Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:21:31.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The copper, iron and lead contents of a series of livers from normal foetal and new-born lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. I. McDougall
E. I. McDougall
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Pathology, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The copper, iron and lead contents were determined on an age series of foetal livers obtained during the latter half of pregnancy from normal ewes at Cambridge. The total amounts of the metals showed a rapid rise during the last 3 weeks of gestation due to an increase in the size of the organ and in the actual concentrations. Towards full term and in the new-born animal the results showed an increasing variation which even extended to twins. It is noted that foetal transference takes place without affecting the blood copper of the ewe or causing a physiological anaemia of pregnancy. The time at which the process is at its height is correlated with experience in the prophylaxis of swayback. It is estimated that the store of copper at birth may tide the lamb through the suckling period but the store of iron requires to be supplemented by the diet and that the ewe's milk may make a significant contribution towards this. The small amounts of lead found were of the same order as reported for normal humans and in swayback lambs in Derbyshire; hence the latter cannot be regarded as abnormal.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , October 1947 , pp. 337 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1947

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

Beck, A. B. (1941). Aust. J. Exp. Biol. Med. Sci. 19, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennetts, H. W. & Beck, A. B. (1942). Bull. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust. 147.Google Scholar
Bruckmann, G. & Zondek, S. G. (1939). Biochem. J. 33, 1845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, G. (1902). Textbook of Physiological and Pathological Chemistry, 2nd English ed. p. 377. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, I. J. (1931). Biochem. J. 25, 1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlop, G., Innes, J. R. M., Shearer, G. D. & Wells, H. E. (1939). J. Camp. Path. 52, 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eden, A. (1941). Biochem. J. 35, 813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eden, A. & Green, H. H. (1940). Biochem. J. 34, 1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotsev, T. (1939). J. Physiol. 94, 539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Innes, J. R. M. & Shearer, G. D. (1940). J. Comp. Path. 53, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, F., Meyer, G. & Pernou, M. (1890). Z. biol. 27, 439.Google Scholar
McDougall, E. I. (1947). J. Agric. Sci. 37, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHargue, J. S. (1925). Amer. J. Physiol. 72, 583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramage, H., Sheldon, J. H. & Sheldon, W. (1933). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 113, 308.Google Scholar
Shearer, G. D. & McDougall, E. I. (1944). J. Agric. Sci. 34, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shearer, G. D., Innes, J. R. M. & McDougall, E. I. (1940). Vet. J. 96, 309.Google Scholar
Sheldon, J. H. & Ramage, H. (1931). Biochem. J. 25, 1606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stearns, G. & McKinley, J. B. (1937). J. Nutrit. 13, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tompsett, S. L. & Anderson, A. B. (1935). Biochem. J. 29, 1851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, O. B., Robinson, H. M., Lamb, F. W. & Miller, E. J. (1935). Industr. Engng. Chem. (Anal. ed.), 7, 265.Google Scholar
Young, D. (1937). Vet. J. 93, 51.Google Scholar