Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:59:31.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Organ development in relation to egg-laying capacity in the fowl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. S. E. Hafez
E. S. E. Hafez
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Cairo, Egypt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Eighty-nine Fayomi pullets were classified into three major classes High, Medium and Low according to the intensity of egg laying. Six birds in each class were slaughtered. The major body organs were dissected and weighed. The number and diameter of the visible oocytes were recorded. The dressing out percentage was obtained. The results were as follows:

1. During the first year of laying, the averagenumber of eggs laid per day was 0·50, 0·42 and 0·24 eggs for the High, Medium and Low classes respectively.

2. There were significant differences in the ovarian weight, length and weight of oviduct, these being highest in the High class.

3. The number of visible oocytes was some 200 in all classes. There were, however, differences between classes in the maturation rate of the oocytes as measured by the differences in the diameter of successive ones.

4. The weight of blood, feathers, head, wings and legs were higher in the Low than in the High; these are all early maturing organs.

5. The weights of the full alimentary canal and the empty gizzard were higher in the High than in the Low, this might be accounted for by a greater appetite and to intake of feed induced by the higher egg production.

6. There were no significant differences in the weight of the circulatory, excretory and respiratory organs which are needed for the physiological welfare of the birds.

7. The dressing out percentage was higher in the Low and Medium than in the High. This may be due to the greater drainage of nutrients required for high egg production.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , December 1954 , pp. 148 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barott, H. G. & Pringle, E. M. (1947). J. Nutr. 34, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, C. H. (1947). Poult. Sci. 26, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, L. N. & Walker, A. L. (1927). Bull. N. Mex. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 158.Google Scholar
Buckner, G. D., Insko, W. M. Jr., Henry, A. H. & Wachs, E. F. (1950). Poult. Sci. 29, 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J. A., McCrary, C. M. & Card, C. G. (1946). Quart. Bull. Mich. Agric. Exp. Sta. 28, 281.Google Scholar
Dokan, E. L. (1947). Engng Exp. Sta. News (Columbia, B.), 19 (1), 46 (A.B.A. 16, 256).Google Scholar
Funk, E. M. (1950). Poult. Sci. 29, 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. C. & Haynes, S. K. (1944). Poult. Sci. 23, 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, J. A. & Parker, J. E. (1950). Poult. Sci. 29, 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harshaw, H. M. (1943). U.S. Egg Poult. Mag. 49, 405.Google Scholar
Hays, F. A. (1949). Poult. Sci. 28, 921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazel, L. N. & Lamoreux, W. F. (1947). Poult. Sci. 26, 508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, E. W. (1946). Quart. Bull. Mich. Agric. Exp. Sta. 28, 176.Google Scholar
Ishibashi, T. & Kato, Y. (1951). Sci. Bull. Fac. Agric. Kyushu Univ. (Fukuoka), 13, 392 (A.B.A. 21, 87).Google Scholar
Jaap, R. G., Renard, M. M. & Buckingham, R. D. (1950). Poult. Sci. 29, 874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, E. P. & Platt, S. P. (1941). Bull. N. J. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 687.Google Scholar
Jull, M. A., Phillips, R. E. & Williams, C. S. (1943). U.S. Egg Poult. Mag. 49, 364.Google Scholar
Kaufman, L. & Baczkowska, H. (1939). Mini. Inst. polon. Écon, rur. 17 (2B), 159 (A.B.A. 15, 57).Google Scholar
Kaufman, L. & Bierowna, H. (1939). Mém. Inst. polon. Écon. rur. 17 (28) (A.B.A. 15, 58).Google Scholar
Klaude-Klaudel, (1948). Rep. 8th World's Poult. Congr. (Copenhagen), 1, 304.Google Scholar
Lamoreux, W. F. (1943). U.S. Egg Poult. Mag. 49, 192.Google Scholar
Lasely, E. L. (1949). Bull. N. Dak. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 355.Google Scholar
McNally, E. H. & Spicknall, N. H. (1949). Poult. Sci. 28, 562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrohof, N. K., Ward, W. F. & Moore, O. K. (1943). Bull. Fla Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 394.Google Scholar
Parker, J. E. & Harper, J. A. (1950). Poult. Sci. 29, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, R. & Schoppe, W. F. (1921). J. Exp. Zool. 34, 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, C. S. (1927). Poult. Sci. 6, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romanoff, A. E. & Romanoff, A. J. (1949). The Avian Egg. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1948). Statistical Methods. Iowa: Ames.Google Scholar
Upp, C. W. & Thompson, R. B. (1927). Bull. Okla. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 167.Google Scholar
Vezzani, V. & Franceshetti, G. M. (1951). Rep. 9th World's Poult. Congr. (Paris), 2, 119.Google Scholar
Warren, D. C. (1948). Rep. 8th World's Poult. Congr. (Copenhagen), 1, 147.Google Scholar