Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:53:59.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The function of the cuticle in relation to the porosity of eggs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. Marshall  and
D. B. Cruickshank
W. Marshall
Affiliation:
Papworth Industries and the Sims Woodhead Memorial Laboratory, Papworth, Cambridge
D. B. Cruickshank
Affiliation:
Papworth Industries and the Sims Woodhead Memorial Laboratory, Papworth, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The porosity of egg is measured by the usual practice of estimating the weight loss under standard conditions. The porosity coefficient is expressed as the loss in weight in mg. per sq. cm. of egg surface per 24 hr. at 37°C.

P coeff.=mg. cm.2 24 hr. 37°.

2. It is shown that eggs of even curvature approximate closely to the ideal mathematical form of two hemi-prolate spheroids, differing in their eccentricities and meeting in the plane of their common minor axes. On this assumption the divergence between the observed and calculated long perimeter is only +0·618 per cent (five eggs) and between the observed and calculated volumes+3·78 per cent (seventy eggs).

3. It is explained how, by taking the specific gravity of the egg to correct for departures from the theoretical form, it is possible to calculate the surface area with an error not exceeding 1 per cent.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 1938 , pp. 24 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1938

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, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atwood, H. (1901). Bull. W. Va. agric. Exp. Sta. 73, 35–45.Google Scholar
Bryant, R. L. & Sharp, P. F. (1934). J. agric. Res. 48, 67–89.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. C. (1922–1923 a). Poult. Sci. 1, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L. C. (1922–1936 b). Poult. Sci. 1, 91.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. C. (1923 a). Poult. Sci. 2, 166–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L. C. (1923 b). Poult. Sci. 2, 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L. C. (1923 c). Poult. Sci. 3, 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, A. G. (1894). See reference, Lippincott & Card, p. 230.Google Scholar
Hays, F. A. & Sumbardo, A. H. (1927). Poult. Sci. 6, 196–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurie, D. F. (1911). See reference, Lippincott & Card, p. 230.Google Scholar
Lillie, F. R. (1919). The Development of the Chick, 2nd ed. New York.Google Scholar
Lippincott, W. A. & Card, L. E. (1934). Poultry Production, 5th ed. London.Google Scholar
Pringle, E. M. & Barott, H. G. (1937). Poult. Sci. 16, 49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, G. F. (1936). Poult. Sci. 15, 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar