Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-hpxsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T14:39:37.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of overfeeding on growth, obesity and intestinal tract in young chicks of light and heavy breeds*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

I. Nir ,
Zafrira Nitsan ,
Y. Dror  and
Niva Shapira
I. Nir
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
Zafrira Nitsan
Affiliation:
Division of Poultry Science, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel
Y. Dror
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Biochemistry, Faculty of Agriculture, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
Niva Shapira
Affiliation:
School of Nutritional and Domestic Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
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. Heavy-breed (HB) chicks differed from light-breed (LB) ones in their propensity to be overfed. Whereas in the LB chicks the amount by which they could be overfed reached 70 % more than the food consumed daily by the ad lib.-fed chicks, in the HB chicks the maximal excess was only 13 %.

2. Overfeeding caused a slight but statistically significant increase in the linear growth rate (shank length) of the LB chicks, with an opposite effect in the HB chicks.

3. Overfeeding increased the weight of the crop, proventriculus, small intestine, pancreas, liver and adipose tissue but had no such effect on the heart, cerebrum or cerebellum.

4. Overfeeding had no effect on the specific activities of the pancreatic digestive enzymes, liver xanthine dehydrogenase, or tryptophan oxygenase (EC 1.13.1.12). The increase in the total activities was due entirely to organ hypertrophy.

5. Obesity induced in young chicks had no residual effects on the adult LB chicks, but reduced the linear growth of the adult HB chicks.

6. An explanation for the difference between breeds in response to overfeeding at an early age is discussed.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , January 1978 , pp. 27 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

Ames, B. N. & Dubin, D. T. (1960). J. biol. Chem. 235, 769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czajka-Narins, D. M. & Hirsch, J. (1974). Biol. Neonate 25, 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dror, Y., Nir, I. & Nitsan, Z. (1977). Br. Poult. Sci. 18, 493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankova, S. (1970). Nutr. Metab. 12, 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garn, S. M., Clark, D. C. & Guire, K. E. (1975). In Childhood Obesity, p. 23 [WinickM., editor M., editor]. London: Wiley-Interscience Publication.Google Scholar
Hatcher, D. W. & Goldstein, G. (1969). Analyt. Biochem. 31, 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haux, P. & Natelson, S. (1971). Microchem. J. 16, 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurwitz, S., Bar, A., Katz, M., Sklan, D. & Budowski, P. (1973). J. Nutr. 103, 543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurwitz, S., Shamir, N. & Bar, A. (1972). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 25, 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knox, W. E., Yip, A. & Reshef, L. (1970). Meth. Enzym. 17A, 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepkovsky, S. (1973). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 26, 271.Google Scholar
Mukhtar, H., Sahib, M. K. & Murti, C. R. K. (1973). Biochem. J. 135, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1971). Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, 6th ed.Washington, DC: US National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Nir, I., Nitsan, Z. & Vax, A. (1973). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 13, 465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nir, I., Shapira, N., Nitsan, Z. & Dror, Y. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitsan, Z., Dror, Y., Nir, I. & Shapira, N. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searcy, R. L. & Bergquist, L. M. (1960). Clinica. chim. Acta 5, 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seligman, A. M. & Nachlas, M. M. (1963). In Methods of Enzymatic Analysis, p. 776 [Begneyer, H. U., editor]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shapira, N., Nir, I. & Budowsky, P. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shukla, A., Forsyth, H. A., Anderson, M. & Marvah, S. (1972). Br. med. J. iv, 507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods, 6th ed.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Strittmatter, C. F. (1965). J. biol. Chem. 240, 2557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, J. A., Shirling, D. & Passmore, R. (1967). Br. J. Nutr. 21, 909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winick, M. & Noble, A. (1966). J. Nutr. 89, 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winick, M. & Noble, A. (1967). J. Nutr. 91, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winick, M. & Rosso, P. (1975). In Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, p. 93 [Olson, R. E. editor]. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zöllner, N. & Kirsch, K. (1962). Z. ges. exp. Med. 135, 545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar