Failure of a chemical spray to significantly reduce stereotypic licking in a captive giraffe

Abstract

The repetitive licking of nonfood substrates is a common stereotypic behavior in captive giraffes. In this study we attempted to reduce stereotypic licking in a Masai giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis tippelskirchi) by applying a bitter chemical (marketed as a taste deterrent to prevent the unwanted licking and chewing of substrates) to the areas of the fence licked most frequently by the giraffe. We hypothesized that this treatment would reduce stereotypic licking. However, there were no significant overall changes in stereotypic licking following treatment with the chemical spray. Although licking of the treated area was observed to decrease, the behavior increased in nontreated areas. These results suggest that the underlying motivation driving the behavior was not affected by the aversive stimulus. Because stereotypic licking in giraffes may be based on a motivation to use their tongues in foraging, more effective techniques for reducing stereotypic fence-licking in giraffes may include increasing feeding duration by increasing the quantity, processing time, or distribution range of food.

Effects of guest feeding programs on captive giraffe behavior

“…Time spent eating routine diets was significantly associated with reduced performance of oral stereotypies, and this relationship was strengthened when combined with time spent participating in GFPs. This relationship supports the hypothesis that increased time spent feeding reduces time spent performing oral stereotypies [Koene, ; Tarou et al, ; Fernandez et al, ]. Guest feeding programs, in combination with increased feeding duration of routine diets, can significantly reduce performance of oral stereotypic behavior, reinforcing the proposition that these programs can serve as environmental enrichment for captive giraffes.…”

Tongue twisters: feeding enrichment to reduce oral stereotypy in giraffe

“…The changes in oral stereotypy in the absence of changes in feeding or ruminating observed in this study do not seem consistent with the idea that nonfood object licking is linked to frustrated motivation to feed [e.g. Tarou et al, 2003] or ruminate [e.g. Baxter and Plowman, 2001].…”

Why and how should we use environmental enrichment to tackle stereotypic behaviour?

“…Thus attempts to reduce ARB in bears include obstructing pacing routes (Hennessy, 1996), similar also being tried for an armadillo (Meyer-Holzapfel, 1968). Tarou et al (2003) likewise describe an attempt to deter stereotypic licking in giraffes by spraying enclosure walls with bitter chemicals. In terms of unpublished occurrences, we have also seen the removal of a branch used for repetitive somersaulting, in the case of a kinkajou (G. Mason, personal observation); the punishment of an elephant for swaying during keeper interactions (R. Clubb, personal observation); the emptying of a pool to prevent stereotypic swimming by a polar bear (G. Mason, personal observation); and the roughening of an area of concrete paced upon by another polar bear, to make her movements there uncomfortable (S. Vickery, personal observation).…”

“…Haines and Hanes, 2004). However, the effectiveness of such methods is uncertain, since animals often seem to simply shift their ARB to a different location, incorporate an imposed obstacle into the behaviour (Meyer-Holzapfel, 1968;Vickery, 2003;Tarou et al, 2003), or even increase their ARB due to the resulting stress (see Bloomsmith et al, 2007). This approach thus also brings with it welfare concerns: many warn of the potential dangers of simply blocking a putative stereotypic behaviour (e.g.…”