Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:14:42.585Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Short day-length and egg production in the fowl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. H. Sykes
A. H. Sykes
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Poultry Research Centre, Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The effect of a short, unchanging day-length of 6 hr. on age at sexual maturity and egg production has been observed.

2. The birds matured at the same age as the controls but at a lower body weight.

3. Egg production over 58 weeks was considerably reduced.

4. An increase in day-length between December and August always increased production.

5. A decrease in day-length between February and August always decreased production; this decrease was greater the later in the year that the change occurred.

6. It is concluded that age at sexual maturity is not affected by the absolute length of the day, and that egg production is affected both by the absolute length and by the change in length.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , August 1956 , pp. 429 - 434
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

Burmester, B. R. & Card, L. E. (1939). Poult. Sci. 18, 402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byerly, T. C. & Knox, C. W. (1946). Poult. Sci. 25, 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byerly, T. C. & Mooke, O. K. (1941). Poult. Sci. 20, 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, A. W. (1954). Farmer's Weekly, 22 Jan. and to be published.Google Scholar
Heywang, B. W. (1940). Poult. Sci. 19, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larionov, W. T. (1941 a). C.R. Acad. Sci. U.R.S.S. 30, 374.Google Scholar
Larionov, W. T. (1941 b). C.R. Acad. Sci. U.R.S.S. 32, 227.Google Scholar
Platt, C. S. (1955). N.J. Agric. 37, 12.Google Scholar
Rider, P. L. (1938). Thesis, Ohio State Univ. Cited by Benoit J. & Assenmacher I. (1953). Second Réunion des Endocrinologistes de langue française, p. 64.Google Scholar
Staffe, A. (1951). Experientia, 7, 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomhave, A. E. (1954). Poult. Sci. 33, 725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, D. C., Conrad, R., Schumacher, A. E. & Avery, T. B. (1950). Bull. Kansas Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 68.Google Scholar
Weber, W. A. (1951). Proc. 9th World's Poult. Sci. Congr. 2, 99.Google Scholar
Whetham, E. O. (1933). J. Agric. Sci. 23, 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar