An average can describe a group while hiding the animal that needs the closest attention. In a small study at Kolkata’s Alipore Zoo, repetitive licking accounted for roughly a quarter of the sampled observations across four giraffes. But that overall figure concealed clear differences between individuals and times of day.
Tushar Pramod Kulkarni’s 2020 paper reported observations collected in October 2015. One adult male showed substantially more repetitive licking than the other sampled adults. The calf’s pattern across the day also differed from the adults’.
The study’s contribution was a focused record of an apparent welfare concern and a set of management proposals. It was not an intervention trial. Its findings describe that historical observation period, rather than the zoo’s present conditions.
Four animals within a seven-giraffe group
The enclosure contained seven giraffes, of which four were selected for observation: two adult males, an adult female and her young male calf. Their differing ages and social positions made it possible to see individual variation, although one animal in each category could not establish a general age or sex effect.
Across seven days, the observer conducted thirty-minute sessions in the morning, around midday and in the late afternoon. At two-minute intervals, he recorded what the animals were doing. This produced snapshots of behaviour distributed across the chosen sessions.
Such sampling can estimate how common a behaviour is within the observation windows. It does not provide continuous coverage of the whole day, and repeated records of the same action do not necessarily represent separate bouts.
The paper defined licking stereotypy as repetitive, relatively unvarying licking of walls, doors, fences and similar objects, together with tongue playing. That definition is narrower than any isolated lick. The observer also recorded rumination, walking, resting and other actions.
The group average hid two different patterns
Across the four sampled animals, repetitive licking occurred in about 25 percent of records. The subordinate adult male had the highest reported proportion, about 35 percent. The calf was recorded at about 26 percent, the adult female at 20 percent and the other adult male at 19 percent.
These figures identify differences worth investigating. They do not show that subordination caused the higher value: social status, individual history, access to resources and other characteristics were intertwined in a single animal.
Timing added another layer. Repetitive licking was generally more common in evening sessions, but the calf showed its highest proportion in the morning. An observer who watched only one daily window could therefore arrive at a different impression of both the group and the individuals within it.
The calf also rested much more than the adults in the sampled record. Its routine was not simply a smaller version of an adult’s routine, which is another reason to avoid interpreting a single group percentage as a complete welfare description.
The feeding area was out of view
The giraffes could enter an indoor feeding and drinking area that the observer could not see. Feeding and drinking there were consequently absent from the visible behaviour record.
This matters because the paper discusses repetitive licking alongside feeding opportunities. The observations cannot establish that the giraffes spent more of their entire day licking than eating: an important part of eating occurred outside the observer’s view. Nor did the study measure each individual’s food intake.
The husbandry description nevertheless raised concrete questions. The author reported that browse was not supplied as part of the diet and that food was offered in open feeders twice daily. He proposed that the feeding arrangement gave insufficient opportunity for the prolonged searching and tongue use involved in browsing.
That is a plausible explanation to investigate, rather than a cause demonstrated by the observations. The study did not measure digestive function, manipulate the diet or compare the same giraffes before and after a feeding change.
From a concern to a testable change
Kulkarni recommended more opportunities to browse, food presentation that required longer manipulation, attention to individual feeder access, and greater environmental and spatial opportunities. These proposals drew on earlier husbandry literature as well as the conditions described at Alipore.
The distinction between proposing and evaluating a change is essential. The paper supplied no follow-up showing how much repetitive licking decreased after any recommendation. It therefore cannot support a claim that a particular device solved the problem in these animals.
A useful follow-up would record both indoor and outdoor behaviour across comparable periods before and after a documented management change. Individual records would be needed because a favourable group average could coexist with little improvement for one animal.
The behaviour should also be interpreted alongside other evidence: access to food and rest, social interactions, health and the range of activities available. A decline in repetitive licking is potentially informative, but its meaning depends on what replaces it and how the giraffe is otherwise doing.
A record that points to individuals
The study illustrates what a modest observation project can contribute. It identified which sampled giraffe showed the greatest proportion of a repetitive action and when that action was most evident. It also made visible the limits of the observation position.
Those details can guide a more complete assessment. The important question is not only whether the group’s average changes, but whether each animal gains opportunities to feed, explore, rest and interact in ways that suit its circumstances. Repeated observations at several times of day are a starting point for finding out.
Sources
- Tushar Pramod Kulkarni (2020). Analysis of stereotypic behaviour and enhanced management in captive Northern Giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis housed at Zoological Garden Alipore, Kolkata. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(4), 15426–15435. DOI: 10.11609/jott.5622.12.4.15426-15435. Open full paper.
