Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T22:16:36.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of dietary prophionic acid on the requirement of chicks for vitamin B12

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2011

R. Ryś  and
J. Korleski
R. Ryś
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Zootechnics, Cracow, Sarego 2, Poland
J. Korleski
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Zootechnics, Cracow, Sarego 2, Poland
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. Test diets were given to chicks from 1 to 28 d of age. The basal diet contained soyabean meal as the sole source of protein and contained no vitamin B12.

2. The basal diet supported poorer growth and feed conversion efficiency than did the same diet supplemented with 0.01, 0.03 or 0.3 mg cyanocobalamin/kg.

3. Each of the four diets was also offered with a supplement of 20 g propionic acid/kg. This caused a significant growth depression at all but the highest level of cyanocobalamin addition.

4. Methylmalonic acid was detected in the excreta of chicks that received the supplements of 0 and 0.01 mg cyanocobalamin/kg diet, and in those of chicks receiving 0.03 mg only for the chicks that were also receiving propionic acid.

5. The results suggest that giving the odd-carbon, propionic acid to chicks may increase their requirement for vitamin B12.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , March 1974 , pp. 143 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1974

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1967). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 1. Poultry. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Denel, H. J. & Hollman, S. (1940). J. Nutr. 20, 215.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, P. M. & Dube, V. E. (1967). Clinica chim. Acta 15, 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryden, L. P. & Hartman, A. M. (1971). J. Nutr. 101, 589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geisler, H. J., Wahdati, A. & Henka, R. A. (1965). J. Lab. clin. Med. 66, 667.Google Scholar
Green, A. E. & Pegrum, S. D. (1968). Br. med. J. iii, 591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawecka, A. & Ryś, R. (1968). Acta agr. Silv. Ser. zootech. 8, no. 2, p. 37.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1960). Publs natn. Res. Coun., Wash. no. 827.Google Scholar
Ruszczyc, Z. (1970). Metodyka doświadczeń zootechnicznych [Methods of Animal Experiments]. Warsaw: PWRiL.Google Scholar
Skotnicki, J. (1971). Wydaw. wlasne Inst. Zootech. Krakow no. 258.Google Scholar
Spray, G. H., Newman, G. E. & O'Brien, J. R. O. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 343.Google Scholar
Stadtman, E. R., Overath, P., Eggerer, M. & Lynen, F. (1960). Biochem. biophys. Res. Common. 2, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vekataraman, S., Biswas, D. K. & Johnson, B. C. (1967). J. Nutr. 93, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, P. (1947). Chemy Ind. 19, 252.Google Scholar