|
|
||||||||
1 Department of Animal Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706
2 Department Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706
3 Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UMR production du lait 35042 Rennes, France
The potential luteal effects on milk production were examined in dairy ewes that were not superovulated in contrast to studies using superovulated ewes. Lactating East Friesian crossbred ewes (n = 24) were synchronized using intravaginal progesterone (controlled intravaginal drug-releasing device), PGF2
, and gonadotropins. After ovulation, corpora lutea (CL) were counted via laparoscopy on d 4 and 11. On d 5, ewes received either saline (CLYES, n = 12) or PGF2alpha; (CLNO, n = 12) to allow CL persistence (2.4 ± 0.3 CL on d 11) or regression (0 CL on d 11), respectively. Each ewe received two CIDR d 5 to 18 to maintain high concentrations of plasma progesterone (P4) and to suppress estradiol (E2). Each ewe received PGF2
on d 18. Data were collected during three periods (pretreatment: d 0 to 5; treatment: d 6 to 18; posttreatment: d 19 to 25). Milk yield and milking time were recorded daily, milk samples were obtained for analyses of fat and protein, and blood samples were collected for P4 and E2 immunoassay. During treatment, CLYES ewes had higher milk yield (1.56 vs. 1.44 ± 0.01 kg/d), milk fat (92.2 vs. 81.1 ± 1.3 g/d), and milk protein (83.7 vs. 77.5 ± 0.8 g/d) compared with CLNO ewes, respectively. Differences were maintained posttreatment, despite luteolysis in CLYES ewes. Estradiol concentrations did not differ between treatments and were low after d 5. Milk production was increased in East Friesian ewes in the presence of an average of 2.4 corpora lutea, an effect independent of estradiol.
Key Words: corpus luteum East Friesian estradiol milk yield
Submitted on August 16, 2001
Accepted on November 19, 2001
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
G. E. Pollott and E. Gootwine Reproductive Performance and Milk Production of Assaf Sheep in an Intensive Management System J Dairy Sci, November 1, 2004; 87(11): 3690 - 3703. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |