Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T21:03:12.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early reproductive failure of ewes in a hot environment III. The thyroid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Margaret Ryle
Margaret Ryle
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology, University of Melbourne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A balanced factorial experiment was carried out with 48 Merino ewes. There were two levels of each of the four factors: environmental temperature, thyroxine status, vitamin A intake and progesterone status. Each ewe was killed at 25 days' pregnancy. The thyroid was removed, weighed and examined histologically.

2. Thyroid weight in the hot-room animals was significantly decreased by large doses of vitamin A. It was not affected by any of the other treatments.

3. With respect to the number of follicles per unit area of cross-section, the following interactions were significant: temperature × vitamin A; temperature × progesterone; temperature × vitamin A × thyroxine. The directions of the effects of vitamin A and of progesterone were reversed by the higher temperature.

4. There were no significant effects on nuclear height in the follicular epithelium.

5. The frequency of marked ‘scalloping’ at the edge of the colloid was significantly higher among those ewes receiving thyroxine injections than in the remainder. This feature was not significantly affected by any other factor.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , February 1963 , pp. 95 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

Drill, V. A. (1943). Physiol. Rev. 23, 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freinkel, N. & Lewis, D. (1957). J. Physiol. 135, 288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenberger, C. B. & Clausen, F. W. (1935). J. Nutr. 10, 549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoersch, T. M., Henderson, H. E., Reineke, E. P. & Henneman, H. A. (1961). Amer. J. Physiol. 201, 819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, B., Macfarlane, W. V., Ostwald, M. & Pennycuik, P. (1959). J. Physiol. 146, 6P.Google Scholar
Mills, C. A. (1918). Amer. J. Physiol. 46, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Money, W. L. (1954). Brookhaven Symposia in Biology, 7, 137.Google Scholar
Myers, B. J. & Ross, D. A. (1959). N.Z. J. agric. Res. 2, 552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryle, M. (1961). J. agric. Sci. 57, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryle, M. (1962 a). J. agric. Sci. 58, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryle, M. (1962 b). Aust. J. Sci. 25, 112.Google Scholar
Ryle, M. (1963). J. agric. Sci. 60, 105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryle, M. & Morris, L. R. (1961). Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci. 39, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadhu, D. P. & Brody, S. (1947). Amer. J. Physiol. 149, 400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwood, T. C. & Luckner, W. G. (1935). J. Nutr. 9, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar