Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T01:40:12.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies of the response of the anoestrous ewe treated with progesterone and pregnant mare serum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. F. McDonald
M. F. McDonald
Affiliation:
Sheep Husbandry Department, Massey Agricultural College, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. An experiment was conducted to study the effects of progesterone and pregnant mare serum (p.m.s.) on incidence of oestrus, macroscopic changes in the ovaries, histological appearance of the genital tract, the vaginal smear and cervical mucus of New Zealand Romney Marsh ewes in deep anoestrus. Ten animals served as controls, thirty-five received progesterone daily for 4–12 days and ten were given p.m.s. alone. The remaining fifteen ewes were treated with progesterone for 4–6 days followed by p.m.s.

2. In ewes treated with progesterone alone, neither ovulation nor oestrus resulted. After p.m.s. alone six animals ovulated, while injection with both hormones caused ovulation in all 15 ewes and one was in oestrus.

3. Sections cut from the mid-region of the fallopian tube, uterine horn and cervix were examined. Histological responses to progesterone and p.m.s. were found in all positions of the tract and were greatest in the ewes which had ovulated.

4. In the ewes which ovulated a sequence of macroscopic and microscopic changes occurred in the vagina and these seemed similar to those associated with ovulation during the oestrous cycle.

5. Crystallization patterns in cervical mucus were seen in some ewes of all groups. Accompanying ovulation the phenomenon was seen for several days but was absent during most of the luteal period. When no follicles ruptured cervical mucus patterns often persisted. In most cases the presence and absence of arborization was presumably related to follicular oestrogen and progesterone from an induced corpus luteum and was in similar time relationship to that normally accompanying ovulation in the oestrous cycle. Some inconsistency in the response of cervical mucus following hormone treatment was noted.

6. No evidence was found that hormone treatment had initiated a regular cycle of ovarian activity.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , June 1961 , pp. 397 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

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. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 50, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betteridge, K. J. & Raeside, J. I. (1960). J. Anim. Sci. (abstract) 19, 1316.Google Scholar
Bell, T. D., Casida, L. E., Bohstedt, G. & Dablow, A. E. (1941). J. Agric. Res. 62, 619.Google Scholar
Bone, J. F. (1954). Amer. J. Vet. Res. 15, 542.Google Scholar
Dauzier, L. & Wintenberger, S. (1952). Ann. Zootec. 1, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. B. (1955). Biometrics, 11, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutt, R. H. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgar, D. G. (1953). J. Endocrin. 10, 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgar, D. G. (1958). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 18, 97.Google Scholar
Gordon, I. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 50, 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadek, R. (1955). Anat. Rec. 121, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. Jnr. (1945). J. Endocrin. 4, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. Jnr., Hammond, J. & Parkes, A. S. (1942). J. Agric. Sci. 32, 308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambourne, L. J. (1955). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 37, 187.Google Scholar
Lamond, D. R. (1955). Thesis, University of New Zealand, Massey Agricultural College Library.Google Scholar
Lamond, D. R. (1960). Nature, Lond., 186, 971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, F. F. & Terrill, C. E. (1937). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 264.Google Scholar
Radford, H. M. & Watson, R. H. (1955). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 6, 431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raeside, J. I. & Lamond, D. R. (1956 a). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 7, 591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raeside, J. I. & Lamond, D. R. (1956 b). Aust. J Agric. Res. 7, 601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raeside, J. I. & McDonald, M. F. (1959 a). J. Endocrin. 18, 350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raeside, J. I. & McDonald, M. F. (1959 b). Nature, Lond., 184, 458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1952). Nature, Lond., 170, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1954 a). J. Endocrin. 10, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1954 b). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 5, 730.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1954 c). J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 20, 203.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, T. J. & Moore, N. W. (1956). J. Endocrin. 14, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, T. J., Moore, N. W. & Binet, F. E. (1956). J. Endocrin. 14, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1946). Statistical Methods, 4th ed., p. 289. Iowa: State College Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Snedecor, G. W. (1953). Biometrics, 9, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1952). Proc. N.Z. Anim. Prod. Soc. 10, 61.Google Scholar
Zondek, B. (1954). Rec. Progr. Horm. Res. 10, 395.Google Scholar