Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T08:01:47.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clinical and experimental observations on reproduction in the mare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

F. T. Day
F. T. Day
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The length of oestrus in mares varied from 3 to 54 days, although in most cases it was 7–8 days.

2. The length of dioestrus varied from 5 to 30 days, but in most cases was 11–16 days.

3. Ovulation occurred in most cases on the last day of oestrus, but a considerable number of ovulations occurred on the 1st and 2nd days before the end of oestrus, and in a few cases from the 5th day before the end of oestrus to 1 day after the end of oestrus.

4. Artificial insemination of mares was equally effective in the intervals of 24, 48 and 72 hr. before ovulation but was unsuccessful in intervals of 2 and 4 hr. after ovulation.

5. Pregnancy was diagnosed in all mares by rectal palpation on the 23rd day and in one mare as early as the 16th day.

6. The foetus developed in the opposite horn of the uterus to the ovary which ovulated at the onset of pregnancy in five out of seven mares.

7. Ovulation occurred in one mare on the 23rd day of pregnancy.

8. Gonadotrophic hormones had no effect when given in the anoestrous period (November to March).

9. Ovulation was induced in 20–40 hr. in most cases after the intravenous injection of 1000–2000 mouse or rat units of pregnancy urine extract intravenously, provided a fairly mature follicle was present in the ovary at the time of injection.

When this ovulation occurred, the duration of oestrus was shortened.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , April 1940 , pp. 244 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1940

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

Caslick, E. A. (1937). Cornell Vet. 27, 187–206.Google Scholar
Constantinescu, C. K. & Mauch, A. (1936).Ann. Inst. Nat. Zootechnique Roumanie, 5, 9–78.Google Scholar
Day, F. T. (1939 a). J. agric. Sci. 29, 459–69.Google Scholar
Day, F. T. (1939 b). J. agric. Sci. 29, 470–5.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1934). Actes de 16th Congrès Internationale d'Agriculture, Budapest.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1938). Trans. Yorks. agric. Soc. 95, 11–25.Google Scholar
Kedrov, V. K. (1938 a). Probl. Zivota, no. 3, 55–65.Google Scholar
Kedrov, V. K. (1938 b). Probl. Zivota, no. 4, 151–5.Google Scholar
Kedrov, V. K. (1939). Dokl. seljskahaz Nauk, no. 2/3, 65–7.Google Scholar
Krat, A. V. (1933). Konevodstvo, no. 1, 55–9.Google Scholar
McKenzie, F. F. & Andrews, F. N. (1937). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. 30, 64.Google Scholar
McKenzie, F. F. (1938). Personal Communication.Google Scholar
Miller, W. C. & Day, F. T. (1939). J. R. Army vet. Cps, 10, 95–105.Google Scholar
Miller, W. C. (1940). (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Mirskaja, L. M. & Salzman, A. A. (1935). Advance of Zootechnical Sciences (Moscow), 1 (1), 157–68.Google Scholar
Mirskaja, L. M. & Petropavlosky, V. V. (1938). Cornell Vet. 28, 58–61.Google Scholar
Nielsen, F. (1928). Festskrift Bernhard Bang, Copenhagen, p. 323.Google Scholar
Sanders, H. G. (1926). J. agric. Sci. 16, 466.Google Scholar
Walton, A. (1938). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. 31, 238.Google Scholar
Zivotkov, H. I., Goncarenko, K. S. & Krivoscekov, A. G. (1936). Probl. Zivota, no. 3, 71–6.Google Scholar