Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:47:16.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some biological aspects of partial starvation. The effect of weight loss and regrowth on body compsition in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

J. H. Burton ,
M. Anderson  and
J. T. Reid
J. H. Burton
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Morrison Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
M. Anderson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Morrison Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
J. T. Reid
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Morrison Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. A study of the effects of four dietary treatments on body-weight and the water, protein, fat and energy content of the empty bodies of forty-three Suffolk ewes is reported. The treatments were as follows: T1, ad lib. food intake from a full-body-weight (FBW) of 40 kg to 71 kg; T2, partial fasting with a resulting weight loss from 71 kg to 50 kg FBW; T3, realimentation and regrowth from 50 kg to 71 kg FBW; T4, a slight food restriction producing a reduced growth rate from 40 kg to 50 kg FBW followed by ad lib. food intake from 50 kg to 71 kg FBW. On all treatments sheep were slaughtered in groups of three at 7 kg intervals between 50 kg and 71 kg FBW.

2. The whole body, with the exception of several body organs and glands, wool and the contents of the gastrointestinal tract, was minced and analysed for water, protein, fat and energy. Adipose tissue samples were removed at slaughter from subcutaneous and internal fat depots for histological examination. Regression analysis was used in comparing treatment effects on body composition.

3. No significant differences were observed between the results of T1 and T4. In consequence these results were pooled and are referred to as T1. At 40 kg FBW the empty (ingesta-free) bodies of the lambs contained approximately 52% water, 14 % protein and 29% fat. Through normal growth to 71 kg FBW on T1 these values had changed to 40, 11.5 and 45 %, respectively. Following weight loss to 50 kg FBW on T2 the water, protein and fat contents of the empty bodies were 47, 13.5 and 35 %, respectively. Regrowth on T3 to 71 kg FBW resulted in little change in these components, the respective values being 46, 13 and 36 %. The sheep which had undergone weight loss and regrowth retained significantly more water and less energy than normally grown controls and tended to deposit less fat and more protein.

4. Gastrointestinal tract contents accounted for 11 % of FBW at 71 kg in T3 animals. In T1, the value was 7.1 % at a similar FBW. Thus there was an average increase of over 56 % in contents in the realimented animals.

5. Mean adipocyte diameter at 50 kg FBW on T1 was 134 ± 3 μm. At 71 kg FBW the mean diameter had increased to 152 ± 9 μm. Weight reduction (T2) and regrowth (T3) resulted in mean diameters of 122 ± 4 μm and 143 ± 4 μm at 50 kg and 71 kg FBW, respectively.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , November 1974 , pp. 515 - 527
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1974

References

REFERENCES

Andrews, R. P. & Ørskov, E. R. (1970). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 75, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, D. L., Ford, J., Garnett, E. S., Mardell, R. J. & Whyman, A. E. (1969). Metabolism 18, 564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, L. S. (1969). Effect of acetic acid on energy metabolism and body composition of sheep. PhD Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Burton, J. H. & Reid, J. T. (1969). J. Nutr. 97, 517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, G., Fauconneau, G. & Penot, E. (1965). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 5, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enesco, M. & Leblond, C. P. (1962). J. Embryol. exp. Morph. 10, 530.Google Scholar
Hellman, B. & Hellerstrom, C. (1961). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 51, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, J. & Gallian, E. (1968). J. Lipid Res. 9, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, J. & Han, P. W. (1969). J. Lipid Res. 10, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, D. M. & McManus, W. R. (1969). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knittle, J. L. & Hirsch, J. (1968). J. clin. Invest. 47, 2091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lofgreen, G. P. & Otagaki, K. K. (1960). J. Anim. Sci. 19, 392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McManus, W. R., Reid, J. T. & Donaldson, L. E. (1972). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 79, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. H. & Clawson, W. J. (1964). J. Anim. Sci. 23, 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., McDonal, I., Fraser, C. & Corse, E. L. (1971). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 77, 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paladines, O. L., Reid, J. T., Bensadoun, A. & Van Niekerk, B. D. H. (1964). J. Nutr. 82, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitts, G. C. (1963). Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 110, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, J. T., Bensadoun, A., Bull, L. S., Burton, J. H., Gleeson, P. A., Han, I. K., Joo, Y. D., Johnson, D. E., McManus, W. R., Paladines, O. L., Stroud, J. W., Tyrrell, H. F., Van Niekerk, B. D. H. & Wellington, G. W. (1968). Publs natn. Acad. Sci., Wash. no. 1598, p. 19.Google Scholar
Reid, J. T., Bensadoun, A., Paladines, O. L. & Van Niekerk, B. D. H. (1963). Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 110, 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, J. T., Wellington, G. H. & Dunn, H. O. (1955). J. Dairy Sci. 38, 1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. W. & Lambourne, L. J. (1970). Growth 34, 235.Google ScholarPubMed
Salans, L. B., Knittle, J. L. & Hirsch, J. (1968). J. clin. Invest. 47, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1960). Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.Google Scholar
Tulloh, N. M. (1963). In Symposium on Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals p. 5 [Tribe, D. C., editor]. Melbourne: CSIRO.Google Scholar
Wedgewood, R. J. (1963). Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 110, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, P. N. & Osbourn, D. F. (1960). Biol. Rev. 35, 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar