Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:46:31.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relation of diurnal temperature and humidity ranges to egg production and feed efficiency of New Hampshire hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Robert L. Squibb
Robert L. Squibb
Affiliation:
Department of Poultry Science, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in co-operation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Guatemala
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The effect of environment on the production and size of eggs, feed efficiency and mortality of New Hampshire hens in individual cages was studied simultaneously in five areas of Guatemala having temperatures covering a range of 0°–45° C. with variable humidities.

While birds housed in the tropical lowlands did show visible signs of thermo-stress, there were no significant differences in egg size, production, feed consumption, mortality and body weight between areas or between groups within areas. The inconsistency of these data with other published reports is explained on the basis of the observed extremely wide diurnal range for temperatures and humidities. An attempt is made to present accepted physiological phenomena in the form of a working hypothesis wherein the diurnal temperature range is related to the fowl's tolerance to thermo-stress.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 1959 , pp. 217 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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

Barott, H. G. & Pringle, E. M. (1946). J. Nutr. 31, 35.Google Scholar
Byerly, T. C., Titus, H. W., Ellis, N. R. & Nestler, R. B. (1947). Poult. Sci. 16, 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huston, T. M., Joiner, W. P. & Cahmon, J. L. (1957). Poult. Sci. 36, 1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, J. C. D. (1952). Poult. Sci. 32, 692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, J. C. D. & Sykes, A. H. (1953). J. Agric. Sci. 43, 294.Google Scholar
Skoglund, W. C., Tomhave, A. E. & Mumford, C. W. (1951). Poult. Sci. 30, 452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squibb, R. L. (1958). Unpublished data.Google Scholar
Weiss, H. S. & Borbely, E. (1957). Poult. Sci. 36, 1384.Google Scholar
Wilson, W. O. (1948). Poult. Sci. 27, 686.Google Scholar