Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:56:25.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fowl semen as collected by the massage method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. E. Lake
P. E. Lake
Affiliation:
Poultry Research Centre, King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh 9
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The reflex ejaculation responses of cocks to lumbar massage have been examined, and some basic reactions described. A list of the crude fluid components obtained by the massage technique of semen collection is given.

2. From these observations, and a chemical test on the contents of the hen's vagina after natural and artificial insemination, it was deduced that the normal ejaculate of the cock is composed mainly of contents from the vasa deferentia, with some secretions from the mucosal glands of the vascular bodies and lymph folds. The blood plasma transudate sometimes expelled into the semen is obtained as a result of compression of the terminal organs during the collection procedure.

3. Points emerging from the observations on ejaculation, and the search for the normal constituents of semen are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , May 1957 , pp. 120 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

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

Burrows, W. H. & Quinn, J. P. (1935). Poult. Sci. 14, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrows, W. H. & Quinn, J. P. (1937). Poult. Sci. 16, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrows, W. H. & Quinn, J. P. (1938). Poult. Sci. 17, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D. M. (1955). Vet. Rec. 67, 331.Google Scholar
Grodzinski, Z. & Marchlewski, J. (1938). Bull. int. Acad. Cracovie (Acad. pol. Sci.), 11, 56.Google Scholar
Harrop, A. E. (1954). Brit. Vet. J. 110, 424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunsaker, W. G., Aitken, J. R. & Lindblad, G. (1956). Poult. Sci. 35, 649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isherwood, F. A. (1954). Brit. Med. Bull. 10, 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, H. (1930). Proc. IV World's Poult. Congr. (Sect. A), p. 91.Google Scholar
Ivanow, E. (1913). C. R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 75, 371.Google Scholar
Jull, M. A. & Quinn, J. P. (1931). Quoted by Quinn J. P. & Burrows W. H. (1936). J. Hered. 27, 31.Google Scholar
Lake, P. E. (1954). Proc. X World's Poult. Congr. (Sect. A), p. 79.Google Scholar
Lake, P. E. (1956). Proc. III Int. Congr. Anim. Repr. (Sect. 3), p. 104.Google Scholar
Lake, P. E. (1957). J. Anat., Lond. 91, 116.Google Scholar
Lake, P. E. & Wood-Gush, D. G. M. (1956). Nature, Lond. 178, 853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, T. (1954). The Biochemistry of Semen. London: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, M. V. (1932). Probl. Zihtov. No. 9, p. 97.Google Scholar
Nishiyama, H. (1951). Sci. Bull. Fac. Agric. Kyushu Univ. 13, 377.Google Scholar
Nishiyama, H. (1952). Sci. Bull. Fac. Agric. Kyushu Univ. 12, 269.Google Scholar
Nishiyama, H. (1955). J. Fac. Agric. Kyushu Univ. 10, 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, J. E. (1939). Poult. Sci. 18, 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, J. E., McKenzie, F. F. & Kempster, H. L. (1940). Poult. Sci. 19, 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, J. E., McKenzie, F. F. & Kempster, H. L. (1942). Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 347.Google Scholar
Polge, C. (1956). Vet. Rec. 68, 62.Google Scholar
Schindler, H., Weinstein, S. (Moses, E. & Gabriel, I. (1955). Poult. Sci. 34, 1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, A. (1956). Progress in the Physiology of Farm Animals, pp. 603–16. London: Butterworth's Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Young, E. G. & Dreyer, N. B. (1933). J. Pharmacol. 49, 162.Google Scholar