.2 $35311" ‘42 a» ._.£V.-:.}«-u' u 1-" I" 4 J 9...... ."J ...,. .r . F I. —1 r r. [‘1I|'h\u'4.n ,. "1- 1%;3‘0 .9, mum“. 3,1. . 1111.1- J 513-11.? ..;...2, 2‘: r .1? . ’1" ' J '1?" I" V {Elavgfl r. 451,1} . “5:59.115: 31.3.1. ' x ”.5 ,fr"..7 q; .1”). 1'.” 119.5- 1... w .u as. :Jh.‘ '93:. 1:1 V19? ‘ sir." I" 'z' ’3‘. ' ' 1 Hr c'rl’m n” I'l: '4‘: -o-~‘-flsa ecu um mcca mood“ mafia mzwa0Hm Hana tam uwuuwfi M\H .mwms wGMQCHm M\N .couqHH we ozosomcocu< .H munwwm ......lhh 4 hr... .90 no. . .. \ O ‘ ... n D E....Eu. «...:m ._< .— 32. ...: D .300... .00 . .02.: :02 ‘ 95 .203 I .33.“. * ... E "nirvana. a O . .. savanna“ .... «Waugh» N c.‘ O O O C O O O _ 5.. >u¥ 12 Figure 2. Treatment Pen 1, Litter Floor Pen 13 ..wA . on. . ‘ 71,51’3," Figure 3. Treatment Pen 2, 2/3 sloping wire, 1/3 raised litter. View from inside pen. 14 .uu. = 'umnmmwm Figure 4. Treatment Pen 2, 2/3 sloping wire, 1/3 raised litter floor pen. View from outside pen. 15 Figure 5. Treatment Pen 3, full sloping wire floor pen. View from inside pen showing plastic nest hood. ‘9: 16 of Pen 3, which was 3.35 m, and 1.22 m over the pen floor and attached to the front of the pens directly above the entrance doors.’ The end of the hood extended over the floor and was attached by rope and pulley to the ceiling of the room. By manipulating the ropes from outside the pen the hood could be lowered to within 30 centimeters of the wire floor. When lowered, this hood provided a darkened area similar in purpose to the corner nest platforms in Treatments 1 and 2. A solid wall divider 45 cm high and 6.1 m long was installed between Treatment Pens 2 and 3 to prevent interaction of males in adjoining pens. This divider was not necessary between Treatments 1 and 2 as a minimum height of 91 cm separated the birds in these pens. The floor frame constructed of 2.54 x 5.08 Cm lumber used to support the,wire mesh floor was supported by cinder block columns as shown in Figure 6. These supports were poéitioned so that clear spans of lumber were not longer than 2.45 cm. The wire mesh floor used was 14 ga 2.54 cm x 3.81 cm welded wire mesh stapled to the lumber frame. To reinforce the wire and prevent sagging that would prevent eggs from rolling to the base of the pen slope, iron rods were positioned under the wire expanses as shown in Figure 7 and anchored to the lumber floor frame. The general specifications for the three treatment pens are included in Appendix A and were modified for pheasant breeders from specifications published by Bressler 23 El- (1974) for Leghorn breeders in sloping wire floor poultry houses. Ventilation was provided by a thermostatically controlled 61 cm single-speed fan fitted with a light control hood which serviced the Figure 6. View from below sloping wire floor showing lumber frame and cinder block support columns. 18 1 .-. .1...,.’ View from above sloping wire floor showing feeders, Figure 7. waterers and metal rod floor reinforcements. 19 entire room. The thermostat was adjusted daily to provide maximum air flow under the prevailing climatic conditions. Air inlets located at the south side of the room, opposite the fan, were adjusted for summer and winter ventilation, accordingly, during the course of the experiment, which ran from February to June of 1983. During the months of February and March, insulation material was placed in all but one of the five air inlets to reduce the extent of the cold air entering the room. One gas hover brooder stove was installed nearest the open air inlet to provide supplemental heat when necessary to prevent freezing of the water pipes. Temperatures were maintained above 7°C during the course of the study. The pheasant breeders, 288 hens and 42 cocks, were randomly selected from a group of birds on range at the Department of Natural Resources Rearing Unit. All the birds came from eggs hatched during the spring of 1982 and, at the start of the experiment, were approximately 40 weeks of age. Hens were housed at the University facility two weeks before the cocks. The hens were maintained during this period on ten hours light (10:L, l4:D) and fed ad libitum a 13 percent protein pelleted maintenance diet (Appendix B). Prior to their random assignment in one of the three treatment pens, all the hens were weighed and leg banded. In addition, the primary feathers of one wing were cut to minimize flying and plastic blinders (specs) were fitted over the beak of each bird and secured through the nostrils as an aid to controlling cannibalism (Shellenbarger, 1976; Flegal and Sheppard, 1976). At the 20 time males were housed, hens in all three pens had come into production and were laying at an average hen housed percent production of 18.25. Prior to housing with the hens the cocks were subjected to increasing natural daylight in outdoor pens, and fed §d_libitum a 13 percent protein pelleted maintenance diet (Appendix B). All males were weighed and leg banded. As with the hens, the primaries of one wing were clipped and plastic blinders (specS) were affixed to the beak of each cock. Using nail clippers, the spurs and rear toenails of each male were clipped. This was done to reduce the injury to females which sometimes occurs during mating (Dorn, personal communication). The males were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment pens. Upon housing in the experimental facility the male to female ratio was one to seven and the density was .18 square meters per bird. All birds were housed two weeks prior to the first egg collection and were started on a 17 percent protein pelleted breeder diet aleibitum (Appendix B). Lighting was provided by nine red colored 40 watt incandescent bulbs to reduce cannibalism while still stimulating production (Shellenbarger, 1976; Rood and Davidson, 1959; Ringer and Sheppard, 1960). A 15 hour lighting schedule was utilized (15:L, 9:D) and light was provided by use of a time clock from 0630 to 2130 throughout the laying period. In addition to the red bulbs, three reostatically controlled 40 watt incandescent white bulbs were utilized to provide proper illumination for egg collection and loss egg counts. 21 Water was supplied by two self filling plastic water cups in each pen. Feed was transported from the Department of Natural Resources Hatchery in bulk and weighed into large containers, each holding 60 kg of feed, for use in the individual pens. Feeding was accomplished manually and feed was weighed back weekly to determine feed consumption. It was necessary to enter only Treatment Pen 1 to fill the tube feeders as both Treatment 2 and 3 could be fed using a 20 cm diameter 1.8 m long metal pipe to reach to the feeder from outside the pen. Cleaning of litter and below wire portions was done every 28_days or as necessary, as in the case of water leaks. To cover the floor in Treatment 1, five bags of .10 cubic meter kiln dried wood shavings were used each time. The raised litter floor in Treatment 2 required two bags of .10 cubic meter kiln dried wood shavings at cleaning. Manure below the wire portions was removed manually with the use of a long- handled rake. The decision to clean the manure from below the wire floors, in Treatments 2 and 3, each 28 days rather than once over the course of the study, was based upon the need to make egg loss through the wire more accountable. The actual depth or condition of the manure would not warrant this frequent cleaning under non-experimental conditions (Personal Observation). Eggs were gathered daily and marked with date and treatment pen number. Egg collection in Treatment Pen 1 required a full search of the litter floor. Concentrations of eggs were found along the walls and below the corner nest platforms. Treatment Pen 2 was entered only in the litter area. This was done after all eggs in proximity to the 22 entrance door were collected while the collector was still outside the pen. The majority of eggs could be reached while the collector was positioned at the center of the litter floor. Eggs still on the wire and not concentrated at the wire catch were moved to this point by use of a long handled wooden scraper. Treatment Pen 3 was not entered to collect eggs. Those not concentrated at the base of the pen nearest the entrance doors were moved to this point by use of a 3.5 m long wooden scraper. All eggs were examined for cracks at point of collection and again prior to setting. At collection time, the intensity of the reo— statically controlled lights was increased and a thorough search of the litter in Treatment 1 and 2 and the manure below the wire floor in Treatment 2 and 3 was made for broken eggs. These were recorded and removed to prevent recounting. I After collection the eggs were loaded on flats holding 30 eggs each and were transported to an egg cooler where they were held for no longer than seven days at 10-15.5°C and 70—80 percent relative humidity as recommended by Dorn (1976). Each week for 12 weeks eggs were sorted by pen, examined for cracked eggs and sanded clean if necessary. Additional cracked eggs found at this time were added to the total cracked eggs observed at collection and the totals re—calculated. Eggs were placed in Jamesway pheasant setting trays 200-230 eggs per tray large end up. The 2-2.5 percent unbroken "blue" shelled eggs collected were set as well eventhough they have significantly lower hatchability (Hulet at al., 1978). The purpose was to get accurate records on fertility. Over 23 the course of the study total blue eggs set did not exceed 2.5 percent for any setting. Eggs on setting trays were placed in Jamesway 252 single stage incubators and controlled for temperature, humidity, turning and air exchange according to manufacturers guidelines for pheasant eggs (Appendix C). Eggs were incubated for 20-21 days at which time trays were removed for transfer. At transfer each egg was examined individually with a hand held candling light to identify infertiles and early deads. Due to the dark shell color of many pheasant eggs, when it was questionable as to the fertility status of an egg, that egg was considered fertile and placed in the hatcher. Infertile eggs removed at candling were all broken out and by close observation of the germinal disk, blood, or small embryos they were classified as fertile or non-fertile and recorded. Other general observations of the eggs made at this time included hairline cracks and body checks. Eggs showing embryo development were then transferred from the incubation trays by treatment pen and placed in hatching trays with a maximum of 200 eggs per tray. These were then placed in another Jamesway 252 hatcher where temperature and humidity were regulated for hatching (Appendix C). Hatching trays were removed on the 24th day of incubation and hatched chicks were counted by treatment and placed in chick boxes for transport to the Department of Natural Resources Rearing Unit. Dead or weak chicks which had hatched were not added to the chick count when calculating hatchability; these were recorded separately at hatching. 24 A11 unhatched eggs were broken out and classified as pipped eggs with 'live embryos, pipped eggs with dead embryos, or unpipped eggs with live or dead embryos. Eggs showing no germ development were classified as infertiles and recorded. At the conclusion of 12 weeks of production the adult breeders were terminated by cervical dislocation and re—weighed. The approximate age of both males and females was 54 weeks. Records for egg production, broken eggs and mortality were recorded daily. Feed consumption, settable eggs, fertile eggs, chicks hatched and summary of unhatched eggs were recorded weekly. Management activities such as feeding, cleaning and egg collection were done at the same time each day and consecutively for each pen to standardize records and reduce disturbance to the breeder birds. Daily and weekly data were summarized for each treatment using a standard analysis of variance. Treatment means were analyzed using a Bonferroni T statistic for a small number of non-orthogonal contrasts with balanced data (Gill, 1978). Percent data were transformed according to Gill (1978) prior to analysis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Egg Production Egg production parameters for the three treatments during the 84 days eggs were collected for setting are presented in Table 1. Total eggs, which include both settable and broken eggs recorded for each treatment show no significant differences between the three treatments. Hens in Treatment Pen 3 averaged 10 percent lower production than hens in either Treatments 1 or 2. When expressed as eggs per hen housed, hens in Treatment 3 produced 5.3 and 4.4 less eggs per hen when compared with the hens in Treatment 1 or 2, respectively. The 1983 breeder production performance summary for pheasants housed at the DNR Hatchery is presented in Appendix D1. For 83 days of production hens in pens one through four produced in the range of 44.91 to 51.84 eggs per bird which is 54.11 to 62.46 percent hen housed production. Average hen housed percent production for the three treatment pens in this experiment was 54.15, 53.18 and 47.82 percent for Treatments 1, 2 and 3, respectively. A graph of hen housed percent production for the three treatments and the 1983 DNR flock results, computed on a weekly basis, is presented in Figure 8. Peak production for the DNR flock reached 72.55 percent while peak hen housed production for Treatment 1 was 68.15 percent, Treatment 2 was 70.98 percent and Treatment 3 was 64.24 percent. Though not significant, the differences in high and low hen housed production within the three experimental treatment pens was 6.33 percent 25 26 Table 1. Egg production parameters for Ring-necked pheasants housed on litter, 2/3 sloping wire or full sloping wire floorsl Litter 2/3 Wire Full Wire Total Eggs 4367 4288 3856 Eggs/Bird 45.49 44.67 40.17 Hen Housed Production Z 54.15 53.18 47.82 Hen Day Production % 55.66 54.03 49.16 Hen Housed Peak Production Z 68.15 70.98 64.24 Total Broken Eggs ‘ 495a 373a 1364b Broken Egg/Bird 5.16a 3.89a 14.21b Broken Eggs % 11.34a 8.70a 35.37b a’bValues in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). 1During 84 day laying period. 27 80 P 70 . ’0. awn... Z .1 0 ¥ 0 : . * ”"‘\.O ¥ " ' It ’ F‘go '- 60 '- f I .g . U , p) \ ‘T‘ 0 v \ 2 .: x’ ‘3: ° .. O ‘- ,I’ it”; ‘31:“ :- 50 '- *0" ‘\‘. ..d .: ~‘---~‘. o *‘1 \10 0' ; 0 fi' \\ .0 u" 9' \ *4 _ 40 - fl, \ . ' .Q i’: \‘ .00 T” O O * : \ . . f2 * : “~--——-‘\° D - *. g Q. * l 4V- ‘V- 4- litter z I . w **: I .0000 2/3wuro I 20 " .. '--'"~ full wire o —— D.N.R. 1983 average 00 o 10 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 I4 15 WEEKS Figure 8. Hen housed egg production curves for pheasant breeders housed in experimental treatment pens and the DNR 1983 flock average. 28 between pens l and 3. The peak production difference was greatest between pens 2 and 3 and was 6.74 percent. The average hen housed production for the DNR flock was 6.52 percent above the production recorded for all birds in this experiment and peak production difference averaged 4.76 percent. Maximum difference for hen housed production between the five DNR breeder pens for the 1983 season was 8.35 percent. A survey of production results reveals wide variations in production performance of breeder hens. In studies at Michigan State aimed at improvement of egg production in pheasant hens Wing (1976) reported for the year 1970—1976 production performance ranging from 32.9 percent to 54.0 percent hen housed. Carpenter (1980) in further work with selected pheasants showed average production reached 65.8 percent by 1979 and selected hens produced from 78.08 to 84.80 percent hen housed. By 1982 Fathy (1982), working with these lines of high production pheasant hens, reported production in selected pheasants from 93.8 to 107.2 eggs per hen housed during a 120 day production period. Blake (1984) working with the effects of ahemeral light/dark cycles on pheasants found the hen day production of birds exposed to a 24 hour light cycle to be 55.2 percent while birds on 22 and 26 hour light cycles produced at 58.4 and 61.8 percent, respectively. Spiller and Jordan (1976), who housed pheasant breeders on sloping wire floors, reported that hen housed egg production of birds housed at .18 square meters per bird averaged 45.71 percent hen housed and peak production at 72.3 percent hen day. 29 Other authors have reported various production results: Woodard (1971) 50.55-54.28 percent hen housed; Reynnells (1979) 58.3—70.5 percent hen day; and Hussien (1983) 40.9-81.2 percent hen housed. Results by Sheppard and Flegal (1973) with three strains of pheasants indicate a wide variation in egg production potential of the pheasants tested. Individual hens laid from 0 to 218 eggs over the ten month study . Standard production goals expressed as percent hen day or percent hen housed production on curves for commercial layer and breeder flocks commonly vary as much as 5-10 for any period of production (DeKalb, H & N, Cobb, 1985). Egg production curves for pheasants in the three treatment pens (Figure 8) show variations similar to what is expected by the above listed breeders of high production commercial poultry. The values for hen housed and hen day production reported in this study compare favorably with production performance of pheasant breeders reported by other authors although the values for pheasant egg production in the literature support the wide variation in egg production that occurs between and within the pheasant populations studied. As compared to the birds housed at the DNR Hatchery, pheasant hens in this experiment showed similar egg production. Differences in hen housed production between pens of breeders housed at the DNR are similar to the range of production performance observed between treatment pens in this experiment. 30 Broken Eggs Broken eggs recorded over the 84 day laying period are presented in Table 1. Both Treatment 1 and Treatment 2 showed similar numbers of total and broken eggs per bird, as percent of total productiOn eggs lost to breakage was 11.34 percent and 8.70 percent for Treatment 1 and 2, respectively. It should be noted that dirties accounted for less than 1 percent of all eggs discarded in this experiment. By far the most significant (P $2.05) result was the number of broken eggs in the full sloping wire pens as compared to either of the other treatment pens. A total of 14.21 broken eggs per hen was recorded on the full sloping wire floor pen, which translated to 35.37 percent of production lost to breakage. At the DNR Hatchery the percent of all eggs discarded, which includes dirty, broken and "blue" shelled eggs, was 15.02 percent for the 1983 season (Appendix D1). Number of broken eggs reported in Treatment 3 of this experiment was significantly higher when compared to the other two treatments and was observed to be excessive compared to the 15.02 percent discarded eggs at the DNR Hatchery. Similar results were reported by Spiller and Jordan (1976) with pheasants housed on sloping wire floors. Breakage for all eggs was calculated at 15.9 percent of production, and for eggs not laid in the available nest boxes breakage was in excess of 25 percent. Blake (1984) housed pheasant hens in single sloping wire floor cages where eggs would roll out of reach of the hen. Records for loss eggs indicates between 4.98 and 6.26 percent cracked and shelless eggs were common . 31 Data for eggs produced by birds on sloping wire is most often with breeders accustomed to nest box use, primarily, broiler and leghorn breeders. Bressler and Burr (1977) calculated the egg breakage for eggs from broiler breeders on sloping plastic floors. Eggs not laid in the nest boxes accounted for 2.4 to 2.8 percent of production; these floor eggs experienced a breakage of 30.8 to 46.5 percent. Bressler §£.§l, (1974) worked with commercial laying pullets on sloping wire floors. Reports show that although less than 2 percent of the eggs were laid on the floor these eggs experienced breakage at a rate of 17 percent. Settability Settability data for eggs from the 84 days of production are presented in Table 2. Total eggs settable and percent settable figures indicate the effect 35 percent broken eggs in Treatment 3 had on these parameters. While settability for eggs from Treatment 1 and 2 averaged 88.7 and 91.3 percent, respectively, over the course of the study, a signifi- cantly lower average settability of 64.6 percent was experienced in Treatment 3. The settability figures include an average of 2 to 2.5 percent unbroken blue shelled eggs. These eggs which are normally discarded at the DNR Hatchery due to poor hatchability (Dorn, Personal Communication) were set in this experiment to get accurate fertility records. 32 Table 2. Settability, fertility and hatchability for eggs of Ring- necked pheasants housed on litter, 2/3 sloping wire or full sloping wire floorsl Litter 2/3 Wire Full Wire a a b Total Settable Eggs 3872 3915 2492 Settability 12’4 88.73 91.3a 64.6b Settable Eggs/Female 39.518 40.478 25.63b Fertility 82.4 81.9 82.3 a a b Fertile Eggs/Female 32.70 33.14 20.53 Batehability3’4 71.3 73.2 70.1 . a a b Ch1cks/Female 23.22 23.00 14.56 a’bValues in same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). During 110 day hatching period. Abnormal, dirty and broken eggs not set. Hatch of fertile eggs. 2-2.5% "blue" shelled eggs included. buNl—J 33 Appendix D3 presents weekly settability for eggs at the DNR Hatchery during the spring 1983 hatching season. Settability figures ranged from 79.0 to 89.1 percent over the 10 weeks presented and averaged 84.4 percent. The significantly lower settability experienced in Treatment 3 resulted in a significantly lower number of fertile eggs per female and chicks per female when compared to Treatments 1 and 2. Egg_Collection Despite the fact that corner nest platforms were installed in Treatment 1 to encourage hens to concentrate eggs at these points, it remained necessary to search the entire pen to collect all the eggs. The movement in the litter pen required to completed this search resulted in broken eggs and remained inefficient as was evident by whole and broken eggs found during litter removal. In excess of 80‘percent of all eggs in Treatment 2 were commonly concentrated in the 1/3 litter portion of the pen. Due to the size of this area (2.13 m x 3.35 m) it was observed that less walking around the pen was required to reach all the eggs. The search of this area was more efficient as fewer eggs were found during litter removal as compared to Treatment 1. Observation of the birds during the light period indicated that the feeder and waterers positioned over the wire in Treatment 2 helped keep birds on the wire floor area. Similar observation during the dark indicated the majority of the birds roosted on the wire. Due to the slope of the wire in Treatment Pen 3, 70 percent of the eggs in this pen could be found under the nest hood at collection time. 34 It was observed that in excess of 80 percent of all broken eggs could also be found here. The smaller of the pheasant eggs could frequently be found wedged in the 2.5 x 3.8 cm mesh floor making them more susceptible to breakage. In addition to breakage, data were recorded on body checks observed at collection and at candling during transfer. Body check eggs are defined as eggs with obvious cracks that were repaired in the uterus prior to laying. At least 90 percent of the eggs from Treatment 3 were observed to be body checks while in Treatment 2 only 30 percent body checked eggs were evident. Body checked eggs in Treatment 1 were found in 10 percent of the eggs gathered. Fertility and Hatchability Fertility based on candling of all eggs set and macroscopic observation of all unhatched eggs was similar for all treatments, averaging 82 percent for all pens (Table 2). The DNR Hatchery fertility estimates are based on a small sample of candled eggs randomly selected at intervals during incubation. Approximated fertility for the DNR breeders ranged from 76 to 85 percent with an average of 80.3 percent for all hatches (Appendix D3). Hatchability expressed as hatch of fertile eggs was similar for all treatment pens and averaged above 70 percent for the hatching period in the trial. DNR records indicate an average 79.3 percent hatch of fertile eggs and a 63 percent hatch of all eggs set. Data in the literature for fertility of pheasant eggs also is subject to variation. Much of this variation must be considered with respect to male to female ratios, stocking densities and the use of natural or artificial insemination. 35 Woodard (1971) reported that for natural matings an average fertility of 90 percent can be maintained with Ring—neck pheasants. Weisner (1935) also reported fertility of pheasant eggs under a natural mating system to be as high as 90-91 percent. Spiller and Jordan (1975) houSed pheasant breeders on sloping wire floors at a male to female ratio of 1:12. Fertility for birds housed at different densities ranged from 49.9 percent to 68.4 percent. Wing (1976) reported a range of 30 to 53.5 percent fertility in eggs from pheasant hens in studies aimed at selection of high producing pheasant hens. Mating in this study was carried out by placing a single male and female pheasant in a pen for approximately eight hours on a rotation schedule. Using a 1:10 male to female ratio, Adams ggngl. (1968) reported fertility of 66.8 to 74.6 percent for pheasants housed on wire and in sand floor pens, respectively. Dorn (1976), studying storage effects on pheasant egg hatchabilty, gave fertility values of 74.16 to 83.45 percent for birds housed on litter floors at a male to female ratio of 1:7. In experiments by Champion gt g1, (unpublished), using natural mating, fertility of eggs from yearling pheasant averaged 69.58 percent while two year old flocks had an average fertility of 63.48 percent. Reynnells (1979), in a pheasant nutrition study, used both a natural mating system for floor housed breeders and artificial insemi— nation for individually caged birds. Fertility for floor breeders housed at a male to female ratio of 1:7 ranged from 58.5 to 82.9 percent. Caged breeders, artificially inseminated, produced eggs that were 89.8 to 97.4 percent fertile. 36 Other authors utilizing artificial insemination programs did not report fertility nearly as high. Carpenter (1980), for selected high producing pheasant breeders, reported averages of 73.48 to 80.64 percent fertility. However, in the whole population studied individual breeder hen fertility ranged from 68.12 and 69.56 percent during the same years. Hussein (1983), using an artificial insemination program to select for fast feathering pheasants, reported fertility in selected lines ranged from a low of 58.7 percent in one generation of slow feathering birds to 78.9 percent for one generation of rapid feathering lines. Blake (1984) found significantly higher fertility, 89.3 percent, for pheasant breeders housed under a 26 hour light dark cycle (14L:12D) when compared to that for pheasant breeders on 22 and 24 hour light cycles, which had fertility rates of 80.7 and 78.4 percent, respectively. The results from this study for fertility of pheasants on sloping wire using a 1 to 7 male to female ratio compare to or exceed results in the literature for most natural and artificial insemination programs with pheasants. Results by Woodard (1971), Weisner (1935) and Reynnells (1979) greatly exceeded the fertility experienced in this experiment. Fertility for the DNR flock was similar to pheasants on sloping wire floors and averaged 80.3 percent for all hatches (Appendix D3). It should be noted that the DNR hatchability figures presented in Appendix D for the 1983 hatching season show hatch of fertile eggs from 74 to 84 percent and an average of 79.3 percent for all hatches. These figures were computed after pipped eggs with live embryos were manually 37 broken out or replaced in the hatcher for an additional day for hatching. In this experiment, eggs not hatched by the 24th day of incubation were discarded as these chicks are assumed to be less desirable and not normally saved by hatcheries (Coleman, Personal Communication; Flegal, Personal Communication). If the treatment pens in this experiment are adjusted to include the eggs listed as pipped with live embryos in Table 3, hatchability figures become 78.4 for Treatment Pen 1, 80.7 for Treatment Pen 2 and 78.0 for Treatment Pen 3. Hatch of total eggs set for the three treatment pens in this trial then becomes 62 percent as compared to 63 percent hatch of all eggs set by the DNR in 1983. Hulet §£_§l, (1978) studied the hatchability of pheasant eggs of the various shell colors. Eggs of olive color showed the highest hatch— ability, 71.7 percent, while blue eggs showed a hatchability of fertile eggs of 38.2 percent. For all egg shell color categories except blue hatchability was 62.25 percent. Hatchability for pheasants reported by Champion (unpublished) for eggs from yearling and 2 year old pheasants averaged 74.67 and 70.15 percent, respectively. Spiller and Jordan (1975) present data which show the hatch of fertile eggs for all pheasants on sloping wire was 75.8 percent. Similar eggs held for seven days hatched at a rate of 70.0 percent. Woodard (1971) reported a range of hatchability from 40—60 percent, while Adams g£_gl, (1968) found hatchability averaged 72.2 percent for all pheasant eggs studied. 38 In work by Reynnells (1979) eggs from naturally mated birds housed on the floor expressed 57.9-72.5 percent hatch of fertile eggs while hatchability in those from caged artifically inseminated birds ranged from 63.6 to 87.0 percent. Other authors report a similar range in hatchability: Wing (1976) 67.9—72.0 percent and Carpenter (1980) 65.43— 75.29 percent. Unhatched Eggs Eggs not hatched on the 24th day of incubation were broken out to determine stage of development. This is reported as pipped eggs with embryo alive, pipped eggs with embryo dead and unpipped eggs with either embryo alive or dead. Values for all pens for all categories are similar (Table 3). Unpipped eggs made up the largest percentage of unhatched eggs, followed by pipped eggs with live embryos and pipped eggs with dead embryos. These unhatched eggs were discarded in this experi- ment. Little data has been presented concerning the stage of development of pheasant eggs which do not hatch. Work by Blake (1984) gives average percent dead embryos from eggs of pheasants on various light/dark cycles. Values for dead embryos range from 13.6 percent of fertile eggs to as high as 25.1 percent. In the present experiment, if categories for pipped eggs with dead embryos and unpipped eggs (Table 3) are summed, values for approximate percent of dead embryos for the three treatments averaged 20.7 percent of fertile eggs. Champion gghgl, (Unpublished) presented data for unhatched pipped eggs and pipped eggs plus eggs with dead germs as percent of fertile eggs in different shell color categories. For all color categories 39 Table 3. Observations of unhatched fertile eggs and poor quality chicks at hatching for eggs from Ring—necked pheasants housed on litter, 2/3 sloping wire or full sloping wire floorl Litter 2/3 Wire Full Wire Egg Pipped, Embryo Alive Z 7.1 7.5 7.9 Egg Pipped, Embryo Dead Z 2.5 2.5 2.4 Egg Not Pipped Z 18.1 16.3 18.8 Total Fertile Eggs Not Hatched Z 27.7 26.3 29.0 Chicks Weak or Dead at Hatch Z2 1.0 0.5 0.8 a’bValues in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). 1During 110~day hatching period. 2Birds not included in hatchability or chicks per female figures. 4O pipped eggs at hatching made up 7.5 percent (range 3.12 to 14.63 percent for colors olive to blue). Pipped eggs plus eggs with dead germs made up an average of 33.3 percent of the fertile eggs incubated. In the present study an average of 27 percent of fertile eggs were classified as unhatched by 24 days of incubation. Mortality at hatching in the form of dead or weak chicks accounted for less than 1 percent of fertile eggs. Feed Consumption Feed consumption for the 96 days birds were housed in the experi— mental facility and feed conversion for the 84 days eggs were collected for hatching are presented in Table 4. Feed consumption reported as grams per bird per day averaged 86 gms for all pens. When expressed as feed conversion, birds in Treatment 1, 2 and 3, respectively, consumed 2.4, 2.5 and 2.8 kilograms of feed per dozen eggs. These feed conversion values included feed consumed by both males and females in each pen. Feed consumption for the DNR flock (Appendix D2) averaged 83.60 grams per bird per day and feed conversion was 2.72 kilograms per dozen eggs. Blake (1984) measured feed intake of male and female pheasants housed separately in cages. In his trial, males consumed an average of 84 grams per bird per day while females consumed an average of 98 grams per bird per day. Data presented by Reynnells (1979) on adult pheasant feed consumption indicated lower values. Females consumed only 69.9 to 74.5 grams per bird per day while males ate 64 to 65 grams per bird per day. 41 Table 4. Feed consumption and conversion for pheasants housed on litter, 2/3 sloping wire or full sloping wire floorsl Litter 2/3 Wire Full Wire Feed consumption gms/b/d 86.0 85.7 86.3 Feed Conversion kg feed/doz. eggs 2.4 2.5 2.8 lBreeder diet only. 2For 96 days birds were housed. 3For 84 days eggs were collected for setting. 42 Fuentes (1981) indicated laying pheasant females feed consumption as being between 60 and 70 grams per bird per day for various protein and methionine levels in the diet. Mortality Mortality for the 84 days of production is presented in Table 5. Female livability for Treatments 1 and 3 remained above 95 percent while hens in Treatment 2 had a livability of 97 percent. Livabilities of 95 percent and 97 percent correspond to 4 and 2 hens lost, respectively. The greatest male mortality occurred in Treatment 3 due to mechanical cervical dislocation from being hung on pen netting used to support the nest hood. During the course of the experiment, one male in Treatment 2 was found dead while no male mortality occurred in Treatment 1. The principle cause of mortality in males was cannibalism while in females prolapse in conjunction with cannibalism was observed. Female livability for pheasants housed on sloping wire with approximately .48 square meters per bird as reported by Spiller and Jordan (1975) compared favorably with the results from this study. An average of 95 percent livability was reported for females, and an overall average livability of 92 percent for birds housed at .18, .46, and .93 square meters per bird. Mortality at the DNR Hatchery averaged 7.2 percent for all pens and ranged from 4.5 to 10.1 percent for individual pens during the 1983 breeding season. The lower mortality experienced in this study as compared to the DNR pens may be due in part to the use of low intensity red lights in 43 Table 5. Mortality of Ring-necked pheasants on litter, 2/3 sloping wire or full sloping wire floors Final Inventory Birds/Pen Initial Litter 2/3 Wire Full Wire Males 14 14 13 12a Females 96 92 94 92 Female Livability 95.85 97.91 95.83 Total Mortality 4 3 6 aMales in full sloping wire pen both hung due to pen design problem. 44 the treatment pens, which provides an economical way to control picking and cannibalism (Shellenbarger, 1976). The male mortality which occurred in Treatment Pen 3 was due to the use of flexible plastic netting to suspend the nest hood. This netting would entangle the pheasant's specs and cause them to hang until death occurred. Body Weights Statistical analysis of the bird weights after assignment to each treatment supports random distribution of the breeders (Table 6). At the conclusion of the 84 day laying period all birds were killed by cervical dislocation and weighed. This weight corresponds to 54 weeks of age. When comparing the final body weights of the male breeders in the three Treatments, there were no significant differences due to treatment. Final body weights of hens in Treatments 1 and 2 also show no significant weight difference. However, hens in Treatment 3 were significantly lighter in body weight as compared to hens in Treatments 1 and 2. Fuentes (1981) recorded initial and final body weights of laying Ring—necked pheasant hens fed various protein and methionine levels. For birds fed diets similar to those in this study (18 percent protein and .29 percent methionine), initial weights at approximately 32 weeks of age averaged 1009 grams and final 48 week weights averaged 1189 grams. Blake (1984) presented body weight data for both male and female pheasants at approximately 40 and 60 weeks of age. For males on a 24 hour light dark cycle initial and final body weights were 1527 grams and 45 .Amo.o w iv ucmuowmwc xaucmofiwwcmflm mum muawuompmasm ucmumwmwu :uflz 30p 02am mzu ca mmaam>n.m Hm.m~ mem.msea mN.om.H os.mesH Ne.~m.fl oo.o0ma .oxs em ee.mm H oo.mmaa oa.mm.H oo.maoa Ho.em “.mk.eo~a .nez cs nose: oom.efl wam.fimoa osm.ma “.ma.osaa eNo.NH.H ne.Om~H .oxz on em.m .H o5.onH Hm.H~.H oo.owe~ o3.NH.H mo.waau .nez om mmflmamm one: anon ooh: M\N tonnes Hoon oufis wcfiaoam Hana no mews mafiaon M\N .umuuwa so tonne: mucmmmmza voxooClwcam u0m muswwos Abba mo .m.m.H.cmoz .o canny 46 1418 grams, respectively. For females the 40 week body weights averaged 1285 grams and at 60 weeks hens weighed an average of 1225 grams.