Keçilerde Yem Rekabeti Sırasında Gözlenen Agonistik Davranışlar Üzerine Genotip, Boynuz ve Baskınlık Sırasının Etkisi

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 62 Sayı: 2, 109 - 116, 31.12.2021

Cemil Tölü , Türker Savaş

https://doi.org/10.29185/hayuretim.888409

Cited By: 1

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, yem rekabetindeki keçiler arası agonistik etkileşimler, genotip, boynuz ve baskınlık sırası temelinde araştırılmıştır.

Materyal ve Metot: Malta ve Türk Saanen genotiplerinin kendi içinde baskınlık sırası belirlendikten sonra boynuzlu, boynuzsuz ve hem boynuzlu hem boynuzsuz hayvanların bulunduğu karışık grup olmak üzere 2-5 yaşlı, toplam 54 baştan oluşan her birinde dokuzar başlı, doğrusal sosyal sıraya sahip toplam 6 grup oluşturulmuştur. Gözlemler yemliklere konan kaba yem (yulaf kuru otu) rekabetinde gösterdikleri agonistik davranışlar temelinde değerlendirilmiştir.

Bulgular: Genotipin, yemlikte yerini alma davranışı dışında agonistik davranış sıklıklarını önemli derecede etkilediğini göstermiştir (P≤0.05). Türk Saanen genotipi Malta genotipinden 2.36 kat daha fazla agresif ısırma ve 1.78 kat daha fazla korkutma davranışı sergilemiştir (P≤0.0001). Malta genotipinden daha yüksek agresyon sıklığı gösteren Türk Saanen genotipinin bireylerinin yemlikte gözlenmeme oranı Malta genotipine göre daha yüksektir (P=0.0159). Boynuz sallama davranışı dışındaki agonistik davranış sıklıklarının boynuz gruplarına göre önemli düzeyde farklılaştığı belirlenmiştir (P≤0.05). Toplam agresif davranışların toplam ortalama sıklığı, en yüksekten en düşüğe boynuzsuz 27.73 kez/saat, karışık 23.47 kez/saat ve boynuzlu grup 18.48 kez/saat şeklinde sıralanmıştır. Yemlikte gözlenmeme özelliğinin boynuz gruplarında önemli düzeyde farklılaştığı en yüksekten en düşüğe sırasıyla boynuzlu %38, karışık %16 ve boynuzsuz %8 grup şeklinde olduğu gözlenmiştir (P<0.0001).

Sonuç: Malta genotipinin Türk Saanen genotipine göre daha uysal bir yapıda olduğu ve bu uysallığın yem rekabeti anlamında olumlu olabileceği ifade edilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Türk Saanen, Maltız, Beslenme, Etkileşim, Agresfi ısırma

Effects of genotype, horn and social rank on agonistic behaviours during food competition in goats

Öz

Objective: This study aimed at investigating the agonistic interactions among goats in food competition based on genotype, horn and dominance rank.

Material and Methods: After determining the dominance rank of the Maltese and Turkish Saanen genotypes, a mixed group consisting of horned, polled and both horned and polled animals, 2 to 5 years old, consisting of 54 heads in total, nine heads each and a total of 6 groups with linear social rank were formed. The observations were evaluated on the basis of their agonistic behaviors in competition for roughage (oat hay) placed in the feeders.

Results: Genotype significantly affected the frequency of agonistic behaviors except for displacement behavior in feeder (P≤0.05). Aggressive biting and threatening behaviors in Turkish Saanen were 2.36 and 1.78 times higher than in Maltese (P≤0.0001). The rate of absence at through of Turkish Saanen goats, which displayed higher aggression frequency was higher that of Maltese goats (P=0.0159). The frequency of agonistic behaviors except for flank butting differed according to horn groups (P≤0.05). Total mean frequency of total aggressive behaviors in the descending order ranked 27.73 times/h for hornless, 23.47 times/h for mixed and 18.48 times/h for horned groups. The absence at the feeder differed in horned groups and ranked in the descending order 38% for horn, 16% for mixed and 8% for hornless (P<0.0001).

