I IIIIIIIIIIIII III IIIIIII 3% III BREED IIIIFEREHCES III THE HAHGAHESE REQUIREMENTS OF LAYING HEHS THESIS FOR THE DEGREE III M. 8, WILLIAM VINCENT GOLDING I939 £5 IH“ WEED DI‘FEEE"CES II THE! .NG dTESE RE'QU 35‘"“Wb OF LAYING K£"S by WILLIAM VIECEHT GCLDIHG W".” A TLLHSIS Submitted to the Gre dm ate School of Piezli5an State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIEHCE Department of Poultry Husbandry 1939 ACKNOWLEDGXEKT The writer wishes to avail hirself of this opportunity to express his sincere appreciation to Professors J. A. Davidson and C. G. Card of the Poultry Zensrtment and to Dr. P. J. Schaitle of Exceriment Station Chemistry for their assistance, guidance, and L. Acknowledgment of appreciation is also 0 "5 4‘1 cooreration in this w ’ 7 (D H. :1 (+- 5 "0' *1 {J 0 Cf F“ O E. extended to Hr. E. J. Yiemala for 1is assis.anc work involved, and to Ur. J. I. Yortham of the Mathematics Depart» ment for his su~festions on statistical analysis of the data. LI; ' 25810 COTTBZTTS Introduction............................... Literature................................. Purpose.................................... Experimental............................... Results.................................... I Hatchability........................ II Egg Production...................... III Feed Consumption.................... IV Eggshell Quality.................... Discussion................................. Conclusions................................ BibliograthOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO flanganese has been recornized as an ess ntial mineral in houltry .. 'v (D (A nutrition within the last few years. ’ari-ue studies on nerosis have indicated that manganese is the major factor concerned. Therefore, this mineral has been given a definite place in the ration for growing 1 Cd’s. Ho ch The establishment of the importance of man5anese in the chick ration led to investigations in other phases of poultry nutrition. Recent studies with laying birds have revealed that a deficiency of mangenese in the ration may decrease the rate of production and lower hatchahility. The reported studies along this line are few in number. It was in connection with these latter aspects of manganese in the poultry ration that the present study was undertaken. LITEI‘TULE During an experiment on the cause of perosis, which involved different forms and sources of calcium and phosphorus, Wilvus, Norris, and Heuser, (13) found that a technical grade of mono-calcium phosphate prevented the condition. Since other calcium phosphates, as well as other sources of calcium and of phosphorus, produced slipped tendons as readily as did steamed bone meal, it was evident that this narticu- lar calcium phosphate must have contained something lacking in the other mineral supplements. Analysis of this material showed consider- able manganese and some iron to be present, and it was found that the addition of .0025 per cent of manganese to a basal ration containing .0010 per cent prevented the leg disorder when the calcium and phos- phorus levels in the ration were 1.0 - 1.2 and 0.8 - 1.2 per cent respectively. Lyons, Insko, and Hartin ( ) prevented perosis by intraperitoneal V3 injections of manganese solution. The amount injected over a seven- week period was found to be important in effectiveness of this method of administering manganese: 6.M5 mas. did not entirely prevent nerosis , 30.9 mgs. resulted in marked retardation of growth, while chicks receiv- ing either 12.90 or 13.35 mas. indicated that these levels were within the Optimum range. Similar injections of zinc, aluminum and iron salts were ineffective in preventing the disorder. Subcutaneous injection was found to be preventive by Schaible, Bandemer, and Davidson (ll) when 0.2 to 0.M mls. of an 0.3 per cent solution of MnSOu.2H20 was injected every other day after the first week. The amount of manganese in the ration to prevent perosi (I) W m a O F.) found to be about MO p.p.m. when the basal was supplemented with manganese as the sulphate, carbonate, chloride, dioxide, or potassium permanaganate. There are numerous afditional reports on the role of manganese in perosis, but since the present study was not concerned with this func- tion of the mineral, these are not reviewed here. Lyons and Insko (3) have reported that hatchability was decidedly lowered and a high incidence of chondrodystronhy occurred when a low level of manganese was fed to Rhode Island Red pullets. On a basal . ration containing h.§ p.p.m. of manganese notchability was only 5.2 / per cent, whereas MS.U per cent was obtained when MO p.p.m. of manga- nese was added to the ration. Embryonic mortality was high during the later stages of incubation and on examination most of the dead embryos were found to be chondrodystrOphic. That this abnormality was defi- nitely due to a low-ma ganese content of the egg resulting from a defi— ciency of manganese in the ration was demonstrated by injecting a manga- nese solution into eggs from the basal group of birds. E to this treatment and incubated were free of chondrodystrophic embryos and the hatchability was increased to 38.1 per cent. Somewhat similar results were reoorted by Gallup and horris (5) when New Hampshire pullets were subjected to a low-manganese intak. for an 13-week period. A basal ration having 13 p.p.m. and the same ration with the manganese adjusted to 200 p.p.m. gave M2.8 and 85.8 per cent hatchability respectively, with chondrodystrophy from the low-manganese ration as found by the Kentucky workers, although appar- ently less severe. In addition to lowered hatchability, these workers obtained low egg production and decreased fertility on the basal ration. it /' Egg production was 3M.1 per cent compared to 06.2 per cent when manga- nese was supplied, while fertility was increased from 86.0 to 93.3 per cent. Schaible, Bandemer, and Davidson (11) studied the effect of addi- tional manganese when a commonly-used all-mash ration containing 39. p. p.m. was fed to White Leghorn pullets. It was found that the addition of 100 p.p.m. of manganese to this ration had no beneficial effect as reflected by egg production, hatchability, and fertility. In a later study using a low—manganese (9 p.p.m.) ration on White Leshorn pullets, Schaible and Davidson (12) obtained results similar to those of their former experiment with a high-manganese ration, which were decidedly in disagreement with the reports of Kentucky and Cornell workers for this type of study. Average hatchability on the basal ration was 73.2 per cent, compared to 76.h vhen 50 p.p.m. of manganese was added. Fertility was not affected, but a barely significant dif- ference (5.3 per cent) was obtained in egg production, in favor of the rm ine difference in ere production is less OR-) higher manganese intake. pronounced than that reported by Gallup and Norris (5), but hatchabil- ity and embryonic develOpment were in direct contradiction with the findings of these and also the Kentucky workers (2). That manganese has another function in the metabolisn of the lay- ing hen has been shown by Lyons (10) from work carried out at the Ark- ansas Agricultural EXperiment Station. Using White Leghorn pullets, the eggshell quality from birds on a basal ration low in menganese (7 p.p.m.) was of poorer quality than when the manganese content of this ration was adequate. Eggshells of satisfactory quality were not ob- tained when the ration contained 27 p.p.m. of manganese, whereas 57 p. p.m. proved satisfactory in this respect, and the addition of 130 p. p.m. to the basal ration was followed hy a marked and rapid improve- ment in eggshell quality. The low-quality shells are described as having translucent areas in the small end of the egg with a lower percentage of shell and decreased breaking strength. v1 PURPOSE It will be noted from literature cited that results obtained at this Station on the effect of a low-manganese ration on laying birds are contradictory to those reported elseWhere. Since the manganese content of the various basal rations used is comparable. some other variable or variables must be involved. The most likely variables which might account for the discrepancies are the basal rations and the breed or type of birds used. With this in mind, the present experi- ment was undertaken to ascertain if the breed and the ration used affected the manganese requirements of laying birds for egg nroduction, fertility, hatchability, and embryonic develonment. (3x EXPERIMENTAL Barred Plymouth Rock and White Leghorn hens were used as repre- sentatives of different types of birds. The low-manganese ration pre— viously used at this Station (12) and also that used at Cornell (5) were fed in this experiment. Subsequently these rations will be Myra U referred to as A and B respectively. snen manganese was added. nearly negative results had been secured on ration A at this Station with White Leghorns, and marked differences had been found on ration E at Cornell with New Hampshires. The two rations were fed to each breed in the basal form and also with supplementary manganese, with the exception that ration A with manganese vas not fed to White Leghorns as insufficient pens were available and this would have been a dupli~ cation of previous work (12). The formulas and analyses of the basrl rations used were as shown in Table l. The all-mash rations were fed by the continuous hopper—feeding method and no mineral other than that in the rations was available. When added, manganese was incorporated into the feed as a water solu~ tion of the hydrous form of manganese sulphate (MnSOu.2H20) at the rate of 50 p.p.m. The solution was made up in such a way that 1 c.c. was equivalent to l p.p.m. of manganese when added to 100 lbs. of the ration. This was first thoroughly mixed with a portion of the corn to insure even distribution throughout the entire lot. TABLE 1. F RXULAS RED AIALYSES OF EASAL RAMICES. Percentages _.=: Ingredient _ Ration. A A Ration ”r3w Ground yellow corn 50.0 71.5 Ground barley 22.2 Powdered skinmilk 12.0 10.0 Kenhaden fish meal : 10.0 Alfalfa meal 5 5.0 5.0 Corn gluten meal ! 5.0 teamed bone meal 3.0 1.0 Chalk (U. s. P.) 2.0 Limestone 1-5 Salt iodized 0.5 0.5 c. L. 0. (fortified) 0.3 0.5 Analysis 1 Moisture 9.3M 9.99 Protein flash 16.00 Crude fiber 3.1%) 2.37 Ash 7.3.2 7.1:2 Calcium 2.00 1.9 Phosphorus 0.923 0.922 Hanganese 9.0 (0.n.r.) 9.6 (p.p.m.) (Q The experimental arrangement is m . T" 7‘. 1", “7,11 1'"? r 15f": ¢ LL 2. IMiJLA . 443$ 771‘ ‘?.'."1 t .L bl... “‘1' ‘rj‘r T‘"o JJL PMs-J. Pen _ Breed i0“ Vumber of Birds 1 White Leghorn 10 2 ll H E 13 3 " " E + Ln 10 L Barred Rock 9 5 " " + Kn 9 6 H II 9 7 " " B + :.:n 9 The birds used in this exp of production. They were placed on the experimental rations larch _ 1939, and were confined to pens ment September 1, 1939. Direct windows when weather conditions corded at h~week intervals, and on egg production. A .ale of the same breed wa tated within the breed every two days to mating which might occur. A prel'min males to be fertile. 5 After five weeks of tne experiment, in; purnoses and were held at room temperature ( eriment were hens in their second year 9'7 1’ feet) until taken off exteri- sunlight was allowed by removing the permitted. Feed consumption was re- tne birds were trapnested for a record in each pen; these were ro- eliminate any preferential Dw‘ latching trial showed all the all e533 were saved for hatch- ‘ Casement) until slaced in the incubator. Intact eggs were pen—hatched at weekly intervals over a twelve—week period under sinilar incub :tion conditions in a ca q o glnet— ? type machine. Infertile 0335 and dead embryos were removed by 2end1- ing on the 18th day while transferring to the ‘ “to in; compartment of the incubator. All 8338 fa iling to hatch were broken and examined for 'i) fertility, stage 0 develOpment of the embryo, and also for embryonic abnormalities. Although not originally intended as a part of this work, a study on quality of the eggs shells was cs Irried out incidental to the effect of manganese on e33 production a-.d hatchability. The study merely involved observation of the shell texture as seen when the e33 was placed be2ore a C?U(l1€. To facilitate expression of the shell—qualitv, 0 six grades with a numerical value of one to six were established with Q the shell—quality decreasing as the value increased. Thus, 3re oe num— ber one was a high-quality shell and number six an exceedingly poor I! shell. Photographs of shell type srepresentative 01 )he various 3rades are shown in Figur u. ('0 '7 lTnere data are treated statistically, the chi~square (x‘) method +fi of analysis was used by the ormula: ‘3 ru 0 (a d - bc)- ” T XL- Q 2 ”+0 (c+d )(b+d V(awe) where observed frequency of first item possible frequency - a of first item a observed frequency of second item possible frequency - c of second item :a+b+c+d +3910 0‘!” ’3 From the number of observat1ons (n) and the value of x“, P was obtained by referring to Fisher's table (3). A value for P of .05 or lower we s taken as indicat ing a difference due to some factor other tha21 e: :pected vs riation in the stock, and was regarded as a significant difference. ‘J H RESULTS I. Hatchability. Relatively high hatchability was obtained from all but the two Barred Rock pens which did not receive manganese. ence in the hatching qualities of the two rations used, the results being remarkably close when the basals fed to White Leghorns and to Barred Rocks are compared separately and also when the manganese sup- plemented pens are compared (Tables 3 and h). It had been previously found here (12) that White Leghorn hatcha— bility was not improved by adding manganese to ration A. On ration B 1n the present experiment, this breed gave an average hatchaoility of 7 when manganese was added. ./ 75.1 per cent, whereas this figure was 85. However, there was an exceptionally high hatchability from pen 3 dur- ing the first few weeks of the experiment (Figure l) and the differ- ence between the two pens is greatest at this time. Since it seems reasonable that any difference should become more pronounced as the experiment proceeds, the latter part of the hatching period should show more regarding the effect of manganese. On this basis it was thou3ht reasonable that the first three hatches might be eliminated from the data and that the average hatchability of 75.0 and 81.5 per cent for the last nine weeks was more representative. Using the chi-square method, these data are treated statisticallv by weeks and totals for both the twelve and nine-week periods (Table 5). For the totals considering both the twelve and nine-week periods 9 O r u Q Q the value for x~ 1s 3.155 and 1.99U respectively, and 1n tne former f4 Ix) this difference is si3n iii ica nt. When summed for the individual weeks x2 equals l3.h91 for the twelve weeks and H.023 for the las t nine weeks with P being slightly more than .30 and .90 respectively; neither value approaches si;: ni ic ance. The Barred Rocks (pens M, 5, 6, and 7) gave decidedly better hatchability when manganese was added (pens 5 and 7). The avera3e hatchability for ration A was 53. and 31.6, and for ration B 53.7 o a 1 0 and 81.3 per cent (Tacle M); the nigner value in both cases 1s for the manganese- supj»lemented pen. The statistical treatment of these data I x 0 f' 18 snown in Tables 0 and 7. There was a x siunificant innrovement in ration A with Barred . , q 1 a O o . A \ 1 Rocks wnen manganese was aooeo. ine value 0: x“ is 33.008 wnen tne data is treated as a whole and 3h.531 for the sun of x ferent weeks, with P less than .01 in both cases. Also, when consider- ed separately, there was a si3nificant difference for the 5th, 7th llth, A z PM ~ r and lath wee: iable 0). Similar results were obtained when the d'ta for Barred Rock: on ’3 ration B was subjected to analysis (Table 7). X' is 31.135 on the totals an 23.C42 for tile sum of the weeks: P again is less the. .Cl ‘ Q ‘I 1 § 0 Q ~ f tn methods of treatment. Or tne individual WQPKS, pen 0 was Fb 0 "3 (7‘ O strtistically better on the 9th and llth. ihe trend in hatchability of the Barred Rocks on the basel rations over the twelve-week period (Figure 2) is definitely downxw .rd and the differences betxreen the be.sals end surnlemez ted. rat io ons iicree se as the experiment pr03ressed. On the otrer henC. tLe White Le-rhorns do not show meterm sl chan3‘ e(Fi'ure 1). This indicates t} at the reserves of the Barred Rocks were being depleted because of insufficient mange!”— ’A V J ese ii the ration, whereas the White Le3horns reouired little, if any, additional manganese beyond the amount present in the ration. K Also, from Figures 1 and 2 it will be noted that hatch_hility <: 5:0 ries considerably from week to week w lthin the various pens. This of consistency is to be expected when a relat ivelv small number H 7“" of eggs from each pen is set at any one time. However, there was a elneral and decided drop in hatchability for the llth week and it is thou3ht possible that the e'3s may have been held at a temperature q sli jntly hL 3her than is compa ti ole with goo Jd enbrvonie develOpment. C" J Embryo mortality of the various groups (Tables and 9) was in ;.;eneral e enly distributed between early—de d, late-dead, and dead- -shell emlry s. Since entrvo nortality is in nverselv proportions to hatchab ility, it naturallv follows that the groups with the lower hatchability show hi3her enbr; o morte litgx. ' mt, The incidence of chondrodvstr reehy is also shown in 1 aoles and OJ and some embryos illustrative of the abnormality along with two normal :s are shown in Fi3ure 3. This condition was limited entirely to embryos from birds on the basal rations and, with the exception of two embryos (C.6§) from White Leghorns on ration A, was confined to the .re wer indications that ration.A was more ind icive to (D Barred Re cks. T1 ( n chondrodystronhy than was ration B since 7.9 per cent of the Iertile e335 set from pen h were chondrodystrOphic, compared to 3.2 per cent from pen 6. The abnormality first appeared in e33s produced during the ei3hth week of the experimen Fertility (Tables 3 and h) see too inconsistent between the 1‘asal and man3anese - supplemented pens to lend itself to analysis. In general, hetever, there are no indication ns that man; anese improved ftrtilitv as reported by Gallun and Yorris (r). The low fertility o? pen 3 ennot be explained except on the basis tint the relatively h small number of birds used mi ht account for a wide variation. fa / l' m.mm H.mm H.MN 0.0 m.m~ H.0H .0s4 0.05 N.WH 0m ~.00 m.:H 2H 0.0N m.ma 0m 2m-» m.0~ :.sm mm 0.0m m.~a NH 0.0m 0.ma mm Nana s.0m 0. m Hm 0.0» 0.0a 0m ”.mm 0..m 0m 0aus m.0s m.mm Hm 0.m~ 0.0m 0m 0.0a m.w mm m-~ n.0m 2.0 mm s.mm 0.0 .Hm m.m0 m.m H: mmum m.m~ m.sm mm 0.mm H.m mm p.0m m.HH 2m 0H.0 n.0a m.~m 0: 0.m~ s.ma :m H.- :.m an mflum m.mm n.0m Hm H.mw m.0 mm ~.0N w.HH em mum 0.0 w.MH 00 m.am m.w 3m 0.0m 0.w mm mm-m M.Hm H.0m 0m 0.m~ 0.0 mm 0.u~ 0.0 mm mm-m ~.mm m.mm 0m 0.0a 0.0 0m 0.0» 0.: mm mflum 0.00H w.m :m 0.m~ 0.0 0m m.m~ ~.0m 0m mam sewaspmsossm mflsssmegH scm sMsflspas sum assessesH pom ssflspa:0psm waspsmeaH pom mama pcoonmm ammosom mmm psoosom pmoosmm mmmm unmopmm pcoosmm mmm mewpumm .02 .03 .02 m mom m com H com mm0.0mq meHee - memes em weHaHmas0Bam one .squHemmm .Bmm me0m .m mamas m.Hm 0.:H Afls.mm ~.mH 0.Hm :.m = ~.wm 0.0 .ms« m.m~ H.HN 0H m :.~: 0.m 0m ~.:m 0.m 0m m.mm H.~ _ 3H :m-~ 0.0m F.0H ma w.mm 0.0a mm m.m0 0.0 mm N.ma s.mH _ ma sans ~.Hm m.:H :H ~.m0 2.0m mm m.:m 0.mH mm 0.00 ~.0 ma 0H-e ~.m ~.0m 0m H.mm w.Hm 0H 0.0a 0.0 mm m.mm m.ma ma m-~ s.HN 0.~m mm 0.0m m. m Nm . 0.m~ 0.0 mm H.~m n.0m 0H 0m m.mm :.HH mm L 0.m~ m.mm em 0.mm m.m 0m 0.0m m.m z.:m A 0.0m 0: ~.w0 0.wa mm ; m.mm 0.0 mm ~.Hm :.m m.~0 H.HH m: _ m..a H.mH mm m.m0 0.0 mm 0.ms m.mH m.me 0.0a 0m m.m~ 0.0a 0m 0.uw H.m m0 0.m0 H.0 0.mm m.0H m.m Hm m.mw m.m 0m ~.00 m.0 m.Hm 0.m 0.0 mm 1 2.:m 1 0.0 mm m.mN 0.0 m.~m ~.m p.0a mm n.0m H.m mm m.0m ~.m open maflppmm .xnnnuuimmuaunmuuu innumuu+nuuuu maumu Npfifiap ofiassoeaH manpsmenH pom fiwpaflfip waspsmeqH umm passe manpsmqu usaopwm usmonmm unmonmm mmmm unsupmm pnmonmm mmmm Imgopmm pcmouom mmmm pqoopmm .oz ,puooumm .02 E pmwonom .oz 2 pamonom .oz N com m gem 1m new :,som il.‘| mMoom Gmmmdm I mmmmb wm WBHQHmsmoedm and .weHAHBMMM .Bmm meow .2 qu<9 TABLE 5. CHI-SQHARE AHALYSIS c HATCKABILITY 0? WHITE 13030235 or 211: n 1 Pen 2 Pen_§‘ g _week E335 Set N0. Hatched‘ Eggs Set 0. Ectcbedgif X2 P 1 20 15 31 31 5.998 .02* 2 20' 15 23 22 2,275 .10 3 29 22 23 21 1.19M .20 u 22 18 25 20 N 0.0h6 .80 5 28 23 21 20 0.890 .30 6 20 15 29 23 0.000 .99 7 20 17 23 18» 0.030 .80 8 19 13 29 25 1.255 .20 9 16 12 21 16 0.092 .70 10 17 13 22 19 0.1M} .70 11 1M 7 21 16 l 1.52 .20 12 12 8 25 19 I 0.0h1 .80 (12 wks) 13.M91 .20 (9 whs) H.02u .90 TOTAL IEWKS. 237 178 295 250 8.158 .01* 9WKS.H~16S 126 216 176 fl 1.99M .10 * indicates significance k.) TABLE 6. CHI-SQ’ARE AEALYSIS CF HATCKABILITY OF EARRED ROCKS OX RATIOH A. {'4' Pen 5 Pen 5 Week E335 Set No. Hatched E335 Set No. Hatched X2 P _ . L 26 21 51 28 .uau .50 2 29 22 52 27 .265 .50 5 5o 20 55 29 1.193 .20 u 20 15 ! 20 17 1.200 .20 5 25 12 52 22 1.725 .10 6 1 29 15 27 25 5.725 .02* 7 18 10 25 22 .208 .05* 8 1h 8 25 1 17 .D35 .50 9 15 7 25 19 1.0“5 .50 10 14 1 7 19 -C 2.552 10 11 11 ‘ 2 22 15 5.u75 .02* 12 15 5 19 18 9.u69 .01* 5h 510 .01* TOTAL 2M2 112 510 255 5u.008 .01* * indicates significance TABLE 7. CHI-SQDARB 13118315 02 HATCHAEILITY 02 213220 ROC’: OH 21210“ 2 Pen 67 Pen I __q:‘ ==rfleek Eggs Set N0.wEatc:£§; E§;§.§gt H0. Hat§§g§LL X2 ‘ P 1 25 18 33 29 1.u15 .20 2 22 18 52 25 .092 .70 3 29 19 35 29 1.702 .10 u 18 15 27 2M 1.071 .30 5 29 13 no 27 2.677 .10 6 t 21 1h 32 27 1.372 .20 7 20 15 51 29 2.159 .10 8 20 15 21 15 .011 .90 9 13 3 22 16 I 6.2MO 02* 10 16 11 12 11 ..99M .30 11 21 5 15 12 8.9M5 .01* 12 19 9 15 11 1.389 .20 28.032 .01* 10111 253 151 315 256 N51.155 .01~ * indicates significance I .< a .3 u: 54) .. .III I: 2 1| III II \ mgmonpmmmopwzomo**as Hammwicfiuwwmas** m“ mohgpswlvmowampmqii momhpaondamehHhmm: 0.0 H.: m.m m.: 0.0 m.m o.m o.m m.o ~.ma m.m m.m a. .osq 0.0 0.0 o.mH o.m 0.0 0.0 0.0 m.mm o.o m.Ha .m.m ~.~ :m-~ 0.0 0.0 o.mH w.: 0.0 :.Hm m.:H m.:H 0.0 0.0: o.m o.m NH-» 0.0 0.0 H.m m.: 0.0 m.HH 0.0 m.HH 0.0 m.m 0.0 0.0 oauN 0.0 m.: m.: m.:H 0.0 m.mH m.w 0.0 m.m m.mm 0.0 ~.m mus 0.0 0.0 m.MH 0.0 l 0.0 m.m m.oa m.mH o.o m.mH H.m m.oa mmum 1 0.0 0.0 ~.m o.MH 0.0 o.m o.m o.m 0.0 ~.m ~.m 0.0 maum 0.0 m.m m.m m.m 0.0 o.m o.oH 0.0H m.m ~.m :.HH ~.m maum 0.0 w.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 H.~ H.~ m.m 0.0 o.oa o.oH m.m mum 0.0 o.mH o.o o.m 0.0 m.: H.m m.: 0.0 m.: m.: m.: mmum 0.0 m.: m.: 0.0 0.0 m.oH m.MH 0.0 0.0 m.:H ~.oa 0.0 mm-m 0.0 0.0 m.: 0.0 0.0 0.0H 0.0H o.m 0.0 ~.mH m.: m.: mfl-m 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.oH o.m 0.0H o.o ~.m o.o o.mH mam .eaommifl .m.H.mw. .m.n«q .m.m.m .saogu .m.H.n .m.m.q .a.m.m .eaogo .m.H.m .m.mu|1w1.n.nmmkfi mama 98*} 0*; *i 5 wdfipuom = m com m 288 H 28m mzmomaMA meHmb I mmmdezmommm HH Wmmomemwmommmomo 924 WBquemor owmmu m mo ZOHBDmHmHm HQ .w mafia. ’17 -J 0.0 m.~ H.m o.m m.m :.mH m.m m.HH o.o ~.m m.m m.: m.~ m.:H m.NH ~.m .oww 0.0 0.0 0.0m ~.m m.m m.oH H.9m H.Hm 0.0 0.0 m.m o.o m.wm ~.~ m.mm :.mH :m-~ 0.0 m.ma 0.0 ~.m m.:H m.mm m.mm o.mH 0.0 ~.mm 0.0 H.m m.~m m.mH :.mm m.~m NH-~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 m.m . 0.0 0.0 m.ma m.mH 0.0 0.0 m.OH m.m H.~ :.Hm m.:H m.:H OHuN 0.0 m.wH m.: m.: _ 0.0 m.mo 0.0 ~.~ .c o.mH o.mfi 0.0 H.mm 5.5 m.om ~.~ mup 0.0 o.mH o.c m.m 0.0 o.mfi 0.0 0.0m 0.0 o.MH ~.m m.: 0.0 :.Hm m.:H H.N mmnm 0.0 m.m 0.0 m.m 0.0 o.m o.m o.mH 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.mH m.m m.~m m.HH m.m mfl-w 0.0 o.c :.m m.m 0.0 m.m w.:H m.m 0.0 ~.m :.~ N.m m.m m.mfl o.Hm :.m mH7m o.o o.m [.mH o.mH . 0.0 H.:m m.ma m.NH 0.0 m.m 3.0 :.m s o.m o.mm o.mH o.w m-w 0.0 0.0 :.N N.m H.HH 0.0 N.mfi H.HH 0.0 0.0 o.m o.oH o.oa o.ma o.mH o.m mmam 0.0 :.HH o.o ~.m m.m o.Hm :.m 0.0 0.0 :.HH m.m m.m 0.0 m.ma m.ma ~.m mmum 0.0 m.mH 0.0 0.0 0.0 m.mH 0.0 0.0 0.0 m.ufl 0.0 0.0 0.0 :.m m.w m.ma mflum 0.0 o.m H.m o.m 0.0 0.3m 0.0 0.: 0.0 m.m m.m 0.0 0.0 ~.~ ~.~ m.m m-m .ucogo .m.H.n .m.n.g .m.a.m .22820 .m.H.n .m.q. .m.m.m .eaogo .m.H.n .m.n.q .m.n.W%mwaono .m.H.q .m.m.g .m.a.m mama maflppmm N. gem puma m qmm J cmm mauom nmmm¢m . mmw11 2 l £99.... 1 2 3 1+ i I '5 Z 1 8.u 7.2 10.6 0.0 2.6 2.2 1.9 2 5u.7 u3.2 5h.9 22.1 u7.u 20.3 38.5 3 22.7 31.5 20.h 36.h 37.1 29.0 M1.0 u 8.9 13.5 10.6 22.1 11.2 25.u 1h.9 5 u.9 u.5 3.5 3.9 1.7 13.0 3.7 6 0.5 0.0 0.0 15.6 0.0 10.1 0.0 g:§:rved 203 111 226 77 116 138 161 Be. AVERAGES 0? SHELL-QUALITY 021223 I Candlin? Date Weighted if: _ 1‘34 1’33 3:9 3-21____ 8-3;) Average 1 2.29 2.16 2.50 2.66 2.6M 2.09 2 2.2M 2.12 2.71 3.07 2.50 2.65 3 2.15 2.08 2,u2 2.60 2.57 2.h2 u 3.h7 3.08 3.80 3.83 3.27 3.55 5 2.19 2.33 2.70 2.85 2.80 2.62 6 3.16 3.25 3.1M u 7h u.32 3.57 7 1L 2.62 2.22 -.78 3.19 2.82 2.80 KN F‘ From the foregoing results it is anp2r nt that the two breeds did not have the same manganese requirements for hetC1Mlitr, normal embryonic develooment, eggshell formation, and possibly e33 produc- tion. Althou h ration B was somewhat more satisfactory than A for egg oroduction and appea ed le ess inducive to chondrodys trophy both rations were decidedly imnroved when manganese was added. Ration P contained more orotein and less fibre then A, but otherwise the analyses of the m1 two were almost identical. 1112 cod liver oil content was adequate to meet the vitamin D reLuirements for 12 yin3 her1s a outlined by Halpin, (I) q Holmes, and Hart (7). Thus, the ations are on a comparable oasis C?” 1:3 "5 5-!) or this type of study and the conflicting results at this Station vith toose oh;tained else1here cannot be attributed to this variable. Barred Rock hatchability was decidedly and markedly im roved wh -on 2n? nese 12s added to the rations. However, the only basis for assnm~ in? tnat hatchqbility was sL nificxntlv imoroved when additional man- ganese was 3iven to White Leghorns is on the pen totals for the entire hatching period. Since this is not considered representative and other methods do not show significance, it is concluded that the difference is within the limits of expected variation in the parent took, ar d not due to manganese. Christiansen, lialpin, and hart (2), have recently renorted that sunlight affects the mer *2nese reouireme nts for hatchatility. Durin: the fall and winter months hatchability on a basal ration ‘as 41.1 per cent compared to 52 per cent when S .n.n. of manganese was added. With in reased sunshine durin- the sprin3 and early summer months, however, hatchability increased to an avera3e of 70 per cent on the basal and 75 on the man3anese-supplm dented, and "there was little si on. . fl- .— nificant difference in the e33 hatchability between these two groups." aey en‘3est t-at there mtist have been a borderline defic1encv of ma — ganese in the ration, which was eliminated with increased sunshine durin3 the snring. Results on the occurrence of c hondrody, stronhv substa ”ti 2lly sun- port the view that there was a breed difference in this respect. On low-manganese rations barred Rockso “ rodu ced a fairly hi3h incidence, horns showed very little susceptibility to the abnor- mality. In this connection it is of interest to note that Wisconsin workers (h)f1d a breed (11ifference iJ the occurrence of chondrodys— troohy when insufficient vitamin D “as suoplied. Given no cod liver oil, Earred Rocns produced 7 per cent chor d1od7strordr comnared to less than 1 per cent Ior Le 3horns. The observed quality of the hatched chicks showed in te restin3 and markedd iffei rences. YIIMi e the White Le3horns from all pens were simi— lar in appearance and of good quality, the Barred Rock Chicks from the tn 0 low-man3e nese pens were QGCiGQ dlv 1ean and inferior and from a commercial viewnoin many would lw ve been classed as discards or culls especially durin3 the latter part of the hatchin3 period. Also, many of the chicks had distinctly shortened legs, not unlike the embryos which were chondrodystrOphic. A few were fed a normal ration and kept for observations on develoozz1er t. These are over three montlm of a3e at the time of writin3 and appear normal in e or" respect with the exception that th: sqort-le33ed condition is still quite evident. While the addition ofr .an“erece cons 1stently improved e33 produc- :\ O‘y‘t tion in this trial, the evidence that Barred Rock were more affected Q than Shite Leghorns is less conclusive. The only besi1s for COTnaiison is on ration B, rhere 3% Jred Pock procucti on was increased by 22 e338 per bird, compared to 13 for White Le3horns, When eccitional mcnganese was supplied. mhe data is considered too 1nade01ate to reg 51rd tiis V other tzon aQ.Wtossitle" .C‘L‘ breed di 1erence in manganese renuirerents for 03; production. The ten anese affects e33shell quality h: s beezi reported by O Caskey and Norris (1) who found the t the break1n3 stren3th of €333 inczee (0 ed as the mar ganese content of the ra.tion increased. The ob- S) serva tions in this experiment indie te thatglack of man3anese decreased the eQ 3snell qualitg,r of Borrw Rock U) , whereas that of White Le3horns was only slightly affected. Although a breed difference is inticated it is considered that the rt umber of ey; 3s OUSCrVGd was not sufficiently larQ e to varre nt re3ardin3 the results as conclusive. It probably should be pointed out tha e33shell quality decreases as tee a38 of the L .en increases anC also is usually lower during the summer mon hs. The difference in ree ction of the two breeds when subjected to ' lov ~menrenese rations exrla ins why Schaitle and Davidso; (12), who used fo rner Iiniin3s obteivird (D d O [17‘ Z. J (D c r (n :3 (.1. H. C) (to ”J White Leghorns, were unabl with heavy breeds. The greater manganese requirements of the Barred Rocks over the unite Le3.horns in ti is exreriment, leads to the conclu— sion that there was a breed difference in this respect. That this dif— ference in the manranese requirements represents a true breed diifer- erce, and is not peculiar to t indicated 1y other reports. Lyons and Insko (3) and Gallun anu sor- ris (5) used flew Hampshires and Rhode Island Reds respectively, and obtained similar or more pronounced results than reported here with Barred Rocks. The observation that Yarred Rock onions are more susceptible to perosis, and require more man3anese to prevent the I condition, nas been reported by Halpin, Holmes, and Cravens (0;. This has also been noted in connection thh perosis studies at this 'V ' 1 1 ‘-' \l ‘ ‘ ‘ btation. Gallup ana norris (4) have renorted that, altnou3n 50 r. TT p.m. of maneanese was necessary to prevent perosis in ten chicks, 30 p.p.m. was completely preventive in White Leghorns. It is quite evident that White Leghorns require some manganese in the ration, but the amount necessarv for normal development and reproductive functions annears to be less than that required by the h envy ‘0 re e (is. 9" unen subjected to an exceedingly low-manganese ration Parred Rock hatcbability is lowered, a hign incidence of chondrodystrophy occurs, and egg production is reduced. White Leghorns react differently in that hatc‘nabilit‘r is not significantly reduced, the occurrence of cnondrcdystronhv is ne*li§ible, and egg production is affected to a lesser degree. The breed of oirds used ccounts for the contradictory results m of previous exreriments on the effect of manganese in the laying ra- tion. The heavy breeds of chickens used commercially in the poultry industry are more sensitive to a low-manganese content in the ration and require more manganese for develonmen and reproduction tran do finite Leghorns. A Practical rations usuall: have sufficient manganese to meet the 9 requirements of Leghorns, but the addition of a manganese sunrloment, in an a'ailable form, may be beneficial in the laying and breeding rations of other breeds. \71 \/ f'\ (R) \N (31 (3:381:81", C. D.’ alld L. C. lTorris. "F'Mrt or Stfll ‘19 pg 0.!) t1”?- ROI--9 Of 4’33? 533089 in Poultry Tutrition," Poul. Sci.. Vol. 17. pr. 14'33. September, 1037, ./ Cbristiansen, J. 3., J. G. Hale in, and E. E. fart ”A Poss' 1 9 Relation Between Yanganese, Sunlight and Winter Vrtciabi . T‘.._ H o _n 7 r‘ ‘2 . ‘ of Hens 1; s," Solence, Vol. 33, p,. #50-337, Cctocer 13, 1':ng J11. isner, R. A., "Statistical fiethods for Research Workers,” 3rd ed., Ed inburg and London Oliver and Boyd, pp. 90-97, 1930. Gallup, W. D., and L. C. Iorris, "The Effect of a Deficiencv of Xan;anese in the Diet of the Hen," Poul. Sci., Vol. 13, 7b—32, January, 1939. Gallup, W. D., and L. C. Norris, "The Effect of a DeficienC" of Hanganese in the Diet of the Hen," PO‘ll. Sci., Vol. 18, pp. 33'33. January. 1939- \ Halpin, J. 3., C. E. Holmes, and W. W. Cravens, "A nganese Pre— vents Slipned Tendon Only Under Certain Conditions," Wi Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Report, part 2, pp. 90, Karen, 1939. C. E. Holmes, and E. B. Hart, "I-Io Di ffer ence 3e- eds in Cod Liver Oil Roouirements," . ’is 3. Ann. Report, part 2 en. a), Harch,1939. ’Dv NC‘. Lyons, Halcolm, and W. H. Insko, Jr., :1ondrodystronry in the Chick Embryo Produced by enrsoese Defici.ency in the Diet f! 3 TV .1 r '— OI tne lgen," Ky. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. No. 371, pp. 01-79, Jul 19:7. Lyons, falcolm, W. K, Ins‘zo, Jr., and J. Holmes Kartin, "‘he Ef— fec t of Intrm eritone- a1 Injections of Ken ;anese, Zin Alu- minum, and Iron Salts on the Occurrence of Slipned Te Chicks," Poul. Sci., Vol. 17, rp. 12-16, January, 1933. O H Lyons, “alcolm, "Some E11ects of , ’an;an ese on Eggshell Quality," Ark. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. Lo. 37L, march, 19T . Schaible, P. J., Selma L. Bandemer, and J. A. Davidson, "The an enese Content of Foodstuffs and Its Relation to Poultry intrition," Xich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. No. 15], August, 1933. (12) Sc. (13) Wilgus (13) ? BIELICGRAPHY (Continued) ible, P. J., and J. A. Davidson. Unpublished Data. S , L. C. Norris, 111G. F. Heuser, "The Role 0 . a: f d Certain Other Trace Elements in the Preventio of "utr., Vol. 13, pp. lES-lOY, July~Dec O 4 I 11 ," Jour. .rs, "How Such Cod Liver Oil Do Laying Pullets 1 e Heed?" Dis. Agr. Exp. Sta. nn. Report, part 2, co. 3, 2:50 C. '7) .. {I A 1: ant-3. 3! . 53'. UV“. 52.2. : 1636.5 G619 125810 Golding I smuw WWI “a! 6 o 3 0 3 9 2 1 “I V” “ EN MI S“. “ llHIHl