4.7 Article

Effect of early feed restriction on reproductive performance in Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica)

Journal

POULTRY SCIENCE
Volume 82, Issue 7, Pages 1163-1169

Publisher

POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.1093/ps/82.7.1163

Keywords

feed restriction; quail; fertility; hatchability; leucocyte

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Reproductive performance of quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) was evaluated following feed restriction (100, 85, and 70% of ad libitum) between 2 to 5 wk of age with three replicates of 12, 2-wk-old chicks per replicate. Body weight, feed conversion, and leucocyte distribution were measured during feed restriction. After experimental feed treatment, BW, age at first egg, egg production, fertility, hatchability, and embryonic mortality were evaluated from five replicates of two females and one male per treatment. Feed-restricted female chicks had lower BW from 3 to 5 wk of age, but male weights were depressed only during the most severe restriction at 4 and 5 wk. No treatment differences were observed among BW within a sex from 6 to 13 wk. Body weights at first egg were significantly heavier for females fed 70% ad libitum than for birds on other treatments. Fertility, age at first egg, feed conversion, egg production, and egg weight were unaffected by feed restriction. Although hatchability was unaffected by feed restriction, percentage of late dead and total dead embryos were significantly reduced in eggs from restricted quail. Thirty quail fed 70% of ad libitum control intake had significantly increased egg specific gravity. Feed restriction increased the percentage of heterophils and basophils and the heterophil/lymphocyte ratio, whereas the percentage of lymphocytes and eosinophils decreased. Feed can be restricted to 85 or 70% of ad libitum feed intake from 2 to 5 wk of age without detrimentally affecting reproductive parameters between 6 to 13 wk of age.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available