Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T13:20:35.956Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on the occasional depressing influence of fish meal on the hatchability of hens' eggs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. Coles
R. Coles
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The failure of a high proportion of fertile eggs to hatch still remains a major cause of financial loss to the poultry industry. Payne (1919) pointed out the consistent manner in which embryonic mortality manifested peak periods at the fourth day and the nineteenth day of incubation, and he drew attention to the fact that the latter period of susoeptibility showed an increased level of mortality with artificial incubation compared with natural methods. Romanoff (1949) summarized the explanations put forward to account for these two peaks of embryonic mortality. Riddle (1930) suggested that the first period was caused by respiratory maladjustments, and he, and others, considered that the failure of the developing embryo to make the fine adjustments at this time and to deal effectively with the excretion of various toxic substances may be a major cause of death. The second peak period of mortality occurs at the transition from allantoic to pulmonary respiration. Failure to achieve this change, with the consequent death of the chick in the last stages of development, may be greatly influenced by the cumulative effect of all the unfavourable conditions to which the hatching egg has been subjected. Not the least of these will be environmental conditions in the incubator and the incubator house adversely affecting the oxygen supply and the relative humidity.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , May 1956 , pp. 354 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

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

Black, D. J. G., Jennings, R. C., Morris, T. R. & Palgrave, J. A. (1954). Proc. World's Poult. Congr. 10, 121.Google Scholar
Byerly, T. C. (1930). Proc. World's Poult. Congr. 4, 178.Google Scholar
Byerly, T. C., Titus, H. W. & Ellis, N. R. (1933). J. Agric. Res. 46, 1.Google Scholar
Card, L. E., Mitchell, H. H. & Hamilton, T. S. (1930). Proc. 22nd Ann. Meet. Poult. Sci. Ass. p. 29.Google Scholar
Coates, M. E. (1952). Brit. J. Nutr. 6, 101.Google Scholar
Coles, R. & Cumber, F. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 191.Google Scholar
Coles, R. & Underwood, J. R. (1954). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 22, 281.Google Scholar
Ferguson, T. M., Atkinson, R. L. & Couch, J. R. (1954). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., N.Y., 86, 868.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. F., Chubb, L. G. & Stacey, C. G. (1954). Vet. Rec. 66, 71.Google Scholar
Hutt, F. B. (1929). Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 49 (11), 118.Google Scholar
Hutt, F. B. (1930). Proc. World's Poult. Congr. 4, 195.Google Scholar
Moore, T. (1940). Biochem. J. 34, 1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olcese, O., Couch, J. R., Quisenberry, J. H. & Pearson, P. B. (1950). J. Nutr. 41, 423.Google Scholar
Payne, L. F. (1919). J. Amer. Ass. Poult. Husb. 6, 9.Google Scholar
Riddle, O. (1930). Amer. J. Physiol. 94, 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romanoff, A. A. (1949). Auk, 66, 264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singsen, E. P., Matterson, L. D., Bunnell, R. H., Kozeff, A. & Jungherr, E. L. (1954). Proc. World's Poult. Congr. 10, 251.Google Scholar
Smith, H. Williams (1954). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 35, 447.Google Scholar
Smith, J. B. (1930). Proc. Poult. Ass. Canad. 21, 66.Google Scholar
Smith, J. B. & Branion, H. D. (1939). Proc. World's Poult. Congr. 7, 195.Google Scholar