Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-42qgm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-03T15:42:35.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Comparing the Behaviour of Zoo Housed Animals with Wild Conspecifics as a Welfare Indicator, Using The Giraffe (Giraffa Camelopardalis) as a Model

Part of: Zoo Animals Collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

J S Veasey ,
N K Waran  and
R J Young
J S Veasey
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Kings Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
N K Waran
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Kings Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
R J Young*
Affiliation:
Animals Department, Edinburgh Zoo, Murrayfield, Edinburgh EH12 6TS
*
† 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.

To assess the validity of using wild behavioural data as a welfare indicator for zoo animals, the time budgets of 19 captive giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), from four zoos were compared with the time budgets of wild giraffe from Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe. Differences were shown to exist between the behaviour of wild and captive giraffe. However, only the duration of lying differed significantly across zoos. Correlations demonstrated that both enclosure size and feed restriction affected the locomotor activity of giraffe. An attempt to quantify observer influence upon the behaviour of wild giraffe was made. Different methods of observation were shown to significantly affect the time budget established. The extent to which wild giraffe behaviour can be used as a welfare indicator for captive conspecifics is discussed, as are the problems inherent in such a study. The difficulties in constructing an alternative welfare measure using prevalence to veterinary problems, are briefly considered. Methods by which captive giraffe welfare can be improved are discussed, particularly concerning the provision of browse to allow more natural feeding patterns to be established.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourcaptivitygiraffetime budgetwild

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , May 1996 , pp. 139 - 153
Copyright
© 1996 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bayne, K, Dexter, S, Mainzer, H, McCuIly, C, Campbell, G and Yamada, F 1992 The use of artificial turf as a foraging substrate for individual housed rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Animal Welfare 1: 39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benbow, G M 1985 Veterinary work in a safari park. International Zoo News 189: 2–7Google Scholar
Chamove, A S 1989 Environmental enrichment: a review. Animal Technology 40: 155–175Google Scholar
Chamove, A S and Anderson, J R 1989 Examining environmental enrichment. In: Segal, E F (ed) Housing, Care and Psychological Well-being of Captive and Laboratory Primates pp 183–202. E F Noyes Publications: Park Ridge, USAGoogle Scholar
Dalton, J 1987 An Introduction to the Large Mammals of Southern Africa. Natal branch of the Wildlife Society of South Africa: Natal, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
Estes, R D 1991 The Behavioural Guide to African Mammals. The University of California Press: California, USAGoogle Scholar
Fraser, A F and Broom, D M 1990 Farm Animal Behaviour and Animal Welfare. Baillere Tindall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Heidiger, H 1969 Man and Animal in the Zoo. Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O and Duncan, I J H 1988 The notion of ethological ‘need’, models of motivation and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour 36: 1696–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isbell, L A and Young, T P 1993 Human presence reduces predation in a free ranging vervet monkey population in Kenya. Animal Behaviour 45: 1233–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, A 1993 The Welfare and Management of Zoo Animals: The Giraffe. National Federation of Zoos: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Lindburg, D G 1988 Improving the feeding of captive felines through application of field data. Zoo Biology 7: 211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markowitz, H and LaForse, S 1987 Artificial prey as behavioural enrichment devices for felines. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1992 Measuring Behaviour, an Introductory Guide, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J 1991 Stereotypies: a critical review. Animal Behaviour 41: 1015–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G J and Mendl, M 1993 Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare 2: 301–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, C 1989 Portraits in the Wild: Animal Behaviour in East Africa. Elm Tree Books: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Pellew, R A 1984 The feeding ecology of a selective browser, the giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis tippelskirchi). Journal of Zoology, London 202: 57–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, S and Takagaki, I 1991 Tongue-playing in captive giraffe. Presented at the 22nd International Ethological Conference, 22-29 August. Otani University, Kyoto, JapanGoogle Scholar
Shepherdson, D 1989 Improving animals lives in captivity through environmental enrichment. In: Close, B S, Dolins, F and Mason, G (eds) Animal Use in Education, Euroniche Conference Proceedings pp 91–102. Humane Education Centre: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Skinner, J D and Smithers, R H N 1990 The Mammals of the Southern African Sub Region. The University of Pretoria: Pretoria, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, W H 1967 Discussion to Part II. In: Carter, T C (ed) Environmental Control in Poultry Production pp 125–134. Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Trunkfield, H R and Broom, D M 1990 The welfare of calves during handling and transport. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 135–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, R J 1993 Factors Affecting Foraging Motivation in the Domestic Pig. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Young, R J, Carruthers, J and Lawrence, A B 1994 The effect of a foraging device (The ‘Edinburgh Foodball’) on the behaviour of pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar