Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T14:55:36.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of Climatic Conditions on the Behaviour of Adult Ostriches (Struthio Camelus) in Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

D C Deeming*
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester Ml3 9PT, UK
*
Address for correspondence: 2 Milldun Way, High Wycombe, Bucks HP12 3JA

Abstract

Welfare is being promoted as a reason why ostriches should not be kept on farms in Europe. It is reasoned that the climate, particularly during winter, is unsuitable for these birds despite there being little scientific evidence to support this claim. This study recorded the frequency of behaviours of male and female adult ostriches kept on a farm in Britain during the spring of 1996. ‘Rainy’, ‘dull and dry’, ‘bright and dry’, and ‘sunny’ weather categories were used to assess the influence of climate on behaviour. Six main behaviours (sitting, standing, pacing, walking, foraging and feeding) were observed together with a variety of low frequency ‘other’ behaviours which were combined for analysis. Gender had no significant effect on any of the behaviour frequencies. During ‘rainy’ periods both males and females showed sitting behaviour five times more than during ‘dull’ and ‘bright’ weather and two and a half times more than during ‘sunny’ weather. Increased sitting behaviour during rainy periods was due to a significant reduction in pacing and ‘other’ behaviours with no significant effect on feeding and foraging behaviours. Sitting during sunny weather also occurred more often than during dull and bright weather but not at the expense of any other particular behaviour. Adult ostriches in Britain alter their behaviour in response to prevailing weather conditions, particularly rain.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 1997 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berendsen, K D 1995 Behaviour. In: Kreibich, A and Sommer, M (eds) Ostrich Farm Management pp 2532. Landwirtschafts verlag: Münster-Hiltrup, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Bertram, B C R 1980 Vigilance and group size in ostriches. Animal Behaviour 28: 278286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, B C R 1993 Welfare Standards for the Humane Farming of Ostriches in the United Kingdom. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Horsham, UKGoogle Scholar
Bubier, N E, Paxton, C G M, Bowers, P and Deeming, D C 1996 Courtship behaviour of ostriches in captivity. In: Deeming, D C (ed) Improving Our Understanding of Ratites in a Farming Environment pp 1920. Ratite Conference: Oxfordshire, UKGoogle Scholar
Burger, J and Gochfeld, M 1988 Effect of group size and sex on vigilance in ostriches (Struthio camelus): antipredator strategy or mate competition? Ostrich 59: 1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1996 Report on the Welfare of Pigs Kept Outdoors. FA WC: Tol worth, UKGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1993 Measuring Behaviour, an Introductory Guide, 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeegan, D E F and Deeming, D C 1997 Effects of gender and group size on the time-activity budgets of adult breeding ostriches (Struthio camelus) in a farming environment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 51: 159177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiner, G, Seitz, K and Dzapo, V 1996 A survey of farming environment and ostrich behaviour in Germany. In: Deeming, D C (ed) Improving Our Understanding of Ratites in a Farming Environment pp 2324. Ratite Conference: Oxfordshire, UKGoogle Scholar
Sauer, E G F and Sauer, E M 1966 The behaviour and ecology of the South African ostrich. Living Bird 5: 4575Google Scholar
Sauer, E G F and Sauer, E M 1967 Yawning and other maintenance activities in the South African ostrich. Auk 84: 371–287Google Scholar