Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Modifications of the Connecticut broiler ration: wheat vs. corn, varying levels of protein concentrates,… Casorso, Roy 1951

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1951_A4 C3 M6.pdf [ 7.17MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106522.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106522-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106522-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106522-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106522-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106522-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106522-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106522-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106522.ris

Full Text

LB bfij tm fly MODIFICATIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT BROILER RATION: WHEAT VS CORN^ VARYING LEVELS OF PROTEIN CONCENTRATES, VITAMIN, ANTIBIO-TIC, AND ARSONIC ACID SUPPLEMENTATION by ROY CASORSO, B.S.A. A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE in the Department of Poultry Husbandry We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the standard required from candidates for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE. Members of the Department of Poultry Husbandry THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1951 A b s t r a c t MODIFICATIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT BROILER RATION: WHEAT VS .CORN, VARYING LEVELS OF PROTEUS CONCENTRATES, VITAMIN, ANTIBIOTIC, AND ARSONIC ACID SUPPLEMENTATION Fi v e experiments i n s e r i e s , r e q u i r i n g a t o t a l of 3,000 c h i c k s , were conducted to t e s t m o d i f i c a t i o n s of and supple-ments to the Connecticut b r o i l e r r a t i o n . Wheat and/or No. 1 reoleaned ground f e e d screenings were t e s t e d to repl a c e the oorn of the o r i g i n a l r a t i o n . Soybean o i l meal and / or f i s h m e a l alone or i n combination w i t h meatmeal were t e s t e d as sources of supplementary p r o t e i n . Furthermore, two crude fermentation a n t i b i o t i o p r e p a r a t i o n s , a r s o n l c a c i d and B-oomplex vitamins were t e s t e d as supplements to the Connecticut b r o i l e r r a t i o n . Good q u a l i t y feed wheat oan replaoe the corn oontent of the Connecticut b r o i l e r r a t i o n on a pound per pound b a s i s . The exoess p r o t e i n i n a modified Connecticut b r o i l e r r a t i o n i n which the oorn was replaced w i t h wheat ©annot be reduced by lowering the l e v e l of>supplementary p r o t e i n without slow-i n g the growth r a t e of oh i c k s . No. 1 reoleaned ground feed screenings when incorporated i n t o the Connecticut b r o i l e r r a t i o n as the so l e g r a i n d i d not promote as great a growth response i n chioks as a combination of wheat and oorn. The e f f i c i e n c y of feed u t i l i z a t i o n was lower w i t h the feed screenings r a t i o n than w i t h the r a t i o n w i t h oorn and wheat. However, when No. 1 reoleaned ground fee d screenings r e p l a c e d one-half of a g r a i n mixture i n a c h i c k s t a r t i n g r a t i o n the chicks grew at the same r a t e as the chi c k s r e c e i v i n g the r a t i o n i n which no replacement was made. The mixture of meatmeal, f i s h m e a l and soybean o i l meal of the Connecticut b r o i l e r r a t i o n was s u p e r i o r i n promoting f a s t e r c h i c k growth than was a r a t i o n c o n t a i n i n g e i t h e r f i s h -meal or soybean o i l meal as s o l e souroes of supplementary p r o t e i n . A combination of f i s h m e a l and soybean o i l meal as a source of supplementary p r o t e i n was s u p e r i o r to e i t h e r p r o t e i n supple-ment alone i n promoting the e a r l y growth of c h i c k s . The f i s h -meal, when inc l u d e d as the s o l e source of supplementary p r o t e i n , promoted the most e f f i c i e n t u t i l i z a t i o n of f e e d , though such a r a t i o n d i d not produce maximum growth. A l l the modified Connecticut b r o i l e r r a t i o n s , when supple-mented w i t h crude commercial a n t i b i o t i c p r e p a r a t i o n gave an inc r e a s e d growth r a t e i n c h i c k s . The extent to which the a n t i b i o t i c supplement increased the growth r a t e depended on the ba s a l r a t i o n used. I n a l l instances a n t i b i o t i e supplemented r a t i o n s were more e f f i c i e n t l y u t i l i z e d than were the unsupple-mented con t r o l c - r a t i o n s . The a d d i t i o n of a r s e n i c a c i d promoted a greater growth response i n chicks f e d t h i s supplemented r a t i o n than the unsupplemented c o n t r o l r a t i o n s . This incr e a s e d growth r a t e of c h i c k s r e c e i v i n g the arsonie aoid p e r s i s t e d to seven and one-half weeks. The a d d i t i o n of B-oomplex vita m i n s to the Connecticut b r o i l e r r a t i o n promoted a growth response i n c h i c k s equal to the growth response of chicks r e c e i v i n g an a n t i b i o t i c supple-mented Connecticut r a t i o n . The extent to which the mixture of vitamins increased the growth r a t e depended on the b a s a l r a t i o n used. Acknowledgment I wish to thank Professor Jaoob Biely, of the Department of Poultry Husbandry, for his guidance and assistance in conducting this study, Mrs. B. March for her assistance i n the statis-t i c a l analysis of the data, and Professor S. A. Lloyd, Head of the Department of. Poultry Husban-dry, for his kindness in proof reading this paper. I also wish to express appreciation to Miss Pat BegMe and Mr. Gordon Katznelson for their, assistance in preparing the histograms. Contents I. Introduction Page 1 II . Review of Literature 1. Connecticut Broiler Ration 3 2. Growth Factors Vitamin Big 9 Unknown Factors 10 Antibiotics 12 Arsenic Acid Derivatives 16 Mode of Action of Antibiot ics : Bacterial 17 Mode of Action of Antibiot ics : Growth Promotion 19 Test One: Introduction 25 Purpose 26 Methods and Procedure 26 Results 28 Conclusions 31 Test Two: Introduction 44 Purpose 44 Methods and Procedure 45 Results 46 Conclusions 47 Test Three: Introduction 50 Purpose 50 Methods and Procedure 51 Results 53 Conclusions 57 Test Four: Introduction 70 Purpose 70 Methods and Procedure 71 Results 72 Gone lus ions 78 Test Five: . Introduction 90 Purpose 90 Methods and Procedure 91 Results 93 Conclusions 9@ Discussion 111 Summary 121 Bibliography 122 1 I. Introduction The Connecticut broiler ration as reported in 1947 might be considered as the result of attempts by poultry nutr i t ional i s t s to compound a ration of the highest pos-sible efficiency for feeding chicks. This rat ion, variously desoribed as high density, low f iber , high energy, or low-fiber-high-energy, was an exception to the rations in common use in that i t took into account the energy requirements of chicks which up to that time had received comparatively l i t t l e attention as compared with that given to vitamins and other nutrients. The Connecticut broiler ration was found to promote more rapid growth, more complete feathering, and greater efficiency of feed u t i l i z a t i o n , thus permitting the earl ier marketing of broi ler or fryer type birds. It i s generally agreed that these results are due to the higher energy content of the ration as well as the quality of the proteins and vitamin content i n the ration. It i s easily understood why poultry producers across the continent have demanded such high energy rations. Unfortunately, at f i r s t some feed manufacturers fai led to apply the available knowledge to the formulation of high-energy-low-fiber rations. Many of their rations, for example, while being low in fiber and high i n energy were deficient i n other nutr i t ional ly important factors. For these and other reasons, many of the so called high energy rations which simulated the Connecticut broi ler ration did not produce the desired results . 2 On account of the sxort supply and high cost of animal products,before and during the war, poultry nutr i -tiorialists had been attempting to formulate rations derived solely from plant products. These attempts for the greater part were not successful. Evidently animal produots contr i-buted a faotor or faotors necessary for the growth of chicks. This discovery in i t ia ted widespread research into the so oalled "Animal Protein Faotor/s" or " A . P . F . " In unrelated research for the active agent in the treatment of pernicious anemia, vitamin Bj2 was discovered and isolated. It was soon found that this vitamin was fin integral part of the Animal Protein Faotor/s. Soon researchers found that v i ta-min Big was not the only faotor necessary for non-ruminant growth, but that whey, butyl fermentation products and other natural produots contributed factor/s necessary for rapid growth. In an attempt to produce a bacterial fermentation concentrate containing these unknown faotors i t was found that antibiotic fermentation produots gave great impetus to the early growth of chicks and pigs. Soon, l ike the demand for high energy rations, poultry producers were demanding antibiotic supplemented feeds. The summary of recent sc ient i f ic research as i t influenced the feed manufacturer and husbandryman was well presented by Dr. T . H . Jukesx_* 3 For many years i t has been known that such natural sources as l i ve r and yeast contain growth faotors for chicks. These nutri t ional faotors are also found in varying amounts in many feedstuffs including cereal grains, grain by-products, milk and a l f a l f a . During the past 12 years a number of these factors have been isolated, identif ied and synthesized and the requirements for ohieks and other animals have been determined quan-t i t a t ive ly so that such names as r ibof lavin , choline, niac in , and pantothenic acid are now a part of the voce, bulary of every feed manufacturer. These vitamins, synthetically or specially produced have offered new opportunities in poultry feeding. They have made i t possible to raise ohiokens independen-t l y of certain natural feedstuffs that might be in short or c r i t i c a l supply. Also i t has been possible to develop formulae for rapid growth-high energy, low fiber diets without including large amounts of fibrous material as sources of B-oomplex factors. Low fiber diets appear to favour quick growth. With the identi f icat ion and synthesis of each B-oomplex vitamin i t appeared that the l i s t of these fac-tors was approaching completion. However, the end i s not yet i n sight and poultry nutr i t ional l s t s are in the midst of a most interesting phase of research i n this f i e l d . . . . The investigation of the animal protein faotor are v iv id i l lus t ra t ions of the fact that the science of nu$ri-t ion continues to be a productive force in revealing discoveries of great importance...the feeding of high energy rations supplemented with fermentation preparations w i l l enable the more oomplete transformation of to-day's large grain orops into meat and eggs. II . Review of Literature 1. The Connecticut Broiler Ration (High Energy-Low Fibre) In 1947, Scott and co-workers- in experiments concerning the development of an eff icient broi ler ration reported that (1) fibre per se was not required for the physiological well being of the growing chick, (2) growth, feed efficiency and feathering are excellent on a diet 4 containing 68/» oorn that i s properly supplemented, (3) wheat was inferior to corn i n promoting early growth and was less ef f ic ient ly u t i l i z e d , and (4) replacing 25, 50, 75 and 100y» of the oorn with pulverized oats progressively depressed growth, the efficiency of feed u t i l i z a t i o n and feather quality. The basal mixture of this ration consisted of 68^ ground yellow corn, 8% fishmeal, 8% soybean o i l meal, 8% meat and bone scraps, 5% l ivermeal, 2). Butyl fermentation products (250 Ribo-flavin per gram), 1% a l fa l fa leaf meal, 0.5> sa l t , 0.3% feeding o i l , 0.25% Manganses sulfate, 908 milligrams ©f nicotinic acid and 31.78 grams choline chloride per 100 pounds. It w i l l be noted that this ration has l i t t l e fibrous material, less than 3% by analysis i s r i ch in energy, supplying over 1000 calories per pound,and has included in i t r i ch vitamin sources. The addition of crystal l ine nicotinic acid and choline i s well Justified for Kxehl, Tepley and Elvehjeav5 showed that corn increases the nicotinic acid requirement of a rat . That this i s also true for the chick has been shown by Scott, Singsen' and Matterson 4, nicotinic acid also i s an anti-perosis factor and i s involved in an interrelationship with the amino acid tryptophane. It also appears to be an "Appetite" factor. The additional requirement i s re lat ively small, 18 grams of nicot inic acid per ton. It i s the key ingredient that permits one to use high percentages of oorn i n chick rations. 5 Choline i s a methyl donor and anti-perois faotor. As a methyl donor, choline i s t ied np with the amino aoids, cystine and methionine, as well as having a sparing action on Vitamin B ^ . * 5 Although poultry producers immediately accepted the Connecticut Broiler Ration, researchers have published l i t t l e on the energy or fibre requirements of poultry or how the higher levels of energy may alter the vitamin and protein requirements. Energy ingredients constitute the major portion of the poultry ration and hence have an important bearing upon the efficiency of the ration. From an evaluation of feedstuffs on the basis of productive energy i t i s apparent that many of the ingredients commonly used in the past supplied large amounts of fibrous material and were low or near the borderline i n energy. As previously indicated, there i s probably a similar requirement for energy as for the other nutrients. It i s probable that this requirement varies with age and other conditions. Heuser^ suggests a minimum requirement of 800 calories per pound of feed (calculated from data by Fraps'') for the satisfactory growth of white Leghorn ohieks to four weeks of age. Panda and Combs" reported in a study i n which the energy per pound was reduced by the addition of purif ied cellulose that in New Hampshire ohieks 850 calories of productive energy per pound of feed, or 1080 calories per quart, i s required for rapid growth. These recommended calorie levels of 800*850 calories per pound are considerably higher than the levels supplied just a few years ago. Some consideration has been given to the fiber oontent of the ration and in many instances a low fiber ration has been emphasized. It has not been possible, however, to prescribe the fiber oontent within any very definite l imi t s . For although the available energy of a poultry ration i s usually increased by reducing or elimina-ting those feed ingredients which contain an appreciable amount of crude f iber , a reduction i n the crude fiber con-tent of a ration means that the level of indigestible nutrients i s also reduced. It does not mean, however, that the amount of available dietary energy i n increased. Total digestible nutrients and the actual productive energy levels of feed as determined experimentally are of much more value in estimating the amount of energy a feedstuff w i l l contribute to a ration than i s the crude fiber content. Crude fiber analyses are only emperioal at best and have very l i t t l e practical value i n poultry feedings. In addi-t ion, research has indioated that perhaps some crude fiber in a ration i s essential for optimum growth?. It i s known, of course, that fiber i s praotioally indigestible for poultry and hens. Davis, Briggf, ^ O * 1 1 found that when cellulose was added in increasing amounts to a purified diet free from fiber but otherwise oomplete, there was an increase in the growth rate of chicks and i n feed u t i l i z a t i o n efficiency over the range of 5-15% cel lulose . Raising the level above I: 7 20% caused a decrease i n both growth rate and feed efficiency, but mortality rate was not inoreased. No difference in feathering and no feather picking or cannibalism was observed in any of the experimental groups. Heuser et a l . 1 2 * 1 ? reported that the addition of A% of fiber from wheat bran, ground oats and wheat middlings was less eff icient for growth egg production and maintainanoe of body weight than were feeds of a less fibrous nature such as whole Wheat, oorn and rol led oats, and oonoluded that the greater efficiency and improved growth rate of the lat ter feeds was due to a greater amount of digestible nutrients being made available and an increase i n caloric intake. 14 In another experiment , the Cornell group of workers found that adding 5% of a soybean o i l meal to a low energy diet containing 8% of fiber was sufficient to produce growth similar to that obtained from a high energy-low fiber d iet . From these preceding reports, i t would appear that the nature of the fiber or ballast in the ration i s of importance. In the case of some feeds the flteer also makes the other organic nutrients less available. Heuser1^ reported that concentration or density of the ration i s Important and may reduce the growth de-pressing effect of high fiber rations. In tests i n which the oorn of a high energy diet was replaced by wheat by-products and oats, thus raising the fiber to %% and inorea-8 sing the volume from 640 to 1100 com., they found that pel let ing suoh low energy ration inoreased the weight per bushel from 36 pounds to 46 pounds with the results that growth response was similar to that of a high energy ration. Pellet ing a high energy ration produced very l i t t l e differ-ence i n weight per bushel or in growth response* Heuser also noted that the concentration of the ration i s important in relat ion to the digestible capacity of the b ird . Actual food intake and hence volume can be increased up to a certain point. This volume of fo&d must be able to supply the neces-sary nutrit ive requirements. The difference between the maximum volume of feed that can be consumed and the volume which w i l l supply the necessary nutrients probably varies with age, there being a greater difference during the early period of the chick's l i f e and hence concentration i s more important after this period. Gerry et a l . , 1 ^ oonduoted a study to determine how long a high energy low f ibre ration could be fed prof i-tably to growing chicks from the standpoint of growth and feed u t i l i z a t i o n efficiency. A l l birds were reared to 12 weeks. The best results were obtained when the high energy ration was fed from the entire 12 weeks, the poorest results when the ration was fed for the f i r s t 8 weeks and a regular growing ration-for the remaining 4 weeks. Gerry also re-ported that thei'feeding of a high energy low fibre ration to pullets to laying time was not superior to pullets reared upon regular starters and growing rations. 9 In summary, the feeding of the Connecticut broi ler ration or "High energy rations" to ohioks has resulted in speeding up growth rate and greater efficiency of feed u t i l i z a t i o n , necessitating the revamping of the chick growth standards of only a few years ago. 2. Growth Faotors (a) Vitamin B^g As previously stated, the early attempts to successfully grow chicks on animal protein deficient diets met with notable fa i lure . Not u n t i l the simultaneous and independent i solat ion of Vitamin B^g °y Smith1'' and R i c k e s 1 ® was a oomponent of the so-called Animal Protein Factor ident i f ied . Subsequent to the preparation of crystal l ine Vitamin Bjg ^ P l * evidence was presented that ohioks raised on vegetable protein diets , especially when the protein leve l i s higher than normal, require Vitamin B12,. In some laboratories, however, i t has been possible to demonstrate a significant requirement of Vitamin B12 only by using ohioks hatched from eggs of hens deprived of Vitamin B 1 2 « Perhaps the most dramatic evidence was that which showed i f eggs l a i d by hens were injected with 0.5% to 1,Z5% of Vitamin B 1 2 preparation, the hatching rate was s ignif icantly increased over that of untreated eggs; in addition, the ohioks from the treated eggs grew faster, had a lower mortality rate and showed better feathering than those from untreated ones 1 9 . 10 Deficiency of Vitamin B 1 2 often leads to chicle embryoes being deformed 2 0. The vitamin has also been found to control gizzard erosion of c h i c k s . 2 * It has been found that Vitamin B 1 2 was not the only factor that improved these deficiency rations. Dietrich et a l . showed that vitamin C and f o l i c acid were necessary also; a combination of vitamins 0 and B ^ appear to stimulate fo l ic acid synthesis i n the chick, and conversely fo l i c acid appeared to stimulate vitamin B^g synthesis. It should be noted here that L i l l i e 2 ^ found that chicks and laying hens fed rations composed of grains and animal proteins may be deficient or border l ine i n fo l io acid. Vitamin B^g n R S been noted to be a methyl donor and OA as such i s interrelated with oholine, methionine and betaine. (b) Unknown Factors As studies with purified vitamin B^g preparation progressed i t beoame evident that this vitamin was not the only unknown faotor essential for the growth of chicks. Combs et a l . 2 ^ found that f i shine a l and meatmeal may contain faotor/s which i s not supplied by dried brewers' yeast, butyl molasses solubles or dried whey. They also found evidence that dried brewers' yeast, butyl molasses solubles and dried whey contain an unidentified faotor/s not always present i n fishmeal or meatscrap. Swansea2? reported that livermeal gave better growth and feed efficiency than an A.P . F . supplement*when added to an al l-plant protein rat ion. *Merek #3. 11 Stevens, Biely and Maroh' 0 reported that an A.P .F . preparation (Merioks #3) when added to an (1) all-vegetable rat ion,(2) a vegetable diet plus Z% fishmeal, (3) practical ration, did not improve growth but did greatly improve the feed conversion efficiency. The Investigators con-cluded that the amount of the Animal Protein Factor which promote normal growth may not be adequate for the most eff icient feed conversion. 29 The Cornell group of workers, ' by applying Craig*s procedure of counter-current distr ibution to a refined l i v e r past dialysate, found that there were four uniden-t i f i e d substances which promote rapid early growth in chicks. Two of these were shown to be different forms of Vitamin B12. The other two were not identical to vitamin B^ 2 or other known vitamins. Carlson, Peeler, Horris and Heuser,^ 0 found fishmeal and Brewers1 yeast to be sources of unidentified growth factors. Biely and March?1 reported that dried brewers1, yeast or whey supplied a factor/a which may be lacking i n ration employing fishmeal as the sole protein supplement, while dried brewers1 yeast or whey supplied a faotor/s which may be laoking in soybean meal rations. A mixture of fishmeal and soybean meal apparently supplied the fac-tors laoking when these concentrates were used singly. Menge et a l . ? 2 reported that the addition of crystal l ine vitamin B22 to their rations resulted i n a lower growth response i n chicks than when Wilson's l i v e r « L * was added and that dried whey i n combination with vitamin B12 gave better results than vitamin B^g alone. Wooley23 has demonstrated that mice fed a highly purified ration in which casein hydrolysate plus tryp-tophane and eystiens were nitrogen sources grew at submaxi-mal rates. Small amounts of protein r i c h i n streptogenin were effeotive growth promoters while proteins low in this peptide were not. When the streptogenin content of the con-centrate was destroyed, the growth promoting powers were lo s t . The recognition of these growth faotors ini t iated extensive studies of practical sources of them that could be used for supplementing rations. ( 0 ) Antibiotics Soon after the i solat ion of vitamin B^g a n d t n e establishment that i t promoted the growth of ohioks on vege-table diets , a search was made for fermentation processes oapable of producing this vitamin and other faotor/s. It was found that vitamin B^g was formed during the fermenta-tion production of the antibiotic aureomyoin. Produots from aureomyoin fermentation were developed as commercial sources of the "Animal Protein Factor/sw , though at this time i t was not realized that the growth promotion of suoh a preparation was because of their residual antibiotic ac t iv i ty . 13 It became apparent that the chick and turkey poult growth obtained from fermentation products could not be accounted for on the basis of the added vitamin B^2 to the experimental diets . As early as 1942, Martin^ 4 reported that the growth of rats on a purified diet was increased by feeding sulfanila-mide. Four years la ter , Moore^ and co-workers at the Univer-s i ty of Wisconsin, found that 1% of suooinylsulfathiazole or 0.2% to 0.05% of streptomycin, when added to a purified diet , increased the growth of ohioks. These investigators unfortuna-tely did not further pursue their observations. In 1949, Stockstad and co-workers^ reported experiments i n which i t was found that crude aureomyoin mash, or a fraotion prepared from i t , would produce a growth response i n ohioks when added to an all-vegetable diet containing 70% soybean o i l meal and supplemented with an adequate quantity of vitamin B 1 2 » This "extra" growth response would not be duplicated by adding various supplements including yeast, fishmeal, f i sh solubles, l i v e r extracts, ©r d i s t i l l e r s 1 solubles. The "extra" growth response at 24 days represented increased growth rates of 18% to 28%. More marked increases with the aureomyoin fraction were obtained i n experiments with pigs reported by Cunha and co-workers?? who used a diet containing oorn and peanut meal supplemented with minerals, vitamin A and D, thiamine, ribo-f lav in , niacin, pantothenic acid, pyridoxine, f o l i c aoid and choline. In one experiment, vitamin Bj.2 produced no increase in growth as compared with the basal diet but pigs receiving the aureomyoin fermentation supplement grew at a rate which was 150^ greater than the pigs on the basal diet during a five week test period. At Iowa State College, Catron^ studied the effect of aureomyoin fermentation products and found an increa-sed growth rate in pigs and a prevention of the appearance of bloody diarrhea. Various batches of supplements prepared from streptomyces aureofaoiens fermentation were fed to I95 pigs, which showed an average dai ly gain i n body weight of 1.64 pound per pig, with feed efficiency of 3.47 pounds of feed per pound of gain. Three percent of the animals were removed from the experiment due to the development of enter i t i s . In contrast 50 pigs not receiving this supplementation had an average daily gain of 1.30 pounds and a feed consumption of 3.74 pounds per pound of gain. Twenty peroent of the lat ter pigs were removed from the experiment due to enter i t i s . Carpenter^? of the Hormel Institute obtained similar results with pigs. Using turkeys, MoGinnis* 0 and co-workers at Washing-ton State College and Singsen and Matterson of University of Connecticut 4 1 obtained "extra" growth response with supplements obtained from aureomyoin fermentation. In one experiment, i c MoGinnis obtained poults weighing 3 8 0 grams at four weeks with a supplement of liverpaste containing vitamin B12, a n d 586 grams when an aureomyoin fermentation product was added at a l eve l of 0.5^ to a basal diet containing 56^ of soybean o i l meal. 15 Couoh and Reed reported that an aureomyoin fermen-tation preparation produced more rapid growth and greater feed efficiency in broiler ohioks than did a mixture of 6% fishmeal and 2%, f i sh solubles when added to an all.vegetable diet under pract ical conditions. In studies by Stokstad and Jukes of Lederle Labora-tor ies 4 ? , i t f i r s t seemed that the factor responsible for the "extra1 1 growth of ohioks had properties differing from those of aureomyoin. An aureomyoin preparation which had been exposed to the action of a lka l i was;found to oontain growth-promoting aot ivi ty , although aureomyoin as measured by Stajphlooooous aureus, assay i s known to be inactivated by such a treatment. However, i t was found that aureomyoin hydrochloride which was repeatedly reerystal l ized would pro-duce a growth response. Leuke, et a l . 4 4 established that orystall ine streptomycin promoted an additional growth response in pigs. Stookstad4^ found that streptomycin, suooinylsulfathiazole, and 3-nitro-4-hydroxyl arsonlo aoid produoed similar though less marked growth promotion than aureomyoin in ohioks. Whltehil l , Olson and Hittohings4? showed that aureomyoin, streptomycin and p e n i c i l l i n would produoe a growth response i n chicks. In 1950, MoGinnis46 showed that terramyoin was effective in promoting the growth of ohioks, and i n other experiments showed that bactraoin would also promote the growth of ohioks and turkey poults. Peppier, et a l . 4 ? reported beneficial results with 16 polymyxin D, an antibiotic substanoe acting pr incipal ly upon gram negative organisms. I f the concentration of polymyxin exceeded 2.5% in the ration, depression of growth occurred, while below this level — 1% was most favourable — increased stimulation of growth ooourred. J a c k s o n 4 ® , of Pfizer Laboratories, demonstrated that at 16-19% protein levels antibiotic supplementation had a pro-tein sparing action and noted that at lower protein levels where amino aoid deficiencies ooourred antibiotio supplementa-t ion improved growth. 49 MoGinnis, / • reported .that i t appeared that there was not only a relationship between protein and antibiotics but also between energy, vitamins and antibiotios . (d) Arsonio Acid Derivatives In I948, Bird, Grosohke and Rubin^O reported that the growth of ohieks fed a high soybean o i l meal diet and deficient in animal protein was improved by the addition of 0.005% of 3-nitro-4-hydroxyphenyl arsonio aoid, and that this eompound did not substitute for either the then unknown faotors ot methionine. On the contrary, arsonio aoid, the unknown faotor/s and methionine were mutually supplementary when added to a raw soybean diet but not on a commercially heated soybean o i l meal diet . Moorehouse^1 oonfirmed the preceding report. In sub-52 sequent studies of this compound and related compounds, B i r d ' noted that the level at which arsonio aoid i s added to poultry rations i s very o r i t i o a l . The ohioks fed 0.01% arsonio aoid were definitely infer ior to those fed 0.005% and those 17 receiving 0.02% were no better than the basal group, showing that any practical use of this compound would necessitate very careful regulation of the level fed. Many other compounds were tested revealing that the presence of the nltro and hydroxy groups were not essential, actually reducing the effectiveness 53 i n the tests conducted. Previous work by Tangl and sub-sp sequent work by B i r d ' indicate that simple inorganic arsenio salt may be the common denominator for the growth promoting 54 act iv i ty of the .arsonio aoid derivative. Scott and Glis ta found that In several tests arsonio aoid repeatedly stimulated early growth of ohioks but that this advantage starts to wane early i n the chick's l i f e and disappears entirely by the seventh week. The investigators noted that arsonio aoid appar-ently stimulated feed consumption during the f i r s t weeks of l i f e . (e) Mode of Action of Antibiotics ; Bacterial . biotios , p e n i c i l l i n , streptomycin and aureomyoin are f a i r l y well established. but i s usually administered as the calcium or sodium sal t . The effectiveness of this drug depends upon several faotors, some of which are: variation in bacterial strain susceptibi l i ty. The bactericidal aotion of the more common anti-P e n i c i l l i n , in the free state, i s an organic acid number of organisms present and the pH of the medium. Peni-c i l l i n i s biosynthesized by several specie of mold. The structural formula i s : MN CH—CH :> c'N '3 COOM 18 The most oommonly used form of pen io i l l in i s benzyl peni-c i l l i n ( p e n i c i l l i n G) where the R group has the structure: Baoteria under the influence of bactericidal concentrations of pen io i l l in undergo distort ion, swelling and ultimate l y s i s . The over-all effect can be interpreted in terms of inhibi t ion of mononucleotide oatabolism. Inhibition of this oatabolism prevents the mononucleotide from l iberat ing a base that maintains a redox potential . I f this potential i s lowered by p e n i c i l l i n , the -SH group of amino acids are protected from irreversible dehydrogenation. This interruption of c e l l meta-bolism caused the death of the bacterium. Since -SH groups act as donors for the * H D to be ultimately accepted by atmospheric oxygen, the dehydrogenation w i l l prooeed more rapidly as there i s more Og available and therefore p e n i o i l l i n acts more effectively on aerobic organism when they are freely exposed to oxygenation. Streptomycin i s similar to p e n i c i l l i n in possessing low toxici ty to animals but differing in that i t acts on the gram negative organisms and i s very slowly absorbed from the intest inal traot upon oral administration. Streptomycin has the empirical formula of G 21 H 37-39°12^7• T * 1 * 8 substance i s a salt of an organic base which oan be dissociated and form a complex with ribonuoleie aoid. It i s this complex which i s believed to block the metabolism of the organism, along with inhibi t ion of the polynucleotide oatabolism resulting in a lowering of the redox potential causing death and l y s i s of the organism. Aureomyoin i s a yellow orystalliaable substance biosynthesized by Streptomyoes aureofaoians. It has a wide antibacterial spectrum which includes a number of gram-posi-tive and gram negative organisms. The formula of this sub-stance i s not known but i s known to contain 0, H, N 2 and 0 2. The mechanism of the antibacterial action remains unsolved. ( f ) Mode of Aotion of Antibiot ics : Growth Promotion The manner in vhioh antibiotics stimulate growth in ohioks and pigs i s not known, but there i s good evidence that the phenomona i s associated with the intentlnal bacteria and i s not a physiologioal effect of the antibiotic on the body. MoGinnis et al.-*-* and Blam-^ injected antibiotics intramuscu-l a r l y with no stimulation of growth. Furthermore, the anti-biot ics vary greatly in their a b i l i t y to be absorbed through the intest inal wall , their toxic effects on the body and their chemical structure and reactions, but nearly a l l produce a growth stimulus when incorporated i n rations at the proper proportions, Though definite proof of the mode of aotion upon growth stimulation has not yet been produced, several theories have been suggested: (a) Stimulation of intest inal synthesis of vitamins by bacteria. (b) Reduction of the total number of bacteria i n the intest inal tract with a lowering of competition between microorganisms and the hosts animal for the nutr i t ients . 20 (o) The inhibi t ion of harmful baoteria whioh may be mildly pathogenic or toxin-producing. Evidence has been presented by Groschke^'' and 54 Scott et a l . supporting the f i r s t proposal. They found that the addition of known vitamins to a chick diet at high le-vels reduoed the response to antibiot ics . Speer et al.?** reported an experiment in whioh the additionoof aureomyoin to a rat ion fed to young pigs had no effect on the growth rate. The authors explained the laok of response to aureomyoin by the "disease level theory". 54 - ' -Scott and Glista working with chicks noted only a slight insignificant response to aureomyoin for the f i r s t few weeks with ad libitum feeding, and no response when feed intake was l imited. The ohioks in his experiment "originated from a well fed group of breeding hens and hence were not depleted 59 of A . P . F . reserves." Oleson, Hutchings and Whitehill 7 found that depleted ohioks showed no response to aureomyoin in the absence of vitamin B^g i n the diet although there was a marked response to the antibiotic when vitamin B^g was present i n sub-optimal or optimal amounts. 59 Gravioto-Munoz ' and co-workers found that aureomyoin could replace vitamin B^2 i n the purified diet of the rat . Subsequently Davis and Ohow^1 found i n radioactive oobalt studies that the inclusion of aureomyoin in a rat diet increased the vitamin B^g oontent of the feces. The increased production of other factors was not investigated. Previously many investigators thought that antibiotics were not related to vitamin B 1 2 any.more than to any one of the other nutrients. 62 Sieburth, et a l . presented evidence for the third proposal when they reported that the antibiotios terramyoin and p e n i c i l l i n , completely prevented the growth of Olostrldum (probably welohii) i n the intest inal tract of turkeys. Terra-myoin had a similar effect i n an experiment with pigs. This organism or one closely related to Clostridium Welohii has been shown to be the oausltive agent of an enterotoxemia i n sheep. These workers further hypothesized that such an organism could be producing toxins in small quantities in the Intestine of young animals which have a growth depressing effect. Some additional evidence in the support of the third proposal l i e s in the fact that certain antibiotios are effective in promo-ting growth and are also markedly eff icient i n preventing and treating necrotic enterit is in swine. Bierman and Jowei found a clear put balance between the microorganisms of different varieties in human fecal f lora and reported that as the effective antibiotics suppress the normal coliform baoteria and enteroooooi, other organisms, particularly yeast, pseudomonas and paracolon b a c i l l i increased greatly both re la t ive ly and in absolute numbers. Within 24 to 48 hours after discontinuing the effeotive antibiotios, the normal f lora i n -variably returned and the resistant "aportunists" were promptly suppressed. 22 The preceding reports indioate that many researchers believe that the intest inal meoroflora as modified by antibiotics permit the more complete growth of the hosts. Reyniers et a l . ^ * however, have reported that an intest inal microflora i s not necessary for the normal growth of chicks. These investiga-tors disinfected 1? day inoubated eggs, transferred the eggs to a s ter i le oabinet and were able to rear ohioks to 4-8 weeks of age under completely steri le conditions. The ohiokte intest inal traot was free from microorganisms as determined by unoontamina-ted feces. These investigators further reported that the ad-dit ion of sources of unidentified vitamins did not alter the growth rates of the germ-free chicks. Large amounts of vitamins were found in the fiscal oontents of germ-free as well as of the oontrol chicks, showing that vitamins found in the lower intes-t ina l tract are not necessarily of bacterial or ig in . Ac Whhlstrom et a l . - reported that, though aureomyoin stimulated the growth of baby pigs fed an oc protein* "synthetic milk" diet that i t did not reduce the ooliform, laotobaoi l l i or yeast ce l l s present in the feces and that sulfathalidine though,not promoting additional growth did effectively reduce the number of bacteria present in the feces. Colby^ noted that the feeding of aureomyoin to lambs decreased feed consumption resulting in weight loss . Bacterial counts of rumen oontents of the lambs fed aureomyoin and aureomyoin pips a mixture of vitamins were much higher than the oontrol animals, indicating that possibly aureomyoin had 23 destroyed certain strains of bacteria thereby eliminating a normal competitive environment and permitting less desirable strains of bacteria to multiply. 67 Bel l and co-workers • ' found that the feeding of crystal l ine aureomyoin to steers caused a marked reduction in the d iges t ib i l i ty of f ibre , dry matter and nitrogen free ex-tract . High levels of aureomyoin when fed to the steers pro-duced anorexia and diarrhea within 48-72 hours and persisted for several days after discontinuing the aureomyoin feeding. In contrast to the preoeding reports of the unfa-vourable effects of antibiotics on ruminents i s the report of Loosl i and Wallaoe that the addition of either a crude antibiotic preparation or crystal l ine aureomyoin to the diet of growing calves s ignifioantly increased the growth rate and reduced the incidence and severity of diarrhea. It has been extenst vely noted that not only anti-biot ics but the source of carbohydrate and leve l of f iber influence the makeup of the intest inal f lora of animals. Johanson and co-workers 7 noted that suorose diets suppressed conform organisms and were replaced by yeasts; however a combination of suorose and laotose promoted the growth of 70 ooliform organism. Cravens and Couch working in conjunction with Johanson et a l . suggested that there was an intest inal synthesis of biot in in hens fed a dextrin containing rat ion. 71 This report i s i n agreement with Gant who found that B. oo l i i s mainly responsible for the synthesis of biot in and fol io acid or related faotors. 24 Although there i s considerable confl ict ing evidence the action of antibiotics upon the Intestinal microflora of animals, much of the available l i terature indicates that antibiotics modify the intest inal f lora i n such a manner that subsequent intest inal synthesis of known or unknown faotor/s enables the more complete balancing of the animal's diet , thus accelerating growth rates. When antibiotics supplement, a high energy or a Connecticut broiler type ration the re-suitant acoelerated growth rate modifies the requirements for protein, vitamins, minerals and dietary energy. The levels of these ingredients become c r i t i c a l , for marginal defioienole or improper balance of essential nutrients may retard growth and cause serious nutrit ional troubles. Further research w i l l have to be done before the problems involved in formulating and feeding high energy feeds and antibiotics are fu l ly under-stood. However, information relating to these problems i s now available and must be applied by the nutritional1st and husbandryman. TEST OKB Introduction The f i r s t test reported here developed out of studies oonduoted by the author fi>r his Batohelor's essay.? 2 These studies indicated that an A.P .F . preparation, whose chicle growth stimulating factor was later established to be the antibiotic aureomyoin, improved growth and feed efficiency when added to an.; all-vegetable chick ration and that a seoond A .P .F . preparation when added to a ration containing three per cent fishmeal did not improve the growth of ohioks. These results indicated that the supplementary value of A . P . F . preparations, fishmeal and possible inter-relationships of these substances with other nutrients in chick rations required further studies to establish more clearly their nutrit ional value. Because various reports have indicated that wheat i s of similar nutrit ive value to that of oorn when incorporated in many poultry rations and because wheat i s more readily available than oorn in Canada, a study was undertaken to determine the value of wheat when incorporated into the Connecticut broi ler ration to repibaoe corn. A study was also made of the values of an antibiotic preparation, fishmeal and possible sparing action of these substances on vitamins in both the Connecticut oorn ration and the adapted wheat rat ion. 26 Purpose 1. To study the replaoement of the porn of the Gon-neotiout broi ler ration with wheat. 2. To study the effects of the replaoement of the meatmeal i n the Connecticut broi ler ration with fishmeal. 3. To study the supplementary value of an antibiotic preparation-containing aureomyoin hydrochloride in the Connecticut broiler ration and modifications of the Connecticut broiler rat ion. 4. To study the value of supplementing the modified Connecticut broi ler rations with anaaiacture of purified vitamins. Methods and Procedure Day old White Leghorn pullets were wing banded and distributed at random into twelve duplicate lots of twenty-seven ohioks per l o t . The ohioks were reared in Jamesway Battery Brooders with electr ic heating elements, in an insu-lated room maintained at a constant temperature. At three weeks the birds were transferred to larger Jamesway Battery Brooders which were not equipped with heating elements, and held here u n t i l seven weeks of age. The birds were fed mash and water ad l i b . , and received granite g r i t at weekly intervals . The feed added to the hoppers was accurately weighed and recorded daily u n t i l ^•Aureofao*1, produced by Lederle Laboratories. 27 the fourth week. The birds were weighed at weekly intervals . The fourth and seventh week weights were analysed s t a t i s t i ca l ly and the results recorded i n Tables IX and X. The basal Connecticut rations #1 - #3 were pre-pared after the formulae of Soott. In rations #4 - #6 the o r i -ginal formula was adhered to except that the meatmeal of the original formula was replaoed with a high protein fishmeal so that a combination of soybean o i l meal and f i sh meal supplied the supplementary protein. The addition of lime-stone was necessary to maintain the oaloium and phosphorus leve l s . In rations #7 - #12 the Connecticut ration was modi-f ied in that a l l the cornmeal of the original was replaced by ground wheat on a pound per pound basis. The level of supple-mentary protein was not reduced to compensate for the higher level of protein i n wheat than in corn. Wheat rations #10 -#12: fishmeal replaoed the meatmeal and soybean o i l meal supplied the supplementary protein, meat meal not being i n -cluded. The addition of both bonemeal and limestone was necessary to maintain the oaloium and phosphorus levels in the wheat-fishmeal rations (#10-#12). The supplementary value of an antibiotic fermenta-t ion product containing 1.8 grams of aureomyoin hydrochloride per pound was tested by supplementing the four basal rations with 0.25% of the preparation, thus supplying 5.4 milligrams of antibiotic per pound of mash, i . e . , rations #2(oorn), #5 (oorn-fishmeal),, #8 (wheat) and #11 (wheat-fishmeal), 28 The supplementary tfalue of a mixture of six vitamins was tested in the four basal rations. Fi f ty milligrams of Thiamin hydrochloride, 90 milligrams of pyridoxal hydrochlo-ride, 4.5 grams of para amino benzoic acid, 25 milligrams of fo l i c acid, 25 milligrams of menadione and 5 grams of inos i-tol per hundred pounds of feed were added to the four basals, i . e . , rations #3, #6, #9, and #12. The composition of the basal rations and the sup-plements to the basal rations are given in Table I. Results: The average fourth and seventh week weights of the birds receiving the four basal rations are recorded i n Tables XL and III and are graphically represented i n Figures I and II respectively. It should be noted that these weights are not the averages of the unsupplemented basals alone but are the average weights of the ohioks receiving the basals and the basals plus supplements, i . e . , corn 4 supplements (#1 - #3) corn-fishmeal / supplements (#4 - #6), wheat / supplements (^7 • #9), wheat-fishmeal /supplements (#10 - #12). At four weeks the chicks receiving the three corn-f ishmeal basal rations (f4 - #6) averaged 346 grams or six grams more than the ohioks reoeiving the corn rations(#1 - #3X or wheat rations (#7 - #9} whioh contained a mixture of equal parts of fishmeal, soybean meal ahd meatmeal. The corn rations (#1 - #3), oorn-fishmeal ration (#4 - #6) and wheat 29 rations (#7 - #?) were superior to the wheat-fish rations (39 - #12) in promoting early chick growth. The ohioks receiving the former rations averaged 346 and 340 grams res-pectively as oompared to the 331 grams of the l a t ter . This superior rate of growth of the ohioks receiving the oorn, corn-fish and wheat rations was significant at the one percent l e v e l . The significance of the seventh week weights i s essentially the same as the fourth week weights. The ohioks receiving the corn-fish ration (#4 - #6) averaged 662 grams as compared to the 611 grams of the ohioks receiving the corn rations (#1 - #3). This additional growth of the ohioks freeeivingathe corn-fish-soybean meal rations was significant at the 5% l e v e l . The ohioks fed the wheat-fish-soybean meal rations (#10 - #12) averaged 587 grams or 35 grams less than the ohioks fed the corn-fish rations (#4 - #6): the ohioks fed the wheat.rations (#7 - #9) averaged 592 grams or 30 grams less than those fed the oorn-fish rations (#4 - #6). Unlike the growth response at four weeks, both the oorn-fishmeal rations (#4 - #6) and the corn rations (#1 - #3) were statis-t i c a l l y superior in promoting growth of chicks to the wheat and wheat-fishmeal rations at seven weeks. The fourth and seventh week average weights of the birds receiving the unsupplemented rations and the antibiotio or vitamin supplemented rations are recorded in Tables IV and V and are graphically represented in Figures III and IV respectively. At both four and seven weeks the addition of 30 the antibiotic preparation markedly improved the growth res-ponse. At four weeks the birds receiving the antibiotio supplementation (#2, #5, #8 and #11) averaged 350 grams or eleven grams heavier than the birds receiving the unsupplemen-ted basals (#1, #4, #7 and #10) or 12 grams heavier than the birds receiving the vitamin supplemented rations (#3, #6. #9 and #12), This improvement at four weeks over the other rations was s t a t i s t i ca l ly significant at the 1% l e v e l . The more rapid growth of the ohioks receiving antibiotic supplementation to four weeks oontinued to the seventh week. The birds receiving the antibiotic averaged 635 grams, as compared to the 598 grams of the birds receiving the vitamin mixture, or the 589 grams of the birds receiving the basal rat ion. This greater growth rate at seven weeks was s t a t i s t i ca l ly significant at the 1% l eve l . Supplementation of the oorn ration with a vitamin mixture (#3) promoted an increase in the growth rate in the ohioks receiving this rat ion. Similar supplementation of the other basal ration did not result in increased growth rate i n the chicks. The superior growth rate resulting from the interaction between the oorn ration and the vitamins was significant at the 1% l e v e l . It w i l l be noted that the ohioks receiving the oorn ration plus vitamins (#3) weighed essen-t i a l l y the same as the ohioks reoeiving the unsupplemented oorn-fishmeal ration (#4), indicating that the additional fishmeal i n the lat ter ration supplied sufficient vitamins 31 to promote a similar response as the oorn ration plus vitamins (#3). It would appear from the preoeding that a defioienoy of one or more of the added vitamins was a l imit ing faotor in the promotion of growth by the oorn rations. Sinoe the addition of vitamins to the wheat basal (#9) or the wheat-fishmeal basal (#12) did not lnorease the growth rate of ohioks reoeiving these supplemented rations i t would appear that none of the added vitamins was a l i m i -ting faotor to the promotion of growth i n ohioks. The effielenoy (see Table VIII, Figure VII) with whioh the oorn rations (#1 - #6) were u t i l i z e d was superior to the effioienoy with whioh the wheat rations (#7 - #12) were u t i l i z e d . In a l l instances the addition of the antibiotic preparations improved the effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a t i o n . The efficiency with which the vitamin supplemented rations were u t i l i zed i s not conclusive but would indicate that the vitamin supplementation improved the effioienoy of u t i l i z a -tion of the rat ion. Conclusions 1. Wheat was s l ight ly infer ior to oorn when incorpora-ted into the Connecticut broi ler ration on a pound per pound basis. 2. In the experiment reported, equal portions of f i sh-meal and soybean o i l meal were superior to a mixture of equal portions of fishmeal, soybean o i l meal and 32 meatmeal as a source of supplementary protein in promoting the early growth of chicks. 3. The addition of an antibiotic preparation to the test rations improved the growth rate of the ohioks receiving the supplemented rations i n every instance. 4. The addition of vitamins to the Connecticut ration promoted a growth response in ohioks similar to the growth response promoted by antibiotic supplementation. 33 Table I Composition: of Rations Basal Basal Basal Rations Basal Rations Rations #4-#6 Rations #10-#12 #l-#3 (Corn #7-#9 (Wheat-(Corn fishmeal (Wheat fishmeal Basal). Basal). Basal), basal). Corn 68.79 70.29 Wheat 8.00 73.74 74.35 Fishmeal 14.00 6.2 IO.96 Meatmeal 8.00 6.2 Soybean O i l Meal (Solvent) 8.00 7.0 6.2 5.48 Livermeal 3.00 3.0 3.0 3.0 B-Y, 2.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 Dehydrated Cereal Grass 1.00 1.0 1.0 1.0 Iodized Salt 0.50 0.5 G.5 0.5 Feeding O i l (3000 A; 400 D) Choline Chloride (25%) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 MnSO^ Nicotinic Aoid 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.9 gm. . 0*9 gm. 0.9 gm. 0.9 gm. Bonemeal 0.5 0,5 1.0 Limestone 1.0 1.0 #2 = #1 i 0,25% Antibiotic Preparation (Lederle) 0 s fi± / Vitamin Mixture £5 z #4 / 0.25% Antibiotic Preparation (Lederle) #6 = #4 r\ Vitamin Mixture #8 ? #7 / 0.25% Antibiotic Preparation (Lederle) #9 r #7 f vitamin Mixture 34 Table II fourth Week Average Weights of Birds . Receiving the Four Basal Rations Corn Basal (#1 - #3) 340 grams Corn-fish Basal (#4 - #6) 346 grams Wheat Basal (#7 - #9) 340 grams Wheat-fish Basal (#10 - #12) 331 grams Table III Seventh Week Average Weights of Birds Reoeiving the Four Basal Rations Corn Basal (#1 - #3) 611 grams Corn-fish Basal (#4 - #6) 622 grams Wheat Basal (#7 - #?) 392 grams Wheat-fish Basal (#10 - #12) 58? grams F I G U R E O N E F O U R T H W E E K A V E R A G E W E I G H T O F B I R D S F E D T H E F O U R B A S A L R A T I O N S CORN B A S A L (*l - *3) CORN-FISH BASAL(54-%) WHEAT BASAL (*7 -*9) WHEAT FISH BASAL (»IO -*I2) 0 330 335 340 345 GRAMS F I G U R E T W O S E V E N T H W E E K A V E R A G E W E I G H T O F B I R D S F E D T H E F O U R B A S A L R A T I O N S CORN BASAL (*l - * 3 ) CORN-FISH BASAL( * * - «6 ) WHEAT BASAL (»7 -*9) WHEAT FISH BASAL (»I0 ' «I2) 0 580 590 600 610 620 GRAMS Table IV Fourth Week Average Weights of Bir>ds Receiving Basal Rations pigs Supplements Supplements Average Weights Hone (#1. #4, #7, #10) 334 grams 0.25% Antibiotic Preparation (#2. #5, #8, #11) 350 grams Vitamins (#3, #6, #9, #12) 333 grams Table V Seventh Week Average Weights of Birds Receiving Basal Rations plus Supplements Supplements Average Weights None (#1, #4, #7, #10) 589 grams 0.25% Antibiotic Preparation Vitamins (#3, #6, #9, #12) 598 grams F I G U R E T H R E E F O U R T H W E E K A V E R A G E W E I G H T O F B I R D S F E D T H E B A S A L S • S U P P L E M E N T S S U P P L E M E N T NONE ( « I , * 4 « 7 , * I 0 ) 0.25% ANTIB. ( * 2 , * 5 , » 8 , * l l ) VITAMINS ( * 3 , * 6 * 9 , * ! 2 ) G R A M S FIGURE FOUR SEVENTH WEEK AVERAGE WEIGHT OF BIRDS FED THE BASALS • SUPPLEMENTS S U P P L E M E N T N O N E ( « l * 4 * 7 , # I 0 ) 0.2 5 % A N TIB. ( * 2 , * 5 , * 8 , « 11) VITAMINS ( » 3 , ' » 6 , » 9 , " I 2 ) L 580 5 9 0 6 0 0 610 6 2 G R A M S 38 Table VJ Fourth Week Average Weights of Birds Receiving the Twelve Test Rations Ration 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 9 10 11 12 Description Oorn Basal #1 / 0.25% Antibiotic Preparation f l / Vitamin Mixture Oorn-fish Basal #4 / 0.25% Antibiotio Preparation #4 / Vitamin Mixture Wheat Basal f7 / 0.25% Antibiotic Preparation 7 / Vitamin Mixture Wheat-fish Basal #10 / 0.25% Antibiotic Preparation / Vitamin Mixture Average Weight 333 grams 350 grams 336 grams 342 grams 355 grams 341 grams 324 grams 355 grams 331 grams 327 grams 342 grams 325 grams Table VII Seventh Week Average Weight of Birds Receiving the Twelve Test Rations Ration 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 9 10 11 12 Description Average Weight Oorn Basal 586 grams #1 -f 0.25% Antibiotio Preparation 626 grams #1 / Vitamin Mixture 621 grams Oorn-fish Basal 622 grams #4 / 0.25% Antibiotio Preparation 646 grams §4 4 Vitamin Mixture 598 grams Wheat Basal 586 grams #7 / 0.25% Antibiotic Preparation 610 grams #7 / Vitamin Mixture 579 grams Wheat-fish Basal 562 grams #10 / 0.25% Antibiotio Preparation 621 grams #10 / Vitamin Mixture 579 grams 3? FIGURE FIVE FOURTH WEEK AVERAGE WEIGHTS OF BIRDS RECEIVING THE TWELVE TEST RATIONS 1. CORN BASAL 2. «l + 025% ANTIB. 3. *l+ VITAMINS 4. CORN FISH BASAL 5. 84+025% ANTIB. 6. *4 + VITAMINS 7 WHEAT BASAL 8. #7 + 0.25% ANTIB. 9. *7 + VITAMINS 10. WHEAT FISH BASAL 11. *I0 + 0.25% ANTIB. 12. #10 + VITAMINS 0 320 GRAMS 330 340 350 360 40 FIGURE SIX SEVENTH WEEK AVERAGE WEIGHTS OF BIRDS FED THE TWELVE TEST RATIONS 1. CORN BASAL 2. * l • 0.25% ANTB. 3. * l * VITAMINS 4. CORN FISH BASAL 5. *4+ 0.25% ANTIB. 6. #4+ VITAMINS 7 WHEAT BASAL 8. * 7 + 0.2,5% ANTIB. 9. « *7+VITAMINS 10. WHEAT FISH BASAL 11. *I0 * 0.25% ANTIB. 12. #10 + VITAMINS 0 GRAMS 650 41 Table VIII Effioienoy of Feed Ut i l i za t ion (Pounds of Feed per Pound of (Sain) to Four Weeks Average Ration pesoription Effioienoy of Basals 1 Corn Basal 2.12 2 #1 / 0,25% Antibiotic Preparation 1.95 ) 2.02 3 #1 / Vitamin Mixture 1.98 4 Corn-fish Basal 2.02 5 #4 / 0.25% Antibiotic Preparation 1.95 ) 1.98 6 #4 / Vitamin Mixture 1.98 Wheat Basal 2.23 #7 / 0.25% Antibiotio Preparation 2.11 J 2.20 9 #71/ Vitamin Mixture 2.26 10 Wheat-fish Basal 2.41 11 #10 / 0.25% Antibiotio Preparation 2.32 ) 2.33 10 #io / Vitamin Mixture 2.2? FIGURE SEVEN F E E D EFFICIENCY TO FOUR W E E K S (POUNDS OF F E E D P E R POUND OF G A I N ) 1. CORN BASAL 2. « l + 0.25% ANTIB. 3. «l + VITAMINS 4. CORN FISH BASAL 5. #4 + 025% ANTIB. 6. *4 + VITAMINS 7 WHEAT BASAL 8. * 7 - 0.25% ANTIB. 9. #7+ VITAMINS 10. WHEAT FISH BASAL 11. » I 0 + 0.25% ANTIB. 12. « I 0 - VITAMINS 2.50 2.40 2.30 2.20 2.10 2.00 1.90 43 Table IX Analysis of Variance from Ration to Ration; Fourth Week Minimum S i g n i f i -Souree of Error Sum of Squares D.F. variance cant Differenoe 5% 1%"" Total 355,181 616 Ration 58,554 12 4,879* 19.7 27.6 Error 296,627 604 491 * Significant at p s 0.01 B. Analysis of Variance from Treatment to Treatment:Fourth Week Source of Error Sum of Squares D.F. Varianoe Minimum Signifi-oant Difference 5% 1% Total Basals Supplements Interaction Error 355,181 16,227 39,731 2,596 296,627 616 3 5,410* 2 19,866* 6 433 605 490 5.05 4.32 6.67 5.68 * Significant at p = 0.01 43 * Table X A. Analysis of Variance from Ration to Ration; Seventh Week Source of Error Sum of Squares D.F. Variance o^t^D^ff erenoe" 5* 156 Total 1,876,872 606 Ration 342,600 12 28,550* 19*7 27.6 Error 1,534,272 594 8,582 * Significant at p- 0.01 B. Analysis of Variance from Treatment to Treatment;Seventh Week i MjplTrmTn Signif i-Souroe of Error Sum of Squares D.F. Variance cant Difference 5% 1# Total 1,876,872 606 Basal 116,996 3 38,999* 11.53 15.22 Supplements 154,593 2 77,296* 9.96 13.14 Interaction 71,011 6 11,835* 20.28 27.05 Error 1,534,272 595 2,578 Significant at p = 0.01 44 TEST TWO Introduction Large amounts of feed screenings are available each year for inclusion i n poultry ration at a cost con-siderably lower than that of other grains. The seoond test was established to assay the nutrit ive value of N o . i l reoleaned ground feed screenings in poultry rations and to study the supplementary value of an antibiotic preparation upon such rations. No. 1 reoleaned ground feed screenings by Govern-ment statute consist of wild buckwheat, broken and shrunken grain and small proportions of other seeds of feeding value and wheat scourings. Not more than 7% crude f ibre , 3% small weed seeds, chaff and dust, 5% ba l l mustard, &% small weed seeds, chaff, dust and bai l mustard combined and not more than 8% wild oats may be present in No. 1 reoleaned ground feed screenings. Purpose 1. To study the effect of the part ia l replaoement of a mixture of grains in a practical ohiok starting ration with No. 1 reoleaned ground feed screenings. 2, To study the supplementary value of a commercial antibiotic fermentation preparation on a practical chick starting ration and a No. 1 reoleaned feed screening modification of the practical chick starting rat ion. 45 Methods and Procedure The experimental methods of this test are similar to those of the preceding test except that quadruplicate lots of thirty leghorn pullets were distributed at random. The test period was four weeks. Ration #1 i s a type of starting ration commonly used at the Poultry Nutrit ion Laboratory. The 72% cereal portion of this ration i s composed of a mixture of five grains, of which wheat and wheat by-produots contribute the most to the mixture. In ration #2 one-half of the grain mixture of r a t i o n a l was replaced with No. 1 reoleaned ground feed screenings, the rat io of the grain mixture remaining as i n ration #1. The supplementary value of a commercial antibiotic preparation* produced by Streptomyces aureofaoiens fermenta-t ion and containing 1.8 grams of aureomyoin hydrochloride and 1.8 milligrams of vitamin B 1 2 per pound of preparation was tested by including 0.3% of the preparation i n the two basals, i . e . , ration #3 and ration #4. This level of supplementation supplied 5.4 milligrams of aureomyoin per pound of mash. *Lederle Laboratories. 46 Results The ohioks receiving the ration in whioh one-half of the mixed grains was replaced with No. 1 reoleaned ground feed screenings (#2, #4), grew at essentially the same rate as the chicks receiving a mixture of grains (#1, #3) but no screenings, averaging 353 and 354 grams respectively at four weeks of age. The above averages were calculated from the birds reoeiving the ration with and without antibiotic supplementat ion. The birds receiving the unsupplemented mixed grain ration (#1) averaged 348 grams at four weeks of age, which was s l ight ly higher than the weight of the birds receiving the unsupplemented screening ration (#2) the latter averaging 339 grams. However, this weight difference was not statis-t i c a l l y s ignif icant. There was no s t a t i s t i ca l ly significant difference i n the growth response when the two basals were supplemented with the antibiotio preparation, though the birds reoeiving the supplemented ration did weigh more than the birds re-oeiving the unsupplemented rations. The average weight of the birds reoeiving the two supplemented rations (#3, #4) was 363 grams or twenty grams heavier than the bird? reoei-ving the unsupplemented basals (#1, #2). The birds reoeiving the supplemented mixed grain ration (#3) and the supplemented screenings ration (#4) averaged 359 end 367 grams respectively as compared to the 348 grams and 339 grams of their respective unsupplemented basals. 47 Replacing one h a l f of the grain mixture witjft No. 1 reoleaned ground feed screenings (#2) did not appreciably decrease the e f f i c i e n c y of feed u t i l i z a t i o n . 2.56 pounds of the screenings r a t i o n (#2) being required to produce a pound of gain, as oompared to 2.48 pounds of the mixed grain r a t i o n (#1). A n t i b i o t i o supplementation increased the e f f i o i e n o y with whioh the screenings r a t i o n (#4) was u t i l i z e d from 2.56 pounds to 2.46 pounds per pound of gain. Supplementation of the mixed grain r a t i o n (#3) did not appreciably a l t e r the ef f i o i e n o y of feed u t i l i z a t i o n . Conclusion 1. No. 1 reoleaned ground feed screenings s a t i s f a c t o r i l y replaoed one-half of a mixture of grains i n a p r a c t i -c a l chick s t a r t i n g r a t i o n . 2. The ohioks receiving the a n t i b i o t i o supplemented r a t i o n were s l i g h t l y heavier at four weeks than the chicks receiving the unsupplemented rations. 3. The e f f i o i e n o y by whioh the screenings r a t i o n was u t i l i z e d was comparable to a r a t i o n with mixed grains. Supplementation of both rations with an a n t i b i o t i c preparation increased the e f f i c i e n c y of feed u t i l i -zation. 48a Table I Composition of Rations Ingredients Grains: Wheat Corn Oats Bran Middlings Soreenings Premiz: F i shmeal Meat so rap Soybean O i l Meal (Solvent) Dehydrated Cereal Grass Limestone B-Y Iodized NaCl Feeding Oi l (1200 A; 400 D) Choline Chloride {25%) MnS04 V i t . D* Ca Pantothenate Nicotinic Acid Riboflavin Ration I 37.92 10.14 10.14 6.78 6.78 Ration II 18.96 3.07 5.07 3.39 3.39 35.95 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.125 grams 0.125 grams 0.20 grams 0.20 grams 0.025 % 0.025 I 18,000 I .U. 18,000 I .U. 0.20 grams 0.20 grams 0.25 grams 0.25 grams 0.0625 grams 0.0625 > grams Ration III = I / 0.3% Antibiotic Preparation (Lederle's Aureofao). Ration IV = II / 0.3% Antibiotio Preparation (Lederle's Aureofao). 48b Table II Fourth Week Average Weights 1. Grain Mixture 2. No. 1 Feed Screenings 3 . Grain Mixture / Antibiotio 4. No. 1 Feed Screenings / Antibiotic 348 grams 339 grams 339 grams 367 grams Efficiency of Feed Ut i l i za t ion (Pounds of Feed per Pound of Gain) to Four Weeks 1. Grain Mixture 2.47 2. No. 1 Feed Screenings 2.56 3. Grain Mixture / Antibiotic 2.50 4 . No. 1 Feed Screenings / Antibiotio 2.46 4?a F I G U R E ONE FOURTH WEEK AVERAGE WEIGHTS 1. GRAIN MIXTURE 2. # I -i- NO. I FEED SCREEN'S 3. * H ANTIBIOTIC 4. #2. + ANTIBIOTIC 0 330 340 350 360 370 GRAMS F I G U R E T W O F E E D E F F I C I E N C Y T O F O U R W E E K S (POUNDS OF FEED PER POUND OF GAIN) 2.60 2.55 2.50 2.45 2.40 4?b Table III . Rations (%)  1 2 3 4 Grain Screen Ingredients Grain Screen / / Basal Basal Antib. Antib. Mixed Grains No. 1 Ground Reoleaned Feed Screenings Antibiotio Preparation (Lederle) Premix 71,8% 35.9% 71.8% 35.9% — 35.9% —^ 35.9% — 0 . 3 % 0.3% . . . . . . . . . a s in Table I Average Weight at Four Weeks (Grams) Feed Efficiency (Feed/Gain) No. of ohioks at beginning of Experiment No. of ohioks at termination of Experiment 348 f V 2.47 W . 2,56 359 3^3 2.50 367 2.46 153 138 156 141 160 147 156 141 Table IY Analysis of Variance Source of Error Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Variance Total Treatment A (Basals) Treatment B (iAntib) Replicates A x B A x Replicates B x Replicates A x B x Replicates 1,079,074 566 19 1 19 54,667 1 54,667 49,755 3 16,585 9,480 1 9,480 89,837 3 29,946 27,768 3 9,256 131,132 3 43,711* *used as testing error 50 TBST THBBB Introduotion It would appear upon examining the results of Test One that the Connecticut broi ler ration could be modified without reducing the degree by whieh i t promoted the growth of ohioxs. In Test Three, livermeal whioh i s both costly and i n short supply, was replaced with less costly and more readi-l y available vitamin supplements. Not only were these vitamin supplements less oostly and more readily available but various reports indicate that they may contain unknown faotor/s. The studies of replacement value of wheat for oorn i n the Connecti-cut broi ler ration and the supplementary value of an antibiotio preparation were further pursued. Purpose 1. To determine the effect of substituting wheat for oorn i n the Connecticut broi ler rat ion. 2. To study the effeot of a commercial antibiotio fermentation product i n supplementing the Connecti-cut broi ler rat ion. £ . To study the effeot of replacing the livermeal oon-tent of the Connecticut broi ler ration with the more readily available dried brewers* yeast and dried com d i s t i l l e r s ' solubles. 4* To study the effeot of increasing the o i l oontent of the wheat ration to parity with that of the oorn 52 of protein i n the ration (#5); (o) replaoing the oorn of the Connecticut broi ler ration with wheat I and adding corn o i l to compensate for the normally lower level of o i l i n the wheat (#9); (d) supplementing rations #3 and #4 (see above) with Q»5% of a commercial antibiotic fermentation preparation* (#11 and #13 respectively); (e) supplementing ration #3 with 5% whey (#10) to test for the presence of other unidentified faotor/s in the whey that may or may not be supplied by the Connecticut broi ler ration or the antibiotic pre-paration. The value of a combination of oorn d i s t i l l e r s ' solu-bles and brewers' yeast in replacing the livermeal content of the Connecticut broi ler ration and wheat modification thereof was tested (#6, #7 and #8). The value of fishmeal as sole protein supplement i n the Connecticut broi ler ration was tested (#14). i l e . f meatmeal and soybean o i l meal were omitted. The effect of a commercial antibiotio fermentation preparation containing 1.8 grams of aureomyoin per pound was **• Aureofao", produced by Lederle Laboratories. 53 tested by adding 0.5% of the preparation to the Connecticut broi ler ration (#11 and #13) and to the Connectiont ration with fishmeal (#13). Results The f i f t h week and ninth week average weights, ave-rage of duplicates, i . e . , male and female, are recorded in Table III and Table IV respectively and are shown graphically i n Figures I and II . The fourth to the f i f t h week feed ef-ficiency (pounds of feed consumed per pound of gain) i s recor-ded i n Table V and graphically represented in Figure III . The birds receiving the Connecticut groiler ration (#2) averaged 53 grams more than the birds receiving the U.B.C. rat ion. This weight difference was not s t a t i s t i ca l ly s igni-ficant (see Table II) . Although there was no significant difference, i n the weights of the chicks receiving the two rations there was a marked difference i n the efficiency of feed u t i l i z a t i o n i n favour of the Connecticut broi ler ration, the la t ter being 2.26 as compared to 2,56 of the U.B.C. rat ion. The two sexes reaoted similarly to the test rations. Wheats I and II (rations #3 and #4) successfully replaoed the oorn of the Connecticut broi ler ration (#2), there being no s t a t i s t i ca l ly significant weight difference in the chicks receiving these rations. However, the average weights of the chicks receiving the Connecticut broi ler ration (#2) were s t a t i s t i ca l ly superior to those of the chicks recei-ving the ration containing the high protein wheat I adjusted to the protein oontent of the Connecticut broiler, rat ion. The feed u t i l i z a t i o n of these rations was variable, the wheat rations #3, §4 and #5 being less ef f ic ient ly u t i l i z ed than was the Connecticut rat ion. The high protein Wheat I ration adjusted to a lower protein level and the low protein wheat II ration were more ef f ic ient ly u t i l i zed than was the high protein wheat II ration not adjusted to a lower protein level (#3), giving an effioienoy of 2.63 and 2.6? as oompared to 2.87 of the l a t te r . From the preceding i t w i l l be seen that good quality wheat can replace the corn of the Connecticut broi ler ration on a pound per pound basis, i f however, the higher protein oontent of wheat I was compensated for by lowering the level of supplementary protein in the rat ion, wheat could not replace the c o m . When a combination of brewers' yeast and oorn dis-t i l l e r s ' solubles replaoed the livermeal oontent of the Con-necticut broi ler ration (#3) wheat I ration (#7) and wheat I adjusted to a lower level of protein ration (#8), there was no significant difference in the ninth week average weights. Of these rations #6, #7 and #8, the Connecticut modified ration (#6) gave the most eff icient feed u t i l i z a t i o n (2.27). This was similar to i t s basal ( 2 . 2 6 ) . Wheat I ration adjusted to a lower protein level (#8) gave the least eff icient u t i l i z a t ion of the three rations (2.26), while the u t i l i z a t i o n 55 of the high protein wheat I ration (#7) was 2.60. The results of this test indicate that a combination of com d i s t i l l e r s ' solubles and dried brewers' yeast can sat i s factor i ly replace the livermeal content of the Connecti-cut broiler rat ion. They show, furthermore, that the replace-ment of the livermeal with these two products improved the growth rate of the ohioks fed ration (#5) adjusted to a lower protein l e v e l . There was no significant difference between the chicks reoeiving the Connecticut broi ler ration and the chicks fed wheat I ration (#5) adjusted to a lower protein l e v e l . The addition of oorn o i l to the wheat I basal ration (#9) did not s ignif icantly alter the growth response of ohioks fed this rat ion, though the chicks did average 17 grams less than those reoeiving the unaltered basal (#3). The u t i l i z a t i o n of this high oil-wheat ration was more eff icient than that of the unmodified wheat I ration (#3), being 2.31 as compered to 2.87 of the l a t ter . These results indicate that the normally lower o i l oontent of wheat does not affect i t s ab i l i ty to promote the early growth of ohioks. The addition of five per cent whey (#10) did not s ignif icantly alter the results of feeding the wheat I ration (#3) though i t did increase the f ina l average weights of the birds by 23 grams, so that the birds were nearly identical in weight with those fed the unsupplemented Connecticut ration (#2). Also, the efficiency of feedtfcilization was improved to 2.47 as compared to the 2.97 of the unmodified basal. 56 These results indioate that there may be an improvement of a modified Conneotiout ration i n whioh wheat rather than corn i s the prinoipal grain, by the inclusion of whey. Evidently fishmeal ean aot as the sole source of supplementary protein for when meatmeal and soybean o i l meal were eliminated as protein concentrates i n the Connecticut broiler ration (#14) the f ina l average weights of the birds were not s ignif icantly different from those receiving the Connecticut basal (#2) with a i l three ingredients. The efficiency with which ration #14 was u t i l i zed was nearly identical to the efficiency with which the Conneotiout basal ration was u t i l i z e d . The supplementation of the Conneotiout basal ration with the antibiotio preparation markedly improved the growth response of chick £> the rat ion. The addition of the anti-biotio to the Conneotiout bfoi ler ration (#12) gave s i gn i f i -cantly greater growth response as compared to the other test rations except ration #15. which contained wheat I plus anti-biotic and improve^ the efficiency of feed u t i l i z a t i o n to 2.13. The addition of the antibiotio preparation to the high protein wheat ration (#13) e l io i ted a similar response, for this ration was s ignif icantly superior to a l l other rations except to the Connecticut ration with fishmeal as the sole source of supplementary protein (#15): the effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a t i o n of this wheat I ration (#13) was improved to 2.47 a s compared to i t s previous 2.87 of the unsupplemented 57 rat ion. The addition of the antibiotio preparation to the ration which had fishmeal as the sole source of supplementary protein,(#15), s ignif icantly improved the growth response i n chicles receiving this ration over that promoted by the unsup-plemented basal ration (#14)., but i t did not improve the a l -ready good feed efficiency. The addition of the antibiotic preparation to the high wheat rat ion, adjusted to a lower level of protein (#11), increased the growth rate in ohioks receiving this ration to the growth rate of the chicks re-ceiving the Connecticut ration (#2). The effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a t ion was improved by the addition of the antibiotio from 2.8? to 2.35. Conclusions 1. Good quality wheat can replace the oorn of the Conneotiout broiler ration on a pound per pound basis, but the excess protein thus supplied cannot be reduced by lowering the level of supplementary protein. 2. A combination of oorn d i s t i l l e r s ' solubles and brewers' yeast can sat is factori ly replace the livermeal content of the Conneotiout broi ler rat ion. 3. When the fat oontent of the wheat ration was ad-justed to that of the corn ration the growth 58 response promoted by the wheat ration was not altered. 4. The rate of growth of the ohioks fed the Oonneoti-ont broi ler ration i n whioh the oorn was replaoed with wheat was improved by the addition of 5% whey to the ration. j>. The addition of 0.5% of a commercial antibiotio fermentation preparation e l i c i ted a marked growth response and improved the efficiency of feed u t i l i z a t i o n i n the rations to which i t was added. Table I Ration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Description: Stan- Wheat I #2 / #3 / dard Wheat Wheat Adjusted Yeast Yeast U.B.C. Conn. I II to Pro- and and Ingredients (%): tein #2 Solubles Solubles Ground Wheat Ground Corn Ground Oats Ground Bran Middlings Dehydrated Cereal Grass Fishmeal Meatmeal Soybean O i l Meal (Solvent) B-Y Iodized Salt Limestone Bonemeal Feeding Oil (400 D, 1200 A) Pantothenic Acid Choline (25%) Niacin Riboflavin Manganese Sulfate Llvermeal Brewer's Yeast Oorn D i s t i l l e r ' s Solubles Corn O i l Lecithin Dried Whey Antibiotio ^Preparation 40.0 70.4 70.4 80,0 66.24 10.0 70.4 10.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 11.8 5.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 — 8,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 — 0.6 0.6 0.6 0,6 0.6 0.6 1.0 1,0 2.6 ' —— 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0,25 0.25 0.25 g. 0.25 g. 128.0 g. 128.0 g. 128.0 46.0 g. 128.0 g. 128.0 g. 0,9 g. 0>9 g. 0.9 g. 0.9 8. 0.9 g. 0.9 0.227g. 0.22 6,0 s. 11.2 g. 11.2 g. 11.2 g. 11.2 g. 11.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 66.24 1.0 .2 .0 8.0 0.6 0.25 0.9 g. 0.22?g. 11.2 g. 3.0 4.0 5.0 ^Leaerxe's ".aureoiao?-,/ Total 100.32 100.24 100.24 100.24 100.28 100.28 100.24 % Protein 22.8 21.?5 26.64 22.0 23.5 23.6 24.95 to 8 9 10 11 12 !3 14 15 16 #3 4 Yeast and Solubles #3 i O i l #3 / Whey ft / Antib. Prep. #2 / Antib. Prep. #3 / Antib. Prep. Corn-Fish. Corn-Fish / Antib. Conn. 75.8 68.4 65.4 8o.O 70.4 70.4 74.0 74.0 70.4 1.0 13.5 13,0 mm mm 0.6 -1.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 1.0 0,6 1.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 i .o 0.6 1.0' 11.8 1.0 0.6 1.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 1.0 0.6 1.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 1.0 0.6 1.0 18,4 mm mm mm mm 1.0 0.6 1.0 18,4 1.0 0.6 1.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 1.0 0.6 2.6 0,25 0.25 0.25 2.6 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.8 0.25 1.8 0.25 0.25 128.0 0,9 g. g. 128.0 0.9 g. g. 128.0 0.9 g. g* 128.0 0.9 g. g. 128.0 0.9 g. g. 128.0 0.9 g. g* 128.0 0,9 g. g. 128.0 0.9 g. g. 128.0 0.9 g. g. 11.2 3.0 4 ,0 g. 11.2 3,0 2.0 11,2 g. g. 11.2 3.0 5.0 g. 11.2 3.0 0,5 g* 11.2 3.0 0.5 g. 11.2 3.0 0.5 g. 11.2 3.0 g. 11.2 3.0 0.5 g. 11.2 3,0 g. 100.24 100.24 100.00 100.76 100.76 100.04 100.56 100.56 100.24 "* 23.0 27.3 25.4 23.9 23.1 26,95 23.3 23.4 21.7 61 Table II Analysis of Varianoe Source of Error S.S. d . f . Varianoe Total 12.320,112 600 203,333. Sex 3,379,469 1 3,379,469*. Ration 1,673,026 15 111,668** Interaction 270,682 15 18,045 Error 6,994,935 569 12,293 ^Significant at p s 0.01 ^Minimum Significant Difference: at " t " 5 0.01 a 51.1 at »t«»; » 0.05 = 68.8 62 Table III Fi f th Week Average Weights Ration Description Average Weight* #1 Standard U.B.C. 443 2 Connecticut Basal 483 3 Wheat I Basal 462 4 Wheat II Basal 444 5 #3 Adjusted to Protein 453 6 #2 / Yeast and Solubles 441 7 #3 / Yeast and Solubles 472 8 #5 f Yeast and Solubles 455 9 #3 / O i l 473 10 #3 / Whey 483 11 #5 / Antibiotio 464 12 #2 / Antibiotio 556 13 #3 / Antibiotio 548 14 Conn, with Fishmeal 436 15 #14 / Antibiotio 500 16 Conn. (#2) 466 "Average of Duplicates (Male and Female) 63 F I G U R E TWO F I F T H WEEK A V E R A G E WEIGHTS 1. STANDARD U. B.C. 2. CONNECTICUT BASAL 3. WHEAT I B A S A L 4. WHEAT n BASAL 5. #2 ADJUSTED TO PROTEIN 6. #2 + BREWERS' YEAST + CORN DISTILLERS' SOLUBLES' ' 7. #3 + BREWERS' YEAS T + CORN DlSTILERS' SOLUBLES 8. #5 + BREWERS' YEAST + CORN DISTILLERS'SOLUBLES 9. #3 + CORN OIL 10. t»3 + WHEY 11. » 5 + ANTIBIOTIC I 2. « 2 + ANTIBIOT IC 13. * 3 + ANTIBIOTIC 14. CONNECTICUT WITH FISHMEAL 15. * 14 ••- ANTIBIOTIC 16. CONNECTICUT BASAL (#2) 0 400 430 460 490 5 20 550 GRAMS 64 Table IV Mlnth Week Average Weights Rati on Description #1 Standard U.B.C. 2 Conneotiout Basal 3 Wheat I Basal 4 Wheat II Basal 5 #3 Adjusted to Protein 6 f2 / Yeast and Solubles S #3 / Yeast and Solubles £5 / Yeast and Solubles 9 |3 ^ O i l 10 #3 / IJbey 11 #3 ^ A n t i b i o t i o 12 #2 / Antibiotio 13 #3 / A n t i b i o t i o 14 Conn, with Fishmeal 15 #14 / Antibiotio 16 Oonn. (#2). Average Weight 922 977 953 932 848 968 954 911 93f 976 931 1074 1055 908 1000 956 65 F I G U R E T H R E E NINTH WEEK A V E R A G E WEIGHTS 1. STANDARD U.B.C. 2. CONNECTICUT BASAL 3. WHEAT I BASAL 4. WHEAT IT BASAL 5. 02 ADJUSTED TO PROTEIN 6. «*2 * (BREWERS') Y E A S T ' CORN DISTILLERS' SOLUBLES 7. »3 • DISTILLERS' SOLUBLES 8. * 5 • DISTILLERS' SOLUBLES 9. « 3 + OIL 10. * 3 + WHEY 11. » 5 + ANTIB. 12. » 2 • ANTIB. 13. #3 • ANTIB. 14. CONNECTICUT WITH FISHMEAL 15. t|4 + ANTIB. 16. CONNECTICUT BASAL ( » 2 ) 0 GRAMS 880 920 960 1000 1040 1080 Table V Fourth-Fifth WeeJc Feed Bffloienoy (Pounds of Feed per Pound of Gain) Ration pesorlption Efficiency #1 Standard U.B.C. 2.56 2 Conneotiout Basal 2.26 3 Wheat I Basal 2.87 4 Wheat II Basal 2.65 5 #3 Adjusted to Protein 2.62 6 #2 / Y e a s t and Solubles 2.27 7 #3 / Y e a s t and Solubles 2.60 8 #5 / Yeast and Solubles 2.76 9 #3 f O i l 2.31 10 #3 / Whey 2.47 11 #5 / Antibiotio 2.35 12 #2 / Antibiotio 2.13 13 # 3 / Antibiotio 2.43 14 Conn, with Fishmeal 2.2? 15 #14 / Antibiotio 2.27 16 Conn. (#2) 1.98 67 FIGURE FOUR FEED EFFICIENCY FROM 4-5 WEEKS (POUNDS OF F E E D CONSUMMED PER POUND' OF GAIN) 1. STANDARD U.B.C. 2. CONNECTICUT BASAL 3. WHEAT I BASAL 4. WHEAT II BASAL 5. * 2 ADJUSTED TO PROTEIN 16. *2 * (BREWERS') YEASTS-CORN DISTILLERS' SOLUBLES 7. 1*3 + DISTILLERS' SOLUBLES 8. *5 • DISTILLERS' SOLUBLES 9. * 3 * 0 I L 10. #3 • WHEY 11. * 5 + ANTIB. 12. #2 + ANTIB, 13. #3 + ANTIB. 14. CONNECTICUT WITH FISHMEAL 15. *I4 * ANTIB. 16. CONNECTICUT BASAL t*2) -3:00 275 2.50 Z25 2.00 Table VI  Overall Feea Efficiency (Total Pounds of Feed per Pound of Gain, from 0 to 9 weeks). Desoription Efficiency Standard U*B.G. 2.44 Connecticut Basal 2.77 Wheat I Basal 2.44 Wheat II Basal 2.65 t3 Adjusted to Protein 2.58 / Yeast and Solubles 2.32 / Yeast and Solubles 2.34 / Yeast and Solubles 2.63 „ . / O i l 2.37 #3 /Whey 2.55 U / Antibiotio 2.41 lZ / Antibiotio 2.26 *3 / Antibiotio 2.47 Oonn. with Fiahmeal 2.72 #14 yf Antibiotio 2.21 Oonn. (#2) 2.31 FIGURE FIVE O V E R - A L L FEED EFFICIENCY FROM 0 -9 WEEKS ( P O U N D S OF F E E D PER POUND OF GAIN) 1. STANDARD U.B.C. 2. CONNECTICUT BASAL 3. W H E A T I B A S A L 4 W H E A T II B A S A L 5. #2 A D J U S T E D TO PROTEIN 6. ^ 2 +BREWERS ' Y E A S T -»-CORN D I S T I L L E R S ' S O L U B L E S 7. ii3---BREWERS' Y E A S T -CORN DISTILLERS" SOLUBLES 8. * 5 + BREWERS' Y E A S T +CORN D I S T I L L E R S ' S O L U B L E S 9. #3 -+- C O R N OIL 10. #3 + WHEY 11. * 5 +• ANTIBIOTIC 12. * 2 ••- A N T I B I O T I C 13. « 3 + A N T I B I O T T C 14. CONNECTICUT WITH FISHMEAL 15. * I 4 +• A N T I B I O T I C 16. C O N N E C T I C U T B A S A L ( # 2 ) TBST FOUR Introduction It would appear from examining the results of Test Two that No. 1 reoleaned ground feed screenings oould replace the mixed grains of a practical chick starting rat ion; however, these results did not indicate that screenings oould replace the grain of a Connecticut type rat ion. Test Four was de-signed to study the effeot of replacing the corn of the Connecticut broi ler ration with No. 1 reoleaned ground feed screenings, and to study the supplementary value of two A . P . F . preparations, whey and arsonio acid to the Connecticut broi ler rat ion. Whey and arsonio acid have been reported to stimulate the growth of chicks. Purpose 1. To study the supplementary effect of two A . P . F . (animal protein faotor/s) preparations, one of whioh contains aureomyoin hydrochloride and the other procaine p e n i c i l l i n , upon a modified Conneotiout broiler ration in which one-half of the cereal portion i s wheat. 2. To study the supplementary value of whey and arsonio acid (para hydroxy phenyl arsonio aoid) upon the modified Conneotiout broi ler ration in wiioh one-half of the cereal portion i s wheat. 71 3. To study the supplementary value of the two A.P .F . preparations containing antibiot ics , whey and arsonio acid upon the Connecticut broi ler ration i n vh ioh No. 1 reoleaned feed screenings was the sole constituent of the cereal portion. Methods and Procedure The experimental procedure and methods of this test were similar to those of the preceding tests except that day old New Hampshire eookerals were randomized into fifteen duplicate lo t s of twenty ohioks per l o t . The test period was seven and a hal f weeks, at which time the birds were marketed and graded by Dominion Poultry Inspectors. The formula by whioh the basal rations were pre-pared was patterned after Scott, with the modification that i n rations #1 - #11 f i f t y percent of the oorn of the or ig inal formula was replaoed by wheat; and that in rations #12 - #15, the oorn was to ta l ly replaced by No. 1 reoleaned feed screenings. The wheat-oorn basal ration was supplemented with two commercial A . P . F . preparations containing ant ibiot ics . A . P . F . I * preparation contained 1.8 grams of aureomyoin hydro-chloride per pound, while A.P .F . I I * * preparation contained 2.0 grams of procaine p e n i c i l l i n per pound. These produots were included at three levels in the wheat oorn rations: ^produced by Lederle Laboratories *%>roduoed by Merck & Go. 72 (a) manufacturers' recommended leve l ; (b) 0.5 x recommended leve l ; (o) 2.0 x recommended l eve l . The A .P .F . preparations were included only at the recommended level in the feed screenings rations. The growth response to arsonio acid (para hydroxy phenyl arsonio aoi<S) was tested by supplementing the wheat-oorn basal ration and feed screenings basal rations with 0.005% of the acid. Also the response to a combination of 0.005% arsonio acid and the reoommended level of the A .P .F . preparations was tested i n both types of basal rations. The composition of the basal rations and the sup-plements to the basal rations are given in Table I. Results The average weights of the chicks at four and six weeks are recorded i n Table II and Table III and are graphically represented in Figures I and II . The fourth to the sixth week efficiency of feed uti l izat ion, pound of feed consumed per pound of gain, i s reoorded in Table IV and represented graphically in Figure III. The per centage of the birds graded as •'A'* in each lot by Dominion Poultry Inspectors i s presented in Table V and i n Figure IV. The results of the s ta t i s t i ca l analysis of varianoe are reoorded in Table VI and in Figure IV. 73 The addition of A.P .F , I preparation to the wheat-corn rations (#2, #3 and #4) oaused a s ignif icantly greater growth response i n ohioks than did the unsupplemented basal rat ion (#1). At the 5% level there was no s t a t i s t i ca l di f-ference i n the growth rate of the ohioks receiving the three different levels of supplementation of A .P .F . I preparation. However, at the 1% l eve l the chicks receiving the wheat-corn rations supplemented with the lower levels of the A . P . F . preparation ( i . e . , 0.25% and 0.125% or recommended and 0.5 z recommended) weighed signif icantly more than did the ohieks receiving the higher level of supplementation (0.5% or 2,0 x recommended). Evidently even at one-half pt the recommended level this supplement supplied sufficient antibiotio act ivi ty to stimulate optimum growth. The addition of A . P . F . I pre-paration increased the effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a t i o n from 2.76 with the unsupplemented basal (#1) to 2,59 at the re-commended level (or 0.25% supplementation), 2.49 at 0,5 x recommended level (0.125% supplementation), and 2.46 at 2,0 x recommended level (0.5% supplementation). From the preceding i t i s evident that the supplemen-tation of the wheat-corn Conneotiout broiler ration with an A , P , F . preparation containing aureomyoin improved the growth response and efficiency of feed u t i l i z a t i o n , Supplementation at the recommended level (0.25%), supplying 2,25 milligrams of aureomyoin per pound of mash, supplied sufficient antibiotio act iv i ty to stimulate a greater growth response (6% greater) i n ohioks and better efficiency of feed u t i l i z a t i o n than did a ration containing no ant ibiot io . A higher level of supple-mentation than the recommended level did not encourage a greater growth response or better efficiency of feed u t i l i z a t i o n . There was no significant difference in the growth response in ohioks when the same levels of supplementation (recommended, 0.5 x recommended and 2,0 x recommended) of the two A . P . F . preparations I and II were compared. The 2,0 x recommended (0,1% supplementation), recommended leve l (0,05%) with A . P . F . II preparation were s ignif icantly superior to the lower level or 0.5 x recommended (0,025% supplementation) of the same preparation. The intermediate level of supplementa-t ion (0.05% or recommended) in ration #5 gave the most e f f i -cient feed u t i l i s a t i o n of either A .P .F , preparation, the efficiency of u t i l i z a t i o n being 2 .39. The lower and higher levels of supplementation (#6 and #7) with A . P . F . II prepara-tion gave identioal effioieney of feed u t i l i z a t i o n ( 2 . 4 8 ) . The supplementation of the wheat-corn basal rat ion with A . P . F . II preparation whioh oontained p e n i o i l l i n e l i c i t e d a significant growth response of ohioks i n a l l rations to whioh i t was added. The higher levels of supplementation, i . e . , supplying one or two milligrams of p e n i o i l l i n per pound of feed, gave the most satisfactory growth rate, promoting a 7% increase, and efficiency of feed u t i l i z a t i o n . 75 Supplementation of the wheat-oorn basal ration with 0.005% arsonio acid (#8) gave a s ignif icantly greater growth response in chicks than did the unsupplemented wheat-corn basal. The chicks reoeiving the supplemented ration (#8) averaged 738 grams at six weeks of age as compared to 710 grams i n the ohioks reoeiving the unsupplemented basal ration (#1). Arsonio acid supplementation did not promote as great a growth rate as did the rations containing the higher levels of the A .P .F . II preparation, which averaged 761 grams (0.05% supplementation) (#5) and 758 grams at the 0.10% supplementa-tion leve l (#7). The addition of arsonio acid to the wheat-oorn basal (#8) did not improve the growth response over that of any one of the wheat-oorn basals and A.P .F . I. The combination of the recommended levels of A . P . F . I or II preparation and arsonio aoid gave a s ignif ioantly greater growth response when added to the wheat-oorn basal than did the wheat-oorn plus arsonio aoid alone. The ohioks reoeiving A .P .F . I plus arsonio aoid (#9) averaged 756 grams. Those receiving A.P .F . II plus arsonio aoid (#10) averaged 763 grams while those reoeiving only arsonio aoid supplemen-tation (#8) averaged only 738 grams. The efficiency of feed u t i l i z a t ion was not improved over that of the unsupplemented basal (#1) by the addition of arsonio aoid (#8), but remained at 2.76. The addition of 0.25% A.P .F . I preparation to the basal rations containing 0.005% arsonio aoid (#9) improved the efficiency of feed u t i l i z a t i o n from 2.76 of the basal 76 plus arsonio aoid (#8) to 2.67 (#9); the addition of A.P.J. II preparation to the basal plus arsonio aoid (#10) inoreased the effioienoy to 2.60. These results indloate that the inclu-sion of arsonio aoid i n the Oonneotiout broi ler ration i s beneficial i n encouraging early ohiok growth, but not i n increasing the effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a t i o n . Supplementation of the Conneotiout broi ler ration with both arsonio aoid and an A.P.F. preparation containing an antibiotio i s not warranted. Supplementation with an A . P.F. preparation containing an anti-biotic i s superior to supplementation with a combination of A.P.F. preparation and arsonio acid. The addition of j% whey to the wheat-corn basal ration (#11) did not improve the growth response of the ohioks receiving this ration nor was the effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a t ion improved, in comparison to the basal (#1). The ration formulated with No. 1 reoleaned feed screenings as the principal grain gave poorer growth responses when oompared to the rations with wheat and oorn. The un-supplemented feed screenings basal (#12) averaged 672 grams at s ix weeks as compared to 710 grams in the ohioks receiving the unsupplemented wheat-corn basal (#1). The addition of 0.25% of A . P . F . I preparation (#13) did not s ignif icantly a l ter the growth response, the birds averaging eleven grams less than the birds receiving the feed screenings basal (#12). The addition of 0.05% A.P.F. II preparation (#14) to the feed screenings basal s ignif icantly improved the growth response of the ohioks over that recorded for the ohioks reoelying the 77 unsupplemented feed soreenings basal (#12), averaging 69I grams as compared to 676 grams. The supplementation of the feed screenings basal with 0.05% A . P . F . II preparation (#14) gave better efficiency of feed u t i l i s a t ion than did the A . P . F . I preparation (#13) for the former was 2,70 as compared to 2.89 of the l a t ter . However, the addition of A .P .F , II preparation did not improve the efficiency over that of the unsupplemented basal ration (#12), whioh was 2.67. The addition of 0.005% arsonio aoid (#15) did not improve the growth response i n ohioks over that of the ohioks reoeiving the feed soreenings basal (#12), the average sixth week weights being 674 grams as oompared to 672 grams. The effioienoy with whioh the arsonio aoid supplemented ration (#15) was u t i l i zed was markedly poorer than the u t i l i z a t i o n of the unsupplemented basal (#12), being 2.97 for the feed soreaning plus arsonio aoid as oompared to 2.67 for the un-supplemented basal. These results indioate that Ho. 1 reoleaned ground feed soreenings cannot sat is factori ly act as the sole grain in a ration patterned after the Conneotiout broi ler rat ion. The addition of an A .P .F . preparation supplying one milligram of pen io i l l in per pound of feed (0.05% supplementation) s ignif icantly improved the growth response of ohioks reoeiving the soreenings basal rat ion, but did not improve the e f f i -oienoy of feed u t i l i z a t i o n . Supplementation of the soreenings basal ration with 0.25% of an A .P .F . preparation containing 78 aureomyoin (4.5 milligrams per pound of feed) or 0.005% arsonio aoid did not improve the growth response of ohioks or the effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a t i o n either when supplemented singly or i n combination. Conclusion 1. Supplementation of a modified Connecticut broi ler ration i n which one-half of the oereal portion was oomposed of wheat with either an aureomyoin fermentation product or a p e n i c i l l i n fermentation product s ignif icantly improved the growth of ohioks and the effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a t i o n . The aureomyoin produot effectively promoted the growth of ohioks at 0.25% or 0.125% levels of supplementation, thus supplying 4.5 or 2.25 milligrams of antibiotio per pound of feed. One or 2.0 milligrams of pen ic i l l in , per pound of feed or 0.05% of 0.1% level of supplementation with the p e n i c i l l i n product was sufficient to promote growth i n ohioks and to increase efficiency of feed u t i l i z a t i o n . 