Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T20:54:21.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The long-term suppression of heat in cattle with implants of melengestrol acetate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. F. Roche  and
J. P. Crowley
J. F. Roche
Affiliation:
The Agricultural Institute, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
J. P. Crowley
Affiliation:
The Agricultural Institute, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
Get access

Summary

The effectiveness of silastic rubber implants impregnated with melengestrol acetate (MGA) to suppress heat in heifers being finished for beef was tested. Nine uniparous females received MGA implants, nine received 0·5 mg MGA orally and eight similar non-treated animals served as controls for a 110-day experimental period. Based on occurrence ofheat and ovarian examination during treatment and at slaughter, the silastic implants were effective in suppressing heat throughout the experimental period. The animals with implants also had a significantly higher rate of daily gain than the controls (P<0·1). In a second experiment the implants were effective in suppressing heat but the increase in daily gain did not reach significance. Silastic implants of MGA are effective for the long-term suppression of oestrus in finishing heifers and their effective life span is sufficiently long for use under commercial farming conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , June 1973 , pp. 245 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1973

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

Bradley, N. W., Cundiff, L. V., Kemp, J. D. and Greathouse, T. R. 1966. Effects of sex and sire on performance and carcass traits of Hereford and Hereford Red-Poll calves. J. Anim. Sci. 25: 783–788.Google Scholar
Broadbent, P. J., Dodsworth, T. L. and Ball, C. 1967. A comparison of semi-intensively reared Charolais × Ayrshire and Shorthorn × Ayrshire cattle. Anim. Prod. 9: 61–66.Google Scholar
Curran, S., Crowley, J. P. and McGloughlin, P. 1965. The effect of spaying and hormone implantation on the growth and carcass quality of beef heifers. Ir. J. agric. Res. 4: 93–100.Google Scholar
Dziuk, P. J. and Cook, B. 1966. Passage of steroids through silicone rubber. Endocrinology 78: 208–211.Google Scholar
Fletcher, W. D., Hentges, J. F. Jr and Cunha, T. J. 1957. Effect of diethylstilbestrol implantation and chlortetracycline on gains and blood components of beef calves and gains and estrus of yearling heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 16: 1032 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Lofgreen, G. P. and Garrett, W. N. 1968. A system for expressing net energy requirements and feed values for growing and finishing beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 793–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, A. L., Albert, W. W. and Breidenstein, B. C. 1956. A study of time and method of hormone administration for beef heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 15: 1285 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Roche, J. F. 1970. Release rate of steroids from silastic implants in vitro. A. Rep. Agr. Inst. Anim. Prod. Div. 1970, p. 86.Google Scholar
Roche, J. F. and Crowley, J. P. 1971. The use of implants containing steroids for growth promotion and control of oestrus in cattle. Anim. Prod. 13: 385 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Thurber, H. E., Strong, H. T. and Clegg, M. T. 1959. Relative value of different estrogens and estrogen-steroid combinations upon growth in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 18: 1176 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Zimbelman, R. G. and Smith, L. W. 1966. Control of ovulation in cattle with melengestrol acetate 1. Effect of dosage and route of administration. J. Reprod. Fert. 11: 185–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimbelman, R. G., Lauderdale, J. W., Sokolowski, J. H. and Schalk, T. G. 1970. Safety and pharmacologic evaluations of melengestrol acetate in cattle and other animals. A review. J. Am. vet. med. Ass. 157: 1528–1536.Google Scholar