Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T08:04:42.483Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Flight distance’ in Merino sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. D. Hutson
G. D. Hutson
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
Get access

Abstract

The ‘flight distance’ of Merino sheep was examined in three experiments. In experiment 1 a man moved towards flocks of sheep confined at the end of a 2-m wide laneway, and the speed of approach, flock density and flock size were varied. In experiment 2, single sheep were tested and, in experiment 3, the width of the laneway was doubled.

The critical distance at which sheep started moving past the man was proportional to the width of the laneway. In the 2-m wide laneway the flight distance was 5·7 (s.e. 0·3) m compared with 11·4 (s.e. 0·6) m in the 4-m laneway. Flight distance was not affected by flock size, density or speed of approach, except for individual sheep, who had a greater flight distance than flocks, but this was reduced at fast approach speeds.

Analysis of head orientation showed that the proportion of the flock facing towards or away from the handler could be a useful predictor of the flight distance of confined flocks. On the edge of the flight zone approximately half the flock was facing towards the handler and half was facing to either side or away from him.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , October 1982 , pp. 231 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1982

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

REFERENCES

Baskin, L. M. 1974. Management of ungulate herds in relation to domestication. In Behaviour of Ungulates and its Relation to Management (ed. Geist, V. and Walther, F. R.), Vol. 2, pp. 530–541. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Morges.Google Scholar
Ewbank, R. 1968. The behaviour of animals in restraint. In Abnormal Behaviour in Animals (ed. Fox, M. W.), pp. 159–178. Saunders, London.Google Scholar
Grandin, T. 1978. Observations of the spatial relationships between people and cattle during handling. J. Anim. Sci. 47: Suppl. 1, p. 149 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kilgour, R. 1971. Animal handling in works. Proc. 13th Meat Ind. Res. Conf., pp. 9–12. Meat Industry Research Institute, Hamilton.Google Scholar
Kilgour, R. and de Langen, H. 1970. Stress in sheep resulting from management practices. Proc. N. Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 30: 65–76.Google Scholar
Murphey, R. M., Duarte, F. A. M. and Penedo, M. C. T. 1980. Approachability of bovine cattle in pastures: breed comparisons and a breed × treatment analysis. Behav. Genet. 10: 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar