- Email: [email protected]
Detergents and Chick Growth
Detergents and Chick Growth H. D. BRANION AND D. C. HILL Department of Nutrition, Ontario Agricultural College, Guelpk, Ontario, Canada (Received for publication April 29, 1953)
E
LY (1951) found that certain surfactants produced an increased growth response in chicks. He stated "surprisingly, many commercial preparations for home laundry and dishwashing use are among the active types." Ely and Schott (1952a) further reported on a series of tests on commonly available commercial laundry products, both soaps and synthetic soaps. One product gave a positive growth response in four consecutive tests ranging from a low of 1.4 percent over the controls to a high of 8.0 percent, with an average increased gain of 5.4 percent. Of seven other products tested, one showed no effect on growth, two gave a minor growth improvement, and four were "rather active growth stimulators." The average growth increase on the better products was about 7.0 percent at 12 weeks. They concluded that this "considerable variability in stimulating effect" might be due, in part, to the percentage and type of inorganic "builders" used in these products. However, tests on certain inorganic and organic "builders" used in commercial laundry products indicated that none of these materials, by themselves, improve early chick growth. However, certain of these materials, showed a synergistic effect when added to various organic surfactants. Scott et al. (1952) found no evidence of growth stimulation with surfactants, and, in fact observed an increase in perosis. Further, a combination of two surfactants depressed growth. Stern et al. (1952) and Stern and McGinnis (1953) also reported that detergents either produced no signif62
icant growth response or, in some cases, when fed at high levels, depressed growth. However in both the Illinois and Washington investigations, the experiments only lasted 4 weeks, whereas Ely (1951) and Ely and Schott (1952a) used a 10-12 week growth period. In a later report, Snyder et al. (1953) fed one surfactant for a period of 10 weeks without increasing the growth response, and several other surfactants were without effect over a 4week period. Following the original publication of Ely (1951) we conducted two experiments with six synthetic detergents and one soap. EXPERIMENTAL
Each group consisted of 13-14, newlyhatched Columbian Rock female chicks and the groups were triplicated. They were kept in wire-floored tiered battery brooders for 12 weeks in an animal house in which there was some control of temperature but it was not air-conditioned. The chicks were allotted to the groups at random and the diets allotted to the pens at random with regard to position in the battery and the room. The chicks were weighed individually at weekly intervals. The percent composition of the diet was: ground wheat 40.0, ground corn 11.0, ground barley 5.0, ground oats 5.0, soybean oil meal (44% protein) 29.0, meat meal 1.0, fish meal 2.5, dried buttermilk 2.0, dehydrated alfalfa meal 1.0, ground limestone 1.5, steamed bone meal 1.5, iodized salt 0.25, fish oil (2500A, 300D) 0.25. To each 100 pounds of this diet were added: 0.25 of an ounce of man-
DETERGENTS AND CHICK GROWTH
ganese sulphate (technical grade), 0.15 of a gram of riboflavin,1 and 0.25 of a milligram of vitamin B121. This diet analyzed about 23.0% crude protein, 1.4% calcium and 0.9% phosphorus. The detergents were fed at a level of 0.5 percent of the diet, being added at the expense of the corn. Procaine penicillin1 was fed to control groups at a level of 10 p.p.m. All diets were fed ad libitum. RESULTS
The average weights of the combined triplicate groups, at biweekly intervals to 12 weeks are shown in Table 1. These data were subjected to statistical analysis by TABLE 1.—Average biweekly weights (grams) Supplements 1
Weeks 0
2
4
6
None Vel Tide Surf Dreft Penicillin
38 39 38 38 38 37
Experiment No. 126 338 594 132 588 338 124 330 579 128 336 592 137 627 358 122 340 608
None
40 39 40 39 39
Experiment No. 130 315 572 132 334 591 136 330 610 135 332 594 135 351 627
Fab
Duz Rinso Penicillin
8
10
12
1 917 910 897 913 956 952
1,176 1,163 1,153 1,183 1,231 1,222
1,482 1,444 1,422 1,473 1,514 1,497
2 872 911 921 896 958
1,184 1,196 1,214 1,180 1,261
1,465 1,450 1,498 1,458 1,541
1 Detergents fed at a level of 0.5% of the diet, penicillin at 10 p.p.m.
the method of Snedecor (1946). There were no significant differences, that is, none of the detergents nor the antibiotic gave an increased growth response. As a matter of interest, a difference in average weight between groups of about 60 grams would be necessary for significance at the 5 percent in Experiment 1, and a difference of about 115 grams in Experiment 2. Experiments 1 and 2 were not conducted at the same time, there being an interval of 6 weeks, so the average weights of the two experiments are not strictly comparable. For statistical treatment, the data 1 Merck and Company, donated these supplements.
Limited,
Montreal
63
were considered as two distinct experiments. Mortality was practically nil, a total of 4 chicks dying in the first experiment and 3 chicks in the second. DISCUSSION These results tend to confirm the results of Scott et al. (1952), Stern et al. (1952), Stern and McGinnis (1953), and Snyder et al. (1953) that surfactants, including detergents, do not stimulate growth of chicks. However, it should be borne in mind that the above investigators obtained a response with an antibiotic, whereas no response was obtained in our experiments. It is difficult, for several reasons, to offer a definite explanation for the failure of the detergents to cause growth stimulation, in these experiments, in contradistinction to those of Ely (1951) and Ely and Schott (1952a). Some possible reasons for the discrepancy can be advanced. Coates et al. (1951, 1952) demonstrated the influence of environment upon the response of chicks to antibiotics. They were unable to obtain a growth response with an antibiotic in chicks reared in a new environment, whereas a response was obtained in chicks reared in quarters which had been in use for some time. They postulated that antibiotics bring about the growth response by elimination of an infectious condition, although there is no demonstrable evidence of such a condition other than a depression of growth. Confirmation of this finding has been given by Bird et al. (1952), Lillie et al. (1953), and Hill et al. (1952, 1953). The experiments reported herein were conducted in the same animal house in which Hill and coworkers failed to obtain a response.2 In 2 It might be of interest to report that an antibiotic response is now being obtained in this building.
64
H. D. BRANION AND D. C. HILL
view of this, it could be postulated that the non-response to detergents is evidence that these compounds and antibiotics act in the same manner namely by elimination of a "sub-clinical" infection. Ely and Schott (1952a) suggested, as a result of unpublished bacteriological tests, that the theory of selective bacterial inhibition, proposed by other workers as the reason for the effectiveness of antibiotic supplements, might also apply to surfactants. Strong inhibitory action was shown by several surfactants on cultures of bacteria other than the coli-aerogenes type which were isolated from fresh droppings. They stress selective inhibition rather than a general inhibition of bacteria because the highly bactericidal quaternary ammonium salts are not more effective growth promoters than any other surfactant. The results reported herein neither support nor contradict this theory, but they do suggest that the bacteria which can be inhibited are not always present. Ely and Schott (1952a) proposed a second alternate theory, namely more rapid absorption of nutritional factors from the intestine as a result of "wetting" action of the surfactants. Calculations of the final surfactant to water relationship in the It has been in use for about 14 months. However chicks have not been housed therein continuously. In fact, for about six months prior to obtaining a response, it was used as an office, lecture room and chemical laboratory. Therefore, it might be suggested that the possibility of a human-borne infection should not be disregarded. In connection with the "infection" theory, certain anomalies do exist, suggesting that the organism or organisms responsible for the "sub-clinical" infection are not amenable to sanitation practices generally superior to those commonly used. Our cages, feed and water troughs etc. are washed and disinfected at the end of each experiment. Similarly the walls, ceiling and floor are periodically washed and disinfected. This, of course, does not rule out a "resistant" organism but it is somewhat surprising that such practices do not discourage it.
body of the chick indicated that the surface tension can be appreciably altered when the birds are consuming large amounts of feed and water. Our results would tend to contradict this suggestion. It would be expected that, irrespective of the presence or absence of a sub-clinical infection or irrespective of whether the population of intestinal microorganisms is changed or not, more rapid absorption of nutrients would give increased growth. However, it must be admitted that the possibility exists that more rapid absorption of the nutrients from a ration, containing such nutrients in excess of maximum requirements, would not result in increased growth. The possibility also exists that these differences may be due, in part at least, to differences in the rations used. It has been shown that the response to antibiotics may be conditioned by the ingredients in the basal ration, including the effect of unidentified factors. The literature on this point has been reviewed by Branion and Hill (1953) and Branion, Anderson and Hill (1953). Surfactant response could be affected in like manner. Ely and Schott (1952a) listed the ingredients in five rations which they used in their experiments, but there was no information as to which rations were fed in their detergent experiments. However, in a later publication (Ely and Schott, 1952b), they have given this information. They used two allvegetable basal diets, in both of which corn was the sole cereal grain (60.0-60.5 percent of the diet). The protein supplement in one diet was a combination of soybean oil meal and corn gluten meal (18 and 10 percent of the diet, respectively), while in the other, soybean oil meal (35 percent of the diet) was the only protein supplement. The rations used in our experiments contained animal protein supplements, including fish meal. Synder et
DETERGENTS AND CHICK GROWTH
al. (1953) obtained a response when each of aureomycin, vitamin B12 and a surfactant were used to supplement a "stress" diet, deficient in vitamin B12, and containing 60 percent soybean oil meal. Ely and Schott (1952a) did not give the average weights of the various groups. They stated that one laundry product gave a range in response from 1.4 to 8.0 percent, averaging 5.4 percent over the control. With some of the better products, in tests involving seven products, the average growth increase was 7 percent. In the later publication (Ely and Schott, 1952b), the actual range with eight products was from minus 1.7 percent to plus 11.4 percent. This publication gives the average weights as well as feed efficiency data. At 10 weeks of age, the one basal diet gave average weights of 1280 and 1362 grams, and with a commercial laundry product, average weights of 1298 and 1471 grams, respectively, in two tests. The other diet gave average weights of 1498 and 1385 grams, and with the commercial laundry products, average weights of 1603 in one test, and from 1362 to 1643 grams at 12 weeks of age, in the other test, respectively. Two breeds of chickens were involved, Indian River (Delaware male X New Hampshire females) and barred crossbreds (Barred Rock male X New Hampshire females). Each group consisted of 20 chicks with one exception, which had 40. These average weights and numbers are not far removed from those in our experiments, but in the absence of statistical data, it is not possible to state whether the differences observed by Ely and Schott were significant or not. However, in our experiments, an increase in average weight of about 4 percent was required for significance in the first trial and about 7.5 percent in the second. It is interesting to note that, with the first basal diet used by Ely and Schott, in
65
both experiments, the grams of feed required per gram gain were higher in the groups fed the laundry product, whereas with the second basal diet, the grams of feed per gram of gain were higher in the groups fed detergents in five cases and lower in four cases. Ely (1951) stated that the surfactants were fed at levels ranging from 13 to 454 grams per 100 pounds of ration. Ely and Schott (1952b) fed the surfactants at levels ranging from 0.57 to 20.0 pounds per ton; the level of laundry products fed ranged from 2.2 to 20.0 pounds per ton, generally 4.4 pounds per ton. In our experiments, the level was only 1 pound per ton. SUMMARY The individual inclusion of each of six synthetic detergents and one soap, at an 0.5 percent level in the rations, failed to give an increased growth response over the control to 12 weeks of age. However procaine pencillin at a level of 10 parts per million also failed to give a resDonse. REFERENCES Branion, H. D., and D. C. Hill, 1953. Fish meal and the response of chicks to antibiotics. Poultry Sci. 32: 151-158. Branion, H. D., G. W. Anderson and D. C. Hill, 1953. Antibiotics and the growth of ducks. Poultry Sci. 32: 335-347. Bird, H. R., R. J. Lillie and J. R. Sizemore, 1952. Environment and stimulation of chick growth by antibiotics. Poultry Sci. 31: 907. Coates, M. E., C. D. Dickinson, G. F. Harrison, S. K. Kon, S. H. Cummins and W. F. J. Cuthbertson, 1951. Mode of action of antibiotics in stimulating growth of chicks. Nature, 168: 332. Coates, M. E., C. D. Dickinson, G. F. Harrison, G. F. Porter, S. K. Kon, S. H. Cummins and W.F. J. Cuthbertson, 1952. A mode of action of antibiotics in chick nutrition. J. Sci. Food Agric, 3:43-48. Ely, C. M., 1951. Chick-growth stimulation produced by surfactants. Science, 114: 523-524. Ely, C. M., and S. Schott, 1952a. Surface active agents as growth stimulators in chick rations
66
0 . F . HlXSON AND L. ROSNER
Proc. 7th Distillers Feed Conference: 72-84. Ely, C. M., and S. Schott, 1952b. Surface active agents as growth stimulators in chick rations. Research Division, National Distillers Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio. Hill, D. C, H. D. Branion and S. J. Slinger, 1952. Influence of environment on the growth response of chicks to penicillin. Poultry Sci. 31: 920. Hill, D. C, H. D. Branion, S. J. Slinger and G. W. Anderson, 1953. Influence of environment on the growth response of chicks to penicillin. Poultry Sci. 32:462-466. Lillie, R. J., J. R. Sizemore and H. R. Bird, 1953. Environment and stimulation of growth of chicks by antibiotics. Poultry Sci. 32: 445-175. Scott, H. M., B. C. Johnson and E. A. Goffi, 1952.
Effect of surface active agents on chick growth. Poultry Sci. 31: 746-747. Snedecor, G. W., 1946. Statistical Methods, 4th ed., Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa. Snyder, J. M., B. C. Johnson and H. M. Scott, 1953. Surface active agents and the time of their effect on chick growth with special reference to vitamin B12 and aureomycin interrelationships. Poultry Sci. 32: 527-531. Stern, J. R., J. C. Guttierrez and J. McGinnis, 1952. Comparative growth response of chicks to detergents, germicides and penicillin. Amer. Chem. Soc. Abstracts, March, p. 6C. Stern, J. R., and J. McGinnis, 1953. Comparative growth response of chicks to detergents, germicides and penicillin. Poultry Sci. 32: 26-28.
Effect of Unidentified Factors in Yeast on Growth and Hock Disorder of Turkey Poults O. F . H I X S O N AND L A W R E N C E R O S N E R Laboratory of Vitamin Technology, Inc., Chicago, Illinois (deceived for publication May 1. 1953)
T
U R K E Y poults have been found to be excellent experimental animals for demonstration of unidentified factors in natural products. T h e apparent high requirement of turkeys for some of these factors makes them t h e bird of choice in m a n y instances. Scott (1951) demonstrated t h a t inclusion of high levels of cod liver oil in the rations of turkeys caused a high incidence of enlarged hocks. T h e incidence of this disorder was reduced b y feeding certain supplements, particularly brewer's yeast. Likewise Combs (1951) fed to turkey poults a basal ration of corn and soybean meal, with addition of all of the vitamins and minerals known to be required b y turkeys. F u r t h e r additions of certain natural products, including yeast, resulted in increased rate of growth. I n view of the findings t h a t yeast contains a factor or factors, as yet undefined, required b y turkey poults for maximum
growth and for reducing the incidence of enlarged hock disorder caused by a high cod liver oil level in the ration, it was deemed of interest to determine whether all types of yeasts contain these factors and to what extent. EXPERIMENT A: STUDY OF EFFECT OF YEAST ON RATE OF GROWTH Day-old Broad Breasted Bronze female poults, Cornell University strain, were placed upon a basal ration prepared according to the formula shown in Table 1. On the third day they were assembled into seven groups of 14 or 15 poults each. One group continued to receive the basal ration only, while the remaining six groups received the same ration supplemented with five percent yeast. T h e yeasts studied were three brewer's dried yeasts, two primary grown yeasts and one torula yeast, all from different sources.
E
LY (1951) found that certain surfactants produced an increased growth response in chicks. He stated "surprisingly, many commercial preparations for home laundry and dishwashing use are among the active types." Ely and Schott (1952a) further reported on a series of tests on commonly available commercial laundry products, both soaps and synthetic soaps. One product gave a positive growth response in four consecutive tests ranging from a low of 1.4 percent over the controls to a high of 8.0 percent, with an average increased gain of 5.4 percent. Of seven other products tested, one showed no effect on growth, two gave a minor growth improvement, and four were "rather active growth stimulators." The average growth increase on the better products was about 7.0 percent at 12 weeks. They concluded that this "considerable variability in stimulating effect" might be due, in part, to the percentage and type of inorganic "builders" used in these products. However, tests on certain inorganic and organic "builders" used in commercial laundry products indicated that none of these materials, by themselves, improve early chick growth. However, certain of these materials, showed a synergistic effect when added to various organic surfactants. Scott et al. (1952) found no evidence of growth stimulation with surfactants, and, in fact observed an increase in perosis. Further, a combination of two surfactants depressed growth. Stern et al. (1952) and Stern and McGinnis (1953) also reported that detergents either produced no signif62
icant growth response or, in some cases, when fed at high levels, depressed growth. However in both the Illinois and Washington investigations, the experiments only lasted 4 weeks, whereas Ely (1951) and Ely and Schott (1952a) used a 10-12 week growth period. In a later report, Snyder et al. (1953) fed one surfactant for a period of 10 weeks without increasing the growth response, and several other surfactants were without effect over a 4week period. Following the original publication of Ely (1951) we conducted two experiments with six synthetic detergents and one soap. EXPERIMENTAL
Each group consisted of 13-14, newlyhatched Columbian Rock female chicks and the groups were triplicated. They were kept in wire-floored tiered battery brooders for 12 weeks in an animal house in which there was some control of temperature but it was not air-conditioned. The chicks were allotted to the groups at random and the diets allotted to the pens at random with regard to position in the battery and the room. The chicks were weighed individually at weekly intervals. The percent composition of the diet was: ground wheat 40.0, ground corn 11.0, ground barley 5.0, ground oats 5.0, soybean oil meal (44% protein) 29.0, meat meal 1.0, fish meal 2.5, dried buttermilk 2.0, dehydrated alfalfa meal 1.0, ground limestone 1.5, steamed bone meal 1.5, iodized salt 0.25, fish oil (2500A, 300D) 0.25. To each 100 pounds of this diet were added: 0.25 of an ounce of man-
DETERGENTS AND CHICK GROWTH
ganese sulphate (technical grade), 0.15 of a gram of riboflavin,1 and 0.25 of a milligram of vitamin B121. This diet analyzed about 23.0% crude protein, 1.4% calcium and 0.9% phosphorus. The detergents were fed at a level of 0.5 percent of the diet, being added at the expense of the corn. Procaine penicillin1 was fed to control groups at a level of 10 p.p.m. All diets were fed ad libitum. RESULTS
The average weights of the combined triplicate groups, at biweekly intervals to 12 weeks are shown in Table 1. These data were subjected to statistical analysis by TABLE 1.—Average biweekly weights (grams) Supplements 1
Weeks 0
2
4
6
None Vel Tide Surf Dreft Penicillin
38 39 38 38 38 37
Experiment No. 126 338 594 132 588 338 124 330 579 128 336 592 137 627 358 122 340 608
