Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:07:15.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of social behaviour on utilization of supplemental feedblocks by Scottish hill sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. B. Lawrence  and
D. G. M. Wood-Gush
A. B. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
D. G. M. Wood-Gush
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Abstract

Observations were made of the behaviour of a home-range group of Scottish Blackface ewes. The group, including replacement ewe lambs, remained on the hill throughout winter and was offered supplemental feedblocks from December to April. Sheep were individually identified and data collected on ranging behaviour between 06.00 and 18.00 h GMT in autumn and winter. Additionally in winter, records were made of time spent eating from the feedblock or standing within 3 m of it.

Age was found to have a strong effect on time spent eating from the feedblock, with older ewes (4 years and over) eating more than younger animals. This was partly attributable to the ewe lambs forming peer groups in winter that were uninfluenced by the movements of mature ewes to the feedblock. Consequently, the majority (0·82) of ewe lambs did not eat feedblock in their first winter. Two- and 3-year-old ewes, although not eating significantly more often from the feedblock than ewe lambs, spent significantly more time standing within 3 m of it and were prevented from eating from it by the competitive behaviour of older ewes. The increased gregariousness of hill sheep in winter appears to be an important factor in preventing the younger ewes taking advantage of the continuous availability of feedblocks. The feedblocks were also found to reduce significantly the size of ewes' home ranges.

The results indicate that the social behaviour of hill sheep limits the use of feedblocks to the older and stronger animals in the group. In addition, feedblocks may reduce the utilization by sheep of available winter forage. Alternative strategies for more effective deployment of feedblocks are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 203 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1988

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

Altmann, J. 1974. Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, M. C. 1980. Social rank and food access in red deer stags. Behaviour 74: 294–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, G. W. and Maller, R. A. 1974. Some aspects of competition between sheep for supplementary feed. Animal Production 19: 309–319.Google Scholar
Chapple, R. S. and Lynch, J. J. 1986. Behavioural factors modifying acceptance of supplementary foods by sheep. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 113–120.Google Scholar
Ducker, M. J., Kendall, P. T., Hemingway, R. G. and McClelland, T. H. 1981. An evaluation of feedblocks as a means of providing supplementary nutrients to ewes grazing upland/hill pastures. Animal Production 33: 51–57.Google Scholar
Geist, V. 1971. Mountain Sheep. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Grubb, P. and Jewell, P. A. 1966. Social grouping and home range in feral Soay sheep. Symposium of the Zoological Society, London 18: 179–210.Google Scholar
Hewson, R. and Wilson, C. J. 1979. Home range and movement of Scottish Blackface Sheep in Lochaber, north-west Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology 16: 743–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. F. 1954. Some notes on the behaviour of hill sheep. British Journal of Animal Behaviour 2: 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. F. 1964. Home range behaviour in hill sheep. In Grazing in Terrestrial and Marine Environments (ed. Crisp, D. J.), pp. 155–171. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. F. and Milner, C. 1963. The behaviour of individual, related and groups of South Country Cheviot hill sheep. Animal Behaviour 11: 507–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennrich, R. I. and Turner, F. B. 1969. Measurement of non-circular home range. Journal of Theoretical Biology 22: 227–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendall, P. T. 1977. Studies in the use of feedblocks for ruminants. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. B. 1984. The social organization of Scottish Blackface sheep. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. B. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1987. Home range behaviour and social organization of Scottish Blackface sheep. Journal of Applied Ecology. In press.Google Scholar
Lippert, M., Milne, J. A. and Russel, A. J. F. 1982. The feeding of supplements to hill ewes in mid-pregnancy. Animal Production 34: 383 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Lippert, M., Milne, J. A. and Russel, A. J. F. 1983. Effect of mid-pregnancy supplementation on hill-ewe performance. Animal Production 36: 543 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Lobato, J. F. P. and Beilharz, R. G. 1979. Relation of social dominance and body size to intake of supplements in grazing sheep. Applied Animal Ethology 5: 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobato, J. F. P., Pearce, G. R. and Beilharz, R. G. 1980. Effect of early familiarization with dietary supplements on the subsequent ingestion of molassesurea blocks by sheep. Applied Animal Ethology 6: 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, J. J., Keogh, R. G., Elwin, R. L., Green, G. C. and Mottershead, B. E. 1983. Effects of early experience on the post-weaning acceptance of whole grain wheat by fine-wool Merino lambs. Animal Production 36: 175–183.Google Scholar
Martin, D. J. 1964. Analysis of sheep diet utilizing plant epidermal fragments in faeces samples. In Grazing in Terrestrial and Marine Environments (ed. Crisp, D. J.), pp. 173–189. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
Martin, S. C. and Ward, D. E. 1973. Salt and meal-salt help distribute cattle use on semidesert range. Journal of Range Management 26: 94–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'brien, P. H. 1984. Feral goat home range: influence of social class and environmental variables. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 12: 373–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwood, T. R. E. 1966. Ecological Methods. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology. The New Synthesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Wishart, D. 1978. CLUSTAN: User Manual. 3rd ed. Program Library Unit, Edinburgh University.Google Scholar