Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:46:50.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Effect of Increasing Dietary Fibre on Feeding, Rumination and Oral Stereotypies in Captive Giraffes (Giraffa Camelopardalis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

E Baxter
Affiliation:
Paignton Zoo Environmental Park, Totnes Road, Paignton, Devon, TQ4 7EU, UK
A B Plowman*
Affiliation:
Paignton Zoo Environmental Park, Totnes Road, Paignton, Devon, TQ4 7EU, UK
*
Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Many captive giraffes perform oral stereotypies, in particular tongue-playing, licking of objects (including conspecifics) and vacuum chewing. Typically, the diet of these large ruminants in captivity consists mostly of food concentrates, which are consumed rapidly and do not provide stimulation for their long, prehensile tongues. In the wild, browsing requires extensive use of this organ but in captivity material upon which to browse is limited. Consequently, vacuum activities, such as mock leaf-feeding behaviour, and stereotypies may develop. Rumination is also a major component of a giraffe's behavioural repertoire. It is essential for proper digestion, but may also be connected with non-REM sleep. Inadequate opportunities for rumination may also contribute to the development of oral stereotypies. In this study of captive giraffes, we examined the effect of increasing dietary fibre on the time spent ruminating and feeding and the extent to which oral stereotypies were performed. Two giraffes of different age, sex and sub-species were studied at Paignton Zoo Environmental Park. Dietary fibre was increased by the addition of coarse meadow hay to their existing diet. Following the addition of hay, time spent feeding did not change significantly but there was a significant increase in the time spent ruminating and a significant reduction in time spent performing oral stereotypies by both giraffes, suggesting that oral stereotypies may be connected with rumination rather than feeding. Stereotypic behaviour is generally accepted to be an indicator of sub-optimal welfare. Thus, the reduction in this behaviour by the simple addition of coarse fibre to the diet can be interpreted as enhancing the welfare of these animals.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2001 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Altmann, J 1974 Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227265CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, M C and Lawrence, A B 1987 Food restriction as a cause of stereotypic behaviour in tethered gilts. Animal Production 46: 104110Google Scholar
Bell, F R and Itabisashi, T 1973 The electroencephalogram of sheep and goats with special reference to rumination. Physiology and Behaviour 11: 503514CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehareng, D and Godeau, J M 1991 The durations of masticating activities and the feed energetic utilization of Friesian lactating cows on maize silage-based rations. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 65: 194205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittrich, L 1976 Food presentation in relation to behaviour in ungulates. International Zoo Year Book 16: 4859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, A B, Appleby, M C, Illius, A W and MacLeod, H A 1989 Measuring hunger in the pig using operant conditioning — the effect of dietary bulk. Animal Production 48: 213220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lechner-Doll, M, Kaske, M and Engelhardt, W 1991 Factors affecting mean retention time of particles in the forestomach of ruminants and camelids. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology 7: 455482Google Scholar
Mason, G J 1991 Stereotypies and suffering. Behavioural Processes 25: 103115Google ScholarPubMed
Mason, G J and Mendl, M 1997 Do the stereotypies of pigs, chickens and mink reflect adaptive species differences in the control of foraging? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 4558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellew, R A 1984 The feeding ecology of a selective browser the giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis tippelskirchi). Journal of Zoology 202: 5781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, S, Matte, J J, Farmer, C, Girand, C L and Martineau, G P 1993 High-fibre diets for sows: effects on stereotypies and adjunctive drinking. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 297309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, S and Takagaki, I 1991 Tongue-playing behaviour in captive giraffes. Proceedings of the 22nd International Ethological Conference, 22-29 August, Otani University, Kyoto pp 22-99. Japan Ethological Society and Science Council of JapanGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, C E M, Lawrence, A B and Illius, AW 1991 Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on the development of stereotypies in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42: 981991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobler, I and Schwierin, B 1996 Behavioural sleep in the giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) in a zoological garden. Journal of Sleep Research 5: 2132Google Scholar
Trunkfield, H R and Broom, D M 1990 The welfare of calves during handling and transport. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 135152Google Scholar
Tunnicliffe, D 1998 The effect of a foraging device on the behaviour of the captive giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis). MSc thesis. Edinburgh University, UKGoogle Scholar
Veasey, J S, Waran, N K and Young, R J 1996 On comparing the behaviour of zoo housed animals with their wild conspecifics as a welfare indicator, using the giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) as a model. Animal Welfare 5: 139153Google Scholar