Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-r5d9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-21T10:12:52.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of supplemental detergents on the digestibility of poultry diets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. Bolton
W. Bolton
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Poultry Research Centre, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, 9
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The effects of the addition of a non-ionic, anionic or cationic detergent to a diet containing 10% added fat on the digestibility of the protein, fat and carbohydrate have been studied.

2. The non-ionic detergent aided the digestion of fat, but protein and carbohydrate digestibility were unaffected.

3. An anionic detergent slightly, and a cationic detergent seriously, impaired the absorption of fat, and the cationic detergent also had an adverse effect on carbohydrate digestion. Neither affected protein digestion.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , August 1961 , pp. 83 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Augur, V., Rollman, H. S. & Deuel, H. J. Jr. (1947). J. Nutrit. 33, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bangham, A. D. & Dawson, R. M. (1959). New Scientist, 5, 1149.Google Scholar
Bolton, W. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 119.Google Scholar
Bolton, W. (1957). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 8, 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, W. (1960). Analyst, 85, 189.Google Scholar
Conrad, R. M. & Scott, H. M. (1942). Poult. Sci. 21, 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deuel, H. J. Jr. (1955). The Lipids. Vol. 2, Biochemistry, p. 235. New York: Interscience.Google Scholar
Duckworth, J., Naftalin, J. M. & Dalgarno, A. C. (1950). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 39.Google Scholar
Ely, C. M. (1951). Science, 114, 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ely, C. M. (1952 a). Feedstuffs, 24, 24; Biol. Abstr. 1952, 26, 25,262.Google Scholar
Ely, C. M. (1952 b). Feedstuffs, 24, 26; Biol. Abstr. 1952, 26, 25,262.Google Scholar
Ely, C. M. (1952 c). Feedstuffs, 24, 28; Biol. Abstr. 1952, 26, 25,262.Google Scholar
Ely, C. M. (1952 d). Feedstuffs, 24, 46; Biol. Abstr. 1952, 26, 25,262.Google Scholar
Fedde, M. R., Waibel, P. E. & Burger, R. E. (1959). Poult. Sci. 38, 1203.Google Scholar
Jameson, J. E. & Emberley, N. W. (1956). J. Gen. Microbiol. 15, 198.Google Scholar
Jameson, J. E. & Emberley, N. W. (1958). J. Gen. Microbiol. 18, 238.Google Scholar
Lillie, R. J., Sizemore, J. R. & Denton, C. A. (1958). Poult. Sci. 37, 288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, B. E. & Biely, J. (1957). Poult. Sci. 33, 297.Google Scholar
March, B. E., Burdett, M. & Biely, J. (1954). Poult. Sci. 33, 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ney, L. F. & Newell, G. W. (1954). Poult. Sci. 33, 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norcia, L. N. & Lundberg, W. O. (1954). J. Nutrit. 54, 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, R. & Hill, F. W. (1958). Poult. Sci. 37, 1236.Google Scholar
Reyntens, N. A., Puyvelde, V. & Okerman, F. (1958). Meded. LandbHoogesch. Gent, 23, 387.Google Scholar
Scott, H. M., Johnson, B. C. & Goffi, E. A. (1952). Poult. Sci. 31, 746.Google Scholar
Tuckey, R., March, B. E. & Biely, J. (1958). Poult. Sci. 37, 786.Google Scholar