studies m qmmujmm w wmunw otot foe ostom

%

m m K m w M

theals stxbnltted to thm Faculty of the Qraduete School of the tMIversity of Maryland In partial fttlfjllajffti of thO r€KJTliX«B«Slt6 f w the degre® of Doctor of Philosophy

1948

V

UMI Number: DP70312

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

UMIDissertation Publishing

UMI DP70312

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.All rights reserved. This work is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 481 06 - 1346

X would like to express ay sincere appreciation to Br* George K* Briggs for direction arid assistance throughout the course of tM m study# I aa. indebted to Br. Harley A. Jull, Br. 0* S* Sohaf&ier,Bar* 1* Wilkins Reeve end 'to ay wife, Mlrisia, for their interest and valuable suggestions. I alee wish to thank Kr. Robert 9. Faersh tor Me crude fiber analyses.

I as* indebted to Herek and Co*, lac*, Rahway, M m heresy, far crystalline vitamin©j Allied Mills, &m&«, Fortsi outh, Vs., for aoybear eil| Abbott laboratories, Berth Chicago, Illinois, for Haliver oil; nutrition Products, Ihe. , Glevelmd, Ohio,' for the stearated vitaminsA fled B|| lederle laboratories, Pearl River, l* T., for synthetic folio add| Sharpe md Delate, Inc., Gleaolden, Pa., for Jeffries laboratories, Inc., Salem, ?a«, for diatanej Beta & Sims Co., Philadelphia, Be*, for purified aiixture of eellmlases and M l - callulasssi TJ* S* Industrial Chemicals, Inc., for Db-esethlminej and

«, Bow Henpehire, for

tmiM OF Cifll.

Bag#

I n t r o d u c t i o n * * * * * * * * * X literature R«ri«nr#». . . . *****••»•••••«••«•• • • * . . • • * * * . . . . . * • • . . **. I

mrnau* Fart ..*.***.... •*♦..... 13

Etseiasslttu 15liaaixltSj, Part XX**«*•••*•*•«••*••***••••••**••••••••*••*••*••«••• 44

Conelusions* . . . * . * • • * . . * • • • « • • * • • • • • ft

m i of tmim

Pag®liable 1 - Basal Diets Used In Experiments****•«•«•* **••••••«• * 11fable II — Composition of Ration 24, An All-Forpose

poultry ttasb*••••«••**»••••**••••«*••*•*•*••*••*••*« .12fable XXX - Data on "Ruffex*••**••••••••••.. ....•••»••«•••• 15fable I? - Composition of Bacteriological Medium Used forIsolation of (tellulose~l)ecan >osing Microorganisms« » • 17fable V - Summary of the Effect of Cellulose Supplements InPurified Rations***.**••«••*••••« •*•.•»•••••••••.•*• 20fable 71 - Analysis of Variance and t Teat of Significance forChick Or earth Obtained by Cellulose Additions to

Ration 113....... ......*..«.*•*.**•..... 21fable VII — If feet of Sulfasuxldirie, Cotton Flocks, Gromd fellow Com, end Chide Dropping Supplements on Chick Growth and Feed Rfflcian ay*••«•••«•*«•••••*••• 23fable VUX - Chick Growth as Effected by Cellulose in a Com

Starch Basal and in a Fractieal-Type Poultry Ration****••••*•««••«•••.*•»*••#»••••**••*«*•«•••••* 24fable IX — Summary of the Effect of Graded Glucose emissions

from Basal B&tiim 113 and Its Replacement by Cellulose on Chick Growth md Feed Efficiency *•*•••* 26fable X - Summary of the Effect of Cellulose MlutionChick Growth and feed Efficiency* •••**••* •«•••• 27fable XI - Summary of the Fffect of ilxed Pine Sawdust• Supplements in Purified Rations for Chicks*...♦**..* 29fable XII «* Analysis of Variance and t Test of Significance for Chick Growth Obtained by Pine Sawdust Additions to Ration 113*********•**••*.«••••••*•••*• 30Table XIII - Summary of the Effects of Adding Cellulose to

low- and Beficient~*Klacin Diets*•*.*•**.*•♦***•*•.*• 32Table XIV - The Effect of Knaym© Supplements in Purified

Rations for Chlek®*••••»••»•••••.....**••••*.*••• •• 34

»*••••*••«•••**••• *••••«•••• ig pyg y afiipga ’yLW K L trp pfSf •prfpuai J© p»jja «t& - IXX « m

13* » * * * » * • * • * * * • * • * • » • * » • • •W*f ©f ©TTpu*a*$ <iF,pm|J^|

^pL pd aBrcrapidag ©p©£irn;i*0 ©*|&©£ ••••••••♦•♦aSJOTO) JK>J fiTCK>TWf e%

pts» »«© x q © T t® 0 *P 1© *© © X J3

6* ........ * « T O *©* »**K& F®TJT EBJtt| «%HS»S»f&is*g J© %©©£jl JT© XgMHBftS%f •••*•*•*••fi >TO3 1E©*t%t*©3 ®t JO iftpfc £tt ©©TWI

o% t80*5% «^na^T^3diag p p > f s ^ trp [tu u ri ^ p ® ir|« ’ qoW M * J© mme&dkmQ mj mnmm&j&rg j© ^©aj %

97 *******•**••*•••0^31^3 jccj ano^st p©*UlJPm trf.miumpjoy ojvrftn^l ■ X© 1© Jtxsnm§

pm& pxm 3 © p f0 ©® % © ra f N ijjp m j© #% ©tsyf XFPr ©©©pSM* otwx X JP© 1&©J&8

x x © P i t t

X fy

2XXAX ©Pitt

rr/nr ©t3©&

TA1C ©PP&

AX « P t t

to M m UmM&lttfttod fejUnu*' *£ #tr®»» and ismism M»

$m mmfo. feuding m m iatmai.fl«d* ftm «ad of World War 1 i&a feared In mm$ p•bento m j&mzpmM&m fiber mSasmm met feabut «lee fur dietary dieeae# emdftieria of oaau

to ilse m£ %hm »©m j fib®r, udbb • rmtmXMmg decree** la

scientific Iwtereei fs ite atlllootieo ae « nutrient. World tfcr If aodt the treoonuletti toareaeed damut fur Mitmf 10 feaa direebed

in anlaal ffee beoie fur • better xmdvrmtmngte*$ ©f lie role f*

III rwtH|r bn obtained* QelXt&©oo wMob mmfem vp p a ri m£ cw^te lib e r b e i bum diXifpm blT oaf ietetuM ljr atoOSod

recent ebadiee on tfce eXacidaiim of ibe InturruXailawoMiae of %hm

roles bare bum addition*! aide in tfee mqpmwimm%m3L *$proao$i to tMo wftwtym tfeo xaw&f «$*•&«*» .In bbe field of©ostrifeutud valuable l&famotlea «• b© tfeo

in bfee o v e r a ll n u t r it io n o f tb » a r t ia a l* ^

o f e r ^ r is M m tf t l a ttu n e a t h e a d * a t u i M t o r # b u m

need fur fiber % ableism® elbfe tlsu same ofsnorted uith pad fled ©ullnloa* and degradation prodaeba of and substance* aoeeeiatad with or abruetwailar similar t© cellxtlo©*.

2

m v i m

Then» has b*m for seaae tim wm& controversy as to tbs need of fiber by poultry* tbs results and conclusions of previous workers, la all eases using practical-type■ rations, varied with tbs type of diet sad source of fiber, natural sources of feedstnffs all contain m woody material which is supposedly z&en—w&±Usable by semi species* let tbs composition of tbs purified diet, used in laboratory studies for tbs ehiek, coKpletely colts plant fiber without any deleterious effects m growth and. feathering. Some laboratories (Bird, 1945 and Campbell, Brown, Bird and Barnett, 1946) hare included 5 to 5 percent of cellulose in purified diets for chicks without any published reasons* To date, there hare been no studies m the effect of chemically purified cellulcafe in * synthetic* rations on the nutrition of the chick.

Badeff (1928) reported that ohiebms can w e 7 percent of oat fiber and 1? percent of goto, fiber. B» hollered that actual digestion of the fiber took place in the oeca because there was only a alight decrease la - the erode fiber of the hen droppings after eeeeebeoy when compared with the fiber content of the feed.

In the saws year, traps (1928) found that the percentage of digestibility of crude fiber .of certain grain* to be as high as 65 percent. m concluded though that, ^poultry hare little ability to digest crude fiber, and that the digestibility of feeds containing much fiber was lew.* further work by Fraps (1931) showed that the sugars and starches were highly digested: by the chicken, whereas the pentosans had low digestibilities especially when fed in roughage materials..

Banning (1929) observed that 5 to 21 percent of the fiber of the various chicken feeds was digested, bet filter paper was net attacked

3

at all* la believed that this was due to the ensymstle action of the grain Itself, aa fiber of cooked grain was not as call absorbed*

Continuing the atudy of fiber digestion, Bataan (1926,30) reported the coefficient® of digestibility of the erode fiber for com, Sussex ground oats, and wheat to be 8, 7*4 and 11 percent, respectively. He farther stated that erode fiber depressed tbs digestion of organic aaatter, and that its principle function was to regulate the amount of feed conemed. He also depressed the opinion that feed passed through the digestive system so rapidly that there was little thee for active enaymatim except in the crop end the sees* He felt that the add condition of the crop weald in general prevent bacterial action there*In addition, he was unable to find a cellulose-digesting enayme in the alimentary tract of the fowl*

A group of investigators at Oklahoma Agricultural and Hechmlcal College, Stillwater, Oklahoma ends an extensive study of fiber in poultry rations over a period of 10 years* White Xeghsm and Rhode Island Red chickens were used in their experiments which are reviewed in the following paragraphs*

d* Morris, Thompson and Heller (1932) found that fiber can be increased as such as 0 to 9 percent without haxmfnl effects on chick growth, mortality, feed consumption and egg production* It was found that chicks up to 21 weeks of age consumed the same average amount of feed whether on a high fiber ration or not* the experimental period was for two years. During the first year, the source of fiber was oat halls and during the second, alfalfa stems* the rations contained from 3 to 13 percent of crude fiber*

iI

i II11

s

stages, cottonseed feims, m d peanut hulls at levels from 3*65 to X4#92 percent* ho differences la pH were lomd at any level of fiber*

F* Milby {194-0) reported that rations containing large mmmta of crude fiber from peanut hulls gave good growth in turkeys but only at the expense of hmmj feed emsuasption per pomd of gala* fhm turkeys fed oat hulls and peanut hullo grew faster and were heavier at market age and had the lowest mortality when compared with those fed -oat straw, alfalfa stem as&i and low fiber (control) rations* Per outages of fiber m& feed coasustptlon were not given*

1 report by Sbsshy (1939) Stated that introduction of extra fiber in a concentrated diet does not reduce md probably enhances its nutritive value. Be found that 7 percent was excessive and that It was a faster in preventing feather picking and canniballasu The source of fiber was wheat bran and beet pulp* He also pointed out that the source of fiber determined the effect*

The utilization of sawdust by chLeksos was investigated by Outsti (1939)# who reported that the coefficient of digestibility of the cellulose aoaBtltVLm.it average*I 2.33 percent, and that of concentrates such as com meal, barley md wheat bran mm 42 percent*

Hiller and Bears© (1937) reported that Cingls Comb White Leghorn chicks mid pullets fed 110*3 percent of cabs as the only cereal consist­ently and significantly reduced easmibalism when compared with that observed mi rations oontainlng solely com* the order of growth value of the grain at S weeks was first oats, followed by com, wheat and barley, respectively*

Further axperissu t&tloc by Miller end Bearee (1938) shewed that when a ration was supplemented with 30 percent of oat hulls, 32 percent

Writin

g for ft v

alues

on pou

ltry

disuses, W

ileke

(1945)

stat

es that

*4»! 1 i *i

0&1 *■I1

%4os5

Ifct•oIu

-S34*

§33§# fea

ther

qualit

y. Cue of

2 lots

fed 6.6 per

cent

of sprsefi

pulp

and

mother gro

up fed 6 per

cent

of reg

enerat

ed, cell

ulose

grew

faster

t'

%9It

8

14*

*<fi

I£

49«

AO

5 <6 si*4O

g I 1 101e* Io«* h

^ 1

•o

I 1

g z

3

i I i

S

in <H«

ts for sale

# (SleCay,

Woodwa

rd and Seh

gal,

1934)

i I i8 3f

I

r

ft

« s

10

Day-old Sow Hampshire chlci:s of mixed sexes were used in all but one of these experiments* They were progeny of tbs University of Maryland flock and their dmm had reeeived & good practical brooder ration* All chicks ware reared in electrically boated batteries with raised screen floors* Food and water wore supplied gd libitum throughout the 4-week experimental periods* M % ha turkey experiment, crosses of a Broad- Breasted Brons© wale and Beltsville Snail—type White females were used*All chicks and poults were individually weighed and imlformly divided before being put cn experiment* A set procedure was strictly adhered to in order to keep the sampling error at a minimtm* If mm of the chicks showed even the slightest sign of illness, the entire group was discarded* Occasionally nuts would be encountered, and these would be culled as early as possible* Slat to 10 ohleks were pot into each group and the results were recorded as summations of a series of experimental runs*

The basal rations 113, 113a, 114 and 24, used in the experiments, are given in Tables 1 and II* They contained all the nutrients known to be required by the chick* Rations 313 and 114 ware purified diets and differed only in that the latter contained vitamins A and B<j in a stearate carrier whereas the use of 113 required these vitamins to be fed weekly by dropper* Diet 113a contained Ir-cystine in place of DlHaetl&emine* Ration 24 was a typical all-purpose practical mash which contained 21*0 percent of protein and 5*9 percent of crude fiber*

XI

t m s i

ra x rrs D basai, bibss m is M m t M w m

Bletary ingredient113a

Basal diets133 114

Glucose (•Cerelose1*) % % %61.4 61.4 5f.XCasein (crude) 18.0 18.0 16.0Gelatin 10.0 10.0 10.0Salts 1 m 6.0 6.0 6.0Seybeaa ell 4.0 4.0 4.0Blr-Methionin e ■ 11 0.3 0.3b-Cystlne(¥itcm lna-)ia./lO O pm.

0.3diet)

Thioain. H a 0.4 0.4 0.4Riboflavin 0.8 0.6 0.8Pyridoxine SGI 0.6 0.6 0.6Bictin 0.02 0.02 0.02Oa pantothenate 2.0 2.0 2.0Hlacin 5.0 5.0 5.0pHSminoben sole acid 0.2 0*2 0.2Folic aeld 0.2 0.2 0.2Choline chloride 200.0 200.0 200.0i-Ihositol 100.0 100.© 100.02-Metbyl-l,4 naphthoquinone 0.1 0.1 0.1Alpha-toeopherol 0.5 0.5 0.5yibasdaa A and % 1200 1*0* and 170 A.O.A.C. — -mita, respectively by

dropper weeklyVitamins A (500 mite per grew)## — — — 2.0(500 mils per gram) — — — 0*3

eSalta 1 1 are eeapoeed of tbe following Ingredients by weightsOaCOj 150.0 H 30a »7%0 50.0 Bads 0.2SfcHfOz 90.0 Fe(G6E507)2*6li20 14.0 QuSO^.5%0 0.2»a2Hl€4 73.0 ifct8©a*4%0 4.1 %S0| 0.090*3<I>04)2 130.0 SI 0.4 SaSQ4*71hO 0.01Had 88.0 55513“Whan fed at a level of 6 percent, the mixture supplies 1.11 &as. of calcium, 0.58 ga* of phosphorus, and 0.0! g». of manganese per 100 gone, of diet.ewfha vitamins were added in SPJH-65, a stearate carrier.

12

TABUS nCOKFQSmOE OF RATION 24, W AUMPURFOSE POUTXRT MASH

Mater? Ingradient Fercant

Ground jellow coma • ••••••.•••••••••••*••••••••••••••••••.<»•••••• a *25*25Qrosand Iw m ? oats ******** ***•••••••••••••*••••« •..•....•...........12*50Wheat m i d d l i n g s . . . * . . .• •••*•*.••••*.•••*•••*•••**.....*10.00Wheat bran**••••••••#•**.•••**•»•••*•*•*.•««•••*.••••••••••*•*.*•••12*00Soybean oil meal*. ••••••**•**•.•10*00Com glisten meal***** ....••••*•*••*•••••••••.•••*•••••5*00Alfalfa leaf steal*......•••••••••*••*••••••.*•••*•**•*••••••• *•***••5*00Pish meal**•**•••»•*•*••••*••*•••*••••••••••••••••«••••*•••••*•*..*.5*00Heat scrap*..••**..♦*.....••..••.•••.•••*••••.••••••*••••••••*•*...*5.00Dried whey or other milk products**»•*•••*••••*••«•*•••*•••*• •..••••5*00Riboflavin concentrate (#0 gamma per griBft)*..*«**********,*********#l*25 Oyster shell*•••**••••••••••*••••••••••*•*.••••••*••••*••••*.•*•••••2*00Bone meal...»••••••••*•*•«•*•••••*•••*•••••••••**•••••••••••••*•••••0*75Salt* iodised*.••••••••*••..•••••*•••.•.•••••••••••••*•»•••.*.,..*•*0*75Vitamin 1 and B feeding oil wilta 4 par gram q ^(400 mlta B par gras ^Manganese S u l p h a t e * •*•••«•*••*••*••*«•• •...****.*0*025

a

3 I

* tt V

i«s

3 * 1

trials

, chi

cks w

ear*

killsd

md *tt£©$s0l

«« per

formed

* Occ

asiona

lly blood

samples were taken, and haaogloblft determinations stdi by use of the Evelyn photoelectric method*

All additions of cellulose {•'Buffex11, Table X U } to the basal rations were made at ttoe expanse of glucose ("Careless*) unless otherwise stated* Supplemental substances ware first pre--mlxmd, and than else added to the basal rations at the expense of the utilisable carbohydrate* Mixed sawdust, composed of white and yellow pine, was passed through &10 mesh screen before incorporating Into the diets*

Treated cellulose, used in the eallulose-naiaelii studies, was a product stained after chemical treatment* It was digested for quo half hoar with 1*25 percent of sulfuric add and than washed with boiling water until the effluent was neutral to litmus paper. Another half hour of digestion was carried out with 1*25 percent of sodira hydroxide which was followed by re-wmsMug with hot water* The product was then dried in m area at 90° 0* sod passed through a 14 wash screen* Analyses of both treated and untreated cellulose gave a value of 75*02 and 75*38 percent of crude fiber, respectively*

Apparent crude fiber digestibility was determined by difference* Crode fiber analysis of the "Buffex* was wade, and the amount of crude fiber in the ration fed was calculated* A crude fiber value was also obtained from representative mmspies of chick droppings for a l-weak experimental period with 6 chicks per group* Crude fiber in the feed minus the crude fiber In the droppings have an approximation of the erode fiber digestibility*

Bacteriological studies ef the oeeal mid intestinal contents of a ehlek fed a purified ration supplemented with 61*4 percent of cellulose were made employing a medium reported successful in Isolating

X5

TABLS tilm " to ffe e * 11

Source*.»••»•••••••.••••••••••••«••••••••••••••••••••Proceesed rice hull©Siae.,..••••••••.•••«••••............................throiigh 40 mcah

Fate..••••••*•••••••«*•••••••••••••.•••••••••••••.• ••Noneintaa&as.•••••••••••••••••••••••••«•• .•••••♦•.•••.••♦Destroyed or raaered

Alpha c e l l u l o s e . . * * * * * . . . . . . . . . . V OSlaapl© tad fcydrocellulQseB........*...............•••30lot&l ,ysh....••••.*...••••••..•••••••.••••!«&£ than 1.00

............. than 0*05Calcitau............••••....•*.......•••••less than 0.03Ali$itnm»**.*»*«««*.*****.«**.*..« »«**»»*leaig than 0*02Silica*..*. •••••••••••.*.•••.••..••..•.•« .less than 0*50Iron..•••••...•••••••••..••..••..••..•••.•approx* 0*001Phosphorus.*.••••••..•...••«.•*•••••.•.•»••*.•.•••••••nil

roughage product distributed by fisher Scientific Co., Pittsburgh, Pa*

16

osllwlo##^eeo»posing microorganisms froa the intestinal tract of wild gallinaceous birds by SeuaueXalnaaa and Arhia© (1945)* The composition ef this medium Is given in Table IT* Shake and stab eellulose-agar tubes were prepared by adding 4 graas of cellulose to 1X0 cubic eentfc- sebere 9! a i percent awtrisab agar solution* 411' media were sterilised at 120 pomds of prwssww* far 15 minutes* Ssisocola were obtained as sceptically as possible from the chick ceca and Intestinal tracts* Samples were taken turnedlately after a chick was killed*

Far the ceXlnloee snsym© investigation, a crude extract was prepared by grinding op the owe and their contents with washed sand*The ehlek need was fed ration 113 supplemented with 61*4 percent of cellulose* The macerated product was thee filtered and the resulting neutral easyus-fiXbrate poured into a test tube containing loosely packed cellulose* A drop of phenol or toluol was added, and the mixture incubated at 37° C* At the end of 24 hows, the defamation of the enxymc extract and cellulose was noted, and tfee incubation continued for a week* FehHng,s reducing test was applied to the ensysse-fiItrato before and after incubation with the cellulose* Fehliag's solution is a mixture of copper sulfate solution and alkaline tartrate solution*

To study the affects of a mixture of oallulaaes and M L * cellul&ses in the purified ration 114 containing cellulose, the newly hatched chicks were fed ration 24 for 2 weeks* At the end of this preliminary feeding period, the chicles were individually weighed and uniformly divided into experimental groups* The choice of experimental chicks was determined by the closeness of their rates of growth* Those with the highest and lowest weights were discarded. The purified

17

t m m m

mmmTZim or &uam€Loarcj& mmim mm wm mowsim m

Ctam

HaC!.. ............. *..... ......0.1.....traces

1mmt soctract (200 ga./800 co. BgO)...••••••«•••••••••••••••••••••20 cc*Ascorbic acid (I percent s a l u t i c c ...*.....*.....1.0 ce.% 0««.............•.•••••••••.•»•••.••••.••••••••••••to 1000 cc*0#0Oi tMssfferad

*n4S

•O

I

A'©

ft©

©IE

M©

©I4*

4»

£m9 k£ |P**ft

*

19

mourns* vm: i

Am Cellulose Sxperiwants with Chi eke end Mlts

The results of feedirig perilled diets supplemented with various levels ©f cellulose to chicks are suma&rised in Table V. The greatest response in growth and eal©dated feed efficiency value was at the 5 percent level of cellulose supplementation« Analysis of variance, gives la Table VI, shewed that chick growth at the 5 through 15 percent supplemental levels of cellulose was statistically significant to the 0#05 level whm compared with the control groups* Individual t tests of significance for the treatments shewed that the 5 percent level was highly significant m d the 10 and 15 percent levels were non-elgniflcaaat* With increasing additions of cellulose over the 15 percent level to basal ration 113a, growth and feed efficiency decreased. Although growth was poor, mortality was negligible at the 50 percent of cellulose swppleaenta- tl«e« However, there was 100 percent mortality when all the glucose was replaced by cellulose,

We difference in feathering and no feather picking or eanalhaHaft were observed in any of the experimental gre^e. As wash as 50 percent of cellulose in the ration was tolerated without ill effects* The chicks fed rations supplemented with 20 percent or more of cellulose seemed to be continually eating in what seemed to be a vain attempt at increasing their caloric intake.

The droppings ef the chicks on all levels of cellulose supplements were of a drier, firmer consistency than those of the controls. Feed constsaption values and chemical analyses of the droppings for a 1-week

20

TABUS tsm m x or rm smsr or e m z m m swptmmTs in puritted raticks

O m $ Iarol of eellttloee No. e hicks So. dead Ar. 'irk. PeadSo. added te started at 4 vka* at 4 eke. efficiency

basal diet n^a

1 K«w 133 8 312 0.5502 2.5 * 10 0 351 0.5323 5* 94 2 349 0.5654 10 5 22 1 344 0.5505 15 % 22 1 327 0.5*06 20 3 16 0 288 O.4347 30 * 12 0 268 0.3118 40 f 12 0 200 0.3129 50 5 12 1 340 0.21510 61*43 20 20 -- --

SB-PB.11 Jfaoa 6 0 268 0.46412 Si 6 2 322 0.506

ax

r m m ? t m m r n m m w m i m m w m 01x01 m m s o m a n m m

QEWsttm m m n m s to m m m 123

S m t &£ vm&kmtim B. f. Tarlaae®

Tr®aftta&% 3 25^422.0CAS3P3t*d3T 255 7,401.60

IsAgnlfioont to 0.05 l«nli»

t thst or siarxrxejvcs for trbatfbrts

trnMtm t F

5$ Gellulos# 2«ff» greater tfam 0*0110$ Cellulose 1.33 lees tisaa 0*1#15$ Cellules® 0*42 leas than 0*5

W vaXaa £ m &• £0 &£ SO*

gave apparent digestibilities of 53*9, 27*9 and 34.3 percent of the crude fiber fed At the 5, &> m d 15 percent levels of e«Hitoff respectively*

The result® of feeding ration 113a alone and with additions of cellulose at the 5 percent supplemental level to turkey crosses are glvon in fable ¥* There was a definite increase in poult growth md feed efficiency on the cellulose supplemented ration whm eampmrmd with the control group, The poults fed purified ration UJa dereloped sticky heads and feathers resulting in a bald head-like appearance, The presence of ccllulese seemed to somewhat disdnish this sticky effect* * Pendulous crop®1* were not observed in these experiments. .

Records of feed ccnsuaiption for the 4 weak experimental period shewed that the control poults constaaed 464 grass each while those @n the cellulose supplement ate 517 grans.

The results of feeding sulfasugtitdlne, oM.sk droppings, cotton flecks and ground com in diet 113a are given in Table 7TX. Crude fiber analyses of dropping of chicks fed 1 percent of swlfasualdlns plus ration 113a at the 5 »^d 15 percent cellulose supplemental levels ware 23.06 m d 38.85 percent, respectively* The corresponding values for chicks receiving cellulose supplei&erits without sulfasuxidine were 15.72 and 33.67 percent, the effects of feeding com starch in place of glucose and cellulose plus ration 24, the practical ration, are seaaarlsed in Table TUI. little or no growth response whs obtained with these supplement®. Actually,5 percent of cellulose pice ration 24 produced a slight depression in chick

? m w f uo srtm n m m * m m m t E u m

m CHICK OR0VTH MS M

tee~: Sfe.at 4 Jar. srt*

St 4 W#0

34

7a910IX

12

13

50$ Cellule*©#

m m 4

As (X) 4

0.1$ Xeid extract of

115105556 6 6

6

6

347

358

360

0.586

0.2390.5530.5200.5340.5490f285

0.580

S##d®#t f 325 0.582u $©&« 20 3X1 0.53815 5$ Cellulose 9 365 0.54916 2.5$ Cotton flocka 9 3X9 0.50417 5$ Cotton flocks 10 327 0.54716 Is (4) 4 25$ ground yellow eon* 4 338 0.5X7

08C*® a t _ 9 ««0traw #£ £S2V0 urn «www f ■mmm

rt WmMWmy

«£S*0 ne SOS £ •■oTnTt«0 SOt f0C9*0 sue ror £ ••®tnIX»0 0 £265*0 sh 80S 9 t

SttSP?•Wf

w m w m m*a®

aaod

P*»j|aofa jt * ■** C %*•%m *Af

****** t W «*tmv$*£dtag •««<$&©£0

mw¥% IMEUiQd Tm a m w m u n w m m m m r m ts o m s o m assDsuw m am m iom o

iiia m m &

n

B* Nutrient Ifarlation iXperimenba with

M order to determine the effect of cellulose additions to purified rations for chicks on the concentrations of the nutrients In the diet* experiments diluting and concentrating the nutrients were set up.Tables IX and X Illustrate the effects obtained* (1) i'h© cellulose was added to the basal ration 113 at the expense of glucose, (2) when cellulose was added to the complete basal ration and, (3) when diets with graded, emissions of glucose were fed. Concentration of the nutrients by graded omissions of glucose did not result in greater chick growth. In fact, 10 percent of glucose omission produced a slight growth depression. Beplacesaent of the sane levels of glucose omission by cellulose resulted In an increase In chick growth when compared with the control groups.

Dilution of the effective nutrients with 20 percent of more of cellulose resulted in decreased chick growth and feed efficiency values. Calculation of 4-week feed consumption per eklek showed that with increased dilution of the nutrients with 20 percent or store of cellulose* more feed was eaten per unit weight gained per chick than when a concentrated ration was fed. The data showed that for the 4-wesk experimental period those groups on the diluted diets received less of the nutrients, and thereby gained proportionately lose weight. In other word®, growth was dependent on the caloric content of the ration. With increased dilution, the specific gravity of the ration obviously decreased.

26

TABLE IXOF GFJEB8D GXXfCOSE

BT CSU&&Q&1MTICU 113

Bation Bo. #M«ta Ar. wk, «& at4 v««Ib 4 w»«3a

JSV. 4 IMNfe

par oMek%

m m m mm w t w

TGSIXBJ0S5

0O*

1 .Horn 0 15 3 U 0.553 490X 2.5 0 8 31B 0.562 4953 5.0 0 14 317 0.552 m

4 7*5 0 4 m 0.564 m

5 W.0 0 6 265 0*553 404'if,p 'w6 2.5 2.5 10 351 0.532 sm

7 5.0 5*0 10 350 0.576 538

0 10*0 10.0 16 340 0.560 547

J *l£ o£*C CSC S6T*0

S*9£ 65*5 £09 6£€*0

S *£t T0*E 869 059*0

0*55 06*T 069 999*0

0*T9 59*T iWC CIS*©

5 *€9 a fi*t its 555*0

5*99 65 *T 169 99£*0

0*56 65 *T 569 595*0

5*56 €S*T 669 565*0•ggjf *00F mw&

jrad•c p d % $ m .xad w f^ d ta n sUZ £&& pvmnm& ~w& p»| *j<|»

?•** |W| *3m-t P®*4

9tX $ 05 ©596T 9 0> 09895 s* oc 06€55 s 08£t£ t ot 06US £ 01 OOT965 9 s 5r6965 9 s 001Tie £t 00©^ 001

*SE •0®

•«0|A t 'a8!* t%* %w aso^xc®D €tT~H*%a *ai s|»||9 «©ji ub?3*3

lomioiijs m m a m ih d ® soma ao m i M n m sscmrmo xota&gs sex

2&

0* Sawdust Experiaisnts with Chicks

mmatm of eellulose for laboratory diets, mixed pine sawdust was added, t© ration 113* Tha summary ©f results, gives' by fable XI, showed that the 10, 15 and 20 percent supplemental levels resulted in the greatest growth responses when compared with the control groups* fiie increased growth was fomd to be highly significant by analysis of variance and t tests of significance ©f the treatments* The .results are given in Table XII* farther additions of sawdust with correspandlngly greater reductions of the available metabolisable carbohydrate resulted in poor growth and lowered, feed efficiency Autopsies, revealed partial packing of the gisxards with sawdust particles • The weights of the gis&ard contents ranged fro© 4 to 5 grams each* We wood particles were observed in the ceea but could be readily detected in the droppings, which were of a firm consistency* Crude fiber analysts of the sawdust was 60*62 percent*

At 4 we elm, the feathering of the chicks on the sawdust rations appeared to be of a better quality than those of the control groups* i© satisfactory scoring system could be set up* Feather

and mortality were negligible at the supplemental levels fed in

Table TXI shoes that no comparable increase in chick obtained with 0.1 percent of the sawdust acid extract

B* Cellulose-^lacin Studies with Clacks

Ration XXJa, made up with 5 and 20 mg* of niacin, per kilogram ©f feed, which Is less than the dietary requirement, was found t© give

29

TABLE XIraMHI OF THE EFFTCT OF ICO® FIHE 3AWTOST SiTOIJHIIBTS XM FmiFXID

. ratio&s fob g r a m

Larol of ta a te l addsd to &~U3

Be. chicks • t 4 weeks Air. s t.•t 4 weeks Fwml

oMLclenoy

£ *.

1 Fawn 32 331 o *m2 » 9 339 0*494

3 10* 3© m 0*111

5 15* 10 366 0*52©

4 j|i§|jj| 9 ym 0*491

7 •. 39* 10 M3 0*345

v m m m wm. s m s r mscnmm to

Bf

Soaroo of vtnrlotleo £ . f * Torloaoo

Trni'tmmnf 3 10,143.00*

Jtepor 77 866»3SI

to 0*Q& Iflvgl*

valuo for <t*f. of $• **P voltw for d.f. of 8*

rm pm m m proportional to additions of graded anowts of cellulose. Timdiet jaredoeed the topical Inflaaed tongae m d

salivation md diarrheal sympt o m , i&th im m m m d

of sash %m niacin diets, the black tongas mpa atmm mm f m l t© b® loss' ssrear© md resulted dm., lessred levels of ©ell©l©»e rang© tram 5 through $0 pmMsm%+ , A pflvl^f deficient diet in niacin stipplsoeBted with 15 percent of cellulose tseialbed in ©»ly 33 percent mortality at 4 weeks. Treated and cellnloee gave siailar effects la offsetting the. mjndtmm dm deficient niacin diets. Table H U | l m the resells obtained with time dieta*

redaction test aim negative Tor the freshly prepared ©rod* extract and for the mayaa neTlnl fee ata&iare beforeafter 1 week of :Sncafesti©n at 37® 0# Neither was there aa observable sheave in the level of demarcation (scratch line an side of test tabs) ' between the cellulose md enayae extract.

Slides vote prepared (Bafcar, 1&42) dircctly-fran the m i sad intestinal tracts of oaHaleso fad chicks. Osaat staining aimed large

sad saaHer grao ne getive reds and easel whwuL ware also cdmerwsd»

'The ecllnloee-agar stab tehee and plats dilations showed nodismissed areas. Ifccubattaa, at 37® C. for 1 «Mif of the

©altered broth with filter paper la pekrl dishes resulted la as break-

32

t m w x n x

OF THE TO 100-

id* ©hick® Md*staartad ' &% 4

12$:45

801021

878

11123314

2€# Gelliilood

0.05$$2 TtaM&dd dolloXa##A» <34 ) 0 a» <33} m (13) 4 5# dtiUa&N#

8

0

0

S1.11

20202

04#

34

?JBIJI XI?m x vvmp or a r m in m m a > ijsicbs mt csroni

26. S | b®fflMKa,fe %0 B$fc 4 ONNtftiHJ r. *%♦ f«tt*

« ffi~<ll«Rey

Jsp' ♦ JP0®2

|4 H aSmmSShWMNIRMM02.

1 Hen# 14 $0 0.5$6 —

2 |% Cellxtloae H m 0*601 :* ~3 50 Collulose H ' , w? 0.239

4 is (3) 4 5% mrn%mm 5 137 0*202 ----

fe-lM

5 2 « r 4 2W 0.531 305 :

6 Jo (5 ) 4 Saaefc. I f JF* 10 0.510 334

A» (6 ) - 5% 0msm i 10 261 0.510 325

# J* (?) 4 5% celluloeo 10 2S2 0*454 M 2

9 Jo 0 ) tazfc 40% aefc. 4941* 10 as? 0*518 m40 J*' (0 ) bot 5H a«t. 19 JP f 274 0.467 ¥fX

11 Jo (8) tmfc 2*5% act* 19AP 10 27$ O.503 .368

$192? jy§ £ mSse bew of pisori-flod, <m.ii.wftatayjqaa > a a w w < i ftum*■ .“?%#rapoiMi rotoJba mm%m% ta apprcadbmUtlj %$ pmmmt*

35

' Bisssssidp

GeHnloae added to a partf&ei. diet free of liber at the eeponaeof 0kmmmi mm effecti-ee as a grelrbfe ettwalasQt at the 5 throo&h 15 pereeat— —-"O ,J| n, | „ A, mim <8i —*0 _«j .-’a MMMaoa .'-wALt-Jk-, M. . . k Jt.lfat.' fa mi m a* » in m (it; P19J) wmm - VKiNiv ■■WBP* » wa»iay 33 j?wr04£n*

' e^f^oHMBitatiOKi * i f t ltf oello lose add&tfonS' ow e ***** a t See la te ls to

It should ho noted that thee* nutrient dilation results ewe obtained .'. eitti TTry fntnwl f eope* ffitpt*?*th### stadias ' It wao- foondtfrfit ytfflff *ShO fa tte n SO. ipooOBS'- stf ' I t f t t of the aiit3d»entOp:.' t lo

of -the natwrtLaot® aas: elearljr 1 wodOtftflat# to Maintain nomal ohlofe jpOirtsh# The at# mbiv pgr ***** ftt gained iiih ineresiied<i< <m wt -feln ftalliilflftit t ■ iMffe -t,h*iiy ffiBDCSltSr WOWWltodtn 4O0t 1 fin ftf 'QQ^^-oMpt n ntrien to ftfr jgreetb ir Slats an fajSMOPbed bySkailiMiffeviLSk, a tla im ib'Iiib t| tiA.- ~— - .<ail*S£' n-rtitinrrtrr ’M.4Mtih4MA 490191 ■jK«s*pn /| sofoo to. <1*000 woofP*t o®w@h'; tise n.mwP3uosi»® wepi jkj jawpoent

4iw in>a not yeolaawd. sitlb nl*umm. »« amji—aa aotdbri.'lrsr easObtadoed* #h*» w nrifiod iw iin ln im eonlii he fenleoed bar tdne

aawftoot hot not by sobtoo fls s lie * th e dOls oboo that i t lo not thef0 a«Mplh40.*aMk «a«eOkefl M'ufii-ae ,«i4 taaMOe' OttikMMM dwilfeeuNkaifeeeiaK Meft&O a'lW. -itL’m anaapMiaaaiMpeutbarlt'iiI K PPPhNo ■’®3r 4KncPflPiSSPBt 'W#$S3fcaLPB5i8» 9FIMBWE0 JkQHo9NP4B oH9U®R Xw JPP pWSjKlL®(JjPt

fOi* the lBtox*w*aed y**;!—t t j hat th a t It - la xathor seaeathlzig m th ln the

<pnn|:iMfcf: ite e lf wM.oh la xeleaoed olMn a a lth the n o^ lo n to la

the- jgwoPtrtHfifftoii ^#^- tooot«

QymSa flhes* aaal^ooo fontbor ohour th at, the fp Ito oxlaliaal

fo m la borokan does to odbmi OeiaooOation jpspc tuMtt e )* fh l o la obeoo hQf

a OeeeoMttMi la the oooOe fib e r tralne fooei Ttnt# neoeent to -S3J0S eeveeot

eftsa* t^y## homr o llro il dlaootlon* Tim poodhietCo le s o la tia In

*

be

of both mtUmAm. sodiisa> a

that there im n«# '«r a

feetfoilfte of the eoapie and fb<* oM et* I#

A t fitted!* teat* It Ooe bbaarO’* frrrrraiiTe See i l t

diet, !*#• gloeoeo*■wfcmmMm bbow nlMG .«« pletel3T to a

detected l»y standard *cid, a wait

tefitn « 4 poeitifo teat -far

oaoeaaa a a an jsBra xx <snbwi*o jhmpo aaa»iy ooae w&mmmm

©ootoata*that a of the

4n tBa - eeee ai

tre a t gSivas r i t t to '‘"‘fftT*11 aeeuate o f a. growth

Xbasaaee dfia aaeto

aey h i a e ttre

do itol

swale in the eh&eb.that- nuirloate

mnr ||* j» footer lift.

21 la fattoan

manatee* Uefcet*

purified diet will factors* ' O&e or

and Haa**!#to fflOtabe M w

eat that

of the

we* in a

of grwtiiliberate*

ayfethoaio eagr bo

proportionate increase «£ the effective nutrient®

It is alao peaeible that the sere nay he iHinefieiaX la eeeie naiinar* fbr

>tL.SXtkh

the

presence «£ cellulose it# presence irfhie tee say be a 'fester

In the »s«fi*abof cellulose «ho*r that cellulose is jgeMhijr

o f dilution;<e SP1Aepwue. oir : retarded end X emeed

by t decrease in the the msre fed at the expense of

The sonarce ©f cellulose say fee another factor sine* no grseifeobtained whan mlls&eee m s replamd lay settee The

of the fiber free rim halla and pin© asaduet sear he ef smfe a b growth stieulatory mtotanme are possible* Thee© fibers

be favorable far the growth of a particular type of Intestinal flora which say prodae© e£f*cfe£r© growth stimulants as by-

of their metabolise*

naturesay

3#

If.'to tin *

md ts

m

(PTIWI

aritts,.#

« * (X9A7) rojported th a t 1

MRyaftimarl' of

of solfo—

th«re would te *

o f tbe

If tbs

■«f-Xeo&to&sio 0*2 o$* i&oiooot of fas&o

$tetIs a’ factor to te

ate, fteo4 ttet tte ineteico of 2 of ip«1. fljOiapf fr\

a in'ftoh'fTinf fol-flo •fld.di wodf $m rets*

te oaotrolXod a t the 5 , 15 a id Si

lovolif stay partially te attributed te a

§m tta 3»s j iiotfihly fpt* the

' eMek timp&ingB fittm $ pmr&mt mMmJmm, aupplemmb*d r& tita**- md

dXWi$$0®0& JfOd tfW ' y tlff11 plaff %, jjerOffftt #f •»®dLdlm« <lid not ftupent noiml grwfeh eta*; fed at 5 perocnt irapplo- jas&tel ..lastayi)# '. Tta presaooo of wwlss pay fenw oop&t<pfarfeed say. sblstQlatdry tlftst frm. the 49g{Kl9tt<n« t c rodo fiber valasssfar; the dropping® of ohlslES fed tip 'sepjplospaits Imlffmtotlmt co21t£Lo»o^oooo^3ng or^ta^ iwre probably prosont* Bnblii ot

d 'jSk'Jtes* ot iWMjMCfehO&9He4*':aea8 *fcd# <Miiritt SSMttiSttMHS&Sa "OSdMSiRkSiMeSflaSiKdfll -MlrlO'dp-aeidRloeaiflkSpoaRt S jji' r loSSta < oSe ^SYS Me* ^SSsOoS;' 0P®*tssfcSiss^ O * *o,s30BRfc

5, jtaetat of sweare (tsrino plno feees) of Instil.' or of ■ iwesing* el&otaos. - was fed. to dpytald chicks • on a diet free of mlmal protoin* a&G±nnis «t 4> (1947) f&md that If Ion feoee (mararo) !*»■ incubated for 72 honra at •!$* C*f tlwMtoo a stiBmlfttltm of the synthesis of .wldhiB tlflod- fwstorfs ) nwsoosary far - otta88*1”* . ttbl#h The rations

’ 5 percent of eroio iitar* fta findings reported taro fartherJO■ Jh m4a- Jk'lhkaii jidMIUM S&SMEiOttaMMMudF'>■*& .JMtffc 4E-Mte» dUMUILAOIO- ■ 9mso vsm*xa wO sMpih* non inoooa oct ,00x0*0*1 oroppayogs* oo. »o» xncirosee

- arwtibh* 3hd*i>end«iily* It «ki foond that oasta draBoisiSi froaOpwMpnWOIki JyO»- VwOOF ipp»PMiOOy OPWP .wop*1* w*Wp gr • ‘ ropo *m*m p»jprjpnps»».gFat --*■ ■—•- --■ JlL. ' '•-—■■ Jm aMiuialVd0habO'aMittiiH<K Jf uau,AiUkJiiiMh>lS 'Ultki JSrii1 por®^* of ris|fiosxic iio pios 5 potNswo oo-iioioso supfMonsn'osiirations oas iii» non—offootlTo m a srorth otio Klant*

Urohjom md Skehl (1947) rovlooed tho offoot of tta typo of ©arbohydrato ln the dlot m Hicarohlal o tithosls In tho gootro-lntootlBaltract* fta rotatto in s* o***l ohowod talf the taro lnsol >l« tho

r' ’ ■■ 1 ■• •■• ■ ■ ., 1 ’’.' - ;cmk»tooiviiis®0' sjs i«*o o*#v «e# j iroooor was thso dooti•“*!i aow*v* »y•This is oonelotont with the results ofetaiaaed atas- a #or« strroh basal

40

diet was *»»<! fiM* % weeks* m<| no mn&mr&h response resulted with.„ |t pflpi b$ trforre# that tlMMFC'WO# mjffertwamm. .

microbial activity of a particular typo of flora m the sen* starch ' basal and no additive elf bet was induced by eelluloec*

The addition of 25 percent of 0 ®md yellow com to a 15 percent of oelluloee atspplea nted ration did not give a very large grerarth rmsmmtmm* urobablv because the overall fiber content of the QGnM&td4a erjwawepeoppewjp jpa ’w *0wnwf<g*0 wp**» w wkwi pomcc. ^ e»wie>v. w wo eepww u#w**<ipcie*eevww«.

supplements offset the beneficial effects*. EaUon 24. cc tiribaed 5*7 percent' of' earudc liber and bias addition of

5 percent of cellules* diluted the nmtrlente and Increased the fiber cootent of theratlon eufficlently to make .its growth pr<^tlng activity nmgligibae*

Jukes #t al., (1947) reported that com starch repXmmm*&£ gXooosein a port fled turkey ration would prevent the occurrence of etiefclnoss of head end wings which usually resulted with such diet#*It was found that on a ceUcloae supplemented purified chick diet there was an increase In poult growth* There was also sessswhab loss of tbs sticky effect, m. the cellulose supplaeented retico* The cellulose probably acted as a drying agent in .the feed*.. lb addition, there la the ootfliM.Iity that the cellules* ®bv have contained Minute attsn.titles of the Identified factor referred t© by Jukes et al*, (1947)*

l&aced pin* sawdust m « caam of cellulose we# found to give highly ai®atfteaab Increases in chick growth at the M'through 20 per­cent *uppl«Rfflritsl level#*.. The 10 percent, level resulted in the greatest affect* It was felt that possibly a concentrated add/ oactract of the weed would replace the 10 percent of the. sawdust, Ml

and $ paroont lovola to a rat dlot At -tfco aaymae of oama*

OBE1 B OOm d m

m

fe#

m.

'bA-tWBNItlmi growth: of aiiafoorganiaBO* Thoa#

by * dooroaae in tfe*

Of- tI*B Wlt«&BS Sb h«ro,botfc tho

offootiv* 1b ; off«etting Thio ahowod that bte originally naad

tho ration* treated andBo Wl*Qi|rcellulose m

tbftt tfcOr# W*0 ACM* indication s that «

would aako tfeoflbor B*etabollc&lIy araiiable md thorabgr pfOBoto_ as the

BBB QOB-HlffOOtiTO &» A loral Of A 50

that tho onayao smortality obtained coroiot bo

whon fid at tfcO 5 dtatu ft waa thoaght

obtainod w ith ra tio n 114 mpfSattNBlMrii w ith a y a rtfio d mfxtur® o f cellulasas a&d haaleol lifttaaoa w ar* not appreciable* f t is poooiblo that the anapaas wwro partially deetroyad in tbo gastro­intestinal tract and th a t addltiOBa groator than 10 p m a l woald hara

boon' wore effective. tho aaaa walgfata of the co n tro l chicko Mi. equivalent araownto o f i& ao tlrato d enaymes showed th a t the mwemimt

mm not canoed by the inoroaaod level of protoin or tho

them will determine their

45

tabos mfflFSOT OF TOM® MT* d -*m 08£ m&fSm* TO.-A PURIFIED DXEf CH

CHICK Q E ® ® M B PE9SD W F I G Z M G X

O r S u q p p l m m t to Wo. E-113

Mo* ehioks at 4 weoko

Ar. wfc. m% 4 «oofc»

FoodofficIeeoF

1d*30TOgBt..a345

678

910

Mmm

0.®5$

0.1$

0.3%

o+m

O.B%

0.05%

0.1$

45

m

26

2432XO341©

126

gm.3X2

3X0m307303320317325

3003©6

0.569

0.590

0.50©o ^ m

0.569

0.599

0.519

0.608

0.572

0.549

TAHtS inm m m t or the w m ® r of xwhottc acid etnraoniftts isr

TOIFHD RATIOS for dszecs

Grmap X*rel of Mo. ottofe* Ar. wt. Feod 8m -»Ra* lerdlaic add at 4 voalap at 4 wads effidenoy gXoda added to

I S T ™ gRu/fio1 6© 301 0.S68 8.70

2 0.005$ 21 , 301 0*514

3 0.05$ 21 ■ 307 0.553

A 0.2$ 47 342 0.548 8.98

5 0.5$ 24 263 0.549

6 o.s$ 30 * 5 0.54O

7 1.0$ 23 258 0.542 8.82

46

co«

47

controls show statistically that tlm weight differences art highly algaiilemi* the statistical analysis- is given 1m Table X7XX* Imo- glbbia Talma at the 0*1 m d 1 peromtof levxOizsio add anappleaentaiiQn were within the normal rang®. Calculation of the food emswjBption valties per 'wait weight per chlelc resulted in tha saws sagaltade for both the levtilinie m d control fed chick*.

fWrfural n« also f©md to bo effective as a growth stiM&Iant at the-' 0.1 and 0.3 percent supplemental levels* Tfc© greatest response was obtained'-«& the 0*1 poroont level asstism in fable X73XX* Ho statio- Ucal analysis woo attempted. Xfihs furfural supplemented food remained i& the battery room for acre tfcm 3 days, it wmM. take on « yellowish color* fMo appeared to bo m. oa dot4ro: effect*

- little or :ao growth activity was obtained with O+eollebioge or Xhrftarm&do* Swmmtlwm of the remits are g&rm In fable XIX*Autopsies of chicks on all levels of fmiwonmMe showed extensive gissord erosions*

fa dotozwiao whether there woo augmentation of chick growth, with the chemicals tooted, tw&wmaMm? levwlinie add, md fcrforal wore individually added to cellulose supplmented ration XU* The results, given in fable XX, shewed that 0*5 peremt of furfural was partially effective whoa added, to tbs diet aappleacntcd with 15 percent of cello- loss, md that 0*1 percent of Xewuliaic mid md 0*1 percent of ftarfurmide whm added to the ration supplcsimted with 5 peremb of oolloloso wars non-effective is growth augmmtatim*

m

TAB 'IS xrat TEST -OF-SIXT'TIF-CE F08 0 *r X3CI? or GXttOTIl omiKEO BY TOTMffjEC acxb shppi tu i atio* 1X3 with teit of cmms. cmcm

to B-X13Humber of ehiek©

. B« f* Warn wt* at 4 Tre»is35 S m of gqtsare©

Ism® 60 59. 301 37*024

Q*15£, laruHsi®47 4S 342 90*390

yotay 107 105 il * 41 I77*&U

% * 5*12 F '* greater t’tei 1$ level*

m

xfJUQfe

8» lerrt& U ila Acid $m WMmMm- M «n*l B j~ IM la U n t S te rn a

f«d aeltfc G.S ewedaldUKi«A or %,

restnlts of Am vliawirui A aad

of

MV« SNIHMRmte f le^nOlaic add to

ia Table XXI, sfeeeed

date alee s&eared tfeat XevsOinie■fr1 ■

f

itt*®091 & m

SEC 0 OB

:*o * ▼ ja *

t (E) ** C

JSH ( m p m Oiit) ya» (•TP** OOBT) V

•m$* f q»iljtt *JSjf *<W **ff 9%9W<*%

% o r f m m m A it imx%im& m m m csxsr Dtirasjsri js

Ufa# #3K#$% r#0### fOT tb i

fen m#w ‘■mm

I ###

0ld,#t F s H mXIMI 3*lNw_ Sfflwip #B® P|MP; #BPotBWMHI

th&t fajfasp# w#a I M

liuKreaea in . a

SBwew# In $e#d eo&elwdwd that the fafapfat&fagr #£ fafa#

taraat ts a#% oofflplataly tztllltta# w h m T*dfafaaa a#y fa# a . Tfaafeo®* In mf the digestive system. ###yv 1m faliiljr waetag# #T

affected fay a

af tl»

PISPDUUB INI

fa# ##■#:#oom1 way ¥#fM#ft#<! fafattfa ISF^ISbSS1

mmgjjfa 0 us# ##

fa#; #yi!ifaba#i##dl#y $g&

©f the nutrients.###■' a# ■' #9R#NLfal#lfa

In witr©* Hik in ,niii ▲DPP VJ0P

showed that there waa a#

The TerfarmX 4» the

£#*£ the a### ««

Mmhd hare d a e

the M i * J# wait weight

aT tfa# oaatsral ehlelcB

. awt that

the wltawda fay

eaoaad by m

m m m *MM. efomk m ler*rali»le *cid is t&e

ot tfce lasts s£ 5 psr©s»t ojC

SSSif

r* on* &f %hm

mateI list i* thm t

jpSSPSSBtt t#

I S» WSS a* additive «£feets wmm in s ©sXXiiiisss

sagMKitstlon 15 #*f p m w t fiarftersl is itMXlsalt to

sMpsnStt i M i tarn 1mm

Itnnaliaie sold sfjfeet, tl» wkjt i pp®

max «i4 issir i m

m nMMgp 4t ii■■Ip. • fWWPiwpir vps itk riHiwI <n wiljF pasm srotsN tsoss® snoiaCtal

emtrni*.

5* HbroAm Mfom? mmZ&mm .«£ feed w®i.I dFoppt&g* and fcfea atm m im ®fdetectable reducing: srabataaee® tmtlsafce incomplete degradation tb® eellulaae in ibe chick aiisientary tomt* Tl» data obtained HmMemto*

o f %imtini

a&tjll a OWSH. . fltairai*.

with

% aoid «fc 0*1 perea&i

Xevola Iran also ©ffaotlva a* a

Milk mMHfeduMt any m w yawpWPy MGSsjF

21* t*mjlin±© add at %h» Q*S paraast 3av«I <Hd m&% mggpmafam or 001*1 toraet the daXXaia&agr s p i d a a of aifcfeor Yitaa&na A or % *

12, XeruXtale add and tw rfm m /M m , bo th at tba 0*1 pezaent lw«3.# &$% saEHBBat the avtnr&li affa&t of a radaa so laaBasaBitsd idth

it tlaa 0*5 permit level p » a

ASolpfc, Idirard T.$ 1947 < to (<• Ast* iJ*

, Brook, 1942 • Hature 14ft 221 Haasi Mm&tom mi. Wkm£sm si. qkm3»<

• Birtwr* 14ft 5S-C-533* 0. S i# 0. F* go&Uear* » * T*. 1* 103J«r» B 39* Jfc* lIF e dloua SFttfg off Ufocfc « 4 Bulk m Cotmibolion. Weotosm Hfcofe* * 3to* Isjxsorts<40“i42*

: , yr* »• , f. L. Mller* aod & F.

# 0* H** and I * B* foylor, 1945* Prm stiee. 4ifc E d ltlm , T&®P*

M m * ۥ M*. and Tim A , vmmi

mi m.

Poultry Sal. 21t 15-17<

Mid, H. a., K46. Stfgct of

0* 4*, E« A« Br<wm, 0* B« ................................ S tid ^ S B . M . j* Wutrltlea m s

, 49EM& A#

Csrrick* C* W«, aid Boy !•bims» Pmaltry 3el. sso*

©• A» , 1ft. Bpoo# 7T

0* A«f «mt mn«ira i* M t 1947.

Rmboff* Mm Em, mid :£ Sfea Jaai&Ss;

JteTanUwa, 1946.

• &R* 4. Dig* JplB«ttllO0 13s 385-386*S M a M ttd B i

Trmps, &*, 1928** taxm 4gr. $%&. BtslX. 3fi#.

^awttthUlter Ja gsMg«g fi£ Siffi id Sft attract of F«*te. ?eu* Agr. 3t*. >* %?/•<ta*Kvmtj M. 13. # ©d B* M m m M # 8 r # 1934*

• J* ItstelMt® St 397*430•Omlflti. G*» 1939.

34* 6345, ___ ckys of tot Cj

£• tXtinloa Yetorliutria 6SU 2S3~S§(aa se«« Hi Cbosu Abstracts

kf &* 1., 0* W. tad.C* 1947* Kia&enI. .A Matfrod of Trt fcjt ,+.ffff ChanA**! Ch»5w In49 341

» 1947. RWWW

2M2iiI2£ i?• jBTt Sci* 16: 45 *45 *• TJ. S.gl_p a » to Fawllanr

%, 7©$ SO*

ii «• J$s&. 25*

Sdsrice 951 p»Jj£ P»«l*«r Pooda. Poultry

I, B. Hark, S. W. » or, C. 4. ZiTOfcjaa, aad S. B. a*rt, 1941.JB. Cartflag* f££. Qfelek. J. Biol.

Bailor, 7 . 0 ., and Robart Bangui t« , 1936* KCfeot of Mineral* and Flbar as Avim IfateaUaal pH. Poultry Soi. 15* 397-399.

X*n«fcu

Bamor* 0. I?*, 1945* _ _J8j&* Poultry ML.- 24* 2(___________ , 194$.ti •S * 1* f 59*

s£ Hs4. tea Ste te® o£ tot

;. Join l& lty Sms, Me*, Wm*

B*3Lpfc S*, !De» £* Coburn* m d macry W* Tttras, X945<

Ifcwrtteu lEd* 4 Bag* OImwu 15«Is*, H*, J5* W* mi**, m d B* W* Steiih, X94&* Studies |g| tha HatabfliigaB

$ P* J* * «T* 4* P*Tid6GH * and S* %m mmmtmMnmmKTf f*S s i l t e Bfaflteg la a t f l te m . i t e M M jSoostfte Ration* Poultry ML* 26i o5X-oSo*

sia»et*r, e. d*t » » • SBa.f.% f£ Bteg «%& M.I Ae. H H ® £S*L JSSdllfSlwPros* Havaatlt World • s Poultry' Goa gross, Cluvelteid, Ofaloi 2

R*# md Lemael B* Wright, 1946*

#. 8** m d '* *♦*# ..._ ^ , __.......____ , „ __Llr ffotr&aiildaoK _Pesmiea 22* 21-23 £aaT so^in Ghsm* Abstraota "S i jS^»' 1947)»'

ft* U E.* H* J. , and H*

H* X* j sod B*jj IT3©.j| a w »I, 8. I,., 194-5.& sse

Wilcko, H* L*, and jf* C* ItaBKmd, 1940<* J * Agr • Bias * ols & S &

B. W*» andteouirsd fey Guinas Pirn* J. Biol* Chasw 157* 447-453*