Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:30:53.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction of carcass fat from body measurements made on live rats differing in age, sex and strain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Mary W. Marshall ,
Barbara P. Smith ,
Arvid W. Munson  and
Richard P. Lahmanhn
Mary W. Marshall
Affiliation:
Human Nutrition Research Division and Biometrical Services, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland
Barbara P. Smith
Affiliation:
Human Nutrition Research Division and Biometrical Services, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland
Arvid W. Munson
Affiliation:
Human Nutrition Research Division and Biometrical Services, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland
Richard P. Lahmanhn
Affiliation:
Human Nutrition Research Division and Biometrical Services, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland
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. Individual body fat and body measurements such as lengths, girths and selected skinfold thicknesses were determined in our laboratory strain (BHE), a highly inbred strain (IN) of BHE rats and in a strain of Wistar rats. Measurements were made on unconscious rats in less than 5 min per rat just before autopsy; body fat content was determined in individual rats of both sexes at 50, 100 and 300 days of age.

2. Among the strains, mean total body fat was highest in BHE rats at each age; IN rats of similar average body size were leanest. Statistically significant differences in body fat among the strains were due primarily to differences among the male rats at 300 days. Total protein and skeletal mass increased with increases in age and body size, as did body fat in rats after maturity. IN rats had the largest fat-free weights. Although significant age differences in body fat and body measurements occurred, they were in part dependent upon changes in body- weight, sex and strain of the animals. Female rats had more fat per unit body-weight than males at each age studied. Females, though fatter than males, had smaller skinfold thicknesses, indi- cating that female fat increases are primarily in visceral fat.

3. Large variation in fat among individuals within strains of the same body-weight and age suggests a genetic influence in fat potential in rats not associated with age or body-weight.

4. Results from multiple regression analyses showed differences among adjusted means and partial regression coefficients due to strain and sex of the animals. Although final body-weight was the predictor common to all equations, body length, abdominal girth and subscapular skinfold were common to all but one set of equations. Chest girth, tibia length, triceps and abdominal skinfolds decreased in frequency of appearance in that order. Some of the measurements were more effective predictors at one age than at another. It was clearly necessary to take into account body dimensions other than weight to obtain an optimal prediction of body fat.

5. Differences in characteristics of the rats support the concept of genetic influences in fat deposition in individuals and indicate the complex nature of these influences.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 1969 , pp. 353 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1969

References

Acheson, R. M., Macintyre, M. N. & Oldham, E. (1959). Br. J. Nutr. 13, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, M. (1964). US. Dep. Agric. Home Econ. Res. Rep. no. 24.Google Scholar
Angel, J. L. (1960). Hum. Biol. 32, 342.Google Scholar
Beal, V. A. (1965). J. Am. diet. Ass. 46, 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behnke, A. R. (1963). Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 110, 450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, B. N. & Harmison, C. R. (1957). J. Geront. 12, 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, C. McC. & Lambert, E. F. (1946). Am. J. Physiol. 147, 695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broˇek, J. (editor) (1956). Body Measurements and Human Nutrition. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Broˇek, J. (editor) (1965). Human Body Composition: Applications and Approaches. Symposia for the Society for the Study of Human Biology. Vol. 7. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Cohn, C. & Joseph, D. (1959). Am. J. Physiol. 196, 965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deuel, H. J. Jr, Hallman, L. F., Movitt, E., Mattson, F. H. & Wu, E. (1944). J. Nutr. 27, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Giorgio, J., Bonnano, R. A. & Hegsted, D. M. (1962). J. Nutr. 78, 384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, H. H. (1924). Mem. Wistar Inst. Anat. no. 6, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Dunn, M. S., Murphy, E. A. & Rockland, L. B. (1947). Physiol. Rev. 27, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, A. M. A., Fisher, M. & Adams, M. (1964). Archs Path. 77, 268.Google Scholar
Durnin, J. V. G. A. & Rahaman, M. M. (1967). Br. J. Nutr. 21, 681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1960). J. cell. comp. Physiol. Suppl. 1, 56, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. & Isaacson, J. H. (1959). J. Hered. 50, 290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenton, P. F. (1956). Am. J. Physiol. 184, 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenton, P. F. (1960). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 8, 748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garn, S. M. & Harper, R. V. (1955). Hum. Biol. 27, 39.Google Scholar
Hammond, W. H. (1955). Br. J. prev. Soc. Med. 9, 201.Google Scholar
Hanson, R. W. & Fenton, P. F. (1966). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 121, 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, W. R. (1960). ARS 20–8, U S. Dep. Agric.Google Scholar
Joy, R. J. T., Knauft, R. F. & Mayer, J. (1967). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 126, 869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keys, A. & Broiek, J. (1953). Physiol. Rev. 33, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, J. F., Weeth, J. J., Haverland, L. H., Clark, R. T. & Shelby, C. E. (1960). Growth 24, 47.Google Scholar
Kumar, I., Land, D. G. & Boyne, A. W. (1959). Br. J. Nutr. 13, 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laird, A. K. (1965). Growth 29, 249.Google ScholarPubMed
Lakshmanan, F. L. & Adams, M. (1965). J. Nutr. 86, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, J. W. (1944). Am. Nat. 78, 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, M. W. & Hildebrand, H. E. (1963). J. Nutr. 79, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, M. W.,Hildebrand, H. E., Dupont, J. L. & Womack, M. (1959).J. Nutr. 69, 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, M. W. & Lehmann, R. P. (1967). Metabolism 16, 763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, T. G., Kessler, W. V., Stant, E. G. Jr, Christian, J. E. & Andrews, F. N. (1963). Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 110, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, J. (1963). A. Rev. Med. 14, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Outhouse, J. & Mendel, L. B. (1933). J. exp. Zool. 64, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathbun, E. N. & Pace, N. (1945). J. biol. Chem. 158, 667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, L. L., Yamaguchi, F., Anderson, W. E. & Mendel, L. B. (1930). J. biol. Chem. 87, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seltzer, C. C., Goldman, R. F. & Mayer, J. (1965). Pediatrics, Springfield 36, 212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seltzer, C. C. & Mayer, J. (1964). J. Am. med. Ass. 189, 677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seltzer, C. C. & Mayer, J. (1966). Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 134, 688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spray, C. M. & Widdowson, E. M. (1950). Br. J. Nutr. 4, 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, J. M. (1959). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 18, 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, D. D., Conway, E. S., Schuster, E. M. & Adams, M. (1967). J. Nutr. 91, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, G., Singhal, R. L., Stamm, N. B. & Srivastava, S. K. (1965). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 24, 745.Google Scholar
Weber, G., Lea, M.A., Convery, H. J. H. & Stamm, N. B. (1967). In Advances in Enzyme Regulation Vol. 5, p. 257. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Wedgewood, R.J. (1963). Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 110, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. J. (1956). Biochemical Individuality. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Williams, R. J & Pelton, R. B. (1966). Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 55, 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, C. (1964). J. Am. diet. Ass. 45, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucker, L. M. & Zucker, T. F. (1961). J. Hered. 52, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucker, T. F. & Zucker, L. M. (1963). J. Nutr. 80, 6.Google Scholar