Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:38:39.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationship between rank order and productive parameters in Verata goats during milking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. Patón ,
L. Martín ,
M. Cereijo ,
A. Rota ,
A. Rojas  and
J. Tovar
L. Martín
Affiliation:
Facultad de Veterinaria (Production Animal), Universidad de Extremadura, Carretera de Trujillo s/n, 10071 Cáceres, Spain
M. Cereijo
Affiliation:
Facultad de Biología (Fisiología Animal), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, 28009 Madrid, Spain
A. Rota
Affiliation:
Facultad de Veterinaria (Production Animal), Universidad de Extremadura, Carretera de Trujillo s/n, 10071 Cáceres, Spain
A. Rojas
Affiliation:
Facultad de Veterinaria (Production Animal), Universidad de Extremadura, Carretera de Trujillo s/n, 10071 Cáceres, Spain
J. Tovar
Affiliation:
Facultad de Veterinaria (Production Animal), Universidad de Extremadura, Carretera de Trujillo s/n, 10071 Cáceres, Spain
Get access

Abstract

The hierarchic behaviour of 71 goats of the Verata breed from two independent flocks on two different farms (no.2 = 34 and no. 2 = 37) was studied during the milking-period of a year. Two statistical procedures: canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) and a log-linear model were used. In the CCA, the total frequencies of each goat in each of the 12 positions at the milking stalls during 210 days of lactation were computed as original variables. Canonical variables were the average values of dairy milk production, proportion of protein and proportion of fat. The first two CCA axes accounted for proportionately 0·72 of the variance. The first axis showed the effect of rank order (V1 = 0·45) and the second axis the variability between animals for the same group of hierarchy (V2 = 0·27). The first position (AC1, = 0·58; AC2 = 0·23) and the last position (AC1 = 0·11; AC2 = 0·26) of the milking stalls were in absolute contributions the most significant in the distribution of the four observed groups of hierarchy, as defined by their frequency of access to the first position. Two parameters were highly correlated with both axes: milk protein content (r1, = - 0·8; r2 = 0·9) and the day milk production (r1 = 0·6; r2 = 0·5). These results showed a direct relationship between rank order and milk production, whereas the variability in each group was best defined by the protein content. The log-linear model showed that goats of lactation numbers one, two and three have a similar behaviour with respect to their locations at the milking stalls, being distributed more randomly (â1, = 0·68 < â2 = 0·7 < â3 = 0·71) than goats of a lactation number four (â4 = 2·95). This effect could be a consequence of two different but related factors: either the animals develop a preference for a particular position over time, or that animals in their fourth lactation showed a more stable behaviour pattern which affected their body condition.

Keywords

behaviourcanonical analysisgoatsmilk productionrank order
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , December 1995 , pp. 545 - 551
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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

Addison, W. E. and Baker, E. 1982. Agonistic behaviour and social organization in a herd of goats as affected by the introduction of non-members. Applied Animal Ethology 8: 527–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M. C. 1993. How animals perceive a hierarchy: reactions to Freeman et al. Animal Behaviour 46: 1232–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benzecri, J. P. 1982. Historie et prehistoric de l'analyse des données. Dunod, France.Google Scholar
Bertelsen, R. 1987. The finds pattern of archaeological excavations: correspondence analysis as explorative tool. In Computer and quantitative methods in archaeology (ed. Ruggles, C. L. N. and Rahtz, S. P. Q.), BAR international series 393, pp. 25–28.Google Scholar
Dantzer, R. and Mormede, P. 1984. El estrés en la cría intensiva del ganado. Acribia, Zaragoza.Google Scholar
Dixon, W. J. ed. 1990. BMDP statistical software. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. A. 1978. Analyzing qualitative, categorical data, log-linear models and latent structure analysis. Abt. Books, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Higashi, S., Ito, F., Sugiura, N. and Ohkawara, K. 1994. Worker's age regulates the linear dominance hierarchy in the queenless ponerine ant, Pachycondyla sublaevis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Animal Behaviour 47: 179–184.Google Scholar
Judez, A. 1989. Técnicas de andlisis de datos multidimensionales. MAPA, Secretaria General Técnica, Madrid.Google Scholar
Kodric-Brown, A. and Nicoletto, P. F. 1993. The relationship between physical condition and social status in pupfish Cyprinodon pecosensis. Animal Behaviour 46: 1234–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallo, F. 1985. Análisis de componentes principales y técnicas factoriales relacionadas. Publ. Universidad de León.Google Scholar
Manning, A. and Dawkins, M. S. 1992. An introduction to animal behaviour. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
M.A.P.A. 1991. Anuario de estadísticas agrarias. Publ. Ministerio de Agricultura, Madrid.Google Scholar
Martín, L. 1993. Efecto de la suplementacion con grasa protegida sobre la produccion lechera caprina. Ph.D. thesis, Universidad de Extremadura, Cáceres.Google Scholar
Masteller, M. A. and Bailey, J. A. 1988. Agonistic behaviour among mountain goats foraging in winter. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66: 2585–2588.Google Scholar
Matsuzawa, Y. and Hagiya, K. 1991. Relationship between feeding behaviour and social dominance in a small herd of goats. Scientific report of the Faculty of Agriculture, lbaraki University, Japan, no. 39, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Matsuzawa, Y. and Shiraishi, T. 1992. Relationship between aggressive behaviour and social dominance in a small herd of goats. Animal Science and Technology 63: 503–513.Google Scholar
Meikle, D. B., Drickamer, L. C., Vessey, S. H., Rosenthal, T. L. and Fitzgerald, K. S. 1993. Maternal dominance rank and secondary sex ratio in domestic swine. Animal Behaviour 46: 79–85.Google Scholar
Nicholson, M. C. and Husband, T. P. 1992. Diurnal behaviour of the Agrimi, Capra aegagrus. Journal of Mammalogy 73: 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patón, D., Zaballos, T., Valle, M., Rota, A., Rojas, A., Martin, L. and Tovar, J. 1993. Cálculo de la carga ganadera óptima de Cistus ladanifer por métodos dendrocronológicos. Archivos de Zootecnia 42: (160), 415–428.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, C., Reinhardt, A. and Reinhardt, V. 1986. Social behaviour and reproductive performance in semi-wild Scottish Highland UK cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz-Maya, L., Martín-Pliego, J., López, J., Montero, J. M. and Uriz, P. 1990. Metodología estadística para el análisis de datos cualitativos. CIS, Madrid.Google Scholar
Stanback, M. T. 1994. Dominance within broods of the cooperatively breeding acorn woodpecker. Animal Behaviour 47: 1121–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syme, G. J. and Syme, L. A. 1979. Social structure in farm animals. Elsevier, Oxford.Google Scholar
Ter Braak, C. J. F. 1988. Program CANOCO (canonical correspondence analysis). Ministry of Agricultural and Fisheries, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Tomber, R. 1987. Multivariate statistics and assemblage comparison. In Computer and quantitative methods in archaeology (ed. Ruggles, C. L. N. and Rahtz, S. P. Q.), BAR International Series 393, pp. 29–36.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. M. 1994. Variation in initiator strategy in fighting by silvereyes. Animal Behaviour 47: 153–162.Google Scholar
Wittenberger, J. F. 1981. Animal social behaviour. Duxbury Press, Boston.Google Scholar