Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-08T13:51:40.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of reduction of litter size on subsequent growth and reproductive performance in mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

David Machin  and
Sheila Page
David Machin
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of Leeds
Sheila Page
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of Leeds
Get access

Summary

Litters that contained at least 13 mice were reduced at birth to 12, 8, or 4; and any natural litters of these sizes were also kept. The growth of these mice and their subsequent reproductive performance when mated at 6,10 and 14 weeks of age were recorded. All their offspring were weighed at weaning (4 weeks); some were weighed also at 12 days and 6 weeks of age.

The amount of milk supplied was not fully adjusted to the size of the litters. This had lasting effects so that, even at the oldest age for mating, the mice from the small litters were noticeably the heaviest. Litter size effects extended to significant differences in fertility (numbers born) and less obviously to the numbers weaned. The mice that were mated at 14 weeks were the most fertile. There was little to distinguish the mice from natural and reduced litters of the same size.

Small differences in weights of the offspring at 12 days, 4 weeks and 6 weeks of age bore no consistent relation to these factors.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , February 1973 , pp. 1 - 6
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1973

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

REFERENCES

Bateman, N. 1957. Some physiological aspects of lactation in mice. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 49: 60–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, N. 1967. Reduced fertility of mice born in large families. Agricultural Research Council Report, Animal Breeding Research Organisation, pp. 14–17.Google Scholar
Butler, L. and Metrakos, J. D. 1950. A study of size inheritance in the house mouse. I. The effect of milk source. Can. J. Res., D. 28: 16–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, L. 1952. A study of size inheritance in the house mouse. II. Analysis of five preliminary crosses. Can. J. Zool. 30: 154–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crozier, W. J. and Enzmann, E. V. 1935. On the relation between litter size, birth rate and rate of growth in mice. J. gen. Physiol. 19: 249–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalton, D. C. and Bywater, T. L. 1963. The effect of selection for litter size and litter weight at weaning in mice maintained on 2 diets. Anim. Prod. 53: 317–326.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1947. Milk production in mice. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 37: 224–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flux, D. S. 1954. Growth of the mammory duct system in intact and ovariectomised mice of the Chi strain. J. Endocr. 11: 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MaCdowell, E. C., Allen, E. and MaCdowell, G. G. 1929. Relation of parity, age and weight to number of corpora lutea. Anat. Rec. 41: 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montemo, L. S. and Falconer, D. S. 1966. Compensatory growth and sexual maturity in mice. Anim. Prod. 8: 179–192.Google Scholar
Page, S. 1970. Studies on litter size in mice. M.Phil. Thesis, Univ. Leeds.Google Scholar
Parkes, A. S. 1929. Note on the growth of young mice suckled by rats. Ann. appl. Biol. 16: 171–173.Google Scholar