Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T19:49:48.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Long-term implications of feed energy source in different genetic types of reproductive rabbit females: III. Fitness and productivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2017

A. Arnau-Bonachera ,
D. Savietto  and
J. J. Pascual
A. Arnau-Bonachera
Affiliation:
Biomedical Research Institute (PASAPTA-Pathology Group), Veterinary School, Universidad Cardenal Herrera-CEU, CEU Universities, Av. Seminario s/n, 46113 Moncada, Valencia, Spain
D. Savietto
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, INP-ENVT, CASTANET-TOLOSAN, France
J. J. Pascual*
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Science and Technology, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera, s/n. 46022 Valencia, Spain
*
†E-mail: jupascu@dca.upv.es
Get access

Abstract

The specialization process associated with genetic selection could be associated with functional disorders, affecting the reproductive success of females (fitness). We hypothesized that by modulating energy acquisition and allocation of females we could balance productivity and reproductive success. To test this hypothesis, we used 203 rabbit females belonging to three genetic types: H (n=66) maternal line specialized in prolificacy, LP (n=67) generalist maternal line, R (n=70) paternal line specialized in growth rate. We fed each genetic type with two diets specifically designed to promote milk yield (AF) or body reserves recovery (CS). We controlled females between their first and fifth reproductive cycles, recording traits related with productivity and fitness of females. H females fed CS had on average 11.2±0.43 kits with an individual weight of 54±1.2 g at birth and 525±11 g at weaning. Their conception rate when multiparous was 44% and their survival rate at the end of the experiment 30%. When they were fed AF, the individual weight of kits was 3.8 g heavier (P<0.05) at birth and 38 g heavier at weaning (P<0.05), the conception rate when multiparous increased 23 percentage points (P<0.05) and the survival rate at the end of the experiment 25 percentage points (P<0.05). LP females fed CS had on average 10.8±0.43 kits with an individual weight of 52±1.2 g at birth and 578±11 g at weaning. Their conception rate when multiparous was 79% and their survival rate at the end of the experiment 75%. When they were fed AF, it only increased individual weight of kits at weaning (+39 g; P<0.05). R females fed CS had on average 8.4±0.43 kits with an individual weight of 60±1.2 g at birth and 568±11 g at weaning. Their conception rate when multiparous was 60% and their survival rate at the end of the experiment 37%. When they were fed AF, they presented 1.4 kits less at birth (P<0.05) but heavier at birth (+4.9 g; P<0.05) and at weaning (+37 g; P<0.05). Therefore, we observed that genetic types prioritized different fitness components and that diets could affected them. In this sense, seems that more specialized genetic types, were more sensitive to diets than the more generalist type.

Keywords

functionalityproductivityprioritytrade-offlong term
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 9 , September 2018 , pp. 1886 - 1894
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnau-Bonachera, A, Cervera, C, Blas, E, Larsen, T, Martínez-Paredes, E, Ródenas, L and Pascual, JJ 2017. Long-term implications of feed energy source in different genetic types of reproductive rabbit females. I. Resource acquisition and allocation. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731117003287.Google Scholar
Baselga, M 2002a. Line R (Spain). In Rabbit genetic resources in Mediterranean countries (ed. Khalil MH and Baselga M), pp. 257–262. Zaragoza: Ciheam (Options Méditerranéennes: Série B. Etudes et Recherches; No. 38), Zaragoza, Spain.Google Scholar
Baselga, M 2002b. Line H (Spain). In Rabbit genetic resources in Mediterranean countries (ed. Khalil MH and Baselga M), pp. 247–251. Zaragoza: Ciheam (Options Méditerranéennes: Série B. Etudes et Recherches; No. 38), Zaragoza, Spain.Google Scholar
Beilharz, RG and Nitter, G 1998. The missing E: the role of the environment in evolution and animal breeding. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 115, 439–453.Google Scholar
Blasco, A, Piles, M and Varona, L 2003. A Bayesian analysis of the effect of selection for growth rate on growth curves in rabbits. Genetics Selection Evolution 35, 21–41.Google Scholar
De Blas, JC and Mateos, GG 2010. Feed formulation. In Nutrition of the rabbit, 2nd edition (ed. De Blas JC and Wiseman J), pp. 222–232. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
EL Nagar, AG 2015. Genetic analysis of longevity in specialized lines of rabbits. PhD thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.Google Scholar
Fernández-Carmona, J, Blas, E, Pascual, JJ, Maertens, L, Gidenne, T and García, J 2005. Recommendations and guidelines for applied nutrition experiments in rabbits. World Rabbit Science 13, 209–228.Google Scholar
Fortun-Lamothe, L and Prunier, A 1999. Effects of lactation, energetic deficit and remating interval on reproductive performance of primiparous rabbit does. Animal Reproduction Science 55, 289–298.Google Scholar
Fortun-Lamothe, L, Prunier, A, Bolet, G and Lebas, F 1999. Physiological mechanisms involved in the effects of concurrent pregnancy and lactation on foetal growth and mortality in the rabbit. Livestock Production Science 60, 229–241.Google Scholar
Hrdy, SB 1979. Infanticide among animals: a review, classification, and examination of the implications for the reproductive strategies of females. Ethology and Sociobiology 1, 13–40.Google Scholar
Kolmodin, R, Strandberg, E, Jorjani, H and Danell, B 2003. Selection in the presence of a genotype by environment interaction: response in environmental sensitivity. Animal Science 76, 375–385.Google Scholar
Lewontin, RC 1974. Annotation: the analysis of variance and the analysis of causes. American Journal of Human Genetics 26, 400–411.Google Scholar
Littell, RC, Henry, PR and Ammerman, CB 1998. Statistical analysis of repeated measures data using SAS procedures. Journal of Animal Science 76, 1216–1231.Google Scholar
Mínguez, C, Sanchez, JP, EL Nagar, AG, Ragab, M and Baselga, M 2015. Growth traits of four maternal lines of rabbits founded on different criteria: comparisons at foundation and at last periods after selection. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 1–13.Google Scholar
Olofsson, H, Ripa, J and Jonzén, N 2009. Bet-hedging as an evolutionary game: the trade-off between egg size and number. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 276, 2963–2969.Google Scholar
Pascual, JJ, Cervera, C, Blas, E and Fernández-Carmona, J 2003. High-energy diets for reproductive rabbit does: effect of energy source. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 73, 27R–39R.Google Scholar
Pascual, M, Calle, EW and Blasco, A 2015. Comparison of degrees of maturity of rabbit lines selected for different traits. World Rabbit Science 23, 155–161.Google Scholar
Penadés, M, Arnau-Bonachera, A, García-Quirós, A, Viana, D, Selva, L, Corpa, JM and Pascual, JJ 2017. Long-term implications of feed energy source in different genetic types of reproductive rabbit females. II. Immunologic status. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731117003299.Google Scholar
Philippi, T and Seger, J 1989. Hedging one’s evolutionary bets, revisited. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 4, 41–44.Google Scholar
Ragab, M and Baselga, M 2011. A comparison of reproductive traits of four maternal lines of rabbits selected for litter size at weaning and founded on different criteria. Livestock Science 136, 201–206.Google Scholar
Rauw, WM, Kanis, E, Noordhuizen-Stassen, EN and Grommers, F 1998. Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Production Science 56, 15–33.Google Scholar
Rosell, JM and de la Fuente, LF 2009. Culling and mortality in breeding rabbits. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 88, 120–127.Google Scholar
Sánchez, JP, de la Fuente, LF and Rosell, JM 2012. Health and body condition of lactating females on rabbit farms. Journal of Animal Science 90, 2353–2361.Google Scholar
Sánchez, JP, Theilgaard, P, Mínguez, C and Baselga, M 2008. Constitution and evaluation of a long-lived productive rabbit line. Journal of Animal Science 86, 515–525.Google Scholar
Savietto, D, Friggens, NC and Pascual, JJ 2015. Reproductive robustness differs between generalist and specialist maternal rabbit lines: the role of acquisition and allocation of resources. Genetics Selection Evolution 47, 2.Google Scholar
Stearns, SC (ed.) 1992. Number and size of offspring. In The evolution of life histories, pp. 150–179. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Theilgaard, P, Baselga, M, Blas, E, Friggens, NC, Cervera, C and Pascual, JJ 2009. Differences in productive robustness in rabbits selected for reproductive longevity or litter size. Animal 3, 637–646.Google Scholar
Theilgaard, P, Sánchez, JP, Pascual, JJ, Friggens, NC and Baselga, M 2006. Effect of body fatness and selection for prolificacy on survival of rabbit does assessed using a cryopreserved control population. Livestock Science 103, 65–73.Google Scholar
Vicente, JS, García-Ximénez, F and Viudes-de-Castro, MP 1995. Neonatal performances in 3 lines of rabbit (litter sizes, litter and individual weights). Annales de Zootechnie 44, 255–261.Google Scholar
Vicente, JS, Llobat, L, Viudes-de-Castro, MP, Lavara, R, Baselga, M and Marco-Jiménez, F 2012. Gestational losses in a rabbit line selected for growth rate. Theriogenology 77, 81–88.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Arnau-Bonachera et al supplementary material

Tables S1-S2

Download Arnau-Bonachera et al supplementary material(File)
File 24.8 KB