UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

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

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1951 A4 M3 S7.pdf [ 16.72MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106893.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106893-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106893-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106893-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106893-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106893-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106893-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106893-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106893.ris

Full Text

A S-FJDY  Qf  mtmi  A LAB0RAT0BT ANIMAL  O O B T O f - M A MGXJSOD  A thesis ssateittset i a 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 of  ttm. eaaHidatts fof th®  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 operated  by the  of the  s m a l l anixaal c o l o n i e s  Animal N u t r i t i o n Laboratory  ment o f A n i m a l Husbandry.  The  i n the  f o u r anixaal u n i t s s t u d i e d  t h e a l b i n o r a t , a l b i n o mouse, g u i n e a p i g and  rabbit.  management p r a c t i c e s used f o r e a c h s p e c i e s a r e fully.  They i n c l u d e t h e  Depart-  housing,  feeding,  breeding  and  The  the  space u t i l i z a t i o n  of the animals are the  a n i m a l and. t h e  type  of cages.  and  illustrations  The  method o f f e e d i n g and  species the  o f the  The  i s reported.  with  reference  and  t o the  production  data  p a r i s o n made w i t h other  colonies.  a r e 1,700 The  rats,  growth d a t a  the  258  cage r a c k s  formula  of  reported  data  feeding  used  includes size  i n the  to  those  reported  each  i n each  of l i t t e r ,  of a cost  The  results  elsewhere.  survey  reported  weights The  a comfor study  and  production  p e r c e n t a g e weaned.  i s reported.  i n c l u d e s the  Growth  85 r a b b i t s .  birth  and  of  i s discussed  literature  g u i n e a p i g s and  percentage f e r t i l i t y  labour.  for  f o r each s p e c i e s and  published  a n i m a l f o r each s p e c i e s and  included.  number o f a n i m a l s i n v o l v e d In t h e  In a d d i t i o n t h e r e s u l t s c o s t per  are  C o n t r o l of d i s e a s e  m i c e , 73  comprises the  per  each r a t i o n  w e e k l y w e i g h t s t h e r e a f t e r u n t i l weaning age. data  in  s a n i t a t i o n procedures p r a c t i s e d . are  Th©  factors discussed  system o f b r e e d i n g  colonies i s described.  con-  In a d d i t i o n , s c a l e d r a w i n g s  cages and the  The  described  t r o l o f d i s e a s e methods u t i l i z e d . housing  are  cost of  here a r e  The housing,  comparable  Aeknowieagement  The w r i t e r w i s h e s t o thank P r o f e s s o r H . M. K i n g , Head o f t h e Department o f Animal Husbandry f o r h i s generous p e i s a i s a i o n t o his  provision  Garry o u t t h i s  s t u d y and f o r  o f th© a n i m a l u n i t s and l a b o r a t o r y  facili-  ties u s e d . To X>r» A . J . Wood, A s s o c i a t e  Professor  i n th©  Department o f A n i m a l Husbandry, s i n c e r e 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 p e r s e v e r a n c e i n h i s  t e a c h i n g , 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 criticism i nhis direction of this project. The w r i t e r a l s o w i s h e s t o acknowledge M r . C l i f f o r d H a r v e y , S e n i o r Animal A t t e n d a n t , w i t h o u t whose keen I n t e r e s t i n , and. e x c e l l e n t management o f t h e a n i m a l c o l o n i e s , t h i s s t u d y would have been  impossible.  S p e c i a l thanks a r e tendered to th© many f e l l o w students, f o r t h e i r assistance the d u r a t i o n o f t h i s w o r k . -  a n t comments throughout  _afel@ o f Contents Page I.  II,  Introduction  «  Experimental - Animal Units  »  1  .  A, Animal Nutrition Laboratory Hat Unit .. ;i) Origin ....,..,......,,..*...*,*.» 2) Housing #••,..•.»#••.«».•*»•»*•«*•« ^3} feeding and Watering ............. • 4s) Breeding ....a.................... 5) ,®mtml ©f'disease (6) Literature Review on the Laboratory Rat .... (7) .Aaim^l Nutrition Laboratory Growth Data *.,,«.»* (8) Cost S u r v e y on Rat C o l o n y .. . B, Animal nutrition Laboratory llous© Unit, (1)  Origin ,.»,,»..,..*..•,*.......,,.  {%) Housing ,*..»*#..•,,»».».,,,,,•,,.  j3) .feeding and Watering 14} Breading .*,,.,,*.,,,,:,.*.,,...,,,, (S) Control of di mm® ,.,....,,..»«.,. (6) Literature. levi©w on the Laboratory Mouse ,,, (7) Animal nutrition Laboratory Growth Data .... ,.8) Cost Survey on Mouse Colony , C. Animal.lutrition Laboratory Guinea pig Unit ..... (1) 2) 3} 4s) 5) (6)  Origin * Housing ,,«..*.•..,*....,.,....,.. Feeding and Watering .Breeding #...»•*.»»...»««.•»**•».. Control O f disease Animal Nutrition Laboratory Growth data. (7) Cost Surrey on Guinea P i g Colony. .  13 16 16 16 23 26 27 28 43 50  51 51  51  57 57 59 59  70 77 78 78 7$ 88 Q9 91 93 99  Pag© ] D.  MfoaX. n u t r i t i o n L a b o r a t o r y B a b b i t U n i t .. 100 (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)  o r i g i n , ....,»..»......»...<>.......•.. Housing ,, F e e d i n g and U a t e r i n g B r e e d i n g •••»*•»•»*•»•«.............. C o n t r o l o f d i s e a s e ..,....».#•..*..,« A n i m a l H u t r l t i o n L a b o r a t o r y Growth  100 100 10B 10S 104  Data . . . . 106  {7)  Goat S u r r e y ' o f R a b b i t Colony ,,',..,., 103  III.,..Summary and C o n c l u s i o n s f . . . . . . . . . . . f  • 109  IV* , Appendices A . .Appendix I * ~,S&O0 r e c e n t t e x t s p u b l i s h e d on s m a l l 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 o f e l e c t r i c f a n 1 1 5  0.  Appendix I I I * A n i m a l r a t i o n s ............. 110  D.  Appen&iae I f «* Growth  d a t a on r a t , mouse • and g u i n e a p i g . 195  1.  Appendix Y, * Cost snrrey d a t a  i§e  V , . B i b l i o g r a p h y .».,»........ •................... i&g  L i s t of Figures Page Fig. 1  - Metabolism i n r e l a t i o n to ag© i n white rat ...  Fig. 2  -  Hat ©age r'aok showing t i e r s of ©ages ...  18  fig. 3  -  Specifications of rat rack  19  Fig* 4  -  Standard r a t cage «..,.*«...,.,.,...».,.'.,  SO  Fig.., 5  -  Standard r a t cage  Bl  Fig, §  -  Specif!ccfciohs of m t cage .,.»...,,..**  ZZ  Fig. 7  - Mouse cage rack shoisiag t i e r s of cages •  Fig. &  ' *' Specifications of mouse riusk  8  52 53  Fig. 9  -  Standard mouse cage * . , « • < • * » • • » # • # , .  54  F i g . 10  ~  Standard mouse cage «...».•»...*.*...».«  55  Fig* 11  -  Specifications of mouse cage .»,*•**»»•»  55  F i g . 12  -  Guinea p i g cage rack, basic design .....  79  F i g . 13  *  Specifications  F i g . 14  -  Standard guinea pig cage ,.«.,........«•  F i g , 15  -  Standard guinea pig cage .»..».....#,«.»«.*  85  f i g . 10  -  Specifieatiena of guinea pig cage  84  f i g . 17A -  Specifications of S u f f i e l d Cage rack  80  F i g . 17B -  Specifications of  * guinea p i g cage .  87  Growth ourres of Mima! n u t r i t i o n Lab• oratory Guinea Pig Colony ....... - Frequency of l i t t e r size  95 96  F i g . 20  - Post-weaning growth curve of Animal Nut r i t i o n Laboratory Guinea P i g Colony ..  98  F i g , 21  -  ffig« 1© F i g . 19  of guinea p i g rack  80 82  -  Standard rabbit cages  101  1 Introduction  Th® ©xfceasive research  tia© o f  and the m a j o r c o n t r i b u t i o n i t h a s made t o our  knowledge o f t h e b i o l o g i c a l tioned  ,  th® l a b o r a t o r y a n i m a l i n  s c i e n c e s c a n h a r d l y be q u e s -  Even t h o u g h t h e knowledge and th© s k i l l o f 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 c h e m i c a l a p p a r a t u s may be beyond q u e s t i o n , he  obtains w i l l  b@ of l i m i t e d  r e a g e n t s and  the experimental  value,  data  i f th© a n i m a l s he u s e s  are of poor or of u n c e r t a i n o r i g i n . An  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 research  c a n be  obtained  estimate  by s c r u t i n i z i n g t h e p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e .  natter of interest  such a l i t e r a t u r e  using the following s i xs c i e n t i f i c being  representatITS  As a  s u r v e y h a s b e e n made  p e r i o d i c a l s s e l e c t e d as  o f th© l i t e r a t u r e  a s a whole  (1)  Journal of 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 P a t h o l o g y and B a c t e r i o l o g y  2  f a b l © 1 - fflS UTILIZATION Of LABORATORY ANIMALS DURING f H l FSRIOP 1918 .- 1948 PERIODICAL  I1AR TOTAL NO. RAT OF ARTIOLIS * ,  «r©mraal o f Nutrition  1988 1038 1948  35 49 130  Journal o f BanuraAogy  1918 1928 1038 1948  M0U8I  $  0UIN2A PIG lo  RABBI1  $  54.S 55.1 48.4  2,3  6.1 0.7  4.0 3,8  38 ' 53 72 129  2,6 0 9.7 3,8  2.6 1.8 9.7 S4.8  47.3 33.9 20.8 14.7  39.4 37,7 41.7 20.1  3*©urtt€il o f 1928 Pathology & 1938 Bacter1948 iology  71 123 ©2  4.2 S.7 9.7  2,8 10.5. 6.1  9.8 6.5 3,6  26.7 14,6 4.9  Journal o f Laboratory & Clinical Medicine  1918 1928 1938 1948  84 83 127  0 0 9,4 0,8  8.3  1.6 0,8  3.6 4.7 2,5  5.9 3.6 5.5 3.4  Jomraal o f Biological Chemistry  1918  218 334 377 317  16 13,1 35.8 21.4  0 0.3 0.79 1,2  3.5 0.9 0.79 0.9  36  5.5 11,9 12.4 8,3  5.5  1938 1948  B i o c h e m i c a l 1918 1928 J©mr»al 1938 1948  im  188 228  1,6 0,87  16.® 3.1 1.1 2.1  11.0 4.1 1,6 l.B 2.7 5.2 4.3  6.1  I  3  (4)  Journal of Laboratory and C l i n i c a l Medioine  (5)  Journal of B i o l o g i c a l Chemistry  (6)  Biochemical Journal  A l l of the papers published i n these journals i n the years 1918, 1928, 1938 and 1948 were c a r e f u l l y examined and a record was made of the specie© of laboratory animal used In the experimental work reported. The r e s u l t s of t h i s .surrey are presented i n fable 1.  F a r r i s (1950) records  a similar survey of animals used by American investigators i n the year 1947•  He used the papers presented at the  annual meetings of three representative s c i e n t i f i c organizations - The American Association of Anatomists,. The American Society of Zoologists and the Federation of American Societies f o r Experimental Biology. This survey •revealed that the species employed had th© following f r e quency of use:  f A B L I 2 - FARRIS* SUHTSf 0? LABORATORY ANIMAL U f l L I Z A T I O M H TBS tttOTBD STATES B13RIHG 1947,  Per  Cent  B'igtributlom  .„M.  Mm  534  Rat Dog Rabbit Mouse Oat Guinea P i g Monkey Cow Hamster Sheep Pig Horse Others  fOfAL ATSS Chicken Other Fowl  fOTAl  H1MXL1S FISH SOT  STA$S§  TQTJL GRAM) TOTAL  m  110 108 81 49  41 25 9 t 8 4  Hi  ,4  18*8 0,0 7*9  5*9  $•0  3.0  1*8  o»e  0*6 0.6 0-.3  , •  20*0 19.0 X©,4  6.7  4*8 a*t 2,4 1,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,8  1©  1-*S  0.9  1869  100,0  81,8  18  si  ©2*3 1?*2  0.7  70  100,0  4,2  St 2 21 118  25,4  315  9.0 51,0 13.8  3,5 0,2 1,3 7*0 1,9  8gft  100,0  13*9  1671  0.9  100.0  1  fh© proof ©f th® Important® of th© laboratory animal i s i n modern b i o l o g i c a l 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 t h i s r t s -  p©ct, i s ©videaeed hy th© pahlioatioa wlthia th® l a s t fIv©  y©ars o f a© l e s s than  four  complete refereao© works  ©a th© subjeot of laboratory animal malateaan©© aad product l©a.  See Appea&ix ( 1 ) . t h i s 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 , i a approach i s particularly•©vi&eat wher© th© requirement h a s altered  f h l s ©hang©  i n n u t r i t i o n a l research  from  the establishment  of the e s s e n t i a l i t y of a a t r i t i o a a l factors to th© ae@d f o r a quantitative statemeat o f the preeeise amount o f th© f a c tor required f o r ©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© t o obtaia th© ©am© p a r i t y i n a a i a a l stock© as ©aa b© ©xpeoted from  laboratory  chem-  ical®, i t i s nevertheless becoming possibl© t o s©ear© a r e l a t i v e l y well standardized animal, i f proper production ©oadltioas ar© met. "fk®  dogroo  of  variability o r  uniform-*  i t y i a a group o f 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 l o n g been concerned, w i t h t h e g e n e t i c p u r i t y and h i s t o r y o f h i s l a b o r a t o r y a n i m a l s .  The now  famous W i s t a r a l b i n o r a t p r o v i d e s an e x c e l l e n t example of t h i s concern.  Indeed t h e K i n g "A" s t r a i n o f t h e  W i s t a r I n s t i t u t e i s now i n i t s 135th g e n e r a t i o n of brother-sister  mating.  T h i s would c o r r e s p o n d t o man.  f o r a p e r i o d of a p p r o x i m a t e l y  4000 y e a r s .  I t seems s a f e  t o conclude i n the l i g h t o f t h e s e s t u d i e s t h a t i a th© ©as® o f the W i s t a r r a t a t l e a s t , v a r i a b i l i t y f r o a h e r e d i t y ha© been m i n i m i z e d . It- seem© o b v i o u s t h e n 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 g r e a t e s t 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 g e n e r a l terms a t l e a s t w i t h the g e n e t i c of h i s l a b o r a t o r y animals.  history  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 p r e v i o u s n u t r i t i o n a l and eaviroameatal  history.  Jew workers appear t o g i v e 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 m e t a b o l i c o c c u r i n t h e growing a n i m a l ,  change© which ar© known t o f o r example, K l b i e r ©t a l  (1942) have shown t h a t the m e t a b o l i c r a t e o f the r a t r i s e s from 400 c a l o r i e s p e r square meter p e r day near b i r t h t o  7  1BO0 a t t h e age o f 40 days or a body w e i g h t o f 100 grams and t h e n drops t o a l e v e l o f 800 c a l o r i e s p e r square meter p e r day a t a body w e i g h t ©f 300 grams.  I t i s ob-  vious t h a t t h e response of t h e r a t t o d i e t a r y supplement a t i o n w i t h v a r i o u s addenda  will  depend npon t h e p o s i t i o n  o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r a n i s t a l 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 r e s p e c t wou^d "be most  accentuated i f t h e 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 r e q u i r e d by t h e body r e l a t i v e t o body w e i g h t r a i s e d t o t h e 0»7 power - f o r ©sample t h e p y r i d o x i n © requirement*  The importance o f knowing t h e p r e v i o u s  growth h i s t o r y o f an a n i m a l can he i l l u s t r a t e d i n a n o t h e r way.-  O o n i i d e r t h e case o f two male r a t s o f w e i g h t 5,5  grams a t b i r t h .  Theix- growth as measured a t weekly i n t e r -  v a l s by w e i g h t 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 t h e l i t t e r , sm r a t i o and age o f t h e dam air© t h e same i n each e a s e , t h e n t h e r a t e o f growth o f ©aoh s h o u l d be a f u n c t i o n © h a r a e t e r i s t i o o f th® I n d i v i d u a l r a t .  1  8  f i g . 1,  Metabolism p e r m a l t s u r f a c e a r e a i a r a t s as a function o f a g e .  9  Table 3 - Growth Rate of Two R a t s from B i r t h t o Twentyone Days H a v i n g Equal B i r t h Weights  Weight a t ag© 21 days 14 days  Birth  7 Days  1  5.5  11.6  22.3  32  2  5.8  15,0  24.0  40  Rat  No.  The d a t a p r e s e n t e d i n Table 3 can he expressed as a s e r i e s o f growth c o n s t a n t s u s i n g the e x p r e s s i o n (Brody 1947) k * inWg - I n w i  ~~^2 i n whioh  -t l  Wg * weight a t age  two  Wx  on©  s weight a t ag©  tg • ag® at Wg t i a age a t Yfy k  a growth c o n s t a n t  When the d a t a o f Table 3 ar© computed i n t h i s way th© growth constant© g i v e n i n Table 4 ar© o b t a i n e d .  10  mmw.  fabi® 4 ~  OONSTAHTS  JROM  DAU?A I N  - flasa£L.«o.Prt»g16. M  TABLB  Ma^JyiiiL  S  , Rat 1  Birth ) 7 day*)  0.094  0.143  0,06  7 days) 14 deya)  0,095  0.060  1.41  0*073  0.70  0,094  0*90  14 days) 21  ftayaj  Birth  0,051  )  21 days)  0.084  Examination, of the growth ©oastants given i n Table 4 show that the rate of growth of th® two rat© i s nearly i d e n t i c a l i f th© b i r t h 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.  u*ed  Obviously, i f these animals were  experimentally, after weaning at 21 days there would  he a d e f i n i t e advantage of teaowing the pre-•weaning history as an aid to the interpretation of subsequent data obtained using these animals.  11  l a some e x p e r i m e n t s , a o t d i r e c t l y concerned with t h e d e s i r e f o r q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a t h i s p o i n t of growth rat© Is p a r t i a l l y overcome hy th© f a c t t h a t h o t h c o n t r o l and e x p e r i m e n t a l group© *t a n i m a l s w i l l hav© ©qua! number© o f 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 e x t r e m e l y important, i f  experiments on the same subject ar© c a r r i e d out a t d i f f e r ent i n s t i t u t i o n s .  I t i s p o s s i b l e that th© r a t s (Wistar  s t r a i n ) a t o n e . i n s t i t u t i o n could ba growing at the f a s t e r growth rat© o f kt.0.094 when-placed oa the experiment,  whereas the r a t s a t th© second i n s t i t u t i o n could be growi n g at t h e slower growth r a t e ,  ksO.084.  I n such a case,  th© r e s u l t s obtained i n t h i s h y p o t h e t i c a l experiment, I f measured by rate of growth, would be d i f f e r e n t between the  two i n s t i t u t i o n s and the d i f f e r e n c e may not be a true r e f l e c t i o n of the imposed experimental c o n d i t i o n , JFrom what has been discussed I n the preceding  paragraphs, i t i s evident that successful animal research must be dependent upon satisfactory sources of supply f o r  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  IE  ©f th.es© colonies and to compare t h e i r output with that of other laboratories elsewhere.  I t was f e l t that such  a s t u d y would have added value i n that most of the b i o l o g i c a l departments within the University as well as others i n other parts of Canada are using th© animals produced i n these colonies.  IS  II Bxperimental - Animal U n i t s  B e f o r e b e g i n n i n g t o d e s c r i b e each a n i m a l 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 g e n e r a l r e mark© about t h e c o l o n i e s , so t h a t t h e y w i l l n o t h© r e p e t i t i v e w i t h t h e d i s o u a s i o a o f each s p e c i e s , Th® b u i l d i n g which c o n t a i n s th© Animal N u t r i t i o n L a b o r a t o r y and i t © a d j u n c t a n i m a l c o l o n i e s i s a c o n v e r t e d army hut w h i c h f o r p r a c t i c a l purpose©, can be t o b© d i v i d e d i n t o two e q u a l alstod s e c t i o n s ,  considered Th© f r o n t  part consists of aetual laboratory f a c i l i t i e s , with the r e a r . s e c t i o n h o u s i n g .three o f t h e a n i m a l 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;:!©  located  i n a s e p a r a t e 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© t h © ©took . c o l o n i e s , sine© e x p e r i m e n t a l aaiajala a r e never housed, i n .these p a r t i c u l a r q u a r t e r % 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 p r o d u c t i o n u n i t s .  The  temperature o f th© a n i s a l rooms i a t h e l a b o r a t o r y i s thermos t a t i c a l l y r e g u l a t e d a t 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 l o c a t e d l a  14  t h e a t t i e above t h © a n i m a l rooms. electric  tiae  I t i s e o n t r o l l e d by an  s w i t c h , w h i c h c a n be s e t f o r a n y c y c l e o f  o p e r a t i o n w i t h i n one h o u r .  I tI s normally set t o operate  f o r t w e n t y m i n u t e s out o f e a c h h o u r .  See a p p e n d i x ( 2 ) .  E a c h o f th© t h r e e a n i m a l rooms h a a a l o u v r e , a b o u t 1.5  s q u a r e f e e t i n a r e a , connecting t o t h e a t t i c t h i s way,  above• I n  t h e a i r i n the a n i m a l rooms i s changed  fre-  q u e n t l y and t h e a n i m a l o d o u r k e p t a t 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© p a i n 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  o f the h e a t i n g  system, i t has been the e x p e r i e n c e o f t h i s l a b o r a t o r y th© wooden c a g e s t e n d t o n o t o n l y h o l d t h e h e a t , b u t p e r m i t th® a n i m a l t o b u i l d  that also  a n e 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 w a t e r b o t t l e s u s e d i n these t h r e e u n i t s a r e all  f i t t e d w i t h r u b b e r s t o p p e r s a n d 9 jam, g l a s s  f o r d e l i v e r i n g t h e w a t e r to th© a n i m a l . of the tube i s f i r e Kim.  tubing  The l i c k i n g end  p o l i s h e d to a n i n s i d e d i m e n s i o n o f 4 - 5  A s u r f a c e t e n s i o n membrane f o r m s a s a r e s u l t  of this  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 t o d r i n k , without the water r u n n i n g Into the cage.  15  As a p o l i c y o f d i s e a s e c o n t r o l , a l l new a n i m a l s . a r r i v i n g f o r the s t o c k 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 p e r i o d o f t h r e e weeks.  Occasionally  i t has not been p o s s i b l e t o m a i n t a i n t h i s p o l i c y because o f l a c k o f 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 o f 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 i n 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 i s 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 capaci t y of 4J5S rat®, th© volume utilization i s 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 corner 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  U  1  • X  5  FIG. 3  F i g . 4.  S t a n d a r d R a t Cage Showing D a t a C a r d B r a c k e t and Viater B o t t l e .  Jig. 5» -itartdani Hat Ctuifi allowing Aoiuais aafl Boddtn^  O f ) W W  23  r e p r e s e n t s a space u t i l i z a t i o n of 36 square inches per r a t oa a room b a s i s , 13 square laches per r a t oa a cage p l u s rack b a s i s , aad basis,  square inches per r a t oa a cage  f h e cages are kept c l e a a by a r o t a t i o n a l system  of c l e a a l n g cages.  Each day the r a t s which are c o n s i d -  ered t o be i n d i r t y cages are t r a n s f e r r e d t o c l e a n cages. The d i r t y cages are then c a r r i e d t o the wash-up room where the s o i l e d bedding i s scraped i n t o garbage cans. Th© cages are then ©crabbed aad washed w i t h hot water and amaoniated soap aad allowed t o d r y o v e r n i g h t .  The f o l l o w -  i n g day they are returned to the r a t room as clean cages. (3)  Feeding and Watering Th© r a t s aad mice are f e d th© same p e l l e t e d  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 r a t s are f e d by p l a c i n g th© p e l l e t s l o o s e oa top o f the bedding.  Each  a a i a a l r e c e i v e d a d a i l y feed allowance o f about 1 3 grams. Although t h i s method of f e e d i a g i s not s t r i c t l y ad l i b i t u m , a small amount of feed i s always present i n the cage from day t o day.  Twice a week the r a t colony i s supplemented  26  w i t h green f e e d , usually k a l e , w h i c h s e r v e s as an a d d i t i o n a l source o f v i t a m i n A* as w a t e r b o t t l e s ,  H a l f p i n t m i l k bottles are nsed  The w a t e r i s changed d a i l y and the  b o t t l e s are washed w e e k l y .  The b o t t l e s , a r e supported by a  m e t a l b r a c k e t on t h e f r o n t of th* cage as shown i n F i g * {4}  4.  Breeding The b r e e d i n g program f o l l o w e d i s one o f f u l l  b r o t h e r 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 e a r n i c k i n g and each a n i m a l ' s b r e e d i n g h i s t o r y i s card indexed.  Each b r e e d i n g r a t has a s m a l l r e c o r d c a r d  w h i c h f i t s i n a b r a c k e t on the cage h o u s i n g t h e r a t .  A  b r e e d i n g u n i t , when o r i g i n a l l y s e t 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 , for  Th© male r a t i s a l l o w e d to r u n w i t h the females  two weeks,  The male r a t i s removed from t h e b r e e d i n g  cage and each pregnant female i s moved t o a separate cage to whelp by h e r s e l f ,  When t h e l i t t e r i s b o r n , the number  b o r n and th© date o f b i r t h are marked on the s m a l l ' r e c o r d c a r d , ..All young r a t s are weaned a t 2 1 days of age.  After  th® female has weaned her l i t t e r , she i s g i v e n two weeks• r e s t b e f o r e b e i n g bred a g a i n .  2?  E a t s ar© ©elected as replacement b r e e d i n g s t o c k ©a tli® b a s i s o f a a l g a weaaiag w e i g h t aad a largo number i a th© l i t t e r of o r i g i n .  A l l t h e females and tii© l a r g e s t  mal© r a t a r e r e t a i n e d t o make up t h e f a m i l y o r b r e e d i n g u n i t , , thus © o a t i a u i a g th© b r o t h e r and sister mating. The young s t o c k I s now a l l o w e d t o b r e e d u n t i l i t i s over 100 days o l d .  R a t s which ar© a o t s e l e c t e d f o r f u t u r e b r e e d i n g  ©took b u t ar© to b© used for experiment© ar© pooled accordl a g to ag© aad s e x ,  Th© £©mal® rat© which form a b r e e d i n g  u n i t a r e ©aged t o g e t h e r whea i n between b r e e d i n g p e r i o d s ,  Th© males, of each group ar© a l s o p o o l e d whea a o t in service. f§) • C o n t r o l of d i s e a s e , A© y e t , t h e r e has aot been an outbreak of d i s e a s e i n th© r a t eoloay*  Ther© ha© been th© oeo&ffioaal death,  caused b y the ©oimioa r e s p i r a t o r y t r o u b l e which seems to affect old 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 exami n a t i o n o f t h e dead r a t has usually r e v e a l e d a pneumonic condition of the lungs.  By m a i n t a i n i n g a h i g h degree of  s a n i t a t i o n i a th© e o l o a y , i t i s hoped t h a t 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 a n i m a l which  da©© aot appear normal i s d e s t r o y e d i m m e d i a t e l y aad autopaled. f§)  X4,teratiure Review ©a th® Laboratory R a t . It would appear f r o m th© l i t e r a t u r e that at th©  b e g i n n i n g of the twentieth century, th© ua© o f th© a l b i n o r a t a© a l a b o r a t o r y a n i m a l r e c e i v e d a tremendous  stimulus.  Th© © l a s s i e a l n u t r i t i o n e x p e r i m e n t s of Osborne aad Mendel ( I f 1 4 ) (1915) and t h e e x t e n s i v e work of K i n g (1915) (1919) ©a i n b r e d strain© o f 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 p u b l i s h e d h i s  f i r a t memoir t i t l e d , "The R a t " . In 1913, Jackson p u b l i s h e d some o f the e a r l i e s t growth data ©a t h e Wistar © t r a i n o f r a t s and compared h i s r e s u l t s w i t h those of D o n a l d s o n .  29  f a b l e § * 7aek«0&ts and Donaldson's osowth Data on t h e Wistttr S t r a i n K a t * 1913 Donaldson's S e r i e s M a l e s females  Jackson*s Larger Series Males Females  :::::H*:Z lira  ?. days «l days 42 days 70 d a r s  1  KO, wt.wr. @5 a,is m  S i 10*^3. §i 83#*9 45 §»«7* IS 130.4"  Mb.  4.at  §4- 10.29" 59 Si.i $0 #4«8& m 100*9  Wt," " Mo. ' Wt.  40 a.4 1 7 5.2  11 9.2 8 8.7 .19 ai.2 17 22.6 I f 40.3 17 47.9 19 106.6 11 9 9 . 3  l a o k s o a ' s r a t i o n i s o u t l i n e d i n Appendix 1 1 1 . The 21 * 24 gram w e i g h t s a t 21 days a r e i n t e r e s t i n g i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e average w e i g h t now o f SO grams a t t h e same a g e . K i n g 1 i n 1910, r e p o r t e d average b i r t h w e i g h t s o f s t o c k and i n b r e d a l b i n o r a t s a s b e i n g 4,54 grisms f o r males and 4.27 .grams f o r f e m a l e s . These d a t a were f o r 85 l i t t e r s . 8a« a l s o r e p o r t e d i n 1.91$, t h a t baaed on t h e r e s u l t s o f 1039 . l i t t e r s , th© average s i z e o f t h e l i t t e r was 7.0 young. I n 1919 K i n g p u b l i s h e d a paper on th® i n b r e e d i n g of r a t s through a number o f g e n e r a t i o n s .  T h i s paper, a l -  though th© s u b j e c t o f w h i c h was i n b r e e d i n g , 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 t r e a d o r e f f e c t o n t h e growth o f t h e a l b i n o r a t i n the future.  T h i s i d e a i s put f o r t h i n h e r d i s c u s s i o n on  30  t h e v a r i a b i l i t y o f body w e i g h t s o f animals i n t h e s i x t e e n t h , to the t w e n t y - f i f t h generations of inbreeding.  She s t a t e s ,  ^ P o r i n g t h e p a s t t h r e e y e a r s , when most o f th© w a i t i n g s were t a k e n , i t was n o t p o s s i b l e t o r e a r the animals under e n v i r o n m e n t a l 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 a b l e t o growth and t o 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 ly.  The ' a e v a p * f o o d ( c a r e f u l l y s o r t e d t a b l e r e f u s e ) o n  w h i c h t h e a n i m a l s o f t h e e a r l i e r g e n e r a t i o n s seemed t o t h r i v e e x c e e d i n g l y w e l l , bad t o be r e p l a c e d by a r a t i o n t h a t c o n s i s t e d , f o r t h e most p « r t t o f o a t s and c o m w i t h o c c a s i o n a l a d d i t i o n s o f v a r i o u s k i n d s o f v e g e t a b l e s and. a l i t t l e meat*'.  Slag*  .in  Qoumtlag  on t h e v a r i a b i l i t y I n t h e l a t e r g e n e r a -  t i o n s , -states t h a t , " . . . t h e 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 e n v i r o n m e n t a l and n u t r i t i v e c o n d i t i o n s ' 1 . * * 0 n t l l 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 n o t be p o s s i b l e t o draw any d e f i n i t e c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f e c t s o f i n b r e e d i n g p@r se o a v a r i a b i l i t y i n body w e i g h t s " . I t would seem l i k e l y t h a t s i m i l a r r e a s o n i n g c o u l d be a p p l i e d t o t h e o t h e r 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) p u b l i s h e d a paper on th® s u b j e c t o f i n f l u e n c e o f d i e t on growth and r e p r o 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 t h e b a s i s f o r o t h e r r a t r a t i o n s used s i n c e t h a t t i m e .  31  T a b l e 6 * 3h®mm and K a a l f i a l d ' s Growth Data oa th© Albino Eat, ,  Die* Ho, o f f o u n g B o r a  to A l l Fern. P e r F t ® ,  899  A  a  A B  fiie  2 9 . 9  498  4f*S  Ifo, o f  Ave, f i t ,  299 493  34, g 4£,g .  interesting  Ho, o f Young Reared to  Wm F©a*  A l l pest* 145310  $  Young  Reared  43  14,§ • 31,0  ©2  f e a t u r e shown by t h e i r d a t a i s t h e l o w  percentage o f young r e a r e d i n comparison to t h a t o f o t h e r Investigators, contributing  I t i s the © p i n i o n o f taie w r i t e r t h a t a  eanse  t o t h i s m o r t a l i t y was th© f a c t t h a t t h e  l i t t e r s were whelped i n w i r e ©ag®© aad a l s o t h a t hedding o r n e s t i n g m a t e r i a l was not' s u p p l i e d  until  the young were  bora, Osborne and Mendel {1926} r e p o r t e d an I n c r e a s e d rat© o f growth ©a a r a t i o n w h i c h ©oataiaed I S p e r c e n t 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 t h a t i t wa© a h i g h energy  32  N a t i o n because o f t h e r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f c a l ories f u r n i s h e d b y t h e f a t .  They r e p o r t e d t h a t i t took  about 27 days f o r twenty o f t h e i r b e s t growing r a t a t o grow f r o m 10 t o 800 g r a s s .  T h i s r a t e o f growth was much more  r a p i d t h a n the 79 days f o r males and 129 days f o r f e m a l e s r e p o r t e d b y &o*aldsoa t c i t e d b y Mendel and Oannon ( 1 9 2 7 ) . Macy  et  a l (1907) r e p o r t e d  same r a t i o n a s Sherman and III).  growth d a t a  Muhlfield (1922).  u s i n g th©  (8m Appendix  T h e i r d a t a ae s h o r n I n Table 7 were t a k e n from  graphs o f growth d a t a f o r t h e s i s t a r  strain.  Table 7 * Maoy'e Growth Data u s i n g t h e Sherman, and M u h l f i e l d Batlozu Ave*  Age i n Days  Males  females  35  32 81 140  28  m  84 2:24  92  154 510  315  Mendel and Cannon (1927) p u b l i s h e d d a t a on th© r e l a t i o n o f rat® o f growth and d i e t .  Tjaey compared t h e g a i n s  i n weight mad® b y t h e i r a l b i n o r a t s compared t o those o f Donaldson..  33  Tabl© 8 - M e n d e l and Connon's Growth D a t a oa. th© A l b i n o Hat A v e r a g e D a i l y G a i n i n Weight o v e r Range 60 - 200 Grams Females  Male© 1.77  Donaldson Mendel  and Cannon  Gms.  Gms.  3.0  5.0  They conoladed from t h i s  1.09  comparison t h a t ,  ..  t h © p u b l i s h e d r e c o r d s aad c o m p i l a t i o n s o f 'norms' f a l l f u r n i s h a n adequate i d e a o f t h e r a t e o f g r o w t h o f rat  to  which  the  i s capable". S m i t h 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 r e p o r t e d growth d a t a on s t o c k a l b i n o  rats.  (See A p p e n d i x I I I ) . . T a b l e 9 - S m i t h and Age  i n days  B i g ' s Growth D a t a on t h e A l b i n o R a t A v e r a g e Weight Females Males  21  40  39  27  63  60  34  l a evaluating Saith.aua Blag's data, i t  should be  men-  t i o n e d t h a t a l l l i t t e r s o f r a t s were reduced to e i g h t a t 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 w e i g h t * M a y a a r l ( i t 3 0 } p u b l i s h e d a paper stock d i e t f o r rate*  (See Appendix I I I } *  proposing  a  The f o u n d a t i o n  froa the s t o c k of b r e e d i n g program o u t l i n e d , was t o festal*s f o r S d a y s . HI© r e s u l t ©  r a t s f o r hi© c o l o n y had been o b t a i n e d Osborne aad Mendel*  The  breed one ©al© p e r thro©  58 faoale r a t s b r e d , 65 p e r ©eat pro-da©©d olalsed a h i g h percentage f e r t i l i t y fo* t h e s e He also stated t h a t 90 p e r coat of-the young  ©howed t h a t o f litter©*  'He  experiments*  were r e a r e d t o 23 days o f a g e , which would appear t o b© e x c e l l e n t post-partum p r o d u c t i o n . freudeabarger  (1932)  using  a  somewhat m o d i f i e d  Sheraaa B d i e t , (See Appandis 113} p u b l i s h e d growth d a t a on the W I s t a r © t r a i n *  I n t h i s e x p e r i m e n t , the l i t t e r ©  were reduced t o s i x a t b i r t h ,  i n t a b u l a t i n g the growth  r e c o r d s f o r body w e i g h t , th© method of weighted means was used,  Be r e p o r t e d the average sia© of 026 W i s t a r l i t t e r s  as b e i n g 8.57, and th© a v e r a g e b i r t h weight of a W i s t a r l i t t e r to b© 46.8 grams.  35  Table  10 * JSreudeaoerge^e Growth Data on W i s t a r S t r a i n Rats M a l e s (850)  Age  Females' (927)  Birth 38  41  go days  Anderson a n t Smith (1932)  which  published  a paper  r e p o r t e d 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, f e d on the r a t i o n o u t l i n e d i n Appendix 111, Table 11 * Anderson and S m i t h ' s Growth Data on Male A l b i n o R a t s . (21 R a t s )  Ween* 60 t o 200 (Ms.60 ing Time Weight Reoulred 43*6  23.3  t o 300 A v e . Time Ave. D a l l y HeDaily Gain quired Gain  6.1  41.1  6.0  60 t o 400 Time Ave, ReDaily quired Gain 09.1  60 t o 500 Time A v e . ReDaily quired Gain  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 o f R e p r o d u c t i v e Performance a t Goa&eetleut A g r i c u l t u r a l Ixpsriment S t a t i o n i  Wt.at %  of  lo,  1012  86  7.2  71  23  1919  05  6.3  67  1920  m  6.4  1930  93  9.©.,  f e r t i l e Bom Hating®  ft*at  Daily  Gain  26  1.8  1.2  31  31  2.0  1,4  76  31  30  2.1  1.6  90  48  47  4.0  2.5  B i r t h 1 Weaned Weaning t o 100 days Gm* Males.fern. M a l e s Fern.  §«©  The y e a r s t a b u l a t e d were s e l e c t e d because t h e y r e p r e s e n t e d t h e d i f f e r e n t t i m e s a t ' w h i c h major I n c r e a s e s were noted i n the growth r a t e . Thomson (1936) r e p o r t e d on the a l b i n o r a t growth results o b t a i n e d on a s t o c k diet a t the Rowett Institute,  Hesearch  They also reduced number per l i t t e r t o e i g h t  at b i r t h and weaned them a t 21 * 23 days o f age. T a b l e 13 * Thomson^ Growth Data on the A l b i n o H a t . Age i n days 23  * Weight Males Females 43  41  37  Pickens ©t a l {1940} repeated i n part the experiment of Anderson and Smith ( 1 9 3 S ) ,  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 f o r their colony, and two retarded growing groups, Th© gains r e corded f o r the rapidly growing group c l o s e l y approximated th© gains made b y 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, l i g h t animals were k i l l 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 d i e t s .  These animals were  us©d f o r analysis f o r water, f a t , nitrogen and ash. The data oa the gains showed the tendency of th© rapidly growing animals to accumulate greater proportions of f a t and smaller proportions of water than the animals of any other groups, These result© raise the- question of th© exact d e f i n i t i o n of growth, ,1a i t gain i n body weight or i s i t the gain i n body weight of non-fat substances? In 1941, Zucker et a l , recorded weaning© weights of 01 grams f o r males and 51.4 grams f o r 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  III), Mayaard and  ftasnaaaen {194a) p u b l i s h e d  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 o f the r a t as measured b y t h e g a i n i n weight of the l i t t e r , l a t h i s e x p e r i m e n t , a d i e t of n a t u r a l f o o d s c o n t a i n i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y 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 a p p r o x i m a t e l y yfc f a t . P r o l i & i a a r y procedures were n e c e s s a r y b e f o r e s t a r t i n g t h e experiment i n o r d e r to Kinittizi©  s o u r c e s ©f v a r i a t i o n .  A f t e r b i r t h o f the young,  p a i r s o f mothers were chosen w h i c h were e q u a l i n w e i g h t , .and from whose l i t t e r s  s i x young f o r p a i r e d groups o f  n e a r l y equal body w e i g h t c o u l d be s e l e c t e d ,  Whenever p o s -  s i b l e these p a i r e d groups were e t u a l l g e d as t o s e x .  One  mother was then f e d t h e h i g f a * f a t d i e t , and th© o t h e r , th© l o w - f a t d i e t e q u a l i s i n g the c a l o r i c  intake  ia  aoeordaae©  w i t h the a p p e t i t e of the one consuming t h e l e a s t amount. The weight changes i n mothers were a l s o r e c o r d e d .  The  d a t a f o r l i t t e r g a i n s showed t h a t i n 13 out of IS c o m p a r i sons t h e y were l a r g e r f o r t h e h i g h - f a t d i e t .  They averaged  126 grams as compared t o 112 grams f o r t h e low-fat d i e t over the e x p e r i m e n t a l p e r i o d , b i r t h t o 17 days o f a g e .  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  Bats.  Ho. of titters  .Females  Bom  IS  14  Cereeedo  Growth Data on Wlstar Strain  Litters  Young Weaned  litter  u  ff  7*0  Weened  31ae  Average Weaning Weight 31 days  34.5  Deuel ©t a l (1944) supported t h e theory of Mayn e r d and R&sjiussen (1942), that the lactation p e r i o d was a better index period f o r testing the adequacy of a d i e t , than the growth o r reproduction period.  tooell et  a l (1944) likewiie experimented with  th© e f f e c t of dietory f a t on l a c t a t i o n 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 f a t when corn o i l provided the only source of f a t .  {See  Appendix  III)..  40  Table 15 - E f f e c t of Tarying Ration Percentage of Fat on l a c t a t i o n i n the Rat. ( l o o s l i ) . Fer Cent Fat  Gain of L i t t e r B i r t h t o 17 days  5.5  152.1  11.3  161.2  19.2  150.1  3b* r e s u l t s outlined i n Table 15 showed that the ration w i t h 11.3 per cent f a t stimulated the highest l a c t a t i o n 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 e f f i c i e n c y 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 i n Growth and Reproduction i n the Rat,  GeETXiTteW^ .,  G  1  a3  4 6  7  S  9 10  Born 7 8 8 13 7 8  6 5 12 . 13  of mother per a t b i r t h , .Llttay 10.7  108 115,5 112.7 122.7 120.4 148.7 149.0 145.5 149.8 152.0  Per Rat Blyth 21 days :  U,S  9.0 11,9 9*9 11,2 11.2. 9,8 10,6 8,4 8,4  5.0 5,2.2 5, §7 §,0 4,87  in Per Cent  31.11 29,3 28.4 §87,6 32.4 31,3 39.3 36,6 39,2 36.6  Second L i t t e r Eats  3 4 ® S  7 0  8 a 8 5  176,5 171.5 191.3 188.2  7 10  Iff ,3 213,S  6  7*8  12,1 10,4 10,4 7.4 8,7 9,1  816.9  6,76 7.89 7,83 8,04  31,2 28,5 27.3 31,6 35,S  34. .1 36,4  1 Only those l i t t e r s where there were 7 i n 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 t h i s group are from second l i t t e r s of seeond l i t t e r parents. Weight Age in Days 90  10th. Generation, f i r s t L i t t e r Rats. . Males Females. 330  216  9 t h Generation, Second L i t t e r Rats . Males ... Females 367.5  182  Deuel e t a l (194'?)  reported production  data  f o r a l b i n o r a t s on a stock d i e t (See Appendix I I I ) , . A l l l i t t e r s were reduced t o seven a n i m a l s 3 days a f t e r birth*. f a b l e 1?  - Deuelfe  Data on A l b i n o B a t s on s t o c k R a t i o n  P e r Gent A v e , Ho. F e r t i l i t y . Per. L i t t e r $0,0  7.6  Ave, Weight. • Weaning . 30,7  P a r Gent Weaned 77  43  7.  Animal Nutrition  laboratory Growth Bata.  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 production, fhey were bred" to unseleoted males. Their production wan recorded because it was f e 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 s a ttags'which were of comparable 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 The  44  group*  fn®  Shexnaxi %  group ©onsisted @f f©aal@s w h i c h  had beta, mated a t B o t & l a a d Farms b u t wbelped at- th® Animal - i n t r i t i o a L a b o r a t o r y ,  Saexnas II  represent a  seeond, group of f©male© r e c e i v e d from Rockland Farias whieh wore b r a d 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 r e p r e s e n t pro-  duction r e s a l t i n g f m ta© m a t i n g o f Shoraaa I f eaalea and W i s t a r m a l t s , <3b*a* d a t a 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 e s u l t © o f t h e Sherman I females* Sherman H I  ar© t h e - t h i r d - l i t t e r growth d a t a o f th©  Sherman I f e m a l e s . A© t h i s s t u d y progressed* i t wa© found d e i i r a b l © t o  veaerd,  aor© d e t a i l e d d a t a ©n th© l i t -  t e r s , such as th© ©ex r a t i o ..-and th© weight o f females, a t b i r t h * i s so t a b u l a t e d ,  male* aad  Some of th© d a t a on th© Sherman s t r a i n {S©© Appendix If A ) ,  Tn@r© ar© s e v e r a l l a p o r t a n t f e a t u r e © to be n o t e d i n Table 1 8 , The  of as  th©  average percentage  wnreeorded groups  f e r t i l i t y ©x@lus.iv©  wa© 73.1 p e r ©@at, Thi© i s n o t  a percentage f e r t i l i t y as would tee d e s i r e d and y e t  I t i s n o t ©onsldered to be t o o l o w .  Table 1$ * Animal Intel-felon L a b o r a t o r y , Growth Data on Hats Wlstar  Witstar W l s t a r W l s t a r Wlstar Sheraam Sherman  MMeJ^ahred So. Fern- . , a l a s ' bred, '  ,!1A „ „ ,p» .  •  1 , .„  i |  . • • , .  15  la  14 ,  U  95.3  ff.f-  52  It  38  15  Ho. L t i f ters lorn.  . 10  f  6 •  per eemt Fertility  73.©  fs.f.  No. Young »ora  1.18  iff-  ff  I i . 40  ' SiO  120  AT®. Siae  Mtter' ' No. Young Weaned  n*$ 1*9  is.s 164  ^..? 07  8*a-  t.4 -  e.e  U  m  ma  so  SS4  8.3 1B3L  3?er Gent weaned .  -loo  ts.s  • m.§  Birth Weight  S,4S  §.,.#  t§.f#  3,95  •  S.S4  Weaning  weight' • M a l e s at Weaning. Females at Weaning  m-+4 a u *  m-*f  ms  f f  m  56  &  WX  fg  f$"  41  *9  ©a  W  184  m*.$ 5f 64  Wistar Sasxsaaa * sa®»aa. | , III  Total Rat ^ftXoaay, „  55  53  218  41  S3  IBS  74,§  62.2  41a 10.2 304  334 10,3-  30f  94, g  91.9  ©,S4  • S»44  34.5  73,1 xn$  9,9 1672 94,6  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  CJ>  H  o  eg  ha  cj  o  ca  o»  EI  o  »C»JH  —*  f«  0»  ©5  ©  JS3»H-  ©  o*  «rt  ar  ^  a  No.Females Bred. Wo.Li Born  >»  u M S N  ©®  52  tters  P e r Gent Fertility  65  Ho.Young Born Ave.Sizie Litter Mo.Young Weaned P e r CentWeaned Average)M. Birth )*'• Weight ) L . Average )M. Weaning Jr.Weight ) L . 1 2 3  48 5.13 4.89 23.9 21.3  ,eg  90  5.4 5.2 21.2 22.6  5,63 5.3 31, ,32 34.2 42.2" 1  x  40 39  1  Weaned a t 28 days Weaned a t 23 days M a l e and female b i r t h w e i g h t s and w e a n i n g w e i g h t s a r e f r o m Sherjaan I I I  41.0 38.0  464  19  (Continued) to  i  ^8-  ^2 3|  3£  IS  <D—  I i  3**  4^  g g nil M'  Pa.  p ©  to  H  ?  ®  5  «  93  51  93.3  90.0  . 9.6  7.0  9.1  79  90  80.6  48.0 4 3 . O f S I . 0 ^ 47.0 41.5*51.4*  fc>  493  t>  126  55  212  86  41  155  819  418  9.5  10.2  782  394  73.1 1766 9.9 1672  93.1 95.4 94.2 • 94.6'  8.04 48,.6  7.8 10.4 77  w  68 - 74.5  529  98  O  ^  P  15 14  ^  34.5 36.4  5.41 5.50 5.44  5.54  33.4 35.4 31,0 33.3 30.7 32.8 33.6 34.5  47  Th© average l i t t e r Bim a t b i r t h , would b© ©©asidered a s above a v e r a g e , Th© percentage weaned i s d e f i n i t e l y n i g h and eeeaaae  of I t s © o n s i t t e a e y 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© h i g h s t a n d a r d of management and p a r t l y to t h e adequate n u t r i t i o n of th© ©.©loay, Th© weaning weight© a r e aatiafaotory © o n s i d e r l n g th© s i z e o f l i t t e r n u r s e d and weaned. f a b l e 10 •tuBnax&sett a * f a r a© p o s s i b l e th© d a t a r e p o r t e d b y ©ther i n v e s t i g a t o r s d i s c u s s e d i n th© l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w , f h e method© o f r e p o r t i n g d a t a and th© ©ondition© under w b i o a t h e y were gathered were so v a r i e d , t h a t t o attempt t o make an aocurat© comparison between t h e i r r e s u l t © ami t h o s e o f t h e Animal n u t r i t i o n L a b o r a t o r y i s deemed u n w i s e ,  The f a c t t h a t a g r e a t v a r i e t y o f r a t i o n s  war© f e d , t h a t .©©a® c o l o 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 s t r a i n © o f a l b i n o r a t s mm adds t o th© d i f f i c u l t y of c o m p a r i s o n .  used o n l y  Generally speaking,  however, th© A n i m a l N u t r i t i o n L a b o r a t o r y r a t c o l o n y d®@© appear t o e x c e l i n suoa f a s t e r ® a© average s i z e o f l i t t e r and percentage w@an®d. The weaning weight© appear t o b© r e a s o n a b l y h i g h , when i t i s remembered t h a t th© l i t t e r s  TABLE 20 COMPARISON O f O f f i S E I 1 Y 3 S H Q 0 R *S A I D ANIMAL B U l R I f l O H LABORATORY PCSf-WABIHG DATA ON TH&- RAT  OaOBfiE  D a t e and Reference,  Wo.Born  21 M  ^^^^^elghi^f^Hl^^aT  days  W  Am  M  28 days  F  Ave  M  35 days F Ave  M  42 days  F  Ave  1950,An. Nut .Lab. 1950,An.  6  11  36  57  82  113  Nut.Lab.  6  II  34  54  80  113  1946,F.R. L. Data 1 1927,Maoy 1928,Smith and Bing* 1932,Freu-d deagerger 1941,Quaker  61  110 126  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. R e s e a r c h L a b e r a t o r i e a 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, a n d 75 days b u t i s tabulated under §6,63, a n d 77 d a y s r e s p e c t i v e l y .  3  Freudenberger*s d a t a was a c t u a l l y r e e o r d a d a t 45,60,and 75 days but i s tabulated under 42,56, a n d 77 days r e s p e c t i v e l y .  d a t a t a k e n f r o ® g r a p h i n Hawk,0ser,  Avera^s Waigbt o f L i t t e r a t Date and  So . B o r a  If50,An. Hat .Lab. 6 • 5 11 1950,An. Mat.Lab. 6 5 11 1946, F.R, L.Data 1927,ifeoy 1928,Saitti and B l a g 1932,Freud@a139  107  Ave  70 days M F Ave  137  W8  206  146  179  222  161  195  139  163 212  145  182 233  161  200  215  150  182  158 205  140  172  berger  1941 ,2aoJ£er  63 days  56 days M F  49 days  118  149 86.5  92  81  157  150  153.5 221  162  170 164  130 119  150 141  130  186  191.5  Average Weignt o f L i t t e r a t B a t e and  Safereaoa  1950,Aa.lut.Lab. 1950,Aa..M»t.Lab. 1946, I<JL .L. D a t a 1927 ,Ma.oy 1 9 2 8 , S u i t s and B l a g 1932 ,Fr a a d e n b e r g e r  1941,  artker  lo-.Bera 5 11 § 11  77  84  days  238 249  171 173  268 198 221  178 155 149  91  days  F  Ave  M  208 214  251 262 248 154  177 180 172 140  Ave 217 22.5 210 147  223 176.5 185 237  160  198  M 261 276  days F Ave 183 226 188 236  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 percentage 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 c a l -  oulated i n order to determine the average eost per rat per day.  Appendix V snows the results o f this survey, f h e  labour eoet was determined by two different animal attendants who were thoroughly familiar with the colony, i n order to eompute a more legitimate value. It involved reeerding the time spent each day t o manage t h e  eolony, t h e number  animals and t h e number o f eages eeoupled. amount o f feed  of  I n addition, t h e  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 t h e cage ant'the * l i f e * of t h e ©age. f h e labour coat o f recording breeding data and identifying rata was not included. Tb* average daily cost per rat would be as follows: Labour Feed H@ua.iag  #0.003 0.00S  ,$».03Q*  Total Cost # .0056  51  • B. : Animal'' H&ttfItlea - Laboratory Moms© tlait, Jl)  Origin  ^fh© moua© malt #f l i e Animal Butritioa-L&bOratory originated from a shipment of  mis© r@©eiv@d from  the Suffield Experimental Station, Suffield, Alberta. The mioe in the ©olony at the present time, and used for the-purpose of'this study, ar©. descendant© of that original foundation-' stoei,  (2)  Housing  'Tnemoaa© ©olony is ^. located la-a room- which is f feet-Si laches long and,? feet 9£ inches wide, giving a floor area of f8«S sonar© feet. I t 1 © height i s 10 feet giving a room volume of ?SS ©able f©et. Based on a maximum room @apa©ity of .ffB mice, th© volume utilization i s 1350 ©able inches per mouse * Th© mouse ©ag© rack, which holds i i ©ages i s situated along thr©@ of th© walls of th® room. Two of the racks -measure'4 feet 8$ laenea in length with th© third on© measuring'- 0 - f©@t 10 inehes.  All  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 r a c k showing t i e r s o f oag  S3  I,  1  V  F i g . 9.  S t a n d a r d mouse cage and w a t e r b o t t l e .  showing d a t a c a r d b r a c k e t  0  f i g . 11, Seal© drawing snowing speeifiaatioa© of  ©ag©.  mom®  id  approximately 33.9 per ©eat of the floor area. The room i s 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 o f this ©ag©. Bedding is provided hy using a layer of wood shavings approximately 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© i s 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 t h e cage,, i t 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 o f ml©©, p a r ©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 b e d d i n g ,  H*xtf  t h e y ar© s c r u b b e d a n d washed w i t h h o t w a t e r and  ammon-  iatod soap and allowed to dry overnight preparatory to b e i n g t a k e n b a c k t o th© mouse room a s c l e a n  .(&)  cages.  F e e d i n g and if s t o r i n g  fee mloe are. f e d t h e same p e l l e t e d r a t i o n and i n the' ©am© manner «a t h e r a t © o l o n y .  i a c a mouse, r©-*  ©@ive© a p p r o x i m a t e l y ©even grams o f f e e d p e r d a y , Green feed*' u s u a l l y k a l e , ia. f e d t w i c e w e e k l y .  Milk dilution  b o t t l © © , « i t h a volume o f I f f ©#,,» s e r v e ©©-water b o t t l e s , fa© w a t e r i s ©aangeA d a l l y and th© b o t t l e s washed w e e k l y , fh© b e t t i e © ar® h e l d i n p o s i t i o n . on th© f r o n f o f • tb© ©ag© by a. m e t a l b r a c k e t a© shown i n F i g * t , {4|  Breeding  F u l l b r o t h e r and s i s t e r mating© a r e used i n t h e b r e e d i n g program,  SepAaoeaeat b r e e d i n g  stook 1©  aeleeted  §8  m  t h e b a s i s o f t h e h i g h e s t weaning weight and. &xm o f  litter.  The weaning ago i t S i days and amy l i t t e r o f  seven and # f o r i s aoaaidered. l a r g o *  I f a l i t t t r i s se-  l e c t e d a t weaning f o r b r e e d i n g 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 a s a air** aad a l l t h e f e m a l e s a r e r e t a i n e d to make up an i n t e g r a l b r e e d i n g u n i t or family*  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 e a r a i e k i a g .and t h e i r b r e e d i n g background as t o s i r e and da® c a r t indexed*,  f h e y a r e kept i n s e p a r a t e cages  u n t i l t h e y -are 60 ** fo days o l d , when t h e y a r e a l l o w e d t o breed*  I t h a s been t h e procedure i n t h i s l a b o r a t o r y ,  t o a l l o w t h e male t o r u n and breed w i t h no a o r e t h a n f o u r female  a t one t i m e *  f h e a a l e i s a l l o w e d t o mm w i t h  t h e females f o r 10 d a y s , t h e n i s s e p a r a t e d o r removed baek t o h i s s t u d oage*  l a o h female mm®  wmioh shows e x -  t e r n a l s i g n s o f pregnancy i s removed to' a c l e a n #age. t o u n g laiae a t weaning..which a r e n o t saved f o r b r e e d i n g purposes a r e s e p a r a t e d a c c o r d i n g t o s a x and p o o l e d w i t h a l o e from o t h e r l i t t e r ® o f t h e same age,  feiaale aaice  which a r e f u l l s i s t e r s and b e l o n g t o a. f a m i l y , h a v i n g weaned t h e i r l i t t e r s  a r e regrouped a g a i n ready t o be r e -  59  bred.* ing  A two week r e s t p e r i o d i s u s u a l l y a l l o w e d b r e e d *  f e m a l e s , a f t e r t h e y have weaned a l i t t e r , b e f o r e  being rebred.  B r e e d i n g w i l e s are a l w a y s k e p t i a s e p a r a t e  eages* beaause o f t h e a a t a r a l tendency t o d e s t r o y on® a n o t h e r when pooled* C§)  C o n t r o l o f disease  Th® same o o n t r o l measures w h i c h a r e mm&tB®& i n t h e r a t c o l o n y a r e used i n t h e mouse c o l o n y , a n i » a l i s d e s t r o y e d a s soon as i t h a s been an a u t o p s y p e r f o r m e d .  A siok  osverred and  I n the four years o f operation,  t h e s e n s e o o l o n y h a s y e t t o «xperle&ee a s e r i o u s i a f e e t ion* (6)  L i t e r a t u r e Beview on t h e L a b o r a t o r y Mouse.  Some o f f i r s t growth d a t a o f t h e w h i t e mouse were r e p o r t e d b y Hobertsom I n 1916*  f a b l e SX shows h i s  r e s u l t s and t h e 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 Hirtb  Wt.* o f Male XM  7  lo. Weighed  Wt. Of female  HO. Weighed  5$  1.23  45  3.31  8-6) Male© aad ) Females a o t 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  11,-81.  77  XXf  l a 1917 Bobertson and Delprat reported on th© influence of t e t a e l i a upon early growth.  The growth data  f o r 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© r a t i o n 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  no.  Age  Welshed, 118  Birth 7 14  ' '21:  Average Weight 1.47  91.  8*86  m  4.44  74 ' '•' ' 8.89  •28 •  •  38  •  -n **-  • a. m •' U . 0 8  Sboapson and Mendel i n 1918 # mad© a study o f growth i n th@; a l b i n o &ouse and r e p o r t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g d a t a i n comparison w i t h those o f J u d s o n .  f h e composition  o f t h e s t o c k r a t i o n was n o t g i v e n , p o s s i b l y because these mice were © o n t r o l a n i w a l s and p a r t o f a l a r g e r  experiment.  T a b l e 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  ' " ' »' "  »"  in M a l e s (15) Females (11) Days Judson Thompson Hudson Thompson  Age  ••  ft-  1.1  1.5  1.5 •  Birth '•  •  • •  • .  .  ;  .aa  •9*0 ,  26  •  •  .  »  •1$.0  ,  *  .  1.5 )  .3,0.  3*3 i  6,0  ..  .  1.5  .9.4  ., @ , B  -  IM  10,0  x M a l e s and. Females • a o t • weighed • s e p a r a t e l y  Satesr-ia 1925, published a paper on t h e early growth r a t e o f ml©©. Hi© d a t a r e s u l t e d from s t u d i e s on 106 litters ©ontainlag oyer 700 mice. The average size o f l i t t e r was f .14*  l i s d a t a i s reoorded i a . Table 24.  Table 24 * Gates arowth Data on t h e White Mouse Ag© i n  ,, .  Da  y  s  weight  •  -  lirth  1,36  7 days  3,21  14 days  5.34  .21 days  6.89  Pttfkt*, in 1926>  published a rather  s i v e s t u d y on the-growth o f ' t h e mouse,  comprehen-  i t i n v o l v e d 66  l i t t e r s •eoi&pri s i n g mf young, w h i c h was a n average l i t t e r s i n e of 6*2*. He i l l u s t r a t e * . <pit# c l e a r l y t h e o ff e e t o f s i n e o f - l i t t e r o n b i r t h weight a n t weaning w e i g h t a s r@eo.riei a t S i Says o f age* T a b l e 25 - Parke1 s Growth Data » E f f e c t of L i t t e r Sisse on B i r t h and Weaning Weight. Weight a t B i r t h and Weaning According  to Litter Size  ' Birth'"' ' ' Weaning S i z e of Mo. o f Sam o f G e n e r a l Sua o f General L i t t e r s L i t t e r s L i t t e r ..Ayes.. Average L i t t e r Ayes,Average 1  1  1.8  1*80  16.0  16.0  2  %  3.8  1*60  23.5  11.75  •$ •  • f t  f *.f  • i * § 4 , ..  44*1 .  8.M  4  ? ,  10-.#  I*f6  §7.6  , 8,23  ft  f  13*2  1*47  69 *§  7,7.2  1»40' '  ©5.5  6.94  6  "ft  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  fatal  ©6  92.9  1.41  3*1......... 471.6  >.*8  7.14  64  f a b l e £6 - P a r k a s S f f e c t of L i t t e r S i z e oa B i r t h aad Weaning Weight.  Age, j a days  ,  Weight f o r Ave. of a l l Animals  Weight f o r l i t t e r of I  Birth  1.41  1.8  7 days  3 . 5 4  7.0  1 4 days  5*20  &X days  7.14 .  13*0  le.O  W i t h r e f e r e n c e t© th© l i t t e r o f oa© mouse i n T a b l e g.6, Parke© p o i n t © out t h a t sine© o n l y oa© l i t t e r of t h i s s i z e was recorded, i t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o m e o u i v o e a b l y s t a t e t h a t th© growth shown i s p r o b a b l y normal f o r t h a t siae o f l i t t e r . servations .  However, he does mke  H© s t a t e s ,  11  two i n t e r e s t i n g  ob-  In t h e f i r s t p l a c e , t h i s mouse  shows c l e a r l y t h e r e l a t i v e l y enormous s i z e t o which a young animal oan grow when ther© i s a v a i l a b l e the whole o f the n a t u r a l m i l k w h i c h 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 s u p p l y o f nourishment** P a r k e s (1926) d a t a on the o p t i m a l rat© o f growth of  th© mouse was l a t e r supported'by the work o f MacDowell  05  e t sO. ( 1 9 3 0 ) , He demonstrated t h e i n f l u e n c e of t h e p l a n e o f n u t r i t i o n upon t h e growth o f t h e s u c k l i m g mouse, l a t h i s e ^ e r i j t e a t t h e n m h e r 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*  f h e 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 h e a v i e s t on t h e 1 4 t h day, a r e reoor#«d'here f r o m h i s d a t a * T a b l e 27 - HaoPoweU's. Data » O p t i m a l growth o f t h e Mouse Age  Weight  i n days •  Female  IM  Birth f  6.97  14  mmana.  {1989)  t h e s e phases o f g r o w t h .  •  15.4  eoaduoted s e v e r a l experiments on I n 19SS, he s t a t e d t h a t " T o t a l  milk production i s increased with increasing l i t t e r  size  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 n o t i n d i r e c t p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e number o f young* w i t h the r e s u l t t h a t as l i t t e r ® i » i n c r e a s e s th© amount o f  milk  available  f o r eaeh i n d i v i d u a l i s r e d u c e d ,  Wmmmx and O r o z i e r (1935) a l s o r e p o r t e d 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 t o express t h e 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 - o f t h e young,  WJn  N K+C  198ft C r o s i e r  and- & » a n n (1938) p u b l i s h e d  more d a t a o n t h e 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 wbl#.h i s shown i n f a b l e at*  litter  *tse  weig&t,  f h e y a l s o show tine © f f ® o t o f  on growth a s evidenced b y  the  d a t a I n f a b l e 29,  f a b l e SS - C r o s i e r and S n » a a n * B f f e o t o f 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 It ••' "  A v e , Weight o f newborn w '  1  um  *  !*§§  8  1*49 '1*41  $  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  S  68  fa©!© ' '  m ~ Gro$i*v a n t Wmmm * Mt mt of l i l i t r  Io.i n  text** i  ©a '0riwta " Average Weight Of | i a t i v l a a a l U Mo, o f Lltt@r© 2  Days  1.57  s  After 7  Birth* 14  5,15  9.68  4,43  8,49  4  *  i.4t  4,13  7,90  5  6  i*4© •  4.06  7.31  e  7  1..44  8.88  6,70  10  1.40  3,76  8.84  8  3  1.57  3,57  6,08  •9  "4  1.83'  3,48  8,78  f  10  3  1.86  3,30  6*37  11  3  1.88  8.81  5,05  1?,  3  1.84  8*08  4,80  Slss©  OH,  Xa  di©.©us©iag-th© d a t a to -Table 3$, Orcrale?  f i f S ^ l note© t h e d e e l i m e i a growth r a t © b e g i n n i n g ' w i t h ta© s©©ond week o f  life.  03?©si©r agrees w i t l i t h e . t h t o r y -of  l a a m a m t h a t ta® deelia© i a p a r t I n da© t o a g r e a t e x t e n t t o th© d e c l i n e i a th© mlXk »©©r©ting ©apaolty o f 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  o r more young weald .have t o  prodmo© almost h e r ©wt body w e i g h t i n m i l k ©very day** S© ©onolmdes t h a t t h e mother I s uaabl© t o prodaa© m i l k a t t n i © ©apaoity*. K o r r l © p u l l i s h e d d a t a m 1944 ©a t h e growth o f brown ©©loured s t r a i n o f a l e * f r o m hi© ©took ©olony w h i c h was d e s i g n a t e d o$EU (So©' f a b l e  Hi© d a t a appears w o r t h y o f comparison.  $ s } f b © r a t i o n f e d i s o u t l i n e d i n Appendix  $11. Brme© i n 1947 a l s o r e p o r t e d on t h e growtb and e f f i c i e n c y o f a ©took ©olony o f whit® mi©©* ©ompositioa i © g i v e n i n Appendix 1 1 1 ,  Th© r a t i o n  70  tf)  Animal S t t t r i t i e n , L a b o r a t o r y Qrowta Data* -for purposes o f t h i s s t u d y , a b r e e d i n g program  was i n i t i a t e d w i t h one male and one female mouse designated X21 - 31 - 1 , D a t a were n o t recorded on the f i r s t l i t t e r from these p a r e n t s , a l t h o u g h t h e b r o t h e r and s i s t e r m a t i n g was c o n t i n u e d with the l a r g e s t male and a l l t h e females o f t h a t l i t t e r *  f o r purposes o f r e f e r e n c e , t h i s  l i t t e r w i l l tsr designated f t . * l i t t e r 1. fhe' o r i g i n a l  '  p a r e n t s jwtewd a second and t h i r d l i t t e r , which s h a l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s % lvel$v  feprta  - l i t t e r % and s i » l i t t e r 3 r e s p e e t *  d a t a mm.**aoaaed on b o t h o f these l i t t e r s *  Th® females o f a l l t h e s e t h r e e U t t e r s were b r e d by t h e h e a v i e s t m l © i n each l i t t e r * and t h e p r o d u c t i o n d a t a , alomg w i t h t h a t o f th© o r i g i n a l p a r e n t s , a r e t a b u l a t e d i a Appendix  OT,  fit© t f i l i t t e r 1 females t r a c i n g f r o a t h e  l i l i t t e r 1 ffi&tlag were b r e d b y t h e i r heaviest b r o t h e r and t h e i r p r o d u c t i o n d a t a a r e recorded i a Appendix. tEfB* The growth d a t a war® ©©cumulated by w e i g h i n g the whole l i t t e r a t 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  T a b l e 30 * Animal n u t r i t i o n L a b o r a t o r y Data on The ' i h i t e Mouse Parent femalet®}  No, No. $ A v e . A v e . A v e , M, F. B o r n Weaned Weaned S i z e B i r t h Wean. at . L i t t e r Weight Weight l e a n i n g . .9  100  9,5  1.78  12,67  37  100  9.2  1,33  11.18 18  37  m  m  . 9.* 85  i*3§  41  '41  loo a . t i  1,44  lis.  -ja*».  f a - L i t t e r IA 8 dau#.ters 44  • m  86,3  ?2-Litter LB 8 daughters 22  • ia  131-31-1  19 _  fl-Litter 1 4 daughters  37  Fl-Litter 3 4 daughters fl-Litter 3 S daughters  Tota£"or A v e , 13 daughters 115.  _ 19 .  9*12 SL10*24 88  19 13 18  -m  *»8  1*27  '1*0 21  it ii  ys-Litter 10 S daughters 40  40 ' iOO  J-2-Lltter ID Z daughters 18  16  S:.0  ' 1.31  a*i  if*  28  1.89  :9#8  §  7  1.31  9.2  Total or Ave. 17 daughter sl24  112  90.3 7.75  8*  72  Sex was determined i a . t h e p a r e n t aad I i * i i t t e r 1 l i t t e r © .at. 21 days o f as®, mined a t b l r t a ,  b a t i a ta© o t h e r l i t t e r s  i t was deter-*  .la o r d e r 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 r e e e r d e d aad w i g h e d s e p a r a t e l y a t b i r i a aad w e e k l y i n t e r v a i s u n t i l 2© day© o f age.  Thee© d a t a ar© t a b u l a t e d i a Appendix ITS*  A l l litter©  were weaned a t 21 d a y s , b a t th© l i t t e r © were i w i g n e d t h e y were 28 day© o f age, size at b i r t h ,  matil  f b e l i t t e r s were a e t r e d a e e i i a  'la o r d e r t o f a o l l i t a t © i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f  t h e s e r e s u l t s , © a » a r i e © o f tae d a t a a p p e a r i n g i n Appendix JTO are shown i n T a b l e SO, I n s o m t i n i z i n g t b e d a t a i n f a b i © $0, i t ©eoome© e v i d e n t t h a t none o f the daughters o r g r a n d daughter© e - m a i l e d the p a r e n t feiaal© i n a l l the p r o d u c t i o n factors.  I t would almost appear t h a t t h e r e was a d e o l i n e i a  t h i s r e s p e e t w i t h suooeeding g e n e r a t i o n s .  Any statement  however, t h a t t h i s t r e n d i s a b s o l u t e l y t r u e would- not b© i n o r d e r a t t h i s t i m e b@©au©© o f th© s h o r t d u r a t i o n o f t h i s  study,  f h e average b i r t h and weaning weight© o f th© A a i i s a l n u t r i t i o n L a b o r a t o r y 'mice, «h©n compared w i t h those r e p o r t e d i n th© l i t * e r a t u r e r e v i e w and o u t l i n e d i n f a b l © 3 1 , appear t o be average,  73  *»««lfc» l i i t e t w i t h 9«»p«6t te u . B.  C . |8i litters)  were so a r r a n g e d heeanjse t h e s e 88 l l t & e r a ware wneiped w i t h i » a i t 4a? p e r i o d and mm whieh were e t a d i e d ,  the f i n a l l i t t e r s  bom  f h e y were t h e progeny o f t h e f o l l o w -  i n g femalee tabulated- to f a b l e ttomp  l o » o f tamaies  jft«Utt#r 8  Fritter  W«  ' 8  IA  i  ?2*&itter IB  8  m**t*mm 10 t w i t t e r IB  § 8  I t I s the opinion of this. w r i t e r , that the ©enditlon of t h e young  prodnoed by theae females was .sot normal  d u r i n g t h e pre~weaaing. growth period,, what  f h e ©oats were some-  Starr and laeJsad .the • o h a r a o t e r l s t i e sheen,  This  o b s e r v a t i o n was made before examining the growth, d a t a whleh  »BLf 31. A  QQWMJSQM  O F QffiSR INVBSEEGAfCR'S AND 211 ANIMAL ITO2SI'H0K LABOR AifiOB.T *B CMOWffl mm ON THE MOUS2  Ave.. Stae of Birth L i t t e r Ii f Ave  M  ? days J Ave  Robertson aac D e l p r a t (181?) 1.47 Jadsoa(1918)1 . 1.5 Bi0ffipsoaCl918) 1,5 G a t e s (1925) 7.4 1.36 P a r t e s 11926 ) 6.2 1.41 Par&es (1926) 1.0 1.8 MBteDowell(19307 1.53 6.97 O r o z i e r and Enzaaana(1935) 6*66 1.38 M o r r i s (1944) 1.44 5.1 Brae®(1947) 6.4 U.B.S . P a r e n t s 9.5 1.78 U »B .0 * F j L i t t e r 1 9.2 1.33 U.B .0 . (25L1 ttera78.0 1.34 U.B.a.Aye 7.16 1.38 A  3  1 2 3 4  II  14 days W  .3,55 3.0 3.3 5.21 3.54 7.0  Ave H 1  4.44 6.0 6.7 5.34 5.20 13.0  B l days J Ave  , , 9.0 6.2 9.9 9.4  5i8» 8.6 9.6 6.89 7.14 16.0  15.4 3.65  6.25  10.5  7.89 6.87 6.63 6.76  10.3 12.67 11.16 9.13 10.3  7.9 5,47 4.7 4,22 4.58  Weights t a b u l a t e d a r e a c t u a l l y f o r 5, 12, and fc£ d a y s . Weight o f L i t t e r o f one mouse. Weights o f s i x s a l e © t e d f e m a l e s . Group of 25 l i t t e r s b o r n i n 10 'lay p e r i o d .  M  2 3 daysF ' 4ve  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^  76  fatal© 3S * A l>r©duetioa B f f i e i e n e y Comparison o f V a r i o u s Mouse c o l o n i e s  Foster Cereeedo Bruce @% a l & Vinson,, (1947)  tJ.S.0,  (1950)  No. females Bred " ' ' ' f l  85  No, Litters Born if  80  m  Per Cent Fertility  @0  m  97  No, Young Born SIB f,4  No, Young Weaned  455  Per Cent if  ;  36 '  $06  Ave. Size Litter  Weaned  a4  t,4  6*4  7*16  mz 7#  83  Birth Weight  94.8 l.-3i  Weaning Weight  xr  10.3  10,3  ^ F i g u r e r e p r e s e n t s p e r ©ant l i t t e r s weaned, 2  For ration. see Appendix III  3  This is an approximate weight, siaee i t was taken from a graph.  fa) ' $am% Starve? ©a nous© 'eoloay. 4 ©o©t ©uiffoy of th© mouse s©lomy was mad© ©irniiaj* t o - t a © on©, mad© on. ta© r a t eoloay. .Appoadls ?.) #  (8«*  l a © 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 0 o s t *tO.0O31 per d a y  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 Snff i e l d Uperiaemtal Station t suffield* Alberta, 2b®  guinea pig® i a  to* colony at the\preitant tiae # and  used i n this study* are tesoenianti of that original ship* sent • {%)  lousing Hie guinea pig eolony i s located i s a room wbieh  i s . f feet t inches long ant i feet l inehes wi&% floor area of  square feet*  giving a  It i s 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*  i t ooouple© 23.,8 square feet or about m  of the floor apace*  per cent  It i s illustrated i n ?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 f e e t from the f a r t h e s t row o f cages or about 5 steps away, thus enabling the attendant to change the water b o t t l e s w i t h a a i n i w m 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.  T h i s amount of bedding averages i n weight about  mo grams with an approximate volume o f ©000 oo. This cage.is i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g s . 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 b a s i s , $4 square inohes on raoJte plus cage basis and S8 square inches m This type of cage has  eage b a s i s .  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® f r o n t of the cage permits th© animal attendant t o remove the s o i l e d bedding from th© cage by means of a scraper while the a a l s a l s 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.  14.  J t a n d a r d g u i n e a p i g cages showing d a t a b r a c k e t and w a t e r b o t t l e .  card  84  85  16.  A f t e r th© cage ha© b@©n c l e a n e d , f r e s h s h a v i n g s ar©  then p l a c e d i n th© c a g e .  Once a week, t h e guinea p i g s  are transferred from th© d i r t y cages t o clean cages, i n stead o f u s i n g th© p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d method o f r e moving d i r t y b e d d i n g .  The d i r t y sag© i s t h e n c l e a n e d and  washed w i t h h o t water and ammoniated soap and a l l o w e d t o dry o v e r n i g h t .  A ©@©o»d f e a t u r e o f t h i s ©ag© i s the  p a r t i t i o n ©losing o f f the p a r t of th© cage which permit© th© guinea p i g , p a r t i c u l a r l y a sow w i t h a l i t t e r , a p l a c e of s e c l u s i o n .  These cage© have been i n c o n s t a n t 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 t o c r i t i c i s m , on the grounds that i t i s only possible because i t i s s m a l l .  However, the  fact that the S u f f l e l d Experimental Station successfully o p e r a t e s a u n i t numbering 4000 sows and t h e i r progeny w i t h much the same type o f c a g i n g , would seem t o answer any criticism*  Th© rack and cage t h e y use ar© i l l u s t r a t e d i n  F i g s * I f A and ITS r e s p e c t i v e l y *  The important m o d i f i c a t i o n s  used In t h i s cage ar© that the f l o o r i s sheeted with aluminum and th© f r o n t w a l l o f the cage a c t s 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 r a c k •  88  f o w l i n g , and W a t e r i n g  {0}  The r a t i o n 'ia f a t as p e l l e t s w h i c h a r e about 1/4 of an i n c h long and 3/16 o f an i n c h i n d i a m e t e r . {See Appendix I I I ) .  S m a l l h a l f pound salmon cans s e r v e  as f e e d c o n t a i n e r s and a r e hung on t h e i n s i d e o f t h e eage w i t h a p i e c e o f s t i f f w i r e *  The c o l o n y i s f e d and  watered d a l l y * f e e l i n gfetinga4 l i b i t u m , S a l f p i n t b o t t l e a a r e used a s water o o n t a i n e r s . d a l l y and c l e a n e d weekly*  They a r e ©banged  I n a d d i t i o n t o the p e l l e t e d  r a t i o n * , t h e g u i n e a p i g s r e o e i v e f r e s h , green f e e t e v e r y aeeoafi day about e i g h t months o f t h e year*.  I n the  w i n t e r montha t 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 t w i o e a week*  The green f e e d s e r v e s as a source o f the neo«  f s s a r y 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 o f v i t a m i n A.  The ma.l©r p o r t i o n o f t h e green f e e d c o n s i s t s  o f k a l e produced a .short distance tvm  the laboratory*  89  (4) .  Breeding. , A H b r e e d i n g ©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 t h e b r e e d i n g h i s t o r y c a r d i n d e x e d . 2 * th® b r e e d i n g f r o g r t s p r a e t l f t e d * * b o a t I© a l l o w e d 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 f r o m ta© fere#Mag ©ag© when she appear© t© a© ff©gaamt feat 1© ©jLiowed t o  fm^nr her© w i t h ta© o t h e r  mature g u i n e a f i g s p r e s e n t 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 © p r o * •©ednr©, ta© o t h e r sows, i a fb© ©age  *»§l«i t h e sow f a r r o w *  .lag, by h e l p i n g remove ta© *pla#©ntai membranes twm newborn g u i n e a plg## tba© r e d u o i n g ©aiioa.  X*«*** t h r o u g h  the matte*  l&periea©© Jt** ©aowa t a a t a sow f a r r o w i n g i a  i s o l a t i o n ©©mefim©,© doe© n o t remove th© pla©©atal membrane© i n time. •horn*  $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©  About 12 hour© a f t e r th© g u i n e a p i g has farrowed,  ©he ana h e r l i t t e r a r e removed t o a ©lean ©age ana k e p t 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 a t 21 days of  ag©.  f h e female g u i n e a 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 h e r i n the b r e e d i n g ©age f o r 12 h o u r s 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 g e t h e r r e b r e i nt t h a t time and t h u s save 21 d a y s , sine© she w i l l n e t a g a i n come i n t o e s t r u s u n t i l h e r  l i t t e r has been weaned*' When t h e $w h a s weaned h e r l i t t e r she i s t h e n r e t u r n e d - t o t h e breeding cage and the  procedure r e p e a t e d *  f h i s s y s t e a of b r e e d i n g - f a c i l i t a t e s  continuous p r o d u c t i o n i n t h e g u i n e a p i g u n i t *  fhere- has  been no evidence t o i n d i c a t e any u n d e s i r a b l e e f f e c t s on  t h e b r e e d i n g stools m  t h e vigor-and growth o f t h e l i t t e r s  r e s u l t i n g from t h i s p r o c e d u r e .  &  The l i t t e r s are weaned a t  days .and t h e Sasse,® s e p a r a t e d ,  are selected m  f u t u r e breeding animals  t h e 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 o f the s i r e  and data t o produce l a r g e l i t t e r s .  T h i s replacement  b r e e d i n g 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 o f 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 eoiony*.  p r a c t i s e d in  e v e r y day husbanding o f tae  t h i s p o l i c y i h e l u d a i i * . k e e p i n g t h e ©ages ol@«n f  washing %hm. w i t h a a a o n i a i e d soap and washing the w a t e r b # t t l a g oaoe a week* . I f m  aftissal appear® t o he below  normal i t i s d e s t r o y e d a n i a, p o s t mortem p e r f o m e d t o 4#~ t e r a i n e the oamaa o f i t s poor e o m t i t l o n *  l a .the f o u r y e a r s  t h a t the g u i n e a p i g #ol««y Urn been i n o p e r a t i o n , t h e r e has been ©me  t e r i o u ® •outbreak o f an i a f e « t i o n ,  At t h a t t i m e ,  a p p r o x i m a t e l y h a l f o f the t o t a l c o l o n y p o p u l a t i o n o f 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 o n l y a limited supplement o f green feed and i t i s f e l t t h a t t h i s d e f i c i e n c y c o n t r i b u t e d t o the  outbreak*  Some of th© aaiaalts were b e g i n n i n g t o 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  t h e purohaie o f green f e e d . O a r i n g t h e course of t h e growth study* e x t e n d i n g over a p e r i o d o f the l a s t year*, one n a t u r e guinea p i g d i e t a t p a r t u r i t i o n , and a seoond animal was d e s t r o y e d because  93  of poor condition* with the total number of guinea pigs in the unit averaging about 55.  It should he stated,  that i n 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 i n the purchase of some 30,000 guinea pigs, that the shipping mortality in this species i s largely predetermined by the pre-shlpping management of the production unit from which the guinea pigs are purchased, felt*  f i t l i ) has reported  aeaaiasioas.  93  • {§) Animal Nutrition Laboratory Growth Data -evaluate ta© ©taadari of this  'JB o r d e r  guinea pig colony,, a growth study was conduct ©a. fhe j w e ^ t t * t©lloirei and  at 21 -day© ©f  was t © weigh t h e litter® at birth 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 o f other investigator©* 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£iSSy_ 31«* -, « * j , F t , , Alive Weaning . U.B.C.  24  73  3.0  97.4  250.P  94*  97.2*  Cramp-  ton Saton 2,-241ft,0 x 8  ^,4 102. 8*89  93.4 8S0,1X $9fi §1,2$  ^ajne©_ x •, .. 8«8& x leaned at 33 day's* acx Weaned at 21'days, ."' The d a t a 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 o o l o a y i s 101 gram©.*  Th© r a t i o n  o u t l i n e d - © ? 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  mmmxr  detailed  of  t h e growth d a t a f r o ® tb© A n i m a l B u t r l t i o a L a b o r a t o r y Colony* Table 14 *. Growth D a t a o n A n i m a l l u t r i t i o n L a b o r a t o r y 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* H e a v i e s t L i g h t e s t  Average  Birth  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 o f Huraber o f Young i n L i t t e r  Bo. i a  HO. o f  JMsaL~~  UW*  1  ..~  1.  2 9  .  1.3  5 9 8  4  6.8  12.3  10.9  n i l  6  .- .*  Per Cent  .-,  • 3.  ,  1.3  jiit  The d a t a i n fable© 34 and ,3S a r e p l o t t e d as. shown i n F i g s . 18 and 1 9 ,  • In o r d e r .to t o t a l s Mm  p©st*weaning g r o w t h  l a t a , :f our s a l e s and seven f e m a l e a s e l e c t e d 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 t h e Guinea Pig. Age i n Days 7 14 81 28 35 42 40 56  Birth days days daya days daya gays days daye  Weight H a l s  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 o f t h e d a t a i n Table 36.  I t would appear from t h e data, that t h o guinea p i g u n i t operated by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Department of Agriculture  is not up to the standard of the U. B. G. unit i f Eaton's data i s 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 i n which the U, B. C. unit excels the U. S. D. A. unit. Eaton refers to a weaning weight of 260 grams a t 33 days of age. The limited data beyond t h e 11 day weaning age show t h a t t h e U. B . 0* a n i m a l s are  a p p r o x i n a t e i y 300 grams a t 33 days o f a g e .  (7)  Cost Survey on Guinea P i g Ooloay* A eost s u r v e y was conducted on Una © d e n y  s i m i l a r t o t h o s e on t h e nouaa and r a t . see Appendix T« The cost of greens was so s m a l l that i t was n o t included. The average c o s t p e r g u i n e a p i g p e r day i s as f o l l o w s !  labour  #0,005  feed «  0.003  Bousing *  0.001  t o t a l Oast  |0.009 p e t day  100  A n i m a l n u t r i t i o n L a b o r a t o r y Hahfcit U n i t  ill  Origin  •torn r a b b i t m a i t ami*** o f two b r e e d s , jumaiy th© F i e m i s i i G i a n t a n t th© l o w Seaiaad H i t © *  looaas© o f  th© r a p i d t u r n - o v e r of th© r a b b i t © f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l par*p o s e s , i t ha© n o t boon p o s s i b l e t o ©et up a ©©parat© b r e e d i n g ©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 b r e e d i n g ©took o r e x p e r i m e n t a l «aimal©#  i h e r a f o r e a b r e e d i n g program w i t h any d e f i n i t e  ©bjeetiv©© hm n o t been p a t i n t o  prattle*.*  t h e primary  o b j e c t i v e i n t h e o p e r a t i o n o f th© ©olony ha© been t o m a i n t a i n t h e animal© i n optimum (ft)  eoaaltion*  lousing f h e r a b b i t © ar© housed i n an unbeated b a r n .  Wire  ©age® w i t h . expanded m e t a l f l o o r © a r e suspended f r o m two i n c h pip© support© b o l t e d t o t h e © o i l i n g o f t h e room.  This  t y p e o f ©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 o f 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  101  F i g . 21. Standard rabbit cages.  102  2 f e e t alga, w i t h ©ach ©ompartment b e i n g 4 f e e t l o n g but t a e sane w i d t h and height*  f h e maximum c a p a c i t y recom-  mended is 4 r a b b i t s p e r s e c t i o n .  The b r e e d i n g does and  bucks a r e p r o v i d e d w i t h s m a l l n a i l kegs a s n e s t b o x e s . They m e a s u r e ! f o o t , 8 i n c h e s l o n g and I f o o t two i n c h e s i n diameter*  The f l o o r o f t h e barn i s c o n s t r u c t e d o f  ooaoret©, which f a c i l i t a t e s t h e d a i l y removal o f droppings passed t h r o u g h t h e w i r e f l o o r o f t h e c a g e .  After the  f l o o r has been c l e a n e d , i t i s hosed and t h e water a l l o w e d 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)  f e e d i n g and Watering. The r a b b i t s a r e f e d and watered d a i l y .  They a r e  f e d 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 o f the guinea p i g * . Th© c o m p o s i t i o n o f the r a t i o n i s g i v e n i n App e n d i x 1X1,  Every f i f t h day the r a b b i t s were f e d p e l l e t s  to w h i c h ©ulfaquinoxaXine had been add©d a t t h e o . o l p e r ©ent l e v e l .  On© g a l l o n open t o p Jam t i n s which have a vol-  urn© aapaelty o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1500 aa* a r e u t i l i z e d as water containers. (4)  Breeding A planned b r e e d i n g program i s n o t f o l l o w e d i a  the r a b b i t c o l o n y , m a i n l y because o f th© l a r g e demand and r a p i d turn~over o f animals.  As a r e s u l t , l i n e b r e e d i n g i s  103  mot practised and these® a r e no attempts t o establish a partiealar f a m i l y o r 'raise breeding stock*  mm new  or  acre aniaals  a r e needed  for breeding  t h e y a r e purchased fmm other breeders* ive of  Instead, when* .purposes*  1% is the objeet-  t h i s laboratory to keep th© unit i n continuous  production  throughout t h e  always possible*  year*  Sometimes  this Is not  F o r exaxaple, during th© l a s t three months  of 1950, the eleven l i t t e r s born during that period were destroyed b y the d o e s . No reasonable explanation can be offered for these losses, since from th© beginning of February, production has been excellent under i d e n t i c a l conditions o f 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. A t 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 c o n s i d e r e d * that by. the use o f th©  mgm  w i t h w i r e f l o o r s and good management, d i s e a s e i n t h e eoXony i s k e p t t o a a i a i w a .  W h i l e no aoourat© f i g u r e s  on rat® o f m o r t a l i t y have been r e c o r d e d , i t i s a known f a c t t h a t t h e g r e a t e s t l o s s e s o c c u r i n t h e pr#*weaning age  group» s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e Causes a r e 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 . are e x t r e m e l y r a r e .  M tm%  f  th® l o s s e s of mature animals  I t i s r e c o g n i s e d , however, t h a t t h e  f f b b i t u n i t has r e l a t i v e l y t h e h i g h e s t r a t e of m o r t a l i t y o f t h e f o u r aniiaai u n i t s .  mmmn t r o u b l e s H  of  P o s s i b l y t h r e e o f t h e more  r a b b i t u n i t s a r e e o c o i d i o s i a , • so c a l l e d  s a u f f l e s w and e a r zaange.  I n t h i s colony, oocoidiosis  does n o t p r e s e n t a problem, because o f th© use of t h e w i r e * bottomed cage and s u l p h a q u i n o x a l i s e . odd  There has been t h e  case o f **snuffles*', b u t t o d a t e no s e r i o u s o u t b r e a k .  I t i s caused b y t h e 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 t h e most bothersome problem t o keep under o o n t r o l i n th© c o l o n y .  I t i s caused by F a o r o n t e s e u a i o u l i  cmeraates, ouai<mli,two s p e c i e s o f e a r ~ a l t e s .  Although  105  i f £B  m%  a i>«rti0ulai*lj'  'Oaagaroua i a f aatla&*  *xfam*ty i r r i t a t i n g to ta® r a b b i t *  It  is  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© o f ta© rafeBit@ # so that th© a f f e o t e d ***** ar© w e l l ©ataratei,*.  T h i s © s a t r o l measure  need© t o I t r e p e a t e d f r e q u e n t l y i a o r d e r t o o f f ©at a ©omplet© oar©*  106  (6)  Animal N u t r i t i o n L a b o r a t o r y Growth D a t a . Sine® a l l t h ® • l i t t e r s i n t h e l a t t e r p a r t o f  1950 were destroyed* i t has a o t been p o s s i b l e t o aaeumulat© a s m e n d a t a as « $ d e s i r e d *  .la a d d i t i o n * a l l th© l i t t e r ©  were n o t 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 w e i g h t s 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 o f t h e l i t t e r *  fhe  l i t t e r © w@re weighed a t weekly i n t e r v a l © a f t e r t h e i n i t i a l w e i g h i n g and ao ©ex d e t e r m i n a t i o n s were made*  F o r these  r e a s o n s t t h e l i m i t e d growth d a t a i n Table 37 ar© a o t t o be t a k e n as a standard b u t more as a guide*  I f Table 37 does  n o t h i n g e l s e , i t does serve t o s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e a l r e a d y w e l l known knowledge o f t h e © f f e e t o f t h e sis© o f l i t t e r ©a b i r t h m i g h t and subsequent g a i n I n weight w i t h time*  107  Table 37 » Animal Mutrition Laboratory Growth D a t a on  tb© Rabbit Average freight at Ho.in N o . o f 7 days 1 4 days E l days 28 days 35 days 4 2 day® U t t e r L i t t e r s .„ . . ... , -, . ; • ., 3  I  200  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.  13  1  106  228^  413  19S1  1  - 1 1 alive  g  - 1 0 alive  8  * 1 0 alive  343s  441  108  Oest Survey  -of R a b b i t Colony  A ©eat s u r v e y o f  ttue oolony was  made, t h e  Appendix f .  a@tai.lai. r e s u l t a o f whieli appear i a  The  h o u s i n g ©oat was n o t eaXaulatad beoause o f t h e d i f f i c u l t y i n e s t i m a t i n g th©  "life*  of  the w i r e  eages,  f n e average  e a s t p e r r a b b i t p e r day i s a s f o l l o w s j  Labour ~  «  #0,017 ,P.«QQ?  f a t a l oost * | *0E4 p e r day  100  111  Summary aad C o n c l u s i o n s  A s t u d y aa© been made o f ta© s m a l l a n i m a l u n i t s o f t h e .Animal n u t r i t i o n l a b o r a t o r y o f th© D e p a r t ment o f Animal Husbandry,  fhes© u n i t © i n c l u d e d t h e r a t ,  th© mouse* the g u i n e a p i g and th© r a b b i t ,  fhe study was  undertaken t o a s c e r t a i n i f t h e animal© produced i a . these u n i t s ar© comparable, w i t h r e s p e c t t o p r o d u c t i v i t y and growth r a t a , t o t h e a n i m a l s 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 o f tlx© h o u s i n g  and management p r a c t i c e © f o l l o w e d have been d e s c r i b e d , t h i s has n o t always been don© by o t h e r 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 o f any a n i m a l u n i t , l a b o r a t o r y  o r d o m e s t i c , i s i a a l a r g e measure determined b y t h e management p r a c t i c e s f o l l o w e d i n i t s o p e r a t i o n .  They have  been i n c l u d e d i a t h e p r e s e n t w o r k , so t h a t th© p r o d u c t i o n and growth d a t a may be more r e a d i l y a s s e s s e d , (2)  l a th© w r i t e r * s e x p e r i e n c e , t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f  a ©mall a n i m a l c o l o n y i s attended by many minor d l f f i o u X -  t i e s associated with i t s day to day operation..  The  methods used i n t h i s colony were recorded i n d e t a i l , i n the hope that others might resolve their minor problems at the outset.  Ill  fable 38 - Optimum G-rowtb D a t a o f O t h e r Investigators Compared to Animal Nutrition Laboratory Mean .growth  S  O t h e r s ^ A*S*L».- Other© .Ave f a r Cent • fertility  93,3  young Bom Ave.  73.1 1766  1  97  1  A.H...L. o t h e r s A.N.L. ....Ave. .. . . , r r. Aye... Not Recorded  8©  81*  71  Sim 9*9  Litter  7*4  7.2  S>4§  No. Young  WW  Weaned  Per Cent  to  Weened  Average )M Birth JP Weight )L  5.6 5.3  Average)M 48,0 Weaning)F 47.0 Weight )L  242  - 85 5.4s 5.5 5.44 33.4 31.6 33.6  94*6 8 1 , S 4  if*2 99.6  1.38  10.5  1.38 102S  10.3  360  95.7  97.4  256.5 245.8 250.7  1  Represents the optimum results reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e by other investigators.  2  Abbreviation f o r Animal Nutrition Laboratory  3  B i r t h and weaning weights a r e f o r Sherman strain rat3  4  R e p r e s e n t s Craiapton* 8 d a t a  5  Represents iiaton»s data - weaned at 33 days  f a b l e 88 r e p r e s e n t s a summary o f tii® optimum d a t a r e p o r t e d b y a l l o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t o r s compared t o t h e 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  d a t a p r e s e n t e d , i t i s eonoluded t h a t t h e  A n i m a l n u t r i t i o n L a b o r a t o r y r a t oolony e x c e l s i n l i t t e r s i z e a t b i r t h and peroemtage weaned b u t i s s l i g h t l y l o w e r i n percentage f e r t i l i t y and overage weaning w e i g h t , The mouse c o l o n y a l s o e x c e l s i n l i t t e r s i z e and percentage weanedf but I s o n l y average i n f e r t i l i t y and weaning weight when compared w i t h o t h e r mouse c o l o n i e s *  Qti the b a s i s o f t h e l i m i t e d p r o d u c t i o n and growth d a t a r e p o r t e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e , t h e Aaimal n u t r i t i o n L a b o r a t o r y guinea p i g c o l o n y r e c o r d e d 4 n e a r l y comparable  Th® percentage  b i r t h w e i g h t s and a h e a v i e r weaning weights* weaned was a l s o h i g h e r than t h a t r e p o r t e d .  The growth d a t a o f t h i s r a b b i t c o l o n y was n o t oons i d e r e d t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e enough t o make p o s s i b l e v a l i d o o a o l u s i o n s with r e s p e c t 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 p r e s e n t work may be c r i t i c i z e d on t h e grounds t h a t 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 n o t been a p p l i e d t o  115  the  results  i t was  over  a  !  jais point was recognised, but f e l t that much more data should 'be accumulated more extended period of time before such aa recorded*  analysis i s carried out. ducted  future studies should b© con-  oa the post-natal nutrition of  the  mouse and the  n u t r i t i o n a l 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  o f *©e*afe t e x t s p u b l i s h e d wlfcaia p e r i o d 1945 - 19SO i n t j l u e i v e  fs^fiSj, I *  , (1950) "The oar© and breeding o f laboratory a n i m a l s " , John Wiley and Sons, Mew Y o r k .  H a r r i s , 1. J . , and G r i f f i t h , j r , 3". Q,.s 1 (1949) "The r a t i n laboratory investigation* . J". B. Lippinoott Co., Philadelphia. S n e l l , 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, B a i l l i e r e , T i n d a l l and Cox, London.  ll£f  mmmxx II SPSCIFIOATIQBS O F SL1CTEI0 FAW  Manufacturer • o f Fan  ~ eamadiaa sir©©©© 0©* 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 o p e r a t e d f o r 15 minute© o f e v e r y hour,, ta© v o l i s n * o f a i r ©hanged equal© so,000 ©mala f o o t per hour,  fn© volume of tli© t h r e e a a i a a l room© aad  a ©took room i # a© follow©1 Room  Volume - On . F t ,  Bat Mouse Guinea P i g  1079  752  680  tt© t o t a l room volaa© o f 3530 ©aoio f o o t aad a volume a i r ©hang® o f 86000 6 u H e f o o t r e p r e s e n t 10 a i r ehaage© i a a l l room© ©very h o u r . Maaufaotnrer of a e o t r i © Motor Model l i f $ 4 0 I T . - 47 Oy, 60 P,H. 1  * G e n e r a l H e o t r i © Oo. Type its & 3,6 E.P.M* 17B5 ¥ , 1 1 0 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 F l a k e s  400  Soyabean s e a l  25  Pilenard O i l  7  Bog M e a l Pre-Mix  410 2600  Bog Meal Pre-Mix Iodized Salt  Pounds 10  Meat Soraps  @.8§  f i s h M e a l (11$)  3#0  Powdered Skim M i l k  100  Oarragrass  I20  Wbeat S e m Meal.  §0  Hioe f e e d  .. .250 1585  1 1 7  f...,».. ,0.,, Satiea'10 - .Bat®. aad. Ml©© Pounds. Wheat flak©a meat Iraa  45  H a h i l e a l <7©#)  50  I h e a t (3©rm M e a l  m  Powdered S k t a U l l k  86  Dried Yeast  10  Apple pemae©  30  .Beet p a l p  30  -Oat© greuad  40  Heat ©©rap  70  Seya meal  ?S  Ittmv meal  30  B©»@ meal  10 5  Oarragras© salt  '10Q© Oesmputed A n a l y s i s Protein .Fat Fibre  116  M i l k soaked bread p l u s c o r n as s t a p l e .  A s u p p l y o f ©bopped t o r n was k e p t c o n s t a n t l y l a ©ages.  A l i b e r a l amount o f wheat broad soaked i a whole  m i l k was .supplied d a i l y , , and f r e s h , meat (beef) ono© a week.  max*  Milk  Ground Whole Wheat  Diet A  Diet B  i/e  i/s  6/6  H a d 2$ o f weight Of wheat l a each ease*  i g p ^.lffiftftft (1986) mm Casein Salt Mixture  4  9  lutterfat  15  Lard  Lettue©  Cent 36  37  stareh  feast  Per  0.2 grams d a i l y 40 grams d a i l y  Whole Wheat  2/3  Whole M i l k Powder •  1/3  Ma01 t o t h e amount o f 2$ o f t h e wheat F r e s h cabbage o r 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 f h e a t  2/3  D r i e d Whole M i l k  1/3  • KaOl t o t h e amount of 2$ o f t h e wheat f h e y ' f o u n d i t advantageous t o r e p l a o e h a l f o f t h e added sodium s h l o r i d e w i t h an e q u a l weight o f ealoium carbonate g i v i n g a Ca t o P r a t i o o f 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 r e c e i v e 9 grams o f d r i e d y e a s t per week*  120  mmmMMX G. L,  f  #  Haal  calf  pounds  L i n s e e d O i l meal  30©  GtanxaA m a l t e d  200  barley  *iheat r e t d©§ f l o u r  440  ariel. ttjiritUfe  300  Oat  §00  flour  Y e l l o w mm  4§0  seal  llteaiiod bone meal  20  Sgftttfti' l i m e s t o n e  *0  mm 2000.#«d X i w ©4*  M  f  twie* a  im a a $ p t r ©afit o f t a t days food.*  week* mixed t o green f o o d  i s supplied*  faaela Hitol© SXX& Powder  10$  iodimm ShXoride  o.s  # a i o i a a Carbonate  1*8  l a t t e r funedited).  5.2  m o l © around  wheat 100*  5$ dried yeast ia also added to diet of mother rats while nursing..  121  t h e f o l l o w i n g d r y r a t i o n {97$) was mixed w i t h , eod Mires' e H . P e r cent : M m s e e i . o i l meal.  IS  . C o m meal  go  B a r l e y - g r o u n d malted  10  l e d dog f l o w  BE  Dried ski» milk  • i s  Oat f l o a r  I©  i o l u b l e b l o o d meal  3  • Sodium c h l o r i d e temsd  I  iimastone  1  Steaded' bonemeal,  1  M o i s t u r e a©ateat o f a i r d r y m i x t u r e - 57$ P r o t e i n - 22.1% C a l c i u m - 0.92$ l a a d d i t i o n a paste food c o n t a i n i n g I h o l e milk: powder  W$ 99$  Casein Wheat embryo  20$ 90$  .Lard was f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e a t a l l t i m e s . Moisture Bfotein Calcium  ZM '  . $•&>$  l a o h r a t r e c e i v e d 20 grams l e t t u o e per diem and 3 grams o f d r i e d y e a s t t w i c e a week.  12E  G. L . F . C a l f M e a l - 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 o f age r e o e i v a i a a d d i t i o n a *paste f o o d * o o n s i s t i n g e f t per eent Casein•  Si  m  Whole M i l k Powder I h e a t Bateyft  20  Lard.  80  l a t h r a t reoeivee. 1 gm.* o f d r i e d y e a s t d a i l y e x c e p t Sunday. STOCK BIST (1930) Wheat o f f a l ( f i n e m i d d l i n g s No.2.)  p e r oent 19. Z i f .2 19,2  ©round o a t s Cteund b a r l e y  9.8  'tireual  t.5  wmtm  Meat ami bone meal  protein)  9.0  »ried ski» « i l k  7.0  White f i s h .meal (§0$ p r o t e i n )  4.7  Uried yeast C4#  1.2  protein)  Sodium e h l o r i d e  0.5  Cod l i v e r o i l  0,5  B i g . ' P r o t e i n 14*9 p e r ©ant Caloium 1*18 Phosphorous 0,99 o r Ca:P r a t i o 1.19  IBS  • fa© ©oXeny i s f e d th® -ateele r a t i o n p i n s 5 gran* « f g r e e n f e e d • n s n a l i y kala •  .1ft a d d i t i o n XQ  ml* o f ©eparafeed m i l k JPtA p e r growing r a t ,  flgppffB. ,{xm) p e r ©eat §r^nmd y e l l o w e o r n  15  §£©n«4 a n e l i e d o a t s  15  g r o u n d wnol© wheat  15  S e a t sorap  10  I k o l e niXis powder  .  Alfalfa leaf »aX $ o d i i » enlorid© g a i o i w • «arbonat# Molasses  fas binder)  10 . .  * S 0.s . :§,6 100,  124  jw  IsUw  © o « meal  . . .  e o n t p e r  cent  • 80 #070  12.86  10  10  ftrauaA m a l t e d b a r l e y f n e a t red; dog. f l o u r  BE  22  ©at f l o u r -  18  .16  12  12  gelubi©' I0,oo4 f l o u r  3  3  Salt  1  1  Ste*a*& bone meal  1  1  Cod l i v e r o i l  0.126  0,14  Dried  ti&fra&Xk'  Casein  1  Corn o i l  7 Protein Fat  F o r Cent 23.83 4.50  G a l * p e r gram 3*30  f h e c o d l i v e r O H used c o n t a i n e d 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 v i t a m i n A p e r gram. VINSON AND CEREOSDO (.1943) • P u r i n a Dog Chow ' Protein  p e r cent ' 26.86  fat  6.28  fiber  4.44  Ash  7.35  Oalolam  1.38  Phosphorous  0.96  126  M&m  mm, • Srams  Oaueim'  20  .20  20  5  5  5  2§  3©  35  •feast .ftidiraoted..) . Gem s t a r o h  •  23.4 *  galls  immM  and  2  .  §  &<  0,1  diioline Cystine F a t ( i n mm Of Corn ©11)  . 15  2  ,  0,1  0*1  • 0.2  0.2  1 0 . .. 93.f  «1*0  trotein  *  21*0  20,4  Fat  ii*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? c e n t Skim m i l k powder Margarine fat ground whole wheat tedium e h l o r i d e  fiS#70 9.24 &©,0 1.0  1*6  The s k i m milk powder eontained l . l f l l i p i d , Aa a s s a y 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 f u a a t i t i © © Of vitamin© B aad 1 were present i n th© f a t . T h i s p r o p o r t i o n o f added margarine f a t give© t h e f a t ©ontent © f a i v a l e s i t to' t h a t wM@h would b© p r e i e a t i f W$ whole milk powder c o n t a i n i n g (26$ f a t } were u s e d .  F i v e grams  o f l e a n meat and l e t t a e © onoe weekly were f e d t o each r a t a f t e r weaning.  p e r ©eat 34  Ground whoi© wheat Ground s t e e l out o a t s  34  Skim m i l k powder  15  Cottonseed o i l c o n t a i n i n g 1000 I.U. v i t a m i n A 160 I.U. v i t a m i n D  10  A l f a l f a l e a f meal  4  mt y e a s t f Anh©as@r~Bus©h © t r a i n $}  2  Sodium C h l o r i d e  0..5  Oalsium ©arboaat®  0.5 Fat  14$  zxm mmm BAEKWS  Jfraagtao* .Mouse;, W Q E M  &«W>  Eolled barley Mixed w h i t e and y e l k s o f eggs aye s u p p l i e d d a i l y . F r e s h l e a v e s o f l e t t u e e were s u p p l i e d t w i o e w e e k l y . Sundays * t h o r o u g h l y d r i e d b r e a d .  Th® w h i t e s and y o l k s o f eggs a r e beaten t o g e t h e r and s t r a i n e d , 5 o o . o f m i x t u r e b e i n g s u p p l i e d t o s i x mica.  t r e a d and M i l k ) Crushed ©ate  ; pine periodio vegetable f o o d .  Miiitt  .fresh a U k S g v a t t a Ood.Liver O i l »©# Food ^Bread soaked in w a t e r Oats Bemn Canary s e e d .  Pteck Bi@% A • Farina Bo.g Chew •• mmk Biet I iround oats  m  Brewers y e a s t  10  Whole m i l l powder  15  Sodium e h l o r i d e  1#8  f h e y 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  Skim-Milk Sawder  22.75 Grams  Casein  Stook M o t  imwmmn k  20 grams 24  Ground i h e l e i h e a t  81.52'  Brewers Toast ( D r i e d )  4,00  2 20  Starch  4  Salt Mixture  m •  Butterfai Cei L i v e r O i l  2,00  Salt  1.40 ,li  |%rri# Citrate  &  form; O i l i a l o a l a t a t Composition • Protein fat Carbohydrate  19.6$  11.7 62,7 4.8  Ash  Water Bruce Ration Wholemeal Flour Dried lull-Cream Milk Dried Yeast  f a r Cent 50  m  Cod Liver O i l Sodium Chloride Calcium C a r b o n a t e  $  1. 1 -  Calculated Composition Dig, f r e t . Dig, f a t Dig. fibre  31.3$ 29.S 30.2 4.5 4.6  12 6  Meat a n d Bone M e a l  19.3$ ll.i 0,5  Mendel)  130  iii  PIG amoss  tr.B.O* n a t i o n 0 * Guinea l*igs Fonnis  m® xm mo  flakai fiakai  WmXw  sgo  meat Mwm  MO  OMomt M e a l  m •mo'  8eyttfe*ft& O i l K u l  w  911 0«&» H e a l  $m  Beet P u l p  Mineral  w&®*mX%  ' 'SO  m  Sadinm C n l o M t ®  fitasin %  3»«*«lx 2010.85  Ocnpatad. A n a l g i a Per ©ent lutein'  m  Fibre  m  » @  Galaaa P i g R a t i o n W W a a p t o B  gb# b a s a l  tot  kmm. m  OoRAtitoaat  the MaoDonaif f i i t t *  3*©sf Coat  tat©  10,0  Wfatat  13*0  l o o t pulp ©il»©ai *ll£lj& M U M ft**,  maal  Bra****. 6*1*4 f o a s t  1§,0  §,© . 10*0  Bon© ©has* S a l t (#.1|S X I ) 100.0  132  HID  aabbit Ratio*  W.B.O* R a t i o n I S - R a b b i t s  Pounds Oat©  400  laaat  175  Barley  8QQ  Bran  350  B r i e i Crass  100  m  Beat B a l p  mo  80pm meal  ' m  Soya s e a l O i l Cake meal taaiiatM  toast  Colony a l n a r a l s  3 80  Salt S0OG  TMs  r a t i o n has been p e l l e t e d w i t h s u l p h a -  o u i a o x a l l n e f o r ©©ooidiosis o o n t r o l *  133  APPENDIX  IT  A  GROWTH DATA 01 ANIMAL N T O I T I Q N LABORATORY RATS  Number —Feaals N o ,  Age o f  7  i a Litter at 14 21 28  15 10 9 10 12 7 12 8 15 7 12 10 12 12  14 10 9 10 12 7 12 8 15 7 12 10 12 12  Famalo Born Stillborn days daya days daya  Gl 03 04 05 06  181 183 181 182 184 180 180 182 182 164 184 185 186 186  G7 08 09 010 Oil  cig-  013 014 015  Total Ave *  P.F.XII-U-I P. F . H I - X I * 2 P.F.lII-11-3 P.F.HII-ll-S P.JNXXI-lA-1 P.F.H1-1A-2 P.F.XII-1A-3 P.F.HI-IA-4 P.F.32-4I~2l-2 P.F.32-4I-2X-3 P.F.32-41-21-4 P.F.32-41-21-5 P.F.32-4X-3X-3 P.F.32-41-3X-4 . T o t a l .. Ave. Overall Total Overall Ave.  Number  177 179 177 178 X06 107 112 112 140 143 144 143 177 182  1© 10 10 10 14 7 12  3  ©  17 7 12 U 12 12  1 1  158 11.3  6  11 13 12 IS 12 13 13 li 10 11 13 16 11 11  1  .  178 12.5334 11.9  3 1  1  14 9 9 10 12 7 12 8 15 7 12 10 12 12  14 9 f 10 12 7 12 8 15 7 12 10 12 12  151 150 149 10.0 10.0  149 9.9  11 12 12 15 11 13 12 16 10 11 13 15 11 H  11 11 12 15 10 12 12 15 10 11 13 15 H 11  11 11 12 14 10 12 12 13 10 11 13 13 11 11  11 11 12 14 10 12 9 13 10 11 13 13 - 11 11  5  173 169 164 161 12.3 12.0 11.7 11.5  11  324 319 313 31.0 11.6 11.4 11.2 11.1  134  AII'I.ZDI,. 17  Birth  Weight o f L i t t e r a t 7 14 El days days days  ;\ - Continue d  28 days  135 120 111 115 134 109 • 151 116 135 93 124 87 124 126  212 185 212 208 E38 £04 273 212 253 186 231 177 208 242  348 295 356 317 382 333 417 332 381 292 390 298 314 384  538 515 562 520 664 541 - 659 529 576 490 677 513 538  1680 11*1  3041 20.3  4839 32.4  7967 53.4  £04 284 241 253 200 195 210 299 216 254 280 279 195 255  329 357 376 345 316 29 6 254 440 339 424 461 405 317 415  536 591 516 590 523 496 455  . 86 60 64 71 85 •58 63  104 131 130 134 108 116 120 179 118 138 149 167 110 136  956 5.34  1040 10.6  3305 19.55  5074 30.9  "8364 51.9  3520 10.86  6396 20.0  9913  81 68 60  55  76 47 69 51 91 42 63 55  65  $0 877 5.55 5© 76  m  74  60  67  m  1833 5.48  31.7  Sax R a t i o a t 21 Days 10 4 4 4 6 3 8 2 • 8 3 4  5  8 8  645  704 589 712 754 662 535 701  16331 57.7  77  8 6  7  5 4 5 3 7 5  4 5 5 6  e  4  4 6 7 4 8 5  4  4 72  3 5 5 9 6  7 6 6  10 8 5 6  5 5 • 3 5 6 5  85  76  162  148  6  13S  Female H o .  Age of Number Female Born still' born  P.F.XII-11-51-4 P.F.XII-11-61-5 P. F.32-41-21-21-1 P.F.3E-41-ai-21»3 P.1*32-41-21-31-5 P.F.32-41-3X-31-2 P.f.32-41-3x-31-4 P.F.32-41-3X-31-S  330 332 272 270 331 364 363 304  6 9 11 8 © 13 10 11  Number i n l i t t e r at 7 14 21 daara days daya  6 9 11  6 9 11 §  11  U S 6 13 10 11 11  13 10 11 11  97  9?  97  10 7 4 13 7 10 . 3  10 7 4 13 7 10 3  10 7 4 13 7 10 3  8 6  13 10  P.F.32-41-3X-41-1 267 11 Total Average  @ 9  97 9.7  6  P.F.32-41-21-21-4 301 P.F.32-41-21-31-1 363 P.F.3-2-41-21-31-4 36g P.F.32-41-3X-31-4 402 P.F.32-41-3X-31-5 404 I».F.3g-4i-3at-41-g 296 P.F,32-4i-3X-41-3 300  10 9 4 13 8 11 3  Total Average Wistar.110. ;  58 8.2  54  54  54  6  6  6  3  g  6 6 6  .  P .F.Hl-li-Si-g 40® P .F.32-41-21-21-1 347 P.F.3S-41-21-31-4 . 409 P.F.32-41-21-31-3A 345 P.F.32-41-3.X-31-3 443 344 Total Average Overall Total Overall Average  6 7 4 8 " f  1 1  6 6  6  •  ,  7  6  4 7  3 4 7  4© 6.6  34  32  32  19© 8.47  185  183  183  136  Weight o f L i t t e r a t Birth  7 daya  14 days  £ i aaya  Sex R a t i o 21 days M F  39 49 70 49 37 72 55 63 60 79  89 111 132 102 83 142 94 136 114 152  177 202 219 184 138 232 191 247 214 258  294 318 346 249 £32 314 267 357 329 426  4 7 9 4 3 5 7 7 5 5  2 2 2 4 3 8 3 4 6 7  573 5.9  1165 12.0  2052 21.2  3132 3S.2  56  41  56 46 26 71 58 61 18  107 80 69 137 123 135 57  200 135 126 226 203 243 106  303 £17 210 530 321 385 161  1238 22.9  1927 35.7  336 5.7 42 38 38 21 41 63 233 5.3 1142 5.85  708 13.1  31 64 114  167 141 177 50 97 179  478 14.0  811 25.3  90 83  m  2351 12.7  4111 22.5  258 " 223 243 88 156 266  3 5 2 • 5 6 4  -  25  3 5 4 1 3 4  7 2. ' 2 8 1 •6 3 29  3 . 1 2 2 1 .3  1234 38.6  20  12  6203 34.4  101  82  13?  Sherman I Female NO. Op.I 11 WE IS W4 W5 ap.IIWI WE  m m ws  Gp.IIIWl WE  Gp.IV  m W4 m WI  WE  13  W4 W5 Gp.Y WI WE W3 W4 W5 Gp.VI WI WE  13  vi W5 Gp .VIIW1 WE  m W 4 W5 GP.VIIIW1 W3 W4 Total Average  Append l i IV Female's Age (days) Age Unknown  Number Born 9 7 13 9 1 9 11 7 9 9 7 9 11 3 14 7 11 10 10 IE 10 7 9 13 10 10 10 14 4 13 • 8 8 9 IE 9 11 IS 10 360 9.4  A -Continued Numba r Wai«ht WeansrslEldajs) at Weaning M F F T M f 3 6 9 113 305 192 E 4 6 61 105 166 9 4 13 370 161 531 4 5 9 161 188 349 1 1 31 31 3 9 EOE 90 292 6 6 5 11 E10 150 360 E 5 7 104 253 357 9 149 4 181 s 330 3 9 E34 6 109 343 4 3 7 137 241 104 9 173 316 5 4 143 5 6 11 146 164 310 1 42 5 6 211 253 8 6 14 320 236 556 4 3 7 170 122 292 5 158 6 11 207 365 4 6 10 143 209 352 4 10 E l l 6 168 379 286 9 IE 102 388 3 5 5 10 188 177 365 4 7 136 164 500 3 4 5 9 176 197 373 185 408 7 6 13 223 3 7 10 95 220 315 8 57 267 E 6 210 6 408 4 10 166 242 § 7 408 13 192 216 3 4 46 130 1 176 7 6 380 13 211 169 5' 8 116 218 334 3 5 3 8 128 199 327 386 6 3 9 258 128 6 11 175 206 5 381 3 5 8 232 135 367 § 458 6 11 264 194 IE 247 174 7 5 421 5 5 10 177 179 356  170  184  354 6342 37.3  6604 12946 35.8 36.58  Appendix IY Female So. — —  Gp. Gp. Gp. Gp. Gp. Gp. Gp. Gp. Gp. Gp. Gp. Gp. Gp. Gp. Gp.  XII XVI H I  a?  XIII XIV XII XIII XIV XVI XIII XV XIV XII XIII  WI ws  m  WE WE  wi  ws \m m W3  ^  Q  j  m  Number Stillborn  8 10  11  8  7 -daya  14 daya  8  8  10 11  8  11  11  10  10  3  9 8 E  3 9 7 2  M-  F.  3  3  10 11  5 5  5  a ii  E 4  5  1  E  10  5  5  6 3  4  1  1  0  5  9 7  E  W5  11  11  11  WE  10  10  10  W5  f  WE  8  WI  7  Total  125  Average  8.33  9 8 7 124  El days  9 7 7 1E3  © 0  10  3  4  5  E  4  51  8 10 11  3 E  T.  7  3  8  3  10  9 7  2 11  9 9 7 7  04 1 2 1  X39  Weight  o f Males»  — 40 SO  60 3®  62 15 57  43 39  U 50 48 49 42 42  655 5.24  Females and  Uaii-.8a 125  128  85 121 33  124 114  74 31 113 106  Total L i t t e r  14 daya 151 £30 216 147 ££2 69 £07 191 121 §4  105  87 93  197 192 180 148 162  1427  2499  11.5  20.31  Weight  _§Lii2Z£.  215 3g? 310  £23  294  95 281  266 159 100  276  261  247  178 230  3462  28.61  140  l l a f c a r X Sherman Female -•  ho, .  Appendix I? A  I  Mumber Bora  Stillborn  Number A l i o © a t 7 14 2 1 days days daya M W T  ap, i W4 ap, i W5 ap.ii wi ap.u ws ap.ii m ap , n W4 .  9 13 11 11 14  9 13 10 11 13  ap.ui W2 ap.in  10  13  10  Op . I I I Wl  ap.in ws ap. i v i i ap. I T W2 ap* i t ws ap* i ? W4 ap. i ? ws ap. v wi ap. ? m ap. ¥ 1 4 ap, ? w § ap. u wi ap. i i W4 ap*fii wi a p . f i i W2  ap.ra w§ ap . m i i m ap,mnw2 ap*-?iiii4 ap.vijiws ap .ix 11 ap .ix m Op.IX W3  ap , i x W4  ap.ix m ap* i 14  x we ap .21 wi ap .xi ws Gp.  ap * M m Gp.XI W4 Gp .XI WS Gp . x i we  flbtal Average  §  5  13  12 12  IS  12  9 11 11  9  12  12 11 11  12 10 12  12 10 12  11 12 8  U 128  2 10 12  11 10 13 11 11 11 10 11  2 10 12  1  11 7 3 10 10 s  418 10.19  . 11 10 13 11  9  IB  10  11 0 §  10 12 .12 12  9 11 11 12  12 10 12 10 12  8  2 10 12  11  10 12  11  10  10  10  10 11 4  9  11  4 12 10 12  GontAnuad  §  4 12 • 12 10 10 12 12 11  3 1 5  7 3 9 10 8  11 7 3 9 10 8  4  5 9 4 12 5 5 10 10 I 11 0 0 0 4 1 S 5 5 10 3' 9 1 2 3 6 . 12 7 § 12 6 3 9 8 4 12 § 6 11 © 5 11 8 4 12 4 10 6 § 12 2 10 8 6 6 12 4 4 8 1 1 2 5 5 10 7 12 7 4 11 § 5 10 7 5 12 4 7 11 10 7 3 5 9 4 2 10 8 © 11 5 2 2 4 7 5 12 7 3 10 3 6 12 7 4 11 4 3 7 1 2 3 3 3 9 6 4 10 6 2 S '©  •ft  411 •394 222  172  394  Birth  Weekly Weights o f L i t t e r s , W e i g h t s o f M a l e s , aad L i t t e r a t Weaning £l aays 7 days 14 days M /  53  119  ©8  159 127 131  60 62 70 32 63 77 60 63 51 69 58 64  57  56 69 64 64 41 15 55 67  58 59 65 59 57  60  51 65 24  68  52 63 63 47 16 67 56 51  2319 5.54  118  74 135 155 155 170 124 156 152 169 135 151 153  171  133 105 25 133 16© 133  141  143 125 145 125 117 149 75 142 123 138 143  119  ' 34  141  218 271 229 231 „  132 251 262 255 286 221 273 267 281 257 249 250 264 246 199  45  249 280 254 242 268 260 256 187 216 259 148 255 229 239 255  204 79 265 219  148  185  267 162 303  126 153  176  43 180  190  91 175  269 217 248  181 258  254 228 183  318 204 148 33  178 175 255  168  30  242  166 178 109  119 212 195  125 148 176 73  177 143 30 170  219  370 333341 447  326 367 393 453 379 376 359 391 381  291 . 63 348  412  154  322 391  131 157 230 113 160  294 182 110  68 190 108  • 211  315 353  237  134 293 127  234  T 333 393  386  364  406 287 362 372 218  218  178  155 98 165  247  133  146  87 264  366 316 343 380 324 127 410  63  272  196 40 212  133 99  176  209  5333 12.97  9227 23.41  7860 35.40  128  111 5732 33.32  323  13592 34.49  141  -  female  Still-  7 days  Birth  M  Gp.I f l WS W4 Op .11 WI WJI Mi Gp.11IW1 W2  13 W5 W4  Gp .IT 11 W3 W4 • Wi Gp.T W3  Gp.VI WI m m  GP .ram.  m  13 12 11 12 10 15 9 14 IS 7 14 12 11 7 11 10 5 6 9  8 10  5 §  6 7  3 5 10 5 9 7 5 §  1  12 13  W4 Gp.TIIIWl 9 W4 11 ws 12 Op .IX WI 89 MS m 10 ws 10' Gp.X W3 7 m 9 Gp .XX W3 2 IS 7  2 7 5 2 2 5 7 7  ft  1  7  1 1  1 8 7 7 6 © 2 4  5  Total 334 4 Average 10.2  5 2 6 8 4 8 6 9  5 2 3 7 7  5 5  4 5  3 4 4 5 6  3 4 7 7 1 3  3 1 4 0 3  Goatanue* >r l a  13 12 11 12 10 15 9  14 16 7 12 14 12 11 7 11 10 5  6  9  12 13  9  11 12 8 9  10 10 7 9  2 7  —  6 1  g  _  x  .  5 e 3  5  10 2 11 11  4  9  a  14  0 4  5  14 13  •0 6  §  9  7  5 §  2 7 4 2 2  5  7 7 6 7  5  1 8 7 7 5 5 2 4  4 1 6  14 days  0 9  9  2 ft 3 12 7 14 7 12 5 11 4 0 4 11  5  3 4 4 g 6  3 4 7 7 0 3 3 1 4 *  3  9 § 6 9  12 13  9  11 12 8 8 10 10  ft  9 2 7  ,y  y  6 4 Bled 5 '6 6 5 5 4 6 8 3 6 6 9  i  4 6 § ft  5 3 2  7 7  5  2 4 7 4 4 5 2 3 2 4 5 4 7 5 7 ft ft 3 7 4 5 7 1 7 8 0 7 3 7 3 5 1 5 4 2 * 4 3  i  £1 days ,x  ¥  i„  10  6  4  10  11 11  5  ft  ft  5 4  11 11  9  14 9  14 13 ft  12 13 12 11 6 11  9 5  ft  9  12 13 9  11 12 8 8 10 10 © 9  2 7  5 5 8 3 ft 6 9 a 5 4 2 9 3 6 7 5 7 ft 5 Z 4 7 4 4 5 2 3 2 4 5 4 7 5 7 © 6 3 7 4 5 7 1 7 8 0 7 3 7 3 5 1 5 4 2 — 4 3  9  13 §  14 13 ft  12 13 12 11  ft  11  9 5 6 9  12 13  9  11 12 8 8 10 10  ft  9  2 7  187 147 334 169 142 311 167 141 308.166 141 307  143  Weight o f Males,Females, and Total L i t t e r Birth 14 days 7 days T F T . M F T M 39 47  SS 10  m  31  31 £9 33 19 31  32  43 30 62 42  25  36 7 45 28 12 13 26 39 39 33 37 26 3 45 37 39 35 9 21  1011  6.4  22  38  36  . 65 23 13 15 41  36 29 S3 23 26  20 24 21 28 32 16 22  35 34 5 17 1® 7 18  64 75 57 4 64 75 63 65 51 70 71 55 55 44 86 63 66 79 43 66 67 1 1 6 83 8 0 63 62 65 78 40 26 68 100 54 45 32 35 37 30 47 62 67 ©7 71 79 81 49 59 82 61 60 39 15 50 93 54 S3 57 85 75 42 47 60 9 17 39 61  50 4 87 60 55 70 86 113 46 32 38 79 89 59 53 52 57 51 58 52 64 69 43 47 87 96 #».  36 37 15 49 48  125  8 162 128 125 125 130 176 125 98 154 159 151 137 79 152 102 86  88  114  151 148 124 129 147 H I 93 119 122 125 109 17 109  133  82  Bled l i e 129  114 95 113 85 8 3 120 72 137 1 0 3 171 145 80 114 54 182 57 1 1 3 122 1 1 3 150 133 99 54 102 173 88 8 8 110 63 89 § 4 107 95 117 96 142 1 3 1 104 132 68 156 85 1 1 1 143' 24 1 6 9 17© • 143 59 139 §0 134 26 110 86 33  101 76  M  21 days F  T  215 202 124 326 190 370 161 144 305 198 186 134 3 2 0 203 112 1 6 1 293 209 113 212 325 274 1 4 1 238 379 225 194 1 1 3 307 168 1 8 5 86 £71 239 256 87 343 235 162 181 3 4 3 263 171 223 3 9 4 232 2 0 7 152 359 156 8 4 155 239 £61 225 1 1 4 3 3 9 198 120 160 280 152 105 1 6 0 255 161 87 158 245 212 187 142 329 238 219 1 5 4 373 235 1 9 5 1 6 0 388 200 213 107 320 241 333 141 374 254 157 2 0 5 362 193 4 0 273 3 1 3 179 251 257 202 204 84 288 199 235 105 3 4 0 160 223 4 3 266 196 161 122 283 33 68 68 177 161 121 282 247 209  180  -  5544  809 1820 2108 1782 3890  3620 2944 6564  5.5  21.6 20.8 21.3 33.3 31.6 32.2  5.4 12.4 12.5 12.5  4459 9903  14*  APPENDIX  ITB  GROWTH DATA Oil ANIMAL W T R I T I O K LABOEATQRX MICE Female No.  Female's • Number Age Bora s t i l l - 7 14 g i days •—-—••—— . ~-~^^^^Q£^^ML,MlS,.^^ F  —  X31-3-1 *>W Total Average  M m 151-31-11-8 XS1-31-H-4  m^i^Mzi^.  iii 10 1 S L _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ >9 19 19 9, § 9.5 75  83  85 113 us  11 8 9 37  Average  9#  X31-31-11-3A X31 -31-11. -4A X31~S-11~5A  147 149 148  !  S  A  X51-31-11-B3  X31-51~11~3B  231-31-_1-4B Total Average  g  94 89 91 93 97  i n 5e cr5 10 9 i4 l 5 o  X  9  19 9 10 9.6 4.6 5  19 9.5  11.  11  8  8  9 9  9 9  4 5 6  3  7 3 3 6  37 37 18 19 " ^ g 'g.gf^.g ~4#7  8  9 9 37 9 > 2  11  9  8  5  3  8  9 9  9 9 S  9 9 8  4  5 3 2  9 8  8  37 9.g5  Total Average  11  9  Total  149  M  lo  7 11 5 9 9 41 8.25  6 6  35 • 34 21 13 6.75 8.5 5.2-5 3.25  7  11 5 9 9  7  11 5 9 9  4 5 3 8 3  3 6  2 1 0  41 41 23 18 8.25 8.25 4.6 3.6  9  34 8.5  7 11 5 9 9 41 8.25  145  APP 1MBIX I V B WEEKLY WlIQiilS OF U ^ f f l S F e m a l e No,  Birth  7  14  MM. 14 JO. .Total Average  X31-31.11-2 X31*31~I1»4  Total  77  J2L  -34 17  104 52  150 75  lb  49 37 43  68 62  173 4^.2 A^7  £53 63.2 6.8  AsZl~^J4i_L^^ 11 II  11— Av@rag@ Aisraffli  49 55  49 12.2  C0  J31V51~11'*1A  14.2  29.8  40.2  X31-31^1i-3A X31-31-11-44  11.7 12.1  36.8 35.6  53.9 S3.5  Total Average  X31«31~il-28 X31-31»il-3B X31-3I-11-4B JB^,~6^—li—JSP Total Average Average  50.1 140.3 204.3 12.5 3S.7 51.7 ...1.3 €,l C I 9.6 15.1 7.6 13.4 13.8  34.5 45.0 25.3 46.1  53.6  35 days  £8 127 124  193 .1.87  134 104  99 98  .251 125.5  380 190  -238 119  197 98.5  114 85 108 IQi  184 110 177  W  97 111 156 68  136 59 §8 111.  411  639  432 -364  ga, 4 X9.7  102.f 159.7 108' • 9 1 11.1 64.9 81.8 79*1 84.6  17.3 24.0 19.3 108.7 .112.3 126.0 114.5  310.4 461.6 77.5 115.3  JLsJL 12*5.  69.4. 37.8 70.2  78.0 118.0 104.4 159.0 54.8 84.S 97.1 141.5  59,5 189.6 295.8 11.9 37.9 59.1 1.4 4.5 7.2  422.6 627.1 84.5 125.4 10.2 15.8  £33 .202 435 217.5  £2.8  .£33 170 £14 17Q 796 199 £1.6  146  APPENDIX  W e e k l y Weight* o f L i t t e r s 49 days P8 flays  4fc days  lil  ,,, ,g  IT B  —  143 105 £48 tf.9._.104 ,_fcI3  ii--  150  :  2f— 106 106  Jg  £58 ,228  H-  I  .'V.  158 115 £73 122 . . . i i 5 .235 ;  63 days  • - M  162 122  1?  116 113  , T*  278 ,838.  252 209 461 266 214 460 280 228 506 £84 126 104.5 £30.5 153 107 240 140 114 254 1 4 S 28.0 20.9 24,2 29.5 21.4 25.2 31.1 22.8 25.7 31.5  229 513 114.5 256 22.9. 26.9,  107  142  161  61 122  160 74 69 131  127  72  61  249 114 188 138 222' 162 194 75  156 71 6% 123  270 209 226 198  117 143 167 76  159 73 66 127  276 216 233 203  123 153 177 80  283 227 246 211  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  m  10  94  9 6 7  88 89  X31-31-11-11-C X31-31-11-11-5 231-31-11-11-4 X31-31-11-11-5 Total Average AT® rage  7 44  114 114  »^JUbBM • Tofcta Average Average  £31-31-11-31-£ X31-31-11-31-3 XS1-51-11-31-6  SfcM-.Ml-f Total Average Average  6  8 3 7  4 1 4 3  3 4  9  5  39  8 5 6  8  7.0  19  8 8 7  8  184  10  4£  £2 7.3  10  f  5  9  115 117 117 1E4  F  6  5 8  1JJ...  0.9  5  7  5  3  6  £1  17  38  3  5  8  5  5 5  5  19 6.9  8 10 18 £.6 3.3 6  7  40  40  40  8.0  8 3  6  7 10 7  8  £ 3 £  6.5 3.5 £.6 6.3  8 8 7 10 7  $.0  £1 days M  6  *  7 5 S  7.3  X31-31-11-21-2  10 8  §  9£ 92  pi-31-ll-ll-b.  7 14 b o r n .day*.. daya  Still-  3  3 3 4 4  5 5 4 6  3  8 3  7 10 7  17 23 40 8.0 3.4 4.6 8.0  F £ L i t t e r . 1.  XS1-31-11-41-1 »lt31-I1^4l-§  89 _  Total Average Avfraga  9  7  7  9  9  9  16 8  16  124 7.75  117 7.31  , © 6 .. ...9 18  ,  Overall Total O v e r a l l Average  8  5  2 5  9  9  7  16  4  4.5 3.5  7  8  55 57 112 114 7.12 5.43 3.56 7.1  us  Weekly Yrai^hts o f L i t t e r s Birth  7 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  • 55.7  14 davs 52 * 5 54.1 JLS'e S • 46.5 40.3 48.2  3*»iB  171.7 28.6 4 #X  «0 42. 9 6.6  11.9 8.3 10.4  37.4 26.9 26.1  54.6 41.4 45.2  SU". 6 10 •£ 1 .«J  92.4 30.8 • 4*9  Hl~.247.0 7 »4r  10.5  33.2 34.7 26.0 13.0 40.4 _ J L £ 0 _ _ _ . 5Q.»f 5 2 V 9 1 6 5 7 1 10.6 33.0 1.31 4.1  H.l  43.3 51.4 43.4 66.0 45.9 ^50.0 60,0  6.2  g l days 65.1 74.7 24.0 69.7 51.6 55.4  2& days 106.0 XXJ3 • X 36.5 109.4 82.0 84.9  340.5 56.7 9.0  530 .9 08.4 14.5  -34.8 SO .3 56.5  119.6 88.0 82.2  ft 01, © o7 .2 11«2 66.6 79.9 63.8 80.1 63.0 "55O*" 70.6 8.8  E&9 ,S~ 96.6 16.1 108.1 120.5 101.5 136.5 103.1  '~~~"~~~W§7T 113.9 14.2  11.4 11.8  19.1 37.4  33.5 53.6  60.4 79.8  99.8 120.0  11.6 1.2  56.5 28.2 3.5  87.0 43.5 5.4  140.2 70.1 8,7  219.8 109.9 13.7  485.7 30.3 4,1  753.7 47.1 6.6  1035.7 64.7 9.2  1610.2 100.6 14.3  162.4 10.1 1.31  AfflHDIX Female Mo, f l Litter 2 X31-31-11-1A X31-31-I1-3A 231-3I-11-4A X31-31-1I-5A  female's lumber Bora S t i l l 7 Age T born M M F 149 14? 149 148  7 4  6 6  11 9 3 • 9 8 2 4  5  23 14 37 Total 5.75 3.5 9.5 Average Fl Litter 3 7 2 3 1 - 3 1 - i l - i B ~"§4~-4" 3 231-31-11-2B 89 5 6 11 91 3 2 5 231-31-11-3B X31-31-11-4B 93 8 1 9 9 97 3 6 X31-31-11-5B Total Average  rz L i t t e r 1 Sl-31-ll-ii-l 231-31-11-11- 2 231-31-11-11-3 231-31-11-11-4 231-31-11-11- § 231-31-11-11-6 Total Average  23 18  41  6  4  10 9  2 4 3 3  4  4-6 3.6 8.2 89 88 89 94 92 92  5 4 3  2 4  6  7  5  7  23 21 4 4 3.8 3.5 7.3  5 4  6 6  days  IV  B  lumber Alive 14 mays  F  T  K  4 5 3 2  9 9 9 8  5 4  6 6  at  f  T  M  3 5 3 2  8 9 9 8  5 4  6 6  21 days f  T  3 5 3 2  8 9 9 8  M  28 days 5 4  6  6  F  T  3 5 3 2  8 9 9 8  21 13 34 34 14 3 5 .21 13 34 21 21 13 5*25 3.5 8.75 5.25 3.25 8.5 5.25 3.25 8.5 5.25 3.25 8.5  4—  5  3 8 3 23  4.6  3  § 2 1 6  18  3.6  • - "6 " 4 4  2  4 4  r  7 11 2' 5 9 1 9 6  4 5 3 8 3  18  41  23  4 1 4 3 3  4 4 2 3 2 3  10 8 3 7  42 21 7.0 3.5  18 3.0  39  11 5  9 9  4 1 23 8.2 4 . 6 10 8  6  4 3  3  7  Z 3  6  22  20 3.3  3  3.6  4 5 3 8 3  5  6  3  6  3.6 8.2 4 . 6  5 6  6.5  3  6  8 1  6  18  3.6  7 11  5  9 9  4~  5  3 8 3  3 6 2 1  6  23 18 41 8.2 4.6 3.6  6  3  9  6  4 1 4 3 3  4 2 3 2 3  8 3 7  5 6  4 1 4 3 3  3 4 2 3 2 2  21 3.2  17 2.8  38  21  16  I  6 . 3 3.5 2.6  7 11 5 9 9 41 8.2 " 9 8 3 7 5 5 37 6.16  F e a a l e No,  Female's B o r n 3 t i l l U  F  T  331-31-11-21-1 114 4 231-31-11-21-2 114 5 231-31-11-21-3 112 3  5 §  9 5 8  -Age  total Average X31-31-11-31-1 131-31-11-31-2 231-31-11-31-3 231-31-11-31-5 11-31-11-31-6 Total Ave rage  12 10 22 4 5 7.3  M  F  f  3 5 1  5  8 5 6  5  T  3 5 1  3  8 5 6  19 6.3  9  10 5  3 3 3 4  1©  5 8 5 8 4 7 6 10 3 7  3 3 3 4 4  5 5 4 6 3  8 8 7 10 7  17 23 40 3.4 4.6 8  17 3.4  23 4.6  40 8  H § 117 117 124 124  3 3 3 4 4  7 4  2 5  9 9  11 7 18 5.5 3.5 9  5 4_ 9 4.5  2 5 7 3.5  14 days F  9 3  tter _ 51-31-11-41-1 89 X31-31-11-41-5 86 Total  Bora  aon&er A l i v e  7 4nys  7  9 16 8  3  3  8 5 5  M  F  8  3 5  5 5  10 5  18 6  8 4  10 5  18 6  8 8 7 10 7  3 3 3 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  23  40  17  23  40  7 9  2 5  7 9  5 4  2 5  7  16 8  7  16  6  17 23 40 3.4 4.6 8.0  9 7 4.5 3 .5  T  8 4  5 5 4  2 5  28 days  F  19 6.3  3  5 4  M  at  21 days  i  9 .5  7 3.5  9 16 8  1@1  APPENDIX  Faisal© N o .  Fl Litter 2 2-31-31-11-IA 2-31-31-11-3A X31- 31-11-4A 231- 51*11-5A Average Average FI L i t t e r " ! 