Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T05:22:03.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The porosity of egg shells, and the influence of different levels of dietary calcium upon porosity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Cyril Tyler
Cyril Tyler
Affiliation:
The University, Beading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. An experiment was performed to consider the porosity of egg shells, and the influence of different levels of dietary calcium upon this factor.

2. A method was devised for measuring porosity under standard conditions, and the values so obtained are referred to as porosity coefficients.

3. The low calcium diet soon led to the cessation of egg production. The few eggs laid showed a tendency to increasing shell porosity as the end of laying approached. On the average these shells had much higher porosity coefficients than shells produced on a normal calcium diet.

4. The high calcium diet had no apparent ill effects on two birds, but the other two laid many abnormal eggs. Porosity coefficients in this group were, on the average, lower than in the normal calcium group, but not significantly so. Egg production was as good as on a normal calcium diet.

5. The porosity coefficients were significantly higher in period 2 than in period 1, when birds were fed the normal calcium diet throughout; egg production also fell in the second period.

6. Eggs other than the first in a clutch do not differ in porosity, but the first egg has a significantly lower porosity coefficient than the remainder. A possible explanation of this is suggested.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , July 1945 , pp. 168 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1945

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelsson, (1932). Quoted by Mueller, C. D. & Scott, H. M. (see below).Google Scholar
Black, D. J. G. & Tyler, C. (1944). Nature, Lond., 163, 682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, R. L. & Sharp, P. F. (1934). J. Agric. Res. 48, 67.Google Scholar
Coles, R. (1936). J. Minist. Agric. 43, 317.Google Scholar
Common, R. H. & Hale, R. W. (1941). J. Agric. Sci. 31, 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deobald, H. J., Lease, E. J., Hart, E. B. & Halpin, J. G. (1936). Poult. Sci. 15, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L. C. (1923–1924). Poult. Sci. 3, 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, F. A. & Sumbardo, A. H. (1926–1927). Poult. Sci. 6, 196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, M. (1939). Bull. Ark. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 374.Google Scholar
Marshall, W. & Cruickshank, D. B. (1938). J. Agric. Sci. 28, 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, T. & Haines, R. B. (1938). Rep. Food Invest. Bd, Lond., p. 39.Google Scholar
Mueller, C. D. & Scott, H. M. (1940). Poult. Sci. 19, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pringle, E. M. & Barrott, H. G. (1937). Poult. Sci. 16, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romanoff, A. L. (1943). Food Res. 8, 212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, P. F. (1937). Food Res. 2, 477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. J. M. (1929). Rep. Food Invest. Bd, Lond., p. 74.Google Scholar
Smith, A. J. M. (1930). Rep. Food Invest. Bd, Lond., p. 86.Google Scholar
Tyler, C. & Willcox, J. S. (1942). J. Agric. Sci. 32, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar