DOCSLIB.ORG

Play Behavior and Dominance Relationships of Bighorn Sheep on the National Bison Range

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Play Behavior and Dominance Relationships of Bighorn Sheep on the National Bison Range University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1986 Play behavior and dominance relationships of bighorn sheep on the National Bison Range Christine C. Hass The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Hass, Christine C., "Play behavior and dominance relationships of bighorn sheep on the National Bison Range" (1986). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 7375. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/7375 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 This is an unpublished m a n u s c r i p t in w h i c h c o p y r i g h t s u b ­ s i s t s . Any further r e p r i n t i n g of its c o n t e n t s m ust be a p p r o v e d BY THE AUTHOR. MANSFIELD L ibrary Un i v e r s i t y of McwTANA Date : 1 98ft. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Play Behavior and Dominance Relationships of Bighorn Sheep on the National Bison Range. by Christine C. Hass B.A., University of Montana, 1983. Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1986 Approved by: Chairman,Board^of Examiners D€?an, Graduate School ^ Date Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: EP38176 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI OisMrtaftk^ FHiMishing UMI EP38176 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code uest ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hass, Christine C ., M.A., November 1986 Zoology Play Behavior and Dominance Relationships of Bighorn Sheep on the National Bison Range. {96 pp.) Director: Donald A. Jenni A 27-month study of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadens is) on the National Bison Range, Montana, focused on two aspects of social behavior: play behavior and dominance relations. Data collected from the lambs supported the Motor Training Hypothesis for the function of play behavior, but not the Social Cohesion or Social Competition Hypotheses. Male lambs played more than female lambs, and lambs chose partners closest to them in size and age. The most common components of play were those patterns used in intraspecific conflict and predator evasion. The number and sex of available play partners influenced the amount of play more than did maternal investment. Peak play periods coincided with the period of most rapid growth. These data are consistent with the hypothesis that play behavior, under certain environmental and social constraints, provides lambs with immediate, as well as delayed, motor training benefits. Dominance relationships among bighorn rams and ewes were examined to quantify structure, development, and reproductive correlates of rank. Both rams and ewes exhibited highly stable hierarchies that were strongly correlated with age. Dominance relationships were not « evident until after the sheep were one year old Behavioral interactions, particularly among the rams, were closely tied to dominance rank. Direct reproductive benefits of high rank, in terms of more breeding opportunities, were obvious for rams. No reproductive benefits, in terms of lamb weight, lamb sex, date of estrus or lambing, nor nursing duration or rate, could be found for ewes. 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the people and agencies who supported the research that went into this thesis: First, I would like to thank my advisor, Don Jenni, for the opportunity to study the NBR bighorns, and for providing support, assistance, and encouragement. I would also like to thank the other members of my committee, Phil Motta and Bart O 'Gara, for their gallant attempts at guiding my education and research. J.T. Hogg shared information on the NBR herd, as well as many insightful comments. L. Scott Mills assisted with data collection during September 1983. The study on the NBR was funded by grants (to Dr. Jenni) from the Boone and Crockett Club, Camp Fire Conservation, and the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep. Additional aid was provided by the UM Department of Zoology and the Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, the staff of the National Bison Range, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Criticisms by Joe Ball and Beth Flint on earlier drafts are greatly appreciated. Thanks also to Phil Wright and Bart O'Gara for necropsying sheep, examining carcasses, and numerous other favors, large and small. Special thanks to the Zoology and Wildlife grads, for their enlightening criticism, advice, and humor. Ill Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ....................................................... Ü ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................. ill LIST OF TABLES ........................................ v LIST OF FIGURES................................................. vi CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. .............. 1 II. MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................. 9 Study A r e a ............................................... 9 Study Population................ 10 Data Collection........................................12 C e n s u s e s ....................... 12 Observations ................................... 13 E t h o g r a m .......................................... 15 Calculations and Statistics ........................ 16 Play Patterns and Rates......................... 16 Maternal Investment.............................. 17 Dominance Assessment .......................... 17 Interaction Rates.............................. 2 0 Reproductive Correlates. ..................... 21 III. STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS OF PLAY BEHAVIOR .... 23 Results. .............................................23 Survivorship .................................... 23 Structure of Play.................................24 Maternal Investment.............................. 36 Discussion.............................................37 IV. STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOMINANCE HIERARCHIES....................... 46 Results................................................. 46 R a m s ............................................... 46 E w e s 6 0 Lambs............................................... 76 Discussion.............................................78 SUMMARY........................................................... 89 LITERATURE CITED ............................................. 91 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OP TABLES Table Page 1 Composition of the NBR herd on 1 September 1982-4. 11 2 Total play patterns initiated and received by lambs in 1983 .......................... 31 3 Distribution of Mounts by the two male lambs in 1983. .......................... 32 4 Win-loss matrix for rams, 1982...................... 47 5 Win-loss matrix for rams, 1983...................... 48 6 Win-loss matrix for rams, 1984 ...................... 49 7 Mean Dominance Values for class II, III, and IV rams......................................... 53 8 Dominance Values and ages for rams 1982-4 .... 59 9 Win-loss matrix for ewes, 1982 ...................... 62 10 Locations of displacements by ewes.................... 64 11 Win-loss matrix for ewes, 1983................. 65 12 Win-loss matrix for ewes, 1984.................. 66 13 Dominance Values and ages for ewes 1982-4 .... 77 V Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OP FIGURES Figure Page 1 Distribution of play bouts during the summer observation periods ..................... 25 2 Durations of play bouts versus the , number of players involved .......................... 26 3 Male and female initiated play patterns in 1983 ...................................... 28 4 Total contact and display patterns to male and female lambs in 1983 ................... 29 5 Weekly suckling and play rates, 1982-4 ............. 34 6 Play rates and growth rates for lambs. ...... 41 7 Ram Dominance Values versus age for all three years...................................... 51 8 Ram Dominance Values versus Dominance Values following year for all three years..............52 9 Ram Dominance Values versus copulation rate and number of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist
    STATE OF NEVADA Steve Sisolak, Governor DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE Tony Wasley, Director GAME DIVISION Brian F. Wakeling, Chief Mike Cox, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat Staff Specialist Pat Jackson, Predator Management Staff Specialist Cody McKee, Elk Staff Biologist Cody Schroeder, Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist Western Region Southern Region Eastern Region Regional Supervisors Mike Scott Steve Kimble Tom Donham Big Game Biologists Chris Hampson Joe Bennett Travis Allen Carl Lackey Pat Cummings Clint Garrett Kyle Neill Cooper Munson Sarah Hale Ed Partee Kari Huebner Jason Salisbury Matt Jeffress Kody Menghini Tyler Nall Scott Roberts This publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Federal Laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you’ve been discriminated against in any NDOW program, activity, or facility, please write to the following: Diversity Program Manager or Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nevada Department of Wildlife 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mailstop: 7072-43 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Suite 120 Arlington, VA 22203 Reno, Nevada 8911-2237 Individuals with hearing impairments may contact the Department via telecommunications device at our Headquarters at 775-688-1500 via a text telephone (TTY) telecommunications device by first calling the State of Nevada Relay Operator at 1-800-326-6868. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE 2018-2019 BIG GAME STATUS This program is supported by Federal financial assistance titled “Statewide Game Management” submitted to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Bison Literature Review Biology
    Bison Literature Review Ben Baldwin and Kody Menghini The purpose of this document is to compare the biology, ecology and basic behavior of cattle and bison for a management context. The literature related to bison is extensive and broad in scope covering the full continuum of domestication. The information incorporated in this review is focused on bison in more or less “wild” or free-ranging situations i.e.., not bison in close confinement or commercial production. While the scientific literature provides a solid basis for much of the basic biology and ecology, there is a wealth of information related to management implications and guidelines that is not captured. Much of the current information related to bison management, behavior (especially social organization) and practical knowledge is available through local experts, current research that has yet to be published, or popular literature. These sources, while harder to find and usually more localized in scope, provide crucial information pertaining to bison management. Biology Diet Composition Bison evolutional history provides the basis for many of the differences between bison and cattle. Bison due to their evolution in North America ecosystems are better adapted than introduced cattle, especially in grass dominated systems such as prairies. Many of these areas historically had relatively low quality forage. Bison are capable of more efficient digestion of low-quality forage then cattle (Peden et al. 1973; Plumb and Dodd 1993). Peden et al. (1973) also found that bison could consume greater quantities of low protein and poor quality forage then cattle. Bison and cattle have significant dietary overlap, but there are slight differences as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Horned Animals
    Horned Animals In This Issue In this issue of Wild Wonders you will discover the differences between horns and antlers, learn about the different animals in Alaska who have horns, compare and contrast their adaptations, and discover how humans use horns to make useful and decorative items. Horns and antlers are available from local ADF&G offices or the ARLIS library for teachers to borrow. Learn more online at: alaska.gov/go/HVNC Contents Horns or Antlers! What’s the Difference? 2 Traditional Uses of Horns 3 Bison and Muskoxen 4-5 Dall’s Sheep and Mountain Goats 6-7 Test Your Knowledge 8 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 2018 Issue 8 1 Sometimes people use the terms horns and antlers in the wrong manner. They may say “moose horns” when they mean moose antlers! “What’s the difference?” they may ask. Let’s take a closer look and find out how antlers and horns are different from each other. After you read the information below, try to match the animals with the correct description. Horns Antlers • Made out of bone and covered with a • Made out of bone. keratin layer (the same material as our • Grow and fall off every year. fingernails and hair). • Are grown only by male members of the • Are permanent - they do not fall off every Cervid family (hoofed animals such as year like antlers do. deer), except for female caribou who also • Both male and female members in the grow antlers! Bovid family (cloven-hoofed animals such • Usually branched.
    [Show full text]
  • Buffalo Hunt: International Trade and the Virtual Extinction of the North American Bison
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES BUFFALO HUNT: INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND THE VIRTUAL EXTINCTION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN BISON M. Scott Taylor Working Paper 12969 http://www.nber.org/papers/w12969 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 March 2007 I am grateful to seminar participants at the University of British Columbia, the University of Calgary, the Environmental Economics workshop at the NBER Summer Institute 2006, the fall 2006 meetings of the NBER ITI group, and participants at the SURED II conference in Ascona Switzerland. Thanks also to Chris Auld, Ed Barbier, John Boyce, Ann Carlos, Charlie Kolstad, Herb Emery, Mukesh Eswaran, Francisco Gonzalez, Keith Head, Frank Lewis, Mike McKee, and Sjak Smulders for comments; to Michael Ferrantino for access to the International Trade Commission's library; and to Margarita Gres, Amanda McKee, Jeffrey Swartz, Judy Hasse of Buffalo Horn Ranch and Andy Strangeman of Investra Ltd. for research assistance. Funding for this research was provided by the SSHRC. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. © 2007 by M. Scott Taylor. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Buffalo Hunt: International Trade and the Virtual Extinction of the North American Bison M. Scott Taylor NBER Working Paper No. 12969 March 2007 JEL No. F1,Q2,Q5,Q56 ABSTRACT In the 16th century, North America contained 25-30 million buffalo; by the late 19th century less than 100 remained.
    [Show full text]
  • Antelope, Deer, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goats: a Guide to the Carpals
    J. Ethnobiol. 10(2):169-181 Winter 1990 ANTELOPE, DEER, BIGHORN SHEEP AND MOUNTAIN GOATS: A GUIDE TO THE CARPALS PAMELA J. FORD Mount San Antonio College 1100 North Grand Avenue Walnut, CA 91739 ABSTRACT.-Remains of antelope, deer, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep appear in archaeological sites in the North American west. Carpal bones of these animals are generally recovered in excellent condition but are rarely identified beyond the classification 1/small-sized artiodactyl." This guide, based on the analysis of over thirty modem specimens, is intended as an aid in the identifi­ cation of these remains for archaeological and biogeographical studies. RESUMEN.-Se han encontrado restos de antilopes, ciervos, cabras de las montanas rocosas, y de carneros cimarrones en sitios arqueol6gicos del oeste de Norte America. Huesos carpianos de estos animales se recuperan, por 10 general, en excelentes condiciones pero raramente son identificados mas alIa de la clasifi­ cacion "artiodactilos pequeno." Esta glia, basada en un anaIisis de mas de treinta especlmenes modemos, tiene el proposito de servir como ayuda en la identifica­ cion de estos restos para estudios arqueologicos y biogeogrMicos. RESUME.-On peut trouver des ossements d'antilopes, de cerfs, de chevres de montagne et de mouflons des Rocheuses, dans des sites archeologiques de la . region ouest de I'Amerique du Nord. Les os carpeins de ces animaux, generale­ ment en excellente condition, sont rarement identifies au dela du classement d' ,I artiodactyles de petite taille." Le but de ce guide base sur 30 specimens recents est d'aider aidentifier ces ossements pour des etudes archeologiques et biogeo­ graphiques.
    [Show full text]
  • Serologic Surveys for Natural Foci of Contagious Ecthyma Infection
    FI.NAL REP.ORT (R.ESEARCH) State: Alaska Cooperators: Randall L. Zarnke and Kenneth A. Neiland Project No.: W-21-1 Project Title: Big Game Investigations Job No.: l8.1R Job Title: Serologic Surveys for Natural Foci of contag1ous Ecthyma Infection Period Covered: July 1, 1979 to J~~? ~0, 1~80 SUMMARY Contagious ecthyma (C. E. ) antibody prevalence in domestic sheep and goats in Interior Alaska du~ing 1978 was quite low (7-10%). This suggested a low level of transmission of the virus among these species during this time period. C. E. antibody prevalence in Dall sheep increased .from 30 percent in 1971 to 100 percent in 1978. This suggested an increased level of transmission to, and/or among, these animals during this period. Following a C.E. epizootic in a band of captive Dall sheep in 1977, antibody prevalence was 80 percent in this group of sheep. Less than l year later, prevalence had dropped to 10 percent in the ·same band. Thus it appeared that antibody produced in response to this . strain of C.E. is short-lived. Antibody was also detected in 10 of 22 free­ ranging muskoxen taken by sport hunters on Nunivak Island in 1978. Detectable antibody levels were not found in any of 19 muskoxen captured on the island in 1979. No antibody was found in a small number of captive muskoxen from Unalakleet. Several of the captive muskoxen were ·known to have been infected with C.E. within 1 to 2 years prior to the time of sampling. This further substantiates the belief that anti­ body produced in response to infection by the Alaskan strain of C.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Bighorn Sheep, Moose, and Mountain Goats
    Bighorn Sheep, Moose, and Mountain Goats Brock Hoenes Ungulate Section Manager, Wildlife Program WACs: 220-412-070 Big game and wild turkey auction, raffle, and special incentive permits. 220-412-080 Special hunting season permits. 220-415-070 Moose seasons, permit quotas, and areas. 220-415-120 2021 Bighorn sheep seasons and permit quotas. 220-415-130 2021 Mountain goat seasons and permit quotas. 1. Special Hunting Season Permits 2. Moose – Status, recommendations, public comment 3. Mountain Goat – Status, recommendations, public comment 4. Bighorn Sheep – Status, recommendations, public comment 5. Questions Content Department of Fish and Wildlife SPECIAL HUNTING SEASON PERMITS White‐Tailed DeerWAC 220-412-080 • Allow successful applicants for all big game special permits to return their permit to the Department for any Agree 77% reason two weeks prior to the Neutral 9% opening day of the season and to have their points restored Disagree 14% 1,553 Respondents • Remove the “once‐in‐a‐lifetime” Public Comment restriction for Mountain Goat Conflict • 223 comments, 1 email/letter Reduction special permit category • General (90 agree, 26 disagree) • Reissue permit (67) • >2 weeks (21) • No change (12) Department of Fish and Wildlife MOOSE • Primarily occur in White‐Tailed DeerNE and north-central Washington • Most recent estimate in 2016 indicated ~5,000 moose in NE • Annual surveys to estimate age and sex ratios (snow dependent) • Recent studies (2014-2018) in GMUs 117 and 124 indicated populations were declining • Poor body condition (adult female) • Poor calf survival • Wolf predation • Tick infestations • Substantial reduction in antlerless permits in 2018 Department of Fish and Wildlife MOOSE RECOMMENDATIONS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Bighorn Sheep Statewide Management Plan
    UTAH BIGHORN SHEEP STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIGHORN SHEEP I. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN A. General This document is the Statewide Management Plan for bighorn sheep in Utah (hereafter referred to as the “Plan”). This Plan provides overall guidance and direction to Utah’s bighorn sheep management program. This Plan assesses current information on bighorn sheep, identifies issues and concerns relating to bighorn sheep management in Utah, and establishes goals and objectives for future bighorn management programs. Strategies are also outlined to achieve goals and objectives. This Plan helps determine priorities for bighorn management and provide the overall direction for management plans on individual bighorn units throughout the state. Unit management plans will be presented to the Utah Wildlife Board when one of the following criteria are met: 1) a new bighorn sheep unit is being proposed, 2) the current unit requires a significant boundary change, 3) a change to the unit population objective is being proposed, or 4) the unit has not yet had a management plan approved by the Utah Wildlife Board. All other changes to unit management plans will be approved by the Division Director. This Plan, among other things, outlines a variety of measures designed to abate or mitigate the risk of comingling and pathogen transmission between domestic and wild bighorn sheep. This Plan is not intended to be utilized to involuntarily alter domestic sheep grazing operations in Utah. The only mechanism acceptable to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) for altering domestic sheep grazing practices to avoid risk of comingling is through voluntary actions undertaken by the individual grazers.
    [Show full text]
  • (RESULTS of NATION-WIDE SURVEY) -- January 29, 1939 A
    INFORMATION FOR TEE - ’ Chited StatecDepartment of Agridbe . I For Jan. 29 pspers WASHINGTON,D. C. 5,OOC,OOO BIG GM ANI- IN THE U. S. Biological Survey Beports Results of First Nation-Wide Inventory The first nation-wide attempt to determine the number of big-game animals in the United States showed more than 5 million, reports the Bureau of Biological Survey, U. S. Department of Agriculture. The survey - conducted in 1937 by the Bureau with cooperation from the National Park Service, the Boreet Service, State game and conservation commission8 and other well-informed agencies and individuals -- covered deer, elk, antelope, buffalo, moose, mountain goat, bighorn sheep, peccary, bears, caribou, and exotic European wild boars. The inventory did not include animals in captivity. Deer numbered more than 4,500,OOO. Michigan end Pennsylvania led in white- California had 450,000 tailed deer with approximately 800,000 in each State. * mule and black-tailed deer. Elk in the country totalled 165,000; moose, 13,000; antelope, 130,000; bighorn sheep, 17,000; black bear, 81,000; grizzly bear, 1,100; and buffalo, 4,100. There were 43,000 peccaries and 700 European wild boars. Data for 2 or more years, the Division of Wildlife Reeearoh of the Bureau of Biological survey points out , are required before definite conclusions can be drawn on recent trends In big-game numbers. Accounts of animal numbers published some years ego, however, provide the Division with some basis for comparison. Antelope, once thought facing extinction, incroasad about 500 percent from 1924 to 1937. The number of bighorn sheep, on the other haad, dropped from 28 000 (an estimate made by E.
    [Show full text]
  • Pronghorn G TAG
    ANTELOPE AND ... the American “antelope”! IRAFFE Pronghorn G TAG Why exhibit pronghorns? • Celebrate our local biodiversity by displaying the last surviving species of the Antilocapridae, a mammalian family endemic to North America. • Participate in a recovery program close to home: AZA maintains a priority insurance population of the critically endangered peninsular pronghorn. • Engage guests with these “antelope” from the familiar song “Home on the Range” (even though pronghorns aren’t true “antelope” at all!). • Let visitors get hands-on with the unusual horn sheaths of pronghorns - they are keratinous like horns, but are shed annually like antlers! • Seek partnerships with local running groups: pronghorn are the fastest land animals in North America, able to cover 6 miles in 9 minutes! • TAG Recommendation: Contact the SSP for guidance regarding which pronghorn program is best suited to your facility’s climate. MEASUREMENTS IUCN LEAST Length: 4.5 feet CONCERN Height: 3 feet (CITES I) Stewardship Opportunities at shoulder Peninsular Pronghorn Recovery Project Weight: 65-130 lbs <200 peninsular Contact Melodi Tayles: [email protected] Prairies North America in the wild Care and Husbandry RED SSP (peninsular): 25.26 (51) in 7 AZA institutions (2019) Species coordinator: Melodi Tayles, San Diego Zoo Safari Park [email protected] ; (760) 855-1911 CANDIDATE Program (generic): 34.61 (95) in 21 institutions (2014) Social nature: Herd living. Harem groups with a single male are typical. Bachelor groups may be successful in the absence of females. Mixed species: Pronghorn are frequently exhibited with bison. They have also been housed with camels, deer, cranes, and waterfowl. Housing: Peninsular pronghorn are heat tolerant and do well in windy conditions, but heated shelters recommended where temperatures fall below 40ºF for extended periods.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Game Meats?
    Mount Royal USA Product Guide 713-862-1800 Why Game Meats? Venison and other farm raised game meats are fast becoming a popular option for chefs seeking healthy, convenient, and versatile flavors. Game meats are low in fat/cholesterol and high in proteins. All animals are grazed on pastures and fed supplemental feed which contains no steroids, antibiotics, or hormones. The products therefore are 100% natural. Venison The gamey flavor often associated with venison (and other game meats) is not noticeable in farm raised products. The reason for this is quite simple. Wild animals rely on berries or whatever they can find for food and then are stressed or “hunted” before killing. The diet of the animals and the adrenaline which gets pumped into their system before being killed affects the taste of the meat. An animal which has been fed a specific diet and is killed under different conditions will naturally have a slightly different taste which results in a less “gamey” type of flavor. Venison from Mount Royal is farm raised in New Zealand on lush pastures and exported under the Cervena label to insure maximum tenderness and consistency in processing. VENISON PRODUCTS NAME Venison Racks GB7065 Denver leg GB7075 Striploin GB7880 Boneless GB7415 Shoulder Stew GB7440 Venison Ground GB7085 Elk Racks GB7090 Tenderloin GB7080 Venison Flank GB7420 Bone In Saddle GB7435 Ven trim GB7455 Elk trim GB7475 Osso Bucco GB7445 Elk Striploin GB7095 Elk Ground GB7476 Venison Bones GB7460 Ostrich Ostrich is similar in taste to beef and with a texture similar to venison. Protein content is also like beef, but the meat has less cholesterol, less fat and fewer calories than beef, chicken, or turkey.
    [Show full text]
  • Good for the Planet,Good For
    BISON Good for the Planet, Good for Yo u 2017 Bison Food Booklet -New Bison Recipes -How to Cook Bison -Nutritional Information BISON Good for the Planet, Good for Yo u By Marilyn Bay Drake ative American Plains Indians saw the bison as the sus- tainer of life. Bison was the primary and preferred meat BISON Nof these tribes. Th eir lives were centered around the bi- BISON has son. Th e Plains Indians packed up their homes (tipis) and moved % 32.6% less fat 32 BISON has 26 % more iron than beef when the bison herds moved, since they depended on bison for most than chicken everything they needed to live. Th ey ate the meat fresh and preserved it by drying. Bison hides BISON has BISON Beef Chicken were cured and fashioned into clothing and tipis. Bison teeth were 87% 87% less fat used to make jewelry. Bones became bowls, eating utensils, work than beef Fat 2.42 18.54 7.41 tools, children’s toys, clothing fasteners, fi sh hooks and knife han- (g) dles. Hooves were boiled to extract glue. Tendons and muscles were BISON has Protein % made into arrow ties, bowstrings and cinches. Fat was used for cook- 766 (g) 28.44 27.21 28.93 ing tallow, tanning hides and to make soap. Th e bladder was used for more vitamin B-12 food pouches and to carry water on journeys. Th e list goes on. It is than chicken Calories not hyperbole to say the bison was everything to the Plains Indians. (kcal) 143 283 190 BISON has Today’s bison ranchers and the industries that process bison % Cholesterol meat are endeavoring to use every part of the bison they process.
    [Show full text]