Development of an animal repellent — selection, efficacy and presentation
P. J. Murray A C , A. C. Burns B and J. R. Davy BA School of Animal Studies, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Qld 4343, Australia.
B PO Box 1500, Edinburgh, SA 5111, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: peter.murray@uq.edu.au
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46(7) 851-856 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA06004
Submitted: 25 November 2005 Accepted: 4 April 2006 Published: 8 June 2006
Abstract
Under some circumstances it may be desirable to repel herbivorous pests (e.g. goats and wallabies) from plants (e.g. horticultural or forestry seedlings) rather than to kill them. These circumstances may include using these animals as a resource at a later time, and there may also be welfare, public perception or legislative issues where repelling animals from particular plants or area is preferable to killing them. The first experiment tested the efficacy of 5 different materials (tiger fecal extract, maggot brew — the liquid exudate from a flyblown goat, capsaicin, dog urine, and burnt goat hair, skin and carcass + fat) to repel groups of goats in a feedlot pen from 1 trough of feed when another trough of feed was available to them to eat. Each repellent was tested on 5 groups of mixed age female goats for periods of 3 days. All 5 groups were exposed to the 5 repellents. Both tiger fecal extract and maggot brew reduced intake of feed from the ‘protected’ feed trough and significantly (P<0.05) delayed ‘normal’ feeding behaviour by more than 5 h from that trough. The repellents became less effective with repeated use even with different groups of goats. The reduction in effectiveness was indicated by higher intakes of feed and earlier feeding from the protected trough. This habituation to the repellents, where the effectiveness is reduced with repeated exposure, is of concern. In the second experiment, we selected the most effective repellent (tiger fecal extract) and tested its efficacy under similar conditions, after the repellent had been mixed with a carrier (bentonite) in an endeavour to increase the duration of its effectiveness. This repellent was significantly more effective in repelling groups of 3 goats in a feedlot pen from 1 trough of feed for 3 days, when another trough of feed was available to them to eat.
Additional keywords: animal repellent, feeding behaviour, feed intake, tiger fecal extract.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Drs Bhesh Bhandari, Peter Torley and Theresa Hay, who encapsulated the repellent in bentonite for the second experiment utilising the School of Land and Food Sciences laboratory at The University of Queensland.
Arnould C,
Malosse C,
Signoret J-P, Descoins C
(1998) Which chemical constituents from dog feces are involved in its food repellent effect in sheep? Journal of Chemical Ecology 24, 559–576.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ashworth J
(1978) Reactions of Ammonia with Soil II. Sorption of NH3 on English Soils and on Wyoming Bentonite. Journal of Soil Science 29, 195–206.
Hara A, Radin NS
(1978) Lipid extraction of tissues with a low-toxicity solvent. Analytical Biochemistry 90, 420–426.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
Nolte DL,
Mason JR,
Epple G,
Aronov E, Campbell DL
(1994) Why are predator urines aversive to prey? Journal of Chemical Ecology 20, 1505–1516.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Novellie P,
Bigalke RC, Pepler D
(1982) Can predator urine be used as a buck or rodent repellent? South African Forestry Journal 123, 51–55.
Weldon PJ,
Graham DP, Mears LP
(1993) Carnivore fecal chemicals suppress feeding by alpine goats (Capra hircus). Journal of Chemical Ecology 19, 2947–2952.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |