Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:13:20.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The control of fertility in sheep Part II. The augmentation of fertility by gonadotrophin treatment of the ewe in the normal breeding season

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

T. J. Robinson
T. J. Robinson
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge, and University of Western Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the course of two breeding seasons 137 mature to aged ewes of mixed breeds but predominantly Border Leicester × Cheviots, Dorset × Cheviots, Suffolks and Hampshires and their crosses, have been injected with PMS or PU, and at different levels of dosage, and slaughtered at intervals after service to determine the sequence of events following treatment. In addition ten ewe lambs received similar treatment and eighty-one flock Suffolk and Romney Marsh ewes, of which forty-nine were injected, have been studied. The results may be summarized as follows:

1. The injection of 500–2000 i.u. PMS on the 12th day of the oestrous cycle will regularly induce multiple ovulations at the ensuing heat.

2. There is a significant dose-response relationship between 500 and 2000 i.u. PMS. Mean ovulation rates observed were: 500 i.u., 4·1; 1000 i.u., 10·6; 2000 i.u., 15·8. There is, however, considerable variation, the ranges being 2–9, 4–33 and 8–29 respectively.

3. The injection of 1000 i.u. PU subcutaneously on the 12th day of the cycle causes marked ovarian and cyclic abnormalities, and heat may be entirely suppressed. When injected intravenously at heat following a priming injection with PMS on the 12th day there is no evidence that it increases the rate of ovulation; in other words, the ewe can ovulate up to at least thirty ova without difficulty, provided the follicles are matured.

4. PMS levels of 500 and 1000 i.u. do not cause any apparent ovarian abnormalities apart from superovulation. A very high proportion of all follicles developed rupture and form apparently normal corpora lutea. PMS at 2000 i.u. causes lutein cysts and ovulation may be inhibited.

5. PMS at 500 and 1000 i.u. causes no cyclic abnormalities, although cycle length is slightly shortened. In the event of the ewe failing to conceive, the subsequent oestrus is normal, and ovulation and fertilization of the ova occur.

6. Commercial PMS is probably as effective as fresh PMS provided it is correctly standardized. There seems no reason to suspect differences in multiple ovulating efficiency between different batches of fresh PMS.

7. While breed differences in response possibly exist they were not observed in these experiments. Nor were differences apparently related to the relative time of injection within the breeding season.

8. There is an ovarian weight-PMS level, doseresponse relationship which is almost entirely accounted for by the numbers of corpora lutea and hence of luteal tissue.

9. Multiple-ovulated ova are highly fertilizable. However, when fifteen or more are shed the rate of tubal transport is considerably accelerated and the proportion fertilized appears to fall. One- and two- cell ova have been recovered from the uterus within 48 hr. of service. Nine fertilized ova have been recovered from one ewe.

10. Considerable embryonic mortality occurs before attachment of the blastocysts. None the less, multiple impregnation does occur but is followed by further early death. Up to thirteen attachments have been observed in one ewe, but all but three were showing signs of regression by the 19th day.

11. Post-attachment mortality takes the form of an initial retardation commencing about the 15th day, embryos apparently dying a day or so later. The peak of mortality occurs between the 17th and 19th day, by which time definite signs of resorption are apparent.

12. By 21 days equilibrium has been reached, the mean numbers of survivals of those ewes pregnant being some 260%. This level is maintained without further loss until the 68th day. Several cases of four normal foetuses were noted up to the 41st day, and one uterus containing six perfectly normal foetuses was recovered at 61 days.

13. The overall fertility indicated by these slaughterhouse ewes varies with the level of PMS administered. While equilibrium is achieved by animals conceiving, at about 250–260% viable foetuses, regardless of the dose injected, there is increasing proportion of returns to service with increasing dosage. For the most part this appears due to hormonal imbalance at the time of ovulation and fertilization when an excessive number (> 15) ova are shed. This results in accelerated ovum transport through the tubes and lowered rate of fertilization. Between ovulation rates of 4 and 12, produced by 500 i.u., rate of conception is extremely high. Of twenty-five ewes receiving 500 i.u. PMS, twenty-three (92%) conceived to the first fertile service. The conception rates were reduced to 80 and 60% by 1000 and 2000 i.u. respectively.

14. Although after the end of the 3rd week there is no direct evidence of further foetal mortality, the percentage of lambs born in the flock ewes injected with 500 i.u. PMS was only 192% of those lambing or 167% of all ewes mated (147% for controls). This indicates a loss late in pregnancy. This can in part accounted for by abortion; one ewe aborted, due, is believed, to her carrying more lambs than she was physically capable of retaining.

15. OffifteenflockSuffolksinjectedinthe 2nd year with 500 i.u. PMS, thirteen lambed, one aborted and one did not conceive. The thirteen ewes lambing presented twenty-five lambs, including one set triplets and one of quadruplets. All the latter were viable, but two sets of twins were bom dead. One triplet was lost on fostering and one other lamb was lost, so nineteen were tailed. Of fifteen controls, all lambed, giving twenty-one lambs bom of which twenty survived. Conception to first fertile service was higher in the injected than in the control ewes. In the preceding year when 1000 i.u. was given, both conception and lambing rates were appreciably lowered as compared with untreated controls. The significance of this in respect to the level of PMS administered is stressed.

16. It is concluded that the major part of the embryonic loss is due to a uterine environment which is incapable of supporting more than a limited number of embryos. It is considered possible that there are breed differences in this, and that each breed, and individual within the breed, has ‘Maximum Potential Fertility’.

17. This ‘Maximum Potential Fertility’ is not attained in normal breeding practice, since the number of ova shed by the ewe tends to constitute a limiting factor. Use of a level of PMS which will induce between three and ten ovulations—in the case of this experiment, 500 i.u.—removes this limiting factor, giving the individual full opportunity to express its full potential breeding capabilities.

18. There is some indication that the use of PMS in lambs may not give good results, and its use for the while should be restricted to mature ewes.

19. Since 500 i.u. PMS has resulted in a higher conception rate to first service and to a greater number of lambs born, it is apparent that this technique of injecting on the 12th day of the cycle a level of PMS which will result in a moderate number of ovulations is worthy of exhaustive field trials, notwithstanding the high post-natal mortality observed in the few cases which were allowed to go to term.

20. In view of the higher indicated fertility of the slaughtered ewes which were mainly Border Leicester cross and Dorset × Cheviots—normally very highly fertile ewes as compared with the flock Suffolks—it is considered possible that this technique will yield best results with more highly fertile breeds.

21. To have any hope for successful increase of fertility in mammals following gonadotrophin treatment the hormone must be administered at a time and at such a concentration that it will augment, but not upset, normal hypophysial and ovarian function.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 41 , Issue 1-2 , January 1951 , pp. 6 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

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, E., McKenzie, F. F., Kennedy, J. W. & Beare, W. K. (1931). Anat. Rec. 48, Suppl. 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, P., Brambell, F. W. R. & Mills, I. H. (1947). J. Exp. Biol. 23, 312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asdell, S. A. (1946). Patterns of Mammalian Reproduction. Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Assheton, R. (1906). Philos. Trans. B, 198, 143.Google Scholar
Austin, C. R. (1949 a). J. Endocrinol. 6, 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, C. R. (1949 b). J. Endocrinol. 6, 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, T. D., Casida, L. E. & Darlow, A. E. (1941). Endocrinology, 28, 441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blandau, B. J. & Young, W. C. (1939). Amer. J. Anat. 64, 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyarski, L. H., Bayliss, H., Casida, L. E. & Meyer, R. K. (1947). Endocrinology, 41, 312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J. D., Hamilton, W. J. & Hammond, J. (Jr.) (1944). J. Anat., Lond., 78, 5.Google Scholar
Brambell, F. W. R. (1935). Philos. Trans. B, 225, 1.Google Scholar
Brambell, F. W. R. (1942). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 130, 462.Google Scholar
Brambell, F. W. R. (1944). Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 114, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambell, F. W. R. (1948). Biol. Rev. 23, 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambell, F. W. R. & Hall, K. (1937). Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. p. 957.Google Scholar
Brambell, F. W. R., Hemmings, W. A. & Rowlands, W. T. (1948). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 135, 390.Google Scholar
Brambell, F. W. R., Henderson, M. & Mills, I. H. (1948). J. Exp. Biol. 25, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambell, F. W. R. & Mills, I. H. (1947 a). J. Exp. Biol. 23, 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambell, F. W. R. & Mills, I. H. (1947 b). J. Exp. Biol. 24, 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambell, F. W. R. & Mills, I. H. (1948). J. Exp. Biol. 25, 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambell, F. W. R. & Rowlands, I. W. (1936). Philos. Trans. B, 226, 71.Google Scholar
Casida, L. E. (1946). The Problem of Fertility, p. 49, ed. by Engle, E. T.. New Jersey.Google Scholar
Casida, L. E., Dutt, R. H. & Meyer, R. K. (1945). J. Anim. Sci. 4, 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casida, L. E. & McKenzie, F. F. (1932). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 170.Google Scholar
Casida, L. E., Meyer, R. K., McShan, W. H. & Wisnicky, L. (1943). Amer. J. Vet. Res. 4, 76.Google Scholar
Casida, L. E. & Warwick, E. J. (1945). J. Anim. Sci. 4, 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casida, L. E., Warwick, E. J. & Meyer, R. K. (1944). J. Anim. Sci. 3, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, M. C. (1941). Thesis on Ram Spermatozoa, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Chang, M. C. (1942). J. Endocrinol. 3, 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, B. T. (1934 a). Anat. Rec. 60, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, B. T. (1934 b). Anat. Rec. 60, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloete, J. H. L. (1939). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 13, 417.Google Scholar
Cole, H. H. (1937). Amer. J. Physiol. 119, 704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, H. H. & Miller, B. F. (1933). Amer. J. Physiol. 104, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, H. H. & Miller, B. F. (1935). Amer. J. Anat. 57, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, H. H., Hart, G. H. & Miller, R. F. (1945). Endocrinology, 36, 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corner, G. W. (1921). Contr. Embryol. Carneg. Instn, No. 276, 61.Google Scholar
Corner, G. W. (1923). Amer. J. Anat. 31, 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curson, H. H. & Quinlan, J. (1934). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 2, 657.Google Scholar
Dantorth, C. H. & de'Aberle, S. B. (1928). Amer. J. Anat. 41, 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, F. T. & Rowlands, I. W. (1940). J. Endocrinol. 2, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, F. T. & Rowlands, I. W. (1947). J. Endocrinol. 5, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de, Bruin (1901). Bovine Obstetrics (trans.). London.Google Scholar
Dowling, D. F. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, O. N. (1932). J. Exp. Zool. 63, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, H. M. & Simpson, M. E. (1940). Endocrinology, 27, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, G. (1912). Flemings Veterinary Obstetrics, ed. by Craig, . London.Google Scholar
Gatenby, J. B. & Painter, T. S. (1937). The Microtomists Vade-Mecum, p. 50. London.Google Scholar
Grant, R. (1934). Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 58, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, W. W. & Winters, L. M. (1935). Anat. Rec. 61, 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, W. W. & Winters, L. M. (1945). Tech. Bull. Minn. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 169.Google Scholar
Grossner, O. (1948). Arch. Gynaek. 176, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1914). J. Agric. Sci. 6, 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1921). J. Agric. Sci. 11, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1928). Z. Zucht. 3, 523.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1941). Biol. Rev. 16, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1947). Biol. Rev. 22, 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1948). 1st Int. Congr. Physiopath. Milan.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. & Marshall, F. H. A. (1925). Reproduction in the Rabbit. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (Jr.) (1944). J. Agric. Sci. 34, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (Jr.) (1945). J. Endocrinol. 4, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (Jr.), Hammond, J. & Parkes, A. S. (1942). J. Agric. Sci. 32, 308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, D. S. (1950). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harter, B. T. (1948). Anat. Rec. 100, 672.Google Scholar
Heape, W. (1899). J. R. Agric. Soc. 10, 217.Google Scholar
Heape, W. (1905). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 76, 260.Google Scholar
Henning, W. L. (1939). J. Agric. Res. 58, 565.Google Scholar
Huggett, A. St G. & Pritchard, J. J. (1945). Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 38, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanow, E. I. (1913). Preliminary Comm. from Zootech. Sta. Askania-Nova.Google Scholar
Kelley, R. B. (1937). Bull. coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust., no. 112.Google Scholar
Kelley, R. B. (1939). Aust. Vet. J. 15, 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koebner, F. (1910). Arch. Gynaek. 91, 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laplaud, M. M. & Thibault, Ch. (1947). C.R. Acad. Agric. 33, 516.Google Scholar
Lesbouyries, G. (1949). Reproduction des Mammifères Domestiques, p. 277. Paris.Google Scholar
Litovčenko, I. & Litovčenko, E. (1938). Vsp. zooteh. Nauk. 5, 86.Google Scholar
Loginova, N. V. & Lopyrin, A. I. (1938). Probl. Zivotn. no. 10, 114.Google Scholar
Lopyrin, A. I. (1937). Adv. Zootech. Sci. Moscow, 4, 46 (English summary).Google Scholar
Lopyrin, A. I. (1938). Multifoetation of Sheep. Moscow.Google Scholar
Lysov, A. M. & Stojanovskaja, V. I. (1937). Probl. Zivotn. no. 12, 16.Google Scholar
McKenzie, F. F. & Terrill, C. E. (1937). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 264.Google Scholar
Marshall, F. H. A. (1903). Philos. Trans. B, 196, 47.Google Scholar
Marshall, F. H. A. (1910). The Physiology of Reproduction. London.Google Scholar
Marshall, F. H. A. (1922). The Physiology of Reproduction, 2nd ed.London.Google Scholar
Milovanov, V. K. & Sokolovskaya, I. I. (1947). Stockbreeding and the Artificial Insemination of Livestock, trans, by Morton, A. S.. London.Google Scholar
Murphree, R. L., Warwick, E. J. & Casida, L. E. (1942). J. Anim. Sci. 1, 89.Google Scholar
Murphree, R. L., Warwick, E. J., Casida, L. E. & McShan, W. H. (1944). J. Anim. Sci. 3, 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphree, R. L., Warwick, E. J., Casida, L. E. & McShan, W. H. (1947). Endocrinology, 41, 308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. E. (1924). J. Minist. Agric. 31, 835.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. E. (1926). J. Minist. Agric. 33, 218.Google Scholar
Noble, R. L., Rowlands, I. W., Warwick, M. H. & Williams, P. C. (1939). J. Endocrinol. 1, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odor, D. L. & Blandau, R. J. (1947). Anat. Rec. 97, 400.Google Scholar
Parker, G. H. (1931). Philos. Trans. B, 219, 381.Google Scholar
Parkes, A. S. (1943). J. Endocrinol. 3, 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkes, A. S. & Hammond, J. (1940). Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 33, 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, R. W., Fraps, R. M. & Frank, A. H. (1946). The Problem of Fertility, p. 11, ed. by Engle, E. T.. New Jersey.Google Scholar
Pincus, G. (1936). The Eggs of Mammals. New York.Google Scholar
Pincus, G. & Enzmann, E. V. (1932). J. Exp. Biol. 9, 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polovceva, V. V. & Fomenko, M. V. (1933). Probl. Zivotn. no. 5, 95.Google Scholar
Polovceva, V. V. & Fomenko, M. V. (1940). Dokl. Acad. seljskohoz Nauk. no. 1, 44 (A.B.A. 9, 28).Google Scholar
Polovceva, V. V. & Judovic, S. S. (1939). Trud. Inst. Ovcevod Kozovod, no. 10, 125 (A.B.A. 9, 326).Google Scholar
Quinlan, J. & Maré, G. (1931). Rep. Vet. Res. S. Afr. 17, 663.Google Scholar
Quinlan, J., Maré, G. & Roux, L. L. (1932 a). Rep. Vet. Res. S. Afr. 18, 831.Google Scholar
Quinlan, J., Mare, G. & Roux, L. L. (1932 b). J. S. Afr. Vet. Med. Ass. 3, 4.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1950). Biol. Rev. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Robson, J. M. (1947). Recent Advances in Sex and Reproductive Physiology. London.Google Scholar
Roux, L. L. (1936). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 6, 465.Google Scholar
Schott, R. G. & Phillips, R. W. (1941). Anat. Rec. 79, 531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmaltz, R. (1921). Das Geschlechtsleben der Haussaugetiere, p. 164. Berlin.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1946). Statistical Methods, 4th ed.Iowa.Google ScholarPubMed
Strahl, H. & Henneberg, G. (1902). Anat. Anz. 20, 21.Google Scholar
Tanabe, T. Y. & Casida, L. E. (1949). J. Dairy Sci. 32, 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thibault, C. & Laplaud, M. (1947). C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 224, 1786.Google Scholar
Thibault, C., Laplaud, M. & Ortavant, R. (1948). C.R. Acad. Agric. 34, 151.Google Scholar
Thibault, C., Ortavant, R. & Laplaud, M. (1948). Ann. Endocrinol. 9, 83.Google Scholar
van Wagenen, G. (1947). Ann. Rev. Physiol. 9, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, A. (1936). Notes on Artificial Insemination of Sheep, Cattle and Horses. Holborn Surgical Instrument Co. London.Google Scholar
Walton, A. & Hammond, J. (1938). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 125, 311.Google Scholar
Warbritton, V. (1934). J. Morphol. 56, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warbritton, V. & McKenzie, F. F. (1937). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 257.Google Scholar
Warwick, E. J. & Casida, L. E. (1943). Endocrinology, 33, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, E. J., Murphree, R. L., Casida, L. E. & Meyer, R. K. (1943). Anat. Rec. 87, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willett, E. L., McShan, W. H. & Meyer, R. K. (1948). J. Anim. Sci. 7, 545.Google Scholar
Wishart, J. & Sanders, H. G. (1936). Principles and Practice of Field Experimentation. London.Google Scholar
Yeates, N. T. M. (1947). Nature, Lond., 160, 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeates, N. T. M. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, W. C. (1937). Anat. Rec. 67, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yudine, & Potachov, . (1942). Bull. Inst. Karakulevodstva, no. 5 (cited by Loplaud & Thibault, 1947).Google Scholar
Zavadovskii, B. M. (1945). Regulating the Processes of Reproduction in Animals. Moscow.Google Scholar
Zavadovskii, M. M. (1941). Hormonal Stimulation of Multiple Foetation in Sheep (English summary). Moscow.Google Scholar
Zavadovskii, M. M. & Margulis, E. S. (1939). Trud. Dinam Razvit. 11, 80 (English summary).Google Scholar
Zavadovskii, M. M. & Vorobjeva, E. I. (1947). Dokl. Akad. seljskohos. Nauk Lenin. (9), 3.Google Scholar