Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:58:29.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Capacity of goats to reach for food through tombstone barriers, as affected by position of food, body weight and body dimensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

V. R. M. Muhikambele ,
E. Owen ,
J. E. Owen  and
L. A. Mtenga
V. R. M. Muhikambele
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate PO Box 236, Reading RG6 6AT
E. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate PO Box 236, Reading RG6 6AT
J. E. Owen
Affiliation:
ADAS Bridgets, Martyr Worthy, Winchester SO21 1AP
L. A. Mtenga
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Production, Sokoine University of Agriculture, PO Box 3004, Morogoro, Tanzania
Get access

Abstract

Goat production systems increasingly involve indoor feeding. To facilitate manger design, there is need for information on the ability to reach for food, such as that for cattle given food through tombstone barriers. In the first study, 20 castrated and 20 non-pregnant female Saanens of mean live weight (M) 39·3 (s.d. 14·42) kg were trained to reach, through a vertical tombstone barrier, for concentrate meal placed on a horizontal platform attached to the barrier. The barrier allowed the neck but not the shoulders to pass through. It was hypothesized that horizontal reach forwards (F, distance from mid point of barrier to uneaten meal) and sideways (S, distances sideways from mid point of barrier to uneaten meal adjacent to barrier) would be a function of height of platform above the floor and size of goat. Because of size, eight goats (mean M, 16·4 kg) were unable to reach meal when the platform height was 75 cm. Mean (s.e.) values for F at platform heights 0, 25, 50 and 75 cm were 55·9 (0·68), 58·8 (0·64), 57·8 (0·69) and 41·1 (1·23) cm respectively. Values for S were smaller, but followed a similar pattern (49·4 (0·64), 52·4 (0·56), 53·2 (0·53), 36·6 (1·17) cm). Linear regression of either F or S on M and linear body dimensions (e.g. body length, neck and head length, neck-joint height, withers height) showed high correlations with R2 values being 0·8 or more. In the second study, 10 castrated and 10 non-pregnant females (M, 48·7 (s.d. 14·56) kg) were trained to reach through the tombstone barrier for concentrate pellets 'glued', using molasses, on to a vertical plate. It was hypothesized that vertical reach (V, distance from floor to uneaten pellets) would be a function of distance between barrier and plate (20, 30, 40, 45, 50 cm), height of step (0,14·2, 28·4, 42·6 cm) on which goats placed their forelegs and size of goat. Four goats (mean M, 29·9 kg) were unable to reach pellets when the plate was at 45 and 50 cm. Mean (s.e.) V values decreased with increasing plate distance and increased with step height (e.g. at 0 cm step, 122·4 (1·96), 116·9 (2·05), 109·4 (2·16), 103·9 (2·49) and 96·5 (2·75) at 20-; 30-; 40-; 45- and 50-cm plate distances respectively; at 20-cm plate distance, 122·4 (1·96), 137·5 (2·00), 151·3 (1·90) and 164·3 (2·00) cm at 0-; 14·2-; 28·4-and 42·6-cm step heights respectively). Linear regression of V on body weight and body dimensions (e.g. body length, heart girth, withers height) showed high correlations (R2 > 0·8). It is concluded that for practical purposes, body weight is a satisfactory predictor of reach. The results support the hypotheses. The data will facilitate the design of mangers for goats with body weights and dimensions in the range of those used in the present study.

Keywords

barriersbody measurementsgoatshorizontal reachvertical reach
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 415 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Devendra, C. and Burns, M. 1983. Goat production in the tropics, second edition. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Devendra, C. and McLeroy, C. B. 1982. Goat and sheep production in the tropics. Intermediate Tropical Agriculture Series. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Gjestang, K. 1983. Feeding table geometry for dairy cows. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, vol. 26, pp. 890–892.Google Scholar
Maclntire, J., Bourzat, D. and Pingali, P. 1992. Crop-livestock interaction in sub-Saharan Africa. The World Bank, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Manik, R. S., Patil, R. A. and Tomer, O. S. 1984. Prediction of body weight from body measurements of Beetal goats and their crosses with Alpine and Saanen Livestock Adviser 9: 33–36.Google Scholar
Mowlem, A. 1988. Goatfarming. Farming Press, Ipswich.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, D. K., Singh, C. S. P., Mishra, H. R. and Nath, S. 1982. Comparison of correlations between body weight and body measurements in Grey and Brown Bengal goats. Indian Veterinary Medical journal 6: 44–47.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, D. K., Singh, C. S. P., Mishra, H. R. and Nath, S. 1986. Body-weight measurement relationships in Brown Bengal does Indian Veterinary Medical journal 10: 104–106.Google Scholar
Ogle, R. B., Wiktorsson, H. and Masaoa, A. P. 1996. Environmentally sustainable intensive livestock systems in semi-arid Central Tanzania. Proceedings of the Tanzania Society of Animal Production, vol. 20, pp. 90–96.Google Scholar
Owen, J. E., Norman, G. A., Fisher, I. L. and Frost, R. A. 1977. Studies on the meat production characteristics of Botswana goats and sheep. I. Sampling, methods and materials, and measurements on the live animals. Meat Science 1: 63–85.Google Scholar
Petchey, A. M. and Hailu, T. 1993. The effect of varying cattle trough height on their reach and food wastage. Animal Production 56: 457.Google Scholar
Rey, B., Thorpe, W., Smith, J., Shapiro, B., Osuji, P., Mullins, G. and Agyemang, K. 1993. Improvement of dairy production to satisfy the growing consumer demand in sub-Saharan Africa: a conceptual framework for research. Market-oriented small dairying research working document 1. International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Singh, N. R., Mohanty, S. C. and Mishara, M. 1987. Prediction of body weight from body measurements in Black Bengal goats: a note Indian journal of Animal Production and Management 3: 46–49.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1989. SAS/STAT user's guide, version 6, fourth edition, volume 2. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Trodahl, S., Skjevdal, T. and Steine, T. A. 1981. Goats in cold an d temperate climates. In Goat production (ed. Gall, C.), pp. 489–513. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Versbach, M. 1970. [Techniques and procedures for feeding individual animals in loose-housed cattle]. KTBL Berichte uber landtechnik no. 239.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M. and Stark, B. A. 1987. Commercial goat production. BSP Professional Books, Oxford.Google Scholar
Worman, F. D., Thedford, T. R., Kelemogile, K. M. and Baathodi, J. A. 1990. Heart, girth measurement as an estimate of weight for Tswana goats. ATIP working paper no. 30.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, P. 1983. Space and equipment requirements for feeding in cattle housing. In Farm animal housing and welfare (ed. Baxter, S. H., Baxter, M. R. and MacCormack, J. A. C.), pp. 155–163. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague.Google Scholar