Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:22:59.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of management factors on the intestinal bacteria and the growth rate of chicks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

B. E. March ,
C. Goudie  and
Jacob Biely
B. E. March
Affiliation:
Department of Poultry Science, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
C. Goudie
Affiliation:
Department of Poultry Science, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Jacob Biely
Affiliation:
Department of Poultry Science, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The apparent cleanliness of the premises in which chicks are reared has little bearing on the growth rate of chicks within a given environment.

2. Bacterial counts of faeces from chicks reared under clean or extremely contaminated conditions showed no difference between the two sets of conditions.

3. Delaying feeding until 72 hr. after hatching retarded growth to at least 7 weeks of age. If the age of the chicks was calculated from the time at which the chicks were fed rather than the date of hatch, the weights of the chicks fed 72 hr. after hatching corresponded with those of the chicks fed immediately.

4. The contents of the duodenum and mesenteric intestine showed higher bacterial counts when feeding was delayed for 72 hr. than when feed was given shortly after hatching. This effect was no longer evident after the chicks were 1 week old.

5. Administration of penicillin in the water did not reduce the difference in growth rates between the chicks given feed immediately and those from which feed was withheld.

6. Antibiotics may decrease the thickness of the intestinal wall without stimulating growth.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , August 1960 , pp. 61 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Coates, M. E., Davies, M. K. & Kon, S. K. (1955). Brit. J. Nut. 9, 110.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Gordon, H. A. (1952). Colloquium, Lobund Institute, University of Notre Dame, Mimeo.Google Scholar
Halbrook, E. R., Winter, A. R. & Sutton, T. S. (1951). Poult. Sci. 30, 381.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. M., Anderson, G. W., Pepper, W. F. & Slinger, S. J. (1956). Poult. Sci. 35, 27.Google Scholar
Jukes, H. G., Hill, D. C. & Branion, H. D. (1956). Poult. Sci. 35, 716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lev, M. & Briggs, C. A. E. (1956 a). J. Appl. Bact. 19, 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lev, M. & Briggs, C. A. E. (1956 b). J. Appl. Bact. 19, 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libby, D. A. & Schaible, P. J. (1955). Science, 121, 733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillie, R. J., Sizemore, J. R. & Bird, H. R. (1953). Poult. Sci. 32, 466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, S. K. & Sarles, W. B. (1949). J. Bact. 58, 531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuckey, R., March, B. E. & Biely, J. (1958). Poult. Sci. 37, 786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waibel, P. E., Abbot, O. J., Baumann, C. A. & Bird, H. R. (1954). Poult. Sci. 33, 1141.Google Scholar