Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:52:53.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relation of Calcium and Phosphorus to Growth and Rachitic Leg Weakness in Chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Raymond T. Parkhurst  and
Mary R. McMurray
Raymond T. Parkhurst
Affiliation:
(The National Institute of Poultry Husbandry, Harper-Adams Agricultural College, Newport, Salop.)
Mary R. McMurray
Affiliation:
(The National Institute of Poultry Husbandry, Harper-Adams Agricultural College, Newport, Salop.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Retarded growth and poor bone development resulted from feeding both a ration containing only 0·26 per cent. calcium and with a Ca:P ratio of 0·44:1 and from a ration in which 5 per cent, of maize meal had been replaced by 5 per cent, of ground limestone to give a calcium content of 3 per cent. and a Ca:P ratio of 4:1. The basal or No Limestone group confirms previous results indicating that ground limestone may have a depressing effect on growth.

The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Mr G. H. Botham, B.Sc, A.L.S., who did the chemical analysis of the food and bones, Mr J. Lavelle, who made and interpreted the skiagrams, and Mr F. J. Dudley, who statistically analysed the results.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , October 1932 , pp. 874 - 882
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1932

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

(1)Sheehy, E. J. and Sheil, K.Sci. Proc. Roy. Dubl. Soc. (1932), 20, 173.Google Scholar
(2)Hart, E. B., Steenbock, H., Halpin, J. G. and Johnson, O. M.Wise. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. (1924), 371, 1.Google Scholar
(3)Heuser, G. F. and Norris, L. C.Poultry Science (1926), 6, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Hughes, J. S. and Titus, R. W.J. Biol. Chem. (1926), 69, 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, J. S. and Titus, R. W.Ohio Bull. (1926), 392, 69.Google Scholar
(5)Card, L. E.Ill. Agr. Sta. Annual Report (1926).Google Scholar
(6)Holst, Peter M.J. Hygiene. (1927), 26, 437.Google Scholar
(7)Mussehl, F. E., Hill, R. F., Blish, M. J. and Ackerson, C. W.J. Agric. Res. (1930), 40, 191.Google Scholar
(8)Bethke, R. E., Kennard, D. C., Kick, C. H. and Zinzalian, G.Poultry Science (1929), 8, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Massengale, O. N. and Nussmeier, M.J. Biol. Chem. (1930), 87, 2, 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Hart, E. B., Scott, H. T., Kline, O. L. and Halpin, J. G.Poultry Science (1930), 9, 296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Wilgus, H. S. Jr. Poultry Science (1931), 10, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Russell, W. C. and Chichester, Donald F.Science (1931), 74, 437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Holmes, Arthur D. and Pigott, Madeleine G.Ind. Eng. Chem. (1931), 23, 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14)Hall, G. Edward and King, Earl J.Poultry Science (1931), 10, 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(15)Tulley, W. C., Hauge, L. M., Carrick, C. W. and Roberts, Ray E.Poultry Science (1931), 10, 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar