Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T06:39:50.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The influence of turning on the hatchability of hens' eggs II. The effect of turning frequency on the pattern of mortality, the incidence of malpositions, malformations and dead embryos with no somatic abnormality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

I. S. Robertson
Affiliation:
Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh

Extract

Reasons were sought for the changes in hatchability associated with varying frequency rate observed in part I and by other workers. All deadin-shell from the hatches of part I were examined and classified into a number of categories. Their varying incidence in relation to the control hatches was taken to indicate the effect of the rates of turning investigated, viz. 0, once in 2 days, 2, 6, 12, 24 (control), 48, 96, 144, 192 and 480 turns per 24 hr. to the end of the 18th day of incubation.

At the observed optimum rate of turning (96x) mortality was reduced throughout the incubation period with the greatest reduction occurring towards the end; the incidence of malpositions and malformations was reduced as was the case of embryos with no obvious cause of death.

The observed decrease in mortality and hence increase in hatchability at the optimum rate of turning was attributed mainly to the probable improvement of the embryo's physiological environment.

Type
Research Article
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

Asmundson, V. S. (1942). J. Hered. 33, 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asmundson, V. S. (1945). J. Hered. 36, 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byerly, T. C. & Olsen, M. W. (1933). Poult. Sci. 12, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byerly, T. C. & Olsen, M. W. (1934). Poult. Sci. 13, 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byerly, T. C. & Olsen, M. W. (1936 a). Poult. Sci. 15, 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byerly, T. C. & Olsen, M. W. (1936 b). Poult. Sci. 15, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, T. B. (1933). Poult. Sci. 12, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dove, W. F. (1935). J. Agric. Res. 50, 923.Google Scholar
Funk, E. M. & Forward, J. (1952). Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 502.Google Scholar
Hutt, F. B. (1929). Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 49, 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutt, F. B. & Pilkey, A. M. (1934). Poult. Sci. 13, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Insko, W. M. & Martin, J. M. (1933). Poult. Sci. 12, 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landauer, W. (1951). Bull. Storrs Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 262.Google Scholar
Lillie, F. R. (1952). Lillie's Development of the Chick, revised edit. New York: Henry Holt and Co. Inc.Google Scholar
Marshall, W. (1948). World's Poult. Congr. 8, 336.Google Scholar
Marshall, W. (1951). World's Poult. Congr. 1, 80.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. W. & Byerly, T. C. (1935). Poult. Sci. 14, 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, M. W. & Byerly, T. C. (1936). Poult. Sci. 15, 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, M. W. & Byerly, T. C. (1938). J. Agric, Res. 56, 221.Google Scholar
Randles, C. A. & Romanoff, A. L. (1949). Poult. Sci. 28, 780.Google Scholar
Randles, C. A. & Romanoff, A. L. (1950). J.Exp.Zool. 114, 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, I. S. (1961). Brit. Poult. Sci. Vol.2. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Sanctuary, W. C. (19241925). Poult. Sci. 4, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, L. W. (1932). Poult. Sci. (Abstract), 11, 368.Google Scholar
Upp, C. W. (1934). Bull. Louisiana Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 255Google Scholar