PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12788014

Growth and developmental instability.

Abstract

Developmental stability reflects the ability of an individual to develop a regular phenotype under given environmental and genetic conditions. Measures of developmental instability include the degree of fluctuating asymmetry and the frequency of phenodeviants. Endocrine, neural and circulatory mechanisms that control similar development of morphological characters on the two sides of the body are also involved in controlling overall development. Cross-validation studies have shown that measures of developmental instability are positively correlated with other measures of welfare such as tonic immobility in poultry. Asymmetric animals grow less rapidly than symmetric individuals. Eleven studies have investigated the relationship between growth rate and developmental instability, and the observed effect size (Pearson correlation coefficient adjusted for sample size) is -0.15. Studies of chickens have shown that asymmetry increases as a response to selection for increased growth rate. As conditions for rearing deteriorate by higher density, fluctuating asymmetry increases and growth rate decreases, both within and among farms. Fluctuating asymmetry can be considered a measure of animal welfare since larger values reflect worse environmental conditions as experienced by the individual animal itself. Since growth rate and fluctuating asymmetry are negatively correlated, we can infer that improvement of rearing conditions leading to reduced asymmetry will both benefit the producer (in terms of increased growth), but also the animals in terms of better conditions for rearing.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Anders Pape Møller, John Manning. 2003. Growth and developmental instability.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1090-0233(02)00262-9

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Systematic review of comparative studies examining alternatives to the harmful use of animals in biomedical education.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the published literature for controlled studies comparing learning outcomes of traditional methods that require the terminal use of animals (eg, dissection, live-animal surgery, and live-animal laboratory demonstrations) with outcomes obtained with alternative teaching methods. DESIGN: Systematic review. STUDY POPULATION: Controlled studies published between 1996 and 2004. PROCEDURES: PubMed was searched with the following keywords, used alone and in combination: educational alternatives, nonlethal teaching methods, veterinary alternatives, medical education, and nonterminal animal use. Cited references of retrieved reports were reviewed to identify additional reports. Reports were selected for review only if a comparison group was included. RESULTS: 17 studies that were randomized controlled trials or nonrandomized trials that included a comparison group were identified. Five involved veterinary students, 3 involved medical students, 6 involved university undergraduate students, and 3 involved high school biology students. Sample size ranged from 14 to 283 students. Eleven studies appeared to be randomized, parallel-group trials, 4 involved comparative groups to which participants were not randomly assigned or for which the randomization process was not clear, 1 was a 2-period crossover study, and 1 involved a retrospective review of grades. In all 17 studies reviewed, results associated with the alternative method of instruction were not significantly different from or superior to results associated with the conventional method. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although the number of controlled studies identified was small, the results seem to support more widespread adoption of alternative teaching methods in biomedical education.

Animal Welfare↗