Adoption, allonursing and allosucking in farmed red deer (Cervus elaphus)

Abstract

Following a pilot study, the aim of this study was to test the hypothesis whether occurrence of massaging the anogenital region of a calf by a non-maternal hind is a reliable indicator of adoption. The investigation was conducted between 28 May (1st day of calving) and 2 September (abrupt weaning of all calves) on a red deer farm at Vimperk, Czech Republic. Fifty hinds and their calves were observed but only complete data sets of sucking bouts were considered for evaluation. Massaging occurred mostly during the 1st month of the calf’s life. All filial calves were massaged repeatedly. Other calves received ano-genital massage at least twice (termed adopted), on a single occasion or not at all (termed non-filial). Filial and adopted calves behaved in a similar way but differently from non-filial calves. They sucked in an antiparallel standing position so that the hind could lick their ano-genital region more often than the non-filial calves. This occurred even when two calves were involved in the bout. When two calves were involved in the sucking bout, non-filial calves sucked from behind, between the hind’s hind legs. This position occurred more frequently with non-filial than among the filial and adopted calves. It was therefore concluded, that repeated allonursing accompanied with massaging of the ano-genital region of the sucking calf by the hind can be considered a signal of adoption. Hinds usually adopted calves older than their own progeny. The adopted calves were on average 2·5 days old. This suggests that it is most likely the calf’s activity which leads to bonding. No reciprocity was found in allosucking and/or allonursing. The fact that non-filial calves commonly initiated allosucking from a non-maternal hind during the day when she gave birth appeared crucial for establishing bonding which subsequently led to adoption. Hinds may be bonded with several calves including their own. Therefore, bonding with a non-filial calf did not principally mean failure in looking after their own progeny as shown in other studies.

Allosuckling in reindeer (Rangifer tarandus): Milk-theft, mismothering or kin selection?

“…The position adopted during each solicitation was scored as antiparallel (A), parallel (P), or perpendicular (PER) (Bartoš et al, 2001b;Zapata et al, 2009). The antiparallel position was scored when the lactating doe had access, by moving her head, to the anogenital region of a calf: the body and head of a calf were in the opposite direction of the body and head of the doe.…”

“…The antiparallel position was scored when the lactating doe had access, by moving her head, to the anogenital region of a calf: the body and head of a calf were in the opposite direction of the body and head of the doe. The antiparallel position is thought to allow a lactating female to identify a calf by sniffing the calf's ano-genital region (Bartoš et al, 2001b;Espmark, 1971;Källquist and Mossing, 1982). The parallel and perpendicular positions are thought to prevent lactating females from identifying calves by sniffing the ano-genital region of calves (Bartoš et al, 2001b).…”

“…The milk-theft and mismothering hypotheses are maladaptive hypotheses from the point of view of lactating females, while the calf parasitism strategy of milk-theft, the kin-selection, reciprocity, learning to parent, milk evacuation, compensation, neuroendocrine and improving immunocompetence hypotheses of allosuckling and allonursing are adaptive hypotheses (Bartoš et al, 2001a;Hayes, 2000;Landete-Castillejos et al, 2000;Packer et al, 1992;Roulin, 2002;Roulin, 2003;Roulin and Heeb, 1999;Zapata et al, 2009). As per our knowledge, rarely do journal articles include an investigation of more than 2-3 hypotheses, and for exceptions see Bartoš et al (2001b), Eberle and Kappeler (2006), and Ekvall (1998). Offspring have been hypothesized to opportunistically allosuckle, known as milk-theft (Packer et al, 1992).…”

“…If allosuckling is caused by lactating females being unable to discriminate their own offspring, lactating females should not reject NF offspring, and NF offspring should equally adopt the antiparallel, parallel and perpendicular positions to allosuckle (Zapata et al, 2009). Evidence for the mismothering hypothesis has been reported in domestic (Ovis aries) and wild (O. canadiensis) sheep (Hass, 1990;Welch and Kilgour, 1970), red deer (Bartoš et al, 2001b), Hawaiian monk seals (Monachus schauinslandi) (Boness, 1990), primiparous Steller sea lions (Maniscalco et al, 2007), and Saharan arrui (Ammotragus lervia) (Cassinello, 1999). Allosuckling bouts reported in grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) can be accounted for by the lack of efficient kin recognition mechanisms (McCulloch et al, 1999).…”

“…The parallel and perpendicular positions are thought to prevent lactating females from identifying calves by sniffing (i.e. olfaction) the ano-genital region (Bartoš et al, 2001b). Therefore, the odds of a successful allobout are higher for calves adopting the parallel or perpendicular positions than for calves adopting the antiparallel position, and the proportions of antiparallel positions adopted are higher for F calves than for NF calves.…”