\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={The effect of spraying vegetable oil and elevating relative humidity during incubation on the hatchability of Rhode Island Red (RIR) eggs},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2011-09-26 (revised: 26 September 2011)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2011-09-26}
\title{The effect of spraying vegetable oil and elevating relative humidity during incubation on the hatchability of Rhode Island Red (RIR) eggs}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Dr. Shiferaw  Muluget}

             \author[2]{Tadelle  Dessie}

             \author[3]{Alemu  Yami}

             \affil[1]{  Jimma University, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 23 August 2011 Accepted: 14 September 2011 Published: 26 September 2011}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


In Ethiopia, Rhode Island Red (RIR) breed of chickens acclimatize very well to the existing production environment with fairly reasonable level of production. Unfortunately however, there is a serious complaint about the poor hatchability of their eggs. This study was conducted at Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center (DZARC) to study the effect of oil spraying and elevated Relative Humidity (RH) on hatchability of RIR eggs. Five treatments comprising of 80-85%RH, 80-85%RH plus oil spraying, 90%RH, 90%RH starting from 12th day of incubation and 90%RH during hatching were studied in CRD with four replications. The results obtained revealed that there was no statistically significant difference (P<0.05) between the treatments in percent fertility and hatchability. Spraying with vegetable oil negatively affected fertility, whereas, oil spraying as well as elevated relative humidity of 90% during the larger segment of the incubation period were found to be equally depressive in hatchability. More over the weight loss recorded from the eggs sprayed with oil was lower than the others indicating that oil spraying prevented the recommended level of weight loss through water evaporation, which in turn resulted in lower hatchability. On the contrary increasing of relative humidity from 80-85% to 90% during hatching period seem to increase hatchability of RIR eggs.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{Chicken, DZARC, Evaporation of water, Fertility, Incubation of eggs, Weight loss}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 \par
The effect of spraying vegetable oil and elevating relative humidity during incubation on the hatchability of Rhode Island Red (RIR) eggs Shiferaw Muluget ? , Tadelle Dessie ? , Alemu Yami ? Abstract -In Ethiopia, Rhode Island Red (RIR) breed of chickens acclimatize very well to the existing production environment with fairly reasonable level of production. Unfortunately however, there is a serious complaint about the poor hatchability of their eggs. This study was conducted at Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center (DZARC) to study the effect of oil spraying and elevated Relative Humidity (RH) on hatchability of RIR eggs. Five treatments comprising of 80-85\%RH, 80-85\%RH plus oil spraying, 90\%RH, 90\%RH starting from 12 th day of incubation and 90\%RH during hatching were studied in CRD with four replications. The results obtained revealed that there was no statistically significant difference (P<0.05) between the treatments in percent fertility and hatchability. Spraying with vegetable oil negatively affected fertility, whereas, oil spraying as well as elevated relative humidity of 90\% during the larger segment of the incubation period were found to be equally depressive in hatchability. More over the weight loss recorded from the eggs sprayed with oil was lower than the others indicating that oil spraying prevented the recommended level of weight loss through water evaporation, which in turn resulted in lower hatchability. On the contrary increasing of relative humidity from 80-85\% to 90\% during hatching period seem to increase hatchability of RIR eggs. 
