Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:13:37.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social dominance affects intake rate and behavioral time budget in pre-pubertal dairy heifers allocated in continuous competitive situations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2018

C. Fiol ,
M. Aguerre ,
M. Carriquiry  and
R. Ungerfeld
C. Fiol*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Bovinos, Facultad de Veterinaria, Instituto de Producción Animal Veterinaria, Universidad de la República, Ruta 1 km 42.500, 80100 San José, Uruguay
M. Aguerre
Affiliation:
Programa de Posgrado, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la República, Lasplaces 1550, 11600 Montevideo, Uruguay
M. Carriquiry
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal y Pasturas, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de la República, Av. E. Garzón 780, 12900 Montevideo,Uruguay
R. Ungerfeld
Affiliation:
Departamento de Fisiología, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la República, Lasplaces 1550, 11600 Montevideo, Uruguay
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In intensive feeding systems, competition may be high and social dominance may affect animal performance by changing dry matter intake (DMI) and behavioral time budgets. If competition level is maintain over time, the strategies developed by heifers of different social status are expected to differ. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare individual DMI, intake rate and eating, ruminating, lying and standing behaviors in dominant (DOM) and subordinate (SUB) pre-pubertal dairy heifers in a model study implying continuous competitive situations. A total of 16 Holstein and Jersey×Holstein pre-pubertal heifers (251±10 days old, weighing 208±14 kg; mean±SEM) were allocated into eight homogeneous dyads. Each dyad was maintained during 120 days (day 0=beginning of measurements) in pens, and received a total mixed ration from one feeder/dyad. The DOM and SUB heifers was determined (day 0, twice during the first month of the experiment and every month afterwards) by observation of the winner in agonistic interactions in each dyad after the feed was supplied. The general activity pattern (eating, ruminating, lying and standing) of each heifer was recorded by direct instantaneous scan-sampling, every 10 min for 12 h, in 7 days (days 1, 21, 35, 60, 75, 100 and 120). Individual DMI was estimated with the double marker technique, in three intervals (I=days 17-26; II=days 78-87 and III=days 112-120), while estimated intake rate (kg/min) was calculated for each interval as the DMI per total eating time. After the experiment was concluded, data of the first 5 and the last 6 h of the 12 h scan-sampling (related to the moment the feed was supplied) was grouped according to the moments of greater and lesser competition for feed on each day. During the first 5 h, where competition was expected to be highest, no differences in eating behavior were found between heifers of different social status, but DOM heifers spent more time ruminating and lying than SUB heifers, while SUB spent more time standing than DOM heifers. No differences were found on DMI between DOM and SUB, but SUB ate at a faster rate on interval II compared with DOM heifers. In conclusion, in this model study of heifer dyads, SUB heifers had greater intake rate with no differences in feed intake, spent less time ruminating and lying, and more time standing than DOM heifers during the first hours after feed delivery.

Keywords

aggressivenesscattledominancesocial hierarchysocial behavior
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 6 , June 2019 , pp. 1297 - 1303
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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

Abbott, DH, Keverne, EB, Bercovitch, FB, Shively, CA, Mendoza, SP, Snowdon, CT, Ziegler, TE, Saltzman, W, Banjevic, M, Garland, T and Sapolsky, RM 2003. Are subordinates always stressed? A comparative analysis of rank differences in cortisol levels among primates. Hormones and Behavior 43, 67–82.Google Scholar
Abeni, F and Galli, A 2017. Monitoring cow activity and rumination time for an early detection of heat stress in dairy cow. International Journal of Biometeorology 61, 417–425.Google Scholar
Allen, JD, Hall, LW, Collier, RJ and Smith, JF 2015. Effect of core body temperature, time of day, and climate conditions on behavioral patterns of lactating dairy cows experiencing mild to moderate heat stress. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 118–127.Google Scholar
Alves, JRA, Andrade, TAA, Assis, DM, Gurjão, TA, Melo, LRB and Souza, BB 2017. Productive and reproductive performance, behavior and physiology of cattle under heat stress conditions. Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology 5, 91–96.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1997. Official methods of analysis, 17th edition, 3rd revision. AOAC, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Czarnocki, J, Sibbald, IR and Evans, EV 1961. The determination of chromium oxide in samples of feed and excreta by acid digestion and spectrophotometry. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 4, 167–179.Google Scholar
De Vries, TJ 2010. Review: behaviour and its role in the nutritional management of the growing dairy heifer. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 90, 295–302.Google Scholar
De Vries, TJ and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2009. Competition for feed affects the feeding behavior of growing dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 3922–3929.Google Scholar
Drews, C 1993. The concept and definition of dominance in animal behaviour. Behaviour 125, 283–313.Google Scholar
Fiol, C, Carriquiry, M and Ungerfeld, R 2017. Social dominance in prepubertal dairy heifers allocated in continuous competitive dyads: effects on body growth, metabolic status, and reproductive development. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 2351–2359.Google Scholar
Fregonesi, JAC, Tucker, B and Weary, DM 2007. Overstocking reduces lying time in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3349–3354.Google Scholar
Friend, TH 1991. Symposium: response of animals to stress. Behavioral aspects of stress. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 292–303.Google Scholar
González, LA, Ferret, A, Manteca, X, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, JL, Calsamiglia, S, Devant, M and Bach, A 2008a. Effect of the number of concentrate feeding places per pen on animal performance, behavior, and welfare indicators of Friesian calves during the first month after arrival at the feedlot. Journal of Animal Science 86, 419–431.Google Scholar
González, LA, Ferret, A, Manteca, X, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, JL, Calsamiglia, S, Devant, M and Bach, A 2008b. Performance, behavior, and welfare of Friesian heifers housed in pens with two, four, and eight individuals per concentrate feeding place. Journal of Animal Science 86, 1446–1458.Google Scholar
Grant, RJ and Albright, JL 2001. Effect of animal grouping on feeding behavior and intake of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 84, E156–E163.Google Scholar
Greter, AM, De Vries, TJ and von Keyserlingk, MA 2008. Nutrient intake and feeding behavior of growing dairy heifers: effects of dietary dilution. Journal Dairy Science 91, 2786–2795.Google Scholar
Gupta, S, Earley, B and Crowe, MA 2007. Effect of 12-hour road transportation on physiological, immunological and haematological parameters in bulls housed at different space allowances. Veterinary Journal 173, 605–616.Google Scholar
Gupta, S, Earley, B, Nolan, M, Formentin, E and Crowe, MA 2008. Effect of repeated regrouping and relocation on behaviour of steers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110, 229–243.Google Scholar
Harb, MY, Reynolds, VS and Campling, RC 1985. Eating behaviour, social dominance and voluntary intake of silage in group‐fed milking cattle. Grass and Forage Science 40, 113–118.Google Scholar
Huzzey, JM, Grant, RJ and Overton, TR 2012. Short communication: relationship between competitive success during displacements at an overstocked feed bunk and measures of physiology and behavior in Holstein dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 4434–4441.Google Scholar
Keys, JE, Pearson, RE and Thompson, PD 1978. Effect of feedbunk stocking density on weight gains and feeding behavior of yearling Holstein heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 61, 448–454.Google Scholar
Kozloski, GV, Netto, DP, de Oliveira, L, Maixner, AR, Leite, DT, Maccari, M, Brondani, IL, Bonnecarrère Sanchez, LM and Ferreira de Quadros, FL 2006. Uso de óxido de cromo como indicador da excreção fecal de bovinos em pastejo: variação das estimativas em função do horário de amostragem. Ciência Rural 36, 599–603.Google Scholar
Lee, C and Hristov, AN 2013. Short communication: evaluation of acid-insoluble ash and indigestible neutral detergent fiber as total-tract digestibility markers in dairy cows fed corn silage-based diets. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 5295–5299.Google Scholar
Longenbach, JI, Heinrichs, AJ and Graves, RE 1999. Feed bunk length requirements for Holstein dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 99–109.Google Scholar
Mertens, DR 2002. Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fibre in feeds with refluxing beakers or crucibles: collaborative study. Journal of AOAC International 85, 1217–1240.Google Scholar
Miranda-de la Lama, GC, Pascual-Alonso, M, Guerrero, A, Alberti, P, Alierta, S, Sans, P, Gajan, JP, Villarroel, M, Dalmau, A, Velarde, A, Campo, MM, Galindo, F, Santolaria, MP, Sañudo, C and María, GA 2013. Influence of social dominance on production, welfare and the quality of meat from beef bulls. Meat Science 94, 432–437.Google Scholar
National Research Council 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th revised edition. Academic Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
Nielsen, BL 1999. On the interpretation of feeding behaviour measures and the use of feeding rate as an indicator of social constraint. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63, 79–91.Google Scholar
Nikkhah, A 2011. Eating timing an evolutionary manager of postmodern rumen physiology and health: a review. Open Access Animal Physiology 3, 13–19.Google Scholar
Olofsson, J 1999. Competition for total mixed diets fed for ad libitum intake using one or four cows per feeding station. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 69–79.Google Scholar
Proudfoot, K and Habing, G 2015. Review. Social stress as a cause of diseases in farm animals: current knowledge and future directions. Veterinary Journal 206, 15–21.Google Scholar
Proudfoot, KL, Veira, DM, Weary, DM and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2009. Competition at the feed bunk changes the feeding, standing, and social behavior of transition dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 3116–3123.Google Scholar
Trevisi, E and Bertoni, G 2008. Some physiological and biochemical methods for acute and chronic stress evaluation in dairy cows. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8, 265–286.Google Scholar
Val-Laillet, D, de Passille, AM, Rushen, J and von Keyserlingk, M 2008. The concept of social dominance and the social distribution of feeding-related displacements between cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 111, 158–172.Google Scholar
Velásquez, AV, da Silva, GG, Sousa, DO, Oliveira, CA, Martins, CMMR, dos Santos, PPM, Balieiro, JCC, Rennó, FP and Fukushima, RS 2018. Evaluating internal and external markers versus fecal sampling procedure interactions when estimating intake in dairy cows consuming a corn silage-based diet. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 1–12.Google Scholar
Wilcox, CS, Schutz, MM, Rostagno, MR, Lay, DC Jr and Eicher, SD 2013. Repeated mixing and isolation: measuring chronic, intermittent stress in Holstein calves. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 7223–7233.Google Scholar
Zähner, M, Schrader, L, Hauser, R, Keck, M, Langhans, W and Wechsler, B 2004. The influence of climatic conditions on physiological and behavioural parameters in dairy cows kept in open stables. Animal Science 78, 139–147.Google Scholar