Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:06:11.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behavioural Effects of Social Mixing at Different Stocking Densities in Prepubertal Lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

J L Ruiz-de-la-Torre  and
X Manteca
J L Ruiz-de-la-Torre
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology, School of Veterinary Sciences, Universität Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
X Manteca*
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology, School of Veterinary Sciences, Universität Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The behavioural effects of mixing individuals from two different flocks were studied in prepubertal lambs of about 20kg body weight kept at either low (1 animal m−2) or high (3.3 animals m−2) stocking densities. At both densities, flock mates associated preferentially with one another over the three experimental days. The social mixing conditions decreased the total number of aggressive interactions (including head-to-head clashes, head-to-body buttings and mountings). Since animals associated preferentially with flock mates, aggressive behaviours were also preferentially directed towards individuals from the same flock. Males initiated significantly more aggressive interactions than females. The total number of aggressive interactions received was similar for males and females, but females received more mountings than males. Stocking density, therefore, had no effect on aggressive behaviour. These results are discussed as they relate to transport and it is suggested that social mixing may not be a welfare problem in prepubertal lambs.

Keywords

aggressionanimal welfaremixingsheepstocking densitytransport
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , May 1999 , pp. 117 - 126
Copyright
© 1999 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Arnone, M and Dantzer, R 1980 Does frustration induce aggression in pigs? Applied Animal Ethology 6: 351–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, B A and Meese, G B 1977 The ability of sheep to distinguish between conspecifics by means of olfaction. Physiology & Behavior 23: 145–150Google Scholar
Baxter, M 1985 Social space requirements of pigs. In: Zayan, R (ed) Social Space for Domestic Animals pp 116–127. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blecha, F, Pollman, D S and Nichols, D A 1985 Immunologic reactions of pigs regrouped at or near weaning. American Journal of Veterinary Research 46: 1934–1937Google ScholarPubMed
Breedlove, S M 1992 Sexual differentiation of the brain and behavior. In: Becker, J B, Breedlove, S M, Crews, D (eds) Behavioral Endocrinology pp 39–70. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, USAGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M 1984 International Transport of Farm Animals Intended for Slaughter. Commission of the European Communities: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, J G 1992 Textbook of Veterinary Physiology. W B Saunders Company: Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Fraser, A F and Rushen, J 1987 Aggressive behaviour. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 3(2): 285–299Google Scholar
Grandin, T 1978 Transportation from the animal’s point of view. American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) Technical Paper No 78.6013Google Scholar
Guise, H J and Penny, R H 1989 Factors influencing the welfare and carcass and meat quality of pigs (2). Mixing unfamiliar pigs. Animal Production 49: 517–521Google Scholar
Hinde, R A 1985 Was the expression of the emotions a misleading phrase? Animal Behaviour 33: 985–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K M 1990 Neural processing of visual recognition of individuals in sheep. In: Zayan, R and Dantzer, R (eds) Social Stress in Domestic Animals pp 144–156. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Lincoln, G A and Davidson, W 1977 The relationship between sexual and aggressive behavior, and pituitary and testicular activity during the seasonal sexual cycle of rams, and the influence of photoperiod. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 49: 267–276CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, J J, Hinch, G N and Adams, D B 1992 The Behaviour of Sheep. CSIRO Publications: Victoria, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Lyons, D M, Price, E O and Moberg, G P 1988 Social modulation of pituitary-adrenal responsiveness and individual differences in behaviour of young domestic goats. Physiology & Behavior 43: 451–458CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McBride, G, Arnold, G W, Alexander, G and Lynch, J J 1967 Ecological aspects of behaviour of domestic animals. Proceedings of the Ecology Society of Australia 2: 133–165Google Scholar
McBride, G, James, J W and Hodgens, N W 1964 Social behaviour of domestic animals IV. Growing pigs. Animal Production 6: 129–139Google Scholar
Mench, JA, Swanson, J C and Stricklin, W R 1990 Social stress and dominance among group members after mixing beef cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70: 345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, MA and Tennessen, T 1981 Preslaughter management and dark cutting in the carcasses of young bulls. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 61: 205–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaller, G B and Miraz, Z B 1974 On the behaviour of Punjab Urial (Ovis orientalis punjabiensis). In: Geist, V and Walther, F (eds) The Behaviour of Ungulates in Relation to Management pp 306–373. IUCN: Morges, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
Schubert, M and Scheibe, K M 1993 Sexual differences in the playing and exploring behaviour of lambs. In: Nichelmann, M, Wierenga, H K and Braun, S (eds) Proceedings of the International Congress on Applied Ethology 1993 pp 304–305. Humboldt University: Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Shenton, S L T and Shackleton, D M 1990 Effects of mixing unfamiliar individuals and of azoperone on the social behaviour of finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 157–168Google Scholar