Production performance and economic efficiencies of broiler of Cobb 500, cockerel of ISA Brown, Fayoumi, and RIR (Rhode Island Red) and Sonali (derived from RIR? × Fayoumi?) available in Rajshahi were investigated. Identical care and management practices were provided to chickens of all genetic groups reared for meat and egg production. Performance of four meat purpose chickens viz., Cobb 500, ISA Brown, Fayoumi and Sonali were evaluated in terms of such important parameters as initial body weight (IBW), 5-wk rearing period (RP), achieved body weight (ABW), feed intake (FI), body weight gain (BWG) and feed conversion ratio (FCR). Performance of three egg purpose chickens viz. Fayoumi, RIR and Sonali included weight of day-old chick (WDOC), growth rate (GR), death rate (DR), fertility (FR), hatchability (HT), first laying age (FLA) and monthly egg production (MEP). Economic efficiency parameters viz., total cost (TC), gross return (GRR), net return (NR) and cost-benefit ratio (CBR) were calculated for both types. In terms of FI, FCR and BWG values, broiler of Cobb 500 was the best preferred and cockerel of ISA Brown the least preferred chicken. Conversely, in terms of the CBR values for meat producers, the cockerel of ISA White (1.58) was the best and the broiler of Cobb 500 (1.15) the worst. Taking the FLA and MEP into account, RIR topped the list (19.1 wks and 23 eggs per month) whereas Cobb 500 ranked at the bottom (25.2 wks and 16 eggs per month). CBR for egg productivity, on the other hand, was highest in Sonali (1.11) followed by RIR and Fayoumi (1.10 each) and Cobb 500 (1.09). As regards the meat productivity, significant correlations existed between TC and NR for all chickens except Sonali, which exhibited a negative correlation between the traits. Negative and non-significant associations prevailed for egg productivity in all the chickens. Although broiler of Cobb 500 was found to be the most popular for meat and RIR for egg, the cockerel of ISA Brown was the chicken that earned the maximum CBR.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/ujzru.v31i0.15374Univ. j. zool. Rajshahi Univ. Vol. 31, 2012 pp. 13-18
