Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T05:57:07.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The weight of the thyroid and pituitary glands and its relationship with rate of gain in beef steers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. C. Luitingh
H. C. Luitingh
Affiliation:
Livestock and Meat Industries Control Board, Pretoria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The daily live-weight gain of beef steers was not correlated with the weight of the pituitary gland. In the case of the thyroid gland a significant correlation was found between the absolute weight of the gland and the rate of gain. No correlation, however, was found between the relative weight of the thyroid gland and the rate of gain of the steers.

A highly significant correlation was found between the weight of both the pituitary and thyroid glands and the live weight of the steers (r = 0·44 and r = 0·55 respectively), and the slope of the regression lines showed that the weight of the pituitary gland varied with the power of 0·34 of live weight (0·34% increase in the weight of the pituitary for every 1% increase in live weight) whilst the weight of the thyroid gland varied with the power of 0·89 of the live weight.

No correlation was found between the weight of the pituitary and thyroid glands. The average weight of the pituitary was 1·89, 2·11 and 2·19 g. and the average weight of the thyroid was 16·81, 20·24 and 22·65 g. for steers of 14, 26 and 38 months respectively. The average live weights of the steers in the age groups concerned were 791, 893 and 1071 lb. respectively.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , June 1962 , pp. 291 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

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

Anderson, J. (1956). Rep. Proc. IIIrd Int. Congr. Anim. Prod. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Basset, E. G. & McMeekan, C. P. (1951). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 32, 1.Google Scholar
Brody, S. & Kibler, H. H. (1941). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 328.Google Scholar
Campbell, I. L., Hollard, M. G. & Flux, D. S. (1949). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 31, 29.Google Scholar
Committee on Animal Nutrition (1950). Rep. Nat. Res. Cown. U.S.A. no. IV.Google Scholar
Gilmore, L. O., Petersen, W. E. & Rasmussen, A. T. (1941). Tech. Bull. Univ. Minn. no. 145.Google Scholar
Krupski, (1920). Schweiz. Arch. Tiecheilk. 83, 368. (Original not seen.)Google Scholar
Levine, H., Remington, R. E. & von Kolnitz, H. (1933). J. Nutr. 6, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, A. A. & Turner, C. W. (1939). Res. Bull. Univ. Mo. no. 310.Google Scholar
McLendon, J. F. & Foster, W. C. (1947). J. Clin. Endocr. 7, 714.Google Scholar
Orr, J. B. & Leitch, I. (1929). Spec. Rep. Ser. Med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 123, p. 108.Google Scholar
Reece, R. P. & Turner, C. W. (1937). Res. Bull. Univ. Mo. no. 266.Google Scholar
Remington, R. E. & Levine, H. (1936). J. Nutr. 11, 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swett, W. W., Matthews, C. A. & Fohrman, M. H. (1955). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 1123.Google Scholar