Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-w7rtg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T07:22:37.255Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of progesterone and serum gonadotrophin (P.M.S.) in the control of fertility in sheep. II. Studies in the extra-seasonal production of lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

I. Gordon
I. Gordon
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Section 1

1. A total of 189 ewes, of various breeds and crosses were used in slaughter experiments conducted in anoestrum during 1953–6. The ewes were of mixed ages, and included four lambs, aged 52–71 days.

2. Ewes received P.M.S. in different combinations with progesterone to induce co-incident oestrus and ovulation. Progesterone was employed in three forms, as a solution in oil, as a micro-crystalline suspension and as fused pellet implants. One hundred ewes were injected with the oil solutions, eighty-five with the suspensions and four received the pellet form of the hormone.

3. The percentage of ewes that came in oestrus (oestrous response) was higher in those treated for a 5-day period than in those treated for a 3-day period with progesterone in oil P.M.S. being administered 2 days after the final progesterone injection. The oestrous response in ewes receiving progesterone over a 13-day period was no higher than in those treated over 5 days.

4. 172 ewes' tracts were examined for ovulations. In those sheep (excluding the four young lambs) which came in oestrus, all had ovulated. Ovulation was apparently inhibited in some ewes which received progesterone in suspension form. The ovulation rate following treatment with 700 i.u. whole serum P.M.S. was higher than that where 750 i.u. purified serum was employed.

5. Forty-one of the ewes which came in oestrus were slaughtered 41–120 hr. after estimated onset of oestrus. Seventy-six of the ninety-two ova shed by these animals were recovered. 81·3% of recovered ova were cleaved. Of thirty-four ewes slaughtered 61–120 hr. after oestrus, thirty-two (94·1%) yielded one or more apparently normal fertilized ova. There was no evidence that fertility in the Suffolk rams employed in matings decreased to the point where it might affect conception in out-of-season breeding.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , April 1958 , pp. 152 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

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

Averill, R. L. W. (1955). Studies in Fertility, 7, 139.Google Scholar
Barnicoat, C. R., Logan, A. G. & Grant, A. I. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, T. D. & Smith, W. H. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 736.Google Scholar
Bell, T. D., Smith, W. H. & Johnson, M. (1954). Circ. Kans. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 202, 44.Google Scholar
Briggs, H. M. (1936). Bull. N. Dak. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 285.Google Scholar
Casida, L. B. & Meyer, R. K. (1944). J. Anim. Sci. 3, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, M. C. (1942). J. Endocrinol. 3, 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, H. H. & Miller, R. F. (1933). Amer. J. Physiol. 104, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, H. H. & Miller, R. F. (1934). Anat. Rec. 58, 56.Google Scholar
Cole, H. H. & Miller, R. F. (1935). Amer. J. Anat. 57, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, H. H., Hart, G. H. & Miller, R. F. (1945). Endocrinology, 36, 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cupps, P. T., Laben, R. G. & Mead, S. W. (1953). J. Dairy Sci. 36, 422.Google Scholar
Dauzier, L., Thibault, C. & Wintenberger, S. (1953). Ann. Endocr., Paris, 14, 533.Google Scholar
Dauzier, L. & Wintenberger, S. (1952). Ann. d'l'I.N.R.A. p. 49.Google Scholar
Dauzier, L., Ortavant, R., Tribault, G. & Winten-Berger, S. (1954). Ann. Zootech., Paris, 3, 89.Google Scholar
Day, F. T. (1942). J. Brit. Dairy Fmrs' Ass. (War Series), no. 2, 4.Google Scholar
Dutt, R. H. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 792.Google Scholar
Dutt, R. H. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutt, R. H. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutt, R. H. & Casida, L. E. (1948). Endocrinology, 43, 208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gassner, F. X. (1952). Recent Progr. Hormone Res. 7, 165.Google Scholar
Gordon, I. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, R. (1934). Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 58, 1.Google Scholar
Green, W. W. (1940). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 207.Google Scholar
Green, W. W. & Winters, L. M. (1945). Tech. Bull. Minn. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 169.Google Scholar
Griswald, D. T. (1932). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 181.Google Scholar
Gunn, R. M. G., Sanders, R. M. & Granger, W. (1942). Bull. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust. no. 148.Google Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 189.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1921). J. Agric. Sci. 11, 337.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1925). J. Fmrs' Cl. Lond., p. 103.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. Jr., Hammond, J. & Parkes, A. S. (1942). J. Agric. Sci. 32, 308.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. Jr. (1944). J. Agric. Sci. 34, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. Jr. (1945). J. Endocrinol. 4, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, D. S. (1950). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 143.Google Scholar
Hunter, G. L. (1954). J. Endocrinol. 10, xiii.Google Scholar
Maqsood, M. (1951). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Marshall, F. H. A. & Hammond, J. (1945). Bull. Minist. Agric. no. 39.Google Scholar
McKenzie, F. F. & Terrill, G. E. (1937). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 264.Google Scholar
McKenzie, F. F. & Berliner, V. (1940). Res. bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 265.Google Scholar
Moule, G. R. (1953). Cited by Yeates (1953).Google Scholar
O'Mary, G. G., Pope, A. L. & Casida, L. E. (1950). J. Anim. Sci. 9, 400.Google Scholar
O'Neal, F. L. (1938). Calif. Wool Or. 13, 5.Google Scholar
Palsson, H. (1953). Rit. Landr. B. Flokkur, no. 5.Google Scholar
Parkes, A. S. & Hammond, J. (1940). Proc. R. Soc. Med. 33, 483.Google Scholar
Parry, H. B. (1956). Nature, Lond., 177, 288.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. W. & McKenzie, F. F. (1934). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 217.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. W., Schott, R. G., Eaton, O. N. & Simmons, V. L. (1943). Cornell Vet. 33, 227.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. W., Fraps, R. M. & Frank, A. H. (1945). Amer. J. vet. Res. 6, 165.Google Scholar
Quin, J. I. & Van Der Wath, J. G. (1943). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 18, 139.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1950). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 275.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1951 a). Biol. Rev. 26, 121.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1951 b). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1952). Nature, Lond., 170, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1954 a). J. Endocrinol. 10, 117.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1954 b). Endocrinology, 55, 403.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1954 c). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 5, 730.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 37.Google Scholar
Roux, L. L. (1936). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 6, 465.Google Scholar
Rowson, L. E. A. (1951). J. Endocrinol. 7, 260.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. F. & Cole, C. L. (1944). Quart. Bull. Mich. Sta. Coll. 26, 250.Google Scholar
Thibault, C., Laplaud, M. & Ortavant, R. (1948). C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 226, 2006.Google Scholar
Venzke, W. G. (1953). J. Amer. Vet. Med. Ass. 122, 274.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. P. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 93.Google Scholar
Yeates, N. T. M. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 1.Google Scholar
Yeates, N. T. M. (1953). J. Agric. Sci. 43, 199.Google Scholar