1967
DOI: 10.3382/ps.0460622
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Value of Cassava Root Meal for Chicks ,

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0
1

Year Published

1969
1969
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
1
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the levels of 37.5% and 45.0% did give significantly poorer gains with the big difference occurring between the 30 and 37.5% level. These results are in agreement with Enriquez and Ross (1967) who obtained no significant differences with levels of cassava up to 30% compared with the basal containing no cassava. They observed significantly poorer gains when 40 and 50% of the ration consisted of cassava meal.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, the levels of 37.5% and 45.0% did give significantly poorer gains with the big difference occurring between the 30 and 37.5% level. These results are in agreement with Enriquez and Ross (1967) who obtained no significant differences with levels of cassava up to 30% compared with the basal containing no cassava. They observed significantly poorer gains when 40 and 50% of the ration consisted of cassava meal.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 95%
“…Poorer growth and feed conversion with chicks at three weeks of age with increasing cassava root meal concentrations in the diet were reported by Enriquez and Ross (1967). Supplementing the high cassava rations with 0.15% methionine largely overcome the depressing effects.…”
Section: And Ioc a (Manihot Utilissimamentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Recommended levels of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) root meal (CRM) for inclusion in broiler diets range from 10 (Vogt, 1966) and 30% (Montilla et al, 1969(Montilla et al, , 1975Armas and Chicco, 1973;Enriquez et al, 1977) to 50% (Enriquez and Ross, 1967;Olson et al, 1969;Tejada and Brambilla, 1969;Chou and Miiller, 1972). The variability and lack of consistency of the reported results may have been partially due to differences in experimental conditions and in cassava root processing methods used.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The responses to methionine supplementation observed with snail meal diets in Experiments 3 and 4 cannot be explained on the basis of correcting a simple methionine deficiency, since calculated levels in these diets met the birds requirements. It would seem to be more likely an example of methionine's well known effect (Enriquez and Ross, 1967) in allowing detoxification of some unknown antigrowth factor in snail meal.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%