|
|
Van de Weerd, H. A., Seaman, S., Wheeler, K., Goddard, P., & Mclean, B. (2012). Use of artificial drinkers by unhandled semi-feral ponies. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 139(1-2), 86–95.
Abstract: This study investigated drinking behaviour of unhandled, semi-feral Dartmoor ponies. Aspects studied were drinking behaviour, latency to drink from novel unfamiliar drinkers after transport, preferences for different types of artificial water drinkers, effects of mixing with unfamiliar ponies and group size, on drinking behaviour, and the effect of a simulated market on the latency to drink. Ponies were tested in groups of three or six animals, or as individuals in test pens that were equipped with three water drinkers: bucket, automatic drinking bowl, flowing water trough. Behaviour was recorded using time-lapse video. An individual pony drank on average 10 l per day. Ponies also drank, but at a lower rate, during the night. The latencies to drink after 4.5 h of transport showed large variation, but most ponies drank within the first hour after being transported (all groups 80.5 ± 32.94 min, mean ± SEM). In the individual choice tests, the preferred drinkers were the bucket and the flowing water trough, but not the automatic drinking bowl (drinking time 25.2 ± 4.66, 11.5 ± 4.26, 2.4 ± 2.23 min for bucket, trough and bowl respectively, mean ± SEM; paired t-tests, bowl versus other drinkers, all tests p < 0.02). A possible reason for the avoidance of the automatic bowl was the noise it made when filling. After mixing a group of three ponies with a group of three unfamiliar animals, the ponies did not express their individual drinker preferences anymore. The use of the previously preferred bucket decreased significantly and the use of the initially, non-preferred, bowl increased significantly. This was likely caused by the fact that ponies were either intentionally or accidentally obstructing drinkers in certain areas of the pen and unfamiliar ponies did not want to push past them. In the simulated market, the differences in latencies to drink between ponies in the home pen and market groups did not reach significance. No significant effect of group size (groups of three versus six ponies) on drinking behaviour was detected. The results have implications for situations where only automatic water bowls are provided, such as during pony sales at livestock markets. Preventing ponies from expressing their drinking choice, either by offering non-preferred drinkers or by mixing with unfamiliar animals, could adversely affect their welfare especially if this happens in conjunction with other stressful events such as transport and markets, and potentially weaning.
|
|
|
|
Goddard, P. J., Summers, R. W., Macdonald, A. J., Murray, C., & Fawcett, A. R. (2001). Behavioural responses of red deer to fences of five different designs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 73(4), 289–298.
Abstract: Capercaillie, a large species of grouse, are sometimes killed when they fly into high-tensile deer fences. A fence design which is lower or has a less rigid top section than conventional designs would reduce bird deaths, but such fences would still have to be deer-proof. The short-term behavioural responses of farmed red deer (Cervus elaphus) to fences of five designs, including four that were designed to be less damaging to capercaillie, were measured. Five deer were located on one side of a fence with a larger group (20 animals), from which they had been recently separated, on the other. The efficacy of fences in preventing deer from the small group from rejoining the larger group was also recorded. In addition to a conventional deer fence (C) the four new designs were, an inverted “L” shape (L), a fence with offset electric wire (E), a double fence (D) and a fence with four webbing tapes above (W). Four replicate groups of deer were each tested for 3 days with each fence design. Deer paced the test fence line relatively frequently (a proportion of 0.09 scan observations overall) but significantly less when deer were separated by fences E or C compared to L, W or D (overall difference between fence types, P<0.001). Deer separated by fence E spent significantly more time pacing perimeter fences than deer separated by fences of other types (overall difference between fence types, P<0.01) but deer separated by fence C maintained a low level of fence pacing overall. Analysis of behaviour patterns across the first day and the 3 days of exposure suggested that the novelty of the test fences, rather than the designs per se, influenced the behaviour of the deer. Over the course of the study, no deer crossed either C or L. Three deer crossed E and two deer crossed both W and D. On this basis, field testing, particularly of fence L, would be a useful next step.
|
|
