Search

Pain is a significant welfare concern for zoo animals around the world. As zoos commonly house animals living beyond their lifespans in the wild, pain associated with degenerative diseases of old age, as well as that associated with acute illness or injury, is of increasing concern. Barriers to effective management of pain across the many and varied taxa that zoos house include our current understanding of pain physiology and the recognition of pain states in different species. Additionally, the therapeutic approach to pain management may be a challenge depending on species. This chapter outlines the physiology of pain, types of pain, pain recognition, and the principles of preventing and managing pain experiences in animals.

Longitudinal data on individual growth and seasonal changes in body mass, girth, and blubber thickness are rarely available for cetaceans, making it difficult to assess their population composition and individual nutritional condition. During different time intervals from 1997 to 2020, we collected longitudinal data on length, body mass, girth,and blubber thickness from seventeen harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in human care. We compared Gompertz and von Bertalanffy growth curves to collected length data at age 0–4 years for five individuals with known dates of birth. Von Bertalanffy had the lowest AICc value and was used to predict the birth year of twelve animals which age had previously been estimated based on tooth ring analysis and ossification of flipper bones. The growth curve was accurate within 1 yr. of age estimates. Within the first year, the calves grew 66%, attaining 84% of their adult length, and reached asymptotic length at age 3–4. For adults, there were large seasonal variations in body mass, body mass index, girth, and blubber thickness, with up to 28% of variation in body mass between seasons. We predicted individual body mass within ± 2 kg using measurements of length and girth, allowing estimation of body mass index of individuals with unknown mass. Our findings enable monitoring and assessments of population composition as well as nutritional condition of individual harbour porpoises, which is crucial for assessing conservational status and guiding management.

An intense public debate has fuelled governmental bans on marine mammals held in zoological institutions. The debate rests on the assumption that survival in zoological institutions has been and remains lower than in the wild, albeit the scientific evidence in support of this notion is equivocal. Here, we used statistical methods previously applied to assess historical improvements in human lifespan and data on 8864 individuals of four marine mammal species (harbour seal, Phoca vitulina; California sea lion, Zalophus californianus; polar bear, Ursus maritimus; common bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus) held in zoos from 1829 to 2020. We found that life expectancy increased up to 3.40 times, and first-year mortality declined up to 31%, during the last century in zoos. Moreover, the life expectancy of animals in zoos is currently 1.65-3.55 times longer than their wild counterparts. Like humans, these improvements have occurred concurrently with advances in management practices, crucial for population welfare. Science-based decisions will help effective legislative changes and ensure better implementation of animal care.

According to the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA, 2016) their mission is ”to facilitate cooperation…towards the goals of education, research and conservation”. Livestock production is one of the leading causes of often-irreversible land use changes, greenhouse gas emissions, loss of biodiversity and different types of environmental degradation – all affecting wildlife negatively, and hence undermining conservation policies that aim to protect individuals, populations and species. But what is the link between livestock production and zoos and aquariums? One link, putting it a bit boldly, could be: Does it make sense to work for conservation by preserving animal species in captivity while selling food to visitors that may be undermining this effort? Complicating the issue is that zoos and aquariums are dependent on generating a profit from “non-core” services such as cafeterias and the like to generate funds for running the zoo, and conceivably, in turn for conservation purposes - funds that might diminish if zoos and aquariums do not sell a variety of food products, including animal-based ones to their visitors. The main question addressed by this paper is: If zoos and aquariums are to work for sustainability and species conservation – should food served in zoos be part of considerations – and to what extent? To answer this question the paper presents the goals of EAZA along with environmental impact profiles, relying on previously published life cycle assessments of the entirety (i.e. from cradle to gate) and across a multitude of impact categories (i.e. including and beyond climate change), of typical food items sold in zoos and aquariums. It describes the impacts on wildlife and nature that these products may have. Further we link this analysis to different ideas of sustainability, addressing the issue of how to balance positive and negative impacts of zoos and aquariums. Finally we discuss the educational opportunities that arise if food served in, According to the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA, 2016) their mission is ”to facilitate cooperation…towards the goals of education, research and conservation”. Livestock production is one of the leading causes of often-irreversible land use changes, greenhouse gas emissions, loss of biodiversity and different types of environmental degradation – all affecting wildlife negatively, and hence undermining conservation policies that aim to protect individuals, populations and species. But what is the link between livestock production and zoos and aquariums? One link, putting it a bit boldly, could be: Does it make sense to work for conservation by preserving animal species in captivity while selling food to visitors that may be undermining this effort? Complicating the issue is that zoos and aquariums are dependent on generating a profit from “non-core” services such as cafeterias and the like to generate funds for running the zoo, and conceivably, in turn for conservation purposes - funds that might diminish if zoos and aquariums do not sell a variety of food products, including animal-based ones to their visitors. The main question addressed by this paper is: If zoos and aquariums are to work for sustainability and species conservation – should food served in zoos be part of considerations – and to what extent? To answer this question the paper presents the goals of EAZA along with environmental impact profiles, relying on previously published life cycle assessments of the entirety (i.e. from cradle to gate) and across a multitude of impact categories (i.e. including and beyond climate change), of typical food items sold in zoos and aquariums. It describes the impacts on wildlife and nature that these products may have. Further we link this analysis to different ideas of sustainability, addressing the issue of how to balance positive and negative impacts of zoos and aquariums. Finally we discuss the educational opportunities that arise if food served in