Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:21:03.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An automated method for the evaluation of ram libido in real mating conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2017

M. Alhamada ,
N. Debus  and
F. Bocquier
M. Alhamada
Affiliation:
UMR 868 Systèmes d’élevage méditerranéens et tropicaux, INRA, F-34060 Montpellier, France
N. Debus
Affiliation:
UMR 868 Systèmes d’élevage méditerranéens et tropicaux, INRA, F-34060 Montpellier, France
F. Bocquier*
Affiliation:
UMR 868 Systèmes d’élevage méditerranéens et tropicaux, INRA, F-34060 Montpellier, France Department MPRS, Montpellier SupAgro, F-34060 Montpellier, France
*
† E-mail: bocquier@supagro.fr
Get access

Abstract

We investigated if sexual behaviour of rams can be assessed with an electronic Alpha-Detector (AD) which automatically records mounts of mating rams. To evaluate the rams’ libido (i.e. all sexual activities), we used six intact and six vasectomised rams in pen tests in three different seasons (late spring, autumn and early spring). The pen tests consisted of 30-min visual observations of each ram placed in a group of six Merino ewes (three ewes in oestrus and three ewes not in oestrus). In the pen tests, sexual behaviour was recorded and divided into two categories: pre-copulatory and copulatory. For validation purposes, during the pen tests the 12 rams were equipped with the AD and the number of times the 18 oestrous ewes were mounted were counted over a period of 3 days. Of the 1191 mounts visually identified in the six 30-min sessions, 1026 were recorded automatically by the AD (i.e. 94%). The paddock test is an automated method consisting of the same rams wearing an AD and placed in a flock of ~250 Merino ewes on two occasions (late spring (spring 1) and early spring of the following year (spring 2)), their copulatory activities were automatically recorded over a 5-day period. The results of the pen tests in the three seasons revealed no difference between the two types of rams (breeding v. detecting rams). Based on live observations high correlations (r=+0.81, P<0.003 for breeding and r=+0.76, P<0.02 for detecting rams) were found between pre-copulatory and copulatory behaviours. The libido of the two types of rams measured in pen tests showed high repeatability across the three seasons (83 and 75%, P<0.05 for copulatory and pre-copulatory behaviours, respectively). When measured automatically in paddock tests over two consecutive springs, even higher repeatability was observed in both breeding (94%; P<0.01) and detecting rams (97%; P<0.004) in the number of mounts. In addition, high correlations (+0.89<r<+0.94) between copulatory behaviours, as measured by live observations, and those measured by the AD were obtained. The automatic measurement of ram libido in paddock tests appears to be more reliable than pen tests and far less time consuming. We therefore recommend this automated method to estimate the libido of rams. In addition, this method can be used at any season of the year provided that ewes in oestrus are present in the flock.

Keywords

ramsexual behaviourlibidoseasonelectronic recording device
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 11 , November 2017 , pp. 2036 - 2044
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Alexander, BM, Cockett, NE, Burton, DJ, Hadfield, TL and Moss, GE 2012. Reproductive performance of rams in three producer range flocks: evidence of poor sexual behavior in the field. Small Ruminant Research 107, 117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alhamada, M, Debus, N, Lurette, A and Bocquier, F 2016. Validation of automated electronic oestrus detection in sheep as an alternative to visual observation. Small Ruminant Research 134, 97–104.Google Scholar
Avdi, M, Banos, G, Stefos, K and Chemineau, P 2004. Seasonal variation in testicular volume and sexual behavior of Chios and Serres rams. Theriogenology 62, 275–282.Google Scholar
Barwick, S, Kilgour, R and Gleeson, A 1985. Ram mating performance in Border Leicesters and related breed types. 1. Pen test performance and measures of testis diameter. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 25, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, AM, Hankison, SJ and Laskowski, KL 2009. The repeatability of behaviour: a meta-analysis. Animal Behaviour 77, 771–783.Google Scholar
Blissitt, MJ, Bland, KP and Cottrell, DF 1990. Discrimination between the odours of fresh oestrous and non-oestrous ewe urine by rams. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25, 51–59.Google Scholar
Brillinger, DR, Preisler, HK, Ager, AA and Kie, JG 2004. An exploratory data analysis (EDA) of the paths of moving animals. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 122, 43–63.Google Scholar
Chemineau, P, Pelletier, J, Guérin, Y, Colas, G, Ravault, JP, Touré, G, Almeida, G, Thimonier, J and Ortavant, R 1988. Photoperiodic and melatonin treatments for the control of seasonal reproduction in sheep and goatsss. Reproduction Nutrition Development 28, 409–422.Google Scholar
Fabre-Nys, C 2010. Mating behavior. In Encyclopedia of behavioral neuroscience 2 (ed. GF Koob, M Le Moal and RF Thompson), pp. 178–185. Academic Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gouletsou, PG and Fthenakis, GC 2010. Clinical evaluation of reproductive ability of rams. Small Ruminant Research 92, 45–51.Google Scholar
Ibarra, D, Laborde, D and van Lier, E 2000. Repeatability and relationship with field mating performance of a serving capacity pen test in rams. Small Ruminant Research 37, 165–169.Google Scholar
Kann, G 1971. Dosage radioimmunologique de la prolactine plasmatique chez les ovins. C R Académie des Sciences Paris, Série D 272, 2808–2811.Google Scholar
Kilgour, RJ 1985. Mating behavior of rams in pens. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 25, 298–305.Google Scholar
Kilgour, RJ 1993. The relationship between ram breeding capacity and flock fertility. Theriogenology 40, 277–285.Google Scholar
Maina, D and Katz, SL 1999. Scent of a ewe: transmission of a social cue by conspecifics affects sexual performance in male sheep. Biology of Reproduction 60, 1373–1377.Google Scholar
Mattner, P, Braden, A and George, J 1971. Studies in flock mating of sheep. 4. The relation of libido tests to subsequent service activity of young rams. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 11, 473–477.Google Scholar
Mickelsen, WD, Paisley, LG and Dahmen, JJ 1982. The relationship of libido and serving capacity test scores in rams on conception rates and lambing percentage in the ewe. Theriogenology 18, 79–86.Google Scholar
Ortavant, R, Bocquier, F, Pelletier, J, Ravault, JP, Thimonier, J and Volland-Nail, P 1988. Seasonality of reproduction in sheep and its control by photoperiod. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 41, 69–85.Google Scholar
Price, EO 1987. Male sexual behavior. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice 3, 405–422.Google Scholar
Price, EO, Erhard, H, Borgwardt, R and Dally, MR 1992. Measures of libido and their relation to serving capacity in the ram. Journal of Animal Science 70, 3376–3380.Google Scholar
Purvis, IW 1985. Genetic relationships between male and female reproductive traits. PhD dissertation, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia, 98pp.Google Scholar
R Core Team 2015. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Version 3.2.2. Retrieved 14 August 2015 from https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Rosa, HJD and Bryant, MJ 2003. Seasonality of reproduction in sheep. Small Ruminant Research 48, 155–171.Google Scholar
Salmon, I, Cognie, Y, Orgeur, P, Venier, G and Signoret, JP 1984. Effet du comportement sexuel et de la production spermatique du bélier sur la fertilité obtenue en accouplement naturel. Annales de Zootechnie 33, 343–352.Google Scholar
Santos, FCB 2011. La variabilité dans l’intensité ou l’orientation des interactions sexuelles chez le bélier: étude des structures centrales impliquées. Thesis, University François-Rabelais, 68pp.Google Scholar
Snowder, GD, Stellflug, JN and Van Vleck, LD 2002. Heritability and repeatability of sexual performance scores of rams. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1508–1511.Google Scholar
Stellflug, JN and Berardinelli, JG 2002. Ram mating behavior after long-term selection for reproductive rate in Rambouillet ewes. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2588–2593.Google Scholar
Stellflug, JN, Lewis, GS, Moffet, CA and Leeds, TD 2008. Evaluation of three-ram cohort serving capacity tests as a substitute for individual serving capacity tests. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2024–2031.Google Scholar
Teyssier, J, Migaud, M, Debus, N, Maton, C, Tillard, E, Malpaux, B and Bodin, L 2011. Expression of seasonality in Merinos d’Arles ewes of different genotypes at the MT1 melatonin receptor gene. Animal 5, 329–336.Google Scholar
Tulley, D and Burfening, PJ 1983. Libido and scrotal circumference of rams as affected by season of the year and altered photoperiod. Theriogenology 20, 435–448.Google Scholar
Ungerfeld, R 2012. Sexual behavior of medium-ranked rams toward non-estrual ewes is stimulated by the presence of low-ranked rams. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 7, 84–87.Google Scholar
Wodzicka-Tomaszewska, M, Kilgour, R and Ryan, M 1981. ‘Libido’ in the larger farm animals: a review. Applied Animal Ethology 3, 203–238.Google Scholar