Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:07:34.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Photoperiodic control of breeding activity in the Southdown ewe with particular reference to the effects of an equatorial light regime

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. J. Thwaites
C. J. Thwaites
Affiliation:
John Hammond Climate Laboratory, Department of Livestock Husbandry, University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W., Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Oestrous activity was studied in three groups of eight Southdown ewes exposed respectively to natural lighting (30½° S.), accentuated reversed seasonal lighting, and equatorial lighting for a period of 2 years.

2. Control ewes exhibited a restricted breeding season confined to the autumn and winter months of each year. The breeding season averaged 102–5 days in length and during it the ewes experienced an average of 7·14 ± 0·47 oestrous periods.

3. The natural breeding season was almost completely reversed by artificial reversal of the normal seasonal variation in daylength. This constitutes presumptive evidence that daylength is the major factor controlling seasonality of oestrus in Southdown ewes.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 65 , Issue 1 , August 1965 , pp. 57 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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

Amoroso, E. C. & Marshall, F. H. A. (1960). Chapter 13 in Marshall's Physiology of Reproduction (ed. Parkes, A. S.) vol. I, pt. 2. London: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
Bonsma, J. C. & Pretorius, A. J. (1943). Fmg. in S. Afr. 18, 101.Google Scholar
Bullough, W. S. (1951). Vertebrate Sexual Cycles. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Cole, H. H. (1953). Iowa St. Coll. J. Sci. 28, 133.Google Scholar
Debaca, R. C, Warnick, A. C, Hitchcock, G. H. & Bogart, R. (1954). Ore. Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. no. 29.Google Scholar
Dutt, R. H. (1960). J. Dairy Sci. 43, 123.Google Scholar
Dutt, R. H. & Bush, L. F. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1952a). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1952b). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 199.Google Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1952c). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. jun, (1944). J. Agric. Sci. 34, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, D. S. (1950). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, R. B. & Shaw, H. E. B. (1943). Counc. Sci. Ind. Res., Aust. Bull., no. 166.Google Scholar
Larionov, W. T. (1941). Dokl. Akad. Nauk, SSSR, N.S. 30, 374. (A.B.A. 11, 125.)Google Scholar
Marshall, F. H. A. (1942). Biol. Rev. 17, 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, H. M. (1961a). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 12, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, H. M. (1961b). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 12, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, H. M. & Watson, R. H. (1957). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 8, 460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, H. M., Watson, R. H. & Wood, G. F. (1960). Aust. Vet. J. 36, 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, R. H. & Radford, H. M. (1955). Aust. Vet. J. 31, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeates, N. T. M. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeates, N. T. M. (1956a). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 7, 440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeates, N. T. M. (1956b). Man and Animals in the Tropics, p. 97. Proc. Aust. Aoad. Sci. Symp., brisbane.Google Scholar
Yeates, N. T. M. (1965). Modern Aspects of Animal Production. London: Butterworths. (In the Press.)Google Scholar