Impact of allosucking on growth of farmed red deer calves (Cervus elaphus)

Abstract

It is generally presumed that allosucking brings benefits to the allosucking infants. Nevertheless, the data supporting such a presumption are rare. The aim of the study was to determine whether allosucking has any impact on growth rates of the allosucking calves. Fifty pregnant hinds were observed between 28 May (1st day of calving) and 2 September (abrupt weaning of all calves) on a red deer farm at Vimperk, South Bohemia, the Czech Republic. Of the 50 calves born the growth curve was calculated for 39 calves. During their 1st month of life these calves were observed in 1015 sucking bouts. In 690 cases the calves sucked from maternal hinds and in 325 cases non-maternal hinds. Only 25·64% of calves sucked exclusively from maternal hinds. The prevailing type of sucking behaviour was a combination of sucking from maternal hinds and allosucking (74·36%). Calves sucking from maternal and non-maternal hinds showed 1·6-fold higher sucking frequency than did calves feeding from maternal hinds only. Our results indicate that to some extend allonursing behaviour of the hind may affect their calves’ feeding behaviour. The more non-filial calves the maternal hind nursed, the higher frequency of the sucking by their calves occurred. The groups of calves did not differ in birth weight. With increasing age, the relative body weight increased faster in calves sucking maternal hinds only than in calves sucking maternal and non-maternal hinds. This gain in body weight was not essentially influenced by the fact whether or not the calf’s maternal hind nursed non-filial or exclusively filial calves. However, at weaning (99 days), the lowest body weight occurred in allosucking calves whose maternal hinds were allonursing. The results suggest that allosucking does not mean an extra profit to the allosucker. Instead, in our subjects, allosucking was rather attributed to compensation of nutritional requirements based on a combination of various factors, such as discrete differences in body weight at birth and also later and allonursing of the maternal hind.

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

“…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).…”

“…Lactating females allonurse NF offspring to compensate for growth and/or nutritional deficiency by letting down milk surplus from non-maternal milk, such as in red deer (Bartoš et al, 2001a), cows (Bos taurus) (Víchová and Bartoš, 2005), river buffalo (Paranhos da Costa et al, 2000), and guanacos (Zapata et al, 2010). In contrast to the compensation hypothesis (Bartoš et al, 2001a;Víchová and Bartoš, 2005), NF offspring are predicted to increase growth rates and mass at weaning due to improved nutrition by ingestion of milk surplus from non-maternal milk in addition to that which they receive from their own mother (Packer et al, 1992;Hayes, 2000).…”

“…In contrast to the compensation hypothesis (Bartoš et al, 2001a;Víchová and Bartoš, 2005), NF offspring are predicted to increase growth rates and mass at weaning due to improved nutrition by ingestion of milk surplus from non-maternal milk in addition to that which they receive from their own mother (Packer et al, 1992;Hayes, 2000). In studies of laboratory rodents provided with unlimited access to food, allosuckling offspring benefited in mass gain by ingesting milk surplus when compared to non-allosuckling offspring (see review by Hayes, 2000;König, 1993;Werboff et al, 1970).…”

A case of allosuckling in wild guanacos (Lama guanicoe)

“…While this behavior would seem easy to explain, and is generally regarded as potentially beneficial to the allosuckler, evidence indicates that allosuckling is either not beneficial or that it is a compensation mechanism for undernourished offspring (Landete-Castillejos et al 2000;Bartoš et al 2001;Víchová and Bartoš 2005). In addition, allosucklers may risk injuries that result from aggressive responses by nonmaternal females and experience a high risk of pathogen transmission through milk (Roulin and Heeb 1999).…”

“…These recent additions include llamas (Lama glama) and alpacas (Vicugna pacos), two domestic South American camelids (Brown 2000), fallow deer (Ekvall 1998), river buffalo (Bubalis bubalis, Murphey et al 1995) and wild mouflon (Ovis musimon, Reále et al 1999). Nine of these reports involved studies conducted on wild subjects and eight were on captive subjects; four other studies included observations both in the wild and in captivity (Murphey et al 1995;Pelabon et al 1998;Landete-Castillejos et al 2000;Bartoš et al 2001;Víchová and Bartoš 2005). Allosuckling by captive guanacos has been recorded to range from 4.1 to 40% of suckling bouts , supporting the possibility that this behavior may take place with varying frequency within the same species and under varying environmental conditions (Hass 1990;Ekvall 1998;Pelabon et al, 1998).…”