In a preliminary experiment, growth of conventional chicks given a basal diet containing adequate amounts of all the essential but none of the non-essential amino acids was improved by supplements of 10-3 g urea or 50-4 g glutamic acid/kg diet or both. 2. In the main study the effects of supplementing the basal diet with 20-6 g urea/kg were compared in groups of sixteen germ-free and conventional chicks. 3. The germ-free chicks did not benefit from the urea supplement whereas the conventional birds showed improved food conversion efficiency and significantly better growth. 4. In both environments nitrogen retention ((mg N intake-mg N excreted)divideg food intake) was higher in the birds given urea, but N utilization ((mg N intake-mg N excreted)dividemg N intake) was reduced. This reduction was greater in the germ-free birds. 5. There was a small increase in plasma ammonia concentration in the germ-free birds given urea but a significantly greater increase in the corresponding conventional group. 6. Plasma uric acid concentrations were variable in both groups, and much lower than the normal range. They followed a similar pattern to the plasma ammonia values. 7. More insoluble N was excreted by the conventional chicks given urea than by the corresponding germ-free group, or by either group given the basal diet. 8. It was concluded that the gut micro-organisms are responsible for the growth-promoting effect of urea, presumably through release of ammonia by bacterial ureas (EC 3.5.1.5) and its consequent incorporation into amino acids.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Okumura et al. (1976) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: