Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T05:42:12.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The inception of lactation in the cow and goat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

S. A. Asdell
S. A. Asdell
Affiliation:
(Animal Nutrition Institute, School of Agriculture, Cambridge University.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Part I. The changes in amount and composition of the mammary secretions of a heifer in its first pregnancy are recorded.

The most striking feature is the abrupt appearance at half-way through pregnancy of a viscous secretion consisting largely of globulin.

These results are extended to the primiparous and to the multiparous “dry” goat.

Colostrum is shown to be normal milk admixed with the globulin secretion.

The significance of the globulin is discussed. Reasons are advanced indicating that it may be an excretion of the cell when it changes from the growth phase to the secretory phase of life.

The stimulus to mammary growth is briefly discussed.

A partial analysis is given of the secretion from the tubercular udder of a cow. This secretion resembles somewhat the secretions of mid-pregnancy.

Part II. Instances are given of cases of premature lactation in the goat, and analyses are recorded of these secretions.

These cases are discussed in the light of Part I of this paper, and their bearing on the corpus luteum theory of mammary development is considered. The sexual precocity of the goat is such that the mammary growth may in all cases have been due to luteal influences.

A few cases of premature lactation in the cow are also reported.

The theory that the foetus produces a hormone inhibiting lactation is shown to be unnecessary.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , July 1925 , pp. 358 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1925

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

(1)Woodman, and HAMMOND, (1923). J. Agric. Sci. 13, 180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Woodman, and Hammond, (1922). J. Agric. Sci. 12, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Houdet, (1894). Ann. de l' Inst. Past. 8, 506.Google Scholar
(4)Porcher, and Panisset, (1921). C.R. Acad. Sci. 172, 181.Google Scholar
(5)Eckles, and Shaw, (1913). U.S. Dept. Agric, Bur. Anim. Ind., Bull. 155.Google Scholar
(6)Hammond, (1917). Proc. Roy. Soc. B., 89, 534.Google Scholar
(7)Hammond, (1923). Proc. 11th Internal. Physiol. Cong. 133.Google Scholar
(8)Magee, (1924). J. Agric. Sci. 14, 516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Hammond, and Sanders, (1923). J. Agric. Sci. 13, 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Hill, (1918). J. Biol. Chem. 33, 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Guthrie, (1923). Agric. Gaz., New South Wales, 34, 76.Google Scholar
(12)Hildebrandt, (1904).Hofmeister's Beiträge, 5.Google Scholar