Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T03:28:46.456Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of level of dietary copper sulphate and period of feeding on the laying, domestic fowl, with special reference to tissue mineral content

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2008

Mary H. Stevenson  and
N. Jackson
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, Berfast BT9 5PX, Northern Ireland
N. Jackson
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Food Chemistry Research Division, Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, and The Queen's University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Berfast 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. A cereal-based diet containing 7.6 mg copper/kg was fed ad lib. to laying hens for up to 48 d. Four other groups were given the control diet to which was added hydrated copper sulphate to provide 250, 500, 1000 and 2000 mg added Cu/kg.

2. Hens were killed on day o and after 3, 6, 12, 24 and 48 d. Records were kept of body-weight, food consumption, egg production and egg weight.

3. After slaughter blood haemoglobin, packed cell volume, serum Cu and aspartate aminotransfferase- (AAT; EC 2.6. I. I) were measured. The liver, kidneys, a sample of breast muscle, oviduct, ovary and gizzard were weighed. Gizzard, spleen. liver and kidney tissue were examined histologically.

4. The Cu, zinc and iron concentrations of liver, kidneys and breast muscle and the manganese concentrations of liver and kidneys were determined.

5. Body-weight loss occurred at 500–2000mg added Cu/kg diet. Egg production was depressed by level of added Cu and period of time on the Cu-containing diets.

6. Mean liver, kidney, oviduct and ovarian weights per unit body-weight were depressed by Cu in the diet and the effect increased with period of time on the diets. Mean gizzard weight per unit body-weight was increased by dietary added Cu and by time.

7. Cu concentrations in the liver were increased by dietary level of added Cu and period of timeon the diet. Zn concentration in liver increased at 1000 and 2000 mg added Cu/kg diet and liver Fe concentration was increased at these levels. Histological examination of the gizzard indicated that the Cu content of the gizzard lining increased with dietary added Cu.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , January 1980 , pp. 205 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1980

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1975). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock No. I, Poulrry. London: HM Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Barber, R. S., Braude, R. & Mitchell, K. G. (1955). Br. J. Nutr. 19, 575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmeyer, H. U. & Bernt, E. (1965). In Methods of Enzymatic Analysis, p. 837 [Bergmeyer, H. U., editor]. Weinheim: Verlag Chemie.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, I. J. (1931). Biochem. J. 25, 1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. K. (1958). Soil Sci. 85, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C. (1973). Feedstufs 45, no. 29, 24.Google 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. (1972). 14th Wld's Poult. Congr. Madrid 2, 759.Google Scholar
Folch, I., Lees, N. & Sloane-Stanley, G. H. (1957). J. biol. Chem. 226, 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griminger, P. (1977). Poult. Sci. 56, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ichida, T. & Nobuoka, M. (1969). Clinica chim,. Acta 24, 299.Google 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
Jensen, L. S. & Maurice, D. V. (1978). Poult. Sci. 57, 166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, R. R. (1969). Archs Path. 87, 370.Google Scholar
Mathers, J. R. & Hill, R. C. (1968). Br. J. Nutr. 22, 635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehring, A. L., Brumbaugh, J. H. & Titus, H. W. (1956). Poult. Sci. 35, 956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, D. H. & Weswig, P. H. (1968). J. Nutr. 95, 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norvell, M. J., Calvert, C. C., Thomas, M. C. & Goatcher, W. D. (1974). Poult. Sci. 53, 1641 Abstr.Google Scholar
Ritchie, H. D., Leucke, R. W., Baltzer, B. V., Miller, E. R., Ullrey, D. E. & Hoefer, J. A. (1963). J. Nutr. 79, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sourkes, T. L., Lloyd, K. & Birnbaum, H. (1968). Con. J. Biochem. 4, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starcher, B. C. (1969). J. Nutr. 97, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, M. H. & Jackson, N. (1979). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 38, 29A.Google Scholar