2. Supplementation of a modified Connecticut broi ler ration in whioh a l l the oereal portion was oomposed of No. 1 reoleaned feed screenings with an aureomyoin preparation (0.25%) did not improve the growth response of ohieks at the level of supplementation used in this test over the response to the unsupplemented basal ration. Supplementation with 0.05% of a p e n i c i l l i n product improved the growth,response i n ohieks to that of the unsupplemented basal. The improved 79 growth rate, however, was not so good as that of the ohioks receiving the unsupplemented wheat-corn Conneotiout broi ler rat ion. 3. No. 1 reoleaned feed screenings when incorporated into the Connecticut broi ler ration as the sole grain, did not promote as great a growth response in ohioks as did a combina-t ion of wheat and oorn. The effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a t ion was lower with the feed screenings ration than with the ration with corn and wheat. 4. The addition of 0.003% arsonio acid to a modified Conneotiout broi ler ration containing wheat and oorn as the only grains, improved the growth rate of ohioks fed this rat ion. 80 Table I A* Composition of Basal Rations Basal I Basal II Ingredients W (1) Wheat 34,78 Com 34.78 69.35 No, 1 Reoleaned Ground Feed Soreenings 8,00 Fishmeal 8,00 Soybean O i l Meal (Solvent) 8,00 8.00 Meatmeal 8.00 8,00 Livermeal 3.00 3.00 B-Y 2.00 2.00 Dehydrated Cereal Grass 1.00 1.00 Sodium Chloride (Iodized) 0.5 0.5 Feeding Oi l (2000 A; 400 D) Choline Ghlorida (25%) 0.25 0.25 0.44 0.44 MnS04 0.025 0.025 Nicotinic Aoid 0.900 0.900 B* Supplements to Basal Rations Supplements Rati ons Basal 1 #1 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I. 9 ' I 10 I .11 I 12 #11 13 II 14 II 15 i i supple ents A.F.S'. I t A.E>.II, Arsonio Whey . . . . . • . „• " . Aoid  *»«•«» — mm ma 0.25% 0.125% 0.5% • — - 0.05% 0.025% 0.1% — -™ 0.005% — 0.25% — * 0.005% -«?-.. 0.05% 0.005% ^ ~ ^ ~ 5%, 0.25% 0.05% 0.005% ^produced by Lederle Laboratories 2produced by Merox & Go. ^replacing 5% of the grain mixture. 81 Table II  Fourth Week Average Weights Ration Description. Average Weight 1 Oorn-Wheat Basal 395 2 #1 / 0.25% A . P . F . I 404 3 #1 / 0.125% A . P . F . I 402 4 #1 / 0.50% A . P . F . I 412.5 5 #1 / 0.05% A . P . F . II 410 6 #1 / 0.025% A . p . F . II 403 7 #1 / 0.10%-A.P.F. II 417 8 #1 / 0.005% ArsonioAoid 402 9 #1 / 0.25% A . P . F . I / 0.005% Arsonio 421 10 # 1 / 0 . 0 5 ? A . P . F . H / 0005% Arsonio 418 11 #1 / 5% Whey \ 391 12 Screenings Bejsal 3©9 13 #12 / 0.25% A .P .F . I 390 14 #12 / 0.05% A .P .F . II 3§5 15 #12 / 0.005% Arsonio Acid 382 FIGURE ONE FOURTH WEEK AVERAGE WEIGHTS 1. CORN WHEAT BASAL 2. * l • 0.25«/o A.RF I 3. * • 0.125% A.RFI 4. * l • 0.50% A.RFI 5. #1* 0.05% A.P.FII 6. m • 0.025% A.P.F. II 7 »l * 0.10% A.P.F. H 8. itl * 0.005% ARSONIC ACID 9. 0.25% A.P.F I* 0.005% ARSONIC ACID 10. t l • 005% A.P.F. H • 0005% ARSONIC ACID 11. * l + 5% WHEY 12 SCREENINGS BASAL 13. **l2 + 0.25% A.RF I 14. « I 2 * 0.05% A.RF II 15. « I 2 + 0.005% ARSONIC ACID 0 360 370 380 390 4 0 0 410 420 GRAMS 83 Table H I  Sixth Week Average Weights Ration Desorlptlon 1 Corn-Wheat Basal 2 #1 4 0.25% A . P . F . I 3 #1 / 0.125% A . P . F . I 4 #1 i 0.50%. A . P . F . I. 5 #1 / 0.05% A . P . F . II 6 #1 / 0.025% A .P .F . II 7 #1 / 0.10% A . P . F . II 8 #1 / 0.005% Arsonio Aoid 9 #1 / 0.25VA.3P.F* I / 0.005% Arsonio 10 #1 / 0.05% A . P . F . I I ' / 0.005% Arsonio 11 # 1 / 5% Whey 12 Screenings Basal 13 #12 / 0.25% A . P . F . I 14 #12 / 0.05% A . P . F . II 15 #12 / 0.005% Arsonio Aoid Average Weight 710 750 737 747 761 737 758 738 756 763 693 672 661 691 674 84 FIGURE TWO SIXTH WEEK A V E R A G E WEIGHTS I. CORN - WHEAT B A S A L 2 #1+ 0 . 2 5 % A.P F. I 3. » l + 0 .125% A.P F I 4. #1 + 0 . 5 0 % A.P F I 5. #1+ 0 . 0 5 % A.P F II 6. * l + 0.025% A.RF II 7. * !+• 0.1% A . P F II 8. # 1 + 0 . 0 0 5 % ARSONICACID 9 *1+- 0 2 5 % A.PFI + 0 .005% ARSONIC ACID 10. #1 + 0 . 0 5 % A . P F II + 0 0 0 5 % A R S O N I C ACID II.. # I + WHEY 12. SCREENINGS B A S A L 13. # 1 2 + 0.25% A . P F . I 14. #12 •+• 0 . 0 5 % A . P F II 15. #1 2 +• 0 .005 % ARSONIC ACID 660 680 700 720 740 7 6 0 GRAMS1 85 Table IV Fourth to Sixth Week Feed Bffioienoy Ration Desoriptlon Bffioienoy 1 Oorn-Wheat Basal 2 #1 / 0.25% A . P . F . I 3 #1 / 0.125% A . P . F . I 4 #1 i 0.50% A . P . F . I 5 #1 / 0.05% A . P . F . II 6 #1 / 0.025% A .P .F . II I #1 / 0.10% A . P . F . II 8 #1 / 0.005% Arsonio Aoid 9 #1 / 0.25% A .P .F . I / 0.005% Arsonio 10 #1 / 0.05% A . P . F . II / 0.005% Arsonio 11 #1 4 5% Whey 12 Soreenings Basal 13 #12 / 0.25% A .P .F . I 14 #12 / 0.05% A .P .F . II 15 #12 / 0.005% Arsonio Aoid 2.76 2.59 2.49 2.46 2.39 2.48 2.48 2.76 2.67 2.60 2.79 2.67 2.89 2.70 2.97 FIGURE THREE FOURTH TO SIXTH WEEK EFFICIENCY (POUNDS OF F E E D P E R P O U N D OF GAIN) 1. CORN-WHEAT BASAL 2. * | + 0 .25% A . P F I 3. » l +0.125% A.P F. I 4. * l + 0 . 5 0 % A.P .F I 5. * l + 0 . 0 5 % A.PF. II 6. * l + 0 . 0 2 5 % A . P F II 7 * | + 0. I O % A . P F II 8 # l + 0 .005% ARSONIC ACID 9. * l + 0.25% A.PF I f 0 . 0 0 5 % ARSONIC ACID 10. #1+0.05% A.P.F +0.005% ARSONIC ACID 11. * l+ 5 % W H E Y 12. S C R E E N I N G S B A S A L 13. "12+0 .25% A . P F I 14. * l 2 + 0 . 0 5 % A . P F II 15. * I 2 + O 0 0 5 % A R S O N I C A C I D 2.48 2 7 9 2.67 2.8 9 2 . 9 7 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 87 Table V Percentage of Birds Graded as WAW Ration Description Mo. Birds % Grade *AW 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 #1 / 0.23% A . P . F . I #1 / 0.125% A . P . F . I fl / 0.50% A . P . F . I #1 i 0 .05% A .P .F . II #1 / 0.025% A . P . F . II #1 / 0.10% A . P . F . II #1 / 0.005% Arsonio Aoid #1 / 0.25% A . P . F . I / 0.005% Arsonio #1 / 0.05% A.P .F . II / 0.005% Arsonio #1 / 5% Whey Screenings Basal #12 / 0.25% A.P .F . I #12 / 0.05% A . P . F . II #12 / 0.005% Arsonio Adid 17/3? 15/39 22/39 21/39 29/39 22/42 mi 24/39 25/42 13/40 11/43 12/40 6/41 9/39 43.6 38.5 56.4 53.8 74.4 52.4 87.0 39.5 61.5 59.5 32.5 25.6 30.0 15.0 23.1 88 FIGURE F O U R PERCENTAGE BIRDS GRADED "A" AT SEVEN AND A HALF WEEKS 1. CORN-WHEAT BASAL 2. *l + 0.25% A .PF I 3. *l+ 0.125%A.RF I 4 *l+ 0.50% A.PF I 5. *l+ 0.05% A.PF H 6 * l+0,025% A.PF II 7 *l+ 0.1% A . P F n 8. *l + 0.005%ARS0NIC ACID 9. * l • 0.25% A.PF r + 0.005 ARSONIC ACID 10. «l + 005% A.RF. II i 0.005% ARSONIC ACIO 11. * l + 5 % WHEY 12. SCREENINGS BASAL 13. *l 2+0.25 % A.PF I 14. »l2-»-0.05% A . P F II 15. *I2+0005%ARSONIC ACID 0 10.0 20 PER CENT 89 Table VI Analysis of varianoe (Sixth Week) Souroe of Error S.S. a . f . Varianoe Total Ration Error 1,183.835 800,468 383,367 603 14 581 I.963* 57,176* 659.8 ^Significant at T = 0.01 90 TEST FIVE Introduction The results of Test One would appear to indicate that fishmeal could be the sole source of supplementary protein in a modified Connecticut broi ler rat ion. There have been reports in the l i terature indicating that soybean o i l meal could also be the sole source of supplementary protein in high energy rations. The following test was designed to more fu l ly evaluate soubean o i l meal, fishmeal and a combination of soybean o i l meal and fishmeal as sources of supplementary protein i n a modified Conneotiout rat ion. The supplementary value of an antibiotic preparation upon the modified Connec-ticut ration is further tested. Purpose 1. To study the effect of soybean o i l meal or fishmeal as the sole source of supplementary protein in a modified Connecticut broi ler rat ion. 2. To study the supplementary value of (a) a fermen-tation antibiotio preparation, (b) fo l io aoid and (o) a combination of fol io acid and the antibiotio preparation upon the ration with soybean o i l meal or fishmeal as the sole source of supplementary protein. 91 3. To study a combination of soybean o i l meal and f i sh-meal as a souroe of supplementary protein in a modi-f ied Conneotiout broi ler rat ion, 4, To study the supplementary value of a commercial antibiotic fermentation product upon the test ration outlined above. Method and Procedure The experimental procedure and methods of this test were similar to those of the preceding testes. Day old white Leghorn cockerels were randomized and distributed into fourteen duplicate lots of twenty chicks per l o t , Rations #1 - #4 were patterned after the Conneotiout formula of Scott, with the modification that one-half of the corn meal whioh composed the entire grain portion of the o r i -ginal formula was replaced with ground wheat as just i f ied by Tests One and Three. The Connecticut broi ler ration was modified in pre-paring rations #5 - #8 in that soybean o i l meal was the sole souroe of supplementary protein, meatsorap and fishmeal not being included. Since the protein oontent of soybean o i l meal i s less than that in fishmeal or meat meal, the level of com and wheat in the ration was reduced to permit the inclusion of a higher level of soybean o i l meal. Limestone and bonemeal were added to the soybean basal ration to maintain the calcium and phosphorus levels . In rations #9 - #12 fishmeal acted 92 as the sole souroe of supplementary protein with the exolusion of soybean o i l meal and meatmeal from the rat ion. The addition of limestone alone was necessary to maintain the calcium and phosphorus levels . The supplementary value of a commercial antibiotio fermentation preparation containing 1.8 grams of aureomyoin hydrochloride per pound was studied by supplementing the three different basal rations with 0.3% of the preparation, i . e . , rations #2, #6 and #10, thus supplying 5.4 milligrams of aureomyoin hydrochloride per pound of mash. Since the levels of feed constituents that act as sources of supplementary protein in commercial ration are somewhat lower i n the Conneotiout broi ler ration, i . e . , nor-mally f ive per cent a l fa l fa meal i s included in many starting rations, however, i n the Connectiout ration only one per cent i s included, the supplementary value of fol io aoid to the Connecticut ration /was studied. Supplementary fo l io acid (0.34 milligrams per pound of mash) was studied in the three different basals, i . e . , rations #3, #7 and #11. A combination of 5.4 milligrams Of the antibiotio (0.3% supplementation) and 0.34 milligrams of f o l i c aoid per pound of mash was included in the three different basals, i . e . , rations #4, #8 and #12. The feeding value of a ration in whioh the supple-mentary protein was supplied by a combination of soybean ^Aureofao", produced by Lederle Laboratories. 93 o i l meal and fishmeal.(ratio 1:1) was tested with and without antibiotio supplementation, i . e . , rations #13 and #14, but without fo l i c aoid supplementation. Since, i f the last two rations were included, the experimental design would not be balanced, i t was not possible to include rations #13 and #14 in the s t a t i s t i ca l analysis. The composition of the basal rations and the supple-ments to the basal rations are recorded in detai l in Table I. Results At six weeks the tota l average.weights of the birds receiving the Conneotiout broi ler ration i . e . , the average weight of the birds receiving both the unsupplemented basal and the supplemented basals (see Table II and Figure I) was 395 grams as compared to 572 grams in the birds receiving the fishmeal rations (#? - #12). This additional growth was significant at the 1% l e v e l . The ohioks receiving the Conneotiout broiler rations and the soybean o i l meal rations grew at essentially the same rate. However, the soybean o i l meal rations (#5 - #8) promoted a s t a t i s t i ca l ly significant greater growth rate than did the fishmeal rations ( # 9 - #12). The average weight of a l l the birds receiving the different basals and amtibiotic supplementations (#2, #6 and #10) averaged 626 grams (see Table II and Figure II), which was s t a t i s t i ca l ly superior to the 559 grams average of the birds receiving the unsupplemented basals (#1, #5 and #11) and to the 595 grams of the birds receiving both the antibiotio and fol io 94 aoid supplementation (#4, #8 and #12). However, the la t ter supplementation, i . e . , with both the antibiotio and fo l io aoid, was superior to the basals and basals plus fo l io aoid. Supplementation of the soybean o i l meal basals or the fishmeal basals with the antibiotio in'oomparison to their unsupplemented basals improved the growth rate more than a similar supplementation of the Conneotiout rat ion, though the birds reoeiving the supplemented soybean o i l meal ration or the fishmeal ration did not attain the f ina l average weight of the birds reoeiving the supplemented Conneotiout rat ion. The supplementation of the Conneotiout basal with the anti-biotio preparation (#2) increased the average weight by 38 grams over that of the unsupplemented basal (#1); however^ the response of the ohioks to the fishmeal ration (#10) and soybean o i l meal ration (#6), when supplemented with the antibiotio was muoh greater, being 78 grams and 83 grams res-pectively. These interactions were s t a t i s t i ca l ly significant. There was a s t a t i s t i ca l ly si gnifleant response to fol io acid supplementation only by the ohioks reoeiving the soybean o i l meal rat ion. Supplementation of the fishmeal or soybean o i l meal basals with both the antibiotio and the fol io aoid e l i c i t ed a greater weight gain than a similar supplementation of the Con-neotiout basal. The birds reoeiving the Conneotiout basal (#1) averaged 593 grams. When both supplements were added to the basal, the average weight was 582 grams or 11 grams less 95 than the basal. The birds receiving the fishmeal basal and both supplements averaged 593 grams as compared to the 550 grams of the unsupplemented basal, a gain of 43 grams over the basal or a total gain of 54 grams more than that encouraged by the Conneotiout basal plus both supplements. The soybean o i l meal basal, when supplemented with both the antibiotio and fo l i c aoid, gained a total of 55 grams more than did the supplemented Conneotiout rat ion. In summary, there were s t a t i s t i ca l ly significant differences i n the extent to which antibiotio supplementation increases the growth response of chicks, depending upon the basal ration fed. The soybean o i l meal basal and the fishmeal basal, when supplemented with the ant ib iot ic , promoted greater growth gains than did similar supplementation of the Connecticut broi ler rat ion. The ration in tiiieh a combination of fishmeal and soybean o i l meal supplied supplementary protein supported good growth. The unsupplemented fish-soybean o i l meal basal (#13) promoted greater growth at six weeks than did the basal ration i n which either concentrate alone was the source of supplementary protein. The ohioks receiving the fisfe-soybean o i l meal basal averaged 571 grams as compared to the 538 grams of the birds receiving the ration i n whioh soybean o i l meal was the sole supplementary protein (#5) , or the 550 grams of the ration in which fishmeal was the sole source of supplementary protein, 9 6 The ohioks reoeiving the Conneotiout b r o i l e r basal with a mixture of soybean o i l meal, fishmeal end meatmeal as sources of supplementary protein averaged 593 grams. The effioienoy with whioh the fishmeal-soybean o i l meal ration was u t i l i z e d was good,.2*48 pounds of feed being required at four weeks to produce a pound of gain. This effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a t i o n was superior to that of the other basal rations except that of the fishmeal basal (#9), whose effioienoy was e s s e n t i a l l y the same, being 2.45* Supplementation of the fishmeal-soybean o i l meal basal with the a n t i b i o t i o preparation (#14) increased the growth response at six weeks from 571 grams to 623 grams, whioh i s l e s s than the growth response promoted by the other supplemented basals. Though the supplementation of the fishmeal-soybean o i l meal basal with the a n t i b i o t i o pre-paration increased the growth response, the effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a t i o n was not appreciably altered, being 2.49. The e f f i c i e n c i e s with whioh the fishmeal-soybean o i l meal rations were u t i l i z e d are i n agreement with the effioienoy data reoorded by the r a t i o n i n waioh fishmeal was the sole souroe of supplementary protein (#9 - #12) for In these rations a n t i b i o t i o supplementation did not appreciably change the e f f i -oienoy of feed u t i l i z a t i o n , being 2.45 f o r the fishmeal basal (#9) and 2.49 f o r the a n t i b i o t i o supplemented ration (#10). Although the sixth week effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a t i o n deoreased, both the fourth and sixth week effioienoy with whioh the fishmeal rations were u t i l i z e d were r e l a t i v e l y uniform, not varying from treatment to treatment. (See Tables VI and VII and Figures V and VI 97 There was only a range of 0.13 i n the effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a -t ion for the fishmeal rations (#9 - #12) at four weeks as compared to the range of 0.35 for the Connecticut rations (#1 - #4) and 0.78 for the soybean rations (#5 - # 8 ) , The average efficiency with whioh the four fishmeal rations were u t i l i z e d was appreciably superior to the average efficiency with tfiioh either the Conneotiout rations or soybean o i l meal rations were u t i l i z e d . Of the fishmeal rations (#9 -#12) an average of 2.49 pounds of feed (See Table VI and Figure V) was required at four weeks to produce a pound of gain, whereas an average of 2.69 pounds of soybean o i l meal rations (#5 - #8) or 2.65 pounds of the Conneotiout rations (#1 - #4) were required to produce a pound of gain. Antibiotic supplementation of the Connecticut basal (#2) and soybean o i l meal basal(#6) increased the effioienoy with whioh these rations were u t i l i z e d , but did not increase the already good efficiency by which the fishmeal basal (#10) was u t i l i z e d . Folio acid supplementation did not alter the e f f i -ciency of feed u t i l i z a t ion for either the Conneotiout ration (#3) or the fishmeal ration (#11) ; i t did increase the e f f i -ciency with which the soybean o i l meal ration (#5) was u t i l i z e d . Supplementation of the three basal rations with a combination of antibiotio and fo l ic acid gave similar e f f i -ciency results as supplementation with the antibiotic alone. 98 The effioienoy by whioh the Conneotiout broi ler ration was u t i l i zed to four weeks was improved from 2.70 of the basal (#1) to 2.61 of the dually supplemented ration ( #4 ) . The effioienoy by whioh the soybean o i l meal basal was u t i l i zed was improved from 3.15 (#5) to 2.48 (#8) upon supplementation. The effioienoy with whioh the fishmeal basal was u t i l i z e d was not improved at four weeks by supplementation with a combina-tion of f^olio aoid and antibiotio; however, by the end of the test period (see Table VII or Figure VI) the results wauld indioate that there was an improvement. Summary 1 . A wheat-oorn Conneotiout broiler ration containing a mixture of soybean o i l meal, fishmeal and meatmeal as sup-plementary protein was superior i n promoting faster ohiok growth than was a ration containing fishmeal or soybean o i l meal as sole sources of supplementary protein. 2 . The test rations supplemented with a commercial antibiotio preparation produced by Streptomyoes aureofaoiens fermentation promoted a growth response i n ohioks on e l l rations to which i t was added. The antibiotic supplemented rations were more ef f ic ient ly u t i l i s ed than were the unsupplemented control rations. 3. The growth response to the aureomyoin supplement was greater with ohioks fed rations containing either soybean o i l meal or fishmeal as the sole souroe of supplementary protein than with a ration containing a mixture of soybean o i l meal, fishmeal and meatmeal. 99 4. The addition of fo l io aoid to a modified Conneotiout ration containing soybean o i l meal as sole souroe of supple-mentary protein improved the growth rate of ohioks. 5. Supplementation of the test rations with a combination of the antibiotio preparation and fol io aoid was not superior to supplementation with the antibiotic alone. 6. A combination of fishmeal and soybean o i l meal as a souroe of supplementary protein i n a modified Connecticut ration was superior in promoting early chick growth to protein concentrate alone. 7* Fishmeal, when included in a modified Conneotiout ration as the sole souroe of supplementary protein, enoouraged the most effioient u t i l i z a t i o n of feed, though such a ration did not encourage maximum growth. 100 Table I.  Composition of Rations Ration Ingredients #1 Basal % #5 Basal % #9 Basal Corn 34.393 28.61 36.9 Wheat 34.393 28.61 36.9 Fishmeal 8.0 18.0 Soybean O i l Meal (Solvent) 8.0 32.59 Meatsorap 8.0 Livermeal 3.0 3.0 3.0 B-Y 2.0 2.0 2.0 Dehydrated Cereal Grass 1.0 1.0 1.0 MnS04 0.025% 0.025 0.025 Bonemeal 2.0 Limestone 1.0 1.0 Salt 0.5 0.5 0.5 Choline Chloride 0.44 0.44 0.44 Feeding Oi l (1200 A; 400 D) 0.25 0.25 0.25 Nicotinic Aoid 0*9 grams 0.9 grams 0.9 grams Ration 2, 6 and 10 = 1, 5 and 9 / 0.3% A . P . F . (Lederle) Ration 3, 7 and 11 = 1, 5 and 9 / 35 mg. Folio Aoid (£5 mg./# Ration 4, 8 and 12 s 1, 5 and 9 / 0.3% A . P . F . (Lederle) / 35 mg. Folio Aoid (,35 mg./# 101 Table II Sixth Week Average Weight of Birds Reoeiving the Three Basal Hations Basal Conneotiout Basal (#1 - #4) Soybean meal Basal (#5 - #11) Fishmeal Basal (#9 - #12) Average Weight 5?5 588 572 Table III Sixth Week Average Weight of Birds Reoeiving the Basal Rations plus Supplements Supplements Average Weights None (#1, #8, #9) 55? Antibiotio Preparation 627 Folio Aoid 558 Antibiotio / Folio Aoid 595 102 FIGURE ONE SIXTH WEEK AVERAGE WEIGHT OF BIRDS RECEIVING THE THREE BASAL RATIONS CONNECTICUT BASAL ft -*4) SOYBEAN MEAL BASAL (*5- #8) FISHMEAL BASAL ( «9- *12 ) GRAMS FIGURE TWO SIXTH WEEK AVERAGE WEIGHT OF BIRDS FED THE BASAL ^SUPPLEMENTS SUPPLEMENT NONE ANTIBIOTIC FOLIC ACID ANTIB. + FOLIC ACID GRAMS 103 Table II Sixth Week Average Weight of Birds Reoeiving the Twelve Test Rations Ration Description Average Weight 1 Connecticut Basal 593 2 #1 / Antibiotio 631 3 #1 / Folio Acid 575 4 #1 f Antibiotio / Folio Acid 582 5 Soybean Meal Basal. 538 6 #5 / Antibiotio 621 1 #5 / Folio Aoid 569 8 #5 / Antibiotic / Folio Acid 619 9 Fishmeal Basal 550 10 #9 / Antibiotio 628 11 #9 / Folio Acid 529 12 #9 / Antibiotio / Folio Aoid 593 Table Y Fourth Week Average Weight of Birds -Receiving the Twelve Test Rations Ration Description Average Weight 1 Conneotiout Basal 319 2 #1 / Antibiotio 333 3 #1 / Folio Acid 298 4 f l / Antibiotio / Folio Acid 328 5 Soybean Meal Basal. 286 6 #5 / Antibiotic 338 7 #5 / Folio Aoid 294 8 f5; f Antibiotio / Folic Aoid 344 9 Fishmeal Basal 294 10 #9 / Antibiotio 340 11 #9 / Folio Aoid 282 12 #9 / Antibiotio / Fol ic Aoid 314 104 FIGURE THREE V SIXTH WEEK AVERAGE WEIGHTS OF BIRDS RECEIVING THE FOURTEEN TEST RATIONS 1. CONNECTICUT B A S A L 2. #1 + A N T I B . 3. # I +• FOLIC A C I D 4. # I f ANTIB.+-FOLIC ACID 5. S O Y B E A N M E A L B A S A L 6. * 5 + ANTIB. 7 « 5 + F O L I C ACID 8. #5 +ANTIB.+ FOLIC ACID 9. F I S H M E A L B A S A L 10. # 9 + A N T I B . 11. # 9 + F O L I C A C I D 12. II 9 +• ANTIB.+• FOLIC ACID 13. SOYBEAN FISHMEAL BASAL 1 4 * 13+• ANTIB . 0 510 530 550 5 7 0 590 610 6 3 0 G R A M S FIGURE FOUR FOURTH WEEK AVERAGE WEIGHTS OF BIRDS RECEIVING THE FOURTEEN, TEST RATIONS I CONNECTICUT BASAL 2. * l * ANTIB. 3. * l • FOLIC ACID 4. »l * ANTIB. ' FOLIC ACID 5. SOYBEAN MEAL BASAL 6. *5 + ANTIB. 7 95 + FOLIC ACID 8. « 5 + ANTIB. ' FOLIC ACID ft FISHMEAL BASAL 10. #9 + ANTIB. 11. * 9 + FOLIC AC|D , 12. *9 • ANTIB. +• FOLIC ACID' 13. SOYBEAN FISHMEAL 14. » I 3 + ANTIB. 0 280 300 320 340 G R A M S 106 Table VI Fourth Week Efficiency of Feed Effioienoy .. (Pounds of Feed per Pound of Gain) Ration Description oienoy age. Range 1 Conneotiout Basal 2 #1 / Antibiotio 2.51 ) 2.69 0.35 3 #1 / Folio Aoid ~ 4 #1 / Antibiotio / Folio Acid 5 Soybean Meal Basal 6 #5 / Antibiotio 2 . 3 7 ) 2 . 6 5 0 . 7 8 7 #5 / Folio Acid " ,8 #5 { Antibiotio / Folic Acid 9 Fishmeal Basal 10 #9 i Antibiotio 2 . 4 9 ) 2 . 4 9 0 . 1 3 11 #9 / Folic Acid 12 # 9 i Antibiotic / Folic Aoid E f f i - Aver-ci c  . 2,78 ) 2.51 3 .  2.86 ) 2.61 ) 3.15 ) .37 .65 2.66 ) 2.48 ) 2.45 ) .49 .49 2.44 ) 2.57 ) 107 FIGURE FIVE FOURTH WEEK FEED EFFICIENCY (POUNDS OF F E E D P E R POUND OF GAIN) 1. CONNECTICUT B A S A L 2. « l + ANTIB. 3. « | - FOLIC ACID "4. *>l + ANTIB. • FOLIC ACID 5. SOYBEAN MEAL BASAL 6. « 5 + ANTIB. 7 * 5 + FOLIC ACID 8. * 5 + ANTIB.' FOLIC ACID 9. FISHMEAL BASAL 10. » 9 * ANTIB-11. 89 * FOLIC ACID 12. * 9 * ANTIB. 1 FOLIC ACID 3.10 2.90 2.70 2.50 2.30 108 Table VII Sixth Week Effioienoy of Feed , Effioienoy. . (Pounds of Feed per Pound of Gain) E f f i - Aver-Ration .Desoriptlon olenoy age. Range 1 2 3 4 5 6 Soybean Meal Basal #5 / Antibiotio #5 / F o l i o Aoid 0 / Antibiotio / Folio Aoid 3.10 9 10 11 12 #9 / A n t i b i o t i o / Folio Aoid Fishmeal Basal #9 / Antibiotio #9 / F o l i o Aoid 2 . 7 5 0.1 109 FIGURE SIX EFF IC IENCY OF FEED UTILIZATION TO THE SIXTH W E E K (POUNDS OF F E E D PER POUND O F G A I N ) 1. C O N N E C T I C U T BASAL 2. * l + A N T I B 3. * l + FOLIC ACID 4. * l + ANTIB. + FOLIC ACID 5. S O Y B E A N MEAL BASAL 6. *5+ A N T I B . 7. #5 + F O L I C ACID 8. #5 + ANTIB. + FOLIC ACID 9. F I S H M E A L B A S A L 10. # 9 + ANTIB. 11. #9 + FOLIC ACID 12. »9 • ANTIB.' FOLIC ACID 110 Table VIII Stat is t ioal Analysis for Varianoe Sonroe of Error Stun of Squares d.f . Varianoe M.S. P. 13—IE Total Ration Supplement Interaotion Error 2,611,973 39,824 353,772 104,722 2,113,655 452 2 3 6 441 19,?12« 117,?24*J 17,453** 4792.8 15.74 — 18.7 24.1 32.1 42.9 ^Significant at t = 0.05 **Signifioant at t • 0.01 I l l Disoussion Poultry producers quickly aooepted the Connecticut broi ler ration for i t was found to promote more rapid growth, more oomplete feathering and greater effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a t i o n i n chickens than commonly used rations. It i s generally agreed that these results are due to the energy content of the ration as well as the quality of the protein and vitamin oontent. Antibiotio supplementation, with i t s resultant stimulated growth i n ohioks, was even more readily aooepted than the Conneotiout rat ion. However, researchers have conducted l i t t l e work on the Connecticut broi ler ration or the possible interaction of i t s energy content with pro-te in , vitamins or ant ibiot ics . The tests conducted here were attempts to evaluate; (a) different grains as a souroe of energy, (b) various protein concentrates or mixture of protein concentrates, (o) vitamin supplements, (d) antibiotio supplements in the Conneotiout broi ler rat ion. Five experiments were oonduoted, using a total of 3,000 ohioks. The results of these tests were o r i t i o a l l y surveyed and sub-jected to s ta t i s t i ca l analysis and an extensive l i terature review was made before conclusions were drawn from them. 112 The results of these experiments would indioate that wheat could replace the entire corn content of the Connecticut broi ler ration without reduoing the ratiorfs a b i l i t y to promote the growth of ohioks. Soott 2 et a l , noted that wheat was infer ior to corn when used as the only grain in the Conneotiout broi ler rat ion. Robertson, Mil ler 73 and Heuser" observed that rations containing wheat and wheat by-produots did not promote as rapid gains i n ohioks 74 g 75 as rations containing corn, Biely, Scott and Bearse observed that a combination of equal portions of oorn and wheat in the Conneotiout broi ler ration promoted as good growth in ohioks as did the Connecticut ration with oorn alone. The results of the experiments oonduoted further indicated that wheat could replaoe oorn only on a pound for pound basis and that although wheat normally contains more protein than corn the total level of protein in the Con-necticut broi ler ration with wheat could not be reduced by lowering the levels of supplementary protein. Biely and March''^ reported differences in the growth response of chicks to wheat rations supplemented with varying levels of fishmeal were primarily due to differences in the relative proportions of protein contributed by eaoh component and that re lat ively high levels of fishmeal were necessary to complete the lysine 77 oontent of the rations. Jeppesen and Grau' ' Reported a similar lysine deficiency in rtneat, The fishmeal and other 113 protein oonoentrates of the Connecticut broi ler ration are sufficient to supply an exoess amount of lys ine, and thus w i l l not l imi t the growth of ohioks. Although wheat contains more fiber than oorn, 2.7 - 4.2 % as oompared to 1.0 - 2.2 %, this higher fiber content does not appear to reduce wheat's growth promoting value when incorporated into the Conneotiout broi ler rat ion. 2 Though Scott and Gl is ta reported that fiber per se was not necessary for the physiological well being of broiler chicks, evidence i s accumulating that fiber as such stimulates growth and increases feed effioienoy when incorporated at levels up to 10% i n poultry r a t i o n s . 1 0 , 1 1 9 7 8 » 7 9 • 8 o * Reiser and Couch® 1 reported that chicks reoeiving a practical diet and a purified fat free diet plus 4% Wesson O i l grew at essentially the same rate. The preoeding report and the results of Test Three reported here would indioate that wheat's lower fat oontent does not reduoe i t s ab i l i ty to promote growth when incorporated into poultry rations. Apparently wheat's s l ight ly lower calorio oontent of #<?£^ Calories per pound, as oompared to the 1145 Calories of,corn, does not reduoe i t s ab i l i ty to promote growth in ohioks, permitting the maximum oalorio intake or more per day neoessary for the optimum growth of ohioks. An extensive survey of the l i terature did not reveal reports of the nutrit ive value of feed soreenings in poultry rations, though to a limited extent feed soreenings have been used by oommereial feed manufacturers in preparing poultry rations, The results of the experiments reported here i n d i -cate that Ho, 1 reoleaned ground feed screenings could be successfully incorporated into practical chick starting rations but that they could not be successfully incorpora-ted into the Connecticut broi ler rat ion, pr incipal ly because such a ration with screenings was low i n energy, containing 668 Calories per pound of feed. Bearse^2 Quissenberry^ and Gerry1'* reported that high-energy-flow fiber rations were not superior to a lower-energy-higher fiber ration in rearing birds to 18-24 weeks of age, From these reports and from the results of the experiments reported here i t would appear that feed screenings could be incorporated successfully into rations fed to birds to maturity. Test One compared a mixture of fishmeal and soy-bean o i l meal or a mixture of meatmeal, fishmeal and soybean o i l meal as sources of supplementary protein in the Conneotiout broi ler ration containing corn or a wheat modification thereof. The wheat ration in this test was s l ight ly inferior to oorn in promoting the growth of ohioks. The results of this test would indicate that when meatmeal of a ration in which vtteat was the sole grain was replaced by fishmeal, the resultant combination of soybean o i l maal and fishmeal was infer ior to a wheat ration containing equal portions of a l l three protein concentrates, Supplementation of either protein basal with a mixture of "B" vitamins did 115 not e l i o l t an Increased growth response In ohioks, thus i n -dicating that some factor other than the added vitamins was the l imit ing faotor i n the growth of ohioks. In a ration in whioh oorn was the sole grain ( i . e . , the original Con-necticut ration) i t would appear that a combination of f i sh-meal and soybean o i l meal was superior to a combination of meatmeal, fishmeal and soybean o i l meal. Since this oorn ration containing the three protein concentrates, when sup-plemented with a mixture of vitamins, promoted as great a growth response in ohioks as did the unsupplemented oorn-soybean-fishmeal ration i t would appear that the additional fishmeal that replaoed the meatmeal either supplied sufficient of one or more of the add&d ^B1* vitamins or i t supplied an unidentified faotor/s that stimulated an additional growth response. In Test Five, where the basal ration oontained equal parts of com and wheat as a grain souroe, a com-bination of fishmeal and meatmeal was superior in promoting the rapid growth of ohioks than either protein supplement 8 a 8*» 86 alone. Since both soybean o i l meal 4 and fishmeal p> have been shown to adequately supplement poultry rations in amino aoids and since the basal rations used here contained other sources of supplementary protein and vitamins i t would appear that the additional growth response of chicks to rations containing both soybean o i l meal and fishmeal was due to same unknown faotor laoking when either supplement was used alone. Subsequent studies by Biely and Maroh^1 116 appear to confirm this conclusion. These investigators noted that dried brewers' yeast and livermesl supplied a faotor/s lacking in a ration employing fishmeal as the sole protein supplement while dried brewer's yeast or whey supplied a faotor/s whioh may be lacking in a soybean o i l meal rat ion. A mixture of fishmeal and soybean o i l meal apparently supplied faotors lacking when these concentrates were used singly. Whitehi l l , et a l . 4 ^ reported that 11 milligrams of aureomyoin per pound of feed stimulated the same growth in ohioks as 45 milligrams of p e n i c i l l i n . Almquist^ and Stookstad®8 reported that from 11 to 14 milligrams of aureo-myoin per pound of feed was the most optimum level of sup-plementation in poult rations. Oouoh^9 reported that 0.75% -1.00% of an aureomyoin preparation (Lederle) promoted greater growth gains i n ohioks than lower levels of supplementation. Sherwood90 et a l . reported that 1% of an aureomyoin pre-paration (Lederle) was superior to lower levels of supplemen-tation i n promoting the growth of ohioks. The results of Test Four reported here indioate that from one to two milligrams of either aureomyoin or peni-o i l l i n was effective in stimulating maximum growth and increa-sing the effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a t i o n in ohioks reoeiving a high energy diet . The results further indioate that the aureomyoin preparation would stimulate the same growth rate in ohioks at one-half the manufacturer's recommended level (0.125%) as did the recommended level of supplementation (0.25%). 117 Supplementation at the manufacturers' reoommended level or more was necessary for a pen io i l l in preparation to produce the same increase in growth rate as the aureomyoin preparation. However, the p e n i o i l l i n preparation alone stimulated an inoreased growth response in a Conneotiout ration in whioh one-half of the grain portion was No. 1 reoleaned ground feed screenings. Of the five tests oonduoted and reported here there was only one instanoe in whioh antibiotio supplementation did not s ignifioantly stimulate the growth of ohioks. In Test Two a practical ration containing either mixed grains or a com-bination of equal parts of mixed grains and No. 1 reoleaned ground feed screenings, was supplemented with an antibiotio preparation. The antibiotic supplementation inoreased the growth rate of ohioks reoeiving the basal rations but this inoreased growth rate was not s t a t i s t i ca l ly s ignif icant. In other tests, antibiotio supplementation inoreased the growth rate of chicks by 6% - 8jt over the growth rate of ohioks reoeiving the unsupplemented basal rations. However, the degree of growth response was variable and appeared to be dependent upon the composition of the basal ration. In Test Five, antibiotio supplementation of the Conneotiout ration inoreased the growth response of ohioks by 6% over i t s unsupplemented basal; however, supplementation of a ration containing fishmeal or soybean o i l meal as the sole souroe of supplementary protein inoreased the growth response by 118 14% and 1$% respectively, or by 8% in a ration in whioh a combination of fishmeal and soybean o i l meal supplied the supplementary protein. The effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a t i o n in a l l the tests was improved by antibiotic supplementation. When the Conneotiout broi ler ration was supplemented with a mixture of "B" vitamins in Test One, the chicks reoei-ving this ration gfew at the same rate as ohioks reoeiving the antibiotio supplemented Conneotiout rat ion. Evidently the antibiotio permitted more of the B-Complex to be made available to the oJaioks. This would be possible either by reduoing the total number of mioroorganisms competing with the hoste for the vitamins, or by permitting the development of a microflora that aotively synthesized the "B" vitamins. The reports of Davis and Chow^1 and Biely and March 9 1 appear to substantiate this l a t ter hypothesis. The Latter workers fed rations that were defioient in r ibof lavin, nicotinic aoid and fo l io aoid respectively, whioh were fed with and without crystal l ine aureomyoin. The growth of ohioksreoeiving the basal ration for t i f i ed with the above mentioned vitamins was not stimulated by the addition of aureomyoin. However, when either r ibof lavin , nicotinic aoid or fol io aoid was omitted from the basal ration there was a significant decrease in the rate of growth. The addition of these vitamins to the defioient rations stimulated the growth rate in each oase to the extent that the ohioks fed the vitamin defioient ration 119 containing aureomyoin attained similar weights to those fed the complete basal rat ion. From this report i t would appear that the dietary levels of nicotinic acid, fol io aoid or ribo-f lavin whioh are sub-optimal for maximum growth rate of ohioks may be adequate when aureomyoin i s fed. It would appear from this repor t 9 1 end others'*4'* ^ * 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 t n a t t n e g r o w t h stimulating effeot of antibiotios i s mediated either through a reduotion in the numbers of intest inal microorganisms whioh might compete with the hosts for the nutrients, part icularly the "B" vitamins, and/or by permitting the prol i ferat ion of mioroorganism ih ioh synthesizes these nutrients. 54 Scott and Glista reported that while arsonio acid supplementation stimulated the early growth of ohioks that the i n i t i a l advantage starts to wane early in the chick's l i f e and disappears entirely by the seventh week. No waning in the growth stimulating effeot of arsonic acid was obser-ved in Test Four. The ohioks reoeiving the arsonio aoid supplemented rations were signifioantly heavier at both six and seven and one-half weeks than the birds reoeiving the unsupplemented oontrol rat ion. 92 MoGinnis and co-workers reported that arsonic aoid supplementation gave a growth response in turkey poults equal to that obtained with antibiotio supplementation. In Test Four, though the effioienoy of feed u t i l i z a t i o n was not inoreased, there was a definite growth stimulation in ohioks reoeiving the arsonic acid supplemented rations. However, 1 2 0 a n t i b i o t i o supplementation promoted a greater growth response i n ohioks than did the arsonio aoid. A oombination of ar-sonio aoid and the a n t i b i o t i c preparation was not superior to the a n t i b i o t i c supplementation alone. These varied reports indioate the necessity of more research to more d e a r l y es-t a b l i s h the supplementary value of arsonio acid i n poultry rations. Summary 121 1. Good quality wheat pan replace the oorn oontent of the Conneo-tiout broi ler ration on a pound per pound basis. The excess protein i n a modified Conneotiout broi ler ration i n which the oorn was replaced with_wheat cannot be reduced by lowering the leve l of supplementary protein without slowing the growth rate of ohioks. 2. No. 1 reoleaned ground feed soreenings when incorporated into the Conneotiout broi ler ration as the sole grain did not pro-mote as great a growth.response i n ohioks as a combination of wheat and oorn. The efficiency of feed u t i l i z a t i o n was lower with the feed soreenings ration than with the ration with oorn and wheat. However, when No. 1 reoleaned ground feed soreenings replaced one-half of a grain mixture i n a ohlek starting ration the chicks grew at the same rate as the chicks receiving the ration i n whioh no replacement was made. 3. The mixture of meatmeal, fishmeal and soybean o i l meal of the Connecticut broiler ration was superior i n promoting faster ohlok growth than was a ration containing either fishmeal or soybean o i l meal as sole sources of supplementary protein. 4. A oombination of fishmeal and soybean o i l meal as a souroe of supplementary protein i n a modified Conneotiout broi ler ration was superior i n promoting early chick growth than either pro-tein supplement alone. The fishmeal, when included in a modi-fied Connecticut broiler ration as the sole souroe of supple-mentary protein, promoted the most efficient u t i l i z a t i o n of feed, though suoh a ration did not produce maximum growth. 5. A l l the modified Conneotiout broi ler rations, when supplemented with commercial antibiotio preparations gave an increased growth rate in chicks. The extent to whioh the antibiotic supplement increased the.growth rate depended on the basal ration used. In a l l instances antibiotic supplemented rations were more ef f ic ient ly u t i l i z ed than were the unsupplemented control rations. 6 . The addition of 0.005% arsonio acid- to a modified Conneotiout broi ler ration promoted a greater growth response in ohioks fed this supplemented ration than the unsupplemented eontrol rations. This increased growth rate of ohioks reoeiving arsonio aoid persisted to seven and one-half weeks. 7. The addition of B-oomplex vitamins to the Conneotiout broi ler ration promoted a growth response in chicks equal to the growth response of chicks reoeiving an antibiotio supplemented Connec-t icut rat ion. The extent to whioh the mixture of vitamins i n -creased the growth rate depended on the basal ration used. 1£2 Bibliography 1. Jukes, T . H . , "Nutritional studies with the Animal Protein Faotor and fol io ac id , * Feedstuffs, Feb. 19, 1949. 2. Soott, H.M., Matterson, L , D . , Singsen, E . P . , "Nutritional faotors influencing growth and feed u t i l i z a t i o n . The effeot of the souroe of Carbohydrate." Singsen, E .P . , 2 "The effeot of protein Leve l . " Poultry Solenoe., 1947 f 26, 554: 555*55(>. 3. Krehl , W.A., Tepley, L . J . and Elvehjm, Science, 101,283, 1945. 4. Soott, H.M. , Singsen, E . P , , and Matterson, L . D . , Poultry Selenoe, 2 5 , 303, 194b. 5. G i l l i s , M.B. , Norris , L . C . , "Vitamin B 1 2 and the Requirement of the ohiok for methylating compounds," Poultry Science. 2 8 , 749, 1949. 1 $. Heuser, G . F . , "Energy and other faotors Influencing the Poul-try Ration," Proo. 1949 Cornell Nutrition Conference. 17-18, 1949. " ' " ~ 7. Fraps, G.S. , "Composition and productive energy of poultry feeds and rat ions," Texas Agric. Exper. Stat. BulL. 6 7 8 , Feb. 1946, p . - 3 7 7 ^ ; : 8. Panda, J .N . , Combs, G .F . , "Studies on the Energy Requirement of the ohiok for rapid growth," Poultry Science. 2 9 , 1950. 774. 9 . Thayer, R .H . , "Proteins, Energy and Vitamins for chicks and poults ," abstracts Washington State College Nutrition  Conference. A p r i l , I950, p. 26. 10. Davis, F . , Briggs, G.M., "The growth promoting action of Cellulose in purified d iet s . " Journal of Nutrit ion. 34, 1947, — 11. Davis, F . , Briggs, G.M.; VSawdust i n purified ohick rat ions , " Poultry Science 27, 1948, 1 1 7 - l l B . 12. Heuser, G .F . , Norris , L . C . , Peeler, H . T . , Scott, M . L . , "Fur-ther studies on the apparent effeot of Digest ib i l i ty upon Growth weight-maintenance and egg production," Poultry Science 2 3 , p. 552, 1944. 13. Heuser, G . F . , "Fiber and bulk i n poultry rations", The Cornell Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers. 1944. 123 14. Robertson, E .L , M i l l e r , R.F. and Heuser, G . F . , '•The relation of energy to fiber in chick rations,." Poultry Solenoe 2 7 , 682, 1948. . 1 5 . Heuser; G.F.,"Energy and other faotors influencing the poultry ration."... Cornell Feed Manufacturers Conference. 1949, 17*18. : ~ — " ~ _ 1 6 . Gerry, R.W., Smyth, J.R., Howes, G.B. , "High energy-low fibre rations for chickens," Poultry Solenoe 1949, 28, 763. 17. Smith, Lester E . , Nature. 161, 638, I948. 1 8 . Rickes, E . L , , Brink, N .G . , Koniuszy, F.R. . Wood, T .R. , Folkiers , K . , Science, 107, 396, 1948. 1 9 . L i l l i e , R . J . , Olsen, M*W., Bird, H.R. , Proo. Soc. Exp. B i o l . Med.. 72, 958. 20. Oloese, 0., Gouoh, J.R., Quisenberry, J .H. and Pearson, P .B . , Journal Nutrit ion, 41, 73, 1950, 21. Mushett, C.W. and Ott, W.H.. Poultry Science. 28, 8 5 , 1949, 22. Dietrioh, L . S . , Niohol, C . A . , Monson, W.J. and ELvehjem, C . A . . Journal of Biological Chemistry. l 8 l , 9 1 5 , 1949. 23. L i l l i e , R . J . , Briggs, G.M., •'A Study on the Importance of Folic Acid in Practical-Rations for Baby ohioks and Laying Hens." Poultry Science. 2?, 672, I948. 24. G i l l i s . M.B. and Norris , L . C . , Journal of B i o l . Ohem.. 179. 487, 1949. 25. Briggs, G.M., H i l l , E . G . , G i l l s , N . J . , Amer. Chem. Soc. 117th Meeting, 14a. 2 6 . Combs, C . F . , Heuser, G.F. and Norris, L . C . , "Further evidence for an unidentified Chick growth faotor,*! Poultry Science^ 27, 238-40, 1948. 2 7 . Swenson, M . J . , "Effect of Vitamin B12 conoentrate and l i v e r -meal on growth and feed effioienoy of chicks fed an a l l plant protein ration."Poultry Solenoe. 30, 5 5 * 6 2 , 1951. 2 8 . Stevens, J . , Biely, J . , March, B. , "A note on the Animal Protein Faotor. n Poultry Solenoe. 931-32, 1950, 2 9 . Combs, G .F . , Carlson, C.W., Mi l l e r , R .F . , Peeler, H . T . , Norris , L .C . and Heuser, C . F . , "Studies of unidentified growth faotors", J .B .C . . 1 8 ? , 7 2 7 * 7 3 7 , 1950. 124 30. Carlson, C.W., Peeler, H . T . , Norris , L . G . , Heuser, G .F , , "The complex nature of the animal protein faotor," Poultry Science, 730-52, 1949. 31. Biely, J . and March, B. , "Vitamins and antibiotics in the poultry ra t ion . " Animal Science Meeting, Saskatoon, 1951. ' 32. Menge, H . , Combs, G.F . , Shorb, M.S., "Bvidenoe for an un-identif ied chick growth faotor i n the presence of vitamin Big."> Poultry Solenoe. 28, 775, 1949. 33. Wooley, 'P.-W., "Some Correlations of Growth Promoting Powers of Protein with their streptgenin oontent, J .B .C. , 162. 383-388, 1946. 34. Martin, G . J . , Proc. Soo. Exp. Bliol.and Med.. 51, 56, I942. 35. Moore, P.R., Evenson, A . , Luokey, T . D . , MoCoy, E . , Blvehjem, G.A., and Hart, E . B . , " U s e of sulfasuxidine, strepto-thraoine and streptomycin i n nutrit ional studies with the chick," Journ. B i o l . Ohem.. 165, 437-441. 36. Stockstad, B .L .R . , paper presented i n an informal poultry nutr i t ion conference, Detroit, A p r i l , 1949. Stockstad, B .L .R . , Jukes, TH. , Pierce, J , , Page, A . C . , and Franklin, A . L . , "The multiple nature of A . P . F . , " Journ. B i o l . Ohem.. 180, 647, 1949. 37. Cunha, T . J . , Burnslde, J .B . , Busohman, P.M., Glasscock, R.S. , Pearson, A.M. and Shealy, A . L . , Arohiv. Bioohem.. 23, 324, 1949• 38. Catron, Iowa State College, as reported i n Feedstuffs. June 24, 1950 by T.H. Jukes, p. 46. 39. Carpenter, L . S . , The Hormet Farmer, 13, 4-7, A p r i l , 1950. 40. McGinnis, J . , Stephenson, E . L . , Lavadie, B .T . , Carver, J.S., Garabaldi, J .A . , Bnel l , N.S . , Lewis, J . C . , "Response of chicks and turkey poults to Vitamin Bj-g supplements produbed by fermentation with different organisms," Abstracts of paper, l l 6 t h meeting of Amer. Chem. Soo.. 42a. 41. Singsen, E . P . , and Matterson, L . P . , New Englands Feedmans Meeting, Conn. Agrlo. Exper. Stat. . August. 18-19, I949. 42. Couch. J.R., Heed, J . , Gordon Research Oonferenoe. August, 8-12, 1949. ' ^ ~" ~ 125 43. Stookstad, E .L .R . , Jukes, T . H . , "Further studies on the Animal Protein Factor," Soc. Exp. B i o l , and Med., 73, 523, 1950. 44. Leuke, R.W., McMillan, W.N., Thorp, F . , "The effeot of Vita-min B i 2 , Animal Protein Faotor and streptomyoin on the growth of young pigs," Arohiv. Bloohem.t 26, 326-327, 1950. 45. Whitehi l l , A . R . , Olson, J . J . , Hutohings, B . L . , "Stimulatory effeot of aureomyoin on the growth of chicks , " Proo. Soo.  Biol.and Med.. 74, 11-13, 1950. 46. MoGinnis, J . , "Vitamin B]? a n d a second growth factor(s) in A . P . F . supplement," Wash. State College Nutrit ion Con-ference, Apr i l 3-4, 1940, Abstracts, p. 45. 47. Peppier, H . J . , Oberg, E . B . , Benidiot, R .G. , and Linderfelser, L . A . , "The effeot of feeding orude polymyxin D on the intest inal baoteria of ohiokens," Poultry Solenoe 29, 520-26, 1950. 48. Jaokson, S .M,, Technical Data, Bl-Oon Feed Supplements. Pfizer and Go., 1950, p. 9, l b . 49. MoGinnis, J . , "Antibiotios as growth stimulants for Ohlok and Turkey Poults ," 1950 Cornell Feed Manufacturers Conference, p. 46. 50. Bird, H.R. , Grosohke, A . C , Rubin, M . , "Effeot of arsonio aoid derivative in stimulating growth of ohioks fed oertain diets , " Fed. Proo.. 1948, 283. 51. Moorehouse, J . , Poultry Solenoe. 28, 375, 1949. 52. Bird , H.R. , Grosohke, A . C , Rubin, M . , "The effeot of arsonio aoid derivatives in stimulating the growth of chioks," Journal of Nutri t ion. 37, 215-226, I949. 53. Tangl, H . , "Uber die Wirkung von Arsen auf das Knoohenwaohstum," Arch, exp. Path, Leipzig . 199, 561, 1942. 54. Soott, H.M. , Gl i s ta , W.A., "The effeot of aureomyoin and ar-sonio aoid on chick growth," Poultry Solenoe, 29, 921-22, 1950. 55. MoGinnis, J . , Berg, L .R . , Stern, J.R., Wilcox, R.A. , and Bearse, G.B. , "The effeot of aureomyoin and streptomyoin on growth of chicks and turkey poults , " Poultry Solenoe. 29, 771, 1950. 56. Elam, J .F . , Gee, L . L . , Couch, J.R., "Effeot of feeding peni-c i l l i n on the Life cycle of the Ohiok," Proo. Soo. Bxper.  B io l , and Med., 77, 209-213, 1951. 126 57. Grosohke, A . C , Evans, R . J . , "Effeot of antibiotics , synthesis vitamins, Vitamin B12 and A .P .F . Supplement on Ghiok Growth.." Poultry Solenoe. 29, 616-18, 1950. 58. Speer, V . C , Vokes, R.L, Catron, D .V. , Haddock, H.M. , and Cuthbsrtson, C O . , Arohiv. Bioohem. 29. 1950. 59. Oleson, J . J . , Hutohings, B .L . , and Whitehi l l , A . R . , Aroh. Bioohem., 29, 334, 1950. 60. Cravioto-Munoz, J . , Pbnoher, H . G . , Waisman, H .A . , "Vitamin B12 sparing aotion on aureomyoin in the r a t . " Proo. Soo. B i o l , and M e d . . 7 7 . 18-19, 1951. - " ' 61. Davis, R . L . , Chow, B .F . , "Content of radioactive Vitamin Brp i n the feces of rats-fed Co- and aureomyoin," Proo. Soo.  B i o l , and Med.. 77. 218, I95I. - " 62. Sieburth, J .M. , Gutierrez, J . , MoGinnis, J . , Stern, J.R., Schneider, B . H . , "Effect of antibiotios on intest inal microflora and growth of turkeys and pigs , " Proo.  Soo. Exper. B i o l , and Med.. 76. 15-17, 1951. 63. Bierman, H.R. , Jowet, B . , "The effeot of prolonged adminis-tration of antibiotics on the human fecal f l o r a , " Jour. Lab. C l i n , l e d . . 37,394-401, 1951. 64. Reyneers, J .A . , Trexler, P.O.., Brvin, R .F . , Wagner, M . , Gordon, H .A . , and Lockey, T . D . , "Germ-Free chicken Nutr i t ion . " Jour.Nutrition. 41. 31-48. 1950. 65. Wahlstrom, R .G . , T e r r i l , S.W., Johnson, C .B . , "Effect of antibacterial agents dfl growth of baby pigs fed a 'synthetic' d i e t , " Proc. Soo. Exp. B i o l , and Med.. 75, 710-11; 1950. 66. Colby, R.W., Rou, F . A . , Dunn, R . C , "Effeot offfeeding aureo-myoin to fattening lambs," Proo. Soo. Exp. B io l , and  Med.. 75, 234*36, 1950, 67. B e l l , M«c , , Whitehall, O.K.', and Gallup, W.P., "The effeot of aureomyoin on digestion of steers." Proo. Soo. Bxper. B i o l , and Med.. 76, 284,-85, 1951. 68. Loos l i , J . Z . , Wallaoe, H .D. , "Influence of A .P .F . and aureo-myoin on growth of dairy calves." Prop. Soo. Exp. B i o l ,  and Med.. 75, 531*33, 1950, 69. Johanson, K.R. , Sorles, W.B., and Shapiro, S.K., "The intes-t inal , microflora of hens as influenced by various car-bohydrates on a biotin^deficient ra t ion , " Journ. Baot.. 56, 619-634, 1948, 127 7 0 . Cravens, W.W., Oouoh, J . R . , "Relation of carbohydrate to intest inal synthesis of biot in and hatohabillty in the mature fowl," Fed. Proo. 6, 404, 1947. 7 1 . Gant, O.K., Ransome, B.M.E. , KLvehjem, C . A . , "Intestinal f lora of rats on purified diets containing sulfonamides," Proo. Soo. Exper. B i o l , and Med., 52, 276-79, 1943. 7 2 . Biely, J . , Maroh, B. , Stevens, J . , and Casorso, R., "A.P.F . Supplements in the Chick Ration," Poultry Science. 30, 143, 1951. 73. Robertson, E . I . , M i l l e r , R . F . , and Heuser, G . F . , "The relat ion of energy to fiber in chick rat ions , " Poultry  Science, 2 7 , 736, 1948. 74. Biely, J . , Maroh, B . , Inkin, J . , Bedy, J . , "Wheat versus oorn in the Conneotiout broiler ra t ion , " Poultry Science, 30, 593-98, 1951. 75. Bearse, G . E . , "The development of new fryer rat ions," Wash. State College Nutrit ion Conferenoe, Apr i l 8-10, I948, Abstraots, p. 50. 7 6 . Biely, J . , Maroh, B. , "Wheat of different protein content in the ohiok ration, "Poultry Soienoe. 2 8 , 756-57, 1949. 7 7 . Jeppesen, J . H . , Grau, O.R., "Whole wheat protein as an amino acid souroe for chicks , " Poultry Soienoe, 2 7 , 588-590, 1948. 7 8 . Okla, Agr. Bxper. Sta. , Biennial Report, p. 156-157, 1937-8. 7 9 . Bird , H.R., "Energy i sn ' t the whole story," Pacific Poultryman. p. 5, July-August, 1949. 8 0 . Thayer, R . H . , "Proteins, energy and vitamins for chicks and poults ," Wash. State College Nutrit ion Conferenoe, A p r i l , 1950, Abstraots. p. 2 2 . 8 1 . Reiser, Couoh, J.R., "The essential role of fat in the rations of growing chicks, Poultry Soienoe. 28, 7 8 1 , 1949. 8 2 . Bearse, G . E . , Berg, L .R . , M i l l e r , V . L . , "The effeot of energy level of starting and growing rations on the performance of laying hens," Poultry Soienoe. 2 9 , 748, 1950. 8 3 . Quissenberry, J . H . , Sherwood, R.M. , German, H . L . , "Simplified rations for laying hens and flock replacement," Poultry  Science. 28, 780, 1949. 128 84. Almquist, H . J . , and Meoohi, E . , "Glycin requirement of the chick, " Proo. Soo. Exp. B io l , and Med.. 49, 541-43, 1943. 85. Rhian, M . , "The u t i l i z a t i o n of f i sh by-products," Wash, Agr. Sta. Bnl . 410, 32, 1941. 86. Robertson, B . I . , Carver, J.S. and Oook, J.W., "Gross value of protein concentrates," Jour. Nutri t ion. 2 1 , 347, 1941. 87. Almqulst, H . J . , Merri t t , J .B . , "Effect of Vitamin B12 and crystal l ine aureomyoin on growth of poults ," Poultry  Science, 3 0 , 312, 1 9 5 1 . 88. Stookstad, E .L .R . , Jukes, T . H . , "Growth promoting effeot of aureomyoin on turkey poults ," Poultry Scienoe. 29, 611-12, 1950. 89. Couch, J .R. t Address presented at Vitamin Section, Gordon Researoh Conference, New London, New Hampshire, August 8-12, 1949. 90. Sherwood, R.M. , Couch, J.R., "The effeot on ohiok growth of supplementing a vegetable protein diet with an A.P.F . concentrate," Poultry Science. 2 9 , 501-507, 1950. 91. Biely, J . , March, B . , "The effeot of aureomyoin and vitamins on the growth rate of ohioks," Science, at press. 92. McGlnnis* J . , Stern, J.R., Wiloox, R .A., and Carver, J.S., "The effect of different antibiotics on the growth of turkey poults ," Poultry Soience, 30, 492-96, 1 9 5 1 . unic, *.-w.-v—<i.'—1-.' •VISUAL EDUCATION SERVICE EXTENSION DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY OF B. C. VANCOUVER, B. C. X . PERMISSION TO REFROBUCE this photograph must be obtained in v.-rilirtg from the above. The followinfl credit line must a* rear on all reproductions: VISUAL EDUCATION SERVICE, UBC. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106522/manifest

Comment

Related Items