- Email: [email protected]
Failure of Combinations of Orotic Acid, Thioctic Acid, Adenosine and Mevalonic Acid to Stimulate Chick Growth
Failure of Combinations of Orotic Acid, Thioctic Acid, Adenosine and Mevalonic Acid to Stimulate Chick Growth R. DAM, 1 L. C. NORRIS AND F. W. HILL 2 Department of Poultry Husbandry and Graduate School of Nutrition, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York (Received for publication June 23, 1960)
M
ENGE and Combs (1952) reported that orotic acid stimulated only very slight and inconsistent growth responses when fed to chicks. Similar results were obtained by Chin and Norris (1953). In contrast Combs, Arscott and Jones (1954) obtained increased growth in chicks fed practical type diets supplemented with orotic acid. Rasmussen et al. (1954) also reported that orotic acid promoted chick growth. DeBusk and Williams (1955) observed a growth response in chicks on addition of thioctic acid to the diet. Stokstad, Broquist and Patterson (1953), Morrison and Norris (1956), Stokstad et al. (1956), Reid et al. (1956), Supplee, Combs and Romoser (1956) and Briggs and Fox (1957) on the other hand, were unable to show that thioctic acid increased chick growth under a variety of environmental and dietary conditions. Barnett et al. (1956) reported a growth increase in chicks on the addition of adenosine to a purified diet. Ritchey, Scott and Johnson (1956), found, however, that adenosine failed to stimulate chick growth when added to a 30% protein diet. Dam and Norris (1956) also did not obtain improved growth on adenosine supplementation of a chick diet. Bosshardt and Barnes (1957) observed growth responses in chicks from mevalonic 1 Present address: Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, College of Agriculture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln 3, Nebraska. 3 Present address: Department of Poultry Husbandry, University of California, Davis, California.
acid which were statistically significant in some instances. But Dam and Norris (1958) were unable to confirm this work, although in a second experiment the basal diet was prepared from the same supplies of purified ingredients used by Bosshardt and Barnes. The negative findings of this laboratory on orotic acid, thioctic acid, adenosine and mevalonic acid were obtained by adding each to the diet singly. The possibility existed, therefore, that, if they were fed in combination an increase in chick growth might be obtained. The results of two experiments to test this hypothesis are presented in this report. EXPERIMENTAL
White Plymouth Rock chicks of the Cobb strain were used in the experiments. All chicks were obtained from hens maintained at the Cornell University Poultry Plant. The experimental flock of hens was fed a simplified ration composed chiefly of ground yellow corn, soybean oil meal and corn gluten meal. No sources of unidentified chick growth factors were included in the diet. The hens were maintained on raised wire floors and supplied feed and water ad libitum. The chicks were randomly distributed, identified with numbered wing bands and housed in galvanized metal battery brooders with raised wire floors and thermostatically controlled electric heaters. Each lot in both experiments consisted of eleven male and nine female chicks per lot. Duplicate
572
ADENOSINE AND OROTIC, THIOCTIC AND MEVALONIC ACIDS
lots of chicks were subjected to each treatment. Feed and water were given ad libitum. The chicks were fed the dextrose-isolated soybean purified diet previously described as basal diet A by Dam, Morrison and Norris (1959). In the experiments all combinations of three of orotic acid, thioctic acid, adenosine and mevalonic acid were fed as well as all four substances combined. In addition the treatments in experiment 2 included, for comparative purposes, a diet containing 12% of a mixture of three sources of unidentified chick growth factors (UGF). The mixture consisted of 50% distillers corn dried solubles, 25% fish solubles and 25% dried whey products. In preparing the diet containing these products, an amount of protein (N X 6.25) equal to that in the mixture was omitted from the basal diet, thereby maintaining the diet isonitrogenous. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the experiments are presented in Table 1. The results showed that under the experimental conditions none of the combinations of orotic acid, thioctic acid, adenosine and mevalonic acid which were studied had any growth-stimulating effect. The results with the combination of orotic acid, thioctic acid and mevalonic acid are in agreement with the findings of
573
Kratzer et al. (1958) on the turkey poult. A significant growth increase (P < 0.005), however, was obtained with the mixture of crude sources of unidentified chick growth factors. Further evidence for the presence of chick growth factors in this mixture was reported by Dam, Morrison and Norris (1959). The known substances studied in the present experiments do not appear, therefore, to be identical with the unidentified organic growth factors in the crude materials. SUMMARY
The four compounds, thioctic acid, orotic acid, adenosine and mevalonic acid, either when all four were fed together or when fed in combinations of three, did not stimulate chick growth. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank Merck, Sharp and Dohme Laboratories for supplying the mevalonic acid, and Dr. E. L. R. Stokstad of Lederle Laboratories for supplying the thioctic acid. REFERENCES Barnett, B. D., M. Lapidus, H. R. Bird and F. M. Strong, 1956. Adenosine as growth factor for chicks fed purified diet. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 92: 372-374. Briggs, G. M., and M. R. S. Fox, 19S7. Thioctic
TABLE 1.—Response of chicks to supplementation with combinations of known substances and to unknown factors Exp. 1 Treatment 1
Basal +thioctic acid+orotic acid+adenosine -(-orotic acid+adenosine+mevalonic acid -j-thioctic acid+adenosine-)-mevalonic acid -j-thioctic acid+orotic acid+mevalonic acid +thioctic acid+orotic acid+adenosine+mevalonic acid +unidentified growth factor mixture (UGF) 1
Exp. 2
Av.4wk. wt., gm.
