- Email: [email protected]
The effect of exposure to feces from four farm species on the avoidance behaviour and feed consumption of sheep
Livestock Production Science 77 (2002) 119–125 www.elsevier.com / locate / livprodsci
The effect of exposure to feces from four farm species on the avoidance behaviour and feed consumption of sheep ´ a , A. Orihuela b , * E. Suarez b
a Postgrado Interinstitucional en Ciencias Pecuarias, Universidad de Colima, Colima, Mexico ´ del Estado de Morelos, Apartado Postal 5 -78, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Autonoma Cuernavaca Morelos 62051, Mexico
Received 12 June 2001; received in revised form 22 March 2002; accepted 4 April 2002
Abstract The study of food repulsion in ungulates is of practical importance for controlling browsing damage to forest trees and agricultural crops. In the present study, two experiments with domestic sheep assessed the aversive value of the manure of four farm species under fresh and dry conditions. In Experiment 1, a 5 m corridor was used. Feces were placed at one end, and 10 sheep were individually introduced from the opposite end, recording the time spent in each 1 m section. In Experiment 2, buckets with a wire mesh divider were used. The corresponding treatment was in the bottom and commercial concentrate was in the upper part. Ten sheep different from those in Experiment 1 were exposed individually to each treatment, recording the time spent eating and the amount of food consumed. In Experiment 1, significant aversion was found to manure from cattle. In Experiment 2, no difference was found for time eating. However, less food consumption was found in the cattle manure treatment. In both trials, no difference was found when fresh and dry feces were compared. A low association (r 5 0.57) was found between the aversion ranked order of the manure from different species in both experiments. However, both experiments coincided with cattle manure as the highest ranked aversion excreta. It was concluded that: (1) cattle manure is the most repulsive excreta from the farm species evaluated; and (2) some results may vary according to the test applied. 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Sheep-feeding and nutrition; Feces; Odors; Feeding preferences; Avoidance behaviour
1. Introduction It has long been documented that cattle do not feed on grass near their feces in pasture (Norman and Green, 1958; Marten and Donker, 1966; Weeda, *Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 52-777-3174-268; fax: 1 52777-3137-252. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Orihuela).
1967; Fraser and Broom, 1998). According to Lott and Hart (1979) such behavior is adaptive in reducing infestation by endoparasites and other diseaseinducing organisms. Furthermore, among the factors derived from feces, previous studies (MacDiarmid and Watkin, 1972; Dohi et al., 1991) have indicated the importance of feeding-deterrent odors emitted by cattle feces. In addition, Aoyama et al. (1994) suggested that the volatile fraction of cattle feces
0301-6226 / 02 / $ – see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S0301-6226( 02 )00085-4
120
´ , A. Orihuela / Livestock Production Science 77 (2002) 119–125 E. Suarez
negatively influences the food preference of cattle and other herbivores such as sheep and goats. Studies on food repulsion have been of practical importance for controlling browsing damage to forest trees and to discourage cattle from eating crops across unfenced boundaries by smearing fresh feces on the leaves of plants along the border (Arnould and Signoret, 1993). Furthermore, in Africa, some tribes discourage calves from nursing during the weaning period by smearing fresh feces on the udder of the dam each morning (Lott and Hart, 1979). Suppression of ungulates’ feeding by odors of predators has ¨ often been mentioned (Muller-Schwarze, 1972; Melchiors and Leslie, 1985; Sullivan et al., 1985; Abbott et al., 1990). However, more information is needed concerning the use of feces as a repellant to heteroand conspecific farm animals. In the present study, two behavioral tests were designed to determine the relative odor repellent of feces from four farm species (cattle, swine, sheep, poultry) in fresh and dehydrated conditions, using sheep as experimental animals. In Experiment 1, it was hypothesized that morerepulsive excreta will induce animals to spend more time at the opposite end of a corridor, while in Experiment 2, the hypothesis was that sheep would spend less time eating and / or consume less food from a bucket containing the more-repulsive excreta.
