Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T03:22:56.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The efficiency of food utilization for egg production by pullets and yearling hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. Bolton
W. Bolton
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Poultry Research Centre, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, 9
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The efficiency of food conversion by pullets and yearlings fed on high- and low-energy diets has been determined.

2. Egg production was slightly higher by birds fed the low-energy diet for both pullets and yearling hens; pullets laid more eggs than yearling hens.

3. For each age, the gross food intake was greater for birds fed the low-energy diet; the consumptions of digestible protein, non-protein digestible energy and metabolizable energy were the same for both diets and both ages of bird.

4. The food cost per dozen eggs was slightly greater in the yearling year when the cost of rearing the pullets was ignored, and about the same when it was included.

5. The efficiency of utilization of digestible energy and protein showed only a slight decrease from the pullet to the yearling year.

6. The variation in the composition and digestibility of eighteen consecutive mixes of the highenergy diet and twenty-five of the low-energy diet was: crude protein 2%, non-protein digestible energy 5% and metabolizable energy 0·4 kg. cal./g. The digestibility of the crude protein and oil was 87%, for both diets; carbohydrates were 81% digestible in the high-energy diet and 59% in the low-energy diet.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , June 1959 , pp. 364 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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

Bird, S. & Sinclair, J. W. (1938–1939). Sci. Agric. 19, 542.Google Scholar
Bolton, W. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, W. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 50, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, W. (1959). Analyst. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Brody, S., Henderson, E. W. & Kempster, H. L. (1923–1924). J. Gen. Physiol. 6, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byerly, T. C. (1941). Bull. Md Agric. Exp. Sta. no. A1 (quoted by Joshi, Shaffner & Jull, 1949).Google Scholar
Chatfield, C. & Adams, G. (1940). U.S. Dept. Agric. Circ. 549.Google Scholar
Clark, T. B. (1940). Poult. Sci. 19, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, G. D. & Marble, D. R. (1931). Poult. Sci. 10, 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgman, C. D. (1952). Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 34th ed.Cleveland, Ohio: Chemical Rubber Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Joshi, B. C., Shaffner, C. S. & Jull, M. A. (1949). Poult. Sci. 28, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plimmer, R. H. A. (1921). Analyses and Energy Values of Foods. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Romanoff, A. L. & Romanoff, A. J. (1949). The Avian Egg. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Sherman, H. E. & Wang, T. C. (1929). Phillipp. J. Sci. 38, 69.Google Scholar
Titus, H. W. (1928–1929). Poult. Sci. 8, 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar