4.7 Article

Accelerating embryonic growth during incubation following prolonged egg storage 2. Embryonic growth and metabolism

期刊

POULTRY SCIENCE
卷 82, 期 12, 页码 1869-1878

出版社

POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.1093/ps/82.12.1869

关键词

egg storage; embryo survival; turkey embryo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hypothesis was proposed that the improved embryonic livability observed when higher incubation temperatures were imposed on eggs stored for 15 d prior to setting might have basis in energy metabolism. To test the hypothesis, fertilized turkey eggs were incubated either for the first 2 wk of development (experiment 1) or only the first week of development (experiment 2) at 37.8degreesC compared with controls incubated at 37.5degreesC. In both experiments, eggs were stored for either 15 or 3 d prior to setting. Viable embryos were selected randomly from each storage-by-incubation period treatment combination at 25 to 28 d of incubation and were sampled for blood, heart, and skeletal muscle tissues. Tissues were weighed and assayed subsequently for glucose or glycogen content. In experiment 2, the randomly selected embryos from each treatment combination were sampled at 7, 14, 21, and 28 d of incubation. Embryos at 7 and 14 d were assayed on a whole body basis, whereas at 21 and 28 d the bodies were dissected, and heart, liver, and skeletal muscle tissues were weighed and assayed for glycogen and lactate. Blood samples were collected between 25 and 28 d of incubation as in experiment I and assayed for glucose, creatine kinase, lactate dehydrogenase, and thyroid hormone concentrations. In both experiments, accelerated development was noted due to higher temperature and enhanced embryonic carbohydrate metabolism, and elevated thyroid hormone concentrations were observed compared with controls. It was concluded that a possible mechanism for the improved livability of faster growing embryos observed after prolonged egg storage might be due to better utilization of carbohydrate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据