2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.02.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Allosuckling in cattle: Gain or compensation?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
47
0
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
1
47
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Naso-anal contact contributes to motheroffspring bonding (Cowan 1974;Nowak et al 2000), which is essential for the survival of the calf independently from the environmental conditions. In addition, non-filial suckling, which could jeopardize individual reproductive success and increase maternal costs, occurs in many ungulate species under both wild and farm conditions (Packer et al 1992;Ekvall 1998;Pélabon et al 1998;Víchová and Bartoš 2005;Drábková et al 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Naso-anal contact contributes to motheroffspring bonding (Cowan 1974;Nowak et al 2000), which is essential for the survival of the calf independently from the environmental conditions. In addition, non-filial suckling, which could jeopardize individual reproductive success and increase maternal costs, occurs in many ungulate species under both wild and farm conditions (Packer et al 1992;Ekvall 1998;Pélabon et al 1998;Víchová and Bartoš 2005;Drábková et al 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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).…”
mentioning
confidence: 92%
“…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).…”
mentioning
confidence: 96%
“…A test of this hypothesis requires data that were not available in this study. Infants may suck non-mother females to compensate for some nutritional deficiency such as low weight at birth or insufficient supply of maternal milk [Víchová and Bartoš, 2005]. One of the predictions of this hypothesis is that infants that have temporarily or permanently lost their mother will request, and probably receive, more allonursing than other infants in the group.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%