Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:00:58.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative studies on the digestibility of beef, buffalo, camel and mutton fats for chicks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

M. A. Afifi
M. A. Afifi
Affiliation:
Animal Production Department, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, UAR
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. A comparative study on the digestibility of beef, buffalo, camel and mutton fats was made with chicks during the 4th week of age. Each fat was added to a low-fat diet at levels of 3, 6 and 9%.

2. The mean digestibilities of beef, buffalo, camel and mutton fats were 85.4, 72.6, 83.9 and 94.1% respectively. Thus mutton fat appeared to be significantly superior to other fats, whereas buffalo fat was significantly inferior.

3. The melting points of the fats seemed to have no influence on their digestibilities.

4. With the exception of beef fat, the digestibility of the fats improved as the iodine value increased.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 1972 , pp. 97 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1972

References

Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. (1955). Methods of Analysis. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Biely, J. & March, B. (1954). Poult. Sci. 33, 1220.Google Scholar
Carver, D. S., Rice, E. E., Gray, R. E. & Mone, P. E. (1954). Poult. Sci. 33, 1048.Google Scholar
Carver, D. S., Rice, E. E., Gray, R. E. & Mone, P. E. (1955). Poult. Sci. 34, 544.Google Scholar
Crockett, M. E. & Deuel, H. J. Jr. (1947). J. Nutr. 33, 187.Google Scholar
Duckworth, J., Naftalin, J. M. S., Dalgarno, A. C. (1950). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 40, 39.Google Scholar
Holmes, A. D. & Deuel, H. J. (1920–1). Am. J. Physiol. 54, 479.(quoted by Duckworth, et al. 1950).Google Scholar
March, B. E. & Biely, J. (1954). Poult. Sci. 33, 1069.Google Scholar
March, B. E. & Biely, J. (1957). Poult. Sci. 36, 71.Google Scholar
Pepper, W. F., Slinger, S. J. &Sibbald, I. R.(1962). Poult. Sci. 41. 1163.Google Scholar
Petersen, C. B. & Vik-Mo, L. (1968). Actu agric. scand. 18, 42.Google Scholar
Renner, R. & Hill, F. W. (1960). Poult. Sci. 39, 849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runnels, T. D. (1955). Poult. Sci. 34, 140.Google Scholar
Siedler, A. J. & Schweigert, B. S. (1953). Poult. Sci. 32, 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunde, M. L. (1954). Poult. Sci. 33, 1084.Google Scholar
Young, R. J. (1961). Poult. Sci. 40, 1225.Google Scholar