2. Materials and methods The experiment was carried out in the state of Morelos, Mexico (188410N, 998210W) located in the arid tropic region, at 1020 m above sea level. Average annual precipitation for the area is 750 mm. Annual temperatures fluctuate between 18 and 28 8C. Subjects were 20 Katadhin (hair sheep Ovis aries) males, 5 to 6 months old. All animals were kept in individual pens and fed since weaning (3 months of age) with 400 g / day / ram of a commercial concentrate with 14% protein (Purina, Mexico), and 3 kg of fresh Taiwan grass. Mineral salt and water was offered ad libitum. Two weeks before the beginning of the experiment, all animals were dewormed orally with levamisol (Disport, Montevideo, Uruguay) at a dose of 10 mg / kg.
Treatments consisted of fresh and dehydrated feces from cattle, sheep, swine and poultry, which are common excreta in rural areas. Fresh manure was collected from adult animals 1–7 h before testing. The donors were fed the same commercial food within the four farms (one for each species). These farms were located within a radius of 20 km from where the experiments were conducted. For the dehydration process, fresh manure was collected the day before the test, and submitted to 8 h at 80 8C in an oven.
2.1. Experiment 1 A 5 m 3 1 m 3 1.5 m wide solid-side corridor was used. Vertical lines were traced on the outside walls every meter, dividing the inside area into five 1 m 2 sections. One of the end areas was covered with a 5 cm depth of the corresponding treatment manure. This area is referred to as Area 1, while the opposite area is referred to as Area 5. Ten sheep were introduced individually from the opposite end (Area 5) of the corridor. During a 5-min test, the time that the subjects spent in each section of the alleyway was recorded. After each animal was tested, the concrete floor of the corridor was swept to remove manure or any material that could be eaten. Animals had been exposed individually to the corridor for 5 min daily for 1 week before the experiment started. Every day all the animals were tested in random order within each treatment. Each test was repeated the next day, alternating the position of the feces from one end to the other. The entire procedure was repeated on consecutive days five times for each treatment. An ANOVA factorial statistical design (SAS Institute, 1985) was used to analyze the data collected during the 5-min corridor tests. The analysis compared differences between fresh and dehydrated feces (factor A), species (factor B) and interactions for time spent in the different areas of the corridor.
2.2. Experiment 2 Eight buckets (one for each treatment) were each fitted with a wire mesh basket 15 cm in diameter. There was a space of 20 cm separating the bottom of
´ , A. Orihuela / Livestock Production Science 77 (2002) 119–125 E. Suarez
the bucket and the bottom of the wire basket. In this space, the corresponding manure treatment was placed. Feces were never less than 10 cm under the grid, where 1000 g of a commercial balanced concentrate with 14% protein (Purina, Mexico) was placed (upper part). The purpose of the wire mesh basket was to allow the odor of the excreta permeate the food while the animal was eating. Animals were trained to eat from these wire mesh baskets (with no feces) for 1 week prior to testing. Ten sheep, different from those used in trial 1, were exposed individually to each treatment during a 5-min test, recording the time they spent with their heads in the bucket (eating) and the amount of food consumed. Starting at 08:00 each day animals were tested in random order in one specific treatment. Each consecutive day a different treatment was applied to each animal and the treatment was repeated five times on consecutive days. Before each test, the concrete floor of the testing pen was cleaned to remove any material that could be eaten. Ewes were fed once a day after the end of the tests, having received no food for a minimum of 16 h. Their motivation to eat commercial concentrate was very important, as it was the only food available during the test and the one they were accustomed to. An ANOVA factorial statistical design (SAS Institute, 1985) was used to analyze the data collected
121
during the 5-min bucket tests. The analysis compared differences between fresh and dehydrates feces (factor A), species (factor B) and interactions for time spent eating and food consumption. The aversion produced by the different feces was ranked, and the Spearman rank correlation test (Siegel and Castellan, 1988) was used to evaluate the association between the variables measured. All research subjects were acquired, retained, and used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations, following the established standards for the humane care and use of animals.
3. Results
3.1. Experiment 1 Significant (P , 0.01) repulsion was found to manure from cattle, as animals tended to spend more time in Area 5 of the corridor (Table 1). Under the control conditions a tendency for a normal Gauss shape was observed (Fig. 1). Except when using dehydrated cattle feces, every animal spent more time in the central corridor areas than at the edges. When using dehydrated cattle feces, more time was spent on the side opposite the manure (Fig. 2).
Table 1 ANOVA results for values related to time (s) spent in Area 5 (side opposite the manure) of the corridor in Experiment 1 Df Fresh or dry manure (factor A) Type of manure a (factor B) Interaction AB Error Total
SS
MS 3169.69
3169.69
1.82
ns
4
45 758.36
11 439.59
6.58
0.0001
4 90 99
15 148.36 156 456.50 220 532.91
3787.09 1738.40
2.17
ns
Manure from: 1, cattle; 2, sheep; 3, poultry; 4, swine; 5, control. Different letters show differences between means (P , 0.05).
b,c
P
1
Duncan’s multiple range test. No. of observations to calculate the mean, 20. LSD value 26.19. a 5 0.05 Original order a Ranked order Mean 1 5 147.6 b Mean 1 5 147.6 b c Mean 2 5 102.8 Mean 3 5 104.2 c Mean 3 5 104.2 c Mean 2 5 102.8 c c Mean 4 5 102.6 Mean 4 5 102.6 c Mean 5 5 82.6 c Mean 5 5 82.6 c a
F
122
´ , A. Orihuela / Livestock Production Science 77 (2002) 119–125 E. Suarez
Fig. 1. Time spent by sheep in the different areas of the corridor in Experiment 1 when exposed to fresh manure. ns, non-significant (P . 0.05). *Significant (P , 0.01) treatments. **Area 1 corresponds to where the manure was applied.
3.2. Experiment 2 The treatment did not affect eating time (P . 0.05; Table 2). However, feed consumption was less (P , 0.05) when exposed to the odor of manure (Table 3). A trend (P . 0.05) for less time eating and food consumption was observed for dry manure in all treatments except when using swine excreta. No differences (P . 0.05) between fresh vs. dehy-
drated feces were found regardless of the experiment or test applied (Tables 1–3). In general, a correlation of 0.57 (P , 0.05) was found between the ranked avoidance excreta results obtained from the two experiments. Time eating was correlated with food intake (r 5 0.72; P , 0.05) and the corridor test (r 5 0.63; P , 0.05). No correlation was found between food intake and the corridor test (r 5 0.21; P . 0.05).
´ , A. Orihuela / Livestock Production Science 77 (2002) 119–125 E. Suarez
123
Fig. 2. Time spent by sheep in the different areas of the corridor in Experiment 1 when exposed to dehydrated manure.
4. Discussion The corridor test appeared to be as efficient as the bucket test for the study of odor aversion in sheep. The different texture (visual and touch senses involved) of the floor in the first area (where the feces were applied) did not affect the results (time each animal spent in the different areas of the corridor vs. food consumption from the bucket). Nevertheless,
direct contact with the feces suggests a more complex situation than when only the repulsive value of the volatile components are acting via the sense of smell as in the second experiment. Time spent eating was not a good estimator of aversion. The different results for time eating and food consumed in Experiment 2 could be due to the feeding style or the bite size of individual animals. Individual differences in hunger after fasting could
´ , A. Orihuela / Livestock Production Science 77 (2002) 119–125 E. Suarez
124
Table 2 ANOVA results for time (s) spent eating by sheep exposed to manure from different species in Experiment 2 Df Fresh or dry manure (factor A) Type of manure a (factor B) Interaction AB Error Total
SS
F
P
1
47 045.61
47 045.61
3.07
ns
4
125 169.54
31 292.38
2.04
ns
4 90 99
107 894.14 1 377 158.10 1 657 267.39
26 973.53 15 301.75
1.76
ns
Original order a Mean 16S.D. 5 441.556148.77 Mean 26S.D. 5 441.506144.26 Mean 36S.D. 5 440.166142.80 Mean 46S.D. 5 462.856101.07 Mean 56S.D. 5 536.40645.59 a
MS
Ranked order Mean 5 5 536.40 Mean 4 5 462.85 Mean 1 5 441.55 Mean 2 5 441.50 Mean 3 5 440.16
Manure from: 1, cattle; 2, sheep; 3, poultry; 4, swine; 5, control.
