Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T03:56:01.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The gut flora of the chick

3*. Differences in caecal flora between ‘infected’, ‘uninfected’ and penicillin-fed chicks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

M. Lev ,
C. A. E. Briggs  and
Marie E. Coates
M. Lev
Affiliation:
Bacteriology Department
C. A. E. Briggs
Affiliation:
Bacteriology Department
Marie E. Coates
Affiliation:
Nutrition Department, National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 1957 , pp. 364 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1957

References

Anderson, G. W., Cunningham, J. D. & Slinger, S. J. (1951). Poult. Sci. 30, 905.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. W., Cunningham, J. D. & Slinger, S. J. (1953). Canad. J. comp. Med. 17, 83.Google Scholar
Brown, J. H. & Luther, H. G. (1950). J. Anim. Sci. 9, 650.Google Scholar
Coates, M. E., Davies, M. K. & Kon, S. K. (1955). Brit. J. Nutr. 9, 110.Google Scholar
Coates, M. E., Dickinson, C. D., Harrison, G. F. & Kon, S. K. (1951). Biochem. J. 49, lxviii.Google Scholar
Coates, M. E., Dickinson, C. D., Harrison, G. F., Kon, S. K., Porter, J. W. G., Cummins, S. H. & Cuthbertson, W. F. J. (1952). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 3, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Common, R. H., Keefe, T. J., Burgess, R. & Maw, W. A. (1950). Nature, Lond., 166, 992.Google Scholar
Dixon, J. & Thayer, R. H. (1951). Poult. Sci. 30, 910.Google Scholar
Eisenstark, A. & Sanford, P. (1953). Poult. Sci. 32, 837.Google Scholar
Elam, J. F., Jacobs, R. L., Fowler, J. & Couch, J. R. (1954). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N. Y., 85, 645.Google Scholar
Hayward, N. J. (1943). J. Path. Bact. 55, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, R. M. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 566.Google Scholar
Jordan, R. M. & Bell, T. D. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 1051.Google Scholar
Jukes, T. H. (1955). Antibiotics in Nutrition, p. 19. New York: Medical Encyclopedia Inc.Google Scholar
Lev, M. & Briggs, C. A. E. (1956 a). J. appl. Bact. 19, 36.Google Scholar
Lev, M. & Briggs, C. A. E. (1956 b). J. appl. Bact. 19, 224.Google Scholar
Lev, M., Briggs, C. A. E. & Coates, M. E. (1956). Nature, Lond., 178, 1125.Google Scholar
Lowbury, E. J. L. & Lilly, H. A. (1955). J. Path. Bact. 70, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, B. & Biely, J. (1952). Poult. Sci. 31, 177.Google Scholar
Miles, A. A. & Misra, S. S. (1938). J. Hyg., Camb., 38, 732.Google Scholar
Olsen, A. M. & Scott, W. J. (1950). Aust. J. sci. Res. B, 3, 219.Google Scholar
Pepper, W. F., Slinger, S. J. & Motzok, I. (1953). Poult. Sci. 32, 656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romoser, G. L. (1951). MS. Thesis, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Smyser, C. F., Cleverdon, R. C., Kulp, W. L. & Materson, L. D. (1952). Antibiot. & Chemother. 2, 363.Google Scholar
Williams, W. L., Taylor, R. R., Stokstad, E. L. R. & Jukes, T. H. (1951). Fed. Proc. 10, 270.Google Scholar
Wynne, E. S., Schmieding, W. R. & Daye, G. T. Jr., (1955). Food Res. 20, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar