The Effects of Common Grouping and Feeding Practices on the Welfare of Goats

By: Jennifer Groff

Goats as a production species are often overlooked as an important facet of agriculture

and thus measures to improve their welfare in production environments are researched very

rarely in the United States and abroad. However, just like any other animal, goats have specific

welfare needs that need to be addressed, especially when they are put into a production

environment where available facility space may be limited in order to run a profitable operation

and in which costs must be carefully monitored. The welfare of both meat and dairy goats can be

compromised in these settings due to the practice of separating animals, feeding space

limitations, and regrouping stresses.

As a species, goats were domesticated roughly 10,000 years ago and became one of the

first domestic ruminant livestock species. Goats are a notoriously social species, meaning they

thrive in group environments where they can establish a balance of relationships with other

members. Goats are a very vocal species and rely on olfactory signals to identify familiar

animals (Miranda-de le Lama, G.C., and S. Mattiello, 2010). In fact, the recognition of a

familiar individual and the formation of a social memory are essential to the development of

social bonds (Miranda-de le Lama, G.C., and S. Mattiello, 2010). When goats are separated

from their social group, they exhibit signs of stress including increased vocalizations and

elevated cortisol levels (Miranda-de le Lama, G.C., and S. Mattiello, 2010). In production

systems, goats are often separated when they need special treatment for disease or injury, for

biosecurity purposes if they are new to a property, and for other reasons.

1
 In an experiment conducted by Janine Aschwanden and colleagues (2008), heart rate

monitors were attached to goats that were then separated from their herds. The results were an

increase of 63 beats per minute in the animals average heart rates. Prior to separation, the tested

animals had an average heart rate of 103 beats per minute, and once separated, that number

jumped to 167 beats per minute on average (Aschwanden, Janine, et al, 2008). An increased

heart rate is a common sign of stress, and Aschwanden and her colleagues (2008) also noted the

separated goats to be trembling, vocalizing intensely, trying to climb the walls, and exhibiting

jerky head movements when reacting to visual and auditory stimulation. The separated goats

became tense and concerned with their surroundings, rather than displaying relaxed behaviors,

indicating that social separation is an extremely stressful situation. In order to improve the

welfare of goats in production agriculture, it is recommended that a separated goat remain with at

least one companion be that physically with the other goat or simply able to see, smell, hear,

and communicate with it from a short distance to combat the negative effects of social

separation. This would be a relatively low cost solution to a producer, as they would likely just

need to establish one to two pens which have non-solid sides through which an isolated goat can

remain socially connected to other animals on the property.

An additional production practice that can negatively impact the welfare of goats is

limited feeding space. Goats, as with many species, have a natural distance at which they like to

remain from others and space allowance at the feeding places [in production systems] often

forces goats to feed in close proximity[which is] less than their individual distances

(Nordmann, Eva, et al, 2015). In some production envrionments, the stocking density may cause

tension at the feed bunk if all of the animals were to attempt to eat at once. Social rank also plays

a key role in what transpires when a goats individual space is infringed upon. Higher ranking

2
individuals tend to display agnostic and aggressive behavior towards lower-ranking goats that get

too close, which at the feed bunk means that lower-ranking goats have limited access to food

resources. Agnostic behavior includes threats, displacements (physical or implied), butting,

biting, and fighting.

In an experiment conducted by Grete Helen Meisfjord Jorgensen and colleagues (2007),

increasing the number of goats per feeding place from one to three resulted in 31.2% of goats

reducing their feeding time by more than 40% when fed silage and 54.1% of goats reducing their

feeding time by more than 40% when fed hay. Furthermore, the experiment resulted in high-

ranking goats spending significantly more of their percent total observations feeding than goats

of medium and low rank; an effect which became even more pronounced as the number of goats

per feeding space increased from one to three (Meisfjord Jorgensen, Grete Helen, et al, 2007).

The welfare implications of increasing the number of goats per feeding place are a potential for

decreased feed intake and a lack of adequate nutrition for subordinate animals, as well as an

increased risk for injury due to agnostic and aggressive behaviors occurring as the animals fight

for limited food resources.

A solution to this welfare issue is the use of non-transparent feed partitions at the feeding

space. The use of these partitions prevents adjacent goats from seeing each other as they

consume feed and can lead to dominant goats feeling less protective of feed resources and thus

less aggressive, as well as giving lower-ranked goats more confidence in approaching the feed

bunk when a dominant animal is present, as the dominant animal is less likely to be bothered by

their presence. A study conducted by Eva Nordmann and colleagues (2015) in which solid head

partitions were used to separate goats at the feeding space resulted in a significantly lower

number of agnostic interactions within the feeding area as a result of the head partitions when

3
compared to a lack of head partitions (Nordmann, Eva, et al, 2015). This effect was found to be

most profound in low-ranking goats, which were also displaced from the feeding space less often

(Nordmann, Eva, et al, 2015). This study also examined the effects of the partitions on the

lumbar body condition scores (BCS) of the animals in the experiment to determine if they were

nutritionally benefitting from the use of partitions. Though the value of the animals lumbar BCS

scores varied with their rank within the herd, (a higher rank correlated to a higher lumbar BCS

score) there was a median increase of 0.5 in lumbar BCS scores as a result of the solid partitions

being in place (Nordmann, Eva, et al, 2015). Considering the scale used for this measurement

only contains values from 1-5, this 10% increase in median lumbar BCS score is a significant

change. Using solid partitions at the feeding space would enable producers to feed goats in close

proximity without sacrificing the goats welfare in regards to nutrition and feed consumption, as

well as decreasing agnostic social interactions.

A common occurrence in livestock production is the regrouping of individuals based on

age, breed, stage of production, etc. For goats, this introduction into an unfamiliar herd is an

extremely stressful situation and can lead to negative effects on the introduced individual.

Antonia Patt and colleagues conducted a study in 2012 in which they observed the activities of

an individual goat introduced to a new herd and then tested the levels of cortisol metabolites in

their feces throughout the introduction period. Though it was found that the existing group

members were relatively unaffected by the introduction of the new goat, the introduced

individual spent a considerable amount of time lying around, had shorter feeding times, and

exhibited elevated concentrations of cortisol metabolites in their feces throughout the

introduction period (which returned to normal levels once the goat returned to its home herd)

(Patt, Antonia, et al, 2012). In this study, fecal samples were collected in the evening when each

4
goat was tethered to the feeding rack, and it was observed that the introduced goat in each group

would use this as valuable feeding time because they were forced from the feed bunk frequently

by other group members while loose in the pens (Patt, Antonia, et al, 2012). In addition to less

time spent eating, the introduced goats were also found to spend less time ruminating, which is a

vital process for ruminant animals in which they are able to receive additional nutritional benefits

from their feed. This restriction in feeding and ruminating could be detrimental to the welfare of

the introduced individual as it could possibly lead to ketosis and other metabolic conditions. The

welfare of the introduced goat would also be lowered due to the potential for injury from

agnostic behavior directed upon them from goats in the established herd.

A way in which producers can combat the negative effects of regrouping would be to

introduce goats in pairs or small groups, rather than as individuals. In an experiment conducted

by Antonia Patt and colleagues (2013), goats were introduced into a new group alone and then

with two peers. As a result of being introduced with two peers, there was a 65% decrease in

agnostic interactions (57 without peers, 20 with peers) between the established herd and the new

goats when they were introduced as a group of three versus as a single goat (Patt, Antonia, et al,

2013). The goats that were introduced as a group also had lower levels of fecal cortisol

metabolites after confrontations than the goat introduced alone, suggesting it is significantly less

stressful for goats to be introduced as a small group than as an individual. Introducing goats into

a new herd as a small group would likely not add any cost for a producer, but would just require

better management practices in order to improve the welfare of their animals in this situation.

As the worlds population continues to grow, livestock producers are constantly

challenged with ways to produce more livestock and livestock products on less land and with

lower costs. Unfortunately, this can create a dichotomy between what is in the best interest of the

5
animals welfare and what is most efficient. Three common practices in the realm of rearing

goats for production purposes which can negatively impact goat welfare are separation, limited

feeding space, and regrouping. All of these practices can cause a goat or goats significant stress

and can negatively affect their nutrition. The aforementioned proposed solutions offer producers

low cost alternatives to traditional practices which can improve the welfare of the animals in

their care.

6
 Works Cited

Aschwanden, Janine, et al. "Cardio activity in dairy goats whilst feeding side-by-side at two

different distances and during social separation." Physiology & Behavior, vol. 95, 2008,

pp. 641-48. CAB Abstracts.

Aschwanden, Janine, et al. "Structural modifications at the feeding place: Effects of partitions

and platforms on feeding and social behaviour of goats." Applied Animal Behaviour

Science, vol. 119, 2009, pp. 180-92. CAB Abstracts.

Meisfjord Jorgensen, Grete Helen, et al. "Feed intake and social interactions in dairy goats - The

effects of feeding space and type of roughage." Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol.

107, 2007, pp. 239-51. CAB Abstracts.

Miranda-de la Lama, G.C., and S. Mattiello. Review of The importance of social behaviour for

goat welfare in livestock farming. Small Ruminant Research, vol. 90, 2010, pp. 1-10.

CAB Abstracts.

Nordmann, Eva, et al. "Head partitions at the feed barrier affect behaviour of goats." Applied

Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 167, 2015, pp. 9-19. CAB Abstracts.

Patt, Antonia, et al. "Behavioural and physiological reactions of goats confronted with an

unfamiliar group either when alone or with two peers." Applied Animal Behaviour

Science, vol. 146, 2013, pp. 56-65. CAB Abstracts.

Patt, Antonia, et al. "The introduction of individual goats into small established groups had

serious negative effects on the introduced goat but not on resident goats." Applied Animal

Behaviour Science, vol. 138, 2012, pp. 47-59. CAB Abstracts.