J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J. Anim Sci. 1956. 15:1014-1019.
© 1956 American Society of Animal Science

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Noland, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by Burris, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Noland, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by Burris, M. J.

The Effect of Oral Administration of Methyl Testosterone on Swine Growth and Development1, 2, 3,

Paul R. Noland4 and Martin J. Burris5

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

Abstract

In a swine feeding trial four lots, consisting of 2 intact males, 2 castrate males, 2 intact females, and 2 castrate females each, were orally fed the following levels of methyl testosterone in milligrams per day per kilogram of body wight: 0, 0.015, 0.15, and 1.5. Rate of body weight gain of females was apparently slightly depressed by .15 mg. of methyl testosterone but gains of males were not affected. Pigs fed the methyl testosterone produced somewhat leaner carcasses than the control fed animals as evidenced by a higher yield of primal cuts. Spermatogenesis was markedly depressed in boars fed the highest level of hormone. Interstitial tissue development was depressed in all treated groups.

The levels of methyl testosterone fed were not effective in inducing a growth stimulus in swine, though they were effective in producing pronounced alteration of gonadal activity.


Footnotes

1 Published with the approval of the Director of the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station.

2 The methyl testosterone used in this trial was contributed by the Schering Corporation, Bloomfield, New Jersey.

3 The authors wish to acknowledge the technical assistance of C. F. Hall, J. N. Beasley, P. M. Johnston and Chester Baugus in the conduct of this trial.

4 Present address: Arkansas Agricultural Mission, Ancon, Panama, C.Z.

5 Present address: Beef Cattle Research Station, Front Royal, Virginia.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1956 by the American Society of Animal Science.