None
40 39 40 39 39
Experiment No. 130 315 572 132 334 591 136 330 610 135 332 594 135 351 627
Fab
Duz Rinso Penicillin
8
10
12
1 917 910 897 913 956 952
1,176 1,163 1,153 1,183 1,231 1,222
1,482 1,444 1,422 1,473 1,514 1,497
2 872 911 921 896 958
1,184 1,196 1,214 1,180 1,261
1,465 1,450 1,498 1,458 1,541
1 Detergents fed at a level of 0.5% of the diet, penicillin at 10 p.p.m.
the method of Snedecor (1946). There were no significant differences, that is, none of the detergents nor the antibiotic gave an increased growth response. As a matter of interest, a difference in average weight between groups of about 60 grams would be necessary for significance at the 5 percent in Experiment 1, and a difference of about 115 grams in Experiment 2. Experiments 1 and 2 were not conducted at the same time, there being an interval of 6 weeks, so the average weights of the two experiments are not strictly comparable. For statistical treatment, the data 1 Merck and Company, donated these supplements.
Limited,
Montreal
63
were considered as two distinct experiments. Mortality was practically nil, a total of 4 chicks dying in the first experiment and 3 chicks in the second. DISCUSSION These results tend to confirm the results of Scott et al. (1952), Stern et al. (1952), Stern and McGinnis (1953), and Snyder et al. (1953) that surfactants, including detergents, do not stimulate growth of chicks. However, it should be borne in mind that the above investigators obtained a response with an antibiotic, whereas no response was obtained in our experiments. It is difficult, for several reasons, to offer a definite explanation for the failure of the detergents to cause growth stimulation, in these experiments, in contradistinction to those of Ely (1951) and Ely and Schott (1952a). Some possible reasons for the discrepancy can be advanced. Coates et al. (1951, 1952) demonstrated the influence of environment upon the response of chicks to antibiotics. They were unable to obtain a growth response with an antibiotic in chicks reared in a new environment, whereas a response was obtained in chicks reared in quarters which had been in use for some time. They postulated that antibiotics bring about the growth response by elimination of an infectious condition, although there is no demonstrable evidence of such a condition other than a depression of growth. Confirmation of this finding has been given by Bird et al. (1952), Lillie et al. (1953), and Hill et al. (1952, 1953). The experiments reported herein were conducted in the same animal house in which Hill and coworkers failed to obtain a response.2 In 2 It might be of interest to report that an antibiotic response is now being obtained in this building.
64
H. D. BRANION AND D. C. HILL
view of this, it could be postulated that the non-response to detergents is evidence that these compounds and antibiotics act in the same manner namely by elimination of a "sub-clinical" infection. Ely and Schott (1952a) suggested, as a result of unpublished bacteriological tests, that the theory of selective bacterial inhibition, proposed by other workers as the reason for the effectiveness of antibiotic supplements, might also apply to surfactants. Strong inhibitory action was shown by several surfactants on cultures of bacteria other than the coli-aerogenes type which were isolated from fresh droppings. They stress selective inhibition rather than a general inhibition of bacteria because the highly bactericidal quaternary ammonium salts are not more effective growth promoters than any other surfactant. The results reported herein neither support nor contradict this theory, but they do suggest that the bacteria which can be inhibited are not always present. Ely and Schott (1952a) proposed a second alternate theory, namely more rapid absorption of nutritional factors from the intestine as a result of "wetting" action of the surfactants. Calculations of the final surfactant to water relationship in the It has been in use for about 14 months. However chicks have not been housed therein continuously. In fact, for about six months prior to obtaining a response, it was used as an office, lecture room and chemical laboratory. Therefore, it might be suggested that the possibility of a human-borne infection should not be disregarded. In connection with the "infection" theory, certain anomalies do exist, suggesting that the organism or organisms responsible for the "sub-clinical" infection are not amenable to sanitation practices generally superior to those commonly used. Our cages, feed and water troughs etc. are washed and disinfected at the end of each experiment. Similarly the walls, ceiling and floor are periodically washed and disinfected. This, of course, does not rule out a "resistant" organism but it is somewhat surprising that such practices do not discourage it.
body of the chick indicated that the surface tension can be appreciably altered when the birds are consuming large amounts of feed and water. Our results would tend to contradict this suggestion. It would be expected that, irrespective of the presence or absence of a sub-clinical infection or irrespective of whether the population of intestinal microorganisms is changed or not, more rapid absorption of nutrients would give increased growth. However, it must be admitted that the possibility exists that more rapid absorption of the nutrients from a ration, containing such nutrients in excess of maximum requirements, would not result in increased growth. The possibility also exists that these differences may be due, in part at least, to differences in the rations used. It has been shown that the response to antibiotics may be conditioned by the ingredients in the basal ration, including the effect of unidentified factors. The literature on this point has been reviewed by Branion and Hill (1953) and Branion, Anderson and Hill (1953). Surfactant response could be affected in like manner. Ely and Schott (1952a) listed the ingredients in five rations which they used in their experiments, but there was no information as to which rations were fed in their detergent experiments. However, in a later publication (Ely and Schott, 1952b), they have given this information. They used two allvegetable basal diets, in both of which corn was the sole cereal grain (60.0-60.5 percent of the diet). The protein supplement in one diet was a combination of soybean oil meal and corn gluten meal (18 and 10 percent of the diet, respectively), while in the other, soybean oil meal (35 percent of the diet) was the only protein supplement. The rations used in our experiments contained animal protein supplements, including fish meal. Synder et
DETERGENTS AND CHICK GROWTH
al. (1953) obtained a response when each of aureomycin, vitamin B12 and a surfactant were used to supplement a "stress" diet, deficient in vitamin B12, and containing 60 percent soybean oil meal. Ely and Schott (1952a) did not give the average weights of the various groups. They stated that one laundry product gave a range in response from 1.4 to 8.0 percent, averaging 5.4 percent over the control. With some of the better products, in tests involving seven products, the average growth increase was 7 percent. In the later publication (Ely and Schott, 1952b), the actual range with eight products was from minus 1.7 percent to plus 11.4 percent. This publication gives the average weights as well as feed efficiency data. At 10 weeks of age, the one basal diet gave average weights of 1280 and 1362 grams, and with a commercial laundry product, average weights of 1298 and 1471 grams, respectively, in two tests. The other diet gave average weights of 1498 and 1385 grams, and with the commercial laundry products, average weights of 1603 in one test, and from 1362 to 1643 grams at 12 weeks of age, in the other test, respectively. Two breeds of chickens were involved, Indian River (Delaware male X New Hampshire females) and barred crossbreds (Barred Rock male X New Hampshire females). Each group consisted of 20 chicks with one exception, which had 40. These average weights and numbers are not far removed from those in our experiments, but in the absence of statistical data, it is not possible to state whether the differences observed by Ely and Schott were significant or not. However, in our experiments, an increase in average weight of about 4 percent was required for significance in the first trial and about 7.5 percent in the second. It is interesting to note that, with the first basal diet used by Ely and Schott, in
65
both experiments, the grams of feed required per gram gain were higher in the groups fed the laundry product, whereas with the second basal diet, the grams of feed per gram of gain were higher in the groups fed detergents in five cases and lower in four cases. Ely (1951) stated that the surfactants were fed at levels ranging from 13 to 454 grams per 100 pounds of ration. Ely and Schott (1952b) fed the surfactants at levels ranging from 0.57 to 20.0 pounds per ton; the level of laundry products fed ranged from 2.2 to 20.0 pounds per ton, generally 4.4 pounds per ton. In our experiments, the level was only 1 pound per ton. SUMMARY The individual inclusion of each of six synthetic detergents and one soap, at an 0.5 percent level in the rations, failed to give an increased growth response over the control to 12 weeks of age. However procaine pencillin at a level of 10 parts per million also failed to give a resDonse. REFERENCES Branion, H. D., and D. C. Hill, 1953. Fish meal and the response of chicks to antibiotics. Poultry Sci. 32: 151-158. Branion, H. D., G. W. Anderson and D. C. Hill, 1953. Antibiotics and the growth of ducks. Poultry Sci. 32: 335-347. Bird, H. R., R. J. Lillie and J. R. Sizemore, 1952. Environment and stimulation of chick growth by antibiotics. Poultry Sci. 31: 907. Coates, M. E., C. D. Dickinson, G. F. Harrison, S. K. Kon, S. H. Cummins and W. F. J. Cuthbertson, 1951. Mode of action of antibiotics in stimulating growth of chicks. Nature, 168: 332. Coates, M. E., C. D. Dickinson, G. F. Harrison, G. F. Porter, S. K. Kon, S. H. Cummins and W.F. J. Cuthbertson, 1952. A mode of action of antibiotics in chick nutrition. J. Sci. Food Agric, 3:43-48. Ely, C. M., 1951. Chick-growth stimulation produced by surfactants. Science, 114: 523-524. Ely, C. M., and S. Schott, 1952a. Surface active agents as growth stimulators in chick rations
66
0 . F . HlXSON AND L. ROSNER
Proc. 7th Distillers Feed Conference: 72-84. Ely, C. M., and S. Schott, 1952b. Surface active agents as growth stimulators in chick rations. Research Division, National Distillers Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio. Hill, D. C, H. D. Branion and S. J. Slinger, 1952. Influence of environment on the growth response of chicks to penicillin. Poultry Sci. 31: 920. Hill, D. C, H. D. Branion, S. J. Slinger and G. W. Anderson, 1953. Influence of environment on the growth response of chicks to penicillin. Poultry Sci. 32:462-466. Lillie, R. J., J. R. Sizemore and H. R. Bird, 1953. Environment and stimulation of growth of chicks by antibiotics. Poultry Sci. 32: 445-175. Scott, H. M., B. C. Johnson and E. A. Goffi, 1952.
Effect of surface active agents on chick growth. Poultry Sci. 31: 746-747. Snedecor, G. W., 1946. Statistical Methods, 4th ed., Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa. Snyder, J. M., B. C. Johnson and H. M. Scott, 1953. Surface active agents and the time of their effect on chick growth with special reference to vitamin B12 and aureomycin interrelationships. Poultry Sci. 32: 527-531. Stern, J. R., J. C. Guttierrez and J. McGinnis, 1952. Comparative growth response of chicks to detergents, germicides and penicillin. Amer. Chem. Soc. Abstracts, March, p. 6C. Stern, J. R., and J. McGinnis, 1953. Comparative growth response of chicks to detergents, germicides and penicillin. Poultry Sci. 32: 26-28.
Effect of Unidentified Factors in Yeast on Growth and Hock Disorder of Turkey Poults O. F . H I X S O N AND L A W R E N C E R O S N E R Laboratory of Vitamin Technology, Inc., Chicago, Illinois (deceived for publication May 1. 1953)
T
U R K E Y poults have been found to be excellent experimental animals for demonstration of unidentified factors in natural products. T h e apparent high requirement of turkeys for some of these factors makes them t h e bird of choice in m a n y instances. Scott (1951) demonstrated t h a t inclusion of high levels of cod liver oil in the rations of turkeys caused a high incidence of enlarged hocks. T h e incidence of this disorder was reduced b y feeding certain supplements, particularly brewer's yeast. Likewise Combs (1951) fed to turkey poults a basal ration of corn and soybean meal, with addition of all of the vitamins and minerals known to be required b y turkeys. F u r t h e r additions of certain natural products, including yeast, resulted in increased rate of growth. I n view of the findings t h a t yeast contains a factor or factors, as yet undefined, required b y turkey poults for maximum
growth and for reducing the incidence of enlarged hock disorder caused by a high cod liver oil level in the ration, it was deemed of interest to determine whether all types of yeasts contain these factors and to what extent. EXPERIMENT A: STUDY OF EFFECT OF YEAST ON RATE OF GROWTH Day-old Broad Breasted Bronze female poults, Cornell University strain, were placed upon a basal ration prepared according to the formula shown in Table 1. On the third day they were assembled into seven groups of 14 or 15 poults each. One group continued to receive the basal ration only, while the remaining six groups received the same ration supplemented with five percent yeast. T h e yeasts studied were three brewer's dried yeasts, two primary grown yeasts and one torula yeast, all from different sources.