Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T18:54:37.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Nutrition and reproduction in the ewe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. M. Allen
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough
G. E. Lamming
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough

Extract

1. A preliminary trial involving forty-six ewes demonstrated that when ewes in store condition were flushed for different periods, there was a marked increase in ovulation rate after 1 month with no further increase after 2 or 3 months. Flushing did not lead to ovulation rates higher than in ewes maintained in fat condition.

2. When similar ewes in fat condition were fed submaintenance diets there was no decline in ovulation rate while the animals had good body reserves, but as the period of submaintenance feeding was extended there was a gradual fall in ovulation rate.

3. In the main experiment forty-eight ewes were allocated to four groups of twelve ewes each. One group was fed a submaintenance diet till they were in moderately poor condition (submaintenance group). The other three groups were reduced to store condition and were then flushed on good pasture for 5–8 days, one oestrous cycle and two oestrous cycles, respectively. All ewes were slaughtered 2–5 days post-oestrus and half the ewes of each group were injected subcutaneously with 600 i.u. of P.m.s. on the twelfth or thirteenth day of the oestrous cycle prior to slaughter.

Type
Research Article
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

Allen, D. M. (1959). Thesis. University of Nottingham, School of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Bergman, A. J. & Turner, C. W. (1942). Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 356.Google Scholar
Briggs, H. M., Darlow, A. E., Hawkins, L. E., Wilham, O. S. & Hauser, E. R. (1942). Bull. Okla. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 255.Google Scholar
Clark, R. T. (1934). Anat. Rec. 60, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1959). J. Amer. Vet. Med. Ass. 135, 606.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1941). J. Minist. Agric. 48, 77.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1952). VIth Int. Congr. Anim. Husb. p. 38.Google Scholar
Harris, G. W. (1955). Neural Control of the Pituitary Gland. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hart, G. H. & Miller, R. F. (1937). J. Agric. Res. 55, 47.Google Scholar
Heape, W. (1899). J.R. Agric. Soc. 10, 217.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. M. (1917). Amer. J. Anal. 21, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marrian, G. F. & Parkes, A. S. (1929). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 105, 248.Google Scholar
Marshall, F. H. A. (1905). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 77, 58.Google Scholar
Marshall, F. R. & Potts, C. G. (1921). Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 996.Google Scholar
McKenzie, F. F. & Terrill, C. E. (1937). Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 264.Google Scholar
Mulinos, M. C. & Pomerantz, L. (1940). J. Nutr. 19, 439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulinos, M. C. & Pomerantz, L. (1941). Endocrinology, 29, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. E. (1924). J. Ministr. Agric. 31, 835.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. E. (1926). J. Agric. Sci. 16, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinaldini, L. M. (1949). J. Endocrin. 6, 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1950). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, E. J. & Shier, F. L. (1941). J. Depl. Agric. W. Aust. 18, 13.Google Scholar
Vanderlinde, R. E. & Westerfeld, W. W. (1950). Endocrinology, 47, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1953). N.Z. J. Agric. 87, 529.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. G. & Roberts, J. A. F. (1922). Welsh J Agric. 3, 70.Google Scholar