Advertisement

Protein Status of ‘Small for Date’ Animals

  • E. M. Widdowson
Part of the Nutricia Symposium book series (NUSY, volume 3)

Abstract

A baby or animal may be small at term for a variety of reasons, which are not all nutritional. Table I illustrates this. The weight of girl babies averages less than that of boy babies, and the work of Lubchenco,Hansman, Dressler and Boyd (I) showed that the mean weight of the male foetus was already greater than that of the female by the 24th week of gestation and that the average boy was heavier than the average girl from then onwards till term. This is true of other species too, the guinea pig for example, and it has been suggested that it may be due to greater antigenic dissimilarity when the foetus is a male (2). Whether this is the explanation or not, there seems no reason to suppose that females are more likely than males to be undernourished in utero.

Keywords

Quadriceps Muscle Protein Status Mononucleated Cell Average Girl Shetland Pony 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    LUBCHENCO, L. O., C. HANSMAN, M. DRESSLER, and E. BOYD, (1963) Pediatrics 32:793.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    OUNSTED, C. and M. OUNSTED, (1970) Lancet 2:857.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ECKSTEIN, P., T. MEOWN, and R. G. RECORD, (1955) J. Endocr. 12:108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    IBSEN, H. L., (1928) J. exp. Zool. 51:51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ROSAHN, P. D. and H. S. N. GREENE, (1936) J. exp. Med. 63:901.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    WALDORF, D. P., W. C. FOOTE, H. L. SELF, A. B. CHAPMAN and L.E. CASIDA, (1957) J Anim Sci. 16:976.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McLAREN, A. and D. MICHIE, (1960) Nature, Lond. 187:363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    PERRY, J. S. and J. G. ROWELL, (1969) J. Reprod. Fert. 19:527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    WALTON, A. and J. HAMMOND, (1938) Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 125:311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    CHOW, B. F. and C. LEE, (1964) J. Nutr. 82:10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ZEMAN, F. J., (1967) J. Nutr. 93:167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    HOHENAUER, L. and W. OH, (1969) J. Nutr. 99:23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    WINICK, M. and A. NOBLE, (1965) Devel. Biol. 12:451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    DOBBING, J. and J. SANDS, (1970) Brain Res. 17:115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    CHEEK, D. B., (1968) Human Growth, Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, Pa.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    HOLTZER, H. (1970) In: The Physiology and Biochemistry of Muscle as a Food, 2, Briskey, E. J., R. G. Cassens, and B. B. Marsh eds., University oi Wisconsin Press, Madison, p. 585.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© H. E. Stenfert Kroese N.V. Leiden Holland 1971

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. M. Widdowson
    • 1
  1. 1.Dunn Nutritional Laboratory, Infant Nutrition Research DivisionUniversity of Cambridge and Medical CouncilUK

Personalised recommendations