Bülent EKİZ, Alper YILMAZ, Elif ERGÜL EKİZ, İbrahim AKYAZI, Evren ERASLAN, Hülya YALÇINTAN

Influence of social rank on certain stress response variables and behavioral characteristics of adult rams

Dominance rank within a group can affect the stress level of an animal. However, there is no consensus on whether the dominant or subordinate animals are physiologically more stressed. It was aimed herein to determine the effect of social rank on the stress level and expression of some behaviors of adult Hemsin, Chios, and Karakul rams. According to their dominance index (DI) values, the rams were classified as low-ranked (DI < 0.33; n = 13), medium-ranked (DI: 0.33–0.66; n = 13), and high-ranked (DI > 0.66; n = 13) individuals. The low-ranked rams had lower body weight, body length, chest depth, chest circumference, cannon bone circumference, and tail width than the medium- and high-ranked rams. The high-ranked rams tended to exhibit more rumination than the low- and medium-ranked rams (P = 0.066). The rank group had no influence on the frequency of vocalization, butting other animals, and itching behaviors. The low-ranked rams had lower hematocrit, hemoglobin, and red blood cell counts than the mediumand high-ranked rams. The rank group had no influence on the white blood cell count, neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio, and cortisol level. In conclusion, under the conditions of the current study, the welfare of the low-ranked rams was not adversely affected.

PDF

___

1. De Vries H. Finding a dominance order most consistent with a linear hierarchy: a new procedure and review. Animal Behaviour 1998; 55 (4): 827-843. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0708
2. Drews C. The concept and definition of dominance in animal behaviour. Behaviour 1993; 125: 283-313. doi: 10.1163/156853993X00290
3. Tölü C, Savaş T. Social rank and agonistic behaviour in livestock. Hayvansal Üretim 2006; 47 (2): 26-31 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
4. Pelletier R, Festa-Bianchet M. Sexual selection and social rank in bighorn rams. Animal Behaviour 2006; 71 (3): 649-655. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.07.008
5. Taillon J, Côté SD. The role of previous social encounters and body mass in determining social rank: an experiment with white-tailed deer. Animal Behaviour 2006; 72 (5): 1103-1110. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.03.016
6. Solano J, Galindo F, Orihuela A, Galina CS. The effect of social rank on the physiology response during repeated stressful handling in Zebu cattle (Bos indicus). Physiology & Behavior 2004; 82 (4): 679-683. doi: 10.16/j.physbeh.2004.06.005
7. Taillon J, Côté SD. Social rank and winter forage quality affect aggressiveness in white-tailed deer fawns. Animal Behaviour 2007; 74 (2): 265-275. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.11.018
8. Sapolski R M. The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science 2005; 308 (5722): 648-652. doi: 10.1126/ science.1106477
9. Bartoš L, Schams D, Bubenik GA, Kotrba R, Tománek M. Relationship between rank and plasma testosterone and cortisol in red deer males (Cervus elaphus). Physiology & Behavior 2010; 101: 628-634. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2010.09.011
10. Barroso FG, Alados CL, Boza J. Social hierarchy in the domestic goat: effect on food habits and production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2000; 69 (1): 35-53. doi: 10.1016/ S0168-1591(00)00113-1
11. Hasegawa N, Nishiwaki A, Sugawara K, Ito I. The effects of social exchange between two groups of lactating primiparous heifers on milk production, dominance order, behavior and adrenocortical response. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1997; 51 (1-2): 15-27. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01082-9
12. Ketelaar-de Lauwere CC, Devir S, Metz JHM. The influence of social hierarchy on the time budget of cows and their visits to an automatic milking system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1996; 49 (2): 199-211. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(96)01030-1
13. Akçapınar H. Koyun Yetiştiriciliği. Medisan Yayın Serisi No: 8. Ankara, Turkey: Medisan Yayınevi; 1994. pp. 1-4.
14. Demir H. Koyun ve Keçi Yetiştiriciliği. İstanbul, Turkey: Teknik Yayınları; 1997.
15. Ungerfeld R, Lacuesta L. Social rank during pre-pubertal development and reproductive performance of adult rams. Animal Reproduction Science 2010; 121 (1-2): 101-105. doi: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.05.007
16. Alvarez L, Martin GB, Galindo F, Zarco LA. Social dominance of female goats affects their response to the male effect. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2003; 84 (2): 119-126. doi: 10.1016/j. applanim.2003.08.003
17. Langbein J, Puppe B. Analysing dominance relationships by sociometric methods-a plea for a more standardised and precise approach in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2004; 87 (3-4): 293-315. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.01.007
18. Ungerfeld R, González-Pensado S, Dago AL, Vilariño M, Menchaca A. Social dominance of female dairy goats and response to oestrous synchronisation and superovulatory treatments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2007; 105 (1- 3): 115-121. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.06.008
19. Alizadehasl M, Ünal N. Some morphological traits of Kilis, Norduz and Honamlı indigenous goat breeds. Journal of Lalahan Livestock Research Institute 2011; 51 (2): 81-92 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
20. Bogner H. Verhaltensbeobachtungen, versuchsanlage und auswertungen. In: Bogner H, Grauvogl A (editors). Verhalten landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere. Stuttgart, Germany: Eugen Ulmer; 1984. pp. 61-74.
21. Tölü C, Göktürk S, Savaş T. Effects of weaning and spatial enrichment on behavior of Turkish Saanen Goat kids. AsianAustralasian Journal of Animal Sciences 2016; 29 (6): 879-886. doi: 10.5713/ajas.15.0597
22. Ugur F, Savas T, Dosay M, Karabayır A, Atasoglu C. Growth and behavioral traits of Turkish Saanen kids weaned at 45 and 60 days. Small Ruminant Research 2004; 52 (1-2): 179-184. doi: 10.1016/S0921-4488(03)00253-0
23. Ekiz B, Ergül Ekiz E, Yalçıntan H, Koçak Ö, Yılmaz A et al. The effect of transport stress on certain welfare parameters and behaviours in Red Karaman, İmroz, Sakız and Karakul rams. Journal of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine İstanbul University 2012; 38: 15-28.
24. Tölü C, Savaş T. A brief report on intra-species aggressive biting in a goat herd. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2007; 102 (1-2): 124-129. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.03.002
25. SPSS (1999). Statistical package for the social sciences, Release 13.0. Chicago, IL, SA: SPSS Inc.
26. Maksimović N, Žujović M, Hristov S, Petrović MP, Stanković B et al. Association between the social rank, body mass, testicular circumference and linear body measures of rams. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 2012; 28 (2): 253-261. doi: 10.2298/BAH1202253M
27. Ungerfeld R, González-Pensado SP. Social rank affects reproductive development in male lambs. Animal Reproduction Science 2008; 109 (1-4): 161-171. doi: 10.1016/j. anireprosci.2007.12.006
28. Pelletier F, Bauman J, Festa-Bianchet M. Fecal testosterone in bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis): behavioural and endocrine correlates. Canadian Journal of Zoology 2003; 81 (10): 1678- 1684. doi: 10.1139/Z03-156
29. Matthews SG, Miller AL, Plötz T, Kyriazakis I. Automated tracking to measure behavioural changes in pigs for health and welfare monitoring. Scientific Reports 2017; 7: 17582. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-17451-6
30. Battini M, Stilwell G, Vieira A, Barbieri S, Canali E et al. Onfarm welfare assessment protocol for adult dairy goats in intensive production systems. Animals 2015; 5: 934-950. doi: 10.3390/ani5040393
31. Grandin T. Behavioral principles of livestock handling. The Proffesional Animal Scientist 1989; 5 (2): 1-11. doi: 10.15232/ S1080-7446(15)32304-4
32. Poisbleau M, Jenouvrier S, Fritz H. Assessing the reliability of dominance scores for assigning individual ranks in a hierarchy. Animal Behaviour 2006; 72 (4): 835-842. doi: 10.1016/j. anbehav.2006.01.024
33. Squires EJ. Applied Animal Endocrinology. Oxon, UK: CABI Publishing; 2003.
34. Hall SJG, Bradshaw RH. Welfare aspects of the transport by road of sheep and pigs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 1998; 1 (3): 235-254. doi: 10.1207/s15327604jaws0103_4
35. Liotta L, Nanni Costa L, Chiofalo B, Ravarotto L, Chiofalo V. Effect of lairage duration on some blood constituents and beef quality in bulls after long journey. Italian Journal of Animal Science 2007; 6: 375-384. doi: 10.4081/ijas.2007.375
36. Jones ML, Allison RW. Evaluation of the ruminant complete blood cell count. The Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 2007; 23 (3): 377-402. doi: 10.1016/j. cvfa.2007.07.002
37. Czech A, Kiesz M, Kiesz A, Próchniak T, Różański P et al. Influence of type of use, age and gender on haematological and biochemical blood parameters of Małopolski horses. Annals of Animal Science 2019; 19 (1): 85-96. doi: 10.2478/aoas-2018- 0031
38. De Vries AC, Glasper ER, Detillion CE. Social modulation of stress responses. Physiology & Behavior 2003; 79 (3): 399-407. doi: 10.1016/S0031-9384(03)00152-5
39. Creel S, Creel NM, Monfort SL. Social stress and dominance. Nature 1996; 379: 212. doi: 10.1038/379212a0
40. Abbott DH, Keverne EB, Bercovitch FB, Shively CA, Mendoza SP et al. Are subordinates always stressed? A comparative analysis of rank differences in cortisol levels among primates. Hormones and Behavior 2003; 43 (1): 67-82. doi: 10.1016/ S0018-506X(02)00037-5