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


     

J. Anim Sci. 1970. 30:433-437.
© 1970 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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 Schul, G. A.
Right arrow Articles by Zimbelman, R. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schul, G. A.
Right arrow Articles by Zimbelman, R. G.

Effects of Oral Melengestrol Acetate (MGA®) on the Pregnant Heifer and on Her Resultant Offspring1

G. A. Schul2, L. W. Smith3, L. S. Goyings4 and R. G. Zimbelman2

The Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan

Abstract

MELENGESTROL acetate (MGA® has been studied extensively as a growth promotant in feedlot heifers, (Bloss et al., 1966; Burroughs et al., 1966; Newland and Henderson, 1966; Smart and Drake, 1968; Davis and Truesdale, 1968; Canto, Wise and Barrick, 1968; O'Brien, Bloss and Nicks, 1968). These studies have generally shown MGA et al. to stimulate improvements in gains and in feed utilization; these improvements were accompanied by a reduction in or, in most cases, a cessation of estrous cycles. Additional work (Ralston et al., 1968) has shown MGA to be ineffective in promoting growth in the pregnant heifer. In view of these facts, the use of MGA in pregnant animals is not recommended. However, since pregnant animals may inadvertently receive MGA, the present study was undertaken to determine the effect of such et al. on the pregnant heifer and on her resultant offspring. In addition, information on safety during pregnancy would bear upon the design of possible studies in pregnant breeding females.

Footnotes

1 The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. D. I. Blevins in the collection of data.

2 Agricultural Division, Animal Health Researh and Development.

3 Department of Animal Science, West Virnia University, Morgantown.

4 Agricultural Division, Plant and Animal Product, Pathology and Toxicology.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1970 by the American Society of Animal Science.