Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:42:48.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of under-feeding on the genital functions of a bull

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

T. Mann  and
A. Walton
T. Mann
Affiliation:
Molteno Institute and A.R.C. Unit of Animal Reproduction, University of Cambridge
A. Walton
Affiliation:
Molteno Institute and A.R.C. Unit of Animal Reproduction, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A study was made of the effect of underfeeding on the genital functions in the bull. Regular weekly collections of semen were made during (1) a 5-week pre-experimental period of normal feeding, (2) a 23-week experimental period of under-feeding, and (3) a 25-week post-experimental period of recovery.

2. Although the food intake was reduced to such an extent that the bull began to lose weight at a rate of 6·5 kg. (1 stone) per week, the volume and density of semen and the motility and morphology of the spermatozoa were not significantly changed.

3. In contrast to the testes, the secretory function of the male accessory glands was markedly affected by under-feeding. The concentration of fructose and citric acid in semen decreased to about 30 and 60% respectively of the original levels. During the recovery period the values for fructose and citric acid gradually returned to normal.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , July 1953 , pp. 343 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

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

REFERENCES

Child, C. M. (1920). Biol. Bull., Wood's Hole, 39, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, E. D. & Nigrelli, R. F. (1950). Trans. N.Y Acad. Sci. II, 12, 236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grayhack, J. T. & Scott, W. W. (1952). Endocrinology, 50, 406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1944). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2, 8.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1952). Marshall's Physiology of Reproduction, 2, 806.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. (1952). J. Exp. Biol. 29, 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homphrey, G. F. & Mann, T. (1949). Biochem. J. 44, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leone, E. & Mann, T. (1951). Nature, Lond., 168, 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutwak-Mann, C. & Mann, T. (1950). Nature, Lond., 165, 556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutwak-Mann, C. & Mann, T. (1951). Biochem. J. 48, xxvi.Google Scholar
Lutwak-Mann, C., Mann, T. & Price, D. (1949). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 136, 461.Google Scholar
Mann, T. (1946). Biochem. J. 40, 481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, T. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, T. (1951). Nature, Lond., 168, 1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, T., Davies, D. V. & Humphrey, G. F. (1949). J. Endocrin. 6, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, T. & Parsons, U. (1947). Nature, Lond., 160, 294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, T. & Parsons, U. (1950). Biochem. J. 46, 440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, C. R. & Samuels, L. T. (1931). Amer. J. Physiol. 96, 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulinos, M. G. & Pomerantz, L. (1941). Endocrinology, 36, 416.Google Scholar
Pazos, R. Jr. & Huggins, C. (1945). Endocrinology, 36, 416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schersten, B. (1936). Skand. Arch. Physiol. 74, suppl. 7.Google Scholar
Speck, J. F., Moulder, J. W. & Evans, E. A. Jr. (1946). J. Biol. Chem. 104, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, A. (1949). Brit. J. Nutr. 3, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1948). Rations for livestock. Bull. Minist. Agric., Lond., no. 48, 11th ed.Google Scholar