Table 3 ANOVA results for food consumption (g) by sheep exposed to manure from different species in Experiment 2 Df Fresh or dry manure (factor A) Type of manure (factor B) Interaction AB Error Total
SS
MS
F
P
1
338.56
338.56
0.0661
ns
4
59 418.34
14 854.58
2.9004
0.0262
4 90 99
47 521.54 460 935.40 568 213.84
11 880.38 5121.50
2.3197
ns
Duncan’s multiple range test. No. of observations to calculate the mean, 20. LSD value 5 44.96. a 5 0.05 Original order a Ranked order Mean 16S.D. 5 136.8674.5 c Mean 5 5 207.0 b Mean 26S.D. 5 183.9667.1 b Mean 3 5 197.5 b Mean 36S.D. 5 197.5678.4 b Mean 4 5 189.7 b b Mean 46S.D. 5 189.7665.6 Mean 2 5 183.9 b Mean 56S.D. 5 207.0661.5 b Mean 1 5 136.8 c a
Manure from: 1, cattle; 2, sheep; 3, poultry; 4, swine; 5, control. Different letters show differences between means (P , 0.05). ns, non significant (P . 0.05).
b,c
also explain these different results. However, when considering food consumption, there were common results in both experiments. The results of the present study show that of all the excreta tested, the more-repulsive odors were found in cattle manure, inducing the highest avoid-
ance behavior in sheep regardless of the test applied (corridor or bucket). This is in accordance with previous findings in cattle (Dohi et al., 1991) and goats (Aoyama et al., 1994). These results highlight the possible value of the repulsion to cattle manure in some applied ethologic
´ , A. Orihuela / Livestock Production Science 77 (2002) 119–125 E. Suarez
approaches such as controlling damage to forest trees and agricultural crops, and its practical importance to discourage animals from nursing.
References Abbott, D.H., Baines, D.A., Faulkes, C.G., Lewis, E., Ning, P.C.Y.K., Tomlimson, A.J., 1990. A natural deer repellent: chemistry and behaviour. In: Macdonald, D.W., MullerSchwarze, D., Natynczuk, S.E. (Eds.). Chemical Signals in Vertebrates, Vol. 5. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 599– 609. Aoyama, M., Dohi, H., Shioya, S., Takeuchi, Y., Mori, Y., Odubo, T., 1994. Feeding-deterrent substance in cattle feces: its effects on ingestive behavior in goats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 40, 253–262. Arnould, C., Signoret, J.P., 1993. Sheep food repellents: efficacy of various products, habituation, and social facilitation. J. Chem. Ecol. 19, 225–236. Dohi, H., Yamada, A., Entsu, S., 1991. Cattle feeding deterrents emitted from cattle feces. J. Chem. Ecol. 17, 1197–1203. Fraser, A.F., Broom, D.M., 1998. Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 3rd Edition. CAB International, New York, pp. 437. Lott, D., Hart, B., 1979. Applied ethology in a nomadic cattle culture. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 5, 309–319. MacDiarmid, B.N., Watkin, B.R., 1972. The cattle dung patch. 3.
125
Distribution and rate of decay of dung patches and their influence on grazing behavior. J. Br. Grassl. Soc. 27, 48–54. Marten, G.C., Donker, J.D., 1966. Animal excrement as a factor influencing acceptability of grazed forage. In: Hill, A.G.G. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th International Grassland Congress, 7–16 July 1966, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, pp. 359–363. Melchiors, A., Leslie, C.A., 1985. Effectiveness of predator fecal odors as black-tailed deer repellents. J. Wildl. Manage. 49, 358–362. ¨ Muller-Schwarze, D., 1972. Responses of young black-tailed deer to predator odors. J. Mammal. 53, 393–394. Norman, M.J.T., Green, J.O., 1958. The local influence of cattle dung and urine upon the yield and botanical composition of permanent pasture. J. Br. Grassl. Soc. 13, 39–45. SAS Institute, 1985. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. Siegel, S., Castellan, N.J., 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 399. Sullivan, T.P., Nordstrom, L.O., Sullivan, D.S., 1985. Use of predator odors as repellents to reduce feeding damages by herbivores. II. Black tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus). J. Chem. Ecol. 11, 921–935. Weeda, W.C., 1967. The effect of cattle dung patches on pasture growth, botanical composition, and pasture utilization. NZ J. Agric. Res. 10, 150–159.
The effect of exposure to feces from four farm species on the avoidance behaviour and feed consumption of sheep ´ a , A. Orihuela b , * E. Suarez b
a Postgrado Interinstitucional en Ciencias Pecuarias, Universidad de Colima, Colima, Mexico ´ del Estado de Morelos, Apartado Postal 5 -78, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Autonoma Cuernavaca Morelos 62051, Mexico
Received 12 June 2001; received in revised form 22 March 2002; accepted 4 April 2002
Abstract The study of food repulsion in ungulates is of practical importance for controlling browsing damage to forest trees and agricultural crops. In the present study, two experiments with domestic sheep assessed the aversive value of the manure of four farm species under fresh and dry conditions. In Experiment 1, a 5 m corridor was used. Feces were placed at one end, and 10 sheep were individually introduced from the opposite end, recording the time spent in each 1 m section. In Experiment 2, buckets with a wire mesh divider were used. The corresponding treatment was in the bottom and commercial concentrate was in the upper part. Ten sheep different from those in Experiment 1 were exposed individually to each treatment, recording the time spent eating and the amount of food consumed. In Experiment 1, significant aversion was found to manure from cattle. In Experiment 2, no difference was found for time eating. However, less food consumption was found in the cattle manure treatment. In both trials, no difference was found when fresh and dry feces were compared. A low association (r 5 0.57) was found between the aversion ranked order of the manure from different species in both experiments. However, both experiments coincided with cattle manure as the highest ranked aversion excreta. It was concluded that: (1) cattle manure is the most repulsive excreta from the farm species evaluated; and (2) some results may vary according to the test applied. 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Sheep-feeding and nutrition; Feces; Odors; Feeding preferences; Avoidance behaviour
1. Introduction It has long been documented that cattle do not feed on grass near their feces in pasture (Norman and Green, 1958; Marten and Donker, 1966; Weeda, *Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 52-777-3174-268; fax: 1 52777-3137-252. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Orihuela).
1967; Fraser and Broom, 1998). According to Lott and Hart (1979) such behavior is adaptive in reducing infestation by endoparasites and other diseaseinducing organisms. Furthermore, among the factors derived from feces, previous studies (MacDiarmid and Watkin, 1972; Dohi et al., 1991) have indicated the importance of feeding-deterrent odors emitted by cattle feces. In addition, Aoyama et al. (1994) suggested that the volatile fraction of cattle feces
0301-6226 / 02 / $ – see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S0301-6226( 02 )00085-4
120
´ , A. Orihuela / Livestock Production Science 77 (2002) 119–125 E. Suarez
negatively influences the food preference of cattle and other herbivores such as sheep and goats. Studies on food repulsion have been of practical importance for controlling browsing damage to forest trees and to discourage cattle from eating crops across unfenced boundaries by smearing fresh feces on the leaves of plants along the border (Arnould and Signoret, 1993). Furthermore, in Africa, some tribes discourage calves from nursing during the weaning period by smearing fresh feces on the udder of the dam each morning (Lott and Hart, 1979). Suppression of ungulates’ feeding by odors of predators has ¨ often been mentioned (Muller-Schwarze, 1972; Melchiors and Leslie, 1985; Sullivan et al., 1985; Abbott et al., 1990). However, more information is needed concerning the use of feces as a repellant to heteroand conspecific farm animals. In the present study, two behavioral tests were designed to determine the relative odor repellent of feces from four farm species (cattle, swine, sheep, poultry) in fresh and dehydrated conditions, using sheep as experimental animals. In Experiment 1, it was hypothesized that morerepulsive excreta will induce animals to spend more time at the opposite end of a corridor, while in Experiment 2, the hypothesis was that sheep would spend less time eating and / or consume less food from a bucket containing the more-repulsive excreta.
2. Materials and methods The experiment was carried out in the state of Morelos, Mexico (188410N, 998210W) located in the arid tropic region, at 1020 m above sea level. Average annual precipitation for the area is 750 mm. Annual temperatures fluctuate between 18 and 28 8C. Subjects were 20 Katadhin (hair sheep Ovis aries) males, 5 to 6 months old. All animals were kept in individual pens and fed since weaning (3 months of age) with 400 g / day / ram of a commercial concentrate with 14% protein (Purina, Mexico), and 3 kg of fresh Taiwan grass. Mineral salt and water was offered ad libitum. Two weeks before the beginning of the experiment, all animals were dewormed orally with levamisol (Disport, Montevideo, Uruguay) at a dose of 10 mg / kg.
Treatments consisted of fresh and dehydrated feces from cattle, sheep, swine and poultry, which are common excreta in rural areas. Fresh manure was collected from adult animals 1–7 h before testing. The donors were fed the same commercial food within the four farms (one for each species). These farms were located within a radius of 20 km from where the experiments were conducted. For the dehydration process, fresh manure was collected the day before the test, and submitted to 8 h at 80 8C in an oven.
2.1. Experiment 1 A 5 m 3 1 m 3 1.5 m wide solid-side corridor was used. Vertical lines were traced on the outside walls every meter, dividing the inside area into five 1 m 2 sections. One of the end areas was covered with a 5 cm depth of the corresponding treatment manure. This area is referred to as Area 1, while the opposite area is referred to as Area 5. Ten sheep were introduced individually from the opposite end (Area 5) of the corridor. During a 5-min test, the time that the subjects spent in each section of the alleyway was recorded. After each animal was tested, the concrete floor of the corridor was swept to remove manure or any material that could be eaten. Animals had been exposed individually to the corridor for 5 min daily for 1 week before the experiment started. Every day all the animals were tested in random order within each treatment. Each test was repeated the next day, alternating the position of the feces from one end to the other. The entire procedure was repeated on consecutive days five times for each treatment. An ANOVA factorial statistical design (SAS Institute, 1985) was used to analyze the data collected during the 5-min corridor tests. The analysis compared differences between fresh and dehydrated feces (factor A), species (factor B) and interactions for time spent in the different areas of the corridor.
2.2. Experiment 2 Eight buckets (one for each treatment) were each fitted with a wire mesh basket 15 cm in diameter. There was a space of 20 cm separating the bottom of
´ , A. Orihuela / Livestock Production Science 77 (2002) 119–125 E. Suarez
the bucket and the bottom of the wire basket. In this space, the corresponding manure treatment was placed. Feces were never less than 10 cm under the grid, where 1000 g of a commercial balanced concentrate with 14% protein (Purina, Mexico) was placed (upper part). The purpose of the wire mesh basket was to allow the odor of the excreta permeate the food while the animal was eating. Animals were trained to eat from these wire mesh baskets (with no feces) for 1 week prior to testing. Ten sheep, different from those used in trial 1, were exposed individually to each treatment during a 5-min test, recording the time they spent with their heads in the bucket (eating) and the amount of food consumed. Starting at 08:00 each day animals were tested in random order in one specific treatment. Each consecutive day a different treatment was applied to each animal and the treatment was repeated five times on consecutive days. Before each test, the concrete floor of the testing pen was cleaned to remove any material that could be eaten. Ewes were fed once a day after the end of the tests, having received no food for a minimum of 16 h. Their motivation to eat commercial concentrate was very important, as it was the only food available during the test and the one they were accustomed to. An ANOVA factorial statistical design (SAS Institute, 1985) was used to analyze the data collected
121
during the 5-min bucket tests. The analysis compared differences between fresh and dehydrates feces (factor A), species (factor B) and interactions for time spent eating and food consumption. The aversion produced by the different feces was ranked, and the Spearman rank correlation test (Siegel and Castellan, 1988) was used to evaluate the association between the variables measured. All research subjects were acquired, retained, and used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations, following the established standards for the humane care and use of animals.
3. Results
3.1. Experiment 1 Significant (P , 0.01) repulsion was found to manure from cattle, as animals tended to spend more time in Area 5 of the corridor (Table 1). Under the control conditions a tendency for a normal Gauss shape was observed (Fig. 1). Except when using dehydrated cattle feces, every animal spent more time in the central corridor areas than at the edges. When using dehydrated cattle feces, more time was spent on the side opposite the manure (Fig. 2).
Table 1 ANOVA results for values related to time (s) spent in Area 5 (side opposite the manure) of the corridor in Experiment 1 Df Fresh or dry manure (factor A) Type of manure a (factor B) Interaction AB Error Total
SS
MS 3169.69
3169.69
1.82
ns
4
45 758.36
11 439.59
6.58
0.0001
4 90 99
15 148.36 156 456.50 220 532.91
3787.09 1738.40
2.17
ns
Manure from: 1, cattle; 2, sheep; 3, poultry; 4, swine; 5, control. Different letters show differences between means (P , 0.05).
b,c
P
1
Duncan’s multiple range test. No. of observations to calculate the mean, 20. LSD value 26.19. a 5 0.05 Original order a Ranked order Mean 1 5 147.6 b Mean 1 5 147.6 b c Mean 2 5 102.8 Mean 3 5 104.2 c Mean 3 5 104.2 c Mean 2 5 102.8 c c Mean 4 5 102.6 Mean 4 5 102.6 c Mean 5 5 82.6 c Mean 5 5 82.6 c a
F
122
´ , A. Orihuela / Livestock Production Science 77 (2002) 119–125 E. Suarez
Fig. 1. Time spent by sheep in the different areas of the corridor in Experiment 1 when exposed to fresh manure. ns, non-significant (P . 0.05). *Significant (P , 0.01) treatments. **Area 1 corresponds to where the manure was applied.
3.2. Experiment 2 The treatment did not affect eating time (P . 0.05; Table 2). However, feed consumption was less (P , 0.05) when exposed to the odor of manure (Table 3). A trend (P . 0.05) for less time eating and food consumption was observed for dry manure in all treatments except when using swine excreta. No differences (P . 0.05) between fresh vs. dehy-
drated feces were found regardless of the experiment or test applied (Tables 1–3). In general, a correlation of 0.57 (P , 0.05) was found between the ranked avoidance excreta results obtained from the two experiments. Time eating was correlated with food intake (r 5 0.72; P , 0.05) and the corridor test (r 5 0.63; P , 0.05). No correlation was found between food intake and the corridor test (r 5 0.21; P . 0.05).
´ , A. Orihuela / Livestock Production Science 77 (2002) 119–125 E. Suarez
123
Fig. 2. Time spent by sheep in the different areas of the corridor in Experiment 1 when exposed to dehydrated manure.
4. Discussion The corridor test appeared to be as efficient as the bucket test for the study of odor aversion in sheep. The different texture (visual and touch senses involved) of the floor in the first area (where the feces were applied) did not affect the results (time each animal spent in the different areas of the corridor vs. food consumption from the bucket). Nevertheless,
direct contact with the feces suggests a more complex situation than when only the repulsive value of the volatile components are acting via the sense of smell as in the second experiment. Time spent eating was not a good estimator of aversion. The different results for time eating and food consumed in Experiment 2 could be due to the feeding style or the bite size of individual animals. Individual differences in hunger after fasting could
´ , A. Orihuela / Livestock Production Science 77 (2002) 119–125 E. Suarez
124
Table 2 ANOVA results for time (s) spent eating by sheep exposed to manure from different species in Experiment 2 Df Fresh or dry manure (factor A) Type of manure a (factor B) Interaction AB Error Total
SS
F
P
1
47 045.61
47 045.61
3.07
ns
4
125 169.54
31 292.38
2.04
ns
4 90 99
107 894.14 1 377 158.10 1 657 267.39
26 973.53 15 301.75
1.76
ns
Original order a Mean 16S.D. 5 441.556148.77 Mean 26S.D. 5 441.506144.26 Mean 36S.D. 5 440.166142.80 Mean 46S.D. 5 462.856101.07 Mean 56S.D. 5 536.40645.59 a
MS
Ranked order Mean 5 5 536.40 Mean 4 5 462.85 Mean 1 5 441.55 Mean 2 5 441.50 Mean 3 5 440.16
Manure from: 1, cattle; 2, sheep; 3, poultry; 4, swine; 5, control.
Table 3 ANOVA results for food consumption (g) by sheep exposed to manure from different species in Experiment 2 Df Fresh or dry manure (factor A) Type of manure (factor B) Interaction AB Error Total
SS
MS
F
P
1
338.56
338.56
0.0661
ns
4
59 418.34
14 854.58
2.9004
0.0262
4 90 99
47 521.54 460 935.40 568 213.84
11 880.38 5121.50
2.3197
ns
Duncan’s multiple range test. No. of observations to calculate the mean, 20. LSD value 5 44.96. a 5 0.05 Original order a Ranked order Mean 16S.D. 5 136.8674.5 c Mean 5 5 207.0 b Mean 26S.D. 5 183.9667.1 b Mean 3 5 197.5 b Mean 36S.D. 5 197.5678.4 b Mean 4 5 189.7 b b Mean 46S.D. 5 189.7665.6 Mean 2 5 183.9 b Mean 56S.D. 5 207.0661.5 b Mean 1 5 136.8 c a
Manure from: 1, cattle; 2, sheep; 3, poultry; 4, swine; 5, control. Different letters show differences between means (P , 0.05). ns, non significant (P . 0.05).
b,c
also explain these different results. However, when considering food consumption, there were common results in both experiments. The results of the present study show that of all the excreta tested, the more-repulsive odors were found in cattle manure, inducing the highest avoid-
ance behavior in sheep regardless of the test applied (corridor or bucket). This is in accordance with previous findings in cattle (Dohi et al., 1991) and goats (Aoyama et al., 1994). These results highlight the possible value of the repulsion to cattle manure in some applied ethologic
´ , A. Orihuela / Livestock Production Science 77 (2002) 119–125 E. Suarez
approaches such as controlling damage to forest trees and agricultural crops, and its practical importance to discourage animals from nursing.
References Abbott, D.H., Baines, D.A., Faulkes, C.G., Lewis, E., Ning, P.C.Y.K., Tomlimson, A.J., 1990. A natural deer repellent: chemistry and behaviour. In: Macdonald, D.W., MullerSchwarze, D., Natynczuk, S.E. (Eds.). Chemical Signals in Vertebrates, Vol. 5. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 599– 609. Aoyama, M., Dohi, H., Shioya, S., Takeuchi, Y., Mori, Y., Odubo, T., 1994. Feeding-deterrent substance in cattle feces: its effects on ingestive behavior in goats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 40, 253–262. Arnould, C., Signoret, J.P., 1993. Sheep food repellents: efficacy of various products, habituation, and social facilitation. J. Chem. Ecol. 19, 225–236. Dohi, H., Yamada, A., Entsu, S., 1991. Cattle feeding deterrents emitted from cattle feces. J. Chem. Ecol. 17, 1197–1203. Fraser, A.F., Broom, D.M., 1998. Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 3rd Edition. CAB International, New York, pp. 437. Lott, D., Hart, B., 1979. Applied ethology in a nomadic cattle culture. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 5, 309–319. MacDiarmid, B.N., Watkin, B.R., 1972. The cattle dung patch. 3.
125
Distribution and rate of decay of dung patches and their influence on grazing behavior. J. Br. Grassl. Soc. 27, 48–54. Marten, G.C., Donker, J.D., 1966. Animal excrement as a factor influencing acceptability of grazed forage. In: Hill, A.G.G. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th International Grassland Congress, 7–16 July 1966, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, pp. 359–363. Melchiors, A., Leslie, C.A., 1985. Effectiveness of predator fecal odors as black-tailed deer repellents. J. Wildl. Manage. 49, 358–362. ¨ Muller-Schwarze, D., 1972. Responses of young black-tailed deer to predator odors. J. Mammal. 53, 393–394. Norman, M.J.T., Green, J.O., 1958. The local influence of cattle dung and urine upon the yield and botanical composition of permanent pasture. J. Br. Grassl. Soc. 13, 39–45. SAS Institute, 1985. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. Siegel, S., Castellan, N.J., 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 399. Sullivan, T.P., Nordstrom, L.O., Sullivan, D.S., 1985. Use of predator odors as repellents to reduce feeding damages by herbivores. II. Black tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus). J. Chem. Ecol. 11, 921–935. Weeda, W.C., 1967. The effect of cattle dung patches on pasture growth, botanical composition, and pasture utilization. NZ J. Agric. Res. 10, 150–159.