Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T03:54:10.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of over-feeding newborn rabbits on somatic and visceral growth, body composition and long-term growth potential

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

S. Andrew Spencer  and
David Hull
S. Andrew Spencer
Affiliation:
Department of Child Health, University Hospital, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH
David Hull
Affiliation:
Department of Child Health, University Hospital, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

1. Newborn rabbits were over-fed by encouraging them to suck from two lactating does. These double-fed animals were compared with single-fed litter-mate controls.

2. Single- and double-fed rabbits were compared with respect to body-weight, bone length and weights of heart, kidney, lung, liver, spleen, stomach, brain and adipose lobes at ages 7, 14 and 21 d and at 25 weeks. Body composition with respect to fat, protein and water was also analysed in animals killed during the first month of life.

3. Double feeding had a profound effect on body-weight, such that by 21 d of age these animals weighed 65% more than controls. Longitudinal growth was also increased, but to a lesser extent. Organ weights were largely determined by body-weight with the exception of the brain which was unaffected by double feeding and the heart and adipose lobes which were represented to excess. Body composition studies demonstrated a marked increase in body fat and a decrease in body water as a percentage of body-weight in the double-fed.

4. When mature, double-fed rabbits weighed a little more than controls and had accumulated significantly more fat. No other difference between them was demonstrated.

5. Other experiments on rats, mice and pigs, along with these experiments on rabbits, suggest that young mammals respond to over-feeding with a limited increase in real growth associated with excess deposition of adipose tissue. Studies on infants of diabetic mothers have demonstrated that the human fetus responds to over-nutrition in a very similar way. Therefore we should be cautious about over-feeding human infants, especially premature ones, as it seems unlikely that excessive deposition of fat will be beneficial.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , May 1984 , pp. 389 - 402
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1984

References

REFERENCES

Breidahl, H. D. (1966). Medical Journal of Australia 1, 268–270.Google Scholar
Calvert, S. A., Aynsley-Green, A., Jenkins, P. A. & Newman, C. (1983). British Paediatric Association, 55th Annual Meeting (ABS G39), 86.Google Scholar
Cardell, B. S. (1953). Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Empire 69, 834–853.Google Scholar
Dobbing, J. (1981). Scientific Foundations of Paediatrics pp. 744–759. London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
Dobbing, J. & Sands, J. (1973). Archives of Disease in Childhood 48, 757–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbing, J. & Sands, J. (1979). Early Human Development 3, 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driscoll, S. G., Benirschke, K. & Curtis, G. W. (1960). American Journal of Disease in Childhood 100, 818–835.Google Scholar
Farquhar, J. W. (1969). Archives of Disease in Childhood 44, 36–47.Google Scholar
Fee, B. A. & Weil, W. B. (1963). Annals of the New York Academy of Science 110, 869–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardman, M. J., Hull, D. & Oyesiku, J. (1970). Biology of the Neonate 16, 306–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harel, S., Watanabe, K., Linke, I. & Schain, R. J. (1972). Biology of the Neonate 21, 381–399.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. C. (1957). Journal of Endocrinology 15, xix–xxiv.Google Scholar
Khermosh, A., Tadmor, A., Weissman, S. L., Michels, C. H. & Chen, R. (1972). American Journal of Veterinary Research 33, 1079–1082.Google Scholar
Lemonier, D., Suquet, J. P., Aubert, R. & Rosselin, G. (1973). Hormone and Metabolic Research 5, 223–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCance, R. A. (1962). Lancet ii, 671–676.Google Scholar
Pedersen, J. (1954). Acta Endocrinologica 16, 330–342.Google Scholar
Pedersen, J. (1977 a). The Pregnant Diabetic and Her Newborn p. 211. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Pedersen, J. (1977 b). The Pregnant Diabetic and Her Newborn p. 123. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Rucklidge, G. J. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 441–450.Google Scholar
Stanier, M. W., SanzSampelayo, M. R. Sampelayo, M. R. & Close, W. H. (1979). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 38, 48A.Google Scholar
Verdy, M., Gagnon, M. & Caron, D. (1974). New England Journal of Medicine 290, 576.Google Scholar
White, P., Koshy, P. & Duckers, J. (1953). Medical Clinics of North America 37, 1481–1496.Google Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. (1981). Scientific Foundations of Paediatrics pp. 330–342. London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. & McCance, R. A. (1953). British Journal of Nutrition 9, 316–321.Google Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. & McCance, R. A. (1960). Proceedings of the Royal Society London (Biology) 152, 188–206.Google Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. & McCance, R. A. (1963). Proceedings of the Royal Society London (Biology) 158, 329–342.Google Scholar