Animal welfare assessment protocols as a management tool for zoos: the African elephant (Loxodonta africana) as an example Zoovet Conference Bussolengo 16th-20th of May, 2012 Manteca X, Almagro V, Enseñat C and Fernández-Bellón H

Welfare assessment protocols: background Developing a welfare assessment protocols for African elephants (Loxodonta africana) Plan of the talk

Why welfare assessment protocols?  To identify problem areas  To monitor progress when improvement strategies have been implemented  Not to obtain an overall welfare score

Animal welfare: elements to be considered  Biological functioning – health / nutrition  Emotions  Absence of negative emotions (pain, fear)  Presence of positive emotions  Behaviour – possibility to express “important” behaviours (Duncan and Fraser, 1997)

How to develop a welfare assessment protocol?  Several indicators  Valid, reliable and feasible – avoid subjectivity as much as possible, but be practical!  Balance between animal-based and resource-based indicators

Animal-based measures  More relevant (at least in principle)  Applicable to all types of facilities  Avoid the problem of interaction between environmental factors Resource-based measures  May be needed for some criteria  May be more feasible  Needed to design improvement strategies

Welfare Quality® asessment protocols

Four principles and 12 criteria Absence of prolonged thirst Absence of prolonged hunger (Botreau et al., 2007)

Absence of prolonged thirst Absence of prolonged hunger Body condition – scale according to breed, age etc Photos: Brinkmann BOKU

Welfare assessment protocols: background Developing a welfare assessment protocols for African elephants (Loxodonta africana) Plan of the talk

IndicatorPrincipleAnimal or resource? Body conditionFeedingAnimal-based Appearence of faecesFeedingAnimal-based Quantity and quality of waterFeedingResource-based Enclosure sizeHousingResource-based Climatic conditionsHousingResource-based LamenessHealthAnimal-based Skin conditionHealthAnimal-based Affiliative behavioursBehaviour (social)Animal-based Intraspecific aggressionBehaviour (social)Animal-based Group size and compositionBehaviour (social)Resource-based StereotypiesBehaviour (other)Animal-based Time spent foragingBehaviour (other)Animal-based Environmental enrichmentBehaviour (other)Resource-based Medical trainingBehaviour (other)Resource-based

IndicatorPrincipleAnimal or resource? Body conditionFeedingAnimal-based Appearence of faecesFeedingAnimal-based Quantity and quality of waterFeedingResource-based Enclosure sizeHousingResource-based Climatic conditionsHousingResource-based LamenessHealthAnimal-based Skin conditionHealthAnimal-based Affiliative behavioursBehaviour (social)Animal-based Intraspecific aggressionBehaviour (social)Animal-based Group size and compositionBehaviour (social)Resource-based StereotypiesBehaviour (other)Animal-based Time spent foragingBehaviour (other)Animal-based Environmental enrichmentBehaviour (other)Resource-based Medical trainingBehaviour (other)Resource-based Rationale Problems and limitations Methodological considerations Conclusion

Enclosure size  Perceived as being very important  Wild elephants roam over very large areas  Experimental evidence in other species show that low space allowance may lead to stress and behavioural problems  Easy to measure and objective  However... (Douglas-Hamilton, 1998; Turner et al., 2000)

Enclosure size  Recommendations are very diverse  Their rationale is not clear  Quality of space is likely to be just as important (Clubb and Mason, 2003)

Group size and composition  Elephants have a very complex social behaviour and develop strong social bonds with other individuals  Disruption of social bonds has very negative effects on welfare  However, recommendations on the minimum acceptable group size vary from 3 to 6 and their rationale is not very clear. Additionally, group composition is likely to be equally important (Moss and Pole, 1983; Clubb and Mason, 2003)

Stereotypies  Well accepted as indicators of poor welfare in a variety of species  However, their relationship with the welfare state of a given individual is not always straightforward and they may persist when conditions have been improved  Therefore, stereotypies should not be taken as a definitive sign that current conditions are sub-optimal (Rushen and Mason, 2006)

Affiliative behaviours  Evidence in other species show that they are self-rewarding  They may have a buffering effect on stress  However, studies in other species suggest that affiliative behaviours may increase in stressful environments (Waiblinger et al., 2002; Seyfarth and Cheney, 2011)

Problems and further research  Some indicators (including some that are widely cited) clearly need further evidence  Are we missing something if only “objective” indicators are used?  “Qualitative behavioural assessment” in domestic animals  Is it applicable to zoo animals?

Assessment protocols are potentially useful and we may build on experience gained in farm animals The protocols should include several indicators addressing the different aspects of welfare; the WQ® principles are applicable to a wide range of species The indicators should be valid, reliable and feasible Some indicators widely cited may need further validation Concluding remarks