Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T22:01:55.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance of laying hens fed on practical diets containing different levels of supplemental biotin during the rearing and laying stages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

C. C. Whitehead
C. C. Whitehead
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council's Poultry Research Centre, King's Buildings, West Mains Road, EdinburghEH93JS
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. The effect of biotin supplementation of low-biotin practical diets during rearing and laying stages on performance was studied in White Leghorn-type laying hens.

2. Biotin supplementation during rearing did not have any apparent effect on the condition of the bird at point-of-lay or on subsequent laying performance.

3. Biotin supplementation during lay did not have any beneficial effect upon egg number, egg size or food intake or food conversion efficiency.

4. Internal egg quality, as reflected by albumen height, was slightly improved by biotin supplementation of layer's diet.

5. Input-output relationships were calculated for the incorporation of biotin in egg yolk.

6. Metabolic measurements suggested that biotin concentration in egg yolk was the best criterion of biotin status in the hen.

7. It is concluded that practical diets contain sufficient biotin to support optimum egg-laying performance in hens.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , September 1980 , pp. 151 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1980

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, P. A., Eaker, D. H. & Mistry, S. P. (1978). J. anim. Sci. 47, 654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannister, D. W. & Whitehead, C. C. (1976). Int. J. Biochem. 7, 619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, J. W., Atkinson, R. L. & Krueger, W. F. (1976). Poult. Sci. 55, 2490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, L. E. & Edwards, H. M. (1972). Poult. Sci. 51, 619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, M. E., Ford, J. E. & Harrison, G. F. (1968). Br. J. Nutr. 22, 493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cravens, W. W., Sebesta, E. E., Halpin, J. G. & Hart, E. B. (1942). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 50, 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyke, G. V. & Patterson, H. D. (1952). Biometrics 8, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frigg, M. (1976). Poult. Sci. 55, 2310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frigg, M. (1977). Verh. Schweiz. naturf. Ges. 157, 340.Google Scholar
Frigg, M., Weiser, H. & Bollinger, A. (1973). Proc. V Wld. Vet. Poult. Ass. Congr., Munich, p. 1286.Google Scholar
Haugh, R. R. (1937). U.S. Egg Poult. Mag. 43, 552.Google Scholar
Hertze, R., Dhyse, F. G. & Tullner, W. W. (1949). Endocrinology, 45, 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelder, J. A. & Wedderburn, R. W. M. (1972). Jl R. statist. Soc. A135, 370.Google Scholar
Payne, C. G., Gilchrist, P., Pearson, J. A. & Hemsley, L. A. (1974). Br. Poult. Sci. 15, 489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunde, M. L., Cravens, W. W., Elvehjem, C. A. & Halpin, J. G. (1950). Poult. Sci. 19, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, C. C. & Bannister, D. W. (1978 a). Proc. XVI Wld's Poult. Congr., Rio de Janeiro1, p. 1927.Google Scholar
Whitehead, C. C. & Bannister, D. W. (1978 b). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, C. C. & Blair, R. (1974). Wld's Poult. Sci. J. 30, 321.Google Scholar
Whitehead, C. C., Blair, R., Bannister, D. W., Evans, A. J. & Jones, R. M. (1976). Res. vet. Sci. 20, 180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, L. D. & Skeggs, H. R. (1944). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 56, 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar