<%BANNER%>

Effects of Dietary Physical Form and Carbohydrate Profile on Captive Giraffe

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110320_AAAABS INGEST_TIME 2011-03-20T11:21:57Z PACKAGE UFE0009468_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 20054 DFID F20110320_AAAWOH ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH kearney_c_Page_071.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
afd7d06620d88c2c3bf99c779785b597
SHA-1
96f1198e4888677a98417697d8a8d9e3e92737e3
44714 F20110320_AAAWNT kearney_c_Page_050.pro
59b46a6fe6e0bc978e8fa106853ab446
b7b472c0ea0b15c9257a7f8932318472acbc5d78
51629 F20110320_AAAWOI kearney_c_Page_073.pro
16a7d3c054f3ba86046855c8ba55149a
9c1075f10e48f8bc550f6483210ef65717bd523f
49462 F20110320_AAAWNU kearney_c_Page_054.pro
1d885a14d098a78eb78980d9a36b535f
316e453eeec72f5db0feb70867cbcb684aac1fd0
51751 F20110320_AAAWOJ kearney_c_Page_074.pro
1f53295402c62fa06d495739a7764ac9
1f03b8da055ce90279c240678297dc9581aa7ec7
47764 F20110320_AAAWNV kearney_c_Page_056.pro
05bd8f1ce9be431d127e4df2bfd74188
9b30601d7fdcac70cbdf7d2a2165c0b53e7e210c
55122 F20110320_AAAWOK kearney_c_Page_075.pro
bc91c2926489d8720621456a9b6579c6
ed25010bd3f577cedfa9db24c2e4dc31d9fedb2c
49092 F20110320_AAAWNW kearney_c_Page_057.pro
a08f4719b4ec09be0f9b2983be2c99ab
10551ece3e87d5cde07919a2bdd9b3d01cd5a081
34343 F20110320_AAAWOL kearney_c_Page_076.pro
6045da4e4e337e7d97a4ef5de7c03dd3
43f88c7bfacedcb323c93975e36d30e96ba75cab
50740 F20110320_AAAWNX kearney_c_Page_058.pro
7a61538d3b76edd0757b9558ae90ea73
a5925fd34dad9b895738d1a2b8cd26736be95fe3
60451 F20110320_AAAWPA kearney_c_Page_097.pro
75afe754a83de733f871e510a5b4ac14
b654bccf82d2a4a2a6c52dbd320a265a62434831
7986 F20110320_AAAWOM kearney_c_Page_078.pro
a5526fafed162c229a324f760e1756aa
bd99ed65c40ecf874891e66b7fbd791b9ca75a78
39628 F20110320_AAAWNY kearney_c_Page_059.pro
64d120f562e16b85d2159ccdc2aab311
a3eb769e3ef10b003022c0496e0b4117a4b6f52e
61796 F20110320_AAAWPB kearney_c_Page_098.pro
a1aec7df483adfbbb4b067397deb83d9
eecb098e8b433379a7e8e67f1150b18238164da1
1265 F20110320_AAAWON kearney_c_Page_079.pro
3f4aabbba3b8c52bf104e04cc666ef9f
0d45febbc51a275bb0612a873e74146218e38974
49821 F20110320_AAAWNZ kearney_c_Page_062.pro
b08527b1788b467d4d8609892b799363
f642506921340f2bb04231e64ee702b93ba7e785
58951 F20110320_AAAWPC kearney_c_Page_099.pro
83a4ee516b029088f9a5697b4883a4fb
a1e6dd416cd8dc48b215c4ea56637d8e54c609a3
28717 F20110320_AAAWOO kearney_c_Page_080.pro
e1bfe95a0af8d5d3574c297443a0d222
8c25aaf6cf7ce85985dbcca377bf923d66ef6de8
58712 F20110320_AAAWPD kearney_c_Page_101.pro
70dbd56d27fa45948dc67579dbd6e6cd
edb91980e3b733577990ca75be5fb09a457d31ae
51636 F20110320_AAAWOP kearney_c_Page_082.pro
b48d63131e64fca9b290fa849d525483
7be6868f98499cc777d8549b3fd7629dde48b64e
22406 F20110320_AAAWOQ kearney_c_Page_085.pro
d59dce52eb5bebe3e9966663363b6546
6b78df94abded52354713c43e7abe603291caa77
59351 F20110320_AAAWPE kearney_c_Page_102.pro
d30dc1718dfb58b749184ec1dd3f40c3
9dc7977730189d477bb2f7d79a136319d223749e
35723 F20110320_AAAWOR kearney_c_Page_086.pro
0cf3302a70712b9117b2efa79f683c32
ebc2afafa8c8737754d6535b4276c015629a1bf4
61621 F20110320_AAAWPF kearney_c_Page_103.pro
6bf81be67ea07ce3299b9372c4bb5b95
16f1032dca48eed693b77983b69dbe9b40d90f7d
39578 F20110320_AAAWOS kearney_c_Page_087.pro
10866e3536a19f2b5644fe243dbc3bf8
89439e8fa09f410ceab6c765d3c9dd0d40cb1403
56345 F20110320_AAAWPG kearney_c_Page_104.pro
760ee1252679a5c87fa513b280781bb3
86d55d0e0e70aab6a9bb012144b0047921edd866
35704 F20110320_AAAWOT kearney_c_Page_088.pro
1044cf0796d1f32e894575f7dba108ee
9072356c631020bd868776bd3112006ba681aa56
5292 F20110320_AAAWPH kearney_c_Page_105.pro
1db373f23aa31757b6cdd724113a94d4
3ac9dee74cf94ab365bf8f79f4370a4832550481
12545 F20110320_AAAWOU kearney_c_Page_090.pro
9d60526c11f3653f9a10bce506e6342a
8183cd0017b1cb887c1b7f6d10d9491fc4102aa3
9786 F20110320_AAAWPI kearney_c_Page_106.pro
ff5f91c9df8a2c642ee595940615fa17
c7f4e8c9e95630c972d565ec97f1853491b2bb65
10657 F20110320_AAAWOV kearney_c_Page_091.pro
4dc9f9d3d22f6daf88a714d5f1a06fe7
95511698456bceb955f19623a6d803e3b21655c3
51440 F20110320_AAAWPJ kearney_c_Page_001.jpg
a48a55d7e7cfd1c4f134a050c60b014c
7d0bbddc260933c04dbfaed04beb9627c1015907
25223 F20110320_AAAWOW kearney_c_Page_092.pro
dfa6e2f4631c2b72d5893f78f765d32e
a9381b4dd4ca67d9857cc60f67fa25c3f67daa87
18746 F20110320_AAAWPK kearney_c_Page_001.QC.jpg
aabf31d400f3d2c01b648a026d29338c
6ceb0f2057a321a4a1e18779ed3c1604077b05e7
70878 F20110320_AAAWOX kearney_c_Page_093.pro
1c907ff2484716f5725754b1045f3c53
82e17497fdb753b7623c2aa7a66585bc0c4b8a62
15017 F20110320_AAAWPL kearney_c_Page_002.jpg
159696c86ae56742e02852cc5bc730cb
abbcf5fde2177e6e5f4b753ed15ba0a4bfcb0130
17183 F20110320_AAAWOY kearney_c_Page_094.pro
af6610f6586e24fba40e6c510a8e6ff5
f37daaa5f137dbea1d628064c926cb40a4eaebbe
165225 F20110320_AAAWQA kearney_c_Page_011.jpg
ea892d6ca59b440ef842df2ab7eea673
8130fc42a1e22d9c2d62f505ed11b012cec7032b
6059 F20110320_AAAWPM kearney_c_Page_002.QC.jpg
d41225db78f78a8b3d0bbe925bc6e0da
1a13351ca7512f1c7bf1e4ecea7f9055372d534a
13654 F20110320_AAAWOZ kearney_c_Page_095.pro
07f08afee4636f36df1c6517b2215a6b
bc8d8af6f48fe4fee41359cbfd435e83efd38943
57693 F20110320_AAAWQB kearney_c_Page_011.QC.jpg
404ef595edc47758dafd53718723cfb1
777b78708cb07a8d1c18a300a25f70afad997320
61772 F20110320_AAAWPN kearney_c_Page_003.jpg
15f5cfeff85a76e3d16c1ae970703fcc
44b959802a61ffb1eb6139ca4f70b50d0378933e
134675 F20110320_AAAWQC kearney_c_Page_012.jpg
a055d29df310c03bb15a7e5d043b1822
3675c88d0d45bfd70ae40a1ff9b0510e295a3590
20210 F20110320_AAAWPO kearney_c_Page_003.QC.jpg
38da75ff64946168b5d68a474cbc24ed
ee2abcdf883e4f315adfad36da0eeee84e910840
50270 F20110320_AAAWQD kearney_c_Page_012.QC.jpg
3a3cf2dbe6dfec487363fd8e94b0be7e
88d753c783238c26e875dc3844ce9de9ffbd4d3c
141858 F20110320_AAAWPP kearney_c_Page_005.jpg
262eb498841f724219b903113283412d
33d8783b3a2d2c873fc4891d9419697219a9ace1
193825 F20110320_AAAWQE kearney_c_Page_013.jpg
f28545a98fd11154895ed765dd6821d9
6a307ca10dcf257ae2400d264cfa56f036d3d6b2
52987 F20110320_AAAWPQ kearney_c_Page_005.QC.jpg
0875c5462bca0c9fd90eff8fba9d8d6e
14e5aab8eeb939e474dd054d73acf0f1a095957a
72369 F20110320_AAAWQF kearney_c_Page_013.QC.jpg
0ea4d1d0e0897acfeb43514b90f555e4
977a5e9f68d2be0846546b048403fda979e098f4
254825 F20110320_AAAWPR kearney_c_Page_006.jpg
65d0cb388e42ed74556e409c647837bb
a4bf54c8e65872b0a0b384b3385432f5a494d477
210104 F20110320_AAAWQG kearney_c_Page_014.jpg
74b2dc243b364bb1ec32a6b61f183662
6d3f034473285fd5d649951e070166b5530dc371
90269 F20110320_AAAWPS kearney_c_Page_006.QC.jpg
1d849881e9f2f9bcc8368ab62f08b040
0c6d99a5a2799a116c544d641080b4cff3b3f30b
80474 F20110320_AAAWQH kearney_c_Page_014.QC.jpg
59f27a3211eaa40d87ebc28613f2f9dc
99b7569567923b7b01ee8dde50b40ec4642a6201
204595 F20110320_AAAWPT kearney_c_Page_007.jpg
51929624253faea807637adcc2fe35fe
95e68851b36471b195c711750f782edf475ebfd5
210073 F20110320_AAAWQI kearney_c_Page_015.jpg
ca99a99df04590b97ed90bbc3433bab5
d3d93ac214b2b34c8f9124c56f00935a6218d946
77468 F20110320_AAAWPU kearney_c_Page_007.QC.jpg
a5f8f48640fc9db5339f2fcc2cf4f42d
a72ddbb4bbb0ed7d4073def941496c4979a5a89e
77282 F20110320_AAAWQJ kearney_c_Page_015.QC.jpg
033cc114a8d21ba5e1f19ee269d5da25
205bfe084acc2a1bd7898d35d1024b7f2c650068
290784 F20110320_AAAWPV kearney_c_Page_008.jpg
61eeb9b507898d533dc81fb83a315bfb
00e433f6d51dfc827c22e0cf5004c549c3b9ee73
210191 F20110320_AAAWQK kearney_c_Page_016.jpg
fbb60be0353fb5f90eb9dc2429b04090
fb992b92b4ee5b1f01e5252122dcd9a7971c85c5
235725 F20110320_AAAWPW kearney_c_Page_009.jpg
d0fae97cae06c234a5646e4aca61a74f
525c5a4fbf7a0d66198bc45516d0c7f63eb50de6
82338 F20110320_AAAWRA kearney_c_Page_024.QC.jpg
c73c2c0bb16e562a45e215e25991feb8
0ef8142c4fe118880684546c1eb3017cfcdb72b1
78489 F20110320_AAAWQL kearney_c_Page_016.QC.jpg
a22ee26f244c4b9be9c8d88983f1a6ed
06b7184966876eaa974796e7a69ee8da4a91d357
92316 F20110320_AAAWPX kearney_c_Page_009.QC.jpg
0cda94913970e6b9d82b3eae4436347c
a8685b15670ae368cad7f72abd949ad0aa4058eb
216243 F20110320_AAAWQM kearney_c_Page_017.jpg
0a7eb02f6bd87e36ed62ccbbcdbd6dd0
b9bc8b713a85fabe14cd9654adacb51a4b33c78a
131697 F20110320_AAAWPY kearney_c_Page_010.jpg
f13e78076bad626d101fbb03ceddab62
3100bc6f313a21be601d05b17d7a9524299f7490
217494 F20110320_AAAWRB kearney_c_Page_025.jpg
e3f72c3279930547ac2eefa0965f1e87
82257a0237ae6a5b09e570f8a92be30fcf5286be
81045 F20110320_AAAWQN kearney_c_Page_017.QC.jpg
922ce4e0dea491aa250dbb9556e47db0
c85ed97ac716279b93266884bb40f98892166178
62454 F20110320_AAAWPZ kearney_c_Page_010.QC.jpg
91c4eba146ad1957d720f66d4bc2c6ca
3e7973affce48ad73f16ab72d4c9dc6db2f847b6
81355 F20110320_AAAWRC kearney_c_Page_025.QC.jpg
fe11c6dbcfa6dede25ed1c6dec066697
6345e570c9773d13785da75930faf8f78c25c617
206935 F20110320_AAAWQO kearney_c_Page_018.jpg
d28121dfaf7e5565ae7f3fb6f66933e4
99ba4a14d7ae113babee5a27fd330c87162f2a42
243464 F20110320_AAAWRD kearney_c_Page_026.jpg
4999208e58e7dc52d24ba091cc337b9e
f2427c4fc66b96433f573450f261076c15886c77
79612 F20110320_AAAWQP kearney_c_Page_018.QC.jpg
a43957bc46d197a1c3300b8884811858
ecdc3d4485e8a7b1d077ae8ca731639694459157
106133 F20110320_AAAWRE kearney_c_Page_026.QC.jpg
199e98c246386c9ef766d90c0fbea883
69f22b8d1d07b943497f691908a4bdcca676c8de
53408 F20110320_AAAWQQ kearney_c_Page_019.jpg
dff0e385639b52fe7670c4d975e32ad1
25ee3bfcb3356bdf4eaad2f04649c57b192467ed
208295 F20110320_AAAWRF kearney_c_Page_027.jpg
395f35acfb1be86056741579c12ff763
d86657516c818ab15647414c583464a2de17fe8f
20952 F20110320_AAAWQR kearney_c_Page_019.QC.jpg
655799ebdfa1f973354282ec035c4199
6d70025e95e690a343fb1f0c4ff1a92592366cd7
76694 F20110320_AAAWRG kearney_c_Page_027.QC.jpg
895f6c481768cbf61e4622c6c2ed2982
5734e6b4454d4babc3828a2a16e8c5beeffbb745
183691 F20110320_AAAWQS kearney_c_Page_020.jpg
8220fda1d4c940b3982c46fa8913a404
3e241dd4c1108dc1f3e14e498acc280c204672a1
204059 F20110320_AAAWRH kearney_c_Page_028.jpg
67f34d88caed4642d168ccc295a8c988
acffe7654f47cce47917ab7e1dc3843cd41bc981
68585 F20110320_AAAWQT kearney_c_Page_020.QC.jpg
44218b9cf9e26bd3022032b52477d613
05885f7b1bc64fd29f28a2ff9e9e3fafa2af0fcd
76000 F20110320_AAAWRI kearney_c_Page_028.QC.jpg
693144a0cfa3eaa5341cdd5103f72f94
3e816ca637292e794f9a6b46951b18697c49ef4a
207391 F20110320_AAAWQU kearney_c_Page_021.jpg
23930b058efdace193a6971e856a0a66
7ca392c88639823492939b3cc4026a3d218a1611
200335 F20110320_AAAWRJ kearney_c_Page_029.jpg
573a7df2f66a234df95c3daca2930e37
7751a40c801bb32196b3c760558eb41c279e5154
78296 F20110320_AAAWQV kearney_c_Page_021.QC.jpg
8fff8bb0827df4640a1dfb84439b22bc
f0e5c28e357194c355f66463b49763e799303159
75008 F20110320_AAAWRK kearney_c_Page_029.QC.jpg
c1a7ea03af3ed4c1f8a212b7a5e1ab00
92e20fd64f9f21c85b72bb52defc44d8c092cafa
215210 F20110320_AAAWQW kearney_c_Page_022.jpg
62f2f9d753ee6b09d636c002b669e317
9351df9a695aa658da0c6c62a90e81e1490c2e66
210006 F20110320_AAAWRL kearney_c_Page_030.jpg
dfceb2af7577921c696b6d0f263bfe71
71a255a7ba4b2c8b135fcc89a0af8a6690b9067b
81193 F20110320_AAAWQX kearney_c_Page_022.QC.jpg
a775676404e53a1986447b2e79205179
fab6fe9bee673e8d16dc6566b8cc7ebdef1c195f
215734 F20110320_AAAWSA kearney_c_Page_039.jpg
be25aa2c7f24c19409e63f25e406b9dc
4964d8567601e7f35a725bbd21d4bb2ca78587b0
77355 F20110320_AAAWRM kearney_c_Page_030.QC.jpg
3061aa504c98e4548b245bef85a279f8
49efc45d16185ae292cfd153bc569cbd577e130f
217729 F20110320_AAAWQY kearney_c_Page_023.jpg
9dd826185d914c873aab5c21979b981a
1c98b925819f568359a0c53bde2cf545e3bacc37
82119 F20110320_AAAWSB kearney_c_Page_039.QC.jpg
ee6419c26d4229c721c44961ced7ff14
c39321516a2776c46ba42094732025ecbd18bf27
78584 F20110320_AAAWRN kearney_c_Page_031.QC.jpg
1ba1a63d40f6dc23beec0b9c5f615b99
e1b021a7b43e1bbdcfa5dff4e7b0cd1a27ab5edd
218554 F20110320_AAAWQZ kearney_c_Page_024.jpg
22a6350e3c47628353ccaa71a9084d3a
bbe586bb61733bfc36c768712dc8531b0213b84a
203218 F20110320_AAAWRO kearney_c_Page_032.jpg
65a35d0145b3bb4f109509f2087e0ae3
c186f38a0811ae245828a4ad656b2bd863b56ca8
234864 F20110320_AAAWSC kearney_c_Page_040.jpg
8590e1e8dc75a7cab8889e6d9f68e62e
0d5666b037d90896142f3abbf17b850677484dd0
78162 F20110320_AAAWRP kearney_c_Page_032.QC.jpg
aa0d35f7582b2ae820c922a33c486e29
f3fbcf4e61b8c6762d41d805dc48695c2f7f0f89
221416 F20110320_AAAWSD kearney_c_Page_041.jpg
1fa0131c29a9e3c148b7954134acfac4
865a145db02738c6729e4e733e34e3ce62b49288
173828 F20110320_AAAWRQ kearney_c_Page_033.jpg
48c067d33126ba97dd874a6c550b6a9c
c3474ea808e16976dcc60e219a9cd3aa2b5968f9
81108 F20110320_AAAWSE kearney_c_Page_041.QC.jpg
5ee632828f65157bbfb7e5d175da68d7
b19d29e3d8d9ab2e46251a02ac6f193c3414f209
67576 F20110320_AAAWRR kearney_c_Page_033.QC.jpg
307cccf8fd65238e4ad44b793cd4d0ab
37f952827443572b1b2658cc6cbdf9858e9bc195
220354 F20110320_AAAWSF kearney_c_Page_042.jpg
8ee3bccc0178a2c596444f33ee2e90dd
4f32e02f9f64d9fa057835fd8867a85153da5844
203880 F20110320_AAAWRS kearney_c_Page_034.jpg
c4924623260c5d19f61b607cb233bda5
c734639caca90a7bf25b6280d3cdc8cceb4c8fd7
83011 F20110320_AAAWSG kearney_c_Page_042.QC.jpg
a60c5b80f955fa6f9251af4ff6106511
f6ad8a372ec2f7936c72b6b4159819fafc8afb26
74448 F20110320_AAAWRT kearney_c_Page_034.QC.jpg
9647f4adf02361659e2bfde580520874
96f6e31733644ebac68c6fd0bde10448e08359ed
209953 F20110320_AAAWSH kearney_c_Page_043.jpg
24db9ad4996f730d781ebadbb6deac90
3dac7fee3c09b082096b158332807046f64faf69
70992 F20110320_AAAWRU kearney_c_Page_035.QC.jpg
6c2bc3f4bbf56cf9f08f50de5ca5ca37
42c48c544239de88cf1fdcd94e1243faa757f214
78766 F20110320_AAAWSI kearney_c_Page_043.QC.jpg
a058fd38813767a8bdf8c732bd2ad6d1
05e98ae16f950f88f674fdebfba88bb7d37c4c1f
216242 F20110320_AAAWRV kearney_c_Page_036.jpg
a38feafb97b749a2f385ca9faa46e388
5bdfea49910a6297492c59c6d54c827a34f2f62a
218254 F20110320_AAAWSJ kearney_c_Page_044.jpg
dae29b5c65a1fad6eba548bad0fff0e7
fb7c5278d438af9e772bc87d86d85a9b50848ee8
214638 F20110320_AAAWRW kearney_c_Page_037.jpg
18601f01406721e6135370c4396f34c9
12089eb59c2257e1044f50f8c5c5b20d12361843
72719 F20110320_AAAWSK kearney_c_Page_044.QC.jpg
179fa97bbe05c6153b488b0a23030cc1
98e81ebb3b8b3357b9b321012ba313e429653a25
79945 F20110320_AAAWRX kearney_c_Page_037.QC.jpg
afaedefc1f5a5207bfd92a0acf8530e2
68b974e34bbeb8d05dd592bd2c82f70a45b26354
93753 F20110320_AAAWTA kearney_c_Page_053.QC.jpg
2b86a7b75bbae361b1c46f917a64f54a
e127b891c540821ebb5d6707303dd40f3ec6bf7c
185284 F20110320_AAAWSL kearney_c_Page_045.jpg
ea16662cc2d0ef17569a9b89f4e9e4c9
1cb565b725d63beea5429f01eb01a6677284d123
204299 F20110320_AAAWRY kearney_c_Page_038.jpg
4384f95d2ff0f0ec0543f9de466b136f
51de0f7b3d2a133f17125bff99ee39ac6efba6e9
243324 F20110320_AAAWTB kearney_c_Page_054.jpg
ea40bb7d77874fb2c2063f4cae8862c3
8fe5d37fcd207d50e79a09fac57e66d28d075702
57117 F20110320_AAAWSM kearney_c_Page_045.QC.jpg
4074787536d730948d509213705925eb
b70529ef64a3e7b21c44df860a0b578bae31eada
73540 F20110320_AAAWRZ kearney_c_Page_038.QC.jpg
531e6a1358f66074388cde2fe334dd15
cda07c65bc70c8f04f6fb77d9368b867adb0cbd0
107952 F20110320_AAAWTC kearney_c_Page_054.QC.jpg
bf3469d674a275b7051711f5aa63886b
ab40794c39b2818464999a46fdf1096b4be403f0
93706 F20110320_AAAWSN kearney_c_Page_046.jpg
8a6a47e74fa4b4f1f33e8c110efc6a04
c3bb8a9d510a873aa594dcf932167e8acc3cfc62
33294 F20110320_AAAWSO kearney_c_Page_046.QC.jpg
b5d4852673f8536e4a3fc898ee5d40b4
3991ec1dc3d778e22ff96065eb99f1075459670e
77341 F20110320_AAAWTD kearney_c_Page_055.QC.jpg
ece3fac1f536faa45c1f750129337126
0917643af10fa675b8b56a625b931a0e5155ef28
81846 F20110320_AAAWSP kearney_c_Page_047.jpg
6722a8b1fe644f23e8b89757777d093d
7a38b6d1e48a092d3fdc2c5419be0335db4637ac
230011 F20110320_AAAWTE kearney_c_Page_056.jpg
dc59f6e476b42d1b9d901b227f8ac9d8
9cbe73a23466d54ac0bba9b8df6d4ac18b969308
26968 F20110320_AAAWSQ kearney_c_Page_047.QC.jpg
881058442d7849c31b90219bf15f54ab
89786ba33896c003768326230848af11a0763143
100763 F20110320_AAAWTF kearney_c_Page_056.QC.jpg
836c8c24bce94046f0636542c6b7fb5e
e13d0522eb6374d585d57af81f77ee0bc1834454
189361 F20110320_AAAWSR kearney_c_Page_048.jpg
cf1f1e201e047bd4b1ef2965d2da7bef
774b1b6cf0f03cd73eb8b6e0418f47724e547f9f
210223 F20110320_AAAWTG kearney_c_Page_057.jpg
7bd408e16795dd39dd0832e091b27ebb
018dda8961efd3be5ca321a72d781fd7b59ec8fb
69843 F20110320_AAAWSS kearney_c_Page_048.QC.jpg
cbe9122714f74eafa677b215b7d7b98c
f019822f20c8ab09a3306ee50fd63dbe006ef6d3
78855 F20110320_AAAWTH kearney_c_Page_057.QC.jpg
91174e58b0667e6ee05aad4f338785d1
dfa376d2fe8372d2c13d9ef6ef350a4b5526bc98
80556 F20110320_AAAWST kearney_c_Page_049.QC.jpg
b35cce4f0bb80bd041a1aab218f56ad6
aad0cc2e1f1df252c2d7fc0fcea998f36c596626
216944 F20110320_AAAWTI kearney_c_Page_058.jpg
0bd284c1014dc9980b1f0c3997fc7677
869ec12d7e5a13d8df398b061107d9c467948d0b
193519 F20110320_AAAWSU kearney_c_Page_050.jpg
4131657c9d5e595786da80b9664b32c4
0ed6c1b061f124bd7c48209adcc6a039be82da5f
81229 F20110320_AAAWTJ kearney_c_Page_058.QC.jpg
7c674d389436f6936ca5b2aa504aeedc
82092bbceeefcafe479e5f437dc076106b2cd943
211938 F20110320_AAAWSV kearney_c_Page_051.jpg
ba3bdd6f31e57788d9f82356270e1ac8
3077a3012112a3d38fe303d9257fd4bce204219f
88020 F20110320_AAAWTK kearney_c_Page_059.QC.jpg
d955d5f82d03a88fe264cd7af3722919
b92bcfe642d0e487c50a4e0bbf3949ab32655ede
77140 F20110320_AAAWSW kearney_c_Page_051.QC.jpg
569f75ce7e15be1e47fb09ef612919b3
e25e9fe9c79dc81827efb30a164b94e3eb77cdb5
77622 F20110320_AAAWUA kearney_c_Page_068.QC.jpg
cce18c312b3c3673562f942479b06433
b1e044f725fbcb5d6773569f796281d4c9fd628f
210465 F20110320_AAAWTL kearney_c_Page_060.jpg
5e09bea9bf25371f14167cdcd201fd64
947648ce1aff9e51ccb7b3607ab2d65134caf471
247784 F20110320_AAAWSX kearney_c_Page_052.jpg
151bcda2530b0013a6ea27f752920b4f
f97e4d8850eb4c9c834b36d8cb9f48c7ae8f9f53
239638 F20110320_AAAWUB kearney_c_Page_069.jpg
71019902cfd3e8c427e099ef27956e3f
0a948f9beb13a0fb37f2c7e638bb9c75e0e8ca74
76780 F20110320_AAAWTM kearney_c_Page_060.QC.jpg
6c941e5b84a0d4fc7a4318eadb7ef0ef
a212326ac40d534e84f601ce20ec93fe373f450c
83783 F20110320_AAAWSY kearney_c_Page_052.QC.jpg
cab87e48fd425966eb1dd5c568bc0d91
c69bd61f7a6fa2fda66e4f9dd830e163c05db9f5
220778 F20110320_AAAWTN kearney_c_Page_061.jpg
5a1abca133efdc7d42ab4fdcfabeda4c
005d8847a46c6562646173cb4734562b1beb86c4
204953 F20110320_AAAWSZ kearney_c_Page_053.jpg
f6b34a3241d97a7b4b803db7ce0ba94f
70dc8189ab4f7ee7e931c5e26bbfb2d0a9246f2d
103748 F20110320_AAAWUC kearney_c_Page_069.QC.jpg
488da390a2128416b24cc1c54db7160d
a6d1cb7e9b6c835ceb211e66ed6c00a181e6caaf
215427 F20110320_AAAWTO kearney_c_Page_062.jpg
bff69d4353dfe931ff09b56ffc2c19e3
870a1df7b5ced341f4d50d7f9b9c753c912fddea
216603 F20110320_AAAWUD kearney_c_Page_070.jpg
8bc78279acae7391c3b030ec45380d15
2a7d04730f266827d3a4129f57230b2abe282c1b
80946 F20110320_AAAWTP kearney_c_Page_062.QC.jpg
4e918d0850d3cb4c97116e6e7993ce7f
3ad32a1c7ea45949cd6356c6cea51e871fc4c204
232678 F20110320_AAAWTQ kearney_c_Page_063.jpg
941edea3b662b5a6e8166c9f11a2e501
b8a5cb26d57675fc0475c44c3361d8cd52a2be80
79033 F20110320_AAAWUE kearney_c_Page_070.QC.jpg
372da571ce2705606f45a60971a2f88c
10365586abba0c369b79aba536b48c4e58a551af
104289 F20110320_AAAWTR kearney_c_Page_063.QC.jpg
bbde7800d5e05e72a6da63d27a616934
6daef326e45081862fe305259d4b58acf5708912
6914 F20110320_AAAXAA kearney_c_Page_003thm.jpg
f9a94fac720dd8e912d3a5055ec6e61f
0a2ec5c32a25a72e14f79b898a097dcbdf98c8f8
86098 F20110320_AAAWUF kearney_c_Page_071.jpg
b02f5267be5e11412f1c3033adf8ca0e
e00604b09cd677a70f1f7816dda48cc1f750578f
77493 F20110320_AAAWTS kearney_c_Page_064.QC.jpg
d8b1a846957a9c920308cf4b05d7ed74
159e4c4584564eea76cd4b5c0315cecc6c59ce0f
22934 F20110320_AAAXAB kearney_c_Page_004thm.jpg
83817b96284e3ac8bcf77292b36564d8
f7ee0e98239b568880c7145132ec0fdbaf351083
34173 F20110320_AAAWUG kearney_c_Page_071.QC.jpg
949f40b0cb2252066c36d94f8ff137e3
6a68aad57551f41c940693c8c49095051f6bb8fe
238783 F20110320_AAAWTT kearney_c_Page_065.jpg
996a43dbb97c97f94c431fcfbcc27ed9
48222f21730209e945269f77807eba2e838d643b
16588 F20110320_AAAXAC kearney_c_Page_005thm.jpg
988307d9e51c6054d7e77daf18792e40
dc7843ab4ee1a8ab451bb72741c6b8f76b7aadfb
246527 F20110320_AAAWUH kearney_c_Page_072.jpg
470bcbee1333696cb83281e02a15b42c
2738b33b44ad62c5dadbb6999fb66a92ea9ff112
105739 F20110320_AAAWTU kearney_c_Page_065.QC.jpg
0648738f8ffeb6f500f16366c781b98f
144566ea8d356b8ed84e81e79c824ded4c4cedb5
46598 F20110320_AAAXAD kearney_c_Page_006thm.jpg
1a46ab68e80d3a4f8fc5c59d52a41849
3477fa9b05fb441ac11d2fdfed008fcf83f4ab08
74743 F20110320_AAAWUI kearney_c_Page_072.QC.jpg
af6f8becbd284a21629aaabcff77a5a0
17549e9fb0897f1c4bfb303e9b3a209478717620
220367 F20110320_AAAWTV kearney_c_Page_066.jpg
3dec909c842b9f7554ab693d44fa771c
3d3035d1c93dece56d1905c177098d21101c55d5
42037 F20110320_AAAXAE kearney_c_Page_007thm.jpg
bb690a318d9bee375a7230e3d03bb80f
c19f20bfbf0c3aa08af9cdb424796f68c1bf8253
203883 F20110320_AAAWUJ kearney_c_Page_073.jpg
25e164dba393e23c875f68fd05b13370
cea45917852406a6b816d68ffe2a28b86b682f37
81649 F20110320_AAAWTW kearney_c_Page_066.QC.jpg
6a2f6db18e6dc8bf0f8af1582f51cbbf
50835224bbba167d8d4b5bf482e2b00cee28b7e8
45433 F20110320_AAAXAF kearney_c_Page_009thm.jpg
fab23252dc04e032e7510930278079bc
a791341e29dedbc387f95c0f2d859dbe22b336f0
67173 F20110320_AAAWUK kearney_c_Page_073.QC.jpg
16898801c2b2839c64fe3c3de9d06f1a
3a03f2dd298f696b77f5f0c01244448efed3b183
217462 F20110320_AAAWTX kearney_c_Page_067.jpg
dc73802388d12db18500222520f9dc09
25d67529182fc06ce38b20c2aa2018f534f93557
36690 F20110320_AAAXAG kearney_c_Page_010thm.jpg
bced78cad2431a2bd7e2521e989be0d6
51b746333c9bfcc5813818a7c835a157739a86cb
79012 F20110320_AAAWVA kearney_c_Page_083.jpg
a80eba6fb7eac0fe44d1014718f8c42e
874425107169bb7fa9d2e13f2240c468e83a6b39
202167 F20110320_AAAWUL kearney_c_Page_074.jpg
a835b168c1ceb26fa27e790389a85ed2
98fe986c7df4df2d65756a126d750f98705cb43e
81301 F20110320_AAAWTY kearney_c_Page_067.QC.jpg
3894e28f238b7d329741baf82ff8503e
1ccce0345d6482d92a8c858722dc8e125d5caaad
19013 F20110320_AAAXAH kearney_c_Page_011thm.jpg
52060974cc0fa6858bc2ef5c2cd324c1
773807c9f4dfdad525c084f9bdf2e26e38bb6880
27123 F20110320_AAAWVB kearney_c_Page_083.QC.jpg
dc8e4968122cc7937f463b1bb1af51bf
a773116993dfc8b33c8239c90c4232066753f94c
221382 F20110320_AAAWUM kearney_c_Page_075.jpg
06d90d6a49579b260d4aa539e1b6725a
3a6befe8b2d67b5a3badc0107b30b128c6ae6320
201162 F20110320_AAAWTZ kearney_c_Page_068.jpg
6d9df9f23c894dcfa8b449304b1e2245
84ce7b909bfb9e5a62cbd81f343c7d2648f1fa00
15946 F20110320_AAAXAI kearney_c_Page_012thm.jpg
fb276c61fe11869b7254b1caef82634a
1e03c94826fc1ff87829bf815549c330ceeac8c5
78227 F20110320_AAAWVC kearney_c_Page_084.jpg
091c541e61bbe68f1a353f16f1e17f2f
4470934e78584cf111261730040ca8e6da8a6538
156407 F20110320_AAAWUN kearney_c_Page_076.jpg
207b2759287df57777398c6f11c58ea4
842a3395a0f687664429d71d29985b8c2b3812e5
22617 F20110320_AAAXAJ kearney_c_Page_013thm.jpg
c697ee963ef5d4fbbb499f26ca17b931
f66d02949684195944de7b9094128b6a65bc3ff2
27449 F20110320_AAAWVD kearney_c_Page_084.QC.jpg
50c3459d093a2f24e35fb1909ed8be4c
3ab71ddabfa300ac6999141f66a218abc80707bd
51562 F20110320_AAAWUO kearney_c_Page_076.QC.jpg
7493a4f8336f81aeb24ef2c8e2aa92fb
70c9be1fd224c3a55100be5e3f9abcf3710c9ffa
25005 F20110320_AAAXAK kearney_c_Page_014thm.jpg
a9402bd36fc4cf7cbff1c8ae26ae4024
ac49496bf5d26f1b965cdf7458c31583238b967c
72611 F20110320_AAAWVE kearney_c_Page_085.jpg
a695ac0c5a51bff6c1348929df27f1c4
82ff49e3c829753391e55629115af79508497c12
88010 F20110320_AAAWUP kearney_c_Page_077.jpg
d2ee7b5bcab72f2f822aa6f8a79dc80e
492ca54c1935cae2d21e8ab864c4d184defe62d6
24733 F20110320_AAAXAL kearney_c_Page_015thm.jpg
1e0649c086f4166602826cd34898bdb5
99e901f88cfc741c9aeff56ffe266b055f96abe5
48894 F20110320_AAAWUQ kearney_c_Page_077.QC.jpg
e6054114a2c4f12750f240c4473252d3
02712925626c225be72e1538d51123c0f4b4ee1d
24520 F20110320_AAAXAM kearney_c_Page_016thm.jpg
b3e72fff061251687ee7d51797f959ce
a4daccee6505d6b37da523f82cd4d4bb0946d05b
25426 F20110320_AAAWVF kearney_c_Page_085.QC.jpg
f6d6ef8a45a03cb4b7b5564987868372
9cb26d2032a0393a52329c3aca74b7e7133487ee
66400 F20110320_AAAWUR kearney_c_Page_078.jpg
1a76596e1a8e7e2ffc39fb82dd053087
cbb32617be7443371956a09e758da2fb928e5319
23939 F20110320_AAAXBA kearney_c_Page_032thm.jpg
5062b8a3c5d6a57e334055e9c12a1f3d
49f316e7d2bf18a906e5f1526c1a9c10aa650702
25704 F20110320_AAAXAN kearney_c_Page_017thm.jpg
48269141ffe3cdb20b2539915430bec6
5c9324a9a6246ef0bed05713f409bdd1f220552c
93883 F20110320_AAAWVG kearney_c_Page_086.jpg
21b62be0135c02ce6a1d32710ecec041
428c1fc41bad95dfa77b6dcddb43bd7336757625
37494 F20110320_AAAWUS kearney_c_Page_078.QC.jpg
2ac5900084e4f75d0878eed2e4ee6564
96f73dc714de00fd49cda117087ad471e5012143
22204 F20110320_AAAXBB kearney_c_Page_033thm.jpg
c3d77ab72aebce83a9248c7aef053e14
f755c1dff228e3ce59ef02659e15421f8a3f150d
24290 F20110320_AAAXAO kearney_c_Page_018thm.jpg
9b766fab5049e72a6250c7987490b49a
8a7a2905451d490d3bb9f68238559b44fa9b8295
F20110320_AAAWVH kearney_c_Page_086.QC.jpg
85dad9aa35d7ad7cff76f353a385273e
f8de87d426241698752dc254582d01a8f6537e74
15809 F20110320_AAAWUT kearney_c_Page_079.jpg
402dbb814849c8e25db183d031c17c22
7aa5f980c413e0927507c7da08af5cc8d27f983a
23956 F20110320_AAAXBC kearney_c_Page_034thm.jpg
05d7ca76ff7ce0bece81886659d5ab8e
d55568bb590b9068c3a83aeccd8bf1195b897ca2
95807 F20110320_AAAWVI kearney_c_Page_087.jpg
1c4d19a8af7c14cda737eb74f4b30c8f
a2d771fccafb4550d2e2ff5bc3be4abb394513e3
6328 F20110320_AAAWUU kearney_c_Page_079.QC.jpg
15d652069b0e3d9a3c3444c959e3f08d
240725d0791ed54aa7218f3a706bc598662bdc1d
25018 F20110320_AAAXBD kearney_c_Page_036thm.jpg
f9c7b7e499d8f7df92173800dc68ca69
eab387cf74166e61ec4fd43ce4589584592ed797
7045 F20110320_AAAXAP kearney_c_Page_019thm.jpg
b66b3eb780eff3217bcfd8aae36805c0
00a3d6fa02e5ceedb162acb98aba7e8e019eb00e
33081 F20110320_AAAWVJ kearney_c_Page_087.QC.jpg
f4e42525f0441aa206014d0edd60b904
530c7601f11b6e3625e480342fd0ead585368ef4
80400 F20110320_AAAWUV kearney_c_Page_080.jpg
d2020350d908f72bb5ac0cbb95fbd313
181814ea1d05ce08998d26bb39238c34092c4866
25333 F20110320_AAAXBE kearney_c_Page_037thm.jpg
b406c19f5fd354c2ab9f603da5a0dbdf
325e1283ff751655bde7ca6a1d85efed9a6c3454
21791 F20110320_AAAXAQ kearney_c_Page_020thm.jpg
e99a50b11cbdd59e4e81c8f147106d6e
ac82d850ddacf7a20716d55c42c37504b0516890
38589 F20110320_AAAWVK kearney_c_Page_088.QC.jpg
db46ed5d3870c73f3ba6d1b716f6c3c3
4258e66b46126e2b988859600a7729e52c4808ae
27426 F20110320_AAAWUW kearney_c_Page_080.QC.jpg
cda9766d03d7f03216756d9bab4f2e40
c4486e9cdafa023092baf7014f2255b46503dea1
23869 F20110320_AAAXBF kearney_c_Page_038thm.jpg
b0391198a3924f6c9aa2a18e642e631e
a20c2b3c3163d60f9b8d2bf8e75679e011e7e7b0
85665 F20110320_AAAWWA kearney_c_Page_097.QC.jpg
de1b28982c6e048748b395ef2a3546b1
bd100e3cfb606f14ee8d4267a5b3e28cb0346860
24099 F20110320_AAAXAR kearney_c_Page_021thm.jpg
8b5bf48428d2c50bbb7a0e9ef37e604a
ca91afc7946546894e50a3f8116530421580d64c
59346 F20110320_AAAWVL kearney_c_Page_089.jpg
892ead93514a22a078cc187caf13f1ef
8cfc6b6fcb65f8d31dc684f386b29e0ec58c1007
115409 F20110320_AAAWUX kearney_c_Page_081.jpg
f141f545063a5effe168810a3b05c0da
6f5024108ffb94e758b6a5034ab468f5af09068f
50185 F20110320_AAAXBG kearney_c_Page_040thm.jpg
69543b147c2b8be1560ae46e79c4734a
c5fa2ef271fca97f7a6b5a4353617e27f6946cd9
267134 F20110320_AAAWWB kearney_c_Page_098.jpg
91983e4cf434cc45dd47c6dc6555fe2d
22cc6acc01bb1844f0fe1ab216f4cb63c7908135
24836 F20110320_AAAXAS kearney_c_Page_022thm.jpg
d4bc863095479ea0d264d1f3ae7ca077
eda80fcd6b8589034579d8cfdec8340a307ef0b2
21769 F20110320_AAAWVM kearney_c_Page_089.QC.jpg
bbd92de017e06224904b4d95a8897078
1a00e175ba1b9cb76524000ec24b20d875d53ec7
38425 F20110320_AAAWUY kearney_c_Page_081.QC.jpg
0d2af8b4929643d3104670ae9fd155c3
498cda937693dd1fe143d7be99f5bb4450602090
25052 F20110320_AAAXBH kearney_c_Page_041thm.jpg
17dbcd8c89db08e8a6b05c09bdabc46f
f14830b9a843aa815b361c14fce4130aa1c493f4
85594 F20110320_AAAWWC kearney_c_Page_098.QC.jpg
5b58f5f574d3b84e07935e3a8ea72c91
7bf120fbcc5b0010b05685e5d71802bbcdc2720f
24802 F20110320_AAAXAT kearney_c_Page_023thm.jpg
d73aedb787276adf084bb901d8d43b90
b769bbbb66a6a96973b86ec43085ec2825a36b5d
90490 F20110320_AAAWVN kearney_c_Page_090.jpg
1811f92c99f5f33f1aa61beb437ab1f6
15a23134b5257b8a22bedaf5a6182dc384885278
113112 F20110320_AAAWUZ kearney_c_Page_082.jpg
70b415ca2c55241ce8632fc948cce8c3
2e4451941b022f68edeab44d67aee926e459e6dd
F20110320_AAAXBI kearney_c_Page_042thm.jpg
fe24ff08a5a0ac7c5753ae7f5556f52f
2229193feac6a798cd28a70f3111dd8a1081c8b0
253318 F20110320_AAAWWD kearney_c_Page_099.jpg
264c7953349728388a843de6b44acbdc
c73cc71d4d177aec468d116a29942710663d0197
26057 F20110320_AAAXAU kearney_c_Page_024thm.jpg
e68d63743184c3faa798423551b25114
00ed7d901f491f84422de0914433e1bd134e93a8
48459 F20110320_AAAWVO kearney_c_Page_090.QC.jpg
3e9082cbf7c3dce59d31354190d7482f
db8ca8998a1b409a0a3410c40ae5d46999c0a420
25125 F20110320_AAAXBJ kearney_c_Page_043thm.jpg
1ee1eedc9f3134c867c76806b6fc88fd
0335e6db605c1281b67612d24de6500db9c0d078
79561 F20110320_AAAWWE kearney_c_Page_099.QC.jpg
b83b6d9834493a81d5ca73a15c17d5a9
02eac089bc4773b78471118e7271c5e1c32c89e5
24991 F20110320_AAAXAV kearney_c_Page_025thm.jpg
7ecf361bdce16d5df274094cc1c34d42
ed13c9ffa60ac0f3c8f736cdf1eff39decaa78a5
77439 F20110320_AAAWVP kearney_c_Page_091.jpg
39e29aebf2e009674bda0d88a8267eb1
8519891c25161367e1901cdf02dd3ea68d9d9532
21948 F20110320_AAAXBK kearney_c_Page_044thm.jpg
89469ef21541a15366005d8d2d1c263a
4b61f571983c784182953d7897da86f6b7d11967
267608 F20110320_AAAWWF kearney_c_Page_100.jpg
6e8d978635ec71894818ab603e0d7446
52a09592cfa398df73fa4d9bd37f2305dfb559e6
24338 F20110320_AAAXAW kearney_c_Page_027thm.jpg
521135394cdf72c4cea5b91d703cc31b
c85e55a9846adc05b4280b11cade6a5f1884a59d
43902 F20110320_AAAWVQ kearney_c_Page_091.QC.jpg
59952fab102807179fc2cdd9e2d18022
940977db7b770f54540fdac1a6c019ae2bd3a803
17843 F20110320_AAAXBL kearney_c_Page_045thm.jpg
598cff5e7d2e389357193f6c7e010cda
f7621f35e18ced57454963583fef3bb639ce79e1
23888 F20110320_AAAXAX kearney_c_Page_028thm.jpg
e22a9e4b91e2fbb69d1fb08adbd0ed5d
c19cfc02d74713dca5a26a29c3f0de958f1abbad
127991 F20110320_AAAWVR kearney_c_Page_092.jpg
2e7132a213f746df272959c17a057f06
68e659e1b31eb7325bc6867b2bb32b42b2dfcc2b
25211 F20110320_AAAXCA kearney_c_Page_061thm.jpg
4f8712f18f8c2236e6c0458ff09c127a
63a2f35fb943fcdad44f40840769e2cd1ce94e1f
11903 F20110320_AAAXBM kearney_c_Page_046thm.jpg
8cb02b1b0ed6705c4886d7c445267b28
d203b6effad2285123e1a7ae1261ce83fc15a4b2
85327 F20110320_AAAWWG kearney_c_Page_100.QC.jpg
a48ca34464abfb4e312821ac94714dea
fb6f7965962c3aaf7fd85ac82d55a4e7d801c01d
23324 F20110320_AAAXAY kearney_c_Page_029thm.jpg
ebbce60569108fbcfe5eb9a467bb1ef9
76c5a8ebe11b3befd1b8463e48f795fbbbca630f
48325 F20110320_AAAWVS kearney_c_Page_092.QC.jpg
f3f8d8a259fbf533351c4d648ebc3b2f
656fd3ad07cf37c85871df001fdd13a7748fa4b6
25506 F20110320_AAAXCB kearney_c_Page_062thm.jpg
9d069101569076ea03d87782716e516b
6509d1596426e5a1e933db914d1be89ffce97a76
10331 F20110320_AAAXBN kearney_c_Page_047thm.jpg
1990a2ac8bf90cc97c6d1f1afe1711d4
c7c4875faf1c7b5addc145f93c3d2234ae6ad72a
83696 F20110320_AAAWWH kearney_c_Page_101.QC.jpg
6ca6d86589511794af51ab1e37eb5f5d
ade032dbb9b1c55503883113b81c4fdb30dff1af
24538 F20110320_AAAXAZ kearney_c_Page_031thm.jpg
4cd359dfbcb4de3518c405bbb200730b
10e10c9950dee858f83d7859aeb7df6de1b79455
195472 F20110320_AAAWVT kearney_c_Page_093.jpg
5301f1520cea32b275c09a1c2bb8dfe8
a1738d939caaa6f4a1c8287fbe40f8b416b789ed
49132 F20110320_AAAXCC kearney_c_Page_063thm.jpg
3ee6100972023242b730b40a0150f26a
573d0e0d62427c82a3526e0b1cf4f1a6f6a0443e
25547 F20110320_AAAXBO kearney_c_Page_049thm.jpg
3ee0ccb7d83fe68c25a7db9b2627c517
3db6c86662d1a644ffcb3ca4859341789b0e9a4e
267954 F20110320_AAAWWI kearney_c_Page_102.jpg
7a11e9cab31329bc96633a41e4d19096
a3f70278858c3eeaa5b22e8b2573cf5b789dc5e2
92804 F20110320_AAAWVU kearney_c_Page_094.jpg
1fe7a3568391ce45534b91ba41f82e0f
dc60c116971c956532003642921b155bbc5fc24f
24120 F20110320_AAAXCD kearney_c_Page_064thm.jpg
c3bfca3e66783f91bdc25d3f3cc63106
8e0bf2b5e8a46ad9afb07717499da6f90ca24b97
23574 F20110320_AAAXBP kearney_c_Page_050thm.jpg
e23f18705de22b1681cdd6ecb4cf1f9f
6429c2fc191bc7213b6dd0889fe3765504525278
84476 F20110320_AAAWWJ kearney_c_Page_102.QC.jpg
65358764e7821af39f3b6177248cfd01
80ce4c3532c03d599646bff86081dcdb284e98c9
29467 F20110320_AAAWVV kearney_c_Page_094.QC.jpg
229fefa7f6effc3e2c3ce9083bc0ccc0
cbce395c1c8f05ca44743a1908fe6fbd1e0afde7
50000 F20110320_AAAXCE kearney_c_Page_065thm.jpg
43e1ad91a8b649d348ca4099216e333e
c9dcd276a3a87419dab7eb99386b3f99cebf659b
243826 F20110320_AAAWWK kearney_c_Page_103.jpg
6802b55eb0a138998d27ea7350082623
bfd27451ed3b3951678fd19f013eefb5e1ed2f67
251041 F20110320_AAAWVW kearney_c_Page_095.jpg
b06dae0610e145fa8e5da8991cab8b6a
d30c9d588b575a53c925705904a453b83986388c
24846 F20110320_AAAXCF kearney_c_Page_066thm.jpg
01616b8e14c5c27ff62ba1a1b69760fc
fa78dff5c22bb07396c329794b584ae74351c838
23665 F20110320_AAAXBQ kearney_c_Page_051thm.jpg
849315d7028f8cd0f080df829e68181d
35cb104b4f733a17f81be335da12cd1408e133ae
80720 F20110320_AAAWWL kearney_c_Page_104.QC.jpg
4b51f8488b07b7d03140f9b0bbc9ca52
bd80a7e8f2e4e75d0e0c7631eb6bab2fe88c80ea
100912 F20110320_AAAWVX kearney_c_Page_095.QC.jpg
a9344b920a13d8005eeff28538f691e8
c49cbf277e5ae2ce3b1606ea34531393847878ae
24121 F20110320_AAAXCG kearney_c_Page_068thm.jpg
64f2abeed55af5d37049dc121a3251c3
8d6d4012def550cd8c3692820fb37ff2f4093445
99899 F20110320_AAAWXA kearney_c_Page_013.jp2
ff4f1873ee95d16381249a1a8cb3ca8a
aab2eb8dee7a660933e7418091d129dd0ee0d857
25991 F20110320_AAAXBR kearney_c_Page_052thm.jpg
0ad980419c3b4d2505f851e056f3cb1e
759dff41f6ce1485d645f8cee9aef9d91ba14bb7
31808 F20110320_AAAWWM kearney_c_Page_105.jpg
a7b94acee83660de36f9b359926e5799
4404607c996cdd63983a03fc539173d1d6efd79e
196651 F20110320_AAAWVY kearney_c_Page_096.jpg
486ac6db7ddc9b963d4e40c2cf6e8ee0
241f6e1443724021838a640ce100b1adf92a06d3
50397 F20110320_AAAXCH kearney_c_Page_069thm.jpg
1f7fa653bb81690e07d6bd328013b3f4
c15985767a47f8e49405ae6544306bcbab124b47
110698 F20110320_AAAWXB kearney_c_Page_015.jp2
313486b1961cced88b71959c021fcaa8
57459f565436f4b6cb015613901b902fdfbd67c7
46939 F20110320_AAAXBS kearney_c_Page_053thm.jpg
20fdf1e6bb36f9faffdf31185ce23735
fa07e3d8dc5156256a68ea606f6c7583c6bee00e
11353 F20110320_AAAWWN kearney_c_Page_105.QC.jpg
322faf80f46375df2829c9fd02e10944
096949439ade5b563e17a67fd871f7dce570f9ed
270622 F20110320_AAAWVZ kearney_c_Page_097.jpg
8a92e911f10d7a034cd3c0169de2d276
374039cb15fb8e4698bcb2a84c4cf64ec6eb6524
24877 F20110320_AAAXCI kearney_c_Page_070thm.jpg
746051ed0f5ee72ef2e505f73802e3fa
d19f4433287d5e9ea9b04165d45d2c592d09ff4c
111833 F20110320_AAAWXC kearney_c_Page_017.jp2
8430e6f5b073456045274f813eee623e
eb0179d1b73444186e12445b424ad84aea4ba506
51316 F20110320_AAAXBT kearney_c_Page_054thm.jpg
8261e2302730b8cbed68ac1a9a14fbd5
5444a73f4477ead50783750cd570f93521f4c543
49616 F20110320_AAAWWO kearney_c_Page_106.jpg
1f9dafef7ec2a8c44d92b336a5ae1091
13a91f3d641465654f89902cdea737f339618c13
13185 F20110320_AAAXCJ kearney_c_Page_071thm.jpg
cd2645031a4b95a9e6004dbdb81194f1
6b249f868ce61315a00108dab6facd0ed15128ae
108195 F20110320_AAAWXD kearney_c_Page_018.jp2
7487001da93a84d677a9aa93c6bafdc4
f4ce6f3bef55ded0a1c751564355334c5ca6a6a5
24679 F20110320_AAAXBU kearney_c_Page_055thm.jpg
c118bb1774336c0bf49a6cf89b3424c8
85aae18cc4f71cd55674efa714fc89147fe6097a
19243 F20110320_AAAWWP kearney_c_Page_106.QC.jpg
d83498eb7db213f3810c5feb38dc61cb
00d5b23370237af1fe9fe4c2b093dcb0498eba7e
22004 F20110320_AAAXCK kearney_c_Page_072thm.jpg
a660c3c64451629afa41fb38f1570c5e
aa3a7396cdd22600b25401b14784a32e377cc220
26906 F20110320_AAAWXE kearney_c_Page_019.jp2
ffe2c6e02884b9fb5a54c191be82fb77
3808d1730b941c25776001b53097a271325b1dfa
49585 F20110320_AAAXBV kearney_c_Page_056thm.jpg
7a17250f008d798eeefad6c769e62b12
82c1f43784eb70c509fbfd6a686127ba65a6f415
22419 F20110320_AAAWWQ kearney_c_Page_001.jp2
53f947ebb94497dbd5237de80c3214f5
535f12092349a41143f2d0f71bfd4bff853173b0
20646 F20110320_AAAXCL kearney_c_Page_073thm.jpg
fca42b1e46e5f967243eaf8a1236d225
b5a7231ed875ce8a9f1f94abe598e13dc71edbc0
108453 F20110320_AAAWXF kearney_c_Page_021.jp2
3b8d58045c1de2347f106e4ef90643ed
229d31fa9f6c9365bfce890d487545e18656c432
24801 F20110320_AAAXBW kearney_c_Page_057thm.jpg
5242fb530d84301e31dab0e9e2b37b1b
19db1da259cc85bbb939346e35d9a2cde8c8a82a
5885 F20110320_AAAWWR kearney_c_Page_002.jp2
0c2997794bb5985da4c34d517fe38824
7f46884b165e079d08d0578d76a36403de4f5108
17971 F20110320_AAAXDA kearney_c_Page_093thm.jpg
e1ddcf79fc581d9ce21bb47d3ff40d0d
90af6fdfb975c19b581dd1315edeb616730eb144
23179 F20110320_AAAXCM kearney_c_Page_074thm.jpg
34a14a672bef994e74ac1d50154eede5
6d7191448b0f2f62eb74bfd9d931805734d2565d
111145 F20110320_AAAWXG kearney_c_Page_022.jp2
a7cd52dec6b24b60a553836b06ad865b
c3f72223f6d21a0cb6658b6c1d17f27f50e07243
25693 F20110320_AAAXBX kearney_c_Page_058thm.jpg
696a1ed940ea986e716c95572a6ec431
785817d02c10809f24adc19214efc9940936b5fe
30746 F20110320_AAAWWS kearney_c_Page_003.jp2
6611d880d64f811fcefb9e0f76429091
0e7d81131fe5524c375f41f5118aff4e91ab459a
9166 F20110320_AAAXDB kearney_c_Page_094thm.jpg
230460f4dcfa1cf4c7a0a5111cb4e586
04f2a33b6e0977c6e9c84750a7f82d168fa85b17
30034 F20110320_AAAXCN kearney_c_Page_077thm.jpg
6cd759a28f31684e689f1639948951f7
e57c623a363de46842ef3fa1f95b922023232311
46527 F20110320_AAAXBY kearney_c_Page_059thm.jpg
2fb6ce3d18abb535a3af9c3e42ea53f0
16c19aa6d0a355111a6666dfe1047140cbb62d26
99194 F20110320_AAAWWT kearney_c_Page_004.jp2
7798921268d69e231dd8be48dbc1eeb2
455434d6cd7a9494e754b73fcfdb3b6ee4f7ce9c
46832 F20110320_AAAXDC kearney_c_Page_095thm.jpg
622371836b22a8e71d15b76a5db35d01
b81a184b5f5fbf482eb540bb21eb033e05aed57d
26669 F20110320_AAAXCO kearney_c_Page_078thm.jpg
c3b4ca79c64d45498c4e9b7f63e186a1
d67746cfb6edc61f5fd4cf2ca4c29099a955e628
110303 F20110320_AAAWXH kearney_c_Page_023.jp2
12cc5eea2346e970c4d6e8fc5e7e6d1f
7e2134c62b76ac8e5b1f406a2b0fc8b955d290ac
24419 F20110320_AAAXBZ kearney_c_Page_060thm.jpg
f62e7893999437f7a4fc54eeb6b94a2d
2f4ffb898fab039b8c4212fe276900e430d6495a
1051965 F20110320_AAAWWU kearney_c_Page_006.jp2
7d8d76f5b85aa7719552ca1b2fc543a2
99118fab27a3201edb8e1a100194fcc9b313d948
20457 F20110320_AAAXDD kearney_c_Page_096thm.jpg
1a7f75afbb7ce2926662f6e8f7a9ae33
ceb36fd9d309352f11d2e16050214bf515ed5416
2964 F20110320_AAAXCP kearney_c_Page_079thm.jpg
48df2f7c26fbb61f75acf8a884d7913f
4c56c8e9e54d650d55905a5c02646c3ef2fda6fa
113652 F20110320_AAAWXI kearney_c_Page_024.jp2
6a171a1b3e22616bccea238a1bbd9e91
2cbbf3f6abff4545b328b35ff6bee1d039529422
1051980 F20110320_AAAWWV kearney_c_Page_007.jp2
54086d9d1522f3290457f4b79a3f41bf
b4401c87666acb217dc1f61aeb1e67ad1bd3f570
24596 F20110320_AAAXDE kearney_c_Page_097thm.jpg
6366738503034621271fda6c78c9885f
2ab6aa02e57fc371a2e6214b8f92f2db898ca7c5
11428 F20110320_AAAXCQ kearney_c_Page_081thm.jpg
c797c1bd1b1a1e1168c105739dc255fb
0d2c259eeb4e5809683db434f4a5b0060068e980
107210 F20110320_AAAWXJ kearney_c_Page_027.jp2
9c9881ab6e40079b771076b9d9e16244
7642339052a8d7c008507906959885b5a38882e0
F20110320_AAAWWW kearney_c_Page_009.jp2
58368f014828ba7158ad5ffd2ec3c29b
be233b33b69f18c1585e4f2a78e683a81583ca45
25510 F20110320_AAAXDF kearney_c_Page_099thm.jpg
37129327124958c38325f037c72ef638
8edefdc062d0707781b2c385ae04c0adbb2a114e
105029 F20110320_AAAWXK kearney_c_Page_028.jp2
192d0c94ae9a0a81887fe96d556324fe
e2a74e72d3830f673e50e36869d7172a995b06fb
873395 F20110320_AAAWWX kearney_c_Page_010.jp2
8698b9c69b642b41f20a3c4747873072
abdc9851f786dbba8b1fb818f03718e8a32ed157
25111 F20110320_AAAXDG kearney_c_Page_100thm.jpg
c10a79a7319d50402d4331708deec7f5
77695af7e68d3b544a0db9c96a4ce41fd69b2480
89436 F20110320_AAAWYA kearney_c_Page_045.jp2
7667ab0c4d469fc887a218b50c7b86c2
5d50225d01e17f330e9daead13325a4fef484273
11109 F20110320_AAAXCR kearney_c_Page_083thm.jpg
cb7838c480fc8d3d24ad3a6b2ecb7693
b30249540193d2eaaf9ae360784ed18e7016ade2
103006 F20110320_AAAWXL kearney_c_Page_029.jp2
fe62eb8951ecd01ade71b9c2fd3e583d
4843ce08ab879f8d1130b0187f4b7fd3f6b48dd3
83709 F20110320_AAAWWY kearney_c_Page_011.jp2
be52206aa45c173b182dc945d33a419c
a90e4d8f0c355225a5aa5ab296a37009d0ae05e3
25647 F20110320_AAAXDH kearney_c_Page_101thm.jpg
cbfaea8d25f95a67c0fdfbbcabeca1cb
209d45bf7962735c18f0238d43e7965b0d71fcc3
46696 F20110320_AAAWYB kearney_c_Page_046.jp2
2ea150cab58c0e5a7ee16d3da6afa684
21451933d55d84bbe50132a1b14265b60785b2ae
10289 F20110320_AAAXCS kearney_c_Page_084thm.jpg
b1d93d6f161e37321cd14a92e99ab197
e6b48333f48cb447bbea7fa3ff066617ae3746e3
110230 F20110320_AAAWXM kearney_c_Page_030.jp2
58dca49907df6655fa927ea483cbd440
fdfe3647073436e5eac28ebdacdae4acc556d3ca
68529 F20110320_AAAWWZ kearney_c_Page_012.jp2
f6f7bd88b08625c0d1252850d6c889dd
e28a6aa08f6ef19a096bba7076db1435b1e50d6f
25293 F20110320_AAAXDI kearney_c_Page_102thm.jpg
47302c75c4c409974d4880b9b3edc7ae
d2cf5197f7b7869b19f31f384873e8d30dd4fc66
58071 F20110320_AAAWYC kearney_c_Page_047.jp2
562a2782f107f0f9aa047dc6080be640
9374c2b247984d17c95dbf928e12dd93fdd67d69
9344 F20110320_AAAXCT kearney_c_Page_085thm.jpg
d6d446545383e50f28feaa15c673c352
898031d9690cb42f3ea8ebdc54021759fcbdaa22
108613 F20110320_AAAWXN kearney_c_Page_031.jp2
7c51634210c91efcc2d73f25d999885b
d38041a1274deb1799d7cbb9d680cdb2816ad48b
25938 F20110320_AAAXDJ kearney_c_Page_103thm.jpg
5206b18057d3a35c576f43e5825d64e0
ae536a25ce6d00135d048ee4f1023c607c6e7ede
95677 F20110320_AAAWYD kearney_c_Page_048.jp2
fa0ef15149131f901269af287101bad0
c3c8875fd33477031d59fe39dcfab4ecbe70f122
11091 F20110320_AAAXCU kearney_c_Page_086thm.jpg
39d4a55f6b9eacb9a52f0d43874d1f35
94fa29a42ec2ee086cfbc060910630bdbe2a359b
105890 F20110320_AAAWXO kearney_c_Page_032.jp2
9fb1c96966756d92e8e013c0fa7483ba
e6c36eff57af9eca6f37702a129ed949984d9875
25081 F20110320_AAAXDK kearney_c_Page_104thm.jpg
d2ec3aafb8e91b0d107e22462e676017
450984bc93b6680ff5c47b6fb4c0c65010e73956
111971 F20110320_AAAWYE kearney_c_Page_049.jp2
1e0d5c3ad0e95191719c27d8911f6f5f
56f02a11d7ad28f1974423e6291544669b081d19
11034 F20110320_AAAXCV kearney_c_Page_087thm.jpg
de51c87c987dc06197d199a878c882d4
0ec92b1017fcd4b022ffbf906135bd35caf665d1
91095 F20110320_AAAWXP kearney_c_Page_033.jp2
996ddfd26ead29e2278ad6fcc6658003
dfd576b923e02a1b36c5da862cf9d824911e7e18
4262 F20110320_AAAXDL kearney_c_Page_105thm.jpg
99023fa9e0018db505c493240a1c2195
0ef2dd73a3510ab5a4ea1976788f8a73a7e40fc2
109072 F20110320_AAAWYF kearney_c_Page_051.jp2
b763e29a4bcde81b9bad011eda74f57c
eb118aadb6eadceff8f22416a32d51c95714e311
11195 F20110320_AAAXCW kearney_c_Page_088thm.jpg
53977d87abc1764e5d719eced847fcde
56dd4d35a58545263020d99d8bf23aaa952be3df
106374 F20110320_AAAWXQ kearney_c_Page_034.jp2
e09c1d821a8e6b58f9d603872a25cc22
8b359ada4a45b86d84577520e12dbabb4c3de61a
123679 F20110320_AAAXDM UFE0009468_00001.mets FULL
fa3dfc4906547843117b2a2d8f3818e7
86b2fcddc9005b2ce642fed6d1d70eab7ce7dce2
128989 F20110320_AAAWYG kearney_c_Page_052.jp2
f42958cec49f69f6f31e7d0cacd74c9d
4ee1c6743e9802d5f9721da344ec17064573ad53
8276 F20110320_AAAXCX kearney_c_Page_089thm.jpg
4612ada1511a30b049b86a287f5c11b1
7de0fa827f0812079132b6f345e5868a0de6d1a0
99922 F20110320_AAAWXR kearney_c_Page_035.jp2
f10ece5bafed5c2c9a228eefb8ecc53a
2ad9572b1f740f5b1de89127f809514f6ba3a426
939864 F20110320_AAAWYH kearney_c_Page_053.jp2
6d449feedb680cc96cb6474faf088184
805b8a9649b14464da113f4a08d25a3a779de475
30076 F20110320_AAAXCY kearney_c_Page_090thm.jpg
f958e2956abffe6dceafc2a285abf556
5382103663fda1a86dcb4eed0be9a13b3f68cedc
111794 F20110320_AAAWXS kearney_c_Page_036.jp2
5b722d99efd5ba8710850962a2aa858d
254ae34bc9878ccb188f132f3f764d024aac3cae
28852 F20110320_AAAXCZ kearney_c_Page_091thm.jpg
30d9dd6b3a9863ac848ca560fdf24736
0a215d4bf2320e7bc7b63908f126730edda8ac04
110599 F20110320_AAAWXT kearney_c_Page_037.jp2
408631059ef5d5a548bc0cf682f0e453
f512b32e71d575a25971efce09ce33f23d8e4c47
194596 F20110320_AAAWBA kearney_c_Page_004.jpg
83c10875f8dd9ed09c9acf37ac204b69
30bcae53b1e555f348a57b9ae3705979fc53e9e1
1051908 F20110320_AAAWYI kearney_c_Page_054.jp2
92d024c1b813757669ffafe8d35679fa
ff86c3f4d053a42888ca76090a0eb6fe40b3bddb
103834 F20110320_AAAWXU kearney_c_Page_038.jp2
2851face60cfe4c5afcb7bd30adc4aff
6051caf0c5f8bb3d7192136e51188844a661dccc
1051946 F20110320_AAAWBB kearney_c_Page_026.jp2
7580fe495f55d3a0673c8b007a9a2c77
bea1fcf252412527ac395bc583272885534857b7
1051956 F20110320_AAAWYJ kearney_c_Page_056.jp2
2ecf2f4bed85ab80f442c77836903ba3
413d8a9cbac2bb86fbe3562461b01b5d70874e01
111010 F20110320_AAAWXV kearney_c_Page_039.jp2
55b1930d00448762a952afaef17c34d2
ff76d48a6b0b55c01bccf619059271dc04b30675
67527 F20110320_AAAWBC kearney_c_Page_006.pro
d2d5f62f8b469107ca1e011344d98a75
65a3b8f48c92eb2f6529f94f0d7f595df9121002
109859 F20110320_AAAWYK kearney_c_Page_057.jp2
832213d72ff4fd964ef24fe47551ab50
673e9b48bd856baa9baa409b31b310a506ec3159
1051949 F20110320_AAAWXW kearney_c_Page_040.jp2
2a545558d8752a9cc34d6b68faf64bbb
31d61f2760841c553e27d001231e752ce3de9d77
37495 F20110320_AAAWBD kearney_c_Page_082.QC.jpg
0c83b7a496a1dd2569a9dad9857358e9
1ba369eecd1476d19a118fb585142969a65ae004
111157 F20110320_AAAWYL kearney_c_Page_058.jp2
7f23a3fed8e513da78bb6f0979049320
1e804361f12e65c5b45e42e709c85d855e453447
114119 F20110320_AAAWXX kearney_c_Page_041.jp2
de32f6c114076c15f3522c05761eacd0
bfc8cb7dbf23b38ced74510a782c4d7cd992cd46
1196 F20110320_AAAWBE kearney_c_Page_012.txt
16a66ffcbba42b95da8daad666ec38ff
