Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T23:51:17.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social behaviour of domestic animals III. Steers in small yards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. P. McPhee ,
G. McBride  and
J. W. James
C. P. McPhee
Affiliation:
Animal Research Institute, Department of Primary Industries, Yeerongpilly, Brisbane, Australia
G. McBride
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Australia
J. W. James
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Australia
Get access

Summary

Behaviour observations and measurements were carried out on three classes of beef steers kept in yards under drought feeding conditions. The classes were (i) 2-year-old Brahman × Hereford crossbreds, (ii) 2-year-old Herefords and (iii) 3-year-old Herefords.

Animals of each class were placed in two groups and fed on low quality bush hay, one group ad lib. and the other on a restricted basis. An intermingled group comprised two animals from each class and was fed ad lib.

Fairly stable linear social orders were observed in each yard, social success depending mainly upon height. In the intermingled group, the crossbreds dominated the 3-year-old Herefords, which in turn dominated the 2-year-old Herefords.

Crossbreds bunted more actively and were more often disturbed at feeding during the day. They consequently consumed proportionately more feed at night than the Herefords.

Although high social ranking animals had priority at the feed trough there was no relationship between social rank and growth.

The orders in which the 2-year-old Herefords and crossbreds entered a crush were non-random. These orders appeared not to be related to social rank.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , February 1964 , pp. 9 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1964

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

REFERENCES

Allee, W. C., Park, O., Emerson, E. E., Park, T. & Schmidt, K. P., 1949. Principles of Animal Ecology. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia and London.Google Scholar
Brody, S., 1945. Bioenergetics and Growth. Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York.Google Scholar
Calhoun, J. B., 1950. The study of wild animals under controlled conditions. Ann. N.Y. Acad.Sci., 51: 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. & Yates, F., 1957. Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Guhl, A. M. & Allee, W. C., 1944. Some measurable effects of social organisation in flocks of hens. Physiol.Zool., 17: 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guhl, A. M., 1953. The social behaviour of the domestic fowl. Tech. Bull. Kans. agric. Expt. Sta. no. 73.Google Scholar
Guhl, A. M. & Atkeson, F. W., 1959. Social organisation in a herd of dairy cows. Trans. Kans. Acad. Sci., 62: 80.Google Scholar
Kilgour, R. & Scott, T. H., 1959. Leadership in a herd of dairy cows. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim.Prod., 19: 36.Google Scholar
McBride, G., 1958. The influence of social behaviour on experimental design in animal husbandry. Anim. Prod.,1: 81.Google Scholar
McBride, G., 1960. Poultry husbandry and the peck order. Brit. Poult. Sci., 1: 65.Google Scholar
Schein, M. W. & Fohrman, M. H., 1955. Social dominance relationships in a herd of dairy cattle. Brit. J. Anim. Behav., 3: 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W., 1950. Statistical Methods. Iowa State College Press, Ames, la.Google Scholar
Woodbury, A. M., 1941. Changing the “hook order” in cows. Ecol., 22: 410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood-Gush, D. G. M., 1955. The behaviour of the domestic chicken; a review of the literature. Brit. J. Anim. Behav., 3: 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar