Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T12:30:16.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of some methods of supplying calcium to intensively kept chicks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. J. G. Black
D. J. G. Black
Affiliation:
The University, Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. An experiment was performed to compare some methods of supplying calcium to intensively kept chickens.

2. The calcium content of a mash was adjusted to contain low (0·13%), normal (1·16%) and high (2·14%) amounts, and each of these mashes was fed to groups of chicks having access to: (a) no grit, (b) flint grit alone, (c) limestone grit alone, (d) both flint and limestone grit.

3. The addition of flint grit significantly improved the efficiency of food utilization on all diets, whether limestone grit was provided or not.

4. On all three mashes the total amount of calcium grit consumed was greater in the presence of flint grit than when it was fed alone.

5. As the level of calcium in the diet increased, the amount of limestone grit consumed decreased, whether it was fed alone or in the presence of flint grit.

6. The best results, judged on a live-weight basis, were obtained when the normal calcium mash was fed with flint grit alone, followed by the low calcium mash with both flint and limestone grit, followed by the normal calcium mash with no grit.

7. On the basis of the efficiency of food utilization, the low calcium diet with flint and limestone grit was best followed by the normal calcium diet with flint grit alone.

8. Access to limestone grit reduced the efficiency of food utilization in all but the low calcium diet.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , July 1946 , pp. 199 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1946

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

Bethke, R. M. & Kennard, D. C. (1926). Poult. Sci. 5, 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, H. R. et al. (1937). Poult. Sci. 16, 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, D. J. G. (1943). Bull. Dep. Agric. Univ. Reading, no. 54.Google Scholar
Buckner, G. D., Martin, J. H. & Peter, A. M. (1926). Poult. Sci. 5, 203.Google Scholar
Ewing, W. R. (1943). Handbook of Poultry Nutrition, p. 391. South Pasadena, California.Google Scholar
Guttridge, G. (1937). Feath. World, 4 Dec.Google Scholar
Halnan, E. T. (1944). Scientific Principles of Poultry Feeding. Bull. Minist. Agric., Lond., no. 7.Google Scholar
Holmes, C. E., Herrick, C. A. & Ott, G. L. (1937). Poult. Sci. 16, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jull, M. A. (1938). Poultry Husbandry, p. 295. New York and London: McGraw-Hill Book Co.Google Scholar
Prentice, J. H. (1938). J. Minist. Agric. N. Ire. 6, 69.Google Scholar
Tyler, C. (1945). J. Agric. Sci. 35, 168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, A. R. & Funk, E. M. (1941). Poultry, p. 330. New York: J. B. Lipincott Co.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1944). The Composition and Nutritive Value of Feedingstuffs. Bull. Minist. Agric., Lond., no. 124.Google Scholar