Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T20:40:06.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection of mice for growth on constant and on changing maize-milk diets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

Nigel Bateman
Nigel Bateman
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Summary

Effects of constant and of changing diets on responses to selection were studied. Mice were fed maize meal and dried skim milk from 3 to 5 weeks of age and were selected for live-weight gains in that period. Gains in the generation prior to selection were 17·7 g on 76% maize (24% milk), 8·0 g on 16% maize and 5·5 g on 100% maize.

The Fixed optimum line was selected on 76% maize, the Milk line on 16% maize and the Maize line on 100% maize. The diets of three other lines were reviewed at each generation, and two diets were fed on each occasion. The diets of the Shifting optimum line straddled the optimum of the previous generation; those of the Milk-impelled line at first had a little more than the optimum amount of milk, but were made more milky as normal growth resumed; and the Maize-impelled line was similarly directed towards 100% maize. Back selected milk, optimum and maize sublines were taken off the three lines on constant diets. The Control line measured unimproved rates of growth on 16%, 52%, 76% and 100% maize.

Dietary effects were not always repeatable. Controls on the optimum diet, 76% maize, were the most stable across generations and with this diet, gains generally had the lowest phenotypic variance within generations —g2. With 100% maize, this variance was slightly larger—8 g2. The diet with the least stable effect was 16% maize; as Control gains rose from 8 to 15 g, phenotypic variance fell from 21 to 6 g2. On various diets between 88% and 96% maize, the variance of the Maize-impelled line rose from 6 to 34 g2 without commensurate changes in its mean gain.

Responses of generally about 5 g above controls were made in five generations of selection. The Maize line was exceptional in making no forward response. Heritability of growth between forward and back selected sublines was highest on good diets (0·49 on 76% maize) and lower on poor diets (0·20 on 16% maize and 0·28 on 100% maize).

The Fixed and Shifting optimum lines do not as yet differ on comparable diets; nor the Milk and Milk-impelled lines on 16% maize. The Maize-impelled line has not yet been tested on 100% maize and cannot be compared with the Maize line. Family-by-diet interactions were smaller than consistent family differences. It is concluded that genotypic improvements may be effective over a wide range of maize-milk diets.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , August 1971 , pp. 425 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1971

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

Abplanalp, H. 1962. Modification of selection limits for egg number. Genet. Res. 3: 210–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, K. G. 1959. The genetic assimilation of four venation phenocopies. J. Genet. 56: 443–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, N. 1971. Effects of diets consisting of maize and milk on growth and carcass characteristics of mice. Anim. Prod. 13: 413–424.Google Scholar
Bohren, B. B., Hill, W. G. and Robertson, A. 1966. Some observations on asymmetrical correlated responses to selection. Genet. Res. 7: 44–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradford, G. E. 1968. Selection for litter size in mice in the presence and absence of gonadotrophin treatment. Genetics, Princeton 58: 283–295.Google Scholar
Dalton, D. C. 1967. Selection for growth in mice on two diets. Anim. Prod. 9: 425–434.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1955. Genetic slippage in response to selection for multiple objectives. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 20: 213–224.Google Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. 1962. Implications of genetic-environmental interaction in animal breeding. Anim. Prod. 4: 47–63.Google Scholar
Druger, M. 1962. Selection and body size in Drosophila pseudoobscura at different temperatures. Genetics, Princeton 47: 209–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S. 1952. The problem of environment and selection. Am. Nat. 86: 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1960. Selection of mice for growth on high and low planes of nutrition. Genet. Res. 1: 91–113.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. and Latyszewski, M. 1952. The environment in relation to selection for size in mice. J. Genet. 51: 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, S. H. and Ensminger, M. E. 1960. Interactions between genotype and plane of nutrition in selection for rate of gain in swine J. Anim. Sci. 19: 434–449.Google Scholar
Frahm, R. R. and Kojima, K. 1966. Comparison of selection response on body weight under divergent larval density conditions in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics, Princeton 54: 625–637.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. 1947. Animal breeding in relation to nutrition and environmental conditions. Biol. Rev. 22: 195–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardin, R. T. and BELL A. E. 1967. Two-way selection for body weight in Tribolium on two levels of nutrition. Genet. Res. 9: 309–330.Google Scholar
James, J. W. 1961. Selection in two environments. Heredity, Lond. 16: 145–152.CrossRefGoogle 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 postweaning gain in the rat. Genetics, Princeton 54: 1315–1327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, F. W. 1964. The ecological genetics of growth in Drosophila. 7. The role of canalization in the stability of growth relations. Genet. Res. 5: 107–126.Google Scholar