Very Small Kit - is this genetic?

[SuburbanHomesteader]

This is a first for me. Have a small litter - only 4 kits. Three were large and one very small. (Have since lost one that got pulled out on the wire overnight and it was too cold out.)

Anyway, all parents, grandparents, etc. are full sized NZ. I've raised them all for at least 4 generations back on both sides.

So this little one is like half the size of the others - maybe a little less. I've had larger and small in litters before but never this big of a difference.

I do okay on colors, genetically, but have no idea if this is a fluke or something genetic or what. Don't plan to keep the doe but was planning on keeping the two larger kits. If this is something that can be passed on, I don't want it.

These kits were born December 2nd so they're a week old. Any thoughts?

 

[Oscar]

I have seen a kit that got a double dose of a dwarf gene and al of the other kit were regular sized and so were the parents and grandparents but this guy was extra small, he lived a while but eventually died. That could be a case.

 

[Dood]

Freaky

How many litters have this pair had?

If it's the first time you may want to do a repeat breeding to see if you get another small litter and/or a "runt". If it is indeed the dwarf gene then you should get similar results :shock:

However, more likey it's just a fluke and the kit had a damage placenta or something which inhibited it from getting the same nutrition as its siblings. It may catch up to its siblings if this is the case and reach an appropriate senior weight given time.

It "could" also be a spontaneous dwarf-like mutation

 

[TF3]

I had this in a litter of 12 (11 survivors).
At about 12 weeks, the bulk weighed 5 lbs. ... the one runty girl was under 2 lbs.
They are mutts, so I suppose there could be a dwarf gene in there, but that seems unlikely.
I didn't bother to keep her growing to see what happened, she seemed healthy upon processing, simply much, much smaller.

 

[SuburbanHomesteader]

This was Lilly's fourth litter - all have been normal in size but small in number. She's never delivered more than 4. That's why I don't plan to keep her but did want to keep daughters as she's a good mother, good size, and the sire is a good size. Bugs is a couple of years old and has sired 16 litters - average 7 - 8 per litter. (Litters like Lilly's screws up his numbers.) This is the third mating for those two. All other kits have been normal sized.

The little one seems perfectly healthy. Gets right in there with its larger siblings.

So, this "mini" gene thing. Does it work like the "cc" genes for albinos? Or would only one of the parents need to carry it and pass it along? Bugs has sired over 100 kits and none of them have been this small. Once in a while - in a litter of 10 or more - we'll get what I call a "runt"...a kit that's noticeably smaller than the others but not half the size of the others.

Guess in the end it's all moot. I'd already decided that Lilly won't stay and Bugs has been a solid producer so I'll just have to wait and see if it happens again. If it does, then I guess all the fingers will point to him!

 

[Dood]

Correct, the known dwarf gene is recessive but one copy still has some effect on a kit but it's hard to tell in meat breeds-mine had slightly cobbier body type and smaller ears but only noticeable in a side by side comparison with a litter mate.

If the doe always has small litters I think it's more likey there is an issue with her uterus :shrug:

 

[SuburbanHomesteader]

Well, she's a gentle rabbit and a good mother and has a size and weight I like but she's consistently delivered small litters. The reason I bred her to Bugs again was in the hopes of getting one or two daughters I might keep. Can't afford to keep her if she doesn't produce -- we'll see if either of the two larger kits are does.

 

[Oscar]

Well how many times was she covered each time? That might be the problem.

 

[skysthelimit]

I agree with Dood, it's possible the kit had an unfavorable spot it was attached to on the uterus wall, one that might have been depleted from multiple attachments.

It might be a fluke in your case, but I find litter size to be very hereditary, so keeping a doe from her might perpetuate the small litter problems.

I find it rarely has to do with fall offs. I usually only do one fall off, and my does consistently have large litters. Does that I kept from small litters have small litters in return. Now if they have less than size consistently, I cull. The does release the same range amount of eggs pretty much every time thy are bred, and there are enough sperm in one breeding to fertilize them all many times over, and sperm lives for a number of hours. Repeat is a practice many do, but not totally necessary.

 

[EnglishSpot]

I had a runt in my first NZ litter--and with a few days of supplemental feedings to get her feet under her, Hungry grew to be the largest doe of the litter!!

 

[skysthelimit]

I had a runt in my first NZ litter--and with a few days of supplemental feedings to get her feet under her, Hungry grew to be the largest doe of the litter!!

I love when that happens, which is why I don't cull runts.