Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of Weaning and Spatial Enrichment on Behavior of Turkish Saanen Goat Kids

  • Tolu, Cemil (Department of Animal Science, Agriculture Faculty, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University) ;
  • Gokturk, Semra (Canakkale Sheep and Goat Breeders Association) ;
  • Savas, Turker (Department of Animal Science, Agriculture Faculty, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University)
  • Received : 2015.07.14
  • Accepted : 2015.09.23
  • Published : 2016.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

As is in all economic activities, the highest yield per unit area is the main goal in animal production, while addressing the temperamental needs of animals often is ignored. Animal welfare is not only an ethical fact; it also has an economic value. Spatial environmental enrichment contributes positively to animal welfare by addressing their behavioral and mental requirements. The present study was conducted to determine the effects of weaning and spatial environmental arrangements on behaviors of goat-kids. Experimental groups were arranged in structured and unstructured spatial environments. Roughage feeder, semi-automatic concentrate feeder, bunk, bridge, and wood block were placed in the structured environment. No equipment was placed in the unstructured environment and paddock sides were enclosed with an iron sheet to prevent bipedal stance and to provide environmental isolation. In the study 10 male and 10 female Turkish Saanen goat kids were used in each group. Spatial environmental arrangements did not have significant impacts on the growth performance of kids (p>0.05). All objects in the structured group were accepted by the kids. Average use ratios of roughage feeder, semi-automatic concentrate feeder, bunk, bridge and wood block were observed as 19.3%, 14.0%, 12.6%, 3.8%, and 0.7%, respectively. There were significant differences between before- and after-weaning in use of all objects except for underneath bridge ($p{\leq}0.05$). Concentrate feed consumption, locomotion, and resting behaviors in kids showed significant differences by structural group and growth period. Roughage consumption was similar between groups, while it differed by growth period ($p{\leq}0.05$). Interaction frequency was significantly higher in structured group (p = 0.0023). Playing behavior significantly differentiated based on the growth period rather than on groups ($p{\leq}0.05$). Playing behavior significantly decreased after weaning. Abnormal oral activity was significantly higher in the structured group before weaning ($p{\leq}0.05$). Despite there being no installations facilitating climbing and bipedal stance, the kids of the unstructured group were able to exhibit 1/3 as much bipedal stance behavior as the kids of the structured group through leaning over slippery paddock wall or over their groupmates. Bipedal stance behavior of unstructured group was similar before and after weaning, while bipedal stance behavior before weaning was about 2 times that of after weaning in structured group. It was concluded that unstructured environmental arrangement limited the behavior repertoire of the goat kids.

Keywords

References

  1. ANKOM. 2005. Procedures for NDF, ADF, and ADL Analyses. http://www.ankom.com Accessed June 15, 2010.
  2. AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA.
  3. Atasoglu, C., I. Y. Yurtman, T. Savas, M. Gultepe, and O. Ozcan. 2008. Effect of weaning on behavior and serum parameters in dairy goat kids. Anim. Sci. J. 79:435-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2008.00547.x
  4. Barth, K., D. Ordolff, and C. Mayer. 2005. Investigations of resting areas designed for goats (Eds. J. Heb and R. Gerold). Kassel University Press, Hessen, Germany. pp. 357-358.
  5. Beattie, V. E., N. E. O'Connell, and B. W. Moss. 2000. Influence of environmental enrichment on the behaviour, performance and meat quality of domestic pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci. 65:71-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00179-7
  6. Dove, H. 2010. Ingestive behavior, diet selection and feed intake. In: Goat Science and Production (Ed. S. G. Solaiman). Wiley Blackwell Publications, 2121 State Avenue, Ames, IA 50014- 8300, USA. pp. 179-193.
  7. FAWC. 2001. In term report on the animal welfare implications of farm assurance schemes. Farm Animal Welfare Council, London, UK.
  8. Flint, M. and P. J. Murray. 2001. Lot-fed goats - the advantages of using an enriched environment. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 41:473-476. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA99119
  9. Jensen, P. and F.M. Toates. 1993. Who needs 'behavioural needs'? Motivational aspects of the needs of animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 37:161-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(93)90108-2
  10. Mason, G., R. Clubb, N. Latham, and S. Vickery. 2007. Why and how should we use environmental enrichment to tackle stereotypic behaviour? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.102:163-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.041
  11. Morand-Fehr, P., J. Hervieu, P. Bas, and D. Sauvant. 1982. Feeding of young goats. Proc. III International Conf. Goat Prod. Dis., Tucson, AZ, USA. pp. 90-104.
  12. Newberry, R. C. 1995. Environmental enrichment: Increasing the biological relevance of captive environments. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 44:229-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)00616-Z
  13. Newberry, R. C., D. G. M. Wood-Gush, and J. W. Hall. 1988. Playful behaviour of piglets. Behav. Proc. 17:205-216.
  14. Poole, T. B. 1992. The nature and evolution of behavioural needs in mammals. Anim. Welf. 1:203-220.
  15. Rosas-Trigueros, A. P., J. O. Salaverri, J. A. C. Duran, and A. J. Quiles Sotillo. 2009. Effect of environmental enrichment on the behaviour and welfare of suckling dairy goat kids in confinement. 43rd Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Cairns Convention Centre, Australia.
  16. Sanon, H. O., C. Kabore-Zoungrana, and I. Ledin. 2007. Behaviour of goats, sheep and cattle and their selection of browse species on natural pasture in a Sahelian area. Small Rumin. Res. 67:64-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.09.025
  17. SAS Institute Inc. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide: Version 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
  18. Savas, T., C. Tolu, H. I. Akbag, B. Coskun, and I. Y. Yurtman. 2010. Is "Bipedal Stance" an essential behaviour of goat kids? (Ed. C. Atasoglu). Canakkale Onsekiz Mar University printing Press, Canakkale, Turkey. pp. 106-109.
  19. Schmidt, C. 2003. Environmental Enrichment for Laboratory Rats and Mice. Ph.D. Thesis, Freie University, Berlin, Germany.
  20. Tolu, C. and T. Savas. 2007. A brief report on intra-species aggressive biting in a goat herd. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 102: 124-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.03.002
  21. Tolu, C., I. Y. Yurtman, H. Baytekin, C. Atasoglu, and T. Savas. 2012. Foraging strategies of goats in a pasture of wheat and shrubland. Anim. Prod. Sci. 52:1069-1076. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN11251
  22. Van de Weerd, H. A. and J. E. L. Day. 2009. A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 116:1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.08.001
  23. Van Loo, P. L. P., C. L. J. J. Kruitwagen, J. M. Koolhaas, H. A. Van de Weerd, L. F. M. Van Zutphen, and V. Baumans. 2002. Influence of cage enrichment on aggressive behaviour and physiological parameters in male mice. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 76:65-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00200-3
  24. Vinke, C. M., R. B. Van Den, and B. M. Spruiljt. 2004. Anticipatory activity and stereotypical behaviour in American Mink (Mustela vison) in three housing systems differing in the amount of enrichments. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 89:145-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.06.002
  25. Wells, D. L. 2004. A review of environmental enrichment for kennelled dogs, Canis familiaris. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 85:307-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2003.11.005

Cited by

  1. Effects of housing environment on social isolation response,weaning stress, and immune reaction in goat kids vol.41, pp.13036181, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-1612-89
  2. How Can We Assess Positive Welfare in Ruminants? vol.9, pp.10, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100758
  3. Current state of knowledge on the cognitive capacities of goats and its potential to inform species-specific enrichment vol.192, pp.None, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2020.106208