\section[{INTRODUCTION}]{INTRODUCTION}\par
hicken population of Ethiopia is estimated to be 56.5 million (4), which is about 60\% of the total chicken population of east Africa subcontinent \hyperref[b5]{(6)}. To exploit this national genetic resource in the development process Ethiopia launched a short and long-term plans of food self-sufficiency and poverty reduction program starting from 1995, placing special emphasis on the introduction of exotic chickens. The extension service of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD) promoted a scheme in which cockerels and pullets from selected strains mainly Rhode Island Red and to some extent White Leghorn are distributed from the government Poultry Breeding and Multiplication Centers (PBMC) to subsistence farmers in order to "upgrade" the genetic potential of the local breeds \hyperref[b15]{(15)} and benefit from increased productivity of exotic birds. These extension approaches have been practiced for more than forty-five years (1). However, the impact of this strategy on the genetic makeup of indigenous birds has not been assessed carefully. Some empirical evidences, however, suggest that these approaches did not meet the desired target due to high mortality rate of exotic breeds \hyperref[b15]{(15)}. A study report by \hyperref[b16]{(16)} in the central highlands of Ethiopia revealed that there has been an introduction of exotic breeds to three study villages at various times and in different forms through the introduction of cockerels, pullets, and fertile eggs, but their impact in upgrading the genetic potential of local chickens found to be less significant.\par
A study report based on the averages of five years fertility and hatchability of RIR chickens of the Poultry Breeding and Multiplication Centers was found to be 88\% and 69\% at Nazareth, 86.6\% and 54.4\% at Kombolcha and 82.89\% and 62.36\% at Andassa, respectively, which is below the recommended level. The information obtained from Amhara Rural Development Bureau of Agriculture (BoARD) in association with RIR breeding performance also indicated that the farming community by and large facing problems as a result of poor fertility and hatchability levels \hyperref[b4]{(5)}. However, (2) indicated that the fertility and hatchability percentage of commercial layers is recommended to be around 97\% and 90\%, respectively.\par
In Ethiopia, it was reported that RIR breed acclimatize well to the existing production environment with a reasonable level of production under smallholder management systems. Unfortunately however, there is a serious complaint about the poor hatchability of RIR egg under natural incubation. This is a very critical issue for sustainability and multiplication of the breed in the rural farming system. (  {\ref 5}) reported fertility level of RIR is influenced by both male and female whereas, poor hatchability performance is primarily due to higher egg weight, weight loss during incubation and high embryonic mortality. The best hatchability results were obtained when egg weight loss is 12 percent of their fresh weight from the time of lay to the time of embryo pipe out of the shell. Weight loss smaller than 10 percent and greater than 15 percent of their fresh weight decreases hatchability (  {\ref 13}); (  {\ref 7}) and \hyperref[b17]{(17)}. Excess moisture loss of up to 20\% was reported from RIR eggs incubated, during the first 18 days of incubation by \hyperref[b4]{(5)}, who recommended minimizing the loss to the normal level to improve the hatchability. \hyperref[b7]{(8)} reported that the coating of the eggshell with mineral oil results in the C 
\section[{Global Journal of Medical Research}]{Global Journal of Medical Research}\par
sealing of the majority of the pores aimed at reducing moisture loss from the eggs. Improving fertility and hatchability of any breeding stock is essential factor to determine success of poultry operation, as fertility and hatchability are the most important determinant factors in the reproductive efficiency of poultry. The objectives of the study were to determine the effect of spraying vegetable oil and elevating relative humidity during incubation on the hatchability of RIR eggs. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{MATERIALS AND METHODS}]{MATERIALS AND METHODS} 
\section[{a) Experimental site}]{a) Experimental site}\par
The experiment was conducted at Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center (DZARC) located at 45 km south east of Addis Ababa, at an altitude of 1900 m.a.s.l and between 8.44 o N latitude and 39.02 o E l ongitude. The average annual rainfall is 845 mm and the annual minimum and maximum temperatures are 10 o C and 22 o C, respectively \hyperref[b11]{(11)}. 
\section[{b) Management of the experimental eggs}]{b) Management of the experimental eggs}\par
A total of 1500 RIR eggs were obtained from Kombolcha Poultry Breeding and Multiplication Center (PBMC), which is 385 km North East of the capital Addis Ababa. The eggs were collected from RIR flock kept under intensive management system and kept on floor and large spacious shed surrounded by half wall in lower portion and above it was surrounded by solid wall up to door level, above which mesh wire is fitted. Complete feed was supplied in circular type feeder with sufficient feeding space. Adequate clean drinking water also supplied to the flock. The flocks were vaccinated against New Castle Disease (NCD) and Fowl Pox. Hatching eggs were collected, fumigated and stored in cold-humid storage for five days at 12-18 0 C and 75\% RH, with small end down position until transportation. The hatching eggs reached DZARC poultry farm after 12 hrs of transportation. Soon after arrival (before setting), the eggs were allowed to rest for 36 h. The eggs were fumigated aimed at minimizing the introduction of disease to the DZARC poultry farm. They were also fumigated before incubation at DZARC poultry farm. 
\section[{c) Incubation of eggs}]{c) Incubation of eggs}\par
The incubators were cleaned, disinfected and fumigated properly and the incubation temperature, ventilation and turning devices were checked and adjusted according to the recommendation of the manufacturer in advance of setting the eggs. The eggs were selected against large and small size, abnormal shape, undesirable shell structure and broken eggs during transportation in each treatments. The remaining eggs in five treatment groups were further sub-divided in to 4 groups each with average 72 to 74 eggs and individually weighed. Finally each group were randomly allocated to the five treatments shown in below in completely randomized Design with four replications Trt-1 = 80-85\% RH through out the incubation period with a total number of 298 eggs.\par
Trt-2 = Trt-1 + spraying vegetable oil on the surface eggs with a total number of 298 eggs.\par
Trt-3 = 90\% RH through out the incubation period with a total number of 291 eggs.\par
Trt-4 = 80-85\% RH from the 1 st day incubation to 11 th day and 90\% RH from 12 th day to the hatching period with a total number of 292 eggs.\par
Trt-5 = 90\% RH during the hatching period only (18-21 st days) with a total number of 294 eggs.\par
The eggs were candled on the 18 th days of incubation and at the end of each hatch the unhatched eggs were broken to confirm day on which embryos died (break out analysis). Hatchability was calculated on the basis of set and fertile eggs in the incubator and the number of chicks hatched. Moreover, fertility was also calculated during candling using the following formulae: The initial weight of egg from all treatment groups were taken before the eggs were set for incubation and an average individual initial weight of the eggs from each treatment were calculated. On the 18 th days of incubation, the final weight of each egg from all treatment groups were taken before the eggs were set in the hatchery and the average individual final weight of the eggs from each treatment were calculated. Finally, percent weight loss was calculated with the following formula:  
\section[{RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS}]{RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS}\par
Mean percent fertility and hatchability of the experimental eggs are presented in Table \hyperref[tab_2]{1}. There was significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments in fertility and hatchability. Treatment 1 and treatment 5 were significantly higher than the others in both fertility and hatchability (P<0.05).\par
Even though there is no significant difference (P>0.05) between Treatment 1 and 5 in mean total number of hatched chicks, mean percent hatchability on both total set and fertile eggs, there is a slight increase in mean total number of hatched chicks, mean percent hatchability on both total set and fertile eggs for Treatment 5 compared to Treatment 1. Increasing 5\% more RH during the hatching period than Treatment-1 contributed to the observed slight increase in above parameters. High humidity towards hatching time might be necessary for better hatchability of RIR eggs. Similarly (3) reported that high humidity towards hatching time will be necessary if sufficient evaporation from the eggs has occurred previously but detrimental if the humidity was high at all the times. (  {\ref 12}) also reported that an increase of the RH by 10\% after 18 th days of incubation i.e. in the hatchery improved the hatchability of chicken eggs. From Table \hyperref[tab_2]{1} it can also be seen that the low mean total number of hatched chicks, the low mean percent hatchability on both total set and fertile eggs in Treatment 2 might be due to the addition of vegetable oil on the incubated eggs, which may prevent sufficient evaporation of moisture from the eggs. The optimum levels of weight loss due to dehydration (loss of water from the eggs) during incubation may be important to have optimum hatchability of eggs but from Table  {\ref 2} it can be clearly seen that only 4\% weight loss was observed on the oil treated eggs (Treatment 2) as compared to the other treatments. The smaller weight loss might have resulted in low hatchability of eggs from the oil treated eggs. Different researchers concluded from their research that the best hatchabilities are obtained with poultry species when eggs loss 12\% of their fresh weight from the time of lay to the time the embryo pips the shell (10), \hyperref[b6]{(7)} and hatchability decreases for eggs losing less than 10\% or greater than 15\% of their fresh egg weight. \hyperref[b4]{(5)} reported that low hatchability of eggs from RIR might be due the higher loss of the weight eggs during incubation as result of loss of excess water through the pores. However, in this study no much extra loss of weight is observed.\par
Apart from lower amount of weight loss from the oil treated eggs, the low hatchability of eggs from the oil treated eggs might be related with the closing effect oil on the pores of the shell and reduce exchange of respiratory gasses. a) Breakout analysis result Break out analysis result (Table \hyperref[tab_1]{3}) clearly indicates that late embryonic mortality (18-21 days) accounts the major loss of chicks followed by percent infertility, death at middle stage (8-18 days) and death at early stage. \hyperref[b8]{(9)} reported that an increase in deaths during middle period (8-18 days in chickens) usually ascribed to nutritional problems, notably vitamins or minerals deficiency. He also reported that the causes of clear eggs (infertile eggs) usually related with undernourished males, too few males, competition among breeding males, and diseased flock. He again reported that the causes of chicks fully formed, but dead without pipping (death at later stage) are low average humidity, improper incubation temperature, improper ventilation in the incubator, improper turning of eggs and diseased or poorly conditioned breeder flock. Immature males, male with abnormal sperm, too few males, resulting in infrequent mating; too many males, resulting in fighting or interference, breeder flock disease, nutritional deficiencies or excess: severe feed restriction, parasites such as mites and decreased mating frequency or no mating was indicated for the major causes of clear or infertile eggs \hyperref[b19]{(19)}. It has also been indicated that the improper incubator temperature, humidity, turning, ventilation, contamination, nutritional deficiencies and lethal genes are the major causes of deaths between 8-18 days \hyperref[b19]{(19)}. Finally improper incubator temperature, humidity, turning, ventilation, improper hatcher temperature, humidity, ventilation, contamination especially from molds (aspergillis), too severe or too prolonged fumigation and nutritional deficiencies are reported be the major causes of death at later stage (>18 day) \hyperref[b19]{(19)}.\par
Since the incubator temperature for the incubation period was between 32 0 C and 37.7 0 C and the metabolic heat production of the developing embryo is sufficient to raise the internal egg temperature by 1.5 0 C to 2 0 C (17) that is above the incubator temperature. This may contribute the high percent of death at later stage. \hyperref[b18]{(18)} indicated that chickens eggs don't survive continuously in an incubator at a temperature less than 35 0 C or greater than 39.5 0 C. 
\section[{IV.}]{IV.} 
\section[{SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS}]{SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS}\par
This study was conducted at DZARC to determine the effect of spraying vegetable oil and elevating relative humidity during incubation to control water loss of fertile eggs. Increasing the relative humidity by 5\% (90\% RH) than the recommended level (80-85\%) during the hatching period only caused the increase in hatchability of RIR eggs. Oil treatment of eggs drastically reduced the hatchability than the recommended level (<10\% and >15\%) of weight loss\par
The effect of spraying vegetable oil and elevating relative humidity during incubation on the hatchability of Rhode Island Red (RIR) eggs\par
were observed for all treatments except for oil treatment and 90\% relative humidity for 21 days.\par
Table  {\ref 2} : Average weight of eggs before setting (g), average weight of eggs at 18 th day (g) and \% weight loss. \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.4387096774193548\textwidth}P{0.13161290322580646\textwidth}P{0.046612903225806454\textwidth}P{0.04798387096774193\textwidth}P{0.08088709677419353\textwidth}P{0.10419354838709677\textwidth}}
Treatment\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Weight of the eggs before setting (g)}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Weight of the eggs on 18 th day (g)}\tabcellsep Weight loss (\%)\\
T 1 =(80-85\%RH) for 21 day\tabcellsep 58.2\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 50.2\tabcellsep 13.5\\
T 2 = ( T 1 + spraying vegetable oil)\tabcellsep 59.4\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 57.0\tabcellsep 4.0\\
T 3 =(90\%RH) for 21 days\tabcellsep 58.1\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 52.5\tabcellsep 9.6\\
T 4 =(90\%RH) after 11 th days\tabcellsep 59.4\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 51.5\tabcellsep 13.3\\
T 5 =(90\%RH) in hatching period\tabcellsep 58.2\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 50.2\tabcellsep 13.5\\
Treatment\tabcellsep Infertile eggs (\%)\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Early period death (\%)}\tabcellsep Middle period death (\%)\tabcellsep Late period death (\%)\\
T 1 =(80-85\%RH) for 21 day\tabcellsep 32.4\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{17.6}\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 50.0\\
T 2 = ( T 1 + spraying vegetable oil)\tabcellsep 50.0\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{13.2}\tabcellsep 7.9\tabcellsep 28.9\\
T 3 =(90\%RH) for 21 days\tabcellsep 20.0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 14.3\tabcellsep 65.7\\
T 4 =(90\%RH) after 11 th days\tabcellsep 23.5\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 17.6\tabcellsep 58.8\\
T 5 =(90\%RH) in hatching period\tabcellsep 25.7\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 5.7\tabcellsep 68.6\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3695652173913043\textwidth}P{0.14320652173913043\textwidth}P{0.16630434782608697\textwidth}P{0.17092391304347826\textwidth}}
Treatment\tabcellsep Mean percent fertility (\%)\tabcellsep Mean hatchability on fertile eggs (\%)\tabcellsep Mean hatchability on total set eggs (\%)\\
T 1 =(80-85\%RH) for 21 day\tabcellsep 80.90 a\tabcellsep 61.40 a\tabcellsep 49.70 a\\
T 2 = ( T 1 + spraying vegetable oil)\tabcellsep 50.30 b\tabcellsep 2.00 b\tabcellsep 1.00 b\\
T 3 =(90\%RH) for 21 days\tabcellsep 85.90 a\tabcellsep 23.20 b\tabcellsep 19.90 b\\
T 4 =(90\%RH) after 11 th days\tabcellsep 79.50 a\tabcellsep 25.00 b\tabcellsep 19.90 b\\
T 5 =(90\%RH) in hatching period\tabcellsep 90.10 a\tabcellsep 71.30 a\tabcellsep 64.30 a\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: ab]} 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{Volume XI Issue IV Version I © 2011 Global Journals Inc. (US) 2011 December} 			\footnote{© 2011 Global Journals Inc. (US)} 			\footnote{December} 		 		\backmatter   			 
\subsection[{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}]{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}\par
The authors acknowledge the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and Debre-Zeit Agriculture Research Centre (DZARC) for financing the project in the period 2005 to 2006. We are also grateful to all individuals for their all round participations. 			  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[ British Poultry Science]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		\textit{},  	 	 		\textit{British Poultry Science}  		32 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Leeson and Summers ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		\textit{},  		 			S Leeson 		,  		 			J D Summers 		.  	 	 		\textit{Commercial Poultry Nutrition. University Books}  		1991. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Wilson (2004)]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		\textit{},  		 			H R Wilson 		.  		 \url{http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/AA204.Accessedin}  	 	 		\textit{Hatchability Problem Analysis}  		2004. June, 2006. 1.  	 
\bibitem[North ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		\textit{Commercial Chicken Production Manual, 3 rd ed. An avia Book},  		 			M North 		.  		1984. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. p. 134.  	 
\bibitem[Meir and Ar ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		\textit{Compensation for seasonal change in eggshell conductance and hatchability of goose eggs by dynamic control of egg water loss},  		 			M Meir 		,  		 			A Ar 		.  		1991.  	 
\bibitem[Hulet et al. ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Controlled egg weight loss during incubation of turkey eggs’.  		 			P M Hulet 		,  		 			V L Christensen 		,  		 			L G Bagley 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poultry Science}  		1987. 66 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bruzual et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘Effects of relative humidity during incubation on hatchability and body weight chicks from young breeder flocks’.  		 			J J Bruzual 		,  		 			S D Peak 		,  		 			J Brake 		,  		 			E D Peeblest 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poult. Sci}  		2000. 78 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Fertility and hatchability in RIR and WL breeds as functionally modified by crossing them in alternate sex combinations Getnet Zeleke ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘Fertility and hatchability in RIR and WL breeds as functionally modified by crossing them in alternate sex combinations’.  	 	 		\textit{Getnet Zeleke}  		2003. p. .  		 			Alemaya University 		 	 	 (MSc Thesis) 
\bibitem[Hunton ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Laboratory evaluations of egg quality’.  		 			P Hunton 		.  	 	 		\textit{Egg Quality: Current Problems and Recent Advances. Butter Worths},  				 			R G Well,  			C G Belyavin 		 (ed.)  		 (London)  		1987. p. 469.  	 
\bibitem[Dessie and Ogle ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Nutritional status of village poultry in the central high lands of Ethiopia as assessed by analyses of crop contents’.  		 			Tadelle Dessie 		,  		 			B Ogle 		.  	 	 		\textit{Eth J.Agri.Sci}  		2000. 17 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Dana et al. ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘On-station and on-farm evaluation of the 'hay box chick brooder' using different insulation materials at the Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center and Denbi village, Adaa woreda’.  		 			Negussie Dana 		,  		 			Alemu Yami 		,  		 			Tadelle Dessie 		,  		 			Samuel Wold 		.  	 	 		\textit{Proceedings of 10 th Annual Conference Ethiopian Society of Animal Production},  				 (10 th Annual Conference Ethiopian Society of Animal ProductionAddis Ababa, Ethiopia)  		Hana 2003. 2003. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Visschedijk ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘Physics and physiology of incubation’.  		 			A H Visschedijk 		.  	 	 		\textit{British Poultry Science}  		1991. 32 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bakst and Bahr ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘Reproductive Cycles of Poultry’.  		 			M R Bakst 		,  		 			J M Bahr 		.  	 	 		\textit{Reproduction in Farm Animals, 6 th},  				 			Febiger Lea 		 (ed.)  		 (Philadelphia, USA)  		1993. p. 245.  	 
\bibitem[Stastistical Analysis System) 1987. SAS/STATA user's guide, release 6.04. Institute Inc SAS]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘Stastistical Analysis System) 1987. SAS/STATA user's guide, release 6.04. Institute Inc’.  	 	 		\textit{SAS}  		 	 
\bibitem[Robetson ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Studies of the effect of humidity on the hatchability of hens' eggs. The determination of optimum humidity for incubation’.  		 			I Robetson 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Agricultural Science}  		1961. 57 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Dessie ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		\textit{Studies on village poultry production system in central high lands of Ethiopia},  		 			Tadelle Dessie 		.  		1996. p. 70.  		 			Swidish University of Agricultural Science 		 	 	 (MSc Thesis) 
\bibitem[Summary of Livestock Research strategies Animal Science Directorate, EARO. Addis Ababa ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘Summary of Livestock Research strategies’.  	 	 		\textit{Animal Science Directorate, EARO. Addis Ababa}  		2000. p. 73.  		 			EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization 		 	 
\bibitem[Yami and Dessie ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		\textit{The status of poultry research and development in Ethiopia},  		 			Alemu Yami 		,  		 			Tadelle Dessie 		.  		1997. Alemaya, Ethiopia. p. 63.  		 			Alemaya University of Agriculture 		 	 
\bibitem[Tullett (ed.) ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		\textit{World Animal Science C9, Poultry Production, the Ontario Egg Producers' Marketing Board},  		 			S Tullett 		.  		P.Hunton (ed.)  		1995. Mississaga, Ontario, Canada.  	 	 (Incubation) 
\bibitem[Mekonnen et al.]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘Zeleke Dagnachew and Addis Anteneh 1991. The Ethiopia Livestock industry: Retrospects and Prospects’.  		 			Goshu Mekonnen 		,  		 			Teketel Forssido 		,  		 			Alemu Gebrewold 		.  	 	 		\textit{proceeding of the third National Livestock improvement Conference, Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR)},  				 (eeding of the third National Livestock improvement Conference, Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR)Addis Ababa, Ethiopia)  		p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
