Effects of feed restriction on efficiency of egg production
by Edmund Guenthner
A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Master of Science in Animal Industry
Montana State University
© Copyright by Edmund Guenthner (1960)
Abstract:
Individual records of feed consumption, egg production, egg weight, body weight, and age at first egg
were compiled on 115 Cornell Randombred Strain of White Leghorn pullets during non-restricted and
restricted feeding periods of 121 days each.
Analysis of fifteen multiple regression equations for estimating feed consumption, calculated with
different combinations of the observed independent variables, during non-restricted and restricted
feeding, indicated that egg production and body weight were the major factors influencing feed
consumption.
The significance of the mean differences between gross efficiency and adjusted efficiency coefficients,
calculated for each pullet during non-restricted and restricted feeding, indicated that gross efficiency
coefficients were more satisfactory measures of efficiency than adjusted efficiency coefficients.
A comparison of the mean gross efficiency coefficients, during non-restricted and restricted feeding,
indicated that restricting feed intake 25 percent of predicted feed consumption significantly reduced
efficiency. The gross observed reduction was 29 percent. Restricting feed intake 12 1/2 per cent or
feeding at the rate of predicted feed consumption did not significantly reduce efficiency of egg
production.
EFFECTS OF FEED RESTRICTION ON. EFFICIENCY
. OF EGG PRODUCTION
by
EDMUND GUENTHNER
A THESIS
Submitted
to
the G raduate F a c u lty
in
p a rtia l fulfillm ent
for
M aster
of
of
the
the degree
Science
requirem ents
of
in Animal I n d u s t r y
at
Montana
State
College
Approved:
H'ead,"Major D epartm ent
Bozeman, Montana
A u g u s t , 1960
H i l t
4
-
<L> f 2-
ACKNOWLEDCEMENTS
Th e a u t h o r w i s h e s
t h e members of
assistance
of
the
sincere
extends
to D r. George
appreciation
Industry
experim ental m aterials
the m anuscript
Th e a u t h o r
Industry,
to ex p ress h is
th e D epartm ent of P o u l t r y
in handling
preparation
tion
2-
of t h i s
their
and i n
the
thesis.
s p e c i a l acknowledgements
T . Da v i s , He a d o f
for
to
and a p p r e c i a ­
the D epartm ent of P o u l t r y
D r . D a v i d W. Bl a c k m o r e , D e p a r t m e n t o f A n i m a l I n d u s t r y
and Range M an a g e m en t, and D r .
M athematics,
for
their
Charles
J . Mode, D e p a r t m e n t
g u i d a n c e and g e n u i n e
interest
of
in t h i s
study.
144877
—3*
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................
•
^ e
o
o
a
• ■© o
«
* * e '
c
e
e
© e •e
e
0- 0 * 0
INDEX TO TABLES .«»«■* ®
INDEX TO APPENDIX.
ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION
U.
J. A X W
W' - » A J - ^ - ' * ’ O O 0
0 O.
P
O- 0
0
0-0
0
2
0
. #1,
0
0 - 0 0 0 0
0
0
0' 0
0
0
* 0
0
0
0
*
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O 0 0 . 0 O - 0 0 0 O 0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0 . 0-0
O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O 0 0 0 O O * O 0 O O O .
0
0 0 0 0 0
,
0 0
0' 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 *
5
0
6
O1 » 0
0.0
0 0
0
REVIEW OF L I T E R A T U R E . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____ . . . . . . . . . .
of f e e d
restrictio n .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
PROCEDURES AND METHODS,0 0 0 0 0 OO0 0 0 0 OO0 O0 0 O0 O0 OO0 O0 0 * 00 00000
D efinition
7
9
C o m p o n e n t s o f e f f i c i e n c y . . ................ ............................................
Effects
4
9
11
13
of e f f i c i e n c y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
E x p e r i m e n t a I m a t e r i a l s . . . . . . . » . . . . . ... ©-. * . . . . . . . . ... . . . .
14
Experim ental p ro ced u res..
14
S ta tis tic a l m ethods....
CYMT^OT
V^ A1 AJ J V- ' i ^ k J 0 0
0 ' 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 © 0
10 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
O O 0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0O
0
0
O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
0- 0. 0 0 . 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 - 0
O- 0 0
0
0
0
0
O O 0
0 O 0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0
« 0 0 0
0
0
0
>'
RESULTS AND D I S C U S S I O N . . . . . ................ ........ ................................ ..
0 0 0 0
0' 0 0 0
0- 0- 0 0 0 0
0
*
0 0 0 0
15 „
17
a n d e f f i c i e n c y . . ...........
0
18
0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0
M e a s u r e s o f e f f i c i e n c y ................... . ..........................
Feed r e s t r i c t i o n
O 0
.
<
•
Components o f e f f i c i e n c y .
0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 * 9 0
0
0 * 0 0
18
26
29
■^ UMMARY
33
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
APPENDIX;
37
* 0 0 0
0- 0
0 - 0 0 0 0 0
0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O’ 0 9 0 0 0 0
0 0 * 0 0
0 0 * * * 0
-4-
INDEX TO TABLES
tables
Page
COMPARISON OF ESTIMATING EQUATIONS FOR FEED
CONSUMPTION,. USING DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS OF
VARIA BLES
O*
***;***
19
. II.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION
EQUATIONS I , 2 , 3 , 4., a n d 5 . . . . ; .................................. . . .
22
IIIe
ESTIMATING EQUATIONS, OVER-ALL AND BY GROUPS,
121 DAY PRODUCTION PERIODS, NON-RESTRICTED
AND RESTRICTED F E E D I N G . . . . . ....................... .. ............................
24
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ESTIMATING EQUATIONS
6 , a , b, c d , and 7, a , b, c , d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e ,
27
COMPARISON OF GROSS EFFICIENCY AND ADJUSTED
EFFICIENCY COEFFICIENTS AS MEASURES OF E F F I ­
CIENCY DURING NON-RESTRICTED AND RESTRICTED
FEEDI NG P E R I O D S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
GROUP MEANS AND OVER-ALL MEANS OF ACTUAL AND
ADJUSTED VALUES OF FOUR GROUPS OF PULLETS
DURING 121 DAYS NON-RESTRICTED AND 1 21 DAYS
RESTRICTED FEEDING------ . . . . . . . . . I . . -------. . . . . . . . . . . .
30
COMPARISON OF MEAN GROSS EFFICIENCY COEFFI ­
CIENTS. OF FOUR GROUPS OF PULLETS DURING 121
DAYS. RESTRICTED AND NON-RESTRICTED FEEDING. . . . . . . .
32
I.
IV.
V;.
■V I .
VII.
-S-
INDEX TO APPENDIX
Appendix Tables
I.
II.
Page
Group a .
INDIVIDUAL
DAY PRODUCTION PERIOD
Group b .
INDIVIDUAL :
DAY PRODUCTION PERIOD
III.
G r o u p c o INDIVIDUAL
DAY PRODUCTION PERIOD
IV.
Group d .
INDIVIDUAL
DAY PRODUCTION PERIOD
V.
Group a .
INDIVIDUAL :
DAY PRODUCTION PERIOD
VI.
Group b .
INDIVIDUAL :
DAY PRODUCTION PERIOD
VII.
Group c.
INDIVIDUAL :
DAY PRODUCTION PERIOD
VIII.
Group d .
INDIVIDUAL :
DAY PRODUCTION PERIOD
IX.
Group a .
INDIVIDUAL :
DAY PRODUCTION PERIOD
X.
Group b .
INDIVIDUAL J
DAY PRODUCTION PERIOD
'2
°
e
XI.
Group, c .
INDIVIDUAL :
•DAY PRODUCTION PERIOD
XII.
Group d .
INDIVIDUAL I
DAY PRODUCTION PERIOD
Of - Y * *
COMPOSITION OF LAYING
^OOOOOOOO o- OO O'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-000 49
X III.
o »eoo
oooo
o o O'o o o o o
48
. -6
ABSTRACT
I n d i v i d u a l r e c o r d s of f e e d c o n s u m p t i o n , egg p r o d u c t i o n ,
e g g w e i g h t ■, b o d y w e i g h t , a n d a g e a t f i r s t e g g w e r e c o m p i l e d
o n 115 C o r n e l l R a n d o m b r e d S t r a i n o f W h i t e L e g h o r n p u l l e t s
d u r i n g n o n - r e s t i r i c t e d and r e s t r i c t e d f e e d i n g p e r i o d s of 121
days each.
A n a ly s is of f i f t e e n m u ltip l e r e g r e s s i o n e q u a tio n s fo r
e s t i m a t i n g f e e d c o n s u m p t i o n , c a l c u l a t e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t com­
b i n a t i o n s of the observed ind ep en d en t v a r i a b l e s , d u rin g
n o n - r e s t r i e t e d a nd r e s t r i c t e d f e e d i n g , i n d i c a t e d t h a t egg
p r o d u c t i o n and body w e i g h t were t h e m a jo r f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g
feed consum ption.
The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e me a n d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n g r o s s
e f f i c i e n c y and a d j u s t e d e f f i c i e n c y c o e f f i c i e n t s , c a l c u l a t e d
f o r e a c h p u l l e t d u r i n g n o n - r e s t r i c t e d and r e s t r i c t e d f e e d i n g ,
i n d i c a t e d t h a t g r o s s e f f i c i e n c y c o e f f i c i e n t s w e r e mo r e s a t ­
i s f a c t o r y m e a s u r e s of e f f i c i e n c y t h a n a d j u s t e d e f f i c i e n c y
coefficients.
A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e me a n g r o s s e f f i c i e n c y c o e f f i c i e n t s ,
d u r i n g n o n - r e s t r i c t e d and r e s t r i c t e d f e e d i n g , i n d i c a t e d t h a t
r e s t r i c t i n g f e e d i n t a k e 25 p e r c e n t o f p r e d i c t e d f e e d c o n s u m p ­
tio n s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced e f f ic ie n c y .
The g r o s s o b s e r v e d
r e d u c t i o n wa s 29 p e r c e n t .
R e s t r i c t i n g f e e d i n t a k e 12§ p e r
c e n t or f e e d i n g a t the r a t e of p r e d i c t e d fe e d c o nsum ption did
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e d u c e e f f i c i e n c y of egg p r o d u c t i o n .
-7-
INTRODUCTION
The d a t a
project
this
i n which hens were
production.
ponents
basis
supporting
p a p e r were t a k e n from a ,g e n e ti c
being s e le c te d
for efficiency
T h i s s t u d y was a p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f c o m­
and m e a s u r e s of e f f i c i e n c y w hich were t o
for
i n egg
selection
u n d e r ad
be u s e d a s
l i b i t u m and r e s t r i c t e d
the
feeding
pro
grams.
Th e e f f i c i e n c y w i t h w h i c h f e e d
of utm ost im portance
for
50 t o
(Titus
converted
to
the
poultryman because
60 p e r c e n t o f
the
total
1955).
therefore
is
A r e d u c t i o n of
result
duction
cost.
a profit
or
12 p e r c e n t
R estricting
is
eggs
is
feed accounts
of p ro d u c in g eggs
20 p e r c e n t
Such a d i f f e r e n c e
loss
ments o f th e
i n a 10 t o
cost
into
in feed
saving
cost w ill
in
total
pro­
may d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r o r n o t
sustained„
feed
intake
is a device
i n d u s tr y to reduce feed
used
costs
in c e r ta in
seg­
( Singsen et a I.
1958).
This tech n iq u e a p p a re n tly has
b e n e f i t when a p p l i e d
broiler
type
growing of r e p la c e m e n t
pullets.
concerning
hens.
b r e e d i n g hens and i n th e
Only a l i m i t e d amount of
this
application
of fe e d
inform ation
restriction
is
to
available
egg-type
to
»• S ”
The p u r p o s e of
cerning fa c to rs
this
s t u d y wa s
which i n f l u e n c e
to o b ta in
feed
c o n s u m p t i o n and e f f i ­
ciency,
to e v a lu a te d i f f e r e n t measures
observe
effects
production.
of fe e d
restriction
i n f o r m a t i o n con
of e f f i c i e n c y ,
on e f f i c i e n c y
of
and t o
egg
■w 9
**
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Components of E f f i c i e n c y
According
consumes i s
to T i t u s
used fo r
is
efficiency
prim arily
size,
used f o r
and q u a n t i t y of
p u l l e t weighing
maintenance
consume 7 . 7
ducing
egg p r o d u c t i o n .
influenced
feed
to
by r a t e
consumed.
3.5 pounds r e q u i r e d
and an a d d i t i o n a l
a 2-ounce e g g .
most of th e
He a l s o
reported
of p r o d u c t i o n ,
body
a Leghorn
of f e e d
to produce
p e r d o z e n e g g s when p r o ­
to 4 .9 pounds of feed
at
the
year.
following
formula fo r
consumptions
Feed = . 6 9 2 (e g g )
This
that
t h a t a Leghorn p u l l e t w i l l
y e a r , but only 4.4
B r o d y £t_ a_l. ( 1 9 3 8 ) a r r i v e d
He c o n s i d e r s
.14 pounds f e e d f o r d a i l y
p e r d o z e n e g g s wh e n p r o d u c i n g 2 QQ e g g s p e r
feed
a la y i n g hen
He f o u n d t h a t
.0888 pounds
8.7 pounds of fe e d
1 00 e g g s p e r
feed
g ro w th and m a i n t e n a n c e and a r e l a t i v e l y
small p o rtio n
is
(1955),
formula
indicates
that
p r o d u c i n g .1 g r a m o f e g g ;
tenance per
.692 grams f e e d a r e
.300 grams fe e d a r e
gram body w e i g h t r a i d e d
grams f e e d a r e
to the
change i n M
expended
used f o r
maintenance
the
in
main­
.73 p o w e r ; and 1 . 1
e x p e n d e d p e r gram change i n body w e i g h t .
equation incorporates
tim ating
+ . SOOM1^ 3 + 1 . 1
B r o d y et_ aJL_. ( 1 9 3 4 ) f o r m u l a
This
for e s ­
requirem ents
of a n im a ls as a f u n c t i o n of
purposes, if
the
body w e i g h t .
For c o m p a r a t i v e
Brody f o r m u l a
is applied
—1 0 —
to
a hen w e ig h in g
1720 g r a m s , p r o d u c i n g
t h e hen would
consume 9 4 , 9
efficiency
„3898.
of
hen would r e s u l t
efficiciency
to
"pounds
3.85 and
of
grams of f e e d and have a g r o s s
The T i t u s
formula
i n 95„4 grams f e e d
„3877.
37 g r a m s e g g p e r d a y ,
When t h e s e
f e e d p e r d o z , en 2 - o u n c e
applied
to
a sim ilar
c o nsum ption and a g ro s s
coefficients
eggs"
the
are
converted
results
become
3.86 r e s p e c t i v e l y .
C a r d C1 9 4 6 )
hens weighing
expressed
the
annual feed
b e t w e e n 4 and 8 p o u n d s
requirem ents
of
by t h e f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a s
F = 25 + „8 W + E / 7
where F r e p r e s e n t s
and E i s
the
number of
King ( 1 9 5 6 )
using
breeds developed
dicting
the
the
is
B y erly (1941)
required
W the average
eggs p ro d u ced
i n one y e a r .
random sample
test
following
data
regression
of
-10.214
body w e i g h t ,
for
equation
light
for pre­
egg w e i g h t
found
( 1949) r e p o r t e d
of
that
the
X2 t h e
requirem ent
be 4 6 . 8 p o u n d s , and. e a c h
laying
a t a' r a t e
for maintenance,
p r o d u c t i o n and 2 p e r c e n t
for
body w eight
in
ounces per dozen.
14.2 pounds of f e e d .
hens
feed
in
the a n n u al feed
a 3-pound hen to
an a d d i t i o n a l
71 p e r c e n t
+ . I M X 1 + 8.915X2 + 1.416X 3
th e h e n day egg p r o d u c t i o n ,
p o u n d s , a n d X3 t h e
tenance
feed,
fe e d , consumptions
Y=
where
total
increase
for main­
100 e g g s
Bhuwan e t a I .
o f 72 p e r c e n t u s e d
27 p e r c e n t
for
i n body w e i g h t .
egg
Glazener
-11-
a n d Bl ow ( 1 9 5 4 )
observed
that
body w e i g h t and r a t e
t i o n were
the most i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s
duction „
M iller
rate
in e f f ic ie n c y
and Q u i s e n b e r r y (1959)
Effects
affecting
body s i z e ,
in feed
conversion
efficiency.
of Feed R e s t r i c t i o n
H e y wa n g ( 1 9 4 0 )
12§ a n d 25 p e r c e n t
respectively.
found
from th e
that
reduced
d a ily feed
restricting
egg p r o d u c t i o n
The d a i l y f e e d
groups were d e te r m in e d
f e d ad
of egg p r o ­
considered
of p r o d u c t i o n and i n h e r e n t d i f f e r e n c e s
as the most i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s
of p r o d u c ­
allowances
by d e d u c t i n g
intake
the
feed
intake
of h e n s
31 a n d 54 p e r c e n t
of t h e
restricted
appropriate
amount
o f a c o n t r o l g r o u p w h i c h was b e i n g
libitum .
S i n g s e n et_ a_l. ( 1 9 4 8 )
stricted
compared r e s t r i c t e d
f e e d i n g o f h i g h and
ty p e . breeding h e n s,
l ow e n e r g y d i e t s
low e n e r g y r a t i o n s
were fed
on a r e s t r i c t e d
f e e d r e s u l t e d when h i g h e n e r g y d i e t s
caged hens
journal a r tic le ,
on h i g h e n e r g y d i e t s
ate
c a lc u la te d ,requirem ents for
duction,
and t h a t
Fuller
of
h e n s on r a t i o n s
basis.
reported
Egg p r o ­
22 t o 29 p e r c e n t i n
(1958)
10 t o
remarked t h a t
15 p e r c e n t
maintenance
restricted
that re stric te d
in excess
a n d egg p r o ­
10 t o
l a y more e g g s t h a n n o n - r e s t r i c t e d
(1958)
broiler
were r e s t r i c t e d .
Fisher
of t h e i r
may a c t u a l l y
to
Egg p r o d u c t i o n wa s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y when
d u c t i o n was m a i n t a i n e d and a s a v i n g
In a tr a d e
and n o n - r e -
15 p e r c e n t
hens.
feeding
of L e g h o r n
” 12 —
pullets
during
the
sexual m aturity.
body s i z e
lost.
observed.
the
the
saving
in feed
An i n t e r e s t i n g
The p u l l e t s
growing p e r io d
pens,
and t h u s
reduced
When f e e d r e s t r i c t i o n s
wa s q u i c k l y a t t a i n e d ,
and most of
t i o n wa s
growing p e r i o d
that
occurred during
to feed
restric­
e f f e c t was
restriction
a sm aller death
loss
than those
normal
increased,
and b e n e f i c i a l s i d e
p r o d u c e d mo r e e g g s
and d e l a y e d
were removed,
e a r l y e g g s i z e , wa s
subjected
suffered
body s i z e
during
ip the
laying
grown on f u l l
diets.
In t h i s
review
of
i n f o r m a t i o n wa s f o u n d
egg-type
hens.
wa s a p p l i e d
diets,
to
pertaining
In most of the
special
heavy-type
production.
literature
hens,
a very
lim ited
to r e s t r i c t e d
literature,
conditions
involving
and g r o w i n g p u l l e t s
amount of
f e e d i n g of
restricted
the
use
prior
to
feeding
of s p e c i a l
egg
-13-
PROCEDURES AND METHODS
D efinition
In
tific
the
t e r m i n o l o g y of
l i t e r a t u r e , gross
pounds
this
of E f f i c i e n c y
of
efficiency
is
qualified
o f s t a n d a r d w e i g h t „ i „e „,
the
in
this
efficiency
method, i t
is
of
these
paper,
reasons,
24 o u n c e s
that
the
infinity,
the
gross
grams of
When t h i s
expression
feed,
resulting
when a h e n i s
coefficient,
efficiency
not
the
is
coefficient
laying,
better
can r e a d i l y
feed per dozen 2-ounce
the
efficiency
reduced to
the
the
of
the
the
eggs a re
Expressing
When
by t h i s
o f a h e n p r o d u c i n g no
such a hen i s
be e x p r e s s e d ,
gram o f f e e d
“ observed
observed
zero.
For
in th is
consumed.
output
input
g r a m s of e g g p e r g r a m of
falls
between 0 and I .
efficiency
efficiency.
be c o n v e r t e d
as
be g i v e n a n u m e r i c a l
efficiency w ill
egg p r o d u c e d p e r
scien­
Frequently
disadvantage.
efficiency
efficiency
that
calculated
and c a n n o t
the
expressed
per dozen.
is
Gross e f f i c i e n c y
the
usually
by s p e c i f y i n g
i n d i v i d u a l hens
In r e a l i t y ,
as
is
manner h a s a s e r i o u s
found
eggs a p p ro a c h e s
value.
i n d u s t r y a n d much o f
f e e d consumed p e r d o z e n e g g s p r o d u c e d „
expression
efficiency
fhe
to
is
5;
the
Thus
larger
The c o e f f i c i e n t
the term "pounds
e g g s ' " by d i v i d i n g
the
constant
the
of
of
1.5
by
coefficient.
Pounds fe e d p e r
dozen 2 -ounce egg
I
=
____________ 1 . 5
Effic ie n c y c o e f fic ie n t
*=1 4 ■=>
Th e c o x i s "feant 1 05 i s
to 680.40 grams,
equals
u s e d b e c a u s e a d o z e n 2«ao u n c e e g g s a s e e q u a l
and 680.40 d i v i d e d
by 4 5 3 . 5 9
(g ram s p e r pound)
1.5.
Th e C o r n e l l R a n d o m b r e d S t r a i n o f W h i t e L e g h o r n s wa s u s e d
in this
study.
This
oped s p e c i f i c a l l y
maintained
tion
s t r a i n wa s s e l e c t e d
for
because i t
e x p e r i m e n t a l p u r p o s e s , and is' b e i n g
a s 'a r a n d o m b r e e d i n g a n d g e n e t i c a l l y
(King £ t . a l . , .
wa s d e v e l ­
1959) .
Thus t h e
base a g a i n s t which s e l e c t e d
parent flock
populations
sta b le ' popula­
becomes a .
c a n be m e a s u r e d f o r
change.
.
•
■
-
Experim ental Procedures
.. E g g s o b t a i n e d
r
from th e randombred f l o c k a t
the North C e n tra l
..
S i t a t e s R e g i o n a l P o u l t r y B r e e d i n g L a b o r a t o r y w e r e h a t c h e d March
30,
1958.
The c h i c k s w e r e grown i n o ne p e n s o t t e t
. s u b j e c t e d to; s i m i l a r
o f a g e , ' 120 p u l l e t s
environmental c o n d itio n s..
were d i v i d e d ' a t
and p l a c e d in' i n d i v i d u a l
and egg t r a y s . .
p u l l e t s .received
cages' "equipped w ith
Ambient t e m p e r a t u r e s
f r o m 40 t o 8 8 ^ F . d u r i n g
the
'
■
'
trial.
14 h o u r s , of
The i n d i v i d u a l r e c o r d
'
random i n t o
in the
a l l were
A t 14 w e e k s
fo u r groups
in d iv id u al'feed ers la y in g house ranged
A fter production
began,
the
light daily.
of each p u l l e t
'i.
.. -
i.
1
.- :Vi
b e g a n on t h e d a y she
■ i / ; , ,-.v. r
Tl.
-15-
produced her f i r s t
consumption,
Appendix Table
number o f
barley
X III,
four months,
based
was f e d
k e p t on f e e d
e g g s , and egg w e i g h t .
laying ra tio n ,
thro u g h o u t the
s h o wn i n
trial.
th e p u l l e t s were f e d ad l i b i t u m .
a pullet
produced her
recorded
and 400 grams o f
after
I n d i v i d u a l r e c o r d s were
body w e i g h t ,
An a l l - m a s h . ,
first
egg.
first
egg,
the
initial
feed weighed i n t o
f e e d was a d d e d i n i n c r e m e n t s
During the
On t h e d a y
b o d y w e i g h t was
the
feeder.
o f 400 g r a m s a s
There­
needed.
During the fo llo w in g four-m onth p ro d u c tio n p e rio d ,
different
rates
groups.
o f fe e d r e s t r i c t i o n were a p p l i e d
The f o l l o w i n g
feeding ra te s
Group a .
Group b.
Gro up c.;
Giro1- Ut)' d .
to the
four
applied:
P r e d i c t e d f e e d c o n s u m p t i o n m i n u s 25%
P r e d i c t e d f e e d qonsum ption minus 1 2 |^
Ad. l i b i t u m
P r e d ic te d feed consumption
S t a t i s t i c a l Methods
Th e m a i n s t a t i s t i c a l
those
set
methods
of c o r r e l a t i o n and t e s t s
forth
m ultiple
O stle
by S n e d e c b r
regression,
in th i s
for differences
( 1959)?: t h e
and the
employed
analysis
estim ating
s t u d y were
b e t w e e n me a n s
of v a ria n c e
for
e q u a t i o n g i v e n by
(1958):
Y = b 0 + b 1X1 + . . . . +' b k Xk
The e s t i m a t i n g
poses.
With the
e q u a t i o n would s e r v e
estim ating
equation,
the
several
useful pur­
predicted
feed
—1 6 —
consumption could
basis,
feed
be c a l c u l a t e d
restrictions
consideration variables
sumption are de p en d e n t.
estim ating
equation i t
c o n s u m p t i o n and
the
in
each hen.
c o u l d be c a l c u l a t e d
in
the
Upon t h i s
which take
into
e q u a t i o n upon w h ich f e e d
con­
With i n f o r m a t i o n g a in e d from the
would a l s o
efficiency
e g g •p r o d u c t i o n a n d b o d y s i z e .
be u s e f u l
for
be p o s s i b l e
of
the
adjust
feed
h e n s t o a common r a t e
These a d j u s t e d
comparing hens d i f f e r i n g
to
of
m easures might
i n egg p r o d u c t i o n and
body w e i g h t .
The a d j u s t e d
of feed
a pullet
in
this
feed
consumption i n d i c a t e s
w o u ld consume i f
37 g r a m s a n d h e r
values
daily
body w e i g h t
s t u d y were a d j u s t e d
finding
adjusted
adj Y = Y In t h i s
case,
37 a n d
d a i l y egg p r o d u c t i o n were
1720 g r a m s .
egg p r o d u c t i o n and body w e i g h t .
( 1.958) f o r
her
to
this
A ll of
the a d ju sted
constant rate
The f o r m u l a
Y values
t h e amount
of
g i v e n by O s t l e
is 5
biCXi-X^)
- b2 CX2 - X 2 )
1720 w e r e s u b s t i t u t e d
f o r X1 a n d X2
respectively.
G r o s s e f f i c i e n c y was c a l c u l a t e d
production
by t h e
c i e n c y wa s f o u n d
d a ily feed
by d i v i d i n g
consumption.
the
constant
e g g p r o d u c t i o n wa s a d j u s t e d , by t h e
sumption .
by d i v i d i n g
the d a ily
The a d j u s t e d
egg
effi­
37, to which d a i l y
a d ju s te d d a i l y feed
con­
-17-
SYMBOLS
Th e f o l l o w i n g
headings
of t h i s
symbols ape used
in
the
text
and t a b l e
papers
adj E - adjusted efficien cy c o e ffic ie n t,
t o c o n s t a n t Xi = 3 7 , X2 = 1 7 2 0
Gr E - g r o s s
efficiency
x I “ egg p r o d u c t i o n
adjusted
coefficient
i n grams
X2 - b o d y w e i g h t i n g r a m s
X3 , X4
o th e r ' v a r i a b l e s , defined
in
text
Y - observed feed consumption
A
.
Y - p r e d ic te d feed consumption
ad j Y - a d j u s t e d f e e d c o n s u m p t i o n , a d j u s t e d
c o n s t a n t , Xi = 3 7 , X2 = 1 7 2 0
** - h i g h l y
significant
* - significant
Efficiency
(P< .01)
(P- < . 0 5 )
- grams o f egg p r o d u c e d p e r gram of
f e e d consumed
to
-18
RESULTS AND DlSCtiS§ION
Components o f E ff i e I e ncy
Five
explpratdry
t i o n were
calculated^
Equations
I,
2,
equations
for
These e q u a t i o n s
and 5 were d e r i v e d
h en s had been in p r o d u c t i o n f o r
tions
3 and 4 were c a l c u l a t e d
p r o d u c t i o n p e r i o d of
Equations
for
variable
average
Ca)
e g g a n d ( b)
period.
at
the
these
an average
from data
the weight a t
86 d a y s .
Equa­
of
body w e i g h t s u s ed
the
the
end of t h e
86 d a y p e r i o d A
the
total
I wa s a n
on t h e d a y o f
the f i r s t
86 d a y p r o d u c t i o n
body w e ig h t i n e q u a t i o n
e q u a t i o n s were
2 is
that
observed
The r e m a i n i n g v a r i a b l e s
feed consumption,
the
n u mb e r o f d a y s t h e
In
total
pullets
in production.
A ll of
the
partial
regression
and 2 were s t a t i s t i c a l l y
lower p o r t i o n of Table
the
the
c o v e r in g an av erage
only in the
w e i g h t of e g g s p r o d u c e d „ and t h e
were
taken a f te r
The m i d - b o d y w e i g h t , i n e q u a t i o n
The f i n a l
consump­
s h o wn i n T a b l e I „
from d a t a
t h e w e i g h t of t h e p u l l e t
end o f
are
feed
121 d a y s .
I and 2 d i f f e r
Xg»
estim ating
pullets
improved
highly
I s the
the
coefficients
significant.
use
of the
estim ating
" d e v i a t i o n o f e q u a t i o n 2 was r e d u c e d ,
improved„
This
p r o b a b l y due to
improvement
the
fact
in the
that
of e q u a tio n s
As s h o w n I n
final
the
body w eig h t of
equation.
The s t a n d a r d
and the
R2 a n d F v a l u e s
estim ating
th e p u l l e t s were
I
e q u a t i o n wa s
gaining w e ig h t,
-19-
Table I ,
COMPARISON OF ESTIMATING EQUATIONS FOR FEED CONSUME ___________ , TI ON, USING DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS OF VARIABLES
V ariables;
Feed,
gr,
JEggs , g r .
Y
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
____ X l - -
equations;
2.
3.
4.
5.
$
$
$
f
9
+
+
+
4"
+
X?
Mid
Fina I
Final
Fina I
Mid
bi Xi
- -4824.27
= -4451.40
S= 3 3 . 4 2 2 6
== 3 3 . 1 8 6 7
= 32.0100
Other V ariables
Days
Days
Days
Xd
i n La y
i n Lay
i n Lay
-
Ga i n / d a y
-
_
Age 1 s t
egg
-
bn
Io
gr •
X5
. :.
T o t a l eggs
Tota I eggs
Bgg/day
Egg/da y
Egg/day
T o tal feed
T o tal feed
Feed/da y
Feed/day
Feed/da y
Estim ating
Body W t . ,
.9140**
.9407**
.7270**
.7270**
.8214**
b? X5
+
+
+
+
b s X?
+
+
2.6905**
2.5025**
.0303**
' .0303**
.0281**
—
bd Xd
81.64**
78.69**
.0221
-
+
1.4645*
.+
O.
.0102
M e a n s , s , R2 , F v a l u e s :
' Xi
Y .
I .
9707.21
9707.21
114.69
114.69
112.37
3207.42
3207.42
37.76
• 37.76
37.05
** S i g n i f i c a n t
* Significant
beyond
beyond
1676.08
1720.78
1728.99
1728.99
1676.31
Xd
x s
86.86
86.86
121.51
OO
C-
2.
3.
4.
5.
X5
.01 p r o b a b i l i t y
.05 p r o b a b i l i t y
S
10Q6.4
972.3
6.9
6.9
166.14
8.1
level
level
R2
F
.78 1 3 1 . 4 3 * *
.79 1 4 3 . 5 0 * *
.62
62.37**
94.37**
.62
.56
36.45**
-20 —
and th u s
the
f i n a l w e i g h t wa s a b e t t e r
t i o n of feed
3 and 4 d i f f e r
from I and 2 i n t h a t
c o n su m p t io n and d a i l y w e i g h t of
Y and
The r e s u l t i n g
partial
equations
regression
The p a r t i a l
equation
Table
3 and 4 were
show t h a t
coefficients
These
regression
the
the d i f f e r e n c e
o f one v a r i a b l e .
the
were h i g h l y
for
m i g h t be
equation.
in the
significant.
days in p ro d u c tio n ,
In the
for
I and 2 w i t h
from th e
'
in p ro d u c tio n did not
qualities
3 and 4,
.78 to
equations
however, changed because
O m itting days
estim ating
in
lower p o r t i o n of
of freedom r e s u l t i n g
o b s e r v a t i o n p e r i o d f r o m 86 t o
the
to a
w e r e no c h a n g e s
t h e s a n d R2 v a l u e s
U2 v a l u e s w e r e r e d u c e d f r o m
affected
Y and
121
a s s o c i a t e d w ith egg p r o d u c t i o n
The P v a l u e s ,
in degrees
used as
covered
estim ating
there
coefficient
same.
In comparing e q u a ti o n s
ing the
estim a­
d a ily feed
in production,
the
coefficients
w i l l be s e e n t h a t
significantly affect
the
X3 , d a y s
3 , wa s n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t .
I , it
deletion
variable
seriously affecting
and body w e i g h t .
of
By c o n v e r t i n g v a r i a b l e s
per day b a s i s ,
omitted w ithout
eggs produced were
„ and t h e o b s e r v a t i o n p e r i o d
days of p r o d u c t i o n .
rate
the
consumption.
Equations
variables
basis for
.62.
of
it
the
equation.
wa s f o u n d t h a t
A pparently extend­
121 d a y s a d v e r s e l y
estim ation.
The i m p r o v e m e n t o f e s t i m a t i n g
equation 2 over
equation
I,
—2 1 —
by i n c r e a s i n g
the
body w e i g h t ,
suggested
w e i g h t wa s a f a c t o r w h i c h a f f e c t e d
fore
average d a ily
variable
in e q u a tio n 5.
consumption,
and age a t
the
first
The p a r t i a l
The p a r t i a l
coefficient
in tr o d u c e d as a
variables
were d a i l y
feed
mi d b o d y w e i g h t ,
regression
coefficients
regression
coefficient
for
age a t f i r s t
for
The p a r t i a l
e g g wa s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t .
3 and 4 w i t h e q u a t i o n 5,
it
wa s f o u n d
that
s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n i n e q u a t i o n 5 yias g r e a t e r , a n d t h e
and F v a l u e s
o b t a i n e d were
me a n s o f t h e V a r i a b l e s
ance
tables
are
of m u l t i p l e
s h q wn i n T a b l p
lower t h a n . i n
I .
reg ressio n equations
and IV.
of
The
vari­
I through 5 are
of
the p u l l e t s
are
In a d d i t i o n
from which e q u a t i o n s
shown i n A p p e n d i x T a b l e s
to
the d a ily feed
were u s ed
estim ating
ca l c u l a t i n g
dicted
feed
consumption,
a d j Yj
the gross
the
f ; the
efficiency,
shown on a d a i l y
adjusted
X2 j w h i c h
e q u atio n s $ the p r e ­
feed consumption,
Gr E; a n d t h e a d j u s t e d
basis
for
I,
consumption,
X15 a n d b o d y w e i g h t ,
adj Ej are
3 and 4.
Analysis
Y.j t h e d a i l y e g g p r o d u c t i o n ,
in
R2
II.
2 , and 5 were c a l c u l a t e d
III,
equations
s h o wn i p T a b l e
The i n d i v i d u a l r e c o r d s
II,
There­
g a i n i n w e i g h t Wfl.s s i g n i f i c a n t .
Comparing e q u a t i o n s
I,
consumption.
egg p r o d u c t i o n and body w e i g h t a g a i n were
average d a ily
the
i n body
i n b o d y w e i g h t was
The o t h e r
egg.
significant.
regression
change
d a i l y w e i g h t o f egg p r o d u c e d ,
a ss o c ia te d with
highly
change
feed
that
each p u l l e t .
efficiency,
The r e c o r d s
22-
Table
II0
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION
EQUATIONS*.**•#’
I , 2*
and 5
" » ^3 !,» 4. ,9 w
Source
d „f ,
SS
MS
s .
R2
F
I.
Regression
D eviation
Tota I
3
114.
117
•399407508
115471770
514879. 278
1333135836.0
1012910,3
1 0 0 6 . 4 . . 75I 1 3 1 . 4 3 * *
2,
Regression
D eviation
Total
3
114
117
407087180
107792098
514879278
135695726.6
945552.4
972.3
3.
Regression
Deviation
Total
3
111
114
9056,25
5371,65
14427,90
3018.75
48.39
6.9
.62
62.37**
4,
Regression
D eviation
Total
2 ' 9055.27
112
5 373,07
114
14428,34
4527,63
47.97
6.9.
.62
94.37**
Regression
Deviation
. Total
4
113
117
2395.02
65.69
8.1
,56
36.45**
5,
** S i g n i f i c a n t
9580.06
7423.11
17003.37
beyond
.79
143.50**
.
„01 p r o b a b i l i t y
level
-2 3-
from which e q u a t i o n s
Appendix Tables
At the
of feed
ing
3 and 4 were c a l c u l a t e d
V, V I ,
end of
VII,
the
non-restricted
of p r o d u c tio n .
feeding
e q u a t i o n s wa s
The s e t
e q u a t i o n w h i c h was b a s e d o n t h e
and f o u r
individual
end of
the
e q u a t i o n s wa s
period.
w ill
equations,
restricted
calculated
Both s e t s
be n o t i c e d
of
I and s e r v e s a s
6 , a,
b,
were
tion
the
c , and d d u r i n g
The d a t a
calculated
y,11 1 .
are
Th e h e a d i n g s
the
dicates
stricted
The d a i l y
the
tables
the
feed
the
e q u a tio n of
ITI.
the
It
four
feeding
6, a,
show t h e
feed
b,
groups
p e rio d of
c,
and d
VII,
and
equa ^
c o n s u m p t i o n of
d a ily feed allowance for
feeding period.
E q u a tio n s 7,
from A p p e n d ix T a b l e s
consumption,
feed allowed
p e r i o d <;
that
c o n s u m p t i o n o f e a c h h e n was t h e n
calculating
restricted
At
t h e s ame a s e q u a t i o n 4 i n
predicted
feed
an
s e t of
estim ating
amount of
feeding
s h o wn i n . T a b l e
non-restricted
these
c , and d were c a l c u l a t e d
and X I I .
a sim ilar
of
The p r e d i c t e d
for
the
cover­
observations
V, V I ,
each hen.
used as a b a s i s
over-all
total
shown i n A p p e n d i x T a b l e s
in c a lc u la tin g
b,
are
calculated
accumulated du rin g
from which e q u a ti o n s
used
th e hen d u rin g
on t h e d a t a
equations
a set
each group of h e n s .
period,
th a t equation 6 is
Table
121 d a y s .
one f o r
feeding
period,
of e q u a tio n s in c lu d e
over-all
the
shown i n
and V I I I .
consumption e s tim a tin g
121 d a y s
are
Y, i n
I X,
these
each hen d u rin g
X, X I ,
tables
the
in­
re­
a,
-24-
Table
III..
ESTIMATING EQUATIONS, OVER-ALL AND BY GROUPS,
1 21
DAY PRODUCTION PERIODS, NON-RESTRICTED AND RE­
STRICTED FEEDING
Estim ating
equations,
non-restric te d
J2n___________ - b i X i
a.
b.
Ci
d.
+
* = 33.1867
Y — 38.9816
Y £= 3 5 . 1 5 5 1
21.7647
25.3619
+
+
.7270**
.9216**
.3164**
1.0897**
.7782**
feeding
“
________ _ b 2 X?
+
+
+ ,
+
*
.0303**
.0229**
.0387**
.0285**
.0325**
Estim ating equations, r e s tr ic te d feeding.
Feeding
a . 1?-25%, b c Y - 1 2 | % , c „ a d l i b i t u m , d . ”Y
Jfe©—:_______
b l X l ______________ bo Xo
7.
a.
b.
c.
•d.
Means,
&
I
Y
J
Y
s,
==
=
=
=
a
12.4204
34.5142
23.6048
38.8166
23.3975
R^,
+
+
.+
•6-
. 8876**
.4465**
.5754**
.8442**
.7154**
+
+
rates:
.0368**.0242**
.0333**
.0276**
.0338**
+
+
F v a lues
Y
Xi
a,
b.
Co
d.
114.69
112.48
117.53
116.42
112.21
37 . 7 6 '
37.31
38.15
39.31
36.38
1728.99
1704.55
1814.06
1818.21
1795 . 7 1
6.9
7.3
7.8
5.8
5.5
.62
.57
.53
.65
.82
94.37**
17.25**
15.54**
23.46**
57.69**
a.
b.
c.
d.
99.46
79.41
96.60
117.85
104.92
24.85
13.79
25.06
32.36
28.57
1761.53
1599.24
1755.56
1895.25
1802.32
7.4
3.0
4.1
7.8
5.1
.83
.89
.77
.71
.89
281.04**
106.69**
45.52**
31.11**
111.63**
6.
7.
Significant
beyond
Xo
.01 p r o b a b i l i t y
s
level
R2 _______ F '
~25 —
In Table
over-all
its
III,
equation
groups a,
coefficients
w ithin
the
contrast,
of the
feeding
feeding
of the
n o t seem- t o
the
for
the
tend
to reduce
indicated
that
values
estim ating
the
b2 , f a l l
greater
group e q u a tio n s .
6 appeared
but during
the
v a r i a b l e s were
than
In the
t o be a n .
restricted
controlled,
lower p o r t i o n of
equations
in.their
6 and 7 a r e
respective
the g r e a te r
Table I I I ,
greater
n u mb e r o f
observations
however,
e q u a t i o n s were n o t a lw ay s
less
indicate,
error,
g r o u p s may be m o r e r e a l i s t i c .
the
that
although
equations
Th e a n a l y s i s
than
groups, indicating
E x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e R2 v a l u e s ,
over-all
T h is would
contain
In
below the ra n g e
e q u a t i o n s w h e n c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e R2 v a l u e s
own g r o u p s .
equations
that
error„
the
regression
g r o u p e q u a t i o n s , and t h e
equation
shown i n t h e
a s may be e x p e c t e d ,
7 falls
of
pertain.
over-all
corresponding
Constants
group c o e f f i c i e n t s .
b^ a n d b 2 a r e
group e q u a t i o n s ,
w h e n some o f
of the
b^,, a n d b o d y w e i g h t ,
the
period,
the
the p a r t i a l
its. corresponding
in
c o n s t a n t , boi
r a n g e of
equation
coefficients
Th e F v a l u e s ,
obtained
the
corresponding
over-all
in
the
Sim ilarly
coefficients
period,
did
the
bQ of
n o n -re stricted
this
of
regression
"average"
w ithin
egg p r o d u c t i o n ,
range
corresponding
seen th a t
c , and d .
for
the
is
6 falls
b,
constants
partial
it
for
the b e s t
of
their
the o v e r - a l l
the
individual .
of v a ria n c e
for
Z
m ultiple
regression
equations
6, a,
b,
c,
d,
and 7 ,
a,
b,
c,
the
—2 6 —
and d a p p e a r
in Table
The e s t i m a t i n g
the, p a r t i a l
ables
I V.
-
equations
regression
in Table
coefficients
I a n d IV show, t h a t
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h ,the v a r i ­
egg p r o d u c t i o n and body w e i g h t were h i g h l y
This a p p lie d whether
the hens were b eing
f e d ad
restricted
This would i n d i c a t e
that,
rations.
pendent v a ria b le s
body w e ig h t a r e
considered
the
This agrees with
in th is
major f a c t o r s
the
findings
all
study,
affecting
reported
significant.
libitum
of
the
or
inde­
egg p r o d u c t i o n and
feed
in the
consumption.
r e v i e w ' of
liter­
ature.
Measures
of
Efficiency
Th e a d j u s t e d
measures
in rate
for
comparing
coefficients
shown i n T a b l e
average
the
coefficients
efficiencies
of p r o d u c t i o n and body s i z e .
efficiency
is
efficiency
gross
Part
efficiency
c ie n c y of f o u r
ing p e rio d .
V.
and a d j u s t e d
groups
versus
of hens d u rin g
because
efficiency
and r a n g e d from
of
ciency.and
the
A comparison of gross
efficiency
coefficients
efficiency
the
the
C orrelations
and a d j u s t e d
.53.
effi­
non-restricted
t h e me a n d i f f e r e n c e s
.21 to
non-significant
adjusted
of hens which d i f f e r e d
the average a d ju s te d
t h e s e m easu res were n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t .
positive
be u s e f u l
I shows a c o m p a r i s o n o f
I t was f o u n d t h a t
t h e means o f g r o s s
might
between
between
e f f i c i e n c y a l l were
I t would a p p e a r
me a n d i f f e r e n c e s ,
estim ated
feed­
gross
that,
effi­
t h e s a me m e a s u r e .
-27-
T a b l e IV.
.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ESTIMATING EQUATIONS,
a , b„ c , d , AND 7 , a , b , c , d
N on-restricting
feeding
________S o u r c e
"
df
SS
^
MS
6,
"
s
R2F
6.
Regression
2
D eviation
112
Total
114
9055.27
5373.07
14428.34
4527.63
47.97
6.9
.78
131.43**
a„
Regression
2
D eviation
26
Total
28
1881.59
1417.65
3299.24
940.79
54.52
7.3
.57
17.25**
t■
b.
Regression
2
D eviation'
27
Total
29
1920.28
1667.18
3587.46
960.14
61.74
7.8
.53
15.54**
c o-
Regression
2
D eviation
25
Total
27
1608.16
856.69
2464.85
■ 804. -07
34.26
5.8
.65
- 2 3 . 4 6**-
d«
Regression
2
D eviation
25
Total
27
3646.60
790.10
4436.70
1823.30
31.60
5.5
.82
57.69**
7.4
'
•
R e s t r i c t e d ,f eeding
2
112
114
31912.04
6358.59
38270.63
15956.02
. 56.77
a.
Regression
Devia tiohTotal
2
26
28
1947 . 7 2
237.31
2185.03
973.86
09.12
CO
b .
Regression
D eviation
Total
2
27
29
1595.93
473.24
2069.19
797.96
17.52
d „
^
.
281.04**
.89
106.69**
4.1 -
.77
45.52**
.71
31.11**
.89
111.63**
Regression
2
1921.06'
3842.13
Deviation
25
1543.29
61.73
Total
27
5385.42
Regression
2
5767.26
2883.62
5.1
25
Devia t i o n
645. 77,
25.83
Total
27
6413.03
S i g n i f i c a n t beyond .Ol p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l
00
c
CO
00
Regression
Devia t i o h .
. .,T otal
O
7.
—2 8 —
T ab le
V.
COMPARISON OF GROSS E F F I C I E N C Y AND ADJUSTED E F F I C I E N C Y
C O E F F I C I E N T S A S MEASURES OF E F F I C I E N C Y DURING NONRESTRICTED AND RESTRICTED FE EDI NG P E R I O D S
Part I.
Group
a.
b.
c.
d.
N on-restricted
N on-restricted
me an Gr E vs .
me a n a d j E
.3315
.-3264
. 3382
.3242
I:''
P a r t 2.
Group
.3259
.3275
. 3338
.3365
in
part
b,
and d w ere h i g h l y
these
2 of Table
ra n g e d from
measures
. 0Cl1I 1Ip r o b a b i l i t y
.05 p r o b a b i l i t y
in
calculating
non-restricted
ma d e i n t h e
cients
to
the
.08.
and th e
c was s i g n i f i c a n t
adjusted
feeding
and t h e
indicated
their
while
large
p e r i o d ».
the
r
.08
.07
.19
.05
and t h e
coeffi­
between
correlation
w e r e made
in the.
a d j u s t m e n t s were
The h i g h l y
adjusted
feeding,
groups a,
correlation
coefficients
low c o r r e l a t i o n s
that
of
small adjustm ents
efficiency
feeding period,
much o f
restricted
The mean d i f f e r e n c e
R elatively
restricted
period
lost
.05
d . ~T~
level
level
measures during
significant,
.53
.38
.48
.21
.2273**
.1047**
.0478*
.0774** .
s h o w s t h e me a n d i f f e r e n c e s
.19.
me a n d i f f e r e n c e s
feeding
V,
of group
c o e f f i c i e n t wa s
c . ad l i b .
Mean
d i f f erence
.3979
, .3631
' .3164
. ; .-34 3 2' '
A c o m p a riso n of t h e s e
r
.0056
.0011
.0044 .
„0123
F e e d i n g r a t e s : a . $ - 2 5 %, b . ? - 1 2 | % ,
R estricted
R estricted
me a n a d j E
me a n Gr E V S .
a o $-25%
.1706
b.
$-12|%
»2584
ad l i b . .268 6
c.
d.
Y
.2658
V
**
** S i g n i f i c a n t b e y o n d
* S ignificant''beyond
cients
Meah
difference
in the
significant
restricted
efficiency
coeffi­
v a l u e wh e n e x t r e m e a d j u s t m e n t s
are
-29-
made.
This
suggests
that
culated
directly
factory
than a d ju sted
gros^
efficiency coefficients,
cal­
f r o m o b s e r v e d , m e a s u r e s , may be mo r e s a t i s ­
efficiency
coefficients
as measures
of
efficiency.
Peed R e s t r i c t i o n
and E f f i c i e n c y
..
T h e s u mma r y i n T a b l e VI s h o w s t h a t
app eared , to a f f e c t
duction
e v e r y m e a s u r e t h a t wets o b s e r v e d .
feeding period
restricted
period.
It
seen th a t
also
declined
decline
quite
from 3 9 .3
of
1 3 . 8 grams p e r da y i n t h e
T h i s wa s a g r o s s
group
c , fe d ad
grams t o
17 p e r c e n t , i n
p o s s i b l y due
to
re d u c tio n of
libitum in
32.4 grams
the
same p e r i o d .
approaches
end of
the
true
restricted
A sim ilar
12^ p e r c e n t ,
would r e s u l t
17 p e r c e n t
Group d, which r e c e i v e d
the p re d ic te d
restricted
have d e c lin e d
is
feeding
period,
7 percent.
the
If
it
flock
is
assumed
of s e a s o n a l
to feed
restriction
d e d u c t i o n made a b o u t g r o u p
p ro d u c tio n amounting to
the
as
17 p e r c e n t b e c a u s e
reduction a ttrib u ta b le
may be n e a r 46 p e r c e n t .
b,
or a
This d ecline
the production cycle.
group a a l s o d e c l i n e d
effect,
both p e rio d s ,
to a sea so n al e f f e c t normally seen in
in which p ro d u c tio n d e c li n e s
the
63 p e r c e n t .
of egg p e r d a y ,
laying flo c k s ,
that
Egg p r o ­
i n g r o u p a was r e d u c e d f r o m 3 7 . 2 g r a m s p e r d a y i n t h e
non-restric te d
is
feed r e s t r i c t i o n
in a d ecline
of egg
because of r e s t r i c t i o n .
under
feed consumption during
the
s ame a s s u m p t i o n s w o u l d
-30-
Table. VI.
GROUP MEANS AND OVER-ALL MEANS OF ACTUAL AND ADJUSTED
VALUES OF FOUR GROUPS OF PULLETS DURING 121 DAYS
NON-RESTRICTED AND 121 DAYS RESTRICTED FEEDING
N on-restricted
112.5
117.5
116.4
112.2
111.6
117.5
116. 3
112. d
Overall
115
114.7
114.4
R estricted
No
a.
b'f .
c.
d.
„ a
.
'ii
3 0'
28
28
Overall
115
A
Y-•25%,
»
Y
79,4
96.6
117.5
104.8
99.5
99.3
to those
in
x%
Gr E
113.9
113.4
111.1
110.2
37.2
38.2
39.3
36 . 4
1705
1814
1818
1796
.3315
3264
. 3382
. 3242
. 325.9
.3275
.3338
.3365
112.2
37.8
1782 .9
.3300 '
.3308
tests
.
feed
.
Y
c
.
ad l i b i t u m ,
Xl
X?
13.8
93.1
1599
102 . I
2 5 . 1 - 1755
- 117.3
3 2 . 4 • 1895
10,8 vQ i v 2 8 . 6
1802
'■1Q5.0
24:8
Gr E
Y
ad i E
17 61 5
. 1706
. 2 5 84
.2686
.2658
. 3979
• ; 36 3 I
.3164
» . 3 4 32
.2406
.3557
not d ire c tly
resulted
the d i f f e r e n c e s
in
•
com­
b y He ywa ng ( 1 9 4 0 ) w h e n h e , f o u n d
restriction
of
. .
d.
-3 r *
that
31 a n d 54 p e r
in the
manner i n
were c o n d u c t e d .
Body w e i g h t , a s a m a j o r
affects
Y—12 %I ,
egg p r o d u c t i o n a r e
reported
r e d u c t i o n , because
which th e se
also
Y
Xi
adj
'79.4
96.6
117.8
104.9
1 2 | a n d 25 p e r c e n t
cent
b
Y
.
These r e d u c t i o n s
parable
adj
Feeding r a t e s s
■; '
Group
'
P3
29
30
28
28
a.
b.
c.
d.
.
CS
Y
No
X)
Y
Group
efficiency
component of f e e d c o n s u m p t io n ,
o f egg p r o d u c t i o n .
Normally hens gain
f
slowly in
body w e i g h t
throughout
the production
cycle.
The
-31-
average
wa s
in itial
w e ig h t of
1818 g r a m s , a n d t h e
A ll of the
other
the decrease
severity
feed
of
average
groups
ing p eriod?
the hens
in weight
restriction.
are
suggested,
b o d y w e i g h t may h a v e
i ( b)
have
t h e r e d u c e d body w e i g h t ,
left
more n u t r i e n t s
g ro u p s of p u l l e t s
all
groups d e clin ed
either
to
the
significant,
suggesting
n on-restricted
groups
w i t h no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
's'
restricted
feeding
ra n g e d from
ponding to
groups a,
period
.1706 to
the
rate
restricted
t h e means of
the
of
the
of f e e d in g .
loss
Two
in
or
m a i n t e n a n c e , may
of the four
and n d n - r e s t r i c t e d
the r e s t r i c t e d
of a s e a s o n a l
feeding period
ra n g e d from
t h e mean
.3264 to
among g r o u p s .
-
. 3382
During the
coefficients
ra n k of e f f i c i e n c y
However,
feed­
groups were h i g h l y
effects
25 p e r c e n t , d i f f e r e d
Other g ro u p s.
of body
egg p r o d u c t i o n ,
t h e mean e f f i c i e n c y
.2686,
the
coefficients
for a l l
the p o s s i b l e
of th e f o u r
the
T a b l e V I I , i t was f o u n d t h a t
The me a n d i f f e r e n c e s
efficiencies
loss
feed
f o r egg p r o d u c t i o n .
in e f f ic ie n c y during
During the
that
less
restricted
ing p erio d .
decline.
restricted
be. c o n j e c t u r e d .
support
requiring
compared,
the
Ca) p a r t
efficiency
during
feeding periods.w ere
can only
available
When t h e me a n g r o s s
ad l i b i t u m ,
corresponding with
Th e e f f e c t
been used
fed
f i n a l w e i g h t wa s 1 8 9 5 g r a m s .
lo s t weight during
w e i g h t had upon egg p r o d u c t i o n
alternatives
in group c,
corres­
o n l y t h e me a n o f
significantly
This su g g ests
from
t h a t w h i l e 25
—3 2 —
percent r e s tr ic tio n
1
efficiency,
of feed
'
intake-significantly
.
'
t h e h e n s m a y be a b l e
restrictions.
reduces
The o b s e r v e d
gross
to a d ju s t
to
red u ctio n in
less
V
severe
efficiency
in
g r o u p a wa s 29 p e r c e n t s
\
Table V II;
'
COMPARISON OF MEAN GROSS EFFICIENCY COEFFICIENTS
OF FOUR GROUPS OF PULLETS DURING 121 DAYS RE­
STRICTED AND 121 DAYS NON-RESTRICTED FEEDING
-
Group
r
a . Y-25%
b,» Y—102%
ti„ ‘ ad l i b .
d. Y
,
R estricted
m e a n Gr E
.1706*
' .2584
.2(386
.2658
.
vs.
N on-restricted
me a n Gr E
.3315
.3264
.3382
. 3284
* * S i g n i f i c a n t b e y o n d , 0rv 1I p r o b a b i l i t y
. * S i g n i f i c a n t -beyond . 0 5 p r o b a b i l i t y
level
level
■
Mean
difference
.1609**
0680**
.0696**
.0584**
r
.63
.43
.52
.63
"»33 —
S W -A R Y
In d iv id u al records
egg w e i g h t ,
of fe e d
c o n su m p tio n „ egg p r o d u c t i o n ,
a n d b o d y w e i g h t w e r e a c c u m u l a t e d o n 115 C o r n e l l
Randombred S t r a i n
of W hite L e g h o rn p u l l e t s .
covered a to ta l, p ro d u c tio n p e rio d
first
ad
121 days of
lib itu m ;
in to
four
applied
in
the
the
to
rem aining p e rio d ,
rates
D uring the
the p u l l e t s
thq p u l l e t s
of feed
were f e d
w ere d i v i d e d
r e s t r i c t i o n w ere
each group.
F ifte e n m ultip le
c o n s u m p tio n w ere
reg ressio n
calcu lated .
co m b in a tio n s of v a r i a b l e s ,
86 d a y p r o d u c t i o n p e r i o d
e q u a t i o n s w ere
period
w ere b a se d
on d a t a
restricted
feeding.
equations fo r
F ive
eq u atio n s,
estim atin g
t a k e n from an
n o n -restr& cted
from d a ta
feed in g .
taken d u rin g
of n o n - r e s tr ic te d
feeding.
feed
using d if f e r e n t
w e r e b a s e d on d a t a
d u ring
calcu lated
pro d u ctio n
th at
o f 242 d a y s .
p roduction p e rio d ,
g roups and d i f f e r e n t
The r e c o r d s
F ive
a 121 d a y
F ive
equations
t a k e n f r o m a 121 d a y p r o d u c t i o n p e r i o d
A nalysis
of t h e s e
equations
of
indicated
egg p r o d u c t i o n and body w e i g h t w ere th e m a jo r f a c t o r s
w hich i n f l u e n c e d
feed
consum ption.
G ross e f f i c i e n c y
co efficien ts
co efficien ts
were
The a d j u s t e d
efficien cy c o efficien ts
culated
calcu lated
and a d ju s t e d
by a d j u s t i n g
day and th e
the r a t e
body w e i g h t
to
fd>r e a c h p u l l e t
for
in
th is
study.
eac h p u l l e t were
of egg p r o d u c t i o n
1720 g r a m s .
efficien cy
to
cal­
37 g r a m s p e r
A c o m p a r i s o n of t h e
gross
efficien cy
co efficien ts
were
co efficien ts
in d ic a te d .th at
and
the
the a d ju s te d
gross
t h e more s a t i s f a c t o r y m e a s u r e s
ductio n . '
were b a se d
sum ption c a l c u l a t e d
for
s u m p t i o n 25 p e r c e n t
sig n ifican tly
production.
p red icted
efficien cy
co efficien ts
of e f f i c i e n c y
in
egg p r o ­
.' ,
Feed r e s t r i c t i o n s
ing fe e d
efficien cy
on t h e
each p u l l e t .
p red icted
R estrictin g
reduced
feed
feed
efficien cy
The o b s e r v e d r e d u c t i o n was 29 p e r c e n t .
consum ption
feed
12§ p e r c e n t
or feeding a t
the
consum ption d id n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y
c i e n c y i n egg p r o d u c t i o n .
con­
con­
i n egg
R estrict
rate
reduce
of
e ffi­
—3 5 —
LITERATURE CITED
B h u w a n 5 C„ J og C 0 W0 S h o f f n e r a n d M0 A 0 J u l I g 1 9 4 9 .
E fficien cy
o f f e e d u t i l i z a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o body w e i g h t a n d e g g
p ro d u ctio n .
P o u ltry S c i 0 28:301-302.
B r o d y , S . , E . M. F u n k a n d H, L . K e m p s t e r g 1938 „
E nergetic e f f i ­
c i e n c y of egg p r o d u c t i o n and th e i n f l u e n c e of l i v e w e ig h t
t h e r e o n „ R e s e a r c h B u l l e t i n 278„
U n iv e r s ity of M is s o u ri,
A g r i c u l t u r a l ' E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n , C o l u m b i a , Mo ^
B r o d y , S „„ R. C. P r o c t o r a n d U 0 S . A s h w o r t h , 19 3 4 .
Growth and
developm ent w ith' s p e c i a l r e f e r e n c e to d o m estic a n im a ls.
XXXIV.
B asal m etab o lism , endogenous n itr o g e n , c r e a tin i n e
and n e u t r a l s u l p h u r e x c r e t i o n s a s a f u n c t i o n of body w e ig h t
U n i v e r s i t y of M is s o u r i, C o lle g e of A g r i c u l t u r e , C o lu m b ia,
Mo.
R e s e a r c h B u l l e t i n 22 0 „
"
B y e r I y , T . C og 1 9 4 1 .
Feed and o t h e r c o s t of p r o d u c in g m a rk e t
egg.
M aryland A g r i c u l t u r a l E xp erim en t S t a t i o n B u l l e t i n
A l : 1-39.
Card,
L . E 0 , 1946 .
P r a c tic a l p o u ltry feed in g .
C i r c u l a r 606„
U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , C o l l e g e o f A g r i c u l t u r e , U r b a n a , 111
F i s h e r , H . , 1958 „ Newer d e v e l o p m e n t s i n l a y i n g h e n n u t r i t i o n .
T h e P o u l t r y F a r m e r , S i d n e y , New S o u t h W a l e s .
VolI . 2 5 ,
N o. 3 0 , pp 2 0 - 2 1 .
F u l l e r , H. L . , 195 8 „ R e s t r i c t e d f e e d i n g o f p u l l e t s f o r f l o c k
r e p l a c e m e n t s . . P r o c 0 AMFA N u t r i t i o n C o u n c i l , D e c „ 1 - 2 , 1 9 5 8 .
A m erican Feed M a n u f a c tu re rs A s s o c . , C h ic ag o , 111.
p 11.
G l a z e n e r , E 0 W . , a n d W0 L . B l o w , 1 9 5 4 .
f o r e f f i c i e n c y of egg p r o d u c t i o n .
V a ria tio n in hybrids
P o u ltr y S e i 0 33:1055.
H e y w a n g , B 0 W ., 1 9 4 0 .
Th e e f f e c t o f r e s t r i c t e d f e e d i n t a k e on
egg w e i g h t , egg p r o d u c t i o n , and body w e i g h t .
P o u ltry S c i.
19:29-34.
■
■
K ing,
S . C . , J . R.„ C a r s o n a n d D 0 P . D o o l i t t l e , 1959 .
The
C o n n e c t i c u t and C o r n e l l random bred , p o p u l a t i o n s of c h i c k e n s .
W o rld 's P o u ltr y - S c ie n c e J o u r n a l 15:139-159.
K ing,
S. C ., 1956.
R e a r i n g and l a y i n g h o u se f e e d c o n s u m p t i o n
s t u d i e s u t i l i z i n g random sam ple t e s t d a t a .
P o u ltry S ci.
35:1151.
—3 6 —
M i l l e r , M. M . , a n d J . H . Q u i s e n b e r r y , . 1959 „ F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g
f e e d e f f i c i e n c y f o r egg p r o d u c t i o n i n s e l e c t e d s t r a i n s of
caged l a y e r s .
P o u l t r y S c i „ 38:757-766,
O s t l e , B , , 1958,
S t a t i s t i c s in re se a rc h .
T hird
Iowa S t a t e C o l l e g e P r e s s .
Ames, Io w a .
p rin tin g .
Th e
S i n g s e n , E , P . , L 0 D 0 M a t t e r s o n , J , T l u s t o h o w i c z , a n d L„ M,
P o t t e r , 11 9 5 8 . . The e f f e c t o f e n e r g y i n t a k e a n d c o n t r o l l e d •
f e e d i n g on t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f b r o i l e r t y p e b r e e d i n g h e n s ,
P r o c , AFMA N u t r i t i o n C o u n c i l , D e c , 1 - 2 , 1 9 5 8 .
A m erican
Feed M a n u f a c t u r e r s A s s o c , C h ic a g o , 111, p , 16,
S i n g s e n , E 0 P , , L , D, M a t t e r s o n , J , T l u s t o h o w i c z , a n d L 0 M,
P o t t e r , 1948.
E f f e c t of c o n t r o l l e d f e e d i n g , en erg y
i n t a k e a n d t y p e o f d i e t on p e r f o r m a n c e o f h e a v y - t y p e
la y in g h e n s „ P o u l t r y S c i 0 37:1243,
S n e d e c o r , G0 W ,, 195 9 ,
S t a t i s t i c a l M ethods.
p rin tin g .
The Io w a S t a t e C o l l e g e P r e s s ,
T i t u S , H „ W0 ,
ed itio n .
111.
5th e d itio n ,
A m e s, I o w a .
2 nd
1955.
Th e s c i e n t i f i c f e e d i n g o f c h i c k e n s ,
2 nd
The I n t e r s t a t e P r i n t e r s a n d P u b l i s h e r s , D a n v i l l e
APPENDIX
-37T able
I „
Group
a.
I N D I V I D U A L RECORDS OF 2 9 P U L L E T S ,
PRODUCTION P E R I O D , ' NON- R ES T RI CT E D
8 6 DAY
FEEDING
^ = - 4 4 5 1 , 4 0 + „ 9 4 0 7 X ;l + 2 . 5 0 2 5 X 2 + 7 8 „ 6 9 X 3
H en
No .
Y
$
ad.I Y
Xl
%2
I 11 6
107
111
113
HO
116
116
111
112
112
113
118
.120
107
103
122
113
115
114
112
99
112
120
105
92
103
120
144
116
31.9
4 4 .5
40 .1
3% .S
23.2
38.8
38.3
38.5
36.5
36.%
3 9 .6
39.5
37.6
4 0 .4
38.8
36.4
34.5
3$.6
SA-P
37-9
33-8
35.0
35.6
38.7
33.7
4 7.6
39.5
37 „8
34.0
1842
2401
1836
1856
1423
18.03
1483
1676
2308
1528
1336
1795
1608
1721
1563
1250
1547
1465
1663'
1568
1368
1401
17 5 8
1611
1850
1635
1432
1429
1414
. X^
Gr E
86
79
103
107
74 '
99
94
106
87
120
73
86
74
67
77
84
81
112
. 60
99
87
108
108
70
100
83
79
82
80
.2274
.3296
.3427
.32Q7
.2864
,3233
. 3450
.3468
.2852
. 3352
.3143
.3238
.3241
.3673
.3919
.3111
. 3286
.3170
.2187
. 3468
.3809
.3398
.2941
.3794
.3009
.4327
. 3496
.2779
.3301
.3190
.3458
.3333
.3274
.3364
.3190
.3190
■ .3333
.3304
. 3304
.3274
.3136
.3083
.3458
.3592
.3033
.3274
. 3217
.3246
. 3304
. 3558
.3304
.3083
.3524
. 3814
.3592
. 3083
.2569
.3190
a d .1 E
8
16
.17
18
23
40
41
45
55
56
60
62
64
67
70
74
76
81
89
93
94
95
96
97,
IQ l
103
115
116
120
103
119
102
112
110
113
136
103
M ea ns
110.4
109.2
111.1
36.2
1640
88.4
. 3283
.3298
O y er-all
112.3
112.0
112.0
3 6.9
1720
86.8
.3325
. 3316
115
135
1.17
116
ies
I ^
111
ill
12 8
108
m
HO
:9 ?
1,17
105
106
,9 4
111
140
118
115
90
116
107
112
128
108
90
116
108
115
108
97
■ 104
103
94
109
97
103
111
109
132
119
. 105
104.
99
■
—
T able: 1 1 .
Group
b.
38
*
I N D I V I D U A L RECORDS OF 3 0 P U L L E T S ,
PRODUCTION P E R I O D , NON- R E S T R I C T E D
8 6 DAY
FEEDI NG
Y = - 4 4 5 1 , 4 0 * . 9 4 0 7 X 1 * 2 . 5 0 2 5 X 2 •* 7 8 . 69X3
Hen
No,
Y
119
111
115
113
103 .
110
11%
lps
>
107
153
f
2
5
11
13
20
21
24
30
35
36
37
42
46
54
58
65
69
78
V9
85
8^
84
87
91
92
100
106
113
114
117
;*8
103
114
12 i
129
129
133
120
166
112
105 s
119
114
109
123
111
122
118
118
112
108
106
93
103
104
116
130
96
HO
127
105
102
116
120
118
121
HO
124
111
112
108
119
119
107
125
111
Means
114.4
O v er-all
112.3
1^8
adj
Y
Xl
X2
Gr E
adj E
,. 3781
.3685
. 3 5 39.
.3204
. 3806
,3291
. 1025
. 3018
. 3802
.3935
.2790
.3740
.2941
' .3694
. 3898
.3107
.3333
.3248
.2542 .
. 3411
.2887
.3350
. 3700
.2884
.3143
. 3453
. 3579
.3174
.4081
.3180
. 3394
.3524
.3394
. 3274
. 3458
.3190
„2681
„3162
. 3558
„ 3592
.2741
.2984
„3083
.3394
.3524
. 3274
.3363
„3274
. 3008
,3083
.2741
.3426
. 3663
„3304
„3394
.3304
. 3458
„3245
„ 3363
„3304
109
105
109
113
107
116
138
117
104
103
135
124
120
109
105
113
HO
113
123
120
135
108
101
112
109
112
107
114
HO
112
4 5.0
4 0 .9
40 .7
36.2
3.9.2
36.2
12.2
32.6
36.5
4 2.1
42.7
4 0.0
34.7
45.8
38.2
32. d
38.6
39.3
32.8
4 4 .0
38.4
4p.2
37.0'
32.3
33.6
4 1.1
.4 0 .8
34.6
5 0 .2
35.3
1806
1818
1818
1762
1513
1556
1845
1543
1459
1694
2073
1307
1747
1939
1394
'1539
1827
' 1925
2182
1.814
1599
2032
1695
1897
1701
1850
1838
1593'
17 66
1725
113.0
'1 1 3 .7
37.7
1741
87 e 9 . 3 3 0 6
.3305
112.0
112.0
36.9
1720
86.8
. 3316
80.
.106
77
87
89
78
72
94
88.
109
65
57
79
72
96
95
65
85
115
120
88
85
84
111
103
84
85
101
68
101
.3325
-39T ab le
III*
Group
c .
I N D I V I D U A L RECORDS OF 2 8 P U L L E T S , 8 6 DAY
PRODUCTION P E R I O D , N ON- RES TRI CT ED FEEDING
$ = - 4 4 5 1 . 4 0 + . 9 4 0 7 % i + 2 . 5 0 2 5 X 2 + 7 8 . 6 9 X3
Hen
No.
I
3
4
6
10
14
22
25
27
29
si
32
38
43
4,a
49
51
59
61
63
86
88
90
9'8
111
112
118
119
Y
adj Y
Xi
X2
X3
Gr E
adj E
126
120
114
HO
112
126
92
116
123
109
116
116
116
HO
117
115
96
137
111
124
114
110
114
108
117
111
111
12 2
121
112
108
108
IlO
109
115
103
117
113
111
124
112
119
123
108
HO
98
111
114
104
104
108
107
116
109
121
120
41.1
2067
42.5
1833
35.6
1819
40.4
1543
37 „8
1723
40.6
2061
1346
30.0
1844
37.0
45.8
1813
28.7: . 1931
46.3
1587
1706
42.6
41.6.
1753
36.1
1685
1855
39.0
1695
41.4
34.9
1376
43.8
2168
40.7
1585
4 8 .1
1778
34.2
1930
40.0
1524
36 .7
1808
1741
31.9
41.0
1787
35.6
1716
38.9
1598
35.3
2026
114.4
114.7
111.6
38.8
17 61 ,
84. 8 ,3389
.3315
O v e r - a 11 1 1 2 . 3
112.0
112.0
39.6
1720
86. 8 .3325
.3316
Means
135
120
HO
106
110
12 3
95
107
128
HO
115
128
116
117.
128
111
94
12 3
. HO
,12 6
106
102
HO
103
121
108
120
130
$'■
80
81
71
86
83
80
75
71
79
100
83
88
76
79
99
69
66
58
83
75
111
99
HO
HO,
10.8
9.5 .
99
63
.3044
. 3062
. 3542
. 3304
. 3236
.3426
.3811
.3426
.3436
. 3364
. 3301
. 3394
.3158
. 3217
.3458 ' .3 5 9 2
.3578
. 3162
.2609
. 3274
.4026
. 3333
. 3281
.2984
.3534
.3304
.3085 , .3109
. 3047
. 3008
. 3730
.3426
. 3713
.3364
.3561
.3775
. 3700
.3333
. 3817
.3245
.3226
. 3558
. 3922
.3558
. 3336
. 34 26
. 3097
. 3458
.3388
.3190
.3296
. 3394
. 3242
. 3062
.2715
. 3083
-40 -
T able
IV .
Group d .
INDIVIDUAL RECORDS OP 28 PULLETS, 86 DAY
PRODUCTION PERIOD, NON-RESTRICTED FEEDING
/I
Y
s
- 4 4 5 1 . 4 0 + . 9 4 0 7 X1 + 2 . 5 0 2 5 X o
-3-
78.69%
Hen
No.
Y
7
9
12
15
19
26
38
33
34
44
47
56
52
. 53
57
66
71
72
73
77
80
85
104
105
107
108
109
HO
113
112
117
114
iia
108
108
111
105
120
121
9&
107
95
112
96
119
IO^
125
;6.6
84
131
125
116
99
128
111
123
113
117
107
119
114
113
107
111
112
120
120
100
112
98
118
94
116
95
131
71
95
128
115
112
109
124
118
125
112
107
122
107
HO
107
113
112
105
112
113
108
107
109
106
114
115
125
106
107
101
115
122
116
102
116
105
HO
42 .8
40.8
37.7
4 4 .0
42.5
41.0
34:6
4 2 .0
41.2
44 .5
41.4
36.1
30.3
2 3 .6 '
38.0
,36.1
38.3
16.8
40.4
13.8
34.6
40.7
34.7
37 .7
35.5
35.4
34.5
45.2
1622
66
. 3788
.3304
1779
85 .
.3643
,3457
1571
76
.3222
.3033
1728
90
. 3860
.3457
1604
84
. 3364
.3794
1600
111
.3796
.3457
1603 ’ 85
.3204
. 3274
1516
94
.3784
.3304
1631
66
. 3924
. 3524
1759
79
. 3708
. 3304
1863
87
.3 4 2 1 ' .3274
79
1370
.3760
. 3426
2016
115
.2832
. 3457
1626
81
.2695
.3394
1904
97
. 3393
. 3490
1266
69
.3760
.3246
1832
84
.3218
.3217
17 88
89
.1555
.2960
2271
87
.3232
. 3490
1207
69
.2090
.3457
1257
81
.4119
.3663
2162
85
.3107
.3217
1882
82
• .2776
. 3033
1712
74
. 3250
.3190
1668
84
.3586
. 3627.
2260
100
.2766
.3190
2 0 1 6 • 86
. 3108
. 3524
1894
83
.3675
.3364
M ea ns
110.0
111.2
110.8
36.6
1729
84.5
. 3323
.3346
O v e r - a 11 1 1 2 . 3
112.0
112.0
36.9
1720
86.8
.3325
. 3316
. 3
adj
Y
X1
x.
x?
Gr E
adj E
—4 1
T a b le'
V.
Groiip
a „
I N D I V I D U A L RECORDS OF 2 9 P U L L E T S , 1 2 1 DAY
PRODUCTION P E R I O D , N ON- RES TRI CT ED FE EDI NG
Y " 3 8 . 9 8 1 6 + . 9 2 T 6 X i + . 0229X2
H en
"No.
■Y
8
16
17
1$
23
40
41
45
5'5
56
60
62
64
67
70
74
76
81
89
93
94
95
96
97
101
103
115
116
120
115
135
121
118
I 92
124
114
116
±21
113
; 88
124
iis
113 •
I Ol
115
10'9'
HO
HO
113
J89
. ids
122
1Q.6
HS
iio
. 114
129
101
r ^
adj Y
" X1
%2
HO
136
121
120
99
120
110
117
118
112
99
120
113
111
113 .
105
HO
105
106
114
Sb
io6
116
113
113
119
HO
107
98
118
112
113
111
106
117
117
112
116
114
103
117
118
115
101
123
112
118
117
112
106
1X5
119
106
113
104
117
135
116
30.4
1904
45 .6
2404
42 .1
1887
19 6 8
39.0
28.0
1521
40 .1
1934
39.0
152 3
1826
40.0
29.0
2306
39.1
1605
29.1
1405
4 1 . 1 " 1886
39.4
" 1655
42 .0
1792
■
1663
3 9 .i:
38.1
13:56
37.0
: .1605
3 4 .1
. 1334
29.5
17 67
4 0 .1
1673
33.0
1428
36.3
1492
36.0
1910
40.0
1649
35.1
. 1843
4 8 .0
1588
41.0
1460
39.0
1420
29.0
1430
.
Gr E
a d .I E
.2643
.3377
.3479
.3305
. 3043
.3233
.3421
.3448
.2396
.3460
. 3306
.3314
.3338
.3716
.3871
.3313
.3394
• .3100
.2681
.3548
.3707
.3361 .
.2950
. 3773
.3106
.4363
.3596
i 3023
.2871
.3136
.3304
.3274
. 3333
.3491
.3162
. 3162
.3304
.3190
. 3246
.3592
.3162
.3136
.3217
.3663
. 3008
.3304
. 3136
.3162
.3304
. 3491
. 3217
.3109
.3491
,3274
.3558
.3162
.2741
.3190
Mean?
112.5
111.6
113.9
37 . 2
1704
.3315
.3259
O y er-all
114.7
114.4
112.2
37.8
1728
.3300
.3308
-»42T able
V I.
Group
b,
I N D I V I D U A L RECORDS OF 3 0 P U L L E T S , 1 2 1 D A Y
PRODUCTION P E R I O D , NON- RE ST R IC T ED F EE DI NG
Y * 35 „ 1 5 5 1 + <,3 1 6 4 X 1 + .SOSTXg
Hen
No „
Y
2
5
11
13
20
21
24
30
35
36.
37
42
46
54
58
65
69
78
7V
82
83
84
87
91
92
100
106113
114
117
125
113
117
120
106
107
123
lid
' 9'6
ids
149
ill
121
127
102
109
122
121
132
133
130
12 3
103
114
107
122
117
114
129
115
M ea ns
O ver-all
Y
adj Y
X1 '
X0
Gr E
adj E
125 .
119,
119
115
109
HO
115
107
105
116
132
107
115
120
105
108
123
126
136
119
116
135
116
119
116
120 '
12.3
110
122
116
113
107
111
118
HO
HO
121
116
104
105
130
117
119
120
HO
114
112
. 108
109
127
127
101
HO
108
104
115
107 .
117
120 .
112
44.6
44.1
41. 0,
36.5
40.5
32.2
13.5
33.1
36.1
41.0
4 3.0
40.4
37.5
37.1
39.1
34.5
’ 39.0
38.2
35.2
43.1
39.5
42.0
.3 6 .5
. 33.5
36.0
41 .2
41.4
36.5
51.5
37.0
1963
1807
1828
1766
1570
1663
1947
1592
1510
1754
2148
1523
1760
1890
1496
1590
1946
2039
2 312
1808
1758
2226
1790
1895
1792
1868
1938
1642
1826
1775
. 3568
. 3903
. .3504
..3042
. 3821
. 3009
. 1097
.3009
. 3760
.3796
.2886
.3640
. 3099
. . 2 9 2,1
1 .3833
.3147
.3197
.3157
. 3667
i 3241
. 30 38
.3415
. 35 44
.2938
.3364
. 3377
. 35 38
. 3202
. 399 2
.3217
. 3274
.3458
. 3333
. 3136 .
.3364
.3364
.3057
. 3190
.3558
.3524
.2846
■ .3162
. 3109
.3083
.3364
. 3246
.3304
■.3426
. 3394
.2.913
.2913
.3663
.3364
.3426
.3558
.3217
.3458
.3162
. 3083
.3304
117.5
117.5
113.4
38.2
1814
.3264
. 3275
114.7
114.4
112.2
37.8
1782
.3300.
.3308
T able
VII.
Group
c.
I N D I V I D U A L RECORDS OF 2 8 P U L L E T S „ 1 2 1 DAY
PRODUCTION P E R I O D „ NON- RES TRI CT ED F EE DI NG
If s 2 1 . 7 6 4 7 + 1 . 0 8 9 7 X i + „ 0 2 8 5 X 2
Hen
No.
Y
$
adj Y
I
3
.4
;6
16
14
22
25
27
29
31
32
38
43
48
49 .
51
59
61
63
86
88
90
98
ill ,
112
118
119
137
122
110
108
1X4
123
103
109
124
114
116
130
116
118
132
115
: 97
135
Io 9
126
108
106
112
105
124
111
120
126
129
123
111
114
115
127
98
117
122
113
120
118
118
112
122
115
101
134
112
126
117
HO
HO
109
120
113
113
118
119
HO
HO
105
HO
107
116
103
113
112
107
123.
109
117
121
111
107
102
108
111
102
107
113
107
115
109
118
119
Means
116.4
116.3
O v e r - a 11 1 1 4 . 7
114.4
.
'
X I.
Gr E
adj E
2076
4 4 .3
1924
42.7
35.1
1807
43.5
1590
184 3
37.0
42.0
2088
33.1
, 1420
38.0
; 1890
- 1808
4 4 .^
.195 3
33.1
46.0
1700
1827
4 i.o
■ 1798
4 1 .1
. 1747
37.2
42.1
■ > 1912
1754
4 0 .f 36.0
1418
4 3 .1
2275
1569
4.1.4
1861
4 %. Q
34.5
2034
40.2
1550
33.3
1806
1842
32.0
43.1
1803
37.1
1798
4 0 .1
1673
32.8
2144
. 3234
. 3500
.3191
.4028
.3246 '
. 3 415
. 32 13
.3486
.3581
.2903
. 3965
. 3154
.3543
.3152
.3189
. 34 87
.3711
.3448
. 3798
.3730
.3194
.3792
.2973
,30 4 8
. 3476
.3342
. 3342
.2 5 6 3 .
.3109
.3364
.3364
. 3524
.3364
. 3458
.3190
.3592
.3274
.3304
.3458
.3008
.3394
.3162
.3057
.3333
.3627
. 3426
.3333
. 3627
.3458
.3274
.3458
.3217
.3394
.3136
.3109
.3109
in . i
39.3
1818
.3382
.3338
112.2
37.8
1782
. 3 300
.3308
x.
-44 T able
V II-I, Group
d „
I N D I V I D U A L RECORDS OF 2 8 P U L L E T S ,
PRODUCTION P E R I O D , N O N- R ES T RI CT E D
Y H en
No .
'
121 D AT
FEEDING
2 5 . 3619 + , 7 7 8 2 X 1 + . 0 3 2 5 X 2
Y
$
7
9
12
1-5
19
26
28
33
34
44
47
■50
5,2
53
57
<6
7.1 •
12
'7 3
77
80
85
104
105
107.
108
109
HO .
109
115
119
117
114
HO
112
113
107
124
1 23
io i
107
104
116
96
120
114
12V
'7 290
128
125
HS
97
130
109
125
111
118
111
119
109
109
106
109 •
HO
. 123
122
102
114
102
120
96
119
103
133
80
98
124
113
113
98
130
118
126
Means
112.2
112.0
110.2
36.4
1795
.3242
.3365
O y e r - a 11 1 1 4 . 7
114.4
112.2
37.8
1782
.3300
„3308
a,dj Y
108
107
118
108
115
111
116
114
107
H l
111
109
103
112
106
HO
111
121
104
102
102
114
122
115
109
HO
101
109
Xi
Xe
32.2
1872
38.2
1934
39.2
1696
4 5.0
1800
1544
4 3.0
15 61
42.1
3 6.4
1618
42.0
1577
38.0
1688
4 5 .1
1936
4 2 .0 '
1981
38.3
1436
1 3:0.2
2017
30.2
1650
40.1
1950
3 4 . 3 . 1339
30.1
2158
. 1994
16:0
4 3 .1
2266
16.2
1292
37.1
1354
35.0
2206
36.0
1830
39 „ I
1764
34.5
1398
3-6.1
2370
32.1
2070
4 7.1
1979
Gr E
.2954
. 3322
. 3294
.3846
.3772 .3827
.3250 '
.3717
.3551
.3637
„3415
.3792
.2822
.2904 ■
„3457
.3572 .
„ 2508
„ 1404
.3394
.2250
.4122
„ 2734
„2880
„3313
.,3557
„2 777
„2945
„ 3768
adj B
.3426
.3458
„3 136
.3426
.3217
.3333
.3190
„3246
„3 458
.3333
.3333
.3394
„ 3592
.3304
.3491
.3364
.3333
.3057
„3 558
.3627
„3627
„3 246
.3033
„3217
„3 394
.3364
„ 3663
„3394
45
T able
IX.
.
Group
a.
I N D I V I D U A L RECORDS OF 2 9 P U L L E T S ,
DAY PRODUCTION P E R I O D , RESTRICTED
121
25%
Y S 34 . 5 1 4 2 1 + . 4 4 6 5 X 1 + . 0242X
2
82
104
99
85
n
86
79.
83
89
80
64
85
86
' 85
80
72
77
76
7ti
81
7?
7.6
82
81
92
6Q
78
•77
71
81
104
87
84
73
: 84
76 .
84
91
77
66 .
86
78
:86
84
71
80
76
71
82
77
75
81
85
86
6 4.
7.3
76
67
Xi
-X0
9 .0
25.6
27.8
19.7
,4.9
22.8
.1097
.2462
.3159
.2318
.0731
.2651
.2746
. 1060
.0000
. 15 25
.0328
. 16 51
.1475
.2929
.3025
.1888
.2545
. 1355
. 0442
. 1024
.2083
.0657
.2073
.2728
. 1608
.2483
.1769
.1662
.0000
.3936
.3978
.3936
.393,6
.4253
.3895
.3854
.4022
.4065
.3854
.4065
.3978
.3895
. 3936
.4157
. 3936
.4111
.2978
.4022
.4022
.4205
. 3936
.3936
.4111
.3737
.4157
.3775
.3936
.3775
W
8
16
17.
ts
23
40
44
45
55
5S
60
62
64
67
7d
74
76
SI
8#
93
94
95
96
97
101
103
115
116
120
ad. i Y
to
Y
' ad j E
'8 .9
0 .0
12.2
"2.1 :
14’ i 2
11.8
24.9 ■
24.2
13.6
19.6
10. 3
.3 .1
,8.3
is.b
. 5.0
17.0
22.1
14.8
14.9
13.8
12.8
0.0
17 37
2389
1653
1696
1480
1616
1302
1894
2328
1530
1247
1854
157b
1680
1593
1244
1514
1515
14 37
1817
1480
1589
1617
1670
1857
932
1314
1468
1355
1599
. 1706
.3979
24.8
1761
.2406
.3557
Means
79.4
7 9 .4
93. I
O ver-all
99.5
99 .3
105. 0
CO
94
93
94
94
87
95
96
92
91
96
91
93
95
94
89
94
90
93
92
92
88.
94
94
90
99
89
98
94
98
CO
Y
H
Hen
N o.
—4 6 ~
T ab le
X„
.
Group
b.
I N D I V I D U A L RECORDS OF 3 0 P U L L E T S ,
DAY PRODUCTION P E R I O D , RESTRICTED
121
12|%
$ B 2 3 .6 0 4 8 + ,5754X 1. + .0333X2
Hen
No .
2
5
11
is
20
21
24
30
35
3%
37
42
46
54
58
65
09
78
79
82
83
84
87
91
92
100
106.
113
114
117
Y
106
102
- 99
97
i 94
92
$0
89
88
101
1.13
83
95
108
92
88
IO l
.97
102
105
.95
106
96
79
94
103
103
93
108
89
adj Y
105
102
96
94
93
94
89
87
90
102
107
84
95
106
‘ 9'5
85
99
98
107 .
93
97
108
99
84
99
99
105
89
108
88 -
103
102
105
105
103
100
93
104
100
101
108
101
102
104
99
105
104
101
97
114
100
100
99
97
97
106
100
106
102
103
Xl
•x.
41.5
1730
41.2
1654
20.8
1800
13.7
1882
1479
■ 3.4.7
1631
27 .3
16.8
1680
26.9
. 1440
27.5
1522
38.0
16 88
33.0 '
1937
32.9 '
1248
27.2
1671
15.0
2208
36.4 "
1511
14.6
■: 1592
10.5
2072
10.6
2047
2 3.9
2100
14.6
1820
1670
31.9
2.5
2495
2 7 .1
.1805
3.1
1760
31.6
1709
1633
37.2
30.5
1924
25.7
1521
46.2
1676
1762
9.0
Gr E
'
adj E
. 3915
.4039
.2101
.1412
. 3691
■ .2967
.2100
.3022
. 3125
. 3762
: .2920
. 3963
.2863
. 1398
.3956
.1659
.1039
.1092
.2343
. .1390
.3347
„0235
„ 2822
.0392
. 33 61
„ 3611
.2961
.2763
.4277
. 1011
. 3592
,3627
„ 3524
. 3524
.3592
. 3700
.3978
.3558
.3700
. 3663
.3426
. 3 6 63
.3627
.3558
. 3 7 37
.3524
.3558
.3663
.3814
.3246
.3700
.3700
.3737
„3814
.3814
.3491
. 3700
.3491
„3627
„ 3592
Means
96.6
96 .6
102.0
25.0
1755
.2584
. 3631
O v e r ~ a 11
99.5
99,3
105.0
24.8
1761
.2406
.3557
-47T ab le
X I.
Group
c o
I N D I V I D U A L RECORDS OF 2 8 P U L L E T S „ 1 2 1 DAY
PRODUCTION P E R I O D , AD L I B I T U M FEEDING
Y = 3 8 . 1 6 6 4 + . 8442X% + . 0 2 7 6 X g
■
Hteh
No.
Y
I
3
.4
6
IO
14
22
25
27
29
31
S2
38
43
4*
49)
51
.59
61
63
8 !6
88
90
98
n i
112
118
119
134
125
112
125.
117
1'32
117
109'
128
13 3
123
131
108
,9 3
136
IR?
92
103
108
123
HO'
101
113
97
136
117
145
105
128
124
115
12 3
122
135
106
112
124 ;
136
,130
120
116
90
129
124
102
105
115
124
115
105
103
106
131
126
127
97
Means
117.8.
117.5' • 117.3
99.3
adj
Y
123
118,
114
119
113
114
126
114
121
114
HO
128
109
120
124
120
107
115
HO
116
112113
127
108
122
108
135
125
105.0
.....Xi.. J
X^
Gr E
adj E
. 3008
„ 3136
.3246
.3109
.3274
.3246
.2926
.3246
„ 3058
.3246
. 3364
.2891
„3394
.3083
.2983
. 3083
„3458
.3217
„ 3364
„3190
„3304
„3274
„2913
.3426; ■
„3033
.3426
„2741
.2960
35.3
33.4
24.5
44.0
39.0
39.8
34.5
38.3
37.5
49.8
48.8
32.1
28.1
8.?
45 .1
42 .0
27.7
„7.5
36.5
37.3
20.8
23.4
9 .7
23 .1
46.5
39.5
49.8
3.4
217 3
2100
2042
1725.
184,3
2290
1416
1869 .
1975
2022
1820.,
1997
1970
1602
1910 .
1824
1474
2175
1650
1955
2137
1705
2050
1736
1924
1957
1686
2040
.2634
.2672
.2187
.3520
.3333
.3015
.2948
-.3513
.2929
. 3744
. 3967
.2450
.2601
.0935
.3316
. 3 307
.3010
„0728
.3379
„3032
„ 1890
.2316
„0858
„2381
.3419
„3376
.3434
.0323
32.3
1895
„2686
. 3165
17 61
„2406
.3557
OO
99.5
f
CXJ
O v e r - a 11
,
■
-
T ab le
XII.
Group
d.
48
-
I N D I V I D U A L RECORDS OF 2 8 P U L L E T S ,
DAY PRODUCTION P E R I O D , 1 00% OF f
121
A
Y s= 2 3 . 3975 + . 7 1 5 4 X 1 + . 0 3 3 8 X 2
Hen
No o
Y
ad.I Y .
X1
X5
Gr E
1892
2029
1657
1857
1693
1575
1594
1532
1802
19 60
1940
1377
2132
1595
197 3
1224
1947
1316
2231
1247
1373
2194
1935
1868
1830
2506
2206
1908
.0057
.2730
.3490
.3617
.3494
.3812
.3320
.3954
.1093
. 3344
.2924
.4030
.2342
I. 3 309
.2469
. 3215
.2451
.0070
. 3692
.2271
.3925
.2401
.2867
.0741
. 1875
.20 7 3
. 1490
.3373
ad j E
7
9
12
15
19
26
38
33
W
44
47
59
52
53
57
66 .
71
72
73
77
8@
85
104
105
107.
108
109
IlQ
87
115
106
115.
. 97,
112
106
HO
107
119
119
‘ ,09
108
•9j
113
J 79
H3, .
.71
130
7b
'94
127
113 .
. 93
96
123
ibo
119
88
115
106
116
105
107
103
106
93
118
114
99
114
100
HO
83
109
68
133 ,
77
96
120
112 '
92
98
127
109
117
Means
104.9
104.8
108.0
28.5
1802
.2658
.3432
99.5
99.3
105.0
24.8
1761
.2406
.3557
O v e r - a 11
107
108
108
. 107
100
113
111
112
122
109
113
108
102
105
H l
104
112
H l
105
101
106
115
109
109
106
104
99
HO
■ 0.5
31.4
37.0
41.6
, 33.9
42 .7
35.2
43 .5
11.7
39.8
34.8
39.9
25.3
32.1
27.9
25.4
27.7
.0 .5
48 .0
15.9
36.9
30.5
- 32.4
6.9
18.0
25.5
14.9
40 .2
. 3458
. 3426
.3426
. 3458
.3700
.3274
.3333
.3304
. 3033
'.3 3 9 4
.3274
. 3426
. 3627
. 3524
. 3333
.3558
. 3304
.3333
.3524
.3663
.3491
.
. 3217
.3394
.3394
.3491
.3558
.3814
. 3 364
- 4
T able X I I I 0
9
-
COMPOSITION OF LAYING RATION
Ingredientis
G round b a r l e y
32% p r o t e i n s u p p l e m e n t *
L im esto n e flour.**
*.
Per
cent
76
20
• 4 .
A com m ercial p r o t e i n c o n c e n t r a t e b a la n c e d to meet o p tim a l
v i t a m i n and m i n e r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r egg p r o d u c t i o n .
** L i m e s t o n e f l o u r b r o u g h t t o t a l
c a lc iu m was f e d .
calcium to
2|% .
No a d d i t i o n a l
' |Z
' ' • ; -M 1. i
' 'I
I— I
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
144877