J. Appl. Poult. Res.
21:335–347
Fanatico, A. C., P. B. Pillai, J. L. Emmert, and C. M. Owens. 2007.
Meat quality of slow and fast growing chicken genotypes fed nu-
trient or standard diets and raised indoors or without door areas.
Poult. Sci. 86:2245–2255.
Haunshi, S., M. Niranjan, M. Shanmugam, M. K. Padhi, M. R.
Reddy, R. Sunitha, U. Rajkumar, and A. K. Panda. 2011. Char-
acterization of two Indian native chicken breeds for production,
egg and semen quality, and welfare traits. Poult. Sci. 90:314–320.
Haunshi, S., M. Shanmugam, M. K. Padhi, M. Niranjan, U. Rajku-
mar, M. R. Reddy, and A. K. Panda. 2012. Evaluation of two In-
dian native chicken breeds for reproduction traits and heritability
of juvenile growth traits. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 44:969–973.
Haunshi, S., R. Sunitha M. Shanmugam, M. K. Padhi, and M.
Niranjan. 2013. Carcass characteristics and chemical composition
2126 RAJKUMAR ET AL.
of breast and thigh muscle of native chicken breeds. Indian J.
Poult. Sci. 48:219–222.
Karakok, S. G., Y. Ozogul, M. Saler, and F. Ozugul.2010. Proxi-
mate analysis, fatty acid profiles and mineral content of meats:
A comparative study. J. Muscle Foods. 21:210–223.
Mohan, J., K. V. H. Sastry, R. P. Moudgal, and J. S. Tyagi.
2008. Production and other characteristics of Aseel Peela desi
hens under normal rearing system. Indian J. Poult. Sci. 43:
217–219.
Panda, B., and S. C. Mahapatra.1989.Common breeds of poultry.
In: Poultry Production. ICAR, New Delhi, India. Pp. 6–18
Pearson, A. M., and T. A. Gillet. 1996. Processed Meats. Chapman
& Hall, New York.
Rajkumar, U, M Muthukumar, S Haunshi, M Niranjan, M Raju, S. V
Rama Rao, and R. N. Chatterjee, 2016. Comparative evaluation
of carcass traits and meat quality in native Aseel chickens and
commercial broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 57:339–347.
Roberts, V. 1997. British Poultry Standards (5th edn.). Blackwell
Science Ltd. UK. Pp.45–46.
Salma, U., A. G. Miah, T. Maki, M. Nishimura, and H. Tsujii. 2007.
Effect of dietary Rhodobacter capsulatus on cholesterol concen-
tration and fatty acid composition in broiler meat. Poult. Sci.
86:1920–1926.
Sarsenbek, A., T. Wang, J. K. Zhao, and W. Jiang. 2013. Comparison
of carcass yields and meat quality between Baicheng-You chickens
and Arbor Acres broilers. Poult. Sci. 92:2776–2782.
Sarkar, M. J. A., M. S. A. Bhuiyan, M. O. Faruque, M. A. Ali, and
J. H. Lee. 2012. Phenotypic characterization of Aseel chicken of
Bangladesh. Korean J. Poult. Sci. 39:9–15.
Singh, D. P. 2001.Aseel of India. In: Souvenir, National Seminar
on Appropriate Poultry for Adverse Environment. Organized by
Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University and Project Direc-
torate on Poultry, Hyderabad, 11th January 2001.
Singh, D. P. 2009. Overview of existing breeds and issues of con-
serving indigenous breeds. In: Proc. Natl. Workshop on Synthe-
sizing Experiences in the Promotion of Backyard Poultry. Govt.
of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, India. Pp. 54–55
Singh, M., U Singh, and B. S. Gurung. 2000a. Evaluation of egg
weight and its various measurements attributes in indigenous
Aseel breed of chicken. Indian J. Poult. Sci. 35:312–14.
Singh, U., R. K. Gupta, M. Singh, and B. S. Gurung. 2000b. Re-
production and production performance of Aseel, an indigenous
breed of chicken. Indian J. Poult. Sci. 35:202–204.
Souza, X. R., P. B. Faria, and M. C. Bressan. 2011. Proximate com-
position and meat quality of broilers reared under different pro-
duction systems. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 13:15–20.
Suganti, U. R. 2014. The uniqueness of immune competence and
meat quality of native chickens: A specialized review. World J.
Pharm. & Pharmacuet. Sci. 3:2576–88.
The American Poultry Science Association (APA). 1998. The Amer-
ican standards of perfection.
Usman, M., A. Basheer, M. Akram, and I. Zahoor. 2014. A compara-
tive study of production performance and egg quality parameters
of naked neck and indigenous Aseel chicken of Pakistan. J. Appl.
Basic Sci. 10:160–63.
Zhao, G. P., J. L. Chen, M. Q. Zheng, J. Wen, and Y. Zhang. 2007.
Correlated responses to selection for increased intramuscular fat
in a Chinese quality chicken line. Poult. Sci. 86:2309–2314.