‘ The significantly lighter body weights for hens in Treatment 3 in conjunction with the high incidence of body checked eggs from hens in this treatment may indicate some adverse effects of full wire floor on the hens in this experiment. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study with pheasant breeders kept on sloping wire floors indicate that good production and hatching results can be obtained from breeders housed on full sloping wire and 2/3 sloping wire, 1/3 litter floor pens as compared to full litter pens. No significant difference with respect to egg production, feed conversion, fertility, hatchability, and mortality was noted between birds kept in sloping wire pens and the full litter breeder pens. Production results from this study compared favorably with the DNR 1983 flock results and reports in the literature. A serious drawback to the use of full sloping wire floor pens for pheasant breeders is the excessive breakage which occurred in Treatment 3 as compared to birds which had access to litter. A more effective method of protecting or removing pheasant eggs laid on the wire floor needs to be designed to reduce the floor egg breakage. The advantage of the 2/3 sloping wire 1/3 raised litter floor pen is the reduced litter use, concentration of manure under the wire, concentration of eggs in smaller litter area and decreased traffic on litter bv breeders due to feeding, watering and roosting over the wire floor. 47 APPENDICES 'APPENDIX A Pen Specifications APPENDIX Bl Feed Formulations APPENDIX B2 Vitamin Premix APPENIDX C Jamesway Pheasant Hatching Guide APPENDIX D1 DNR Egg Production Results APPENDIX D2 DNR Feed Consumption APPENDIX D3 DNR Hatchery Results 48 Appendix A Pheasant Pen Specifications Treatment 1 3.05 m x 6.71 m wire enclosed cement floor 20.45m total area 5 cm x 10 cm lumber frame 2 metal hanging tube type feeders 2 plastic self filling water cups 2 plywood corner nest cover platforms 30 cm high 5-10 cm deep wood shavings floor cover Treatment 2 3.35 mzx 6.10 m 1/3 litter 2/3 sloping wire floor pen 20.45m total area 1/3 raised litter covered floor: 2.13 m x 3.35 m plywood platform, not sloped 5—10 cm deep wood shavings cover 2/3 sloping wire floor: 4.27 m x 3.35 m, wire covered area 5 cm x 10 cm lumber frame sloped 1/12 2.54 cm x 3.81 cm 14 ga. welded wire mesh cinder block support columns 2 metal hanging tube type feeders 2 plastic self filling water cups 1 plywood corner nest cover platform 30 cm high 5-10 cm wood shavings floor cover Treatment 3 Room 3.35 m x 6.10 m full sloping wire floor pen 20.45 1112 total area 5 cm x 10 cm lumber frame sloped 1/12 2.54 cm x 3.81 cm 14 ga. welded wire mesh cinder block support columns 2 metal hanging tube type feeders 2 plastic self filling water cups 3.35 m x 1.22 black plastic nest cover hood Dimensions 10.67 m x 11.58 m clear span 2.44 m ceiling 49 50 Ventilation l, 61 cm single speed thermostatically controlled fan light control hood Lighting (15L:9D) 6 40 watt red bulbs _ 3 reostatically controlled 40 watt white bulbs 51 Appendix Bl Pheasant Ration Specifications* (DNR-1983) *Maintenance Pellets Breeder** Crude protein, Z min. 13 17.0 Calcium, Z min. 1.00 2.30 Calcium, Z max. 1.10 2.40 Phosphorus, Z Available .40 .45 Metabolizable energy, Cal/lb. 1050-1150 1050-1200 Methionine (per 1,000 M.E.) .20Z .26Z Methionine & Cys. (per 1,000 M.E.) .47Z .42Z *The vitamin-trace mineral premix must be as the attached premix. **At least 5.0Z of these rations must be made from: Fish meal Meat & bone meal Whey, dried Not more than 2.5Z of the 5.0% may come from meat and bone meal. 52 Appendix B2 Pheasant Vitamin-Trace Minerals (DNRel983) Amount Per 10 Pounds of Premix Vitamin A, I.U. Vitamin D , I.C.U. Vitamin E, I.U. Riboflavin, gm. Calcium pantothenate, gm. Niacin, gm. Choline chloride, gm. Vitamin B 2, mg. Folic Acid, mg. Menadione sodium bisulfate, gm. Biotin, mg. BHT, gm. Manganese, gm. Zinc. gm. Iron, gm. Copper, gm. Iodine, gm. Cobalt, gm. Selenium Usage Per Ton of Complete Feed Starter 12 1/2 pounds Grower 10 pounds Flight and Main. 10 pounds Breeder 12 1/2 pounds 12,000,000 2,000,000 20,000 8 14 40 800 20 1,000 3 100 225 66 48 30 4 l. (at .2 mg/kg of feed) 5 2 53 owmumlmawaflm .uoaoummuuoumnaoaH NmN >m3mo5mw Home: How ovwao SOAumHfiucm> can muHcHESE .musumnanoa Soum amxmek umamzxo some mwfiz nuw3 papa umz com on oww on vapoz HmovH omm um naps uo3 onu vac: ou umsmsxo ammo omm mm£ommu aufivfiesn GO£B wcfinoum: weapon .soeeeeoe neon on .onuoww .e\m we monsoon: .muumum mcwsoum: aon3 com cu m: ow ou uw Boaam can one on no newness: wafiun mommamuu umuw< nwsoam haze oumafiuco> oow omm Axon tummy nommcmuu Hmum< neeeoeo :e\H on =w\a .mmuomm .e\m on nouneono on not noma weeeoeo :m\a ammuomm .ooa see some on see enm wcflcmao :w\H cu womoao oww oooa zmw cum Cu amp uma muaumnmaame nasm uoB musumumanH nasm hum wcfluumm umsmcxm «wwwm ucmmmona mo GOHumasoaH mom mvfiso U xflpcmam< 54 n.m Aden moan ¢~.mm m~.~o ¢:.mw m.< Now How o~.mm on.mq on :q.~w H.o~ new moo c¢.~o qw.am mm eq.mm m.o Nun sum N~.wm mm.mc mm :A.qm 9.0 can dew m~.~m ee.~q mm :c.ma one can on“ 34.3m Ho.oe an oa.sr muaamuuoz use cu noduoavoum wcqugwfiq mwwu umuqe mom usouuom mam: tonne: u< sequ mama muwumuuoz so: vu«m\mwwm loavOHL :H uzoouo; unmouom mo nopaaz was: .92 [1" .xuozoum: :2: o;u an A : xqczoza< 1".-.I- | I." .ll'l. mo< odommn «acmm MAOMmH mo . A< no Amuse mink. .flmml mm! Mam: ZR 2 mum. a mom a 23 3.3 new: $3 82. SR 2 c.om o.- o.Ho mmmn «\o o.