Diterbitkan tanggal 4 Desember 2014

Multilizer PDF Translator Free version - translation is limited to ~ 3 pages per translation.
1,2
Mengundang review: makan perilaku kambing
A. L. Goetsch, *3 T. A. Gipson, * A. R. Askar, dan R. Puchala *

* American Institute untuk kambing penelitian, Universitas Langston, Langston, OK 73050;

dan Animal dan Departemen gizi unggas, gurun pusat penelitian, El Matareya, Kairo, Mesir

ABSTRAK: Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi makan lainnya behav-

peralatan
sistem
menentukan waktu
makan,
merenungkan dan
sisa
siaga
dari
pola
rahang
IOR kambing mencakup merumput praktik manajemen, jenis
vegetasi dan musim, berkembang biak dan tahap produksi,gerakan. Selain untuk penggunaann-alkana sebagai internal
ukuran kelompok, dan sifat dari diet makan dalam kurungan. penanda untuk memperkirakan daya cerna, profil mereka dapat
Informasi yang cukup telah dikumpulkan dari pengamatanvide indikasi komposisi botani diet dipilih. Pakan
visu-al siang hari. Namun, alat sekarang tersedia untuk sistem otomatis untuk kambing terbatas
mengkarakterisasi perilaku makan kambing sementara memungkinkan penentuan seperti jumlah pengumpan
penggembalaan dan sementara dalam kurungan sepanjang kunjungan dan makanan, makan waktu, dan tingkat
hari. Global positioning system kerah dapat digunakan untukdan pola konsumsi pakan. Detak jantung yang diukur
menilai jarak horizontal dan vertikal yang bepergian, naik sementara kambing dalam pengaturan produksi
atau turun posisi kepala dan gerakan wilayah padang rumput maupun-mal dapat digunakan untuk memprediksi
pengeluaran total energi melalui perkalian oleh
atau rangeland. Memantau aktivitas tersedia secara komersial
kaki memungkinkan estimasi jumlah langkah-langkah dan pengeluaran energi setiap detak jantung dari hewan
waktu yang dihabiskan berdiri, berbaring, dan memindahkan individu. Untuk partisi aktivitas energi biaya,
rap - santai tanpa merumput. Namun, pengukuran ini tidak perkiraan saya asupan atau langkah-langkah perubahan
secara langsung menentukan merumput. Oleh karena itu, dalam tubuh energi status dan susu hasil energi yang
prediksi persamaan berdasarkan pengamatan visual harus diperlukan untuk menentukan sumber panas untuk
dipotong dari total energi ex-penditure. Metode ini
pem-oped. Klasifikasi pohon analisis adalah metode yang kuat
dalam mengembangkan persamaan ini karena pohon keputusan menciptakan kesempatan
dapat dipangkas untuk untuk
atau diperluas mendapatkan
menyediakan paling
pemahaman yang
Kata kunci: aktivitas, perilaku, kambinglebih lengkap dari faktor-faktor yang mempeng

2010 American Society of peternakan. Semua Hak, milik. J. Anim. Sci. 2010. 88:361-373
Doi:10.2527/jas.2009-2332

PENGENALAN sangat antara spesies peliharaan ternak. Namun,

Definisi umum perilaku adalah "sesuatu bahwa suatu
organisme tidak melibatkan tindakan dan respon
terhadap rangsangan," "respon individu, kelompok, atau
spesies untuk lingkungan," dan "jalan di mana sesuatu
fungsi atau mengoperasikan" (Merriam-Webster
Collegiate kamus, 1996). Meskipun definisi ini luas, hal
ini juga diketahui bahwa perilaku hewan bervariasi
1
Disajikan pada perilaku hewan dan kesejahteraan Simposium
berjudul "Perilaku-nutrisi interaksi" selama pertemuan tahunan bersama di Montreal, Kanada, 12-16 Juli 2009.
2
Penelitian ini didukung oleh penelitian hibah No. U.S.-3694-05 R darikambing
Penelitiandanpengembangandana,danUSDAproyekNomor05-38814-16353.
3
Sesuai penulis: goetsch@luresext.edu
Menerima 25 Juli 2009.
Diterima 16 September 2009.
persamaan adalah pengaruh gizi. Untuk kambing,
con-sideration efek dari nutrisi pada perilaku dapat
dikategorikan ke dalam kambing dalam pengaturan
merumput dan kambing dalam kurungan pengaturan.
Metode pengamatan langsung telah, dan masih,
berguna dalam skenario kedua. Meskipun cukup tenaga
kerja diperlukan dengan merumput kambing, mea-sures
dibatasi pada siang hari, dan adanya pengamat dapat
mengubah perilaku hewan (Barroso et al., 2000;
Papachristou et al., 2005; El Aich et al., 2007).
Peralatan sekarang tersedia untuk menandai behav-ior
Studi Amerika
BARD, tentang perilaku bebas
Serikat-Israel
dan spesies lainnya bergerak
Binational kambing periode 24 Ja
pertanian
ruminansia sepanjang
pas-tures dan rangelands berguna untuk tujuan seperti
menentukan yang paling sesuai tingkat kaus kaki dan
fisiologis negara, dan musim tanah menggunakan,
kebutuhan dan jenis bahan pakan tambahan, dan
desir-kemampuan monospecies merumput dengan kambing vs co

361
Multilizer PDF Translator Free version - translation is limited to ~ 3 pages per translation.
 Multilizer PDF Translator Free version - Goetsch
362
translation
et al.
is limited to ~ 3 pages per translation.

ing
dengan
sapi,
domba,atau
(Lachica
dan
Aguilera,
2005b;
Animut
dan
Goetsch,
2008).
Selain
itu,
haridengan merekam jumlah langkah-langkah pengamat
dan langkah rata-rata kaki (Lachica et al., 1997, 1999),
pengembangan penggunaan denyut jantung) HR) diukur atau dengan menempatkan pedometer pada hewan
di bergerak bebas hewan untuk memprediksi total energi expen -
(Sharma et al. 1998). Jarak sekarang terutama
diture) EE; Brosh, 2007) telah menciptakan kesempatan ditentukan dengan kerah GPS pada ani-mals, yang juga
untuk menyelidiki hubungan antara EE kambing, atau
dapat digunakan untuk memantau lokasi dan gerakan
sebaiknya aktivitas energi biaya) AEC), dan pakan -
ing atau merumput perilaku, yang dapat wilayah merumput (Schlecht et al., 2006; 2009).
mengakibatkan sarana memprediksi dan meminimalkan demikian pula, sistem peralatan yang dibawa oleh
kerugian ini cukup besar energi. Oleh karena itu, hewan telah digunakan untuk mengukur berbaring,
tujuan adalah untuk meringkas metode yang digunakan berdiri dan berjalan (juara et al., 1997) dan waktu yang
untuk mengkarakterisasi perilaku makan kambing dan dihabiskan di ingestive dan malaikat pengunyahan dan
efek dari praktek-praktek gizi dan produksi pada jumlah pola yang berbeda dari gerakan rahang atau
kambing perilaku sementara penggembalaan dan dalam kurungan.gigitan melalui sebuah sensor ditempatkan di sekitar
METODE UNTUK MENILAI mulut berdasarkan udara pulsa (Abijaoud et al., 1999,
MAKAN PERILAKU 2000) atau sensor konduktivitas listrik (Animut et al. ,
2005a; Berhan et al., 2005; Patra et al., 2008b). Pilihan
Metode untuk menilai merumput perilaku Diet telah dinilai oleh esophagus cannulas (Fedele et
Sejumlah besar variabel diukur dengan kambing al., 1993; Raats et al., 1996) atau dengan ru - minal
graz-ing, sering dikategorikan sebagai makan atau kanula melalui koleksi ingesta setelah evakuasi total
merumput perilaku. Mereka termasuk waktu makan digesta (Patra et al., 2008a, b). Komposisi botani diet
atau merumput, merenungkan, istirahat, berdiri, telah diperkirakan oleh mikro-Histologi kotoran
berjalan, dalam sikap berkaki dua-al, dan aerially di centrations
(Animut et dari
al.,n-alkana dan tanaman
2005b; Mellado lain lilin
et al, 2005, compo-
2006) dan
nents (merpati
esofagus extrusa dan Mayes,
(Fedele et 2005,
al., 2006).
1993), analisis Spektroskopi Infra
pohon. Perilaku lainnya horizontal dan vertikal jarak
bepergian, lokasi dan gerakan dalam lahan tersedia,
jumlah gigitan, tingkat menggigit, jumlah mulut
Saat ini metode untuk menandai merumput
Perilaku di American Institute
gerakan di-volved di prehension, mengunyah sebelum
untuk penelitian kambing
menelan, dan perenungan, menggigit ukuran, seketika
tingkat asupan, dan pilihan diet dalam kimia dan Merumput kegiatan dan HR. Sebagai dicatat, vari-
Selama bertahun-tahun, banyak dari variabel-variabel
botani com-posisi, termasuk tanaman tertentu bagian prehended. ous metode yang digunakan untuk mempelajari perilaku merump
yang tercantum di atas telah dinilai melalui kambing, banyak yang telah digunakan di Amerika
pengamatan visual dan Pelacakan oleh para peneliti Institut untuk kambing penelitian
AIGR)() atas de terakhir -
(Lachica dan Aguilera, 2005a, b). Cukup rinci prosedur Bloodreign. Saat ini, AIGR menggunakan Model
telah dikembangkan. Sebagai contoh, Agreil dan Meuret 3300SL GPS kerah (Lotek Wireless, Newmarket,
(2004) dijelaskan metode untuk quan-tify perilaku Ontario, Kanada), yang login lintang dan bujur untuk
ingestive domba dan kambing. Im-portant komponen perbaikan 2-dimensi; lintang, bujur dan ketinggian
prosedur tersebut adalah bahwa observ-ers tidak untuk perbaikan 3-dimensi; x-y gerak; dan kepala atas
mengganggu hewan sehingga kedekatan yang dapat atau kepala ke posisi. Kalung ini kecil ( lebar
diperoleh, termasuk penggunaan tanah akrab bagi panjang tinggi: 68 48 48 mm) dan ringan (200 g)
kelompok dan identifikasi individu tertentu dan memiliki kapasitas untuk menyimpan lebih dari
indiffer-THT kehadiran pengamat. Perilaku individu 41.000 diferensial lokasi dalam sistem koordinat
yang dipilih (misalnya, waktu yang dihabiskan di Amerika Utara Datum 1983. Vari-ous GPS
konsumsi, komposisi dari diet dipilih) harus menjadi memperbaiki jadwal dapat digunakan, walaupun dalam
perwakilan dari kelompok. Gigitan yang terus-menerus studi AIGR, jadwal diatur untuk mendapatkan
direkam secara real time di seluruh periode merumput memperbaiki pada interval mungkin pendek-est, yang 5
harian, dengan kategorisasi menjadi 41 jenis, termasuk menit perbaikan adalah down-load dan dikoreksi
Stasiun
postdifferentially 234.464283
masa kemerdekaan
dengan (36
N, 97 219
16 perangkat
menggunakan 17.976103 lunak
W),
spesies tanaman atau kelompok spesies berbagi sama yang merupakan stasiun referensi terdekat dengan
kategori, bagianlangsung
tanaman,juga
dandigunakan
panjang daun prehended. propri-etary (N4, Lotek Wireless) dan stasiun base file dari Perry
Pengamatan untuk perilaku lainnya,
terus-menerus operasi AIGR (37.4 km tanyakan jarak).
Di lain waktu
seperti waktu,yang
setiap gigitan secara
dihabiskan manual simulasi untukPerbaikan
merumput, memperkirakan tingkat
dikoreksi asupandiimpor
kemudian diet komposisi dan9.3
ke ArcGIS ukuran gigi
merenungkan, berdiri, berjalan-ing, dan berbaring (ESRI, Redlands, CA). Batas-batas dari padang
selama periode daylight (Barroso et al., 2000; rumput, termasuk-ing buffer eksternal 7-m, yang
Papachristou et al., 2005; El Aich et al., 2007). Selain dibangun sebagai shapefiles dengan menggunakan
itu, hewan pelacakan memungkinkan perkiraan jarak bepergian sistemdengan menggunakan
koordinat geografis
tahun 1984 Sistemloterei-
Geodesi Dunia
(sistem tioning) GPS) peralatan atau geografis infor -
Masi sistem perangkat lunak (Oudrago-Kon et al., 2006), Universal Transverse Mercator 14N. X dan y koordinat
dalam meter dihitung untuk memperbaiki setiap. Hanya perbaik
Multilizer PDF Translator Free version - translation is limited to ~ 3 pages per translation.
 Multilizer PDF Translator Free version - Kambing
translation is limited to ~ 3 pages per translation.
perilaku 363
file yang diekspor ke spreadsheet Excel (Microsoft merumput perilaku pemantauan sistem unit (USG
Corporation, Redmond, WA). Jarak antara perbaikan nasihat, London, Inggris). Unit yang terdiri dari sebuah
con-secutive dihitung dengan menggunakan Euklidean sensor noseband yang aman di sekitar mulut dan unit
geometri. Karena area padang rumput yang biasanya pengolahan (1.3 kg) terletak di bagian belakang. Unit
digunakan tidak tajam bervariasi di ketinggian, vertikal jarak yang ditempuh
ditempatkan tidak telah
pada kambing untukdihitung.
sedikit lebih dari 1 d
untuk mendapatkan langkah-langkah untuk 24 h.
IceTag kegiatan monitor dari IceRobotics Limited
Keesokan harinya, baterai diisi, dan peralatan yang
(Midlothian, Skotlandia) juga kecil ( lebar panjang
digunakan pada kambing lainnya setiap hari. IGER
tinggi: 95 85 32 mm) dan ringan (170 g) dan yang
merumput perilaku pemantauan unit memungkinkan
melekat pada kaki belakang. 3-sumbu accelerometers ini
es-timation waktu dihabiskan makan, merenungkan dan
sangat akurat menentukan gerakan 16 kali per detik.
tetap-ing menganggur, seperti yang dijelaskan oleh
Data output dari jumlah langkah-langkah dan waktu
Patra et al. (2008a, b). Sistem IGER menyediakan agak
berdiri, berbaring, dan aktif dirangkum untuk setiap
langsung perkiraan waktu yang dihabiskan makan atau
menit. Waktu berdiri dari IceTag monitor mencakup
penggembalaan dan merenungkan didasarkan pada pola
periode merumput dan nongrazing, dan aktif
gerakan rahang. Panel A, B dan C gambar 1
didefinisikan sebagai berjalan di relatif cepat, mungkin
menunjukkan pola-pola yang khas untuk makan,
tanpa merumput. Berbaring waktu adalah semata-mata atau terutama tanpa merumput.
Untuk memantau HR, kambing dilengkapi dengan merenungkan dan tetap menganggur, masing-masing.
Vermed Perfor-mancePlus elektroda Elektrokardiogram Sistem perangkat lunak yang disediakan membedakan
(Vermed, Bel-terendah Falls, VT) melekat pada dada pola-pola dalam
Data dari GPS kebanyakan
kerah dan monitorkasus. IceTag
Kadang-kadang,
tidak
tepat di belakang dan sedikit di bawah siku kiri dan di bagaimanapun, daerah ditandai sebagai
termasuk langsung perkiraan waktu makan atau teridentifikasi,
belakang tulang belikat di sisi kanan. Elektroda seperti dengan
merumput. posisidemikian,
Dengan tidak tepat noseband,
persamaan dalam hal data yang
untuk
diamankan ke kulit dengan 5-cm-lebar elastis perban memprediksi merumput atau makan, berjalan tanpa
(Henry Schein, Melville, NY) dan hewan tag semen merumput, beristirahat sambil berbaring dan
(Ruscoe, Akron, OH). Elektroda dihubungkan oleh Lead beristirahat sementara berdiri dikembangkan dalam
snap Elektrokardiogram (Bioconnect, San Diego, CA) sebuah studi kalibrasi dengan klasifikasi pohon analisis
untuk pemancar T61 dikodekan (kutub, Lake Success, (Steinberg dan Colla, 1997) dan analisis CART
NY). Manusia RS400 HR (kutub) monitor dengan software (sistem Salford, San Diego, CA). Pemesanan
inframerah koneksi ke pemancar yang digunakan untuk kalibrasi studi di AIGR di volved 32 binatang dengan
mengumpulkan data HR di 1 menit di tervals. Denyut langkah-langkah selama periode 6-d. Hewan dilengkapi
jantung data dianalisis menggunakan perangkat lunak dengan monitor IceTag dan GPS kerah, dan memakan
Polar presisi kinerja SW yang disediakan oleh kutub. rumput atau makan perilaku diamati secara visual.
Untuk memprediksi EE dari HR, rasio EE HR Karena bahan pakan tambahan telah disediakan di
menghalangi - ditambang untuk masing-masing hewan beberapa eksperimen ketika tumbuh hijauan terbatas,
(Brosh, 2007) dengan sistem kalorimetri langsung pengamatan kalibrasi ini studi termasuk kambing yang
respirasi sirkuit terbuka (Sable Sys - tems, Las Vegas, menyediakan akses ke rumput jerami. GPS kerah dan
NV) selama setidaknya 24 jam. Untuk relatif pendek IceTag data yang diproses secara manusia-ner tersebut.
percobaan, seperti mereka yang 12 atau 16 wk panjang, Merumput atau makan pengamatan 32% (610) dari
Sistem
rasio peralatan
ditentukan ini 3 (yaitu,
sebelum GPS kerah,
atau setelah studi. IceTag
Namun, pengamatan 5-min 1,882, beristirahat sementara
memantau aktivitas, dan HR monitor) adalah berbaring
untuk lebih lama percobaan dengan hewan di Serikat fisiologis yang obser-vations 34% (637),
berbeda sepanjang tahun,beristirahat
rasio diperkirakan berkali-ka
simultane-ously digunakan untuk setidaknya 2 d. sementara berdiri obser-vations 26% (492), dan
Panjang ini dibatasi oleh jumlah hewan percobaan pengamatan berjalan 8% (143). CART software
(yaitu, 24-32 dalam kebanyakan AIGR percobaan), digunakan untuk membangun klasifikasi pohon dengan
jumlah GPS kerah berhasil-dapat dan nomor yang menggunakan jumlah langkah-langkah dan waktu
peneliti dapat bekerja dengan pada waktu tertentu, berdiri, berbaring, dan aktif dari IceTag monitor dan
langkah-langkah tambahan di lain waktu, dan kepala ke bawah, x aktivitas, aktivitas y, dan dis.-Gat
keinginan untuk meminimalkan panjang seluruh data penting bepergian dari kerah GPS sebagai peramal
koleksi periode. Karena data GPS kerah vari-ables dan merumput aktivitas sebagai variabel
mengumpulkan-ed pada 5-menit interval dan IceTag target. Keberhasilan PKB-sification adalah 77, 81, 56
dan monitor HR menyediakan data Keluaran 1-menit dan 94% untuk merumput atau makan, beristirahat
interval, data emanat-ing dari 3 buah peralatan harus sambil berbaring, beristirahat sambil berdiri, dan
cocok dalam 5-menit interval. IceTag dan HR data Hijauan
berjalan pencernaan,
tanpa merumput atau asupan
makan. dan botani
47-simpul
o
K mposisi.
yang diimpor ke spreadsheet Excel (Microsoft Corporation)PKB-sification Memiliki
dengan tepat pohon Pemesanan
macro dinyatakan
untuk menggabungkan AIGR percobaan
data dalam 5-meni
dalam serangkaian
Dalam beberapa studi, kambing juga telah dilengkapi dengantermasuk penggunaan
menghasilkan total tinja koleksi
jika-maka diawali di program SAS (SAS Inst. Inc, tas selama jam
tute (padang rumput dan penelitian lingkunganIGER) periode 4-d setidaknya untuk memperkirakan tinja output. Set
Cary, NC) untuk memprediksi perilaku hewan dalam
Multilizer PDF Translator Free version - translation is limited
percobaan to ~ 3 pages
lain, membahas per translation.
faktor-faktor seperti kaus tingkat, jen
364 Goetsch et al.

Figure 1. Jaw movement pattern of the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research Grazing Behavior Monitoring Unit for eating
(panel A), ruminating (panel B), remaining idle (panel C), and an unknown activity requiring deletion or a subjective decision (panel D). The
interval between dashed vertical lines is 1 min.

mals were closely observed, hand-plucked or simulated Analysis of n-alkanes at the AIGR follows the proce-
grazed forage samples were collected, although in other dure of Mayes et al. (1986), with the modifications of Ol-
experiments ruminally cannulated goats were used to ivn and Osoro (1999). Botanical composition is based
collect ingesta (Patra et al., 2008a,b). The profile of on the least squares optimization procedure (Mayes et
n-alkanes in individual plant species samples and feces al., 1994; Dove and Moore, 1995), using the Solver rou-
allows estimation of the botanical composition of foragetine of Excel (Microsoft Corporation) with nonnegative
selected. Fecal concentration of individual n-alkanes isrestrictions. Discrimination analysis is used to select
corrected for recovery, determined with harvested for- suitable n-alkanes for determining botanical composi-
age from the same or similar pastures. Recovery is de- tion. The accuracy of using the n-alkane technique to
termined in the animals used for grazing in some ex- estimate botanical composition depends primarily on
periments, whereas in others different animals are used.the difference in the profile among plant species that
However, in a recent experiment (A. R. Askar, unpub- allows discrimination between or among plant species
and knowledge of the recovery of n-alkanes selected for
lished results), there was an interaction between physi-
calculation (Mayes and Dove, 2000; Brosh et al., 2003).
ological
growing state of Boer
wethers, and goats (mature
yearling meatand
wethers) goatn-alkane
does,An alternative method is free-choice feeding of different
length; values were similar among physiological states plant species available on pasture to goats in metabo-
in recovery of C22 to C26, but were greater for growing lism crates while collecting total feces excretion. Suit-
wethers compared with mature does and yearling able internal markers for use in determining botanical
weth- ers in C27 to C31 recovery. composition and digestibility for grazing animals are
 Goat behavior 365
based on relationships between values estimated from An alternative approach to that of peeling AEC de-
n-alkanes and ones derived from direct determination scribed above was recently used by Brosh et al.
of intake and digestion. (2006b) for beef cattle. Several regressions of EE
Estimation of the AEC. One of the purposes of above that while lying were conducted against grazing
recent grazing behavior experiments conducted at the behaviors, physiological state, stocking rate
AIGR is to evaluate or develop means of predicting the
treatment, hour of the day, and so on. This method
AEC. Grazing behavior measures can be used to
yielded energy costs for activities or behaviors such as
predict total EE (Brosh et al., 2004), but partitioning
grazing, standing, and traveling relative to lying that,
of AEC and EE relative to the ME requirement for
maintenance (MEm) would lend itself well to incorpo- when multiplied by time spent in the different
ration into nutrient requirement recommendations such activities, allowed es- timation
m of daily AEC. The
as those of Sahlu et al. (2004) and NRC (2007). Vari- ME rangem) compared
of total with
AEC as many
a estimates
percentage ofinassumed
the literature.
ME was low (i
ous means by which the AEC of grazing goats, sheep, In this regard, Patra et al. (2008a,b) observed that EE
and cattle are predicted were reviewed by Sahlu et al. throughout 24-h periods was greater for goats with free
(2004) and NRC (2007). Methods are based on vari- movement than for ones with movement restricted by
ables such as horizontal and vertical distances trav- tethers of 3 or 4.1 m. It was suggested that treatments
eled, time spent eating, topography, number of such as free movement vs. tethering affect the basal
position changes, time spent grazing plus walking, met- abolic rate at all times of the day, regardless of
digestibility, or some combination of variables. The specific activities displayed at any one given time.
energy cost per unit of activity is often based on Therefore, a peeling approach in estimating AEC or
measures with con- fined animals, such as for simultaneously measuring EE of similar restrained or
locomotion with animals on a treadmill. No method of confined animals (Lachica and Aguilera, 2005a) seems
projection has been evaluated or validated adequately, warranted to de- termine the absolute magnitude of
including that suggested for goats by Sahlu et al. AEC. Limitations of the latter approach include
(2004) and recommended by NRC (2007). potential differences in nutrient intake between grazing and con
Nonetheless, this method is based primarily on grazing Methods of
Assessing
Feeding Behavior
of
Goats in
Confinement
time, with small adjustments for horizontal dis- tance
There are
traveled, 2 apparent
forage means by which
TDN concentration, and AEC mayness
rugged- be of the terrain.
peeled from estimates of total EE. One is based on Regarding grazing experiments, the feeding behavior
ME intake without input of BW other than that of kids of goats in confinement has been assessed by visual ob-
with lactating does, and the second is determined from servation (Dziba et al., 2003a,b; Haddad and Obeidat,
BW or BW and BCS. For the method based on ME 2007; Alonso-Daz et al., 2008). Equipment systems to
intake, recovered energy is determined as the determine time spent eating and ruminating based on
difference between ME intake and EE. For the BW or patterns of jaw movement have been used (Abijaoud
BW and BCS method, an average energy et al., 2000). Fedele et al. (2002) used a feeding cage
concentration in tissue gained or lost is assumed or for individual goats designed to allow simultaneous ad
available equations, such as those presented by Ngwa libitum intake of 4 types of concentrate and 2 sources
m of NRC
et al. (2007), are used to predict changes (2007)
in body of hay. In some cases, feed containers have been placed
energy status based on BCS. With assumptions includingon
and milk energy yield for lactating animals based on balances
t he ME to investigate diurnal patterns in feed con-
kid BW and ADG, recovered energy is estimated. Ul- sumption (Abijaoud et al., 2000). Interest in measur-
timately, with both methods the various origins of EE ing residual feed intake has increased the use of auto-
(i.e., maintenance, mobilization of tissue energy for mated feeding systems with cattle. A system developed
maintenance or lactation, and use of dietary energyfor swine has been used in research with goats (Gipson
for tissue gain or milk production) are determined and et al., 2006, 2007) and in the annual meat goat buck
The AIGR currently has 4 MK3 Feed Intake Record-
subtracted from total EE to estimate AEC, which is performance test of the AIGR since 2004.
m ing Equipment (Osborne Industries Inc., Osborne, KS)
expressed
The firstrelative
method toof ME . AEC might seem prefera-
peeling feeding system units located in 4 pens. This system
ble because of the influence of the gastrointestinal tract allows 1 animal to consume feed at a given time. Feed
digesta mass on BW. However, Beker et al. (2009a,b) consumption is monitored throughout the day. The ani-
used both methods and found that estimation based on mal is identified on entering the feeding unit and feed
BW and an assumed constant concentration of energy is weighed at entry and exit, with measurement of any
in tissue gained or mobilized yielded estimates within feed dispensed during feeder occupancy. Measurements
the range of values in the literature, whereas this was are daily feed intake, number and length of feeder visits
not true for all values when determined from ME in- that can be categorized into meals, feeder occupancy or
take. With methods based on BW or BW and BCS, time spent eating, rate of DMI, and DMI per visit and
relatively long periods would minimize the influence on meal. Although such systems allow for consider- able
BW of fluctuations in digesta mass. feeding behavior data to be generated, one limita-
366 Goetsch et al.

tion is that they are not conducive to a wide range of physical interactions with aggressive behavior should
diet physical forms, being most suitable for small- to increase with increasing stocking rate, which could af-
moderate-sized pellets. fect AEC and would be the most significant if nutrient
The AIGR also has facilities equipped with Calan intake were limited by low available forage mass at high
feeding gates (American Calan Inc., Northwood, NH). stocking rates.
Attributes of Calan feeding gates are that individual In many areas of the world, goats are
animal feed intakes can be determined while animals sometimes tethered in one area for grazing. Patra et al.
are in a group setting and that any diet physical form (2008a,b) compared forage intake, chemical
can be used. However, considerable labor is required composition of forage selected, time spent grazing and
compared with automated feeding systems, and feeding ruminating, and EE by goats tethered vs. freely
behavior data are not generated without means such as moving to evaluate tether- ing as a production practice
visual observation. and also to determine if tethered goats could serve as a
model for studying the grazing physiology of
GRAZING MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
free-moving goats. Grass-based pastures with a low to
Stocking rate is a management decision that can af- moderate level of forage remov- al from tethered areas
fect the behavior of goats in many ways. Animut et al. were used. Forage intake and composition and time
(2005a) noted linear increases in time spent eating and spent grazing and ruminating were similar between
number of steps as the stocking rate of cograzing goats tethered goats and ones given free movement, but EE
and sheep increased on grass-forb pastures. In the same was less for goats tethered through- out the day.
study, the selectivity ratio of the most abundant forb, Thus, tethered goats could be used to study many
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), increased for both
grazing behavior characteristics of goats, but could not
species as the stocking rate increased and forage mass
decreased (Animut et al., 2005b). As discussed earlier, be used for energy metabolism. In addi- tion, tethering
Sahlu et al. (2004) suggested a relationship between offers the potential to increase the level or efficiency
time spent grazing and AEC. This was observed by of production by minimizing the AEC. Berhan et
Animut et al. (2005a), although for goats in the 2 graz- al. (2005) made similar determinations for goats given
ing seasons, EE was greater for the greatest stocking access to a grass-based pasture for 4, 8, or 24 h/d.
rate compared with 2 lesser ones. Conversely, Beker et Rate of ME intake was 26, 19, and 18 kJ/min,
al. (2009a) did not observe effects of stocking rate on although total ME intake was least with 4 h of access
grazing time or AEC in Boer and Spanish does when (4.6, 6.4, and 5.9 MJ/d for 4, 8, and 24 h, respectively).
lactating and after weaning when the does were grazed Total EE was 5.0, 5.1, and 6.2 MJ/d for 4, 8, and 24
on grass-forb pastures. The factors responsible for these h, respectively. Hence, AEC was minimized by
VEGETATION
different findings are unclear, although forage mass in restricted pasture access of CONDITIONS
8 h compared with 24 h, resulting in
the study by Beker et al. (2009a) with both stocking The types of vegetation present influence the forag-
rate treatments was considerably less than in the ex- ing position or posture of goats, most notably the use
periment by Animut et al. (2005a,b). Nonetheless, the of a bipedal stance and aerial positions. That is, a
data reported by Beker et al. (2009a)m indicated increas- bipedal stance would not be used without browse or
grazing or eating and grazing or eating plus walking, trees pres- ent. Only with climbable trees would goats
es in AEC of 5.79 and 5.05% of ME per hour spent
respectively. These values resulted in the prediction of be aerial (El Aich et al., 2007). How the use of
AEC of Angora, Boer, and Spanish goats in a compan- different forag- ing positions affects AEC is unclear,
ion experiment2
by Beker et al. (2009b) with moderate but Dziba et al. (2003b) suggested that AEC increases
accuracy (R = 0.40 to 0.41) and without bias. The with increasing
energy cost per hour of grazing or eating plus walking A major factorforaging height.
influencing types and levels of veg-
was near the 5% proposed by Sahlu et al. (2004) and etation available for use by goats is season,
NRC (2007); however, consideration of neither distance which thus affects dietary overlap. Generally,
traveled nor digestibility improved prediction. dietary over- lap between different ruminant species
Inclusion
2 of observations of Rambouillet sheep increases with decreasing forage availability (Celaya et
markedly reduced the R and resulted in significant prediction bias,al-
al., 2007), indi-
though this depends largely on the types
cating the need for research specifically addressing the
of vegetation available. For example, Sanon et al.
AEC of sheep.
Because stocking rate influences forage mass, it could (2007) noted that cattle, sheep, and goats all
also modulate differences in response to social behavior decreased feeding activities as time advanced from the
or hierarchy. For example, Barroso et al. (2000) deter- rainy to the dry season in a natural pasture in a
mined that with increased pasture forage availability, Sahelian area of Burkina Faso, but goats and sheep
diets selected by dominant and subordinate goats in a made a shift to browsing; brows- ing accounted for
group differed in composition, whereas differences only approximately 4% of the feeding activity of cattle
did not exist with low forage availability. In addition, in all seasons. Yayneshet et al. (2008) also noted
increasing browsing by goats in fallow land of Northern Ethiopia
 Goat behavior 367
understory vegetation declined. Conversely, Brosh et al. 1, 2, 4, and 6 d after introduction are shown in Figure
(2006a) observed that in some settings, browse can 2. Conversely, 15 Spanish wethers, also from the AIGR
pro- vide large proportions of ME intake by cattle. research farm and introduced into the same pasture
In contrast to the findings of Solanki (1994), Papach- in the subsequent year, displayed a somewhat different
ristou (1997) reported a greater rate of biting by goats pattern of exploration of the interior pasture area. As
when available forage was primarily browse vs. non- shown in Figure 3, some areas were not visited on 1, 2,
browse plant species. Similarly, grazing time by goats 4, and 6 d after introduction. Moreover, on none of
was longer in a plot of 70% woody and 30% herbaceous these days did the Spanish wethers reside in the south-
plant species compared with one with 90% woody plant eastern corner area of the pasture interior, which was a
species (Decandia et al., 2008), although it was stated preferred location in the preceding season on each
that greater selectivity exerted with the plot having day. Factors responsible for such disparities include
30% herbaceous plant species probably contributed to geno- type, environmental conditions, differences in
the difference, in addition to the effect of a disparate vegeta- tion conditions, and different plant species
rate of biting and intake rate between the 2 plant types. preferences, and show the importance of multiple determination
Time spent ruminating was greater for goats in the plot CHARACTERISTICS
In greater
with additionwoody
to investigations
plant species.targeting daily intake OF GRAZING GOATS
and selectivity, some studies have addressed patterns
within a day. For example, in a protected grazing site In many areas of the world, relatively large breeds of
in India, Solanki (1994) observed that in the first hour goats of potentially high productivity have been
of foraging, goats visited many different sites and introduced where previously only small local goats of
explored available vegetation, with a diverse array of decreased production potential resided. Research has
plants se- lected during that time. Thereafter, in the then ensued to determine how the behavior of intro-
morning, primarily grasses were consumed. In the duced and local breeds compares in relation to resource
afternoon, se- lection changed to favor bushes. The rate availability and use. In this regard, Dziba et al. (2003b)
of biting was similar between grasses and thorny ofinvestigated differences
South Africa between
in feeding height Boer
with and Nguni
Grewia goats
occiden-
bushes; however, bite size was twice as great for bushes talis L. (Tiliaceae) offered in confinement. It was ex-
as for grasses. Conversely, Dumont et al. (1995) pected that bite size and intake rate would be greater
in the day, consuming relatively little grass and
observed that with low forage availability, goats were mostingest- for selective
Boer vs.early
Nguni goats because of the larger mouth
ing mostly browse. Selectivity was much less at the end size of Boer goats, but this was not observed. Dry
of the grazing day, when a greater level of grass was mat- ter intake rate was similar between breeds,
consumed. It was suggested that this strategy mini- although bite rate was greater for Nguni goats. For
mized potential limitations to intake early in the day both breeds, an increase in bite size with increasing
through excessive ruminal digesta fill, with less impor- feeding height was greater than a decline in bite rate,
tance on fill preceding the overnight period without resulting in an increasing rate of DMI. It was
grazing. Intake rate decreased with advancing day of postulated that the increase in intake rate was to
theIt experiment as available
is usually assumed that forage mass decreased.
goats explore all potential compensate for greater EE when feeding at high
areas for grazing in a short period of time (i.e., number rather than low heights, but it was also suggested
of days) after being placed in a new grazing area. To that the large bite size at high heights would result
address this assumption, in coordination with a dem- in a reduced nutritive value of ingested DM.
onstration of vegetation management with goats (T. A. Somewhat similarly, in one experiment, Van et al.
Gipson, unpublished data), 21 crossbred Boer wethers (2005) observed greater intake by confined goats fed
from the AIGR research farm were fitted with GPS col- whole foliage hanging from the wall of the pen or tied
along with tied twigs. Intake of Acacia mangium and
lars that recorded a fix every 5 min and were
into a novel 4.6-ha pasture in Oklahoma (35532403 N, released in a trough compared with
Flemingia macrophylla choppedfor
was greatest foliage of- fered
hanging in a trough
foliage
94452213 W) consisting of a wide array of grasses, forbs, and that of Artocarpus heterophyllus was greatest for
and browse plant species. Collar data were downloaded foliage tied in a trough. It was postulated that a tridi-
after 1 wk, and 41,744 raw GPS fixes were corrected mensional arrangement or presentation that permitted
postdifferentially. Goats spent 62% of the time within 10 goats to approach leaves from different angles elicited
m of the fence, which was a cleared area, and 38% of the by hanging foliage on the wall or tying it in a trough
time was spent within the forested interior. Goats were was more conducive to high intake than the presenta-
more active in foraging within the interior pasture area tion resulting from chopped foliage or stripped leaves
and rested more in the cleared perimeter. In ad- dition, and tied twigs fed in the trough.
The greater influence of bite size than bite rate on
activity was bimodal, with a peak at 0900 h and another
rate of DMI by goats w as also obser ved b y Dzi ba et
at 1400 h. To illustrate how quickly goats explored the
al. (2003a). In this s tud y, Bo er an d Ngu ni go ats w ere
entire pasture area and the differences among days in
offe red 6 br owse plant sp ecies in c onfin ement in t he
specific pasture areas used, locations at
368 Goetsch et al.

Figure 2. Locations of 21 crossbred Boer goats in 2008 introduced into a novel 4.6-ha pasture of various grasses, forbs, and browse plant spe-
cies on d 1 (panel A), 2 (panel B), 4 (panel C), and 6 (panel D). White dots represent fixes within a cleared fence buffer, and black dots represent
fixes within the wooded interior of the pasture. Color version available in the online PDF.

summer and winter. Bite rate was greater in summer.
As observed by Dziba et al. (2003b), intake rate was
not different between breeds when scaled by metabolic
body size to account for ME m. In agreement with the
optimal foraging theory (Belovsky et al., 1999), rate of
DMI was related to preferences for different browse
plant species. However, in the winter, deciduous species
were losing their leaves, thus necessitating a preference
for evergreen species high in plant secondary metabo-
lites to achieve a relatively high intake rate.
In a rangeland site in the upper Galilee of Israel with
appreciable brush encroachment, Boer goats spent 22%
of observed daylight time grazing herbaceous plant spe-
cies compared with 44% for local Mamber goats (Aha-
ron et al., 2007). There were marked differences between
breeds in specific plant species browsed, with a greater
diversity for Boer goats. Bite rate was slightly less for
Boer than for Mamber goats, although bite mass while
browsing was similar. Eating time was greater for Boer
than for Mamber goats in the spring and summer sea-
sons but was similar in the winter. It was suggested
that because Boer goats were less familiar with veg-
etation in this region, more time was spent in testing
different plant species for postingestive malaise (Forbes
and Provenza, 2000). reported a shorter time spent
Beker et al. (2009b)
grazing grass-forb pastures by Angora vs. Boer and
Spanish goats, and Boer and Spanish goats exhibited
similar grazing activities and AEC. The AEC by An-
gora goats and Rambouillet sheep was less than that by
Boer and Spanish goats (16, 54, 50, and 19% of MEm of
confined animals for Angora goats, Boer goats, Spanish
goats, and Rambouillet sheep, respectively). Although
factors responsible for the differences could not be de-
 Goat behavior 369

Figure 3. Locations of 15 Spanish goats in 2009 introduced into a novel 4.6-ha pasture of various grasses, forbs, and browse plant species on
d 1 (panel A), 2 (panel B), 4 (panel C), and 6 (panel D). White dots represent fixes within a cleared fence buffer, and black dots represent fixes
within the wooded interior of the pasture. Color version available in the online PDF.

finitively determined, it was suggested that relatively ing or history of the breeds, with the Rossa Mediter-
short times spent grazing for Angora goats and walk- ranea breed normally in free-range production
ing without grazing for sheep may have been involved. systems and Maltese goats managed in more
Conversely, Beker et al. (2009a) found a tendency for a controlled grazing settings. In accordance with this
greater time spent grazing or eating by Boer than by explanation, concen- trate supplementation reduced
Spanish does, which corresponded to greater total EE selectivity by Maltese goats but had a minimal effect
(13.4 vs. 11.4 MJ/d), although AEC as a percentage of with Rossa
Three goatMediter-
ecotypesranea goats.
of southeastern Nigeria, the Red
m
ME was similar between breeds.
Fedele et al. (1993) compared the grazing behavior and Sokoto, the West African dwarf, and their crossbreeds,
diet selection of Maltese and Rossa Mediterranea goat were studied by Odo et al. (2001). The Red Sokoto con-
breeds in southern Italy. Maltese goats were more sumed relatively more dry leaves and standing hay than
selective than the Rossa Mediterranea breed, preferred did the other 2 goat types, which was thought to be
grasses over forbs, and selected a relatively small num- berrelated to their origin in northern Nigeria, where forage
of plant species. Rossa Mediterranea goats utilized a and vegetation cover are dry during most times of the
broader range of available plant species. It was sug- gestedyear. The West African dwarf preferred grazing succu-
that such differences were related to the imprint- lent forages. This ecotype grazed most intensively and
370 Goetsch et al.
initiated grazing sooner after morning release than the
other ecotypes. The Red Sokoto breed explored furthest
and showed the greatest interest in climbing trees.
Mellado et al. (2005) investigated the effects of preg-
nancy and lactation on the diet composition and selec-
tivity of goats in a desert rangeland of northern Mexico.
There were appreciable effects of both pregnancy and
lactation on the plant species selected. Browse intake
was less and intake of forbs and grasses was greater for
pregnant than for nonpregnant goats. Similarly, lactat-
ing goats consumed more forbs and fewer shrubs than
nonlactating goats. It was postulated that such differ-
ences occur in response to the efforts of animals to se-
lect diets that satisfy changing nutrient requirements.
Conversely, with a similar experimental setting, Mel-
lado et al. (2006) did not observe differences in selec-
tivity between low- and high-yielding lactating goats.
Grazing time was set at 8 h/d for both groups; hence,
it was postulated that rate of biting was greater for
high-yielding goats and was less than maximal for low-
yielding goats.
GOATS IN CONFINEMENT
Diet selectivity in confinement can be considered in
terms of selection of particular feedstuffs or parts of
feedstuffs in mixed diets or of one or more concentrate
and forage feedstuffs offered separately. The ability of
goats to select in confinement is well known, in ac-
cordance with a reduced rate of intake compared with
sheep, thus necessitating careful consideration of the
levels of feed offered when determining ad libitum in-
take.
Experiments in which choices among feedstuffs are
allowed involve the nutritional wisdom of goats in
selecting a diet meeting nutrient requirements. In an
experiment by Fedele et al. (2002), Maltese goats in
Italy were offered 6 feedstuffs free choice, alfalfa hay,
pasture hay, flaked barley, chickpeas, broad bean grain,
and beet pulp, compared with other goats given alfalfa
hay free choice and flaked barley at up to 50% of the
energy requirement. Before parturition, DMI by free-
choice goats increased by 12%, and the increase from
pregnancy to lactation was greater for the free-choice
0.75
). Both the
than for the traditional dietary(difference
treatment ingredientsofchosen
12.6 vs.
and
4.6 the
g/kgchemical
BW composition of the selected diet for
animals fed free choice differed among stages of pro-
duction. Barley and beet pulp intake decreased during
pregnancy and intake of chickpeas, broad beans, and
alfalfa hay increased. The CP concentration in the diet
increased with advancing pregnancy, the level of starch
decreased, and NDF was unchanged. Conversely, dur-
ing lactation, the dietary CP concentration decreased
by 3 to 4 percentage units, the level of starch increased
by 2 to 3 percentage units, and the NDF level again
remained constant. Even though the dietary contribu-
tion of concentrate was large (i.e., 74 to 85%), no diges-
tive disturbances were noted. Likewise, Goetsch et al.
(2003) observed an average dietary concentrate level of
84% when concentrate and wheat hay were offered to
young Alpine goats separately and free choice, although
the dietary NDF level was appreciably less than those
offered by Fedele et al. (2002). Body weight and BCS
in the experiment by Fedele et al. (2002) were greater
for goats fed free choice vs. traditionally, which may
sup- port the observation of nutritional wisdom
displayed by goats. However, such comparisons are
specific to the particular control treatments imposed.
It is possible that the barley-alfalfa diet in this
experiment, fed when goats were dry, pregnant, and
Goats are
lactating, similar
may to sheep
not have beenand
thecattle
most in the effects of
appropriate.
dietary forage level and digestibility on time spent eat-
ing and ruminating (i.e., direct relationships; Abijaoud
et al., 2000). However, as noted before, in some cases
intake rate is less for goats, with a greater ingestive
chewing efficiency (e.g., greater proportion of particles
less than 1.0 mm in size in boluses after swallowing;
Domingue et al., 1991; Van et al., 2002; Haddad and
Obeidat, 2007) compared with sheep. Likewise, Haddad
and Obeidat (2007) noted that both eating and rumi-
nation times were greater for goats than for sheep with
a high-concentrate diet. Also similar to other ruminant
species, most feed consumption for confined goats oc-
curs in 2 main meals separated by secondary meals
(Abijaoud et al., 2000). In the study by Abijaoud et
al. (2000), the number of secondary meals was greater
for the 70 vs. 45% concentrate diet, presumably to min-
imize the risk of digestive disturbance. Intake rate dur-
ing secondary meals was less than during main meals,
possibly because of prior selection of more palatable
dietary
Goatscomponents
are thought orto abepartially satiated
more social state facili-
compared with
tating greater selectivity.
sheep and cattle, although the most appropriate bases
of comparison may be difficult to discern. Van et al.
(2007) conducted 2 experiments to compare the effects
of group size on feed intake and aggressive behavior in
goats and sheep. In one experiment, a slight linear
increase in total feed intake was observed for both spe-
cies as group size increased from 1 to 5 animals per
pen. This was explained by increases in competition
for feed, socialization, and total available space as the
number of animals per pen increased, with the effect on
total available space influencing the ability to control
microenvironments. Goats displayed more
aggressive behavior than sheep, which, for both
species, increased with increasing group size. In a
second experiment, to- tal intake by goats with a group
size of 5the
wasautomated
greater than with 1 animal perAIGR
pen, de-
With feeding system of the
although the opposite dif- ference occurred for sheep.
scribed previously, Gipson et al. (2006) investigated ef-
fects of the number of goats per pen or feeding station
(6, 8, 10, and 12) on feed intake, growth performance,
and feeding behavior. Numbers of feeder visits (17.5,
17.1, 17.9, and 18.7) and meals (8.9, 9.0, 9.3, and 8.9
 Goat behavior 371
for 6, 8, 10, and 12 goats per pen, respectively) were day feeder use, which would have prevented a greater
simi lar am ong grou p s izes. Howe ver, feeder occupan cy intake of loose alfalfa meal.
or eat ing tim e pe r a nimal and day ( 97.8, 73.2, 83 .0, In summary, numerous interactions exist between the
and 71. 7 m in), vis it (5.8, 4.4, 5.0, and 3.8 min), and behavior and nutrition of goats. These interactions can
meal (1 1.2 , 8. 2, 9 .2, and 8 .1 m in fo r 6, 8, 10, an d 12 affect levels and efficiencies of production. Although
anim als pe r pe n, r esp ective ly) decre ased linearly with visual observation techniques are still useful, advances
inc rea sin g gr oup siz e. Rat e of DMI relative to fe eder in technology have resulted in the availability of equip-
oc- cup anc y ti me r eac hed a plat eau a s group size ment systems allowing full-day objective assessments of
incr eas ed to 8 (1 4.6 , 24.9 , 21 .5, a nd 23.1 g/min for 6, an array of animal behaviors. Coupling of these meth-
8, 1 0, and 12 ani mal s per pen, resp ectively). Dai ly odologies with ones to characterize nutrient utilization
DMI and AD G c hang ed quadra tica lly a s the number and energy metabolism should lead to a better under-
of g oat s p er p en inc reased (1. 45, 1 .51, 1.60, and 1.37 standing of behavior nutrition interactions that influ-
kg/d of DM I an d 1 56, 167, 181, and 136 g of ADG f or ence the returns realized from the production of goats.
6, 8 , 1 0, and 12 goa ts/pen , re spect ively). These LITERATURE CITED
resu lts in dica te t hat the inta ke ra te of particul ar
diet s i s n ot n eces sar ily ma xi- mal a nd can be Abijaoud, J. A., P. Morand-Fehr, G. Bchet, J.-P. Brun, J. Tessier,
and D. Sauvant. 1999. A method to record the feeding behav- iour
mark edl y a ffec ted by enviro nmen tal and social of goats. Small Rumin. Res. 33:213221.
cond iti ons . Th ere may have been inad equate Abijaoud, J. A., P. Morand-Fehr, J. Tessier, Ph. Schmidely, and
comp eti tio n am ong ani mals f or f eeder occupancy tim e D. Sauvant. 2000. Diet effect on the daily feeding behaviour,
frequency and characteristics of meals in dairy goats. Livest.
or DMI wi th t he g rou p size of 6, an d EE could hav e
Prod. Sci. 64:2937.
been el eva ted in r esp onse t o th e lon g time spent Agreil, C., and M. Meuret. 2004. An improved method for quantify-
eati ng. W ith 12 g oat s per pen, tota l feeder ing intake rate and ingestive behaviour of ruminants in diverse
and variable habitats using direct observation. Small Rumin.
occu pan cy time wa s 1 4 h. T hus, ther e was Res. 54:99113.
cons ide rab le t ime whe n the fee der w as available, but Aharon, H., Z. Henkin, E. D. Ungar, D. Kababya, H. Baram, and A.
spec ifi c p erio ds m ay not ha ve been the most Perevolotsky. 2007. Foraging behaviour of the newly introduced
Gipson et al. (2007) conducted an experiment with Boer goat breed in a Mediterranean woodland: A research ob-
pref err ed in t erms of natur al b ehavi or. It was
growing meat goats and with the same automated feed- servation. Small Rumin. Res. 69:144153.
post ula ted tha t to tal activ ity and a ggressive be- haviorsAlonso-Daz,
were greatest among
M. A., J. F. J.group sizes ofC.12,
Torres-Acosta, A. and were associated wi
Sandoval-Castro,
ing system (9 goats per pen) as well as with Calan
H. Hoste, A. J. Aguilar-Caballero, and C. M. Capetillo-Leal. 2008.
feeding gates. The 2 feeding systems yielded similar Is goats preference of forage trees affected by their tannin or fiber
comparisons of different pelletized diets and genotypes. content when offered in cafeteria experiments? Anim. Feed Sci.
Dietary treatments were diets of approximately 50% Technol. 141:3648.
Animut, G., and A. L. Goetsch. 2008. Co-grazing of sheep and goats:
concentrate or dehydrated alfalfa meal in pelletized or Benefits and constraints. Small Rumin. Res. 77:127145. Animut,
loose forms. Feeder occupancy time or time spent eat- G., A. L. Goetsch, G. E. Aiken, R. Puchala, G. Detweiler, C. R.
ing (74, 130, 105, and 132 min/d) for the loose concen- Krehbiel, R. C. Merkel, T. Sahlu, L. J. Dawson, Z. B. Johnson, and
T. A. Gipson. 2005a. Grazing behavior and en- ergy expenditure by
trate diet compensated for a reduced rate of DMI com-
sheep and goats co-grazing grass/forb pas- tures at three stocking
pared with the pelletized concentrate diet (24.6, 12.9, rates. Small Rumin. Res. 59:191201. Animut, G., A. L. Goetsch,
22.0, and 13.7 g/min for pelletized concentrate, loose G. E. Aiken, R. Puchala, G. Detweiler, C. R. Krehbiel, R. C.
concentrate, pelletized alfalfa, and loose alfalfa, respec- Merkel, T. Sahlu, L. J. Dawson, Z. B. Johnson, and T. A. Gipson.
tively). Increased intake of pelletized alfalfa relative to 2005b. Performance and forage selectivity by sheep and goats
co-grazing grass/forb pastures at three stocking rates. Small Rumin.
the pelletized concentrate diet (1.79, 1.67, 2.04, and Res. 59:203215.
Barroso, F. G., C. L. Alados, and J. Boza. 2000. Social hierarchy in
1.70 kg/d) resulted in similar ADG (212, 205, 190, and the domestic goat: Effect on food habits and production. Appl.
157 g) and efficiency of BW gain (127, 120, 94, and 94 Anim. Behav. Sci. 69:3553.
g/kg for pelletized concentrate, loose concentrate, pel- Beker, A., T. A. Gipson, R. Puchala, A. Askar, K. Tesfai, G. D. De-
tweiler, A. Asmare, and A. L. Goetsch. 2009a. Effects of stock- ing
letized alfalfa, and loose alfalfa, respectively) through a rate, breed, and stage of production on energy expenditure and
longer time spent eating at a similar rate of DMI. It activity of meat goat does on pasture. J. Appl. Anim. Res. In
was concluded that meat goats can markedly vary their press.
Beker, A., T. A. Gipson, R. Puchala, A. Askar, K. Tesfai, G. D.
feeding behaviors in response to different diet types and Detweiler, A. Asmare, and A. L. Goetsch. 2009b. Energy ex-
forms, but that there may be limits to such changes. penditure and activity of different types of small ruminants
For example, the least ADG for loose alfalfa resulted grazing varying pastures in the summer. J. Appl. Anim. Res.
from feeder occupancy time per animal that was great- In press.
Belovsky, G. E., J. Fryxell, and O. J. Schmitz. 1999. Natural selec-
er than for pelleted alfalfa but that was incompletely tion and herbivore nutrition: Optimal foraging theory and what
compensatory for the decreased rate of DMI. However, it tells us about the structure of ecological communities. Pages
with 9 animals per pen, the total length of time the 170 in Nutritional Ecology of Herbivores. H.-J. G. Jung, and
G. C. Fahey Jr., ed. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci., Savoy, IL.
feeder was occupied for diets in the loose form was 20
h/d. This length of time, coupled with that elapsed
when animals exited and entered, indicates nearly full-
372 Goetsch et al.
Berhan, T., R. Puchala, A. L. Goetsch, T. Sahlu, and R. C. Merkel.
2005. Effects of length of pasture access on energy use by grow- ing
meat goats. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 28:17.
Brosh, A. 2007. Heart rate measurements as an index of energy ex-
penditure and energy balance in ruminants: A review. J.
Anim. Sci. 85:12131227.
Brosh, A., Y. Aharoni, E. Shargal, B. Sharir, M. Gutman, and I.
Choshniak. 2004. Energy balance of grazing beef cattle in Medi-
terranean pasture, the effects of stocking rate and season. 2.
Energy expenditure as estimated from heart rate and oxygen
consumption, and energy balance. Livest. Prod. Sci. 90:101 115.
Brosh, A., Z. Henkin, A. Orlov, and Y. Aharoni. 2006a. Diet com-
position and energy balance of cows grazing on Mediterranean
woodland. Livest. Sci. 102:1122.
Brosh, A., Z. Henkin, S. J. Rothman, Y. Aharoni, A. Orlov, and A.
Arieli. 2003. Effects of n-alkane recovery in estimates of diet
composition. J. Agric. Sci. 140:93100.
Brosh, A., Z. Henkin, E. D. Ungar, A. Dolev, A. Orlov, Y. Ye-
huda, and Y. Aharoni. 2006b. Energy cost of cows grazing
activity: Use of the heart rate method and the Global Po-
sitioning System for direct field estimation. J. Anim. Sci.
84:19511967.
Celaya, R., M. Olivn, L. M. M. Ferreira, A. Martnez, U. Garca,
and K. Osoro. 2007. Comparison of grazing behaviour, dietary
overlap and performance in non-lactating domestic ruminants
grazing on marginal heathland areas. Livest. Sci. 106:272 281.
Champion, R. A., S. M. Rutter, and P. D. Penning. 1997. An auto-
matic system to monitor lying, standing and walking behaviour of
grazing animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 54:291305. Decandia,
M., A. Cabiddu, M. Sitzia, and G. Molle. 2008. Polyethyl-
ene glycol influences feeding behaviour of dairy goats browsing
on bushland with different herbage cover. Livest. Sci. 116:183
190.
Domingue, B. M. F., D. W. Dellow, and T. N. Barry. 1991. The ef-
ficiency of chewing during eating and ruminating in goats and
sheep. Br. J. Nutr. 65:355363.
Dove, H., and R. W. Mayes. 2005. Using n-alkanes and other plant
wax components to estimate intake, digestibility and diet com-
position of grazing/browsing sheep and goats. Small Rumin.
Res. 59:123139.
Dove, H., and R. W. Mayes. 2006. Protocol for the analysis of n-
alkanes and other plant-wax compounds and for their use as
markers for quantifying the nutrient supply of large mammalian
herbivores. Nature Protocols 1:16801697. http://www.nature.
com/nprot/journal/v1/n4/full/nprot.2006.225.html Accessed
Aug. 28, 2009.
Dove, H., and A. D. Moore. 1995. Using a least-squares optimiza-
tion procedure to estimate botanical composition based on the
alkanes of plant cuticular wax. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 46:1535
1544.
Dumont, B., M. Meuret, and M. Prudhon. 1995. Direct observation
of biting for studying grazing behavior of goats and llamas on
garrigue rangelands. Small Rumin. Res. 16:2735.
Dziba, L. E., P. F. Scogings, I. J. Gordon, and J. G. Raats. 2003a.
Effects of season and breed on browse species intake rates and diet
selection by goats in the False Thornveld of the Eastern Cape,
South Africa. Small Rumin. Res. 47:1730.
Dziba, L. E., P. F. Scogings, I. J. Gordon, and J. G. Raats. 2003b.
The feeding height preferences of two goat breeds fed Grewia
occidentalis L. (Tiliaceae) in the Eastern Cape, South Africa.
Small Rumin. Res. 47:3138.
El Aich, A., N. El Assouli, A. Fathi, P. Morand-Fehr, and A. Bour-
bouze. 2007. Ingestive behavior of goats grazing in the south-
western Argan (Argania spinosa) forest of Morocco. Small Ru-
min. Res. 70:248256.
Fedele, V., S. Claps, R. Rubino, M. Calandrelli, and A. M. Pilla.
2002. Effect of free-choice and traditional feeding systems on goat
feeding behaviour and intake. Livest. Prod. Sci. 74:19 31.
Fedele, V., M. Pizzillo, S. Claps, P. Morand-Fehr, and R. Rubino. 1993.
Grazing behavior and diet selection of goats on native pasture in
Southern Italy. Small Rumin. Res. 11:305322. Forbes, J. M., and F.
D. Provenza. 2000. Integration of learning and metabolic signals into a
theory of dietary choice and food intake. Pages 320 in Ruminant
Physiology: Digestion, Metabo- lism, Growth and Reproduction. P. B.
Cronj, ed. CABI Pub- lishing, New York, NY.
Gipson, T. A., A. L. Goetsch, G. Detweiler, R. C. Merkel, and T.
Sahlu. 2006. Effects of the number of yearling Boer crossbred
wethers per automated feeding system unit on feed intake,
feeding behavior and growth performance. Small Rumin. Res.
65:161169.
Gipson, T. A., A. L. Goetsch, G. Detweiler, and T. Sahlu. 2007. Ef-
fects of feeding method, diet nutritive value and physical form and
genotype on feed intake, feeding behavior and growth per- formance
by meat goats. Small Rumin. Res. 71:170178. Glasser, T., S.
Landau, E. D. Ungar, A. Perevolotsky, L. Dvash, H. Muklada, D.
Kababya, and J. W. Walker. 2008. A fecal near- infrared reflectance
spectroscopy-aided methodology to deter- mine goat dietary
composition in a Mediterranean shrubland. J. Anim. Sci.
86:13451356.
Goetsch, A. L., G. Detweiler, T. Sahlu, J. Hayes, and R. Puchala.
2003. Effects of separate offering of forage and concentrate on feed
intake and growth of Alpine doelings. Small Rumin. Res.
48:209216.
Haddad, S. G., and B. S. Obeidat. 2007. Production efficiency and
feeding behavior of Awassi lambs and Baladi kids fed on a high
concentrate diet. Small Rumin. Res. 69:2327.
Lachica, M., and J. F. Aguilera. 2005a. Energy expenditure of walk
in grassland for small ruminants. Small Rumin. Res. 59:105 121.
Lachica, M., and J. F. Aguilera. 2005b. Energy needs of the free-
ranging goat. Small Rumin. Res. 60:111126.
Lachica, M., F. G. Barroso, and C. Prieto. 1997. Seasonal varia-
tion of locomotion and energy expenditure in goats under range
grazing conditions. J. Range Manage. 50:234238.
Lachica, M., R. Somlo, F. G. Barroso, J. Boza, and C. Prieto. 1999.
Goats locomotion energy expenditure under range grazing con-
ditions: Seasonal variation. J. Range Manage. 52:431435. Mayes,
R. W., N. A. Beresford, C. S. Lamb, C. L. Barnett, B. J. Howard,
B. E. V. Jones, O. Eriksson, K. Hove, O. Pedersen, and B. W.
Staines. 1994. Novel approaches to the estimation of intake and
bioavailability of radiocaesium in ruminants grazing forested areas.
Sci. Total Environ. 157:289300.
Mayes, R. W., and H. Dove. 2000. Measurement of dietary nutrient
intake in free-ranging mammalian herbivores. Nutr. Res. Rev.
13:107138.
Mayes, R. W., C. S. Lamb, and P. M. Colgrove. 1986. The use of
dosed and herbage n-alkanes as markers for the determination
of herbage intake. J. Agric. Sci. 107:161170.
Mellado, M., R. Estrada, L. Olivares, F. Pastor, and J. Mellado.
2006. Diet selection among goats of different milk production
potential on rangeland. J. Arid Environ. 66:127134.
Mellado, M., A. Rodrguez, J. A. Villarreal, and A. Olvera. 2005.
The effect of pregnancy and lactation on diet composition and
dietary preference of goats in a desert rangeland. Small Rumin.
Res. 58:7985.
Merriam-Webster. 1996. Behavior. Page 103 in Merriam Websters
Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed. Merriam-Webster Inc., Spring- field,
MA.
Ngwa, A. T., L. J. Dawson, R. Puchala, G. Detweiler, R. C. Merkel,
I. Tovar-Luna, T. Sahlu, C. L. Ferrell, and A. L. Goetsch. 2007.
Urea space and body condition score to predict body composi- tion of
meat goats. Small Rumin. Res. 73:2736.
NRC. 2007. Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants: Sheep,
Goats, Cervids, and New World Camelids. Natl. Acad. Press,
Washington, DC.
Odo, B. I., F. U. Omeje, and J. N. Okwor. 2001. Forage species
availability, food preference and grazing behaviour of goats in
southeastern Nigeria. Small Rumin. Res. 42:163168.
 Goat behavior
Olivn, M., and K. Osoro. 1999. Effect of the temperature on alkane
extraction from faeces and herbage. J. Agric. Sci. 132:305 312.
Oudrago-Kon, S., C. Y. Kabor-Zoungrana, and I. Ledin. 2006.
Behaviour of goats, sheep and cattle on natural pasture in the
sub-humid zone of West Africa. Livest. Sci. 105:244252.
Papachristou, T. G. 1997. Foraging behaviour of goats and sheep
on Mediterranean kermes oak shrublands. Small Rumin. Res.
24:8593.
Papachristou, T. G., P. D. Platis, and A. S. Nastis. 2005. Foraging
behaviour of cattle and goats in oak forest stands of varying
coppicing age in Northern Greece. Small Rumin. Res. 59:181 189.
Patra, A. K., R. Puchala, G. Detweiler, L. J. Dawson, G. Animut,
T. Sahlu, and A. L. Goetsch. 2008a. Tethering meat goats graz- ing
forage of high nutritive value and low to moderate mass.
Asian-australas. J. Anim. Sci. 21:12521261.
Patra, A. K., R. Puchala, G. Detweiler, L. J. Dawson, T. Sahlu,
and A. L. Goetsch. 2008b. Technical Note: Effects of tethering on
forage selection, intake, and digestibility, grazing behavior, and
energy expenditure by Boer Spanish goats grazing high- quality
forage. J. Anim. Sci. 86:12451253.
Raats, J. G., L. Webber, N. M. Tainton, and D. Pepe. 1996. An
evaluation of the equipment for the oesophageal fistula valve
technique. Small Rumin. Res. 21:213216.
Sahlu, T., A. L. Goetsch, J. Lou, I. V. Nsahlai, J. E. Moore, M. L.
Galyean, F. N. Owens, C. L. Ferrell, and Z. B. Johnson. 2004.
Nutrient requirements of goats: Developed equations, other
considerations and future research to improve them. Small Ru-
min. Res. 53:191219.
Sanon, H. O., C. Kabor, and I. Ledini. 2007. Behaviour of goats,
sheep and cattle and their selection of browse species on natural
pasture in a Sahelian area. Small Rumin. Res. 67:6474.
373
Schlecht, E., U. Dickhoefer, E. Gumpertsberger, and A. Buerkert.
2009. Grazing itineraries and forage selection of goats in the Al
Jabal al Akhdar mountain range of northern Oman. J. Arid
Environ. 73:355363.
Schlecht, E., P. Hiernaux, I. Kadaour, C. Hlsebusch, and F.
Mahler. 2006. A spatio-temporal analysis of forage availability and
grazing and excretion behaviour of herded and free graz- ing cattle,
sheep and goats in Western Niger. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
113:226242.
Sharma, K., A. L. Saini, N. Singh, and J. L. Ogra. 1998. Seasonal
variations in grazing behaviour and forage nutrient utilization by
goats on a semi-arid reconstituted silvipasture. Small Ru- min.
Res. 27:4754.
Solanki, G. S. 1994. Feeding habits and grazing behavior of goats in
a semi-arid region of India. Small Rumin. Res. 14:3943. Steinberg,
D., and P. Colla. 1997. CARTClassification and Re- gression
Trees. Salford Systems, San Diego, CA.
Van, D. T. T., I. Ledin, and N. T. Mui. 2002. Feed intake and behav-
ior of kids and lambs fed sugar cane as the sole roughage with
or without concentrate. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 100:7991.
Van, D. T. T., N. T. Mui, and I. Ledin. 2005. Tropical foliages:
Effect of presentation method and species on intake by goats.
Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 118:117.
Van, D. T. T., N. T. Mui, and I. Ledin. 2007. Effect of group size on feed
intake, aggressive behaviour and growth rate in goat kids and lambs.
Small Rumin. Res. 72:187196.
Yayneshet, T., L. O. Eik, and S. R. Moe. 2008. Influences of fallow age
and season on the foraging behavior and diet selection pat-
tern of goats (Capra hircus L.). Small Rumin. Res. 77:2537.