REPRODUCTION STUDIES IN THE TURKEY HEN:
EGG FORMATION TIME AND THE
EFFECT OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHT

Thesis Ior the Degree OI pI'I. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

John Henry Wolford
1963

 

THESIS

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

REPRODUCTION STUDIES IN THE TURKEY HEN:
EGG FORMATION TIME AND THE
EFFECT OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHT

presented by

John Henr y W01 ford

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Major professor

Date June 29, 1963

 

0-169

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

..._. ”I'—
--_...~____,._. ..

-._ ..A. r

A._a..- a ,uMM‘wawm-C" I

‘m—h~ m-"wyafim -u—

an -u 1...- WH-“

REPRODUCTION STUDIES IN THE TURKEY HEN: EGG FORMATION

TIME AND THE EFFECT OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHT

by

John Henry “blford

AN ABSTRACT
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Poultry Science

1963

ABSTRACT

REPRODUCTION STUDIES IN THE TURKEY HEN: EGG FORMATION
TIME AND THE EFFECT OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHT

by John Henry Holford

Individual egg production, body weight and feed
consumption data were obtained on two varieties of turkey hens,
Beltsville Small White (BSW) and Broad Breasted Bronze (BBB),
following exposure to various light regimes during the growing
and subsequent reproductive period. Data were also collected on
oviposition time, ovulation time, egg formation time, oviduct
length, clutch length and egg weight.

Feed intake, regardless of light regime or variety,
increased sharply 10-14 days prior to onset of egg production;
however, during the two weeks following this point, feed consumption
decreased 10-30 percent. Feed consumption averaged 252 grams (.55 lbsI
daily per hen for the BBB and 137 grams (.30 lbs) daily per hen
for the BS" turkey hens during the reproductive period. Partial
correlation values calculated for egg production, body weight
and feed consumption indicate that egg production and body weight
are negatively correlated; egg production and feed consumption are
positively correlated and body weight and feed consumption are
positively correlated in both varieties.

Ovulation in the BS" turkeys used in this study occurred
15-30 minutes after oviposition. Deposition of shell on the egg
was started 11-12 hours after ovulation and the shell pigment was

deposited during the last 2-3 hours the egg was in the uterus.

John Henry Holford
From the data obtained, it is suggested that the egg was in the
infundibulum 15-30 minutes, in the magnum 25-3 hours, in the isthmus
1-1% hours and in the uterus 22-24 hours.

The average interval between successive eggs of a clutch
was 26 hours and 46 minutes (BSH) and 25 hours and 48 minutes (BBB).
This time interval was generally shorter between successive eggs
of four and more egg clutches than between the two eggs of a 2-egg
clutch.

Egg weight increased 21 grams in the BS“ and 24 grams in
the BBB turkeys during the experimental period (28 weeks of lay).
The average egg weight was 69 and 84 grams for the BSD and the
BBB, respectively.

The body weight of both varieties, regardless of light
regime, increased until onset of egg production. within 4 to
5 weeks after egg production began, body weight decreased. In
the first year of the study, the birds did not regain the weight
lost following the start of reproduction; however, in the second
year this was not the case. In both varieties, the hens which
received the restricted photOperiod during the growing period
were lighter than the other groups at the time they were placed
in cages (19 or 21 weeks of age) and, in general, were significantly
lighter throughout the experiments.

From the data obtained it appears that either restricting
or decreasing the photOperiod during the growing period wdll
enhance the turkey's out-of-season egg production. Females
which had received a photoperiod equal to that of natural daylight

during the growing period (March 21 to October 10) produced their

John Henry Holford
first eggs 16 (BSH) and 20 (BBB) days later and produced signif-
icantly fewer eggs during the reproductive period than did turkey
hens on either the restricted or decreasing photOperiod.

Thus, the data indicate that turkey hens can be stimulated
to produce eggs during the late summer and early fall months by
prOper management of the photOperiod during the growing phase.
However, the light treatments used in this study did not extend
the length of the reproductive period beyond that which occurs

under natural lighting conditions.

REPRODUCTION STUDIES IN THE TURKEY HEN: EGG FORMATION

TIME AND THE EFFECT OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHT

by

John Henry wolford

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Poultry Science

1963

ACKNOULEDGMENTS

The author is most grateful to Dr. Robert K. Ringer,
Professor of Poultry Science, for his guidance in selecting the
author's course of study and directing his research project. He
is also indebted to Dr. Theo H. Coleman, Professor of Poultry
Science, for his guidance of the research project and for his
constructive criticism of this dissertation.

The author also wishes to express his appreciation to
Dr. Howard C. Zindel, Chairman of the Department of Poultry
Science, and to Michigan State university for making available
Poultry Science Department laboratory and farm facilities for
the conduct of this project.

Sincere appreciation is expressed to Dr. Erwin J. Benne,
Professor of Biochemistry, for his guidance and assistance in the

nitrogen determinations.

ii

I.
II.
III.
IV.

V.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

X.

ACKNOHLEDGMENTS .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . .

LIST OF FIGURES. .

LIST OF APPENDICES

INTRODUCTION . . .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

OBJECTIVES . . . . .

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE . . . . . .

the

rearing

and

growing

Of‘83)eeeeee

O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O

A. General Procedure - Experiment
B. Experimentl.........
C. Experiment 2 . . . . .
D. Experiment 3 . . . . .
E. EXperiment 4 . . . . .
RESULTS . . . . . . . . .
A. Effect of light during

(4 weeks to 19 or 21 weeks

1. On body weight . . . .

2. On feed efficiency . .

3. Onmortality . . . . .
B. Effect of light during the

reproductive period

rearing, growing and

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

1. On egg production and sexual maturity . .

2.0nbodymight..............

3. On feed consumption

4. On .88 ”18h: (EXPeriment 2) e e e e e e e

5eonmn‘lityeeeeeeeeoeoee-ee

iii

Page
ii

iii

vii

viii

00m

11
13
15
15
16

16
16
16
23

23
23
26
26
30
30

XI.
XII.
XIII.

XIV.

C.

D.

F.

G.

H.

I.

Nitrogen balance prior to and following onset of

oviposition (Experiment 3) . . . .

Feed consumption and broodiness .

Relationship of egg production, body weight and

feed consumption a e e e e e e e e

Relationship of egg weight, egg number, body weight

and age at first egg (Experiment 2)

Egg weight, clutch length, pause length and egg

production (Experiment 2) . . . .

Interval of time and delay between
(Experimmt2)eeeeeeaeee

Ovulation time, egg formation time
length (Experiment 4) . . . . . .

DISCUSSION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

SUMY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

LITERATURE CITE O O O O O O O O O O O

APPENDIX O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

iv

O O O O O O O O

successive eggs

and oviduct

Page

30
34

34

40

50

59
67
70
75

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

ls COUPOOLtionO£rat1°n8seeeeeeeeeeeeeee

2. EXperiment 1. Body weight of turkey females as influenced
by light during the rearing and growing period . . . .

3. Experiment 2. Body weight of turkey females as influenced
by light during the rearing and growing period . . . .

4. Experiment 1. Feed efficiency and mortality of Broad
Breasted Bronze male and female turkeys as influenced
by light during the rearing and growing period . . . .

5. Experiment 1. Feed efficiency and mortality of Beltsville
Small white male and female turkeys as influenced by
light during the rearing and growing period . . . . .

6. Experiment 2. Feed efficiency and mortality of Broad
Breasted Bronze male and female turkeys as influenced
by light during the rearing and growing period . . . .

7. Experiment 2. Feed efficiency and mortality of Beltsville
Small White male and female turkeys as influenced by
light during the rearing and growing period . . . . .

8. Average egg production and average date of first egg
of turkey hens as influenced by light regime . . . .

9. Body weight of turkey hens as influenced by light
regime eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

10. Experiment 2. Egg weight as influenced by light
r081“eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
ll. Experiment 3. Nitrogen balance prior to and following
onset of oviposition in the Beltsville Small Hhite
turk.YhenOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
12. Daily feed consumption (grams ) of Broad Breasted
Bronze turkey females four weeks prior to and six weeks
following onset of broodiness . . . . . . . . . . . .
13. Daily feed consumption (grams) by turkey hens prior to
ma f011°fin8 OHOOE 0f oviposition. e e e e e e e e e
14. Experiment 1. Average egg production of turkey hens at
different levels of feed intake and body weight . . .
15. Experiment 2. Average egg production of turkey hens at

different levels of feed intake and body weight . . .

PAGE

10

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

28

32

33

35

36

38

39

TABLE

16.
17.

18.

19.
20.
21.

22.

Partial correlation values for body weight, daily feed
consumption and egg production of turkey hens . . . .

Experiment 2. "r" values for egg weight, body weight
and egg production of turkey hens . . . . . . . . . .

Experiment 2. Average clutch length, average egg weight
of the clutch and perCentage of eggs produced in each
CLUECh Of the turkey hOn e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

EXperiment 2. Average time of lay and average interval
between successive eggs (Broad Breasted Bronze) . . .

Experiment 2. Average time of lay and average interval
between successive eggs (Beltsville Small white) . . .

Experiment 4. Egg formation time in the Beltsville
sm‘ll white turkey e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

Experiment 4. Average length of the various parts of
the oviduct in the Beltsville Small White turkey . . .

vi

PAGE

41

43

47

51

52

55

58

FIGURE

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
8.

9.

10.

ll.

12.

LIST OF FIGURES

Experiment 1. Lighting regime . . . . . . . . . . .
Experiment 2. Lighting regime . . . . . . . . . . .
Experiment 1. Weekly production percentage . . . .
Experiment 2. weekly production percentage . . . .

Experiment 1. Average daily feed consumption of
Beltsville Small Hhite (BSH) and Broad Breasted Bronze
(BBB) turkey hens (21-43 weeks of age) . . . . . . .

Experiment 2. Average daily feed consumption of .
Beltsville Small white (BSW) and Broad Breasted Bronze
(BBB) turkey hens (19-58 weeks of age) . . . . . . .

Experiment 2. Egg weight changes by week in turkey hens

Experiment 2. Average number and length of clutches
at different levels of egg production in Broad Breasted
Bronze turkOYO e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

Experiment 2. Average number and length of clutches
at different levels of egg production in Beltsville
Bull “i te turkey. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Experiment 2. Average number and length of pauses
between clutches at different levels of egg production
in Broad Breasted Bronze turkeys . . . . . . . . . .

Experiment 2. Average number and length of pauses
between clutches at different levels of egg production
In BCIEIVILIO SNOIL white turkeys e e e e e e e s e

Experiment 2. The delay or lag in time of day laid
between successive eggs in a clutch . . . . . . . .

vii

PAGE

12

14

25

27

29

31

45

46

48

49

53

TABLE

2.

3.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Experiment 1. Pen and outside temperatures recorded
after the birds were placed in cages (20 weeks of age) .

Experiment 2. Pen and outside temperatures recorded
after the birds were placed in cages (19 weeks of age) .

Theoretical calculations of the caloric deficit
during the first four weeks of egg production in
Beltsville Small Hhite turkey hens (Experiment 2,
Treatment4)....................

viii

PAGE

79

INTRODUCTION

Researchers have been constantly trying to improve the
reproductive performance of turkey breeder hens in order to reduce
replacement and maintenance costs; but they have been impeded by the
turkey's seasonal reproductive nature. The successful employment of
artificial light to stimulate reproduction in chickens suggests a
possible means of eliminating the seasonal reproductive problem in
turkeys.

The feasibility of eliminating the turkey's seasonal
reproductive nature and extending the turkey's reproductive period
has led to the present study which was designed to ascertain the
effects of various light regimes during the growing and subsequent
reproductive period on egg production, body weight, sexual maturity,
mortality, egg weight, growth rate and feed consumption of turkey hens.

In addition, the data presented on ovulation time, egg
formation time, oviposition time, interval between successive eggs of
a clutch, clutch length and oviduct length is intended to augment and

expand the present knowledge of the turkey's reproductive cycle.

REVIEW OF L ITERATURE

A number of researchers have observed that turkeys could be
stimulated into early egg production by the use of artificial illumination
(Albright and Thompson, 1933; Moore and Berridge, 1934; Marsden, 1936;
Scott and Payne, 1937; Wilcke, 1939; Carrick, 1940; Milby and Thompson,
1942; and Davis, 1948). Other researchers (Margolf st 21. , 1947;
Parker, 1947; Harper, 1949; and Siegel and Howes, 1959) have reported
that turkeys require from 3 to 4 weeks of artificial illumination for
stimulation of complete reproductive activity. Harper (1949) also
concluded that turkey hens responding most rapidly to artificial light
stimulus produced the largest number of eggs during the reproductive
season, although Asmundson and Moses (1950) showed that giving Bronze
hens 9, 11, 12 or 13 hours of artificial light at 32-33 weeks of age
delayed sexual maturity as compared to all night lights, 14 hours or
15 hours of artificial light.

Asmundson 25 21,, (1946) demonstrated that a minimum light
intensity of 2 foot candles produced maximum reSponse of turkey hens
to light; although, no significant differences in egg production of
turkey hens exposed to artificial light from 7.5 and 15 watt bulbs
were noted by Davis (1948). These researchers observed that housing
turkey hens without lights retarded egg production. However, light
intensities of 0.6, 2.5, 10.0 and 40.0 foot candles produced no
significant differences in egg production, fertility, hatchability or
length of breeding season of Beltsville Small White turkey hens
(Marsden and Fraps, 1960).

Restricting the daily photOperiod of winter hatched poults to

nine hours when 22-24 weeks of age for 3-4 weeks increased subsequent

egg production during the summer months over that of non-restricted
poults (Harper and Parker, 1957, 1960). Marr‘5£.gl, (1956) showed that
reducing the daylength to eight hours at 14-16 weeks of age until 28-30
weeks of age increased the egg production of January hatched Beltsville
Small Hhite turkeys over that of naturally lighted controls. Ogasawera
g£_gl, (1959) showed that turkeys preconditioned with six hours of
light daily for three weeks at 20 weeks of age increased egg production
above that of turkeys restricted to 10 hours of light daily during
this period. Turkeys which received a restricted light program for
four weeks at 24 weeks of age responded more rapidly to supplemental
light than did non-restricted birds which had received natural light;
however, total egg production did not appear to be influenced (Leighton
and Shoffner, 1961, 1 & 2). McCartney :5 £1, (1961), Clayton and Robertson
(1960) and Harper and Parker (1960) indicated that out of season egg
production (summer and fall months) could be obtained by restricting
light per day during the latter part of the growing period; although,
the turkeys used by McCartney 55':1. (1961) did not maintain as high a
level of egg production as did comparable groups during the winter and
spring months. Decreasing the daylength given potential turkey breeders
30 minutes per week from 8 weeks to 28 weeks of age (24 hours to 14
hours) significantly delayed sexual maturity and was detrimental to egg
production; however, if the declining day was discontinued at 22 weeks
of age and the photOperiod restricted to six hours of light per day for
six weeks, egg production was improved (Greene 55.31., 1962).

Shoffner 55,31. (1962, 2) indicated that turkey females reared
on short days respond to stimulatory light levels at 24 weeks of age

while those reared on long-light days required longer preconditioning

periods. A 3-week preconditioning period with six hours of continuous
light per day was shown by Ogasawara 53,31. (1962) to be superior to

ten hours of light for three weeks. Wilson‘ggwgl. (1962) also showed
that three weeks of light restriction at four hours is equivalent to
four weeks at six hours or five weeks at eight hours. Harper and Parker
(1962) demonstrated that restricting turkey females to a 9-hour daily
light period for a 4-week period was as effective as either a 6- or
8-week period in terminating reproductive refractiveness.

The results obtained by McCartney (1956) indicate that turkeys
reaching market age during the winter months when the days are short
should be artificially lighted to provide at least a 13-hour day to
attain maximum growth at 20 weeks of age for June hatched poults. A
15-week experimental period (13-28 weeks of age) with‘flhite Holland
turkeys showed that birds which had received natural daylength
required 4.3 percent more feed per pound of gain and weighed significantly
less at 28 weeks of age. McCartney (1956) also showed that weight gains
are significantly greater in Beltsville Small White turkeys under
natural light conditions if the natural daylength is greater than a controlled
constant 13-hour daylength. However, Smyth g£_gl, (1961) using mole
turkeys found that body weight and feed consumption did not appear to
be influenced by increasing or decreasing daylength 30 minutes every
three days for four weeks at 10 weeks of age (decreased or increased
from 15 hours of light). Shoffner 5£_21,(1962, 1) found that turkey
poults lighted 24 hours daily had higher mortality and poorer feather
quality at 24 weeks of age than did those reared under short-day

(6 hours) photOperiods.

That weight losses occur in turkeys shortly after egg laying
begins has been shown by Asmundson g£_gl. (1946), Scott and Payne (1941),
Uhitson 5£.gl,(1944 ) and Mitchell 5£_gl. (1962). Similar data on
Bourbon Red turkeys are available in the Annual Report of the Indiana
Agricultural Experiment Station (1934). Harper (1950) weighed turkeys
at two-week intervals and found that Broad Breasted Bronze females
gained weight until the onset of egg production; however, followdng the
onset of egg production, body weight generally decreased.

Although results from a number of experiments (Scott and
Payne, 1941; Hhitson‘g£_gl., 1944; Payne and McDaniel, 1958; Robblee
and Clandinin, 1959; Jensen and McGinnis, 1961; and Mitchell 3§_gl,,
1962) have been published on the feed intake (large turkeys, 0.44-0.68
lbs; small turkeys, 0.37 lbs.) of turkey breeder hens, none of the
reports have included the individual hen feed consumption variation
during the reproductive period.

Berg (1953) as cited by Kondra and Shoffner (1955) has
reported that with increasing body weight, shank length and breast
width, small but significant deleterious effects on egg production
were noted; however, Parker and Harper (1950) obtained data which
indicated that the wddth of breast or the body weight of Broad Breasted
Bronze turkey hens bears little if any relationship to the production
of either eggs or poults. Fonk (1950) concluded that egg size
increases with body weight and that egg production (first 8 weeks) was
not related to body weight. A negative correlation between March body
weight and egg production was noted by McCartney (1962); and Payne
£§_gl, (1957) observed a positive correlation between March hen body

weight and egg weight.

Observations on the egg laying pattern in turkeys have
indicated that a longer period of time elapses between the successive
eggs laid in a shorter than in a longer clutch (Rosin, 1948); that
turkeys lay 27-40 percent of their eggs before noon and 60-73 percent
in the afternoon (Stockton and Asmundson, 1950; Rosin and Abplanalp,
1951; Payne and Ortman, 1956), and that there is a general decrease in
egg weight wdthin a clutch as the clutch length increases (Rosin and
Abplanalp, 1951; Payne and Ortman, 1956). Research by the last two
groups of scientists showed that the last egg of the clutch was smaller
than the first egg of the clutch. Rosin and Abplanalp (1951) have also
demonstrated that the turkeys average oviposition time is 1:45 p.m. in
the afternoon and that the time required to produce an egg decreased as
the length of the clutch increased. In Broad Breasted Bronze the second
egg of the 2-egg clutch required 27.71 hours and the average of the
last 7 eggs of the 8-egg clutches was 25.21 hours. In Beltsville Small
white turkeys the figures were 27.55 and 25.13 hours, respectively. A
review of the experimental procedures used in determining the egg
laying pattern of the turkey shows that the turkeys used in the
experiment (February-May) by Kosin and Abplanalp (1951) received
artificial light from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and were trapnested
daily at hourly intervals from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with the last
trapping being at 8:00 p.m. The turkeys used in the experiment
(February-May) by Payne and Ortman (1956) received natural light and
were trapnested daily between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The turkeys
used in the experiment (February-June) by Rosin (1948) were trap-
nested daily at hourly intervals between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Stockton and Asmundson (1950) used only natural light and trapnested

the birds until they ceased to lay.

Warren and Conrad (1942) showed that pigment deposition on
the egg of the turkey occurred a few hours before oviposition.
Asmundson (1939) suggested that the time the egg spent in the
infundibulum and magnum was 3.25 hours, in the isthmus 1.46 hours and

in the uterus 20.44 hours.

1.

2.

4.

OBJECTIVES
To ascertain the daily feed intake of two varieties of turkeys,
Broad Breasted Bronze and Beltsville Small Whites.
To investigate the relationship of body weight, feed consumption
and egg production of turkey hens.
To determine the time of ovulation, oviposition and egg
formation in turkey hens.
To investigate the effect of different photoperiods during the
growing period on subsequent egg production in two varieties of

turkeys, Broad Breasted Bronze and Beltsville Small White.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
A. __§gneral Procedure_:_§xperiment§ 1 and 2

1/

Two (2) varieties-' of turkeys, Beltsville Small White
(BSW) and Broad Breasted Bronze (BBB), were exposed to various
lighting regimes during the growing and subsequent reproductive
period. One group of each variety was exposed to the same photo-
period. A light intensity of more than 3-foot candles was provided
at the level of the bird's eye. Weekly individual feed consumption
records based on a 7-day weigh back period were obtained following
placement of the birds in individual cages. Individual egg records
(number, weightZ/and time of lay) were kept throughout the production
period. Trappings were made at 6:30 a.m., 7:30 a.m., 10:30 a.m.,
1:00 p.m., 2:30 p.m., 4:00 p.m., 5:00 p.m., and 7:00 p.m. All
birds were given feed and water 22 libitum. The rations used
throughout the experimental period are given in Table 1. During
the growing period the birds were housed in conventional floor
pens with wood shavings as the litter. Following removal from

the conventional floor, the females were housed in individual

cages 24 inches long, 18 inches wide and 24 inches deep wdth
sleping wire floors. Mechanical ventilation fans, set to Operate
at 45°F were used throughout the entire experimental period. The
pen and outside temperatures recorded after the birds were placed
in individual cages (20 weeks of age, Experiment 1; 19 weeks of
age, EXperiment 2) are given in the appendix (Tables 1 and 2).

Males were removed throughout the rearing phase because of the

1] The BBB turkeys were hatched from eggs supplied by a leading
commercial breeder. The BSW turkeys were hatched from eggs
supplied by the Michigan State University flock.

2] Egg weights were not recorded in Experiment 1.

Table 1 . Egggosition of rations

 

0-2 3-8 9-17 18-25 26
Ingredient weeks weeks weeks weeks weeks on
Ground yellow corn 239.1 300.0 465.6 675.0 670.0
Pulverized heavy oats 40.0 50.0 60.0
Wheat standard middlings 40.0 50.0 75.0
Alfalfa leaf meal, dehyd. 172 40.0 50.0 40.0 25.0 50.0
Soybean oil meal,solv., 44% 350.0 350.0 220.0 /- 125.0 100.0
Fishmeal, red 100.0 60.0 30.0
Fishmeal, menhaden 50.0 50.0
Meat & bone scraps, 501 70.0 60.0 30.0 50.0 50.0
Distillers dried solubles, corn 10.0
Brewers dried yeast 10.0 10.0
Dried whey 20.0 20.0 10.0 20.0 10.0
Fat 40.0
Ground limestone 10.0 20.0 20.0 28.0 25.0
Dicalcium phosphate 23.0 25.0
Steamed bone meal 5.0 30.0
Salt, iodized 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
MnSOa 0.5 0.5 0.5
V1 tamin A palmlnate 5000/31“ 30 7 1 s 0 1 e 0
Vitamin D 1500/gm 3.0 1.0 1.0
Vitamin B12 6 mg/lb 1.0 0.25 0.25
Terramycin TM-S 10.0 1.0 1.0
Choline chloride, 25% 1.0 0.4 0.4
”thionine 0.7 0e25 Osl
Vitamin B 20,000/1b 0.5 0.2 0.1
Niacin 20,0 gms 20.0 gms 10.0 gms
Riboflavin 2.5 gms 0.5 gms 0.5 gms
Calcium pantothenate 6.0 gms
Pro-Gen, Arsanilic 0.5 gms 6.0
Nepcosol, M-7,vit. E/lb 1.0
M-4, Vit. premix (Napcosol) 7.0

 

10

ll

necessity to prevent overcrowding. Statistical analysis of data
in this dissertation was done by methods reported in Dixon and
Massey, 1957 and Simpson g£_gl., 1960. d
B. Experiment 1

One hundred forty-one (141) BBB and 71 BSW turkeys were
hatched on July 6, 1960. The poults were brooded for four weeks
in starting batteries with continuous light. Poults from each
variety were randomly divided into three groups at four weeks of
age, housed on a conventional floor and given the following
lighting regimes (Figure l).

#1 - Natural light regime - A daylength equal to natural
daylength was provided from 4 to 28 weeks of age; there-
after, 15 hours of artificial light were provided daily.

#2 - Restricted light regime - An 8-hour light day was
provided from 4 to 28 weeks of age; thereafter, 15
hours of artificial light were provided daily.

#3 - Decreasing light regime - Starting with a daylength
of 17 hours at four weeks of age, the photOperiod was
decreased 20 minutes each week until the birds were 28
weeks of age. A 14-hour light day was provided from
28 to 32 weeks of age; thereafter, the photOperiod was
increased 15 minutes per week until the experiment was
terminated at 43 weeks of age.

Artificial lights in each pen were automatically
turned on each morning at 4:00 a.m. after the birds were 28 weeks
of age. The caretaker first entered the pens at 6:30 a.m. each

day and the last time the caretaker entered the pens was at 7:00 p.m.

Hours of ligh‘f per 24 how period

N
-A
)3

2’33
Ill

12

Fig. 1 - EXperiment 1: Lighting regime.

 

“‘2‘3) *
( ) Tredi'menis

Phc‘tOperiod increased
I8-— :5 minuies per week

Pho‘l‘operiod decreaSed
20 minuhs per Week

    
   

   

L3)

uo- Pho+0period equal\ .
+9 ndhlral do, length

 

 

 

7 .1 Birds placed 3n cages

llllll'lll I II
o 4 8 I216 2024 28 32 36 4o

(pane-3) (iZ-l) (Plums-IS) (5-3)
Age in weeks(da1’e)

13

each day.

At 21 weeks of age, 14 BBB and 10 BSW females were
selected from each lighting regime and housed in individual cages
for the remainder of the experimental period. Body weights were
taken at 4, 8, 12, 16, 21, 27, 37 and 43 weeks of age. The
experiment was concluded after 43 weeks following treatment with
nicotine sulfate for body lice (Wolford 55.21,, 1962).

C. Experiment 2

One hundred twenty (120) BBB and 141 BSW turkeys were
hatched on March 21, 1961. Birds were kept on a conventional
floor during the brooding and rearing phase. For the first four
weeks the birds were given continuous light. At this time, poults
of each variety were randomly divided into three groups and given
the following lighting regimes (Figure 2).

O4 - Decreasing light regime - Starting with a daylength
of 19 hours at four weeks of age, the photOperiod was
decreased 20 minutes each week until the birds were 28
weeks of age. A 14-hour light day was provided from
28 to 32 weeks of age; thereafter, the photOperiod was
increased 15 minutes per week until the experiment was
terminated at 56 weeks of age.

#5 - Restricted light regime - An 8-hour light day was
provided from four to 28 weeks of age; thereafter, 16
hours of artificial light were provided daily.

#6 - Natural light regime - A daylength equal to natural
daylength was provided from four to 28 weeks of age;
thereafter, 16 hours of artificial light were provided

daily.

Hours of light per 24 hour period

14

Fig. 2 - Experiment 2: Lighting regime.

Nu-Fmo‘qco
1

0..
L1

in
L

7%.

O
(31”

m

 

 

   
 
   

43*
Pho‘l‘operiod equal
+9 natural day lehgfh "\

l )* Tve aimenl's

Phoiopeviod increased
|5 minules per week

    
  

Phofoptriod deCreased
ZOmEnu’les per week

/ .

 

 

l

l
I
l
__________ l

Birds placed 'm cages

l I l f: 1 1| II | l | l, I l ‘
8 12 IS 20 2.4 28 32 36 4O 44 48 $2 56
(B'll) (lo-IoHu-7) (s-l)

Age in weeks (date)

15

Artificial lights in each pen were automatically turned
on each morning at 4:00 a.m. after the birds were 28 weeks of age.
The caretaker first entered the pens at 6:30 a.m. each day and
the last entry was at 7:00 p.m. each evening.

At 19 weeks of age 12 BBB and 12 BSW females were
selected from each lighting regime and housed in individual
cages for the remainder of the experimental period. Body weights
were recorded at 4, 8, 12, 16, 19, 25, 29, 31, 34, 36, 40, 44, 48,
52 and 58 weeks of age. The eXperiment was concluded at 58 weeks.
D. Experiment 3

Three (3) BSW turkey females were placed in individual
cages, which were located in a 70-80°F temperature control room,
at 28 weeks of age. The light regime at this time was 14 hours
of artificial light per day. The turkeys were given feed and
water ad libitum. Weekly individual feed consumption, egg
production (number and weight) and feces excretion data were
obtained for an experimental period of 6 weeks (29-35 weeks of age).
The eggs were collected daily and placed in a 35°F cooler. The
fecal material was collected daily on plastic trays, placed in a
beaker, covered with aluminum foil and placed in a 35°F cooler.
Kjeldahl nitrogen determinations were made on samples of feed,
eggs and feces from each bird at the end of each week beginning
when the hens were 29 weeks of age.

E. EXperiment 4

Thirty (30) BSW turkey females were placed in individual

cages at 20 weeks of age. All hens were given feed and water ad

libitum. At 28 weeks of age these hens were given 16 hours of

16

artificial light daily (4:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m.). Individual egg
production records (total number and oviposition time) were recorded
throughout the experimental period. After the clutch sequence was
established, the hens were sacrificed by injecting 15 cc. of
atmospheric air into the heart. The times of sacrifice were 15
minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, 5 hours, 8 hours,
12 hours, 24 hours or 26 hours after the laying of the first egg
of the clutch.
RESULTS

A. Effect of light during the rearing and growing period

(4 weeks to 19 weeks or 21 weeks of egg):

1. On body weigh;

The body weight of the females, BSW and BBB, reared
under restricted light (8 hours) from 4 to 21 weeks of age
was significantly lighter (P <.0.05) at 21 weeks of age than
the body weight of turkey females reared under a decreasing
or natural daylength program (Experiment 1, Table 2).
However, at 19 weeks of age in Experiment 2, only the body
weight of the BSW turkey hens was significantly lighter
(P‘<.0.0l) than the body weight of birds reared under
conditions of a decreasing or natural daylength program (Table 3).
2. On feed efficiency

Feed efficiency data recorded in Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7
show that the feed required per pound of gain was less in
both varieties when the turkeys were given a restricted
light program (8 hours) during the rearing period. However,

the total gain was less for the birds receiving the restricted

Table 2. EXperiment 1. Body weight of turkey females as influenced by
light during the rearing and growing period 1!

 

 

 

 

Std. Non-
2/ F- error sign. 3/
Treatment- #1 -N #2-R _ #3-D Value mean P>0.05 -
Beltsville Small
White
Number of birds 11 17 12
Age in weeks
4 1.1 1.0 1.1 0.33 ‘i 0.07
8 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.12 .1 0.08
12 3.5 3.6 3.5 0.08 I 0.12
16 5.9 5.6 5.7 1.35 ‘1 0.15
21 705 6s8 7.2 3s78* :- Oslé 1'3,
2-3
Broad Breasted
Bronze
Number of birds 20 19 20
Age in weeks
4 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.05 ‘1 0.03
8 3.1 3.3 3.2 0.84 ‘1 0.09
12 6.7 6.6 6.5 0.48 ‘1 0.14
16 10.4 9.8 10.3 3.60* I 0.17 -

* Significantly different at P 4.0.05 level.
1/ Mortality was disregarded in this analysis.

by Duncan Multiple Range and Multiple P tests.

17

/ N - natural light, R - restricted light, D - decreasing light.
I Numbers joined by a dash are non-significantly different (P >'0.05)

Table 3. Experiment 2. Body weight of turkey females as nfluenced
by light during the rearing and growing period -

 

 

 

 

 

Std. Non-
“ F- error sign 3,
Treatment- #4-D OS-R #6-N Value mean P>0.05-
Beltsville Small
_ White
Number of birds 21 20 17
Age in weeks
4 .9 .9 .8 3.00 I 0.02
8 204 2.6 205 5943** 1 0.06 5'6’4'6
12 4.7 4.7 4.5 3.08 I 0.08
16 6.5 6.3 6.4 0.58 i 0.11
19 7.1 6.7 7.3 6.49** I 0.11 4-6
Broad Breasted
Bronze
Number of birds 17 14 19
Age in weeks
4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.79 1 0.03
8 4.1 4.2 4.1 0.10 I 0.27
12 7.5 7.9 7.5 3.29* I 0.12 4-6
16 10.3 1100 10s6 6.86** : Osl3 5'6
19 11.4 11.6 11.9 3.07 I 0.14

 

* Significantly different at P<0.0S level.

** Significantly different at P<0.0l level.

1/ Mortality was disregarded in this analysis.

2/ N - natural light, R - restricted light, D - decreasing light.

3/ Numbers joined by a dash are non-significantly different (P > 0.05)
by Duncan Multiple Range and Multiple 1" tests.

18

Table 4. EXperiment 1. Feed efficiency and mortality of Broad Breasted
Bronze male and female turkeys as influenced by light during
the rearing and growing_period

 

kAge in weeks

 

 

 

 

 

 

4-8 8-12 12-16 15:21 __ Total
Feed consumed (lbs)
Treatment* #l-N 233.5 574.5 875.5 602.0 2285.5
lZ-R 226.5 548.5 762.0 519.5 2056.5
03-0 232.0 450.5 818.0 675.0 2175.5
Total gainlperiod (lbs)
02-R 107.3 183.5 193.2 101.1 585.1
03-0 99.8 168.1 200.8 110.9 579.6
Peedlpound gain
'1-" 2.18 2.96 3e93 5045 3060
'Z‘R 2011 2099 3.94 5.14 3051
‘3'D 2.32 2e68 4007 6s09 3075
Mortality’(§_birds)
Ol-N 1 --- --- --- 1
02-1: 1 --- --- «-
'3’0 7 --- CC- II-- 7

 

* N - natural light, R - restricted light, D - decreasing light.

19

Table 5. Experiment 1.

Feed efficiency and mortality of Beltsville
Small White male and female turkeys as influenced by light

durithhe rearing and growigg period

 

Age in weeks

 

1

 

 

 

 

4-8 8-12 12-16 16-21 Total
Peed consumed (lbg)
Treatment* #1-N 35.0 109.5 290.5 275.5 710.5
fZ-R 35.0 94.5 232.5 213.0 575.0
#3-0 39.5 109.5 254.5 235.0 638.5
Total gain/period Qbs)
Pl-N 13.1 50.0 62.7 43.2 168.9
OZ-R 12.6 49.5 53.0 38.0 153.1
93-0 14.6 47.8 60.5 45.9 168.8
Feedlpound gala
Ol-N 2.67 2.19 4.63 6.38 4.21
iZ-R 2.78 1.91 4.39 5.61 3.76
03-D 2.71 2.29 4.21 5.12 3.78
Mortality gs birds)
01-" 1 ~-- 1 2 4
#241 --- 1 --- --- 1
03-0 --- --- --- 2 2

* N - natural light, R - restricted light, D - decreasing light.

20

B.

23

light program. These data also show that for the age
limits of this study (Experiment 1, 4-21 weeks of age;
Experiment 2, 4-19 weeks of age) the BBB were more efficient
converters of the feed fed than the BSW (BBB 3.62 and BSW
3.95 pounds of feed per pound of gain).
3. On mortality

The mortality of the turkeys used in this segment of the
study did not appear to be greatly influenced by lighting
regime. The seven BBB poults in Experiment 1 (Treatment 3)
died from coccidiosis (M.S.U. Diagnostic Laboratory).
However, a greater incidence of cannibalism was noted in the
turkeys receiving the non-restricted lighting regimes
(Treatments 1 and 3, Table 5; Treatment 4, Table 6;
Treatments 4 and 6, Table 7).

Effect of light durigg the rearing, growing and repgoductive

period:
1. 0n egg production and sexual maturity

Restricting the photOperiod in Experiment 1 to 8 hours
per day from 4 weeks to 28 weeks of age significantly (P‘< 0.05)
decreased the egg production of the BBB turkey hens (Table 8
and Figure 3). The total egg production of BSW hens did not
appear to be influenced by any of the light regimes; however,
increasing the daylength to 15 hours of light at 28 weeks of
age stimulated egg production approximately 2 days earlier
than did a daylength of 14 hours (Table 8). In general, the
hens reached their peak production within 2 weeks after the

first egg was laid (Figure 3).

 

Table 8. Average egg production and average date of first egg of
turkey hens as influenced by light regime

_._.... s_._ .~«___,_. M.“ _ _..__ .....- ._ ., _ _-- a...

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/ Beltsville Small White Broad Breasted Bronze
Treatment-' Eggs/hen Date lst egg Eggs/hen Date lst ggg
Experiment 1:

#l-N 38.8 2/12/61 49.1 2/12/61
#2-R 37.0 2/14/61 31.0 2/12/61
#3-D 34.9 2/16/61 41.0 2/14/61
F-Value 0.14 3029 7.22“ 4008*
Standard error
of mean i 4.5 + 1.0 + 3.4 + 0.7

Experiment 2:

04-0 67.1 11/4/61 70.5 11/6/61

05-3 59.3 11/4/61 72.0 11/1/61

#6-N 35.8 11/20/61 57.7 11/26/61
F-Value 4.95* 7.83** 5.85** 23.96**

Standard error
of mean + 7.4 + 8.6 + 7.9 '1 5.9

 

* Significantly different at the P < 0.05 level.
** Significantly different at the P (0.01 level.
if N - natural light, R - restricted light, D - decreased light.

24

 
 
 

25

 

mxook c... mm<

fov fmn 5.0» {cc
._._________ _r__V_

 

.
~

0
~p-._'

I . I .10. 1,...Co€+ou.tn_.
l .. I 1N .._.cwé+out._.

e .. acacia we?

 

 

223 .356 o:_.>mtom

.owmuamouoa sowuozvoua maxoo3

 

I I
O o
v N
volionpmd lUS‘DJad

I
0
so

 

row

mucoLm outsmam wootm

«H osmeuumaxm . n .wfim

26

 

In Experiment 2, turkey hens of both varieties receiving
either a restricted (Treatment 5) or a decreasing light regime ‘
(Treatment 4) during the growing period laid significantly
(BSW, P < 0.05; BBB, P<0.01) more eggs in the reproductive
period than did hens receiving an increasing and then decreasing
photoperiod comparable to natural daylight conditions during
the growing period (Table 8 and Figure 4). The hens on the
latter regime laid their first egg 16 (BSW) and 20 (BBB) days
later than did the turkey hens receiving either of the other
lighting regimes. However, four BSW turkey hens receiving the
increasing and decreasing photOperiod began to lay at 26 weeks
of age which was approximately two weeks before the daylength
was increased to 16 hours of light.

2. On body weighg

The turkey hens, in the two experiments and regardless
of variety, which received the restricted light program
during the rearing and growing period were, in general,
significantly (P < 0.05) lighter throughout the reproductive
period (Table 9). The body weights of the turkey hens on the
other two treatments in both experiments were non-significantly
(P (0.05) different .

3. On feed consumption

Daily feed consumption, in Experiment 1, averaged 140,

131 and 147 grams in the BSW while the BBB had a daily feed
intake of 271, 230 and 271 grams, respectively, for Treatments
1, 2 and 3 during the period of 21 to 43 weeks of age (Figure 5).

In Experiment 2, daily feed consumption averaged 139, 132 and

so;

60"1

40-

N
O
J

27

Fig. 4 - EXperiment 2: Weekly production percentage.

road greasted Bronz_e_

   
 
 

Trea‘lmen‘r - 4
Treo‘l‘men'r- 5 --- —-
Treatmenl- 6 “"H"

 

Per: en‘l' pro ducT‘OV‘
0

 

            

 

 

60-

4o“

20-4

° Illll’lrtllfllfillIfi711r11—11rmr1111
25111 BOll‘l 351+: 4010 4510 50”; 5510

Age in weeks

 

28

.0003 concouooo. I 0 .203 030330..“ I 0 .0003 Housuma I 2 \M
.395." 30.0V m 2.3 us uaouowmzu «35333030 k...
.36. nodv a so a. 2330:. 338.25.... .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.0 H ......00.0 3.0« «.«H «.3 e« .0 M. 300.03 0.3 «.0 0.3 00
30.0 H 3.00.3 H.0« 0.: 0.3 0«.0 ...... h2.00.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 «n
00.0 H s...«0.¢« 0.0« 3.: 0.03 0«.0 H 3.00.3 3.03 0.0 «.3 0.»
00.0 H «400.3 «.3 0.3 0.3 ««.0 H h2.3.3 «.3 0.0 0.0 .3
00.0 H 3.0«03 0.03 «.3 0.0.— 0«.0 H 3.00.03 «.3 0.0 «.0 00
00.0 H 2.033 0.3 0.3 «.00 3« .0 H as: .3 0.0 0.0 0.3 00
00.0 H 3.00.0 3.03 0.: 0.3 3.0 H 3.00.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 00
30.0 H 0«.3 0.03 0.03 0.3 «3.0 H .300 .0 «.0 0.0 0.3 30
30.0 H 0«.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 3.0 u... 3.00; 0.0 0.0 4.0 0«
««.0 H 3.00.0 0.03 «.3 0.3 «3.0 H 1.3.: 3.0 3.0 0.0 n«
3.0 + 3.00.0 3.3 0.3 «.3 00.0 + «00.3 0.« 0.« 0.« 0H
z-0e 0-00 o-es 2-00 m-00 a-ee
uaoeuuoamm
30.0 H «03..» 3.03 0.3 0.: 3.0 H 3.00.: 0.0 «.« «.0 00
3.0 H «30.« 3.3 3.: 0.3 03.0 H 1.3.3 0.0 «.0 3.0 «0
0.4.0 H «00.0 3.0« 0.03 0.3 0«.0 .....- f:«.« 0.3 0.0 0.0 30
00.0 H 00.« «.03 3.: 0.: 3.0 H h2.00.3 3.0 «.0 0.0 0«
0«.0 + «0.3 mnmufllhmwm «.03 30.0 + seqo.«~ 0.« 0.« m.« 3«
0-00 0-«0 2-30 9.00 m-«* 2-3
.— unweguoaxm

«some 00 o=Hm>-w IosoEummuH momma mo osHm>-m IaaoEumuuH ‘nwmm
uouuo.eum \3 nouns .000 \3 mo axes:

 

 

 

mucoum noummmum eaoum

32.. Scam 2.33....

 

 

meawmu unwas an ooososmm

:3 mm was: zoo—wan no .3033 .300

.0 0.3mm.

29

Fig. 5. - Experiment 1: Average daily feed consumption of Beltsville
Small White (BSW) and Broad Breasted Bronze (BBB) turkey hens
(21-43 weeks of age).

2550 -‘

5CDO —

2150-0

zoo—

155° ‘

Grams of feed conSUmed daily

 

  
   

TWeafmenf-l ————-
Treo’rmenf- 2 - — —
Treatmenh 3 ......._.

 

Tl -- 1! r1 rt: 17 l7 Irfi
25+h 30+fi zsfh 4o+h

Age in weeks

C.

30

142 grams in the BS“ and the BBB had a daily feed intake of
266, 246 and 258 grams, respectively, for Treatments 4, 5
and 6 during the period of 19 to 58 weeks of age (Figure 6).
Thus, the daily feed intake was lower in the turkey hens

which had received the restricted light program during the

‘rearing"and"growing'period.

4. 0n egg weight (Bxpgriment 2)
The BBB turkey hens which had received a daylength

equal to that of natural daylength (Treatment 6) produced
significantly (P <_0.0l) heavier eggs than did those hens
which had received either of the other two lighting regimes
(Table 10). The BSW turkey hens which had received the
restricted light (Treatment 5) program during the rearing
and growing period produced eggs that were significantly
(P'< 0.05) smaller than the eggs of turkey hens which had
received either of the other two lighting regimes.
5. On mortality

In EXperiment 1, there was no mortality after placing
the birds in individual cages (21-43 weeks of age); however,
in Experiment 2, one BBB and one BSW turkey hen died in the
group receiving Treatment 5 after placing the birds in the
individual cages (19-58 weeks of age).

Nitrogen balance prior to and following onset of oviposition
(Bmeriment 3)

 

Body weight, feed consumption and feces output generally
decreased as the birds came into production (Table 11).

Total nitrogen consumed in the feed and total nitrogen

3.me E mmq
imm few .23 50¢ fmn fun f3
__:.__F__F_p_#_t___,___r__ .44.;

    
 
     

   

   

 

 

mop pawnsuoa pea; lo SWDJD

 

 

Auo_
|.nvm.
l nxuu
IOhN
I.onum
III... QIkCUcIUueF .
Ill! mu+Cvf+ouLk
ll..l «(rcmseoofi a I Own

Ammo uo ammo: wmaodv and: mmxuau Ammmv ouooum voummoum vmoum
pom Azmmv moans ”gnaw muaa>mu~om uo cowuaeomcoo noon mfiuou owoum>< “N unuemuomxm - w .wwm

Table 10. EXperiment 2. Egg weight as influenced by light regime
W

 

 

Std.error Non-813.2!
Egg weight F-Value of mean (P > 0.01)
2/
Treatment- #4-0 #s-R #6-N
Broad Breasted
Bronze 81.7 82.1 88.7 6.11** I 1.56 4-5
Beltsville
Small
White 7202 6509 70.3 4087* I 1.45 4'6’5-6

 

* Significantly different at P 4.0.95 level.
** Significantly different at P‘<_0.0l level.

l] Numbers joined by a dash are non-significantly different (P )’0.01)

by Duncan Multiple Range and Multiple F tests.

2] N - natural light, R - restricted light, D - decreasing light.

32

33

.xoma Hod unwfios moon a“ oflmw no mood \w
.xoos nod monomon cowouufis m>aumwos no o>uu«mom xm
.ueoouom ~¢.N as: boom may a“ ammuooouoo nowouuuz \u

 

 

 

 

 

 

«.md + nn.~ a hm.mN nN.N mega No.nN Nam onnnn
0.0 ~0.H + o~.~ mw.a no m~.¢~ c~.~ o¢m om.o~ mmn nnuon
~.onH + NH.¢ + oo.mu No.N mum N~.h~ Nna «hymn
o.~w~ + om.w + cm.o~ a~.~ Nauu ¢¢.nn mama nnnun
o.~m~ + oo.m + Hm.ou OH.N «has Hm.¢n mafia Nnuan
w.oo + w~.o + oo.o~ ~¢.N «Cam mm.~n onmfi Hmuon
N.omH + om.w + m<.n~ Nm.~ mom mm.n~ mum onuou
me than

0.0 mN.H + m~.h mo.N awn ow.m~ «0.« Hm¢ hN.- 0mm onnmn
0.0 mm.m n c~.w «0.« «co nN.¢N «N.N macs w~.o~ nooH wagon
o.~m~ I om.~ n Ho.m No.N 5mm mh.HN ow.~ Nana ¢¢.h~ mom «mumn
w.om + ¢¢.h + w~.~ ~o.~ No o¢.mu ou.N goo wo.wm moo nnnNn
n.0nH + Hm.o + Ho.¢N No.~ mwfiu Nm.om muoH unuam
w.oo + on.~ + m¢.om m~.N huge NN.¢m oufifi gnuom
w.om + w~.-+ «O.NN 00.« menu NN.¢M ohm” omuou
N‘ chum

w.om + o~.o s mm.n «0.« «ma no.h~ on.~ mood mm.- man omnnn
N.©MH a no.H + -.m «0.« nmN wo.n~ HN.H n~¢ Nm.HN own nnuon
«.md n m~.o + «o.m 00.« now 00.na a¢.H ado no.0“ woo #nnnn
o.HwH u ««.0 a ¢~.o no.~ Nan H~.a hm.o oca do.mH can nnumn
«.mq o mN.n + ow.n~ wo.~ ooNH wo.mH one «Moan
©.Hw~ + ON.HH+ Nn.hH du.~ Mada N~.mN hww union
N.omH + Hw.w + wo.HN mo.N mwo~ m~.on wnoH onnou
. at than

Amev AmEmv AmEmv Awwmv 1~mmuw[ AaooomV Ammuwlllldmmwv Ameuw was»:

.u3 manages mwwo mo sowouufln xooa non «comm mo sowouuaa zoos you vmmm mo limos won a“ uw<
mxpom cowouuflz ucmunoo unmoumm moosvoud usouaoo unmoumm nauseoua usoucoo \Avo52aaoo

\ \N nowouumz wwo uo.mao sowouuqz mmoom cowouuwz pooh

 

5.. >935 32: Scam
mHHm>muHmm was a“ cowunmoau>o mo uuaao wcuaomfiou one on woman woodman sowouuaz .n unmeauomxu o fig manna

D.

34

excreted in the feces decreased with the onset of oviposition.
Two weeks following the onset of oviposition, weekly feed
consumption increased. In general, following the onset of
oviposition the BSW turkey hens were excreting more nitrogen
via the feces and the eggs than they were consuming in the
feed.
Feed consumption and broodiness

Observations on 15 hens that were determined to be broody
showed that one week after first noticeable broodiness, feed
consumption was only 22 percent of what the weekly average had
been four weeks preceding the start of broodiness. Six weeks
following the onset of broodiness, feed consumption had
increased to only 35 percent of that of the four weeks prior
to the broody period (Table 12).
Relationship of egggproduction, body weight and feed consumption

Feed consumption of both varieties in the two experiments
increased sharply approximately two weeks (29 weeks of age)
before onset of oviposition at 31 weeks of age (Figures 5 and
6). In Experiment 1, daily feed consumption decreased 32.7
percent in the BSW and 24.8 percent in the BBB during the
first 14 days of egg production as compared to the 14 days
prior to onset of egg production (Table 13). The daily feed
consumption increased slightly after this initial drOp;
however, after six weeks of egg production, consumption was
only 81.4 percent (BSW) and 75.3 percent (BBB) of what it had
been the 14 days prior to the first oviposition. The data

obtained in Experiment 2 show that daily feed consumption

Table 12. Daily feed consumption (grams) of Broad Breasted Bronze
turkey females four weeks prior to and six weeks followdng

onset of broodiness

 

 

Feed consumption (gms)

 

 

weeks Ben 41 67 106 113 Average
4 231 265 114 207 204
3 240 262 192 202 224
2 262 238 195 194 199
1 249 240 185 241 228
0 169 118 73 140 125
1 30 89 40 22 45
2 4 30 19 25 19
3 10 14 28 29 20
4 11 23 47 52 33
5 40 103 70 * 71
6 86 45 ‘95 * 75

* Experiment concluded.

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36

Table 13. Daily feed consumption (grams) by turkey hens prior to and
following onset of oviposition
y y
2] Time period __' Percent
Treatment A B C D E B73 C13 D/A E7A
Beltsville Small
White
A. EXperiment l:
#l-N 155 100 119 127 132 64.5 76.8 81.9 85.2
#2-R 141 104 123 129 131 73.8 87.2 91.5 92.9
#3-D 179 114 130 127 122 63.7 72.6 70.9 67.6
B. Experiment 2:
#4-D 147 113 128 128 156 76.9 87.1 87.1 106.1
#S-R 138 111 126 129 114 80.4 91.3 93.5 82.6
#6-N 129 119 140 131 119 92.2 108.5 101.5 92.2
Broad Breasted
Bronze
A. Experiment 1:
Ol-N 312 226 249 228 246 72.4 79.8 73.1 78.8
#3-D 300 227 241 233 220 75.7 80.3 77.7 73.3
B. Experiment 2:
l4-D 288 250 276 285 243 86.8 95.8 99.0 84.4
#5-R 248 197 241 262 231 79.4 97.2 105.6 93.1
#6-N 270 245 284 286 249 90.7 105.2 105.9 92.2
1] Time Period A 14 days prior to first egg.
B 14 days following first egg.
C 15-28 days following first egg.
D 6th week of production.
E 12th week of production.
2] Feed consumption during each time period as a percentage of time
period A.
2] N - natural light, R - restricted light, D - decreasing light.

37

decreased 14.2 percent in the BBB and 16.8 percent in the BSW
during the first 14 days of egg production (Table 13). The
daily feed consumption increased after this initial dr0p and
after six weeks of production was 94 percent (BSW) and 103.5
percent (BBB) of what it had been the 14 days prior to onset
of egg production.

Regardless of light regime or variety, the turkey hens
gained weight until the start of reproduction; however, body
weight decreased following the onset of egg production (Table 9).
In Experiment 2, body weight gradually increased as egg
production decreased.

The data presented in Tables 14 and 15 show the weekly
egg production of turkeys as related to body weight and feed
intake. In general, the hens in the lower weight ranges,
14-16 pounds in the BBB and 7-8 in the BSW, produced fewer
eggs than did hens having a body weight within the range of
16-21 pounds (BBB) and 8-11 pounds (BSH). Egg production
records of the heavier hens (21.l+ 1bs., BBB; 10.1-11.0 1bs.,
BSW) indicated that these hens produced at a high rate
following onset of egg production; however, shortly after
egg production commenced the production intensity decreased.
Thus, the discrepancy obtained in the weekly egg production
of the heavy hens between the two experiments may have
resulted from the length of the reproductive period.

Partial correlation values for egg production, body
weight and feed consumption suggest that egg production and

body weight are negatively correlated, egg production and

38

.aoguosooum wwo so asouuo>uoopo mo Hones: .mm
.unm«03 upon one oxauau moon «0 ~u>o~ unassuuuon a us page was eofluosmoum wwo masses owouuz< NM
.oouuom xoon swam: muons o no ounce page use souumssonoo ovum human «wouoe< \~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

any s.n Amnv o.n Annav n.n Aomv o.~ Anny m.~ Auav ~.~ .oaoo menu
you omnuue<
Ann v o.n AHV o.n An v ¢.< “adv m.~ Aafiv n.~ Ae v o.n Anv o.n o.- u H.oH
Aomav ~.n on n.n Away n.n Acev ~.n Aenv s.~ Anew ~.n “NV ~.m 0.0” a ~.m
Awefiv N.n Away s.n Aocv n.n Annv m.~ Anmv n.~ any o.~ o.a
ea n.~ AH v a.“ Aauw m.~ noHv n.~ “my 0.0 AHV o.o n
.uz pop + and ova-dog oeuunum oufinfio~ cod-Hm ow XNaL
you .>< «sauna ”deem o-~>ou~on
Aqav n.e Amway 0.« Anouv w.n Aadav u.~ Amav o.~ Away ~.o .msoo ovum
you uwauoeé
Ann v ~.¢ Aouv o.n Am V ~.o An v o.e + ~.-
and v m.n Amv 0.« Anuv m.n Adav 0.« as V 0.« any o.n o.- . ~.o~
Aow v n.n Any 0.« “any o.n Aunv n.n Andy n.~ o.o~ u ~.a~
“mm v o.n Any ¢.¢ Amfiv o.n Afinv m.n Anny o.n any 0.« o.m~ u ~.m~
Anofiv n.n Anv 0.« anfiv o.n Awev w.n Annv ~.n any a.“ AH v 0.« a.ma - ~.s~
Ans v n.n Amy n.¢ Asnv ~.¢ Auuv ~.~ Anv o.~ o.n~ a ~.o~
Ame v s.~ “adv m.< “cav ¢.~ AnV w.o \mnn~v\w .o o.o~ . 0.«“
. «unsoum mouaaoum ocean
.usmwoon ‘H,~on oonnfinu onuuuou counmnm onnuao~ J1,Ioo~ and us. oon
you .>< NH

 

 

Assam moasasoo morn

unmade mean one

axons“ boom no mucosa unencumnv um use: moans» mo souuosooua mwo ownuoe<

4 38.225 - 3 .23

39

.aowuosooun was so anouum>uouno mo nonesz NW
.unwaoa moon was axons“ comm mo ~o>o~ um~so«uuom m on page you souuoomoum mwo «Axum: owenok< \N
.oofluma some amass Autumn so ocean mean you so«udesasoo moon Adamo uwmuo>< NM

 

 

 

Aemv 0.« ANAAV A.~ Aomwv <.~ Acaav ~.~ Aoav ~.~ Amov m.A .msoo boom
now uwoum><
Anny a." AAV n.~ AAHV n.~ Ahv “.0 Amv n.~ ANV o.n 0.«” . ~.-
Awwgv m.~ Away m.~ Auqv o.m Amov ¢.~ Aunv «.N Acav o.H Aav H.“ o.- a “.0“
Aqomv n.~ Aemv o.~ Amev n.N Ammv n.~ AAAV n.~ Aonv ~.~ Ava agn 0.0” u A.m
Ammmv n.~ on w.m Amv ~.< Anny m.~ Auwv h.~ Auev o.~ Awuv we” o.¢ u ~.m
Aomv m.H AHV 0.0 Amv w.o AAHV o.~ ABV m.~ on n.o o.w . g.s
.63 mean + Ema owa-aoa ooH-~ea oa~--~ oua-ao~ ooH Aunav .ua mumm
wow .>< «mugs: “Anew o-~>muamm
Anew w.m AAQHV m.m Amomv m.~ Amowv n.~ Aemv 0.« Ammv «.0 .mooo comm
you owouo><
Anny o.~ Amv B.H Anny m.~ Aeav B.“ Any n.~ + ~.H~
Awmv ~.~ on m.¢ Amv n.~ Anny m.H Amy o.~ Adv 0.0 AAV o.n o.- u ~.ou.
Ammuv ~.n Aomv n.¢ Amqv ¢.n Auwv H.n Away o.n Amv n.n AAV o.o o.o~ u —.mn
Aqmflv n.~ Away 0.« ANNV e.m Aonv H.~ Aumv 0.« Amy o.n Aqv o.o o.a~ u a.ma
Ammav o.n Aqv o.n Anfiv n.m Ammv ~.n Amev n.~ Anuv n.n on n.o a.md u “.5“
Afinav m.~ Acav n.n Anmv 0.« Aamv o.n Asnv m.~ Away m.~ on o.o o.n~ u ~.o~
Anmv m.~ Aqv o.o AAV o.n on 0.« Aefiv n.H Amv e.n|\mAnv xmw.o o.o~ u o.¢~
.us ammo + Ann enm-~on conuunu omuufiou oouuand .I on” 1~onmwl.us mmom
Ham .>< Nu

 

Ammuw ooesasoo comm

 

«masons mouamoum oooum

 

 

sewage seas use

ozone" ovum mo a~o>o~ unouomm«o us «so: zoxusu mo soauosooun was owduoa< .N unusauoaxu . nu annoy

F.

40

feed consumption are positively correlated and body weight
and feed consumption are positively correlated in both

varieties (Table 16).

Relationship of egg weightI egg number, body weight and age

 

 

at first egg(Experiment 2)

The data presented in Figure 7 show that egg weight in
both varieties of turkeys increased as the reproductive
period progressed. The increase was approximately 21 grams
in the BSW (53-74 grams) and approximately 24 grams in the
BBB (67-91 grams). The average egg weight was 69 and 84 grams
for the BSW and BBB, respectively.

Partial correlation values for egg weight, body weight
and egg production are given in Table 17. These values suggest
that egg number and egg weight are not correlated; however,
average egg weight appears to be positively correlated with
body weight at 31 and 58 weeks of age as well as the body
weight nearest the last oviposition. There was also a
positive correlation between the average weight of the first
10 eggs laid by each hen and age at first egg; thus, the eggs
were larger in turkey hens starting to lay at 36 weeks rather
than at 32 weeks of age.

A highly significant (P<<,0.01) positive correlation
was found between the average weight of the first 10 eggs
and the average weight of the total eggs laid. Prediction
values for the average egg weight for each hen from the
equation 9- a + bx were:

BBB BSW
a 13.00 20.70

b .90 .74

Table 16.

Partial correlation values for body weight, daily feed
consumption and egg_production of turkey hens

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Egg prod. Egg prod. Body wt.
of vs. ll vs. 2] vs.
___ birds body wt. feed cons. feed cons.
ExBeriment l
A. Beltsville Small 30 - 0.19 + 0.27 + 0.36*
White
B. Broad Breasted 42 - 0.28 + 0.33* + 0.65*
Bronze
Experiment 2
A. Beltsville Small 35 - 0.47* + 0.49* + 0.47*
White
B. Broad Breasted 35 - 0.14 + 0.18 + 0.35*
Bronze
‘1/ Body weight nearest last oviposition.
2] Daily feed consumption data were calculatedgfrom the time period

14 days prior to first oviposition through week of last oviposition

or termination of eXperiment.

Significantly different P < 0.05.

41

Fig.

IOO

90

80

7O

60

0' AMS

50

RN

WEIGHT
.1:
O

EGG

30

7 - EXperiment 2:

BROAD

   

 

BREASTED

42

BRONZ E

  
 

 

Egg weight changes by week in turkey hens.

  

 

_ BELT SVILLE SMALL WHITE

4 l l l 1
30m. 35m. 40 TH. 45m. 50 TH. 55TH.
WEEKS OF AGE

Table 1?.

—_¥

EXperiment 2.

egg production of turkgy hens

"r" values for egg weight, body weight and

Broad Breasted Beltsville Small

 

 

Bronze White
1]
Egg weight I vs number of eggs + 0.04 + 0.05
2/

Egg weight 11 vs number of eggs - 0.16 - 0.07
3/

Egg weight I vs body weight K” + 0.48** + 0.33*

Egg weight II vs body weight A + 0.70** + 0.34*
4/

Egg weight I vs body weight a" + 0.05 + 0.49%

Egg weight II vs body weight B + 0.13 + 0.39*

Egg weight 11 ‘ vs age at first egg + 0.48** + 0.84**

Egg weight I vs egg weight 11 + 0.88** + 0.91**
5/

Egg weight I vs body weight C + 0.33* + 0.30

* Significant at P 4.0.05 level.

** Significant at P < 0.01 level.

1] The average of all eggs laid.

3] The average of the first 10 eggs.

3] Body weight nearest last oviposition.

4] Body weight at 31 weeks of age.

2] Body weight at 58 weeks of age.

43

G.

44

Where 9‘- average weight of all eggs laid
x - average weight of the first 10 eggs laid
b - regression coefficient - s10pe
a - 9‘ intercept
Egg weight, clutch 1epg§h,pause length and egg production
(Experiment 2)

In general, egg production increased with an increase
in the number of clutches in either variety; and in general,
the clutch length was longer in the high producers (Figures
8 and 9). The l-egg clutches were the most numerous (BSW
62.5 percent; BBB 42.0 percent); however, the BBB laid more
of their eggs (644) in 2-egg clutches (Table 18). The
percentage of clutches that had 4 or more eggs was 13.6
percent for the BBB and 2.3 percent for the BSH. The range
of clutch length was 1 to 6 eggs in the BSW and l to 21 eggs
in the BBB. Ninety-three and two-tenths (93.2) percent and
68.3 percent of the eggs laid by the BSN and BBB, respectively,
were in clutches of three eggs or less.

In both varieties, the low producers (39 or less eggs)
had longer pauses than did the high producers (86 or more
eggs); however, the high producers had more (average 26.7,
BBB; 34.8, BSW) l-day pauses than did the low producers
(Figures 10 and 11). The low producers were out of production
an average of 90 (BBB) and 82.5 (BSH) days prior to the end
of the experiment while the high producers had not ceased
to lay.

Egg weight generally decreased as the clutch length

increased (Table 18) and egg weight in both varieties increased

45

Fig. 8 - Experiment 2: Average number and length of clutches at

OF- CLUTCHES

NUMBER

5'0 .__'

‘0’ 3 EGG: [[11]

30.. TOTAL 23

20

\O

 

different levels of egg production in
Broad Breasted Bronze turkeys.

CLUTCH LENGTH

I £566.1ifl
25mg

   
  
 

4 EGG-#1:]

 

 

 

   

0-39 40-55 56-70 7l-65 86+
C > (7) (H) (5) (7)
NUMBER OF E665 PER BIRD

(NUMBER OF BIRDS)

CLUTCHES

OF

NUMeER

46

Fig. 9. - EXperiment 2: Average number and length of clutches
at different levels of egg production

in Beltsville Small White turkeys.

 

 

 

  

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

60.) CLUTCH LENGTH
. a 5
Z EGGiEE ' 4g;
5 ° ~ 3 sea [[11] g
4. tea D /
' 9
4o __ To TAL m %
/
7 /
Z. /
g?“ %
/f= /
so—. /t:. /
fig: a %
7 /EEE ‘./ /
é /d:§ ?/ /
/ 1: ¢EEE ’ %
ZO— /w:1.4 /:JEE if; /
::d //Aj:: . ‘,//
2:2: fl? A? 4
a: fl :5: ;
lO-- :1 6:5 ¢EE E" %
as /E:- /E: =5 "W /
saggy}; /:: afg Ea ¢
. 23? r?
O .1 -. QM. /)_ / 1
31—50 51-70 71'90 91+
(Ia) ( 5) (IO) (2)

NUMBER OF sass PER BlRD
(NUMBER FF amps)

 

Table 18. Experiment 2. Average clutch length, average egg weight of the

clutch and percentage of eggs produced in each clutch of the

 

 

 

 

turkey hen
Clutch Number Number Egg
length of _1_/ of 2/ weight
variety (no.gggs) clutches Percent _ggggg Percent (gas)
Beltsville Small
White 1 782 62.5 782 41.4 70.5
2 344 27.5 688 36.4 70.0
3 97 7.7 291 15.4 68.7
4 19 1.5 76 4.0 68.0
5 9 0.7 45 2.4 68.2
6 1 0.1 6 0.4 67.0
Broad Breasted
Bronze 1 459 42.0 459 19.7 85.4
‘ 2 322 29.5 644 27.6 86.5
3 163 14.9 489 21.0 85.4
4 83 7.6 332 14.3 82.4
5 36 3.3 180 7.7 81.8
6 11 1.0 66 2.8 83.9
7 7 0.6 49 2.1 83.3
8 5 0.5 40 1.7 81.7
9 1 0.1 9 0.4 84.3
10 2 0.2 20 0.9 75.7
11 2 0.2 22 0.9 78.4
21 1 0.1 21 0.9 79.6
1/ Percent of total clutches that consisted of this number of eggs.

Percent of total eggs produced that were laid in clutches of this

length.

47

PAUSES

NUMBE R OF

48

Fig. 10 - Experiment 2. Average number and length of pauses
between clutches at different levels of
egg production in Broad Breasted Bronze
turkeys.

90

 
  
   
  
  
 
  
  
 
  

PAUSE. L.ENGTH

DAY

v’v -_

Q Q I

4

6:0:0‘

"‘O.I
e-

’0

DAY

 

so
3 DAY

EU]
[34 DAY
2

DAYS FROM LAST
OVIPOSIT'ION To END
OF EYPERIMENT

«40
3()

2(3

0'39 40-55 56-70 7k-85
(4~) (7 ) (II ) (.5 )

cup
~w+

NUMBER or £663 PER BIRD
(NUMBER OF BIRDS)

NUMBER OF PAUSES

49

Fig. 11 - ExPeriment 2: Average number and length of pauses

9.»)

60 0%

50 n

30"

20“

 

 

\V\‘\\\\‘\\\\\\\\‘\\\\\\:hwm

 

 

between clutches at different levels of
egg production in Beltsville Small White
turkeys.

E ! DAY
3 2 om
[HI] 3 DAY
[I] 4 W

DAYS FROM LAST'
OVWOSuT'iON To END
0F EXPERIMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J:
2i;
:-
Iiii
2 EEE
E ESE
a HH-
7 E 55-:
g a a;
/ /__ : :43
/~ -« ~ ~11
/ / q E :::
a 4:: 5 559
* ‘/EEE E / ‘1
fl figi g / ~
J :..I . /-**
%:s 2 4:
‘/:: : /:_.
/': E 43
/=:‘ a 4:
/* [HE
030 ‘ 31-50 ' W 6740 ' I 71:96 3H
(5) 02) (5) (IO) (2)

NUMBER OF EGGS PER SiRD

(NUMBER OF

BIRDS)

H.

50

throughout the eXperimental period (Figure 7).
Interval of time and delay between successive eggs (Egperiment 2)

The first egg of the clutch was laid progressively earlier
in the day as the clutch length increased; likewise, as the
clutch length increased, the last egg of the clutch was laid
progressively later in the day (Tables 19 and 20). The BBB
laid 80 percent and the BSW laid 92 percent of their eggs in
the afternoon. The average interval between successive eggs
of a clutch was 26 hours and 46 minutes (85“) and 25 hours
and 48 minutes (BBB). The average interval was 27 hours and
12 minutes (85") and 26 hours and 30 minutes (BBB) between
the first and second egg of all clutches having 2 or more
eggs. The interval of time was generally shorter between
successive eggs of the longer than between successive eggs
of the shorter clutches; and in general, there was a longer
interval between the next to last egg and the last egg of the
clutch than between any other two successive eggs of the
clutch.

The delay or lag in time of day laid between successively
laid eggs was generally greater in short than in long clutches;
and the interval between the first two eggs and between the
last two eggs of the clutch was greater than that between
intervening eggs (Figure 12). The average lag between the
first and last egg within a clutch was 5.5 hours for the BSW
hens laying their eggs in 2, 3 or 4-egg clutches and 6.3 hours
for the BBB hens laying their eggs in 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or

8-egg clutches.

Table 19. Experiment 2. Average time of lay and average interval between

successive eggs (Broad Breasted Bronze)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clutch
length l 2 3 4 S 6 7
(eggs)
Egg number ‘1/
in clutch Time of lay (hour and minutes)
1 40 12:20 11:40 11:20 11:20 11:30 9:30
2 4:30 1:30 1:10 12:40 1:30 1:20
3 5:20 2:30 2:10 1:45 1:00
4 5:30 2:40 1:45 4:00
5 5:30 3:20 1:30
6 6:10 4:15
7 7:00
Interval between eggs (hours and minutes)
1-2 28:10 25:50 25:50 25:20 26:00 27:50
2-3 27:50 24:20 25:30 24:15 23:40
3-4 27:00 24:30 24:00 27:00
4-5 26:50 25:35 21:30
5-6 26:50 26:45
6-7 26:45

 

.l/ All times reported are between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.

51

Table 20. Experiment 2. Average time of lay and average interval between
successive eggs (Beltsville Small White)

Clutch length

 

(eggs) 1 2 3 4
Egg number l/
in clutch Time of lay (hour and minutes)
1 3:55 1:00 11:30 1:10
2 5:50 2:20 3:10
3 6:10 2:10
z. n 6: 20

Interval between eggs (hours and minutes)

1-2 28:50 26:50 26:00
2-3 27:50 23:00
3-4 28:10

 

.1/ All times reported are between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.

52

53

Fig. 12 - BXperiment 2: The delay or lag in time of day laid between
successive eggs in a clutch.

A 2-egg clutch is represented by one bar, a 3-egg clutch by two bars,
etc. For the 3-egg clutch, the lag between the first and second egg
from the BSW was 2.83 and between the second and third egg, 3.83 hours

(second black bar). The accumulative lag (white bar) between the first
and third egg was 6.67 hours.

53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

— cl)". _
f Q
~ HNIIIII , . 33.05 I. s
Hm
n-II.II “lwfiIFHu, WNW
—
HI. ”I: I
E r
T
H
w 7
L
l—
A n
M IN
S o
R
E b
.L .0
u D
V E.
S T
T II. 3
L A
E E
B R 5
a
II D
t w, 4
B
5
I 2
u u u a — — J - .E
o b o. o. o o. o o o a a no a
6 5 4 3 2 I o 4. o 9 8 u z
2501 2. 0.3 mayo: 2. a.)

IN THE ELLUTC H

EGGS

I.

54

Ovulation time,eggformation time and oviduct length (Experiment 4)

The data presented in Table 21 show that the turkey hen

ovulates 15-30 minutes after oviposition. The preceding and

following information on egg formation, egg passage and ovulation

times are based on the intercept of the second egg in the clutch.

The following observations were made:

b.

Co

15 minutes after oviposition - Ovulation, in one instance,
had occurred; however, the ovum (yolk) had not yet entered
the infundibulum. The other two hens had not ovulated,
but when handled, one follicle in the ovary of each hen
ruptured along the stigma. All of the other follicles

so handled were torn away from the ovary prOper rather
than ruptured.

30 minutes after oviposition - Two of the three hens in
this group had ovulated and the ovum (yolk ) was present
in the infundibulum. One follicle of the third bird
ruptured along the stigma when handled.

1 hour after oviposition - The ovum (yolk) was present
in the magnum and had thick albumen enclosing the yolk

in two of the hens. The egg in the other hen had no
albumen about the ovum (yolk).

2 hours after oviposition - The ovum (yolk) was located
more caudally in the magnum than at 1 hour. There was
also more thick albumen enclosing the yolk than there

had been in the birds sacrificed at 1 hour.

3 hours after oviposition - The ovum (yolk), enclosed

by thick albumen, was in the lower one-third of the magnum

Table 21.

 

Experiment 4.
White turkey

 

 

 

Position in oviduct

 

Egg formation time in the Beltsville Small

 

 

 

Bird Time _ _2_/ Number of 2/
number sacrificed cm Place eggswlaid
77 15 min. -- -- 8
91 15 " -- -- 12
95 15 " -- -- 5
76 30 min. "' II- 5
85 3O " 3.0 Infundibulum 7
99 30 ” 5.0 " 3
101 1 hour 20.0 Magnum 12
103 l " 12.5 " 13
104 ” 25.0 " 15
83 2 hours 22.0 Magnum 7
94 2 " 30.0 " 5
102 2 ” 29.5 ” 9
98 3 hours 57.0 Isthmus 18
96 3 " 42.0 Magnum 8
107 3 " 47.0 " 5
87 5 hours 80.0 Uterus 5
93 5 " 63.0 Isthmus 7
97 5 " 62.5 " 9
82 8 hours 71.0 Uterus 5
105 8 ” 68.5 " 7
108 8 " 65.0 " 4
78 12 hours 62.5 Uterus 5
80 12 " 65.0 " 6
100 12 ” 63.0 " 6
79 24 hours 60.0 Uterus 6
88 24 " 66.5 " 7
92 24 " 59.5 ” 6
75 26 hours 61.0 Uterus 8
89 26 " 58.0 " 7
86 26 ” 61.5 " 4
1/ Time after oviposition of first egg in the clutch.

'27
:/

centimeters from Opening of the infundibulum to the egg.
Number of eggs laid prior to sacrificing.

h.

56

in two of the hens. The other hen had the ovum (yolk)
present in the isthmus with the inner shell membrane
present.

5 hours after oviposition - Observations on three hens
showed that in two cases the egg was in the isthmus, while
in the other case, the egg was in the uterus but had no
outer thin albumen present. The shell membranes were
present on all three eggs.

8 hours after oviposition - The egg in each hen was
present in the uterus. Each of the eggs was plump;
however, shell deposition was not apparent.

12 hours after oviposition - Shell was being deposited
on the egg's shell membranes in the uterus. The shell
was not solid on one egg; however, the other two eggs
did have solid shell.

24 hours after oviposition - In all three hens the egg
was in the uterus and had a solid, white shell. There
was no visible pigment on the shell at this time.

26 hours after oviposition - The egg was present in the
uterus and in two of the three cases there was pigment
deposited on the shell; however, this pigment was

easily removed by rubbing. Visible chalaza were present
in two of the three eggs.

Therefore, it would appear that during the formation of

an egg, the time in the infundibulum is 15-30 minutes; the

time in the magnum is 2%-3 hours; the time in the isthmus is

l-lk hours; the time in the uterus is 22-24 hours, and in the

57

vagina the time is probably nominal.

The average lengths of the parts of the functional
oviduct were 11.7 cm for the infundibulum, 41.3 cm for the
magnum, 12.0 cm for the isthmus, 6.2 cm for the uterus and
4.8 cm for the vagina (Table 22). The average total length

of the functional BSW turkey's oviduct was 76.0 cm.

Table 22. Experiment 4.

Average lengths of the various parts of the
oviduct in the Beltsville Small White turkey

 

Length of oviduct (gm)

 

 

 

Bird Infundi-
number __g bulum Magnum Isthmus Uterus Vagina Total
77 12.5 40.5 13.0 7.0 5.0 78.0
91 12.5 36.0 14.0 6.0 5.0 73.5
95 11.0 41.0 11.0 7.0 4.5 74.5
76 12.0 42.0 13.0 5.5 4.0 76.5
85 10.5 33.0 11.0 5.5 3.0 63.0
99 13.0 44.0 16.0 8.0 5.0 86.0
101 18.0 41.5 12.5 5.5 5.0 82.5
103 9.5 39.5 13.5 5.0 5.0 72.5
104 12.5 46.0 13.0 6.5 5.0 83.0
83 11.0 41.0 13.5 9.5 5.0 80.0
94 12.0 43.0 12.0 8.0 5.0 80.0
102 12.5 40.5 11.0 6.5 5.0 75.5
98 14.0 39.0 10.5 5.0 5.0 73.5
96 12.0 37.0 9.5 6.0 5.0 69.5
107 16.0 41.5 9.5 5.5 4.5 77.0
87 12.5 56.0 11.5 7.0 5.5 92.5
93 13.0 37.0 19.0 6.0 6.0 81.0
97 9.5 43.0 11.0 6.0 5.0 74.5
82 11.5 45.5 14.0 6.0 5.0 82.0
105 12.0 45.0 11.5 6.5 4.5 79.5
108 11.0 42.0 12.0 7.0 5.0 77.0
78 11.0 40.0 11.5 5.5 5.0 73.5
80 11.0 41.0 13.0 6.5 4.5 76.0
100 11.5 42.0 9.5 5.0 4.5 72.5
79 11.0 39.0 10.0 5.5 4.0 69.5
88 9.0 43.5 14.0 6.0 5.0 77.5
92 11.0 40.0 8.5 7.0 5.0 71.5
75 10.0 39.5 11.5 5.5 4.0 69.5
89 9.0 41.0 8.0 5.0 4.5 67.5
86 10.5 38.5 12.5 5.5 4.5 71.5
Awerage 11.7 41.3 12.0 6.2 4.8 76.0
Std. error
of mean + 0.3 + 0.7 + 0.4 3'0.2 + 0.1 + 1.1

58

DISCUSSION

The reproductive performance of BBB and BSW turkey hens
can be altered by employing various light regimes throughout the
growing period. The results obtained indicate that either
restricting or decreasing the daylength during the growing period
will eliminate the apparent refractiveness of the hypothalmic-
hypophyseal system to light during the late summer and early fall
months. Similar conclusions were obtained by Leighton and Shoffner
(1961) and McCartney 52.21. (1961) with a restricted light regime
and by Clayton and Robertson (1960) with a decreasing light regime.
Turkey hens receiving experimental photOperiod equal to that of
natural daylength were refractive to a daylength increase at 28
weeks of age. The evidence for this refractiveness is based on the
cessation of egg production by the BSW turkey hens and the average
length of time required for the BBB females to produce their first
egg following the daylength increase at 28 weeks of age. Length
of day, increasing or decreasing daylength and time when the
decreasing or increasing daylength occurred was very important
in controlling or stimulating egg production in turkey hens.

Thus, out-of—season (late summer and early fall) egg
production is possible in turkeys if the proper light regime
(restricted or decreasing light program) is provided during the
growing period. The disadvantage of the restricted light program
is that it requires a completely darkened building; otherwise
light reaching the birds during the latter part of the growing
period will probably cause stimulation of the reproductive system.

Therefore, the birds will probably not respond to a subsequent

59

60

light increase. A restricted light program also increases the
ventilation hazards during hot weather or electrical power failure.
The advantage of the decreasing light program is that birds are
always receiving more light daily than that occurring naturally;
therefore, no special environmental controls are needed.

Increasing the photOperiod 15 minutes weekly during the
reproductive period did not significantly increase the reproductive
performance of the turkey hens used in this study. However,
increasing the photOperiod to 15 or 16 hours instead of 14 hours
daily at 28 weeks of age generally decreased the number of days to
the first egg.

The data obtained in this study indicate that, in general,
within a given strain and/or variety of turkey hens, those hens
producing the greatest number of eggs will have the highest daily
feed intake. It also appears that those hens deviating most
drastically from the average weight for the strain and/or variety
will generally be the poorest egg producers. However, the data
relating weekly egg production, body weight and feed consumption
show that the largest hens were capable of high egg production for
short periods of time; but sustained reproductive performance was
generally lacking in the heavier hens. Daily feed intake of the
turkey hens varied with intensity of egg production, body weight
and genetic potential (BBB vs BSW). The hormonal balance may
also have been a factor influencing the food intake. This aspect
is suggested from the observations of a decreased food intake when
egg production began and a decreased food intake following the

onset of broodiness. The drop in daily feed consumption concurrent

61

with the onset of egg production is unexplainable from the data
obtained, although Meites (1949) injected natural and synthetic
estrogen into rats and concluded that diethylstilbestrol (an
estrogenic compound) curtails growth in rats principally by
decreasing appetite while natural estrogens (estradiol) inhibit
growth without any corresponding decrease in appetite.;

The decrease in body weight following the onset of egg
production is in agreement with the data reported by Asmundson
ggwgl.(l946), in the Annual Report of the Indiana Agricultural
Experiment Station (1934) and by Harper (1950). Thus, it appears
that the turkey hen may draw upon her body stores in order to
maintain egg production. The utilization of body stores is quite
apparent when one calculates calorie intake in the feed, maintenance
calories required (Brody, 1945) and caloric output in the egg
(Romanoff and Romanoff, 1949) for the BSW turkey hen. Caloric
input and output data during the first four weeks of egg production
in the BSW turkey hens which received treatment 4 shows that they
did not eat enough feed to meet the caloric requirements for
maintenance and egg production (Appendix, Table 3). Therefore,
it appears that these turkey hens utilized their body stores in
order to maintain egg production. An evaluation of the data
obtained on nitrogen balance of BSW turkeys at onset of oviposition
indicates that the body weight loss may partially be due to
catabolism of the muscle protein because at this time the turkeys
were in a negative nitrogen balance. However, the utilization
of body fat deposits or a shift in the water content of body
tissues may also explain the body weight decrease that occurred

when egg production began.

62

In general, the turkeys receiving the restricted light
program gained less than the birds receiving any of the other light
programs from 4 to 19 or 21 weeks of age. The decreased growth
rate may have resulted from a lowered feed intake by the birds on
the restricted light program. Thus, the lowered feed intake data
indicates that the decreased daylength may have prevented Optimum
feed consumption, thereby preventing maximum growth. However,
an evaluation of the economic factors involved would be necessary
before one lighting program could be judged superior in growing
turkeys as market birds. The most important factors would probably
be feed cost differences, body weight differences, feed conversion,
carcass quality and feathering. That feed conversion and growth
rate are influenced by daylength has been shown by McCartney (1956).
His research indicated that turkeys reaching market age during
the winter months when the days are short should be artificially
lighted to provide at least 13 hours of light per day to attain
maximum growth at 20 weeks of age.

The egg formation and ovulation times in the BSW
turkey resemble those obtained by Warren and Scott (1935) for the
chicken. However, it would appear that the longer egg formation
time in the turkey probably results from additional time spent in
the uterus. The average observed time the egg was in the various
parts of the BSW turkey's oviduct was comparable to that reported
by Asmundson (1939) for the BBB and a large white variety. However,
the average length of the functional BSW turkey oviduct was shorter
than the oviducts he measured. This difference may have resulted

from the length of the reproductive period before the oviducts

63

were measured. The BSW turkey females used in this study had
produced only a maximum of 18 eggs; whereas, the turkey females
used by Asmundson (1939) had gone through a six-month reproductive
period.

The data obtained on egg shell pigmentation agrees with
that reported by Warren and Conrad (1942). Thus it appears that
pigment deposition occurs only during the last 2 to 3 hours before
oviposition in the turkey female.

Although two eggs were not observed in the oviducts of
any of the BSW turkeys sacrificed, the possibility still exists
that a second yolk may be ovulated and start down the oviduct
while the first egg is still in the uterus. The reason for suggesting
this possibility is that several turkey hens, both BSW and BBB, in
Experiment 1, were observed to lay two eggs in one 24 hour period.
Secondly, it was observed that several of the eggs in the multiple
egg clutches (4 or more eggs) had a time interval of less than
23 hours (Tables 19 and 20). The egg formation time may be shorter
in these hens; however, since Warren and Scott (1935) observed two
eggs in the chicken oviduct at one time and since Arrington.g£.gl.
(1962) observed two eggs in the quail oviduct at one time, it is
more likely that the extreme shortened intervals of 16 to 20 hours
between eggs is primarily due to two eggs passing through the ovi-
duct at one time.

The dependence of egg production on intensity and
persistency was emphasized by the results obtained in this study.
High producing turkey hens (86 eggs or more) had fewer pauses,

shorter pauses, longer clutches and more clutches than did the low

64

producers. (39 eggs or less). In general, there was a shorter
interval between the eggs produced in multiple egg-clutches than
in the 2-egg clutches.

These data do not explain the reason for turkeys laying
a larger percentage of their eggs in the afternoon (80 percent,
BBB; 92 percent, BSW). Although the percent of eggs laid in the
afternoon was higher in this study than that reported by other
researchers (Stockton and Asmundson, 1950; Rosin and Abplanalp,
1951; Payne and Ortman, 1956), the results are not in disagreement
with their conclusion that turkeys lay more of their eggs in the
afternoon. However, it appears possible to obtain turkeys that
start their clutches in the early morning because it was observed
that the first egg of multiple egg clutches was laid in the fore-
noon while the first egg of the l or 2-egg clutches was laid in
the afternoon. Since the turkey ovulated at about the same time
following oviposition as the chicken, this doesn't explain the
differences in the time of lay (forenoon vs afternoon). It may
be postulated that the turkey's afternoon oviposition time could
partially result from egg formation requiring 2-4 more hours in
the turkey (26-28 hours) than in the chicken (24-26 hours; Warren
and Scott, 1935). However, it is more likely that the time
elapsing between the release of luteinizing hormone (LH) and
ovulation are different for the chicken and turkey. For example,
the egg laying cycle of the chicken can be predicted from the
following assumptions:

1. Average egg formation time of 25.5 hours (Warren and

Scott, 1935).

3.

5.

7.

LH release
Ovulation

Oviposition

65

Interval between LH release and ovulation averages 7
hours (Rothchild, 1946; Rothchild and Fraps, 1949).
Ovulation occurs an average of 30.7 minutes after ovi-
position (Warren and Scott, 1935).

No LH release will occur during the lighted hours,
probably because of activity (McNally, 1947; Fraps
5531., 1947).

Release of LH for first egg of the clutch occurs
approximately 2-3 hours after the lights are turned

off (Fraps, 1959).

The lag in hours between the first and third egg of a
3-egg clutch is 2.6 hours; and the lag in hours between
the second and third egg of a clutch is 3.4 hours
(Sturkie, 1954).

The hens receive 14 hours of light daily (5:00 a.m. -
7:00 p.m.). Then each 3-egg cycle (clutch + day of skip)
would show the following times of ovulation, LH release
and oviposition.

Day #1 Day #2 Day #3 Day #4 Day #5 Day #6 Day #7
10:00 £25312z36 am 4:00 am None 10:00 pm 12:36 am 4:00 am

\
None 5:00 am 7:36 11:00 am None \\\‘ 5:00 ;;F‘7:36 am

12:30 pm None 6:30 am 9:06 am 12:30 pm None 6:30 am

//
/“""/

However, in the BSW turkey hen, it appears that ovulation

occurs 30 minutes after oviposition, egg formation time averages

26 hours and 40 minutes and the lag in hours between eggs 1 and 3

is 6 hours and 40 minutes, between eggs 1 and 2 is 2 hours and 50

minutes and between eggs 2 and 3 is 3 hours and 50 minutes in the

66

3-egg clutches. Then, it seems possible that the interval of time
between LH release and ovulation approaches 12 hours. The 3-egg
cycle for turkeys receiving 16 hours of light (4:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m.)
would show the following times for ovulation, LH release and ovi-

position:

Day #1 Day #2 Day #3 Day #4 Day #5 Day #6 Day #7

LH release 9:00 pm 11:50 pm 3:40 am None 9:00 pm 11:50 pm 3:40 am

Ovulation None

Oviposition 6:20 pm None 11:40 am 2:30

\

9:00 am 11:50

\

/
/

3:40 None 9:00 am 11:50 am

6:20\

pm None 11:40 am

//
fl/

'3/‘5/

/

Thus, the projected oviposition times of 11:40 a.m., 2:30 p.m., and
6:20 p.m. compared favorably with the average actual times observed
(Table 20) of 11:30 a.m., 2:20 p.m. and 6:10 p.m. for the BSW
turkey hens laying in 3-egg clutches. Therefore, the afternoon
laying habit of the turkey appears to result from a longer time
interval between LH release and ovulation than that observed in

the chicken.

SUMMARY

Individual egg production, body weight and feed
consumption data were obtained on two varieties of turkey hens,
Beltsville Small White (BSW) and Broad Breasted Bronze (BBB),
following exposure to various light regimes during the growing
and subsequent reproductive period. Data were also collected on
oviposition time, ovulation time, egg formation time, oviduct length,
clutch length and egg weight.

Feed intake, regardless of light regime or variety,
increased sharply 10-14 days prior to onset of egg production;
however, during the two weeks following this point, feed
consumption decreased 10-30 percent. Feed consumption averaged
252 grams (.55 lbs.) daily per hen for the BBB and 137 grams
(.30 lbs.) daily per hen for the BSW turkey hens during the
reproductive period. Partial correlation values calculated for
egg production, body weight and feed consumption indicate that
egg production and body weight are negatively correlated; egg
production and feed consumption are positively correlated and body
weight and feed consumption are positively correlated in both
varieties.

Ovulation in the BSW turkeys used in this study occurred
15-30 minutes after oviposition. Deposition of shell on the egg
was started 11-12 hours after ovulation and the shell pigment
was deposited during the last 2-3 hours the egg was in the uterus.
From the data obtained, it is suggested that the egg was in the
infundibulum 15-30 minutes, in the magnum 2k-3 hours, in the .

isthmus l-lk hours and in the uterus 22-24 hours.

67

68

The average interval between successive eggs of a clutch
was 26 hours and 46 minutes (BSW) and 25 hours and 48 minutes (BBB).
This time interval was generally shorter between successive eggs
of four and more egg clutches than between the two eggs of two-
egg clutches.

Egg weight increased 21 grams in the BSW and 24 grams
in the BBB turkeys during the experimental period (28 weeks of
lay). The average egg weight was 69 and 84 grams for the BSW
and the BBB, respectively.

The body weight of both varieties, regardless of
lighting regime, increased until onset of egg production. Within
4 to 5 weeks after egg production began, body weight decreased.

In the first year of the study the birds did not regain the weight
lost following the start of reproduction; however, in the second
year this was not the case. In both varieties, the hens which
received the restricted photOperiod during the growing period were
lighter than the other groups at the time they were placed in cages
(19 or 21 weeks of age) and, in general, were significantly lighter
throughout the experiments.

From the data obtained, it appears that either restricting
or decreasing the photOperiod during the growing period wdll enhance
the turkey's out-of-season egg production. Females which had
received a photOperiod equal to that of natural daylight during
the growing period (March 21 to October 10) produced their first
eggs l6 (BSW) and 20 (BBB) days later and produced significantly
fewer eggs during the reproductive period than did turkey hens

on either the restricted or decreasing photOperiod.

69

Thus, the data indicate that turkey hens can be stimulated
to produce eggs during the late summer and early fall months by
proper management of the photoperiod during the growing phase.
However, the light treatments used in this study did not extend
the length of the reproductive period beyond that which occurs

under natural lighted conditions.

LITERATURE CITED

Albright, W. P., and R. B. Thompson, 1933. Securing early turkeys by
stimulated egg production. Poultry Sci. 12:124-128.

Annual Report Indiana Agricultural Experiment Station, 1934.
Variations in weight of mature turkeys. p. 55.

Arrington, L. C., H. Abplanalp, and W. O. Wilson, 1962. Experimental
modifications of the laying pattern in Japanese quail.
British Poultry Sci. 3:105-113.

Asmundson, V. 8., 1939. The formation of the egg in the oviduct of
the turkey (Meleagris Gallopavo). J. Exp. 2001. 82:287-304.

Asmundson, V. 5., F. W. Lorenz and B. D. Moses, 1946. Influence of
light intensity on ovulation in turkeys. Poultry Sci.
25:346-354.

Asmundson, V. 5., and B. D. Moses, 1950. Influence of length of day
on reproduction in turkey hens. Poultry Sci. 29:34-41.

Berg, R. W., 1953. Some relationships of certain body measurements
to meat yield and reproductive performance in turkeys.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota Library,
March, 1953.

Brody, S., 1945. Bioenergetics and Growth. Reinhold Publishing
Corporation, New York, N. Y.

Carrick, C. W., 1940. Artificial lights stimulate hatching egg
production in turkeys. Annual Rept. Indiana Agr..EXpt. Sta.
p. 92-93.

Clayton, G. A., and A. Robertson, 1960. Light induction of out of
season reproduction in the turkey. British Poultry Sci.
1:17-23s

Davis, G. T., 1948. The influence of continuous light on reproductive
performance in turkeys. Poultry Sci. 27:658.

Dixon, W. J., and F. J. Massey, Jr., 1957. Introduction £2 Statistical
Analysis. 2nd Ed. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

Fraps, R. M., B. H. Neher and I. Rothchild, 1947. The imposition of
diurnal ovulatory and temperature rhythms of periodic
feeding of hens maintained under continuous light.
Endocrinol. 40:241-250.

Fraps, R. M., 1959. What controls ovulation 7 Agriculture Research.
UsSsDeAe 833-50

70

71

Funk, E. M., 1950. The relation of body weight of turkey hens to egg

Greene,

Harper,

Harper,

Harper,

Harper,

Harper,

Jensen,

Rondra,

production, egg weight, percentage of hatch and viability
of poults. Poultry Sci. 29:64-66.

D. E., R. C. Eaton, F. W. Garland, Jr., and H. L. Wilcke, 1962.
The influence of daylength during the developing period on
subsequent reproductive performance of turkeys. Poultry Sci.

J. A., 1949. The rate of response of turkey hens to artificial
light as related to reproduction. Poultry Sci. 28:312-314.

J. A., 1950. Change in body weight and conformation of Broad
Breasted Bronze turkeys during the breeding season. Poultry
Sci. 29:98-103.

J. A., and J. E. Parker, 1957. Changes in seasonal egg
production of turkeys induced through controlled light
exposure and force molting. Poultry Sci. 36:967-973.

J. A., and J. E. Parker, 1960. Effect of restricted light
and hormones on subsequent egg production of winter hatched
turkeys. Poultry Sci. 39:900-903.

J. A., and J. E. Parker, 1962. Effect of fall hatch date and
length of light restriction on the photOperiodic response of
turkey females. Poultry Sci. 31:493-497.

L. S., and J. McGinnis, 1961. Nutritional investigations with
turkey hens. 1. Quantitative requirements for protein.
Poultry Sci. 40:288-293.

P. A., and R. N. Shoffner, 1955. Heratibility of some body
measurements and reproductive characters in turkeys.
Poultry Sci. 34:1262-1267.

Rosin, I. L., 1948. Observations on the egg laying patterns in

turkeys. Poultry Sci. 27:671.

Rosin, I. L., and H. Abplanalp, 1951. The pattern of egg laying in

turkeys. Poultry Sci. 30:168-179.

Leighton, A. T., Jr., and R. N. Shoffner, 1961. Effect of light regime

and age on reproduction of turkeys. 1. Effect of 15, 24
hour and restricted light treatment. Poultry Sci. 40:861-870.

Leighton, A. T., Jr., and R. N. Shoffner, 1961. Effect of light regime

and age on reproduction of turkeys. 2. Restricted vs.
unrestricted light. Poultry Sci. 40:871-884.

Margolf, P. H., J. A. Harper and E. W. Callenback, 1947. ReSponse

of turkeys to artificial illumination. Pennsylvania Agr.
Eth. Sta. Balls N0. (0869

72

Marr, J. E., F. W. Garland, Jr., J. L. Milligan, and H. L. Wilcke, 1956.
Effect of controlled light during the growing period upon

subsequent performance of breeder turkeys. Poultry Sci.
35:1156.

Marsden, S. J., 1936. A study of egg production in Bronze turkeys.
Poultry Sci. 15:439-445.

Marsden, S. J., and R. M. Fraps, 1960. Effect of light intensity
on reproduction in turkeys. Poultry Sci. 39:1272.

McCartney, M. C., 1956. The effect of day-length on rate of growth,
feed conversion, feathering and market quality of turkeys.
Poultry Sci. 35:468-475.

McCartney, M. C., V. L. Sanger, R. I. Brown, and V. C. Chamberlin,
1961. Photoperiodism as a factor in the reproduction of the
turkey. Poultry Sci. 40:368-376.

McCartney, M. G., 1962. Heritabilities and correlations for reproductive
traits in a randombred population of turkeys. Poultry Sci.
41:168-174.

McNally, E. H., 1947. Some factors that affect oviposition in the
domestic fowl. Poultry Sci. 26:396-399.

Meites, J., 1949. Relation of food intake to growth depressing
action of natural and artificial estrogens. Am. J. Physiol.
159:281-286.

Milby, T. T., and R. E. Thompson, 1942. The effect of artificial
light in reproduction in poultryz'With special reference
to turkeys. Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 22:41-44.

Mitchell, R. H., C. R. Creger, R. E. Davies, R. L. Atkinson,
T. M. Ferguson, and J. R. Couch, 1962. The effect of
restricted feeding of Broad Breasted Bronze turkeys during
the holding period on subsequent reproductive performance.
Poultry Sci. 41:91-98.

Moore, J. M., and A. M. Berridge, 1934. Michigan turkeys. Ext.
Bull. 137, Michigan State College.

Ogasawara, F. X., V. S. Asmundson, and W. O. Wilson, 1959. The effect
of restricting light during the adolescent period on repro-
ductive performance in turkeys subsequently exposed to a 12-
and 14-hour day. Poultry Sci. 38:1233.

Ogasawara, F. X., W. O. Wilson, and V. S. Asmundson, 1962. The effect
of restricting light during the adolescent period on repro-
ductive performance in turkeys subsequently exposed to a 12-,
14- and 20-hour day. Poultry Sci. 41:1858-1863.

73

Parker, J. E., 1947. The influence of season on reproduction in
turkeys. Poultry Sci. 26:118-121.

Parker, J. E., and J. A. Harper, 1950. The relation of breast width
and body weight to reproduction in turkey hens. Poultry

Payne, L., and L. Ortman, 1956. Egg production patterns in turkeys.
Poultry Sci. 35:1201-1206.

Payne, L. F., and G. R. McDaniel, 1958. Fluorescent lights for
turkey breeders. Poultry Sci. 37:722-726.

Payne, L., P. B. Siegel, and L. Ortman, 1957. Correlation of dam,
egg, poult and adult weights in Broad Breasted Bronze
turkeys. Poultry Sci. 36:572-575.

Robblee, A. R., and D. R. Clandinin, 1959. The relationship of
energy and protein to reproductive performance in
turkey breeders.Poultry Sci. 38:141-145.

Romanoff, A. L., and A. J. Romanoff, 1949. The Avian Egg. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N. Y.

Rothchild, 1., 1946. The time of release of the ovulating hormone
from the anterior pituitary of domestic hens. Anat.
Rec. 96:542.

Rothchild, 1., and R. M. Fraps, 1949. The induction of ovulating
hormone release from the pituitary of the domestic fowl
by means of progesterone. Endocrinol. 44:141-149.

Scott, H. M., and L. F. Payne, 1937. Light in relation to the
experimental modification of the breeding season of
turkeys. Poultry Sci. 16:90-96.

Scott, H. M., and L. F. Payne, 1941. The influence of restricted
food intake on the reproductive performance of breeding
turkeys. Poultry Sci. 20:395-401. '

Shoffner, R. N., C. R. Polley, R. E. Burger, and E. L. Johnson,
1962. Light regulation in turkey management. 1. Effect
on body weight (growth). Poultry Sci. 41:1560-1562.

Shoffner, R. N., C. R. Polley, R. E. Burger, and E. L. Johnson,
1962. Light regulation in turkey management. 2. Female
reproductive performance. Poultry Sci. 41:1563-1569.

Siegel, P. B., and C. E. Howes, 1959. Age at lighting and egg
production of Bronze and Large White turkeys. Virginia
Agr. EXpt. Sta. Bull. No. 503.

Simpson, G. C., A. Row, and R. C. Lewontin, 1960. Quantitative
Zoology. Revised Ed., Harcourt, Brase and Company,
New York.

74

Smyth, J. R., Jr., D. L. Anderson, and R. Gleason, 1961. The effect
of light on performance and behavior in diethylstilbestrol-
treated male turkey broilers. Poultry Sci. 40:258-260.

Stockton, R. L., and V. S. Asmundson, 1950. Daily rhythm of egg
production in turkeys. Poultry Sci. 29:477-479.

Sturkie, P. D., 1954. Avian Physiology. Comstock Publishing
Associates, Ithaca, New York.

Warren, D. C., and H. M. Scott, 1935. The time factor in egg
formation. Poultry Sci. 14:195-207.

Warren, D. C., and R. M. Conrad, 1942. Time of pigment deposition
in brown shelled hen eggs and in turkey eggs. Poultry
Sci. 21:515-520.

Whitson, D., S. J. Marsden, and H. Titus, 1944. A comparison of
the performance of four varieties of turkeys during the
breeding season. Poultry Sci. 23:314-320.

Wilcke, H. L., 1939. The use of artificial lights for turkeys.
Poultry Sci. 18:236-243.

Wilson, W. O., F. X. Ogasawara, and V. S. Asmundson, 1962.
Artificial control of egg production in turkeys by
photoperiods. Poultry Sci. 41:1168-1175.

Wolford, J. H., R. R. Ringer, T. H. Coleman, and H. C. lindel,
1962. Nicotine sulfate treatment of turkey breeder
hens housed in individual cages. Mich.Agr.Expt.Sta.
Quart.Bull. 44:759-762.

APPEND IX

75

Table 1. . Experiment 1. Pen and outside temperatures recorded after

the birds were placed in cages (20 weeks of age)

 

 

 

 

 

 

_1_/, _/
Age in Treatment 3,
weeks l-N 2 - R 3 - D Outside-
20-21 53.0 44-70 51.0 42-68 52.2 44-66
21-22 47.0 42-54 46.8 42-52 46.6 44-50 37.5 18-53
22-23 44.5 38-48 43.5 36-46 42.5 34-48 17.1 3*-3l
23-24 44.8 42-48 44.1 41-47 43.2 40-47 24.1 16-35
24-25 43.3 32-48 43.7 32-48 43.0 32-47 13.5 7*-42
25-26 46.0 44-48 45.5 44-48 45.3 42-48 24.0 5-38
26-27 46.5 46-50 47.2 46-50 45.8 43-48 26.4 5-43
27-28 47.4 44-54 46.0 44-54 46.0 42-48 32.1 15-54
28-29 45.3 44-48 45.7 43-49 44.6 40-48 12.4 8*-26
29-30 44.2 36-47 44.8 38-47 43.3 36-47 9.4 10*-22
30-31 45.4 42-46 45.2 42-46 43.5 40-46 12.2 10*-38
31-32 48.1 46-54 46.4 44-50 46.0 42-50 29.8 6-53
32-33 48.6 46-54 47.2 44-52 47.0 44-54 34.2 15-55
33-34 48.8 44-54 46.8 42-52 46.5 44-50 35.4 18-52
34-35 48.3 46-56 47.2 44-56 47.5 44-54 41.4 22-65
35-36 46.5 45-53 46.3 45-52 46.4 43-52 31.2 12-45
36-37 47.2 44-56 46.7 45-54 47.0 45-54 31.8 13-50
37-38 51.7 46-64 51.0 43-64 50.6 44-60 46.0 26-72
38-39 46.2 42-54 47.2 43-54 47.5 45-54 32.7 18-48
39-40 47.2 44-56 48.3 45-56 48.2 46-56 36.7 21-53
40-41 47.4 42-62 49.0 40-62 49.5 46-64 40.8 27-63
41-42 55.5 42-71 57.3 45-70 54.3 46-68 51.0 33-72
42-43 51.2 45-58 51.7 45-62 51.9 47-63 43.4 29-58
* Designates negative temperature .
1! N - natural light, R - restricted light, D - decreasing light.
2! Average pen temperature and the range during the week was based on

an 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. reading.

3] Average outside temperature and the range during the week was
based on data obtained from the U. S. Weather Bureau, Capital City
Airport, Lansing, Mich.

76

Table 2. . EXperiment 2. Pen and outside temperatures recorded after

the birds were placed in cages (19 weeks of age)

*7—

 

 

 

 

1/ '3/
Age in Treatment 2]
weeks 4 - D 5 - R 6 - N Outside
19-20 72.2 66-80 71.9 66-80 71.1 66-81 68.1 51-84
20-21 73.5 63-84 73.6 58-84 72.2 58-84 70.1 43-87
21-22 70.3 60-81 70.5 60-84 68.6 63-81 66.7 46-86
22-23 70.3 59-84 71.2 59-84 69.2 58-84 67.7 44-87
23-24 76.7 70-84 76.6 68-84 74.4 68-82 75.2 62-88
24-25 75.5 66-84 75.8 66-84 72.8 66-82 74.7 57-87
25-26 65.6 53-80 65.2 52-80 63.0 50-80 62.4 43-85
26-27 68.7 64-80 68.3 54-80 66.0 53-76 66.5 41-84
27-28 57.6 48-73 57.8 46-74 54.7 44-71 51.1 30-78
28-29 59.7 48-74 60.4 46-72 59.0 44-74 56.4 30-77
29-30 59.3 46-76 59.3 46-76 57.6 44-74 53.8 30-79
30-31 56.0 48-70 56.1 46-62 54.3 44-68 52.4 38-73
31-32 53.3 46-61 54.2 45-62 51.2 43-60 49.2 35-61
32-33 52.7 46-67 52.3 50-68 51.4 43-66 46.4 27-73
33-34 49.8 46-60 49.2 43-62 47.9 44-60 41.2 23-65
34-35 48.0 47-54 47.0 44-56 46.0 42-54 36.0 20-63
35-36 46.8 45-54 46.3 44-54 45.3 43-52 35.7 18-55
36-37 47.9 44-58 48.1 44-61 46.3 43-58 37.0 21-58
37-38 44.0 41-46 44.9 43-47 44.0 43-45 24.1 10-40
38-39 42.1 30-47 44.5 36-47 42.8 36-45 27.2 5-35
39-40 44.9 43-46 45.0 43-47 43.1 42-44 22.7 0-32
40-41 42.2 34-45 44.7 38-47 42.1 36-45 20.1 2*-41
41-42 44.0 41-46 45.2 44-47 42.9 40-44 15.2 2*-39
42-43 43.8 40-47 40.7 34-46 38.4 32-44 16.0 6*-34
43-44 42.7 40-46 44.0 42-46 41.4 38-44 17.7 13*-37
* Designates negative temperature.
1] N - natural light, R - restricted light, D - decreasing light.
2] Average pen temperature and the range during the week was based

on an 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. reading.

lu
\

Average outside temperature and the range during the week was

based on data obtained from the U. 8. Weather Bureau, Capital City
Airport, Lansing, Mich.

77

Table 2. .

EXperiment 2.

Pen and outside temperatures recorded after

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Cont'd) the birds were placed in cages (19 weeks of age)

y y
Age in Treatment 2!
weeks 4 - D 5 - R 6 - N Outside
44-45 44.2 42-46 45.0 42-47 43.0 39-44 17.1 4*-31
45-46 44.0 38-48 44.7 42-51 42.2 38-47 18.5 2*-50
46-47 42.9 39-46 43.9 39-46 41.6 36-44 21.0 3*-33
47-48 43.2 42-45 44.8 44-46 43.4 42-44 24.5 14-34
49-50 44.1 40-46 45.0 43-47 42.3 40-44 20.5 9*-36
50-51 45.4 43-48 46.2 44-50 44.5 43-48 33.7 25-43
51-52 45.2 44-46 45.1 44-48 43.7 42-46 33.7 23-44
52-53 45.9 44-52 46.7 42-55 46.2 43-54 42.8 22-75
53-54 49.0 44-66 49.7 44-66 48.5 42-66 35.5 21-50
54-55 46.7 44-59 47.4 44-59 45.5 42-59 40.5 24-59
55-56 47.3 44-59 47.2 43-60 45.5 38-60 36.5 23-58
56-57 51.6 44-65 52.5 44-66 50.1 41-63 55.2 29-84
57-58 64.4 46-76 64.9 46-76 58.3 42-74 59.4 42-83
* Designates negative temperature.
A! N - natural light, R - restricted light, D - decreasing light.
3! Average pen temperature and the range during the week was based on

an 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. reading.
Average outside temperature and the range during the week was

he
\

based on data obtained from the U. 8. Weather Bureau, Capital City
Ai rport, Lansing, Mi ch.

78

 

79

 

 

.uowuoaoo 00.« no vuuodsoHoo moon mo Baum you mouuoawu \m

.azov ma non Anemav upon: mo newsman so canon auuuoaoo oonoeoueaw: \«

.Aoeou .mwosoeom use muonmaomv wwo mo Baum won aumuouwo me.” no women auguo~mo wwm \m

.nouuosvoun,wwu no show an uauau any uo>o souuosvoum xw

.uwo no names on on unwuua upon \H

wwq~ ammo 55mm same can" n¢Og o“ «n.¢ .><
one 050a noes cane «5mg aofiu o“ mn.¢ ea
meow o-m mama ammo deed new ma ~n.¢ Nu
mmnfl ammo mama ammo «mum Nun" on ~n.¢ cu
monH oweo Oman anon duh mne o na.¢ «A
cam moom wwwn ammo swam mnNH on mn.¢ Nd
~0¢~ dawn ammu ammo mama mnna ON an.o an
Nam moan owon onus omuu Nos 0” oe.n w
maom nomm sgwu ammo wnwu meA cu on.¢ a
unnfi ouwo mama case mnHN «oua ma on.e N
used moan omen come meow anus mg us.¢ on
wnn Hows nmnm oono anon noun ma -.< ms
«neg same mean once mega «and mm ao.e o
ouunz "deem o-~>au~om

monououuao \m noguoawo A.nawv \m novuomoo \MIwooamoua A.aawv \M ammo \m a.muv .oz
ouuoauu pooh .usoo pooh oosooouounz nouuoaoo man .u) wan mo .oz .93 upon than

 

 

Aea ueoEusouH .N unoanuonxuv was: moxusu sous: "deem ounu>uu~on an
eomuoovoua wwo mo exams know oouau on» magnet uuoumom ovuouoo uau no esouuodsoueo dooguowoona .nw sunny

"D ’15-: ‘3" [1”le
”nil“: ‘ an.

a I

f

I
[7‘1