Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T14:28:20.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study of the effects of dietary added cupric oxide on the laying, domestic fowl and a comparison with the effects of hydrated copper sulphate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

N. Jackson  and
Mary H. Stevenson
N. Jackson
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Food Chemistry Research Division, Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, and The Queen's University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, Northern Ireland
Mary H. Stevenson
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Food Chemistry Research Division, Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, and The Queen's University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, Northern Ireland
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. An experiment is reported in which copper, as cupric oxide, was fed to two breeds of laying hen for 336 d at levels equivalent to 150, 300, 450, 600 and 750 mg added Cu/kg diet. The results obtained were compared with those found using similar diets to which the Cu was added as CuSO4. 5H2O.

2. Addition of the CuO had no effect on food intake, food conversion efficiency, body-weight or egg production. The CuSO4 addition caused the quadratic response of food intake and the adverse effects on food intake, egg production and body-weight noted in previous experiments.

3. The CuO had no effect on liver, kidney, ovary, oviduct or gizzard weight per unit body-weight while the CuSO4 decreased these with the exception of gizzard weight which was significantly increased.

4. CuO addition did not affect liver Cu concentration but CuSO4 caused a subtantial increase of liver Cu especially at the 750 mg Cu/kg level of addition.

5. CuO addition had no effect on liver lipid concentration but this was depressed at the highest level of CuSO4 addition. Effects on individual fatty acids are presented but no specific conclusions have been reached.

Type
Papers on GENERAL NUTRITION
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 1981 , pp. 99 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1981

References

Agricultural Research Council (1975). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock No. 1,Poultry. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Braude, R. (1967). World Rev. Anim. Prod. 3, 69.Google Scholar
Christie, W. W. & Moore, J. H. (1969). Lipids 4, 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, J. I. & Bowland, J. P. (1968). J. Anim. Sci. 27, 956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, J. I. & Bowland, J. P. (1972). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 52, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C., Laursen-Jones, A. P., Hill, K. J. & Hardy, W. S. (1973). Br. Poult. Sci. 14, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C., Wise, D. & Filmer, D. G. (1971). 14th Wld's Poult. Congr. Madrid p. 759.Google Scholar
Folch, J., Lees, J. & Sloane Stanley, C. H. (1957). J. biol. Chem. 226, 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodridge, A. F. (1968). Am. J. Physiol. 214, 897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griminger, P. (1977). Poult. Sci. 56, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guenthner, E., Carlson, C. W. & Emerick, R. J. (1978). Poult. Sci. 57, 1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawbaker, J. A., Speer, V. C., Jones, J. D., Hays, V. W. & Catron, D. V. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 1505 Abstr.Google Scholar
Husbands, D. R. (1972). Br. Poult. Sci. 13, 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, N. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 38, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, N., Stevenson, M. H. & Kirkpatrick, G. McC. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 42, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehring, A. L., Brumbaugh, J. H., Sutherland, A. J. & Titus, H. W. (1960). Poult. Sci. 39, 713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, D. H. & Weswig, P. H. (1968). J. Nutr. 95, 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Hea, E. K. & Leveille, G. A. (1969). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 30, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poupoulis, C. & Jensen, L. S. (1976). Poult. Sci. 55, 113.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, M. H. & Jackson, N. (1980 a). Br. J. Nutr. 43, 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, M. H. & Jackson, N. (1980 b). Br. J. Nutr. 43, 551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturkie, P. D. (ed.) (1976). In Avian Physiology, 3rd ed. p. 196–209. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, M. & Thomke, S. (1964). Nature, Lond. 201, 1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M. C., Norvell, M. J., Calvert, C. C. & Goatcher, W. D. (1974). Poult. Sci. 53, 1984 Abstr.Google Scholar
Willingham, H. E. & Hill, C. H. (1970). Proc. Maryland Nutr. Conf Fd Mfr. p. 32.Google Scholar