Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-cx56b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-15T20:08:52.057Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of different patterns of allocation of a restricted quantity of food upon the growth and development of cockerels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. F. Osbourn  and
P. N. Wilson
D. F. Osbourn
Affiliation:
Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad
P. N. Wilson
Affiliation:
Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The live-weight gains and food consumption of groups of chickens subjected to two different patterns, (A) and (B), of allocation of a restricted quantity of food, were compared with the live-weight gains and food consumption of a control group (C), fed ad lib. throughout the experiment.

2. Group B (compensatory growth regime), showed a greater relative growth rate after re-alimentation than group A (mild restriction followed by ad lib. feeding). The growth rate of group B was shown to be significantly greater than that of the control group at equivalent live weights. In addition, it was shown that the increased growth rate, induced by periods of restriction of similar severity and duration, was very similar for birds within the ranges of 200–300 g. live weight and 750–1100 g. live weight.

3. The differences, due to treatment, in the growth rate after re-alimentation were in part caused by a concurrent increase in appetite. The severity and duration of the undernutrition immediately prior to re-alimentation would appear to affect appetite during re-alimentation more than the total restriction imposed. Measured in terms of food consumed, the restriction imposed upon groups A and B was the same, but in terms of live weight gain group B was very slightly more retarded than group A.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 1960 , pp. 278 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

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

Ackerson, C. W. & Mussehl, F. E. (1956). Poult. Sci. 35, 483.Google Scholar
Axelsson, J. (1938). Harper Adams Util. Poult. J. 23, 43.Google Scholar
Bohmann, V. R. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 247.Google Scholar
Brody, S. (1945). Bioenergetics and Growth. New York.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, F. W. (1943). Atlas of Avian Anatomy. Mich. Agrio. Exp. Sta. Memoir Bull. no. 5.Google Scholar
Eliot, R. C. (1956). Rhod. J. Agric. 53, 5.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. R. & Zeller, J. H. (1934). U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. no. 413.Google Scholar
Fraps, G. S. (1944). Bull. Tex. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 665.Google Scholar
French, M. H. & Ledger, H. P. (1957). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 25, 10.Google Scholar
Guilbert, H. R., Hart, G. H., Wagner, K. A. & Goss, H. (1944). Bull. Calif. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 688.Google Scholar
Haeker, T. L. (1920). Res. Bull. Minnesota Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 193.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1932). Growth and Development of Mutton Qualities in Sheep. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hill, F. W. & Dansky, L. (1954). Poult. Sci. 33, 132.Google Scholar
Hogan, A. G. (1929). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 123.Google Scholar
Jeffries, B. C. (1957). J. Dep. Agric. S. Aust. 61, 113.Google Scholar
Joubert, D. M. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 63.Google Scholar
Kincaid, C. M. (1939). Rec. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. 32, 111.Google Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1940). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 259.Google Scholar
McMeekan, C. P., (1941). J. Agric. Sci., 31, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, H. H., Card, L. E. & Hamilton, T. S. (1926). Bull. Ill. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 278.Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. H., Card, L. E. & Hamilton, T. S. (1931). Bull. Ill. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 367.Google Scholar
Outhouse, J. & Mendel, L. B. (1933). J. Exp. Zool. 64, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pálsson, H. (1955). Chap. 10 in Progress in the Physiology of Farm Animals, vol. 2. Ed. Hammond, J.London.Google Scholar
Pálsson, H. & Verges, J. B. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quimby, F. H. (1948). Brit. J. Nutr. 36, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehy, E. J. & Senior, D. (1942). J. Dep. Agric. Eire, 39, 245.Google Scholar
Sherwood, D. H. & Milby, T. T. (1954). Poult. Sci. 33, 1080.Google Scholar
Stanier, M. W. (1957 a). Brit. J. Nutr. 11, 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanier, M. W. (1957 b). (Personal communication.)Google Scholar
Trowbridge, P. F., Moulton, C. R. & Haigh, L. D. (1918). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 28.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. M. S. (1943). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 11, 191.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. N. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, P. N. (1954 a). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 67.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. N. (1954 b). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, P. N. (1957). Nature, Lond., 180, 145.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. N. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 50, 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winchester, C. F. & Howe, P. E. (1955). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 1108.Google Scholar