Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:52:35.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of different plant sources on the utilization of carotene by chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

I. Ascarelli  and
A. Bondi
I. Ascarelli
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Hebrew University and Agricultural Research Station*, Rehovot, Israel
A. Bondi
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Hebrew University and Agricultural Research Station*, Rehovot, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The possibility was examined of supplying vitamin A to chickens from the first days of life as carotene in green plants. Growth experiments were carried out with chickens till the age of 8 weeks. Different kinds of forage (horse-beans, Berseem clover, green oats, sweet potato leaves, cow-peas, corn-leaves) were given in quantities calculated to supply 300 μg. carotene per 100 g. feed; control groups received fish-liver oil, given at the level of 500 i.u. per 100 g. feed. Weight gains and extent of vitamin A storage in liver served as an indication of the utilization of carotene from different sources. The utilization of carotene from all the plants examined was sufficient to support normal growth, only in the groups receiving clover was growth found to be somewhat slower. Remarkable differences were found in the extent of liver storage, and that was taken as an indication of differences in activity of the carotene from the different sources.

Attempts to determine the reasons for these differences in liver storage capacity of the carotene from the various plants did not reveal the presence of any plant components enhancing or depressing vitamin A storage.

Similarly, no correlation could be found between digestibility coefficients of carotene in the different plants and liver vitamin A storage. This correlation seemed likely in sweet potato leaves only, the rather low digestibility coefficient found in these leaves may account, at least partially, for the low activity of this plant.

The stereoisomeric composition of the β-carotene of the different plants and the xanthophyll/carotene ratio are very similar in all plants tested and cannot account for differences in carotene activity of the plants studied.

The results of this work show that it is possible to satisfy the requirements of chicks for vitamin A from the first days of life by supplying certain forage plants. In practice, because of the variability of the carotene content in such plants, care has to be taken when estimating the amounts to be given. Green plants should be given to chickens freely or at least in liberal amounts.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , May 1957 , pp. 113 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

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

Almquist, H. J. (1944). Composition of Fresh Greens for Poultry. University of California: Berkeley.Google Scholar
Almquist, H. J., Jukes, T. H. & Newlon, W. E. (1938). Circ. Calif. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 108.Google Scholar
Association of Vitamin Chemists (1951). Methods of Vitamin Assay. New York, London: Interscience Publishers.Google Scholar
Barton Mann, T. (1946). J. Agric. Sci. 36, 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickoff, E. M., Atkins, M. E., Bailey, G. F. & Stitt, F. (1949). J. Ass. Off. Agric. Chem. 32, 766.Google Scholar
Bickoff, E. M. & Thompson, C. R. (1949). J. Ass. Off. Agric.Chem. 32, 775.Google Scholar
Buckner, G. D., Insko, W. M. & Harms, A. (1943). Poult. Sci. 22, 248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckner, G. D., Insko, W. M. Jr. & Henry, H. (1945). Poult. Sci. 24, 446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callison, E. C. & Knowles, V. H. (1945). Amer. J. Physiol. 143, 444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, H. L., Udiljak, M., Yarmolinsky, H. & Sherman, H. C. (1945). J. Nutr. 30, 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A. W., & Moore, T. (1934). Biochem. J. 28, 288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eden, W. (1951). Arch. Tierernähr. 2, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, W. S. (1939). The analysis of artificiallydried grass and silage. Ministry of Agric Memorandum, 02 1939, London.Google Scholar
Frey, P. R. & Wilgus, H. S. (1949). J. Nutr. 39, 517.Google Scholar
Goodwin, T. W. (1955). Carotenoids. In: Peach K. & Tracey M. V., Modern Methods of Plant Analysis, vol. III, p. 308. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Goodwin, T. & Gregory, R. A. (1948). Biochem J. 43, 505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, E. L., Hickman, K. C. D. & Brown, E. F. (1940). J. Nutr. 19, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guggenheim, K. & Koch, W. (1944). Biochem. J. 38, 256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurcay, R., Boucher, R. V. & Callenbach, E. W. (1950). J. Nutr. 41, 565.Google Scholar
Harvey, J. D., Parrish, D. B., Sanford, P. E. & Hughes, J. S. (1955). Poult. Sci. 34, 1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoefer, J. A. & Gallup, W. D. (1947). J. Anim. Sci. 6, 325.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. M. & Baumann, C. A. (1947 a). Arch. Biochem. 14, 361.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. M. & Baumann, C. A. (1947 b). J. Biol. Chem. 171, 513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. M. & Baumann, C. A. (1948). J. Biol. Chem. 175, 811.Google Scholar
Johnson, E. L., Carrick, C. W. & Hauge, S. M. (1948). Poult. Sci. 27, 308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, B. & Day, H. G. (1950). J. Nutr. 40, 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemmerer, A. R., Fraps, G. S. & de Mottier, T. (1947). Arch. Biochem. 12, 135.Google Scholar
Mann, H. B. & Whitney, D. R. (1947). Ann. Math. Statist. 18, 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, T. (1943). Biochem. J. 37, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Record, R. P., Bethke, R. M. & Wilder, O. H. M. (1937). Poult. Sci. 16, 25.Google Scholar
Rousseau, J. E., Eaton, H. D., Hemboldt, C. F., Jungherr, E. L., Robrish, S. A., Beall, G. & Moore, L. A. (1954). J. Dairy Sci. 37, 889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, M. & Bird, H. R. (1941). Poult. Sci. 20, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, W. C., Taylor, M. W., Walker, H. A. & Polskin, L. J. (1942). J. Nutr. 24, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sexton, E. L., Mehl, J. W. & Deuel, H. J. Jr., (1946). J. Nutr. 31, 299.Google Scholar
Sipe, G. R. & Polk, H. D. (1941). Poult. Sci. 20, 406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temperton, H., Dudley, F. J. & Thorn, M. B. (1945). Harper Adams Util. Poult. J. 30, 4.Google Scholar
Virtanen, A. I. & Kreula, M. (1941). Hoppe-Seyl. Z. 270, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar