Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-17T16:19:25.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect on conception rates of semen diluents containing citrate or phosphate buffer, with all combinations of sulphanilamide, streptomycin and penicillin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. C. Campbell  and
J. Edwards
R. C. Campbell
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Unit of Animal Reproduction, University of Cambridge
J. Edwards
Affiliation:
M.M.B., Thames Ditton, Surrey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A 24 factorial experiment involving 68,713 first inseminations was carried out at four artificial insemination centres, to compare semen diluents containing citrate or phosphate buffers and all combinations of sulphanilamide, streptomycin and penicillin.

2. The analysis of the results was carried out on punched card machines and on an automatic calculator (EDSAC), as well as on bench machines.

3. The main results obtained were:

(i) Unsupplemented phosphate buffer gave a conception rate 5·5% above that obtained with unsupplemented citrate buffer.

(ii) Citrate buffer with sulphanilamide, streptomycin and penicillin gave a conception rate 6·8% above that obtained with unsupplemented citrate buffer; and

(iii) Phosphate buffer with penicillin gave a conception rate 9·3% above that obtained with unsupplemented citrate buffer. This effect was not, however, significantly greater than that referred to in (ii).

4. Phosphate buffer depressed conception rate when used with sulphanilamide or streptomycin.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , June 1955 , pp. 44 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

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

Alford, J. A. (1953). J. Dairy Sci. 36, 1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almquist, J. O. (1948). J. Dairy Sci. 31, 681.Google Scholar
Almquist, J. O. (1949 a). J. Dairy Sci. 32, 722.Google Scholar
Almquist, J. O. (1949 b). J. Dairy Sci. 32, 950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almquist, J. O. (1951). J. Dairy Sci. 34, 819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almquist, J. O., Glantz, P. J. & Shaffer, H. E. (1949). J. Dairy Sci. 32, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almquist, J. O. & Prince, P. W. (1950). J. Dairy Sci. 33, 393.Google Scholar
Almquist, J. O., Prince, P. W. & Reid, J. J. (1949). J. Dairy Sci. 32, 543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almquist, J. O., Thorp, W. T. S. & Glantz, P. J. (1947). J. Dairy Sci. 30, 542.Google Scholar
Almquist, J. O., Thorp, W. T. S. & Knodt, C. B. (1946). J. Anim. Sci. 5, 400.Google Scholar
Branton, C. & Prather, W. B. (1954). J. Dairy Sci. 37, 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, R. C. (1954). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. & Cox, G. M. (1950). Experimental Designs. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dunn, H. O., Larson, G. L. & Willett, E. L. (1953). J. Dairy Sci. 36, 728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easterbrooks, H. L. (1951). Fert. & Ster. 2, 430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easterbrooks, H. L., Heller, P., Plastridge, W. N. & Jungherr, E. L. (1950). J. Dairy Sci. 33, 851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easterbrooks, H. L., Heller, P., Plastridqe, W. N., Jungherr, E. L. & Elliott, F. I. (1950). J. Dairy Sci. 33, 737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SirFisher, Ronald A. (1954). Biometrics, 10, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, R. H. & Bratton, R. W. (1950 a). J. Dairy Sci. 33, 544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, R. H. & Bratton, R. W. (1950 b). J. Dairy Sci. 33, 842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, R. H. & Salisbury, G. W. (1948). J. Dairy Sci. 31, 763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knodt, C. B. & Salisbury, G. W. (1946). J. Dairy Sci. 29, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, R. M., Almquist, J. O. & Prince, P. W. (1950). J. Dairy Sci. 33, 394.Google Scholar
Phillips, P. H. & Lardy, H. A. (1940). J. Dairy Sci. 23, 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rottensten, K. & Oestergaard, P. S. (1953). Beretn. Forsøgslab. Kbh. no. 265.Google Scholar
Rowell, J. G. (1955). J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B (in the Press).Google Scholar
Salisbury, G. W., Fuller, H. K. & Willett, E. L. (1941). J. Dairy Sci. 24, 905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salisbury, G. W. & Knodt, C. B. (1947). J. Dairy Sci. 30, 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salisbury, G. W., Willett, E. L. & Gunsalus, I. C. (1939). Rec. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. 32, 210.Google Scholar
Stallcup, O. T. & McCartney, N. K. (1953). J. Dairy Sci. 36, 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, D. L. (1951). Vet. Rec. 63, 445.Google Scholar
Stewart, D. L., Melrose, D. R. & Wilson, W. R. (1951). Vet. Rec. 63, 609.Google Scholar
Willett, E. L., Fuller, H. K. & Salisbury, G. W. (1940). Cornell Vet. 30, 507.Google Scholar
Wu, S.-H., Elliker, P. R. & McKenzie, F. F. (1950). J. Anim. Sci. 9, 684.Google Scholar
Yates, F. (1937). The design and analysis of factorial experiments. Tech. Commun. Bur. Soil Sci., Harpenden, no. 35.Google Scholar