231-31-11-1B 231-31-11-2B X31-31-11-3B 231-31-11-4B X31-51-U-5B  •M  IV  fi  Wealdy Weights of Litters" Birth 7 days  W  T  T  M  9.8 5.3 8.1 9.1  5.0 6.4 4.0 3.0  14.2 11.7 12.1 12.1  17.1 16.8 24.0 28.4  12.7 20.0 11.6 9.7  29.8 36.8 35.6 38.1  7.9 1.4 ' 5.3 6.9 4.7 12.0 5.0  4.6 1.3  12.5 1.3  13.5 3.8  4.3 8.2 2.9 1.4 8.8  9.6 15.1 7.6 13.4 13.8  21.5 4.1 ——18.8 20.5 18.4 40.9 13.3  15.7 24.5 9.9 5.2 25.4  35.0 4.0 ~ 34.5 45.0 £5,3 46.1 38,7  27.2 5,9  20.1 5.6  47.4 5.8  20.8 17.0 7.5 18.1 13.7 14,2 91.3* 15, E  14.3 15.7 14.3 13.2 9.7 13.2 00.4 IS.4  39,1 32.7 21.8 31.3 £3,4 27,4 171.7'  Average 8.4 6.4 14.8 Average 1.8 , 1.8 1.8 F2 L i t t e r 1 231-31-11-11-1 7.6 5.0 12.6 231-31-11-11-2 6.1 4.4 10.5 231-31-11-11-3 2.7 4.9 7,6 231-31-11-11-4 5.0 3.8 8.8 231-31-11-11-5 4.;; 2.9 7.1 X3I-51-11-1.U6 4.1 5,0 9,1 Total IO 50~56.7' Average 4.9 4.3 9.2  6 7  lF!F7FB-i 5-.! * 231-31-11-21*2 8.3 231-31-11-21-3 3,5 'Total ITTo" Average 5.6  6.9 I 5 T 6.8  8.3 10.4 SO~3 10,8  F8 L i t t e r 1 231-31-11-31-1 4.3 231-31-11-31-2 4.3 231-31-11-31-3 4.1 231-31-11-31-5 5.1 231-31-11-51-6 5.1 Total 2279" Average 4.5 Average 1.3  6.2 6.8 5.2 7.9 3.9 SO 6.0 1,3  10.5 11.1 9,3 13,0 9.0 5CT" 10.5 1.3  13.1 13.1 U.3 16.0 17.9 7l7§ 14.3 4.2  2.4 6,5 O T4«4  11.4 11,8 23.2 11.6  13.4 16,6 30.0 15.0  Average  1»4  1.4  1.3  g2 L i t t e r 1 - .''''  Average  1.5  1.2  1.28  86.1  "46TT  WX  4,6  4.9  23.0  5.1  3.3  37.4  26,9  23,3  15.4  L  231-31-11-41-1 9.0 231-31-11-41-3 5.3 Total IO Average ;.7»,1  22.0  26.9 4,8  I O  *i& .6  '  20.1 21.6 14.7 24.3 12.9 P7I 18.7 4.1  30.8  33.2 34.7 26.0 40.4 30.8 165.1 33.0 4.1  5.7 20,8 ' IO 13.2 3.8 _ .  19.1 37,4 28.2 3.5  APPSMDIX IT B -  M  W»«iciy W e i g h t o f T T t t i r s ~ ~ — 14 days 21 days m days .., * . . .—JE IL. y T ¥• F  25.5 24.7 36.4  14.7 29.2 17.1  40.2 41.4 53.9 37.3 53.5 54.1  23.5 44.5 85.0  32,3 ,6.1  18.7  51.0 49.1 6.0- 9.3  28.4 77.6 9.1 e,7 .  -44^4—-204.3 196.6 ,J5'! 129. 2 75.1 . , P*K «  29.8 51.6 22.8 ©2.2  23.8 37.9 15.0 8.0  41.9 8 4  31.9 8.9  31.4 27.8 5.4 26.7 23.5 .8  21.1 26.3 10.5 19.8 16.8 23.4  M 167.9 127.9  J  04.9 81.8 79.1 84.6  53.6 • 43.2 33,8 78.0 69.4 4 7 . 8 5.66 104.4 37.8 54.4 20.4 54.8 70.2 86,7 97.1 10.4 64,8 29,2 ;„„w . i 295.8 241.3 180.3 H O 73.9 60.3 4 5 , 0 ios. 6 ~ 9*1 J & A l g . 5 58.5 54.1 15.9 46.5 40.3 48.2  41.5 39.8 8.8 40.6 30.6 29.3  23.6 34.9 15.2 29.1 21.0 26.1  71.6 52.5 87.8 86.0 297.9 74.4 14.2  T  37.1 59.8 38.2 28,5  108.7 112.3 126.0 114.5 461.5 40.9 115.3 12.6 13.6 II .••irH&'lX, 67.5 50 .5 118.0 77.3 81.7 159.0 54.6 30.2 84.8 127.5 14.0 141.5 44.6 79.2 123.8 371.S ~SB^6~~ 627.7 51.1 74.3 125.4 14.2 15.3 15.2,  65.1 74,7 24.0 69.7 51.6 55.4  67.5 59.5 14.5 05.4 49.8 54.4  3 8 . 5 106.0 52.6 112.1 22.2 36.5 44.0 109.4 32.2 82.0 30.5 84.9  .6 1 1 7 . 9 2 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 64l 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 7.8  35.5 7.1  16.9 26,4 19.4 32.0 19.3 24.1 25.7 40.3 27.0 IB.9 108.3 141.7 21.6 28.3 6.5 6.1 20.8 23.7 44.5 22.2 4.9  47.0 4 6.9 53.8 67.2 6 8 . 0 76.8 96.6 7.5 1 1 . 7 . 10.8 H.2 17.0 15.4. 16.1  43.3 27.1 39.5 66.6 43.8 64.3 108.1 51.4 31.1 48.8 79.9 48.7 71.6 120.5 43.4 27.7 3 6.1 63.8 46.0 55.3 101.5 66.0 31.8 48.3 80.1 57,8 78,7 136.5 45.9 37.7 2 5 . 5 63.0 3 4 . 5 36,6 103.1 250.0 155,4 198.0 353.4 250.8 308,9"" 569.7 50.0 31.0 39.6 70.6 52.1 61.7 113.9 6.2 9.1 8.6 8,6 5.3 13.4 1 4 . 2  12.7 33.5 43.7 16.7 •• 60.4 73.8 26.0 99.8 29.8 53.5 35.7 44.1 79.8 55.9 64.1 120.0 4*2.5 ' 8 7 . 0 79.4 ~60.8 140,2~~Ts¥77~~90~T 219.8 21.2 43.5 39.7 30.4 70.1 64.8 45.0 109.9 6.0 5.43 8.8 8.7 8.7 4.4 12.8 l g .7  A P P E N D I X IT  0  GROWTH DATA OK ANIMAL NUTRITION LABORATORY P I G OOLOGY (MALES) No, O f Mai®..  Weight of A n i m a l 7 day® 14 days  2  114  160  2  3 2 3  87 118 101 97  228  123  185 219  4  5  6 7  8 9  10  11  IS 13  14 15 16 17 18  19  20  21 22 23  24  25  26  27 28 29 30 31 32  Totals 2 ,  Birth  1 3  AT®  No. I n Litter  4 4 3  4 4 4 4 4 3 • 3 3 3  2 7 7 7 2 1 3 3  4 3 3 3 3 3 2 4  151  92 95  153 131 120  225 170  152  85 86  124 126  180 192  66 84 107 95 65 88 132 81 86 91 117 147 100 99 107 116 108  105 140 149 128 128  61  HI  116 105 113  99  170 202 92 115 128 179 192 131 135 139 162 154  159 159 147  101  163 143  3190  4559  99.6  143.4  _Jl_Jayj  278 251 269 282 226  159  229 156 167 179 207  199 170 235 291 144  174 190 251 282 199  193  203 233 205 225 230 212 231  218 6581  205.6  .  202 276 264 251  204  238 226  260 241 £35 326  370 202  240 £61  331  367 265  259 254  285 244 £80  291 267  299  265  8208  256.5  154  APPENDIX I ?  Q  GROWTH DATA OK ANIMAL KUIIRITION LABORATORY (HJINSA P I G COLONY (FEMALE) Ho. o f  —  No . i n Litter  i  £  ' £  3 3  3  4 5 6 «  2 4  4 4  8  4 3 3  9 10 11 18 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 go £1 ££ 83  4 4 3 5  4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3  £4 £5  4  £ 7 7  £6 £7  £8  £9 30  31 3£ 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  40 41 Total Ave.  41  •  7  £  3 3  4 3 3 4  4 3 £  4  4 4  Birth  104 89 91 109 114 11£ 78 84 107 119 94 91 76 90 90 88 9£ 80 88 96 94 95 73 9£ 181 107 96 98 117 65 100 116 97 100 10£ 93 98 12 £ 75 85 93 3925 95.7  W e i g h t of A n i m a l 7 days 14 days  145 128 126 • 147 153 117 115 97 158 172 129 129 126 144 133 133 136 l£l  133 151 147 126 108 154 186 152 129 126 177 99 135 155 122 123 133 131 144 167 115 130 133 5565 135.7  £12 188 188 205 218 171  21  days  261 244 259 . £40 276 218  Died  159 226 244 170 169 183 214 180 181 169 176 175  183 ' 177 190 151. 181  247 219 185 175 235 155 189 227 176 181 194 190 202 229 179 197 201 7712 192.2  £05 290 315 212 216 251 251 252  203 209 232 223 250 194 233 300 281 248 236 307 211 £43 271 223 227 254 249 268 292 219 233 245 9341 245.8  AEPEHBEE Humber lumber o f Male I n U t t e r 1 4 5 6  2 4 4  JL_  Birth  7 days  X? 0  %'eigbfc o f A c i a a l 14 d a y s E l d a y s 88 days 35 days 42 da.ya 49  days  114 101 97 92  160 153 131 120  228 225 170 159  278 282 226 202  529 325 321 265  390 384 395 327  468 444 439 369  539 516 513 440  404 101  564 141  782 195  988 247  1240 310  1496 374  1720 430  2008 502  114 112 84 107 119 94 91  153 117 97 158 172 129 129  218 171 159 226 244 170 169  276 218 205 290 315 212 216  310 266 239 329 371 297 310  355 293 267 378 428 348 335  388 309 282 424 449 382 404  449 376 326 495 531 438 472  721 103  955 136.4  2122 303.1  2404 343 .4  2638 376.8  56 days 593 574 528 488 2183 545.7  lumber of geaale 5 6 8 9 10 11 12  '  -  4 4 4 3 3 4 4  1357 193.9  •  1732 247.4  5087 441  508 426 379 552 577 455 487 3384 483.4  166  APPENDIX  Y  COST. Of LABOUBjJEBD a n a HOUSING PES SPS0I1S PUR  ANIMAL  Labour Th© l a b o u r c o s t was based o n a n a n n u a l s a l a r y o f ¥ 2 1 6 0 , and a 4 ? h o u r week, w a i o h i s e q u i v a l e n t t o #0.88 per hour. Feed Pelleted Ratios •  Prioe  V.B,0.Mo. 10 (Hats and M i c e ) U .B.C.N©, 8 ( G u i n e a , P i g ) U.B.C.No. 12 ( B a b b i t )  #  120.00 90.00 78.00  per ton par ton per ton  Green Feed - K a l e . The Goat 20 Cost Goat  cost  o f g r e e n f e e d i s o n l y an. a p p r o x i m a t e ! o n .  of planting hour a a t #1.00 p e r hour o f seed of harvesting  |  20.00 3.00 15.00  # 38.00 latiiaated Therefore  Yield o o s t p e r pound  10 tons f r o m h a l f a c r e p l o t #0.002  Housing " L i f e " o f Gage - 5 y e a r s l e a r l y r e p a i n t i n g o o s t - #0.50 p e r y e a r p e r = §2.50 f o r f i v e Value o f Gage  Repaint Oost  Mouse #3.50$2.50 Hat 4,50 2.50 Guinea Pig 5.50 2.50  Total Coet $ 6.00 7.00 8.00  cage  year period.  O o s t P e r Day P a r Gage  G o a l P e r Day P e r A n i m a l Based on Average Capacity  #  0.0032 0.0038  # 0.0003 0.0006  0.0043  0.001  (10 mXmltli ( 6 Rats » tj  { 4 Guinea P i g a per Gage)  LABOUR COST STUDY  iwt a GLOBS Days .  S o . of Aninola  1  76  a  f«  »  »  w  M  tt  "«  7 6  n n  *«  *  M  10 11  »  «  14 15  «  n  «  li  H  17 18 19 20 Total Average  •  n n n  «  12 13  33 10 25 13 15 85 35 15 20 15 18 15 40 30 15 25 20 15 10 27  M  M  '  T o t a l Tiffl©  12  H  5 4 §  Wo. Cages  ft «  tl  tt  «  1520 76  20 1  240 12  481 24.0  A v e r a g e Time-P«r Oage A v e r a g e Time P e r Mat  Total A*f@.  1 2 3  86 86 48  14 14  3 1  220 73  39 13  A v e r a g e Time P e r Cage * " " Ra-t Complete  * p a r Cage « " Rat C o s t p e r Cage "  w  Eat  2.0  idnuti  0.31  "  35 37  -2L 97 32 =  *  2.7  0.43  Minutes  «  s 2.07 rt s 0.33 " *§ 0.03 =# 0.003  lse  LABOUR COST STUDY MOUSE COLONY  Bays  No. o f Animals  1  112  k 3  «t  «  5 6  «  7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  W  T o t a l Time l a Miau tes  12 n w «  w  4  20  5  20 5 50 IS 18 8 10 15 10  «  w?  »  l»  It  rt  »  W  n  15  rt «  «  »•  ft n  it  16 17 18 19 20 EO T o t a l 1 Av@ra@s  w « w  n  It  M  1 2 2_  10  40 15  5 15 10 10 7 27  n tt  144  2240 112  A v e . Tint* P a r Cages A v e , Tim© P e r Mouse  Total . Ave  No, O&jpss  315 15.75  12  1,31 m i n u t e s rt '0.14  -  59 49 49  174 174  60 50  65  175 58-  137  3  Complete Complete  45  174  1  A v e . Time P e r Gage A v e . Tim© P e r -kouse Ave. Gag® Ave. " " Mousa n  n  C o s t P e r Gaga Oost. P e r Mouse  a  « » »  1.28 M i n u t e s it 0.33 1.3 0.2 ' # 0.019 # 0.0018 f  IF. 9  LABOUR COST STUDY Guinea P i g 0olony  Days i  s 3 4 • 5 6 7 S 9 10  H  12 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 £0  £1  Ave,  Io. o f Animala  Mo. Gages  132  33  M  tt  »» W  « n  ft  rt  ft  ft  w H  if «  if  W  ?»  If  ft  f»  tt  n  w  w  tr  n  If  162 Ave. Time P e r Cage Ave. Time P e r G u i n e a Pig  £  £4 24  3 1  72 £4  .3  Total Ave.  Ave.Time P e r Cage AV0.Tim© P e r G u i n e a P i g C o m p l e t e Ave.Time P e r Cage * w w w Guinea P i g Goat P e r Gags Cost P e r Guinea P i g  30 95  20  »t  M  2772  1  «>  tt » n n s*  i  50 100 40 105 125 40 85  W  It  «i  ISO 30 110  K  »f  w  T o t a l Time In Minutes  70  105 45 105 35 90  40 60  693 33  1510 71.9  £.17  Minutes  0.54  Minutes  9 9  £5 10 £0  £7 9  18  55  £.03  Minutes  0.75 " 2.£ " 0.58 " | 0.018 # 0.005  160  LABOUR COST STUDY RABBIT COLONY  Days  Total Ave  No. o f A n i m a l s  T o t a l Time i n Minutes  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  w tt ff n tt  15 45 25 45 20 45 20 15 120 25 35 20 10 60  20 1  580 29  670 33  Ave.  29  40 10 45 15 30  n  n  n n n  30  tt «t *»  tt  « « tt tt  w  Time P e r R a b b i t  C o s t p e r R a b b i t P e r Day  =  1.15  Minutes  = $ 0.017  161  FEED CONSUMPTION AMD  Day „  , ,.  Total Average  ,  Number o f Animals . , „, ,  COST  T o t a l Jead Consumed Gms.  Ave.Food Con sumed p e r A n i m a l Gms.  1 Z 3  371 333 371  5072 4397 5186  13 13*2 14  3 1  1075 3^6  14655 4885  40.2 13.4  Average f e e d Cost P e r E a t  -  #0.0017 or  0.002 P e r Bay  ltou.ee. C o l o n y  Total Average  1 2  174 174  1241 1118  3 I  592 174  3556 1185  A v e r a g e Feed C o s t P e r Mouse  -  24 24 24  716 738 704  Total Average  72 24  2158 719  A v e r a g e f e e d Oost P e r G u i n e a P i g  Total  £0  580  Average  I  29  A v e r a g a Feed C o s t p e r R a b b i t  6.4 20.2 6.7  #0.0008 o r 0.001 P e r Day  Guinea P i g Colony 1 2 3 3 1  7  .  29.8 30.7 29.3 89.8 29.6  *  $ 0.003 P e r Day  100 l b s . P e l l e t s and 35 l b s . K a l e 0.17 l b s . p e l l e t s and 0.06 l b s . K a l e -  #0.006 0.001  OT&W p e r d a y .  162  Anderson, W, l .  »yoay» S. ?  t  aad Smith,» A* H, (1932). F u r t h e r ©^s@W«tioas o f r a p i d growth o f the albino r a t . Am, 2, Phsio*, 100 ? 511-01®.  {1945}  :r  Bioeaergetic£  Puh. C o r p . , Hew  and Orowtii w »  HeinhoM  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, r o p r o duotion and lactation i n mice on highly p u r i f i e d d i e t s , and the effect of Polio Acid concentrates on l a c t a t i o n . Arch. Bioohem., b,  Crampton, E. W.,  Cipoaies?, W#  157  «  164.  and B o l l , 3", M., (1947) Studies on the dietary requirements o f guinea pigs, I Effects of natural v e r s u s s y n t h e t i c "~ 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.  J . , and iMzaaann, E, W, (1955) On the relation between l i t t e r s i z e , b i r t h weight and rate of growth i n mice. J . Gen, Physiol. 249 - 863,  BtUOlj. j r , H, J . , Kallmon, L. F», and tiovitt, i i , , (1945) Studies on t h e comparative nutritive value of f a t s .  J , H u t r , , 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 o f f a t l e v e l on the diet on general n u t r i t i o n . J . M u t r . 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 f a t s . J . Nutr., 27, 509 - 513.  Dohaldaoa, H, H»,  (1924) T h e r a t * . Memoirs Wistar Inst. Anat. B i o l . , Philadelphia.  Baton, 0. N . , (1941) Effect of crossing inbred lines of guinea pigs, U. £>. Dept. Agric., Tech. B u l l . No. 765.  163  JttKfflana, E . V*,  (1955) mouse,  M i l k p r o d u c t i o n curve of a l b i n o A n a t . 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 w e i g h t and l i t t o r s i z e i n m u l t i p a r o u s wmmXa* Gen, P h y s i o l , , l j | , 791 -807.. ?  F a r r i s , 1, Foster*  0.  J . , (1950) The o a r e and b r e e d i n g o f l a b o r a t o r y a n i m a l s . John W i l e y and S o n s , Mew Y o r k . }  J o n e s , J#H. Dorfiaan, F., and K a b l e r , R.S*(1943) B e p r o d u e t i o n a n t l a c t a t i o n o f mie© on h i g h l y purified diets, 3". tfutr., 35, 161 - 171. 9  F r e u d e n b e r g e r , C. B., (1958) A c o m p a r i s o n of th© W i s t a r a l b i n o and t h e Long-Evans h y b r i d s t r a i n o f the Norway r a t . An. J . Anat.,50, 293 - 349. G a t e s , U, K.,  H a i n e s , G.,  Hawk, P. B.,  (1925) L i t t e r s i z e , b i r t h w e i g h t , and growth r a t e o f m i c e (Mus rausoulus). Mec, 39, 183 - 193.  (1931) A s t a t i s t i c a l s t u d y o f the r e l a t i o n b e tween v a r i o u s e x p r e s s i o n s o f f e r t i l i t y and v i p w r i n t h e g u i n e a p i g , 7. A g r i . R e s e a r c h , 42, 123 - 164. 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 .  J a c k s o n , C. M.,  K i n g , E . D,,  early Anat.  (1913) P o s t n a t a l growth and v a r i a b i l i t y o f the bocly and o f v a r i o u s o r g a n s i n the a l b i n o rat. Am, J . .Anat., 15, 1-63.  (1915) On t h e w e i g h t o f t h e a l b i n o r a t a t b i r t h and t h e f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e i t , A n a t , Ree. 9^ 213 - £ 3 1 . (1915)  On  the normal  sex r a t i o and the. s i z e o f  the l i t t e r i n the a l b i n o r a t , (Mas n o r v e g i cua a l b i n u s )  A n a t , R e c . 9_, 403  - 420,  (1915) The growth and v a r i a b i l i t y i n t h e body w e i g h t o f t h e a l b i n o r a t . A n a t . Ree. 9, 751 - 756.  164  King, H. D,, (191S) S t u d i e s on i n b r e e d i n g , 89, 71 « 111  Bxp. Sool.  Loosll, J . K., Lingenfelter, J . f , , Thomas, 3". W., and Maynard, L . A., (1944) The role of dietary f a t and llnoleic a c i d i n the lactation of the r a t . 3". N u t r . , 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., G a t o s , H,, and MacDowell, C. G. (1930) Tho influence o f the q u a n t i t y o f nutrition upon th© growth o f t h e s u c k l i n g mouse. J , Gen, P h y s i o l , , 13, 529 - 5 4 5 . Maynard, L . A,, (1950) A d i e t for s t o c k rats, 192 ~ 193.  S c i e n c e , 71,  Majweft* L, A,, and l&ssttssen, 1,» (1942) The influence of dietary fat on lactation performance i n rats. J . Nutr,, 23., 385 « 397. M e n d e l , L . B,» and Cannon, H . C , (1927) The r e l a t i o n o f the rate of growth to diet. J . B i o l . Chem., 75, 779 - 787.  Mendel, L. B., and Hubbell, E , B., (1939) The relation of the rate o f growth t o diet. J , N u t r . 10, 557 - l i S *  Morris, H. P., (1944) Review of the nutritive requirements of normal mice for growth, maintenance, r e 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 . B i o l . Chem., 18, 95 - 106. f o r ma.ihteaanoe*-  (1916) P r o t e i n minima J . B i o l . Ohem., |2^. 241-257,  16E  Osborne, F. B., and Mendel, L. B., (1915) The resumption of growth a f t e r long continued f a i l u r e to grow, J . B i o l , Chem., 23, 439 - 454. (1926) Si© r e l a t i o n of the rate of growth to d i e t , J . B i o l . Chem, 69, 661 - 673. i'arkee, A*  Pieks&s*  (1926) The growth of young mioe according to size of l i t t e r . Ann. Appl. B o i l . , 13, 374 - 394.  Anderson, W. 1., and Smith, A. H«, (1940) The c o m p o s i t i o n 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* B i o l . Chem., 31, 567 * 574. Shaman j. E» 0#» and M u h l f i e l d , M.. (1922) Growth and r e production upon simplified food upon mother and young during the lactation period. J . B i o l . Chem., 53, 41 - 47, S s i t h , 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© a l b 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, 24 - 25.  *T, Hyg,, 36,  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 g o n e r a t i o n s 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 - 3 9 7 , Wood, A,  (1950)  P e r s o n a l oommunioatioa.  Zuoker, T, 5",, Hall, L,, Young, Iff., and Zucker, L,. (1941) The growth curve of the albino rat i n r e lation to diet. J, Nutr, 82, 123 - 138.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

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