Reproductive and Maternal Behavior of Livestock - Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals - page 169

Despite numerous anecdotal reports, there is relatively little scientific evi-
dence for breed differences in ram or buck sexual activity. For example, no
significant differences in sexual activity were observed between Ramboulliet,
Targhee, and Colombia breed rams in one study ( Hulet et al., 1962 ), nor
between Dorset Horn, Merino, and Border Leicester rams in another ( Lindsay
and Ellsmore, 1968 ). However, breeds do differ in their seasonal expression
of male reproductive activity. For example, Alpine bucks displayed dramatic
variations in sexual behavior between the spring

summer and autumn

winter periods ( Delgadillo and Chemineau, 1992 ). Schanbacher and Lunstra
(1976) observed seasonal variations in the sexual activity of both Finnish
Landrace and Suffolk rams, with the former generally showing higher levels
of sexual activity for a more extended period than the latter.

Female Reproductive Behavior
Female sheep and goats exhibit relatively few overt behavioral indications of
estrus. Although does may show some female female mounting, this is

unusual for ewes. As with cattle, female female mounting activity in goats

stimulates male sexual behavior ( Shearer and Katz, 2006 ). Tail wagging is a
behavioral characteristic of estrous does and may play a role in attracting
males and maintaining their sexual interest ( Haulenbeek and Katz, 2011 ).
Males of both species often undertake considerable investigatory activity,
including sniffing and exhibiting the flehmen response ( Hurnik, 1987 )
although, as mentioned above, pheromones appear to play a minor role in
male detection of receptive females ( Signoret, 1975 ).
If there are sufficient females concurrently in late proestrus and estrus, a
sexually active group will often become established ( Lindsay and Fletcher,
1972 ) which, despite high mobility, remains within visual contact of the ram
or ram group. Such ram seeking behavior was demonstrated in a study by

Lindsay and Robinson (1961) where tethered rams serviced a large propor-
tion of estrous ewes. When few, if any, ewes are in estrus, rams tend to
expend more investigatory effort than they do when many are in estrus
( Wodzicka-Tomaszewska et al., 1981 ), with the result

that individual

females may receive less attention ( Hulet et al., 1962 ).
In studies attempting to define ewe proceptivity, it was shown that ewes pre-
ferred larger rams and those which scored higher on serving capacity tests
( Estep et al., 1989 ). Rams were shown to prefer “woolly” ewes over recently
shorn ewes ( Tillbrook and Cameron, 1989 ). In terms of the ram's ability to
stimulate ewe cyclicity, low-libido rams were less effective than high libido
rams ( Perkins and Fitzgerald, 1994; Signoret et al., 1984 ). In goats, it appears
that photoperiod effects on males can affect the onset of estrous behavior in
females. In one study ( Rivas-Mu ˜ oz et al., 2007 ), does joined with males that
were exposed to artificially long days were more likely to exhibit estrous behav-
ior than those joined with males which had received shorter light exposure.