University of Zurich
Zurich Open Repository and Archive
Winterthurerstr. 190
CH-8057 Zurich
http://www.zora.uzh.ch
Year: 2006
Giraffe husbandry and feeding practices in Europe. Results of an
EEP survey
Hummel, J; Zimmermann, W; Langenhorst, T; Schleussner, G; Damen, M; Clauss, M
Hummel, J; Zimmermann, W; Langenhorst, T; Schleussner, G; Damen, M; Clauss, M (2006). Giraffe husbandry
and feeding practices in Europe. Results of an EEP survey. In: 6th Congress of the European Association of Zoo
and Wildlife Veterinarians, Budapest (Hungary), 24 May 2006 - 28 May 2006, 71-74.
Postprint available at:
http://www.zora.uzh.ch
Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich.
http://www.zora.uzh.ch
Originally published at:
6th Congress of the European Association of Zoo and Wildlife Veterinarians, Budapest (Hungary), 24 May 2006 28 May 2006, 71-74.
European Association of Zoo- and Wildlife Veterinarians (EAZWV)
th
6 scientific meeting, May 24 - 28 - 2006. Budapest, Hungary
GIRAFFE HUSBANDRY AND FEEDING PRACTICES IN EUROPE
RESULTS OF AN EEP SURVEY
J. HUMMEL1,2, W. ZIMMERMANN1, T. LANGENHORST3, G. SCHLEUSSNER4,
M. DAMEN5 and M. CLAUSS 6
Affiliation:
1. Zoological Garden of Cologne, Riehler Str. 173, 50735 Cologne, Germany
2.
Institute of Animal Science, Animal Nutrition Group, Endenicher Allee 15, University of Bonn,
53115 Bonn, Germany
3. Marwell Zoological Park, Coldon Common, Winchester, SO211JH Hants, UK
4.
Wilhelma Stuttgart, PO Box 501227, 70376 Stuttgart, Germany
5.
Burger´s Zoo, Schelmseweg 85, 6816 SH Arnheim, The Netherlands
6. Division of Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich,
Winterthurer Str. 260, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland
Abstract
Problems of the locomotory system (like overgrown hooves, laminitis or joint problems) have
been reported from the EEP giraffe population. To evaluate relevant husbandry practices and
frequency of the problem, a survey was done covering EEP institutions (response to the
questionnaire from 70 institutions representing 74 individually managed groups). 40 of the 74
groups reported that cases of problems of the locomotory system had occurred in their
animals. Animals older than 8 years seemed to have a higher probability to develop such
problems. Giraffe were generally kept on concrete (69%) or asphalt (16%) floors. Being
known as demanding animals to feed, giraffe were offered considerable amounts of nonforage feeds. An influence on the occurrence of laminitis is therefore possible. Based on
studies on dairy cattle, indoor sections with softer floor surfaces should be considered as a
viable option for facilities were problems have occurred repeatedly.
Key words: giraffe, Giraffa camelopardalis, floor surface, overgrowth, laminitis, feeding
Introduction
Despite the broad distribution of giraffes over numerous European facilities, they are still
regarded as demanding animals in captivity. Repeatedly occurring problems in captive giraffe
are related to either their locomotory system like overgrown hooves and joint problems
(Kovacs et al. 1975) or to nutrition (e. g. Junge and Bradley 1993, Clauss et al. 2002,
Hummel et al. 2003). In cattle husbandry, problems of the locomotory system like overgrown
hooves, laminitis or joint problems are regularly mentioned to occur in large animals
confronted with the husbandry practice and floors of agricultural settings. They are regarded
as multifactorially influenced (Cook et al. 2004), e. g. by nutrition, parturition and obviously
floor characteristics like hardness, abrasiveness or humidity. They generally develop when
animals are not on pasture, but in their stables (Maton 1987).
To get an overview of the situation in European zoos, an inventory of the “state of the art” of
several relevant aspects of giraffe husbandry in the EEP was initiated.
71
Materials and methods
The survey was conducted using a questionnaire designed by TL and WZ. Opportunity was
taken of a parallel interest on this subject in equids, okapis and giraffes, so the questionnaire
was sent to all facilities keeping these taxa (results see Equid TAG (2004) and Leus and
Beer (2004)). Structured in 3 sections, it covered the areas housing (e.g. floor
characteristics), nutrition (diets offered to the animals) and health problems (occurrence of
hoof problems, laminitis or joint problems in the respective giraffe herd). It was sent to ~100
giraffe keeping institutions throughout the EEP, and returned to EEP officials by the
beginning of 2004. A very satisfactory proportion of 70 facilities responded, representing 74
separately managed giraffe groups; this impressively high return rate may be taken as an
indicator of the high significance zoos granted to the subject of the questionnaire.
To exclude an overrepresentation of extreme outliers in the data, they were averaged by
median (not by mean); accordingly, quartils (1st quartil/3rd quartil) are given to quantify data
variance.
Results and Discussion
Housing of EEP giraffes
The average giraffe group size of this survey was 4 (3/5) animals. The size of the indoor
enclosures was 30 (20/50) m2 per animal (total indoor area was not evaluated). On average,
giraffes stayed inside for 14 (13/15.3) h/day in summer and 20 (17-21) h/day in winter, so
indoor hours were about 50% higher during winter. Due to the considerable time animals
spend in their indoor enclosures, the floor surface and husbandry in this area is of particular
concern. 69% of giraffe groups were kept on concrete floors, 16% on asphalt (plus 3% using
a combination of the former two flooring types) and 5% reported tiles as surface (others
mentioned by single institutions were asphalt pepples, crushed limes and abrasive paint).
Concerning the two main surface types used, asphalt was found to be a more secure ground
for cattle (Herrmann 1997). The giraffes in this study seem to be generally provided with hard
indoor floors; a recent study on cattle gives comprehensive evidence for the negative
influence of slatted floors with hard surfaces on ungulate feet (Benz 2002) due to the
induction of claw lesions by mechanical overload. Hard surfaces are even described to
trigger hoof growth (Pougin and Schlichting 1983), and may lead to a lot of standing due to
overload; a lack in locomotion activity obviously contributes to hoof overgrowth via a resulting
lack of abrasion.
As bedding material for giraffes, 53% groups had straw, 19% straw plus wood chips, 11%
wood chips, 7% sand plus straw, 5% straw plus shavings, 3% hemp/flax (wet!) (single groups
had shavings and straw plus rubber mats). Air humidity in stables was characterised as
“average” for 54%, as “moist” for 3% and as “dry” for 43% groups. The average temperature
in giraffe stables during winter was 17 (15/18) °C.
49% of giraffe groups had a separate smaller pre-enclosure or hardstand in addition to a
larger paddock. Average size of outside enclosures (including the hardstands) was 2600
(1500/10000) m2. 45% of groups had sand pits as lying areas available. Such areas have
been proven to be important lying areas during the day in cattle, providing overloaded feet
with some relief and being used by animals as preferred rumination places during summer
(Benz 2002). For 47% of giraffe groups, the outdoor enclosure was characterised as “well
drained”, for 41% as “very soft after rain, boggy” and for 12% as having “surface water after
rain”. Since wet hoof horn is considered to be worn down more easily in cattle (Camara and
Grevert 1971), a reasonable degree of humidity can be beneficial for hoof horn integrity.
Nutrition
During summer, 81% of giraffe groups were fed lucerne hay, a high proportion of 84%
received some browse, and 53% received fresh grass. Most facilities used a combination of
different forages, lucerne hay+browse (31%), lucerne hay+browse+grass+grass hay (18%)
and lucerne hay+browse+grass hay (15%) being the most common. Two facilities fed their
animals the combination grass+grass hay. In winter, 53% continued browse feeding (twigs);
the forage rations with the highest incidence were lucerne hay alone (27%) and
72
lucerne+browse (26%). Four giraffe groups got grass hay as only forage source during
winter.
On average, a giraffe was offered an amount of non-forage feeds equivalent to 4.5 (3.2/5.8)
kg DM/day (DM=dry matter). Assuming an average intake of 9 kg DM/(day*animal) and
complete intake of non-forage feeds, this corresponds to 51 (38/66)% of the diet on a DM
basis. During summer (winter values are comparable), animals were offered 3.4 (1.7/6.1) kg
of fresh fruits and vegetables per day corresponding to a percentage of 4.7 (2.3/8.5)% of a 9
kg DM intake. 9.3 (4.2/19.4)% of a 9 kg DM intake consisted of easy fermentable feeds like
grains, bread and fruits and vegetables.
Occurrence of problems of the locomotory system
For about 18% of the ~350 animals represented by the study, problems in the locomotory
system were reported. 54% of groups reported at least one case either of overgrown hooves
(47% of facilities), laminitis (14%) or joint problems (35%) (or a combination) in their giraffe
herd. Where sexes were mentioned, males and females contributed equally. Problems of the
locomotory system occurred in 63% of the 19 G. c. reticulata groups and in 47% of the 19 G.
c. rothschildi groups. 57% of the groups of west European giraffe groups were affected, while
the rate in eastern zoos was 35%.
Joint problems (34 cases) were generally described for front legs (24 cases), with only 5
cases for a combination of front and hind legs and 5 cases of hind legs only. Of the latter 5, 3
were explicitly stated to be caused by inbreeding or trauma.
Figure 1 gives the distribution of the first occurrence of overgrown hooves over the age
classes. For giraffes older than 8 years, a higher incidence was found. This underlines the
experience of giraffe EEP officials that large, heavy animals like breeding males and females
are at particular risk (Schleussner pers. comm.). Inside space was 26 (20/45) m2 per animal
in facilities were hoof overgrowth/laminitis had occurred, while in groups not affected this was
42 (25/58) m2.
There was a trend for facilities with cases of laminitis to have a higher proportion of easy
digestible feeds (bread, pure grains, fruits and vegetables) in the diet (Without laminitis: 8.9
(4.6/16.8)%; with laminitis: 17.4 (9.8/27.1)%. Of the survey data, 3 cases were specified
explicitly as carbohydrate laminitis. Concerning the potential connection of the occurrence of
overgrowth/laminitis to dietary parameters (Clauss and Kiefer 2003), no other difference
between affected and nonaffected facilities could be detected. The fact that hoof problems in
ruminants are rarely reported in grazing species, but with some regularity in specialised
browsers like moose, okapi and giraffe, which tend to have a low forage intake in captivity
(Clauss et al. 2003) may be taken as indirect evidence for an influence of diet on hoof health
of zoo herbivores. The considerably high amounts of non-forage feeds offered to giraffe fit
into this picture. Possible connections between high non-forage intakes and hoof problems
can be via laminitis (Nocek 1997) or impaired microbial biotin production (Fiedler and Maierl
2004).
In cattle, the time around calving is considered to be of particular concern, but only one zoo
gave a comment pointing to a connection of laminitis and parturition.
Based on the examination of comprehensive wild and captive material, Von Houwald (2001)
gives recommendations concerning husbandry practises beneficial for Indian Rhino feet.
Although giraffe feet are not regarded to need the same degree of softness, humidity and low
abrasiveness as those of Indian rhino, a shift in husbandry practice in the direction of areas
with soft floors (avoiding overload and encouraging locomotion), and a dietary scheme
avoiding pronounced peaks in rumen fermentation is likely to be beneficial for giraffe feet,
too. For facilities with repeated problems in their giraffe herds, a shift from an exclusively
hard floor (like concrete) to a more variable floor system including abrasive and therefore
typically hard, but also extensive soft floor sections may be an option. Obviously such a
change should best include close monitoring and documentation.
73
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Benz B (2002): Elastische Bodenbeläge für Betonspaltenböden in Liegeboxenlaufställen. Dissertation
University of Hohenheim, Germany. P 184.
Camara S, Gravert HO (1971): Untersuchungen über den Klauenabrieb bei Rindern. Züchtungskunde
43: 111-124.
Clauss M, Lechner-Doll M, Flach EJ, Wisser J, Hatt JM (2002): Digestive tract pathology of captive
giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) an unifying hypothesis. 4 th EAZWV meeting: 99-107.
Clauss M, Kienzle E, Hatt JM (2003): Feeding practice in wild captive ruminants: peculiarities in the
nutrition of browsers/concentrate selectors and intermediate feeders. In: A Fidgett, M Clauss, U
Gansloßer, JM Hatt, J Nijboer (eds) Zoo Animal Nutrition II, Fürth, Filander, p 27-52.
Clauss M, Kiefer B (2003): Digestive acidosis in captive wild herbivores – implications for hoof health.
Verhandlungsberichte Erkrankungen der Zootiere 41: 57-70.
Cook NB, Nordlund KV, Oetzel GR (2004): Environmental influences on claw horn lesions associated
with laminitis and subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 87 (E. Suppl.): E36E46.
Equid TAG (2004): Proceedings of the EAZA Equid TAG Meeting May 2004 at Hortobágy National Park,
Hungary (available online via EAZA-website).
Fiedler A, Maierl J (2004): Management der Klauengesundheit beim Rind. Th. Mann, Gelsenkirchen, p
181.
Herrmann HJ (1997): Einfluss unterschiedlicher Bodenausführung von Laufflächen auf das Verhalten
und die Klauengesundheit von Kühen. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Landtechnik und Bauwesen Hessen e. V.
Bericht Nr. 65. 100 p.
Hummel J, Hörhager A, Nawrocki D (2003): Selective browsers – adequate nutrition of giraffes and
okapis in zoos. Zeitschrift des Kölner Zoo 46: 67-80. (in German; english translation available from the
author)
Junge RE, Bradley TA (1993): Peracute mortality syndrome of giraffes. In: Fowler ME (ed.) Zoo and Wild
Animal Medicine. Current Therapy 3 W. B. Saunders Co, Philadelphia, 547-549.
Kovács AB, Balsai A, Fábián L (1975): Zur Klauenkorrektur bei einer Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis
reticulata). Verhandlungsberichte Erkrankungen der Zootiere 17: 387-393.
Leus K., Beer A. (2004): Results from the okapi hoof problem and hoof care questionnaire. In: Leus K.
(Ed.) Proceedings of the Okapi EEP/SSP Joint Meeting, Cologne Zoo 29 Juni-2 July 2003. Royal
Zoological Society of Antwerp: Antwerp. 99-105
Maton A (1987): The influence of the housing system on claw disorders with dairy cows. In: Cattle
housing systems, lameness and behaviour (HK Wierenga, DJ Peterse, eds.). CEC-seminar, June 1986,
Brussels, 151-158.
Nocek JE (1997): Bovine acidosis: Implications on laminitis. Journal of Dairy Science 80: 1005-1028.
Pougin M, Schlichting MC (1983): Klauenhornwachstum und Klauenhornabrieb bei Kälbern. Tierzüchter
35: 231-232.
Von Houwald F (2001): Foot problems of Indian rhinoceroses (Rhinoceros unicornis) in Zoological
gardens: Macroscopic and microscopic anatomy, pathology and evaluation of the cases. Dissertation
University of Zurich.
number of animals
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all zoo stuff participating in the survey for their considerable contribution of time
and effort to answer the questionnaire correct and in detail.
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
21
19
17
15
13
11
-22
-20
-18
-16
-14
0
-12
9-1
7-8
5-6
3-4
0-2
age class [years]
Figure 1: Distribution of first occurrence of hoof overgrowth or laminitis in giraffe over age classes
[email protected]
74