Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 913–921 | Cite as

Are head cues necessary for goats (Capra hircus) in recognising group members?

  • Nina M. KeilEmail author
  • Sabrina Imfeld-Mueller
  • Janine Aschwanden
  • Beat Wechsler
Original Paper

Abstract

In this study, we investigated whether goats can distinguish a member of their own group from one belonging to a different group even when the head of the goat in question cannot be seen. In the experiment, a total of 45 adult female goats (walkers) were trained to walk along a passageway at the end of which they learnt to expect food (trial run). Walking down this corridor, they passed another adult female goat (stimulus goat) whose trunk and hind legs alone were visible. Using 19 individuals, ten pairs of stimulus goats consisting of one goat from the walker's group and one from a different group were matched in terms of body size, constitution, colour and coat length. In addition, the stimulus goat from the same group as the walker had to be higher ranking than the latter to avoid being attacked. The walkers completed two, four or six trial runs depending on the number of pairs suitable for a given walker. The walker’s exploratory behaviour (observing and sniffing at the stimulus goat) was recorded. Data from 109 trial runs were analysed using generalised linear mixed-effects models with crossed random effects. On average, the walker spent a total of 8.7 s exploring the stimulus goat visually and olfactorily if the latter was from a different group and only about half as long (4.2 s) if it was from her own group. In particular, the time a walker spent observing a stimulus goat whilst approaching the latter was significantly longer if the stimulus goat belonged to a different group than to her own (2.5 s as opposed to 1.4 s). Moreover, a stimulus goat from a different group was sniffed at significantly longer (4.6 s) than one from the same group (1.9 s). Results suggest that goats can easily discriminate between members of their own group and those of a different group even when the latter’s heads are hidden. Olfactory and visual cues are probably important for identifying group members.

Keywords

Goat Social recognition Visual cues Olfactory cues Group members 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Our special thanks go to Marc Wymann, Gallus Jöhl and Vid Vidovic for caring for the goats and to Lorenz Gygax for his in-depth statistical advice. This project was financed by the Swiss Federal Veterinary Office (Project No. 2.05.05).

References

  1. Alexander G, Shilito-Walser E (1977) Importance of visual cues from various body regions in maternal recognition of the young in Merino sheep (Ovis aries). Appl Anim Ethol 3:137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aschwanden J, Gygax L, Wechsler B, Keil NM (2008a) Cardiac activity in dairy goats whilst feeding side-by-side at two different distances and during social separation. Physiol Behav 95:641–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aschwanden J, Gygax L, Wechsler B, Keil NM (2008b) Social distances of goats at the feeding rack: influence of the quality of social bonds, rank differences, grouping age and presence of horns. Appl Anim Behav Sci 114:116–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aschwanden J, Gygax L, Wechsler B, Keil NM (2009) Loose housing of small goat groups: influence of visual cover and elevated levels on feeding, resting and agonistic behaviour. Appl Anim Behav Sci 119:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldwin BA (1977) Ability of goats and calves to distinguish between conspecific urine samples using olfaction. Appl Anim Ethol 3:145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldwin BA (1979) Operant studies on shape discrimination in goats. Physiol Behav 23:455–459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2011) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes, R package version 0.999375-42. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
  8. Burnham K, Anderson D (2003) Model selection and multi-model inference. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Collias NE (1956) The analysis of socialization in sheep and goats. Ecology 37:228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coulon M, Deputte BL, Heyman Y, Baudoin C (2009) Individual recognition in domestic cattle (Bostaurus): evidence from 2D-images of heads from different breeds. PLoS ONE 4(2):1–8. www.plosone.org Google Scholar
  11. Coulon M, Baudoin C, Heyman Y, Deputte BL (2011) Cattle discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics by using only head visual cues. Anim Cogn 14:279–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gheusi G, Bluthé RM, Goodall G, Dantzer R (1994) Social and individual recognition in rodents: methodological aspects and neurobiological bases. Behav Process 33:59–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hafez ESE, Scott JP (1962) The behaviour of sheep and goats. In: Hafez ESE (ed) The behaviour of domestic animals, 2nd edn. Balière Tindall & Cox, London, pp 297–333Google Scholar
  14. Hagen K, Broom DM (2003) Cattle discriminate between familiar herd members in a learning experiment. Appl Anim Behav Sci 82:13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaminski J, Riedel J, Tomasello M (2005) Domestic goats, Capra hircus, follow gaze direction and use social cues in an object choice task. Anim Behav 69:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kendrick KM, Atkins K, Hinton MR, Broad KD, Fabre-Nys C (1995) Facial and vocal discrimination in sheep. Anim Behav 49:1665–1676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kendrick KM, Atkins K, Hinton MR, Heavens P, Keverne B (1996) Are faces special for sheep? Evidence from facial and object discrimination learning tests showing effects of inversion and social familiarity. Behav Process 38:19–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koba Y, Munskgaard L, Tanida H, Pedersen L (2009) Ability of heifers to discriminate between familiar herdmates and members of an unfamiliar group: preference test and operant conditioning test. Anim Sci J 80:98–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krueger K, Flauger B (2011) Olfactory recognition of individual competitors by means of faeces in horse (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 14:245–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Langbein J, Nuernberg G, Manteuffel G (2004) Visual discrimination learning in dwarf goats and associated changes in heart rate variability. Physiol Behav 82:601–609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Langbein J, Siebert K, Nuernberg G (2008) Concurrent recall of serially learned visual discrimination problems in dwarf goats (Capra hircus). Behav Process 79:156–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lemasson A, Boutin A, Boivin S, Blois-Heulin C, Hausberger M (2009) Horse (Equus caballus) whinnies: a source of social information. Anim Cogn 12:693–704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lévy F, Keller M (2009) Olfactory mediation of maternal behaviour in selected mammalian species. Behav Brain Res 200:336–345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ligout S, Porter RH (2004) The role of visual cues in lambs discrimination between individual agemates. Behaviour 141:617–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ligout S, Keller M, Porter RH (2004) The role of olfactory cues in the discrimination of agemates by lambs. Anim Behav 68:785–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loretz C, Wechsler B, Hauser R, Rüsch P (2004) A comparison of space requirements of horned and hornless goats at the feed barrier and in the lying area. Appl Anim Behav Sci 87:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maletinska J, Spinka M, Vichova J, Stehulova I (2002) Individual recognition of piglets by sows in the early post-partum period. Behaviour 139:975–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mazerolle MJ (2011) AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c), R package version 1.23. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=AICcmodavg
  29. McLeman MA, Mendl MT, Jones RB, White R, Wathes CM (2005) Discrimination of conspecifics by juvenile domestic pigs, Sus scrofa. Anim Behav 70:451–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McLeman MA, Mendl MT, Jones RB, Wathes CM (2008) Social discrimination of familiar conspecifics by juvenile pigs, Sus scrofa: development of a non-invasive method to study the transmission of unimodal and bimodal cues between live stimuli. Appl Anim Behav Sci 115:123–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mendl M, Randle K, Pope S (2002) Young female pigs can discriminate individual differences in odours from conspecific urine. Anim Behav 64:97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poindron P, Gilling G, Hernandez H, Serafin N, Terrazas A (2003) Early recognition of newborn goat kids by their mother: I. Nonolfactory discrimination. Dev Psychobiol 43:82–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Proops L, McComb K, Reby D (2009) Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus). PNAS 106:947–951PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ruiz-Miranda CR (1993) Use of pelage pigmentation in the recognition of mothers in a group by 2- to 4-month-old domestic goat kids. Appl Anim Behav Sci 36:317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shank CC (1972) Some aspects of social behaviour in a population of feral goats (Capra hircus L). Zeitschr Tierpsychol 30:488–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shi J, Dunbar RIM, Buckland D, Miller D (2005) Dynamics of grouping patterns and social segregation in feral goats (Capra hircus) on the Isle of Rum, NW Scotland. Mammalia 69(2):185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tate AJ, Fisher H, Leigh A, Kendrick KM (2006) Behavioural and neurophysiological evidence for face identity and face emotion processing in animals. Phys Trans R Soc B 361:2155–2172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Terrazas A, Serafin N, Hernandez H, Nowak R, Poindron P (2003) Early recognition of newborn goat kids by their mother: II. Auditory recognition and evidence of an individual acoustic signal in the neonate. Dev Psychobiol 43:311–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nina M. Keil
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sabrina Imfeld-Mueller
    • 2
  • Janine Aschwanden
    • 1
  • Beat Wechsler
    • 1
  1. 1.Swiss Federal Veterinary OfficeCentre for Proper Housing of Ruminants and PigsEttenhausenSwitzerland
  2. 2.ETH Zurich, Animal Behaviour, Health and Welfare UnitInstitute of Agricultural SciencesZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations