*Wi- WWi fyxmll Wlmvmity fStafg CffiM^ H-iggae- lafi.H3.5 n&lzqi* RETURN TO ALBERT R. MANN LIBRARY ITHACA, N. Y. SF487.C95T e " UniVerS " yLlbrary * *f "dy of the relation of the chemical 3 1924 003 088 667 A Study of the Relation of the Chemical Composition of Hens' Eggs to the Vitality of the Young Chick A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY LEWIS JOSEPHUS CROSS JUNE, 1912 Mr Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924003088667 A Study of the Relation of the Chemical Composition of Hens' Eggs to the Vitality of the Young Chick A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University FOR THE DEGREEfOFiDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY LEWIS JOSEPHUS CROSS JUNE, 1912 E-V. W c?Sl '..- , -• ' INTRODUCTION In co-operation with the Department of Poultry Husbandry this work was begun under the direction of Professor G. W. Cavanaugh. Poultrymen have noted that the chickens hatched from the eggs of some hens are much stronger and more vigorous than those hatched from the eggs of other hens. Even with hens apparently of the same vigor, fed and housed in the same pen, mated with the same cock, ahd the eggs incubated under similar conditions, we will find some hens of the pen laying eggs hatching chickens in large percentages, while other hens of the pen will give most contrary results. This condition may be attributed to one of three different causes ; namely, the inherited constitutional vigor of the hen transmitted to the chick, the influence of the cock, or a difference in the proportionate chemical composition of the egg- To determine, if possible, the relation of the vitality of the chick to the chemical composition of the egg, and, if this relation be found, to attempt to control the composition of the egg, this work was begun. It is evident, at once, that this problem involves an examination of the egg before incubation, and a study of the changes taking place during incubation, together with an examination of the young chick. Also in the feeding experiments, examination of the eggs must be made while the hens are in normal condition, on their normal rations, and then at intervals as the feeding is changed. THE STUDY OF INCUBATED EGGS The problem of the changes in the egg during incubation were first taken up. By feeding various dyes to animals certain tissues are colored. Aniline dyes have been used by investigators to show va- rious changes taking place in the tissue. Dyes fed to hens will color parts of the egg. This coloring of the eggs was done to study the changes taking place during the incubation of the egg. The two principal dyes used were Sudan III and Rhodamine Red. Sudan III ' when fed to fowls apparently colors the fat deposits only. Rhodamine Red colors the shell and albumen of the egg. Sudan III colors the yolk of the egg only, while Rhodamine Red colors the albumen strongly and the yolk but little. In the experiments, 25 milligrams of Sudan III, and 100 milligrams of Rhodamine Red were fed to a hen per day. The eggs from the hens fed Sudan III had yolks of a bright red color. Daily feeds "produced concentric layers of red alternating with yellow yolk. Even with the dye in all the food no uniformly colored yolks were produced. The eggs laid soon after the first feeding of the dye showed these concentric layers near the outer part only. These two facts show that the yolk is built up by successive layers of fat deposited on the surface of the material already present and not any intermingling of the material. When the color was fed at stated intervals, the rate of growth within the yolk was obtained. It was possible in this way to cal- culate the number of days required for the development of the yolk and also to study the relative amount of material added during the stages of its formation. We find that the deposition of the yolk ma- terial is very slow at first, but very rapid at the end, the outer bands being much broader as well as greater in circumference. With the particular fowl observed it required fourteen days for the yolk to be fully formed. This observation was taken during the heavy laying season. The germ disc, albuminous center, and connecting tubes were left uncolored, showing that either they contain little or no fat or were a part of the ovary before the dye was fed. The Rhodamine Red dye colors the albumen of the egg principally. There is not enough protein in the yolk to make the color show very distinctly in contrast to the yellow. The albumen is colored uni- formly throughout. After two days of incubation the fertile eggs colored with Sudan III undergo a change. The outer bands of color break up and inter- mingle with the yellow bands of the yolk. By the fifth day of incu- bation, the yolk is quite well mixed, so that only a faint resemblance of the banded condition remains. By this time, also, the albumen near the developing embryo has turned pink. The bulk of the albumen, however, is still white. Upon boiling the egg, which is necessary to make the study, the white albumen becomes quite like rubber, while the pink albumen remains very soft. On the third and fourth, and often on the fifth day of incubation it was possible to get the pink albumen to coagulate. The amount of the pink albumen upon which ( 4 ) the embryo, to all appearances, directly feeds, remains quite constant. The white albumen gradually decreases until entirely softened and used up. The presence of color in the albumen leads one to suspect fat, since Sudan III, colors fat only. Analysis does show its presence in large percentage. The incubated eggs were boiled and then separated into the white albumen, the pink albumen, (the albumen portion col- ored by the dye), and the yolk. Analyses of these parts were made. The presence of much fat in the colored albumen is shown by the results of analysis. The protein and fat in the egg before incubation is approximately as follows : Per Cent Protein Per Cent Fat in in Dry Matter ' Dry Matter Albumen 85-89 0.50 Yolk 30.00 65.00 ANALYSIS OF INCUBATED EGGS The Yolk Laboratory Number of Days Per Cent Protein Per Cent Fat in Number of Egg Incubated (N. X 6.25) Dry Matter 67 3 31.43 63.82 82 5 30.44 65.67 70 6 31.87 63.54 73 6 33.75 61.47 76 6 31.31 60.50 58 7 30.62 58.91 61 7 31.43 65.25 64 7 30.56 61.13 79 8 30.87 61.70 55 11 30.56 64.78 52 12 29 .,87 65.24 The White Albumen Laboratory Number of Days Per Cent Protein in Dry Per Cent Fat in Number of Egg Incubated Matter (N. x 6.25) Dry Matter 67 3 85.56 .22 82 5 86.75 .25 70 6 86.12 .18 73 6 87.81 .27 76 6 86.56 .34 58 7 87.8L .09 61 7 86.81 .12 64 7 87.06 .25 79 8 87.56 .34 55 11 88.56 .15 52 12 89.18 .17 ( 5 ) The Pink Albumen Laboratory Number of Days Per Cent Protein in Dry Per Cent Fat in Number of Egg Incubated Matter (N. x 6.25) Dry Matter 67 3 31.64 55.08 82 5 26.31 65.50 70 6 25.44 60.12 73 6 26.87 56.82 76 6 25.87 61.91 58 7 28.62 59.46 61 7 28.31 56.31 64 7 28.37 54.96 79 8 28.12 55.89 55 11 26.12 66.07 52 12 25.06 69.71 The variations shown in the analytical figures are due in part, no doubt, to incomplete separations of the different parts. It is not pos- sible to make as complete a separation of yolk and white in the incu- bated egg as in the fresh egg. By reference to the table of arialyses of the yolk, it will be seen that the percentage of fat in the yolk remains practically constant throughout the twelve days of incubation. At the end of this period it also has the same approximate size and the same moisture content. This indicates that the fat found in the albumen is derived not wholly from the yolk, but mainly from another source, the albumen itself. Thus the question is raised as to whether the bulk of nourishment prov ted the embryo is in the torm of protein or fat. It was found that there was no change in color or composition in the infertile egg, even after five days of incubation. Later in this paper are described experiments showing the effect in composition of the egg of a ration high in protein and also the effect •of a ration high in fat, together with observations on the vitality of the • chicks from these eggs. STUDY OF THE YOUNG CHICK To study the absorption of the yolk by the chick, young chicks were killed and examinations were made of the yolk and of the chick. The Yolk Number Age of Chick Weight of Chick Per Cent Per Cent of from, which from which taken Race of Fat of Protein Chick taken Grams in Yolk in YoUs 2872 1 day 33.41 Strong 35.50 48.50 2892 2 days 31.85 Weak * 43.10 48.50 487 2 days. 31.57 Weak) Weak J 26.62 498 2 days 31.26 511 2 days 32.87 Strong 30.81 M 2 days 32.80 Strong] N 2 days 32.64 -Strong > 36.75 51.87 O 2 days 32.06 Strong J 499 3 days 35.59 Weak 23.22 503 3 days 38.92 Strong ) 21.70 507 3 days 42.15 ■ Strong I ( 6 ) As the strong and vigorous chick is usually fatter than the weak one, we might look for more rapid absorption of the fat of the yolk by the strong chick than by the weak one. By reference to the fore- going table, it will be seen that the percentage of fat in the yolk of the weak chick is in some cases less and sometimes more than in the yolk of the strong chick. PHOSPHORUS IN THE CHICK There is a difference of opinion as to whether the inorganic phos- phates are useful in the building up of organic phosphorus compounds in the animal body. It is has been shown by E. B. Forbes 1 that bone meal fed to pigs had the effect of strengthening the bones. The same author 2 says that the principal need of phosphorus by the body is phosphorus in the form of inorganic phosphates, and that organic phosphates can supply the bodily need for phosphorus, both organic and inorganic, provided the necessary bases are present. The theory is advanced by some investigators that phosphorus compounds lend vigor to the young animal and that the weak animal is not obtaining sufficient phosphorized elements. The chicks, after removal of the yolk, were examined for the con- tent of phosphorus with the following results: 1 Bulletin 81, Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station. 2 Bulletin ,201, Ohio Experiment Station. Phosphorus in the Chick Number Age Weight Grams of Per Cent Per Cent of of of Race P„ 0„ P, 0, P„ 0,. In Chick Chick Chick in Chick in Chick Dry Matter 2872 1 day 33.41 Strong .2085 .624 2.93 2892 2 days 31.85 Weak .2135 .670 3.17 487 2 days 31.57 Weak .2253 .713 2.78 498 2 days 31.26 Weak .2207 .706 2.81 511 2 days 32.87 Strong .2468 .750 3.1Q M 2 days 32.80 Strong .2432 .741 2.82 N 2 days 32.64 Strong .2272 .696 2.63 O 2 days 32.06 Strong .2080 .648 2.57 499 3 days 35.59 Weak .2618 .735 2.11 503 3 days 38.92 Strong .3158 .811 2.65 507 3 days 42.15 Strong .3000 .711 2.46 It will be seen that the weak chick is equally as rich in phosphorus as the strong chick. The chicks are designated "weak" and "strong," according to their ancestry. There is, of course, a possibility of the offspring of weak parents being strong and vice versa, so conclusive proof is not here shown. Number of Number of Eggs Date Laid Hen in Sample 3486-29 5 July 7—14 3609-29 5 July 7—14 3486-29 6 July 21— 26 3486-29 4 July 22— 27 Labora- Per Cent Per Cen| tory Fat in Protein in Dry Matter Number Dry Matter 3486-29 49.97 45.00 3609-29 49.18 45.62 3486-29 45.52 49.00 3486-29 45.45 49.87 ( 7 ) Sum of Fat Per Total Per and Protein Cent Per Cent Percent of Ash Cent of P„ 0. 94.97 3.67 98.64 2.03 \ 94.80 3.73 98.53 2.10 J 94.52 3.94 98.46 2.13 / 95.32 3.84 99.16 2.05 / From these results it is seen that there is no difference in the phos- \ phorus content of the eggs of the two individuals, but there is a differ- \ ence in the fat content and also in the protein content. J EGGS OF UNEQUAL HATCHING POWER Two individual hens were picked out that gave contrary results in hatching power. One individual laid eggs which invariably hatched chickens in large percentages. The other individual laid eggs, a few of which hatched. Both were fed and housed in the same pen, and the eggs were incubated under similar conditions. The average weight of the chicks from these two individuals did not indicate that one chick was more vigorous than the other. The mortality from both lots of chickens was about the same. There was practically nothing except the difference in hatching power of these eggs to indi- cate, that one bird was stronger than the other. Two samples of eggs from each individual were examined. Number 3486-29 is the hen producing eggs that hatched well. THE FEEDING OF INORGANIC PHOSPHORUS From a pen of laying hens being fed the regular ration, (the Cornell Ration for Laying Hens), a sample of eggs was taken and the eggs analyzed for the total phosphorus present. The percentages ' of fat and protein were also determined. Then there was added to the ration some Hen-E-Ta Bone Grit. This Bone Grit was of this compo- sition: CaO 19.04 per cent., P2 O5 15.30 per cent. Samples of the eggs of the flock were taken from time to time and analyzed. The Cornell Ration for Laying Hens The following whole grain mixture is fed morning arid afternoon in a straw litter: Summer. Winter. 60 lbs. Wheat. 60 lbs. Wheat. 60 lbs. Corn. 60 lbs. Corn. 30 lbs. Oats. * 30 lbs. Oats. 30 lbs. Buckwheat. The following mash is fed dry in a hopper kept open during the afternoon only : 60 lbs. Cornmeal. 60 lbs. Wheat Middlings. 60 lbs. Wheat Bran. 10 lbs. Alfalfa Meal. 10 lbs. Oil Meal. 50 lbs. Beef Scrap. 1 lb. Salt. The fowls eat about half as much mash as whole grain. ( 8 ) Labora- tory Number Date Laid Number Eggs In Sample Weight of Eggs Entire Grams Weight of Eggs less Shells Grams Weight of Shells Grams Weight of Egg Powder Grams R x 26-1 Rx26-3 Rx26-4 Rx26-5 July 6-10 Aug. 16-19 Aug. 30-Sept. 1 Sept. 30-Oct. 7 12 12 12 12 660 672 656 689 576. 590.5 569.5 602.5 84.0 81.5 86.5 85.5 385 395 367 . 375 Laboratory Number Per Cent Per Cent of Fat of Protein Sum of Pat and Per Cent Per Cent of Ash Total Per Cent of P„ 0. R x 26-1 *R x 26-3 Rx26-4 Rx26-5 46.82 48.18 48.63 46.81 49.35 45.62 44.63 50.25 95.00 95.44 94.97 94.88 3.77 3.74 3.76 3.86 98.77 99.18 98.73 98.74 2.10 2.08 2.14 2.00 *The Bone Grit was added to the ration Augu,st 1st. Sample R x 26-3 is the first one taken after the addition of the Grit. There was no increase in the phosphorus content of the egg and no increase in the ash, hence there was probably no increase in the lime content of the egg. The sum of the fat and the protein remained quite constant. HENS ON RANGE It has been noted by poultrymen that eggs from hens on ranges produced more vigorous chicks than eggs from hens kept on bare yards. In some cases, double the number of chicks were raised from the hen on range in comparison with the chicks from the hen with no range. Accordingly, samples of eggs of individuals of pens having range, and of pens having no range, were taken. Numbers 32 and 33 are from hens having range and Numbers 78 and 79 are from hens on bare yard. / Number Number of Average Weight of Per Per Cent Grams Grams of of . Eggs In Egg Minus Shell Cent of of Fat Protein Hen in Sample Grams of Fat Protein in Egg in Egg 6062-32 4 50.6 12.91 12.07 6.53 6.11 6091-3*2 4 52.0 12.54 12.73 . 6.52 6.62 7212-33 5 52.5 12.19 12.44 6.40 6.53 7218-33 4 51.1 13.93 11 .19 7.12 5.62 6095-78 2 49.5 12.66 11 .64 6.27 5.76 7205-79 4 51.7 13.44 11 .87 6.95 6.14 7545-79 2 50.0 12.67 11 .61 6.34 5.81 7539-79 5 51.9 12.46 J Per Cent 12. ,54 6.46 6.51 Number Number of Average Weight of Per Cent Sum of Fat Of Egg in ■ Egg Minus Shell Fat in Protein in and Protein Hen in Sample Grams Dry Matter Dry Matter Per Cent 6062-32 4 50.6 48.62 45.47 94.09 6091-32 4 52.0 47.05 47.78 94.83 7212-33 5 52.5 46.63 47.59 94.22 7218-33 4 51.1 52.45 42.69 95.14 6095-78 2 49.5 48.83 44.88 93.71 7205-79 4 51.7 50.21 44.37 94.58 7545-79 2 50.0 49.05 44.93 93.98 7539-79 5 51.9 47.14 47.41 94.55 While there is a variation of the fat content and of the protein content, this variation is not confined solely to either group. With the exception of Numbers 7S39 arid 7218, the hens on range produced (9 ) eggs having a higher protein content and a lower fat content than the hens on bare yard. This would seem to indicate the egg having the higher protein content, other things being equal, would produce the more vigorous chick. To determine this, if possible, an experi- ment was begun in feeding a ration high in- protein, and, on the other hand, a ration high in fat. The stock used was late-hatched White Leghorns. Each pen con- sisted of six pullets. Each pen was furnished with one cockerel. The hens were trap-nested and the eggs separately marked. The hens were first fed the Cornell ration (see page 7 ) and samples of the eggs of each individual taken. Then the ration was changed, one pen, 26C, being fed a ration high in fat; and the other, 26D, being fed a ration high in protein. The Effect of High Protein Content and of High Fat Content of the Egg Upon the Development and Strength of Young Chicks. • Kation Fed Pen 26D Bation Fed Pen 26C Corn Meal 120 pounds 30 pounds Wheat Middlings 40 pounds 70 pounds Wheat Bran 20 pounds 30 pounds Alfalfa Meal 5 pounds 10 pounds Oil Meal S pounds 10 pounds Beef Scrap 30 pounds 70 pounds Salt 1 pound . 1 pound 223 pounds 220 pounds Nutritive Ratio 1 : 3.4 1 : 1.6 Corn 300 pounds 200 pounds Wheat 200 pounds 300 pounds Nutritive Ratio 1 8.5 1 : 8.0 The eggs from a third hen, 26B, were used throughout the experi- ment as a check. Regular weighings of the feed were made. After being on the special ration for some weeks, some of the eggs were incubated in pedigree trays and the chicks leg-banded. The chicks were regularly brooded and their vigor and rate of growth noted. Samples I and II were taken while all hens were on the Cornell ration. Samples III, IV, and V were taken while hens 26C and 26D were on their respective special rations given on page 9. They were put on these rations March 7th. Pen 26B was kept on the Cornell ration as a check. Pen 26C was fed on the ration high in fat. Pen 26D was fed on the ration high in protein. Eggs were placed in the incubator April 25th. ( 10 ) Sample I Average *Average Labora- Number of Number Weight Weight of Average Per Cent Per Cent of tory Number Hen of Eggs in Sample Date Laid of Egg in Grams Egg Miuus Shell Weight of Shell of Pat Protein 7 26 B-8004 8611 3 J. 30; F. 1,2 58.8 52.1 6.5 13.75 12.38 2 93S2 3 J. 26, 28, 30 54.0 47.6 6.8 11.08 11.00 3 9374 3 J. 25, 27, 29 55.5 48.6 6.8 13.58 12.87 10 9375 9385 3 F. 1,2, 4 48.5 43.1 5.2 11.23 12.00 S 26 C-8408 3 J. 30; F. 1,2 54.5 47.5 6.8 11.36 12.36 9 8659 8712 3 J. 28, 30; F. 3 49.9 44.2 5.6 11.95 13.25 6 9351 9355 9376 3 J. 30, 31; F. 2 52.7 46.3 6.2 11.23 13.10 1 26 D-8413 3 J. 25, 28, 30 55.2 48.3 6.7 10.80 12.78 8 8491 3 J. 28, 30; F. 1 49.3 43.6 6.0 11.82 12.17 12 8544 3 J. 30, 31;^. 4 53.2 47.1 6.0 12.34 13.33 11 9357 3 J. 26, 31; F. 3 51.6 44.6 6.8 11.82 12.93 4 9394 3 J. 25, 30 ;F. 1 58.3 50.1 7.9 9.68 13.32 13 9395 3 F. 4, 6, 8 62.5 54.5 7.8 9.96 12.23 * The weight of shell given is that obtained after thoroughly draining the contents of the egg therefrom, and is not the weight of the cleaned shell. Sample I — Continued Sum of Fat Labora- Number of. Number Per Cent Per Cent and Protein Per Cent tory Hen of Eggs Date Laid Fat in Protein in in Dry Moisture Number in SampL 2 Dry Matter Dry Matter Matter, % in the Eggs 7 26 B-8004 8611 3 J. 30; F. 1,2 50.38 45.34 95.72 72.69 2 9352 3 J. 26, 28, 30 47.16 46.80 93.96 76.49 3 9374' 3 J. 25, 27, 29 48.86 46.31 95.19 72.19 10 9375 9385 3 F. 1, 2, 4 45.77 49.35 95.12 75.67 5 26 C-8408 3 J. 30; F. 1,2 45.20 49.16 94.36 74.85 9 8659 8712 3 J. 28, 30; F. 3 44.77 49.63 94.40 73.30 6 9351 9355 9376 3 J. 30, 31; F. 2 43.87 ■ 51.20 95.07 74.40 1 26 D-8413 3 J. 25. 28, 30 42.84 50.68 93.52 74.77 8 8491 3 J. 28, 31; F. 1 4, .65 48.04 94.69 74.65 12 8544 3 J. 30, 31; F. 4 45.55 49.19 94.74 7-2.90 11 9357 3 J. 26, 31; F. 3 44.58 48.75 93.33 73.47 4 9394 3 J. 25, 30; F. 1 39.42 54.25 93.67 75.42 13 9395 3 F. 4, 6, 8 42.21 51.84 94.05 76.39 ( 11 ) Sample II Labora- Average Average tory Number of Number Date Laid Weight Weight of Average Per Cent Per Cent of Number Hen of Eggs of Egg in Egg Minus Weight of Pat Protein in Sample Grams Shell of Shell 26 B-8004 21 8611 1 F. 28 54^7 47:5 6.9 11.91 12.74 28 9352 2 F. 26, 28 49.7 48.3 6.2 11.20 10.67 29 9374 2 M.2,4 51.8 4S.9 5.8 13.81 12.94 24 9375 2 F. 19, 20 48.8 43.8 4.8 10.96 11.90 26 9385 2 F. 23, 26 48.8 42.2 6.3 11.82 12.03 25 26 C-8408 2 F. 16, 20 55.6 48.8 6.6 11.29 12.21 17 8659 2 F. 15, 17 48.7 43.1 5.4 11.74 12.47 30 8712 2 M. 1,2 56.9 51.4 5.3 10.77 11.68 16 9351 2 F. 15, 17 54. S 49.2 S.l 10.96 12.44 18 9355 9376 3 F. 15, 16, 18 55.7 48.9 6.6 10.74 12.70 14 26 D-8413 2 F. 16, 17 57^5 5CK9 6!4 10.98 12.74 15 8491 2 F. 15, 17 51.1 45. 1 5.7 11.74 12.17 22 8544 2 F. 15, 17 52.8 46.6 5.9 12.02 13.00 23 9357 2 F. 15, 19 54.2 47.2 6.7 11.43 12.09 27 9394 2 F. 26, 28 S8.7 51.4 7.0 9.69 12.89 19 9395 3 F. 15, 16, 18 61.7 53.2 8.2 9.93 12.24 Sample II — Continued Sum of Fat Labora- Number of Number Per Cent Per Cent and Protein Per Cent tory Hen of Eggs Date Laid Fat iD Protein in in Dry Moisture Number in Sample Dry Matter Dry Matter Matter, % in the Eggs 26 B-8004 21 8611 i F. 28 46.27 49.48 95.75 74.25 28 9352 2 F. 26, 28 48.43 46. .17 94.60 76.87 29 9374 2 M.2,4 49.39 46.25 95.64 72.09 24 9375 2 F. 19, 20 45.82 49 .77 95.59 76.07 26 9385 2 F. 23, 26 46.92 47.77 94.69 74.80 25 26 C-8408 2 F. 16, 20 44.73 48.37 93.10 74.74 17 8659 2 F. 15, 17 44.07 50 .00 94.07 75.11 18 9355 9376 3 F. 15, 16, Iff 43.54 51 .49 95.03 75.32 14 26 D-8413 2 F. 16, 17 43.71 50.68 94.39 74 '.86 IS 8491 2 F. IS, 17 46.51 48.21 94.72 74.75 22 8544 2 F. 15, 17 46.03 49. .80 95.83 73.88 23 9357 2 F. 15, 19 46.60 48 .21 93.81 74.92 27 9394 2 F. 26, 28 40.44 53 .81 94.25 76.03 19 9,395 3 F. IS, 16, 18 42.06 51 .87 93.89 76.39 Sample III , Average Average Labora- Number of Number Weight Weight of Average Per Cent Per Cent of tory Hen of Eggs Date Laid of Egg in Egg Minus Weight of of Fat Protein Number ir i Sample Grams Shell Shell 37 26 B-8004 8611 2 M. 26, 27 60.5 53.1 7.1 13.66 12.30 32 9352 2 M.25, 27 53.9 47.5 6.2 11.40 11.13 34 9374 2 M.25, 27 53.6 47.4 6.1 13.19 12.43 43 9375 2 M.25, 31 43.9 39.1 4.6 11.18 12.21 39 9385 2 M. 25,-28 52.4 46.0 6/2 12.59 12.86 33 26 C-8408 2 M. 25, 27 53.7 46.7 6.8 11.46 12.09 40 8659 8712 2 M. 26, 29 47.2 42.0 5.0 11.83 12.31 41 9351 2 M. 27, 28 49^2 43.9 5.V 11.57 11.93 42 9355 2 M. 26, 28 53.5 48.4 5.0 10.86 12.32 38 9376 2 M. 26, 27 53.7 47.8 6.7 12.03 12.54 31 26 D-8413 2 M. 25, 27 55.7 49. S 6.0 10.93 12.91 44 8491 2 M. 31; A. 1 49.7 45.1 4.4 12.13 12.03 35 8544 9357 9394 2 M.25, 27 50.0 45.1 4.6 12.20 12.89 36 9395 2 M. 25, 26 62.6 54.4 7.9 9.59 12.78 ( 12 Sample III — Continued Sum of Fat Labora- Number of Number Per Cent Per Cent and Protein Per Cent tory Hen of Eggs Date Laid Fat in Protein in in Dry Moisture Number in Sample Dry Matter Dry Matter Matter, % in the Eggs 37 26 B-8004 8611 2 M. 26, 27 49.87 44.89 94.76 72.60 32 9352 2 M. 25, 27 49.97 46.83 94.80 76.23 34 9374 2 M.25, 27 48.96 46.14 95.10 73.05 43 9375 2 M.25, 31 45.88 50.12 96.00 75.63 39 9385 2 M. 25, 28 47.14 ' 48.13 95.27 73.28 33 26 C-8408 2 M.25, 27 45.60 48.09 93.69 74.85 40 8659 8712 2 M. 26, 29 46.73 48.60 95.33 74.67 41 9351 2 M. 27, 28 46.83 48.29 95.12 75.28 42 9355 2 M. 26, 28 44.29 50.23 94.52 75.46 38 9376 2 M. 26, 27 45.70 47.63 93.33 73.67 31 26D-:413 2 M. 25,27 43.10 50.91 94.01 74.63 44 8491 ? M. 31; A. 1 47.62 47.23 94.85 74.51 35 8544 9357 9394 2 M. 25, 27 46.57 49.23 96.80 73.80 36 9395 2 M.25, 26 42.86 51.73 94.59 75.28 Sample IV Average Average Labora- Number of Number Weight Weight Average Per Cent Ter Cent of tory Hen of Eggs Date Laid of Egg in Egg Minus Weight of Fat Protein Number in Sample Grams of Shell of Shell 51 26 B-8004 2 A. 11, 12 58.8 51.4 7.1 13.08 12.01 49 8611 2 A. 11, 13 58.3 51.2 6.8 ■ 11.14 12.40 47 9352 2 A. 10, 12 53.8 47.0 6.6 11.16 10.68 57 9374 2 A. 11, 12 50.0 43.6 6.7 13.35 12.71 48 9375 2 A. 10, 12 47.9 41.8 5.8 10.63 11.51 53 9385 2 A. 10, 12 51.9 44.9 6.7 11.97 . 12.07 50 26 C-8408 2 A. 10, 11 52.5 45.7 6.5 11.66 12.27 46 8659 8712 1 A. 11 52.7 46.8 5.7 12.06 11.98 56 9351 2 A. 10, 12 58.4 si.4 6.8 11.84 11.44 59 9355 2 A. 10, 12 53.0 46.4 6.4 10.97 11.86 45 9376 2 A. 12, 14 54.2 47.7 6.3 12.36 12.80 58 26 D-8413 2 A. 10, 11 53.9 47.8 6.0 10.95 13.38 52 8491 2 A. 11, 13 52.5 46.4 5.9 12.07 11.54 54 8544 2 A. 10, 12 49.7 44.0 5.5 12.33 12.94 60 9357 9394 2 A. 10, 12 52.3 45.8 6.2 11.89 12.56 55 9395 2 A. 10,11 64.3 56.2 7.9 9.98 12.08 ( 13 Sample IV — Continued Sum of Fat Labora- •Number of Number Per Cent Per Cent and Protein Per C it tory Hen of Eggs Date Laid Fat in Protein in in Dry Moistiire Number in Sample Dry Matter Dry Matter Matter, % in the Eggs 51 26 B-8004 2 A. 11, 12 49.16 45.12 94.28 73.38 49 8611 2 A. 11, 13 46.00 49.86 95.86 75.12 47 9352 2 A. 10, 12 48.50 46.42 94.92 76.98 57 9374 2 A. 11, 12 49.23 46.87 96.10 72.88 48 9375 2 A. 10, 12 46.08 49.88 95.96 76.91 53 . 9385 2 A. 10, 12 46.95 47.34 94.09 74.50 50 26 C-8408 2 A. 10, 11 46.07 48.46 94.53 74.65 46 8659 8712 1 A. 11 47.32 47.00 94.32 74.50 56 9351 2 A. 10, 12 48.19 46.58 94.77 75.43 59 9355 2 A. 10, 12 45.43 49.12 94.55 75.85 45 9376 2 A. 12, 14 46.20 47.83 94.03 73.23 58 26 D-8413 2 A. 10, 11 42.40 51.85 94.35 74.19 52 8491 2 A. 11, 13 48.10 45.98 94.08 74.90 54 8544 2 A. 10, 12 46.80 49.11 95.91 73.65 60 9357 9394 2 A. 10, 12 46.25 48.84 95.09 74.28 55 9395 2 A. 10, 11 42.25 51.10 93.35 76.36 Sample V Average Average tory Number of Number Weight Weight of Average Per Cent Per Cent of Labora- Hen of Eggs Date Laid of Egg in Egg Minus Weight of Fat Protein Number in Sample Grams • Shell of Shell 75 26 B-8004 2 A. 26, 27 59.6 52.7 6.8 13.91 12.29 73 8611 2 A. 27, 29 59.6 51.6 7.7 11.65 12.58 76 9352 2 A. 27, 29 51.1 44.4 6.5 11.45 10.93 77 9374 1 A. 27 52.8 46.6 519 13:61 12.91 74 9375 2 A. 26, 28 <46.9 40.8 5.8 11.42 12.37 72. 9385 2 A. 26, 27 49.1 42.8 5.9 11.87 11.88 68 26 C-8408 2 A. 23, 25 49.1 42.5 6.4 11.86 12.50 67 8659 8712 2 A. 24, 26 Died Apr. 16 49.3 43.4 5.6 12.15 12.12 69 9351 2 A. 24, 25 53.9 46 .9 6^5 11.99 11.61 70 9355 2 A. 24, 25 50.8 44.5 6.1 11.07 11.93 62 9376 2 A. 24, 25 54.4 47.8 6.4 12.36 12.67 61 26 D-8413 2 A. 25, 26 54.7 48.2 6.3 10.85 13.31 64 8491 2 A. 24, 26 49.9 43.6 6.0 12.26 11.79 71 ~ 8544 2 A. 24, 26 53.1 46.4 6.5 12.23 12.79 65 9357 2 A. 24, 26 53.9 47.2 6.5 12.26 12.57 63 9394 2 A. 24, 25 62.4 54.0 8.1 11.13 13.17 66 9395 2 A. 24, 25 64.4 56.3 7.8 10.73 12.43 ( 14 ) Sample V — Continued Sum of-Fat Labora- Number of Number Per Cent Per Cent and Protein Per Cent tory Hen of Eggs Date Laid Fat in Protein in in Dry Moisture Number In Sample Dry Matter Dry Matter Matter, % in the Eggs 75 26 B-8004 2 A. 26, 27 50.88 44.96 95.84 72.65 73 8611 2 A. 27, 29 46.10 49.78 95.88 74.72 76 9352 2 A. 27, 29 48.60 46.38 94.98 76.43 77 9374 1 A. 27 49.12 46.60 95.72 72.29 74 9375 2 A. 26, 28 46.19 50.05 96.24 75.27 72 9385 2 A. 26, 27 47.23 47.26 94.49 74.86 68 26 C-8408 2 A. 23, 25 45.98 48.48 94.36 74.20 67 8659 8712 2 A. 24, 26 47.45 47.33 94.78 74.39 69 9351 2 A. 24, 25 48.25 46.71 94.98 75.14 70 9355 2 A. 24, 25 45.57 49.10 94.67 75.70 62 9376 2 A. 24, 25 46.56 .47.74 94.30 73.44 61 26 D-8413 2 A. 25, 26 42.39 52.01 94.40 74.40 64 8491 2 A. 24, 26 48.15 46.31 94.46 74.52 71 8544 2 A. 24, 26 46.85 49.00 95.85 73.88 65 9357 2 A. 24, 26 " 47.58 48.78 96.35 74.22 63 93$4 2 A. 24, 25 43.39 51.33 94.72 74.34 66 9395 2 A. 24, 25 43.89 50.85 94.74 75.55 Effect of Feeding • Number ' i FAT SAMPI ii in ES IV V i PROTEIN SAMPLES II III IV V of Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Hen Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent 26 B 8004 50.38 49.87 49.16 50.88 45.34 44.89 45.12 44.96 8611 46.27 46.00 46.10 49.48 49.86 49.78 9352 47.16 48.43 47.97 48.50 48.60 46.80 46.17 46.83 46.42 46.38 9374 48.86 49.39 48.96 49.23 49.12 46.31 46.25 46.14 46.87 46.60 9375 45.77 45.82 45.88 46.08 46.19 49.35 49.77 50.12 49.88 50.05 9385 46.92 •47.14 46.95 47.23 47.77 48.13 47.34 47.26 26 C 8408 45.20 44.73 45.60 46.07 45.98 49.16 48.37 48.09 48.46 48.48 8659 44.77 46.11 46.73 47.32 47.45 49.63 48.96 48.60 47.00 47.33 8712 45.30 49.10 9351 43.87 44.07 46.83 48.19 48.25 51.20 50.00 48.29 46.58 46.71 9355 43.54 44.29 45.43 45.57 51.49 50.23 49.12 49.10 9376 45.70 46.20 46.56 47.63 47.83 47.74 26 D 8413 42.84 43.71 43.11 42.40 42.38 50.68 50.68 50.91 51.85 52.01 8491 46.65 46.51 47.62 48.10 48.15 48.04 48.21 47.23 45.98 46.31 8544 45.55 46.03 46.57 46.80 46.85 49.19 49.80 49.23 49.11 49.00 9357 44.58 45.60 46.25 47.58 48.75 48.21 48.84 48.78 9394 39.42 40.44 43.39 54.23 53.81 51.33 9395 42.21 42.06 42.86 42.25 43.89 51.84 51.87 51.73 51.10 50.85 * Analys: is on basis of the moisture-free material. ( 15 ) Effect of Feeding — Continued FT SAMPLES . , PROTEIN SAMPLES - Number I II III IV V I II III IV V of Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per *Per Per Hen Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent 26 B 8004 13.75 13.66 13.08 13.91 12.38 12.30 12.01 12.29 8611 11.91 11.44 11.65 12.74 10.40 12.58 9352 11.08 11.20 11.40 11.16 11.45 11.00 10.67 11.13 10.68 10.93 9374 13.58 13.81 13.19 13.35 13.61 12.87 12.94 12.43 12.71 12.91 9375 11.23 10.96 11.18 10.63 11.42 12.00 11.90 12.21 11.51 12.37 9385 11.82 12.59 11.97 11.87 12.03 12.86 12.07 11.88 26 C 8408 11.36 11.29 11.46 11.66 11.86 12.36 12.21 12.09 12.27 12.50 8659 11.95 11.74 11.83 12.06 12.15 13.25 12.47 12.31 11.98 12.12 8712 10.77 11.68 9351 11.23 10.96 11.57 11.84 11.99 13.10 12.44 11.93 11.44. 11.61 9355 10.74 10.86. 10.97 11.07 12.70 12.32 11.86 11.93 9376 12.03 12.36 12.36 12.54 12.80 12.67 26 D 8413 10.80 10.98 10.93 10.94 10.85 12.78 12.74 12.91 13.38 13.31 8491 11.82 11.74 12.13 12.07 12.26 12.17 12.17 12.03 11.54 11.79 8544 12.34 12.02 12.20 12.33' 12.23 13.33 13.00 12.89 12.94 12.79 9357 11.82 11.43 11.89 12.26 12.93 12.09 12.56' 12.57 9394 9.68 9.69 11.13 13.32 12.89 13.17 9395 9.96 9.93 9.59 9.98 10.73 12.23 12.24 12.78 12.08 12.43 * Analysis on basis of the original egg contents. Incubation Number of Hen Number of Eggs Date Laid Number of Placed in Incubator Chicks Hatched 26 B-8004 7 Apr. 15-24 6 8611 7 Apr. 14-23 4 9352 7 Apr. 15-24 7 9374 7 Apr. 15-24 6 9375 7 Apr. 15-23 5 9385 7 Apr. 15-24 2 26 C-8408 6 Apr. 13-22 5 8659 6 # Apr. 13-23 5 8712 9351 6 Apr. 14-22 4 9355 6 Apr. 14-22 3 9376 6 Apr. 15-23 5 26D-8413 6 Apr. 13-23 2 8491 6 Apr. 10-22 2 8544 6 Apr. 15-22 6 9357 6 Apr. 16-23 6 9394 6 Apr. 16-22 1 9395 6 Apr. 15-22 4 Pen 26 B-8004 71.4 per cent hatched Pen 26 C-8408 73 . 3 per cent hatched Pen 26 D-8413 '. 58.3 per cent hatched ( 16 ) METHODS USED IN THE ANALYSIS The eggs after removal of the shells were beaten and then dried at about 40° C. They were then ground to a powder and the final determination of the moisture of the powder made in the usual way. The fat of the egg was extracted with chloroform, the extraction of 1.5 to 2 grams of the egg powder being carried on for twenty-three hours. The nitrogen was determined by the usual Kjeldahl method, the factor, 6.25, being used in the calculation of the amount of protein. The total phosphorus was determined as Mg 2 P 2 7 , using H 2 S0 4 and NH 4 N0 3 in the digestion. SUMMARY 1. The work on the coloring of the parts of the egg by feeding dyes to the hen indicates that the fat found in the albumen region of the incubated egg is derived not wholly from the yolk, but from an- other source, the albumen itself. 2. The percentage of fat in the yolk of the weak chick is in some cases less and sometimes more than in the yolk of the strong chick. 3. The weak chick is equally as rich in phosphorus as the strong chick. 4. The phosphorus content of the egg varies but little. 5. There is no increase in the phosphorus content of the egg when the hen is fed inorganic phosphorus. 6. Hens on range do not produce eggs different in composition from those on bare yard. 7. There is a variation in the eggs of individual hens in the con- tent of protein and in the content of fat, but the eggs produced by each individual are quite constant in composition. 8. The sum .of the percentages of the fat and of the protein in eggs varies but little. 9. In feeding a ration high in fat, or a ration high in protein, there is no material change in the characteristics of the hen as regards the amount of fat and protein in the egg. 10. There seems to be no relation between the protein or fat con- tent of the egg as regards its hatching power or the vigor of the young chick. ACKNOWLEDGMENT I wish to express my thanks to Professor G. W. Cavanaugh for his direction of the work and his interest in the problem, and to Professor C. A. Rogers for his co-operation in this investigation. I am also indebted to Professor J. E. Rice for his helpful sugges- tions, and to Mr. W. L. Lyon for his care in the selection of all samples. w £■« m