Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T00:36:20.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The growth of the alimentary tract of the fowl and the goose

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. G. Hallsworth  and
J. I. Coates
E. G. Hallsworth
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture
J. I. Coates
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A study has been made of the internal volume of the different parts of the alimentary tract of geese and fowls.

It has been shown that although the adult geese were two or three times as heavy as the adult fowls, the mean total gut capacity, exclusive of the crop, was proportionately less. Although the gizzard was much greater in weight than in the fowl, its capacity in proportion to body weight is only half that of the fowl, whilst the caeca are relatively even smaller. The distended oesophagus of the goose, which replaces the crop of the fowl, was at all times smaller relative to body weight.

The gut capacities of both chicks and goslings increased rapidly when they began to feed, and reached a maximum, relative to body weight, within the first fortnight after hatching. At 16 weeks, the capacity of the alimentary canal had almost the same relation to body weight as in the adult.

In both, the small intestine constitutes the major proportion of the volume in the adult, being 33–40% in the fowl and more than 50% in the goose.

Feeding a diet containing 21% crude fibre and supplemented with procaine penicillin G produced chicks with relatively greater gut capacities, and this effect was enhanced by the concurrent inclusion of procaine penicillin G, but where the fibre was reduced to 17·4%, the gut capacities were not significantly different, in relation to body weight, than in the control group.

Histological examination of the wall of the gut of chickens raised on different diets showed marked abrasion on high-fibre diets, and a much thinner intestinal wall in those birds receiving antibiotic.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 1962 , pp. 153 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

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

Alvarez, E. C. (1949). An introduction to gastroenterology. 4th ed.London: Wm. Heinemann.Google Scholar
Axelsson, J. (1939). World's Poult. Cong. VII Cleveland (Ohio), 165.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, W. (1961). Proc. Univ. Nottingham 8th Easter School in Agricultural Science.Google Scholar
Brüggeman, H. (1931). Arch. Tierernähr, Tier 2, 5, 89.Google Scholar
Calhoun, M. L. (1933). Iowa St. Coll. J. Sci. 7, 261.Google Scholar
Chodnik, K. S. (1947). Quart. J. Micr. Sci. 88, 419.Google Scholar
Coates, M. E., Davies, M. K. & Kon, S. K. (1955). Brit. J. Nutr. 9, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, E. W. & Maynard, L. A. (1938). J. Nutr. 15, 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, F. & Briggs, G. M. (1947). J. Nutr. 34, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espe, D. L. & Cannon, C. Y. (1940). J. Dairy Sci. 23, 1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, M. & Park, J. T. (1959). J. Nutr. 67, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, M., Supplee, W. C. & Combs, G. F. (1958). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 99, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1955). Poultry Sci. 34, 745–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halnan, H. T. (1949). Brit. J. Nutr. 3, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heuser, G. F. & Norris, L. C. (1952). Poult. Sci. 31, 857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, F. W. & Dansky, L. M. (1954). Poult. Sci. 33, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, C. H., Keeling, A. D. & Kelly, J. W. (1957). J. Nutr. 62, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihnen, K. (1928). Pflüg. Arch. ges. Physiol. 218, 783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latimer, H. B. (1924). J. Agric. Res. 29, 363.Google Scholar
Lenkeit, W. (1934). Arch. Geflügelk. 8, 116.Google Scholar
Lev, M., Briggs, C. A. E. & Coates, M. E. (1957). Brit. J. Nutr. 11, 364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molitor, H., Graessle, O. E., Kuna, S., Mushett, C. W. & Silber, R. H. (1946). J. Pharmacol. 86, 151.Google Scholar
Mray, F. R., Boucher, R. V. & McCartney, N. G. (1956). Poult. Sci. 35, 1335.Google Scholar
Reber, E. F. (1955). Amer. J. Vet. Res. 16, 553.Google Scholar
Richardson, C. E., Watts, A. B. & Epps, E. A. (1958). Poult. Sci. 37, 1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, F. R. & Mussehl, F. E. (1936). Poult. Sci. 15, 304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ströder, J. (1952). Schweiz. Med. Wschr. 82, 58.Google Scholar
Sturkie, P. D. (1954). Avian physiology. New York: Comstock.Google Scholar