Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T05:18:01.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of post-capture management strategy on the welfare and productivity of wild red deer (Cervus elaphus) hinds introduced to farming systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P. J. Goddard ,
I. J. Gordon  and
W. J. Hamilton
P. J. Goddard
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB9 2QJ
I. J. Gordon
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB9 2QJ
W. J. Hamilton
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB9 2QJ
Get access

Abstract

Wild red deer (Cervus elaphus) hinds were subjected to one of five post-capture management strategies during the period from capture in late pregnancy in March, until weaning in September. The treatments were: remained enclosed at the capture site; relocated to a remote site; relocated to a conventional deer farm on improved pasture; relocated to a conventional deer farm and grazed with farmed hinds; housed prior to calving on a conventional deer farm site. For a further year, all hinds were managed under conventional deer farm conditions. There was considerable evidence, based on mortality and behaviour, to suggest that initial housing of the hinds following capture compromised their welfare. Deaths of hinds (seven out of 20) occurred in this group, associated with bullying during the housed period. Hinds on this treatment also showed a higher frequency of aggressive interactions compared with the groups directly moved to the deer farm (11% v. 2% respectively of scans conducted at 10-min intervals over 6h; P < 0·001) and a reduced level of lying behaviour (15% v. 34 to 47% of scans; P < 0·001) during the gestation period. Similarly, during the calving period, this group lay the least (27% v. 43 to 72% of scans; P < 0·001) and the mean number of interactions between hinds reached 11·7 compared with 1·5 to 4·9 (F < 0·001) in the other groups over a continuous 6-h recording period. The two groups of hinds relocated directly onto sown swards were generally similar to one another in terms of behaviour and performance. However, the group mixed with farmed hinds suffered from considerable calf losses in year 1 due to disease (four out of 12). Losses of hinds over winter in year 1 (nine out of 90) occurred principally amongst those animals which had not become habituated to human presence or supplementary feeding in the summer, i.e. groups remaining enclosed at the capture site or relocated to a remote site. When all hinds were treated similarly in year 2 the hinds from these same two groups, together with those initially housed indoors, showed more hind-hind interactions overall than the two groups located directly onto the deer farm (7·2 v. 3·1 interactions per hind over a 4-h period; P < 0·02) and it is suggested that these hinds had not yet adapted to their new environment. An ACTH stimulation test conducted during year 2 supported the view that the two groups of hinds most recently introduced into the managed system were subject to a chronic stressor at the time of testing, since administration of ACTH did not elicit a significant increase in plasma cortisol concentrations (mean values pre- and post-ACTH 188 and 217 nmol/l respectively). In contrast, the mean plasma cortisol concentrations of the two groups managed under extensive farm conditions from the outset, showed a significant rise (pre- and post-ACTH, 261 and 376 nmol/l respectively; P < 0·01). From this it is concluded that their adaptation to the farm environment had already occurred. The live-weight gains of the wild hinds calves (229 g/day) on the improved pastures in the 1st year of the study were below that for farmed hinds calves (282 g/day; P < 0·05), suggesting that they were not habituated to the management system. However, by the end of year 2 animal performance was comparable with that of farmed hinds and calf growth rates reached 276 g/day. Thus while housing wild red deer immediately after capture is associated with poor welfare, analysis of behaviour, adrenal response and animal production over a longer period suggests that by the end of the study few important differences remained between the groups.

Keywords

behaviourcapturemanagementproductivityred deer
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , October 1996 , pp. 315 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1996

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

Barnett, J. L. and Hemsworth, P. H. 1990. The validity of physiological and behavioural measures of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25:177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, J. K. 1986. Objective measures of welfare in farming environments. Australian Veterinary Journal 63: 361–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blaxter, K. L. and Hamilton, W. J. 1980. Reproduction in farmed red deer. 2. Calf growth and mortality. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 95: 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D. M. 1988. The scientific assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bubenik, G. A. 1991. Regulatory mechanisms of the antler cycle and the selection of deer breeding stock by endocrine tests. In Proceedings of the second international wildlife ranching symposium, Edmonton (ed. Renecker, L. and Hudson, R.), pp. 521–529. University of Alaska, Fairbanks.Google Scholar
Buxton, D. and Mackintosh, C. G. 1994. Alimentary system — Yersiniosis. In Management and diseases of deer, 2nd edition (ed. Alexander, T. L. and Buxton, D.), pp. 117–119. Veterinary Deer Society.Google Scholar
Dantzer, R., Mormede, P., Bluthe, R. M. and Soissons, J. 1983. The effect of different housing conditions on behavioural and adrenocortical reactions in veal calves. Reproduction, Nutrition and Development 23:501–508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diverio, S., Goddard, P. J. and Gordon, I. J. 1996. Physiological responses of farmed red deer to management practices and their modulation by long-acting neuroleptics. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 126: 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diverio, S., Goddard, P. J., Gordon, I. J. and Elston, D. A. 1993. The effect of management practices on stress in farmed red deer (Cervus elaphus) and its modulation by long-acting neuroleptics: behavioural responses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36:363–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgar, M. A. 1989. Predator vigilance and group size in mammals and birds: a critical review of the empirical evidence. Biological Reviews 64:13–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fawcett, A. R., Goddard, P. J., McKelvey, W. A. C., Buxton, D., Reid, H. W., Greig, A. and Macdonald, A. J. 1995. Johne's disease in a herd of farmed red deer. Veterinary Record 136:165–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandini, G. C., Ebedes, H. and Burroughs, R. E. J. 1989. The use of long acting neuroleptics in the impala (Aepyceros melampus). Journal of the South African Veterinary Association 60: 206–207.Google ScholarPubMed
Goddard, P. J., Rhind, S. M., Hamilton, W. J., Macdonald, A. J., Fawcett, A. R., Soanes, C. A. and McMillen, S. R. 1994a. The adrenocorticotrophic hormone stimulation test: its potential use and limitations in red deer (Cervus elaphus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:1826–1830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, P. J., Rhind, S. M., Hanlon, A. J. and Hamilton, W. J. 1994b. ACTH stimulation tests in red deer. In Proceedings of a deer course for veterinarians, deer branch course no. 11, pp. 147–155. New Zealand Veterinary Association, Queenstown, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. F. T. 1989. Stress and immunity: a unifying concept. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 20: 263–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, J. F. T., Thomson, A. J., Cross, J. P., Buchan, G. S. and Mackintosh, C. G. 1992. The impact of domestication on red deer immunity and disease resistance. In The biology of deer (ed. Brown, R. D.), pp. 120–125. Springer Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. J. and Blaxter, K. L. 1980. Reproduction in farmed red deer. 1. Hind and stag fertility. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 95:261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanlon, A. J., Rhind, S. M., Reid, H. W., Burrells, C. and Lawrence, A. B. 1995. Effects of repeated changes in group composition on immune response, behaviour, adrenal activity and liveweight gain in farmed red deer yearlings. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattingh, J., Pitts, N. I. and Ganhao, M. F. 1988. Immediate response to repeated capture and handling of wild impala. Journal of Experimental Zoology 248:109–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, D. G. 1994. Trace element deficiencies. In Management and diseases of deer. 2nd edition (ed. Alexander, T. L. and Buxton, D.), pp. 182–191. Veterinary Deer Society.Google Scholar
Knox, D. P., McKelvey, W. A. C. and Jones, D. G. 1988. Blood biochemical reference values for farmed red deer. Veterinary Record 122: 109–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kondo, S. and Hurnik, J. F. 1988. Behavioural and physiological responses to spatial novelty in dairy cows. Canadian journal of Animal Science 68: 339–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1993. Genstat 5.3 reference manual. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, F., Goddard, P. J. and Gordon, I. J. 1994. The effect of the presence of farmed red deer (Cervus elaphus) hinds on the mother-offspring behaviour of captive wild red deer. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40:179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loudon, A. S. I., Darroch, A. D. and Milne, J. A. 1984. The lactation performance of red deer on hill and improved species pastures. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102:149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, L. R., Cook, C. and Asher, G. W. 1990. Behavioural and physiological responses to management practices in red deer stags. In Proceedings of a deer course for veterinarians, deer branch course no. 7, pp. 74–85. New Zealand Veterinary Association, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Milne, J. A., MacRae, J. C., Spence, A. M. and Wilson, S. 1978. A comparison of the voluntary intake and digestion of a range of forages at different times of the year by the sheep and the red deer (Cervus elaphus). British Journal of Nutrition 40: 347–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munch, A., Guyre, P. M. and Holbrook, N. J. 1984. Physiological function of glucocorticoids in stress and their relation to pharmacological actions. Endocrine Reviews 5: 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. C. and Littlejohn, R. P. 1994. Behavioural effects of light conditions on red deer in a holding pen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41:127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J. H. 1977. A handbook of numerical and statistical techniques, pp. 175–177. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, K. M. and Rodway, R. G. 1983. Effects of trenbolone acetate on adrenal function and hepatic enzyme activities in female rats. Journal of Endocrinology 98:121–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walther, F. R. 1969. Flight behaviour and avoidance of predators in Thomson's gazelle. Behaviour 34:184–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, F. R. 1984. Communication and expression in hoofed mammals, pp. 116–129. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. R. 1989. Bodyweight and serum copper concentrations of farmed red deer stags following oral copper oxide wire administration. New Zealand Veterinary journal 37: 94–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winfield, C. G., Syme, G. J. and Pearson, A. J. 1981. Effect of familiarity with each other and breed on the spatial behaviour of sheep in an open field. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 7: 67–75.Google Scholar