Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:31:27.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some observations on swayback disease of lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. D. Shearer  and
E. I. McDougall
G. D. Shearer
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Pathology, University of Cambridge
E. I. McDougall
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Pathology, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A brief account is given of the work done in these laboratories on swayback and a comparison is made with a similar disease occurring in Australia. The Australian disease is due to an uncomplicated Cu deficiency of soil and herbage, but it is shown that swayback in this country is due to neither a Cu deficiency of soil nor herbage but nevertheless the affected animals suffer from a Cu deficiency and respond to Cu medication.

It is shown that ewes with a low blood Cu in Derbyshire on being transferred to Cambridge rapidly attained a normal blood Cu.

Analyses of grass from widely separated swayback-affected areas showed that in no case was the Cu content low.

A short discussion is given of the possibility of lead being implicated in the causation of the disease, but it is concluded that lead plays only a secondary role.

In the discussion it is pointed out that there is much fluorspar in the affected area of Derbyshire.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , October 1944 , pp. 207 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1944

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

Aub, J. C., Fairhall, L. T., Minot, A. S. & Reznikoff, P. (1926). Lead Poisoning. Baltimore.Google Scholar
Beck, A. B. (1941). J. Dep. Agric. W. Aust. 18, 285.Google Scholar
Bennetts, H. W. (1935). J. Coun. Sci. indust. Res. Aust. 8, 61.Google Scholar
Bennetts, H. W. & Beck, A. B. (1942). Bull. Coun. sci. industr. Res., Aust. 147.Google Scholar
Bennetts, H. W. & Chapman, F. E. (1937). Aust. Vet. J. 13, 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, W. (1938). Textbook of Pathology. London: Kimpton.Google Scholar
Dunlop, G. & Wells, H. E. (1938). Vet. Rec. 50, 1175.Google Scholar
Dunlop, G., Innes, J. R. M., Shearer, G. D. & Wells, H. E. (1939). J. comp. Path. 52, 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, H. & Aub, J. C. (1926–1927). Quart. J. Med. 20, 123.Google Scholar
Innes, J. R. M. (1936). Rep. Inst. Anim. Pathol. Univ. Camb. 4, 227.Google Scholar
Innes, J. R. M. & Shearer, G. D. (1940). J. comp. Path. 53, 1.Google Scholar
Martin, C. J. & Pierce, A. W. (1934). Bull. Coun. sci. indust. Res., Aust. 77.Google Scholar
Minot, A. S. (1938). Physiol. Rev. 18, 554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shearer, G. D., Innes, J. R. M. & McDougall, E. I. (1940). Vet. J. 96, 309.Google Scholar
Tabusso, M. F. (1942). Publicaciones del Instituto National de Biologia Animal, 1, l. (Publicada en la Vida Agricola, Octubre 1941–2.)Google Scholar
Theiler, A., Green, H. H. & Du Toit, P. J. (1927). J. Agric. Sci. 17, 299.Google Scholar