Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T20:15:21.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ovulation rate in ewes treated with pregnant mares' serum gonadotrophin and luteinizing hormone releasing factor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. T. McGovern  and
J. A. Laing
P. T. McGovern
Affiliation:
Departments of Anatomy and Animal Husbandry, Boltons Park, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire
J. A. Laing
Affiliation:
Departments of Anatomy and Animal Husbandry, Boltons Park, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although the administration of pregnant mares' serum gonadotrophin (PMSG) to induce superovulation is a well established procedure (see Anderson, Schultz & Melampny, 1963), the unpredictability of the response to this treatment continues to impose a constraint on the commercial application of egg transfer techniques in the large domestic animals. In sheep, the additional use of human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) has been mainly centred on attempts to control the time of ovulation (Ortavant, Thibault & Wintenberger, 1949; Braden, Lamond & Radford, 1960; Dziuk et al. 1964; McGovern, Williams & Hancock, 1969). However, Killeen & Moore (1970) found that the proportion of follicles which rupture was increased in PMSG-treated ewes which had been given HCG at the beginning of oestrus. The purpose of the observations recorded here was to examine the possibility that a further gain in ovulation rate in PMSG-treated sheep might be obtained with the use of luteinizing hormone releasing factor (LHRF). No attempt was made to reproduce physiological levels of the releasing factor and dosage was aimed at achieving a superovulatory effect.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 86 , Issue 1 , February 1976 , pp. 127 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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

Anderson, L. L., Schultz, J. R. & Melampny, R. M. (1963). Pharmacological control of ovarian function and estrus in domestio animals. In Gonadotrophins. The sixth animal reproduction symposium, Oregon State University, Corvallis (ed. Cole, H. H.), pp. 171–219. San Francisco and London: W. H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
Braden, A. W. H., Lamond, D. R. & Radford, H. M. (1960). The control of the time of ovulation in the sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 11, 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dziuk, P. J., Hinds, F. C., Mansfield, M. E. & Baker, R. D. (1964). Follicle growth and control of ovulation in the ewe following treatment with 6-methyl-17-acetoxyprogesterone. Journal of Animal Science 23, 787–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. L. & Hovell, G. J. R. (1961). Transfer of sheep ova. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 2, 293–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Killeen, I. D. & Moore, N. W. (1970). The effect of pregnant mare serum gonadotrophin on ovulation and fertility in the ewe. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 21, 807–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGovern, P. T. (1974). Fertilization of sheep oocytes following their transfer to goats. Nature, London 250, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGovern, P. T., Williams, H. Ll. & Hancock, J. L. (1969). The time of ovulation in the ewe following treatment with human chorionio gonadotrophin. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 20, 537–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortavant, R., Thibault, C. & Wintenberger, S. (1949). Contribution à l'étude de la superovulation expérimental chez la brebis. Annales d'endocrinologie 10, 170–3.Google Scholar
Quirke, J. F. & Hanrahan, J. P. (1975). Effect of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone and human chorionic gonadotrophm on the response of the ewe to pregnant mare serum gonadotrophin. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 43, 167–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed