Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T05:37:13.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

533. Intramammary pressure changes in the lactating sow: I. The effect of oxytocin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

W. G. Whittlestone
W. G. Whittlestone
Affiliation:
Ruakura Animal Research Station, Department of Agriculture, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Using an electronic pressure recording system, pressure changes in the sow's mammary gland in response to injections of oxytocin and whole pituitrin have been recorded. The results suggest that an injection of oxytocin within physiological range may pass round the circulatory system twice, resulting in a small secondary pulse of pressure. Slow injections over periods of the order of 8–16 sec. are shown to produce a double rise in pressure, the two phases of which are of the same order of magnitude, suggesting a contraction followed by a period of relaxation and a further contraction.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , February 1954 , pp. 19 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1954

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

(1)Tgetgel, (1926). Schweiz. Arch. Tierheilk. 68 (7), 335.Google Scholar
(2)Turner, C. W. (1935). Mo. agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. no. 346.Google Scholar
(3)Phillips, D. S. M. (1950). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 81.Google Scholar
(4)Whittlestone, W. G. (1952). J. Endocrin. 8, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Whittlestone, W. G. (1953). J. Dairy Res. 20, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Whittlestone, W. G. (1950). Nature, Lond., 166, 994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Smith, D. M. (1953). Private communication.Google Scholar
(8)Phillips, D. S. M. (1953). Private communication.Google Scholar
(9)Peeters, G. & Coussens, R. (1950). Arch. int. Pharmacodyn. 84, 209.Google Scholar
(10)Cross, B. A. (1950). Nature, Lond., 166, 612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar