Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:43:07.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of pre-treatment with progesterone upon the response of seasonally anovular ewes to the introduction of rams

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

M. Rekik ,
M.J. Bryant  and
F.J. Cunningham
M. Rekik
Affiliation:
Departments of Agriculture and Physiology, University of Reading, Reading, Berks
M.J. Bryant
Affiliation:
Departments of Agriculture and Physiology, University of Reading, Reading, Berks
F.J. Cunningham
Affiliation:
Departments of Agriculture and Physiology, University of Reading, Reading, Berks Departments of Agriculture and Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Reading, Reading, Berks
Get access

Extract

The introduction of rams to seasonally anovular ewes, pre-conditioned by a period of isolation, may induce the episodic release of LH, follicular development and ovulation in the ewes. The CL formed after ovulation induced by the introduction of rams may not persist for a full luteal phase; some ewes may ovulate again, while others may lapse back into seasonal anoestrus. An injection of progesterone at the time of ram introduction has been shown to overcome the premature regression of CL (Martin et al., 1986). This experiment investigated the effects of giving progesterone at the time of ram introduction upon the response of two types of ewe treated during June and July.

Type
Developments in Sheep Production
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (1972) , Volume 1988 , March 1988 , pp. 94
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Production 1988

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

Martin, G.B., Oldham, C.M., Cognie, Y. and Pearce, D.T. (1986). Livest. Prod. Sci. 15: 219–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar