1987
DOI: 10.3382/ps.0660082
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of Isopropanol-Extracted Cottonseed Meal for Laying Hens

Abstract: An isopropanol (IPA)-extracted cottonseed meal (CSM) was evaluated in comparison with a regular CSM and soybean meal over 12 months with laying hens. Each CSM was fed at 5, 10, and 15% of the diet. Egg production rates comparable to those of birds fed the soybean meal basal diet were obtained with both meals at dietary levels up to 15%. Egg weight was significantly reduced by all regular CSM treatments, but IPA-CSM had no effect on egg weight in comparison with the basal diet. Egg mass (grams of egg/hen per da… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

4
7
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
4
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The LCSM 100 diet significantly depressed egg weight and feed intake. Our finding was consistent with previous studies, which suggested that egg weight was decreased when layers were fed 50g/kg CSM with 30mg/kg FG (Reid et al, 1987). Reduction in egg production and feed intake was observed when 75 , and LCSM 100 represents 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% dietary protein contents provided by soybean meal in control were replaced by LCSM, correspondingly 50g, 98.3g, 144.2g, 189 g/kg LCSM were added in the diets.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The LCSM 100 diet significantly depressed egg weight and feed intake. Our finding was consistent with previous studies, which suggested that egg weight was decreased when layers were fed 50g/kg CSM with 30mg/kg FG (Reid et al, 1987). Reduction in egg production and feed intake was observed when 75 , and LCSM 100 represents 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% dietary protein contents provided by soybean meal in control were replaced by LCSM, correspondingly 50g, 98.3g, 144.2g, 189 g/kg LCSM were added in the diets.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…Lyman et al (1953) and Anderson and Warnick (1966) reported that lysine is the most limiting amino acid (AA) in CSM. The concentration of nutrients and FG in CSM depend on the type of CSM, varieties of was not depressed when layers were fed 100 g/kg CSM diet (61 mg/kg FG) but was reduced with the incorporation of 150 g/kg CSM in the diet (101.5 mg/kg FG) (Reid et al, 1987). Panigrahi et al (1989) reported that egg production was not reduced until increasing level of CSM up to 300 g/kg (225 mg/kg FG), and a later study showed that no yolk discoloration was observed in freshly laid eggs of hens fed a CSM diet including 262 mg/kg FG (Panigrahi and Hammonds, 1990).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the poultry industry, soybean meal is one of the most commonly used ingredients because of its high level of protein and balanced amino acid profile, but its limited availability and relatively high price necessitate that different protein sources be studied. As an attractive alternative protein source, cottonseed meal (CSM) has been considered for use in poultry diets (Reid, Galavizmoreno, & Maiorino, ). Although its protein content and quality are lower than those of soybean meal, CSM is feasible for use in layer diets due to the lower energy and protein requirements of laying hens compared with those of broilers (Davis, Lordelo, & Dale, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both feed consumption and egg production were adversely affected when the diets contained 160 ppm or more free gossypol) Heywang & Birds, 1954). Feeding of 150 g regular cottonseed meal kg-1diet (101.5 ppm free gossypol in diet) signifi cantly reduced the egg production (Reid et al, 1987). The tolerance levels to gossypol in poultry is wide, it might be due to differences in age and strain of birds (Heywang & Birds, 1955), protein quality and quantity in feed (Narain et al, 1960) and mineral contents particularly iron in diet (Bressni et al, 1964).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%