No abstract

We examined the effects of regulating the viewing proximity of visitors and the intensity of visitor behaviour on behaviours indicative of fear and stress physiology of 15 zoo-housed little penguins (Eudyptula minor). A 2 × 2 factorial fully randomised design was used to examine the effects of regulating: (1) the viewing proximity of visitors to enclosure, ‘normal viewing distance’ and ’increased viewing distance’ (using a physical barrier set up 2 m away from the enclosure), and (2) the intensity of visitor behaviour, ‘unregulated visitor behaviour’ and ‘regulated visitor behaviour’ (using signage and uniformed personnel). In addition, a treatment consisting of closing the enclosure to visitors was included. Penguin behaviour, visitor numbers and visitor behaviour were recorded by CCTV video recordings and direct observations, respectively. Penguin faecal glucocorticoid metabolites were also analysed as a measure of stress physiology. We found that increased viewing distance reduced (p < 0.05) all visitor behaviours except for loud vocalisations and tactile contact with penguins. However, there were no direct effects of signage and uniformed personnel on visitor behaviour (p > 0.05). As the regulation of viewing proximity increased from a closed exhibit to an open exhibit with increased viewing distance, and then to an open exhibit with normal viewing distance, this increased the proportion of penguins huddling (p = 0.0011), vigilant (p = 0.0060) and retreating (p = 0.00013), and decreased the proportion of penguins within 1 m of the visitor viewing area (p = 0.00066), surface swimming (p = 0.00091) and preening in the water (p = 0.042). There were also limited effects of regulating visitor behaviour on penguin behaviour. No treatment effects were found on faecal glucocorticoid metabolites (p > 0.05). These results indicate that regulating visitor viewing proximity affects penguin behaviours indicative of fear and visitor behaviour. This suggests that close visitor contact can be fear-provoking for little penguins but increasing the distance between visitors and penguins can reduce fear responses of penguins by regulating both viewing proximity and visitor behaviour. However, it is unclear whether these changes in penguin behaviour are due to the increased separation between visitors and penguins and/or specific visitor behaviours associated with close viewing proximity to the enclosure, such as leaning over the enclosure or tactile contact with the pool, which are impeded when visitors are further away.

No abstract

A total of 3,120 sows, in 4 time replicates, were used to determine the effects of group size and floor space on sow welfare using behavioral, physiological, health, and fitness variables. Within 1 to 7 d postinsemination, sows were assigned randomly to treatments of a 3 by 6 factorial arrangement, with 3 group sizes (10, 30, or 80 sows/pen) and 6 floor space allowances (1.4, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, or 3.0 m(2)/sow). Sows were housed on partially slatted concrete floors, and overhead feeders delivered 4 times/day to provide a total of 2.5 kg of feed/sow. As pen space increased from 1.4 to 3.0 m(2)/sow, aggression at feeding decreased from about 9 to 7 bouts/sow (linear, P = 0.029) and plasma cortisol concentrations decreased from about 28 to 21 ng/mL (linear, P = 0.0089) at 2 d. Although the results are in accord with a linear decline from 1.4 to 3 m(2)/sow, the results are also in accord with a decline in these measurements from 1.4 to 1.8 m(2)/sow and no further decline greater than 1.8 m(2)/sow. Farrowing rate (percentage of inseminated sows that farrowed) also increased from about 60 to 75% as space increased from 1.4 to 3.0 m(2)/sow (linear, P = 0.012). Group size was related to skin injuries on d 9 (P = 0.0017), 23 (P = 0.0046), and 51 (P = 0.0006), with groups of 10 consistently having the lowest number of total injuries over this period. Based on the aggression and cortisol results, it is credible to judge that, within the range of floor space allowances studied, sow welfare improves with increased space. However, from a sow welfare perspective, the experiment had insufficient precision to determine what is an adequate space allowance for sows. Thus, although the results definitely support a space allowance of 1.4 m(2)/sow being too small, it is not possible to give guidance on an actual space allowance at mixing that is adequate.