8512efb17bb025704ba1fb0db05cf22ec606d0ed
106621 F20110320_AAAWZA kearney_c_Page_075.jp2
3b0dd7ea780b53d3e5a6ec5d6e62219e
70e850be9c15579c78b6bc105f0d8c55ffc1c096
909557 F20110320_AAAWYM kearney_c_Page_059.jp2
c16f8690b1a993417bfcf692f5911c0d
d913c3c7c1666c0dd3fbeed61153483634c89b80
112943 F20110320_AAAWXY kearney_c_Page_042.jp2
496167d911f194b77880efc5878bfe7e
4e653df6e947910247c6b4ab4b01b2aba9209f1b
131588 F20110320_AAAWBF kearney_c_Page_098.jp2
b97328260dc63d63d891ea62c4c0293d
ded0d46ee40fffc0e3a3e07e4224eaa5739d67c9
71384 F20110320_AAAWZB kearney_c_Page_076.jp2
ddb980f92cd39c2f6ad068bb594cab00
e2813d03f32e2589638fad4e48860c3ffc4b6c0d
108223 F20110320_AAAWYN kearney_c_Page_060.jp2
9bfb184fb8e52601b0ff575e1b6884de
82787da28d780d3dc1198e923dd3a5fe4eea64d4
107358 F20110320_AAAWXZ kearney_c_Page_043.jp2
f9e4fa6f17a578ed16e8011a6c0dddf6
ab62db2663d79f613d5a72808cac7364404a430d
103116 F20110320_AAAWBG kearney_c_Page_040.QC.jpg
2d1d126fa3cb10ba1373d2c187fc0a23
d16004f6f1f0879d012d0c118296baf83a7802de
408139 F20110320_AAAWZC kearney_c_Page_077.jp2
9209734dc89230560b2c85e09bdaf2b1
39c6353d69934edd2813df4d3e96741f8d48d090
110054 F20110320_AAAWYO kearney_c_Page_062.jp2
799c3302a897566b590dceea746a917d
145588fa7a6d43b8fe6fae8a33f54f38773858bb
49501 F20110320_AAAWBH kearney_c_Page_023.pro
31f477a26a6d02fef17367a3914f78ad
b3236c670b7a74f7c1c73c94632002cdddf36f73
276825 F20110320_AAAWZD kearney_c_Page_078.jp2
2006ac5858c9a9488df8ba9ad80c91dc
8ad08f153befb5138e040ad65d00c474e211cd0c
1051963 F20110320_AAAWYP kearney_c_Page_063.jp2
9756ddf22ec93baf5f71d0aac3ddb0c4
75454c6f1e441fd438ed56525979ebbae392bd84
1051966 F20110320_AAAWBI kearney_c_Page_008.jp2
ef57e94e75e70544b811ca68eeb3087f
a80755d1a19edf609148d4d0011f0c9da9e044c5
6273 F20110320_AAAWZE kearney_c_Page_079.jp2
a74d7babb6b2bc2f4be2f19fa9299f02
54b6773e357e3451dd8382983aba4e698394d7e7
107522 F20110320_AAAWYQ kearney_c_Page_064.jp2
64ca5d7a71dbc27eb0d13e3ddb41c5ba
018e6e796864ab00b5870558760ce1e2d212033f
111473 F20110320_AAAWBJ kearney_c_Page_014.jp2
9f51feb26cae39a34d47b55bc0f13dea
61c382b1942eba2eb2d42b46a6252e15d3cbe36f
2484 F20110320_AAAWAU kearney_c_Page_103.txt
56d82181c6510d48168a7b65eca7650f
bfb3833a1f90e0b592ede908822d4ed7bad71c35
55220 F20110320_AAAWZF kearney_c_Page_080.jp2
b1f4d37efc646f5f5023a49ebc3266b0
da8ca4f431da11da7e16ff91176b6730358e8ad4
112978 F20110320_AAAWYR kearney_c_Page_066.jp2
427fa0480959d23c213ce248be6bbc9e
fdaad59bef90f637561c4d6650e62c42b00ef196
111940 F20110320_AAAWBK kearney_c_Page_008.QC.jpg
d1af899b86f2299bc17a4984df29fe5e
b098be48b631133e949b26bb933170a7226d9f58
1054428 F20110320_AAAWAV kearney_c_Page_083.tif
7b25d220970c2d582dc170b1430def13
55cf9c341f42ff2f505428d461cc80562174add2
57859 F20110320_AAAWZG kearney_c_Page_083.jp2
aa89c72e124fcafec065404d7fd4ca8c
637e42ef460bb75d3c89fe7378dadfb560f26888
112106 F20110320_AAAWYS kearney_c_Page_067.jp2
79e4bf5a69f36bd3e7cfdaed85d8622d
063eeee6e80ce5e9b30da502afd719d8f2e5c550
F20110320_AAAWBL kearney_c_Page_084.tif
cc07f45070d59e9e67cda434bab16a04
0880141c76b7625d6101863529362e10730b0115
21808 F20110320_AAAWAW kearney_c_Page_075thm.jpg
e152b11a0fbf4980507b8517a6ec765f
383cb6877ab6a50ef14ce06fdfbc473129f8d4fc
49811 F20110320_AAAWZH kearney_c_Page_085.jp2
70a2d107155343bd0f2ea63525a519c1
40b9ac31b563d2e8ac3ed472df107d3ee65914d2
105063 F20110320_AAAWYT kearney_c_Page_068.jp2
d0e89080612f3f939a8d63fc51059465
c03411721a7a7709ba2b28b0007414166fc1fadf
1998 F20110320_AAAWCA kearney_c_Page_069.txt
564c2afaadd0e25f435171a33bec79ee
42f31737785703dda6e31f49054b53c8fe3ef3ad
77125 F20110320_AAAWBM kearney_c_Page_081.jp2
cb11290fa7b6e012d476a6312748ebcd
48db4875a52c3a9353edb6ca46aedbd68ab60943
65023 F20110320_AAAWAX kearney_c_Page_096.QC.jpg
14fccbd032d6ddfa833a5d0bee12480b
c2e800d95c16334723be15613c2faf24f58c2c5a
64763 F20110320_AAAWZI kearney_c_Page_086.jp2
6e6705fb0ece104ffc9ef9af13e5bf39
5ae80594004fcc1f3e6c8866734102ec78d2ab36
1051962 F20110320_AAAWYU kearney_c_Page_069.jp2
4eb5bcd24d621ba78429a0b3ab08ab67
c8bd59b7b6c58ed684a63a3450729c476828f297
33490 F20110320_AAAWCB kearney_c_Page_084.pro
39f9b424e5b2474cb2ce989986f48141
16a19944ca144101c9034525c02b27d120dc1c5d
1053954 F20110320_AAAWBN kearney_c_Page_032.tif
4746e6cf95c54212d37513513bbb29ea
8e4db650024b74a79f19211cfb1ad402ad23ec63
16586 F20110320_AAAWAY kearney_c_Page_092thm.jpg
9912b7cb0475a39dbffd5a0a94bc0815
1ed16d78da596c972a09e639d39ec20af17b1903
112521 F20110320_AAAWYV kearney_c_Page_070.jp2
7c20beb20430b72af98197637ece9b52
6827a0255d431f20eb005ca5bfd0b20fd0339abe
1986 F20110320_AAAWCC kearney_c_Page_014.txt
0ee1125df0c870c4e7d98da27c58307c
19cb1fc99b5e2d5d6b7f1b62130a5516794cde7e
92901 F20110320_AAAWBO kearney_c_Page_020.jp2
9aed64afacb071b50bff9943aa785980
114ad13119eddea0de4c24301477995188df880c
99246 F20110320_AAAWAZ kearney_c_Page_050.jp2
594feeb0ad570d7057f8e2db79f4cfcc
3430f8de42b24f720d168c603c45377792761df7
66141 F20110320_AAAWZJ kearney_c_Page_087.jp2
733e861b05deac55c472e4bba4b19373
711dd38805b06d720732a04a8dfff024e173071b
40050 F20110320_AAAWYW kearney_c_Page_071.jp2
23162e8be3e7e2e35e871ac0d1a76961
4d3bb8a0237b648e9397f08f0de5e6e4a6361e5a
129953 F20110320_AAAWCD kearney_c_Page_100.jp2
851ab9619da17da33f56ab0ffeface37
344bf0295febf632ee3d991d5f7c427721af0c1f
25756 F20110320_AAAWBP kearney_c_Page_098thm.jpg
18301559e083fad5f7023175f28c8b9c
a4ebb14ab9a39feedcfdbf7b5571b5c0f566f006
73661 F20110320_AAAWZK kearney_c_Page_088.jp2
4dd8315e9a07f8ffd306ec42877514e9
ebf9627acd1aa7b3f39038e4f7748bb396f53f06
121846 F20110320_AAAWYX kearney_c_Page_072.jp2
e17b7f2416bad16c6b2009786d548fdf
e7f810dbedc5aa9fd792222fc76d9a294e97ecbd
50904 F20110320_AAAWCE kearney_c_Page_008thm.jpg
a4300bde2b8afc7b34786f59c293c203
6c8da1b3b57b3b8d2289a30eb2eb2adde692227d
214450 F20110320_AAAWBQ kearney_c_Page_049.jpg
eb1982b31482e985f8b073cd60764221
873d60cdefbb466f4b7a09cfc66c323075766bb2
42001 F20110320_AAAWZL kearney_c_Page_089.jp2
8e3fcedf0b614c5c9ed59c90c30bd6ff
a125708d918ed317ddf53097e7bfaf33c838d279
100165 F20110320_AAAWYY kearney_c_Page_073.jp2
66898984fc3fd7eea3f108fb5207c2c4
38c3baedf69ba0a1be9d04ba62df83720fdaa941
80136 F20110320_AAAWCF kearney_c_Page_036.QC.jpg
56925b1125641ae015d24d8265d92ea4
a93509ca9f266ea1ebd3f4e386deafdc6b0cd50c
437469 F20110320_AAAWZM kearney_c_Page_090.jp2
d76f7b2aef6b23c5e1eab241292a86cc
6d3f1a278e48e9d950660bbaf9b7bd35b4fffe3b
99087 F20110320_AAAWYZ kearney_c_Page_074.jp2
60187b882e146955a8f9e4b623dce1be
3dfdba1be152615e1974b61f799f1aafdacdd4d7
25375 F20110320_AAAWCG kearney_c_Page_067thm.jpg
71e978c2a02e6a7a76878f31cd770bf4
c17b7b96950bd2541e8def47dfe2a4e51bdb84ed
107341 F20110320_AAAWBR kearney_c_Page_055.jp2
2b212ddf1793745c3f5ba83b3dcacafe
f8d945451ba1cf2f6d410db9e09f7372fa8ea385
54910 F20110320_AAAWZN kearney_c_Page_092.jp2
b86084777293c531894e5901b5f97136
7bdd9bd9bdeb3d72141050f700c3b96183350b31
193101 F20110320_AAAWCH kearney_c_Page_035.jpg
2a2977a321febc9c84717fd2f84517da
333340dff1abb549d59975ca3b1a9c3a3069abc9
48939 F20110320_AAAWBS kearney_c_Page_055.pro
4f388389f7318bf9def8f3c3d3a7c6bf
e80dbb93fd396f557f07e9d93a3e19d30dd3601a
103654 F20110320_AAAWZO kearney_c_Page_093.jp2
f4901bc06f7e6a0f9521bd868b726d1a
e20070685e5fd9f0ff0b652d6192b8c94789a5b3
995 F20110320_AAAWCI kearney_c_Page_046.txt
fc7a6fe9ce8ca92614b31de1cdd8b86b
e0861c72ec986b58a3ceba2dba8362a2fb70c1d4
542142 F20110320_AAAWBT kearney_c.pdf
948e84cca9649c3ec8b82a4ec89830ad
7cb09167a650e8bc6cefa17aa0f1991351812f72
42823 F20110320_AAAWZP kearney_c_Page_094.jp2
93cefb3b2ba94fce3526a1ddfcb569b1
545ba5aad5b0ca66dc5821f6e828bdabee6e74a9
1951 F20110320_AAAWCJ kearney_c_Page_018.txt
f9d89807a82c4159141a1c4bfc234d1a
3df64d7c5be38b00ce95ffd86702e3108bbcf9aa
71967 F20110320_AAAWBU kearney_c_Page_005.jp2
b3ec01f74a752602f0c0075ed5fda234
94a5ce2716bff2a274a19b780e08f81582ab7662
856311 F20110320_AAAWZQ kearney_c_Page_095.jp2
37c2bc125d4a419c2e4a2a274bcb2b09
65f9ac16af5da5162a40492fb970bd08b57e3ea8
F20110320_AAAWCK kearney_c_Page_037.tif
e4c6e8c219ce59ad75c40fd452ae8fcf
6e626fb4b172c8af6ef4ac47647e36756ce35210
14395 F20110320_AAAWBV kearney_c_Page_076thm.jpg
22ae41c4da33d109b4b4dfaedb7d0df5
a066fcbcd1ef3cd7c1fe82d67fc652168df931bc
127542 F20110320_AAAWZR kearney_c_Page_097.jp2
84b807aafb3e45a20add61765957d890
f79c23dcfa55a20f5413f20cdf6d0796257eecf3
374339 F20110320_AAAWCL kearney_c_Page_091.jp2
1c8c2bb4a6084abf88c4564d0186df0f
fecf9cb5545e5614ed164e3ae342a16418b867a8
79448 F20110320_AAAWBW kearney_c_Page_023.QC.jpg
e215bba05d0d230feb54866ad9ea5af4
fff4058cdda8b0af364a64e3d94b68d8957401ec
125266 F20110320_AAAWZS kearney_c_Page_099.jp2
f5038a3a31a68472d73166d6a72d703e
741bc1e6e7cca9c38153653b94a9018476be055c
1933 F20110320_AAAWCM kearney_c_Page_064.txt
f1f22455c1e862e99236ce26c17a8790
d5a4096577465cbfb09e23cb1fc9c3588c9260ae
1051986 F20110320_AAAWBX kearney_c_Page_065.jp2
270061217059d9b0032024512d43e4ce
96d6cc3031af10a550aad684d254a9e009569d14
124516 F20110320_AAAWZT kearney_c_Page_101.jp2
d0022ea0a570c2c3d56ce570a3c82814
937d7a6c86eb33baad46e2c1f88b4433c01c28d8
90615 F20110320_AAAWDA kearney_c_Page_082.jp2
621ae3d88a7eec3d54d7ef459588ffa8
0d848f52035e502f471a90027a323b58314f3983
110964 F20110320_AAAWCN kearney_c_Page_025.jp2
86aef143a4fdd183d949097ff7cc9ec1
4c4d383e049780c52a78680fdd5f253b56dec0a9
110002 F20110320_AAAWBY kearney_c_Page_044.jp2
192bb078c125fd0377e6d62992b673e9
b9ba90bf1abdd99bd901fa64e6a0f40d8b293fdc
126420 F20110320_AAAWZU kearney_c_Page_102.jp2
c4af971214a35f1ef933946d7db02ab3
9feda1cf9f4033c98e739062ac3c789cb694c9ee
114324 F20110320_AAAWDB kearney_c_Page_061.jp2
85e9f560f70650b96dba0ba51dcbd799
fadb1e712774058f9afa2c3669a979db8382a64e
59197 F20110320_AAAWCO kearney_c_Page_052.pro
7af31de4818e6d591f43865e21e31ec7
6b12e3f3452ce7949a0daaea81c9aff515d7af00
1944 F20110320_AAAWBZ kearney_c_Page_023.txt
268e7da329cb185541fe3efc864c337a
0c26029e56ae211b2ba1d6aa5430152e6c92ce68
129728 F20110320_AAAWZV kearney_c_Page_103.jp2
d4cd23f7dd7930732bf39a0ff035a49c
be2371b037d481eb52f7bc51992a2696e61a2810
F20110320_AAAWDC kearney_c_Page_060.tif
5183dfea8240b642a0f3d706d5a2e53b
c31ac13d65d311a471f25046341d32e12367a3b7
25271604 F20110320_AAAWCP kearney_c_Page_006.tif
61307b79ab2b782c4de58ff9e99be884
89476c5fce984e79b9a716f2d0d00161ffa02e55
121331 F20110320_AAAWZW kearney_c_Page_104.jp2
b15dda5684d44430464bc1a11999bb16
3091a5d02f8d27ddb518088ab307235bb0f83fc7
52107 F20110320_AAAWDD kearney_c_Page_042.pro
20d6c7fa8c58640abc91a558197ca507
a510375220682f7a7300b98c5da7f902a6b61073
23479 F20110320_AAAWCQ kearney_c_Page_035thm.jpg
927952ea291dcfb3aa420f2f6e25a7aa
ffcb22097cd619c0cbf20c38ae959696c72121a6
25036 F20110320_AAAWZX kearney_c_Page_106.jp2
ca97c121686beac405e64eaf0a8770e0
24383e11f5d1af612bd555050ab6e8ff3f013cb7
1804 F20110320_AAAWDE kearney_c_Page_050.txt
892420768f788ba609e9adf7f43f33f3
db88d3feaa2085fb8200c606fbcca92a3d608846
40955 F20110320_AAAWCR kearney_c_Page_033.pro
98ff0145a6b78cab4239d37e25f4234f
aed69eaa81ad8095e33d069874fee632f833b387
6644 F20110320_AAAWZY kearney_c_Page_001thm.jpg
bd5a8277736be23ad1f482ce86787d9d
e039f42e7def73695449bc59a83e092170fee17f
81286 F20110320_AAAWDF kearney_c_Page_061.QC.jpg
09b1461bfc6e13aa030eff78e83844e6
ae182767c13f1ab4019f16406816738fa1bd6b60
3165 F20110320_AAAWZZ kearney_c_Page_002thm.jpg
20bbc594f365a99828c4db66dd18080f
4eff2ef120eb0483a9070e180dbd9581716a798c
111262 F20110320_AAAWDG kearney_c_Page_088.jpg
60d97aa13ade9e226fbc16286f05aafa
5f9c986069f152b571a7db930860b148a549a809
48356 F20110320_AAAWCS kearney_c_Page_060.pro
7c109e3ef113f85ce68ba07961b0bb07
b1c8b27ce90d4e91262eda2616cfa121df2ba6c6
30036 F20110320_AAAWDH kearney_c_Page_089.pro
759dd7f2b545f885022cf3223a59b662
acbfe20c94dbf305f81aafa8bdee403ae164a0a7
9597 F20110320_AAAWCT kearney_c_Page_080thm.jpg
d245ff3797f9309e9c849974656fdc31
e13797e57124b9c850c6e78d8c16276d1f2744dd
2431 F20110320_AAAWDI kearney_c_Page_008.txt
4c158ef858672e4fc276a489afba3ee4
79fc8df6a3fa7380bb68b3738ce6dc6385dbbc18
100884 F20110320_AAAWCU kearney_c_Page_096.jp2
a1f2e381af2176c339cbd4b11da4d7f5
19a86e78c9bad22ccc50b2565a24bfe5a96a94e8
51051 F20110320_AAAWDJ kearney_c_Page_026thm.jpg
e1c153248984969255aea12fb39025c0
d36179db60ed327fbde70e082f7b6d09e2ab6495
260221 F20110320_AAAWCV kearney_c_Page_101.jpg
f56d9072457750aa079a4f8d4f68dc71
2d03541a2956e4dbd5bf9999b2eb4af8f28f7283
52172 F20110320_AAAWDK kearney_c_Page_070.pro
f61215c5920b11253d7a496ad24cb77b
294efdad17766ff61b1de0f4b027a948b2070f0c
25326 F20110320_AAAWCW kearney_c_Page_039thm.jpg
d3cd00b0dc994705d64a668478d81681
1d3eece38a9c844b42558f2fb289dc84cb6aade4
208290 F20110320_AAAWDL kearney_c_Page_064.jpg
a165e18ea0251382102c5072718aa42f
4582627a0ef247ccbb59bb386e1f390cc65411a0
51452 F20110320_AAAWCX kearney_c_Page_061.pro
b593c56839a91379d265871a16b69756
bd58299afd98449ac9b8d25783adf6153c79ad82
61089 F20110320_AAAWEA kearney_c_Page_100.pro
c949ced228d6390e8e0e333aefa0018d
f7316f140999f5c88860118f9d420f97804d64bd
F20110320_AAAWDM kearney_c_Page_016.tif
28195a22bc87538eb1d8674092350fda
a509dbe523520debb06e3d5a1b6b715216c7eb8b
2459 F20110320_AAAWCY kearney_c_Page_075.txt
c7548bc0faccf63381eaba8271675f69
d3462717a36a4909c98227e791dc737bcdd02447
F20110320_AAAWEB kearney_c_Page_023.tif
b6fd51a7ddb121e3e44a63428119ec91
f41882be12cd4eb3288d5b1cffed1c161c916e66
F20110320_AAAWDN kearney_c_Page_072.tif
ea0cc6d9c8376d40135707d307f96c39
2f92ca45b50b6736b79ff8700d6f2036bb623ddb
23088 F20110320_AAAWCZ kearney_c_Page_048thm.jpg
4d2d298404730e8b0fafad787a3318cd
b0e6aae0a3ab300241126f5c03581d0ef79e69d5
83712 F20110320_AAAWEC kearney_c_Page_103.QC.jpg
c22b7dcffd82e3e74e564bf8eff7bf47
df1e6cf6d8a0eded89168f79afe53ac8f8edbc65
199213 F20110320_AAAWDO kearney_c_Page_059.jpg
fb26cad18ed21fcb6c8f2203473c3504
bbf3ec405a1938136c69eb074c3dd9bde26ff001
40479 F20110320_AAAWED kearney_c_Page_081.pro
e4bf292709c037a4c507a9ec6e7eddd2
1dba9e6c91480aef4e0d5e2d211333208655050d
F20110320_AAAWDP kearney_c_Page_009.tif
6ed7c34679b3297bc01d32e1e8fe7f4d
98677e93ec17fe1d08c9848b8672e62fd6135249
7455 F20110320_AAAWEE kearney_c_Page_106thm.jpg
15518ec46584b16b6868745473031390
f75f749624769b79164053cc05f8248d52693cca
F20110320_AAAWDQ kearney_c_Page_011.tif
c340e34ee5adc987aec282d490486868
e577ad59dd8a457a1135a22e7ebcfb09588df59f
14710 F20110320_AAAWEF kearney_c_Page_105.jp2
ef65065a407caba107c16e95e4d52522
72e30c99813f1e2e6a464db5ddab813e2bd32e01
57507 F20110320_AAAWDR kearney_c_Page_084.jp2
ae7d786cacfde14fd4c0159c9469c481
23de44b62d7221cda61a013ec913b15fe8e2758f
53041 F20110320_AAAWEG kearney_c_Page_083.pro
5cc7dab92b94771e8e119699284859a0
3cdea3cf47f8b3bf4eda3ab11e04c664a331973c
73344 F20110320_AAAWDS kearney_c_Page_004.QC.jpg
9e77566cb1d38a6fa1afac28b3293b7f
d19d07a2ea5913fcc3b66e596da848bb0925ed81
74683 F20110320_AAAWEH kearney_c_Page_072.pro
3989569244ad82e0c11c8819fab221cc
42377cadbc59e64e997fe3d83b325a5f2e363add
210665 F20110320_AAAWEI kearney_c_Page_031.jpg
04a8e0607495948decc204e51b836113
21533d177bac44d3d9682415a6a1dc1c39e69b50
F20110320_AAAWDT kearney_c_Page_068.tif
587ced8057b0c7c03a4dae7fba482fa6
fc1e6ab4fcd90c3886eaee030ad17b8382c4e75c
49672 F20110320_AAAWEJ kearney_c_Page_051.pro
2bf0f5a615a88198d8e904ce2d47ad83
d044a0b520dd8b41716fa95f4f06399930221c5f
57930 F20110320_AAAWDU kearney_c_Page_093.QC.jpg
fe78d492d11b2eb8d02120e34787461e
9d0474dde174de1d8f97bd855a4edd5d269d1a34
F20110320_AAAWEK kearney_c_Page_030.tif
a2c3d1fc343c99feccd7e1f504df3f2c
5919efc03f95049c9d90b721a762c1c9c2014af5
F20110320_AAAWDV kearney_c_Page_041.tif
f09f05cda9af6926b81be49529363da0
e0380d8e186c9d1352972ede0a192c802a6692d3
2543 F20110320_AAAWEL kearney_c_Page_082.txt
38b7f69f24f2a79c4f20ddf7627733c9
14a3147daed3dc2f47e30218cbe8d29476d30306
24137 F20110320_AAAWDW kearney_c_Page_030thm.jpg
f2c86967e80152ae3e5e6dfd8bfaf268
c2d026307cae1c051cc42a0eb1264898e6ab1b95
172561 F20110320_AAAWFA UFE0009468_00001.xml
9e505131eba0a9d6112ef37c91aae3bb
9f2a53453be09ffa6c8f51a69e1bd9e786ff1e1a
67523 F20110320_AAAWEM kearney_c_Page_074.QC.jpg
c571743cb04e99c1733e50ac571bbe34
d877badf96d65c204a8017c95dd956e583d5751c
208682 F20110320_AAAWDX kearney_c_Page_055.jpg
998d67db40cd996ad5755bc030ecea9a
840a30e199f5203491ef16a88d35733acb718de3
F20110320_AAAWEN kearney_c_Page_062.tif
c16972cf70c0825bde04d3ce0a0b001d
c681500c36b3453f0652ab678bae49bdb12505ef
41828 F20110320_AAAWDY kearney_c_Page_053.pro
634d4e47e5dae0405ccb5f0f456bbfcd
612d3b5d12774ce16a6193b0145db49b5f55d92d
12632 F20110320_AAAWEO kearney_c_Page_077.pro
82f1491a72585bc2331c8666a7eb0c39
d72fc3e89caa8b4a96b3712293b64d00b3949017
71695 F20110320_AAAWDZ kearney_c_Page_075.QC.jpg
92fbf4515696e7788048b27f2f571b96
64906440b1f2d6b2824d5804e967682c15b6b9e2
F20110320_AAAWFD kearney_c_Page_001.tif
fe5de81f2de3d9ad8bfa0fb4ff4f3087
f0670bc8d066e57adafde8e29aaefb65650d2812
109229 F20110320_AAAWEP kearney_c_Page_016.jp2
118594977efe717671ffb409030e0798
f949ac9e5d6b0678bb2c24d005cd4b79c296d752
F20110320_AAAWFE kearney_c_Page_002.tif
e7248bf147231173700692816bbd80dc
912cb00ffdbc9dd6ed08950569f713aa906ae4ac
F20110320_AAAWEQ kearney_c_Page_043.txt
ff0ffb7822eebcc52043c9af7834363b
1dc56e032cfe8f49161c543d29579c23643980da
F20110320_AAAWFF kearney_c_Page_003.tif
fa0d41bbc076f6c08bdaacbd4dbac05b
97809c157dc67a6a78619a82fb8f83861e76fd04
235761 F20110320_AAAWER kearney_c_Page_104.jpg
06ef5e70d4b32f297bc608e4a2c231ab
792159e18765b5c9de4627a01a02a73b630f0b3f
F20110320_AAAWFG kearney_c_Page_004.tif
1ffd7df57f23bb4799872c902b2d7e23
223e74a2ba98a3da22ce353a3cc7785eee890f27
15254 F20110320_AAAWES kearney_c_Page_082thm.jpg
861d656b10a33ae6a70b7439800103e6
669cf25c9d09547cdefe0628e95febc89b92ec2f
F20110320_AAAWFH kearney_c_Page_005.tif
0ba4ad019043d28afe583e0c6d2aff71
ef8e75e39f36abbb96da2a62ea17630ff5af1f84
F20110320_AAAWET kearney_c_Page_104.tif
914cf13b7bd93efdaccbc7ba614051b5
8f522e76679ebebd8984b4d72d29200da3bded6a
F20110320_AAAWFI kearney_c_Page_007.tif
086fd3a47d595e7708b4079f6e7f4cb8
18187f1a9771542b72c23cc3bf53e5064a0b601a
F20110320_AAAWFJ kearney_c_Page_008.tif
c7e0d16c6529f5ba0c0215e2bacd707d
ff391ee8ed47f9103ad8938b7f677324c6b6bc63
47420 F20110320_AAAWEU kearney_c_Page_096.pro
64054c4132435268596614359e8e733f
6c4a3998653e821dcfdec90cb7bb4d53965f65fb
72374 F20110320_AAAWEV kearney_c_Page_050.QC.jpg
ef9b1cbe92cee16d6d95a70040ce0e31
9f9ee1d298038fef940c42d412b4dfefe0ce3b83
F20110320_AAAWFK kearney_c_Page_010.tif
06dd95ba9761d973f38944ff1ddc8091
e23f83f5a616cd8dd13fd6b41c47ee091e66b8e3
F20110320_AAAWEW kearney_c_Page_058.tif
e95f81b3680a4b588b421f01d673d082
19b39258b51da0e7377da89eb51af48d5331ec7a
F20110320_AAAWFL kearney_c_Page_012.tif
04c0bb4280d44819d020ea7346b4d57a
315019c750069529e80dd02b76d9c96aee00d62a
50402 F20110320_AAAWEX kearney_c_Page_014.pro
47fe3ff01709e0db78b9bd344d44079c
789005ea1138387c8e123cfe92f03b09465ebf53
F20110320_AAAWGA kearney_c_Page_029.tif
5c95c2186149a905514bd8b5a9ee8ebe
7661f084527496d998e03bbec247fdf9e8420497
F20110320_AAAWFM kearney_c_Page_013.tif
16ef1a4cc613463353b81b4280f16c37
883977d854f1533c22e03c92baf28be56a136398
1667 F20110320_AAAWEY kearney_c_Page_053.txt
6b9c60047c016f84bfe6673d217d8697
c341fa5e7604970d3d8856ee42e124a6119d15cb
F20110320_AAAWGB kearney_c_Page_031.tif
ce9fe613bfec9946b3699a6883eaff75
a64bd104e4208c26495350aa3d076b1ddc76da2f
F20110320_AAAWFN kearney_c_Page_014.tif
0d99945100261a9e57a224afac11986b
256e886f16bd81f0b67d1d59bd2108186bb3e2cf
49940 F20110320_AAAWEZ kearney_c_Page_022.pro
8e7f3ae17e8d438aeeccdeb33f0a9428
dd0a5a43d8725922dd831178487dd012d86e4dd7
F20110320_AAAWGC kearney_c_Page_033.tif
ccc42d345b339258deba5bda7e632f4a
c90d83caa80a75f1236003e0291207216c7d41e0
F20110320_AAAWFO kearney_c_Page_015.tif
a3b14b70585b8d96f88888156567e919
bc3e30465f50e0ca8330e9add9ff4693a2d8d0f0
F20110320_AAAWGD kearney_c_Page_034.tif
2eca30b91b2bd99cb0a11fb9a08a9077
8f3e000018b123e0ca9590ba5db03019fa7488d7
F20110320_AAAWFP kearney_c_Page_017.tif
7aabb3f57ad3c2d6bc1671b6eef1b083
31113047ddd58234c0bfd7aeb92af8e6bd2cef3d
F20110320_AAAWGE kearney_c_Page_035.tif
38b8135408d0ec04481568b09d7f21ed
3bc5b062d022b05bb298fd7658b37000bbbcb376
F20110320_AAAWFQ kearney_c_Page_018.tif
96b5f268f153275ecbdb6fb829bb6529
138ba31f8824f2d5b519999bed507ac466c805a8
F20110320_AAAWGF kearney_c_Page_036.tif
5b98cf8d16020f0f6b9c46f4b53536a2
cebab7ae7d4dde88f013e4b2ce07f0cf5318b91a
F20110320_AAAWFR kearney_c_Page_019.tif
6a89cf55c99b83d2129dece5a1071355
16302393422820c4694704c3052ecb014d5abf7f
F20110320_AAAWGG kearney_c_Page_038.tif
42d741f85d8779a60aaaa3f47e87f350
243596dbd8c8007b873071fff41d78483d3239d5
F20110320_AAAWFS kearney_c_Page_020.tif
daf2105a883bc2b25b4d3c28d57c5bda
6435ea06c6e00188586a75b8daacba250eb00df0
F20110320_AAAWGH kearney_c_Page_039.tif
ab0a9b936778d5834ac00317bfffcaa1
4b1fe29cfbad4abfb7346540f1f4d62d1b5548df
F20110320_AAAWFT kearney_c_Page_021.tif
b52dc4b2274fd4a043891272b0de5a51
563bf3eab6038eb3b5c3344032e547e41347b249
F20110320_AAAWGI kearney_c_Page_040.tif
841485437647757eb418c0d265bf678f
5fb5d14eb3cd32ddd2c841a1e97a633575022c1c
F20110320_AAAWFU kearney_c_Page_022.tif
881e2ba72dfd24119d860c0cf81dbb82
2e26305601ee641b9a2979ddd10f5fb82c7c6f5d
F20110320_AAAWGJ kearney_c_Page_042.tif
aa6814a2e25bb1de4e78d7f674f24538
d6b110b1220a92b2e462819cf3c47e891a64c279
F20110320_AAAWGK kearney_c_Page_043.tif
90fca7b4701f8cdfa6435518e3cfffbc
0c3a2ca6df4479cf6f70cf257b891f07576209a0
F20110320_AAAWFV kearney_c_Page_024.tif
a2a2433b2947c99889007a9e8295a01c
897714d85be366317082ab3b1adf6e755a6f6bbc
F20110320_AAAWGL kearney_c_Page_044.tif
18617da46a1d8ab3efd6f7ec0401e4e9
f5ae0f2e0e042978eb18da9169791592de6eb524
F20110320_AAAWFW kearney_c_Page_025.tif
7ef3cf0ec2d45965131d88ff365b44c1
23434da970ccf87a4907afee25ef815b53d4d52b
F20110320_AAAWHA kearney_c_Page_061.tif
610d6aed2477474273f5fcf8a76461b4
fff146e6a0361603fcf71b542743cf71686d21b0
F20110320_AAAWGM kearney_c_Page_045.tif
5d843936441723259c2e2bc9c35e4a3b
4b16d98446664fe191d6ce1755c624785ac2f98b
F20110320_AAAWFX kearney_c_Page_026.tif
147dd2772525a4d245c5e72074deec1f
02a7c6d79a45bd13f339936aa5568cc33da76a79
F20110320_AAAWHB kearney_c_Page_063.tif
1d1341042572e4a378b8d44a5b9f4af4
68e25ec5521638010be96ec3c04ea8e94fb66a45
F20110320_AAAWGN kearney_c_Page_046.tif
880362d5150c318273b5b6ed4cda3445
a29e98578e8020a279b4dca3a5412d28617c8140
F20110320_AAAWFY kearney_c_Page_027.tif
5285931641ce745744b8ba3394e8737b
6d944873d76b9b5fe2ef8ceab919ca3146731d4a
F20110320_AAAWHC kearney_c_Page_064.tif
c1768c1f00dc82e546b63629b278a4d0
b7c696385a4642e1de99c916e0f85afbbe3f66d0
F20110320_AAAWGO kearney_c_Page_047.tif
e9856cdb072fec162cdf064fece1d4d3
fc759772a0a2e8231f744c8790e7035385a82d8c
F20110320_AAAWFZ kearney_c_Page_028.tif
def230c826ae701a97b091b25dfd9402
6652ff92284c86e6bc7096fe7cc3c369d2cdbc13
F20110320_AAAWHD kearney_c_Page_065.tif
9c16f7a3957542a75caa4d50d64f575e
3703b52e944b6930baad3a03ccfe4ed97d42d734
F20110320_AAAWGP kearney_c_Page_048.tif
584c97eb95e71591ac2474c32e715ef2
87a6bf4f4750f674d4207c253afcc7494008045c
F20110320_AAAWHE kearney_c_Page_066.tif
af64126bbcb9cea70d14ca398fa5e51c
d7be14def7ab90d717ec7cf2ef57a727c8ea8592
F20110320_AAAWGQ kearney_c_Page_049.tif
48dd1cd074db631c9da56f19047b5ff2
be6787345887683049768f4ac85f2e90c5e60223
F20110320_AAAWHF kearney_c_Page_067.tif
cbfeecc9492ac79f724a8e557c064996
89fc5a49a5a4bb8baa98a7c943a58daf4e932dc9
F20110320_AAAWGR kearney_c_Page_050.tif
09b2b0217a2a62215b62d6345178e55f
2d7bc435fe700969d84ec1eb6f1fbab2dff82602
F20110320_AAAWHG kearney_c_Page_069.tif
2ec5e642ca04fef2d4d016d6862a3fba
727aee9756bd1d49cb97077cb58983ba4644f2f0
F20110320_AAAWGS kearney_c_Page_051.tif
9dd198b9ff7f83bff2602a7e3799ef7f
e574cb02abbed6a9c5a19eecc5caa993ec1d75f6
F20110320_AAAWHH kearney_c_Page_070.tif
aef94f79a7d7368d3fd451a4c749bd1d
6b5204089c7dfc5490b4acf140314357ccfa8827
F20110320_AAAWGT kearney_c_Page_052.tif
ba31cffd0fa0067e0f1a09273ac542e7
1d9459344c9a8374c11876296ded70204db612b9
F20110320_AAAWHI kearney_c_Page_071.tif
234397f79838f680ff46035faf4890f8
33d67b4464166ce0c6c9e59fa5bb9a4f77059b9c
F20110320_AAAWGU kearney_c_Page_053.tif
0d04ed66dfdac01da76eb683e08348d8
947594883c8e189c90edcac91293924296027823
F20110320_AAAWHJ kearney_c_Page_073.tif
e729af8dae3459582f13b730b372bd2e
e2f90a1af8a0f9be7c8663c7a6317323e76082e9
F20110320_AAAWGV kearney_c_Page_054.tif
a8e723bf699367966c3dfca99e55f8dc
6ca8b2d4cbc31a99adf4ce17f07745543e869624
F20110320_AAAWHK kearney_c_Page_074.tif
86f35c205121e9d27bd11b0d133a7c42
4eedcf24cebe244319a496341d790479d8590ed1
F20110320_AAAWHL kearney_c_Page_075.tif
1139a179d12a31295904185255cf8c1e
b88366db0dfaa8e746ebe96d3e276e01e435484b
F20110320_AAAWGW kearney_c_Page_055.tif
8551037f3e41f69a4733da347237b7f2
1171625284202d9894a3841f97bf6c6b0c3e17a3
F20110320_AAAWHM kearney_c_Page_076.tif
acf77b853b8dd75d1baae1b287f5198a
0b5e7054b7ee243b0c6a4beed4cf383ad97ba5f5
F20110320_AAAWGX kearney_c_Page_056.tif
28bd9bfa7f822e30c83ef7806ab30b8f
7ffa160bc4ee11fef7423221e5005653c4d5f806
F20110320_AAAWIA kearney_c_Page_092.tif
ba4035266178922ee61aa07084bbbada
b48f4c95978b1f1d52e82c90a8afaa1e40ab28de
25265604 F20110320_AAAWHN kearney_c_Page_077.tif
d0c6bdd928ba6e4e76244656f39527ee
5e61d1723e46b737185164214c0aa448f5c30d85
F20110320_AAAWGY kearney_c_Page_057.tif
31e6903bc6d9cd130267cc44b2882e52
c38661edfe80da7e23282ab7a6f2eac8a3e00315
F20110320_AAAWIB kearney_c_Page_093.tif
38a4b6d746fe976d1f48bedd71707b4a
d7a3663ff013781fdc9e745b65690b9463fe035a
F20110320_AAAWHO kearney_c_Page_078.tif
7eefe610bbe6797cff6d6ed1133aa6ff
25799c9ee8e1be9df8d92bfb821e8bf81799a8eb
F20110320_AAAWGZ kearney_c_Page_059.tif
a0561938eb24ef6780ea3f7afce0e9d0
fea68eaf0a2656526bc8627e3ea9a8153a1bbdd9
F20110320_AAAWIC kearney_c_Page_094.tif
120cb285e92e86540007d2594861f934
a6025ad5a18040d6632e93eceb9e176957dbb6b6
F20110320_AAAWHP kearney_c_Page_079.tif
e82d61e6c4a5a2f1415da435bee38b40
cebf02b272aca6fa27d1e4438f5dcf4439e4ee1b
F20110320_AAAWID kearney_c_Page_095.tif
ae26cf20074e3e5e69da2943d2c051bf
9d86f5c55c585115ae3b42d2309befc700e8beab
F20110320_AAAWHQ kearney_c_Page_080.tif
1990f6ddaf37bbd74367f859a997c09b
9b301a741dedd66e4a6a9413e3d4fc57397f4ddb
F20110320_AAAWIE kearney_c_Page_096.tif
690f8cedb52fa12f99ecf0b24e018855
497d45d7f566e8c7c0ea0c1572ea7551bb44d00b
F20110320_AAAWHR kearney_c_Page_081.tif
be4fa75e8e6c1f31635ecb36d6f54634
66542db11e9306aa1df87ac4d96a9618d5a6e3b4
F20110320_AAAWIF kearney_c_Page_097.tif
7f2b3f3de4fe196b324679a1dba2441b
e6c341499217b2d50136a4ca7941c97a56b4c848
F20110320_AAAWHS kearney_c_Page_082.tif
bc769d7c993e9cd458547b9fdf2d0b13
c8b6206be997eb5bee3628d806b96a9ca37c41a4
F20110320_AAAWIG kearney_c_Page_098.tif
c0ef415976e0404252a8afcc927c2ec0
6bdbc414f1a14d6edd07b1d5d2c5dbadf72f4d1d
F20110320_AAAWHT kearney_c_Page_085.tif
b81b3e3181af6e77867ec90d75ca9df9
0eac8e35ee3afaec5f2d5aae96fd141dd8bec466
F20110320_AAAWIH kearney_c_Page_099.tif
3766bff91ce8c333e2fafbd1222d9353
2a385084cebf613daa53b8dd839586919afc1a6e
F20110320_AAAWHU kearney_c_Page_086.tif
4823e4df3c41453d1144cf763bb22683
a6aaff6dc0935ca310e770007f6ef729a279b259
F20110320_AAAWII kearney_c_Page_100.tif
e0588e0be3c22136bbd8e92df4cffe51
ee8587d064b78d484b36170aa14eb3e90c9deff2
F20110320_AAAWHV kearney_c_Page_087.tif
4a2349402df078373a8d03f8ea538d80
23b6d3211128df16bd079d953a0f387f69c282ed
F20110320_AAAWIJ kearney_c_Page_101.tif
02db318b520da5122062d824e057b977
214cb22668429237eeff4425f785248251855073
F20110320_AAAWHW kearney_c_Page_088.tif
ea269d54ec6bd32d79a022c665548b14
933dd30b4b81640b0c2e3b9bed404bf10d0557e8
F20110320_AAAWIK kearney_c_Page_102.tif
58287d26d57ed0869a71c9f497e1bd22
1cabe2c8d373cbaca4a63f80abed78b8ab9729a7
F20110320_AAAWIL kearney_c_Page_103.tif
ca1c24c629eb273b7c37fee1d193d5c7
00bb1b948e70a7afe7e09272b5e8bba828a12459
F20110320_AAAWHX kearney_c_Page_089.tif
47316a19c63e3c52fdad033fe42e93db
facbe243d25d49bae81d6f5f12927ed2788b772c
2007 F20110320_AAAWJA kearney_c_Page_016.txt
20311631f019795047f0eba675ec6fa7
d47487b9c99e18c477e5adedd34f35ad342c6e3a
F20110320_AAAWIM kearney_c_Page_105.tif
517ef954b8ecbe353d44e4d5ecd71779
689da29ca5a5128f21837787deff6aaada7f62f6
F20110320_AAAWHY kearney_c_Page_090.tif
eaa59d471ba820bfdded55d46d49a51c
04a34682be90d7ac923681f970e6dbb78d27df90
1994 F20110320_AAAWJB kearney_c_Page_017.txt
1b35b5fbc37a8ed9935e1655fc780b8d
dd82432892719378b41f6b3c16c253babd58c7d3
F20110320_AAAWIN kearney_c_Page_106.tif
e8bdd87455d9111073e2b297bfc0f283
32c84f1e998505c4314b3bf86b5b0ad65be21051
F20110320_AAAWHZ kearney_c_Page_091.tif
5e643360f50696ca373c5b3c76e1269c
e4e456dac14c52b62ee873f377e98dca5568ac67
481 F20110320_AAAWJC kearney_c_Page_019.txt
7fe565699ebde48e371e08b70498f5ed
8a4b0229a45ff7c7348ed2cb4d0854899b8f8b22
437 F20110320_AAAWIO kearney_c_Page_001.txt
3d82312b8a939ad6c789ad65f2c57a30
5d24c9e4ea51a357ecdc5f7739712cf97e9fa361
1762 F20110320_AAAWJD kearney_c_Page_020.txt
5d6ca78d931cff596d2244e740e25870
039468c139fa8218f64297d2915703228cf2a926
115 F20110320_AAAWIP kearney_c_Page_002.txt
09988c7d949aad786ddd2858d4292628
0f44abd8e720d2d7ca079267effdad49d22abb41
1965 F20110320_AAAWJE kearney_c_Page_021.txt
8611b8c5a535453e84e444bfd6aac2a0
40d8c8cf3487293df1be675fb821109b6f28f027
683 F20110320_AAAWIQ kearney_c_Page_003.txt
afba18e15f991d8026d640adc10d8671
3f7e6fedf4a9dc5f66dc95c322a1ec62960b7a5d
1972 F20110320_AAAWJF kearney_c_Page_022.txt
905c89a196548978fd0a0946a91a8f16
d9bbdf12e89683b1607cd25d76641370bda20db9
1830 F20110320_AAAWIR kearney_c_Page_004.txt
b741a0abdbe3a7e291938cbf6feb749c
5ee36927a7e7e02ea38ce86c97d65615ae8dc51a
2039 F20110320_AAAWJG kearney_c_Page_024.txt
8584364e732c79e4ee3c6f47a90b0b31
128573a47e4d66add4d91ccabdcb74b435a889d0
1266 F20110320_AAAWIS kearney_c_Page_005.txt
3731ecd7e33fe0e0f2f029ac0f134d34
bd38ff4c0433bd0993cad24223fce3baec94dcb6
2017 F20110320_AAAWJH kearney_c_Page_025.txt
a457fed38c15308c4bc668d962e73d3b
7ae0c6f95d05b01fdcc6a625de9d532ea9cf14ef
2825 F20110320_AAAWIT kearney_c_Page_006.txt
3661c416921ecb0e2c97fccb539faf52
c7ad4d20f4d798dd2a7eadf40e6aab355d23a3e8
2044 F20110320_AAAWJI kearney_c_Page_026.txt
ce01645a05f8a4e7934710f7e3dcc499
11f64b38c198c34e465957266e9b07883c35b2d8
2441 F20110320_AAAWIU kearney_c_Page_007.txt
d95f8b02a989b95c78c2bb7dcc76cc0b
41ba368b8603e32c137d9108b7f71a89128e32c8
1927 F20110320_AAAWJJ kearney_c_Page_027.txt
8ce068ef277c84699b919b8abd113d5b
463ad1af5c2536e8fb915b67aee272b1b1f268c3
1856 F20110320_AAAWIV kearney_c_Page_009.txt
b1f805dd1702d008a3e6cb7d9b6fd765
4a28280332127ed3e016d738d25d259e80fdc6e9
1888 F20110320_AAAWJK kearney_c_Page_028.txt
c51209ffd26c2e0fd75cb900f9edd02a
684bb0d0304b48d14b794cf444857fc7cd17791e
1022 F20110320_AAAWIW kearney_c_Page_010.txt
9719c09c6cf95add7fff0b31991ef8bc
259118573f5454efe13c6e59f7d2eee484b313a3
1828 F20110320_AAAWJL kearney_c_Page_029.txt
1bcd750d83b7a545f3c71a67718c420f
bc34d44754594ebd7f5e7d5c911850bcaaf8992f
1674 F20110320_AAAWIX kearney_c_Page_011.txt
d807127691ddcfa10561a01e3731457a
21c422c7ca057b70e66afb7e66afcc585004cdcf
2101 F20110320_AAAWKA kearney_c_Page_045.txt
7122356eb012b8fee90fd6816b045e5b
ac022e2f0df7dfe4847fc35a896416dfea1839d4
1976 F20110320_AAAWJM kearney_c_Page_030.txt
770881efd99eb1112bf1c4fe49094884
fb54ac3fcd2dd40e9dd940bc7d5a67803a6e0fc0
1949 F20110320_AAAWKB kearney_c_Page_047.txt
b0960c1ab084ca65e4c68fb6e30e24e1
16caab65712694e12a62964dd609a488a09d5f86
1984 F20110320_AAAWJN kearney_c_Page_031.txt
fa55e020560c4c74e87f95536362b2ec
ee1e15debeafe09b0f52b02df6dc1826b7e617bd
1899 F20110320_AAAWIY kearney_c_Page_013.txt
c77ca3f2413b25b2059350d7ac18a22d
502db5e971562e3a5ab5b1458845715baf794380
1833 F20110320_AAAWKC kearney_c_Page_048.txt
45289684d378821b3ea4bee1098e4742
a0e5c51f6df1cd0dea393ea0baf6a4eb43249072
1935 F20110320_AAAWJO kearney_c_Page_032.txt
d50a019b3441ee240d49fe0191f45241
5eaaccb46bb39c074718e51394fe01568dc07624
1990 F20110320_AAAWIZ kearney_c_Page_015.txt
4736fed81943bed07c78254ab4e96871
6fc02043a020d4e0d6d3c1fdac9805b0dbdfb0da
2023 F20110320_AAAWKD kearney_c_Page_049.txt
38ac48f9dc59ae46d9b3ed94da001517
9640fe411dcb38356dfa32138f5e90eff8337ffa
1653 F20110320_AAAWJP kearney_c_Page_033.txt
1ade5f408d53e75383075f9623fa93a1
6d60358cb5528551da53cef0aeb14436a97e19dc
1960 F20110320_AAAWKE kearney_c_Page_051.txt
8ae6977db940b1df2772de8339314415
154051ccd68a3043f6ea07d2bef081ba3957a4be
1882 F20110320_AAAWJQ kearney_c_Page_034.txt
5744c4136dd3aa0c9255acaca04b155b
7d78ec0bad12f1444d63b113d2e5779f7bad34f2
2291 F20110320_AAAWKF kearney_c_Page_052.txt
4a89828d3102e1a27733de4751349ced
d37c91caa4fa01bcbd59554970b24dbcd2041751
1775 F20110320_AAAWJR kearney_c_Page_035.txt
dedb7a82cbc277ca5ba9c91777f04af5
0c47bc93e31d3a19512ee5ffa69cf5f80bdac81e
1947 F20110320_AAAWKG kearney_c_Page_054.txt
b1d3d64d9c30e961b8efbb9d5912f0b5
9dec7d574f69d8a3a1fe91ab4681d56c72515340
1992 F20110320_AAAWJS kearney_c_Page_036.txt
e14862a9612d8a272b884e27caa6e0ab
45ddba4b2e2209ad964a6a74cc22968bedea1c5d
1953 F20110320_AAAWJT kearney_c_Page_037.txt
05bf260905e01fcf496f22bad460274b
6a3993b5e43f9f47bae61feee48dc5b19df6cda2
F20110320_AAAWKH kearney_c_Page_055.txt
4817900d337823102d8613a3d5ac6a2f
331aff6cd81ed32da51070fd6107f03f547bbfd3
1870 F20110320_AAAWJU kearney_c_Page_038.txt
7caf91bb72a9d237827b86142825063a
c10540073f9c514c5870751d672f72b36d3fa0d3
1881 F20110320_AAAWKI kearney_c_Page_056.txt
eb89e5e10985afa49af5f296d0720516
dbfd9f58f6107e4686376cdf4480840603a0e9aa
2018 F20110320_AAAWJV kearney_c_Page_039.txt
c64a7703504e18b0a8cf5182b19851e2
b561a7ce03523c7769016f23f0b699e6ecff0bb9
1930 F20110320_AAAWKJ kearney_c_Page_057.txt
bbc7d3d1cbbd2ac5324b043d17367f87
9577d2a311ec4bfe6181c74ad759cd3cde6c5b15
1936 F20110320_AAAWJW kearney_c_Page_040.txt
3a589b2f65d71e8c1a3e8960968696eb
9c0554e1f9b1b067c6e6726637de1cdc507d95ca
1995 F20110320_AAAWKK kearney_c_Page_058.txt
04e5940fc7f4d142bfab743955271a22
d13fc5d0e191162e03582e5fbd8cf467ce6a3116
2077 F20110320_AAAWJX kearney_c_Page_041.txt
f37c057e1d9c86f5086a9da3b3e394dc
d0c4b2f467352ac8a1edc010fb06a81674a02ec6
1611 F20110320_AAAWKL kearney_c_Page_059.txt
648e41ca36dda021a0da50ee5a3e216b
9bc91a20facf2a51ecbabfe39908bb629de79877
F20110320_AAAWJY kearney_c_Page_042.txt
113ca173a5b8d505f317f9fbc41a3fa1
fac6d5ef8fab6401748a01c5bf22bd6a2d8a4de2
833 F20110320_AAAWLA kearney_c_Page_077.txt
0a89b8f8e7bd487d9d0dc0a42f7122c1
0e4d0359130dfc9c15d49042b1f05f3f25fa3de6
1907 F20110320_AAAWKM kearney_c_Page_060.txt
d6d19cd7d3402d4ab7e3912f1a9fe0cb
67208251ad5a26f34b2c892bf6c09ac494a933f5
331 F20110320_AAAWLB kearney_c_Page_078.txt
d079d2d541d9f9348d8800a6c9a85cca
cd8dd10717de8c5fa4030bc41bbb367b9b0fcc3a
2022 F20110320_AAAWKN kearney_c_Page_061.txt
1f90927528cd7e98f474f85baca4ae03
3067834ce1fac4e51a7990c3b909984d781f6959
2735 F20110320_AAAWJZ kearney_c_Page_044.txt
10053b4bc4fcc2825e38f45927bdc057
2e94be0f46d5622d2c9892e1f80692d61af75be7
75 F20110320_AAAWLC kearney_c_Page_079.txt
6e61daaaa73286f54db6891ab4091c72
554b5ad74124aac9589383f0f2cb55e06db5baf6
1966 F20110320_AAAWKO kearney_c_Page_062.txt
38f60270b32690927bfedbf403b24407
136dfd91835f2e1270a33e65ad1f04d5f9edaad8
1385 F20110320_AAAWLD kearney_c_Page_080.txt
02579da69b5ef21b91971146ffe35179
44cf5e44a46871bb2abc8f852a3afaff2e3193c0
1926 F20110320_AAAWKP kearney_c_Page_063.txt
692130242022cccbb6d8bfd95ef86e5f
24aede7257878fce7557a984195413dabe95b4b7
1836 F20110320_AAAWLE kearney_c_Page_081.txt
b98731d2227d1163b0b193dcb63bc494
98354c2e7ce85a48f5693bff67f5fabda69af1ac
1978 F20110320_AAAWKQ kearney_c_Page_065.txt
e8b67eab0be7e23b3a2d260e65614322
8d4a0ff800190b950dc591d375f17e5505e946ab
3001 F20110320_AAAWLF kearney_c_Page_083.txt
cb633fe37cfb7c8da8ba05bed4a186c1
91f29a13056bc2818b658d523d631a1b9af8891a
2026 F20110320_AAAWKR kearney_c_Page_066.txt
06054f624870a48f58764f3eb2eeb47b
07775cd131a45693b2c6838f12f5b0aaa1aa4809
1779 F20110320_AAAWLG kearney_c_Page_084.txt
bed5e8c3f86a3a0a3228eb72d4a18a3c
767201f57762d6b21c414df659c8d30fd39ec79e
2028 F20110320_AAAWKS kearney_c_Page_067.txt
c674b45434d7d38a52ffa13dea865c1a
e5503a4993728baad0e9fe67644a9959db201802
1060 F20110320_AAAWLH kearney_c_Page_085.txt
286038143af25aca28a53f509fc13079
30240f38de801a7136235fd9841a4f768859f763
1908 F20110320_AAAWKT kearney_c_Page_068.txt
1d20833382f6ce93308b03809e1a1c02
e16c20495b617cbfe8cae2273e826487125f26d0
1726 F20110320_AAAWLI kearney_c_Page_086.txt
dd072ce64d0e462dd7b63f8c48f8811b
8eea1081c196550833c5706819c97e78f1d90de1
2055 F20110320_AAAWKU kearney_c_Page_070.txt
79f853eef9902eb22f55a2b08bf43529
d92dd9f684e656f0dfe720e980366a13b6bfd2e8
1961 F20110320_AAAWLJ kearney_c_Page_087.txt
c4baadda8efdd2c98a44d795b739af3a
5b40d4639952f7e07ad6f9a9aa6f9214ff860804
1068 F20110320_AAAWKV kearney_c_Page_071.txt
4fd5c551fc242a9c904f7ece12a933e5
13ffcaba298c20d6111c344a2047a5380e8107b0
F20110320_AAAWLK kearney_c_Page_088.txt
eb33d3eb69558f42acbaf78be94b3957
1f8fad014a0f2d4561dccd45fdee4964bfb05317
3539 F20110320_AAAWKW kearney_c_Page_072.txt
c3f38a4f1dd261016999fd4f5f7ee091
b84421acb6b40619cbaab44d4aa36dbcc706d90f
1690 F20110320_AAAWLL kearney_c_Page_089.txt
907624afc2ed56aee16abb4fae7c4ef6
a881623280a45ca8c3ce81838312d1aa295eb5e5
2258 F20110320_AAAWKX kearney_c_Page_073.txt
f092cdaff4601107226e10e6f751d23f
1217240e8f0726fc566c77e3db43d1f646961ad0
258 F20110320_AAAWMA kearney_c_Page_105.txt
7c6dded82d79b6b56be26a7c6daa3775
9da202f5511c310253a8f54c2583a31afe9a36bf
676 F20110320_AAAWLM kearney_c_Page_090.txt
574aa108191c8dfe6429b2aca42a1134
a256e9a2003d5937ad5ccb41e966b80e6e2a5a3a
2396 F20110320_AAAWKY kearney_c_Page_074.txt
193577b7d69c000956870e30cce0d77f
043e27523082a4035acef64df83adf3cd92814ad
438 F20110320_AAAWMB kearney_c_Page_106.txt
7ade0d91e45c3eccf8efdabbfb71a593
fb53e03d6b3be446047e88e1403f379b4a3b9b6d
532 F20110320_AAAWLN kearney_c_Page_091.txt
0a6f5609c5d0ef6b05977f1a2756d519
009e409c0d355f747c46b868f0acc41da967864e
1548 F20110320_AAAWKZ kearney_c_Page_076.txt
df5323ae12a10a4b6a980aadd5985f4c
62aeaaf4625f3a67c932f585b391e01f8e0d92bd
7770 F20110320_AAAWMC kearney_c_Page_001.pro
72c93d5e0b3681c8261a142bb9301fb6
a38e9e4a6d2267fa73b8d7bbeb3383346e538753
1303 F20110320_AAAWLO kearney_c_Page_092.txt
a1d4276315898bd205a060799e2fb9be
d194638a5abbb1506a5f404e076f7e989cefc9ab
1228 F20110320_AAAWMD kearney_c_Page_002.pro
059ac2d46f0d187b070f5fac884eb77f
5d108d823b73a8008f8cde05f718dfb2a8d914dc
3309 F20110320_AAAWLP kearney_c_Page_093.txt
098d34b309187e601332e386b6f42b88
5d03bcb431affbfd9ab66c75133c944ca4fc9007
13382 F20110320_AAAWME kearney_c_Page_003.pro
c2a330345c7884f6c56a2805fb9d6ed7
fa4fafccdaa65be88ae490dffcc3c5a31a15b8b1
719 F20110320_AAAWLQ kearney_c_Page_094.txt
22e83752a486056a0ba887304382bf24
877d351d9454139ece814aa1917efc8a1a20fa0c
45706 F20110320_AAAWMF kearney_c_Page_004.pro
b723d9a88471467ec5fb4ad978276446
ee703eca6e1ced945559eddee87ea1ddea88fd9d
765 F20110320_AAAWLR kearney_c_Page_095.txt
e50e6c9c83f5516d0e0d7a15a3dddcb0
1cf7f12501465f04a89c0be6e8b29818eb68e89b
31881 F20110320_AAAWMG kearney_c_Page_005.pro
8c7df1f1d4b51cbae4f6a5205e244a87
9128f9777a9c1229c02629093ea674522d0de930
1939 F20110320_AAAWLS kearney_c_Page_096.txt
324360e3c03e9ad3c70b03caf7d55050
1e3d251d7c8a64b3c701d76ccec4488430c56d3c
58767 F20110320_AAAWMH kearney_c_Page_007.pro
5320ea64a88c91656ede938c4a6ae4f9
3c7458d004b392980bbd39790eedc91771a75d93
2462 F20110320_AAAWLT kearney_c_Page_097.txt
7bff6eceeac4a6ab24e5183749428ec2
3bc1bd8fd44753ef3f7d8b469cb884b01af4512f
59687 F20110320_AAAWMI kearney_c_Page_008.pro
5df10071a63a7cf034d5a93b0511035a
9e744af861d6c5ed14685fcab4cbf9f192919662
2499 F20110320_AAAWLU kearney_c_Page_098.txt
144ae6c9760a0a6b0b7cfddea5ae4b69
497aff8bcdd4e4bf18f17343e89879cee477a505
45823 F20110320_AAAWMJ kearney_c_Page_009.pro
df2618cc0c57a34a4a5753b09244c915
f20c17330c642ee42d3f405486b896bc9e2dccc9
2390 F20110320_AAAWLV kearney_c_Page_099.txt
6eb63485e73021dd31543fedd4d2c763
275b8d94b54aa8b75f324f12926ac4941db28a20
24220 F20110320_AAAWMK kearney_c_Page_010.pro
2f262ad6f2dfacbaf757052beaeca4f5
80903c2e4da53d7b60311a32fa8e190848a325a1
2480 F20110320_AAAWLW kearney_c_Page_100.txt
f89da0c53c11f9d23213f122d01e43ea
577f026061b2ca4dc4fa368436de38db70ab51cf
37308 F20110320_AAAWML kearney_c_Page_011.pro
636c2fc1899419a5dd75e565135e294b
d01fda2bdf37b2a14d2d67c204446ace8b0ead46
2377 F20110320_AAAWLX kearney_c_Page_101.txt
206b9be72a776be340182de0b9c2b309
49710ec9734329efb482b321179b0cf70f537b9b
29968 F20110320_AAAWMM kearney_c_Page_012.pro
4b75062cee379f1962dcbcf0c96cbefe
42e6d1ab14ecc88139cfa05866fc21d880258e4b
2398 F20110320_AAAWLY kearney_c_Page_102.txt
16c6462a38ef917df5dcd8c625b90019
75934d18ba87bf4dc606bef778ad3e60f729a6e6
46063 F20110320_AAAWNA kearney_c_Page_029.pro
6978f4fe9a9205cab7c32843f13eff6c
d0fff1acc759590c92f42692558ffaee1ac69aad
46289 F20110320_AAAWMN kearney_c_Page_013.pro
a5c0f3c4579e287db7868e21eb7f2d72
68e0599da42abb163991bc2d9ddf88dd9231df42
2286 F20110320_AAAWLZ kearney_c_Page_104.txt
2e1fc6eb84e519f4a7a465d6bcbefd54
557f1695215ad97efccd403df775c6f630656b46
50154 F20110320_AAAWNB kearney_c_Page_030.pro
d4e2d9e0779c86aa48991505e6d5c969
e5e34a3ad746d6e62c1cf74adf77be64ac0901fb
50527 F20110320_AAAWMO kearney_c_Page_015.pro
a14a050a3b177cb18e7916b5d2f292e1
339de53a8491ac817e359a78fd008cfabf136b65
50260 F20110320_AAAWNC kearney_c_Page_031.pro
3a3d11c816280411201195752e8ccd87
d465c1177081fab6308170c639375863f64a5f4b
50969 F20110320_AAAWMP kearney_c_Page_016.pro
d1f1341fcdcda6cca12cbf5978cad505
6b2f82caea4668202c282d805c3095f0f00177f5
48347 F20110320_AAAWND kearney_c_Page_032.pro
e1f150ea4b5b734f40a4547ebcbbaca7
5d0680792d0d8bba0f801a92ffc06375b9a25d67
50824 F20110320_AAAWMQ kearney_c_Page_017.pro
70565c6905c4c071ef8c60beb951926f
a5ff635b3b466a16789809e7d38b0df6977e93f7
47759 F20110320_AAAWNE kearney_c_Page_034.pro
e528778dfd92f0e9396a8518ef192778
9c04149cd0e6618e0a0f0c7b66e36e97c4914d18
49403 F20110320_AAAWMR kearney_c_Page_018.pro
6bc94c3d0f34f5cde5e7d08025d2af37
aef59e1b18b3045a7536a980661fbcde790b91cf
44850 F20110320_AAAWNF kearney_c_Page_035.pro
1307d5a74b0ff04622b4ff081f881eed
1c40da957954b973c3fbf02702862856624019c1
11044 F20110320_AAAWMS kearney_c_Page_019.pro
0df999f9cd2d27af517cdcfea4a9ffc3
6b739edb127429291f13d737168f85938d9933be
50504 F20110320_AAAWNG kearney_c_Page_036.pro
a8e37ae4bca7bda13a64773fdd69c5b3
a6550775f8f3c17fd2a79048cb225bb3ca782c82
42314 F20110320_AAAWMT kearney_c_Page_020.pro
fb24a1e79789c6466396951404016304
958ac0e454f55edb834f30a20ec2a51167df567e
49601 F20110320_AAAWNH kearney_c_Page_037.pro
34348b0e86041fed83a9b869ff908727
d58443fe469d920c87db2bed7434479262c005bf
49864 F20110320_AAAWMU kearney_c_Page_021.pro
a3cb8477d8f9233f887749b6b3d0ccaf
3d71c925bb35dede313f469bb606ba5751ea82e4
47284 F20110320_AAAWNI kearney_c_Page_038.pro
1f2c083d3375b76579648f85d6e91f4d
b6bdb733eaaf40f1908d0dd5ad1725d1a0f9a0f8
51977 F20110320_AAAWMV kearney_c_Page_024.pro
e06876075d5fc368bfed53987e59dcb6
8d4c0284cf76cc72bb6cd724a62d9ebcb8290f1c
51283 F20110320_AAAWNJ kearney_c_Page_039.pro
bde2aab9159c3c6c12170510f64dd448
651c73a41a6851fcceaba794ce843d166ff4d4db
51247 F20110320_AAAWMW kearney_c_Page_025.pro
5ccd8774c9b6b4810654d40a86debb2d
ae8950ed69df32f4d765ee4ffa89c96bd7704d22
49196 F20110320_AAAWNK kearney_c_Page_040.pro
a3cfc73c599993f998a20c0f2cd68f6c
43465ef17fd8b63025837696d0d985c9508642b5
51974 F20110320_AAAWMX kearney_c_Page_026.pro
94155a8e65bff19e53c21d9527bb7949
77206766fd7f45343c2772d4f5ec625cfad0d70c
52768 F20110320_AAAWNL kearney_c_Page_041.pro
3fd57c5dfc3ea99f90c8cd244adf8da6
666e9be01bfdb8ceabc23d33b9816cd0ab360569
48944 F20110320_AAAWMY kearney_c_Page_027.pro
aac236bf1d3063f80e5847ba9ae31bdf
35e1efb054f92a67ae8603d9d08e4ab9d8635825
48698 F20110320_AAAWOA kearney_c_Page_063.pro
2b9b958e85348b5422edefd5064f7526
22568a2fc07d041803cf395482e3df1acace7435
49548 F20110320_AAAWNM kearney_c_Page_043.pro
4bc1d3704bb2f899ce03e61fd9ebbb25
2088b6afd739965ee4c4994a95874b9b427e374a
47648 F20110320_AAAWMZ kearney_c_Page_028.pro
1bda4b5eda0dba49be7dbd43a203b32c
e4cdb6de7f55213adbaf2f98f5e832dc2cf4f619
48958 F20110320_AAAWOB kearney_c_Page_064.pro
b86363d234f49ae2ce3bbd72b10a0990
037b1923e1af1e3e1a174541cb1d8bde8a565a01
60896 F20110320_AAAWNN kearney_c_Page_044.pro
412c294a2199b2600871f3c81e91ba9b
7b11864c96b2ca1c1a0a5058309094353bb81f53
49993 F20110320_AAAWOC kearney_c_Page_065.pro
b4be21f36be4f0860104479a918038d3
3b9a4a2afe934de963d6dfd8678c4d294399e334
49149 F20110320_AAAWNO kearney_c_Page_045.pro
5f5ea350c4afb4ad8245c2c42a98f4ec
7cec5f0a9afaeb0e38e366d672f560c8b6700afc
51583 F20110320_AAAWOD kearney_c_Page_066.pro
e9c43a14af418beaabfa7395a0186fb8
b4658c965dcd6909213a912c6750c6da060f3ea6
22544 F20110320_AAAWNP kearney_c_Page_046.pro
a947938aa9b85412308d3f404babef1f
772c6393ca13a0bca405ec61f80bf4dfaa2a3147
51670 F20110320_AAAWOE kearney_c_Page_067.pro
50524bc2d8a144030ca938b2a1436927
75284506380d6d6837e189f45f3e63b521cad6a5
35641 F20110320_AAAWNQ kearney_c_Page_047.pro
ce639ba623c01abbc0ce641ea683d970
7b40ac83541b94349f5b64ae17f429177c3173da
48142 F20110320_AAAWOF kearney_c_Page_068.pro
c998b0f1bcc4b5b53bcb830a1e0a7b44
673a217b1bd56a0ec4dc6c30754b6f4a04a11b4e
44081 F20110320_AAAWNR kearney_c_Page_048.pro
ea53df54dd13e68e81b1fb52c6d5e66c
a36ca71e4afb86e96e4fbdde2f08bbbb22cd7eba
F20110320_AAAWOG kearney_c_Page_069.pro
00eac37fe50dd7e632b85fcc7d1e4170
60bd8526e371aa895ea157e8f4b58ddeffbdb134
51441 F20110320_AAAWNS kearney_c_Page_049.pro
63c92f86cad661bd0e1eb0d59ae5accd
57e171ab18879325df4b01266a3e783b4050efe1



PAGE 1

EFFECTS OF DIETARY PHYSICAL FORM AND CARBOHYDRATE PROFILE ON CAPTIVE GIRAFFE By CELESTE C. KEARNEY A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Celeste C. Kearney

PAGE 3

This work is dedicated, with gratitude to the Maker of all living things. This thesis is dedicated to my family, near and far. It is especially dedicated to My father, who shared his deep, abiding se nse of respect and wonder for all Creation My mother, who encouraged me to pursue my goals and fight for what I believe My siblings, natural and “adopted,” who offered love and support My nieces and nephews, a constant source of joy and pride And most of all my loving husband, Who made me complete.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was a team effort. Th e development and execution of this study would not have been possible without th e generous contributions of numerous individuals. My sincerest th anks go out to my committee chai r, Dr. Mary Beth Hall, and committee members, Drs. Ellen Dierenfeld, Lee McDowell, and Charles Staples, for assistance and instruct ion throughout my graduate program, and for taking a chance on an unusual project; Busch Entertainment Corporation, for permitting and sponsoring the study; Dr. Ray Ball, Giraffe SSP Veterinary Advisor, for initial instruction in giraffe health and nutrition, and continued selfless as sistance through all phase s of this research; Dr. Ramon Littell, University of Florida St atistics Department, for assistance with statistical design of the study; Dr. Judy St Ledger, BEC Director of Veterinary Pathology, for encouragement and considerable intellectual contributions; the preceding researchers who have taken an interest in th e nutrition of captive concentrate selectors, particularly Dr. Marcus Clauss, for hi s literature donations and thoughtful e-mail discussions; Heidi Bissell, Amanda Dinges and Marti Roberson, for volunteer giraffe observations; Kellie and the Robersons, for food, housing and helpful distractions during the study; Alexandra Amorocho, Heidi Bissel l, Faith Cullens, Colleen Larson, and especially Lucia Holtshausen and Ashley H ughes, students of the UF Dairy Nutrition Lab, for assistance with feed mixing a nd laboratory analyses; John Funk, Jocelyn Jennings, Jan Kivipelto, Sergei Sennikov a nd Nancy Wilkinson, UF Animal Sciences technicians, for training and assistance with sample preparation a nd laboratory analyses;

PAGE 5

v and the staff of the UF Dairy Research Unit (Hague, FL), for assistance in mixing the experimental ration. Last but certainly far from least, I would like to acknowledge and thank the following staff at Busch Gardens, Tampa: Chris Bliss, for passing along the knowledge and experience of generations; Ch ris Allen, Joaquin Alonso, Kellie Anderson, Kathy Driggers, James Hammerton, Brian Hart Waylon Kerr, Chris Merrifield, Charles Moss, Jennifer Phelps, April Richardson, Pandora Sokol, Bobby Toomy and Jerry Washburn, hoofstock keepers, for long days a nd late nights of hard work during the collection phase of this labor-intensive study; Richard Baker, Alan Cross, Cindy Davis, Andrea Demuth, Joe Devlin, Dr. John Ol sen and Glenn Young, zoo and hoofstock management, for logistical coordination and providing the essential animal, facility, and labor resources; Dr. Mike Burton, Dr. Ge nevieve Demonceaux, Heather Henry, Ian Hutchinson, Cliff Martel and Mary Port, veterinary and hospital staff, for assistance with sample collection and analysis; and the entire Busch Gardens Zoo staff, for their ongoing commitment to animal care, and for their thoughts, assistance and encouragement during this project.

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................x ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON DIETARY PHYSICAL FORM AND CARBOHYDRATE PROFILE IN RUMINANT DIETS............................................8 Physical Form...............................................................................................................8 Effects of Particle Size on Masti cation, Saliva Flow, and Ruminal pH................9 Effects of Particle Size on Digesta Passage, Intake, and Fermentation..............13 Potential Implications of peNDF for Captive Giraffe.........................................18 Dietary Carbohydrate Profile......................................................................................20 Carbohydrate Fractions.......................................................................................20 Proximate analysis system...........................................................................21 Detergent system..........................................................................................21 Carbohydrates in Natural CS Diets.....................................................................21 Effects of NFC Source on Fermenta tion Characteristics and Animal Performance.....................................................................................................24 Interaction Between Dietary Components...........................................................28 Potential Implications of Dietar y NFC Profile for Captive Giraffe....................29 3 EFFECTS OF ALTERING THE P HYSICAL FORM AND CARBOHYDRATE PROFILE OF THE DIET ON CAPTIVE GIRAFFE.................................................36 Introduction.................................................................................................................36 Materials and Methods...............................................................................................38 Design..................................................................................................................38 Giraffe..................................................................................................................39

PAGE 7

vii Facilities..............................................................................................................39 Diets.....................................................................................................................40 Sample Collection and Analyses.........................................................................41 Feedstuffs and intake....................................................................................41 Fecal collection and analysis........................................................................43 Behavior.......................................................................................................45 Body weight and blood samples...................................................................46 Statistical analysis........................................................................................47 Results and Discussion...............................................................................................47 Intake...................................................................................................................48 Digestibility.........................................................................................................49 Behavior..............................................................................................................51 Blood Measures...................................................................................................53 Ancillary Study Observations / Individual Animal Effects.................................54 Diet Selection......................................................................................................56 Conclusions.........................................................................................................58 APPENDIX A INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL MEASURES .................................................................... 68 B CARBOHYDRATE FRACTIONING IN FEEDSTUFFS.........................................80 C INFORMATION ON CONTROL DIET COMPOSITION AND BEHAVIOR RECORDING.............................................................................................................81 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................84 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................94

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Effects of particle size of alfalfa-ba sed dairy cow diets on chewing activity and ruminal pH................................................................................................................32 2-2 Effects of concentrate le vel and feeding management on ruminal pH of lactating dairy cows................................................................................................................32 2-3 Effects of forage particle size and grain fermentability on chewing activity, ruminal pH, and ruminal VFA profile in midlactation cows...................................33 2-4 Nutrient intake and digestion coeffi cients from giraffe fed all-hay diets.................33 2-5 Chemical composition (DM basis) of five browse plants grown at Busch Gardens in Tampa, Florida.......................................................................................34 2-6 Influence of supplemental carbohydrate source fed in combination with 0.122% BW/ day of degradable intake protein on ruminal fermentation characteristics...........................................................................................................35 3-1 Design of study.........................................................................................................59 3-2 Chemical composition of alfalfa hay a nd supplements (dry matter basis) fed to captive giraffe, and difference between supplements..........................................60 3-3 Effects of dietary treatment on mean daily dry matter and nutrient intake, digestion of organic matter and crude protein (apparent) and NDFOM (true), body weight gain and body condition score.............................................................60 3-4 Effect of diet on fecal nutrie nt composition (dry matter basis)................................61 3-5 Recorded behavior of captive gira ffe consuming different supplements.................62 3-6 Percentage of time female giraffe spent engaged in oral behaviors.........................62 3-7 Effects of type of dietary s upplement on giraffe blood parameters.........................62 3-8 Pearson Correlation Coefficients fo r correlations of blood glucose and BUN with kilograms of nutrients consumed and digested................................................64

PAGE 9

ix 3-9 Pearson Correlation Coefficients fo r correlations of blood glucose and BUN with various blood proteins......................................................................................64 A-1 Individual giraffe volunt ary intake (DM basis)........................................................68 A-2 Individual giraffe nutrien t intake (kg) (DM basis)...................................................69 A-3 Individual giraffe fecal output, fecal nutrient concentration (% of DM), and apparent nutrient digestibility (%)............................................................................70 A-4 Differences in crude protein concentra tion of individual feca l samples analyzed in wet and dried forms..............................................................................................71 A-5 Minutes over 48 hours individual giraffe spent engaged in measured behaviors....72 A-6 Individual giraffe blood values on day 21................................................................74 A-7 Body weight and body condition score of individual giraffe on days 1 and 21 of each period...............................................................................................................77 B-1 NDF and NFC fractions (percent of samp le DM) in feedstuffs analyzed at the University of Florida................................................................................................80 C-1 Mean analyzed chemical composition of the batches of Purina Omelene 200 (n=5) and Mazuri Browser Breeder (n=5) fed to captive giraffe during a giraffe feeding study............................................................................................................81 C-2 Behavioral category definitions used by observers when recording giraffe behaviors..................................................................................................................82

PAGE 10

x LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Number of minutes over 48 hours individua l giraffe spent engaged in specific and total oral stereotype behavior............................................................................65 3-2 Blood concentrations of non-esterified fatty acids in individual giraffe..................66 A-1 Individual animal consumption of alfa lfa hay and supplement as a percentage of body weight..............................................................................................................78 A-2 Individual animal digestion of neutra l detergent fiber organic matter (NDFOM), and apparent digestion of OM and CP.....................................................................79 B-1 Carbohydrate partiti oning. (Hall, 2001)..................................................................80 C-1 Example of data sheet used to record giraffe behavior............................................83

PAGE 11

xi Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science EFFECTS OF DIETARY PHYSICAL FORM AND CARBOHYDRATE PROFILE ON CAPTIVE GIRAFFE By Celeste C. Kearney May, 2005 Chair: Mary Beth Hall Major Department: Animal Sciences The effects of altering physical form and carbohydrate profile of giraffe diets were evaluated using six non-lactati ng adult female giraffe in a modified reversal study. Dietary treatments consisted of a supple ment ration composed of commonly fed commercial concentrates (GF) and an experi mental supplement (EF) containing greater concentrations of sugars and so luble fiber and lesser concentra tions of starch than GF, as well as small, heavily lignified particles used to modify dietary fiber size and texture. Each study animal was housed individually and fed EF or GF ad libitum for 21 days, and then received the other feed supplement in the subsequent 21 day period. Alfalfa hay, salt and water were offered ad libitum in all periods. In each period, blood samples were collected before feeding on day 21, feed refu sals and fecal samples were collected on days 15 through 21, and behavior was r ecorded for 48 hr via observation and instantaneous sampling on days 13 through 15. Feed intake, blood measures, and minutes spent exhibiting various behaviors were evaluated.

PAGE 12

xii Data were analyzed with a statistical m odel that included animal, period, and diet. Data presented are least squares mean s. Significance was declared at P <0.10 and tendency at 0.10< P <0.15. Blood glucose (mg/dl) was lower in animals consuming EF than GF. Average daily DM intake varied greatly among animals for both alfalfa hay (0.12 to 3.94 kg/day) and supplement (2.87 to 9.26 kg/day), but did not differ between diets. Starch intake by giraffe decrease d from 0.92 kg/day on GF to 0.12 kg/ day EF, sugar intake tended ( P =0.115) to increase from 1.12 kg/day on GF to 1.53 kg/day on EF, and neutral detergent-soluble fiber (NDSF) intake increased from 0.85 kg/day on GF to 1.19 kg/day on EF. Time engaged in supplem ent consumption was greater on EF than GF and total feed consumption + rumination time tended to be greater on EF than GF, which may have increased saliva flow and buffering of the rumen. Despite few animals and high variability in their f eed selection and intake, the da ta suggest that EF facilitated small but measurable changes in animal res ponse. Further investigation with a larger population of animals is needed.

PAGE 13

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Numerous health problems that are suspected to be of nutritional origin have been documented in captive giraffe. Pathologies that may relate to vitamin and mineral intake or metabolism include white muscle diseas e (Strafuss, 1973; Bu rton, 1990), urolithiosis (Wolfe et al., 2000), and dental disease (E nqvist, 2003). Pancreatic pathologies ( Fox, 1938; Fowler, 1978; Lechowski et al., 1991; Ball et al., 2002), decreased ruminal absorptive surface area (Hofmann and Mater n, 1988), ruminal acidosis (Clauss, 1998; Clauss et al., 2002b), fermentative gastritis or rumenitis (Fox, 1938; Ball et al., 2002) and gastrointestinal ulceration (F ox, 1938; Fowler, 1978) also have been documented. Firstyear calf mortality may be as high as 45% (Lackey and LaRue, 1997). Failure of passive transfer (Miller et al., 1996), calf mortality du e to poor milk intake (Flach et al., 1997), and anecdotal reports of calf mortality or hand-rearing due to “maternal failure” may relate to low colostrum and milk production due to poor nutritional stat us of giraffe dams. Wasting and sudden death (Fox, 1938; Chaffe, 1968; Fowler, 1978; St randberg et al., 1984; Junge and Bradley, 1993; Flach et al ., 1997; Ball et al., 2002) are frequently reported in the literature and anecdotally. At this time, the true proportion of captive giraffe mortality caused by nutri tional pathologies is unknown. The term “Peracute Mortality Syndrome” (PMS) was used to describe giraffe wasting/ sudden death by Dr. Murray Fowl er in 1978, following four cases of sudden death at the Sacramento Zoo. Concurrent disease (tuberculosis, treated with isoniazid powder) occurred in all four giraffe; weight lo ss despite reportedly adequate intake and

PAGE 14

2 recent (less than one month prior to death) parturition occurred in two animals. Necropsies were performed on th ree of the four animals. Absence of perirenal fat and generalized serous atrophy of adipose tissu e (3 of 3 giraffe) and marked pancreatic atrophy (2 of 3) were notable findings. In a subsequent survey, 14 of 42 responding institutions reported unexplaine d deaths of giraffe or subm itted necropsy reports listing findings consistent with the Sacramento Zoo cases. Peracute death, emaciation, concurrent disease or stress ep isode, serous atrophy of ad ipose tissue, pulmonary edema and trachial froth, petechial hemorrhage of serosal surfaces, and gastrointestinal ulceration were common findings. Fowler hypothesized that both chronic pr edisposing factors and acute trigger episodes contributed to the occu rrence of PMS. Based on the information available at the time, chronic protein or energy deficiencies were listed as the most likely predisposing factors. It was recommended that giraffe be offered low fiber diet s containing 15 to 18% CP for adult non-lactating animals, and 18 to 20% CP for calves and lactating cows. However, a 1993 follow-up study by Junge and Bradley reported nine additional cases of PMS in giraffe offered diets meeti ng these protein recommendations. Chronic energy deficiency has agai n come under scrutiny as a possible predisposing factor for PMS (Ball et al., 2002) Consistent findings of depletion and serous atrophy of adipose tissue stores (F ox, 1938; Chaffe, 1968; Strafuss and Kennedy, 1973; Fowler, 1978; Strandberg et al., 1984; Junge and Brad ley, 1993; Ball et al., 2002) are indicative of negative energy balance. When energy expenditure exceeds available dietary energy, a catabolic state occurs, a nd body reserves are mobilized. Once body fat stores are excessively depleted, rapid catabolis m of even the smallest amounts of adipose

PAGE 15

3 tissue takes place in an attempt to meet energy demands. The result is serous atrophy of adipose tissue (Smith et al., 1972). Acute energy deficiency has been proposed as an immediate cause of death in giraffe PMS. Ball et al. (2002) reported on the rapid wasting and mortality of two female giraffe (A and B) during the third trimester of first pregnancy. Anteand postmortem findings were consistent with PMS. Histopathologic findings included serous atrophy of mesenteric and epicardial fat, lymphohistio cytic rumenitis and pulmonary congestion in both cases. Pancreatic atrophy and generalized muscle atrophy were also noted in giraffe B. Blood glucose concentrations were 20 mg/d l at the time of death in giraffe A, and 3 mg/dl at 5 hours post-mortem in giraffe B. Hypoglycemia, caused by depletion of body reserves followed by an acute stressor (parturition), was pr oposed as the immediate cause of death. Since this publication, blood sample s collected within 20 minutes of death have revealed glucose levels of 6 and 12 mg/dl in two giraffe succumbing to PMS, and 297 mg/dl at less than 1 hour post-mortem in a giraffe expiring from an observed cervical injury (R. Ball, personal communications). It should be noted that endemic pathologi es of unknown or suspected nutritional origin are not isolated to captive giraffe. Wasting and mortality from unknown causes, and from digestive pathologies, have been re ported in other captive concentrate selectors (CS) (Paglia and Miller, 1992; S hochat et al., 1997; Dierenfeld et al., 2000; Clauss et al., 2002a; Willette et al., 2002). High (30 to 40% in some collections) neonatal mortality, wasting syndrome, ruminal hypomotility syndrome, bloat, and rumenitis have been described as prevalent but underreported in captive duikers (Willette et al., 2002), and hand-rearing, diet modification, and brow se supplementation were among factors

PAGE 16

4 associated with improved health and increased (up to 2x) lifespan in one institution (Barnes et al., 2002). Moose, the second larges t ruminant concentrate selector (CS), are rarely exhibited in zoos because of premat ure mortality (Shochat et al., 1997). Moose “wasting syndrome complex,” a syndrome of suspected nutritional origin, was the diagnosed cause of death in 47% of 131 adult mortalities (Clauss et al., 2002a). Sudden death, frequently attributed to digestive disord ers such as ruminal acidosis and bloat, is a common occurrence in feedlot cattle (Glock and DeGroot, 1998). While the importance of nutrition in main taining health, welf are, and reproductive status of captive wildlife is receiving increasing recognition, the research that can be performed using captive exotic animals is lim ited by a number of factors. The number of animals of a given species housed in a single institution is often small, and collections typically consist of animals in different physiological states (growth, pregnancy, lactation), making it difficult to obtain a sufficient number of similar research animals. Since many of the species housed in zoologica l institutions are rare or endangered, their conservation value prohibits placing them in potentially harmful situations. Thus, the herd instincts and fearful or aggressive temperament of many captive ungulates limits collection of data that require s individual housing or animal-h uman contact. As a result, statistically viable data on the effects of diet modification of i ndividually or group-fed animals is difficult to obtain. At the present time, in-depth nutrition al knowledge of CS ruminants remains scarce. The true nutritional requirements of giraffe and other captive CS and dietary factors contributing to suspected nutrition -related pathologies remain unquantified. Because of the dearth of data on the ingr edient and chemical composition of diets

PAGE 17

5 consumed in the wild and on nutrient requi rements of exotic ruminants, domestic ruminants have been used as models for ration formulation. However, numerous differences between domestic and wild ru minants must be considered. While the objective of ration formulation for most dom estic ruminants is to optimize relatively short-term production, the objective of ration formulation for captive wildlife is to maximize longevity and long-term health and reproduction, which may extend into decades of life. Furthermore, differen ces in digestive morphology and physiology may create discrepancies in how dietary items ar e utilized. When ruminants are classified according to natural diet and digestive anat omy, domestic cattle and sheep are grazers (GR), adapted to consumption of a predominan tly grass diet. The largest living ruminant, the giraffe, is a CS, consuming primarily foliage in its natural environment. Over 40% of the approximately 150 known extant ruminant sp ecies are classified as CS (Wood et al., 2000) and consume little or no grass, subsisting instead on fruit and foliage from trees, shrubs, and herbs. Differences between wild CS and domestic GR include not only dietary constituents, but also rumen micr obial population (Dehority and Odenyo, 2003) and gastrointestinal an atomy (Hofmann, 1973, 1984). Digestive morphophysiological differences between ruminant CS and GR have been widely documented and discussed (H ofmann, 1973; Kay et al., 1980; Gordon and Illius, 1996; Shipley, 1999; Ditchkoff, 2000) and a review is presented in the proceedings of the 30th International Congress of the International Un ion of Physiological Sciences (Hofmann, 1988). A br ief summary of differences pertinent to the research presented in this thesis follows. Generally, CS have proportionally larger salivary glands than GR. Parotid glands, for example, ra nge from 0.18 to 0.25% of body weight (BW) in

PAGE 18

6 CS, but only 0.05 to 0.07% of BW in GR. The su spected increase in saliva flow in CS may or may not facilitate increased ruminal buffering, since the apparently welldeveloped ventricular groove may allow a proportion of swallowed saliva to bypass the rumen. Such a bypass mechanism would also allow increased amounts of dietary cell solubles to escape ruminal fermentation. Th e abundance of intestinal Na+/glucose cotransporter in the brush border membrane of wild moose and roe deer is suggestive of some mechanism of ruminal escape for diet ary sugars (Rowell-Schafer et al., 1999; Wood et al., 2000). Decreased ruminal compar tmentalization and incr eased diameter of the reticulo-omasal orifice in CS (Hof mann, 1973) may contribute to the observed increased rate of digesta passage (Clauss, 1998) while the larger capacity of the lower GI tract suggests greater reliance on hind-gut di gestion. Decreased rumen capacity, greatly increased ruminal surface area due to dense, even papillation, and increased liver size imply a rapid rate of fermentation and nutrient absorption. Put succinctly, these data illustrate a singl e point: giraffe are not cattle. Given the known differences between GR and CS, the likelihood of unmodified domestic ruminant feeding practices to maintain optimal health and nutritional status of captive CS appears questionable. However, the basic biologica l principles of ruminant digestion and metabolism discovered via domestic ruminant res earch may be able to facilitate improved nutrition for captive CS if vi ewed in light of CS rumi nants’ unique anatomy and physiology. In discussing the unique anatomical a rrangements of CS, Hofmann touches upon the need for further analysis of natural f oods in order to maintain captive CS under optimal conditions. He concludes by stating: “N eglect of original c onditions finally leads

PAGE 19

7 to a failing of the delicate anatomical, phys iological, biochemical-microbial balance of the concentrate selector’s ruminant stomach ” (Hofmann, 1973). The research presented in this thesis is an attemp t to further the understanding of captive CS nutritional status and requirements, and to examine possible lin ks between dietary factors and suspected nutritional pathologies, including PMS in captive giraffe.

PAGE 20

8 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON DIETARY PHYSICAL FORM AND CARBOHYDRATE PROFILE IN RUMINANT DIETS Physical Form Current feeding recommendations for z oo ungulates (Lintzenich and Ward, 1997) do not address two of the more recent areas of focus in ruminant nutrition research: dietary physical form and non-fiber carbohydrate (NFC) profile. The physical form of dietary components impacts the manner in whic h feedstuffs are processed in the digestive tract. Dietary physical form affects ma stication (Mertens, 19 97), saliva production (Allen, 1997), ruminal development (Behar ka et al., 1998), ruminal pH (Allen, 1997), rate and extent of ruminal fermentation (Mer tens, 1997), rate of di gesta passage (Allen, 1996), and the proportion of unfermented nutri ents passing into the lower GI tract (Firkins, 1997; Callison et al., 2001; Yang et al., 2001). Ma ny methods of quantifying the physical effectiveness of feeds by evaluating dietary part icle size, chewing behavior, or milk fat production have been proposed and used in domestic ruminant research. Physically effective fiber (peNDF) is one appr oach used to define the effectiveness of dietary particle size in maintaining rumina l (and animal) health and function (Mertens, 1997). The peNDF of a feed is defined as “the product of its neutral detergent fiber (NDF) concentration and its physical effectiv eness factor,” with physical effectiveness factor determined by the ability of the feed to promote a chewing response in the animal, as judged on a scale of 0 (not effective) to 10 (fully effective in promoting chewing). The

PAGE 21

9 physical effectiveness of a feed is, in essen ce, a function of partic le size and rate of particle size reduction. Effects of Particle Size on Mastic ation, Saliva Flow, and Ruminal pH Little reduction in feed particle size o ccurs once ingesta has passed from the rumen (Poppi et al., 1980). Chai et al. (1984) demonstrated th at initial mastication and rumination serve to reduce feed particle size. In steers fed long-stem alfalfa or brome hays, bolus content of particles > 3.35 mm was reduced 58 to 75% by initial mastication and 23 to 27% by ruminati on (Chai et al., 1984). The ability to stimulate chewing behavior appears to vary among forage types. Steers on high-concentrate diets spent more time ( P <0.10) chewing when fed wheat straw rather than alfalfa hay (Shain et al., 1999) The number of eating and ruminating chews per g of DM consumed were 2.04 and 3.41 by steers fed long-stem brome hay, but only 1.26 and 1.80 by steers fed long-stem alfalfa hay, which may have been attributable to differences in forage fragilit y, or rate of particle breakdow n during chewing (Chai et al., 1984). Dietary items with a larger physical size require more time to be consumed and generally have a greater ab ility to stimulate rumination. Long-stem or minimally chopped forages, with high NDF content a nd long particle length, have a greater stimulatory effect on mastication than do finely chopped forages, and a higher peNDF value than grains or pellets (Mertens, 1997). Eating and total chewing time in lactating Holstein cows offered a total mixed ration (TMR) increased ( P <0.05) with inclusion of additional alfalfa in the ration, and ruminati on and total chewing increased linearly with increasing particle length of alfalfa silage ( P <0.05) (Clark and Armentano, 2002). Time engaged in rumination decreased ( P <0.001) linearly as wheaten hay fed ad libitum to

PAGE 22

10 sheep and goats was progressively switched from chopped (1 cm) to ground (3.2 mm) and pelleted forms (McSweeney and Kennedy, 1992). Campbell et al. (1992) used ten Hereford steers to compare the ability of five diets to stimulate chewing: A – 80% pelleted concentrate, 20% long timothy hay (con trol); B – 80% pellet ed concentrate, 20% alfalfa cubes; C – 90% pelleted concentrate, 10% alfalfa cubes; D – completely pelleted ration using corn cobs as the primary NDF source; E – 80% coarse (unground grains) concentrate, 20% long timothy hay. Time e ngaged in rumination and eating behaviors are reported as minutes per gram of dry matter intake (DMI)/ BW0.75. Modifying the physical form of concentrates had no effect on eating ( P =0.702) or rumination ( P =0.954) times. Replacing timothy hay with alfalfa cubes decreased rumination from 2.58 to 1.38 to 1.47 ( P =0.001) but did not affect eating behavior ( P =0.897). Replacing the control ration with the all-pelleted diet d ecreased eating time from 3.55 to 2.98 ( P =0.063) and rumination from 2.58 to 1.29 ( P =0.001). Number of chews per gram of DMI/ BW0.75 also decreased on the completely pelleted ration, from 234 to 173 ( P =0.005) during eating, and from 162 to 76 ( P =0.001) during rumination. Saliva, with a pH of approximately 8.5 (C assida and Stokes, 1986), is a primary ruminal buffering agent, supplying approximate ly half of the bicarbonate entering the rumen of domestic cattle (Owens et al., 1998). The rate of saliva flow increases during periods of eating and ruminati on (Bailey, 1961). Therefore, decreasing time engaged in chewing behavior may decrease total daily saliva production per unit of feed consumed (Bailey, 1961; Maekawa et al., 2002). A study by Beauchemin et al. (2003) illustra tes the link between forage particle size, chewing activity, a nd ruminal pH. The effects of di etary particle size on lactating

PAGE 23

11 dairy cows were examined using a total mi xed ration (TMR) consis ting of 60% barleybased concentrate and 40% forage (DM basis). Forage consisted of alfalfa silage (AS) and alfalfa hay (AH) in a 50:50 or 25:75 rati o. Alfalfa hay was coarsely chopped (CH) or ground (GH) through a 4mm screen. Mean diet ary particle length (MPL) was highest for the TMR containing 50:50 AS:CH, followe d by 25:75 AS:CH, 50:50 AS:GH, and 25:75 AS:GH. Eating and rumination behaviors were recorded every 5 minutes for 24 hours. Rumination time per unit of DMI decreased with decreasing dietary pa rticle size (Table 2-1). The shortest rumination time was 4.6 hours/day or 13.5 minutes/kg of DMI. Total chewing time varied from 12.1 to 9.9 hours/day, and decreased with decreasing MPL. Ruminal pH was measured every 5 seconds fo r 48 hours by an industrial electrode placed in the ventral sac via ruminal cannulae. Ruminal pH was evaluated according to time above 6.2 and below 5.8, based on the observa tions of Russell and Wilson (1996) that ruminal microbial activity is compromised wh en pH falls below 6.2, and the premise that the incidence of sub-clinical acidosis increases when ruminal pH drops below 5.8. Cows fed 25:75 AS:AH had a greater mean ruminal pH ( P =0.10) and time above pH 6.2 ( P =0.08) than cows fed 50:50 AS:AH, perhaps due to decreased DMI ( P <0.10) and increased time spent eating ( P =0.01). Ruminal pH status was mainly affected by forage particle size, and was improved by feedi ng chopped, rather than ground, alfalfa hay (Table 2-1). Ruminal pH is influenced by the relative co ncentrations of acid s, bases and buffers present at any given time. Fermentation of NFC found in high concentrations in concentrates and cereal grains results in ra pid production of organi c acids, while peNDF consumption stimulates saliva flow. C oncurrent consumption of NFC and peNDF

PAGE 24

12 sources can be facilitated by combining diet components in a TMR rather than offering forage and concentrate separately. Maek awa et al. (2002) us ed eight ruminally cannulated lactating Holstein cows arrange d in a double 4 x 4 Latin square design to examine the effects of offering whole crop barley silage and steam-rolled, ground barley grain-based concentrate on chewing activitie s, saliva production and ruminal pH. Four diets were offered: separate in gredients (SI) offered at a fora ge to concentrate (F:C) ratio of 50:50 (DM basis), and ad libitum TMR with F:C ratios of 60:40, 50:50, and 40:60. When SI were fed, silage was offered ad libitum and grain was offered at 50% of previous DM consumption to facilitate consumption of a 50:50 F:C ratio. However, animals fed SI elected to consume an actual F: C ratio of 43:57, illustrating that when diet components are fed separately, the animals ma y choose to consume a different F:C ratio than the formulated ration. Cows were fed twice daily, with silage fed 1 hour after the concentrate on SI treatment. Eating and ru minating activities were recorded every 5 minutes for 24 hours. Ruminal pH was measur ed every 5 seconds for 24 hours, and mean pH for each 15-minute period was recorded. Saliva samples were collected at the cardia during feeding and resting. Salivation coul d not be measured during rumination, so salivation rate was assumed to be th e same as that observed during eating. Salivary secretion rate was 2.2 times great er during eating than resting. Linear effects of increasing silage c oncentrations in the TMR showed only numerical increase in minutes/ day spent eating ( P =0.18), but increased minutes/ day spent ruminating ( P =0.03), increasing to tal chewing time ( P =0.01) from 741 to 757 and 848 minutes/day on F:C ratios of 40:60, 50:50, and 60:40, respec tively. Total chewing time by cows fed the SI diet (736 minutes/ day) was similar to that of cows fed the 40:60 TMR. However,

PAGE 25

13 SI was consumed at a faster ( P =0.02) rate (10.9 minutes/ kg of DM) than the 40:60 TMR (13.5 minutes/ kg of DM). Concentrates required less mastication before being swallowed, and were therefore consumed more rapidly than silage or TMR ( P <0.01), decreasing the amount of saliva produced pe r unit of feed (ml/g of DM) from 4.43 on silage to 1.19 on concentrates ( P <0.01). The main diet effect on ruminal pH was not significant, but numerical differe nces presented in Table 2-2 s uggest that diet did alter pH characteristics. The postprandial decline in ruminal pH was greatest for cows fed SI, and mean ruminal pH in SI cows was below the 5.8 benchmark suggested for increased risk of subacute ruminal acidosis. Feeding TMR ra ther than SI appeared to decrease risk of ruminal acidosis by preventing higher than in tended consumption of concentrates and increasing saliva production via increased mastica tion at the time that rapidly fermentable concentrates were consumed. Effects of Particle Size on Digest a Passage, Intake, and Fermentation Kennedy et al. (1992) reported a linear increase in DMI ( P <0.001) and linear decreases in ruminal DM retention time ( P =0.001) and DM digestibility ( P <0.01) when wheaten hay fed ad libitum to sheep and goats was progressively switched from hay chopped to 1 cm (c), to a 2:1 ratio of c + hay ground to pass through a 3-mm screen and pelleted (p), to a 1:2 ratio of c+p, to an a ll p diet. Dietary particle size can influence voluntary intake, rate of digesta passage, and rate and extent of ru minal fermentation. Since the rumen is a dynamic system, multiple interactions, exceptions, and caveats must be considered. The following includes a brief, and by no means comprehensive, discussion of such considerations. Although multiple factors, including hydrati on and density, influence the rate at which feed particles leave the rumen, resist ance to outflow increases with increasing

PAGE 26

14 particle size (Poppi et al., 1980). Poppi et al. (1980) suggested a high resistance for particles greater than 1.18 mm, since less than 5% of particle s leaving the rumen of sheep fed chopped (2 cm) hay were retained on a 1.18 mm mesh sieve. Small particles may flow from the rumen more rapidly than la rge particles (Weston and Cantle, 1984). Long forage particles form a mat in the rumen, whic h can trap small particles, retaining them for a greater length of time (Grant, 1997). As a result, decreasing forage particle size may decrease overall ruminal DM re tention (Bernard et al., 2000). An increased rate of digesta passage can increase voluntary intake by reducing the constraints of rumen fill. A direct relations hip has been demonstrated between increased ruminal contents and decreased voluntary in take (Campling and Balch, 1961); Schettini et al., 1999). When long forages are c onsumed, rumen distention resulting from restricted digesta flow may limit voluntar y intake (Allen, 1996), which may prevent intake of sufficient energy to meet anim al requirements (Miller and O'Dell, 1969). Conversely, fine particle size in an entire ration, particularly in high concentrate rations, can also reduce voluntary intake (Krause a nd Combs, 2003), likely due to unfavorable alterations in rumen conditions, such as a decline in pH (Nocek, 1997). Dietary particle size impacts ruminal digestibility in part by influencing the balance between the length of time f eed components are retained in the rumen and the rate at which they are fermented. Ruminal fermenta tion of dietary nutrients takes time. An increased rate of particulate outflow from the rumen decreases the amount of time feed components are available for microbial fermen tation. Ruminal digestibility of dietary components, particularly of slowly fermenti ng fiber, may decrease as a result (Pasha et al., 1994). Conversely, chopping or grinding feed components increases the surface area

PAGE 27

15 available for microbial a ccess (Owens and Goetsch, 1988) increasing the rate of fermentation. As a result, decreasing the par ticle size of a particular feed component may increase the extent of its digestion in th e rumen (Callison et al., 2001). However, when rapid fermentation is not balanced by incr eased buffers and disappearance of organic acids from the rumen, ruminal pH will decreas e, the microbial populat ion will be altered, and nutrient digestibility may d ecrease (Russell and Wilson, 1996) Changes in dietary physical form alter the ruminal environment, and may result in a shift in VFA profile. In a study by Krause et al. (2002), four TMR rations with forage to concentrate ratios of 39:61 (DM basis) were used to investigate th e effects of forage particle size and the concentr ation of dietary ruminally fe rmentable carbohydrates (RFC) in diets of equal NDF content. Diets were offered ad libitum to eight ruminally cannulated, lactating Holstein cows. Dietary concentrates were cracked-shelled corn (low RFC) or ground high-moisture shelled corn (high RFC). Dietary forages were chopped alfalfa silage of mean particle length of 13.6 (coarse) or 3.7mm (fine). Decreasing forage particle size decreased the amount of time engaged in chewing behavior (Table 2-3). Both decreasing fora ge particle size and increasing RFC decreased mean ruminal pH, increased time (hours per day) and area (time*pH units/day) of ruminal fluid below pH 5.8, and decreased the ratio of acetate to propionate by increasing ruminal propionate concentration (Table 2-3) The percentage of dietary particles retained on the top screen of a Penn State particle separator was positively correlated (0.61) with minutes of chewing per day ( P= 0.0003) and, to a lesser extent, negatively correlated (-0.32) with time that ruminal fluid pH was <5.8 ( P= 0.09).

PAGE 28

16 Jorgenson and Schultz (1963) fed lactat ing cattle 7.26 kg of ground corn daily, along with long-stem (control) or pelleted alfalfa hay in ad libitum amounts. Feeding pelleted hay increased DMI from 1.1 to 1.2 kg/ 45 kg of body weight ( P <0.05), increased total ruminal VFA concentration from 600 to 844 mg/ 100 ml of ruminal fluid ( P <0.05), and altered the VFA profile of ruminal fluid. As a percentage of total VFA, acetate decreased from 60.3 to 55.6% ( P <0.05), propionate increased from 20.1 to 27.0% ( P <0.05), and butyrate decreased numerically from 17.0 to 15.3% ( P >0.05). A second trial compared the same control diet with an experimental diet of 16.3 kg of a 50:50 mixture of alfalfa: corn pellets, plus ad libitum alfalfa pellets. Changes in VFA profile of the ruminal fluid were similar to the first tr ial. Intake, however, declined from 1.22 to 1.18 kg/ 45 kg of body weight ( P <0.05) due to difficulty in keeping the cows consuming the pelleted feed. Blood glucose concen trations increased from 49.1 to 57.4 mg% ( P <0.05) in cows fed the all-pe llet diet. Although ruminal pH was not reported in this study, subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) may be caused by an elevation in total VFA (Stone, 2004), and can resu lt in decreased or variable intake (Nocek, 1997). In diets for domestic ruminants, forage ha s long been the staple physically effective component, and the effects of forage part icle length on digestion parameters and production performance have been investigated widely. In more recent years, byproduct (non-forage) feeds have come into use as eff ective fiber sources in the livestock industry. The peNDF value of nonforage fiber sources is considerably lower than long-stem forages, but may be higher than some form s of concentrates, grains, and ground forages (Mertens, 1997).

PAGE 29

17 Partial replacement of forage with co ttonseed hulls (CSH) has been shown to increase DMI and decrease NDF and DM digestib ility (Moore et al., 1990; Theurer et al., 1999) in cattle, suggesting an a ssociated increase in passage ra te. Dry matter intake as a percent of body weight in steers fed sorghum grain and chopped (15 cm screen) alfalfa hay increased ( P <0.05) when half of the alfalfa wa s replaced with CSH or chopped (2.5 cm screen) wheat straw (Theurer et al., 1999). However, DMI intake per kg of body weight gain was lower for steers fed alfalfa, suggesting an increased efficiency of feed utilization with alfalfa as compared to CSH. Further effects were noted when CSH re placed long (theoretical 22.3 mm) or short (theoretical 4.8 mm) cut corn silage in TMR offered to lactating Holstein cows (Kononoff and Heinrichs, 2003). The inclusion of CSH at 8% of dietary DM reduced the concentration of corn silage from 57.4 to 45.8% of dietary DM. Physically effective NDF, estimated according to (Mertens, 1997), did not differ across treatments, and increased sorting behavior was noted when co ws were fed long corn silage. It is therefore not surprising that reducing corn silage part icle size did not affect ( P >0.05) chewing activity, DMI, ruminal pH, or appa rent total tract digestibility of total nonstructural carbohydrates, NDF or acid detergent fiber (ADF). Total chewing time per kilogram of NDF intake tended ( P <0.10) to increase by cow fed diets containing long corn silage. The inclusion of CSH tended ( P =0.06) to decrease to tal chewing time per kilogram of DM consumed, and decreas ed mean ruminal pH from 6.24 to < 6.17 ( P =0.05). Cottonseed hulls increased DM and NDF intake ( P <0.01) but did not affect DM digestibility.

PAGE 30

18 Potential Implications of peNDF for Captive Giraffe From 1974 to 1978, a series of digestion tr ials comparing grass and alfalfa hays were conducted using thirty herbivore speci es at five zoos (Foose, 1982). For each dietary treatment, 14 days were allowed for acclimation to diets, followed by 10 days of intake measurements. Total fecal producti on was collected during the final 4 days. Individual animal intake was recorded, and orts were composited by species and treatment (grass or alfalfa hay) for chemical analysis. Daily fecal output of each animal was weighed, and pooled subsamples from each of the 4 days were composited for analysis. The report mentions that “in most cases, it was possible to collect (fecal) accumulations only at 24 hour intervals.” Gi ven that inability to collect samples soon after defecation resulted in sample trampling and contamination that prevented total fecal collection in one giraffe study (C lauss et al., 2001), giraffe digestibility results from the Foose (1982) study may be inaccurate. Intake and nutrient extracti on results are reported for thre e giraffe fed alfalfa hay and one giraffe fed timothy grass hay (Table 24). Foose (1982) reports that grass hay digestion trials on several giraffe had to be discontinued because the animals were “conspicuously languishing on the diets.” Gira ffe used were 2 and 3 years old, and thus were likely to still be growing. Body weight could not be measured, and was estimated from the literature. Organic matter intake (% of BW) and digestion coefficient ((amount ingested – amount defecated) / amount i ngested) x 100% were 0.45 and 57.11 for grass hay, and 0.89 and 60.70 for alfalfa hay. Of th e 28 ungulate species in this study, giraffe had the lowest intake as a percentage of body weight, suggesting that the ruminal fill effects of long forage may have an especially high impact in giraffe.

PAGE 31

19 Feeding all-forage diets to high produci ng dairy cows can prevent adequate energy intake, but feeding high-concentrate rations ha s potential to cause a variety of metabolic and health problems (Miller and O'Dell, 1969). It has been suggested (Clauss et al., 2002b) that captive giraffe fed a traditional hay/ concentrate diet face a nutritional dilemma. Giraffe consuming a high proportion of hay will increase ruminal fill and decrease intake. Those that consume a high pr oportion of concentrates will increase their potential risk of ruminal acidosis. The appropriate particle size for main taining optimal diet utilization and gastrointestinal health in CS remains to be determined, but it has been suggested that giraffe are ill-suited to consumption of longstem forages and the formation of a ruminal mat similar to that in domestic ruminants (Cla uss et al., 2002b). The giraffe’s diet in the wild consists primarily of polygonal leaves as opposed to the elongated grasses and hays consumed by GR (Clauss et al., 2002b). Thes e physical as well as chemical features including density factors may explain why stratification of ruminal contents occurs in wild GR, but not in wild CS ( Hofma nn, 1973; Clauss et al., 2001). Anatomical differences between GR and CS (Hofmann, 1973) suggest a naturally faster passage rate of digesta in CS ruminants than in GR ru minants, which has been observed in captive giraffe (Hatt et al., 1998). Giraffe appear to be adapted to rapid rates of fermentation and nutrient absorption (Hofmann, 1973). However, feeding high-concentrate, low-fora ge diets is unlikely to enhance captive giraffe nutrition. It seems lik ely that even in giraffe, aci d production from ruminallydegraded organic matter (particularly rapidly fermenting NFC) must be balanced with the ruminal dilution and salivary stimulation eff ects of an appropriate form of peNDF (Allen,

PAGE 32

20 1997). Saliva production in wild giraffe may be high due to the oral stimulation and time involved in selective feeding pa tterns. One of the challenges in feeding captive giraffe is providing diets with a physical form that will stimulate mas tication and saliva flow to maintain a balanced rumen pH, while avoidi ng an unnatural reduction in rate of passage and dietary intake. Dietary Carbohydrate Profile Carbohydrate Fractions Dietary carbohydrates can be divided into two basic frac tions: fiber and nonfiber carbohydrates (NFC). The chemical bonds betw een sugar residues in dietary fiber cannot be broken by mammalian enzymes. As a re sult, fiber cannot be digested by mammals themselves, but may be utilized by microbes in the digestive tract. The end products of microbial fermentation can then be abso rbed and utilized by the host animal. Fermentation of cellulose and hemicelluloses is typically slow (2 to 14% digestion/ hour) (Sniffen et al., 1992). Nonfiber carbohydr ates, on the other hand, are generally associated with rapid rates of ruminal fermenta tion, with digestion rate constants of 75 to 400% digestion/ hour for sugars, and 5 to 50% digestion/ hour for starch and pectin (Sniffen et al., 1992). With the exception of neutral detergent-soluble fiber (NDSF), NFCs may be digested by mammalian enzyme s. The NFC may be further divided into sugars (mono-, di-, and oligosaccharides), st arch, organic acids, a nd NDSF (Hall et al., 1999). As we will see, mounting evidence sugg ests that these NFC fractions differ in their fermentation characteristics. As the science of carbohydrate analysis has progressed, new techniques have allowed evaluation of carbohydrates in increa sing detail. Use of different techniques over time can make the literature difficult to interpret. For the sake of clarity,

PAGE 33

21 carbohydrate fractions found in the different anal ytical systems discussed in this section are listed below. Proximate analysis system Crude fiber (CF): cellulose, acidand alkali-i nsoluble hemicellulose, acidand alkali-insoluble lignin Nitrogen-free extract (NFE): sugars, starch, pectic substances, organic acids, fructans, acidand alkali-soluble hemice llulose, acidand alkali-soluble lignin Under the proximate analysis system, fiber (hemicellulose) and li gnin can appear in either the CF or NFE fraction. The detergen t system, however, dis tinguishes between the fiber and non-fiber carbohydr ate fraction of feeds. Detergent system Neutral detergent fiber (NDF): cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin Acid detergent fiber (ADF): cellulose, lignin Nonfiber carbohydrates (NFC): sugars, starch, pectic substances, organic acids, fructans, and other carbohydrates soluble in neut ral detergent Carbohydrates in Natural CS Diets The methodology for differen tiation of NFC into sugars, starch and NDSF has only recently been applied to animal feedstuffs. (Dierenfeld et al., 2002) examined sugar and starch concentrations in 8 fr uit and 2 flower species consumed by wild duikers in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Samples contai ned 2 to15 times more sugar than starch, with DM percentages of sugars at 0.16 in one sample and 3.19 to 15.71 in 9 samples, and DM starch percentages of 7.43 in 1 sample, 0.37 to 1.96 in four samples, and less than 0.1 in 5 samples. Duikers are considered frugivores (fruit eaters), consuming large

PAGE 34

22 proportions of fruits, flowers a nd seeds. Hence, no leaf material was included in this report. Unlike duikers, giraffe are considered folivor es (foliage eaters). Plants consumed by wild giraffe vary widely with seas on and geographic location. While Acacia spp appear to be the most commonly reported di etary item ( Foster, 1966; Dagg and Foster, 1976; Furstenburg and Van Hoven, 1994; Ciof olo and LePendu, 2002; Caister et al., 2003), giraffe in a given location may consum e as many as 66 plant species over the course of a year (Leuthold and Leuthold, 1972). Trees and sh rubs comprise the bulk of the diet, with limited vine and herb consum ption (Leuthold and Leuthold, 1972). Grass consumption appears either non-existent (L euthold and Leuthold, 1972) or negligible (Ciofolo and LePendu, 2002). Field and Ro ss (1976) observed that woody plants comprised > 93% of the diet, and “grass appeared to be eaten by accident when enmeshed with other food.” Plant portions consumed ar e primarily leaves and stems, but may also include fruits, flowers and bark (Leuthold and Leuthold, 1972; Caister et al., 2003). The diet of giraffe in Niger was reportedly co mposed of 86% leaves, 8.5% stems and 5.5% flowers and fruits. However, during the dr y season (December to April), the diet was composed of 45% leaves and stems, 44% fr uits and 11% flowers (Ciofolo and LePendu, 2002). Wild CS are generally thought to consume a “rich, rapidly fermenting diet” (Hofmann, 1973). Pellew (1984) reported mean daily nutrient intakes of 2.22 to 3.12 kg of crude protein (CP), 0.53 to 0.97 kg of et her extract (EE), 4.33 to 8.63 kg of acid detergent fiber (ADF), and 5.48 to 7.73 kg of nitrogen-free extract (N FE) for giraffe in the Serengeti. Composition of leaves (DM basis) from 10 plant species consumed by

PAGE 35

23 giraffe in Niger during the dry season ra nged from 8.2 to 28.6% CP, 0.8 to 6.8% crude fat, 1.55 to 16.2% crude fiber (CF), and 19.8 to 71.93% NFE (Caister et al., 2003). Mean composition of browse leaves (DM basis) from the Narus Valley (Uganda) for the months of January, March, April, May a nd December ranged from 11.51 to 22.37% CP, 2.36 to 3.01% EE, 19.33 to 33.48% CF, and 36.80 to 50.32% NFE. Browse stems contained 5.78 to 9.35% CP, 1.17 to 1.62% EE, 32.49 to 48.80% CF, and 35.91 to 52.18% NFE (Field and Ross, 1976). The high NFE content in these studies seems to suggest a high concentration of nonfiber car bohydrates. However, it is important to remember that NFE contains not only sugars, starch and soluble fiber, but also variable amounts of hemicellulose and lignin, and ther efore is not a true representation of NFC content. In our search of the literature, we fo und no published data on NFC fractions in foliage. Analysis of leaves collected in Oc tober from three tree, one shrub, and one grass species used for zoo animal enrichment s howed higher concentra tions (DM basis) of sugars (6.5 to 13.2) than starch (0.3 to 3.1) in four of five species (Table 2-5; R. Ball, personal communications). Acacia leaves contained 37.2% NFC, 6.5% sugars, and 0.5% starch, suggesting that NDSF and organic ac ids may account for approximately 81% of the NFC fraction. As will be discussed belo w, the differing NFC fr actions do not digest in the same manner in a fermentative environment. In order to improve our understanding of their nutritional require ments, and optimize nutrition of captive folivorous CS species, NFC analysis of natu ral dietary foliage needs to be further explored.

PAGE 36

24 Effects of NFC Source on Fermentation Characteristics and Animal Performance Domestic ruminant feeding st udies suggest that higha nd lowstarch NFC sources differ in digestion characteristics and fermen tation end products. Grains such as corn, oats, wheat, and barley contain starch as the main nutrient component (Huntington, 1997). Supplemental energy sources having less starch include molasses and sucrose as sugar sources, as well as b eet pulp and citrus pulp, whic h have substantial NDSF and sugar contents. Carbohydrate feeding trials that have i nvolved addition or subtraction of whole feeds generally alter multiple ration characteristics, ra ther than carbohydrate profile alone. This may explain the variability in DMI and body weight changes in livestock fed diets in which NDSF or sugar sources repla ced fibrous or starchy feeds. Increasing supplemental NDSF sources (generally beet pul p or citrus pulp) wh ile decreasing starchy feeds (generally barley or corn) has both in creased DMI in cattle (C hester-Jones et al., 1991) and had no effect on DMI in sheep (B en-Ghedalia et al., 1989). Supplemental NDSF tended ( P = 0.05) to decrease average daily gain in one study (Chester-Jones et al., 1991), but showed no effect on body weight in others (Bhattacharya and Lubbadah, 1971; Friggens et al., 1995). Altering dietary NFC profile has changed fermentation patterns, ruminal pH, and diet digestibility. Switching la ctating cows fed a basal diet of freshly cut grass (85% Lolium perenne ) from a supplement (36% of dietar y DM) containing 47.5% corn meal and 50% hominy to a supplement containing 82.5% sugar beet pulp and 15% soybean hulls increased ( P <0.05) ruminal OM and NDF diges tibility and VFA concentrations (Van Vuuren et al., 1993). Ben-Ghedalia et al. (1989) used four ruminally and duodenally cannulated Merino rams to compare digestion characterist ics of supplements

PAGE 37

25 of dried citrus pulp (84.4% of supplement DM) with supplement containing citrus pulp (20.4%) and barley (76.5%). Isonitrogenous supplements DC P (84.4% citrus pulp) and B (20.4% citrus pulp, 76.5% barley) were offered with lucerne hay in an 80:20 supplement: forage ratio. Sheep consuming DCP had grea ter ruminal pH (6.42) than those consuming B (6.18). Total tract apparent digestibilit y of OM did not differ between diets, but apparent NDF digestibility was greater by sheep fed DCP (79.4%) than those fed B (63.6%). The results indicate that the ferm entation of DCP created a more favorable ruminal environment for fermentation of NDF. In vitro investigation of microbial CP yield, detected as tr ichloroacetic acidprecipitated crude protein (T CACP), also suggested differences in NFC fermentation patterns (Hall and Herejk, 2001). When is olated NDF from bermudagrass hay was incubated with sucrose, corn starch, or citr us pectin in media containing mixed ruminal microbes, maximum TCACP synthesis (mg/g s ubstrate OM) was greate r for starch (85.6) than sucrose (73.3) or pectin (75.4) ( P <0.05). Temporal patterns of TCACP yield differed as well. Sucrose showed no detectab le lag phase, with greatest yield of TCACP at the 12-hour sampling, and declined only gradually over time. The TCACP reached peak yield at 12 and 16 hours during fermen tation of substrate containing pectin, followed by a rapid decline. When starch was fermented, peak TCACP yield was not reached until 16 hours, also followed by a rapid decline. Bhattacharya and Lubbadah (1971) used cattle and sheep to examine the effects of replacing corn with beet pul p in high (approximately 75%) concentrate diets. Three experiments were conducted, with the same four supplements fed in each experiment. In all three experiments, the c ontrol supplement (Die t I) consisted of corn (73%), soybean

PAGE 38

26 meal (21%), tallow (0.8%), bonemeal (2.7%), limestone (2.0%) and salt (0.5%). Beet pulp was used to replace 0, 50, 75, and 100% of the corn in Diets I, II, III, and IV, respectively. As beet pulp concentrations increased, concentrations of tallow and bonemeal were increased, and limestone decreas ed, to maintain similar levels of fat, phosphorus, and calcium among diets. Experiment I used four lactating Holstein -Friesian cows in a 4 x 4 Latin square design, with 4-week periods, to evaluate di etary effects on body weight gain, milk yield, and milk fat. Animals were offered 19 kg of concentrate and 5 kg of alfalfa hay daily. No significant differences were observed. It was noted that bloat symptoms occasionally seen during pre-experimental a nd experimental periods in co ws on the control diet were not observed in cows offered the beet pulp diets. Experiment II consisted of two 17-day trials using eight wethers housed in metabolism crates, with two animals randomly allotted to each feeding treatment during each trial. Alfalfa hay in this experiment was ground (size unreported) and mixed with concentrate in a 26.2: 73.8 ratio. Diets were offered twice daily for three hours each feeding. Sample collection in each trial incl uded total feces and urin e (final 7 days) and jugular blood samples at three hours postfeeding on the day following the end of the collection period. Apparent to tal tract DM digestibility was not affected by diet. Replacement of Diet I (73% corn supplement) with Diet IV (73% beet pulp supplement) decreased the apparent percent digestibil ity of CP (78.2 to 72.5%) and NFE (87.1 to 85.5%) and increased the apparent percent digestibility of CF (46.1 to 72.4%) ( P < 0.01). No dietary effect on blood glucose or VFA concentration was reported.

PAGE 39

27 In Experiment III, rations “similar to those in Experiment 2” were offered ad libitum to four ruminally fistulated Holstein steer s. Beginning with the control ration and progressing to higher beet pulp concentrati ons, animals received each ration for seven days, with four days gradual adjustment betw een diets. Intake (a verage 7.65 kg/ day) did not differ across diets. Rumi nal fluid measures at the end of each period showed differences ( P <0.01) in VFA concentration (mmole/ L) response among all treatments, and increased VFA concentrations in animal s on Diets II (138.7), III (157.5) and IV (141.3) as compared to control animals (113.3 ). Ruminal pH was numerically lower on Diet IV (5.9) than on Diets I, II, and III (6.2, 6.3, and 6.2 respectively), and lactic acid concentration was not affected. The author s observed that when animals received the control diet, “the rumen was full of gas and frothy foam. As the proportion of … beet pulp increased…, gas and foam gradually disa ppeared, and the app earance of the rumen ingesta resembled that under hay-feeding conditions.” Notable treatment differences in fermen tation characteristics were observed in ruminally cannulated Angus x Hereford steers (n=20) offered low-qual ity tallgrass-prairie hay (chopped through a 75-mm screen, offere d at 130% of previous intake) only (control), and hay supplemented with starch, glucose, fructose or sucrose at 0.30% of BW/ day (Heldt et al., 1999). Supplemented steers also received ruminally degradable protein (RDP) (sodium caseinate, 91.6% CP ) at 0.031% and 0.122% of BW/ day in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively. Supplements were administered intraruminally. In Experiment 2, total tract OM digestibility was 7.9% greater in animals supplemented with sugars as compared to those receiving starch ( P =0.04). In agreement with Ben-Ghedalia et al. (1989), ruminal pH and total tract NDF digestibility were lower for animals

PAGE 40

28 supplemented with starch than fo r those supplemented with sugar ( P < 0.05). Volatile fatty acid concentrations differed between control and supplemented animals, and between animals supplemented with sugar or st arch (Table 2-6). Ruminal concentrations of butyrate and lactate were greater in animal s supplemented with sugars than in control animals or animals supplemented with starch ( P < 0.01). In both experiments, timerelated fermentation patterns were dramatically different for sugars and starch. With all three sugar treatments, pH declined rapidl y, reaching the lowest point at 3 hours after supplementation, followed by a rapid recovery. Decline in pH was slower for the starch treatment, reaching the lowest poi nt 9 hours after supplementation. Interaction Between Dietary Components Heldt et al. (1999) also illu strates the possible impact of other dietary components, in this case protein, on fermentation characteri stics of NFC fractions. In Experiment 1, where RDP was fed at 0.031% of BW/ day, OM and NDF digestibility did not differ between supplement treatments, and NFC supplementation depressed NDF digestibility when compared to the hay-only control. Increasing RDP from 0.031 to 0.122% BW/ day (Experiment 2) resulted in higher OM and NDF digestibilities in animals receiving supplement vs. control, and sugars vs. star ch. Carbohydrate treatment affected mean ruminal pH at high, but not low, RDP amount s. Other factors beyond RDP can alter the effect of dietary NFC. The physical form of the NFC source can affect the site of digestion and the extent of ruminal digest ion (Callison et al., 2001) The proportion of dietary forage can affect ruminal VFA pr oduction response to i ndividual NFC feeds (Friggens et al., 1998). Dietar y characteristics other than NFC profile alone may affect animal response to NFC supplementation.

PAGE 41

29 Potential Implications of Dietary NFC Profile for Captive Giraffe Clemens et al. (1983) reported the molar pr oportions of VFA in the digestive tracts of 16 species (4 CS, 5 intermediate feed ers (IM), and 7 GR) of free-ranging African ruminants, using animals sacrificed during wildlife management programs. The digestive tract was separated by ligatures into six se gments, and representative content samples from each segment were strained through chees ecloth. Supernatant was acidified with concentrated H2SO4 and refrigerated for later analysis. Sample collection and field analysis were generally completed within 1 hour after death. Of all species, giraffe had the highest ruminal proportion of acetate (73.2 + 1.6 molar %; 60.2 to 72.9 molar % in other species), and the second lowest propor tion of propionate (14.1 + 0.5 molar %; 12.8 to 22.8 molar % in other species) in ruminal fl uid. The acetate: propionate ratio (5.21 + 0.13) in ruminal fluid from giraffe was exceeded only by the eland (5.71 + 1.38) and followed closely by the oryx (5.13 + 0.11), with other species ranging from 2.92 to 4.65. Traditionally, high acetate c oncentration is associated with fiber fermentation, and elevated propionate concentra tion is associated with NFC fe rmentation. Since giraffe are thought to consume diets relatively rich in NFC and low in NDF, with extensive fiber fermentation impeded by a rapid rate of di gesta passage from the rumen, high acetate/ low propionate concentrations in the wild gi raffe rumen appear paradoxical. However, domestic ruminant studies reveal that the various NFC fractions differ in fermentation and VFA production characteristics. A lthough VFA disappearance rates and the unknown nutrient content of feedstuffs consum ed prior to sample collection cannot be discounted as possible causes for the findings of Clemens et al. ( 1983), another potential contributing factor lies in the still unquantif ied NFC fractions of giraffe diets consumed in the wild.

PAGE 42

30 In domestic sheep and cattle, ruminal acet ate and propionate profiles have been altered by modification of dietary NFC. Wh en high amounts of citrus pulp (84.4% of dietary DM) were fed to sheep in place of a 20.4% citrus pulp and 76.5% barley diet, propionate decreased numerically from 17.6 to 14.4 molar % (P>0.05) and acetate increased from 65.0 to 69.1 molar % (P<0.05) (Ben-Ghedalia et al., 1989). Using continuous culture in vitro fermentations with mixed ruminal microbes from cattle inoculum, Ariza et al. (2001) observed changes in molar con centrations of propionate and acetate when starch was decreased from 24.0 to 11.0% and NDSF was increased from 8.8 to 14.4% by altering the substrate ratio of hominy feed to citrus pulp. Propionate decreased from 22.7 to 16.7 molar % and acet ate increased from 62.6 to 68.9 molar % (P<0.04). The acetate: propionate ratio increas ed from 2.8 to 4.1 (P=0.01). Strobel and Russell (1986) provided six carbohydrate substr ates (starch, sucrose, cellobiose, xylan, pectin, and a mix of the preceding in equal pa rts) to mixed ruminal bacteria at 1 mM/ h for 10 h at an initial pH of 6.7 (neutral) or 6.0 (low). Propionate c oncentrations across treatments were numerically lowest for pec tin, though the differences were not significant (P>0.05) at low pH. Less (P<0.05) propionate was produced in response to pectin (1.3 mM) than starch (2.9 mM) or cellobiose (2.7 mM) at pH 6.7. At neutral pH, millimolar concentrations of acetate from fermentati on of pectin, cellobiose, starch, mixed carbohydrates, sucrose, and xylan were 10.1, 6.4, 5.1, 4.8, 4.7, and 3.6 respectively, and were greatest (P<0.05) from pectin fermen tation. At low pH, pectin fermentation resulted in greater (P<0.05) acetate concentrations than fermentation of other singlecarbohydrate treatments, and numerically gr eater (P>0.05) acetate than from mixed carbohydrates. Acetate concentrat ions from pectin fermentation at low pH were half (5.0

PAGE 43

31 mM) those observed at neutral pH (10.1). It should also be noted that decreasing pH increased (P<0.05) lactate production from starch (0.9 to 4.1 mM), sucrose (3.7 to 8.3 mM), and cellobiose (2.3 to 8.2 mM) wh ereas lactate was not detectable from fermentation of pectin or xylan at either pH The NFC profile of giraffe diets consumed in the wild has not been determined, but hi gh concentrations of pectic substances in native feeds could explain the ruminal acetate and propionate concentrations observed in free-ranging giraffe. The extraordinarily high ruminal papillati on in wild giraffe results in an average 24x increase in ruminal surface area (Hof mann, 1973), denoted as surface enlargement factor (SEF; (papillary surface + base surf ace)/ base surface, wher e papillary surface = length x mid-level width of papillae x 2 (Hof mann et al., 1988)). By contrast, mean ruminal SEF in two captive giraffe was 1.90 a nd 2.67, owing to a dramatic decrease in papillae size and density (Hofmann and Mate rn, 1988). The diet of the two captive giraffe was ad libitum lucerne hay, browse (a mount not reported), variable amounts of produce, and a concentrate mixture consisti ng primarily of oats, barley, germinated wheat, soya, lucerne pellets, and maize. Butyrate is thought to be the most influe ntial VFA in ruminal papillae development (Van Soest, 1994). Changes in ruminal butyrat e concentrations have been variable when sugar or pectin sources were fermented in co mbination with varying proportions of starch or peNDF. It is interesting to note that in both NFC e xperiments conducted by Heldt et al. (1999), ruminal concentrati ons of butyrate were lower than propionate for animals consuming control and starch-containing treat ments, but greater in animals consuming diets supplemented with sugar, due to an in crease in butyrate concentrations. Strobel and

PAGE 44

32 Russell (1986) also observe d greater (P<0.05) in vitr o butyrate production from fermentation of sucrose as compared to star ch at neutral (6.7) pH but no difference at low (6.0) pH. These observations raise ques tions about a potentia l relationship between high ruminal SEF in wild giraffe and VFA production from fermentation of the unknown NFC fractions of foliage compared with low SEF in captive giraffe offered high-starch concentrates. Table 2-1. Effects of particle size of alfa lfa-based dairy cow di ets on chewing activity and ruminal pH. ---------------Dietsa--------------AS:AH 50:50 AS:AH 25:75 Item CH GH CH GH SE Pc MPLb, mm 9.78 5.137.50 4.42 0.56 0.01 Eating activity (min/kg DM) 12.5 10.8 14.8 15.5 1.7 >0.15 Rumination time (min/kg DM) 19.1 15.7 20.8 13.5 1.6 0.01 Total chewing time (min/kg DM) 31.6 26.5 35.6 28.9 2.7 0.01 Mean rumen pH 5.97 5.786.18 5.90 0.15 0.02 pH > 6.20, hours 7.3 3.5 11.0 7.6 3.3 0.11 pH < 5.80, hours 7.5 13.0 5.1 11.7 2.6 0.01 pH > 6.20, area (pH*hours) 6.9 10.5 4.4 10.2 2.2 0.01 pH < 5.80, area (pH*hours) 2.1 3.7 0.9 4.5 1.1 0.01 aAS:AH = Ratio of alfalfa silage to alfalfa hay; CH = chopped hay; GH = ground hay; overall diet was 60% barley-based concentrate and 40% forage on a DM basis. bMPL = Mean particle length. Fifty percent of diet ary particles are greater or less than this length. cP -value for forage particle size effect. (Beauchemin et al., 2003) Table 2-2. Effects of con centrate level and feeding ma nagement on ruminal pH of lactating dairy cows. -----------------Diets-----------------SIa ---Total Mixed Ration--Item 43:57b 40:60b 50:50b 60:40b SE Pc Mean pH 5.77 5.84 5.99 5.98 0.08 0.25 Minimum pH 5.14 5.26 5.40 5.30 0.06 0.06 Percent of time under pH 5.8 55.36 46.25 33.25 34.78 8.0 0.26 Area under pH 5.8 (pH*hours/ day) 4.99 3.52 2.60 2.37 0.81 0.19 aSeparate ingredient diet. bForage-to-concentrate ratio consumed. cP -value for main effect of diet. Linear and quadratic contrasts calculated for the proportion of silage in the TMR were not significant ( P >0.05). (Maekawa et al., 2002)

PAGE 45

33 Table 2-3. Effects of forage particle size and grain fermentability on chewing activity, ruminal pH, and ruminal VFA profile in midlactation cows. Particle size ---------Chewing--------Ruminal VFA --Ruminal pH-Dieta Mean mm Eatb Rumc TCTd m M A:Pe Mean h<5.8f HMCFS 3.0 10.1 63 24.9 161.5 1.60 5.72 14.3 HMCCS 6.0 9.8 96 30.6 148.4 1.90 5.98 7.2 DCFS 2.8 9.8 54 21.7 151.1 2.23 5.90 9.3 DCCS 6.3 12.2 83 30.9 144.9 2.45 6.07 5.5 SED 0.8 6 1.7 5.6 0.12 0.08 1.4 Forageg 0.09 0.00010.00010.030.03 0.0006 0.0001 RFCg 0.07 0.03 0.24 0.100.0001 0.02 0.003 Forage x RFCg 0.02 0.60 0.16 0.400.68 0.39 0.11 aHMCFS = High-moisture corn and fine silage, HMCCS = high-moisture corn and coarse silage, DCFS = dry corn and fine silage, DCCS = dry corn and coarse silage, SED = standard error of the difference. bMinutes per kilogram dry matter intake cMinutes of rumination per kilogram NDF intake dTotal chewing time, minutes per kilogram dry matter intake eRuminal acetate to propionate ratio fHours per day below pH gP -value for effect of variable ( Krause et al., 2002; Krause and Combs, 2003) Table 2-4. Nutrient intake a nd digestion coefficients from giraffe fed all-hay diets. ----------------------Intake---------------------Digestion coefficient Treatment OM OM CW CP OM CW CP Units % BW kg/kg BW0.75 kg/kg BW0.75 g/kg BW0.75 % % % Grass 0.45 0.025 0.019 1.20 57.11 57.51 86.01 Alfalfa 0.89 0.049 0.026 10.90 60.70 55.92 93.76 Alfalfa SE 0.01 0.006 0.006 1.40 6.19 2.19 1.50 Values for 1 and 3 giraffe on ad libitum grass and alfalfa hay diets, respectively. OM= Organic matter; CW = cell wall; CP = crude protein Modified from Foose (1982).

PAGE 46

34 Table 2-5. Chemical composition (DM basis) of five browse plants grown at Busch Gardens in Tampa, Florida. Item Hibiscusa Bambooa Acaciaa Acaciab MulberryaFalse Acaciaa False Acaciab (DM) 18.7 47.7 39.7 46.8 27 28 52.2 Ash 16.87 11.6 14.23 9.58 11.48 7.88 6.05 NDF 53.9 65.1 33.7 46.1 33.6 36.4 56.7 NFC 15.8 12 37.2 34.8 34.6 43.3 28.9 Sugar 3.2 6.9 6.5 4.6 13.2 7.1 4.4 Starch 3.9 0.3 0.5 0.8 3.1 0.7 2.1 CP 15.4 12.9 16.5 13.6 25.7 18.3 10.2 NDICP 8.4 5.6 5.2 7.2 9.4 9.1 4.3 Ca 3.31 1.08 4.23 2.99 2.16 1.9 1.63 P 0.77 0.28 0.24 0.24 0.4 0.22 0.17 NDF = Neutral detergent fiber; NFC = non-fiber carbohydrates; NDICP = neutral detergent insoluble crude protein. aLeaf bLeaf + stem Samples collected in October, 2004. Unpublished data courtesy of Busch Gardens, Tampa.

PAGE 47

35Table 2-6. Influence of supplemental carbohydrate source fed in co mbination with 0.122% BW/ day of degradable intake protein on ruminal fermentation characteristics. ------------Orthogonal contrasts, P -value------------Control Starch MonoGlucose vs vs vs vs Component Control Starch Glucose Fructose Sucr ose SEM supplement sugar disaccharide fuctose pH 6.56 6.13 6.16 6.29 6.22 .04 <.01 .04 .97 .03 NH3 N, m M .31 2.42 2.99 2.85 1.88 .47 <.01 .79 .10 .83 OA, m Ma 70.8 98.9 96.0 89.0 89.1 2.91 <.01 .05 .37 .12 Acetate 73.5 69.5 61.5 59.8 59.7 .71 <.01 <.01 .34 .11 Propionate 14.0 16.4 14.1 14.2 14.4 .31 .05 <.01 .40 .81 Butyrate 10.6 10.3 17.5 18.9 19.5 .61 <.01 <.01 .11 .13 Isobutyrate .63 .82 .72 .66 .64 .05 .14 .02 .42 .39 Valerate .46 1.43 1.74 1.73 1.72 .06 <.01 <.01 .30 .92 Isovalerate .60 1.13 .99 .94 .90 .08 <.01 .07 .54 .71 Lactate .31 .45 3.52 3.82 2.95 .58 <.01 <.01 .33 .72 aOA = Total organic acids (VFA + lactate) VFA concentrations presented as mol/100 mol (Heldt et al., 1999)

PAGE 48

36 CHAPTER 3 EFFECTS OF ALTERING THE PHYS ICAL FORM AND CARBOHYDRATE PROFILE OF THE DIET ON CAPTIVE GIRAFFE Introduction Physical characteristics of feeds, particul arly of the fiber fraction, can influence the efficiency of use of a ruminant’s diet. Pr oper ruminal function in domestic ruminants is maintained by consumption of sufficient “physi cally effective fiber” (peNDF), which is determined by the neutral detergent fiber (NDF ) concentration and the ability of the feed to promote a chewing response in the animal (Mertens, 1997). The appropriate physical form, digestibility, and quantity of peNDF for concentrate selectors (CS) such as giraffe have not been determined. It has been propos ed that peNDF for CS includes particles of polygonal shape similar to browse, rather than the needle-like fibers derived from grasses (Clauss et al., 2002). Captive giraffe fed a tr aditional hay/ concentrate diet may face a nutritional dilemma: consume a high proportion of hay, increasing ruminal fill and decreasing intake, or consume a high proportion of concentrates, increasing potential risk of ruminal acidosis (Clauss et al., 2002). Nonfiber carbohydrates (NFCs) can be di vided into sugars (mono-, di-, and oligosaccharides), starch, organic acids, a nd neutral-detergent soluble fiber (NDSF), which includes carbohydrates such as pectin (Hall et al., 1999). The NFC fractions differ in fermentation characteristics and end products. Sugar (sucrose), starch and pectin have been shown to differ in vitro in both maximu m microbial protein yiel ds and in temporal pattern of that yield (Hall and Herejk, 2001). When fermen ted in the absence of other

PAGE 49

37 NFC sources, sugars have produced higher butyrate concentrati ons than starch (Heldt et al., 1999; Strobel and Russell, 1986). Str obel and Russell (1986) noted that unlike fermentation of sugars or starch, pectin ferm entation did not result in detectable lactate production at either neutral (6.7) or low (6.0) ph media. Fermentation of pectin or feeds high in NDSF has increased acetate concentr ations both in vitro (Ariza et al., 2001; Strobel and Russell, 1986) and in vivo (Ben-Ghedalia et al., 1989). Although the NFC fractions of giraffe diet s in nature have not been quantified extensively, analysis of leaves collected fr om five tree and shrub species used for enrichment of zoo animal diets showed greater DM concentrations of sugars (6.5 – 13.2) than starch (0.3 – 3.1) in four of five species (R. Ball, personal communications). Acacia leaves contained 37.2% NFC, 6.5% sugars, and 0.5% starch, sugge sting that NDSF, organic acids, and analytical may account for approximately 81% of the NFC fraction (R. Ball, personal communications). Consump tion of feeds high in NDSF by wild giraffe could explain why when (Clemens et al., 1983) examined molar propo rtions of volatile fatty acids (VFA) in the digestive tracts of 16 free-ranging African ruminant species, the highest ruminal proportion of acetate and the second highest acetate: propionate ratio were found in giraffe. Collectively, thes e observations raise questions about the importance of dietary NFC complement in maintaining optimal ruminal fermentation, and the response of captive giraffe to the various NFC fractions. Nutrient supply to the ruminant animal is not dependent upon diet composition alone. The amounts and proportions of offered dietary items th at the animal chooses to consume, digestion characteris tics and interactions of consumed dietary components, and nutrient absorption also must be considered. It has been suggested that the wasting and

PAGE 50

38 sudden death widely reported in captive gi raffe (Fox, 1938; Chaffe, 1968; Fowler, 1978; Strandberg et al., 1984; Flach et al., 1997; Junge and Bradley, 1993; Ball et al., 2002) may be a result of a functional energy defici ency ( Fowler, 1978; Ball et al., 2002). The reports of ruminal acidosis (Clauss, 1998; Cl auss et al., 2002b), fermentative gastritis or rumenitis (Fox, 1938; Ball et al., 2002), gast rointestinal ulceration (Fox, 1938; Fowler, 1978) and pancreatic pathologies ( Fox, 1938; Fowler, 1978; Lechowski et al., 1991; Ball et al., 2002) also may be indicative of cons umption of an unbalanced diet or altered fermentation of dietary components in captive giraffe. Compounding this problem, decreased ruminal absorptive surface area that has been reported in captive giraffe (Hofmann and Matern, 1988) may impair nutrient absorption. The objective of this study wa s to examine the effects of modified dietary physical form and NFC profile compared to a commerci al diet on captive giraffe intake, nutrient digestibility, behavior, and blood paramete rs. The hypothesis was that modifying supplement physical form and NFC profile w ould alter the intake nutrient digestion, behavior, and blood parameters of captiv e giraffe fed a hay + supplement diet. Materials and Methods Design This study was conducted from August 2002 through February 2003 at Busch Gardens in Tampa, FL (BGT). The desi gn was a modified reve rsal study using two treatments and six animals in seven 21-day periods (Table 3-1). The study was conducted according to protocols approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees of the University of Florid a and Busch Entertainment Corporation.

PAGE 51

39 Giraffe Six non-lactating adult female reticulated giraffe ( Giraffa camelopardalis reticulata ) were used. Body weight (BW) ra nged from 576 to 715 kg (average 637 + 42.6 kg). Giraffe were assigned identifica tion numbers G1 through G6, in order of entrance to the study. Three giraffe (G2, G4 and G6) were wild-caught, and estimated to be approximately 22 years of age at the tim e of the study. Three giraffe were born at BGT and aged 12 (G1), 7 (G3), and 4 (G5) years at time of entrance to the study. Pregnancy status of the animals varied. Two giraffe were in the third (G1) and second (G3) trimesters of pregnancy duri ng their time on study, and the remaining four giraffe were non-pregna nt. Nine and a half months pr ior to entrance to the study, G5 delivered a large (74 kg), rapidly growing cal f. The calf was weaned through progressive separation two to five days prior to G5’s entrance to the study. Facilities Study giraffe were individually housed in two adjacent pens, which allowed continual access to visual and tactile contac t with conspecifics. Pen dimensions were approximately 22 and 21 meters (east to west) by 8 and 9 meters (north to south) in pens 1 and 2 respectively. Flooring in each pen consisted of a roughed concrete pad of approximately 9 by 9 meters spanning the west end, and sand in the remainder of the pen. A shade shelter sloped east to west (9 and 7 meters high respectively) and covered the western 1/3 of each pen. Radiant heaters at tached to the bottom of the shade shelter provided heat when temperatures fell below 10 C. Pen 1 was equipped with a second shelter adjacent to the west end of the pe n that provided feed troughs with additional protection from driving rain. Feed in pen 1 suffered less weather damage than feed in pen 2 for one collection day in period 1 as a result. Water was provided in a 189-litre tub

PAGE 52

40 at ground height in pen 1, and an automa tic waterer (Nelson Manufacturing Company, Cedar Rapids, IA) at approximate ly 1.8 meters high in pen 2. Hayracks with catch pans and supplement feed tubs were mounted to the center of the west wall in each pen. Feeders were only accessible to the an imal in that pen. Hayracks and supplement feeders were placed adjacent to one another, with the top of each mounted to the top of the wall at appr oximately 3.2 meters high. At the onset of period 3, the supplement feed pan in pen 2 was lowered 15 cm to accommodate the shorter height of G3, and remained at th is height for the remainder of the study. Diets The standard BGT giraffe ration consisted of ad libitum alfalfa hay, fresh browse as available, and two concentrates, Mazuri Browser Breeder and Purina Omelene 200 (Purina Mills, St. Louis, MO). Concentrates were fed together in a 75:25 ratio (as-fed basis) at approximately 1% of gira ffe body weight as per manufacturer’s recommendations for Mazuri Browser Breeder. This 75:25 grain mix (GF) was used as the control diet for comparative evaluation to the coarse, non-pelleted experimental browser feed (EF). Ingredient composition (DM basis) of EF was 35% sugar beet pulp, 18% cottonseed hulls, 13% molasses, 11% soybe an meal, 10% alfalfa meal, 6% mineral mix*, 4% heat-treated soybean meal (Soy Pl us) and 3% sucrose (table sugar). *Mineral mix was 94.5% DM, and was composed of the following ingredients (percentage inclusion on air dry basis): dicalcium phosphate (39.5%), calcium carbonate (8.76%), urea (8.76%), salt (5.25%), sodium bicarbonate (17.5%), potassium carbonate (9.65%), selenium 1% (0.12%), cobalt sulfat e (0.02%), copper sulf ate (0.08%), zinc sulfate (0.08%), iron sulfat e (0.30%), manganese sulfat e (4.38%), magnesium oxide (4.38%), ethylenediamine dihydroi odide (0.003%), vitamin A 650 x 106 IU/ kg (0.03%), vitamin D3 400 x 106 IU/ kg (0.01), and vitamin E 500 x 103 IU/ kg (0.80%). Mix contained: 84% ash, 24% CP as non-protei n N, 9.9% Ca, 8.3% P, 6.9% Na, 3.2% Cl, 2.6% Mg, 4.7% K, 0.96% S, 68 ppm Co, 203 ppm Cu, 20 ppm I, 5270 ppm Fe, 14118 ppm Mn, 12 ppm Se, 2060 ppm Zn, 88452 IU/# Vit. A, 18144 IU/# Vit. D3, 1814 IU/# Vit. E.

PAGE 53

41 The EF was formulated to be equivalent to GF in minerals and vitamins A, D, and E, and differed from GF and other commonly-fed br owser feeds by containing less starch, more sugars and soluble fiber, and small, heavily lignified particles (cottonseed hulls) to modify the fiber size and texture of the diet The experimental supplement was mixed in 178 kg batches by study personnel at the Univer sity of Florida Dairy Research Unit (Hague, FL). Each animal was housed individually and fed EF or GF ad libitum for 21 days, and then received the other feed supplement in the subsequent 21-day period, so that each animal received each diet. Alfalfa hay, water, and salt were offered ad libitum throughout the study. Sample Collection and Analyses Feedstuffs and intake Amounts of all feedstuffs offered and refu sed were weighed and recorded daily. Subsamples of all feedstuffs were collected. In periods 1 through 3, two to three flakes of alfalfa hay from a bale fed (and considered representative of alfalf a offered during that period) were retained for an alysis. In periods 4 through 7, a bale corer was used to sample five to seven of the bales fed dur ing that period. On days 15-21 of each study period, th total amount of hay and supplement orts for each giraffe were collected and frozen at 23 C until analysis. Dry matter (DM) content of supplement fed and daily supplement orts were obtained by drying duplicate subsamples of two to three grams each at 105 C in a forced air oven for approximately 36 hours, until a cons tant weight was achieved. Results were

PAGE 54

42 used to calculate daily dry matter intake (D MI) for each animal. Subsamples of offered supplements and supplement orts were dried at 55 C in a forced-air oven until constant weight was achieved. Subsamples were reta ined for particle size analysis, and the remaining dried sample was ground through a Wiley mill (A.H. Thomas, Philadelphia, PA) to pass through a 1-mm screen. In order to obtain representative subsam ples for DM determination, hay offered in periods 1 through 3 and total daily hay orts for each animal were chopped with a paper cutter to roughly 2.5 cm, th en blended and subsampled following the procedure of Van Soest and Robertson (1985). One subsampl e of approximately 10 grams was used to determine DM. Remaining sample was dried in a forced-air oven at 55 C, ground through a Hammer mill (Smalley Manufacturin g Co., Manitowoc, WI) using a 0.635-cm screen, mixed and subsampled. Subsamples were ground through a Wiley mill using a 1mm screen. Ground samples were analyzed for DM at 105 C and organic matter (OM) by ashing overnight (>8 hours) at 512 C in a muffle furnace (Sybron Corporation, Dubuque, IA). Daily orts were composited on a DM basis by giraffe by period. Batches of EF fed during the collection week of each period were composited by period. Mazuri Browser Breeder and Purina Omelene 200 fed in each period were analyzed separately for nutrient content, and results used to cal culate the nutrient co mposition of GF (75% Mazuri Browser Breeder, 25% Purina Omelene 200) fed in each period. Feed offered and composited orts were anal yzed for DM, OM and nutrient content. Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and NDF orga nic matter (NDFOM) were determined using heat-stable -amylase (Goering and Van Soest, 1970; Van Soest, 1991). Acid detergent fiber (ADF) (Goering and Van Soest, 1970), s ugar (Hall, 2001), starch (Hall, 2001),

PAGE 55

43 lignin (Goering and Van Soest, 1970), and mineral (using Perkin Elmer 3300 XL ICP manufactured by Perkin Elmer, Shelton, CT ) (Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1990) content were analyzed by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services, Maugansville, MD. Neutral detergent sol uble fiber was determined according to the method of (Hall et al., 1999). Crude pr otein (CP) as N x 6.25 was determined by combustion analysis (Association of Offici al Analytical Chemists, 1990) using Macro Elementar Analyzer (vario MAX CN, Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Hanau, Germany). Nutrient intake was calculated as: kg nutrient offered – kg nutrient refused. Particle size of supplements offered was analyzed using U.S.A. Standard Testing Sieves (Fisher Scientific Company, Pittsburg, PA) 5, 10, 18, 23, 60, and 120 (pore sizes of 4, 2, 1, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.125 mm). Samples of approximately 10 g DM were soaked in 300 ml of deionized water for 2 hours. Hydrat ed samples were quantitatively transferred to stacked sieves. The top sieve was rinsed for 5 minutes using a three-jet water sprayer calibrated to a flow of 1 L per minute (D Mertens, personal communication), then inverted and contents rinsed into a Gooch crucible under vacuum. This procedure was repeated for each sieve. Crucibles were dried at 105 C for approximately 36 hours to determine DM retained on each screen. Results were used to calculate modulus of finess (MOF) according to Poppi et al. (1980). Fecal collection and analysis Attempts at total fecal collection bega n on day 16 in period 3, and day 15 of each remaining period, and lasted for 56 108 c onsecutive hours. Dura tion of total fecal collection in a given period was often limited by adverse weather conditions or animal behavior that resulted in sample loss or safety risk to the an imal or staff. In period 3,

PAGE 56

44 attempts to collect the total daily fecal pr oduction of G3 were considered unsuccessful due to excessive pacing by that animal. To tal collection was not attempted on G3 in period 4. Samples were collect ed in gallon Ziploc bags a pproximately six times per day, as staff became available, and for two hour s overnight on days 16 and 17 in period 3, and days 15 and 16 in remaining periods Samples were frozen at -23 C for subsequent analysis. Fecal samples from each giraffe were composited by each 24 hours of collection, yielding two consecutive 24-hour composites fo r each giraffe in each study period, with the exception of G3 in P4, when total collection was not attempted. Compositing procedure was as follows. Samples were thawed in their original ba gs overnight at room temperature. Each individual bag of fecal material was weighed on a Mettler PE 3600 top-loading balance. Bag contents were emp tied into a plastic cont ainer. All non-fecal organic debris and as much contaminating sand as possible were removed from the sample and returned to the or iginal bag. Bag and debris weight was subtracted from initial weight to calculate sample wet weight. Sample was mixed manually, and subsamples of 10% + 0.02% of original wet weight were taken from each bag for each composite. Two composites were retained fo r each giraffe by day, and frozen at -13 C until analysis. Composite 1 was dried for analysis of DM OM, NDF and CP. The thawed sample bag was laid flat and rolled with a plasti c cylinder to crush f ecal pellets and blend material, facilitating accuracy of subsampli ng. Duplicate subsamples of approximately 23 g each were used to determine DM and OM and the remaining sample was dried in a forced air-oven at 55 C and ground to pass through the 1-mm screen of a Wiley mill.

PAGE 57

45 Crude protein as N x 6.25 was determined in duplicate on 0.25 – 0.35 g samples by combustion analysis (Association of Offici al Analytical Chemists, 1990) (Vario MAX CN, Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Hana u, Germany). Duplicate samples of 0.7 g each were used to determine NDFOM using heat-stable -amylase (Goering and Van Soest, 1970; Van Soest, 1991 ). Percent dige stibility of NDFOM and apparent percent digestibility of OM and CP were calculate d as: (mean g nutrient consumed per day) – (mean g nutrient defecated per day) / (mean g nutrient consum ed per day), using intake values from days 14 through 20 in each period and fecal samples collected for 48 consecutive hours on days 16 through 18 in periods 3 and 6, and days 15 through 17 in remaining periods. Nutrient kg digested wa s calculated as: nutrient kg consumed x percent digestibility. Composite 2 was crushed manually, subsam pled for DM and OM, and analyzed wet for CP, to examine for volatile nitr ogen (N) loss due to drying and grinding. Composite 1 and composite 2 samples were analyzed for CP using macro-Kjeldahl analysis (Association of Offici al Analytical Chemists, 1990). Behavior On days 13 through 15 of each period, beha vior was recorded for 48 consecutive hours by on-site trained observe rs. Rumination, consumption (supplement, hay, water, salt and sand), oral stereo types (tongue play, licking metal and licking non-metal inanimate objects), tactile contact between gi raffe, and locomotor behaviors (standing, walking, lying down with head erect and lying down with head on flank) were recorded every sixty seconds using instantaneous sampling (Martin and Bateson, 1986). Results were analyzed for differences in the numb er of minutes over 48 hours engaged in each individual behavior, total or al stereotypes, supplement + hay consumption, supplement +

PAGE 58

46 hay consumption + rumination, and total oral be havior (all oral ster eotypes + total feed, water, salt and sand consumption + rumination). Body weight and blood samples A 2.4 meter high solid wooden chute syst em adjacent to pen 1 provided manual restraint for blood collection. The chute was equipped with a scale for measuring body weight. At approximately 0800 hours on day 1 of the first period an animal entered the study and day 21 of each period, weight and bod y condition scores (scored by C. Kearney on a scale of 1 through 8) were recorded a nd blood samples collected on each animal before feeding. Blood samples were collect ed via jugular venipuncture using manual restraint (chute system). Blood samples were collected on all giraffe using clot tubes and three anti-coagulants: ethylenediaminetetraac etic acid (EDTA), sodium heparin (NaH), and sodium citrate (NaC) (Vacutainer Brand tubes by Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ). Blood was collected using an 18or 14-gauge needle, 30-inch extension set and 35cc syringe. Blood samples were transferred into the tubes, pl aced on ice, and returned to the zoo hospital laboratory w ithin two hours of collection. Sodium citrate samples were placed on a rocker until shippi ng for fibrinogen analysis. Complete blood count (on whole blood pr epared with EDTA) (Automated Cell Counter) and serum chemistry profiles (Hita chi 747-200 Chemistry Analyzer, Hitachi, Hitachi-NAKA, Japan) were analyzed by An tech Diagnostics (Largo, FL). Serum chemistry profiles evaluated glucose, urea nitrogen, creatinine, to tal protein, albumin, total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, cholesterol, Ca, P, Na K, Cl, Mg, globulin, lipase, amylase, triglycerides, creatinin e phosphokinase, gamma-glutamyltransferase, lactate dehydrogenase, and calculated osmolality. Additional plasma and serum were pipetted

PAGE 59

47 into scintillation vials and frozen at –80 C for later analysis. Plasma with NaH was analyzed for insulin (double antibody radioimmunoassay proce dure; Soeldner and Sloane, 1965), and non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) (NEFA-C kit; Wako Fine Chemical Industries USA, Inc., Dallas, TX; as modi fied by Johnson and Pete rs (1993) at the University of Florida. Statistical analysis Data were analyzed by the MIXED pro cedure of SAS (1999). Animal response data were analyzed using a st atistical model that included animal, period, and diet with animal as a random variable. Supplement nutri ent content and fecal nutrient content were analyzed using the model “nutrient = diet”. Results are reported as least squares means with standard errors as determine with PROC MIXED. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated using the PROC CORR procedur e of SAS. Due to the small number of animals in this study (n=6), significance was declared at P <0.10, and tendency at 0.10< P <0.15. Results and Discussion As planned, the EF diet contained greater concentrations of sugar ( P <0.001) and NDSF ( P <0.001), and decreased con centrations of starch ( P <0.001) (Table 3-2). Concentrations of ash, lignin, and NDFOM were also greater in EF, and CP concentrations tended to increase as well, a nd variable differences occurred in mineral concentrations (Table 3-2). S upplement particle size differed ( P <0.001) between diets. The EF supplement was courser than GF, w ith a greater MOF value (4.97) than GF (3.15).

PAGE 60

48 Intake Average daily DM intake varied greatly among the six animals for both alfalfa hay (0.12 to 3.94 kg/day) and supplement (2.87 to 9.26 kg/day) consumption, but did not differ between diets (Table 3-3). As giraffe shifted from consuming supplement GF to EF, starch intake decreased ( P =0.052) from 0.93 to 0.12 kg/ day, sugar intake tended ( P =0.115) to increase from 1.12 to 1.53 kg/ day, and NDSF intake increased ( P =0.074) from 0.85 to 1.19 kg/day. Consumption of ADF (1.83 vs. 2.23 kg/day) ( P =0.039) and lignin (0.33 vs. 0.50 kg/day) ( P =0.064) differed between animals consuming supplement GF and those consuming EF, respectively. Although supplements were formulated to be equivalent in concentration of minerals, CP, and NDF, analysis of the supplem ents fed revealed slight differences in these analytes (Table 3-2). As a result, treatment-associated differences for mineral intake (Table 3-3) may reflect differences in supplement mineral concentrations. Differences in supplement nutrient concen tration and intake may account for the increased consumption of NDFOM and ash when giraffes were offered EF. There was a tendency for greater CP consumption by gira ffe offered EF than those offered GF ( P =0.136). Pellew (1983) estimated intake of wild giraffe in the Serengeti by recording the number of bites during feeding bouts, then multiplying by mean bite mass. Mean bite mass was first estimated by hand clipping foliage to simulate giraffe browsing behavior, then corrected using observations of th e number of bites taken by captive giraffe consuming a known quantity of browse during timed feeding periods. Daily DM intake was estimated as 19.0 kg for males and 16.6 kg for females. Using average live weights of 1200 kg and 800 kg, as reported by Dagg and Foster (1976), mean daily DM intake

PAGE 61

49 was estimated at 1.6 and 2.1% of BW for male s and females, respectively. Dry matter intake as a percentage of BW in th e present study ranged from 0.69 to 1.66% and averaged 1.22% (+ 0.28), much lower than intake re ported for wild giraffe (Pellew, 1983), but similar to DM intake by non-lactat ing captive giraffe reported by Baer et al. (1985) of (1.22% of BW) and by Clauss et al. (2001) of (0.97 to 1.28% of BW). Digestibility Several challenges occurred w ith attempted total fecal colle ction. In period 1, total collection was attempted on days 15 and 16, but was considered suspect on day 16 because of possible sample loss due to hea vy rain. When laboratory analyses yielded unusually high digestibility values for day 16, it was concluded that total collection likely had not been achieved, and this day was exclude d from data analysis. Digestibility data from G3 in period 3 and G4 in period 4 we re also excluded from data analysis, since collection records, high sample ash content, and high digestibility re sults suggested that excessive trampling had prevented total collec tion of fecal material and given excessive contamination with sand. Since collection was not attempted on G3 in period 4, no digestibility data is reported for period 4. Because samples were collected from sa nd-bedded pens, sand contamination was a continual complicating factor. Although samples were “clean ed” manually at the time of collection and again prior to compositing, ash content of f ecal composites ranged from 20 to 63% of sample DM (20 to 46% in sample s included in results). Sand contamination increased subsampling error, which often in creased variation between duplicates when samples were analyzed for OM, CP, and especial ly NDFOM at the University of Florida. Subsampling of fecal samples and analysis of NDFOM was evaluated at the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center (US DA-ARS, Madison, WI), where the same difficulties were

PAGE 62

50 encountered. In the end, any samples not meeting the Horwitz criteria (Horwitz, 1982) for difference between duplicates were re-a nalyzed in duplicate at the University of Florida, and the mean of f our values was reported. Previous attempts at determining appare nt digestibility of DM, NDF, and CP in captive giraffe fed hay/concentrate diets usi ng acid detergent lignin, acid insoluble ash, indigestible NDF and alkanes as markers have been summarized by Clauss et al. (2001). Mean apparent digestibility of CP, OM, a nd NDFOM in the present study fell within the range of apparent digestibility of CP (59.7 to 82.4%), DM (52.0 to 85.2%), and NDF (32.5 to 74.8%) previously reported for captive gi raffe (Clauss et al., 2001). Digestibility of NDFOM averaged 55.5 + 4.0%, and was not affected by treatment (Table 3-3). The kg of NDFOM digested increased ( P =0.077) by 0.25 kg on EF, and was likely due in part to the 0.47 kg increase in NDFOM intake on EF. Apparent OM digestibility averaged 72.0 + 4.5%, and decreased numerically ( P =0.206) on the EF diet. Apparent CP digestibility was numerically 10 percenta ge units greater for GF than EF ( P =0.151), but apparent kg of CP digested differed by onl y 0.06 kg (Table 3-3). The EF supplement included 4% heat-treated soybean meal, contai ning protein which is less degradable in the rumen. We do not know if a ruminally unde gradable protein source was present in GF. This potential difference between supplem ents may have contributed differences in true CP digestibility between diets. Altern atively, an increase in yield of ruminal or hindgut microbes may have facilitated an increa sed presence of microbial CP in the fecal material of giraffe consuming EF. The CP concentrations of feces fr om giraffe fed EF were greater ( P <0.004) than concentrations for giraffe fed GF using all th ree analytical technique s (Table 3-4). When

PAGE 63

51 fecal samples were analyzed for CP in dry and wet forms, CP concentrations were generally higher in the wet samples by approxi mately two percentage units, suggesting a loss of volatile nitrogen during the drying proces s. Apparent CP digestibility calculated using dried feces may have been overestimated as a result. Behavior The effect of dietary treatment on giraffe behavior is reported in Table 3-5. The number of minutes engaged in ruminati on and hay consumption over 48 hours was not affected by treatment. Time engaged in supplement consumption was 2.3 times longer by giraffe offered EF than by giraffe offered GF ( P =0.063), and total feeding time tended ( P =0.100) to be greater by giraffe offered EF. The tendency ( P =0.124) for increased time spent in eating and rumination by giraffe fed the EF diet has potential to have increased saliva flow and ruminal buffering. Leuthold and Leuthold (1972) reported on the diurnal time budgets of wild giraffe. Female giraffe spent 53.1% and 15% of daylight hours engaged in feeding and rumination, respectively (Table 3-6). By c ontrast, giraffe in this study spent 17.7% and 22% of time feeding and ruminating It is interesting to note that oral stereotypes, which have not been observed in wild giraffe, in creased the total time captive animals spent engaged in oral behavior from 39.7% for feeding and rumination alone to 54.1%, which bears more similarity to the 68.1% of time wild giraffe spent engaged in feeding and rumination. Oral stereotypy appears to be the most pr evalent stereotypic be havior observed in captive giraffe. A survey of giraffe and / or okapi-holding American Zoo and Aquariums Association (AZA) accredited in stitutions by Bashaw et al. (2001) yielded data on the occurrence of stereotypes in 214 giraffe a nd 29 okapi in 49 institutions. The most

PAGE 64

52 prevalent stereotypic behaviors were repetitive li cking of non-food objects (referred to as “licking”) and pacing. Licki ng was reported in 72.4% of gi raffe + okapi, and pacing was reported in 29.9%. Additional behaviors repo rted in 3.2% of animals included head tossing, self-injury, and tongue playing. An a ttempt to reduce incide nce of stereotypic behavior had been made by 51.7% of respondi ng institutions, with reported success in 51.9% of these institutions. Tarou et al (2003) attempted using Bitter Apple, a chemical spray used to deter undesirable chewin g in horses, to deter stereotypic licking in three captive giraffe. Animals simply shifte d licking behavior to a non-treated area. Bashaw et al. (2001) suggested that lick ing in captive giraffe and okapi may be related to feeding motivation. In the presen t study, oral stereotype s were recorded as three separate oral behaviors: repetitive licking of metal objects, repetitive licking of nonmetal objects, and tongue play unassociate d with feeding, rumination, drinking, or licking. Licking metal was the most prevalen t oral stereotype (mean = 258 minutes / 48 hours), followed by tongue play (mean = 105 minutes / 48 hours) and licking non-metal objects (mean = 20 minutes / 48 hours). The amount of time spent engaged in tongue play tended ( P =0.119) to be twice as long in giraffe offered GF (Table 3-5). Although all six animals exhibited each of the individua l stereotypes, they varied in individual preference for metal licking or tongue play (F igure 3-1). The number of minutes over 48 hours spent engaged in total oral stereotype behavior ranged from 209 to 661, with a mean of 383 + 127. Despite the increase in time e ngaged in feeding behavior, minutes engaged in total oral stereoty es decreased only numerically ( P =0.223) from 433 to 318 minutes in giraffe offered EF.

PAGE 65

53 During this study, giraffe were repeatedly observed drooling or swallowing while engaged in oral stereotype behavior. Although this observa tion is purely subjective in nature, it suggests that oral stereotypy may also facilita te some amount of ruminal buffering. Blood Measures Few blood parameters were affected by diet (Table 3-7). Animals consuming GF had higher ( P =0.028) blood glucose values (99.0 mg/d l), compared to those consuming EF that showed values (82.3 mg/dl) more si milar to the range reported for domesticated ruminants (40-80 mg/dl) (Swenson, 1984). Sw itching captive giraffe from GF to EF decreased starch consumpti on and increased NDSF consump tion. Ruminal fermentation of NDSF rather than starch has increased ace tate and decreased propi onate concentrations in ruminal fluid in domestic livestock studies. Since acetate may be utilized directly as an energy source or used as a lipogenic substrat e, whereas propionate is converted largely to glucose, a potential NFC profile-associated shift in ruminal VFA production offers one possible explanation for the decreased blood gl ucose concentrations in giraffe fed EF. Despite the similarity in apparent kg of CP digested, blood urea nitrogen showed a numerical decrease ( P =0.166) from 20.6 mg/dl in giraffe fed GF to 16.6 mg/dl in those fed EF. Comparatively for animals consumi ng EF, this may reflect a shift in dietary protein utilization towards pr oliferation of microbial mass, decreased degradation of body protein, or decreased degradati on of absorbed amino acids. Non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) decr eased numerically for animals consuming EF ( P =0.282), and decreased on EF in all giraffe except G1 (Figure 3-2), who elected to consume a 99% supplement diet when fed EF. A BW gain of > 15 kg occurred in 5 of 6 giraffe when EF was fed, and only in 1 of 6 giraffe when GF was fed, but treatment-

PAGE 66

54 associated changes in BW varied am ong animals and were not significant ( P = 0.327) (Table 3-3). These observations raise the question of the basis for possibly decreased adipose tissue mobilization with diet EF. C ould part of this effect be the result of increased NDSF intake and increased mass of NDFOM digested altering ruminal acetate:propionate ratio, providing the an imals with more lipogenic nutrients? Blood glucose was positively correlated with kg of OM and CP digested and consumed (Table 3-8). Although BUN showed a positive correlation with apparent kg of CP digested, a stronger positive correlation existed between BUN and starch intake. Glucose and BUN were positively correlated with one another, and of the blood proteins measured, CPK was the only protein positivel y correlated with both glucose and BUN (Table 3-9). Increased blood concentrations of CPK have been associated with increased muscle catabolism. Ancillary Study Observations / Individual Animal Effects The giraffe originally designated to serve as G4 became ill at the time of entrance to the study. As a result, the study was halted for three weeks, and this animal eventually entered the study as G6. During the break in the study, G3 continued to receive the EF diet, which she had received in the previ ous period. Over the 6 weeks on EF, her body weight increased by 35 kg, from 542 to 577 kg. While pregnancy status may have been a contributing factor, her wei ght gain during three weeks on GF was only 3 kg. This observation, coupled with increased body wei ght and condition in a lactating non-study giraffe fed EF for several months suggest th at greater changes in animal response may have been observed had study periods been of longer duration. Fu rthermore, ancillary observations suggest that feeding EF to two lactating giraffe not on study may have increased milk production. When these females were switched from the normal giraffe

PAGE 67

55 ration (GF) to EF, the fecal consistency of their calves was loose the following day, and gradually returned to normal over the subsequent days. By using six non-lactating adult female gi raffe, this study contained the largest and most similar giraffe population reported in a captive feeding study. Even so, each animal proved to be a unique individual, exhibiting qua lities or behaviors th at no doubt affected study results. Giraffe 1 elected to consum e a diet of 98.7% supplement and 1.3% hay when fed the EF diet. Giraffe 2, an arthri tic older female with a historically strong exhibition of maternal behavior, was on the study for three periods, and received the EF supplement in both periods 1 and 3. The low mean voluntary intake for G2 in period 1 (0.69% of BW), which was lower than other reported intake values (0.86 to 1.66% of BW), may have been related to factors othe r than dietary treatment. During the eleven acclimation days in period 1 during which as -fed intake values can be considered reasonably accurate (days wit hout heavy rain), her daily as -fed intake averaged 7.01 kg, similar to mean DM intake (6.92 kg) during the collection week of period 3. However, mean daily intake on days 16-18 of period 1 decreased by nearly half, to 3.58 kg (3.31 kg of DM). This may have been related to e nvironmental factors rath er than diet. Sand erosion caused by heavy rain had made it necessary for G2 to step up onto the concrete pad in order to access feeders. While atte mpting to walk onto the concrete pad on day 18, G2 was observed “tripping” over a small ir rigation pipe that had been exposed by sand erosion. After the pipe was remove d during the morning feeding on day 19, G2 would not step up onto the concrete, and cons umed no feed that day. Consequently, day 19 was removed from analysis of intake re sults. During morning feeding on day 20, a sand ramp was constructed, and feeding be havior resumed. However, G2 did not

PAGE 68

56 approach the feeders after the evening feeding on day 20, appearing instead to be preoccupied with the birth and overnight keep er observations of a giraffe calf in an adjacent pen. Thus, intake amounts on day 20 (3.15 kg of DM) were similar to intake on days 16 through 18. Giraffe 3 had not been housed in a small pen prior to this study, and had a history of nervous behavior around hu mans. She spent a great deal of time pacing, displaying nervous behavior which may have affected intake and blood values, and certainly prevented total fecal collection. Giraffes 3 and 4 frequently engaged in tongue play with the mouth closed, rather than open, making the behavior difficult to detect from a distance. Consequently, oral stereotype behavior may have been underestimated or disproportionately reported in these animals. Giraffe 5 was on the study for three pe riods, and received GF supplement in periods 5 and 7. Prior to study entrance, th is primiparous female had been nursing a rapidly growing calf, and had shown a d ecline in body weight and condition. Body weight increased steadily from 611 kg at st udy entrance to 661 kg at study exit, and body condition score increased from 3.5 to 4.5 on a scale of 1-8, sugge sting that G5 was recovering from the demands of lactation dur ing her time on the study. Giraffe 5 also elected to consume hay as a substantially greater proportion (39 to 41%) of total DM intake than other giraffe. In short, individual animal vari ation may have played a large role in the results of this study. Diet Selection Both dietary physical form and carbohydrate profile play a role in development or prevention of ruminal acidosis. Voluntary in take patterns of low amounts of forage and high amounts of concentrate by captive giraffe ap pear similar to thos e associated with

PAGE 69

57 ruminal acidosis in domestic livestock. Hay: supplement intake ratios for giraffe in the current study ranged from 1:99 to 41:59 and averaged 21:79 (DM basis). Previously reported hay: concentrate intake ratio of tw o giraffe fed in the same pen was 26:74 (Baer et al., 1985). Another study using four gi raffe supplemented with limited amounts of browse in addition to lucerne hay and concen trates found forage:concentrate intake ratios of 25:75 to 51:49 (Clauss et al., 2001). The forage: supplement inta ke ratios of the 21 measures taken from these three studies av eraged 27:73 (DM basis) Decreasing dietary ratios of forage: concentrate from 40:60 to 30:70 has been used to induce subclinical ruminal acidosis in dairy cattle (Krajcarsk i-Hunt et al., 2002). Although giraffe are believed to be adapted to diets characterized by a rapid ruminal fermentation and nutrient absorption, a key factor in this adaptation is greatly increased ruminal surface area. Papillary development plays an important role in stabi lizing pH by preventing acid accumulation via absorption of ruminally-produced organic acids (Dirksen et al., 1985). The captive giraffe examined by Hofmann and Matern (1988) had approximately 11% of the ruminal surface area of that found in wild conspecifics, suggesting they had partially lost their ability to deal with rapid producti on of VFA in the rumen. Even pH reductions that do not reach the threshold for ruminal acidosis can alter the ruminal environment, and notable changes in fermentation characte ristics occur when pH decreases to <6.2 (Russell and Wilson, 1996). If hay: concentrate intake ratios of the eleven giraffe in the three aforementioned studies, low (relative to wild giraffe) feeding and rumination time by giraffe in the present study, and papillae development of the two giraffe cited in Hofmann and Matern (1988) are representative of captive giraffe in general, ruminal pH

PAGE 70

58 reduction, and quite possibly some degree of ruminal acidosis, is likely occurring in a substantial percentage of th e captive giraffe population. The lack of documentation of acidosis in cap tive giraffe may relate to the degree of pH reduction and the extreme difficulty in diagnosing non-catastrophic degrees of acidosis without rumen fluid collection (Garre tt et al., 1999), which is unlikely to occur in captive giraffe. Symptoms of subacute (p H<5.5) rather than acu te (pH<5.0) acidosis are “insidious and considerably less overt,” and incl ude decreased or variable feed intake, decreased efficiency of milk production, poor body condition, unexpl ained diarrhea, and episodic laminitis (Nocek, 1997), symptoms wh ich have occurred in captive giraffe, but have generally been attributed to other causes. The variation in se lective consumption of forage and concentrate noted in the pres ent study may dictate which animals are at greater risk of ruminal disord ers. Provision of mixed diets that reduce the ability of the animals to selectively consume c oncentrates may reduce this risk. Conclusions Captive giraffe offered EF as compared to those offered GF increased the amount of time engaged in feeding behavior to a leve l closer to that obser ved for wild giraffe, which also may have increased ruminal bu ffering via saliva production at the time of rapidly-fermenting NFC consumption. Decreased starch and increased NDSF contents of EF facilitated consumption of a carbohydrate prof ile that may bear a greater similarity to natural giraffe feedstuffs than typical zoo con centrate diets. A possible resultant shift in ruminal VFA production toward the high acetate : low propionate profile observed in wild giraffe could contribute to the obs erved decrease in blood glucose. The fact that few significant treatment eff ects were observed in this study may be a result of low animal numbers, individual an imal variation, and a relatively short time on

PAGE 71

59 treatment. The experimental supplement wa s formulated in an attempt to improve ruminal function and overall animal respons e, and while results suggest that this formulation may have some promise, furt her research is need ed for confirmation. Table 3-1. Design of study. Pen 1 Pen 2 Period Dates Giraffe Diet Giraffe Diet 1 08/20 09/09/02 2 EF 1 GF 2 09/10 09/30/02 2 GF 1 EF 3 10/01 10/21/02 2 EF 3 EF 4 11/12 12/02/02 4 EF 3 GF 5 12/03 12/23/02 4 GF 5 GF 6 12/24 01/13/03 6 GF 5 EF 7 01/14 02/03/03 6 EF 5 GF EF = Experimental supplement; GF = Control supplement

PAGE 72

60 Table 3-2. Chemical composition of alfalfa hay and supplements (d ry matter basis) fed to captive giraffe, and difference between supplements. ----------------------Supplem ent ---------------Alfalfa hay GF EF SE P values Dry matter (%) 90.8 88.3 85.2 0.29 0.001 Organic matter (%) 91.0 92.0 89.1 0.07 <0.001 Ash (%) 9.04 8.02 10.9 0.07 <0.001 Crude Protein (%) 19.2 17.1 17.6 0.25 0.138 NDFOM (%) 41.2 35.1 40.3 0.60 0.003 ADF (%) 33.8 23.0 26.0 0.41 0.002 Lignin (%) 7.12 3.32 5.67 0.12 <0.001 NDSF (%) 15.2 9.64 14.9 0.25 0.001 Sugar (%) 11.6 14.7 21.4 0.51 <0.001 Starch (%) 1.20 14.2 1.47 0.06 <0.001 Ca (%) 1.65 1.17 1.28 0.02 0.021 P (%) 0.22 0.79 0.65 0.02 0.007 Mg (%) 0.34 0.44 0.56 0.04 0.080 K (%) 1.63 1.21 1.91 0.03 <0.001 Na (%) 0.16 0.30 0.46 0.02 0.003 Fe (ppm) 97.8 413 674 98.9 0.003 Mn (ppm) 31.9 141 1097 75.4 <0.001 Zn (ppm) 37.6 160 282 31.0 0.050 Cu (ppm) 4.94 23.8 29.3 4.26 0.410 NDFOM = neutral detergent fiber organic matter; NDSF = neutral detergent soluble fiber EF (experimental supplement) was calculated to contain 0.29% S, 0.38 ppm Co, 387 ppm Fe, 1.0 ppm I, 0.77 ppm Se, 6.29 KIU/lb Vitamin A, 1.50 KI U/lb Vitamin D,and 118.2 3 KIU/lb Vitamin E. GF (control supplement) was composed of 75% Mazuri Browser Breeder and 25% Purina Omolene 200. Mazuri Browser Breeder is reported to contain 0.21% S, 0.37 ppm Co, 370 ppm Fe, 1.0 ppm I, 0.69 ppm Se, 16,250 IU/kg Vitamin A, 3,000 IU/kg Vitamin D3 (added), 240 IU/kg Vitamin E, 5.3 ppm Vitamin K, 12 ppm thiamin hydrochloride, 10 ppm riboflavin, 47 ppm niacin, 44 ppm pantothenic acid, 1070 ppm choline chloride, 1.5 ppm folic acid, 9.9 ppm pyridoxine, 0.21 ppm biotin, and 46 mcg/kg Vitamin B12. Purina Omolene 200 is reported to contain not less than 0.60 ppm Se and 3000 IU/lb Vitamin E. Table 3-3. Effects of dietar y treatment on mean daily dr y matter and nutrient intake, digestion of organic matter and crude protein (apparent) and NDFOM (true), body weight gain and body condition score. --------P-values-------Intake, DM basis GF EF SE Diet Period Total (% of BW) 1.20 1.25 0.10 0.294 0.123 Supplement (% of BW) 1.00 0.98 0.10 0.81 0.237 Hay (% of BW) 0.24 0.23 0.06 0.63 0.332 Total DM, kg/ day 7.60 7.91 0.66 0.527 0.273 Supplement, kg/ day 6.17 6.30 0.58 0.83 0.351

PAGE 73

61 Table 3-3. Continued. --------P-values-------Intake, DM basis GF EF SE Diet Period Hay, kg/ day 1.47 1.52 0.41 0.80 0.348 Organic matter, kg/ day 7.08 7.20 0.63 0.725 0.239 Ash, kg/ day 0.52 0.72 0.05 0.157 0.351 Crude protein, kg/ day 1.32 1.41 0.14 0.136 0.095 NDFOM, kg/ day 2.80 3.27 0.28 0.198 0.287 Acid detergent fiber, kg/ day 1.83 2.23 0.22 0.039 0.078 Lignin, kg/ day 0.33 0.50 0.05 0.064 0.275 NDSF, kg/ day 0.85 1.19 0.10 0.074 0.251 Sugar, kg/ day 1.12 1.53 0.11 0.115 0.272 Starch, kg/ day 0.93 0.12 0.04 0.052 0.675 Calcium, kg/ day 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.048 0.042 Phosphorous, kg/ day 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.185 0.329 Magnesium, kg/ day 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.176 0.201 Potassium, kg/ day 0.10 0.14 0.01 0.013 0.057 Sodium, kg/ day 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.112 0.219 Digestibility OM, % of DM 74.1 69.3 1.06 0.206 0.413 NDFOM, % of DM 56.0 54.6 1.02 0.513 0.331 CP, % of DM 75.5 65.7 2.22 0.151 0.593 OM, kg 5.09 4.91 0.42 0.143 0.063 NDFOM, kg 1.52 1.77 0.17 0.077 0.124 CP, kg 0.97 0.91 0.10 0.253 0.194 Body weight gain, kg 4.84 12.00 3.78 0.328 0.454 Body condition score 3.85 4.18 0.24 0.247 0.515 NDFOM = neutral detergent fiber organic matter; NDSF = neutral detergent soluble fiber; GF = control supplement; EF = experimental supplement Table 3-4. Effect of diet on fecal nut rient composition (dry matter basis). --------P-values-------GF EF SE Diet Period OM 62.8 64.9 6.94 0.3066 0.0181 NDFOM 42.2 44.4 6.47 0.1123 0.0011 CP (Dried feces)a 11.2 14.2 1.78 <0.0001 0.0017 CP (Wet feces) b 13.4 16.0 1.67 0.0003 0.0054 CP (Dried feces) b 11.6 14.5 1.44 0.0035 0.2830 GF = control supplement; EF = experimental supplement; NDFOM = neutral detergent fiber OM aCombustion analysis bKjeldahl analysis

PAGE 74

62 Table 3-5. Recorded behavior of captive giraffe consuming diffe rent supplements. ---------Supplement----------------P-values-------Behavior, minutes/ 48 hours GF EF SE Diet Period Standing 1567 1698 281 0.012 0.017 Walking 272 194 84 0.631 0.434 Lying 1009 906 87 did not converge Sleeping 19 13 3 0.374 0.475 Social contact 23 23 4 0.994 0.034 Rumination 609 677 51 0.307 0.322 Hay consumption 239 254 45 0.762 0.431 Supplement consumption 121 277 25 0.063 0.255 Total eating 359 530 42 0.100 0.312 Eating + rumination 953 1224 35 0.124 0.187 Drinking 58 54 1 0.416 0.589 Salt 1 0 1 0.416 0.589 Metal licking 255 212 70 0.390 0.357 Non-metal licking 17 22 7 0.716 0.493 Tongue play 161 80 39 0.119 0.302 Total oral stereotype 433 318 57 0.223 0.549 Wall foraging 37 36 14 0.983 0.816 Total oral behaviora 1481 1632 71 0.363 0.455 GF = control supplement; EF = experimental supplement aTotal eating + rumination + total oral stereotype + wall foraging Table 3-6. Percentage of time female gi raffe spent engaged in oral behaviors. ---------------------Captivea---------------------Wildb Minimum Maximum Mean SE Mean Feeding 9.1 38.2 17.7 2.16 53.1 Rumination 15.8 32.6 22 1.38 15 Oral steriotypes 7.3 23 13.3 1.18 NA Oral behavior 43 66.1 54.1 2.1 68.1 a6 giraffe over 48 hours. b5 giraffe during daylight hours. (Leuthold and Leuthold, 1978) Table 3-7. Effects of type of dietar y supplement on giraffe blood parameters. --------P-values-----Measure Units GF EF SE Diet Period Non-esterified fatty acids mEq/L 0.47 0.38 0.06 0.282 0.283 Insulin ng/ml 1.04 0.84 0.27 0.709 0.747 Glucose mg/dl 99 82.3 8.14 0.028 0.041 Blood urea nitrogen mg/dl 20.6 16.6 0.7 0.166 0.549

PAGE 75

63 Table 3-7. Continued -----P-values----Measure Units GF EF SE Diet Period Creatinine mg/dl 1.67 1.71 0.06 0.717 0.175 Total protein g/dl 8.92 9.03 0.32 0.76 0.731 Albumin g/dl 2.49 2.49 0.07 0.973 0.429 Total bilirubin mg/dl 0.12 0.16 0.01 0.295 0.356 Alkaline phosphatase U/L 158 148 17.6 0.516 0.386 Alanine aminotransferase U/L 11.3 7.51 1.51 0.244 0.506 Aspartate aminotransferase U/L 55.6 45.7 5.55 0.416 0.752 Cholesterol mg/dl 33.2 29.2 1.86 0.208 0.335 Ca mg/dl 8.55 8.95 0.29 0.309 0.577 P mg/dl 10.9 10.2 0.6 0.5 0.325 Na mEq/L 147 146 1.32 0.538 0.526 K mEq/L 4.58 4.86 0.13 0.183 0.327 Cl mEq/L 107 104 2.06 0.38 0.851 Mg mEq/L 2.17 2.07 0.5 did not converge Globulin g/dl 6.44 6.55 0.35 0.674 0.833 Lipase U/L 31.3 42.5 5.4 0.404 0.425 Amylase U/L 11.8 12.2 0.89 0.817 0.551 Triglycerides mg/dl 41.6 35.4 5.41 0.502 0.874 CPK U/L 248 258 69.8 0.942 0.737 GGTP U/L 18.5 19.7 3.23 0.799 0.511 Calculated osmolality mOsm/L296 291 3.01 0.39 0.523 Lactate dehydrogenase U/L 401 380 23.2 0.662 0.544 Hemoglobin g/dl 12.1 12.3 0.53 0.859 0.694 Hematocrit % 36 35.9 1.6 0.986 0.7 WBC 103/ul 15.2 16.5 1.42 0.554 0.58 RBC 106/ul 11 11.2 0.48 0.831 0.553 MCV 33.1 31.9 0.34 0.263 0.284 MCH 11 11 0.1 0.765 0.277 MCHC 33.7 34.2 0.17 0.262 0.454 Neutrophils % 76 76.7 4.5 0.843 0.46 Bands % 0.07 0.07 0.13 1 0.758 Lymphocytes % 14.3 11.4 2.65 0.105 0.108 Monocytes % 2.58 4.36 0.86 0.255 0.253 Eosinophils % 6.18 5.84 1.92 0.897 0.723 Basophils % 1.13 1.75 0.34 did not converge Fibrinogen mg/dl 244 236 11 0.658 0.64 GF = control supplement; EF = experimental su pplement; CPK = creatinine phosphokinase; GGTP = gamma glutamyl transpeptidase; WBC = white blood cell; RBC = red blood cell; MCV = mean corpuscular volume; MCH = mean corpuscular hemoglobin; MCHC = mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration

PAGE 76

64 Table 3-8. Pearson Correlati on Coefficients for correlati ons of blood glucose and BUN with kilograms of nutrients consumed and digested. --------------------Kg consumed --------------------K g digested----OM NDFOMCP NDSFSugar Starch OM* NDFOMCP* Glucose r 0.614 0.462 0.603 0.462 0.2310.495 0.560 0.400 0.595 P -value 0.020 0.097 0.023 0.097 0.4260.072 0.074 0.223 0.054 BUN r 0.427 0.146 0.419 0.146 -0.2530.816 0.521 0.202 0.583 P -value 0.128 0.619 0.136 0.619 0.382<0.001 0.100 0.552 0.060 NDFom = neutral detergent fiber organic matter; NDSF = neutral detergent soluble fiber; BUN = blood urea nitrogen. *Apparent digestion Table 3-9. Pearson Correlati on Coefficients for correlati ons of blood glucose and BUN with various blood proteins. Total Total Alk protein BUN Creat CPK Albu bilirubinphos ALT AST Glucose r -0.250 0.758 -0.3030.525 0.231 -0.307 0.019 0.397 -0.078 P -value 0.389 0.002 0.2920.054 0.426 0.285 0.950 0.159 0.792 BUN r -0.190 1.000 -0.3740.515 0.212 -0.387 -0.021 0.463 0.302 P -value 0.514 0.1880.060 0.466 0.172 0.942 0.091 0.295 BUN = blood urea nitrogen; Creat = creatinine; CPK = creatinine phosphokinase; Alk phos = alkaline phosphatase; ALT = alanine aminotransferase; AST = aspartate aminotransferase

PAGE 77

65 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 GFEFEFGFEFEFGFEFGFGFEFGFGFEF 12123344556767 Giraffe 1Giraffe 2Giraffe 3Giraffe 4Giraffe 5Giraffe 6 treatment, period, giraffeminutes over 48 hours Total Oral Stereotypes Metal Licking Tongue Play Figure 3-1. Number of minutes over 48 hours in dividual giraffe spent engaged in specific and total oral stereotype behavior.

PAGE 78

66 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1gf1ef2ef2gf2ef3ef3gf4ef4gf5gf5ef5gf6gf6efmEq/L Figure 3-2. Blood concentrations of non-esterified fatty acids in individual giraffe. Giraffe are designated by number (1-6); gf = control diet; ef = experimental diet.

PAGE 79

APPENDIX A INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL MEASURES

PAGE 80

68Table A-1. Individu al giraffe voluntary intake (DM basis). ------Percent Body Weight -------------------Kilogr ams------------Giraffe Period Diet Total Supplement Alfalf a Hay Total Supplement Alfalfa Hay F:S Ratioa G1 1 GF 0.86 0.70 0.12 5.95 4.84 1.10 19:81 G1 2 EF 1.31 1.29 0.02 9.38 9.26 0.12 01:99 G2 1 EF 0.69 0.46 0.22 4.26 2.87 1.39 33:67 G2 2 GF 1.01 0.90 0.10 6.32 5.66 0.66 10:90 G2 3 EF 1.06 0.87 0.20 6.92 5.64 1.27 18:82 G3 3 EF 1.50 1.38 0.12 8.66 7.95 0.72 08:92 G3 4 GF 1.66 1.41 0.25 9.62 8.18 1.44 15:85 G4 4 EF 1.03 0.87 0.17 6.90 5.79 1.11 16:84 G4 5 GF 1.13 0.93 0.19 7.49 6.20 1.29 17:83 G5 5 GF 1.44 0.85 0.60 9.03 5.30 3.72 41:59 G5 6 EF 1.55 0.94 0.61 10.0 6.10 3.94 39:61 G5 7 GF 1.45 0.87 0.58 9.59 5.73 3.86 40:60 G6 6 GF 1.24 1.07 0.17 7.28 6.28 0.99 14:86 G6 7 EF 1.20 0.97 0.22 7.13 5.79 1.34 19:81 aForage:supplement intake ratio (DM basis)

PAGE 81

69 69Table A-2. Individual giraffe nutrient intake (kg) (DM basis). Giraffe Period Diet DM Ash CP NDFOMADF LigninNDSF Sugar Starch Ca P Mg K Na G1 1 GF 5.95 0.35 1.03 2.21 1.53 0.26 0.64 0.90 0.83 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.02 G1 2 EF 9.38 1.01 1.61 4.09 2.64 0.59 1.40 1.80 0.14 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.17 0.04 G2 1 EF 4.26 0.42 0.77 1.80 1.31 0.30 0.72 0.67 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.01 G2 2 GF 6.32 0.52 1.11 2.38 1.55 0.24 0.70 0.94 0.75 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.03 G2 3 EF 6.92 0.63 1.20 2.86 1.93 0.43 1.03 1.51 0.11 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.13 0.03 G3 3 EF 8.66 0.83 1.50 3.52 2.29 0.49 1.25 1.96 0.14 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.17 0.04 G3 4 GF 9.62 0.65 1.71 3.52 2.33 0.41 1.12 1.38 1.15 0.14 0.07 0.04 0.12 0.03 G4 4 EF 6.90 0.64 1.21 2.79 1.81 0.42 1.08 1.58 0.07 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.03 G4 5 GF 7.49 0.54 1.39 2.54 1.63 0.27 0.79 1.03 1.03 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.09 0.02 G5 5 GF 9.03 0.48 1.71 3.32 2.30 0.47 1.18 1.14 0.94 0.13 0.05 0.04 0.12 0.02 G5 6 EF 10.04 0.76 1.89 4.24 3.03 0.67 1.52 1.82 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.04 0.18 0.03 G5 7 GF 9.59 0.55 1.65 3.79 2.53 0.52 1.26 1.32 0.84 0.12 0.05 0.04 0.13 0.02 G6 6 GF 7.28 0.51 1.26 2.61 1.75 0.30 0.71 0.93 1.00 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.09 0.02 G6 7 EF 7.13 0.65 1.17 2.92 2.01 0.46 1.05 1.45 0.11 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.03 NDFOM = neutral detergent fiber organic matter; NDSF = neutral detergent soluble fiber

PAGE 82

70 70Table A-3. Individual giraffe fecal output fecal nutrient concentrati on (% of DM), and apparent nutrient digestibility (%). ----Or g anic matte r ----------NDFOM------------Crude p rotein------Giraffe Perio d Da y Diet Grams (DM)ConcentrationDi g est. ConcentrationDi g est. ConcentrationDi g est. G1 1 1 GF 222662.375.239.2 60.412.074.2 G1 1 2 GF 74369.890.746.2 84.412.691.0 G1 2 1 EF 431679.558.952.2 44.918.251.2 G1 2 2 EF 34708066.853.9 54.317.861.4 G2 1 1 EF 18136569.345.1 54.713.468.5 G2 1 2 EF 86169.184.548.9 76.713.485.1 G2 2 1 GF 269871.466.750.1 43.311.971.0 G2 2 2 GF 178374.477.152.6 60.612.779.7 G2 3 1 EF 311369.865.446.5 49.414.761.8 G2 3 2 EF 259166.572.546.5 57.913.371.3 G3 3 1 EF 310152.679.231.9 72.011.376.5 G3 3 2 EF 124564.789.742.4 85.014.987.6 G4 4 1 EF 262236.984.424.7 76.89.080.6 G4 4 2 EF 258644.181.727.8 74.29.779.3 G4 5 1 GF 265053.679.538.4 59.910.280.5 G4 5 2 GF 263053.879.636.1 62.610.480.3 G5 5 1 GF 378056.275.140.7 53.710.077.9 G5 5 2 GF 281564.878.641.7 64.610.383.0 G5 6 1 EF 409866.570.645.6 56.013.271.4 G5 6 2 EF 407858.874.140.4 61.111.674.9 G5 7 1 GF 429963.969.646.4 47.310.073.8 G5 7 2 GF 381864.372.943.7 55.99.478.1 G6 6 1 GF 249271.373.846.7 55.413.473.6 G6 6 2 GF 298157.174.936.5 58.411.173.7 G6 7 1 EF 285471.568.548.8 52.416.061.2 G6 7 2 EF 298766.169.646.9 52.114.563.0 NDFOM = neutral detergent fiber organic matter

PAGE 83

71 71Table A-4. Differences in crude protei n concentration of individua l fecal samples analyzed in wet and dried forms. Giraffe Diet Period Day Wet Dried Difference G1 GF 1 1 13.89 11.95 1.93 G1 GF 1 2 16.08 13.04 3.04 G1 EF 2 1 20.51 18.96 1.55 G1 EF 2 2 20.92 18.11 2.81 G2 EF 1 1 13.84 13.47 0.37 G2 EF 1 2 15.19 13.49 1.70 G2 GF 2 1 14.13 10.24 3.89 G2 GF 2 2 14.89 13.36 1.53 G2 EF 3 1 15.61 14.86 0.75 G2 EF 3 2 13.61 13.66 -0.06 G3 EF 3 1 13.76 12.04 1.72 G3 EF 3 2 16.36 15.23 1.13 G3 GF 4 1 15.95 13.53 2.42 G3 GF 4 2 16.54 14.97 1.56 G4 EF 4 1 10.29 6.89 3.40 G4 EF 4 2 11.76 12.63 -0.88 G4 GF 5 1 12.23 10.47 1.76 G4 GF 5 2 12.32 10.83 1.49 G5 GF 5 1 12.84 10.25 2.59 G5 GF 5 2 11.89 10.86 1.03 G5 EF 6 1 15.43 13.25 2.19 G5 EF 6 2 13.60 12.18 1.42 G5 GF 7 1 11.65 10.33 1.32 G5 GF 7 2 11.70 9.79 1.91 G6 GF 6 1 15.34 13.91 1.43 G6 GF 6 2 13.92 11.83 2.10 G6 EF 7 1 17.04 16.54 0.49 G6 EF 7 2 16.34 14.86 1.48

PAGE 84

72 72Table A-5. Minutes over 48 hour s individual giraffe spent engaged in measured behaviors. Giraffe Period Diet Sta nding Walking Lying Sleep Social contact Hay consumption Supplement consumption Total eating Eat + ruminat G1 1 GF 1421 151 1238 27 47 191 103 294 844 G1 2 EF 1582 191 1048 12 72 26 389 415 897 G2 1 EF 2001 78 775 6 22 233 173 406 1029 G2 2 GF 1889 59 876 14 46 149 114 263 719 G2 3 EF 1818 64 989 3 6 166 167 333 985 G3 3 EF 1954 444 472 11 15 153 144 297 860 G3 4 GF 1387 1035 409 0 7 218 137 355 837 G4 4 EF 1630 500 678 3 3 181 418 599 1232 G4 5 GF 1573 290 1015 23 23 324 223 547 1391 G5 5 GF 1906 12 859 38 32 599 155 754 1226 G5 6 EF 1802 87 990 26 13 484 265 749 1473 G5 7 GF 1706 105 1046 26 11 399 140 539 1207 G6 6 GF 1202 75 1622 23 12 221 92 313 1101 G6 7 EF 1357 112 1387 13 9 262 233 495 1434

PAGE 85

73 73Table A-5. Continued. Giraffe Period Diet RuminationDrinking Salt Metal licking Non-metal licking Tongue play Total oral stereotype Wall foraging Total oral G1 1 GF 550 70 0 226 2 243 471 97 1482 G1 2 EF 482 57 0 189 10 49 248 52 1254 G2 1 EF 623 5 0 510 0 9 519 0 1553 G2 2 GF 456 4 0 640 7 14 661 14 1398 G2 3 EF 652 5 0 478 1 8 487 2 1479 G3 3 EF 563 145 1 86 16 149 251 11 1268 G3 4 GF 482 184 0 33 8 168 209 7 1237 G4 4 EF 633 26 0 220 43 165 428 13 1699 G4 5 GF 844 86 0 102 75 218 395 32 1904 G5 5 GF 472 27 0 240 36 9 285 62 1600 G5 6 EF 724 38 0 222 25 25 272 49 1832 G5 7 GF 668 33 8 389 32 18 439 31 1718 G6 6 GF 788 17 0 69 12 267 348 48 1514 G6 7 EF 939 11 0 209 9 131 349 79 1873

PAGE 86

74 74Table A-6. Individual gira ffe blood values on day 21. Giraffe Period Diet NEFA Insulin GLC B UN Creat Prot Albu TBili AlkPhos ALT AST mEq/L ng/ml mg/dl mg/dl mg/d l g/dl g/dl mg/dl U/L U/L U/L G1 1 1 0.55 0.42 68 17 2.3 9.1 2.3 0.1 223 7 46 G1 2 2 0.70 0.37 92 17 2.3 9.8 2.5 0.1 238 8 44 G2 1 2 0.33 1.74 59 15 2.3 9.5 2.5 0.2 130 5 48 G2 2 1 0.78 1.05 118 22 2.1 9.3 2.5 0.1 142 8 44 G2 3 2 0.17 0.94 65 16 1.9 9.4 2.6 0.2 117 5 44 G3 3 2 0.34 0.79 105 15 1.6 8.6 2.4 0.2 114 8 37 G3 4 1 0.38 2.37 135 24 1.4 9.0 2.6 0.1 160 17 44 G4 4 2 0.25 0.83 87 17 1.6 9.5 2.5 0.2 227 8 50 G4 5 1 0.41 1.45 93 22 1.4 9.5 2.4 0.2 149 8 64 G5 5 1 0.37 0.99 89 19 1.3 7.4 2.5 0.2 117 5 47 G5 6 2 0.19 0.74 97 19 1.3 7.4 2.6 0.1 109 6 42 G5 7 1 0.22 0.84 103 21 1.5 8.2 3.0 0.1 147 11 56 G6 6 1 0.57 0.37 90 20 1.3 8.8 2.2 0.1 124 19 89 G6 7 2 0.50 0.32 64 16 1.3 9.4 2.5 0.1 109 13 50 NEFA = non-esterified fatty acids; GLC = glucose; BUN = blood ur ea nitrogen; Creat = creatinine; Prot = total protein; Albu = a lbumin; TBili = total bilirubin; AlkPhos = alkaline phosphotase; ALT = alanine ami notransferase; AST = aspertate aminotransferase

PAGE 87

75 75Table A-6 Continued. Giraffe Period Diet Ca P Na K Cl Mg Glob Lipase AmylaseTriglyc CPK GGTP Osm mg/dl mg/dl mEq/L mEq/L mEq/L mE q/L g/dl U/L U/L mg/dl U/L U/L mOsm/L G1 1 GF 7.9 9.9 147 5.1 111 2.0 6.8 37 11 52 112 20 293 G1 2 EF 7.7 11.8 147 5.0 110 2.0 7.3 27 10 34 324 11 294 G2 1 EF 8.5 8.7 147 4.6 104 1.7 7.0 28 10 20 190 18 291 G2 2 GF 8.0 12.3 145 4.1 105 1.9 6.8 16 10 37 27 13 292 G2 3 EF 8.6 11.9 145 4.9 101 2.1 6.8 27 10 34 145 17 288 G3 3 EF 9.8 12.0 149 5.1 104 1.8 6.2 31 15 37 204 12 298 G3 4 GF 9.3 15.2 148 4.7 106 1.7 6.4 26 10 31 608 9 300 G4 4 EF 8.8 10.8 145 4.6 102 2.2 7.0 21 10 58 243 18 289 G4 5 GF 8.2 6.8 145 4.1 115 2.3 7.1 38 15 51 406 24 290 G5 5 GF 9.3 9.1 144 4.6 101 2.4 4.9 37 10 35 251 46 288 G5 6 EF 9.8 10.3 146 4.9 101 2.1 4.8 78 15 29 379 25 293 G5 7 GF 9.8 11.5 156 5.0 104 3.5 5.2 55 13 42 347 27 313 G6 6 GF 8.0 8.2 143 4.2 109 1.4 6.6 30 14 33 152 15 286 G6 7 EF 9.3 10.3 146 5.1 102 2.6 6.9 66 15 39 159 19 290 Glob = globulin; Triglyc = triglycerides; CPK = creatinine phosphok inase; GGTP = gamma glutamyl transpeptidase; Osm = calculate d osmolality

PAGE 88

76 76Table A-6 Continued. Giraffe Period Diet LactD HGB HCT WBC RBC MCVMCHMCHCNeutph Bands LymphMonoctsEosinphlBasophlFibrgn U/L g/dl % 103/ul106/ul % % % % % % mg/dl G1 1 1 326 11.3 33.2 15.6 10.1 33.0 11.2 34.0 74 0 9 3 13 1 259 G1 2 2 350 12.8 37.6 16.3 11.6 32.0 11.0 34.0 65 0 15 11 7 2 218 G2 1 2 403 12.1 34.8 21.3 10.4 33.0 11.6 34.8 95 0 3 0 2 251 G2 2 1 362 11.3 33.3 14.2 9.9 34.0 11.4 33.9 76 0 16 6 2 281 G2 3 2 401 12.7 38.1 13.6 11.3 34.0 11.2 33.3 77 0 15 2 3 3 223 G3 3 2 315 12.4 37.4 15.8 10.7 35.0 11.6 33.2 77 1 6 6 10 0 200 G3 4 1 348 11.7 35.3 21.2 10.1 35.0 11.6 33.1 79 0 10 3 6 2 229 G4 4 2 325 11.0 31.6 13.9 9.8 32.0 11.3 34.8 73 0 14 2 9 2 243 G4 5 1 352 14.0 40.9 13.0 12.7 32.0 11.0 34.2 83 0 11 1 4 1 242 G5 5 1 442 13.2 38.5 15.5 12.3 31.3 10.7 34.3 61 24 1 12 2 242 G5 6 2 398 12.8 37.7 14.1 12.1 31.0 10.6 34.0 65 0 19 7 6 3 293 G5 7 1 462 14.3 42.2 12.3 13.8 31.0 10.4 33.9 68 0 25 1 5 1 248 G6 6 1 530 10.4 30.8 17.9 10.0 31.0 10.4 33.8 85 0 11 2 2 0 236 G6 7 2 448 11.1 32.6 16.5 10.9 30.0 10.2 34.0 84 0 12 2 2 0 215 LactD = lactate dehydrogenase; HGB = hemoglobin; HCT = hemato crit; WBC = white blood cell; RBC = red blood cell; MCV = mean cor puscular volume; MCH = mean corpuscular hemoglobin; MCHC = mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration

PAGE 89

77 77Table A-7. Body weight and body condition score of i ndividual giraffe on days 1 and 21 of each period. ---------------Body weight (kg)--------------Body condition score Giraffe Period Treatment Day 1 Day 28 Change Day 1 Day 28 G1 1 GF 693 694 1 4.0 4.0 G1 2 EF 694 717 23 4.0 4.5 G2 1 EF 625 622 -4 3.5 3.5 G2 2 GF 622 630 8 3.5 3.5 G2 3 EF 630 652 23 3.5 3.5 G3 3 EF 542 559 17 3.5 4.5 G3 4 GF 577 580 2 5.0 4.5 G4 4 EF 673 668 -5 4.0 4.0 G4 5 GF 668 667 -1 4.0 4.0 G5 5 GF 611 626 15 3.5 4.0 G5 6 EF 626 651 25 4.0 4.5 G5 7 GF 651 661 10 4.5 4.5 G6 6 GF 590 589 -1 2.5 3.0 G6 7 EF 589 598 10 3.0 4.0

PAGE 90

78 78 % of BW 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 GFEFEFGFEFEFGFEFGFGFEFGFGFEF 12123344556767 G1G2G3G4G5G6 Alfalfa Hay Supplement Figure A-1. Individual animal cons umption of alfalfa hay and supplemen t as a percentage of body weight. Giraffe are designated by number (G1-G6); GF = control diet; EF = experimental diet

PAGE 91

79 79 kg 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 GFEFEFGFEFGFGFEFGFGFEF 12123556767 G 1G 2G 4G 5G 6 treatment, period, giraffe OM NDFOM CP Figure A-2. Individual animal di gestion of neutral detergent fibe r organic matter (NDFOM), and a pparent digestion of OM and CP Giraffe are designated by number (G1-G6); GF = control diet; EF = experimental diet

PAGE 92

80 APPENDIX B CARBOHYDRATE FRACTIONING IN FEEDSTUFFS Figure B-1. Carbohydrate part itioning. (Hall, 2001) Table B-1. NDF and NFC fractions (percent of sample DM) in feedstuffs analyzed at the University of Florida. Feedstuff NDF Sugars Starch Soluble Fiber Alfalfa hay 37.4 10.0 3.0 16.2 Citrus pulp 22.1 26.5 1.0 32.9 Corn meal 16.0 2.3 62.6 8.5 Cottonseed hulls <1 4.0 Soybean meal (48%) 12.8 11.2 1.5 15.9 Sugar beet pulp 44.6 12.8 0.0 30.0 Ground wheat 12.1 1.8 64.6 8.8 Data means from Hall, 2001. Plant CarbohydratesCell Contents Cell WallHemicelluloses Pectic Substances -glucans Fructans Starches Mono+Oligosaccharides Organic Acids Cellulose ADF NDSF NDSCGalactans Non-Starch Polysaccharides NDF

PAGE 93

81 APPENDIX C INFORMATION ON CONTROL DIET COMPOSITION AND BEHAVIOR RECORDING Table C-1. Mean analyzed chemical compos ition of the batches of Purina Omelene 200 (n=5) and Mazuri Browser Breeder (n =5) fed to captive giraffe during a giraffe feeding study. Nutrient Purina Omelene 200 Mazuri Browser Breeder DM, % 85.4 85.4 OM, % 93.6 93.6 Ash, % 6.37 6.37 CP, % 16.6 16.6 NDFOM, % 17.2 17.2 ADF, % 7.47 7.47 Lignin, % 1.84 1.84 NDSF, % 6.93 6.93 Sugar, % 11.0 11.0 Starch, % 38.1 38.1 Ca, % 0.68 0.68 P, % 0.56 0.56 Mg, % 0.20 0.20 K, % 1.15 1.15 Na, % 0.23 0.23 Fe, ppm 390 297 Mn, ppm 217 115 Zn, ppm 222 137 Cu, ppm 45.6 16.8 NDFOM = neutral detergent fiber organic matter; NDSF = neutral detergent soluble fiber Purina Omelene 200 is a sweet feed containing: whol e oats, cracked corn, ground corn, dehulled soybean meal, corn flour, cane molasses, soybean oil, wheat middlings, dicalcium phosphate, sodium selenite, propionic acid, dried whey, vitamin E supplement, choline chloride, citric acid, vitamin A supplement, calcium pantothenate, ferric oxide, tocophorols, riboflavin supplement, vitamin B-12 supplement, vitamin D3 supplement, niacin supplement, ferrous carbonate, manganous oxide, zinc oxide, copper sulfate, magnesium oxide, ferrous oxide, calcium iodate, cobalt carbonate, DL-methionine, L-lysine. Mazuri Browser Breeder is a pelleted concentrate containing: ground soybean hulls, wheat middlings, ground aspen, dehulled soybean meal, dried beet pulp, cane molasses, dehydrated alfalfa meal, sucrose, brewers dried yeast, soybean oil, dicalcium phosphate, salt, calcium carbonate, magnesium oxide, menadione dimethylpyrimidinol bisulfite (source of vitamin K), pyridoxine hydrochloride, dl-alpha tocopheryl acetate (source of vitamin E), cholecalciferol (source of vitamin D3), vitamin A acetate, calcium pantothenate, ethoxyquin (a preservative), thiamin mononitrate, cyanocobalamin (source of vitamin B12), riboflavin, biotin, nicotinic acid, manganous oxide, zinc oxide, ferrous carbonate, copper sulfate, zinc sulfate, calcium iodate, cobalt carbonate, sodium selenite.

PAGE 94

82 Table C-2. Behavioral categor y definitions used by observe rs when recording giraffe behaviors. Cud Chewing cud (ruminating) Supp Eating supplement from feed pan Hay Eating hay from hay rack Drink Drinking Salt Licking salt block Dirt Eating dirt Metal Licking metal Lick Licking or mounthing non-metal inanimate objects Wall Foraging in or mouthing area behind back wall Tongue Tongue playing not associated with licking, eating, drinking, or ruminating Social Making physical contact with other giraffe Stand Standing Walk Walking Lay Lying down with head up Sleep Sleeping lying down with head folded over onto flank

PAGE 95

83 Figure C-1. Example of data sheet used to record giraffe behavior. Giraffe Behavior LogOctob. 14, 020:00-1:00UF/ BGT Hoofstock Feeding Study C u d S upp H ay W ater S a l t Di rt M eta l Li c k W a ll T ongue S oc i a l S tan d W a lk L ay Sl eep 0:00 0:01 0:02 0:03 0 : 04 0:05 0:06 0:07 0:08 0 : 09 0:10 0:11 0:12 0:13 0 : 14 0:15 0:16 0:17 0:18 0 : 19 0:20 0:21 0:22 0:23 0 : 24 0:25 0:26 0:27 0:28 0 : 29 0:30 0:31 0:32 0:33 0 : 34 0:35 0:36 0:37 0:38 0 : 39 0:40 0:41 0:42 0:43 0 : 44 0:45 0:46 0:47 0:48 0 : 49 0:50 0:51 0:52 0:53 0 : 54 0:55 0:56 0:57 0:58 0 : 59 Left Pen = grey Observer:Right Pen = white

PAGE 96

84 LIST OF REFERENCES Allen MS. 1996. Physical constraints on volunt ary intake of forages by ruminants. J Anim Sci 74:3063-3075. Allen MS. 1997. Relationship between fermenta tion acid production in the rumen and the requirement for physically effec tive fiber. J Dairy Sci 80:1447-1462. Ariza P, Bach A, Stern MD, Hall MB. 2001. E ffects of carbohydrates from citrus pulp and hominy feed on microbial fermentati on in continuous culture. J Anim Sci 79:2713-2718. Association of Official Anal ytical Chemists. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th edition. Arlington, VA. Baer DJ, Oftedal OT, Fahey Jr. GC. 1985. F eed selection and digestibility by captive giraffe. Zoo Biol 4:57-64. Bailey CB. 1961. Saliva secretion and its relation to feeding in cattle. III. The rate of secretion of mixed saliva in the cow during eating, with an estimate of the magnitude of the total daily secretion of mixed saliva. Br J Nutr 15:443-451. Ball RL, Kearney C, Burton M, Dumoneux G, Olsen JH. 2002. Morbidity and mortality related to hypoglycemia and chronic energy malnutrition in captive giraffe. In: Proc Am Assoc Zoo Vets, p 180-185. Barnes R, Greene K, Lamm M. 2002. Manageme nt and husbandry of duikers at the Los Angeles Zoo. Zoo Biol 21:107-121. Bashaw MJ, Tarou LR, Maki TS, Maple TL. 2001. A survey assesment of variable related to stereotypy in captive gira ffe. Appl Anim Behaviour Sci 73:235-247. Beauchemin KA, Yang WZ, Rode LM. 2003. Eff ects of particle size of alfalfa-based dairy cow diets on chewing activity, rumi nal fermentation, and milk production. J Dairy Sci 86:630-643. Beharka AA, Nagaraja TG, Morrill JL, Ke nnedy GA, Klemm RD. 1998. Effects of form of diet on anatomical, microbial, and fe rmentative development of the rumen of neonatal calves. J Dairy Sci 81:1946-1955.

PAGE 97

85 Ben-Ghedalia D, Yosef E, Mi ron J, Est Y. 1989. The effects of starchand pectin-rich diets on quantitative aspects of digestion in sheep. An im Feed Sci Technol 24:289298. Bernard L, Chaise JP, Baumont R, Poncet C. 2000. The effect of physical form of orchardgrass hay on the passa ge of particulate matter th rough the rumen of sheep. J Anim Sci 78:1338-1354. Bhattacharya AN, Lubbadah WF. 1971. Feed ing high levels of beet pulp in high concentrate dairy rati ons. J Dairy Sci 54:95-99. Burton MS, Dierenfeld ES. 1990. Comparisons of vitamin E injectables in giraffes (Giraffa Camelopardalis reticulata). In: Proc Am Assoc Zoo Vets, p 198-201. Caister LE, Shields WM, Gosser A. 2003. Female tannin avoidance: a possible explanation for habitat and diet ary segregatoin of giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis peralta) in Niger. Afr J Ecol 41:201-210. Callison SL, Firkins JL, Eastridge ML, Hull BL. 2001. Site of nutrient digestion by dairy cows fed corn of different particle si zes or steam-rolled. J Dairy Sci 84:1458-1467. Campbell CP, Marshall SA, Mandell IB, W ilton JW. 1992. Effects of source of dietary neutral detergent fiber on chewing behavior in beef cattle fed pelleted concentrates with or without supplementa l roughage. J Anim Sci 70:894-903. Campling RC, Balch CC. 1961. Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by cows. 1. Preliminary observations on the effect, on th e voluntary intake of hay, of changes in the amount of the reticulo-rumi nal contents. Br J Nutr 15:523-530. Cassida KA, Stokes MR. 1986. Eating and restin g salivation in early lactation dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 69:1282-1292. Chaffe PS. 1968. Report on death of a giraffe. J Small Anim Pract 9:136-137. Chai K, Kennedy PM, Milligan LP. 1984. Reducti on in particle size during rumination in cattle. Can J Anim Sci 64(Suppl.):339-340. Chester-Jones H, Metwally HM, Linn JG Ziegler DM, Stern MD. 1991. Effects of dietary protein-energy interr elationships on Holstein steer performance and ruminal bacterial fermentation in conti nuous culture. J Anim Sci 69:4956-4966. Ciofolo I, LePendu Y. 2002. The feeding beha viour of giraffe in Niger. Mammalia 66:183-194. Clark PW, Armentano LE. 2002. Influence of pa rticle size on the effectiveness of the fiber in alfalfa silage. J Dairy Sci 85:3000-3007.

PAGE 98

86 Clauss M. 1998. Feeding Giraffe (Giraffe camelopardis) [Masters thesis]. London, UK: University of London. 114 p. Clauss M, Kienzle E, Wiesner H. 2002a. Impor tance of the wasting syndrome complex in captive moose (Alces alces). Zoo Biol 21:499-506. Clauss M, Lechner-Doll M. 2001. Differences in selective reticul o-ruminal particle retention as a key factor in rumina nt diversification. Oecologia 129:321-327. Clauss M, Lechner-Doll M, Flach EJ, Tack C, Hatt JM. 2001. Comparative use of four different marker systems for the estimation of digestibility and low food intake in a group of captive giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis). Zoo Biol 20:315-329. Clauss M, Lechner-Doll M, Flach EJ, Wi sser J, Hatt J-M. 2002b. Digestive tract pathology of captive giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) an unifying hypothesis. European Association of Zoo and Wildlife Veterinarians Fourth Scientific Meeting. Heidelberg, Germany. p 99-107. Clemens ET, Maloiy GMO, Sutton JD. 1983. Mola r proportions of volatile fatty acids in the gastrointestinal tract of East African wild ruminants. Comp Biochem Physiol 76A:217-224. Dagg AI, Foster JB. 1976. The Giraffe. Its Bi ology, Behavior, and Ecology. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company. Dehority BA, Odenyo AA. 2003. Influence of diet on the rumen protozoal fauna of indigenous African wild ruminants. J Eukaryot Microbiol 50:220-223. Dierenfeld ES, Mueller PJ, Hall MB. 2002. Duikers: Native food composition, micronutrient assessment, and implications for improving captive diets. Zoo Biol 21:185-196. Dierenfeld ES, Wildman RE C, Romo S. 2000. Feed inta ke, diet utilization, and composition of browses consumed by the Sumatran rhino (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) in a North American zoo. Zoo Biol 19:169-180. Dirksen GU, Liebich HG, Mayer E. 1985. Adaptive changes of the ruminal mucosa and their functional and clinical significa nce. The Bovine Practitioner 20:116-120. Ditchkoff SS. 2000. A decade since "diversifi cation of ruminants": has our knowledge improved? Oecologia 125:82-84. Enqvist KE. 2003. Dental disease and serous atrophy of fat syndrome in captive giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis). Minneapolis, MN: Annual c onference of the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians. Field CR, Ross IC. 1976. The savanna ecology of Kidepo Valley National Forest. E Afr Wildl J 14:1-15.

PAGE 99

87 Firkins JL. 1997. Effects of feeding nonforage fi ber sources on site of fiber digestion. J Dairy Sci 80:1426-1437. Flach EJ, Thornton SM, Kirkwood JK, Sain esbury AW. 1997. Chronic loss of condition with persistent neutrophilia in a reticulated giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis). In: Proc British Vet Zoo Soc, p 33-37. Foose TJ. 1982. Trophic strategies of rumina nt versus nonruminant ungulates [PhD Dissertation]. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago. 334 p. Foster JB. 1966. The giraffe of Nairobi Nati onal Park: home range, sex ratios, the herd and food. E Afr Wildl J 4:139-148. Fowler ME. 1978. Peracute mortality in cap tive giraffe. J Am Vet Med Assoc 173:10881093. Fox H. 1938. The giraffe. Some notes upon the natu ral characters of th is animals, its care and its misfortune. In: Zso, editor. Repor t of the Penrose Research Laboratory, formerly the Laboratory and Museum of Comparative Pathology. Philadelphia, PA: Zoological Society of Philadelphia. p 35-67. Friggens N, Emmans GC, Robertson S, Chamberlain DG, Whittemore CT, Oldham JD. 1995. The lactational responses of dairy cows to amount of feed and to the source of carbohydrate energy. J Dairy Sci 78:1734-1744. Friggens NC, Oldham JD, Dewhurst RJ, Horg an G. 1998. Proportions of volatile fatty acids in relation to the chemical compositi on of feeds based on grass silage. J Dairy Sci 81:1331-1344. Furstenburg D, Van Hoven W. 1994. Condensed ta nnin as an anti-defo liate agent against browsing by giraffe (Giraffe camelopardalis) in the Kruger National Park. Comp Biochem Physiol 107A(2):425-431. Garrett EF, Pereira MN, Nordlund KV, Arme ntano LE, Goodger WJ, Oetzel GR. 1999. Diagnostic methods for the det ection of subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 82:1170-1178. Glock RD, DeGroot BD. 1998. Su dden death of feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 76:315-319. Goering HK, Van Soest PJ. 1970. Forage fiber an alysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). In: Agric. Handb. No. 379. Washington, DC: ARS-USDA. Gordon IJ, Illius AW. 1996. The nutritiona l ecology of African ruminants: a reinterpretation. J Anim Ecol 65:18-28. Grant RJ. 1997. Interactions among forages a nd nonforage fiber sources. J Dairy Sci 80:1438-1446.

PAGE 100

88 Hall MB. 1999. Management strategies agai nst ruminal acidosis. In: Tenth Annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Sy mposium. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. p 104-113. Hall MB. 2001. Neutral Detergent-Soluble Ca rbohydrates, Nutriti onal Relevance and Analysis, A Laboratory Manual. Gainesvelle: University of Florida Report nr 339. Hall MB, Herejk C. 2001. Differences in yields of microbial crude protein from in vitro fermentation of carbohydrates. J Dairy Sci 84:2486-2493. Hall MB, Hoover WH, Jennings JP, Miller Webster TK. 1999. A method for partitioning neutral detergent-soluble carbohydrat es. J Sci Food Agric 79:2079-2086. Hall-Martin AJ, Skinner JD, Va n Dyk JM. 1975. Reproduction in the giraffe in relation to some environmental factors. E Afr Wildl J 13:237-248. Hatt JM, Lechner-Doll M, Mayes B. 1998. The use of dosed and herbage n-alkanes as markers for the determination of digestive strategies of captive giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis). Zoo Biol 17:295-309. Heldt JS, Cochran RC, Stokka GL, Farmer CG, Mathis CP, Titgemeyer EC, Nagaraja TG. 1999. Effects of different supplemental sugars and starch fed in combination with degradable intake protein on low-quali ty forage use by beef steers. J Anim Sci 77:2793-2802. Hofmann RR. 1973. The Ruminant Stomach--Stomach Structur e and Feeding Habits of East African Game Ruminants. Odhiambo TR editor. Nairobi, Kenya: East African Literature Bureau. Hofmann RR. 1984. Comparative anatomical studies imply adaptive variations of ruminants digestive physiology. J Anim Sci 64:203-205. Hofmann RR. 1988. Morphophysiological evoluti onary adaptations of the ruminant digestive system. In: Dobson A, Dobson MJ, editors. Aspects of Digestive Physiology in Ruminants: Proceedings of a Satellite Symposium of the 30th International Congress of th e International Union of P hysiological Sciences. p 120. Hofmann RR, Kock RA, Ludwig J, Axm acher H. 1988. Seasonal changes in rumen papillary development and body condition in free ranging Chinese water deer (Hydropotes inermis). J Zool 216:103-117. Hofmann RR, Matern B. 1988. Changes in gastrointestinal morphology related to nutrition in giraffes. C ons Sci and Zoos 22:168-176. Horwitz W. 1982. Evaluation of analytical methods used for regulation of food and drugs. Anal Chem 54:67A-76A.

PAGE 101

89 Huntington GB. 1997. Starch utilization by rumi nants: from basics to the bunk. J Anim Sci 75:852-867. Johnson MM, Peters JP. 1993. Technical no te: An improved method to quantify nonesterified fatty acids in bovine plasma. J Anim Sci 71:753-756. Jorgenson NA, Schultz LH. 1963. Ration effects on rumen acids, ketogenesis, and milk composition. I. Unrestricted rougha ge feeding. J Dairy Sci 46:437-443. Junge RE, Bradley TE. 1993. Peracute morta lity syndrome of giraffes. In: Fowler ME, editor. Zoo and Wild Animal Medicine : Current Therapy 3. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Company. p 547-549. Kay RND, Engelhardt WV, White RG. 1980. The digestive physiology of wild ruminants. In: Ruckebusch Y, Thive nd P, editors. Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants. Wesport, CT: AVI. Kennedy PM, McSweeney CS, Welch JG. 1992. In fluence of dietary particle size on intake, digestion, and passage rate of digesta in goats and sheep fed wheaten (Triticum aestivum) hay. Small Ruminant Research 9:125-138. Kononoff PJ, Heinrichs AJ. 2003. The effect of corn silage particle size and cottonseed hulls on cows in early lactation. J Dairy Sci 86:2438-2451. Krajcarski-Hunt H, Plaizier JC, Walton J-P, Spratt R, McBride BW. 2002. Short communication: Effect of subacute rumina l acidosis on in situ fiber digestion in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 85:570-573. Krause KM, Combs DK. 2003. Effects of forage particle size, forage source, and grain fermentability on performance and ruminal pH in midlactation cows. J Dairy Sci 86:1382-1397. Krause KM, Combs DK, Beauchemin KA. 2002. E ffects of forage particle size and grain fermentability in midlactation cows. II. Ruminal pH and chewing activity. J Dairy Sci 85:1947-1957. Lackey LB, LaRue FV. 1997. North American Regional Giraffe Studbook. Dallas, TX: Dallas Zoo. Lechowski R, Pisarski J, Goslawski J, Lenarcik M. 1991. Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency-like syndrome in gira ffe. J Wildlife Diseases 27:728-780. Leuthold BM, Leuthold W. 1972. F ood habits of giraffe in Tsavo National Park, Kenya. E Afr Wildl J 10:129-141. Leuthold BM, Leuthold W. 1978. Daytime activ ity patterns of gere nuk and giraffe in Tsavo National Park, Kenya. E Afr Wildl J 16:231-243.

PAGE 102

90 Lintzenich BA, Ward AM. 1997. Hay and pellet ratios: considerations in feeding ungulates. Nutrition Advisory Group Handbook: Fact Sheet 007. www.nagonline.net. Last accessed: December 29, 2004. Maekawa M, Beauchemin KA, Christensen DA. 2002. Effect of concentrate level and feeding management on chewing activities saliva production, and ruminal pH of lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 85:1165-1175. Martin P, Bateson P. 1986. Measuring Beha vior: An Introductory Guide. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. Martin SA, Sullivan HM, Evans JD. 2000. Effect of sugars and malate on ruminal microorganisms. J Dairy Sci 83:2574-2579. McSweeney CS, Kennedy PM. 1992. Influence of dietary particle size on chewing activity and reticulo-ruminal motility in goats and sheep fed wheaten (Triticum aestivum) hay. Small Ruminant Research 9:107-115. Mertens DR. 1997. Creating a system for meeti ng the fiber requirements for dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 80:1463-1481. Miller M, Abou-Madi N, Coville B, Olsen J. 1996. Comparison of in vitro tests for evaluation of passive transfer in gira ffe. In: Proc Am Assoc Zoo Vets, p 94-101. Miller WJ, O'Dell GD. 1969. Nutritional pr oblems of using maximum forage or maximum concentrates in dairy rations. J Dairy Sci 52:1144-1154. Moore JA, Poore MH, Swingle RS. 1990. Influen ce of roughage source on kinetics of digestion and passage, and on calculated extents of rumina l digestion in beef steers fed 65% concentrate diets. J Anim Sci 68:3412-3420. Nocek JE. 1997. Bovine acidosis: implicati ons on laminitis. J Dairy Sci 80:1005-1028. Owens FN, Goetsch AL. 1988. Ruminal ferm entation. In: Church DC, editor. The Ruminant Animal Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Owens FN, Secrist DS, Hill WJ, Gill DR. 1998. Ac idosis in cattle: a review. J Anim Sci 76:275-286. Paglia DE, Miller RE. 1992. Erythrocyte ATP deficiency and acatalasemia in the black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) and their pathogenetic ro les in acute episodic hemolysis and mucocutaneous ulcerations In: Proc Am Assoc Zoo Vets, p 217219. Pasha TN, Prigge EC, Russell RW, Bryan WB 1994. Influence of moisture content of forage diets on intake and digest ion by sheep. J Anim Sci 72:2455-2463.

PAGE 103

91 Pellew RA. 1983. The giraffe and its food res ource in the Serengeti. I. Composition, biomass and production of availabl e browse. Afr J Ecol 21:241-267. Pellew RA. 1984. Food consumption and energy budgets of the giraffe. J Appl Ecol 21:141-159. Poppi DP, Norton BW, Minson DJ, Hendricksen RE. 1980. The validity of the critical size theory for particles leaving the rumen. J Agric Sci 94:275-280. Randhawa SS, Gupta PP, Misra SK. 1981. Hist opathological changes in experimental ruminal acidosis in buffalo calves. Ind J Anim Sci 51:518-521. Rowell-Schafer A, Dyer J, Hofmann RR, L echner-Doll M, Meyer HHD, Shirazi-Beechey SP, Streich WJ. 1999. Abundance of intestinal Na+/glucose cotransporter (SGLT1) in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). J Anim Physiol 82:25-32. Russell JB, Wilson DB. 1996. Why are ruminal ce llulolytic bacteria unable to digest cellulose at low pH? J Dairy Sci 79:1503-1509. SAS. 1999. The SAS System for Windows, Rel ease 8.02. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc. Schettini MA, Prigge EC, Nestor EL. 1999. Influence of mass and volume of ruminal contents on voluntary intake a nd digesta passage of a forage diet in steers. J Anim Sci 77:1896-1904. Shain DH, Stock RA, Klopfenstein TJ, Herold DW. 1999. The effect of forage source and particle size on finishing yearling steer performance and ruminal metabolism. J Anim Sci 77:1082-1092. Shipley L. 1999. Grazers and browsers: how di gestive morphology affects diet selection. In: Launchbaugh KL, Sanders KD, Mosley JC, editors. Grazing Behavior of Livestock and Wildlife. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, p 20-27. Shochat E, Robbins CT, Parish SM, Young PB, Stephenson TR, Tamayo A. 1997. Nutritional investigations and manageme nt of captive moose. Zoo Biol 16:479-494. Smith HA, Jones TC, Hunt RD. 1972. Veteri nary Pathology. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger. Sniffen CJ, O'Connor JD, Van Soest PJ, Fox DG, Russell JB. 1992. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattl e diets: II. Car bohydrate and protein availability. J Anim Sci 70:3562-3577. Soeldner JS, Sloane D. 1965. Critical variable s in the radioimmunoassay of serum insulin using the double antibody t echnic. Diabetes 14:711-719. Stone WC. 2004. Nutritional approaches to minimize subacute ruminal acidosis and laminitis in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 87(E. Suppl.):E13-E26.

PAGE 104

92 Strafuss AC, Kennedy GA. 1973. Degenerative myopathy in a giraffe. J Am Vet Med Assoc 163:551-552. Strandberg J, Eckhaus M, Kincaid A, Cr anfield M. 1984 Fatal wasting disease in Angolan giraffes. In: Proc Am Assoc Zoo Vets, p 115-116. Strobel HJ, Russell JB. 1986. Effect of pH and energy spilling on bacterial protein synthesis by carbohydrate-limited cultures of mixed rumen bacteria. J Dairy Sci 69:2941-2947. Swenson MJ. 1984. Dukes' Physiology of Dome stic Animals, 10th edition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Tarou LR, Bashaw MJ, Maple TL. 2003. Failure of a chemical spray to significantly reduce stereotypic licking in a captive giraffe. Zoo Biol 22:601-607. Theurer CB, Swingle RS, Wanderley RC, Kattnig RM, Urias A, Ghenniwa G. 1999. Sorghum grain flake density and source of r oughage in feedlot ca ttle diets. J Anim Sci 77:1066-1073. Van Soest PJ. 1994. Nutritional Ecology of th e Ruminant. 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 476 p. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB. 1985. Analysis of Forages and Fibrous Foods--A Laboratory Manual for Animal Science 613. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 202 p. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. 1991. Methods for dietar y fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysacchar ides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583-3597. Van Vuuren AM, Van Der Koelen CJ, Vroons-De Bruin J. 1993. Ryegrass versus corn starch or beet pulp fiber diet effects on digestion and inte stinal amino acids in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 76:2692-2700. Weston RH, Cantle JA. 1984. The movement of undigested plant particle fractions through the stomach of r oughage-fed young sheep. Can J Anim Sci 64(Suppl.):322323. Willette MM, Norton TL, Miller CL, Lamm MG. 2002. Verterinary concerns of captive duikers. Zoo Biol 21:197-207. Wolfe BA, Sladky KK, Loomis MR. 2000. Obstructiv e urolithiasis in a reticulated giraffe (Giraffe camelopardalis reticulata). The Vet Rec 146:260-261. Wood S, Dyer J, Hofmann RR, Shirazi-Beechey SP. 2000. Expression of the Na+/glucose co-transporter (SGLT1) in the intestine of domestic and wild ruminants. Pflugers Arch 441:155-162.

PAGE 105

93 Yang WZ, Beauchemin KA, Rode LM. 2001. Eff ects of grain processing, forage to concentrate ratio, and forage particle size on rumen pH and digestion by dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 84:2203-2216.

PAGE 106

94 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Celeste Kearney grew up in the small fi shing and farming community of Oquawka, IL. She worked in the equine industry for se veral years, and completed a B.S. in animal sciences at Murray State Univ ersity in 1997. After working in the zoo industry for four years, she enrolled in graduate studies in an imal sciences at the University of Florida.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0009468/00001

Material Information

Title: Effects of Dietary Physical Form and Carbohydrate Profile on Captive Giraffe
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0009468:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0009468/00001

Material Information

Title: Effects of Dietary Physical Form and Carbohydrate Profile on Captive Giraffe
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0009468:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












EFFECTS OF DIETARY PHYSICAL FORM AND CARBOHYDRATE PROFILE ON
CAPTIVE GIRAFFE
















By

CELESTE C. KEARNEY


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































Copyright 2005

by

Celeste C. Keamey




























This work is dedicated, with gratitude, to the Maker of all living things.

This thesis is dedicated to my family, near and far.
It is especially dedicated to
My father, who shared his deep, abiding sense of respect and wonder for all Creation
My mother, who encouraged me to pursue my goals and fight for what I believe
My siblings, natural and "adopted," who offered love and support
My nieces and nephews, a constant source of joy and pride
And most of all my loving husband,
Who made me complete.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was a team effort. The development and execution of this study

would not have been possible without the generous contributions of numerous

individuals. My sincerest thanks go out to my committee chair, Dr. Mary Beth Hall, and

committee members, Drs. Ellen Dierenfeld, Lee McDowell, and Charles Staples, for

assistance and instruction throughout my graduate program, and for taking a chance on an

unusual project; Busch Entertainment Corporation, for permitting and sponsoring the

study; Dr. Ray Ball, Giraffe SSP Veterinary Advisor, for initial instruction in giraffe

health and nutrition, and continued selfless assistance through all phases of this research;

Dr. Ramon Littell, University of Florida Statistics Department, for assistance with

statistical design of the study; Dr. Judy St. Ledger, BEC Director of Veterinary

Pathology, for encouragement and considerable intellectual contributions; the preceding

researchers who have taken an interest in the nutrition of captive concentrate selectors,

particularly Dr. Marcus Clauss, for his literature donations and thoughtful e-mail

discussions; Heidi Bissell, Amanda Dinges and Marti Roberson, for volunteer giraffe

observations; Kellie and the Robersons, for food, housing and helpful distractions during

the study; Alexandra Amorocho, Heidi Bissell, Faith Cullens, Colleen Larson, and

especially Lucia Holtshausen and Ashley Hughes, students of the UF Dairy Nutrition

Lab, for assistance with feed mixing and laboratory analyses; John Funk, Jocelyn

Jennings, Jan Kivipelto, Sergei Sennikov and Nancy Wilkinson, UF Animal Sciences

technicians, for training and assistance with sample preparation and laboratory analyses;









and the staff of the UF Dairy Research Unit (Hague, FL), for assistance in mixing the

experimental ration. Last but certainly far from least, I would like to acknowledge and

thank the following staff at Busch Gardens, Tampa: Chris Bliss, for passing along the

knowledge and experience of generations; Chris Allen, Joaquin Alonso, Kellie Anderson,

Kathy Driggers, James Hammerton, Brian Hart, Waylon Kerr, Chris Merrifield, Charles

Moss, Jennifer Phelps, April Richardson, Pandora Sokol, Bobby Toomy and Jerry

Washburn, hoofstock keepers, for long days and late nights of hard work during the

collection phase of this labor-intensive study; Richard Baker, Alan Cross, Cindy Davis,

Andrea Demuth, Joe Devlin, Dr. John Olsen and Glenn Young, zoo and hoofstock

management, for logistical coordination and providing the essential animal, facility, and

labor resources; Dr. Mike Burton, Dr. Genevieve Demonceaux, Heather Henry, Ian

Hutchinson, Cliff Martel and Mary Port, veterinary and hospital staff, for assistance with

sample collection and analysis; and the entire Busch Gardens Zoo staff, for their ongoing

commitment to animal care, and for their thoughts, assistance and encouragement during

this project.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page


A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES .................................................... ........ .. .............. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................... ... ...... ... ................. .x

ABSTRACT ........ .............. ............. ...... ...................... xi

CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ............... ................. ........... ................. ... .... 1

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON DIETARY PHYSICAL FORM AND
CARBOHYDRATE PROFILE IN RUMINANT DIETS ...........................................8

P hy sical F orm .................................... ..... ............. ... .. ... ... ...............8
Effects of Particle Size on Mastication, Saliva Flow, and Ruminal pH.............9
Effects of Particle Size on Digesta Passage, Intake, and Fermentation .............13
Potential Implications of peNDF for Captive Giraffe .............. ...................18
D ietary C arbohydrate Profile........................................................... ............... 20
C arbohydrate Fractions ............................................... ............................ 20
Proxim ate analysis system ........................................ ........ ............... 21
D etergent system .... ............................................... .... ........ .......... ......21
Carbohydrates in N natural C S D iets ......................................... ............... .... 21
Effects of NFC Source on Fermentation Characteristics and Animal
Perform ance ................ ................... .... ......... .. ... ................... 24
Interaction Between Dietary Components........................................................28
Potential Implications of Dietary NFC Profile for Captive Giraffe ..................29

3 EFFECTS OF ALTERING THE PHYSICAL FORM AND CARBOHYDRATE
PROFILE OF THE DIET ON CAPTIVE GIRAFFE .............................................36

Introduction .............. ....... ....... ................... ........... ............ 36
M materials and M methods ....................................................................... ..................38
D e sig n ............. ................. .................................................................... 3 8
G iraffe ...................................................................................................3 9









F facilities .................................................................. 3 9
D ie ts .............................. .................................................................................. 4 0
Sam ple Collection and A nalyses...................................... ........ ..............41
F eedstuffs and intake........................................................... ............... 4 1
Fecal collection and analysis..................................... ......................... 43
Behavior ........................................... ..................... ..... ........ 45
Body w eight and blood sam ples.......................................... ............... 46
Statistical analysis .............................. ..... .. .. .......... .............. 47
R results and D discussion ............................. .................... .. ........ .. .............47
In ta k e .............................................................................................................. 4 8
D ig e stib ility .................................................................................................... 4 9
B eh av ior .................................................................. 5 1
B lood M measures .................................... ............. ............... .. 53
Ancillary Study Observations / Individual Animal Effects ............... ..............54
D iet S election n ...............................................................5 6
C o n c lu sio n s .................................................................................................... 5 8

APPENDIX

A INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL MEASURES .................................. 68

B CARBOHYDRATE FRACTIONING IN FEEDSTUFFS .........................................80

C INFORMATION ON CONTROL DIET COMPOSITION AND BEHAVIOR
R E C O R D IN G ........................................................................................................ 8 1

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ............................................................................... 84

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ........................................................................................ 94















LIST OF TABLES


Table p

2-1 Effects of particle size of alfalfa-based dairy cow diets on chewing activity and
ru m in a l p H ...................................... ................................ ................ 3 2

2-2 Effects of concentrate level and feeding management on ruminal pH of lactating
d airy cow s. ........................................................ ................ 32

2-3 Effects of forage particle size and grain fermentability on chewing activity,
ruminal pH, and ruminal VFA profile in midlactation cows. ................................33

2-4 Nutrient intake and digestion coefficients from giraffe fed all-hay diets.................33

2-5 Chemical composition (DM basis) of five browse plants grown at Busch
Gardens in Tampa, Florida ...................................... .............................. 34

2-6 Influence of supplemental carbohydrate source fed in combination with
0.122% BW/ day of degradable intake protein on ruminal fermentation
characteristics. .........................................................................35

3-1 Design of study.................................... ................................ ........59

3-2 Chemical composition of alfalfa hay and supplements (dry matter basis) fed
to captive giraffe, and difference between supplements. .......................................60

3-3 Effects of dietary treatment on mean daily dry matter and nutrient intake,
digestion of organic matter and crude protein (apparent) and NDFOM (true),
body weight gain and body condition score ...........................................................60

3-4 Effect of diet on fecal nutrient composition (dry matter basis).............................61

3-5 Recorded behavior of captive giraffe consuming different supplements ...............62

3-6 Percentage of time female giraffe spent engaged in oral behaviors.......................62

3-7 Effects of type of dietary supplement on giraffe blood parameters. ........................62

3-8 Pearson Correlation Coefficients for correlations of blood glucose and BUN
with kilograms of nutrients consumed and digested. ..............................................64









3-9 Pearson Correlation Coefficients for correlations of blood glucose and BUN
with various blood proteins. ...... ........................... ......................................64

A-i Individual giraffe voluntary intake (DM basis)............................................ 68

A-2 Individual giraffe nutrient intake (kg) (DM basis)............... ..... ............... 69

A-3 Individual giraffe fecal output, fecal nutrient concentration (% of DM), and
apparent nutrient digestibility (% ) ..................................................... ........ ....... 70

A-4 Differences in crude protein concentration of individual fecal samples analyzed
in w et and dried form s .................. ............................ .... .... .. ........ .... 71

A-5 Minutes over 48 hours individual giraffe spent engaged in measured behaviors. ...72

A-6 Individual giraffe blood values on day 21.................................... .................74

A-7 Body weight and body condition score of individual giraffe on days 1 and 21 of
each period. .......................................... ............................ 77

B-1 NDF and NFC fractions (percent of sample DM) in feedstuffs analyzed at the
U university of Florida. ................. .................. ............... ................80

C-1 Mean analyzed chemical composition of the batches of Purina Omelene 200
(n=5) and Mazuri Browser Breeder (n=5) fed to captive giraffe during a giraffe
feeding stu dy ...................................................... .................. 8 1

C-2 Behavioral category definitions used by observers when recording giraffe
b eh av iors. ......................................................... ................ 82
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

3-1 Number of minutes over 48 hours individual giraffe spent engaged in specific
and total oral stereotype behavior. ........................................ ....................... 65

3-2 Blood concentrations of non-esterified fatty acids in individual giraffe ................66

A-i Individual animal consumption of alfalfa hay and supplement as a percentage of
body weight .............. .... .......... ............... ..... ............. ........... 78

A-2 Individual animal digestion of neutral detergent fiber organic matter (NDFOM),
and apparent digestion of OM and CP. ....................................... ............... 79

B-1 Carbohydrate partitioning. (Hall, 2001) ....... ...... ................. ................. 80

C-1 Example of data sheet used to record giraffe behavior. .........................................83















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Master of Science

EFFECTS OF DIETARY PHYSICAL FORM AND CARBOHYDRATE PROFILE ON
CAPTIVE GIRAFFE

By

Celeste C. Keamey

May, 2005

Chair: Mary Beth Hall
Major Department: Animal Sciences

The effects of altering physical form and carbohydrate profile of giraffe diets were

evaluated using six non-lactating adult female giraffe in a modified reversal study.

Dietary treatments consisted of a supplement ration composed of commonly fed

commercial concentrates (GF) and an experimental supplement (EF) containing greater

concentrations of sugars and soluble fiber and lesser concentrations of starch than GF, as

well as small, heavily lignified particles used to modify dietary fiber size and texture.

Each study animal was housed individually and fed EF or GF ad libitum for 21 days, and

then received the other feed supplement in the subsequent 21 day period. Alfalfa hay,

salt and water were offered ad libitum in all periods. In each period, blood samples were

collected before feeding on day 21, feed refusals and fecal samples were collected on

days 15 through 21, and behavior was recorded for 48 hr via observation and

instantaneous sampling on days 13 through 15. Feed intake, blood measures, and

minutes spent exhibiting various behaviors were evaluated.









Data were analyzed with a statistical model that included animal, period, and diet.

Data presented are least squares means. Significance was declared at P<0.10 and

tendency at 0.10
than GF. Average daily DM intake varied greatly among animals for both alfalfa hay

(0.12 to 3.94 kg/day) and supplement (2.87 to 9.26 kg/day), but did not differ between

diets. Starch intake by giraffe decreased from 0.92 kg/day on GF to 0.12 kg/ day EF,

sugar intake tended (P=0.115) to increase from 1.12 kg/day on GF to 1.53 kg/day on EF,

and neutral detergent-soluble fiber (NDSF) intake increased from 0.85 kg/day on GF to

1.19 kg/day on EF. Time engaged in supplement consumption was greater on EF than

GF and total feed consumption + rumination time tended to be greater on EF than GF,

which may have increased saliva flow and buffering of the rumen. Despite few animals

and high variability in their feed selection and intake, the data suggest that EF facilitated

small but measurable changes in animal response. Further investigation with a larger

population of animals is needed.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Numerous health problems that are suspected to be of nutritional origin have been

documented in captive giraffe. Pathologies that may relate to vitamin and mineral intake

or metabolism include white muscle disease (Strafuss, 1973; Burton, 1990), urolithiosis

(Wolfe et al., 2000), and dental disease (Enqvist, 2003). Pancreatic pathologies ( Fox,

1938; Fowler, 1978; Lechowski et al., 1991; Ball et al., 2002), decreased ruminal

absorptive surface area (Hofmann and Matern, 1988), ruminal acidosis (Clauss, 1998;

Clauss et al., 2002b), fermentative gastritis or rumenitis (Fox, 1938; Ball et al., 2002) and

gastrointestinal ulceration (Fox, 1938; Fowler, 1978) also have been documented. First-

year calf mortality may be as high as 45% (Lackey and LaRue, 1997). Failure of passive

transfer (Miller et al., 1996), calf mortality due to poor milk intake (Flach et al., 1997),

and anecdotal reports of calf mortality or hand-rearing due to "maternal failure" may

relate to low colostrum and milk production due to poor nutritional status of giraffe dams.

Wasting and sudden death (Fox, 1938; Chaffe, 1968; Fowler, 1978; Strandberg et al.,

1984; Junge and Bradley, 1993; Flach et al., 1997; Ball et al., 2002) are frequently

reported in the literature and anecdotally. At this time, the true proportion of captive

giraffe mortality caused by nutritional pathologies is unknown.

The term "Peracute Mortality Syndrome" (PMS) was used to describe giraffe

wasting/ sudden death by Dr. Murray Fowler in 1978, following four cases of sudden

death at the Sacramento Zoo. Concurrent disease (tuberculosis, treated with isoniazid

powder) occurred in all four giraffe; weight loss despite reportedly adequate intake and









recent (less than one month prior to death) parturition occurred in two animals.

Necropsies were performed on three of the four animals. Absence of perirenal fat and

generalized serious atrophy of adipose tissue (3 of 3 giraffe) and marked pancreatic

atrophy (2 of 3) were notable findings. In a subsequent survey, 14 of 42 responding

institutions reported unexplained deaths of giraffe or submitted necropsy reports listing

findings consistent with the Sacramento Zoo cases. Peracute death, emaciation,

concurrent disease or stress episode, serious atrophy of adipose tissue, pulmonary edema

and trachial froth, petechial hemorrhage of serosal surfaces, and gastrointestinal

ulceration were common findings.

Fowler hypothesized that both chronic predisposing factors and acute trigger

episodes contributed to the occurrence of PMS. Based on the information available at the

time, chronic protein or energy deficiencies were listed as the most likely predisposing

factors. It was recommended that giraffe be offered low fiber diets containing 15 to 18%

CP for adult non-lactating animals, and 18 to 20% CP for calves and lactating cows.

However, a 1993 follow-up study by Junge and Bradley reported nine additional cases of

PMS in giraffe offered diets meeting these protein recommendations.

Chronic energy deficiency has again come under scrutiny as a possible

predisposing factor for PMS (Ball et al., 2002). Consistent findings of depletion and

serious atrophy of adipose tissue stores (Fox, 1938; Chaffe, 1968; Strafuss and Kennedy,

1973; Fowler, 1978; Strandberg et al., 1984; Junge and Bradley, 1993; Ball et al., 2002)

are indicative of negative energy balance. When energy expenditure exceeds available

dietary energy, a catabolic state occurs, and body reserves are mobilized. Once body fat

stores are excessively depleted, rapid catabolism of even the smallest amounts of adipose









tissue takes place in an attempt to meet energy demands. The result is serious atrophy of

adipose tissue (Smith et al., 1972).

Acute energy deficiency has been proposed as an immediate cause of death in

giraffe PMS. Ball et al. (2002) reported on the rapid wasting and mortality of two female

giraffe (A and B) during the third trimester of first pregnancy. Ante- and post- mortem

findings were consistent with PMS. Histopathologic findings included serious atrophy of

mesenteric and epicardial fat, lymphohistiocytic rumenitis and pulmonary congestion in

both cases. Pancreatic atrophy and generalized muscle atrophy were also noted in giraffe

B. Blood glucose concentrations were 20 mg/dl at the time of death in giraffe A, and 3

mg/dl at 5 hours post-mortem in giraffe B. Hypoglycemia, caused by depletion of body

reserves followed by an acute stressor parturitionn), was proposed as the immediate cause

of death. Since this publication, blood samples collected within 20 minutes of death have

revealed glucose levels of 6 and 12 mg/dl in two giraffe succumbing to PMS, and 297

mg/dl at less than 1 hour post-mortem in a giraffe expiring from an observed cervical

injury (R. Ball, personal communications).

It should be noted that endemic pathologies of unknown or suspected nutritional

origin are not isolated to captive giraffe. Wasting and mortality from unknown causes,

and from digestive pathologies, have been reported in other captive concentrate selectors

(CS) (Paglia and Miller, 1992; Shochat et al., 1997; Dierenfeld et al., 2000; Clauss et al.,

2002a; Willette et al., 2002). High (30 to 40% in some collections) neonatal mortality,

wasting syndrome, ruminal hypomotility syndrome, bloat, and rumenitis have been

described as prevalent but underreported in captive duikers (Willette et al., 2002), and

hand-rearing, diet modification, and browse supplementation were among factors









associated with improved health and increased (up to 2x) lifespan in one institution

(Barnes et al., 2002). Moose, the second largest ruminant concentrate selector (CS), are

rarely exhibited in zoos because of premature mortality (Shochat et al., 1997). Moose

"wasting syndrome complex," a syndrome of suspected nutritional origin, was the

diagnosed cause of death in 47% of 131 adult mortalities (Clauss et al., 2002a). Sudden

death, frequently attributed to digestive disorders such as ruminal acidosis and bloat, is a

common occurrence in feedlot cattle (Glock and DeGroot, 1998).

While the importance of nutrition in maintaining health, welfare, and reproductive

status of captive wildlife is receiving increasing recognition, the research that can be

performed using captive exotic animals is limited by a number of factors. The number of

animals of a given species housed in a single institution is often small, and collections

typically consist of animals in different physiological states (growth, pregnancy,

lactation), making it difficult to obtain a sufficient number of similar research animals.

Since many of the species housed in zoological institutions are rare or endangered, their

conservation value prohibits placing them in potentially harmful situations. Thus, the

herd instincts and fearful or aggressive temperament of many captive ungulates limits

collection of data that requires individual housing or animal-human contact. As a result,

statistically viable data on the effects of diet modification of individually or group-fed

animals is difficult to obtain.

At the present time, in-depth nutritional knowledge of CS ruminants remains

scarce. The true nutritional requirements of giraffe and other captive CS and dietary

factors contributing to suspected nutrition-related pathologies remain unquantified.

Because of the dearth of data on the ingredient and chemical composition of diets









consumed in the wild and on nutrient requirements of exotic ruminants, domestic

ruminants have been used as models for ration formulation. However, numerous

differences between domestic and wild ruminants must be considered. While the

objective of ration formulation for most domestic ruminants is to optimize relatively

short-term production, the objective of ration formulation for captive wildlife is to

maximize longevity and long-term health and reproduction, which may extend into

decades of life. Furthermore, differences in digestive morphology and physiology may

create discrepancies in how dietary items are utilized. When ruminants are classified

according to natural diet and digestive anatomy, domestic cattle and sheep are grazers

(GR), adapted to consumption of a predominantly grass diet. The largest living ruminant,

the giraffe, is a CS, consuming primarily foliage in its natural environment. Over 40% of

the approximately 150 known extant ruminant species are classified as CS (Wood et al.,

2000) and consume little or no grass, subsisting instead on fruit and foliage from trees,

shrubs, and herbs. Differences between wild CS and domestic GR include not only

dietary constituents, but also rumen microbial population (Dehority and Odenyo, 2003)

and gastrointestinal anatomy (Hofmann, 1973, 1984).

Digestive morphophysiological differences between ruminant CS and GR have

been widely documented and discussed (Hofmann, 1973; Kay et al., 1980; Gordon and

Illius, 1996; Shipley, 1999; Ditchkoff, 2000), and a review is presented in the

proceedings of the 30th International Congress of the International Union of Physiological

Sciences (Hofmann, 1988). A brief summary of differences pertinent to the research

presented in this thesis follows. Generally, CS have proportionally larger salivary glands

than GR. Parotid glands, for example, range from 0.18 to 0.25% of body weight (BW) in









CS, but only 0.05 to 0.07% of BW in GR. The suspected increase in saliva flow in CS

may or may not facilitate increased ruminal buffering, since the apparently well-

developed ventricular groove may allow a proportion of swallowed saliva to bypass the

rumen. Such a bypass mechanism would also allow increased amounts of dietary cell

solubles to escape ruminal fermentation. The abundance of intestinal Na+/glucose co-

transporter in the brush border membrane of wild moose and roe deer is suggestive of

some mechanism of ruminal escape for dietary sugars (Rowell-Schafer et al., 1999;

Wood et al., 2000). Decreased ruminal compartmentalization and increased diameter of

the reticulo-omasal orifice in CS (Hofmann, 1973) may contribute to the observed

increased rate of digesta passage (Clauss, 1998), while the larger capacity of the lower GI

tract suggests greater reliance on hind-gut digestion. Decreased rumen capacity, greatly

increased ruminal surface area due to dense, even papillation, and increased liver size

imply a rapid rate of fermentation and nutrient absorption.

Put succinctly, these data illustrate a single point: giraffe are not cattle. Given the

known differences between GR and CS, the likelihood of unmodified domestic ruminant

feeding practices to maintain optimal health and nutritional status of captive CS appears

questionable. However, the basic biological principles of ruminant digestion and

metabolism discovered via domestic ruminant research may be able to facilitate improved

nutrition for captive CS if viewed in light of CS ruminants' unique anatomy and

physiology.

In discussing the unique anatomical arrangements of CS, Hofmann touches upon

the need for further analysis of natural foods in order to maintain captive CS under

optimal conditions. He concludes by stating: "Neglect of original conditions finally leads






7


to a failing of the delicate anatomical, physiological, biochemical-microbial balance of

the concentrate selector's ruminant stomach" (Hofmann, 1973). The research presented

in this thesis is an attempt to further the understanding of captive CS nutritional status

and requirements, and to examine possible links between dietary factors and suspected

nutritional pathologies, including PMS in captive giraffe.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON DIETARY PHYSICAL FORM AND
CARBOHYDRATE PROFILE IN RUMINANT DIETS

Physical Form

Current feeding recommendations for zoo ungulates (Lintzenich and Ward, 1997)

do not address two of the more recent areas of focus in ruminant nutrition research:

dietary physical form and non-fiber carbohydrate (NFC) profile. The physical form of

dietary components impacts the manner in which feedstuffs are processed in the digestive

tract. Dietary physical form affects mastication (Mertens, 1997), saliva production

(Allen, 1997), ruminal development (Beharka et al., 1998), ruminal pH (Allen, 1997),

rate and extent of ruminal fermentation (Mertens, 1997), rate of digesta passage (Allen,

1996), and the proportion of unfermented nutrients passing into the lower GI tract

(Firkins, 1997; Callison et al., 2001; Yang et al., 2001). Many methods of quantifying

the physical effectiveness of feeds by evaluating dietary particle size, chewing behavior,

or milk fat production have been proposed and used in domestic ruminant research.

Physically effective fiber (peNDF) is one approach used to define the effectiveness of

dietary particle size in maintaining ruminal (and animal) health and function (Mertens,

1997). The peNDF of a feed is defined as "the product of its neutral detergent fiber

(NDF) concentration and its physical effectiveness factor," with physical effectiveness

factor determined by the ability of the feed to promote a chewing response in the animal,

as judged on a scale of 0 (not effective) to 10 (fully effective in promoting chewing). The









physical effectiveness of a feed is, in essence, a function of particle size and rate of

particle size reduction.

Effects of Particle Size on Mastication, Saliva Flow, and Ruminal pH

Little reduction in feed particle size occurs once ingesta has passed from the rumen

(Poppi et al., 1980). Chai et al. (1984) demonstrated that initial mastication and

rumination serve to reduce feed particle size. In steers fed long-stem alfalfa or brome

hays, bolus content of particles > 3.35 mm was reduced 58 to 75% by initial mastication

and 23 to 27% by rumination (Chai et al., 1984).

The ability to stimulate chewing behavior appears to vary among forage types.

Steers on high-concentrate diets spent more time (P<0.10) chewing when fed wheat straw

rather than alfalfa hay (Shain et al., 1999). The number of eating and ruminating chews

per g of DM consumed were 2.04 and 3.41 by steers fed long-stem brome hay, but only

1.26 and 1.80 by steers fed long-stem alfalfa hay, which may have been attributable to

differences in forage fragility, or rate of particle breakdown during chewing (Chai et al.,

1984).

Dietary items with a larger physical size require more time to be consumed and

generally have a greater ability to stimulate rumination. Long-stem or minimally

chopped forages, with high NDF content and long particle length, have a greater

stimulatory effect on mastication than do finely chopped forages, and a higher peNDF

value than grains or pellets (Mertens, 1997). Eating and total chewing time in lactating

Holstein cows offered a total mixed ration (TMR) increased (P<0.05) with inclusion of

additional alfalfa in the ration, and rumination and total chewing increased linearly with

increasing particle length of alfalfa silage (P<0.05) (Clark and Armentano, 2002). Time

engaged in rumination decreased (P<0.001) linearly as wheaten hay fed ad libitum to









sheep and goats was progressively switched from chopped (1 cm) to ground (3.2 mm)

and pelleted forms (McSweeney and Kennedy, 1992). Campbell et al. (1992) used ten

Hereford steers to compare the ability of five diets to stimulate chewing: A 80%

pelleted concentrate, 20% long timothy hay (control); B 80% pelleted concentrate, 20%

alfalfa cubes; C 90% pelleted concentrate, 10% alfalfa cubes; D completely pelleted

ration using corn cobs as the primary NDF source; E 80% coarse (unground grains)

concentrate, 20% long timothy hay. Time engaged in rumination and eating behaviors

are reported as minutes per gram of dry matter intake (DMI)/ BW0.75. Modifying the

physical form of concentrates had no effect on eating (P=0.702) or rumination (P=0.954)

times. Replacing timothy hay with alfalfa cubes decreased rumination from 2.58 to 1.38

to 1.47 (P=0.001) but did not affect eating behavior (P=0.897). Replacing the control

ration with the all-pelleted diet decreased eating time from 3.55 to 2.98 (P=0.063) and

rumination from 2.58 to 1.29 (P=0.001). Number of chews per gram of DMI/ BW075

also decreased on the completely pelleted ration, from 234 to 173 (P=0.005) during

eating, and from 162 to 76 (P=0.001) during rumination.

Saliva, with a pH of approximately 8.5 (Cassida and Stokes, 1986), is a primary

ruminal buffering agent, supplying approximately half of the bicarbonate entering the

rumen of domestic cattle (Owens et al., 1998). The rate of saliva flow increases during

periods of eating and rumination (Bailey, 1961). Therefore, decreasing time engaged in

chewing behavior may decrease total daily saliva production per unit of feed consumed

(Bailey, 1961; Maekawa et al., 2002).

A study by Beauchemin et al. (2003) illustrates the link between forage particle

size, chewing activity, and ruminal pH. The effects of dietary particle size on lactating









dairy cows were examined using a total mixed ration (TMR) consisting of 60% barley-

based concentrate and 40% forage (DM basis). Forage consisted of alfalfa silage (AS)

and alfalfa hay (AH) in a 50:50 or 25:75 ratio. Alfalfa hay was coarsely chopped (CH) or

ground (GH) through a 4mm screen. Mean dietary particle length (MPL) was highest for

the TMR containing 50:50 AS:CH, followed by 25:75 AS:CH, 50:50 AS:GH, and 25:75

AS:GH. Eating and rumination behaviors were recorded every 5 minutes for 24 hours.

Rumination time per unit of DMI decreased with decreasing dietary particle size (Table

2-1). The shortest rumination time was 4.6 hours/day or 13.5 minutes/kg of DMI. Total

chewing time varied from 12.1 to 9.9 hours/day, and decreased with decreasing MPL.

Ruminal pH was measured every 5 seconds for 48 hours by an industrial electrode placed

in the ventral sac via ruminal cannulae. Ruminal pH was evaluated according to time

above 6.2 and below 5.8, based on the observations of Russell and Wilson (1996) that

ruminal microbial activity is compromised when pH falls below 6.2, and the premise that

the incidence of sub-clinical acidosis increases when ruminal pH drops below 5.8. Cows

fed 25:75 AS:AH had a greater mean ruminal pH (P=0.10) and time above pH 6.2

(P=0.08) than cows fed 50:50 AS:AH, perhaps due to decreased DMI (P<0.10) and

increased time spent eating (P=0.01). Ruminal pH status was mainly affected by forage

particle size, and was improved by feeding chopped, rather than ground, alfalfa hay

(Table 2-1).

Ruminal pH is influenced by the relative concentrations of acids, bases and buffers

present at any given time. Fermentation ofNFC found in high concentrations in

concentrates and cereal grains results in rapid production of organic acids, while peNDF

consumption stimulates saliva flow. Concurrent consumption ofNFC and peNDF









sources can be facilitated by combining diet components in a TMR rather than offering

forage and concentrate separately. Maekawa et al. (2002) used eight ruminally

cannulated lactating Holstein cows arranged in a double 4 x 4 Latin square design to

examine the effects of offering whole crop barley silage and steam-rolled, ground barley

grain-based concentrate on chewing activities, saliva production and ruminal pH. Four

diets were offered: separate ingredients (SI) offered at a forage to concentrate (F:C) ratio

of 50:50 (DM basis), and adlibitum TMR with F:C ratios of 60:40, 50:50, and 40:60.

When SI were fed, silage was offered ad libitum and grain was offered at 50% of

previous DM consumption to facilitate consumption of a 50:50 F:C ratio. However,

animals fed SI elected to consume an actual F:C ratio of 43:57, illustrating that when diet

components are fed separately, the animals may choose to consume a different F:C ratio

than the formulated ration. Cows were fed twice daily, with silage fed 1 hour after the

concentrate on SI treatment. Eating and ruminating activities were recorded every 5

minutes for 24 hours. Ruminal pH was measured every 5 seconds for 24 hours, and mean

pH for each 15-minute period was recorded. Saliva samples were collected at the cardia

during feeding and resting. Salivation could not be measured during rumination, so

salivation rate was assumed to be the same as that observed during eating.

Salivary secretion rate was 2.2 times greater during eating than resting. Linear

effects of increasing silage concentrations in the TMR showed only numerical increase in

minutes/ day spent eating (P=0.18), but increased minutes/ day spent ruminating

(P=0.03), increasing total chewing time (P=0.01) from 741 to 757 and 848 minutes/day

on F:C ratios of 40:60, 50:50, and 60:40, respectively. Total chewing time by cows fed

the SI diet (736 minutes/ day) was similar to that of cows fed the 40:60 TMR. However,









SI was consumed at a faster (P=0.02) rate (10.9 minutes/ kg of DM) than the 40:60 TMR

(13.5 minutes/ kg of DM). Concentrates required less mastication before being

swallowed, and were therefore consumed more rapidly than silage or TMR (P<0.01),

decreasing the amount of saliva produced per unit of feed (ml/g of DM) from 4.43 on

silage to 1.19 on concentrates (P<0.01). The main diet effect on ruminal pH was not

significant, but numerical differences presented in Table 2-2 suggest that diet did alter pH

characteristics. The postprandial decline in ruminal pH was greatest for cows fed SI, and

mean ruminal pH in SI cows was below the 5.8 benchmark suggested for increased risk

of subacute ruminal acidosis. Feeding TMR rather than SI appeared to decrease risk of

ruminal acidosis by preventing higher than intended consumption of concentrates and

increasing saliva production via increased mastication at the time that rapidly fermentable

concentrates were consumed.

Effects of Particle Size on Digesta Passage, Intake, and Fermentation

Kennedy et al. (1992) reported a linear increase in DMI (P<0.001) and linear

decreases in ruminal DM retention time (P=0.001) and DM digestibility (P<0.01) when

wheaten hay fed ad libitum to sheep and goats was progressively switched from hay

chopped to 1 cm (c), to a 2:1 ratio of c + hay ground to pass through a 3-mm screen and

pelleted (p), to a 1:2 ratio of c+p, to an all p diet. Dietary particle size can influence

voluntary intake, rate of digesta passage, and rate and extent of ruminal fermentation.

Since the rumen is a dynamic system, multiple interactions, exceptions, and caveats must

be considered. The following includes a brief, and by no means comprehensive,

discussion of such considerations.

Although multiple factors, including hydration and density, influence the rate at

which feed particles leave the rumen, resistance to outflow increases with increasing









particle size (Poppi et al., 1980). Poppi et al. (1980) suggested a high resistance for

particles greater than 1.18 mm, since less than 5% of particles leaving the rumen of sheep

fed chopped (2 cm) hay were retained on a 1.18 mm mesh sieve. Small particles may

flow from the rumen more rapidly than large particles (Weston and Cantle, 1984). Long

forage particles form a mat in the rumen, which can trap small particles, retaining them

for a greater length of time (Grant, 1997). As a result, decreasing forage particle size

may decrease overall ruminal DM retention (Bernard et al., 2000).

An increased rate of digesta passage can increase voluntary intake by reducing the

constraints of rumen fill. A direct relationship has been demonstrated between increased

ruminal contents and decreased voluntary intake (Campling and Balch, 1961); Schettini

et al., 1999). When long forages are consumed, rumen distention resulting from

restricted digesta flow may limit voluntary intake (Allen, 1996), which may prevent

intake of sufficient energy to meet animal requirements (Miller and O'Dell, 1969).

Conversely, fine particle size in an entire ration, particularly in high concentrate rations,

can also reduce voluntary intake (Krause and Combs, 2003), likely due to unfavorable

alterations in rumen conditions, such as a decline in pH (Nocek, 1997).

Dietary particle size impacts ruminal digestibility in part by influencing the balance

between the length of time feed components are retained in the rumen and the rate at

which they are fermented. Ruminal fermentation of dietary nutrients takes time. An

increased rate of particulate outflow from the rumen decreases the amount of time feed

components are available for microbial fermentation. Ruminal digestibility of dietary

components, particularly of slowly fermenting fiber, may decrease as a result (Pasha et

al., 1994). Conversely, chopping or grinding feed components increases the surface area









available for microbial access (Owens and Goetsch, 1988), increasing the rate of

fermentation. As a result, decreasing the particle size of a particular feed component may

increase the extent of its digestion in the rumen (Callison et al., 2001). However, when

rapid fermentation is not balanced by increased buffers and disappearance of organic

acids from the rumen, ruminal pH will decrease, the microbial population will be altered,

and nutrient digestibility may decrease (Russell and Wilson, 1996)

Changes in dietary physical form alter the ruminal environment, and may result in a

shift in VFA profile. In a study by Krause et al. (2002), four TMR rations with forage to

concentrate ratios of 39:61 (DM basis) were used to investigate the effects of forage

particle size and the concentration of dietary ruminally fermentable carbohydrates (RFC)

in diets of equal NDF content. Diets were offered ad libitum to eight ruminally

cannulated, lactating Holstein cows. Dietary concentrates were cracked-shelled corn

(low RFC) or ground high-moisture shelled corn (high RFC). Dietary forages were

chopped alfalfa silage of mean particle length of 13.6 (coarse) or 3.7mm (fine).

Decreasing forage particle size decreased the amount of time engaged in chewing

behavior (Table 2-3). Both decreasing forage particle size and increasing RFC decreased

mean ruminal pH, increased time (hours per day) and area (time*pH units/day) of

ruminal fluid below pH 5.8, and decreased the ratio of acetate to propionate by increasing

ruminal propionate concentration (Table 2-3). The percentage of dietary particles

retained on the top screen of a Penn State particle separator was positively correlated

(0.61) with minutes of chewing per day (P 0.0003) and, to a lesser extent, negatively

correlated (-0.32) with time that ruminal fluid pH was <5.8 (P 0.09).









Jorgenson and Schultz (1963) fed lactating cattle 7.26 kg of ground corn daily,

along with long-stem (control) or pelleted alfalfa hay in ad libitum amounts. Feeding

pelleted hay increased DMI from 1.1 to 1.2 kg/ 45 kg of body weight (P<0.05), increased

total ruminal VFA concentration from 600 to 844 mg/ 100 ml of ruminal fluid (P<0.05),

and altered the VFA profile of ruminal fluid. As a percentage of total VFA, acetate

decreased from 60.3 to 55.6% (P<0.05), propionate increased from 20.1 to 27.0%

(P<0.05), and butyrate decreased numerically from 17.0 to 15.3% (P>0.05). A second

trial compared the same control diet with an experimental diet of 16.3 kg of a 50:50

mixture of alfalfa: corn pellets, plus ad libitum alfalfa pellets. Changes in VFA profile of

the ruminal fluid were similar to the first trial. Intake, however, declined from 1.22 to

1.18 kg/ 45 kg of body weight (P<0.05) due to difficulty in keeping the cows consuming

the pelleted feed. Blood glucose concentrations increased from 49.1 to 57.4 mg%

(P<0.05) in cows fed the all-pellet diet. Although ruminal pH was not reported in this

study, subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) may be caused by an elevation in total VFA

(Stone, 2004), and can result in decreased or variable intake (Nocek, 1997).

In diets for domestic ruminants, forage has long been the staple physically effective

component, and the effects of forage particle length on digestion parameters and

production performance have been investigated widely. In more recent years, byproduct

(non-forage) feeds have come into use as effective fiber sources in the livestock industry.

The peNDF value of nonforage fiber sources is considerably lower than long-stem

forages, but may be higher than some forms of concentrates, grains, and ground forages

(Mertens, 1997).









Partial replacement of forage with cottonseed hulls (CSH) has been shown to

increase DMI and decrease NDF and DM digestibility (Moore et al., 1990; Theurer et al.,

1999) in cattle, suggesting an associated increase in passage rate. Dry matter intake as a

percent of body weight in steers fed sorghum grain and chopped (15 cm screen) alfalfa

hay increased (P<0.05) when half of the alfalfa was replaced with CSH or chopped (2.5

cm screen) wheat straw (Theurer et al., 1999). However, DMI intake per kg of body

weight gain was lower for steers fed alfalfa, suggesting an increased efficiency of feed

utilization with alfalfa as compared to CSH.

Further effects were noted when CSH replaced long (theoretical 22.3 mm) or short

(theoretical 4.8 mm) cut corn silage in TMR offered to lactating Holstein cows (Kononoff

and Heinrichs, 2003). The inclusion of CSH at 8% of dietary DM reduced the

concentration of corn silage from 57.4 to 45.8% of dietary DM. Physically effective

NDF, estimated according to (Mertens, 1997), did not differ across treatments, and

increased sorting behavior was noted when cows were fed long corn silage. It is

therefore not surprising that reducing corn silage particle size did not affect (P>0.05)

chewing activity, DMI, ruminal pH, or apparent total tract digestibility of total

nonstructural carbohydrates, NDF or acid detergent fiber (ADF). Total chewing time per

kilogram of NDF intake tended (P<0.10) to increase by cow fed diets containing long

corn silage. The inclusion of CSH tended (P=0.06) to decrease total chewing time per

kilogram of DM consumed, and decreased mean ruminal pH from 6.24 to <6.17

(P=0.05). Cottonseed hulls increased DM and NDF intake (P<0.01) but did not affect

DM digestibility.









Potential Implications of peNDF for Captive Giraffe

From 1974 to 1978, a series of digestion trials comparing grass and alfalfa hays

were conducted using thirty herbivore species at five zoos (Foose, 1982). For each

dietary treatment, 14 days were allowed for acclimation to diets, followed by 10 days of

intake measurements. Total fecal production was collected during the final 4 days.

Individual animal intake was recorded, and orts were composite by species and

treatment (grass or alfalfa hay) for chemical analysis. Daily fecal output of each animal

was weighed, and pooled subsamples from each of the 4 days were composite for

analysis. The report mentions that "in most cases, it was possible to collect (fecal)

accumulations only at 24 hour intervals." Given that inability to collect samples soon

after defecation resulted in sample trampling and contamination that prevented total fecal

collection in one giraffe study (Clauss et al., 2001), giraffe digestibility results from the

Foose (1982) study may be inaccurate.

Intake and nutrient extraction results are reported for three giraffe fed alfalfa hay

and one giraffe fed timothy grass hay (Table 2-4). Foose (1982) reports that grass hay

digestion trials on several giraffe had to be discontinued because the animals were

"conspicuously languishing on the diets." Giraffe used were 2 and 3 years old, and thus

were likely to still be growing. Body weight could not be measured, and was estimated

from the literature. Organic matter intake (% of BW) and digestion coefficient ((amount

ingested amount defecated) / amount ingested) x 100% were 0.45 and 57.11 for grass

hay, and 0.89 and 60.70 for alfalfa hay. Of the 28 ungulate species in this study, giraffe

had the lowest intake as a percentage of body weight, suggesting that the ruminal fill

effects of long forage may have an especially high impact in giraffe.









Feeding all-forage diets to high producing dairy cows can prevent adequate energy

intake, but feeding high-concentrate rations has potential to cause a variety of metabolic

and health problems (Miller and O'Dell, 1969). It has been suggested (Clauss et al.,

2002b) that captive giraffe fed a traditional hay/ concentrate diet face a nutritional

dilemma. Giraffe consuming a high proportion of hay will increase ruminal fill and

decrease intake. Those that consume a high proportion of concentrates will increase their

potential risk of ruminal acidosis.

The appropriate particle size for maintaining optimal diet utilization and

gastrointestinal health in CS remains to be determined, but it has been suggested that

giraffe are ill-suited to consumption of long-stem forages and the formation of a ruminal

mat similar to that in domestic ruminants (Clauss et al., 2002b). The giraffe's diet in the

wild consists primarily of polygonal leaves as opposed to the elongated grasses and hays

consumed by GR (Clauss et al., 2002b). These physical as well as chemical features

including density factors may explain why stratification of ruminal contents occurs in

wild GR, but not in wild CS (Hofmann, 1973; Clauss et al., 2001). Anatomical

differences between GR and CS (Hofmann, 1973) suggest a naturally faster passage rate

of digesta in CS ruminants than in GR ruminants, which has been observed in captive

giraffe (Hatt et al., 1998). Giraffe appear to be adapted to rapid rates of fermentation and

nutrient absorption (Hofmann, 1973).

However, feeding high-concentrate, low-forage diets is unlikely to enhance captive

giraffe nutrition. It seems likely that even in giraffe, acid production from ruminally-

degraded organic matter (particularly rapidly fermenting NFC) must be balanced with the

ruminal dilution and salivary stimulation effects of an appropriate form of peNDF (Allen,









1997). Saliva production in wild giraffe may be high due to the oral stimulation and time

involved in selective feeding patterns. One of the challenges in feeding captive giraffe is

providing diets with a physical form that will stimulate mastication and saliva flow to

maintain a balanced rumen pH, while avoiding an unnatural reduction in rate of passage

and dietary intake.

Dietary Carbohydrate Profile

Carbohydrate Fractions

Dietary carbohydrates can be divided into two basic fractions: fiber and nonfiber

carbohydrates (NFC). The chemical bonds between sugar residues in dietary fiber cannot

be broken by mammalian enzymes. As a result, fiber cannot be digested by mammals

themselves, but may be utilized by microbes in the digestive tract. The end products of

microbial fermentation can then be absorbed and utilized by the host animal.

Fermentation of cellulose and hemicelluloses is typically slow (2 to 14% digestion/ hour)

(Sniffen et al., 1992). Nonfiber carbohydrates, on the other hand, are generally

associated with rapid rates of ruminal fermentation, with digestion rate constants of 75 to

400% digestion/ hour for sugars, and 5 to 50% digestion/ hour for starch and pectin

(Sniffen et al., 1992). With the exception of neutral detergent-soluble fiber (NDSF),

NFCs may be digested by mammalian enzymes. The NFC may be further divided into

sugars (mono-, di-, and oligosaccharides), starch, organic acids, and NDSF (Hall et al.,

1999). As we will see, mounting evidence suggests that these NFC fractions differ in

their fermentation characteristics.

As the science of carbohydrate analysis has progressed, new techniques have

allowed evaluation of carbohydrates in increasing detail. Use of different techniques

over time can make the literature difficult to interpret. For the sake of clarity,









carbohydrate fractions found in the different analytical systems discussed in this section

are listed below.

Proximate analysis system

Crude fiber (CF): cellulose, acid- and alkali-insoluble hemicellulose, acid- and

alkali-insoluble lignin

Nitrogen-free extract (NFE): sugars, starch, pectic substances, organic acids,

fructans, acid- and alkali-soluble hemicellulose, acid- and alkali-soluble lignin

Under the proximate analysis system, fiber (hemicellulose) and lignin can appear in

either the CF or NFE fraction. The detergent system, however, distinguishes between the

fiber and non-fiber carbohydrate fraction of feeds.

Detergent system

Neutral detergent fiber (NDF): cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin

Acid detergent fiber (ADF): cellulose, lignin

Nonfiber carbohydrates (NFC): sugars, starch, pectic substances, organic acids,

fructans, and other carbohydrates soluble in neutral detergent

Carbohydrates in Natural CS Diets

The methodology for differentiation of NFC into sugars, starch and NDSF has only

recently been applied to animal feedstuffs. (Dierenfeld et al., 2002) examined sugar and

starch concentrations in 8 fruit and 2 flower species consumed by wild duikers in the

Democratic Republic of Congo. Samples contained 2 tol5 times more sugar than starch,

with DM percentages of sugars at 0.16 in one sample and 3.19 to 15.71 in 9 samples, and

DM starch percentages of 7.43 in 1 sample, 0.37 to 1.96 in four samples, and less than

0.1 in 5 samples. Duikers are considered frugivores (fruit eaters), consuming large









proportions of fruits, flowers and seeds. Hence, no leaf material was included in this

report.

Unlike duikers, giraffe are considered folivores (foliage eaters). Plants consumed

by wild giraffe vary widely with season and geographic location. While Acacia spp.

appear to be the most commonly reported dietary item ( Foster, 1966; Dagg and Foster,

1976; Furstenburg and Van Hoven, 1994; Ciofolo and LePendu, 2002; Caister et al.,

2003), giraffe in a given location may consume as many as 66 plant species over the

course of a year (Leuthold and Leuthold, 1972). Trees and shrubs comprise the bulk of

the diet, with limited vine and herb consumption (Leuthold and Leuthold, 1972). Grass

consumption appears either non-existent (Leuthold and Leuthold, 1972) or negligible

(Ciofolo and LePendu, 2002). Field and Ross (1976) observed that woody plants

comprised > 93% of the diet, and "grass appeared to be eaten by accident when enmeshed

with other food." Plant portions consumed are primarily leaves and stems, but may also

include fruits, flowers and bark (Leuthold and Leuthold, 1972; Caister et al., 2003). The

diet of giraffe in Niger was reportedly composed of 86% leaves, 8.5% stems and 5.5%

flowers and fruits. However, during the dry season (December to April), the diet was

composed of 45% leaves and stems, 44% fruits and 11% flowers (Ciofolo and LePendu,

2002).

Wild CS are generally thought to consume a "rich, rapidly fermenting diet"

(Hofmann, 1973). Pellew (1984) reported mean daily nutrient intakes of 2.22 to 3.12 kg

of crude protein (CP), 0.53 to 0.97 kg of ether extract (EE), 4.33 to 8.63 kg of acid

detergent fiber (ADF), and 5.48 to 7.73 kg of nitrogen-free extract (NFE) for giraffe in

the Serengeti. Composition of leaves (DM basis) from 10 plant species consumed by









giraffe in Niger during the dry season ranged from 8.2 to 28.6% CP, 0.8 to 6.8% crude

fat, 1.55 to 16.2% crude fiber (CF), and 19.8 to 71.93% NFE (Caister et al., 2003). Mean

composition of browse leaves (DM basis) from the Narus Valley (Uganda) for the

months of January, March, April, May and December ranged from 11.51 to 22.37% CP,

2.36 to 3.01% EE, 19.33 to 33.48% CF, and 36.80 to 50.32% NFE. Browse stems

contained 5.78 to 9.35% CP, 1.17 to 1.62% EE, 32.49 to 48.80% CF, and 35.91 to

52.18% NFE (Field and Ross, 1976). The high NFE content in these studies seems to

suggest a high concentration of nonfiber carbohydrates. However, it is important to

remember that NFE contains not only sugars, starch and soluble fiber, but also variable

amounts of hemicellulose and lignin, and therefore is not a true representation of NFC

content.

In our search of the literature, we found no published data on NFC fractions in

foliage. Analysis of leaves collected in October from three tree, one shrub, and one grass

species used for zoo animal enrichment showed higher concentrations (DM basis) of

sugars (6.5 to 13.2) than starch (0.3 to 3.1) in four of five species (Table 2-5; R. Ball,

personal communications). Acacia leaves contained 37.2% NFC, 6.5% sugars, and 0.5%

starch, suggesting that NDSF and organic acids may account for approximately 81% of

the NFC fraction. As will be discussed below, the differing NFC fractions do not digest

in the same manner in a fermentative environment. In order to improve our

understanding of their nutritional requirements, and optimize nutrition of captive

folivorous CS species, NFC analysis of natural dietary foliage needs to be further

explored.









Effects of NFC Source on Fermentation Characteristics and Animal Performance

Domestic ruminant feeding studies suggest that high- and low- starch NFC sources

differ in digestion characteristics and fermentation end products. Grains such as corn,

oats, wheat, and barley contain starch as the main nutrient component (Huntington,

1997). Supplemental energy sources having less starch include molasses and sucrose as

sugar sources, as well as beet pulp and citrus pulp, which have substantial NDSF and

sugar contents.

Carbohydrate feeding trials that have involved addition or subtraction of whole

feeds generally alter multiple ration characteristics, rather than carbohydrate profile

alone. This may explain the variability in DMI and body weight changes in livestock fed

diets in which NDSF or sugar sources replaced fibrous or starchy feeds. Increasing

supplemental NDSF sources (generally beet pulp or citrus pulp) while decreasing starchy

feeds (generally barley or corn) has both increased DMI in cattle (Chester-Jones et al.,

1991) and had no effect on DMI in sheep (Ben-Ghedalia et al., 1989). Supplemental

NDSF tended (P = 0.05) to decrease average daily gain in one study (Chester-Jones et

al., 1991), but showed no effect on body weight in others (Bhattacharya and Lubbadah,

1971; Friggens et al., 1995).

Altering dietary NFC profile has changed fermentation patterns, ruminal pH, and

diet digestibility. Switching lactating cows fed a basal diet of freshly cut grass (85%

Lolium perenne) from a supplement (36% of dietary DM) containing 47.5% corn meal

and 50% hominy to a supplement containing 82.5% sugar beet pulp and 15% soybean

hulls increased (P<0.05) ruminal OM and NDF digestibility and VFA concentrations

(Van Vuuren et al., 1993). Ben-Ghedalia et al. (1989) used four ruminally and

duodenally cannulated Merino rams to compare digestion characteristics of supplements









of dried citrus pulp (84.4% of supplement DM) with supplement containing citrus pulp

(20.4%) and barley (76.5%). Isonitrogenous supplements DCP (84.4% citrus pulp) and B

(20.4% citrus pulp, 76.5% barley) were offered with lucerne hay in an 80:20 supplement:

forage ratio. Sheep consuming DCP had greater ruminal pH (6.42) than those consuming

B (6.18). Total tract apparent digestibility of OM did not differ between diets, but

apparent NDF digestibility was greater by sheep fed DCP (79.4%) than those fed B

(63.6%). The results indicate that the fermentation of DCP created a more favorable

ruminal environment for fermentation of NDF.

In vitro investigation of microbial CP yield, detected as trichloroacetic acid-

precipitated crude protein (TCACP), also suggested differences in NFC fermentation

patterns (Hall and Herejk, 2001). When isolated NDF from bermudagrass hay was

incubated with sucrose, corn starch, or citrus pectin in media containing mixed ruminal

microbes, maximum TCACP synthesis (mg/g substrate OM) was greater for starch (85.6)

than sucrose (73.3) or pectin (75.4) (P <0.05). Temporal patterns of TCACP yield

differed as well. Sucrose showed no detectable lag phase, with greatest yield of TCACP

at the 12-hour sampling, and declined only gradually over time. The TCACP reached

peak yield at 12 and 16 hours during fermentation of substrate containing pectin,

followed by a rapid decline. When starch was fermented, peak TCACP yield was not

reached until 16 hours, also followed by a rapid decline.

Bhattacharya and Lubbadah (1971) used cattle and sheep to examine the effects of

replacing corn with beet pulp in high (approximately 75%) concentrate diets. Three

experiments were conducted, with the same four supplements fed in each experiment. In

all three experiments, the control supplement (Diet I) consisted of corn (73%), soybean









meal (21%), tallow (0.8%), bonemeal (2.7%), limestone (2.0%) and salt (0.5%). Beet

pulp was used to replace 0, 50, 75, and 100% of the corn in Diets I, II, III, and IV,

respectively. As beet pulp concentrations increased, concentrations of tallow and

bonemeal were increased, and limestone decreased, to maintain similar levels of fat,

phosphorus, and calcium among diets.

Experiment I used four lactating Holstein-Friesian cows in a 4 x 4 Latin square

design, with 4-week periods, to evaluate dietary effects on body weight gain, milk yield,

and milk fat. Animals were offered 19 kg of concentrate and 5 kg of alfalfa hay daily.

No significant differences were observed. It was noted that bloat symptoms occasionally

seen during pre-experimental and experimental periods in cows on the control diet were

not observed in cows offered the beet pulp diets.

Experiment II consisted of two 17-day trials using eight wethers housed in

metabolism crates, with two animals randomly allotted to each feeding treatment during

each trial. Alfalfa hay in this experiment was ground (size unreported) and mixed with

concentrate in a 26.2: 73.8 ratio. Diets were offered twice daily for three hours each

feeding. Sample collection in each trial included total feces and urine (final 7 days) and

jugular blood samples at three hours post-feeding on the day following the end of the

collection period. Apparent total tract DM digestibility was not affected by diet.

Replacement of Diet I (73% corn supplement) with Diet IV (73% beet pulp supplement)

decreased the apparent percent digestibility of CP (78.2 to 72.5%) and NFE (87.1 to

85.5%) and increased the apparent percent digestibility of CF (46.1 to 72.4%) (P < 0.01).

No dietary effect on blood glucose or VFA concentration was reported.









In Experiment III, rations "similar to those in Experiment 2" were offered ad

libitum to four ruminally fistulated Holstein steers. Beginning with the control ration and

progressing to higher beet pulp concentrations, animals received each ration for seven

days, with four days gradual adjustment between diets. Intake (average 7.65 kg/ day) did

not differ across diets. Ruminal fluid measures at the end of each period showed

differences (P<0.01) in VFA concentration (mmole/ L) response among all treatments,

and increased VFA concentrations in animals on Diets II (138.7), III (157.5) and IV

(141.3) as compared to control animals (113.3). Ruminal pH was numerically lower on

Diet IV (5.9) than on Diets I, II, and III (6.2, 6.3, and 6.2 respectively), and lactic acid

concentration was not affected. The authors observed that when animals received the

control diet, "the rumen was full of gas and frothy foam. As the proportion of ... beet

pulp increased..., gas and foam gradually disappeared, and the appearance of the rumen

ingesta resembled that under hay-feeding conditions."

Notable treatment differences in fermentation characteristics were observed in

ruminally cannulated Angus x Hereford steers (n=20) offered low-quality tallgrass-prairie

hay (chopped through a 75-mm screen, offered at 130% of previous intake) only

(control), and hay supplemented with starch, glucose, fructose or sucrose at 0.30% of

BW/ day (Heldt et al., 1999). Supplemented steers also received ruminally degradable

protein (RDP) (sodium caseinate, 91.6% CP) at 0.031% and 0.122% of BW/ day in

Experiments 1 and 2, respectively. Supplements were administered intraruminally. In

Experiment 2, total tract OM digestibility was 7.9% greater in animals supplemented with

sugars as compared to those receiving starch (P =0.04). In agreement with Ben-Ghedalia

et al. (1989), ruminal pH and total tract NDF digestibility were lower for animals









supplemented with starch than for those supplemented with sugar (P <0.05). Volatile

fatty acid concentrations differed between control and supplemented animals, and

between animals supplemented with sugar or starch (Table 2-6). Ruminal concentrations

of butyrate and lactate were greater in animals supplemented with sugars than in control

animals or animals supplemented with starch (P <0.01). In both experiments, time-

related fermentation patterns were dramatically different for sugars and starch. With all

three sugar treatments, pH declined rapidly, reaching the lowest point at 3 hours after

supplementation, followed by a rapid recovery. Decline in pH was slower for the starch

treatment, reaching the lowest point 9 hours after supplementation.

Interaction Between Dietary Components

Heldt et al. (1999) also illustrates the possible impact of other dietary components,

in this case protein, on fermentation characteristics of NFC fractions. In Experiment 1,

where RDP was fed at 0.031% of BW/ day, OM and NDF digestibility did not differ

between supplement treatments, and NFC supplementation depressed NDF digestibility

when compared to the hay-only control. Increasing RDP from 0.031 to 0.122% BW/ day

(Experiment 2) resulted in higher OM and NDF digestibilities in animals receiving

supplement vs. control, and sugars vs. starch. Carbohydrate treatment affected mean

ruminal pH at high, but not low, RDP amounts. Other factors beyond RDP can alter the

effect of dietary NFC. The physical form of the NFC source can affect the site of

digestion and the extent of ruminal digestion (Callison et al., 2001). The proportion of

dietary forage can affect ruminal VFA production response to individual NFC feeds

(Friggens et al., 1998). Dietary characteristics other than NFC profile alone may affect

animal response to NFC supplementation.









Potential Implications of Dietary NFC Profile for Captive Giraffe

Clemens et al. (1983) reported the molar proportions of VFA in the digestive tracts

of 16 species (4 CS, 5 intermediate feeders (IM), and 7 GR) of free-ranging African

ruminants, using animals sacrificed during wildlife management programs. The digestive

tract was separated by ligatures into six segments, and representative content samples

from each segment were strained through cheesecloth. Supernatant was acidified with

concentrated H2SO4 and refrigerated for later analysis. Sample collection and field

analysis were generally completed within 1 hour after death. Of all species, giraffe had

the highest ruminal proportion of acetate (73.2 + 1.6 molar %; 60.2 to 72.9 molar % in

other species), and the second lowest proportion of propionate (14.1 + 0.5 molar %; 12.8

to 22.8 molar % in other species) in ruminal fluid. The acetate: propionate ratio (5.21 +

0.13) in ruminal fluid from giraffe was exceeded only by the eland (5.71 + 1.38) and

followed closely by the oryx (5.13 + 0.11), with other species ranging from 2.92 to 4.65.

Traditionally, high acetate concentration is associated with fiber fermentation, and

elevated propionate concentration is associated with NFC fermentation. Since giraffe are

thought to consume diets relatively rich in NFC and low in NDF, with extensive fiber

fermentation impeded by a rapid rate of digesta passage from the rumen, high acetate/

low propionate concentrations in the wild giraffe rumen appear paradoxical. However,

domestic ruminant studies reveal that the various NFC fractions differ in fermentation

and VFA production characteristics. Although VFA disappearance rates and the

unknown nutrient content of feedstuffs consumed prior to sample collection cannot be

discounted as possible causes for the findings of Clemens et al. (1983), another potential

contributing factor lies in the still unquantified NFC fractions of giraffe diets consumed

in the wild.









In domestic sheep and cattle, ruminal acetate and propionate profiles have been

altered by modification of dietary NFC. When high amounts of citrus pulp (84.4% of

dietary DM) were fed to sheep in place of a 20.4% citrus pulp and 76.5% barley diet,

propionate decreased numerically from 17.6 to 14.4 molar % (P>0.05) and acetate

increased from 65.0 to 69.1 molar % (P<0.05) (Ben-Ghedalia et al., 1989). Using

continuous culture in vitro fermentations with mixed ruminal microbes from cattle

inoculum, Ariza et al. (2001) observed changes in molar concentrations of propionate and

acetate when starch was decreased from 24.0 to 11.0% and NDSF was increased from 8.8

to 14.4% by altering the substrate ratio of hominy feed to citrus pulp. Propionate

decreased from 22.7 to 16.7 molar % and acetate increased from 62.6 to 68.9 molar %

(P<0.04). The acetate: propionate ratio increased from 2.8 to 4.1 (P=0.01). Strobel and

Russell (1986) provided six carbohydrate substrates (starch, sucrose, cellobiose, xylan,

pectin, and a mix of the preceding in equal parts) to mixed ruminal bacteria at 1 mM/ h

for 10 h at an initial pH of 6.7 (neutral) or 6.0 (low). Propionate concentrations across

treatments were numerically lowest for pectin, though the differences were not significant

(P>0.05) at low pH. Less (P<0.05) propionate was produced in response to pectin (1.3

mM) than starch (2.9 mM) or cellobiose (2.7 mM) at pH 6.7. At neutral pH, millimolar

concentrations of acetate from fermentation of pectin, cellobiose, starch, mixed

carbohydrates, sucrose, and xylan were 10.1, 6.4, 5.1, 4.8, 4.7, and 3.6 respectively, and

were greatest (P<0.05) from pectin fermentation. At low pH, pectin fermentation

resulted in greater (P<0.05) acetate concentrations than fermentation of other single-

carbohydrate treatments, and numerically greater (P>0.05) acetate than from mixed

carbohydrates. Acetate concentrations from pectin fermentation at low pH were half (5.0









mM) those observed at neutral pH (10.1). It should also be noted that decreasing pH

increased (P<0.05) lactate production from starch (0.9 to 4.1 mM), sucrose (3.7 to 8.3

mM), and cellobiose (2.3 to 8.2 mM) whereas lactate was not detectable from

fermentation of pectin or xylan at either pH. The NFC profile of giraffe diets consumed

in the wild has not been determined, but high concentrations of pectic substances in

native feeds could explain the ruminal acetate and propionate concentrations observed in

free-ranging giraffe.

The extraordinarily high ruminal papillation in wild giraffe results in an average

24x increase in ruminal surface area (Hofmann, 1973), denoted as surface enlargement

factor (SEF; (papillary surface + base surface)/ base surface, where papillary surface =

length x mid-level width of papillae x 2 (Hofmann et al., 1988)). By contrast, mean

ruminal SEF in two captive giraffe was 1.90 and 2.67, owing to a dramatic decrease in

papillae size and density (Hofmann and Matern, 1988). The diet of the two captive

giraffe was ad libitum lucerne hay, browse (amount not reported), variable amounts of

produce, and a concentrate mixture consisting primarily of oats, barley, germinated

wheat, soya, lucerne pellets, and maize.

Butyrate is thought to be the most influential VFA in ruminal papillae development

(Van Soest, 1994). Changes in ruminal butyrate concentrations have been variable when

sugar or pectin sources were fermented in combination with varying proportions of starch

or peNDF. It is interesting to note that in both NFC experiments conducted by Heldt et

al. (1999), ruminal concentrations of butyrate were lower than propionate for animals

consuming control and starch-containing treatments, but greater in animals consuming

diets supplemented with sugar, due to an increase in butyrate concentrations. Strobel and










Russell (1986) also observed greater (P<0.05) in vitro butyrate production from

fermentation of sucrose as compared to starch at neutral (6.7) pH, but no difference at

low (6.0) pH. These observations raise questions about a potential relationship between

high ruminal SEF in wild giraffe and VFA production from fermentation of the unknown

NFC fractions of foliage compared with low SEF in captive giraffe offered high-starch

concentrates.



Table 2-1. Effects of particle size of alfalfa-based dairy cow diets on chewing activity
and ruminal pH.
---------------Dietsa.--


AS:AH 50:50


AS:AH 25:75


Item CH GH CH GH SE PC
MPLb, mm 9.78 5.13 7.50 4.42 0.56 0.01
Eating activity (min/kg DM) 12.5 10.8 14.8 15.5 1.7 >0.15
Rumination time (min/kg DM) 19.1 15.7 20.8 13.5 1.6 0.01
Total chewing time (min/kg DM) 31.6 26.5 35.6 28.9 2.7 0.01
Mean rumen pH 5.97 5.78 6.18 5.90 0.15 0.02
pH > 6.20, hours 7.3 3.5 11.0 7.6 3.3 0.11
pH < 5.80, hours 7.5 13.0 5.1 11.7 2.6 0.01
pH > 6.20, area (pH*hours) 6.9 10.5 4.4 10.2 2.2 0.01
pH < 5.80, area (pH*hours) 2.1 3.7 0.9 4.5 1.1 0.01


aAS:AH = Ratio of alfalfa silage to alfalfa hay; CH = chopped hay; GH
barley-based concentrate and 40% forage on a DM basis.


ground hay; overall diet was 60%


bMPL = Mean particle length. Fifty percent of dietary particles are greater or less than this length.
P-value for forage particle size effect.
(Beauchemin et al., 2003)

Table 2-2. Effects of concentrate level and feeding management on ruminal pH of
lactating dairy cows.
------------------Diets-----------------
SIa ---Total Mixed Ration---
Item 43:57b 40:60b 50:50b 60:40b SE Pc
Mean pH 5.77 5.84 5.99 5.98 0.08 0.25
Minimum pH 5.14 5.26 5.40 5.30 0.06 0.06
Percent of time under pH 5.8 55.36 46.25 33.25 34.78 8.0 0.26
Area under pH 5.8 (pH*hours/ day) 4.99 3.52 2.60 2.37 0.81 0.19
aSeparate ingredient diet.
bForage-to-concentrate ratio consumed.
P-value for main effect of diet. Linear and quadratic contrasts calculated for the proportion of silage in the
TMR were not significant (P>0.05).
(Maekawa et al., 2002)











Table 2-3. Effects of forage particle size and grain fermentability on chewing activity,
ruminal pH, and ruminal VFA profile in midlactation cows.
Particle


---------Chewing--------


Ruminal VFA


--Ruminal pH--


Dieta
HMCFS
HMCCS
DCFS
DCCS
SED
Forageg
RFCg


Mean mm
3.0
6.0
2.8
6.3


Eatb
10.1
9.8
9.8
12.2
0.8
0.09
0.07


Rumc
63
96
54
83
6
0.0001
0.03


TCTd
24.9
30.6
21.7
30.9
1.7
0.0001
0.24


mM
161.5
148.4
151.1
144.9
5.6
0.03
0.10


A:Pe
1.60
1.90
2.23
2.45
0.12
0.03
0.0001


Mean
5.72
5.98
5.90
6.07
0.08
0.0006
0.02


h<5.8f
14.3
7.2
9.3
5.5
1.4
0.0001
0.003


Forage x
RFCg 0.02 0.60 0.16 0.40 0.68 0.39 0.11
aHMCFS = High-moisture corn and fine silage, HMCCS = high-moisture corn and coarse silage, DCFS =
dry corn and fine silage, DCCS = dry corn and coarse silage, SED = standard error of the difference.
bMinutes per kilogram dry matter intake
"Minutes of rumination per kilogram NDF intake
dTotal chewing time, minutes per kilogram dry matter intake
eRuminal acetate to propionate ratio
fHours per day below pH
9P-value for effect of variable
(Krause et al., 2002; Krause and Combs, 2003)

Table 2-4. Nutrient intake and digestion coefficients from giraffe fed all-hay diets.
----- ------ Intake--------------------- Digestion coefficient
Treatment OM OM CW CP OM CW CP
Units % BW kg/kg BW0.75 kg/kg BW075 g/kg BW0.75 % % %
Grass 0.45 0.025 0.019 1.20 57.11 57.51 86.01
Alfalfa 0.89 0.049 0.026 10.90 60.70 55.92 93.76


Alfalfa SE 0.01 0.006 0.006 1.40
Values for 1 and 3 giraffe on ad libitum grass and alfalfa hay diets, respectively.
OM= Organic matter; CW = cell wall; CP = crude protein
Modified from Foose (1982).


6.19 2.19


size


1.50










Table 2-5. Chemical composition (DM basis) of five browse plants grown at Busch
Gardens in Tampa, Florida.


Item
(DM)
Ash
NDF
NFC
Sugar
Starch
CP
NDICP
Ca
P


Hibiscusa
18.7
16.87
53.9
15.8
3.2
3.9
15.4
8.4
3.31
0.77


Bambooa
47.7
11.6
65.1
12
6.9
0.3
12.9
5.6
1.08
0.28


NDF = Neutral detergent fiber; NFC
protein.
aLeaf
bLeaf + stem


Acaciaa
39.7
14.23
33.7
37.2
6.5
0.5
16.5
5.2
4.23
0.24


Acaciab
46.8
9.58
46.1
34.8
4.6
0.8
13.6
7.2
2.99
0.24


Mulberrya
27
11.48
33.6
34.6
13.2
3.1
25.7
9.4
2.16
0.4


non-fiber carbohydrates; NDICP


False
Acaciaa
28


7.88
36.4
43.3
7.1
0.7
18.3
9.1
1.9
0.22


False
Acaciab
52.2
6.05
56.7
28.9
4.4
2.1
10.2
4.3
1.63
0.17


neutral detergent insoluble crude


Samples collected in October, 2004.
Unpublished data courtesy of Busch Gardens, Tampa.










Table 2-6. Influence of supplemental carbohydrate source fed in combination with 0.122% BW/ day of degradable intake protein on
ruminal fermentation characteristics.
-------------Orthogonal contrasts, P-value-------------
Control Starch Mono- Glucose
vs vs vs vs
Component Control Starch Glucose Fructose Sucrose SEM supplement sugar disaccharide fuctose
pH 6.56 6.13 6.16 6.29 6.22 .04 <.01 .04 .97 .03
NH3 N, mM .31 2.42 2.99 2.85 1.88 .47 <.01 .79 .10 .83
OA, mA4 70.8 98.9 96.0 89.0 89.1 2.91 <.01 .05 .37 .12
Acetate 73.5 69.5 61.5 59.8 59.7 .71 <.01 <.01 .34 .11
Propionate 14.0 16.4 14.1 14.2 14.4 .31 .05 <.01 .40 .81
Butyrate 10.6 10.3 17.5 18.9 19.5 .61 <.01 <.01 .11 .13
Isobutyrate .63 .82 .72 .66 .64 .05 .14 .02 .42 .39
Valerate .46 1.43 1.74 1.73 1.72 .06 <.01 <.01 .30 .92
Isovalerate .60 1.13 .99 .94 .90 .08 <.01 .07 .54 .71
Lactate .31 .45 3.52 3.82 2.95 .58 <.01 <.01 .33 .72
aOA = Total organic acids (VFA + lactate)
VFA concentrations presented as mol/100 mol
(Heldt et al., 1999)














CHAPTER 3
EFFECTS OF ALTERING THE PHYSICAL FORM AND CARBOHYDRATE
PROFILE OF THE DIET ON CAPTIVE GIRAFFE

Introduction

Physical characteristics of feeds, particularly of the fiber fraction, can influence the

efficiency of use of a ruminant's diet. Proper ruminal function in domestic ruminants is

maintained by consumption of sufficient "physically effective fiber" (peNDF), which is

determined by the neutral detergent fiber (NDF) concentration and the ability of the feed

to promote a chewing response in the animal (Mertens, 1997). The appropriate physical

form, digestibility, and quantity of peNDF for concentrate selectors (CS) such as giraffe

have not been determined. It has been proposed that peNDF for CS includes particles of

polygonal shape similar to browse, rather than the needle-like fibers derived from grasses

(Clauss et al., 2002). Captive giraffe fed a traditional hay/ concentrate diet may face a

nutritional dilemma: consume a high proportion of hay, increasing ruminal fill and

decreasing intake, or consume a high proportion of concentrates, increasing potential risk

of ruminal acidosis (Clauss et al., 2002).

Nonfiber carbohydrates (NFCs) can be divided into sugars (mono-, di-, and

oligosaccharides), starch, organic acids, and neutral-detergent soluble fiber (NDSF),

which includes carbohydrates such as pectin (Hall et al., 1999). The NFC fractions differ

in fermentation characteristics and end products. Sugar (sucrose), starch and pectin have

been shown to differ in vitro in both maximum microbial protein yields and in temporal

pattern of that yield (Hall and Herejk, 2001). When fermented in the absence of other









NFC sources, sugars have produced higher butyrate concentrations than starch (Heldt et

al., 1999; Strobel and Russell, 1986). Strobel and Russell (1986) noted that unlike

fermentation of sugars or starch, pectin fermentation did not result in detectable lactate

production at either neutral (6.7) or low (6.0) ph media. Fermentation of pectin or feeds

high in NDSF has increased acetate concentrations both in vitro (Ariza et al., 2001;

Strobel and Russell, 1986) and in vivo (Ben-Ghedalia et al., 1989).

Although the NFC fractions of giraffe diets in nature have not been quantified

extensively, analysis of leaves collected from five tree and shrub species used for

enrichment of zoo animal diets showed greater DM concentrations of sugars (6.5 13.2)

than starch (0.3 3.1) in four of five species (R. Ball, personal communications). Acacia

leaves contained 37.2% NFC, 6.5% sugars, and 0.5% starch, suggesting that NDSF,

organic acids, and analytical may account for approximately 81% of the NFC fraction (R.

Ball, personal communications). Consumption of feeds high in NDSF by wild giraffe

could explain why when (Clemens et al., 1983) examined molar proportions of volatile

fatty acids (VFA) in the digestive tracts of 16 free-ranging African ruminant species, the

highest ruminal proportion of acetate and the second highest acetate: propionate ratio

were found in giraffe. Collectively, these observations raise questions about the

importance of dietary NFC complement in maintaining optimal ruminal fermentation,

and the response of captive giraffe to the various NFC fractions.

Nutrient supply to the ruminant animal is not dependent upon diet composition

alone. The amounts and proportions of offered dietary items that the animal chooses to

consume, digestion characteristics and interactions of consumed dietary components, and

nutrient absorption also must be considered. It has been suggested that the wasting and









sudden death widely reported in captive giraffe (Fox, 1938; Chaffe, 1968; Fowler, 1978;

Strandberg et al., 1984; Flach et al., 1997; Junge and Bradley, 1993; Ball et al., 2002)

may be a result of a functional energy deficiency ( Fowler, 1978; Ball et al., 2002). The

reports of ruminal acidosis (Clauss, 1998; Clauss et al., 2002b), fermentative gastritis or

rumenitis (Fox, 1938; Ball et al., 2002), gastrointestinal ulceration (Fox, 1938; Fowler,

1978) and pancreatic pathologies ( Fox, 1938; Fowler, 1978; Lechowski et al., 1991; Ball

et al., 2002) also may be indicative of consumption of an unbalanced diet or altered

fermentation of dietary components in captive giraffe. Compounding this problem,

decreased ruminal absorptive surface area that has been reported in captive giraffe

(Hofmann and Matern, 1988) may impair nutrient absorption.

The objective of this study was to examine the effects of modified dietary physical

form and NFC profile compared to a commercial diet on captive giraffe intake, nutrient

digestibility, behavior, and blood parameters. The hypothesis was that modifying

supplement physical form and NFC profile would alter the intake, nutrient digestion,

behavior, and blood parameters of captive giraffe fed a hay + supplement diet.

Materials and Methods

Design

This study was conducted from August 2002 through February 2003 at Busch

Gardens in Tampa, FL (BGT). The design was a modified reversal study using two

treatments and six animals in seven 21-day periods (Table 3-1). The study was

conducted according to protocols approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use

Committees of the University of Florida and Busch Entertainment Corporation.









Giraffe

Six non-lactating adult female reticulated giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis

reticulata) were used. Body weight (BW) ranged from 576 to 715 kg (average 637 +

42.6 kg). Giraffe were assigned identification numbers G1 through G6, in order of

entrance to the study. Three giraffe (G2, G4 and G6) were wild-caught, and estimated to

be approximately 22 years of age at the time of the study. Three giraffe were born at

BGT and aged 12 (G1), 7 (G3), and 4 (G5) years at time of entrance to the study.

Pregnancy status of the animals varied. Two giraffe were in the third (G1) and

second (G3) trimesters of pregnancy during their time on study, and the remaining four

giraffe were non-pregnant. Nine and a half months prior to entrance to the study, G5

delivered a large (74 kg), rapidly growing calf. The calf was weaned through progressive

separation two to five days prior to G5's entrance to the study.

Facilities

Study giraffe were individually housed in two adjacent pens, which allowed

continual access to visual and tactile contact with conspecifics. Pen dimensions were

approximately 22 and 21 meters (east to west) by 8 and 9 meters (north to south) in pens

1 and 2 respectively. Flooring in each pen consisted of a roughed concrete pad of

approximately 9 by 9 meters spanning the west end, and sand in the remainder of the pen.

A shade shelter sloped east to west (9 and 7 meters high respectively) and covered the

western 1/3 of each pen. Radiant heaters attached to the bottom of the shade shelter

provided heat when temperatures fell below 100C. Pen 1 was equipped with a second

shelter adjacent to the west end of the pen that provided feed troughs with additional

protection from driving rain. Feed in pen 1 suffered less weather damage than feed in

pen 2 for one collection day in period 1 as a result. Water was provided in a 189-litre tub









at ground height in pen 1, and an automatic waterer (Nelson Manufacturing Company,

Cedar Rapids, IA) at approximately 1.8 meters high in pen 2.

Hayracks with catch pans and supplement feed tubs were mounted to the center of

the west wall in each pen. Feeders were only accessible to the animal in that pen.

Hayracks and supplement feeders were placed adjacent to one another, with the top of

each mounted to the top of the wall at approximately 3.2 meters high. At the onset of

period 3, the supplement feed pan in pen 2 was lowered 15 cm to accommodate the

shorter height of G3, and remained at this height for the remainder of the study.

Diets

The standard BGT giraffe ration consisted of adlibitum alfalfa hay, fresh browse as

available, and two concentrates, Mazuri Browser Breeder and Purina Omelene 200

(Purina Mills, St. Louis, MO). Concentrates were fed together in a 75:25 ratio (as-fed

basis) at approximately 1% of giraffe body weight as per manufacturer's

recommendations for Mazuri Browser Breeder. This 75:25 grain mix (GF) was used as

the control diet for comparative evaluation to the coarse, non-pelleted experimental

browser feed (EF). Ingredient composition (DM basis) of EF was 35% sugar beet pulp,

18% cottonseed hulls, 13% molasses, 11% soybean meal, 10% alfalfa meal, 6% mineral

mix*, 4% heat-treated soybean meal (Soy Plus) and 3% sucrose (table sugar).

*Mineral mix was 94.5% DM, and was composed of the following ingredients
(percentage inclusion on air dry basis): dicalcium phosphate (39.5%), calcium carbonate
(8.76%), urea (8.76%), salt (5.25%), sodium bicarbonate (17.5%), potassium carbonate
(9.65%), selenium 1% (0.12%), cobalt sulfate (0.02%), copper sulfate (0.08%), zinc
sulfate (0.08%), iron sulfate (0.30%), manganese sulfate (4.38%), magnesium oxide
(4.38%), ethylenediamine dihydroiodide (0.003%), vitamin A 650 x 106 IU/ kg (0.03%),
vitamin D3 400 x 106 IU/ kg (0.01), and vitamin E 500 x 103 IU/ kg (0.80%). Mix
contained: 84% ash, 24% CP as non-protein N, 9.9% Ca, 8.3% P, 6.9% Na, 3.2% Cl,
2.6% Mg, 4.7% K, 0.96% S, 68 ppm Co, 203 ppm Cu, 20 ppm I, 5270 ppm Fe, 14118
ppm Mn, 12 ppm Se, 2060 ppm Zn, 88452 IU/# Vit. A, 18144 IU/# Vit. D3, 1814 IU/#
Vit. E.











The EF was formulated to be equivalent to GF in minerals and vitamins A, D, and E, and

differed from GF and other commonly-fed browser feeds by containing less starch, more

sugars and soluble fiber, and small, heavily lignified particles (cottonseed hulls) to

modify the fiber size and texture of the diet. The experimental supplement was mixed in

178 kg batches by study personnel at the University of Florida Dairy Research Unit

(Hague, FL).

Each animal was housed individually and fed EF or GF ad libitum for 21 days, and

then received the other feed supplement in the subsequent 21-day period, so that each

animal received each diet. Alfalfa hay, water, and salt were offered ad libitum

throughout the study.

Sample Collection and Analyses

Feedstuffs and intake

Amounts of all feedstuffs offered and refused were weighed and recorded daily.

Subsamples of all feedstuffs were collected. In periods 1 through 3, two to three flakes of

alfalfa hay from a bale fed (and considered representative of alfalfa offered during that

period) were retained for analysis. In periods 4 through 7, a bale corer was used to

sample five to seven of the bales fed during that period. On days 15-21 of each study

period, th total amount of hay and supplement orts for each giraffe were collected and

frozen at -230C until analysis.

Dry matter (DM) content of supplement fed and daily supplement orts were

obtained by drying duplicate subsamples of two to three grams each at 1050C in a forced

air oven for approximately 36 hours, until a constant weight was achieved. Results were









used to calculate daily dry matter intake (DMI) for each animal. Subsamples of offered

supplements and supplement orts were dried at 550C in a forced-air oven until constant

weight was achieved. Subsamples were retained for particle size analysis, and the

remaining dried sample was ground through a Wiley mill (A.H. Thomas, Philadelphia,

PA) to pass through a 1-mm screen.

In order to obtain representative subsamples for DM determination, hay offered in

periods 1 through 3 and total daily hay orts for each animal were chopped with a paper

cutter to roughly 2.5 cm, then blended and subsampled following the procedure of Van

Soest and Robertson (1985). One subsample of approximately 10 grams was used to

determine DM. Remaining sample was dried in a forced-air oven at 550C, ground

through a Hammer mill (Smalley Manufacturing Co., Manitowoc, WI) using a 0.635-cm

screen, mixed and subsampled. Subsamples were ground through a Wiley mill using a 1-

mm screen. Ground samples were analyzed for DM at 1050C and organic matter (OM)

by ashing overnight (>8 hours) at 5120C in a muffle furnace (Sybron Corporation,

Dubuque, IA). Daily orts were composite on a DM basis by giraffe by period. Batches

of EF fed during the collection week of each period were composite by period. Mazuri

Browser Breeder and Purina Omelene 200 fed in each period were analyzed separately

for nutrient content, and results used to calculate the nutrient composition of GF (75%

Mazuri Browser Breeder, 25% Purina Omelene 200) fed in each period.

Feed offered and composite orts were analyzed for DM, OM and nutrient content.

Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and NDF organic matter (NDFOM) were determined using

heat-stable ca-amylase (Goering and Van Soest, 1970; Van Soest, 1991). Acid detergent

fiber (ADF) (Goering and Van Soest, 1970), sugar (Hall, 2001), starch (Hall, 2001),









lignin (Goering and Van Soest, 1970), and mineral (using Perkin Elmer 3300 XL ICP

manufactured by Perkin Elmer, Shelton, CT) (Association of Official Analytical

Chemists, 1990) content were analyzed by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services,

Maugansville, MD. Neutral detergent soluble fiber was determined according to the

method of (Hall et al., 1999). Crude protein (CP) as N x 6.25 was determined by

combustion analysis (Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1990) using Macro

Elementar Analyzer (vario MAX CN, Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Hanau,

Germany). Nutrient intake was calculated as: kg nutrient offered kg nutrient refused.

Particle size of supplements offered was analyzed using U.S.A. Standard Testing

Sieves (Fisher Scientific Company, Pittsburg, PA) 5, 10, 18, 23, 60, and 120 (pore sizes

of 4, 2, 1, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.125 mm). Samples of approximately 10 g DM were soaked in

300 ml of deionized water for 2 hours. Hydrated samples were quantitatively transferred

to stacked sieves. The top sieve was rinsed for 5 minutes using a three-jet water sprayer

calibrated to a flow of 1 L per minute (D. Mertens, personal communication), then

inverted and contents rinsed into a Gooch crucible under vacuum. This procedure was

repeated for each sieve. Crucibles were dried at 1050C for approximately 36 hours to

determine DM retained on each screen. Results were used to calculate modulus of finess

(MOF) according to Poppi et al. (1980).

Fecal collection and analysis

Attempts at total fecal collection began on day 16 in period 3, and day 15 of each

remaining period, and lasted for 56 108 consecutive hours. Duration of total fecal

collection in a given period was often limited by adverse weather conditions or animal

behavior that resulted in sample loss or safety risk to the animal or staff. In period 3,









attempts to collect the total daily fecal production of G3 were considered unsuccessful

due to excessive pacing by that animal. Total collection was not attempted on G3 in

period 4. Samples were collected in gallon Ziploc bags approximately six times per day,

as staff became available, and for two hours overnight on days 16 and 17 in period 3, and

days 15 and 16 in remaining periods. Samples were frozen at -230C for subsequent

analysis.

Fecal samples from each giraffe were composite by each 24 hours of collection,

yielding two consecutive 24-hour composites for each giraffe in each study period, with

the exception of G3 in P4, when total collection was not attempted. Compositing

procedure was as follows. Samples were thawed in their original bags overnight at room

temperature. Each individual bag of fecal material was weighed on a Mettler PE 3600

top-loading balance. Bag contents were emptied into a plastic container. All non-fecal

organic debris and as much contaminating sand as possible were removed from the

sample and returned to the original bag. Bag and debris weight was subtracted from

initial weight to calculate sample wet weight. Sample was mixed manually, and

subsamples of 10% + 0.02% of original wet weight were taken from each bag for each

composite. Two composites were retained for each giraffe by day, and frozen at -130C

until analysis.

Composite 1 was dried for analysis of DM, OM, NDF and CP. The thawed sample

bag was laid flat and rolled with a plastic cylinder to crush fecal pellets and blend

material, facilitating accuracy of subsampling. Duplicate subsamples of approximately 2-

3 g each were used to determine DM and OM and the remaining sample was dried in a

forced air-oven at 550C and ground to pass through the 1-mm screen of a Wiley mill.









Crude protein as N x 6.25 was determined in duplicate on 0.25 0.35 g samples by

combustion analysis (Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1990) (Vario MAX

CN, Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Hanau, Germany). Duplicate samples of 0.7 g

each were used to determine NDFOM using heat-stable a-amylase (Goering and Van

Soest, 1970; Van Soest, 1991 ). Percent digestibility of NDFOM and apparent percent

digestibility of OM and CP were calculated as: (mean g nutrient consumed per day) -

(mean g nutrient defecated per day) / (mean g nutrient consumed per day), using intake

values from days 14 through 20 in each period and fecal samples collected for 48

consecutive hours on days 16 through 18 in periods 3 and 6, and days 15 through 17 in

remaining periods. Nutrient kg digested was calculated as: nutrient kg consumed x

percent digestibility.

Composite 2 was crushed manually, subsampled for DM and OM, and analyzed

wet for CP, to examine for volatile nitrogen (N) loss due to drying and grinding.

Composite 1 and composite 2 samples were analyzed for CP using macro-Kjeldahl

analysis (Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1990).

Behavior

On days 13 through 15 of each period, behavior was recorded for 48 consecutive

hours by on-site trained observers. Rumination, consumption (supplement, hay, water,

salt and sand), oral stereotypes (tongue play, licking metal and licking non-metal

inanimate objects), tactile contact between giraffe, and locomotor behaviors (standing,

walking, lying down with head erect and lying down with head on flank) were recorded

every sixty seconds using instantaneous sampling (Martin and Bateson, 1986). Results

were analyzed for differences in the number of minutes over 48 hours engaged in each

individual behavior, total oral stereotypes, supplement + hay consumption, supplement +









hay consumption + rumination, and total oral behavior (all oral stereotypes + total feed,

water, salt and sand consumption + rumination).

Body weight and blood samples

A 2.4 meter high solid wooden chute system adjacent to pen 1 provided manual

restraint for blood collection. The chute was equipped with a scale for measuring body

weight. At approximately 0800 hours on day 1 of the first period an animal entered the

study and day 21 of each period, weight and body condition scores (scored by C. Kearney

on a scale of 1 through 8) were recorded and blood samples collected on each animal

before feeding. Blood samples were collected via jugular venipuncture using manual

restraint (chute system). Blood samples were collected on all giraffe using clot tubes and

three anti-coagulants: ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), sodium heparin (NaH),

and sodium citrate (NaC) (Vacutainer Brand tubes by Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes,

NJ). Blood was collected using an 18- or 14-gauge needle, 30-inch extension set and 35-

cc syringe. Blood samples were transferred into the tubes, placed on ice, and returned to

the zoo hospital laboratory within two hours of collection. Sodium citrate samples were

placed on a rocker until shipping for fibrinogen analysis.

Complete blood count (on whole blood prepared with EDTA) (Automated Cell

Counter) and serum chemistry profiles (Hitachi 747-200 Chemistry Analyzer, Hitachi,

Hitachi-NAKA, Japan) were analyzed by Antech Diagnostics (Largo, FL). Serum

chemistry profiles evaluated glucose, urea nitrogen, creatinine, total protein, albumin,

total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate

aminotransferase, cholesterol, Ca, P, Na, K, Cl, Mg, globulin, lipase, amylase,

triglycerides, creatinine phosphokinase, gamma-glutamyltransferase, lactate

dehydrogenase, and calculated osmolality. Additional plasma and serum were pipetted









into scintillation vials and frozen at -800C for later analysis. Plasma with NaH was

analyzed for insulin (double antibody radioimmunoassay procedure; Soeldner and

Sloane, 1965), and non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) (NEFA-C kit; Wako Fine Chemical

Industries USA, Inc., Dallas, TX; as modified by Johnson and Peters (1993) at the

University of Florida.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed by the MIXED procedure of SAS (1999). Animal response

data were analyzed using a statistical model that included animal, period, and diet with

animal as a random variable. Supplement nutrient content and fecal nutrient content were

analyzed using the model "nutrient = diet". Results are reported as least squares means

with standard errors as determine with PROC MIXED. Pearson correlation coefficients

were calculated using the PROC CORR procedure of SAS. Due to the small number of

animals in this study (n=6), significance was declared at P<0.10, and tendency at

0.10
Results and Discussion

As planned, the EF diet contained greater concentrations of sugar (P<0.001) and

NDSF (P<0.001), and decreased concentrations of starch (P<0.001) (Table 3-2).

Concentrations of ash, lignin, and NDFOM were also greater in EF, and CP

concentrations tended to increase as well, and variable differences occurred in mineral

concentrations (Table 3-2). Supplement particle size differed (P<0.001) between diets.

The EF supplement was courser than GF, with a greater MOF value (4.97) than GF

(3.15).









Intake

Average daily DM intake varied greatly among the six animals for both alfalfa hay

(0.12 to 3.94 kg/day) and supplement (2.87 to 9.26 kg/day) consumption, but did not

differ between diets (Table 3-3). As giraffe shifted from consuming supplement GF to

EF, starch intake decreased (P=0.052) from 0.93 to 0.12 kg/ day, sugar intake tended

(P=0.115) to increase from 1.12 to 1.53 kg/day, and NDSF intake increased (P=0.074)

from 0.85 to 1.19 kg/day. Consumption of ADF (1.83 vs. 2.23 kg/day) (P=0.039) and

lignin (0.33 vs. 0.50 kg/day) (P=0.064) differed between animals consuming supplement

GF and those consuming EF, respectively.

Although supplements were formulated to be equivalent in concentration of

minerals, CP, and NDF, analysis of the supplements fed revealed slight differences in

these analytes (Table 3-2). As a result, treatment-associated differences for mineral

intake (Table 3-3) may reflect differences in supplement mineral concentrations.

Differences in supplement nutrient concentration and intake may account for the

increased consumption of NDFOM and ash when giraffes were offered EF. There was a

tendency for greater CP consumption by giraffe offered EF than those offered GF

(P=0.136).

Pellew (1983) estimated intake of wild giraffe in the Serengeti by recording the

number of bites during feeding bouts, then multiplying by mean bite mass. Mean bite

mass was first estimated by hand clipping foliage to simulate giraffe browsing behavior,

then corrected using observations of the number of bites taken by captive giraffe

consuming a known quantity of browse during timed feeding periods. Daily DM intake

was estimated as 19.0 kg for males and 16.6 kg for females. Using average live weights

of 1200 kg and 800 kg, as reported by Dagg and Foster (1976), mean daily DM intake









was estimated at 1.6 and 2.1% of BW for males and females, respectively. Dry matter

intake as a percentage of BW in the present study ranged from 0.69 to 1.66% and

averaged 1.22% (+ 0.28), much lower than intake reported for wild giraffe (Pellew,

1983), but similar to DM intake by non-lactating captive giraffe reported by Baer et al.

(1985) of (1.22% of BW) and by Clauss et al. (2001) of (0.97 to 1.28% of BW).

Digestibility

Several challenges occurred with attempted total fecal collection. In period 1, total

collection was attempted on days 15 and 16, but was considered suspect on day 16

because of possible sample loss due to heavy rain. When laboratory analyses yielded

unusually high digestibility values for day 16, it was concluded that total collection likely

had not been achieved, and this day was excluded from data analysis. Digestibility data

from G3 in period 3 and G4 in period 4 were also excluded from data analysis, since

collection records, high sample ash content, and high digestibility results suggested that

excessive trampling had prevented total collection of fecal material and given excessive

contamination with sand. Since collection was not attempted on G3 in period 4, no

digestibility data is reported for period 4.

Because samples were collected from sand-bedded pens, sand contamination was a

continual complicating factor. Although samples were "cleaned" manually at the time of

collection and again prior to compositing, ash content of fecal composites ranged from 20

to 63% of sample DM (20 to 46% in samples included in results). Sand contamination

increased subsampling error, which often increased variation between duplicates when

samples were analyzed for OM, CP, and especially NDFOM at the University of Florida.

Subsampling of fecal samples and analysis of NDFOM was evaluated at the U.S. Dairy

Forage Research Center (USDA-ARS, Madison, WI), where the same difficulties were









encountered. In the end, any samples not meeting the Horwitz criteria (Horwitz, 1982)

for difference between duplicates were re-analyzed in duplicate at the University of

Florida, and the mean of four values was reported.

Previous attempts at determining apparent digestibility of DM, NDF, and CP in

captive giraffe fed hay/concentrate diets using acid detergent lignin, acid insoluble ash,

indigestible NDF and alkanes as markers have been summarized by Clauss et al. (2001).

Mean apparent digestibility of CP, OM, and NDFOM in the present study fell within the

range of apparent digestibility of CP (59.7 to 82.4%), DM (52.0 to 85.2%), and NDF

(32.5 to 74.8%) previously reported for captive giraffe (Clauss et al., 2001). Digestibility

of NDFOM averaged 55.5 + 4.0%, and was not affected by treatment (Table 3-3). The

kg of NDFOM digested increased (P=0.077) by 0.25 kg on EF, and was likely due in part

to the 0.47 kg increase in NDFOM intake on EF. Apparent OM digestibility averaged

72.0 + 4.5%, and decreased numerically (P=0.206) on the EF diet. Apparent CP

digestibility was numerically 10 percentage units greater for GF than EF (P=0.151), but

apparent kg of CP digested differed by only 0.06 kg (Table 3-3). The EF supplement

included 4% heat-treated soybean meal, containing protein which is less degradable in

the rumen. We do not know if a ruminally undegradable protein source was present in

GF. This potential difference between supplements may have contributed differences in

true CP digestibility between diets. Alternatively, an increase in yield of ruminal or

hindgut microbes may have facilitated an increased presence of microbial CP in the fecal

material of giraffe consuming EF.

The CP concentrations of feces from giraffe fed EF were greater (P<0.004) than

concentrations for giraffe fed GF using all three analytical techniques (Table 3-4). When









fecal samples were analyzed for CP in dry and wet forms, CP concentrations were

generally higher in the wet samples by approximately two percentage units, suggesting a

loss of volatile nitrogen during the drying process. Apparent CP digestibility calculated

using dried feces may have been overestimated as a result.

Behavior

The effect of dietary treatment on giraffe behavior is reported in Table 3-5. The

number of minutes engaged in rumination and hay consumption over 48 hours was not

affected by treatment. Time engaged in supplement consumption was 2.3 times longer

by giraffe offered EF than by giraffe offered GF (P=0.063), and total feeding time tended

(P=0.100) to be greater by giraffe offered EF. The tendency (P=0.124) for increased

time spent in eating and rumination by giraffe fed the EF diet has potential to have

increased saliva flow and ruminal buffering.

Leuthold and Leuthold (1972) reported on the diurnal time budgets of wild giraffe.

Female giraffe spent 53.1% and 15% of daylight hours engaged in feeding and

rumination, respectively (Table 3-6). By contrast, giraffe in this study spent 17.7% and

22% of time feeding and ruminating. It is interesting to note that oral stereotypes, which

have not been observed in wild giraffe, increased the total time captive animals spent

engaged in oral behavior from 39.7% for feeding and rumination alone to 54.1%, which

bears more similarity to the 68.1% of time wild giraffe spent engaged in feeding and

rumination.

Oral stereotypy appears to be the most prevalent stereotypic behavior observed in

captive giraffe. A survey of giraffe and / or okapi-holding American Zoo and Aquariums

Association (AZA) accredited institutions by Bashaw et al. (2001) yielded data on the

occurrence of stereotypes in 214 giraffe and 29 okapi in 49 institutions. The most









prevalent stereotypic behaviors were repetitive licking of non-food objects (referred to as

"licking") and pacing. Licking was reported in 72.4% of giraffe + okapi, and pacing was

reported in 29.9%. Additional behaviors reported in 3.2% of animals included head

tossing, self-injury, and tongue playing. An attempt to reduce incidence of stereotypic

behavior had been made by 51.7% of responding institutions, with reported success in

51.9% of these institutions. Tarou et al. (2003) attempted using Bitter Apple, a

chemical spray used to deter undesirable chewing in horses, to deter stereotypic licking in

three captive giraffe. Animals simply shifted licking behavior to a non-treated area.

Bashaw et al. (2001) suggested that licking in captive giraffe and okapi may be

related to feeding motivation. In the present study, oral stereotypes were recorded as

three separate oral behaviors: repetitive licking of metal objects, repetitive licking of non-

metal objects, and tongue play unassociated with feeding, rumination, drinking, or

licking. Licking metal was the most prevalent oral stereotype (mean = 258 minutes / 48

hours), followed by tongue play (mean = 105 minutes / 48 hours) and licking non-metal

objects (mean = 20 minutes / 48 hours). The amount of time spent engaged in tongue

play tended (P=0.119) to be twice as long in giraffe offered GF (Table 3-5). Although all

six animals exhibited each of the individual stereotypes, they varied in individual

preference for metal licking or tongue play (Figure 3-1). The number of minutes over 48

hours spent engaged in total oral stereotype behavior ranged from 209 to 661, with a

mean of 383 + 127. Despite the increase in time engaged in feeding behavior, minutes

engaged in total oral stereotypes decreased only numerically (P=0.223) from 433 to 318

minutes in giraffe offered EF.









During this study, giraffe were repeatedly observed drooling or swallowing while

engaged in oral stereotype behavior. Although this observation is purely subjective in

nature, it suggests that oral stereotypy may also facilitate some amount of ruminal

buffering.

Blood Measures

Few blood parameters were affected by diet (Table 3-7). Animals consuming GF

had higher (P=0.028) blood glucose values (99.0 mg/dl), compared to those consuming

EF that showed values (82.3 mg/dl) more similar to the range reported for domesticated

ruminants (40-80 mg/dl) (Swenson, 1984). Switching captive giraffe from GF to EF

decreased starch consumption and increased NDSF consumption. Ruminal fermentation

ofNDSF rather than starch has increased acetate and decreased propionate concentrations

in ruminal fluid in domestic livestock studies. Since acetate may be utilized directly as

an energy source or used as a lipogenic substrate, whereas propionate is converted largely

to glucose, a potential NFC profile-associated shift in ruminal VFA production offers one

possible explanation for the decreased blood glucose concentrations in giraffe fed EF.

Despite the similarity in apparent kg of CP digested, blood urea nitrogen showed a

numerical decrease (P=0.166) from 20.6 mg/dl in giraffe fed GF to 16.6 mg/dl in those

fed EF. Comparatively for animals consuming EF, this may reflect a shift in dietary

protein utilization towards proliferation of microbial mass, decreased degradation of body

protein, or decreased degradation of absorbed amino acids.

Non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) decreased numerically for animals consuming

EF (P=0.282), and decreased on EF in all giraffe except G1 (Figure 3-2), who elected to

consume a 99% supplement diet when fed EF. A BW gain of> 15 kg occurred in 5 of 6

giraffe when EF was fed, and only in 1 of 6 giraffe when GF was fed, but treatment-









associated changes in BW varied among animals and were not significant (P = 0.327)

(Table 3-3). These observations raise the question of the basis for possibly decreased

adipose tissue mobilization with diet EF. Could part of this effect be the result of

increased NDSF intake and increased mass of NDFOM digested altering ruminal

acetate:propionate ratio, providing the animals with more lipogenic nutrients?

Blood glucose was positively correlated with kg of OM and CP digested and

consumed (Table 3-8). Although BUN showed a positive correlation with apparent kg of

CP digested, a stronger positive correlation existed between BUN and starch intake.

Glucose and BUN were positively correlated with one another, and of the blood proteins

measured, CPK was the only protein positively correlated with both glucose and BUN

(Table 3-9). Increased blood concentrations of CPK have been associated with increased

muscle catabolism.

Ancillary Study Observations / Individual Animal Effects

The giraffe originally designated to serve as G4 became ill at the time of entrance

to the study. As a result, the study was halted for three weeks, and this animal eventually

entered the study as G6. During the break in the study, G3 continued to receive the EF

diet, which she had received in the previous period. Over the 6 weeks on EF, her body

weight increased by 35 kg, from 542 to 577 kg. While pregnancy status may have been a

contributing factor, her weight gain during three weeks on GF was only 3 kg. This

observation, coupled with increased body weight and condition in a lactating non-study

giraffe fed EF for several months suggest that greater changes in animal response may

have been observed had study periods been of longer duration. Furthermore, ancillary

observations suggest that feeding EF to two lactating giraffe not on study may have

increased milk production. When these females were switched from the normal giraffe









ration (GF) to EF, the fecal consistency of their calves was loose the following day, and

gradually returned to normal over the subsequent days.

By using six non-lactating adult female giraffe, this study contained the largest and

most similar giraffe population reported in a captive feeding study. Even so, each animal

proved to be a unique individual, exhibiting qualities or behaviors that no doubt affected

study results. Giraffe 1 elected to consume a diet of 98.7% supplement and 1.3% hay

when fed the EF diet. Giraffe 2, an arthritic older female with a historically strong

exhibition of maternal behavior, was on the study for three periods, and received the EF

supplement in both periods 1 and 3. The low mean voluntary intake for G2 in period 1

(0.69% of BW), which was lower than other reported intake values (0.86 to 1.66% of

BW), may have been related to factors other than dietary treatment. During the eleven

acclimation days in period 1 during which as-fed intake values can be considered

reasonably accurate (days without heavy rain), her daily as-fed intake averaged 7.01 kg,

similar to mean DM intake (6.92 kg) during the collection week of period 3. However,

mean daily intake on days 16-18 of period 1 decreased by nearly half, to 3.58 kg (3.31 kg

of DM). This may have been related to environmental factors rather than diet. Sand

erosion caused by heavy rain had made it necessary for G2 to step up onto the concrete

pad in order to access feeders. While attempting to walk onto the concrete pad on day

18, G2 was observed "tripping" over a small irrigation pipe that had been exposed by

sand erosion. After the pipe was removed during the morning feeding on day 19, G2

would not step up onto the concrete, and consumed no feed that day. Consequently, day

19 was removed from analysis of intake results. During morning feeding on day 20, a

sand ramp was constructed, and feeding behavior resumed. However, G2 did not









approach the feeders after the evening feeding on day 20, appearing instead to be

preoccupied with the birth and overnight keeper observations of a giraffe calf in an

adjacent pen. Thus, intake amounts on day 20 (3.15 kg of DM) were similar to intake on

days 16 through 18.

Giraffe 3 had not been housed in a small pen prior to this study, and had a history

of nervous behavior around humans. She spent a great deal of time pacing, displaying

nervous behavior which may have affected intake and blood values, and certainly

prevented total fecal collection. Giraffes 3 and 4 frequently engaged in tongue play with

the mouth closed, rather than open, making the behavior difficult to detect from a

distance. Consequently, oral stereotype behavior may have been underestimated or

disproportionately reported in these animals.

Giraffe 5 was on the study for three periods, and received GF supplement in

periods 5 and 7. Prior to study entrance, this primiparous female had been nursing a

rapidly growing calf, and had shown a decline in body weight and condition. Body

weight increased steadily from 611 kg at study entrance to 661 kg at study exit, and body

condition score increased from 3.5 to 4.5 on a scale of 1-8, suggesting that G5 was

recovering from the demands of lactation during her time on the study. Giraffe 5 also

elected to consume hay as a substantially greater proportion (39 to 41%) of total DM

intake than other giraffe. In short, individual animal variation may have played a large

role in the results of this study.

Diet Selection

Both dietary physical form and carbohydrate profile play a role in development or

prevention of ruminal acidosis. Voluntary intake patterns of low amounts of forage and

high amounts of concentrate by captive giraffe appear similar to those associated with









ruminal acidosis in domestic livestock. Hay: supplement intake ratios for giraffe in the

current study ranged from 1:99 to 41:59 and averaged 21:79 (DM basis). Previously

reported hay: concentrate intake ratio of two giraffe fed in the same pen was 26:74 (Baer

et al., 1985). Another study using four giraffe supplemented with limited amounts of

browse in addition to lucerne hay and concentrates found forage:concentrate intake ratios

of 25:75 to 51:49 (Clauss et al., 2001). The forage: supplement intake ratios of the 21

measures taken from these three studies averaged 27:73 (DM basis). Decreasing dietary

ratios of forage: concentrate from 40:60 to 30:70 has been used to induce subclinical

ruminal acidosis in dairy cattle (Krajcarski-Hunt et al., 2002). Although giraffe are

believed to be adapted to diets characterized by a rapid ruminal fermentation and nutrient

absorption, a key factor in this adaptation is greatly increased ruminal surface area.

Papillary development plays an important role in stabilizing pH by preventing acid

accumulation via absorption of ruminally-produced organic acids (Dirksen et al., 1985).

The captive giraffe examined by Hofmann and Matern (1988) had approximately 11% of

the ruminal surface area of that found in wild conspecifics, suggesting they had partially

lost their ability to deal with rapid production of VFA in the rumen. Even pH reductions

that do not reach the threshold for ruminal acidosis can alter the ruminal environment,

and notable changes in fermentation characteristics occur when pH decreases to <6.2

(Russell and Wilson, 1996). If hay: concentrate intake ratios of the eleven giraffe in the

three aforementioned studies, low (relative to wild giraffe) feeding and rumination time

by giraffe in the present study, and papillae development of the two giraffe cited in

Hofmann and Matern (1988) are representative of captive giraffe in general, ruminal pH









reduction, and quite possibly some degree of ruminal acidosis, is likely occurring in a

substantial percentage of the captive giraffe population.

The lack of documentation of acidosis in captive giraffe may relate to the degree of

pH reduction and the extreme difficulty in diagnosing non-catastrophic degrees of

acidosis without rumen fluid collection (Garrett et al., 1999), which is unlikely to occur

in captive giraffe. Symptoms of subacute (pH<5.5) rather than acute (pH<5.0) acidosis

are "insidious and considerably less overt," and include decreased or variable feed intake,

decreased efficiency of milk production, poor body condition, unexplained diarrhea, and

episodic laminitis (Nocek, 1997), symptoms which have occurred in captive giraffe, but

have generally been attributed to other causes. The variation in selective consumption of

forage and concentrate noted in the present study may dictate which animals are at

greater risk of ruminal disorders. Provision of mixed diets that reduce the ability of the

animals to selectively consume concentrates may reduce this risk.

Conclusions

Captive giraffe offered EF as compared to those offered GF increased the amount

of time engaged in feeding behavior to a level closer to that observed for wild giraffe,

which also may have increased ruminal buffering via saliva production at the time of

rapidly-fermenting NFC consumption. Decreased starch and increased NDSF contents of

EF facilitated consumption of a carbohydrate profile that may bear a greater similarity to

natural giraffe feedstuffs than typical zoo concentrate diets. A possible resultant shift in

ruminal VFA production toward the high acetate: low propionate profile observed in wild

giraffe could contribute to the observed decrease in blood glucose.

The fact that few significant treatment effects were observed in this study may be a

result of low animal numbers, individual animal variation, and a relatively short time on









treatment. The experimental supplement was formulated in an attempt to improve

ruminal function and overall animal response, and while results suggest that this

formulation may have some promise, further research is needed for confirmation.


Table 3-1. Design of study.

Pen 1 Pen 2

Period Dates Giraffe Diet Giraffe Diet

1 08/20 09/09/02 2 EF 1 GF

2 09/10 09/30/02 2 GF 1 EF

3 10/01 10/21/02 2 EF 3 EF

4 11/12- 12/02/02 4 EF 3 GF

5 12/03 12/23/02 4 GF 5 GF

6 12/24 01/13/03 6 GF 5 EF

7 01/14 02/03/03 6 EF 5 GF
EF = Experimental supplement; GF = Control supplement









Table 3-2. Chemical composition of alfalfa hay and supplements (dry matter basis) fed
to captive giraffe, and difference between supplements.
-----------------------Supplement ----------
Alfalfa hay GF EF SE P-values
Dry matter (%) 90.8 88.3 85.2 0.29 0.001
Organic matter (%) 91.0 92.0 89.1 0.07 <0.001
Ash (%) 9.04 8.02 10.9 0.07 <0.001
Crude Protein (%) 19.2 17.1 17.6 0.25 0.138
NDFOM (%) 41.2 35.1 40.3 0.60 0.003
ADF (%) 33.8 23.0 26.0 0.41 0.002
Lignin (%) 7.12 3.32 5.67 0.12 <0.001
NDSF (%) 15.2 9.64 14.9 0.25 0.001
Sugar (%) 11.6 14.7 21.4 0.51 <0.001
Starch (%) 1.20 14.2 1.47 0.06 <0.001
Ca (%) 1.65 1.17 1.28 0.02 0.021
P (%) 0.22 0.79 0.65 0.02 0.007
Mg (%) 0.34 0.44 0.56 0.04 0.080
K (%) 1.63 1.21 1.91 0.03 <0.001
Na (%) 0.16 0.30 0.46 0.02 0.003
Fe (ppm) 97.8 413 674 98.9 0.003
Mn (ppm) 31.9 141 1097 75.4 <0.001
Zn (ppm) 37.6 160 282 31.0 0.050
Cu (ppm) 4.94 23.8 29.3 4.26 0.410
NDFOM = neutral detergent fiber organic matter; NDSF = neutral detergent soluble fiber
EF (experimental supplement) was calculated to contain 0.29% S, 0.38 ppm Co, 387 ppm Fe, 1.0 ppm I,
0.77 ppm Se, 6.29 KIU/lb Vitamin A, 1.50 KIU/lb Vitamin D,and 118.23 KIU/lb Vitamin E.
GF (control supplement) was composed of 75% Mazuri Browser Breeder and 25% Purina Omolene 200.
Mazuri Browser Breeder is reported to contain 0.21% S, 0.37 ppm Co, 370 ppm Fe, 1.0 ppm I, 0.69 ppm
Se, 16,250 IU/kg Vitamin A, 3,000 IU/kg Vitamin D3 (added), 240 IU/kg Vitamin E, 5.3 ppm Vitamin K,
12 ppm thiamin hydrochloride, 10 ppm riboflavin, 47 ppm niacin, 44 ppm pantothenic acid, 1070 ppm
choline chloride, 1.5 ppm folic acid, 9.9 ppm pyridoxine, 0.21 ppm biotin, and 46 mcg/kg Vitamin B12.
Purina Omolene 200 is reported to contain not less than 0.60 ppm Se and 3000 IU/lb Vitamin E.

Table 3-3. Effects of dietary treatment on mean daily dry matter and nutrient intake,
digestion of organic matter and crude protein (apparent) and NDFOM (true),
body weight gain and body condition score.
--------P-values--------
Intake, DM basis GF EF SE Diet Period
Total (% of BW) 1.20 1.25 0.10 0.294 0.123
Supplement (% of BW) 1.00 0.98 0.10 0.81 0.237
Hay (% of BW) 0.24 0.23 0.06 0.63 0.332
Total DM, kg/ day 7.60 7.91 0.66 0.527 0.273
Supplement, kg/ day 6.17 6.30 0.58 0.83 0.351










Table 3-3. Continued.


Intake, DM basis
Hay, kg/ day
Organic matter, kg/ day
Ash, kg/ day
Crude protein, kg/ day
NDFOM, kg/ day
Acid detergent fiber, kg/ day
Lignin, kg/ day
NDSF, kg/ day
Sugar, kg/ day
Starch, kg/ day
Calcium, kg/ day
Phosphorous, kg/ day
Magnesium, kg/ day
Potassium, kg/ day
Sodium, kg/ day
Digestibility
OM, % of DM
NDFOM, % of DM
CP, % of DM
OM, kg
NDFOM, kg
CP, kg

Body weight gain, kg
Body condition score


GF
1.47
7.08
0.52
1.32
2.80
1.83
0.33
0.85
1.12
0.93
0.10
0.05
0.03
0.10
0.02

74.1
56.0
75.5
5.09
1.52
0.97

4.84
3.85


EF
1.52
7.20
0.72
1.41
3.27
2.23
0.50
1.19
1.53
0.12
0.11
0.04
0.04
0.14
0.03

69.3
54.6
65.7
4.91
1.77
0.91

12.00
4.18


SE
0.41
0.63
0.05
0.14
0.28
0.22
0.05
0.10
0.11
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00

1.06
1.02
2.22
0.42
0.17
0.10

3.78
0.24


--------P-values--------
Diet Period
0.80 0.348
0.725 0.239
0.157 0.351
0.136 0.095
0.198 0.287
0.039 0.078
0.064 0.275
0.074 0.251
0.115 0.272
0.052 0.675
0.048 0.042
0.185 0.329
0.176 0.201
0.013 0.057
0.112 0.219


0.206
0.513
0.151
0.143
0.077
0.253

0.328
0.247


0.413
0.331
0.593
0.063
0.124
0.194

0.454
0.515


NDFOM = neutral detergent fiber organic matter; NDSF = neutral detergent soluble fiber; GF = control
supplement; EF = experimental supplement

Table 3-4. Effect of diet on fecal nutrient composition (dry matter basis).
--------P-values--------
GF EF SE Diet Period
OM 62.8 64.9 6.94 0.3066 0.0181
NDFOM 42.2 44.4 6.47 0.1123 0.0011
CP (Dried feces)a 11.2 14.2 1.78 <0.0001 0.0017
CP (Wet feces)b 13.4 16.0 1.67 0.0003 0.0054
CP (Dried feces) b 11.6 14.5 1.44 0.0035 0.2830
GF = control supplement; EF = experimental supplement; NDFOM = neutral detergent fiber OM
aCombustion analysis
bKjeldahl analysis









Table 3-5. Recorded behavior of captive giraffe consuming different supplements.


---------Supplement---------


Behavior, minutes/ 48 hours
Standing
Walking
Lying
Sleeping
Social contact
Rumination
Hay consumption
Supplement consumption
Total eating
Eating + rumination
Drinking
Salt
Metal licking
Non-metal licking


GF
1567
272
1009
19
23
609
239
121
359
953
58
1
255
17


EF
1698
194
906
13
23
677
254
277
530
1224
54
0
212
22


Tongue play 161 80
Total oral stereotype 433 318
Wall foraging 37 36
Total oral behavior 1481 1632
GF = control supplement; EF = experimental supplement


SE
281
84
87
3
4
51
45
25
42
35
1
1
70
7
39
57
14
71


--------P-values--------
Diet Period


0.012
0.631


0.017
0.434


did not converge
0.374 0.475
0.994 0.034
0.307 0.322
0.762 0.431
0.063 0.255
0.100 0.312
0.124 0.187
0.416 0.589
0.416 0.589
0.390 0.357
0.716 0.493
0.119 0.302
0.223 0.549
0.983 0.816
0.363 0.455


aTotal eating + rumination + total oral stereotype + wall foraging


Table 3-6. Percentage of time female giraffe spent engaged in oral behaviors.
------------------Captivea-------- ---


Feeding
Rumination


Minimum
9.1
15.8


Maximum
38.2
32.6


Mean
17.7
22


Oral stereotypes 7.3 23 13.3
Oral behavior 43 66.1 54.1
a6 giraffe over 48 hours.
b5 giraffe during daylight hours. (Leuthold and Leuthold, 1978)


SE
2.16
1.38
1.18
2.1


Tildb


Mean
53.1
15
NA
68.1


Table 3-7. Effects of type of dietary supplement on giraffe blood parameters.
--------P-values------
Measure Units GF EF SE Diet Period
Non-esterified fatty acids mEq/L 0.47 0.38 0.06 0.282 0.283
Insulin ng/ml 1.04 0.84 0.27 0.709 0.747
Glucose mg/dl 99 82.3 8.14 0.028 0.041
Blood urea nitrogen mg/dl 20.6 16.6 0.7 0.166 0.549









Table 3-7. Continued

Measure
Creatinine
Total protein
Albumin
Total bilirubin
Alkaline phosphatase
Alanine aminotransferase
Aspartate aminotransferase
Cholesterol
Ca
P
Na
K
Cl
Mg
Globulin
Lipase
Amylase
Triglycerides
CPK
GGTP
Calculated osmolality
Lactate dehydrogenase
Hemoglobin
Hematocrit
WBC


RBC
MCV
MCH
MCHC
Neutrophils
Bands
Lymphocytes
Monocytes
Eosinophils
Basophils
Fibrinogen


Units GF


106/ul




%
%
%
%
%
%
mg/dl


11 11.2
33.1 31.9
11 11
33.7 34.2
76 76.7
0.07 0.07
14.3 11.4
2.58 4.36
6.18 5.84
1.13 1.75
244 236


0.48
0.34
0.1
0.17
4.5
0.13
2.65
0.86
1.92
0.34
11


mg/dl 1.67 1.71
g/dl 8.92 9.03
g/dl 2.49 2.49
mg/dl 0.12 0.16
U/L 158 148
U/L 11.3 7.51
U/L 55.6 45.7
mg/dl 33.2 29.2
mg/dl 8.55 8.95
mg/dl 10.9 10.2
mEq/L 147 146
mEq/L 4.58 4.86
mEq/L 107 104
mEq/L 2.17 2.07
g/dl 6.44 6.55
U/L 31.3 42.5
U/L 11.8 12.2
mg/dl 41.6 35.4
U/L 248 258
U/L 18.5 19.7
mOsm/L 296 291
U/L 401 380
g/dl 12.1 12.3
% 36 35.9
103/ul 15.2 16.5


0.831 0.553
0.263 0.284
0.765 0.277
0.262 0.454
0.843 0.46
1 0.758
0.105 0.108
0.255 0.253
0.897 0.723
did not converge
0.658 0.64


-----P-values-----


GF = control supplement; EF = experimental supplement; CPK = creatinine phosphokinase; GGTP =
gamma glutamyl transpeptidase; WBC = white blood cell; RBC = red blood cell; MCV = mean corpuscular
volume; MCH = mean corpuscular hemoglobin; MCHC = mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration


SE Diet
0.06 0.717
0.32 0.76
0.07 0.973
0.01 0.295
17.6 0.516
1.51 0.244
5.55 0.416
1.86 0.208
0.29 0.309
0.6 0.5
1.32 0.538
0.13 0.183
2.06 0.38
0.5 did not
0.35 0.674
5.4 0.404
0.89 0.817
5.41 0.502
69.8 0.942
3.23 0.799
3.01 0.39
23.2 0.662
0.53 0.859
1.6 0.986
1.42 0.554


Period
0.175
0.731
0.429
0.356
0.386
0.506
0.752
0.335
0.577
0.325
0.526
0.327
0.851
converge
0.833
0.425
0.551
0.874
0.737
0.511
0.523
0.544
0.694
0.7
0.58











Table 3-8. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for correlations of blood glucose and BUN
with kilograms of nutrients consumed and digested.
-----------------Kg consumed---------- -----Kg digested-----
OM NDFOMCP NDSF Sugar Starch OM* NDFOMCP*
Glucose r 0.614 0.462 0.603 0.462 0.231 0.495 0.560 0.400 0.595
P-value 0.020 0.097 0.023 0.097 0.426 0.072 0.074 0.223 0.054
BUN r 0.427 0.146 0.419 0.146 -0.253 0.816 0.521 0.202 0.583
P-value 0.128 0.619 0.136 0.619 0.382 <0.001 0.100 0.552 0.060
NDFom = neutral detergent fiber organic matter; NDSF = neutral detergent soluble fiber; BUN = blood
urea nitrogen.
*Apparent digestion

Table 3-9. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for correlations of blood glucose and BUN
with various blood proteins.
Total Total Alk
protein BUN Creat CPK Albu bilirubin phos ALT AST
Glucose r -0.250 0.758 -0.303 0.525 0.231 -0.307 0.019 0.397 -0.078
P-value 0.389 0.002 0.292 0.054 0.426 0.285 0.950 0.159 0.792
BUN r -0.190 1.000 -0.374 0.515 0.212 -0.387 -0.021 0.463 0.302
P-value 0.514 0.188 0.060 0.466 0.172 0.942 0.091 0.295
BUN = blood urea nitrogen; Creat = creatinine; CPK = creatinine phosphokinase; Alk phos = alkaline
phosphatase; ALT = alanine aminotransferase; AST = aspartate aminotransferase











































0
GF EF EF GF EF EF GF EF GF GF EF GF GF

1 2 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 6

Giraffe 1 Giraffe 2 Giraffe 3 Giraffe 4 Giraffe 5 Giraff
treatment, period, giraffe

Total Oral Stereotypes Metal Licking O Tongue Pay



Figure 3-1. Number of minutes over 48 hours individual giraffe spent engaged in specific and total oral stereotype behavior.


e 6










0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
n an


II


1gf lef 2ef 2gf 2ef 3ef 3gf 4ef 4gf 5gf 5ef 5gf 6gf 6ef

Figure 3-2. Blood concentrations of non-esterified fatty acids in individual giraffe.
Giraffe are designated by number (1-6); gf = control diet; ef = experimental diet.















APPENDIX A
INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL MEASURES













Table A-1. Individual giraffe voluntary intake (DM basis).


Giraffe
Gl
Gl
G2
G2
G2
G3
G3
G4
G4
G5
00 G5
G5
G6
G6


Period
1
2
1
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
7
6
7


Diet
GF
EF
EF
GF
EF
EF
GF
EF
GF
GF
EF
GF
GF
EF


aForage:supplement intake ratio (DM basis)


------Percent Body Weight
Total Supplement
0.86 0.70
1.31 1.29
0.69 0.46
1.01 0.90
1.06 0.87
1.50 1.38
1.66 1.41
1.03 0.87
1.13 0.93
1.44 0.85
1.55 0.94
1.45 0.87
1.24 1.07
1.20 0.97


Alfalfa Hay
0.12
0.02
0.22
0.10
0.20
0.12
0.25
0.17
0.19
0.60
0.61
0.58
0.17
0.22


-------------Kilograms-------------
Total Supplement Alfalfa Hay
5.95 4.84 1.10
9.38 9.26 0.12
4.26 2.87 1.39
6.32 5.66 0.66
6.92 5.64 1.27
8.66 7.95 0.72
9.62 8.18 1.44
6.90 5.79 1.11
7.49 6.20 1.29
9.03 5.30 3.72
10.0 6.10 3.94
9.59 5.73 3.86
7.28 6.28 0.99
7.13 5.79 1.34


F:S Ratioa
19:81
01:99
33:67
10:90
18:82
08:92
15:85
16:84
17:83
41:59
39:61
40:60
14:86
19:81












Table A-2. Individual giraffe nutrient intake (kg) (DM basis).
Giraffe Period Diet DM Ash CP NDFOM ADF Lignin NDSF Sugar Starch Ca P Mg K Na
Gl 1 GF 5.95 0.35 1.03 2.21 1.53 0.26 0.64 0.90 0.83 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.02
G1 2 EF 9.38 1.01 1.61 4.09 2.64 0.59 1.40 1.80 0.14 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.17 0.04
G2 1 EF 4.26 0.42 0.77 1.80 1.31 0.30 0.72 0.67 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.01
G2 2 GF 6.32 0.52 1.11 2.38 1.55 0.24 0.70 0.94 0.75 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.03
G2 3 EF 6.92 0.63 1.20 2.86 1.93 0.43 1.03 1.51 0.11 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.13 0.03
G3 3 EF 8.66 0.83 1.50 3.52 2.29 0.49 1.25 1.96 0.14 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.17 0.04
G3 4 GF 9.62 0.65 1.71 3.52 2.33 0.41 1.12 1.38 1.15 0.14 0.07 0.04 0.12 0.03
G4 4 EF 6.90 0.64 1.21 2.79 1.81 0.42 1.08 1.58 0.07 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.03
G4 5 GF 7.49 0.54 1.39 2.54 1.63 0.27 0.79 1.03 1.03 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.09 0.02
G5 5 GF 9.03 0.48 1.71 3.32 2.30 0.47 1.18 1.14 0.94 0.13 0.05 0.04 0.12 0.02
G5 6 EF 10.04 0.76 1.89 4.24 3.03 0.67 1.52 1.82 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.04 0.18 0.03
G5 7 GF 9.59 0.55 1.65 3.79 2.53 0.52 1.26 1.32 0.84 0.12 0.05 0.04 0.13 0.02
G6 6 GF 7.28 0.51 1.26 2.61 1.75 0.30 0.71 0.93 1.00 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.09 0.02
G6 7 EF 7.13 0.65 1.17 2.92 2.01 0.46 1.05 1.45 0.11 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.03
NDFOM = neutral detergent fiber organic matter; NDSF = neutral detergent soluble fiber












giraffe fecal output, fecal nutrient concentration (% of DM), and apparent nutrient digestibility (%).


Giraffe
Gl
Gl
Gl
Gl
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G3
G3
G4
G4
G4
G4
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G6
G6
G6
G6


NDFOM = neutral detergent fiber organic matter


Period
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3


5
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
6
6
7
7


Day
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2


Diet
GF
GF
EF
EF
EF
EF
GF
GF
EF
EF
EF
EF
EF
EF
GF
GF
GF
GF
EF
EF
GF
GF
GF
GF
EF
EF


Grams (DM)
2226
743
4316
3470
1813
861
2698
1783
3113
2591
3101
1245
2622
2586
2650
2630
3780
2815
4098
4078
4299
3818
2492
2981
2854
2987


----Organic matter----
Concentration Digest.
62.3 75.2
69.8 90.7
79.5 58.9
80 66.8
65 69.3
69.1 84.5
71.4 66.7
74.4 77.1
69.8 65.4
66.5 72.5
52.6 79.2
64.7 89.7
36.9 84.4
44.1 81.7
53.6 79.5
53.8 79.6
56.2 75.1
64.8 78.6
66.5 70.6
58.8 74.1
63.9 69.6
64.3 72.9
71.3 73.8
57.1 74.9
71.5 68.5
66.1 69.6


------NDFOM-------
Concentration Digest.
39.2 60.4
46.2 84.4
52.2 44.9
53.9 54.3
45.1 54.7
48.9 76.7
50.1 43.3
52.6 60.6
46.5 49.4
46.5 57.9
31.9 72.0
42.4 85.0
24.7 76.8
27.8 74.2
38.4 59.9
36.1 62.6
40.7 53.7
41.7 64.6
45.6 56.0
40.4 61.1
46.4 47.3
43.7 55.9
46.7 55.4
36.5 58.4
48.8 52.4
46.9 52.1


------Crude protein-------
Concentration Digest.
12.0 74.2
12.6 91.0
18.2 51.2
17.8 61.4
13.4 68.5
13.4 85.1
11.9 71.0
12.7 79.7
14.7 61.8
13.3 71.3
11.3 76.5
14.9 87.6
9.0 80.6
9.7 79.3
10.2 80.5
10.4 80.3
10.0 77.9
10.3 83.0
13.2 71.4
11.6 74.9
10.0 73.8
9.4 78.1
13.4 73.6
11.1 73.7
16.0 61.2
14.5 63.0


Table A-3. Individual












Table A-4. Differences in crude protein concentration of individual fecal samples analyzed in wet and dried forms.
Giraffe Diet Period Day Wet Dried Difference
Gl GF 1 1 13.89 11.95 1.93
Gl GF 1 2 16.08 13.04 3.04
Gl EF 2 1 20.51 18.96 1.55
Gl EF 2 2 20.92 18.11 2.81
G2 EF 1 1 13.84 13.47 0.37
G2 EF 1 2 15.19 13.49 1.70
G2 GF 2 1 14.13 10.24 3.89
G2 GF 2 2 14.89 13.36 1.53
G2 EF 3 1 15.61 14.86 0.75
G2 EF 3 2 13.61 13.66 -0.06
G3 EF 3 1 13.76 12.04 1.72
G3 EF 3 2 16.36 15.23 1.13
G3 GF 4 1 15.95 13.53 2.42
G3 GF 4 2 16.54 14.97 1.56
G4 EF 4 1 10.29 6.89 3.40
G4 EF 4 2 11.76 12.63 -0.88
G4 GF 5 1 12.23 10.47 1.76
G4 GF 5 2 12.32 10.83 1.49
G5 GF 5 1 12.84 10.25 2.59
G5 GF 5 2 11.89 10.86 1.03
G5 EF 6 1 15.43 13.25 2.19
G5 EF 6 2 13.60 12.18 1.42
G5 GF 7 1 11.65 10.33 1.32
G5 GF 7 2 11.70 9.79 1.91
G6 GF 6 1 15.34 13.91 1.43
G6 GF 6 2 13.92 11.83 2.10
G6 EF 7 1 17.04 16.54 0.49
G6 EF 7 2 16.34 14.86 1.48












Table A-5. Minutes over 48 hours individual giraffe spent engaged in measured behaviors.
Social Hay Supplement Total Eat +
Giraffe Period Diet Standing Walking Lying Sleep contact consumption consumption eating ruminat
Gl 1 GF 1421 151 1238 27 47 191 103 294 844
G1 2 EF 1582 191 1048 12 72 26 389 415 897
G2 1 EF 2001 78 775 6 22 233 173 406 1029
G2 2 GF 1889 59 876 14 46 149 114 263 719
G2 3 EF 1818 64 989 3 6 166 167 333 985
G3 3 EF 1954 444 472 11 15 153 144 297 860
G3 4 GF 1387 1035 409 0 7 218 137 355 837
G4 4 EF 1630 500 678 3 3 181 418 599 1232
G4 5 GF 1573 290 1015 23 23 324 223 547 1391
G5 5 GF 1906 12 859 38 32 599 155 754 1226
G5 6 EF 1802 87 990 26 13 484 265 749 1473
G5 7 GF 1706 105 1046 26 11 399 140 539 1207
G6 6 GF 1202 75 1622 23 12 221 92 313 1101
G6 7 EF 1357 112 1387 13 9 262 233 495 1434













Table A-5. Continued.


Rumination Drinking
550 70
482 57
623 5
456 4
652 5
563 145
482 184
633 26
844 86
472 27
724 38
668 33
788 17
939 11


Salt
0
0
0
0
0


Giraffe
Gl
Gl
G2
G2
G2
G3
G3
G4
G4
G5
G5
G5
G6
G6


Period
1
2
1
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
7
6
7


Diet
GF
EF
EF
GF
EF
EF
GF
EF
GF
GF
EF
GF
GF
EF


Metal
licking
226
189
510
640
478
86
33
220
102
240
222
389
69
209


Non-metal
licking
2
10
0
7
1
16
8
43
75
36
25
32
12
9


Tongue
play
243
49
9
14
8
149
168
165
218
9
25
18
267
131


Total oral
stereotype
471
248
519
661
487
251
209
428
395
285
272
439
348
349


Wall
foraging
97
52
0
14
2
11
7
13
32
62
49
31
48
79


Total oral
1482
1254
1553
1398
1479
1268
1237
1699
1904
1600
1832
1718
1514
1873













giraffe blood values on day 21.


Giraffe Period Diet NEFA
mEq/L
Gl 1 1 0.55
Gl 2 2 0.70
G2 1 2 0.33
G2 2 1 0.78
G2 3 2 0.17
G3 3 2 0.34
G3 4 1 0.38
G4 4 2 0.25
G4 5 1 0.41
G5 5 1 0.37
G5 6 2 0.19
G5 7 1 0.22
G6 6 1 0.57
G6 7 2 0.50


Insulin
ng/ml
0.42
0.37
1.74
1.05
0.94
0.79
2.37
0.83
1.45
0.99
0.74
0.84
0.37
0.32


GLC
mg/dl
68
92
59
118
65
105
135
87
93
89
97
103
90
64


BUN
mg/dl
17
17
15
22
16
15
24
17
22
19
19
21
20
16


Creat
mg/dl
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3


Prot
g/dl
9.1
9.8
9.5
9.3
9.4
8.6
9.0
9.5
9.5
7.4
7.4
8.2
8.8
9.4


Albu
g/dl
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.0
2.2
2.5


TBili
mg/dl
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1


AlkPhos ALT


U/L
223
238
130
142
117
114
160
227
149
117
109
147
124
109


U/L
7
8
5
8
5
8
17
8
8
5
6
11
19
13


NEFA = non-esterified fatty acids; GLC = glucose; BUN = blood urea nitrogen; Creat = creatinine; Prot = total protein; Albu = albumin; TBili
AlkPhos = alkaline phosphotase; ALT = alanine aminotransferase; AST = aspertate aminotransferase


AST
U/L
46
44
48
44
44
37
44
50
64
47
42
56
89
50
total bilirubin;


Table A-6. Individual












Table A-6 Continued.
GiraffePeriod Diet Ca P Na K Cl Mg Glob Lipase AmylaseTriglyc CPK GGTP Osm
mg/dl mg/dl mEq/L mEq/L mEq/L mEq/L g/dl U/L U/L mg/dl U/L U/L mOsm/L
Gl 1 GF 7.9 9.9 147 5.1 111 2.0 6.8 37 11 52 112 20 293
G1 2 EF 7.7 11.8 147 5.0 110 2.0 7.3 27 10 34 324 11 294
G2 1 EF 8.5 8.7 147 4.6 104 1.7 7.0 28 10 20 190 18 291
G2 2 GF 8.0 12.3 145 4.1 105 1.9 6.8 16 10 37 27 13 292
G2 3 EF 8.6 11.9 145 4.9 101 2.1 6.8 27 10 34 145 17 288
G3 3 EF 9.8 12.0 149 5.1 104 1.8 6.2 31 15 37 204 12 298
G3 4 GF 9.3 15.2 148 4.7 106 1.7 6.4 26 10 31 608 9 300
G4 4 EF 8.8 10.8 145 4.6 102 2.2 7.0 21 10 58 243 18 289
G4 5 GF 8.2 6.8 145 4.1 115 2.3 7.1 38 15 51 406 24 290
G5 5 GF 9.3 9.1 144 4.6 101 2.4 4.9 37 10 35 251 46 288
G5 6 EF 9.8 10.3 146 4.9 101 2.1 4.8 78 15 29 379 25 293
G5 7 GF 9.8 11.5 156 5.0 104 3.5 5.2 55 13 42 347 27 313
G6 6 GF 8.0 8.2 143 4.2 109 1.4 6.6 30 14 33 152 15 286
G6 7 EF 9.3 10.3 146 5.1 102 2.6 6.9 66 15 39 159 19 290
Glob = globulin; Triglyc = triglycerides; CPK = creatinine phosphokinase; GGTP = gamma glutamyl transpeptidase; Osm = calculated osmolality













Table A-6 Continued.
Giraffe Period Diet LactD HGB


U/L
326
350
403
362
401
315
348
325
352
442
398
462
530
448


g/dl
11.3
12.8
12.1
11.3
12.7
12.4
11.7
11.0
14.0
13.2
12.8
14.3
10.4
11.1


HCT
%
33.2
37.6
34.8
33.3
38.1
37.4
35.3
31.6
40.9
38.5
37.7
42.2
30.8
32.6


WBC RBC MCV MCH MCHC Neutph Bands Lymph Monocts Eosinphl Basophl Fibrgn


103/ul 106/ul


15.6
16.3
21.3
14.2
13.6
15.8
21.2
13.9
13.0
15.5
14.1
12.3
17.9
16.5


10.1
11.6
10.4
9.9
11.3
10.7
10.1
9.8
12.7
12.3
12.1
13.8
10.0
10.9


33.0 11.2
32.0 11.0
33.0 11.6
34.0 11.4
34.0 11.2
35.0 11.6
35.0 11.6
32.0 11.3
32.0 11.0
31.3 10.7
31.0 10.6
31.0 10.4
31.0 10.4
30.0 10.2


34.0
34.0
34.8
33.9
33.3
33.2
33.1
34.8
34.2
34.3
34.0
33.9
33.8
34.0


LactD = lactate dehydrogenase; HGB = hemoglobin; HCT = hematocrit; WBC = white blood cell; RBC
MCH = mean corpuscular hemoglobin; MCHC = mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration


% %
9 3
15 11
3 0
16 6
15 2
6 6
10 3
14 2
11 1
24 1
19 7
25 1
11 2
12 2
red blood cell; MCV


% % mg/dl
13 1 259
7 2 218
2 251
2 281
3 3 223
10 0 200
6 2 229
9 2 243
4 1 242
12 2 242
6 3 293
5 1 248
2 0 236
2 0 215
mean corpuscular volume;





Table A-7. Body weight and body condition score of individual giraffe on days 1 and 21 of each period.
-------------Body weight (kg)------------- Body condition score
Giraffe Period Treatment Day 1 Day 28 Change Day 1 Day 28
Gl 1 GF 693 694 1 4.0 4.0
G1 2 EF 694 717 23 4.0 4.5
G2 1 EF 625 622 -4 3.5 3.5
G2 2 GF 622 630 8 3.5 3.5
G2 3 EF 630 652 23 3.5 3.5
G3 3 EF 542 559 17 3.5 4.5
G3 4 GF 577 580 2 5.0 4.5
G4 4 EF 673 668 -5 4.0 4.0
G4 5 GF 668 667 -1 4.0 4.0
G5 5 GF 611 626 15 3.5 4.0
G5 6 EF 626 651 25 4.0 4.5
G5 7 GF 651 661 10 4.5 4.5
G6 6 GF 590 589 -1 2.5 3.0
G6 7 EF 589 598 10 3.0 4.0














% of BW [] Alfalfa Hay m Supplement
1.80

1.60 -

1.40 -

1.20 -

1.00 -

0.80 -

0.60

0.40

0.20 -

0 .0 0-
0.00 ...


1 2 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 6

G I G2 G3 G4 G5

Figure A-1. Individual animal consumption of alfalfa hay and supplement as a percentage of body weight.

Giraffe are designated by number (G1-G6); GF = control diet; EF = experimental diet





























GF EF

1 2

Gl


GF EF GF GF EF GF GF EF

2 3 5 5 6 7 6 7

G2 G4 G5 G6
treatment, period, giraffe U OM U NDFOM E CP


Figure A-2. Individual animal digestion of neutral detergent fiber organic matter (NDFOM), and apparent digestion of OM and CP.

Giraffe are designated by number (G1-G6); GF = control diet; EF = experimental diet














APPENDIX B
CARBOHYDRATE FRACTIONING IN FEEDSTUFFS


Plant Carbohydrates


I
Cell
Contents



Organic Mono+Oligo- Starches Fructans
Acids saccharides I


I
Cell
Wall
I


Pectic Her
Substances
Galactans
P-glucans
%. I _


micelluloses Cellulose


ADF


S NDSF NDF

S Non-Starch Iolysaccharides

NDSC
Figure B-1. Carbohydrate partitioning. (Hall, 2001)

Table B-1. NDF and NFC fractions (percent of sample DM) in feedstuffs analyzed at the
University of Florida.
Feedstuff NDF Sugars Starch Soluble Fiber
Alfalfa hay 37.4 10.0 3.0 16.2
Citrus pulp 22.1 26.5 1.0 32.9
Corn meal 16.0 2.3 62.6 8.5
Cottonseed hulls <1 4.0
Soybean meal (48%) 12.8 11.2 1.5 15.9
Sugar beet pulp 44.6 12.8 0.0 30.0
Ground wheat 12.1 1.8 64.6 8.8
Data means from Hall, 2001.















APPENDIX C
INFORMATION ON CONTROL DIET COMPOSITION AND BEHAVIOR
RECORDING

Table C-1. Mean analyzed chemical composition of the batches of Purina Omelene 200
(n=5) and Mazuri Browser Breeder (n=5) fed to captive giraffe during a
giraffe feeding study.
Nutrient Purina Omelene 200 Mazuri Browser Breeder
DM, % 85.4 85.4
OM, % 93.6 93.6
Ash, % 6.37 6.37
CP, % 16.6 16.6
NDFOM, % 17.2 17.2
ADF, % 7.47 7.47
Lignin, % 1.84 1.84
NDSF, % 6.93 6.93
Sugar, % 11.0 11.0
Starch, % 38.1 38.1
Ca, % 0.68 0.68
P, % 0.56 0.56
Mg, % 0.20 0.20
K, % 1.15 1.15
Na, % 0.23 0.23
Fe, ppm 390 297
Mn, ppm 217 115
Zn, ppm 222 137
Cu, ppm 45.6 16.8
NDFOM = neutral detergent fiber organic matter; NDSF = neutral detergent soluble fiber
Purina Omelene 200 is a sweet feed containing: whole oats, cracked corn, ground corn, dehulled soybean
meal, corn flour, cane molasses, soybean oil, wheat middlings, dicalcium phosphate, sodium selenite,
propionic acid, dried whey, vitamin E supplement, choline chloride, citric acid, vitamin A supplement,
calcium pantothenate, ferric oxide, tocophorols, riboflavin supplement, vitamin B-12 supplement, vitamin
D3 supplement, niacin supplement, ferrous carbonate, manganous oxide, zinc oxide, copper sulfate,
magnesium oxide, ferrous oxide, calcium iodate, cobalt carbonate, DL-methionine, L-lysine.
Mazuri Browser Breeder is a pelleted concentrate containing: ground soybean hulls, wheat middlings,
ground aspen, dehulled soybean meal, dried beet pulp, cane molasses, dehydrated alfalfa meal, sucrose,
brewers dried yeast, soybean oil, dicalcium phosphate, salt, calcium carbonate, magnesium oxide,
menadione dimethylpyrimidinol bisulfite (source of vitamin K), pyridoxine hydrochloride, dl-alpha
tocopheryl acetate (source of vitamin E), cholecalciferol (source of vitamin D3), vitamin A acetate, calcium
pantothenate, ethoxyquin (a preservative), thiamin mononitrate, cyanocobalamin (source of vitamin B12),
riboflavin, biotin, nicotinic acid, manganous oxide, zinc oxide, ferrous carbonate, copper sulfate, zinc
sulfate, calcium iodate, cobalt carbonate, sodium selenite.









Table C-2. Behavioral category definitions used by observers when recording giraffe
behaviors.
Cud Chewing cud (ruminating)
Supp Eating supplement from feed pan
Hay Eating hay from hay rack
Drink Drinking
Salt Licking salt block
Dirt Eating dirt
Metal Licking metal
Lick Licking or mounting non-metal inanimate objects
Wall Foraging in or mouthing area behind back wall
Tongue Tongue playing not associated with licking, eating, drinking, or ruminating
Social Making physical contact with other giraffe
Stand Standing
Walk Walking
Lay Lying down with head up
Sleep Sleeping lying down with head folded over onto flank





















-- lI'. 1.1 ll ).I ti i l --I ll II.... .. l Ii..l *i'. ,11 .l 1













I IIi









II I
II 11









II I



II I
II Il'














Ii I I
I I 4i
1 1 1 -1


















































II 44
















iii 4 _
ii I


I.ni


. ale o daa d d ia ai.


Figure C-I. Example of data sheet used to record giraffe behavior.


t mI ai l 1 I ".1 i. "


II, I..I. 1 4 10'


1 1 i 1 I oI I


i i i t ;- H ... i .. I .|.-. .,.l















LIST OF REFERENCES


Allen MS. 1996. Physical constraints on voluntary intake of forages by ruminants. J
Anim Sci 74:3063-3075.

Allen MS. 1997. Relationship between fermentation acid production in the rumen and the
requirement for physically effective fiber. J Dairy Sci 80:1447-1462.

Ariza P, Bach A, Stem MD, Hall MB. 2001. Effects of carbohydrates from citrus pulp
and hominy feed on microbial fermentation in continuous culture. J Anim Sci
79:2713-2718.

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th
edition. Arlington, VA.

Baer DJ, Oftedal OT, Fahey Jr. GC. 1985. Feed selection and digestibility by captive
giraffe. Zoo Biol 4:57-64.

Bailey CB. 1961. Saliva secretion and its relation to feeding in cattle. III. The rate of
secretion of mixed saliva in the cow during eating, with an estimate of the
magnitude of the total daily secretion of mixed saliva. Br J Nutr 15:443-451.

Ball RL, Kearney C, Burton M, Dumoneux G, Olsen JH. 2002. Morbidity and mortality
related to hypoglycemia and chronic energy malnutrition in captive giraffe. In: Proc
Am Assoc Zoo Vets, p 180-185.

Barnes R, Greene K, Lamm M. 2002. Management and husbandry of duikers at the Los
Angeles Zoo. Zoo Biol 21:107-121.

Bashaw MJ, Tarou LR, Maki TS, Maple TL. 2001. A survey assessment of variable
related to stereotypy in captive giraffe. Appl Anim Behaviour Sci 73:235-247.

Beauchemin KA, Yang WZ, Rode LM. 2003. Effects of particle size of alfalfa-based
dairy cow diets on chewing activity, ruminal fermentation, and milk production. J
Dairy Sci 86:630-643.

Beharka AA, Nagaraja TG, Morrill JL, Kennedy GA, Klemm RD. 1998. Effects of form
of diet on anatomical, microbial, and fermentative development of the rumen of
neonatal calves. J Dairy Sci 81:1946-1955.









Ben-Ghedalia D, YosefE, Miron J, Est Y. 1989. The effects of starch- and pectin-rich
diets on quantitative aspects of digestion in sheep. Anim Feed Sci Technol 24:289-
298.

Bernard L, Chaise JP, Baumont R, Poncet C. 2000. The effect of physical form of
orchardgrass hay on the passage of particulate matter through the rumen of sheep. J
Anim Sci 78:1338-1354.

Bhattacharya AN, Lubbadah WF. 1971. Feeding high levels of beet pulp in high
concentrate dairy rations. J Dairy Sci 54:95-99.

Burton MS, Dierenfeld ES. 1990. Comparisons of vitamin E injectables in giraffes
(Giraffa Camelopardalis reticulata). In: Proc Am Assoc Zoo Vets, p 198-201.

Caister LE, Shields WM, Gosser A. 2003. Female tannin avoidance: a possible
explanation for habitat and dietary segregatoin of giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis
peralta) in Niger. Afr J Ecol 41:201-210.

Callison SL, Firkins JL, Eastridge ML, Hull BL. 2001. Site of nutrient digestion by dairy
cows fed corn of different particle sizes or steam-rolled. J Dairy Sci 84:1458-1467.

Campbell CP, Marshall SA, Mandell IB, Wilton JW. 1992. Effects of source of dietary
neutral detergent fiber on chewing behavior in beef cattle fed pelleted concentrates
with or without supplemental roughage. J Anim Sci 70:894-903.

Campling RC, Balch CC. 1961. Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by cows. 1.
Preliminary observations on the effect, on the voluntary intake of hay, of changes
in the amount of the reticulo-ruminal contents. Br J Nutr 15:523-530.

Cassida KA, Stokes MR. 1986. Eating and resting salivation in early lactation dairy
cows. J Dairy Sci 69:1282-1292.

Chaffe PS. 1968. Report on death of a giraffe. J Small Anim Pract 9:136-137.

Chai K, Kennedy PM, Milligan LP. 1984. Reduction in particle size during rumination in
cattle. Can J Anim Sci 64(Suppl.):339-340.

Chester-Jones H, Metwally HM, Linn JG, Ziegler DM, Stern MD. 1991. Effects of
dietary protein-energy interrelationships on Holstein steer performance and ruminal
bacterial fermentation in continuous culture. J Anim Sci 69:4956-4966.

Ciofolo I, LePendu Y. 2002. The feeding behaviour of giraffe in Niger. Mammalia
66:183-194.

Clark PW, Armentano LE. 2002. Influence of particle size on the effectiveness of the
fiber in alfalfa silage. J Dairy Sci 85:3000-3007.









Clauss M. 1998. Feeding Giraffe (Giraffe camelopardis) [Masters thesis]. London, UK:
University of London. 114 p.

Clauss M, Kienzle E, Wiesner H. 2002a. Importance of the wasting syndrome complex in
captive moose (Alces alces). Zoo Biol 21:499-506.

Clauss M, Lechner-Doll M. 2001. Differences in selective reticulo-ruminal particle
retention as a key factor in ruminant diversification. Oecologia 129:321-327.

Clauss M, Lechner-Doll M, Flach EJ, Tack C, Hatt JM. 2001. Comparative use of four
different marker systems for the estimation of digestibility and low food intake in a
group of captive giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis). Zoo Biol 20:315-329.

Clauss M, Lechner-Doll M, Flach EJ, Wisser J, Hatt J-M. 2002b. Digestive tract
pathology of captive giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) an unifying hypothesis.
European Association of Zoo and Wildlife Veterinarians Fourth Scientific Meeting.
Heidelberg, Germany. p 99-107.

Clemens ET, Maloiy GMO, Sutton JD. 1983. Molar proportions of volatile fatty acids in
the gastrointestinal tract of East African wild ruminants. Comp Biochem Physiol
76A:217-224.

Dagg AI, Foster JB. 1976. The Giraffe. Its Biology, Behavior, and Ecology. Malabar, FL:
Krieger Publishing Company.

Dehority BA, Odenyo AA. 2003. Influence of diet on the rumen protozoal fauna of
indigenous African wild ruminants. J Eukaryot Microbiol 50:220-223.

Dierenfeld ES, Mueller PJ, Hall MB. 2002. Duikers: Native food composition,
micronutrient assessment, and implications for improving captive diets. Zoo Biol
21:185-196.

Dierenfeld ES, Wildman REC, Romo S. 2000. Feed intake, diet utilization, and
composition of browses consumed by the Sumatran rhino (Dicerorhinus
sumatrensis) in a North American zoo. Zoo Biol 19:169-180.

Dirksen GU, Liebich HG, Mayer E. 1985. Adaptive changes of the ruminal mucosa and
their functional and clinical significance. The Bovine Practitioner 20:116-120.

Ditchkoff SS. 2000. A decade since "diversification of ruminants": has our knowledge
improved? Oecologia 125:82-84.

Enqvist KE. 2003. Dental disease and serious atrophy of fat syndrome in captive giraffes
(Giraffa camelopardalis). Minneapolis, MN: Annual conference of the American
Association of Zoo Veterinarians.

Field CR, Ross IC. 1976. The savanna ecology of Kidepo Valley National Forest. E Afr
Wildl J 14:1-15.









Firkins JL. 1997. Effects of feeding nonforage fiber sources on site of fiber digestion. J
Dairy Sci 80:1426-1437.

Flach EJ, Thornton SM, Kirkwood JK, Sainesbury AW. 1997. Chronic loss of condition
with persistent neutrophilia in a reticulated giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis). In:
Proc British Vet Zoo Soc, p 33-37.

Foose TJ. 1982. Trophic strategies of ruminant versus nonruminant ungulates [PhD
Dissertation]. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago. 334 p.

Foster JB. 1966. The giraffe of Nairobi National Park: home range, sex ratios, the herd
and food. E Afr Wildl J 4:139-148.

Fowler ME. 1978. Peracute mortality in captive giraffe. J Am Vet Med Assoc 173:1088-
1093.

Fox H. 1938. The giraffe. Some notes upon the natural characters of this animals, its care
and its misfortune. In: Zso, editor. Report of the Penrose Research Laboratory,
formerly the Laboratory and Museum of Comparative Pathology. Philadelphia, PA:
Zoological Society of Philadelphia. p 35-67.

Friggens N, Emmans GC, Robertson S, Chamberlain DG, Whittemore CT, Oldham JD.
1995. The lactational responses of dairy cows to amount of feed and to the source
of carbohydrate energy. J Dairy Sci 78:1734-1744.

Friggens NC, Oldham JD, Dewhurst RJ, Horgan G. 1998. Proportions of volatile fatty
acids in relation to the chemical composition of feeds based on grass silage. J Dairy
Sci 81:1331-1344.

Furstenburg D, Van Hoven W. 1994. Condensed tannin as an anti-defoliate agent against
browsing by giraffe (Giraffe camelopardalis) in the Kruger National Park. Comp
Biochem Physiol 107A(2):425-431.

Garrett EF, Pereira MN, Nordlund KV, Armentano LE, Goodger WJ, Oetzel GR. 1999.
Diagnostic methods for the detection of subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cows. J
Dairy Sci 82:1170-1178.

Glock RD, DeGroot BD. 1998. Sudden death of feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 76:315-319.

Goering HK, Van Soest PJ. 1970. Forage fiber analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures
and some applications). In: Agric. Handb. No. 379. Washington, DC: ARS-USDA.

Gordon IJ, Illius AW. 1996. The nutritional ecology of African ruminants: a
reinterpretation. J Anim Ecol 65:18-28.

Grant RJ. 1997. Interactions among forages and nonforage fiber sources. J Dairy Sci
80:1438-1446.









Hall MB. 1999. Management strategies against ruminal acidosis. In: Tenth Annual
Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. p
104-113.

Hall MB. 2001. Neutral Detergent-Soluble Carbohydrates, Nutritional Relevance and
Analysis, A Laboratory Manual. Gainesvelle: University of Florida Report nr 339.

Hall MB, Herejk C. 2001. Differences in yields of microbial crude protein from in vitro
fermentation of carbohydrates. J Dairy Sci 84:2486-2493.

Hall MB, Hoover WH, Jennings JP, Miller Webster TK. 1999. A method for partitioning
neutral detergent-soluble carbohydrates. J Sci Food Agric 79:2079-2086.

Hall-Martin AJ, Skinner JD, Van Dyk JM. 1975. Reproduction in the giraffe in relation to
some environmental factors. E Afr Wildl J 13:237-248.

Hatt JM, Lechner-Doll M, Mayes B. 1998. The use of dosed and herbage n-alkanes as
markers for the determination of digestive strategies of captive giraffes (Giraffa
camelopardalis). Zoo Biol 17:295-309.

Heldt JS, Cochran RC, Stokka GL, Farmer CG, Mathis CP, Titgemeyer EC, Nagaraja
TG. 1999. Effects of different supplemental sugars and starch fed in combination
with degradable intake protein on low-quality forage use by beef steers. J Anim Sci
77:2793-2802.

Hofmann RR. 1973. The Ruminant Stomach--Stomach Structure and Feeding Habits of
East African Game Ruminants. Odhiambo TR, editor. Nairobi, Kenya: East African
Literature Bureau.

Hofmann RR. 1984. Comparative anatomical studies imply adaptive variations of
ruminants digestive physiology. J Anim Sci 64:203-205.

Hofmann RR. 1988. Morphophysiological evolutionary adaptations of the ruminant
digestive system. In: Dobson A, Dobson MJ, editors. Aspects of Digestive
Physiology in Ruminants: Proceedings of a Satellite Symposium of the 30th
International Congress of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. p 1-
20.

Hofmann RR, Kock RA, Ludwig J, Axmacher H. 1988. Seasonal changes in rumen
papillary development and body condition in free ranging Chinese water deer
(Hydropotes inermis). J Zool 216:103-117.

Hofmann RR, Matern B. 1988. Changes in gastrointestinal morphology related to
nutrition in giraffes. Cons Sci and Zoos 22:168-176.

Horwitz W. 1982. Evaluation of analytical methods used for regulation of food and
drugs. Anal Chem 54:67A-76A.