Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:13:23.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth, efficiency and body composition of mice selected for post-weaning weight gain on ad libitum or restricted feeding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

D. J. S. Hetzel  and
F. W. Nicholas
D. J. S. Hetzel
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, N.S.W. 2006, Australia
F. W. Nicholas
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, N.S.W. 2006, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

After seven generations of selection, a line of mice selected for post-weaning (21–42 days) weight gain on full feeding (SF) showed significant increases of 49% in weight gain, 31% in efficiency and 14% in food intake, when compared with its control on full feeding between 21 and 42 days. After day 42, SF mice continued to eat more food and were 28% heavier than control mice at 91 days. Because SF mice were heavier than control mice at almost all ages, they were fatter on an age basis. There was, however, no change in the rate of deposition of fat, protein and ash relative to body weight. On restricted feeding between 21 and 42 days, SF mice showed a non-significant increase in weight gain, and hence in efficiency, of 12%. They deposited more fat than control mice during the feeding period but there was no significant difference when comparisons were made on a weight basis.

A contemporary line of mice selected for post-weaning (21–42 days) weight gain on restricted feeding (SR) had significant increases of 12% in weight gain, 17% in efficiency but no significant change in food intake, when compared with its control on full feeding between 21 and 42 days. SR mice were the same weight as control mice at all ages except day 21, when they were significantly lighter due to direct genetic effects rather than maternal effects. SR mice had a lower (P<0·10) rate of fat deposition per unit body weight and became less fat relative to their control as body weight increased. The rate of deposition of other components was not altered by selection. On restricted feeding, SR had a significant increase in weight gain, and hence in efficiency, of 37%. Changes in body composition were similar to those on full feeding.

It was concluded that the use of a restricted feeding regime had enabled the exploitation of heritable variation in the partitioning of energy for growth. This variation was independent of genetic variation for appetite and body weight.

Overall performance at each level of feeding was best improved by selection on that feeding level. The realized genetic correlation between post-weaning weight gain on full and restricted feeding was estimated to be 0·28 ± 0·08, indicating a very different genetic basis for the same character in the two feeding environments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , October 1986 , pp. 101 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

References

Atkinson, T., Fowler, V. R., Garton, G. A. & Lough, A. K. (1972). A rapid method for the accurate determination of lipid in animal tissue. Analyst, London 97, 562–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biondini, P. E., Sutherland, T. M. & Haverland, L. H. (1968). Body composition of mice selected for rapid growth rate. Journal of Animal Science 27, 5–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, R. L. & Cockrem, F. R. M. (1970). Selection for body weight in the mouse at three temperatures and the correlated response in tail length. Genetics 65, 505–523.Google Scholar
Cheek, D. B. & Holt, A. B. (1963). Growth and body composition of the mouse. American Journal of Physiology 205, 913–918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, J. N. (1969). Studies on the genetic control of growth in mice. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Eisen, E. J., Bakker, H. and Nagai, J. (1977). Body composition and energetic efficiency in two lines of mice selected for rapid growth rate and their F1 crosses. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 49, 21–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S. (1952). The problem of environment and selection. American Nationalist 86, 293–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1960). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. and Latyszewski, M. (1952). The environment in relation to selection for size in mice. Journal of Genetics, 51, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, R. E. (1958). The growth and carcass composition of strains of mice selected for large and small body size. Journal of Agricultural Science 51, 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, S. H. and Ensminger, M. E. (1960). Interaction between genotype and plane of nutrition in selection for rate of gain in swine. Journal of Animal Science 19, 434–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J. F. and McCarthy, J. C. (1976). The effects of selection at different ages for high and low weight on the pattern of fat deposition in mice. Genetical Research 27, 389–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hetzel, D. J. S. (1978). Genetic studies of growth and body composition in mice. PhD. Thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Hetzel, D. J. S. and Nicholas, F. W. (1982). Direct and correlated responses to selection for post-weaning weight gain on ad libitum or restricted feeding in mice. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 63, 145–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, W. G. (1971). Design and efficiency of selection experiments for estimating genetic parameters. Biometrics 27, 293–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, W. G. (1978). Design of selection experiments for comparing alternative testing regimes. Heredity 41, 371–376.Google Scholar
Hull, P. (1960). Genetic relations between carcass fat and body weight in mice. Journal of Agricultural Science 5, 317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, B. J. and Legates, J. E. (1969). Rate, composition and efficiency of growth in mice selected for large and small body weight. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 39, 306–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, J. C. (1980). Anatomical and physiological effects of selection for growth rate in mice. In Selection in Laboratory and Domestic Animals (ed. Robertson, A.) pp. 100–109. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
McPhee, C. P. and Neill, A. R. (1976). Changes in the body composition of mice selected for high and low eight week weight. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 47, 21–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McPhee, C. P., Trappett, P. C., Neill, A. R. and Duncalfe, F. (1980). Changes in growth, appetite, food conversion and body composition in mice selected for high post weaning gain on restricted feeding. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 57, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paigen, K. (1971). In Enzyme synthesis and degradation in mammalian systems (ed. Rechigl, M). Karger, Basel.Google Scholar
Park, Y. I., Hansen, C. T., Chung, C. S. and Chapman, A. B. (1966). Influence of feeding regime on the effects of selection for post-weaning gain in the rat. Genetics 54: 1315–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, J. R., Bensadoun, A., Bull, L. S., Burton, J. H., Gleeson, P. A., Han, I. K.., Joo, Y. D., Johnson, D. E., McManus, W. R., Paladines, O. L., Stroud, J. W., Tyrell, H. F., Van Niekerk, B. D. H. and Wellington, G. W. (1968). Some peculiarities in the body composition of animals. In Body Composition in Animals and Man. National Academy of Sciences Publications, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. C. (1979). Side effects of selection for growth in laboratory animals. Livestock Production Science 6, 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. (1973). Growth rate, appetite, body composition and efficiency. In Proceedings of the 15th British Poultry Breeders Roundtable. Birmingham.Google Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. (1968). Developmental studies of body composition. Animal Breeding Abstracts 36, 167–181.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Timon, V. W., Eisen, E. J. & Leatherwood, J. M. (1970). Comparisons on ad libitum and restricted feeding of mice selected and unselected for post-weaning gain. II. Carcass composition and energetic efficiency. Genetics 65, 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. (1977). Selection for leanness and energetic efficiency of growth in meat animals. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 36, 53–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yüksel, E., Hill, W. G. & Roberts, R. C. (1981). Selection for efficiency of feed utilization in growing mice. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 59, 129–138.Google Scholar