Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:59:42.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Upgrading the indigenous poultry of Uganda III. Shell and egg interior quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. C. M. Trail
J. C. M. Trail
Affiliation:
Livestock Experimental Station, Entebbe, Uganda
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Albumen quality, shell thickness and incidence of blood and meat spots in eggs from the progeny of indigenous poultry of Uganda crossed with four imported breeds were compared with results from the pure imported Rhode Island Red breed and discussed relative to figures previously obtained from indigenous poultry. The measurements were taken for a 5-day period during the 12th month of age of the birds when maintained under a high environmental temperature in Uganda.

The albumen quality of all four cross-breeds, as measured by Haugh units, was significantly higher than that of the Rhode Island Red breed.

All four cross-breeds produced eggs with shells significantly thicker than the Rhode Island Red, only slightly below the generally accepted figure of 0·013 in.

The incidence of both blood and meat spots was lower in all four cross-breeds than in the Rhode Island Red, in the case of blood spots significantly lower in one cross-breed and in the case of meat spots significantly lower in three cross-breeds.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , April 1963 , pp. 221 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

Amer, M. F. (1961). Poult. Sci. 40, 1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brant, A. W., Otte, A. W. & Norris, K. H. (1951). Food Tech. 5, 356.Google Scholar
Brant, A. W., Otte, A. W. & Chin, C. (1953). U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. No. 1066.Google Scholar
Dawson, L. E., Champion, L. R., Davidson, J. A. & Zindel, H. C. (1954). Poult. Sci. 33, 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. B. (1955). Biometrics, 11, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, E. M., Froning, G., Grotts, B., Forward, J. & Cotterill, O. (1958). Bull. Univ. Mo. Agric. Res., no. 659.Google Scholar
Haugh, R. R. (1937). U.S. Egg Poult. Mag. 43, 552.Google Scholar
Strain, J. H. & Johnson, A. S. (1957). Poult.Sci. 36, 539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trail, J. C. M. (1963). Poult. Sci. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture (1960). Agric. Mktg Ser. Bull. 246, 2.Google Scholar