Feed/ gain
370 388 372 380 377 356
1.87 1.84 1.88 1.84 1.85 1.89
—
—
Av. 4 wk. Feed/ wt., gm. gam
340 339 339 331 348 332 428
2.01 2.04 2.05 2.09 2.01 2.08 1.85
Supplements were fed at following levels: thioctic acid, 2 mg./kg.; orotic acid, 33 mg./kg.; adenosine, 300 mg./kg.; mevalonic acid (as dibenzyl ethylene diamine salt), 10 mg./kg.; and UGF, 12% of diet.
574
R. DAM, L. C. NORRIS AND F. W.
acid in complete and deficient diets for chicks. Poultry Sci. 36: 657-662. Bosshardt, D. K., and R. H. Barnes, 1957. Personal communication. Chin, D., and L. C. Norris, 1953. Unpublished results, Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Combs, G. F., G. H. Arscott and H. L. Jones, 1954. Unidentified growth factors required by chicks and poults. 3. Chick studies involving practicaltype rations. Poultry Sci. 33: 71-79. Dam, R., and L. C. Norris, 1956, 1958. Unpublished results, Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Dam, R., A. B. Morrison and L. C. Norris, 1959. Studies on unidentified chick growth factors apparently organic in nature. J. Nutrition, 69: 277-282. DeBusk, B. G., and R. J. Williams, 1955. Effect of lipoic acid on the growth rate of young chicks and rats. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 55: 587-588. Kratzer, F. H., P. Vohra, P. N. Davis and R. L. Atkinson, 1958. Failure to obtain growth responses in poults with orotic acid, lipoic acid, mevalonic acid and gibberellic acid. Poultry Sci. 37: 955-960. Menge, H., and G. F. Combs, 1952. Unidentified growth factors required by chicks and poults. 2. Fractionation of a factor in liver. Poultry Sci. 3 1 : 994-1004.
HILL
Morrison, A. B., and L. C. Norris, 1956. Failure of thioctic acid to stimulate chick growth. Poultry Sci. 35: 739-740. Rasmussen, R. A., P. L. Luthy, J. M. Van Lanen and C. S. Boruff, 1954. The dual nature of the unidentified chick growth promoting activity of distillers dried solubles. Proc. 9th Distillers Feed Conference, Cincinnati, pp. 29-37. Reid, B. L., R. L. Svacha, A. A. Kurnick, F. M. Salama and J. R. Couch, 1956. Unidentified growth factors and thioctic acid in chick and poult nutrition. Proc. 11th Distillers Feed Conference, Cincinnati, pp. 68-79. Ritchey, S. J., H. M. Scott and B. C. Johnson, 1956. Adenosine and ash as undentified chick growth factors in fish meal. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 93 : 326-328. Stokstad, E. L. R., N. P. Broquist and E. L. Patterson, 1953. Role of protogen in animal nutrition. Federation Proc. 12 : 430. Stokstad, E. L. R., E. L. Patterson, A. M. Albrecht and R. H. White-Stevens, 1956. Role of thioctic acid in chick nutrition. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 92: 88-91. Supplee, W. C , G. F. Combs and G. L. Romoser, 1956. Failure to obtain growth responses with thioctic acid in chicks from different sources. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 61: 140-143.
The Effect of Restricted and Full-Feeding During Confinement Rearing on First and Second Year Laying House Performance 1 K. G. HOLLANDS AND R. S. GOWE Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario (Received for publication June 23, 1960)
G
O WE et al. (1960) have reviewed recent published comparisons of the performance during the first laying year of pullets reared under a restricted and under a full-fed regime. These authors concluded that restricting the feed intake during the rearing period will (1) reduce body weight at housing, (2) delay sexual maturity, (3) increase the intensity of egg production once the delay in sexual maturity has been 1
Contribution No. 39, Animal Research Institute, Research Branch, Ottawa.
overcome, and generally (4) lower laying house mortality, (5) increase egg size, and (6) return more profit excluding any differences in labour costs. There is very little information available on the performance of laying birds in their second production year following a restricted feeding program during the rearing period. As far as these authors are aware only Walter and Aitken (1961) have studied the effect of restricted feeding on second year performance. They found no differ-
M
ENGE and Combs (1952) reported that orotic acid stimulated only very slight and inconsistent growth responses when fed to chicks. Similar results were obtained by Chin and Norris (1953). In contrast Combs, Arscott and Jones (1954) obtained increased growth in chicks fed practical type diets supplemented with orotic acid. Rasmussen et al. (1954) also reported that orotic acid promoted chick growth. DeBusk and Williams (1955) observed a growth response in chicks on addition of thioctic acid to the diet. Stokstad, Broquist and Patterson (1953), Morrison and Norris (1956), Stokstad et al. (1956), Reid et al. (1956), Supplee, Combs and Romoser (1956) and Briggs and Fox (1957) on the other hand, were unable to show that thioctic acid increased chick growth under a variety of environmental and dietary conditions. Barnett et al. (1956) reported a growth increase in chicks on the addition of adenosine to a purified diet. Ritchey, Scott and Johnson (1956), found, however, that adenosine failed to stimulate chick growth when added to a 30% protein diet. Dam and Norris (1956) also did not obtain improved growth on adenosine supplementation of a chick diet. Bosshardt and Barnes (1957) observed growth responses in chicks from mevalonic 1 Present address: Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, College of Agriculture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln 3, Nebraska. 3 Present address: Department of Poultry Husbandry, University of California, Davis, California.
acid which were statistically significant in some instances. But Dam and Norris (1958) were unable to confirm this work, although in a second experiment the basal diet was prepared from the same supplies of purified ingredients used by Bosshardt and Barnes. The negative findings of this laboratory on orotic acid, thioctic acid, adenosine and mevalonic acid were obtained by adding each to the diet singly. The possibility existed, therefore, that, if they were fed in combination an increase in chick growth might be obtained. The results of two experiments to test this hypothesis are presented in this report. EXPERIMENTAL
White Plymouth Rock chicks of the Cobb strain were used in the experiments. All chicks were obtained from hens maintained at the Cornell University Poultry Plant. The experimental flock of hens was fed a simplified ration composed chiefly of ground yellow corn, soybean oil meal and corn gluten meal. No sources of unidentified chick growth factors were included in the diet. The hens were maintained on raised wire floors and supplied feed and water ad libitum. The chicks were randomly distributed, identified with numbered wing bands and housed in galvanized metal battery brooders with raised wire floors and thermostatically controlled electric heaters. Each lot in both experiments consisted of eleven male and nine female chicks per lot. Duplicate
572
ADENOSINE AND OROTIC, THIOCTIC AND MEVALONIC ACIDS
lots of chicks were subjected to each treatment. Feed and water were given ad libitum. The chicks were fed the dextrose-isolated soybean purified diet previously described as basal diet A by Dam, Morrison and Norris (1959). In the experiments all combinations of three of orotic acid, thioctic acid, adenosine and mevalonic acid were fed as well as all four substances combined. In addition the treatments in experiment 2 included, for comparative purposes, a diet containing 12% of a mixture of three sources of unidentified chick growth factors (UGF). The mixture consisted of 50% distillers corn dried solubles, 25% fish solubles and 25% dried whey products. In preparing the diet containing these products, an amount of protein (N X 6.25) equal to that in the mixture was omitted from the basal diet, thereby maintaining the diet isonitrogenous. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the experiments are presented in Table 1. The results showed that under the experimental conditions none of the combinations of orotic acid, thioctic acid, adenosine and mevalonic acid which were studied had any growth-stimulating effect. The results with the combination of orotic acid, thioctic acid and mevalonic acid are in agreement with the findings of
573
Kratzer et al. (1958) on the turkey poult. A significant growth increase (P < 0.005), however, was obtained with the mixture of crude sources of unidentified chick growth factors. Further evidence for the presence of chick growth factors in this mixture was reported by Dam, Morrison and Norris (1959). The known substances studied in the present experiments do not appear, therefore, to be identical with the unidentified organic growth factors in the crude materials. SUMMARY
The four compounds, thioctic acid, orotic acid, adenosine and mevalonic acid, either when all four were fed together or when fed in combinations of three, did not stimulate chick growth. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank Merck, Sharp and Dohme Laboratories for supplying the mevalonic acid, and Dr. E. L. R. Stokstad of Lederle Laboratories for supplying the thioctic acid. REFERENCES Barnett, B. D., M. Lapidus, H. R. Bird and F. M. Strong, 1956. Adenosine as growth factor for chicks fed purified diet. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 92: 372-374. Briggs, G. M., and M. R. S. Fox, 19S7. Thioctic
TABLE 1.—Response of chicks to supplementation with combinations of known substances and to unknown factors Exp. 1 Treatment 1
Basal +thioctic acid+orotic acid+adenosine -(-orotic acid+adenosine+mevalonic acid -j-thioctic acid+adenosine-)-mevalonic acid -j-thioctic acid+orotic acid+mevalonic acid +thioctic acid+orotic acid+adenosine+mevalonic acid +unidentified growth factor mixture (UGF) 1
Exp. 2
Av.4wk. wt., gm.
Feed/ gain
370 388 372 380 377 356
1.87 1.84 1.88 1.84 1.85 1.89
—
—
Av. 4 wk. Feed/ wt., gm. gam
340 339 339 331 348 332 428
2.01 2.04 2.05 2.09 2.01 2.08 1.85
Supplements were fed at following levels: thioctic acid, 2 mg./kg.; orotic acid, 33 mg./kg.; adenosine, 300 mg./kg.; mevalonic acid (as dibenzyl ethylene diamine salt), 10 mg./kg.; and UGF, 12% of diet.
574
R. DAM, L. C. NORRIS AND F. W.
acid in complete and deficient diets for chicks. Poultry Sci. 36: 657-662. Bosshardt, D. K., and R. H. Barnes, 1957. Personal communication. Chin, D., and L. C. Norris, 1953. Unpublished results, Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Combs, G. F., G. H. Arscott and H. L. Jones, 1954. Unidentified growth factors required by chicks and poults. 3. Chick studies involving practicaltype rations. Poultry Sci. 33: 71-79. Dam, R., and L. C. Norris, 1956, 1958. Unpublished results, Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Dam, R., A. B. Morrison and L. C. Norris, 1959. Studies on unidentified chick growth factors apparently organic in nature. J. Nutrition, 69: 277-282. DeBusk, B. G., and R. J. Williams, 1955. Effect of lipoic acid on the growth rate of young chicks and rats. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 55: 587-588. Kratzer, F. H., P. Vohra, P. N. Davis and R. L. Atkinson, 1958. Failure to obtain growth responses in poults with orotic acid, lipoic acid, mevalonic acid and gibberellic acid. Poultry Sci. 37: 955-960. Menge, H., and G. F. Combs, 1952. Unidentified growth factors required by chicks and poults. 2. Fractionation of a factor in liver. Poultry Sci. 3 1 : 994-1004.
HILL
Morrison, A. B., and L. C. Norris, 1956. Failure of thioctic acid to stimulate chick growth. Poultry Sci. 35: 739-740. Rasmussen, R. A., P. L. Luthy, J. M. Van Lanen and C. S. Boruff, 1954. The dual nature of the unidentified chick growth promoting activity of distillers dried solubles. Proc. 9th Distillers Feed Conference, Cincinnati, pp. 29-37. Reid, B. L., R. L. Svacha, A. A. Kurnick, F. M. Salama and J. R. Couch, 1956. Unidentified growth factors and thioctic acid in chick and poult nutrition. Proc. 11th Distillers Feed Conference, Cincinnati, pp. 68-79. Ritchey, S. J., H. M. Scott and B. C. Johnson, 1956. Adenosine and ash as undentified chick growth factors in fish meal. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 93 : 326-328. Stokstad, E. L. R., N. P. Broquist and E. L. Patterson, 1953. Role of protogen in animal nutrition. Federation Proc. 12 : 430. Stokstad, E. L. R., E. L. Patterson, A. M. Albrecht and R. H. White-Stevens, 1956. Role of thioctic acid in chick nutrition. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 92: 88-91. Supplee, W. C , G. F. Combs and G. L. Romoser, 1956. Failure to obtain growth responses with thioctic acid in chicks from different sources. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 61: 140-143.
The Effect of Restricted and Full-Feeding During Confinement Rearing on First and Second Year Laying House Performance 1 K. G. HOLLANDS AND R. S. GOWE Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario (Received for publication June 23, 1960)
G
O WE et al. (1960) have reviewed recent published comparisons of the performance during the first laying year of pullets reared under a restricted and under a full-fed regime. These authors concluded that restricting the feed intake during the rearing period will (1) reduce body weight at housing, (2) delay sexual maturity, (3) increase the intensity of egg production once the delay in sexual maturity has been 1
Contribution No. 39, Animal Research Institute, Research Branch, Ottawa.
overcome, and generally (4) lower laying house mortality, (5) increase egg size, and (6) return more profit excluding any differences in labour costs. There is very little information available on the performance of laying birds in their second production year following a restricted feeding program during the rearing period. As far as these authors are aware only Walter and Aitken (1961) have studied the effect of restricted feeding on second year performance. They found no differ-