Talk:Contraception (veterinary): Difference between revisions
imported>Nancy Sculerati (References - with notes) |
imported>Nancy Sculerati |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== References - with notes == | == References - with notes == | ||
Pimm SL. van Aarde RJ. African elephants and contraception. | '''Pimm SL. van Aarde RJ. African elephants and contraception. Nature. 411(6839):766, 2001 Jun 14. UI: 11459047''' (my summary) When African elephants are protected but confined in a relatively limited land mass, there can be doubling of the population in 10 years- with destruction of the habitat. To preserve that habitat, animals are often culled, and this letter discusses an article in which a vaccination strategy was used to effect contraception instead of allowing the population to increase. Criticisms of the article include the opinion that the control group's cow pregnancy rate semed unrealistically high (89% within a year), and that -by contrast- exagerated the effectiveness of immunocontraception.Their data:"Data from 813 adult cows culled in Kruger National Park between 1979 and 1994 showed that 51% (range, 36-77%) were pregnant." Criticism of cost also made. | ||
UI: 11459047 | |||
Fayrer-Hosken RA. Grobler D. Van Altena JJ. Bertschinger HJ. Kirkpatrick JF. Immunocontraception of African elephants.[see comment]. [Journal Article] Nature. 407(6801):149, 2000 Sep 14. | Fayrer-Hosken RA. Grobler D. Van Altena JJ. Bertschinger HJ. Kirkpatrick JF. Immunocontraception of African elephants.[see comment]. [Journal Article] Nature. 407(6801):149, 2000 Sep 14. | ||
Revision as of 01:30, 10 May 2007
References - with notes
Pimm SL. van Aarde RJ. African elephants and contraception. Nature. 411(6839):766, 2001 Jun 14. UI: 11459047 (my summary) When African elephants are protected but confined in a relatively limited land mass, there can be doubling of the population in 10 years- with destruction of the habitat. To preserve that habitat, animals are often culled, and this letter discusses an article in which a vaccination strategy was used to effect contraception instead of allowing the population to increase. Criticisms of the article include the opinion that the control group's cow pregnancy rate semed unrealistically high (89% within a year), and that -by contrast- exagerated the effectiveness of immunocontraception.Their data:"Data from 813 adult cows culled in Kruger National Park between 1979 and 1994 showed that 51% (range, 36-77%) were pregnant." Criticism of cost also made.
Fayrer-Hosken RA. Grobler D. Van Altena JJ. Bertschinger HJ. Kirkpatrick JF. Immunocontraception of African elephants.[see comment]. [Journal Article] Nature. 407(6801):149, 2000 Sep 14. UI: 11001042
Gould KG. Johnson-Ward J. Use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) for contraception in the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). [Journal Article. Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.] Journal of Medical Primatology. 29(2):63-9, 2000 Apr. UI: 10950453
Mohle U. Heistermann M. Einspanier A. Hodges JK. Efficacy and effects of short- and medium-term contraception in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) using melengestrol acetate implants. [Journal Article] Journal of Medical Primatology. 28(1):36-47, 1999 Feb. UI: 10372539