Abstract #M478
Section: Small Ruminant
Session: Small Ruminant I
Format: Poster
Day/Time: Monday 7:30 AM–9:30 AM
Location: Gatlin Ballroom
Session: Small Ruminant I
Format: Poster
Day/Time: Monday 7:30 AM–9:30 AM
Location: Gatlin Ballroom
# M478
Effects of mixing different breeds to evaluate electric fence strand additions to barbed wire fence to contain growing meat goat kids.
Yoko Tsukahara*1, Terry A. Gipson1, Jerry Hayes1, Ryszard Puchala1, Tilahun Sahlu1, Arthur L. Goetsch1, 1American Institute for Goat Research, Langston University, Langston, OK.
Key Words: behavior, fence, goat
Effects of mixing different breeds to evaluate electric fence strand additions to barbed wire fence to contain growing meat goat kids.
Yoko Tsukahara*1, Terry A. Gipson1, Jerry Hayes1, Ryszard Puchala1, Tilahun Sahlu1, Arthur L. Goetsch1, 1American Institute for Goat Research, Langston University, Langston, OK.
A method of evaluating electric fence strand addition to cattle barbed wire fence for goat containment would be useful to promote co-grazing. Therefore, 38 Boer (B) wethers (6.3 mo of age and 22.1 kg BW initially), 41 B doelings (6.3 mo and 21.4 kg), 40 Spanish (S) wethers (6.7 mo and 17.8 kg), and 40 S doelings (6.8 mo and 18.4 kg), were used to evaluate effects of grouping, single breed (SGL) and breeds combined (COM), on behavior (e.g., pen exit and shock) when exposed to barbed wire fence with different electric strand additions. Five 2.4 × 3.7 m evaluation pens had 1 side of barb wire strands at 30, 56, 81, 107, and 132 cm from the ground. Fence treatments (FT) were electrified strands (6 kV) at 15 and 43 (LH), 15 and 23 (LM), 15 (L), 23 (M), and 43 cm (H). For adaptation, kids were exposed in evaluation pens to no electric strands (NES), NES, LH at 0 kV, LH at 6 kV, and NES in wk 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Then kids were divided into 2 replication sets per grouping (2 B-SGL, 2 S-SGL, 2 B-COM, and 2 S-COM); each of the 5 pens consisted of 4 or 3 animals for 1 h exposure to FT while observing behavior visually and with video surveillance. There were no main effects of grouping. Fence treatment affected (P < 0.01) the percentage of animals receiving a shock (59.4, 44.5, 34.4, 22.8, and 6.2%; SE = 8.53), exiting with shock (37.5, 35.8, 31.3, 19.6, and 3.1%; SE = 7.63), and exiting without shock (0.0, 14.9, 50.0, 67.7, and 76.3% for LH, LM, L, M, H, respectively; SE = 7.56). There was an interaction (P = 0.01) between FT and grouping in pen exit (50.0, 25.0, 75.0, 85.7, and 42.9% with B-COM, 12.5, 77.8, 87.5, 75.0, and 100% with B-SGL, 62.5, 62.5, 75.0, 87.5, and 75.0% with S-COM, and 25.0, 37.5, 87.5, 100.0, and 100.0% with S-SGL for LH, LM, L, M, and H, respectively; SE = 14.83). In conclusion, in contrast to previous findings with mature does, these results do not provide clear evidence supporting notable effect of method of grouping growing meat goat kids for evaluating effectiveness of various electric strand additions to barbed wire fence for goat containment, indicating appropriateness of either method.
Key Words: behavior, fence, goat