Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:08:04.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic and phenotypic relationships between food intake, growth, efficiency and body composition of mice post weaning and at maturity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. A. Archer ,
W. S. Pitchford ,
T. E. Hughes  and
P. F. Parnell
J. A. Archer
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Adelaide, Waite Campus, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia
W. S. Pitchford
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Adelaide, Waite Campus, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia
T. E. Hughes
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Adelaide, Waite Campus, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia
P. F. Parnell
Affiliation:
The Angus Society of Australia, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia
Get access

Abstract

Genetic and phenotypic variation in post-weaning growth, food intake, efficiency and body composition of mice post weaning and at maturity, were examined to determine whether genetic variation in efficiency exists and to predict likely responses to selection for increased food efficiency in post-weaning animals. Genetic variation was found for average daily gain, mid-weight, daily food intake and proportion of body fat both post weaning and at maturity. Residual food intake calculated from phenotypic regression had a heritability of 0·27 (s.e. 0·06) post weaning and 0·24 (s.e. 0·08) at maturity, and was very similar to residual food intake calculated using genetic (co)variances, indicating genetic variation in efficiency exists in post-weaning and mature mice. Although the phenotypic correlation between residual food intake post weaning and at maturity was low (0·29), the genetic correlation was moderate (0·60). This suggests that selection for efficiency in young animals will lead to a correlated improvement in maintenance efficiency of mature animals. Genetic correlation estimates suggest that correlated responses in other traits would include a concomitant decrease in post-weaning food intake, a slight increase in weight at weaning, a slight increase in post-weaning fat proportion and little or no change in post-weaning growth. In mature animals there will be an associated decrease in daily food intake and a slight decrease in mature size and body fat proportion. The results suggest that residual food intake of young animals might be a suitable selection criteria for use in livestock species to improve efficiency in young animals and also in the breeding herd.

Keywords

body compositionfood conversiongrowthmiceresidual effects
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , August 1998 , pp. 171 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1998

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisen, E. J. 1989. Selection experiments for body composition in mice and rats: a review. Livestock Production Science 23:17–32.Google Scholar
Ferrell, C. L. and Jenkins, T. G. 1984. Energy utilisation by mature, nonpregnant, nonlactating cows of different types. Journal of Animal Science 58:234–243.Google Scholar
Frisch, J. E. and Vercoe, J. E. 1984. An analysis of growth of different cattle genotypes reared in different environments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103:137–153.Google Scholar
Hastings, I. M., Moruppa, S. M., Bünger, L. and Hill, W. G. 1997. Effects of selection on food intake in the adult mouse. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 114:419–434.Google Scholar
Hörstgen, G. 1978. Modellversuch mit mäusen zur genetischen differenzierung von zuchtlinien durch selektion für quantitative merkmale. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Göttingen.Google Scholar
Hughes, T. E. and Pitchford, W. S. 1994. Heterosis effects on efficiency of post-weaning growth. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 19, pp. 197–200.Google Scholar
Jensen, J., Mao, I. L., Andersen, B. B. and Madsen, P. 1992. Phenotypic and genetic relationships between residual energy intake and growth, feed intake, and carcass traits of young bulls. Journal of Animal Science 70:386–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, B. W., Werf, J. H. J. van der and Meuwissen, T. H. E. 1993. Genetic and statistical properties of residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 71: 3239–3250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luiting, P., Urff, E. M. and Verstegen, M. W. A. 1994. Between-animal variation in biological efficiency as related to residual intake as related to feed consumption. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 42:59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, R. C. 1984. Genetic and physiological aspects of growth, body composition and feed efficiency in mice: a review. Journal of Animal Science 58:577–590.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. 1993. DFREML version 2.1 — programs to estimate variance components by restricted maximum likelihood using a derivative-free algorithm. User notes. Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia. Mimeograph.Google Scholar
Nielsen, M. K., Freking, B. A., Jones, L. D., Nelson, S. M., Vorderstrasse, T. L. and Hussey, B. A. 1997a. Divergent selection for heat loss in mice. II. Correlated responses in feed intake, body mass, body composition, and number born through fifteen generations. Journal of Animal Science 75:1469–1476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, M. K., Jones, L. D., Freking, B. A. and DeShazer, J. A. 1997b. Divergent selection for heat loss in mice. I. Selection applied and direct response through fifteen generations. Journal of Animal Science 75:1461–1468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nieuwhof, G. J., Alendonk, J. A. M. van, Vos, H. and Korver, S. 1992. Genetic relationships between feed intake, efficiency and production traits in growing bulls, growing heifers and lactating heifers. Livestock Production Science 32: 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponzoni, R. W. 1992. Genetic improvement of hair sheep in the tropics. FAO animal reproduction and health paper no. 101, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
Pullar, J. D. and Webster, A. J. F. 1977. The energy cost of fat and protein deposition in the rat. British Journal of Nutrition 37: 355–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharp, G. L., Hill, W. G. and Robertson, A. 1984. Effects of selection on growth, body composition and food intake in mice. I. Responses in selected traits. Genetical Research, Cambridge 43:75–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shuey, S. A., Birkelo, C. P. and Marshall, D. M. 1993. The relationship of the maintenance energy requirement to heifer production efficiency. Journal of Animal Science 71: 2253–2259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solis, J. C., Byers, F. M., Schilling, G. T., Long, C. R. and Greene, L. W. 1988. Maintenance requirements and energetic efficiency of cows of different breed types. Journal of Animal Science 66: 764–773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1989. SAS/STAT® user's guide, version 6, fourth edition. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Stephens, S. 1991. Biological aspects of feeding and growth in mice. Ph.D. thesis, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.Google Scholar
Stephens, S., Thompson, J. M. and Reynolds, P. 1988. Genetic variation in efficiency of maintenance in mature mice. Proceedings of the seventh conference of the Australian Association of Animal Breeding and Genetics, pp. 538–541.Google Scholar
Swan, A. A. 1994. Front-end programs to run DFREML. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to animal production, Guelph, vol. 22, p. 53.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S., Thiessen, R. B. and Murray, J. 1986. Inter-breed relationship of maintenance efficiency to milk yield in cattle. Animal Production 43:37–61.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S., Turner, H. G. and Young, G. B. 1981. Genetic control of equilibrium maintenance efficiency in cattle. Animal Production 33:179–194.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. 1981. The energetic efficiency of metabolism. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 40:121–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, A. J. F. 1989. Bioenergetics, bioengineering and growth. Animal Production 48:249–269.Google Scholar