Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:55:39.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of turning on the hatchability of hens' eggs I. The effect of rate of turning on hatchability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

I. S. Robertson
I. S. Robertson
Affiliation:
Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Eggs were incubated at various frequencies of turning (tilting through 90°) and their hatchability compared with eggs incubated as controls at 24 turns per day evenly distributed throughout the 24 hr. The turning treatments were: 0, once in 2 days, 2, 6, 12, 48, 96, 144, 192 and 480 turns per day.

Differences in hatch of fertile eggs between the treated and control eggs at each level of turning were obtained and used to indicate the trend of hatchability in response to varying turning frequency and also the optimum rate of turning. This was observed to be 96 turns per day. Nil or few turns per day gave very poor results and at very high frequencies (up to 480x) hatchability decreased only slightly relative to the turning frequency.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , August 1961 , pp. 49 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

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

Askar, M. (1927). Third World's Poult. Congr. pp. 151–6.Google Scholar
Banner, E. L. (1920). Reported by Funk and Forward, 1952.Google Scholar
Cadman, W. H. (1921). First World's Poult. Congr. 2, 97.Google Scholar
Cadman, W. H. (1923). Util. Poult. J. 8, no. 9, 390.Google Scholar
Chattock, A. P. (1925). Phil. Trans. B, 213, 397.Google Scholar
Coles, R. (1959). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Eycleshymer, A. C. (1906). Biol. Bull., Woods Hole, 12, 360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, E. M. & Forward, J. (1952). Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 502.Google Scholar
Funk, E. M. & Forward, J. (1953). Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 599.Google Scholar
Gowe, R. S. (1950). Poult. Sci. 29, 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Insko, W. M. & Martin, J. M. (1933). Poult. Sci. 12, 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltofen, R. S. & Ubbels, P. (1953). A.B.A. no. 1175.Google Scholar
Kosin, I. L. (1944). Poult. Sci. 23, 266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosin, I. L. (1945). Poult. Sci. 24, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotliarov, G. S. (1936). Sbornik referatov Nauchno-Issledovatel' skikh robot N.I.I.P. pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
Kuiper, J. W. & Ubbels, P. (1951). Ninth World's Poult. Congr. 1, 105.Google Scholar
Lamson, G. H. & Kirkpatrick, W. F. (1918). Bull. Storrs Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 95.Google Scholar
Landauer, W. (1951). Bull. Storrs Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 262.Google Scholar
Marshall, W. (1952). Egg Incubation. Poult. World Publ., Dorset House, Stamford Street, London.Google Scholar
New, D. A. T. (1957). J. Embryol. Exp. Morph. 5, 293.Google Scholar
Olsen, M. & Byerly, T. C. (1936). Poult. Sci. 15, 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, M. & Byerly, T. C. (1938). J. Agric.Res. 56, 221.Google Scholar
Payne, L. F. (1921). J. Amer. Ass. Iustrum. Invest. Poult. Husb. 7, 17.Google Scholar
Randles, C. A. & Romanoff, A. L. (1949). Poult. Sci. 28, 780.Google Scholar
Randles, C. A. & Romanoff, A. L. (1954). Poult. Sci. 33, 374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1956). Statistical Methods, 5th ed.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Coll. Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, L. W. (1949). Fertility and Hatchability of Chicken and Turkey Eggs. London: Chapman and Hall, Ltd.Google Scholar