Conclusion: Maltese genotype is more peaceful than the Turkish Saanen genotype and this peacefulness may be useful in terms of food competition.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Turkish Saanen, Maltese, feeding, interaction, aggressive biting

Kaynakça

• Addison WE, Baker E. 1982. Agonistic behavior and social organization in a herd of goats as affected by the introduction of non-members. Appl Anim Ethol, 8: 527-535.
• Aganga AA, Tsopito CM. 1998. A note on the feeding behaviour of domestic donkeys: a botswana case study. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 60: 235-239.
• Andersen IL, Boe KE. 2007. Resting pattern and social interactions in goats-The impact of size and organisation of lying space. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 108: 89-103.
• Araba BD, Crowell-Davis SL. 1994. Dominance relationships and aggression of foals (Equus caballus). Appl Anim Behav Sci, 41: 1-25.
• Barroso FG, Alados CL, Boza, J. 2000. Social hierarchy in the domestic goat: effect on food habits and production. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 69: 35-53.
• Bracke MBM, Hulsegge B, Keeling L, Blokhuis HJ. 2004. Decision support system with semantic model to assess the risk of tail biting in pigs 1. Modelling. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 87: 31-44.
• Breuer K, Sutcliffe MEM, Mercer JT, Rance KA, Beattie VE, Sneddon IA, Edwards SA. 2003. The effect of breed on the development of adverse social behaviours in pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 84: 59-74.
• Christensen JW, Ladewig J, Søndergaard E, Malmkvist J. 2002. Effects of individual versus group stabling on social behaviour in domestic stallions. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 75: 233-248.
• Cornetto T, Estevez I, Douglass LW. 2002. Using artificial cover to reduce aggression and disturbances in domestic fowl. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 75: 325-336.
• Cote SD. 2000. Dominance hierarchies in female gotas: stability, agressiveness and determinants of rank. Anim Behav, 37: 1541-1566.
• De Veries TJ, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. 2004. Effect of feeding space on the ınter-cow distance, aggression, and feeding behavior of free-stall housed lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci, 87: 1432-1438.
• Hasegawa N, Nishiwaki A, Sugawara K, Ito I. 1997. The effects of social exchange between two groups of lactating primiparous heifers on milk production, dominance order, behavior and adrenocortical response. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 51: 15-27.
• Immelmann K, Pröve E, Sossinka R. 1996. Einführung in die Verhaltensforschung. 4. Auflage, Berlin, Germany: Wien Blackwell Wiss.-Veri. p.287.
• Jorgensen GHM, Andersen IL, Boe KE.. 2007. Feed intake and social interactions in dairy goats-The effects of feeding space and type of roughage. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 107: 239-251.
• Kondo S, Hurnik JF. 1990. Stabilization of social hierarchy in dairy cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 27: 287-297.
• Lehmann K, Kallweit E, Ellendorff F. 2006. Social hierarchy in exercised and untrained group-housed horses-A brief report. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 96: 343-347.
• Lorenz K. 1998. Das sogenannte Böse. Zur Naturgeschichte der Aggression. Dtv Verlag, München, Germany.
• Loretz C, Wechsler B, Hauser R, Rüsch P. 2004. A comparison of space requirements of horned and hornless goats at the feed barrier and in the lying area. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 87: 275-283.
• McGlone JJ. 1986. Agonistic behavior in food animals: Review of research and techniques. J Anim Sci, 62: 1130-1139. Menke C, Waiblinger S, Fölsch DW, Wiepkema PR. 1999. Social behaviour and injuries of horned cows in loose housing systems. Animal Welfare, 8: 243-258.
• Morrison RS, Hemsworth PH, Cronin GM, Campell RG. 2003. The social and feeding behaviour of growing pigs in deep-litter, large group housing systems. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 82: 173-188.
• Nielsen LH, Mogensen L, Krohn C, Hindhede J, Sorensen JT. 1997. Resting and social behaviour of dairy heifers housed in slatted floor pens with different sized bedded lying areas. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 54: 307-316.
• Pollard JC, Littlejohn RP. 1996. The effects of pen size on the behaviour of farmed red deer stags confined in yards. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 47: 247-253.
• Sambraus HH. 1978. Ziege. In Nutztierethologie. Das Verhalten landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere-Eine angewandte Verhaltenskunde für die Praxis. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin, Hamburg, Germany. pp.152-167.
• SAS/STAT User's Guide: Version 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA, 1999.
• Savaş T, Şamlı E. 2000. Social hierarchy of aggression in chickens and eggs yield the effect of some behavioral features. J Agricul Sci, 6: 11-15.
• Sherwin CM, Johnson KG. 1987. The influence of social factors on the use of shade by sheep. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 18: 143-155.
• Tölü C, Savaş T. 2007. A brief report on intra-species aggressive biting in a goat herd. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 102: 124-129.
• Van DTT, Mui NT, Ledin I. 2007. Effect of group size on feed intake, aggressive behaviour and growth rate in goat kids and lambs. Small Rumin Res, 72: 187-196.
• Vargas JV, Craig JV, Hines RH. 1987. Effects of feeding systems on social and feeding behavior and performance of finishing pigs. J Anim Sci, 65: 463-474.