CHANGING PHOTOPERIOD AND FIRST AND SECOND LAY. PERFORMANC~ IN RIR BREED; FAVOURABLE INFLUENCE OF SHORT PHOTOPERIOD (L:D 6:18) IN PULLETS BUT NOT IN ADULT HENS

Article Id: ARCC3527 | Page : 87-94
Citation :- CHANGING PHOTOPERIOD AND FIRST AND SECOND LAY. PERFORMANC~ IN RIR BREED; FAVOURABLE INFLUENCE OF SHORT PHOTOPERIOD (L:D 6:18) IN PULLETS BUT NOT IN ADULT HENS.Indian Journal Of Animal Research.2000.(34):87-94
0.5. Dandekar, R.V. Devkar and A.V. Ramachandran·
Address : Division Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, Poultry Section, Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, The M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara- 390 002, India.

Abstract

The effects of changing photoperiod from LD 6: l8 Short Photoperiod (SP) to LD 12: 12 (NLD) on first and second lay performance were studied in RIR breed of domestic fowl. Birds reared under SP from day 1 till 90 days and thereafter maintained under an ambient photoperiod of LD 12: 12 (NLD) showed early initiation of egg laying (IL) by 58 days when compared to the birds reared continuously under NLD. The total number of eggs/bird/year were significantly more in birds reared under SP (193.68 v/s 168.47). However, the average weight of eggs was significantly lower when compared to NLD birds (44.68 gms v/s 46.59 gms). Birds of 72 weeks of age maintained under SP for 30 days, failed to lay any egg during the course of study. Whereas, birds maintained under NLD exhibited poor second lay performance (96.47 eggs/hen/yr). Overall, the data confirms that, there is a favourable influence of SP in pullets but not in the adult hens

Keywords

References

  1. Clarke. I.J. et al.. (1992) Stress and Reproduction. Serno Symposia Pub., Raven Press. New York.
  2. Dunn. I.C et al. (1990). Science. 31: 415-427.
  3. Hutchinson. J.D.C and Taylor, W.W (1957) J agric. Sci.. 49: 419-424
  4. Lewis, P.O. et al. (1992) In : Proc. XIX World Poultry Congress. Amsterdam 1: 689-692.
  5. Lewis, P.O. et al. (1994) British Poultry Sci. 35: 25-31.
  6. Lewis. P.D (1996a) British Poultry Sci. 37: 279-293.
  7. Lewis. P.O. et al. (1996) British Poultry Sci. 37: 885-894.
  8. Morris, T.R (1963). In : Proc. XII World Poultry Congress Symposia Reports pp 115-124.
  9. Morris, T.R. et al. (1964) British Poultry Sci. 5: 133-147.
  10. Morris. T.R. (1968) In Environmental Control in Poultry Production Oliver & Boyd Edinburgh. pp 15-39.
  11. Payne, C.G. (1975) British Poultry Sci. 16: 559-563.
  12. Proundfoot, F.G. (1980) Poultry Sci. 59 : 1258-1267.
  13. Renden, J.A. and Oates, S.S (1989) Poultry Sci. 68(suppl.l): 120 (Abst.)
  14. Sandoval, D.M. and Gernat. A.G. (1996) Poultry Sci. 75 : 311-314.
  15. Sykes. A.H. (1956) J. Agric Sci. 47: 429-434.
  16. Tucker, S.A. and Charles, L. (1993) British Poultry Sci. 34: 255-266.

Global Footprints