UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A study of a laboratory animal colony McLeod, Melville Coburn-Emma 1951

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1951 A4 M3 S7.pdf [ 16.72MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0106893.json
JSON-LD: 1.0106893+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0106893.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0106893+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0106893+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0106893+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0106893 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0106893.txt
Citation
1.0106893.ris

Full Text

A S-FJDY Qf A LAB0RAT0BT ANIMAL mtmi O O B T O f - M A MGXJSOD A thesis ssateittset ia partial fulfilsteat' «t tb* t©cimi3fwft»t# f** t»h® of Ifrutt*? of $al«ae« ia A&twsXtvr* in the Wt this thesis as orafoxfetag to th* stamtaM ttm. eaaHidatts fof th® of m&sm OF SGISKCB B J AoajmsoKB &• 'm&,mmi%T «f British ffeititibift A B S T R A C T This Thesis i s a study of the small anixaal c o l o n i e s operated by the Animal N u t r i t i o n Laboratory i n the Depart ment of Animal Husbandry. The f o u r anixaal u n i t s studied are the a l b i n o r a t , a l b i n o mouse, guinea p i g and r a b b i t . The management p r a c t i c e s used f o r each species are described f u l l y . They i n c l u d e the housing, feeding, breeding and con t r o l of disease methods u t i l i z e d . The f a c t o r s d i s c u s s e d i n the housing of the animals are the space u t i l i z a t i o n per animal and. the type of cages. In a d d i t i o n , s c a l e drawings and i l l u s t r a t i o n s of the cages and cage racks are i n c l u d e d . The method of f e e d i n g and the formula of each r a t i o n f o r each species i s r e p o r t e d . The system o f breeding used i n each of the c o l o n i e s i s d e s c r i b e d . C o n t r o l of disease i s d i s c u s s e d with reference to the s a n i t a t i o n procedures p r a c t i s e d . Growth and production data are reported f o r each species and a com pa r i s o n made with the data p u b l i s h e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e f o r other c o l o n i e s . Th© number of animals i n v o l v e d In the study are 1,700 r a t s , 258 mice, 73 guinea p i g s and 85 r a b b i t s . The growth data i n c l u d e s s i z e of l i t t e r , b i r t h weights and weekly weights t h e r e a f t e r u n t i l weaning age. The production data comprises the percentage f e r t i l i t y and percentage weaned. In a d d i t i o n the r e s u l t s of a cost survey i s r e p o r t e d . The cost per animal f o r each species i n c l u d e s the cost of housing, feeding and labour. The r e s u l t s reported here are comparable to those reported elsewhere. Aeknowieagement The w r i t e r wishes to thank Pr o f e s s o r H. M. K i n g , Head of the Department of Animal Husbandry f o r h i s generous peisaisaion to Garry out t h i s study and f o r h i s provision of th© animal u n i t s and l a b o r a t o r y f a c i l i  ties used. To X>r» A. J . Wood, Associate Professor in th© Department of Animal Husbandry, sincere g r a t i t u d e i s expressed, f o r Ms i n s p i r a t i o n and perseverance in h i s teaching, and f o r h i s u n t i r i n g energy and f o r t h r i g h t c r i t i c i s m i n h i s d i r e c t i o n of t h i s p r o j e c t . The w r i t e r a l s o wishes t o acknowledge Mr. C l i f f o r d Harvey, Senior Animal Attendant, without whose keen I n t e r e s t i n , and. e x c e l l e n t management of the animal c o l o n i e s , t h i s study would have been i m p o s s i b l e . S p e c i a l thanks are tendered to th© many f e l l o w students, f o r t h e i r assistance ant comments throughout the duration of t h i s work. -_afel@ of Contents Page I. Introduction « » 1 II, Experimental - Animal Units . 13 A, Animal Nutrition Laboratory Hat Unit .. 16 ;i) Origin ....,..,......,,..*...*,*.» 16 2) Housing #••,..•.»#••.«».•*»•»*•«*•« 16 3^} feeding and Watering ............. 23 • 4s) Breeding ....a.................... 26 5) ,®mtml ©f'disease 27 (6) Literature Review on the Labora tory Rat .... 28 (7) .Aaim^l Nutrition Laboratory Growth Data *.,,«.»* 43 (8) Cost Survey on Rat Colony .. . 50 B, Animal nutrition Laboratory llous© Unit, 51 (1) Origin ,.»,,»..,..*..•,*.......,,. 51 {%) Housing ,*..»*#..•,,»».».,,,,,•,,. 51 j3) .feeding and Watering 57 14} Breading .*,,.,,*.,,,,:,.*.,,...,,,, 57 (S) Control of di mm® ,.,....,,..»«.,. 59 (6) Literature. levi©w on the Laboratory Mouse ,,, 59 (7) Animal nutrition Laboratory Growth Data .... 70 ,.8) Cost Survey on Mouse Colony , 77 C. Animal.lutrition Laboratory Guinea pig Unit ..... 78 (1) Origin * 78 2) Housing ,,«..*.•..,*....,.,....,.. 7$ 3} Feeding and Watering 88 4s) .Breeding #...»•*.»»...»««.•»**•».. Q9 5) Control Of disease 91 (6) Animal Nutrition Laboratory Growth data. 93 (7) Cost Surrey on Guinea Pig Colony. . 99 Pag© ] D. MfoaX. n u t r i t i o n Laboratory Babbit U n i t .. 100 (1) o r i g i n , ....,»..»......»...<>.......•.. 100 (2) Housing ,, 100 (3) Feeding and U a t e r i n g 10B (4) Breeding •••»*•»•»*•»•«.............. 10S (5) C o n t r o l of disease ..,....».#•..*..,« 104 (6) Animal H u t r l t i o n Laboratory Growth Data .... 106 {7) Goat Surrey'of Rabbit Colony ,,',..,., 103 III.,..Summary and Conclusions f........... f • 109 IV* , Appendices A . .Appendix I* ~,S&O0 recent t e x t s published on small animal c o l o n i e s . . , . 114 (1945.-* 1980) B. Appendix I I - S p e c i f i c a t i o n s of e l e c t r i c f a n 1 1 5 0 . Appendix I I I * Animal r a t i o n s ............. 110 D. Appen&iae I f «* Growth data on r a t , mouse • and guinea p i g . 195 1. Appendix Y, * Cost snrrey data i§e V, . Bib l i o g r a p h y .».,»........ •................... i&g List of Figures Page Fig. 1 - Metabolism in relation to ag© in white rat ... 8 Fig. 2 - Hat ©age r'aok showing t i e r s of ©ages ... 18 f i g . 3 - Specifications of rat rack 19 Fig* 4 - Standard rat cage «..,.*«...,.,.,...».,.'., SO Fig.., 5 - Standard rat cage Bl Fig, § - Specif!ccfciohs of mt cage .,.»...,,..** ZZ Fig. 7 - Mouse cage rack shoisiag tiers of cages • 52 F i g . & ' *' Specifications of mouse riusk 53 Fig. 9 - Standard mouse cage *.,«•<•*»••»#•#,. 54 Fig. 10 ~ Standard mouse cage «...».•»...*.*...».« 55 Fig* 11 - Specifications of mouse cage .»,*•**»»•» 55 Fig. 12 - Guinea pig cage rack, basic design ..... 79 Fig. 13 * S p e c i f i c a t i o n s of guinea pig rack 80 Fig. 14 - Standard guinea pig cage ,.«.,........«• 82 Fig, 15 - Standard guinea pig cage .»..».....#,«.»«.* 85 f i g . 10 - Specifieatiena of guinea pig cage 84 f i g . 17A - Specifications of Suffield Cage rack 80 Fig. 17B - Specifications of * guinea pig cage . 87 ffig« 1© - Growth ourres of Mima! nutrition Lab- • oratory Guinea Pig Colony ....... 95 Fig. 19 - Frequency of l i t t e r size 96 Fig. 20 - Post-weaning growth curve of Animal Nu tr i t i o n Laboratory Guinea Pig Colony .. 98 Fig, 21 - Standard rabbit cages 101 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n Th® ©xfceasive tia© o f th® l a b o r a t o r y animal in r e s e a r c h and the major c o n t r i b u t i o n i t has made t o our knowledge of the b i o l o g i c a l s c i e n c e s can h a r d l y be ques t i o n e d , Even though the knowledge and th© s k i l l of an i n v e s t i g a t o r and th© q u a l i t y of h i s chemical reagents and apparatus may be beyond question, the experimental data he o b t a i n s w i l l b@ of l i m i t e d v a l u e , i f th© animals he uses are of poor or of u n c e r t a i n o r i g i n . An estimate o f th© r e l a t i v e u t i l i z a t i o n of the v a r i o u s l a b o r a t o r y animals i n b i o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h can be obtained by s c r u t i n i z i n g the p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e . As a n a t t e r of i n t e r e s t such a l i t e r a t u r e survey has been made u s i n g the f o l l o w i n g s i x s c i e n t i f i c p e r i o d i c a l s s e l e c t e d as being r e p r e s e n t a t I T S of th© l i t e r a t u r e as a whole (1) J o u r n a l o f N u t r i t i o n (2) J o u r n a l o f Immunology (5) J o u r n a l o f Pathology and B a c t e r i o l o g y 2 fabl© 1 - fflS UTILIZATION Of LABORATORY ANIMALS DURING f H l FSRIOP 1918 .- 1948 PERIODICAL I1AR TOTAL NO. OF ARTIOLIS RAT * , M0U8I $ 0UIN2A PIG lo RABBI1 $ «r©mraal of 1988 35 54.S N u t r i t i o n 1038 49 55.1 6.1 4.0 1948 130 48.4 2,3 0.7 3,8 Journal of 1918 38 2,6 2.6 47.3 39.4 BanuraAogy 1928 ' 53 0 1.8 33.9 37,7 1038 72 9.7 9.7 20.8 41.7 1948 129 3,8 S4.8 14.7 20.1 3*©urtt€il of 1928 71 4.2 2,8 9.8 26.7 Pathology & 1938 123 S.7 10.5. 6.5 14,6 B a c t e r  1948 ©2 9.7 6.1 3,6 4.9 i o l o g y Journal of 1918 84 0 8.3 5.9 Laboratory 1928 83 0 3.6 3.6 & Clinical 1938 127 9,4 1.6 4.7 5.5 Medicine 1948 0,8 0,8 2,5 3.4 Jomraal of 1918 218 16 0 3.5 11.0 B i o l o g i c a l 334 13,1 0.3 0.9 4.1 Chemistry 1938 377 35.8 0.79 0.79 1,6 1948 317 21.4 1,2 0.9 l.B Biochemical 1918 36 5.5 5.5 16.® 2.7 J©mr»al 1928 im 11,9 3.1 5.2 1938 188 12.4 1,6 1.1 4.3 1948 228 8,3 0,87 2.1 6.1 I 3 (4) Journal of Laboratory and Cli n i c a l Medioine (5) Journal of Biological Chemistry (6) Biochemical Journal A l l of the papers published in these journals in the years 1918, 1928, 1938 and 1948 were carefully examined and a record was made of the specie© of laboratory animal used In the experimental work reported. The results of this .surrey are presented in fable 1. F a r r i s (1950) records a similar survey of animals used by American investigators in the year 1947• He used the papers presented at the annual meetings of three representative scientific organ izations - The American Association of Anatomists,. The American Society of Zoologists and the Federation of Amer ican Societies for Experimental Biology. This survey •revealed that the species employed had th© following f r e  quency of use: fABLI 2 - FARRIS* SUHTSf 0? LABORATORY ANIMAL UflLIZATIOM H TBS tttOTBD STATES B13RIHG 1947, Per Cent B'igtributlom .„M. , • Mm 534 H i ,4 20*0 Rat 19.0 Dog m 18*8 X©,4 Rabbit 110 0,0 6.7 Mouse 108 7*9 Oat 81 5*9 4*8 Guinea P i g 49 $•0 a*t Monkey 41 3.0 2,4 Cow 25 1*8 1,5 Hamster 9 o»e 0,5 Sheep t 0*6 0,5 P i g 8 0.6 0,5 Horse 4 0-.3 0,8 Others 1© 1-*S 0.9 fOfAL 1869 100,0 81,8 ATSS Chicken si ©2*3 Other Fowl 18 1?*2 0.7 fO T A l 70 100,0 4,2 St 25,4 3,5 H1MXL1S 2 0.9 0,2 FISH 21 9.0 1,3 118 51,0 7*0 SOT STA$S§ 315 13.8 1,9 TQTJL 8gft 100,0 13*9 GRAM) TOTAL 1671 100.0 1 fh© proof ©f th® Important® of th© laboratory animal i s i n modern biological research. Such surveys do aot however iadicat© th© extent of th© emphasis being placed ©a th® quality tad standardization of th© animals used. Some Indication ©f th® present trend i n this r t s - p©ct, i s ©videaeed hy th© pahlioatioa wlthia th® last fIv© y©ars of a© less than four complete refereao© works ©a th© subjeot of laboratory animal malateaan©© aad pro duct l©a. See Appea&ix ( 1 ) . th is gpeeafcer emphasis oa th© quality ©£ th© laboratory aaiaal .'ha® aadoafetedly arisea from th© desire oa th© part of investigators t© obfcaia quantitative rather thaa qualitative d a t a , f h l s ©hang© i a approach i s particularly•©vi&eat i n nutrit ional research wher© th© requirement has altered from the establishment of the essentiality of aatri t ioaal factors to th© ae@d for a quantitative statemeat o f the preeeise amount o f th© fac tor required for ©aes a a i a a l s p e c i e s , While I t i s realized that i t i s aot always possibl© to obtaia th© ©am© parity in a a i a a l stock© as ©aa b© ©xpeoted from laboratory chem ical®, i t i s nevertheless becoming possibl© to s©ear© a relatively well standardized animal, i f proper production ©oadltioas ar© met. "fk® dogroo o f variability or uniform-* i t y i a a group of animal© i s i n large measure determined by their geaeti© constitution aad -by tfaeir environment. 6 The b i o l o g i s t has long been concerned, w i t h the genetic p u r i t y and h i s t o r y of h i s l a b o r a t o r y animals. The now famous Wistar a l b i n o r a t provides an e x c e l l e n t example of t h i s concern. Indeed the K i n g "A" s t r a i n of the Wistar I n s t i t u t e i s now i n i t s 135th generation of b r o t h e r - s i s t e r mating. This would correspond t o man. f o r a period of approximately 4000 y e a r s . I t seems safe t o conclude i n the l i g h t of these s t u d i e s t h a t i a th© ©as® of the Wistar r a t at l e a s t , v a r i a b i l i t y f r o a hered i t y ha© been minimized. It- seem© obvious then t h a t th© v a r i a b i l i t y a r i s i n g from ©aviroameatal i n f l u e n c e s should r e c e i v e greatest c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The b i o l o g i s t i s u s u a l l y f a m i l  i a r i n general terms at l e a s t w i t h the genetic h i s t o r y of h i s l a b o r a t o r y animals. He i s a o t , however, s u f f i c  i e n t l y f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e i r previous n u t r i t i o n a l and eaviroameatal h i s t o r y . Jew workers appear t o give s u f f i c i e n t r e c o g n i  t i o n t o the marked metabolic change© which ar© known t o occur i n the growing animal, f o r example, K l b i e r ©t a l (1942) have shown tha t the metabolic r a t e of the r a t r i s e s from 400 c a l o r i e s per square meter per day near b i r t h to 1 7 1BO0 at the age of 40 days or a body weight of 100 grams and then drops to a l e v e l of 800 c a l o r i e s per square meter per day at a body weight ©f 300 grams. I t i s ob vious t h a t the response of the r a t to d i e t a r y supplemen t a t i o n w i t h various addenda will depend npon the p o s i t i o n of the p a r t i c u l a r anistal on K l b l e r ' s heat-age eurve shown i n f i g u r e 1. The situation i n t h i s respect wou^d "be most accentuated i f the p a r t i c u l a r study d e a l t w i t h a n u t r i  t i o n a l e n t i t y required by the body r e l a t i v e t o body weight r a i s e d to the 0»7 power - f o r ©sample the pyridoxin© requirement* The importance of knowing the previous growth h i s t o r y of an animal can he i l l u s t r a t e d i n another way.- Ooniider the case of two male r a t s of weight 5,5 grams a t b i r t h . Theix- growth as measured at weekly i n t e r  v a l s by weight c r i t e r i a i s shown i n ' Table 3. Assuming such f a c t o r s as mamher i n the l i t t e r , sm r a t i o and age of the dam air© the same i n each ease, then the r a t e of growth o f ©aoh should be a f u n c t i o n © h a r a e t e r i s t i o of th® I n d i v i d u a l r a t . 8 f i g . 1, Metabolism per malt surface area i a r a t s as a function of age. 9 Table 3 - Growth Rate of Two Rats from B i r t h to Twenty- one Days Having Equal B i r t h Weights Rat No. B i r t h 7 Days Weight at ag© 14 days 21 days 1 5.5 11.6 22.3 32 2 5.8 15,0 24.0 40 The data presented i n Table 3 can he expressed as a s e r i e s of growth constants using the expression (Brody 1947) k * inWg - Inwi ~~^ 2 - t l i n whioh Wg * weight at age two Wx s weight at ag© on© tg • ag® at Wg t i a age at Yfy k a growth constant When the data of Table 3 ar© computed i n t h i s way th© growth constant© given i n Table 4 ar© obtained. 10 fabi® 4 ~ mmw. OONSTAHTS JROM DAU?A I N TABLB S - flasa£L.«o.Prt»g16. M Ma^JyiiiL , Rat 1 Birth ) 7 day*) 0.094 7 days) 14 deya) 0,095 14 days) 21 ftayaj 0,051 Birth ) 21 days) 0.084 0.143 0.060 0*073 0,094 0,06 1.41 0.70 0*90 Examination, of the growth ©oastants given in Table 4 show that the rate of growth of th® two rat© i s nearly identical i f th© birth weight and 21 day weight osoXj are Qontl&ered. Oh the other hand, i t i s evident that the rat® of growth as between th© two animals i s not at a l l comparable when the gain made during seven day intervals i s considered. Obviously, i f these animals were u*ed experimentally, after weaning at 21 days there would he a definite advantage of teaowing the pre-•weaning history as an aid to the interpretation of subsequent data ob tained using these animals. 11 l a some experiments, aot d i r e c t l y concerned with the d e s i r e f o r q u a n t i t a t i v e data t h i s point of growth rat© Is p a r t i a l l y overcome hy th© f a c t that hoth c o n t r o l and experimental group© *t animals w i l l hav© ©qua! num ber© of th© d i f f e r e n t ag© and weight c a t e g o r i e s . The d i f  ference i a growth r a t e s becomes extremely important, i f experiments on the same subject ar© carried out at d i f f e r  ent i n s t i t u t i o n s . I t i s possible that th© r a t s (Wistar strain) at one.institution could ba growing at the faster growth rat© of kt.0.094 when-placed oa the experiment, whereas the rats at th© second i n s t i t u t i o n could be grow i n g at the slower growth rate, k s O . 0 8 4 . In such a case, th© results obtained i n t h i s hypothetical experiment, I f measured by rate of growth, would be different between the two i n s t i t u t i o n s and the difference may not be a true re flection of the imposed experimental condition, JFrom what has been discussed In the preceding paragraphs, i t i s evident that successful animal research must be dependent upon satisfactory sources of supply for the animals under study, The present study of the small animal colonies of the Department of Animal Husbandry was undertaken to provide a compendium recording the position I E ©f th.es© colonies and to compare their output with that of other laboratories elsewhere. It was f e l t that such a study would have added value in that most of the bio logical departments within the University as well as others in other parts of Canada are using th© animals produced in these colonies. I S II Bxperimental - Animal U n i t s Before beginning t o describe each animal u n i t s e p a r a t e l y , i t might he w e l l t o oak© a few general r e  mark© about the c o l o n i e s , so that they w i l l not h© r e p e t i t i v e w i t h the disouasioa o f each s p e c i e s , Th® b u i l d i n g which contains th© Animal N u t r i t i o n Laboratory and i t © adjunct animal c o l o n i e s i s a converted army hut which f o r p r a c t i c a l purpose©, can be considered t o b© d i v i d e d i n t o two equal alstod s e c t i o n s , Th© f r o n t p a r t c o n s i s t s of a e t u a l l a b o r a t o r y f a c i l i t i e s , w i t h the re a r .section housing .three of the animal u n i t s , namely a l o e , r a t s and guinea p i g s , Th© r a b b i t uait;:!© l o c a t e d i n a separate b u i l d i n g . These f o u r u n i t s ar© cQsmaonly r e  f e r r e d t o a© th© ©took .colonies, sine© experimental aaiajala are never housed, i n .these p a r t i c u l a r quarter % These c o l o n i e s ar© u t i l i z e d s o l e l y as production u n i t s . The temperature of th© a n i s a l rooms i a the l a b o r a t o r y i s thermo s t a t i c a l l y regulated at 7S©Fwi1sh a r a d i a t o r s i t u a t e d i n each room. An e l e c t r i c a l l y operated f a n i s located l a 14 the a t t i e above th© animal rooms. I t i s e o n t r o l l e d by an e l e c t r i c t i a e switch, which can be set f o r any c y c l e of op e r a t i o n w i t h i n one hour. I t I s normally set t o operate f o r twenty minutes out of each hour. See appendix ( 2 ) . Each of th© three animal rooms haa a l o u v r e , about 1.5 square f e e t i n area, connecting to the a t t i c above• In t h i s way, the a i r i n the animal rooms i s changed f r e  q u e n t l y and the animal odour kept at a minimum. T h i s l a b o r a t o r y p r e f e r s t o us© pain t e d irooden cages f o r the stock c o l o n i e s . On f a i l u r e of the h e a t i n g system, i t has been the experience o f t h i s l a b o r a t o r y that th© wooden cages tend t o not on l y h o l d the heat, but a l s o permit th® animal t o b u i l d a ne s t w i t h the bedding, by pushing i t a l l i n t o a corner o f the cage. Wire cages are used f o r experimental animals. The water b o t t l e s used i n these three u n i t s are a l l f i t t e d with rubber stoppers and 9 jam, g l a s s t u b i n g f o r d e l i v e r i n g the water to th© animal. The l i c k i n g end of the tube i s f i r e p o l i s h e d to an i n s i d e dimension of 4 - 5 Kim. A surface t e n s i o n membrane forms as a r e s u l t of t h i s c o n s t r i c t i o n thus p e r m i t t i n g the animal to d r i n k , without the water running Into the cage. 15 As a p o l i c y of disease c o n t r o l , a l l new animals . a r r i v i n g f o r the stock c o l o n i e s must remain i n i s o l a t i o n f o r a per i o d o f three weeks. Occ a s i o n a l l y i t has not been p o s s i b l e to maintain t h i s p o l i c y because of l a c k of cage f a c i l i t i e s . However i t s t i l l remains as an e x c e l l e n t fundamental of good management. 1© A, Animal Hntrition Laboratory Eat Unit (1) Origin fhe rat unit of the Animal nutrition labora tory originated from a group of Wistar strain rats received from the Paoifio Fisheries isperlmental station. In addition,, a group of Sherman strain rats were purchased from Bockl&nd farms in October IfBO. Descendants from that original group of wistar rats and. the Sheman strain rats form the basis for this study of the rat colony. (B) lousing •She rat colony %a located im a room which is 11 feet Z Inches long, 9 feet © inches wide and 10 feet in height, giving a floor area of 1 0 7 . 9 square- feet and a room volume of 10-79 cubic feet. Based" on a maximum capac ity of 4J5S rat®, th© volume utilization is 2.5 cubic feet 17 p©r rat, fa© rat ©ag® racks, which hold 84 ©ages are arranged la three parallel rows. On© rack measures 8 feet 7| Inch©© long, 1 foot f f iaohe© deep and 6 feet 2.| inch©© high, fa© secoad rack measures 5 feet 9 inches long, 1 foot 7 inanea d©@p aad f feet 7f inches high. Th© third one measure© 7 feet 2f inch©© loag, 1 foot 9| inohea deep aad 7 feat % inches high. These racks occupy S7.7 square feet or 34,9 per ©eat of the floor area of th© room. A doid water tap ©ad sink ar© situated ia one cor ner of' th© room aext to oa© of th© racks, Th© farthest cage from th© sink is about 'eleven feet away or roughly, five ©top© distant, Oa© of th© rack© is pictured ia Fig. B-with'a scale drawing ©howa ia fig. 3, Th© rats ar© housed ia whit© painted wooden ©ages oonetruoted from f Inch plywood, oa© of which la illustrated ia Figs. 4, 5 and 6, Bedding is furnished by wood ©haying© approximately & an inch in depth. This mount of bedding represent© a volume of 1500 o c . or a weight o f approximately ISO grams. Th© recommended capac ity of this size cage is about f mature rat©. This 18 11. \ 5\M • X U 1 5 FIG. 3 Fig. 4. Standard Rat Cage Showing Data Card Bracket and Viater B o t t l e . Jig. 5» -itartdani Hat Ctuifi allowing Aoiuais aafl Boddtn^ O f ) W W 23 represents a space u t i l i z a t i o n of 36 square inches per ra t oa a room basis, 13 square laches per rat oa a cage plus rack basis, aad square inches per rat oa a cage basis, fhe cages are kept cleaa by a r o t a t i o n a l system of cleaalng cages. Each day the rats which are consid ered to be i n d i r t y cages are transferred to clean cages. The d i r t y cages are then carried to the wash-up room where the soiled bedding i s scraped into garbage cans. Th© cages are then ©crabbed aad washed with hot water and amaoniated soap aad allowed to dry overnight. The follow i n g day they are returned to the r a t room as clean cages. (3) Feeding and Watering Th© rats aad mice are fed th© same pelleted ooaceatrate r a t i o n , (see Appendix I I I ) , The p e l l e t s weigh approximately f i v e gram© each., The rats are fed by placing th© p e l l e t s loose oa top of the bedding. Each aaiaal received a d a i l y feed allowance of about 1 3 grams. Although th i s method of feediag i s not s t r i c t l y ad libitum, a small amount of feed i s always present i n the cage from day to day. Twice a week the rat colony i s supplemented 26 w i t h green f e e d , usually k a l e , which serves as an a d d i t i o n  a l source of vitamin A* H a l f p i n t m i l k bottles are nsed as water b o t t l e s , The water i s changed d a i l y and the b o t t l e s are washed weekly. The b o t t l e s , a r e supported by a metal bracket on the f r o n t of th* cage as shown i n F i g * 4. {4} Breeding The breeding program fo l l o w e d i s one of f u l l brother and s i s t e r stating** A l l breeding stock i s i d e n t i  f i e d by ear n i c k i n g and each animal's breeding h i s t o r y i s card indexed. Each breeding r a t has a small record card which f i t s i n a bracket on the cage housing the r a t . A breeding u n i t , when o r i g i n a l l y set up w i t h new s t o c k , u s n a l l y c o n s i s t s ©f. a maximum 'of f i v e females and one male as s i r e , Th© male r a t i s allowed to run w i t h the females f o r two weeks, The male r a t i s removed from the breeding cage and each pregnant female i s moved t o a separate cage to whelp by h e r s e l f , When the l i t t e r i s born, the number born and th© date of b i r t h are marked on the small' record c a r d , ..All young r a t s are weaned at 21 days of age. A f t e r th® female has weaned her l i t t e r , she i s given two weeks• r e s t before being bred again. 2? Eats ar© ©elected as replacement breeding stock ©a tli® b a s i s of a a l g a weaaiag weight aad a largo number i a th© l i t t e r of o r i g i n . A l l the females and tii© l a r g e s t mal© r a t are r e t a i n e d t o make up the f a m i l y or breeding unit,, thus ©oatiauiag th© brother and sister mating. The young stock I s now allowed t o breed u n t i l i t i s over 100 days o l d . Rats which ar© aot sel e c t e d f o r f u t u r e breeding ©took but ar© to b© used for experiment© ar© pooled accord- l a g to ag© aad sex, Th© £©mal® rat© which form a breeding u n i t are ©aged together whea i n between breeding p e r i o d s , Th© males, of each group ar© a l s o pooled whea aot in service. f§) • C o n t r o l of d i s e a s e , A© y e t , there has aot been an outbreak of disease i n th© r a t eoloay* Ther© ha© been th© oeo&ffioaal death, caused by the ©oimioa r e s p i r a t o r y t r o u b l e which seems to a f f e c t o l d r a t s , These deaths have been so i n s i g n i f i c a n t in number, that they ar© »©v©r recorded, Foet«4&Qrtem exam i n a t i o n of the dead r a t has usually revealed a pneumonic co n d i t i o n of the l u n g s . By maintaining a high degree of s a n i t a t i o n i a th© eoloay, i t i s hoped that disease i s p r e  vented. The cages are washed w i t h a d i s i n f e c t a n t soap aad 28 th© water bottlea ar© ©leaned, weekly. Any animal which da©© aot appear normal i s destroyed immediately aad autopaled. f§) X4,teratiure Review ©a th® Laboratory R a t . It would appear from th© l i t e r a t u r e that at th© beginning of the twentieth century, th© ua© of th© a l b i n o r a t a© a l a b o r a t o r y animal received a tremendous s t i m u l u s . Th© ©la s s i e a l n u t r i t i o n experiments of Osborne aad Mendel (If14) (1915) and the extensive work of King (1915) (1919) ©a inbred strain© of a l b i n o rat© ar© just a few of the many ©xaiapi®©. I t wa© i a . 1915, t h a t Donaldson published h i s f i r a t memoir t i t l e d , "The Rat". In 1913, Jackson published some of the e a r l i e s t growth data ©a the Wistar © t r a i n of r a t s and compared h i s r e s u l t s w i t h those of Donaldson. 29 f a b l e § * 7aek«0&ts and Donaldson's osowth Data on the Wistttr S t r a i n Kat * 1913 Jackson*s Larger Series Males Females Donaldson's S e r i e s Males females :::::H*:Z 1 KO , wt.wr. Mb. Wt," " Mo. ' Wt. l i r a @5 a,is m 4.at 40 a.4 1 7 5.2 ?. days Si 10*^ 3. §4- 10.29" 11 9.2 8 8.7 «l days §i 83#*9 59 S i . i .19 ai.2 17 22.6 42 days 45 §»«7* $0 #4«8& I f 40.3 17 47.9 70 dars IS 130.4" m 100*9 19 106.6 11 99 . 3 laoksoa's r a t i o n i s o u t l i n e d i n Appendix 111. The 21 * 24 gram weights at 21 days are i n t e r e s t i n g i n con t r a s t t o the average weight now of SO grams at the same age. King1 i n 1910, reported average b i r t h weights of stock and inbred a l b i n o r a t s as being 4,54 grisms f o r males and 4.27 .grams f o r females. These data were f o r 85 l i t t e r s . 8a« a l s o reported in 1.91$, that baaed on the r e s u l t s of 1039 . l i t t e r s , th© average s i z e of the l i t t e r was 7.0 young. In 1919 King published a paper on th® inbreeding of r a t s through a number of generations. This paper, a l  though th© subject of which was inbreeding, a c t u a l l y r i g h t l y p r e d i c t e d a tread or e f f e c t on the growth of the al b i n o r a t i n the f u t u r e . This i d e a i s put f o r t h i n her d i s c u s s i o n on 30 the v a r i a b i l i t y of body weights of animals i n the sixteenth, to the t w e n t y - f i f t h generations of i n b r e e d i n g . She s t a t e s , ^Poring the past three y e a r s , when most of th© w a i t i n g s were taken, i t was not p o s s i b l e to r e a r the animals under environmental and n u t r i t i v e c o n d i t i o n s t h a t were as f a v o r  able to growth and to f e r t i l i t y as those e x i s t i n g p r e v i o u s  l y . The ' a evap* food ( c a r e f u l l y sorted t a b l e refuse)on which the animals o f the e a r l i e r generations seemed t o t h r i v e exceedingly w e l l , bad t o be replaced by a r a t i o n t h a t con s i s t e d , f o r the most p « r t t of oats and com w i t h occasional a d d i t i o n s of v a r i o u s kinds of vegetables and. a l i t t l e meat*'. Slag* .in Qoumtlag on the v a r i a b i l i t y In the l a t e r genera t i o n s , -states t h a t , "... the v a r i a b i l i t y was g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d by environmental and n u t r i t i v e conditions' 1. **0ntll these l a t t e r f a c t o r s can be c o n t r o l l e d , i t w i l l not be p o s s i b l e t o draw any d e f i n i t e conclusions regarding the e f f e c t s of inbreeding p@r se oa v a r i a b i l i t y i n body weights". I t would seem l i k e l y t h a t s i m i l a r reasoning could be applied to the other l a b o r a t o r y and domestic animals. Sherman and M u h l f i e l d (1932) published a paper on th® subject of i n f l u e n c e of d i e t on growth and repro d u c t i o n . T h e i r r a t i o n (see Appendix I I I ) i s the bas i s f o r other r a t r a t i o n s used since that time. 31 Table 6 * 3h®mm and K a a l f i a l d ' s Growth Data oa th© Albi n o E a t , , Die* Ho, o f foung Bora Ho, of Young Reared $ Young t o to Reared A l l Fern. Per Ft®, A l l pest* Wm F©a* A 899 2 9 . 9 145- 14,§ 43 a 498 4f*S 310 • 31,0 ©2 Ifo, of Ave, f i t , A 299 34, g B 493 4£,g . f i i e interesting feature shown by t h e i r data i s the low percentage of young reared i n comparison to that of other I n v e s t i g a t o r s , I t i s the ©pinion of taie w r i t e r that a c o n t r i b u t i n g eanse to t h i s m o r t a l i t y was th© f a c t t h a t the l i t t e r s were whelped i n wire ©ag®© aad a l s o that hedding or n e s t i n g m a t e r i a l was not' supplied until the young were bo r a , Osborne and Mendel {1926} re p o r t e d an Increased rat© of growth ©a a r a t i o n which ©oataiaed IS per cent lard and aia© per cent h u t t © r f a t . See{Appendix I I I ) . This high f a t percentage i a th© r a t i o n meant that i t wa© a high energy 32 Nation because of the r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e proportion of c a l  ories f u r n i s h e d by the f a t . They reported that i t took about 27 days f o r twenty of t h e i r best growing r a t a to grow from 10 to 800 g r a s s . This r a t e of growth was much more r a p i d than the 79 days f o r males and 129 days f o r females reported by &o*aldsoat c i t e d by Mendel and Oannon (1927). Macy et a l (1907) reported growth data u s i n g th© same r a t i o n as Sherman and Muhlfield (1922). (8m Appendix I I I ) . Their data ae shorn In Table 7 were taken from graphs of growth data f o r the s i s t a r s t r a i n . Table 7 * Maoy'e Growth Data u s i n g the Sherman, and M u h l f i e l d Batlozu Age i n Days Ave* Males females 28 35 32 m 92 81 84 154 140 2:24 510 315 Mendel and Cannon (1927) published data on th© r e  l a t i o n of rat® of growth and d i e t . Tjaey compared the gains i n weight mad® b y t h e i r a lbino r a t s compared to those of Donaldson.. 33 Tabl© 8 - Mendel and Connon's Growth Data oa. th© A l b i n o Hat Average D a i l y Gain i n Weight over Range 60 - 200 Grams Male© Females Donaldson 1.77 Gms. 1.09 Gms. Mendel and Cannon 5.0 3.0 They conoladed from t h i s comparison t h a t , .. th© p u b l i s h e d r ecords aad compilations o f 'norms' f a l l to f u r n i s h an adequate i d e a of the r a t e o f growth of which the r a t i s capable". Smith and B i g (1988) u s i n g e s s e n t i a l l y Sherman's normal d i e t B reported growth data on stock a l b i n o r a t s . (See Appendix III).. Table 9 - Smith and Big's Growth Data on the A l b i n o Rat Age i n days Average Weight Males Females 21 40 39 27 63 60 34 l a e v a l u a t i n g Saith.aua Blag's d a t a , i t should be men tioned that a l l l i t t e r s of r a t s were reduced to eight at b i r t h , a p r a c t i c e which would have an e f f e c t on the growth r a t e and subsequent weaning weight* Mayaarl (it30} published a paper proposing a stock d i e t f o r r a t e * (See Appendix I I I } * The foundation r a t s f o r hi© colony had been obtained froa the stock of Osborne aad Mendel* The breeding program o u t l i n e d , was to breed one ©al© per thro© festal*s f o r S days. HI© result© ©howed that o f 58 faoale r a t s bred, 65 per ©eat pro-da©©d l i t t e r © * 'He olalsed a high percentage f e r t i l i t y fo* these experiments* He also stated that 90 per coat of-the young were reared to 23 days of age, which would appear to b© e x c e l l e n t post-partum p r o d u c t i o n . freudeabarger (1932) u s i n g a somewhat modified Sheraaa B d i e t , (See Appandis 113} published growth data on the WIstar ©train* In t h i s experiment, the l i t t e r © were reduced to s i x at b i r t h , i n t a b u l a t i n g the growth records f o r body weight, th© method of weighted means was used, Be reported the average sia© of 026 Wistar l i t t e r s as being 8.57, and th© average b i r t h weight of a Wistar l i t t e r to b© 46.8 grams. 35 Table 10 * JSreudeaoerge^e Growth Data on Wistar S t r a i n Rats Age Males (850) Females' (927) B i r t h go days 41 38 Anderson ant Smith (1932) published a paper which reported e x c e p t i o n a l l y r a p i d growth i n a l b i n o r a t s , Uh@ r a t s were weaned at 21 days o f age and were, fed on the r a t i o n o u t l i n e d in Appendix 111, Table 11 * Anderson and Smith's Growth Data on Male A l b i n o R a t s . (21 Rats) Ween* 60 t o 200 (Ms.60 t o 300 60 to 400 60 to 500 in g Time Ave. Time Ave. Time Ave, Time Ave. Weight Re- D a l l y He- D a i l y Re- D a i l y Re- D a i l y oulred Gain quired Gain quired Gain quired Gain 43*6 23.3 6.1 41.1 6.0 09.1 5.2 102.4 4.5 A large proportion of the young from which these males were selected weighed from 40 to grams at weening. In this rapid growth study, individuals were selected from th© lower as well as the higher ranges i n body weight. 36 The r a t i o n used was not s t a t e d * Table 12 •* Mendel and Habbell'a suimaary of Reproductive Performance at Goa&eetleut A g r i c u l t u r a l Ixpsriment S t a t i o n i of l o , Wt.at % f t * a t D a i l y Gain f e r t i l e Bom B i r t h 1 Weaned Weaning to 100 days Hating® Gm* Males.fern. Males Fern. 1012 86 7.2 71 23 26 1.8 1.2 1919 05 6.3 67 31 31 2.0 1,4 1920 m 6.4 76 31 30 2.1 1.6 1930 93 9.©., §«© 90 48 47 4.0 2.5 The years tabulated were se l e c t e d because they represented the d i f f e r e n t times at'which major Increases were noted i n the growth r a t e . Thomson (1936) reported on the a l b i n o r a t growth results obtained on a stock diet at the Rowett Hesearch I n s t i t u t e , They also reduced number per l i t t e r to eight at b i r t h and weaned them at 21 * 23 days of age. Table 13 * Thomson^ Growth Data on the Albino Hat. Age * Weight i n days Males Females 23 43 41 37 Pickens ©t a l {1940} repeated in part the ex periment of Anderson and Smith (193S), To'a rapidly- growing group, they fed th© ©am© ration a© that of Anderson and Smith {1932}. In addition, they set up a normal growing group, considered to be normal for their colony, and two retarded growing groups, Th© gains re corded for the rapidly growing group closely approximated th© gains made by the Anderson., and Smith animals. They required 88 day© instead of 23,3 days to Increase from. 60 to SOD grams i a body weight, light animals were kill e d from each dietary group at 42, 110 and 230 days of age as well as at the beginning of th© experiment before being placed ©a th© four different diets. These animals were us©d for analysis for water, f a t , nitrogen and ash. The data oa the gains showed the tendency of th© rapidly grow ing animals to accumulate greater proportions of fat and smaller proportions of water than the animals of any other groups, These result© raise the- question of th© exact definition of growth, ,1a i t gain in body weight or is i t the gain in body weight of non-fat substances? In 1941, Zucker et a l , recorded weaning© weights of 01 grams for males and 51.4 grams for females at 2Q 38 days of age f o r a l b i n o r a t s . {For r a t i o n see Appendix I I I ) , Mayaard and ftasnaaaen {194a) published a paper on the i n f l u e n c e of d i e t a r y f a t on l a o t a t i o n performance of the r a t as measured by the g a i n i n weight of the l i t t e r , l a t h i s experiment, a d i e t of n a t u r a l foods con t a i n i n g approximately 4.5^ f a t was compared w i t h a s i m i l a r d i e t c o n t a i n i n g approximately yfc f a t . P r o l i & i a a r y procedures were necessary before s t a r t i n g the experiment i n order to Kinittizi© sources ©f v a r i a t i o n . A f t e r b i r t h of the young, p a i r s of mothers were chosen which were equal i n weight, .and from whose l i t t e r s s i x young f o r pa i r e d groups of n e a r l y equal body weight could be s e l e c t e d , Whenever pos s i b l e these paired groups were e t u a l l g e d as t o sex. One mother was then fed the higfa*fat d i e t , and th© o t h e r , th© low-fat d i e t e q u a l i s i n g the c a l o r i c intake i a aoeordaae© w i t h the app e t i t e of the one consuming the l e a s t amount. The weight changes i n mothers were also recorded. The d a t a for l i t t e r gains showed that i n 13 out of IS compari sons they were l a r g e r f o r the h i g h - f a t d i e t . They averaged 126 grams as compared to 112 grams f o r the low-fat d i e t over the experimental p e r i o d , b i r t h to 17 days of age. 39 Tinson and Oereeedo (1943) reported grovrth data on Wlstar strata rats using Purina laboratory chow as th© ration. (See Appendix I I I ) . Table114 * Vinson and Cereeedo Growth Data on Wlstar Strain Bats. Ho. of titters .Females Bom Litters Weened Young Weaned l i t t e r 31ae Average Weaning Weight 31 days IS 14 u f f 7*0 34.5 Deuel ©t al (1944) supported the theory of May- nerd and R&sjiussen (1942), that the lactation p e r i o d was a better index period for testing the adequacy of a diet, than the growth or reproduction period. tooell et al (1944) likewiie experimented with th© effect of dietory fat on lactation performance. They used the same technique that Maya&rd and Rasmussen (1942) used. They measured the gains of the l i t t e r s relative to varying percentages of fat when corn o i l provided the only source of f a t . {See Appendix I I I ) . . 40 Table 15 - Effect of Tarying Ration Percentage of Fat on lactation in the Rat. ( l o o s l i ) . Fer Cent Gain of Litter Fat Birth to 17 days 5.5 152.1 11.3 161.2 19.2 150.1 3b* results outlined i n Table 15 showed that the ration w i t h 11.3 per cent fat stimulated the highest lactation r a t e as measured by growth of the l i t t e r . Deuel ©t a l (1945) published a paper on the production efficiency of a modified diet B used by Sherman (1922) i n which the butterfat was replaced by margarine fat... (See Appendix I I I ) . 41 Table 16 - Deuel's Data on the Influence of Margarine fat in Growth and Reproduction in the Rat, GeETXiTteW^ Born of mother per Per Rat in ., at birth , .Llttay Blyth 21 days Per Cent G 7 10.7 U,S : 5.0 31.11 1 8 108 5,2.2 29,3 a 8 115,5 9.0 5, §7 3 13 112.7 11,9 §,0 28.4 4 7 122.7 9*9 4,87 §87,6 8 120.4 11,2 32.4 6 148.7 11.2. 31,3 7 6 149.0 9,8 39.3 S 5 145.5 10,6 36,6 9 12 . 149.8 8,4 39,2 10 13 152.0 8,4 36.6 Second L i t t e r Eats 8 176,5 7*8 31,2 3 a 171.5 12,1 28,5 4 8 191.3 10,4 27.3 ® 5 188.2 10,4 6,76 31,6 S 6 816.9 7.4 7.89 35,S 7 7 Iff ,3 8,7 7,83 34. .1 0 10 213,S 9,1 8,04 36,4 1 Only those l i t t e r s where there were 7 in a l i t t e r at 21 days. 2 Second l i t t e r of f i r s t l i t t e r parents. The other rats in this group are from second l i t t e r s of seeond l i t t e r parents. Weight Age 10th. Generation, f i r s t 9th Generation, Second in Litter Rats. . Litter Rats Days Males Females. . Males ... Females 90 330 216 367.5 182 Deuel e t a l (194'?) reported production data f o r albino r a t s on a stock d i e t (See Appendix III), . A l l l i t t e r s were reduced to seven animals 3 days a f t e r b i r t h * . f a b l e 1? - Deuelfe Data on Albino Bats on stock R a t i o n Per Gent Ave, Ho. Ave, Weight. Par Gent F e r t i l i t y . Per. L i t t e r • Weaning . Weaned $0,0 7.6 30,7 77 43 7 . Animal Nutrition laboratory Growth Bata. The growth data accuMulated on the rat colony in th® course of this study are tabulated in Appendix ITA ant euwaarized i n fable 18, The Wlstar eutbred group were rats which had not been selected as breeding stock and consequently were not part of the planned l i n e - breeding program, *2o compensate for an increased demand for ws&ner rats beyond the possible output of the regular ©took colonyj this group of females were put into pro duction, fhey were bred" to unseleoted males. Their production wan recorded because it was fe l t that any additional data would be of assistance in this study. The Wlstar inbred group were second and third generation progeny of brother and sister sat tags' which were of com parable age* Both the inbred and outfered Wlstar ©roups were fed TJ»B*G-» ration So* #. The following groups were fed U,B,0, ration No, 10.* {See Appendix III), The groups designated XIA, IXB and XXC were Wlstar strain rats of the third and fourth generations of inbreeding in this colony and descendants of th© ilia tar inbred group* Records were hot kept on the per cent fertility of this 44 group* fn® Shexnaxi % group ©onsisted @f f©aal@s which had beta, mated at Bot&laad Farms but wbelped at- th® Animal - i n t r i t i o a L a boratory, Saexnas II represent a seeond, group of f©male© received from Rockland Farias whieh wore brad to Sfeormaa mal®.© a t ta© A a i a a l K u t r i t i o n Laboratory* fa© l i a t a r x Sherman, group represent pro duction r e s a l t i n g f m ta© mating of Shoraaa I f eaalea and Wistar m a l t s , <3b*a* data might a l s o b© r e f e r r e d t o a© ta© second l i t t e r r esult© of the Sherman I females* Sherman H I ar© t h e - t h i r d - l i t t e r growth data of th© Sherman I females. A© t h i s study progressed* i t wa© found d e i i r a b l © to veaerd, aor© d e t a i l e d data ©n th© l i t  t e r s , such as th© ©ex r a t i o ..-and th© weight of male* aad females, a t b i r t h * Some of th© data on th© Sherman s t r a i n i s so t a b u l a t e d , {S©© Appendix If A ) , Tn@r© ar© se v e r a l l a p o r t a n t feature© to be noted i n Table 18, The average percentage f e r t i l i t y ©x@lus.iv© of th© wnreeorded groups wa© 73.1 per ©@at, Thi© i s not as a percentage f e r t i l i t y as would tee d e s i r e d and yet I t i s not ©onsldered to be too low. Table 1$ * Animal Intel-felon Laboratory, Growth Data on Hats Wlstar Witstar Wlstar Wlstar Wlstar Sheraam Sherman M M e J ^ a h r e d ,!1A „ „ ,p» . 1, .„ i | So. Fern- . , • . • • , . alas' bred, ' 15 la 52 It Ho. L t i f t e r s l o r n . 14 , U . 10 f 6 • 38 15 per eemt F e r t i l i t y 95.3 ff.f- 73.© f s . f . No. Young »ora 1.18 i f f - f f I i . 40 ' SiO 120 AT®. Siae Mtter' ' n*$ i s . s ^..? 8*a- e.e t . 4 - 8.3 No. Young Weaned 1*9 164 07 U m SS4 1B3L 3?er Gent weaned . -loo ma so ts.s • m.§ B i r t h Weight S,4S §.,.# t§.f# 3 , 9 5 • S.S4 Weaning weight' • m-+4 a u * m-*f ms m*.$ Males at Weaning. f f m 56 & WX W 5f Females at Weaning f g f$" 41 *9 ©a 184 64 Wistar Sasxsaaa Total Rat * sa®»aa. | , III f^tXoaay, „ 55 53 218 41 S3 IBS 74,§ 62.2 73,1 41a 334 xn$ 10.2 10,3- 9,9 304 30f 1672 94, g 91.9 94,6 ©,S4 • S»44 34.5 32.2 m i§# @5t 172 141 661 46 TABLB 1© COMPARISON Of 0"mm ISVBSTEOQR'S AND ANIMAL MTiBITIOM LABGRATCBY GROW-jii DATA ON TBS R A T so H ca o» EI o u CJ> H »C»JH — * f« 0» M S N o cj ©5 © © o* ^ >» © ® eg o JS3»H- «rt ar a ha No.Females Bred. 52 Wo.Li tters Born Per Gent F e r t i l i t y 65 Ho.Young Born Ave.Sizie L i t t e r Mo.Young Weaned Per Cent- Weaned 48 ,eg 90 Average)M. 5.13 5.4 5,63 B i r t h )*'• 4.89 5.2 5.3 Weight )L. Average )M. 23.9 21.2 31, 40 41.0 Weaning Jr.- 21.3 22.6 1 ,32 x 39 38.0 Weight )L. 34.2 42.2"1 1 Weaned a t 28 days 2 Weaned a t 23 days 3 Male and female b i r t h weights and weaning weights are from Sherjaan I I I 464 19 (Continued) to ^8- i < D — 3** 4^ to ? H ^ O 2^ 3£ I g g nil ® « ^ w 3| IS i M' Pa. p © 5 P fc> t> 15 126 55 212 14 51 86 41 155 93 93.3 90.0 68 - 74.5 73.1 98 529 819 418 1766 . 9.6 7.0 9.1 7.8 10.4 9.5 10.2 9.9 79 77 493 782 394 1672 90 80.6 93.1 95.4 94.2 • 94.6' 5.41 5.50 8.04 5.44 5.54 48,.6 48.0 43.OfSI.0^ 33.4 35.4 47.0 41.5*51.4* 31,0 33.3 34.5 36.4 30.7 32.8 33.6 34.5 47 Th© average l i t t e r Bim at b i r t h , would b© ©©asidered as above average, Th© percentage weaned i s d e f i n i t e l y nigh and eeeaaae of I t s ©onsitteaey w i t h i n th© groups.» i t ©an be a t t r i b u t e d , i n a l a r g e aeaattre, to. th© high standard of management and p a r t l y to the adequate n u t r i t i o n of th© ©.©loay, Th© weaning weight© are aatiafaotory ©onsiderlng th© s i z e of l i t t e r nursed and weaned. f a b l e 10 •tuBnax&sett a* f a r a© p o s s i b l e th© data reported by ©ther i n v e s t i g a t o r s discussed i n th© l i t  e rature review, fhe method© of r e p o r t i n g data and th© ©ondition© under wbioa they were gathered were so v a r i e d , t h a t to attempt t o make an aocurat© comparison between t h e i r result© ami those o f the Animal n u t r i t i o n Laboratory i s deemed unwise, The f a c t that a great v a r i e t y of r a t i o n s war© f e d , t h a t .©©a® colo n i e s r©dua© th© I i t t ® r s a t b i r t h and t h a t d i f f e r e n t strain© of a l b i n o r a t s mm used only adds to th© d i f f i c u l t y of comparison. Generally speaking, however, th© Animal N u t r i t i o n Laboratory r a t colony d®@© appear to ex c e l i n suoa faster® a© average s i z e of litter and percentage w@an®d. The weaning weight© appear t o b© reasonably h i g h , when i t i s remembered that th© l i t t e r s TABLE 20 COMPARISON O f OffiSE I1Y3SHQ0R *S AID ANIMAL BUlRIflOH LABORATORY PCSf-WABIHG OaOBfiE DATA ON TH&- RAT Date and Reference, Wo.Born 21 days M W Am ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ e l g h i ^ f ^ H l ^ ^ a T 28 days 35 days 42 days M F Ave M F Ave M F Ave 1950,An. Nut .Lab. 6 1950,An. Nut.Lab. 6 1946,F.R. L. Data1 1927,Maoy 1928,Smith and Bing* 1932,Freu- deagergerd 1941,Quaker 11 I I 36 34 57 54 61 82 80 126 110 113 113 110 118 120 94 107 61.0 51.4 56.2 87.6 72.8 80.2 115.4 92.4 104 1 F.R.L.Data - Food. Research Laberatoriea data taken fro® graph i n Hawk,0ser, SuJaaersoa, p . 1272. 2 Smith and Bing's data was a c t u a l l y r e c o r d e d a t §5,65, and 75 days but i s tabulated under §6,63, and 77 days r e s p e c t i v e l y . 3 Freudenberger*s data was a c t u a l l y reeordad a t 45,60,and 75 days but i s tabulated under 42,56, and 77 days r e s p e c t i v e l y . Avera^s Waigbt o f L i t t e r a t Date and So .Bora 49 days 56 days M F If50,An. Hat .Lab. 6 • 1950,An. Mat.Lab. 6 1946, F.R, L.Data 1927,ifeoy 1928,Saitti and B l a g 1932,Freud@a-berger 1941 ,2aoJ£er 5 11 5 11 139 107 137 139 92 157 170 118 164 81 150 130 119 63 days 70 days Ave M F Ave W8 206 146 163 212 145 149 86.5 150 141 186 130 179 222 161 195 182 233 161 200 215 150 182 153.5 221 162 191.5 158 205 140 172 Bate and Safereaoa lo-.Bera Average Weignt o f L i t t e r at 77 days Ave 84 days M F 91 days Ave M F Ave 1950,Aa.lut.Lab. 1950,Aa..M»t.Lab. 1946, I<JL .L. Data 1927 ,Ma.oy 1928,Suits and B l a g 1932 ,Fr aadenberger 1941, artker 5 11 § 11 238 249 268 198 221 171 173 178 155 149 208 251 177 214 262 180 248 172 154 140 223 176.5 185 237 160 217 261 183 226 22.5 276 188 236 210 147 198 49 are reduce! ia size at some of tae other institutions. However, these weights do not approach those of Anderson and Smith {1932) or Mendel and gabbaii (1935), the per centage fertility teui been excelled by ether rat colonies. fable It represent® a wamxy.of post^ weaaiag. - growth, data reported by several other workers eompared with results of the A&isaal •nutrition Laboratory Colony, fhe • two litter® used in this study trota this laboratory were seietted beoauae they were large litters, and the sex ratio was nearly efmal. fhey represent the progeny from : the Wistar inbred group. As can be seen from fable 20, the :post-weaning growth .results of the Aaiisai nutrition Laboratory compare favourably with those result a of other ooloni.es* 50 8, Cost Survey on Bat Colony The costs of labour, feed and bousing were cal- oulated in order to determine the average eost per rat per day. Appendix V snows the results o f this survey, fhe labour eoet was determined by two different animal atten dants who were thoroughly familiar with the colony, in order to eompute a more legitimate value. It involved reeerding the time spent each day to manage the eolony, the number of animals and the number of eages eeoupled. I n addition, the amount o f feed utilized each day by the eolony was reeorded so that the cost of feed per rat per day could be calculated. A housing cost was charged, based on the value of the cage ant'the *life* of the ©age. fhe labour coat of recording breeding data and identifying rata was not included. Tb* average daily cost per rat would be as follows: Labour #0.003 Feed 0.00S H@ua.iag ,$».03Q* Total Cost # .0056 51 • B. : Animal'' H&ttfItlea - Laboratory Moms© tlait, J l ) Origin f^h© moua© malt #f lie Animal Butritioa-L&bOr- atory originated from a shipment of mis© r@©eiv@d from the Suffield Experimental Station, Suffield, Alberta. The mioe in the ©olony at the present time, and used for the-purpose of'this study, ar©. descendant© of that original foundation-' stoei, (2) Housing 'Tnemoaa© ©olony is ^. located la-a room- which is f feet-Si laches long and,? feet 9£ inches wide, giving a floor area of f8«S sonar© feet. It 1© height is 10 feet giving a room volume of ?SS ©able f©et. Based on a max imum room @apa©ity of .ffB mice, th© volume utilization is 1350 ©able inches per mouse * Th© mouse ©ag© rack, which holds i i ©ages is situated along thr©@ of th© walls of th® room. Two of the racks -measure'4 feet 8$ laenea in length with th© third on© measuring'- 0 - f©@t 10 inehes. A l l three rack© ar® 1 foot «i Inch©© deep and 6 feet 7£ Inches high. They occupy 21.9 square feet of floor spao© or Mouse cage rack showing t i e r s of oag S3 I, 1 V F i g . 9. Standard mouse cage showing data card bracket and water b o t t l e . 0 fig. 11, Seal© drawing snowing speeifiaatioa© of mom® ©ag©. i d approximately 33.9 per ©eat of the floor area. The room is provided with © ©old vaater tap aad sink adjacent to the largest rack, with the farthest cage just over six feet away from th©©lak^ or i n terms of.motion, three step© distant, tae lay^ont of th® room is well Illustrated i n figure ?, 4 drawing of the.rook appears i n figure $* Th© mice ar© housed in -whit© painted 1/2 inch plywood ©ages, on© of whioh is pi©tur©d in figures 9 and 19. figure 11 1© a drawing of this ©ag©. Bedding is provided hy using a layer of wood shavings approximate ly 1/2 inch deep isaich represents a weight, of 120 gram© or a volua© of approximately US©- ©o, Th© r©©©amended maximum capacity of this ©ag© is 13 mature miG©. This represents a floor area utilization including the area of passageways of 11.1 square inches per moms©. On. th© basis of the area ©©eupied by, ©ages and raaks, i t represent© 3.2 square inches per mouse. On the basis of th© area of the cage,, it represent© 10,B .©tuar® laches per mouse, A rotational system of cleaning cages. Is used, A certain number of cages are changed daily by transferring th© mice from th© dirty cage to a ©lean cage, Th© number of cage© 07 ©hanged d a l l y n a t u r a l l y w i l l depend ©a ta© t o t a l number ©t ml©© l a th© ©©loay and ta© number of ml©©, par ©ag© . fa© d i r t y ©age© ©jre. them, moved t© th© wasa^np. room where th@y mm ©©raped ft©© o f th© s o i l e d bedding, H*xtf they ar© scrubbed and washed w i t h hot water and ammon- iatod soap and allowed to dry overnight preparatory to being taken back t o th© mouse room as c l e a n cages. .(&) Feeding and if s t o r i n g fee mloe are. fed the same p e l l e t e d r a t i o n and i n the' ©am© manner «a the r a t ©olony. i a c a mouse, r©-* ©@ive© approximately ©even grams o f feed per day, Green feed*' u s u a l l y k a l e , ia. f e d twice weekly. M i l k d i l u t i o n bottl©©, « i t h a volume of I f f ©#,,» serve ©©-water b o t t l e s , fa© water i s ©aangeA d a l l y and th© b o t t l e s washed weekly, fh© bet tie© ar® held i n p o s i t i o n . on th© f r o n f of • tb© ©ag© by a. metal bracket a© shown i n F i g * t , {4| Breeding F u l l brother and s i s t e r mating© are used i n the breeding program, SepAaoeaeat breeding stook 1© aeleeted §8 m the b a s i s o f the highest weaning weight and. &xm of l i t t e r . The weaning ago i t S i days and amy l i t t e r of seven and #for i s aoaaidered. l a r g o * I f a l i t t t r i s s e  l e c t e d a t weaning f o r breeding s t o c k , th© l a r g e s t ©ale jaomse by freight i s n e i e o t e t as a air** aad a l l the f e  males are r e t a i n e d to make up an i n t e g r a l breeding u n i t o r f a m i l y * Jma a a l e and M » s l a t e r s are then i d e n t i f i e d by ear a i e k i a g .and t h e i r breeding background as t o s i r e and da® c a r t indexed*, fhey are kept i n separate cages u n t i l they -are 60 ** fo days o l d , when they are allowed t o breed* I t has been the procedure i n t h i s l a b o r a t o r y , t o a l l o w the male t o run and breed w i t h no aore than f o u r female at one time* fhe a a l e i s allowed t o mm w i t h the females f o r 10 days, then i s separated o r removed baek t o h i s stud oage* l a o h female mm® wmioh shows ex t e r n a l s i g n s of pregnancy i s removed to' a clean #age. toung laiae at weaning..which are not saved f o r breeding purposes are separated according t o sax and pooled w i t h a l o e from other l i t t e r ® o f the same age, feiaale aaice which are f u l l s i s t e r s and belong t o a. f a m i l y , having weaned t h e i r l i t t e r s are regrouped again ready to be r e -59 bred.* A two week r e s t p e r i o d i s u s u a l l y allowed breed* i n g females, a f t e r they have weaned a l i t t e r , before being r e b r e d . Breeding w i l e s are always kept i a separate eages* beaause of the a a t a r a l tendency t o destroy on® another when pooled* C§) C o n t r o l o f disease Th® same o o n t r o l measures which are mm&tB®& i n the r a t colony are used i n the mouse colony, A s i o k a n i » a l i s destroyed as soon as i t has been osverred and an autopsy performed. I n the f o u r years of oper a t i o n , the sense oolony has y e t t o «xperle&ee a serious i a f e e t - i o n * (6) L i t e r a t u r e Beview on the Laboratory Mouse. Some of f i r s t growth data of the white mouse were reported by Hobertsom I n 1916* f a b l e SX shows h i s r e s u l t s and the r a t i o n f e d appears i n Appendix I H . 00 fall® 21 - S@b®rt©o»,s Growth Data on th© Walt© Mouse ITormal Unit* Mio© Ag® i a Days Wt.* o f Male l o . Weighed Wt. Of female HO. Weighed H i r t b XM 5$ 1.23 8-6) Male© aad ) Females aot 7 45 3.31 45) Separated 14 5.14 24 4,91 17 23 i-,32 45 8.45 37 8* 12.38 #5 10.39 39 86 X2.48 XXf 11,-81. 77 l a 1917 Bobertson and Delprat reported on th© influence of tetaelia upon early growth. The growth data for the aloe used a© ©ontrol animals ar© recorded here, Th© sex i s not designated and i t i s assumed to he the average of both males and females, Th© ration fed was th© ©am© as th© on© reported by Robertson i n 1916, 61 fable 22 - Robertson and Delprat's Growth Data on the White Mouse Age no. Welshed, Average Weight B i r t h 118 1.47 7 91. 8*86 14 m 4.44 ' '21: 74 ' '•' ' 8.89 •28 • • - n • a . m 38 • * * - •' U . 0 8 Sboapson and Mendel i n 1918 # mad© a study of growth i n th@; a l b i n o &ouse and reported the f o l l o w i n g data i n comparison w i t h those of Judson. fhe composition of the stock r a t i o n was not given, p o s s i b l y because these mice were ©ontrol aniwals and pa r t of a l a r g e r experiment. Table as * Thompson and S®nd©l*s 0rowth Data* L R - " ' " ' " L » 1 1 " " ' '•• ' " " " " •"' •'• »»*-I.!'!'»«'M:'.IV.!IIII I'll'" *II»|I . IU«>I*«I» ui.mn ' " ' »' " »" Age in Males (15) Females (11) Days Judson Thompson Hudson Thompson Birth 1.5 • 1.5 1.5 1.5 ) 3*3 i •• ft- • '• • . • • . .3,0. 1.1 ; . .. 6,0 .aa •9*0 , • • . » , * . ., @,B .9.4 26 •1$.0 10,0 I M - x Males and. Females • aot • weighed • separately Satesr-ia 1925, published a paper on the early growth r a t e o f ml©©. Hi© data r e s u l t e d from studies on 106 litters ©ontainlag oyer 700 mice. The average size of l i t t e r was f .14* l i s data i s reoorded i a . Table 24. Table 24 * Gates arowth Data on the White Mouse Ag© i n weight ,, . D a y s • - l i r t h 1,36 7 days 3,21 14 days 5.34 .21 days 6.89 Pttfkt*, in 1926> published a r a t h e r comprehen s i v e study on the-growth o f ' t h e mouse, i t involved 66 l i t t e r s •eoi&pri s i n g mf young, which was an average l i t t e r s i n e of 6*2*. He i l l u s t r a t e * . <pit# c l e a r l y the of f e e t of si n e o f - l i t t e r on b i r t h weight ant weaning weight as r@eo.riei a t S i Says of age* Table 25 - Parke1 s Growth Data » E f f e c t of L i t t e r Sisse on B i r t h and Weaning Weight. Weight a t B i r t h and Weaning According to Litter Size - ' Birth'"' ' ' Weaning Siz e of Mo. of Sam of General Sua of General L i t t e r s L i t t e r s L i t t e r ..Ayes.. Average L i t t e r Ayes,Average 1 1 1.8 1*80 16.0 16.0 2 % 3.8 1*60 23.5 11.75 • $ • • f t f *.f • i *§ 4 , .. 44*1 . 8.M 4 ? , 10-.# I * f 6 §7.6 , 8,23 ft f 13*2 1*47 69 *§ 7,7.2 6 " f t 1»40' ' ©5.5 6.94 7 1ft •0*7. . 1.38 MUft 6.58 8 12 18,8 1*32 71.9 5*99 9 5 6*0 i.ea 25*8 5.16 1© .2 .2*4 .. . 1..20 3*1......... >.*8 f a t a l ©6 92.9 1.41 471.6 7.14 64 f a b l e £6 - Parkas S f f e c t of L i t t e r S i ze oa Birth aad Weaning Weight. Weight f o r Ave. Weight Age, j a days , of a l l Animals f o r l i t t e r of I B i r t h 1 . 4 1 1.8 7 days 3 . 5 4 7.0 1 4 days 5*20 1 3 * 0 &X days 7 . 1 4 . le.O With reference t© th© l i t t e r of oa© mouse i n Table g.6, Parke© point© out that sine© only oa© l i t t e r of t h i s s i z e was recorded, i t i s not p o s s i b l e t o meouivoeably stat e that th© growth shown i s probably normal f o r that siae of l i t t e r . However, he does mke two i n t e r e s t i n g ob servations . H© s t a t e s , 11 In the f i r s t p l a c e , t h i s mouse shows c l e a r l y the r e l a t i v e l y enormous s i z e to which a young animal oan grow when ther© i s a v a i l a b l e the whole of the n a t u r a l m i l k which f o r one s u c k l i n g o f f s p r i n g i s a p r a c t i  c a l l y u n l i m i t e d supply of nourishment** Parkes (1926) data on the optimal rat© of growth of th© mouse was l a t e r supported'by the work of MacDowell 05 et sO. (1930), He demonstrated the i n f l u e n c e of the plane of n u t r i t i o n upon the growth of the sucklimg mouse, l a t h i s e ^ e r i j t e a t the nmher i n the. l i t t e r was reduced t o f o u r a t b i r t h .and.later to/one* fhe average w a i s t s o f the a l ^ female** I n a l l aa^eriiae.ats» t h a t were heaviest on the 14th day, are reoor#«d'here from h i s data* Table 27 - HaoPoweU's. Data » Optimal growth of the Mouse Age Weight i n days • Female B i r t h IM • f 6.97 14 15.4 mmana. {1989) eoaduoted s e v e r a l experiments on these phases o f growth. I n 19SS, he stated that "Total m i l k production i s increased w i t h i n c r e a s i n g l i t t e r s i z e f o r l i t t e r s ©f f r e » f o u r t© t h i r t e e n young* but not i n d i r e c t p r o p o r t i o n t o the number of young* w i t h the r e s u l t t h a t as l i t t e r ® i » increases th© amount of milk a v a i l a b l e f o r eaeh i n d i v i d u a l i s reduced, Wmmmx and Orozier (1935) a l s o reported on the r e l a t i o n between average b i r t h weight and l i t t e r s i z e i a 3Ji&% fhey f e r w l a t e d an equation to express the negative t o r r e l a t i o n between number o f young i a a new-born l i t t e r and th© b i r t h weight - of the young, W- NK+C Jn 198ft C r o s i e r and- & » a n n (1938) published more data on the r e l a t i o n o f l i t t e r s i z e and b i r t h weig&t, wbl#.h i s shown i n f a b l e at* fhey a l s o show tine ©ff®ot of l i t t e r *tse on growth a s evidenced by the data I n f a b l e 29, f a b l e SS - C r o s i e r and Sn»aan * B f f e o t of L i t t e r S i z e ' on B i r t h Weight 110. i n L i t t e r Ave, Weight ' - It ••' " of newborn w ' 1 um * !*§§ 8 1*49 '1*41 S 1.88 $ 1,88 f 1,31 a 1**6 t 1*13 i© 1*80 i i 1.1S IB i.ao ia 1,14 68 fa©!© m ~ Gro$i*v ant Wmmm * Mt mt of l i l i t r Slss© ' ' ©a '0riwta " Average Weight Of | i a t i v l a a a l U OH, I o . i n text** Mo, of Lltt@r© Days After 7 B i r t h * 14 i 2 1.57 5,15 9.68 s 4,43 8,49 4 * i . 4 t 4,13 7,90 5 6 i*4© • 4.06 7.31 e 7 1..44 8.88 6,70 f 10 1.40 3,76 8.84 8 3 1.57 3,57 6,08 • 9 "4 1.83' 3,48 8,78 10 3 1.86 3,30 6*37 11 3 1.88 8.81 5,05 1?, 3 1.84 8*08 4,80 Xa di©.©us©iag-th© data to -Table 3$, Orcrale? f i f S ^ l note© the deelime i a growth rat© beginning' w i t h ta© s©©ond week of life. 03?©si©r agrees w i t l i the. t h t o r y -of laamam tha t ta® deelia© i a part In da© t o a great extent to th© d e c l i n e i a th© mlXk »©©r©ting ©apaolty of t a * m©th©r« I® adds ©aphasia t© t h i s i d e a W ala statement t h a t , **A mother s u c k l i n g W or more young weald .have t o prodmo© almost her ©wt body weight i n mi l k ©very day** S© ©onolmdes t h a t the mother I s uaabl© to prodaa© mi l k at t n i © ©apaoity*. Korrl© p u l l i s h e d data m 1944 ©a the growth of brown ©©loured s t r a i n of a l e * from hi© ©took ©olony which was designated o$EU Hi© data appears worthy of comparison. (So©' f a b l e $ s } f b © r a t i o n fed i s o u t l i n e d i n Appendix $11. Brme© i n 1947 a l s o reported on the growtb and e f f i c i e n c y of a ©took ©olony of whit® mi©©* Th© r a t i o n ©ompositioa i© given i n Appendix 111, 70 tf) Animal S t t t r i t i e n , L a b o r a t o r y Qrowta Data* -for purposes of t h i s study, a breeding program was i n i t i a t e d w i t h one male and one female mouse designa ted X21 - 31 - 1, Data were not recorded on the f i r s t l i t t e r from these p a r e n t s , although the brother and s i s t e r mating was continued with the l a r g e s t male and a l l the females of that l i t t e r * f o r purposes of re f e r e n c e , t h i s l i t t e r w i l l tsr designated f t . * l i t t e r 1. fhe' o r i g i n a l ' parents jwtewd a second and t h i r d l i t t e r , which s h a l l be r e f e r r e d t o as % - l i t t e r % and si » l i t t e r 3 respeet* l v e l $ v feprta data mm.**aoaaed on both of these l i t t e r s * Th® females of a l l these three U t t e r s were bred by the hea v i e s t m l © i n each l i t t e r * and the production d a t a , alomg w i t h that of th© o r i g i n a l parents, are tabulated i a Appendix OT, fit© tfi l i t t e r 1 females t r a c i n g f r o a the l i l i t t e r 1 ffi&tlag were bred by t h e i r heaviest brother and t h e i r production data are recorded i a Appendix. tEfB* The growth data war® ©©cumulated by weighing the whole l i t t e r at b i r t h and at weekly i n t e r v a l © t h e r e a f t e r * 71 Table 30 * Animal n u t r i t i o n Laboratory Data on The 'i h i t e Mouse Parent No, No. $ Ave. Ave. Ave, M, F. femalet®} Born Weaned Weaned S i z e B i r t h Wean. at . L i t t e r Weight Weight leaning. 131-31-1 19 _ _ 19 . 100 9,5 1.78 12,67 .9 fl-Litter 1 37 4 daughters 37 100 9.2 1,33 11.18 18 19 Fl-Litter 3 37 4 daughters m m . 9.* 85 i * 3§ 9*12 SL- 13 f l - L i t t e r 3 41 S daughters '41 loo a.ti 1,44 10*24 88 18 Tota£"or Ave, 13 daugh ters 115. lis. -ja*». -m f a - L i t t e r IA 8 dau#.ters 44 • m 86,3 *»8 1*27 '1*0 21 i t ?2-Litter LB 8 daughters 22 • ia i i ys-Litter 10 S daughters 40 40 ' iOO S:.0 ' 1.31 a * i i f * 28 J-2-Lltter ID Z daughters 18 16 1.89 :9#8 § 7 Total or Ave. 17 daughter sl24 112 90.3 7.75 1.31 9.2 8* 72 Sex was determined i a . the parent aad I i * i i t t e r 1 l i t t e r © .at. 21 days of as®, bat i a ta© other l i t t e r s i t was deter-* mined at b l r t a , .la order t o o b t a i n mar© d e t a i l e d growth data., ta© aa!©©: aad females i a ta© IX l i t t e r 2, F l l i t t e r 3 aad the f o u r ?B l i t t e r 1 groups were reeerded aad w i g h e d separately a t b i r i a aad weekly i n t e r v a i s u n t i l 2© day© of age. Thee© data ar© tabulated i a Appendix ITS* A l l l i t t e r © were weaned a t 21 days, bat th© l i t t e r © were iwigned m a t i l they were 28 day© of age, fbe l i t t e r s were aet redaeei i a s i z e a t b i r t h , 'la order to f a o l l i t a t © i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these r e s u l t s , ©a»arie© o f tae data appearing i n Appendix JTO are shown i n Table SO, I n s o m t i n i z i n g tbe data i n fabi© $0, i t ©eoome© evident t h a t none of the daughters or grand daughter© e-mailed the parent feiaal© i n a l l the production f a c t o r s . I t would almost appear that there was a deoline i a t h i s respeet w i t h suooeeding generations. Any statement however, tha t t h i s trend i s a b s o l u t e l y true would- not b© i n order at t h i s time b@©au©© of th© short duration of t h i s study, fhe average b i r t h and weaning weight© of th© Aaiisal n u t r i t i o n Laboratory 'mice, «h©n compared w i t h those reported i n th© l i t * e rature review and o u t l i n e d i n fabl© 31, appear to be average, 73 *»««lfc» l i i t e t w i t h 9«»p«6t te u . B. C . | 8 i l i t t e r s ) were so arranged heeanjse these 88 l l t & e r a ware wneiped w i t h i » a i t 4a? period and mm the f i n a l l i t t e r s bom whieh were e t a d i e d , fhey were the progeny of the f o l l o w  i n g femalee tabulated- to f a b l e W« ttomp l o » of tamaies j f t « U t t # r 8 ' 8 F r i t t e r IA i ?2*&itter IB 8 m**t*mm 10 § t w i t t e r IB 8 I t I s the o p i n i o n of t h i s . w r i t e r , that the ©enditlon of the young prodnoed by theae females was .sot normal during the pre~weaaing. growth period,, fhe ©oats were some what Starr and laeJsad .the •oharaoterlstie sheen, This observation was made before examining the growth, data whleh »BLf 31. A QQWMJSQM OF QffiSR INVBSEEGAfCR'S AND 211 ANIMAL ITO2SI'H0K LABOR AifiOB.T *B CMOWffl mm ON THE MOUS2 Ave.. Stae o f B i r t h ? days 14 days Bl days 23 days- L i t t e r Ii f Ave M J Ave II W Ave 1 H J Ave M F ' 4ve Robertson aac Delprat (181?) 1.47 .3,55 4.44 , , 5i8» Jadsoa(1918)1 . 1.5 3.0 6.0 9.0 6.2 8.6 Bi0ffipsoaCl918) A 1,5 3.3 6.7 9.9 9.4 9.6 Gates (1925) 7.4 1.36 5.21 5.34 6.89 Partes 11926 ) 6.2 1.41 3.54 5.20 7.14 Par&es (1926) 3 1.0 1.8 7.0 13.0 16.0 MBteDowell(19307 1.53 6.97 15.4 Oroz i e r and Enzaaana(1935) 6*66 1.38 3.65 6.25 10.5 Morris (1944) 1.44 5.1 7.9 Brae®(1947) 6.4 10.3 U.B.S .Parents 9.5 1.78 5,47 7.89 12.67 U »B .0 * F j L i t t e r 1 9.2 U.B .0 . (25L1 ttera78.0 U.B .a.Aye 7.16 1.38 4.58 6.76 10.3 1.33 4.7 6.87 11.16 1.34 4,22 6.63 9.13 1 Weights tabulated a r e a c t u a l l y f o r 5, 12, and fc£ days. 2 Weight o f L i t t e r of one mouse. 3 Weights of s i x sale©ted females. 4 Group of 25 l i t t e r s born i n 10 'lay p e r i o d . would mm®$ %& mnfim thin ©pinion., i t is dxffiouit to say who ther this ©©adltioa was nutritional, oat after tn# mice were weaned they did appear to look more -normal* f«hl@ 5g 1* a salary of the production off ioienoy of ©oloales reported by other investigators compared to the Animal lutritiom. Laboratory unit, fnla oolony, similar to the rat -colony, eaceels in the perieatage weaned. It also compares favourably on fertility and average size of litter^ 7 6 fatal© 3S * A l>r©duetioa B f f i e i e n e y Comparison of Various Mouse c o l o n i e s Foster Cereeedo Bruce tJ.S.0, @% al & Vinson,, (1947) (1950) No. females Bred " ' ' ' f l No, Litters Born i f Per Cent Fertility 97 No, Young Born SIB Ave. Size Litter f,4 No, Young Weaned 455 Per Cent Weaned i f Birth Weight Weaning Weight 85 80 @0 t,4 7# a4 ; $06 6*4 83 xr 10.3 36 ' m m 7*16 mz 94.8 l.-3i 10,3 ^ Figure represents per ©ant l i t t e r s weaned, 2 For ration. see Appendix III 3 This is an approximate weight, siaee it was taken from a graph. fa) ' $am% Starve? ©a nous© 'eoloay. 4 ©o©t ©uiffoy of th© mouse s©lomy was mad© ©irniiaj* to-ta© on©, mad© on. ta© r a t eoloay. (8«* .Appoadls ?.) # la© myorag© d a i l y ©est pe* sou©© 1© as follow©I Laaomr * # #.©§1© feed - 9*001 Housing -^JbtSSt f o t a l 0ost *tO.0O31 per day 78 G, Animal nutrition Laboratory Guinea Pig (1) _ origin fhe guinea pig unit of tne Animal nutrition Laboratory was started with foundation stock receive* ftorn tne Snf field Uperiaemtal Stationt suffield* Alberta, 2 b ® guinea pig® i a to* colony at the\preitant tiae # and used in this study* are tesoenianti of that original ship* sent • {%) lousing Hie guinea pig eolony is located i s a room wbieh is. f feet t inches long ant i feet l inehes wi&% giving a floor area of square feet* It is 10 feat in height* giving a room volume of @i§ ©mMo feet* ©tin represents a volume utilization of 6,2 oubio feet per guinea pig, assuming a maximum capacity of 100 guinea pigs for the room, fhe guinea pig cage rack which holds 20 oages measures 7 feet I f lashes long* 3 feet 4 inebes wit© and § feet 4 i n  ches high* it ooouple© 23.,8 square feet or about m per cent of the floor apace* It is illustrated in ?iga, 12 and 13. SI The room i s provided with, a sold. water tap and sink adjacent to th© rack* fhey are situated approximately 9 feet from the farthest row of cages or about 5 steps away, thus enabling the attendant to change the water bottles with a ainiwm of e f f o r t . The guinea pigs are housed i n white painted wooden cages,, constructed,of 1/8 inch plywood. A layer of wood shavings approximately one inch deep serves as bedding. This amount of bedding averages i n weight about mo grams with an approximate volume of ©000 oo. This cage.is i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figs. 14 and 15 and. the dimensions shown l a F i g . 10. Tne mxiaum capacity reooioaended per cage i s f i v e mature guinea pigs or eight young growing animals. This represents an area u t i l i z a t i o n per guinea p i g of 89 square inches on a room basis, $4 square inohes on raoJte plus cage basis and S8 square inches m eage basis. This type of cage has several features which have proved to be advantageous i n the operation of the u n i t . F i r s t of a l l , the small door or s l o t at th® front of the cage permits th© animal attendant to remove the soiled bedding from th© cage by means of a scraper while the aalsals are s t i l l i n the cage. This procedure i s illustrated f a i r l y c l e a r l y i n F i g . Fig. 1 4 . Jtandard guinea p i g cages showing data card bracket and water b o t t l e . 84 8 5 16. A f t e r th© cage ha© b@©n cleaned, f r e s h shavings ar© then placed i n th© cage. Once a week, the guinea p i g s are transferred from th© d i r t y cages to clean cages, i n  stead of u s i n g th© p r e v i o u s l y described method of r e  moving d i r t y bedding. The d i r t y sag© i s then cleaned and washed w i t h hot water and ammoniated soap and allowed t o dry o v e r n i g h t . A ©@©o»d fea t u r e of t h i s ©ag© i s the partition ©losing o f f the part of th© cage which permit© th© guinea p i g , p a r t i c u l a r l y a sow with a l i t t e r , a place of s e c l u s i o n . These cage© have been i n constant use f o r four years and during that time have been repainted twice. To date, the cages show no signs of deterioration. This type of u n i t may be open to criticism, on the grounds that i t is only possible because i t is s m a l l . However, the fact that the Suffleld Experimental Station successfully operates a u n i t numbering 4000 sows and t h e i r progeny w i t h much the same type of caging, would seem to answer any c r i t i c i s m * Th© rack and cage they use ar© i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figs* I f A and ITS r e s p e c t i v e l y * The important mo d i f i c a t i o n s used In this cage ar© that the f l o o r i s sheeted with alum inum and th© f r o n t w a l l of the cage acts as a v e r t i c a l l y s l i d i n g door. F i g . If A. Suf f i e l d Experimental S t a t i o n » guinea p i g ©age rack• 88 {0} f o w l i n g , and Watering The r a t i o n 'ia f a t as p e l l e t s which are about 1/4 of an i n c h long and 3/16 of an i n c h i n diameter. {See Appendix I I I ) . Small h a l f pound salmon cans serve as feed containers and are hung on the i n s i d e of the eage w i t h a piece of s t i f f wire* The colony i s f e d and watered d a l l y * f e e l i n g feting a4 l i b i t u m , S a l f p i n t b o t t l e a are used as water o o n t a i n e r s . They are ©banged d a l l y and cleaned weekly* I n a d d i t i o n to the p e l l e t e d r a t i o n * , the guinea p i g s reoeive fresh, green f e e t every aeeoafi day about e i g h t months of the year*. In the winter monthat i t i s f e d l e s s f r e q u e n t l y , u s u a l l y twioe a week* The green feed serves as a source of the neo« f ssary v l t a s t i a 0 and. a l s o as an a d d i t i o n a l sonroe of v i t a m i n A. The ma.l©r p o r t i o n o f the green feed c o n s i s t s of k a l e produced a .short distance tvm the laboratory* 8 9 (4) Breeding. . , A H breeding ©took ®m ©ar*ax©k©d f o r i d e a t i * f i o a t i o n purpose© and the breeding h i s t o r y card indexed. 2 * th® breeding f r o g r t s praetlfted* * boat I© allowed t a mm w i t h t e a * ©#»© u n t i l a ©on ma© farrowed* f n « sow i s net reiaoifed from ta© fere#Mag ©ag© when she appear© t© a© ff©gaamt feat 1© ©jLiowed t o fm^nr her© w i t h ta© other mature guinea f i g s present i a tli© ***** I t aa© been th© axperleno© o f t h i © J ^ l ^ a t o j ? t b a t by f o l l o w i n g t a l © pro* •©ednr©, ta© other sows, i a fb© ©age *»§l«i the sow farrow* .lag, by h e l p i n g remove ta© *pla#©ntai membranes twm the newborn guinea plg## tba© reduoing X*«*** through matte* © a i i o a . l&periea©© Jt** ©aowa t a a t a sow farrowing i a i s o l a t i o n ©©mefim©,© doe© not remove th© pla©©atal membrane© i n time. $aia a p p l i e s . p a r t l s u l a r l y whoa l a r g e l i t t e r s ar© •horn* About 12 hour© a f t e r th© guinea p i g has farrowed, ©he ana her l i t t e r are removed to a ©lean ©age ana kept i s i s o l a t i o n u n t i l th© l i t t e r i s weaned at 21 days of ag©. fhe female guinea p i g comes i n t o ©strus a few hour© a f t e r p a r t u r i t i o n , ©onseouently by l e a v i n g her i n the breeding ©age f o r 12 hours a f t e r f a r r o w i n g , i t i s u s u a l l y p o s s i b l e 9© t o get her r e b r e i nt t h a t time and thus save 21 days, sine© she w i l l net again come i n t o estrus u n t i l her l i t t e r has been weaned*' When the $w has weaned her l i t t e r she i s then returned-to the breeding cage and the procedure repeated* f h i s s y s t e a of breeding - f a c i l i t a t e s continuous production i n the guinea p i g u n i t * fhere- has been no evidence t o i n d i c a t e any undesirable effects on the breeding stools m the vigor-and growth o f the l i t t e r s r e s u l t i n g from t h i s procedure. The l i t t e r s are weaned at & days .and the Sasse,® separated, f u t u r e breeding animals are s e l e c t e d m the b«ai# of r a p i d growth as evidenced by a high weaning weight, and on the a b i l i t y of the s i r e and data t o produce large l i t t e r s . This replacement breeding stock i s not used f o r breeding u n t i l they are about two. months o l d . 91 (5) C o n t r o l of disease, C o s f r o l of A i i e a s a i » d l r e o t i y r e l a t e d to tae mmgmmt p r a c t i s e d in every day husbanding of tae eoiony*. t h i s p o l i c y i h e l u d a i i * . keeping the ©ages ol@«nf washing %hm. w i t h aaaoniaied soap and washing the water b # t t l a g oaoe a week* . I f m aftissal appear® to he below normal i t i s destroyed a n i a, post mortem perfomed t o 4#~ t e r a i n e the oamaa of i t s poor eomtitlon* l a .the f o u r years t h a t the guinea p i g #ol««y Urn been i n o p e r a t i o n , there has been ©me teriou® •outbreak of an i a f e « t i o n , At that time, approximately h a l f of the t o t a l colony population of 4.0 guinea p i g s d i e t , P r i o r t o t h i s outbreak* the colony had been receiving only a limited supplement of green feed and i t i s f e l t that t h i s d e f i c i e n c y contributed to the outbreak* Some of th© aaiaalts were beginning to show sign® of a t y p i c a l vitamin C d e f i c i e n c y , but l a c k of funds prevented the purohaie of green f e e d . Oaring the course of the growth study* extending over a period o f the l a s t year*, one nature guinea p i g d i e t at p a r t u r i t i o n , and a seoond animal was destroyed because 9 3 of poor condition* with the total number of guinea pigs in the unit averaging about 55. It should he stated, that in evaluating this low rate of mortality, very few animals beoame old, beeause of the constant demand for guinea pigs for experimental purposes. As a matter of interest approximately 700 guinea pigs have been shipped from this unit to Stiffield, Alberta, with no losses. Wood (personal eoxsmunloation) ha® reported, as a result of experience in the purchase of some 30,000 guinea pigs, that the shipping mortality in this species is largely predetermined by the pre-shlpping management of the pro duction unit from which the guinea pigs are purchased, felt* f i t l i ) has reported aeaaiasioas. 93 • {§) Animal Nutrition Laboratory Growth Data 'JB order -evaluate ta© ©taadari of this guinea pig colony,, a growth study was conduct ©a. fhe jwe^tt* t©lloirei was t© weigh the litter® at birth and at 21 -day© ©f ag©* After &m determination* ©mob .guinea pig in th® litter was weighed. The complete data are tabulated in Apptnd.i« tfQ with a mmmw of th© data recorded in fable S3 along-with the data of other inves tigator©* Table 33 - A Comparison of other Investigator's and the Animal Nutrition Laboratory*© Growth Data. Ave*Ave. Ave* YoungToung Litter© Animals Lit* Birth Wean. Born Haised to S £ i S S y _ 31«* -, « * j , Ft,, Alive Weaning . U.B.C. 24 73 3.0 97.4 250 . P 94* 97.2* Cramp- ton ,^4 102. Saton 2,-241 ft, 0 x 8 8 * 8 9 93.4 8S0,1X $9fi §1,2$ a^jne©_ x •, .. 8«8& x leaned at 33 day's* acx Weaned at 21'days, ."' The data for laton are for non inbred animals used aa control* in a ©reeding experiment. Crampton4© data were for animal© on a basal diet receiving green feed. He 94 reeord® ta© t w week g a i n t o b© 91 grama, The t»© week gala, to* t a l © guinea, p i g ooloay i s 101 gram©.* Th© r a t i o n outlined-©? e r w p t o a w i l l be found i i i Appendix 111* f a b l e 94 represent©-a 'wmtti&kt mm d e t a i l e d mmmxr o f the growth data fro® tb© Animal B u t r l t i o a Laboratory Colony* Table 14 *. Growth Data on Animal l u t r i t i o n Laboratory o>i*fa n& W t f t Weight i n 0r©ms Ag© i n Heaviest L i g h t e s t Ave* Heaviest L i g h t e s t Average B i r t h 147 ©1 99*6 119 73 95.7 f day© 193 99 140.4 172 108 135.7 14 , » i 104 803.6 S44 1§X l»**ft ft i # f . S04 256.5 315 194 845*© m ... atiroti • . w # . . . — . — . — , WA, Distribution of Huraber of Young i n L i t t e r Bo. i a HO. of Per Cent JMsaL~~ UW* ..~ . 1 1. 1.3 2 5 6.8 9 9 12.3 4 8 10.9 6 n i l .- .* .-, • 3. , 1.3 jiit The data i n fable© 34 and ,3S are p l o t t e d as. shown i n F i g s . 18 and 19, • In order .to t o t a l s Mm p©st*weaning growth l a t a , :f our s a l e s and seven femalea selected randomly from f o u r l i t t e r ® were weigned weekly a n t i l they were, i i day® i f tgti $fet• MMPlata- date, are.found l a Appendix .Ifo* and a summary i n Table 36. Table 3d - goat Weaning growth Data cm the Guinea Pig. Age i n Days 7 14 81 28 35 42 40 56 Birth days days daya days daya gays days daye Weight Hals 101 141 195 24? 310 374 430 502 546 Weight Female 103 . 136 194 247 303 343 376 441 483 Figure 20 i s a p l o t of the data i n Table 36. I t would appear from the data, that tho guinea p i g u n i t operated by the United States Department of Agriculture is not up to the standard of the U. B. G. unit i f Eaton's data is used as a criterion. The birth weight, average l i t  ter s i z e , relative weaning weight and the per cent weaned that are bom alive are the factors in which the U, B. C. unit excels the U. S. D. A. unit. Eaton refers to a weaning weight of 260 grams at 33 days of age. The limited data beyond the 11 day weaning age show that the U. B. 0* animals are approxinateiy 300 grams at 33 days of age. (7) Cost Survey on Guinea P i g Ooloay* A eost survey was conducted on Una ©deny s i m i l a r t o those on the nouaa and r a t . see Appendix T« The cost of greens was so small that i t was not included. The average cost per guinea p i g per day i s as f o l l o w s ! labour #0,005 feed « 0.003 Bousing * 0.001 |0.009 pet day total Oast 100 Animal n u t r i t i o n Laboratory Hahfcit U n i t ill O r i g i n •torn r a b b i t mait ami*** of two breeds, jumaiy th© Fiemisii Giant ant th© low Seaiaad H i t © * looaas© of th© r a p i d turn-over of th© rabbit© f o r experimental par*- poses, i t ha© not boon p o s s i b l e t o ©et up a ©©parat© breeding ©olony, .As a re©mlt f. r a b b i t s have been pmrohased p e r i o d i c a l l y f o r use aa breeding ©took or experimental «aimal©# i h e r a f o r e a breeding program w i t h any d e f i n i t e ©bjeetiv©© hm not been pat i n t o prattle*.* the primary o b j e c t i v e i n the operation of th© ©olony ha© been t o main t a i n the animal© i n optimum eoaaltion* (ft) l o u s i n g fhe rabbit© ar© housed i n an unbeated barn. Wire ©age® w i t h . expanded metal f l o o r © are suspended from two in c h pip© support© bolted t o the © o i l i n g of the room. This type of ©aging i s w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g , 2 1 . A ©ag© u n i t c o n s i s t s of two separat© ©age© w i t h a hay f e e d e r , d i v i d i n g them, Th© ©age u n i t measures 8 f e e t l o n g , B f e e t wide and 1 0 1 F i g . 21. Standard rabbit cages. 102 2 f e e t alga, with ©ach ©ompartment being 4 f e e t long but tae sane width and height* fhe maximum cap a c i t y recom- mended is 4 r a b b i t s per s e c t i o n . The breeding does and bucks are provided w i t h small n a i l kegs as nest boxes. They measure! f o o t , 8 inches l o n g and I foot two inches i n diameter* The f l o o r of the barn i s constructed of ooaoret©, which f a c i l i t a t e s the d a i l y removal of droppings passed through the wire f l o o r of the cage. A f t e r the f l o o r has been cleaned, i t i s hosed and the water allowed t o d r a i n o f f the s l o p i n g f l o o r through an o u t l e t , (3) feeding and Watering. The r a b b i t s are f e d and watered d a i l y . They are fed a p e l l e t e d r a t i o n s i m i l a r i n sine t o that of the guinea p i g * . Th© composition of the r a t i o n i s given i n Ap pendix 1X1, Every f i f t h day the r a b b i t s were fed p e l l e t s to which ©ulfaquinoxaXine had been add©d a t the o.ol per ©ent l e v e l . On© g a l l o n open top Jam t i n s which have a vol- urn© aapaelty of approximately 1500 aa* are u t i l i z e d as water c o n t a i n e r s . (4) Breeding A planned breeding program i s not followed i a the r a b b i t colony, mainly because of th© lar g e demand and ra p i d turn~over of animals. As a r e s u l t , l i n e breeding i s 103 mot practised and these® are no attempts to establish a partiealar f a m i l y or 'raise breeding stock* Instead, when* mm new o r acre aniaals are needed for breeding .purposes* they are purchased fmm other breeders* 1% is the objeet- i v e o f this laboratory to keep th© unit in continuous production throughout the year* Sometimes this Is not always possible* For exaxaple, during th© last three months of 1950, the eleven l i t t e r s born during that period were destroyed by the does. No reasonable explanation can be offered for these losses, since from th© beginning of Feb ruary, production has been excellent under identical conditions of feeding and management. Bach breeding do© i s kept i n a separate cage and the litter is not disturbed until they are a week eld. At t h a t tine, the litter sia* is recorded and frt.shb@dd.ing, usually hay* is. placed in the neat* • The young are weaned at six to eight waafcs of aget depending upon the slgs of the litter* Bach breeding back is housed in a separate cage. 2.04 (5) Oesftyol Of d i s e a s e . I t i s considered* that by. the use of th© mgm w i t h wire f l o o r s and good management, disease i n the eoXony i s kept t o a a i a i w a . While no aoourat© f i g u r e s on rat® of m o r t a l i t y have been recorded, i t i s a known f a c t that the greatest losses occur i n the pr#*weaning age group» suggesting that the Causes are more n u t r i t i o n a l than p a t h o l o g i c a l . M tm%f th® l o s s e s of mature animals are extremely r a r e . I t i s recognised, however, that the f f b b i t u n i t has r e l a t i v e l y the highest r a t e of m o r t a l i t y of the f o u r aniiaai u n i t s . P o s s i b l y three of the more mmmn t r o u b l e s of r a b b i t u n i t s are e o c o i d i o s i a , • so c a l l e d H s a u f f l e s w and ear zaange. In t h i s colony, o o c o i d i o s i s does not present a problem, because of th© use of the wire* bottomed cage and sulphaquinoxalise. There has been the odd case of **snuffles*', but to date no serious outbreak. I t i s caused by the organiSM p a s t e u r e l l a c u n i o u l i c i d a * Ear »aag® has been the most bothersome problem t o keep under o o n t r o l i n th© colony. I t i s caused by Faorontes e u a i o u l i cmeraates, ouai<mli,two species of e a r ~ a l t e s . Although 105 i f £B m% a i > « r t i 0 u l a i * l j ' 'Oaagaroua i a f aatla&* I t is *xfam*ty i r r i t a t i n g to ta® r a b b i t * Th© treatment a s o l t o *$aAieat* th© s i t © * 1© t o pour a l i g h t o i l , ©man a© &\%w® o i l into th® ©ar© of ta© rafeBit@# so that th© affeoted ***** ar© w e l l ©ataratei,*. This ©satrol measure need© t o I t repeated f r e q u e n t l y i a order to o f f ©at a ©omplet© oar©* 106 (6) Animal N u t r i t i o n Laboratory Growth Data. Sine® a l l t h ® • l i t t e r s i n the l a t t e r part of 1950 were destroyed* i t has aot been po s s i b l e t o aaeumulat© as m e n data as « $ desired* .la a d d i t i o n * a l l th© l i t t e r © were not weighed u n t i l they were a week o i a s because i t was f e l t t h a t any attempt©'to seeur© b i r t h weights might d i s t u r b th© doe and r i s k d e s t r u e t i o n of the l i t t e r * fhe l i t t e r © w@re weighed at weekly int e r v a l © a f t e r the i n i t i a l weighing and ao ©ex determinations were made* For these reasons t the l i m i t e d growth d a t a i n Table 37 ar© aot to be taken as a standard but more as a guide* I f Table 37 does nothing e l s e , i t does serve to substantiate the already w e l l known knowledge of the ©ffeet of the sis© of l i t t e r ©a b i r t h m i g h t and subsequent gain I n weight w i t h time* 107 Table 37 » Animal Mutrition Laboratory Growth Data on tb© Rabbit Average freight at Ho.in N o . of 7 days 14 days El days 28 days 35 days 42 day® U t t e r Litters .„ . . ... , -, . ; • ., 3 I 200 413 4 1 235 § 1 132 334 496 697 1015 © 2 180 311 453 781 1096 7 1 197 8 I 137 282 568 9 1 ..114 219 12 2 110 182. 1 9 S 1 3 4 3 s 441 13 1 106 228^ 1 - 11 alive g - 10 alive 8 * 10 alive 108 Oest Survey -of Rabbit Colony A ©eat survey of ttue oolony was made, the a@tai.lai. r e s u l t a of whieli appear i a Appendix f . The housing ©oat was not eaXaulatad beoause of the d i f f i c u l t y i n e s timating th© "life* o f the wire eages, fne average east per r a b b i t per day i s as f o l l o w s j Labour « #0,017 ~ ,P.«QQ? f a t a l oost * | *0E4 per day 100 111 Summary aad Conclusions A study aa© been made of ta© small animal u n i t s of the .Animal n u t r i t i o n l a b o r a t o r y o f th© Depart ment of Animal Husbandry, fhes© unit© included the r a t , th© mouse* the guinea p i g and th© r a b b i t , fhe study was undertaken to a s c e r t a i n i f the animal© produced ia . these u n i t s ar© comparable, with respect to p r o d u c t i v i t y and growth r a t a , to the animals produced by s i m i l a r l a b o r a  t o r i e s elsewhere, l a a d d i t i o n , d e t a i l s of tlx© housing and management practice© followed have been d e s c r i b e d , t h i s has not always been don© by other i n v e s t i g a t o r s . Such a d e s c r i p t i o n seemed j u s t i f i e d f o r two reasons? (1) The p r o d u c t i v i t y of any animal u n i t , l a b o r a t o r y or domestic, i s i a a lar g e measure determined by t h e man agement p r a c t i c e s followed i n i t s o p e r a t i o n . They have been included i a the present work, so that th© production and growth data may be more r e a d i l y assessed, (2) l a th© w r i t e r * s experience, the establishment of a ©mall animal colony i s attended by many minor d l f f i o u X -ties associated with i t s day to day operation.. The methods used in this colony were recorded i n detail, i n the hope that others might resolve their minor problems at the outset. I l l fable 38 - Optimum G-rowtb Data of Other Investigators Compared to Animal Nutrition Laboratory Mean .growth Others^ A*S*L».-S Other© 1 A.H...L. o t h e r s 1 A.N.L. .Ave ....Ave. r.. .. ,r . Aye... f a r Cent • f e r t i l i t y 93,3 73.1 97 8© Not Recorded young Bom 1766 81* 71 Ave. Sim L i t t e r 9*9 7*4 7.2 S>4§ No. Young Weaned WW 242 Per Cent Weened to - 85 94*6 81,S 4 i f * 2 Average )M Birth JP Weight )L 5.6 5.3 5.4s 5.5 5.44 1.38 1.38 102S 99.6 95.7 97.4 Average)M Weaning)F Weight )L 48,0 47.0 33.4 31.6 33.6 10.5 10.3 360 256.5 245.8 250.7 1 Represents the optimum results reported in the literature by other investigators. 2 Abbreviation for Animal Nutrition Laboratory 3 Birth and weaning weights are f o r Sherman strain rat3 4 Represents Craiapton* 8 data 5 Represents iiaton»s data - weaned at 33 days f a b l e 88 represents a summary of tii® optimum data reported by a l l other i n v e s t i g a t o r s compared t o the r e s u l t s recorded i n t h i s l a b o r a t o r y , frcm the data presented, i t i s eonoluded that the Animal n u t r i t i o n Laboratory r a t oolony excels i n l i t t e r s i z e a t b i r t h and peroemtage weaned but i s s l i g h t l y lower i n percentage f e r t i l i t y and overage weaning weight, The mouse colony a l s o excels i n l i t t e r s i z e and percentage weaned f but I s only average i n f e r t i l i t y and weaning weight when compared w i t h other mouse colonies* Qti the b a s i s o f the l i m i t e d production and growth data reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e , the Aaimal n u t r i t i o n Laboratory guinea p i g colony recorded 4 n e a r l y comparable b i r t h weights and a heavier weaning weights* Th® percentage weaned was a l s o higher than that r e p o r t e d . The growth data of t h i s r a b b i t colony was not oon- sidered t o be representative enough t o make possible v a l i d ooaolusions with respect t o i t s e f f i c i e n c y , i t i s evident t h a t much improvement i s needed i n this u n i t , fhe present work may be c r i t i c i z e d on the grounds that a s t a t i s t i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n has not been applied t o 115 the results recorded* !jais point was recognised, but i t was f e l t that much more data should 'be accumulated over a more extended period of time before such aa analysis i s carried out. future studies should b© con ducted oa the post-natal nutrition of the mouse and the nutritional aspects of f e r t i l i t y in the rat and mouse as produced in t h i s eoloay* 1X4 Bom of *©e*afe t e x t s published wlfcaia p e r i o d 1945 - 19SO in t j l u e i v e fs^fiSj, I * , (1950) "The oar© and breeding of labora tory animals", John Wiley and Sons, Mew York. Harris, 1. J . , and G r i f f i t h , j r , 3". Q,.s (1949) "The rat in laboratory investigation*1. J". B. Lippinoott Co., Philadelphia. Snell, G« B.i (1941) "Biology of the laboratory mouse". The Blakistori Co., Philadelphia. Worden, A. H., (1947) The U.F.A.u. Handbook, the care and management of laboratory animals, Ba i l l i e r e , Tindall and Cox, London. ll£f mmmxx II SPSCIFIOATIQBS O F SL1CTEI0 FAW Manufacturer ~ eamadiaa sir©©©© 0©* • of Fan Windsor, Oat, Oat. 118H No. C26132B &!«• 17 f o n t f3»@ A i r - MOO G.F.M, ,Sia@© tn© f a n i s operated f o r 15 minute© of every hour,, ta© volisn* of a i r ©hanged equal© so,000 ©mala f o o t per hour, fn© volume of tli© three a a i a a l room© aad a ©took room i # a© follow©1 tt© t o t a l room volaa© of 3530 ©aoio f o o t aad a volume a i r ©hang® of 86000 6uHe f o o t represent 10 a i r ehaage© i a a l l room© ©very hour. Room Volume - On .Ft, Bat Mouse Guinea P i g 1079 752 680 Maaufaotnrer of a e o t r i © Motor * General H e o t r i © Oo. Model l i f $ 4 0 Type its I T . - 47 & 3,6 Oy, 60 E.P.M* 17B5 ¥,110 P,H. 1 SUP. 1/4 AEHBHD3X I I I A ~ RAf HATIOHS XT. B. 0 . l a t i e n ft - l a t s and law. ®»und fheat @S5 Hailed ©reats SO© Oorn Meal. SO© Waeat Flakes 400 Soyabean s e a l 25 P i l e n a r d O i l 7 Bog Meal Pre-Mix 410 2600 Bog Meal Pre-Mix Pounds Iodized S a l t 10 Meat Soraps @.8§ f i s h Meal (11$) 3#0 Powdered Skim M i l k 100 Oarragrass I20 Wbeat Sem Meal. §0 Hioe feed .. .250 1585 1 1 7 f...,».. ,0.,, Satiea'10 - .Bat®. aad. Ml©© Pounds. Wheat flak©a m e a t I r a a 45 Hah i l e a l <7©#) 50 Iheat (3©rm Meal m Powdered Skta U l l k 86 D r i e d Yeast 10 Apple pemae© 30 .Beet palp 30 -Oat© greuad 40 Heat ©©rap 70 Seya meal ?S Ittmv meal 30 B©»@ meal 10 Oarragras© 5 s a l t '10Q© Oesmputed A n a l y s i s P r o t e i n .Fat F i b r e 116 M i l k soaked bread plu s corn as s t a p l e . A supply of ©bopped t o r n was kept cons t a n t l y l a ©ages. A l i b e r a l amount of wheat broad soaked i a whole m i l k was .supplied daily,, and fresh, meat (beef) ono© a week. Diet A Die t B max* M i l k i/e i / s mm Ground Whole Wheat 6/6 H a d 2$ of weight Of wheat l a each ease* i g p ^.lffiftftft (1986) Per Cent Casein 36 S a l t Mixture 4 s t a r e h 37 l u t t e r f a t 9 Lard 15 f e a s t 0.2 grams d a i l y Lettue© 40 grams d a i l y Whole Wheat 2/3 Whole M i l k Powder • 1/3 Ma01 t o the amount of 2$ of the wheat Fresh cabbage or l e t t u c e s i x days a week t a e t a t i n g r a t - augmented by f r e s h cow's m i l k ad l i b i t u m . mam ana. B1H0, (1926), Orouad Whole fheat 2/3 Dried Whole M i l k 1/3 • KaOl t o the amount of 2$ of the wheat fhey'found i t advantageous to replaoe h a l f of the added sodium s h l o r i d e w i t h an equal weight of ealoium carbonate g i v i n g a Ca to P r a t i o of 1**1.16 Freeh l e t t u c e f e d d a i l y l a o t a t i n g r a t s receive 9 grams of d r i e d yeast per week* 120 mmmMMX G. L, f # c a l f Haal pounds Linseed O i l meal 30© GtanxaA malted b a r l e y 200 *iheat r e t d©§ f l o u r 440 ariel. ttjiritUfe 300 Oat f l o u r §00 Y ellow mm s e a l 4§0 llteaiiod bone meal 20 Sgftttfti' limestone *0 mm 2000- .#«d X i w ©4* M f twie* a week* mixed im aa $ p t r ©afit o f t a t days food.* t o green food i s supplied* f a a e l a Hitol© SXX& Powder 10$ iodimm ShXoride o.s #aioiaa Carbonate 1*8 l a t t e r funedited). 5.2 mol© around wheat 100* 5$ dried yeast ia also added to diet of mother rats while nursing.. 121 the f o l l o w i n g dry r a t i o n {97$) was mixed with, eod Mires' e H . Per cent : Mmseei. o i l meal. IS . Com meal go Barley-ground malted 10 l e d dog f l o w BE D r i e d s k i » m i l k • i s Oat f l o a r I© i o l u b l e blood meal 3 • Sodium c h l o r i d e I temsd iimastone 1 Steaded' bonemeal, 1 Moisture a©ateat of a i r dry mixture - 57$ P r o t e i n - 22.1% Calcium - 0.92$ l a a d d i t i o n a paste food containing I h o l e milk: powder W$ Casein 99$ Wheat embryo 20$ .Lard 90$ was f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e at a l l t imes. Moisture ZM B f o t e i n . Calcium ' $•&>$ l a o h r a t received 20 grams l e t t u o e per diem and 3 grams of d r i e d yeast twice a week. 12E G. L . F. C a l f Meal - 97$ • Cod l i v e r O i l ' * % l u r e i n g mothers and young r a t e under 6 weeks of age r e o e i v a i a a d d i t i o n a *paste food* o o n s i s t i n g e f t per eent Casein• S i Whole M i l k Powder m Iheat Bate yft 20 Lard. 80 l a t h r a t reoeivee. 1 gm.* of d r i e d yeast d a i l y except Sunday. STOCK BIST (1930) Wheat o f f a l ( f i n e middlings No.2.) per oent 19. Z i f .2 ©round oats 19,2 Cteund b a r l e y 9.8 'tireual wmtm t.5 Meat ami bone meal p r o t e i n ) 9.0 » r i e d s k i » « i l k 7.0 White f i s h .meal (§0$ protein) 4.7 U r i e d yeast C4# p r o t e i n ) 1.2 Sodium ehloride 0.5 Cod l i v e r o i l 0,5 B i g . 'Protein 14*9 per ©ant Caloium 1*18 Phosphorous 0,99 or Ca:P r a t i o 1.19 IBS • fa© ©oXeny i s fed th® -ateele r a t i o n p i n s 5 gran* « f green feed • n s n a l i y kala • .1ft a d d i t i o n XQ ml* of ©eparafeed m i l k JPtA per growing r a t , flgppffB. ,{xm) per ©eat §r^nmd y e l l o w eorn 15 §£©n«4 a n e l i e d oats 15 ground wnol© wheat 15 Seat sorap 10 I k o l e niXis powder . 10 A l f a l f a l e a f » a X . . * $ o d i i » enlorid© S g a i o i w • «arbonat# 0. s Molasses fas binder) . :§,6 100, 124 j w e o n t p e r cent IsUw ©o« meal . . . • 80 #070 12.86 ftrauaA malted b a r l e y 10 10 fn e a t red; dog. f l o u r BE 22 ©at flour- 18 .16 Dried ti&fra&Xk' 12 12 gelubi©' I0,oo4 f l o u r 3 3 S a l t 1 1 Ste*a*& bone meal 1 1 Cod l i v e r o i l 0.126 0,14 Casein 1 Corn o i l 7 For Cent P r o t e i n 23.83 Gal* per gram 3*30 Fat 4.50 fhe cod l i v e r OH used contained 300 A.O.A.O. ©hiole u n i t s of v i t a m i n D and 6000 I . U. of vitamin A per gram. VINSON AND CEREOSDO (.1943) • Purina Dog Chow per cent ' P r o t e i n ' 26.86 f a t 6.28 f i b e r 4.44 Ash 7.35 Oalolam 1.38 Phosphorous 0.96 126 M&m mm, • Srams Oaueim' 20 .20 20 •feast .ftidiraoted..) . 5 5 5 Gem s t a r o h • 2§ 3© 35 23.4 * . 2 2 g a l l s immM and &< § d i i o l i n e 0,1 0,1 0*1 Cy s t i n e • 0.2 0.2 Fat ( i n mm Of Corn ©11) . 15 , 1 0 . .. * «1*0 93.f t r o t e i n 21*0 20,4 Fat i i * 8 H.S 5.5 jyan 5*4 5.3 4.6 DEUEL (1945) - M o d i f i e d Sherman D i e t pel? cent Skim m i l k powder fiS#70 Margarine fat 9.24 ground whole wheat &©,0 tedium e h l o r i d e 1.0 1*6 The skim milk powder eontained l . l f l l i p i d , Aa assay showed th© margarine t o have between ia>»000 - 3.5.000 X.w*. v i t a m i n A p©t pound. Adequate fu a a t i t i © © Of vitamin© B aad 1 were present in th© f a t . This p r o  p o r t i o n o f added margarine f a t give© the f a t ©ontent ©faivalesit to' t h a t wM@h would b© p r e i e a t i f W$ whole milk powder containing (26$ fat} were used. Five grams o f l e a n meat and lettae© onoe weekly were fed to each r a t a f t e r weaning. per ©eat Ground whoi© wheat 34 Ground s t e e l out oats 34 Skim m i l k powder 15 Cottonseed o i l containing 1000 I.U. v i t a m i n A 160 I.U. vitamin D 10 A l f a l f a l e a f meal 4 mt yeast f Anh©as@r~Bus©h © t r a i n $} 2 Sodium Chloride 0..5 Oalsium ©arboaat® 0.5 Fat 14$ zxm mmm BAEKWS Jfraagtao* .Mouse;, WQEM & « W > E o l l e d b a r l e y Mixed white and yel k s of eggs aye supplied d a i l y . Fresh leaves of l e t t u e e were supplied twioe weekly. Sundays * thoroughly d r i e d bread. Th® whites and y o l k s of eggs are beaten together and s t r a i n e d , 5 oo. of mixture being supplied t o s i x mica. t r e a d and M i l k ) Crushed ©ate ; pine p e r i o d i o vegetable f o o d . M i i i t t .fresh a U k Sgvatta Ood.Liver O i l »©# Food ^Bread soaked in water Oats Bemn Canary seed. Pteck Bi@% A • Farina Bo.g Chew •• mmk Biet I iround oats m Brewers yeast 10 Whole m i l l powder 15 Sodium e h l o r i d e 1#8 fhey were a l s o ' f e d l e t t u c e and f r e s h l i v e r oaee a week* 129 Constituents Stock Diet No.77 Morris Stook M o t imwmmn k Mendel) Skim-Milk Sawder Casein Ground i h e l e i h e a t Brewers Toast (Dried) Starch S a l t Mixture B u t t e r f a i C e i L i v e r O i l S a l t | % r r i # C i t r a t e form; O i l i a l o a l a t a t Composition • Protein f a t Carbohydrate Ash Water 22.75 Grams 81.52' 4,00 2,00 1.40 , l i & 19.6$ 11.7 62,7 4.8 Bruce Ration Wholemeal Flour Dried lull-Cream Milk Dried Yeast Meat and Bone Meal Cod Liver Oil Sodium Chloride Calcium Carbonate Calculated Composition Dig, f r e t . Dig, f a t Dig. fibre 19.3$ l l . i 0,5 20 grams 24 2 20 4 m • 31.3$ 29.S 30.2 4.5 4.6 f a r Cent 50 m 12 6 $ 1. 1 -130 i i i PIG amoss tr.B.O* na t i o n 0 * Guinea l*igs Fonnis m® f l a k a i xm f i a k a i WmXw mo meat Mwm sgo MO Beet Pulp m OMomt Meal •mo' 8eyttfe*ft& O i l K u l w 911 0«&» Heal $m M i n e r a l w&®*mX% ' 'SO Sadinm CnloMt® m f i t a s i n % 3»«*«lx 2010.85 Ocnpatad. A n a l g i a Per ©ent l u t e i n ' m m » F i b r e @ Galaaa P i g R a t i o n W WaaptoB gb# b a s a l tot kmm. m the MaoDonaif f i i t t * OoRAtitoaat 3*©sf Coat t a t © 10,0 Wfatat 13*0 l o o t pulp ©il»©ai *ll£lj& M U M 1§,0 ft**, maal §,© Bra****. 6*1*4 f o a s t . 10*0 Bon© ©has* S a l t (#.1|S XI) 100.0 132 HID aabbit R a t i o * W.B.O* Ration I S - Rabbits Pounds Oat© 400 l a a a t 175 B a r l e y 8QQ Bran 350 B r i e i Crass 100 Beat B a l p m 80pm meal mo Soya s e a l ' m O i l Cake meal taaiiatM t o a s t 3 Colony a l n a r a l s 80 S a l t S0OG TMs r a t i o n has been p e l l e t e d w i t h sulpha- ouiaoxallne f o r ©©ooidiosis oontrol* 133 APPENDIX I T A GROWTH DATA 01 ANIMAL NTOITIQN LABORATORY RATS Number i a L i t t e r a t Age of Number 7 14 21 28 —Feaals No, Famalo Born Stillborn days daya days daya G l 181 1© 15 14 14 14 03 183 10 10 10 9 9 04 181 10 9 9 9 f 05 182 10 10 10 10 10 06 184 14 12 12 12 12 G7 180 7 3 7 7 7 7 08 180 12 12 12 12 12 09 182 © 8 8 8 8 010 182 17 1 15 15 15 15 O i l 164 7 1 7 7 7 7 cig- 184 12 12 12 12 12 013 185 U 1 10 10 10 10 014 186 12 12 12 12 12 015 186 12 12 12 12 12 T o t a l 158 6 151 150 149 149 Ave * 11.3 10.0 10.0 9.9 P.F.XII-U-I 177 11 11 11 11 11 P. F . H I - X I * 2 179 13 . 12 11 11 11 P.F.lII-11-3 177 12 12 12 12 12 P . F . H I I - l l - S 178 IS 15 15 14 14 P.JNXXI-lA-1 X06 12 3 11 10 10 10 P.F.H1-1A-2 107 13 13 12 12 12 P.F.XII-1A-3 112 13 1 12 12 12 9 P.F.HI-IA-4 112 l i 16 15 13 13 P.F.32-4I~2l-2 140 10 10 10 10 10 P.F.32-4I-2X-3 143 11 11 11 11 11 P.F.32-41-21-4 144 13 13 13 13 13 P.F.32-41-21-5 143 16 15 15 13 13 P.F.32-4X-3X-3 177 11 1 11 H 11 - 11 P.F.32-41-3X-4 182 11 H 11 11 11 .T o t a l .. 178 5 173 169 164 161 Ave. 12.5- 12.3 12.0 11.7 11.5 O v e r a l l T o t a l 334 11 324 319 313 31.0 O v e r a l l Ave. 11.9 11.6 11.4 11.2 11.1 134 AII'I.ZDI,. 17 ;\ - Continue d Weight o f L i t t e r a t 7 14 El 28 Sax R a t i o B i r t h days days days days a t 21 Days 81 135 212 348 538 10 4 68 120 185 295 515 4 5 60 111 212 356 562 4 5 55 115 208 317 520 4 6 76 134 E38 382 664 6 e 47 109 £04 333 541 3 4 69 • 151 273 417 - 659 8 4 51 116 212 332 529 2 • 6 91 135 253 381 576 8 7 42 93 186 292 490 3 4 63 124 231 390 677 4 8 55 87 177 298 513 5 5 65 124 208 314 538 8 4 $0 126 242 384 645 8 4 877 1680 3041 4839 7967 77 72 5.55 11*1 20.3 32.4 53.4 5© 104 £04 329 536 8 3 76 131 284 357 591 6 5 m 130 241 376 516 7 5 74 134 253 345 590 5 9 60 108 200 316 523 4 6 67 116 195 29 6 496 5 7 m 120 210 254 455 3 6 . 86 179 299 440 704 7 6 60 118 216 339 589 5 5 64 138 254 424 712 6 5 71 149 280 461 754 10 • 3 85 167 279 405 662 8 5 •58 110 195 317 535 5 6 63 136 255 415 701 6 5 956 1040 3305 5074 "8364 85 76 5.34 10.6 19.55 30.9 51.9 1833 3520 6396 9913 16331 162 148 5.48 10.86 20.0 31.7 57.7 13S Female H o . Age of Number Female Born still' born Number in l i t t e r at 7 14 21 daara days daya P.F.XII-11-51-4 330 6 P.F.XII-11-61-5 332 9 P. F.32-41-21-21-1 272 11 P.F.3E-41-ai-21»3 270 8 P.1*32-41-21-31-5 331 © P.F.32-41-3X-31-2 364 13 P.f.32-41-3x-31-4 363 10 P.F.32-41-3X-31-S 304 11 P.F.32-41-3X-41-1 267 11 6 9 11 8 6 13 10 11 @ 9 U S 6 13 10 11 11 6 9 11 § 6 13 10 11 11 Total 97 97 9? 97 Average 9.7 P.F.32-41-21-21-4 301 10 10 10 10 P.F.32-41-21-31-1 363 9 7 7 7 P.F.3-2-41-21-31-4 36g 4 4 4 4 P.F.32-41-3X-31-4 402 13 13 13 13 P.F.32-41-3X-31-5 404 8 7 7 7 I».F.3g-4i-3at-41-g 296 11 1 10 10 10 P.F,32-4i-3X-41-3 300 3 1 . 3 3 3 Total 58 54 54 54 Average 8.2 Wistar.110. ; . P .F.H l - l i - S i - g 40® 6 6 6 6 P .F.32-41-21-21-1 347 6 6 6 P.F.3S-41-21-31-4 . 409 7 6 6 6 P.F.32-41-21-31-3A 345 4 3 g 3 P.F.32-41-3.X-31-3 443 8 " 6 4 4 344 f • , 7 7 7 Total 4© 34 32 32 Average 6.6 Overall Total 19© 185 183 183 Overall Average 8.47 136 Weight o f L i t t e r a t Sex R a t i o 21 days B i r t h 7 daya 14 days £i aaya M F 39 89 177 294 4 2 49 111 202 318 7 2 70 132 219 346 9 2 49 102 184 249 4 4 37 83 138 £32 3 3 72 142 232 314 5 8 55 94 191 267 7 3 63 136 247 357 7 4 60 114 214 329 5 6 79 152 258 426 5 7 573 1165 2052 3132 56 41 5.9 12.0 21.2 3S.2 56 107 200 303 3 7 46 80 135 £17 5 2. ' 26 69 126 210 2 • 2 71 137 226 530 5 8 58 123 203 321 6 1 61 135 243 385 4 • 6 18 57 106 161 - 3 336 708 1238 1927 25 29 5.7 13.1 22.9 35.7 42 90 167 258 " 3 3 . 38 83 141 223 5 1 38 m 177 243 4 2 21 31 50 88 1 2 41 64 97 156 3 1 63 114 179 266 4 .3 233 478 811 1234 20 12 5.3 14.0 25.3 38.6 1142 2351 4111 6203 101 82 5.85 12.7 22.5 34.4 13? Sherman I Append l i IV A -Continued Female Female's Numb ar Wai«ht Age Number WeansrslEldajs) at Weaning NO. (days) Born M F T M F f Op.I 11 Age 9 3 6 9 113 192 305 WE Unknown 7 E 4 6 61 105 166 IS 13 9 4 13 370 161 531 W4 9 4 5 9 161 188 349 W5 1 1 1 31 31 ap.IIWI 9 6 3 9 EOE 90 292 WE 11 6 5 11 E10 150 360 m 7 E 5 7 104 253 357 m 9 4 s 9 149 181 330 ws 9 6 3 9 E34 109 343 Gp.IIIWl 7 4 3 7 137 104 241 WE 9 5 4 9 173 143 316 m 11 5 6 11 146 164 310 W4 3 1 5 6 42 211 253 m 14 8 6 14 320 236 556 Gp.IV WI 7 4 3 7 170 122 292 WE 11 6 5 11 207 158 365 13 10 4 6 10 143 209 352 W4 10 6 4 10 Ell 168 379 W5 IE 3 9 IE 102 286 388 Gp.Y WI 10 5 5 10 188 177 365 WE 7 3 4 7 136 164 500 W3 9 4 5 9 176 197 373 W4 13 7 6 13 223 185 408 W5 10 3 7 10 95 220 315 Gp.VI WI 10 E 6 8 57 210 267 WE 10 4 6 10 166 242 408 13 14 § 7 13 192 216 408 v i 4 1 3 4 46 130 176 W5 13 • 7 6 13 211 169 380 Gp .VIIW1 8 3 5' 8 116 218 334 WE 8 3 5 8 128 199 327 m 9 6 3 9 258 128 386 W4 IE 5 6 11 175 206 381 W5 9 5 3 8 232 135 367 GP.VIIIW1 11 6 § 11 264 194 458 W3 IS 7 5 IE 247 174 421 W4 10 5 5 10 177 179 356 Total 360 170 184 354 6342 6604 12946 Average 9.4 37.3 35.8 36.58 Appendix IY Female So. Number 7 1 4 — — ^ Q j m S t i l l b o r n -daya daya Gp. X I I WI 8 Gp. XVI ws 1 0 Gp. H I m 11 Gp. a ? WE 8 Gp. X I I I WE 1 1 Gp. XIV wi 3 Gp. X I I ws 10 Gp. X I I I \m 9 Gp. XIV m 8 Gp. XVI W3 E Gp. X I I I W5 1 1 Gp. XV WE 1 0 Gp. XIV W5 f Gp. X I I WE 8 Gp. X I I I WI 7 El days M- F. T. 8 8 3 3 8 1 0 1 0 5 5 1 0 1 1 1 1 5 © 1 1 8 a E 8 1 1 i i 4 0 1 0 3 5 1 E 3 1 0 1 0 5 5 1 0 9 9 6 3 9 7 7 3 4 7 2 E 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 3 4 9 9 9 E 7 9 8 7 5 E 7 7 7 4 3 7 Total 1 2 5 1 2 4 1 E 3 5 1 04 1 2 1 Average 8 . 3 3 X39 Weight of Males» Females and T o t a l L i t t e r Weight — Uaii-.- 14 daya _§Lii2Z£. 40 8a 151 215 SO 125 £30 3g? 60 128 216 310 3® 85 147 £23 62 121 ££2 294 15 33 69 95 57 124 £07 281 43 114 191 266 39 74 121 159 U 31 §4 100 50 113 197 276 48 106 192 261 49 105 180 247 42 87 148 178 42 93 162 230 655 5.24 1427 11.5 2499 20.31 3462 28.61 140 l l a f c a r X Sherman I Appendix I? A GontAnuad Female ho, Mumber Number Alio© a t 7 14 2 1 days -• . Bora S t i l l b o r n days daya M W T ap, i W4 9 9 9 4 5 9 ap, i W5 13 13 IB '© 4 12 ap.ii wi 11 10 10 5 5 10 ap.u ws 11 11 11 10 I 11 ap.ii m 14 13 0 0 0 0 ap , n W4 . § 5 § 4 1 S Op . I I I Wl 10 10 10 5 5 10 ap .ui W2 13 13 12 3' 9 1 2 ap.in IS 12 .12 3 6 . 12 ap.in ws 12 12 12 7 § 12 ap. i v i i 9 9 9 6 3 9 ap. IT W2 12 12 12 8 4 12 ap* i t ws 11 11 11 § 6 11 ap* i ? W4 11 11 11 © 5 11 ap. i ? ws 12 12 12 8 4 12 ap. v wi 10 10 10 • f t 4 10 ap. ? m 12 12 12 6 § 12 ap. ¥14 11 U 10 8 2 10 ap, ? w § 12 12- 12 6 6 12 ap. u wi 8 8 8 4 4 8 ap. i i W4 2 2 2 1 1 2 ap*fii wi 10 10 10 5 5 10 a p . f i i W2 12 12 12 7 12 ap.ra w§ 11 . 11 11 7 4 11 ap . m i i m 10 1 10 10 § 5 10 ap,mnw2 13 13 12 7 5 12 ap*-?iiii4 11 11 11 4 7 11 ap.vijiws 11 10 10 7 3 10 ap .ix 11 11 9 § 4 5 9 ap .ix m 10 10 10 8 2 10 Op.IX W3 11 11 11 5 © 11 ap , i x W4 4 4 4 2 2 4 ap.ix m 12 12 • 12 7 5 12 ap* i 14 10 10 10 7 3 10 Gp. x we 12 12 12 3 6 12 ap .21 wi 11 11 11 7 4 11 ap .xi ws 7 7 7 4 3 7 ap * M m 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 Gp.XI W4 10 9 9 3 3 9 Gp .XI WS 10 10 10 6 4 10 Gp .x i we s 1 8 8 6 2 S flbtal 418 5 411 •394 222 172 394 Average 10.19 B i r t h Weekly Weights o f L i t t e r s , Weights of Males, aad L i t t e r a t Weaning £l aays 7 days 14 days M / T 53 119 218 148 185 333 ©8 159 271 267 126 393 60 127 229 162 153 315 62 131 231 303 30 353 70 118 „ 32 74 132 176 43 219 63 135 251 190 180 370 77 155 262 91 242 333-60 155 255 175 166 341 63 170 286 269 178 447 51 124 221 217 109 326 69 156 273 248 119 367 58 152 267 181 212 393 64 169 281 258 195 453 57 135 257 254 125 379 56 151 249 228 148 376 69 153 250 183 176 359 64 171 264 318 73 391 64 133 246 204 177 381 41 105 199 148 143 291 15 25 45 33 30 . 63 55 133 249 178 170 348 67 16© 280 175 237 412 58 133 254 255 131 386 59 141 242 168 154 322 65 143 268 234 157 391 59 125 260 134 230 364 57 145 256 293 113 406 60 125 187 127 160 287 51 117 216 294 68 362 65 149 259 182 190 372 24 75 148 110 108 218 68 142 255 • 211 155 366 52 123 229 218 98 316 63 138 239 178 165 343 63 143 255 247 133 380 47 119 204 196 128 324 16 ' 34 79 40 87 127 67 141 265 146 264 410 56 133 219 212 111 323 51 99 176 209 63 272 2319 5.54 5333 12.97 9227 7860 23.41 35.40 5732 13592 33.32 34.49 141 female Still- B i r t h - Goatanue* >r l a 7 days 14 days £1 days M — g _ x . ,y y i ¥ i„ ,x Gp.I f l 13 8 5 13 6 4 10 6 4 10 6 4 10 WS 12 10 2 12 1 1 2 Bled W4 11 5 6 11 •0 6 11 5 ' 6 11 5 ft 11 Op .11 WI 12 § 8 12 6 5 11 6 5 11 ft 5 11 WJI 10 6 4 10 5 4 9 5 4 9 5 4 9 Mi 15 7 8 15 e a 14 6 8 14 5 8 13 Gp.11IW1 9 3 6 9 3 0 9 3 6 9 3 ft § W2 14 5 9 14 § 9 14 6 9 14 6 9 14 13 IS 10 5 16 0 5 13 i 5 13 a 5 13 W4 7 5 2 7 4 2 ft 4 2 ft 4 2 ft W5 9 3 12 9 3 12 3 12 9 3 12 Gp .IT 11 14 7 7 14 7 7 14 6 7 13 6 7 13 W3 12 5 7 12 5 7 12 § 7 12 5 7 12 W4 11 § 5 11 § 5 11 ft 5 11 ft 5 11 • Wi 7 2 5 7 2 4 0 2 4 6 Z 4 ft Gp.T W3 11 7 4 11 7 4 11 7 4 11 7 4 11 Gp.VI WI 10 5 5 10 4 5 9 4 5 9 4 5 9 m 5 2 3 5 2 3 § 2 3 5 2 3 5 m 6 2 4 6 2 4 6 2 4 ft 2 4 6 GP .ram. 9 1 5 4 9 5 4 9 5 4 9 5 4 9 m 12 7 5 12 7 g 12 7 5 12 7 5 12 W4 13 7 6 13 7 6 13 7 ft 13 7 © 13 Gp.TIIIWl 9 ft 3 9 6 3 9 ft 3 9 6 3 9 W4 11 1 7 4 11 7 4 11 7 4 11 7 4 11 ws 12 5 7 12 5 7 12 5 7 12 5 7 12 Op .IX WI 8 1 7 8 1 7 8 1 7 8 1 7 8 MS 9 8 1 9 8 0 8 8 0 8 8 0 8 m 10 7 3 10 7 3 10 7 3 10 7 3 10 ws 10' 7 3 10 7 3 10 7 3 10 7 3 10 Gp.X W3 7 6 1 7 5 1 ft 5 1 © 5 1 ft m 9 © 4 9 5 4 9 5 4 9 5 4 9 Gp .XX W3 2 1 2 0 2 2 * 2 2 * 2 2 — 2 IS 7 1 4 3 7 4 3 7 4 3 7 4 3 7 Total 334 4 187 147 334 169 142 311 167 141 308.166 141 307 Average 10.2 143 Weight of Males,Females, and Total Litter Birth 39 SS 47 10 m 3 1 31 32 £9 22 33 38 19 36 31 . 65 43 23 30 13 62 15 42 41 25 36 36 29 7 S3 45 23 28 26 12 20 13 24 26 21 39 28 39 32 33 16 37 22 26 35 3 34 45 5 37 17 39 1® 35 7 9 21 18 T 7 M days F T 14 days . M F T 21 M days F T 64 7 5 50 1 2 5 133 8 2 215 202 124 326 57 4 4 8 Bled 64 75 8 7 1 6 2 l i e 129 247 1 8 0 190 370 63 6 5 60 1 2 8 114 95 209 161 144 305 51 70 55 1 2 5 1 1 3 85 198 186 134 320 71 55 70 1 2 5 8 3 120 203 112 1 6 1 293 55 4 4 8 6 130 72 137 209 113 212 325 86 63 113 1 7 6 103 171 274 1 4 1 238 379 66 79 4 6 1 2 5 1 4 5 8 0 225 194 113 307 4 3 66 3 2 98 114 54 168 185 86 £71 67 1 1 6 3 8 154 182 57 239 256 87 343 83 8 0 79 159 113 122 2 3 5 162 181 343 63 62 8 9 1 5 1 113 150 263 171 223 394 65 78 59 137 133 99 232 207 152 359 4 0 26 53 79 54 102 156 84 155 239 68 100 52 1 5 2 173 88 £61 225 114 339 54 4 5 57 102 8 8 110 1 9 8 120 160 280 3 2 3 5 51 8 6 63 89 152 105 1 6 0 255 3 7 3 0 58 88 §4 107 1 6 1 87 1 5 8 245 4 7 6 2 52 114 117 95 212 187 142 329 67 ©7 64 1 5 1 1 4 2 96 238 219 154 373 71 79 69 1 4 8 1 3 1 104 235 195 1 6 0 388 4 9 8 1 4 3 124 1 3 2 68 200 213 107 320 59 8 2 4 7 1 2 9 156 8 5 2 4 1 333 141 374 61 60 8 7 147 1 1 1 143' 254 157 205 362 39 1 5 96 H I 24 169 193 4 0 273 313 5 0 93 #». 93 17© • 179 251 - 257 54 S 3 3 6 119 143 59 202 204 84 288 57 8 5 3 7 1 2 2 139 §0 199 235 105 340 4 2 75 1 5 1 2 5 134 26 160 223 4 3 266 4 7 60 4 9 1 0 9 1 1 0 86 196 161 122 283 9 17 1 7 33 33 68 68 3 9 61 4 8 109 101 76 177 161 121 282 1011 809 1820 2108 1782 3890 3620 2944 6564 5544 4459 9903 6.4 5.5 5.4 12.4 12.5 12.5 21.6 20.8 21.3 33.3 31.6 32.2 1 4 * APPENDIX I T B GROWTH DATA Oil ANIMAL WTRITIOK LABOEATQRX MICE Female No. Female's • Number Age Bora s t i l l - 7 14 gi days — •—-—••—— . ~-~^^^^Q£^^ML,MlS,.^^ F X31-3-1 75 lo i i i i n e cr *>W 1 S L _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ > o i l X9 Total 19 Average 9, § 10 10 5 5 9 9 4 5 19 19 9 10 9.5 9.6 4.6 5 19 9.5 M m 83 11 151-31-11-8 85 8 XS1-31-H-4 113 9 m^i^Mzi^. us 9 T o t a l 37 Average 9 #g " ^ g 'g.gf^.g ~4#7 9 > 2 11 11. 4 7 11 8 8 5 3 8 9 9 6 3 9 9 9 3 6 9 37 37 18 19 37 149 11 9 8 5 3 8 X31-31-11-3A 147 9 9 9 4 5 9 X31 -31-11. -4A 149 9 9 9 6 3 9 X31~S-11~5A 148 8 S 8 6 2 8 T o t a l 37 35 • 34 21 13 34 Average 9.g5 6.75 8.5 5.2-5 3.25 8.5 M ! S A 94 7 7 7 4 3 7 X51-31-11-B3 89 11 11 11 5 6 11 X31-51~11~3B 91 5 5 5 3 2 5 231-31-_1-4B 93 9 9 9 8 1 9 97 9 9 9 3 0 9 T o t a l Average 41 8.25 41 41 23 18 41 8.25 8.25 4.6 3.6 8.25 145 APP 1MBIX I V B WEEKLY WlIQiilS OF U ^ f f l S Female No, B i r t h 7 14 MM. £8 35 days 14 JO. 49 55 77 J2L 127 124 193 134 .1.87 104 99 98 X31-31.11-2 X31*31~I1»4 Total Av@rag@ Aisraffli 49 173 £53 411 639 432 -364 12.2 4^.2 63.2 102.f 159.7 108' • 91 A^7 6.8 11.1 17.3 24.0 19.3 J31V51~11'*1A 14.2 29.8 40.2 X31-31^1i-3A 11.7 36.8 53.9 X31-31-11-44 12.1 35.6 S3.5 64.9 108.7 81.8 .112.3 79*1 126.0 84.6 114.5 T o t a l Average X31«31~ i l-28 X31-31»il-3B X31-3I -11-4B JB^,~6^—li—JSP 50.1 140.3 204.3 12.5 3S.7 51.7 ...1.3 €,l C I 310.4 461.6 77.5 115.3 12*5. JLsJL 9.6 15.1 7.6 13.4 13.8 34.5 45.0 25.3 46.1 5 3 . 6 69.4. 37.8 70.2 78.0 118.0 104.4 159.0 54.8 84.S 97.1 141.5 £33 .202 .Total -34 104 150 .251 380 -238 197 435 Average 17 52 75 125.5 190 119 98.5 217.5 A s Z l ~ ^ J 4 i _ L ^ ^ ga,4 X9.7 £2.8 lb 49 68 114 184 97 136 .£33 11 37 62 85 110 111 59 170 I I 43 C0 108 177 156 §8 £14 1 1 — I Q i W 68 111. 17Q 796 199 £1.6 T o t a l 59,5 189.6 295.8 Average 11.9 37.9 59.1 Average 1.4 4.5 7.2 422.6 627.1 84.5 125.4 10.2 15.8 146 APPENDIX I T B W e e k l y Weight* of L i t t e r s 4fc days 49 days P8 flays 63 days lil ,,, ,g — i i - - 2f— Jg H- I .'V. • - M 1? , T* 143 105 £48 150 106 £58 158 115 £73 162 116 278 tf.9._.104:,_fcI3 106 ,228 122 ...ii5 ; .235 122 113 ,838. 252 209 461 266 214 460 280 228 506 £84 229 513 126 104.5 £30.5 153 107 240 140 114 254 14S 114.5 256 28.0 20.9 24,2 29.5 21.4 25.2 31.1 22.8 25.7 31.5 22.9. 26.9, 107 142 249 114 156 270 117 159 276 123 160 283 127 61 188 138 71 209 143 73 216 153 74 227 161 61 222' 162 6% 226 167 66 233 177 69 246 72 122 194 75 123 198 76 127 203 80 131 211 467 386 853 489 414 903 503 425 928 533 434 967 116.7 96.5 213.2' l&J} 103.5 225.7125.7106.2 232 133.2 108.5 841.7 25.9 20.5 S3.1 27.1 38.0 .24.5 27.9 22.6 £5,2 29.6 25.0 26.2 147 Female No* Fa s a l e * Age Born S t i l l  born 7 .day*.. 10 14 daya M £1 days F f m 10 10 6 3 9 X31-31-11-11-C 88 9 8 8 4 4 8 X31-31-11-11-5 89 6 * 6 3 1 £ 3 231-31-11-11-4 94 7 7 7 4 3 7 X31-31-11-11-5 9£ § 5 5 3 £ 5 p i - 3 1 - l l - l l - b . 92 7 S 6 5 3 6 Tot a l 44 4£ 39 £1 17 38 Average 7.3 7.0 6.5 3.5 £.6 6.3 AT® rage 114 9 8 8 3 5 8 X31-31-11-21-2 114 5 5 5 5 5 » ^ J U b B M 1JJ... 8 6 6 5 5 • Tofcta Average Average £2 7.3 19 0.9 19 6.9 8 £.6 10 3.3 18 6 115 8 8 8 3 5 8 £31-31-11-31-£ 117 8 8 8 3 5 3 X31-31-11-31-3 117 7 7 7 3 4 7 XS1-51-11-31-6 1E4 10 10 10 4 6 10 S f c M - . M l - f 184 7 7 7 4 3 7 T o t a l 40 40 40 17 23 40 Average $.0 8.0 8.0 3.4 4.6 8.0 Average F£ L i t t e r . 1. XS1-31-11-41-1 89 9 7 7 5 2 7 » l t 3 1 - I 1 ^ 4 l -§ _ , ©6 .. ...9 9 9 4 5 9 Total 18 16 16 9 7 16 Average 9 8 8 4.5 3.5 8 Avfraga , O v e r a l l T o t a l 124 117 114 55 57 112 O v e r a l l Average 7.75 7.31 7.12 5.43 3.56 7.1 us Weekly Yrai^hts of Litters B i r t h 7 days 14 davs g l days 2& days 18,6 10. w 7.6 Q.8 7.1 9.1 35.1 32.7 21.8 31.3 23.4 27.4 52 * 5 54.1 JLS'e S • 46.5 40.3 48.2 65.1 74.7 24.0 69.7 51.6 55.4 106.0 XXJ3 • X 36.5 109.4 82.0 84.9 • 55.7 3*»iB 171.7 28.6 4 #X « 0 42. 9 6.6 340.5 56.7 9.0 530 .9 08.4 14.5 11.9 8.3 10.4 37.4 26.9 26.1 54.6 41.4 45.2 -34.8 SO .3 56.5 119.6 88.0 82.2 SU". 6 10 •£ 1 .«J 92.4 30.8 • 4*9 Hl~.2- 47.0 7 »4r ft 01, © o7 .2 11«2 E&9 ,S~ 96.6 16.1 10.5 33.2 43.3 66.6 108.1 H . l 34.7 51.4 79.9 120.5 26.0 43.4 63.8 101.5 13.0 40.4 66.0 80.1 136.5 _JL£0___. 5Q.»f 45.9 63.0 103.1 5 2 V 9 1 6 5 7 1 ^50 . 0 "55O*" '~~~"~~~W§7T 10.6 33.0 60,0 70.6 113.9 1.31 4.1 6.2 8.8 14.2 11.4 19.1 33.5 60.4 99.8 11.8 37.4 53.6 79.8 120.0 56.5 87.0 140.2 219.8 11.6 28.2 43.5 70.1 109.9 1.2 3.5 5.4 8,7 13.7 162.4 485.7 753.7 1035.7 1610.2 10.1 30.3 47.1 64.7 100.6 1.31 4,1 6.6 9.2 14.3 AfflHDIX I V B Female Mo, female's lumber lumber Alive a t Age Bora S t i l l - 7 days 14 mays 21 days 28 days M F T born M F T K f T M f T M F T f l L i t t e r 2 X31-31-11-1A 149 7 4 11 5 4 9 5 3 8 5 3 8 5 3 8 X31-31-I1-3A 14? 4 5 9 4 5 9 4 5 9 4 5 9 4 5 9 231-3I-11-4A 149 6 3 • 9 6 3 9 6 3 9 6 3 9 6 3 9 X31-31-1I-5A 148 6 2 8 6 2 8 6 2 8 6 2 8 6 2 8 To t a l 23 14 37 21 14 35 .21 13 34 21 13 34 21 13 34 Average 5.75 3.5 9.5 5*25 3.5 8.75 5.25 3.25 8.5 5.25 3.25 8.5 5.25 3.25 8.5 F l L i t t e r 3 2 3 1 - 3 1 - i l - i B ~"§4~-4" 3 7 4 — 3 r 4 3 7 4 3 7 4 ~ 3 7 231-31-11-2B 89 5 6 11 5 § 11 5 6 11 5 6 11 5 6 11 231-31-11-3B 91 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 2' 5 3 8 5 3 2 5 X31-31-11-4B 93 8 1 9 8 1 9 8 1 9 8 1 9 8 1 9 X31-31-11-5B 97 3 6 9 3 6 9 3 6 9 3 6 9 3 6 9 T o t a l 23 18 41 23 18 41 23 18 41 23 18 41 23 18 41 Average 4-6 3.6 8.2 4.6 3.6 8.2 4.6 3.6 8.2 4 . 6 3.6 8.2 4.6 3.6 8.2 " rz L i t t e r 1 S l - 3 1 - l l - i i - l 89 6 4 10 • - "6 " 4 10 6 4 10 6 3 9 6 3 9 231-31-11-11- 2 88 5 4 9 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 231-31-11-11-3 89 2 4 6 2 4 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 231-31-11-11-4 94 4 3 7 4 3 7 4 3 7 4 3 7 4 3 7 231-31-11-11- § 92 3 2 5 3 Z 5 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 2 5 231-31-11-11 -6 92 3 4 7 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 3 2 5 T o t a l 23 21 44 22 20 42 21 18 39 21 17 38 21 16 37 Average 3.8 3.5 7.3 3 . 6 3.3 7.0 3.5 3.0 6.5 3.2 2.8 6 . 3 3.5 2.6 6.16 I Feaale No, Female's Born 3 t i l l - 7 4nys -Age U F T B o r a M F f aon&er A l i v e at 14 days 21 days 28 days F T M F T M F 331-31-11-21-1 114 4 5 9 231-31-11-21-2 114 5 - 5 231-31-11-21-3 112 3 § 8 3 5 1 5 5 8 5 6 3 5 1 3 3 8 5 6 8 5 5 3 5 8 5 5 t o t a l Average 12 10 22 4 5 7.3 9 3 1© 19 9 6.3 3 10 19 8 5 6.3 4 10 18 5 6 8 4 10 5 18 6 X31-31-11-31-1 H § 3 5 131-31-11-31-2 117 3 5 231-31-11-31-3 117 3 4 231-31-11-31-5 124 4 6 11-31-11-31-6 124 4 3 8 8 7 10 7 Tot a l Ave rage 17 23 40 3.4 4.6 8 t t e r _ 51-31-11-41-1 89 7 2 9 X31-31-11-41-5 86 4 5 9 T o t a l 11 7 18 5.5 3.5 9 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 4 6 3 8 8 7 10 7 3 3 3 4 5 5 4 6 3 8 8 7 10 7 3 3 3 4 17 23 40 17 23 40 3.4 4.6 8 3.4 4.6 8.0 5 2 7 5 2 7 4_ 5 9 4 5 i 9 9 7 16 9 7 16 4.5 3.5 8 4.5 3 .5 8 5 5 4 6 3 2 5 8 8 7 10 7 3 3 3 4 5 5 4 6 3 7 9 7 16 8 8 7 10 7 23 40 17 23 40 5 2 7 4 5 9 9 7 16 .5 3.5 8 1@1 APPENDIX IV fi Faisal© N o . B i r t h Wealdy Weights of Litters" 7 days •M W T M T F l Litter 2 2-31-31-11-IA 9.8 5.0 14.2 17.1 12.7 29.8 2-31-31-11-3A 5.3 6.4 11.7 16.8 20.0 36.8 X31- 31-11-4A 8.1 4.0 12.1 24.0 11.6 35.6 231- 51*11-5A 9.1 3.0 12.1 28.4 9.7 38.1 lF!F7FB-i 5-.! 6*7 22.0 37.4 35.0 Average 7.9 4.6 12.5 21.5 13.5 Average 1.4 1.3 1.3 4.1 3.8 4.0 FI L i t t e r " ! ' ——- ~ 231-31-11-1B 5.3 4.3 9.6 18.8 15.7 34.5 231-31-11-2B 6.9 8.2 15.1 20.5 24.5 45.0 X31-31-11-3B 4.7 2.9 7.6 18.4 9.9 £5,3 231-31-11-4B 12.0 1.4 13.4 40.9 5.2 46.1 X31-51-U-5B 5.0 8.8 13.8 13.3 25.4 38,7 Average 8.4 6.4 14.8 27.2 20.1 47.4 Average 1.8 , 1.8 1.8 5,9 5.6 5.8 F2 Litter 1 231-31-11-11-1 7.6 5.0 12.6 20.8 14.3 39,1 231-31-11-11-2 6.1 4.4 10.5 17.0 15.7 32.7 231-31-11-11-3 2.7 4.9 7,6 7.5 14.3 21.8 231-31-11-11-4 5.0 3.8 8.8 18.1 13.2 31.3 231-31-11-11-5 4.;; 2.9 7.1 13.7 9.7 £3,4 X3I-51-11-1.U6 4.1 5,0 9,1 14,2 13.2 27,4 Total I O 50~56.7' 91.3* 00.4 171.7' Average 4.9 4.3 9.2 15, E IS.4 *i& .6 2 6 , 9 231-31-11-21*2 8.3 8.3 26.9 231-31-11-21-3 3,5 6.9 10.4 4,8 23,3 86.1 'Total ITTo" I 5 T SO~3 I O "46TT WX Average 5.6 6.8 10,8 15.4 23.0 30.8 Average 1»4 1.4 1.3 5.1 4,6 4.9 F8 Litter 1 231-31-11-31-1 4.3 6.2 10.5 13.1 20.1 33.2 231-31-11-31-2 4.3 6.8 11.1 13.1 21.6 34.7 231-31-11-31-3 4.1 5.2 9,3 U.3 14.7 26.0 231-31-11-31-5 5.1 7.9 13,0 16.0 24.3 40.4 231-31-11-51-6 5.1 3.9 9.0 17.9 12.9 30.8 Total 2279" S O 5CT" 7l7§ ' P7I 165.1 Average 4.5 6.0 10.5 14.3 18.7 33.0 Average 1.3 1,3 1.3 4.2 4.1 4.1 Lg2 L i t t e r 1 - .'''' 231-31-11-41-1 9.0 2.4 11.4 13.4 5.7 19.1 231-31-11-41-3 5.3 6,5 11,8 16,6 20,8 37,4 Total I O O 23.2 30.0 ' I O Average ;.7»,1 T4«4 11.6 15.0 13.2 28.2 Average 1.5 1.2 1.28 3.3 3.8 _ . 3.5 APPSMDIX IT B M 14 days .., * ... W»«iciy Weight o f T T t t i r s - ~ ~ — 21 days m days —JE IL. y T ¥• F T 25.5 24.7 36.4 ,J5'! 14.7 29.2 17.1 -44^4—- 40.2 41.4 53.9 37.3 53.5 54.1 23.5 44.5 85.0 04.9 81.8 79.1 84.6 71.6 52.5 87.8 86.0 37.1 59.8 38.2 28,5 108.7 112.3 126.0 114.5 129. 2 32,3 ,6.1 75.1 18.7 . , P*K « 204.3 196.6 51.0 49.1 6.0- 9.3 28.4 e,7 . 77.6 9.1 297.9 74.4 14.2 40.9 12.6 461.5 115.3 13.6 29.8 51.6 22.8 ©2.2 M 23.8 37.9 15.0 8.0 53.6 • 43.2 69.4 47.8 37.8 54.4 70.2 86,7 64,8 29,2 33,8 5.66 20.4 10.4 ;„„w . i 78.0 104.4 54.8 97.1 67.5 77.3 54.6 127.5 44.6 50 .5 81.7 30.2 14.0 79.2 II .••irH&'lX, 118.0 159.0 84.8 141.5 123.8 167.9 41.9 8 4 127.9 31.9 8.9 295.8 241.3 180.3 73.9 60.3 45,0 ~ 9*1 J&A l g . 5 H O - ios. 6 371.S 74.3 15.2, ~SB^6~~ 51.1 14.2 627.7 125.4 15.3 31.4 21.1 58.5 41.5 23.6 65.1 67.5 38.5 106.0 27.8 26.3 54.1 39.8 34.9 74,7 59.5 52.6 112.1 5.4 1 0 . 5 15.9 8.8 15.2 24.0 14.5 22.2 36.5 26.7 19.8 46.5 40.6 29.1 69.7 05.4 44.0 109.4 23.5 16.8 40.3 30.6 21.0 51.6 49.8 32.2 82.0 J .8 23.4 48.2 29 . 3 26.1 55.4 54.4 30.5 84.9 .6 117.92 5 T.5 190.6 149.9 340.5 310.9 2S0.0 650.9 23 .2 19.6 42.9 31.7 S4.9 36.7 51.8 36.6 86.5 6.6 6.5 6.6 9.0 6.9 9.0 14.8 14,1 14.5 21.1 33.5 54.6 33.6~ 61.2 6 4 l 483 7T75 TOT© 41 -.4 41.4 60.3 60 ..3 88.0 88.0 7.7 37.5 45.2 - 56.5 56.5 - 82.2 82,2 70.2 7i.6~~n5I7F~W^ 23.4 35.5 47.0 4 6.9 53.8 67.2 68 . 0 76.8 96.6 7.8 7.1 7.5 11.7. 10.8 H . 2 17.0 15.4. 16.1 16.9 26,4 43.3 27.1 39.5 66.6 43.8 64.3 108.1 19.4 32.0 51.4 31.1 48.8 79.9 48.7 71.6 120.5 19.3 24.1 43.4 27.7 3 6.1 63.8 46.0 55.3 101.5 25.7 40.3 66.0 31.8 48.3 80.1 57,8 78,7 136.5 27.0 IB.9 45.9 37.7 25 . 5 63.0 34 . 5 36,6 103.1 108.3 141.7 250.0 155,4 198.0 353.4 250.8 308,9"" 569.7 21.6 28.3 50.0 31.0 39.6 70.6 52.1 61.7 113.9 6.5 6.1 6.2 9.1 8.6 8,6 5.3 13.4 14 . 2 20.8 12.7 33.5 43.7 16.7 •• 60.4 73.8 26.0 99.8 23.7 29.8 53.5 35.7 44.1 79.8 55.9 64.1 120.0 44 . 5 4*2.5 '87.0 79.4 ~60.8 140,2~~Ts¥77~~90~T 219.8 22.2 21 . 2 43.5 39.7 30.4 70.1 64.8 45.0 109.9 4.9 6 . 0 5.43 8.8 8.7 8.7 4.4 12.8 lg .7 APPENDIX IT 0 GROWTH DATA OK ANIMAL NUTRITION LABORATORY PIG OOLOGY (MALES) No, Of Mai®.. No. I n L i t t e r B i r t h Weight 7 day® of Animal 14 days _ J l _ J a y j 1 2 114 160 228 278 2 3 87 123 185 251 3 2 118 151 219 269 4 3 101 153 225 282 5 4 97 131 170 226 6 4 92 120 159 202 7 3 95 152 229 276 8 4 85 124 180 . 264 9 4 86 126 192 251 10 4 61 99 156 204 11 4 66 105 167 238 IS 4 84 140 179 226 13 3 • 107 149 207 260 14 3 95 128 199 241 15 3 65 128 170 £35 16 3 88 170 235 326 17 2 132 202 291 370 18 7 81 92 144 202 19 7 86 115 174 240 20 7 91 128 190 £61 21 2 117 179 251 331 22 1 147 192 282 367 23 3 100 131 199 265 24 3 99 135 193 259 25 4 107 139 203 254 26 3 116 162 233 285 27 3 108 154 205 244 28 3 H I 159 225 £80 29 3 116 159 230 291 30 3 105 147 212 267 31 2 113 163 231 299 32 4 101 143 218 265 Totals 2 AT® , 3190 4559 6581 8208 99.6 143.4 205.6 256.5 154 APPENDIX I ? Q GROWTH DATA OK ANIMAL KUIIRITION LABORATORY (HJINSA PIG COLONY (FEMALE) Ho. of No . i n Weight of Animal — L i t t e r B i r t h 7 days 14 days 21 days i £ 104 145 £12 261 ' £ 3 89 128 188 244 3 3 91 126 • 188 259 . 4 2 109 147 205 £40 5 4 114 153 218 276 6 4 11£ 117 171 218 « 4 78 115 Died 8 4 84 97 159 £05 9 3 107 158 226 290 10 3 119 172 244 315 11 4 94 129 170 212 18 4 91 129 169 216 13 3 76 126 183 14 5 90 144 214 15 4 90 133 180 251 16 4 88 133 181 251 17 4 9£ 136 169 252 18 4 80 l£l 176 203 19 4 88 133 1 7 5 209 go 4 96 151 183 ' 232 £1 4 94 147 177 223 ££ 3 95 126 190 250 83 3 73 108 151. 194 £4 4 9£ 154 181 233 £5 £ 181 186 247 300 £6 7 107 152 219 281 £7 7 96 129 185 248 £8 • 7 98 126 175 236 £9 £ 117 177 235 307 30 3 65 99 155 211 31 3 100 135 189 £43 3£ 4 116 155 227 271 33 3 97 122 176 223 34 3 100 123 181 227 35 4 10£ 133 194 254 36 4 93 131 190 249 37 3 98 144 202 268 38 £ 12 £ 167 229 292 39 4 75 115 179 219 40 4 85 130 197 233 41 4 93 133 201 245 T o t a l 41 3925 5565 7712 9341 Ave. 95.7 135.7 192.2 245.8 AEPEHBEE X? 0 Humber lumber %'eigbfc o f A c i a a l of Male I n U t t e r B i r t h 7 days 14 days E l days 88 days 35 days 42 da.ya 49 days 56 days 1 2 114 160 228 278 529 390 468 539 593 4 4 101 153 225 282 325 384 444 516 574 5 4 97 131 170 226 321 395 439 513 528 6 JL_ 92 120 159 202 265 327 369 440 488 404 564 782 988 1240 1496 1720 2008 2183 101 141 195 247 310 374 430 502 545.7 lumber o f geaale 5 4 114 153 218 276 310 355 388 449 508 6 4 112 117 171 218 266 293 309 376 426 8 ' 4 84 97 159 205 239 267 282 326 379 9 3 107 158 226 290 329 378 424 495 552 10 3 119 172 244 315 371 428 449 531 577 11 4 94 129 170 212 297 348 382 438 455 12 - 4 91 129 169 216 310 335 404 472 487 721 955 1357 1732 2122 2404 2638 5087 3384 103 136.4 193.9 • 247.4 303.1 343 .4 376.8 441 483.4 166 APPENDIX Y COST. Of LABOUBjJEBD ana HOUSING PES SPS0I1S PUR ANIMAL Labour Th© labour c o s t was based on an annual s a l a r y o f ¥2160, and a 4? hour week, waioh i s equivalent to #0.88 per hour. Feed P e l l e t e d R a t i o s • V.B,0.Mo. 10 (Hats and Mice) U .B.C.N©, 8 (Guinea,Pig) U.B.C.No. 12 (Babbit) P r i o e # 120.00 per ton 90.00 par ton 78.00 per ton Green Feed - K a l e . The cost of green f e e d i s only an. approximate!on. Goat o f p l a n t i n g 20 hour a at #1.00 per hour Cost of seed Goat of h a r v e s t i n g | 20.00 3.00 15.00 # 38.00 l a t i i a a t e d Y i e l d Therefore oost per pound 10 tons from h a l f acre p l o t #0.002 Housing " L i f e " of Gage - 5 years l e a r l y r e p a i n t i n g oost - #0.50 p e r year per cage = §2.50 f o r f i v e year p e r i o d . Value of Gage Repaint T o t a l Oost Coet Oost Per Day Goal Per Day Par Gage Per Animal Based on Average Capacity Mouse #3.50$2.50 $ 6.00 # 0.0032 Hat 4,50 2.50 7.00 0.0038 Guinea P i g 5.50 2.50 8.00 0.0043 # 0.0003 (10 mXmltli 0.0006 ( 6 Rats » t j 0.001 { 4 Guinea Piga per Gage) LABOUR COST STUDY iwt a GLOBS Days So. of Wo. . Aninola Cages 1 76 12 a H M 5 M f« 4 » » § ' w M " « tt 7 *« n 6 * n M • 10 « n 11 n 12 » n 13 « 14 « 15 « n l i H 17 ft 18 « 19 tt tl 20 « T o t a l 20 Average 1 1520 76 240 12 T o t a l Tiffl© 33 10 25 13 15 85 35 15 20 15 18 15 40 30 15 25 20 15 10 27 481 24.0 T o t a l A*f@. Average Time-P«r Oage Average Time Per Mat 1 2 3 86 86 48 14 14 3 1 220 73 39 13 Complete Average Time Per Cage * " " Ra-t * par Cage « " Rat Cost per Cage " w Eat 2.0 i d n u t i 0.31 " 35 37 -2L 97 32 = 2.7 Minutes * 0.43 « s 2.07 rt s 0.33 " *§ 0.03 =# 0.003 lse LABOUR COST STUDY MOUSE COLONY Bays No. of No, T o t a l Time Animals O&jpss l a Miau tes 1 112 12 20 k w n 5 3 «t w 20 4 « « 5 5 50 6 « IS 7 W « 18 8 w? 8 9 l» » 10 10 It rt 15 11 » W 10 12 n 10 13 rt « 40 14 « 15 15 »• ft 5 16 it n 15 17 w n 10 18 « n 10 19 w tt 7 20 It M 27 EO T o t a l 2240 144 315 1 Av@ra@s 112 12 15.75 Ave. Tint* Par Cages 1,31 minutes Ave, Tim© Per Mouse - '0.14 rt 1 2 2_ T o t a l 3 . Ave 1 Complete Complete 174 174 174 Ave. Time Per Gage Ave. Tim© Per -kouse Ave. n n Gag® Ave. " " Mousa Cost Per Gaga Oost. Per Mouse 59 49 49 137 45 a 1.28 « 0.33 - 1.3 f » 0.2 ' - # 0.019 » # 0.0018 60 50 65 175 58- Minutes it IF. 9 LABOUR COST STUDY Guinea P i g 0olony Days I o . o f Animala Mo. Gages T o t a l Time In Minutes i 132 3 3 s M K 3 tt »» 4 • »f W 5 « W 6 n ft 7 rt f t S ft «> 9 w tt 10 w » H H n 12 if n 15 « »t 14 It s* 15 M i f 16 W ?» 17 If ft 18 f » tt 19 n w £0 w tr £1 n I f « i 2772 693 i 162 3 3 ISO 30 110 50 100 40 105 125 40 85 30 95 20 70 105 45 105 35 90 40 60 Ave, 1 £ .3 1510 71.9 Ave. Time Per Cage Ave. Time Per Guinea P i g £4 24 £.17 Minutes 0.54 Minutes 9 9 £5 10 £0 Total 3 Ave. 1 72 £4 £7 9 Ave.Time Per Cage AV0.Tim© Per Guinea P i g Complete Ave.Time Per Cage * w w w Guinea P i g Goat Per Gags Cost Per Guinea P i g 55 18 £.03 Minutes 0.75 " 2.£ " 0.58 " | 0.018 # 0.005 1 6 0 LABOUR COST STUDY RABBIT COLONY Days No. o f Animals T o t a l Time i n Minutes 1 29 4 0 2 n 10 3 n 45 4 n 15 5 n 30 6 n 30 7 tt 15 8 «t 45 9 *» 25 1 0 tt 45 1 1 « 20 1 2 « 4 5 13 tt 20 14 tt 1 5 15 w 120 16 w 2 5 17 tt 3 5 1 8 ff 20 19 n 10 20 tt 60 T o t a l 20 580 670 Ave 1 29 33 Ave. Time Per Rabbit = 1 . 1 5 Minutes Cost per Rabbit Per Day = $ 0 . 0 1 7 161 FEED CONSUMPTION AMD COST Day Number o f T o t a l Jead Ave.Food Con Animals Consumed Gms. sumed per „ , ,. , . , „, , Animal Gms. 1 371 5072 13 Z 333 4397 13*2 3 371 5186 14 T o t a l 3 1075 14655 40.2 Average 1 3^6 4885 13.4 Average f e e d Cost Per E a t - #0.0017 or 0.002 Per Bay ltou.ee. Colony 1 174 1241 7 2 174 1118 6.4 T o t a l 3 592 3556 20.2 Average I 174 1185 6.7 Average Feed Cost Per Mouse - #0.0008 or 0.001 Per Day Guinea P i g Colony 1 24 716 29.8 2 24 738 30.7 3 24 704 . 29.3 T o t a l 3 72 2158 89.8 Average 1 24 719 29.6 Average feed Oost Per Guinea P i g * $ 0.003 Per Day T o t a l £0 580 100 l b s . P e l l e t s and 35 l b s . K a l e Average I 29 0.17 l b s . p e l l e t s and 0.06 l b s . K a l e Averaga Feed Cost per Rabbit - #0.006 0.001 OT&W per day. 162 Anderson, W, l . t aad Smith,» A* H, (1932). Further ©^s@W«tioas of r a p i d growth of the albino r a t . Am, 2, Phsio*, 100 ? 511-01®. »yoay» S.? {1945} :rBioeaergetic£ and Orowtiiw» HeinhoM Puh. Corp., Hew York, fcftfcoe* H. M,„ (1947) The feeding and breeding of l a b o r a  t o r y animals* (YI Tho breeding of mice. J . Hyg» 45, 420 - 430, Oft&eoe&o, I** R., and Y i n a on, L» <T., (1944) Growth, ropro- duotion and lactation in mice on highly purified diets, and the effect of Polio Acid concentrates on lactation. Arch. Bioohem., b, 157 « 164. Crampton, E. W., and B o l l , 3", M., (1947) Studies on the dietary requirements of guinea pigs, I Effects of natural versus synthetic "~ sources of v i t a m i n c , I I Effects o f roughage. S c i . A g r i c , 27, 57 - 66. Cipoaies?, W# J . , and iMzaaann, E, W, (1955) On the relation between l i t t e r size, birth weight and rate of growth in mice. J . Gen, Physiol. 249 - 863, BtUOlj. j r , H, J . , Kallmon, L. F», and tiovitt, i i , , (1945) Studies on the comparative nutritive value o f f a t s . J , Hutr,, 29, 309 - 316. Deuel, j r , H, J . , Meserve, E, R. Straub, is,, Hendriok C , and Soheer, B. F.» (1947) ' The e f f e c t of fat level on the diet on general nutrition. J . Mutr. 3J3, 569 - 582. Deuel, j r , H,, M o v i t , Et,, and Hallman, L, F. (1944) Studies on the comparative nutritive value of fats. J . Nutr., 27, 509 - 513. Dohaldaoa, H, H», (1924) T h e rat*. Memoirs Wistar Inst. Anat. Biol., Philadelphia. Baton, 0. N . , (1941) Effect of crossing inbred lines of guinea pigs, U. £>. Dept. Agric., Tech. Bu l l . No. 765. 163 JttKfflana, E . V*, (1955) M i l k production curve of a l b i n o mouse, Anat. Bee., 56, 345 - 358 Sazmann, S. V,» and C r o s i e r , W. J , ? (1935) H a l a t i o n between b i r t h weight and l i t t o r s i z e i n multiparous wmmXa* Gen, P h y s i o l , , l j | , 791 -807.. F a r r i s , 1, J . , (1950) The oare and breeding of l a b o r a t o r y animals. John Wiley and Sons, Mew York. Fos t e r * 0. } Jones, J#H.9 Dorfiaan, F., and Kabler, R.S*(1943) Beproduetion ant l a c t a t i o n of mie© on h i g h l y p u r i f i e d d i e t s , 3". tfutr., 35, 161 - 171. Freudenberger, C. B., (1958) A comparison of th© Wistar a l b i n o and the Long-Evans h y b r i d s t r a i n of the Norway r a t . An. J . Anat.,50, 293 - 349. Gates, U, K., (1925) L i t t e r s i z e , b i r t h weight, and e a r l y growth r a t e of mice (Mus rausoulus). Anat. Mec, 39, 183 - 193. Haines, G., (1931) A s t a t i s t i c a l study of the r e l a t i o n be tween v a r i o u s expressions of f e r t i l i t y and vipwr i n the guinea p i g , 7. A g r i . Research, 42, 123 - 164. Hawk, P. B., Oser, 3, L,, and Summorson, W. H., (1947) " P r a c t i c a l P h y s i o l o g i c a l Chemistry". The • B l a k i s t o n Co., P h i l a d e l p h i a . Jackson, C. M., (1913) P o s t n a t a l growth and v a r i a b i l i t y of the bocly and of va r i o u s organs i n the a l b i n o r a t . Am, J . .Anat., 15, 1 - 6 3 . King, E . D,, (1915) On the weight of the a l b i n o r a t at b i r t h and the f a c t o r s that i n f l u e n c e i t , Anat, Ree. 9^ 213 - £31. (1915) On the normal sex r a t i o and the. s i z e of the l i t t e r i n the albino r a t , (Mas n o r v e g i - cua albinus ) Anat, Rec. 9_, 403 - 420, (1915) The growth and v a r i a b i l i t y i n the body weight of the a l b i n o r a t . Anat. Ree. 9, 751 - 756. 164 King, H. D,, (191S) Studies on inbreeding, Bxp. Sool. 89, 71 « 111 Loosll, J . K., Lingenfelter, J . f , , Thomas, 3". W., and Maynard, L . A., (1944) The role of diet ary f a t and llnoleic a c i d in the lactation of the r a t . 3". Nutr., 28, 81 - 88. Maoy, J , G,, Outhouse, J , , Long, M. L« and Graham, A., (1927) Human milk studies. I, Technique employed i n v i t a m i n s t u d i e s , 3", B i o l . Chem., 73, 155 - 188, MacDowell, E. 0., Gatos, H,, and MacDowell, C. G. (1930) Tho influence of the quantity of nutrition upon th© growth of the s u c k l i n g mouse. J , Gen, P h y s i o l , , 13, 529 - 545. Maynard, L . A,, (1950) A d i e t for stock rats, Science, 71, 192 ~ 193. Majweft* L, A,, and l&ssttssen, 1,» (1942) The influence of dietary fat on lactation performance in rats. J . Nutr,, 23., 385 « 397. Mendel, L . B,» and Cannon, H. C , (1927) The r e l a t i o n of the rate of growth to diet. J . Biol. Chem., 75, 779 - 787. Mendel, L. B., and Hubbell, E, B., (1939) The relation of the rate of growth to diet. J , Nutr. 10, 557 - l i S * Morris, H. P., (1944) Review of the nutritive requirements of normal mice for growth, maintenance, re production, and lactation. J , Natl. Cancer Institute, 5, 115 - 141. Oebome, P. B*# and Mendel, L. B., (1914) The suppression of growth and the capacity to grow. « T . Biol. Chem., 18, 95 - 106. (1916) P r o t e i n minima f o r ma.ihteaanoe*- J . B i o l . Ohem., |2^. 241-257, 1 6 E Osborne, F. B., and Mendel, L. B., (1915) The resumption of growth after long continued failure to grow, J . B i o l , Chem., 23, 439 - 454. (1926) Si© relation of the rate of growth to diet, J . B i o l . Chem, 69, 661 - 673. i'arkee, A* (1926) The growth of young mioe according to size of l i t t e r . Ann. Appl. Boil., 13, 374 - 394. Pieks&s* Anderson, W. 1., and Smith, A. H«, (1940) The composition of gains raads by rats on diets promoting different rates of gain. KUtxv, £ 0 , 351 - 365, l o b e r t s o a , F. B., (1016) I x p e r i a e n t a l s t u d i e s on growth. II The normal growth of the white mouse. «T. B i o l , Chem., 24, 363 - 333. Sobertaon, f * B., and Deiprat, tf«, (1917) Experimental studies on growth. IX The influence of tethelin upon the early growth of the white mouse. S* Biol. Chem., 31, 567 * 574. Shaman j. E» 0#» and M u h l f i e l d , M.. (1922) Growth and re production upon simplified food upon mother and young during the lactation period. J . Biol. Chem., 53, 41 - 47, Ssith, A, R.» and Blng, F. C , (1923) Improved rate of growth of stock albino rats, I". Nutr., I, 179 - 189, Smith, F., (1951) Personal communication, Thompson, H. B., and Mendel, L. B,, (1918) An experimental study of alternating growth and suppression of growth i n th© alb i n o mouse w i t h special referenoe to the economy of food consumption, Am, J , Physiol., 45, 431 - 460. Thomson, W., (1936) Stock diet for rats, *T, Hyg,, 36, 24 - 25. f i a a o B j L. J., and Cereoedo, L* B,, (1944) Growth, reproduction and laotatlon i n r a t s main* talned through f o u r gonerations on h i g h l y p u r i f i e d d i e t s . A r c h , Bioohem., 5, 389 - 397, Wood, A, (1950) Personal oommunioatioa. Zuoker, T, 5",, Hall, L,, Young, Iff., and Zucker, L,. (1941) The growth curve of the albino rat in re lation to diet. J, Nutr, 82, 123 - 138. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Germany 25 0
United States 10 0
China 5 24
France 4 0
Japan 2 0
Pakistan 1 0
Poland 1 0
Canada 1 0
Vietnam 1 0
Saudi Arabia 1 0
United Kingdom 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 22 0
Host 9 0
Ashburn 4 0
Beijing 2 0
Hangzhou 2 0
Tokyo 2 0
Mountain View 2 0
University Park 1 0
Hanoi 1 0
Wilmington 1 0
Montreal 1 0
Kirkcaldy 1 0
Redwood City 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106893/manifest

Comment

Related Items