Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:55:55.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An attempt to distinguish between the direct and indirect effects, in the laying domestic fowl, of added dietary copper sulphate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Mary H. Stevenson  and
N. Jackson
Mary H. Stevenson
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Food Chemistry Research Division, Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, and the Queen's University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, Northern Ireland
N. Jackson
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Food Chemistry Research Division, Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, and the Queen's University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, Northern Ireland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. An experiment is reported in which the effects of giving copper sulphate-supplemented diets and control unsupplemented pair-fed diets to laying hens were compared.

2. The level of food intake significantly adversely affected mean body-weight, egg number, egg weight, liver, kidney, oviduct and ovary weights. Gizzard weight/kg body-weight was significantly increased both with decreasing levels of food intake and increased CuSO4 supplementation.

3. There was evidence of a depressing effect of CuSO4per se on egg production and possibly on oviduct and ovary weight.

4. Liver lipid concentration was significantly decreased with decreasing levels of food intake and the results also suggest a depressing effect of CuSO4.

5. The Cu concentrations and total contents in liver and kidneys were significantly increased by dietary added CuSO4. Liver and kidney Zn and Fe concentrations were increased with decreasing levels of food intake rather than by CuSO4. addition.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , July 1981 , pp. 71 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1981

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1975). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock no. 1, Poultry. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Beck, A. B. (1961). Aust. J. agric. Res. 12, 743.Google Scholar
Fisher, C., Laursen-Jones, A. P., Hill, K. J. & Hardy, W. S. (1973). Br. Poult. Sci. 14, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C., Wise, D. & Filmer, D. G. (1971). 14th Wld's Poult. Congr.Madrid, p. 759.Google Scholar
Folch, J.Lees, J. & Sloane Stanley, C. H. (1957). J. biol. Chem. 226, 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griminger, P. (1977). Poult. Sci. 56, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, N. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 38, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, N. & Stevenson, M. H. (1981). Br. J. Nutr. 45, 99.Google Scholar
Jackson, N., Stevenson, M. H. & Kirkpatrick, G. McC. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 42, 253.Google Scholar
Poupoulis, C. & Jensen, L. S. (1976). Poult. Sci. 55, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, H. D., Leucke, R. W., Baltzer, B. V., Miller, E. R., Ullrey, D. E. & Hoefer, J. A. (1963). J. Nutr. 79, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, M. H. & Jackson, N. (1980 a). Br. J. Nutr. 43, 205.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M. H. & Jackson, N. (1980 b). Br. J. Nutr. 43, 551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suttle, N. F. & Mills, C. F. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. C., Norvell, M. J., Calvert, C. C. & Goatcher, W. D. (1974). Poult. Sci. 53, 1984, Abstr.Google Scholar