. Ž
. walking and maintenance behaviour grazing, resting, and rumination of the focal cow
were recorded at 1-min intervals. Social behaviour was observed continuously. The Ž
number of occurrences of agonistic head throw, head butt, fight and escape from .
Ž .
aggression and affiliative behaviours rubbing and physical contact , except allogroom- ing, and the time spent allogrooming were recorded. The performers and receivers of
social behaviour were identified.
2.4. Statistical analysis Whether focal animals chose farm mates as the nearest neighbours and allogroomed
with them was analysed using the binominal test. The data on the frequenciesrcowrhour of agonistic and affiliative behaviours except
Ž . allogrooming and the total duration s rcowrhour of allogrooming were a skewed
distribution. This data was subjected to square root transformation after an addition of Ž
. 0.5 and then analysed statistically Martin and Bateson, 1986 . The mean distance to the
nearest neighbour, the frequency of social behaviour and the mean duration of mainte- nance behaviour were analysed using a one-way analysis of variance to examine the
effect of the number of farm mates on these items. Data on focal animals, which were turned out with two to four farm mates, were pooled because the sample size was small.
Ž .
If the effect was significant, Fisher’s protected least significance difference test PLSD was used among cows having no farm mate, one, two to four, and 16 farm mates.
As there was no difference in behavioural data between the two herds, the data from them were pooled. The data on one focal animal in oestrus, which was turned out with
16 farm mates, were excluded from the analysis.
3. Results
3.1. Social relationship of focal cows with farm mates The nearest neighbours to each focal animal were observed from 23 to 35 occasions
Ž .
Ž .
mean s 29.3 in the Onikoube pasture and from 27 to 44 occasions mean s 37.5 in the Nanashigure pasture. Focal animals, except No. 4 and No. 85, frequently chose farm
Ž .
mates as their nearest neighbours P - 0.001, Table 3 . No. 4 and No. 85 never chose farm mates as their nearest neighbours.
Ž .
Focal animals except six cows No. 18, No. 4, No. 7, No. 85, No. 149, No. 66 Ž
. allogroomed more with farm mates than with other cows
P - 0.001, Table 3 . Four Ž
. cows No. 18, No. 7, No. 149, No. 66 performed affiliative behaviours to farm mates,
such as rubbing and physical contact, although they did not allogroom. No. 4 and No. 85 Ž
. were not affiliative no allogrooming, rubbing, or physical contact with farm mates.
Data from No. 4 and No. 85 were excluded from the remaining analysis because they did not form affiliative relationships with farm mates.
The mean distances to the nearest neighbours varied with the number of farm mates Ž
. Table 4 . Mean distances to the nearest neighbours of focal animals having one and two
Table 3 Total number of farm mates which were chosen as the nearest neighbours by the focal animal, and the total
Ž time spent allogrooming of focal animals with farm mates parenthesized figures are the total number of the
. nearest neighbours and the total time spent allogrooming during an 8-h observation
Farm mates Cow no.
No. of choice Time spent allogrooming
Ž .
Ž .
times seconds
UUU UUU
Ž .
Ž .
The Onikoube pasture 1
6 8 25
60 60
UUU UUU
Ž .
Ž .
7 12 31
63 80
UUU
Ž .
Ž . 18
5 32 0 0
UUU UUU
Ž .
Ž .
20 21 35
153 153 Ž
. Ž .
3 4
0 29 0 0
UUU UUU
Ž .
Ž .
40 17 26
341 364
UUU UUU
Ž .
Ž .
52 17 23
112 112
UUU UUU
Ž .
Ž . 53
23 30 6 6
UUU UUU
Ž .
Ž .
4 27
27 33 193 193
UUU UUU
Ž .
Ž .
The Nanashigure pasture 1
2 37 44
37 37
UUU
Ž .
Ž . 7
35 44 0 0
UUU UUU
Ž .
Ž .
53 21 31
234 234 Ž
. Ž .
85 0 27
0 0
UUU UUU
Ž .
Ž .
2 114
21 42 207 207
UUU UUU
Ž .
Ž .
115 21 42
216 216
UUU
Ž .
Ž . 3
149 25 36
0 0
UUU UUU
Ž .
Ž .
4 123
35 43 43 43
UUU
Ž .
Ž . 16
66 22 43
0 0
UUU UUU
Ž .
Ž . 73
28 31 2 2
UUU UUU
Ž .
Ž .
75 16 30
67 67
UUU
Ž .
P - 0.001 binomial test .
Ž to four farm mates were significantly shorter than cows having no farm mates 1.4 vs.
. 1.9 times as long as a cow’s body length, P - 0.05 . The mean distance of cows having
Ž .
16 farm mates 1.6 times as long as a cow’s body length was between the distances of cows having no farm mate and of cows having one or two to four farm mates. The mean
distances of No. 4 and No. 85 to the nearest neighbours were 1.9 and 1.2 times as long as a cow’s body length, respectively.
3.2. Effect of the number of farm mates on social and maintenance behaÕiours Table 5 shows the frequencies of social behaviour of cows having various numbers of
Ž .
farm mates. Cows having two to four farm mates performed P s 0.06 and received
Table 4 Mean distances from focal cows having various numbers of farm mates to their nearest neighbours
The number of farm mates Significance
1 2–4
16
a b
b a,b
Mean distance 1.90.3
1.40.1 1.40.1
1.60.3 P - 0.05
Ž .
cow’s body length Figures are meanS.E.M.
Ž .
Means followed by different letters a,b differ significantly for the number of associates.
Table 5 Time spent allogrooming and frequencies of affiliative and agonistic behaviours of focal cows having various
numbers of farm mates Behaviours
The number of farm mates Significance
1 2–4
16
b b,c
c b
Ž .
Allogrooming srhrcow 0.80.5
4.92.7 7.83.0
0.10.1 P s 0.06
Ž .
Being allogroomed srhrcow 8.05.0
5.44.1 9.85.0
0.10.1 NS
a
Ž .
Affiliative behaviour no.rhrcow
0.80.4 1.10.3
1.20.3 0.90.4
NS Ž
. Aggressive behaviour no.rhrcow
0.20.1 0.20.1
0.20.1 0.00.0
NS
b b,c
c b,c
Ž .
Escape behaviour no.rhrcow 0.70.3
0.30.1 0.10.1
0.40.1 P - 0.01
Figures are meanS.E.M. Ž
. Means followed by different letters b,c differ significantly in each line.
a
Affiliative behaviour does not include allogrooming.
allogrooming more than any other focal animals. Cows having 16 farm mates rarely performed and received allogrooming. There were no significant differences in affilia-
tive behaviours except for allogrooming among cows having various numbers of farm mates. There was also no effect of the numbers of farm mates on aggressive behaviour.
Ž .
Cows having two to four farm mates 0.1 timesrcowrh escaped less during agonistic Ž
. encounters than cows having no farm mates 0.7 timesrcowrh, P - 0.01 . Cows having
Ž 16 farm mates escaped as often as cows having one farm mate
0.4 vs. 0.3 .
occurrencercowrh . No. 4 escaped 0.6 timesrh and No. 85 did not exhibit escape. Affiliative and aggressive behaviours were never observed in the two focal animals
Ž .
excluded from analysis No. 4 and No. 85 . The number of farm mates affected the mean duration of maintenance behaviours
Ž .
Table 6 . Mean duration of grazing behaviour per bout tended to increase with the number of farm mates up to two to four. Mean durations of grazing behaviour in cows
having two to four and 16 farm mates were longer than those of cows having zero or one farm mate. Mean duration of recumbency behaviour in cows having two to four
Ž .
Ž .
farm mates 44 min was longer than and in cows having no farm mate 30 min was less than the other groups. These differences were not significant. Mean duration of
grazing and recumbency behaviours of No. 4 and No. 85 were 4.6 and 8.4 min, and 11.4 and 44.2 min, respectively. Total duration of walking was not different among cows
Table 6 Ž
. Mean duration min of grazing and recumbency behaviours per bout in focal cows having various numbers of
farm mates Behaviours
The number of farm mates Significance
1 2–4
16
a a
b b
Grazing behaviour 5.20.4
5.30.7 9.41.2
10.34.0 P - 0.05
Recumbency behaviour 29.55.7
32.73.7 44.07.8
35.37.1 NS
Figures are meanS.E.M. Ž
. Means followed by different letters a,b differ significantly in each line.
Ž having various numbers of farm mates 24.3 min with no farm mate, 28.0 min with one
. farm mate, 25.1 min with two to four farm mates and 21.3 min with 16 farm mates . No.
4 and No. 85 walked for 24 min and 71 min during 8 h of observation.
4. Discussion
