- Email: [email protected]
Safety Evaluation of Gentian Violet for Breeder Chickens1
Safety Evaluation of Gentian Violet for Breeder Chickensl D . L . CROSS AND B . L . HUGHES
Department of Poultry Science, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 29631 (Received for publication June 30, 1975)
POULTRY SCIENCE 55: 1179-1182, 1976
INTRODUCTION
G
ENTIAN violet has been consumed orally as an anthelmintic by human beings for several decades. Pinworms have traditionally been treated with gentian violet (Wright et al., 1938), and gentian violet is currently sold as a non-prescription drug for this purpose. Deschiens and Bablet (1944) found that the lethal dose in rabbits was 15 to 30 times the recommended anthelmintic dose. Most of the toxicologic effects of gentian violet have been reported following intravenous injection of massive doses (Churchman and Herz, 1913; Cutlip and Monluk, 1967). There are no data reported pertaining to toxicologic effects of orally administered gentian violet for poultry. Gentian violet (methylrosaniline chloride) has been used in human and veterinary medicine for decades and has been shown to be effective in controlling fungal growth under varying conditions (Stearn and Stearn, 1929; Carpenter, 1955;Migazawa, 1956; Procknow, 1962; and Moorhead and Cross, 1971). Its
1. Technical Contribution No. 1278. Published with the approval of the Director, South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.
efficacy as a fungistatic agent in poultry feeds has also been demonstrated (Michaels, 1973; Chen and Day, 1974; and Kingsland and Anderson, 1976). The objective of the study outlined herein was to evaluate the safety of a gentian violet premix (Dye-Gen)2 for breeder chickens. The design of this experiment was reviewed, revised and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as being adequate for evaluating the safe use of the aforementioned product for breeder chickens. MATERIALS AND METHODS Five levels (0, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0, and 10 x the recommended use level) of a commercially prepared gentian violet premix, containing 2.05% gentian violet on a dry matter basis, were added to a standard breeder diet. These levels represent 0, .50, 1.25, 2.50, and 5.00 g. of the gentian violet premix/kg. of complete feed, respectively. The females (Hubbard broiler breeders) were started on the test at approximately 26 weeks of age. They had been in production for at least 30 days
2. Dan-Mar Enterprises, P.O. Box 117, Commerce, Georgia.
1179
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Iowa-Law Library on May 25, 2015
ABSTRACT Four treatment levels (1.0, 2.5, 5.0, and 10.0 x the recommended use level) of a gentian violet premix (Dye-Gen) were compared with non-medicated controls for breeder chickens during a 168-day study. There were no treatment effects up to and including 10 x the recommended use level on: average daily feed consumption, feed/dozen eggs, hatchability of fertile eggs, or mortality. Fertility was higher for the birds receiving 2.5 x the recommended use level than for the non-medicated controls. Egg production was higher (P < .05) for the non-medicated controls and lOx groups than for the birds receiving the gentian violet premix at 2.5 x the recommended use level. Semen of breeder males was observed for % abnormal sperm, % dead sperm, % motility, vigor, and semen volume. There was no treatment effect on any of the semen characteristics evaluated. It can be concluded from these data that the gentian violet premix is safe for breeder chickens under the conditions of this study.
1180
D. L. CROSS AND B. L. HUGHES
Also, the dietary treatments were randomly assigned to 25 breeder males (Shaver White Leghorns). Semen from males on any one treatment was pooled and used to inseminate the hens on that same treatment. Semen was TABLE 1.—Effect
collected twice weekly throughout the entire study. Once weekly, the semen was used to inseminate the hens. Two days before this collection, the males were ejaculated and the semen discarded, except on three occasions during the last 84 days of the study. This semen was collected at 28-day intervals and examined for certain characteristics indicative of semen quality. The data were analyzed using least-squares regression analysis (Statistical Analysis System, North Carolina State University). Duncan's new multiple range test was used to determine differences among treatment means (Duncan, 1955). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The feeding of the gentian violet premix (Table 1) resulted in an increase (P < .05) in percent fertility in the females receiving 2.5x the recommended use level (87.5% fer-
of gentian violet on fertility, hatchability and laying hen performance of breeder females Level of gentian violet premix (x recommended use level)a 0b 75.6 ± 14.2=
5.0 1.0 2.5 10 79.3 ± 7.0<=d 83.5 ± 6.3cd 82.4 ± 7.6cd 87.5 ±6.1 d Fertile eggs (%) Hatchability of 85.5 ± 8.0 86.8 ± 6.4 86.1 ±5.2 fertile eggs (%) 82.9 ±7.7 82.9 ± 7.1 Hatchability of total 67.9 ± 8.6cd 73.2 ± 6.4d eggs set (%) 62.8 ± 13.8C 68.4 ± 8.9cd 75.4 ± 7.3 Av. daily feed cons. 148.1 ± 18.1 152.9 ±17.3 152.8 ±15.3 (g./hen) 154.7 ±20.9 155.1 ± 17.6 Egg production (doz./hen/28 1.51 ± .24" 1.60±.18 cd 1.66 ± .23cd 1.69 ± .18c days) 1.68±.21 c Feed (kg.)/doz. 2.77 ± .44 2.66 ± .26 2.60 ± .35 2.53 ± .32 eggs 2.57 ± .36 Feed (kg.)/doz. 3.90 ± 1.01 4.03 ± .78 3.86 ± .91 3.54 ± .63 egg hatched 4.48 ± 1.47 Average gain per 28 30.0±21.9<:d 22.3 ± 19.8cd 21.5 ± 23.ld 26.6 ± 17.3cd days(g.) 33.5 ±33.1 8 12 4 0 Mortality (%) 8 "Treatment levels of gentian violet premix represent 0, .50, 1.25, 2.50, and 5.00 g./kg. of complete feed, respectively. b Treatment mean ± standard deviation. cd - Means in the same row bearing different superscripts are significantly (P < .05) different.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Iowa-Law Library on May 25, 2015
before assignment to treatment. The lighting regime consisted of 14 hours of constant light daily and was supplied by natural and artificial light throughout the 168-day experimental period. The hens were artificially inseminated once weekly to obtain fertility data. The birds were weighed and feed consumption quantitated at 28-day intervals. Eggs were collected twice daily throughout the experimental period and incubated at weekly intervals. The birds were housed in a curtain-sided, cagetype house. A completely randomized design was used, and each experimental unit consisted of five birds. The dietary treatments were randomly assigned to 25 groups of cages (5 cages per group), thus the experiment consisted of 125 females.
1181
GENTIAN VIOLET SAFETY
There was no treatment effect (P > .05) on average daily feed consumption. However, egg production was higher (P < .05) for the non-medicated controls and the 10 x groups (1.68 and 1.69 dozen/hen/28 days, respectively) than for the birds receiving the 2.5x level (1.51 dozen/hen/28 days) of the gentian violet premix. Feed conversion (kg./dozen eggs) was not affected (P > .05) by gentian violet feeding. Feed conversion ranged from 2.53 kg./dozen eggs (lOx treatment) to 2.77 kg./dozen eggs (2.5x treatment). Also, feed consumption/dozen eggs hatched was not affected (P > .05) by treatment. However, there was a trend toward less feed consumption/dozen eggs hatched TABLE 2.—Effect
for the groups receiving the gentian violet premix. Again, this is largely due to effect of the gentian violet feeding on fertility and hatchability. Average gain (g./28 days) was lower (P < .05) for the 5x breeders (21.5 g.) than for the controls (33.5 g.). Generally, all birds showed only slight increase in gain, which is characteristic and desirable for heavy breeders. Mortality was not affected (P > .05) by gentian violet feeding. Mortality was due to prolapse of the oviduct in all of the birds except in one instance, in the 2.5 x treatment, in which death was due to a fatty liver. The results of gentian violet on sperm and semen characteristics of breeder males (Shaver White Leghorns) are shown in Table 2. There was no treatment effect (P > .05) on any of the sperm and semen characteristics observed. Semen volume ranged from .5 ml. (lOx treatment) to .7 ml. (control, 2.5x, and 5.Ox treatments) and was highly variable as evidenced by the relatively large standard deviations of the means. Hafez (1968) reported that egg-type breeds of chickens should produce approximately 0.6 cc. of semen per ejaculate. White Leghorn cockerels of similar age to the birds in this study produced .41
of gentian violet on sperm and semen characteristics of breeder males Level of gentian violet premix (x recommended use level)" 0
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
.7 ± .4 C
. 6 ± .2
.7 ± .3
.1 ± A
.5 ± .4
Item Semen volume/ ejaculate (ml.) b Abnormal sperm (%) b Dead sperm (%) b Motility (%) b Vigorb-d
3.5 3.4 63.0 2.8
± ± ± ±
2.0 1.4 18.9 .42
3.1 3.5 72.7 2.8
± ± ± ±
1.6 1.4 22.8 .41
2.8 3.4 68.3 2.8
± ± ± ±
1.5 1.4 19.5 .39
2.8 5.0 62.7 2.7
± 1.5 ± 6.0 ±21.2 ± .49
3.2 3.8 62.7 2.7
± ± ± ±
1.6 2.2 27.4 .49
a Treatment levels of gentian violet premix represent 0, .50, 1.25, 2.50, and 5.00 g./kg. of complete feed, respectively. b Means were not significantly (P > .05) different. c Treatment mean ± standard deviation. d Evaluated on the basis of the speed at which sperm traveled across a microscopic field and scored on a scale of 0-5 where 0 equaled no movement and 5 equaled the greatest movement.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Iowa-Law Library on May 25, 2015
tility) versus the non-medicated controls (75.6% fertility). There was a trend toward higher percent fertility in all of the birds receiving the gentian violet premix in their diets. There was no treatment effect (P > .05) on percent fertile eggs hatched. However, hatchability of total eggs set was higher (P < .05) for the breeders receiving the 2.5x and lOx (75.4 and 73.2%, respectively) level than for controls (62.8%). The reason for the increase in fertility with gentian violet feeding cannot be explained from data gathered in this study.
1182
D. L. CROSS AND B. L. HUGHES
cc. of semen (Wilson and Harms, 1972). Other parameters indicative of semen quality (% abnormal sperm, % dead sperm, % motility, and % vigor) were observed. There was no treatment effect (P > .05) on any of these semen characteristics. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES Carpenter, A. M., 1955. Studies on Candida. Sensitivity tests on strains of Candida. Antibiot. Chemotherapy, 5: 255-262. Chen, T. C , and E. J. Day, 1974. Gentian violet as a possible fungal inhibitor in poultry feed: plate assays on its antifungal activity. Poultry Sci. 53: 1791-1795. Churchman, J. W., and L. Herz, 1913. Toxicity of gentian violet and its fate in the animal body. J. Exp. Med. 18: 579-582. Cutlip, R. C , and W. S. Mouluk, 1967. Experimental crystal violet and methyl violet poisoning in dogs and cattle. Canada. J. Comp. Med. Vet. Sci. 31: 80-84. Deschiens, R., and J. Bablet, 1944. Toxicity of anthel-
NEWS AND NOTES MERCK NOTES As a result of its long association with the poultry industry, the Merck Animal Health Division has produced a slide presentation explaining the proper handling of microingredients and feed pre-mixes. Entitled "Handling Microingredients Accurately," the presentation is available from a Merck sales representative and covers safe handling in the feed mill and on the farm. Designed as a training tool for the poultry industry, the presentation details the manufacturing and transportation of feed pre-mixes containing microingredients. By showing the importance of accurate testing, handling and record keeping at each stage of the
operation, the presentation emphasizes every employee's role in proper handling of microingredients. The narration details methods for accurate handling in the mill and on the farm as: 1) Check the ingredients ordered against those blended. 2) Check blend with assay specifications. 3) Check for proper storage and amount. 4) Check record-keeping systems. 5) Check quality control procedure. 6) Check loading and delivery routines. The right feed must go to the right grower and must be loaded into a clean and properly marked bin every time. The presentation demonstrates how to implement these safeguards on a routine basis. Contact a Merck Animal Health representative or the Poultry
(Continued on page 1218)
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Iowa-Law Library on May 25, 2015
The authors wish to express appreciation to Mrs. C. D. Lawrence for the technical assistance and to Dr. W. E. Johnston for assistance in the statistical analysis of these data.
mintic triphenylmethane derivatives. Compt. Rend. Soc. Biol. 138: 839-849. Duncan, D. B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11: 1. Hafez, E. S. E., 1968. Reproduction in Farm Animals (2nd Ed.). Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia. Kingsland, G. C , and J. Anderson, 1976. A study of the feasibility of the use of gentian violet as a fungistat for poultry feed. Poultry Sci. 55: 852-856. Michaels, G. F., 1973. Efficacy testing of livestock feed additive, gentian violet. Technical report submitted to Dan-Mar Enterprises, Commerce, Georgia. Migazawa, F., 1956. Experimental studies on chemotherapy of candidiasis. Eisei Shikenjs Jokoki, 74: 341-348. Moorhead, P. D., and R. F. Cross, 1971. Prophylaxis of experimental moniliasis in quail. A comparison of ethylenediamine dihydriodide, benlate, sodium propionate, gentian violet and nystatin. Avian Dis. 16: 649-655. Procknow, J. J., 1962. Treatment of opportunistic fungus infections. Lab. Investig. 11: 1217-1230. Stearn, E. W., and A. E. Stearn, 1929. Comparative inhibiting effect of gentian violet and mercurochrome on the growth of certain fungi. J. Lab. Clin. Med. 14: 1057-1060. Wilson, H. R., and R. H. Harms, 1972. High levels of dietary iodine and sexual maturity in males. Poultry Sci. 51:742-746. Wright, W. H., F. J. Brady and J. Bozicevick, 1938. Oxyuriasis VIII. A preliminary note on therapy with gentian violet. Proe. Helminthol. Soc, Washington, D.C. 5: 5-7.
Department of Poultry Science, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 29631 (Received for publication June 30, 1975)
POULTRY SCIENCE 55: 1179-1182, 1976
INTRODUCTION
G
ENTIAN violet has been consumed orally as an anthelmintic by human beings for several decades. Pinworms have traditionally been treated with gentian violet (Wright et al., 1938), and gentian violet is currently sold as a non-prescription drug for this purpose. Deschiens and Bablet (1944) found that the lethal dose in rabbits was 15 to 30 times the recommended anthelmintic dose. Most of the toxicologic effects of gentian violet have been reported following intravenous injection of massive doses (Churchman and Herz, 1913; Cutlip and Monluk, 1967). There are no data reported pertaining to toxicologic effects of orally administered gentian violet for poultry. Gentian violet (methylrosaniline chloride) has been used in human and veterinary medicine for decades and has been shown to be effective in controlling fungal growth under varying conditions (Stearn and Stearn, 1929; Carpenter, 1955;Migazawa, 1956; Procknow, 1962; and Moorhead and Cross, 1971). Its
1. Technical Contribution No. 1278. Published with the approval of the Director, South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.
efficacy as a fungistatic agent in poultry feeds has also been demonstrated (Michaels, 1973; Chen and Day, 1974; and Kingsland and Anderson, 1976). The objective of the study outlined herein was to evaluate the safety of a gentian violet premix (Dye-Gen)2 for breeder chickens. The design of this experiment was reviewed, revised and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as being adequate for evaluating the safe use of the aforementioned product for breeder chickens. MATERIALS AND METHODS Five levels (0, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0, and 10 x the recommended use level) of a commercially prepared gentian violet premix, containing 2.05% gentian violet on a dry matter basis, were added to a standard breeder diet. These levels represent 0, .50, 1.25, 2.50, and 5.00 g. of the gentian violet premix/kg. of complete feed, respectively. The females (Hubbard broiler breeders) were started on the test at approximately 26 weeks of age. They had been in production for at least 30 days
2. Dan-Mar Enterprises, P.O. Box 117, Commerce, Georgia.
1179
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Iowa-Law Library on May 25, 2015
ABSTRACT Four treatment levels (1.0, 2.5, 5.0, and 10.0 x the recommended use level) of a gentian violet premix (Dye-Gen) were compared with non-medicated controls for breeder chickens during a 168-day study. There were no treatment effects up to and including 10 x the recommended use level on: average daily feed consumption, feed/dozen eggs, hatchability of fertile eggs, or mortality. Fertility was higher for the birds receiving 2.5 x the recommended use level than for the non-medicated controls. Egg production was higher (P < .05) for the non-medicated controls and lOx groups than for the birds receiving the gentian violet premix at 2.5 x the recommended use level. Semen of breeder males was observed for % abnormal sperm, % dead sperm, % motility, vigor, and semen volume. There was no treatment effect on any of the semen characteristics evaluated. It can be concluded from these data that the gentian violet premix is safe for breeder chickens under the conditions of this study.
1180
D. L. CROSS AND B. L. HUGHES
Also, the dietary treatments were randomly assigned to 25 breeder males (Shaver White Leghorns). Semen from males on any one treatment was pooled and used to inseminate the hens on that same treatment. Semen was TABLE 1.—Effect
collected twice weekly throughout the entire study. Once weekly, the semen was used to inseminate the hens. Two days before this collection, the males were ejaculated and the semen discarded, except on three occasions during the last 84 days of the study. This semen was collected at 28-day intervals and examined for certain characteristics indicative of semen quality. The data were analyzed using least-squares regression analysis (Statistical Analysis System, North Carolina State University). Duncan's new multiple range test was used to determine differences among treatment means (Duncan, 1955). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The feeding of the gentian violet premix (Table 1) resulted in an increase (P < .05) in percent fertility in the females receiving 2.5x the recommended use level (87.5% fer-
of gentian violet on fertility, hatchability and laying hen performance of breeder females Level of gentian violet premix (x recommended use level)a 0b 75.6 ± 14.2=
5.0 1.0 2.5 10 79.3 ± 7.0<=d 83.5 ± 6.3cd 82.4 ± 7.6cd 87.5 ±6.1 d Fertile eggs (%) Hatchability of 85.5 ± 8.0 86.8 ± 6.4 86.1 ±5.2 fertile eggs (%) 82.9 ±7.7 82.9 ± 7.1 Hatchability of total 67.9 ± 8.6cd 73.2 ± 6.4d eggs set (%) 62.8 ± 13.8C 68.4 ± 8.9cd 75.4 ± 7.3 Av. daily feed cons. 148.1 ± 18.1 152.9 ±17.3 152.8 ±15.3 (g./hen) 154.7 ±20.9 155.1 ± 17.6 Egg production (doz./hen/28 1.51 ± .24" 1.60±.18 cd 1.66 ± .23cd 1.69 ± .18c days) 1.68±.21 c Feed (kg.)/doz. 2.77 ± .44 2.66 ± .26 2.60 ± .35 2.53 ± .32 eggs 2.57 ± .36 Feed (kg.)/doz. 3.90 ± 1.01 4.03 ± .78 3.86 ± .91 3.54 ± .63 egg hatched 4.48 ± 1.47 Average gain per 28 30.0±21.9<:d 22.3 ± 19.8cd 21.5 ± 23.ld 26.6 ± 17.3cd days(g.) 33.5 ±33.1 8 12 4 0 Mortality (%) 8 "Treatment levels of gentian violet premix represent 0, .50, 1.25, 2.50, and 5.00 g./kg. of complete feed, respectively. b Treatment mean ± standard deviation. cd - Means in the same row bearing different superscripts are significantly (P < .05) different.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Iowa-Law Library on May 25, 2015
before assignment to treatment. The lighting regime consisted of 14 hours of constant light daily and was supplied by natural and artificial light throughout the 168-day experimental period. The hens were artificially inseminated once weekly to obtain fertility data. The birds were weighed and feed consumption quantitated at 28-day intervals. Eggs were collected twice daily throughout the experimental period and incubated at weekly intervals. The birds were housed in a curtain-sided, cagetype house. A completely randomized design was used, and each experimental unit consisted of five birds. The dietary treatments were randomly assigned to 25 groups of cages (5 cages per group), thus the experiment consisted of 125 females.
1181
GENTIAN VIOLET SAFETY
There was no treatment effect (P > .05) on average daily feed consumption. However, egg production was higher (P < .05) for the non-medicated controls and the 10 x groups (1.68 and 1.69 dozen/hen/28 days, respectively) than for the birds receiving the 2.5x level (1.51 dozen/hen/28 days) of the gentian violet premix. Feed conversion (kg./dozen eggs) was not affected (P > .05) by gentian violet feeding. Feed conversion ranged from 2.53 kg./dozen eggs (lOx treatment) to 2.77 kg./dozen eggs (2.5x treatment). Also, feed consumption/dozen eggs hatched was not affected (P > .05) by treatment. However, there was a trend toward less feed consumption/dozen eggs hatched TABLE 2.—Effect
for the groups receiving the gentian violet premix. Again, this is largely due to effect of the gentian violet feeding on fertility and hatchability. Average gain (g./28 days) was lower (P < .05) for the 5x breeders (21.5 g.) than for the controls (33.5 g.). Generally, all birds showed only slight increase in gain, which is characteristic and desirable for heavy breeders. Mortality was not affected (P > .05) by gentian violet feeding. Mortality was due to prolapse of the oviduct in all of the birds except in one instance, in the 2.5 x treatment, in which death was due to a fatty liver. The results of gentian violet on sperm and semen characteristics of breeder males (Shaver White Leghorns) are shown in Table 2. There was no treatment effect (P > .05) on any of the sperm and semen characteristics observed. Semen volume ranged from .5 ml. (lOx treatment) to .7 ml. (control, 2.5x, and 5.Ox treatments) and was highly variable as evidenced by the relatively large standard deviations of the means. Hafez (1968) reported that egg-type breeds of chickens should produce approximately 0.6 cc. of semen per ejaculate. White Leghorn cockerels of similar age to the birds in this study produced .41
of gentian violet on sperm and semen characteristics of breeder males Level of gentian violet premix (x recommended use level)" 0
1.0
2.5
5.0
10
.7 ± .4 C
. 6 ± .2
.7 ± .3
.1 ± A
.5 ± .4
Item Semen volume/ ejaculate (ml.) b Abnormal sperm (%) b Dead sperm (%) b Motility (%) b Vigorb-d
3.5 3.4 63.0 2.8
± ± ± ±
2.0 1.4 18.9 .42
3.1 3.5 72.7 2.8
± ± ± ±
1.6 1.4 22.8 .41
2.8 3.4 68.3 2.8
± ± ± ±
1.5 1.4 19.5 .39
2.8 5.0 62.7 2.7
± 1.5 ± 6.0 ±21.2 ± .49
3.2 3.8 62.7 2.7
± ± ± ±
1.6 2.2 27.4 .49
a Treatment levels of gentian violet premix represent 0, .50, 1.25, 2.50, and 5.00 g./kg. of complete feed, respectively. b Means were not significantly (P > .05) different. c Treatment mean ± standard deviation. d Evaluated on the basis of the speed at which sperm traveled across a microscopic field and scored on a scale of 0-5 where 0 equaled no movement and 5 equaled the greatest movement.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Iowa-Law Library on May 25, 2015
tility) versus the non-medicated controls (75.6% fertility). There was a trend toward higher percent fertility in all of the birds receiving the gentian violet premix in their diets. There was no treatment effect (P > .05) on percent fertile eggs hatched. However, hatchability of total eggs set was higher (P < .05) for the breeders receiving the 2.5x and lOx (75.4 and 73.2%, respectively) level than for controls (62.8%). The reason for the increase in fertility with gentian violet feeding cannot be explained from data gathered in this study.
1182
D. L. CROSS AND B. L. HUGHES
cc. of semen (Wilson and Harms, 1972). Other parameters indicative of semen quality (% abnormal sperm, % dead sperm, % motility, and % vigor) were observed. There was no treatment effect (P > .05) on any of these semen characteristics. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES Carpenter, A. M., 1955. Studies on Candida. Sensitivity tests on strains of Candida. Antibiot. Chemotherapy, 5: 255-262. Chen, T. C , and E. J. Day, 1974. Gentian violet as a possible fungal inhibitor in poultry feed: plate assays on its antifungal activity. Poultry Sci. 53: 1791-1795. Churchman, J. W., and L. Herz, 1913. Toxicity of gentian violet and its fate in the animal body. J. Exp. Med. 18: 579-582. Cutlip, R. C , and W. S. Mouluk, 1967. Experimental crystal violet and methyl violet poisoning in dogs and cattle. Canada. J. Comp. Med. Vet. Sci. 31: 80-84. Deschiens, R., and J. Bablet, 1944. Toxicity of anthel-
NEWS AND NOTES MERCK NOTES As a result of its long association with the poultry industry, the Merck Animal Health Division has produced a slide presentation explaining the proper handling of microingredients and feed pre-mixes. Entitled "Handling Microingredients Accurately," the presentation is available from a Merck sales representative and covers safe handling in the feed mill and on the farm. Designed as a training tool for the poultry industry, the presentation details the manufacturing and transportation of feed pre-mixes containing microingredients. By showing the importance of accurate testing, handling and record keeping at each stage of the
operation, the presentation emphasizes every employee's role in proper handling of microingredients. The narration details methods for accurate handling in the mill and on the farm as: 1) Check the ingredients ordered against those blended. 2) Check blend with assay specifications. 3) Check for proper storage and amount. 4) Check record-keeping systems. 5) Check quality control procedure. 6) Check loading and delivery routines. The right feed must go to the right grower and must be loaded into a clean and properly marked bin every time. The presentation demonstrates how to implement these safeguards on a routine basis. Contact a Merck Animal Health representative or the Poultry
(Continued on page 1218)
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Univ of Iowa-Law Library on May 25, 2015
The authors wish to express appreciation to Mrs. C. D. Lawrence for the technical assistance and to Dr. W. E. Johnston for assistance in the statistical analysis of these data.
mintic triphenylmethane derivatives. Compt. Rend. Soc. Biol. 138: 839-849. Duncan, D. B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11: 1. Hafez, E. S. E., 1968. Reproduction in Farm Animals (2nd Ed.). Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia. Kingsland, G. C , and J. Anderson, 1976. A study of the feasibility of the use of gentian violet as a fungistat for poultry feed. Poultry Sci. 55: 852-856. Michaels, G. F., 1973. Efficacy testing of livestock feed additive, gentian violet. Technical report submitted to Dan-Mar Enterprises, Commerce, Georgia. Migazawa, F., 1956. Experimental studies on chemotherapy of candidiasis. Eisei Shikenjs Jokoki, 74: 341-348. Moorhead, P. D., and R. F. Cross, 1971. Prophylaxis of experimental moniliasis in quail. A comparison of ethylenediamine dihydriodide, benlate, sodium propionate, gentian violet and nystatin. Avian Dis. 16: 649-655. Procknow, J. J., 1962. Treatment of opportunistic fungus infections. Lab. Investig. 11: 1217-1230. Stearn, E. W., and A. E. Stearn, 1929. Comparative inhibiting effect of gentian violet and mercurochrome on the growth of certain fungi. J. Lab. Clin. Med. 14: 1057-1060. Wilson, H. R., and R. H. Harms, 1972. High levels of dietary iodine and sexual maturity in males. Poultry Sci. 51:742-746. Wright, W. H., F. J. Brady and J. Bozicevick, 1938. Oxyuriasis VIII. A preliminary note on therapy with gentian violet. Proe. Helminthol. Soc, Washington, D.C. 5: 5-7.