Poult. Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Poult Sci 2007. 86:1115-1120
© 2007 Poultry Science Association
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gutierrez, O.
Right arrow Articles by Bailey, C. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gutierrez, O.
Right arrow Articles by Bailey, C. A.

METABOLISM AND NUTRITION

Use of Guar By-Products in High-Production Laying Hen Diets

O. Gutierrez1, C. Zhang, A. L. Cartwright, J. B. Carey and C. A. Bailey

Department of Poultry Science, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843

1 Corresponding author: ogutierrez{at}tamu.edu


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
A 5 x 5 Latin square experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of feeding low concentrations of guar germ or a combination of guar germ and hull (guar meal) in high-production laying hen diets. A total of 125 Lohmann laying hens (21 wk old) of similar BW were randomly assigned to 5 blocks. Each block was divided into 5 experimental units, consisting of 5 hens per unit. Hens were fed either a nonguar control diet, or 1 of 4 diets containing either 2.5 or 5% guar germ, or 2.5 or 5% guar meal over a 20-wk trial period (five 4-wk periods). No significant differences were observed when feeding either 2.5 or 5% guar germ or meal (P > 0.05) on hen-day egg production or feed consumption. Significant differences in egg weight, total egg mass per hen, and feed conversion ratio were detected in hens fed 2.5% guar meal, whereas they remained unchanged for diets containing either level of guar germ or 5% guar meal. Feeding either level of guar germ or guar meal did not affect shell quality (shell thickness, egg breaking force, and specific gravity), Haugh units, or egg yolk color (L*, a*, b*). The results showed that both guar germ and guar meal can be fed to high-production laying hens at up to 5% without adverse effects on laying hen performance.

Key Words: guar • laying hen • egg production


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba), a drought-tolerant legume, is primarily used as a thickening agent because of the high content of galactomannan gum found within its seeds. To produce gum, guar seeds are split, yielding both a high-protein germ fraction and a lower protein hull fraction as by-products. These 2 fractions are then recombined to create guar meal with a CP level between 35 and 47.5% on a DM basis depending on the relative concentration of the 2 fractions (Ambegaokar et al., 1969). Verma and McNab (1984a) reported that approximately 88% of the nitrogen content in guar meal was true protein, with an Arg content approximately twice that of soybean meal, although the Met and Lys contents have been reported to be inadequate for optimal rat growth (VanEtten et al., 1961). Currently, US guar meal is sold at about half the price of soybean meal, making it an appealing potential source of protein in animal feeds.

The use of guar meal in poultry feed has been limited because of reported adverse effects, which include diarrhea, depressed growth rate, and increased mortality, when fed at relatively high levels (Sathe and Bose, 1962; Couch et al., 1967; Verma and McNab, 1982; Patel and McGinnis, 1985). Residual guar gum, a highly viscous galactomannan polysaccharide consisting of a ß-1->4-linked D-mannopyranose backbone with branched {alpha}-1->6-D-galactopyranose, is probably the primary factor responsible for the reported ill effects (Verma and McNab, 1982; Conner, 2002; Lee et al., 2003), although other anti-nutritional factors such as saponins (Verma and McNab, 1984a; Curl et al., 1986) and polyphenols (Bajaj et al., 1978; Kaushal and Bhatia, 1982) have been reported to cause liver, kidney, and intestinal damage in mice and rats (Berman et al., 1995; Diwan et al., 2000).

Although feeding high levels of nondigestible polysaccharide has been associated with decreased nutrient utilization, numerous investigations have shown some beneficial physiological functions of galactomannans, such as those found in guar beans. These include decreased plasma cholesterol (Dario Frias and Sgarbieri, 1998; Favier et al., 1998; Yamamoto et al., 2000; Maisonnier et al., 2001), decreased postprandial serum glucose (Fairchild et al., 1996; Ou et al., 2001), reduced postprandial hypotension in type 2 diabetes patients (Groop et al., 1993; Russo et al., 2003), inhibited colonization of pathogenic gastrointestinal bacteria (Bengmark, 1998), and enhanced macrophage activity (Duncan et al., 2002).

Previous investigations evaluating the effects of feeding guar by-products on laying hen performance are sparse, with the majority being carried out on late-phase laying hens (Saxena and Pradhan, 1974; Verma and McNab, 1984b; Patel and McGinnis, 1985; Nagra and Virk, 1986). It is generally agreed that guar meal incorporated at concentrations of 10% or higher decreases egg production and feed efficiency and diminishes egg yolk color. The objective of the present study was to investigate the effects of feeding relatively low concentrations of guar germ and guar meal on egg production, egg interior quality, and shell quality in peaking high-production laying hens.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Experimental Design
A 5 x 5 Latin square design was used with a total of 125 laying hen pullets (Lohmann LSL-classic, 19-wk-old) of similar BW, which were randomly assigned to 125 individual cages (50 x 30 x 30 cm3) in 1 row in an open-sided laying hen house. The 125 cages were divided into 5 blocks, with 25 cages per block. Each 25-cage block was further divided into 5 experimental units, with 5 cages in each unit. After a 2-wk adaptation period feeding a commercial type prelay pullet diet, 4 dietary treatments, and 1 control diet were administered to each experimental unit over a 20-wk trial period, yielding five 4-wk feeding periods. Diets were administered in a rotational pattern such that all experimental units received a different ration during each respective 4-wk period. The dietary treatments consisted of 5 isocaloric, isonitrogenous laying hen diets with 0 (control), 2.5, or 5.0% guar germ or guar meal (Table 1Go). The compositions of guar germ and meal fractions used in the study were previously determined by Conner (2002) with amino acid analysis by Degussa-Huls Corporation (Allendale, NJ). The gum residue in guar germ and guar meal was determined by HPLC (Hansen et al., 1992) to be 7.75 and 11.89%, respectively, thus producing calculated gum contents in the 5 experimental diets of 0, 0.194, 0.297, 0.388, and 0.595%, respectively. Experimental feed and water were provided to all laying hens ad libitum. After the 2-wk adaptation period (21 wk), all hens received a 14L:10D photo program, with a stepwise increase of 15 min of light per week until a 16L:8D photo program was reached, which was maintained for the remainder of the experiment.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Composition of experimental diets1
 
Measurements
Individual BW of laying hens were measured at the beginning of the experiment and at the end of each 4-wk period for a total of 20 wk. Feed consumption and hen-day egg production were recorded weekly based on the 5 hens in each experimental unit. All the eggs laid on Wednesday of each week were collected to measure egg weight individually. Total egg mass was calculated weekly for each experimental unit. Feed conversion ratio (FCR) was calculated as grams of total feed consumption per hen/total egg mass per hen. Eggshell quality (breaking force, thickness) and egg interior quality (yolk color, Haugh units) were measured on Wednesday of every other week. The breaking force was measured by an Instron instrument (model 1101, Instron Corporation, Canton, MA) using a 50-kg load cell with a load range of 10 kg and a crosshead speed of 50 mm/min. Albumen height was measured with an Ames micrometer (model S-6428, Ames, Waltham, MA) at a point halfway between the yolk and the edge of the widest expanse of albumen (USDA, 2000). Haugh units were calculated as follows:


Formula

where H is albumin height (mm) and W is egg weight (g; Panda, 1996). Eggshell thickness was measured with an Ames micrometer (model 25ME) at the middle part of the egg after the shell membrane was peeled away from the shell. The yolk color of eggs was measured on the first and fourth week of the experiment using a Minolta chromameter (model CR-200, Minolta, Osaka, Japan) with the CIELAB (L*, a*, b*) system. Specific gravity was measured on Wednesday of every other week by measuring the displacement volume of eggs submerged in water (Shugar and Ballinger, 1990).

Statistical Procedure
The experiment was modeled as a 5 x 5 Latin square design (Kuehl, 1999). The data for one-time measured responses (BW gain, overall hen-day egg production, feed consumption, FCR, mean egg weight, and total egg mass per hen) were subjected to one-way ANOVA. The data for repeated measured responses (BW, periodical egg production, egg weight, feed consumption, FCR, Haugh units, yolk color, shell quality, and solid egg components) were first subjected to analysis of time trend effects and a time x treatment interaction by the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) procedure because the sphericity test revealed that the correlations between the 2 time points were different (P ≤ 0.05). The multivariate analysis of variance revealed that either time effects or a time x treatment interaction or both existed (P ≤ 0.05) in almost all of these responses, so data were then analyzed for variance based on each time point of the measurements. Analyses of variance were carried out using the GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with fixed effect factors of row and column in a square, guar fraction, and level. The PDIFF option within the GLM procedure was used to compare each mean of guar treatment to the control. Contrasts were constructed to examine main effects and the interaction of guar fraction and level. Means presented were least squares means, and were deemed different when P ≤ 0.05.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
BW
The mean BW of laying hens at the beginning of the trial (21 wk of age) was similar for all treatment groups and increased at different rates during the study. The BW of each guar-treated group was not different from the control in each period. Main effects of the guar fraction and concentration, as well as the fraction x concentration interaction were not significant with respect to any specific trial period, although the cumulative BW gain throughout the entire experimental period for hens fed 2.5% guar meal was significantly higher than the control group (Table 2Go). A guar fraction x concentration interaction was detected, in that BW gain decreased as guar meal concentrations increased, although increasing levels of guar germ had no effect on BW gain.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Overall BW gain, egg production, feed consumption, feed conversion ratio, egg weight, and total egg mass of laying hens fed diets with 0 (control), 2.5, or 5% guar germ or guar meal1
 
Laying Hen Performance
Hen-Day Egg Production.
Egg production for the entire flock was 74.17% for the first week of the experiment (21 wk) and reached a peak of 98.05% (27 wk). All groups had comparable egg production levels throughout the duration of the trial, with no significant differences noted in any experimental group (Table 2Go). For periodic egg production, significant differences existed only between hens fed 2.5% guar germ and control hens during the second 4-wk period (25 to 28 wk). No main effects or interactions of the guar fraction and level were detected on any periodic or overall egg production.

Feed Consumption.
During the first 4-wk period (21 to 24 wk), hens fed guar meal consumed significantly more feed than hens fed the control diet. No difference was observed thereafter between the guar treatment groups and the control. No significant difference was observed between hens fed guar fractions and those fed the control diet (Table 2Go).

FCR.
For periodic FCR, significant differences existed between the 2.5% guar meal group and the control during the third, fourth, and fifth experimental periods (29 to 40 wk), leading to a significant overall increase in hens fed 2.5% guar meal (Table 2Go). All other guar-treated groups were not different from the control during any period. A guar fraction x level interaction was detected during the third and fourth periods in that FCR decreased as the guar meal level increased from 2.5 to 5%, but remained unchanged as the guar germ level increased.

Egg Weight.
Egg weight increased as hen age increased. No significant main effects or interactions of guar fractions and concentrations were detected in any individual trial period, although a significant difference was noted in overall mean egg weight between hens fed 2.5% guar by-products and the control group (Table 2Go). We expect that this difference in main effects was due to the decreased egg weight observed in hens fed 2.5% guar meal.

Total Egg Mass.
Hens fed 2.5% guar meal had significantly lower total egg mass per hen than the control group, whereas the other treatment groups were not different from the control (Table 2Go). A guar fraction x level interaction was detected in that total egg mass increased as guar meal concentration increased, whereas no increase was observed as guar germ was added to the diet.

Egg Quality
Haugh Units.
The Haugh units of eggs from control hens were higher in wk 27, 29, 31, and 39 than those from hens fed 5% guar meal, and were higher in wk 37 than those fed 2.5% guar meal, with interactions between the guar fraction and concentration observed only in wk 31 and 33 (periodic data not shown). Overall, no main effects or interactions were detected between the guar fraction and level (Table 3Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Overall Haugh units, egg yolk color (L*, a*, and b* values), and shell quality of eggs of laying hens fed diets with 0 (control), 2.5, or 5% guar germ or guar meal1
 
Yolk Color.
Hens fed 5% guar meal produced eggs with higher luminosity values than the controls in wk 21 and lower than the controls in wk 25, and hens fed 5% guar germ had lower luminosity values than the controls in wk 25 and 33 (periodic data not shown). Main effects of the concentration of guar product were detected at 5 of 10 measurements, trending toward decreased luminosity as guar concentration increased, although overall trial observations resulted in no significant difference from the control group (Table 3Go).

The redness values of the egg yolks of hens fed guar treatments were similar to the controls, with a few exceptions that had no discernible pattern. Unlike luminosity values, the redness value was not affected by the concentration of guar product, but the type of fraction had significant effects in wk 29 and thereafter in a pattern indicating that guar meal treatments had lower redness values than guar germ treatments (Table 3Go). With respect to yellowness values, no difference between guar-fed groups and the control were detected over the course of the trial (Table 3Go).

Eggshell Quality.
With respect to eggshell quality (breaking force, thickness, and specific gravity), differences between guar-treated groups and the control were detected sparingly (periodic data not shown). Over the course of the study, main effects and an interaction of guar fraction x level on shell quality were not observed (Table 3Go).

Egg Components
Significant differences between hens fed guar by-products and the control were observed only sparingly, with no discernible trend (data not shown). The water content in eggs across experimental treatments was very uniform, with an average water content of all eggs tested of 69.6%. Fresh egg weight increased from an average of 51.8 g at 22 wk of age to an average of 60.9 g at 40 wk of age. With respect to egg solids, the mean yolk weight of all eggs measured increased from 5.67 to 8.09 g when hens were aged 22 to 40 wk, contributing to an increasing egg yolk content, from 36.0 to 43.5%. The dry weight of albumen was very uniform, at approximately 4.7 g over all eggs measured. The mean dry weight of eggshells increased slightly, from 5.5 g at 22 wk of age to 5.9 g at 40 wk of age.

Mortality
The mortality data were not subjected to statistical analysis. Among the 25 laying hens in each treatment group, only 2 in the 2.5% guar germ treatment and 2 in the 2.5% guar meal treatment group died over the course of the study.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
In the present study, BW and BW gain of hens fed guar fractions were similar to or higher than the control, indicating that feeding up to 5% guar by-products did not have adverse effects on the growth of these young laying hens. Other than for 5% guar meal, addition of guar by-products into the diet resulted in increased BW gain relative to the control diet, indicating that feeding guar meal at a level higher than 5% may retard the growth of young laying hens.

No effect of feeding guar by-products was observed on overall hen-day egg production, which suggested that both guar germ and guar meal can be incorporated into high-production laying hen diets at a level up to 5% with-out deleterious effects on egg production, in agreement with previous work in our laboratory (C. Zhang, A. L. Cartwright, and C. A. Bailey, unpublished data). Interestingly, an increase of approximately 2% in overall egg production was observed when guar meal concentration was increased from 2.5 to 5%, although no significant difference was noted.

The increased feed consumption of hens fed guar treatments indicated that the unfavorable characteristics of guar by-products do not necessarily decrease the feed consumption of laying hens when added at low levels, which is supported by previous data (C. Zhang, A. L. Cartwright, and C. A. Bailey, unpublished data). Feed conversion ratio for hens fed 2.5% guar meal was significantly higher than for the control group, although no significant differences were detected among other guar treatments and the control.

Other than hens fed 2.5% guar meal, the overall egg weights of hens fed guar by-products were not different from those of the control group throughout the study. Similar results for egg size were reported by Couch et al. (1967), who observed that 10% guar meal did not affect egg weight. Residual guar gum is most likely not responsible for the adverse effect on total egg mass, because groups fed diets containing larger quantities of guar gum had comparable egg mass and feed efficiency relative to controls.

Although no overall differences were observed in yolk color aspects, significant main effects of guar by-product concentration on yolk luminosity and redness were detected on a per-week basis (data not shown). In half the observed data, hens fed 5% guar by-products had lower egg yolk luminosity than hens fed 2.5% guar by-products. This effect may be explained by the slightly decreased dietary corn content in the diet with 5% guar by-products. Additionally, after 8 wk of treatment (29-wk-old hens), egg yolks from hens fed diets containing guar meal consistently had lower redness values than hens fed guar germ fractions, which indicates that the factors responsible for egg yolk redness may be distributed differently in guar germ and meal. Whether the color change is visually perceivable by table-egg consumers is uncertain.

The shell quality, indicated by breaking force, shell thickness, and specific gravity, was not affected by the feeding of guar by-products. This confirmed observations from a previous study conducted in our laboratory indicating that feeding 5% guar meal did not affect shell quality (C. Zhang, A. L. Cartwright, and C. A. Bailey, unpublished data). Significant differences regarding egg components were detected only sparingly, with no discernible pattern.

The addition of guar by-products as a partial replacement for soybean meal in poultry diets may be a useful economic strategy for decreasing feed costs while maintaining production levels. The results of this study suggest that both guar germ and guar meal can be fed to high-production laying hens at levels up to 5% of the diet without unfavorable effects on egg production, feed consumption, eggshell quality, and solid egg components. However, feed conversion, egg weight, and total egg mass were observed to decrease relative to feeding traditional laying hen diets.

Received for publication October 16, 2006. Accepted for publication February 4, 2007.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Ambegaokar, S. D., J. K. Kamath, and V. P. Shinde. 1969. Nutritional studies in protein of ‘gawar’ (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba). J. Nutr. Diet. 6:323–328.[Web of Science]

Bajaj, K. L., M. Rani, and Y. K. Arora. 1978. Polyphenols and lignins of mature guar pods (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L. Taub.). Plant Biochem. J. 5:140–145.

Bengmark, S. 1998. Immunonutrition: Role of biosurfactants, fiber, and probiotic bacteria. Nutrition 14:585–594.[Web of Science][Medline]

Berman, E., M. Schlicht, V. C. Moser, and R. C. Macphail. 1995. A multidisciplinary approach to toxicological screening. 1. Systemic toxicity. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 45:127–143.[Web of Science][Medline]

Conner, S. R. 2002. Characterization of guar meal for use in poultry rations. PhD Dissertation Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Couch, J. R., J. A. Lazano, and C. R. Creger. 1967. Soy protein guar meal and excess calcium in nutrition of commercial layers. Poult. Sci. 46:1248. (Abstr.)

Curl, C. L., K. R. Price, and G. R. Fenwick. 1986. Isolation and structural elucidation of a triterpenoid saponin from guar, Cyamopsis tetragonoloba. Phytochemistry 25:2675–2676.[Web of Science]

Dario Frias, A. C., and V. C. Sgarbieri. 1998. Guar gum effects on food intake, blood serum lipids and glucose levels of Wistar rats. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 53:15–28.[Web of Science][Medline]

Diwan, F. H., I. A. Abdel-Hassan, and S. T. Mohammed. 2000. Effect of saponin on mortality and histopathological changes in mice. East. Mediterr. Health J. 6:345–351.[Medline]

Duncan, C. J., N. Pugh, D. S. Pasco, and S. A. Ross. 2002. Isolation of a galactomannan that enhances macrophage activation from the edible fungus Morchella esculenta. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:5683–5685.[Web of Science][Medline]

Fairchild, R. M., P. R. Ellis, A. J. Byrne, S. D. Luzio, and M. A. Mir. 1996. A new breakfast cereal containing guar gum reduces postprandial plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in normal weight human subjects. Br. J. Nutr. 76:63–73.[Web of Science][Medline]

Favier, M. L., P. E. Bost, C. Demigne, and C. Remesy. 1998. The cholesterol-lowering effect of guar gum in rats is not accompanied by an interruption of bile acid cycling. Lipids 33:765–771.[Web of Science][Medline]

Groop, P. H., A. Aro, S. Stenman, and L. Groop. 1993. Long-term effects of guar gum in subjects with non-insulin-dependent diabetes-mellitus. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 58:513–518.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Hansen, R. W., S. M. Byrnes, and A. D. Johnson. 1992. Determination of galactomannan (gum) in guar (Cyamopsis tetragonolobus) by high performance liquid chromatography. J. Sci. Food Agric. 59:419–421.[Web of Science]

Kaushal, G. P., and I. S. Bhatia. 1982. A study of polyphenols in the seeds and leaves of guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L. Taub) feed toxicity studies. J. Sci. Food Agric. 33:461–470.[Web of Science]

Kuehl, R. O. 1999. Design of Experiments: Statistical Principles of Research Design and Analysis. 2nd ed. Duxbury/Thomson Learning, Pacific Grove, CA.

Lee, J. T., C. A. Bailey, and A. L. Cartwright. 2003. Guar meal germ and hull fractions differently affect growth performance and intestinal viscosity of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 82:1589–1595.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Maisonnier, S., J. Gomez, and B. Carre. 2001. Nutrient digestibility and intestinal viscosities in broiler chickens fed wheat diets, as compared to maize diets with added guar gum. Br. Poult. Sci. 42:102–110.[Web of Science][Medline]

Nagra, S. S., and R. S. Virk. 1986. Growth and laying performance of White Leghorn pullets fed toasted guar meal alone or in combination with groundnut and mustard cakes as sources of protein. Ind. J. Poult. Sci. 21:16–20.

Ou, S. Y., K. C. Kwok, Y. Li, and L. Fu. 2001. In vitro study of possible role of dietary fiber in lowering postprandial serum glucose. J. Agric. Food Chem. 49:1026–1029.[Web of Science][Medline]

Panda, P. C. 1996. Textbook on Egg and Poultry Technology. Vikas Publishing House, Delhi, India.

Patel, M. B., and J. McGinnis. 1985. The effect of autoclaving and enzyme supplementation of guar meal on the performance of chicks and laying hens. Poult. Sci. 64:1148–1156.[Web of Science][Medline]

Russo, A., J. E. Stevens, T. Wilson, F. Wells, A. Tonkin, M. Horowitz, and K. L. Jones. 2003. Guar attenuates fall in post-prandial blood pressure and slows gastric emptying of oral glucose in type 2 diabetes. Dig. Dis. Sci. 48:1221–1229.[Web of Science][Medline]

Sathe, B. S., and S. Bose. 1962. Studies on the utilization of industrial and farm by-products in growing poultry rations. Ind. J. Vet. Sci. 32:74–84.

Saxena, U. C., and K. Pradhan. 1974. Effect of high protein levels on the replacement value of guar meal (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) in layer’s ration. Ind. J. Anim. Sci. 44:190–193.

Shugar, G. J., and J. T. Ballinger. 1990. Chemical Technicians’ Ready Reference Handbook. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

USDA. 2000. Subject: Egg-grading manual. Agriculture Handbook Number 75. http://www.ams.usda.gov/poultry/pdfs/EggGrading%20manual.pdf Accessed Apr. 2004.

VanEtten, C. H., R. W. Miller, I. A. Wolff, and Q. Jones. 1961. Amino acid composition of twenty-seven selected seed meals. J. Agric. Food Chem. 9:79–82.[Medline]

Verma, S. V. S., and J. M. McNab. 1982. Guar meal in diets for broiler chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 23:95–105.[Web of Science]

Verma, S. V. S., and J. M. McNab. 1984a. Chemical, biochemical and microbiological examination of guar meal. Ind. J. Poult. Sci. 19:165–170.

Verma, S. V. S., and J. M. McNab. 1984b. Performance of hens fed guar meal containing diets with or without supplemental cholesterol. Ind. J. Poult. Sci. 19:245–250.

Yamamoto, Y., I. Sogawa, A. Nishina, S. Saeki, N. Ichikawa, and S. Iibata. 2000. Improved hypolipidemic effects of xan-than gum-galactomannan mixtures in rats. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 64:2165–2171.[Medline]





This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gutierrez, O.
Right arrow Articles by Bailey, C. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gutierrez, O.
Right arrow Articles by Bailey, C. A.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS