Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T10:42:41.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect on the health of lactating cows of treatment with galactopoietic doses of thyroxine or iodinated casein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

F. B. Leech  and
G. L. Bailey
F. B. Leech
Affiliation:
The Veterinary Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Weybridge and the National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield
G. L. Bailey
Affiliation:
The Veterinary Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Weybridge and the National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The effect on cow health of galactopoietic stimulation with thyroactive materials was determined from a statistical study of the results of a large field experiment involving 2000 cows over a 3-year period.

2. The same experimental procedure was followed on thirty-seven farms scattered over England, Scotland and Wales. This procedure was planned to ensure that half the cows in each herd would receive a course of treatment with iodinated casein or thyroxine, and that the other half would constitute a suitable set of controls. Cows that remained in the herds received second and third treatments in successive lactations.

3. The galactopoietic stimulation was started at a fixed interval after calving, irrespective of the season of the year.

4. The use of the thyroactive materials in successive lactations did not have any serious adverse effects on the health of cows. The effect on productivity was less than had been expected, since the increase in milk yield resulting during the period of hormonal treatment was often largely or completely negatived by a shortening of the lactation period.

5. The incidence of disease was somewhat greater in the treated than the control group, the principal contribution to this difference being from the diseases described as digestive disorders. There were some other differences of lesser significance.

6. The rate of disposal of treated and control groups was almost identical.

7. There were no adverse effects on the reproductive life of treated cows; factors studied were the efficiency of coitus, interval between parturitions, length of gestation and incidence of abnormalities at parturition.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , April 1953 , pp. 236 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

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

Bailey, G. L., Bartlett, S. & Folley, S. J. (1949). Nature, Land., 163, 800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barcroft, J. (1945). J. Endocrin. 4, 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1946). J. Agric. Sci. 36, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Reineke, E. P., Crampton, E. W. & Peteksen, W. E. (1949). J. Anim. Sci. 8, 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrows, E. T., Clayton, J. C. & Hems, B. A. (1949). J. Chem. Soc., Suppl. Issue, no. 1, S. 185.Google Scholar
Chalmers, J. R., Dickson, G. T., Elks, J. & Hems, B. A. (1949). J. Chem. Soc. p. 3424.Google Scholar
Deanesly, R. & Parkes, A. S. (1945 a). J. Endocrin. 4, 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deanesly, R. & Parkes, A. S. (1945 b). J. Endocrin. 4, 356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dine, R. F. & Lavietes, P. H. (1942). J. Clin. Invest. 21, 781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economic Advisory Council (1934). Rep. Committee on Cattle Diseases, Cmd. 4591. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, R. J. (1951). Unpublished results.Google Scholar
Folley, S. J. & White, P. (1936). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 120, 346.Google Scholar
Hibbs, J. W. & Krauss, W. E. (1947). J. Anim. Sci. 6, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGirr, J. L. (1951). Unpublished results.Google Scholar
Marine, D. (1939). Bull. N.Y. Acad. Med. 15, 790.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board (1951). Rules for National Milk Records operated by the Milk Marketing Board.Google Scholar
Mullen, A. L. (1937). Yearb. East Lanes. Milk Rec. Soc. p. 26.Google Scholar
Pettit, G. H. N. (1940). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reineke, E. P. (1946). Vitam. & Horm. 4, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, W. T. (1950). In Pincus G. & Thimann K. V. The Hormones. New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Sanders, H. G. (1927). J. Agric. Sci. 17, 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjollema, B. (1930). Vet. Rec. 10, 425 and 450.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. D. & Slavin, G. (1950). J. Comp. Path. 60, 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F., Boyd, D. A. & Pettit, G. H. N. (1942). J. Agric. Sci. 32, 428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar