Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:16:26.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ringtail in new-born Norway rats. A study of the effect of environmental temperature and humidity on incidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Michael Totton
Michael Totton
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, W.C. 1*
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Ringtail in infant rats is shown to depend on humidity over a wide temperature range. It is not due to infection or diet, but probably to chronic cooling by evaporation, convection and conduction.

Rats should either be bred in cages with solid floors, or else be given environmental conditions resembling those in the natural nest, which keep the young at a low saturation deficit during the early post-natal period.

I am glad to express my thanks to M. Potter, Senior Animal Technician, for his invaluable aid in keeping the records of the experimental programmes, and to G. Dimmock for his help in building and maintaining apparatus. I am also grateful to the University of London for the loan of a Cambridge portable potentiometer.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , June 1958 , pp. 190 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

References

REFERENCES

Buchanan, A. R. & Hill, R. M. (1947). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 65, 602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnet, E. M. & Lush, D. (1936). J. Path. Bact. 32, 469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burr, G. O. (1942). Fed. Proc. 1, 224.Google Scholar
Burr, G. O. & Burr, M. M. (1929). J. biol. Chem. 82, 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burr, G. O., Burr, M. M. & Brown, W. R. (1931). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 28, 905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, P. A. (1932). Indian J. med. Res. 20, 1.Google Scholar
Evans, H. M. & Lepkovsky, S. (1932). J. biol. Chem. 96, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farris, E. J. (1950). The Care and Breeding of Laboratory Animals. New York: Wiley. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Funk, C., Caspe, S. & Caspe, H. (1931). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 28, 816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, C. E. & Griffith, W. H. (1931). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 28, 756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, R. M. (1947). Amer. J. Physiol. 149, 650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, E. M. & Smith, H. H. (1931). Biochem. J. 25, 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, E. F. (1927). J. exp. Zool. 47, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramar, J. & Levine, V. E. (1953). J. Nutr. 50, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElroy, L. W. & Gross, H. (1940). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 45, 717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Njaa, Leif Rein, Utne, Finn & Braekkan, O. R. (1957). Nature, Lond., 180, 290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware, A. G., Hill, R. M. & Schultz, F. H. (1947). Amer. J. Physiol. 149, 657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooley, G. W. & Cole, L. J. (1938). J. Hered. 29, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar