Iron depletion-repletion assays were carried out with young chicks to establish Fe bioavailability values for Fe2(SO4)3.7H2O (22.7% Fe), Fe-ZnSO4.H2O (20.2% Fe, 13.0% Zn), Zn-FeSO4.H2O (20.2% Zn, 14.2% Fe), and cottonseed meal (200 mg Fe/kg). Standard hemoglobin response curves were established using feed-grade FeSO4.H2O (28.8% Fe) or reagent-grade FeSO4.7H2O (20.1% Fe) as standards such that relative bioavailability (RBV) could be assessed for the experimental sources of Fe. Weight gain, hemoglobin, and hematocrit responded linearly (P < 0.05) to Fe supplementation in all assays. Using hemoglobin as the response criterion, slope-ratio calculations established Fe RBV values of 126% for Fe-ZnSO4.H2O and 93% for Zn-FeSO4.H2O. The 126% value for Fe-ZnSO4.H2O was greater (P < 0.05) than the FeSO4.H2O standard (100%), but the 93% value for Zn-FeSO4.H2O was not different (P > 0.10) from the standard. However, evaluation of all criteria of response (hemoglobin, hematocrit, weight gain) suggested that neither Fe-ZnSO4.H2O nor Zn-FeSO4.H2O had different Fe RBV values than FeSO4.H2O. Standard-curve calculations were used for assessment of Fe RBV in Fe2(SO4)3.7H2O and cottonseed meal, as only a single level of Fe addition was studied for each of these products. Iron RBV in Fe2(SO4)3.7H2O was estimated to be 37%, whereas Fe RBV in cottonseed meal was found to be 56%. Both of these values were lower (P < 0.05) than the FeSO4 standard. The data suggest that the two new products, representing combinations of FeSO4.H2O and ZnSO4.H2O by-products of the galvanizing industry, are excellent sources of bioavailable Fe, whereas ferric sulfate and cottonseed meal are relatively poor sources of usable Fe.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boling et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: