Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-995ml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T20:37:09.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of feeding diets containing Crotalaria retusa L. seed to broiler chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. J. Ross
Affiliation:
Animal Industry and Agriculture Branch, Department of the Northern TerritoryDarwin, Northern Territory, Australia.
J. W. Tucker
Affiliation:
Animal Industry and Agriculture Branch, Department of the Northern TerritoryDarwin, Northern Territory, Australia.

Summary

Seeds of the plant Crotalaria retusa L., containing 4·4% of the pyrrolizidine alkaloid monocrotaline, were fed in a finely ground form to broiler chickens at 0·005, 0·01, 0·05, 0·10 and 0·50% by weight of the diet continuously for 8 weeks.

Feeding 0·005% and 0·01% had no effect on the growth performance of the birds. A non-significant reduction in live-weight gain, one death and chronic disease resulted from feeding 0·05%. At 0·10% and 0·50% there was high mortality and reduced voluntary feed intake, live-weight gain and feed conversion efficiency, the severity of the response being greater at 0·50%.

Feather development was inhibited in birds fed 0·10% and 0·50% C. retusa seed.

Until further research is done to determine the effect of feeding between 0·01% and 0·05% ground C. retusa seed in the diet of broiler chickens, it is suggested that the maximum should be 0·01%.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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

Allen, J. R., Childs, G. R. & Cravens, W. A. (1960). Crotalaria spectabilis toxicity in chickens. Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine Proceedings 104, 434–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bierer, B. W., Vickers, C. L., Rhodes, W. H. & Thomas, J. B. (1960). Comparison of the toxic effects of Crotalaria spectabilis and Crotalaria giant striata as complete feed contaminants. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 136, 318–22.Google ScholarPubMed
Bull, L. B., Culvenor, C. C. J. & Dick, A. T. (1968). The Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids, p. 245. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Emmel, M. W. (1937). The toxicity of Crotalaria retusa L. seeds for the domestic fowl. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 91, 205–6.Google Scholar
Emmel, M. W. & Sanders, D. A. (1942). Crotalaria spectabilis and C. retusa poisoning of livestock. University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Press Bulletin 574.Google Scholar
Harms, R. H., Waldroup, P. W. & Simpson, C. F. (1963). Effects of feeding various levels of Crotalaria spectabilis seed on the performance of chicks, turkeys and pullets. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 142, 260–3.Google ScholarPubMed
Hooper, P. T. & Scanlan, W. A. (1977). Crotalaria retusa poisoning of pigs and poultry. Australian Veterinary Journal (in the Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, J. E., Samuel, Adele & Jago, Marjorie V. (1972). Pathological effects of dehydroheliotridine, a metabolite of heliotridine-based pyrrolizidine alkaloids, in the young rat. The Journal of Pathology 107, 175–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, A. L., Gardner, C. A., McConnell, J. D. & Bull, L. B. (1957). Field and experimental investigation of ‘walk-about’ disease of horses (Kimberley horse disease) in Northern Australia: Crotalaria poisoning in horses. Part II. The Australian Veterinary Journal 33, 4962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmittle, S. C., Richey, D. J. & Tumlin, J. T. (1959). Toxicity of Crotalaria spectabilis seed in poultry. Abstract. Poultry Science 38, 1244–5.Google Scholar
Simpson, C. F., Waldroup, P. W. & Harms, R. H. (1963). Pathologic changes associated with feeding various levels of Crotalaria spectabilis seed to poultry. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 142, 264–71.Google ScholarPubMed