Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-qdpjg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-17T14:32:37.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in commercial laying stock performance, 1958-2011:thirty-seven flocks of the North Carolina random sample and subsequent layerperformance and management tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2013

K.E. ANDERSON ,
G.B. HAVENSTEIN ,
P.K. JENKINS  and
J. OSBORNE
K.E. ANDERSON*
Affiliation:
Department of Poultry Science, North Carolina State University, Box 7608, Raleigh, NC 27695-7608, USA
G.B. HAVENSTEIN
Affiliation:
Department of Poultry Science, North Carolina State University, Box 7608, Raleigh, NC 27695-7608, USA
P.K. JENKINS
Affiliation:
Department of Poultry Science, North Carolina State University, Box 7608, Raleigh, NC 27695-7608, USA
J. OSBORNE
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Box 8203, Raleigh, NC 27695-8203608, USA
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Thirty-seven layer performance tests have been conducted at North Carolina StateUniversity during the past 53 years. Originally established as the NorthCarolina Random Sample Layer Test (NCRSLT), all of the test flocks have beenhatched and housed at the Poultry Unit of the North Carolina Department ofAgriculture and Consumer Service's Piedmont Research Station at Salisbury, NorthCarolina. In 1988, the NCRSLT name was changed to the North Carolina LayerPerformance and Management Test (NCLP&MT) reflecting changes in thetesting procedures to include the evaluation of management practices used bycommercial egg producers. Strain testing and evaluating the relative eggproduction of commercially available egg production stocks began in 1911, andthe number of such Random Sample Tests in North America peaked at 23 inapproximately 1968. The mission for the NCRSLT to provide an unbiased evaluationof the overall performance of strains, evolved to include the effects of varioushousing and husbandry practices on the performance of the genetic stocks enteredinto the test. Test results have been distributed to the industry throughout theUSA as well as to producers in 22 other countries throughout the world. Inaddition, the internet site for the NCLP&MT http://poultry.ces.ncsu.edu/layer-performance/ allows thedistribution of the results to many other interested university and governmentofficials. This review of the first 37 North Carolina layer tests showscontinuing improvements in egg production, reduction in body weight and feedconsumption, increases in egg weight and feed conversion, improvements inliveability, and an improvement in egg quality from the commercially availablewhite and brown egg strains. These changes have continued throughout the 50+year history of the tests, and the changes observed have been brought aboutprimarily by poultry breeding companies applying quantitative genetics for theimprovement of the layer stocks used worldwide.

Keywords

laying hensgenetic selectionmoulting programmesegg productionegg qualitybody weightpopulation
Type
Review Article
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 69 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 489 - 514
Copyright
Copyright © World's Poultry Science Association 2013

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

ANDERSON, K.E. (2004) First Cycle Report of the Thirty Fifth North Carolina Layer Performance and Management Test. Vol. 35, No.3. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, July 2004. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/poulsci/tech_manuals/layer_reports/35_first_cycle_report.pdf.Google Scholar
ANDERSON, K.E. (2005) Final Report of the Thirty Fifth North Carolina Layer Performance and Management Test. Vol. 35, No.4. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University and North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC. May 2005. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/poulsci/tech_manuals/layer_reports/35_final_report.pdf.Google Scholar
BELL, D.D. (2003) Historical and current moulting practices in the U.S. table egg industry. Poultry Science 82: 965-970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CAREY, J.B. (1988) Impact Study Agriculture and Natural Resources: Animal and Poultry Performance Testing Programme: Random Sample Layer Test. May 1988. Agricultural Extension Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/poulsci/tech_manuals/layer_reports/Poultry%20Performance%20Testing%20Impact.pdf.Google Scholar
FLOCK, D.K. and HEIL, G. (2002) A long-term analysis of time trends in the performance profile of white-egg and brown-egg hybrid laying strains based on results of official German random sample tests from 1974/75 to 1997/99. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 41: 153-159.Google Scholar
FLOCK, D.K., HEIL, G. and DAMME, K. (2003) Whither random sample testing for laying hens in Europe? Proceedings 3rd European Poultry Genetics Symposium, Wageningen, NL, p. 27-36.Google Scholar
HARTMANN, W. (1985) Random sample poultry tests – their development and present status in European countries. World's Poultry Science Journal 41: 153-159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HAZEL, L.N. (1943) The genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics 28: 476-490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HEIL, G. and HARTMANN, W. (1991) Combined summaries of European random sample tests completed in 1997 and 1998. World's Poultry Science Journal 55: 203-205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JONES, D.R., ANDERSON, K.E. and DAVIS, G.S. (2001) The effects of genetic selection on production parameters of single comb White Leghorn hens. Poultry Science 80: 1139-1143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
KINNEY, T.B. and SHOFFNER, R.N. (1965) Heritability estimates and genetic correlation estimates among several traits in a meat-type poultry population. Poultry Science 44: 1020-1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MARTIN, G.A. (1984a) Final summary report: Twenty Fourth North Carolina Layer Production and Management Test. Vol. 24, No.4, North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, Raleigh, NC 27695, January 6.Google Scholar
MARTIN, G.A. (1984b) Final summary report: Twenty Fifth North Carolina Layer Production and Management Test. Vol. 25, No.4, North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, Raleigh, NC 27695, October 17.Google Scholar
SAS INSTITUTE, INC. (1996) SAS/STAT ® Proprietary Software Release 6.12 Changes and Enhancements: SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, pp. 231-316; 531-656.Google Scholar
UNITED EGG PRODUCERS, (2002) Moulting. Pages 8-9 in Animal Husbandry Guidelines. UEP,1720 Windward Concourse, Suite 230, Alpharetta, GA.Google Scholar
UNITED EGG PRODUCERS, (2005) United Egg Producers Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U. S. Laying Flocks, 2nd Edition. U.E. P., 1720 Windward Concourse, Suite 230, Alpharetta, GA 30005.Google Scholar
USDA-SEA, (1979) 1978 Report of Random Sample Egg Production Tests: United States and Canada. USDA-ARS Publication: AGR 101, February 1979. United States Department of Agriculture-Science and Education Administration.Google Scholar
USDA-AMS, (2000) USDA Egg-Grading Manual. Agricultural Handbook No. 75. USDA-AMS-Poultry Programs-STOP 0259, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-0259 http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004502.Google Scholar
WILSON, H.R., JONES, J.E. and DORMINEY, R.W. (1967) Performance of layers under various cage regimens. Poultry Science 46: 422-425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar