Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T08:40:22.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of the protracted feeding of copper sulphate-supplemented diets to laying, domestic fowl on egg production and on specific tissues, with special reference to mineral content

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

N. Jackson ,
Mary H. Stevenson  and
G. McC. Kirkpatrick
N. Jackson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, The Queen's University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Berfast BT9 5PX, Northern Ireland, UK and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland
Mary H. Stevenson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, The Queen's University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Berfast BT9 5PX, Northern Ireland, UK and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland
G. McC. Kirkpatrick
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, Northern Ireland, UK
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. Two experiments are reported. In both experiments a cereal-based diet containing 5 mg copper/kg was fed to two breeds of laying hens for 336 d. In Expt I four other groups were given this diet with the addition of CuSO4.5H2O to give added levels of 200, 400, 600 and 800 mg Cu/kg diet. In Expt 2 the levels of added dietary Cu used were 100, 200, 300 and 400 mg/kg.

2. In Expt I records were kept of food intake, water intake, body-weight and egg production for eight 28 d periods and body-weight and egg number only were recorded for the full twelve periods. In Expt 2 full records, excluding water intake, were taken for all twelve periods.

3. Food and water intake showed a quadratic response to level of added dietary Cu, being enhanced at lower levels and depressed at higher levels of addition.

4. There was a quadratic response of total egg weight, mean egg weight and egg number to added dietary Cu. In Expt I egg number was maximum at 235 mg added Cu/kg diet for Warren Studler SSL (breed I) and at 170 mg added Cu/kg diet for Shaver 288 (breed 2). In Expt 2 no breed effect occurred, the maximum egg number being calculated to occur at 176 mg added Cu/kg diet.

5. Depression of body-weight gain occurred at high lelvels of Cu addition. The depression of liver and oviduct weight found at high levels of addition appeared to be directly related to body-weight. A marked amount of feather loss also occurred at a high inclusion of CuSO4 in the diet.

6. The reproductive systems of the hens did not appear to be adversely affected at the levels of additive used. Gross and microscopic examination of specific tissues revealed no pathological effects although gizzard and intestinal weights were increased and caecal weight decreased by high levels of added Cu. Those aspects of the blood chemistry examined did not reveal any consistent effect between the two experiments.

7. The liver Cu analyses indicate that between 600 and 800 mg added Cu/kg diet liver Cu concentration rises sharply. Both liver Fe and Zn concentrations showed a positive linear response to added dietary Cu. In the kidney Cu and Zn concentrations were increased but only to a limited extent, while the concentration of Fe was unaffected.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , September 1979 , pp. 253 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1979

References

Bergmeyer, H. U. & Bernt, E. (1965). In Methods of Enzymatic Analysis, pp. 837–53 [Bergmeyer, H. U., editor]. Weinheim: Verlag Chemie.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braude, R., Coates, M. E., Davies, M. K., Harrison, G. F. & Mitchell, K. G. (1955). Br. J. Nutr. 9, 363.Google Scholar
Bubien, Z., Morand, M., Gastellu, J. & Magat, A. (1971). Revue Méd. vét. 122, 511.Google Scholar
Cassidy, J. & Eva, J. K. (1958). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 17, xxxi.Google Scholar
Fisher, C. (1973). Feedstufs 45 no. 25, 24.Google Scholar
Fisher, C., Laursen-Jones, A. P., Hill, K. J. & Hardy, W. S. (1973). Br. Poult. Sci. 14, 55.Google Scholar
Fisher, C., Wise, D. & Filrner, D. G. (1971). 14th Wld's Poult. Congr., Madrid 759.Google Scholar
Folch, J., Lees, N. & Sloane Stanley, C. H. (1957). J. biol. Chem. 226, 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A., Williams, C. B., Jones, R. S., Yanagita, M., Cartwright, G. E. & Wintrobe, M. M. (1956). J. Lab. elin. Med. 48, 442.Google Scholar
Goodridge, A. G. (1968). Am. J. Physiol. 214, 897.Google Scholar
Gordon, H. A. (1952). Report from Lobund Institute. University of Notre Dame, Indiana.Google Scholar
Griminger, P. (1977). Poult. Sci. 55, 359.Google Scholar
Jackson, N. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 38, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, W. M. M. A. (1971). Arch. Gefugelk 35, 137.Google Scholar
Jensen, L. S., Chang, C. H. & Wilson, S. P. (1978). Poult. Sci. 57, 648.Google Scholar
Jensen, L. S. & Maurice, D. V. (1978). Poult. Sci. 57, 166.Google Scholar
Kare, M. R. & Rogers, J. G. (1976). Sense organs. In Avian Physiology, pp. 29–52 [Sturkie, P. D., editor]. 3rd ed. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
King, J. O. L. (1972). Br. Poult. Sci. 13, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchgessner, M., Hampel, G. & Roth-Maier, D. A. (1970). Z. Tierphysiol. Tierernährung Fuffermittelk. 26, 279.Google Scholar
Kuznetsov, S. G. & Volkov, D. T. (1974). Vop. Pitan. 6, 51.Google Scholar
Lindquist, R. R. (1969). Archs Path. 87, 370.Google Scholar
March, B. E. & Biely, J. (1967). Poult. Sci. 46, 831.Google Scholar
Norberg, B. (1961). Clinica chim. Acta 6, 264.Google Scholar
O'Hara, P. J., Newman, A. P. & Jackson, R. (1960). Aust. vet. J. 36, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Hea, E. K. & Leveille, G. A. (1969). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 30, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, S. J. B. & Jackson, N. (1974). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 82, 549.Google Scholar
Ranney, R. E. & Chaikoff, I. C. (1951). Am. J. Physiol. 165, 600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, H. D., Luecke, R. W., Baltzer, B. V., Miller, E. R., Ullrey, D. E. & Hoefer, J. A. (1963). J. Nutr. 79, 117.Google Scholar
Ruszczyc, Z., Preś, J. & Fritz, Z. (1962). Rocz. Nauk rol. 81, 49.Google Scholar
Shand, A. & Lewis, R. (1957). Vet. Rec. 69, 618.Google Scholar
Suttle, N. F. & Mills, C. F. (1966 a). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 135.Google Scholar
Suttle, N. F. & Mills, C. F. (1966 b). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 149.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. H. & Harrington, G. (1955). Nature, Lond. 175, 643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R. H. & Blanchflower, W. J. (1971). Lab. Pract. 20, 859.Google Scholar
Todd, J. R. & Thompson, R. (1963). Br. vet. J. 119, 161.Google Scholar
Wallace, H. D., McCall, J. T., Bass, B. & Combs, G. E. (1960). J. Anim. Sci. 19, 1153.Google Scholar