Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T13:45:54.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sexual maturity and related phenomena in the domestic fowl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. S. E. Hafez  and
G. A. R. Kamar
E. S. E. Hafez
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Cairo, Egypt
G. A. R. Kamar
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Cairo, Egypt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Three hundred and eighty-two Fayomi pullets were available from different hatches throughout the year. The age and body weight, as well as the weight of first eggs at sexual maturity in relation to growth curves, were recorded. The fertilizability and hatchability of the first eggs laid at sexual maturity were also examined from one hundred pullets hatched during the months of November and August.

1. (a) The winter hatches (December, January and February) reached sexual maturity at 183 days and at a body weight of 1093 g. The weight of the first ten eggs was 31·8 g., while the period from first to the tenth egg was 26 days. Summer hatches (June, July and August) reached sexual maturity at 165 days and at a body weight of 1124 g., while the weight of the first ten eggs was 32·4 g. and the period from first to tenth egg was 31 days. Autumn hatches (September, October and November) reached sexual maturity at 159 days and at a body weight of 1023 g., while the weight of the first ten eggs was 31·4 g. and the period from first to tenth egg was 23 days.

(b) Summer and winter hatches attained sexual maturity at an older age and heavier body weight, and laid heavier first ten eggs in a longer period than autumn hatches.

2. The growth curves were higher for the summer hatches than for the spring (March, April and May) ones. Winter and autumn hatches were intermediate. Summer hatches attained sexual maturity at a higher relative growth rate than autumn and winter hatches. In Egypt (30° N.), the effect of temperature seems to override that of daylength in respect to growth and sexual maturity.

3. Yearly differences in the attainment of sexual maturity were significant, mainly in December hatches. Individual differences were minimized during summer hatches.

4. (a) The first egg laid can be fertilizable and even hatchable. When sexual maturity was attained at an old age or a heavy body weight, the first eggs laid had a greater chance of being fertilizable and hatchable. This is due to the weight of first eggs laid and to the season at which sexual maturity is attained.

(b) The attainment of sexual maturity as measured by the fertilizability and hatchability of first eggs, seems to be a gradual phenomenon.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , June 1955 , pp. 9 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

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

Asdell, S. A. (1946). Patterns of Mammalian Reproduction, p. 9. New York: Comstock.Google Scholar
Axelsson, J. (1934). Lantbr Hogsk. Ann. 1, 69.Google Scholar
Bennion, N. L. & Warren, D. C. (1933). Poult. Sci. 12, 69, 362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, T. C. & Turner, C. W. (1942). Poult. Sci. 21, 286.Google Scholar
Berry, L. N. & Walker, A. L. (1927). Bull. N. Mex. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 158.Google Scholar
Brody, S. (1949). Bioenergetics and Growth. New York: Reinholds.Google Scholar
Burovoi, A. N. (1941). Jaravizcija, no. 3 (36), 127.Google Scholar
Buster, M. W. (1927). Bull. Calif. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 424.Google Scholar
Byerly, T. C. & Knox, C. W. (1946). Poult. Sci. 25, 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callenbach, E. W. (1934). Poult. Sci. 13, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finne, I. (1948). Festskrift til Professor Per Tuff, 70 or, p. 83. Oslo: Crondahl and Sons.Google Scholar
Funk, E. M. & Kempster, H. L. (1934). Res. Bull. Univ. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 332.Google Scholar
Funk, E. M., Knandel, H. C. & Callenbach, B. W. (1930). Poult. Sci. 9, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galpin, N. (1938). Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 58, 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gericke, A. M. (1952). Fmg. in S. Afr. 27, 61.Google Scholar
Godefrey, G. L., Williams, C. & Marshall, C. E. (1953). Poult. Sci. 32, 496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JrGraham, W. R. (1932). Sci. Agric. 12, 427.Google Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1954). Proc. 1st Int. Congr. Photobiology (Amsterdam) (in the Press).Google Scholar
Hall, G. C. & Marble, D. R. (1930). Proc. 4th World's Poult. Congr. (London), 26, 154.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. & Marshall, F. H. A. (1952). Marshall's Physiology of Reproduction, vol. II, p. 793, ‘The life cycle’. London, New York, Toronto: Longmans.Google Scholar
Hays, F. A. (1941). Poult. Sci. 20, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, F. A. (1944). Bull. Mass. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 411.Google Scholar
Hays, F. A. (1950). Poult. Sci. 30, 569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, F. A. (1952). Poult. Sci. 31, 1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, F. A. & Sanborn, R. (1945). Bull. Mass. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 429.Google Scholar
Heuser, G. F. & Andrews, F. E. (1932). Bull. Cornell Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 240.Google Scholar
Hutt, F. B. (1949). Genetics of the Fowl, pp. 247, 273. New York, Toronto, London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Jeffery, F. P. & Platt, C. S. (1941). Bull. N.J. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 687.Google Scholar
Jull, M. A. (1924). Poult. Sci. 3, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jull, M. A. & Godefrey, A. B. (1933). Poult. Sci. 12, 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamar, G. A. R. (1955). In preparation for publication.Google Scholar
Karapetjan, S. K. (1952). Dokl. Akad. Nauk. S.S.S.R. 86, 445 (Anim. Breed. Abstr. 21, 302).Google Scholar
Kempster, H. L. & Parker, J. E. (1936). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 247.Google Scholar
Latimer, H. B. (1924). Amer. Nat. 58, 278.Google Scholar
Lerner, I. M. (1946). Poult. Sci. 25, 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marble, D. R. (1931). Poult. Sci. 10, 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuller, C. D., Avery, T. B., Smith, H. D. & Clego, R. E. (1951). Poult. Sci. 30, 679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyazaki, H. (1934). Sci. Rep. Tohoku Univ. 4th Ser. 9, 183.Google Scholar
Scott, H. M. & Payne, L. F. (1937). Poult. Sci. 16, 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1950). Statistical Methods, pp. 319, 330. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Upp, C. W. (1927). Bull. Okla. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 167.Google Scholar
Upp, C. W. (1928). Poult. Sci. 7, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Upp, C. W. & Thompson, R. B. (1927). Bull. Okla. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 167.Google Scholar
Veiga, J. S. & Raimo, H. F. (1940). Rev. Ind. Anim., N.S., 3 (2–3), 52.Google Scholar
Waters, N. F. (1937). Poult. Sci. 16, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar