Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 57, Issue 3, pp 267–274 | Cite as

Maternal quality and differences in milk production and composition for male and female Iberian red deer calves (Cervus elaphus hispanicus)

  • Tomás Landete-Castillejos
  • Andrés García
  • Francisco R. López-Serrano
  • Laureano Gallego
Original Article

Abstract

Several theories predict a sex-biased investment either through unbalanced sex ratios in offspring or through differences in provisioning. According to them, one would expect an optimisation in indirect fitness, or else a compensation for increased mortality of one sex. In addition, biases in provisioning may also arise as a consequence of weight-dependent non-adaptive nutrient demands by offspring. This study examines milk provisioning and sex biases in offspring sex ratio together with maternal quality variables. Mothers of higher quality (weight and age) showed greater milk provisioning ability (in terms of production) resulting in greater calf weight gain. Mothers of sons produced greater yields of milk, milk protein, fat and lactose than mothers of daughters, and increased percentage of protein after controlling for higher male birth weight. In contrast, mothers of males did not differ from mothers of females in age or any body weight variables related to maternal quality. These results suggest that differences in milk production and composition for sons and daughters are rather a mechanism to optimise indirect fitness than a mechanism to compensate for increased mortality in male calves, or a consequence of greater weight-dependent nutrient demands by heavier male calves. Results also suggest that biases in milk provisioning may occur without biases in offspring sex ratio, and furthermore, in contrast to the prediction that biases should be relative to the mean investment of the population, that milk provisioning biases might not be relative.

Keywords

Maternal expenditure Milk production Milk composition Iberian red deer Trivers-Willard model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Vidal Montoro for help in milk analyses, and Bernardo Albiñana, Jose Ángel Gómez Nieto, Maria Jesús Lorenzo, Fulgencio Cebrián and Isidoro Cambronero for help with animal handling. This study was supported by European project FEDER IFD-0540, and Spanish projects CICYT-FEDER (REN2000-0513 GLO: 7879200), and JCCM PBI-02033.

References

  1. Adam CL, Moir CE (1987) A note on the effect of birth date on the performance of suckled red deer calves and their dams on low-ground pasture. Anim Prod 44:330–332Google Scholar
  2. Arman P, Kay RNB, Goodall ED, Sharman GAM (1974) The composition and yield of milk from captive red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) J Reprod Fertil 37:67–84Google Scholar
  3. Bérubé CH, Festa-Bianchet M, Jorgenson JY (1996) Reproductive costs of sons and daughters in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Behav Ecol 7:60–68Google Scholar
  4. Birgersson B (1998) Male-biased maternal expenditure and associated costs in fallow deer. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birgersson B, Ekvall K (1994) Suckling time and fawn growth in fallow deer (Dama dama). J Zool 232:641–650Google Scholar
  6. Blaxter KL, Hamilton WJ (1980) Reproduction in farmed red deer. 2. Calf growth and mortility. J Agric Sci Camb 95:275–284Google Scholar
  7. Burke RL, Birch JM (1995) White-tailed deer vary offspring sex-ratio according to maternal condition and age. Ecol Res 10:351–357Google Scholar
  8. Byers JA, Moodie JD (1990) Sex-specific maternal investment in pronghorn and the question of a limit on differential provisioning in ungulates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cameron EZ (1998) Is suckling behaviour a useful predictor of milk intake? A review. Anim Behav 56:521–532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cameron EZ, Stafford KJ, Linklater WL, Veltman CJ (1999) Suckling behaviour does not measure milk intake in horses, Equus caballus. Anim Behav 57:673–678CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cassinello J, Gomendio M (1996) Adaptative variation in litter size and sex ratio at birth in a sexually dimorphic ungulate. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1461–1466Google Scholar
  12. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Guinness FE (1981) Parental investment in male and female offspring in polygynous mammals. Nature 289:487–489Google Scholar
  13. Clutton-Brock TH, Guinnes FE, Albon SD (1982) Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. Clutton-Brock TH, Guinnes FE, Albon SD (1983) The costs of reproduction to red deer hinds. J Anim Ecol 52:367–383Google Scholar
  15. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Guinness FE (1984a) Maternal dominance, breeding success and birth sex ratios in red deer. Nature 308:358–360Google Scholar
  16. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Guinness FE (1984b) Fitness costs of gestation and lactation in wild mammals. Nature 337:260–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Guinness FE (1985) Parental investment and sex differences in juvenile mortality in birds and mammals. Nature 313:131–133Google Scholar
  18. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Guinness FE (1986) Great expectations: dominance, breeding success and offspring sex ratios in red deer. Anim Behav 34:460–471Google Scholar
  19. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Guinness FE (1988) Reproductive success in male and female red deer. In: Clutton-Brock TH (ed) Reproductive success. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 325–343Google Scholar
  20. Côte SD, Festa-Bianchet M (2001) Reproductive success in female mountain goats: the influence of age and social rank. Anim Behav 62:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cothran EG, Chesser RK, Smith MH, Johns PE (1987) Fat levels in female white-tailed deer during the breeding season and pregnancy. J Mammal 68:111–118Google Scholar
  22. Festa-Bianchet M, Jorgenson JT (1998) Selfish mothers: reproductive expenditure and resource availability in bighorn ewes. Behav Ecol 9:144–150Google Scholar
  23. Festa-Bianchet M, Jorgenson JT, Bérubé CH, Portier C, Wishart WD (1997) Body mass and survival of bighorn sheep. Can J Zool 75:1372–1379Google Scholar
  24. Festa-Bianchet M, Gaillard JM, Jorgenson JT (1998) Mass- and density-dependent reproductive success and reproductive costs in a capital breeder. Am Nat 152:367–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Festa-Bianchet M, Jorgenson JT, Réale D (2000) Early development, adult mass, and reproductive success in bighorn sheep. Behav Ecol 11:633–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gallant BY, Réale D, Festa-Bianchet M (2001) Does mass change of primiparous bighorn ewes reflect reproductive effort? Can J Zool 79:312–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gomendio M, Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Guinness FE, Simpson MJ (1990) Mammalian sex ratios and variation in costs of rearing sons and daughters. Nature 343:261–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Green WCH, Rothstein A (1991) Trade-offs between growth and reproduction in female visón. Oecologia 86:521–527Google Scholar
  29. Hewison AJM, Gaillard JM (1996) Birth sex ratios and local resource competition in roe deer, Capreolus capreolus. Behav Ecol 7:461–464Google Scholar
  30. Hewison AJM, Gaillard JM (1999) Successful sons or advantaged daughters? The Trivers-Willard model and sex-biased maternal investment in ungulates. Trends Ecol Evol 14:229–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hiraiwa-Hasegawa M (1993) Skewed birth sex ratios in primates: should high-ranking mothers have daughters or sons? Trends Ecol Evol 8:395–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaufmann W, Hagemeister H (1987) Composition of milk. In: Gravert HO (ed) Dairy-cattle production. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 107–171Google Scholar
  33. Kojola I (1993) Early maternal investment and growth in reindeer. Can J Zool 71:753–758Google Scholar
  34. Kojola I, Eloranta E (1989) Influences of maternal body weight, age, and parity on sex ratio in semidomesticated reindeer (Rangifer t. tarandus). Evolution 43:1331–1336Google Scholar
  35. Kojola I, Helle T (1994) Offspring sex ratio adjustment in reindeer Rangifer tarandus. Ann Zool Fenn 31:405–410Google Scholar
  36. Korhonen H, Marnila P, Gill HS (2000) Milk immunoglobulins and complement factors. Br J Nutr 84 S1:S75–S80Google Scholar
  37. Krzywinski A, Krzywinska K, Kisza J, Roskosz A, Kruk A (1980) Milk composition, lactation and the artificial rearing of red deer. Acta Theriol 25:341–347Google Scholar
  38. Landete-Castillejos T, García A, Garde J, Gallego L (2000a) Milk intake and yield curves and allosuckling in captive Iberian red deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus). Anim Behav 60:679–687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Landete-Castillejos T, García A, Molina P, Vergara H, Garde J, Gallego L (2000b) Milk production and composition in captive Iberian red deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus): effect of birth date. J Anim Sci 78:2771–2777PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Landete-Castillejos T, García A, Gallego L (2001a) Calf growth in captive Iberian red deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus): effect of birth date and hind milk production and composition. J Anim Sci 79:1085—1092PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Landete-Castillejos T, García A, Langton S, Inglis I, Gallego L, Garde J (2001b) Opposing offspring sex ratio variations with increasing age and weight in mouflon mothers (Ovis musimon). Acta Vet Hung 49:257–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Landete-Castillejos T, García A, Gómez JA, Laborda J, Gallego L (2002) Effects of nutritional stress during lactation on immunity costs and indices of future reproduction in Iberian red deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus). Biol Reprod 67:1613–1620PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Landete-Castillejos T, García A, Gómez JA, Gallego L (2003a) Subspecies and body size effect on lactation biology in red deer: comparison of Cervus elaphus hispanicus and C. e. scoticus. Physiol Biochem Zool 76:594–602Google Scholar
  44. Landete-Castillejos T, García A, Gómez JA, Gallego L (2003b) Lactation under food constraints in Iberian red deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus). Wildl Biol 9:131–139Google Scholar
  45. Landete-Castillejos T, Gortázar C, Vicente J, Fierro Y, Garcia A, Gallego L (2004a) Age-related foetal sex ratio bias in iberian red deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus): are male calves too expensive for growing mothers? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Landete-Castillejos T, García A, Gómez JA, Berruga MI, Gallego L. (2004b) Effects of birth date and order in lactation performance of Iberian red deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus). J Dairy Sci (in press)Google Scholar
  47. Laurien-Kehnen C, Trillmich F (2003) Lactation performance of guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) does not respond to experimental manipulation of pup demands. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 53:145–152Google Scholar
  48. Lindström J, Coulson T, Kruuk L, Forchhammer MC, Coltman DW, Clutton-Brock T (2002) Sex-ratio variation in Soay sheep. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 53:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Loudon ASI, McNeilly AS, Milne JA (1983) Nutrition and lactational control of fertility in red deer. Nature 302:145–147PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Loudon ASI, Darroch AD, Milne JA (1984) The lactation performance of red deer on hill and improved species pastures. J Agric Sci Camb 102:149–158Google Scholar
  51. Martin RD (1984) Scaling effects and adaptative strategies in mammalian lactation. Symp Zool Soc Lond 51:87–117Google Scholar
  52. Maynard Smith J (1980) A new theory of sexual investment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:247–251Google Scholar
  53. Oftedal OT (1985) Pregnancy and lactation. In: Hudson R, White RG (eds). Bioenergetics of wild herbivores. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 215–238Google Scholar
  54. Oldham JD, Friggens NC (1989) Sources of variability in lactational performance. Proc Nutr Soc 48:33–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Pelabon C, Gaillard JM, Loison A, Portier C (1995) Is sex-biased maternal care limited by total maternal expenditure in polygynous ungulates?. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reimers E (1999) Foetal sex ratios in wild reindeer Rangifer tarandus in relation to maternal condition and age. Wildl Biol 5:49–54Google Scholar
  57. Reimers E, Lenvik D (1997) Fetal sex ratio in relation to maternal mass and age in reindeer. Can J Zool 75:648–650Google Scholar
  58. Sadleir RMFS (1987) Reproduction of female cervids. In: Wemmer CE (ed) Biology and management of the Cervidae. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, pp 123–144Google Scholar
  59. Saltz D (2001) Progeny sex ratio variation in ungulates: maternal age meets environmental perturbation of demography. Oikos 94:377–384Google Scholar
  60. Sand H (1998) Costs of reproduction in female moose (Alces alces) as measured by means of phenotypic correlations. Can J Zool 76:187–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Silk JB (1983) Local resource competition and facultative adjustment of sex ratios in relation to competitive abilities. Am Nat 121:56–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sutton JD (1989) Altering milk composition by feeding. J Dairy Sci 72:2801–2814Google Scholar
  63. Thorne ET, Dean RE, Hepworth WG (1976) Nutrition during gestation in relation to successful reproduction in elk. J Wildl Manage 40:330–335Google Scholar
  64. Trivers RL, Willard DE (1973) Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio. Science 179:90–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Wauters LA, Crombrugghe SA, Nour N, Matthysen E (1995) Do female roe deer in good condition produce more sons than daughters? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:189–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Weladji RB, Holand O, Steinheim G, Lenvik D (2003a) Sex-specific preweaning maternal care in reindeer (Rangifer tarandus t). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 53:308–314Google Scholar
  67. Weladji RB, Holand O, Yoccoz NG, Lenvik D (2003b) Maternal age and offspring sex ratio variation in reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). Ann Zool Fenn 40:357–363Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomás Landete-Castillejos
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Andrés García
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Francisco R. López-Serrano
    • 3
  • Laureano Gallego
    • 3
  1. 1.Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos (CSIC-UCLM-JCCM), Sección AlbaceteUniversidad de Castilla-La ManchaAlbaceteSpain
  2. 2.Sección de Recursos Cinegéticos, IDRUniversidad de Castilla-La ManchaAlbaceteSpain
  3. 3.Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología Agroforestal, ETSIAUniversidad de Castilla-La ManchaAlbaceteSpain

Personalised recommendations