Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:55:27.067Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of white and brown egg shell laying stocks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2007

B.A. Shalev
B.A. Shalev
Affiliation:
Poultry Division, Extension Service, Ministry of Agriculture, Hakirya, P.O. Box 7054, Tel-Aviv 61070, Israel
Get access

Abstract

Four consistent stock brand names of white egg shell laying fowl were compared with four such stocks laying brown shelled eggs. Data were derived from the Combined Summaries of European Random Sample Egg Production Tests (ERSEPT) 1979-1992 and from the North Carolina Layer Performance and Management Test (NCLPMT) 1984-1992. In the former, laying performance was recorded from 141 to 500 days of age and the data were based on annual means derived from about six testing stations, while the latter involved one testing station with recording over two cycles of production from 140 to 434 days and from 435 to 728 days (which included a moult). Although identical stocks were not available in both continents, results for egg mass show a similar initial superiority for the white egg shell stocks. This advantage decreased over the years and changed to an advantage for the brown egg stocks of about 0.5 kg in the ERSEPT and 1.1 and 0.7 kg, respectively, in the first and second cycles of the NCLPMT. In the ERSEPT the white egg stock advantage in terms of feed to egg mass ratio decreased. This can be attributed to greater genetic gains by the brown egg stocks whose final body weight declined (from 510 g to 270 g above that of the white egg stocks); increased mean egg weight (with the gap between the stock types widening from 2.3 to 3.3 g); and to some extent, earlier sexual maturity, as indicated by decreased age at 50% production. Results of the NCLPMT also show that the improved egg mass for the brown egg stocks was achieved by closing the gap in hen-housed production (20 eggs per bird) while maintaining an egg weight superiority of 3.4 g. The improvement in performance was particularly evident in the first production cycle. In the second cycle the brown egg stocks showed higher mortality rates, together with increased food consumption and a smaller egg size advantage. In both production cycles the brown egg stocks were characterized by much higher levels of meat spots.

Keywords

BrowncoloureggsEuropeperformanceproductionrandom sample testsUSAwhite
Type
Research Article
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 7 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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, E.A. (1988–1992) North Carolina Layer Performance and Management Tests. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
Bentsen, H.B. (1983a) Genetic variation in feed efficiency of laying hens at constant body weight and egg production. 1. Efficiency measured as a deviation between observed and expected feed consumption. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 33: 289–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentsen, H.B. (1983b) Genetic variation in feed efficiency of laying hens at constant body weight and egg production. 2. Sources of variation in feed consumption. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 33: 305–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J.B. (1984–1987) North Carolina Layer Performance and Management Tests. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
Flock, D. (1989) Brown layers make faster progress than whites. World Poultry, January, 26–27Google Scholar
Harvey, W.R. (1960). United States Department of Agriculture, ARS-20-8, 157Google Scholar
Jull, M.A. (1951) Poultry Husbandry. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 31–33Google Scholar
Klein, F.W. (1990, 1991, 1992) Bavarian Random Sample Egg Production Tests Final Reports. D-8710 Kitzingen, Mainbernheimer Strasse 101, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Luiting, P. (1990) Genetic variation of energy partitioning in laying hens: causes of variation in residual feed consumption. World's Poultry Science Journal 46: 132–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, M.O. and Bell, D.D. (1990) Commercial Chicken Production Manual. Van Nostrand Reinold, New York, pp. 1–11, p. 367Google Scholar
Pasternak, H. and Shalev, B.A. (1994) Economic evaluation of traits in egg-type hens. Meshek Hahofot, May, pp. 490–491 (Hebrew)Google Scholar
Peters, T. (1993) Developments in brown egg market. Poultry International, October, pp. 62–66Google Scholar
SAS User's Guide (1990) SAS Statistical Analysis System Institute, Raleigh, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
Shalev, B.A. and Pasternak, H. (1993) Increment of egg weight with hen age in various commercial avian species. British Poultry Science 34: 915–924CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shoffner, R.N., Shuman, R., Otis, J.S., Bitgood, J.J., Garwood, V. and Lowe, P. (1982) The effect of a protoporphyrin mutant on some economic traits of the chicken. Poultry Science 61: 817–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1979) 1978 Report of Random Sample Egg Production Tests, United States and Canada, Beltsville, Maryland 20705Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1991) Regulations Governing the Grading of Shell Eggs and United States Standards, Grades, and Weight Classes for Shell Eggs. Washington D.C., 2050Google Scholar
Working Group 3 (1981) World's Poultry Science Journal 37: 218–221Google Scholar
Working Group 3 (1984) Review of the present status of random sample egg production tests included in the combined summary of European RST results. World's Poultry Science Journal 40: 86–87Google Scholar
Working Group 3 (1986) Combined summary of European random sample egg production tests 1981–1984. World's Poultry Science Journal 42: 276–284Google Scholar
Working Group 3 (1989) Combined summary of European random sample egg production tests 1985–1986. World's Poultry Science Journal 45: 189–192Google Scholar
Working Group 3 (1992) Combined summary of European random sample egg production tests completed in 1990. World's Poultry Science Journal 48: 269–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Working Group 3 (1994) Combined summaries of European random sample egg production tests completed in 1991–1992. World's Poultry Science Journal 50: 187–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar