Journals / Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 5

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

Pages
975–984
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, under the conditions of the current study, the welfare of the low-ranked rams was not adversely affected.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Dominance rank within a group can affect the stress level of an animal.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to their dominance index (DI) values, the rams were classified as low-ranked (DI 0.66; n = 13) individuals.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, under the conditions of the current study, the welfare of the low-ranked rams was not adversely affected.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

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 0.66; 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.

🔖

Cite This Article

EKİZ, B., YILMAZ, A., EKİZ, E. E., AKYAZI, İ., ERASLAN, E., YALÇINTAN, H. (2022). Influence of social rank on certain stress response variables and behavioral characteristics of adult rams. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 5, 975–984. https://ajindex.com/articles/614808

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  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.