Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g7rbq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T22:27:29.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of dietary copper sulphate on laying performance, nutrient intake and tissue copper and iron levels of the mature, laying, domestic fowl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2018

N. Jackson
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. 1. A cereal-based diet containing 16 mg copper/kg was fed ad lib. to a group of laying hens for 35 d. Five other groups were given this control diet to which was added 120, 240, 480, 960 and 1920 mg Cu/kg (as copper sulphate).

  2. 2. Records were kept of daily food intake, water intake and egg production.

  3. 3. After 35 d the hens were slaughtered and blood haemoglobin, packed cell volume, Cu and aspartate aminotransferase (EC2.6.1.1) levels assayed. Liver, oviduct, kidney and breast muscle Cu and iron concentrations were measured.

  4. 4. Food and water intakes were depressed by the two highest levels of dietary Cu and water intake was increased by the diet with 240 mg added Cu/kg. Both food and water intake showed a quadratic relationship with the level of added dietary Cu.

  5. 5. Body-weight loss was increased by the addition of Cu and showed a significant linear relationship with the concentration of added Cu in the diet. Liver and oviduct weights were depressed at the two highest levels of Cu addition.

  6. 6. Liver and oviduct Cu and Fe concentrations were significantly increased by high dietary Cu and mean total liver and kidney Cu and Fe showed an increase although for the liver this was not statistically significant.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , July 1977 , pp. 93 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1977

References

Allcroft, R., Burns, K. N. & Lewis, G. (1961). Vet. Rec. 73, 714.Google Scholar
Allen, M. M. & Harding, J. D. J. (1962). Vet. Rec. 74, 173.Google Scholar
Beck, A. B. (1961). Aust. J. agric. Res. 12, 743.Google Scholar
Bergmeyer, H. U. & Bernt, E. (1965). In Methods of Enzymatic Analysis, pp. 837-853 [H. U. Bergmeyer, editor], Weinheim: Verlag Chemie.Google Scholar
Brown, W. O. & Jackson, N. (1960). Poult. Sci., 39, 602.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., Williams, C. B., Jones, R. S., Yanagita, M., Cartwright, G. E. & Wintrobe, M. M. (1956). J. Lab. din. Wed. 48, 442.Google Scholar
Goodridge, A. G. (1968). Am. J. Physiol. 214, 897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, N. K., Morris, T. R. & Valamotis, D. (1970). Br. Poult. Sci. 11, 241.Google Scholar
King, J. O. L. (1972). Br. Poult. Sci. 13, 61.Google Scholar
King, J. O. L. (1975). Br. Poult. Sci. 16, 409.Google Scholar
Kuznetsov, S. G. & Volkov, D. T. (1974). Vop. Pitan. (6), 51.Google Scholar
Mayo, R. H., Hauge, S. M., Parker, H. E., Andrews, F. N. & Carrick, C. W. (1956). Poult. Sci. 35, 1156.Abstr.Google Scholar
Mehring, A. L. Jr, Brumbaugh, J. H., Sutherland, A. J. & Titus, H. W. (1960). Poult. Sci. 39, 713.Google Scholar
Milne, D. B. & Weswig, P. H. (1968). J. Nutr. 95, 429.Google Scholar
Norberg, B. (1961). Clinica chim. Acta 6, 264.Google Scholar
Norvell, M. J., Calvert, C. C., Thomas, M. C. & Goatcher, W. D. (1974). Poult. Sci. 53, 1641.Abstr.Google Scholar
O'Hea, E. K. & Leveille, G. A. (1969). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 30, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, J. (1971). Biochem. J. 123, 717.Google Scholar
Rangachar, T. R. S. & Hedge, V. R. (1973). Mysore J. agric. Sci. 7, 620.Google Scholar
Ranney, R. E. & Chiakoff, I. L. (1951). Am. J. Physiol. 165, 600.Google Scholar
Shand, A. & Lewis, R. (1957). Vet. Rec. 69, 618.Google Scholar
Smith, M. S. (1969). Br. Poult. Sci. 10, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sourkes, T. L., Lloyd, K. & Birnbaum, H. (1968). Can. J. Biochem. 46, 267.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. H. & Blanchflower, W. J. (i971). Lab Pract. 20, 859 Google Scholar
Todd, J. R. & Thompson, R. H. (1963). Br. vet. J. 119, 161.Google Scholar
Waring, J. J. & Brown, W. O. (1967). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 68, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar