Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T04:45:57.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences in food resource allocation in a long-term selection experiment for litter size in mice 2. Developmental trends in body weight against food intake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

W. M. Rauw ,
P. Luiting ,
M. W. A. Verstegen ,
O. Vangen  and
P. W. Knap
W. M. Rauw
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Norway, PO Box 5025, 1432 Ås, Norway
P. Luiting
Affiliation:
PIC International Group Ltd, Roslin Institute, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
M. W. A. Verstegen
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Science, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
O. Vangen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Norway, PO Box 5025, 1432 Ås, Norway
P. W. Knap
Affiliation:
PIC International Group Ltd, Roslin Institute, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
Get access

Abstract

In the accompanying paper, specific genetic factors for body weight and food intake were identified in non-reproductive male and female mice of a line selected for high litter size at birth (average of 22 born per litter) and a non-selected control line (average of 10 born per litter). The existence of these factors are indicated by variation in efficiency parameters such as growth efficiency and maintenance requirements. Residual food intake (RFI) and Parks’ estimates of growth efficiency (AB) and maintenance requirements (MEm) were used to quantify these factors. In the growing period, females had a higher RFI (are less efficient) than males. At maturity, selected mice had higher RFI than control mice and selected females had higher RFI than selected males. AB was higher in selected-line mice than in control-line mice, and higher in males than in females. MEm was higher in selected-line mice than in control-line mice, and higher in females than in males. The results indicate the existence of specific genetic factors for both growth efficiency and maintenance requirements. Selected females may increase RFI in the adult state to anticipate the metabolically stressful periods of pregnancy and lactation, to support a genetically highly increased litter size.

Keywords

food intakegrowthlitter sizeselection
Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
Animal Science , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , August 2000 , pp. 39 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archer, J. A. and Pitchford, W. S. 1996. Phenotypic variation in residual food intake of mice at different ages and its relationship with efficiency of growth, maintenance and body composition. Animal Science 63: 149–157.Google Scholar
Bordas, A. and Minvielle, F. 1997. Réponse à la chaleur de poules pondeuses issues de lignées sélectionnées pour une faible (R-) our forte (R +) consommation alimentaire résiduelle. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 29: 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jandel, . 1992. SigmaPlot Scientific Graphing System user’s manual, version 5.0. Jandel Scientific Inc., San Rafael CA.Google Scholar
Luiting, P., Decuypere, E., Groot, P. N. de, Buyse, J. and Broom, G. 1994. Selection for feed efficiency and consequences for stress susceptibility. Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the European Assocation for Animal Production, Edinburgh, p. 7.Google Scholar
Luiting, P. and Urff, E. M. 1991. Optimization of a model to estimate residual feed consumption in the laying hen. Livestock Production Science 27: 321–338.Google Scholar
Luiting, P., Vangen, O., Rauw, W. M., Knap, P. W. and Beilharz, R. G. 1997. Physiological consequences of selection for growth. Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Vienna, p. 40.Google Scholar
Packard, G. C. and Bordman, T. J. 1988. The misuse of ratios, indices, and percentages in ecophysiological research. Physiological Zoology 61: 1–9.Google Scholar
Parks, J. R. 1982. A theory of feeding and growth of animals. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Rauw, W. M., Luiting, P., Verstegen, M. W. A., Vangen, O. and Knap, P. W. 2000. Differences in food resource allocation in a long-term selection experiment for litter size in mice. 1. Developmental trends in body weight and food intake against time. Animal Science 71: 31–38.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1985. SAS user’s guide: statistics, version 5. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1980. Genetic size-scaling rules in animal growth. Animal Production 30: 161–165.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1985. Use of genetic size-scaling in evaluation of animal growth. Journal of Animal Science 61: (suppl. 2) 118–141.Google Scholar
Vangen, O. 1993. Results from 40 generations of divergent selection for litter size in mice. Livestock Production Science 37: 197–211.Google Scholar