Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T01:16:47.900Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of floor type and the choline content of the diet upon the incidence of perosis in chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. B. Cumming  and
D. E. Tribe
R. B. Cumming
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol
D. E. Tribe
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A series of experiments, involving the use of three hundred and forty Rhode Island Red x Light Sussex day-old cockerels, was carried out to determine (a) the influence of floor type on the incidence of perosis, and (b) a method of lowering the high incidence of perosis which may occur when chicks are fed the experimental diet no. 124 originally described by Dam et al. (1951).

2. It was found that the incidence of perosis was about 60% higher in groups of chicks raised on wiremesh floors than in groups of chicks similarly raised on wooden floors.

3. Neither the area of the floor space nor the level of manganese in the diet influenced the incidence of perosis.

4. When the calculated choline content of the diet was 500 mg./kg. the incidence of perosis was 60% but when it was raised to above 800 mg./kg. the incidence fell to about 15%. This could not be reduced further by further increasing the choline content.

5. Since the rate of body-weight gain increased as the choline content of the diet was raised to 1400 mg./kg. it is suggested that diet no. 124 may be improved from both the points of view of perosis prevention and of growth rate if the choline content is raised to 1500 mg./kg. of diet.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , February 1956 , pp. 103 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

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

Bruce, H. M., Kon, S. K., Watson, J. V., Cotchin, E. & White, E. G. (1946). J. Comp. Path. 56, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cravens, W. W., Almquist, H. J., Bethke, R. M., Norris, L. C. & Bird, H. R. (1946). Nat. Res. Counc. U.S.A. Recommended Nutrient Allowances for Poultry, no. 1.Google Scholar
Dam, H., Kruse, I., Prange, I. & Sondergaard, E. (1951). Acta physiol. Scand. 22, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R. J. (1943). Poultry Sci. 22, 266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewing, W. R. (1947). Poultry Nutrition, p. 55. California: W. Ray Ewing.Google Scholar
Hegsted, D. M., Mills, R. C., Elvehjem, C. A. & Hart, E. B. (1941). J. Biol. Chem. 138, 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jukes, T. H. (1940). J. Nutr. 20, 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jukes, T. H. (1941). J. Nutr. 22, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElroy, L. W. & Jukes, T. H. (1940). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. N.Y. 45, 296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pepper, W. F., Slinger, S. J. & Motzok, I. (1953). Poultry Sci. 32, 656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Record, P. R. & Bethke, R. M (1942). Poultry Sci. 21, 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaible, P. J. & Bandemer, S. A. (1942). Poultry Sci. 21, 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaible, P. J., Burmester, B. R., Sykes, J. F. & Thorp, J. F. (1944). Amer. J. Physiol. 141, 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slinger, S. J. (1951). Private communication as quoted by L. G. Chubb (1954). Proc. 10th World's Poultry Congress, p. 164.Google Scholar
Tyler, C. (1949–1950). Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 19, 263Google Scholar