Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:03:19.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the effect of humidity on the hatchability of hens' eggs II. A comparison of hatchability, weight loss and embryonic growth in eggs incubated at 40 and 70% R.H.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

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

Extract

Eggs from Light Sussex hens were weighed before incubation started and on the 19th day of incubation to determine weight loss when incubated at 40% B.H. compared with 70% R.H. They were allowed to hatch and the day-old chicks were weighed.

Although the eggs incubated in the drier atmosphere lost more weight, their hatchability was no less than the eggs incubated in the wetter atmosphere. The hatched live weight of the chicks from the respective groups did not differ significantly.

The comparatively good hatch obtained here and in part I at the 40% R.H. is suggested as being an indication that for optimum hatchability large eggs may require lower humidity than small eggs.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , October 1961 , pp. 195 - 198
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

Almquist, H. J. & Holst, W. F. (1931). Hilgardia, 6, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelsson, J. (1932). Acta Univ. lund. (Avd. 2), 28, 1.Google Scholar
Barott, H. G. (1937). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 553.Google Scholar
Barott, H. G. & Pringle, E. M. (1937). Poult. Sci. 16, 49.Google Scholar
Cadman, W. H. (1923). Util. Poult. J. (Harper Adams Coll.), 8, 390.Google Scholar
Coles, R. (1956). Poult. Sci. 35, 817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coles, R. (1959). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. C. (1922–1923). Poult. Sci. 2, 45, 166, 199.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. C. (1923–1924) Poult. Sci. 3, 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, F. A. & Spear, E. W. (1951). Poult. Sci. 30, 106.Google Scholar
Henderson, E. W. (1941). Quart. Bull. Mich. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 24, 118.Google Scholar
Marshall, W. (1952). Egg Incubation. Poult. World Publ., Dorset House, Stamford Street, London.Google Scholar
Marshall, W. & Cruickshank, D. B. (1938). J. Agric. Sci. 28, 24.Google Scholar
Mueller, C. D. & Scott, H. M. (1940). Poult. Sci. 19, 163.Google Scholar
Obenko, K. S. & Antakov, A. P. (1956). Plicevodstvo, 6, 34.Google Scholar
Olsen, M. W. & Haynes, S. K. (1949). Poult. Sci. 28, 198.Google Scholar
Penquite, R. (1938). Bull. la Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 232.Google Scholar
Robertson, I. S. (1961 a). J. Agric. Sci. 55.Google Scholar
Robertson, I. S. (1961 b). J. Agric. Sci. 55.Google Scholar
Romanoff, A. L. (1949). Fertility and Hatchability of Chicken and Turkey Eggs (Taylor), Ch. 5. London: Chapman and Hall. Ltd.Google Scholar
Romijn, C. (1950). Poult. Sci. 29, 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1956). Statistical Methods, 5th ed.Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar