Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:56:08.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economies in the use of animal by-products in poultry rations I. Vitamin and amino-acid provision for starting and growing chicks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

K. J. Carpenter  and
J. Duckworth
K. J. Carpenter
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland
J. Duckworth
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Chicks from commercial sources were housed intensively and fed on a series of rations containing decorticated extracted groundnut meal as the main supplementary source of protein, with and without additions of animal by-products and aureomycin. Parallel groups received rations conforming to Government regulations in their content of sources of animal protein.

2. Growth and feed efficiency up to point of lay were as good in groups fed on all-vegetable rations, containing 18% of crude protein in the starting ration and 16% in the growing ration, as in groups fed on regulation rations of the same protein content.

3. Performance on the all-vegetable ration up to 6 weeks of age was not as good as on the regulation ration. This inferiority could be largely or wholly corrected by adding extra groundnut meal and condensed fish solubles to the ration. Growth and feed efficiency over the whole rearing period were not improved by the addition of these supplements.

4. Addition of aureomycin stimulated growth over the whole rearing period but failed to improve feed efficiency.

5. Protein levels in the ration, the provision of animal protein factor(s) and aureomycin were without effect on the age at which laying began.

6. Current estimates of the chick's requirement for certain amino-acids appeared to be too high when this type of ration was used.

7. The addition of riboflavin to these starting rations was essential. When this was done mortality was low, leg weakness absent and feathering rate normal.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , October 1951 , pp. 297 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aimquist, H. J. (1947). J. Nutrit. 34, 543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, R. L. & Couch, J. R. (1951). Poult. Sci. 30, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, F., Nasr, H., Morrice, F. & Bruce, J. (1951). J. Path. Bact. 57, 617.Google Scholar
Barton-Wright, E. C. & Moran, T. (1946). Analyst, 71, 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, E. P., Carrick, C. W., Roberts, R. E. & Hauge, S. M. (1945). Poult. Sci. 24, 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, H. R., Rubin, M. & Groschke, A. C. (1948). Proc. 8th World Poult. Congr. (Copenhagen), p. 187.Google Scholar
Bosshardt, D. K., Paul, W. J., O'Doherty, K., Huff, J. W. & Barnes, R. H. (1949). J. Nutrit. 37, 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyne, A. W., Carpenter, K. J. & Duckworth, J. (1950). Brit. J. Nutrit. 4, vii.Google Scholar
Carpenter, K. J. & Ellinger, G. M. (1961). Biochem. J. 48, liii.Google Scholar
Carver, J. S., Heiman, V., Cook, J. W. & St John, J. L. (1939). Bull. Wash. St. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 383.Google Scholar
Coates, M. E., Harrison, G. F., Kon, S. K., Mann, M. E. & Rose, C. D. (1951). Biochem. J. 48, xii.Google Scholar
Combs, G. F., Heuser, G. F. & Norris, L. C. (1948). Poult. Sci. 27, 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cravens, W. W., Almquist, H. J., Norris, L. C., Bethke, R. M. & Titus, M. W. (1944). Recommended Nutrient Allowances for Poultry. National Research Council, Washington.Google Scholar
De Man, T. J. (1949). Tijdschr. Diergeneesk. 74, 677.Google Scholar
Duckworth, J. & Ellinger, G. M. (1949). Brit. J. Nutrit. 3, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewing, W. R. (1947). Poultry Nutrition, 3rd ed. p. 101. South Pasadena: Ewing.Google Scholar
Forrest, W. J., Biely, J. & March, B. (1950). Feedstuffs, 10 08.Google Scholar
Grau, C. R. (1946). J. Nutrit. 32, 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groschke, A. C., Rubin, M. & Bird, H. R. (1948). Poult. Sci. 27, 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutteridge, H. S., O'Neil, J. B. & Pratt, J. M. (1944). Sci. Agric. 24, 164.Google Scholar
Heiman, V., Carver, J. S. & Cook, J. W. (1939). Poult. Sci. 18, 464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heuser, G. F. & Norris, L. C. (1944). Bull. Cornell Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 810.Google Scholar
Heuser, G. F., Norris, L. C. & McGinnis, J. (1946). Poult. Sci. 25, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. B. & Divine, J. P. (1944). J. Nutrit. 28, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassen, S. & Bacon, E. K. (1946). Poult. Sci. 25, 486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyman, C. M., Kuiken, K. & Hale, F. (1947). Bull. Texas Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 692.Google Scholar
Neumann, A. L., Krider, J. L. & Johnson, B. C. (1948). Proc. Soc. Exp. Bid., N.Y., 69, 513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, M. & Bird, H. R. (1946). J. Biol. Chem. 163, 393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, M., Bird, H. R. & Rothchild, I. (1946). Poult. Sci. 25, 526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokstad, E. L. R. & Jukes, T. H. (1950). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., N.Y., 73, 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokstad, E. L. R., Jukes, T. H., Pierce, J., Page, A. C. & Franklin, A. L. (1949). J. Biol. Chem. 180, 647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokstad, E. L. R., Page, A. C., Pierce, J., Franklin, A. L., Jukes, T. H., Heinle, R. W., Epstein, M. & Welch, A. D. (1948). J. Lab. Clin. Med. 33, 860.Google Scholar
Zucker, L. M. & Zucker, T. F. (1948). Arch. Biochem. 16, 115.Google Scholar
Zucker, T. F. & Zucker, L. M. (1950). Vitamins and Hormones, 8, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar